Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
..1..
Ext.4825
Receivedon
Registeredon
Decidedon
Duration
:30/11/06
:02/12/06
:30/09/15
:8Y:9M:28D
INTHESPECIALCOURTNO.I
OFTHESPECIALJUDGEUNDERTHEMAHARASHTRA
CONTROLOFORGANISEDCRIMEACT,1999AND
THENATIONALINVESTIGATIONAGENCYACT,2008
ATMUMBAI
MCOCSPECIALCASENO.21OF2006
TheStateofMaharashtra
(ThroughAntiTerrorismSquad,
Mumbai,C.R.No.05/2006)
...
V/s.
1.
KamalAhmedMohd.VakilAnsari
Age:32years,residentof:At&Post
Basopatti,Dist.Madhubani,
StateBihar.
2.
TanveerAhmedMohd.IbrahimAnsari
Age:32years,residentof:4/31,
B.I.T.Chawl,2ndFloor,Mominpura,
Mohd.AnsariSiddiqueRoad,
Agripada,Mumbai11.
3.
Mohd.FaisalAtaurRahmanShaikh
Age:32years,residentof:(i)Tirupati
Apartments,'A'Wing,2ndFloor,FlatNo.203,
NayaNagar,MiraRoad,Dist.Thaneand
(ii)24LuckyVilla,Kantwadi,PericrossRoad,
Bandra(W),Mumbai(Onrentalbasisfrom
July,2005tilltoday).
Prosecution
JudgementMCOC21/06
..2..
4.
EhteshamQutubuddinSiddique
Age:25years,residentof:202,
SafiyaManzil,NayaNagar,
MiraRoad(East),DistThane.
5.
MohamadMajidMohamadShafi
Age:28years,residentof:17/2/H/6,
CanalWestRoad,NearNarkelDanga
PoliceStation,RajaBazar,
Kolkatta700009.
6.
ShaikhMohd.AliAlamShaikh
Age:37years,residentof:PlotNo.33,
'T'Line,RoomNo.2,Govandi,
Shivajinagar,Mumbai43.
7.
MohammadSajidMargubAnsari
Age:29years,residentof:101,
SabaParveenApartment,PoojaNagar
Road,NayaNagar,MiraRoad(E),
Dist.Thane.
8.
AbdulWahidDinMohammadShaikh
Age:29years,residentof:(i)202,'B'Wing,
MoonleetApartment,Opp.KalsekarCollege,
MumbaiPuneHighway,KausaMumbra,
Dist.Thaneand(ii)6/7,KhanandSanghavi
Chawl,G.M.Colony,AmrutNagar,
Ghatkopar,Mumbai86.
9.
MuzzammilAtaurRahmanShaikh
Age:22years,residentof:(i)Tirupati
Apartments,'A'Wing,2ndFloor,
FlatNo.203,NayaNagar,MiraRoad,
Dist.Thaneand(ii)B.T.M.,2ndStreet,
29Main13Cross,Banargatta,Bangalore.
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..3..
Ext.4825
10.
SuhailMehmoodShaikh
Age:37years,residentof:1538,
GalliNo.16,CentralStreet,Bhimpura,
Camp,Pune1.
11.
ZameerAhmedLatifurRehmanShaikh
Age:32years,residentof:RoomNo.100,
'L'Block,VallabhbhaiPatelNagar,
LotusColony,Worli,Mumbai18.
12.
NaveedHussainKhanRasheedHussainKhan
Age:26years,residentof:(i)A/604,Topaz
Apartment,NarmadaParadise,Infrontof
R.K.Inn,NearShivarGarden,MiraRoad,
Dist.Thaneand(ii)PlotNo.43/45,LakeShore
Towers,G3,NewVidyanagarColony,Neredment,
Sikndarabad,AndhraPradesh.
13.
AsifKhanBashirkhan@Juned@Abdulla
Age:35years,residentof:(i)15,T.B.S.Road,
NearSwimmingPool,ShirsoliNaka,
Jalgaon425007and(ii)M/18,19,AshokNagar,
NearRamdevHotel,Belgaum,
Karnataka.
...
Accused.
WantedAccused:
1.
AzamChima@Babaji,PakistaniNational
JavedChaudhariBungalow,ChuburjiChowk,
KarachiBahawalpurRoad,Pakistan.
2.
RizwanMohammadDawarey,IndianNational
203/B,PremanandPark,ShivarkarRoad,
Vanawadi,Pune.PresentlybasedinSaudiArabia
Detailaddressnotknown.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..4..
3.
RahilAtaurRahmanShaikh,IndianNational
TirupatiApts.,'A'Wing,2ndFloor,FlatNo.203,
NayaNagar,MiraRoad,Dist.Thane.
PresentlybasedinBirmingham,U.K.
Detailaddressnotknow.
4.
HafizZuber@MohammadZuber,IndianNational
AtBalkatwa,PostBasupatti,PoliceStn.Basupatti,
Dist.Madhubani,StateBihar.
PresentlybasedinNepal.Detailaddressnotknown.
5.
SohailShaikh,IndianNational
Permanentaddressnotknow.Presentlybased
inPakistan.Detailaddressnotknown.
6.
Aslam,PakistaniNational
Detailaddressnotknown.
7.
Hafizullah,PakistaniNational
Detailaddressnotknown.
8.
Sabir,PakistaniNational
Detailaddressnotknown.
9.
AbuBakr,PakistaniNational
Detailaddressnotknown.
10. KasamAli,PakistaniNational
Detailaddressnotknown.
11.
AmmuJaan,PakistaniNational
Detailaddressnotknown.
12.
Ehsanulah,PakistaniNational
Detailaddressnotknown.
13.
AbuHasan,PakistaniNational
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..5..
Ext.4825
Detailaddressnotknown.
14.
AbdulRazzak,PakistaniNational
Detailaddressnotknown.
15.
AbdulRahman,PakistaniNational
Detailaddressnotknown.
SPPsRajaThakareandChimalkarforState/ATS.
Adv.P.L.Shettyforaccusednos.1,3,8,9,11and12.
Adv.WahabKhanforaccusednos.2,6,7,10and13.
Adv.SharifShaikhforaccusednos.4and5.
CORAM: TheSpecialJudgefor
SpecialCourtNo.I,
Mumbaifortryingcases
undertheMCOCAct,1999
registeredandinvestigated
bytheAntiTerrorism
Squad,MumbaiinMumbai
andMaharashtra.
SHRIY.D.SHINDE
DATE: 30/09/2015
(C.R.No.57)
JUDGEMENT
1.
compartmentsofsevensuburbantrainstothecity'swesternsuburbs
were ripped apart by powerful blasts on 11th July, 2006 between
1823 to 1828 hours leaving 187 dead and 829 injured and
destroying railway property of the value of Rs.88,66,239/. The
bombexplosionsweretheresultofawellorchestratedplanthatwas
allegedlyhatchedinPakistanbytheLashkareTaiba(LeT)andwas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..6..
Ext.4825
2.
incidentsofbombblastsinthehistoryofindependentIndia,second
onlytotheseriesofbombblastsof1993inMumbai,intermsofthe
numberofdeadandinjured.
257personshaddiedand751hadbeeninjuredintheserial
bombblastsof1993.
187personshavediedand829havebeeninjuredintheserial
bombblastsinthiscase.
3.
Thethirteenaccusedbeforethecourtarechargesheetedfor
havingcausedthebombexplosionsandtherebyhavingcommitted
themurdersof187persons,forhavingattemptedtocausethedeath
ofsomepersons,forhavingvoluntarilycausedhurt,grievoushurt,
mischief, mischief by fire or explosive substance, for having
conspiredtocommittheseoffences,forhavingconspiredtowage
war or attempt to wage war or abet waging war against the
GovernmentofIndia,forhavingcollectedmen,armsorammunition
orotherwisemadepreparationswiththeintentionofwagingwar
againsttheGovernmentofIndia,forhavingconcealedtheexistence
ofadesigntowagewaragainsttheGovernmentofIndia,forhaving
committedanactof sedition,forhaving causeddisappearance of
evidenceofoffenceandforharbouringoffenders,alongwithfifteen
wantedaccused,i.e.,(1)AzamChima@Babaji,PakistaniNational
(2)Rizwan Mohammad Dawrey, Indian National, (3)Rahil Ataur
JudgementMCOC21/06
..7..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..8..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..9..
Ext.4825
PublicPropertyAct,1984.Theyarealsochargesheetedforhaving
intended to cause damage and destruction of the public property
andhavingcauseddeath,havingendangeredthesafetyofpersons
travellinginlocaltrains,alongwiththefifteenwantedaccusedand
two deceased accused, which are the offences punishable under
sections 151 to 154 of the Railways Act, 1989. Two accused are
chargesheetedforhavingfailedtoproducetheirpassportsandtravel
documentsandtherebyhavingcommittedtheoffencespunishable
undersection12(1)(c)ofthePassportsAct,1967.
4.
Thecaseoftheprosecutionisasfollows:
Mumbai,thecapitalofMaharashtraState,isalsothefinancial
capitalofthecountry.About3million/30lakhscommuterstravel
eachdaysouthwardsinthemorningandnorthwardsintheevening
in the western railway suburban trains between Churchgate and
Virarduringpeakhours.Thesecommuterscompriseofexecutives,
businessmen, students and persons in the employment at various
levelsintheGovernmentaswellasprivateestablishments.Hence,
the suburban trains are aptly called as essential services and the
lifelineoftheMumbaimetropolis.Itisallegedthatthislifelinecame
toagrindinghaltontheeveningof11thJuly,2006whensevenhigh
intensity,highlysophisticatedexplosivedevicesrippedthroughthe
firstclass gent's compartment of seven suburban trains that were
headedtowardsthedistantwestern/northernsuburbs.Theblastsat
Mahim and Borivali took place when the trains were near the
stations,whiletheremainingfiveblaststookplaceinmovingtrains
andawayfromplatforms.Theexplosionsweresopowerfulthatthey
JudgementMCOC21/06
..10..
Ext.4825
rippedthroughthedoublelayeredsteelroofsandsidesofeachof
thesevencompartments,throwingbodiesoftheinjuredanddead
passengers out of the compartments, and, at Mahim and Borivali
RailwayStations,apartfromthepassengersinthecompartments,
the explosions even killed and injured passengers waiting on the
platform and those travelling from the trains proceeding to the
oppositedirection.Theroofoftheplatformno.3ofMahimstation
wasblownoffbytheexplosion.SomepassengersfromtheBorivali
bound train that witnessed an explosion near Mahim station,
jumpedoutofthetrainandgotkilledunderalocaltrainproceeding
in the opposite direction. The prosecution states that from the
record,threeblastssimultaneouslytookplaceat1823hoursnear
Mahim,BandraandMiraRoadstations,whilethelasttookplaceat
1828hours nearBorivalistation.Thissuggeststhattimerdevices
wereusedtocausetheblastssimultaneouslyandatspecificplaces
andwereaimedatlargescaledevastationoflifeandpropertyand
widespread panic and chaos with an intention to cripple the
economy. The public transport was extensively damaged and
disrupted with a view to overawe the government. The entire
westernrailway,suburbanaswellasmainline,cametoagrinding
halt. The commuters poured on the western express highway,
therebydisruptingthenorthaswellassouthboundvehiculartraffic
andcausinghindrancetotherescueoperations.Itwasreportedthat
187personslosttheirlivesintheexplosionsand817hadsustained
injuries of various gravity and railway property worth Rs.
85,61,039/ was reportedly damaged till the time of filing of the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..11..
Ext.4825
5.
Theindividualcrimesofbombblastswereinitiallyregistered
separatelyattherespectiverailwaypolicestationsasperthetable
below:
Sr.
No.
Police
Station,
C.R.No.
Timeof
blast
(FIR)
Placeof
Offence
(Blast)
TrainNo.
Affected
Coach
No.
Persons
Killed Injured
1 Mumbai
Central
Railway
1824hrs. Matunga
645DN
864A
28
122
0528A
43
096
8003A
22
107
849A
09
102
0634A
28
115
935A
26
153
VirarFast
77/06
2 Mumbai
Central
Railway
1823hrs. Mahim
641DN
BorivaliFast
78/06
3 Bandra
Railway
1823hrs. Bandra
Borivali
86/06
4 Bandra
Railway
1825hrs
Khar
Subway
87/06
5 Andheri
Railway
156/06
635DN
BorivaliSlow
41/06
6 Borivali
Railway
637DN
1828hrs. Borivali
621DN
VirarFast
JudgementMCOC21/06
..12..
Ext.4825
846A
31
122
Registrationoffirstinformationreportsandpreparationof
spotpanchanamas:
C. R. No. 77 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway Police
Station:
6.
Thecaseoftheprosecutionasisrevealedduringthetrialis
thatSr.PIBhimdevBhalchandraRathod,(PW176)(Ext.1859),was
on duty as Sr. PI of Mumbai Central Railway Police Station on
11/07/06. PCJadhav,3286,ofhispolicestationinformedhimby
phoneatabout6.30p.m.fromMatungaRailwayStationthatthere
had been a bomb blast in a local train near Matunga Railway
Station.He,onreceivingthisinformation,immediatelywenttothe
spotbyroadin their vehicle,alongwithPIGodbole,APIInamdar
and staff. When they reached the Matunga Railway Station, they
sawthattheaffectedtrainwasstandingneartheelectricpoleno.
11/11andthebombblasthadtakenplaceinthe malefirstclass
bogieno.864Athatwas infront.Someinjuredwerelyingonthe
tracks. He sent them to the hospitals with the help of locals.
Personnelofthefirebrigade,passengers,localpoliceandpublichad
taken many dead bodies and injured to the hospitals before he
reachedthere.Hecordonedthespotwiththehelpofhisstaffin
order to preserve it and instructed them not to allow anyone to
disturbthesceneofoffence.HethenrecordedtheinformationExt.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..13..
Ext.4825
424,ofthemotormanofthattrain,SachinkumarSingh,(PW4)(Ext.
423), and sent it with PC Rajaram to the police station for
registering the crime. He came to know before the crime was
registered that there had been a similar blast at Mahim Railway
Station.Hence,hesentPIGodbole,PIShindeandotherstafftothat
spotimmediately.
7.
ASIP.N.Kamble,whowastheStationHouseOfficerofthe
MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation,registeredcrimeNo.77of
2006 on the basis of the information, Ext.424, against unknown
personsfortheoffencesundersections120B,302,307,326,427,
436r/w.34oftheIPC,sections3,5and6oftheExplosivesActand
sections151to154oftheIndianRailwaysAct.
8.
Inhisinformation,Ext.424,SachinkumarSingh,PW4,stated
thatheisservingasamotormanintheWesternRailwayssincefive
years, that their duties are fixed by the Chief Loco Inspector,
Churchgate,thaton11/07/06hecameondutyat1735hoursatthe
Churchgatemotormanlobby,madeentryandreportedfordutyat
theDN645fastlocalof1757hoursfromChurchgatetoVirar.This
localwasnottostopatanystationbetweenMumbaiCentraland
DadarandfromthereitwastohaltatBandra,AndheriandBorivali.
ThreeothermotormenB.K.Singh,SatishGautam,U.R.Kumbhar
aswellastrainexaminerChuriandoneDeputyC.S.T.,Bhattwere
with him in the motorman cabin. He started the train from
Churchgate at 1758 hours, the train came at platform no.3 at
Dadar(W)atabout1822hoursandtwominutesafterithadstarted
from the said platform and was going towards Matunga and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..14..
Ext.4825
enteringtheMatungaRailwayStationarea,therewasasoundofa
bigexplosionandatthesametimetherewasasignalofpullingthe
emergencychainandheheardpeoplefromthebogiebehindthe
motormancabinshoutingtostopthetrain.Heimmediatelystopped
the train by applying the emergency brakes, but because of the
speedofthetrain,itwentaheadupto300400metersandstopped.
He lowered the pantograph as a precautionary measure after the
trainstoppedandtriedtocontacttherailwaycontrolbyT.M.S.
system in the motorman cabin, but could not establish contact.
Therefore,hegotdownonthewestsideofthemotormancabinand
started going towards the Station Master's office of the Matunga
RailwayStation.Hesawpeoplejumpingdownfromthefirstclass
bogieno.864Aandtakingdowntheinjured.Hewenttotheoffice
ofthestationsuperintendentontheMatungaRailwayStationand
gaveinformationabouttheincidenttotherailwaycontrol.Whenhe
startedgoingtowardsthemotormancabin,thereafter,hesawthat
thepeoplegatheredatthespothadstartedhelptotakeinjuredand
deceasedpersonstothehospitals.Hesawthattheeasternsideof
theaffectedfirstclasscoachwasdamagedtoalargeextentbecause
oftheexplosionandsawinjuredanddeceasedpassengersonthe
easternsidealso.
9.
10.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..15..
Ext.4825
hadcometotheMatungablastsite.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,gotthe
blast site and the entire train inspected by them. He called two
panchwitnesses,PrithvirajsinghEkelalChauhan,(PW12)(Ext.442),
and one more, inspected the blast site, which was the firstclass
bogieno.864AandpreparedthepanchanamaExt.441infloodlight.
He collected about fifty articles of the passengers under the
panchanama, like umbrellas, bags, bank documents, PAN card, I
cards,railwaypass,etc.,includingArts.1to15.
11.
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,cametoknowthatpersonnelofthe
ForensicScienceLaboratoryhadcomeattheMahimRailwayStation
andwerehelpingPIGodboleandPIShindeincollectingthesamples
ofremnantsofexplosivesubstancesandthatPIGodbolehadcalled
for packing and sealing material from the police station. He,
therefore, directed PI Godbole to send the FSL personnel to the
MatungaRailwayStationaftercompletingtheirworkthereandalso
to send the packing and sealing material with a constable. Balu
BabanDaundkar,(PW189)(Ext.2857),Dy.Director,ForensicScience
Laboratory, Kalina, Mumbai, who was an Assistant Chemical
Analyzeratthattime,cametothespotwithhisstaffatabout2.00
a.m.on12/07/06andcollectedcertainarticlesfromthebogielike
burntcloth,plastic,rexinepiecesandcottonswabsoftheblackening
ontheceiling,handlesandrodsofthebogie,viz.,whateverhefelt
necessary.HehadcollectedfourarticlesfromtheMatungasite,i.e.,
piecesofcloth,piecesofwood,piecesofironandaluminum,Arts.16
to19.Hehadalsocollectedpiecesofplasticcarrybag,piecesof
clothand6piecesofcurrencynotes,Arts.21to23,cottonswaband
JudgementMCOC21/06
..16..
Ext.4825
roundpieceofwhitepaper,havingblackishstainsononeside,Arts.
25and26andtwocottonswabs,Arts.29and30,fromthe spot.
Thesewereseized,packedandsealedbySr.PIRathod,PW176,in
thepresenceofthesamepanchasunderthepanchanamaExt.443.
Sr.PIRathod,PW176returnedbacktothepolicestationwiththe
seizedarticlesandhandedthemovertothemuddemalclerk.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..17..
Ext.4825
platformanditslastthreebogieswerebythesideoftheplatform.
Theyreachedthebogieno.528Ainwhichtheblasthadtakenplace,
twoconstablesofWadalaRailwayPoliceStation,whowerethere,
told him that fire brigade personnel and the general public had
shiftedthedeadbodiesandinjuredpersonstothehospitalsandthe
articles of the passengers were collected and kept in the Mahim
RailwayPoliceStation.Hesawbloodonthegroundbelowthebogie
inwhichtheblasthadtakenplace,sawpoolsofblood,blood,pieces
ofglassinthebogieandsawdamagetothefixtureslikewindows,
benches,fans,etc.,inthebogieandalsosawthefrontportionofthe
bogie to be severely damaged. Railway authorities made
arrangementoflightafterhetoldthemtodoso.Hecametoknow
that the blast had taken place when the train had started from
platformno.3.Therefore,hewentthere,sawthatapitwascreated
ontheplatforminfrontofpoleno.12/17andpiecesofcementsheet
oftheroofhadfallenthere.Hereturnedbacktothebogie,wentto
thecabinofthemotorman,inquiredaboutthemotormanandmet
Girishchandra Shridal Shingar Chaurasiya, (PW5)(Ext.425), who
toldhimthathewasdrivingthetrainatthetimeoftheincident.He
informedhishigherauthoritiesabouttheblastandthentookthe
motormanGirishchandra,PW5,totheofficeoftheStationMaster
ofthatrailwaystationandtookhisFIR,Ext.426.HesenttheFIR
with PC Sonune, 1319, to the Mumbai Central Railway Police
Stationforregisteringthecrimeandtoldhimtobringthepacking
andsealingmaterialandwhenPCSonunereturnedback,cameto
knowthatC.R.No.78of2006wasregistered.
JudgementMCOC21/06
13.
..18..
Ext.4825
Girishchandra,PW5,statedinhisinformationExt.426,that
JudgementMCOC21/06
..19..
Ext.4825
14.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..20..
Ext.4825
15.
HewentbehindtocontactguardDalvi.Hesawatthattime
thatthepassengersinthebogieatthebacksidehadjumpedoutof
fearandwererunningaway.Someinjuredwerepickedupfromthe
trackandkeptontheplatformandeffortsweregoingontotake
themtothehospitalsfortreatment.WhenhemetguardDalvi,he
toldhimthattherewasanexplosioninthefrontfirstclassbogie,in
whichmanypeoplehadbeeninjuredandmanyhaddiedandthe
bogiewasalsodamaged.Inthemeanwhilepoliceandfirebrigade
reachedthereandstartedthehelpworkandalsostartedinquiry.He
and guard Dalvi went to platform no.3 where the explosion had
takenplaceandtheretheysawthatthecementsheetsontheroofof
theplatformno.3,nearpoleno.12/17,weredamagedandtherewas
bloodofinjuredpassengers onthe platform.Theycame toknow
that the injured passengers were taken to K. E. M. and Sion
hospitals.PoliceofficersofMumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation
cametherewhenhewasnearthetrain,inquiredwithhimandtook
himtotheMahimStationandtookhiscomplaint.Hencehelodged
the complaint on that day at 1823 hours that some unknown
personshadconspiredandcausedbombblastinthelocaltrainno.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..21..
Ext.4825
614DNoftheWesternRailwaysandhadmurderedmanypersons,
attemptedtomurderandcausedgrievoushurttomanypersonsand
causeddamageandlosstotherailwaybogieandMahimRailway
Station.
16.
ASIP.N.Kamble,StationHouseInchargeofficer,registeredC.
R.No.78of2006onthebasisofhisinformationfortheoffences
undersections120B,302,307,326,427,436r/w34oftheIPC,
sections3,5and6oftheExplosivesActandsections151,152,153
and154oftheRailwaysAct. PIGodbole,PW140,tookstepsfor
preparing spot panchanama. He called panch witnesses Hemant
RajaramSatarde,(PW29)(Ext.524),andonemoreforthatpurpose.
He,PIShindeandpanchasclimbedtheaffectedbogie.Daundkar,
PW189,andhisstafffromtheCFSL,Kalinahadalsoreachedthere
at that time. They surveyed the damage. The FSL people started
doingtheirworkbycollectingswabsofsoot,piecesofdebris,half
burntpiecesofclothesandironstripsofbenchesandgavethose
articlestohim.TheFSLpeoplehadgivenfivearticles,i.e.,cotton
swab,Art.117,twoswabsofcotton,Arts.118(1&2),burntpiecesof
assortedarticles,Arts.119(colly),halfburntpiecesofcloth,chain,
sponge,paper,glassandmud,etc.,Arts.120(colly),bundleofhalf
burnt pieces of clothes and paper attached to it, Art.121 and
aluminum strips, Arts.122(1 to 4) and PI Godbole, PW140, had
collected12articlesfromthespot,i.e.,articlesofpassengers,Arts.
123to132(1to7),labeledandsealedthesameandpreparedthe
panchanamaExt.525inthepresenceofthepanchasandalsotook
measurements. He gave permission to the railway authorities, at
JudgementMCOC21/06
..22..
Ext.4825
theirrequest,toshiftthebogiefromthespotanddirectedthemto
keep the bogie in the same condition. He returned to the police
station,constitutedsixteamsofhisstaff,twoforholdinginquests,
twofortakingstatementsoftheinjuredpersonsandtwoformaking
inquiries about the persons responsible for the blast. He sent a
specialreportabouttheincidenttohisACPandDCPandsentcopies
oftheFIRtotheMumbaiCentralRailwayMagistrate,tohisDCP
andACP.Heseizedarticlesofpassengersthatwerebroughttothe
policestationbyASIBhoirunderpanchanamaExt.1560beforetwo
panchas.Mostofthearticleswerereturnedtotheinjuredortheir
relatives.AnamountofRs.1.5lakhswasfoundatthespotinabag.
ItwasreturnedtothesonofoneLaltaprasadYadav.
Sr.PIMohd.SalimYusufKadri,(PW138)(Ext.1528),wason
thewaytotheBandraRailwayPoliceStationon11/07/06wherehe
wasworkingasSr.PI.StationHouseOfficerHCMorecalledhimat
about1830hoursandtoldhimthattherewasablastinthefirst
classbogieoftheBorivalifastlocaltrainno.637DNnearBandra
station after the train had just left the Bandra station. He
immediatelywenttotheplatformno.1oftherailwaystation,saw
thatpassengerswererunninghereandthereontheplatform,the
staff of the police station were taking out the injured and the
deceasedandtakingthemtothenearesthospitalswiththehelpof
hamalsandpeople.Theaffectedtrainwasstandingontrackno.3in
betweenBandraandKharbutneartheBandraRailwayStationand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..23..
Ext.4825
18.
Hecametoknowatthattimethatasimilartypeofblasthad
JudgementMCOC21/06
..24..
Ext.4825
on the floor. The injured and the dead bodies had already been
takentothehospitalsbeforetheyreachedthere.Hegavenecessary
directions to the staff to prepare inquest panchanamas and take
statementsoftheinjuredandkeptguardsforguardingthebogie.
19.
informationsofStationMasterofBandraRailwayStation,Hemant
Suklal Tayde,(PW3)(Ext.412), and Station Master of Santacruz
RailwayStation,NizamuddinShaikh,(PW2)(Ext.407),andonthe
basisoftheirinformationsregisteredcrimesno.86and87of2006
respectivelyfortheoffencesundersections302,307,326,427,436,
120Br/w34oftheIPC,sections3,4and5oftheExplosivesActand
sections151,152,153and154oftheRailwaysAct.
20.
TheStationMasterofBandraRailwayStationHemant,PW3,
statedinhisinformationExt.413,thatheisworkingintheWestern
Railwayssince25yearsandasaStationMastersinceonemonth.He
wasondutyfrom1400hoursto2200hourson11/07/06atBandra
RailwayStationandatabout1823hourswhenhewasinhisoffice,
heheardasoundofaloudexplosionoutside.Heimmediatelywent
outside,atthattimeahamalonthestationcamerunningtohim
andtoldhimthattherehadbeenabombblastinthedownthrough
Borivalilocal.Heimmediatelyinformedaboutitbyphonetothe
railwaycontrol,policestation,hospitalandambulanceandwentto
the spot with police and hamals. 637 DN Borivali fast local was
standinginbetweenKMpoleNo.15/1Cand15/6A.Deadbodiesof
twopersonsand34injuredpersonswerelyingbythesideofthe
trackinbetweenKMpoleno.14/22and14/23CN.Thewesterntin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..25..
Ext.4825
portionofthemiddlefirstclassbogieno.8003Awastornandthe
door,fans,windowsandseatshadfallendown.Theeasterntinwas
alsotornandhadfallendown belowthe window.The tin of the
bogieontheuppersidehadtornatmanyplaces.Thebogie was
totallydamaged.Hetoldpolice,hamalsandpersonsfromthepublic
totaketheinjuredanddeadbodiestotheBhabhaHospital.Acrowd
of passengers had gathered there and the injured were shouting
loudly.Asperhisestimateapproximately1520personshaddied
and 2530 had been injured and they had been taken to the
hospitalsbythepoliceandpeople.Hence,helodgedthecomplaint
thatpersonsfromsomeunknownterroristorganisationhadkepta
bomb in the said bogie of the said train with the intention of
creatingterrorinthepublic,causingbiglosstotherailwayproperty,
causelossoflivesofpassengersandtodestabilizethegovernment
and,ithadcausedthebombexplosionbyenteringintoaconspiracy
andbydoinganantinationalact.
21.
PW2,statedinhisinformationExt.408thatheservesintheWestern
Railways since 21 years and is working as Station Master at
Santacruzsincelastoneyear.Hewasondutyfrom1600hoursto
2000hourson11/07/06.Heheardthesoundofabigexplosionat
about1825hours.Therefore,hegaveacalltoGRPandhamaland
wenttowardsthedirectionofthesound,wherehesawlocalno.635
Borivalidownstandingontrackno.1inbetweenKMno.17/2and
17/6andtheblasthavingtakenplaceinthemiddlefirstclassbogie
no.849A.Tinofallsidesofthebogiewasbentoutside,thedoors
JudgementMCOC21/06
..26..
Ext.4825
werebentoutside,fans,windowsandcoacheswereuprootedand
hadfallenthere.Passengerswerelyinginthebogieoneuponthe
otherwithoutclothes,somedeadandsomeinjuredandthearticles
inthecoachhadfallenonthem.He,withthehelpofpolice,public
andhamals,shiftedthedeadbodiesandtheinjuredbyambulance
andrickshawstotheCooper,Nanavati,AshaParekh,V.N.Desaiand
R. K. Nursing Hospitals. As per his estimate, approximately 810
personshaddiedand3540hadbeeninjuredandtherewasatotal
lossofthefirstclasscoach.Hencehegavethecomplaintatabout
1825 hours that some unknown persons of some unknown
organisationhadkeptabombinthesaidbogieofthesaidtrainwith
theintentionofcreatingterrorinthepublic,causingbiglosstothe
railway property, causing loss of lives of passengers and to
destabilizethegovernmentand,ithadcausedthebombexplosion
byenteringintoaconspiracyandbydoinganantinationalact.
22.
Aftertakingthetwocomplaints,PIKadri,PW138,wentwith
theinformant,Hemant,PW3,tothespotontrackno.3inbetween
KM15/3and15/4andpreparedthepanchanamaExt.516ofthe
spotinC.R.No.86of2006shownbyhiminthepresenceandwith
thehelpofpanchwitnessesPappuRadheshamGiri,(PW28)(Ext.
515),andonemore,inthefloodlightsthatwerearrangedbythe
railwayauthorities.Heseizedassortedarticleslikeblackenedpieces
of cloth, pieces of chains of bag, plywood, metal, sponge, glass,
plastic,tornpouchesofgutkha,somemud,etc.,Arts.113(colly)and
threemetalpieceshavingstrongsmellofchemical,Arts.114(1to3)
duringthepanchanama.Healsotookswabsofbloodbycotton.He
JudgementMCOC21/06
..27..
Ext.4825
labeled and sealed all the articles in different packets and seized
themunderthepanchanama.
23.
HetookthesamepanchastothespotinC.R.No.87of2006.
24.
Hethenreturnedtothepolicestationandhandedoverthe
seizedmuddemaltotheclerk.22passengershaddiedintheblast
near Bandra Railway Station and 9 had died in the blast in the
SantacruzRailwayStation.Peoplehadbroughtarticlesofpassengers
tothepolicestation.HepreparedpanchanamaExt.506aboutit.The
articleswerereturnedbacktotheclaimants.Thestationmanagerof
Santacruz Railway Station had prepared a list of articles of the
passengersthatwerefoundatthe spot,whichhe broughttothe
policestation.ASIJagdalepreparedthepanchanamaExt.507about
it.Thearticleswerereturnedbacktotheclaimants.
C.R.No.41of2006ofAndheriRailwayPoliceStation:
25.
Dy.SP(Crimes),MaharashtraStateatPune,MarutiDattatray
Raskar,(PW139)(Ext.1534),waspostedasSr.PI,AndheriRailway
JudgementMCOC21/06
..28..
Ext.4825
PoliceStation andondutyon11/07/06.PSIGhuge,whowasat
JogeshwariRailwayStationforpatrollingduty,calledhimfromhis
mobileatabout6.30p.m.andinformedthatatabout6.23p.m.a
bombblasthadtakenplaceinthefirstclassbogieofChurchgate
Borivali slow local train of nine coaches at platform no.1 at the
JogeshwariRailwayStation.Hegatheredallthestaffofhispolice
stationonreceivingthisinformation,tookthekitofinvestigation
andwenttothespotbythegovernmentjeepandreachedthespotat
about 7.00 p.m. He saw the firstclass bogie to be completely
destroyedandthearticlesofpassengerslyingscattered.PSIGhuge
andstaffofOshiwaraandMeghwadiPoliceStations,passengers,fire
brigadepersonnelofGoregaon,MarolandAndheriandlocalpeople
hadtakentheinjuredandthebodiesofthedeceasedtotheCooper,
Siddharth and Nanavati Hospitals. Railway authorities had made
arrangements for floodlights and loudspeakers. He appointed his
stafftocordonandguardthespot.AnandGulabDesai,(PW7)(Ext.
431), guard of that train, came forward when he was making
inquiries and narrated the incident, therefore, he recorded his
informationExt.432.HesenttheinformationwithHCDarade,1045,
byjeeptoAndheriRailwayPoliceStationforregisteringcrime.The
crimewasregisteredandgivenC.R.No.41of2006fortheoffences
undersections302,307,324,325,326,436,427,120BoftheIPC,
sections3,4and5oftheExplosivesActandsections151,152,153
and154oftheRailwaysAct.
26.
Inhisinformation,AnandDesai,PW7,statedthatheservesin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..29..
Ext.4825
27.
StationMasterShishirKaushikcametothespotwithrailway
policeandstaff.AnandDesai,PW7,sawmanypassengersofthe
traintobeinjured.Theywerebeingtakentothehospitalsbyall
availablemeansoftransport.Firebrigadestaffcamethereandthey
tookawaythedeadbodiesonstretchers.Hencehelodgedcomplaint
JudgementMCOC21/06
..30..
Ext.4825
againstunknownpersonsandhewasconvincedthattheincidentis
ofbombblastandhecametoknowthat28personshaddiedand34
hadbeeninjured.
28.
Thereafter,Dy.SPRaskar,PW139,preparedpanchanamaof
29.
PSIGawadeandJumadeoftheBombDetectionandDisposal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..31..
Ext.4825
2)andrailwayauthoritiesshiftedthetraintotheKandivalicarshed.
HedirectedthemtoappointRPFstafftoprotectthetrainasthe
investigationwasgoingon.
30.
Dy.SPRaskar,PW139,hadappointedfourteams,twofor
makinginquestpanchanamas,onefortakingstatementsofinjured
witnessesandoneformakinginvestigationaboutthesuspects.He
alsoappointedstafftoguardtheseizedarticlesandthenhevisited
thehospitals.Fromtherehereturnedtothespot,wheretheteam
fromtheFSLhadcomeandattheirrequesthecollectedsamples
fromthebogiethatwasinthecarshedatKandivali,inthepresence
oftwopanchas.Twosamples were collectedthereandthereafter
theywenttotheJogeshwariRailwayStationtothespotatwhichthe
blasthadtakenplace.Piecesofbloodstainedsmallstones,earthand
ironnailsweretakenfromthere.Hecollectedallthesearticlesin
threeseparateplasticbags,labeledandsealedthemandprepared
panchanama Ext.1539. The articles that he collected were iron
piece,plywoodpieces,cottonswabs,Arts.361(colly),ironstrip,two
screws, one big screw, plywood pieces, cotton like burnt piece of
seat,soillikeblacksubstance,Arts.362(colly)andblackishredsmall
stones,earth,glasspieces,nailandsoil,Arts.363(colly).Hetook
the articles seized under the panchanama to the police station,
handedoverthearticlestothemuddemalclerkHCJadhavandhis
assistantPCKhanvilkar.ADRsno.92(1to28)wereregisteredon
thebasisoftotal28inquestpanchanamasthatwerereceived.
C.R.No.156of2006ofBorivaliRailwayPoliceStation:
31.
Dy.SPStateCrimes,Pune,SatishHiralalAhir,(PW144)(Ext.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..32..
Ext.4825
1585),wasworkingasSr.PI,BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationinthe
year2006andwasondutyon11/07/06.Heheardthesoundofa
loudexplosionatabout1828hours.Therefore,heandotherofficers
PI Gaikwad, PSI Nagesh Baburao Dhone, (PW1)(Ext. 105), PSI
Karekarandstaff,whowereinthepolicestation,whichisonthe
west side of the railway station adjacent to the platform no.1,
immediatelycameout,lookedtowardstheeasternsidefromwhere
the sound of explosion had come and saw that a local train had
haltedonplatformno.4,therefore,theyimmediatelyrushedtothat
platform.Theysawonreachingtheplatformthatthebogieno.935A
wasatadistanceof10feetfromthestaircaseandpeoplehadfallen
outfromit.Somepeoplehadfalleninsideandthetinofthewestern
sideofthebogiewastornapart.Theysawinjuredpersonsatthe
spot having sustained bleeding injuries, bodies fallen one upon
other, blood in the bogie accumulated at some places, the fans,
luggage racks, windows, seats totally broken and articles of
passengerslyingscatteredinthebogieandoutside.Herealizedthat
itwasanactofsabotage.Hetoldhisstafftocallmorestaff,directed
PI Gaikwad and his staff to take the injured to the hospitals by
whatevermeansavailable.Localpersons,taximenandsomelocal
organisationshelpedthemintakingtheinjuredtothehospitals.He
cordonedoffthebogieaspeoplestartedcrowdingandcomingcloser
to the bogie. When some more staff members came, he directed
themtosearchintheotherbogiesforsimilaractandtoseewhether
therewereanydangerousarticleskeptthere.Hegaveinformation
abouttheincidenttohissuperiorsandonmakinginquirieswiththe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..33..
Ext.4825
staffabouttheinjured,hecametoknowthat18personshaddiedat
thespotandabout4050personshadbeeninjured.Herecordedthe
informationExt.106ofPSIDhone,PW1,whowasthebeatincharge
ofBorivaliRailwayPoliceStation.HeregisteredC.R.No.156of
2006onitsbasisfortheoffencesundersections302,307,120Br/w
34oftheIPC,sections3,4,5and6oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct,
sections5,6and9BoftheExplosivesAct,sections3and4ofthe
PreventionofDamagetoPublicPropertyAct,1984andsection150
to153,164and165oftheRailwaysAct.
32.
PSIDhone,PW1,statedinhisinformationExt.106,thatheis
attachedtotheBorivaliRailwayPoliceStationasaPSIandwason
daydutyon11/07/06.Afterdoingtheofficeworkforthewhole
day,hewenttotheplatformsatabout1800hoursforpatrollingas
hewasthebeatofficerontheBorivaliRailwayPoliceStation.Dy.SP
Ahir,PW144,PIGaikwad,SHOASIPandarkarandofficepolicestaff
wereinthepolicestationatthattime.Heheardasoundofabig
explosionatabout1828hours,therefore,theycameonplatformno.
1andlookedtowardsthedirectionoftheexplosion.Theysawthata
Virarboundtrainwasstandingonrailwaytrackofplatformno.4,in
betweenplatformsno.4and5andsmokewascomingoutfromthe
firstclass bogie that was near the northern bridge of the station.
Theyalsoheardshoutsandscreamsofpeopleandtheywenttothe
spot. The passengers in the train and on the platform started
runninghereandthere.Whentheywenttothebogieforhelpingthe
injured,theysawthatthebogiewastotallydestroyedandpartsof
humanbodiesandbloodwaseverywhere.Manydeadbodiesand,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..34..
Ext.4825
injuredwerelyingoneachotherandthearticlesofthepassengers
werelyingscattered.Allthepoliceofficersandstafftookthedead
bodies and injured persons by whatever transport available for
medicaltreatmenttotheBhagwatiHospital,Borivali.Dy.SPAhir,
PW144,sentPIGaikwad,ASIShaikh,HCDhodia, 1770,andPC
Mhapdi to the Bhagwati Hospital. When they were surveying the
spotandmaintainingthelawandorder,PIGaikwadphonedfrom
BhagwatiHospitalonhismobilethat,becauseoftheblast,outof
theinjuredpersons,18hadbeendeclaredasdeadbythedoctorsin
thesaidhospitaland4050personswereseriouslyinjuredandwere
admittedinthathospital.
33.
withthepersonsatthespotandonsurveyingthefirstclassbogie
no.935AoftheChurchgateVirallocal,hewasconvincedthatsome
unknownpersonshadconspiredandplannedtoexplodeexplosives
that can cause huge damage, and, thereby created terror in the
minds of people and thereby killed passengers and surrounding
personsandinjuredmanypersons,becauseofwhichtheyattempted
to commit their murder and caused damage and loss to the
government property. Hence he gives the complaint under the
sectionsasmentionedabove.
34.
Dy.SPAhir,PW144,calledforthearticlesthatwererequired
forpreparingthespotpanchanamafromthepolicestationandwith
the help of panchas started preparing panchanama of the spot.
Railway Police Commissioner and Control Room had given
directions to the experts to reach the spot. When he started
JudgementMCOC21/06
..35..
Ext.4825
preparingthepanchanamaandwasinspectingthebogiewiththe
helpofpanchas,FSLexpertKulkarnicamethereandshowedthem
certainarticlesthatwouldbeusefulforthepurposeofinvestigation.
Hegaveninearticlesthathepickedupfromthebogie,whichDy.SP
Ahir,PW144,putinseparateplasticbagsandlabeledandsealed
them before the panchas. These were piece of rexine and cotton
swabs,Arts.189and190,piecesofglass,plywoodandmud,Arts.
191 (colly), pieces of glass, plywood and mud, Arts.192 (colly),
piecesofoilpaint,Arts.193(colly),piecesofsunmicaandjute,Arts.
194(colly),smallsilvercylinderandapieceofmetal,Arts.195(1&
2),piecesofhalfburntclothes,burntsmallbatterycell,brokenpiece
oflockofsuitcaseandash,Arts.196(colly),piecesoftornplastic
carrybaghavingnameGMCT,piecesofnewspapers,rexine,metal,
plastic,ash,etc.,Art.197(colly),piecesofmetal,Arts.198(colly).
Dy. SP Ahir, PW144, seized these articles under the panchanama
Ext.540inthepresenceofthepanchwitnesses,EsekiMuttuNadar,
(PW32)(Ext.539),andonemore.
35.
PSIShelaroftheBombDetectionandDisposalSquadcame
therewithtwosnifferdogsandalongwithhimDy.SPAhir,PW144
surveyedthebogie.HecollectedbelongingsofpassengersArts.199
to242andmadeaninventoryExt.1586beforethepanchas.Railway
authorities made arrangements of light as darkness started
increasingduringthepanchanama.Thereafterhewenttothepolice
station. He gave permission to the railway authorities, on their
request, to shift the train from the spot. He learnt on taking
information that till that time 27 persons had died. He prepared
JudgementMCOC21/06
..36..
Ext.4825
C.R.No.59of2006ofVasaiRoadRailwayPoliceStation:
36.
attachedtoVasaiRoadRailwayPoliceStationasSr.PIandonduty
on that railway station on 11/07/06. API Doke informed him on
phonefromthepolicestationat1840hoursthattherewasabomb
blastnearMiraRoadRailwayStationinalocaltrain.HetoldAPI
Doke that he is going to the spot and that he should send PSI
Bhosaleand15staffmemberstothespot.Hestartedfromthepolice
stationandreachedthespotthatwasinbetweenMiraRoadand
Bhayandar. Staff of Kashimira, Bhayandar and Mira Road Police
Stationsweredeployedforbandobastatthespot.Alocaltrainwas
standing at the spot with the overhead wire broken. Focus lights
were putup at the spotbythe railways andthe blasthadtaken
placeinthefirstfirstclasscompartment.Thetinofthecompartment
wasblownapartandthebogiewascompletelydestroyed,bloodand
fleshpiecesandarticlesofpassengerswerelyingscatteredinthe
bogie.Seats,fansandwindowswerebrokenandlyingdown.Mira
Road Railway Station Master Pradeepkumar Verbey, (PW6)(Ext.
427),methimatthe spot.Sr.PIKulkarni,PW133,deployedhis
staffforguardingthespotandkeepingitasitis.Deadandinjured
personshadbeencarriedtonearbyhospitalsbythelocalpoliceand
thepublic.Hetookthe Station Mastertothe Bhayander Railway
JudgementMCOC21/06
..37..
Ext.4825
Policechowki,whichiswithinthejurisdictionofVasaiRoadRailway
PoliceStation,andrecordedhis informationExt.428.Hesentthe
informationwithAPIDoketotheVasaiRoadRailwayPoliceStation
and asked the SHO to register a crime and to assign the
investigationtohim.TheSHOregisteredcrimeno.59of2006for
theoffencesundersections302,307,326,430,427,120Br/w.34of
theIPC,3,4,5and6oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct,3and4ofthe
PreventionofDamagetoPublicPropertyAct,1984andsections150
to154oftheIndianRailwaysAct.
37.
StationMasterVerbey,PW6,statedinhisinformationthathe
worksasaStationMasterintheWesternRailwayssincelastfive
yearsandfromMay,2005heissoworkingattheMiraRoadRailway
Station. One Dinesh Chorghe is the station superintendent. One
PawankumarPandeyistheStationMasteralongwithhimandthey
workintwoshifts.Thedutyofthestationsuperintendentisfrom
0600hoursto1400hours.
38.
Hewasondutyon11/07/06from1400hoursto2200hours,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..38..
Ext.4825
39.
Thereafterhemadeinquiresaboutthepersonswhohadbeen
senttothehospitalandcametoknowthattotal25personshaddied
inthebombblastand62injuredpersonsweretakingtreatmentin
the hospitals.Similarlytherewas a heavydamagetothe railway
property,asthesignalandoverheadwireonthelocalwasdamaged
and the bogie was torn and damaged due to the big explosion.
Hence he lodged the complaint that some unknown persons had
JudgementMCOC21/06
..39..
Ext.4825
keptexplosivesubstanceinthesaidtraintocausebombblastwith
theintentionofkilling passengersandhadkilled25personsand
injuredabout62persons,therebyattemptedtokillthemandhad
causeddamagetotherailwaypropertytoalargeextent.
40.
Sr.PIKulkarni,PW133,thenstartedtheinvestigationofthe
crime.Verbey,PW6,showedhimthespotandthenhepreparedthe
spot panchanama Ext.564 in the presence of panch witnesses,
RameshKailashVarma,(PW34)(Ext.563),andonemore. Thedog
squadandtheBombDetectionandDisposalSquadhadcomethere
during the preparation of panchanama. PSI Nikam of that squad
directed the dog Seema to sniff at the spot and Sr. PI Kulkarni,
PW133, seized aluminum pieces, paper pieces and blood mixed
earth,putthemintwodifferentplasticbagsandlabeledandsealed
themunderthepanchanama.Thereweremanybagsinandoutside
thecompartment.HedirectedPSIBhosaletogatherthebagsunder
panchanamaandalsodirectedthelocalpolicetotakefurthersteps
inconnectionwiththeinjuredandthedeceased.HedirectedPSIs
Devkate,BhosaleandYadavtotakethestatementsoftheinjured.
PSIBhosaletookabout37articlesfromthespottothepolicestation
and prepared a panchanadma. The articles that he seized were
rexine and assorted pieces, Art.245 (colly), three white round
papers,Arts.246(1to3)andassortedpiecesofbrokenarticlesand
mud, Art. 247(colly). A broadcast about the crime was made by
wirelesstoallpolicestationsandsearchforaccusedwaslaunched.
Hegavetheseizedarticlesinthepossessionofthemuddemalclerk
on12/07/06.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..40..
Ext.4825
Furtherinvestigation:
41.
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,sentthearticlesthatwerecollectedby
theFSLofficersfromthesite atMatungatotheForensicScience
Laboratory, Kalina, Santacruz, Mumbai alongwith his forwarding
letter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.660,withPNGautamAnkush
Kamble,(PW54)(Ext.659),on13/07/06.ThereportoftheFSLExt.
2000 dtd.17/07/06 was received and it showed that
Cyclonite(RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Oil were detected in the post explosion debris, that
includedcottonswabsofacetoneandwater.
43.
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,hadinstructedhissubordinateofficers
JudgementMCOC21/06
..41..
Ext.4825
thesuspects.Ontheordersofthesuperiorofficers,DadarRailway
PoliceStationandBhoiwadaPoliceStationofficerspreparedinquest
panchanamasonthedeadbodiesthatwereintheKEMhospitaland
Sion Police Stationofficerspreparedinquestpanchanamason the
dead bodies that were in the Sion hospital. These three police
stations registered ADRs at zero numbers and sent the inquest
panchanamastoMumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation,onreceipt
ofwhich,ADRswereregisteredandtheinquestpanchanamaswere
included in the respective CRs. These three police stations had
handedoveralldeadbodies,exceptone,totheclaimantsdirectly.
28 persons had died in the Matunga blast as per the inquest
panchanamas, memorandum of postmortem examinations and
causeofdeathcertificates,Exts.854,856,865,866,873,874,878,
1143,1144,1157to1160,1163to1166,1871to1890asperthe
tablebelow.
TableNo.1
Sr.
No.
Nameofdeceased
Exhibitnumbersof
memorandumofpostmortem
examinations,causeofdeath
certificatesandinquest
panchanamas
1 PrabhakarShantaramGhume
1157,1158,1879
2 NandVallabhSadanandDaundiyal
1163,1164,1883
3 RajanRohidasNaik
1159,1160,1885
4 RameshKashinathRaut
1143,1144,1886
5 Salim,PakistaniNational
1165,1166
JudgementMCOC21/06
..42..
Ext.4825
6 BhairinathKrishnaSalvi
1867
7 ManualKustinD'Souza
874,1868
8 NitinSukhlalPatil
854,1869
9 GirishBaliramTalpade
873
10 SojiramModulalMeena
856,1870
11 SumantDilipDay
865
12 BabulalDurlabhbhaiWaghani
866
13 JagannathanNarisngappaGundappa
878
14 MohammadSalimKundiwala
1871
15 SureshChandraSarangadhariPandey 1872
16 HemantSakharamVaidya
1873
17 ManoharVamanRaut
1874
18 SandeepBhavaniZavar
1875
19 SandeepHariBhosale
1876&1890
20 DushyantMadhukarBhoir
1877
21 GokulBirdhichandSharma
1878
22 CyrusJehangirMunshi
1880
23 FrancisJohnLouis
1881
24 RicardAugustineD'Monte
1882
25 ManishRameshchandraManihar
1884
26 SharadKrishnaBobhate
1887
27 Mohd.JavedNaseemAhmedShaik
1888
28 ShankarRamdinGupta
1889
JudgementMCOC21/06
..43..
Ext.4825
Outoftheabove,postmortemexaminationsweredoneon18
bodiesatSionHospitalandon10bodiesatKEMHospital.Random
postmortem examinationsoftwobodiesofdeceasedNitinSukhlal
PatilandShojiramModulalMeenaweredone,thememorandumsof
whichareatExts.854and856respectively.Theopinionsastothe
probablecausesofdeathsmentionedinthememorandumsofpost
mortemexaminationsandcauseofdeathcertificateswereexplosive
cranio cerebral trauma, terminal cardio respiratory failure due to
septicemiainoperatedcaseofcontaminatedgrievousfacialandleft
foot injuries, shock due to polytrauma/multiple injuries,
haemorrhageandshockdueto multipleinjuries,headinjuryasa
resultofbombexplosion,etc.
44.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..44..
Ext.4825
station. The reports, Exts.851 and 852, showed that Nitrite (post
explosive residue) was detected in the splinters and pieces of
burnt/partiallyburntexplosive material thatwere recoveredfrom
thedeadbodyofNitinSukhlalPatil.
45.
Boththeabovedoctorshadalsoperformed postmortem on
JudgementMCOC21/06
..45..
Ext.4825
46.
Dr.Balsara,PW83,andDr.Vaz,PW84,hadissuedcauseof
deathcertificates,Exts.865,866,873,874and878inrespectoffive
deadbodiesandDr.MukeshShamraoGhuge(PW112)(Ext.1138)
andhisjuniorDr.Sapnahadconductedpostmortemon15bodiesof
thepersonswhohaddiedinthetrainblastsatMahimandother
places.Theyhadperformedpostmortemon5bodiesconcerningthe
blastatMatungaandhadissuedthememorandumsofpostmortem
examinationandcauseofdeathcertificates,Exts.1879,1157,1158
and Exts.1883, 1163, 1164 and Exts.1885, 1159, 1160 and Exts.
1886,1143,1144.Ext.1165wasofanunidentifieddeadbody.
47.
127peoplehadbeeninjuredintheMatungablastasperthe
tablebelow.ThecontentsoftheirinjurycertificatesExts.894,2727
(1to3,5,6,8,13,14,15,17,18,20,21,23,27,29,32to37,39,
40,46to50,52,55to57,59,79),showthatthosepersonshad
sustainedtheinjuriesinthebombblastinalocaltrainon11/07/06.
TableNo.2
Sr.
No.
NameofInjured
PWnumberor
Exhibitnumber
exhibitnumberof
ofmedical
affidavitfiledby
certificate
injured
JudgementMCOC21/06
..46..
Ext.4825
1 GaneshShantaramKadam
Ext.1260
2727(1)
2 MukundKamleshThakkar
Ext.1261
2727(2)
3 ZankariprasadRangnathJoshi Ext.1262
2727(3)
SurendrakumarMakhanlal
Goyal
2727(4)
5 RamkrishnaChanguMhatre
Ext.1263
2727(5)
6 KevalJanakDoshi
Ext.1264
2727(6)
7 TirumadaiRajuGopal
2727(7)
8 TejasChandrakantPathak
Ext.1265
2727(8)
9 SanjayBabanMore
2727(9)
10 JaspreetAwatarSinghKalsi
2727(10)
11 TarachandLaxmanPawar
2727(11)
12 ShrikantRamraoJedhe
2727(12)
13 SharadShantaramGorivale
Ext.1266
2727(13)
14 RamsukhMataferPaasi
Ext.1267
2727(14)
15 Ms.PoojaChandrakantYendait Ext.1407
2727(15)
16 MannanShabbirHusain
2727(16)
17 VijayMadanrajJain
PWNo.124,
2727(17)
AffidavitExt.1268
18 DineshAmbubhaiPatel
Ext.1269
2727(18)
19 NavedMohammadChouhan
2727(19)
20 VijayVasudevAmin
Ext.1270
2727(20)
21 SudhakaranKrishnanKotian
Ext.1271
2727(21)
22 RobinsonN.Abraham
2727(22)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..47..
Ext.4825
PWNo.81,
Ext.1272
839
Ext.1273
2727(23)
2727(24)
PranavVidhushekhar
Upadhyaya
2727(25)
27 UdayRamdasKaikani
2727(26)
28 ParkelCherianVergheese
PWNo.132,
2727(27)
AffidavitExt.1274
29 LarjarisKhistanFernandis
2727(28)
30 TarunDevrajAcharya
Ext.1410
2727(29)
31 ManoharduttBisanduttFulora
PWNo.125,
2727(29)
AffidavitExt.1275
32 SureshVilasMane
Ext.1276
33 ThomasLopezFrancis
PWNo.135,
2727(29)
AffidavitExt.1277
23 KalpeshSuryakantRaut
24
SayyedImtiazMubarak
Hussain
25 RobertLuisMiranda
26
34
NamamishankarKaliyaji
Nimama
2727(29)
2727(29)
35 RadheshyamRammurthiDube Ext.1278
2727(29)
36 BhairavkumarRambhilSaha
Ext.1279
2727(29)
SanjaykumarRamkisan
Baichaliya
Ext.1280
38 JosephDomnickDSouza
2727(30)
39 DevendraSitaramNimborkar
2727(31)
40 Mohd.IqbalJamalShaikh
Ext.1280&1281
2727(32)
37
JudgementMCOC21/06
..48..
41 VimalLaxminarayanSoni
Ext.4825
Ext.1282
2727(33)
RiazAliKasamAli
Lokhandwala
Ext.1283
2727(34)
43 LiladharJaiduttSharma
Ext.2734
44 AjaykumarNandkishorYadav
Ext.1409
2727(35)
45 SantoshShankarPatil
Ext.1284
2727(36)
RameshwarHaribhau
Nandanwar
Ext.2735
2727(37)
47 MahadeoAppannaNaik
2727(38)
48 DineshOdhavjiGhamelia
Ext.1285
2727(39)
49 UdayBhagwantTale
Ext.1286
50 SandipDevaprasadRoy
Ext.1412
51 AnantRavikantSurve
Ext.1287
2727(40)
52 LaxmanSitaramAdhagale
Ext.1402
53 SureshNarayanManoti
2727(41)
54 KalthumaniShivkrishnaIyer
2727(42)
2727(43)
2727(44)
2727(45)
58 RishiPravinBobra
Ext.1408
2727(46)
59 VishalPrabhakarPatil
2727(47)
60 Ms.NehaManojKavre
Ext.1289
2727(48)
42
46
55
YogendrakumarRamdoot
Dinkar
56 ArvindSurendraJain
57
MohandasParmanudas
Parnikar
JudgementMCOC21/06
..49..
Ext.4825
61
Ms.ChandrabaiMahadeo
Kharatmal
Ext.1414
62
ChitrasenSinghDharamRaj
Singh
PWNo.121,
2727(49)
AffidavitExt.1290
63 HiteshRohitkumarKaveria
Ext.1288
2727(50)
64 AnilSharadchandraParab
Ext.1291
65 VilasShantaramJawkar
2727(51)
66 AshishDeviprasadJain
Ext.1292
2727(52)
67 RamdularRamkinkarRoy
2727(53)
68 SambhajiTatobaNangre
2727(54)
69 AshishRammohanSharma
Ext.2736
2727(55)
70 NagnathKeshavMankeshwar
Ext.1411
2727(56)
71 AnilPandurangGamre
Ext.1406
2727(57)
72 SubhashSureshKamble
2727(58)
73 PrabhakarLaxmanKhamkar
Ext.2737
2727(59)
74 NarendraMonajibhaiLodhia
2727(60)
75 PradipNarayandasAgrawal
2727(61)
76 JayantVarjivandasBhansali
2727(62&63)
77 RajuGhanshyamdasShah
2727(64)
78 M.Karunakaran
2727(65)
79 K.PhalgunNair
2727(66)
80 RajendraAtmaramKhedkar
2727(67)
81 BakulbhaiBaslubhaiSawani
2727(68)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..50..
82 Ms.ParvatiHarischandraKini
Ext.4825
2727(69&70)
2727(71)
84 VinodShankarChawan
2727(72)
85 RupeshHarkisandasMestri
2727(73)
MaheshkumarBhagirath
PrasadKumawat
2727(74)
87 RamjibhaiTulsibhaiKakadiya
2727(75)
88 SagarSudhakarPatil
2727(76)
89 JaisinghHarisinghRathod
2727(77)
90 ShaileshTribhuvanSingh
2727(78)
91 SunilArjunHalaye
Ext.1404
2727(79)
92 SanjayAshokPawar
Ext.1403
93 TekynathvergesJose
2727(80)
94 JitendraVidyashankarJappi
2727(81)
95 ArvindMalappaKotik
2727(82)
KishorkumarSurendrakumar
Jain
2727(83)
97 PrabhakarRaghunathMishra
2727(84)
98 KalpanaDineshSamant
2727(85)
99 ArvindGopaldasOza
2727(86)
100 Mohmadsalimsheikh
2727(87)
101 SantoshFilipRathod
2727(88)
102 ShibanKrishanKaul
2727(89)
83
86
96
AmrishKumarHarishankar
Diwan
JudgementMCOC21/06
..51..
Ext.4825
103 DeepakUmakantNaik
2727(90)
104 JitendraShreeramRaut
2727(91)
105 HarishShamlalPawar
2727(92)
106 MansinhGauriChouhan
2727(93)
2727(94)
2727(95)
PWNo.89
894
2732(18)
107
KamaljeetsinghGovindsing
Verma
108 NimishBipinShah
109
HiteshMaganlal@Raju
Gandecha
110 N.A.Robinson
48.
Hospitalbyhisletter,Ext.1172on19/07/06toreconstructtheface
of the unclaimed dead body found in the Matunga blast, which
consistedofonlytheheadandchestportions,asitwastornand
disfigured.Healsorequestedtopreservethetissuesofthepartof
the bodyfor DNAtest.Accordingly,the doctors reconstructedthe
faceofthatpersonandgaveaCDtohim,whichhehandedoverto
his Addl. CP in the ATS, who sent it to CFSL, Chandigarh for
verifyingitscorrectness.Thereportandtheresultofexamination,
Exts.1927 and 1928 dtd. 01/08/06 and 31/07/06 were received
fromtheCFSL,Chandigarhsayingthatthereconstructionwas80%
correct.Theysubsequentlysentthetissuesofthepartsofthedead
bodytotheFSL,KalinaforDNAprofilebyhisletter,officecopyof
whichisatExt.1929dtd.21/08/06andreceivedthereportfromthe
FSL,Ext.1930.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..52..
Ext.4825
PIGodbole,PW140,duringtheinvestigationofthiscrime,
50.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..53..
Ext.4825
investigationtoACPShengaloftheATSon21/07/06onreceiving
ordersfromhissuperiors.Hetookthestatementsoftheinjuredwho
cametohispolicestationafterthatdayandsentthemtotheATS
andalsosentsomeinjuredtotheATS.
51.
905,tothepolicestationforsendingsealedbottlescontainingmetal
pieces Art.317, that were taken out from the body of deceased
JogaraoMantriPragadaandinjuredLaljiRamakantPande,(PW85)
(Ext.883).PIGodbole,PW140,sentthesealedbottlesalongwithhis
forwardingletters,Exts.902and904,underthesignatureofSr.PI
Rathod, PW176, to the FSL for chemical analysis alongwith HC
Jadhav,PW90.TheopinionintheFSLreports,Exts.1563and1562
respectively, received later on by PI Godbole, PW140, shows the
resultofanalysisthattracesofNitrite(postexplosionresidue)was
detectedontheexhibits,i.e.,themetalpieces,Art.317.
52.
43personshaddiedintheblastatMahimRailwayStationas
TableNo.3
Sr.
No.
Nameofdeceased
Exhibitnumbersof
memorandumofpostmortem
examinations,causeofdeath
certificatesandinquest
panchanamas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..54..
Ext.4825
JogaraoMantriPragada
1169,1170,1897
NamdeoChintamanBhagat
1139,1140,1900
RamanKuttyKandyNair
1151,1154,1902
ArvindJammanlalAgrawal
1155,1156,1906
NavalBhagwandasMathuriya
1145,1146,1907
SubhashChotalalShah
1147,1148,1908
RasiklalRameshchandraMerchant
1141,1142,1910
JosephRobertNarona
1161,1162,1914
PrashantGiridharBendale
1149,1150,1916
10 SunilGanpatBirwadkar
1167,1168,1924
11 VrundeshRamnirajanSakeria
1891
12 ZuberIstijaKhan
867,1892
13 YashwantPrabhakarBadekar
881,1893
14 SanfardTonyDiselas
871,1894
15 KalubhaiLaxmanKasodaria
868,1895
16 SomnathPranavkumarDas
879,1896
17 AnishVinaykumarBaindur
863
18 SanjayMohanlalJeswani
864
19 AneesSattarPatel
876
20 NinadSudhakarMahale
870
21 AmritlalLaljibhaiPatel
875
22 ChetanKuldipSharma
877
23
Mohd.TariqAnsari
880
JudgementMCOC21/06
..55..
Ext.4825
24 AnilLalubhaiShah
869
25 PrashantYashwantSawant
1898
26 YogeshHariraoPhutane
1899
27 TrikamalKeshavlalPandya
1901
28 AsimAjitKumarBhajan
1903
29 LaxmichandNanjiGala
1904
30 NaushadRamaniklalTejani
1905
31 MaksoodMohdUmarDarvesh
1909
32 JitendraManiklalShah
1911
33 LouisAnthonySiquera
1912
34 YogeshMahendrabhaiDoshi
1913
35 NiteshkumarRaeshwarPatel
1915
36 HimmatlalPabhudasModi
1917
37 NathmulDharnrajSaboo
1918
38 MavjibhaiHairbhaiPatel
1919
39 AnujNavinchandraKilwala
1920
40 AbhijeetVilasAhiwale
1921
41 ParagVasantKarambelkar
1922
42 SanjayDattaramShirke
1923
43 ChandrakantMohanlalMithani
1925
Thesedocumentsshowtheopinionsastothecausesofdeaths
to be head injury in case of explosion, shock following
JudgementMCOC21/06
..56..
Ext.4825
53.
TableNo.4
Sr.
No.
NameofInjured
PWnumberor
exhibit
Exhibitnumber
numberof
ofmedical
affidavitfiled
certificate
byinjured
1 GajananShailamMergu
2728(1)
2 ShivkumarJagdishprasadSharma
2728(2)
3 SushilJagnnathSawant
Ext.1416
2728(3)
4 GiridharDejappaKotiyan
Ext.2745
2728(4)
5 AjayPravinchandraParekh
2728(5)
6 AshokLaxmichandShah
2728(6)
7 AmjadNurulAnsari
2728(7)
8 BarkaDevkaOkate
2728(8)
9 MahadevBhagvanjiKadam
Ext.1415
2728(9)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..57..
Ext.4825
10 ParkoTangavelNadar
Ext.1405
2728(10)
11 KalicharanKuhariShetty
2728(11)
12 UmeshVinayakNaik
2728(12)
13 MohammadMaharoofKhalil
2728(13)
14 MohammadYarMohd.Sajid
2728(14)
15 PravinShankarlalVarma
Ext.2740
2728(15)
16 PankajRasiklalShah
Ext.2739
2728(16)
17 MohammadSalimMohd.Sharif
Ext.1418
2728(17)
18 RajeshTriveniprsadRanjan
2728(18)
19 SamirTulshant
2728(19)
20 KaushikUttamPradhan
Ext.1293
2728(20)
21 AniketVishwasJoshi
2728(21)
22 KishanBugadimalLakhani
2728(22)
23 RameshKhadebhaiGoti
Ext.2738
2728(23)
24 Smt.ShaliniTukaramJogdhan
Ext.2748
2728(24)
25 ParagLaxmanKadam
2728(25)
26 VasantGopinathTotka
2728(26)
27 RamniwasPannalalLaddha
2728(27)
28 KashinathVasantShinde
2728(28)
29 NarendraJayantilalMehta
2728(29)
30 UmeshRameshShah
2728(30)
31 ViraRaghvanShriniwasan
2728(31)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..58..
Ext.4825
32 DilipRamchandraShirke
Ext.2747
2728(32)
33 BalkrishnnaBalramControllu
2728(33)
34 DilipAmichandKhandelwal
2728(34)
35 LouisDagduKadam
2728(35)
36 GautamBharatDhanaresha
2728(36)
37 UmeshPyarelalSonar
2728(37)
38 MarutiprasadHemchandraPrakash
2728(38)
39 TambiThomasLazer
2728(39)
40 AshokLaxmichandShah
2728(40)
41 ArjunSakharamKalambe
2728(41)
42 BaluSakharamKakad
2728(42)
43 ChandravilasMahadevGandhi
2728(43)
44 AntonitoGeorgeNarona
2728(43)
45 J.K.Nair
2728(43)
46 ArvindManilalParikh
2728(44)
47 JaiprakashChandrashekharShukla
2728(45)
48 PrakashYashwantSamant
2728(46)
49 LaxmanBalwantSamant
2728(47)
50 BirjuBalkrishnnaNayar
2728(48)
51 SunilChandrakantKarnik
2728(49)
52 SandeepGajendraZha
2728(50)
53 ChandeshRasiklalKothari
2728(51)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..59..
Ext.4825
54 RajeevSumeruVarma
2728(52)
55 VijayPalniMakwana
2728(53)
56 BabuMarutiKamble
2728(54)
57 MaheshbhaiShantilalShah
2728(55)
58 RoystanAbrahamD'mello
Ext.1417
2728(56)
59 BalkrishnnaDivakarPatkar
2728(57)
60 MukeshSadanandShenoy
2728(58)
61 PadmachandMohanlalGandhi
2728(59)
62 NileshBhogilalShah
2728(60)
63 LaljiRamkantPandey
PWNo.85
2728(61)
64 RameshbhaiPopatbhaiNathani
2728(62)
65 MaheshNatwarlalPonda
2728(63)
66 RajnikantMaganlalDesai
Ext.2743
2728(64)
67 DamjibhaiMathurbhaiJadhav
2728(65)
68 PrestanPeterFarnandis
2728(66)
69 DipakVasantKadam
Ext.2742
2728(67)
70 DigambarLimbajiSasane
2728(68)
71 BismillaMohammadSultan
2728(69)
72 SaurabhVijayHarde
2728(70)
73 VinodGajananBhatt
2728(71)
74 SanjeshkumarSushilkumarSingh
2728(72)
75 NikhilkumarKantilalMehta
2728(73)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..60..
Ext.4825
76 KamalRajaramYadav
2728(74)
77 KamleshZabbuRajbhar
PWNo.25
2728(75)
78 VilasDhakuPawar
2728(76)
79 BhimraosadhooKesare
2728(77)
80 ParshuramRajaramIngle
2728(78)
81 ChandrakantShankarDalvi
2728(79)
82 SitaramMangiramRathi
2728(80)
83 RakeshVasantSalunkhe
Ext.2749
2728(81)
84 VinodYellappaMendhan
2728(82)
85 SirajuddinJaimulMutabikShaikh
Ext.2746
2728(86)
86 RatnakarVasudeoSawant
Aff.Ex.2744
2728(87)
87 NavinKumarBabuDevadiya
Ext.2741
2728(88)
88 MaheshChotubhaiChavan
2728(89)
89 PrabhakarDattramSadekar
2728(90)
90 ChallaihMallaiahBodge
2728(91)
91 MohammadKaisarKasimAnsari
2728(92)
92 LaltaprasadKalikaYadav
2728(93)
93 ChandrakantBasannaDolgaund
2728(94)
94 Ms.ShantabaiShankarTrimukhe
Ext.1413
2728(95)
95 MohammadAadilMohd.Ali
2728(96)
96 Smt.HirabaiYeshwantShinde
Ext.1419
JudgementMCOC21/06
..61..
Ext.4825
Sr.PIKadri,PW138,sentseizedarticlesinboththecrimesto
55.
consultantplasticsurgeonintheHolyFamilyHospital,Bandra,had
operatedonDevdasSituShetty,(PW23)(Ext.501),aninjuredinC.
R.No.86of2006andhadremovedtheforeignbody,Art.94,from
thescalpofthatpatientandhadissuedtheinjurycertificate,Ext.
781.Dr.RussellPinto,(PW56)(Ext.681),consultantsurgeoninthe
HolyFamilyHospitalatBandra,hadtreatedAshokRaghuvirRao,
(PW27)(Ext.594), an injured in C. R. No.86 of 2006 and had
removedtheforeignbody,Art.93,fromthewoundontherightside
ofhischestandhadissuedtheinjurycertificateExt.684.Hehad
also treated Vishal Vijaykumar Nagaich, (PW13)(Ext.445), an
injuredinC.R.No.87of2006andhadremovedatriangularshaped
foreignbody,Art.95,fromtherightsideofhisneckandhadissued
theinjurycertificateExt.682.
56.
HolyFamilyHospitalphonedthepolicestationthattheyhad
JudgementMCOC21/06
..62..
Ext.4825
takenoutforeignbodiesfromthebodiesofthreeinjuredpersons.Sr.
PIKadri,PW138,sentPSIPednekartobringthem.PSIPednekar
seized them under the panchanama Ext.504 in the presence of
panchwitnessesSureshDagduVandre,(PW24)(Ext.503),andone
more.Sr.PIKadri,PW138,senttheforeignbodies/metalpiecesin
C. R. No. 86 of 2006 to the FSL, Kalina alongwith WPC Savita
Raghunath Satav, (PW87)(Ext.886), alongwith his forwarding
letters,copiesofwhichareatExts.888(1and2).Healsosentthe
foreign body/metal piece taken out from the body of the injured
Vishal Nagaich alongwith WPC Satav, PW87, alongwith his
forwardingletters,copiesofwhichareatExts.889(1and2).The
contents of the FSL reports, Ext.2434(1) of the metal pieces
concerning the injured Devdas Shetty and Ashok Rao and Ext.
2433(1)oftheinjuredVishalNagaich,showtheresultofanalysis
that traces of Nitrite (post explosive residue) was detected. Exts.
2434(2)and2433(2)aretheFSLreportsinrespectofanalysisof
traceelementsinthemetalpieces.
57.
22personshaddiedintheblastnearBandraRailwayStation
JudgementMCOC21/06
..63..
Ext.4825
TableNo.5
Sr.
No.
Nameofdeceased
Exhibitnumbersof
memorandumofpostmortem
examinations,causeofdeath
certificatesandinquest
panchanamas
KrishnakumarParasnath
2610
ShashiShekharGangadhar
2611
SureshShenshaduPawar
2612
ShashikantSudamBadekar
2613
JigneshBipinbhaiMehta
2614
DalpatChabildasMasekar
2615
SudhirDivakarChimote
2616
DilipKashinathKamath
2617
RupeshRahulKamble
2618
10 SanadMadhubahiBadekar
2619
11 AjayDaulatraoShevda
2620
12 HariharanChidambaramAyyar
2621
13 Modh.SohailSagirShaikh
2622
14 SachinRadheshamKhanna
2623
15 PinakiMukhopadhyaya
2624
16 SurendraprabhuRamchandran
2625
17 SanjayRamakantSamant
2626
18 VishwasAnanatThorat
2627
JudgementMCOC21/06
..64..
Ext.4825
19 KantilalTulshidasGohil
2628
20 K.BhujangShetty
2629
21 TejasChandrakantShah
2630
22 HemchandraVishwanathMastkar
2631
58.
107personshadbeeninjuredinthisblastaspertheinjury
certificates,Ext.2729(1to134)asperthetablebelow,contentsof
whichshowthattheyhadsustainedtheinjuriesinthebombblastin
localtrainon11/07/06.
TableNo.6
Sr.
No.
NameofInjured
PWnumber
orexhibit
Exhibitnumberof
numberof
medicalcertificate
affidavitfiled
byinjured
SumanKumarPappaRaju
2729(1)
RakeshRamnarayanPandey
Ext.1425
2729(2&3)
MukeshKanhaiyalalHinduja
Ext.1300
2729(4)
AnantSadashivRaorane
2729(5)
VijayGaneshSahasrabudhe
2729(6)
BhagyabatSardeshwarRahang
2729(7)
Smt.ShobhanaJamunashankar
Pandya
2729(8&9)
RoshanlalRaghunathSahay
2729(10)
NileshChandrakantMaru
2729(11)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..65..
Ext.4825
10 MaheshManoharlalTrivedi
PWNo.8
2729(12&13)
11 AshokBhauraoKulgod
Ext.1299
2729(14&15)
12 ArunGunwantDeshmukh
Ext.1302
2729(16)
13 VrishabhSuryakantPathak
Ext.1298
2729(17)
14 KaushikUttambhaiPradhan
2729(18)
15 KalpeshPrakashMhatre
Ext.1294
2729(19&20)
16 SajidAliMehboobAli
Ext.1295
2729(21&22)
17 ParagJayantMahadani
2729(23&24)
18 LaxmanVasudeoParab
2729(25)
19 MorakalaGopalkrishna
2729(26)
20 VijayHarishPurohit
2729(27)
21 MukeshIndulalShah
Ext.1296
2729(28&29)
22 KamleshMohanlalShah
2729(30)
23 RavindraVasantSaravate
Ext.1297
2729(31)
24 KishorTuljashankarShukla
2729(32)
25 CajetanDennisEspibeiro
2729(33)
26 ShubenduShishirkumarBehra
Ext.1420
2729(34)
27 AshokRamchandraDayani
2729(35)
28 VasantLaharchandGaudani
Ext.1421
2729(36)
29 NaginLalajiRathod
2729(37&38)
30 BhaskarSanayyaKotian
Ext.1424
2729(39&40)
BhagwandasPhuljibhai
Makwana
Ext.1301
2729(41)
31
JudgementMCOC21/06
..66..
Ext.4825
32 NikeshKantilalRathod
2729(42)
33 SuhasPandurangChougule
2729(43)
34 RameshMahadeoZope
Ext.2750
2729(44)
35 MukeshbhaiNarendraZaveri
2729(45&46)
36 AnupJagdishSaksena
Ext.1422
2729(47)
37 BipinDattatrayaRaut
Ext.1429
2729(48)
38 NishitSitaramShrivastav
2729(49)
2729(50)
40 KaustubhRajendraKulkarni
Ext.2751
2729(51)
41 RajanKunjbihariShah
2729(52&53)
42 HarishRamchandraKundnani
2729(54&55)
43 DineshVishwanathTirodkar
2729(56)
44 DevdasSiddhuShetty
PWNo.23
780&781
39
ManveerSinghRajindraSingh
Chandok
45 SuryanarayanSubramanyamIyer Ext.1428
2729(59)
46 AshishRajulalChauhan
2729(60)
47 YogeshNatwarlalAdia
2729(61)
48 SunilRambhauSasane
2729(62)
49 DeepakVasudeoChhabria
2729(63)
50 BhavenManoharDesai
Ext.1430
2729(57&58)
51 NitinAnandraoJawale
Ext.2752
2729(64)
52 AmitRamdasBante
2729(65&66)
53 SanjayIshwarlalDesai
2729(67&68)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..67..
Ext.4825
54 SriramGowardhandasLanjewal
2729(69&70)
55 AshokRaghuvirRao
PWNo.27
2729(71)
56 GanpatChintamanPimparkar
2729(72)
57 KiranAnantraiDesai
2729(73)
58 SubhashChimajiTawde
Ext.2753
2729(74)
59 SitaramMahadeoPandit
2729(75)
60 LalkumarKanasanandTolani
2729(76)
61 JairajanKunnikrishnanNair
2729(77&78)
62 NitinRasiklalShah
2729(79&80)
63 NutanHarilalPrasad
2729(81&82)
64 DevendraKumarJain
2729(83)
65 SanjaySatyanarayanNamdeo
2729(84)
66 ParasharanGangaramRathod
2729(85&86)
SubbirKumarPhanindranath
Roy
2729(87)
68 JaywantYeshwantRane
2729(88)
69 RameshMahadeoManchekar
2729(89)
70 PrasannaSitaramPrabhu
2729(90)
Ext.1423
2729(91)
72 MaulinHarishMomaya
Ext.2754
2729(92&93)
73 RampherShardaPrasadMishra
2729(94&95)
74 SurendraPundalikThavi
2729(96)
75 MuradMallickPanjwani
2729(97)
67
71
LakhanSinghJagramSingh
Rajput
JudgementMCOC21/06
..68..
