Criminal Appeal No. 1017 of 2007 · Madrasdate High Court · 2009

Sl.No.AccusedName of theWitnessP.W.No.Nature ofEvidence42. A163 – S.K.Mohammed Ali 1.Tr.Rajan854 Conspiracy 2.Tr.Kalaiselvan855Conspiracy43. A164 – Muji @Mujibur Rahman@ AthupalamMujibur Rahman Released vide order of Court dated5.10.2009 passed in M.P. Nos.1 & 2 of2009 in Criminal Appeal No.1111 of 2007under Juvenile Justice Act 6. The police personnel who have played an important role ineither investigation or seizure or recovery or arrest are thefollowing witnesses. P.W.1099 Rajamanickam was part of the policepatrol party that went up Babulal Building, where an explosion tookplace and a case in Crime No.151 of 1998 was registered, which wasthe base case. P.W.1288 Murali was the complainant in the said case. P.W.1041 M. Chandrasekaran was also in the patrol party and who wentup Babulal Building on the fateful day. Similarly, P.W.1045Pachaiyappan is also an important witness in the same crime number. P.W.1262 is Lakshmanasamy, who effected the arrest of the accused notonly in Tamil Nadu, but also in Rajahmundry, Andhra Pradesh. P.W.1283 is Pon Manikavel, P.W. 1298 is Varadarajulu, P.W.1299 isJayachandra Bose and they also investigated the cases. P.W.1300Rajasekar is the Chief Investigating Officer of the SpecialInvestigation Team (SIT). They are the main police officer witnesseswho were involved in the investigation of the case, apart fromothers, who speak of recovery, seizure or the constables who weredeputed for the post mortem examination or the ones who haveregistered the F.I.Rs etc.7. We find from Exs-D32, D33 and D34 that the Deputy General ofPolice, Tamil Nadu had informed the Inspector General of Police,Crime Branch to proceed to Coimbatore with the investigation team fortaking up the investigation. This was on 14-02-1998 itself. On 16-02-1998, the Inspector General of Police, Crimes, Special InvestigationTeam informed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, PW 1299, and askedhim to receive the C.D. files from PW 1141 Chellaiah, and to take upfurther investigation immediately. Under Ex-D.34, the AdditionalSuperintendent of Police, P.W.1300 was prima facie satisfied that hisinvestigation disclosed that all the 25 cases which were listed inAnnexure-II had occurred in the course of the same transaction, i.e.,pursuant to the conspiracy and therefore, he clubbed all the cases https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with Crime No.151 of 1998 as the base case and submitted his reporton 28-09-1998. Then, on application for further investigation, heconducted further investigation. Finally, a total number of 43 caseswere registered and after clubbing all the cases on 05-05-1999, afinal report was filed against 180 accused. 8. Before the trial court, 1300 witnesses were examined on theside of the prosecution; 5 witnesses were examined on the defenceside and 2 witnesses were examined by the Court; 1731 exhibits weremarked on the side of the prosecution; 108 exhibits were marked onthe defence side and there were 4 Court exhibits; 480 materialobjects were produced on the side of the prosecution. The accused onexamination under S.313 Cr. P.C denied their guilt. 9. The first explosions on 14-02-1998 lasted from 3.50 p.m. to4.30 p.m. We asked the Public Prosecutor if anyone could tell uswhat it was like during the frightful forty minutes. We were informedby one of the police officers who was assisting the Public Prosecutorthat the blasts could be heard continuously from 3.50 p.m. to 4.30p.m. We could visualize how threatened the citizens would have feltand the confusion, turmoil and fear that must have been generated.Several innocent persons died as a result of the blasts and severalmore persons were injured. Punishing the perpetrators of the crimewould afford the feeling, to the victims especially, that justice wasdone, but this does not, and cannot mean that without any acceptableevidence, the accused can be found guilty and punished. In anarticle in the 1985 Law Review, Lynne Henderson (now of the WilliamS. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas)examined the relationship between victims' rights and criminal-justice policy. Looking carefully at the existing psychological dataon the needs of victims, Henderson discovered a wide array of victimresponses to tragedy, responses that differ from victim to victim andthat change significantly over a victim's lifetime. "In light of theexisting psychological evidence," Henderson concludes, "commonassumptions about crime victims – that they are all 'outraged' andwant revenge and tougher law enforcement … fail to address theexperience and real needs of past victims." The data revealed thatcriminal trials and the promise of an execution offer a seeminglyappealing mechanism to assign blame and to channel rage. But manycrime victims felt that the endless repetition of their stories, theformal legal rules, and the years lost between appeals only served toincrease stress and to delay healing. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. There was an immediate reaction to what happened on 14-02-1998. The organisation 'Al Umma' was banned. A1 and some otherswere arrested on the same day. But the case cannot rest merely onthe banning of 'Al Umma' or the arrest of A1. The investigatingagency must prove by admissible evidence that the accused belongingto 'Al Umma' had hatched the conspiracy and in execution thereof, theentire events had taken place. On going through all the materials wefind that a focussed, systematic and methodical investigation isslightly absent. There is some disarray. But this, per se, is notenough to reject the prosecution case. The police officers from topto bottom were obviously working under great stress and anxietybecause of the fact that it was a never-before occurrence. Themagnitude of the case also shows the immense task that theinvestigating agency had faced, as also the Court, which tried thecase. 11. Out of the accused who faced the trial; four were acquitted;some were awarded punishment of imprisonment for three years; sevenyears, ten years, thirteen years and some were given lifeimprisonment. Of these, many have already undergone the period ofimprisonment awarded to them, perhaps, even before the trial wascompleted and definitely before the appeals were filed. We givebelow a chart listing those who were awarded life imprisonment andthe charges relating that. As regards the other sentences, theperiods have been undergone.AccusedChargesSentenceA1 – S.A.Basha (Notan Appellant)1. Conspiracy 14. for creatingdisharmony amongdifferent communitiesImprisonment 3 years RI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA2 – Mohammad Ansari @Ansari1.Conspiracy14. for creatingdisharmony amongdifferent communities79. Abetment for murder81,126,130 - Abetmentfor attempt to murder. 83 - Abetment for causingdamages to properties128 – Abetment forpossession of explosiveswith intent to endangerlife or property. S.6 r/w4(b) explosive Act.133 – Abetment for murder 204 – Possession of armsor ammunitions withoutlicense. 203 – Possession ofexplosives S.4 (b) and 5of explosives substancesAct 85, 135 - Abetment forcausing exposition toendanger life orproperty. S.6 r/w Sec.3of explosive Act. LifeImprisonment 3 years RI LifeImprisonment 7 years RI 7 years RI 7 Yrs RI9 Yrs RI3 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 9 Yrs RIA3 – Tajudeen1.Conspiracy 14. for creatingdisharmonyamong differentcommunitiesLifeImprisonment 3 years RI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA4 – S.A. Nawab Khan1.Conspiracy14. for creatingdisharmony amongdifferent communities 126. Abetment for attemptto murder 128. Abetment forpossession of explosiveswith intent to endangerlife or property. S.6 r/w4(b) explosive Act.203. Possession ofexplosives S.4 (b) and 5of explosives substancesAct 204. Possession of armsor ammunitions withoutlicense.Life Imprisonment3 years RI7 yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 7 yrs RI 3 yrs RIA5 – Basith @ Md. Basith1.Conspiracy 7. Manufacture andpossession of explosives– S.4 (b) of explosivessubstances Act, 1908 14. for creatingdisharmony amongdifferent communities 126, 142. Abetment forattempt to murder 128, 140. Abetment forpossession of explosiveswith intent to endangerlife or property. S.6 r/w4(b) explosive substancesAct 130. Abetment for attemptto murder Lifeimprisonment 7 Yrs RI 3 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA6 – Abdul Ozir @ TADAOzir1.Conspiracy 7. Manufacture andpossession of explosives– S.4 (b) of explosivessubstances Act, 1908 14. for creatingdisharmony amongdifferent communities 22. Attempt for murder 24, 33, 126, 211.Abetment for attemptmurder 26. Causing damages withexplosives 28, 37, 135, 215.Abetment for causingexposition to endanger life or property. S.6r/w Sec.3 of explosivesubstances Act. 35. Abetment for causingdamages with explosives. 31, 133, 209. Attemptfor murder 39 , 128. Abetment forpossession of explosiveswith intent to endangerlife or property. S.6 r/w4(b) explosive substancesAct. 136. for possession ofexplosives S.4(b) ofexplosive substances Act. 206. Forgery for cheating 207. Usage of forgedrecords 213. Abetment for causing damages withexplosives. Lifeimprisonment 7 Yrs RI 3 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 9 Yrs RI 9 Yrs RI 9 Yrs RI Lifeimprisonment 7 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 2 Yrs RI 9 Yrs RI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA7 S.A. Mohammed Alikhan@ Kutty1. Conspiracy 2. for possession ofexplosives S.4(b) ofexplosive substances Act. 7. Manufacture andpossession of explosives– S.4 (b) of explosivessubstances Act, 1908 14. for creatingdisharmonyamong differentcommunities 140. Abetment forpossession of explosiveswith intent to endangerlife or property. S.6 r/w4(b) explosive substancesAct. 142. Abetment for attemptto murderLifeimprisonment 7 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 3 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RIA8 Siddiq Ali @ Siddiq @Imran1.Conspiracy 7. Manufacture andpossession of explosives– S.4 (b) of explosivessubstances Act, 190814. For creatingdisharmonyamong differentcommunities 77. Trespass 78. Murder 80. Attempt to murder 82. Causing damages withexplosives 84. Causing explosion 202. Possession of armsor ammunitions withoutlicense.Lifeimprisonment 7 Yrs RI 3 Yrs RI 10 Yrs RI Lifeimprisonment 7 Yrs RI 9 Yrs RI 9 Yrs RI 3 Yrs RI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA9 Babu @ Oom Babu1.Conspiracy 7. Manufacture andpossession of explosives– S.4 (b) of explosivessubstances Act, 1908 14. For creatingdisharmonyamong differentcommunities 48 , 137. Forgery forcheating 49 , 138. Usage offorgery records 51, 81, 142 . Abetmentfor attempt to murder 53. Abetment for causingdamages to properties 55, 85. Abetment forcausing exposition toendanger life orproperty. S.6 r/w Sec.3of explosive substancesAct. 79. Abetment for murder 83. Abetment for causingdamages with explosives. 140. Abetment forpossession of explosiveswith intent to endangerlife or property. S.6 r/w4(b) explosive substancesAct. 189. Possession of armsor ammunitions withoutlicense. Lifeimprisonment 7 Yrs RI 3 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 2 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 9 Yrs RI 9 Yrs RI Lifeimprisonment 9 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 3 Yrs RI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA10 Zakir Hussain @Ismail @ Abdul Anus1.Conspiracy 7. Manufacture andpossession of explosives– S.4 (b) of explosivessubstances Act, 1908 14. For creatingdisharmony amongdifferentcommunities 220. For possession ofexplosives S.4 (b) and 5of explosive substancesAct.Lifeimprisonment 7 Yrs RI 3 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA11 Abdul Salam @Poochikkan Salam1.Conspiracy 2. for possession ofexplosives S.4 (b) ofexplosive substances Act. 7. Manufacture andpossession of explosives– S.4 (b) of explosivessubstances Act, 1908 14. For creatingdisharmonyamong differentcommunities. 18. Rioting with deadlyperson 19. Attempt to murder 206. Forgery for cheating 207. Usage of forgedrecords 209. Abetment for murder 211. Abetment for attemptto murder 213. Abetment for causingdamages to properties 215. Abetment for causingexplosion to endangerlife or property-S.6 r/wS.3 of the explosivesubstances Act, 1908 Lifeimprisonment 7 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 3 Yrs RI 3 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 7 Yrs RI 2 Yrs RI Lifeimprisonment 7 Yrs RI 9 Yrs RI 9 Yrs RI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA12 – Aslam @ TADA Aslam1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2. Charge No.7 – forpossession of explosives– S.4(b) of ExplosiveSubstances Act,1908.3.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.4. Charge No.18- riotingwith deadly weapon.5.Charge No.19- attemptto murderL.I 7 Yrs. R.I 3 Yrs. R.I 3 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA13 – Siraj @ Auto Siraj1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2. Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.59- abetmentfor murder4.Charge No.61- abetmentfor attempt to murder5. Charge No.63- abetmentfor causing damages toproperties.6. Charge No.65-abetmentfor causing explosion toendanger life orproperty-S.6 r/w S.3 ofthe Explosive SubstancesAct, 1908. 7. Charge No.67 –abetment for possessionof explosives with intentto endanger life orproperty- S.6 r/w.4(b) ofExplosive SubstanceAct,1908.8. Charge No.114 –abetment for possessionof explosives with intentto endanger life orproperty- S.6 r/w.4(b) ofExplosive SubstanceAct,1908.9.Charge No.116- abetmentfor attempt to murder10.Charge No.183 –possession of explosives– S.4(b) & 5 of ExplosiveSubstances Act,1908.L.I. 5 Yrs. R.I L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA15 – M.H. SafoorRahuman (Died on31.10.2007)Charge No.1 - Conspiracy Charge No.14 - Forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities Charge No.110 – Abetmentfor possession ofexplosives with intent toendanger life or property– S.g r/w.4(b) ofExplosive Substances Act,1908 Charge No.112 – Abetmentfor attempt to murderL.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I.A16 – Abbas @ KeelakaraiAbbas1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.7- possessionof explosive.3.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.4.Charge No.15- attemptto murder5.Charge No.16- causingexplosion.6.Charge No.17-possession of explosive.L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I 3 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I A17 – Zaffru @ SyedZafar Ahmed1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.2- possessionof explosive.3.Charge No.7- possessionof explosive.4.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.5.Charge No.18- riotingwith deadly weapon.6.Charge No.19- attemptto murderL.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA18 – Ismail @Kathikuthu Ismail1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.41- abetmentfor murder4.Charge No.43- abetmentfor attempt to murder5.Charge No.45- abetmentfor causing damages toproperties.6.Charge No.47-abetmentfor causing explosion toendanger life orproperty-S.6 r/w S.3 ofthe Explosive SubstancesAct, 1908.7.Charge No.95- abetmentfor murder8.Charge No.97- abetmentfor attempt to murder9.Charge No.99- abetmentfor causing damages toproperties.10.Charge No.101-abetmentfor causing explosion toendanger life orproperty-S.6 r/w S.3 ofthe Explosive SubstancesAct, 1908.11.Charge No.165- riotingwith deadly weapon.12.Charge No.166- causingexplosion.13.Charge No.167- attemptto murder14.Charge No.168- causingdamages with explosives. L.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA19 – Jaffar @ MakkanJaffer1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.7- forpossession of explosives– S.4(b) of ExplosiveSubstances Act,1908.3.Charge No.13- abetmentfor attempt to murder4.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.5.Charge No.132- murder6.Charge No.134- causingexplosion.L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. A20 – Md. Amjath Ali @Amjath Ali @ Amjath(Released vide order ofCourt dated 5.10.2009passed in M.P. Nos.1 & 2of 2009 in CriminalAppeal No.1111 of 2007under Juvenile JusticeAct)1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.125- attemptto murder4.Charge No.132- murder 5.Charge No.134- causingexplosion.L.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 9 Yrs. R.I.A21 – Amman @ Ammanullah1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.125- attemptto murderL.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA26 – Jahangir @ Jahir1. Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.87- abetmentfor murder4.Charge No.89- abetmentfor attempt to murder5.Charge No.91- abetmentfor causing damages to properties.6.Charge No.93-abetmentfor causing explosion toendanger life orproperty-S.6 r/w S.3 ofthe Explosive SubstancesAct,1908.7.Charge No.132- murder8.Charge No.134- causingexplosion9.Charge No.143- forgeryfor cheating.10.Charge No.144- usageof forged records11.Charge No.146 –abetment for possessionof explosives with intentto endanger life orproperty- S.6 r/w.4(b) ofExplosive SubstanceAct,1908.12.Charge No.148-abetment for attempt tomurderL.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 2 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA27 – Mohamed Muthu @Musthafa @ Muthappa1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.7 – forpossession of explosives– S.4(b) of ExplosiveSubstances Act,1908.3.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.4.Charge No.77- trespass5.Charge No.78- murder6.Charge No.80- attemptto murder7.Charge No.82- causingdamages with explosives 8.Charge No.84- causingexplosionL.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 10 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA28 – Sarfu @ Sarfudeen 1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.7- forpossession of explosive3.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.4.Charge No.31- abetmentfor murder5.Charge No.33- abetmentfor attempt to murder6.Charge No.35- abetmentfor causing damages toproperties.7.Charge No.37-abetmentfor causing explosion toendanger life orproperty-S.6 r/w S.3 ofthe Explosive SubstancesAct,1908. 8.Charge No.39 – abetmentfor possession ofexplosives with intent toendanger life orproperty- S.6 r/w.4(b) ofExplosive SubstanceAct,1908.9.Charge No.50- attemptto murder10.Charge No.52- causingdamages with explosives11.Charge No.54- causingexplosion12.Charge No.139- forpossession of explosive13.Charge No.141- attemptto murder14.Charge No.151- riotingwith deadly weapon15.Charge No.152- attemptto murderL.I. 7 Yrs. R.I 3 Yrs. R.I L.I 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I 3 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA32 – L.M. Hakkim1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2. Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.21- murder4.Charge No.23- attemptto murder5.Charge No.25- causingdamages with explosives.6.Charge No.27- causingexplosionL.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I.A36 – Noor Mohammed @Noor1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2. Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.40- murder4.Charge No.42- attemptto murder5.Charge No.44- causingdamages with explosives.6.Charge No.46- causingexplosionL.I. 3 Yrs. R.I L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA37 – Basha @ OzeerBasha 1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.41- abetmentfor murder4.Charge No.43- abetmentfor attempt to murder 5.Charge No.45- abetmentfor causing damages toproperties. 6.Charge No.47-abetmentfor causing explosion toendanger life orproperty-S.6 r/w S.3 ofthe Explosive SubstancesAct,1908.7.Charge No.175- riotingwith deadly weapons8.Charge No.176- causingexplosion9.Charge No.178- attemptto murder10.Charge No.181- formember of unlawfulassembly causing damagesto private and publicproperties U/S.149 ofI.P.C r/w.Sec.4 of theT.N.P(P of D & L) Act1992. 11.Charge No.182- forusing criminal force todeter public servant fromdischarging dutyL.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 2 Yrs. R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA38 – Ibrahim @ Babu @Adipatta Babu1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent Communities.3.Charge No.41- abetmentfor murder4.Charge No.43- abetmentfor attempt to murder5. Charge No.45- abetmentfor causing damages toproperties.6. Charge No.47-abetmentfor causing explosion toendanger life orproperty-S.6 r/w S.3 ofthe Explosive SubstancesAct,1908. 7.Charge No.165- riotingwith deadly weapons8.Charge No.166- causingexplosionL.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I.A39 – M. Hakkim1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.41- abetmentfor murder4.Charge No.43- abetmentfor attempt to murder5.Charge No.45- abetmentfor causing damages toproperties.6.Charge No.47-abetmentfor causing explosion toendanger life orproperty-S.6 r/w S.3 ofthe Explosive SubstancesAct,1908.L.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA40 – N.S. Hakkim1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.50- attemptto murder4.Charge No.52- causingdamages with explosives.5.Charge No.54- causingexplosion6.Charge No.56-possession of arms orammunition withoutlicense.7. Charge No.190-possession of arms orammunition withoutlicense.8. Charge No.206- forgeryfor cheating.9. Charge No.207- usageof forged records.10.Charge No.209-abetment for murder11.Charge No.211-abetment for attempt tomurder12. Charge No.213-abetment for causingdamages to properties.13. Charge No.215-abetment for causingexplosion to endangerlife or property-S.6 r/wS.3 of the ExplosiveSubstances Act,1908.L.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 3 Yrs. R.I 3 Yrs. R.I 7 Yrs. R.I 2 Yrs. R.I L.I 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA41 – E.M. Monappa @ Md.Hassan1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.57- trespass4.Charge No.58- murder5.Charge No.60- attemptto murder6.Charge No.62- causingdamages with explosives.7.Charge No.64- causingexplosionL.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 10 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I A43 – Abdul Razak @Gundu Razak1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.68- trespass4.Charge No.69- murder5.Charge No.71- attemptto murder6.Charge No.73- causingdamages with explosives.7.Charge No.75- causingexplosionL.I 3 Yrs. R.I. 10 Yrs. R.I L.I 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA44 – Mohammed Azam1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.68- trespass4.Charge No.69- murder5.Charge No.71- attemptto murder6.Charge No.73- causingdamages with explosives.7.Charge No.75- causingexplosionL.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 10 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I A45 – Sait @ SanthuMohammed1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2. Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities.3.Charge No.86- murder 4.Charge No.88- attemptto murder5.Charge No.90- causingdamages with explosives 6.Charge No.92- causingexplosion L.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I A46 – Riyaz AhamedCharge No.1-Conspiracy 2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities 3.Charge No.94- murder 4.Charge No.96- attemptto murder 5.Charge No.98- causingdamages with explosives 6.Charge No.100- causingexplosionL.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I 9 Yrs. R.I https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA60 – Saleem @ SaleemBasha @ Valarntha Saleem1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy 2.Charge No.7- forpossession of explosives 3.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities 4.Charge No.191-possession of arms orammunition withoutlicense 5.Charge No.206- forgeryfor cheating 6.Charge No.207- usage offorged records 7.Charge No.209- abetmentfor murder 8.Charge No.211- abetmentfor attempt to murder 9.Charge No.213- abetmentfor causing damages toproperties 10.Charge No.215-abetmentfor causing explosion toendanger life orproperty-S.6 r/w S.3 ofthe Explosive SubstancesAct, 1908.L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 2 Yrs. R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I.A152 – Moosa @ TADAMoosa1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy 2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities 3.Charge No.151- riotingwith deadly weapons 4.Charge No.152- attemptto murderL.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA155 – Mohammed Subair @Subair1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy 2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities 3.Charge No.203–possession of explosives– S.4(b) & 5 of ExplosiveSubstances Act,1908 4.Charge No.204–possession of arms orammunition withoutlicense 5.Charge No.205–harbouring L.I. 7 Yrs.R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. 5 Yrs.R.I.A156 – Syed MohammedBuhari @ TADA Buhari1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities 3.Charge No.203 –possession of explosives– S.4(b) & 5 of ExplosiveSubstances Act,1908 4.Charge No.204–possession of arms orammunition withoutlicenseL.I.3 Yrs.R.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 3 Yrs. R.I. A161 – Mujibur Rahman @Anna Colony Muji1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy 2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities 3.Charge No.216– murder 4.Charge No.217– attemptto murder 5.Charge No.218– causingdamages with explosives6.Charge No.219– causingexplosionL.I. 3 Yrs.R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I.9 Yrs. R.I. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedChargesSentenceA163 – S.K. Mohammed Ali1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communitiesL.I.3 Yrs.R.I.A164 – Muji @ MujiburRahman @ AthupalamMujibur Rahman(Released vide order ofCourt dated 5.10.2009passed in M.P. Nos.1 & 2of 2009 in CriminalAppeal No.1111 of 2007under Juvenile JusticeAct)1.Charge No.1-Conspiracy 2.Charge No.14- forcreating disharmony amongdifferent communities 3.Charge No.208- murder 4.Charge No.210-attemptto murder 5.Charge No.212- causingdamages with explosives 6.Charge No.214- causingexplosionL.I. 3 Yrs.R.I. L.I. 7 Yrs. R.I.9 Yrs. R.I. 9 Yrs. R.I. 12. The accused who were awarded sentences of life imprisonmentare A1 Basha, A2 Md. Ansari @ Ansari, A6 Abdul Ozir @ TADA Ozir, A7S.A. Mohammed Alikhan @ Kutty, A8 Siddiq Ali @ Siddiq @ Imran, A9Babu @ Oom Babu, A10 Zakir Hussain @ Ismail @ Abdul Anus, A11 AbdulSalaam @ Poochikkann Salaam, A12 Aslam @ TADA Aslam, A13 Siraj @ AutoSiraj, A15 M.H. Safoor Rahuman (died pending appeal), A16 Abbas @Keezhakarai Abbas, A17 Zaffru @ Syed Zafar Ahmed, A18 Ismail @Kathikuthu Ismail, A19 Jaffar @ Makkan Jaffar, A20 Md. Amjath Ali @Amjath Ali @ Amjath, A21 Amman @ Ammanullah, A26 Jahangir @ Jahir,A27 Mohammed Muthu @ Musthafa @ Muthappa, A28 Sarfu @ Sarfudeen, A32L.M. Hakkim, A33, Abu @ Abudhageer, A36 Noor Mohammed @ Noor, A37Basha @ Ozeer Basha, A38 Ibrahim @ Babu @ Adipatta Babu, A39 M.Hakkim, A40 N.S. Hakkim, A41 E.M. Monappa @ Md. Hassan, A43 AbdulRazak @ Gundu Razak, A44 Mohammed Azam, A45 Sait @ Santhu Mohammed,A46 Riyaz @ Md. Riyaz, A60 Saleem @ Saleem Basha @ Valarntha Saleem,A152 Moosa @ TADA Moosa, A155 S. Mohammed Subair @ Subair, A156 SyedMohammed Buhari @ TADA Buhari, A161 Mujibur Rahman @ Anna, A163 S.K.Mohammed Ali and A164 Muji @ Mujibur Rahman @ Athupalam MujiburRahman.13. Of the above, A20 and A164 were ordered to be released by usvide our order dated 05-10-2009 since they were entitled to theprotection of the Juvenile Justice Act. Those who were awarded tenyears’ imprisonment or nine, seven and three years’ imprisonment hadserved their respective sentences and had come out and therefore,they are not before us. In addition, we have those accused who were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 13 years and they are A42Ashraf, A51 Abuthahir @ Mohideen, A52 Mohammed Rafiq, A53 Abbas, A54Abdul Rawoof, A55 Mohammed Ibrahim, A56 Abdul Rahman, A62 AbdulKareem, A63 Abdul Farook, A101 Sarthaj, A102 Salahuddin, A103Sahriff, A153 Yusuf @ Shajahan, A160 Bakrudeen Ali Ahamed, A162Shahul Hameed. M.P.No.1 of 2009 filed in Criminal Appeal No.1018 of2002, M.P.No.1 of 2009 filed in Criminal Appeal No.1017 of 2002 andM.P.No.2 of 2009 filed in O.A.No.1018 of 2007 filed for withdrawingthe appeals filed by A42, A51, A52, A53, A54, A55, A56, A63, A101,A103, A153, A160 and A162 were ordered on 08-10-2009. By order of theGovernor in G.O.Ms No 792 dated 14-09-2009, A42, A52, A53, A54, A55,A56, A63, A153, A160 and A162 have been granted pardon and releasedon 15-09-2009. The communication from the Superintendent of Prisons(i/c) indicates that of the above, A153 has been released, but he wasretained in custody in connection with two other cases. We will bedealing with some legal questions regarding this later. 14. Thus, only the appeals filed by the rest of the 30 accusedare before us. The State has not filed any appeal against theacquittal of some of the accused nor for enhancement of sentence forothers. Revision petitions have been filed by some of the witnessesagainst the acquittal and for enhancement of the sentence.15. Therefore, we will not embark on a narration of events infull detail since in that case, we would also have to refer to thoseportions of the prosecution case, which we need not deal with. Wehave focussed only on the crucial aspects with regard to theappellants before us bearing in mind also the specific points raisedby the revision petitioner. We have already stated what the broadcase of the prosecution was and what was the alleged motive and howthe conspiracy was allegedly hatched and executed. We have given alist of the witnesses in relation to the particular accused. Therefore, we would be dealing only with the evidence of thosewitnesses, who according to the prosecution implicate the appellants. The occurrence is not denied. The fact that the explosions were thecause for the loss of lives and injuries as well as damage toproperty cannot be denied either. We feel that, in dealing with onlythe crucial details, without losing sight of the entire sequence ofevents, we will be saving the time and focussing our attention onwhat is relevant. It is for this reason we have made a departurefrom the usual practice of narrating the case of the prosecution fromthe date of the filing of the complaint till the date of filing ofthe final report.16. The appellants attack the judgment of the trial court onseveral grounds, some of which are broad-based, while others arespecific and narrow. 17. The broad-based grounds of attack are that the investigationis tainted; the clubbing of cases was illegal; there was selective https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ persecution of 'Al Umma' organisation, though there was evidence toshow that there were other Muslim fundamentalist organisations whichmay have been equally provoked and which had more economic strengthas well as technical expertise to manufacture and detonate bombs;there were illegal arrests; the invoking of the doctrine of doublejeopardy; violation of Article 20 of the Constitution of India; thevalidity of the sanction and the inaction on the part of theinvestigating agency against the approver who turned hostile. 18. As far as the specific grounds of attack are concerned, it isstated that there is absolutely no evidence for either theconspiracy, transport of explosives, manufacture of bombs,distribution of bombs and planting of bombs; the evidence of the so-called witnesses is artificial, since in every case, the presence ofthe witnesses is unbelievable; there was belated examination of thewitnesses; almost all the documents have been forwarded to the Courtbelatedly, which gives room for suspicion of manipulation; falsearrests and recovery and seizure.19. Mr. N. Natarajan, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Gopinath,learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M. Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel,Mr. Yashodvardhan, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Jayakumar, learnedcounsel, Mr. Thirumalairaj, learned counsel, Mr. Xavier Felix,learned counsel, Mr. Sathiachandran, learned counsel, Mr. Raghavan,learned counsel, Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel, Mr. Jyothiraman,learned counsel and Mr.B.Mohan, learned Counsel made theirsubmissions on behalf of the appellants. They are all summed up asfollows:(i) The investigation is a tainted one; the case of theprosecution cannot be believed since the statements have all beenrecorded from the witnesses several months after the occurrence andtherefore, they lack credibility. Further, the statements underSection 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure have been sent to theCourt only along with the charge sheet and therefore, the possibilityof false implication cannot be ruled out. The evidence of the ChiefInvestigating Officer, P.W.1300 would show that there were otherfundamentalist groups in and around Coimbatore and it has also beenelicited through him that they possessed the funds and had thescientific know-how to mobilize people and to manufacture explosivesand in spite of that, the prosecution has not followed those leadsand has, on the other hand, implicated the innocent persons. (ii) The conspiracy is the only offence in the Indian Penal Codewhere there is no physical manifestation of the mens rea. Forexample, a person uses his hands to take up the weapon to inflict thewound on the victim with intent to kill him. But in conspiracy, thedecision to put into action what was planned itself is the overt act,though it is a mental activity and with that, the conspiracy iscomplete. There is no evidence to show that there was one single https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ design to explode bombs in and around Coimbatore on 14.2.1998 andtowards that purpose, the bombs had been transported from Karnataka,distributed, planted in the various places and blasted. Though theevidence of some witnesses indicates that the appellants had taken adecision for retaliatory action or taking revenge, there isabsolutely no evidence to indicate that a plot was hatched to placeexplosive devices in various places and to blast them. When thatcrucial link is absent, it cannot be said to be one transaction tojustify the clubbing of cases. (iii) The trial court decided that the objection regardingclubbing of cases cannot be allowed to be taken at that stage andthat it would be decided after the trial and that if such anobjection is allowed to be taken at that juncture, then there wouldbe a full trial before the trial. The trial Court failed to see theprejudice that would be caused. The reference to "a preliminaryfinal report" by the Trial Judge is unacceptable since as per theCode of Criminal Procedure, there is and can be only one report inthe form of the final report. When the prosecution had notestablished that there was one single transaction, clubbing of caseshad resulted in prejudice to the accused and consequently, the trialwas vitiated. Even with regard to the so called eye witnesses, thereason for their presence at the places where they claimed to haveheard about the conspiracy or seen the manufacture, distributionetc., is artificial, there was artificiality in the case of all theprosecution witnesses who gave evidence in this regard; there is veryfeeble corroborative material for even this evidence. There isabsolutely no evidence to show that the consignment of explosives hadbeen purchased from the shop of Riaz-ur-Rahman (P.W.1293) at Mysoreand brought to Coimbatore. Conspiracy is based on the principle ofagency and therefore, the Court has to be very careful that there isno "danger of unfairness to the accused" and rule out the prejudicethat might be caused by “bringing into the net” a person, who was notat all involved in the conspiracy, since just by virtue of labellinghim as a conspirator, he will be made liable for the offence thatensued. By this clubbing which had no sanction of law, theprosecution had created a new phenomenon. While in the other cases,the prosecution might be heard to contend that even if conspiracy isnot proved once the overt-act is established, the perpetrator of theoffence must be found guilty; here just by the clubbing an artificiallink is created which has no support in law, and prejudice is caused.In the Udumalpet blast case (S.C. No.1 of 2000) reported inPrabhakaran vs. State rep. by Inspector of Police, (2006 (4) C.T.C.392), on the file of the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases,Coimbatore, some of the accused in this case were the accused thereand the witnesses who spoke of the conspiracy here were also roped inas witnesses in that case. There too, it was claimed that thepurchase of bomb materials was from P.W.1293 Riaz-ur-Rahman. Butthis Court had disbelieved the prosecution case and allowed theappeals preferred by the accused in C.A. Nos.753 of 2001 etc. on 27- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 06-2006. The Supreme Court confirmed this, by dismissing the appealpreferred by the State. If the materials gathered in theinvestigation in this case and the materials gathered in the othercase are examined, it would be seen that the prosecution case is thatthe consignment of explosives came from Bangalore to Coimbatore andthereafter, some explosives were sent to Udumalpet and some were sentto Coimbatore. The important link was disbelieved in that case. So,in this case too, the evidence should be rejected. What the Policedid was to fix the accused and then selected persons who are eitherstock witnesses or who are obliged to the police to give evidence. Itwas submitted that there is no evidence to show how the Police wasled to any of these eyewitnesses. There is nothing to show thatstatements recorded under Section 161 mention the presence of aparticular person at the crucial time at the scene of occurrence forthe police to examine him as an eyewitness. The presence of the so-called eyewitness in the place cannot be believed and sometimes,where there is more than one witness, one does not mention thepresence of the other. In almost all the cases it is possible to findthat though there was an inescapable police presence in all the areasof Coimbatore around that time and the witnesses also mention this,yet, none of the witnesses thought fit to mention that they had seensuspicious activities at the earliest point of time and noexplanation is given for the delay; one fact that must be rememberedis only after the bomb blast on 14-02-1998 Al-Umma was banned. So ifthe members have met on any date prior to that there was noillegality. According to the prosecution the conspiracy was hatchedbetween the dates 01-12-1997 to 14-02-1998. But during that time Al-Umma was not banned and merely because the friends and relatives ofA1 Basha had gathered in his house it cannot be said that there wasmens rea to commit conspiracy and that they must have conspired toretaliate. It was only after the blast the State came to theconclusion that it is the work of Al-Umma and the arrest was followedby the blast. The evidence of P.W.1300 shows that in the FIR, thename Al-Umma and Jihad alone are mentioned and not any individual’snames; the sanction for prosecution under the Explosives Act was notproperly obtained. The application of mind has to be there withregard to each accused. In fact the evidence does not even indicateindependent application of mind. (iv) It was submitted that soon after the occurrence, the entiretop brass of the police force was present and there is nojustification for slipshod investigation or lapses in theinvestigation. The General Diary has not been maintained and thisitself should draw suspicion to the entire police case since there isnothing to prevent the investigating officer from introducing orinterpolating materials as he pleased. It was also submitted thatthe prosecution case could not be accepted merely because there isautomatic repetition of words “such part of the same transaction” and“in the course of” unless there is actual material to support thatseveral offences were committed in the course of the same transaction. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v)The attitude of the prosecution towards the approver itselfis very dubious. He was also the approver in Udumalpet case and ifone examines his statement there is nothing self-incriminating inthat for him to change as an approver. Even while giving evidence asan approver he did not support the prosecution case. Here too, hefailed to support the prosecution case. Then the question arises whyhe was not tried as an accused. By treating him as an approver andfailing to cross-examine him when he resiled from his stand hadcaused serious prejudice to the defense in questioning him. The orderin which the witnesses have been examined was so haphazard that thedefense could not rally their defense points properly. This has alsogrievously prejudiced the case of the defense.(vi)There was a long delay in locating the witnesses andexamining them and statements of some of the witnesses/testimonydefies common sense. If we apply the conduct of a human being underordinary circumstances, the testimonies of the witnesses with regardto the conspiracy cannot be accepted. Mere assembling of persons willnot amount to conspiracy. The object of conspiracy must be known andaccepted by everybody. Joining in agreement to commit conspiracy isessential. Evidence of acceptance must be unequivocal and alsoshould be clear.(vii) As far as procurement and distribution and charges underthe Explosives Substance Act, almost the same accused figure in whatwe referred to as the Udumalpet bomb blast case and also in the R2Kodambakkam Police Station case. In Udumalpet bomb blast the date ofoccurrence viz., the blast is 03-12-1997 and as far as R2 Kodambakkamis concerned, it is 17-03-1998. In both the cases, the procurementis only from Riazur Rahman, P.W.1293, the approver accused. In theUdumalpet case (cited supra), this Court held that the prosecutioncase was not proved. The case of the prosecution was that explosiveswere bought from Riazur Rahman and was transported to Sathyamangalamand from there it was distributed. But the High Court disbelieved thecase and acquitted the accused. Then the principle of autrefoisacquit will come into play and the accused are entitled to protectionof Article 20(2) and Section 300 Cr.P.C. and since it is theprosecution’s case that the explosives were procured only from RiazurRahman and A7 was acquitted in that case. They cannot be charged andtried for the same offence in this case and once the charge relatingto procurement fails one of the important links will be disproved andthe entire case will have to fail. The learned Counsel also submittedthat trails led towards other participants in the crime as forinstance Imaam Ali. But that trail was not followed. If so theprosecution’s case cannot be believed. There is no specific datewith regard to procurement. 20. In reply, the learned Public Prosecutor Mr. P. Kumaresansubmitted as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) The Coimbatore serial bomb blast case was a first case ofthis magnitude in Tamil Nadu. The investigation had applied itself totracking the offenders assiduously. Neither the prosecution case, northe investigation suffered from any infirmity. It was an organisedattack. All the witnesses either resided in, or worked in or hadreason to go to, the particular locality. All the Accused came fromcertain areas. The Accused had fixed the 14-02-1998 for attack thatwas the date of the visit of Thiru.L.K.Advani, and they knew that themembers belonging to BJP and Hindu Munnani and allied organisationswould participate in full strength. The perpetarors of the crimeintended to terrorise the entire city and to paralyse it.(ii) The learned Public Prosecutor produced before us the map ofthe city of Coimbatore and showed us the various spots where theblasts took place and submitted that without a conspiracy and aconsensus among minds, this incident would not have occurred. He alsosubmitted that even the complainants knew who was behind this. Areading of the complaints would show this. This is why the policedecided that there would be a joint investigation by clubbing of thecases because the entire incident and the acts that led to it formedpart of the same transaction. The learned Public Prosecutorsubmitted that the investigating officers were under great stress andstrain they were acutely conscious of the magnitude of the tragedy,the impact it had on the public and the consequences. They knew theyhad to complete their investigation without undue delay and all ofthem worked incessantly. There was no mala fide intention to proceedagainst any one organization. If the investigation led the policeofficers to a particular accused that was done. But wherever theInvestigating Officer felt that the statements recorded led to no-where, the names of those accused were deleted and he pointed out tosome instances. He also submitted that it would not have been fair,if members of the other Muslim groups had been roped in merelybecause they were Muslims. The fact that this was not done woulditself show that the prosecution had done its job fairly. Hesubmitted that the evidence of P.W.1064 D.Raghuraman would show thatin Crime No. 14 of 1998 Ammapettai police Station the modus operandiused was similar to the one adopted in Saravana complex i.e. theexplosives were kept in closed premises. Only Al-Umma cadres wereinvolved in the occurrence on 29-11-1997and it was they who werewaiting for the opportunity. So, there were earlier instances whereAlUmma was found to have engineered similar actions though not ofthis magnitude. He submitted that the investigation was firstconcentrated on Coimbatore, thereafter without much delay the otherwitnesses including P.Ws 854, 855 and 1195 were examined. Accordingto the learned Public Prosecutor, the prosecution had proved its caseand neither the trial nor the investigation had caused any prejudice.21. Mr. Rabu Manohar, learned counsel appearing for the revisionpetitioner submitted that there was important evidence relating tomobilization of funds emanating from Kerala, there was evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ relating to deposit of amount in the bank accounts and there werephone calls connecting the conspirators with A14 Madhani, who wasacquitted. According to the learned counsel, the trial court hadignored some important pieces of evidence, and had lost sight of theimpact of terrorist activity. He submitted that in cases whichstrike a fear-psychosis in the minds of the people, witnesses will bevery reluctant to come to Court. So it will be very difficult toobtain corroborating evidence. He submitted that one cannot faultthe Investigating Agency for selecting only some witnesses. Thousands of persons were examined under Section 161, Cr.P.C. and allof them cannot be examined in Court. He also referred to certaintexts relating to Terrorism related conspiracy and Investigation. Thelearned counsel submitted that a terrorist activity does not merelycause disturbance of law and order, but the fall out of the intendedactivity is such that it travels beyond the capacity of the ordinarylaw enforcement agencies to tackle it under the ordinary penal law –vide Prakash Kumar vs. State of Gujarat, ((2005) 2 S.C.C. 409). Hesubmitted that this is the rarest of rare cases where more stringentpunishment should be awarded to the offenders. We have taken intoaccount his submissions only so far asthey are relevant for decidingthese appeals. We have pronounced orders separately in Cr.R.C.No.1149 and 1150 of 2008.23. We have considered the submissions and the decided law. Wehave also considered the written submissions. We saw the video-recording M.O.900 to visualize the scenes of occurrence for bettercomprehension.24. We will first deal with what we have called the broad-basedgrounds of attack. All the accused were jointly tried. Theinvestigation commenced on 14.2.98. The Director General of Police,Tamil Nadu, vide Proceedings in Rc.No.47667/Ra/2/1998, appointedP.W.1300 as the Chief Investigating Officer and he took up theinvestigation treating Crime No.151 of 1998 as the base case. 25. Background:(i) The persons who planned and put into action the bomb blasthad without a doubt intended to unleash an epidemic of fear andterror on the society and to put the people under threat :“Terrorists have no religion, no concept of communal orsocial harmony and value for human life. Secularism,which is one of the greats attributes of the IndianConstitution, is viewed differently by some people.Communal harmony is not what they want. No religionpropagates terrorism or hatred. Love for all is thebasic foundation on which almost all religions arefounded. Unfortunately, some fanatics who have distorted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ views of religion spread messages of terror and hatred.They do not understand or realise the amount of damagethey do to the society and as a result of these fanaticacts of misguided people innocent lives are lost,distrust in the minds of communities replaces love andaffection for others. Neighbours belonging to differentcommunities who have lived like brothers for ages startviewing each other with suspicion and hatred. Theircompassion is first replaced by a sense of diabolicdesigns. The object of these misguided people - theterrorists - seems to be to spread a message of terrorand strike fear in the hearts of the citizens. Thepresent case amply reflects the designs of some peopleto perpetrate such acts. The temple of democracy in thecountry - the Parliament - did not also escape the wrathof such people. Whoever did it, wanted to disturb theequilibrium in the minds of the citizens. The millionsof peace loving citizens in the country are threatenedto be put on a ransom by a group of people.”– vide Nazir Khan vs. State of Delhi, (2003) 8 S.C.C. 461. (ii) In the extract from League of Nations Convention, 1937 withregard to terrorist activities, in particular, Clause 4 thereof,reads as follows :- “4. Academic Consensus Definition : ‘Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring of repeatedviolent action, employed by (semi-) clandestineindividual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic,criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast toassassination - the direct targets of violence are notthe main targets. The immediate human victims ofviolence are generally chosen randomly (targets ofopportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolictargets) from a target population, and serve as messagegenerators. Threat- and violence-based communicationprocesses between terrorist (organization), (imperiled)victims, and main targets are used to manipulate themain target (audience (s)), turning it into a target ofterror, a target of demands, or a target of attention,depending on whether intimidation, coercion, orpropaganda is primarily sought" (Schmid, 1988)’.”(iii) In a Paper presented by Nicholas Kaufman, Senior DistrictAttorney, Office of the District Attorney of Jerusalem, Israel at the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ First Annual Conference on Human Society, Terrorism and OrganizedCrime in the Western Balkan Region organized by the HUMSEC Project inLjubljana between 23rd and 25th November, 2006 with regard to theproblems encountered while investigating and prosecuting conspiraciesin relation to terrorist offences and referred to the followingparagraphs :“Having summarized the potential abuses of conspiracycharges in terror cases, it is worth mentioning that theBritish practitioners’ handbook Archbold recognizes threelegitimate and common situations in which the use of theconspiracy charge will be regarded as beneficial:1)Cases of factual and legal complexity where theinterests of justice are best served by presentingan ‘overall picture’ which cannot be achieved bycharging a relatively small series of substantiveoffences;2)Cases where authentic evidential difficultiespreclude meeting the requisite burden of proof forthe full-contemplated act. Should, for example,the DNA or fingerprints of two suspects be foundon the remains of an explosive device and no otherevidence exist apart from the suspects’ mutualincrimination, reasonable doubt would exist, on asubstantive charge of murder, as to which of thesuspects had detonated the device and killed thevictims. There would, nevertheless, be more thanreasonable grounds for charging a conspiracy sincethere can be no reasonable defense of innocentlyhandling such an offensive weapon;3)Cases where the agreement to commit the offenceis more egregious than the substantive actitself. This situation could, potentially, arisewhen the prescribed sentence for the substantiveoffence is actually less than that indicated forthe offence of conspiracy.”“…Obviously, it would be unreasonable to expect thatco-conspirators who jointly agree to carry out a terroristattack, calculated to maximize the loss of civilian lifeand subsequently thwarted, should be acquitted of aconspiracy merely because there was no meeting of minds asto the modus operandi of the attack. In other words, twoco-conspirators who agree to kill commuters on anunderground railway ought not be acquitted of a conspiracyto murder because one of them intended that the attack be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ carried out by way of explosives whereas the otherintended that it be effected by way of poison gas.…Ironically, certain integral participants in a wheelof conspiracy whose role may be a sine qua non to thesuccess of the plot will escape criminal liability byvirtue of having agreed to carry out a prima facie legalactivity without knowledge of the ultimate illegalobjective of the conspiracy. For example, parties to aterror network might be requested to rent out a “safehouse” without, necessarily, knowing that it is destinedfor accommodating and arming a potential suicide bomberimmediately prior to his deployment. …”“…Open Justice” is a dilemma faced in criminalproceedings, especially in countries like India, wherethere is a strong common law tradition. According to theAustralian Law Reforms Commission,“…On the other hand, disclosure for these purposes mayhave very serious consequences outside the courtroom andthe logic and needs of the individual case, perhaps even tothe extent of endangering the lives of intelligenceofficers; compromising on-going national securityoperations; revealing hitherto secret information aboutstrategic alliances, techniques, operations andcapabilities; and straining international relationships –whether with allies who have produced or shared informationthat they do not wish to see made public, or with othernations that learn they are subject of intelligencegathering or unflattering security assessments”.These are just some indications of the problems in cases ofconspiracy in terror offences. “Thus…extrAordinary laws are made to contain theextrAordinary situation by providing harsh, drastic andstringent provisions, prescribing special procedure,departing from the procedures prescribed under the ordinaryprocedural law for the reasons that the prevalent ordinaryprocedural law was found to be inadequate and notsufficiently effective to deal with the offenders indulgingin terrorist and disruptive activities.” – vide Prakash Kumar alias Prakash Bhutto vs State of Gujarat, (2005)2 S.C.C. 409.This is how the invocation of the Special Acts is justified. Butin the present case, the ordinary penal law alone was invoked though https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ what happened on 14-02-1998 was an extrAordinary occurrence. Itcannot be denied that the fallout of what happened on 14-02-1998 hada paralyzing effect on society and this is something that the trialcourt had also borne in mind while evaluating the role of theinvestigating agency. This background is relevant. 26. We will now see if the defects pointed out can be sustained,if they had caused prejudice, and/or if the investigation suffersfrom defects so grievous as to render the trial vitiated.a) Part of the same TransactionIn the present case, the State had decided that all the cases wouldbe clubbed and investigated by one officer and P.W.1300 took up theinvestigation from the stage to which it had progressed and proceededwith the investigation. The prosecution has maintained its standthat the timing of the series of blasts and the manner in which itwas done indicated that there was a single minded purpose and design.We have tried to create a mental picture of what happened that day todecide whether the blasts formed part of a single transaction. Thequestion whether the prosecution had proved to the hilt, theparticipation of the various accused in the specific overt acts willbe decided by us in subsequent paragraphs. But there is enoughmaterial to indicate that it was not a random explosion of bombsplanted by different groups and different persons and that the bombblasts were the result of one cohesive plan.b) Timing For instance, the blasts were so timed to coincide with the visit ofthe BJP leader Mr. Advani and the manner in which the bombs were setoff and the timing of the blasts also indicated that it was inexecution of a plan. The time and space where the blasts occurredshow that it could only have been the result of a plan and not randomblasts. The blasts started on 14-02-1998 at 3.50pm and continuedalmost ceaselessly till 4.30 pm. The 1st blast is at Sir ShanmugamRoad at 3.50 pm on 14.2.98. Next blast went off at 4.00 pm at GaniRowther Street. Almost in a synchronized manner at the same timebombs blasted at Rajendra Textiles, West Sambandam Road, RajaRajeswari Towers, BJP Election Office, National towers, and SB Towersat 4.00 pm. Then bombs exploded at Hindu Munnani Office and CMCHospital at 4.15 pm. The RMS Office blast is at 4.20 pm. Then between5.00pm and 9.00 pm three blasts went off at Poompuhar Town Hall,Ukkadam Fish Market and Karunanidhi Market. We would have said thatthe blasts were orchestrated to go off on time, but a melodic imagewould be totally inappropriate and pehaps insensitive to describe thecacophony of tragedy that resulted. But there can be no doubt thatthe execution was as per one plan. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ c) Configuration of the various sitesWe saw the timing of the blasts. Now we will see the spacing of theblasts. If the places where the blasts took place or bombs wereplanted are marked on a map of the city of Coimbatore as demonstratedby the Learned PP, the scenes of occurrence fall within an ellipticalshape. Kannappa Nagar is at the top of the ellipse, R.S. Puram tothe left side, the National Travels office to the east and Ukkadammarket and CMC Hospital form the base of the ellipse. The scenes ofthe 19 blasts are within this ellipse. So the localization of theblasts is another indicator that the blasts were the execution of oneplan.d) Vehicles and containers used for plantingThe bombs have been placed in vehicles like tricycle carts carrying pineapples, cars, two wheelers and cycles have also been used. Theywere carried in blue jeans bags. This is found in the evidence ofquite a few witnesses. This too shows that the all the cases formedapart from the same transaction. e) F.I.Rs. / ComplaintsNext we looked at the complaints.(i) Ex-P2 is the complaint with regard to Crime No.153 of 1998,which relates to the blast at West Sambandam Road at 4:00p.m., on 14-02-1998. The complainant is P.W.62, Thiruvengadam. His complaintstates that a Muslim Extremist Group was the cause. (ii) Ex-P31 relates to the blast at Rajarajeswari towers, CrimeNo.195 of 1998, which was also at 4 o’ clock on 14-02-1998. Thecomplainant is P.W.158, Palaniappan. He is an Accountant inRajarajeswari Towers. In his complaint he states that “the peoplesaid there were series of blasts in several places in the City andthe reason is the Muslim Extremists.” (iii) Ex-P91 is the complaint given in respect of the blast atNational Travels in Crime No.132 of 1998 and the complainant isP.W.295, Balakrishnan. He has referred to the blast and he has saidthat this was due to some miscreants. (iv) The next complaint is Ex-P95. This relates to the blast inHindu Munnani Office, Crime No.195 of 1998. It states that a MuslimFundamentalists had planned this and had planted bombs in bicycles inorder to kill the followers of the Hindu Munnani Party. (v) Ex-65 is the complaint given by P.W.205, Purushothaman in respectof the blast at B.J.P. Election Office and Crime No.196 of 1998. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ has referred to the blast at 4 o’ clock and to the damage that hadhappened and he had stated that this was planned to show theopposition to Mr. L.K. Advani’s visit by Muslim Extremists belongingto Al-Umma and Jahad Committee.(vi) Ex-P75 relates to Crime No.152 of 1998. This is the blastat Sir Shanmugham road. The complainant is P.W.228, Sivasubramanian.He has also stated that the Muslim Fundamentalists like Al-Umma andJahad Committee had planned these explosions to cause disturbance tostop the visit of Advani because if Bharatiya Janata Party come topower the Muslim Organizations would be banned and also to takevengeance for the death of Muslim people in the riots that took placeat Coimbatore.(vii) Ex-P92 is a complaint given by the resident Doctor of CMCwho has requested immediate action, with regard to the blast atC.M.C. Hospital, Crime No.133 of 1998. (viii) Ex-P124 is the complaint filed by Gugendran, AssistantSuperintendent of Police and this relates to the explosion at R.M.S.Office. (ix) Ex-P143 is a complaint given by P.W.420, Ravi Kumar withregard to the blast at S.B. Towers and he had also stated that thisis the work of Muslim Extremists and he has specifically referred tothe bag kept in Gokul and also the other similar bag which was keptwhen he gave the complaint, the bag was still in Gokul Stationery. (x) Ex-P153 is the complaint given by P.W.458, Francis Xavierand he had referred to the enemies of society who had thrown bombs inRajendra Textiles. This is crime No.148 of 1998. (xi) Ex-P184 is the complaint given by P.W.547, Krishnamoorthywith regard to the blast at Gani Rowthar Street. In this there is nomention of the identity of persons whom the complainant thinks hascaused the blast. It is not necessary for us to deal with all the complaints. But, wecan see that the complaints at least with regard to the first 12blasts indicated that the complainants were of the opinion that thiswas consequence of a plot by Muslim Extremists. In some complaints,there is a specific mention of Al-Umma. In fact, on the very sameday A1 Basha the leader of Al-Umma was also arrested. So there was enough material to conclude that it was part of thesame transaction. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

