Criminal Appeal No. 810 of 2001 · Madrasdated High Court · 2008

For Appellants::Mr.S.Doraisamy inCrl.A.Nos.374 & 394/01For Respondent::Mr.V.R.BalasubramanianAddl. Public Prosecutor Crl.A.No.810 of 2001:State by: Dy.Superintendent of PoliceAppellant inCBCID, Tiruchirappalli..Crl.A.No.810/01-vs-1. Abdulkadhar @ Raja @ Hhaja @ Abukka2. Abdul Hameed3. Saleem @ Abdulsaleem @ Thangalagu4. Kuthus @ Abdul Kuthus5. Mohammed Ali Jinna @ Jinna6. Kaleel Basha @ Kaleel7. Akthar BashaRespondents/A1 to8. S.A.Basha..A8Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal under Section 378 ofthe Criminal Procedure Code against the judgment dated 9.4.2001made in S.C.No.4 of 1999 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge,Court of Sessions for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennaiat Poonamallee.For Appellant::Mr.V.R.BalasubramanianAddl. Public ProsecutorFor Respondents/::Mr.S.Doraisamy forA1 & A3 to A8RR1,3,4,6 & 7Mr.E.J.Ayyappan for R5(Amicus Curiae)Mr.Swamidoss Manoharanfor R8(Amicus Curiae)JUDGMENTD.MURUGESAN, J.Originally nine accused namely, A1 to A9 were chargesheetedfor the offences under Sections 120(B) & 302 IPC and under Sections3,4,5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act as well under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. Pending trial, one Abdhagir @ Abudhagir(A6) died. Hence the learned trial Judge re-arrayed the remainingeight accused as A1 to A8 and tried them in S.C.No.4 of 1999 on thefile of the Court of Sessions for Exclusive Trial of Bomb BlastCases, Chennai at Poonamallee. After a full-fledged trial, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Judge convicted and sentenced A1, A3 & A4 for the offencesas detailed below and acquitted A2 & A5 to A8 of all the charges. 2. The appellants in Crl.A.No.374 of 2001 were tried as A3and A4 in S.C.No.4 of 1999 and by the judgment dated 9.4.2001, thelearned trial Judge found them guilty of the offence under Section4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120(B)IPC and under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 readwith Section 120(B) IPC as well as under Section 6 of the ExplosiveSubstances Act, 1908 read with Section 120(B) IPC and sentenced thefirst appellant/A3 to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment andalso to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo threemonths simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of theExplosive Substances Act read with Section 120(B) IPC and toundergo five years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine ofRs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonmentfor the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Actread with Section 120(B) IPC. Likewise the second appellant/A4 wassentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and also topay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three monthssimple imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of theExplosive Substances Act read with Section 120(B) IPC and toundergo five years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine ofRs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonmentfor the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Actread with Section 120(B) IPC, which have been ordered to runconcurrently. However, the learned Sessions Judge did not imposeany separate sentence on A3 and A4 under Section 120(B) IPC andunder Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 3. Pending disposal of Crl.A.No.374 of 2001, as it wasrepresented by Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel that the secondappellant/A4 had already undergone the sentence of five yearsimposed on him, this Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed inrespect of the second appellant/A4 by order dated 14.2.2008. 4. The appellant in Crl.A.No.394 of 2001 was tried as A1 inthe same sessions case and was found guilty of the offence underSection 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section120(B) IPC and under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act,1908 read with Section 120(B) IPC and under Section 6 of theExplosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120(B) IPC as wellas under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act read with Section 3 ofthe Arms Act and sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorousimprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default toundergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence underSection 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with 120(B) IPC; toundergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine ofRs.50,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonmentfor the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Actread with 120(B) IPC and to undergo three years rigorousimprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default toundergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section25(1)(b) of the Arms Act read with Section 3 of the Arms Act, whichhave been ordered to run concurrently. However, the learned trial https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Judge did not impose any separate sentence on A1 under Section 120(B) IPC and under Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.The appellants/A3 & A1 have questioned their conviction andsentence in the above appeals.5. Crl.A.No.810 of 2001 has been preferred by the Statequestioning the acquittal of A2, A5, A6, A7 & A8 and as wellquestioning the lesser sentence imposed on the other accused.Pending disposal of Crl.A.No.810 of 2001, as it was represented byMr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor thatthe second respondent/A2 by name Abdul Hameed expired, this Courtdismissed the appeal as abated in respect of the secondrespondent/A2 by order dated 14.2.2008.6. As the issues raised in all the appeals are one and thesame, they are taken up together for disposal by this judgment. Forconvenience, the accused will be referred to as "A1 to A8" asarrayed by the learned trial Judge and the other accused-Abdhagir @Abudhagir (A6) as the "deceased accused" in this judgment.7. The prosecution case is that on 7.2.98 at about 11.40p.m., bomb exploded in the Mohamadia Rice Mill, Saliyamangalamvillage belonging to A2-Abdul Hameed. The bomb exploded while A1along with Rafayee @ Rafaydeen and Sheik Ismail were manufacturingthe explosives and in the explosion, four persons namely, Rafayee @Rafaydeen, Rafeeq @ Nazeerabas, Sheik Ismail as well as Srinivasan,the watchman of the mill, were killed. P.W.1, the VillageAdministrative Officer, on hearing the loud noise due to theexplosion, went to the mill along with his Assistant-Subramanianand one Murugaiyan. He saw first three injured persons, of whichone was lying dead and the remaining two were fighting for theirlife. Subsequently, the other two injured also died. He also sawone more dead person on the floor of the mill and he came to knowthat the said person was Srinivasan, the watchman of the mill. Healso saw two more injured persons namely, A1, the son of A2, andSethuraman-P.W.11, another watchman of the mill. He madearrangements to send both the injured to the hospital. 