76 PrabhakarDhakuIswalkar
Ext.4825
2729(98)
2729(99)
78 SanjayNathujiPatil
2729(100&101)
79 VaibhavPradeepMittal
2729(102&103)
80 PankajAshokVazirani
2729(104)
81 AvinashNarayanKarve
Ext.1426
2729(105)
82 NishikantJagannathGore
2729(106)
83 SuhasManoharJadhav
2729(107)
84 Dr.PankajPoonamchandLohia
2729(108)
85 PundlikMahaduMore
2729(109)
86 ChandrasekharVasantPujari
2729(110)
87 VivekRajendraKumarTulsiyani
2729(111)
MahendrakumarRamanlal
Parikh
2729(112)
89 KaushalSureshVora
2729(113)
90 DeepakVishwanathParab
2729(114)
91 ChetanAnandBishandas
2729(115&116)
92 NagendraPrasadKoropolu
2729(117&118)
93 KamalJethmalPareikh
2729(119)
94 RajuSethia
2729(120)
95 UrbanJohnBaptistSequeira
2729(121)
96 GajananSitaramManjrekar
Ext.1427
2729(122)
77
88
SunilKumarRameshChandra
Singh
JudgementMCOC21/06
..69..
Ext.4825
97 AbdulKarimKhan
2729(123)
98 AshishMohanBaktani
2729(124)
99 SaurabhShantaramKochrekar
2729(125)
100 G.HariharSubrayamanyam
Ext.2755
2729(126)
101 Mrs.VinayaVinayakPalav
2729(127&128)
102 PradeepIndulalShah
2729(129)
103 MehulRajendraTrivedi
2729(130)
104 SiddharthHinduraoGholap
2729(131)
105 VeenaGaneshChorat
2729(132)
106 RajendraprasadShivdayalPateria
2729(133)
107 WilliamBaptistFernandis
2729(134)
59.
9personshaddiedintheKharSubwayblastnearSantacruz
RailwayStation aspertheinquestpanchanamas,memorandumsof
postmortemexaminationsandcauseofdeathcertificates,Exts.2632
to 2640 as per the table below. The opinion as to the probable
causes of deaths mentioned in the memorandums postmortem
examinationsandcauseofdeathcertificateswas duetoshockand
haemorrhageduetomultipleinjuriesinthebombblast.
TableNo.7
Sr.
No.
Nameofdeceased
Exhibitnumbersof
memorandumofpostmortem
examinations,causeofdeath
certificatesandinquest
panchanamas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..70..
Ext.4825
1 JitnedraJ.Thadeshwar
2632
2 KunalRajnikantShah
2633
3 RameshShivlalKumawat
2634
4 MohanlalRatanlalShrawji
2635
5 HimanshuBuddhadev
2636
6 GirishN.Paramanand
2637
7 ManishMohanDivekar
2638
8 VinodAriKottanThatiotan
2639
9 WaghelaAshokRamjibhai
2640
60.
102personshadbeeninjuredinthesameblastasperthe
injurycertificates,Ext.2730(1to118)asperthetablebelow,which
showthattheyhadsustainedtheinjuriesinthebombblastinlocal
trainon11/07/06.
TableNo.8
Sr.
No.
NameofInjured
PWnumberor
exhibitnumber Exhibitnumberof
ofaffidavit
medicalcertificate
filedbyinjured
LalitKumarBhagwandas
Phanse
2730(1)
PramodHareshwarGharat
Ext.1309
2730(2&3)
ParimalJagjivandasGandhi
Ext.1328
2730(4)
SheshmalBhurmalJain
Ext.1307
2730(5)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..71..
Ext.4825
GulabraoGanpatPatole
Ext.1446
2730(6)
VirajNarendrabhaiPanchal
Ext.1303
2730(7&8)
SuryakantBalkrishnaSawant
Ext.1311
2730(9)
IshwaranTarun
Ext.1450
2730(10)
JatinMafatbhaiWaghela
Ext.1310
2730(11)
10 RaeesAbdulRaufChoudhary
2730(12)
11 KetanDalpatbhaiPatel
2730(13&14)
12 HasmukhNarayanPopat
Ext.1447
2730(15)
13 NitinShivajiTungare
Ext.1306
2730(16)
14 KunalManoharKolge
Ext.1313
2730(17&19)
15 LalubhaiPuroshattamGopani
Ext.1318
2730(18)
16 RasikShantilalSawala
2730(20)
17 AshokHariKamble
2730(21)
18 AnatPanduragAshtekar
Ext.1343
2730(22)
19 ChiragArvindChauhan
2730(23&24)
20 KundaVithobaShinde
Ext.1304
2730(25)
21 NarendraGunwantlalShah
Ext.1308
2730(26&27)
22 SukeshShekharAmin
Ext.1448
2730(28)
23 ChintanBadreshGandhi
2730(29)
24 RajendraDejuShetty
Ext.1314
2730(30)
25 MangeshLallanZha
2730(31)
26 SunilKrushanmurariGoyal
2730(32)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..72..
27 UmeshJayantilalManiyar
28
HemchandraChandrakant
Patankar
Ext.4825
Ext.1315
2730(33)
Ext.1316
2730(34)
29 NarendraSurajmalKhandelwal Ext.1441
2730(35&36)
30 AmitprakashOmprakashSingh
2730(37)
Ext.1320
2730(38&39)
32 JaydipAnantraoVyas
Ext.1431
2730(40&41)
33 JayantilalMemribaiKathad
Ext.1436
2730(42)
34 SandeepSureshNaik
Ext.2756
2730(43)
35 KishorGopinathDivekar
Ext.1319
2730(44)
36 NimeshNitinDesai
2730(45)
37 MinrulAnisUrRehmanIslam
2730(46)
38 DiptiSitaramGhadigaonkar
Ext.1317
2730(47)
39 SanjeevRaghvanChachil
2730(48&49)
40 MadhukarNarayanLoke
Ext.1305
2730(50)
41 SachinPrabhakarPawar
Ext.1433
2730(51)
42 PradeepKantilalJoshi
Ext.1324
2730(52)
43 VinayHanumantPatil
Ext.1321
2730(53)
44 VinodkumarKeshavlalDarji
2730(54)
45 MahendraBabulalMehta
Ext.1444
2730(55&56)
46 AnujGirishkukmarNandawani
2730(57)
47 MadhukarBabulalZaveri
Ext.1312
2730(58)
31
ChandrakantNarayan
Deshmukh
JudgementMCOC21/06
..73..
48 JacobKMathew
Ext.4825
Ext.1435
2730(59)
49 DhanisharanRamswarupJayant Ext.1443
2730(60)
50 AmitRangnathPunja
2730(61)
51 MineshPopatlalMunani
Ext.1342
2730(62)
52 RajeshkumarSarvanarayanZha
2730(63&64)
53 DhirajKuvarjiRathod
2730(65)
54 NarshinhaMuddagiriKamat
Ext.1325
2730(66)
55 AlpeshAshokKondalkar
Ext.1440
2730(67)
56 JaradKalapurekalMathew
Ext.1322
2730(68)
57 AnsubRamanujIsthapak
2730(69)
58 AshokTukaramTandale
Ext.1442
2730(70)
59 JagdishLaljiGodia
PWNo.9
2730(71)
60 RakeshJaynarayanKapoor
2730(72)
61 ClintonGeorgeMartin
2730(73)
62 SundareshanS.Iyer
Ext.1327
2730(74)
63 AnlesAnantDesai
2730(75)
64 SarbinderSingHarbansing
2730(76)
65 RajendraManoharPanchal
Ext.1326
2730(77)
66 RohitJagannathShetty
2730(78)
67 PrashantSitaramRathi
2730(79)
68 LalitNikunjPoddar
Ext.1331
2730(80)
69 HarshadbhaiTrambaklalShah
Ext.1333
2730(81&82)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..74..
Ext.4825
70 PremlalNalinAjmera
Ext.1330
2730(83)
71 NileshGaneshbhaiJoshalia
Ext.1432
2730(84)
72 DaraBShroff
Ext.1329
2730(85&86)
73 DhananjaySrirangUpdekar
2730(87)
74 RamnathanSudarshanIyer
2730(88)
75 TusharN.Shah
Ext.1332
2730(89)
76 AshishVinayakGokhale
Ext.1445
2730(90)
77 Ms.ChayaPankajModi
Ext.1334
2730(91)
78 ShivajiArjunSahinsakhale
2730(92)
79 AnishKumarDatta
Ext.1449
2730(93&94)
80 SatishParshuramMadav
2730(95)
81 BrijeshkumarSuryakantDubey
Ext.1335
2730(96)
82 DineshSatyanarayanLahoti
Ext.1337
2730(97&98)
83 RanjitPratapraoPatil
Ext.1336
2730(99)
84 IndrakumarShyamsundarSaraf Ext.1341
2730(100)
85 IlancheriK.Padmanabhan
Ext.1339
2730(101&102)
86 DhawalAshokShah
Ext.1434
2730(103)
87 HarishbhaiHargovindShah
Ext.1451
2730(104)
88 ManubhaiShankarlalBhat
2730(105)
2730(106)
90 RajeshHaridasBiswadia
Ext.1340
2730(107)
91 HarishSumanlalDoshi
Ext.1439
2730(108)
89
TenilapuramSundaram
Mahalingam
JudgementMCOC21/06
..75..
Ext.4825
92 SachinDilipMahimkar
2730(109)
93 E.K.Kutty
2730(110)
94 VishalVijaykumarNagaiech
PWNo.13
682
95 VikasVishwanathModi
2730(111)
Ext.1438
2730(112)
97 BalsubramanyamSriram
2730(113)
98 AshfaqueJabbarKhan
2730(114)
99 AnishPradeepKelkar
2730(115)
100 VivekDattatrayaShirke
Ext.1437
2730(116)
Ext.1323
2730(117)
Ext.1338
2730(118)
96
101
ManojkumarGiridharbhai
Kheredia
LakshmanGopalkrishnan
Kamath
102 UmarshiRaimalMota
61.
Sr.PIKadri,PW138,handedoverallthedocumentsofthe
C.R.No.41of2006ofAndheriRailwayPoliceStation:
62.
Dy.SPRaskar,PW139,tookstatementsofinjured,tookthe
statementofPSIGhuge,whohadgivenhimtheinformationofthe
blastandofotherwitnesses,sentaspecialreporttohissuperiorson
12/07/06 and the notes of investigation to the railway and city
policestations.Healsogaveinstructionstotheinvestigatingteamto
makeinquiriesaboutthesuspectswithdailypassengers.
JudgementMCOC21/06
63.
..76..
Ext.4825
HesentthearticlesseizedfromthespottotheFSLwithASI
64.
Hecontinuedwiththefurtherinvestigationandon15/07/06
hesentthearticlesseizedfromthespotasperthedirectionsofthe
Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad, to the FSL alongwith PN
SubhashJairamTambe,(PW98)(Ext.975),alongwithhisforwarding
letter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.976.Thecontentsofthereport
oftheFSL,Ext.977,showtheresultofanalysisthatCyclonite(RDX),
Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite, Petroleum Hydrocarbon Oil were
detectedinthepostexplosiondebris.
65.
duringwhichcrimeno.42of2006wasregisteredonthecomplaint
ofarelativeofadeceasedbynameAjmera,aboutsomeonehaving
takenawayagoldfingerringandacreditcardofthedeceased.One
MithunJitendraGandhicametothepolicestationon14/07/06and
requestedforshowingtheseizedarticlesforlocatinghisfather,who
hadgonemissingaftertheincident.Hewasshownthearticlesand
heidentifiedaphotograph,arailwaypassandotherdocuments,as
belongingtohisfather.Thisconfirmedthathisfatherhadtraveled
upto Jogeshwari, but his name did not figure in the list of the
injured or the deceased. Therefore, Dy. SP Raskar, PW139,
appointedateamofPSIGhugeandstafftosearchthefatherofthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..77..
Ext.4825
person.Sr.PIArvindNarayanWadhankar,(PW167)(Ext.1767),and
staffoftheATS,cametothepolicestationonthatdayforinquiry
andhegavethembriefinformationaboutthecrime.Dy.SPRaskar,
PW139,alsorecordedstatementsofinjuredwhocametothepolice
stationduring14thto17/07/06afterbeingtreated.PSIGhugeand
histeamproducedamanbynameSagarVyapariandawomanby
name Sangeeta Vyapari, resident of Manjipada, Dist. Thane, on
17/07/06 and gave report alleging that they had taken the dead
bodyofJitendraDarjibhaiGandhiofKandivalifromCooperHospital
on the pretext that it is the dead body of Sunil Vyapari, Sagar's
father and Sangeeta's husband and had cremated the body at
Oshiwara and had taken compensation of Re.1,00,000/ from the
StateGovernment.ThisJitendraDarjibhaiGandhiwasthefatherof
Mithun Jitendra Gandhi, who had come to the police station on
14/07/06,insearchofhisfather.Dy.SPRaskar,PW139,sentthe
complaintwiththesaidtwopersonstoJuhuPoliceStation,asthe
crimehadbeencommittedinthejurisdictionofthatpolicestation.
C.R.No.240of2006wasregisteredtherefortheoffencesunder
sections419and420r/w34oftheIPC.
66.
Hegaveinstructionsduringtheperiodfrom14thto19/07/06
tothemuddemalclerkHCJadhavandhisassistanttoverifyand
hand over the articles of passengers to their relatives after due
verification.Duringthatwork,oneArchanaManojShahcameon
14/07/06tocollectthediamondsthathadbeenrecoveredfromthe
dead body of her husband Manoj Shah, resident of Malad. The
diamondswerekeptinplasticpouchesintwowhitepaperpackets
JudgementMCOC21/06
..78..
Ext.4825
bearingthedates6th and11/07/06andwereworthRs.4,00,000/.
Theywerereturnedtoherafterdueverificationofheridentity.The
saidManojShahwasacarrierofthediamonds.
67.
ASIAutgiri,PW96,broughttheletter,Ext.962,fromCooper
HospitaladdressedtotheSr.PItotakecustodyofametalpiecethat
was taken out from the body of Mohd. Kalal, an injured, during
operation. Therefore,he wrote a letter to the Sr. Medical Officer,
CooperHospital,VileParle,Mumbai,officecopyofwhichisatExt.
963 dtd.19/07/06, about handing over the metal piece to ASI
Autgiri,PW96.Byhisletter,Ext.964,theSr.MedicalOfficerofthat
hospital handed over the said metal piece to ASI Autgiri, PW96,
whobroughttheletterandasealedplasticjarcontainingthemetal
piecetothepolicestation.Dy.SPRaskar,PW139,sentthesealed
plasticjartotheFSL,Kalina,alongwithASIAutgiri,PW96,withhis
forwardingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.965.TheFSLreport,
Ext.966wasreceivedinaduecourse.
68.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..79..
Ext.4825
TableNo.9
Sr.
No.
Nameofdeceased
Exhibitnumbersof
memorandumofpost
mortemexaminations,cause
ofdeathcertificatesand
inquestpanchanamas
NarendraKundandasRawal
2641
PareshChotalalThakkar
2642
LotanBhilaBediskar
2643
KumudManubaiShah
2644
ChandrsenChampaklalBangdiwala
2645
TushitShanmukhananShah
2646
YatinMahendrakumarMehta
2647
Dr.KrushnakumarDubey
2648
ArvindArjunChikne
2649
10 MukundrajAmidarModi
2650
11 NandkumarBhargavVaidya
2651
12 AmrishMadhukarSawant
2652
13 PravinkumarKeshvlalUpadhayaya
2653
14 ShakirAbidAliMerchant
2654
15 AshokGajananBapat
2655
16 MahendraMotilalMehta
2656
17 HitendraPurushottamdasNagar
2657
18 ManojMahendrakumarShah
2658
JudgementMCOC21/06
..80..
Ext.4825
19 AmitabhLaxminarayanPai
2659
20 AshokGopikishanAjmera
2660
21 ShashikantRamniklalDoshi
2661
22 PrataproyNanchandVhora
2662
23 FrancisZevierLobo
2663
24 LalitRaghunathprasadKakani
2664
25 GovindjiGulabchandjiDave
2665
26 MadhuParshuramPawar
2666
27 LalitJayantilalKanchaliya
2667
28 SunilThakkar
2668
69.
115personshadbeeninjuredinthesameblastasperthe
injurycertificates,Ext.2731(1to110)asperthetablebelow,which
show that they had sustained the injuries described in the
certificatesinthebombblastinlocaltrainon11/07/06.
TableNo.10
Sr.
No.
NameofInjured
Smt.JasvinderPradeepkumar
Samiyar
PWnumberor
exhibitnumber Exhibitnumberof
ofaffidavit medicalcertificate
filedbyinjured
2731(1&2)
2 Miss.LataBhimraoShirsat
2731(3)
3 Smt.DeepikaArunChavan
2731(4)
4 JayprakashBalkrishnaGurav
PWNo.14
2731(5)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..81..
Ext.4825
Smt.ChhayaVilasKothe
2731(6)
ChandravadanMaganlalSavla
2731(7)
SunilKashiprasadBajaj
2731(8)
SmtShardaPramodTople
2731(9)
NikhilVasantKhopkar
Ext.1452
2731(10)
10 BajiraoBhausahebDesai
2731(11)
11 AmbarAbaniDay
2731(12)
12 MissAparnaVivekSalvi
2731(13)
13 NileshRohidasKadam
2731(14)
14 Smt.ShantaRohidasKadam
2731(15)
15 RambharanYadunandanMishra
2731(16&17)
16 EshanBhratkumarThakkar
Ext.2757
2731(18)
17 HanasrajM.Kanojia
2731(19)
18 RambhauVitthalSadavarte
2731(20)
19 VilasMarutiGhoge
Ext.2758
2731(21)
20 Smt.MeenaSalvi
2731(22)
21 VasantAbhimanyuSirsikar
Ext.2759
2731(23)
22 ChandrakantMataprasadMishra
2731(24)
23 DilipKeshavjiVora
2731(25)
24 PintukumarAmirSarosh
Ext.2760
2731(26)
25 VijayJagannathPawar
Ext.2761
2731(27)
26 TusharRajeshRawal
2731(28)
27 SanjayBabuShigvan
2731(29&30)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..82..
Ext.4825
28 SabajitPhekuYadav
2731(31)
29 Smt.NandubaiSaibaMujmule
2731(32)
30 MahendraVilasPitale
Ext.2762
2731(33)
31 PrakashBhalchandraWagh
Ext.2763
2731(34)
32 AshwinRameshBoricha
PWNo.134,
AffidavitExt.
1453
2731(35)
33 Smt.ManishaAnantJoshi
2731(36)
34 RamdasDhondibaWarange
2731(37)
35 VijayPandurangMestry
2731(38)
36 ArvindVallabhajiMahendra
2731(39)
37 BipinNatwarlalShah
2731(40)
38 JanakHarshadUpadhayay
2731(41)
39 HarshadSubhashBorgaokar
Ex.2764
2731(42)
40 ChandrashekharVinayakJoshi
2731(43)
41 Smt.SupriyaBabanKheratkar
2731(44&45)
42 RylanFrancisCrasto
2731(46)
43 VipulManharlalHalani
2731(47)
44 AshokRadhakisanSingal
2731(48)
45 NarendraGhusabhaiRupareliya
2731(49)
2731(50)
47 DeepakBalmukundShah
Ext.2765
2731(51)
48 KeithAnthonyDSouza
2731(52)
46
Smt.DeepjyotiSuprakash
Chaterjee
JudgementMCOC21/06
..83..
Ext.4825
49 HarishchandraDeomalGandhi
2731(53)
50 BabayAabaSodkar
Ext.1454
2731(54)
51 GulabSriramYadav
2731(55)
52 BharatRadheshyamKhatod
2731(56)
53 RajkumarBachhanSingh
2731(57)
54 RajanGovindNair
2731(58)
55 ShivaBalan
2731(59)
56 Smt.SushilaVijayValtati
2731(60)
57 ShivannaA.Shetty
2731(61)
58 PramodkumarManagerThakur
2731(62)
59 KshitijAnilBaldota
Ext.2766
2731(63)
60 ShashitantRaghunathDablekar
2731(64)
61 SachinNaginaprasadGupta
2731(65)
62 AbhijitAvadheshSharma
2731(66)
63 DadasahebBaburaoLokhande
2731(67)
64 ChetanDwarkadasMehta
Ext.1455
2731(68)
65 DajiGanpatNaik
2731(69&70)
66 KetanNarendraRathod
Ext.2767
2731(71)
67 JafarAliSayyedAliSayyed
2731(72&73)
68 HiteshShashikantShah
2731(74)
69 SubashShankarKhedekar
Ext.2768
2731(75)
70 AndrewGregoryFigerado
2731(76)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..84..
Ext.4825
71 MangeshSadanandMestry
2731(77)
72 KamlakarJayramSankhe
2731(78)
73 VaibhavSubashMahale
2731(79)
74 DineshSavlaramNabar
2731(80)
75 AmarNanajiSolanki
2731(81)
76 VijayKumarNarayanDeshpande Ext.2769
2731(82)
77 JekimJohnFernandez
2731(83)
Ext.2770
2731(84&85)
79 VinodKoshannaAyatalla
2731(86&88)
80 AjayAvinashNarse
2731(87)
81 KamalKumarRamavatarDevda
2731(89)
82 GopalShyamsunderChaudhari
2731(90)
83 JaydeepKeshavjiSampat
2731(91)
84 VijaykumarBavannaRaippa
2731(92)
85 RamkumarMunnarYadav
2731(93)
86 AmarkantMithailalYadav
2731(94)
87 BabukumarBasaulkumarRay
2731(95&96)
88 Kum.ForamJayeshShah
2731(97)
89 PrashantGangadharShetty
2731(98)
90 RajneeshJitenBorkothoky
2731(99)
91 AmrutTulshiramPatil
2731(100)
92 SureshLaxmanSapkal
Ext.2771
2731(101&102)
78
DilipSinghSugandhSingh
Shekhwat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..85..
Ext.4825
93 SanjayGhanashyamPandey
2731(103)
94 NinadVishnuKatdare
2731(104)
95 JagdishDhirajlalVyas
Ext.2772
2731(105)
96 Kum.NilamVishnuGhegadmal
2731(106)
97 Mrs.VaijayantiAnirudhaSule
Ext.2773
2731(107)
98 RajendrakumarMulkrajMahajan
2731(108)
99 Mr.MohanlalDamjiPasad
2731(109)
Ext.2774
100 Smt.GayabaiLakshmanNarvade
70.
2731(110)
Dy.SPRaskar,PW139handedoverthedocumentsandcase
diariestoACPShengalattheATSoffice,Nagpadaon20/07/06as
pertheorderoftheCommissionerofRailwayPolice,tohandover
theinvestigationofthecrimetotheATS,Mumbai.
C.R.No.156of2006ofBorivaliRailwayPoliceStation:
71.
Dy.SPAhir,PW144,senttheninearticlesthathehadpicked
upfromthebogieonbeingshownbytheFSLexpert,Kuklarni,who
had come there, alongwith HC Mahadeo Hariba Khot, (PW143)
(Ext.1581),alongwithhisforwardingletter,officecopyofwhichis
atExt.1582,totheFSL,Kalina.Thecontentsofthereportofthe
FSL, Ext.2416, show the result of analysis that Cyclonite (RDX),
Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and Petroleum Hydrocarbon Oil were
detectedinthepostexplosiondebris.
72.
ThepoliceofBorivaliRailwayPoliceStationweresearching
for the witnesses and the accused during that day.Dr. Madhukar
Puroshottam Chaudhary, (PW38) (Ext.574), of Saibaba Maternity
JudgementMCOC21/06
..86..
Ext.4825
andNursingHome,hadtreatedShwetaNarayanAmbede,(PW37)
(Ext.573),asshehadsufferedinjuryonherrightlegwhiletravelling
in the train that was going to Kandivali and when the blast had
takenplaceinthetrainonplatformno.4ofJogeshwariRailway
StationthatwasgoingtowardsVirar.Hehadtakenoutaforeign
body,i.e.,metalpiece,Art.243,withgreatdifficulty,preserveditand
handeditovertoherfatheralongwithletters,Exts.575and576.Her
father took a sealed transparent plastic bottle on 13/07/06
containing the metal piece alongwiththe forwarding letter of the
saidhospitaltothepolicestation,whichwasseizedbyDy.SPAhir,
PW144, under the panchanama, Ext.562 before panch witnesses
DilipVitthalAayre,(PW33)(Ext.561),andonemore.Hesentthe
seizedplasticbottlewithHCKhot,PW143,on15/07/06totheFSL
alongwithhisforwardingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1583.
73.
duringthattimetherewasanorderthattheATSwouldconductthe
furtherinvestigation.AccordinglytheATSofficerscametothepolice
stationandheinformedthemabouttheprogressoftheinvestigation
and had discussions with them. They also started making the
investigationparalleltohisinvestigation.Hetook29photographs
andaCDofthevideoshootingdonebyJigneshWaghadiaunderthe
panchanama,Ext.1587.
74.
whoinformedthepoliceaboutseeingtwopersonskeepingabagin
thefirstclasscompartmentintheVirarfastlocalon11/07/06at
Churchgate, went to the Borivali Railway Police Station on
JudgementMCOC21/06
..87..
Ext.4825
14/07/06andnarratedaboutwhathehadseenonthatdaytoDy.
SP Ahir, PW144, who recorded his statement, told him that he
wouldcalltheATSpeopletopreparesketchesofthetwopersons
thathehadseen.However,thewitnesswasinahurryandwasnot
feelingwell.Therefore,heleftsayingthathewouldcomelateron.
Hewastriedtobecontactedmanytimesthereafter,buthedidnot
come. It was disclosed from the information that Kishore Shah,
PW60,gave,thatheboardedthefrontfirstclassbogieofthe1737
Virar fast local at Churchgate on 11/07/06, that alongwith other
passengers,twopersonstogetherboardedthebogie,outofwhom
onehadablackcolouredbag,whichhekeptontheluggagerackon
thewesternside,thattheygotdownatDadarandthattherewasan
explosionatabout1830hourswhenthetrainstoppedatBorivali
RailwayStation.Hegavethedescriptionofthetwopersonstothe
police.
75.
statementsofabout118persons,whomtheyfoundimportant.He
recordedthestatementsof29witnessesoutofthem.
76.
26persons haddiedintheblastatBorivaliRailwayStation
asperthecontentsof theinquestpanchanamas,memorandumsof
postmortemexaminationsandcauseofdeathcertificates,Exts.2669
to 2694 as per the table below. The opinion as to the probable
causes of deaths mentioned in the memorandums of postmortem
examinationsandcauseofdeathcertificateswas haemorrhageand
shock due to multiple injuries in case of bomb blast and
complicationsduetoheadinjurywithpolytraumaincaseofbomb
JudgementMCOC21/06
..88..
Ext.4825
blast.
TableNo.11
Sr.
No.
Nameofdeceased
Exhibitnumbersof
memorandumofpostmortem
examinations,causeofdeath
certificatesandinquest
panchanamas
1 SureshChunilalEngineer
2669
2 DipakRamlakhanKewat
2670
3 RavindranathBudhasinghBalhariya
2671
4 OmkarnathAdiyashankarMishra
2672
5 BhogilalAmbalalSarwayya
2673
6 JaikumarRamanPilaiNair
2674
7 KawanSubhashThakur
2675
8 NareshJivrajibhaiSaliya
2676
9 AjajMoinShaikh
2677
10 SriniwasraoBhimsenraoMulbagelu
2678
11 SatyawanRamchandraBiradar
2679
12 KirtibhaiSarabhaiShah
2680
13 HarshalYashwantBhalerao
2681
14 AnandnathShambihariTiwari
2682
15 MohanprasadFaujiramKhansali
2683
16 BrijMohanPrasad
2684
17 GiribauNarsinghraoNijamapatanam 2685
JudgementMCOC21/06
..89..
Ext.4825
18 VitthalWarlojiChoudhari
2686
19 NandiniRameshNaik
2687
20 RajnikantPurushottamdasPanchal
2688
21 SubhashNarhariSawant
2689
22 HemlataYadunathYadav
2690
23 DeveshSatyaprakshSingh
2691
24 BeniJoseph
2692
25 VikrantSatishKhanvilkar
2693
26 RamjanaliRajabaliMotani
2694
77.
153personshadbeeninjuredinthesameblastasperthe
TableNo.12
Sr.
No.
NameofInjured
PWnumber
orexhibit
Exhibitnumberof
numberof
medicalcertificate
affidavitfiled
byinjured
RajeshAmborkar
2733(1)
AshokbhaiDurgashankarJoshi
2733(2)
PrathameshD.Tawde
2733(3)
Ms.DarshanaBhupendraKeni
2733(4)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..90..
Ext.4825
VijaykumarNarayanKuroopNair
2733(5)
SudhirHarinathUpadhyay
2733(6)
SantoshMadhukarVichare
2733(7)
HarshadVivekTondawalkar
2733(8)
NileshAmritlalSoni
2733(9)
10 ManojJugalkishorePurohit
2733(10)
11 Ms.VidyaBhaskarShetty
2733(11)
12 KhalidAbdulHafijSiddique
2733(12)
13 AvinashShyamsundarDhanawat
2733(13)
14 ParthPratikShah
2733(14)
15 ArvindBawarilalSharma
2733(15)
16 KamalRamvilasParikh
2733(16)
17 SantoshkumarKuttiNarayan
2733(17)
18 RajaramSawlaramChavan
PWNo.11
2733(18)
19 VinayMadanlalGupta
2733(19)
20 NamdeoRatnuRade
2733(20)
21 BhushanSubhashKothawale
2733(21&22)
22 KamalSatyanarayanKhemla
2733(23&24)
23 Ms.SheelaKamalKhemla
2733(25&26)
24 DharmendraAtmaramWaghela
2733(27)
25 ShripalSomlalJain
2733(28&29)
26 ChinmayHarischandraMahajan
2733(30)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..91..
Ext.4825
27 KumarNaik
2733(31)
28 Mrs.GajraPerukumarKhaniya
2733(32)
29 GiridharDayaKoli
2733(33)
30 ChedilalKharpatuYadav
2733(34)
31 PrashantSatishShinde
2733(35)
32 SanjaybhaiNarayanbhaiLuwani
2733(36to38)
33 BalkrishnaAtayappaKotian
2733(39)
34 ZakirUsmanKhan
2733(40&41)
35 GajananJagannathBhavsar
2733(42)
36 JathashankarMoreshwarPande
2733(43)
37 Ms.NeetaAshokRanpura
2733(44)
38 AlwinAnthonyDCunha
2733(45)
39 Ms.ShwetaNarayanAmbede
PWNo.37
576
40 MaheshShridharSawant
2733(46)
41 DineshTulsibhaiMoradia
2733(47)
42 HonabhaiBudhabhaiRathod
Ext.2775
2733(48)
43 AshishChinubhaiShah
Ext.2776
2733(49)
44 PiyushRameshchandraSharma
Ext.2777
2733(50)
45 SurajKalikanjaZha
2733(51)
46 BabyGeorgeVargheseMathew
2733(52)
47 SureshKamapraShreyan
2733(53)
48 VijayNair
2733(54)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..92..
Ext.4825
49 VinitDilipPatil
2733(55)
50 BramheshShankarNadkarni
2733(56)
51 RahulRamWankhede
2733(57)
52 NayanKantilalTokle
2733(58)
53 OmkarPrakashTirodkar
2733(59)
54 GeorgeDMello
2733(60)
55 YogeshDevmuratPande
2733(61)
56 RajkumarNababSinghChouhan
2733(62)
57 HemrajDamajiSatpute
2733(63)
Ms.KailashbenRanjitbhai
Thakur
2733(64)
59 AniketTaipannaShettigar
2733(65&66)
60 SureshJayawantPrabhu
2733(67&68)
61 SayyadNasiruddinMuniruddin
2733(69&70)
62 KishorePopatlalShah
PWNo.60
2733(71)
63 SunilMotilalMurde
2733(72)
64 Ms.ShagufaAmirAnsari
2733(73)
65 JeenankPareshbhaiDalal
Ext.2778
2733(74)
66 SuhasDattatrayaApte
2733(75)
67 BabuK.Anand
2733(76)
68 ManubhaiD.Jasoliya
2733(77)
69 Mohd.SafiMunnaMirza
2733(78)
70 SureshShekharSuvarna
2733(79)
58
JudgementMCOC21/06
..93..
Ext.4825
71 HemantJangubhaiSurti
2733(80&81)
72 PrakashGaneshBhandare
2733(82)
73 ManishHimmatlalMehta
2733(83)
74 JayantiVeljibhaiKokia
2733(84)
75 DeepakTaraprasadSharma
2733(85)
76 PrabhudasKeshavGoti
2733(86to88)
77 KeniYogeshPande
2733(89)
78 AshishNarayanAgawane
2733(90)
79 ShekharChaganBirari
2733(91&92)
80 VivekMahadeoDeshmukh
2733(93&94)
81 PremsukhBafarlalKhandelwal
2733(95)
82 Ms.KavitaDilipShah
2733(96)
83 PramodGanpatNarkar
Ext.2780
2733(97)
84 KishorBapuGawali
2733(98&99)
85 SubhashchandraJangiramArora
2733(100)
86 PravinchandraNatvarlalShah
2733(101)
87 GirishbhaiBhailalGandhi
2733(102&103)
88 AjayS.Thakkar
Ext.2781
2733(104)
89 LeeladharB.Kotian
Ext.2782
2733(105)
90 SanjeevaKariappaSuvarna
2733(106)
91 RamIshwarlalDhawale
2733(107)
92 PradeepPrabhatkumarJindani
2733(108)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..94..
Ext.4825
93 ManiKanthanNair
2733(109)
94 ArunkumarJugurajPrajapati
2733(110)
95 MangeshVishvanathKolekar
2733(111)
96 HaridasRavindranathPuduwal
2733(112)
97 RajeshkumarHarkisanJaiswal
2733(113)
98 NitinVidyadharPanjari
2733(114)
99 SantoshPrakashKhanvilkar
2733(115)
100 HusainYusufSingaporwala
2733(116)
101 GauravRajeshJain
2733(117)
102 JaijeetJyotindraSengupta
2733(118&119)
103 PrakashRajaramBenkar
2733(120)
104 AmitBhikajiPadwal
Ext.2783
2733(121)
105 RajaMohamadAkbar
2733(122)
106 JudeMiltonVholkart
2733(123)
107 SurendraChaitramHirkane
2733(124)
108 Smt.C.JayaBapuji
2733(125)
109 DinanathBhaskarSave
2733(126)
110
ChandrakantSomabhai
Makwana
2733(127)
111
SiddharamShantamallappa
Nagur
2733(128)
112 RajuSadashivKamble
2733(129to131)
113 RameshHajarichandThakur
2733(132&133)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..95..
Ext.4825
114 RameshDattatrayaKulkarni
2733(134)
115 AllwynXavierDCunha
2733(135)
PawanKarunashankar
Chaturvedi
2733(132&136)
117 RavindraJairamRawool
2733(137)
118 HaridwarMaheshChauhan
2733(138&139)
119 Mrs.KalpanaAshokPawar
2733(140)
120 RameshDevlyaThakre
2733(141)
121 ChimanlalBhagwandasWadher
2733(142)
122 SamirKrishnachandGujrathi
2733(143)
123 ShivaChandrashekharHiremath
2733(144)
124 DilipTatobaNaik
2733(145)
125 ManideepMurlidharSeth
2733(146)
126 AshokGovindKini
2733(147&148)
127 SauravChandrashekharWable
2733(149)
128 RajkumarRoshanlalChauhan
2733(150)
129 MadhavManjunathNaik
2733(151&152)
Ext.2779
116
130
Johnson@JacsonCharles
Amanna
78.
alongwithPSIDhone,PW1,totheofficeoftheATSon21/07/06.
Theyrecordedthestatementsofsomeinjuredpersons,whocameto
theirpolicestationafterthatdayandforwardedthestatementsto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..96..
Ext.4825
theATS.
C.R.No.59of2006ofVasaiRoadRailwayPoliceStation:
79.
Sr.PIKulkarni,PW133,sentthearticlesseizedfromthespot,
totheFSL,Kalinaon13/07/06alongwithHCRangnathBhimrao
Khot,(PW99)(Ext.979),alongwithhisforwardingletter,officecopy
ofwhichisatExt.980.ThecontentsoftheFSLreport,Ext.981,that
was received later on, show the result of analysis that Cyclonite
(RDX),Ammonium,Nitrate,NitriteandPetroleumHydrocarbonOil
weredetectedinthepostexplosiondebris.Sr.PIKulkarni,PW133,
continuedwiththeinvestigationandheandhisstaffrecordedthe
statementsofinjured,receiveddocumentsofdeceasedandinjured
personsfromdifferentpolicestations,registeredADRsandsearched
fortheaccusedinthemeanwhile.
80.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..97..
Ext.4825
TableNo.13
Sr.
No.
Nameofdeceased
Exhibitnumbersof
memorandumofpost
mortemexaminations,cause
ofdeathcertificatesand
inquestpanchanamas
MahipalMadanlalParihar
2695
NarottamDamodarMeher
2696
AjitLaxmanPangle
2697
HasmukhlalPauran
2698
DilipDattatrayKirale
2699
AshokK.Aail
2700
ShamsundarShivkumarSharma
2701
RimnyaLalyaThakare
2702
PramodPrabhakarVispute
2703
10
RakeshKailasRichariya
2704
11
RamdasPundalikShirodkar
2705
JudgementMCOC21/06
..98..
Ext.4825
12
RameshRamchandraNijai
2706
13
MickelAugastineDabare
2707
14
PratikNivruttiPatil
2708
15
KamleshRavidasAshar
2709
16
GovindKhemaSolankhi
2710
17
AbhinavHarishchandraShrivastav
2711
18
MohananTakekkara
2712
19
HasanSirajPatel
2713
20
RajendrakumarRamkrushnaDilod
2714
21
RammilanBirjlalPrajapati
2715
22
DineshbhaiDhirajbhaiSolankhi
2716
23
JeroldPaskalFarnandis
2717
24
RohitSurendrakumarJain
2718
25
AnilKishorchandSatwani
2719
26
RajeshDamodarPandharekar
2720
27
HridyaVamanNaikwade
2721
28
SwapnilPrakashOak
2722
29
JaiprakashSons
2723
30
ArunKashinathPatole
2724
31
SubramanyamKrushnan
2725
32
AmitDineshSingh
2732(14),4731&4733
81.
122personshadbeeninjuredinthesameblastasperthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..99..
Ext.4825
injurycertificates,Ext.2732(1to54)asperthetablebelow,which
showthatthosepersonshadsustainedinjuriesasdescribedinthe
certificates,inthebombblastinlocaltrainon11/07/06.
TableNo.14
PWnumberor
Exhibitnumberof
exhibitnumberof
medical
affidavitfiledby
certificate
injured
Sr.
No.
NameofInjured
AbhayDineshkumarShrivastav
PWNo.192,
Ext.1461
2732(1&49)
Ms.VrundaSureshHegde
Ext.1370
2732(2)
SunilRamaChoudhari
Ext.1372
2732(3&28)
Ms.SonalXavierGonsalves
Ext.1368
2732(4&18)
MacwinWilliamDsouza
Ext.1369
2732(5)
RajuKosikoThomas
Ext.1371
2732(6)
WilliamSunderBhasme
2732(7)
GovardhanUdhumjiIngawale
2732(8)
MohammedShabbir
MohammedDinosKhan
2732(9)
2732(10)
Ext.1356
2732(11)
12 WilliamGeorgeJoseph
2732(12)
13 SanjayPandurangSawant
2732(13,16&
17)
14 KishorDattatrayMhatre
PWNo.10
2732(15&17)
10 SanjayThomasLopes
11
PrakashShridharan
Kannotikudian
JudgementMCOC21/06
..100..
Ext.4825
RadheshyamSurajPrasad
Singh
2732(17)
16 AvadheshLaxmanThakur
2732(17)
17 SachinSomeshNarad
Ext.1398
2732(17)
18 WilfredWalterNaronha
PWNo.130
2732(17&28)
19 SantoshRamchandraYadav
2732(17)
20 SubhashDharmajiLad
2732(17)
21 ManishVallabhjiGogri
2732(17)
22 AshishAnantBorgare
2732(17)
23 ClaudiusWilfredSaldhana
PWNo.147
AffidavitExt.
1366
2732(18)
24 SureshKrishnaRao
2732(18)
25 ShaileshShirishKawle
2732(18)
26 PradeepkumarMahakantJha
2732(18)
27 Ms.SonalXavierGonsalves
2732(18)
28 P.C.GovindanNambiyar
2732(18)
29 AshokJaiNarayanSabharwal
Ext.1367
2732(18)
30 BajranglalMarhadinKyal
Ext.1386
2732(18&44)
31 PranavJayantAnkalesaria
Ext.1393
2732(18)
32 AjaySingh
2732(18)
33 KailashTakatmalMehta
2732(19)
34 RishikeshRatibhaiBhavsar
2732(20)
35 HirendraSureshBarrot
Ext.1361
2732(21)
15
JudgementMCOC21/06
..101..
36 VishnuTrimbakWaghode
Ext.4825
2732(22)
37
MahendrakumarTarachand
Jain
2732(23&24)
38
ArvindkumarSheshbahadur
Kanaujiya
2732(24)
39 PrakashHadkar
2732(24)
40 GyanendraJain
2732(24)
41 ShivkumarRambheerjiPrasad
2732(24)
42 PineshKalyanbhaiShah
Ext.1362
2732(24)
43 SwadhinRichpalPadiya
2732(25)
44 WilfredRosarioKashta
2732(26)
45 Dr.AzizAkbaraliKeswani
2732(27)
46 ManojShymdeoBharadwaj
2732(28)
47 YashwantRameshNaik
2732(28)
48 RamanbhaiHargovinddasPatel
2732(28)
49 MaheshPrakashSurve
Ext.1460
2732(28)
50 SantoshIzakNago
Ext.1354
2732(28)
51 PratikPrakashRaut
2732(28)
52 SanyoAlizarDSilva
Ext.1355
2732(28)
53 PareshVitthaldasAmlani
2732(28)
54 GopinathVitthalPatil
Ext.1352
2732(28)
55 SubhashShivagan
Ext.1353
2732(28)
2732(28)
56
NirbhaynathRamshiromani
Tiwari
JudgementMCOC21/06
..102..
Ext.4825
57 NageshGopalShenoy
Ext.1350
2732(28)
58 UmarHusseinShaikh
2732(28)
59 SanjayKhobrekar
Ext.1364
2732(28)
60 BalamPushpasenRane
PWNo.190,
Ext.1351
2732(28)
61 JatinRohitThakkar
2732(28)
62 NamdeoKeruSurve
Ext.1373
2732(28)
63 AjayBijayBahadurSingh
Ext.1382
2732(29)
64 ShaileshShirishKawle
2732(30)
65 NameetKashinathVanmale
2732(31)
66 MilindVasudeoKamankar
2732(32)
67 DattatrayVasantChoudhari
2732(33)
68 PommutiRai
2732(35)
69 PrashantSanathPandya
2732(36)
70 MinaRameshMaru
2732(37)
71 ParkotMataiMatai
Ext.1349
2732(28&38)
72 AjayGangaramNaik
2732(39)
73 HastimalChoudamalSolanki
Ext.1376
2732(39)
74 AshishSureshChaturvedi
Ext.1375
2732(39)
75 TusharRameshKulkarni
Ext.1348
2732(28&40)
76 VrushangDharmendraShah
2732(41&43)
77 VijayKrishnaNair
PWNo.187,
AffidavitExt.
1379
2732(42)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..103..
Ext.4825
78 LalchandVidyadharDubey
Ext.1384
2732(45)
79 RampyareSidhdheshwarLal
Ext.1391
2732(46)
80 ChandradasKoraggaKarkera
Ext.1394
2732(46)
81 RameshManilalPatel
2732(47)
82 DevendraP.Chavhan
PWNo.123,
AffidavitExt.
1389
2732(48)
RaghunathShankar
Chindarkar
Ext.1458
2732(49)
84 ShankarSiddhuAbhang
Ext.1374
2732(49)
83
85 AsitkumarVijaychandraPanda
2732(49)
86 SwapnilRajaramAmbre
Ext.1377
2732(50)
87 DashrathKantilalPatel
Ext.1387
2732(51)
88 AmanAnupPumvani
2732(51)
89 EricFracisNunis
2732(52)
90 RahulMilindKadam
Ext.1399
2732(53)
91 ParagSawant
2732(17&54)
2728(83to85)
92 KiranR.Kini
PWNo.191,
Ext.1347
93 UmeshRamannaShetty
Ext.1357
2727(29)
94 BamsinghRaisinghKhatri
Ext.1358
95 MadhukarRaghuMistri
Ext.1359
96 NareshGajananPatil
Ext.1360
97 RamnavalDhanukdhariSahani Ext.1363
JudgementMCOC21/06
98
..104..
ChandrikasinghSarjuram
Yadav
Ext.4825
Ext.1365
99 Dr.AjayJayantNikam
Ext.1457
100 SatishNarayanManoti
Ext.1378
101 BalramKashinathSankhe
Ext.1459
102 NareshMarutiKalokhe
PWNo.126,
AffidavitExt.
1380
103 KaushalDharamvirBali
Ext.1381
104 PritamDattatrayMhatre
Ext.1383
105 MurarilalHaridyaljiParekh
PWNo.137,
AffidavitExt.
1385
106 AtmaramVishnuDalvi
PWNo.136,
AffidavitExt.
1388
107 NandakishoreBajaj
PWNO.127,
AffidavitExt.
1390
108 JosephAnthonAlmeida
PWNo.128,
AffidavitExt.
1392
109 HabibChandShaikh
Ext.1395
110 HirenChotelalMore
Ext.1396
111 DhananjayGovindDighe
Ext.1397
113 NileshRamvilasSharma
Ext.1456
JudgementMCOC21/06
..105..
Ext.4825
114 KiritRamanlalShah
Ext.1401
115 RajeshPondrekar
2732(1)
82.
investigationthathehaddonetoACPShengalofATSasperthe
orderoftheCommissionerofRailwayPolice,Mumbai.
TransferofinvestigationtotheATS:
83.
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,continuedwiththeinvestigationofC.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..106..
Ext.4825
(Ext.1840),wasattachedtoDadarPoliceStationasPIinJuly,2006.
He reported to the ATS, Mumbai on 12/07/06 on receiving a
wirelessmessagefromthecontrolroom.Addl.CPJaijeetSinghof
the ATS informed him that the Director General of Police has
transferredtheinvestigationoftheblaststotheATSandordered
himtoconducttheinvestigationofC.R.No.156of2006ofBorivali
RailwayPoliceStation,inconnectionwiththeblastthathadtaken
place at that railway station. PI Dinesh Mussaddilal Agrawal,
(PW173)(Ext.1835),wasattachedtoV.P.RoadPoliceStationasPI
in 2006. He reported to the ATS on deputation on 12/07/06 on
receivingamessagefromthecontrolroomandmetAddl.CPJaijeet
SinghofATSatNagpada,whotoldhimthattheDirectorGeneralof
Policehadtransferredtheinvestigationofrailwaybombblaststothe
ATSandorderedhimtoconductthefurtherinvestigationofC.R.
No. 59 of 2006 of Vasai Road Railway Police Station that was
registeredin connection withthe blastthathadtaken place near
MiraRoadRailwayStation.
InvestigationofdifferentCRsbyATS:
C. R. No. 77 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway Police
Station:
84.
Sr.PIVasantMarutiTajne,(PW161)(Ext.1712),wasattached
totheATSasPIatthetimeoftheincidentandwasworkingatthe
Kalachowki unit. The officers and the staff of the ATS were
immediatelydirectedtovisitthesitesoftheblastaftertheserial
bombblastsinthewesternlocalrailways.Heandhisteamvisited
someblastsites.TheofficeoftheDirectorGeneralissuedanorder
JudgementMCOC21/06
..107..
Ext.4825
onthesamedayforhandingovertheinvestigationoftheblaststo
theATS.Differentteamswereformedformakingtheinvestigation
intheblastsandhewasassistingtheinvestigationofC.R.No.77of
2006ofMumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStationandforthatpurpose
visitednumberofplacesforcollectionofinformationandcontacted
hissources.
85.
HewenttoBasopatti,DistrictMadhubani,Bihar,alongwith
APINivruttiBapuraoKolhatkar,(PW18)(Ext.466),andPSISachin
Kadam on19/07/06, onreceiving an information from a reliable
sourceaboutthecomplicityoftheA1.Hearrangedatrapnearthe
PrasadCinema Hall inBasopattiwiththe assistance of PSIRajan
Prasad Singh, (PW107)(Ext.1095), other officers and staff of
KotwaliPoliceStation,PatnaandaccostedA1andoneKhalidAziz
Shaikh,whowerecomingtowardsthecityfromoutsideatabout
3.50a.m.of20/07/06.TheywereaccostedasPSIRajan,PW107,
identifiedtheA1.Theydisclosedtheirnamesonbeingaskedandhe
confirmedtheidentityoftheA1.Twopanchas,AshokkumarSitaram
Prasad, (PW22)(Ext.499), and one more were called from the
localitytocarryouttheirpersonalsearch.Theyweresearchedand
theA1wasfoundinpossessionofmobilehandset,Art.37andcash
amountofRs.460.KhalidShaikhwasfoundinpossessionofmobile,
Art.38andcashamountofRs.260/.Heseizedthesearticlesunder
panchanamaExt.467beforethepanchas,whichwaswrittenbyAPI
Kolhatkar,PW18.Hethenconductedthesearchesofthehousesof
theA1andKhalidShaikh.Ashok,PW22,andanotherpanchwitness
were called for the house search. They noticed a plastic bag
JudgementMCOC21/06
..108..
Ext.4825
86.
APIKolhatkar,PW18,reachedMumbaion22/07/06byroad
JudgementMCOC21/06
..109..
Ext.4825
fromthehouseoftheA1andhandeditovertoACPShengal.
87.
88.
Sr.PITajne,PW161,wenttoPatna,Biharon24/07/06as
89.
arrestedaccusedandon26/07/06wentforthehousesearchofthe
A2alongwithhimandhis staff,searchedhishouseandprepared
panchanama,Ext.448,inthepresenceofpanchwitnessesShridhar
JudgementMCOC21/06
..110..
Ext.4825
VitthalGangan,(PW15)(Ext.447),andonemore.Hedidnotfind
any objectionable thing in the house. He went with the A2 and
panchwitnessestotheofficeoftheInternationalTradeLinksinFort
as per his directions on making inquiries with him and receiving
information about his passport and seized his passport Ext.449,
underthepanchanamaExt.450inthepresenceofpanchwitnesses
ShridharGangan,PW15,andonemore,fromthemanagerPrakash
KrishnaPillai,(PW16)(Ext.451).Thepassportcontainedthestamps
ofarrivalanddepartureandvisaofIran.
90.
KshirsagarandstaffandpanchwitnessesSanfordSantanFernandes,
(PW31)(Ext.532)andonemoreandsearchedthehouseoftheA3
andA9on28/07/06.TheyhadgonewiththeA3andA9nearthe
houseofA3inBandra.TheA3ledthemtoaroomthatwasonthe
thirdfloorinLuckyVillaBuildingontheCarterRoad,Bandra(W).
Theysearchedtheroomandnoticedblackpowderonthecardboard
flooroftheuppercompartmentinaclothcupboardhavingazip.
TheA3didnotgiveanysatisfactoryansweroninquiryaboutthe
blackpowder.Therefore,thepowderwaswipedwithcottonswabs,
Art.146,putinapolythenebag,Art.146A,packedandlabeled.They
alsofoundawhiteplasticbag,Art.147,containingablackcoloured
folder pouch, Art.160. They also found registration book of Bajaj
Pulsar motorcycle, MH01TA9542, Art.148 in the name of A9,
certificate of insurance in the same name, Art.148A, letter of
insurance company Art148B, receipt dated 10/01/05 of Bajaj
Choice Center in the name of A9, Art148C and xerox copies of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..111..
Ext.4825
certificateofinsurance,registrationcertificateandofdrivinglicence
inthenameofA9andA3,Arts148Dto148Frespectively.Healso
foundtwonotesofRs.1,000/denominationeach,Arts.154(1and
2),30SaudiRiyalsofthedenominationof500each,photocopyof
agreementofthatroombetweentheA3andtheflatownerSajid
Mohd. Chand, (PW48)(Ext.631),Art.149, i.e., Ext.537. They also
foundtwobookstitled,'April,2004TehrikEMillat',Arts.150(1&2),
twobookstitled'TehrikEMillat,Atankwadkajimmedarkaun',Arts.
151(1&2),andfourbooks titled'SIMI,Sangharshyatrakepachis
varsh',Arts.152(1to4).TheyalsofoundamapofMumbai,Art.153,
learninglicenceanddrivinglicenceoftheA3,Arts.155and156,
ATMCardofICICIBank,Art.157,tworailwayticketsfromHowrah
to Mumbai and Mumbai to Howrah, Arts.158(1&2), reservation
formsArts.159(1&2)andaphotocopyofinternationalmapArt.
161,i.e.,Ext.1486.Thereweremarksatsomeplacesingreenand
red ink on the map Art.153. Art.161, i.e., Ext.1486, was the
international map of India, Pakistan, Iran, Muscat, Afghanistan,
Tehran,etc.AroutefromMumbaitoTehran,TehrantoZahidanand
Zahidan to Muzzafarabad was drawn on the map and there was
some matter in Urdu below the map, an international mobile
number and email address 'gudu_sir_@yahoo.com', which he
encircled by red ink. He also found mobile, Art.163, battery,Art.
163Aandsimcard,Art.163B.
91.
Buildingandshowedthemtheroomontherightsideinformingthat
helivesthere.Thedoorwaslockedandoninquiry,theA3tookout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..112..
Ext.4825
thekey,Art.162,fromacrackabovethedoorandopenedthedoor
by that key. The above described articles were found in the
polythenebag,Art.147,whichwasfoundinaredhandbagbythe
side of the cupboard, where the black powder was found. Sr. PI
Rathod,PW176,seizedthesearticlesunderthepanchanamaExt.
533 in the presence of the panch witnesses, after packing and
labelingthearticlesinfivedifferentpacketsofkhakipaper,except
thecottonswabsthatwerealreadypacked.
92.
panchanamaathishousewasoverandalongwiththesamepanch
witnesses,thepoliceandstaffwenttoMiraRoadinthevehiclesas
perthedirectionsoftheA9,reachedbelowTirupatiApartmentin
MiraRoad,kepttheA3inthevehiclewiththeconstablesandtheA9
led them by staircase to Flat no.203 on the second floor. They
searchedthehouseinthepresenceofthepanchwitnesses.Sr.PI
Rathod,PW176,foundmapsandbookssimilartothosefoundin
the house of the A3. They found map of Mumbai, Art.164, with
marking at some places in green and red ink, photocopy of
internationalmap,Art.165,i.e.,Ext.1487showingthesimilarroute
asdescribedabove,bookshavingsimilartitles,Exts.166(1&2),167
and 168, statements of marks and passing certificate of the
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education, Pune in the name of A9, Art.169 and Art.170
respectively,thelicenceinhisname,Art.171,brownleatherpurse,
Art.172,identitycardofOracleCompanyinthenameofA9,Art.
173(1&2), white blank plastic card, Art.174, ICICI Bank card in
JudgementMCOC21/06
..113..
Ext.4825
pouch,Art.175,SifyIwayinternetcard,Art.176,Netwala.comcard,
Art. 177, passport, Art. 178, blank identity card of All India
Association of Unani Medical Colleges, Art. 179 and two blank
identitycardsofZ.V.M.UnaniMedicalCollege&Hospital,PuneArt.
180(1&2),SonyEricssoncompanymobile,Art.181,Airtelsimcard,
Art.182.Theysawacomputeronatableinthelivingroom.They
disconnected the CPU and took it in possession. They found two
cardboard CPU boxes containing two new CPUs in the bedroom
alongwiththearticlesdescribedabove.Thearticlesdescribedabove
werefoundinanEcholacCompanytravelbagthatwasbytheside
oftheCPUboxes,thelockofwhichwasopenedbythekeyofthat
bag that was in the side compartment. They had found the CD
pouch,Art.184A,DVDs,Arts.183(1to25)andtheCDs,Arts.184(1
to5),harddisk,Art.185,CPUs,Arts.186to188.Heseizedallthese
articles under panchanama, Ext.534, after packing and labeling
themandgavecopyofthepanchanamatotheA9.Theyreturnedto
theofficeaftermidnightanddepositedtheseizedpropertywiththe
muddemalclerk.
93.
Theagreement,Art.149,i.e.,Ext.537,thatwasseizedatthe
houseofA3showedthatpartoftheamountwastobepaidbycash
andpartbycheque.Therefore,Sr.PIRathod,PW176,calledforthe
statementofbankaccountandthetransactionsoftheATMcardof
theICICIBankbysendingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1948,
dtd.31/07/06,underthesignatureofACPTawde.TheICICIBank
videitsletter,Ext.1949,sentprintoutofthebankaccount,Ext.1950,
thatwasin thenameoffatherofthe A3andphotocopiesofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..114..
Ext.4825
94.
ItwasrevealedintheinvestigationtoSr.PIRathod,PW176,
thattheA3andA9wereincontactwithAzamChima,Commander
ofLeTfromBahawalpur,throughtheirbrotherRahilandhisfriend
RizwanDawrey,originallyresidentofPune,butatJeddahatthat
time,thatRahilandRizwanDawreyusedtogetmoneyfromAzam
Chima and send it with Indian citizens, who used to come from
JeddahtoMumbai,totheA3andthattheA3useditforsending
jihadi minded Muslim youths from India to Pakistan via Tehran.
Therefore,headdedRahilShaikh,RizwanDawreyandAzamChima
aswantedaccusedinthiscase.
95.
ItwasnecessarytosearchthehouseoftheA10,whousedto
resideinPune.Therefore,Sr.PIRathod,PW176,afterconsulting
the supervising officer ACP Tawde, directed API Kadam and PSI
ArjunVitthalGaikwad,(PW169)(Ext.1795),totaketheaccusedto
Puneandconductthesearch.PSIGaikwad,PW169,wasdeputedto
the ATS after the blast. He had joined on 12/07/06 and was
attachedtotheteamofSr.PIRathod,PW176.Hehadaccompanied
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,on26/07/06forthehousesearchoftheA2
anddoingseizureofthepassportoftheA2fromthetravelagency.
HemetAPIDineshKadamon30/07/06ontheinstructionsofSr.PI
Rathod,PW176,whotoldhimaboutgoingtoPuneforsearching
thehouseoftheA10,whowaspresentthereandofwantedaccused
JudgementMCOC21/06
..115..
Ext.4825
RizwanDawrey.Panchwitnesseswerecalledandafterthenecessary
formalities,theywenttoPunetakingtheA10withthem,firstgoing
toPoliceStationWanawadiinPuneasRizwanDawrey'shousewas
firstontheroute.Theretheyaskedforandgotadditionalhelpand
went to the house of the wanted accused Rizwan Dawrey at
PremanandPark,ShivalkarRoad,Pune.They,thepanchwitnesses
andthelocalpolicestaffwenttothesecondfloorofthe'B'wingof
thebuildingkeepingtheA10inthevehiclewithtwoconstableson
guard.TheywenttoFlatno.203,thedoorofwhichwasopenedby
Mohd.HussainDawrey,fatherofwantedaccusedRizwanDawrey
andonsearch,theyfoundtwobooks,Arts.304and305,onetitled
as 'Indian Muslim Problems' and the other titled as 'Islamic
Directives to Reform Individuals and the Community'. They also
foundphotocopies ofpassportofwantedaccusedRizwanDawrey
andhiswife,Arts.306and307,inoneofthebooks.Thebookswere
foundintheleftsidedrawerofanironcupboard,whichwasofthe
wanted accused Rizwan Dawrey, as informed by Mohd. Hussain
Dawrey.Heseizedthesearticlesunderthepanchanama,Ext.756,in
thepresenceofthepanchwitnesses,AlankarMilindMane,(PW61)
(Ext.755),andonemore,afterpackingandlabelingthem.Itwas
learntoninquiryfromMohd.HussainthatwantedaccusedRizwan
DawreyisinSaudiArabiaandhis,i.e.,Mohd.Hussain's,elderson
residesinFlatno.202ofthe'C'winginthesamebuilding.Hegave
acopyofthepanchanamaExt.756toMohd.HussainDawrey.
96.
TheywenttotheflatofAbdulRehmanDawrey,(PW71)(Ext.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..116..
Ext.4825
97.
TheythenwenttoLashkarareaforgoingtothehouseofthe
A10.FirsttheywenttoLashkarPoliceStation,tooklocalassistance
andthenwentasperthedirectionsoftheA10totheHouseNo.
1538, at Bhimpura, 16th Lane, Central Street, Lashkar, Pune. PSI
Gaikwad,PW169,foundduringthesearchanIndianpassportofthe
A10,Art.251,i.e.,Ext.621,similartypeofmapsaswerefoundinthe
housesearchoftheA3andA9,onemapofMumbaiwithcertain
spots in Mumbai like Veer Savarkar Marg, Dadar, Mahalaxmi
Temple,ReserveBankofIndia,etc.,encircledbygreenink,Art.248,
mapofmiddleeastshowinghalfofIndia,Art.250,i.e.,Ext.1489,
showing route from Salet, Tehran in Iran upto Muzzafarabad in
Pakistanandcontainingsomenumbersinhandwritingandemail
ids.HealsofoundISDratecard,Art.248B(1),twochits,Arts.248B
(2 & 3), two books titled 'TehrikEMillat' Arts.249 (1 & 2), two
bookstitled'TehrikAtankwadkaJimmedarKaun'Arts.249(3&4),
JudgementMCOC21/06
..117..
Ext.4825
twobookstitled'SIMI'Arts.249(5&6),SamsungReliancemobile
Art.252andaudiocassettesArts.253(1to4).Allthesearticlesand
the passport were found in the drawer of an iron cupboard. PSI
Gaikwad,PW169,seizedthesearticlesunderthepanchanama,Ext.
758,beforethepanchasandpackedandlabeledthem.Copiesofthe
panchanamaweregiventotheA10andhisbrother.Theyreturned
toMumbaiat00.30hourson31/07/06anddepositedtheseized
articles.
98.
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,sentthesampleofblackpowderthat
wastakenoutfromtheblackpowderfoundatthehouseoftheA1
on 20/07/06 to the FSL, Kalina on 31/07/06 alongwith his
forwarding letter, copy of which is at Ext.596, alongwith HC
MahadeoSudamaAuti,(PW41)(Ext.595),whowasattachedtothe
ATSasPC.ThereportoftheFSL,Ext.469,inconnectionwiththe
said sample was received, showing the result of analysis that
Cyclonite(RDX)85%andCharcoal15%aredetectedintheexhibit.
99.
ACPTawdeandSr.PIRathod,PW176,directedPISanjeev
KrushnaraoTonapi,(PW155)(Ext.1663),on31/07/06totakethe
housesearchoftheA11.HewentwithPSIKandharkar,staffand
panchas to the house of the accused as per his directions to the
SardarVallabbhaiPatelHutmentandattheinstanceoftheaccused,
theyopenedawoodencupboardonthewesternsideoftheloft,the
accusedopenthedoorandtookoutapassportinhisname,Art.133,
i.e.,Ext.619,whichhadastampofMumbaiimmigration,Mehrabad
airportandvisaofIran.Healsofoundtwomapssimilartothemaps
recovered at the instance of the A3, A9 and A10. There was a
JudgementMCOC21/06
..118..
Ext.4825
bookletofroadmapofMumbai,Art.138,i.e.,Ext.1665,inwhich
certainplaceslikeRBI,RajabaiTower,CST,Mumbadevi,Mahalaxmi
andsomewherenearCenturyBazarweremarked.Theothermap,
Art.134, i.e., Ext.1489, contained portions of India, Pakistan,
Afganistan,OmanandIranandaroutefromIndiatoTehran,Tehran
toZaidan,ZaidantoQuetta,QuettatoBhawalpurandBhawalpurto
Muzzafarabadwasmarkedonit.Italsocontainedaninternational
phone number and one email id, 'gudu_sir@yahoo.com'. He also
foundbooksArts.135and136allegedlyconnectedwithSIMI.He
alsofounddrivinglicence,Art.140inthenameoftheaccused,ATM
cardsArts.141&142oftheCanaraBank,pocketdiaryArt.143,two
visitingcardsandthreechitsArts.144(1to5)andcashamountof
Rs.1135/,Art.145.PITonapi,PW155,packedandlabeledallthese
articles and seized them under the panchanama, Ext.527, in the
presenceofpanchwitnessesMukeshShripatJadhav,(PW30)(Ext.
526),andonemore,copyofwhichwasgiventoA11.Hehanded
overthepanchanamatoSr.PIRathod,PW176,onreturn.
100.
Aletterwassenton31/07/06underthesignatureofACP
Tawde,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1953,totheSuperintendentof
Stamps, to verify whether the agreement that was found in the
houseoftheA3wasregistered.AreplywasreceivedvideletterExts.
1954(1&2)thattheagreementhadbeenregisteredandtheflat
ownerhaddepositedthestampdutyofRs.750/.
101.
A2wastakenoutforinquiryon01/08/06.Atthattimehe
madethedisclosurestatement,Ext.484, inthepresenceofSr.PI
Rathod, PW176, panch witnesses Rohit Shashikant Warang,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..119..
Ext.4825
(PW19)(Ext.483),andonemore,thatheisreadytoshowbooks
and maps that he has hidden in his brother's house. As per his
directionsandathisinstanceSr.PIRathod,PW176,andthepanch
witnesseswentwiththeA2totheBITChawlinMominPura.TheA2
obtainedakeyofthehouse ofhis brotherfromhis motherfrom
roomno.31andthenledthepolicetoanotherbuildingknownas
PilaMahal.Hetookthemtotheroomno.35onthesecondfloor,
openedthelockwiththekeyandproducedmapofMumbai,Art.42,
inwhichsomeplacesweremarkedwithgreenandredcolour,two
bookstitledas'TeherikeMillat'and'AtankwadKaJimmedarKaun',
Arts.43(1&2),booksbearingthename'SIMI',Arts.44(1to4)and
an international map, Art.116, i.e., Ext.1490, which contained a
markedroutefromMumbaitoMuzzafarabadinPakistanviaTehran,
ZahidantoBhawalpur.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,packedandlabeled
thebooksandthemapsandseizedthemunderthepanchanama,
Ext.485,beforethepanchwitnesses.Thekeyoftheroomwasgiven
tothemotheroftheA2whohadcomethere.
102.
Shaikh,cousinsisteroftheA3on02/08/06.Sheusedtoreceive
moneythroughhawalaonbehalfoftheA3.Healsorecordedthe
statement of Manisha Chavan, girl friend of A3 and Shah Faisal
KhurshidAlam,friendofA3on03/08/06.Onthatdayhesentthe
cottonswabsoftheblackpowderthatweretakenassampleduring
the house search of the A3, to the FSL, Kalina, alongwith his
forwardingletter,alongwithPCSachinSadashivMore,(PW42)(Ext.
597).PCMore,PW42,tookthearticlefromthemuddemalclerk
JudgementMCOC21/06
..120..
Ext.4825
andwhenhetriedtohanditovertotheinwardclerkoftheFSL
office,the clerk didnot accept it as it didnot have lac seal and
informedthatheshouldgetthelacsealofanypolicestationonthe
boxandthenhewouldacceptthesame.PCMore,PW42,returned
back, deposited the box with the muddemal clerk at Kalachowki,
metSr.PIRathod,PW176andtoldhimastowhathadhappened.
The forwarding letter and its office copy, Ext.601 (1 & 2) were
broughtbackbyPCMore,PW42.Therefore,Sr.PIRathod,PW176,
sentPCMore,PW42,totheKalachowkiPoliceStationtoputthelac
sealonthesaidboxandtakeittotheFSLalongwithhisforwarding
letter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.598,aftermakingthenecessary
changes.PCMore,PW42,didaccordingly.ThereportoftheFSL,
Ext.599, in respect of black stained cotton swabs was received
subsequentlyshowingtheresultofanalysisthatcyclonite(RDX)and
charcoalaredetectedinthem.
103.
themapsandpassports,thatwereseizedfromtheA2,A9,A3and
A10inthepresenceofpanchwitnessesPrashantKisanZunjarrao,
(PW35)(Ext.565),andonemoreon06/08/06,ashewantedtoget
the maps and the passports examined. He kept the international
mapsandthepassportsoftheaccusedinseparateenvelopesand
remaining books and maps were kept in separate envelopes
alongwithoriginalwrappersandthenhelabeledthemandprepared
thepanchanama,Ext.566.
104.
wasAPIin2006,inquiredwithandtookthestatementsofthetravel
JudgementMCOC21/06
..121..
Ext.4825
agents,whohadobtainedthevisasandticketsfortheA2,A9,A10
andA11onthedirection ofSr.PIRathod,PW176.Amongstthe
travel agents, one was Mohd. Umar Hussainmiya Patni, (PW47)
(Ext.629), who had done the work of visa and ticket of wanted
accusedRahil,brotherofA3,forUmrahfromGokulTravels,Marine
Lines as subagent Mushtaq Ahmed Mohd. Saheb, (PW46) (Ext.
625),hadtakentheA3tohim.Hehadalsodonetheworkofvisa
and ticket for the A3 for Umrah. This took place in 2003. PI
Bavdhankar, PW152, seized xerox copies of passports, air tickets
and the invoices of Akbar Travels of the A3 and wanted accused
Rahil,Arts.261(1to5)and262(1to6)fromthiswitness,whichhe
had brought from Gokul Travels under panchanama, Ext.1637.
Mushtaq Ahmed, PW46 had obtained visa of Iran for A2 on the
requestofA3.A3hadsentthepassportoftheA2withtheA9and
MushtaqAhmed,PW46,hadgiventhatworktoJoharSayyedand
obtained the ticket from Akbar Travels. A9 had also given his
passportforobtainingvisaforIrantoAshikAliMukadam,(PW44)
(Ext.615).ThereafterA9hadalsogiventhepassportofoneFiroz
GhaswalaforobtainingvisaforIran,whichhehadgiventoJohar
Sayyed. A3 had given the passport of A11 to Mushtaq Ahmed,
PW46in2005or2006forobtainingvisaforIran,whichhehad
given to Ashik Ali, PW44. Subsequently, A3 had also given the
passportsofFaiyyazAhmedandMohd.Chandforobtainingvisaof
Iran, which he had given to Ashik Ali, PW44, and had obtained
ticketsfromhim.PIBavdhankar,PW152,seizedregisters,Exts.616
to618fromAshikAli,PW44,containingtheentriesofobtainingthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..122..
Ext.4825
105.
mobilephoneandaudiocassettesthatwereseizedfromthehouseof
theA10werekept,inthepresenceofpanchwitnessesSamuelraj
SadanandKukkala,(PW36)(Ext.570)andonemore,tookoutthe
mobile, Art.252 and kept it aside and put the cassettes and the
earliertwoenvelopesinanotherpacketandpreparedpanchanama,
Ext.571.Thishedidasitwasnecessarytosendthemobiletothe
FSL.
JudgementMCOC21/06
106.
..123..
Ext.4825
Sr.PIRathod,PW176obtainedthespecimenhandwritingsof
theA2,A9,A3,A11andA10duringtheperiodfrom30/07/06to
04/08/06andforwardedthemandthefivemapsonwhichthere
was matter in handwriting, by letter dtd.11/08/06 alongwith a
questionnaire,Exts.1484and1485respectively,underthesignature
ofACPTawdetotheAddl.CommissionerofPolice,CrimeBranch,
CID,Mumbaiforonwardsubmissiontothehandwritingexpertfor
findingouttheauthorofwritingsonthemaps.
107.
wasinthecustodyoftheATSinLACNo.04/06,asitwasrevealed
that he was involved in the commission of the offence of the
Matunga blast under the panchanama, Ext.1971. During his
interrogationA4disclosedthattheA2wasgoingtoteachthemhow
topreparebombwiththehelpofchemicals.A2wasinthecustody
ofSr.PIWadhankar,PW167,inC.R.No.41of2006onthatday.Sr.
PIRathod,PW176,interrogatedtheaccusedinthatcustodyandat
thattimetheA2voluntarilymadeastatementthatheiswillingto
showbottlesofchemicalsthathehaskeptinthelockeroftheSabu
SiddiquiHospital.Thisstatementwasmadeinthepresenceofpanch
witnessesChandrakantBhikajiShigwan(PW17)(Ext.456),andone
more,aboutwhichthememorandumofthestatement,Ext.457,was
prepared.AsperthedirectionsoftheA2andathisinstance,Sr.PI
Rathod,PW176,seizedthreebottlesofchemicalsthatwereof500
ml.quantityeachandwerefactorysealed,viz.,bottleofsulphuric
acid, Art.34, bottle of acetone, Art.35 and bottle of hydrogen
peroxide,Art.36,fromthelockerthatwasopenedbyA2bythekey,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..124..
Ext.4825
Art.33,whichhehadtakenoutfrombelowthemattress,underthe
panchanamaExt.458.AtthattimeDr.AtiyaSayyedArif,(PW53)
(Ext.658), a doctor working in the Sabu Siddique Hospital, near
ImamWadaRoad,BhendiBazar,Mumbai,wasalsopresent.Sr.PI
Rathod,PW176,sentthebottlesofchemicalsthatwererecoveredat
the instance of A2 to the FSL on 13/08/06 alongwith HC Dilip
ShivramPadval,(PW91)(Ext.907),withhisforwardingletter,office
copyofwhichisatExt.908.ThereportoftheFSL,Ext.909,revealed
the result of analysis that the bottles contain the chemicals as
describedontheirlabels andanotewasappendedthatHydrogen
Peroxideisastrongoxidizingagent,Acetoneis highlyflammable
liquidandasperliterature,concentratedSulphuricacidisusedas
initiatorwithChlorateinexplosivemixture.
108.
A2hadgivenmobileArt.373toapatientwhenhewastaken
incustodybytheCrimeBranchandthatpatienthadgivenittohis
brother by name Inshtiaq Ahmed Ansari. Sr. PI Rathod, PW176,
seized it under panchanama Ext.1973 on 16/08/06. The seized
CPUs and mobiles were sent to CFSL, Hyderabad on 17/08/06
alongwithPSIGaikwad,PW169,withtheforwardingletterofDCP
Bajaj,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1805,forretrievingthedataand
analysing it. He recorded the statements of Hidayatulla Mehboob
Sundke, (PW64)(Ext.765), Bilal Salauddin Shaikh, (PW66)(Ext.
772)andMohsinJunaidKhan,(PW67)(Ext.774)on21/08/06in
connectionwiththeSaudiRiyalsthatweresentfortheA3.
109.
PSIKshirsagarwassenttoPuneforobtainingthedocuments
JudgementMCOC21/06
..125..
Ext.4825
PrivateLimitedandalsotocollectthedocumentssubmittedbyhim
atthe Regional Passportoffice.He camebackon 24/08/06and
gavereportExt.1974andproducedtheletteroftheP.R.O.ofthat
company,Ext.1975,attestedtruecopiesofdocuments,Ext.1976(1
to14),letterofZensorCompany,Ext.1977alongwiththecopiesof
educationaldocumentsofwantedaccusedRahil,Art.374(1to9).
110.
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,hadaskedforinformationanddetails
111.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..126..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..127..
Ext.4825
112.
chargesheetsofcasesregisteredundertheUA(P)Aandforrioting
andundersection353oftheIPC,Exts.462and463,thathadbeen
registeredagainsttheA2andA4andothersinPoliceStationKurla.
Healsoobtainedcertifiedcopyofthechargesheet,Ext.1812(1to
41),oftheLACregisteredagainsttheA1andhiscobrother(sadu)
AnwarulHaqundertheArmsActattheSpecialCell,LodhiRoad,
Delhi.
113.
DCPNawalBajajoftheATSsentletterdtd.29/07/06,office
copyofwhichisatExt.1994,totheDCB,SBII,CID,Mumbai,to
obtainthedetailsanddatesofarrivalanddepartureoftheA2,A9,
A10andA11,astheyhadgonefromMumbaiairporttoTehran,Iran
andfromtheretoPakistan.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,thereaftersent
lettertoSr.InspectorofPolice,AirportBranch,SBII,CID,Mumbai
on03/08/06,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1995,forfurnishingthe
saiddetails.He sentreminder tothe DCB,SBII,CIDandFRRO,
Mumbai on 20/09/06, office copy of which is at Ext.1996(1)
alongwith enclosures Ext.1996(2 to 4). The Senior Inspector of
Police,AirportBranch,SBII,CID,C.S.T.Airport,Mumbaisentthe
detailsbyhisletters,Exts.1997,1998and1999mentioningthatthe
A2haddepartedon21/05/04andarrivedon25/06/04.TheA3had
JudgementMCOC21/06
..128..
Ext.4825
departedon08/11/03.
114.
ACPTawdegaveletteron31/07/06tothePassportOffice,
Pune,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1986,forobtainingcopiesofthe
applications and documents given by the A9 and A10. The PRO,
PassportOffice, Punesentletter Ext.1987andforwardedattested
truecopiesofthedocumentsoftheA9,Exts.1988(1to14)andof
the A10, Exts.1989 (1 to 11). ACP Tawde also gave letter on
09/08/06, office copy of which is at Ext.1572, to the Regional
PassportOffice,Punefor obtaining copiesofthe applications and
documents given by the A3. The Superintendent, Passport Office,
Pune sent attested true copies of the documents of the A3, Exts.
1574(colly)alongwithhiscoveringletter,Ext.1573.
115.
116.
DCPBajajsentawirelessmessageon21/08/06,officecopy
JudgementMCOC21/06
..129..
Ext.4825
1982,confirmingthattheA3hadleftforPakistanviaICPAttariRail
on01/10/01andreturnedviathesamerouteon29/11/01.Asthe
copiesofembarkationanddisembarkationcardswerenotsentwith
thefax,DCPBajajagainsentaletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.
1188,tothesameauthorityforhandingthemoverandtoinform
thenamesoftheofficerswhohadgiventheclearance.PSIGaikwad,
PW169,wasappointedtocollectthedocumentsandtorecordthe
statementsoftheconcernedofficers.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,asked
PSIGaikwad,PW169,togototheTeesHajariCourt,Delhitocollect
theinformationabouttheSpecialCellCaseNo.79of2002 under
section25oftheArmsActthatwaspendingagainsttheA1andhad
givenawrittenletterunderhissignature,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext.1810,addressedtotheCMM,38thCourt,TeesHajari,NewDelhi.