27. Next we will look at the case laws :-(i)In The State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Kandimalia Subbaiah andanother, A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1241, the Supreme Court held thus :“It is undesirable to complicate a trial by introducing a largenumber of charges spread over a long period this is only a questionof propriety and it should be left to the Judge or the Magistratetrying the case to adopt the course which he thinks to be appropriatein the facts and circumstances of the case. Such a trial is notprohibited by the Code of Criminal Procedure.”(ii)In Bhagwan Das Jagdish Chander vs. Delhi Administration, 1975 (1)S.C.C. 866, the Supreme Court held thus :“The ordering of a separate trial, in a case where prejudice to anaccused from a joint trial is apprehended, is enough. Indeed, we cango even further and say that, ordinarily they ought to be separatelytried. But, a joint trial of such accused persons is not ab-initioillegal. It can take place in suitable cases.”(iii) In V. N. Kamdar and Anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1974) 1 S.C.R. 157, this Court held as follows :“The normal rule under the Criminal Procedure Code is to try eachaccused separately when the offence committed by him is distinct andseparate. The provisions of Sections 233 to 239 would indicate thatjoint trial is the exception.” (iv) In Kadiri Kunhahammad vs. The State of Madras, A.I.R. 1960 S.C.861, the Supreme Court held thus :“Courts should carefully examine the nature of the accusation; but ifthey are satisfied that prima facie the accusation made shows thatseveral persons are charged of different offences and that the saidoffences prima facie appear to have been committed in the course ofthe same transaction, their joint trial can and should be ordered.”“In other words, these provisions constitute an exception to theprovisions of Section 233 as well as those under Section 234(2).There is, therefore, no doubt that, in a case of conspiracy, ifspecific offences are committed in pursuance of the said conspiracy,all persons who are parties to that conspiracy and are also concernedin the specific offences thus committed can be lawfully tried jointlyat the same trial – vide Rash Behari Shaw vs. Emperor, A.I.R. 1936Cal. 753. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Ganeswara Rao, A.I.R. 1963 S.C.1850, the State filed an appeal before the Supreme Court against theacquittal by the High Court and the dismissal of the revision forenhancement filed by the State –(a) It is interesting to see that almost the same grounds wereraised before the Supreme Court :“(1) That there was a misjoinder of charges and persons in thatthe various provisions of s. 239 were clubbed together and anomnibus charge of conspiracy was framed which on its face wasone likely to embarrass the respondents and make their task ofdefending themselves difficult. (2) The procedure adopted in the investigation and committalstages was irregular. (3) Irrelevant evidence was introduced and some evidence wasintroduced in a manner not authorised by the Evidence Act. (4) That the Court abused its powers under s. 342, Cr. P.C.while conducting the examination of the respondents. (5) The evidence of the approver was inadmissible because thepardon granted to him was illegal, that, in any case, it isunreliable, was so found even by the Sessions Judge and must,therefore, be rejected. If the evidence of the approver is leftout the remaining evidence would be inadequate to sustain theprosecution case.”(b)The proviso to Section 223 provides that on an application, theMagistrate may direct joint trial even if they do not fall in thecategories specified. The Supreme Court held that the object ofenacting this section is to avoid multiplicity of trials and the onlylimitation, which could be properly placed, would be consideration ofjustice and fairness. The Supreme Court observed that perhaps theLegislature did not want to differentiate between cases where anumber of different offences were committed jointly by a group ofpersons from cases where any number of offences of the same kind werecommitted by a group of persons. In Paragraph No.25, the SupremeCourt observed that, what is meant by “same transaction” is notdefined anywhere in the Code. “Where there is proximity of time orplace or unity of purpose and design or continuity of action inrespect of a series of acts, it may be possible to infer that theyform part of the same transaction. One of these elements should co-exist for a transaction to be recorded as the same. But if severalacts committed by a person show unity of purpose or design that would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be a strong circumstance to indicate that those act form part of thesame transaction.” The Supreme Court observed that the absence of thewords “so connected together as to form” does not make any differenceand connection between series of connected acts would be an essentialingredient. (c) The Supreme Court held that no court has really dealt with thequestion of defining the expression ‘same transaction’ and that ifthe several acts show a unity of purpose or design, that would be astrong circumstance to indicate same transaction. The Supreme Courtalso held that while it is true that “separate trial is the normalrule and joint trial is an exception, where the same act is committedby several persons, it would be ‘not only inconvenient, butinjudicious to try all the persons separately. This would lead tounnecessary multiplicity of trials involving avoidable inconvenienceto the witnesses and avoidable expenditure of public time and money.No corresponding advantage can be gained by the accused persons byfollowing the procedure of separate trials”. And again, the SupremeCourt said that if the offences are alleged not to be whollyunconnected, but as forming part of the same transaction, the onlyconsideration that will justify separate trials would beembarrassment or difficulty caused to the accused persons indefending themselves. The Supreme Court then said, “it is difficultto appreciate what purpose would be served by separating the trialfor the same offence”, and held that, “even if we were to assume thatthere has been a misjoinder of charges in violation of the provisionsof the Code, the High Court was incompetent to set aside theconviction of the respondents without coming to the definiteconclusion that misjoinder had occasioned failure of justice”. TheSupreme Court further held, “merely because the accused persons arecharged with a large number of offences and convicted at the trial,the conviction cannot be set aside by the appellate court unless itin fact came to the conclusion that the accused persons wereembarrassed in their defence, with the result that there was afailure of justice”.(d) As regards the introduction of a large number of charges spreadover a long time, the Supreme Court held that this was a question ofpropriety, which should be left to the discretion of the Judge or theMagistrate trying the case. And the Supreme Court also held, “apartfrom that, the respondents were represented by counsel at the trial,who knew very well what the law was. No complaint was made by therespondents even in appeal that they were ignorant of their right andthat had they known about it, they would have given their defence onoath and that they had been prejudiced”. (e) In R. vs. Dawson, R. vs. Wenlock, 1960 (1) All. E.R. 558, theCourt of Appeals considered several of the grounds that have now beenraised by the counsel for appellants. “This court has more than oncewarned of the dangers of conspiracy counts, especially these long https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conspiracy counts, which one counsel referred to as a mammothconspiracy. Several reasons have been given. First of all if thereare substantive charges, which can be proved, it is in generalundesirable to complicate matters and to lengthen matters by adding acharge of conspiracy. Secondly, it can work injustice because itmeans that evidence, which otherwise would be inadmissible on thesubstantive charges against certain people, becomes admissible. Thirdly, it adds to the length and complexity of the case so that thetrial may easily be well-nigh unworkable and impose a quiteintolerable strain both on the court and on the jury”, and there theyfelt that the inclusion of conspiracy as one of the chargeslengthened the case enormously.(f)This was strongly relied on in Ganeswara Rao’s case (supra) wherethe Supreme Court held thus :“Even if we were to assume that there has been a misjoinder ofcharges in violation of the provisions of ss. 233 to 239 of the Code,the High Court was incompetent to set aside the conviction of therespondents without coming to the definite conclusion that misjoinderhad occasioned failure of justice. This decision completely meets theargument based upon Dawson's case (1960) 1 All. E.R. 558. Merelybecause the accused persons are charged with a large number ofoffences and convicted at the trial the conviction cannot be setaside by the appellate court unless it in fact came to the conclusionthat the accused persons were embarrassed in their defence with theresult that there was a failure of justice. For all these reasons wecannot accept the argument to learned counsel on the ground ofmisjoinder of charges and multiplicity of charges.”The counsel for the accused in that case supported the High Court’sconclusion that there was a misjoinder of the charges and there couldbe no clubbing. The Supreme Court held that conspiracy must beregarded as one transaction and therefore, a single individualcharged could be tried with the aid of Section 235(1), Cr.P.C. forall the acts committed by him in furtherance of or in pursuance ofthe conspiracy without the limitations imposed by Section 234(1), forwhere all the acts are referable to the same conspiracy, theirconnection with one another is obvious. (g) The Supreme Court in Gangadhar Behera Vs. State of Orissa, 2003(1) L.W. (Cri) 1 held thus :“18. Exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit of doubt mustnot nurture fanciful doubts or lingering suspicion and therebydestroy social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the pleathat it is better to let hundred guilty escape than punish aninnocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing justice according tolaw. [See Gurbachan Singh vs. Satpal Singh and Ors., 1990 Cri LJ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 562]. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every hypothesisput forward by the accused. [See State of U.P. vs. Ashok KumarSrivastava, (1992) 1 S.C.R. 37 ]. A reasonable doubt is not animaginary trivial or merely possible doubt, but a fair doubt basedupon reason and common sense. It must grow out of the evidence in thecase. If a case is proved perfectly, it is argued that it isartificial; if a case has some flaws inevitable because human beingsare prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonderswhether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rareinnocent from being punished, many guilty persons must be allowed toescape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish.[See Inder Singh and Anr. vs. State (Delhi Admin.), 1978 Cri LJ766]. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial evaluation. "Ajudge does not preside over a criminal trial, merely to see that noinnocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guiltyman does not escape. Both are public duties" [Per Viscount Simon inStirland vs. Director of Public Prosecution, 1944 A.C. (PC) 315quoted in State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1988].Doubts would be called reasonable if they are free from a zest forabstract speculation. Law cannot afford any favourite other thantruth.19. In matters such as this, it is appropriate to recall theobservations of this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade vs. State ofMaharashtra, 1973 Cri LJ 1783 :".....The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit ofdoubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentimentthat all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to thevictim and the community, demand especial emphasis in thecontemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicialinstrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles orgolden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through theweb of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace everyhunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt....."".....The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-heartedly as alearned author Glanville Williams in 'Proof of Guilt' has sapientlyobserved, goes much beyond the simple fact that, just one guiltyperson has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general,they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turnleads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions againstindicated 'persons' and more severe punishment of those who are foundguilty. Thus too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to aferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection ofthe guiltness....." (h) In State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar, A.I.R. 2004 S.C.2998, the Supreme Court held thus : https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “Effort should be made by Courts to see that criminal justice issalvaged despite such defects in investigation. Courts should bearin mind the time constraints of the police officers in the presentsystem, the ill-equipped machinery they have to cope with, and the“traditional apathy of respectable persons to come forward for givingevidence in criminal cases which are realities the police force haveto confront with while conducting investigation in almost every case.”28. In this case, the trial court had also noted that after themarathon investigation, the Special Investigation Team came to theconclusion that all cases had arisen out of a single transaction andcame to the conclusion that the group must have been functioningunder one and the same leadership. The trial court was of theopinion that this mode or procedure was followed only afterconclusion of the investigation and it was done so as to ensure fairinvestigation and deletion or removal of any crime number if it isdetected that the occurrence in a particular crime number is found tobe not connected to the conspiracy and design of execution. Thetrial court had relied on the judgment of a learned single Judge ofthe Allahabad High Court in Babri Masjid case. The learned seniorcounsel appearing for the appellants submitted that, in that case thefact situation was different and that decision cannot be applied tothis case. 29. We have, however, referred to the judgment of the SupremeCourt in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1850 (supra) to come to the conclusion thatunless serious prejudice is shown, even if it is irregular, on thatground, the trial cannot be set aside. The learned trial Judge wasprima facie satisfied that the charge made out the offences regardingcriminal conspiracy with a common object in the course of the sametransaction.30. Therefore, the trial court had exercised its discretion anddecided that it was in order and we find that the approach of theSupreme Court in the above referred to case is not very different andtherefore, we see no reason to fault the trial Judge for dealing withthis matter as he did in this regard.31. We have seen the judgment and we find at every juncture, theTrial Court had acceded to the request of the accused, if they wantedadjournment, or if they wanted examination to be postponed to waitfor the counsel to arrive; in fact, we are unable to see how theaccused have been prejudiced. From the manner of cross examination wecan see that there was no doubt in the minds of the appellantsregarding the exact nature of charges against them and what should betheir defense and what were the grounds of attack. We will not hold,that the clubbing, and joint trial was per se prejudice without needof further proof when the Supreme Court judgment indicates other wiseand it was held that it must be seen that in fact there wasembarrassment to the accused which resulted in injustice. We do not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ see any embarrassment to the accused or injustice. The appellants hadthe best of legal advice. In fact, they have even been given theopportunity to change their counsel often to meet their satisfactionand all this accommodation was done at the time of trial only toensure that they did not suffer or feel aggrieved. And even from theviewpoint of the accused, we think that the disadvantage the accusedwould have suffered if each trial had been separately conducted wouldhave been more than any disadvantage caused to them by the jointtrial.32. As observed by the Supreme Court in the above-cited case, inthis case also, the accused had moved several petitions not onlybefore this Court, but also before the Supreme Court, and knew whattheir rights were.33. Therefore, if we apply this test laid down in the abovecases as to whether the offences are so related to one another inpoint of purpose or of cause and effect, we see that there wasjustification for the clubbing of cases. Even if we were to assumethat the procedure adopted was in violation of the provisions of theCode, it has been held by the Supreme Court that the High Court wasincompetent to set aside the conviction of the respondents withoutcoming to the definite conclusion that it had occasioned failure ofjustice. As regards clubbing of cases it is more a matter ofpropriety and is best left to the Trial Court. Therefore, we rejectthis ground.34. Faulty Investigation(a) We have already referred to the submissions regarding taintedinvestigation. Merely because doubts are raised in the prosecutioncase, the prosecution case cannot be suspected. It is difficultfor us to accept that the Police Officers acted mala fide in theirinvestigation. They were struggling with a difficult and gargantuantask. No doubt, the top brass of the Police immediately rushed toCoimbatore but they did not remain there to continue and to concludethe investigation. The officers who were assigned the taskinvestigated the cases and there may have been some lapses. The wholecity had gone up in the explosions and from the evidence of P.W.1288K.N. Murali and P.W. 1298 Varadarajulu we find that the policeofficers were investigating several crime numbers. When there were somany cases registered there must have been some practicaldifficulties. It may not have been possible to even get the requirednumber of FIR forms from one station. It may not have been possibleto send the statements recorded immediately. It may not have beenpossible to trace the witnesses promptly, both because of thereluctance of the common man, and also because it would have beenpractically difficult for the police to track them. The defencesubmitted that these were serious errors. The result of investigationunder Chapter XII of the Criminal Procedure Code is a conclusion that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ an Investigating Officer draws on the basis of materials collectedduring investigation and such conclusion can only form the basis of acompetent Court to take cognizance thereupon Under Section 190(1)(b)Cr.P.C. and to proceed with the case for trial, where the materialscollected during investigation are to be translated into legalevidence. The trial Court is then required to base its conclusionsolely on the evidence adduced during the trial; and it cannot relyon the investigation or the result thereof – vide Vijendar vs. Stateof Delhi, ((1997) 6 S.C.C. 171).(b) In State of Karnataka vs. K. Yarappa Reddy, (1998) 8 S.C.C. 715),the Supreme Court held that, “the court cannot be influenced by themachinations demonstrated by the Investigating Officer in conductinginvestigation or in preparing the records” and that “the conclusionof the court in the case cannot be allowed to depend solely on theprobity of investigation It is well-nigh settled that even if theinvestigation is illegal or even suspicious the rest of evidence mustbe scrutinized independently of the impact of it. Otherwise criminaltrial will plummet to that level of the investigating officers rulingthe roost. The Court must have predominance and pre-eminence incriminal trials over the action taken by investigating officers.Criminal justice should not be made the casualty for the wrongscommitted by the investigating officers in the case. In other words,if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to theoccurrence is true the court is free to act on it albeitinvestigating officer's suspicious role in the case.”(c) In Alagarsamy & Ors. Vs. State by Deputy Superintendent ofPolice, (2009 (13) SCALE 376), which was another sensational case ,the persons belonging to one community were attacked because of adispute that arose in the election of the President of the localauthority. It was submitted before the Supreme Court, that the non-production of the FIR book would render the entire prosecution storysuspicious. The Supreme Court referred to the unprecedented nature ofthe situation, the chaos that had caused in the otherwise peacefullife of the village, enormousness of the whole affair, the number ofpersons murdered, the number of witnesses collected and theenormousness of the investigation and held that the investigatingagency cannot be blamed for not being able to trace out the FIR book,and the non-availability of the FIR book by itself will not persuadethe Supreme Court to throw the whole prosecution case. In that case,there were only 40 accused persons, 50 witnesses and 121 prosecutionexhibits, 55 M.Os., 2 defense witnesses and 19 defense exhibits. Inthis case, it is 10 times more. Here too the situation wasenormously horrendous, there was total chaos in the City, manypersons were killed and many more were injured and more than thousandwitnesses were examined at the time of trial. If we apply the abovedecision to this case, the non-production of the general diary or the FIRs not being in seriatim or any other lapse in theinvestigation cannot be the main ground for rejecting the prosecution https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case. The Supreme Court in Alagarsamy case has referred to theYarappa Reddy’s case (supra).(d)The defence strongly relied on Sevi & Anr. vs. State of TamilNadu, ((1981) Supp. S.C.C. 43), where because of the non-productionof the FIR, the Supreme Court held that all the eyewitnesses arepartisan witnesses and if there had been an impartial investigation,it would have lend assurance to itself but if the investigationitself becomes tainted, the task becomes difficult. But in thatcase, the Supreme Court doubted the evidence of the eyewitnesses.Therefore, the non-production of the FIR added to the suspicion. Ifit had been produced, it might have dispelled the suspicion in theeyewitness’s evidence. Therefore, really what is crucial is theacceptability of the evidence before the Court and not what isgathered during the investigation. Sevi has also been referred to inAlagarsamy’s case(supra). (e) In State of Andhra Pradesh vs. P.V. Pavithran, (A.I.R. 1990 S.C.1266), the Supreme Court held thus :“9. While so, there are offences of grave magnitude such asdiabolical crimes of conspiracy or clandestine crimes committed bymembers of the underworld with their tentacles spread over variousparts of the country or even abroad. The very nature of such offenceswould necessarily involve considerable time for unearthing the crimesand bringing the culprits to book. Therefore, it is not possible toformulate inflexible guidelines or rigid principles of uniformapplication for speedy investigation or to stipulate any arbitraryperiod of limitation within which investigation in a criminal caseshould be completed.” That was in the context of time taken for the investigation. But wehave referred to it because in this case too it is a diabolic case ofconspiracy. So there cannot be any inflexible guideline fordetermining what weight we should give to the investigation lapseswhile deciding the guilt/innocence of the accused. But because wehave taken into account the inordinate stress and difficulties thatthe investigation must have faced we are more conscious that we haveto scrutinize the evidence of the witnesses with extreme care andcaution.(f) In Leela Ram (D) vs. State of Haryana, (A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 3717),the Supreme Court considered whether mere delay in the investigationof criminal proceedings by itself would serve as sufficient groundfor quashing the proceedings. That was a case under the Preventionof Corruption Act. There the Supreme Court made this observation,which we think applies squarely to this case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “8. Before however, proceeding with the matter on two counts asabove, it would be convenient to note another aspect of the matter,namely, the observations pertaining to the investigation by theInvestigating Agency. It is now a well settled principle that anyirregularity or even an illegality during investigation ought not tobe treated as a ground to reject the prosecution case and we need notdilate on the issue excepting referring a decision of this Court –vide State of Rajasthan v. Kishore, A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 3035.(g) In Rotash vs. State of Rajasthan, ((2007) 2 S.C.C. (Cri) 382),the Supreme Court held :“The investigation was not fool proof but then defectiveinvestigation would not lead to total rejection of the prosecutioncase.”(h) In Visveswaran vs. State Rep. by S.D.M., (2003 Cri LJ 2548), thisCourt held:“The ground realities are to be kept in view. It is also required tobe kept in view that every defective investigation need notnecessarily result in the acquittal. In defective investigation, theonly requirement is of extra caution by courts while evaluatingevidence. It would not be just to acquit the accused solely as aresult of defective investigation. Any deficiency or irregularity ininvestigation need not necessarily lead to rejection of the case ofprosecution when it is otherwise proved.” (i) In Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab, (2008 (14) SCALE639), it was held :“An accused is entitled to a fair investigation. Fairinvestigation and fair trial are concomitant to preservation offundamental right of an accused under Article 21 of the Constitutionof India. But the State has a larger obligation i.e. to maintain lawand order, public order and preservation of peace and harmony in thesociety. A victim of a crime, thus, is equally entitled to a fairinvestigation.The offence, however, is not ordinary in nature. It involvedinvestigation into the allegations of commission of fraud in asystematic manner. It had a wide ramification as a former Minister ofthe State is said to be involved.We must also bear in mind the distinction between crimecommitted by an individual or a group of persons vis-`-vis a scamwhich means "to get money or property from, another, under false https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pretences, by gaining the confidence of the victim, also includes;swindle; defraud". [See Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, 2005, page4237] This offence we are dealing with, is also not ordinary innature. It too has a very wide ramification though of a differentkind than what was there in the above case. It put the law and ordersituation upside down, and paralysed the society.”(j) In Chandrakant Luxman Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1974 (3) S.C.C.626), the Supreme Court held:“Counsel for the appellant is right that the benefit of what theHigh Court terms a "highly defective" investigation cannot go to theprosecution. If it were to appear that the story narrated by Arjunimmediately after the incident was in material particulars differentfrom the evidence of the eye-witnesses, the benefit of such aninfirmity would have gone to the accused. But if on a properevaluation of the various facts and circumstances it transpires thatthe apparent inconsistencies in the case of the prosecution aresolely the result of remissness on the part of the investigatingofficer and not of any improvement or prevarication on the part ofthe prosecution witnesses, there would be no justification fordiscarding the accusation.” Therefore, it is clear that our duty is to evaluate the evidencebefore us properly and carefully and to ensure that there is in factno inconsistency in the prosecution case. And if the evidence iscredible, we will not discard the prosecution case because of thelapses or some weakness in the investigation.35. Haphazard recording of evidence(i)According to the appellants, the evidence was recorded in ahaphazard manner and it had caused prejudice. Here we must recordthe observations made by the trial court with regard to the attitudeof the accused. According to the learned trial Judge, the accuseddid not have faith or trust in the judicial system and there was“pell-mell in the Court proceedings and pandemonium … and only afterthe Supreme Court directed the Special Court to go ahead with theframing of charges even if the accused were not present, that someorder was restored. Thereafter, they engaged themselves in dharnaand riots”. But the trial Judge has also recorded that soon theaccused found that unless they submitted themselves to the process oflaw, their ordeal would not end. The presiding officers told theaccused that there would be no interference in their religious rightsand privileges. The Court’s working hours were adjusted so that theaccused could offer their prayers inside the Court Hall itself, andto enable the accused to observe the holy month of Ramzan, the Court https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ timed its sittings in order to accommodate them and slowly, accordingto the trial Judge, trust and confidence built in their minds.(ii)On a reading of the judgment of the Trial Court, we see that onsome occasions the accused have not got along with the cross-examination in spite of several adjournments the Trial Court hadclosed the regarding of evidence with regard to that particularwitness. But whenever an application was filed to reopen it wasrightly allowed. Therefore, several factors have contributed to themanner in which the Trial Court had proceeded along in this case.Fair opportunity was given. Whenever they wanted change of counselthat was agreed to. We find that the defence knew what were the weakpoints in the prosecution case that had to be attacked in cross-examination. So if the recording of evidence did not proceed on theusual lines, it was also because of the accused, and that has notcaused such prejudice as to vitiate the trial. 36. Delay in examination and choice of witnesses (i) In Atmaduddin vs. State of U.P., A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 1901,the Supreme Court held that examination of witnesses after a verylong time is certainly a circumstance that will have to be taken intoaccount to consider whether the evidence given by them can be reliedon. But in that case, the Supreme Court noted that the saidcircumstance has been taken into account and the evidence has alsobeen considered carefully in view of the fact that there was factionin the village and the witness belonged to one particular group. (ii) In Krishna Pal vs. State of U.P., 1996 Cri. L.J. 1134, theSupreme Court observed, “In the instance case, no explanation hasbeen given by the prosecution as to why eye witnesses had not beenexamined shortly after the incident and from the materials on record,it appears that there had been inordinate delay in examining the eyewitnesses. But simply on that count, convincing and reliableevidence should not be discarded”. (iii) In Ambika Prasad vs. State (Delhi Administration), (2000Cri. L.J. 810), the Supreme Court observed that independent personsare reluctant to be witness or to assist the investigation. Thereasons are not far to seek. Firstly, in cases where the injuredwitnesses or the close relatives of the deceased are under constantthreat and they dare not depose the truth before the court,independent witnesses believe that their safety is not guarded. InState of U.P. vs. Satish, (2005 Cri. L.J. 1428), the Supreme Courtheld that it cannot be laid down as a rule of universal applicationthat if there is any delay in examination of a particular witness,the prosecution version becomes suspect. The law laid down in thesedecisions appears to be that the delayed examination by theInvestigating Officer cannot be the only factor for rejecting the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ case of the prosecution. But if there are other factors, which weakenthe prosecution case, then the delayed examination adds to theweakness.(iv)As already seen in Chandrakant Luxman vs. State ofMaharashtra, ((1974) 3 S.C.C. 626), the benefit of a highly defectiveinvestigation cannot go to the prosecution, at the same time, thebenefit of certain inconsistencies in the prosecution case should notgo to the accused when the story of the prosecution witnesses isconsistent. (v)Many of the witnesses have stated in their evidence thatafter the blasts they stayed at home for several days, not even goingout to earn their livelihood. This was understandable because of whathappened. Some witnesses even said they had left the city. Some ofthe witnesses claim to have known some of the accused. If so, theymay have felt more vulnerable. And as observed by the Supreme Court,independent persons very rarely come forward to give evidence. Theywill be more loath to do so in a case like this where they may fearrepraisal. We have seen that most of the complainants refer to“revenge”, so the public reluctance to come to surface is verynatural. (vi)The same reason will apply for the choice of witnesses. Thecounsel submitted that it is curious that so many auto drivers havefigured as witnesses. They submitted that auto-drivers are beholdento the police and therefore they are compliant witnesses and cannotbe believed. That is one way of looking at the auto-driver witness.But the auto-rickshaw is ubiquitous. It can be seen everywhere.Wherever the customers want to go, the drivers go, so they may be inplaces where others may not be present. So the auto-driver, thecoolie, the itinerant hawker are the witnesses who are on the scenewhen something happens. But we will bear in mind this factor whetherthe presence is plausible while evaluating their evidence. We willtest whether the reason given by the witness for his presence at thecorrect time and the correct place is believable.(vii) In Tarun Bora vs. State of Assam, ((2002) 7 S.C.C. 39),which dealt with proceedings under TADA, the Supreme Court held asfollows :“27. It is quite but natural that in a prevalent situation, obtainingin the area surcharged with the insurgency activities, striking aterror and fear psychosis in the mind of the people, theInvestigating Officer would definitely find difficulties to collectsufficient corroborative evidence. Witnesses will be reluctant tocome to the Court to depose or appear before the InvestigatingOfficer to give statement for fear of reprisals. Rarely, one comesacross any corroborative evidence in such type of offence. This would https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ be no ground to throw away otherwise trust-worthy evidence ofprosecution witnesses. In the facts and circumstances of the presentcase, as adumbrated above, coupled with the credible and trustworthystatement of P.W.-1 Bhola Kakati, the prosecution has established itscase. It must be remembered that the statement in-chief of P.W.-1remained unimpeached. We have no reason to doubt the credit worthyevidence of Bhola Kakati - P.W.4, apart from the other lendingcircumstances as discussed above.”(viii) In Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal, ((2002) 7S.C.C. 334), the following paragraphs are relevant :“14. Normally, the prosecution's duty is to examine all theeyewitnesses selection of whom has to be made with due care, honestlyand fairly. The witnesses have to be selected with a view not tosuppress any honest opinion, and due care has to be taken that inselection of witnesses, no adverse inference is drawn against theprosecution. However, no general rule can be laid down that each andevery witness has to be examined even though his testimony may or maynot be material. The most important factor for the prosecution beingthat all those witnesses strengthening the case of the prosecutionhave to be examined, the prosecution can pick and choose thewitnesses who are considered to be relevant and material for thepurpose of unfolding the case of the prosecution. It is not thequantity but the quality of the evidence that is important. In thecase at hand, if the prosecution felt that its case has been wellestablished through the witnesses examined, it cannot be said thatnon-examination of some persons rendered its version vulnerable.15. As was observed by this Court in Habeeb Mohammad v. State ofHyderabad A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 51, prosecution is not bound to call awitness about whom there is a reasonable ground for believing that hewill not speak the truth.”That was also a case of bomb blasts. So each and every witness whosestatement was recorded, need not be brought to Court. The prosecutionhas the right to pick and choose those witnesses who support thecase. It cannot be insisted that because some were not examined theinvestigation is defective.37. The investigations started in Coimbatore where theoccurrence took place. The Learned Public Prosecutor submitted thatthough A1 was arrested on the same night, the leads relating to thevarious dates of conspiracy was followed and only then theinvestigation moved even to Chennai. Then they had pursued their taskin other States too like Kerala and Karnataka. The investigatingagency was racing against time to file the final report. The factorswhich persuaded the Supreme Court in Alagarsamy’s case(supra) toaccept the non-production of the FIR diary, namely “the unprecedented https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nature of the situation, the chaos that had caused in the otherwisepeaceful life of the village, enormousness of the whole affair, thenumber of persons murdered, the number of witnesses collected and theenormousness of the investigation” are equally relevant here. Manydocuments had reached the Court immediately, however it cannot bedenied that many orders were sent belatedly too. On the side of thedefence, the following judgments were cited.(i) Arumugam vs. State, (2001 M.L.J. (Crl.) 801):“Sec.161-Statement of witness recorded under – Should be sent toCourt at the earliest point of time – If there is any delay, then itsevidentiary value is open to serious doubt.This Court has been consistently holding that the statement ofimportant witness recorded during investigation should be sent to theCourt at the earliest point of time. If there is any delay, then,the evidentiary value of the evidence of such witnesses is open to aserious doubt. In view of the delay in sending the statement of thiswitness to the Court, as noted above, we are of the consideredopinion, that to act upon the evidence of this witness will be arisky factor, especially in a case of murder like this.”(ii) Acharaparambath Pradeepan and another vs. State of Kerala,((2006) 13 S.C.C. 643):“There may be some delay in examinations of PWs3 to 6 by theinvestigating officer. Delay in recording the statements of theeyewitnesses to the occurrence, normally is looked down upon but eachcase has to be considered on its own facts. As regards delayed examination of certain witnesses, this Court inseveral decisions has held that unless the Investigating Officer iscategorically asked as to why there was delay in examination of thewitnesses the defence cannot gain any advantage therefrom. It cannotbe laid down as a rule of universal application that if there is anydelay in examination of a particular witness the prosecution versionbecomes suspect. It would depend upon several factors. If theexplanation offered for the delayed examination is plausible andacceptable and the court accepts the same as plausible, there is noreason to interfere with the conclusion” See Ranbir and Ors. v. Stateof Punjab, [1974] 1 SCR 102 , Bodhraj @Bodha and Ors. v. State ofJammu and Kashmir, 2002 Cri LJ 4664 and Banti @ Guddu v. State ofM.P., 2004 CriLJ 372. (iii) In matters such as these, it is appropriate to recall thefollowing observations of this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v.State of Maharashtra, ((1973) Cri LJ 1783): https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ".....The dangers of exaggerated devotion to the rule of benefit ofdoubt at the expense of social defence and to the soothing sentimentthat all acquittals are always good regardless of justice to thevictim and the community, demand especial emphasis in thecontemporary context of escalating crime and escape. The judicialinstrument has a public accountability. The cherished principles orgolden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through theweb of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace everyhunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt....."".....The evil of acquitting a guilty person light-heartedly as alearned author Glanville Williams in 'Proof of Guilt' has sapientlyobserved, goes much beyond the simple fact that, just one guiltyperson has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general,they tend to lead to a cynical disregard of the law, and this in turnleads to a public demand for harsher legal presumptions againstindicated 'persons' and more severe punishment of those who are foundguilty. Thus too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead to aferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial protection ofthe guiltness....."".....a miscarriage of justice may arise from the acquittal of theguilty no less than from the conviction of the innocent....." Therefore, this objection is rejected.38. Issue relating to the Approver: (a) P.W.1293, Riaz-ur-Rahman, who is the Approver, did not supportthe case of the prosecution by giving evidence. This was anotherground of attack made by the defence, which according to themvitiated the entire proceedings. The learned counsel appearing forthe defence submitted that even in the other case where the sameoffences were charged (Udumalpet), this witness had not supported thecase of the prosecution. The prosecution should be fair and statebefore the Court why P.W.1293 has not been tried for the offence forwhich he was originally charged and also for the offence of givingfalse evidence. (b) The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial of theperson not complying with the conditions of pardon is provided inSection 308 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the State had notinvoked the said provisions because the appeals are pending. (c) In A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1850 (supra), the illegality of the pardongranted to the approver was raised as a ground before the SupremeCourt and rejected. It is true that the evidence of P.W.1293 has notsupported the case of the prosecution, but unless we are satisfiedthat the non-conduct of the trial against him had resulted in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prejudice or it is shown to have a had a material effect on the finalconclusion, we will accept the explanation given by the learnedPublic Prosecutor that further proceedings have not been initiatedagainst him because of the pendency of these appeals. 39. Sanction:P.W.1294, D.K. Farooqi was working as the Secretary to Government,Public Department from March 1998 till May 2001. A requisition camefrom the Inspector General of Police, Crime Branch for sanction ofprosecution under Section 196 (i) (a) of Cr.P.C. with regard to anoffence under Section 153 (A)(1) of IPC. This was referred to LawDepartment for their opinion. The opinion of the Public Prosecutor,High Court, Chennai was also obtained. Based on their opinion, acircular note was prepared and it was approved by him and SecretaryLaw, Chief Secretary, Minister for Law and the then Chief Minister.He had stated that based on his subjective satisfaction that it was afit case for according sanction, he had accorded sanction. Severalquestions have been asked as to what were the materials based onwhich the other Departments have arrived at a conclusion for grantingsanction, he is not able to give a clear reply. But, however, he hadnot replied that on a perusal he found enough materials for grantingsanction. He has denied the suggestion that he has not properly andlawfully applied his mind pertaining to the grant of sanction. Everysentence in his examination has been bisected by the defence toattack the sanction. But, we find on a reading of the evidence as awhole that the witness has stated that he had properly exercised hisdiscretion for grant of sanction. 40. Other cases with common accused /common witnessesIt was submitted that this trial should be set at naught for theappellants were doubly jeopardized. Having faced the trial both inthe Udumalpet blast case and the Poonamallee blast case they cannotunder go the ordeal again. This violates their fundamental rightagainst double jeopardy and their statutory right under Section 300,Cr.P.C.I. Udumalpet(a) Abdul Kareem @ Palani Babu who is A62 in the presentcase was A1 in that case; A7 Mohamed Ali Khan @ Kutty was A4; A5Mohamed Bashith @ Bashith was A5 there too; A6 Abdul Ozir @ Ozir wasA6; A106 Samjith Ahmed was A7; A153 Shajahan @ Yusuf was A8 and A26Jahangir @ Jahir was A9. The case of the prosecution there, as inthe present one, was to retaliate for the murder of 18 Muslims on30.11.1997 and the conspiracy was between the third week of August1997 and 3rd December, 1997 at Coimbatore. Whereas, here the dates ofthe conspiracy are different and are between 1st December 1997 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14th February 1998. In the Udumalpet case, as in the instant case,the procurement of explosives was from Riaz-ur-Rehman, who was A11and approver in Udumalpet case and P.W.1293 in the present case andthrough his employee A8 in the Udumalpet case and the deceasedaccused here. They were procured by Samjith Ahmed and handed over toMohamed Ali Khan Kutty at Samraj Nagar, who later transported it toSathyamangalam and handed it over to Yusuf. Yusuf kept it at theoffice of ‘Arivoli Iyakkam’ and they were later converted into bombsby A5 and Jahangir and also handed it over to Abdul Ozir, A6. Thereupon, he handed it over to Abdul Kareem @ Palani Babu whoexploded it on 3.12.1997 in the Udumalpet Shopping Complex. Thefollowing witnesses are common: P.W.38 Yejas Basha @ Mubarak. YejasBasha is P.W.38 there and he is also examined here. In both thecases, the transport is through S.R.T. Bus Service, though in thepresent case, it is also through Modern Bus Service. In both thecases, the luggage was loaded as if the bag contained soapboxes andtamarind boxes. (i) This Court, in the above case held, “In other words,the prosecution has produced materials to show that explosivematerials were purchased from A8 and brought and loaded in theCoimbatore bus”. But the Division Bench was not satisfied with theevidence regarding what happened to the backed materials subsequentto the incident. In that case, the manufacture of the bombs wasinside the house of A12, Mujibur Rehman. Finally, the Division Benchheld, “Not only are the important links missing, but even theavailable links are not enough to hold that the entire occurrencetook place in pursuance of the conspiracy”.(ii) In Prabhakaran and others vs. State, rep. by theInspector of Police, 2006 (4) C.T.C. 392, this Court held thus :“44. Even the Public Prosecutor was unable to say as tohow these witnesses were traced to fix them as eyewitnesses by P.W.36, the Inspector of Police, CB CID whotook up investigation long after the occurrence and as towhat was the reason for not having given any statementimmediately after the occurrence was over to the policeby these witnesses, even though they happened to meet thepolice officers on several occasions with reference tothe enquiry for compensation, etc.45. It is settled law that the unexplained delay inrecording the statements of the eye witnesses, the non-examination of the material witnesses and unusualbehaviour and artificial conduct of the eye witnesseswould create a doubt about the genuineness of the case ofprosecution, as laid down in the decisions in HarjinderSingh v. State of Punjab, 2004 Cri LJ 3854, Maruti Rama https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Naik v. State of Maharashtra, 2003 Cri LJ 4326, State ofPunjab v. Harbans Singh, 2003 Cri LJ 2335, Deepak Kumarv. Ravi Virmani, 2002 Cri LJ 1781 and State of U.P. v.Bhagwant, 2003 CRI.L.J.233 7 (SC).46. Under those circumstances, this Court isconstrained to come to the conclusion that theprosecution has miserably failed to place correct recordsbefore the Court to enable this Court to find out as towhat was the genesis of the occurrence and as to how theoccurrence had started, as to how the occurrence endedand as to what was the part played by each of the accusedin the commission of the crimes in question. Ultimately,this Court is of the view that all the accused areentitled to the benefit of doubt.” (iii) The prosecution case was that on the explosivematerials being transported from Karnataka, they were manufacturedinto bombs in the Vallal Nagar premises belonging to P.W.29, AbdulMajith. And, after the manufacture, they were sent to Udumalpet. This Court disbelieved the evidence relating to what happened afterthe explosives came to Sathyamangalam, but the facts, according tothe prosecution in this case, are totally different from the factsrelating to transport, manufacture, distribution and planting here. The modus operandi may be the same, the persons accused of committingthe offence may even be the same but it is not the same offence. Therefore, it is not possible for us to reject the evidence producedin this case merely on the basis of the rejection of the evidenceproduced in the Udumalpet case. We will have to evaluate itindependently. II. PoonamalleeIn S.C. No.1 of 2001 which relates to conspiracy and offences underExplosive Substances Act and offences under Sections 147, 148, 307read with 149 etc., the Sessions Court Bomb Blast case at Poonamalleeconvicted A1-Basha, A29-Samsudeen, A28-Sarfudeen, A49-Basheer, A30-Abutahir, A31-Jaffar Ali, A10-Zakir Hussain, A5-Md.Basith @ Basith,A7-Kutty @ Md. Ali Khan, A119-Babu @ Amanullah, A153-KuniyamuthurYusuf @ Shajahan @ Shaja, A154-Hakkim @ Hakki @ Anwar A2 Abu, A118-Raffiq @ Md. Raffiq, A3-Tajudeen. There also the prosecution casewas that the explosives were transported through Sathyamangalam andbrought to Chennai. The narration of events as pointed out by theprosecution was identical to the present case. In the Poonamalleecase also, the prosecution claimed that the accused have procuredexplosives from “India Vediporul Kazhagam”, Mysore and transported bySRT Bus Service at Sathyamangalam. P.W.1172, Chinnasamy (P.W.58 inPoonamallee case) claimed that he knew Liakat Ali Khan, the brotherof A5 (A10 in Poonamallee case). He had a bakery at Sathyamangalambusstand. There again the case is that he would bring the gunny bags https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ containing soap and tamarind. P.W.1103 who is the witness in thiscase is a rice merchant is P.W.68 in Poonamallee case is also one ofthe witnesses who claim that he along with his friend Chandrasekaranhad seen A7 along with A17 and that they had loaded soapboxes inTN41-4515 and that he had seen that on more than one occasion. Theevidence of P.W.1103 and 1172 is almost identical in this case andPoonamallee case. Therefore, according to the learned counsel forthe defense when the Sessions Judge who tried the Poonamalee Bombblast case had disbelieved the evidence of these two witnesses, itmust be rejected in this case also. We will evaluate the evidencerelating to these witnesses too carefully bearing in mind theprosecution had examined the same witnesses in two earlier cases, andtheir evidence was rejected. We have given our reasons above why we are not rejecting theprosecution case merely because of lapses in investigation, or delayin examination, or clubbing of cases etc. We will examine theevidence before us and assess its weight to arrive at our decision. With this, we come to the end of the broad- based grounds of attack. 41.Specific Grounds of attackNow we will come to the specific grounds. We will deal with each stepthat the accused are alleged to have taken to accomplish theirpurpose, refer to the witnesses who give evidence in this regard. Sothe evidence will be discussed under the following heads. Conspiracy,which is the opening, Procurement from the dealer, Transport from thesource to Coimbatore, Manufacture at various places, Distributionthereafter, and finally the Planting, which led to the gory finale.Then, we will discuss the evidence relating to Arrest and Recovery. We have already given our reasons for holding that without aconspiracy the blasts would not have occurred, so if an appellant isfound to have taken part in the conspiracy, then he will beresponsible for the consequence, and if the evidence relating to theother overt acts is accepted then that accused will be held to bepart of the conspiracy too, since, according to us, one was the causeand the other, the effect. After we have discussed the evidence, wewill take up the case of each accused/appellant based on the crimenumber or otherwise, including A1 who has not filed an appeal. Thenwe will give reasons for accepting or rejecting the prosecution’scase vis-à-vis the particular accused. 42. We will now deal with the submissions under different heads:I. MOTIVEThe prosecution has examined several witnesses to speak of themotive. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.W.893, K.M. John Britto the Inspector of Police, speaks of CrimeNo.464 of 1996, where some of the accused had been arrested. P.W.1261, P. Mallanna Goud was examined to show the involvement ofS.K. Mohammed Ali in Crime No.16 of 1993, which is the R.S.S. BombBlast case. P.W.873, Muralidharan was the Assistant Manager of HotelAradhana and on 21.11.1997, A1 had given a press meet in their hotel,where A2, A3, A13 and the absconding accused Mujibur Rahman tookpart. He could not identify the accused. P.W.864, K.K. Srinivasanwas the Manager of the same hotel. He too has spoken of the pressmeet and the hotel registers have been seized from him. P.W.852, V.Vellaiyan is a retired Superintendent of Police. He has spoken ofthe incident where in the police shooting, one Shahul Hameed had diedand a case was registered in Crime No.2210 of 1997. P.W.766, AbdulSukkur owns the shop by name "AChoice Video" and according to him,Amanullah and Wahab of his shop took the short video films of thedamage caused in certain parts of Coimbatore at the request of JafferAli of T.M.M.K. and Musthafa Kamal of J.M.Q. P.W.771, Abdul Wahab isthe photographer mentioned above. P.W.742, Jiauddin, at the requestof Musthafa Kamal mentioned earlier, took the video of the 18 deadbodies of the young Muslims in C.M.C. Hospital. P.W.740, Ayup tookthe video pictures of the destruction caused to the shops belongingto Muslims at he request of Habib Rahman, an advocate. P.W.749,Habeeb Rahman is the advocate mentioned above. P.W.880, Abdul Rahmanowned "Three Star Cable". According to him, A8 Siddiq Ali, requestedhim to take the pictures of the funeral procession of the deadMuslims. P.W.758, R. Ravikumar was the Reporter of the CoimbatoreCity Police and he recorded the speech made by Sridhar, the StateGeneral Secretary of the Hindu Makkal Katchi and also the speech madeby A1 on 22.11.1997 at the meeting held at about 8.45 p.m. P.W.746,Sathar is the Secretary of Hyder Ali, Tipu Sultan Dakkani SunnatJamath Pallivasal and Kabrasthan. According to him, on 30.11.1997, acrowd containing 150 persons jumped over the wall of their pallivasaland destroyed the lights, windows, the holy book of Quran, amplifierand set fire to it and he gave a complaint. P.W.851, K. Marudha Rajuwas the Head Constable who received the complaint given by P.W.746and registered it in Crime No.2095 of 1997. P.W.916, M. Rajendranhas received the complaint given by one Sivaraj in respect of anincident that took place on 3.12.1997 where a bomb was kept in acycle. He had arrested A62, Palani Babu under the N.S.A. inconnection with the said case. P.W.1064, D. Regoramanis was theDeputy Superintendent of Police of 'Q' Branch. He was examined withregard to Crime No.7498 of 1997 at Ammapettai, where A1 was one ofthe accused and a bomb was kept in a closed rice mill. According tothe prosecution, the same modus operandi has been used in this case,which is an additional piece of evidence, that it was only thisgroup, viz. the 'Al Umma', which caused the explosions in the presentcase. P.W.779, Gnanasekaran was the I Grade Constable at TambaramPolice Station and according to him, A149 (not an accused) wascarrying a rexine suitcase in a bicycle. He tried to apprehend him,but he ran away, leaving the suitcase there. He found that there https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were some wires and explosive materials in that suitcase. P.W.1082,T. Sugumaran was the Assistant Commissiner of Police, who registeredCrime No.116 of 1998 at the instance of P.W.779. P.W.945, T.V.V.Muthusamy was the Inspector at Thudilayur Police Station in 1998. Hereceived information that there were bombs, which he detonated withthe help of the Bomb Squad. He has also spoken of earlier cases,including the incident on 29.11.1997 when A2 and two other are saidto have created a problem in the presence of P.W.1045,Chandrasekaran. P.W.894, N. Dhanapal received a complaint from S.K.Mahendran on 2.9.1997 that A1's son-in-law and four others hadattacked him and Crime No.637 of 1997 was registered. P.W.891, K.Balasubramaniam was the Inspector at Melapalayam and he hadregistered a case in Crime No.233 of 1997 under Sections 147, 148,341 and 302, I.P.C. against the accused who were alleged to be 'AlUmma' fundamentalists for the murder of one Pookkadai Kannan. P.W.1090, P.K. Sundaramoorthy, the Inspector of Police, investigatedthe case in Crime No.183 of 1997 of Tambaram Police Station andaccording to his investigation, six Muslims had killed one Ramki @Ramachandran of R.S.S., in order to take revenge for the murder ofPalani Baba of the Jehad Committee. P.W.1223, K. Periyamuthu was theInspector of Tiruppur South Police Station and he had investigatedthe case in Crime No.306 of 1997 and arrested the accused belongingto Hindu Munnani. P.W.1251, N. Sethunathan was the C.B. C.I.D.Inspector at Coimbatore at the relevant point of time. He hadregistered a case against A155 and another for attempt to commitmurder of the Hindu Munnani leader Ramagopalan on 7.4.1995. P.W.1155, C. Ramasubbu was the Assistant Commissioner (Law & Order)of Coimbatore West and he had spoken of the law and order problemthat arose after the murder of Constable Selvaraj. P.W.884,Muthusamy was the Inspector (Law & Order) at Coimbatore R.S. Puram. He has spoken to about the case registered in Crime No.748 of 1983 ofthe R.S. Puram Police Station for an occurrence that took place on11.6.1983 when A1 and others attempted tp murder ThirukovilurSundaram and others. P.W.1225, P. Zainul Abdeen was the publisher ofa monthly magazine called "Nasaaj" in the year 1987. In 1988, hepublished a magazine called "Al Jannath". According to him, with hisefforts, the organisation called JAK was formed, with the intentionof educating Muslims about the evils of dowry and superstition. Initially, A1 was supported JAK and in 1993, when A1 was arrestedunder TADA, this witness collected Rs.17,000/- and sent it to thefamilies of the TADA prisoners through A5 Basith. A1 was initiallystaying in T.M.M.K. Office. Thereafter, when his brothers werearrested by the police in Kodungaiyur, the TMMK Office was raided. Then, the TMMK people felt that the growth of their organisation willbe affected by such police raids and hence, they attempted to send A1and others away. Thereafter, A1 took a house in Maroof Sahib Streetand started the 'Al Umma' Office. He has also spoken of someestrangement that arose between him and A1. The fact that originallyA1 was staying in TMMK Office and later moved to Maroof Sahib Streetis also spoken to by P.Ws.854, 855 and 1195, which will be dealt with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ separately. P.W.1206, K. Sundararaj was the Assistant Inspector atB-1 Kadai Veethi Police Station in 1988 and he has referred to thefrequent conflicts between 'Al Umma' people and Hindu Munnani people. P.W.959, K. Sekar was the Inspector (Law & Order) at B-1 PoliceStation in 1989 and he has spoken of an incident where the HinduMunnani people had murdered one Hakeem on 3.4.1989. P.W.859, Pon.Chandrasekaran has also spoken of earlier occurrences, especially lawand order problems that arose after the demolition of the BabriMasjid, consequent to which A1 was arrested on 26.12.1992 under theN.S.A. P.W.1248, V. Surulivel, the Inspector, Crime Branch, Avinashihas been examined to speak of Crime No.289 of 1991, where Baburam andothers belonging to Hindu Munnani had murdered Shaik Dawood. P.W.877, Mahendran, the photographer of Shanthi Studios has spoken ofthe constant tussle between the two communities and that he filed acomplaint, pursuant to which, Ex-P.555, F.I.R. was registered. Thisrelates to an incident that took place near Maagaliamman Temple. P.W.749, Nazir has a video shop by name Melody Videos on N.H. Road. He has also taken pictures of the damage caused to the shops as wellas the dead bodies on the instructions of advocate Habib Rahman. We have not dealt in detail with the evidence of thesewitnesses. According to the prosecution, this will show that theircases of conspiracy is proved. Whereas, according to the defence,this evidence itself would show that it could have been otherorganisations which had been behind the blasts and 'Al Umma' had beenunnecessarily been implicated. We are relying on the evidence onlyto that extent that it establishes that there were frequent untowardincidents at the instance of one community or the other inCoimbatore, which finally culminated in the bomb blasts on 14-02-1998. The evidence of these witnesses does not indicate anythingmore than that.II. MOBILISATION OF FUNDSThe prosecution has also examined a few witnesses with regard tothe mobilisation of funds for the operations leading to the bombblasts. The evidence of P.Ws.854 and 855, which has been dealt withunder the caption Conspiracy, is very vague. According to them,notices were distributed requesting persons to contribute to conductthe cases for the 'Al Umma' cadres who are languishing in jails. Butthis really does not help the case of the prosecution in this case,because here we are only concerned with the mobilisation of funds forprocurement of or for transport of the bombs used in the presentcase. But even according to the witnesses the collection of fundswas meant only to help the TADA prisoners or their families. P.W.838, Ramkumar was the Senior Manager of Canara Bank. Accordingto him, A1 opened a Current Account in his branch on 16.8.1997 andthe last transaction in his account is dated 10.2.1998. P.W.783,K.A. Rahman was having a car workshop near Vincent Road, in a place,which belonged to Peria Pallivasal. He wanted to sell the workshop, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for which he asked some advice and he was told that he could sell itto A3 Nawabkhan. So he sold it to A3 for Rs.1,90,000/-. He receivedRs.1,20,000/-. Even without receiving the balance of Rs.70,000/-, hegave possession of the workshop to A3. P.W.784, Bakkrudin alsospeaks of this transaction. P.W.839, Abdul Lathif belongs to PeriyaPallivasal Jamath. According to him, 69 jamaths united and formedthe Kovai Maavatta Anaithu Muslim Iyakka Koottam and its leader wasHaji Abdul Hameed. They collected Rs.1,00,000/- with the intentionof helping the Hindu Muslim victims who had suffered due to theriots. He also speaks of the sale of the worskhop. P.W.830, MohanJ. Thomas, the Branch Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank, has spoken ofthe opening of a Current Account in their branch for the CoimbatoreMuslim Relief Fund. The evidence with regard to mobilization offunds really does not in any way advance the case of the prosecution.III. CONSPIRACY(i)Conspiracy dated 30-11-1997 :P.W.1132 is Senthil Kumar. He is a vegetable vendor, who wouldgo to Kottaimedu in the course of his work and thus got to know theleaders of 'Al Umma'. He knew that Constable Selvaraj was murderedon 29.11.1997. On 30.11.1997, there were riots in many places inCoimbatore. That evening, he and his friend Ganesan went toKottaimedu to Choice Tailor Shop in Appakara Street. A2 Ansari, A4Nawab Khan and A161 Mujibur Rehman were standing there in front of ahouse. Then they went up the stairs of the house. The boy at thetailor shop told him that it was Kottaimedu Thangappa's sister’shouse. A5 Basith, who is Advocate Zakariya's clerk, also wentupstairs. Then all of them came down. A2 told A5, "Start the workthat I told you tomorrow itself", and he told A161, "There has been alot of loss on our side. We have to teach them a lesson. Let ourpeople be ready". On 14.2.1998, there was a series of bomb blastsand many people died. The police arrested many persons belonging to'Al Umma'. The S.I.T. enquired him. He told them what he had seen. He realised that the accused had planted a set of bombs and that theyhad completed what they had planned that day. He identified A2, A4and A5 in Court.In cross-examination, he has stated that he does not know what'Al Umma' is, nor had he gone to any meeting of 'Al Umma'. He hadseen the photo of A2 and A4, but he does not remember whether theyhad beard then. There was agitation in the city after Shoba ClothCentre was burnt. On 30-11-1997, since the market was closed, he didnot do business. It looked as though it was a bandh. He stood nearthe tailor shop from 3.30 p.m. to 3.45 p.m. The name of the shopowner is Choice. In his statement before the policehe had not saidthat he had gone to get his cloth stitched at Choice Tailor. He tookthe pushcart on hire from one Doraisamy at Ukkadam. He had purchasedthe cloth that he wanted to be stitched two months earlier, and that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was meant to make pant and shirt. He has stated in his cross-examination that only buses plied on the road for four days after29.11.1997. He read from the papers that there was trouble inUkkadam area, so he did not go to work. Two days after the blasts,he spoke to Ganesan (not examined) regarding what they had heard andagreed that the accused had executed their plot. He said so when hemet Ganesan at Kempatti Colony. That was on 16.2.1998 and that wasat the place where Ganesan does goldsmith work. Ten days after14.2.1998, he resumed his vegetable business. The police examinedhim only in Vadavalli.