8. Thereafter he proceeded to Ammapettai Police Station andlodged the complaint, Ex.P-1 to P.W.50, the Head Constable at 1.30a.m., on 8.2.98, which was registered in Cr.No.74 of 1998 for theoffence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read withSection 304(A) IPC. The First Information Report is Ex.P-43. Heforwarded the express reports to the Court as well as to the higherpolice officials.9. P.W.62, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, took upinvestigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and preparedan Observation Mahazar, Ex.P-3 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex.P-67 in the presence of P.W.2 and Murugaiyan. Thereafter, heconducted inquest on the bodies of the deceased between 6.00 a.m.,and 9.00 a.m., on 8.2.98 in the presence of panchayatdars andprepared the inquest reports, Exs.P-68 to P-71. He also seized asum of Rs.7200/-, M.O.3 and also the two bit papers showingaddresses from the pocket of Rafaydeen under the mahazar, Ex.P-4. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ He also took photographs of the scene place and the photographs andnegatives were marked as M.Os.85 to 97 series. He sent all the fourbodies through the Grade I Constables along with the requisitions,Exs.P-55, P-57, P-59 & P-61 to the doctor for conducting post-mortem.10. In the meanwhile, A1 and P.W.11 were admitted in theThanjavur Medical College & Hospital on 8.2.98 at 12.15 a.m., and12.30 a.m., respectively. They were first seen by the doctor,P.W.31 at 1.00 a.m., and he noted the following injuries on A1:-"1. Injuries right forearm 2x1cm 3 puncturedwounds.2. Right knee 3 punctured wounds 2 x 1 cm.3. Multiple abrasions 1x2 cm rightforehead/right cheek.4. 2 punctured wound on left forearm 2 x 1 cm.5. (nc) right eye."Likewise, he noted the following injuries on P.W.11:"1. Lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.25 cm right arm.2. Lacerated injuries right forearm 2 x 1 cm bonedeep.3. Multiple fractures ribs right.4. Abrasion over costal margin.5. Contusion 5 x 5 forearm right."He issued the wound certificates, Exs.P-19 & P-20 with his opinionthat the injuries sustained by them were grievous.11. P.W.58, Police Surgeon & Reader and Head, Dept. ofForensic Medicine, Thanjavur Medical College, conducted post-mortembetween 11.10 a.m., and 1.40 p.m., on 10.2.98 and he noted thefollowing:-First body:"1. Multiple small areas dermo epidermalburns seen all over the body.2. Multiple areas of punctured lacerationwith abrasions of variable sizes from pinhead to12x6 cms muscle deep seen over the whole of bodysurface, over face, chest, both upper limbs bothloins and gluteal regions, right thigh and bothlegs including heels. Soles are free from injury.3. Multiple abrasions of variable sizeswith black discolouration scattered over theabove said areas.Foreign materials like wooden material,porcelin like pieces and paddy seen in thepunctured areas.Minimal injuries of abrasions andcontusions seen on the back of chest and abdomenwhen compared to anterior aspect.4. Singering of scalp hair seen in thefrontal margin and anterior half of bend." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Second body:"1. Multiple areas of dermo epidermal burnsseen all over the body.2. Multiple contusion of variable sizeswith abrasions, lacerations, punctured lacerationfrom skin deep to bone deep present over thewhole of face, chest upper limbs and both lowerlimbs.3. Irregular lacerations of shattering typeseen over the lumbo sacral region on the backmeasuring 25x15 cms x bone deep 12 x 7 cms bonedeep on the right infra scapular area along withmultiple irregular laceration over the whole ofback and both gluteal regions.4. Laceration of left great toe planteraspect 4x2 cms bone deep noticed.5. Laceration 7x5 cms x bone deep over theback of left elbow with fracture dissection ofleft homerus lower end.6. Lower jaw found broken with dissectionof lower central incisors."Third body:"1. Multiple areas of dermo epidermal burnsseen all over the body.2. Singeling of whole of scalp hair,eyebrows eyelashes and mustache seen.3. Areas of charred skin tages withblackish discolouration.4. Traumatic amputation 2nd, 3rd toes of leftleg along with laceration of variable sizes overthe ankle outer aspect and outer aspect of leftleg seen.5. Shattered laceration 28x23 cms bone deepon the middle of back of left thigh exposing thenerves, torn muscles, tendons seen. A metal wasrecovered from the floor of the wound."Fourth body:"1. Contused abrasion over the right sizeof nose, lower orbital margin, right cheekprominance, right supra orbital region along withlaceration of right medial canthus verticallyplaced bone deep nasal bones found fractured.2. Maxilla found broken at its middle.3. Contused laceration with diffuseswelling on the midfrontal region.4. Contusion of left cheek, left temporalregion and left supra orbital region withsubconjunctival haemorrhage on the left side.5. Laceration 3x1 cms bone deep over theleft posterior parietal eminence area.6. Laceration 12x2cms bone deep over theright parietal temporal region at the posterioraspect along with a laceration 12x2cms bone deepover the occipital area 3 cms below the leftposterior parietal eminence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. Contused abrasion 6x4cms on the middleof back of left hand fingers.8. Multiple abrasions over the front oflower 3rd of left leg.9. Multiple small abrasions on the front ofright knee.10.Abrasion over the posterior aspect ofright loin and across the middle of thoracolumbar region 9x1 cms."He issued the post-mortem certificates, Exs.P-56, P-58, P-60 & P-62with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died ofshock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries caused by bomb blastand of multiple injuries and traumatic asphyxia respectively. 12. P.W.62, continuing with his investigation, seized theM.Os.7 to 14 & 109 namely, two country made guns, cartridges,explosive materials, glycerol, nitric acid, plastic boxes, hacksawblade, acid bottle, ajantha quartz clock under the mahazar, Ex.P-6on 8.2.98 in the presence of P.W.2 and Murugaiyan. Between 10.30a.m., and 11.30 a.m., on the same day, he seized the M.Os.1, 2, 16series, 110, 33, 24, 21, 22, 19, 17, 20, 18, 40, 23, 27, 29 series,26, 39, 32 series, 34, 28, 37, 35, 25, 36, 38, 30, 41 namely,broken suitcase, aluminium handle, chappals, gum, bloodstainedtukker, screw driver, hacksaw blade, bucket, eversilver mug,battery, Rs.30,060/- etc., under the mahazar, Ex.P-8 in thepresence of the same witnesses. Between 11.30 a.m., and 1.30 p.m.,he searched the house of A1 situate at Gandhi Road, Saliyamangalamvillage and seized the various journals and books under M.O.111series, date calendar, M.O.43, invitation, M.O.112, notices, M.O.45series, diary, M.O.113, notebook, M.O.115, audio cassette, M.O.116,postal cover, M.O.117, letter, M.O.118 under the mahazar, Ex.P-9 inthe presence of P.Ws.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 12 and recorded theirstatements. Between 5.30 p.m., and 6.30 p.m., he searched theother house of A1 situate at VOC Nagar, Thanjavur and seizedcardboards, M.Os.119 & 83, journals, M.O.69 series, audiocassettes, M.Os.120 & 42 series, rice mill agreement, M.O.79 andstate bank accounts, M.O.82 under the mahazar, Ex.P-11 in thepresence of P.Ws.12 & 14. He altered the offence to one underSections 3 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and sent the alteredreport to the Court. 