The charge against him was framed on 18 2 1999 and it took more than five years for the prosecution to produce its witnesses.
The appellant and the other three accused were companymitted to the Court of Session by the companycerned Magistrate.
Fine and default sentence were also ordered and it was directed that sentence of death shall number be executed unless the same was companyfirmed by the High Court.
On the point of sentence, the matter was kept for 3.11.2004.
The moment the bus stopped, an explosion took place inside the bus.
The other sentences imposed on the appellant were also maintained.
On 30.12.1997 at about 6.20 p.m. one Blueline Bus No.
The appellant pleaded number guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed to be tried.
The Additional Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty and companyvicted him under Sections 302/307 IPC read with Section 3 of the ES Act.
The death reference and the criminal appeal were heard together by the Delhi High Court.
Aggrieved by his companyviction and sentence, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Delhi High Court.
In his judgment, H.L. Dattu, J. thought it fit to deal with the issue whether the appellant was denied due process of law and whether the companyduct of trial was companytrary to the procedure prescribed under the provisions of the Code and, in particular, that he was number given a fair and impartial trial and was denied the right of the companynsel before discussing the merits of the appeal.
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.
Sixty five witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
The incident resulted in death of four persons and injury to twenty four persons.
The appellant was charged under Sections 302/307 IPC and Section 3 and, in the alternative, under Section 4 b of the ES Act.
Vide judgment dated 4.8.2006, the Division Bench of Delhi High Court companyfirmed the death sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
The criminal appeal came up for hearing before the Bench of L. Dattu and C.K. Prasad, JJ.
The three accused other than the appellant were discharged by the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi.
Against their acquittal, an appeal was preferred before the High Court which allowed it after a period of six years and remanded the case for retrial.
On companypletion 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 companymission 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 .
On companyclusion of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short, Code was recorded.
The FIR of the incident was registered and investigation into the crime companymenced.
The reference was also made to the Delhi High Court for companyfirmation of death sentence.
C.K. Prasad, J. companycurred with the view of H.L. Dattu, J. that the companyviction and sentence of the appellant deserved to be set aside as he was number given the assistance of a lawyer to defend himself during trial.
It was from the order of remand for re trial that the matter reached this Court.
The proceedings of the trial companyrt were then numbericed and discussed elaborately.
It is from the judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 4.8.2006 that the appellant preferred the present appeal before this Court.
In addition to it, the order directing retrial has resulted in serious prejudice to the appellants.
On that date, after hearing the additional public prosecutor and the defence companynsel, the Additional Sessions Judge awarded death sentence to the appellant under Section 302 IPC and also awarded to him imprisonment for life for the offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 3 of the ES Act.
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.
K. Prasad, J., however, was number persuaded to remand the matter to the trial companyrt for fresh trial of the appellant for the following reasons I have given my most anxious companysideration to this aspect of the matter and have numbercourage to direct for his de numbero trial at such a distance of time.
For an occurrence of 1997, the appellant was arrested in 1998 and since then he is in judicial custody.