(ii)Conspiracy in the first week of December, 1997 :P.W.1152 is Nataraj. He was an auto driver at the relevantpoint of time. In the first week of November 1997, he asked A4 NawabKhan of Kottaimedu to help him buy an old auto. So, in the firstweek of December, he went to his house at 5 p.m. with his friendMuthu. The house is in Kottaimedu Ibrahim Kajiar Street, Door No.43. When he went near it, there was a loud conversation from insidewhere they heard people saying, "We must take revenge for the deathof the 18 Muslims. We will consult Bashabai and take revenge". Whenhe knocked the door, A4 came out. They went inside. A2, A9 and A6were sitting there. A4 told them that he has not identified an autoand asked him to come after one week. They left the place, but afterthat, though they attempted several times, he could not meet him. After the blasts, he realised that they had executed their plan. This witness identified A2, A4, A6 and A9 in Court. In cross-examination, he has stated that he knew his friendMuthu for six years, but he does not know his address. He has saidthat until police came and examined him on 20.7.1998, he never wentvoluntarily and told anyone. According to him, the DeputySuperintendent of Police alone had recorded his statement frombeginning till end. People in Ratnapuri and in the second handmarket, told him that A4 would arrange for purchase and sale ofsecond hand autos. He could not exactly say who told him. He didnot identify the house to the police. He has denied that he belongsto the Hindu Makkal Katchi and that he is fabricating the evidence.(iii)Conspiracy dated 26-12-1997 :P.W.1259 Gopalakrishnan belongs to Kerala and would frequentlygo to Coimbatore and Tiruppur. In November 1997, he had gone toCoimbatore with his friend Sivadasan to buy some spare parts. Whenthey passed Easwaran Koil at Ukkadam, they saw a meeting at IqbalGrounds. So, they stopped there. It was an 'Al Umma' meeting. A1Basha was talking there. He saw A9 also there. He already knew A9. So, he asked him what was happening. He said that he was there as an'Al Umma' cadre and then A9 pointed out the leaders of 'Al Umma', who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are A2 Ansari, A4 Nawab Khan, A5 Basith, A10 Zakir Hussain and A13Auto Siraj. After listening to the speech, they went away. It wasabout 7.30 p.m. Thereafter, they caught a bus at Ukkadam Bus Standand went to Othapalam. On 26-12-1997, he went to Ulavukadu RailwayStation. He was purchasing chips in a small shop near a pallivasalnear the station. At that time, A4, A2 and A9 came there in a whiteMaruti car. They got down and went inside the Pallivasal. Behindthem, A10-Zakir Hussain and A5-Basith went. It was about 12.30 p.m.then. When he was purchasing the hips, they went to Crown Hotel. The witness also went to Crown Hotel and ordered for food. At thattime, A2, A9, A4, A10 and A5 came and sat at table and he was sittingin one of the tables. All of them ordered food that they wanted tothe supplier. At that time, A2 told A5, "If you require, I will beable to supply 50 boxes of explosives". While they were eating A2told A5, "With 50 bags, we can manufacture bombs and we can causethem to explode 20 explosions with this material. We should takerevenge against the Hindus.” After that, he returned to Othapalam. On 15-04-1998, he read about the bomb blasts. Seven months later,the police examined him. He identified A2, A4, A9, A5 and A10 inCourt.In cross-examination, it has been elicited that there was nonecessity for him to go to Coimbatore if he did not have to buy spareparts. He has also admitted that there was high security inCoimbatore for the meeting. According to him, apart from A5 Basith,others were on the dais. While he was there, he only heard whatA1spoke and not what others spoke. There were about 200 persons. Itis not correct to state that Zakir Hussain was not here. A9 pointedout others to him from 10 feet distance. He had no work near therailway staion shop except to purchase chips. Even in Palakkad, hecould get good chips. He had seen A9 one month before the meetingand before that, in the month of October. He had no enmity with A9. He did not tell the police or anyone about this incident. It wasonly after the bomb blasts that he realised what they had planned. (iv)Conspiracy dated 15-01-1998 :P.W.1199 is Ramesh who lived in West Venkatesan Road at thattime. On 15-01-1998, at 11 a.m., he went near Kottaimedu along withhis friend Palanivelu in connection with work. About 30 persons werestanding in front of 'Al Umma' office and talking. He stood andlistened to what they were talking. A4 Nawab Khan, A8 Siddiq Ali,A13 Auto Siraj, A9 Oom Babu and A6 Ozir were there. Along with them,25 more persons were there. At that time, A4 stood up and said, "Thetime to take revenge has come, be prepared to give up your lives". Everybody said, "We are ready, we are ready". Thereafter, thewitness finished his work and returned home via Vincent Road. On 14-02-1998, when Mr. L.K. Advani was to visit Coimbatore, there were https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bomb blasts. Many 'Al Umma' people were arrested. After six months,he was examined. He told them what he had seen and he identified A4,A6, A8, A9 and A13 in Court.In cross-examination, he admited that he had not told anyonewhat he had seen and that only the police examined him. In thestatement recorded by police, he had not told them why he wenttowards Kottaimedu. He has denied that he has seen the photographsof A6 and A9. After he saw them on the date of occurrence, he wasseeing them only in Court. He could not remember when 'Al Umma' wasstarted or what posts A6 and A9 and Siddiq Ali held therein. Thereis a road next to 'Al Umma' Office and a house. The meeting tookplace inside 'Al Umma' Office. That is a predominantly Muslimpopulated area. But for his work, there was no necessity for him togo there or attend the meeting. Thirty persons were siting andtalking. He stood there from 11 a.m. to 11.05 a.m. and went away. His mother tongue was Malayalam. Normally he would speak inMalayalam. Muslims would speak in Urdu. He knew that what they weretalking was wrong. Even two days before the meeting, the policechecked the West Venkatesan Road where the meeting was going to takeplace. The area was under the control of police. At that time, hewas residing there. The cross-examination of this witness threw up adiscrepancy between his statement given to police and the courtevidence regarding the words, "The time for revenge has come". Hehas denied that only with the help of police he is identifying theaccused in court. He is not aware whether anybody else saw what hesaw at the 'Al Umma' Office. He was asked specifically whetherpeople like the accused were speaking on that day. The answer was,"Not people like the accused, but the accused themselves". Discrepancy was pointed out between his statements before the courtevidence regarding the usage of the words "We are ready, we areready". The cross-examination has also asked regarding hispossession of auto permit etc. to show that he could not have been anauto driver. He has been asked about the location of 'Al Umma'. Heknew that he should inform the police, but he did not do so.P.W.764, T.P. Mohammed Haneefa has stated that he was theattender at Idayathulla Islam Saffiah Sunnat Jamath. There is ahouse belonging to the Jamath at Door No.790. One Rashid was livingthere. Thereafter, Abdul Jaffer and Islamil conducted a biryanishop. Thereafter, that place was given to 'Al Umma'. After theblasts, the building was sealed.(v) Conspiracy dated 30-01-1998 :P.W.1039 Jayakumar is a goldsmith. He knew A54 Abdul Rawoof andTADA Mujibur Rahman, the absconding accused. According to him, whenhe was having tea at the tea stall in Karumbukkadai, Saramedu on 30-01-1998, the above accused came there. The witness was reading thenewspaper while he overheard their conversation. He heard the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ absconding accused tell A54 to be ready to take revenge and that itwas necessary to do something under the leadership of A1, asotherwise, the entire community will be crushed. This witness wasunable to identify A54, who is not an appellant.(vi)Conspiracy dated 13-02-1998 P.W.1175 is a resident of Kempatti Colony and is a goldsmith. He and Muthuraj wanted to fix a house for rent in Bilal Estate. So,he went there on 13-02-1998. There was a hut facing north. Threetwo wheelers were parked in front of that hut. 'Al Umma' leaderswere standing outside and talking. A2 Ansari, A9 Oom Babu, A4 NawabKhan, A12 TADA Aslam, A11 Poochikann Aslam and A163 Mujibur Rehman,the absconding accused was talking. They said that we must show someopposition to L.K. Advani's visit. The witness and his friend weregoing along the path behind the house. When the blasts took place inCoimbatore, they realised what the accused had planned. Heidentified A2, A4, A6, A9, A11 correctly in Court, but he identifiedA12 TADA Aslam wrongly. In cross-examination, he has admitted that he was examined sixmonths later. He has admitted that if Muthuraj did not want a housefor rent, there was no necessity for him to go to there. He hasdenied that he is not a broker for Bilal Estate. He said that theaccused were standing on the road and talking and anybody walkingpast could have heard what they were speaking. But in cross-examination, it has been elicited that he had not said so in hisstatement given to police, nor had he said that they had planned todo something during Mr. L.K. Advani's visit to Coimbatore. Accordingto him, the accused did not see him or Muthuraj. He did not see anypolice near Ukkadam Bus Stand. There is no direct connection betweenhim and the accused. He has denied that he is identifying theaccused only with the help of the police.(vii)Conspiracy dated 07-02-1998 :(a)P.W.854 is S. Rajan who was appointed as P.S.O. to A1 fromFebruary 1997. According to his evidence, he and P.W.855,Kalaiselvan, the other P.S.O., would be on duty on alternate days. According to him, when he first became A1's PSO, he was staying inthe office of T.M.M.K. at Takkar Street, Purasawalkam, Chennai. Hehad a chocolate colour Ambassador bearing Regn. No.7975. Along withhim, A156 S.M. Buhari, A144 Ashraf Ali, A104 Shafiq, Oosi Abbas andTaliban were there. Once there was a police raid in this office. Thereafter, A1 took on rent the house at No.34, Maroof Sahib Street,Triplicane, Chennai-5. This was arranged by one Afsar. According tothis witness, A1 would go only in the car to the CBI Office and theTMMK Office. P.W.854 would also go with him. Along with him, A8Siddiq Ali and A156 S.M. Buhari would also go. It is there that he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ started the 'Al Umma' Office. The person in charge of the office wasBuhari. In May 1997, Driver Raja and A9 Oom Babu left a blue colourFIAT car and took the chocolate colour Ambassador car. Theregistration number of the FIAT car was MRD-3492. In June 1997,P.W.854 went on leave and returned in July. At that time, A21Amanullah, A60 Valarndha Saleem, A156 Rafiq @ Shanmugam, A29Shamsuddin, A28 Sharfudeen, A39 Hakeem, A163 Mohammed Ali, Saifullah,Abdul Rahman, Anees, Mustafa, Zulfi, A16 Keezhakarai Abbas, A11Poochikkan Salam, Tailor Raja (the absconding accused), Munaf andSadiq were with him. There were two phones in A1's office. Theirnumbers were 8569136 and 8529584. He had a cellphone. The numberwas 9840056896. Tailor Raja (absconding accused), who came fromCoimbatore, taught driving to Siddiq Ali, Mohammed Ali and M.S.Hakkim. By that time, the Ambassadar car was returned and inSeptember, A9 took back the blue colour FIAT car. Every Friday, A1would go to some mosque. When he went, P.W.854 would also go alongwith him. There, Siddiq Ali, Rafiq, Hakkim and Buhari woulddistribute bit notices, bearing the words, "Al Umma is a movementwhich fights for the Muslim community and since the Muslim fightersare suffering in the jail, monetary assistance should be given forconducting the case – Yours, S.A. Basha". This is how they mobilisedfunds. Similarly, Sikkandar, Afsar and Niamathullah would collectfunds and remit it. When A1 announced in Madurai that 'Al Umma'would be a democratic movement, P.W.854 was with him. On 01-12-1997,when he went to duty, A1 was in a tense state of mind. He wasreceiving frequent phone calls relating to the Coimbatore clashes. Thereafter, A2 Ansari, A4 Nawabkhan, A6 Ozir and A161 Mujibur Rahmanfrom Coimbatore would visit A1 and talk to him. A3 Tajudeen fromChennai would also frequently visit A1 and talk to him for a longtime. The two daughters of A1 got married at the Pudupet Mosque. One daughter was given in marriage to Sultan and the other daughterto A161 Mohammed Ali. On 07-02-1998, A4, A2, A6 and A161 came fromCoimbatore, as also A3 from Chennai. They were talking with A1 for along time in the office. Along with them, A152 Buhari and A163Mohammed Ali were also there. They spoke about the retaliation tothe Coimbatore incidents. On 09-02-1998, A1, A152 Buhari and A163Mohammed Ali went to the CBI Office to comply with the conditions. P.W.854 also went with A1. On 13-02-1998, Mohammed Ali went awaywith his wife. On 14-02-1998, P.W.855 was on duty. That was the daywhen there were bomb explosions in Coimbatore. P.W.854 came to knowthat on that night, A1 was arrested along with 13 others togetherwith explosives. Thereafter, the ADGP, SIT enquired him and recordedhis statement. He identified A1, A2, A3, A4, A6, A8, A9, A11, A21,A28, A29 Shamsuddin, A60, A152 TADA Moosa, A154 Hakkim, A156 TADABuhari and A163 S.K. Mohammed Ali. In cross-examination, P.W.854 has stated that there wereno written instructions with regard to his duties, but he was toldwhat he should do if there was danger to A1's life or properties.Similar duties and responsibilities were given to P.W.855 also. It https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is not his duty to take note of A1's visitors. Everyday, A1 had atleast five/six visitors. There would be other visitors besides theaccused mentioned by him above. He could not tell the name or theplace of residence of such visitors. There were two rooms in theground floor and the first floor of the house at Maroof Sahib Street. Both the phones were on the ground floor. He had no knowledge, whotook the FIAT car or the Ambassador car, nor on what date A9 took thecar back. He only remembered it was in September. When A1 visitedthe mosque, he would not go inside and would stand near the gate. Hecannot know who spoke to A1 inside the mosque. He cannot say howmuch money was collected everyday from him. After the clashes atCoimbatore, the aforementioned accused had visited A1 at least twiceor thrice, but he does not know on what date. Discrepancy had beenpointed out in this regard between the statement before the policeand the evidence in Court. Regarding retaliation to the incident atCoimbatore, they spoke from 10 am to 5 pm. P.W.854 could hear whatthey spoke, but they spoke behind closed doors. He has denied thathe is giving false evidence. He has stated that it is only becauseof the conspiracy that the bomb blasts took place. (b) P.W.855 Kalaiselvan is the other P.S.O. appointed forA1 from August 1997 to 14th February, 1998. According to thiswitness, he and P.W.854 had duty alternatively. He has spoken of the'Al Umma' Office at Maroof Sahib Street and according to him, A8,A163, A156 Rafiq @ Shanmugam, A60 Valarndha Saleem, Shafiq,Saifullah, Munaf, Anees, A29 Oosi Abbas, A28 Sarfudeen, PoonaikkanSalam, Tailor Raja (the absconding accused), Zulfi, A21 Amanullah,Rafiq and Sadiq were with him. A152 was taking care of the 'Al Umma'Office. A1 would go in the car to TMMK Office and to the CBIOffice. P.W.855 would accompany him. Along with him, Siddiq Ali,TADA Moosa, Buhari and Mohammed would also go. His evidence isalmost on the same lines as the evidence of P.W.855 with regard tothe FIAT car, Tailor Raja teaching the other accused driving, theexchange of cars by A9, the visit of A1 to mosque on Fridays, thedistribution of bit notices, A1 being in a tense state on 30.11.1997,the marriage of A1's daughters etc. He has also stated that on theafternoon of the marriage, there was a feast at Afsar Bai's house andthat evening, between 4 and 6 pm, A2 Nawabkhan, A6 Siddiq Ali, A3Tajudeen, TADA Moosa, Buhari, A9 Oom Babu and A161 Mujibur Rahmanwere in A1's house in a discussion. They decided to retaliate forwhat happened in Coimbatore. In the first week of February 1998, A2Nawabkhan, Mujibur Rahman, A9, A152 TADA Moosa, A156 Buhari, A3 andA163 Mohammed Ali visited A1 and were talking for a long time. Theyspoke about retaliation. He identified A1, A2, A3, A4, A6, A8, A9,A11, A21, A28, A29, A60, A152, A154, A156 and A163. In cross-examination, he has described the location ofthe house at Maroof Sahib Street. According to him, at the time ofthe conspiracy, which took place on the first floor of the house andthey were speaking in a loud, violent voice. He could not say who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ spoke what. But for two hours, he heard what they spoke. But hecannot say what decision they had arrived at. Discrepancy had beenpointed out with regard to the participation of the specific accusedin this conspiracy between his statement given before the police andthe evidence given in the Court. It is he who gave the informationregarding the conspiracy to P.W.854 and it is only from him thatP.W.854 came to know about the details and his evidence on the basisof what he saw directly and what he heard directly and has alsostated that he and P.W.854 were never on duty at the same time. (c)(i)P.W.1195 Sanjay @ Saifullah is a friend of oneJayakumar @ Abdul Rahman who died in the blast at Thirumal Veedhi on15-02-1998. His brother married a Muslim girl and converted toIslam. Before that, for one year, he was moving with A12 TADA Aslam,A11 Poochikkann Salam, A17 Zaffru and A19 Makkan Jaffar belonging to'Al Umma'. Through his brother, he got the acquaintance of A12, A11,A17, A19 and A9 Oom Babu. Before November 1997, A9 went with A1Basha in the Ambassadar car to Kerala and brought aruval and knivesin gunny bags, which were unloaded at Karumbukkadai. In 1997, whenA1 hoisted the flag at Coimbatore, TADA Aslam tied the 'Al Umma' bandaround his head. Thereafter, P.W.1195 took part in the flaghoisting. When A2 Mohammed Ansari came to Thirumal Veedhi, thiswitness became acquainted with TADA Aslam, Salam and Zaffru. After15-12-1997, A12 gave him Rs.400/- and sent him to work at A1's house. A1's house was in Maroof Sahib Street. He gave him a watchman'sjob. His work was to clean the car and do household work. The 'AlUmma' Office was located there. A152 TADA Moosa belonging toMelapalayam would drive the car A1. Bilal (not examined) and Abu(not examined) from Melapalayam were the cooks. Abdul Khadar, Yasid,Sadif, Munees, Thoppai Ajiz (all not examined) were also there. A152 , A156 TADA Buhari or A163 Mohammed Ali would always be with A1. A27 Muthappa, who was involved in the murder of Kottai Amir and A8Siddiq Ali, who is A1's son, would constantly be seen together. A28Sarfudeen and A29 Samsudeen belonging to Coimbatore would frequentlyvisit A1 at his house. On 07-02-1998, A2 came to Chennai to visithim. Along with him, A4 Nawab Khan, A6 Ozir, the absconding accusedMujibur Rahman and A3 Tajudeen of Madras came discussed with A1together. They said that they must retaliate for the murder of the19 Muslims after the death of Coimbatore Police Constable Selvaraj. They plotted a conspiracy to kill Hindus with bombs. They would playthe videocassette relating to the death of the 19 Muslims. On 14-02-1998 at about 8 p.m., this witness went to A1's house from ArcotNawab Pallivasal at Tiruvallikkeni. Then he heard that the policehad caught hold of everyone there. Therefore, he went back to thePallivasal. On 25-03-1998, he returned to Coimbatore. On 04-04-1998, he was examined by the C.B.C.I.D. who recorded the statement. One month later, he gave his statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C.(Ex-P.1240). He identified A1, A2, A3, A4, A6, A8, A9, A11, A12,A17, A19, A27, A28, A29 and A152. He said that TADA Buhari andMohammed Ali were not there. At that time, A156 TADA Buhari was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there, but there was no one by name Mohammed Ali. He identified thesix signatures in Ex-P1240 as his. (ii)In cross-examination, it was elicited that his wifewas healthy. There was a surgery done on her. The summons to appearin Court was served on him on 09-02-2004. He could come whenever hewas summoned. His health was all right. It is because he fell downtwo days ago that he limped at that point of time. He denied that thepolice used physical force to make him give evidence. It has alsobeen elicited in his cross-examination that he had faced a trial forattempt to murder and he was awarded three years' imprisonment. Hehad not shown to the police where he went with A9. He did not havethe habit of maintaining a diary. Even in his statement before thepolice, he had referred to transport of weapons from Kerala. Hewould sign as Sanjay @ Saifullah very often. He has admitted thathis wife's name was Deepa. His father-in-law's name is Balu and hismother-in-law's name is Umarani. It has been elicited that he hasnot published in the Gazette that he should be known as Sanjay @Saifullah. He had not officially given any name change. He hasdenied that he belongs to Hindu Munnani and that he hated Muslimsbecause his brother had converted. He has also denied that thepolice had coached him. His statement under S.164 is also along thesame lines (iii)According to the defence, this witness isunbelievable. He has been examined belatedly and it is difficult tobelieve that a person who was living in A1's house would not haveimmediately gone and told the police about the conspiracy. Anotherrelevant fact is that P.Ws.854 and 855, who were A1's P.S.Os., didnot even mention the fact that P.W.1195 was working in A1's house. According to the defence, this evidence must be rejected because heis a tutored witness. According to him, he had been moving with the'Al Umma' people after his brother got converted and it is possiblethat they had not sent him to work in A1's house. It is not anunbelievable version. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted thatit would be seen that there is corroboration between the evidence ofthis witness and the two P.S.Os. Further, his evidence is very muchin line with what he has stated in the statement under Section 164,Cr.P.C. According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the factum ofconspiracy stands established by the evidence of this witness. (d)P.W.1063, Syed Ibrahim is the next witness. Hesupplies buttons and zips to the companies in Tiruppur. In 1995, hewas doing propaganda for NDF and also selling books. NDF is NationalDefence Force. The headquarters are in Royapuram, where the "IlakkiyaSolai" magazine is published. The head is Ghulam Mohammed. The personin charge was A3 Tajudeen. He would buy books from there and go andsell them to Tiruchy, Madurai and other places. In that movement, A3Tajudeen would give him books relating to reading of Quran etc.Because of some problems, he left that organisation. Thereafter, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ joined a job in the STD Booth opposite Sudha Lodge on N.H. Road. During the day, he would go and take orders for screen-printing work. In the night, he would look after the STD Booth. At that time, Arif(not examined) was the Secretary of 'Al Umma'. According to thedefence, this is factually incorrect. The witness would go to 'AlUmma' office along with him and he became acquainted with A2 Md.Ansari, A9 Oom Babu, A4 Nawab Khan, A6 Ozir and A164 Mujibur Rehman. A23 Shajahan is A2's sister's son. Along with him, he startedUniversal Screen Printing. At that time, there were posters statingthat 'Al Umma' is a democratic outfit and that its Joint President isA3. They had announced that there would be a public meeting nearBilal Place in Kottaimedu. He asked his friend Arif about that. Hetold him to go and talk to A3 about it. He went o A3 and asked himwhy was he in that organisation. A3 replied, "This is a democraticorganisation, I have faith that it would be run properly and that iswhy I have joined". He also said, "We also are making attempts topublish books like 'Ilakkiya Solai', please ask A2 about it". Afterthat, P.W.1063 did not meet anyone. On the 15 night of Ramzan, hesaw A2 near the ZAK Pallivasal. A2 told him, "Please come to theresidence to discuss this". After that, he also saw A164 MujiburRehman near the Mujahid Pallivasal. He told him that he wanted tosee A2. On 8.2.1998, he met A164 near the Mujahid Pallivasal. Hegave him some cloth for dry washing and told him to go and meet A2 inhis mother-in-law's house. So he went there and saw that A10 ZakirHussain was also there. Then he told A2 that A3 had told him todiscuss with him regarding publication of books. A2 told him that A2is engaged in a very important work and that he would not be able tosee anyone and that since L.K. Advani is coming to Coimbatore onFebruary 14, they were planning to explode a bomb where he was goingto address and also asked P.W.1063 if he could help them in thisregard. The witness replied that since he was an epilepsy patient,he cannot do any work like this. Thereafter, he was given Rs.500/-as advance and 22 outstation addresses were given. He was asked totake print and bring it before the 10th and he was told that itshould be made as a pocket diary. On 13.2.1998, he gave it to A164. He took it saying he would hand it over to A2. On 14-02-1998, hewent to Salem and returned on 15-02-1998. By that time, the bombblasts had taken place. On 28-02-1998, he went to Chennai. He metA3 in his house, who told him that the police is searching for him. So he should take A3's family and leave them at Kollangodu. Thatnight, he stayed at A3's house. A10 Zakir Hussain was also there. At that time, A5 Basith took Rs.500/- from A3. The next day, hebrought the family of A3 to Kollangodu and returned to Coimbatore. Later on, A3's father-in-law came in search of this witness. He toldP.W.1063 that A3 had been arrested and therefore, he had to bereleased on bail. This witness and A3's father-in-law went and sawA3 in jail. A3 told them to go and see Advocate Sirajuddin in theHigh Court. Therefore, they went to see him in Madras. At thattime, he had only Rs.300/- in his hand. The advocate said that onlyif they gave him Rs.10,000/-, he could move the bail application. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ So, they returned to Coimbatore. On 06-07-1998, the police examinedthis witness. He gave a statement on August 3rd. His statementunder Section 164, Cr.P.C. was recorded (Ex-P.1014). This witnessidentified A2 and A3 in Court. There is nothing helpful to theprosecution in his evidence. IV.PROCUREMENT OF EXPLOSIVES(a)Procurement from Karnataka(1)P.W.1119 A. Rajagopal is a Gazetted Manager, but he was atthe relevant point of time a Tahsildar at Mysore. He went to thepremises of the Corporation at Shah Ali Khan Makkan Street at 10 a.m.along with the Revenue Inspector Chithaiah and another RevenueInspector Vijayakumar, Mysore Commissionerate Inspector Purushothamand S.I.T. Inspector Sampath Kumar. At that time, Dastagir (deceasedaccused) was the salesman in the shop. The inventory was preparedandthereafter, the S.I.T. Inspector sealed the materials and documents. The requisition is Ex-P1150. The letter given by him to the S.I.T.Police after the inventory was taken is Ex-P1151. This is acertified letter. The seizure list is Ex-P1152. This is alsocertified. The seizure mahazar prepared by the S.I.T. Police is Ex-P1153, which is also certified. Ex-P1154 Series is the NotebookRegister. Ex-P1155 Series is the Stock Register. Ex-P1156 is theCash and Credit Book Bill-I. Ex-P1157 is the Cash and Credit BookBill-IV Series. Dastagir told them that the company had its magazinein Ansyar Village. The inventory report taken there is Ex-P1158 andEx-P1159 is the rough sketch, which are certified. The S.I.T.Inspector seized some objects from the magazine under a cover ofmahazar, Ex-P1160, which is also certified. There are two entrancesto the above magazine, one facing west and the other facing north. The objects seized under Ex-P160 were seized by going through thenorth entrance. Thereafter, the S.I.T. Inspector went through thewest entrance and prepared a seizure mahazar, Ex-P1161. Thereafter,on 06-03-1998, the S.I.T. Inspector sent another requisition. Heasked him to accompany him for seizing the relevant records from theabove premises. They went there during the day. When they openedthe shop, they found that no relevant records were there. Therefore,the shop was sealed again. His statement was recorded on both thedates by the S.I.T.In cross-examination, he has stated that the magazine belongs toP.W.1293, Riaz-ur-Rehman, the approver. He surmised that on seeingthe notebooks Ex-P1154 that they must be daybooks. He has deniedthat two registers were there at the time of preparing Ex-P1155 andhe has added it later. He does not know about the arrest of Dastagiror his confession statement. In Ex-P1159, only the northern andeastern entrances are shown. He has denied tha his plan has beenprepared only by the S.I.T. olffice and not at the spot. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (2) P.W.1054 is Raju, who is the manager of S.R.M. Lodge,Sathyamangalam claimed that he knew the owner of the cassette shop,A106 Samjid Ahmed and that many persons would be coming to see himand they would be talking of explosives and that A16 told him that heis procuring explosives through S.R.T. Bus Service and Modern BusService. He could not identify A106 in Court. (3) P.W.1126 is A. Rama Konar. At the relevant point of time,he was working as the Karntaka Agent for the Tamil Nadu IndustrialExplosives Limited belonging to the Government of Tamil Nadu. Hisundertaking had licence. Their magazine was 30 kilometers fromBangalore at Aanaikal. They would sell gelatin and detonators onlyto licence holders. They had sold the above explosives to IndianExplosives Corporation in 1998. They have the letter of authorityfor that sale. When the Inspector of Police examined him, he hadgiven the letter Ex-P1166 to him. The stock book registers for 1997-98 for their shop is Ex-P1167. On 18-04-1997, as per Invoice No.22,they had sold to Indian Explosives Corporation 34,00 electricaldetonators. On 19-04-1997, by Invoice No.23, they had sold to IndianExplosives Limited 10,000 ordinary and 3,00 electrical detonators. The carbon copy for the said invoice is Ex-P1168. It is not correctto state that as per Form-32 of the Indian Explosives Corporation andtheir Invoice No.32, 1750 gelatin sticks have been sold. Similarly,what is noted in Invoice No.23 regarding the sale of 1750 gelatinsticks is not correct. Form-32 and Form-33 Registers are marked asEx-P1169. On the reverse of the first sheet, there are details ofaccounts dated 28-04-1997 and 30-04-1997, which is marked as Ex-P1170. On 07-09-1998, the S.I.T. examined him and the above recordswere seized under a mahazar by Parthasarathy and Murali Kumar. The relevant portion of his evidence is that the detonatorsshould be transported only in approved vehicles. There should be noiron near the place where the explosives are kept. They can beloaded and unloaded only by persons having experience. The reasonfor avoiding iron sheets is that, by friction or jerk, it is possiblefor the explosives to catch fire. They will never allow gelatinsticks and detonators to be tied together, because the risk ofexplosion is greater. They have purchased explosives from five orsix firms. They have four years' association with Indian ExplosivesCorporation. The police did not ask them for the registers prior to1997-98. They have not informed the Chief Controller of Explosivesregarding Invoice Nos.22 and 23. But it has been shown in themonthly accounts. There is no mistake in their accounts. He hasdenied that he has other true documents besides Ex-P1167 and Ex-P1169. (4)P.W.1193 A. Parthasarathy is a Mines Manager in Bellari. Hehas known P.W.1126 for thirty years. He runs a company called KonalExplosives selling explosives. On 07-09-1998, afternoon, the S.I.T.came to their company. They wanted the records pertaining to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ sale of explosives by their firm to Indian Explosives Corporation. P.W.1126 handed over Form-50 invoice and the letter of authoritygiven by the Joint Controller of Explosives. They prepared a mahazarfor the seizure, which is Ex-P1404. The stock register is Ex-P1167. Form-50 invoice is Ex-P1405 Series. Two invoice Nos.22, 23 are Ex-P1168. (5)P.W.866 is Narasimmamoorthy. At the relevant point of time,he was the owner of Sivaji Explosives. The licence number of hisshop is 798/E. The magazine is in Bukshandra Village. In 1998, hisshop licence was suspended by the Chief Controller of Explosives. Thereafter, he was asked to give records to show whether he isselling explosives to some one illegally and after looking at hislicence, the relevant records and documents, they revoked thesuspension order saying that everything was alright. In 1999, theorder of suspension was passed. The police examined him. Nothing ofrelevance is obtained in his cross-examination.(6) P.W.1148 is M.P. Jayamaruthi. He was the Police Inspectorin Lashkar Police Station, Mysore City from July, 1997 to June, 2000. On 07-03-1998, around 11.45 a.m., when he was in the police station,one Suresh Jain of the same locality came there in connection withsome personal problems. At that time, Sampath Kumar, the Inspectorof Police investigating the bomb blast cases was also available inthe police station. Around 12noon, P.W.1293 Riaz-ur-Rehman, who isthe proprietor of Indian Explosives Corporation, came to the policestation and produced records pertaining to explosive substancestransactions of the shop. The Inspector, Sampath Kumar seized thoserecords under the cover of mahazar, Ex-P1298. Those records areForms-32 and 33 (Exs-P1169 and 1170), cash and credit bill books 3 innumber and 4 rough sales transaction books written by one MohammedDasthagir (the deceased accused), of Indian Explosives Corporation. The cash and credit bill registers have been marked as Exs-P1143,1267 and 1299. The invoice No.322 dated 07-03-1998 is marked as Ex-P1300. The rough daily book is marked as Ex-P1301 Series. He has not seen the signature of Dasthagir. He did not obtainany statmeent from P.W.1293. He does not remember whether P.W.1293signed in Ex-P1296. (7) P.W.1293 is Riazur Rahman, who is carrying on the businessof Mahathma Explosives. Their concern was involved in themanufacture of gunpowder. The magazine of the shop was in Mysore. He was dealing with electric detonators, ordinary detonators,gelatin, safety fuses and Ammonium Nitrate. They were procuringexplosive materials from Konar Explosives, Bangalore and DeccanExplosives, Pune. One Mohammed Dasthagir (the deceased accused) washis salesman. He has denied that any police came to his shop. TheSpecial Public Prosecutor showed him a hand-written record, Ex-P1681and he denied that the handwriting is his. He is the accused turned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ approver. He was granted pardon by P.W.1296, Nambirajan, J.M.II,Coimbatore. His application is Ex-P1689. The order of P.W.1296 isEx-P1693. He turned hostile. (b) Kerala Operations (1) P.W.964, Rajesh is an Advisor in the Income Tax Department. He also works part-time in Hotel D.E. Orient. He was working assuch in 1998. One Sambasivam was Hotel Manager and Radhakrishnan. On 10-05-1998, two Police Inspectors came in connection with theCoimbatore bomb blasts. They seized the two registers, Ex-P735,which is the seizure mahazar and the register is Ex-P736. Theyrelate to dates from 08-10-1997 to 25-03-1998, which shows that on11-12-1997, A3 stayed there. This is the main aspect in his evidence. (2) P.W.965 Radhakrishan was the cashier. He too speaks aboutthe seizure of the two registers. (3) P.W.1017 P. Gopinath @ Gopi, who was Supplier at Sea RockHotel. On Srikumar was also a supplier at that time. On 10-05-1998,two policemen came to his hotel and asked him whether one Akbar Alistayed in that hotel. Then they seized the register. The seizuremahazar is Ex-P924 and the register is Ex-P925. He identified A3 asthe person who looks like the person who came to the hotel. TheCourt has recorded that his time, A3 was wearing a white cap. In cross-examination, it has been elicited that thepolice had helped him identify the accused.(4) P.W.1027 is Abdul Azeez. He was working as thereceptionist in Mass Hotel at Ernakulam. Ex-P961 is Mass HotelRegister. According to him, Akbar Ali stayed in that hotel on 11-12-1997. He had vacated on 12-12-1997. When the police enquired him,he handed over Ex-P961, Register and Ex-P962, Receipt Book. Theseizure mahazar is Ex-P963. (5) P.W.1026 Aravindhan was also a receptionist in Mass Hotelat Ernakulam. He has also spoken of the seizure of the registersunder the cover of mahazar.V. TRANSPORTATION According to the prosecution, the explosives were transportedby bus and then by car from the State of Karnataka viaSathyamangalam. (a) P.W.1214 is Yejas Basha. He is an auto driver and drivesthe auto bearing Registration No.MEG-4619. His auto stand is nearDasaprakash Hotel in Noor Alisha Makan Road, Mysore. Next to that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ stand, there is an explosives shop. The owner of the shop is Riaz-ur-Rehman, P.W.1293, the approver. Mohd. Dastagir, the deceasedaccused, was its manager. According to this witness, at the end of1997 and the beginning of 1998, especially in the month of Ramzan,A106 Samjid Ahmed came to the explosives shop and would buy ET, OT,Gelatin, Plate Powder and White Powder etc. He had purchased theseexplosives like this four or five times. He would load it in thiswitness's auto and ask him to be dropped at the private bus stand. His practice was to pack the above materials separately in acartonbox, put it in a gunny bag, stitch it and take it. He would goto Sathyamangalam by S.R.T. Bus. He would keep these materials underthe bus seat. He would go by the 1.30 p.m. S.R.T. bus or by the 4.30p.m. Modern Bus Service. Everytime, he would give him Rs.20/- forauto hire. The godown of this explosives shop was in the villagecalled Ansiya. If there is an emergency, they would also take thiswitness's auto. This witness identified A106 correctly in Court. (b) PW.1215 Syed Amanulla is also an auto driver. Theregistration number of his auto is KA17-1259. His auto stand is nearMysore Town Dasaprakash Hotel and the name of the road is Noor AlishaMakan Road. Next to his auto stand, there is an electrical shop, alaundry and also an explosives shop. P.W.1293, Riaz-ur-Rehman is theowner of that shop. Dastagir, the deceased accused and A106 wouldbuy explosives from that shop, pack it in a card board box, stitch itin a gunny bag and load it in the auto to be unloaded near theprivate bus stand. They would go either in the 1.30 p.m. S.R.T. busor in the 4.30 p.m. Modern Bus Service. They would keep the gunnybags under the bus seat. They would give him Rs.20/- as hire. Whenhe is not there, they would go in the auto belonging to P.W.1214. The godown is in Village Ansiya. If the shop owner's car broke down,this witness would take the materials to the godown and bringmaterials from the godown to the shop. A106 had taken such materialsin his auto in the end of 1997 and at the beginning of 1998. Inconnection with his, the T.N. Police enquired him. He identifiedA106 in Court. He had admitted that he had seen the accused before only onceand thereafter only now in the Court and that he is familiar withP.W.1214 since he is also an auto driver. He has denied that thereis any court case against him. He has denied that he is not an autodriver and that he has no licence. In the statement before thepolice, he had not said that the explosive materials were taken inhis auto in the end of 1997 and the beginning of 1998, or that theaccused would take and pack the explosive materials in the cardboardbox. (c) P.W.1172 K. Chinnaswamy is a resident of Sathyamangalam. Heis the driver of S.R.T. Bus Service for the past 20 years. Near theSathyamangalam Bus Stand, Liyaqat Ali Khan has a bakery shop. Hewould frequently go there to have tea and therefore, he was familiar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with A7 Mohammed Ali Khan Kuty, A157 Idayath Ali Khan, A108Asibullah, A119 Amanulla and A132 Mir Shaffir Ahmed. They wouldfrequently go in their bus to Samraj Nagar. He was also familiarwith A106 Samjid Ahmed who works in Golden Granite in Samraj Nagar. He would frequently go to Mysore in their bus. This witness wascontinuously on duty from 08-12-1997 to 31-12-1997, from 01-01-1998to 06-01-1998 and from 19-01-1998 to 31-01-1998. At that time, theconductor of the bus was Mahadevappa (not examined). The bus wouldleave Mysore at 1.30 p.m. and reach Sathyamangalam at 5.30 p.m. Theabove accused told him that they are doing cloth business and soapbusiness. A106 would bring gunny bags under the bus seat and unloadit in Samraj Nagar. In Samraj Nagar, any one of the above accusedwould unload the gunny bags and keep it in the Kuty Bakery. Theconductor knew that they were bringing the luggage. They did nottake luggage charge for these bags. In January 1998, they broughtgunny bags like this for about eight times. On 14-02-1998, when heheard about the Coimbatore bomb blasts and the loss of lives, helearnt that he police had arrested the above accused. Only then herealised that they had transported explosives in his bus. The S.I.T.enquired him. He identified A7, A106, A108, A119, A132 and A157. Wefind from his evidence that, out of the nine buses belonging to theirservice, seven are local buses and two alone go on the Mysore -Sathymangalam route. The other driver who plies this route isAyyasamy. There are three checkposts between Samraj Nagar andBannari. One is Commercial Tax Checkpost, one is the PoliceCheckpost and the other is the Forest Department Checkpost. At thesecheckposts, the police will be armed. He could not remember whetherthere were more police this time because of Veerappan. The bus routehas 27 hairpin bends. The bus route will be jerky. The SamrajNagar-Sathyamangalam route was under the control of the Special TaskForce (STF). At any time, any vehicle would be checked. Sometimes,the entire vehicular traffic would be stopped. (d) P.W.1173 is Vasu. He was the bus driver for Modern BusService from 1995 to 1999. The buses of Modern Bus Service wouldleave Mysore at 4.15 p.m. and go to Erode via Samraj Nagar andSathyamangalam and reach Erode at 10.15 p.m. It would reach SamrajNagar at 6 p.m. and Sathyamangalam at 9 p.m. He is acquainted withA106 Samjith Ahmed who works in Samraj Nagar Golden Granite Company. He would frequently go to Mysore in their bus. The witness alsoknows Liaqat Ali Khan, who has a bakery near the Sathyamangalam BusStand and his brothers A7 Mohammed Ali Khan @ Kutty, A157 Idayath AliKhan and also their friends A108 Asibullah, A119 Amanulla and A132Mir Saffir Ahmed and Yusuf @ Shahjahan (A153). A106 would bringgunny bags from Mysore to Samraj Nagar by keeping it under the busseat. From Samraj Nagar, any one of the accused would purchase theticket, travel in the seat in which A106 had travelled and onreaching Sathyamangalam, they would unload the gunny bags in thebakery. When he asked A7, he would tell him that they were doingsoap and clothing business. A7, A157, A108 and A119 would have https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ brought such bags four times in January 1998. A108 and Yusuf @Shahjahan would have brought such bags at least three times inDecember 1997. A132 alone brought such bags four times in 1997. Theywould bring only the bags brought by A106. On 14-02-1998, after thebomb blasts, the above said persons were arrested by the police. Only then, he realized that they had transported explosives in hisbus. The police enquired him. He identified A7, A106, A108, A119,A132 and A157 in Court, but he wrongly identified A153. It is elicited from his that the owner of S.R.T. Bus Service isKathiresan. The police had not seized his bus, nor had they seizedthe bus ticket, the counterfoil and his driving licence. Accordingto him, from 1994 to 1999, he was in Modern Bus Service and then, heleft he job on his own. He has admited that about 11 times, A106would get off the bus leaving the luggage. At no point of time, heenquired as to why he was leaving the luggage behind. From Thimbamto Chikkola, it is Guard Section. There were three checkposts onthat route, viz., the Commercial Tax Checkpost, Motor VehiclesCheckpost and the Forest Checkpost. If there was any suspicion atany point of time, even the STF would enter the vehicle and carry outchecks. On his route, there are about 10 police stations. (e) P.W.1102 is Saravana Kumar, who is a car driver. He knowsA7 Mohammed Ali Khan Kuty, who lives on Sathyamangalam Mariamman KoilStreet. The brother of A7, Liaqat Ali Khan has a bakery at theSathyamangalam Bus Stand. He and his brother Muniyappan wouldfrequently visit the bakery. On 05-01-1998, he was standing at theSathyamangalam Bus Stand to go to Erode on account of some work. Atthat time, his friend Muniyappan was also there. At about 12.30p.m., near the pay toilet, where the Erode buses are parked, anAmbassador car bearing Registration No.MDS-8315 was standing. Aperson wearing spectacles was seated in the driver’s seat and therewere two other persons sitting next to him. At that time, A7’sbrother brought two parcels from the bakery and kept it in the rearseat of the Ambassador. The three were talking there for some time. Then, the car left on the Coimbatore route. When he asked A7 aboutit, he said that they are from Coimbatore and that they are hisfriends and that their names are A11 Abdul Salam and A17 Jaffru. Thecar driver was A146 Ubayathullah Rahman. A7 said that they were hisclose friends. The witness left the place after that. This wasrepeated about four times after a month. When he enquired A7 aboutthe bags, he said that those were tamarind bags and that they werebringing it from Samraj Nagar to sell them in Coimbatore. But whenthe witness and his friends grew suspicious and made enquiries, theywere told that A7 is transporting explosives. After the bomb blasts,he realised that they were not tamarind bags, but explosives. Heidentified A7, A11, A17 and A146 in Court. He also identified thevehicle as M.O.128 and said that the police had recorded hisstatement six months later. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ He has admitted in cross-examination that he is a member of theHindu Munnani and that his statement was recorded in front of themembers of his family. (f) P.W.1103 is A. Subramaniam, who is a resident ofSathyamangalam. He knew A7 Mohammed Ali Khan Kutty, a resident ofSathyamangalam Mariamman Koil Street. He also knew A108 Asibullah,and A119 Amanulla, who are his friends. A7 has a watch shop and hisbrother has a bakery in Sathyamangalam Bus Stand. In January 1998,he and his friend Chandrasekaran were walking along the Mysore Road. When they were coming near Charu Matriculation School, at about 2.30p.m., they saw a tricycle cart parked near the tamarind tree and fromthat cardboard boxes wrapped in a gunny bag were unloaded and loadedinto a white Ambassador car bearing Registration No.TN-41A-4514(M.O.179). Three persons were inside the car. This witness andChandrasekar spoke to A7. Then, A7 said that his friends A7, A11,A17 and A118 and driver Rafiq had come from Coimbatore and that theywere doing soap business which they had purchased from Mysore andwere now sending it to Coimbatore. After that, they got into theYamaha bike, which was parked there and left by the SathyamangalamRoad. The car followed the two-wheeler. The tricycle cart remainedwhere it was standing. Four days later, at about 3 p.m., he and hisfriend Chandrasekar were coming along the same route. At the sameplace near the school, he again saw the above persons packingcardboard boxes wrapped in gunny bags. They saw them and went away. Five days later at about 6 p.m., he and his friend were going toBannari. They again saw the above said persons taking the gunny bagsfrom the tricycle and loading them on to the car. They saw that andwent away. One week later, when he and his friend were going alongthe same route, at about 1.30 p.m., they saw the same personscarrying on the same activity. At that time, along with the fourpersons earlier mentioned, A108 Asibullah and A119 Amanullah ofSathyamangalam were also there. One week later, he and his friendwere going in the same route around noon and at that time also theysaw these people unloading the cardboard boxes from the tricycle andloading them on to the car. Thereafter, Amanullah and Kuty went awayin the Yamaha bike and the others left in the car. After three days,at around 10.30 p.m., when this witness went to Sathyamangalam BusStand to bring his friend Chandrasekar, near the pay toilet at thebus stand, the aforesaid car was standing. Inside the car, A17Jaffru, A11 Salam and A118 driver Rafiq were standing near the car. From the bakery run by Kutty's brother, A7 Kutty and A119 Amanullaheach brought a box and kept them in the car, after which the car wentaway with driver Rafiq and Amanullah, whereas Jaffru, Salam and Kuttywent away to the bakery. When this witness enquired about this withhis friends, he was told that Kuty is actually transportingexplosives, though he is saying that he is selling soaps. Later,after the bomb blasts in 1998, he heard that Kutty and his friends https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have been arrested by the police. The witness identified A7, A11,A17, A108, A118 and A119 in Court. This witness has also givenevidence in the Poonamalli Sub-court. He has admitted that he had shared this information not onlywith Chandrasekar, but also with Selvam and Balu. In cross-examination, the discrepancy in the evidence given by this witness inthis case and the other court case is elicited. He has admitted incross-examination that he did not know Jaffru, Rafiq and Salampreviously.(g) P.W.1121 is Vadivel, who is an auto driver inSathyamangalam. He knew A7 Mohammed Ali Khan Kuty who lives inMariamman Koil Street. The brother of A7 runs a bakery in theSathyamangalam Bus Stand. In the first week of January 1998, he wasstanding in the bus stand when a white Omni car bearing RegistrationNo.CTW-7899 came and stopped in front of the bakery. It was between2 and 3 p.m. The driver of the car was slightly fat and had a tilakon his forehead. He went out and spoke to A7. A7 brought two gunnybags and loaded them on to the car. He witnessed the same occurrencefive times in January 1998. When he asked about this to A7’sbrother, he was informed that they were sending soap to Coimbatorefor sale. When this witness asked him who the driver of the car was,he replied that it was A9 Oom Babu. He was informed by his friendsthat A7 was actually transporting explosive materials. He identifiedA7 and A9 in Court, but he could not identify A157 correctly. M.O.336, the car is also identified by this witness. There is discrepancy between his statement before the police andin Court. He had never seen A9 before.(h) P.W.552, Ramesh Kumar was the owner of the Ambassador Carthat was allegedly used by the accused. His father-in-law’s name isD. Ramachandran, who is a former Judge. He had given his AmbassadorCar bearing Registration No.MDS-8315 for his own use. He was usingit in 1996. His friend Suresh Kumar said that his relative Saravananwanted to buy the car. Therefore, with his father-in-law’s consent,he sold the car for a sum of Rs.50,000/- to Saravanan. When he soldthe car, he handed over all the connected records to Saravanan. But,Saravanan did not transfer the ownership in his name for a long timeafter the sale. Saravanan purchased the car from him only in August,1999. He would further say that at the time of purchase, it wasgreen colour and this information is recorded in the RC book. Afterhis father-in-law purchased the car, he scraped it and painted itwhite. (i) The next witness, P.W.554 is R. Saravanan. He runs abusiness called Reliance Organic Chemical Industries. He hadpurchased the Ambassador car from P.W.552. According to him, he gave https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a sum of Rs.50,000/- as sale price. He also received at that timethe RC book, P.O. form etc. It is a petrol driven car. In 1997, hesold the car for Rs.44,000/- to Raja, P.W.561, through a brokercalled Babu. The relevant records were also handedover. Until hesold the car he had not transferred the ownership to himself. He didnot know the chassis number. (j) P.W.560 is a car broker named Radhakrishnan stays inAlankar Hospital, Coimbatore. In February 1997, P.W.554 had askedhim to sell his Ambassador car MDS-8315. When he saw the RC book, hefound that it was in the name of one Ramachandran of Namakkal. Afternegotiating with one Raja of Emerald Automobiles and Muruganandamthrough one Edwin, the car was sold to Raja and Muruganandham. Hehanded over the RC book and P.O. Form by getting it from P.W.554. Hereceived Rs.1000/- as commission. The car is Petrol driven car. (k) P.W.561 is Raja. He is working as Branch Manager inEmerald Automobiles at Tiruchy Road. In February 1997, he purchasedone car for his co-employee, Muruganandham. He purchased it throughthe car broker staying in Alankar Hotel. It was an Ambassador Carwhite in colour bearing Registration No.MDS-8315. He purchased itfor Rs.80,000/-. Muruganandham gave the money. As soon as thedelivery was completed and he paid the money, the RC book was handedover and the P.O. Form was also handed over, but was unfilled. Thebroker told him that it belonged to Judge Ramachandran of Namakkal. (l) P.W.556 is Muruganandham. In 1997-98, he was working asSupervisor at Kovai Emerald Automobiles. P.W.561 was his friend atthat time. He had told him to help him to buy a car. He purchased itwith the help of the car broker in Alankar Hotel. The car number isMDS-8315. The sale price is Rs.50,000/-. It was marked as Petrolcar. Along with the car they handed over the RC book and P.O. Form. The owner was the retired Judge Ramachandran. When they parked thecar near the Temple in Coimbatore, the cleaner took out the lorrybelonging to the brother-in-law and dashed against the car and thecar became unmotorable. So he thought he could sell this damaged carand told Basheer, who gave information to one Samshudeen and came andexamined the car. Thereafter, Samshudeen brought A9, Oom Babu andagain examined the damaged car. A9 said the vehicle is awfullydamaged. Therefore, he do not need the vehicle but he wanted toobtain for a price the RC book and PO Form. Though originally theyagreed to pay Rs.15,000/-, finally, he paid only Rs.12,000/-. Thereafter, he handed over the R.C. book and P.O. Form to A9 onpayment of Rs.12,000/-. Samshudeen knows this information. Thedamaged car was sold as scrap for weight for Rs.36,000/-. The Policeexamined him. At that time, there was a car MDS-8315 in the P.R.S.compound that was a diesel car. When he was using the same car itwas a petrol vehicle. The chassis and the engine number had beenpunched. The witness identified A9 in Court. The Trial Judge hadrecorded that at that time A9 was wearing a white cap and some of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ other accused were wearing colour caps. In cross-examination, he hassaid that A9 had visited his workshop several times and that he didnot give this information in the Police Statement. He could notremember whether he gave the details in the Police Statement which hegave in evidence. He had stated that he did not give any PoliceStatement when the vehicle got damaged. He had removed the tyres andsold the remaining spare parts for Rs.36000/-. This car is referred to in the evidence of P.W.1102, whoidentified the car, which is marked as M.O.128.(m) P.W.539, Shyambhat is the next witness. He was the JointCommissioner of Transport Enforcement (South) in Bangalore. At therelevant point of time, he received a letter from the SIT, Coimbatoreon 06-07-1998 for details regarding the Maruthi Van CTW-7899. Heverified the records at the three original transport offices. Theengine number is 260726 and the chasis number is 759618. It is a 1988model. Originally, it was registered in the name of ShriRajasekaran. On 16-01-1988, the vehicle migrated to RTO, Gadak inthe name of Adhappa Gounder. Then it was transferred to Mohan Seth.On 25-07-1990, RTO, Gadak gave clearance certificate to RTO, Dharwarto transfer the vehicle to Moinudeen S/o. Moosa. Then the registeredowner obtained a clearance certificate in favour of Shri. Parasuram. It had been transferred thereafter to three persons and on 15-06-1995, the RTO, Belgaum issued a no objection certificate to transferthe vehicle to RTO, Kozhikode. According to the witness, there is noinformation from RTO, Kozhikode regarding migration of vehicle. Thiswitness cannot remember all the details since he had not brought therelevant records. He has denied that Ex-P182, the reply to thecommunication from Additional Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch,Coimbatore has been subsequently prepared to prove the case. (n) P.W.733, Sukumaran was the Sub-Inspector of Police inKolathur Police Station, Malapuram District, Kerala. On 21-03-1998at about 08:45 hours, the Maruthi Van CTW 7899 was driven in a rashand negligent manner and hit against one Asraff. He was admitted inthe Hospital. As per the Police intimation and on the submission ofAsraff’s father, a case was registered in Crime No.52 of 1998. Thecar was seized and kept in the Police Station. It was producedbefore the Magistrate of Peruntilmanna. The SIT, CBCID of Coimbatoreand Rajasekaran P.W.1300 gave him a requisition that the vehicle wasinvolved in the bomb-blast case. In cross-examination, he has deniedthat the car was not driven in the manner spoken to by him. (o) P.W.724, Sharfudeen has a grocery shop in HMPR Street,Coimbatore. He and his sister managed the shop. They have anAmbassador car, the Registration No.TN41-A-4515 (M.O.179). Hepurchased it from one Abdul Latheef for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. First, he used it for his own use. He appointed A118, Rafiq as hisdriver. The car was kept in the custody of A118. He would use it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for local trips and pay to him the hiring charges. Most of the timeshe has not given him the hiring charges, instead he would adjust itin the repair charges. The RC book is Ex-P264. The insurance covernote is Ex-P265. He had pledged the car with Annamalai Finance andpaid Rs.2500/- as monthly instalments. Most of the time the carwould be in Perumal Koil Veethi Car Stand. Though A118 Rafiq wassitting in the Court, the witness could not identify him and heidentified the car, M.O.179. (p) P.W. 528 R.K. Dass is a broker and commission agent. According to him, on 27-12-1997, one Majid @ Oom Babu wanted to buy acar. He sold a second hand 1964 model Ambassador car, which hepurchased from Chandran (not examined). He did not give the R.C.Book of the car to the accused, but handed over the delivery note. The police brought the accused and asked him if he knew him. He saidthat this was the person to whom he sold KLT-5690. He handed overall the documents pertaining to the car. The R.C. Book was marked asM.O.125. He could not identify A9 in Court. VI. MANUFACTURE OF BOMBS According to the prosecution, there were severaleyewitnesses for the manufacture of bombs by the accused. Thesewitnesses claimed to have seen various accused manufacturing bombs intheir houses at different points of time. (i) P.W.1124, Rajan is a centering contractor. Inconnection with his work, he would go to Thirumal Street, ManiyarThottam, N.H. Road, etc. In the course of his work, he had come toknow A59, Kadar @ Yakoob who had a grocery shop and on thoseoccasions, he had also seen A16 Valarndha Saleem, A12 Aslam and A11Poochaikkan Salam. In May 1997, A59 borrowed Rs.2,000/- fromP.W.1124 promising to return it in six months. In the second week ofJanuary 1998, he went to Yakub’s store along with Manoj (notexamined) and asked for return of the loan amount. At that time, A12was also there. A59 promised to return it in one month. Two newpersons had come to the shop then. They purchased beedi. When heasked A12 when these persons were, he was informed that they were A16Keezhakarai Abbas and A7 Mohammed Ali Khan Kutty. P.W.1124 returnedto his house after asking them to return the money as promised. On11-02-1998, he and his friend Manoj had gone to Delight Theatre forthe second show of some movie. When they were returning home, theythought they could go to the house of A59 asking him return to theloan amount. At that time, it was 1.00 a.m. after midnight. Thelight was burning in the house of A59. When he knocked the door, A59opened it. P.W.1124 asked for return of the loan and A59 told himthat he would return it in ten days. Then he asked A59 for somewater. A59 went inside to fetch water. From the front room of thehouse, the witness smelt sulphur. He also saw PVC pipes, gelatinsticks and black wires. A11, A60, A12, A16 and A7 were sitting https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there. They were inserting gelatin sticks into the PVC pipes. Afterdrinking water, he asked A59 what was the use of these materials, hewas told that they were going to do business with these. Heimmediately asked for prompt return of the loan. On 14-02-1998,there were several serial blasts in Coimbatore and the papers carriedthe news that it was Al Umma Organisation which was behind it andafter one week, he read in the papers that the police had seizedgelatin sticks from the house of A59. Because of fear, he did notinform the police. It was later that the police made enquiries andthis witness identified in Court A7, A11, A60, A59 and A16. Thiswitness admitted that in order to go to his house from DelightTheatre, it is not necessary to pass through the house of A59. The defence case is that it is very unlikely and improbable thata person would go in the middle of the night after returning from thesecond show of a movie to ask for return of a loan. It is alsosubmitted that there is no explanation as to how this witness waslocated. Further, the non-examination of the friend Manoj rendersthe evidence uncorroborated. According to the defence, the evidenceof this witness cannot be believed.According to the learned Public Prosecutor, the explanationgiven by P.W.1124 for his presence is quite plausible here and inview of the seizure of the explosive material, the evidence ofP.W.1124 gets strength and cannot be rejected. (ii) P.W.1162 K.S. Satheesh has implicated A5 Basith, A153Yusuf, A154 Hakeem, A28 Sharfuddin and A10 Zakir Hussain. He has aworkshop. One Babu (not examined) is his friend, who does upholsterywork. Through Babu, he got acquainted with Tailor Raja @ Sadiq(absconding accused). Babu had given to Tailor Raja Rs.1,500/- forfixing on rent an upholstery shop in Kuniyamuthur. In connectionwith this, P.W.1162 and Raja went to the Al Umma Office in September,1997. There, they met Tailor Raja, who introduced the other accusedmentioned above. On 12-01-1998, Monday night at 8’o clock, he andBabu went to Vallal Nagar, where Tailor Raja was residing. When heknocked the door, he opened it. The two went inside. Tailor Rajaasked them why they had come. At that time, they saw the otheraccused sitting on the floor manufacturing bombs. In front of them,there were switches, gelatin sticks, batteries, detonators, TVS sidebox and black boxes, which were kept open. There was a strong smellof sulphur in the house. The accused warned them that if the witnessdivulges it to others, SK (A163, S.K. Mohammed Ali) will kill them. So they came out. On 14-02-1998, there were serial blasts inCoimbatore. The police arrested people belonging to Al Umma and fivemonths later, the Special Investigation Team examined this witness. He also identified A5, A10, A28, A153 and A154 in Court. It is elicited that the friend Babu lives in Sivananda Colony,but the witness did not know the door number of his house etc. and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also that thereafter, Babu did not fix up a shop on rent inKuniyamuthur, nor did he get back the advance amount. The witnesscontradicted his own statement given to the police with regard to theknowledge of the door number and Tailor Raja’s house. According to the defence, again the prosecution has notexplained how he was located and according to the witness, the shopwas to be fixed for Babu, the evidence would have been acceptable ifBabu had been examined, since it was for him that P.W.1162 went toTailor Raja’s house. There was no seizure from the house of TailorRaja. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the explanationgiven by this witness is quite plausible and further, theidentification in Court of the accused would lend weight to theevidence.(iii) P.W.1164 Muthusamy is an autorickshaw driver, who residesin Kattoor. A5 Basith is known to him; A5 works for a vakil clerkand he would always chews/takes pan parag. On Saturday, 10th January,1998, he and one Suresh (not examined) went to Bismi Nagar. It was8.00 p.m. then. There were four houses facing east. In front of thesecond house, A5 was standing. When he asked Basith why he wasstanding there, the answer was that he is going to see A16Keezhakarai Abbas, who deals with old clothes. P.W.1164 told Fasidthat he wants a house for rent. A5 told him that he would ask hisfriend and let him know and he went inside the house. P.W.1164 andthe friend Suresh also followed him. There, he was introduced toA16 and Tailor Raja (absconding accused). Inside the house, therewas TVS 50 side box, gelatin sticks and batteries. The witnessrealized that they were manufacturing bombs. A5 told him that if herevealed it, he would be killed. Therefore, fearing for their lives,they came out. On 14-02-1998, there were bomb blasts in Coimbatoreand then the witness realized that these people had manufactured thebombs. The Special Investigating Team police examined him fivemonths thereafter. He identified in Court A5 and A16. According to the defence, the Combined Court Building inCoimbatore had come into existence only in the year 2000 andtherefore, there is no possibility of this witness seeing A5 in theCourt. It is also elicited that he had seen A16 on 10-01-1998 for thefirst time for two minutes and thereafter, he had seen him only inthe Court. (iv)P.W. 1256 Ganesh Babu has implicated A6 Ozir, A105 Rafiq,A10 Zakir Hussain, A28 Sharfuddin, A36 Noor Mohammed @ Noor and A153Kuniamuthur Yusuf. He resides in Kovai Rathinapuri. He is a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ businessman. On 12-01-1998, along with his friends Kumaresan (notexamined), he went to the Old Market to buy spare parts for a car. There, they went to the shop of P.W.159 Noor Mohammed. He wasinformed that he was in Tipu Nagar. So, they went to TipuNagar. There, one boy showed him Door No.145 where P.W.159 wasresiding. When he knocked on the door, A6 opened the door andinside, he saw A105 whom he already knew and the other accusedmentioned above. Apart from A6, all the others were sitting on thefloor. It was 7.00 p.m. then. There was light in the house. Infront of the accused, there were plastic pipes, roller, gelatinsticks, plastic caps and detonators. He realized that they weremanufacturing pipe bombs. He enquired about P.W.159. A105 told themthat no such person by such name was there. So, fearing for theirlives, they came away. On 14-02-1998, there were serial blasts andthe police arrested Al Umma people. It is only then that thiswitness realized that the persons, he saw were involved in the bombblasts. This witness was examined five or six months thereafter andhe identified A6, A10, A28, A105, but he could not identify A153.It has been elicited that even in his own area, there are manyspare-parts shops. The defence also submitted that though the CourtSummon was sent to his old address under Ex-D12, how he knew aboutthe service of summons in his new address was not explained. It isalso the suggestion of the defence that he is used very often by theSpecial Investigating Team Office and he is a stock witness. P.W.1300, the Investigating Officer also has admitted that whenrecording the statement of P.W.159 Noor Mohammed, no questions wereasked regarding this occurrence though P.W.159 is the personmentioned by P.W.1256. However, P.W.1300 recovered from P.W.159, theR.C. Book and the Insurance Policy regarding the FIAT Car MRD-3492,which was used for planting the bombs and apart from the endorsementthat they were seized, there is no seizure mahazar with regard tothis. (v) P.W.1013 Rasool Beebi’s evidence that on 02-12-2003 shehad let out her house on rent at the request of two persons. Onesaid that his name was Abdul Rehman and that he wanted the house forhis friend. According to her, Abdul Rehman sent another person asthe tenant. That young man would go out in the morning and returnonly in the evening. He would go in a motorbike. One night, he camein a white Ambassador card. They unloaded cloth bundles. She askedhim what his name was and he said it was Abbas fromKeezhakharai. There is no incriminating material against any accusedin her evidence. (vi) P.W.1158 Gangadharan, a salesman, said in his evidencethat he is an auto rickshaw driver. He gave Rs.3,000/- to A9 OomBabu who belonged to ‘Al Umma’ as advance amount for buying a secondhand auto rickshaw in August, 1997. In connection with this, he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would go to ‘Al Umma’ Office frequently. At that time, A9 introducedhim to A5 Basith, A10 Yusuf, A53 Zakir Hussain and A39 Hakim. InNovember 1997, Constable Selvaraj was murdered. At that time, A9 hadgone to Kerala. So he could not see him. On 15-09-1991, at about8.15 p.m., he went to Oom Babu’s house in Tipu Nagar. He knocked atthe door of the house and as soon as P.W.1158 went inside, A9 shutthe door. The smell of sulphur pervaded the house. On the floor,there was a TVS side box, black wire and red wire and blue colourjeans bag. The accused mentioned above were in the next room. Theywere preparing bombs with gelatin sticks and detonators. Three otherunknown persons were also there. A9 told him that he would give themoney after two months and that if he revealed what was happeninginside the house, he would kill him with the help of the threepersons and then he asked him to go outside. The witness came out infear. In February 1998, there were serial blasts in Coimbatore. Thepolice arrested the people belonging to ‘Al Umma’ and five monthslater, the C.I.D. police examined him. He told them the details andsaid that he would be able to identify the accused. The witnessidentified in Court, A5, A9, A10 and A153. It is also elicited that he had only seen A9, but has no closeacquaintance with him and that second hand autos could be obtainedcheaply in Kerala and that till date, the amount of Rs.3,000/- givenby him to A9 as advance was not returned to him. (vii) P.W.1007 is one Rukaiya Beevi. According to her, she hasa house in Tipu Nagar, where there are four residentialaccommodations in the ground floor and four on the first floor, whichshe would let out on rent. All these houses are in the name of herson Mohammed Sadiq, but it was she who would collect the rents. About five years ago, she had given to A9 Oom Babu, one of the houseson rent on receiving Rs.15,000/- as advance and Rs.700/- as rent. Hestayed there for three months and left with his wife. Three monthslater, A9 vacated the house and took back the advance. During hisperiod of tenancy, many people would come and go to the house. Aboutfour months after the occurrence, the police brought one person, whomshe learnt was A5 Basith. He told the police that he would visit theplace when A9 was residing there. This witness does not speakanything about the manufacture of bombs by the accused. (viii) P.W.1018 Shahabuddin is a resident of Vallalar Nagarand has been in Coimbatore for more than 30 years. He had seen AbdulHamid, A148 (acquitted) many years ago. He cannot identify him when. One day, he asked him to take up a house for rent and gaveRs.2,000/- as advance. He saw the house and did not like it. Afterthat, he rented it to another person. The witness does not rememberthe name of the tenant. The tenant did flower business. Anotherhouse was let on rent to one Abdul Samad (not examined). The personwho came to the house said that his wife would come. Later, herealized that the tenant was Tailor Raja (the absconding accused). https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ He would out in the morning for business and come back in theevening. After two weeks, he left the place. Thereafter, the bombblasts took place. The house was vacant and he let it out tosomebody else. This witness does not speak of the manufacture ofbombs.(ix) P.W.1021 Mohammed Yakub is a resident of Saramedu. According to him, on the same road, in the last house, one MohammedRafique lived with his family. This was before the bomb blasts tookplace. He lived there for one year. The police enquired him. Heasked him to vacate the house because he knew that he belonged to ‘AlUmma’. One month after the bomb blasts, Mohammed Rafique wasarrested. This witness also does not speak of the manufacture ofbombs. So these are the materials before the Court for deciding whetherthe prosecution case for manufacture of bombs by the accused isproved or not.VII. DISTRIBUTION & PLANTINGNow we come to the topic of distribution of the bombs and theevidence of witnesses with regard to that aspect, and also as to theplanting thereof at the scene of occurrence at various locations.(1) P.W.663 Venkatesh is a resident of Selvapuram. He doesbuilding work and in this regard, he would go to places like Ukkadam,Athupalam, Kottaimedu, Al Ameen Colony etc. He used to have work inother places also. On 14.2.1998, at around 10.30 a.m., he had goneto Al Ameen Colony. He was standing next to the rice shop known asSuresh Traders. At that time, A45 Sait @ Santhu Mohammed came therein a red colour Yamaha. Along with him came A26 Jahangir and AbdulRahman @ Jayakumar (deceased accused) in a red colour TVS Suzuki. A26 showed to A45 a black box, which was in his vehicle. Afterwards,he closed it. He also showed a white button, which was in betweenthe seat and the box. Thereafter, they were talking to each other. Finally, A45 told A26 “Without fail, I will place it at the postoffice and railway station”. After saying so, A45 took the TVSSuzuki vehicle and went away. The others also left. That day, hedid not get any job and so, he returned home. That afternoon, theserial bomb blasts took place in Coimbatore. On hearing thisinformation and fearing his life, he did not leave his house. In thenewspaper, he learnt that because of explosion of pipe bombs, hugedamage had been caused in the railway station and posit office. Because of fear, he did not tell what he saw the previous day toanybody else. One and a half months later, the C.B. C.I.D. examinedhim. The witness identified only A26 and wrongly identified A44 asA45. He had admitted that some one asked him to go to Suresh Tradersfor work. Therefore, he boarded a bus and went there, but that he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ did not know that person previously. He waited there fore about 45minutes, but no one came. According to him, one of the accused doesplumbing works and the other deals in second hand articles. Thereafter, he never went to Suresh Traders. (2)P.W. 448 Govindaraj is another witness who speaks ofdistribution. He is a resident of Sulur. He is a trader of oldpaper and old iron. His main area of business is in Athupalam,Kuniyamuthur, Saramedu, Kottaimedu and the adjacent places. On14.2.1998, in connection with his work, he had gone towards Sarameduin his TVS-50 moped. When he neared Mattachalai Pallivasal, hisvehicle broke down. It was about 2 p.m. then. On the south of theabove pallivasal, there is a tiled house. In front of that house, A6Ozir and Mujibur (absconding accused) were standing talking to eachother. Near them, there was a pushcart fixed with cycle tyre. Therewere a lot of pineapples on that cart. At that time, A33 Abu Thageerand A32 L.M. Hakkim came out. A6 told them, “Go and leave it atwhere R.S. Puram meeting takes place and do as I instructed you”. Thereafter, those two persons pushed the pineapple cart away. In themean time, inspite of much effort, this witness could not start thevehicle. Therefore, he pushed the vehicle and came to the main roadto a petrol bunk. He found that there was no petrol in the vehicleat all. So he filled his vehicle with petrol and went away. Itwould have been around 2.30 p.m. when this happened. At that time,an auto was standing in front of the aforesaid pallivasal and oneperson was sitting in the auto. This witness had no knowledge of theperson who was sitting in the auto. That evening, he returned to hisplace at Appanaickanpatti and he learnt through television about thebomb blasts and he also read “Dhina Thanthi” newspaper. He learntthat one pineapple cart burst in R.S. Puram. He had a doubt thatthere might some connection between what he saw the previous day andthis blast. But because of fear, he did not mention this to anybody. He was examined by the police after five or six months. Heidentified A6, A32 and A33 in Court. He had seen the accused afterthe occurrence only in Court. He had not informed the Police.Learned Public Prosecutor, however, would submit that in suchsensitive matters, the silence of the witness is understandable. Noone is likely to volunteer information in cases of terrorism andfurther, with regard to these cases, the police have sources ofinformation that helps them to locate the witnesses. Further, theidentification in Court supports the oral evidence of this witnessand that is enough to show that the witness is creditworthy. (3) P.W.948 Kannan is an autorickshaw driver and is aresident of Bajanai Street, Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore. He wouldpark his auto in the Gandhipuram Auto Stand. On Friday, 13thFebruary, 1998, at 8.30 p.m., he went for a ride from Gandhipuram toRoyal Nagar in Saramedu. After parking the auto in the shop, hewaited for the next passenger. At that time, to the north, a whiteFIAT car was parked. Near the said car, Tailor Raja (absconding https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused), A28 Sarfudeen and A6 Ozir were standing and talking to eachother. At that time, A35 Video Rafiq and A34 Mohammed Rafiq, who areknown to him and who belonged to Tipu Nagar, also came there. Allthe four talked to each other. A28 opened the car and took out twoblue colour jeans bags. He gave one to A34 and the other to A35. Both of them took them and went away through a street on the northernside. Since no passenger came that way, he drove his auto andreturned. On 14-02-1998, he learnt about the bomb blasts and theconsequent arrests. He also learnt that the police had arrested A34and A35 since these were people belonging to the ‘Al Umma’Organisation, but for fear of life, he kept quiet. After five or sixmonths, police examined him. He identified A6 and A35, but wronglyidentified A23 Shajahangir and A35 Mohammed Rasool as A33 and A34,though they were very much sitting in the Court at that time. Thereare discrepancies between his evidence and his statement underSection 164 Cr.P.C. He does not know A6 and A34. When theyexchanged the bags, he did not know what was in it. (4) P.W.979 Shahul Hameed was a resident of Kurichikovai whenhe gave evidence, but at the relevant point of time, he was residingat Elahi Nagar in Saramedu. He is an auto driver and the number ofhis auto is TTC-6301, which belonged to Khaja Hussain. Khaja Hussainis the District Secretary of the A.I.A.D.M.K. Party. His auto standis at Saramedu Main Road. It was called T.M.M.K. On 14-02-1998,about 3.30 p.m., a small boy came and told him that two persons werewaiting at Tipu Nagar and asked him to go over there. Immediately hewent there. At that time, A34 and A35 were standing there slingingtwo jeans bags on their shoulders. They got into the auto and askedhim to go to Gandhipuram. They kept the bags near their feet. Whilethey were going past Ukkadam near Prakasam, A34 got down and toldA35, “I will proceed to Rajendra Textriles, you get down atGandhipuram and you do what I said”. At that time, A35 was sittingin the auto. He asked the witness to drop him at Gandhipuram. Hewent via the bridge at Nanjappa Road. A little distance thereafter,A35 asked him to stop, i.e., about 10 feet afterwards. He told him,“Let the bag remain here, I will go get some tools” and asked thewitness to stand near Ashoka Complex. So, he went and stood nearAshoka Complex. About ten minutes later, a bomb burst in RajaRajeswari Hall and all the buses stopped. He learnt about the bombexplosion. So he returned to his auto stand at Saramedu with thebag. After parking the vehicle, he took the bag out and went to TipuNagar. He enquired where the house of A34 was. The persons whom heenquired told him that they did not know A34. He again took the bagand returned to Saramedu Stand. When he opened the zip bag, he saw abox inside where there was a switch with a tape affixed over it. Since no passenger came, he though that if the person who kept itcame to reclaim it, he would return it and waited. About ten minuteslater, A13 Auto Siraj came there. He asked him to return the bagstating that it contains a bomb and that it belongs to ‘Al Umma’. The witness got frightened. He said he will give it only if A34 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ asked for it and that he wanted to get back the fare for the tripfrom him. But since A13 threatened him, he returned the bag to himand went home. After he went home, his parents told him not to getout of the house. The next day, he went to the auto stand and learntthat six persons had died in the bomb blast that occurred at RajendraTextiles and he also read about it in the newspapers. He thoughtthat perhaps only the passenger A34 would have been responsible forthe blast. About four or five months later, the police examined himand they brought A34 and A35 to the auto stand. He told the policewhatever had happened and he also identified the two persons. But inCourt, the witness was unable to identify the accused. He hadadmitted that in view of the visit of Mr. L.K. Advani, the police wascarrying out checking of autos, but his auto was not checked. He didnot know what the two accused spoke to each other. He had waited inAshoka Complex for ten minutes. (5) P.W.1060 Ganesh Kumar is a resident of Thirumalveedhi. Heis a dealer of readymades and footwear. He had studied upto VStandard in Saveria School on N.H. Road and upto IX Standard in theNarasimhanaicken School. His schoolmates were A60 Saleem, A13 Sirajand A19 Makkan Jaffar. A17 Zaffru did Khallasi work for three yearswith him. A11 Poochikkan Salaam and A12 TADA Aslam were hisneighbours from childhood in Thirumalveedhi. In November 1997,Constable Selvaraj was murdered. After that, Coimbatore faced a lotof disturbances. One white Ambassadar car would be parked in frontof Saravanan Complex, Saaj Building and the house of A59 Yakub. Hesaw that on 14-02-1998, there were bomb blasts in several places. The C.B.C.I.D. police enquired him. He gave a statement before thepolice as well as under Section 164, Cr.P.C. The witness admittedthe statement given by him before the police. The witness identifiedA12, A17, A19 and A60. He also says that there is no suggestion thatA13, A60 and A19 were not his classmates or that he did not know A11and A12. Of course, this witness had not disclosed to P.W.1300, theChief Investigating Officer that he was a classmate of the aboveaccused. (6) P.W.1169 Balakrishnan is a coolie by profession and aresident of Kattur. In 1997-1998, he was selling lottery tickets onhis bicycle. At the time of giving evidence, he had an iron shop. He would sell lottery tickets on his bicycle, going to Kattur,Saramedu, Matta Pallivasal etc. Since he did lottery business there,he knew about the ‘Al Umma’ people. On 13.2.1998, at about 9.00p.m., he was going via Mattachalai Pallivasal. At that time, infront of A15 Safoor’s house, in the vacant space, three pushcarts, amoped, one Ambassador car and one FIAT car were parked. A15 Safoor,A26 Jahangir and A5 Basith were loading some black boxes in the rearseat of the car. At that time, Safoor said, “Be careful, it mightexplode”. There were also some TVS-50 side boxes. A6 Ozir, A164Mujibur Rahman and A28 Sarfudeen assisted them. At that time, therewas a front light in Safoor’s house. Looking at this, the witness https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ thought it was not his business to get involved in trouble andreturned home. On 14-02-1998, bomb explosions occurred inCoimbatore. The police enquired him and he identified A5, A6, A15,A24 and A28. He also identified A104. (7) P.W.1234 Karuppaiah, is an auto driver. In 1998, hewas driving the auto at Lajapathirai Road. He would ride his auto onhire in Ukkadam and Kottaimedu. At that time, he had met A45 Sait @Santhu Mohammed and A26 Jahangir. On 14-02-1998, he was going onLajapathirai Road in his auto. At about 10 a.m., he went to Al AmeenColony. He dropped the passenger at Suresh Rice Shop and waited foranother passenger. At 10.20 a.m., A45 parked a red colour motorcyclein front of his auto. A little later, A26 also came in a red Suzukiwith another person. There was a black box on the right side of thevehicle of A26. He showed it to A45 and closed it. There was awhite button in that box. A45 took the vehicle from A26 and told himthat he will place it in the railway station and post office as hesaid and went away. A26 took the motorcycle parked by A45 and wentaway with the other person. Since the witness got a passenger to goto Town Hall, he left the place. The next day, at 4 p.m., there wereserial blasts in Coimbatore. The buses did not run and he was in hishouse. Two days later, he went to the auto stand. He saw the blastsite at R.M.S. He realized that the aforesaid persons wereresponsible for the occurrence. He was examined by C.B.C.I.D. aftersix months. He identified A45 correctly, but wrongly identified A60as A26 (A26 was very much present in the Court Hall). The onlyrelevant cross-examination as far as this witness is concerned isthat his address is not known. P.W.1270, investigating officer hasnot been specifically cross-examined in this regard either.(8) The next witness is P.W.1240 Shyam Prasad. He is a residentof Saibaba Colony. He has a plastic industry in Nanjundapuram. Whenhe had gone via ‘Al Umma’ Office, he had seen A26 Jahangir. Oncewhen he went to Chinthamani Market to stitch some gunny bags alongwith his friend Kumar (not examined), he had seen A63 Saaku Faruk. On 14-02-1998, he had gone to Royal Flats, which is behind the S.I.O.Mosque in Saramedu. At that time, A26 gave A63, one TVS-50 moped,which was green in colour. A63 took the moped and went towardsKarumbukkadai. That day, there were blasts near Singanallur PoliceStation. The police seized a TVS-50 moped there and found bombs init, which were diffused. The witness realized that this was themoped, which was driven by A63. He identified only A26 and not A63in Court. (9) The next witness to speak about distribution of bombs isP.W.1291 B. Vijayakumar. He is an auto driver. His evidenceimplicates A20 Amjad Ali and A54 Rawoof. According to him, on 11-02-1998 at about 11.30 p.m., his auto was engaged by two persons whowanted to go to Thirumal Street. He asked them where they wanted togo in Thirumal Street and they told that they wanted to go to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Saravana Metal Mart. When they were sitting in the auto, they weretalking to each other. A20 asked the other when did he come fromMelapalayam. A54 asked A20 when did he come from Thanjavur. Thenthey were talking about their family matters. P.W.1291 dropped themat Saravana Metal Mart. On 14-02-1998, this witness went nearMattachalai Pallivasal from Kuniyamuthur for picking up passengers. At that time, one person told him, “Please wait behind the Pallivasalfor 15 minutes, you are required for another ride”. He waited there. Then TADA Mujibur Rahman (absconding accused) came out with a bluecolour jeans bag. A54 Rawoof, who has a goldsmith shop in ChettyStreet and who is known to the witness also came there. Theabsconding accused told A54, “Take this and make arrangements forleaving it near the Hindu Makkal Party Office”. Thereafter, he left. On 14-02-1998, at 11.30 a.m., P.W.1291 went for a ride near theKalavai Kabrasthan. He dropped a passenger there and came away. Atthat time, he was having tea near Gnanaselvi Tea Shop. A blue colourAmbassador came near the Kabrasthan gate. The absconding accusedcame out of the car wth two polythene bags and went inside. Alongwith him, there were four or five persons sitting near the burialplace and they were A2 Ansari, A6 Ozir, A4 Nawab Khan, A20 Amjad Ali,A54 Rawoof and A5 Basith. At about 12noon, A2 and A54 came out. A2sent A20 saying “Finish the work properly at R.S. Puram Meeting”. Thereafter, the witness was returning to the stand. The others,including A20 walked along with Athupalam. On 14-02-1998, there werebomb blasts in Coimbatore. For two or three days therafter, heremained in his house. Four or five months later, the C.B. C.I.D.Police examined him. He has stated that the investigating officercame to the stand and called him by name. He asked him whether heknew the details. He said yes. He asked him whether he couldidentify the accused and he said yes. But in Court, he could notidentify the accused. (10) P.W.352 is Sathar. In his evidence, he has implicated A18Kathikuthu Ismail, A38 Adipatta Babu, A39 M. Hakeem and A95 Akbar. He is an auto driver. In 1998, he was driving the autorickshawbelonging to Muthusamy with Registration No.TAG-2077. At the time ofgiving evidence, however, he was driving the auto belonging to oneNagammal with Registration No.MDE-4301. He has acquaintance with theabove four persons who belong to Karunanidhi Nagar. On 12-02-1998,at about 8.30 p.m., his auto was parked in the Saibaba Koil AutoSand. At that time, A38 came with Sultan (not examined) and saidthat he wanted to go to Ukkadam. After going to Ukkadam, he askedthem where did they want to go. A38 replied that they wanted to goto Al Ameen Colony. So, he took the auto to Al Ameen Colony. Nearthe Mosque, they asked him to turn the auto and park it there. A38got down there and was talking to A39 and Tailor Raja (abscondingaccused). After that, Tailor Raja and A39 went away in a TVS-50moped. A38 followed them behind. The witness remained there withSultan. Thereafter, the aforesaid three persons came with two bluecolour bags and kept it in his auto. A38 told him to take Sultan https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with the bags to Karunanidhi Nagar. So he went with Sultan toKarunanidhi Nagar. A38 and A39 followed him in another auto. NearAnna Finance on Mettupalayam Road, there was a traffic jam. At thattime, they got down from the auto coming behind them, got into hisauto and asked Sultan to get down from this auto and get into theauto that was coming behind them. Thereafter, the witness parked thenear the Al Umma Flag Post. There, A18 and A15 were standing. Theaccused gave one bag out of the two to A15. A15, on receiving it,went inside the second lane of Karunanidhi Nagar. After some time,A15 took the other bag and went to the III Street. Then, A39 wentand had tea. The witness asked A39 Rs.70/- as fare. He gave himRs.50/- and told him that he would give him the balance at the autostand. Then they returned. After two days, A15 and A38, along withtwo others, were standing near the tea stall belonging to Sottai Baiin Karunanidhi Nagar. He asked them for the balance Rs.20/-. A38said that he would give it later. The witness states that he did notknow what was inside the bag. After five or six months, the policeenquired him. He also gave a statement under Section 164, Cr.P.C.,which is marked as Ex-P98. He could not identify the accused inCourt. (11) The next witness is P.W.466 P. Vijayakumar, a goldsmith hasimplicated A164 Mujibur Rehman (released under the Juvenile JusticeAct). If he had to repair his cycle, he would go to Ibrahim’s CycleShop in Kottaimedu, where A164 worked. His friend Ravi had introducedthem to him and Ravi is also familiar with them. He and Ravi plannedto go there. Therefore, Ravi came to his house at 2.15 p.m. Theywalked from R.S. Puram to T.V. Road. At that time, it was about 2.45p.m. It was announced that by the time L.K. Advani arrives there, itwould be 4.00 p.m. Therefore, thinking that they can have sometiffin by that time, they went to Lokamanya Street on the east andthen to Sir Shanmugam Road on the north. At the junction of SirShanmugam Road and T.V. Sami Road, a person came riding a blackSuzuki Samurai motorcycle. A164 was sitting in the pillion. Theystopped the vehicle to the east of Sir Shanmugam Road. Theregistration number of the vehicle was KL-11/A4628. The driver ofthe vehicle parked the vehicle with the stand. At that time, A164told the driver, “Sirajbai, please go and stand there in the north, Iwill come there”. A164 was wearing a saffron colour T-shirt andkhaki colour pant with black shoes and was having kumkum on hisforehead. After he parked the motorcycle, he opened the side box. He pulled a knob like thing and closed it again. The witness askedhim “What Mujib?” but the accused did not reply and went towards thenorth. At the spot where the motorcycle was parked, there was apolice bus, a police van and a few cars and autos were also there. At about 3.30 p.m., when the witness and his friend again went to eatto a bakery, in about 20 minutes, with a frightening blast, a bombburst. When they came out, people were talking amongst themselvesthat there was a bomb blast at Sir Shanmugam Road. When the witnessand his friend went to the scene of occurrence, the police bus and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ van were damaged. The rear side of the Suzuki Samurai was severelydamaged. Since they were afraid, they immediately returned to theirhouse. They told each other that they would not tell others whatthey saw. On 18-02-1998, Ravi came to his house. Both of them wentand narrated the incident to the police. On 21-02-1999, the policeasked him to come to P.R.S. and he went there with Ravi. There, heidentified A164. The witness has also identified the shirt and theshoes, which he was wearing. According to him, M.O.116 are theshoes, which he was wearing and M.O.117 is the saffron T-shirt, whichhe was wearing. He has stated that he can identify A164 andaccordingly identified A164 who was sitting in the Court. Hisevidence is attacked because he had identified A32 Hakeem inconnection with Crime No.153 of 1998 which was the West SambandamRoad blast and so he could not have been in two places. His evidenceneed not be tested in this case since we have released A164. We willdeal with this objection in Crime No.153 of 1998.(12) P.W.537 Venkatasamy has implicated A32 Hakeem and A33Abuthahir. He runs a canteen in the Social Club on Thadagam MainRoad. He regularly goes to the market for purchasing the groceriesfor the canteen. If he wants to purchase fish, he would go toUkkadam Fish Market. A32 has a fish stall there. Since he usuallysells good quality fish, he would normally purchase fish only fromA32. That is how he got well acquainted with him. In that shop,usually A33 would also be there, who would help A32. A33 had a scrapiron business. On 14-02-1998, by 2‘o clock in the afternoon, hefinished his canteen work and went to his house. Then, at about 3‘oclock, he thought he would attend the meeting of L.K. Advani and hecame out of the house. At that time, he saw his friend PW 450Dhandapani near the auto stand. So he called him to join him to themeeting. Both of them walked along T.P. Road and were standing andtalking near Iyer & Co. Some people were talking that the meetingwould soon commence. At that time, the two accused pushed a tricyclecarrying pineapples and they left it near Iyer & Co. building. Theydid something at the base of the tricycle, left it there and wentwestwards. As they were going, they kept turning back. The witnessand his friend were talking to each other as to why they had left thetricycle behind. At about 4’o clock, the pineapple cart burst. There was smoke all over. They could hear people screaming andfalling down. Vehicles were damaged. These two persons gratefullythinking that their lives were spared ran away from that place. Thewitness identified A32 and A33 in Court. In cross-examination, hehas explained that he noticed the conduct of the accused,particularly because he was puzzled why a person who sells fish andone who deals in scrap iron should push a pineapple cart. In thestatement given to the police, he has not mentioned about the twoaccused meddling at the bottom of the pineapple cart. It is alsoelicited in the cross-examination that though in the vicinity therewere many police stations, they did not mention anything about whatthey saw either in the Club or to the police. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (13) P.W.450 Dhandapani is an auto driver. He usually wouldpark his auto in the Thadagam Road Auto Stand. P.W.537 is known tohim. He would normally use his auto only if he wanted to go out andhe would usually buy fish from A32 Hakeem who has a fish stall inUkkadam Market. His evidence is also to the effect that he isfamiliar with A33 Abuthahir. On 14-02-1998, he was waiting at theauto stand. At about 3.15 p.m., P.W.537 came there. He said that hewanted to go to the meeting where L.K. Advani was going to speak. So, both of them went to the venue of the meeting via SambanthamRoad. At that time, A32 and A33 came there pushing a pineapplecart. They went and parked it near Iyer & Co. building. Instead ofselling the fruits, they were trying to turn something under thecart. Thereafter, they left the pineapple cart and went away. Soonthereafter, the fruit cart burst with a frightening noise. Manypeople got hurt, while some died. Many vehicles were damaged. Thewitness returned because of fear. Five days later, he was examined. He identified A32 and A33 in the Court. In cross-examination, it iselicited that he did not tell the police that because of fear theydid not leave the house afterwards and that they were asked by theirfamily members not to go out. He has also admitted that he did nottell the police any identifying marks. He is not aware of the numberof the shop of A32. He has stated that he would have seen A32 about10 or 15 times before the occurrence. He has admitted in cross-examination that he knew A33 only through P.W.537. He has alsoadmitted in cross-examination that though the accused walked by withthe fruit cart close to them, he did not talk to them. (14) The next witness is P.W.575 Senthil Kumar. On 14-02-1998, he was standing near the junction at Gani Rowther Street andRamar Koil Street. At that time, a pineapple cart was parked there,and a young man, about 25 years old, pulled something under the cartand ran away. Soon thereafter, the pineapple cart burst. Thewitness got hurt in the occurrence. No document is marked to showthat he was injured in the blasts, nor has this witness identifiedany of the accused.(15) P.W.631 Kumar lives in Karunanidhi Nagar. His job ispainting. On 14-02-1998, he was proceeding from Kannappan Nagar viaSanganurpallam. It was around 3.45 p.m. then. At that time, A37Ozir Basha, A38 Adipatta Babu and A36 Noor Mohammed were standingthere. A37 gave A36 a cycle and A38 gave a blue colour jeans bag toA37, which he asked him to put up on the cycle carrier. Heexclaimed, “Keep it carefully, if it bursts, all of us will befinished”. The witness was standing 10 feet away when this happened. A36 sat on the cycle for riding it and A38 sat on the carrier, withthe jeans bag on his lap. Thereafter, both of them went away throughSivananda Colony. When P.W.631 thought he could go to the BJPmeeting, it was 4’o clock. When he was proceeding therefore through https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Saibaba Colony, he heard a blast from Sivananda Colony and also fromKannappan Nagar. So, he did not go anywhere and returned to hishouse and remained there. After some days, the police and the C.B.C.I.D. examined him. The witness identified A36 in Court. His motherNalini has been examined as P.W.374, as also his uncle Vasu asP.W.425 and Suryaprakash, Sivaraman and Radhakrishnan. His motherNalini was injured in the blasts and she has been admitted in thehospital on the same day. So according to the defence he is aninterested witness. In his statement to the police, he had not statedthat A36 gave the jeans bag. Before the police, he has not said A38said “If it bursts, we will all be finished”.(16) P.W.658 Sakthivel, implicated A43 Abdul Razak and A44Mohammed Azam. He was working as a loadman in National Travels in1998. In his travel company, the buses would go to Madras, Bangaloreand Bombay. On 14-02-1998, one Baiju (deceased) was sitting in thebooking counter in his office. The witness was sorting out theparcels for delivery. At that time, auto driver Siva, P.W.662, cameand asked him if there was any parcel to be delivered. At that time,A43 and Kaja Mohideen (not an accused, not examined), who regularlycome to National Travels, came there with a blue colour jeans bag. A43 took the bag from Kaja Mohideen and kept it on the table in frontof Baiju. He asked him what would be the fare to Madras. Baijureplied that it would be Rs.160/-. He gave Baiju a hundred-rupeenote and he asked him to give two tickets. At that time, A44 toldA43, “Selvi is standing outside, we will go out and come”. Then, A43opened the bag, did something and went out. This witness and P.W.663also came out and they were sitting in the bus, which was parkedoutside. Five minutes later, Baiju called them and they got downfrom the bus. At that time, the bag burst with a frightening noiseand in that blast, their office, Jain Travels which was adjacent toit and Dasarathan’s Mess got badly damaged. One Balakrishnan wasthrown out. He too died. Another person who was going in a TVS anda pedestrian also died. There is a room above Dasarathan’s Mess. Four persons sitting their got injured. One Usman also got hurt. This witness thought that he could catch the two accused andtherefore, he went and searched for them in TTC Bus Stand, signal andupto the Town Bus Stand. But he did not catch them and therefore, hereturned. By that time, a big crowd had gathered there. The noiseof another blast was heard. Fearing there might be a clash, thiswitness along with P.W.662 went to Mettupalayam and returned only on16-02-1998. The Inspector of B-4 Police Station enquired them. Hetold them everything. He asked him if he could identify the accused. He identified only A43 and said he is not able to identify the otherbecause of the lapse of five years.(17) P.W.662 Siva @ Subramaniam is a friend of P.W.658 in whoseevidence there is a reference to P.W.662. He is a resident ofPappanaickenpalayam and is an auto driver. The registration numberof his auto is TAR-2975. He would usually park his auto near https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Gandhipuram R.V. Hotel. On 14-02-1998 at about 3.45 p.m., he went toNational Travels to ask if there is any work. At that time, Baijuwas at the booking counter and Sakthivel, P.W.658, the loadman wasalso there. He enquired with Baiju if there was any work for him. At that time, A43 Abdul Razak and A44 Mohammad Azam, who belong to AlAmeen Colony and who regularly come to National Travels, came there. A44 was having a blue colour jeans bag. A43 took the bag from A44and kept it on the table in front of Baiju. A43 asked Baiju whatwill be the ticket fare to go to Madras. Baiju replied that it wouldbe Rs.160/-. He gave Baiju a Rs.100/- note and he asked him to booktwo tickets for 10 p.m. bus. At that time, A44 told A43, “Selvi isstanding outside, we will go out and bring her”. Then, A43 openedthe bag, did something, closed the zip and then went out, leaving thebag there. This witness and P.W.658 also came out and they weresitting in the bus, which was parked outside. Five minutes later,Baiju called them and they got down from the bus and even as theywere going in, the bag burst with a frightening noise and in thatblast, their office, Jain Travels, which was adjacent to it andDasarathan’s Mess got badly damaged. Baiju, one Balakrishnan and twopersons passing by were lying injured. There is a room aboveDasarathan’s Mess. Four persons sitting their got injured. OneUsman also got hurt. This witness along with P.W.658 thought thatthey could catch the two accused and therefore, they went andsearched for them in TTC Bus Stand, signal and upto the Town BusStand. But they could not trace them and therefore, they returned. By that time, a big crowd had gathered there. Amidst the ruins,Baiju, Balakrishnan and the two people were passing by on the roadwere lying dead. They were there for about 15 minutes. At that time,another blast was heard near Raja Rajeswari Towers. Fearing theremight be a clash, this witness along with P.W.658 went toMettupalayam where P.W.658’s brother Moorthy (not examined) residesand returned only on 16-02-1998. The Inspector of B-4 Police Stationenquired them. He told them everything. He asked him if he couldidentify the accused. He identified A43 and A44 in Court.(18) The next witness is P.W.986 R. Murugan. He is a painter. On 15-02-1998, he and his friend Siva went to Bilal Estate. At about1 pm, when they came near Bilal Estate ground, they saw A26 Jahangir,A19 Makkan Jaffar and another fair 20 year old boy. A24 had a rolledup white polythene bag in his hand. They went near the field andafter looking around, they hid the polythene bag in the thorny bush. P.W.986 and his friend went away because they were ‘Al Umma’ peopleand they thought that if they were seen, there would be someproblems. On 17-02-1998, they read in the newspapers that four boyswho were playing cricket in the field went to search for the ball inthe thorny bush and died because of a bomb explosion. Then herealized that what the accused had hid there the other day was abomb. He, however, did not say anything about it to anybody becausehe thought there would be problems. Later he realized that theperson who was with A26 and A19 was A20 Amjad Ali and that he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ belonged to Melapalayam. After the city returned to normalcy, policeenquired him. The witness identified A19 and A26, but could notidentify Amjad Ali, who was there. He has admitted that the citycontinued to be in a state of shock after the previous day’s blasts(14-02-1998), but still, because they needed money, he and his friendSiva went to Bilal Estate, though they were afraid. On 15-02-1998,they did not get any work. According to the defence, it wasextremely unlikely that these two persons would have gone out to seekemployment when just on the previous day, there were a series of bombblasts and it is highly unrealistic that they would have gone towardsBilal Estate. (19) P.W.984 is one Siva accompanied P.W.986. His father’sname is Narayanan. According to him, on 15-02-1998, he and P.W.986went towards Bilal Estate seeking some paintwork. It was about 1 pm. At that time, they saw A26 Jahangir, A19 Makkan Jaffar and a 20year’ old fair boy. A24 had a white polythene bag rolled in hishand. All three went near the thorny bushes in the ground, hid thepolythene bag in the thorny bush and went away. These two witnessesreturned home. Two or three days later, he read that children who hadplayed cricket died as a bomb exploded when they went in search ofthe ball in the thorny bushes. Then he realized that the threeaccused had hidden bombs there. He also realized that Amjad Ali isthe cause for the death of the children. After the city returned tonormalcy, police enquired him. This witness identified only A26Jahangir, but could not identify others. He has admitted that in AlAmeen Colony and Bilal Estate, Muslims live predominantly and thatwhen he reached Bilal Estate, it was about 1 p.m. and since there wasno work. With regard to his evidence also, learned counsel for theappellants submitted that it is very unrealistic that anybody wouldhave ventured out, especially in view of the previous day’s incidents(14-02-1998 blasts) and it is unbelievable how the police had tracedhim.(20) P.W.449 S. Ravi is an auto driver. He would normally parkhis auto near Gajapathy Street. Around the time of occurrence, heused to drive his auto near Karumbukadai, Athupalam etc. He wouldalso park his auto in those stands. The name of the auto owner isNagaraj. He lives in Velandipalayam. He knew A33 Abuthahir, A32Hakeem, A164 Mujibur Rahman, A1 Basha and A2 Ansari. On 14-02-1998,around 1 p.m., he took a customer in his auto towards Saramedu. NearSaramedu Mattachalai Pallivasal, a tyre of the auto burst. Thepassenger in the auto got out of the auto saying that his destinationis close by and that he would walk. So, P.W.449 called the autoowner from a STD Booth in Saramedu. He told him that a tyre hadburst and that the owner should buy a new tyre and he also informedthe owner where his auto was standing. After doing so, he returnedto the place where the auto was standing and waited there. At thattime, A6 Ozir, who is known to him and A164 Mujibur Rahman werestanding outside a house and talking to each other. A32 Hakim and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A33 Abuthahir came out of the house and were arranging pineapples ona cart. Then A6 went inside the house, brought two bags, whichlooked like TVS-50 side boxes and kept them underneath the pineapplecart. Then he did something with a wire. After doing so, he toldA32 and A33, “There is a meeting at R.S. Puram. Leave this cartthere and do as I say”. A32 and A33 agreed and went away pushing thefruit cart. It was about 2.30 p.m. then. Some time later, the autoowner came with a new tyre. They fixed the auto and returned to theauto stand. At about 4 p.m., he heard that a bomb had exploded inR.S. Puram and also in the nearby Rajeswari Toowers and ThiruvalluvarBus Stand. He got afraid and went home with his auto. The next day,he learnt from the newspapers that in R.S. Puram, a bomb had explodedin a pineapple cart. Then he remembered what he saw the previous dayand those persons, but because of fear, he did not tell anyone. Sixmonths later, the C.B. C.I.D. police enquired him. He identified A6,A32 and A33 and also said that A164 is not in the Court. He admittedthat he is not acquainted with the three persons and that he did notsay before the police that A32 and A33 were standing outside thehouse. He has admitted that the checking was very strict nearR.M.S., Ukkadam and Kottaimedu and mostly the police checked all thevehicles passing by. He has also stated that, he stood at that spotfor one hour and 15 minutes. He heard what they were talking from100 feet away. (21) The next witness P.W.728 Muthukrishnan was sellingwatches on the platform in front of Anna Hotel near Central BusStand. His friend is Harikrishnan, P.W.794. Harikrishnan has awatch shop at Shop No.6, Corporation Complex, Gandhipuram Central BusStand. The name of his father is Mounasamy. A40 Hakim, son of SyedMohammed would collect amounts from the shops of Muslims. Along withhim, A28 Sharfudeen would also frequently come. Sharfudeen is anauto driver. On the date of occurrence, P.W.728 was standing nearthe basement of Raja Rajeswari Towers with his friend PW794. Thatwas on 14-02-1998 at about 3 p.m. At about 3.30 p.m., a light bluecolour FIAT car came there. The registration number of that car wasTNN-7942. At about 4’o clock, there was a huge noise from the T.T.C.Bus Stand. They ran from east to west. Ten minutes later, they sawthe place from where the noise came and they saw that the FIAT carwas covered in smoke. It was to the north in the underground. Itwas A28 Sharfudeen who drove the car. Many people were injured. Cars, two wheelers and some buildings were damaged. He returnedhome. Four days later when he was in his friend’s house, the policeexamined him. He identified A40 and A28 in Court. He has admittedthat it is only by chance that he went to see Harikrishnan. He isnot able to say the exact time when the car was parked, but says thatit was roughly 3.30 p.m. Rajeswari Towers is about 400 feet from hisshop. It was about 4 p.m. when he heard the explosion noise. Peoplestarted running away when they heard the noise and shopkeepers therehad started closing the shops. He has denied that he had never goneto Rajeswari Towers on that day and that he had not seen any of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ occurrences and that the police have tutored him by showing thephotographs of the accused.(22) P.W.794 Harikrishnan, of whom P.W.728 spoke in hisevidence, has studied upto IX Standard. He has a watch shop near theCentral Bus Stand at Coimbatore. He has also said that A40 Hakimwould collect amounts from the platform vendors. Along with him, A28Sharfudeen would also come and he is an auto driver. On 14.2.1998,when he and P.W.728 were talking to each other in the ground floor,i.e., underground, a blue colour FIAT car came there and theregistration number of that car was TNN-7942. A28 got down from thecar. A28 alone drove the car. After that, they took a token fromthe watchman. Then the said that they were going to Aptech and wenteastwards. The watchman said, “You must go westwards to go toAptech”. Then they told the watchman that they had forgotten thedirection. At about 4 p.m., a huge noise came from the T.T.C. BusStand. He and his friend came out. When they came out, a bomb hadalso exploded in Rajeswari Towers. Because of the explosion, thebuilding got damaged. Many cars and motorcycles also got damaged. Abomb had also exploded near the FIAT car. Since there was tremendouscommotion, he and his friend came away home. Thereafter, the policecame and enquired. He also identified A40 and A28 in Court. He hasadmitted in cross-examination that he has never spoken to the twoaccused but that he has seen them about six or seven times and thathe does not know the details about their address etc. Though he knewthat the accused would come to collect the amount, he had noknowledge as to how much amount is collected. He said that he wentthere just after lunch and it is only on the way he saw P.W.728. According to him, it was about 3 or 3.15 p.m. when they were inRajeswari Towers and they were there till 4’o clock. He has admittedin cross-examination that the stairway is a narrow stairway, but thatit is possible to see the underground from there. In his cross-examination, it is elicited that the person who gives token is calledPerumal Thevar. Many questions have been asked as to whether thewitness could have seen the accused parking the car or the car beingparked underground where they stood.(23) P.W.818 is one Nageswaran. He sells pump spare parts. Heis a BJP party member. With the impending Parliamentary Elections,he had been doing election work on behalf of his party nearKarunanidhi Nagar, Ratnapuri, Sivananda Colony and Kannappan Nagaretc. He would often go to Karunanidhi Nagar and therefore, he wasfamiliar with many of ‘Al Umma’ members. Specifically, he knew A36Noor Mohammad and A38 Adipatta Babu. They had fixed an office fordoing election work in Sivananda Colony on Raju Naidu Street nearAnantha Bakery. The secretary of the party for that region wasP.W.205 Purushothaman. The building belonged to Loganathan. On 14-02-1998, Mr. L.K. Advani was to address a public meeting inCoimbatore. They were sending BJP volunteers from the electionoffice. At about 3.45 p.m., he and Saravanan were drinking tea in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Anantha Bakery. A36 Noor Mohammad parked his cycle in front of thewitness’s office, coming from the north-south direction. There was ablue colour jeans bag in the carrier of his cycle. He opened the zipof the bag and did something in the bag and then he closed it again. He went southwards. At that time, the witness and Saravana thoughtthey would go to the meeting and they would have gone in their TVS-50moped not even 200 meters when a frightening noise came from theirelection office. So they went back. It was about 4 p.m. and theyfound that about six or seven persons were lying with blood injuriesin front of the office. The cycle brought by A36 was damaged. TheBJP Office, Anantha Bakery and another building had been damaged. Two autos had also been damaged. He, Saravanan and PW205 took theinjured persons to the auto and sent them to hospital. Because thesituation was tense, he and Saravanan returned home. The witness hasidentified A36 in Court. He admitted that when he was talking toPW205, almost everyone had left for the meeting. He does not knowwho is the owner of Anantha Bakery nor the name of the tea master. There is another teashop in front of Anantha Bakery. He was standingoutside Anantha Bakery drinking tea. Anantha Bakery’s showcase alsogot damaged in the blast and a young boy also got injured. He sawA36 parking his cycle and that it was within four or five feet fromthe BJP Office and that he did not tell P W205 about it, but PW 205also saw it and nobody tried to stop him. (24) P.W.726 Venkataraj is doing painting work. His motherBhagavathi Ammal was a cook in the Nurse Quarters in the CoimbatoreGovernment Hospital. On 14-02-1998, he and his friend Muralidharanwent on a moped to the hospital. They parked the moped in front ofthe T.V. Ward. It was about 2.30 p.m. A white Ambassador wasstanding outside. The registration number was KLT-5690. A8 SiddiqAli, son of Kottaimedu Basha opened the bonnet of the car and wasdoing something. Along him, there was A27 Muthappa, who is involvedin the Kottai Amir murder. The sticker ‘Om’ was pasted in front ofthe car. Both of them were doing something in the car. He keptseeing what they were doing from where he had parked his moped. After that, they raised the windows and locked the door and wentaway. Then he went to see his mother. He was waiting for one hourfor his mother to come. But since there was a delay, he and hisfriend Muralidharan decided to go outside and take tea. They tookout their moped and went out to the Andal Tea Shop. While they werereturning after having tea at about 4.15 p.m., the car left behind byA8 and A27 exploded with a frightening noise. He rushed in fear tocall his mother. At that time, his mother came running and she toldhim that because of the bomb blasts, there will be some problem andthat they should go back to their house. Thereafter, they returned. On 16-02-1998, when he went to see his mother to the hospital, policewere examining his mother and he gave his statement to the police. He identified A8 and A27 in Court. The witness admitted that he wentto call his mother because his son who was 1½ year old was veryserious and his wife was also not well. His son was suffering from https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ diarrhea and therefore, he thought if he went to CMC Hospital, thechild would get good treatment and because his mother was workingthere, she knew all the big doctors. Since his wife alone could notkeep the child, he thought it would be better if his mother is therefor assistance. He did not think of taking the child directly to thehospital. All that he felt was that since the child was serious, heshould bring his mother. This evidence was strongly attacked by the counsel for theappellant. They said if his object was to go there to bring hismother back, there was no justification to take Muralidharan alongwith him. And if his child was serious, it is hardly likely that hewould go there and had tea. Also, if the child was serious, the morelikely human conduct would be to take the child, rush to the hospitaland with his mother’s assistance, get him examined by the doctors. It is also contend that when the TVS moped was parked in the parkinglot of the hospital, there is no explanation why they took it out onthe busy road to go to the teashop. The more natural action would beto leave the two-wheeler in the parking lot and go, have tea andreturn. But this unbelievable explanation that they took the TVSmoped to the tea shop, which is just opposite the hospital, is onlyto cover up the fact that the vehicle had not been damaged, for ifthey were really there, it would have been damaged in the blast. Sothey had cooked up some story to give some explanation.(25) P.W.734 Abdul Khader, was working with Velumani who washaving the license for the motorcycle parking before the RMS Office. His job was to give tokens and his duty hours was from 9 a.m. to nextmorning 9 a.m. and one day’s salary was Rs.80/-. Next to themotorcycle stand is the car park stand. On 14-02-1998, he went forduty as usual at 9 a.m. At about 2.45 p.m., he was talking toDhandapani, P.W.696. At that time, one person came there with SuzukiMoped and asked for token. He took Re.1/- and gave him the token. He took the token and parked the vehicle in the first row. Thewitness asked him when would he take back the vehicle, for which hereplied that it would be late. The witness, therefore, asked him notto park the vehicle in the first row and to park it in the secondrow. Thereupon, that person moved the bike and parked it in thesecond row and locked it, left the key on top of the fuel tank andwent away. This witness told PW 696 that it is very odd that he wasleaving the bike key on the vehicle. At about 4’o clock, the sameperson came back, did something in the side box and then he againwent away. The witness asked him if he was not taking the vehicle. The person replied that there was some work and that he will pick itup later. Five minutes thereafter, the bike burst and the thatchedroof put up nearby caught fire. Persons got hurt. In front of him,one person died and he got severely injured. The person who left thebike was lean and tall with a sharp nose and a side crop. Thewitness was taken to the Government Hospital nearby and since at theGovernment Hospital, a bomb had exploded, they took him to K.G. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Hospital. There too, there was no place and so, they merely put abandage and sent him to P.S.G. Hospital at Peelamedu. There, he wasadmitted as an in-patient and was there for about 40 days. Twominutes later, he got a summons and in the Test IdentificationParade, he identified one person who was noted down as A45 Said @Santhu Mohammed. He also identified A45 in Court. In cross-examination, it has been elicited that he does not havethe counterfoil for his token and he has denied that the policebrought the accused to his house to enable him to identify him andthat he had given in the statement to the police that one person wasthrown up because of the blast. He has said that though he cannotsay exactly where the Suzuki motorcycle was parked, he can say thatit was in the second row.(26) P.W.696 Dhandapani, to whom P.W.734 has referred to in hisevidence, has studied upto VII Standard. In his evidence, he hassaid that he used to issue tokens in the car park at the RailwayStation RMS. His duty hours are between 9.30 a.m. and the next day9.30 a.m. He was working for one Mahesh who had taken the sub-contract. His daily wages were Rs.80/-. On 14-02-1998, as usual, hewent to work. At that time, P.W.734 was already there on duty. Atabout 2.30 p.m., since there were not many cars, he was standing andtalking to P.W.734. At that time, a person came there with SuzukiMoped and asked P.W.734 for token. P.W.734 took Re.1/- and gave himthe token. He took the token and parked the vehicle in the firstrow. P.W.734 asked him when will he take back the vehicle, for whichhe replied that it will be late. P.W.734 asked him not to park thevehicle in the first row and to park it in the second row. Thereupon, that person moved the bike and parked it in the second rowand locked it, left the key on top of the fuel tank and went away. So, both of them felt suspicious, but still they did not do anything. At about 4.14 p.m., that person came back, opened the side box, didsomething thee and went away. Five minutes thereafter, themotorcycle burst. The RMS Office got damaged. Four or five personsgot injured and 20 vehicles were damaged. P.W.734 also got injured. This witness helped him to be taken to the hospital. Since hehimself felt giddy thereafter, he returned home. On 15-02-1998, hedid not report for duty. He went to work only on 16-02-1998. On 08-05-1998, he received summons for Test Identification Parade andthere, he identified the person who parked the motorcycle the otherday. He described him as having a side crop, sharp nose, aged about19 or 20 and identified A45 Sait @ Santhu Mohammed in Court. (27) P.W.424 Ramachandran is a resident of Thillai Nagar. Heis a vegetable vendor and is a member of Hindu Munnani. He is alsothe General Secretary of the Hindu Vyabarigal Sangam. On 14-02-1998,his organisation asked all its members to attend the meeting of Mr.L.K. Advani. So, he was waiting in Kannappan Nagar near their officebetween 3.45 p.m. and 4 p.m. expecting his friends. At that time, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.W.425 Vasu came there. When they were talking there, A46 Riaz camewith an old cycle wearing white shirt and black pants. A blue colourjeans bag was hanging from the cycle carrier. He went past them,stopped the cycle and did some repair. He is a resident ofKurukkuvattaram in Coimbatore. After he went past them, he went tothe IX Cross Street and rested the cycle on the electric post infront of the Hindu Munnani Office. The witness and his friends werewaiting for PW319 Kumar to come, but he was coming late. Therefore,they waited for him for some time. They went to the teashop and thenwent to the meeting. Thereafter, they told PW 319 and went away tothe meeting. They went by the two-wheeler belonging to P.W.425. Onthe way, they saw M.G. Rajan who said that at the meeting a bomb hadexploded and therefore, the meeting was cancelled. So theyreturned. When they came back, they learnt that the cycle which wasplaced by A46 Riaz had burst. So, the witness was afraid and hereturned home. After a few days, he was examined by thepolice. According to the witness, he had seen A46 several times inN.H. Road in the 'Al Umma' functions. He had also seen him alongwith Kathikuthu Ismail, A18. He identified A18 and A46 in Court. In cross-examination, it was elicited that even after Vasu,P.W.425 came, they waited for some time to tell PW319 and there is noentry register in the Hindu Munnani Office. It is also elicited thatA46 is about 24 years old and that when he parked the cycle, he didsomething with the cycle chain and since he remembered what he waswearing, he has said that. He has denied that he DeputySuperintendent of Police had asked him to identify A46earlier.