13. On 9.2.98, P.W.62 arrested A2, the owner of the ricemill. He arrested A1 at the Thanjavur Medical College & Hospital on10.2.98 at 3.00 p.m., while he was taking treatment. He alteredthe offence to one under Sections 5, 6 of the Explosive SubstancesAct and under Section 302 IPC as well under Section 25(1) of theArms Act and sent the altered report to the Court. He handed overthe bodies of the deceased to the relatives. As the case wastransferred to CBCID, Tiruchirapalli, he handed over the furtherinvestigation to P.W.63.14. P.W.63, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID,Tiruchirappalli took up further investigation on 13.2.98 andproceeded to the scene of occurrence at 7.00 a.m., and he seized https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the iron rail, M.O.48, gloves, M.O.52, welding rod, M.O.49, ironplates, M.O.50 series, acid bottle, M.O.56, plastic bottle, M.O.57,plastic box, M.O.57, plastic box, M.O.63, brush, M.O.121,eversilver mug, M.O.53, plate, M.O.123, U shaped plates, M.Os.124to 126 series, quartz clock box, M.O.127, electric appliance,M.O.128, plastic box, M.O.51, iron sheets, M.Os.54 & 129 series,pant, M.O.60, full slack shirt, M.O.62, banian, M.O.131, T shirt,M.O.132, lungi, M.O.65, calendars, M.O.58 series, Christiancalendars, M.O.59 series, motorcycle box, M.O.46, eversilvertumblers, M.O.47 series, eversilver box, M.O.55 under the mahazar,Ex.P-10. On 14.2.98, he defused the unexploded bomb with the helpof bomb disposal expert, P.W.55. He examined P.Ws.6,7,11 & 55 andrecorded their statements. On 15.2.98, he examined P.Ws.1, 16, 14,7, 6, 10 & 3 and recorded their statements. On 17.2.98, he examinedP.W.17 and recorded his statement. On 20.2.98 around 3.00 p.m., herecorded the confessional statement of A1 in the hospital in thepresence of P.W.20 and the doctor, P.W.30 and Ex.P-18 is thecertificate given by the doctor. In pursuance of the admissibleportion of his confession, he went to Villapatty (Sattur), MaduraiDistrict and arrested A3. He conducted search in the house of A3and seized the 14 feet wire, 22 feet fuse wire, detonators,gelatine sticks etc., under the mahazar, Ex.P-13 in the presence ofP.W.21. On 21.2.98, he arrested A4 at Peraiyur and searched hishouse. He seized 200 gms of sulphur & took 1 kg sample of ammoniumnitrate, M.O.14 under the mahazar, Ex.P-14. He remanded them tojudicial custody. On 25.2.98, he arrested A5 at Peraiyur and nosubstance was seized from the house of A5. He remanded A5 tojudicial custody. As the deceased accused surrendered at theoffice of CBCID, Tiruchirapalli, he arrested and remanded him tojudicial custody on 27.2.98. He examined P.Ws.1 & 24 and recordedtheir statements. He seized the welding machine,M.O.1 and the mug,M.O.2 under the mahazar, Ex.P-2. On 28.2.98, he examined P.Ws.25 &26, taxi drivers and seized the bill book, M.O.15 from P.W.25. On3.3.98, he examined the post-mortem doctor, P.W.58 and recorded hisstatement. On 5.3.98 he filed a report before the Court for theoffence under Section 120(B) IPC. Between 8.3.98 and 27.4.98, heexamined P.Ws.60, 23, 38, 31, 28, 27, 59 & 29 and recorded theirstatements. On 27.4.98 he filed a petition before the Court forobtaining P.T.warrant against A6 and A7 and accordingly took policecustody of A6 and A7 on 29.4.98. After getting consent order underEx.P-44 from the District Collector on 7.5.98, he filed the finalreport against A1 to A8 and the deceased accused for the offenceunder Sections 120(B), 302 IPC and Sections 3,4 & 5 of theExplosive Substances Act as well under Section 25(1)(b) of the ArmsAct. He filed a further petition under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., forfurther investigation and examined the witnesses. He came toChennai, examined the other witnesses and recorded theirstatements. On 16.6.98 he filed a petition before the Court forobtaining P.T.warrant against A-8. In the meantime, he wastransferred.15. P.W.64, Deputy Superintendent of Police took up furtherinvestigation on 10.7.2000 and he filed a petition under Section174(8) Cr.P.C., before the Court for further investigation. Between19.7.2000 and 23.7.2000, he went to Coimbatore and examined the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ persons who contacted A8 through his cellphone. Thereafter, as noclue was obtained, he returned to Chennai on 26.7.2000. He examinedP.W.35 and recorded his statement on 27.7.2000. He examined P.Ws.37& 39, Police Constables on 28.7.2000 and recorded their statements.On 2.8.2000, he examined the District Supply Officer, P.W.42 andrecorded his statement. He also obtained the licence of the mill,Ex.P-26 and the renewal application, Ex.P-27 submitted by A2 forinvestigation. On 3.8.2000, he examined the Village AdministrativeOfficer, P.W.41 and obtained the Athatchi, Ex.P-25 from him. Healso obtained the electricity cards, Exs.P-23 & P-24 from P.W.40 inrespect of the rice mill. He examined P.Ws.36 & 38 and recordedtheir statements. After completing investigation on 9.8.2000, helaid the final report against A1 to A8 and the deceased accused forthe offence under Sections 3,4,5 & 6 of the Explosive SubstancesAct and Sections 120(B) and 302 IPC as well under Section 25(1)(b)of the Arms Act before the Court. 16. In order to bring home the charges against A1 to A8 andthe deceased accused, the prosecution examined 64 witnesses, marked72 exhibits and produced 132 material objects. 17. When A1 to A8 and the deceased accused were questionedunder Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to theincriminating materials appearing against each of them, they deniedeach and every incriminating material as false and pleaded notguilty. On the side of the defence, A2 examined himself as D.W.1and marked one document-Ex.D-1 namely, the lease deed. As thelearned trial Judge convicted and sentenced A1, A3 and A4 andacquitted the other accused, the present appeals have been filed byA1, A3 & A4 and the State.18. Heard Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for theappellants/A1 & A3 in Crl.A.Nos.374 & 394 of 2001 and for therespondents 1,3,4,6 & 7 in Crl.A.No.810 of 2001, Mr.E.J.Ayyappan,Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent no.5 and Mr.SwamidossManoharan, Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent no.8 inCrl.A.No.810 of 2001 and Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learned AdditionalPublic Prosecutor appearing for the State.19. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel for theappellants/accused has submitted that the prosecution case restsonly on the circumstantial evidence as to the conspiracy and themanufacturing of explosives. He would submit that though theprosecution had examined 64 witnesses, none of the witnesses havespoken about the conspiracy. The only evidence available to connectA1 with A3 & A4 is the evidence of the taxi driver, P.W.25. EvenP.W.25, except speaking about A1, A3 & A4 having travelled in histaxi on 10.12.97 to Anaikaraipatti, Usilampatti, Vithalapatti andthereafter came back to Saliyamangalam village, he has not spokenanything about the conspiracy between the above accused inprocuring the materials, transporting the same to the mill for thepurpose of manufacturing explosives. The conviction for theoffence of conspiracy on the basis of the sole testimony of P.W.25is totally erroneous. He would further submit that none of thewitnesses have spoken about the manufacturing of explosives by any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the accused. He would also submit that no test identificationparade had been conducted and the accused were identified only inthe Court. He would extensively take us through the entire evidencein support of the contention and submit that no witness has spokenabout the conspiracy among the accused for the commission of theoffence. He would also submit that the District Magistrate/DistrictCollector is not the authority to give consent for prosecutionunder Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act. In support of thesaid submission, the learned counsel would rely upon the judgmentof the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Singh (2000 (1)Supreme 104). He would also refer to the consent order, Ex.P-44passed by the District Magistrate/District Collector, P.W.56 andsubmit that even assuming that the District Magistrate had theauthority to give consent, he has not adduced any reason and in theabsence of valid reason for the consent, the consent order cannotbe held to be valid. In support of the said submission, he wouldrely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Jaswant Singh v. Stateof Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 124) and the judgment of the Patna HighCourt in Baidyanath Mahto v. State of Bihar (2005 (2) Acquittal398). He would also submit that though the prosecution has comeforward with a case that the accused are fundamentalists and haveindulged in the manufacturing of explosives to be used againstHindu community people, there is absolutely no evidence to the saideffect. On the other hand, some of the witnesses have spoken ofhaving seen a calendar with the photograph of the deity Lord Murugaand yet another picture of Lord Krishna. The learned counseltherefore submitted that the prosecution has not established itscase beyond reasonable doubt and each circumstance pointing to theguilt of the accused is not established. Hence the learned counselsubmitted that the appellants are entitled to acquittal andconsequently their appeals should be allowed and for the samereason, the appeal preferred by the State should be dismissed.20. Mr.E.J.Ayyappan and Mr.Swamidoss Manoharan, Amicus Curiaeappearing for the respondent nos.5 & 8 in the State appeal havealso submitted on the same lines as argued by Mr.S.Doraisamy. Inaddition, Mr.E.J.Ayyappan has also submitted that the fifthrespondent/A5 was not present in the scene of occurrence and he wasidentified in the Court only after three years and suchidentification lacks credibility for conviction. Mr.SwamidossManoharan has submitted that except the eighth respondent/A8 havingbeen found in possession of a cell phone bearing no.9840056896,there is no other evidence to connect him in the offence. He wouldalso submit that the evidence of P.Ws.37 & 38 to speak about A6giving the cell phone to A8 cannot be the basis for holding that A8also had conspired to commit the offence. 21. Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian, learned Additional PublicProsecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the occurrence hadtaken place inside the mill owned by A2. The evidence of P.W.11,one of the injured at the time of occurrence, speaks of theexplosion of bomb in the mill. He had taken us through the entireevidence once again and submitted that if the evidence let in onbehalf of the prosecution is considered in its entirety, it must beheld that the prosecution has proved all the circumstances to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ implicate the guilt of all the accused. Therefore the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution hasestablished all the charges against all the accused and prayed thatA1, A3 & A4 should be given the maximum punishment and equally theother accused as well. 22. We have carefully considered the rival contentions indetail. As the respective learned counsel appearing for theaccused as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor havetaken us through the evidence in detail, we have not referred totheir submissions on each of the witnesses in detail, as we proposeto discuss the evidence in detail to find out as to whether theprosecution has proved its case through circumstantial evidencebeyond reasonable doubt. 23. Explosion of bomb in the mill: P.W.1 is the VillageAdministrative Officer of Saliyamangalam village within whosejurisdiction the Mohamadia Rice Mill is situate. According to him,while he was sleeping in his office situate nearby the mill, heheard a loud noise from the mill at about 11.40 p.m., on 7.2.98.When he came out, he was informed by his Assistant Subramanian-P.W.2 and one Murugaiyan that a bomb had exploded in the mill andthe building got damaged. Therefore he visited the place ofoccurrence and found four persons were killed and two injuredincluding A1, the son of A2/owner of the mill, and Sethuraman,P.W.11. P.W.2, Assistant to P.W.1, heard a loud noise from themill and he informed the same to P.W.1. He also went to the millalong with P.W.1 and found four persons were killed and twoinjured. He has also spoken about the police coming to the sceneof occurrence on the early morning of 8.2.98. He has also spokenabout the various recoveries namely, two country made guns, M.Os.4& 5, five cartridges, M.O.6 series, acid bottle, M.O.7 series,hacksaw blade, M.O.8, sony empty plastic box, M.O.9, empty plasticboxes, M.O.10 series, plastic box, M.O.11, calling bell modelboxes, M.O.12 series and plastic box, M.O.13, ajantha quartz clock,M.O.14, wall posters, M.O.15 series, which were seized under thecover of mahazar, Ex.P-6. He has also spoken about the recovery ofbroken suitcase, M.O.16, screw driver, M.O.17, hacksaw blade,M.O.18, cutter, M.O.19, blade, M.O.20, welding machine part,M.O.21, drilling rod, M.O.22, aluminium can, M.O.23, chappals,M.O.24 series, Jeans pant, M.O.25 series, eversilver utensil,M.O.26, metal can lid, M.O.27, Rs.30,060/-, M.O.28 series, damagedsheets, M.O.29 series, drawing, M.O.30, banian, M.O.31, battery,M.O.32, chappals, M.O.33 series, battery, M.O.34, red shirt,M.O.35, violet shirt,M.O.36, checked shirt, M.O.37, brown shirt,M.O.38, eversilver box, M.O.39, drilling machine part, M.O.40,paper sheets, M.O.41 series, which were seized under the mahazars,Exs.P-7 & P-8 from the scene place. 