PSIGaikwad,PW169,wenttoDelhiandgavetheletterinthecourt
andrequestedforfurnishing certifiedcopiesofthe case.Hethen
wenttoAmritsaron05/10/06,handedoverthelettergivenbyDCP
Bajaj,wasdirectedtogiveittotheAFRROatAttariCheckPost.He
wentthere,mettheAFRROPremrajSharma,gavehimtheletterof
DCPBajajandrequestedhimtogivecopiesoftheregisterofthe
arrivalanddepartureoftheA3andnamesoftheofficerswhowere
on duty at that time. The said officer informed him that officer
Subhash Choudhary, (PW114), (Ext.1187), was on duty on
01/10/01atthetimeofdepartureoftheA3toPakistanandofficer
Surjeet Singh, (PW115), (Ext.1191), was on duty at the time of
arrivaloftheA3on29/11/01.Theofficeralsogaveletter,Ext.1189,
addressed to the DCP, ATS, alongwith the attested true copies of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..130..
Ext.4825
relevantentriesofarrivalanddeparture,Exts.1190and1192.PSI
Gaikwad,PW169,thenwenttotheTeesHajariCourt,Delhiand
collectedthecertifiedcopiesofthechargesheet,FIR,photocopyof
the revolver, Exts.1812 (1 to 41). He informed Sr. PI Rathod,
PW176, and DCP Bajaj about the investigation on phone. Sr. PI
Rathod,PW176,toldhimtocollectthedetailsandtheinformation
abouttheA3havinggonetoJeddahbyairin2004.Hence,hewent
totheofficeoftheAFRRO,Immigration,NewDelhion10/10/06,
metofficerRaviSaigal,whoinspectedhisrecordandgavehimthe
informationthattheA3hadcometoDelhionemergencycertificate
fromJeddahon01/12/04.Healsogavetheattestedphotocopyof
thedisembarkationcard,Ext.1813.PSIGaikwad,PW169,returned
toMumbaiandgavereport,Ext.1814toSr.PIRathod,PW176and
alsometDCPBajaj.TheoriginalembarkationcertificateoftheA3
hadbeensenttothePassportOffice,Pune.
117.
DCPBajajcorrespondedwiththeRegionalPassportOfficer,
Puneandsentafaxon09/08/06,officecopyofwhichisatExt.
1572,inquiringwhetherapassportinthenameoftheA3hadbeen
issuedfromtheiroffice.TheSuperintendent,PassportOffice,Pune
sent reply Ext.1573 and also forwarded attested copies of the
passport application and other documents of the A3, Ext.1574
(colly).DCPBajajalsowrotealetterdtd.14/08/06,officecopyof
whichisatExt.1575,tothe saidofficeasking for the emergency
certificateoftheA3.Theofficesentletteron18/09/06,officecopy
of which is at Ext.1576, forwarding photocopy of the emergency
certificate. Therefore, DCP Bajaj again sent letter dtd.19/09/06,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..131..
Ext.4825
officecopyofwhichisatExt.1577(1),alongwithanapplicationin
format, office copy of which is at Ext.1577(2), for sending the
originalemergencycertificate.DCPBajajsentletteron30/10/06to
theSuperintendent,PassportOffice,Pune,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext.1578,thatheissendingPSIKshirsagartocollecttheemergency
certificate.ManishaMurlidharDoiphode,(PW142)(Ext.1571),who
wasworkingasSuperintendentintheRegionalPassportOfficeat
Pune, handed over the emergency certificate Ext.1580 to PSI
KshirsagaralongwiththeforwardingletterExt.1579.
118.
TheA3wasdeportedtoIndiabySaudiAirlines.ACPTawde
119.
Inthemeanwhileon05/09/06ACPSadashivLaxmanPatil,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..132..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..133..
Ext.4825
saidapplicationbeforethemagistrateandthemagistraterecorded
thestatementofthesaidaccusedundersection164oftheCr.P.C.,
Ext.954, inopencourt.Thesaidaccusedhadbeentakentothat
courtforthepurposeofthedischargeapplication.Tahfeem,PW95,
wasthensentbacktoKashmirtobegiveninthecustodyofD.H.
PoraPoliceStation,DistrictAnantnag,JammuandKashmir.
C.R.No.41of2006ofAndheriRailwayPoliceStation:
121.
AftertheinvestigationofthiscrimewashandedovertoSr.PI
Wadhankar,PW167,heimmediatelywenttoAndheriRailwayPolice
Station,tooktheinformationaboutthecrimefromDy.SPRaskar,
PW139,whowasinvestigatingthecrime,wenttotheKandivalicar
shedandalongwiththeBDDSpeopleinspectedtheaffectedbogie
no.634A.HeandhisteamconsistingofoneAPI,twoPSIsandstaff
recordedstatementsofwitnessesaswellasinjured.Hearrestedthe
nineaccusedwhohadbeenarrestedinC.R.No.77of2006,i.e.,the
A1,KhalidShaikh,MumtazChaudhary,A2A4,A3,A9,A10andA11
in this crime on the strong belief that they were involved in the
crime that they were investigating and on the basis of the
interrogation,theinformationgivenbytheinvestigatingofficerof
thatcrimeandtheinputsthattheyhadreceived.Oneteamfrom
BandraPoliceStation,outofthe teamsconstitutedatthecentral
level for investigating the crime, gave them information that a
suspectedKashmiriyouthhadpurchasedpressurecookersonalarge
scale from two shops in Bandra in May, 2006. Therefore, they
inquiredwiththeownersandsalesmenoftheshopswhoinformed
themthatthesaidpersonwascontinuouslymakingcallsfromhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..134..
Ext.4825
mobile.Theygotpreparedsketchesofthesuspectsandtriedtoget
theIDofthemobilewiththehelpofmoibleserviceprovidersand
thetechnicalteamoftheATS,buttheydidnotgetanylead.
C.R.No.59of2006ofVasaiRoadRailwayPoliceStation:
123.
conduct the investigation of this crime and PSI Shinde and two
constablesweregiventoassisthim.HevisitedKandivalicarshedin
the evening on 12/07/06 alongwith the investigating officers of
otherteamsandwiththeBDDSteam,examinedtheaffectedbogie
no.864A in order to get some clues from the residue, collected
JudgementMCOC21/06
..135..
Ext.4825
copiesoftheFIRandpanchanamaanddetailsofthehospitalswhere
theinjuredwereadmitted.APIsAgarkarandSurvewereattachedto
his team on 13/07/06. On that day he received information that
somesuspectswerecaughtbytheVasaiRoadRailwayPoliceStation.
He immediately rushed there, contacted Sr. PI Kulkarni, PW133,
whoinformedhimthattheyhadapprehendedfourpersonsunder
section41(2)oftheCr.P.C.Heinquiredwiththemandcameto
knowtheirnamesasShivprasadChauhan,twomoreChauhansand
oneTawar.Hegatheredontheirinterrogationthattheyhadcometo
Mumbai in search of jobs, therefore the possibility of they being
suspectsinthiscasewasruledout.APIShelkewasattachedtohis
teamon15/07/06.Onthedirectionsofhissuperiors,PIAgrawal,
PW173, inquired with Ramanand Machewar, a person who was
injuredintheblastinhiscrimeandhadcertaininformation.Said
persontoldhimthathehadseenapersonboardingthesamebogie
holdingasmallgreencolouredbagthatwaspassedthroughother
commuterstobekeptontheluggagerack.Thewitnesssuspected
thisashethoughtthatthesmallbagcouldbeheldinthehandsand
therewasnonecessityofkeepingitontheluggagerack.Moreover,
hesawthatpersonalightingatMiraRoadStationwithoutthebag.
PIAgrawal,PW173,askedAPIShelketocontinuewiththeinquiry
ofthe witness andhe immediatelyrushed toVasaiRoadRailway
PoliceStation.Oninquiry,helearntthatPIKulkarni,PW133,had
alsorecordedthestatementofthesaidwitnesson12/07/06.He
wentthroughthesaidstatementandfoundthattheinformationthat
thewitnesshadgiventohimwasnotinhisstatement.Hechecked
JudgementMCOC21/06
..136..
Ext.4825
124.
ACPShengalhandedoverthecasepaperofthiscrimetohim
C.R.No.156of2006ofBorivaliRailwayPoliceStation:
125.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..137..
Ext.4825
Dudhgaonkar,PSIAwatiandPSISakpalandalloftheminquired
withtheinjuredwhowereinapositiontospeak.Duringthisperiod
he was contacting and interacting with Dy. SP Ahir, PW144, for
obtaininginformationintheinvestigationduringwhichhecameto
knowthatoutoftheinjuredoneKishoreShah,PW60,hadgiventhe
descriptionoftwosuspectsandhadstatedthathewouldbeableto
identifythem.Dy.SPAhir,PW144,informedhimthatsketcheswere
notdrawnasthesketchdrawerwasnotavailableandwitnesswas
not ready to sit in the police station as he was injured. He also
informedACPKhandekar,PW174,thatoneSureshSuvarnahadalso
given the information about the suspects, but had not described
their faces and had stated that he would not be able to identify
them.ThereforeACPKhandekar,PW174,calledthesketchdrawer
after23daysandsenthimwithconstableNagvekartothehouseof
the witness Kishore Shah,PW60.He returnedbackandreported
that the said witness had gone to his native place as he had
sustained a shock because of the blast and was injured. ACP
Khandekar,PW174,thenmetSureshSuvarna,whotoldhimthathe
didnothaveanymoreinformationthanwhathehadgiveninhis
statement.
126.
ACPShengalhandedoverthepapersofthiscrimetohimon
21/07/06ashehadreceivedthemfromDy.SPAhir,PW144,andhe
wentthroughthedocuments.Theofficersinhisteamwereassigned
otherworkandAPIWadmareandPSIPatiljoinedhisteam.
127.
Hecametoknowfromtheotherinvestigatingofficersofthe
ATS that the A1 to A4 and A9 to A11 and two more, who were
JudgementMCOC21/06
..138..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..139..
Ext.4825
128.
informationduringtheinterrogationoftheA2andA4,whenthey
wereintheircustody,thattheA13isanactivememberofSIMIand
isconnectedwiththerailwayblastsandACPKhandekar,PW174,
gottheconfirmationfromhissourceatthesametimethatA13had
playedavitalroleintheBorivaliblast.ACPKhandekar,PW174,had
takentheA3andA4fortheirscientificteststoBangaloreandduring
theinterrogationwiththeA4duringthetravel,heobtainedsome
information about the involvement of the A13. He gave all this
informationtoDCPBajaj,butdidnotshareitwithanyotherofficer.
DCPBajajdirectedhimtogathermoreinformationandtoprepare
andgiveacomprehensivereportaboutit.ACPKhandekar,PW174,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..140..
Ext.4825
alsocametoknowthattheA13isanactivememberoftheSIMIand
somecaseswerefiledagainsthimatJalgaon.Hence,hetoldACP
Tawdethathewantedinformationaboutthecases.ACPTawdesent
a letter and then deputed API Padmakar Pandharinath Deore,
(PW180)(Ext.2082),tocollecttheinformation.
129.
APIDeore,PW180,whowasPSIinJuly,2006,wasdeputed
totheATSinthelastweekofJuly,2006andontheinstructionsof
ACP Tawde he met ACP Khandekar, PW174, who asked him to
collectinformationabouttheA13fromJalgaon,astowhereheis,
whetherthereareanycaseslodgedagainsthimatJalgaon,tokeep
the information secret and to contact him immediately if he gets
someinformation.AccordinglyhewenttoJalgaonwithPCChorge
andmettheconcernedofficersintheDistrictSpecialBranchinthe
SPoffice,whowerehandlingthecellofSIMIactivists.Theyshowed
himtherecordofSIMIactivists.HefoundthenameofAsifKhan
BashirKhanandhisphotographandtheinformationthathewasthe
PresidentofJalgaonunitofSIMIandthereweretwocrimes,C.R.
No.178of1999andC.R.No.103of2001underSection153Aof
the IPC, both registered with MIDC Police Station, Jalgaon. The
officer there told him that C. R. No. 178 of 1999 had been
investigatedbytheMIDCPoliceStationandtheLocalCrimeBranch,
JalgaonhadarrestedthewantedaccusedbynameParvezKhanin
August2006.Henotedallthisinformationonpaperandrequested
themtogivecopiesofthephotographsoftheA13andthenwentto
theofficeofLCB,askedforandwentthroughthepapersofC.R.No.
103of2001,fromwhichhecametoknowthat1012accusedwere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..141..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..142..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..143..
Ext.4825
and1511fromthepolicestation.
130.
against the A13, ACP Khandekar, PW174, realised that the main
accused, i.e., the A13, in this case had more than one offence
registered against him during the last ten years. He was also
convincedthattheA1toA4wereinvolvedinthecommissionofthe
crimethathewasinvestigating.Healsoreceivedinformationthata
chargesheetwasfiledagainsttheA2andA4undertheUA(P)Aas
theywereinvolvedinSIMIactivitiesin2001afterthebanonSIMI
and when they were produced in the court in the case they had
shouted slogans concerning SIMI, for which another case was
registeredinKurlaPoliceStationagainstthemandchargesheetwas
filed. On all this information, he realised that though SIMI was
banned,itwasoperatingasanillegalcriminalorganisation,i.e.,an
organisedcrimesyndicateandtheaccusedwerecontinuingwiththe
unlawful activities under thatsyndicate andtheywere promoting
insurgencyandobtainingpecuniarygains.Therefore,heprepareda
proposalforapplicationoftheprovisionsoftheMCOCActtothe
crimethathewasinvestigating,sentitforpriorapprovaltoDCP
Bajaj for onward submission and received the order of prior
approvalfromAddl.CPJaiswaloftheATSon24/09/06,Ext.1841.
InvestigationundertheMCOCAct:
131.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasattachedtoWomensPoliceTraining
SchoolatSolapurasVicePrincipalinJuly2006intherankofAddl.
SP.Onreceivingawirelessmessage,copyofwhichisatExt.2362,
from the Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, attaching
JudgementMCOC21/06
..144..
Ext.4825
himtotheATStemporarilytoassisttheinvestigationoftherailway
bombblasts,hewasrelievedon26/07/06andhereportedforduty
attheATS,Mumbaion27/07/06.Hewasattachedondeputation
temporarilytotheATStill18/12/06andonthatdayhewasposted
onregularbasistotheATSaspertheorderoftheDirectorGeneral
of Police, Maharashtra. After he joined the ATS, Addl. CP Jaijeet
Singhissuedanorderon28/07/06,Ext.2366,postinghiminthe
teamofinvestigationfortherailwaybombblasts.Hegotacquainted
withthebombblastscasesafterjoiningtheinvestigationteam.He
alongwithACPsBhattandTawdeandothersuperiorofficerswere
supervising the investigations that were conducted by the seven
investigating officers of the ATS, who used to have coordination
amongstthemselvesandusedtointeractwitheachotheraswellas
withthem.HewasalsosupervisingtheinterrogationoftheA1toA4
andA9toA11andKhalidShaikh,MumtazChaudharyandTafheem
Akmal,PW95,whohadbeenarrestedinC.R.No.78of2006.He
hadcometoknowthatmostofthearrestedaccusedweremembers
oftheunlawfulassociationbannedbythegovernment,viz.,SIMI,
thatsomeliteratureofSIMIandotherinflammatoryliteraturewas
recoveredfromsomeofthearrestedaccused,thatA1toA3andA9
to A11 had undergone terrorist training in handling of arms and
ammunitionandexplosivesintheterroristcampofLeT,situatedat
Muzzafarabad in Pak occupied Kashmir (POK) and that they had
gonetoIranbyobtainingziyaratvisaandthereafterinfiltratedinto
Pakistan by clandestine way, that they had contacted wanted
accusedAzamChima@Babaji,oneofthecommandersofLeT,that
JudgementMCOC21/06
..145..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..146..
Ext.4825
132.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasappointedastheinvestigatingofficer
ofthiscrime,i.e.,C.R.No.156of2006ofBorivaliRailwayPolice
Station by the order of prior approval Ext.1841. He recorded a
written statement of ACP Khandekar, PW174, after receiving the
order,treateditasinformationunderSection23(1)(a)oftheMCOC
ActandonhisdirectionsACPKhandekar,PW174,handedoverthe
papers of investigation of this crime to him on 25/09/06. He
perusedthecasepapers,discussedtheprogressoftheinvestigation
andalsorecordedhisstatementabouttheinvestigationconducted
byhim.ThenamesoftheA1toA4andA13werementionedinthe
priorapproval,outofwhomtheA1toA4wereinpolicecustodyin
other cases at that time. He showed the A1 and A2 arrested on
25/09/06inthiscrimefromtheirpolicecustodyinC.R.No.59of
2006.
133.
APIDeore,PW180,againwenttoJalgaononthedirections
ofACPPatil,PW186,on27/09/06,triedtolocatetheA13withthe
helpofhissourcesandtheHCofMIDCPoliceStationbutdidnot
getanyinformation.Therefore,hetooksearchofhouseoftheA13
inthepresenceoftwopanchwitnessesandinthepresenceofA13's
youngerbrotherAzizKhanandpreparedpanchanamaExt.2083.He
didnotfindanyobjectionablethinginhishouse.Herecordedthe
statementsofbrotherandfatherinlawoftheA13andinquiredwith
them about his whereabouts. He then recorded statement of API
DhakraoandobtainedcertifiedtruecopiesoftheFIR,chargesheet
JudgementMCOC21/06
..147..
Ext.4825
andsupplementarychargesheetofC.R.No.178of1999andFIRof
C.R.No.103of2001,Exts.1509and1511.Heshowedthecopyof
thephotographoftheA13,Art.376,toAPIDhakrao,whocertified
behinditthatitisoftheaccused.Healsogotsuchacertificatefrom
Aziz Khan, younger brother of the A13, Ext.2085, behind the
photograph,Art.377.APIDhakraohadonlyfiledthesupplementary
chargesheet and API Tare, who had investigated the offence,
arrested the A13 and filed the chargesheet, was attached to the
Special Branch, Nasik. He went there on the next day, met him,
inquired with him, recorded his statement, showed him a
photograph of the A13, which he identified and obtained his
certificate Ext.2086 behind the photograph Art.378. He returned
backtotheATSoffice,Mumbaionthenextdayandhandedoverall
thedocumentsoftheinvestigationthathehaddonetoACPPatil,
PW186.
134.
ACPPatil,PW186,arrestedtheA3andA4fromtheirpolice
custodyinC.R.No.59and87of2006respectivelyon28/09/06.
135.
FourseparateteamswereformedtotracetheA5toA8as
JudgementMCOC21/06
..148..
Ext.4825
PIAhirandstaffwhoweredeputedfortracingtheA6,producedthe
accused before him on 29/09/06 and he arrested him under the
arrestpanchanamaExt.2377.
136.
Sr.PITajne,PW161,andstaffweredeputedfortracingthe
A7on28/09/06.HealongwithAPIKolhatkar,PW18,PSIKadam
andstaffwentforinquiryandaftercontactinghissources,wasable
tolocatetheA7atMalad,Malwanion29/09/06.Hecaughthim
and produced him before ACP Patil, PW186, who arrested him
underthearrestpanchanamaExt.1742.
137.
PIArunSambhajiKhanvilkar,(PW168)(Ext.1776),andstaff
weredeputedtoarresttheA8on28/09/06andACPPatil,PW186,
gavehiminformationthatheresidesinGhatkopararea.Accordingly
he,APIDineshKadam,PSIVarpeandstaffwenttoGhatkoparinthe
evening on that day and traced the A8 in Ghatkopar (E) in the
morningonthenextdayneartherailwaystationontheeastside.
HetooktheaccusedincustodyandbroughthimtotheBhoiwada
office and produced him before ACP Patil, PW186, who directed
himtosearchtheaccused,whichhedidunderthepanchanama,Ext.
1778,andfoundaNokiacompanymobilehandset,Art.370,which
heseizedandsealedinthepresenceofpanchwitnesses.Theyalso
inquiredwiththeaccusedabouttherailwaypassofMumbraandhe
told them that he had taken a house at Mumbra. PI Khanvilkar,
PW168, called the owner of that flat by name Abdul Naeem
SiddhiquitotheBhoiwadaofficeon05/10/06.Hetoldhimthatout
ofthetwoflatsinMoonlightbuildingatMumbra,hehadgivenflat
no.202totheA8onleaveandlicencebasisfor11monthsperiod
JudgementMCOC21/06
..149..
Ext.4825
from03/12/05to02/11/06,asMehmoodAzimQureshi,(PW65)
(Ext.766),brotherinlawoftheA7wasknowntohimandhealso
producedtheoriginalleaveandlicenceagreementArt.371.
138.
ACPPatil,PW186,hadformedthreeteamsforsearchingthe
houseoftheA6toA8aftertheirarreston29/09/06.TheteamofSr.
PITajne,PW161,alongwithACPShengal, PIKhanvilkar,PW168,
PSISachinKadamandstafftooktheA6tohishouseatGovandion
thesameday,searcheditbeforepanchwitnesses,PritamPradeep
Mhatre,(PW58)(Ext.715),andonemore,foundaKanchanpressure
cooker, Art.303, in a wooden box bed that was in the hall. On
minuteobservationofthebed,theynoticedblackandwhitespots
ontheinnersideofthebed,whichtheysuspectedtobeofsome
explosivesubstance.Therefore,theywipedthemwithcleananddry
separatecottonswabs,Arts.301and302,andseizedthesearticles
underthe searchpanchanamaExt.716.Theyreturnedtothe ATS
office,reportedthehappeningstothechiefIOanddepositedthe
seizedarticlesinthemuddemalroom.ACPPatil,PW186,sentthe
seized cotton swabs that were in the plastic bags, Arts.301A and
302B, to the FSL alongwith his forwarding letter, office copy of
whichisatExt.796,withPNSudhirDattatrayaKulkarni,(PW72)
(Ext.795), on 03/10/06. The contents of the report Ext.2383 in
connectionwiththecottonswabsthatwasreceivedfromtheFSL,
showedtheresultofanalysisthatcyclonite(RDX)andcharcoalare
detectedononeswab,ammonium,nitrateandtracesofcyclonite
(RDX)aredetectedonthesecondswab.
139.
ACPPatil,PW186,sentPIDineshAhirandstafftosearchthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..150..
Ext.4825
houseoftheA7andPIIqbalShaikhandstafftosearchthehouseof
theA8on29/09/06.Theyreturnedonthesamedayandhanded
over the house search panchanamas Exts.2384 and 2385
respectively,reportingthatnothingobjectionablewasfoundinthe
house search. He arrested the A9, A10 and A11 in this case on
30/09/06 from their custody in C. R. No. 59 of 2006 as their
involvement was disclosed during the course of investigation and
from the information gathered during the interrogation of the
arrestedaccused.AteamcomprisingofAPIDineshKadam,PSIAvari
andstaffwasformedfortracingtheA12ashisinvolvementwasalso
disclosed during the course of investigation and from the
informationrevealedfromtheinterrogationofthearrestedaccused.
TheywenttoSecunderabadinAndhraPradeshonreceivingcertain
informationandtracedtheaccusedatSecunderabadwiththehelp
oflocalpolice.PSIAvariproducedhimbeforeACPPatil,PW186,on
30/09/06alongwitharrestpanchanamaExt.2380.PIDeshmukhand
staffwerespeciallyappointedfortracingtheA13,whowasthemain
conspiratorinthiscaseandshownwanted,and,theyweremaking
alleffortsfordoingso.PIDeshmukhsentPSIKandharkarandstaff
to Belgaum to trace the A13 as they had received certain
information. PSI Kandharkar traced the A13 at Belgaum on
03/10/06, arrested him and produced him before ACP Patil,
PW186,alongwiththepanchanamaExt.2382.PIDineshAhir,who
hadgonetoSecunderabadinsearchoftheA12,cametoMumbai
and handed over the house search panchanama Ext.2836 to ACP
Patil,PW186on30/09/06reportingthatnothingobjectionablewas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..151..
Ext.4825
foundinthehousesearch.
140.
ACPPatil,PW186requestedtheJt.CP,ATStoallotateamof
officerstoassisthimintheinvestigation,asitwasveryvoluminous
and wide spread. Accordingly, the Jt. CP, ATS, K. P. Raghuvanshi
issuedtheofficeorderExt.2387,on30/09/06allottingateamof
officerstohim.ACPPatil,PW186,alsousedtheservicesofofficers
otherthanthosementionedintheorder,asandwhenneeded,with
thepermissionofsuperiors.
141.
interrogationoftheaccusedandACPPatil,PW186,alongwithother
seniorofficersweresupervisingtheinterrogation.Heinstructedthe
officerstotakeimmediatestepsifneeded,ifsomethingimportant
camefromtheinterrogationandtokeephimpostedaboutit.Allthe
arrestedaccusedwereputunderconstantinterrogationaftertheir
arrest.
Confessionalstatementsgivenbytheaccusedu/s.18ofthe
MCOCAct:
142.
ACPPatil,PW186wasinformedon29/09/06bytheteamof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..152..
Ext.4825
1019and1020respectively,afterfollowingthedueprocedureand
taking the necessary precautions and sent the sealed envelopes
containingtheconfessionalstatementstotheCMM,whosentitto
thiscourtalongwithhisletterExt.1028.
143.
havebeenreproducedinshortatthisstageinordertounderstand
theprosecutionstoryinabettermanner.
144.
A2confessedabouthisparticipationintheprogramofSIMI,
becomingitsmember,carryingouttheactivitiesofSIMIevenafterit
was banned in September, 2001, knowing the A3 since the year
2000whenheusedtogototheofficeoftheSIMIatKurla,hebeing
arrested in September, 2001 from the Kurla office alongwith the
othermembersliketheA4,SIMIPresidentofMaharashtraandother
officebearers,beingproducedinKurlaCourt,givingslogansthere
aboutwhichanothercasebeingregisteredagainsthim.Heconfessed
about becoming secretary of SIMI of Mumbai in 2003 and being
removed from that post in December, 2003, till that time having
preparedhismindfordoingsomethingtowardsjihadinconnection
withtheatrocitiesonMuslimsinKashmir,Palestine,Checheniaand
Iraq countries, that he was knowing the A4, who was an active
memberofSIMIandwhousedtotellhimtotakethetrainingof
preparingbombs.Heconfessedaboutgoingformilitancytrainingat
thetrainingcampofLeTinMuzzafarabadinApril,2004withthe
helpoftheA4,A9andA3,resigninghisserviceinthePrinceAli
Khan Hospital and returning back to Mumbai in July, 2004. He
confessedabouttakingtrainingofoperatingAK47rifle,pistolsand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..153..
Ext.4825
145.
ACPPatil,PW186wasinformedon29/09/06bytheteamof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..154..
Ext.4825
theJt.C.P.,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.C.P.,ATS
nominated Superintendent of Police Dattatray Rajaram Karale,
(PW104)(Ext.1053),whowas DCP,ZoneIV,Matunga,Mumbaiat
that time to record it and he recorded PartI and II of the
confessionalstatementoftheA4on06/10/06and07/10/06,Exts.
1057and1060respectively,afterfollowingthedueprocedureand
taking the necessary precautions and sent the sealed envelopes
containingtheconfessionalstatementstotheCMM,whosentitto
thiscourtalongwithhisletterExt.1064.
146.
A4confessedaboutgoinginApril,2001totheofficeofSIMI
JudgementMCOC21/06
..155..
Ext.4825
jamatuddawa.org.HeconfessedaboutgettingacquaintedwithRiyaz
Bhatkal in Karnataka in May, 2003, who was running Asif Raza
Group after the ban on SIMI, having discussions with him about
jihadandsettingupcampsfortrainingMuslimsforjihadandfor
thatpurposetosearchfortheplaces.Heconfessedaboutthe A3
givinghiminformationaboutjihadandAhleHadisandheandhis
brotherA9havingtakentrainingintheLeTcampsinPakistanand
askinghimtogofortraining,A3askinghimwhethertheA2isready
togofortraining,theA2expressinghiswillingness,hearrangingfor
thevisaoftheA2inApril,2004withthehelpoftheA3andA9,A2
goingfortrainingandreturninginJune,2004.Heconfessedabout
theA3beinginconstantcontactwithwantedaccusedAzamChima,
commander of LeT, that wanted accused Azam Chima had sent
somepersonstoIndiainMay,2006,outofwhomtwowerebrought
bytheA2bycrossingtheNepalborder,i.e.,wantedaccusedAslam
andwantedaccusedHafizullah.Heconfessedabouthecomingto
knowfrom the A3that the A5hadbroughtsixPakistanipersons
fromBangladeshbycrossingtheDhakaborder,viz.,Sabir,AbuBakr,
Kasam Ali, Ammujan, Abu Hasan and Ehsanullah, all wanted
accused,andthatEhsanullahhadbrought15kgs.RDXwithhimand
some Pakistani persons had come from the Kuchh border. He
confessed about the A3, A10 and A11 conducting a recce of the
targets in Mumbai as per the message of wanted accused Azam
Chima and finding the railway trains to be an easy target. He
confessedabouthe,A2,A6,A7,A10toA13maintainingcontinuous
contactwiththeA3.HeconfessedabouttheA3tellinghimthatthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..156..
Ext.4825
wantedaccusedAzamChimahasdecidedtocausebombexplosions
inseventrainsonthewesternlineattherushtimeintheevening.
Heconfessedabouthe,A2,A3andA9toA11travelinginthetrains
from Churchgate to Virar to survey the spots, the bombs being
preparedon8th,9th,and10thJulyatthehouseoftheA6atGovandi
bytheA7andwantedaccusedSuhailShaikh,whohadcomefrom
PakistanandonemorePakistaniperson,thattheRDX,Ammonium
Nitrate,Diesel,9VoltsBatteryandaQuartzwatchbeingusedfor
preparing the bombs, that A13 and wanted accused Ammu Jaan,
whohadcomefromPakistanandoneParvezbeingpresentthere.He
confessed that he himself supervised the work of preparing the
bombs,theA2keptwatchoutsidethehouseandthatsevenbomb
laden bags were taken to the house of the A3 at Bandra in the
eveningof10/07/06.Heconfessedhisroleinkeepingabombladen
bag in the firstclass bogie of the Virar train starting from
Churchgate at about 1715 hours alongwith wanted Pakistani
accusedAmmuJaan,etc.
147.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon01/10/06bytheteam
JudgementMCOC21/06
..157..
Ext.4825
followingthedueprocedureandtakingthenecessaryprecautions
and sent the sealed envelopes containing the confessional
statementstotheCMM,whosentittothiscourtalongwithhisletter
Ext.1203alongwiththestatementExt.1204thattheaccusedhad
madebeforehim.
148.
Amongstotherthings,theA1confessedabouthebeingsent
toPakistanbywantedaccusedHafizZuberatSitapayalainNepalon
the pretext of collecting donations for Madarssas, going through
WaghabordertoPakistanandbeinggiventraininginthetraining
centreatUmmulKodaandbeingtoldabouttheatrocitiescommitted
onMuslimsandonMuslimwomen,becauseofwhichafeelingof
hatredagainstIndiawasborninhim.Heconfessedaboutgoingto
Bahawalpurandfromtherebeingtakentoatrainingcentreinthe
desertandbeingtrainedin AK47,rifles,revolversandpreparing
bombs.HeconfessedaboutsendinghisowncobrotherAnwarUk
Haq to Pakistan for training on the pretext of sending him for
collectionofdonationforMadarssa,thathewasbeinggivenmoney
byoneIbrahimRaeenforpreparingpoor,educatedandneedyboys
tobe sent toPakistan for training on the pretextof collection of
donations,buthecouldnotsendanyone,thatinthebeginningof
May,2006wantedaccusedAbdulRahman,whowasworkinginthe
NiceTravelsofwantedaccusedHafizZuberatKathmandu,gavehim
Rs.10,000/andaplasticbagthatcontainedkg.blackcoloured
powder,whichoninquirythewantedaccusedAbdulRahmantold
thatitisRDXpowder,thatattheendofMay,2006onthesayof
wanted accused Abdul Rahman, he brought two Pakistanis, i.e.,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..158..
Ext.4825
wantedaccusedAslamandHafizullah,fromJanakpurinNepalto
PatnaandthentoMumbaiandtookthemtotheshopoftheA7.He
alsoconfessedthatontheinstructionsofthewantedaccusedAbdul
Rahman on 07/07/06, he started for Mumbai on 09/07/06 and
reachedthehouseoftheA7inthemorningon11/07/06,where
wantedaccusedAslamandwantedaccusedHafizullahwerepresent,
thatwantedaccusedAbdulRahmantoldhimthathehastoreach
thehouseoftheA7atanycostandtherehastoexecuteabigwork
ofLeTcommander,wantedaccusedAzamChima,withthehelpof
wanted accused Aslam, wanted accused Hafizullah and A7. He
confessedabouthavinggonetothehouseoftheA3atBandraat
3.00p.m.bylocaltrainalongwithA7andwantedaccusedAslam
andHafizullah,wherehewasassignedtheworkofplantingabomb
laden bag in the local train, that he, wanted accused Aslam and
Hafizullah and one more Pakistani, whose name was told as
deceasedaccusedSalim,wasgivenonebagbytheA3,thattheyfour
wenttoChurchgateRailwayStationbytaxiandboardedafirstclass
compartmentofthe5.57p.m.trainandhekeptthebombladenbag
onthepassengerrackandafterthetrainreachedDadar,heandthe
other three started getting down, but because of rush only three
personsmanagedtogetdown,butdeceasedaccusedSalimcould
notgetdown.
149.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon01/10/06bytheteam
JudgementMCOC21/06
..159..
Ext.4825
theJt.CP,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.CP,ATS
nominatedAddl.CP Brijesh Singh, (PW117)(Ext.1208), who was
DCP,ZoneIatthattimetorecorditandherecordedPartIandIIof
the confessional statement of the A3 on 03/10/06 and 5 and
06/10/06,Exts.1212and1218respectively,afterfollowingthedue
procedureandtakingthenecessaryprecautionsandsentthesealed
envelopescontainingtheconfessionalstatementstotheCMM,who
sentittothiscourtalongwithhisletterExt.1222.
150.
membersofSIMIincludingtheA10whenhewasstayingwithhis
familyatPunein2001andcomingtoknowabouttheactivitiesof
SIMI, that he started participating in the DurseQuran programs
conductedbySIMIinMasjidalongwithhisbrothers,A9andwanted
accused Rahil, and got very well acquainted with a lot of SIMI
activistsfromMumbaiandPune,thathebecameacquaintedwithA4
andA13inabigzonalTabiyatiprogramorganisedbySIMIatUnani
MedicalCollege,Pune,inMay,2001,thatbecauseoftheTakrirand
lectures in the program of SIMI, in which they told about the
atrocitiesandexcessesonMuslimsinallthecountriesintheworld,
he developed concern for his Muslim brothers and wished to do
somethinginrespectoftheatrocitiesonMuslimsandwasmoved
becauseofthecommunalriotsinMumbaiandGujaratanddecided
tomigrateandsettleinsomeMuslimcountryandtotakerevengein
respect of the atrocities committed on Muslims in Hindustan,
therefore got his passport prepared in Pune, went to Pakistan in
June, 2002 by Samjhauta Express, met Abu Harara and wanted
JudgementMCOC21/06
..160..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..161..
Ext.4825
151.
152.
A3alsoconfessedthataftergoingtoresideinMumbai,he
JudgementMCOC21/06
..162..
Ext.4825
wasincontinuouscontactwiththewantedaccusedAzamChima,
who told him to search for a good target for committing a big
incidentinMumbai,thatthenhealongwiththeA10andA11had
toured Mumbai and he realised that local trains were a proper
target,aboutwhichhegaveinformationtowantedaccusedAzam
ChimainFebruary,2004,whichheapprovedandtoldtheA3about
sending11personsofPakistanforthatpurpose,thatA6,A7,A12,
A13,A2,A4,A10andA11wereinconstantcontactwithhimonthe
instructions of wantedaccused Azam Chima,thatthe A1 and A5
werealsomaintainingcontactwithhim,thathe,A2,A4,A9toA11
travelledinlocaltrainsfromBombaytoVirartosurveythesituation
andhefoundthatitwaseasytocauseexplosioninrunninglocal
trainatthetimeofcrowdintheevening.Heconfessedthatonthe
instructions of the wanted accused Azam Chima, he started
preparationsforexecutingtheplanofcausingexplosionsinthelocal
trains, that A13 started collecting articles required for it in May,
2006andkepttheminthehouseoftheA6,thattheA1brought
wanted accused Aslam and wanted accused Hafizullah, Pakistani
personssentbywantedaccusedAzamChimafromNepalborderin
May, 2006 and the A5 brought six Pakistani persons from Dhaka
border,viz., Sabir,AbuBakr,KasamAli,Ammujan,AbuHasanand
Ehsanullah, all wanted accused, that wanted accused Ehsanullah
had brought 15 kgs. RDX with him, that wanted accused Abdul
Razzak,residentofHyderabad,broughtthreePakistanipersonsfrom
KutchborderofGujarat,viz.,AbuUmedandSalim,bothdeceased
accusedandwantedaccusedSohailShaikhandheandA13made
JudgementMCOC21/06
..163..
Ext.4825
arrangementsforthestayofthePakistanipersons,that11thJulywas
fixed as the date for executing the work and before that it was
decidedtopreparethebombsatthehouseoftheA6,thatA4,A2,
A13, A6, A7 and some other persons were in continuous contact
withhimandtheyallhadmeetinginhishouseatBandraandatthe
A7'shouseatMiraRoad,thatthebombswerepreparedatthehouse
oftheA6on8,9and10bythewantedaccusedSohailShaikh,who
had come from Pakistan with the help of A7 and one Pakistani
person, that A4 was supervising over the work, that seven bags
containing bombs were brought to his house at Bandra and kept
thereon10/07/06thataspertheinstructionsofwantedaccused
AzamChima,sevenpairs,eachconsistingofonePakistaniandone
local person, were formed for planting the bombs, that he was
accompanied with a Pakistani person, wanted accused Abu Bakr,
thatA4,A12,A1,andA7weretheotherpersons,thatallpairsone
by one went to the east side of Churchgate station, came on
platformsfromthesubwaywiththebombladenbags,eachpairkept
thebagindifferentlocaltrainsandheandAbuBakrkeptthebagin
thefirstclasscompartmentbelowtheseatandgotdownatDadar
andthereafterthePakistanipersonswentoutofMumbaitoother
citiesbyroadandfromtheretoPakistanbycatchingdifferenttrains.
153.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon01/10/06bytheteam
JudgementMCOC21/06
..164..
Ext.4825
154.
A9confessedthathisbrotherA3usedtoworkforLeT,that
JudgementMCOC21/06
..165..
Ext.4825
that after returning back A3 had sent the A10 to Pakistan for
terroristtraininginNovember,2002,thatwiththehelpofA13,A3
sentAbdulRauf,SameeLulleandwantedaccusedRizwanDawrey
for LeT training, that he, i.e., the A9, collected money sent by
hawalaontheinstructionsoftheA3fromhiscousinKhalidaApa,
thathearrangedforvisaofIranfortheA2onthesayofA4by
taking Rs.20,000/ from Khalida Apa, that on the instructions of
wantedaccusedRizwanDawrey,hetookRs.10,000/fromKhalida
Apa in April,2004andgave ittothe A4for going toAjmer.He
confessedabouthavinggonefortrainingtoAlAksatrainingcentre
oftheLeTatMuzaffarabadviaIranon09/08/04,takingwithhim
an ultra violet lamp machine for identifying counterfeit currency
notes,whichtheA2hadgiventohimasitwasaskedforbywanted
accused Azam Chima, that he handed it over to wanted accused
Azam Chima, that he took training for 15 days and returned to
MumbaiagainthroughIranrouteinSeptember,2004.Heconfessed
aboutthe A3returning toMumbaiin February,2005andstarted
staying at Masjid Bunder and working for LeT, taking money
receivedbyKhalidaApathroughhawalaontheinstructionsofthe
A3,thattheA3shiftingtoaflatatCarterRoad,Bandra(W)inLucky
VillaBuilding.HeconfessedthataftertheA3returnedfromPakistan
toMumbaiinFebruary,2005,A3toldhimthatjihadhastobedone
inIndiaandthereforeabigincidenthastobedoneinMumbaiand
thattheA3remainedinconstantcontactwiththewantedaccused
AzamChima.Heconfessedabouthavingattendedameetingatthe
instanceoftheA13,whereA2toA4,A10andA13werepresentand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..166..
Ext.4825
A13andA3orderingthemtosearchfortargetsforcausingbomb
explosions,thatA3tookhim,A4,A10andA11andtraveledinthe
localtrainsfromChurchgatetoVirarandfoundthattargetoftrains
was proper for exploding bombs in the crowd, that many days
thereafterA3toldhimthat11thJulyhadbeenfixedforcausingthe
bombexplosionsandforthatpurposewantedaccusedAzamChima
wouldbesendingseveralmenfromPakistanandaskedhimtobe
readyfordoinganyworkandifnecessary,hishelpwouldbetaken.
HeconfessedaboutwantedaccusedRizwanDawreycontactinghim
in May, 2006 and informing him that the A3 had asked for an
amountofRs.15,000Riyals,whichhewouldbesendingfromSaudi
ArabiawithanacquaintancebynameHidayatullaSundke,PW64,
toPune.HeconfessedaboutcontactingthesaidHidayatullaSundke,
PW64,andtellinghimtogivetheRiyalstoBilalShaikh,PW66,
whotookitandgavethemtoMohsinKhan,PW67,whotookthem
to Mumbai and handed them over to the A3. He confessed that
duringhismilitanttraininginPakistan, highlyplacedofficersused
tovisitthetrainingcampsonseveraloccasionsinmilitaryvehicles
forobservationandlearntthattheywereofficersofthePakistans
secretserviceagencyI.S.I.andthattheyhavefullcontroloverthe
membersofLeT.
155.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon02/10/06bytheteam
JudgementMCOC21/06
..167..
Ext.4825
nominated Dy.ChiefVigilanceOfficer,AirIndia,AshutoshKarbhari
Dumbre, (PW118)(Ext.1242) to record it and he recorded PartI
andIIoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA10on05/10/06and
06/10/06,Exts.1246and1249respectively,afterfollowingthedue
procedureandtakingthenecessaryprecautionsandsentthesealed
envelopescontainingtheconfessionalstatementstotheCMM,who
sentittothiscourtalongwithhisletterExt.1253.
156.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..168..
Ext.4825
conditionandwantedaccusedRizwanDawreyalsoaskedhimabout
A3'sproposalandwiththeirhelpandastheA3arrangedforhisvisa
and ticket, he went to Tehran from Mumbai on 01/11/02, that
wantedaccusedRizwanDawreygavehimRs.10,000/and12,000
SaudiRiyals,thatfromtherehewastakentoBahawalpur,wherehe
metwantedaccusedAzamChima,whotoldhimaboutjihadand
Gujarat,thatfromtherehewassenttoLahorewithapersonofISI,
from there to Rawalpindi, where the officers of ISI asked him to
workfortheminIndia andtobecomeanISIagent,thathewas
again taken to Bahawalpur and from there to the bungalow of
wantedaccusedAzamChima,whotoldhimthatheshouldworkfor
LeT and that he should work with the A3 and wanted accused
AzamChimagavehimknowledgeofarmsandmadehimpractice
operatingarms.ThereafterhecrossedtheIranborderandreturned
to Mumbai, met the A3 and told him all that had happened in
Pakistan.HeconfessedhavinggonetoMumbaiinFebruary,2006for
collectingmoneyfromtheA3,thatthereaftertheA13callinghim
formeetingatthehouseoftheA3,wherehe,A3,A13,A2,A4,A9
andA11werepresentandtherewasadiscussionaboutselectionof
targetsinMumbaiforbombblast,thatA13orderedthemtomakea
surveyfortargets,thatA3tookhimandA11withhimforsurveying
Mumbai and found that security arrangements were not good at
local railway stations and that railway stations were always
crowded,decided that the local trains were the proper targets in
comparison with the World Trade Center, Stock Exchange,
MahalaxmiMandir,SiddhivinayakaMandirandsomebigshopping
JudgementMCOC21/06
..169..
Ext.4825
malls,whichtheyhadsurveyedandwheretheyfoundtightsecurity
arrangements. He confessed to having travelled in the local train
fromMumbaitoVirarfortakingstockofthesituationalongwithA2
toA4andA9toA11andfoundmorecrowdinthe eveningand
thinkingthatitwouldbeeasytodotheexplosionatthattime.He
confessedthattheA3calledhiminthefirstweekofJuly,2006athis
houseatBandra,thattherewere45morepersonsatthehouse,that
theA3toldhimthattheywereguestsfromPakistanandwiththeir
helpheisgoingtocauseabigbombexplosioninMumbaiandthey
had come for those preparations, at that time the A13 was also
present there. He confessed that on 10/07/06 he again went to
MumbaitogetmoremoneyfromtheA3andwhenhemettheA3,
theA3toldhimthatthebombsareready,thattheywoulddothe
bombexplosionsinthelocalrailwayinMumbaion11/07/06andif
thereissomeworkthathecando,hewouldbetoldaboutitandhe
shouldbereadyforit.
157.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon02/10/06bytheteam
JudgementMCOC21/06
..170..
Ext.4825
158.
A11confessedinhisconfessionalstatementthathebecame
interestedintheworkofSIMIin1999whenhesawacrowdnear
the office of SIMI at Kurla, saw some books kept alongwith the
photographs of BabriMasjidand Aksa Masjid(Jerusalem,Isreal),
got impressed, entered inside the office, where a man by name
Waqargothimselfacquaintedwithhim,hegaveinformationabout
theSIMI,whereuponheexpressedhisdesiretoworkintheSIMI
organisation and he was directed to go to the office of SIMI at
Iqwanu Safa in Madanpura, Mumbai where he went and got
introduced to A2, Khalid, Sajid, Salim and Anis, that after his
marriagein December,1999whenhiswife sufferedfromTBand
pneumonia,shewastreatedbytheA2andhegotwellacquainted
withhimatthattimeandhismeetingswiththeA2increasedafter
August,2002whenhispregnantwifewasadmittedfordeliveryin
FauziyaHospitalwiththehelpofA2andthatbothheandtheA2
usedtoparticipateintheprogramsofSIMIatthesaidoffice.He
confessedthattheA2wasarrestedaftertheSIMIwasbannedbythe
Government in September, 2001 and he, i.e., the A11 was saved
from the clutches of law as noone knewabout the office at the
IqwanuSafabecauseitwasinthedispensaryofacharitabletrust.
HeconfessedthataftertheattackbyAmericaonIraqin2005,A2
assuredhimonthebasisofHadisthatIsraelisnowgoingtoattack
countrieslikeIran,Iraq,Sham(Syria),Misra(Egypt)andtheattack
JudgementMCOC21/06
..171..
Ext.4825
onIraqbyAmericaisjustthebeginning,thatafterIraq,theturnof
all will come and that those people from Hindustan, Pakistan,
BangladeshandNepal,whowouldfightwouldbefortunatetoget
Jannat,thattheA2usedtogivehimthebooksonHadistoreadand
usedtosaythatallofthemshouldbeready,thatafterlisteningto
suchlectures,healsofeltthatheshouldbereadyandsomedays
thereafter on the motivation of the A2, he went for training to
Muzafarabad and from there to Maskar (Aksa) training centre,
thathegavehispassportandRs.8,000/totheA2,whogavehim
200Americandollars,Iranivisaandticketandtoldhimaboutthe
route to go to Pakistan via Tehran in Iran, where he went on
04/04/05byair,tellinghisfamilymembersthatheisgoingforajob
interview.HeconfessedhavinggonetoIran,wantedaccusedAzam
ChimasendingapersonbynameAbdulla,whosenthimtoZaidan
fromwherewantedaccusedAbdulRehmantookhimtotheborder
andcrossedit,thentheywenttoKoytaandfurthertoBahawalpur
and from Bahawalpur to Muzafarabad. He confessed about his
training starting from 14/04/05 and he being given knowledge
aboutexplosivematerialforfivedaysandhowtousethemtocause
maximumlosstolifeandpropertyincrowdedplaces,thathewas
given training by military officers, who used to come in vehicle
havingPakistaniflag,ofsettingthetimeuptothreemonthsbyusing
timer device and preparing time bomb, that he was also given
trainingandpracticeofoperatingautomaticfirearms,assembling,
dismantlingandfiringthemandwastoldthattheofficerswerethe
officersoftheISIandthetrainingcentrewasrunundertheISI.He
JudgementMCOC21/06
..172..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..173..
Ext.4825
preparedaspertheplanandtheexplosionswilltakeplaceinthe
local trains on 11/07/06 and telling him that they all should be
readyattheirplacesandtheA3maytellhimanyworkasperhis
ability,incaseofanyemergency.
159.
ACPDhawale,Sr.PIDeshmukh,PITonapi,PW155,andstaff
oftheJuhuUnitoftheATSwereinterrogatingtheA3on08/10/06.
TheA3volunteeredtomakeavoluntarystatement,therefore,HC
PatilcalledpanchwitnessesKirtirajSambhajiDalvi,(PW109)(Ext.
1107)andonemoreandintheirpresencetheA3madeavoluntary
statementthatheisreadytoshowtheplacewherehehadthrown
the remaining articles like pressure cooker rings, whistles and
circuit,whilegoingtoMiraRoadbytrain.Memorandum,Ext.1108,
ofthevoluntarystatementmadebytheA3,waspreparedandheled
thepoliceandpanchwitnessestoDahisarsubway via LinkRoad
and then by a kachha road to the railway track. From the spot
pointedoutbytheA3,thecopperbrownplasticbag,Art.335,was
takenoutandthethinwhiteplasticbag,Art.336wasfoundinsideit.
Cooker rings, Arts.331 (1 to 7), whistles, Arts.332 (1 to 5), five
electric wires with red and white insulation, Arts.333 (1 to 5),
printedcircuitboardwithwiresattachedandthecircuitonit,Art.
334andaplasticboxArt.334Awerefoundinthewhiteplasticbag.
Thesevenblackrubbercookerringshadtheword'Kanchan'printed
in white colour on them. The five stainless steel pressure cooker
whistleswithblackplasticcapshadthename'Kanchan'onthem.
Thefiveelectricwireswerehavingredandwhiteinsulation.The
transparent plastic box had two clamps and on opening them a
JudgementMCOC21/06
..174..
Ext.4825
printedcircuitboardwasfoundplacedonyellowsponge,thecircuit
boardhadthreeoutgoingwires,onewashavingaredcap,onewas
havingblackwirewithcylindricalNokiaswitch.PITonapi,PW155,
puteacharticleinaseparateplasticbag,labeledandsealedthem
andwrotethepanchanama,Ext.1109,asdictatedbyACPDhawale.
Aphotocopyofthepanchanamawasobtainedfromanearbyshop
andgiventotheaccusedwhosesignaturewastakenontheoriginal.
Theyreturnedtothepolicestation.PITonapi,PW155,handedover
theseizedarticlestothemuddemalclerk,gavethepanchanamato
ACPPatil,PW186,andputtheA3inthelockup.
160.
ACPPatil,PW186,senttheaboveseizedarticlestotheFSL
JudgementMCOC21/06
..175..
Ext.4825
(PW120)(Ext.1257),andonemoreandalongwithPSIKandharkar
and the panch witnesses he went to Raju Industrial Estate, near
DahisarCheckNakatotheofficeofKanchanCookerCompany.He
handedovertherequestletterandthemanagerPrashantKothari
producedonesealedpacketofpressurecookerring,Art.342A,and
onewhistle,Art.343,andgavethemadeliverychallan,Art.340.The
articleswerepackedinbrownpaperseparately,labeledandsealed
andPIKandharkar seized them under the panchanama Ext.1259.
They then returned to Juhu Unit and from there went to
Kalachowki,handedoverthearticlestothemuddemalclerkandthe
panchanamatoPIDeshmukh.ACPPatil,PW186,sentthesearticles
totheFSLon16/10/06withPCTanajiSantuPatil,(PW148)(Ext.
1598),alongwithhisforwardingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.
1599.TheFSLopinedinitsreportExt.2388,thattherubbergasket
andthewhistleprocuredfromthecompanydonottallywiththe
rubber gaskets and whistles recovered from the A3 in respect of
markings and physical characteristics. In other words the rubber
gasketsandwhistlesrecoveredattheinstanceoftheA3bearingthe
markingsofKanchanCompanywereduplicates.
161.
ACPPatil,PW186,gaveamemotoSr.PITajne,PW161,on
07/10/06forinterrogatingtheA13.He,ACPTawde,PSIKadamand
staffwereinterrogatinghimandon09/10/06theA13expressedhis
desiretomakeavoluntarystatement.Therefore,panchwitnesses
KevalkumarTarchandJain,(PW55)(Ext.663),andonemorewere
calledand in their presence the A13gave a voluntary statement,
aboutwhichthememorandumExt.664waswritten,duringwhich
JudgementMCOC21/06
..176..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..177..
Ext.4825
contents,Art.292(colly),CPUs,Arts.293and294,laserprinter,Art.
295,computermonitor,Art.296,applicationforNOCalongwithan
agreementofleaveandlicence,Art.297(colly),RelianceEnergybill,
Art.298,key,Art.299andweddingcard,Art.300.Duringthesearch
operationthesecretaryandchairmanofthatbuildingcamethere,
introducedthemselvestothepoliceandidentifiedtheA13,whowas
withthem,asthetenantofthatflat.Sr.PITajne,PW161,seizedall
thesearticlesunderpanchanamaExt.665,obtainedaphotocopyof
thepanchanama,gaveittotheA13andobtainedhissignature.
162.
ThereafterhereturnedbacktotheATSofficealongwiththe
A13andtheseizedarticlesafterhavinginstructedthesamepanchas
toremainpresentintheATSofficeaftertwohoursashewantedto
get the detonators and granules inspected by the BDDS. He had
intimatedACPPatil,PW186,whilereturningfromMiraRoadabout
seizingexplosivesubstanceanddetonatorsandhadrequestedhim
to call the BDDS team to the Kalachowki office. He reported the
happeningstotheChiefIOonreturningtotheATSofficeandgave
him the original panchanama and the articles. The BDDS team
comprising of API Sandesh Sadashiv Revle, (PW154)(Ext.1659),
otherofficers,staffandthedogMaxcametoKalachowkiofficeat
about1930hoursandthesametwopanchasalsocamethere.Sr.PI
Tajne, PW161, handed over sealed khaki packet containing the
granulestoAPIRevle,PW154,inthepresenceofthepanchas.API
Revle,PW154,tookthemandthepanchastotheopenspacebehind
theATSoffice.TheA13wasalsowiththem.ThedogMaxsniffedthe
packet and gave a positive signal by barking that the packet
JudgementMCOC21/06
..178..
Ext.4825
containedexplosives.APIRevle,PW154,tookasmallquantityof
granules and burnt it and they all noticed that it melted while
burning.Sr.PITajne,PW161,thenpackedthegranulesinanother
khakipaperandlabeledandsealedit.Thereafter,hegavetheplastic
jarcontainingthedetonatorstoAPIRevle,PW154.Hetookthem
outfromthejarandafterexaminationinformedthemthattheyare
electronicdetonators.Hedividedthetendetonatorsintwopartsof
fiveeachandkepttheminotherhalfcutplasticbottles,whichwere
labeled andsealed andwhich Sr.PI Tajne,PW161,seized under
panchanama Ext.667 before the panchas. API Revle, PW154,
submittedareportabouthisinspectiontoACPPatil,PW186,andSr.
PITajne,PW161,handedovertheoriginalpanchanamaandarticles
tohim.ACPPatil,PW186,sentonepacketcontainingthesampleof
whitegranulatedpowderandthehandbagtotheFSLon11/10/06
withPCDineshDashrathGaikwad,(PW164)(Ext.1755),alongwith
hisforwardingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1756.Thereport
of the FSL Ext.2389 contained the opinion that Cyclonite (RDX),
charcoalandpetroleumhydrocarbonoilwerefoundinthehandbag
inthepercentageof82.34%,8.00%and9.17%respectively.Itwas
alsoopinedthatammoniumandnitrateradicalsaredetectedinthe
whitegranulatedpowder.
163.
SpecialCourton13/10/06todefusethedetonatorsastheywere
hazardousforstorage.HedirectedSr.PITajne,PW161,todothe
needfulandgavehimtheletteralongwiththeorderofthecourtfor
destroying the detonators. Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, summoned the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..179..
Ext.4825
BDDSteamon20/10/06andinthepresenceofpanchwitnesses,
Ajit Bhagat Singh, (PW158)(Ext.1691), and one more, the
detonators were destroyed at Girgaon Chowpaty by API Revle,
PW154,andhisstaff.Sr.PITajane,PW161,andstaffcollectedthe
remaining pieces of detonators and wires, packed, labeled and
sealedthemandPSIGaikwadpreparedpanchanamaExt.1692.
164.
1692toACPPatil,PW186,andproducedtheresidueofthedefused
detonatorsseizedbyhimunderthepanchanamaanddepositedit
withthemuddemalclerk.ACPPatil,PW186,senttheresidueofthe
defuseddetonatorstotheFSLwithHCJagannathTukaramGolhar,
(PW86)(Ext.885), alongwith his forwarding letter dtd. 27/10/06,
officecopyofwhichisatExt.886.ACPPatil,PW186,gavetheletter
and sealed envelopes to HC Golhar, PW86, on 30/10/06 and he
reachedthemtotheFSLonthatday.TheFSLopinedinitsreport
Ext.2390 that nitrite and lead radicals (post explosion residues)
weredetectedinthetendefuseddetonatorswithelectricalwires,
metallicpiecesandadhesivepieces.
165.
ACPPatil,PW186,submittedaproposaltohissuperiorsin
themeanwhile,seekingpermissionforclubbingallthesevencases
together as he came to the conclusion on 09/10/06 that all the
sevenbombblastsareapartofasinglelargerconspiracy,thatthe
arrested and wanted accused are involved in the conspiracy as
membersoftheorganisedcrimesyndicate,theobjectofwhichisto
commit insurgency and, therefore, the seven cases needed to be
clubbedtogetherandinvestigatedtogetherason,ecase.DCPBajaj
JudgementMCOC21/06
..180..
Ext.4825
166.
A12expressedhisdesireon22/10/06todiscloseimportant
informationconcerningthecrimewhenhewasbeinginterrogated
byPIKhanvilkar,PW168,APIDudhgaokar,PSISachinKadamand
staff.ThereforepanchwitnessesShrikrishnaShivajiPawale,(PW50)
(Ext.635), and one more were called and the A12 stated before
themthatheisreadytoshowthe placeswherehehadgone,to
showthespotwherehehadkeptthecarandthepersontowhomhe
had given the key of the car on the instructions of the A3. The
memorandumExt.636ofhisvoluntarystatementwasprepared.He
thenledthepoliceandthepanchwitnessestoShivajinagar,Govandi
JudgementMCOC21/06
..181..
Ext.4825
andtoashopbynameSandeepTailorandtoldhimthathehad
halted the Maruti car there and the A3, A7 and two Pakistani
nationalshadgotdownthere,thattheshopwasclosed,therefore,
thepolicecouldnotgatheranyinformation,buttheresidentstold
them that the said locality is in plots no.23 and 24. PSI Sachin
Kadam prepared a rough sketch of the spot, Ext.637, on the
directionsofPIKhanvilkar,PW168,whichwassignedbyallpresent.
A12thenledthemtoPerryCrossRoadatBandra,wherehetook
themtoLuckyVillaBuildingandshowedthetemporarystructure
roomontheterraceinformingthemthattheA3usedtoresidethere
andtwoPakistanisalsousedtoresidewithhim.Thepolicefound
theroomlocked,inquiredwiththenearbyresidentsaboutthekey,
butdidnotgetanyinformation.PSISachinKadampreparedrough
sketch of the spot, Ext.638, on the directions of PI Khanvilkar,
PW168, on which all present signed. The A12 then led them to
MillatNagarinAndheriandtoacompoundinwhichtherewasOcaz
ShoppingCenter,pointedoutthefourstoriedbuildinginfrontofthe
shopping center and informed them that he had dropped the A3
below that building and the A3 had gone to meet the Pakistani
guestsinthatbuilding.HeinformedthathehadhaltedtheMaruti
800vehiclenearthatgateandwaitedfortheA3.PSISachinKadam
preparedroughsketchofthespot,Ext.639,onthedirectionsofPI
Khanvilkar, PW168. The A12 then led the police and the panch
witnessestothecompoundofAlHatimbuilding,pointedouttoa
whiteMaruti800caramongstothercarsthatwereparkedthereand
saidthat,thatwasthecaroftheA3.Policewenttothecarand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..182..
Ext.4825
foundittobelocked.A12toldthemthatthekeyiswithaperson
whoresidesinthebuilding.Hethenledthemtotheflatno.403on
the4th floor,rangthedoorbell,oneRizwanKhotopenedthedoor
andontheA12askinghimtohandoverthekey,heproducedthe
keyandgaveittoPIKhanvilkar,PW168.PIKhanvilkar,PW168,
hadinstructedHCGhagtoremainnearthecarandguardit.They
all came down to the car alongwith Rizwan Khot. PI Khanvilkar,
PW168, opened the car with the key and searched it and found
documents of the car in the glove compartment, i.e., registration
certificate, Art.272/Ext.641, insurance certificate, Art.273, PUC
Certificate, Art.274 and service center receipt, Art.275. He also
found three audio cassettes, Arts.276(1 to 3). He examined the
vehicleminutelyandsawblackishspotsinthebootcompartment
andinbetweenthedriverandtherearseat.Hewipedthespotfrom
threeplacesinthebootwiththehelpofcottonswabsandalsofrom
thethreeplacesinbetweenthedriverseatandtherearseat,putthe
cotton swabs in separate plastic pouches, wrapped, labeled and
sealedthem.Healsowrappedandsealedalltheotherarticlesthat
hehadfoundandcoveredthespotinthebootandinbetweenthe
driverseatandrearseatbykhakipaper.Heseizedallthearticles
and the car, Art.277, under the panchanama Ext.641. PSI Sachin
Kadampreparedroughsketchofthespot,Ext.640,onthedirections
of PI Khanvilkar, PW168, which was signed by all present. The
vehiclewasbearingregistrationno.MH01V9568.Hereturnedto
theATSofficewiththeA12andtheseizedarticles,depositedthe
seized articles with the muddemal clerk and handed over the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..183..
Ext.4825
panchanamatoACPPatil,PW186.PIKhanvilkar,PW168,recorded
thestatementofRizwanKhot,whocametotheofficeonthesame
dayonbeingcalled.
167.
ACPPatil,PW186,sentthesixcottonswabsandtheMaruti
168.
PIKhanvilkar,PW168,gavelettertotheRTO,Mumbaion
27/10/06,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1784,ontheinstructionsof
ACPPatil,PW186,togetinformationabouttheownershipofthe
Maruticarandbythereport,Ext.1785,theRTOinformedthatone
Gulamraze M. Badam is the owner of that car. PI Khanvilkar,
PW168,calledthatpersontotheKalachowkioffice,recordedhis
statement, during which he produced photocopies of the transfer
formsthathehadgiventotheA9andreceiptoftheA9havingpaid
JudgementMCOC21/06
..184..
Ext.4825
theamount,Exts.1786(1to10).Healsorecordedthestatementof
AtaurRehmanShaikh,fatherofA3andA9,inconnectionwiththe
car and of Afzal Mohd. Hussain Alwani, (PW39)(Ext.577), on
02/11/06,ashehadarrangedforsellingthecar.Healsorecorded
thestatementofoneMohd.Abul,garageowner.
169.
statementduringhisinterrogationatJuhuUnitbyPIDeshmukh,PI
Tonapi, PW155, and staff. Therefore panch witnesses, Raju Mani
Tapi,(PW129)(Ext.1478),andonemorewerecalledandintheir
presenceA7statedthathe is readytoshowthe placewherethe
articles used for making timer circuit devices are kept. The
memorandumExt.1479waspreparedabouthisstatement.Hethen
ledthepoliceandpanchwitnessestotheofficeonthefirstfloorofa
structure having a paper board TanzeemeWalidaen,near Mother
TeresaSchoolinMalwaniGateNo.6,obtainedthekeysofhisdrawer
fromanoldmanMushtaqAli,whowassittingthere,openedoneof
thedrawersofthecomputertableandtookoutthepolythenebag,
Art.345,fromwhichhetookoutsolderinggun,Art.346,fourpieces
ofsolderingwire,Art.347(1to4),boxcontainingsolderingflux,Art.
348, printed circuit board, Art.349, yellow multimeter, Art.350,
tweezers,Arts.351(1and2),screwdriver,Art.352,emptypacketof
Airtel recharge card, Art. 353, resistors, Arts.354 (1 to 22),
capacitorsArts.355(1and2),coil,Art.356,transistors,Arts.357(1
to8),LEDs,Arts.358(1to9)anddiodes,Arts.359(1to6).PI
Tonapi,PW155,putallthearticlesinseparateplasticbags,labeled
andsealedthemandseizedthemunderthepanchanamaExt.1480,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..185..
Ext.4825
170.
171.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon19/10/06bytheteam
172.
A6confessedinhisconfessionalstatementthathebecamea
memberoftheSIMIin1993afterAbdulKadirandZameerUlHasan
JudgementMCOC21/06
..186..
Ext.4825
ofChitaCamp,MankhurdtookhimtoBandraforaSIMIprogram
andsincethenstartedgoingtotheSIMIofficerepeatedlyandgiving
lecturesandTakriroutsidethemosquetoothermembersofSIMI,
attending the SIMI program in Yeotmal District in 1994, where
AshrafJafari,AllIndiaSecretaryofSIMI,waspresent,attendinga
programofSIMIatAurangabadinNovember,1999andattendinga
programatJalgaoninJuly,2000,wherehegotacquaintedwiththe
A13.HeconfessedaboutretiringfromSIMIinDecember,2000,but
even then attending programs of SIMI at AnjumanIslam High
School,Mumbai,thatafterthebanonSIMIinSeptember,2001,he
was not arrested as he had retired, that Riyaz Bhatkal, an office
bearer ofSIMI,always usedtomeethimnearthe masjidon the
Kurla Pipe Road, that Asuda Urban Credit CoOperative Society
closed in 2001 and he became unemployed, at that time he told
RiyazBhatkalthathisbankwouldstartagainifanyonegiveshima
helpofRs.2530lakhs,whereuponRiyazBhatkaltoldhimtomeet
advocateShahidAzmi.HeconfessedaboutmeetingadvocateShahid
Azmi,whointroducedhimtoZahir,whoserealnamewasAsifRaza,
whorefusedhisrequestforfinancetostartthebanksayingthathe
wouldhelponlyiftheA6doessomethingforIslamandwhentheA6
saidyes,hetoldhimtoremainincontactwithRiyazBhatkal.He
confessedaboutRiyazBhatkalgivinghimmoneyinMarch,2002,he
teaching Mushir Uddin Siddhiqui, a resident of Shivajinagar,
Govandiaboutjihadandpreparinghim,becomingacquaintedwith
MunwarofMalegaon,wheretheywentinOctober,2002,wherehe
gotacquaintedwithShabbir,JahidandRajuandtoldthemabout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..187..
Ext.4825
TehrikandsaidthatShabbirwillhavetogooutofMumbaiforjihad,
thatShabbircametoMumbaiforpreparinghispassportandone
monththereaftertheA6gave ,Rs.10,000/toMushirandsenthim
toMalegaonandMunirbroughtakattafromtherewiththehelpof
ShabbirsacquaintanceanditwasshowntoRiyazBhatkal.Hesaid
that it is not good. He confessed about going for training to an
unknownplaceinPakistaninFebruary,2003alongwithMushirvia
DubaiattheinstanceofRiyazBhatkal,whohadgiventhemmoney,
taking the training of firearms, pistols, AK 47, LMG, etc., being
taughtaboutjihadbyBabaGajali,IshtiaandMashar,chiefofthe
training camp, who were officers of the ISI, Pakistan, that the
trainingwentonforsixteendaysandtheyalsotookthetrainingof
operatinghandgrenadesandpreparingbombs.Heconfessedthat
theyreturnedtoKarachion12/03/03,tooktheirpassports,wentto
Dubai and from there to Kathmandu and then crossed the Nepal
border.HewenttoSultanpurAmethiandreturnedtoMumbaion
21/03/03.HeconfessedaboutdemandingRs.1,85,000/fromRiyaz
Bhatkal in 2003 for sending Nafis to Bangalore, obtaining it by
hawala, giving Rs. 30,000/ to Shabbir of Malegaon and Rs.
1,50,000/toNafis.Heconfessedaboutmakingeffortstosendboys
toPakistanforjihaditrainingandhavingsentShabbirandNafisfor
training in Pakistan and they returning in July, 2003 after taking
trainingandthereafterhe,i.e.,theA6beingsearchofsomepeople
who could be sentfor training, therefore, he maintaining contact
withRiyazBhatkalformoneyandbecomingworriedasthetraining
ofTeherikthathehadobtained,wasnotgivinganybenefitsand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..188..
Ext.4825
therewasalsonoarrangementofmoneyforhim.Hestartedsome
smallbusinessthereafter,butstoppeditastherewasnoincomeand
started another business, but also did not get much income,
therefore,hetriedtocontactAsifRazak,friendofRiyazBhatkalfor
findingawayaheadforjihad,butcametoknowthatAsifRazakwas
killedinpoliceencounter.Hestatedaboutstartingthebusinessof
sellingTilismaMotiinSabuSiddiquiHospital,Dongariandgetting
acquaintedwithA2there,whomheknewfrombeginningasaSIMI
activistandwhointroducedhimtoA3andduringhistalkswiththe
A3lateronatthesaidhospital,hecametoknowthattheA3isalso
aSIMIactivistandthethinkingofthemissimilar.Heconfessedthat
heandtheA3talkedaboutjihadandIslamandcamenearertoeach
other,thattheA3wasofajihadinatureandhe,i.e.,theA6hadalso
thewishinsidehimtodosomethingaboutjihad.Heconfessedthat
theA3toldhimthathehadobtainedjihaditrainingtwicefromthe
LeTthroughISIandhetoldtheA3abouttheworkthathehad
doneforSIMI.A3didnotgivehismobilenumbertohim,butasked
him to contact him through the A4 at Mira Road. He confessed
havinggonetotheshopofA4inMarch,2006,whereA2,A3,A4,
A12andA13werepresent,thathewasintroducedtoA12ashehad
methimforthefirsttimeandA12wasintroducedbytheA3ashis
friendandaSIMIactivist.Heconfessedthatduringthetalksonthe
kattaofShamsmasjid,hecametoknowthattheA3isincontact
withwantedaccusedAzamChima,commanderofLeTandisthe
headofLeTofwesternIndiaandhe,i.e.,theA6soonmixedwith
themandtoldthemaboutobtainingtrainingforPakistanthrough
JudgementMCOC21/06
..189..
Ext.4825
RiyazBhatkal.HeconfessedthattheA3toldhimtobeincontact
with them and that planning is going on for causing bomb
explosions in Hindustan, more particularly in Mumbai and asked
him to be in contact with the A4. He confessed about going to
Bandra,nearLuckyHotelinthefirstweekofApril,2006astheA4
hadcalledhim,A10andA11beingalreadytherewiththeA12.The
A3toldthemthatthereisabiglosstoMuslimsintheriotingin
Gujarat,therefore,GujaratipeoplearetobetargetedinMumbaiand
afteraconsiderablediscussion,A3foundthetargetoflocaltrainsto
be proper as mostly Gujarati people traveled in the firstclass
compartmentsofthewesternlocalsanditwouldbepropertodo
bombexplosionsintheeveningsaslocaltrainsarepackedatthat
time and also said that he has finalised all these things after
discussion with wanted accused Azam Chima of Pakistan. He
confessedthattheA3toldhimthatthewantedaccusedAzamChima
isgoingtosendsomeexpertPakistanipersonstofinallyexecutethe
bombexplosionsandthathishouse,i.e.,thehouseoftheA6would
be used for the work of preparing the bombs, for which he
consented.HeconfessedthatonSaturdayinthelastweekinApril,
2006, A2, A3, A4 and A12 came to his house, went around the
houseandsurveyedit,thatinthethirdweekofMay,2006,hemet
theA7atJogeshwariRailwayStationandtheymettheA3,whotold
themthatpreparationsforbombexplosionshave beencompleted
andheandA2,A4,A7andA9toA12wouldhelpinexecutingthe
work,that wantedaccused Azam Chima had told him thatStock
Exchange building, World Trade Center, big shopping malls,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..190..
Ext.4825
GovernmentofficersresponsibleforGujaratriots,policeofficersand
localtrainsshouldbetargetedforjihadandwhenhesurveyedall
theseplacesalongwithothers,allofthemagreedthattargetoflocal
trains is the most appropriate and had decided that the bomb
explosions are to be done in the evening on 11/07/06 and
accordinglythecompleteplanisbeingpreparedbytheA3andA13
ontheinstructionsofwantedaccusedAzamChima,commanderof
LeT.HeconfessedthathemetA3inJune,2006whenhehadgone
to Mira Road, that the A3 told him to come to Lucky Hotel in
Bandra(W), where A3 told that as decided Pakistani persons had
cometoIndiaandtheworkofpreparingbombswouldbedoneat
his,i.e.,A6'shouseon8th,9thand10thJulyandheshouldkeepthe
entirehouseempty,that,therefore,bytellingsomereasonstohis
brother and family, he sent them on 7th July to the house of his
relativeatRafiqNagarfor56days.Heconfessedthatasperthe
plan,A3,A7,A12andtwoPakistanipersonscametohishousein
theeveningof8th July,thatoneofthePakistanipersonswasone
SohailShaikh,aresidentofPune,whohadstayedinthetraining
campofLeTfortwoyearsandwasstayinginPakistanandwasan
expertinmakingbombs,thatthosepeopledidtheworkofpreparing
bombs till late night and the A4 was present there, making
arrangements of food for all and the A2 kept watch outside the
house. He confessed that the other Pakistani person by name
Ehsanullahhadbrought15kgs.RDXwithhimforpreparingbombs,
thatA3broughtittohishouse,thattheA13hadalreadybrought
remainingarticleslikeeightblackcolouredrexinebags,Ammonium
JudgementMCOC21/06
..191..
Ext.4825
Nitrate,detonators,cords,watches,etc.,andkepttheminhishouse,
thatA7wastodotheworkofelectriccircuitry,therefore,hehad
brought battery, wire, soldering gun, soldering wire and circuit
board.Heconfessedthattheworkofpreparingbombswasgoingon
forthreedays,thatsomehouseholdutensilswereusedforpreparing
bombs,thatwantedaccusedSohailShaikhandtheotherPakistani
person mixed the explosives and prepared the mixture, fixed
detonatorsinitandthereaftertheA7didtheworkofjoiningthe
circuitandwires,whichcouldbeusedforexplodingthebombs.He
confessedthaton10th Julysevenbombswerepackedinseparate
blackcolouredbags,thatA13puttheremainingarticlesinabag
andtookitwithhimandthesevenbombladenbagsweretakenby
him,A3andA12toBandraintaxiandinthecaroftheA3andkept
athishouseatthattime,thathecametoknowintheeveningon
11/07/06thattheyhadbeensuccessfulintheiraim,thathetriedto
hidefromtheeyesofthepolice,butwasarrestedon30/09/06.
173.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon19/10/06bytheteam
JudgementMCOC21/06
..192..
Ext.4825
statementstotheCMM,whosentittothiscourtalongwithhisletter
Ext.1043.
174.
A7confessedhavingattendedaprogramatHajhouseinthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..193..
Ext.4825
operatingarmsandammunition,todoterroristactivities,thatA3
toldabouthebeingincontactwiththeterroristorganisationLeT
andthathehadtakenarmstraininginPakistaninthetrainingcamp
ofwantedaccusedAzamChima,thattherewasameetingofallof
thematMiraRoadaftersomemonths,inwhichA3toldthatheisin
continuouscontactwithwantedaccusedAzamChima,whohadsaid
that Muslim persons be readied for jihad training and for that
purposetheyshouldbesenttoPakistan,thattheentireexpensesof
itwouldbemadebyhimonbehalfoftheISI,thatA3wassearching
forboystobesentforjihaditrainingandaftersomemonthstold
thathewascalledbywantedaccusedAzamChimatoPakistan.He
confessedthatinasimilarmeetingwithA2,A3,A4,A13andothers,
A3toldthathehadtakentrainingtwiceandhadstayedtherefor
67monthsandthatLeTconductsthetrainingcampsunderthe
directionsandbythefundingofISIandonthatbasisA3hadsent
A2,A9toA11andsomeotherpersonstoPakistanfortraining.He
confessedaboutmaintainingcontinuouscontactwithA3andA13,
starting search for rental house for office of SIMI in
January/February,2005andtakingaroomatMiraRoadonrent,
thattherentusedtobepaidbyA4andmeetingsofSIMIusedtobe
conducted in the room, that elections were conducted by A4 in
March, 2006 in the capacity of General Secretaryof Maharashtra
SIMIandhe, i.e., the A7, was elected as President of Mira Road
Unit,thatthekeysofMiraRoadofficeusedtobewiththeA13and
theA4,and,theA13stayedinthatroomfor34months.
175.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..194..
Ext.4825
2006,A3toldhimthathehadtalkedwithwantedaccusedAzam
Chima,whohadselectedlocaltrainsinMumbaiastargetsforbomb
explosionsandhealsocametoknowfromA3thatwantedaccused
AzamChimawas going tosendsomePakistani terrorists. On the
instructionsoftheA3,hemaintainedcontactwithA3andA13and
A1ofBiharandA5of Kolkata werealsoincontactwiththem.He
confessed that the A3 told him that alongwith A4 and some
accomplices,theyhadtravelledinlocaltrainsandmadestudyasto
howbombexplosionscanbemade,thatthereweresomemeetings
aboutthisathishouseatMiraRoadandsomeatthehouseofA3
andduringthemeetingstheA3andA13hadgiventheresponsibility
ofcausingbombexplosionstoeachofthem.Heconfessedthatas
pertheplan,he,i.e.,theA7wasgiventheresponsibilityoffitting
timerdevicesonthebombs,forwhichhegatheredtheinstruments
necessaryforit,i.e.,battery,wire,printedcircuitboards,soldering
gun, multimeter, soldering wire, resistors, capacitors, insulation
tape, tool kit, etc., that it was decided that the bombs would be
preparedatthehouseoftheA6atGovandi,thatA13wasgiventhe
responsibilityofcollectingthearticlesnecessaryforpreparingthe
bombsandkeeptheminthehouseofA6,thatwantedaccusedAzam
ChimasentPakistaniterroristsfromseparateplacestoMumbai,out
ofwhomsomehaltedatthehouseofA3,and,theA13hadarranged
forthestayofsomeintheofficeofSIMIatMiraRoad,thathewas
toldthatthePakistanipersonshadbrought15kgs.RDXwiththem,
thatthey,i.e.,heandtheotherarrestedaccuseddecidedtocause
thebombexplosionsintheeveningon11/07/06inthetrainsonthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..195..