(28) P.W.425 is Vasu, about whom P.W.424 had referred to in hisevidence. He lives in Kannappan Nagar. He works as a welder inBaburaj Workshop. He has been a Hindu Munnani party man for threeyears and whenever he had time, he would do party work in KannappanNagar, Thillai Nagar, Gajapathy Road areas. He has seen A46 Riaz andKathikuthu Ismail several times going here and there, especially whenhe goes to Kannappan Nagar. On 14-02-1998, Mr. L.K. Advani was goingto preside over a meeting in Coimbatore and their party people hadsaid that everybody should attend the meeting. So, he went to theparty office at Kannappan Nagar and was talking to P.W.424. At thattime, A46 came with an old cycle wearing white shirt and black pants. A blue colour jeans bag was hanging in front of the cycle. After hewent a little further, he was doing something like repairing thecycle. Thereafter, he turned into the IX Cross Street and rested thecycle on the electric post, he did something in the bag and thenlooked as if he was rotating the pedal. There was four feet distancebetween the electric post and his party office. P.W.319 had gone todrink tea. He is the complainant with regard to this occurrence. Therefore, they told Kumar that they were going to the meeting andwent away. At that time, as they were going, they met M.G. Rajan ofLakshmi Nagar who told them that a bomb blast had occurred in frontof the office. They rushed to the office and found that the cycle https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ placed by A46 had burst. There was heavy damage to the nearby housesand buildings. One Seethalakshmi had also been injured and othersalso suffered injuries. He identified A18 and A46 in Court. (29)P.W.361 M.G. Rajan was residing at No.31, LakshmiNagar, Sanganur at the relevant point of time. He was at that time acable operator. But from 1992 to 1996, he and his father were doingbearing and re-conditioning work on Thirumal Street. For the lasttwo years, he has been the District Secretary of Hindu MakkalKatchi. Between 1995 and 2001, he was Hindu Munnani's DistrictOrganiser. Their office is in the end of IX Street, Kannappan Nagar,Coimbatore. The entrance to the office faces Narayanasamy Street. Everyday, he would look after the organisation's work from thisoffice. He would also go to meet the responsible persons in theorganisation in Ganapathy, Thillai Nagar and Karunanidhi Nagar. Heknew A18 Kathikuthu Ismail. When he was going on behalf of hisorganisation to Karunanidhi Nagar, A18 was the Amir of KarunanidhiNagar. He has seen A46 and A18 near the teashop of Sottabai. He andother Muslim youth were committed workers of 'Al Umma'. On 14-02-1998, he was going to the meeting where Mr. L.K. Advani was going toparticipate. The BJP people had informed all the Hindu Munnanipeople to attend the meeting. On 14-02-1998 at about 11 a.m., hewent to the party office at Kannappan Nagar. He was standingopposite to his office near Nagoor Tailor Shop for his friend. Atthat time, A18 came in a scooter. A46 was sitting in the pillion. When they were speeding past Narayanasamy Street, they slowed downnear the Hindu Munnani Office. They kept looking at he office andtalking to each other. When they crossed the office, they again spedaway. Ten minutes later, P.W.361 went back to the office and toldPW319 that he was going to the public meeting. Then, he went toLakshmi Nagar to his house, had his meals and at about 3.45 p.m.,went to R.S. Puram at the meeting point of Kamarajar Street andThiruvengadam Street. There he saw people rushing in greatagitation. When he asked them, he was informed that a bomb hadexploded at the meeting place. He parked his motorcycle and stoodthere. At about 4.30 p.m., P.W.425 and P.W.424 came there. He toldthem about the bomb explosion. The police did not allow anyone toproceed beyond that point. They were getting information that atmore places bombs had exploded and the police were also saying thatin Kannappan Nagar also, a bomb exploded. When he got thisinformation, he told P.Ws.424 and 425 about that. Thereafter, allthe three went to Kannappan Nagar. When they came to Kannappan Nagarnear the IX Street, the whole electric post had fallen down. Thenorthern sidewall of the Hindu Munnani Office had got damaged. Theadjacent toilet had also got damaged. The earth had become black asthough crackers had burst. A cycle was lying shattered. Aluminiumand iron pieces were spread around. The front wheel of the cycle waslying on the southern side near the sewage canal. The rear wheel waslying on the western side in front of the Hindu Munnani Office. Theseat was lying on the roof of Boopathy’s house opposite the Hindu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Munnani Office. There were bloodstains in the verandah ofSeethalakshmi's house on the IX Street. Their house on the IX Streetalso got damaged. When he enquired, he was informed that there was abomb explosion near the electric post. Thereafter, he went homesince his family asked him to leave the place since they felt thatthere would be attempt to kill BJP, RSS and Hindu Munnani people. Therefore, he went to Palakkad to his uncle's house and stayed therefor nearly 5½ months and returned only after the situation reachednormalcy. He identified A18 and A46 in Court. Neither he norP.W.424 or P.W.425 gave complaint to the police. He has denied thathis statements regarding the movement of A18 and A46 are false. Hehas also denied that he is stating falsehood because he is inimicallydisposed towards 'Al Umma'. He has admitted that there were four orfive cases against him prior to 14-02-1998, of which one related tothe attack on Muslims. (31) P.W.677 is Rajamanickam. He is a plumber. On 14-02-1998, he and his friend P.W.709, Navaneetham were standing in frontof S.B. Towers, Sundarapuram. At that time, he saw A41 Monappa @Mohd. Hassan and A42 Ashraf of Muthu Colony, Karumbukadai, whom heknew earlier. They came in a TVS-50 moped. A 41 was riding thevehicle. A 42 was sitting in the pillion. He held two jeans bags inhis hand. They were blue in colour. After parking the vehicle infront of S.B. Towers, A 41 took one jeans bag from A 42 and wenttowards Gokul Medicals. A 42 took the other jeans bag in his handand went towards Gokul Stationery. Ten minutes later, they cameaway. When they returned, they were not having the bags in theirhands. Thereafter, A 41 started the vehicle and A 42 sat behind himand they went away. The witness stood there for ten more minutes. Then they went to Ganesha Bakery to drink tea. After they orderedtea, he saw the time and it was 4'o clock. At that time, afrightening noise came from S.B. Towers. People ran out screaming infear. They went and saw the burnt dead bodies of two men and onechild in front of Gokul Medicals. Many people were injured. Properties lay scattered. Crowd went saying that there is anotherbomb in another bag near Gokul Stationery (this was defused on15.2.1998). The two left that place in fear because the bag that A41 had brought had burst and they told each other that the bag hadcontained bomb. Since the two accused belonged to 'Al Umma', thewitness and his friend did not tell anybody. When the city returnedto normalcy and the C.I.D. police enquired them, they stated to thepolice what they had seen earlier. The witness identified A41correctly, but said that he could not identify the other saying thatbecause of passage of time, he is not able to identify him. The police had examined him and P.W.709 separately. He hassaid that it is because he saw the watch after ordering tea that heknew the time. There is discrepancy regarding this between hisevidence and his statement before the police. He had read in thepapers that the accused belonged to 'Al Umma' from the papers. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was standing in the place for ten minutes after the bomb had explodedand that is why he realised that it is only the two blue bags thathad burst. After the 15th of that month, both of them went to worknormally, but he did not go near S.B. Towers. He denied that if hehad really seen it, he would have told the police immediately and thefact that he did not tell the police immediately proved that he didnot really see anything. He has denied that the police had shown himthe photograph of the accused to enable him to identify him inCourt. He admitted that he is unable to say in which direction thedead bodies were lying. (32) P.W.709 is Navaneetham, who is mentioned by the previouswitness in his evidence. He is an electrician. He carries on abusiness called Chitra Sound Service from his house. On 14-02-1998,he and P.W.677 were standing in front of Sundarapuram S.B. Towers. At that time, he saw A41 Monappa @ Mohd. Hassan and A42 Ashraf ofMuthu Colony, Karumbukadai, whom he knew even before, coming on aTVS-50 moped. A 41 was riding the vehicle and A 42 was sittingbehind. There were two jeans bags on A 42's lap. When they camenear the northern side of the main gate of S.B. Towers, they stoppedthe moped. A 41 took one jeans bag from A 42 and went towards GokulMedicals, which is located in S.B. Towers building. Ashraf took theother jeans bag in his hand and went towards Gokul Stationery, whichis also located in the same building. Ten minutes later, theyreturned and when they returned, they did not have the bags in theirhands. After that, they started the vehicle and went away. He andPW677 stood there for ten minutes talking to each other. At thattime, they decided to have tea and went to Ganesha Bakery. Heordered tea. At that time, Pw 677 saw the watch and the time was 4p.m. At that time, there was a bomb blast in S.B. Towers. Everyoneran with fear. He went near S.B. Towers. There was a burnt smell. Two men and one child lay dead. Their faces had become black. Fiveor six people had got injured. Since there was another bomb on thesouthern side and people warned them not to go there. When he lookedaround, he saw that here was a bag in front of Gokul Stationery. This was a blue colour jeans bag, just like the one that A42 had inhis hand. So, they thought that the bag brought by A41 had burst andthis bag may also explode. So, they went back to their houses. Sixmonths later, the police examined him. He identified A41 and A42. He admitted that that he met P.W.677 only by chance and thatthey went to the bakery only to have tea and for no other reason andthat they did not see anybody else whom they knew except the accused. He has admitted that it was only a guess that the bag, which wasnear Gokul Stationery looked like the one which A 42 had brought. Itwas only because he was very frightened that he did not tell thepolice about it earlier. He has denied that he did not know the twoaccused before and that he is identifying them only because he isprompted by the police. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (33) P.W.627 is one Sivakumar. He is working as a cooliein a dyeing unit belonging to one Senthil. At that time, he had seenA13 Siraj of Karumbukadai Azad Nagar frequently near his shop. Theywere acquainted with each other. One day, A13 had borrowed from himRs.100/- promising to give it back in one week, but he did not returnit even after a month. Therefore, he went with Parameswaran (notexamined) to the house of A13 at 3 p.m. on 14-02-1998. At that time,A13 was talking to two other persons. When he saw P.W.627, he toldhim to wait there. He returned with three blue jeans bags. Itlooked as if they were carrying a heavy load. After coming out, hecalled one of the two persons present there as Monappa, A41 and gavehim the three bags. Two TVS-50 mopeds were standing there. A13 toldA41, giving him one of the vehicles, to place the bag at 3.30p.m. inS.B. Towers. Monappa took the bag and went away. The two personswent in the same vehicle. Thereafter, A13 told him that he wouldreturn the money in one week. At that time, two more persons camethere. A13 told P.W.627 that he will come back immediately and wentin. When he came out, he brought one blue jeans bag. That alsolooked heavy. He called one of those two persons by name Abbas, A53and gave him the other vehicle and the bag. He told them to keep itnear Pongaliamman Temple in the evening. Then those two persons wentin the other TVS-50 moped. Then A13 asked P.W.627 to go. He andParameswaran went back to their house. In the evening, through TVand in the next morning from the newspapers, he learnt about he bombblasts. He also realised that there were bomb blasts in S.B. Towersand Pongaliamman Temple. He felt like telling the police, but sincethe entire city was in a state of shock, he did not tell anyone. Thepolice came and asked him. He told them what he had seen. Heidentified A13, A41 and A53. He admitted that when he lent Rs.100/-,he did not take the address of A13. He has said that it is becausethere were only ten houses on the two where A13's house is, that hecould identify his house easily and because there had been no moneyproblem between the two, he was confident that A13 would return themoney. He has denied that he is stating falsely that he tookParameswaran along with him to meet A13. In cross-examination, hehas stated that he stood near A13's house for about 15 minutes. Inthe statement before the police, he has not stated that the bagslooked heavy. He did not remember the registration numbers of theTVS-50 mopeds. Before the police, he had not stated that A13 said,"Monappa, place this at 3.30 p.m.". (34) P.W.832 K.P. Kumaran was living in Door No.56, RajuChetiar Street, South Ukkadam in 1997. He had taken a shop belongingto Kunju Abdullah and was doing grocery business where Gani RowtherStreet and Ramar Koil Street meet. On 14-02-1998, as usual, he wastaking care of his shop. At around 3.45 p.m., one young man about 22years old came in front of his shop moving a pineapple tricycle cart. He bought one 10 Number Beedi from his shop and lighted it up. Hestood there smoking the beedi. At that time, from the northern side,a loud sound, as if a bomb had exploded, was heard. People started https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ running hither and thither in fear. Then, this young man who wassmoking went near the pineapple cart, did something underneath thecart and went towards the crowd on the northern side. P.W.832 gotscared and closed his shop. Nearby, the owner of a tiffin shop wasalso locking his shop. Opposite his shop, Ragavendra Medical Shopwas also being closed. After leaving his shop, he went a littledistance and stood there, when the pineapple cart near his shop burstwith a loud sound. Fearing more blasts, he went home. There wasblack smoke in the place where the bomb had burst. After he went tohis house and returned, he learnt that Chokkanathan, Ranganathan,Vijaya, Ramakrishnan, Murugesan, Devaraj and Surulirajan had died andthat 14 persons including Ganesh Kumar, Mohan, Padmanabhan, Arumugam,Anandakumar, Anand and Balasubramaniam got injured. The injuredpeople were being taken to hospital. The dead bodies of the deceasedwere also being taken away. Since there was commotion, he again wentback to his house and because of fear, he went with his family toThalacheri, which is his native place. When he returned, he wasexamined by the C.B. C.I.D. police on 22-04-1998. He said that hecould identify the person who caused the bomb explosion in front ofhis shop. There was a Test Identification Parade on 5.1.1999. Heidentified the person who parked the pineapple cart near his shop. In Court, he identified A165 Sivakumar @ Abdullah instead of A161Mujibur Rehman, who was there. In cross-examination, he was askedwhether he went slowly from his shop after closing it and whether helocked his shop only after the accused turned something in thepineapple cart. He did not remember whether he had said so in thestatement. He has denied that in order to co-operate with thepolice, he is adding fresh details. He has said that he has only oneemployee in his shop, who is Shaji, but at that time, Shaji was notin the shop. Ganesh, the owner of Raghavendra Medicals was alsoclosing his shop. He returned from his house only to see if his shopwas damaged in the blast. He had admitted that he had known theidentity of the deceased and the injured. Ganesh Kumar, the owner ofRaghavendra Medicals, was also an injured person. (35) P.W.1050 Mohan is the owner of the Tiffen Shop mentioned byP.W.832. He closed his business at 3:45p.m. on Saturday 14-12-1998and left home. He saw a young man about 22 years’ old, 5’ tallmoving a tricycle cart bearing pineapples. In a short-while there wasa blast from the North. There was a crowd on the street. This mansmoking beedi came near the cart turned something in the cart and ranaway. At that time, the witness saw P.W.832 closing his shop. Themedical shop owner also closed his shop starting the scooter when helocked his shop and turned round the pineapple car burst. Thesplinters entered his body and he was hurt. He took treatment inVasuki Clinic and in Kerala. He attended the TIP along withP.W.832. He identified the accused. He was told his name was MujiburRahman, but he was unable to identify him in Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (36) P.W.889 R. Kadirvel has been selling fruits on a cartfor 15 years and his main area of operation is Periakadai Street. Asusual, on 14-02-1998, he was doing his fruit vending in front ofRajendra Stores on Periakadai Street. At that time, at 3.45 p.m.,A34 Mohammed Rafique, who is a plumber in Tipu Nagar, Karumbukadai,stood there with a blue colour jeans bag on his shoulder. He lookedthis way and that way, went inside Rajendra Stores and after tenminutes, came out. When he came out, he did not have the blue bag. He looked agitated. He again looked this way and that way and wentinto Shoba Stores. Five minutes thereafter, a bomb exploded inRajendra Stores. Many got injured, some lost their lives. The shopwas also damaged. After seeing this, he pushed his cart and went ohis house. He felt that his life was in danger if he told this tothe police, because that person was belonging to 'Al Umma'. Heidentified A34 in Court. In cross-examination, he had said thatthere is Vinod Textiles in front of Rajendra Stores and he knows theowner of that shop and as there was an injunction by Court that thereshould be no cart or roadside shop that he did not sell fruits inthat area for two months, but thereafter, he again resumed hisvending there. He has admitted that he did not tell the police thathe was keeping his fruit cart near Rajendra Stores. In cross-examination, he had also stated that he witnessed the bomb blast froma 20 feet distance and that it is only after the smoke rose that heleft the place. He has denied that he is giving evidence at theinstance of the police. (37) P.W.1062 is Senthil Kumar. He is a coolie near PaulCompany. In 1998, he was selling lottery tickets near the auto standnear Ukkadam Bus Stand. In the course of that, he knew A28Sharfudeen and his friend A62 Palani Babu @ Abdul Kareem. Once hehad asked A62 whether it was possible to do lottery business inPalani. He said that there won't be any sales and that he is doingonly fruit vending business there. On 14-02-1998, by noon, his workwas over. Thereafter, he decided to attend the BJP meeting. He wentby Bus No.7. When he got off the bus near the Top Notch Shop, onewhite FIAT car with registration number MSQ-1347 came behind him,turned into Lokamanya Street and it was parked near Quality Ice CreamShop at 12 noon. This was driven by A28 and A62 was sitting next tohim. He went near the car because both of them were known to him. But they got out of the car, locked it and went eastwards towardsLokamanya Street. Therefore, he came near the public dais. About 10to 20 persons were standing there. He asked them when would themeeting commence and they told him that it would start at about 3.30p.m. So he thought he would go to his house, eat and come back atabout 3.30 p.m. By that time, 300 persons had gathered. He thoughhe would stand away from the crowd. The white FIAT was stillstanding there. At that time, A62 was having difficulty in openingthe car. When he saw him, he felt that A62's face was very agitated. He tried again and again to open the car door, but he could not. Then he went away through Lokamanya Street. The witness sat near the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ public dais. It was about 4 p.m. At that time, there was a bombblast in Sir Shanmugam Road. Everybody started screaming and ran inthat direction. Within five minutes, there was another bomb blast inWest Sambantham Road. People ran in fear. He also came back to hishouse. The next morning he saw the newspaper and realised that thewhite Ambassador (as mentioned) car, which A62 and A28 had burst. After that, he never went anywhere. The witness said that he couldidentify the car even now and he identified M.O.1. He alsoidentified A62 in Court. A28 was not present in Court on that date. The next day, he identified A28 also. He had no direct acquaintancewith A28 and nobody had introduced him to A28. He has said that hehas seen and spoken to A28. He denied that he has never seen him. It is only from "Dhina Thanthi" that he came to know that Mr. L.K.Advani was coming to the meeting. The other details, he did notknow. Again in cross-examination, he has stated that it is onlybecause A28 Sharfudeen was riding an auto that he got to know him. He has stated that when the police came to enquire him, they did notbring the accused along and he also did not ask them whether theywere arrested. He has said that it was because the meeting was notgoing to be held that he walked away and it is at that time that hesaw the car.VIII. INCIDENT AT BABULAL BUILDING – Crime No.151 of 1998: This case is treated as the base case. Hence we are dealingwith this separately. According to the defence, the case of theprosecution as to the occurrence at Babulal Building cannot bebelieved. An incident is said to have taken place on top of BabulalBuilding, where allegedly one of the accused threw a bomb on thepolice party and the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.1041,Chandrasekaran, fired in the air. The complainant with regard tothis incident is P.W.1288, Murali. But the presence of P.W.1288 isnot spoken to by P.W.1041, who is an injured witness. However, it isonly P.W.1288 who gave the complaint. It was also pointed out onbehalf of the defence that at the time when P.W.1288 is supposed tohave been in Babulal Building, he was conducting inquest elsewhere. It was also submitted that when there was an attack and a counterattack, it is surprising that P.W.1288 did not get injured and hence,if the complaint were disbelieved, then the entire case would have tobe rejected. (i)P.W.1041, N. Chandrasekaran, who is an Inspector of Policenow, was the Sub Inspector (Law & Order) at B-1 Police Station,Coimbatore between 23-09-1997 and 08-05-1998. On 29-11-1997 at about7.30 p.m., he was carrying out vehicular checking in front of B-1Police Station near Vysyal Street. A Bajaj M-80 two-wheeler came fromeast to west at about 8 p.m. He asked the driver whether he hadlicence and he also asked him for his name and address. The driverrefused to give his name and address and said in a threatening voicethat he belonged to 'Al Umma'. Later, he learnt that the person was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ A26 Jahangir. He took Jahangir to the police station for enquiry. At that time, A2 Ansari belonging to 'Al Umma' and A29 Shamsuddin(name learnt later) came to the police station and complained toP.W.941, Inspector Muthusamy. P.W.941 told P.W.1041 to let Jahangirgo. Then A2 and A29 came to him. A2 told P.W.1041 that he had beenwatching him for some time and that the conduct of P.W.1041 was notgood and that he did not know about A2 and his movement and that itwas possible for him to kill him within 24 hours and to splitCoimbatore into two. He threatened him with abusive language also. Then, gritting his teeth, he went away saying, "Come all of you,break the buses". Then they went away in the vehicle in which theycame. P.W.1041 gave a special report to P.W.945 and on the basis ofthat, a case was registered in Crime No.2204 of 1997 and the F.I.R.relating to that case is Ex-P.697. Thereafter, the fundamentalistsbelonging to 'Al Umma' organisation killed Constable Selvaraj, whowas doing his traffic duty near Ukkadam, by a knife. Thereafter,there were clashes between the Hindus and the Muslims and as aresult, 18 Muslims got killed. On 14-02-1998, there were serial bombblasts in Coimbatore. (ii) On 14-02-1998, in view of Mr. L.K. Advani's visit,the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore appointed him as SecurityOfficer and deputed him to the Peelamedu Airport. He reported forduty to Assistant Commissioner Chellaiah, P.W.1141 and was on dutyfrom 10 a.m. to 3.45 p.m. At that time, the Deputy Commissioner (Law& Order), Coimbatore orally ordered him to go to R.S. Puram where themeeting was to take place with 30 C.R.P.F. jawans. As per the order,he went with the team in the vehicle. Then, there was a trafficblock near Coimbatore Kope College and there was a tense situation. It was about 4 p.m. then. When he enquired, he was informed thatbombs had exploded at several places in Coimbatore and therefore,there was a tense situation. Thereafter, he arrived at R.S. Puramwhere the public meeting was to take place. Bombs had also explodedat Sir Shanmugam Chettiar Road and West Sambantham Road, and therewas tension in those areas too. He stayed there till 7 p.m.,supervising the security arrangements. Thereafter, as per ordersissued, he was engaged in duty in the jurisdiction of the KatturPolice Station till 11 p.m. Then, as per the order of the DeputyCommissioner (Law & Order), he left that place and went to Ukkadam. The Deputy Commissioner divided the police personnel into severalteams and directed them to conduct storming operation. Therefore, hewent to Thirumal Street in the early hours of 15-02-1998. When hebegan the operation, it was 1.30 a.m. There was a tall building, onwhich the light kept flickering on and off. He was told that thatbuilding was called Saaj Building. He opened the iron grill gate andwhen he went up, on the last step, there were bloodstains. The dooropposite was locked and he felt that there was movement of personsbehind. The next building was Babulal Building. So he decided to gothere. He came down and went up the Babulal Building. P.W.1045Pachaiyappan and Havildar Sivasakthi Selvam were with him. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ climbed up Babulal Building. The terrace floor was open. Lightswere glowing. When he entered the terrace, on his right, to thesouth, sand bags were piled up. On top of the sand bags, there weretwo white polythene bags full of pipe bombs. The bag was open and inthat light, he could see the pipe bombs. He did not examine then andhe told the constables who came behind them not to touch it. Rightabove the sand bags, there was the water tank. A ladder was restingagainst the water tank. He climbed up the ladder. There was nobody. He climbed down. On the right hand side of the terrace, there was abathroom. This was locked from the inside. Lights were burning. There was no roof for the bathroom. Suspecting something, he pushedthe door. There was resistance from inside. So he kicked it withhis foot. Thereupon, the door opened and inside, there were seven toeight persons. They had bombs and other weapons in their hands. Atthat time, one of them lit up the bomb in his hand with cigarettelighter and flung it at him. As soon as he lit the cigarette lighterand was preparing to throw the bomb at him, P.W.1041 took the servicerevolver, which he had for his protection and shot in the air. Whenhe realised that the person would throw the bomb at him, he swiftlyshut the bathroom door. Bombs exploded and a result of it, he andhis two-team members got injured. He had injury on his rightshoulder, right thigh, behind the knee, in the ankle, on top of theright leg and the left knee. The splinters from the bombs enteredhis body. At the same time, he heard bombs exploding in thebathroom. It was about 4 a.m. Thereafter, he and his team camedown. He informed this to the authorities. At 4.30 a.m., he wassent to K.G. Hospital for treatment. Exs.P.665 and 666 relate to thetreatment given to him at the hospital. Thereafter, on 19-02-1998,he gave P.W.1141, Assistant Commissioner Chellaiah his blood stainedclothes, his service revolver, the empty shells and also a singlesocks. These were seized under Form-95, which is Ex-P.1000. Therevolver is M.O.304, the empty shells are M.O.305, the pants areM.O.306, the khaki shirt is M.O.307 and the socks is M.O.308. (iii) In cross-examination, it has been suggested to him thatthe previous incident relating to A2 is not true and that if it hadreally happened, he would have arrested A2 on the spot. He hasdenied that there were no pipe bombs on top of Babulal Building andthat is why he did not seize anything. He has stated that during thetime of the occurrence at Babulal Building, he was the only SubInspector. P.W.1141 is the Assistant Commissioner of Police. He hasstated that there was light on top of Babulal Building. He is unableto remember whether the bathroom door opened from inside or outside. He has stated that he does not know whether P.W.1288 Murali asked himto call the persons inside the room and enquire them. The witnessstates that he does not remember whether P.W.1288 came to the top ofthe stairs and whether he took part in the operation and he is alsounable to say at present whether P.W.1288 Murali and P.W.1099Rajamanickam were also with them in the patrolling duty. He cannotremember whether the person who attempted to throw the bomb at him https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ said, "Police dogs, get lost". He does not remember whether heinformed his superiors about the bloodstains in Saaj Building. (iv) P.W.1045, D. Pachaiyappan, was in the Special ActionForce in 1996-1997. On 27-01-1998, he was transferred from Chennaito Coimbatore. On 14-02-1998, at about 12noon, all the personnelbelonging to the Special Action Force assembled with the SubInspector Gopi as their head and as per the orders of the policecontrol, they were on duty at the R.S. Puram meeting place. At about3.45 p.m., there was a bomb blast at the east of the dais. When theywent towards that spot with the Sub Inspector leading them, againthere was another blast from southern side. The crowd ran helterskelter because of fear. At time, the local police warned the peoplethat the bomb was probably kept in the pineapple cart and that nobodyshould touch it. Therefore, they dispersed the crowd. The BombSquad came, inspected the cart and found that there was bomb. Thereafter, for defusing the bomb, they tied the cart on to the treeand exploded it. Till 11 p.m., they were engaged in duty at thescene of occurrence and on orders, they went to Ukkadam for securityduty. Then the Deputy Commissioner divided the force into specialgroups and they went to Ukkadam Bazaar with the local police party. There, under the lead of the local Sub Inspector ChandrasekaranP.W.1041, Sivasakthi Selvam and their party went to Thirumal Streetat about 1.30 a.m. on 15-02-1998. They checked many places. On atwo storeyed building, the light was flickering on and off.Therefore, this witness, P.W.1041 Sub Inspector Chandrasekaran andSivasakthi Selvam climbed up the building. The door at the terracewas locked from inside. Then Chandrasekaran said that they should goto the next building. Then they went to the three-storeyed buildingnearby. They opened the grill gate and climbed up. The light wasburning on the top floor. The door at the terrace was also opened. On the terrace, on the southern side, there were sand bags. Twoplastic bags containing pipe bombs were there. Immediately,Chandrasekaran said, "Don't touch it, there are bombs inside". Thenhe climbed up the ladder, which was rested near the water tank andcame down. To their left side, there was a room without a roof. Thelight was burning inside. The Sub Inspector tried to open the door. When it did not open, he kicked it open. Inside, there were seven toeight persons having pipe bombs, knives etc. One person tried tolight the pipe bomb with his cigarette lighter. Then,Chandrasekaran, in order to warn the person, took out the revolverand shot in the air and while doing so, he shut the door and askedothers to run away as the bomb is going to explode. The bombexploded and he got injuries on the left side of his chest, leftthigh, left ankle and right thigh. When he climbed down, anotherbomb exploded. Thereafter, they were sent to K.G. Hospital fortreatment, which was around 4.30 a.m. The splinters, which hadpierced his body, were removed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) In cross-examination, this witness has stated that hecannot remember whether P.W.1041 Chandrasekaran continued to be inthe team and that many persons who went on the patrolling party hadrevolvers, but no one else holding revolver came upto the top floorand at the time of the occurrence, apart from Sub InspectorChandrasekaran, no other officer was there. It is specificallystated that apart from the three of them, there was no one else andhe cannot remember whether they arrested or enquired anybody onsuspicion. (vi)P.W.1099, C. Rajamanickam, in his evidence states that theywere doing patrolling work in Oppanakkara Street with P.W.1288, Law &Order Inspector Murali, P.W.1041, Inspector Chandrasekaran, P.W.1045Special Action Force Constable Pachaiyappan, Havildar SivasakthiSelvam, Encoba, Palanisamy, Kannappan, Head Constable Babu, ConstableJohn and others. On 15.2.1998, they went to Thirumal Street, whichis predominantly occupied by Muslims. They saw a light on top ofBabulal Building and they saw the movement of certain persons andthey could see that persons were hiding when they saw them. Therefore, they went up the building with David Raj (not examined) ofUkkadam. They saw that some persons were there in the bathroom tothe left of the terrace door. P.W.1288 told them, "Who are you, comeout, we want to enquire you". Then one person from inside said,"Police dogs, get lost" and threw a pipe like object, which burstwith a terrific noise. Sub Inspector Chandrasekaran, with hisrevolver shot once. Sub Inspector Chandrasekaran, Pachaiyappan andSivasakthi Selvam got injuries on their hands and legs. At the sametime that he shot, there was an explosion in the bathroom. Some timelater, P.W.1288 went near the bathroom and shone the torchlight tosee if any more bombs were there. A101 Sarthaj, A102 Salahuddin andA103 Sheriff came out from the bathroom with blood injuries. Sixshattered dead bodies were lying in the bathroom. P.W.1288 enquiredthe three accused. At the same time, he also took into custody A16Abbas, son of Kaufathulla @ Zakir Hussain; Shahul Hameed, son ofShaik Mohammed; Riyaz, son of Shahul Hameed; Raja Sharfuddin, son ofMohammed Ali; and Babu, son of Shaik Fareed, who were hiding in acorner of the terrace and enquired them. They confessed that theyand their accomplices had planted bombs in the city of Coimbatore andthat they had hidden the pipe bombs in the sand bags. Thereafter,they arrested all the accused at 5 a.m., brought them to the policestation and after assisting the Inspector in registration of thecase, he went to security duty. On 23-02-1998, he took up the casefor investigation. He prepared the observation mahazar Ex-P.193, therough sketch Ex-P.1112 and recorded the statement of the accused. This witness identified A16 Keezhakarai Abbas, A64 Khaja @ Hakkim,A101 Sarthaj, A102 Salahuddin and A103 Sheriff in Court. (vii) With regard to this evidence, in the cross-examination, he has stated that when they went to Thirumal Street, itwould have been about 4.45 a.m. and that they did not go to Saaj https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Building and that he was there when P.W.1288 was examining theaccused and he does not remember whether when A16 asked, he said thathis father's name was Zakir Hussain. He has denied that since therewere six mysterious deaths, a fabricated case has been produced bythe prosecution. (viii) P.W.1001 Ravi, was there in Thirumal Street atabout 7.30 a.m. on 15-02-1998 along with his friends. There was acrowd near Babulal Building and he heard that six Muslims had died. They went to the top floor and they signed in the observationmahazar. He is a mahazar witness for Ex-.P793 and 794 and heidentifies M.Os.291, 292 Series, 293, 294, 295 and 296. (ix) He has stated in his cross-examination that hewould have been in the scene of occurrence at about 5'o clock and healong with Inspector Murali, P.W.1288 went to the top. He has deniedthat he is giving evidence as per the coaching of the police. (x) P.W.1141 is R. Chellaiah. He was the AssistantCommissioner of Police (Crimes). On 16-02-1998, he took upinvestigation in Crime No.151 of 1998, which relates to theoccurrence at Babulal Building. He recorded the statement of DavidRaj, Ravi, N. Subramani, Inspector Murali and Inspector C.Rajamanickam. He also recorded the statement of the witnesses,including P.W.931 Shakila Begum and P.W. Sonaiyan, Constable. (xi) In his cross-examination, he has stated that theycould not seize the clothing of the deceased because their bodies gotcharred completely. He had not seized the remaining bullets inInspector Chandrakseran's revolver. According to this witness, fromthe records, it is seen that only one Sub Inspector was there andthat was P.W.1041 and that P.W.1288 had said that on 15-02-1998, atabout 6.30 p.m., he had brought the accused to the police station. He had denied that the witnesses had said that in Babulal Building,it was the police who attacked and destroyed the belongings. (xii) P.W.1073, V. Natarajan is the Revenue DivisionalOfficer who conducted the enquiry in respect of the six bodiesrecovered from Babulal Building. He conducted the inquest on 17-05-1998. The details of four of them were Iqbal, Saleem, Abdul Rahman @Jayakumar, Bilal and the other two were unidentified. It wasconcluded that the cause of the death was the explosion, since thebodies were shattered and burnt. His report is Ex-P1023 given to theDistrict Collector of Coimbatore. He did not proceed further sincehe did not receive any order from the District Collector and further,a one man Commission had already been appointed. (xiii) In his cross-examination, he has claimed that hedid not examine A101 to A103 who are mentioned in the third page of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his report. (xiv) Ex-P1023 is the report where he has recorded thatduring the patrolling, the police saw some suspicious movement on topof Babulal Building and there were some persons inside the bathroomand when the Inspector, P.W.1288 asked, "Who are you, we want toexamine you", one of them said, "Police dogs, get lost" and threw anobject on the police party. The police team stepped away and thisobject fell down and exploded and therefore, P.W.1041, P.W.1045 andSivasakthi Selvam were injured. P.W.1041 shot towards them. At thesame time, the bathroom where the persons were hiding burst with aloud explosion. When the police switched on the torchlight, threepersons came out with injuries and when the police explored whetherthere was a possibility of further explosion, they found the sixshattered dead bodies. In the report, the injuries found on thebodies of the four identified and two unidentified dead are referredto. The report further says that on the terrace, in the northeasterncorner, four persons had hidden and they were A101 Sarthaj, son ofSalam, A102 Salahuddin, A103 Sheriff and A16 Abbas. When it wasenquired, it was stated that three of the dead belonged to Coimbatoreand the other three did not belong to Coimbatore. They also showedthe white colour bags in which there were pipe bombs. The reportends with the statement that the final report will soon be sent andthe interim conclusion of this witness is that this firing wasnecessary for the self-defence of the police. (xv) P.W.822, Dr. P. Ravikumar, who was working at aCasualty Medical Officer on 14-02-1998 stated, that on 16-02-1998 atabout 3.30 a.m., A102 Salahuddin was brought by one Dhanasekaran,Police Constable, with a police memo. Salahuddin said that at about4 a.m. on 01-05-1998, one of his friends turned a black colour buttonsystem bomb and when he tried to throw it on the police, it explodedand caused injuries. The Accident Register copy is Ex-P441. On thesame date, at about 3.30 a.m., A101 Sarthaj was also brought and hetoo said that at about 2'o clock on 15-02-1998, three unknown personswho are not locals tried to explode a bomb and he sustained injuries. The Accident Register copy is Ex-P442. Ex-P441 shows that at about4'o clock, on Thirumal Street, a person who him switched on a blackcolour button system bomb and threw it on the police and it exploded. Ex-P442 shows that the injured had stated that at about 2'o clock on15-02-1998, some unknown persons triggered a black colour bomb and itexploded, as a result of which, he was injured. (xvi) According to the defence, P.W.1041 and P.W.1045had categorically stated that P.W.1288, Inspector Murali, was notpresent at Babulal Building. They also did not mention the presenceof A16 there. On the other hand, according to the prosecution,P.W.1041 merely says in his cross-examination that he does not knowabout the presence of P.W.1288 and that they must enquire the personsinside or whether he came to the terrace or whether he took part in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the proceedings. P.W.1041 would also state that he did not hand overthe unused cartridges to Chellaiah, but he did not know to whom itwas given. (xvii) The defence case regarding the occurrence atBabulal Building is that Crime No.151 of 1998 was fabricated so as tohide the mysterious death of six Muslims and in order to avoid thefiling of a F.I.R. against the police for the encounter killings, andthat is why the final report of the R.D.O. has not been filed tilldate and Crime No.151 of 1998 was created to suit the convenience ofP.W.1288. (xviii) The evidence of P.W.1288, Murali, the Inspectorof Police, is to the effect that at about 4 a.m. on 15-02-1998, underthe command of the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore City, he,P.W.1099 Rajamanickam, P.W.1041 Chandrasekaran, Encoba, SivasakthiSelvam and others went for carrying out the combing operations inrespect of the 'Al Umma' cadres and also for explosives at ThirumalStreet, which came under the jurisdiction of B-1 Police Station. Atthat time, he saw some suspicious movement of persons on the terraceof Babulal Building. When those people saw the police party, theyswitched off the light. Therefore, the police party proceeded to thetop floor of the Babulal Building. People were hiding there. Heswitched on the torchlight and asked them to come out. One of themsaid, "Go away you police dogs, get lost" and threw a pipe bomb. When that burst, Chandrasekaran (P.W.1041), Pachaiyappan (P.W.1045)and Sivasakthi Selvam got injured. Immediately, Sub InspectorChandrasekaran (P.W.1041) fired a round at the sky with his weapon. Within a few seconds, a bomb exploded in the bathroom. A little timelater, A101 Sarthaj, A102 Salahuddin and A103 Sheriff belonging to'Al Umma' came out from the bathroom in injured state. On the sameterrace, A16 Abbas, Zakir Hussain, Shahul Hameed, Riyaz, RajaSharfuddin and Babu, who were hiding at a different place on theterrace were arrested and they enquired the accused. In the bombexplosion, six dead bodies were found scattered in the bathroom. When the accused were enquired, they identified three of the dead asIqbal, Saleem and Abdul Rahman and said that three others wereoutsiders, whose names they did not know. P.W.1288 appointedconstables to guard the place. There were pipe bombs on top of gunnybags. With the help of Ravindran, BDDS Squad Assistant Inspector,the bombs were defused. The above accused were brought to B1 PoliceStation at about 6.30 a.m. and a case was registered under therelevant Section, in Crime No.151 of 1998. The F.I.R. is Ex-P.1644. Since there was firing, he sent the six dead bodies to P.W.1073 forenquiry. After placing the accused in police custody, he went atabout 8'o clock to the scene of occurrence and in the presence ofP.W.1001 Ravi and Subramanian, prepared the observation mahazar, Ex-P.792 and a rough sketch, Ex-P.1645. Before the same witnesses, heseized a white colour cement polythene bag, diffused PVC pipe pieces(16 nos.), 42 nos. gelatin sticks and 16 nos. non-electrical https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detonators under Ex-P.793, mahazar. M.Os.291, 292 and 296 being theblood stained earth, sample earth and PVC pipe respectively were alsoseized under mahazar, Ex-P.794. The F.I.R. was sent to the higherauthorities for further investigation. Since there were other bombexplosions and he was on duty, he did not take up the caseimmediately for investigation. Therefore, he sent the eight accusedto Judicial Magistrate No.5 for being remanded to judicial custody. Before that, he sent the injured accused to C.M.C. Hospital. Herecorded the statements of Davidraj, Chandur, Ravi and Subramanian. Since the accused had to be enquired, he filed an affidavit beforethe Court and took them back in police custody. (xix) Ex-P1644 is the F.I.R., which was recorded at 6.30a.m. on 15-02-1998 and the incident is said to have taken place at 4a.m. In this, the complainant is P.W.1288. It was received by theCourt on the same day at 9 a.m. In the F.I.R., the narration ofevents is not very different from what P.W.1288 has stated in theevidence, except for stating that Chandrasekaran fired at the 'AlUmma' cadres. In this Ex-P.1644, he refers to shining the torchlightand three accused coming out from the bathroom with injuries, A101Sarthaj, A102 Salauhiddin and A103 Sheriff. He inspected the bathroomwith the aid of the torchlight to ascertain whether there were anymore bombs. Six dead bodies were found and five persons were hidingon the terrace at the northeastern corner. On enquiry, they foundthat they were A16 Abbas, Shahul Hameed, Mohammed Riyaz, RajaSharfuddin and Babu. It is also stated that of the six dead, threewere identified as Iqbal, Saleem and Abdul Rahman and the other threewere outsiders and they also found unexploded bombs and pipe bombs onthe cement bags, which were intended to be exploded in the city. (xx) The defence pointed out Ex-D.29, which is thehistory of the case with regard to Crime No.151 of 1998, which refersto the raid of Saaj Building at 4 a.m. to secure the terrorists; theattack by the accused Sarthaj and others at the police party withbombs and the police opening fire in retaliation; the arrest of ninepersons; and the death of the remaining accused in the building onaccount of the explosion. Therefore, according to them, this is acrucial discrepancy. (xxi) On the side of the defence, Ex-D.39 is alsomarked, which is stated to be a statement recorded under Section 161,Cr.P.C. In Ex-D39, P.W.1288 has stated that he Rajamanickam,Chandrasekaran, Encoba, Palaniswamy, Kannabiran, Paulraj, Kannappan,Thillairaj, Sivasakthi Selvam and Pachaiyappan went on patrollingduty at Oppanakkara Street and when the bombs burst on the terrace,it was about 4'o clock; he arrested the accused and came to thepolice station. According to the defence, since this is a signeddocument, this alone would be the first complaint and this has beensuppressed and Ex-P.1644 has been brought about at a later point oftime. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (xxii) P.W.1298, Jayachandra Bose, has stated that heprepared the rough sketch of the scene of occurrence at BabulalBuilding on 20-02-1998 and recorded the confession statement of A16,who was in P.W.1288's custody, in front of the witness, i.e.,P.W.772. A16 showed him his house at Bismi Nagar. He prepared Ex-P.771, observation mahazar and rough sketch, Ex-P.1709. Then on 21-02-1998, he recorded the confession statement of A103 who was inP.W.1288's custody. On 22-02-1998, he recorded the confessionstatement of A102, who was also in police custody. He also recordedthe confession statement of A103. He has stated that he did not sendA102 to A103 for medical examination. (xxiii) In the observation mahazar Ex-P.792, the relevantportions show that on the eastern side of the terrace at BabulalBuilding, there were sand bags and bombs on them and there is abathroom on the northern side. There were six bodies and bloodstainson the others inside the bathroom showed signs of sharpnels fallingon them. Under Ex-P.793, seizure mahazar M.O.291, the white colourcement bag and M.O. 292, the diffused PVC pipe bombs and gelatinsticks have been seized. Under Ex-P.794, the sample earth M.O.294,the blood stained earth P.W.293 and also shattered PVC pipe pieceswere recovered. (xxiv) P.W.926, Dr. Sekar, was working as Senior MedicalOfficer at the relevant point of time. He had examinedChandrasekaran, who was brought on 15-02-1998 at 4.30 a.m. He refersto multiple abrasions and a punctured wound. The wound certificateissued by him is Ex-P.665. Chandrasekaran, Pachaiyappan andSivasakthi Selvam have given the reason for the injuries as the bombexplosion at Thirumal Street and their wound certificates areExs.P.666, 667 and 668. The discharge summary shows that thediagnosis is 'bomb blast injury'. (xxv) Ex-P.665 shows multiple pellet implantations. Itwas submitted on behalf of the defence that if the injuries were as aresult of what is stated by the witnesses, i.e., as having beencaused by a pipe bomb, then there is no possibility of pelletsentering the bodies of the injured. Therefore, according to thedefence, the occurrence in Babulal Building as projected by theprosecution must be rejected. IX.RIOTINGThe case of the prosecution is that there was rioting on 14-02-1998 at about 4 p.m. at Thirumal Street. The following are thewitnesses examined in this regard.(i) P.W.1117, Sathiyaseelan, runs a grocery shop at Door No.39,Thirumal Street. It is also his residence. At about 70 feet to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ north of his house is Babulal Building. He would open his shop at 7a.m. and close it at 1 p.m. On 14-02-1998, at about 5 p.m., 10 or 15young Muslim men were engaged in rioting with pipe bombs and theywere A12 Aslam, A11 Salam, A17 Zaffru, A109 Naimu, A101 Sarthaj, A103Sheriff and A102 Salahuddin. So he closed his shop and went away. In the evening, he heard 2 or 3 blasts. On 15-02-1998 at 4 a.m., heheard an explosion from Babulal Building. When he went here at 7a.m., there was a big crowd and he learnt that six young Muslim menhad died because of the explosion. He is unable to identify anyperson. According to him, since several years have gone by, he hasnot identified them.(ii) P.W.1123, Balakrishnan, has a tailoring shop in DoorNo.17/41, Thirumal Street and he lives there with his wife and son. He also states that Babulal Building is to the north of his house. On 14-02-1998, when he was stitching clothes at about 4 p.m., heheard the noise of rioting. When he came out, he saw A12 Aslam, A114Haroon, A11 Salam, A109 Naimu, A17 Zaffru, A103 Sheriff, A101 Sarthajand A102 Salahuddin, all belonging to that street, having pipe bombsand knives in their hands. They were engaged in rioting and weremoving towards Variety Hall. He got scared, so he closed doors andstayed inside. The next morning at 4 a.m., he heard an explosion atBabulal Building. Since it was dark, he did not come out. There wasa crowd outside Babulal Building and he heard that six young Muslimmen died because of the explosion. He too is unable to identify anyperson because of the passage of time.(iii) P.W.1125, Selvam, does rewinding work in Perumal KoilStreet. On 14-02-1998, he opened his shop and was doing his work. At that time, a group of young Muslim men in Thirumal Street wereassembled in a crowd and held pipe bombs, knives and aruvals whichthey threw on the road and went towards V.H. Road. About five Muslimboys known to him were among the crowd. They were A12 Aslam, A11Salam, A114 Haroon, A109 Naimu and A17 Zaffru. Since there wasrioting, he went inside. On 15-02-1998, he opened his shop at 9 a.m.and he learnt that six persons had died in Babulal Building at 4 a.m.because of an explosion. He too is unable to identify anyone.(iv) P.W.1129, Sundaram, was a sales representative in AmmalCycle Stores, Variety Hall. At the relevant point of time in 1998,he was living in Door No.70, Thirumal Street on a monthly rent ofRs.1,000/-. On 14-02-1998, when he was sitting in his shop at about4 p.m., a crowd came running saying that a bomb had exploded. Heclosed his shop and went to his house at Thirumal Street. At thattime, young Muslim men with weapons in their hands were goingshouting slogans. He was scared and stayed by the side. After thecrowd had crossed him, people told him that their names were A12Aslam, A114 Haroon, A109 Naimu, A17 Zaffru and A11 Salam. The nextmorning, he heard an explosion at 4 a.m. He heard that six personshad died in that explosion and one belonged to Thirumal Street. He https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ too is unable to identify anyone. (v) P.W.942, N.K. Rathnakumar, was a resident ofThiruvananthapuram at the time when he gave evidence. But in 1998,he ran a shop called Gopi Tea Stall on Thirumal Street. He hadstudied upto X Standard in Coimbatore. The Saravana Metals buildingis located 50 feet from house and behind that, his Makkan Dargah. After the murder of Constable Selvaraj, people would be assemblingand discussing in crowd in that place and amongst them, A12 Aslam andother people belonging to the same community would be talking. Theywere coming to his shop and have tea and snacks. On 14-02-1998, hehad opened his shop at 4 p.m. A crowd came and many were holdingknives and bombs. A12 Aslam, A11 Salam, A17 Zaffru, A101 Sarthaj andothers were in that crowd. They all went to the end of ThirumalStreet. Some commotion happened there. There was an explosion andthen they ran towards Maniya Thottam. So, he closed his shop andwent away. That night, police raided Maniya Thottam. In themorning, he learnt that six Muslim persons died in an explosionBabulal Building. When asked to identify, this witness had said withtears in his eyes that all of them had been known to him fromchildhood and that he had grown up with them and studied with themand therefore, he did not wish to identify anyone. (vi) In cross-examination, the defence had challenged that allthese witnesses had never seen any occurrence as narrated by them. (vii) In addition to the above, the prosecution has alsoexamined some more witnesses in this context. In any event, since wefind that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not so relevantas to implicate any accused with regard to the case of rioting. We have to reject the case of the prosecution on this score. Furtherthe period of sentence prescribed for the offence rioting has alreadybeen undergone by the accused concerned. X. ARREST & RECOVERY We will first deal with the arrest of A8, A2, A4, A155,156 and A157 at Rajahmundry. P.W.1262 Lakshmanasamy, who at thatpoint of time was the Inspector of Police, attached to SpecialInvestigation Team of CBCID, deposed in his chief-examination that on11-10-1998 at about 3.15 P.M. he effected the arrest of Accused No.8Siddiq Ali and on arrest, the said accused voluntarily gaveconfession statement which was recorded in the presence of P.W.1205Perumal and another. At about 4.00 P.M. on the same day A8 from theright side of his pant pocket took a brass revolver which was loadedwith 6 cartridges. He also produced a knife, a letter signed by A1-Basha. The said articles were marked as M.Os.410 to 412, which wererecovered under the cover of seizure mahazar Ex-P1479, which wasattested by P.W.1205 and another. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i) P.W.1205 is one of the attesting witnesses to thearrest and recovery of the above said Material Objects from AccusedNo.8. P.W.1205 in his chief examination deposed that he has gone toRajahmundry Railway Station to receive his friend on 11-10-1998 atabout 3.00 p.m. and at that time, some people came and arrested twopeople. The said accused was arrested by Tamil Nadu and Andhra Policeand the arrested persons were A8 and A153. He further deposed thatA8 gave a statement to P.W.1262, which was recorded by him and hesigned the said statement as a witness. His friend namelySathyanarayana had also signed the same as a witness. Thereafter, A8from his personal possession took out a brass revolver, which oninspection found containing 6 cartridges. A8 also produced a greencolour pouch from his left side pant pocket, which contained a knifeand he also produced a letter, which was written in Tamil. A perusalof mahazar under Ex-P1479, it was signed by this witness and hisfriend. The signture of P.W.1205 was marked as Ex-P1480. The witnessidentified M.Os.410 to 412. This witness identified A8 in the opencourt, but wrongly identified A89 as A153. In the cross-examinationthis witness has deposed that the when the police came in twovehicles and effected arrest of both A8 and A153 and the entireportion of arrest, recording the statement and recovery took aboutone hour and ten minutes and police did not compel him to be there. It is further deposed by him that he signed as a witness along withhis friend. A careful perusal of the above said testimony revealsthat nothing was elicited against the prosecution and nothing usefulwas elicited in favour of the Accused No.8 and we find no reason todiscredit his testimony. (ii) On the information by Accused No.8, P.W.1262proceeded to Vamsi Apartments, Panduranga Street, Danuvaipet,Rajahmundry. Search was made in flat bearing No.46-16-2/8, VamsiApartments and A2, A4, A155, A156 and A157, who were present in thesaid flat were arrested at about 4.30 P.M. on 11-10-1998. It isfurther deposed by P.W.1262 in the chief-examination that A2voluntarily gave a confession statement, which was recorded in thepresence of P.W.1203 Subbarao and another. Admissible portion of thesame has been marked as Ex-P1549. As per the admissible portion ofconfession, the accused informed the witness that he will producepistol etc. The flat in which the said accused were staying wereseen and a scene mahazar was prepared under Ex-P1477 and a sketch wasalso prepared under Ex-P1550. At about 8.00p.m. on 11-10-1998, alongwith A155, A4, A157 and A156, A2 produced 10 Material Objects whichwere marked as M.Os.403 to 409. On 12-10-1998, the arrested Accusedwere kept in custody at Rajahmundry Police Station and at about 12.45P.M. on the same day, they along with Materials Objects seized wereproduced before the learned II Additional I Class Judicial Magistrateat Rajahmundry and after obtaining transit warrants they were takento Coimbatore and were produced before the learned JudicialMagistrate No.V, on 14-10-1998. The concerned witnesses were alsoexamined and their statements were recorded on 12-11-1998. On 12-12- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1998 at about 10.00 p.m., the above said apartment was once againsearched. M.Os.384 to 402 namely television and other articles wereseized. (iii) In the cross-examination P.W.1262 has deposed thaton receiving secret information he along with his party proceeded toRajahmundry and they have taken assistance of the local police. Thewitness would further depose that they have not obtained permissionfrom the local jurisdictional Court for effecting the arrest of theaccused since they felt insufficient time was available and in theinterregnum the accused may flee away. The witness denied thesubmission that no arrest of the accused was effected at Rajahmundryand they have not given any statement. Arrest of A2 and others andrecovery was effected in the presence of P.W.1203 and another andthis witness would deposed that there are 5 occupants in the saidapartments and the Tamil Nadu police arrested them. One among 5persons Accused No.2-Ansari voluntarily gave statement and it wasrecorded by P.W.1262 and he has signed the said statement as awitness along with one N.Srinivasan. In the observation mahazar underEx-P1477 also this witness has signed. Ansari voluntarily handed overvarious articles in the cupboard in the said apartments, which wereseized under the cover of mahazar Ex-P1478 and marked as M.Os. 403 to409. The witness has also identified the above said Material Objectsin the Court. The witness also identified A2, A151, A156 and when hewas called upon to state the names of the persons, he stated A2 asAnwar, A151 as Idayat Alikhan and A156 as Tada. But he has notidentified A4 and A155 who were siting in the Court. In the cross-examination this witness has deposed that he has not visited the flatat any point of time. For about 4½ to 5 hours he was with P.W.1262. The witness further deposed that he did not know the contents of Ex-P1478 and do not know Tamil also. Accordingly, a perusal and analysisof the above said testimony would disclose that his testimony iscogent and inspires confidence and he corroborates the version ofP.W.1262. The Material Objects recovered under Ex-P1478 were alsoidentified by him in the Court and he also identifies A2, A151 and156. Though the witness deposed that he was not aware of contents ofEx-P1478, which was recorded in English since he identifies thearticles seized under the above said Exhibit, we cannot discredit thetestimony in so far as recovery is concerned. It is to be rememberedat this juncture that the arrest of the above said accused was on 11-10-1998 and the witness was examined on 19-02-2004. Therefore, thereis bound to be some memory lapse and due to said lapse of time, thewitness would not have remembered the names of A2, A151 and A156 anddue to change in physical appearance also, he would not have beenidentified A4 and A155. The same would not in any way discredit histestimony and we believe the same. (iv) Insofar as Accused No.2 is concerned, he wasarrested at Rajahmundry was brought to Coimbatore on transit warrantand was interrogated on 22.10.1998 at SIT office by P.W.1300, Chief https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Investigating Officer, in the presence of one Balan-P.W.1269 and oneKrishnan. At the time of interrogation A2 produced M.Os. 422 to 431.The said Material Objects were recovered under the cover of seizuremahazar pertaining to the said articles were marked as Ex-P1561. Thesaid Material Objects were marked by the trial Court subject toobjection raised by the counsel appearing for the Accused. (v) It is the submission of the learned senior counselappearing for the Accused that if A2 was really arrested atRajahmundry on 11-10-1998, it would not have been possible for A2 tobe in possession of M.Os. 422 to 431 at the time of his interrogationby P.W.1300 and also that A2, in his statement under Section 313,Cr.P.C., had said that he was arrested in Coimbatore. The submissionof the learned Public Prosecutor was also heard. P.W.1203 hascogently spoken about the arrest of accused No.2 and others at VamsiApartments, Rajahmundry and in pursuant to the confession statementmade by Accused No.2, he along with other accused took M.Os.403 to409 and the recovery mahazar was also signed by P.W.1203. As thetestimony of P.W.1203 inspired confidence, we feel no ground toreject his testimony. We accept the arrest at Rajahmundry and therecovery of M.Os.403 to 409. With regard to the recovery of M.Os. 422to 431, in pursuant to the confession made by Accused No.2 beforeP.W.1300 at Coimbatore in the presence of P.W.1269, we are of theopinion, that the said confession and recovery lacks credence. Asper the prosecution version, Accused No.2 was arrested on 11-10-1998at Rajahmundry by P.W.1262 and after obtaining transit warrant fromthe Court of Additional First Class Judicial Magistrate No.II, atRajahmundry, he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate atCoimbatore and was remanded to judicial custody and thereafter, wastaken into police custody. Therefore, right from 11-10-1998, A2 wasin custody and therefore, it would not have been possible for him toretain M.Os.422 to 431 in his possession. Therefore, we are notsustaining the case of the prosecution in so far as the said recoveryeffected on 22-10-1998 at Coimbatore. (vi) It is the further submission of the counsel appearing forthe Accused that the confession given by A2 cannot amount to jointconfession and assuming the said confession is believable, it canimplicate only A2 and not other Accused who were said to have beenarrested along with him. In support of the said submission, reliancewas placed on Oudh Ram Vs. State (Delhi), (1982 Crl. L.J. 1656) andK. Yanadi vs. State of (A.P.) (DB), (1985 Crl. L.J. 1822). In theformer, it has been held as follows :“Where several accused were charged with the offence ofdacoity and no separate statements were recorded from them,a joint statement recorded from them, leading to therecovery of stolen articles is inadmissible in evidence andno reliance can be placed upon any recoveries alleged tohave been made in pursuance of the joint statement.