Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt.

of NCT) Delhi

MEMORIAL ON THE CASE

Mohammed Hussain @ Julfikar Ali…………….………Appellant

Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi.………………….……Respondent

SUBMITTED TO:                                          SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Prem Chandra Riya Yadav

(Assistant Professor)                                    B.A.LL.B. (VI Semester)

Enrolment No. 1905000000064

SARDAR PATEL SUBHARTI INSTITUTE OF LAW

SWAMI VIVEKANAND SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 1

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

At the very outside, I would like to pay thanks to the almighty God. It gives
me immense pleasure to acknowledge and to say thanks to the ones who helped me
throughout the course of my work. I am thankful to our respected subject teacher
under whose learned and scholarly guidance the present work has been completed.
He helped us in the passive way. He gave moral support and guided me in different
matters regarding the topic. He has been very kind and patient while suggesting me
the outlines of the case memorial and correcting my doubts.

I express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Prem Chandra (Assistant Professor) for

granting permission and of proper analysis.

I thank him for all the support his constructive suggestion has always been
soothing and desired, hence it’s my duty to express my gratitude for his constant
support and encouragement.

I want to pay my sincere thanks to Dean, Faculty of law, all the teachers of
SARDAR PATEL SUBHARTI INSTITUTE OF LAW, SWAMI VIVEKANAND
SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY. I want to thank all my friends who helped in
completing my work. Last but not the least, my thanks to all who have helped me
directly or indirectly in the completion of my work.

Riya Yadav

B.A.LL.B

VI Semester

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 2

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

In The Hon’ble Supreme Court

Mohammed Hussain @ Julfikar Ali (Appellant)

Vs.
The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi(Respondent)

Memorial On Behalf On the Respondent

Riya Yadav
(COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT)

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 3

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.No Subject Matter Page No.

1. List of Abbreviations 5

2. Index of Authorities 6

(i) List of Cases Cited

(ii) Books & Articles
(iii) Statutes Refered

3. Statement of Jurisdiction 7

4. Synopsis of Facts 8-10

5. Issues Raised 11

6. Arguments 12-14

7. Prayer 15

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 4

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED

 V – Versus
 Hon’ble – Honourable
 & - And
 Sec – Section
 No. – Number
 Mohd. – Mohammed
 Govt. – Government
 Para – Paragraph
 F.I.R – First Information Report
 NCT – National Capital Territory
 p.m. – Post meridiem
 P.W – Prosecution Witnesses

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 5

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES REFERRED:-

 Constitution Of India, 1950

 The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

 Indian Penal Code, 1860

 The Explosive Substances Act, 1908

WEBLINKS REFERRED:-

 https://indiankanoon.org

 https://www.casemine.com

 https://thefactfactor.com

 https://www.latestlaws.com

BOOKS :-

 Criminal Procedure, R.V. Kelkar, Seventh Edition, Eastern Book

Company

CASE REFFERRED:-

 Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab

 Phoolan Devi v. State of M.P. and others

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 6

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

STATEMENT OF JURIDICTION

The Respondent humbly submits to the jurisdiction of this honourable court under
Article 1341 of Indian constitution.

1
 Appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court in regard to criminal matters
(1) An appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court from any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of
a High Court in the territory of India if the High Court has on appeal reversed an order of acquittal of an accused
person and sentenced him to death; or has withdrawn for trial before itself any case from any court subordinate to
its authority and has in such trial convicted the accused person and sentenced him to death; or
(c) certifies under Article 134A that the case is a fit one for appeal to the Supreme Court: Provided that an appeal
under sub clause (c) shall lie subject to such provisions as may be made in that behalf under clause ( 1 ) of Article
145 and to such conditions as the High Court may establish or require
(2) Parliament may by law confer on the Supreme Court any further powers to entertain and hear appeals from
any judgment, final order or sentence in a criminal proceeding of a High Court in the territory of India subject to
such conditions and limitations as may be specified in such law

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 7

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. That on 30.12.1997 at about 6.20 p.m. one Blue line Bus No. DL-1P-3088
carrying passengers on its route to Nangloi from Ajmeri Gate stopped at
Rampura Bus Stand at Rohtak Road for passengers to disembark. The
moment the bus stopped, an explosion took place inside the bus. The
incident resulted in death of four persons and injury to twenty-four persons.
2. The FIR of the incident was registered and investigation into the crime
commenced. On completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet
against four accused persons - one of them being the present appellant, a
national of Pakistan - for the commission of offences under Sections 302 2
/3073/ 120-B4 of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3 and 45 of
the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, 'ES Act’).
2
Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and
shall also be liable to fine.
3
Attempt to murder.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any
person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is
hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.—When any person offending under this section is under
sentence of imprisonment for life, he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.
4
120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—
(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for
life]or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this
Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable
as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or
with fine or with both.