Ext.4825
westernlinesgoingfromChurchgatetoVirar.Heconfessedthatas
directedbyA3,hewenttohishouseon08/07/06takinghimwith
alltheinstrumentsnecessaryforpreparingtimerdevices,thatfour
PakistanipersonswerealreadyinthehouseoftheA3whereA12
reachedthereaftersometimeandthenasperthedirectionsofthe
A3,he,i.e.,theA7,A12andthefourPakistanipersonswenttothe
houseofA6atGovandibytheA3'scardrivenbyA12,thathecame
toknowlateronthatthePakistanipersonbynamewantedaccused
SohailShaikhisaresidentofPune,butstayinginPakistansincetwo
years where he had undergone jihadi training and obtained
expertiseinweaponsandpreparingbombs.Heconfessedthatasper
theplan,bombswerepreparedon8th,9thand10thJuly2006inthe
houseofA6atGovandi,forwhichhouseholdutensilswereused,
that wanted accused Sohail Shaikh and one Pakistani person
prepared the mixture of seven bombs with the help of RDX,
AmmoniumNitrateandDieselandfitteddetonatorsinitandhe,
i.e.,theA7preparedtimerdevicesonthesevenbombs,thatatthat
timeA4waspresentthereandtheA2waskeepingvigiloutsidethe
houseofA6.Heconfessedthatthebombswereprepareduptolate
nighton10/07/06,packedinsevenseparatebagsandA6,A12,A3
took the seven bags containing bombs to the house of the A3 at
BandraandA13tooktheremainingarticles.Heconfessedthatas
pertheplanhewastoldthatitwouldberiskyforthosewhowould
be keeping bombs in the local trains to keep their mobiles with
them, therefore, it was decided that nobody should keep mobile
withhimandbecauseofthisreasonA13toldhimtoreachthesignal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..196..
Ext.4825
nearLuckyHotelinBandraat3.30intheafternoonon11thJulyand
thatA12wouldgivehismobiletohim,whichhe,i.e.,A7should
keepwithhim.Heconfessedthatheboardedthe2.30p.m.local
trainatMiraRoadforgoingtoBandraon11/07/06andstoodnear
thesignalnearLuckyHotelatBandraandat4.15p.m.,theA12
reachedtherebyrickshawandgavehismobilephoneandleftfor
goingtothehouseofA3,thatthereafterhereturnedbytraintoMira
Roadandcametoknowlateintheeveningaboutthebombblastsin
the local trains and as decided the A12 came to Mira Road and
collected his mobile phone. He confessed about having made a
voluntarystatementtothepoliceon23/10/06afterbeingarrested,
inpursuanceofwhichinstrumentsnecessaryforpreparingelectric
circuitrywereseizedbythepolice.
176.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon19/10/06bytheteam
177.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..197..
Ext.4825
introducedbyhisfriendImrantohisfriendMohd.Alamstayingin
MiraRoadandthroughhimgotacquaintedwithA3,thatheandA3
usedtogotodancebarsoften,thathewenttoHyderabadtohis
uncle'shousebecauseofquarrelsbetweenhimandhisfatherand
returnedtoMumbaiinFebruary,2006andkeptonmeetingAlam,
thatinthesecondorthirdweekofMarch,2006hewentnearShams
masjidasaskedbyAlamonphone,whereA3,A4,A13andA2were
present,thatA3saidthatA4printsandpublishesTehrikiandjihadi
books,thatA6camethere,thathecametoknowthatA3,A2andA6
had obtained jihadi training in Pakistan and that A3 is in direct
contactwithLeTcommanderwantedaccusedAzamChimaandis
responsibleforLeTofWesternIndia,thatonlisteningtothem,his
thoughtsalsobecamelikejihadiandthewishfordoingsomething
forMuslimbrotherswasawakenedinhimandoncomingtoknow
ofthis,theA3saidthatsoontheyaregoingtomakepreparationsfor
abigincidentandhe,i.e.,theA12wouldalsobegivensomework
andaskedhimtoremainincontact.HeconfessedthatheandA3
werestandingnearLuckyHotelinBandrainthefirstweekofApril,
2006,whereA4andA6cameinashortwhileandaftertalkingfor
sometimetheyallwenttothehouseoftheA3inBandrawhereA10
andA11werepresent,thattheytalkedforlonginthehouseofA3
andA3saidthatintheriotinginGujarattherewasaconsiderable
lossoflifeandpropertyofMuslims,therefore,Gujaratipeopleareto
betargetedinMumbaianditwouldbepropertocauseexplosionin
thefirstclassbogiesofthelocaltrainsinMumbai,becauseGujarati
peoplemostlytravelinfirstclassbogiesandthatitwouldbeproper
JudgementMCOC21/06
..198..
Ext.4825
178.
HeconfessedthatonSaturdayinthelastweekofApril,2006
atabout8.30inthenighthe,A4,A2andA3wenttothehouseof
A6,whichwasknowntotheA4andtheyallwentaroundthehouse
andsurveyedit.HeconfessedthatinthethirdweekofJune,2006,
A6 called him at Bandra and thereafter they and A3 went to
DiscoveryBar,hadliquorandreturnedtoA3's house andatthat
timehesawsomePakistanipersonsthere,thaton27th Junealso
theyroamedaboutandhadliquorthereafterandenjoyedgirlsand
thenwenttothe house of A3andatthattime he sawthe same
Pakistanipersonsthere.HeconfessedthatonthenextdayA3told
himthatsomeofthePakistanipersonsstayinginhishousewillhave
tobeshiftedtosomeotherplaceasA3'shouseisnotsufficient,that
repeated visits of people have increased, because of which the
inmatesofthebuildingmayhavedoubtandthatA13hadarranged
fortheirstayinMillatNagar,thatonthenextdayA3tookhimto
MillatNagarandenroutetoldhimthattheyaregoingtomeetthe
Pakistani persons, who had been shifted from his house, that he
JudgementMCOC21/06
..199..
Ext.4825
parkedthecaroutsideandA3alonewentinsidetheMillatNagar
colonyandreturnedaftersometime.HeconfessedthatA3methim
in the evening of 30/06/06 at Narendra Park at Mira Road and
introduced him to A7, staying in Mira Road, who was doing the
workofrepairingmobilesandelectronicremotes.Heconfessedthat
hewenttoA3'shouseatBandraintheeveningof07/07/06and
thenwentbycartotheseashoreofCarterRoadat6.30p.m.,where
A4,A2,A11andonemorepersonwerepresent,thatA3introduced
thatpersonasA1ofBiharandtheyalldiscussedaboutconspiracy
forcausingthebombblasts.
179.
HeconfessedthathewenttotheA3'shouseon08/07/06at
about1.00p.m.onbeingcalledbytheA3,thatA7andtwoPakistani
personswerealreadythereandaspertheinstructionsoftheA3they
allwenttothehouseofA6atGovandiandhedrovethecar.A2,A4
and A6 were present in the house of A6. He confessed that as
decidedA7andtwoPakistanipersonswentinsidethehouseofA6,
that one out of them was Sohail Shaikh, a resident of Pune, but
stayinginPakistansincelasttwoyears,wherehehadtakenterrorist
and arms training and was an expert in preparing bombs, that
thereafterheandA3wentbacktoBandraandinthatnighthe,A3
andsomePakistanipersonstalkedaboutjihadandteherikuptolate
night.Heconfessedthattherewerediscussionsamongstthemon
09/07/06intheafternoonabouttheexplosionsinthelocaltrains,
thatatthattimeA3openlytoldhimabouthisresponsibilitythat
afterthebombsareprepared,thebagscontainingthebombsareto
becarefullybroughtfromGovanditohishouseinBandraandhe,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..200..
Ext.4825
i.e.,theA12wouldbegiventhebagcontainingbombatabout3.30
or4.00intheafternoonon11thJulyandtherewouldbeaPakistani
personbynameAbuUmed@AbuOsamawithhim,thathewould
havetogowiththatPakistanipersonintaxitoChurchgate,reach
platformno.2withthebagcontainingthebombandhewastokeep
thebagcontainingthebombinthefirstclassbogieintheBorivali
slowlocalthatwouldbeleavingat5.45intheevening,thatA3told
themthatthepersonswhowouldbekeepingthebombsinthelocal
trainsshouldnotkeepthemobileswiththemasitisriskyanditwas
decided that no one would keep mobiles with them and for that
reasonA3toldhimtogivehismobiletoA7at3.30intheafternoon
nearthesignalnearLuckyHotelinBandraandtocollectitfromthe
A7inthenight.
180.
HeconfessedthatasdecidedheandA3wenttothehouseof
A6inthenightof10/07/06,thattheykeptfourbagscontaining
bombsinthecaroftheA3,thatremainingthreebagswerekeptby
A6 in a taxi and Pakistani person Sohail Shaikh and one more
PakistanipersonsatinthetaxiwithA6andinBandratheytookout
allthebagsandkepttheminthehouseofA3.Heconfessedthatat
thattimeA3toldhimthatitwouldberiskytokeeptheMaruticar
nearhishouseandtoldhimtoparkitinthecompoundofAlHatim,
MillatNagarofhisfriendandtogivethekeytoRizwanKhotand
accordinglyhedidso.Heconfessedthaton11/07/06hewentto
Bandrabytrainandgotdownat3.30p.m.atBandrastation,tooka
rickshawforgoingtoA3'shouseandasinstructedgavehisphoneto
A7nearLuckyHotel.Heconfessedthatasdecided,A3gavehima
JudgementMCOC21/06
..201..
Ext.4825
181.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon20/10/06bytheteamof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..202..
Ext.4825
sentittothiscourtalongwithhisletterExt.2812.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..203..
Ext.4825
toldhimthatwantedaccusedAzamChimaisgoingtosendsome
PakistanipersonsfromBangladeshborderforcausingabigincident
inHindustanandhealsocametoknowfromAsifthatsomepersons
of Mumbai are working on this on the instructions of wanted
accused Azam Chima and outofthem A13andA3arethe main
coordinatorsandontheinstructionsofwantedaccusedAzamChima
heremainedincontactwithA3andA13.Heconfessedthathecame
toknowfromA3andA13inMay,2006,thatlocaltrainsinMumbai
havebeenselectedastargetsforthebombblasts,thathewasgiven
the responsibility of bringing six persons sent by wanted accused
AzamChimafromtheBangladeshbordertoHindustanandtohand
themovertoA3andA13inMumbaiandwaswarnednottokeep
hismobilephonewithhim,thathecontactedKalluforthiswork
andalsotookthehelpofhispartnerofthespectacleshop,Mohd.
Shakil,PW70.HeconfessedthatinthesecondweekofMay,2006,
heandMohd.Shakil,PW70,wentbyrailwaytoBongaonandfrom
therebytaxitoBongaonmarketasKalluhadtoldhimthatheis
goingtobringsixPakistanipersonstothemarketbycrossingthe
BangladeshborderuptoBongaonborderandthosepeoplearebeing
sentasperthedirectionsofwantedaccusedAzamChimaandareto
betakentoMumbai,thatKallucamethereaftersometimewithsix
Pakistanipersons,whosenameshetoldasSabir,AbuBakar,Kasam
Ali,Ammujan,AbuHasanandEhsanullah,thatallhadtheirown
bags,butEhsanullahhadadifferentbigsuitcaselikebagandhesaid
that there is RDX in the bag and it has to be taken carefully to
Mumbai.Heconfessedthathetookthesaidpersonsto Kolkata by
JudgementMCOC21/06
..204..
Ext.4825
train,theystayedathishouseonthatdayandthenhetookthemto
MumbaibyrailwayonthenextdayandmetA13,whotookthemto
aplaceaboutwhichhecametoknowthatitwastheofficeofSIMI
earlier,thathehaltedthereforonenightandreturnedto Kolkata
andA13hadtoldhimtoremainincontactwithhim.
183.
messagefromMumbaithathehastoreachMumbaiatanycoston
10/07/06,thataccordinglyhereachedMumbai,theA13received
himandtookhimtothehouseofA8,aSIMIperson,inMumbra
areaoutsideMumbai,advisedhimtostaythereandtoldhimthat
afterthebombblastsonthenextday,heshouldtakethePakistani
persons, whom he had brought in Hindustan from Pakistan by
crossingBangladeshborder,backtoBangladeshbythesameroute.
Heconfessedthatasinstructed,thePakistanipersonsmethimlate
inthenightof11/07/06,thattheywerebroughttherebyA4,aSIMI
activist,that he then took them firstby bus to Gujarat andfrom
there by train to Kolkata and through Kallu, he reached them in
BangladeshbycrossingtheIndiaborder.
184.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon20/10/06bytheteamof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..205..
Ext.4825
informingthathehadrefusedtomakeaconfessionalstatement.
Furtherinvestigationandwitnesses:
185.
conductingpartsoftheinvestigationbyfollowingtheleadsforthe
purposeofcollectingevidence.PIKhanvilkar,PW168,hadarrested
theA8on29/09/06andatthetimeofarresthadfoundarailway
passfromMumbaitoMumbra.A8toldoninquirythathehadtaken
ahouseonrentatMumbra.Therefore,PIKhanvilkar,PW168,made
further inquiry and called the owner of that flat, Abdul Naeem
Siddiqui,toBhoiwadaofficeon05/10/06,whooninquirytoldhim
that he has two flats in Moonlight building at Mumbra and had
givenflatno.202totheA8onleaveandlicencebasisforeleven
months from 03/12/05 to 02/11/06, as A8's brotherinlaw
Mehmood Qureshi, PW65, was known to him. He produced the
original leave and licence agreement, Art.371. PI Khanvilkar,
PW168, called Mehmood Qureshi, PW65, on the same day and
recordedhisstatement.ItwasdisclosedthathehelpedtheA8to
obtainthesaidflatandamongstotherthings,abouthisinvolvement
in SIMI activities, becoming acquainted with and knowing SIMI
activistslikeA4,A13,A7,A2andA8,aboutSIMIactivistshelping
persons doing illegal activities, talking about jihad, encouraging
memberstodojihadandaboutdifferentorganisationsstartingto
enterSIMI.ItwasdisclosedthathebecamerelatedtoA7andA8,as
he married A7's sister and A8 married his wife's sister. It was
disclosedthatSIMIactivists,includingA4usedtovisitA8,andthe
A4tookthekeyofA8'shousetwice,whichkeyA8hadkeptwith
JudgementMCOC21/06
..206..
Ext.4825
him, and, at that time 56 members were with him. The said
Mehmood Qureshi, PW65, had also given his statement to a
magistrate under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. confirming what he
statedtothepolice.
186.
JudgementMCOC21/06
187.
..207..
Ext.4825
PW95,on13/10/06.ItwasdisclosedthatheisaPakistaninational,
amilitantfromAlbadaranddeserterfromthePakistanArmy,that
he was engaged in militant activities and in May, 2004, met 45
militants,whowalkeddownfromthehillwherethemilitantcamp
ofLeTissituated,thattheycametotheircampofAlbadar,which
isonthewayandhaltedforawhileinhiscamptodrinkwaterand
one of them approached him asking for a glass of water and he
foundhisaccentofanonPakistaniandonbeingaskedastowhere
hebelongsto,thesaidpersontoldthemthatheisfromIndiaandis
undergoingmilitanttraininginthesaidcampoftheLeTandwould
gobacktoIndiasoontocarryoutactivitiesinIndiaandwouldplay
atrueroleofmujahid.Itwasdisclosedthatheidentifiedthesaid
personinthelockupofATS,Bhoiwada,Mumbaiwherehecameto
know his name as Faisal Shaikh, i.e., the A3, who was in police
custodyinthecaseofthebombblastsinthelocaltrainsinMumbai
on 11/07/06 and that he reminded the said accused about the
incidentofMay,2004andA3alsoidentifiedhim,butwarnedhim
nottotellthepoliceaboutthesaidincident.Itwasdisclosedthathe
sawA2,A9andA11beinglodgedintheothercellsofBhoiwada
lockupandthattheytoldhimthattheyhadalsoundergonejihadi
traininginthecampsofLeTinPakistanandthattheyareaffiliated
totheSIMIorganisation.
188.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..208..
Ext.4825
letter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1173,tothemedicalofficerof
SionHospitaltowritethesaidnameinthememorandumof post
mortem and the death certificate of that dead body. Dr. Ghuge,
PW112madethenecessarycorrectioninthememorandumofpost
mortemexaminationandinthecauseofdeathcertificateunderhis
signature.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,alsogavealetter,officecopyof
whichisatExt.1695,totheDeanofSionHospitalforhandingover
thesaiddeadbodyforfuneraltoHCJadhavandHCUttamGenbhau
Marbhal, (PW159)(Ext.1694), and another letter, office copy of
whichisatExt.1696,tothemedicalofficer,inchargeofpostmortem
centerforhandingoverthedeadbodytoHCMarbhal,PW159.He
haddirectedHCMarbhal,PW159,todisposeoffthedeadbodyas
perMuslimreligiousrites.
189.
HCMarbhal,PW159,withthe assistanceofPSIKshirsagar,
190.
SubhashKamlakarNagarsekar,(PW57)(Ext.688),thesecond
witness,whoinformedthepoliceaboutseeingtwopersonskeeping
abaginthefirstclasscompartmentof1757hoursVirarfastlocal,
wenttotheATSofficeon18/10/06afterreadinganewsiteminthe
newspaperinthefirstweekofOctober,thatduringtheinvestigation
ofthecrimeofthebombblasts,theATShadarrested13accused,
whohadkeptexplosivesinrexinebagsinfirstclassbogiesanddone
JudgementMCOC21/06
..209..
Ext.4825
theexplosions.Atthattime,hesuspectedthepersonwhohadkepta
rexinebagontherackinthelocalinwhichhewastravelingand
alsotheotherpersonwhowaswithhim.HencehewenttotheATS
office and voluntarily gave information. PI Rajaram Bhanudas
Mandge,(PW172)(Ext.1833)recordedhisstatementon18/10/06.
ItwasdisclosedthatSubhashNagarsekar,PW57,wastravellingin
thelastfirstclassbogieontheseatnearthewindowthatwasnear
thedoor,thathehadseentwopersonsenteringthebogiefromthe
leftside,oneofthemhadablackcolourfilledrexinebag,whichhe
keptontherightsiderackinthemiddle,thatwhenhegotdownat
theDadarStationhesawthetwopersonscomingoutofthebogie
andafterthetrainleftthestation,hedidnotseetherexinebagwith
both the persons, who then hurriedly went in the crowd. He
describedthetwopersonstothepolice.
191.
Biharforthepurposeofinvestigationon10/10/06andrecordedthe
statementofA1'swifeandcollectedtelephoneandelectricitybills.
He also recorded the statement of Bharatlal Sukhdev Mandal,
(PW20)(Ext.490),Mukhiya,BasopattiPaschimi,whoknewtheA1
and gave certificates, Exts.491 and 492 and true photocopy of
voter'slist,Ext.493.
192.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..210..
Ext.4825
thatDevendraPatil,PW62,wastravellinginthefirstclassbogiein
the1736Borivalislowtrainon11/07/06,thatwhenheboardedthe
saidbogieatChurchgatestation,hehadseentwomenboardingthe
samebogiewithablackcolouredrexinehandbag,thatthesaidtwo
personstriedtokeepthebagontheluggagerackontheeasternside
ofthecentralportion,butotherpassengershadkepttheirbagsthere
andasthesizeoftheirbagwasbig,theycouldnotkeepitthere,
therefore,thefirstpersonkeptitintheopenspacebelowthefirst
seatfromthewindowontheeasternsideinthecentralportion.He
describedthetwopersonstothepolice.
193.
friendAjmeriShaikh@AjjutoPCVijayRajaramAmbekar,(PW76)
(Ext.818),acquaintanceofAjmeriShaikh,on28/10/06andAjmeri
Shaikhtoldhimaboutanewsitemthatwasonthefirstpageof
MumbaiMirroron01/10/06,inwhichphotographofA6andhis
familywasprintedanditwasmentionedthattherootofthebomb
blasts that had taken place on 11/07/06 in the local trains in
Mumbai,wasthehouseofA6and23daysbeforethebombblasts,
bombswerepreparedatthathousewiththehelpofsomePakistani
persons. Amar Khan, PW75, and Ajmeri Shaikh realised that the
saidnewsitemistrueinviewofwhattheyhadseenwhentheyhad
gonetothehouseoftheA6inGovandi,Shivajinagararea,23days
beforethebombblasts,thereforetheydecidedtotellthisthingto
the police, but were not sure as to how and where to tell it,
thereforetheyapproachedPCAmbekar,PW76.Itwasdisclosedthat
AmarKhan,PW75,waswellacquaintedwithsomeactivemembers
JudgementMCOC21/06
..211..
Ext.4825
ofSIMI,includingtheA8,atwhoseinstanceheusedtoaccompany
himatSIMIprograms,wherehecametoknowSIMIactivistsA2,A4
andA12.ItwasdisclosedthatheandAjmerihadoncegonewiththe
A8tothehomeoftheA6atShivajiNagar,Govandi.Itwasdisclosed
thattheA2,A4,A6andA8usedtogiveexplosiveandprovoking
lecturesaboutKuranandSIMIandmakestrongstatementsabout
jihadandtakingrevengeaboutatrocitiesonMuslimstoteachlesson
topeopleopposedtothemandtothegovernment.Itwasdisclosed
thathewasalsocaughtalongwithA8andothersinSeptember,2001
afterthebanonSIMI.Amongstotherthings,itwasdisclosedthat
23daysbeforethebombblasts,heandAjmerihappenedtovisitthe
house of the A6, that they saw A2, A4, A6 and three unknown
personsinsidethehouse,outofwhomonewasjoiningwiresand
therewereheapsofblackandwhiteandgraypowderonnewspaper
infrontoftwopersons.
194.
PCAmbekar,PW76heardthis,feltthatitwasveryimportant
JudgementMCOC21/06
..212..
Ext.4825
doso.AtthattimetheyproducedthecopyofMumbaiMirror,Ext.
810.
195.
ThenameofMohd.AlamGulamSabirQureshi,(PW59)(Ext.
721),wasdisclosedduringtheinterrogationoftheA3.Hence,ACP
Patil,PW186,recordedhisstatementon02/11/06.Itwasdisclosed
that Mohd. Alam, PW59, developed friendship with one Sameer,
whom he came to know later on as Faisal Shaikh, i.e., the A3,
throughhisrelativeAshrafQureshi@AshuinSeptember,2005and
alsocametoknowaboutA3'shabitofvisitingdiscoanddancebars.
It was disclosed that he came to know from the A3 that he had
devotedhislifeforjihad,thattheA3wasthecommanderofLeTin
MumbaiandhadthereforeassumedthenameSameerasasecurity
precaution,thattheA3hadtakenarmstrainingtwiceinthecamps
runbytheLeTinPakistan,thattheA3wasinconstantcontact
with Azam Chima (wanted accused no. 1), from whom he had
receivedfundsforjihadiactivities.
196.
February,2006,A3introducedtheA13,A4,A2,A11,A10andA9
who were present there, as his friends, that he had namaz with
them, that the A3 told him that they had gathered there for an
importantmeeting,thattheA3,A13,A4andA2cametoMiraRoad
inMarchandtheA3askedhimtoarrangeforaflatforhisguestsfor
sixmonths,thatheobservedandaskedtheA3abouthisreduced
interestingirlsanddancebars,thattheA3informedhimthatheis
hostingsomeguestsfromPakistan.Itwasdisclosedthatonhisvisit
tothehouseofA3inthethirdorfourthweekofMay,2006,hesaw
JudgementMCOC21/06
..213..
Ext.4825
197.
198.
199.
VishalParmar,PW74,readinthenewspaperaboutthepolice
having caught some of the persons who had kept black coloured
bags containing bombs at the railway stations and had done the
bombexplosionsinthelocalrailways.Herememberedanincident
of11/07/06whenhetraveledfromChurchgatetoDadarandashe
feltitnecessarytogivethisinformationtothepolice,hemetthe
ATSofficersandtoldthemabouttheincident.
JudgementMCOC21/06
200.
..214..
Ext.4825
Itwasdisclosedfromtheinformationthathegavethathehad
traveledon11/07/06fromChurchgatetoDadarinthe5.19p.m.
fastVirartraininthefrontfirstclassbogie,thattwopassengershad
boardedthebogiewithhim,outofwhomonehadablackcoloured
handbag,thatearlierbeforethe traincameontheplatform,the
saidtwopersonscamenearhimandaskedhimwhetherVirartrain
wouldleavefromthere,thatinhishurrytogetthewindowseat,the
bagofthatpersoncomeinbetweenhislegsandhestumbledandat
thattimehefeltthatthereissomeheavyarticleinthebag.Itwas
disclosedthatheaswellasthesaidtwopersonsgotdownatDadar
andhesawthemwalkingaheadspeedilymovingtheirarmsandhad
realized that none of them had the black bag. He gave the
descriptionofthepersonstothepolice.
201.
PIDevramDagaduWadmare,(PW175)(Ext.1851),tooktwo
constableswithhimandsearchedfortaxidriversatthetaxistands
ofBandra,GovandiandAndheriandtaxistandsontheway,onthe
directionsofhissuperiors,tosearchfortaxidrivers,whomayhave
takensomepersonsfromBandratoChurchgateonthedayofblasts.
After searching for 15 days, on 03/11/06 he came across a taxi
driver by name Santosh Kedar Singh, (PW63)(Ext.764), at Hill
Road, Bandra, who informed him that he had taken two persons
fromthePerryCrossRoadtoChurchgateonthedayofblastandhad
thought that those persons are suspicious. PI Wadmare, PW175,
inquiredwithhimindetail,askedhimtodescribethepersonsandto
tell the reasons as to why he suspected them and PI Wadmare,
PW175feltthatthe information thatSantoshSingh,PW63,was
JudgementMCOC21/06
..215..
Ext.4825
givingtohim,wasimportant.SantoshSingh,PW63,wenttothe
ATS office at Bhoiwada in his own taxi as PI Wadmare, PW175,
requestedhim.ACPPatil,PW186inquiredwithhimandhetoldthe
same information that he had told to PI Wadmare, PW175, who
recordedhisstatementonthedirectionsofACPPatil,PW186,on
03/11/06.
202.
ItwasdisclosedthatSantoshSingh,PW63,wasplyinghistaxi
no.MRK8286on11/07/06,thatatabout3.15to3.30p.m.two
persons,onecarryingablackcolouredbag,engagedhistaxiatNew
PerryCrossRoad,BandraforgoingtoChurchgate,thathereached
thematChurchgateatabout5.00p.m.andleftthematthesubway
thatgoestoChurchgateStation.Hegavethedescriptionofthetwo
personstothepolice.
203.
Bandraformakinginquiriesabouttaxidrivers,whomayhavetaken
passengersfromtheretoChurchgateonthedayofincident,asACP
Patil,PW186toldhimabouttheinformation.Hisstaffbroughttaxi
driverRajeshChandrakantSatpute,(PW77)(Ext.819),on03/11/06
and he and his staff took him before ACP Patil, PW186, who
inquired with him and then PI Khanvilkar, PW168 took his
statement.
204.
ItwasdisclosedthatRajeshSatpute,PW77,wasplyingtaxi
no.MH01J4066on11/07/06,thatatabout4.00p.m.twoyouths
havingablackcolouredbagengagedhistaxiatCarterRoadBandra
forgoingtoChurchgate,thathereachedthematChurchgateand
theywentwalkingtowardsthesubway.Hegavethedescriptionof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..216..
Ext.4825
thetwopersonstothepolice.
205.
206.
ItwasdisclosedthatinMay,2006theA5askedhimtoremain
readytohelphiminhisassignmentthatheaccompaniedtheA5to
BongaoninBangladeshbyrailwayonhisrequestinthesecondor
thirdweekofMay,2006,thattheA5wasinconstanttouchwithAsif
and Munna during the journey, that they went to the Bongaon
marketwhereMunnacamewithsixpersonsandintroducedthemto
PakistaninationalsbynameSabir(wantedaccusedno.8),AbuBakr
JudgementMCOC21/06
..217..
Ext.4825
(wanted accused no. 9), Kasam Ali (wanted accused no. 10),
Ammujan(wantedaccusedno.11),Ehsanullah(wantedaccusedno.
12)and AbuHasan(wantedaccusedno.13),whohadPakistani
passportswhichtheyhandedovertoMunna.Itwasdisclosedthat
heandtheA5broughtthesixPakistaninationalstoKolkatabytrain,
theticketsbeingpurchasedbytheA5,thathecametoknowfrom
theA5thattheyweresentbyAzamChima(wantedaccusedno.1),
aPakistanibasedLeTcommander, andtheA5tookthemtohis
house.Healsogaveastatementtothemagistrateundersection164
oftheCr.P.C.confirmingallthathehadstatedbeforethepolice.
207.
Shetty,(PW141)(Ext.1568),on03/11/06,whowasmanaginghis
brother'sresidentialHotelHeenainBhendiBazar,Mumbaiduring
theperiodfrom2001to2007.
208.
ItwasdisclosedfromtheinformationgivenbyJairamShetty,
PW141,thattheA5andhisfivefriendshadstayedinRoomNo.401
ofthesaidHotelfrom04/01/04to06/01/04andfrom10/01/04to
14/01/04.
209.
ACPPatil,PW186,recordedthestatementofNomanSultan
Shaikh,(PW78)(Ext.828),cousinoftheA3andA9,on07/11/06.It
wasdisclosedthatA3,A9andtheirbrotherRahilresidedinPune,
thattheyweremembersofSIMIandusedtoattendMaharashtra
SIMI office at Fitwala Compound, Pipe Line Road, Kurla(W),
Mumbai,thatA3introducedhimtoSIMIin2000andhestarted
attendingSIMIprograms,thatduring these programs he cameto
knowaboutotherSIMIactivists,i.e.,A2,A13,A4,A11,A7,A6and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..218..
Ext.4825
others,thatevenafterthebanonSIMIinSeptember,2001,these
SIMImemberswereactive inSIMIworkinasecretmanner,that
theyusedtoholdregular meetings of SIMIin Kurla andatMira
Roadandusedtoallowhimtoattendthesemeetingsbecauseofhis
relationshipwithA3.Itwasdisclosedthathecametoknowthatthe
A13wasaseniorSIMIactivistfromJalgaon,whohadleftJalgaonas
hewaswantedinabombblastcaseinJalgaon,thatA13renteda
roominKurla(W)inNovember,2001andhadstartedSIMIoffice
there and assumed the duplicate name Junaid to avoid security
risks,thatA13conductedSIMIaffairstillAugust,2002fromthat
room and thereafter shifted to Mira Road, that he was made
MaharashtraSIMIPresidentinFebruary,2004,thathewasgetting
Rs.3,000/fromSIMI,thatsubsequentlyhemovedtoNagpurand
continuedhisSIMIactivities,thathewasintouchwithotherSIMI
activistsat different places including the A7,that he lived in the
SIMIofficeatMira Roadfrom April,2005toApril,2006.Itwas
disclosed that the A13 attended SIMI Zonal Advisory Council
meetingheldinthehouseofA7atMiraRoadinMay,2006,thathe,
i.e.,ShaikhNoman,PW78,attendedaSIMIprogramatAnjuman
High School, near CST Railway Station in November, 2001
alongwithA4,A2,A3,A9andA10.ItwasdisclosedthattheA4was
electedasMiraRoadPresidentofSIMIinJuly,2002uptoMarch,
2003,thattheA4visitedNepalandcontactedJaishEMohammed
operatives for the purpose of setting up of arms and explosives
training camp for SIMIcadres,that the A4 concentratedon SIMI
workinMiraRoad,developingcloserelationshipwiththeA13and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..219..
Ext.4825
A3,thattheA4hadprintedandpublishedlotofjihadiliterature
duringthisperiod,forwhichhewasfinanciallyassistedbytheA3.It
was disclosed that the A4 organised programs of SIMI at his
residenceinMiraRoadinAugust,2005andinMarch,2006andthe
twoprogramsofSIMI,oneonKhilafatatVikhroliandotheronjihad
atBorivali,thathehadconductedelectionsofofficebearersofSIMI
in various units of Maharashtra and had attended a meeting in
UjjaininthebeginningofJuly,2006forthepurposeofsettingupof
armsandexplosivestrainingcampsforSIMIcadres.
210.
programsofSIMIandcontinuedtheirSIMIactivitiesevenafterthe
ban,thattheyusedtofinanceprintingandpublishingofliterature
propagatingSIMIideology,thattheA3hadvisitedPakistantwice
andhadreceivedtrainingfromtrainingcampsofLeTandwasin
constant contact with LeT commander, Azam Chima and was
receivingfundsfromhimforjihadiactivities,havingoncereceived
Rs.1.5lacsthroughhawala,thattheA3alsousedtoreceivemoney
through his sister Khalida Apa, who acted as a conduit for
channelinghawalafundssentbyAzamChima.Itwasdisclosedthat
theA3hadsentmanySIMIactiviststoPakistanfortraining, that
theA2alsousedtocometoKurlaofficeofSIMI,havingattended
Central Training School of SIMI in Delhi for ten days training
programin2000andattendingKhilafatconferenceofSIMIin1999
atAurangabad.Itwasdisclosedthathe,i.e.,ShaikhNoman,PW78,
attendedaSIMIprogramwiththeA2,thatA2continuedtoassociate
withSIMIevenaftertheban,thathecametoknowafterwardsthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..220..
Ext.4825
theA2andothershadgonetoPakistanforjihaditrainingandafter
returningfromtraining,hadreducedcontactswithhim,i.e.,Shaikh
Noman,PW78,andusedtomeetinclandestinemanner.
IdentificationParades:
211.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..221..
Ext.4825
07/11/06byhisletters,officecopiesofwhichareatExts.2412to
2414.HegavelettertotheSuperintendent,MumbaiCentralPrison,
office copy of which is at Ext.2415, to make arrangements and
renderassistanceforholdingthetestidentificationparade.Heasked
hisofficerstocontacttheeightwitnessesandcallthemtotheoffice
on07/11/06andaccordinglySEOs Purandare,PW80andBarve,
PW82,cametohisofficeon07/11/06.Heexplainedthebrieffacts
ofC.R.No.5of2006tothem,gavethemnamesofthewitnesses,
who had come for the test identification parade and introduced
themtothewitnesses.HegavenamesoftheA2,A4,A6andA7to
SEOPurandare,PW80,andthenamesoftheA1,A3,A12andA13
toSEOBarve,PW82.HisstaffassistedtheSEOsinprocuringpanch
witnesses.
212.
FirstSEOPurandare,PW80,conductedthetestidentification
paradeofA2andA7on07/11/06.AmarKhan,PW75andAjmeri
Shaikh identified the A2 and A7. SEO Purandare, PW80, then
conductedthesecondtestidentificationparadeofA4andA6.Amar
Khan,PW75andAjmeriShaikhidentifiedA4andA6.Thesetwo
witnessesdescribedtherolesoffouraccusedtotheSEObystating
thattheyhadseentheA2,A4andA6atthehouseoftheA6three
daysbeforetheblastsandtheyidentifiedtheA7asthepersonwho
was doing something with wires in the house of the A6. Vishal
Parmar,PW74,identifiedtheA4asthepersonwhomhehadseen
with a black coloured rexine bag at Churchgate and who had
boarded the firstclass compartment with one more person and
whenthesetwogotdownatDadar,theydidnothaveabagwith
JudgementMCOC21/06
..222..
Ext.4825
them.SEOPurandare,PW80,preparedthememorandumsoftest
identification parades, Exts. 833 and 834 and gave them to ACP
Patil,PW186,whowasoutsidetheprison.
213.
paradesonthesameday,i.e.,on07/11/06.Firstwasinrespectof
theA3andA13.RajeshSatpute,PW77,thetaxidriver,identified
theA3asthe passengerwhohadhiredhis taxion11/07/06for
goingtoChurchgateandwhohadablackbaginhishands.Santosh
Singh, PW63, identified the A13 as one of the persons who had
traveledinhistaxion11/07/06.DevendraPatil,PW62,identified
theA3asthepersonwhohadkeptablackcolouredbaginthetrain
at Churchgate on the day of the blasts. Kishore Shah, PW60,
identifiedtheA13asthepersonwhohadkeptablackcolouredbag
in the train on 11/07/06 at Churchgate. SEO Barve, PW82,
conductedthesecondtestidentificationparadeoftheA1andA12in
whichSubhashNagarsekar,PW57,identifiedtheA1astheperson
whohadenteredfromtheleftdoorofthetrainatChurchgateand
keptabigrexinebagontherackabovehim.SEOBarve,PW82,
prepared the memorandum of the test identification parade, Ext.
844,andhandeditovertoACPPatil,PW186,attheATSoffice.ACP
Patil,PW186,recordedfurtherstatementsoftheseeightwitnesses
onthepointofidentificationofthedifferentaccused.SEOBendge
conductedthreetestidentificationparadeson08/11/06oftheA5,
A8,A9,A10andA11withthehelpoftwopanchwitnessesandthe
eightwitnesses,whohadparticipatedintheparadeson07/11/06.
Noneofthewitnessesidentifiedanyoneoutofthefiveaccused.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..223..
Ext.4825
Furtherinvestigation:
214.
PIShashankGanpatraoShelke,(PW150)(Ext.1614),wentto
theofficeofFSL,Kalinaon06/11/06onthedirectionsofACPPatil,
PW186, and brought reports Exts.2383, 2389 and 2391 and the
propertyandagainon08/11/06broughtthereportExt.2390and
the property and gave the reports to ACP Patil, PW186, and
deposited the properties with the muddemal clerk. API Sunil
Mahadev Yadav, (PW178)(Ext.2054), went to the office of FSL,
Kalinaon13/11/06asperthedirectionsofACPPatil,PW186,and
broughtbackthereportsExts.973,2388and2392andtheproperty
andgave them toACP Patil,PW186,anddepositedthe property
withthemuddemalclerk.
215.
InbetweenaletterwassenttotheRegionalPassportOfficer,
WorliunderthesignatureofDCPBajaj,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext.2417, to obtain the details of the passport of A6, as it was
disclosedintheinvestigationthathewashavingapassport,thatby
using it he had gone to Dubai and then to Pakistan for terrorist
training,thatthereafterhecamebacktoDubaiandfromDubaihe
wenttoNepalandenteredIndiafromNepalandhehadusedthis
routetohidehisvisittoPakistanandhispassportwasnottraceable
anditwassuspectedthathehaddestroyedit.ThePublicRelation
Officer(Policy)oftheRegionalPassportOffice,Mumbaiinformedby
hisletter,Ext.2418,thatapassportwasissuedtwicetotheA6,once
on04/12/90andsecondlyon13/03/02.ACPPatil,PW186,wrotea
lettertotheSr.PI,SBII,CID,AirportBranch,Mumbaion10/10/06,
officecopyofwhichisatExt.2419,toobtaindeparturedetailsofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..224..
Ext.4825
A6toMuscaton01/02/03,asitwasfoundduringthecourseof
investigation that he had traveled to Dubai from Mumbai
InternationalAirport.TheSr.PI,AirportBranch,SBII,CID,C.S.I.
Airport,Mumbaibyhisletter,Ext.2420,confirmedthedepartureof
theA6byflightno.WY802on01/02/03.Thiswastheflightof
OmanAirways,therefore,ACPPatil,PW186,wrotealettertothe
AirportServiceManager,OmanAirways,C.S.I.Airport,TerminalIIA,
DepartureLevel,Mumbai,toinquireabouthisdeparture,officecopy
of which is at Ext.2421. The reply from the Airport Manager of
OmanAirways,Ext.2422,wasreceived,enclosingnecessaryrelevant
documents,whichreflectedthenameofA6asthepassenger,Art.
381(1to7).
216.
ACPPatil,PW186,sentaletteron28/11/06,officecopyof
whichisatExt.2423,totheDevelopmentCreditCooperativeBank,
Kausa Branch, to obtain the details of the deposit of Rs.7,000/
given by the A8 by cheque to the landlady Mrs. Raeesa Khatoon
AbdulNaeem,asitwasdisclosedintheinvestigationthattheA8
hadrentedtheflatno.202inMoonlightBuilding,Mumbraandthe
chequewasencashedinheraccountofthesaidbank.Thebanksent
reply Ext.2424 alongwith the statement of account that showed
deposit of cheque of Rs.7,000/ in the account of Mrs. Raeesa
Naeem.Attestedchequedepositslipandstatementofaccount,Arts.
382(1and2),weresentwiththeletter.ACPPatil,PW186,deputed
ACP Joshi, PW163, for making further inquiries as the original
chequewasnotavailablewiththesaidbank.Heprocuredtheletter
Art.383andtheaccompanyingdocumentsArts.384(1to4),which
JudgementMCOC21/06
..225..
Ext.4825
217.
PIRathod,PW176,sentaletteron22/12/06,officecopyof
Allegationsoftheprosecutioninthefinalreport:
218.
Itisallegedbytheprosecutionthatittranspiredduringthe
courseofinvestigationthatwantedaccusedAzamChima@Babaji,
a Pakistani national, the arrested accused A3, A13 and others,
conspiredsometimeintheyear1999andthereafter,bothwithinand
outsideIndia,todoandcausetobedoneillegalacts,i.e.,towage
waragainsttheGovernmentofIndia,tocollectmenandexplosives
withtheintentionofwagingwaragainsttheGovernmentofIndia,
to overawe by means of criminal force the Government of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..226..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..227..
Ext.4825
conspiracy,tocontinueunlawfulactivitiesofbannedorganisations,
i.e.,SIMIandLeT,withanintentiontopromoteenmitybetween
different groups on grounds of religion prejudicial to the
maintenanceofharmony,inciteindividualsorgroupofindividuals
tocausedisaffectionagainstIndia ortheGovernmentofIndiaor
encourage or aid persons to undertake any unlawful activity like
bombexplosionsorofwhichthemembersundertakesuchactivities
and to continue activities of organised crime syndicate, singly or
jointly,eitherasamemberofanorganisedcrimesyndicateoron
behalf of such syndicate, conspire, advocate, abet or knowingly
facilitatethecommissionofanorganisedcrimebyuseofviolenceor
other unlawful means and promote insurgency by causing
explosionsinlocaltrainsinordertocauselargescalelosstolifeand
railwayproperty.
219.
during one such meeting held in the month of May, 2006 in the
house of the A3 at Bandra (W), the plan to cause explosions in
western railway local trains was finalised and the coconspirators
wereassignedspecificresponsibilities.Asapartoftheconspiracy,
wantedaccusedAzamChimatooktheresponsibilityofsendingRDX
andPakistanbasedterrorists,includingthosewhowouldbeexperts
inassemblingtheexplosivedevices.Asapartoftheconspiracy,the
A5 of Kolkata and the A1 from Bihar were entrusted the
responsibility of bringing Pakistani terrorists into India through
IndoBangladesh and IndoNepal borders respectively. It was also
decidedtoassembleexplosivedevicesinthehouseofA6inGovandi,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..228..
Ext.4825
220.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceoftheaforesaidconspiracyand
inordertoachievetheobjectofconspiracy,inthemonthofMay,
2006, the A5, an Indian national and residing in Kolkata, made
arrangements andensured the infiltration of wantedaccusedand
Pakistaninationals,viz.,Sabir,Abu Bakr,Kasam Ali,Ammu Jaan,
EhsanullahandAbuHasanintoIndiathroughBangladeshborder.
TheseaccusedpersonstraveledfromKolkatatoMumbaibytrain.
Similarly,inthemonthofMay,2006,wantedaccused,viz.,Salim,
Sohail Shaikh, Abdul Razakand Abu Umed illegally crossed over
from Pakistan into India from Kutch border in Gujarat. Accused
persons, viz., Salim and Abu Umed (both dead) are Pakistani
nationals,whileAbdulRazzakisaresidentofHyderabad,Andhra
PradeshandSohailShaikhisaresidentofPune,butnowbothare
learnttobesettledinPakistan.Asapartofthesameconspiracy,the
A1 made arrangements for and illegally escorted wanted accused
Pakistani nationals, viz., Aslam and Hafizullah into India through
Nepalborder.
221.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceoftheaforesaidconspiracyand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..229..
Ext.4825
usedforcausingexplosionsinMumbaion11/07/06.
222.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceoftheaforesaidconspiracy,the
abovementionedwantedaccusedillegallycrossedoverintoIndia
and came to Mumbai. The accused who crossed over from
BangladeshborderwerereceivedbytheA13andwerehousedand
harbouredinFlatno.304,AmrapaliApartments,NayaNagar,Mira
Road,Thane.Similarly,wantedaccusedwhocrossedoverintoIndia
fromKutchborder,wereprovidedsafehouseandharbouredinflat
no.24,LuckyVilla building,KantWadi,PerryCross Road,Bandra
(W),Mumbai400050belongingtotheA3.Thetwowantedaccused
andPakistaninationals,whoillegallyinfiltratedintoIndiathrough
NepalborderandbroughttoMumbaibytheA1,werehousedand
harboured in Flat No.101, Saba Parveen Apartment, Pooja Nagar
Road,NayaNagar,MiraRoad,Thane,belongingtotheA7.Ithas
alsocomeonrecordthatasapartofthesameconspiracy,afterthe
bombblastson11/07/06,theA4providedshelterandharboured
wanted accused Pakistani nationals and coconspirators by name
AmmuJaan,Sabir,AbuBakr,KasamAli,EhsanullahandAbuHasan
broughtbytheA5,at202,BWing,2ndFloor,MoonlightApartment,
Opp.KalsekarCollege,Kausa,Mumbra,Thane,rentedbytheA8.
223.
duringthesaidperiod,A3,A2,A10,A11,A9andA4traveledin
westernrailwaylocaltrainsbetweenMumbaiandVirarinorderto
make a reconnaissance of the target.The conspirators decided to
causebombblastsintheeveningofaworkingdaysoastocause
maximumdamagetothelivesandtothepropertyandalsotostrike
JudgementMCOC21/06
..230..
Ext.4825
againstasymbolicinstitutionofgovernmentalauthority.Thesame
was approved by the blast mastermind wanted accused Azam
Chima,topcommanderofLeTandbasedinBahawalpur,Pakistan.
Theactofcausingbombexplosionswasaimedatdisturbingpublic
peace and subverting the authority of government established by
lawundertheconstitutionalframeworkofIndia.Theabove modus
conformstotheprofessedideologyandagendaofLeT.TheLeT
hasrepeatedlyclaimedthroughitswebsitesthatitsmainaimisto
destroytheIndianRepublicandannihilateHinduism.
224.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceofthesaidconspiracy,sometime
inthemonthofApril,2006,A4,A2,A3andA12wenttothehouse
oftheA6andsurveyedthesurroundings.
225.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceofthesaidconspiracyandin
226.
Itisallegedthatin pursuanceoftheconspiracyreferredto
above,wantedaccusedAzamChima,aPakistaninational,andan
officebearerofbannedterroristoutfitLeT,organisedtrainingcamp
inPakistanfortrainingofIndianMuslimyouthsinthehandlingand
useofarmsandexplosives.Forthesaidpurpose,hesentmoneyto
India through various persons and means for funding travel of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..231..
Ext.4825
IndianMuslimyouths,desirousofundergoingthesaidtraining,to
Pakistan. During the course of and after the said training, Azam
Chima incited the trained youths to avenge the alleged atrocities
committedonMuslimsinIndia,bycausingwidespreadinsurgent
and terrorist activities by exploding / bombing financial nerve
centers and causing mass damage to life and property thereby
cripplingtheeconomyofthenation.
227.
Itisallegedthatbetween1999and17/07/06wantedaccused
AzamChima,throughwantedaccusedMohammedRizwanDawrey
andRahilAtaurRehmanShaikh,sentmoneythroughvariousmeans
toIndiatotheA3forpublishingjihadiliterature,promotinganti
Indiasentimentsandbearingtheexpenditureforthetravelofthose
IndianMuslimyouthswhoweretobesentfortrainingtoPakistan
and escape of those who participated in the bombing operations
withanintentiontoachievetheobjectivesofthelargerconspiracy
referred to above. After the A3 returned from Pakistan, after
receiving training in March, 2002, he received Rs.1,80,000/
throughhawalatransactionfromwantedaccusedAzamChima.In
November,2003,MohammedRizwan Dawreysent Rs.50,000/to
the A9. In February, 2004, wanted accused Mohammed Rizwan
Dawrey and the A3 sent Rs.1,00,000/ through hawala. There is
evidence on record that this amount was received by one Smt.
KhalidaIqbalShaikhandhandedovertotheA9.Inthesameyear
andafterabout3to4months,wantedaccusedRizwanMohammed
DawreysentSaudiRiyals14000totheA3.InApril,2004,Rizwan
MohammedDawreyandtheA3sentSaudiRiyals40000through
JudgementMCOC21/06
..232..
Ext.4825
hawalatoSmt.KhalidaIqbalShaikh,whichwasinturncollectedby
the A9.Inthe same month, A3 sentRs.10,000/ toSmt.Khalida
IqbalShaikh,whichwascollectedbytheA9.SometimeinJulyor
August2004,wantedaccusedRizwanMohammedDawreyandthe
A3 sent Rs.20,000/to Smt. Khalida Iqbal Shaikh for the A9. On
02/07/06 Mohammed Rizwan Dawrey again sent Saudi Riyals
15000throughoneHidaytullaMehboobSundke,PW64,fortheA3.
Even after the explosions Mohammed Rizwan Dawrey sent Saudi
Riyals11200on14/07/06throughoneAfzalofPuneforhanding
overtoAbdulRehmanDawreyforonwardhandingovertotheA3.
SaudiRiyals15000mentionedabove,wereseizedduringthehouse
searchoftheA3atBandra(W),Mumbaion28/07/06.SaudiRiyals
11200 sent by wanted accused Rizwan Dawrey as stated above,
couldnotbe deliveredtothe A3as he wasarrestedprior tothe
deliveryofthesaidamount.Thisamountwasseizedon30/07/06
from Abdul Rehman Dawrey, PW71, brother of wanted accused
Mohammed Rizwan Dawrey. The amounts mentioned above and
receivedbytheconspirators,wasusedbytheaccusedtosendothers
toPakistanfortrainingandotherpurposes,forachievingthelarger
goalofconspiracyaswellasforfacilitatingtheescapeofthosewho
participatedinthebombingoperation.Asapartoftheconspiracy
andwithaviewtogainrespectabilityandstatus,someoftheco
conspirators fraudulently obtained forged and fake
degree/education certificates using which they got gainfully
employedeven in foreign countries,ostensiblyfor the purposeof
raising funds for the organised crime syndicate and/or for the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..233..
Ext.4825
purposeofsiphoningfundsfromforeigncountriesforachievingthe
largergoalofconspiracy.
228.
conspiracy,theA3,A2,A1,A9,A10,A11andA6wenttoPakistan
andreceivedtraininginthehandlingofarmsandexplosivesinthe
trainingcamprunbywantedaccusedAzamChima.Thetravelplans
wereelaboratelyplannedbytheconspiratorsinordertoensurethat
passports of the accused did not bear the arrival and departure
stampsintoandoutofPakistan.Duringthecourseofinvestigation,
theA3,A9,A10,A11andA2havebeenfoundinpossessionofmaps
showing travel route from Tehran to Pakistan with details, i.e.,
namesand/orphonenumbersofpersonswhocouldbecontactedfor
making their travelarrangements.Investigationhasdisclosedthat
theaccusedpersonsweretrainedinthehandlinganduseofarms
andexplosives.Thetraineeswererepeatedlyindoctrinatedbytheir
foreigntrainerstoavengetheallegedatrocitiescommittedonIndian
Muslims.Thefeelingsandsentimentsoftheaccusedtraineeswere
exploitedtothefullestandtheywereexhortedtocausewidespread
destruction of life and property in India in order to cripple the
Indian economy and attain by force and violence an object of a
general public nature, i.e., cause bomb blasts, thereby striking
directlyagainsttheauthorityofthegovernment.Thatinpursuance
of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, the accused who underwent
training in Pakistan were paid money and were further asked to
persuade more Indian Muslim youths to go to Pakistan for
undergoingthesaidtraining.
JudgementMCOC21/06
229.
..234..
Ext.4825
sometimeintheyear2000,wantedaccusedAzamChimaonbehalf
ofbannedorganisationLeTalongwithwantedaccusedHafizZuber
and Abdul Rehman, recruited the A1. Accordingly A1 traveled to
PakistanonafakeNepalesepassportonanassumednameKamal
Ahmed Mohd. Munshi through Wagha border. This passport was
prepared for the A1 by wanted accused Hafiz Zuber, an Indian
nationalpresentlybasedinNepal.OneKhalidSaifullaaskedtheA1
tomotivateandrecruitalienatedandmarginalisedMuslimyouths.
OneIbrahimRayeen(suspectedaccused)ofNepal,providedmoney
totheA1withinstructionstosendmoreMuslimyouthstoundergo
trainingin Pakistan.Heaccordinglysenthis cobrother AnwarUl
HaquetoPakistanforundergoingtraininginthehandlinganduse
ofarmsandexplosives.
230.
conspiracy,theA3wenttoPakistanforundergoingtraininginthe
handlinganduseofarmsandexplosives,firstly,on01/10/01and
returnedtoIndiaon29/11/01throughWaghaborderusingIndian
passportbearingNo.B5403385issuedon06/06/01byRPO,Pune.
Duringhissecondvisitandinordertoavoiddetection,theA3left
MumbaiforJeddahon08/11/03usingtheabovepassport.From
Jeddah,heillegallyenteredPakistanviaKishamIsland,Iran,where
he allegedly destroyed his Indian passport. During return, his
mentors in Pakistan gave him a fake Pakistani passport on an
assumed name Mohammed Akram, using which he returned to
Jeddah.WhileinSaudiArabia,hewasarrestedfornotpossessinga
JudgementMCOC21/06
..235..
Ext.4825
traveldocumentandon01/12/04hewasdeportedtoNewDelhion
an Emergency Certificate. During his both visits, the A3 received
traininginthehandlinganduseofarmsandexplosivesinatraining
campofwantedaccusedAzamChima.HealsoaskedA3torecruit
Muslim youths for arms training in Pakistan and also to survey
targetsforterroristsattacks.
231.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceoftheaforesaidconspiracy,on
return to India and using the money that he had received from
wantedaccusedAzamChima,theA3incitedA10andsenthimto
Pakistanforundergoingtrainingasstatedabove.TheA10traveled
toPakistanon01/11/02onIndianpassportbearingNo.E1185233.
Inordertoavoiddetectionofhis Pakistanvisit,the A10traveled
fromMumbaitoTehranonaziyaratvisaandfromthereinfiltrated
intoPakistan.A10toounderwenttraininginthetrainingcampof
wantedaccusedAzamChima.
232.
233.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceoftheaforesaidconspiracyand
whiletheA3wasstillinPakistan,heinstructedhisbrother,i.e.,the
A9tosendsomemoreMuslimyouths toPakistan forundergoing
training.Accordingly,theA9paidandarrangedforthetraveland
trainingoftheA2inPakistan.Inordertoavoiddetection,theA2
JudgementMCOC21/06
..236..
Ext.4825
234.
instructedbytheA3,theA9illegallytraveledtoPakistanviaIranon
09/08/04.HetraveledfromMumbaitoTehranandthenillegally
crossedIranborderintoPakistan.Hetoounderwenttraininginthe
militanttrainingcampofwantedaccusedAzamChima.
235.
Itisallegedthatonreturnfromtraining,theA2inducedthe
A11toundergotraininginPakistantoachievethelargerobjectiveof
conspiracy.Accordingly,theA2collectedA11'spassportbearingno.
A1886227issuedbyRPO,Mumbaion12/09/96andhandeditover
totheA9whointurngotthesamestampedwithziyaratvisafor
Iran.TheA11leftMumbaiforTehranon04/04/05,fromwherehe
illegallycrossedintoPakistanandreceivedtraininginthetraining
campofwantedaccusedAzamChima.
236.
ItissubmittedbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,PW186,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..237..
Ext.4825
237.
ItissubmittedbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,PW186,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..238..
Ext.4825
SIMIthatwasonthePipeRoad.Itisallegedbytheprosecutionthat
thoughthe SIMIwasbannedin theyear2001,A13,A3,A2,A4,
A10, A11, A7, A8, A6 and A9 and wanted accused Rizwan
MohammedDawreyandRahilAtaurRehmanShaikh,continuedto
remainmembersofthesaidbannedorganisationandcontinuedto
takepartintheactivitiesof'StudentsIslamicMovementofIndia',
which is a declared terrorist organisation under sections 2(1)(m)
and35oftheUA(P)Aandtherebyadvocated,abetted,advisedand
incited the Indian Muslim youths against the policies of the
GovernmentofIndia,promotedenmitybetweendifferentgroupson
groundsofreligionbyprinting,publishingandcirculatingseditious,
inflammatory and derogatory material and collected funds and
subscriptionsfromothersfortheachievementofthelargergoalof
conspiracy.TheA4evendistributedreceiptbookstoothersandby
usingthesaidreceiptbooks,personallycollectedsubscriptionsfor
and on behalf of SIMI under assumed names. Similarly, wanted
accusedAzamChimaandtheotherPakistaninationalscontinuedto
remain members of the banned terrorist organisation 'Lashkare
Toiba' and continued to take part in the activities of LeT. They
therebyadvocated,abetted,advisedandincitedtheIndianMuslim
youthsagainstthepoliciesoftheGovernmentofIndia.Forachieving
theirobjectives,theyfundedthetravelofselectedMuslimyouthsto
Pakistan,boretheexpenditurefortheirtraininginthehandlingand
use of arms and explosives, indoctrinated them in the name of
religionandalsosuppliedexplosiveslikeRDX.Allthiswasdonein
ordertoprepareagroupofyouths,IndianaswellasPakistani,to
JudgementMCOC21/06
..239..
Ext.4825
conspireagainstthegovernmentorcivilauthoritiesandwagewar
bystrikingterrorinthemindsofthepeopleorsectionofpeopleby
useofviolenceorforcebycausinglargescaledestructionoflifeand
property in order to cripple the national economy through the
disruption of the public transport system, which tantamounts to
insurgency.Theobjectiveoftheconspiracywastocontinueunlawful
activities within the State of Maharashtra and to overawe the
government by causing disruption of the mass public transport
system and thereby undermine the authority of the Government.
Mumbai, the economic capital and a soft target was apparently
chosenforexecutingtheconspiracy.
238.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceoftheaforesaidconspiracy,the
239.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..240..
Ext.4825
GovernmentofIndiasince27/09/01.Acaseundersection153(1)
(A)readwith34oftheIPCwasregisteredatM.I.D.C.PoliceStation,
Jalgaon, Maharashtra vide C. R. No. 178 of 1999 against him in
1999.TheCourthadtakencognizanceofthesaidcasevideC.C.
No.219of2001.TheA13wasdeclaredasproclaimedoffenderon
08/03/02.Whilehewassoabsconding,anothercasewasregistered
againsthimbytheM.I.D.C.PoliceStation,Jalgaon,Maharashtra
videC.R.No.103of2001undersections153A,121,121A,122,
123,201,506(II),120B,34oftheIPCreadwithsections4(a)and
4(b)and5oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct.Inthesaidcasetoo,A13
evadedarrestandremainedabscondingtillhisarrestinthiscase.
Thesixcoaccusedinthesaidcasehavesincebeenconvictedfor
varioustermsrangingfrom3yearsto10yearsvideS.C.No.126of
2002.
240.
241.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceoftheaforesaidconspiracyand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..241..
Ext.4825
242.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceofthesaidconspiracyandin
243.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceofthesaidconspiracyandin
JudgementMCOC21/06
244.
..242..
Ext.4825
ItisallegedthattheA1alongwithwantedPakistaniaccused
Salim,HafizullahandAslamplantedexplosivedeviceinbogieno.
864A,whichblastedatMatungaRailwayStation,forwhichC.R.
No.77of2006was registeredatMumbaiCentralRailwayPolice
Station. It is alleged that the A12 alongwith wanted Pakistani
accusedAbuUmed@AbuOsamaplantedexplosivedeviceinbogie
no. 849A, which blasted in between Santacruz and Khar Railway
Stations,forwhichC.R.No.87of2006wasregisteredatBandra
RailwayPoliceStation.ItisallegedthattheA3alongwithwanted
Pakistani accused Abu Bakr planted explosive device in bogie no.
0634A,whichblastedatJogeshwariRailwayStation,forwhichC.R.
No.41of2006wasregisteredatAndheriRailwayPoliceStation.It
isallegedthatthe A13alongwithwantedPakistaniaccusedSabir
plantedexplosivedeviceinbogieno.935A,whichblastedatBorivali
RailwayStation,forwhichC.R.No.156of2006wasregisteredat
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStation.ItisallegedthattheA4alongwith
wantedPakistaniaccusedAmmuJaanplantedexplosivedevicein
bogie no. 846A, which blasted at Mira Road Railway Station, for
whichC.R.No.59of2006wasregisteredatVasaiRoadRailway
Police Station. It is alleged that unidentified Indian and Pakistani
accusedplantedexplosivedevicesinbogiesno.528Aand8003A,
whichexplodedatMahimandBandraRailwayStations,forwhich
C.R.No.78of2006and86of2006wereregisteredatMumbai
Central Railway Police Station and Bandra Railway Police Station
respectively.
245.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..243..
Ext.4825
arrestedandwantedaccusedpersonsplantedexplosivedevicesin
thefirstclasscompartmentsoflocaltrainswithintenttocauseor
knowingthatitislikelytocausedamageordestructiontorailway
property,i.e.,compartmentsofwesternrailwaylocaltrains,station
platforms, overbridges, overhead wires, electric poles, etc. The
accused persons by causing explosions in running local trains,
causedthedeathsof187passengersandinjuriesofvariousgravity
to817passengersandgenerallyendangeredthesafetyofpassengers
travelingbylocaltrainson11/07/06.
246.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceofthesaidconspiracyandin
ordertoachievetheobjectivesoftheconspiracy,thearrestedand
wantedaccusedprocuredexplosives,detonators,electriccircuitsand
otherlogisticsforachievingthelargergoalofconspiracy.Duringthe
courseofinvestigation,theA1cametobearrestedon20/07/06.At
the time of his arrest about 500 grams of RDX, which is an
explosive, was seized from his house in village Basopatti, Dist.
Madhubani,Bihar.AlsotracesofRDXwererecoveredfromPlotNo.
33, T Line, Room No.2, Govandi, Shivajinagar, Mumbai43 on
29/09/06, i.e., residential premises of the A6. It is alleged that
between08/07/06to10/07/06theconspiratorsusedthisveryplace
for assembling the explosive devices. Traces of RDX were also
recoveredfromMaruticarNo.MH01V9568belongingtotheA3on
22/10/06recoveredfromthecompoundofAlHatimbuilding,Millat
Nagar, Andheri(W), Mumbai. This very vehicle was used by the
accusedtotransporttheexplosivestackedbagsformthehouseofA6
atGovandi,ShivajinagartothehouseofA3atBandra(W),Mumbai.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..244..
Ext.4825
Traces of RDX were also recovered from Bldg. No.1, 25/B, Kant
Wadi, Lucky Villa, Perry Cross Road, Bandra(W), Mumbai50, on
28/07/06,i.e.,thehouseoftheA3.Itisallegedthaton10/07/06
aftertheexplosivedeviceswereassembledandkeptinblackrexene
bags, this very place was used by the conspirators to store the
explosive devices before they were taken to Churchgate Railway
Station on 11/07/06. At the instance of the A13, 2.7 kg. of
AmmoniumNitritepowderand10detonatorswererecoveredfrom
his house at Poonam Park, 'A' Wing, Flat No.101, Near Lodha
Complex, Mira Road, Dist. Thane. Similarly, corrosive materials
namely Sulphuric Acid, Acetone and Hydrogen Peroxide were
recoveredfromthepossessionofA2.Thesame,accordingtoexpert's
opinion,couldwhenmixedintherightproportions,beturnedintoa
deadlymixturecalledTATP,capableofcausinghighintensityblasts.
Experts have opined that RDX, Ammonium Nitrate, Nitrite and
Petroleum Hydrocarbon oil was used in the explosions that took
place in the seven firstclass compartments of western suburban
trainsofMumbaion11/07/06.
247.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceofthesaidconspiracyandin
ordertoachievetheobjectivesoftheconspiracy,thearrestedand
wantedaccused,singlyorjointly,eitherasmemberofanorganised
crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, conspired,
advocated, abetted or knowingly facilitated the commission of an
organisedcrimebyuseofviolence,promotedinsurgencybycausing
explosionson11/07/06insevendifferentcompartmentsofwestern
railway local trains causing damage to property worth Rs.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..245..
Ext.4825
85,61,039/anddeathsof187personsandinjuriesto817others.
248.
accusedpersonsdidcommitmurdersbyintentionallyandknowingly
causing the deaths of 187 persons and also did cause injuries of
variousgravityto817persons,withsuchintentionandknowledge
andunder such circumstances that if by that actall accused had
causedthedeathofsuchpersons,theywouldhavebeenguiltyof
murderandthatalltheaccusedhaddonethesaidillegalactsin
furtherance of the common objective of the criminal conspiracy
referredtoaboveandalsocauseddamagetopublicproperty,towit,
WesternRailwaylocaltrains,platforms,overbridges,electricpoles,
overheadelectricalwires,etc.
249.
250.
committingvariousillegalacts,themembersoftheorganisedcrime
syndicate also resorted to obtaining forged documents, to wit,
degree certificates and using them as genuine to reflect false
educational qualifications, with a view to gain false status and
respectabilityandalsoforemploymentanddidgainemploymenton
JudgementMCOC21/06
..246..
Ext.4825
thestrengthoftheseforgeddocuments.
251.
committingvariousillegalacts,theA3andtheA6obtainedIndian
passportsfromtheofficeoftheRegionalPassportoffice,Puneand
Mumbairespectively.BoththeseaccusedtraveledtoPakistanusing
the said passports. However, in order to obliterate all evidence
relatingtotheirvisittoPakistan,theydestroyed/disposedofftheir
Indian passports and failed to produce the said passports before
police,whendirectedtodosoforthepurposeofinvestigation.
252.
Itisallegedthatasapartofthelargerconspiracyandwhile
committingvariousillegalacts,betweenMay,2006andJuly,2006,
the arrested Indian conspirators, knowing fully well that their
Pakistani counterparts had conspired and had illegally infiltrated
into India with explosives for causing bomb explosions, with the
intention of screening them from legal punishment, made
arrangementsforandharbouredthem.Accordingly,inthemonthof
May,2006,wantedPakistaniaccused,viz.,Sabir,AbuBakr,Kasam
Ali,AmmuJaan,EhsanullahandAbuHasanenteredIndiathrough
Bangladesh border and were housed in 304, Amrapali Building,
SectorXI,ShantiNagar'A',MiraRoad(E),Dist.Thane,office/house
in the control of A7, A4 and A13. Similarly in the same month
accused, viz., Salim (deceased), wanted accused Sohail Shaikh,
AbdulRazzakandAbuUmed(deceased)illegallycrossedoverfrom
Pakistan into India from Kutch border in Gujarat and were
harbouredinFlatNo.24,LuckyVilla,KantWadi,PerryCrossRoad,
Bandra(W),Mumbai50,housebelongingtotheA3.Asapartofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..247..
Ext.4825
SanctionundertheMCOCAct:
253.
ACPPatil,PW186,cametotheconclusiononthebasisofthe
investigationcarriedoutandtheevidencecollectedupto13/11/06
thatallthearrested13accusedand15wantedaccusedalongwith2
deceased accused were members of an organised crime syndicate
indulgingincontinuingunlawfulactivitiesandresortingtovarious
actsofviolenceincludingbombblasts,withtheobjectofspreading
communal disharmony, disturbing public tranquility, destabilizing
the economy, spreading terror in the rank and file of common
citizensandpromotinginsurgencyandthattheevidencecollected
wassufficienttoprosecutethemundertheprovisionsoftheMCOC
Act. Therefore, he submitted a proposal on 13/11/06 to the
CommissionerofPolicethroughproperchannelseekingsanctionas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..248..
Ext.4825
Filingofchargesheet:
254.
ACPPatil,PW186,filedchargesheetinthiscourton30/11/06
onthebasisoftheinvestigationconducteduptothatdateagainst13
arrestedaccusedand15wantedaccused.Atthattime,herequested
thiscourttoallowthemtoconductfurtherinvestigationandwas
permitted.
SanctionsunderotherActs:
255.
authoritiesbeforefilingchargesheet.Hesubmittedproposalstothe
Addl. Chief Secretory (Home), Government of Maharashtra,
Mantralaya, Mumbai for obtaining sanction for prosecuting the
accused under the provisions of the UA(P)A and under sections
JudgementMCOC21/06
..249..
Ext.4825
121A,122,123,124Aand120BoftheIPC.AwadheshPrasadSinha,
(PW160)(Ext.1699), ViceChairman of the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, retired from the Indian
AdministrativeServiceon30/06/07asAddl.ChiefSecretary,Home,
GovernmentofMaharashtra,onwhichposthewasworkingfrom
2005 till retirement. He received the proposal sent by ACP Patil,
PW186,throughtheCommissionerofPolice.Hestudiedtheentire
proposal together with the comments of other officers and
departmentsandafterhewas primafacie andsubjectivelysatisfied
abouttheapplicabilityoftheprovisionsofChapterIIIoftheUA(P)A,
he accorded sanction and then forwardedthe file tothe minister
inchargeoftheHomeDepartmentforconsiderationofrestofthe
proposal under the UA(P)A and the Passport Act. He issued the
commonsanctionorderExt.1700inthefirstweekofJanuary,2007,
under his signature for prosecution under the UA(P)A and the
PassportAct.
256.
Secretary,HomeDepartment,Mantralaya,MaharashtraGovernment
receivedaproposalfromtheJt.CP,ATSforaccordingsanctionto
prosecutetheaccusedinC.R.No.5of2006fortheoffencesunder
sections 121A, 122, 123 and 124A of the IPC. He studied the
proposal and discussed it with ACP Patil, PW186, and after
complying with the formalities andthe Home Minister giving the
approval,heissuedthesanctionorderExt.1603undersection196of
theCr.P.C.against13arrestedaccusedand15wantedaccused.
257.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..250..
Ext.4825
258.
DistrictMagistrate,MumbaiCityfromJuly2006toApril2007.She
receivedaproposalon02/03/07fromtheATS,Mumbaiforconsent
orderforprosecutingsixaccusedinC.R.No.5of2006regarding
thebombblastsinsevenlocaltrains,asrequiredundersection7of
Explosive Substances Act. She went through the proposal, had
discussionswithACPPatil,PW186,scrutinisedallthe documents
and after satisfying herself, issued consent order Ext.1634 on
17/03/07 for prosecuting six accused under section 7 of the
ExplosiveSubstancesAct.
259.
VishwasMahipatiPatil,(PW165)(Ext.1761),wasCollectorof
BrihanmumbaiSuburbanDistrictfrom15/12/06to21/05/10and
hadthepowertosanctiontheprosecutionundersection7ofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..251..
Ext.4825
ExplosiveSubstancesAct.Hegottheproposalforgrantofsanction
toprosecutetheaccusedinthiscaseunderthesaidactinthefirst
weekofMarch,2007.Hescrutiniseditandhe,theDeputyCollector
andTahsildarwentthroughtheproposalanddocumentssentwithit
andonperusingthedocuments,theproposalandafterapplyinghis
mind,hewassatisfiedthatthecasewasfitforgrantingthesanction
forprosecution.HencehegrantedsanctionExt.1762on15/03/07
forprosecutingninepersonsundertheExplosiveSubstancesAct.
Furtherinvestigation:
260.
ACPPatil,PW186,obtainedgazettecopiesofGovernmentof
Indiadtd.27/09/01declaringSIMIasanunlawfulassociationand
imposingbanonit,extendingtheperiodofbanbytheorderdtd.
08/02/06andthegazettesregardingconfirmationoftheban,Exts.
1592 and 2437 to 2443. He obtained photocopies of newspapers
cuttingsfromtheCentralLibraryandSBI,CIDoffice,whereinthe
newsregardingthebanontheSIMIappeared,Arts.386to390by
givingaletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.2444.
261.
againstthearrestedaccusedatvariouspolicestationsbyprocuring
certified/true copies of the relevant documents like chargesheets,
FIR,etc.,Exts.1506to1511inrespectofA13,Exts.1512to1514in
respectofA4,Exts.1515to1517inrespectofA8,Exts.1518to1520
inrespectofA7,Ext.1521inrespectofA1,Ext.1522inrespectof
A9,Ext.1523inrespectofA10andExt.1524inrespectofC.R.No.
195of2006registeredatAntopHillPoliceStationregardingdeath
ofwantedaccusedAbuUmed@AbuOsama@Mohd.Ali.
JudgementMCOC21/06
262.
..252..
Ext.4825
ACPPatil,PW186,sentaletteron21/11/06,officecopyof
263.
ACPPatil,PW186,wrotealetteron01/11/06,officecopyof
whichisatExt.2445,totheMedicalSuperintendentofthePrinceAli
KhanHospital,Mazgaon,Mumbai10tofurnishservicedetailsofthe
A2,asitwasfoundduringthecourseofinvestigationthathehad
gonetoPakistanfortraininginthemonthofMayandJune,2004
afterresigninghisjobinthehospital.ThehospitalbyitsreplyExt.
2446(1)dtd.06/11/06,informedthattheA2wasemployedintheir
hospital from 16/06/03 to 30/04/04 and left the hospital on
30/04/04.ItwasalsoinformedthattheA2againjoinedthehospital
in April, 2005 and worked there till 26/10/05 after which he
disappearedwithoutgivingresignationletterandduringtheabove
tenurehehadfullattendanceonfulldaysexcepttheentiremonthof
June,2005.Thehospitalalsosentatruephotocopyofsummaryof
resignationletteroftheyear2004,Ext.2446(2).
264.
ApetitionwasfiledintheSupremeCourtfortransferringC.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..253..
Ext.4825
gramsofblackcolouredpowderthatwasrecoveredon20/07/06
fromthehouseoftheA1aboutwhichtheFSLhadopinedthatit
consists of Cyclonite (RDX), a high explosive and charcoal. The
Supreme Court allowed the petition by its order dtd. 05/04/07,
certifiedcopiesofwhichareatExt.2450(1and2).PIMohitewas
senttoMadhubaniandhecollectedthedocumentsofthecaseand
the black powder. ACP Patil, PW186, applied to the Collector of
District Madhubani requesting consent to prosecute the A1 under
theprovisionsoftheExplosiveSubstancesAct.RahulSachidanand
Singh, (PW26)(Ext.510), Collector and District Magistrate at
Madhubani,Biharfrom29/06/06to15/03/08,issuedsanctionExt.
511under the Explosive Substances Acton04/01/07againstthe
A1, in connection with the crime registered with Police Station
BasopattiontheproposalsentbyDistrictSuperintendentofPolice,
Basopatti for according sanction. He received a similar proposal
from the ATS, Mumbai on 14/06/07 and on the basis of the
documents and after having discussion with the ATS officers, he
accordedtheconsentExt.512on15/06/07for prosecution under
section7oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct.
265.
ThespecimenhandwritingsoftheA2,A9,A3,A11andA10
JudgementMCOC21/06
266.
..254..
Ext.4825
ThebottlesofchemicalsseizedattheinstanceoftheA2were
depositedinthecourt.Theywerehazardousforstorage.Therefore,
prosecutionrequestedthiscourttograntpermissionfordisposing
offthechemicalsandaftergettingpermissionthechemicalswere
disposedoffon16/12/06.
267.
ACPPatil,PW186,alongwithhisofficersandstaffoftheATS
madeallpossibleeffortstotracethewantedaccused,theyobtained
standing nonbailable warrants against them and made efforts to
execute them, but did not succeed. They requested this court to
issueproclamationsandproclamationswereissuedagainstallthe
15wantedaccusedandwerepromulgatedattheplaceswherethey
werelikelytobelocatedandtothe DistrictSuperintendents and
CommissionersofPoliceinIndiawitharequesttokeepalookoutfor
them. The wanted accused whose names, addresses and passport
detailswereavailable,werekeptonlookoutatalltheseaandair
checkpostsofIndia.Redcornernotices(RCN)wereissuedattheir
request by Interpol against wanted accused Rizwan Dawrey and
RahilShaikh,asdetailsabouttheirnames,addresses,photographs
and passports were available. Wanted accused Sohail was
subsequentlyrevealedtobeSohailAbdulGaniShaikhresidentof
Pune.HewasfoundtobeinvolvedinMulundRailwaybombblastin
2003andaredcornernoticehadalreadybeenissuedagainsthim.
Atthe requestofthe ATSand addendum tothe RCN wasissued
againsthim.ItwasfoundthataRCNwasalsoissuedagainstwanted
accused Azam Chima @ Babaji for his involvement in a case in
GujaratState.AttherequestoftheATS,anaddendumtotheRCN
JudgementMCOC21/06
..255..
Ext.4825
wasissuedagainsthim.Certainimportantevidencewasrequiredto
begatheredfromIran,UAEandSaudiArabia.Hence,prosecution
requestedthiscourttoissueletterrogatorys.Thecourtissuedthem
andtheywereforwardedtotheGovernmentofIndia.
268.
Charge:
269.
MylearnedpredecessorjudgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar (now
Hon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt) framedchargeagainst
A1toA4andA6toA13atExh.53on06/08/07onconsideringthe
above allegations made by the prosecution and on hearing both
sides.Whenthechargewasbeingreadoverandexplained,theA13,
A2andA4submittedapplicationsExts.54,55and56respectively,
making number of allegations against the presiding officer. A1
pleadednotguilty,A2refusedthecharge,butstatedthathehasno
faith on the court, A3 said that he is innocent, A4 refused to
participateinlegalproceedings,A6saidthatheisinnocent,butdoes
nothavefaithonthecourt,A7saidthathehasnofaithonthecourt
anddoesnotwanttosayanything,A8saidthathedoesnotwantto
participate in legal proceedings, A9, A10, A12 and A13 said that
theydonothavefaithinthecourtanddonotwanttoparticipatein
thelegalproceedingsandA11pleadednotguilty.ThepleaoftheA1
wasmarkedasExt.57.AstheA5hadinformedthepresidingofficer
thathedoesnotunderstandHindi,thechargewasnotreadover
andexplainedtohim.Thereafteronthenextday,i.e.,on07/08/06,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..256..
Ext.4825
270.
The charge, Ext.53, was framed against all the accused for
JudgementMCOC21/06
..257..