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In the latter, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held, “where severalaccused were charged with the offence of dacoity and no statementswere recorded from them, a joint statement recorded from them,leading to the recovery of stolen articles, is inadmissible inevidence and no reliance can be placed upon any recoveries alleged tohave been made in pursuant to the joint statement.” (vii) This Court, in Senthil Kumar and Another vs. Staterep. by Inspector of Police, Kilkodungalur Police Station, (2009 (3)MLJ (Cri.) 917 (DB)), has taken into consideration the ParliamentAttack case in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu, (A.I.R. 2005S.C. 3820) and held as follows:“Yet another circumstance relied upon by theprosecution is the arrest, recovery of M.O.1-Car ascontemplated under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Accused 1 and 2 were arrested on 7.10.20205 while they wereproceeded in a motor bike without number plate (M.O.7). Motor-bike (M.O.7) was also seized. On being interrogated,accused No.1 and 2 had voluntarily given confessionstatement and their joint statement was recorded by theInvestigating Officer which led to the recovery of carbearing registration No.TN-07 V 2104 (M.O.1). Confession and recovery is assailed contending that theexact word used by each of the accused were not recorded andthe Investigating Officer has recorded joint statement ofthe accused No.1 and 2 which led to the recovery of M.O.1-Car and recovery based on that joint statement of both theaccused cannot be relied upon. No doubt, when theInvestigating Officer dealing with more than one accused itis obligatory upon the Investigating Officer to record theexact words used by each of the accused so that recoverypursuant to the information received may be connected to theperson giving information. When both of the accused gavethe same information, recording of joint statement which ledto recovery of M.O.1-Car cannot said to have causedprejudice to the accused. Observing that joint disclosures/simultaneousdisclosures per se are not inadmissible under Section 27 ofIndian Evidence Act in State (NCT of Delhi) vs. NavjotSandhu, A.I.R. 2005 S.C. 3820 Supreme Court held as under :"145. Before parting with the discussion on thesubject of confessions under Section 27, we may brieflyrefer to the legal position as regards joint disclosures. The point assumes relevance in the context of suchdisclosures made by the first two accused viz. Afzal andShaukat. The admissibility of information said to have beenfurnished by both of them leading to the discovery of thehideouts of the deceased terrorists and the recovery of a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ laptop computer, a mobile phone and cash of Rs.10 lakhs fromthe truck in which they were found at Srinagar is in issue. Learned senior counsel Mr.Shanti Bhushan and Mr.Sushil Kumarappearing for the accused contend, as was contended beforethe High Court, that the disclosure and pointing outattributed to both cannot fall within the ken of Section 27,whereas it is the contention of Mr.Gopal Subramanium thatthere is no taboo against the admission of such informationas incriminating evidence against both the accusedinformants. Some of the High Courts have taken the viewthat the wording "a person" excludes the applicability ofthe Section to more than one person. But, that is toonarrow a view to be taken. Joint disclosures, to be moreaccurate, simultaneous disclosures, per se, are inadmissibleunder Section 27."A person accused" need not necessarily be a singleperson, but it could be plurality of the accused. It seemsto us that the real reason for not acting upon the jointdisclosures by taking resort to Section 27 is the inherentdifficulty in placing reliance on such information supposedto have emerged from the mouths of two or more accusedpersons would not have uttered informatory words in achorus. At best, one person would have made the statementorally and the other person would have stated sosubstantially in similar terms a few seconds or minuteslater, or the second person would have given unequivocal nodto what has been said by the first person. Or, two personsin custody may be interrogated separately and simultaneouslyand both of them may furnish similar information leading tothe discovery of fact. Or, in rare cases, both the accusedmay reduce the information into writing and hand over thewritten notes to the police officer at the same time. We donot think that such disclosures by two or more persons inpolice custody go out of the purview of Section 27altogether. If information is given one after the otherwithout any break, almost simultaneously, and if suchinformation is followed up by pointing out the materialthing by both of them, we find no good reason to eschew suchevidence from the regime of Section 27. However, there maybe practical difficulties in placing reliance on suchevidence. It may be difficult for the witness (generallythe police officer), to depose which accused spoke whatwords and in what sequence. In other words, the depositionin regard to the information given by the two accused may beexposed to criticism from the standpoint of credibility andits nexus with discovery. Admissibility and credibility aretwo distinct aspects, as pointed out by Mr.GopalSubramanium. Whether and to what extent such a simultaneousdisclosure could be relied upon by the Court is really amatter of evaluation of evidence. With these prefatory https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ remarks, we have to refer to two decisions of this Courtwhich are relied upon by the learned defence counsel."Distinguishing Ramakishan Mithanlal Sharma vs. TheState of Bombay, A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 104 and the judgment ofBombay High Court Gokulchand Dwarkadas case AIR 1948 PC 82 :49 Cri LJ 216, in Para 147, Supreme Court held as under :"147....... The admissibility or otherwise of jointdisclosures did not directly come up for consideration inthat case. However, while distinguishing the case ofGokulchand Dwarkadas AIR 1948 PC 82: 49 Cri LJ 216 decidedby the Bombay High Court, a passing observation was madethat in the said case of High Court had "rightly held that ajoint statement by more than one accused was notcontemplated by Section 27" (SCR p.925). We cannotunderstand this observation as laying down the law that theinformation almost simultaneous furnished by the two accusedin regard to a fact discovered cannot be received inevidence under Section 27. It may be relevant to mentionthat in case of Lachman Singh v. State (1952 SCR 839: (1952)Cri LJ 863 this Court expressed certain reservations on thecorrectness of the view taken by some of the High Courtsdiscountenancing joint disclosures."Applying the ratio of the above decision, there is nodifficulty in placing reliance upon joint confessionalstatement of the accused No.1 and 2 which led to recovery ofM.O.1-Car. Pursuant to the confession statement of theapplicants/accused No.1 and 2, recovery of M.O.1-Car is astrong circumstance connecting the accused with theoffence." (viii) In the light of the ratio laid down in the abovecited decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, and the otherdecisions rendered by the High Courts of Delhi and Andhra Pradesh, wehold that the recovery of M.Os. 403 to 409 made consequent upon theadmissible portion of the confession of A2 will bind only on him andnot the other accused. Admittedly, the Accused No.2 in theadmissible portion of the confession statement said that he hadhidden the said articles in the cub-board at Vamsi Apartments and itis the version of the prosecution that he along with other arrestedaccused took the above said Material Objects. It is extremelydifficult to believe the said version. The recovery of M.Os. 403 to409 would implicate only Accused No.2 and not other accused, who werealso arrested along with him at Vamsi Apartments at Rajahmundry. (ix) In so far as Accused No.3 -Tajudeen @ Abu Mujahith,is concerned, though he was said to have given confession on 26-04-1998 to P.W.1300-Chief Investigating Officer, no recovery waseffected. The fact remains he was produced before the jurisdictionalMagistrate and he was remanded to judicial custody. Therefore, wesee no reason to disbelieve the version of the prosecution regarding https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ his arrest. (x) Accused No.4 - Nawab Khan was also arrested alongwith A2, A8, A155, A156 and A157 at Rajahmundry on 11-10-1998 byP.W.1262-Lakshamanasamy, in the presence of P.W.1203-Subba Rao andanother. As already discussed, in the forgoing paragraph that A2 gaveconfession statement and as per the admissible portion of theconfession statement, M.Os.403 to 409 were recovered and according toprosecution, all the above said accused together took those MaterialObjects from the cub-board in the Vamsi Apartments. We already heldthat confession statement given by A2 and the recovery made inpursuant to the admissible portion of the said statement can be putagainst A2 alone and not against other accused. A4 was also producedbefore the Court of Additional Judicial I Class Magistrate No.II,Rajahmundry and after obtaining transit warrant, was produced beforethe jurisdictional Magistrate at Coimbatore and was remanded tojudicial custody. Thereafter, he was given police custody toP.W.1300. On perusal of the testimonies of P.W.1203, P.W.1262 andP.W.1300 we accept the arrest of A4 at Rajahmundry. (xi) Accused No.5-Basith @ Mohamed Basith - was arrestedon 09-06-1998 by P.W1139 Ramasamy near Sathyamangalam. P.W.1139would depose that since he was not the investigating officer, he hasnot obtained the confession statement from A5, except from A160 whovoluntarily gave confession statement. He would further depose thatA5, A21 and A10 were declared as absconding accused and a Reward ofsum of Rs.2 lakhs was also announced by the Government of Tamil Naduto secure the custody of the accused. P.W.1139 further deposed in thecross-examination that while effecting arrest of A5, the reasons forarrest has not been given in writing, but it was orally informed tohim and regarding information of his arrest to his relatives, thesaid fact was submitted by way of report to the InvestigatingOfficer. (xii) P.W.837-Sivakumar would depose that on 14-08-1998at 10.00 A.M. he went to B7-Ramanathapuram Police Station atCoimbatore and at that time, police was interrogating A5. A5indicating his intention to give statement voluntarily and it wasrecorded by police. As per the admissible portion of the confessionmarked as Ex-P500, A5 took the police party to Thippu Nagar andidentified the house of A9-Oombabu and scene mahazar was prepared. A5 also identified the house of A16 Keelakarai Abbas and scenemahazar under Ex-P503 was prepared. Thereafter, the accused tookthem to Sathyamangalam - Mettupalayam Road, where in that road to thenorth of milestone 18/2, two cement towers were situated and to theopposite direction of two cement towers they proceeded further by 3Kms. In a particular spot A5 pointed out that they used to explodebomb for trial. A scene mahazar was prepared under Ex-P504. Thepolice party also took the sample earth and ordinary earth under thecover of mahazar Ex-P505. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (xiii) The witness also identified A5 in the Court. Inthe cross-examination the witness would depose that he used to go toB7-Police Station and in view of the acquaintance, his name andaddress was not asked. On entering the police station he found thatthe police was interrogating A5 and he enquired about theinterrogation. Thereafter, police started recording the statement ofA5. The witness would further depose that the entire portion in theconfession statement was told by A5 and he only seen A5 giving thestatement but he has not read the said statement. He has no earlieracquaintance with A5. It was suggested to the witness that noconfession was given by A5 and no scene mahazar, seizure mahazar wasprepared and this witness denied it. It is to be pointed out at thisjuncture that P.W.837 submitted before the Court that if he has todisclose the place in which he worked, he may not be in safe and thetrial Court has assured him that he will be given sufficientprotection and thereafter he continue to give evidence. A carefulperusal of the testimony of P.W.837 shows that nothing useful waselicited in favour of the defence and we are of the opinion that histestimony is credible and believable and we accept the arrest. (xiv) Accused No.6-Ozir @ Abdul Ozir @ Tada Ozir: A6 hadsurrendered before the Court and he was taken into police custody byP.W.1300 and before him, A6 gave a statement on 01-06-1998. However,the said statement does not led to any recovery. Admittedly, A6surrendered before the Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that hissurrender was stage-managed. (xv) Accused No.7- Mohammed Ali Khan @ kutty. This Accusedwas arrested by P.W.1299 - Jeyachandra Bose, Deputy Superintendentof Police, attached to Special Investigation Team on 24-02-1998 atabout 9.00 P.M. at Sathyamangalam, in the presence of P.W.1266-Sampath Kumar, Inspector of Police, attached to SIT and the saidAccused was arrested in front of his house at Sathyamangalam. Afterarrest, he was produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate forremand and thereafter, police custody was taken. On 27-02-1998, hevoluntarily gave a confession statement and the admissible portion ofwhich has been marked as Ex-P719. On 28-02-1998, A7 took the policeparty to his house at Sathyamangalam and produced Yamaha Motorcyclebearing Registration No.TN37 H 9725 (M.O.258), Cardboard Box(M.O.257) and the same were recovered in the presence of P.W.958 andanother under the cover of Mahazar Ex-P720. Driving licence of theaccused and other incriminating articles including Ex-P261-visitingcard of this accused A7 was recovered and all the Material Objectsrecovered in pursuant to the admissible portion of the confessiongiven by A7 were marked as M.Os.250 to 256. On 09-03-1998 A7 wasproduced before the Court and he was remanded to judicial custody. (xvi) P.W.1299 in his cross-examination has deposed that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the witnesses came to the police station at about 8.45 P.M. on 20-02-1998 and they were informed if the witnesses are not available theyshould act as witness. On the next day P.W.1299 came to know that nowitnesses were available and therefore P.W.958 and another wereinformed to act as witnesses. P.W.1299 would further depose thatonly mahazar prepared under Ex-P718 and the search list was notprepared. He denied the suggestion that he did not went toSathyamangalam and all the documents were prepared in the office ofSIT at Coimbatore. He has also further deposed in the remand thefact of A7 gave a statement has not been disclosed. The defence hasalso elicited from P.W.1299 that the statement recorded from A7 on24-02-1998 under Ex-D22 is in the nature of statement under Section161 of Cr.P.C. and in the said statement, the word “confession” hasbeen inserted and he has not initialed it. In the remand report ithas not been indicated that A7 has voluntarily given a statement. Asregards the suggestion that the seized articles have to be recoveredunder one serial number the witness has denied the same. The role ofA7 came to the light only on the interrogation of Shajahan only on15-02-1998. P.W.1299 would further depose that the office of SIT wastemporarily functioning in B7-Ramanathapuram Police Station. In thestatement of A7 the word concealed/hidden has not been stated and ithas not been stated in his confession statement that he will producesomething from Zia Lodge. The statement of P.W.958 one of therecovery witnesses was recorded on 28-02-1998. It is further deposedby P.W.1299 that A7 was produced from Salem Central Prison by meansof P.T. Warrant and he was remanded to judicial custody in CrimeNo.159 of 1998. He has also denied the suggestion that even prior to20-02-1998 A7 was kept under illegal custody. He has also deniedthat confession of A7 was given in Crime No.151 of 1998. (xvii) P.W.958 has spoken about the arrest and recoveryof Material Objects pertaining to A7. P.W.958 at the relevant pointof time was working as Village Administrative officer inSathyamangalam and he along with R.I were summoned by police and theywere present on 24-02-1998 at about 8.30 P.M. Thereafter, theyproceeded and effected the arrest of A7 from his house and A7 on hisarrest produced a green colour bag from which gelatin sticks,detonators, fuse and a magazine were recovered under the cover ofmahazar Ex-P718. Other articles namely visiting card etc., were alsorecovered and the Material Objects recovered were marked as M.Os.250to 256. On 27-02-1998, A7 gave a confession statement and as per theadmissible portion under Ex-P317, Yamaha Motor Cycle and Cardboardwere recovered under Ex-P720 and the same were marked as M.Os.257 and258. A7 took them to his friend's house from where his drivinglicence, Gold Flake cigarette outer cover and visiting card wererecovered under Ex-P721 and the Material Objects were marked as M.Os.259 to 261 and thereafter, A7 took them to Zia Lodge and the ledgerwas recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex-P722 and the lodge ledgerwas marked as M.O.262. In the cross-examination the witness woulddepose that he did not enter the house and also denied the suggestion https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that detonators, gelatin sticks and fuse cannot be put together. Thewitness also would depose that till he was there the police did notmake the house search. At Ramanathapuram police station on 27-02-1998 no recovery was effected in the place in which confession wasgiven and the accused had signed in all pages and he has also signedit. (xviii) The learned counsel appearing for the AccusedNo.7 would submit that as per Ex-D21 and D22 statement of A7 hisaddress was shown as Door No.44, Mariamman Koil Street,Sathyamangalam and it is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. As per Ex-D21 arrest card, the accused was arrested from Fathima Beebi Nagar,Kumarapalayam, Sathyamangalam since the arrest card - Ex-D21 andstatement Ex-D22 show two places, the learned counsel appearing forA7 would submit that the arrest cannot be believed so also therecovery and the presence of P.W.958 at the time of alleged arrestand recovery cannot be believed at all. In Ex-D22 the word confessionhas been inserted and according to P.W.1299 he has not made anyinsertion and he has not initialed it. Even in the statement theword concealed is not stated. (xix) This Court on a consideration of the saidmaterials is of the view that A7 was arrested in the presence ofP.W.958. In so far as Ex-D22 is concerned, the same will not in anyway aid the prosecution as it is hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. ThisCourt on a perusal of the Ex-D22, has found that the word confessionhas been added/inserted and according to P.W.1299 he has not made thesaid correction and not initialed it. No doubt the arrest card showssome other address at Sathyamangalam but the fact remaains A7 wasarrested at Sathyamangalam and P.W.958 Village Administrative Officerhas categorically deposed that A7 was arrested in his presence. Therecovery of register from Zia Lodge has not been stated in theconfession statement of A7. But P.W.958 would depose that theaccused took them to Zia Lodge and the register was seized. Inpursuant to the admissible portion of confession under Ex-P719 dated27.2.1998 Yamaha Motor bike was seized under the cover of mahazar Ex-P720. The prosecution would argue that M.O.461-visiting card ofP.W.1293 – Riaz-ur-Rahman who is said to have supplied gelatinsticks, which have been used in the serial bomb blasts atCoimbatore. It is the further submission of the prosecution thatthe testimony of P.W.958 Village Administrative Officer is cogent andtrustworthy and he is stick on to his version in spite of lengthycross-examination by the defence. (xx) P.W.961 has corroborated the version of theprosecution that the Motorbike, which was recovered in pursuant tothe admissible portion of the confession of A7 belongs to A7. Therefore, the arrest and recovery made in pursuant to the admissibleportion of the confession statement of A7 is believable. However,this Court is of the opinion that Ex-D22-statement of the Accused https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ No.7 dated 24-02-1998 cannot come to the aid of the prosecution as itis hit by Section 162 of Cr.P.C. (xxi) Accused No. 8-Siddiq Ali was arrested atRajahmundry Railway Station by P.W.1262 Lakshmanasamy in the presenceof P.W.1205. P.W.1205 would depose that A8 and A153 were arrested byP.W.1262 and A8 gave a confession statement, which was taken down byP.W.1262. A8 took out a brass revolver from his right side pantpocket and from left side pant pocket produced a green colour pouch,which contain a knife. Those articles were seized under Ex-P1479 andthe Objects seized were marked as M.Os.410 to 412. In the cross-examiation of P.W1262, the testimony of the witness has not beendiscredited. (xxii) Accused No. 9 - Oom Babu: This accused wasarrested by P.W.732 on 29-03-1998. He was interrogated at B7-Ramanathapuram Police Station on 03-04-1998 and at that time P.W.799,who is an Assistant attached to the office of the Coimbatore SouthTaluk Office was present and according to his testimony, A9 gave astatement and also took them to his house and various places whichled to the recovery of various documents which were marked asExs.P367, Ex-P.369 to 375. The accused also took them to Panagangaraat Kerala State and from the house bearing Door No.64, the accusedproduced a yellow colour plastic bag and 7 cartridges which weremarked as M.O.198 series. This was also identified by the saidwitness in the Court. A perusal of Ex-P378, 376 and 368 woulddisclose that certain material documents were seized by the policeparty as the accused took them to various places and produced thosedocuments. In the cross-examination the testimony of P.W.799remained unshaken and we see no reason to disbelieve his testimony. (xxiii) Accused No.10-Zahir Hussain: He was arrestedby P.W.1139 Ramasamy along with A116 on 07-09-1999. P.W.1139 woulddepose that since he was not the investigating officer he did notrecord the confession statement of A10. However, he recorded theconfession statement of A116 since he volunteer it. P.W.1295 wascarrying on the avocation as a Real Estate broker and he has deposedthat on 8, 9 and 10-09-1999, A10 was in the custody of SIT and in hispresence and in the presence of his friend Sivakumar, A10 gave astatement. In pursuant to the said statement the accused identifiedthe place in which explosive substance was hidden and it wasrecovered under the cover of mahazar Ex-P1687. The recoveredmaterial was marked as M.O.449. This witness would further depose inhis cross-examination that he is not having acquaintance with thepolice, but his friend Sivakumar is having good acquaintance withpolice and since he was called by Sivakumar, he went to the office ofSIT. He would further depose that seizure mahazar was routinelywritten and no insertion/interpolation was done. He denied thesuggestion that he and his friend Sivakumar are acted as agents ofthe police. On a careful analysis of testimony of P.Ws.1139 and 1295 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would disclose that nothing useful was elicited in favour of theaccused with regard to the recovery. (xxiv) Accused No. 11-Abdul Salam @ Salam @ PoochaikanSalam @ Babu: This accused was arrested by P.W.1299 - Jeyachandra Bose on 24.2.1998 in connection with Crime No.151 of 1998 and he wasremanded to judicial custody on the same day. No recovery waseffected from him. (xxv) Accused No.12-Aslam @ Tada Aslam: This accusedwas arrested by P.W.1300 - Rajasekaran Chief Investigating Officer on05-05-1998 and he gave a statement in the presence of the witnesses. No recovery was effected from him. (xxvi) Accused No.13-Siraj @ Auto Siraj: This accused andA51 were arrested by P.W.1262 Lakshmanasamy at Sellodu Mattu MandaMalampula Taluk at Kerala on 15-03-1998 in the presence of P.W.875and another. The accused gave a confession statement. In pursuantto the admissible portion of the confession marked as Ex-P549. Fourempty PVC pipe bombs were recovered on 16-03-1998 under the cover ofmahazar. Ex-P550 and the recovered materials were marked as M.O.222series. In the cross-examination the witness deposed that theconfession statement given by A13 was written by a Sub-Inspector andin the mahazar also A13 has put his signature. According to P.W.1300- Chief Investigating Officer, the confession statement was writtenby him. He further deposed that in the arrest card some correctionswere made. Though initially A13 conceded to give statement underSection 164 of Cr.P.C. when he was produced before the Court, herefused to give statement. Though there is some discrepancy withregard to the person who has written the confession statement, thefact remains that P.W.875 has spoken about the recovery of M.O.222. The submission made on behalf of A13 that since the confessionstatement was not recorded by Sub-Inspector, it was recorded only byP.W.1300 and therefore the entire recovery is vitiated cannot besustained as the testimony of P.W.875 is believable and trustworthy. (xxvii) Accused No.16 – Abbas @ Keelakarai Abbas: Thisaccused was arrested by P.W.1288 K.N.Murali, Station House Officer,B1 police station, Coimbatore on 15-02-1998 early morning hours atBabulal building. His arrest will be discussed in detail under CrimeNo.151 of 1998. On 20-02-1998 the said accused in the presence ofP.W.990-Mayilsamy, Irudayaraj and Balasubramaniam- Revenue Officials gave a confession statement, the admissible portion of which wasmarked as Ex-P770 and the accused took them to the house at BismiNagar which was owned by Tmt.Razool Bibi and identified the place inwhich the bombs were manufactured. Scene mahazar was prepared byP.W.1299 and the same was marked as Ex-P771. The articles found inthe house were listed under Ex-P772 and the articles seized in thathouse was marked as M.Os. 263 to 287 and two bulbs were recoveredwhich was subject to fingerprint test by P.W.1112. According to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ prosecution in one of the bulbs M.O.286, fingerprint of A16 was foundand therefore according to them, A16 was staying in the house ownedby Razool Bibi and manufactured bombs. (xxviii) P.W.1112 who took the fingerprint from M.O.286and analyzed would depose that the fingerprint found in M.O.286-bulbtallied with the fingerprint of A16. P.W.1112 in his cross-examination would depose that there was no direct requisition to liftthe fingerprint and prepare to the lifting of the same, samplefingerprint of A16 was not handed over to him and only after helifting the fingerprint from M.O.286, the sample fingerprint wasgiven to him. The witness would further depose that he was informedthat the fingerprint of A16 was taken by one Dhanasekaran on 16-02-1998. The witness would further admit that the sample fingerprintwas not sent to the Court and for regarding the removal of M.O.286-bulb, he was not aware whether any mahazar was prepared. In thehouse of Razool Bibi the fingerprint of A16 was not handed over tohim. P.W.1300-Chief Investigating Officer in the cross-examinationwould depose that A16 took the house on lease from P.W.1013-RazoolBibi on the 20th day of fasting of Ramzan the corresponding on 19-01-1998. In Ex-P770-father's name of A16 was stated as Kaja moideen,but on 20-02-1998 only the investigatigation team came to know thefather's name of A16 as Kowbathullah.(xxix) The prosecution wants to nail A16 since the fingerprintwas lifted from M.O.286-bulb from the house of Razool Bibi in whichhe was residing as a tenant and by virtue of seizure of otherarticles the prosecution want to establish that he manufactured bombsin the said house. The testimony of P.W.1112 would disclose that thesample fingerprint of A16 was not given to him at the earliest pointof time and that he has also not sent the sample fingerprint to theCourt. Therefore, connecting the Accused No.16 with the manufactureof bomb primarily with the help of the fingerprint found in M.O.286-bulb which was seized from his tenanted house belong to Razool Bibion the face of it appears to be too artificial and unbelievable. Thetestimony of P.W.1013 in no way help for advance the case of theprosecution with regard to the staying of A16 in her house as atenant. (xxx) A perusal of other articles cannot in any wayconnect the Accused No.16 with the manufacture of bomb and therefore,we hold that the prosecution has failed to establish that A16 wasstaying in the house of P.W.1013-Razool Bibi and manufactured bombs. (xxxi) Accused No.17-Zaffru @ Syed Zafar Ahamed @ Zafeer:This accused was arrested by P.W.1299-Jeyachandra Bose on 26-02-1998in the presence of P.W.881 and another. The said accused voluntarily https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ gave a confession statement and the admissible portion of the samewas marked as Ex-P557. As per the admissible portion of confessionstatement, M.Os. 224 and 225 -Four cement colour PVC pipes and twocaps of PVC pipes were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex-P559and house of A17 was searched in the presence of the above saidwitness and another. In the house search certain articles wererecovered namely cheque book, passport application, 12 bus tickets ofKSRTC, 6 bus tickets of TNSTC and the books etc., were seized and thesame were marked as Ex-P.561 to 571. A perusal of the testimony ofP.W.881 who was employed as a Deputy Tahsildar on the face of itappears to be cogent and it was attacked on the ground that noindependent witnesses were summoned and the help of the Revenueofficials were sought and according to the defence they will alwayssupport the version of the police. The said submission cannot betaken as an universal rule as the Revenue officials being theGovernment servants had no axe to grind against the accused. Therefore, we believe his testimony. (xxxii) Accused No.18 – Ismail @ Kathikuthu Ismail: Thisaccused was arrested by P.W.1298-Varadaraju Deputy Superintendent ofPolice attached to SIT CBCID on 27-05-1998 and according to theprosecution pursuant to the confession Iron Axe M.O.166 was recoveredfrom him under the cover of mahazar Ex-P229. It is the primarycontention of the prosecution that all the accused had participatedin the conspiracy, which ultimately led to serial bomb blasts inCoimbatore on 15-02-1998 and on 14-02-1998 evening hours. Theprosecution has failed to come out with any explanation as to how therecovery of M.O.166 Iron Axe is useful in the serial bomb blast andtherefore the recovery of the said M.O. is of no help to theprosecution. (xxxiii) Accused No.19 – Zaffer @ Makkan Zaffer: Thisaccused was arrested on 10-05-1998 in pursuant to execution of Non-Bailable Warrant issued in Crime No.1038 of 1996 registered by B1Police Station, Coimbatore and he was remanded to judicial custody on11-05-1998. As per the admissible portion of confession recorded inthe presence of P.W.821-Sivakumar and another, M.Os. 206 to 209namely Sword, Iron plates, blue colour plastic bedding and rustediron balance were used for manufacture of bombs. Mere possession ofthe above said articles by A19 cannot led to an inference that he wasinvolved in the process of manufacturing the bomb. (xxxiv) Accused No.20 – Mohammed Amjath Ali: Thisaccused was arrested on 15-04-1998 by P.W.1283 A.G. Manickavel, thethen DGP attached to CBCID in connection with Crime No.151 of 1998and he was remanded to judicial custody on 16-04-1998. After takinghim into police custody he was interrogated. The accused voluntarilygave a confession statement and the same was recorded in the presenceof P.W.1143 Murugan and others. The admissible portion of which hasbeen marked as Ex-P1296 and in pursuant to the same the accused took https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the police party to the house of Noorjagan and in the house, andproduced the garland made on spatikam, and other Material Objects andthe same were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex-P1297 in thepresence of P.Ws.1143 and others and the same were marked as M.Os.340 to 342. The accused was charged with the offence of conspiracyand allied offences and was convicted. Before the trial Court a pleawas taken that this accused was a juvenile. However, the trial Courthas rejected it on the ground that as on the date of commission ofthe offence he has crossed the age of 16 and he is not entitled tothe benevolent provision of Juvenile Justice Act. Thereafter, in2006 an amendment came and an application was moved before this Courtfor treating this accused as a juvenile and for his release. ThisCourt after considering the submissions made by the counsel appearingfor this accused and after hearing the objections raised by thelearned Public Prosecutor and after applying the ratio laid down in adecision reported in Hari Ram vs. State of Rajasthan –(2009(6) Scale656), has ordered the release of this accused. (xxxv) Accused No.21-Aman @ Amanullah: This accused wasarrested by P.W.1139-Ramasamy, on 14-10-1998 in the presence ofP.W.897-Rajendran and M.Os. 229 to 232 namely, one Spatika Maalai, acopper ring, a pair of Ankle Black Shoes, an Yellow colour Polythenebag were seized on 15-10-1998 in the presence of P.W.897. (xxxvi) The learned counsel appearing for A21 wouldsubmit that when the accused was in police custody for 7 days theabove said recovery was effected and there is no incriminatingmaterials made out against this accused under Section 120-B of IPC. The witness admittedly an accused in another case and therefore he isobliged to the police. Mere recovery of the above said articleswould not help the prosecution to sustain their version that the saidaccused by disguising himself as a Hindu may attempt to plant bomb. We also found that the evidence against this accused in so far as therecovery is concerned appears to be very feeble. (xxxvii) Accused No.26-Jahangir @ Jahir: This accused wasarrested by P.W.1298-Varadaraju the then DSP attached to CBCID SIT on20-04-1998 and as per the testimony of P.W.809 and another under thecover of mahazar Ex-P390, M.O.199 wooden box and M.O.200 cycle loadcarrier and the were recovered on 20-04-1998. The prosecution wantto establish that the bombs placed in side box fitted in bi-cyclewere used for bomb blast and one such bomb blasts took place nearHindu Munnani Officer. Mere recovery of green colour cycle carrierand the box cannot establish that A26 had indulged in the conspiracyto effect the serial bomb blast unless there are other circumstanceswith regard to his involvsement. The said aspect has been discussedin the other portion of this judgment. In so far as Accused No.27 -Mohammed Muthu @ Musthafa and Accused No.28 - Safru @ Sarfudeen areconcerned there was no recovery. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (xxxviii) Accused No.32 - L.M.Hakkim: This accused wasarrested by P.W.1300 - Chief Investigating Officer on 22-03-1998 andM.O. 184 series 9" - 6 PVC pipe bombs were recovered under the coverof mahazar Ex-P357. A perusal of the testimony of P.W.786 in whosepresence the recovery was effected would disclose that in pursuant tothe confession made the recovery of articles were effected and therecovery was effected from a bush. The defence would submit thatafter recovery the bombs were defused for which no mahazar wasprepared. But in Ex-P357 signature of P.W.786 has been found. However, P.W.1300 in his cross-examination has deposed that P.W.786in his statement has not stated about A32 producing 3 bombs as wellas A12 and the bombs were separated and folded in a paper. Since itis an improvement on the part of P.W.786 with regard to the recoveryaspect, in so far as A32 is concerned, we are not in a position toplace reliance upon his testimony. (xxxix) Accused No.33-Abu @ Abuthageer: This accused wasarrested by P.W.1300-Rajasekaran, Chief Investigating Officer on 19-04-1998 and recovery of M.O.127-defused PVC pipe bomb was effectedunder the cover of mahazar Ex-P181 in the presence of P.W.538 andanother. P.W.538 while being examined identified M.O.127 inCourt. The defence would submit that since recovery was effected froman accessible place open to all, it cannot be believed and thatthough the accused A33 in his confession statement said about theeffect of recovery from the rear portion of the house, the recoverywas effected from a place which is 40 feet away from his house cannothelp the version of prosecution. The Public Prosecutor would submitthat the M.O.127 was subject to chemical analysis test and as per Ex-P1035 given by P.W. 1078, item No.12 of the report indicates that itcontains some explosive substances. It cannot be said that theplace from which M.O.127 recovered is an accessible to all asadmittedly it was a bush and M.O.127 was hidden there. Hence A33alone could have the knowledge and therefore in pursuant to theadmissible portion of the confession M.O.127 was recovered. We findno reason to reject his testimony and consequent recovery. (xxxx) As far as A34-Mohamed Rafiq @ Rafiq is concerned norecovery was effected. (xxxxi) Accused No.36 - Noor Mohamed: This accused wasarrested by P.W.1290-Sambantham, DSP attached to CBCID SIT on 22-07-1998 and in pursuant to the admissible portion of the confessionand in the presence of P.W.1044-Kangaraj and Irudhayaraj M.O.309-onecitizen quartz wrist watch was recovered under the cover of mahazarEx-P1003. The prosecution wants to establish that the said watch isto be used as a timer in the bomb for which, there is no credibleevidence. Therefore, we disbelieve the recovery. (xxxxii) A37-Basha @ Hussain Basha, A38-Ibrahim @ Adipatta Babuand A39-M.Hakkim no recovery was made. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (xxxxiii) Accused No.40 -N.S.Hakim: This accused was arrestedby P.W.1300 Rajasekaran, Chief Investigating Officer on 18-04-1998and as per the evidence of P.W.785, M.O. 182- Revolver and M.O.183- 5cartridges were recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex-P355. (xxxxiv) P.W.1300 would depose that A40 was arrested and itwas not informed that he was arrested in connection with Crime No.195of 1998 registered by B3 police Station regarding Raja RajeswariTower blast and instead it has been stated that he has been arrestedin connection with Crime no.159 of 1998 and no special report hasbeen sent in this regard. It has not been ascertained whetherM.O.182-Revolver was in working condition. It is deposed by P.W.1300that P.W.785 in his statement has not stated anything regarding hissignature in the recovery mahazar and in M.O.355. We perused Ex-P355in which P.W.785 has subscribed his signature. Simply because P.W.785in his statement has not said anything regarding his signature in Ex-P355 but it does not led to the conclusion that no recovery waseffected. Therefore, we believe the testimony of the said witnessregarding the arrest and recovery. (xxxxv) Accused No.41-Mohammed Ashraf @ Monappa: Thisaccused was arrested by P.W.1300-Rajasekaran, Chief InvestigatingOfficer on 12-03-1998. As per the testimony of P.W.676, M.O.165 -onePVC pipe bomb was recovered on the same day under the cover ofmahazar Ex-P 225. Defence would argue that regarding defusal of thesaid bomb no witness has spoken to that effect. The defence wouldsubmit that since he is employed as Village Administrative Officer,he is obliged to police and he has not noted down in his diary aboutthe police calling him to act as a witness. It is further submittedby the defence that A41 was arrested in Crime No.151 of 1998 and notin SB Towers blast case. P.W.676 in his cross-examination deposedthat A41 did not enter his house where the said pipe bomb wasrecovered and so also himself. But in the chief examination he hasdeposed that A41 took them to the house and from among old articleshe recovered PVC pipe bomb M.O.165. The defence placed reliance uponthe said contradiction. But we are of the opinion that it was a snapanswer. We have gone through the testimony of P.W.676 and eventhough it was attacked primarily on the ground that as a VillageAdministrative Officer he is always obliged to the police, we feelthat the said submission lacks substance and merit as a Governmentofficial it is the duty of P.W.676 to help and assist the police andit is pertinent to point out at this juncture that there is nopersonal grudge against A41. We also perused the remand reportpertaining to A41 and he was remanded in connection with SB Towersblast case. The fact that in remand report there is no indicationwhether the arrest of A41 was informed to his relative that would byitself cannot vitiate the arrest and recovery as A41 was subsequentlyproduced before the jurisdictional Magistrate and remanded tojudicial custody. The testimony of P.W.676 inspires evidence andtherefore we believe his testimony. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (xxxxvi) In respect of A43-Abdul Razak, A44-Mohamed Azamand A45-Sait @ Sandhu Mohamed, there was no recovery. (xxxxvii) Accused No.46-Riyaz Ahmed: This accused wasarrested by P.W.1290-Sambantham, then DSP attached to CBCID, SIT on03-08-1998 and as per the testimony of P.W.684-Nagarajan andP.W.1252-Mohan, M.O.167- one Electronic cell watch was recoveredunder the cover of mahazar Ex-P381. Mere recovery of M.O.161 in theabsence of any connected materials cannot indicate that it is to beused as a timer for effecting the bomb blast. (xxxxviii) Accused No.60-Saleem @ ValarndhaSaleem: Thisaccused was arrested by P.W.1300 - Rajasekaran, Chief InvestigatingOfficer on 25-05-1998 and as per the testimony of P.W. 1242 - Maniand another M.Os. 415-one brass Revolver and M.O.417-7cartridges wererecovered under the cover of mahazar Ex-P1523. The defence wouldsubmit that in Ex-P1523 there was some alteration and we have seenthe original and we found that some alteration has been done. Therecovery was effected from the Antenna of Hotel Bangalore and thesaid room was occupied by one Rafiq and the said Rafiq has not beenexamined. The antenna room at the time of search was opened frominside by a boy and he was not examined and the owner of the saidhotel Bangalore and Manager of the Hotel Bangalore in which theantenna room is there, were not examined. Since there are too manyloose ends even in the testimonies of P.W.1252 coupled with the factthat the antenna room was also occupied by another, we cannot believethe recovery of M.Os.415-Brass Revolver, M.O.416-7 cartridges and417-Rose colour polythene cover. (xxxxix) Accused No.102-Salavudeen: This accused wasarrested by P.W.1288-K.N.Murali, Station House Officer, attached toB1 Police Station, Coimbatore on 15-02-1998 and as per the testimonyof P.W.1133, confession was given which led to the recovery ofM.O.458-Veecharuval under the cover of mahazar Ex-P1228. Thisaccused was one of the injured along with A101 and A103 who sustainedinjury due to bomb blast effected by one of the occupants of Babulalbuilding. The recovery of veecharuval will not in any way implicatethis accused with regard to the manufacture and storing of bombs andthe role played by this accused is discussed in the other portion ofthe judgment. (xxxxx) Accused No.152 Moosa @ Tada Moosa and A155-Mohamed Subair and A156-Syed Mohamed Buhari @ Tada Buhari there wasno recovery. (xxxxxi) Accused No.161-Mujibur Rahiman @ Anna colony Mujibur Rahiman was arrested by P.W.1139-Ramasamy on 29-11-1998 andas per the testimony of P.W.1095-Samuval Paul and another, M.O.315 –black colour electronic wrist watch on which Al-umma sticker has been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ pasted was recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex-P1098. A perusalof the testimony of P.W.1139 and P.W.1095 would indicate that thesaid watch is not put to be used as a timer but only for the purposeof knowing the time and according to the prosecution it was to beused to fix the time for triggering the blast. We find from the saidtestimonies that the prosecution has not substantiated the saidversion and therefore the recovery was effected is of no help to theprosecution. (xxxxxii) Accused No.163-S.K.Mohamed Ali: This accusedwas originally arrested on 11-05-1998 by Alwal Police, Andhra Pradeshin connection with a case registered by them in Alwal P.S. Cr.No.154/98. Thereafter P.T.Warrant was issued on 07-12-1998 and wasremanded to judicial custody. No recovery was effected. With this, we come to the end of the narration of evidence regardingthe various aspects of the case. 43. Now we will deal with the subject of release of prisoners,which we have referred to earlier.I. Release of Prisoners Even when the appeals were being heard, the following accusedwere released by the State: A42, A51, A52, A53, A54, A55, A56, A60,A63, A101, A103, A153, A160 and A162. We asked Mr. N. Natarajan,learned senior counsel appearing for the accused whether the releasewas in accordance with law and though he was a senior counsel for theaccused, “as a friend of Court”, he assisted the Court in decidingwhether this grant of pardon and release was an act of impropriety orwhether it was illegal or whether it was perfectly in order. (ii) Learned senior counsel fairly and objectively submittedthat the power of the Government to suspend or remit the sentence iscontained in Sections 432, 433 and 433-A of the Code of CriminalProcedure, but the opinion of the Court hearing the case should beobtained as to whether the application of the accused for suspensionor remission of a sentence should be granted or refused and that asregards Section 433-A, the power to remit or commute is restrictedand where the sentence of imprisonment for life is imposed on aperson for an offence for which death is one of the punishmentsprovided by law, such person shall not be released unless such personhas served at least 14 years of imprisonment. But the power of theGovernor of the State under Article 161 of the Constitution of Indiais not fettered by those restrictions, which are imposed by Sections432, 433 and 433-A of the Code and it may be granted at any time withregard to any person.(iii) Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the prisoners who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ were released had been imposed with imprisonment for a term and notfor life and in any event, they had almost served the entire periodof sentence as imposed by the trial court and there were only fewmonths remaining to be served and that they were released prematurelyby the Governor under Article 161 of the Constitution. (iv) The Government Order under which the above prisoners werereleased was produced. Though in paragraph 4 thereof, it iscategorically stated, “In exercise of the powers conferred underArticle 161 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Tamil Naduhereby remits the unexpired portion of the sentence of the tenconvicts named in paragraph 2 of this order and who have beenimprisoned for a fixed term”, the earlier paragraphs were not sosatisfactorily worded and therefore, we pointed this out to both thelearned senior counsel as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. Learned Public Prosecutor immediately stated that the Government hasthe greatest respect for this Court and had no intention ofdisregarding or acting in disrespect to the Court, and if thephraseology of the Government Order was not correct, that was neitherwillful nor by design and that an affidavit would be filed. Accordingly, an affidavit was filed on 12.10.2009 where it is statedthat it was only in obedience of the order of the Governor of TamilNadu that the remaining sentence of the 10 convicts mentioned in theGovernment Order was remitted and that it was only by inadvertencethat a mistaken expression had been used in paragraph 2 of theGovernment Order. They have expressed their regret and regret theoversight. (v) In this context, the decision of the Supreme Court in EpuruSudhakar vs. Government of A.P., ((2006) 8 S.C.C. 161) can beusefelly referred to, where the Supreme Court has criticized therelease of prisoners by the State Governments invoking the Governor’spowers of granting pardon pending adjudication of the cases. Thefollowing paragraphs are relevant in this regard :-“64. The power to grant pardons and reprieves wastraditionally a Royal prerogative and was regarded as anabsolute power. At the same time, even in the earlier days,there was a general rule that if the King is deceived, thepardon is void, therefore, any separation of truth orsuggestion of falsehood vitiated the pardon. Over theyears, the manifestation of this power got diluted. Thepower to grant pardons and reprieves in India is vested inthe President and the Governor of a State by virtue ofArticles 72 and 161 of the Constitution respectively.65. Exercise of Executive clemency is a matter ofdiscretion and yet subject to certain standards. It is nota matter of privilege. It is a matter of performance ofofficial duty. It is vested in the President or the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Governor, as the case may be, not for the benefit of theconvict only, but for the welfare of the people who mayinsist on the performance of the duty. This discretion,therefore, has to be exercised on public considerationalone. The President and the Governor are the sole judgesof the sufficiency of facts and of the appropriating ofgranting the pardons and reprieves. However, this power isan enumerated power in the Constitution and itslimitations, if any, must be found in the Constitutionitself. Therefore, the principle of Exclusive Cognizancewould not apply when and if the decision impugned is inderogation of a Constitutional provision. This is the basicworking test to be applied while granting pardons,reprieves, remissions and commutation.66. Granting of pardon is in no sense an overturningof a judgment of conviction, but rather it is an Executiveaction that mitigates or set aside the punishment for acrime. It eliminates the effect of conviction withoutaddressing the defendants guilt or innocence. Thecontrolling factor in determining whether the exercise ofprerogative power is subject to judicial review is not itssource but its subject matter. It can no longer be saidthat prerogative power is ipso facto immune from judicialreview. An undue exercise of this power is to be deplored.Considerations of religion, caste or political loyalty areirrelevant and fraught with discrimination. These areprohibited grounds. Rule of Law is the basis for evaluationof all decisions. The supreme quality of the Rule of Law isfairness and legal certainty. The principle of legalityoccupies a central plan in the Rule of Law. Everyprerogative has to be the subject to the Rule of Law. Thatrule cannot be compromised on the grounds of politicalexpediency. To go by such considerations would besubversive of the fundamental principles of the Rule of Lawand it would amount to setting a dangerous precedent. TheRule of Law principle comprises a requirement of"Government according to law". The ethos of "Governmentaccording to law" requires the prerogative to be exercisedin a manner which is consistent with the basic principle offairness and certainty. Therefore, the power of executiveclemency is not only for the benefit of the convict, butwhile exercising such a power the President or theGovernor, as the case may be, has to keep in mind theeffect of his decision on the family of the victims, thesociety as a whole and the precedent it sets for thefuture.”“68. As stated above, exercise or non-exercise of the powerof pardon by the President or the Governor is not immune https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from judicial review. Though, the circumstances and thecriteria to guide exercise of this power may be infinite,one principle is definite and admits of no doubt, namely,that the impugned decision must indicate exercise of thepower by application of manageable standards and in suchcases courts will not interfere in its supervisoryjurisdiction. By manageable standards we mean standardsexpected in functioning democracy. A pardon obtained byfraud or granted by mistake or granted for improper reasonswould invite judicial review. The prerogative power is theflexible power and its exercise can and should be adaptedto meet the circumstances of the particular case. TheConstitutional justification for judicial review, and thevindication of the Rule of Law remain constant in allareas, but the mechanism for giving effect to thatjustification varies.69. In conclusion, it may be stated that, there is a clearsymmetry between the Constitutional rationale for review ofstatutory and prerogative power. In each case, the courtshave to ensure that the authority is used in a manner,which is consistent with the Rule of Law, which is thefundamental principle of good administration. In each case,the Rule of Law should be the overarching constitutionaljustification for judicial review. The exercise ofprerogative power cannot be placed in straightjacketformulae and the perceptions regarding the extent andamplitude of this power are bound to vary. However, whenthe impugned decision does not indicate any data ormanageable standards, the decision amount to derogation ofan important Constitutional principle of Rule of Law.”This principle must be remembered, viz., the power of executivepardon is subject to the rule of law. It cannot be exercised ongrounds of political expediency. It cannot be granted merely as agrand gesture. It is not for the benefit of the convict alone. Theexecutive should equally bear in mind the victims, the society andthe message it means to the community. We, however, accept theaffidavit filed by the State and leave it at that.44. Before we begin our analysis of the evidence that has beennarrated so far, we will refer to the submissions made regardingconspiracy and appreciation of evidence and the relevant case laws.(i) Conspiracy and Appreciation of Evidence: The submission relating to the specific evidence for a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conspiracy, manufacture of explosives, distribution of explosives andplanting of explosives will be dealt with separately. But on thewhole, without going into the specific topics, several points wereraised on behalf of the appellants for rejection of the entire caseand for allowing the appeals. (ii) It was submitted that whatever may have been the situationthat prevailed in Coimbatore before and after 14-02-1998, the entiretop brass of the police force was present and there is nojustification for slipshod investigation or lapses in theinvestigation. The General Diary has not been maintained and thisitself should draw suspicion to the entire police case since there isnothing to prevent the investigating officer from introducing orinterpolating materials as he pleased. (iii) The reference was made to 1981 Law Weekly (Criminal) 63(State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P.V. Pavithran). It was also submittedthat the prosecution case cannot be accepted merely because there isautomatic repetition of words such “part of the same transaction” and“in the course of” unless there is actual material to support thatseveral offences were committed in the course of the sametransaction. Further, it was submitted that unless the object of theconspiracy was with malice, malice cannot be imported. Further, whenthere is no evidence for the planting of the bombs and there isabsolutely no acceptable evidence for manufacture of bombs, thecontinuous chain that is necessary to be established in cases wherethe prosecution depends on circumstantial evidence is not available. (iv) Reference was made to Yash Pal Mittal vs. State of Punjab,(1977) 4 S.C.C. 540, where the Supreme Court refers to the variousconspirators have “interest in the ultimate object” in paragraph 9 asfollows :-“9. … The very agreement, concert or league is theingredient of the offence. It is not necessary that allthe conspirators must know each and every detail of theconspiracy as long as they are co-participators in themain object of the conspiracy. There may be so manydevices and techniques adopted to achieve the common goalof the conspiracy and there may be division ofperformances in the chain of actions with one object toachieve the real end of which every collaborator must beaware and in which each one of them must be interested.There must be unity of object or purpose but there may beplurality of means sometimes even unknown to one another,amongst the conspirators. In achieving the goal severaloffences, may be committed by some of the conspiratorseven unknown to the others. The only relevant factor isthat all means adopted and illegal acts done must be andpurported to be in furtherance of the object of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conspiracy even though there may be sometimes misfire orover-shooting by some of the conspirators. Even if somesteps are resorted to by one or two of the conspiratorswithout the knowledge of the others it will not affectthe culpability of those others when they are associatedwith the object of the conspiracy. The significance ofcriminal conspiracy under Section 120A is brought outpithily by this Court in Major B. G. Darsay v. The Stateof Bombay , 1961 Cri. L.J. 828 thus :‘The gist of the offences is an agreement to break thelaw. The parties to such an agreement will be guilty ofcriminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed to bedone has not been done. So too, it is not an ingredientof the offence that all the parties should agree to dc asingle illegal act. It may comprise the commission of anumber of acts under Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code,an act would be illegal if it is an offence or if it isprohibited by law. Under the first charge the accused arecharged with have conspired to do three categories ofillegal acts and the mere fact that all of them could notbe convicted separately in respect of each of theoffences has no relevancy in considering the questionwhether the offence of conspiracy has been committed.They ate all guilty of the offence of conspiracy to doillegal acts, though for individual offences all of themmay not be liable’.“The offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 120A isa distinct offence introduced for the first time in 1913in Chapter VA of the Penal Code. The very agreement,concert or league is the ingredient of the offence. It isnot necessary that all the conspirators must know eachand every detail of the conspiracy as long as they areco-participators in the main object of the conspiracy.There may be so many devices and techniques adopted toachieve the common goal of the conspiracy and there maybe division of performances in the chain of actions withone object to achieve the real end of which everycollaborator must be aware and in which each one of themmust be interested. There must be unity of object orpurpose but there may be plurality of means sometimeseven unknown to one another, amongst the conspirators. Inachieving the goal several offences, may be committed bysome of the conspirators even unknown to the others. Theonly relevant factor is that all means adopted andillegal acts done must be and purported to be infurtherance of the object of the conspiracy even thoughthere may be sometimes misfire or over-shooting by someof the conspiratOrs. Even if some steps are resorted to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by one or two of the conspirators without the knowledgeof the others it will not affect the culpability of thoseothers when they are associated with the object of theconspiracy. The significance of criminal conspiracy underSection 120A is brought out pithily by this Court inMajor B. G. Darsay v. The State of Bombay (1961CriLJ828)thus:The gist of the offences is an agreement to breakthe law. The parties to such an agreement will be guiltyof criminal conspiracy, though the illegal act agreed tobe done has not been done. So too, it is not aningredient of the offence that all the parties shouldagree to dc a single illegal act. It may comprise thecommission of a number of acts. under Section 43 of theIndian Penal Code, an act would be illegal if it is anoffence or if it is prohibited by law. Under the firstcharge the accused are charged with have conspired to dothree categories of illegal acts and the mere fact thatall of them could not be convicted separately in respectof each of the offences has no relevancy in consideringthe question whether the '-¦ offence of conspiracy hasbeen committed. They ate all guilty of the offence ofconspiracy to do illegal acts, though for individualoffences all of them may not be liable.”