24. P.W.3 is a Clerk in the Government High School,Saliyamangalam village. He has deposed that on the date ofoccurrence, he was working in the said school. He heard a loudnoise of bomb explosion in Mohamadia Rice Mill on 7.2.98 at about11.30 p.m. He also went to the place where the bomb exploded. Infact he has deposed that due to the explosion of the bomb, the wall https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of his house got damaged and he spent a sum of Rs.6,000/- towardsrepairs. P.W.4 is a retired teacher residing in Saliyamangalamvillage and his house is situate 30 to 40 feet away from the ricemill. He also heard a loud noise of bomb explosion around 11.30p.m., and 11.40 p.m. He also visited the place of occurrence. Theevidence of the above witnesses namely, P.Ws.1,2,3 & 4 are alsocorroborated by the other evidence of P.Ws.5,6,7,8,9,10,11,14 & 24.P.W.11 is an injured witness working as a Watchman in the mill. Hehas also spoken that while he was sleeping on the night of the dateof occurrence, he heard a loud noise of bomb explosion in the milland due to the explosion he sustained injuries on his body and wastaken to the hospital where he was treated as in-patient for over aperiod of 33 days. His evidence is highly reliable and supportsthe case of the prosecution as to the explosion of bomb in themill, as he is an injured witness. P.W.14 is the brother-in-law ofA1. He also speaks of the explosion of bomb in the mill on thenight of 7.2.98 and the injury sustained by A1 due to theexplosion. P.W.24 is another independent witness speaking about theexplosion of bomb in the mill. He is a welder working in BharathIndustries situate near the mill. He has deposed that on the nightof 7.2.98, he heard about the bomb explosion in the mill and healso went to the place of occurrence and saw A1 with injuries.From the above evidence let in on behalf of the prosecution, it isclear that on 7.2.98 at about 11.30 p.m., bomb had exploded in themill owned by A2. 25. Presence of A1 in the mill: Again P.W.1, the VillageAdministrative Officer, in his evidence, has stated that while fourpersons were killed and two persons were injured, on enquiry hecame to know that one of the injured was A1 and he is the son ofA2. He has also spoken about the arrangements made by him foradmitting A1 in the hospital along with P.W.11. P.W.2 has alsospoken about the presence of A1 and the injuries sustained by him.The presence of A1 at the time when the bomb exploded is alsospoken to by the very same witnesses namely,P.Ws.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,14 & 24. All the above witnesses arecategorical that when they visited the place of occurrence afterhearing a loud noise of bomb explosion, they saw A1 also withinjuries on his person. From the evidence of P.W.31, the doctorwho first saw A1 at 12.15 a.m., on 8.2.98, it is seen that A1 wasbrought to the hospital with four injuries, all grievous in nature.In Ex.P-19, wound certificate, it has been stated that thoseinjuries were due to the explosion at 12.30 a.m., on 8.2.98. Atthe same time, P.W.11 was also admitted and in fact in his evidencehe has stated that he was admitted for a period of 33 days as in-patient and he sustained injuries including two fractures on thebone. From the above evidence, it is clear that A1 was present inthe scene of occurrence at the time when the bomb had exploded.26. Conspiracy: So far as the conspiracy is concerned, as itwas made in secrecy, even if there is no direct evidence, it can begathered from the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution hasproved the conspiracy of the accused, made in secrecy, through theevidence of P.W.25. P.W.25 is a taxi driver, who was hired by A1to go to Anaikaraipatti near Madurai and to return to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Saliyamangalam. From his evidence, it is seen that on 29.10.97, A1and four women travelled in the car to VOC nagar, Thanjavur andthereafter came back to Nanjikottai, Thanjavur. Again on 10.12.97,A1 came to him to hire the car to go to Anaikaraipatti, Madurai.Accordingly, he took A1, A3, A4 & A5 in the car and they went toUsilampatti and thereafter to Vithalapatti and at that village,they had loaded some materials packed in gunny bag. At that time,one Iqbal was also present along with them, who in fact had loadedthe materials in the dickey of the car and thereafter the saidIqbal, A3, A4 & A5 sat on the back seat and A1 sat on the frontseat of the car and they returned to Saliyamangalam village, wherethe materials were unloaded in the mill. The evidence of P.W.25for having taken A1 along with A3, A4 & A5 is amply corroborated bythe evidence of P.W.26, another taxi driver. In his deposition, hehas stated that he knew both A1 & A2 and A1 had already hired thetaxi from him for a marriage function and he had gone there asdriver. He has also taken the wife of A2 to the hospital wheneverneeded. He has further deposed that at 5.00 p.m., on 10.12.97 whenA1 came to him for hiring the vehicle, he was not present andtherefore P.W.25 was engaged as a driver. Therefore theprosecution has established the fact that P.W.25 drove the vehiclebearing Regn.No.TN-09-Z-5559 and the said vehicle was hired only byA1. The presence of A3, A4 & A5 along with A1 is also established.The trip sheet, Ex.P-15 also shows the trip undertaken by P.W.25as deposed in his evidence, which corroborates his version of A1hiring the vehicle and for travelling to Madurai and returning toSaliyamangalam with certain materials loaded in the taxi. P.W.37,the Security Guard of A8, has also spoken about the presence of A5along with Rafeeq, who also died in the occurrence. The evidenceof P.W.25 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.37 as to thepresence of A5 along with A1, A3, A4 as well the deceased MohammedIqbal. Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counsel had disputed the fact thatone of the persons namely, Iqbal had died due to the explosion ofbomb and there is no evidence for the same. However, P.W.25, thetaxi driver in his evidence has categorically identified the saidIqbal as one of the persons who accompanied A1, A3, A4 & A5 and hehas also spoken about the fact that he was one among the dead dueto the explosion. Hence the contention that Iqbal who was seenalong with the other accused was not present in the scene ofoccurrence at the time when the bomb had exploded cannot beaccepted. P.W.17, owner of a hardware shop, has deposed thataround 12.00 noon on 29.1.98 i.e., before the date of occurrence,two persons came and purchased steel plates. He identified A1 inthe Court. P.W.18, employee of P.W.17, has also deposed that A1came along with one person and purchased the steel plates. He alsoidentified A1 and he also identified the other person as thedeceased-Rafayee. P.W.16, a rickshaw puller, has deposed that hetransported the material, M.O.54 from the shop of P.W.17 to therice mill at Saliyamangalam and collected a charge of Rs.15/- fromA1. The above evidence shows that A1 had purchased the steel platesfor manufacturing the explosives and for that purpose, he hadconspired with A3, A4 & A5. P.W.23, a nephew of A1, has stated thatA3 is a quarry contractor and he used to quarry the stones withexplosives. Two years prior to the deposition, Rafayee, thedeceased in the occurrence, came and asked him for explosives and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in turn he asked him to contact A3.27. Arrest of A1 and the consequential recovery effected fromhim: P.W.62, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, arrested A1 on10.2.98 at 3.00 p.m., in the Thanjavur Medical College & Hospitalwhere he was taking treatment for the injuries sustained by him dueto the bomb explosion. After sending advance intimation