Ext.4825
307 read with section 120B of the IPC, section 121A read with
section120BoftheIPC,section122readwithsection120Bofthe
IPC,section123readwithsection120BoftheIPC,section124A
readwithsection120B of the IPC,section201readwithsection
120B of the IPC, sections 10(a) and (b) of the UA(P)A, sections
13(1)and13(2)oftheUA(P)Aandsections16(1)(a)oftheUA(P)A.
AseparatechargewasframedagainsttheA4forhavingcommitted
theoffenceundersection17andsection40(2)oftheUA(P)Aand
againsttheA1,A3,A6andA9fortheoffencesundersections17and
40(2) of the UA(P)A. All the accused were further charged for
having committed an offences under sections 18 and 20 of the
UA(P)A.AseparatechargewasframedagainsttheA1,A3,A4,A12
andA13forcontraventionoftherulesmadeundersection5ofthe
Explosives Act and the Notification issued by the Central
Governmentundersection6ofthesaidactpunishableundersection
9BoftheExplosives Act,1884.A2wasseparatelychargedunder
section5oftheExplosivesAct.A1wasseparatelychargedforhaving
contravened the rules made under section 5 and the notification
issued by the Central Government under section 6 and thereby
havingcommittedtheoffencesundersection9BoftheExplosives
Act.A1wasalsoseparatelychargedfortheoffencesundersection
4(b)oftheExplosivesActandundersection5ofthesaidact.A1,
A3,A4,A12andA13werealsochargedundersections3and5of
theExplosiveSubstancesAct,1908.A7andA13,A6andA3were
also charged for the offences under section 6 of the Explosive
SubstancesAct,1908.A1,A3,A4,A12andA13werechargedfor
JudgementMCOC21/06
..258..
Ext.4825
theoffencesundersections3and4ofthePreventionofDamageto
PublicPropertyAct,1984andsections151and153oftheRailways
Act.A3andA6werealsochargedfortheoffencesundersections
12(1)(c)ofthePassportAct,1967.
Defenceofaccused:
271.
Thedefenceofalltheaccusedisoftotaldenialabouttheir
complicityinthecaseandtheyallegethattheyarefalselyimplicated
inthecaseandmostofthemhavetakenthedefenceofalibi.All
accusedproducednumerousdocumentsduringthetrialwhenthe
witnesses were being examined. All gave explanations to some
questionsaskedtothemundersection313oftheCr.P.C.andalso
submittedtheirwrittenstatementsseparately.
272.
A1produceddocumentsExts.3142to3145and3031to3033
and Arts.405 and 406 with his written statement, some obtained
undertheRighttoInformationAct,2005(RTIAct).Itisthecaseof
the A1 that he had sent a religious SMS to his brotherinlaw
MumtazAhmedChaudharyon10/07/06,whosentthesameSMSto
Kamrujamaonthe sayof his friendandafter thebombblasts in
railwayson11/07/06,theATSpickedupMumtazChaudharyand
Kamrujama and when they asked them about the SMS, Mumtaz
Chaudharytoldthemhisname.HeallegedthattheATSpickedhim
upat10.30p.m.on19/07/06,didnotfindanythinginhishouse
anddidnottakeanythingwiththem,muchlessanyblackpowder
fromhishouse,thattheyonlyfoundmobileanddrivinglicenceand
thathismobileusedtobewithhim.Hehasthenmentionedabout
hebeingtakentoPatnaon19/07/06inTataSumoandfromthere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..259..
Ext.4825
byairtoMumbai,fromwherehewastakentoChandanchowkiand
given third degree torture and was shown photographs of some
persons,etc.Itishisspecificcasethaton10/07/06hewashavinga
goatcutfromthebutcherforhiscousin'sdaughter'smarriage,that
themarriagewasperformedonthatdayandthepersonswhohad
participatedinthemarriagehadtalkedwithhim,and,on11/07/06
hehadgonetoNepaltomeethisrelativesforfourhoursandthe
evidence for this is the entry in the Entry Register at the Nepal
border,whichmentionshisname,motorcycleno.BR32A7377and
licencenumber.Thereafterhemadeallegationsaboutbeinggiven
thirddegreetorturebytheATS,inducementgivenbythepoliceto
becomeapprover,etc.HealsoallegedthattheATSdidnotproduce
theCDRofhismobileno.9934610679tohidethetruth,buthehad
obtaineditundertheRTIanditistheevidenceofhisinnocence,as
itshowsthathewasinBasopattion11/07/06.Hesubmitsthathe
doesnotknowanyofhiscoaccusedandsawthemfirsttimeinthe
custodyoftheATS,thathehasnotgivenanyconfessionalstatement
andhasallegedthathissignaturesweretakenonblankpapersby
givingthirddegreetorture,thathisvideowasprepared,thatthere
was no test identification parade, that he complained about his
signaturesbeingtakenforciblytotheCMMon05/10/06andhas
complained to this court on various dates about his torture. He
allegedthattheATShaspreparedanimaginarystorytoinvolvehim
andthatheneverwenttoPakistan.
273.
A2produceddocumentsExts.3146to3251and2931to2935
andArts.407to422,399and400,obtainedundertheRTIActand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..260..
Ext.4825
byothermeans.Itishiscasethathewasnotacquaintedwithanyof
thecoaccusedinthepresentcaseandhadnotmetthempersonally
orheardaboutthemandheonlyknewtheA4,whowasalsoan
accusedina2001SIMIcase,inwhichhewasfalselyimplicated.He
submitsthathewasowningmobileno.9869320457,usingitforhis
personalandofficialwork,contactinghisfamilymembers,friends,
doctors,hospitalstaffandcolleaguesoftheSabuSiddiqueHospital
andcarryingitwithhimallthetimeashewastheonlymedical
registrar in the said hospital and had the responsibility of taking
propermedicalcareofalltheadmittedpatientsinhishospital.He
submitsthaton8,9and10/07/06,hewenttothehospitalatthe
usualtimeataround11.30a.m.to11.45a.m.withhismobileand
attendedandperformedhisdutytillaround10.00to11.00p.m.and
hadnotvisitedShivajiNagar,Govandi,Mumbaianddidnotknow
aboutthehouseoftheA6,whomhemetforthefirsttimeinthe
Mumbai Central Prison. He submits that his attendance at the
hospital on 09/07/06 can be verified by the Biometric thumb
impressionattendancerecord.Hehasallegedthatthisattendance
recordwasdeliberatelynotincludedinthechargesheetbytheATS
inordertofalselyimplicatehim,however,heisproducingit.Hehas
allegedthattheATSandtheprosecutionhasnotproducedtheCDR
ofhismobilephoneinordertomisguideandhidethefactsfromthe
courtbyreplyingthattheprosecutiondoesnotrelyontheCDRand
alsoprohibitingthepublicinformationofficerofM.T.N.L.,Mumbai
fromsharingorfurnishingtheinformationrelatingtohismobile.He
submitsthatheattendedhisdutyinthehospitalon11/07/06as
JudgementMCOC21/06
..261..
Ext.4825
usual,reachingthereatabout1200hoursandremainingtheretill
latenight,beingbusyinbetween7.00to7.30p.m.intheICCUof
the hospital and attending an emergency there when he was
informed about the railway bomb blasts by the hospital
administrator.
274.
PoliceStationinconnectionwiththebanonSIMIthoughhewasnot
its member and not associated with it and again being falsely
arrestedinadifferentcaseaftergettingbailinthatcase.Healleges
thatbecauseofthesetwocasesheusedtobecalledtotheSBIatC.
S.T.forinquiryrepeatedlywheneveranythinghappenedinMumbai
andafter11/07/06wascalledtoKurlaPoliceStation,inquiredwith
and his statement was recorded on 18/07/06. He has denied
knowledgeofthehouseoftheA3atBandraandhavingvisitedit
anytimeandhasallegedthathewasillegallypickedon20/07/06at
around7.00to7.30p.m.fromthehospitalandtakentoDCB,CID,
UnitIIIatByculla,wherehewasbeatenveryruthlesslyandasked
about railway blasts and he told them everything honestly. He
alleges that he was then transferred to DCB, CID, UnitII, Jacob
Circle, Sat Rasta, Mumbai, where he was detained illegally upto
24/07/06,afterwhichhewashandedovertotheATSafterbeing
interrogated about his movements on 11/07/06, before and after
therailwaybombblasts.Hehasnamedcertainofficersashaving
torturedhimandhesufferinginjuriesandnotbeingprovidedwith
any medical relief and his family members being not allowed to
meethim.HesubmitsthathetoldtheofficersaboutvisitingIranfor
JudgementMCOC21/06
..262..
Ext.4825
ziyaratinMay,2004,afterwhichthepoliceofficerssaidthathewas
therightcandidatetobebookedintheblastscase.Heallegesabout
beingproducedbeforethethenCommissionerofPoliceA.N.Roy,
ATSchiefK.P.RaghuvanshiandA.N.Roybeatinghimaftermaking
inquiriesandhedenyinghisinvolvementandA.N.Roytellingthe
police officers to book him in the case. His further statement
containsallegationsabouttorturebytheATSpoliceofficersandATS
policepersonnelafterhewastransferredthereon24/07/06andhe
has named certain officers as having tortured him day and night
pressuringhimandtaking hissignaturesonblankpapersandon
somepapersonwhichsomethinghaswritteninHindiandMarathi,
whichhewasnotallowedtoread.
275.
Hehasthendeniedhavingmadeanyvoluntarystatementor
discoveryofanyarticleathisinstancethathascomeintheevidence
and has discussed the evidence of the investigating officers and
panchasandhastriedtoshowhowitisnottrue.Hehasalleged
aboutbeingforciblytakenfornarcoanalysisandthenarcoanalysis
test conducted by S. Malini, who was not qualified and who is
removedfromserviceafteracriminalcasewasfiledagainsther.He
allegedaboutbeinghandedovertotheteamandsquadofpolice
officerVijaySalaskar,anencounterspecialistatKurla,wherehewas
assaultedandbrutallytorturedandwherehesawsomepersonswho
were examined as prosecution witnesses later on, viz., Abdul
RehmanDawrey,PW71andVijayAmbekar,PW76.Hehasalleged
aboutbeing pressurizedbyATSofficersK.P.Raghuvanshi,Nawal
Bajaj, S. L. Patil and P. M. Khandekar for giving confessional
JudgementMCOC21/06
..263..
Ext.4825
statement,tocooperatewiththemforframingcaseagainsttheco
accusedandforbecomingapproverandwasofferedRs.25lakhs.He
hasthenallegedaboutbeingforcedtosignonblankpapersbyDCP
SanjayMohiteatthebehestofATSpoliceofficersP.M.Khandekar
and other police, who were continuously with him during that
period and submits that he had never given any voluntary
confessional statement. He has discussed the evidence of the
witnessesconnectedwiththerecordingofhisconfessionalstatement
asexaminedbytheprosecutiontoshowthatthesaidevidenceis
false.HesubmitsaboutstatingbeforetheMagistrateS.S.Shirke
thathehasnotgivenanyvoluntaryconfessiontotheDCPandhe
wasforcedtosignonitandheretracteditbeforethemagistrate.He
retractedtheallegedconfessionbeforethecourton09/10/06also.
276.
Hehasstatedaboutbeingtakenoutfromthehighsecurity
yardorbarrackalongwithA4andA7at12.35p.m.on07/11/06
andbeingsentbackafterfiveminuteswiththecoaccusedtothecell
and notest identification paradebeing held,but the ATSofficers
whopresentatthegatewithsomepersonspointingtohim.Hehas
thenmadeallegationsagainstSwatiSathe,thethenSuperintendent
ofMumbaiCentralPrisonandhasthereafterdiscussedindetailall
thedocumentsthathehasproducedwiththewrittenstatement.
277.
A3produceddocumentsExts.3252to3266,Ext.3053and
Arts.423to426alongwithhiswrittenstatement.Hesubmitsthathe
iseducatedinUrduandArabi,hedoesnotknowHindiorMarathi
andthoughEnglishwasasubject,hejustpasseditwithminimum
marks,butdoesnotknowhowtospeakit,nordoesheunderstand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..264..
Ext.4825
it.HesubmitsthathedidnotknowwhatevertheATSpolicewrote
inEnglish,HindiandMarathiatthetimeofhisinquiryandhewas
nottoldastowhatwaswritten,buteverytimehewasbeatenand
giventhirddegreetortureandforcedtosignonwrittenandblank
papers.HewasarrestedbytheCrimeBranchUnitIIon19/07/06
nearhishousebystoppinghisbikeandstraightawaytakentotheir
officeatSatRasta,wherehewasillegallydetainedupto27/07/06
alongwithhisfather,cousinandhisschoolfriend.Heallegesthathe
wastorturedthere,handedovertotheATSon27/07/06alongwith
A9,hisbrother,whowasarrestedon22/07/06fromBangaloreand
takentoKalachowkioffice.Hehasallegedaboutbeingmercilessly
tortured by the ATS during the police custody by keeping him
awaken during the night and keeping him naked for 24 hours,
abusinghisparentsandreligionandbehavinglikeanimalsandwith
new methods of third degree torture. During this period he was
beinginquiredwithandtheATSofficerswerewritingthestoryas
pertheirwishandtakinghissignatureforcefully,whichheusedto
signtosavehimselffromthetortureandoutoffear.Majorpartof
his written statement consist of allegations about torture, false
implication,falsepreparationofconfessionalstatement,concocting
falsestorybytheATSofficers.Hehasalsodiscussedtheevidenceof
certainwitnesseslikeMohd.Alam,PW59,RajeshSatpute,PW77,
Devendra Patil, PW62, Mushtaq Ahmed, PW46, Abdul Dawrey,
PW71,BilalShaikh,PW66,MohsinKhan,PW67andhastriedto
show how they are false and got up witnesses. In respect of his
Pakistanvisitin2001,hesubmitsthathehadgonetheretomeethis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..265..
Ext.4825
cousinZohraAbdulRehmanandhavinggonetoPakistanonlyat
that time. He has alleged that Arvind Kumar Singh, PW40, has
given false evidence as per the instructions of the ATS and has
alleged that the statement written by him in English earlier was
againfalselygotwrittenfromhim.Hehasdeniedhavingpurchased
anycarandhasallegedthattheATShasfabricatedfalseevidence
andbroughtupfalsewitnessesaboutit.
278.
3051,3062to3067,3083,3084,3074to3076,3091,3069,3088,
3056,3057,3087,3086,3059,3058,3071andArts.427to431
alongwith his written statement. It is his case in the written
statementthathe was nevera member of SIMI,neverconnected
withSIMIinanyway,butfalselyarrestedon27/09/01twice,being
calledbyKurlaandMiraRoadPoliceStationsandMumbaiCrime
Branch when any incident happened in any part of the country,
startingbusinessofD.T.P.bynameGraphicPointfromhishouse
and business of book publishing by name Shahadah Publishing
HousefromhishouseinMiraRoad,usingmobileno.9867139179,
visiting Patna in Bihar, Allahabad, Kanpur, Lucknow, Aligarh,
DeobandinU.P.,Delhi,JaipurandJodhpurinRajasthan,Bhopal,
IndoreandUjjaininM.P.andAhmedabadandSuratinGujaratto
taketheordersofbookspublishedbyhimfromvariousbooksstores
since the last week of December, 2005 upto 26/03/06 when he
reachedMumbai.Hedeniedknowinganycoaccusedorvisitingany
placeatBandrainFebruary,2006andhisspecificcaseisthaton
08/07/06, as usual he was in Mira Road doing the work of his
JudgementMCOC21/06
..266..
Ext.4825
businessinhishouse,on09/07/06hehadgonetoMumbraforhis
businesspurpose,on10/07/06hewasinMiraRoadathishouse,
doingtheworkofhisbusinessandon11/07/06hedidhisbusiness
work at his house on computer, visited cyber cafe for internet
surfing,returnedtohishouseat1600hoursandofferednamajat
1745hours.WhenhewasgoingtoofferMaghribnamaj,heheard
from the public thatthereis bombblastbetweenMira Roadand
Bhayandar.HesubmitsthatheneverwenttoShivajiNagar,Govandi
on8,9and10/07/06.HedoesnotknowthehouseoftheA6and
doesnotknowtheA6,buthadmethimandA3inthelockup.He
submitsthathewascalledon12/07/06and13/07/06atMiraRoad
PoliceStation,inquiredabouthiswhereaboutsandreleasedinthe
evening,thatofficersofDCB,CID,DahisarUnitcametohishouse
on14/07/06andtookhimtotheiroffice,inquiredwithhimand
released him on the same day. He alleges that on 24/07/06 ATS
officerSunilManecametohishouseandtoldhimtoattendATS
officeatNagpadaintheafternoon,thathewentthereatabout1400
hoursandneverreturnedbacktohishousetilldate.Hehasalleged
that ATS officers tortured him, took all his belongings including
mobile phone, cash of Rs.25,000/ and all documents and
distributed the cash amongst themselves. He has then made
datewiseallegationsabouttorturebytheATSofficers,threatening
byATSofficersnottocomplainagainstthepolice,beingarrestedin
bombblastcaseon12/08/06,beingtakentoKurlatotheofficeof
AntiRobberySquadforspecialtorture,seeingA6thereandA3and
A9'sfatherbroughtthereandmadenaked,etc.Majorportionofhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..267..
Ext.4825
writtenstatementconsistsofallegationsoftortureandthreatsand
he has denied having given his willingness for narco test or for
confessionalstatementandtheATSofficersthreateninghimnotto
complain about torture whenever he was produced before the
differentcourtsandotherauthorities.Hehasallegedthathewas
takenoutfromhisbarrackforfiveminuteson07/11/06alongwith
theA2andA7andthreewitnessesidentifyinghimonbeingpointed
outbytheATSofficers,butVishalParmar,PW74andAmarKhan,
PW75notidentifyinghimandhecomplainingaboutittothecourt.
He has made allegations about being beaten on 28/06/08 and
transferredtoKolhapurprisonaftersufferinginjurieslikefractureof
rightwrist,bleedinginthighandsevereinjuriesonthebackand
stomach.Hehasallegedthathewasforcedtotosignonprinted
papers on 06/10/06 and he having retracted his confessional
statementbeforethiscourton07/10/06.Hehasthendescribedthe
applicationsthathemadeundertheRTItoobtaininformationand
onthebasisoftheinformationthatheobtained,hehasdiscussed
theevidencegivenbyVishalParmar,PW74,PIKhanvilkar,PW168,
SPKarale,PW104,PIAlaknure, PW153,AmarKhan, PW75,PC
Ambekar,PW76,Mohd.Alam,PW59,Dr.Singal,PW171,Anami
Roy,PW185andPritamMhatre,PW58,toshowthattheirevidence
isfalseandgotup.HehasallegedthatPIMohiteandotherATS
officersshowedhimtoPW59,PW74,PW75,PW80,PW104and
PW106 in the court premises, just before their evidence. He has
alleged that important witnesses like Ramanand Marutirao
MachewarandKiranRamdasKinihavenotbeenexaminedbythe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..268..
Ext.4825
279.
A5inhiswrittenstatementsubmitsthatduringtheyear2003,
hecameacrossMohd.Shakil,PW70,andstartedthe businessof
optical glasses manufacturing bytaking moneyfrom his brothers,
butthesaidMohd.Shakil,PW70,didnotdeposittheamountina
pigmyaccountinthebank,thoughhehadpromisedrepaymentof
themoneythathehadtakenfromhisbrothers.Hehasallegedthat
after three years he requested Mohd. Shakil, PW70, to sign an
applicationtowithdrawthemoneydepositedinthesaidaccount,
amountingtoRs.15,000/andafterseveralargumentshereluctantly
signedtheapplicationkeepingagrudgeonhim.Hesubmitsthathe
wasarrestedon28/09/06andfalselyimplicatedinthiscaseandhas
allegedthatthestorytoldbyMohd.Shakil,PW70aboutvisitingthe
border of Bongaon in the month of May, 2006 to receive some
Pakistaninationals,isfabricatedandhedeniesit.Hesubmitsthathe
canfurnishhisattendanceregisteraswellasthebusinessdiarythat
wasmaintaineddaily.Toprovehisclaimthathewasphysicallyin
Kolkata, he can provide the details of money deposited daily in
SaharaBankpersonally.HeallegesthattheATShasfabricatedthe
storyofhispresenceinMumbaion10/07/06submittingthatasan
ardent fan of Football and on the invitation of his brotherinlaw
Noor Ahmed, a sales tax officer, he had gone to his house on
09/07/06towatchthelatenightmatchandhadalreadysenthis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..269..
Ext.4825
wifeandmotherthereandjoinedthematabout10.00p.m.after
closing his shop. He submits that he remembers it very well as
ZainuddinZaidan,oneoftheFrenchplayershadinjuredanItalian
playerbyhittinghimwithhishead,becauseofwhichhewasshown
theredcard.Hesubmitsthathespentthenightathisbrotherin
law'shouse,returnedonthenextday,i.e.,on10/07/06tohisshop
torepairhisshutterasitwasMonday,aweeklyoffandtheright
time to get the repair work done. His shop neighbour visited his
shoponthatdayandtalkedwithhimandhisbrother'sdaughterwas
engagedonthatday.Hehasgiventhedetailedtimingsofgettingup
on11/07/06,leavinghousefortheshop,beingattheshop,coming
backtothehouseforlunch,returningbacktotheshopandbeing
thereupto2200hoursandtherebeingacommotionatabout1900
or2000hoursinthemarketabouttherailwayblastsintheMumbai.
Hesubmitsthathecanproducethedailybusinessdiaryofhisshop
toprovethathe wasnotinMumbaiatthe time of theblastsor
beforeandhisshopneighbours,hisemployees,brothers,tradersand
personsresidinginhisneighbourhoodcanbecalledaswitnessesby
the court to prove it. He has given the names of three reputed
businesspersonsfromhislocality.Hesubmitsthatfrom11/07/06to
28/09/06,hecontinuedthesamewayoflifeasalways,hadopened
anICICIinsurancepolicyon11/07/06or12/07/06andthiscanbe
verifiedbycallingtheinsuranceagent,whoisthesonoftheowner
ofshopGoldenFootwear,whichisadjacent.
280.
pickedupfromhisshopon28/09/06andbeingtortured.Hehas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..270..
Ext.4825
281.
A6fileddocumentsExts.3301to3306andArt.432alongwith
hiswrittenstatement.Hiscaseisthathewasdoingthebusinessof
sellingTilismamotiinmedicalshopsinMumbaiin2006andon8
and10/07/06hewasoutofhishousefrom8.00or9.00a.m.inthe
morningupto9.009.30p.m.inthenight.Heandhisfamilyand
hisbrothers'familiesstayingonthefirstfloor,wereattheirhouseon
09/07/06, which was a Sunday. He submits that on 8, 9 and
10/07/06hisandhistwobrothers'familieswereinthehouseand
hadnotgoneanywhere,thatbombswerenotpreparedathishouse,
that no person for that purpose had come to his house and this
allegationisfalselypreparedbyATSChiefRaghuvanshi,whichis
clearfromthestatementsofhiselderbrotherHajaratAliandwife
SaidunissarecordedbyATSofficerVijayKambleon28/10/06,in
whichtheystatedthattheywereinthehouseonthesethreedays
with their families continuously. He submits that he was using
mobile no. 9224253454 continuously, that on 11/07/06 he had
attended the funeral of his friend's brother upto 12.00 in the
afternoonandfrom12.00to6.30p.m.intheevening,heDr.Salman
JudgementMCOC21/06
..271..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..272..
Ext.4825
thatATSofficerstookhimbeforehisauntandtoldhertosaythat
hisfamilywasinherhouseon8th,9thand10thJuly.Hehasalleged
thatCommissionerA.N.RoyandRaghuvanshicametoKalachowki
office on 24/10/06 and told him to sign on his confessional
statementandtobecomeanapproverandthreatenedthathewould
beinvolvedintheMalegaonblast.Heallegedthathewasforcedto
signonalreadywrittenpapersbeforetheDCPandthestorywas
prepared by ATS chief Raghuvanshi. He stated about making
complaints inthecourtandbeing arrestedintheMalegaonblast
case on 14/11/06 and again being forced to make a confession
beforeDCPAshokDumare.Hesubmitsthatnobodyidentifiedhim
on07/11/06andhehadnotseenAmarKhan,PW75intheprison
onthatday.Heallegesthatheisfalselyimplicatedinthiscaseand
in the Malegaon blast case of 2006, that he does not know the
remaining12accusedinthiscaseandhadseensomeofthemforthe
first time in the ATS custody and some in the prison, that the
witnesseshavedeposedfalselyagainsthimonthesayoftheATSon
beingtutoredbytheATS,thathewasillegallydetainedintheoffice
of Vijay Salaskar at Kurla from 31/07/06 to 09/09/06 and at
Nagpada office by ATS officer Dinesh Ahir from 09/09/06 to
29/09/06.Hesubmitsthatnothingwasseizedfromhishouseon
29/09/06,thathispassportwaslostinthefloodsof26/07/05,that
after he complained in the court against the ATS, his family
membershavebeenrepeatedlyharassedbytheATSofficerstilldate.
Hehasgiventhenumbersofmiscellaneousapplicationsandexhibits
bywhichhehascomplained.
JudgementMCOC21/06
282.
..273..
Ext.4825
HisspecificcaseisthattheATSandcrimebranchpeoplehave
involvedhiminafalsecasebecause56yearspriortotheblasts
thereusedtobeillegalgamblingdensandavideotheaterthatused
to show blue films on road no.7 in Shivaji Nagar area and local
policeofShivajiNagarandofficersofCrimeBranch,Ghatkoparused
togetlakhsofrupeeseverymonthfromthem.Localpublicandlocal
leaderscloseddownthegamblingdenandvideotheaterandhewas
alsoamongstthem,becauseofwhichthehaftaofthepolicestopped
andofficersoflocalpoliceandGhatkoparCrimeBranchhadcalled
himandsaidthatheisbecomingabigleaderandsaidthatthey
would involve him in a big case and his leadership will then go
away. He has alleged that since that day, they always called him
wheneveranyincidenthappenedinMumbaiandmadehimsitin
thepolicestationfor45hours.TheATSandCrimeBranchgotan
opportunityaftertheblastsinJuly,2006andinvolvedhiminthe
cases.HesubmitsthathewasneveramemberofSIMI,hadnever
attendedanyprogramofSIMI,doesnotknowanymemberofSIMI
andhadgonetoMuscatin2003forlabourwork,butreturnedafter
12months.HesubmitsthatheneverwenttoDubaiorPakistan
andhasnevergivenconfessionalstatement.Heproducedphotocopy
of a page from his diary in which he had written the name and
phonenumbersofthepoliceandATSofficers.
283.
3081,3018,3019,3072andArts.401,433to445.Itishiscasethat
hestayswithhismother,wife,twobrothersandtheirfamiliesathis
residenceatMiraRoad(E),Thaneandhasnotrentedorpurchased
JudgementMCOC21/06
..274..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..275..
Ext.4825
classandthenwenttotheshopatJogeshwari,thatBilalKadiwala,
DW8,istheownerofthisshopandheusedtoworkthereonrental
basis,onthatdayheworkedtheretilleveningandwhenhewas
repairing a phone at 1830 hours, he heard the sound of an
explosion,atthattime,BilalKadiwala,DW8,wasalsowithhimand
people coming from the station side told them that a blast had
occurredinthelocaltrain,thatBilalKadiwala,DW8,askedhimto
remainattheshopandrushedtotheblastsitetohelpvictims,that
he returned after half an hour or so and told him that it was a
dangerousblastandhehadhelpedthevictims.Hestatesthathe
returned to his home via Western Express Highway by different
vehicles arranged bypeople and government as train service was
completely stopped and reached at about 11.00 p.m. He submits
thathewasfalselyarrestedbyAndheriPoliceStationon14/03/01
andagainimplicatedon27/09/01bythesamepolicestationafter
the ban was imposed on SIMI, therefore, when the bomb blasts
occurredinthelocaltrainson11/07/06,hehadmadeuphismind
thatthepolicewillcallhimforinquiriesasthereweretwocases
pendingagainsthim,eventhenhedidnotdisturbhisroutinework
and continuously attended his place of work at Malad and
Jogeshwaridaily.Heallegesthathewaspickedupon17/07/06by
theofficersofGhatkoparCrimeBranchfromhisJogeshwarishopat
about 4.00 or 4.30 p.m. and since then was detained upto
18/07/06,thathewasagaincalledon21/07/06andallowedtogo
home.HesubmitsthathehadgonetohisnativeplaceatBijnour,U.
P.on25/07/06toreachhisauntHabibaKhatoontoherhome,that
JudgementMCOC21/06
..276..
Ext.4825
hiselderbrothertoldonphonethatATSofficershadcalledhimat
Nagpadaofficeforinquiriesandhadforcedhimtocallhim,i.e.,the
A7,fromU.P.forinquiryandaboutwhichhehadsenttelegram
also.Hesubmitsthatheimmediatelycamebackon15/08/06,that
hecontactedATSofficerShaileshGaikwadon18/08/06,whoasked
him to reach Nagpada ATS office, where he went with his elder
brother, Dr. Javed and after meeting, was detained and inquired
withandwasallowedtogohomeon22/08/06aftertheATSofficers
threatenedhimnottomakeanycomplaintanywhere.Hewasasked
to attend ATS Nagpada office daily. Major portion of his written
statement consists of the dates on which he attended the ATS
Nagpada office upto 24/09/06 and then being illegally detained
from25/09/06to29/09/06,duringwhichperiodhewastortured
byATSofficers.Hehadalsoseenthecoaccusedinthiscasebeing
torturedandbeatenandhasallegedthathewasfalselyshownas
arrestedon29/09/06fromMalad.Hehasdescribedthedocuments
thatheobtainedundertheRTIAct,whichaccordingtohimfalsify
the evidence given by the prosecution witnesses. He has made
allegationsagainsttheATSchiefK.P.RaghuvanshiandotherATS
officersabouttortureandbeatingandtheyaskinghimtobecome
approver.Hehasdiscussedtheevidenceofthewitnessesthatthe
prosecution examined against him and on the basis of the
documentsobtainedbyhimundertheRTIActhastriedtoshowthat
the witnesses are regular/habitual and tutored witnesses of the
police,thatsomeelectroniccomponentsandmaterialarefoistedon
him,thathenevermadeavoluntarystatementofdisclosureofany
JudgementMCOC21/06
..277..
Ext.4825
articleorexpressedhisdesiretomakeanyvoluntaryconfessional
statement and has alleged that he was forced to sign on written
papersbeforetheDCP.Hehasallegedthatinsteadofproducinghim
before the CMM Shri S. S. Shirke, API Nana Shinde, PW103,
produced him before the Addl. CMM Shri S. Y. Shisode at his
residence at Kurla and has alleged that Shri S. Y. Shisode was
neithertheCMMnortheinchargeCMMon25/10/06andthisfactis
clearfromthedocumentsobtainedbyhimundertheRTIAct.Hehas
allegedthattheCMMwasalsomanagedbytheATS,becausehedid
not open the envelopes containing their confessional statements
though he had done so in respect of confessional statements of
accusedinMCOCSpecialCaseNo.20of2006and23of2006and
evenoftheA1inthiscase.HehasallegedthattheAddl.CMMShri
S.Y.Shisode,theCMMShriS.S.Shirke,SPMohite,PW102,API
Shinde,PW103,ACPKhandekar,PW174,ACPTambe,PW177and
ACPPatil,PW186havecollectivelyviolatedsection18oftheMCOC
Act,Art.20oftheConstitutionofIndiaandvarioussectionsofthe
Cr.P.C.andShriS.Y.Shisode was notauthorised/designatedto
verifytheconfessionsundersection18(4)on25/10/06.Hehasthen
mentioned about his complaints about torture before this court,
medicalexaminationatJ.J.Hospital,wheretheyfound11injury
marks,whichiscontradictorytothemedicalreportsofthosedates
produced by the ATS. The entire written statement consists of
descriptions of alleged events that happened on certain dates in
respectoftortureinthepolicecustodyaswellasintheprisonand
hehasdescribedtheincidentof28/06/08whenallofthemwere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..278..
Ext.4825
284.
A8producedthedocumentsExts.3382to3397andArts.445
and 446 obtained under the RTI Act alongwith his written
statement.ItishiscaseinthewrittenstatementthatexcepttheA7,
whoishisbrotherinlaw,hehasneverheardoftheotheraccused
and had never met them personally, but had seen some of them
whenhewasillegallydetainedbytheATSinAugustandSeptember,
2006.HisaddressisofGhatkopar(W),Mumbaiandsince1999he
JudgementMCOC21/06
..279..
Ext.4825
hasapermanentjobasateacherinaschoolatDoTaki,Maulana
ShaukatAliRoad,Mumbai.HehasallegedthatthestorybytheATS
police that after the blasts on 11/07/06 some Pakistani persons
cametohishouseatMumbraisconcoctedandfalse.Healsoalleges
thattheATShasconcoctedafalsestorythathesaidtohisbrother
inlawMehmoodQureshi,PW65,thatheshouldgivethekeyofhis
flat in Mumbra to a person by name Ehtesham, that on his say
MehmoodQureshi,PW65,gaveakeyofhisMumbraflattwicein
May, 2006 to Ehtesham and the said person had a meeting with
somepersonsinthatflat.HeallegesthatParksitePolicearrestedhim
in2001inafalsecaseshowinghimtobeamemberofSIMI.He
submits thathenever wasamemberofSIMIandbecauseofhis
involvementinthefalsecaseof2001heisbeingarrestedtilldate,
becausewheneverthereisanyblastinthecountryanywhere,heis
called to the police station for inquiry. He submits that after the
blastson11/07/06,hewascalledtodifferentpolicestations,his
statementswererecorded,hewasmentallyandphysicallytortured
andwasillegallydetainedformanydaysintheATSPoliceStation.
He has then given the datewise details about being called on
12/07/06byParksitePoliceStation,aboutbeinginquiredwithhis
connection and whereabouts on 11/07/06 and about the bomb
blasts onthatdayandthenbeingrepeatedlycalledon17/07/06
and14/08/06,beingpickedupinthenightof17and18/08/06,
beingbeatenrepeatedlyandbeingillegallydetainedupto22/08/06
andbeingtorturedbyATSofficersaswellascrimebranchofficers.
HestatedaboutattendingKalachowkiofficeasdirectedbytheATS
JudgementMCOC21/06
..280..
Ext.4825
officersfrom22/08/06to13/09/06andbeingpickedupfromhis
school on 13/09/06 and being tortured by ATS officers like
Raghuvanshiandothersandbeinggiventheoptionofbecomingan
accusedorapprover.HehasstatedaboutseeingA1andA4being
takeninthetortureroomandhebeingillegallydetainedagainat
theATSKalachowkiofficefrom13/09/06to26/09/06.Hesubmits
thaton27/09/06hehadgoneforattendance,atthattimePITajane
andACPDhavaletoldhimtobringhispassportandtheleaveand
licenceagreementoftheMumbraflat.Hetookthesaiddocuments
on 28/09/06 and was allowed to go at 6.00 p.m. He saw his
brotherinlawMehmoodQureshi,PW65,andhisfatherthere.He
statedaboutbeingcalledtotheATSKalachowkiPoliceStationon
29/09/06urgentlyinthemorningandwhenhestartedgoingtothe
policestation,hebeinginformedtostandnearShreyasCinemain
GhatkoparandfromtherebeingtakentoATS,Bhoiwada,wherehe
wasarrested.Hehasallegedthatbecauseofthethreatsgivenbythe
ATSofficersfornotcomplainingtothecourtaboutilltreatmentand
illegaldetention,becauseofwhichhedidnotdosobeforethecourt
whenhewasproduced.HencehehasallegedthattheATScooked
upthefalsestoryaboutPIKhanvilkarcatchinghimatGhatkopar(E)
and taking him to Bhoiwada and arresting him there. He has
discussedthe documentsthatheobtainedundertheRTIActand
produced them with the written statement visavis the arrest
panchanama and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. He
allegesthatintheentirepolicecustodyperiodhewasmentallyand
physicallytortured,showntomanywitnessesandforcedtoundergo
JudgementMCOC21/06
..281..
Ext.4825
narcoteston16/10/06atBangalore.Hehasallegedthatduringthe
periodofjudicialcustodytheATSofficerVijaySalaskarhadcomein
theprisonandhadalluredtheA6tobecomeapproverandduring
that period other ATS officers also allured the A12 to become
approverandpromisedtogivelacsofrupees,flatsandsecurity.He
alleges that there was notest identification parade on 08/11/06.
Mostofhissubsequentwrittenstatementconsistsofthedetailsof
datesofappearanceinthecourt,hiscomplaintstothecourtsabout
illtreatmentandtorture,thediscussionaboutthedocumentsthat
hehadobtainedundertheRTIActandfrominmatesintheprisonto
showthatonewitnessofhisarrestpanchanamaisaregularpanch
witness.Hehasallegedthatfalsestationdiaryentrieswereprepared
toshowthathewasallowedtogohomeintheeveningonsome
days, but the ATS has been caught as they forgot to prepare the
stationdiaryentriesof15th and16/09/06.Hehasreferredtothe
confessionalstatementofsomeaccusedinMCOCSpecialCaseNo.4
of2009submittingthattheyhaveacceptedtheresponsibilityofthe
blasts on 11/07/06 and has also referred to some cases at
Hyderabad, Delhi, Dakshin Karnataka, etc. He submits that he is
innocent,hasnoconcernwiththiscaseandhasnottakenanytype
ofpartintheconspiracyinthiscase.
285.
A9producedtwophotocopiesofthreewitnessstatementsdtd.
09/11/06inthiscase,Exts.3398to3400,attestedastruecopiesby
Sr.PI,ATS,Mumbai,alongwithhiswrittenstatement.Itishiscasein
the written statement that he is being victimised alongwith his
familyinthiscasethoughheisinnocent,thatpriortohisarresthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..282..
Ext.4825
wasearninghislivelihoodthroughgainfulmeansashewasworking
withareputedmultinationalcompanyandheandhistwobrothers,
whoarethetotalsupportoftheiroldparents,havebeenshownas
accusedandabsconder.Hesubmitsthathewasnotacquaintedwith
any of the accused in the present case and had not met them
personally nor he ever heard about them prior to his arrest. His
specificcaseisthathewasworkinginanITfirmbynameSpyder
SystematVimanNagar,PuneasaOracleAPPSDBAfrom04/07/05
till26/06/06,thatthereafterhegotselectedforservinginOracle
Corporation at Bangalore and wentto Mumbai on 26/06/06 and
fromtheretoBangalorebyairon27/06/06andstartedworking
from28/06/06.On11/07/06alsoheattendedhisworkandwas
workingupto20/07/06andagainhadgoneforworkon22/07/06,
whenhewaspickedupbytwoofficersfromMumbaiCrimeBranch
whotookhimtoMumbaibyair.Hesubmitsthathewasinquired
abouthisvisittoIranandhetoldthemthathehadvisitedIranfor
spiritualpurposesandreturnedbacktoMumbaiandhadnotgone
toPakistan.Hesubmitsthatafterbeingdetainedupto27/07/06he
was arrested on that day and during this period was given third
degreetortureandpressurisedandforcedtoadmitthathewasa
partoftheMumbaitrainblasts.Hesubmitsthatduringhisentire
policecustodyofabout85days,hewassubjectedtoallkindsof
mentalandphysicaltortureandhasallegedthatthepanchanamas
shown in the chargesheet are all false, that he never made any
discoverystatement,thathehadneverinstructedwitnesses,Bilal,
PW66,andMohsin,PW67,tocollectmoneyonhisbehalf,thathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..283..
Ext.4825
hasnevergivenanyvoluntaryconfessionalstatementtoanypolice
officer and the DCP and has alleged that his signatures on such
statements were taken forcefully. He has alleged that he was
approachedbytheATSofficerswhotriedtoconvincehimtobecome
theirapproverandinreturntheypromisedthathewouldbegiven
specialfacilitiesandtheywillgosoftonhiminthiscase.Hehas
allegedthatthejailofficerstriedtocoaxhimtobecomeanapprover
andwhenherefused,theyharassedandthreatenedhim.
286.
TheA10statedinhiswrittenstatementthatprofessionallyhe
isaspiritualhealer,thatbeforehisarrestinthiscasehewasnot
acquaintedwithanyoftheaccusednorhehadmetthemorheard
aboutthemthroughanybody,thathewasneveramemberofSIMI
and never acquainted with any of its members and had never
attendedanyofitsprogram.Heallegesthathewaspickedupand
arrested illegally on 21/07/06 by DCB CID, Unit II of the Crime
Branch,thathehadgonetoIranforziyaratinNovember,2002and
hasrefutedtheallegationsoftheprosecutionthathehadgoneto
PakistanfromIran.HesubmitsthathenevercametoBombayinthe
months of January to March, 2006, but may have come once or
twiceinAprilMaytillJuly,2006,tovisithisrelativesandpatientsin
Andheri, but he never visited the A3's flat at Perry Cross Road,
Bandra.HeallegesthathewasarrestedandsenttoYerwadajailfor
15 days in the months of August and September, 2003 under
preventive detention though there was no case and complaint
againsthim.Hesubmitsthathewasathishouseon11/07/06and
hasdeniedtheallegationsoftheprosecutionthathehadtakenpart
JudgementMCOC21/06
..284..
Ext.4825
intheconspiracyofthebombblastsalongwithhiscoaccusedand
knew about their occurrence in advance. He has then made
allegations about the illegal detention and torture datewise, the
documentscollectedbyhimundertheRTIAct,hissignaturesbeing
takenonblankpagesaswellasonsomewrittendocumentsandhe
agreeing and taking the responsibility of the offence, because of
inhumantreatmentandphysicalandmentalthirddegreetorture.He
denieshavinggivenanyvoluntaryconfessionalstatementtoanyone
includingtheDCP.HesubmitsthatoneATSofficerbynameMandke
visited him in the prison and told him to retract his retracted
statementinthecourtandbecomeapprover,forwhichhewouldbe
gettingRs.25/lakhsandhewasshownanadvancepaymentofRs.
2/lakhsandalsoofferedaflatofoneBHKanywhereinIndiaasper
hiswish.Thisofferwasagainrepeatedon09/11/06byATSofficer
SachinKadamandalsobythethenjailsuperintendent.Hesubmits
thathe does nothave anything todowiththe bombblasts even
remotelyandhasallegedthatPW59islying.
287.
A11produceddocumentsExt.3401to3415andArts.447to
449 obtained by him under the RTI Act alongwith his written
statement.Hesubmitsthatbeforehisarresthewasnotacquainted
withanyoftheaccused,thatneitherheevermetthempersonally
norheardaboutthem,thathewasworkingathisfather'sstallat
BombayCentralandon11/07/06hewassoworkingroutinelyat
thesaidstall.HeallegesthatCrimeBranch,UnitIIpolicepicked
him up on 21/07/06 under the guise of making inquiry, illegally
detained him till 25/07/06, interacted with him about his
JudgementMCOC21/06
..285..
Ext.4825
288.
A12 produced two CDs Arts. 450 and 451 alongwith his
writtenstatement.HesubmitsinhiswrittenstatementthatinJuly,
2006hewasresidinginHyderabad,thatbeforehisarresthewasnot
acquaintedwithanyoftheaccused,hadnevermetthemorheard
about them, that on 8, 9 and 10/07/06 he was at his place in
Hyderabad,hadnotvisitedanyplaceatShivajiNagaranddoesnot
knowtheaddressofthehouseofA6,thaton11/07/06hewasathis
house.HesubmitsthathewasaskedtocontactPISunilDeshmukh,
who on being contacted, asked him his residential and office
address,mobile,etc.,andallegedthaton29/09/06whenheagain
JudgementMCOC21/06
..286..
Ext.4825
gotasimilarmessagetocontactSunilDeshmukhandhecontacted
himandwhenhewaswaitingneartheSTDbooth,thelocalpolice
cameandarrestedhimandbroughthimtoMumbaionthenextday
andhewasarrestedundertheMCOCAct.Hesubmitsthathewas
neverrelatedtoSIMIeitherdirectlyorindirectlyandhadnotgone
foranytraining,hewaspressurisedandbeatenwithsticks,beltsand
kicks and punches to admit what they were saying, that he was
forcedtowriteaconsentlettertothecourtforconductingthenarco
test,thaton14/10/06hisnarcotestwasdoneatBangalore,that
afterbeingbroughtbacktoMumbai,hewasassaultedandbeaten
andtorturedbyevensenior ATSofficers.Heallegedthathewas
forced to sign on some papers on 22/10/06 and 25/10/06. He
allegesthatduringpolicecustodyCommissionerofPoliceA.N.Roy
andJt.CPRaghuvanshitorturedhimintheNagpadaofficeasking
himtodowhattheysayandpromisinghimofrelease,thattheyalso
saidthattheywillmakehimanapproverinthiscaseandhewould
be provided protection, rewarded in cash as per his needs, a
businesswouldbesetupforhimforsettlingdown.Hesubmitsthat
he was never taken to any place nor did he make any discovery
statement and had not given any confessional statement. He has
allegedthatevenintheprison,ATSofficerRaghuvanshimethim
and reminded him about the offer of monetary benefits,
rehabilitation and early release if he becomes an approver.
Subsequentlyalsosimilarofferwasreiteratedon06/11/06.Hehas
allegedabouthebeingthreatenedtoutterconfessingsentencesin
frontofhandycam.
JudgementMCOC21/06
289.
..287..
Ext.4825
A13fileddocumentsExts.3416to3445andArts.452(1to6)
obtainedbyhimundertheRTIActalongwithhiswrittenstatement.
He submits in his written statement that he has completed Civil
EngineeringDiplomaandwhenhewasarrestedhewasworkingas
Billing Engineer on the Kandivali site of the Lokhandwala
ConstructionCompany.Hesubmitsthathehadnoconcernwiththe
SIMIorganisation,wasneveritsmember,butMIDCPolice,Jalgaon
hadfiledafalsecaseagainsthimin1999inwhichheisonbail.He
usedtostayinhishousebeforethebombblastson11/07/06with
hisfamily,hasnoconcernwiththebombblasts,doesnotknowany
oftheaccused,hasnevermetanyaccusedinthiscaseandhasno
concernwithanyofthem.On7,8and10/07/06hewasworkingat
hisofficefrom9.00a.m.to6.20p.m.,usinghismobilecontinuously,
thaton11/07/06alsohehadreachedhisofficeat0905hoursand
leftitat1825hours.HiscaseisthathewasarrestedatBelgaonby
theATS,Mumbaion03/10/06wherehehadgonewithhisfamilyto
his friend's house. He alleges that he was then taken to
ChandanchowkiandATSofficersgavehimthirddegreetortureand
though theycrosscheckedand found his claim of workingin his
officeon11/07/06tobetrue,didnotacceptitandtoldhimtotell
thestorythattheyweretellingandtoconfessandthreatenedthatif
hedoesnotconfesstheywouldimplicatehiminthiscaseandalsoin
theMalegaoncase.Hesubmitsthathedidnotgiveanydisclosure
statementtotheATSofficers,didnottakethemanywhereanddid
not take out any articles, but was forced to sign on false
panchanamasbytorturinghim.Heallegesthathewasrequiredto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..288..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..289..
Ext.4825
Stationon11/07/06at5.30p.m.andofSantoshSingh,PW63,that
hehadtakenhiminhistaxionthatdayfromCarterRoad,Bandra
toChurchgatesubway.Hehasthendiscussedthedocumentsthathe
hadobtainedundertheRTIAct visavis theevidencegivenbythe
witnessesconcerninghim.Heallegesthattestidentificationparade
wasnotheldon07/11/06andheandhiscoaccusedweretakenout
onlyfortwentyminutesandnowitnesseshaveidentifiedhim.He
hasallegedthatthoughtherewerenotwochargesheetsagainsthim,
S.K.Jaiswalhasgivenpriorapprovalwithoutapplicationofmind
andwithoutreadingthedocumentsandsamethingwasdoneby
himinMCOCSpecialCaseNo.23of2006also.Hehasallegedthat
policehaveusedtheirregularwitnessestofalselyinvolvethemand
theATSofficersalongwithsuperintendentSwatiSathetriedtoallure
themtobecomeanapproverandontheirrefusalhadbeatenthem
on28/06/08.
Thetrial:
290.
Toproveitscase,theprosecutionexamined192witnessesand
isrelyingontheiroralevidenceaswellasthedocumentaryevidence
in the form of spot panchanamas, discovery statements, seizure
statements,memorandumsoftestidentificationparade,FSLreports,
certified copies of chargesheets and other documents of cases
against the accused and the confessional statements of eleven
accused.Itexaminedfewinjuredpersonsineachcrimeassample
cases,thoughtheirevidenceisofaformalnature.HiteshMaganlal
Gandecha@RajuGandecha,(PW89)(Ext.893),wasinjuredinthe
Matunga blast for which C. R. No. 77 of 2006 was registered.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..290..
Ext.4825
291.
personsinC.R.No.77of2006,of22injuredpersonsinC.R.No.
78of2006,of29injuredpersonsinC.R.No.86of2006,of65
injuredpersonsinC.R.No.87of2006,of24injuredpersonsinC.
R.No.41of2006,of63injuredpersonsinC.R.No.59of2006,
undersection 296oftheCr.P.C.asthesewitnesseswereformal
witnessesandtheaffidavitsweremarkedasExts.1260to1461and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..291..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..292..
Ext.4825
2257),AssistantMedicalOfficerinCooperHospital,whoproduced
andprovedentriesintheoriginalregisterandcontentsofOPDcase
papers,Ext.2258to2263,Dr.NareshWadhoramOchaney,(PW179)
(Ext.2060),medicalofficerofBhabhaHospital,whoproducedand
provedtruecopiesofMLCregister,Exts.2061to2080,Dr.Sadashiv
YashwantHelaskar,(PW170)(Ext.1822),whoproducedandproved
notesofexamination,Ext.1823,Dr.UdaykumarDnyandevraoYelkar,
(PW183)(Ext.2195), who produced and proved Exts.2197, 2199
and 2200. Dr. Nandratna Sadashiv Paikrao, (PW181)(Ext.2100),
who producedandprovedentries in casualtyregisters,etc.,Exts.
2101to2141,Dr.AnilkumarMithalalSingal,(PW171)(Ext.1824),
whoproducedandprovedtruecertifiedcopiesofregistersExts.1825
to1831andDr.ParmeshwarVenkatraoGond,(PW182)(Ext.2116),
whoproducedandprovedentriesintheoriginalregister,Ext.2116
to2354.
292.
1680),SeniorDivisionalSafetyOfficerofWesternRailwaystoprove
the revenue loss and the damage property report, Exts.1681 and
1682.
293.
differentpolicestationstoprovethecomplianceoftheprocedural
aspectsofrecordingtheconfessionalstatementsofelevenaccused
andalsotoprovethattheaccusedhadbeentakentotheDCPs,to
theCMMandtothemedicalofficers.
294.
ACPShaikh,PW162,istheATSofficer,whohadproducedthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..293..
Ext.4825
295.
ACPKhandekar,PW174,istheATSofficer,whohadproduced
theA2beforeSPMohite,PW102,on04/10/06.PSIBaluSambhaji
Gangurde,(PW105)(Ext.1079)ofPoliceStationAzadMaidanhad
takenthecustodyoftheA2fromSPMohite,PW102,on04/10/06,
put him in the lockup of his police station after getting him
medicallyexaminedandproducedhimbeforetheDCPon05/10/06.
TheDCPgavetheaccusedinhiscustodyat10.00p.m.onthatday,
heagainputtheaccusedinthelockupofthepolicestationand
produced him before the CMM on 06/10/06 and then took the
accusedtotheofficeoftheATSatBhoiwadaandgavehiminthe
custodyofACPPatil,PW186,andACPKhandekar,PW174.
296.
ATSofficer,whohadproducedtheA3beforeAddl.CPBrijeshSingh,
PW117, on 03/10/06, where he had gone alongwith PI Sunil
Deshmukh.APIShashikantDattatrayDasurkar,(PW101)(Ext.996),
attachedtoAzadMaidanPoliceStation,hadtakenthecustodyof
theA3fromtheDCPon03/10/06andputhiminthelockupofhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..294..
Ext.4825
297.
APIDeore,PW180,oftheATShadproducedtheA4beforeSP
298.
PIAlaknure,PW153,attachedtoAntiRobberyandDacoity
Squad in Kurla in 2006, who was attached to the ATS for the
purposeofinvestigationinrailwaybombblasts,wenttotheofficeof
DCPPhadtare,PW93,on23/10/06ontheinstructionsofACPPatil,
PW186,andgavehimasealedenvelopeafteropeningwhichDCP
Phadtare,PW93,gavehimaletteraddressedtoACPPatil,PW186,
directing him to produce the A5 before him on 24/10/06.
AccordinglyheproducedtheA5beforeDCPPhadtare,PW93,on
24/10/06.PSIDyandeoSavabaPowar,(PW94)(Ext.942),ofPolice
JudgementMCOC21/06
..295..
Ext.4825
StationMahimwasgiventhecustodyoftheA5byDCPPhadtare,
PW93on24/10/06.Heputtheaccusedinthelockupofhispolice
stationandonthenextday,i.e.,on25/10/06producedtheaccused
beforeDCPPhadtare,PW93,asdirectedbyhimaftergettinghim
examinedatBhabhaHospital.Thereafterontheinstructionsofthe
DCP,heproducedtheaccusedattheresidenceoftheACMMand
thereaftertookhimtotheATSofficeandhandedoverhiscustodyto
PIAlaknure,PW153.
299.
PW104,on24/10/06asperthedirectionsofACPPatil,PW186,
andhandedoverhiscustody.PSIRamKisanDivekar,(PW108)(Ext.
1102),ofMatungaPoliceStationreportedtotheDCPoffice,ZoneIV
on 24/10/06 on the directions of his PI and the DCP gave the
custodyoftheA6tohim,hetooktheaccusedtohispolicestation
andputhiminthelockupandagainproducedhimonthenextday,
i.e.,on25/10/06.TheDCPgavetheaccusedinhiscustodyatabout
5.00p.m.andasperhisdirectionsheproducedtheaccusedatthe
houseoftheinchargeCMMShisodeonthesamedayandthentook
him tothe ATSoffice atBhoiwada andhandedhim overtoACP
Patil,PW186.
300.
ACPBalasahebSakharamTambe,(PW177)(Ext.2049),ofthe
ATS,whowasattachedtotheATSasPSIin2006,tooktheA7toSP
Mohite, PW102, on 24/10/06 on the directions of ACP Patil,
PW186, and handed over his custody. API Nana Dagdu Shinde,
(PW103)(Ext.1046),ofAzadMaidanPoliceStation,reportedtothe
officeoftheDCPon24/10/06onthedirectionsofhisSr.PI.The
JudgementMCOC21/06
..296..
Ext.4825
DCPgavehimthecustodyoftheA7andhetooktheaccusedtohis
policestationandputhiminthelockupaftergettinghimexamined
attheG.T.Hospital.Heagainproducedtheaccusedon25/10/06
beforetheDCPandwasgivenhiscustodyintheafternoonandas
perthedirectionsoftheDCPtooktheaccusedbeforeShriShisode,
ACMM,athisresidence,whowasinchargeoftheworkoftheCMM.
Aftersometimetheaccusedwasgivenbacktohiminhiscustody.
ThereafterhetookhimtotheG.T.Hospitalformedicalexamination
andtookhimtotheSessionsCourtandgavehiminthecustodyof
ACPPatil,PW186.
301.
ACPJoshi,PW163,whowasattachedtotheATSasaPIin
2006,producedtheA9beforeDCPPhadtare,PW93,on04/10/06
and handed over the custody of the accused to him. PSI Powar,
PW94, of Mahim Police Station reported to the office of DCP
Phadtare,PW93,on04/10/06asperthedirectionsoftheSr.PI.
TheDCPgavetheA9inhiscustodyandasperthedirectionsofthe
DCP,hetooktheaccusedtohispolicestationandputhiminthe
lockupandonthenextday,i.e.,on05/10/06heagainproduced
theaccusedbeforehimandgavehiminhiscustody.TheDCPgave
the custody of the accused to him after sometime and on his
directionshetookhimtothePoliceStationMahimandputhimin
the lockup. He produced the accused on the next day, i.e., on
06/10/06 before the CMM and was directed after sometime to
producehimbeforetheDCP.Hedidaccordinglyandtookhimtothe
officeoftheATSatBhoiwadaandhandedoverhiscustodytoACP
Joshi,PW163.
JudgementMCOC21/06
302.
..297..
Ext.4825
303.
washandedoverthecustodyoftheA11on04/10/06,heputthe
accusedinthelockupaftergettinghimmedicallyexamined.Addl.
SP Deepak Madhukar Bhavsar, (PW100)(Ext.989) attached to
Borivali Police Station as PI at that time, produced the accused
beforeDCPRanade,PW111,on05/10/06aspertherequestofPI
Mathadhikari. The DCP gave him the custody of the accused at
JudgementMCOC21/06
..298..
Ext.4825
about8.00or8.30p.m.andonhisdirectionshetooktheaccusedto
his police station and put him in the lockup. He produced the
accusedbeforetheCMMon06/10/06aftergettinghimmedically
examinedinG.T.HospitalandaftersometimetheCMMaskedhim
to take the accused to DCP Ranade, PW111. He again took the
accused to DCP Ranade, PW111, and as per his directions he
handedoverthecustodyoftheaccusedtoPIAlaknure,PW153,at
theATSofficeatBhoiwada.
304.
PIShelke,PW150,producedtheA12beforeAddl.CPBrijesh
JudgementMCOC21/06
..299..
Ext.4825
HetooktheaccusedtotheofficeoftheATSatBhoiwadaandgave
himinthecustodyofPIShelke,PW150.
Defencewitnesses:
305.
SandeepSahay,(DW14)(Ext.3030),PrincipalCircleNodalOfficer,
Bihar&JharkhandofBhartiAirtelLtd.,wasexaminedtoprovethe
CDRsofmobileno.9934610679oftheA1,toprovehiscaseofalibi
thathewasathisvillageandnotinMumbaifrom9to12/07/06.
306.
medicaldirectorofSabuSiddiquiHospital,wasexaminedtoprove
biometricattendancerecord,originalcasepapersandsalaryregister
oftheA2,toshowthatA2wasworkinginthehospitalfrom8to
11/07/06. Dr. Aminuddin Abul Hasan Khan, (DW7)(Ext.2945),
medicaladministratorofthesamehospital,wasexaminedtoprove
theattendanceofA2inthehospitalinJuly,2006andnotingofthe
A2 on the case papers of the patients. Dr. Jafar Imamkha Tadvi,
(DW28)(Ext.3105),whowasCMOof St.GeorgeHospitalduring
theyear2006,wasexaminedtoprovethemedicalexaminationof
theA2on11/11/06.
307.
Mohd.SajidMohd.Shafi,(DW23)(Ext.3081),brotherofthe
A5,wasexaminedtoprovethecaseofalibioftheA5thathewasin
Kolkatafrom08/07/06to12/07/06.
308.
ShaikhHazratAli,(DW4)(Ext.2928),brotheroftheA6was
309.
BilalAbdulJamalKadiwala,(DW8)(Ext.2984),wasexamined
JudgementMCOC21/06
..300..
Ext.4825
310.
311.
attachedtoAntiCorruptionbureauwasexaminedwithrespectto
the complaint under the Prevention of Corruption Act against PI
Khanvilkar, PW168. Dattaram Ramchandra Shinde, (DW17)(Ext.
3055),Sr.OfficeSuperintendentintheofficeofDirectorGeneralof
Police, Mumbai was examined in respect of biodata of PI
Khanvilkar,PW168.
312.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..301..
Ext.4825
313.
AbdulHafeez,(DW13)(Ext.3012),journalistsintheTimesofIndia,
wereexaminedtoprovecertainnewsitems.
314.
315.
Sr.PIDeepakNathuDhole,(DW15)(Ext.3046),attachedto
AzadMaidanPoliceStation,Dr.RavindraNagiramChavan,(DW19)
(Ext.3068),PINishikantBapusahebPatil,(DW20)(Ext.3070),Sr.PI
Chandrakant Anant Thakur, (DW21)(Ext.3073), DCP Bansidhar
Nawal Shirsath, (DW22)(Ext.3078) and PI Kaniram Hari Pawar,
(DW25)(Ext.3085), attached to Park Site Police Station, were
examinedtoprovethedocumentsissuedbythemundertheRTIAct.
316.
Sevennodalofficersandinformationtechnologyofficersof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..302..
Ext.4825
317.
318.
DCPSanjeevKumarYadav,(DW50)(Ext.4319),wasexamined
319.
Thoughtheaccusedhadstatedduringtheirstatementsunder
JudgementMCOC21/06
..303..
Ext.4825
320.
Accusedwentonproducingseveraldocumentsfromtimeto
timeandevenatthetimeoffilingtheirwrittensubmissionswith
theirstatementsundersection313oftheCr.P.C.andsubsequently.
Thedocumentswillbereferredtoanddiscussedattheappropriate
place.
321.
examinedinviewoftheorderoftheHighCourtdtd.19/09/13in
CriminalAppealNo.451of2013.
322.
4312),wasexaminedasacourtwitnessaspertheorderoftheHigh
Courtdtd.10/12/12inCriminalAppealsNo.973and992of2012.
CertifiedtruecopyofhisaffidavitExt.4313,thathehadfiledinthe
saidappealsintheHighCourt,wasreceivedinevidenceduringhis
examinationbythecourt.
323.
29/08/13thatoneoftheinjuredwitnessesbynameAmitDinesh
Singh,whowastakingtreatmentintheJaslokHospital,hadexpired
on03/05/13.HewasinjuredinthebombblastforwhichtheFIR
was registered with Vasai Road Police Station. By the said
application, the prosecution prayed for permission to produce a
death summary issued by the Jaslok Hospital. Advocate for the
accusedwerecalledtogivesayandlearnedadvocatefortheA1,A3,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..304..
Ext.4825
A8,A9,A11andA12gavenoobjectionforadmittingthedocuments
onrecord.However,learnedadvocatefortheA2,A6,A7,A10and
A13 objected. Advocate for the A4 and A5 did not give any say.
Subsequently, by the application dtd. 05/09/13 Ext. 4329 the
prosecutionprayedfortakingonrecordthedeathcertificateofthe
saidvictimAmitD.Singh.Advocatesforthe accusedwerecalled
upontogivesay,buttheydidnotgivesay.Inanycase,sincethe
deathcertificateisapublicdocument,itwillhavetobereceivedin
evidence.ItisaccordinglyreceivedinevidenceandmarkedasExt.
4731atthetimeofjudgement.Consequently,thedocumentssought
to be produced by the application Ext.4327 described supra, are
formaldocumentsinconnectionwiththedeathofthesaidinjured,
whosenameisatsr.no.14inTableNo.14supra,whichisthelistof
theinjuredintheblastatMiraRoadforwhichC.R.No.59of2006
of Vasai Road Railway Police Station was registered. Hence, the
office copy of the letter given by the ACP, ATS, Mumbai dtd.
26/08/13andthedeathsummaryissuedbytheteamofofficialsand
consultantsoftheJaslokHospitalarereceivedinevidenceatthe
timeofjudgementandmarkedasExts.4732and4733respectively.
Thus,nowthereare188personswhowerekilledand828persons
whowereinjuredinthebombexplosions.
324.
Ontheaboveallegationsoftheprosecution,ontheevidence
ledbytheprosecutionandtheaccusedandonhearingbothsides,
following points arise for my determination and I answer them
accordinglyforthereasonsdiscussedbelow:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..305..
POINTS
Ext.4825
FINDINGS
1.Hastheprosecutionprovedthatthere Yesproved.
were bomb explosions in the firstclass
bogiesofsevenwesternrailwaysuburban
trains in Mumbai between 6.23 to 6.28
p.m.on11/07/06?
2.Hasitprovedthatexplosiveswereused Yesproved.
tocausethebombexplosions?
3.Hasitprovedthat187+1,total188 It is proved that 188 persons
personswerekilledand8291total828 were killed and 760 persons
persons were injured in the bomb wereinjured.
explosions?
4.Hasitprovedthattherewasdamageto Yesproved.
or destruction of public and railway
propertybecauseofthebombexplosions?
5.Hasitprovedthatthebombexplosions Yesproved.
amounttoconspiringtowagewaragainst
theGovernmentofIndiaorattemptingto
wagesuchawarorabettingthewaging
ofsuchwarortooverawe,bymeansof
force or the show of criminal force, the
GovernmentofIndiaortheGovernment
ofMaharashtraandisaterroristactand
anactofpromotinginsurgency?
JudgementMCOC21/06
..306..
Ext.4825
6.HasitprovedthatA2,A3,A4,A6,A7, YesprovedagainstA2,A3,A4,
A8, A9, A10, A11 and A13 and wanted A6,A7,A9,A10,A11andA13
accusedno.2and3aremembersofan andwantedaccusedno.2and
unlawfulassociation?
3.
7. Has it proved that all the thirteen Yes proved, except against the
accusedfacingthetrialalongwithfifteen A8.
wanted accused and two deceased
accusedaremembersofaterroristgang
ororganisation?
8.HasitprovedthattheA1toA13are Yes proved, except against the
members of an organised crime A8.
syndicate?
9.Hasitprovedthattheyconspiredand Yes proved, except against the
causedthebombexplosions?
A8.
10. Has it proved that the A1 to A13 Yes proved, except against the
alongwith fifteen wanted accused and A8.
two deceased accused committed an
organisedcrime?
11. Has it proved that all the thirteen Yes proved, except against the
accusedfacingthetrialalongwithfifteen A8.
wanted accused and two deceased
accused conspired, abetted and did any
preparatory act for committing an
organisedcrimeorterroristact?
12.HasitprovedthatA1,A3,A4,A5,A7, It is proved that the A3
JudgementMCOC21/06
..307..
Ext.4825
no.1and2inhishouse.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..308..
Ext.4825
IndiaortheGovernmentofMaharashtra?
16.Hasitprovedthattheycollectedmen Yes proved, except against the
andammunitionorotherwisepreparedto A8.
wage war with the intention of either
waging or being prepared to wage war
againsttheGovernmentofIndia?
17.Hasitprovedthattheyconcealedthe Yes proved, except against the
existenceofadesigntowagewaragainst A8.
the Government of India, intending by
suchconcealmenttofacilitateorknowing
ittobelikelythatsuchconcealmentwill
facilitatethewagingofsuchwar?
18.HasitprovedthatA2,A3,A4,A6,A7, Notproved.
A8, A9, A10, A11 and A13 alongwith
wanted accused no. 2 and 6 by words,
either spoken or written, or by signs or
visible representation or otherwise,
broughtorattemptedtobringintohatred
or contempt or excited or attempted to
excite dissatisfaction towards the
GovernmentestablishedbylawinIndia?
19. Has it proved that A3, A7 and A13 Yesproved.
knowingorhavingreasontobelievethat
an offence has been committed caused
evidence of the commission of that
offencetodisappearwiththeintentionof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..309..
Ext.4825
A8.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..310..
personstocommitaterroristact?
24. Has it proved that A1, A3, A4, A12 Yesproved.
andA13alongwithwantedaccusedno.6
to9,11and12anddeceasedaccusedno.
1and2possessed,usedandtransported
explosives in contravention of the rules
madeundersection5ofthe Explosives
Act,1884?
25.HasitprovedthattheA2possessed Yesproved.
explosives in contravention of the rules
madeundersection5ofthe Explosives
Act,1884?
26.HasitprovedthattheA1wasfound Yesproved.
in possession of explosive substance for
anunlawfulobject?
27. Has it proved that the A1, A3, A4, Yesproved.
A12andA13alongwithwantedaccused
no. 6 to 9, 11 and 12 and deceased
accusedno.1and2causedexplosionsby
explosive substance, likely to endanger
lifeortocausesevereinjurytoproperty?
28. Has it proved that A1, A2, A3, A6, Yesproved.
A12andA13alongwithwantedaccused
no.5werepossessingexplosivesubstance
foranunlawfulobject?
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..311..
Ext.4825
29.HasitprovedthatA3,A6,A7,A8and Yesproved.
A13 supplied money or provided
premises, supplied material or in any
mannerwhatsoever,procured,counseled,
aided and abetted or were accessory to
thecommissionofanyoffenceunderthe
ExplosiveSubstancesAct,1908?
30. Has it proved that A1, A3, A4, A12 Yesproved.
andA13alongwithwantedaccusedno.6
to9,11and12anddeceasedaccusedno.
1and2committedmischiefbydamaging
and destroying public property by
explosivesubstance?
31.Hasitprovedthattheaboveaccused Yesproved.
damaged and destroyed property of the
railway by explosive substance with the
intentiontodosoknowingitlikelythat
theycandoso?
32. Has it proved that they endangered Yesproved.
the safety of persons travelling on
railways by causing explosions by
explosivesubstance?
33.HasitprovedthatA3andA6failedto Notproved.
producetheirpassportsforinspection?
34. Has it proved that all the accused Yes proved, except against the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..312..
Ext.4825
REASONS
Pointsno.1to3:
325.
Thesethreepointsaretakentogetherasthefactsrelevantto
provethemareinterlinked.Thereisnodisputefromthesideofthe
defence about the happening of the bomb explosions, about
explosivesbeingusedforcausingthebombexplosionsandaboutthe
numberofpersonswhowerekilledandinjuredinthem.However,
thediscussionoftheevidenceledbytheprosecutiontoprovethisis
necessary in view of its relevancy to the subsequent evidence
collectedagainsttheaccusedandthemaindefenceoftheaccused
thattheyarefalselyimplicated.
326.
Itisalsonecessarytoconsidertheevidenceoftheprosecution
crimewise,i.e.,theinitialinvestigationbytheofficersoftherailway
policestationsinrespectofthecrimesregisteredattheirrespective
railway police stations, because the bomb blasts had taken place
withinthejurisdictionoftheirrailwaypolicestations.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..313..
Ext.4825
prosecutionasisnarratedinparagraphs6and7ofthejudgementin
respectofhowhecametoknowabouttherebeingabombblastina
localtrainnearMatungaRailwayStationandthefurtherstepsthat
he took. Major part of his evidence in examinationinchief was
broughtonrecordduringhiscrossexaminationasomissiontostate
inhisstatementrecordedbyACPPatil,PW186.However,itcannot
becalledasanomissionashehasstatedinhischiefexamination
itself that he gave a brief statement to ACP Patil, PW186. Even
otherwise,heisaninvestigatingofficerandhehadhandedoverthe
papers of investigation alongwith the case diaries to ACP Patil,
PW186,aftertheapplicationoftheMCOCAct,andthecasediary
andthepapersofinvestigationmusthaverevealedtheinvestigation
thathehaddone.Thesaidomissionswerebroughtonrecordby
learnedadvocateWahabKhan,butthereisnosuggestionattheend
toSr.PIRathod,PW176,thathehadnotdonethatinvestigation.It
hascomeinhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateRasal,forA1
andA4toA6thatPIRathod,PW176,didnotmakeanyinquirywith
PCJadhav,whohadinformedhimontelephoneabouttheblastand
whomhemetwhenhewenttothespot.Heansweredthathedid
notfeelitnecessarytoinquirewithPCJadhavbeforehemetthe
informant.ItisarguedthatPCJadhavwasnotexamined,butthe
fact remains that the happening of the bomb blast at Matunga
RailwayStationisnotdisputed.
JudgementMCOC21/06
328.
..314..
Ext.4825
TheinformantSachinkumarSingh,PW4,gaveevidenceabout
theincidentasdescribedinhisFIRandprovedthecontentsofthe
FIR,Ext.424,givenbyhimwhichcorroborateshistestimony.There
is nothing in his crossexamination to discredit his version and
duringhiscrossexamination bylearnedadvocateP.L.Shetty,the
position stated by him in his examinationinchief that the train
stopped just in front of the platforms of the Matunga Railway
Stationandhadnotcrossedit,isconfirmed.Heisaformalwitness
and the arguments of learned advocate Shetty that he has not
explainedthepositionofthebogieandtheimpactonthebogiedoes
notdiscredithisversioninrespectoftheoccurrenceofbombblastin
histrain.
329.
panchanamaofthespot,Ext.441,withthehelpofpanchwitnesses,
PrithvirajsinghChauhan,PW12,andonemore,afterinspectingthe
blastsiteandhedescribedwhathesawandthetypeofarticlesthat
heseizedunderthesaidpanchanama.Thispanchanamaisadmitted
bythedefence.Thereisnocrossexaminationtothepanchwitness
inrespectoftheactualpositiondescribedinthesaidpanchanama.It
isonlybroughtoutinhiscrossexaminationthattherewererains
aftertheblast,whichweregoingonforsometime,thattherewas
darknessatthecoachwheretheblasttookplace,thatitwasraining
atthetimeofpanchanama,thattheroofofthecoachwasopen,that
rainwaterwasfallinginsidethecoachandwaterwasflowingoutof
thecoach.Hedeniedthesuggestionthathedidnotgotothespotas
a panch witness, that nothing happened in his presence, that
JudgementMCOC21/06
..315..
Ext.4825
contentsofthepanchanamawerewrittenseparatelyandhesigned
lateronandhedeposedfalselytopleasethepoliceofficers.
330.
Thepreparationofthepanchanama,Ext.441,bySr.PIRathod,
PW176,isnotdisputed,butduringhiscrossexamination,learned
advocate Shetty tried to point out certain shortcomings like not
measuring the length and width of the bogie, which door of the
bogiewaslyingatwhatdistancefromthebogie,thespotwhereit
waslying,thelocationsofthesixfansthathadfallendowninthe
bogie and most important of all not noting the diameter of the
blown up portion of the roof,its distance from the northern and
southernendsofthebogie,etc.However,allthesethingshavebeen
pointed out in connection with the evidence of the so called
eyewitnesses, who were examined subsequently. Insofar as the
conditionofthebogieasisdescribedinthepanchanama,Ext.441,
thereisnodispute.
331.
OnthedirectionofSr.PIRathod,PW176,Daundkar,PW189,
AssistantChemicalAnalyzer,FSL,Kalina,Mumbaicametothespot
withhisstaffatabout2.00a.m.on12/07/06andcollectedcertain
articles from the bogie as described in paragraph 11 of the
judgement.Daundkar,PW189,was notexaminedbyprosecution,
but was called for crossexamination as per the order below the
applicationExt.2817filedbythedefenceanditisduringhiscross
examinationthathestatedaboutvisitingthespotsoftheblastsat
MatungaaswellasMahimRailwayStations,observingthedamaged
portionsoftheparticularbogie,collectingsomecottonswabsofthe
blackening on the ceiling, handles and rods of the bogie and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..316..
Ext.4825
collectingwhateverthingshefeltnecessaryfromthespotsandof
having collected four articles from the Matunga site. It is in his
crossexaminationthathedidnotsubmitanyreportinwritingtohis
departmentabouthisvisitbecauseheonlyhelpedthepoliceofficers
tocollecttheproperscientificevidence.Ithasalsocomeinhiscross
examinationthathetoldthepoliceofficerstotaketheprecautions
toavoidcontaminationofthesamplesbykeepingtheminpolythene
bags and stapling the bags and that he did not give any specific
instructionsabouttransportingandstoringthesamplesastheywere
separately collected in separate polythene bags. Sr. PI Rathod,
PW176, and panch witness Prithvirajsingh Chauhan, PW12,
identifiedallthearticles.Thesearticleswerepiecesofburntcloth,
plastic bag,rexine pieces,etc. They were kept in separate plastic
bags, wrapped in khaki papers, labelled and the envelopes were
sealed.Allthesearticleswereseizedunderthepanchanama,Ext.
443,thecontentsofwhichareprovedbySr.PI,Rathod,PW176,
andthepanchwitness,PrithvirajsinghChauhan,PW12,andwhich
corroborate their testimony. There is nothing in the cross
examinationofthepanchwitnessinrespectofthecollectionofthe
articlesno.16to19,21to23,25&26and29&30.
332.
truecopiesofstationdiaryentries,Exts.1860to1863,inrespectof
receivingtheknowledgeaboutthebombblast,heandhisstaffgoing
tothespot,hesendingtheinformationgivenbySachinkumarSingh,
PW4, he preparing the panchanamas, Exts. 441 & 443 and
collectingthearticlesfromthespot.
JudgementMCOC21/06
333.
..317..
Ext.4825
Chauhan,PW12,identifiedallthearticlesandtheyhavenotbeen
crossexaminedaboutit.Thesearticlescorrespondwiththearticles
describedinthepanchanamaExt.443,whereintheyaredescribedas
beingpackedinfourpackets.IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PI
Rathod,PW176,thathesentthesearticlestotheFSLalongwithPC
Kamble, alongwith his forwarding letter Ext.660. His evidence is
corroborated by the evidence of PN Kamble, PW54. It is in his
evidencethathewasgivenfoursealedpackets,aletteranditsoffice
copy,Ext.660,andhewenttotheFSL,Kalinaandhandedoverthe
parcels and obtained an acknowledgment. Ext.660 shows
acknowledgment of the receiving clerk dtd. 13/07/06. His cross
examinationhasnotdiscreditedhisversionandhisevidenceabout
carrying the parcels to the FSL is not controverted though he
admittedthathisbucklenumberisnotmentionedintheletter,that
hedidnotinitialanyletterthatwasgiventohimandthatitisnot
mentionedintheletterthattheparcelsweregiveninhispossession.
Infact,ithascomeinhisevidencethatSr.PIRathod,PW176,gave
himaletterandhetooktheparcelsfromthemuddemalclerk.
334.
ThecontentsoftheFSLreportExt.2000describethearticles
inthefoursealedpacketsaspartlyburntanddamagedclothpieces,
wooden pieces, partly burnt and damaged cloth pieces, wooden
pieces, partly burnt blackened thermocol pieces, metallic wires,
metal pieces, paper pieces and debris, damaged and blackened
plasticpaperpieces,cottonswabs(acetoneandwaterswabs),which
correspond to the articles described in Ext.443. The result of the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..318..
Ext.4825
analysisisrelevanttonote.TheAssistantChemicalAnalyzerfound
that Cyclonite (RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and Petroleum
HydrocarbonOilweredetectedinthepostexplosiondebrisinallthe
foursealedpackets.HehasputanotebelowthatRDXisusedasa
highexplosive.Thisevidenceisunchallenged.
335.
PW89,asasamplecase.Hewasinjuredinthisblastandhiscross
examinationhasnotdiscreditedhisversionabouthavingtravelled
inthesaidtraingoingtoVirarontheallegeddateandtimeand
there being a blast at Matunga and he sustaining injuries as
describedbyhim.Heproducedhisoriginalcertificateofdischarge,
Ext.894,whichwasadmittedinevidenceasthelearnedadvocates
fortheaccusedconsented.Itscontentscorroboratehisversionabout
sustaininginjurytohisstomach,whichisdescribedasapenetrating
defect15cmx15cminleftanteriorabdominalwallwithpouting
bowel with perforation and other injuries. A portion from his
statementwasconfrontedtohimandmarkedasanimprovement,
butitwasnotproved.Onemoreomissionwasbroughtonrecord,
butitisminoranditdoesnotaffecthisevidence.