(v) In AIR 1987 SC 773 (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. KrishnanLal Pardhan), the Supreme Court held:“The first grievous error committed by him is in failingto comprehend the offence of criminal conspiracy andmistakenly treating the acts done in pursuance of theconspiracy as the offence of conspiracy itself. Because ofthis erroneous perception the Special Judge has vivisectedthe conspiracy into three different sets of acts andviewed in isolation the conspiratorial acts of the accusedinvolved in each transaction and concluding that the otherconspirators stood absolved of the offences. In theopinion of the Special Judge every one of the conspiratorsmust have taken active part in the commission of each andevery one of the conspiratorial act and only then theoffence of conspiracy will be made out. Such a view isclearly wrong. The offence of criminal conspiracy consistsin a meeting of minds of two or more persons for agreeingto do or causing to be done an illegal act by illegalmeans, and the performance of an act in terms thereof. Ifpursuant to the criminal conspiracy the conspiratorscommit several offences, then all of them will be liablefor the offences even if some of them had not activelyparticipated in the commission of the offences. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Judge is, therefore, wrong in taking the view thatthe offences complained of constitute three different setsof acts and should, therefore, be treated as individualacts and judges in that limited perspective.”(vi) In AIR 1994 SC 2420 (Suresh Chandra Bahri Vs. State of Bihar),the Supreme Court held:“A conspiracy from its very nature if generally hatchedin secret. It is, therefore, extremely rare that directevidence in proof of conspiracy can be forthcoming fromwholly disinterested quarters or from utter strangers.But, like other offences, criminal conspiracy can beproved by circumstantial evidence. Indeed, in most casesproof of conspiracy is largely inferential though theinference must be founded on solid facts. Surroundingcircumstances and antecedent and subsequent conduct,among other factors, constitute relevant material infact because of the difficulties in having directevidence of criminal conspiracy, once reasonable groundis shown for believing that two or more persons haveconspired to commit an offence then anything done byanyone of them in reference to their common intentionafter the same is entertained becomes, according to thelaw of evidence, relevant for proving both conspiracyand the offences committed pursuant thereto.”If the interest and awareness is not there, then he is not a co-conspirator and the mere fact that one witness, without anycorroboration, states that he saw a particular accused turning onsome switch in the pineapple cart would not be sufficient to convicthim of the offences charged. There must be evidence to show that hehad knowledge that turning on the switch would result in blasting ofbombs. Practically all the witnesses say that when they read in thepapers about the bomb explosions, they realized that the action ofthe accused must have been the switching on of the bomb. Suchevidence will not satisfy the test of acceptable evidence. (vii) In AIR 1988 SC 696 (Appabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat),the Supreme Court held,“Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his ownway. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rootedto the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Somestart shouting for help. Others run away to keepthemselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yetothers rush to the rescue of the victim, even going tothe extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every onereacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness onthe ground that he did not react in any particular manneris to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic andunimaginative way.11. These may be some of the reactions. There may bestill more. Even a man of prowess may becomepusillanimous by witnessing a serious crime. In thiscase, the courts below, in our opinion, have taken intoconsideration of all those respects and rightly did notinsist upon the evidence from other independentwitnesses. The prosecution case cannot be doubted ordiscarded for not examining strangers at the bus standwho might have also witnessed the crime. We, therefore,reject the first contention urged for the appellants.12. On the second contention, the learned Counselhighlighted many of the contradictions in the evidence ofDevji (PW-4) as against his previous statement; onerecorded by the Executive Magistrate (Exh. 66) andanother by the police during the investigation. We have,however, also examined the relevant evidence. It is truethat there are many contradictions in the evidence ofDevji. He has not attributed overt acts to individualaccused in his statement before the police whereas he hasattributed such overt acts in his evidence before thecourt. But that is no ground to reject his entiretestimony. It must not be forgotten that he was a victimof the assault. Fortunately he has survived. He must,therefore, be considered as the best eyewitness. TheCourt while appreciating the evidence must not attachundue importance to minor discrepancies. Thediscrepancies, which do not shake the basic version ofthe prosecution case may be discarded. The discrepancies,which are due to normal errors of perception orobservation should not be given importance. The errorsdue to lapse of memory may be given due allowance. TheCourt by calling into aid its vast experience of men andmatters in different cases must evaluate the entirematerial on record by excluding the exaggerated versiongiven by any witness. When a doubt arises in respect ofcertain facts alleged by such witness, the proper courseis to ignore that fact only unless it goes into the rootof the matter so as to demolish the entire prosecutionstory. The witnesses nowadays go on adding embellishmentsto their version perhaps for the fear of their testimonybeing rejected by the court. The courts, however, shouldnot disbelieve the evidence of such witnesses altogetherif they are otherwise trustworthy. Jagamohan Reddy, J.,speaking for this Court in Sohrab and Anr. v. The State https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of Madhya Pradesh(1972 CriLJ 1302) observed :This Court has held that falsus in no falsus in omnibusis not a found rule for the reason that hardly one comesacross a witness whose evidence does not contain a grainof untruth or at any rate exaggeration, embroideries orembellishments. In most cases, the witnesses when askedabout details venture to give some answer, notnecessarily true or relevant for fear that their evidencemay not be accepted in respect of the main incident whichthey have witnessed but that is not to say that theirevidence as to the salient features of the case aftercautious scrutiny cannot be considered”.13. In Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of GujaratMANU/SC/0090/1983 : 1983CriLJ1096 , M.P. Thakkar, J.observed :“A witness though wholly truthful, is liable to beoverawed by the court atmosphere and the piercing crossexamination made by counsel and out of nervousness mix upfacts, get confused regarding sequence of events, or fillup details from imagination on the spur of the moment.The sub-conscious mind of the witness sometimes sooperates on account of the fear of looking foolish orbeing disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthfuland honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him-perhaps it is a sort of a psychological defencemechanism activated on the spur of the moment.Discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the matterand shake the basic version of the witnesses, thereforecannot be annexed with undue importance. More so when theall important "probabilities-factor" echoes in favour ofthe version narrated by the witnesses.”(viii) In AIR 1988 SC 1998 (State of U.P. Vs. Anil Singh)the Supreme Court held:“On late this Court has been receiving a large number ofappeals against acquittals and in the great majority ofcases, the prosecution version is rejected either forwant of corroboration by independent witnesses, or forsome falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses.In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted fornot examining all witnesses to the occurrence. We haverecently pointed out the indifferent attitude of thepublic in the investigation of crimes. The public aregenerally reluctant to come forward to depose before the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject theprosecution version only on the ground that all witnessesto the occurrence have not been examined. Nor it isproper to reject the case for want of corroboration byindependent witnesses if the case made out is otherwisetrue and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated orembellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it iswell to remember that there is a tendency amongstwitnesses in our country to back up a good case by falseor exaggerated version. The Privy Council had an occasionto observe this. In Bankim Chander v. Matangini 24 C.W.N.626 PC, the Privy Council had this to say (at 628):That in Indian litigation it is not safe to assume that acase must be false if some of the evidence in support ofit appears to be doubtful or is clearly unture, sincethere is, on some occasions, a tendency amongst litigantsto back up a good case by false or exaggerated evidence. In Abdul Gani v. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC31) Mahajan, J. speaking for this Court deprecated thetendency of courts to take an easy course of holding theevidence discrepant and discarding the whole case asuntrue. The learned Judge said that the Court should makean effort to disengage the truth from falsehood and tosift the grain from the chaff.19. It is also our experience that invariably thewitnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhapsfor the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no groundto throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. Ifthere is a ring of truth in the main, the case should notbe rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out thenuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reasonto believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are soglaring as utterly to destroy confidence in thewitnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge doesnot preside over a criminal trial merely to see that noinnocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to seethat a guilty man does not escape. One is as important asthe other. Both are public duties which the Judge has toperform.”(ix) In 1996 SCC (Cri) 657 (Pattu lal Vs. State of Punjab),the Supreme Court held:“It will be appropriate to indicate here that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ corroboration is a rule of prudence. Evidentiary value ofa deposition, which is otherwise admissible is not justwiped out in the absence of corroboration. Even in theabsence of corroboration, a deposition for its quality maybe safely accepted to be correct. It will be unfortunateif on account of over emphasis for corroboration, a crimegoes unpunished by not giving due weight, onuncorroborated evidence when such evidence is otherwisereliable. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere withconviction and sentence passed against the appellant andthe appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant hasbeen released on bail during the pendency of this appeal.He should be arrested forthwith to serve out thesentence.”(x) In 2000 (1) SCC 247 (State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Lekh Raj)the Supreme Court held:“The criminal trial cannot be equated with a mock scenefrom a stunt film. The legal trial is conducted toascertain the guilt of innocence of the accused arraigned.In arriving at a conclusion about the truth, the Courtsare required to adopt rational approach and judge theevidence by its intrinsic worth and the animus of thewitnesses. The hyper technicalities or figment ofimagination should not be allowed to divest the court ofits responsibility of sifting and weighing the evidence toarrive at the conclusion regarding the existence orotherwise of a particular circumstances keeping in viewthe peculiar facts of each case, the social position ofthe victim and the accused, the larger interests of thesociety particularly the law and order problem anddegrading values of life inherent in the prevalent system.The realities of life have to be kept in mind whileappreciating the evidence for arriving at the truth. Thecourts are not obliged to make efforts either to givelatitude to the prosecution or loosely construe the law infavour of the accused. The traditional dogmatic hypertechnical approach has to be replaced by rational,realistic and genuine approach for administering justicein a criminal trial. Criminal Jurisprudence cannot beconsidered to be a Utopian though but have to beconsidered as part and parcel of the human civilisationand the realities of life. The courts cannot ignore theerosion in values of life, which are a common feature ofthe present system. Such erosions cannot be given a bonusin favour of those who are guilty of polluting society andthe mankind.”(xi) In AIR 2003 SC 1311 (Karamjit Singh Vs. State) , the Supreme https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Court held,“Shri Sinha, learned senior counsel for the appellant, hasvehemently urged that all the witnesses of recoveryexamined by the prosecution are police personnel and inabsence of any public witness, their testimony alone shouldnot be held sufficient for sustaining the conviction of theappellant. In our opinion the contention raised is toobroadly stated and cannot be accepted. The testimony ofpolice personnel should be treated in the same manner astestimony of any other witness and there is no principle oflaw that without corroboration by independent witnessestheir testimony cannot be relied upon. The presumption thata person acts honestly applies as much in favour of policepersonnel as of other persons and it is not a properjudicial approach to distrust and suspect them without goodgrounds. It will all depend upon the facts andcircumstances of each case and no principle of generalapplication can be laid down. PW11 Pratap Singh has clearlystated in the opening part of his examination-in-chief thatACP Shakti Singh asked some public witnesses to accompanythem but they showed their unwillingness. PW10 RajinderPrasad, SI has given similar statement and has deposed thatdespite their best efforts no one from public was willingto join the raiding party due to the fear of theterrorists. Exactly similar statement has been given by PW9R.D. Pandey. We should not forget that the incident tookplace in November 1990, when terrorism was at its peak inPunjab and neighbouring areas. The ground realities cannotbe lost sight of that even in normal circumstances membersof public are very reluctant to accompany a police partywhich is going to arrest a criminal or is embarking uponsearch of some premises. At the time when the terrorism wasat its peak, it is quite natural for members of public tohave avoided getting involved in a police operation forsearch or arrest of a person having links with terrorists.It is noteworthy that during the course of the cross-examination of the witness the defence did not even giveany suggestion as to why they were falsely deposing againstthe appellant. There is absolutely no material or evidenceon record to show that the prosecution witnesses had anyreason to falsely implicate the appellant who was none elsebut a colleague of theirs being a member of the same policeforce. Therefore, the contention raised by Shri Sinha thaton account of non-examination of a public witness, thetestimony of the prosecution witnesses who are policepersonnel, should not be relied upon the hardly anysubstance and cannot be accepted.”(xii) In AIR 1992 SC 840 (State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ashok https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kumar Srivastava), the Supreme Court held, “This Court has, time out of number, observed that whileappreciating circumstantial evidence the Court must adopt avery cautious approach and should record a conviction onlyif all the links in the chain are complete pointing to theguilt of the accused and every hypothesis of innocence iscapable of being negatived on evidence. Great care must betaken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if theevidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences,the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. Thecircumstance relied upon must be found to have been fullyestablished and the cumulative effect of all the facts soestablished must be consistent only with the hypothesis ofguilt. But this is not to say that the prosecution mustmeet any and every hypothesis put forward by the accusedhowever farfetched and fanciful it might be. Nor does itmean that prosecution evidence must be rejected on theslightest doubt because the law permits rejection if thedoubt is reasonable and not otherwise.”(xiii) In 2001 SCC (Cri) 1504 (Chandrasekhar Sureshchandra Bhatt)Vs. State of Maharashtra) the Supreme Court held,“Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that PW-2cannot be believed for so many reasons, main among which isthat he made improvements on his version to suit theprosecution case. He stated instances of such improvements.We have applied our mind and noticed that though there wassome marginal variations on certain aspects as between hisstatement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and thetestimony given in court, such variations cannot be dubbedas improvements made with any sinister motive. They areelaborations elicited by the public prosecutor duringexamination-in-chief. It is the prerogative of the publicprosecutor to elicit such points from a witness as he deemsnecessary for the case. No public prosecutor can be nailedto the statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code. Wescrutinised the so-called improvements from that angle andwe are satisfied that PW-2 had basically remained at thesame position which he has stated in the FIR.” (xiv) In State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT Vs. Nalini((1999) 5 SCC 253), the Supreme Court held,“Some of the broad principles governing the law ofconspiracy may be summarized though, as the name implies,a summary cannot be exhaustive of the principles. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “1. Under Section 120A IPC offence of criminal conspiracyis committed when two or more persons agree to do orcause to be done an illegal act or legal act by illegalmeans. When it is legal act by illegal means overt act isnecessary. Offence of criminal conspiracy is exception tothe general law where intent alone does not constitutecrime. It is intention to commit crime and joining handswith persons having the same intention. Not only theintention but there has to be agreement to carry out theobject of the intention, which is an offence. Thequestion for consideration in a case is did all theaccused had the intention and did they agree that thecrime be committed. It would not be enough for theoffence of conspiracy when some of the accused merelyentertained a wish, howsoever, horrendous it may be, thatoffence be committed.2. Acts subsequent to the achieving of object ofconspiracy may tend to prove that a particular accusedwas party to the conspiracy. Once the object ofconspiracy has been achieved, any subsequent act, whichmay be unlawful, would not make the accused a part of theconspiracy like giving shelter to an absconder.3. Conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy. It israrely possible to establish a conspiracy by directevidence. Usually, both the existence of the conspiracyand its objects have to be inferred from thecircumstances and the conduct of the accused.4. Conspirators may, for example, be enrolled in a chain- A enrolling B, B enrolling C, and so on; and all willbe members of a single conspiracy if they so intend andagree, even though each member knows only the person whoenrolled him and the person whom he enrolls. There may bea kind of umbrellAspoke enrollment, where a single personat the center doing the enrolling and all the othermembers being unknown to each other, though they knowthat there are to be other members. These are theoriesand in practice it may be difficult to tell whether theconspiracy in a particular case falls into whichcategory. It may, however, even overlap. But then therehas to be present mutual interest. Persons may be membersof single conspiracy even though each is ignorant of theidentity of many others who may have diverse role toplay. It is not a part of the crime of conspiracy thatall the conspirators need to agree to play the same or anactive role.5. When two or more persons agree to commit a crime of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conspiracy, then regardless of making or considering anyplans for its commission, and despite the fact that nostep is taken by any such person to carry out theircommon purpose, a crime is committed by each and everyone who joins in the agreement. There has thus to be twoconspirators and there may be more than that. To provethe charge of conspiracy it is not necessary thatintended crime was committed or not. If committed it mayfurther help prosecution to prove the charge ofconspiracy.6. It is not necessary that all conspirators should agreeto the common purpose at the same time. They may joinwith other conspirators at any time before theconsummation of the intended objective, and all areequally responsible. What part each conspirator is toplay may not be known to everyone or the fact as to whena conspirator joined the conspiracy and when he left.7. A charge of conspiracy may prejudice the accusedbecause it is forced them into a joint trial and thecourt may consider the entire mass of evidence againstevery accused. Prosecution has to produce evidence notonly to show that each of the accused has knowledge ofobject of conspiracy but also of the agreement. In thecharge of conspiracy court has to guard itself againstthe danger of unfairness to the accused. Introduction ofevidence against some may result in the conviction ofall, which is to be avoided. By means of evidence inconspiracy, which is otherwise inadmissible in the trialof any other substantive offence prosecution tries toimplicate the accused not only in the conspiracy itselfbut also in the substantive crime of the allegedconspirators. There is always difficulty in tracing theprecise contribution of each member of the conspiracy butthen there has to be cogent and convincing evidenceagainst each one of the accused charged with the offenceof conspiracy. As observed by Judge Learned Hand that"this distinction is important today when manyprosecutors seek to sweep within the dragnet ofconspiracy all those who have been associated in anydegree whatever with the main offenders".8. As stated above it is the unlawful agreement and notits accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of thecrime of conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy iscomplete even though there is no agreement as to themeans by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It isthe unlawful agreement, which is the graham of the crimeof conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may beinherent in and inferred from the circumstances,especially declarations, acts, and conduct of theconspirators. The agreement need not be entered into byall the parties to it at the same time, but may bereached by successive actions evidencing their joining ofthe conspiracy.9. It has been said that a criminal conspiracy is apartnership in crime, and that there is in eachconspiracy a joint or mutual agency for the prosecutionof a common plan. Thus, if two or more persons enter intoa conspiracy, any act done by any of them pursuant to theagreement is in contemplation of law, the act of each ofthem and they are jointly responsible therefore. Thismeans that everything said, written or done by any of theconspirators in execution or furtherance of the commonpurpose is deemed to have been said, done, or written byeach of them. And this joint responsibility extends notonly to what is done by any of the conspirators pursuantto the original agreement but also to collateral actsincident to and growing out of the original purpose. Aconspirator is not responsible, however, for acts done bya co-conspirator after termination of the conspiracy. Thejoinder of a conspiracy by a new member does not create anew conspiracy nor does it change the status of the otherconspirators, and the mere fact that conspiratorsindividually or in groups perform different tasks to acommon end does not split up a conspiracy into severaldifferent conspiracies.10. A man may join a conspiracy by word or by deed.However, criminal responsibility for a conspiracyrequires more than a merely passive attitude towards anexisting conspiracy. One who commits an overt act withknowledge of the conspiracy is guilty. And one whotacitly consents to the object of a conspiracy and goesalong with other conspirators, actually standing by whilethe others put the conspiracy into effect, is guiltythough he intends to take no active part in the crime.”(xv) When we asked the learned senior counsel whether even ifconspiracy is not proved, if there is acceptable evidence to provethe overt acts, will not the accused be liable, it was submitted thateven if the overt acts are proved, it would not be per se sufficient,and the prosecution should prove that there was knowledge that therewas bomb inside the pine apple cart. It was submitted that theprosecution case must be in accordance with – (i) rules of evidence,(ii) they must show that these occurrences would have taken place inthe common course of events, and (iii) also the probability of human https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ nature. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that if the evidenceleads to an unmistakable inference of conspiracy that is enough.(xvi) We do not agree with the submission of the defence. Weaccept the submission of the learned Public Prosecutor with regard toinference since that will be in accordance with Nalini’s case. Wehave already referred to the case law on conspiracy. If conspiracy isproved then those appellants who are found to have taken part in theconspiracy must be found guilty as charged, since the blasts wereonly the consequence of the plot. We have also given our reasons forholding that the events on 14-02-1998 were the result of conspiracy.Similarly, if there is proof for planting of bombs against aparticular appellant then he will be found guilty as charged sincehis act is only in execution of the conspiracy. So, merely becausethe intermediate links are not specifically proved we will not rejectthe case. The only result will be that in that event, thoseappellants who are only implicated in the middle stages liketransport or manufacture will succeed in the appeals. It is also notnecessary that there should be evidence as regards the specificdetails of the manner in which the plot would be executed. As held bythe Supreme Sourt in Nalini extracted above, conspiracy being anoffence in secrecy, the existence and objects may have to be inferredfrom the circumstances and conduct.45.CONCLUSION:We will now reassemble and analyze the evidence. On a reading ofthe entire evidence, we find that the prosecution has assigned to A1the role of the leader, who along with his allies decided the courseof action, and A2, his brother, is not far behind – these two are atthe apex. At the other end are those who do the nitty gritty jobs toexecute the decision. In the middle are the facilitators who haveensured that the plan does not go away. They in fact form a broodingpresence here, there and everywhere like A5 Basith, A6 Ozir, A8Tajudeen, A9 Oom Babu and A7 Kutty to name some. This is the picturethat forms before us. But the picture will take us nowhere if theevidence in Court against the particular accused does not ring trueor is inadequate. We will have to see if the prosecution has builtits case on believable evidence against each of them.The various stages of the prosecution case are, (i) conspiracy,(ii) procurement, (iii) transport, (iv) manufacture, (v)distribution, (vi) planting, (vii) arrest and (viii) recovery. Wehave already referred to the evidence, now we will assess if theevidence can be accepted or rejected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ I. ConspiracyA. Conspiracy at Kottai Thangappa’s sister’s house on 30-11-1997. P.W. 1132 Senthil kumar has implicated A2, A4, A5 and A161. On 30-11-1997, he had gone to Choice Tailor’s House. It was the day after themurder of Selvaraj. He admitted that it was almost like there was abandh in the city, and most shops were closed. He had gone with hisfriend Ganesan who was not examined. There he saw the above accusedstanding in front of a house. A2 told A5 “Start the work that I toldyou about tomorrow itself, there has been a lot of loss on our side.We have to teach them a lesson. Let our people be ready.” The witnesshad not mentioned the name of the tailor shop in his statement to thepolice. When the entire city was in a state of bandh, we cannotbelieve that he went to the tailor shop away from his house.Admittedly, even he did not have work as the shops were closed. It isunlikely and does not pass the test of normal human conduct. Thereason for his presence at that place is not very natural and furtherthere is no supporting evidence. He has not said that he knew theaccused earlier. So his identification in Court after months is alsonot believable. The words allegedly uttered by A2 are also not freefrom ambiguity. So this evidence is rejected.B. Conspiracy at A4’s house 1st week of December 1997. The witness is P.W. 1152 Natraj and he has implicated A2, A4 A6 andA9. In the first week of December, he had gone to A4’s house at DoorNo 43, Ibrahim Kajiar Street, Kottaimedu. He had asked A4 to identifya secondhand auto in November and that is the reason for hispresence. This is doubtful because he did not know A4 before that. Hecould not remember who told him that A4 would help him to purchasethe auto. He admitted that he had seen the accused for the firsttime on that day. The words speaking of revenge were uttered by theaccused inside the house. The witness was standing outside. Headmitted it was a busy road so the words spoken inside the housewould not have been audible and understood from outside. He admittedhe just stepped in the house when A4 came out and asked him to returnafter a week. If so, he could not have seen the other accusedallegedly sitting inside. His identification in Court is also suspectbecause he had no acquaintance with them earlier. So thisevidence is also rejected.C. Conspiracy at Olavakkot railway station.26-12-1997.The witness is P.W.1259, Gopalakrishnan. He has implicated A2,A4, A5, A9 and A10. To establish that he already knew the accused hereferred to a meeting in November 1997 where A1 spoke, and the above https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused had been present. Someone told him who they were. He listenedto A1’s speech at about 7-30 Pm and then he went away. This is nottrue because P.W.758 Ravikumar, the Reporter had taken down the notesof the speech, and he said that the meeting started only at 8:45p.m.So P.W.1259 had not attended the meeting, nor did anyone point outthe accused to him. Then on the date of the conspiracy i.e. 26-12-1997 he went to the station and there he bought chips at a small shopand then went to Crown Hotel where he heard the accused. They hadbeen sitting in a near by table and were talking about manufacture ofbombs and planting them. He admitted that he would not have gone tothe Railway Station, except to buy chips. The store is a small onenot even a reputed one, so this witness could not have gone there tobuy chips especially when he has admitted he could get them in plentyin Palghat itself. So his reason for his presence at Crown Hotel iscontrived. And conspirators are hardly likely to talk so loudly aboutbombs in a hotel, where anyone can hear them. This evidence is alsorejected.D. Conspiracy at Kottaimedu on 15-01-1998. P.W. 1199 Ramesh has implicated A4, A6, A8, A9 and A13. He hadgone to Kottaimedu on work on that day. These accused along with manyothers were in front of Al Umma office, when A4 had spoken the wordsof revenge and the others said “They were ready.” It is admitted byhim that all the accused were sitting inside the Al Umma office whenthe words were uttered. If so, this witness who was standing on theroad could not have heard the exact words spoken and could not haveknown who were inside and who spoke the words. It is not his evidencethat thereafter they all came out. If he had said so we might havegiven some weight to his evidence. He admitted that but for his work,he had no reason to go to that area. He went with one Palanivelu whowas not examined. After that date he saw the accused only inCourt. His evidence without any corroboration cannot be accepted andis rejected.E. Conspiracy on 30-01-1998 at Tea stall in Karumbukadai Saramedu. PW1039 Jayakumar had spoken about conspiracy implicating A54 andTada Mujibur Rahman, the absconding accused. He claimed he heard themtalk about revenge. He is unable to identify A54. Conspirators arenot likely to talk of their plans at teAstalls for the entire worldto hear. We cannot believe his evidence.F.Conspiracy at A4’s house on 13-02-1998. P.W.1175 Veluswamy is the witness. He has implicated A2, A4, A9, A11and A12. He is a goldsmith. On 13-02-1998, he saw the accusedtalking outside A4’s house at 5-30 pm. They said that some actionmust be taken on the day of Mr. Advani’s visit. The reason for his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ presence is to look for some house for rent for his friend Muthuraj.But Muthuraj has not been examined. The witness when asked hasadmitted that he does not know Muthuraj’s address or other details.We reject the evidence because, there is no corroboration, the reasonfor his presence is weak, conspirators are hardly likely to talkabout their plans loudly out on the road. Further the prosecutioncase is that the serial blasts were the result of a very well laidout plan. If so by 13-02-1998 the details would have beenmeticulously worked out. It is not believable that they should betalking that they should take action on the eve of the occurrence.Suppose the words uttered were: “So, all details are in place,tomorrow it will go off as per plan”, it would have been natural andperhaps believable. As it is, it is not natural. This is rejected.G) Finally, we will take up the conspiracy at Chennai on 07-02-1998. This had taken place at A1’s residence. We have accepted the evidencefor reasons, which we will set out below:(i) The main witnesses for the conspiracy at Chennai in the residenceof A1 are P.Ws.854 Rajan, 855 Kalaiselvan and P.W. 1195 Sanjay @Saifullah. The former two are A1’s PSOs and the third claims to havebeen a household help in A1’s house sent by A12 Tada Aslam fromCoimbatore. All the three witnesses have not been examinedimmediately. According to the Public Prosecutor, initially theinvestigation was concentrated in Coimbatore and only later thewitnesses from other places were examined. The defense attacked thisevidence on the ground that the two witnesses were policemen andtherefore the fact that they did not volunteer to give theinformation is unbelievable. The defense also attacked the otherwitness Sanjay @ Saifullah, P.W.1195 on the ground that there isnothing to show e.g.a gazette notification that he had converted toIslam and it is unlikely that A1 would have engaged a Hindu as househelp. Further P.Ws.854 and 855 do not mention P.W.1195 and viceversa. These are all factors we will bear in mind while assessing theevidence of PW 1195. If his evidence is doubtful then the conspiracycase will fail. (ii) P.W.1195 has stated that his brother had converted to Islam.This is not rebutted in cross-examination. Further it is no one’scase only Muslims were engaged to do domestic work at A1’s house. Inany event this witness’s brother was a convert. He too has claimed heis a convert. The fact that he had not made a public notification isnot a reason to disbelieve his conversion. He has also said that hisbrother as closely acquainted with the accused and he too knew them. This may be one reason why he was accepted in A1’s house. Hisstatement that A12 sent him to Chennai in A1’s house is also notcountered. His case that after his brother’s conversion he movedclosely with some of the accused is not assailed. It is obvious thathe had gained the confidence of members of this group sufficiently. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ So we believe his presence in Maroof Sahib Street house. FurtherP.W.1195 has given certain particulars, which only a person workingin the house will know, like Bilal and Abu being the cooks. He hasalso mentioned that Tada Moosa A152 would drive A1 around. Specificdetails like these make his evidence credible. But yet we cannotignore the fact that he was examined under S.164 and his statementwas recorded. So we have to be doubly cautious and look forsatisfactory corroboration. (iii) When P.W.1300 was asked whether P.Ws.854 and 855 were reallythe PSOs for A1, his answer is that they were on duty on alternatedays. He had also said that he had made efforts to get the records,but he could not obtain them. He has said that he got their dutydetails from the Assistant Commissioner, A.R., Chennai. It is hisevidence that P.W. 854 was on duty on 7-2-98,amd PW 855 was on dutyon 08-02-1998. This tallies with P.W.854’s evidence that he was onduty on 01-12-1997 and again on 07-02-1998. If we work out thealternate day duty this fits in. Admittedly they were on duty onalternate days. Though P.W.855 has stated that it was he who toldP.W.854 about the events that took place, it cannot be with regard to07-02-1998, but it can only be with regard to some other day. So, forcorroboration of P.W. 1195’s evidence we only have to see P.W. 854’sevidence for it was he who was on duty on 07-02-1998, as seen fromhis own evidence which is corroborated by P.W.1300.(iv) In P.W. 854’s evidence we find that A1 had a chocolate colourcar 7975, that Afsar fixed the Maroof Sahib Street house for A1, thatA1 had a blue Fiat MRT 3492, that A 1 had 2 landline numbers and onemobile phone, and that after June 97 the Fiat car was replaced by theAmbassador car. He has also given details of who was there in the AlUmma office, and who would accompany A1 etc. P.W. 855 also speaks ofthese details. We do not see material differences in this regardbetween the evidence of the 2 PSOs. So we accept that both were A1’sPSOs. Now we will see whether P.W. 854 corroborates the evidence ofP.W.1195. PW1195:- Al umma office functioned there. …..PW152 drovethe car. …..A152, A156 and A163 would always be withA1….. A2 Ansari came from Kovai on 7-2-98 to see A1. A3of Madras, A4, A6, and Mujibur Rahman along with A2 spoketogether with A1 PW854 :- PW152 took care of Al Umma office…… A152A156 and A163 would always go in the car with A1…….On 7-2-98 , A2,A4, A6 and Mujibur Rahman came from Kovai. A3 ofChennai had come. They were in conference for a long timein the office. A152, A156 and A163 were with them. Theywere discussing about revenge for what happened at theKovai riots. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ PW 1195 identified A1, A2, A3, A4, A6, and A152 in Court. He did notidentify the other two. He was examined 6 years after the occurrence.PW 854 identified all the accused mentioned above in Court. He wasexamined 5 years after the occurrence. Considering the nature oftheir work, we need not doubt they knew the identities of the personswho visited A1 and the co-conspirators. (v) The small contradictions between the statements during theinvestigation and the evidence in Court have been put to P.W.1300.But on reading the evidence as a whole it is believable. The PSOshave said they would not enter the house. So if the persons doingduty outside are not aware of the presence of household help it isquite natural. The police could have easily made the witnessesmention each other’s names. The evidence of P.Ws. 854 and 855 is alsonot parrot like repetition of the evidence of P.W.1195. The latterhas mentioned the names of those who worked inside the house, whilethe former two have spoken of the persons who would always accompanyA1 when he went out. So it hangs together very well. It is onlyP.W.1195 who has given the details of what was spoken. According tohim they said that they should hit back for the deaths of the 18Muslims, which took place after Selvaraj’s murder; and that theyhatched a plot to kill the Hindus by means of bombs. According tohim, they played the video films of the Dead Muslims. Only thiswitness gives these details. P.W.854 merely said they talked for along time. Of course he has added the bit about revenge. But his dutywas to stay outside so it is quite acceptable that he cannot give thedetails which P.W.1195 moving around inside the house would haveheard. The evidence shows that the persons who came from Kovai, A3of Madras, A1 and the persons who were constantly with him hadparticipated in the conspiracy. It is difficult to get a more directevidence of conspiracy, because conspiracy and secrecy areinseparable. We have already given our reasons for holding that thebomb blasts were the product of one single plot. So this evidenceproves that what happened on 14-02-1998 was the result of thisconspiracy. So the prosecution case of conspiracy on 07-02-1998 atChennai with regard to A1, A2, A3, A4, A6, A152, and A156 and A163 isaccepted.II.PROCUREMENT:The case of the prosecution is that the explosives were procured fromKarnataka for which they heavily relied on the approver evidence ofP.W.1293 Riaz-ur rehman. But he has not supported the prosecution inthe witness box, and his evidence is of no use. The documents seizedwill be of no use even if they refer to sale of explosives unlessthey are connected unmistakably with the occurrence. The prosecutionhas not been able to prove that explosives sold by P.W.1293 were usedfor the occurrence.The evidence relating to procurement from Kerala is even less https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ incriminating.The prosecution has not proved procurement.III.TRANSPORTThe case of the prosecution is that the explosives weretransported by auto from Mysore then loaded in the two transportbuses, then unloaded at Satyamangalam and sent to Coimbatore fromthere. We have dealt with the evidence in detail above. Theeyewitnesses have uniformly spoken about A7 being there, and theactivity of the accused at the bakery of A7’s brother. But it isdifficult to believe this evidence. The transport is said to havetaken place in Jan/Feb 1998. We must remember that by this time themurder of Selvaraj had taken place and the murders of the 18 Muslimmen. The bus route admittedly passed through several check posts. Thewitnesses had admitted that there was regular checking because of thepresence of Veerappan. The case of the prosecution is that theaccused brought the explosives in 4 or 5 consignments by buses inbulky bundles. It is unbelievable that the buses were not checkedeven once at the check posts. Further P.W.1126 Rama Konar had saidthat explosives cannot be transported in any vehicle. There should beno iron material near the explosives, since by friction or by a jerkymovement they may catch fire. And gelatin and detonators will neverbe tied together as it would be highly risky. Only persons withexpertise in that regard can load or unload the explosives. When thisis the position the accused could not have casually transported thematerials placing them near the driver’s seat in front where theradiated heat is more intense. The accused would have known the highrisk involved in such a casual approach. When the witnesses had askedthe accused what was in the bags/boxes, the accused have said thatthey contained tamarind/soap. The evidence would indicate that theyhad unloaded the bags and handled high-risk materials as though theyreally contained only tamarind/soap. This is not normal human conductand it is difficult to believe it. The evidence of the witnesses whohave spoken of transport is not very believable.IV.MANUFACTURE One of the tests for acceptability of evidence is whether whentested in the context of normal course of events, or probability ofhuman nature it will pass the test. All the witnesses who have spokenof manufacture, were examined much later. They are not residents ofthe locality where the manufacture allegedly took place. They havegiven some reason or the other for being at the scene. This may beone reason for the delay in recording their statements. Had they beenliving in the neighbourhood the police may have examined themearlier. So the delay can be explained and accepted if their evidenceis believable. But their evidence is difficult to believe. P.W.1124 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ had gone after the second show of a movie from the cinema hall to hishouse by a circuitous route, and had knocked on the door to ask forwater. Even a person who is innocent of any illegal activity will beirritated and annoyed at being disturbed in the night. No one will goin the night and knock on the door for water. Further if really theaccused were manufacturing bombs then the accused would not haveopened the door to let a stranger in. P.W.1162’s case of going toTailor Raja’s house for fixing a shop on rent, and seeing the illegalactivity when the door was opened is also not natural. P.W.1164 hadseen the manufacturing activity when he entered A5’s house. This isalso unreal for the same reason. P.W.1256 has gone to Tipu Nagar tobuy car spare parts though they are available in his own area, andthere, A6 opened the house and inside the witness saw the accusedengaged in the illegal act. P.W.1158 had given loan to A9, which hewent to demand. So that is how he claimed to have seen themanufacture. Manufacture of bombs for setting a city on fire willsurely be done carefully, secretly and without fanfare. No one islikely to open the door to an unexpected visitor to expose hisfriends busying themselves with gelatin sticks, sulphur etc. It isvery artificial. The evidence of the witnesses who have spoken ofmanufacture cannot be believed.So the case of the prosecution with regard conspiracy barring the 07-02-1998 conspiracy, procurement, transport and manufacture isrejected. The intermediate events must have taken place because theobject of conspiracy was achieved, but they have not been proved.V. Next we will examine the evidence with regard to planting theexplosives with reference to the relevant Crime numbers.(a) Gokul Medicals (SB Towers) Blast (Crime No.91 of 1998) (R1-Podanur Police Station)(A41 Monappa):P.Ws.627 Sivakumar, 677 Rajamanickam and 709 Navaneetham are thewitnesses. P.W.627 was doing coolie work in a dyeing unit. At thattime, A13 of Karumbukadai Azad Nagar would frequently come in hisauto to his shop. Both of them were acquainted with each other. Hehad also borrowed Rs.100/- from him, but he did not return it. On14-02-1998, at about 3’o clock he went to his house, where he saw A13and two others talking to each other. A13 brought two blue jeansbags, which looked heavy, gave it to A41 and A42. There were twoTVS-50s standing there. He told him to place it in S.B. Towers. A41left the place. A13 told the witness that he would return the moneyin one month. Later, two more persons came. A13 again went inside,brought two blue jeans bags were heavy, called out one of them asAbbas and told him to keep it in Pongali Amman Koil. After that, thewitness returned. When he heard about the blasts at both the places,he realised what had happened. He did not tell the police. Heidentified A13, A15 and A53. In cross-examination, he has stated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that it was A41 who took three bags and that he was standing near A13when the other two persons came. (ii) P.W.677, P. Rajamanickam is a plumber. He and his friendP.W.709 were standing in front of SB Towers at 3.30 p.m. on 14-02-1998. At that time, he saw A41 who is already known to him andresiding at Kurichi Weigh Bridge and A42 who resided in KarumbukadaiMuthu Colony. Both of them came in TVS-50. A 41 drove the vehicle. They carried two blue jeans bags. After parking the vehicle in frontof SB Towers, A41 took the jeans bag from A42, went near GokulMedicals. A42 went near Gokul Stationery. After ten minutes, theycame away. When they returned, the bags were not with them. A41started the vehicle. A42 sat at the pillion and both of them wentaway. After that, the witness and his friend went to Ganesha Bakeryto have tea. At that time, it was about 4’o clock. There was ablast in SB Towers. Everyone ran in fear. Two men and a childdied. Everyone kept saying that there is another bag with a bomb nearGokul Stationery. These two went and saw the bag left by A42. Theyrealized that it was the bag brought by A41 that had burst. Theywent away. He identified only A41 in court. (iii) P.W.709 is Navaneetham who went with P.W.677. He is anelectrician who runs Chitra Sound Service. His evidence supports the evidence of P.W.677. He has identified A41 and A42. (iv) From the cross-examination of P.W.709, it is clear that heknows of the topography of SB Towers. He has stated that he andP.W.677 are friends.(v) In the cross-examination questions have been asked whetherP.W.13 really drove an auto and whether there was proof that he drovean auto and regarding the words used by P.W.627 as to theinstructions given by P.W.13 to the two accused. Further, questionshave been asked of this witness as to whether P.Ws.677 and 709 lookedat their watch after ordering tea and the fact that people ran awaycrying in fear. But there is no real cross-examination regardingthese witnesses knowing the accused. In their evidence, they havestuck to their stand that they knew the accused. The reason forP.W.627 to go for the return of Rs.100/- lent by him to the accusedis very weak for us to accept. So the case of the prosecution thatA13 handed out the bombs is not proved. But we do not find any reasonto disbelieve P.Ws.677 and 609. They knew the accused. They haveexplained their presence. They corroborate each other. The factremains that the bag left in Gokul Stationery was defused on 15-02-1998. P.Ws.677 and 709 were examined on 20-08-1998 and theirstatements were sent to court on 28-09-1998. We have already dealtwith the arrest and recovery regarding A41 and found that it isbelievable. Further in the observation mahazar, Ex-P220 relating tothe bomb left in Gokul Stationery there is reference to the bomb inthe bag. These are minor details, which cannot be stand-alone https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence to justify conviction. But these details support theeyewitnesses whose evidence is natural and believable. Theprosecution case regarding A41 is accepted.(b) Hindu Munnani Office Blast Cr. 125 of 1998 (B-9 SaravanampattyPolice Station) (A46 Riyaz and A18 Ismail @ Kathikuthu Ismail):P.W.424 Ramachandran is a member of the Hindu Munnani. Theirorganization had asked all the members to attend the meeting whereMr. L.K. Advani would be present. So, he was waiting for his friendsnear their office in Kannappan Nagar between 3:45 to 4:00 p.m. on 14-02-1998. He met P.W.425 Vasu and they were chatting. Then A46 aresident of Kurukku vattaram came that way in a cycle. A blue colourbag was hung on the handle bar. He passed them and then parked hiscycle and was doing some repair work on the cycle. Then he rested thecycle near the lamppost and did something in the bag. The witnesswas waiting for P.W.319 Kumar. So they waited for a while. Then theywent to a teashop, Kumar was there, and they told him and left. Onthe way P.W.361 M.G. Rajan told them that the meeting was cancelledbecause there was a blast. So they returned. There they learnt thatthe cycle brought by A46 had burst. He identified the accused andalso A18 whom he had seen with A46. P.W.425 a welder is also a HinduMunnani member. He had also seen A18 and A46 together often travelingon a scooter especially when he ahd gone to Karunanidhi Nagar. He toohas supported what P.W.424 had said. In addition he said that thedistance between the lamppost and the office would be 4 feet. P.W.319had gone to have tea, so after waiting for a while they went to theteashop told him and left. He too has repeated that P.W.361 told themabout the blast and they returned. He identified the accused. P.W.361is the District Secretary of Hindu Makkal Katchi. He claimed that heis familiar with both the accused. According to him, the accused hadearlier come on a scooter and gone past their office. Then he toldP.W.319 that he was planning to go the meeting. At 3-45 pm when hewent towards R.S.Puram people told him there was an explosion. So hetold P.Ws.424 and 425 what he knew. When they returned to the officethey found the cycle exploded in front of the lamppost. He alsoidentified the accused. P.W.319 was in the office at 2 pm. At about3-45a.m., he went to drink tea. When he returned he saw a cycleresting on the lamppost. He went inside the office. Later he heardthe blast. He came out and saw the burst cycle. He lodged thecomplaint Ex P95. He has also referred to the victims by name.P.W.322 is Boopathy the witness to observation Mahazar Ex-P96. Ex-P96 indicates that the lamppost was only a few feet from the office,which supports the evidence of P.W.425. The witnesses also mentionthe names of Seethalakshmi and others who died or were injured. Thedefense said that this evidence is not believable since they areHindu Munnani members they had enmity to the accused. But when theoccurrence is in front of the office, only the members will be the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ natural witnesses. The defense said that P.W.319 had not spoken ofthe presence of P.Ws.424 and 425. But P.W.319 had said that he was inthe teashop just before the occurrence, and he was sending all themembers to the Advani meeting. So these two were among the many hewould have sent, and the non-mention of their names is really notfatal. The documentary evidence supports the details regarding thelocation of the cycle, or the position of the lamppost with regard tothe office as spoken in the oral evidence. We can also see how theevidence of each witness meshes with the other. P.W.319 had gone outto have tea. P.Ws.424 and 425 waited in front of the office for hisreturn. It is then that they saw the accused park the cycle againstthe lamppost. They decided to go to the tea stall to tell P.W.319that they were going. P.W.361, who had already gone ahead, had heardthe news of the blast and was returning. Then he met the other two,and told them that the meeting was cancelled. So they returned andsaw the blasted office and the burnt cycle. The sequence rings true.But at the same time, the mere mention of A18 as a friend of A46, orthat they were seen together on the scooter frequently and evenearlier on the fateful day is not enough to find A18 guilty. It mayarouse very strong suspicion, but does not provide proof. Theprosecution case against A46 is believable but the same is not provedagainst A18.(c) National Travels Blast (Crime No 132 of 1998) (B4-Race CoursePolice Station)( A43 Abdul Razaak and A44 Azam ):4 persons died and 14 were injured in this blast. Theeyewitnesses are P.W.658 Sakthivel, and P.W.662 Sivasubramaniam. Bothof them speak of the incident in almost the same way. Baiju(deceased)was sitting in the booking counter on 14-02-1998. Both the witnesseswent to the office at 3-45 pm to see if there was any parcel fordelivery. A43 came there with a blue jeans bag. The blue bag was kepton the table. Then A44 told A43 that since Selvi is waiting outsidethey should go out. A43 turned something in the bag and both of themwent out. Both the accused would regularly book parcels with theTravels. Since at that time there was no work for them the witnessesalso went out and were sitting in a stationary bus that was there. 5minutes later, Baiju called to the witnesses. When they were gettingdown the bus, there was a blast. The buidings got damaged and Baijuand others were killed and some were injured. Both the witnesses ranin search of the two men since they felt it was their handiwork. Butthey could not capture them. Fearing disturbance they went away. On16-02-1998 police examined them. 3 months later (i.e.08-05-1998) thepolice called them to B7 station. They identified the accused. Theaccused were arrested on 07-05-1998. (ii) P.W.294, Dasarathan is the booking agent for NationalTravels. He has stated in his evidence that P.W.658 and 3 others werethe loading and unloading workers. He has also stated that they hadengaged P.W.662 to deliver the parcels. He has also referred to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Baiju working at the booking counter. So this supports the evidenceof P.Ws. 658 and 662 and also justifies their presence at the sceneof occurrence. P.W.295 Balakrishnan was working along with P.W.295.He is the complainant. But he had gone to his house at 2:00 pm andreturned only after the blast.(iii) The main attack of the defence is that P.W.658 had saidthat the accused had come to book parcel to Chennai, while P.W.295had said that their service was only on the Coimbatore-Bangaloreroute, and no other route. So they contend that the witness cannot bebelieved. Further other witnesses who were present were not examinedas seen from P.W.1287 Chinnaswamy (SP)’s evidence. It is notnecessary that the prosecution should examine every one whosestatement was recorded. It is true that this discrepancy regardingthe bus route is there, but these are the embellishments that anordinary witness gives to his evidence. If the main evidence ringstrue, then the “value addition” made can be ignored. But if there areserious doubts about the evidence, then the embellishment renders theevidence weaker. We have to see whether the embellishment affects theprosecution story as a whole (vide 2002 4 SCC 679 (Dharmendrasinh @Mansing Ratansinh Vs. State of Gujarat). The small details given byboth the two witnesses like reference to Selvi, and to Baiju callingthem after they went out, and to the witnesses running after theaccused, make the evidence natural. The evidence of P.W.295reinforces their presence. Their familiarity with the 2 accused hasbeen explained. This makes their identification of the accusedacceptable.The prosecution has proved the case against A43 and A44. (d) C.M.C. Hospital Blast (Crime No.133 of 1998) (B4- Race CoursePolice Station)(A8 Siddiq Ali, A27 Musthafa @ Monappa):P.W.726 Venkataraj is the eyewitness to the CMC Hospital Blast.P.W.726’s mother Bhagavathi Ammal was a Cook in the Nurses’ Quartersin CMC Hospital. She died during the trial. On 14-02-1998 he went tothe hospital with his friend Muralidharan(not examined) to bring hismother to take care of his sick child. It was about 2.30 p.m. and awhite colour Ambassador was standing there. A8 got out of the carand A27 was there along with him. They did something to that car andwent away. At about 4.15 p.m., the car exploded. The police hadrecorded his statement on 16-02-1998 and his mother’s statement wasalso recorded on the same day. He identified both the accused. Thedifficulty in believing his evidence is the reason he has given forhis presence. He claims he had gone there to bring his mother backbecause his son was very serious. Therefore, he felt that if he couldbring his mother back, she could take care of the child. But if hisintention was really to bring his mother back, he would not havetaken his friend along with him in the moped. He would have gonealone so that his mother can sit in the pillion seat. Further, his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ evidence shows that he was waiting for his mother to come out forabout an hour, But he has made no attempt to send a message to her tocome urgently. Further he claims that, since she was getting delayed,he and his friend took their moped and went to Andal Tea Shop to havetea. It was at this juncture the explosion took place. In cross-examination, it is elicited that his child was critical and that hedoes not know the Nurses’ Quarters direct number. If the child was socritical, the father was hardly likely to have waited and lingeredaround drinking tea. A person who had got a parking space in thehospital parking lot was not likely to take his moped across a busyroad to have tea in the tea stall located just opposite the hospital. The defence submitted that the reason why the witness had deposedthat he took his moped along was because otherwise, the prosecutionwould have been asked to explain the absence of the moped at thescene of occurrence. We cannot brush aside this easily.(ii) P.W.1081, V. Ramasamy who took up for investigationinitially the case in Crime No.133 of 1998, prepared the roughsketch, Ex-P.1058. It has been elicited from him that no attempt wasmade by him to find out from P.W.726 who was the owner of the moped. Nor had he examined the three watchmen at the CMC Hospital, onlybecause the real truth would come out. (iii) P.W.302, K. Muthuswamy is the Head Constable who was onduty in the Outpost Police Station at the CMC Hospital on 14-02-1998. At about 4.15 p.m., there was a huge explosion at the main gate ofthe hospital. A white Ambassador car had exploded and a traineenurse had died. In cross-examination, it had been elicited thatthere is discrepancy between his evidence in Court and his statementgiven under Section 161, Cr.P.C. regarding the place where theAmbassador car was parked. As regards this discrepancy in the placeof occurrence P.W.1300 has been cross-examined and his answer is notsatisfactory. (iv) P.W.1100, P.T. Jayaprakash, the Asst. Director of ForensicScience, has referred to one Ambassador car Engine No.OEB/26C6642.(v) There is no other witness to support the evidence ofP.W.726. The friend Muralidharan has not been examined. The behaviourof the witness is unnatural and it is difficult to believe. We haveelsewhere considered that not every human being is likely to react inthe same manner and therefore witnesses may divulge what they saw toCourt after much delay or witnesses may be silent without reportingto police when the police station was nearby. Such reactions would bebelievable and come under normal human conduct, because many personsare afraid to get involved in criminal cases, especially in cases ofterrorism. But here, the witness is a father whose child wascritically ill and his behaviour does not appear natural and it doesnot conform to normal human conduct. His presence is very doubtful.We have already rejected the case of the prosecution regarding A8 and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conspiracy.The prosecution has not proved their case against A8 and A27.(e) RMS Blast (Crime No.139 of 1998) (B4-Race Course PoliceStation) (A45 Sait @ Santhu Mohammed and A26 Jahangir) :On 14-02-1998, at 10.30 a.m., PW 663 Venkatesh saw A45approaching in a red Yamaha motorcycle near Suresh traders at AlAmin Colony. At the same time A26 and Abdul Rahman @ Jeyakumar camethere in a TVS motorcycle. A26 showed a black box that was in themotorbike to A45. Then he shut it. He showed a white button betweenthe seat and box. Then they spoke to each other. Finally, A45 toldA26 that he would keep it in post office and railway station. Theyexchanged vehicles. And A26 went away in the Yamaha while A45 wentaway in the Suzuki. The witness identified A26 correctly but wronglyidentified A45.