5
4. Punishment for attempt to cause explosion, or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or
property.—Any person who unlawfully and maliciously—1[4. Punishment for attempt to cause explosion, or for
making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property.—Any person who unlawfully and maliciously
—"
(a)does any act with intent to cause by an explosive substance or special category explosive substance, or
conspires to cause by an explosive substance or special category explosive substance, an explosion of a nature
likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property; or
(b) makes or has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive
substance with intent by means thereof to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property, or to enable any
other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in India, shall, whether any
explosion does or does not take place and whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or
not, be punished,—
(i) in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(ii) in the case of any special category explosive substance, with rigorous imprisonment for life, or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 8

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

3. The appellant and the other three accused were committed to the Court of
Session by the concerned Magistrate. The three accused other than the
appellant were discharged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. The
appellant was charged under Sections 302/307 IPC and Section 3 and, in the
alternative, under Section 4(b) of the ES Act.
4. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and
claimed to be tried.
5. Sixty-five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. On conclusion of
the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant under Section 3136
of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (for short, 'Code') was recorded.
6. The Additional Sessions Judge vide his judgment dated 26.10.2004 held
that the prosecution had been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt
that the appellant had planted a bomb in Bus No. DL-1P-3088 on
30.12.1997 with intention to cause death and the bomb exploded in which
four persons died and twenty-four persons sustained injuries.
7. The Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and convicted him
under Sections 302/307 IPC read with Section 3 of the ES Act. On the point
of sentence, the matter was kept for 3.11.2004. On that date, after hearing
the additional public prosecutor and the defence counsel, the Additional
Sessions Judge awarded death sentence to the appellant under Section 302 of
IPC and also awarded to him imprisonment for life for the offences under
Section 307 of IPC and Sec- 37 of the ES Act. Fine and default sentence

6
 Power to examine the accused.
(1)In every inquiry or trial, for the purpose of enabling the accused personally to explain any circumstances
appearing in the evidence against him, the Court-
(a) may at any stage, without previously warning the accused, put such questions to him as the Court considers
necessary;
(b) shall, after the witnesses for the prosecution have been examined and before he is called on for his defence,
question him generally on the case: Provided that in a summons- case, where the Court has dispensed with the
personal attendance of the accused, it may also dispense with his examination under clause (b).
(2) No oath shall be administered to the accused when he is examined under sub- section (1).
(3) The accused shall not render himself liable to punishment by refusing to answer such questions, or by giving
false answers to them.
(4) The answers given by the accused may be taken into consideration in such inquiry or trial, and put in evidence
for or against him in any other inquiry into, or trial for, any other offence which such answers may tend to show he
has committed.

7
3. Punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property.—Any person who unlawfully and
maliciously causes by—1[3. Punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property.—Any person who
unlawfully and maliciously causes by—"

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 9

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

were also ordered and it was directed that sentence of death shall not be
executed unless the same was confirmed by the High Court.
8. Aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal
before the Delhi High Court. The reference was also made to the Delhi High
Court for confirmation of death sentence. The death reference and the
criminal appeal were heard together by the Delhi High Court. Vide judgment
dated 4.8.2006, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court confirmed the death
sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The other
sentences imposed on the appellant were also maintained.
9. It is from the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 4.8.2006 that the
appellant preferred the present appeal before this Court.

ISSUE RAISED

(a) any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property
shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with imprisonment
for life, or with rigorous imprisonment of either description which shall not be less than ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine;
(b) any special category explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious
injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished
with death, or rigorous imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 10

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

1. Whether the appellant, both before the Trial Court and the High Court, was

given a fair and impartial trial or not?

ARGUMENTS

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 11

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

ISSUE 1: 1. Whether the Appellant, both before the Trial Court and High
Court, was given a fair and impartial trial or not?

It is humbly submitted before this Hon’ble Court by the counsel on behalf of

Respondent that the Appellant, both before the Trial Court and High Court, was
given fair and impartial trial.