336.
Prosecutionfiledaffidavitsof55injuredpersonsinthiscrime
JudgementMCOC21/06
..319..
Ext.4825
337.
PW84,asasamplecasetoprovethenatureofinjuriessustainedby
the personswhohadbeen killedinthe blast.Ithas comein the
evidenceofboththesewitnessesthattheyhadreceivedmanydead
bodiesinthenightof11/07/06inconnectionwiththebombblasts
in the western railways to determine the cause of death and on
consultation with the police surgeon, it was decided that post
mortemofallthedeadbodiesisnotpossibleandtheywilldoonly
sample postmortem examination of two dead bodies. Both these
witnesses proved the memorandum of postmortem examinations,
Exts.854and856,inrespectofNitinSukhlalPatilandShojiram
ModulalMeena.Dr.Balsara,PW83,describedindetailtheexternal
and internal injuries that he found and the contents of the
memorandum of the postmortem examination corroborate his
version.Thedescriptionoftheinjuriesisnecessaryandrelevantin
order to appreciate the allegations of the prosecution about the
happeningofthebombblasts.Ithascomeinhisevidencethaton
external examination alongwith the other injuries, he found
blackish,minutegeneralizedfinepowdertattooingallovertheface,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..320..
Ext.4825
anteriorpartofthoraxandfrontofrightsideoftheabdomenand
deformity at the upper side of right arm, surface wounds like
multiple circular puncturedwounds on various parts of the body.
Multipleverysmallpowderedtattooingofupper,frontofboththe
legs.Ithascomeinhisevidencethattheblackishpowderbywhich
there was tattooing all over the body is a peculiarity of post
explosiveresidueofNitrite,whichwasalsoconfirmedbythereports
oftheFSL.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatfragmentsofshrapnel,
pieces of burnt/partially burnt explosive material and blood for
groupingwererecoveredfromthedeadbodyofNitinSukhlalPatil
formetallurgicalandchemicalanalysisandsenttotheFSL,Kalina
foranalysisalongwithhisforwardingletters,Exts.848and850,in
connectionwithwhichthehospitalreceivedtheFSLreports,Exts.
851and853.Heidentifiedthepiecesofshrapnel,Arts.313(colly)
and pieces of burnt/partially burnt explosive material, Arts. 314
(colly).Ithascomeinhisevidencethatarticleswererecoveredand
preservedformetallurgicalandchemicalanalysisfromthebodyof
ShojiramModulalMeenaandsenttotheFSL,Kalinaalongwiththe
forwardingletters,Exts.857to859,inrespectofwhichthereports
ofFSL,Exts.860to862,werereceived.Heidentifiedthepiecesof
shrapnel, Arts. 315 (colly) and pieces of burnt/partially burnt
explosivematerial,Arts.316(colly).
338.
IthascomeintheevidenceofHCJadhav,PW90,thathetook
thesamplebottlesfromtheSionHospitalconcerningthetwodead
bodies,alongwiththeforwardingletters,officecopiesofwhichare
atExts.898and897respectively.Thecontentsofthesetwoletters
JudgementMCOC21/06
..321..
Ext.4825
areprovedbySr.PIRathod,PW176.Thusbythesetwocovering
lettersthearticlesweresentalongwiththeforwardingletterssentby
Dr.Balsara,PW83,Exts.848to850and857&858.HCJadhav,
PW90's evidence was sought to be discredited during his cross
examinationbypointingoutthatthesealimpressionsoftheirpolice
stationarenotappearingonExts.897to899.However,hehasgiven
aproperexplanationthatifthesealimpressionisofthehospital,
thenthereisnoquestionofputtingthesealimpressionofthepolice
stationontheforwardingletters.Hedeniedthesuggestiongivenat
theendthathehadnottakenanyarticlesfromthepolicestationto
the FSL, Kalina and no arguments have been advanced in this
respect.InthisrespectDr.Balsara,PW83,wasalsocrossexamined
andheadmittedthattheofficecopiesofhisforwardinglettersdo
nothavetheimpressionoftheseal,butexplainedthattheyareon
original letters. This evidence in crossexamination has not been
controverted.Exts.848to850and857&859,whicharetheoffice
copiesofthe forwardingletterssentbyDr.Balsara,PW83,show
that the samples and the originals of the letters were taken in
custodybyaPCandinthespaceinrespectofcopyofimpressionof
seal,theentiredescriptionofthearticlesrecoveredfromthedead
bodies, the identification of the dead body, ADR number, post
mortemnumberandnamesofdoctorsarementioned.
339.
Theresultofanalysisofthearticlesrecoveredfromthetwo
deadbodiesasdescribedintheFSLreportisrelevant.Thecontents
of the FSL reports Exts. 851 and 852 in respect of splinters and
blackish mass pertaining to the dead body of Nitin Sukhlal Patil
JudgementMCOC21/06
..322..
Ext.4825
showthattheNitrite(postexplosiveresidue)weredetectedinthe
exhibits.SameisthecaseinrespectoftheFSLreports,Exts.860
and861,inrespectofsimilararticlespertainingtothedeadbodyof
ShojiramModulalMeena.
340.
IthasalsocomeintheevidenceofDr.Vaz,PW84,thathe,Dr.
Balsara, PW83, and Dr. Kadam had examined all the remaining
deadbodiesandhadissueddeathcertificates,thecontentsofwhich
heprovedandaboutwhichthereisnodisputefromthesideofthe
defence.Ithascomeinhisevidencethattheyhadascertainedthe
causeofdeathafterthoroughexternalexaminationandonfinding
moreorlesssimilartypeofinjuries.Thereisnocrossexaminationto
him.
341.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thata
deadbodyinthisblastwasunclaimed,thatitconsistedofonlythe
chestandheadportion,butthefacewastornanddisfigured.Dr.
MukeshGhuge,PW112,provedthecontentsofthememorandumof
postmortemexamination,Ext.1165,conductedonthisunidentified
unknownbody.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatthecauseofdeathof
all 15 bodies about whom he conducted postmortem was shock
following multiple injuries in a case of bomb blast. There is
considerable dispute about police fixing the identity of this dead
bodyasthatofoneSalim,aPakistaninational.Itwillbediscussed
subsequently, but the fact remains that on the date of the post
mortem,i.e.,on13/07/06,thesaidbodywasunidentified.
342.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thathe
requestedtheDeanofSionHospitalbyaletter,officecopyofwhich
JudgementMCOC21/06
..323..
Ext.4825
isatExt.1172,toreconstructthefaceofthesaidunidentifieddead
bodyandtopreservethetissues/partsofthebodyforDNAtest,that
accordinglythedoctorsreconstructedthefaceofthatperson,gave
himaCD,whichwassenttotheCFSL,Chandigarhforverifyingits
correctness and reports, Exts. 1927 and 1928, were received
confirmingthatthereconstructionwas80%correct.Ithasalsocome
inhisevidencethathehadsentthetissues/partsofthesaiddead
bodytotheFSL,KalinaforDNAprofile,byaletter,officecopyof
whichisatExt.1929,andthenreceivedthereport,Ext.1930.
343.
Prosecutionhasprovedthecontentsofthememorandumof
344.
Theprosecutionhasprovedthecontentsofinjurycertificate,
Ext.839,ofoneinjuredandthecontentsoftheremainingmedico
legal certificates of injuries sustained by remaining injured as
mentionedinTableNo.2supraarenotdisputedbydefence.
345.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedthattherewasabombexplosioninthefirst
classbogieno.864Aoftrainno.645DNVirarfaston11/07/06at
1824hoursatMatungaRailwayStation.Theresultsofanalysisof
thearticlesthatwerefoundatthespotaswellasthearticlesthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..324..
Ext.4825
werecollectedfromthebodiesofthedeceasedprovethatexplosives
wereusedtocausethebombexplosions.Thisisalsoprovedbythe
evidenceofthemedicalofficers,whohavecategoricallyopinedthat
the blackish minute tattooing all over the face and body is a
peculiarity of postexplosive residue of Nitrite. The kinds of
explosives that were used is specifically found by the Chemical
Analyzer, viz., Cyclonite(RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Oil. The memorandums of postmortem
examinationsandtheinjurycertificatesprovethat28personswere
killedand110personswereinjuredinthebombexplosionthattook
placeatMatungaRailwayStation.
PIGodbole,PW140,gaveevidenceasnarratedinparagraph
12supraanddescribedwhathesawwhenhereachedthespotof
the blast at Mahim Railway Station, about seeing blood on the
groundbelowthebogieinwhichtheblasthadtakenplace,poolsof
blood,blood,piecesofglassinthebogieno.528A,theglassofthe
windows, benches, fans and tube lights to be broken, the front
portionofthebogiebeingseverelydamaged,comingtoknowthat
theblasthadtakenplacewhenthetrainhadstartedfromplatform
no.3,therefore,goingtothesaidplatformandseeingapitcreated
ontheplatforminfrontofpoleno.12/17andpiecesofthecement
sheetoftheroofhavingfallenthere.Hedeposedaboutrecording
theFIRofGirishchandraChaurasiya,PW5,whoprovedthecontents
ofhisFIR,Ext.426,whichcorroboratehisversion.Thereisnocross
JudgementMCOC21/06
..325..
Ext.4825
examinationtoGirishchandraChaurasiya,PW5.
347.
PW5,thatheheardaloudexplosionwhenhewasjustenteringthe
MahimRailwayStationandhewenttothefourthcoach,whichwas
offirstclass.Hesawmanybodiesofpersonsoutsideandthecoach
blownapartonthewestside,smokeinthecoachandallfixturesin
thecoachbended.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatthetinsheetsof
the root of the platform had also broken. There is no cross
examinationtohim.
348.
InhascomeintheevidenceofPIGodbole,PW140,thatafter
gettingthecrimenumberfromthepolicestation,hepreparedthe
panchanama of spot Ext.525, in the presence of panch witnesses
Hemant Satarde, PW29, and one more and at the same time
Daundkar,PW189,andhis stafffromtheCFSL,Kalina,whohad
reachedthere,collectedswabsofsoot,piecesofdebris,halfburnt
piecesofclothesandironstripsofthebenchesandgavethesefive
articlestohimwhichhelabelledandsealedandhealsocollected
twelve articles from the spot. He proved the contents of the
panchanama Ext. 525 and his evidence is corroborated by the
evidenceofpanchwitness,HemantSatarde,PW29.Thecontentsof
the said panchanama Ext. 525 corroborate the testimony of both
thesewitnesses.Bothofthemhaveidentifiedthefivearticlesthat
were collected from the spot by the FSL personnel and also the
twelve articles that were collected by PI Godbole, PW140. The
articlescollectedbytheFSLwerecottonswabs,Arts.117and118(1
& 2), burnt pieces of assorted articles, Art.119(colly), half burnt
JudgementMCOC21/06
..326..
Ext.4825
piecesofcloth,chain,sponge,paper,glassandmud,etc.,Art.120
(colly), bundle of half burnt pieces of clothes, Art. 121 and four
aluminumstrips,Art.122(1to4).
349.
350.
PIGodbole,PW140,wascrossexaminedfirstlyinrespectof
themovementofbrasssealofthepolicestationoutsidethepolice
stationandsomeregisterthatisrequiredtobemaintainedaboutit
and about taking entry in the muddemal register after the
muddemalisdepositedinthemuddemalroom.Headmittedinhis
crossexamination that he did not collect the schedule of the
timetableofthetrainanddeniedthesuggestionthathedidnotdo
alltheactsasdeposedbyhiminconnectionwithheseizingany
articlesfromthespotortheFSLofficershandingoverarticlestohim
JudgementMCOC21/06
..327..
Ext.4825
orhesendingthearticlestoFSL.Hewascrossexaminedatlengthin
respectoftheactualdescriptionofthedamageandhegavespecific
answers narrating what he had seen. Major part of his cross
examinationisinrespectofsomeshortcomingsinpreparationofthe
panchanamalikehenotmeasuringthediameteroftheroofsthat
wereblownupinbothbogies,henottakingmeasurementsinside
the bogies to pinpoint the spot of impact, he not measuring the
length of blown up portion in both the bogies, he not taking
photographsofthepitandtheportionoftheroofontheplatform
andnotmeasuringthelengthofthebogiefrominsideandoutside,
etc.Thefactremainsthatthefactualpositionofthedamageofthe
bogieandoftheplatformthathedescribedinthespotpanchanama
isnotaffectedornotcontrovertedbythecrossexaminationandhe
wasveryspecificingivingalltheanswersinrespectoftheparticular
placeswherethedamagewascaused.
351.
Itwasanattemptfromthesideofthedefencetoshowthathe
couldhavepinpointedthelocationwheretheexplosiveshadbeen
keptinboththebogiesonthebasisoftheinspectionthathemade,
butheturneddownthissuggestion.Ontheotherhand,hepositively
statedthatafterlookingatthepitandthedamagedportionofthe
roofaboveit,hethoughtthattheblasthadtakenplaceinthebogie
atthatspotandnotatthespotofthepit.Hegaveagoodreasonfor
hehavingthoughtso,viz.,becausetheextentofthedamageonthe
westernsideoftheaffectedbogiewasquitelarge.Theonlyomission
that is brought on record is that it is not mentioned in the
panchanama Ext.525 that he packed and sealed the five articles
JudgementMCOC21/06
..328..
Ext.4825
givenbytheFSLpeopleatthespot.Heexplainedthatitremainedto
bewritteninadvertently.Hedeniedthesuggestionthathehadnot
packedandsealedthearticlesandthereforeitisnotwritteninthe
panchanama.However,thefactremainsthatthereportoftheFSL,
Ext.1561,inrespectofthesaidfivearticlesshowthedescriptionof
theparcelsasfivesealedparcelsandsealsinintactcondition.
352.
Ithascomeinhisevidencethathesentthesaidfivearticlesto
theFSL,KalinabyalettersignedbySr.PIRathod,PW176,office
copyofwhichisatExt.906,thecontentsofwhichwereprovedby
Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, and which corroborate the version of PI
Godbole,PW140.Ext.906bearstheacknowledgmentoftheinward
clerkoftheFSLofficesayingthatfivesealedpacketsarereceived.It
alsobearsthesealimpressionofthepolicestation.
353.
IthascomeintheevidenceofHCJadhav,PW90,thathehad
takenthesaidfivesealedparcelstotheFSL,Kalinaalongwiththe
original of this letter, Ext.906. His evidence on this point is not
controvertedfromthesideofthedefence.Theresultoftheanalysis
in the FSL report Ext.1561, in respect of the articles in the five
sealed parcels shows that Cyclonite(RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate,
Nitrite and Petroleum Hydrocarbon Oil were detected in the post
explosiondebrisinallofthemandanotegivenattheendthatRDX
isusedahighexplosive.
354.
witnesses in respect of the blast and the injuries that they had
sustained.KamleshRajbhar,PW25,isratheranunfortunateperson,
becausehewasnottravellinginthesaidtrainatthattime,butwas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..329..
Ext.4825
355.
TheevidenceofDr.Balsara,PW83,Dr.Vaz,PW84andDr.
Ghuge,PW112,isalsorelevantaswiththehelpoftheirevidence
theprosecutionhasprovedmostofthememorandumsofthe post
JudgementMCOC21/06
..330..
Ext.4825
mortemexaminationsanddeathcertificatesofthepersonskilledin
thisblast.ItisalsorelevantinsofarastheopinionbyDr.Balsara,
PW83, that the blackish powder by which there was minute
tattooingalloverthefaceandbody,isapeculiarityofpostexplosive
residueofNitrite,whichwasconfirmedbythereportsoftheFSL.
356.
IthascomeintheevidenceofPIGodbole,PW140,thathe
had sent two metal pieces, one recovered from the body of an
injured,i.e.,LaljiPande,PW85,andthevisceraofdeceasedJogarao
MantriPragada,alongwith HCJadhav,PW90,for the purpose of
chemicalexaminationalongwithhisforwardingletters,officecopies
ofwhichareatExts.899and902,contentsofwhichheprovedand
whichcorroboratehisversion.HCJadhav,PW90,corroboratedhis
version and it has come in his evidence that he had taken three
sealedbottlesreceivedfromSionHospitalfromhispolicestationto
theFSL,Kalinaon11/08/06alongwiththeforwardinglettersExts.
899and902,whichcontainhisnameandbucklenumber.During
hisevidencethelettersissuedbySionHospitalExts.903and905
were received in evidence. Both describe that sealed bottles in
respect of Jogarao Mantri Pragada and Lalji Pande, PW85, were
beingsenttotheSr.PIofMumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStationfor
beingforwardedtothechemicalanalyzer.Exts.903and905contain
theacknowledgmentoftheinwardclerkoftheFSLofficeofhaving
receivedthesealedbottles.
357.
ThecontentsofthetwoFSLreportsExts.1563and1562in
connection with the two metal pieces, one found in the body of
JogaraoMantriPragadaandonerecoveredfromthebodyofinjured
JudgementMCOC21/06
..331..
Ext.4825
LaljiPande,PW85,showtheresultofanalysisthattracesofNitrite
(postexplosionresidue)wasdetectedontheexhibits.
358.
certificates,Exts.875,876and877,whichwereissuedandsigned
byhimandthedeathcertificates,Exts.879to881,issuedbyDr.
Kadam, who was working with him in respect of six, out of 43
personskilledinthisblast.Deathcertificatesandmemorandumsof
postmortem examinationoftheremaining37personskilledinthe
blastasmentionedinTableNo.3supraandtheinjurycertificatesof
96personsinjuredintheblastasmentionedinTableNo.4supraare
not disputed by the defence. Thus prosecution has proved their
contents.
359.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedthattherewasabombexplosioninthefirst
classbogieno.0528Aoftrainno.641DNBorivalifaston11/07/06
at1823hoursatMahimRailwayStation.Theresultsofanalysisof
thearticlesthatwerefoundatthespotaswellasthearticlesthat
werecollectedfromthebodiesofthedeceasedprovethatexplosives
wereusedtocausethebombexplosions.Thisisalsoprovedbythe
evidenceofthemedicalofficers,whohavecategoricallyopinedthat
the blackish minute tattooing all over the face and body is a
peculiarity of postexplosive residue of Nitrite. The kinds of
explosives that were used is specifically found by the Chemical
Analyzer, viz., Cyclonite (RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Oil. The memorandums of postmortem
examinationsandtheinjurycertificatesprovethat43personswere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..332..
Ext.4825
killedand96personswereinjuredinthebombexplosionthattook
placeatMahimRailwayStation.
Sr.PIKadri,PW138,gaveevidenceasnarratedinparagraphs
17to19supra.Thesetwocrimesareinrespectoftwoblasts,one
thatoccurredneartheBandraRailwayStationinbetweenBandra
andKharRailwayStationsandthesecondthathadtakenplacein
betweenSantacruzandKharRailwayStations.Sr.PIKadri,PW138,
investigatedboththesecrimes.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathe
wasonhiswaytothepolicestationwhenhecametoknowabout
the blasts. Therefore, he immediately went to the railway station
andsawthetrainstandingontrackno.3.Hegaveinstructionsfor
taking the injured and bodies of the deceased to the Bhabha
Hospital.Hedescribedthedamagetothefirstclassbogiethathe
saw,viz.,roofblownup,seatsandwestsideluggageracksbroken,
tinofthefloorontheeasternsidepresseddownandpiecesofglass,
bloodofpassengers,bags,pursesandotherarticlesofpassengers
lyingonthefloor.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatoncomingto
know that a similar type of blast had taken place in between
SantacruzandKharRailwayStations,hewenttherebyjeepandsaw
that the affected train was standing on track no. 1 near the
SantacruzRailwayStationanditsfirstclassbogiewasdestroyedand
hesawsimilartypeofdamagetothebogieandsimilarpositionof
articles.Thisbogiewashavingsecondclassportionafterapartition
ofmesh.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathetooktheinformation
JudgementMCOC21/06
..333..
Ext.4825
361.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIKadri,PW138,thathe
tooktheinformantHemantTayde,PW3,tothespotnearBandra
RailwayStationandwiththehelpofpanchwitnesses,PappuGiri,
PW28,andonemorehepreparedpanchanamaofthespotExt.516,
contents of which were proved by him as well as by Pappu Giri,
PW28.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatheseizedpiecesofcloth
havingstrongsmellofchemical,piecesofsunmica,piecesofglass
andalsotookswabsofthebloodbycotton,Arts.113(colly).Ithas
alsocomeinhisevidencethatheseizedthreemetalpiecesthatwere
having strong smell of chemical, Arts.114(colly), under the
panchanama.Theevidenceofthepanchwitness,PappuGiri,PW28,
corroborateshisevidenceandbothhaveidentifiedthearticlesthat
werecollectedfromthespot.Thiswasdoneinrespectofthefirst
blastforwhichC.R.No.86/06wasregistered.
362.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIKadri,PW138,thathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..334..
Ext.4825
PW2, also described the damage that had been caused to the
affectedcoachlikewesternroofportionbeingblownoff,eastside
portionripped,westsidedoornotinplaceandtheeastsidedoor
ripped and protruding outside and a big hole in the roof, etc.
LearnedSPPsubmittedduringhisargumentsthatconsideringthe
factofexplosionandthedestructionofthepropertyandlifethat
wascaused,theinformantallegedatthetimeofgivingtheFIRitself
thatsomeunknownorganisationhadkeptbombsinthesaidbogies
ofthesaidtrainswiththeintentiontocreateterrorinthepublic,
causing big loss to the railway property, cause loss of life of
passengers and to destabilize the government and the bomb
explosionwasdonebyenteringintoaconspiracyandbydoingan
antinationalact.
363.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIKadri,PW138,thathe
took the same panchas to the second spot which was shown by
Nizamuddin Shaikh,PW2,andpreparedpanchanamaofthespot
Ext.517. It has come in his evidence that he collected pieces of
clothes of passengers having strong smell of chemical, pieces of
rexine,glass,ironandaluminum,Arts.115(colly)andsealedthem.
PappuGiri,PW28,corroboratedhisversion.Hewascrossexamined
atlength,butnothinghascomeoutfromhiscrossexaminationto
discredithisversioninrespectofthepreparationofpanchanama,
collectingthearticlesfromthespotandsealingthemandhedenied
thesuggestionthathehadnotgonetothespot,nothingwasseized
inhispresenceandthathesignedonboththepanchanamasand
labelsinthepolicestation.Thusthecontentsofthepanchanama
JudgementMCOC21/06
..335..
Ext.4825
Ext.517corroboratetheversionofSr.PIKadri,PW138andPappu
Giri,PW28.
364.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..336..
Ext.4825
theblasttookplaceandthepositionintheaffectedbogie.Hedid
notagreewiththesuggestionthatcorrectsketchofthespotgiving
the measurements of the damaged portions may enable the
investigatortofixtheidentityoftheculprits.
365.
Ithascomeinhisevidencethathesenttheseizedarticlesto
366.
ThecontentsoftheFSLreportExt.2430ofthearticlesseized
fromthebogieandthespotofthefirstblastofC.R.No.86of2006
andExt.2429ofthesecondblastofC.R.No.87of2006showthe
resultofanalysisthatCyclonite(RDX)AmmoniumNitrate,Nitrite
andPetroleumHydrocarbonOilweredetectedinthepostexplosion
debrisintheexhibitandanoteisappendedthatRDXisusedashigh
explosive.
367.
injuredinthefirstblastofC.R.No.86of2006.MaheshTrivedi,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..337..
Ext.4825
PW8,DevdasShetty,PW23andAshokRao,PW27,gaveevidence
abouttheir travelinthesaidtrain ontheallegeddate andtime,
hearing a loud explosion, losing consciousness and sustaining
injuries and they being treated at different hospitals. First two
witnessesarenotcrossexaminedandithascomeintheevidenceof
DevdasShetty,PW23,thatdoctorshadremovedmetalpiecesfrom
hisheadandithascomeintheevidenceofAshokRao,PW27,that
splinterswereremovedfromhisbodyandonesplinterwasremoved
from near his lung by operation. The crossexamination of Ashok
Rao, PW27, has not discredited his version and a portion was
confrontedtohimandmarkedinrespectofhehavingstatedtothe
police that he had gone to sleep because he was tired from the
whole days work. However that portion is not proved by the
defence.Thus,hisevidenceisunchallenged.
368.
Prosecutionexaminedtwowitnessesoutof102injuredinthe
369.
Dr.KalpeshGajiwala,PW69,hadoperatedonDevdasShetty,
PW23andVishalNagaich,PW13,andithascomeinhisevidence
thatatthetimeofoperationofDevdasShetty,PW23,hefoundand
removedmultipletinyforeignbodies,blackwithgreenishtingein
colour,embeddedinbothupperextremities,mainlybothhandsand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..338..
Ext.4825
distalforearmsfromfingertipsonwards,largewoundwithlossof
skinandextensormusclefromleftforearmdorsalaspect,parallel
rectangularzoneofburnsonthevolaraspect,i.e.,inneraspectof
leftwristembeddedwithtinymultipleforeignbodies,whichwere
alsofoundintherighthandanddistalpartoftheforearmandall
theseforeignbodieswerestippledinappearanceandmultipledot
like.Heidentifiedtheforeignbody,i.e.,themetalpieceArt.94that
he removed from his scalp. He proved the contents of the injury
certificateExt.781.Dr.RussellPinto,PW56,hadoperatedonVishal
Nagaich,PW13,alongiwthDr.KalpeshGajiwala,PW69,andithas
comeinhisevidencethatthetriangularshapedforeignbodyArt.95
wasremovedfromtherightsideofhisneck.Heprovedthecontents
oftheinjurycertificateExt.682.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathe
hadalsooperatedonAshokRao,PW27,andhadremovedthemetal
pieceArt.93fromthewoundontherightsideofthechest.Both
thesedoctorsidentifiedthearticlesthatwereshowntothem.Their
crossexaminationhasnotdiscreditedtheirversionanditwasonly
bywayofseekingexplanationinrespectofcleaningthewoundsby
particularanticepticsandabouttheprocedureofsealingofarticles
removedfromthebodiesofpatients,butithasnotaffectedtheir
credibilityandinsofarassealingisconcerned,reportsoftheFSLin
thisconnectionshowthattheywerereicevedinsealedcondition.
370.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIKadri,PW138,thatPSI
PednekarwasdeputedtotheHolyFamilyHospitalonreceivinga
phonecallthattheyhadtakenoutforeignbodiesfromthebodiesof
theabovethreeinjured.PSIPednekarseizedthethreesealedbottles
JudgementMCOC21/06
..339..
Ext.4825
underthepanchanamaExt.504inthepresenceofpanchwitnesses,
SureshVandre,PW24,andonemorethecontentsofwhichwere
provedbySureshVandre,PW24,andwhichcorroboratehisversion.
HeidentifiedthemetalpiecesArts.93to95thatwereseizedunder
the panchanama from the Holy Family Hospital, Bandra. Nothing
hascomeoutinhiscrossexaminationtodiscredithisversionandhe
deniedthesuggestionthathesignedonthelabelsandpanchanamas
inthepolicestationandidentifiedthearticlesinthecourtatthe
instanceofthepolice.
371.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIKadri,PW138,thathe
sent the three small sealed bottles that were seized under the
panchanama,Ext.504,fromHolyFamilyHospital,totheFSL,Kalina
alongwithhisforwardingletters,officecopiesofwhichareatExts.
888(1&2)and889(1&2),contentsofwhichheproved,alongwith
WPCSavitaSatav,PW87,whodeposedabouttakingthetwoletters
withtheirofficecopies,collectingtwokhakisealedenvelopesfrom
themuddemalinchargeofthepolicestationandgoingtotheFSL,
Kalina on 17/08/06 and that the letters bear the signatures and
stampofthereceivingclerkoftheFSL.Herevidenceabouttaking
thesampleswiththeforwardinglettersisnotcontrovertedandit
hasonlycomeinhercrossexaminationthatthedateattheendof
theforwardinglettersis31/07/06andshehadreadherstatement
fifteendaysbeforeherevidence.Thatdoesnotaffectthecredibility
of her and Sr. PI Kadri, PW138's evidence. It may be that the
forwardingletterswerepreparedon31/07/06,butitwasonlywhen
thesampleswerebeingsentthatthedate17/08/06waswrittenon
JudgementMCOC21/06
..340..
Ext.4825
thefrontpage.HoweverSr.PIKadri,PW138,isnotcrossexamined
onthisaspect.TheFSLreportsinconnectionwiththemetalpieces
ofallthethreeinjured,Exts.2434(1)and2433(1),showtheresults
ofanalysisthatNitrite(postexplosiveresidue)andtracesofNitrite
were detected on the exhibits. The reports Exts. 2434(2) of the
metalpiecesbyPhysicsDivisionoftheFSLtakenoutfromthebody
ofDevdasShetty,PW23,andAshokRao,PW27,showtheresultof
analysisthattheycontainZincasamajorelementwithtracesof
Iron.TheresultofanalysisinthereportExt.2433(2)inrespectof
themetalpiecetakenoutfromthebodyofVishalNagaich,PW13,
showsthatitcontainsIronasmajorelementandCalcium,Titanium,
Chromium,Manganese,CopperandZincastraceelements.
372.
BytheevidenceofDr.RussellPinto,PW56,andDr.Kalpesh
Gajiwala,PW69,prosecutionhasprovedtheinjurycertificates,Ext.
662ofVishalNagaich,PW13,Ext.684ofAshokRao,PW27,and
Ext.781 of Devdas Shetty, PW23. Death certificates and
memorandumsofpostmortemexaminationof22personswhowere
killed and the injury certificates of the remaining 105 injured
persons in the blast at Bandra Railway Station as mentioned in
Tables No. 5 and 6 supra, cause of death certificates and
memorandumsofpostmortemexaminationsof9personswhowere
killedandinjurycertificatesofthe101personswhowereinjuredin
theblastinbetweenSantacruzandKharasmentionedinTablesNo.
7and8supra,forwhichC.R.No.86and87of2006respectively
were registered, are not disputed by the defence. Thus, the
prosecutionhasprovedtheircontents.
JudgementMCOC21/06
373.
..341..
Ext.4825
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedthattherewasabombexplosioninthefirst
classbogieno.8003Aoftrainno.637DNBorivalifaston11/07/06
at 1823 hours at Bandra Railway Station and there was a bomb
explosion in the firstclass bogie no. 849A of train no. 635DN
Borivali slow local on 11/07/06 at 1825 hours. The results of
analysisofthearticlesthatwerefoundatthespotaswellasthe
metal articles that were removed from the bodies of the injured
provethatexplosiveswereusedtocausethebombexplosions.This
is also proved by the evidence of the medical officers, who have
categoricallyopinedthattheblackishminutetattooingalloverthe
faceandbodyisapeculiarityofpostexplosiveresidueofNitrite.
Thekindsofexplosivesthatwereusedisspecificallyfoundbythe
Chemical Analyzer, viz., Cyclonite (RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate,
NitriteandPetroleumHydrocarbonOil.Thememorandumsofpost
mortem examinations and the injury certificates prove that 22
persons were killed and 107 persons were injured in the bomb
explosion that took place at Bandra Railway Station and 9 were
killedand102wereinjuredinthebombexplosionthattookplaceat
KharSubway.
C.R.No.41of2006ofAndheriRailwayPoliceStation:
374.
paragraph25supraandstatedaboutseeingthefirstclassbogieto
becompletelydestroyedandarticlesofpassengerslyingscattered.It
hascomeinhisevidencethathetooktheinformationExt.432from
theguardofthattrainAnandDesai,PW7,whoprovedthecontents
JudgementMCOC21/06
..342..
Ext.4825
oftheinformation,whichcorroboratethetestimonyofboththese
witnesses.ThereisaformalcrossexaminationtoPW7.Ithascome
in the evidence of Dy SP Raskar, PW139, that he prepared
panchanamaofthespot,Ext.494inthepresenceofpanchwitnesses
Ratan Tarware, PW21, and one more. The contents of this
panchanamaareadmittedbythedefence.Therewasconsiderable
crossexamination to Dy. SP Raskar, PW139, in respect of the
conditionofthespotandhegaveveryspecificanswersaboutblood
ontheplatformandthebogiebeingwashedawaybecauseofrains
at some places, that some bogies of the train were behind the
affectedbogie,abouttherebeingastaircaseontheplatformno.1
having a roof of cement sheets, about there being a roof on the
platform,butnoroofontheportionoftheplatformtowardsBorivali
sideandattheportionwherethestaircasestarts,heseeingbloodon
theplatformnearthestaircaseandonthemetal(smallstones)near
thebogieandthatpanchanamaofthespotisimportantduringthe
investigation.Certainshortcomingswerebroughtonrecordthathe
didnotprepareasketchduringthepanchanamatoshowthespots
ofbloodandthedistanceofthestaircaseandtheplatformandthe
lastbogie of thattrain,etc., thathe cannottellaboutthe sitting
capacityofthebogie,thathedoesnotrememberhowmanydoors
thebogiehadontheplatformside,thathecannotsaywhetherthe
affecteddoorswereontheeastsideorwestsideandwhichpartof
the bogie was affected from the inside. He could not tell the
measurementofthepassagenearthedoorandadmittedthathedid
nottakethemeasurementofthecompartment/middleportionorof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..343..
Ext.4825
anypointsinsidethebogieorofthedistancebetweenthedamaged
portion of the roof,other portions of the bogie and the doors or
seats. However, he gave a proper explanation to all these
shortcomings that he did not mention it as the entire bogie was
damaged.Headmittedthatitisnecessarytolocatethespotwhere
thebombwasplaced,thathehadinvestigatedinthatdirection,but
hegaveaperfectexplanationtothisbysayingthathecouldnot
locate the spot as there was extensive damage to the bogie. He
deniedthesuggestionthathevaguelydescribedthedamagetothe
bogieinthepanchanamaanddidnotprepareitcorrectlyasperthe
factual condition. This is an incorrect suggestion because the
defencehasadmittedthecontentsofthepanchanamaandtherefore
itisreceivedinevidencedirectly.Theremaybeshortcomings,but
they do not affect his credibility and the contents of said
panchanamaarenotcontrovertedanddenied.Ithasfurthercomein
his evidence that the BDDS squad alongwith dog Prince and its
handler had come to the spot and produced certain suspicious
articles like watch of Gruen company golden dial, round ball of
meltedmetalwithspring,etc.,Arts.49to58,whichheseizedunder
thepanchanamaExt.496inthepresenceofthesamepanchas.His
evidenceiscorroboratedbytheevidenceofRatanTarware,PW21,
andbothofthemhaveprovedthecontentsofthesaidpanchanama,
whichcorroboratetheirversion.Boththewitnesseshaveidentified
all the articles that were seized. During the crossexamination of
RatanTarware,PW21,itwasbroughtonrecordthatheworksasa
panch witness in accident cases during his work as hamal at the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..344..
Ext.4825
railwaystations,thatitwasraininghardforsometimeandthen
rainingslightlycontinuouslyfromeveninguptonight,thattheroof
ofthecoachwastornandrainwaterwascominginside,thatallthe
articlesinthecoachweresoakedwiththerainwaterandthatmany
people had gone inside the coach before the first panchanama.
However, these things do not affect his evidence, because he has
givencertainpositiveanswersinhiscrossexaminationthatitwas
darkatthespot,buttherewereelectricfloodlightsandtorches,that
hewasmadeawarethatspecificarticleswereseizedfromthecoach
and was told that they were suspicious articles. He denied the
suggestionthatthearticlesthatwererecoveredatthetimeofthe
second panchanama were not there at the time of the first
panchanama,thatthepanchanamawaswritteninthepolicestation,
notreadovertohim,thatnothinghappenedinhispresenceand
neitherhenortheotherpanchwaspresentatthespot.Thus,his
testimonyhasnotbeendiscredited.Ontheotherhandthesepositive
answersshowthathehasknowledgeastowhathadhappenedon
thatdayinhispresenceandestablisheshispresenceatthetimeof
panchanama.
375.
IthascomeintheevidenceofDy.SPRaskar,PW139,thatthe
FSLteamhadcomethereandontheirrequesthecollectedcertain
samples, i.e., Arts. 361(colly), 362(colly) and 363(colly), packed,
labelledandsealedthemandseizedthemunderpanchanamaExt.
1539.Thepanchwitnessesofthispanchanamaarenotexaminedby
theprosecutionandheexplainedthattheyarenottraceable.Heis
notcrossexaminedonthispointandhisevidenceaboutpreparation
JudgementMCOC21/06
..345..
Ext.4825
ofthispanchanamaisnotdisputed.Ithascomeinhisevidencethat
hesentthearticlesthathehadseizedunderthepanchanamaExt.
496 to the FSL alongwith ASI Autgiri, PW96, alongwith his
forwardingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.960,thecontentsof
whichheproved.ASIAutgiri,PW96,corroboratedhisversion.The
omissiontomentionthatthearticlesseizedunderthispanchanama
werepackedandsealed,wasbroughtonrecordduringhiscross
examination,however,theFSLreportExt.961mentionsreceiptof
sealedparcelswithsealsintact.Themainportionofthestatementof
ASIAutgiri,PW96,wasconfrontedtohiminrespectofthedateon
whichhehadtakenthesamplestotheFSLanditwasprovedduring
theevidenceofDy.SPRaskhar,PW139,andmarkedasExt.1545.It
hascomeintheevidenceofASIAutgiri,PW96,thathehadtaken
the sealed envelopes on 13/07/06, but the proved portion starts
withthedate12/07/06,bywhichitistriedtobepointedoutthat
infact he had not gone on 13/07/06. However, there is no such
suggestion given to him and his evidence is not controverted.
PerusaloftheprovedportionExt.1545showsthedate12/07/06at
the beginning, but the statement itself is dated 13/07/06. It is
obviouslyatypographicalerror.Hence,thiscontradictionisofno
consequence more particularly because his evidence is not
controverted.
376.
IthascomeintheevidenceofDy.SPRaskar,PW139,thathe
forwardedthearticlesthatwereseizedattheinstanceoftheFSL
personnelfromthebogieintheKandivaliCarShedandfromthe
spotatJogeshwaritotheFSLalongwithPCTambe,PW98,withthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..346..
Ext.4825
377.
articlesthatwerecollectedasshownbytheBDDSpersonneland
Ext.977inrespectofthearticlesthatwerecollectedfromthebogie
when they were shown by the FSL personnel show the result of
analysis that Cyclonite(RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Oil were detected in the post explosion
debrisintheexhibitsandRDXisusedasahighexplosive.
378.
ProsecutionexaminedJayprakashGurav,PW14,aninjuredin
theblast,whodeposedaboutthehappeningofthebombblast.His
leftlegfromthekneedownwascutintheblastandhisfriendone
ArvindChikane,whowaswithhim,diedatthespot.Hisevidenceis
uncontroverted.
379.
HisinjurycertificateExt.2731(5)showsamputationoftheleft
lowerleg.OnemoreinjuredAshwinBoricha,PW134,whohadfiled
his affidavit Ext.1453 in evidence, was called by the defence for
crossexamination and certain portions from his statement were
confrontedtohimbywayofcontradiction,buttheywerenotproved
bythedefence.Thus,theyareofnoconsequenceandotherthanthis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..347..
Ext.4825
thereisnothinginhiscrossexaminationtodiscredithisversionand
his evidence about he having travelled in the said train is not
controverted.
380.
Dy.SPRaskar,PW139'sevidenceinrespectofthispreliminary
381.
382.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedthattherewasabombexplosioninthefirst
classbogieno.0634Aoftrainno.619DNBorivalislowon11/07/06
at1824hoursatJogeshwariRailwayStation.Theresultsofanalysis
ofthearticlesthatwerefoundatthespotprovethatexplosiveswere
usedtocausethebombexplosion.Thekindsofexplosivesthatwere
usedisspecificallyfoundbytheChemicalAnalyzer,viz.,Cyclonite
(RDX),Ammonium,Nitrate,NitriteandPetroleumHydrocarbonOil.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..348..
Ext.4825
C.R.No.156of2006ofBorivaliRailwayPoliceStation:
383.
paragraphs31to35supraanddescribedthesituationthathesaw
when he reached the spot. It has come in his evidence that on
reachingtheplatformno.4fromwherehehadheardthesoundof
explosion,hesawthattheaffectedbogieno.935Awasatadistance
of10feetfromtheendofstaircase,somepeoplehadfallenoutofit,
some had fallen inside and the tin of the western side was torn
apart,thatthefans,luggageracks,windowsandseatsweretotally
broken.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathecordonedthebogiewhen
peoplestartedcrowdingandcomingclosertoit.Ithascomeinhis
evidencethathetooktheinformationofPSIDhone,PW1,whowas
the beatincharge of the BorivaliRailway PoliceStation andthen
registeredthecrime.PSIDhone,PW1,provedthecontentsofhis
information Ext.106 and described the situation at the spot in
respect of the damage to the bogie and the injured and dead
commutersandtherescueworkthatwasorganisedatthespot.Heis
thefirstwitnessexaminedon18/12/07whenthecasewasonlyone
andahalfyearsold.ItwasrecordedbymylearnedpredecessorMrs.
M. R. Bhatkar (now Hon'ble Judge of the Bombay High Court).
However,bythattimetheaccusedhadcancelledthevakalatnamaof
their advocates and when they were asked to crossexamine the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..349..
Ext.4825
witness,theyshowedchitsinwhichitwaswrittenthattheyhaveno
faithonthiscourt.Mylearnedpredecessorthereforeappointedone
advocate Merchant as Amicus Curiae and asked him to cross
examine the witness. His crossexamination has not revealed
anythingadverseinrespectofthefactualpositiondeposedbythe
witness.ThecontentsoftheFIRExt.106corroboratehisevidence
andtheevidenceofDy.SPAhir,PW144.
384.
IthascomeintheevidenceofDy.SPAhir,PW144,thathe
preparedthepanchanamaExt.140ofthespotshownbyPSIDhone,
PW1,inthepresenceofpanchwitnesses,EsekiNadar,PW32,and
onemoreandduringthepreparationofthepanchanama,FSLexpert
Kulkarnihadcomethereandhadshowncertainarticlesthatwould
beusefulforthepurposeofinvestigationandaccordinglyhanded
overtheninearticlesthathehadpickedupfromthebogie,i.e.,Arts.
189to198(d),whichwerepacked,sealedandlabelledandseized
underthepanchanamaExt.540.EsekiNadar,PW32,admittedinhis
crossexaminationthathehasactedaspanchwitnessinthecasesof
railwayaccidentsandcertainminorthingsaboutthetimingsofthe
preparationofthepanchanama,aboutnotseeinganyclothbagor
bagwiththepolice,abouthenotknowingfromwherethepolice
collectedthearticles,etc.,andaboutnumberofsignaturesthathe
made. However, a positive statement has come in his cross
examinationthatpoliceshowedhimthearticlesthatwerecollected.
He, however, denied the suggestion that the police took his
signaturesonblankpapersinthepolicestation,thatnoarticlewas
seizedinhispresenceandthatheidentifiedthearticlesonthesayof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..350..
Ext.4825
385.
IthascomeintheevidenceofDy.SPAhir,PW144,hesentthe
seizedninearticleswithHCKhot,PW143,alongwithaforwarding
JudgementMCOC21/06
..351..
Ext.4825
386.
articles seized from the spot show the result of analysis that
Cyclonite (RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and Petroleum
HydrocarbonOilweredetectedinthepostexplosiondebrisinall
ninearticles.
387.
thisblast,outofwhichtwowerenottravellinginthetrain,butwere
on the same platform in the Borivali Railway Station. Rajaram
Chavan, PW11, is an unfortunate security guard, who may have
JudgementMCOC21/06
..352..
Ext.4825
been36yearsofageonthedayoftheincident.Hewassittingon
platformno.2and3ofBorivaliRailwayStationashewantedtogo
toSantacruz.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathewassittingonthe
benchnearthelocationofthefirstclasscompartmentfromtheVirar
side on platform no. 2 and 3 of Borivali Railway Station as he
wanted to go to Santacruz and when the Virar local came on
platformno.4,therewasaloudexplosion,hewasliftedfromthe
benchandthrowndownandsawthathisleftlegwasbloodstained
andwasnotinplacefromthekneedownwards,becauseofwhichhe
losthisjob.Thereisnocrossexaminationtohim.Thecontentsof
his injury certificate Ext.2733(18), show traumatic below knee
amputation and contaminated wound and bleeding. The other
injuredisShwetaAmbede,PW37,inwhoseevidenceitisrevealed
thatshewasstandingatthedoorinthefirstladiescompartmentin
atraingoingtoKandivali,whichshehadboardedfromplatformno.
2andatthattimeatraingoingtowardsVirarcameonplatformno.
4 and she heard a loud sound and saw fire. It has come in her
evidencethatshesustainedableedinginjuryontherightleganda
metal piece was removed from her leg on the next day. There is
somecrossexaminationtoherinrespectofthesaidmetalpieceand
aboutsomeimprovementsthatshemadeonherstatement,butthe
factofshehavingsustainedinjuryinthesaidblastisnotdisputed.
Sameisthecaseabout Dr.MadhukarChaudhary,PW38,whohas
givenevidenceabouttakingouttheforeignbodymetalpiece,Art.
243,fromthebodyofShwetaAmbede,PW37,withgreatdifficulty.
Hewassurprisinglygivenasuggestionthatthesaidmetalpiecewas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..353..
Ext.4825
notremovedfromthebodyofthesaidpatient,whichhe,ofcourse,
denied.Thereissomecrossexaminationtohimabouttheprocedure
thatheadoptedforcleaningwoundsbysomechemicalsandabout
heforwardingthemetalpiecetoSamtaNagarPoliceStation,etc.,
butasmentionedabovehewasgiventhesuggestionandhedenied
thatnoxraywastakenandnometalpiecewasremovedfromthe
body of the patient. It has come in the evidence of Dy. SP Ahir,
PW144,thatheseizedthemetalpieceArt.243whenitwasbrought
byfatherofShwetaAmbede,PW37,inthepolice station,inthe
presenceofpanchwitnessesDilipAayre,PW33,andonemore.Both
provedthecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.562,whichcorroborate
their version and both identified the metal piece, Art.243. Cross
examinationofDilipAayre,PW33,hasnotdiscreditedhisversion
andhehasdeniedthesuggestionthatnoarticlewasseizedinhis
presence,etc.IthascomeintheevidenceofDy.SPAhir,PW144,
that he sent the said metal piece alongwith HC Khot, PW143,
alongwithaforwardingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1583,
thecontentsofwhichheproved.HCKhot,PW143,alsogavethe
evidence accordingly. This evidence is not much material as FSL
reportregardingthismetalpieceisnotproducedbytheprosecution.
However,thecontentsoftheMLCrecordissuedbyDr.Madhukar
Chaudhary, PW38, is proved by him and it corroborates the
evidenceofShwetaAmbede,PW37,andprovesherinjury.Thethird
injured examined by the prosecution in this blast case is Kishore
Shah,PW60.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathehadboardedthe
saidtrainatChurchgateRailwayStationandtherewasanexplosion
JudgementMCOC21/06
..354..
Ext.4825
atBorivaliRailwayStationwhenthetrainwasabouttostopandhe,
alongwiththeotherpersonsstandingonthedoor,werethrownon
theplatform.Hewasexaminedbytheprosecutionasaninjuredas
wellasawitness,whohadseentwopersonskeepingablackbagon
the luggage rack, out of whom he identified one as A13
subsequentlyinthetestidentificationparadeandalsointhecourt.
ThecontentsofhisinjurycertificateExt.2733(71)showabrasionat
twoplacesandmaininjuryislefteardrumrupture.Hispresencein
the said bogie is heavily disputed in view of his evidence about
seeingtheA13andonemorekeepingablackbagontheluggage
rack.Therefore,his evidence will be discussedlater on when the
evidenceagainstparticularaccusedwillbediscussed.However,the
mostimportantthingaboutthiswitnessisthathehadhimselfgone
to the police station immediately two days after the incident
voluntarily and had given the statement about what he had
witnessed.
388.
examinationsof26personsthatwerekilledinthisexplosionand
injurycertificatesof130injuredpersonsasmentionedinTablesNo.
11and12supra,exceptthatofKishoreShah,PW60,Ext.2733(71),
arenotdisputedbythedefence.Thus,theprosecutionhasproved
theircontents.
389.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedthattherewasabombexplosioninthefirst
classbogieno.935Aoftrainno.621DNVirarFaston11/07/06at
1828hoursatBorivaliRailwayStation.Theresultsofanalysisofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..355..
Ext.4825
articlesthatwereseizedfromthespotprovethatexplosiveswere
usedtocausethebombexplosion.Thekindsofexplosivesthatwere
usedisspecificallyfoundbytheChemicalAnalyzer,viz.,Cyclonite
(RDX),Ammonium,Nitrate,NitriteandPetroleumHydrocarbonOil.
The memorandums of postmortem examinations, cause of death
certificates and the injury certificates prove that 26 persons were
killedand130personswereinjuredinthebombexplosionthattook
placeatBorivaliRailwayStation.
C.R.No.59of2006ofVasaiRoadRailwayPoliceStation:
390.
paragraphs36to40supraanddescribedthesituationatthespot.It
has come in his evidence that he recorded the first information
report Ext.428 of Station Master Verbey, PW6, who proved its
contents.ThecontentsofExt.428corroboratetheversionofboth
the witnesses. Station Master Verbey, PW6, also described the
damagetothecoachandthesituationatthespot.Thereisnocross
examinationtohim.
391.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIKulkarni,PW133,thathe
preparedpanchanamaofspotExt.564andduringthepreparationof
panchanama, the dog squad and the Bomb Detection Squad had
comethereandafterthedogSeemasniffedatthespot,heseized
aluminum pieces, paper pieces and blood mixed earth, Arts.
245(colly), 246(1 to3) and247(colly), in the presence of panch
witnessesRameshVarma,PW34,andonemore,packedandsealed
them. Panch witness Ramesh Varma, PW34, corroborated his
version and it has come in his evidence that the Station Master
JudgementMCOC21/06
..356..
Ext.4825
showedthespot,adogsquadhadcomethere,itwastakeninside
thecoachandthedogsniffedatparticulararticlesandthepolice
pickeduppiecesofrexine,etc.,andapanchanamawasprepared.
HeaswellasSr.PIKulkarni,PW133,provedthecontentsofthe
panchanama Ext.564, which corroborate their version. They also
identified Arts. 245(colly), 246(1 to 3) and 247(colly). There is
nothing in the crossexamination of Ramesh Varma, PW34, to
discredit his version. He turned down the suggestion that no
panchanamawasdrawnatthetimementionedinthepanchanama,
no articles were seized in his presence, that he identified all the
articlesonthesayofthepoliceandhesignedsubsequentlyinthe
officeoftheStationMaster.
392.
Sr.PIKulkarni,PW133,wascrossexaminedinrespectofthe
arrivalofBombDetectionandDisposalSquadandinrespectofthe
situationatthespot.Ithascomeinhisevidencethattheroofofthe
bogiewastornandithadopened,buthedidnotcallanyrailway
officertoascertainwhichpartofthebogiewasmoredamaged.He
deniedthesuggestionthatwastematerialisdumpedbythesidesof
therailwaytrackinbetweenMiraRoadandBhayanderandthathe
tookhamalsaspanchwitnesses,whoaretakenaspanchwitnesses
wheneveraccidentstakeplaceontheplatformsandwhoareunder
histhumb.Otherthanthis,thereisnocrossexaminationtohimin
respectofthefactualpositiondescribedinthespotpanchanamaand
aboutthecollectionofthearticles.Hewasputsomequestionsabout
movementofbrasssealofpolicestationandheadmittedthatthe
record is maintained to take out the brass seal from the police
JudgementMCOC21/06
..357..
Ext.4825
station,buttheexplanationthathegaveisveryimportant,because
heexplainedthatifhetakesoutthebrassseal,itisnotnecessaryto
mention it in the record. The panch witness has deposed about
seizinganironpipefromthespotandSr.PIKulkarni,PW133,also
admittedinhiscrossexaminationthatitwasseizedfromthespot,
but it is not before the court. However, his evidence about
preparationofthepanchanamaisnotcontroverted.
393.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIKulkarni,PW133,thathe
senttheseizedarticlestotheFSL,Kalinaon13/07/06alongwithhis
forwardingletter.Heprovedthecontentsoftheofficecopyofthe
letterExt.980,whichbearstheacknowledgmentoftheinwardclerk
oftheFSL.HCKhot,PW99,corroboratedhisevidenceandproved
thecontentsofExt.980statingthatitmentionshisnameandbuckle
number.Hiscrossexaminationhasnotdiscreditedhisversionand
hedeniedthesuggestionthathedidnottakearticlestotheFSLon
13/07/06.ContentsoftheforwardingletterExt.980showthathis
nameismentionedalongwithbucklenumberandtheimpressionof
thesealofthepolicestationisalsoonthesecondpageoftheletter.
ThecontentsoftheFSLreportExt.981,showreceiptoftwosealed
parcels,sealsintactandaspercopysent.Theresultofanalysisof
theparcelsthataredescribedaspaperpieces,metallicpieces,ply
pieces,partlyburntanddamagedclothpiecesanddebris,showsthat
Cyclonite (RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and Petroleum
Hydrocarbon Oil were detected in post explosion debris in all
articlesandanoteisaddedthatRDXisusedashighexplosive.
394.
ProsecutionexaminedaninjuredKishorMhatre,PW10,who
JudgementMCOC21/06
..358..
Ext.4825
wasatravellerofthattrainandwastravellinginthesamebogie.It
hascomeinhisevidencethatheheardaloudexplosionafterthe
trainleftMiraRoadRailwayStation,thathewasthrownandlost
consciousnessandwhenhebecamesomewhatconsciousherealized
thathewashalfoutofthetrainonthefloorandthereweretwo
fourbodiesonhim.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathesustained
multiplefracturestorighthand,itwasrequiredtobeoperatedtwice
andtworodswereinserted,thathislefthandwasalsooperatedand
hehadinjuriesonhisheadandonthebackportion.Thecontentsof
hisinjurycertificateExt.2732(15&17)corroboratehisversion.
395.
Twelvepersonsoutoftheinjuredinthesaidblast,whohad
396.
Sr.PIKulkarni,PW133,wascrossexaminedinrespectofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..359..
Ext.4825
thereisnothinginhiscrossexaminationtodiscredithisversionin
respectofthepreliminaryinvestigationthathedid.
397.
Itwasfinallyrevealedthat31personshaddiedinthisblast.
AninjuredAmitDineshSingh,inthisblastwastakingtreatmentin
the JaslokHospital since13/07/06after being initiallytreatedat
BhaktiVedantHospitalfrom11/07/06asperthedeathsummary
Ext.4733.HewasreceivedunconsciousintheJaslokHospitalandhe
was in Coma till the date of his death on 02/05/13 after nearly
seven years. Hence, his name is included in the list of deceased
whichtakesthetotalofthepersonskilledintheblastto32.
398.
399.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedthattherewasabombexplosioninthefirst
classbogieno.846Aoftrainno.607DNVirarFaston11/07/06at
1823hoursatMiraRoadRailwayStation.Theresultsofanalysisof
the articles that were seized from the spot prove that explosives
wereusedtocausethebombexplosion.Thekindsofexplosivesthat
were used is specifically found by the Chemical Analyzer, viz.,
Cyclonite (RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and Petroleum
HydrocarbonOil.Thememorandumsof postmortem examinations,
causeofdeathcertificatesandtheinjurycertificatesprovethat32
persons were killed and 115 persons were injured in the bomb
JudgementMCOC21/06
..360..
Ext.4825
explosionthattookplaceatMiraRoadRailwayStation.
400.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedthattherewerebombexplosionsinthefirst
classbogiesofsevenwesternrailwaysuburbantrainsinMumbaiin
between 6.23 to 6.28 p.m. on 11/07/06, that explosives like
Cyclonite(RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and Petroleum
HydrocarbonOilwereusedtocausethebombexplosionsandthat
187+1,total188personswerekilledand760wereinjuredinthe
bombexplosions.Ihaveto,therefore,answerpointsno.1to3in
theaffirmativeaccordingly.
401.
Theaboveevidenceoftheseveninvestigatingofficersofthe
railwaypolicestationsshowsthemeticulousmannerinwhichthe
preliminaryinvestigationofthedisasterwasconducted.Itmusthave
beenquiteatediousworktoascertainthenumberofdead,toget
them identified, to ascertain the number of injured, to get them
identified,togetthe postmortems
done,tomakearrangementsfor
treatmentoftheinjured,tohandoverthedeadbodiesofthevictims
totheirkithandkin,toreturnthepersonalarticlesthatwereseized
fromthespottotherightfulclaimants,etc.Onecanjustimaginethe
chaos and commotion at the spots of the bomb blasts and the
herculeantaskofthepolicetomaintainlawandorderandalsoto
makearrangementstocarrythebodiesofpersonskilledandtotake
theinjuredtothehospitalsfortreatmentaswellastoconcentrate
on the investigation aspect of the crime, etc. All these seven
investigatingofficershadnoconcern,eitherpriororaftertheblasts
withtheATS,withtheexceptionofSr.PIRathod,PW176,whowas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..361..
Ext.4825
deputedtotheATS.
Pointno.4:
402.
Thereisnodisputefromthesideofthedefenceaboutthefact
JudgementMCOC21/06
..362..
Ext.4825
(Safety)dtd.13/09/06and20/11/06.Thisapplicationwasmoved
aftertheevidenceofPSIDhone,PW1,wasrecordedon18/12/06.
Defence did not file say to this application till today. After the
recording of evidenceagain startedon22/06/10andPSIDhone,
PW1,andtheinformantsinfourothercrimeswerepresentonthat
day,learnedadvocatefortheaccusedrequestedthattheybegiven
copyofExt.111andthecopywasaccordinglygiven.However,they
didnotfileanysaytothesaidapplication.Mostofthedocumentsin
the listwithExt.111have beenadmittedin evidenceas they are
formal and undisputed documents in the nature of medical
certificatesofinjuriessustainedbytheinjuredinallthesevenblasts,
inquestpanchanamas,deathcertificatesandmemorandumsofpost
mortemexaminationofthedeceasedinalltheblasts,etc.Theother
documents like the FIR, spot panchanamas, forwarding letters,
sanctionsforprosecutionhavebeenprovedbytheprosecutionby
examiningtheconcernedwitnesses.ReportsreceivedfromtheFSL
havebeenreceivedinevidencedirectly.Since,thereisnodispute
aboutthefactthattherewasdamagetoanddestructionofrailway
property and since the defence has not given any say to the
applicationundersection294oftheCr.P.C.Ext.111filedbythe
prosecution,thesetwodocumentsarereceivedinevidenceatthe
timeofjudgementandmarkedasExts.4738and4739respectively.
The contents of Ext.4738, which is dtd.13/09/06, show the total
damagestotherailwayassetsinallthesevenblaststothetuneof
Rs.88,66,239/.However,thecontentsoftheletterExt.4739,which
is dtd.20/11/06 and which describes the damage to the railway
JudgementMCOC21/06
..363..
Ext.4825
assetsatallsevensitesofbombexplosionsofthetotalvalueofRs.
85,61,039/willhavetobeacceptedasitreferstotheletterbythe
investigatingofficerdtd.18/08/06andalsototheletterExt.4738.It
appearsthataftertotallyassessingthedamageandlossthisfigure
hasbeenarrivedat.ProsecutionexaminedSamirLohani,PW156,to
provethelossofrevenueanddamagetotheproperty.Ithascomein
his evidence that the damage to property was assessed at Rs.
88,66,239/,whichfigureheprobablygotfromthefirstletterExt.
4738. There is no challenge to his evidence. It has come in his
evidencethatthetotalmoneypaidincaseofdeath,grievousinjuries
andsimpleinjuriesbytherailwayadministrationlastly,i.e.,ason
the date of his evidence on 20/10/11, is Rs.12,45,50,000/ and
besides this, railway claims tribunal has decreed 732 claims and
awardedRs.9,37,72,000/ascompensation.Ifthelosstotherailway
isconsideredintotality,i.e.,includingthedamageanddestruction
to the railway property, compensation given by the railway
administration and compensation awarded by the railway claims
tribunal, the total comes to a staggering amount of Rs.
22,68,83,039/.There is nochallenge tothis evidenceandtohis
testimony.Hiscrossexaminationisnotinrespectofdamageorthe
compensation. He has proved the contents of his letter Ext.1682,
which shows the approximate revenue loss on the suburban and
nonsuburbanpassengertrafficaswellasthedetailsoftheamount
thatwaspaidascompensationandawarded.Thelossofrevenue
wastothetuneofRs.2,80,00,000/andtheamountpaidtovarious
hospitals in Mumbai for treatment of the injured was Rs.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..364..
Ext.4825
2,92,17,270/.Thesetwofigureswhenaddedwiththefigurearrived
at above, take the total loss to the railways to the tune of Rs.
28,41,00,309/.
403.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthat
prosecutionhasprovedthattherewasdamagetoanddestructionof
railway property which is public property, because of the bomb
explosions.Itisclearfromthefigureofdamagetothepropertyand
thelossofrevenueandtheamountsofcompensationpaidbythe
railwayauthoritiesdirectlyandamountofcompensationawarded
by the railways tribunal and the money spent for deferring the
expensesofhospitalsfortreatingtheinjured,thattherewaslossto
therailwayswhich interalia meanstotheGovernmentofIndiaas
therailwaypropertyispublicproperty.Ihaveto,therefore,answer
thispointintheaffirmative.
Pointno.5:
404.
Prosecutionhasallegedthatthehappeningofthesevenbomb
JudgementMCOC21/06
..365..
Ext.4825
Maharashtra,isalsothefinancialcapitalofthecountry,about30
lakhscommuterstraveleachdayinthewesternrailwaysuburban
trainsbetweenChurchgateandVirarduringpeakhours,thatthese
commuters comprise of executives, businessmen, students and
personsintheemploymentatvariouslevelsintheGovernmentas
well as private establishments, therefore, the suburban trains are
called as essential services and the lifeline of the Mumbai
metropolis. It is alleged that this lifeline came to a grinding halt
becauseofsevenbombexplosions.Itisonthebackgroundofthe
magnitudeofthelossoflife,injuriestoalargenumberofpersons
and damage and destruction to railway property, that the
prosecutionhaslevelledthechargesfortheoffencesundersections
121A,122and123readwith120BoftheIPCaswellassection16
oftheUA(P)Aandsections3(1)(i)and3(2)oftheMCOCAct.
405.
Inviewofthediscussioninthepointsno.1to4supraand
findingsonthosepoints,inmyhumbleopinion,beforeconsidering
theevidenceagainsttheaccusedfacingthetrialinrespectoftheir
complicityincausingthebombexplosions,apositiveinferencecan
belegitimatelydrawnfromthefactsestablishedbytheprosecution
forprovingthepointsno.1to4supra,thatthebombexplosions
amounttoconspiringtowagewaragainsttheGovernmentofIndia
and is a terrorist act and an act of promoting insurgency. The
investigatingofficerundertheMCOCAct,ACPPatil,PW186,who
hasfiledthechargesheet,deposedinconnectionwiththeaccused
facing the trial as well as the wanted accused, that they were
membersofanorganisedcrimesyndicate,thattheywereindulging
JudgementMCOC21/06
..366..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..367..
Ext.4825
andindustrialestablishmentsandtheintentionbehindkillingthem
andcausingthemassdestructioncannotbebutforthepurposeof
waging war or attempting to wage such a war or abetting the
waging war against the Government of India or to overawe, by
meansofforceortheshowofcriminalforcetotheGovernmentof
IndiaortheGovernmentofMaharashtra.Theexplosionoftheseven
bombsatdifferentplaceswithinacertainsmalltimeframecannot
betheplanningandhandiworkofonepersonorafewindividuals
anditcanbegatheredandinferredfromthisthatitwastheperfect
andmeticulousplanningofanorganisationinimicaltoourcountry,
i.e.,theGovernmentofIndia.
406.
Thetargetoftheattackbycausingthebombexplosionswas
notanyspecificindividualoraspecificgroupofpeople.Fromthe
selectionofthetimings,thelocationsandthecommonnatureofthe
explosive substances, it is obvious thatwhosoever committed this
crimeintendedtocausemaximumdamageandlosstohumanlife
and property. It can be best described as wanton killing and
destructionofpropertyfromwhichtheonlyirresistibleconclusion
that can be drawnis thatthe persons whocommittedthe crime,
committedthisacttowagewaragainsttheGovernmentofIndiaas
wellastheGovernmentofMaharashtra.
407.
Jurisprudencesaysthatdoctrineofresipsaloquiturismainly
applicabletothecasesofcivilnatureandthecasesofnegligence
and accident in criminal cases. To my mind, this is a fit case to
importandapplythedoctrineofresipsaloquiturtothepresentset
offacts,becausetheyareselfspeakinginrespectoftheallegations
JudgementMCOC21/06
..368..
Ext.4825
of the prosecution for the charges levelled. The act of the bomb
explosionswasdesignedinsuchamannerthatitwouldshakethe
faith and confidence of the common man in the democratically
establishedgovernmentofthecountry.Itcanbevisualizedthatthe
situationthataroseorprevailedwouldhavefurtherprovokedthe
commonmantoquestionthecompetenceofthegovernmentand
revoltagainstit,astheverysecurityofthecommonmanwasseen
tobeatstake.Thetremendousdevastationanddestructionthatwas
causedbecauseofthebombexplosionswasobviouslydonewitha
viewtocreateanimpressioninthemindsofthegeneralpublicthat
the government is incapable of handling and looking after their
security.Thesevendevastatingbombexplosionswerenothingshort
of an attempt to wage war against the government and the
meticulousplanninginexecutionofthebombexplosionseffectively,
leadstotheinferencethattherewasadeeprootedlongstanding
conspiracytocausethebombexplosions.Theattempttowagewar
or to overawe the Government of India and the Government of
Maharashtra,bymeansofforceortheshowofcriminalforcecanbe
gatheredanditwillhavetobesoheld,becausetheword'overawe'
clearlyimportsmorethanthecreationofapprehensionoralarmor
even perhaps fear. It appears that to connote the creation of a
situationinwhichthemembersoftheCentralorStateGovernment
feel themselvescompelledtochoose between yielding to force or
exposing themselves or members of the public to a very serious
danger.Theabovecircumstantialevidencediscussedinpointsno.1
to 4 supra is sufficient to draw the inference, the existence and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..369..
Ext.4825
planningoftheovertacts.
408.
Section15oftheUA(P)Adefinesaterroristactastheactwith
409.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..370..
Ext.4825
attemptingtowagesuchawarorabettingthewagingofsuchwar
ortooverawe,bymeansofforceortheshowofcriminalforce,the
GovernmentofIndia ortheGovernmentofMaharashtraandisa
terrorist act and also an act of promoting insurgency. I have to,
therefore,answerthispointintheaffirmative.
Pointsno.6to34:
DocumentsobtainedbytheaccusedundertheRTIActand
producedonrecord:
410.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..371..
Ext.4825
obtainedundertheRTIAct,tocertifiedcopiesofvariousdocuments
obtainedfromcourtsandtocertifiedcopiesofpanchanamasoftest
identificationparadesintwoothercases.Ontakingthesayofthe
learned SPP and on hearing both sides, the applications were
allowedon16/08/12bypassingthefollowingorders:
ORDERBELOWEXT.2986
Documentsproducedbyallaccusedwiththeirstatementsu/s
313oftheCr.P.C.,inthenatureofdocumentsreceivedundertheRTI,
be exhibited as they are public documents, for the purpose of
identification,subject,however,totheproofofthecorrectnessoftheir
contents in view of the law laid down in Appellants : Om Prakash
BerliaandAnr.vs.Respondent:UnitTrustofIndiaandOrs.reported
inAIR1983,Bombayatpage1.
ORDERBELOWEXT.2987
Certifiedcopiesofjudgements,depositions,chargesheets(Final
Reportu/s173oftheCr.P.C.)andproveddocumentsproducedbyall
accusedwiththeirstatementsu/s313oftheCr.P.C.,obtainedfrom
variouscourtsarereceivedinevidenceandbemarkedasexhibits.
ORDERBELOWEXT.2988
Two certified true copies of test identification parade
panchanamasofSCNo.187/11and436/11producedbytheA4with
hisstatementu/s313oftheCr.P.C.bemarkedasexhibitsforthe
purposeofidentification.Thecertifiedcopyofthememorandumoftest
identificationparadeinMCOC08/12wassentdirectlybyShriS.M.
Modak, Judge,CRNo.56 and was givenexhibit 2883. These three
documents are only marked as exhibits for the purpose of
identification.Theycannotbereadinthiscaseastheircontentshave
notbeenproved.
411.
contentionsthatcertifiedcopiesofthedocumentsobtainedunder
theRTIActcanbeexhibited,subjecttoproofofthecorrectnessof
the contents. He submits that relevancy and admissibility of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..372..
Ext.4825
documentsisonethingandproofofcorrectnessofthecontentsof
thedocumentsisanotherthing.LearnedadvocatefortheA4andA5
inpointno.13ofVolume5ofhiswrittensubmissionssubmitted
thatthe documentsobtainedunderthe RTIActareadmissiblein
evidencewithproofofthecontentsofthedocumentsundersections
76and77oftheIndianEvidenceAct,1872,thatsuchdocuments
arecertifiedcopiesofpublicdocumentsobtainedundertheRTIAct,
whichisaCentralActpassedbytheParliamentandthereforethey
shallbeadmissiblewithproofoftheircontents.Itissubmittedthat
theopinionandinformationgivenbythePublicInformationOfficer
(PIO) on the basis of public record or public activity is also
admissibleaspersections76and77oftheIndianEvidenceAct.Itis
furthersubmittedthatthedocumentsobtainedundertheRTIAct,
evenaletterwrittenbyapublicofficer,i.e.,thePIO,onthebasisof
record are public activity and are admissible with proof of its
contentsundersection74(1)oftheIndianEvidenceAct.Similarly,
theapplicationundersection6(1)oftheRTIActandreplybythe
PIOundersection7(1)oftheRTIActisadocumentformingtheacts
orrecordoftheactsandadmissibleinevidenceundersection74(1)
oftheIndianEvidenceAct.Itissubmittedthatallthedocuments
obtained under the RTI Act shall be presumed to be genuine
documentsasisthecasewithcertifiedcopiesoftherecordsofthe
courtproceedingsthatarepresumedtobegenuineundersection80
of the Evidence Act. A strange submission is made that the
productionoftwodocumentsbythelearnedSPP,onefromtheDGP
officeandotherfromtheCMMcourt,showsthatthelearnedSPP
JudgementMCOC21/06
..373..
Ext.4825
andtheprosecutingagencyhavealreadyverifiedtheauthenticityof
all documents and not produced any rebuttal in respect of the
others.
412.
Inmyhumbleopinion,itisobviousthatthesubmissionthat
allthedocumentsobtainedundertheRTIActshallbepresumedto
bethegenuinedocumentsiscontradictorywithmanysubmissions
on this point by the learned advocate for the accused, viz., that
suchdocumentsandevenaletterwrittenbyaPIOonthebasisof
records,arepublicactivity,isadocumentformingtheactsorrecords
oftheactsandadmissibleinevidenceundersection74(1)ofthe
Indian Evidence Act with proof of its contents. Thus the
submissionsareselfcontradictoryanditisnoone'scasethatthe
learned SPP or the prosecuting agency undertook an exercise for
verificationoftheauthenticityofalldocuments.Ontheotherhand,
itisthesubmissionofthelearnedSPPthattheinformationthatis
gathered under the RTI Act is not free from flaws and to
demonstrate this he has given certain examples illustratively.
Learned advocate for the accused has relied on the following
authoritiesinsupportofhissubmissions:
(i)
UmiyaGlassIndustriesV.M.P.StateElectricityBoard.
(ii)
RajasthanStateRoadTransportV.NandKishore&Ors.
(2002ACJ1564).
(iii)
(iv)
JagdishchandraChandulalShahV.StateofGujarat&Ors.
(1989CriLJ1724).
JudgementMCOC21/06
413.
..374..
Ext.4825
414.
Learnedadvocatefortheaccusedhasnotcitedanyauthority
JudgementMCOC21/06
..375..
Ext.4825
415.
InmyhumbleopiniontheorderpassedbelowExt.2986based
ontheauthorityinthecaseofOmPrakashBerlia&Anr.,Plaintiffs
V.UnitTrustofIndia&Ors.(AIR1983Bombay1)willcoverall
thesesubmissions.ThePublicInformationOfficerundertheRTIAct
onlygivescertifiedcopiesoftherecordthatisavailableinhisoffice.
Suchrecordmaybebasedonhearsaymaterialormaybesometimes
on the basis of incorrectinformation providedto thatoffice.The
certifiedcopyofsuchrecord,therefore,wouldatbestestablishthe
existenceoftheoriginalintheofficeofthePIO.Itwillnothowever
dispensewiththeproofofcorrectnessofitscontents,becausethere
areseveralfactorsthatmayaffectthecorrectnessofthecontents.
416.
TherelevantprovisionsoftheEvidenceAct,i.e.,sections3,
59,62,63to65,67,74to80and83werediscussedinthecaseof
OmPrakashBerlia anditwasheldthat,'sections61and62read
togethershowthatthecontentsofadocumentmust,preliminary,be
provedbytheproductionofthedocumentsitselffortheinspectionof
thecourt.Itisobviousthatthetruthofthecontentsofthedocuments,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..376..
Ext.4825
evenprimafacie,cannotbeprovedbymerelyproducingthedocument
fortheinspectionofthecourt'.
417.
Itwasheldthat, 'theActrequires,first,theproductionofthe
originaldocument.Iftheoriginaldocumentisnotavailable,secondary
evidencemaybegiven.Thisistoprovewhatthedocumentstates.Upon
this the document becomes admissible, except where it is signed or
handwritten,whollyorinpart.Insuchacasethesecondrequirement
is, under section 67, that the signature and handwriting must be
proved. Further, where the party tendering the document finds it
necessarytoprovethetruthofitscontents,thatis,thetruthofwhatit
states,hemustdosointhemannerhewouldprovearelevantfact'.
418.
ReferencewasmadetothelawlaiddowninBishwanathRai
reportedinAIR1971SC1949andMadholalSindhureportedinAIR
1954Bom305,whichindicatethatthetruthofwhatthedocument
statesisgenerallydonebycallingtheauthorofthedocument.In
respectofsection74oftheEvidenceAct,itisheldthatunderita
certified copy of a public document is admissible. This is the
secondary evidence and it proves what the document states, no
more.Inotherwords,hewhoseekstoproveapublicdocumentis
relievedoftheobligationtoproducetheoriginal.However,allother
requirements must still be complied with and must be separately
established.
419.
Secondly,inrespectofsubmissionsofthelearnedadvocatefor
the accused that even letters sent by the PIO in reply to the
applicationundertheRTIActareadmissibleundersection74(1)of
theEvidenceActandarepresumedtobegenuinedocuments,inmy
JudgementMCOC21/06
..377..
Ext.4825
humbleopinion,consideringtheabovediscussionandthelawlaid
downintheaboveauthoritythiswillnotbeacorrectprepositionof
law.Tomymind,ifcertaininformationisgivenbyaPIOinhisletter
inreplytoanapplicationseekinginformation,suchinformationis
givenfortheknowledgeofthepartyseekingthatinformation.Such
information,tomymind,cannotbeasubstituteforanevidenceand
cannotbeconsideredasevidencethatisprovedunderthelaw.If
such an information is required to be used as evidence of a
particular fact it has to be proved as per the provisions of the
EvidenceAct.
420.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,theorderdtd.16/08/12below
Ext.2986willapplytoallthedocumentsthatareobtainedbythe
defenceundertheRTIActandproducedandmarkedasexhibits.
SuchdocumentsifdulyprovedaspertheprovisionsoftheIndian
EvidenceActcanonlybeconsideredandreferredto.
Evidenceoftheprosecutionanddefencecaseanddefence
evidence.
421.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..378..
Ext.4825
arguedonthepointsoflawandprayedfordirectinghimtoargueon
pointsoflaw.OntakingthesayofthelearnedSPPandonhearing
bothsides,theapplicationwasrejectedanddisposedoffinviewof
provisotosection234oftheCr.P.C.Thereafter,learnedadvocates
fortheaccusedmadesubmissionsonfactsaswellasonlawpoints
and submitted various authorities. Learned SPP then made
submissions on law points in reply and submitted authorities on
whichherelied.
422.
appreciationofevidenceofwitnessesaswellasdefencewitnesses
andthedefencetakenbytheaccusedanditisthereforenecessaryto
considerthelawlaiddownbytheHighCourtsandtheApexCourt
beforeproceedingfurtherwiththediscussionoftheevidence.
423.
LearnedadvocateShettyhasplacedrelianceonthefollowing
GurcharanSinghandanotherV.StateofPunjab(AIR1956
SC460).
Learnedadvocatehasplacedrelianceontheobservationsin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..379..
Ext.4825
Itisobservedinparagraph5thattheburdenofprovingthe
'alibi'undoubtedlylayontheappellant.
certainportionsfromparagraph19ofthejudgmentarereproduced
asfollows:
'Defencewitnessesareentitledtoequaltreatmentwiththoseof
presenceoftheaccusedatthesceneofoffencebyreasonofhispresence
atanotherplace.Thepleacanthereforesucceedonlyifitisshownthat
theaccusedwassofarawayattherelevanttimethathecouldnotbe
presentattheplacewherethecrimewascommitted'.
(iii)
TanvibenPankajkumarDivetiaV.StateofGujarat(1997
Cri.L.J.2535).
Learnedadvocatehasplacedrelianceontheobservationsin
paragraph44ofthejudgmentwhichisasfollows:
'TheCourthasdrawnadverseinferenceagainsttheaccusedfor
makingfalsestatementasrecordedunderSection313oftheCodeof
CriminalProcedure.Inviewofourfindings,itcannotbeheldthatthe
accusedmadefalsestatements.Evenifitisassumedthattheaccused
hadmadefalsestatementswhenexaminedunderSection313ofthe
CodeofCriminalProcedure,thelawiswellsettledthatthefalsityof
the defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the
prosecutionhastoestablishinordertosucceed.Afalsepleamaybe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..380..
