The Supreme Court of India has delivered its verdict in the long-pending 1996 Lajpat Nagar bomb blast case. The court has upheld the conviction of two accused and restored the convictions of two other former death row convicts who were discharged by the Delhi High Court. All four convicts have been sentenced to life imprisonment without remission for the remainder of their lives.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Vikram Nath, and Sanjay Karol heard the appeals filed by Mohammed Naushad and Javed Ahmed Khan against their conviction and sentence. The bench also considered the special leave petitions filed by the State challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to commute Naushad's death sentence to life imprisonment and acquit two death row convicts, Mirza Nissar Hussain and Mohammed Ali Bhatt.
The Lajpat Nagar bomb blast, which occurred in 1996, resulted in the loss of 13 lives and left 38 people injured. The Jammu and Kashmir Islamic Front (JKIF) claimed responsibility for the attack, which led to the arrest of six suspected Kashmiri militants, as well as two others, including a woman. Mafia dons Dawood Ibrahim and Tiger Menon were also named as accused in the case.
In 2010, a local court in Delhi awarded the death penalty to three of the convicted members and sentenced Javed Ahmed Khan to life imprisonment. However, in 2012, the Delhi High Court acquitted two death row convicts and commuted Naushad's sentence to life imprisonment. The High Court criticized the police for prosecution lapses in the investigation.
After a decade-long delay, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by Naushad and Khan, refusing to overturn their conviction. The court, considering the severity of the offence, imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without remission for all four convicts. The bench emphasized the need for expeditious trials in cases related to national security and the safety of the public.
Expressing concern over the delay in the case, the Supreme Court remarked that promptitude and attention should have been given, and the matter should have been handled with urgency and sensitivity, particularly due to the involvement of influential persons.
Source: Link
Picture Source :