to theMagistrate, he searched the house of A1 in his presence between11.30 a.m., and 1.30 p.m., on 8.2.98 at No.2/131, Gandhi Road,Saliyamangalam village and seized the various journals and booksunder M.O.111 series, date calendar, M.O.43, invitation, M.O.112,notices, M.O.45 series, diary, M.O.113, notebook, M.O.115, audiocassette, M.O.116, postal cover, M.O.117, letter, M.O.118 under themahazar, Ex.P-9 in the presence of P.W.1 and Murugaiyan and theother witnesses namely, P.Ws.3,4,5,6,7,8,9 & 12. Between 5.30p.m., and 6.30 p.m., he searched the other house of A1 situate atNo.16, VOC Nagar, Thanjavur and seized the cardboards, M.Os.119 &83, journals, M.O.69 series, audio cassettes, M.Os.120 & 42 series,rice mill agreement, M.O.79, visiting cards, and state bankaccounts, M.O.82 under the mahazar, Ex.P-11 in the presence ofP.Ws.12 & 14.28. Arrest of A3 and the consequential recovery effected fromhim: In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession givenby A1, P.W.63, the Deputy Superintendent of Police proceeded toVittalapatti (Sattur), Madurai and arrested A3 on 20.2.98 and heseized the 14 feet wire, 22 feet fuse wire, detonators, gelatinesticks etc., under the mahazar, Ex.P-13 in the presence of P.W.21at 6.30 p.m., on 21.2.98. 29. Arrest of A4 and the consequential recovery effected fromhim: On 21.2.98, P.W.63 arrested A4 at Peraiyur and seized the 200gms of sulphur and 1 kg sample of ammonium nitrate, M.O.14 underthe mahazar, Ex.P-14.30. The arrest and recovery of A1, A3 & A4 have also beenproved through the witnesses namely, P.Ws.2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,12,14 &21. From the evidence of arrest and recovery coupled with the factthat A1, A3 & A4 have conspired together in secrecy to prepare theexplosive substances, it is seen that the explosive substances weremanufactured only for the purpose of using them against the Hinducommunity people. 31. Test Identification Parade: A1, A3, A4 & A5 have beenidentified by P.W.25 in the Court. 32. From our above discussions, the following conclusionemerges. A1, the son of A2, conspired along with A3, A4 & A5 andprocured the materials for manufacturing the explosivesunauthorisedly. The manufacturing of unauthorised explosives bythemselves would speak that they are intended to be used againstthe public. On overall consideration of the materials placed beforeus including the defence taken, we are unable to see any reason asto why these materials were procured, transported, unloaded in therice mill when the rice mill itself was not functioning for a fewmonths earlier to the date of occurrence. The only presumption https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ would be that the materials were procured for the purpose ofmanufacturing the explosives by A1. The prosecution has alsoestablished the explosion of bomb in the rice mill in question asalready discussed by us. Equally the prosecution has establishedthat in the occurrence four deaths had occurred and two persons gotinjured namely, A1 and P.W.11.33. As far as the conspiracy is concerned, the fact that A1was present in the place of occurrence when the bomb exploded andthat too in the rice mill belonging to his father and he alsosustained injuries and he was also found going to a village nearMadurai to procure the materials for transporting them to the ricemill has been established. The prosecution has also established theprocurement of steel plates by A1 and the transportation of thesame to the mill. It is argued by Mr.S.Doraisamy, learned counselthat the prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt asto the conspiracy between A1, A3, A4 & A5. So far as the conspiracyis concerned, while dealing with the question as to how the proofin regard to the conspiracy is to be dealt with in a case ofcircumstantial evidence, the Apex Court in the judgment inE.K.Chandrasenan v. State of Kerala (1995) 2 SCC 99, has observedthat there can be no direct evidence on the conspiracy asconspiracies are secretly planned and are not hatched in open andtherefore lack of direct evidence is not significant. As we havefound A3 & A4 in the company of A1 and the deceased-Rafayee hadmade enquiry with P.W.23 for explosives and he was referred to A3,the conspiracy among them to procure the materials formanufacturing the explosives can be safely presumed. However, thecriminal liability as to the conspiracy to co-conspirators namely,A3 & A4 can be extended as they were not only found together asspoken to by P.W.25, but also the explosive materials have beenrecovered from them. However, so far as A5 is concerned, though hewas found in the company of A1, A3 & A4, except the evidence ofP.W.25, there is no other evidence to implicate him that he alsoacted in furtherance of the common design in the conspiracy. Thatapart, as against the other accused namely, A3 & A4, no recoveryhas been made from A5.34. In Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal (2002 SCC (Crl.)1734), the Apex Court, after elaborately discussing the basis forextending criminal liability to co-conspirators, has held asfollows:-"The provisions, in such a situation, do notrequire that each and every person who is a partyto the conspiracy must do some overt act towardsthe fulfillment of the object of conspiracy, theessential ingredient being an agreement betweenthe conspirators to commit the crime and if theserequirements and ingredients are established, theact would fall within the trappings of theprovisions contained in Section 120-B IPC." In the very same judgment, the Apex Court has also held asfollows:- "The offence of conspiracy can be proved by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ either direct or circumstantial evidence. However,conspiracies are not hatched in the open, by theirnature, they are secretly planned. Privacy andsecrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy,than of a loud discussion in an elevated place opento public view. Direct evidence in proof of aconspiracy is therefore seldom available. It isnot always possible to give affirmative evidenceabout the date of the formation of the criminalconspiracy, about the persons who took part in theformation of the conspiracy, about the object,which the objectors set before themselves as theobject of conspiracy, and about the manner in whichthe object of conspiracy is to be carried out, allthis is necessarily a matter of inference.Therefore, the circumstances proved before, duringand after the occurrence have to be considered todecide about the complicity of the accused. Wheretrustworthy evidence establishing all links ofcircumstantial evidence is available the confessionof a co-accused as to conspiracy even withoutcorroborative evidence can be taken intoconsideration. It can in some cases be inferredfrom the acts and conduct of the parties."35. The prosecution has also proved the recoveries as we havediscussed in the earlier portion of the order. In fact even beforeA1 was arrested, his house was searched by the InvestigatingOfficer, P.W.62 and he has seized, among other materials, journalsand books, notices, diary, audio cassettes, letter, rice millagreement. Even after the arrest and pursuant to his confessionalstatement, the recovery of explosives was made