(ii)P.W.1234 Karuppiah was driving his auto near Al Amin Colonyon 14-02-1998 at about 10 a.m. He would often go to the areas nearUkkadam, Kottaimedu etc so he knew A26 and A45, He was near SureshTraders after dropping a customer and waiting for another. He hasalso spoken of the two accused coming on a red vehicle each, aboutthe black box and the white button. He has also mentioned the wordsspoken by A45 to A26 about keeping it in the RMS without fail. He hasalso spoken about the subsequent exchange of vehicles. He identifiedA45 but wrongly identified A26.(iii)P.W.696 Dhandapani issued tokens at RMS parking area. On14-02-1998, he and P.W.734 Abdul Khader were talking to each other.The peculiar behaviour of one person drew his attention. A personparked a red colour TVS motor cycle, told him that he will returnonly much later. So the witness asked him to park the vehicle in thesecond row. Then he saw the person leaving the vehicle with the tokenand the key. Again the person returned at 4:45 pm twisted somethingin the side box and went away. Again he left the key behind and wentaway. Later the cycle burst with a terrible noise. He identified A45in the TIP and also in court.(iv)P.W.734 also has spoken of being with P.W.696 at therelevant point of time. He has also spoken about the peculiarbehaviour of the man with the red TVS. He identified A45 in the TIPand in Court. In fact, both these witnesses have commented that theaccused was fair, tall, slim with a sharp nose.(v)Regarding the above witnesses the defence raised severaldoubts. P.W.663 a building worker claimed he had gone to SureshTraders only because someone told him that some building work wasthere. He had never been to that area before or after. Though he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ waited there he did not ask anyone regarding the work. Though he hadsaid that one of the accused was a plumber and the other a second-hand articles dealer, it was suggested he had been briefed by thepolice. About P.W. 1234, the only attack made is that he had notidentified whether the same box was found in the scene of occurrenceand that the police did not know his address. Even P.W.1300 has notbeen cross-examined regarding this witness. So P.W.1234 is believed,it only gets more support from P.W.663. About the other twowitnesses, the attack is that they did not have the counterfoil ofthe token, and the other witnesses at the stand were not examined.But we find that on the whole, the evidence of all the 4 witnesses isbelievable. If we dissect any evidence into small fragments, no one’sevidence will be worthy of acceptance. We must see if it rings true,and if there are supporting materials. The former two witnesses,unconnected to each other had spoken in like manner of the exchangeof vehicles .The latter two have also spoken of the accused plantingthe bomb in like manner. The reason for their remembering theincident is plausible. In one case, it is the exchange of vehiclesand in the other, the fact that the person left the key in thevehicle could very well have stayed in the memory. Another feature isthe colour of the vehicle, which is referred to by all the witnesses. Both of them had commented to each other that the man’s behaviour ispeculiar. So the fact they remembered his physical features isnatural. We must remember that the blast had taken place soon afterthe accused left. We cannot accept that the prosecution has provedthe charges against A26 merely on the evidence of the witnesses whospeak of the exchange of vehicles. The one witness does not speak ofthe other. Their reason for being near Suresh Traders is also quitetenuous. Therefore, while both of them speak of the exchange in likemanner it would not be correct to convict A26 only on the basis oftheir evidence. Further, only P.W.1234 of four witnesses hadidentified A26.The planting of the bomb by A45 alone is established by theevidence. So the prosecution case is proved against A45 and notagainst A26.(f)Gani Rowther Street Blast Crime No. 147/98 (B1-Bazaar PoliceStation) (A161 Mujibur Rahman):According to the prosecution, A161 had planted a bomb at theRamar Koil Street-Gani Rowther Street. The eyewitnesses are P.Ws.1050Mohan and P.W.832 Kumaran. According to them, they had seen a youngman about 22 years old pushing a pineapple cart at about 3:45 pm on14-02-1998. In a short while, they heard a blast. Thereafter, thisyoung man twisted something under the cart and then the cartexploded. P.W.1050 was injured. Out of fear both of them went away toKerala. Both of them have mentioned the medical shop owner closinghis shop. P.W.832 has referred to P.W. 1050 as the tiffin shop ownerwhom he saw closing the door. Their evidence is not fully convincing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ because they have stated that the shop owners had started closing theshops even before the bomb burst. This is natural, because the firstblast had gone off at 3:45 pm, everyone would have been concernedwith his or her safety. The witnesses admittedly closed their shopstoo out of fear, if so, their slow departure from the scene is hardto believe. But even if we accept their evidence to this extent andassume that out of curiosity they lingered on the scene, theirinability to identify A161 in Court is the missing crucial link. Nodoubt both of them had identified them in the Test IdentificationParade, but for us it is the evidence in Court that is vital. So theprosecution case can be accepted to the extent that a young manbrought a pine apple cart to the scene of occurrence and twistedsomething under the cart and detonated it. That is all. Theprosecution has not proved that it was A161 who was responsible forthe Gani Rowther Street Blast.(g) Rajendra Textiles Blast- Crime No.148/98 (B1 Bazaar PoliceStation)(A 34 Mohammed Rafeeq):P.W.948 Kannan, P.W.979 Shahul Hameed and P.W.889 R. Kathirvelare the witnesses. The sequence of events goes like this – the bagcontaining the explosives was handed over to the accused, the accusedhad taken it to the scene of occurrence and had planted it. (ii) P.W.1300, the Chief Investigating Officer has stated in hiscross-examination that he knew about P.W.889 only from other personswho are engaged in fruit vending business. So this would show that hewas a fruit vendor who carried on his business there and explain hispresence at the scene.(iii) On 13-02-1998 at 8.30 pm, P.W.948, an auto driver went ona trip to Karumbukkadai, Saramedu from Gandhipuram. He dropped hiscustomer and was waiting to see if he would get any other customer. Awhite Fiat car was standing there. He saw A28 and A6 with TailorRaja. A28 had handed over 2 blue jeans bags to A34 and A35 who wereknown to him. But his familiarity with the accused is doubtful, as hehas admitted in the cross examination that he has no connection withthem. He identified only A6 and A 35 but not the other two in Court.(iv) Next stage is the evidence of P.W.979. He has been examinedunder S.164. The statement is Ex-P.760. He is an auto-driver. Hisevidence is not clinching since he was unable to identify A34 or A35.But, according to him a boy asked him to go to Tipu nagar since twopersons were waiting for him. He went there and found two men whom hehad named as A34 and A35, and that they carried two blue jeans bagand one of them said that he would go to Rajendra Textiles. This wasat 3.30 p.m. on 14-02-1998.(v) The last stage is the evidence of P.W.889. He has referred https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to A34 as the plumber who belongs to Karumbukkadai Tipu Nagar. Whenthe witness was selling fruits in front of Rajendra Textiles he sawA34 with a blue jeans bag. He saw A 34 entering Rajendra Textiles.A34 looked agitated, he came out leaving the bag behind and fiveminutes after that the place exploded. The defence pointed out tosome weaknesses in his evidence, he could not give the address of theaccused, there was a Court order of stay against street vending; hedid not know the watchman of Rajendra Textiles. So according to thedefense he could not have been there. But in crossexamination he hadsaid, “I saw the bomb blast at Rajendra Textiles. I was standing 20feet away. I saw the jeans bag bomb burst. I saw A34 going inside. Isaw him leave the bag behind.” He has stood firm. Merely becausethere is a Court order of stay would not mean that street vendingwould cease. His evidence is believable. His identification of theaccused is credible since he already knew him as the plumber. Tosupport him we have the evidence of the other two witnesses, whichrefer to the blue jeans bag. P.W.979 ‘s evidence would show that hewent to Tipu nagar to pick up the two men and a person carrying abluejeans bag from Tipu nagar went to Rajendra Textiles. Thissupports the evidence of P.W.889 who said that A34 is the plumberfrom Tipu Nagar who carried the jeans bag inside. We have also givenour reasons for accepting his presence.(vi) Ex-P154 is the FIR with regard to the Crime No.148 of 1998.The complainant is D. Francis Xavier (P.W.458). The complaint wasgiven at 20 hours. The Magistrate received it on the next day(Sunday) at 10:00a.m. P.W.458 the salesman of Rajendra Textiles inhis evidence has said that his owner Ravindran also came out onhearing the blast. His wife had got hurt and before admitting her inthe Hospital, he had given the complaint. P.W.462, Ravindran is theowner mentioned above. He had given a complaint after two daysbecause of the loss caused to his property and in his evidence he hasstated that he realized that P.W.458’s wife had died. On receipt ofthe FIR a case was registered in Crime No.200 of 1998. The defencehas cross-examined P.W.1298, Varadarajulu with regard to the non-investigation of Crime No.200 of 1998. In fact the defence submittedthat this would vitiate the entire case. But however, P.W.1298 hasstated that because Crime No.148 of 1998 was being investigated hedid not question why Crime No.200 of 1998 was not proceeded with. Weaccept this explanation.The various links in the chain from the time the bags werehanded over and transported in the auto may not be sufficient to nailthe charge on A6, or A28 or A35, but definitely the evidence iscomplete as far as A34 is concerned.The prosecution has proved the case against A34 Mohammed Rafeeq.(h)Babulal Building Crime No.151/98 (B1 Bazaar Police Station) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (A102 Salavudeen):Ex-P794 is the seizure mahazar relating to Babulal complex,where according to the prosecution, A16 and A102 were arrested. There are several defects pointed out by the defence. Some of thepolice witnesses excluded the presence of P.W.1288. P.W.1041chandrasekaran is the injured witness. Six muslim men were killed inthat explotion. There was a report of the Revenue Divisional Officerby P.W.1073. The defence pointed out that since there was a R.D.O.enquiry, the case of the prosecution that there was an explosion inthat bathroom cannot be believed. According to them, there isevidence to show that P.W.1288 was conducting inquest with regard tothe C.M.C. blast. If so, he could not have been in two places at thesame time, therefore, the entire prosecution case with regard to theoccurrence relating to Babulal Complex is a false one. Ex.P.792 isthe observation mahazar. It refers to Saaj Building to the east ofBabulal Complex; refers to the toilet which stands north-south to thenorth of the corridor with an east facing wooden door and the deadbodies of the siz persons and indications of explotion on the wall(this was received by the court on 19-02-1998). The seizure mahazarsare Exs.P.793 and P.794.(i)P.W.1099 Rajamanickam accompanied P.W.1041 Chandrasekaran andothers and at 4 a.m. on 15-02-1998 referred to the incident. According to him, at 11’o clock, P.W.1288 Murali, P.W.1041Chandrasekaran, P.W.1045 pachaiyappan, Sivasakthi selvam, Encoba andothers went on a patrol duty and when they went to the terrace ofBabulal Building, they saw some persons huddling in the bathroom andP.W.1288 asked them to come out, to which one person had said,“Police dogs, get lost” and threw a pipe bomb at them. P.W.1041 shotonce, and he got injured in the explosion. When the torchlight wasshone, A101, A102 and A103 came out of the bathroom with injuries. Then, he has referred to the arrest of A16 Abbas, s/o. Kaufathullah @Zakir Hussain, who was hiding in a corner of the terrace. Heidentified both A16 and A102. In the cross-examination, he had saidthat P.W.1288 had arrested the accused between 4:30 and 5:00 a.m. andthat they had returned to the Police Station at about 5:30 a.m. andthat P.W.1041, Chandrasekaran did not come with them.(ii)P.W. 1288 Murali has also mentioned the same personsmentioned by P.W.1099 as being members of the patrol party and sincethere was suspicious movement on top of the Babulal Building, theyhad gone there. He asked the persons who were hiding inside thebathroom to come out and when all of them said, “Police dogs, getlost” and threw a pipe bomb at them, P.W.1041 Chandrasekaran fired,but got hurt because of the bomb explosion. Then there was a blastin the bathroom. The three accused mentioned came out and then theother accused, including A16, who were hiding there were arrested. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In cross-examination, he had said that it is not possible to say howlong it took to seize the objections mentioned in Ex-P794 nor to sayhow long he was there. He had also stated that on his advice andsupervision, his team effected the seizure and only after satisfyinghimself that it was alright that he had signed the seizure mahazar. He had also stated that it was not possible for him to prepare allthe documents, nor to effect all the seizures, since at that time, healone was conducting investigation for all the 19 bomb blast cases. He has denied that the accused A101, A102 and A103 were injured onlybecause of police violence. He has denied that he was at that timein CMC Hospital conducting the inquest for Crime Nos.147 and 148 of1998. According to him, at his instance the other policemen did it.(iii) P.W.1041 Chandrasekaran had gone up Babulal building. According to him, he kicked the door and it opened and one personthrew a bomb, so he shot. When he realized that they were trying tothrow a bomb at him, he quickly closed the bathroom and the bombexploded and there was injury at him and two others and this wasabout 4’o clock in the morning. As regards the discrepancy withregard to the presence of P.W1288, we find that P.W.1041 had onlysaid that he does not remember the Police Officer to whom he gave theinformation and that there were other policemen, but he cannotremember the name and he cannot remember whether the bathroom openedfrom inside or from outside and when he specifically asked about thepresence of Murali, he has not denied that P.W.1288 was not there. He has merely said that he does not know if P.W.1288 Murali said thatthe persons inside the bathroom must be examined. He does notremember whether Inspector Murali came there or whether he took partin the ambush or whether Rajamanickam took part and that he cannotremember at the time of giving evidence whether they were with him inthe patrol party. The answer is ambiguous. He has also said in thecross-examination that he did not attempt to arrest the accused whowere there.(iv) P.W.1045 is Pachaiyappan. He has mentioned only thepresence of P.W.1041 Chandrasekaran and Sivasakthi Selvam. He hassaid that when the persons inside the bathroom attempted to throw thebomb, Chandrasekaran tried to shut the bathroom door and it wasthereafter that the bomb exploded and they got injured. He has saidthat apart from the three of them i.e., himself, P.W.1045Chandrasekaran and Sivasakthi Selvam, there was no one else.(v) In cross-examination, P.W.1300 has said that P.W.1288 hadarrested the three accused.(vi) The question is, has the prosecution proved the presence ofP.W.1288 at the scene of occurrence in Babulal Building https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (vii)The evidence of P.W.1073 V. Natarajan, who is the RevenueDivisional Officer and his report Ex-P1023 would support the presenceof P.W.1288 and though a strong objection was taken by the defencewith regard to the this witness and the unsatisfactory manner inwhich the enquiry was conducted, we find in his evidence theexplanation for not giving the final report. He had stated thatbecause Justice P.R. Gokulakrishnan, the One Man Commission wasappointed, he was asked not to give the complete report. He has alsostated that the firing was necessary for self-defence. P.W.822, theCasualty Medical Officer, had also recorded in his Accident Register,the cause for the injury, which is in line with the evidence ofP.W.1288 and P.W.1099. We have also seen that P.W.1041Chandrasekaran is vague when he is asked to categorically statedwhether P.W.1288 was there or not. Ex-P1644, the FIR shows, that thecomplainant is P.W.1288. It is received on the same day. This isthe earliest statement and not Ex-D39. The defence also marked Ex-D29 where the building is referred to as Saaj Building and Ex-D39,which is the statement of P.W.1288. Here again, P.W.1288 hasreferred to all the members of the patrol party. Ex-P1288 wasexamined on 16-02-1998. We also find that the Judicial Magistratehad received this FIR at 9:00a.m., on 15-02-1998 which is a Sunday,but the Court seal is dated 16-02-1998. Therefore, though admittedlythere are some discrepancies, we have no reason to disbelieve Ex-P1644, which records the earliest narration of the complaint. So weaccept the presence of P.W.1288 at Babulal Building, since he is thecomplainant relating to that case which was given at 6:30 a.m., andreceived by the Magistrate at 9:00 a.m. The presence of A102 at thescene of occurrence is also reinforced by the injury. However, wehave already, in our discussion relating to ‘Arrest and Recovery’disbelieved the recovery of the fingerprint of A16, which is tooartificial. There are also major doubts with regard to his arrest inview of the discrepancy relating to the name of the father of A16.P.Ws.1041 and 1045 have not mentioned that some accused were hidingin the corner, so that benefit of doubt should go to A16. Consequently, the case against A102 is proved , but the case againstA16 is rejected.(i)Sir Shanmugam Road Blast Crime No. 152/98 (B2 RS Puram PoliceStation)( A 164 Mujibur Rahman):The accused in this case, was a juvenile and has been releasedas stated earlier. So it is not necessary to deal with this CrimeNumber. We mention it because of the eyewitness PW 466 P.Vijayakumar. According to the defence, the prosecution had shown himas a list the witness both in this Crime Number and in Crime Number153/98. Both have the same name. P.W. 1300 has denied it. In the TIPconducted for A32 Hakkim(Crime No.153 of 1998). P.W.466 identifiedhim. So since it was not possible for him to be at Sir Shanmugam Road https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and West Sambandam Road at the same time, both the cases should berejected. We will deal with this objection in Crime No.153 of 1998. A164 is already released.(j)West Sambandam Road Blast Cr. No: 153/98 (B2 RS Puram PoliceStation)(A32 L.M. Hakkim A33 AbuThagir):P.W. 450 Dhandapani an autodriver is a friend of P.W. 537Venkataswami, who ran the Social Club. This witness has claimed heknew A32 who sold fish in the Ukkadam Fish market, because he went inP.W. 450’s Auto when he went to bring fish. He also knew A32’s friendA33 who was in iron business. On 14-02-1998, P.W.537 asked him if hewould go with him to the Advani meeting. So he decided to take a dayoff and they went walking to the meeting via Sambandam Road. Theyheard that the meeting was cancelled. They saw the two accused with afruit cart. Instead of selling fruit they were meddling with andtwisting something underneath the cart. Then the accused left thecart and went away. Soon after, the cart exploded. Many died. 5 dayslater, the police examined P.W.450. This is his narration of theovert act. P.W. 537 has corroborated this evidence. He would furthersay that he used to buy fish from A32 and A33 would assist A32. Thatis how he knew them. He has also added that they commented to eachother the peculiar conduct of the accused leaving the pineapple cartand walking away. A very natural response is elicited from thiswitness in cross-examination. He has stated that he thought that itwas very odd and strange that an iron merchant and a fish vendorshould be selling fruits. This lends weight to the witnessremembering the accused and the overt act. P.W.448 Govindaraj wasnear Mattachalai Pallivasal when his TVS Moped broke down at about 2pm. He saw A6 and the absconding accused Mujibur Rahman coming out ofa house and handing over a box to be hidden amidst the pineapples onthe pushcart. A32 and A33 also came out. A6 gave them instructions topark the cart near the meeting place. At that time he saw someonesitting in an auto nearby. He was examined months’ later. Heidentified the accused and A6. There is nothing to indicate that heknew the accused earlier. There are also discrepancies with regard tocertain details between his evidence and statement before the police.But we can accept his evidence to a limited extent because of P.W.449S.Ravi. He is an auto driver who plied his vehicle in theKarumbukkadai, Athupalam areas and was familiar with the accused. Thetyre of his auto burst after he had dropped a passenger nearMattachalai Pallivasal. He called his owner and gave him theinformation and was waiting in the Auto. So he was the person seen byP.W.448. P.W.449 also saw A6 handing over two black boxes and fixedthem underneath a pineapple cart. He gave instructions to A32 andA33. Sometime later P.W.449’s owner came with the tyre and then heleft the place. This witness identified the accused in Court. Thoughsome discrepancies are found from the cross examination, the twowitnesses to an extent corroborate each other. P.W.448’sidentification of the accused is unnatural, but his presence there is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ believable because he noted a man in a parked auto who is none otherthan P.W.449. So both their presence is established. The narration ofwhat one saw corroborates the other’s narration regarding the accusedhanding the box and fixing it in the pineapple cart. In P.W.449’sevidence, in cross-examination, he had said that he is not acquaintedwith the other. This was picked up by the defence to show that hecould not have identified the accused without prompting by thepolice. But later in cross-examination he had said that he knew thembecause he was a frequent visitor in that area. So we must read theevidence as a whole. It only shows that though he knows them bysight, he is not acquainted with them. Further, this evidence isadded proof that the blasts were a consequence of the conspiracy. A6who was one of the conspirators on 07-02-1998 had handed out theexplosives here. P.W.1300 has been cross-examined in detail regardingthis Crime number. One defect pointed out is that the arrest is madein Crime No.151 of 1998, and not in Crime No. 153 of 1998. The arrestis attacked as false and the recovery. The suggestion that P.W.1300has falsely implicated the two accused was denied. The discrepancyrelating to the numbers is explained by the CIO that since CrimeNo.151 of 1998 was used as the base case the records show only thatnumber. This explanation is accepted. The other defect pointed out isthe identification of A32 by P.W.466 in the TIP conducted by P.W.1131Srinivasan. The defence contended that P.W.466 could have witnessedthe Sir Shanmugam Street blast or West Sambandam Street blast, butnot both. The defence contended that since he had identified A32,when actually he is brought in as an eyewitness for Crime No.152 of1998 relating to A164, we must reject the case against both theaccused. He is unreliable and we have held so while discussing CrimeNo. 152 of 1998 but we are not relying on his evidence in this crimenumber. We have only evaluated the evidence of P.Ws.450 and 537 inthis crime number. If they are believable, we do not think we shouldreject the case against A32, merely because the evidence of someother witness is false. In any event, the identification in TIP haslimited weight. On reading the evidence with regard to A32 and A33as a whole, we find that the evidence is acceptable. In particularP.W.450 and P.W.537 who are the eyewitnesses to the planting soundvery plausible.The prosecution has proved its case against A32 and A33.(k)Bilal Estate Blast (Crime No.161 of 1998)(B1-Bazaar PoliceStation) (A 19 Makkan Jaffer, A 20 Mohammed Amjath Ali, A26 Jahangir):Of these 3 accused A20 has been released invoking the JuvenileJustice Act. The witnesses P.W.986 R. Murugan and P.W.984 N.Shivahave implicated the above accused. P.W.986 Murugan went with P.W.984Shiva to Bilal Estate with regard to painting work on 15-02-1998. Atabout 1’o clock, they saw A19 Makkan Jaffer A26 Jahangir and anothertwenty year old boy. A26 had a white polythene bag that had been https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rolled up. All the three came to the open space and after lookingaround, placed the bag near a thorny bush. The two witnesses wentaway because they were Al Umma people and they felt there would betrouble. On 17-02-1998, when four boys who were playing cricket inthe field searched among the bushes for the ball and died of bombblast, they realized it was the work of the above accused. P.W.986identified A19 and A26, while P.W.984 only identified A26, but notthe other. It is difficult to accept the evidence of these twowitnesses. Both of them were allegedly short of cash and that is thereason why they had gone out looking for work the day after 14-02-1998, the day of the blasts. They have said that gone in search ofwork though they were afraid. During the whole of 15th, they did notget any work. For two days thereafter, they did not go for work. They also admitted that they have no acquaintance with the accused.We have doubts whether these two witnesses would have gone to BilalEstate on the day after the bomb blasts. Their presence is doubtful.Their identification of the accused is doubtful. The personsresponsible for the tragic young deaths in Bilal Estate deserve to bepunished, but the case of the prosecution is not satisfactory. The prosecution has not proved its case against A19 and A26. A20, thejuvenile has already been released.(l)RajaRajeswari towers Blast Cr. 195/98 (B3-Kattur PoliceStation):(A28 Sarfuddin and A40 Hakim)The witnesses here are P.W.1169 Balakrishnan, P.W.728Muthukrishnan, P.W.794 Harikrishnan, P.W.157 Sanaollah, P.W.158Palaniappan, P.W.159 Noor Mohammed, and P.W.160 Saravanan. Accordingto P.W.1169, a lottery ticket seller, he had seen A5, A6, A15, A24,A28 and A104 on the night of 13-02-1998 near Mattasalai Pallivasal atSaramedu. He saw a Fiat Car, an Ambassador car, 3 pushcarts andmopeds in front of A15’s house. The accused were loading black boxes,and A15 had said, “Be careful, it will explode.” There is some doubtif he would have seen the accused in the dark well enough to identifythem. His statement is that a light was burning in the house, and butfor that he could not have seen them. We have our doubts whether hesaw the A15 or whether he heard him speak. But his evidence that hesaw these particular vehicles parked together supports theprosecution case because a Fiat car was used for planting theexplosives in Rajarajeswari Towers Blast, an Ambassador was used inthe CMC Blast, Push carts were used in West Shanmugam Road, and GaniRowther Street, and Two wheelers were used in SB Towers and RMSblast. The odd grouping of these particular vehicles is acircumstance in support of the prosecution case. At the same time https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ unless there is strong evidence to link A-15 with the vehicles, themere parking of the vehicles in front of his house is not enough tolink him with the crime.(ii)P.W.728 and 794 had met at the towers. P.W.728 is a watchseller on the platform in front of Annapurna Hotel. P.W.794 hisfriend has a watch shop in Shop 6 Corporation Complex. Both theirwork spots are very close to the Scene of occurrence. They knew A40as the person who collects money from the Muslim shop owners, and A28as the Auto owner who would accompany him. At about 3.00 m on 14-02-1998 they had met at the towers. At 3:30p.m, they saw a blue Fiat-carbearing no. TNN 7942. It was driven by A28. A40 was with him. Theyparked the car in the basement. They heard a fearful blast near theTTC bus stand. (This is the National Travels Blast). So they ranupstairs and came out. Then they heard a blast in the basement. Theplace was covered with smoke especially around the Fiat car. Theywere examined 4 days later. In spite of detailed cross-examination,they have stood firm with regard to the crucial details. The defensehas attacked their evidence that from where they stood on the stepsthey could not have seen the accused. But PW 794 has maintained hisstand. The fact that they say they ran out when they heard the nearbyblast, which was the National Travels Blast, makes their evidencenatural. Since both of them carry on business nearby explains theirpresence. The reason they have given for their familiarity with theaccused is also accepted. (iii)P.W.158 the accountant at the towers is the complainant.P.W.160 the Supervisor at the towers is the Mahazar witness for theseizure Ex-P33, and also the observation Mahazar witness Ex-P32.Healso has stated that the explosion was from the car. The exhibitsalso indicate the said fact. The other two witnesses have beenexamined to implicate A9 with the car by proving sale of the car. ButP.W.159 turned hostile. The link is not established.(iv)However, we find the evidence of the eyewitnessesbelievable. The prosecution case against A28 and A40 is accepted.(m)BJP Election office Blast Crime No.196 of 1998(B3-Kattur)(A36 Noor Mohammed)P.W.818 Nageswaran is a member of the BJP party. In February1998, he was engaged in election work in the areas of KarunanidhiNagar, Rathnapuri, Sivananda Colony and Kannappan Nagar. He wouldfrequently go to Karunanidhi Nagar, so he knew the Al Umma membersthere particularly A36 Noor Mohammed and A38 Adipatta Babu. An officewas fixed for election work near Ananda Bakery in Raju Naidu Streetand Sivananda Colony. P.W.-205 Purushotaman is the RegionalSecretary. The building belonged to one Loganathan. They were sendingworkers to the Mr. Advani Meeting. At 3-45pm, he and Saravanan(not https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ examined) were having tea in Ananda Bakery. Then, A36 parked a cyclenear the office. There was a blue jeans bag. He meddled with it. Thenthe witness and Saravanan went to the meeting in their TVS 50. Theywould not have gone even 200 metres ahead when they heard a blast.They returned and saw the mangled cycle. He, Saravanan and P.W.205took the injured to the hospital. In cross-examination he had saidthat he and P.W.205 were talking to each other when A36 came. P.W.205the person in charge, was also there, but in his evidence there is nomention of P.W.818. According to P.W.205, he was there near theoffice from 3:30p.m. He and Loganathan were talking to each otherwhen the blast occurred. They helped to send the injured to thehospital. P.W.270 is the owner of Ananda bakery. He mentioned thepresence of P.W.205, but not the presence of P.W.818. He also deposedthat tea is not sold in his bakery. But there is a teashop near-by.The prosecution tried to take advantage of this piece of evidence toprop up their case. But neither P.W.205 nor P.W.270 has mentioned thepresence of P.W.818. If P.W.818 had really seen the accused park thecycle at the scene of occurrence, P.W.205 who was there would havealso seen him. These factors raise serious doubts about PW818’scredibility. (ii) There are other witnesses who have spoken of this accused.P.W.157 Sanaollah said that he sold a Fiat car MRD 3492 to one NoorMohammed, but he has not identified the accused. P.W.159 who spoke ofthe car turned hostile. P.W.376 V.N.Rajan is the eyewitness for therioting. We have not accepted his evidence as we will later explainin connection with A38. P.W.631 Kumar is the eyewitness fordistribution of explosives. According to him, he saw A36, 37 and 38on 14-2-98 at about 3-45pm, near Sanganur pallam. A37 gave A36 acycle and placed a blue jeans bag. The witness was standing 1o feetaway. A38 told A36, “ Be careful with the bag or else we will die”But according to P.W.818 at 3-45 pm A36 was already at the BJPelection office planting the bomb. So both have to be disbelievedIn the result there is no credible evidence against A36.Theprosecution case against A36 fails.We have dealt with the accused who were said to have planted thebombs connected to the specific crime numbers, now we will deal withother accused not dealt with above.(n)A5 Mohamed Basith @ Basith. The witnesses who have been examined in regard to this accused are P.W.1132 has spoken of his part in the conspiracy at KottaiThangappa’s sister’s house, P.W.1259 of his part in the conspiracy atOlavakode. P.Ws.1158, 1162, and 1164 have spoken of his part in themanufacture of bombs at A9’ residence, at Tailor Raja’s residence andat Bismi Nagar respectively. P.W.1169 has spoken of his part in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ transport of explosives. We have already given our reasons for notaccepting the prosecution case with regard to the conspiracy at theabove 2 places and with regard to transport and manufacture. So thesewitnesses do not help the prosecution. P.W.750 Devendran had saidthat he A5 was his tenant in Omalur. This is of no use. P.W.981Shabir Ali had said that A5 wanted to sell an Ambassador car, whichwas parked at Omalur. Some amount was paid towards Advance. He oncesaw the accused in the company of A7 Kutty. By the time the RC bookwas made ready, the accused was arrested in connection with the Bombblast. Then the prospective buyer backed off. This witness identifiedA5 and A7. P.W.837 Sivakumar is the witness who has attested hisconfession. According to him, the A5 led them to the residence of A9Oom Babu. There is nothing to implicate A5 in the evidence of thesewitnesses. At best we can say that A5 was acquainted or closelyconnected with the accused in whose company was seen. The prosecutionhas not proved its case against A5.(o) A7 Mohammed Ali Khan Kutty @ Kutty.P.W.442 P. Devadasan had stated that one Kutty purchased an AutoKL 11 A 4628. But he did not identify the accused, nor did heproduced the RC book. The vehicle bearing this number is the one inwhich the bomb was planted as per the evidence of P.W.466 Ravi, whois the eye witness for Sir Shanmugam Road Blast which we have alreadydealt with earlier. But that fact cannot improve the case of theprosecution since the connection with or purchase by A7 is notproved. (ii)PW 958 is the VAO, whose evidence relates to confession, ithas been dealt with in the Arrest and Recovery paragraphs.(iii)P.W. 961 is the bike mechanic at Sathyamangalam to whom A7had given a motor cycle TN 37 H 9725 for repair. (iv)P.W.968 Alaudeen is the lodge owner where A7 stayed.(v)P.W. 975 Zakir Hussain spoke of the arrest.(vi)P.W. 992 Azmathullah made 40 tin boxes on the order placedby A7.(vii)P.W.1102,1103, 1172 and 1173 have been dealt with earlierwhile relating the evidence about transport. We have also given ourreasons for not accepting the evidence of the witnesses who spokeabout transport. (viii)PW 1124 is the witness who has spoken of manufacture. Wehave also given our reasons for not accepting the evidence relatingto manufacture. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ix)PW 1166 Dakshinamoorthy is the mahazar witness for A7’sconfession.(x) These are the witnesses who have spoken about A7’sinvolvement. The prosecution has wanted to put up a case against A7asone of the persons who made sure that the plot succeeded. May be hewas, but the evidence is inadequate, and suspicion is not equivalentto proof. The evidence is not strong enough to sustain the case. The prosecution has failed to prove their case against A7 .(p)A 8 Siddiq Ali, A155 Mohammed Subair:. A8, A155 and A156 were found with A2 at Rajamundry and arrestedthere. We have already given our reasons under the paragraphs dealingwith ‘Arrest and Recovery’, why we have accepted the arrest andrecovery regarding A2 and also that the confession of A2 cannot bindthe other co-accused. So the arrest of the above accused along withA2 will not be sufficient to pin them with guilt. The arrest wasafter the object of the conspiracy had been fulfilled, so they cannotbe implicated merely because they were found with A2 and A156 whoseinvolvement in the conspiracy we have accepted as proved. There mustbe some other evidence to show that A8 and A155 were guilty of theoffences charged. In the paragraph dealing with conspiracy we haveheld A8 and A155 not guilty, though the witnesses have mentioned thepresence of these two accused in A1’s house. Their presence is notmentioned by P.W.1195 on 07-02-1998 when the conspiracy was hatched.So without any other evidence to prove the charge, the arrest alonewill not help. We have also held that the prosecution has not provedits case as against A8 with regard to CMC blast. The fact that A2 andA156 had left Coimbatore after the occurrence is one additionalfactor, which links the conspiracy with the blasts.The prosecution has not proved its case with regard to A8 and A155. (q)A9 Oom babu.This accused is mentioned by many witnesses. The prosecutioncase is that he arranged for the cars either for transport or forplanting.(i)P.W.528 R.K.Das had deposed that this accused purchased theAmbassador car KLT 5690 but he could not identify the accused andhence his evidence is not relevant. (ii)P.W. 113 Murugesan had spoken of the Fiat car MSQ 1347 M.O.1in Crime No 170/98 . The police suspected that there might be a bombin this car, hich was parked in Lokamanya Road. Later it was defused.He identified the car. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)P.W.114 C.N.Nagarajan merely said “a car” was parked.(iv)P.W.115 Shah merely spoke of an abandoned white Fiat car.(v)P.W.116 Abdul Majeeth said that a white Fiat car bearing No.MSQ 1347 was near his house around 6-30 or 7-00 a.m on 14-02-1998thereafter it was not seen.(vi) P.W.120, a car broker had sold a Fiat car KLQ 6225 to A9whom he identified in Court. But since there was balance amount due,he did not give the T.O. forms. He went in search of him at theaddress given, but it was a false address. When he tried to makeenquiries with Nawab Khan who was there, he was threatened. He alsoidentified the car and said that the name late had been changed.(vii) P.W.127 A. Santhu was the owner of the lorry which had theReg No. MSQ 1347 which she sold later.(viii)P.W.128 Khader Mohideen a Deputy Transport Commissionerhad said that the Above number was not given for a car.(ix)P.W.313 an Auto driver said that on that date the police hadcordoned off the area because there was a care in which an explosivehad been planted.(x)P.W.1062 Senthil Kumar used to sell lottery tickets near theAuto Stand beside Ukkadam Bus Stand. That is how he knew A28Sharfuddin and A62 Palani Babu @ Abdul Kareem. On a Saturday in theyear 1998, by afternoon, his business was over. So he went by bus toR.S. Puram to attend the BJP Meeting. He got near the Top Notch Shopand while he was walking, A28 who was driving the white FIAT carbearing Regn. No. MSD-1347 came from behind him, turned intoLokamanya Street and parked the car near the Quality Ice Cream Shop. A62 was sitting next to him. He went near the car because he knewthem. By that time, they hastily locked the doors of the car andwalked along East Lokamanya Street. Because they had left, hereturned near the dais. About 10 to 20 persons were gathered there. He asked them when the meeting would start, they said that it wouldbe 3.30 p.m. So he went to his house to have lunch. He returned tothe meeting place at 3.30 p.m. 300 persons were standing there. Hestood away from the crowd. The white FIAT car was still parkedthere. A62 was trying to open the door of the car with greatdifficulty. He looked agitated. A62 could not open the door andtherefore, he went away. The witness went close to the dais and satthere. At about 4’o clock, there was an explosion at Sir ShanmugamRoad. Within five minutes, there was another blast at West SambandamRoad. Only after reading the newspapers of the next day, he realisedthat the white FIAT car parked by A62 and A28 had burst. Heidentified M.O.1, the FIAT car as well as A62 and A28. His evidence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ is difficult to believe, because in his statement to the police, hehad not stated that he went to the meeting after his work was over. He could not have gone near the dais because the evidence of all thepolice officers indicate that they had decided to provide highsecurity for that meeting anticipating trouble. He had also admittedin his cross-examination that he did not know the time and otherdetails of the meeting. It is also his evidence that his work willcommence at 7.00 a.m. and be over by 11.00 a.m. A doubt is alsoraised with regard to his evidence since there is no bus stop nearTop Notch Shop. We may have considered these infirmities as notmaterial because of passage of time and witnesses’ tendency toembellish if there had been strong corroboration with regard to thevital aspect, but there is none. This is one of the links that theprosecution has tried to prove for implicating A9, viz., that he wasthe one who bought the car and therefore, the accused using that carfor planting the bomb must have been with his knowledge. But as wehave seen, there is very weak evidence even with regard to purchaseof the car and there is equally weak evidence with regard to plantingof the bomb, though according to the prosecution, the bombs placed inM.O.1 were diffused. We have also referred to A9 in our discussionof the evidence relating to transport and we have also rejected theevidence as insufficient. As in the case of A7, in the case of A9also, the prosecution has attempted to establish a case against himas a person who had taken all the steps to ensure the success of theconspiracy. Perhaps that is correct, but the evidence in that behalfis insufficient, and the fact that a strong suspicion is created isnot sufficient to find him guilty. So, the prosecution has notproved its case against A9.(r)A10 Zakir Hussain @ Ismail @ Abdul Anus.A10 is alleged to have taken part in the conspiracy at Olavakot,manufacture at A9’s residence, Tailor Raja’s residence and at TipuNagar. The witnesses are P.Ws.1259, 1158, 1162 and 1256. We havealready found that the evidence. In this regard is not natural. Theother witnesses are the Arrest and Recovery Witnesses P.W.1139 andP.W.1295, who have been referred to in the paragraphs relating toArrest and Recovery. Without acceptable evidence regarding actualinvolvement in the offences charged, we cannot sustain theprosecution case only on the basis of arrest and recovery. Theprosecution has not proved its case against A10.(s) A11 Abdul Salaam @ Poochaikkan Salaam, A12 Aslam @ TadaAslaam, A 60 Saleem @ Valarndha Saleem :According to the prosecution, the accused were participants inthe conspiracy at Maoof Rowther Street. The witnesses in this regardare P.Ws.854, 855 and 1195. P.W.1195 had deposed that he gotacquainted with A11, A12 and A17 Zaffru, when A2 Ansari came toThirumal Veedhi. But with regard to the conspiracy dated 07-02-1998 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ which is the main plank of the prosecution case, the names of theaccused do not find a place. Of course, he had identified A11 and A12in Court. But without any evidence regarding any overt acts as toconspiracy or manufacture or planting, the identification in Courtalone will not help the State. (i) As regards A60, it is only P.W.855, who has mentioned hisname in his evidence, but he has referred to this accused along withothers in the context of Al Umma office being at Maoof Rowther Streetand the above-mentioned accused being with A1 Basha. When he refersto the conspiracy in February 1998, A60’s name has not beenmentioned. So witness’s identification of the accused in Court is ofno use to the State for the same reason as above.(ii)The other witness who has implicated A12 and A60 is P.W.1060Ganesh Babu in Thirumal Veedhi. According to P.W.1060, one Ambassadorcar driven by A34 would be parked in front of Saj Building andYakoob’ house. A11 and A17 would unload cardboard cartons from thecar. When he asked A34 why they were doing this, he answered “ It isnone of your business”. Two days before the bomb blast A12, A19, A60stayed in Yakoob ‘s house. Then he realized that the accused were thecause for it. He had given his statement under S.164, so we are boundto assess his evidence with care and caution. He identified A12 andA60 and others in Court. The mere unloading of the cartons withoutanything to connect the car or cartons with explosive materials isnot sufficient. At the most we might say that the movements of theseaccused were suspicious but suspicion is a poor substitute for proof.PW 1124 has implicated A11 and A60 with regard to manufacture. Thishas already been discussed and the evidence is rejected.(iii) A11 is said to have loaded explosives at Satyamangalam andthe witnesses in this regard are P.W.1102 Saravanakumar, and P.W.1103Subramaniam. According to P.W.1102, on 05-01-1998, he saw theAmbassador car MDS 8315 near the Erode bus stand at Satyamangalam. Aspectacled person was seated at the drivers seat. And two personsnear him. Parcels were unloaded. He asked A7 S.A. Mohammed Ali Khan @Kutty whose brother had a bakery near the bus stand, about this. A7told him that they were his friends from Coimbatore and he had namedA7, A11 and A17 and that the driver was A146. When the same unloadinghappened four or five times, the witness became suspicious and askedA7 again and he was told that they were tamarind parcels. Later afterthe bomb blast, he realized that the parcels were bombs. Heidentified the accused in Court. The witness was probably curious andsuspicious about these activities and that is how he recognised them,but the evidence by itself is not enough to prove that the parcelscontained explosives we need something more specific to prove thatthe parcels unloaded by them had contained explosives and nottamarind. The prosecution case is not satisfactorily proved withregard to A 11, A 12 and A 60. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (t)A13 Auto Siraj(i)P.W.385 Kesavan Kutty had said that on 14-02-1998, A13 andothers had indulged in rioting, but he could not identify A13.(ii)P.W.627 has already been dealt with in regard to the SBTowers Blast. He had lent Rs.100 to A13 a month before the date ofoccurrence and he went to A13’s house at 3.00pm on 14-02-1998 ask forit. He saw A13 handing over the explosives to A41. This evidence islittle weak. He got to know A13 only a month before the date. He hadallegedly gone with his friend Parameswaran who has not beenexamined. He had lent the money without getting his address. When hisevidence is uncorroborated these factors make him unbelievable.(iii)P.W.875 Nanjappan is the attesting witness for hisconfession.(iv)P.W.979 Sahul Hameed had also spoken of A13 handing over theexplosives to A34 and A35, but he could not identify the accused inCourt.(v)P.W.1199 had implicated A13 and others in the conspiracy atKottaimedu. His evidence has already been discussed in the paragraphsrelating to conspiracy. His uncorroborated evidence is not worthy ofacceptance.(vi)P.W.1262 Lakshmanaswamy is the officer who arrested him.These are the witnesses who have spoken of A13.(vii)The evidence is not sufficient. (viii) The prosecution has not proved its case against A13.(u)A16 Abbas @ Keelakkarai AbbasWe have already disbelieved his arrest in Crime No. 151/98. That was how the prosecution projected his involvement, that A16 wasthere in Babulal Place Terrace where the accused had explosives andhe was arrested. But that has not been proved satisfactorily. Theother witnesses are P.W.1124 M. Rajan and P.W.1164 Muthuswamy. (ii) P.W.1124 M. Rajan and P.W.1164 Muthuswamy have spoken ofA16 being involved in manufacture of bombs. But we have already givenour reasons for rejecting the evidence relating to manufacture. Theprosectution case is rejected as against A16.(v)A17 Zafru@ Syed Zafar Ahmed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.W.1195 who is the eyewitness for conspiracy on 07-02-1998 hasmentioned that his brother was a friend of A17. But he did notimplicate him as participating in the meeting on that date.(ii) P.W.1060 also implicated A17. But his evidence has alreadybeen assessed with regard to A12 and A60 and we found that the mereloading and unloading of boxes without anything more cannot be enoughto implicate him.(iii) The evidence of P.Ws.1102 and 1103 has already beenassessed with regard A7 and A11. A7, A11, A17 and others are supposedto have transported the explosives from Satyamangalam to Coimbatore.We have already rejected the evidence as insufficient.(iv) P.W.1125 Selvam is the witness who has spoken of A17’spartcipation in rioting on 14-02-1998. The occurrence had taken placeat night. There were admittedly 100 Muslims rioting. Without anyevidence to show that the witness was familiar with A17, his evidenceand identification is unacceptable.(v) These are the witnesses who have spoken of A17. P.W.818Ananchaperumal is the witness for arrest and recovery. Theprosecution’s case against A17 is not proved.(w)A21 Amman.@ Amanullah(i)P.W.750 Devendran had said that A21 and A5 stayed in hishouse for sometime under a different name. He identified them inCourt. There is nothing incriminating in his evidence.(ii)P.Ws. 854 and 855 have mentioned him in their evidence,which has already been discussed under the head of conspiracy. Theirevidence only mentions his presence in A1’s house, but does not fixhim with any overt act.(iii) P.W.988 G. Jeyakumar, had employed this accused. He hadgiven his name as Yasin. He could not identify A21.(iv)P.W.1139 Ramaswamy arrested the accused.(v)P.W.897 Rajendran is the recovery witness. He could notidentify the accused. (vi) P.W.1219 R.Babu manufactures welding rod. He and his friendSanthosh P.W.1265 would go to Ukkadam, Kuniamuthur and Pothanur onwork. He had seen A21 near the Al Umma office. On 14-02-1998, both ofthem went to attend the meeting. The platform was up at the junction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of D.B.Road and T.V.Swami Road. Both of them were standing at therear of the platform because they thought that Mr. Advani would comethat way. So they were standing behind the dais. They saw A21 and twoothers there. They were suspicious because Al Umma members had cometo attend the BJP meeting. So they went near them. Then A21 said tothe other, “Rafiq and I will go ahead, let Amjad Ali come behind.Amjad Ali be careful. If the police stop you switch on the bomb.” They went to the southern side of the dais, and then disappeared inthe crowd. The two witnesses stood there and later they heard theblasts at Sir Shanmukham Road and West Sambandam Road. He wasexamined 6 months later. He identified A21 alone correctly.(vii)P.W.1265 repeats all the above details almost entirely. Butin spite of the 2 witnesses implicating the accused we cannot believethem.(viii)In the first place, there was must have been high securityfor Mr. Advani. Many of the police officers in their evidence hadsaid that they were asked to be on special duty because of themeeting. Even other wise ever since the Selvaraj incident there hadbeen trouble and undoubtedly Mr.Advani’s security must have been highpriority visit. In that situation the police would hardly haveallowed anyone to go so close to the dais. The presence of thewitnesses near the dais is unbelievable. The area would have beencordoned off. With the strong police presence the accused would nothave uttered the words as spoken by the witness. In cross-examination, P.W.1219 had said that no policeman stopped him when heneared the dais. This is improbable. P.W.1219 also said that allshops were closed because of the meeting. There was no teashop nearor behind the dais. But P.W.1265 in his cross-examination had saidthat there was a teashop five feet from the dais and that they hadtea there. He had also said that police officers were standing inteams around the dais. On a total appreciation of the evidence wemust say that the witnesses are unreliable. The improbabilities aretoo many. (ix)The prosecution had examined the above two witnesses toimplicate A21 and also A20 Amjad Ali. But the latter has already beenreleased because he was a juvenile on the date of the occurrence. (x)None of the witnesses examined with regard to A21 convince usabout his guilt. The prosecution has not proved its case against A21.(x)A37 Basha @ Ozeer Basha.(i) P.W.631 Kumar is the witness relating to distribution andhas already been dealt with in Crime No.196/98 as regards A36. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii)P.W.987 Ravi has spoken of rioting at the Madrasa Pallivasalin Karunanidhi Nagar. According to him, 100 Muslims were standingwith deadly weapons and among them he has mentioned about 15 names.He has stated that A37 threw pipebombs. There is nothing to indicatehe knew the accused earlier. In fact, though he mentioned 15 names hecould not identify several of the accused named by him, though heidentified A37. At night amongst a crowd of 100 men it is doubtful ifanyone can be seen so clearly that he has identified years’ later. These are the witnesses for A37. The prosecution has not proved itscase against A37.(y)A38 Babu @ Adipatta BabuP.W.352 Sathar drove an auto bearing Reg No. TAG 2077. He knewA18, A38 A39, and A95. On 12-2-98 A38 called him to go to Ukkadam.There he saw the other accused. They loaded 2 blue jeans bag in theauto. A38 asked him to go to Karunanidhi Nagar.Then they unloaded thebags and went away. Though the auto charges were Rs 70, they gave himonly Rs 50. He asked them for the balance when he saw them two dayslater. His statement was recorded under S.164 Cr.P.C. he could notidentify the accused in Court. Though he has spoken of the blue jeansbags, and we find that witnesses have spoken of blue jeans bags inconnection with bombs and in fact the bomb which was defused wasfound in the blue jeans bag in SB Towers, the link with the accusedis absent.(ii)P.W.376 V. N. Rajan is the witness for rioting atKarunanidhi Nagar on 14-02-1998 at 9.00 pm. According to him 100Muslims had gathered with deadly weapons and explosives. He had notedthe presence of atleast 35 persons and he identified many of them.According to him. A18 directed that the group should split into two.Among the persons, who went towards his house, A38’s name is notfound. In any event, it is quite impossible for a person to identifyso many persons in a riotous crowd of 100 persons.(iii) P.W.377 Radhakrishnan is also a witness for the riotingand for the same reasons as above we reject this evidence too.(iv)P.W.631 Kumar has beenexamined with regard to this accusedand distribution, and has already been rejected while dealing withA36 and A37. The evidence of none of these witnesses is strongenough. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against A38(z) A39 M. Hakkim https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The only witness for this accused is PW 352. We have alreadyfound that his evidence is not good enough while discussing A 38. Theprosecution has not proved its case against A39.We have therefore, accepted the prosecution case with regard tothe following accused, A2, A3, A4, A6, A152, A156 and A163(conspiracy) and A41(Cr.No.91/98), A46(Cr.No.125/98), A43 and 44(Cr.No.132/98), A45 (Cr.No.139/98), A34 (Cr.No.148/98), A32 and 33(Cr.No.153/98), A28 and 40 (Cr.No.198/98) and A102(Cr.No.151/98). Wehave rejected the prosecution case with regard to A8 and 27(Cr.No.133/98), A26 (Cr.No.139/98), A161(Cr.No.147/98), A19 and A26(Cr.No.161/98), A36 (Cr.No.196/98, A18(Cr.No.125/98), A16(Cr.No.151/98) and also A5, A7, A155, A9, A10, A11, A12, A60, A13,A17, A21, A37, A38 and A39.46.This has been a unique case for us in many ways. We heard italmost everyday for nine weeks. It was a real learning experience.47. At first we would like to record our appreciation at the waythe arguments in the case were put forth by Mr. P. Kumaresan, learnedPublic Prosecutor and Mr. Balasundaram, learned Spl. P.P.(Trial ofBomb Blast Cases) who assisted him and by Mr. N. Natarajan, learnedSenior Counsel, Mr. Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. M.Venkataraman, learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Yashodvardhan, learnedSenior Counsel, Mr. Jayakumar, learned counsel, Mr. Thirumalairaj,learned counsel, Mr. Xavier Felix, learned counsel,Mr.Sathiachandran, learned counsel, Mr. Raghavan, learned counsel,Mr. N. Manoharan, learned counsel, Mr. Jyothiraman, learned counsel,Mr.B.Mohan, learned Counsel Mr. Abu Bakkar, learned counsel, for theappellants and Mr.Rabu Manohar for the revision petitioners. The casehad such a violent background, but the submissions were made by allwith great responsibility and fairness and only with a view to assistus to arrive at the correct decision. The factual details werenarrated correctly, and the relevant law and the decisions wereexplained clearly.48. The learned Trial Judge had commented about the attitude ofall the accused while the trial was on. We have extracted thecomments earlier. The fact that the accused did not have faith in thesystem is a sad commentary on the state of affairs. The psyche of anyminority group is easily injured. It was with great effort that theTrial Judge has tried to make them understand that only by co-operating in the legal process, they would benefit. During the trial,he appears to have made accommodation for their prayers and forbreaking their fast during the Holy month of Ramadan. But, slowlythey seem to have understood the need to cooperate in the trial. Oneof the witnesses had stated that on the night of February 14th, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ police arrested many young Muslim men. We also saw in the videoM.O.300 that young men belonging to the community were made to standin rows of 8 or 9 and photographed. This was done only because theybelonged to the community. It must have affected the innocent onesand diminished them very much.49. But, nothing can justify what happened. We bemoan theviolence and the futility of it all. After all, what did the plottersachieve by the deaths of Baiju and Seethalakshmi and the others? Wasthere any triumph in the senseless killing of young Abdul Rahman andhis three young friends Mohammed Sunnath, Muhammed Subair, andShamsudeen, who went in search of a cricket ball only to see deathsmiling amidst the bushes in Bilal Estate? It could not have givenanyone any cause to cheer. We do not think even the plotters wouldhave felt happy after the event. A great deal more can be achieved ifthe yuddha, the jihad, the crusade is launched on injustice and evilslike poverty and illiteracy. 50. One of the causes for the tragedy was the death of the 18young men. The community felt wounded and angered. But, to paraphrasethe words of Robert Johnson, a professor of Justice and Law:-Violence is, “A place where guns and bombs And hijacked planesCan be weapons of terrorWielded by the woundedWho make it their life’s workTo annihilate innocents at willIn numbers beyond comprehension.” 51.And we come to the innocent victims who lost their lovedones, or their limbs or their properties. For them it was really abolt from the blue, undeserved and incomprehensible. It is verynatural for them to want those responsible for the carnage to suffer,like they did. But in the words of a Nazi victim, “What the victimsdo does not change what happened. And the best thing about the remedyof forgiveness is that there are no side effects. And everybody canafford it.”52.We must mention the witnesses. They have been uniformlydubbed as “obliged” witnesses or “partisan” witnesses. It may not bea fair comment. The members of the civil society are very reluctant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ witnesses, though law obliges a citizen to report a crime when theysee it. The reasons are many, and one is the lack of effectivewitness protection. In this scenario it is a wonder that so many cameforward to give evidence especially in the context of this case. Asenior police officer of Tamilnadu, paying his homage to the policeofficers who died in the Taj terrorist attack in Bombay, had writtenin a recent article, that no such crime takes place without localsupport. So the local people will know and the police shouldstrengthen their effort in this regard. He has also stressed the needfor multi disciplinary cooperation and multi-pronged protectionagainst recurrence of such incidents.53. Before we close, we would refer to the policemen. Accordingto the defence there were many lapses in the investigation. They mayhave had warnings about some impending event, but they were clearlytaken aback by this. In the face of personal danger, pressure andconstraint of time the police force had done their duty, both duringthe investigation and at the trial. That is not all. We noticed thata few senior police officers, while giving evidence, had declaredtheir religion was “Indian”, and regarding their caste too they said“Indian” or wrote a blank. We were quite moved when we noticed thisespecially in the background of this case and in the context what ishappening around us in this country. When the policemen are foundguilty of lapses, we condemn them loudly. We thought then, it was ourduty to commend those officers for this spirit. We hope that soon,this spirit will spread to every citizen of this great country. Thenoccurrences such as this bloody horror will never recur.54. And we pray with Gurudev Tagore,“ Where the world has not been broken into fragments,by narrow domestic walls;………………………..Into that heaven of freedom, my Father,Let my country awake.” 55.In the result, (i) the appeals filed by A2, A3, A4, A6, A28, A32, A33, A34,A40, A41, A43, A44, A45, A46, A102, A152, A156 and A163 are dismissed.(ii)The appeals filed by A5, A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12, A13,A16, A17, A18, A19, A21, A26, A27, A36, A37, A38, A39, A60, A155,A161 are allowed and they shall be released forthwith unless they arerequired to be in custody otherwise. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (iii)The appeals filed by A42, A51, A52, A53, A54, A55, A56,A60, A63, A101, A103, A153, A160 and A162 are closed as they arereleased on 15-09-2009 as per G.O.Ms No 792 dated 14-09-2009.(iv) The appeals filed by A20 and A164 stands closed as they arealso released as per order dated 05-10-2009 in M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2009in Crl.A.No.1111 of 2007 under the Juvenile Justice Act. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrargr/ab/glpTo1. The Sessions Judge for ExclusiveTrial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore.2. The District Collector, Coimbatore.3. The Director General of Police,Mylapore, Chennai - 4.4. The Additional Superintendent of Police,SIT CBCID, Coimbatore.5. The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.6. The Superintendent,Central Prison, Coimbatore.3 cc To Mr.S.K.Raghavan, Advocate, SR.69750.1 cc To Mr.S.Xavier Felix, Advocate, SR.69848.1 cc to The Public Prosecutor, SR.69414.1 cc To Mr.B.S.Jothiraman, Advocate, SR.69763.1 cc To Mr.S.Jayakumar, Advocate, SR.70058.2 cc To Mr.N.Manokaran, Advocate, SR.69825, 69826.1 cc To Mr.S.Sathiachandran, Advocate, SR.70028.Criminal Appeal Nos.1017, 1018, 1034, 1062, 1097, 1110, 1111, 1130 of 2007 and 8, 51 of 2008 NG(CO)SS, RVL 04.01.2010