Ext.4825
paragraphs14to17portionofwhicharereproducedinheadnoteC
asfollows:
'Thereisconsensusofjudicialopinioninfavouroftheviewthat
wheretheburdenofanissueliesupontheaccused,heisnotrequired
todischargethatburdenbyleadingevidencetoprovehiscasebeyonda
reasonabledoubt.This,however,isthetestprescribedwhiledeciding
whethertheprosecutionhasdischargeditsonusofprovingtheguiltof
theaccused.Itisnotatestwhichcanbeappliedtoanaccusedperson
whoseekstoprovesubstantiallyhisclaimthathiscasefallsunderan
Exception.Whereheiscalledupontoprovethathiscasefallsunderan
Exception,lawtreatstheonusasdischargedifhesucceedsinprovinga
preponderance of probability. As soon as the preponderance of
probabilityisestablishedtheburdenshiftstotheprosecutionwhich
still has to discharge its original onus. Basically, the original onus
nevershiftsandtheprosecutionhasatallstagesofthecasetoprove
theguiltoftheaccusedbeyondareasonabledoubt.(1935)AC462,
Rel.on.
WhereanaccusedpersonpleadsanExceptionhemustjustifyhis
plea,butthedegreeandcharacter ofproofwhichheisexpected to
JudgementMCOC21/06
..381..
Ext.4825
furnishinsupportoftheplea,cannotbeequatedwiththedegreeand
characterofproofexpectedfromtheprosecutionwhichisrequiredto
proveitscase.Theonusontheaccusedmaywellbecomparedtothe
onusonapartyincivilproceedings;justasincivilproceedingsthe
Courtwhichtriesanissuemakesitsdecisionbyadoptingthetestof
probabilities, somustacriminal Courthold thepleamadeby the
accusedproved,ifapreponderanceofprobabilityisestablishedbythe
evidenceledbyhim'.
(v)
Respondent(AIR1996SupremeCourt2184).
Learnedadvocatehasplacedrelianceontheobservationsin
paragraph17,wherein,theSupremeCourtexpressedconcernabout
alarmingincreaseincasesrelatingtoharassment,torture,abetted
suicides,etc.Itwasobservedthat,'TheroleoftheCourts,underthe
circumstances,assumesagreatimportance.TheCourtsareexpectedto
dealwithsuchcasesinarealisticmannersoastofurthertheobjectof
thelegislation.However,theCourtsmustnotlosesightofthefactthat
theAct,thoughapieceofsociallegislation,isapenalstatute.Oneof
thecardinalrulesofinterpretationinsuchcasesisthatapenalstatute
mustbestrictlyconstrued.TheCourtshave,thus,tobewatchfultosee
thatemotionalsentimentsarenotallowedtoinfluencetheirjudgment,
onewayortheotherandthattheydonotignorethegoldenthread
passingthroughcriminaljurisprudencethatanaccusedispresumedto
beinnocenttillprovedguiltyandthattheguiltofanaccusedmustbe
establishedbeyondareasonabledoubt.Theymustcarefullyassessthe
evidenceandnotalloweithersuspicionorsurmiseorconjecturesto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..382..
Ext.4825
taketheplaceofproofintheirzealtostampouttheevilfromthe
societywhileatthesametimenotadoptingtheeasycourseofletting
technicalitiesorminordiscrepanciesintheevidenceresultinacquitting
anaccused.Theymustcriticallyanalysetheevidenceanddecidethe
caseinarealisticmanner.
424.
Khan for the accused made submissions only on law points and
placedrelianceandfurnishedasmanyas68authorities.Inrespect
of appreciation of evidence of witnesses and appreciation of
evidenceinsuchtypeofcases,hereliedonfollowingauthorities:
(i)
Respondents(AIR1952SC159).
Learnedadvocatereliedontheobservationsinparagraph2of
thejudgementandsubmitsthatonehastobeonguardwhenthe
suspiciontakesplaceonproof.Thegreaterthecharge,thehigher
thestandardofproof,becausethestakesaremuchhigher.Whenthe
PrimeMinisteriskilled,whentheparliamentisattached,whenthe
trainsareblownup,thepublicwantstoknowwhohasdoneit.We
have to see who are the right people, that they are caught and
neutralized.Thegreaterthecharge,thehighertheproofrequired.
Theobservationsinparagraph2are,'Themurderwasaparticularly
cruel and revolting one and for that reason it will be necessary to
examinetheevidencewithmorethanordinarycarelesttheshocking
nature of the crime induce an instinctive reaction against a
dispassionatejudicialscrutinyofthefactsandlaw'.
(ii)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..383..
Ext.4825
Respondent(2002CRI.L.J.4676).
Learnedadvocatereliedontheobservationsinparagraph8
that,'RealitiesorTruthapart,thefundamentalandbasicpresumption
intheadministrationofcriminallawandjusticedeliverysystemisthe
innocenceoftheallegedaccusedandtillthechargesareprovedbeyond
reasonable doubt on the basis of clear, cogent, credible or
unimpeachable evidence, the question of indicting or punishing an
accuseddoesnotarise,merelycarriedawaybyheinousnatureofthe
crimeorthegruesomemannerinwhichitwasfound tohavebeen
committed.Meresuspicion,however,strongorprobableitmaybeisno
effective substitute for the legal proof required to substantiate the
charge of commission of a crime and grave the charge is, greater
shouldbethestandardofproofrequired.Courtsdealingwithcriminal
casesatleastshouldconstantlyrememberthatthereisalongmental
distancebetweenmaybetrueandmustbetrueand thisbasicand
golden rule only helps to maintain the vital distinction between
conjecturesandsureconclusionstobearrivedatonthetouchstoneof
a dispassionate judicial scrutiny based upon a complete and
comprehensiveappreciationofallfeaturesofthecaseaswellasquality
andcredibilityoftheevidencebroughtonrecord'.
Whilediscussingthisauthority,hesubmitsthatthiscourtwill
havetodecideonthebasisofcircumstantialevidence,whichisthe
mansty of the prosecution evidence and it is a difficult task. He
submitsthatitistheweakestkindofevidencethoughitisnodoubt
admissible.Hecriticizedtheprosecutionevidenceandnatureofthe
witnessessubmittingthatthereisnofingerprintsevidence,novoice
JudgementMCOC21/06
..384..
Ext.4825
Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheobservationsinparagraph
32asfollows:
Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheobservationsinparagraph
8ofthejudgementinwhichtheobservationsinparagraph10ofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..385..
Ext.4825
judgementinthecaseofHanumantGovindNargundkarV.Stateof
M.P.(AIR1952SC343)arereproducedasfollows:
applicabletosuchevidencemustbeborneinmind.Insuchcasesthere
isalwaysthedangerthatconjectureorsuspicionmaytaketheplaceof
legalproof.Incaseswheretheevidenceisofacircumstantialnature,
thecircumstancesfromwhichtheconclusionofguiltistobedrawn
shouldinthefirstinstancebefullyestablished,andallthefactsso
establishedshouldbeconsistentonlywiththehypothesisoftheguiltof
theaccused.Again,thecircumstancesshouldbeofaconclusivenature
andtendencyandtheyshouldbesuchastoexcludeeveryhypothesis
buttheoneproposedtobeproved.Inotherwords,theremustbea
chainofevidencesofarcompleteasnottoleaveanyreasonableground
foraconclusionconsistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedandit
mustbesuchastoshowthatwithinallhumanprobabilitytheact
musthavebeendonebytheaccused'.
paragraph9isawarningtothecourtsinrespectoftheappreciation
of circumstantial evidence. It reads, 'The mind was apt to take a
pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another, and even in
strainingthemalittle,ifneedbe,toforcethemtoformpartsofone
connectedwhole;andthemoreingeniousthemindoftheindividual,
the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and
misleaditself,tosupplysomelittlelinkthatiswanting,totakefor
grantedsomefactconsistentwithitsprevioustheoriesandnecessaryto
renderthemcomplete'.
JudgementMCOC21/06
(v)
..386..
Ext.4825
Rajasthan,Respondent((2013)5SupremeCourtCases722.
Learnedadvocatehasplacedrelianceontheobservationsin
'22. InKaliRamv.StateofH.P.thiscourtobservedasunder:
(SCCp.820,para25)
25. Anothergoldenthreadwhichrunsthroughtheweb
oftheadministrationofjusticeincriminalcasesisthatiftwoviewsare
possibleontheevidenceadducedinthecase,onepointingtotheguilt
of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is
favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a
specialrelevanceincaseswhereintheguiltoftheaccusedissoughtto
beestablishedbycircumstantialevidence.
23.
24.
InSharadBirdhichandSardathisCourtheldasunder:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..387..
Ext.4825
(SCCp.185,para153)
153.(2)thefactssoestablishedshouldbeconsistentonlywith
tendency,
(5)theremustbeachainofevidencesocompleteasnottoleave
anyreasonablegroundfortheconclusionconsistentwiththeinnocence
oftheaccusedandmustshowthatinallhumanprobabilitytheact
musthavebeendonebytheaccused.
AsimilarviewhasbeenreiteratedinKrishnanv.State,Pawan
v.StateofUttaranchalandStateofMaharashtrav.Mangilal.
25.
InM.G.Agarwalv.StateofMaharashtrathisCourtheld,
thatifthecircumstancesprovedinacaseareconsistenteitherwiththe
innocenceoftheaccused,orwithhisguilt,thentheaccusedisentitled
tothebenefitofdoubt.Whenitisheldthatacertainfacthasbeen
proved,thenthequestionthatarisesiswhethersuchafactleadstothe
inference of guilt on the part of the accused person or not, and in
dealingwiththisaspectoftheproblem,benefitofdoubtmustbegiven
totheaccusedandafinalinferenceofguiltagainsthimmustbedrawn
onlyiftheprovedfactiswhollyinconsistentwiththeinnocenceofthe
accused,andisentirelyconsistentwithhisguilt.
26.
Similarly,inSharadBirdhichandSardathisCourtheldas
under:(SCCpp.12728)
Graverthecrime,greatershouldbethestandardofproof.An
JudgementMCOC21/06
..388..
Ext.4825
cannotamounttolegalproof.Whenontheevidencetwopossibilities
areavailableoropen,onewhichgoesinthefavouroftheprosecution
andtheotherbenefitsanaccused,theaccusedisundoubtedlyentitled
tothebenefitofdoubt.Theprinciplehasspecialrelevancewherethe
guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial
evidence.
27.
InanEssayonthePrinciplesofCircumstantialEvidence
Inmatterofdirecttestimony,ifcredencebegiventothe
relators,theactofhearingandtheactofbelief,thoughreallynotso,
seemtobecontemporaneous.Butthecaseisverydifferentwhenwe
have to determine upon circumstantial evidence, the judgment in
respect of which is essentially inferential. There is no apparent
necessaryconnectionbetweenthefactsandtheinference;thefactsmay
betrue,andtheinferenceerroneous,anditisonlybycomparisonwith
theresultsofobservationinsimilaroranalogouscircumstances,that
weacquireconfidenceintheaccuracyofourconclusions.
Theterm'presumptive'isfrequentlyusedassynonymous
withcircumstantialevidence;butitisnotsousedwithstrictaccuracy,
Theword'presumption',exvitermini,importsaninferencefromfacts;
andtheadjunct'presumptive',asappliedtoevidentiaryfacts,implies
thecertaintyofsomerelationbetweenthefactsandtheinference.
particularinferences;forthefactsmaybeindisputableandyettheir
relationtotheprincipalfactmaybeonlyapparentandnotreal;and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..389..
Ext.4825
28.
Thus,inviewoftheabove,thecourtmustconsideracase
Learnedadvocatereliedontheobservationsinparagraph13
ofthejudgementsubmittingthatthiscasewasinrespectoftheself
defence,buttheruleistobeappliedtoallgeneralexceptions.The
observations are 'It is well settled that it is not necessary for the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..390..
Ext.4825
defencetoproveitscasewiththesamerigourastheprosecutionis
requiredtoproveitscase,anditissufficientifthedefencesucceedsin
throwingareasonabledoubtontheprosecutioncasewhichissufficient
toenabletheCourttorejecttheprosecutionversion'.
(vii) Partap,appellantV.TheStateofUttarPradesh,respondent
(AIR1976SupremeCourt966).
Learnedadvocatereliedontheobservationsinparagraphs12
and28insupportofhissubmissionsthatburdenontheaccusedis
notasonerousasontheprosecutionandevenifthedefenceversion
is not fully established, it will not prove the prosecution case.
Paragraphs12and28areasfollows:
'12.
Itiswellsettledthattheburdenontheaccusedisnotas
onerousasthatwhichliesontheprosecution.Whiletheprosecutionis
requiredtoproveitscasebeyondareasonabledoubt,theaccusedcan
dischargehisonusbyestablishingamerepreponderanceofprobability.
28.
submittingthattheobservationsinparagraph31isoneofthebest
statementsoflawofallocationofburdenofproofwhichreads,'Even
aliteralinterpretationofthefirstpartofSection105couldindicate
thattheburdenofprovingtheexistenceofcircumstancesbringingthe
case within an exception is meant to cover complete proof of the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..391..
Ext.4825
exceptionpleaded,byapreponderanceofprobability,aswellasproof
of circumstances showing that the exception may exist which will
entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt on the ingredients of an
offence.Iftheintentionwastoconfinethebenefitofbringingacase
withinanexceptiontocasewheretheexceptionwasestablishedbya
preponderanceofprobability,moredirectanddefinitelanguagewould
have been employed by providing that the accused must 'prove the
existence'oftheexceptionpleaded.But,thelanguageusedinthefirst
partof Section105seemstobedeliberatelylessprecisesothatthe
accused,evenifhefailstodischargehisdutyfully,byestablishingthe
existenceofanexception,maygetthebenefitoftheexceptionindirectly
whentheprosecutionfailsinitsdutytoeliminategenuinedoubtabout
hisguiltintroducedbytheaccused.Again,thelastpartofsection105,
evenifstrictlyandliterallyinterpreted,doesnotjustifyreadingintoit
the meaning that the obligatory presumption must last until the
accused'spleasisfullyestablishedandnotjusttillcircumstances(i.e.
notnecessarilyall)tosupportthepleaareproved'.
(viii) Holia Budhoo Gawara, appellant V. Emperor (AIR (36)
1949Nagpur163).
Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheobservationsinparagraphs
7and12andreiteratedthesametestastowhatweightistobe
attachedtotheevidenceofthe accusedandthatallthatmaybe
necessary for the accused is to offer some explanation of the
prosecution evidence, and if this appears to the court to be
reasonable,eventhoughnotbeyonddoubtandtobeconsistentwith
theinnocenceoftheaccused,heshouldbegiventhebenefitofit.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..392..
Ext.4825
reasonableexplanationwhichmaybetrue,theneventhoughtheJudge
ortheJury,asthecasemaybe,isnotconvincedthatitistrue,heis
entitledtoanacquittal'.
(x)
respondent(AIR1977SupremeCourt170).
Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheobservationsinparagraph
6, which are dealing with the same principle, but are more
elaborate. He made a submission that if in his case he says that
somebody has committed crime then it is for the prosecution to
provethathehasnotgivensuchaconfessionandthatheis not
chargesheeted for the said allegations. The observations are, 'The
Courtsbelowappeartohaveconvictedtheappellantonthebasisofthe
decision referred toaboveand haveheld thatsincetheexplanation
given by the appellant was false, an inference of misappropriation
couldreasonablybedrawnagainsthim.Thispropositioncannotbe
doubted. But the question is whether the explanation given by the
appellant in this case can be said to be absolutely false? Another
questionthatarisesiswhatarethestandardstobeemployedinorder
tojudgethetruthorfalsityoftheversiongivenbythedefence?Should
the accused prove his case with the same amount of rigour and
certainty,astheprosecutionisrequiredtoproveacriminalcharge,or
itissufficientif theaccused putsforward aprobableorreasonable
explanationwhichissufficienttothrowdoubtontheprosecutioncase?
JudgementMCOC21/06
..393..
Ext.4825
Inouropinionthreecardinalprinciplesofcriminaljurisprudenceare
wellsettled,namely:
(1)
thattheonusliesaffirmativelyontheprosecutiontoproveits
casebeyondreasonabledoubtanditcannotderiveanybenefitfrom
weaknessorfalsityofthedefenceversionwhileprovingitscase;
(2)
thatinacriminaltrialtheaccusedmustbepresumedtobe
innocentunlessheisprovedtobeguilty;and
(3)
thattheonusontheprosecutionnevershifts.
ItistruethatunderSection105oftheEvidenceActtheonusof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..394..
Ext.4825
tothrowsuspicionontheprosecutioncaseentailingitsrejectionbythe
Court. This aspect of the matter is no longer res integra but is
concludedbyseveralauthoritiesofthisCourt'.
ReferencetotheobservationsinthecaseofStateofU.P.V.
Learnedadvocatereliedontheobservationsinparagraph12
that, 'theordinarypresumptionisthatawitnessspeakingunderan
oath is truthful unless and until he is shown to be untruthful or
unreliable inany particular respect'.Placing reliance on the above
observation,hesubmitsthatwheneverdefenceevidenceisledthere
isalwaysdoubtinthemindofthepeoplethathemaybecreating
something and usually when an accused leads evidence, the
prosecutionsaysthatitshouldnotbebelieved.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..395..
Ext.4825
Learnedadvocatereliedonasentenceinparagraph9,'Itisa
Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheobservationsinparagraph
40.Furthermore,therecannotbeanydisputewithrespectto
thesettledlegalproposition,thatifapartywishestoraiseanydoubt
as regards the correctness of the statement of a witness, the said
witness must be given an opportunity to explain his statement by
drawinghisattentiontothatpartofit,whichhasbeenobjectedtoby
theother party,as being untrue. Without this, it is not possible to
impeachhiscredibility.Suchalawhasbeenadvancedinviewofthe
statutory provisions enshrined in Section 138 of the Evidence Act,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..396..
Ext.4825
1872,whichenabletheoppositepartytocrossexamineawitnessas
regards information tendered in evidence by him during his initial
examinationinchief,andthescopeofthisprovisionsstandsenlarged
by Section 146 of the Evidence Act, which permits a witness to be
questioned, inter alia, in order to test his veracity. Thereafter, the
unchallengedpartofhisevidenceistobereliedupon,forthereason
thatitisimpossibleforthewitnesstoexplainorelaborateuponany
doubtsasregardsthesame,intheabsenceofquestionsputtohimwith
respecttothecircumstanceswhichindicatethattheversionofevents
providedbyhimisnotfittobebelieved,andthewitnesshimself,is
unworthyofcredit.Thus,ifapartyintendstoimpeachawitness,he
mustprovideadequateopportunitytothewitnessinthewitnessbox,to
giveafullandproperexplanation.Thesameisessentialtoensurefair
playandfairnessindealingwithwitnesses.
(emphasissupplied)
(xiv) Kartar Singh, petitioner V. State of Punjab, respondent
((1994)3SupremeCourtCases569).
Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheobservationinparagraph
208insupportofhissubmissionthattheprosecutionshouldhave
confrontedtheaccusedwiththeirstatementsrecordedbythepolice.
Paragraph208readsas, 'Article22(1)and(2)confercertainrights
uponapersonwhohasbeenarrested.ComingtotheprovisionsofCode
ofCriminalProcedure,Section161empowersapoliceofficermaking
aninvestigationtoexamineorallyanypersonsupposedtobeacquitted
withthefactsandcircumstancesofthecaseandtoreduceintowriting
anystatementmadetohiminthecourseofsuchexamination.Section
JudgementMCOC21/06
..397..
Ext.4825
162whichspeaksoftheuseofthestatementsorecorded,statesthat
nostatementrecordedbyapoliceofficer,ifreducedintowriting,be
signedbythepersonmakingitandthatthestatementshallnotbe
usedforanypurposesaveasprovidedintheCodeandtheprovisionsof
theEvidenceAct.ThebanimposedbySection162appliestoallthe
statementswhetherconfessionalorotherwise,madetoapoliceofficer
by any person whether accused or not during the course of the
investigationunderChapterXIIoftheCode.Butthestatementgivenby
anaccusedcanbeusedinthemannerprovidedbySection145ofthe
EvidenceActincasetheaccusedexamineshimselfasawitnessforthe
defence by availing Section 315(1) of the Code corresponding to
Section342AoftheoldCodeandtogiveevidenceonoathindisproof
ofthechargesmadeagainsthimoranypersonchargedtogetherwith
himatthesametrial'.
(xv) State of Haryana, appellant V. Ram Singh, respondent
((2002)2SupremeCourtCases426).
Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheobservationsinparagraph
19,whichreadsas,'incidentally,beitnotedthattheevidencetendered
bydefencewitnessescannotalwaysbetermedtobeataintedonethe
defencewitnessesareentitledtoequaltreatmentandequalrespectas
thatoftheprosecution.Theissueofcredibilityandthetrustworthiness
oughtalsotobeattributedtothedefencewitnessesonaparwiththat
of theprosecution.Rejectionofthedefencecaseonthebasisofthe
evidence tendered by the defence witness has been effected rather
casuallybytheHighCourt.Suggestionwastheretotheprosecution
witnesses,inparticularPW10DholuRamthathisfatherManphool
JudgementMCOC21/06
..398..
Ext.4825
wasmissingforabout2/3dayspriortothedayoftheoccurrenceitself
whatmoreisexpectedofthedefencecase:adoubtoracertainty
jurisprudentiallyadoubtwouldbeenough:whensuchasuggestion
hasbeenmadetheprosecutionhastobringonrecordtheavailability
ofthedeceasedduringthose2/3dayswithsomeindependentevidence.
Rejectionofthedefencecaseonlybyreasonthereofisfartoostrictand
rigidarequirementforthedefencetomeetitistheprosecutor'sduty
toprovebeyondallreasonabledoubtsandnottodefencetoproveits
innocencethisitselfisacircumstance,whichcannotbutbetermedto
besuspiciousinnature'.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthattheaccused
havegivendetailedevidenceabouttortureandconfessions,butonly
suggestion by the prosecutor that they are speaking false is not
sufficient. Accused stated on oath about certain things but no
suggestion was even given that it is not true. He points out to
specific instances in the evidence given by A7, A12 and A13. He
submitsthatthereisnosuggestiontothe particularaccusedthat
theyhaveplantedthebombsorthattheyhavegivenconfessionsor
harbouredthewantedaccusedorthattestidentificationparadewas
conducted properly though the accused gave specific evidence to
disprove these allegations and even produced and proved
documents.SpecificinstanceofinjurycertificatesprovedbytheA7
hasbeenpointedout.
425.
authorities:
(i)
(Laws(SC)2007322).
JudgementMCOC21/06
..399..
Ext.4825
Learnedadvocatehasreliedonthesettledpropositionsoflaw
respondent((2013)1SupremeCourtCases(Cri)877).
Learnedadvocatehasreliedonthediscussionofthefactsof
thatcaseinparagraph12andontheobservationsinparagraphs38
to42ofthejudgementinsupportofhissubmissionthattherewas
delay in the examination of the witnesses by the investigating
officers which was fitted to the prosecution. Paragraph 15 in the
case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel V. State of Maharashtra reported in
(1978) 4 SCC at page 371 is quoted in paragraph 40, i.e.,
'15....Delayofafewhours,simpliciter,inrecordingthestatementsof
eyewitnessesmaynot,byitself,amounttoaseriousinfirmityinthe
prosecution case. But it may assume such a character if there are
concomitant circumstances to suggest that the investigator was
deliberatelymarkingtimewithaviewtodecideabouttheshapetobe
given to the case and the eyewitnesses to be introduced' and in
paragraph41itisobservedthattherewasadelayofamonthanda
halfinexaminingofthewitnesses.Paragraph17inthecaseofBanti
V.StateofM.P.reportedin(2004)1SCCatpage414isquotedin
paragraph42as,'17....Asregardsthedelayedexaminationofcertain
witnesses, this Court in several decisions has held that unless the
investigatingofficeriscategoricallyaskedastowhytherewasdelayin
examinationofthewitnessesthedefencecannotgainanyadvantage
therefrom.Itcannotbelaiddownasaruleofuniversalapplication
JudgementMCOC21/06
..400..
Ext.4825
thatifthereisanydelayinexaminationofaparticularwitness,the
prosecution version becomes suspect. It would depend upon several
factors. If the explanation offered for the delayed examination is
plausibleandacceptableandthecourtacceptsthesameasplausible,
thereisnoreasontointerferewiththeconclusion'.
Theabovetwojudgementsweretheauthoritiesreliedupon
bythecounselsfortheappellantsandrespondents.
(iii) Sunil Kundu & Anr., appellants V. State of Jharkhand,
respondent((2013)2SupremeCourtCases(Cri)427).
Learnedadvocatehasreliedonparagraphs2,13and15to
29,mostofwhichcontainthediscussionaboutthefactsofthecase.
Theobservationsonlawinthefactsofthatcasewereinparagraph
28as, 'Itisalsotruethatthepleaofalibitakenbytheaccusedhas
failed.Thedefencewitnessesexaminedbythemhavebeendisbelieved.
Itwasurged thatadverse inference should bedrawnfrom this. We
rejectthissubmission.Whentheprosecutionisnotabletoproveits
casebeyondreasonabledoubtitcannottakeadvantageofthefactthat
theaccusedhavenotbeenabletoprobabilisetheirdefence.Itiswell
settledthattheprosecutionmuststandorfallonitsownfeet.Itcannot
drawsupportfromtheweaknessofthecaseoftheaccused,ifithasnot
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt'. In paragraph 29 it is
observedthat,'itiswellsettledthatsuspicion,howeverstrong,cannot
taketheplaceofproof.Insuchacase,benefitofdoubtmustgotothe
accused'.
(iv) Tulshiram Bhanudas Kambale, appellant V. State of
Maharashtra,respondents(Laws(Bom)1999472).
JudgementMCOC21/06
..401..
Ext.4825
containadiscussionaboutthefactualaspectsofthecase.
(v)
RonChayakV.StateofGoa(2007ALLMR(Cri)2786).
Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheheadnoteandparagraphs
Learnedadvocatehasreliedonparagraphs12,14,16,19,25,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..402..
Ext.4825
appellantbeforetheRajasthanHighCourtandinparagraph14itis
observedthatthetrialcourtdidnotapproachtheissueinitscorrect
perspectiveasitignoredtheelementaryandcardinalprincipleof
criminaljurisprudencewhichrequirestheprosecutiontostandonits
ownlegsandregardingthis thetrialcourtexaminedthedefence
versionbeforeexaminingtheprosecutionstory.Thediscussioninthe
remainingparagraphsistotallyfactual.
(vii) Jarnail Singh & Ors., appellants V. State of Punjab,
respondent((2009)9SupremeCourtCases719).
Learnedadvocatehasreliedonthisauthoritythatwascited
Learnedadvocateplacedrelianceonparagraphs2and3of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..403..
Ext.4825
Learnedadvocatehasplacedrelianceonparagraphs12,26,
31and32insupportofhissubmissionsinrespectofthedefenceof
alibi.Thefirstthreeparagraphsareinrespectofthefactualaspects
andinparagraph32itisobservedthattheHighCourtoughtnotto
haveexercisedthejurisdictiontoreverseallthefindingsofacquittal
bythetrialcourtiftheconclusionrecordedbythetrialcourtdidnot
reflectapossibleview.Possibleviewisincontradistinctionto
expressionssuchaserroneousvieworwrongview.
(x)
Jumni,appellantsV.StateofHaryana,respondent(Laws
(SC)2014321).
Learnedadvocatehasplacedrelianceonparagraphs19to31.
Itisobservedinparagraph19that,'itisnodoubttruethatwhenan
alibiissetup,theburdenisontheaccusedtolendcredencetothe
defence put up by him or her. However the approach of the court
shouldnotbesuchastopickholesinthecaseoftheaccusedperson.
Thedefenceevidencehastobetestedlikeanyothertestimony,always
keepinginmindthatapersonispresumedinnocentuntilheorsheis
foundguilty'.
Theelaborateexplanationofthepleaofalibiinthecaseof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..404..
Ext.4825
reproducedas,'wemustbearinmindthatanalibiisnotanexception
(specialorgeneral)envisagedintheIndianPenalCodeoranyother
law. It is only a rule of evidence recognised in Section 11 of the
EvidenceActthatfactswhichareinconsistentwiththefactinissueare
relevant'.
(xi) JagarnathGiri&Ors.V.TheStateofBihar(1992CriLJ
648).
and20ofthejudgementinsupportofthesubmissionthatpleaof
alibiprovedtothesatisfactionofthecourt,accusedatleastcreatesa
doubt. It is observed in paragraph 20 that, 'it is the duty of the
accusedtoprovethepleaofalibitothesatisfactionofthecourtandto
substantiate the plea and to make it reasonably probable. The
standard of proof about alibi is same as is on the prosecution to
establishitscase.Evenif,adoubtisraisedinthemindofthecourt
thattheaccusedmayhavebeenpresentormaynothavebeenpresent
atthetimeoftheoccurrence,thentheaccusedisentitledtothebenefit
ofdoubt'.
(xii) NandeswarDas,appellantV.StateofAssam,respondent
(2004CRI.L.J.4723).
submissionthatthehostilewitnessesarealsoreliable.Hereliedon
paragraph 10 of the judgement. This authority is of the Gauhati
HighCourtandinparagraph10itisobservedthat,'thoughP.W.5
andP.W.6weredeclared hostilebytheprosecution,their evidence
cannotbebrushedasidemerelyonthegroundthattheyweredeclared
JudgementMCOC21/06
..405..
Ext.4825
hostileinasmuchastheportionofevidencewhichhasgoneinfavourof
thedefence,wouldhavetobetakenbeingadvantageoustothedefence.
Itissettledlawthatdeclarationofawitnesstobehostiledoesnotipso
facto reject the evidence and the portion of the evidence being
advantageoustothepartiesmaybetakenadvantageof,buttheCourt
shouldbeextremelycautiousandcircumspectinsuchacceptance'.
(xiii) Majenderan Langeswaran, appellant V. State (NCT of
Delhi)&Anr.,respondents((2013)3SupremeCourtCases(Cri)
266).
paragraphs7,11,14to24and27.Thediscussioninparagraphs7,
11, 14 and 15 is factual and it is only in paragraph 23 that the
observations in paragraph 23 of the judgement of the Supreme
CourtinthecaseofG.ParshwanathV.StateofKarnatakareportedin
(2010)8SCC593wereconsideredagain,whichareasfollows:
'23. Incaseswhereevidenceisofacircumstantialnature,the
circumstancesfromwhichtheconclusionofguiltistobedrawnshould,
inthefirstinstance,befullyestablished.Eachfactsoughttoberelied
uponmustbeprovedindividually.However,inapplyingthisprinciplea
distinctionmustbemadebetweenfactscalledprimaryorbasiconthe
onehandandinferenceoffactstobedrawnfromthemontheother.In
regardtoproofofprimaryfacts,thecourthastojudgetheevidence
anddecidewhetherthatevidenceprovesaparticularfactandifthat
factisproved,thequestionwhetherthatfactleadstoaninferenceof
guiltoftheaccusedpersonshouldbeconsidered.Indealingwiththis
aspect of the problem, the doctrine of benefit of doubt applies.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..406..
Ext.4825
Althoughthereshouldnotbeanymissinglinksinthecase,yetitisnot
essential that each of the links must appear on the surface of the
evidenceadducedandsomeoftheselinksmayhavetobeinferredfrom
the proved facts. In drawing these inferences, the court must have
regardtothecommoncourseofnaturaleventsandtohumanconduct
and their relations to the facts of the particular case. The court
thereafterhastoconsidertheeffectofprovedfacts'.
(xiv) State of Kerala, appellants V. Anilachandran @ Madhu,
respondents(AIR(SC)200901866).
Learnedadvocatehasreliedonthisauthorityinreplytothe
replyofthelearnedSPPonlawpointsandhasplacedrelianceon
theheadnote,whichmentionsthat,'merelybecausetheaccusedwas
not able to prove his defence, it cannot be presumed that the
prosecutioncasewasprovedagainsthim'.
(xv) BhanudasBagajiSalve,appellantsV.StateofMaharashtra,
respondents(BCR(Cri)2006122).
Learnedadvocatehasplacedrelianceontheobservationsin
paragraphs4and6ofthejudgementinsupportofhissubmission
thattheevidenceofhostilewitnessescanbereliedupon.Paragraph
6isinrespectofthefactualaspectandinparagraph4itisheldthat,
'itisbynowwellsettledthatmerefactthatawitnesshasbeendeclared
hostile does not result in automatic rejection of his evidence. If the
evidenceofthehostilewitnessfindscorroborationfromthefactsofthe
case,samemaybetakenintoaccountwhilejudgingtheguiltofan
accused.Lawinthisregardhasbeenlaiddownbyseveraljudgmentsof
theApexCourt.ThelatestjudgmentoftheApexcourtinthisregardis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..407..
Ext.4825
thejudgmentoftheApexCourtinthecaseof(LeilaSrinivasaRaov.
StateofAndhraPradesh),A.I.R.2004S.C.W.1254,whereinthe
ApexCourtobservedasfollows:
thefactthatthesewitnesseshavebeendeclaredhostilebythe
prosecution,doesnotresultintheautomaticrejectionoftheirevidence.
Eventheevidenceofahostilewitnessifitfindscorroborationfromthe
factsofthecasemaybetakenintoaccountwhilejudgingtheguiltof
anaccused.
Yetanotherpropositionrelatingtotheacceptanceoftheevidence
ofahostilewitnesswaslaiddownbytheApexCourtinthecaseof
(StateofU.P.v.RameshPrasadMisraandanother),1996(10)S.C.
C.360,inthefollowingterms:
theevidenceofahostilewitnesswouldnotbetotallyrejectedif
426.
LearnedSPPRajaThakarehasreliedonfollowingauthorities
inreplytothelegalsubmissionsmadebythelearnedadvocatesfor
theaccused:
JudgementMCOC21/06
(i)
..408..
Ext.4825
respondent(AIR2002SC1965).
judgementinsupportofhissubmissionsthatthedutythatiscast
uponthecourtistoappreciatetheevidenceaspersection3ofthe
Evidence Act and to arrive at the right conclusion based on the
existingsystemofcriminaljurisprudenceenunciatedfromtimeto
timebytheApexCourt.Hesubmitsthatthecriminaljurisprudence
isundergoingaradicalchangeallovertheworldwiththechanging
timesconsideringhumanvalues,publiccry,thelargerinterestofthe
society in view of the enormity of the crime, complicities of the
crimeandtheirimpactofanorderlysociety.Paragraphs76and77
areasfollows:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..409..
Ext.4825
examination,certainanswersaresnatchedfromhim.Whenarusticor
illiteratewitnessfacesanastutelawyer,thereisboundtobeimbalance
and,therefore,minordiscrepancieshavetobeignored.Thesedaysitis
notdifficulttogainoverawitnessbymoneypowerorgivinghimany
otherallurenceorgivingoutthreatstohislifeand/orpropertyatthe
instance of persons, in/or close to powers and muscle men or their
associates.Suchinstancesarealsonotuncommonwhereawitnessis
not inclined to depose because in the prevailing social structure he
wants to remain indifferent. It is most unfortunate that expert
witnessesandtheinvestigatingagenciesandotheragencieswhichhave
animportantroletoplayarealsonotimmunefromdeclineofvalues
inpubliclife.Theirevidencesometimesbecomesdoubtfulbecausethey
donotactsincerely,takeeverythinginacasualmannerandarenot
abletodevoteproperattentionandtime.
77.
Thus,incriminaltrialaprosecutorisfacedwithsomany
odds.TheCourtwhileappreciatingtheevidenceshouldnotlosesightof
theserealitiesoflifeandcannotafforedtotakeanunrealisticapproach
bysittinginivorytower.Ifindthatinrecenttimesthetendencyto
acquitanaccusedeasilyisgallopingfast.Itisveryeasytopassan
orderofacquittalonthebasisofminorpointsraisedinthecasebya
short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some
discrepancyisboundtobethereineachandeverycasewhichshould
not weigh with the Court so long it does not materially affect the
prosecutioncase.Incasediscrepanciespointedoutareintherealmof
pebbled,courtshouldtreaduponit,butifthesameareboulders,court
shouldnotmakeanattempttojumpoverthesame.Thesedayswhen
JudgementMCOC21/06
..410..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..411..
Ext.4825
doubt.Soitisasolemndutyofthecourts,nottomerelyconcludeand
leavethecasethemomentsuspicionsarecreated.Itisonerousdutyof
thecourt,withinpermissiblelimittofindoutthetruth.Itmeans,on
onehandnoinnocentmanshouldbepunishedbutontheotherhand
toseenopersoncommittinganoffenceshouldgetscotfree.Ifinspite
ofsucheffortsuspicionisnotdissolved,itremainswritatlarge,benefit
ofdoubthastobecreditedtotheaccused'.
(ii)
respondent(AIR2002SC3633).
LearnedSPPhasreliedonparagraphs16,18,19,21and22
intheauthoritysubmittingthatthisisoneoftheclassicjudgement
withrespecttotheguidancetothejudicialofficersinrespectofthe
ruleofbenefitofreasonabledoubt.Theparagraphsrelieduponare
follows:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..412..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..413..
Ext.4825
eachcaseastowhatextenttheevidenceisworthyofacceptance,and
merelybecauseinsomerespectstheCourtconsidersthesametobe
insufficientforplacingrelianceonthetestimonyofawitness,itdoes
notnecessarilyfollowasamatteroflawthatitmustbedisregardedin
all respect as well. The evidence has to be shifted with care. The
aforesaiddictumisnotasoundruleforthereasonthatonehardly
comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of
untruthoratanyrateexaggeration,embroideriesorembellishment.
(SeeSohrabs/oBeliNayataandAnr.v.TheStateofMadhyaPradesh
MANU/SC/0254/1972:1972CriLJ1302and UgarAhirandOrs.v.
The State of Bihar MANU/SC/0333/1964 : AIR1965SC277 :
AIR1965SC277).Anattempthastobemade to,asnotedabove in
termsoffelicitousmetaphor,separategrainfromthechaff,truthfrom
falsehood.Whereitisnotfeasibletoseparatetruthfromfalsehood,
becausegrainandchaffareinextricablymixedup,andintheprocess
of separation an absolutely new case has to be reconstructed by
divorcingessentialdetailspresentedbytheprosecutioncompletelyfrom
thecontextandthebackgroundagainstwhichtheyaremade,theonly
availablecoursetobemadeistodiscard theevidenceintoto.(See
ZwingleeAriel v.Stateof MadhyaPradesh MANU/SC/0093/1952:
AIR1954SC15 and Balaka Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab
MANU/SC/0087/1975:1975CriLJ1734).AsobservedbythisCourt
in StateofRajasthanv.SmtKalkiandAnr. MANU/SC/0254/1981:
1981CriLJ1012,normaldiscrepanciesinevidencearethosewhichare
duetonormalerrorsofobservations,normalerrorsofmemorydueto
lapseoftime,duetomentaldispositionsuchasshockandhorrorat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..414..
Ext.4825
thetimeofoccurrenceandthosearealwaystherehoweverhonestand
truthfulawitnessmaybe.Materialdiscrepanciesarethosewhichare
notnormal,andnotexpectedofanormalperson.Courtshavetolabel
thecategorytowhichadiscrepancymaybecategorized.Whilenormal
discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of party's case, material
discrepanciesdoso.TheseaspectswerehighlightedrecentlyinKrishna
Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc. MANU/SC/0327/2002 :
2002CriLJ2645. Accusations have been clearly established against
accusedappellants in the case at hand. The Courts below have
categoricallyindicatedthedistinguishedfeaturesinevidencesofaras
acquittedandconvictedaccusedareconcerned.
18.
Exaggerateddevotiontotheruleofbenefitofdoubtmust
notnurturefancifuldoubtsorlingeringsuspicionandtherebydestroy
social defence. Justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is
bettertolethundredguiltyescapethanpunishaninnocent.Letting
guiltyescapeisnotdoingjusticeaccordingtolaw.[See: Gurbachan
Singh v. Satpal Singh and Ors. MANU/SC/0034/1990 :
1990CriLJ562]. Prosecution is not required to meet any and every
hypothesisputforwardbytheaccused.[See Stateof U.P.v.Ashok
Kumar Srivastava MANU/SC/0161/1992 : [1992]1SCR37]. A
reasonabledoubtisnotanimaginarytrivialormerelypossibledoubt,
butafairdoubtbaseduponreasonandcommonsense.Itmustgrow
outoftheevidenceinthecase.Ifacaseisprovedperfectly,itisargued
thatitisartificial;ifacasehassomeflawsinevitablebecausehuman
beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One
wonderswhetherinthemeticuloushypersensitivitytoeliminatearare
JudgementMCOC21/06
..415..
Ext.4825
innocentfrombeingpunished,manyguiltypersonsmustbeallowedto
escape.Proofbeyondreasonabledoubtisaguideline,notafetish.[See
InderSinghandAnr.v.State(DelhiAdmin.).MANU/SC/0093/1978:
1978CriLJ766]. Vague hunches cannot take place of judicial
evaluation.Ajudgedoesnotpresideoveracriminaltrial,merelyto
seethatnoinnocentmanispunished.Ajudgealsopresidestoseethat
aguiltymandoesnotescape.Botharepublicduties.(PerViscount
Simon is Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC (PC)
315)quotedinStateofU.P.v.AnilSinghAIR1988SC1988.Doubts
would becalledreasonableif theyarefree from azestfor abstract
speculation.Lawcannotaffordanyfavouriteotherthantruth.
19.
....Thedangersofexaggerateddevotiontotheruleofbenefitof
doubtattheexpenseofsocialdefenceandtothesoothingsentiment
thatallacquittalsarealwaysgoodregardlessofjusticetothevictim
andthecommunity,demandespecial emphasisinthecontemporary
contextofescalatingcrimeandescape.Thejudicialinstrumenthasa
public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of
proofbeyondreasonabledoubtwhichrunsthroughthewebofourlaw
shouldnotbestretchedmorbidlytoembraceeveryhunch,hesitancy
anddegreeofdoubt....
JudgementMCOC21/06
..416..
Ext.4825
....amiscarriageofjusticemayarisefromtheacquittalofthe
guiltynolessthanfromtheconvictionoftheinnocent....
21.
Atthisjuncture,itwouldbeappropriatetodealwiththe
22.
succinctlystatedasfollows:
Itistritethatwheretheeyewitnesses'accountisfoundcredible
andtrustworthy,medicalopinionpointingtoalternativepossibilitiesis
notacceptedasconclusive.Witnesses,asBanthamsaid,aretheeyes
andearofjustice.Hencetheimportanceandprimacyofthequalityof
the trial process. Eye witnesses' account would require a careful
independent assessment and evaluation for their credibility which
should not be adversely prejudged making any other evidence,
includingmedicalevidence,asthesoletouchstoneforthetestofsuch
credibility.Theevidencemustbetestedforitsinherentconsistencyand
theinherentprobabilityofthestory;consistencywiththeaccountof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..417..
Ext.4825
Apersonhas,nodoubt,aprofoundrightnottobeconvictedof
anoffencewhichisnotestablishedbytheevidentialstandardofproof
beyondreasonabledoubt.Thoughthisstandardisahigherstandard,
there is, however, no absolute standard. What degree of probability
amountsto'proof'isanexerciseparticulartoeachcase.Referringtoof
probability amounts to'proof'isanexercise theinterdependenceof
evidenceandtheconfirmationofonepieceofevidencebyanothera
learnedauthorsays(SeeTheMathematicsofProofII:Glanville
Williams:CriminalLawReview,1979bySweetandMaxwell,p.340
(342).
Thesimplemultiplicationruledoesnotapplyiftheseparate
piecesofevidencearedependent.Twoeventsaredependentwhenthey
tendtooccurtogether,andtheevidenceofsucheventsmayalsobesaid
tobedependent.Inacriminalcase,differentpiecesofevidencedirected
to establishing that the defendant did the prohibited act with the
specifiedstateofmindaregenerallydependent.Ajurormayfeeldoubt
whethertocreditanallegedconfession,and doubtwhethertoinfer
guiltfromthefactthatthedefendantfledfromjustice.Butsinceitis
generally guilty rather than innocent people who make confessions,
andguiltyratherthaninnocentpeoplewhorunaway,thetwodoubts
are not to be multiplied together. The one piece of evidence may
JudgementMCOC21/06
..418..
Ext.4825
confirmtheother.
Doubtswouldbecalledreasonableiftheyarefreefromazestfor
abstractspeculation.Lawcannotaffordanyfavouriteotherthan.To
constitutereasonabledoubt,itmustbefreefromanoveremotional
response.Doubtsmustbeactualandsubstantialdoubtsastotheguilt
oftheaccusedpersonarisingfromtheevidence,orfromthelackofit,
asopposedtomerevagueapprehensions.Areasonabledoubtisnotan
imaginary,trivialoramerelypossibledoubt;butafairdoubtbased
uponreasonandcommonsense.Itmustgrowoutoftheevidenceinthe
case.
LearnedSPPhasreliedontheobservationsinparagraphs6
and7ofthejudgementinrespectofthenormaldiscrepanciesinthe
evidenceofwitnesses.Paragraphs6and7areasfollows:
JudgementMCOC21/06
6.
..419..
Ext.4825
ThesecondgroundonwhichtheHighCourtrefusedto
placerelianceontheevidenceofP.W.1wasthattherewerematerial
discrepancies.AsindicatedabovewehaveperusedtheevidenceofP.W.
1.Wehavenotfoundanymaterialdiscrepanciesinherevidence.The
discrepanciesreferredtobytheHighCourtareinouropinion,minor,
insignificant, natural and not 'material'. The discrepancies are with
regardtoastowhichaccusedpressedthedeceasedandatwhichpart
ofthebodytothegroundandsatonwhichpartofthebody;with
regard to whether the respondent Kalki gave the axe blow to the
deceased whilethelatterwasstandingorlyingontheground,and
whethertheblowwasgivenfromthesideoftheheadorfromtheside
of the legs. In the depositions of witnesses there are always some
normaldiscrepancieshoweverhonestandtruthfultheymaybe.These
discrepanciesareduetonormalerrorsofobservation,normalerrorsof
memoryduetolapseoftime,duetomentaldispositionsuchasshock
and horror at the time of the occurrence, and the like. Material
discrepanciesarethosewhicharenotnormal,andnotexpectedofa
normalperson.Asindicated abovewehavenotfoundanymaterial
discrepanciesintheevidenceoftheP.W.1.
7.
appealinvolvedonlyappreciationofevidenceandthisCourtmaynot
interfere with the findings of facts resulting from appreciation of
evidence. It is true that in an appeal under Article 136 of the
ConstitutionthisCourtnormally doesnot interferewithfindingsof
facts arrived at by the High Court. But when it appears that the
findingsoffactsarrivedatareborderingonperversityandresultin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..420..
Ext.4825
miscarriageofjustice,thisCourtwillnotdeclinetoquashsuchfindings
topreventthemiscarriageofjustice.'
(iv) Dhanaj Singh @ Shera and Ors., appellants V. State of
Punjab,respondent(AIR2004SC1920).
LearnedSPPhasreliedontheobservationsinparagraphs4
and5ofjudgementinrespectofthesubmissionthatcauseofjustice
shouldnotbeallowedtosufferbyfaultyinvestigationorlatchesin
the investigation in the absence of alleged grudge, motive in the
witnessesagainsttheaccused.Paragraphs4and5areasunder:
'4.
faultyinvestigationcannotbeagroundtoaffectthecredibilityofthe
eyewitnesses.Itisafairlysettledpositioninlawthatwhenwitnesses
arebrandedaspartisanorinimical,theirevidencehastobeanalyzed
withcareandscrutiny.Thathasbeendoneinthepresentcaseand
boththetrialCourtandtheHighCourthavefoundtheevidencetobe
credible.Eveniftheinvestigationwasfaulty,boththetrialCourtand
theHighCourthaveactedonlyinthepermissibleway,i.e.,toweigh
the evidence carefully and come to an independent conclusion. As
rightlynotedbytheHighCourt,theinvestigationseemstobeslipshod.
Thehighlyimprobablestand thatthecomplainantandhisrelatives
killedthedeceasedwhowastheircloserelativecanhardlybeaccepted
withevenapinchofsalt.Thoughthedeceasedandthecomplainant
hadcriminaltrackrecordsthatpersewillnotaffecttheevidenceof
witnessesifitisotherwisecredibleandcogent.BoththetrialCourtand
theHighCourtafteranalysingtheevidencefoundittobecredible,
cogentandtrustworthy.Thepleathattheprimarydutytoinvestigate
JudgementMCOC21/06
..421..
Ext.4825
theevidenceisthatofthepoliceandwhenthepolicehasgivenclean
chit,thatshouldprimafaciebeacceptedisclearlywithoutsubstance.
5.
InthecaseofadefectiveinvestigationtheCourthastobe
circumspectinevaluatingtheevidence.Butitwouldnotberightin
acquittinganaccusedpersonsolelyonaccountofthedefect;todoso
wouldtantamounttoplayingintothehandsoftheinvestigatingofficer
iftheinvestigationisdesignedlydefective.(SeeKarnelSinghv.Stateof
M.P.MANU/SC/0497/1995:1995CriLJ4173).'
(v)
ManjeetSingh,appellantV.State(Govt.ofNCTofDelhi)
(CriminalAppeal112/2013bytheHighCourtofDelhi).
LearnedSPPhasreliedontheobservationinparagraph15in
supportofhissubmissioninrespectofdefectiveinvestigationandin
respectofsealingofsamples.Paragraph15isasunder:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..422..
Ext.4825
thejudgmentinGajoo,theSupremeCourtobservedasunder:
Singhv.StateofUttaranchalMANU/SC/0622/2012:(2012)8SCC
263whiledealingwiththecasesofomissionsandcommissionsbythe
investigatingofficer,anddutyofthecourtinsuchcases,heldasunder:
(SCCpp.28083,paras2736).
27....Now,wemayadverttothedutyofthecourtinsuchcases.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..423..
Ext.4825
InSathiPrasadv.StateofU.P.MANU/SC/0229/1972:(1972)3SCC
613thisCourtstatedthatitiswellsettledthatifthepolicerecords
becomesuspectandinvestigationperfunctory,itbecomesthedutyof
thecourttoseeiftheevidencegivenincourtshouldberelieduponand
such lapses ignored. Noticing the possibility of investigation being
designedly defective, this Court in Dhanaj Singh v. State of Punjab
MANU/SC/0203/2004:(2004)3SCC654,held:(SCCp.657,para
5).
'5....Inthecaseofadefectiveinvestigationthecourthastobe
circumspectinevaluatingtheevidence.Butitwouldnotberightin
acquittinganaccusedpersonsolelyonaccountofthedefect;todoso
wouldtantamounttoplayingintothehandsoftheinvestigatingofficer
iftheinvestigationisdesignedlydefective.'
CourtinParasYadavv.StateofBiharMANU/SC.0009/1999:(1999)
2SCC136enunciatedtheprinciple,inconformitywiththeprevious
judgments, that if the lapse or omission is committed by the
investigatingagency,negligentlyorotherwise,theprosecutionevidence
isrequiredtobeexamineddehorssuchomissionstofindoutwhether
the said evidence is reliable or not. The contaminated conduct of
officialsshouldnotstandinthewayofevaluatingtheevidencebythe
courts, otherwise the designed mischief would be perpetuated and
justicewouldbedeniedtothecomplainantparty.
MANU/SC/0633/1999:(1999)8SCC715thisCourthadoccasionto
considerthesimilarquestionofdefectiveinvestigationastowhether
JudgementMCOC21/06
..424..
Ext.4825
anymanipulationinthestationhousediarybytheinvestigatingofficer
couldbeputagainsttheprosecutioncase.ThisCourt,inpara19,held
asfollows:(SCCp.720)
19....Butcantheabovefinding(thatthestationhousediaryis
notgenuine)haveanyinevitablebearingontheotherevidenceinthis
case? If the other evidence, on scrutiny, is found credible and
acceptable, should the court be influenced by the machinations
demonstratedbytheinvestigatingofficerinconductinginvestigationor
in preparing the records so unscrupulously? It can be a guiding
principle that as investigation is not the solitary area for judicial
scrutiny in a criminal trial, the conclusion of the court in the case
cannotbeallowedtodependsolelyontheprobityofinvestigation.Itis
wellnigh settled that even if the investigation is illegal or even
suspicioustherestoftheevidencemustbescrutinisedindependentlyof
theimpactofit.Otherwisethecriminaltrialwillplummettothelevel
of the investigating officers ruling the roost. The court must have
predominanceandpreeminenceincriminaltrialsovertheactiontaken
bytheinvestigatingofficers.Thecriminaljusticeshouldnotbemadea
casualtyforthewrongscommittedbytheinvestigatingofficersinthe
case.Inotherwords,ifthecourtisconvincedthatthetestimonyofa
witnesstotheoccurrenceistruethecourtisfreetoactonitalbeitthe
investigatingofficer'ssuspiciousroleinthecase.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..425..
Ext.4825
(2004)10SCC598,SCCp.604,para12)
12....Inthecaseofdefectiveinvestigation thecourthastobe
circumspect[while]evaluatingtheevidence.Butitwouldnotberight
inacquittinganaccusedpersonsolelyonaccountofthedefect;todoso
wouldtantamounttoplayingintothehandsoftheinvestigationofficer
iftheinvestigationisdesignedlydefective.'
fairtrialandinnocenttillprovenguiltytoanaccused,thereitalso
contemplatesthatacriminaltrialismeantfordoingjusticetoall,the
accused,thesocietyandafairchancetoprovetotheprosecution.Then
alone can law and order be maintained. The courts do not merely
dischargethefunctiontoensurethatnoinnocentmanispunished,but
alsothataguiltymandoesnotescape.Botharepublicdutiesofthe
Judge.Duringthecourseofthetrial,thelearnedPresidingJudgeis
expectedtoworkobjectivelyandinacorrectperspective.Wherethe
prosecutionattemptstomisdirectthetrialonthebasisofaperfunctory
or designedly defective investigation, there the court is to be deeply
cautiousandensurethatdespitesuchanattempt,thedeterminative
processisnotsubverted.Fortrulyattainingthisobjectofafairtrial,
thecourtshouldleavenostoneunturnedtodojusticeandprotectthe
interestofthesocietyaswell'.
(vi) ShantiDevi,appellantsV.StateofRajasthan,respondent
((2012)12SCC158).
LearnedSPPreliedonparagraphs8and14ofthejudgement
inrespectoftheappreciationofevidence,oftheruleofappreciation
ofcircumstantialevidenceanddiscoveriesmadebytheaccused.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..426..
Ext.4825
(vii) AshokKumar,appellantsV.StateofHaryana,respondent
(AIR2010SC2839).
judgementinreplytotheauthoritiesatsr.no.(i)to(iii)citedby
learned advocate Shetty and two judgements cited by learned
advocate Sharif Shaikh in respect of the law that faulty defence
cannot take the place of proof and prosecution cannot take
advantageofthefactthataccusedhasfailedtomakeoutaplausible
defenceanddischargetheonusofprovingandthattheprosecution
muststandonitsownlegs.Paragraph24isonthefactsofthecase
andparagraph32istheconclusion.Thelawlaiddowninparagraph
23asfollows:
'23....Letusexaminetheessentialfeaturesofthissectionandthe
principlesoflawasenunciatedbyjudgmentsofthisCourt,whichare
theguidingfactorforproperapplicationandconsequenceswhichshall
flow from the provisions of Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. As already
noticed, the object of recording the statement of the accused under
Section313oftheCr.P.C.istoputallincriminatingevidencetothe
accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such
incriminatingcircumstancesappearingagainsthimintheevidenceof
theprosecution.Atthesametime,alsopermithimtoputforwardhis
ownversionorreasons,ifhesochooses,inrelationtohisinvolvement
orotherwiseinthecrime.TheCourthasbeenempoweredtoexamine
theaccusedbutonlyaftertheprosecutionevidencehasbeenconcluded.
ItisamandatoryobligationupontheCourtandbesidesensuringthe
compliancethereof,theCourthastokeepinmindthattheaccusedgets
JudgementMCOC21/06
..427..
Ext.4825
afairchancetoexplainhisconduct.Theoptionlieswiththeaccusedto
maintainsilencecoupledwithsimplicitordenialor,inthealternative,
toexplainhisversionandreasons,forhisallegedinvolvementinthe
commissionofcrime.Thisisthestatementwhichtheaccusedmakes
withoutfearorrightoftheotherpartytocrossexaminehim.However,
ifthestatementsmadearefalse,theCourtisentitledtodrawadverse
inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in
accordance with law. The primary purpose is to establish a direct
dialogue between the Court and the accused and to put every
importantincriminatingpieceofevidencetotheaccusedandgranthim
an opportunity to answer and explain. Once such a statement is
recorded,thenextquestionthathastobeconsideredbytheCourtisto
whatextentandconsequencessuchstatementcanbeusedduringthe
enquiry and the trial. Over the period of time, the Courts have
explainedthisconceptandnowithasattained,moreorless,certainty
inthefieldofcriminaljurisprudence.Thestatementoftheaccusedcan
beusedtotesttheveracityoftheexculpatoryoftheadmission,ifany,
madebytheaccused.Itcanbetakenintoconsiderationinanyenquiry
ortrialbutstillitisnotstrictlyanevidenceinthecase.Theprovisions
ofSection313(4)oftheCr.P.C.explicitlyprovidesthattheanswers
givenbytheaccusedmaybetakenintoconsiderationinsuchenquiry
ortrialandputinasevidencefororagainsttheaccusedinanyother
enquiryortrialforanyotheroffenceforwhichsuchanswersmaytend
to show he has committed. In other words, the use of a statement
underSection313ofCr.P.C.asanevidenceispermissibleasperthe
provisionsoftheCodebuthasitsownlimitations.TheCourtsmayrely
JudgementMCOC21/06
..428..
Ext.4825
onaportionofthestatementoftheaccusedandfindhimguiltyin
considerationoftheotherevidenceagainsthimledbytheprosecution,
however, such statements made under this Section should not be
consideredinisolationbutinconjunctionwithevidenceadducedbythe
prosecution.AnotherimportantcautionthatCourtshavedeclaredin
thepronouncementsisthatconvictionoftheaccusedcannotbebased
merelyonthestatementmadeunderSection313oftheCr.P.C.asit
cannotberegardedasasubstantivepieceofevidence.Inthecaseof
Vijendrajit Ayodhya Prasad Goel v. State of Bombay
MANU/SC/0108/1953:AIR1953SC247,theCourtheldasunder:
godown,furtherevidencewasnotledonthepoint.TheMagistratewas
in this situation fully justified in referring to the statement of the
accused under Section 342 as supporting the prosecution case
concerning the possession of the godown. The contention that the
Magistratemadeuseoftheinculpatorypartoftheaccused'sstatement
andexcluded theexculpatorypartdoesnotseem tobecorrect.The
statement under Section 342 did not consist of two portions, part
inculpatoryandpartexculpatory.Itconcerneditselfwithtwofacts.The
accusedadmittedthathewasinchargeofthegodown,hedeniedthat
the rectified spirit was found in that godown. He alleged that the
rectified spirit was found outsideit.This partof hisstatement was
proved untrue by the prosecution evidence and had no intimate
connection with the statement concerning the possession of the
godown'.
(viii) Bhagaloo Lodh & Anr., appellants V. State of U. P.,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..429..
Ext.4825
respondent(AIR2011SC2292).
LearnedSPPhasreliedontheobservationsinparagraphs10,
11and14insupportofhissubmissionastowhytheevidenceofa
closelyrelatedwitnessesshouldnotbebelieved.Paragraphs10and
11containthediscussionabouttheevidenceandfactualaspectsof
thecasewhereinthecloselyrelatedwitnesseswererelieduponby
boththecourtsbelow.Itwasheldinparagraph14that,'evidenceof
aclose relation can berelied upon provided itis trustworthy.Such
evidenceisrequiredtobecarefullyscrutinisedandappreciatedbefore
restingofconclusiontoconvicttheaccusedinagivencase.Butwhere
the Sessions Court properly appreciated evidence and meticulously
analysedthesameandtheHighCourtreappreciatedthesaidevidence
properlytoreachthesameconclusion,itisdifficultforthesuperior
courttotakeaviewcontrarytothesame,unlesstherearereasonsto
disbelieve such witnesses. Thus, the evidence cannot be disbelieved
merelyonthegroundthatthewitnessesareinterrelatedtoeachother
ortothedeceased'.
(ix) GaneshLal,appellantsV.StateofRajasthan,respondent
((2002)1SCC731).
LearnedSPPhasreliedonthediscussionandobservationsin
paragraphs15,16,19and20ofthejudgementinrespectofthe
false answers given by the accused providing a missing link for
completingthechainofcircumstantialevidence.Theobservationsin
paragraphs19and20areonthefactsofthecase.Theobservations
inparagraphs15and16arefollows:
'15....AreviewofseveraldecisionsofthisCourt,someofwhich
JudgementMCOC21/06
..430..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..431..
Ext.4825
explanationwhichhefailedtodo.
16....InStateofMaharashtraVs.Suresh(2001)1SCC471a
femalechildoftenderyearswasrapedandmurdered.Caseagainstthe
accusedrestedoncircumstantialevidence.Theaccusedwhenarrested
was found to have injures on his person and blood and semen on
underclothes. There were several other incriminating circumstances
pointingtotheguiltofaccusedandthisone,mentionedjustbefore,
termedbythisCourtinitsjudgmentasmostformidableincriminating
circumstance' was put to the accused but he could not give any
explanationwhatsoeverandinsteadchosetodenytheexistencethereof.
This Court held that a false answer offered by the accused on his
attentionbeingdrawntosuchcircumstancerendersthecircumstance
capable of inculpating him. The Court went on to say that in a
situationlikethissuchafalseanswercanalsobecountedasproviding
'amissinglink'forcompletingthechainofcircumstantialevidence.
(x)
HanifAbdulRashim&Ors.,respondents(inConfirmationCase
No. 5 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 880 of 2009 by the
DivisionalBenchofBombayHighCourt).
LearnedSPPhasreliedontheparagraphs262,263,265and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..432..
Ext.4825
discussioninthefactsofthecase.Theobservationsinthecaseof
BilalAhmedKaloovs.StateofA.P.reportedin((1997)7SCC431)
arereproducedasfollows:
prosecutioncaserelatingtothesaid revolverandcartridges,onthe
groundthatthosearticleswerenotsealedafterseizureandwereleftat
thepolicestationforanumberofdaysbeforetheyweresenttothe
ForensicScienceLaboratory.
20....Wearenotimpressedbythesaidcontentionandwemay
pointoutthattheappellantmadenoallegationatanystageofthe
casethattherevolverandthecartridgesweretamperedwithbythe
police. Not even a suggestion was made to any witness in that
direction.Accordingtothecounsel,sincethosearticleswerenotsealed
there was the possibility of they being tampered with. Such an
academic possibility need not be countenanced by us in this case
becauseeventheaccusedhasnocasethattheyweretamperedwith.
Thatapart,theparticularsoftheweaponweregivenintheseizure
memoandthesametalliedwiththeweapononexaminationbythe
ballisticexpert.Thereisnochallengetotheseizurememoadmittedly
preparedatthetimeofrecoveryofarmsandammunition.Theidentity
oftheweaponthusstandsestablishedbeyondreasonabledoubt'.
(Emphasissupplied)
Onthebasisoftheseobservations,theconclusionsaredrawn
inparagraphs265and266areasfollows:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..433..
Ext.4825
proceeding.Atthecostofrepetitionwemayaddthatbythesaidtest
exclusionofotherprobabilityiswarrantedandnottheexclusionoffar
fetchedpossibilityastriedtobecanvassedintheinstantcaseregarding
nonsealingofthesaidexplosivesubstancesatthetimeofseizurefrom
thehousesofA2andA1andtheonewhichwereimmediatelysentto
C.A.onthenextdayasrightlypointedoutbyAPP.Thusinthelightof
theobservationsmadebytheApexCourtinthedecisionreliedbyAPP
and the factual submissions made by her regarding the said aspect
including noncrossexamination of the relevant witnesses and not
puttingofthecasebeinginconformitywiththerecord,wefindthe
grievancemadebythedefenseisuntenable.
necessarytoconcludethattheprosecutionhaddulyestablishedA1,A2
and A3 werearrested asclaimed by theprosecution i.e. A1on31st
August,2003andA2andA3on1stofSeptember,2003.Similarlyby
the same evidence the prosecution has also established the articles,
contraband articles, gelatin sticks, alarm clock and detonators were
foundatthehouseofA2and/orplacespointedbyhimi.e.thehouseof
A1andA3andsoalsothehousewhichwasfoundinpossessionofA1'.
(xi) KhetSingh,appellantV.UnionofIndia(UOI),respondent
(AIR2002SC1450).
paragraph10inrespectofthepreparationofpanchanamaatthe
spot, which are, 'there may, however, be circumstances in which it
wouldnothavebeenpossiblefortheofficertopreparethemahazarat
thespot,asitmaybeachancerecoveryandtheofficermaynothave
JudgementMCOC21/06
..434..
Ext.4825
thefacilitytoprepareaseizuremahazaratthespotitself.Iftheseizure
iseffectedattheplacewheretherearenowitnessesandthereisno
facilityforweighingthecontrabandarticleorotherrequisitefacilities
arelacking,theofficercanpreparetheseizuremahazaratalaterstage
asandwhenthefacilitiesareavailable,providedtherearejustifiable
and reasonable grounds to do so. In that event, where the seizure
mahazarispreparedatalaterstage,theofficershouldindicatehis
reasonsastowhyhehadnotpreparedthemahazaratthespotof
recovery. If there is any inordinate delay in preparing the seizure
mahazar,thatmaygiveanopportunitytotamperwiththecontraband
articleallegedlyseizedfromtheaccused.Theremayalsobeallegations
thatthearticlesseizedwasbyitselfsubstitutedandsomeotheritems
wereplantedtofalselyimplicatetheaccused'.
(xii) Hardip Singh, appellant V. State of Punjab, respondent
(AIR2009SC432).
paragraph13whichareinthefactsofthecaseanditisheldbythe
Supreme Court that the appellant has also failed to show any
prejudicecausedtohimfornotputtingthesealonthesamplebythe
officerincharge of the police station. There was evidence of the
inspector,theofficerwhohadseizedthecontrabandandproduced
beforehim,thecasepropertyandsamplewithsealsintactandhe
alsostatedthatthearticleswerenottamperedwithsolongasthey
remainedinthecustodialpossession.TheSupremeCourtheldthat
inthelightofthisevidence,noprejudiceiscausedtotheaccused.
(xiii) StateofMaharashtraV.Maheshs/o.JanardhanGonnade
JudgementMCOC21/06
..435..
Ext.4825
(2007ALLMR(Cri)2522).
(xiv) Mahesh s/o. Janardhan Gonnade, appellants V. State of
Maharashtra,respondent((2008)13SCC271).
JudgementMCOC21/06
..436..
Ext.4825
appellantwasarrestedbytheInvestigatingOfficerinthepresenceof
PWVithoba Khobragade and PWHarihar. The learned Counsel
submitted that thereis discrepancy in giving 7.30 p.m. the time of
arrestoftheappellant,whichwasfactuallyincorrectasthesametime
wasmentionedintheFIRandnoreliance,therefore,couldbeplaced
onsuchdocumentsandaccordingtothecounselnoreliancecouldbe
placedontheevidenceofPWHariharbeinghabitualpanchwitnessof
thePolice.ItisnodoubttruethatPWHariharincrossexamination
admitted that during the period from 1978 to 1981 he had given
evidenceasPanchin5or6casesintheCourtonbehalfofthePoliceas
hisresidenceislocatedinfrontofthePoliceColony.Itisdifficultto
believethatsimplybecausethiswitnessinthepasthadappearedas
PanchintheCourtduringtheperiod1978to1981andforthatsole
reasonhehastobebrandedashabitualPanchwitnessandinthiscase
fortheincidentof1988hehadblindlysignedPanchanama(Ext.41)'.
(xv) RohtashKumar,appellantV.StateofHaryana,respondent
(inCriminalAppealNo.896of2011decidedbySupremeCourt
on29/05/13).
LearnedSPPhasreliedontheobservationsinparagraph17in
replytothesubmissionofthelearnedadvocatesofthedefencethat
materialcitedwitnesseswerenotexaminedbytheprosecutionand
thereforeanadverseinferenceisrequiredtobedrawn.Itisobserved
inparagraph17afterconsideringseveralofitsearlierjudgements
that, 'thus, the prosecution is not bound to examine all the cited
witnesses,anditcandropwitnessestoavoidmultiplicityorpluralityof
witnesses.Theaccusedcanalsoexaminethecited,butnotexamined
JudgementMCOC21/06
..437..
Ext.4825
Hehasalsopointedouttheobservationsinparagraph10in
thecaseofMasaltiv.StateofU.P.,AIR1965SC202,whereinitis
heldthat, 'itwouldbeunsoundtolaydownasageneralrule,that
everywitnessmustbeexamined,eventhough,theevidenceprovidedby
suchwitnessmaynotbeverymaterial,orevenifitisaknownfact
thatthesaidwitnesshaseitherbeenwonoverorterrorised.Insuch
cases,itisalwaysopentothedefencetoexaminesuchwitnessesas
theirownwitnesses,andthecourtitself mayalsocalluponsucha
witnessintheinterestofjusticeunderSection540Cr.P.C'.
whereintheobservationsinStateofMaharashtrav.Suresh,(2000)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..438..
Ext.4825
1SCC471,wereconsidered,whichareasfollows:
circumstancesthatinculpatehiminrelationtothecommissionofthe
crime,andhefailstoofferanappropriateexplanationorgivesafalse
answer with respect to the same, the said act may be counted as
providingamissinglinkforcompletingthechainofcircumstances'.
reasonabledoubt.However,incertaincircumstances,theaccusedhas
tofurnishsomeexplanationtotheincriminatingcircumstances,which
hascomeinevidence,puttohim.Afalseexplanationmaybecounted
asprovidingamissinglinkforcompletingthechainofcircumstances'.
LearnedadvocateYugChoudharyforWahabKhansubmitted
atthestartofhissubmissionsthatthiscasehingesalmostentirely
on confessions, that if confessions are taken away the arguments
aboutrestoftheevidencewouldbeoverinoneday,thatthereisno
directevidence,thatinferenceshave tobedrawnonthe basisof
circumstantialevidenceandsuchinferenceshavetobecompelledby
lawandarenotrootedtothefacts.
428.
LearnedSPPRajaThakareinhisreplysubmittedthatthisisa
misstatementandiftheevidenceagainsttheaccusedotherthanthe
confessionsisconsidered,itissufficienttobringhometheguiltto
theaccused.
429.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..439..
Ext.4825
Choudharyareobviouslyincorrectbecausetherearequitealarge
number of witnesses other than the witnesses on the aspect of
confessions.Thechronologyoftheinvestigationandthewitnesses
that were a part of the investigation has been mentioned in the
earlierpartofthejudgement.Itisnecessarytogroupthewitnesses
so as to better appreciate the evidence given by them against
particularaccused.Thewitnessescanbeclassifiedintogroupslike
thewitnessesonallegeddateofthebombblasts,i.e.,taxidrivers
whopurportedlycarriedsomeaccusedhavingbigblackrexinebags
in their taxis from Bandra to Churchgate, witnesses who were
travellinginsomeofthetrainsandwhosawsomeoftheaccused
placingthebagsasabovedescribedontheluggageracksandbelow
theseatinthefirstclassbogiesofthelocalrailwaysatChurchgate,
thentherearechancewitnessesinrespectofthepreviousactivities
ofsomeoftheaccused,therearewitnessesaboutthetravelsofsome
oftheaccusedtoforeigncountries,thentherearepolicewitnesses
and panch witnesses in respect of the seizure of alleged
incriminatingarticles,thentherearewitnessesonthepointoftest
identificationparadeandtherearealsowitnessesinrespectofthe
confessional statements allegedly made by the accused. The
evidenceoftheprosecutionwitnesseswillhavetobeconsideredin
juxtaposition to the defence taken by the accused, to their
statementsmadeundersection313oftheCr.P.C.,totheoraland
documentarydefenceevidenceledbytheaccusedandtotheoral
evidencegivenbytheaccused.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..440..
Ext.4825
Taxidrivers:
430.
Thefirstgroupwillundoubtedlybeofthetwotaxidrivers,
RajeshSatpute,PW77,whohadallegedlycarriedtheA3andone
morepersonfromBandratoChurchgateinhistaxion11/07/06and
SantoshSingh,PW63,whohadallegedlycarriedtheA13similarly
onthatday.
431.
afterplyingthetaxifrom10.30a.m.or11.00a.m.on11/07/06,he
ferriedpassengersupto2.00p.m.,thenwenttohis sisterinlaw's
houseinGulabNagar,Khardanda,hadmealsatherhouseandleft
her house in the afternoon in search of passengers and came to
CarterRoadinBandrawheretwopersonscamefromtheleftsideof
histaxiafter1520minutes,engagedhistaxiforChurchgate,sitting
onthebackside,oneofthemhadablackbagwithhim,whichhe
keptonthefrontseatbyhisside,i.e.,bythesideofthewitness.He
describedtheroute via whichhetookthemtoChurchgateStation
andstoppednearasubwayattheChurchgateStation,wasasked
aboutthefare,whichtheypaidandgavehimatipofRs.10/and
thenthetwopassengerswenttowardsthesubway.Hedescribedan
incidentthathappenedenroute,viz.,thathewasrequiredtoapply
thebrakeswhenhehadgonesomedistance,atthattimethebag
movedaheadslightly,thepersonbehindcaughtthehandleofthe
bagandtoldhimtodrivethetaxicarefully,whereuponheasked
him whether the bag should be kept in the boot, but the other
personsaidthattherearevaluablearticlesinthebaganditshould
remainthere.HeunhesitatinglyidentifiedtheA3attheendofhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..441..
Ext.4825
chiefexaminationasthepersonwhohadhiredhistaxion11/07/06
forChurchgate,hadablackbagwithhim,hadcaughtholdhandles
of the bag, which is a substantive evidence and whom he had
identifiedinthethirdtestidentificationparadeon07/11/06.Ithas
comeinhisevidencethatwhenhewasatCarterRoadjustaheadof
thetaxistandatabout34p.m.on03/11/06,twopersons,whotold
himthattheyarepolicemen,camethereandaskedhimwhetherhe
had taken any passengers from that point to Churchgate on
11/07/06andherepliedthathehaddoneso.Attheirrequest,he
went to their office at Bhoiwada, where he was taken before an
officerandtowhomhegavetheinformationthathehad,whichwas
typedonthecomputer.Hegavethedescriptionsofthetwopersons
to the officer. His further evidence is in respect of the test
identificationparade,whichwillbediscussedatthelaterstage,but
ithascomeintheevidencethatinthethirdparadeconductedby
SEOBarve,PW82,on07/11/06,heidentifiedtheA3bytouching
him by hand and in respect of the events that took place on
11/07/06, viz., the A3 hiring his taxi on 11/07/06 for going to
Churchgateandhavingblackbaginhishands.SEOBarve,PW82,
askedA3hisname,whichhestatedasFaisalShaikh.RajeshSatpute,
PW77,statedaboutprocedureofthetestidentificationparadeand
alsostatedthenameoftheA3.
432.
Hiscrossexaminationhasrevealedthathewasresidinginthe
areaofKalachowkisincebirthuptothreeyearspriortothedateof
theevidenceandPrakashJedhe,theownerofthetaxi,alsoresides
intheslumareaknownasRaneAddaintheareaofKalachowki.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..442..
Ext.4825
Thisaspectisoneoftheboneofcontentionsofthelearnedadvocate
fortheaccusedtolabelhimasagotupwitness.Theotheraspectis
aboutthedelayinrecordinghisstatement,i.e.,on03/11/06,aftera
periodofaboutmorethanthreeandhalfmonths.Thesetwoaspects
willbedealtwithshortly.Hislengthycrossexaminationisforthe
mostpartconcentratedwithrespecttohismobilenumberin2006,
towhomthesimcardbelongsto,hiscurrentsimcard,abouthis
driving licence, about he driving the taxi of Prakash Jedhe, the
permitnumberofthetaxi,whenhestarteddrivingthesaidtaxiand
whenhestoppeddrivingitafterDiwali,2007.Hewasalsoinquired
aboutthemethodofhandingoverthedaysearningstotheownerof
thetaxi,whetherthesaidtaxiisstillinuse,whetherlogbookwas
maintained when he used to drive the taxi, etc. The witness has
givenclearandcandidanswersinrespectoftheallinquiriesthat
weremadeandinhischiefexaminationhestatedthatbeforethe
currentemploymentheusedtoplythetaxiofPrakashJedheandhe
gavethetaxinumberalso.Thewitnessalsocandidlystatedabout
thethingswhichhedidnotknowordidnotremember.Hecorrectly
described the procedure about the handing over all the daily
earningstotheownerofthetaxiandcandidlystatedthathedoes
notrememberwhatamounthegavetoPrakashJedheon11/07/06
andhowmuchkilometersthetaxihadrunonthatday.Ithascome
inhiscrossexaminationthatdocumentsofregistrationcertificate,
permit, fitness, insurance, tax receipt and PUC are always in the
vehicleandhistruthfulnessisevidentfromhisknowledgethatthe
taxi is of 1996 make and the owner had purchased it new. His
JudgementMCOC21/06
..443..
Ext.4825
truthfulnessisalsoevidentfromaverypositivestatementmadeby
himincrossexaminationaboutthetaxibeinginsuredwiththeNew
IndiaAssuranceCompany.Tomymind,thislineofquestioninghas
infactshownthetruthfulnessofthewitnessinsofarashebeinga
taxidriver on 11/07/06anddriving the taxibearing no.MH01
J4066,belongingtoonePrakashJedhein2006.Hisopennessand
candidnatureisalsoevidentfromtheanswersincrossexamination
thathewasnotfinedforanytrafficviolations,becauseheusedto
bribethetrafficconstablesvoluntarilyifhecommittedanymistake,
thatthishappenedtwiceorthriceinamonth,thathewasnever
fined legally and no receipt was issued to him and again that
sometimeshemethonestofficers,wholethimoffwithawarning
nottorepeatitagainandthatwheneverheseesanypolicemanin
uniform,hetriestogoawayfromhim.
433.
Inmyhumbleopinion,itappearsthatthewitnessishonest
andisastraightforwardpersonandhehasgivenfirmanswersand
giveninformationthatheknew.Learnedadvocatefortheaccused
whilesubmittingthatthewitnessisagotupwitness,criticizedthe
investigatingmachineryfornothavingcollectedcopiesofhisdriving
licence and documents of the taxi, like, registration certificate,
permit,etc.,andofnotrecordingthestatementoftheownerofthe
taxi.
434.
Inmyhumbleopinion,youcannotdiscredithisversionjust
because police did not collect his driving licence, badge or the
documentsofthetaxi.Hehascomeasawitnessandhisevidenceis
ofan innocuous event, viz.,thatofferrying twopassengerson a
JudgementMCOC21/06
..444..
Ext.4825
435.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..445..
Ext.4825
chiefexamination did not give the specific time when the two
personshadengagedhistaxiatCarterRoad,hegavethespecific
timinginhiscrossexaminationas3.30to4.00p.m.andhavingleft
thematChurchgateatabout4.45to5.00p.m.Hehasstatedabout
the minimum fare of Rs.11/ at that time, but honestly said
immediatelythathedoesnotexactlyrememberwhetheritwasRs.