from A1.36. The next circumstance relating to the recovery effectedon the basis of the admissible portion of the confessionalstatements of A3 and A4 is also established.37. So far as the test identification parade is concerned,A1, A3, A4 & A5 have been identified by P.W.25 in the Court. It isargued by the learned counsel for the appellants that in theabsence of any test identification parade, a mere identification inthe Court cannot be considered to be sufficient to prove the guiltof the accused. Law on the said issue is now well settled in thejudgment in Visveswaran v. State rep. by S.D.M. 2003 (2) SCC (Crl.)1270) as well as in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab (2003 (1) SCC(Crl.) 282), wherein the Apex Court had authoritatively held thateven in case where the test identification parade had not beenconducted, if the prosecution is able to prove the involvement ofthe accused in the occurrence through the other overwhelmingevidence and the accused are identified by the witnesses in theCourt, such identification would be sufficient to hold the accusedguilty of the offence. Hence the contention of the learned counselin this regard is liable to be rejected.38. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellants that the District Magistrate/District Collector is notthe competent authority to grant consent is concerned, it is seenthat prior to the amendment of Section 7 of the ExplosiveSubstances Act by Act 54 of 2001, the Central Government wascompetent to accord consent for prosecution. After the amendment,the power to give consent was conferred on the District Magistratewith effect from 1.2.2002.39. Mr.S.Doraisamy, the learned counsel, in support of hissubmission in challenging the competency of the DistrictMagistrate/District Collector to accord consent, would rely uponthe judgment of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Singh(2000 (1) Supreme 104). In that case, the Central Governmentvested with the power to accord consent had delegated the saidpower to the District Magistrate/District Collector in exercise ofthe power under Section 29. However, the State Government had inturn delegated the power to the Additional District Magistrateunder Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act. While consideringthe said delegation, the Apex Court held that the furtherdelegation of the power to accord consent to the AdditionalDistrict Magistrate is invalid.40. A careful reading of the said judgment shows that Section7 of the Explosive Substances Act, as stood before the AmendmentAct 54 of 2001, which came into force with effect from 1.2.2002,empowers the Central Government to give consent for prosecution.The said Section read that no Court shall proceed to the trial ofany person for an offence against this Act except with the consentof the Central Government.41. However, by the Amendment Act 54 of 2001, in the place of"Central Government", the words "District Magistrate" weresubstituted. Hence on and with effect from 1.2.2002, the DistrictMagistrates were also empowered to give consent in terms of thesaid Section. It is the argument of the learned counsel forappellants/accused that the date of occurrence was on 7.2.98 whenthe power to accord consent vested only in the Central Governmentand therefore the consent order of the District Magistrate inrespect of the offence committed prior to 1.2.2002 is invalid. Ourattention was drawn by the learned Additional Public Prosecutorthat even prior to the said Amendment Act 54 of 2001, anotification was issued by the Central Government delegating itspower to the District Magistrate and therefore the order of consentgiven by the District Magistrate is valid. In this context, it isseen that a notification in S.O.3583 dated 21.2.78 was issued inthe name of the President of India by the Ministry of Home Affairs,New Delhi entrusting all the District Magistrates in the State withthe function of the Central Government under Section 7 of theExplosive Substances Act. The said notification was issuedpursuant to the power vested with the President under Art.258(1) ofthe Constitution of India, which provides that the President maywith the consent of the Government of a State entrust eitherconditionally or unconditionally to the Government or its officersthe functions in relation to any matter to which the executivepower of the Union extends. It is also seen that the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ notification has been extended to the State of Tamil Nadu as well.Further, the said notification was published in the Tamil NaduGovernment Gazette in G.O.Ms.No.1188 Home Department dated28.5.1981. In fact the learned Additional Public Prosecutor hasbrought to our notice a judgment of the Division Bench of the PatnaHigh Court in Md.Masood Akhtar etc.etc. v. State of Bihar (2000Crl.L.J. 4282), wherein the said notification has been referred tosustain the consent order given by the District Magistrate prior tothe Amendment Act. It appears that the Central Government in orderto vest the power by the Act itself had subsequently substitutedthe words "District Magistrate" in the place of Central Governmentin Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act by Act 54 of 2001.Hence the contention of the learned counsel for appellants that theDistrict Magistrate/District Collector was not competent to issuethe consent order cannot be accepted.42. The other submission is that the District Magistrate hadnot given any reason while according his consent. Here again in theconsent order, Ex.P-44, the District Magistrate has considered theimplication of all the accused in Cr.No.74 of 1998 with referenceto the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID,Tiruchirappalli and only after careful examination of the requestof the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the case files and theopinion of the Assistant Director of Prosecution, Tiruchirappallidated 3.5.98, the consent was accorded. The consent order need notnecessarily be a detailed one and if the order discloses the factthat the District Collector has applied his mind to the report ofthe Investigating Officer, the opinion of the Assistant Director ofProsecution and after perusal of the entire records, would besufficient compliance to prove the application of mind. Thatapart, a mere failure to give reasons by the District Magistratecannot be a ground to throw away the prosecution case, when theprosecution is able to prove the involvement of the accused in theoffence. What is primary consideration for the commission of theoffence is the evidence implicating the accused for the offence anda mere irregularity in the accord of consent cannot absolve theaccused of the offence and consequently to escape from thepunishment. For the said reason, the contention in this regard isalso liable to be rejected and accordingly it is rejected.43. For all the above reasons, we are of the considered viewthat so far as the accusation against A1, A3 & A4, the prosecutionhas proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.44. Coming to the appeal preferred by the State against theacquittal of A5 to A8 is concerned, from the evidence of theprosecution, it is seen that though A5 had accompanied A1 