The convict, (hereinafter referred to as "appellant") is charged, convicted and

sentenced under Sections 302/307 of Indian Penal Code (in short, "IPC") and also
under Section 3 of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

On 30.12.1997 at about 6.20 p.m. one Blue line Bus No. DL-1P-3088 carrying
passengers on its route to Nangloi from Ajmeri Gate stopped at Rampura Bus
Stand at Rohtak Road for passengers to disembark. The moment the bus stopped,
an explosion took place inside the bus. The incident resulted in death of four
persons and injury to twenty-four persons. The FIR of the incident was registered
and investigation into the crime commenced. On completion of investigation, the
police filed a charge-sheet against four accused persons - one of them being the
present appellant, a national of Pakistan - for the commission of offences under
Sections 302/307/120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') and Sections 3 and
4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (for short, 'ES Act’).

The appellant was certainly given a fair trail as the investigation was thus provided
as per the procedure and after its completion , the case was heard in court fairly
from both the sides after that only the judgement was passed. Not only that to
make it more fair and steady the judgement to provide death penalty was to be
confirmed by the High Court

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 12

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

The Appellant contended that he wasn’t provided with the counsel nor material
witnesses have not been cross examined by the accused and as such, their
testimony cannot be read against him.

For that light must be thrown on the in para no.101 of the judgement passed by the
learned Additional Session Judge which is stated as - "It is next submitted that
material witnesses have not been cross examined by the accused and as such, their
testimony cannot be read against him. I may add that from the very beginning of
the trial, the accused has been represented by a counsel Sh. Riaz Mohd. and he had
cross-examined some of the witnesses. Later on, when Sh. Riaz Mohd. did not
appear in the Court on some dates, Mrs. Sadhna Bhatia was appointed as Amicus-
Curiae to defend the accused at State expenses. If the accused did not choose to
cross examine some witnesses, he cannot be forced to do so. Moreover, later one
accused prayed for cross-examination of PW-1 Sh. Darshan Kumar, which was
allowed though it was filed at a belated stage after a long period of time. The
accused did not desire any other witness to be cross examined. Not only this,
statement of PW-1 Sh. Darshan Kumar was recorded on 18-05-1999 and he was
also present on 3-6-1999 and 13-08-1999, but on all three dates, the cross-
examination of this witness was deferred at the request of the accused, who was
ultimately discharged with nil cross-examination. This shows that accused himself
was not interested in cross-examining the witnesses.

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 13

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

Further it was also contended from the side of Appellant that there was
infringement of Right to Speedy Trial emanating from Article 218.

It is neither advisable nor practicable to fix any time- limit for trial of offences.
Any such rule is bound to be qualified one. Such rule cannot also be evolved
merely to shift the burden of proving justification on to the shoulders of the
prosecution. In every case of complaint of denial of right to speedy trial, it is
primarily for the prosecution to justify and explain the delay. At the same time, it is
the duty of the court to weigh all the circumstances of a given case before
pronouncing upon the complaint. Nor do we think that not fixing any such outer
limit in effectuates the guarantee of right to speedy trial.

In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab9, it was stated by this Court that no doubt
liberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by the courts but nonetheless the
courts while dispensing justice should keep in mind not only the liberty of the
accused but also the interest of the victim and their near and dear and above all the
collective interest of the community and the safety of the nation so that the public
may not lose faith in the system of judicial administration and indulge in private
retribution. 

In Phoolan Devi v. State of M.P. and others 10, the Court observed that by lapse
of several years since the commencement of prosecution, it cannot be said that for
that reason alone the continuance of prosecution would violate the petitioner's right
to speedy trial.

8
21. Protection of life and personal liberty No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law
9
1961 AIR 1787, 1962 SCR (2) 395
10
(Crl.) No. 36 of 1992 

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 14

 Mohd. Hussain@ Julfikar Ali vs The State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi

PRAYER:

In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
council of the respondent humbly pray before this hon’ble Supreme Court to
kindly hold;

1. That the appellant, both before the Trial Court and the High Court, was
given a fair and impartial trial.

Or pass any order as the hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice,
equality, and good conscience and the respondent shall forever; beseech the
Hon’ble Court for its congnitive consideration.

All of which is most humbly submitted

Riya Yadav

(Counsel for the Respondent)

Memorial on behalf of the Respondent Page 15