alongwith A3 & A4 as spoken to by P.W.25, there is no corroborativematerial to implicate him in the act of manufacturing explosives.As against the recovery of incriminating materials from A1, A3 &A4, nothing has been recovered from A5. That apart, there was notest identification parade conducted to identify A5 and except theidentification of A5 in the Court by P.W.25, who speaks of havingseen A5 along with A1, A3 & A4, there are no other additionalmaterial to link A5 either to the conspiracy or to the offence https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ under Section 302 IPC. Hence, the learned trial Judge had rightlyheld that A5 is not guilty of the offence. So far as A6 isconcerned, except that he purchased a cell phone bearingno.9840056896 as spoken to by P.Ws.27 & 28, the Assistant Managerand General Manager of Sky Cell Communication Pvt.Ltd., there is noother material to implicate him in the conspiracy with A1 or A3 orA4. Similarly, as far as A7 is concerned, except the evidence ofthe Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W.63 as to his arrest onP.T.warrant on 29.4.98, there is no other evidence. In the absenceof any evidence not only as to the conspiracy but also to themanufacturing of explosives, we do not find any infirmity in theorder of the learned trial Judge in acquitting A5 to A7.45. So far as A8 is concerned, the prosecution has heavilyrelied upon the evidence of P.Ws.37 & 38. P.Ws.37 & 38 are theSecurity Guards of A8. They have only spoken about the visiting ofA5 & A6 to the house of A8. Of course, the prosecution has also letin evidence that the cell phone purchased by A6 was given to A8.The prosecution has also examined P.W.36 to speak about the demandof a sum of Rs.3 lakhs by A8 and he has paid a sum of Rs.25,000/-and A8 also contacted through the above cell phone. By the aboveevidence, we cannot come to a definite conclusion as to theinvolvement of A8 in the conspiracy along with A3 & A4 for thecommission of the offence. One more circumstance relied upon bythe prosecution to implicate A8 in the offence is the evidence ofP.W.29, an official attached to BSNL Telephones, Thanjavur. He hasstated that phone calls have been made from the landline 39441 tovarious numbers including the cell phone which was purchased by A6and handed over to A8. According to the learned Additional PublicProsecutor, the said landline was connected in the mill andtherefore there is every presumption that A8 also had conspired inthe occurrence. We are not in agreement with the said submission.A8 has been charged for the offence under Sections 120(B) & 302 IPCand under Sections 3,4,5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act aswell under Section 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. To sustain aconviction for those charges, a mere fact that phone calls weremade from the landline connected in the mill to the cell phoneowned by A8 cannot be a conclusive proof for the commission of theoffence. Further, P.Ws.37 & 38 are the security guards of A8. Theywere examined only after the evidence of 32 witnesses were takenand that too, with the permission of the Court. It is highlydoubtful that being the security guards of A8, whether they wouldknow the details of the calls received by A8 in the cellphone andthat too from a particular landline. In addition to the above,there is absolutely no other material to connect A8 for theconspiracy to either manufacture the explosives or to use the sameagainst the Hindu community people. Hence the prosecution has notestablished the chain of circumstances to implicate A5 to A8 exceptthe evidence of P.W.25 as to A5 having been found along with A1, A3& A4, against A6 for having purchased the cell phone and against A8for possessing the said cell phone which was handed over by A6.Hence we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment ofacquittal passed by the learned trial Judge against A5 to A8. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

46. So far as the State appeal as to the sentence imposed onA1, A3 & A4 is concerned, the learned trial Judge, having regard tothe part played by A1 in not only conspiring with A3 & A4 but alsofor using the premises of his father for manufacturing theexplosives, had sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorousimprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default toundergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence underSection 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with 120(B) IPC; toundergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine ofRs.50,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonmentfor the offence under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Actread with 120(B) IPC and to undergo three years rigorousimprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default toundergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section25(1)(b) of the Arms Act read with Section 3 of the Arms Act, whichhave been ordered to run concurrently.47. So far as A3 & A4 are concerned, the learned trial Judge,having found that they were party to the conspiracy only for thecommission of the offence, had sentenced each of them to undergofive years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine ofRs.10,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonmentfor the offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Actread with Section 120(B) IPC and to undergo five years rigorousimprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default toundergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence underSection 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120(B)IPC, which have been ordered to run concurrently. We find that A1,A3 & A4 have been awarded appropriate sentence and in ourconsidered view, there is nothing to indicate that they have beenawarded lesser sentence.48. As we have found A1, A3 & A4 guilty of the offences, theconviction and sentence imposed on them by the learned trial Judgeare confirmed. Similarly, we do not find any infirmity in theacquittal of A5 to A8 also of all the charges and accordingly, thejudgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is alsoconfirmed. In fine, Crl.A.Nos.374, 394 & 810 of 2001 are dismissedconfirming the judgment dated 9.4.2001 made in S.C.No.4 of 1999passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Court of Sessions forExclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee. It isseen from the records that the appellants/A1 & A3 are on bail. Thelearned Sessions Judge, Court of Sessions for Exclusive Trial ofBomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee shall take steps to securetheir presence and commit them to prison to undergo the remainingperiod of sentence. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ssTo1. The Sessions Judge, Court of Sessions for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tiruchirappalli5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras6. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai 4.7. The District Collector, Tiruchirappalli.+ 1 CC To Mr. S.Swamidoss Manokaran, Advocate SR NO.12087+ 3 CCs To Mr.S.Duraisamy, Advocate SR NO.11680Crl.A.Nos.374, 394 & 810 of 2001ng[co]gp/11.3.