11/.Hegavethedetailsaboutthestartingpointandendingpoint
oftheCarterRoadanditslength,whileadmittingthathedoesnot
rememberthemeterreadingofthosepassengers.
436.
Hisevidenceabouttheeventofcarryingtwopersonsinhis
taxifromCarterRoad,BandratoChurchgateRailwayStationisalso
severelycriticizedontheaspectofhehavingnoopportunitytosee
the persons properly. These submissions are on the basis of his
answersincrossexaminationthathewasonhisseatreadingthe
newspaperwhenthosetwopersonscame,thathedidnotgetdown
fromtheseattillthetimetheysatinthetaxiandhestartedit,that
hehadnooccasiontopickupthatbag,thathecannottelltheexact
widthofhisseat,thathewasnotrequiredtogetdownsincethe
timetheysatinhistaxiuptoChurchgatewhentheygotdownand
he was sitting on his seat continuously. To my mind, these
submissions and the criticism are baseless, because it is common
knowledgethatapersonofaparticularprofessionviewstheirwork
ortheobjectsoftheirworkintheirroutinecourseofworkandthey
canverymuchbeawareofthedetailseveniftheydonotseeor
observe the particular object for a long time in detail. Take the
exampleofacobbler,ortyrepuncturerepaireroradentist,thelist
JudgementMCOC21/06
..446..
Ext.4825
canbeendless.Acobbler'sattentionisalwaysonthefootwearof
persons who approach him. The dentist can at a glance see the
deformitiesintheteethofapersonevenwhilethepersonspeaksto
himbeforeanydetailedexaminationisdone.Itisobservedthatthe
taxidriversglanceatpassengerswhoapproachtheirvehiclesand
knowthenumberofpassengersaswellasthebaggagewhetheritis
smallorbigwhichiswiththemanditiscommonlynoticedthatthey
askthepassengerswhethertheluggageshouldbekeptintheboot.
Afterthepassengersboardthetaxi,thetaxidriverusuallyglancesin
the rear view mirror that is inside the taxi, looks at who the
passenger/s is/are, looks at their eyes and asks them about the
destinationandsometimestheroutealso.Itisalsoobservedthat
thetaxidriversfrequentlylookintherearviewmirrortoseethe
vehicles coming from behind and in that process they also have
occasiontolookatthefacesofthepassengers.Thus,itcannotbe
saidthatRajeshSatpute,PW77,hadnooccasiontoseeandobserve
thetwopassengersspecificallyashewascontinuouslysittingonhis
seat from the time they boarded the taxi upto the time they got
downatChurchgateStation.Hisglances,tomymind,wouldhave
beensufficienttoseethemproperly.Hisgoodpowerofobservation
isalsoevidentfromananswergivenbyhiminhiscrossexamination
that he thinks that the bag was of rexine, though he had not
describedthebaginhischiefexamination.
437.
Hehascorrectlyansweredthatitisnotnormalforpassengers
tokeepabagonthefrontseatiftheyhaveonlyonebagwiththem,
butithappenssometimes.Anissuewasraisedonthebasisofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..447..
Ext.4825
answersinhiscrossexaminationastowhooutofthetwopersons
satinthetaxifirst,whoheldthebagfromthebackside,whopaid
thefare,etc.Hisevidencethatthepersonwhowas3035yearsof
agewasthepersonwhohadthebaginhishandsandwhocaught
thehandlesofthebaginthetaxiwasbroughtonrecordasomission
tostatebeforethepolice.Tomymind,theomissionisnotmaterial,
whatismaterialisthatoneoutofthetwopersonshadcaughtthe
bagfromthe backseat.Aconfusionwasalsotriedtobecreated
aboutwhoisthefirstpersonandwhoisthesecondpersonandhe
gavespecificanswers,buttomymind,eveniftheydonotgivethe
exactpicture,thefactremainsthathehasnotstatedaboutthisin
hischiefexamination,itisalsonotshownfromhisstatementunder
section 161 of the Cr. P. C. and he has answered in his cross
examination that he had described the two persons but had not
statedtheirroles,thathehimselfstatedaboutthefirstandsecond
personandnotatthesuggestionofthepoliceandhestateditinthe
orderinwhichtheysatinthetaxi,astheywereunknowntohimon
thatday.Aportionfromhisstatementundersection161oftheCr.P.
CwasconfrontedtohimandprovedasExt.1791duringthecross
examination of PI Khanvilkar, PW168, who had recorded it. The
witness stated that it did not happen that thereafter upto
Churchgate Station the second person had caught hold of the
handles of the bag tightly, that he realized that there was some
heavyarticlesinthebag,thatwhenhestoppedthetaxithesame
personaskedhimwhatwasthefare,thatafterlookingatthemeter
readingandratecardhetoldhimthatitwasRs.140/,theperson
JudgementMCOC21/06
..448..
Ext.4825
gavehimtwonotesofRs.100/,hereturnedRs.60/,outofwhich
hegaveRs.10/astip.Though,thisportionwasproved,thewitness
statedthathedoesnotrememberwhetherhehadstatedsotothe
policeanditiswritteninhisstatementashemighthavestatedsoto
thepolice,soinfactitisnotacontradiction.Itisinthenatureof
specifications and if read with his earlier explanations about he
having stated about the first and second persons in the order in
whichtheysatinthetaxiandhaddescribedthemandnotstated
theirroles,thecontradictionisinsignificant.
438.
439.
Hewascrossexaminedinrespectofthemaintenanceoflog
bookandheansweredthathedoesnotknowwhetheralogbookis
requiredtobegiventotheRTOofficeandhehasneverseenanylog
bookinanytaxiandsomemorequestionsaboutmakingofentries
inthelogbook.TheseareunimportantquestionsandIdonotthink
thatanyonehasseenanytaxidriver,exceptthetaxidriverofafleet,
maintainingalogbookortherebeingalogbookinataxi.Inrespect
ofhislicenceandbadge,hedidnotrememberwhetherhehadgiven
theirnumbersortheircopiestothepolicewhenhisstatementwas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..449..
Ext.4825
440.
Hiscrossexaminationastowhetherhehastakenloanfrom
anybank,inwhichbankhehasanaccount,whenitwasopened,
whichaddresshegave,whetherhehasanyotherbankaccountand
aboutpancardisirrelevantandafishingexpeditiontosomehow
getsomethingfromthewitnesstodiscredithim.
441.
Thus,theevidenceofRajeshSatpute,PW77,ataxidriver,in
respectofhetakingtheA3andonemoreperson,theyhavingabag
with them and they being reached to Churchgate Station is not
discreditedduringhiscrossexaminationandithasnotaffectedhis
credibility.
442.
approachedhimon03/11/06andmakinginquiries,takinghimto
Bhoiwadaandhegivingthestatementthatwasrecorded,hiscross
examinationisconcentratedongettingthedetailsaboutthenameof
theofficer,whotookhisstatementandastowhetheranyothertaxi
driverwasbroughttothatofficeuptothetimehewasthere.He
gaveclearanswersthatthereweresometaxisatthetaxistandon
the Carter Road on that day at about 3.00 to 4.00 p.m., but he
JudgementMCOC21/06
..450..
Ext.4825
cannottellthenumberoftaxisthatwereonhisbacksideandhe
was the only one a head of them, that when the policemen
approached him, at that time he was also on his seat reading
newspaperanddoesnotknowwhethertheyinquiredwithanyother
personlikehim.HestatedabouttheygoinginhistaxitoBhoiwada,
reachingthereat5.00p.m.andbeingpresentattheATSofficeupto
9.30p.m.Nowaboutrecordingofhisstatement,initiallyhestated
thathedoesnotknowthenameoftheofficer,whorecordedhis
statementandattheendofsameparagraph,hewasagainasked
andhestatedthatitwasofficerPatil.Inrespectofthestatement
beinggiventohimforreadingaftertakingitsprintout,heexpressed
ignoranceastowhetherhehadstatedsotothepoliceandwhether
hestatedsoontheearlierdayofhisevidence.Thiswasinhiscross
examination by learned advocate Shetty for the A3. Learned
advocateWahabKhanforsomeotheraccusedcrossexaminedhim
aboutthedistanceoftheKalachowkiPoliceStationfromhishouse
andfromthehouseofthetaxiowner,aboutwhetherhehadstated
thathehadbroughtthetaxithathewasdrivingonthatday,tothe
PoliceStation,whetherpoliceaskedhimtoshowtheplacewhere
the persons had sat in the taxi, whether any panchanama was
drawn,etc.Hegavetheinformationinrespectofthedistanceofhis
and his owner's house from the police station and gave positive
answersthathehadstatedtothepoliceon03/11/06thathehad
broughtthetaxianditisoutsidethepolicestation.Healsostatedto
themthathehasparkeditinthecompoundandthereweresome
other taxis there at that time. He, however, could not remember
JudgementMCOC21/06
..451..
Ext.4825
whetherthepoliceofficeraskedhimtoshowtheplacewherethe
personssatinthetaxi,wheretheyhadkeptthebag,whetherhe
inspected his taxi, whether any panchanama of taxi was drawn,
whether any chemical analyzer was called there, whether any
photographsofthetaxifrominsideandoutsideweretaken,whether
it was sent for chemical examination to repeat, he also did not
rememberwhetherhehadgiventhelicencenumberandthebadge
numberortheircopiestothepolice,etc.Tomymind,ifthepolice
didnotthinkitfittoaskhimallthequestionsortotakedocuments,
thenitisnothisfault.Theseanswerswillnotdiscredithisversion
aboutthemaineventaboutwhichhegaveevidence.
443.
Herepeatedcorrectlyinfurthercrossexaminationthathemet
onlytwopolicemenon03/11/06,whenhewasonCarterRoad,who
talkedwithhimforaboutmorethanhalfanhourandhegavea
good explanation that as they were in plain clothes, he does not
knowtheirnamesandbucklenumbers.Thesearepositivesentences
inhiscrossexaminationandhishonestyandcredibilityisfurther
endorsedbyhispositiveanswersincrossexaminationthathewas
ontheroadbythesideofthefootpath,thatitwasnotajunction,
that there is a small stall (tapri) and buildings and bungalows
around the spot, that the policemen asked him to show the spot
fromwherehehadtakenthosepassengersandhetoldthemthatit
wasthesamespotwherehewasatthattime.Hedidnotremember
whetheranypanchanamaofthespotwaspreparedatthattime,but
truly stated that he did not take the ATS officer to that spot
thereafter.Samethingaboutshowingthespotwherehehadreached
JudgementMCOC21/06
..452..
Ext.4825
thepassengersandthepolicenotaskinghimtoshowthatspot.The
abovelineofcrossexaminationhasnotdiscreditedhisversionorhis
credibility.
444.
givenbythiswitnessinrespectofhismemorybysubmittingthat
though he is remembering about the event that took place on
11/07/06,hecannottelltheexactdate,whichistheimportantdate
in his life as to when he started and stopped driving the taxi of
PrakashJedhe,doesnotknowabouttheexactminimumfareinthat
area.Learnedadvocatealsoquestionedastowhetheritwaspossible
for the witness to see the two persons, when it has come in his
evidencethathewasonhisseatreadingthenewspaperwhenthe
personsapproachedhimandhewascontinuouslyonhisseattillhe
reachedthematChurchgateStation.Hesubmitsthatataxidriveris
requiredtoconcentrateontheroadinfrontandacasuallookata
persondoesnotenablehimtoidentifythepersonafterfourmonths.
Ihaveclarifiedthisaspectearlierandhaveheldthatitispossiblefor
a taxi driver to remember the face of his passengers. Learned
advocatepointedoutinconsistenciesintheevidenceofthiswitness
andtheevidenceofDevendraPatil,PW62,atravellerinthetrain,
whoallegedlysawtheA3placingablackcolouredbaginthelocal
train.ItisinrespectofRajeshSatpute,PW77,statingthatthetwo
persons did not have any other thing in their hands, where as,
DevendraPatil,PW62,statedinhiscrossexaminationthatoutof
thetwopersons,whoboardedthetrainatChurchgate,thesecond
personwashavingahandbag,whichwasinhishandandhehad
JudgementMCOC21/06
..453..
Ext.4825
445.
LearnedadvocatesubmittedthatRajeshSatpute,PW77,isa
gotupwitnessandasheisoftheKalachowkiareainwhichtheATS
PoliceStation is situated,hewas justgotupbythe investigating
machinerytostopthepublicoutcryandtosavethemselvesfromthe
electronicmediafromfailuretoinvestigateandtobringtheculprits
tothebookbycreatingtheevidencetofixthepersons,whowere
arrestedonsuspiciousdoubtswithouthavinganymaterial.
446.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhanattackedthecredibilityofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..454..
Ext.4825
hisstatementandsubmittedthattheinvestigatingofficerhasnot
duly discharged his duty as expected and he gave an answer
inconsistent to the answer given by Rajesh Satpute, PW77, by
sayingthatthewitnesshadnotbroughtthetaxitotheofficeonthat
day. At this stage itself it can be stated that this aspect is not
touchingthematerialevidenceofthewitnesswhichisinrespectof
theeventof11/07/06.
447.
Asagainstthis,thelearnedSPPsubmittedthatconsideringthe
evidencegivenbythewitnessandthepositivestatementsmadeby
himincrossexamination,hisevidenceisofunquestionablequality
and totally reliable. In respect of the memory of the witness, he
submitsthatmanyatimes,itsohappensthatwesee/perceivethe
things,butwemaynotattachimportancetoitatthattime.Though
suchathingmaybeatthebackofthemindoftheperson,aperson
maynotexpresslyactonitordosomethinginfurtheranceofthe
knowledge that he had derived, unless the stage comes or the
occasionariseswhichsparksthatmemorywithreferencetosome
facts.Thenthepersoniscapableofcorelatingtheincidenttohis
experience. He submits that ordinarily a taxi driver carries many
passengers, he may not recollect all the passengers, but if his
memory is triggered by some data that is provided then he can
recollectaparticularincident.Thoughthewitnessmayhavecometo
knowaboutthebombblastsonthatdayitselfandmayhavereadin
thenewspaperaboutit,therewasnoneedforhimtocorelatethe
bombblasts withthetwopassengers,whomhehadtakentothe
ChurchgateStation,becausethebombblastsdidnottakeplaceat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..455..
Ext.4825
448.
testingthememoryofaparticularincidentandtestingthegeneral
memoryofapersonisdifferent.Sameyardstickcannotbeapplied
forrecollectionofmemory.Inrespectofwhetherthevehiclewas
examined,whethertheswabwastaken,etc.,hesubmitsthatifthe
resultwouldhavecomeinthepositive,thenitwouldhavebeenan
additional circumstance against the accused, but not finding any
tracesofexplosiveornotmakinganyeffortsinthatdirectionwill
notconstituteanegativeevidence.
449.
Inconnectionwiththiswitness,PIKhanvilkar,PW168aswell
asACPPatil,PW186wereexamined.Ithascomeintheevidenceof
PIKhanvilkar,PW168,thathisstaffwasdeputedforgoingtoCarter
JudgementMCOC21/06
..456..
Ext.4825
Road and they used to go there for making inquiries about taxi
drivers,whomayhavetakenpassengersfromtheretoChurchgate
onthedayoftheincident,asACPPatil,PW186,hadtoldhimabout
the information,thathis staff broughttaxidriver RajeshSatpute,
PW77,on03/11/06,theytookhimbeforeACPPatil,PW186,who
inquiredwithhimandthenhe,i.e.,PIKhanvilkar,PW168,tookhis
statement.Thecrossexaminationonthispointbylearnedadvocate
WahabKhanhas infactstrengthenedhis evidenceandhas shown
thatthisaspectistruthful.Hedeniedthesuggestionthattheywere
not getting panchas and witnesses in the case, therefore, they
introducedwitnessesandpanchaswhowereknowntohimandhis
colleaguessincelong.Hewasaskedtogothroughthestationdiary
entrydtd.03/11/06andastrangequestionwasaskedtohimandhe
answeredthatthereisnomentioninthestationdiarythathisstaff
wasdeputedtotheCarterRoad,Bandrawheretheyusedtogofor
making inquiries about the taxi drivers who may have taken
passengersfromtheretoChurchgateonthedateoftheincident,as
ACPPatil,PW186,hadtoldhimabouttheinformationandthereis
no endorsement about the particular staff having searched and
found a particular taxi driver. In my humble opinion if all such
things are required to be entered in the station diary, then the
stationdiarywillbeasgoodasthecasediaryandtherewouldbeno
needformaintainingaseparatecasediary.Theeffortsofthelearned
advocatetodiscredittheinvestigatingagencyaswellasthewitness
istotallysmashedbyafurtherquestion.Learnedadvocateaskedthe
witnesstoverifywhetherthisismentionedinthecasediaryandthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..457..
Ext.4825
witnesswentthroughthecasediaryandstatedthatthereisanentry
inthecasediarydtd.03/11/06aboutthis.Whatthismeansisthat
hisevidenceinchiefexaminationisconfirmedbytheexistenceof
theentryinthecasediaryandhasruledoutthepossibilityofthe
witnessbeinggotup.Thematterdoesnotstophere.Hehasgiven
somemoredetailsthatthewitnessmethisstaffmemberVijaySalvi,
buckleno.25610firstandbroughtthe witness tohim at1800to
1830hours.Inthisconnection,ithascomeinhisevidencethatACP
Patil,PW186,hadgivenhiminstructionsandPNVijaySalviwas
regularlyvisitingthetaxistandatPerryCrossRoadfor1015days
duringwhichhedidnotgetanyimportantclueandhegavetheclue
tohimonlyon03/11/06whenhebroughtthewitness.ACPPatil,
PW186,theinvestigatingofficeraftertheMCOCActwasapplied,
hasdeniedthesuggestionthatheintroducedRajeshSatpute,PW77
andSantoshSingh,PW63,thetaxidriversinthiscase.Inananswer
tothequestionwhetherhehadsentPNVijaySalvitobringtwotaxi
drivers,hegaveanacceptableanswerthathedoesnotremember
havingsenthim,but,thisisimportant,theirofficersandconstables
were searching for taxi drivers. He further turned down the
suggestionthatonhissayPNVijaySalvibroughttwotaxidrivers,
thattheywerenottaxidrivers,thatthereforehedidnotgetthetaxis
examinedanddidnotseizeanydocumentsofthetaxisanddidnot
make any correspondence with the RTO authority about their
owners. He also correctly stated during his crossexamination by
learned advocate Shetty that Santosh Singh, PW63, and Rajesh
Satpute,PW77,werenotbroughtbeforehimtogether,thathedid
JudgementMCOC21/06
..458..
Ext.4825
450.
statementofthewitnessthatitisonlyaftertheaccusedretracted
having made their confessional statements that the investigating
agencycreatedthisevidence.TheconfessionalstatementoftheA3
was allegedly recorded prior to 07/10/06, because the noting of
RemandApplicationNo.67of2006dtd.09/10/06showsthatthe
VakalatnamaofadvocateShahidAzmiwasfiledonbehalfoftheA3,
A5andA7onthatdayandtheA3submittedthathisconfessional
statement was recorded under pressure, etc. Now admittedly the
statementofRajeshSatpute,PW77,wasrecordedon03/11/06.It
hascomeinthecrossexaminationofACPPatil,PW186,thathehad
JudgementMCOC21/06
..459..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..460..
Ext.4825
thestatement,thatitwasfortheinvestigatingofficertoconsider
whethertoinspectthevehicleandhedidnotsenditforopinionof
theforensicexpert.Heexpressedignoranceastowhetherthereare
logbooksintaxisandadmittedthathedidnotexaminethelogbook
ofthattaxi,didnotaskthetaxidrivertoshowtheplacefromwhere
thepassengershadsatinthevehicleandwherehehadleftthem,
didnotseizethetaxi,didnotcalltheownerofthetaxi,thewitness
didnotgivehislicencenumberthoughheaskedhimaboutit,etc.
However, he turned down the suggestion that Rajesh Satpute,
PW77,isnotataxidriver,therefore,hedidnotgivehimhislicence
number, etc., and was not plying the taxi and was it not his
occupation.HedeniedthesuggestionthatRajeshSatpute,PW77,
andVishalParmar,PW74,arefalsewitnesses,whomheplantedin
thiscase.
451.
ThoughtheevidenceofRajeshSatpute,PW77,isattackedon
thegroundofdelayinexamininghim,tomymind,infactitisnota
delay,becausetheinvestigatingagencycametoknowthatheisa
witness only on 03/11/06 when inquiries were made. Therefore,
thisdoesnotaffectthecredibilityofthewitness.
452.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..461..
Ext.4825
examinationtodiscredithisversionorimpeachhiscredibility.The
omissionsandcontradictionsthatarepointedoutdonotgotothe
rootofthecaseandarenotmaterialtoshowthatheisagotup
witness. There is nothing in his crossexamination to show his
antecedentsorhisconnectionwithpoliceofficersortheATSorthat
hehasanycriminalbackgroundorabouthisinvolvementasapanch
witnessoreyewitnessinanyearliercase.Itisonlythatheandthe
owner of the said taxi are residing within the jurisdiction of
KalachowkiPoliceStation.However,Kalachowkiisnotasmallplace
likeasmallcolonyandunlessitisshownthatheortheownerofthe
taxihaveanynexuswiththepoliceparticularlywiththeATS,itwill
notcomeinthewayofbelievinghim,norleadtobrandhimasagot
upwitness.Nothinghasbeenbroughtonrecordduringthecross
examinationoftheprosecutionwitnessestoshowthattherewasa
publicoutcryastowhythepolicewerenotbeingabletofindthe
culpritsofthebombblasts.Infact,thearrestofasmanyasseven
accusedweremadeinJulyitselfandtillthetimethiswitnesswas
examined,alltheaccusedhadbeenarrested.So,therewasreallyno
needforthepolicetostopthepublicoutcry,iftherewasany.Of
course,thewitnessturneddownthesuggestionthathewasnota
taxidriver,thathewasnotdrivingthetaxionallegeddateandtime
andthatheisaninformantoftheATS,forwhichsuggestionthereis
nobase.
453.
crossexaminationisabouthehavingnotstatedtothepolicethat
thepersonwhowas3035yearsofage,wasthepersonwhohadthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..462..
Ext.4825
baginhishandsandwhocaughtthehandlesofthebaginthetaxi.
Thishasbeenalreadyexplainedearlierinviewoftheexplanation
givenbythewitnessfurtherthathehaddescribedthetwopersons
buthadnotstatedtheirroles.Thematerialthingisnotwhohad
heldthebagfromthebackseat,butthatitwassoheld.Theonly
contradiction is the portion Ext. 1791, which infact is not a
contradiction,becausethewitnesshasexplainedthatashemight
havestatedsotothepoliceitissowritteninhisstatement.Thus,
thesingleomissionandcontradictionarenotmaterialandhavenot
affectedhiscredibility.
454.
thatataxidriverlikeRajeshSatpute,PW77,hadseentheA3and
hiscompanionon11/07/06whenhecarriedtheminhistaxifrom
CarterRoad,BandratoChurchgateRailwayStationwiththeirblack
rexinebag.Itisalsonotunnaturalthathismemorymusthavebeen
triggeredorsparkedwhenhewasinquiredwithon03/11/06and
thenhecouldrecollectthefaceoftheA3on07/11/06andidentify
himinthetestidentificationparadeandthenunhesitatinglyidentify
him in the court, which is the substantial evidence. This witness
being disclosed on 03/11/06 is also not unnatural or artificial in
viewofthereasonsgivenbytheinvestigatingofficer.
455.
Thus,Ihavenohesitationinacceptingtheevidenceofthis
witnessasacogentandtruthfulevidence.Asagainstthis,whenthe
A3wasputquestionsduringhisstatementundersection313ofthe
Cr.P.C.aboutevidenceofthiswitness,hisanswersinrespectofthe
eventofcarryingtwopassengersisthathedoesnotknowaboutit,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..463..
Ext.4825
456.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthat
RajeshSatpute,PW77,hasgivenaverystraightforwardevidence,it
isnotartificial,itisnotarticulatedordecoratedwithanyfantasies
orfalsehoodandhehasnotmadeanytallclaims.Tomymind,ifthe
investigatingmachinery,i.e.,theATSwantedtofabricatesuchtype
of evidence practically at the end of investigation, because the
chargesheetwasfiledon30/11/06,itwouldnothavestoppedat
onlytwotaxidrivers.Nothingpreventedthemfromcreatingsuch
typeofevidenceoftaxidriverstogiveevidenceagainstsomemore
accused.TheATScouldhavedonethisearlieralso.Whywaittill
03/11/06? This shows the naturalness. Hence, it will have to be
heldthatbytheevidenceofRajeshSatpute,PW77,theprosecution
hasprovedthaton11/07/06,theA3alongwithonemoreperson
hadtravelledinataxifromCarterRoad,Bandraat3.30to4.00p.m.
toasubwayofChurchgateRailwayStation,reachingthereatabout
5.00p.m.andthattheywerecarryingablackcolouredbagwith
themwhichwasofrexine.Thisisthefirstcircumstanceprovedby
JudgementMCOC21/06
..464..
Ext.4825
theprosecutionagainsttheaccused.Itisthefirstcircumstance
againsttheA3.
457.
ThesecondtaxidriverisSantoshSingh,PW63,whoseroleis
of carrying the A13 and his companion from Perry Cross Road,
BandratoChurchgateon11/07/06.Ithascomeinhisevidencethat
on that day at about 3.15 to 3.30 p.m., two passengers for
Churchgatecame,oneofthemhadablackheavybagandumbrella,
theysatonthebackseatinhistaxikeepingthebagbetweenthem
thathetookthemtoChurchgate,thatenroutetheytoldhimtodrive
thetaxicarefullyasthearticlestheyhadwiththemweredelicate,
thattheyaskedhimthathowmuchtimeitwilltakeandhetold
them that it will take about one hour and if there is a traffic, it
wouldrequiremorethanthat,thatheleftthemnearthesubwayby
whichonecangotoChurchgateStation,thatthefarewasRs.180/,
theygavehimanoteofRs.500/,hedidnothavethechangeto
givethebalanceamountandtoldthemthathewouldbringitand
theyshouldwaitfortwominutes,however,theywereinhurryand
toldhimtokeepthechangeandtheygotdowntakingthebagwith
them. It has also come in his evidence that this was his first
experience about the passengers keeping such a big amount of
change,thatnormallybeforetheytakethepassengers,theylookat
thepassengersandenrouteoneofthepassengerswastalkingin
MumbaiHindilanguageandotherwastalkingsomewhatinPunjabi
language. He described the built and approximate age of the
passengers.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathewascalledbythe
police on 07/11/06 and he identified the A13 in the parade
JudgementMCOC21/06
..465..
Ext.4825
conductedbySEOBarve,PW82,asoneofthepersons,whohad
travelledinhistaxionthatday.SEOBarve,PW82,thenaskedthe
accusedhisnamewhichhetoldasAsifBashirKhan.Heclarified
thathehadidentifiedthepersonwhohadabagandumbrellawith
himandhadtravelledinhistaxion11/07/06andwhohadpaidthe
fare. The discussion about the test identification parade will be
made subsequently,butthe witness has identifiedthe A13 in the
courtunhesitatinglyafterlookingaroundthecourtroomwhichisa
substantive evidence. His evidence is fluent and unhesitating,
however, as many as nine portions from his statement were
confrontedtohimandwereprovedasExts.1854(1to9)duringthe
crossexaminationofPIWadmare,PW175.Somestatementsmade
by him in his chiefexamination were also brought on record as
omissionstostatebeforethepolice.ThefirstcontradictionisExt.
1854(1)inrespectofthesentenceinhisstatement'yourstatement
dated03/11/06atHillRoad,Bandrawhen you werewaitingfor
passengers,policewereinquiringwiththetaximen'wasputtohim
asaquestionastowhetherithadsohappenedandheanswered
thatpolicehadmadeinquiryontheHillRoadandhehadnotstated
thatportion,theemphasisbeingontheportion,'mystatementdated
03/11/06at3.00p.m.atHillRoad,Bandra'.Hecouldnotassign
any reason as to why it is so written in his statement, but it is
obviously a wrong construction of words and the learned SPP
clarified at that stage itself that the witness has stated that on
03/11/06at300p.m.policehadmadeinquirywithhimatHillRoad
and his statement is taken at Bhoiwada on computer. The next
JudgementMCOC21/06
..466..
Ext.4825
contradictionisthesentenceinhisstatementthathewastheowner
ofthattaxiandwhenconfrontedhestatedthathehadnotstatedso
to the police. However, his explanation thereafter shows that the
contradictionismeaninglessbecausehestatedthatthereasonwhy
itissowritteninhisstatementisthatthepermitwasinhisname
andhisfatherwastheownerashehadpaidtheprice.Thenext
contradictionisExt.1854(3)andwhenconfrontedhestatedthathe
cannotassignanyreasonwhyitissowritteninhisstatementand
thatitdidnothappenthaton03/11/06hewasontheHillRoadat
Bandraandtherepoliceweremakinginquiriesandtheyinquired
with him and asked him whether at any time he had taken two
young persons with a big bag from that place. To my mind, this
portioncannotbetermedasacontradiction,exceptforthewords
youngpersonsbecauseinchiefexaminationhehassatedaboutit
andthisportionfromhisstatementisattheendofhisstatementin
connection with the inquires that the police were making on
03/11/06. It does not materially affect his credibility. The next
contradiction Ext. 1854(4) is in respect of the portion from his
statement,'Tyanemalatyanaasesangitaleki'.Obviously,itisonce
againawrongconstructionofwordsorunnecessaryuseoftheword
'tyana'anditisnotmaterial.ThenextcontractionistheportionExt.
1854(5)abouthisstatementtothepolicethathetakesonlythose
personswhomhefinddecent.Inthisrespect,thewitnessstatedthat
hedoesnotrememberthathehadstatedsotothepoliceandcould
notassignanyreasonwhyitissowritteninhisstatement.Once
againitisalsonotamaterialcontradictioninrespectoftheactual
JudgementMCOC21/06
..467..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..468..
Ext.4825
writteninhisstatementthoughhehadnotstatedtothepolicewhen
hedescribedthetwopersons,thatonewastalkingEnglishmixed
HindiinMumbaistyleandonewastalkinginMumbaiHindi.Now
thesetwoportionsareobviouslynotinconsonancewiththeearlier
portionsinthestatementExt.1854(6),whereinitismentionedthat
thesecondperson wastalking inPunjabistyleHindi.Thatis the
mainportionofthestatementandinhischiefexaminationhehas
specificallystatedthattheotherwastalkinginsomewhatPunjabi
language. Thus, even these two portions cannot be said to be
contradictionsinthepropersenseoftheterm.
458.
Nowinsofarastheomissionspartisconcerned,whicharein
paragraphs14and15duringthecrossexaminationbythelearned
advocateWahabKhanfortheA13,thewitnesscandidlyadmitted
thathehadnotstatedcertainportions,butfirmlysaidthathehad
statedcertain portionsandhe wasnotcontrovertedin respectof
those portions. These omissions were also put to PI Wadmare,
PW175,andinrespectofsomeportionsheexplainedinparagraph
6thattheyarewritteninotherwordsandincontinuationandgave
a very acceptable explanation that some things have not been
writteninstatementbecausethewitnesswasstatingmanythings
andhetookdownthegistoftheinformationthathegave.Itseems
thattheimportantomissionputtoSantoshSingh,PW63,isthatat
about3.15to3.30p.m.twopersonsforChurchgatecame,thatone
ofthemhadaheavyblackbagandanumbrella,thatenroutethey
toldhimtodrivethetaxicarefullyasthearticlesthattheyhadwith
themweredelicateandthenextsentencestatedbythewitnessthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..469..
Ext.4825
459.
contradictionsthatgototherootoftheevidenceofthewitnessand
discredithimandinviewoftheplausibleexplanationgivenbyPI
Wadmare,PW175,thattheomissionspartarenotwritteninthe
statementbecausethewitnesswasstatingmanythingsandhetook
downthegistoftheinformationthathegave,Idonotthinkthatit
materially affects his credibility. To my mind, a witness makes a
statementtothepoliceanditiscommonlyobservedthatthepolice
donottakedownthestatementinthewordsofthewitness,but
writeitaspertheirunderstandingandstyle.However,therendering
is by the court as the witness goes on giving evidence and the
renderingisinEnglishthoughthewitnessgivesevidenceinMarathi
JudgementMCOC21/06
..470..
Ext.4825
orHindi.Thus,thissortofomissionsarenotmuchmaterialanddo
not affect the credibility of the witness, if they are considered
withoutconsideringtheothercrossexamination.
460.
SantoshSingh,PW63,wascrossexaminedindetailaboutthe
knowledgeaboutroadsandplacesinMumbai,thetimerequiredfor
travellingfromLokhandwalaareainKandivalitoKandivaliStation
andotherplaces.He was then inquiredaboutwherehe plieshis
taxi,thedistancebetweenAndheriandTrombayandthenhewas
crossexamined in detail about the fares that he collected from
differentpassengersonthatdayinordertoshowthathisevidence
that he did not have change to give the balance amount to
passengers is false. Learned advocate Wahab Khan calculated the
days receipts of fares on the basis of answers elicited from the
witnessduringhiscrossexaminationasatotalamountofRs.440/
andsubmittedthatevenifitisconsideredthatthewitnesshasfour
notesofRs.100/,hewasinapositiontogiveatleastRs.300/
back to the passengers considering the fare of Rs. 180/. In my
humbleopinion,aspecificsuggestiononthislinewasnotputtothe
witnessandthesubmissionisuntenableifoneconsidersthenormal
expendituresoftaxidriverlikehavinglunchandmostimportantof
allisfillingpetrolorgasinthevehicle,whichcanbeanywherein
betweenRs.100to500/onaparticularday.
461.
Nextaspectisaboutthedocumentsofthetaxiorthecopiesof
hislicenceandbadgebeingnotcollectedandlogbook,etc.Santosh
Singh, PW63, specifically answered that police did not see the
documentsofhistaxiandtheydidnotaskforit.Inrespectofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..471..
Ext.4825
log book he stated that driver has to maintain the log book
containingtheparticularsaboutthedriveranddrivingthetaxion
particulardays.Butthisaspectwasleftthereandearlierthewitness
inanswertothequestionastowhetherheisrequiredtomaintaina
logbookhadansweredthattheownerisnotrequiredtomaintaina
logbook.Nowthisaspecthasbeenseverelycriticizedbythelearned
advocate of the accused on the basis of the information that the
accusedgotfromtheRTOofficeundertheRTIAct,i.e.,Ext.1853,
which shows the owner of the taxi as Satish Kumar K. Singh.
DefencehasnotexaminedthePIOoftheRTOofficetoprovethe
contentsofthissimplelettersenttohimcontainingtheinformation
soughtbyhim.Evenotherwisethepossibilitycannotberuledout
thatthestaffoftheRTOofficemayhavemistakenlywrittenSatish
KumarinsteadofSantoshKumarandthereforethisdocumentisof
noimportanceandnotrelevantandcannotbereliedon.
462.
Thewitnessgaveveryspecificanswersastothetimingswhen
hetookoutthetaxioneachdayfrom10/07/06to16/07/06andit
has comein his crossexamination thatthe taxino.MRK8286is
nowscrapped,thatitwas scrappedaround9th or 10th November,
2006,thattherewasnopermissiontoplyitafteritwasscrapped
andhedidnotdealwiththescrapdealeraboutitanditwasparked
afteritwasscrapped.Heturneddownthesuggestionthathewas
notdrivingiton03/11/06whenthepoliceinquiredwithhim.Again
ithascomeinfurthercrossexaminationthatthetaxiwasscrapped
asitsconditionhaddeterioratedandnotthatitwas1520yearsold
andalsothatthecustomerswerepreferringcoolcabs.Asdiscussed
JudgementMCOC21/06
..472..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..473..
Ext.4825
theverypersonwhocameacrossthiswitnessSantoshSingh,PW63,
attheHillRoad,Bandra,aftersearchingfor15daysfortaxidrivers
atthetaxistandsatBandra,Govandi,Andheriandthetaxistands
ontheway.Itwasbroughtinhiscrossexaminationthathedidnot
makeanystationdiaryentryon03/11/06aboutgoinginsearchof
taxidriversandafterhereturningbackoraboutsucheffortsduring
theperiodof15dayspriorto03/11/06.Headmittedthathedid
nottakeanycopyofdrivinglicenceandbadgeofthewitnessand
didnotexaminethelogbookofthetaxi,didnottakephotographs
ofthetaxi,didnotexamineitorseizeit,buthestatedthathedid
not feel it necessary to do so. The reasoning that is given for
explaining similar type of lacuna in the investigation while
discussingtheevidenceoffirsttaxidriverRajeshSatpute,PW77,is
squarelyapplicable to the case of this witness also.The taxiis a
publicvehicle.He,however,statedthathehadseenthelicenceof
thewitness.
463.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..474..
Ext.4825
particular crime and that DCP Bajaj and ACP Patil, PW186, had
givendirectionstosearchfortaxidriversinageneralmeetingand
not particularly to him and in that meeting other investigating
officerswerealsopresent.
464.
ACPPatil,PW186,corroboratedhisversionbystatingthatthe
constableshadmadeinquirieswiththetaxidriversathisinstance,
thathehaddirectednumberofofficersandconstablesingeneralto
makeinquiriestofindoutthetaxidrivers,thatthisdirectionwas
given15dayspriorto03/11/06.Thesestatementshavecomeinhis
crossexamination. Subsequently, there was a considerable cross
examinationtoPIWadmare,PW175,astowhousedtobepresent
inthemeetings,thenumberofmeetings,etc.,butallthatisafishing
expedition.Hegavedetailedandspecificanswerstothequestionsin
respectoftheeventson03/11/06astowhenhestartedfromhis
residential quarters for doing the search work, etc., and all his
positivestatementsincrossexaminationhavenotbeencontroverted
in further crossexamination. He again stated in his cross
examination and explained in detail as to what he did when he
reached Bhoiwada and met ACP Patil, PW186, first briefed him
about the witness Santosh Singh, PW63, who stood outside the
office,hethencalledthewitnessinsideandintroducedACPPatil,
PW186,andviceversaandACPPatil,PW186,inquiredwithhimin
hispresencebutdidnotrecordhisstatement.
465.
IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thatSantosh
Singh,PW63,hadcometoBhoiwadaofficeon03/11/06andhad
methim,thatheinquiredwithhimandPIWadmare,PW175,was
JudgementMCOC21/06
..475..
Ext.4825
presentonthatday.Inconnectionwiththesestatementsmadeby
these two investigating officers, learned advocate Wahab Khan
submitted that they are lying because Santosh Singh, PW63, has
specificallystatedinhiscrossexaminationthathedidnotmeetACP
Patil, PW186, on that day, but first met him 07/11/06 in the
Bhoiwadaoffice.Learnedadvocatesubmittedthatthisshowsthat
thewitnessisagotupwitness.Itcannotbesaidso,becauseinhis
chiefexamination,SantoshSingh,PW63,statedthathewentinhis
taxitoBhoiwadaPoliceStationalongwiththepolicewhohadmet
himattheHillRoad,Bandra,theytookhimtosomeofficebehind
BhoiwadaPoliceStation,upstairsthereweresomeofficersandthey
madeinquirywithhim.TheanswersgivenbyACPPatil,PW186,in
crossexamination that he does not remember whether he had
introducedhimselfasACPPatil,PW186,takes awaytheforceof
supposedlyinconsistentstatementsmadebySantoshSingh,PW63.
Therefore, these statements by Santosh Singh, PW63, cannot be
said to inconsistent with the evidence of both the investigating
officersnordoesitprovethattheyarelying.
466.
aspectofnotpreparingsketchoftheunknownsuspectandabouta
personal diary being maintained by police officers, but it is not
material and does not affect his evidence and he denied the
suggestionthathedidnotgoforsearchoftaxidriver,before,onand
after03/11/06,thereforeitisnotwritteninthepersonaldiary.He
statedthatheusedtogoforthesearchinthegovernmentBolero
vehicle, but cannot tell its number and admitted that he did not
JudgementMCOC21/06
..476..
Ext.4825
makeentriesorthedriverdidnotmakeentriesinthelogbookinhis
presence,butalsostatedthathedidnottakethesamevehicleonall
thedays.Hedeniedallthesuggestionsinconnectionwiththesaid
witnessandalsothespecificsuggestionthatheisafalsewitness
plantedontheinstructionsofCPRoy,PW185,Jt.CPRaghuwanshi,
Addl.CPJaiswalandDCPBajaj.
467.
InfurthercrossexaminationSantoshSingh,PW63,wasagain
JudgementMCOC21/06
..477..
Ext.4825
theinvestigatingofficersdoneifhewouldhaveshownthespotsto
them? In respect of the inspection and search of the taxi, the
observationsmadewhilediscussingthisissueinrespectofRajesh
Satpute,PW77,aresquarelyapplicablehere.
468.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhansubmittedthatthiswitnesshad
importantinformationabouttheincidentofbombblastsandithas
comeinhiscrossexaminationthathecametoknowaboutthebomb
blastsinthenightof11/07/06,hesawthenewsontheTV,buttill
02/11/06hedidnotthinkthathehadsomeimportantinformation
about the incident of the bomb blasts. In reply, learned SPP
submittedandrightlyso,thattherewasnothingunusualforataxi
drivertocarrytwopassengersfromBandratoChurchgateevenon
thedayoftheblastsandandtocorelateitwiththebombblasts,
becausethebombblastshadnottakenplaceatChurchgate.Learned
advocateWahabKhanfurtherattackedtheveracityofthiswitnessin
viewofhisanswerthatitistruethatafteraboutaweekitisdifficult
to remember a passenger and it becomes more difficult after a
monthalso.Tomymind,thesubmissionsofthelearnedSPPRaja
Thakare in connection with this, that the memory of a person is
triggeredwhenthefactsarerefreshed,isonceagainapplicableto
thiswitnessalsoandthisanswerdoesnotaffecttheveracityofthe
witness.SantoshSingh,PW63,deniedallthesuggestionsinrespect
oftheevidencethathegaveabouttheeventson11/07/06andalso
deniedaverystrangesuggestionthatbefore03/11/06policehad
showntheA13tohimwhenhewasinthepolicecustodyandhad
shown him his photographs and video clips. He also denied the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..478..
Ext.4825
usualsuggestionthatheidentifiedtheaccusedinthecourtonthe
sayofthepoliceandhasdeposedfalsely.
469.
LearnedadvocateShettyduringhiscrossexaminationofthis
witnessaskedaboutthedistancesbetweenHillRoadandPerryCross
RoadfromCarterRoadandthewitnessgavethedistanceastwoand
half kilometers andone kilometer respectivelyin clear terms and
alsostatedthathewastakenfromMehboobStudioatHillRoad.
This shows his specific knowledge about the area in Bandra. His
answersfurtherthat23officersinquiredwithhimintheofficeat
Bhoiwada,buthecannottelltheirnamesorwhoinquiredwithhim
andwhowroteandwhosignedthestatement,onceagaintakeaway
the force of the supposedly inconsistent statement made by him
aboutnotmeetingACPPatil,PW186,onthatday,butmeetinghim
on 07/11/06 for the first time.He alsogave the specific time of
droppingthepassengersatChurchgate,i.e.,atabout4.45to5.00
p.m.andgavethespecifictimerequiredfromPerryCrossRoadto
Churchgate, about the traffic en route, about there being heavy
traffic at Peddar Road and Opera House, about he requiring 45
minutesfromHajiAliJunctiontoChurchgate viaPeddarRoadand
Opera House and some more things. These specifications are not
controverted andtheyshowthatthe witness is notshy of giving
answerstothequestionsandhasexactknowledgeabouttheroads
andthedistance,etc.,andisatruthfulwitness.
470.
moredetailshaveemergedaboutthelengthoftheHillRoad,etc.,
butitisnotmaterial.
JudgementMCOC21/06
471.
..479..
Ext.4825
LearnedadvocatehascriticizedtheevidenceofSantoshSingh,
PW63,onthebasisofthesocalledomissionsandcontradictions,on
thebasisoftheallegedconfusionabouttheownershipofthetaxi
andtheinconsistenciesinhisevidencereadwiththeevidenceofPI
Wadmare,PW175,andACPPatil,PW186.Ihavealreadyheldthat
the omissions and contradictions are not material to the factual
aspects of the events aboutwhichthe witness gaveevidenceand
thereisnoinconsistenciesinhisevidencevisavistheevidenceof
thetwoinvestigatingofficers.Learnedadvocatealsocriticizedthe
evidenceofPIWadmare,PW175,onthebasisofhisconvictionin
Special Case No. 53 of 2001 and questioned as to whether the
prosecutioncouldnotgetabetterwitnessandofficersotherthan
this?InthisrespecthereliedonthefurthercrossexaminationofPI
Wadmare,PW175,thatwasconductedaspertheorderoftheHigh
Court dtd. 30/01/14 in Criminal Appeal No. 1194 of 2013. His
evidence wasrecordedon04and05/01/12andafter morethan
twoyearshisfurthercrossexaminationwasdone.Headmittedthat
thecrimewasregisteredagainsthimbytheACP,Mumbaiwhenhe
was attached to the Narcotic Department in February, 98 on the
allegation that he had threatened the complainant thathe would
involve him in the false Narco case and tried to extort Rs.
30,00,000/fornotimplicatinghim,thatchargesheetwasfiledand
bythejudgementdtd.20/11/10inSpecialCaseNo.53of2001,the
courthadconvictedhimforthechargeundersection342oftheIPC
andhadreleasedhimonthepointofgoodconductfortheperiodof
a year instead of imposing any sentence on him. The witness
JudgementMCOC21/06
..480..
Ext.4825
volunteeredthathewasacquittedofthemainchargesandwasheld
guiltyforanoffenceforwhichtherewasnocharge,therefore,he
filed an appeal in the High Court, which is pending. He further
clarifiedthatfivepolicepersonswerehiscoaccusedandtheyallare
acquitted. Now after all these things he was given a very
unacceptable and baseless suggestion thatthe ATShelped him to
secure an acquittal in this case, which, to my mind, is casting
aspersions onthe courtthatgavejudgement.Allthesethingsare
renderedineffectivebytheanswersgivenbythewitnessinthere
examination done by the learned SPP Raja Thakare, because the
witnessansweredthathewasaPSIwhenthecasewasfiledbythe
ATSandheisnowaSr.PIhavinggottwopromotions.Perusalofthe
certifiedcopyofthechargesheetExt.4294showsthatthecrimewas
registeredintheyear1998andtheofficerhasnotbeenremoved
fromserviceorpenalized,butontheotherhandhasbeenpromoted
asaSr.PI.Secondly,itisnotshownhowthiscasehasaffectedhis
credibilityasapoliceofficerandhisinvestigationinthiscase.Thus,
thisaspectisofnoconsequenceanddoesnotaffecthiscapacityasa
policeofficeranddoesnotaffecttheinvestigationdonebyhimin
thiscase.
472.
respectofthiswitnessandheturneddownthesuggestionthatfalse
witnesses have been introduced after the accused retracted their
confessionalstatements.Nowthissuggestionisinapplicableinsofar
as the A13's case is concerned, because he declined to make a
confessional statement and therefore there is no question of any
JudgementMCOC21/06
..481..
Ext.4825
retractionbyhim.InfacttheA13wasarrestedon03/10/06,thatto
from Belgaon in Karnataka. There is nothing in his cross
examinationtodiscrediteitherhisevidenceabouttheinvestigation
concerningthiswitnessortheevidenceofthewitness.
473.
thattheruleoflogbookistodayonlyonpaperandnowadays
thereisafixedremunerationtothetaxidrivers.Inrespectofthe
entriesinthestationdiaryabouttakingstatementsofthewitness,
hesubmittedthatitisnotnecessaryfortheinvestigatingofficersto
recordeverything,heisnotwritingathesis.Supposingawitness
givesastatementtothepolicethaton11/07/06hereachedtwo
passengers from Bandra to Churchgate, that thereafter the police
called him for test identification parade on 07/11/06 and he
identifiedoneperson.Thesestatementswillbeconstruedasmugged
upbecausetherealpartoftheevidencethatisgermanetothefact
inissueisonlythismuch.Theinvestigatingofficertakesitalittlebit
elaboratelythoughthewitnessmaydescribeitingreatdetails.In
court,theprosecutorconductingthetrialtakestheevidenceofthe
witnessinthemannerthathefeelswouldbebetter.Therefore,any
discrepancyinrespectoftheperipheralmaterialcannotbelookedat
asifthewitnessisfabricatingthecaseorisdeposingfalsely.Ifone
examinestheevidenceofanywitnesssidebysidewithhisstatement
undersection161oftheCr.P.C.andifitisnotverbatimthenitis
argued that there are omissions and contradictions. However, no
other meaning is reflected if words only are considered without
understandingthemeaningoftheentiresentence.Hesubmitsthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..482..
Ext.4825
474.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..483..
Ext.4825
475.
Thoughbytheaboveevidencetheprosecutionhasproveda
circumstanceagainsttheA13,theA13hastakenthespecificdefence
ofalibianditwill,therefore,benecessarytoconsidertheoraland
documentaryevidencegivenbyhim.Tomostofthequestionsduring
his statementunder section 313of the Cr.P.C.in respectof the
evidencegivenbySantoshSingh,PW63,PIWadmare,PW175,and
ACPPatil,PW186,theA13expressedhislackofknowledgeandat
theendtoonequestionheansweredthatSantoshSingh,PW63,
gavefalsestatementtoPIWadmare,PW175,thatheistheownerof
thetaxi,becausethedocumentundertheRTIAct,Ext.1853,shows
that some other person is the owner. In respect of the question
relating to the identification in the test identification parade, he
answeredthatthreepersonswerebroughton31/10/06whenhe
wasinpolicecustodyandhewasshowntothemandtheyweretold
thatheisAsifBashirKhanandtheyshouldrememberhim.
476.
InhiswrittensubmissionsExt.2834theA13hasstatedthathe
isinnocent,hasnoconcern,evenremote,withthebombblasts,does
not know any of the coaccused, has no concern with them, has
nevermetthem,hasneverheardofthemandhasnevertoldabout
themtoanybody,thathesawthemonlyinthepolicecustodyforthe
firsttimeandhadnocontactwithanycoaccusedonmobilephone.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..484..
Ext.4825
Inrespectofthedateofincident,i.e.,11/07/06,hehassubmitted
that he reached his office, i.e., the site of his Lokhandwala
Construction Company at Kandivali, where he used to work as
billing engineer, at 09.05 hours and was doing the office work
thereafterandmadecallsandreceivedcallsfromhismobile.Priorto
thishealsostatedthaton7th,8th and10th ofJulyhewenttohis
officeasusualandworkedthereupto1820hoursasusualandhis
mobile used to be continuously with him from which he used to
makecallsandreceivecalls.ItisfurtherstatedbyhimthattheATS
calledhisofficestaffandinquiredwiththeminhispresenceand
theyalsoconfirmedthathewasworkingintheofficeforthewhole
dayon11/07/06.Hestatedthathefinishedhisofficeworkat1825
hours and started for going home at 1825 hours and before he
reachedKandivaliStation,hecametoknowthatthetrainsarenot
running, therefore, by bus he reached home at 2030 hours and
duringthisperiodhisfamilymembersandpersonsfromofficewere
callinghimandinquiringabouthiswellbeing.Hehasallegedthat
ATSofficersPatilandPSIKisanGaikwadbroughtsomepersonsto
theBhoiwadalockupandshowedhimtothemsayingthatseehim
properlyandheisAsifKhan.Hebecamefrightenedandheinformed
about this to the court by giving the application Ext. N. He has
allegedthathecametoknowthereafterthatMohd.Alam,PW59,
Kishore Shah, PW60, and Santosh Singh, PW63, are the
chargesheetedandfalsewitnessesofthepolice.Hehasstatedthat
aspertheattendancemusterrecordandpayslipsrecord,Exts.2088
to2094,hewaspresentduringtheentiremonthofJune,2006at
JudgementMCOC21/06
..485..
Ext.4825
theplaceofhisworkandfrom0905to1825hourson11/07/06.
Thisfalsifiestheevidencegivenbytheabovethreewitnessesandhe
has further stated that Santosh Singh, PW63, has falsely stated
aboutcarryinghiminhistaxiduring1530hoursto1700hoursfrom
Carter Road, Bandra to Churchgate subway. He has finally stated
thatExt.1853,whichisthedocumentobtainedbyhimundertheRTI
ActfromthePIOoftheRTOoffice,showsthatthetaxino.MRK
8286isnotownedbySantoshSingh,PW63,anditprovesthatthis
witnessisafalseanddummywitness.
477.
A13gaveelaborateevidenceonoathasDW49inrespectof
theentireprosecutioncase,abouthowheisfalselyinvolvedinthis
case at the behest of DCP Bajaj and in great detail about his
activitiesandwhereaboutsfrom08/07/06to11/07/06,whichisthe
materialevidenceinrespectoftheallegationsabouttheprosecution
aboutthebombmakingprocessandplantingofbomb.Thisevidence
ofhisalibiandtheothervoluminousevidencewillbeconsidered
subsequently. He deposed about obtaining employment in
Lokhandwala Construction Company at Kandivali and joining the
companyon20/03/06andtheprocedureofhisentryinhisofficeby
signingthemusterandputtingthetimeinthepresenceofsecurity
guardandthemusterkeeper.Alongwithconsideringhisevidencein
respect of his whereabouts and activities on 11/07/06, it is also
necessarytoconsiderhisevidenceinrespectofthethreedatesprior
to11/07/06becausehehasreliedontheCDRofthemobilenumber
9867209894ofAirtelCompany,thesimcardofwhichheclaimsto
havetakenfromhisfriendShaikhMohd.Ayyub,whowasresiding
JudgementMCOC21/06
..486..
Ext.4825
intheadjacentbuildingandwasdoingtheworkofmobilerepairing
in a shop andhadthe business of selling mobiles.In his written
submissionExt.2834,hehassatedthatinJuly,06hehadwithhim
an Airtel mobile no. 9867209894, which was in the name of his
friendAyyubandwhichheusedpersonallyathisKandivalioffice
andathishouseandusedtocontacthisfamilymembers,thestaffof
his office, the civil work contractors and the head office of his
companyatSantacruzandashewasacivilbillingengineer,hewas
alwaysincontact.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatheusedtohave
his mobile handset with him continuously at the job and at the
houseanddidnotkeepitswitchedoffatanytime.
478.
Ithascomeinhisevidencethaton08/07/06helefthishouse
athisregulartime,resumedhisjobat9.00a.m.,didtheworkof
civilbillingengineeringduringthewholedayduringwhichperiod
hismobilewaswithhimforthewholedayandhewasreceivingand
makingcallsfromhismobileandreturnedhomeat6.30p.m.after
duty.Inrespectof09/07/06,hestatedthathewasathishousewith
hisfamily,wasreceivingandmakingcallsfromhismobileduring
thedayandthathedidnotgotoShivajiNagaron8thand09/07/06.
Hisevidenceinrespectof10/07/06issimilartohisevidenceabout
08/07/06andinadditionhehasstatedthathisSr.EngineerS.T.
Deshpandetoldhimthattheyhavetotakeameetingon11/07/06
asthereisoverloadofworkandbillsarenotbeingpassedandthat
chieffacilitatingofficerShetty,whohadreceivedcomplaintsfrom
thecontractors,wouldalsocomeforthemeeting.
479.
Iwillfirstconsiderhisevidenceaboutthesethreedaysand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..487..
Ext.4825
thedocumentaryevidenceonwhichhereliesbecausehisevidence
in respect of the illfated day, i.e., 11/07/06, will have to be
discussedseparately.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatafterhisarrest
andduringhisinvestigation,theinvestigatingofficersbroughtthe
said Shetty from his company, who had brought all original
documents including his application form, muster, pay slips,
Lokhandwala appointment form and copy of Times of India
containing the advertisement, that his detailed statement was
recorded and his mobile number was verified from him. These
documents had been produced by the prosecution alongwith the
chargesheet and the defence admitted them, hence they were
markedasExts.2088to2094.Thenhestatedabouthiscolleague
SantoshGosaibeingcalled,inquiredwithandaboutrecordinghis
statement.Hepointedouttothedetailsinthedocuments,hisname
atsr.no.12inthemusterandtheentryon11/07/06.Ithascomein
hisevidencefurtherthathewasinquiredwithbyPSIWadkeand
Bagweinrespectofhismobilenumberandon15/10/06theygave
himabunchofCDRprintoutwhichwashavinghisnameandmobile
number.HereferredtotheCDRExt.3767andexplainedthathehad
madeandreceivedcalls,mostofthembeingofhiscolleaguesand
contractorsintheLokhandwalaConstruction,showedthelandline
numbersoftheSantacruzandLokhandwalaofficeandhegavethose
numbers.Hestatedthathewasaskedtoshowhiswhereaboutson
7th,8thand10/07/06onthebasisofthelocationsoftheCDRandhe
showed them that he was at Mira Road and Kandivali and the
locationsofhiscallson09/07/06areofMiraRoadasitwasSunday
JudgementMCOC21/06
..488..
Ext.4825
andtheycheckedtheCDRwiththelocationsshowedbyhim.
480.
submittedduringhisargumentsthatthecellIDshowingthetower
locations in the entire CDR does not show that the accused had
visitedBandraorShivajiNagar,Govandipriorto08/07/06andthen
he haspointedouttothe particular callsstarting from06/07/06
stating that they are incoming calls showing the locations of his
placeofworkatKandivaliinbetween9.45a.m.to6.37p.m.on
06/07/06,inbetween9.47a.m.to9.03p.m.atKandivaliandMira
Road on 07/07/06, in between 10.45 a.m. to 11.03 p.m. at
Lokhandwala,KandivaliandMiraRoad,asitwasSundayatMira
Roadon09/07/06andMiraRoadandhisplaceofworkandalso
attendingcallsenrouteon10/07/06.
481.
argumentsreferringtohiscrossexaminationandtothedocuments
of the employment of the accused, that though the muster role
showsthetimingoftheA13comingtotheofficeandleavingthe
office,thetowerlocationofthecallsasreflectedintheCDRsshow
thathewasnotalwaysathisworkplaceandwaselsewherealso.
The crossexamination on the aspect of the calls in the CDR is
mainlyinrespectof11/07/06and12/07/06.
482.
DW36,hasprovedthecontentsoftheCDRExt.3767pertainingto
themobileno.9867209894thatwasadmittedlybeingusedbythe
A13andalsoprovedthecontentsofthecertificateExt.3772which
hegaveasperthe law.Thecontents ofthe CDRwillhave tobe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..489..
Ext.4825
referredtoasbothsideshavereliedontheentirestherein,thoughit
isaquestionastowhetherthewitnessiscompetenttoprovethe
contentsofthesaidCDRinviewofhisevidencethatthedataof
callsisavailableontheserverforoneyear,thereafteritispurgedat
thebackendandarchivedinmagnetictapesandthattheyrequest
theITsectiontoretrievethedatathatismorethanoneyearold.It
hascomeinhisevidencethattheyissuecertificatetocertifythedata
thatisprovidedafterverifyingit,provideditisonline,i.e.,within
oneyear andthe morethan one year data cannotbeverifiedby
themasitisprovidedbytheITsection.Thisisagainclarifiedinhis
further crossexamination that Bharti Airtel has outsourced the
storingofthedatatoIBM,thatthedatathatheproducedhasbeen
receivedfromtheIBM,thatnocompetentauthorityoftheIBMhas
certifiedthatthedatathattheyhavesentisaccurateandcomplete,
thatheisnotthecompetentauthoritytosaythatthedatasosentby
theIBMisaccurateandcompleteandthecertificateExt.3772given
byhimisinrespectofthedatathatwasreceivedbytheIBM.This
wasalsoendorsedbytheheadoftheITdepartmentofBhartiAirtel,
AnandBhatnagar,DW29,inwhoseevidenceithascomethatthey
arehavingbackupsystemintheITdepartment,thattheIBMistheir
strategicpartnerandtheyhaveoutsourcedtheirITactivitiestothem
andtheymaintainthebackup,data,systemsandallITapplications.
His evidence was not completed as the request of the learned
advocatefortheaccusedfordeclaringhimhostilewasnotallowed.
Thusthedatathatisprovidedbythenodalofficeristhedatathathe
received from the IBM and which he has not verified and this is
JudgementMCOC21/06
..490..
Ext.4825
483.
columnsoftheCDR,thefirstcolumnrepresentingtheincomingor
outgoing calls and sms, MOC indicating outgoing calls, SMT
indicating incoming sms, SMO indicating outgoing sms and MTC
indicatingincomingcalls.Therelevantcolumnsarethethirdcolumn
which indicates the date and time, the fourth column which
indicatesdurationofthecall,thefifthcolumnwhichindicatescalled
number or calling number, the sixth column which indicates the
number of the subscriber, the eighth column is 'Cell First', which
indicatesthecodeofthetowerfromwhichthecallstarted,etc.
484.
LearnedSPPpointedouttotheentryinthemusterroleExt.
2094ofthedate03/07/06whichshowsthe'intimingas9.00a.m.
andouttimingas6.25p.m.'Hesubmitsthatitisthecontentionof
theaccusedthatheusedtobecontinuouslyinhis officeandhis
mobileusedtobewithhimandheusedtomakeandreceivethe
calls.LearnedSPPpointedouttheCDRExt.3767(4)of03/07/06
and to the transaction at 1644 hours, which is in respect of an
incomingsmsandthecellIDnumberis60393,whichasperExt.
3767(5)isofPanchRatnaCHS,NayaNagar,MasjidGalli,MiraRoad
(W). In respect of date 04/07/06, learned SPP submits that the
musterroleshowsthe'intimingas9.15a.m.andouttimingas1200
JudgementMCOC21/06
..491..
Ext.4825
hours'.However,thecallat9.43hours,whichisanincomingcall
shows the cellIDno.14073,the address of which is SaiRiddhi,
Opposite Mira Road Station, Near Shanti Nagar, Mira Road(E),
Mumbai, which is the residential address given by the accused.
Similarly,thereweretwocalls,oneat1152hoursandtheotherat
1153hourswhichshowthetowerlocationno.61143,addressbeing
nearDahisarBridge,Dahisar(W)andthetowerlocationno.14071,
whichisagainaddressofMiraRoadgivenabove.
485.
Inrespectofthedate05/07/06theentryinthemusterrole
showsthe'intimingat9.00a.m.andtheouttimingat5.30p.m.',
whereas the two incoming calls, one at 1628 hours and other at
1746 hours, show the tower locations no. 14073 and 19771, the
addressofthefirstbeingofShantiNagar,MiraRoadandtheaddress
ofthesecondbeingofGitaNagar,MiraRoad,Bhayander,Thane.
Learned SPP submits and rightly so that from the entries in the
musterroleExt.2094aboutthedutytimingsreadwiththetower
locationsofcallsintheCDR,noinferencecanbedrawnthatthe
A13 used to be continuously in his office in Lokhandwala
ConstructionCompanyatKandivaliduringtheworkinghours.
486.
Nowitisthecaseoftheaccusedinhiswrittenstatementas
wellasinhisoralevidencethathismobileusedtobecontinuously
withhimandheusedtoreceive,and,thisisimportant,makecalls
tohisfamilymembers,staffmembers,etc.,andparticularlyon8th,
9th and10/07/06. Theaspectofhemakingcallshasbeenbrought
outduringhiscrossexaminationasanuntruthanditisalsoevident
fromthecontentsoftheCDRExt.3767(4)thatthereisnotasingle
JudgementMCOC21/06
..492..
Ext.4825
outgoingcallorsmsafter10.52a.m.of04/07/06upto1242a.m.of
12/07/06, i.e., for a period of continuous 8 days and all the
transactions during these 8 days are either incoming calls or
incomingsms.
487.
Nowinrespectofthedateoftheincident,hestatedthathe
reached the office at 9.05 a.m. and left at 6.35 p.m., which is
obviouslyasperthecontentsofthemusterroleExt.2094andhe
statedthathismobilewaswithhimandswitchedonandhestarted
gettingcallsregularlyafter9.45a.m.,thathiscolleagueswerewith
him, that one Deshpande called him from the head office in
Santacruzat4.30p.m.andheandmanagercameat5.10p.m.and
hadameetingwithhimwhichcontinuedupto6.15p.m.andthen
heleftat6.35p.m.withhiscolleagueSantoshGosaiandheputthe
timeinthepresenceofthetimekeeperSandeepPatilandatthat
timethesecurityguardRamsinghwaspresent.Infurtherevidence,
he gave the landline numbers of the head office at Santacruz as
02226494592and 02226487766andthe landline numbers ofhis
office at Kandivali as 02226494492 and 02226491807, which he
toldtoPSIBagwe,whowasinquiringwithhim.Hegavethedetails
ofthecallsthathegotduringthedayof11/07/06andparticularly
acallfromDeshpandefromSantacruzofficeat4.32p.m.,fromhis
sonat7.54p.m.whenhewasatS.V.Road,Dahisar.Onemorecall
at8.05p.m.whenhehadreachedMiraRoad,acallfromhisfriend
and colleague Santosh Gosai at 8.53 p.m. from landline no.
02232417058andfromonecontractorKaleat10.15p.m.andat
10.16 p.m. from his mobile no. 09322690008. He stated that all
JudgementMCOC21/06
..493..
Ext.4825
thesecallswereconfirmedbymanypersons,whowerecalledbythe
investigating officers on 16th, 17th and 18/10/06, who confirmed
thattheyhadcalledhimandthisisagainimportantthat theyhad
received calls from him and their statements were recorded. As
mentionedearlierthereisnooutgoingcallsforaperiodof8days
includingon11/07/06.InrespectofthesaidfriendSantoshGosai
hehadstatedearlierthatthesaidfriendhadcalledhimfromhis
landlineno.02232417058,butincrossexaminationhewasasked
aboutno.02223052593,whichhestatedtobenumberofaPCO
fromwhichSantoshGosaihadcalledhimonthatday.Hestatedthat
hedoesnotknowtheexactlocationofthePCObuthisfriendstays
at Shuklaji Street. He admitted that the friend's name is Santosh
Gosai,butdoesnotknowhisexactresidentialaddressandwhenhe
wasputthespecificaddressofKharghar,NaviMumbai,hedeniedit
and also expressed his lack of knowledge about the statement of
SantoshGosaibeinginthechargesheet.Thenumber02223052593
confrontedtothewitnessisanobviouslymistakebythelearnedSPP
in stating the last four digits 2593 instead of 2953, which he
allegedlylateronshowedtobeofaPCOattheFaujiaMedicaland
General Store, Near Faujia Hospital, Shuklaji Street, Mumbai.
ThoughheadmittedthatSantoshGosaihadamobile,buthedidnot
rememberitsnumberthoughbothhavemademanycallstoeach
otherfromtheirmobiles.Though,itispositivelyassertedbyhim
thatSantoshGosaihadcalledhimfromtheno.02223052593,as
puttohim,whichmustbeinfact02223052953,on11/07/06,he
hadtoadmitaftergoingthroughtheCDRthathedidnotgetacall
JudgementMCOC21/06
..494..
Ext.4825
from that number on that day. His statement that he does not
rememberthemobilenumberofhisfriendSantoshGosai,thoughhe
couldrememberthe numberofaPCO,is unacceptableandhe is
obviouslydeposingfalsely.ItisalsoobviousthattheA13hasmade
upthestoryaftertheCDRswerereceivedandhetriedtoexplain
eachandeverycall.
488.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..495..
Ext.4825
489.
Perusaloftherecordshowsthattheprosecutionappliedfor
JudgementMCOC21/06
..496..
Ext.4825
examinedanyknowledgeablepersonfromhisworkplacewhowas
working with him on that day to establish the fact that he was
continuouslyworkinginhisofficeupto6.25p.m.
490.
LearnedSPPsubmitsthatheisfullyconsciousofthefactthat
whatthecourtcanconsiderisadmissibleevidence,butexercising
thepowersthatarevestedinthiscourtbyvirtueofsection165of
theEvidenceAct,evenforthelimitedpurposeforgettingsatisfied
aboutthefact,ifthecourtfeelsitprudent,thecourtmayperusethe
statementsofthethreewitnesses,whocouldnotbeexaminedbythe
prosecution. Though, section 165 of the Evidence Act cannot be
called in aid for this purpose, out of curiosity, I perused the
statementsandIcannothelpbutcommentingthatiftheprosecution
would have been able to examine these three witnesses, their
evidence would have buried the A13 deeper. The security guard
KisanSinghhadstatedtothepolicethatengineers,whousedtogo
outsideduringtheofficework,butdidnotreturnbeforetheclosing
hours,usedtosignonthepreviousdaysmusteronthenextdayand
putthetime.PappuShettyhasonlyproducedthedocumentsand
themusterofallthesethreedates.Theallegedcolleagueandfriend
oftheA13SantoshGosaistatedtothepolicethatherecollectedthat
theA13wasabsenton12/07/06andthisisimportantthatinfacthe
wentearlieron11/07/06on1330hourssayingthatheisunwell.
Admittedly,thecontentsofthestatementofthesewitnesscannotbe
consideredforanypurpose.
491.
Itissubmittedbythelearnedadvocatethattheprosecutionis
givingasuggestiontotheA13thatthereisnooutgoingcallfrom
JudgementMCOC21/06
..497..
Ext.4825
04/07/06to12/07/06and,ontheotherhand,itissuggestedthat
the mobile was not with him. In this connection, learned SPP
submittedthatitistheaccusedwhohastakenthespecificdefence
ofalibiandisplacingrelianceonhismusterroleathisworkplace
andalsoontheCDRofhismobile.Hesubmitsthatiftheaccused
fails to give cogent evidence about it, then he fails to prove his
defenceofalibi.LearnedSPPalsosubmittedthatinrespectofCDR,
the general proposition is that the CDR at the most shows the
locationofthehandsetandnotofthatperson.Tomymind,there
cannotbeapresumptionthatamobileisalwayswiththepersonand
therefore,thelocationsintheCDRwillnotestablishthelocationof
the person using it, because a mobile is not a body part of any
person.ItispertinenttopointoutthattheCDRdoesnotshowany
transactionofcallsorsmsfortwohoursandfiveminutesbetween
1632hoursto1907hourson11/07/06andthereisnoexplanation
orevidencebytheaccusedaboutthisperiod.
492.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..498..
Ext.4825
unaffected.Itwill,therefore,havetobeheldthattheA13hadtaken
afalsepleaofalibi. Hence,itisanadditionalcircumstanceinthe
chain of circumstances against all the accused. It is the first
additional circumstance against all the accused. It is the first
additionalcircumstanceagainsttheA13.
Travellers:
493.
SubhashNagarsekar,PW57,forA1,DevendraPatil,PW62,forA3,
Vishal Parmar, PW74, for A4 and Kishore Shah, PW60, for A13,
who had allegedly seen the respective accused keeping big black
rexinebagsontheluggageracksandonebelowtheseatinthefirst
class bogie of different trains in which they were travelling on
11/07/06.
494.
Ithascomeintheevidenceof SubhashNagarsekar,PW57,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..499..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..500..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..501..
Ext.4825
mostimportantofall,thatwhentheA1gotdownatDadarStation
hedidnothavetherexinebagwithhim.
495.
Theevidenceofthiswitnessisfluentandspecificandhehas
nothesitatedingivingthedetailsandheunhesitatinglyidentified
theA1inthecourt,whichisasubstantiveevidence.Hisvoluminous
crossexaminationhasnotrevealedmuchandtheonlycontradiction
insofar as his statement dtd. 18/10/06 is concerned, which was
provedduringthecrossexaminationofPIMandge,PW172,asExt.
1834isinrespectofananswerthathegaveincrossexamination
thathehadathreemonthlyrailwaypassoffirstclass,whereasthe
portioninhisstatementshowsthathehadstatedthatduringthat
periodheusedtopurchasemonthlypass.Nowhehadnotstated
about having monthly or three monthly pass in his chief
examination and,tomymind,whetheritwas amonthlypassor
threemonthlypass,thefactremainsthathedidhavearailwaypass
offirstclass andthe evidenceaboutthis factis notcontroverted.
Theimprovementsthatweremadebyhiminsofarashisstatement
onthatdayisconcerned,werebroughtonrecordasomissionsand
proved during the crossexamination of PI Mandge, PW172. The
firstisabouthehavingnotdescribedthebagas'bigsquare',which
he subsequently rectified and stated that it was rectangular. The
omissionisnotinrespectofthecolourofthebag,i.e.,blackishor
the material of the bag, i.e., rexine. Therefore, to my mind, this
omissionis notmaterialanddoes notamounttoacontradiction.
The witness did not state in his chiefexamination that it was a
square bag. Next omission is about his statement in chief
JudgementMCOC21/06
..502..
Ext.4825
examinationthathewassittingfacingtowardsVirar.Assumingthat
thisisanomission,itdoesnotmateriallyaffecthisevidenceabout
hehavingtravelledinthetrainonthatdayandinfactduringhis
crossexaminationsomemorespecificationsinrespectofhissitting
locationinthetrainhavebeenbroughtonrecordandrelyingon
thoseanswers,submissionshavebeenmadeaboutthepossibilityof
thewitnesshavingseentheA1andothersfromhissittingposition.
Thus,itdoesnotgototherootofthecase.Nextishisstatement
thathewenttotheleftdooratBombayCentralandstoodthereand
atDadarfromthecornerhegotdownimmediatelyandstoodbythe
side.Inthisrespect,PIMandge,PW172,clarifiedthatitiswritten
inthestatementthatafterthelocalstartedfromMumbaiCentral
RailwayStationhegotupandstoodneartheleftdoorandthathe
got down at Dadar Station in the crowd somehow. Thus the
omission,ifany,isinrespectofhestandingbythesideandwiping
hisfacebyhandkerchief,whichtomymindisinfactnotanomission
and it is only in the nature of description about his conduct.
Subsequentomissionsthatarebroughtonrecordareinrespectof
his evidence that on 18/10/06 on making inquiry with the ATS
office,hecametoknowthattheblasthadtakenplaceinthe1stfirst
class compartment of the Virar local, that about retiring from
service,etc.,aboutthetwopersonshavingstoodinthepassage,that
thetrainstartedat5.57p.m.,itwasslowuptoBombayCentral,that
hewentbyslowtraintoThane,thathesawthenewsontheTV,that
therehadbeensevenbombblastsinthewesternrailwaysaheadof
Dadarandmanypeoplehaddied,thathewasquietthereafter,that
JudgementMCOC21/06
..503..
Ext.4825
inthefirstweekofOctoberitwasinthenewsthatthebombwas
keptinthe5.57p.m.Virarfastlocal,thatherememberedthathe
wasalsointhattrainandthethoughtofgoingtotheATSofficeand
makinginquiry,etc.Inmyhumbleopinion,allthesestatementsare
inrespectofperipheralmattersandnottouchingthemainincident
inthetrainexceptthatthetwopersonsstoodinthepassage,which
tomymind,isnotmaterialbecausepassengersnormallystandin
passageorinbetweenthebenches.Unfortunately,astatementunder
section161oftheCr.P.C.cannotberead.Iamsurethatifread,the
contentswouldhaveshownthatthesethingsarewritteninsome
other words and not necessarily in the exact words in which the
witnessgaveevidence.Thesearetheonlyomissionsinrespectofthe
statement of witness dtd. 18/10/06 and some contradictions and
omissions have come on record in respect of his statement dtd.
07/11/06, which will be dealt with later on when the evidence
abouttheidentificationparadeisdiscussed.Itisclearthatthesingle
contradictionandafewomissionsinhisstatementdtd.18/10/06
are not so material so as to discredit the testimony of Subhash
Nagarsekar,PW57.
496.
writtensubmissionExt.2822filedwithhisstatementundersection
313oftheCr.P.C.theA1hastakenthedefenceofalibi,hislearned
advocateRasal,whowasrepresentinghimatthattime,didnotput
upthatdefenceanddidnotgiveasinglesuggestionthattheA1was
notinMumbaion11/07/06andwasatMadhubani,Bihar.Itisonly
learnedadvocateWahabKhanforsomeotheraccused,whogavethe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..504..
Ext.4825
suggestiontothewitnessthatonthatday,theA1wasatMadhubani,
Bihar, which Subhash Nagarsekar, PW57, turned down. Now the
crossexamination to the witness by learned advocate Rasal is in
respectofthecompanyinwhichheusedtoserve,hiseducation,his
current estate broker business and income tax return, etc. He
admittedthatthereis aSwamiSamarthtempleandtwoSaibaba
templesinGirgaon,outofwhichoneisfamousandisabout1015
minutes from his house. Now the witness going to a particular
templeofSaibabaatThane,whichisatquitealongdistancefrom
hishouse,ratherthanhevisitingthenearestSaibabatemple,cannot
leadtotheinferenceofhisfalsity,becausethoughtherearetemples
of different deities scattered around towns, a person goes to the
particulartemplethoughitmaybefarawayashehasfaithinthe
deitythere.
497.
ChurchgatedonotstopinthestationbetweenBombayCentraland
ChurchgateaspeopleboardthetrainsforgoingtowardsVirarandit
wassuggestedtohiminfurthercrossexaminationthathedidnot
boardanytrainatCharniRoadStationandthatthe5.57traingoing
to Virar does not stop at Charni Road while going towards
Churchgate, which suggestion he turned down. No material has
been brought on record by the defence to back this suggestion,
thougharailwayofficerhasbeenexaminedandcertainscheduleof
trainshave beenproved.Thus,thislineofcrossexamination and
furtherquestionstowhichheexpressedignorance,viz.,thatpeople
travellingtoVirarbeatthepassengersofstationsinbetweenand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..505..
Ext.4825
peoplewhowanttogetdownatthemiddlestationsdonotnormally
travelinVirartrainsandchangethetrainatChurchgatestation,has
notimpeachedhiscredibility.Infurthercrossexaminationhewas
askedandhegaveaverypositiveanswerthathewasabitanxious
whenhecametoknowfromthepassengersbyhissidethatthetrain
isthe5.57p.m.Virarfasttrain,becausehewantedtogetdownat
Dadar.Thisisnotanomissionorcontradictionandhehasnottold
aboutitinchiefexamination,butithasshownthatthewitnessis
honest,thoughtheeffortofthelearnedadvocatewastoshowthat
becauseoftheanxietythewitnesswasinworriedstateofmindand
couldnothavenoticedotherdetailsincludingtheaccused.Hewas
asked about locals starting from particular platform number,
whether there is a common platform and then it has specifically
comeinhiscrossexaminationthatatCharniRoadheenteredthe
compartment, turned left and sat by the window facing towards
Virarandatthattimethewindowwasonhisrightside.Thisisin
accordancewithhisstatementinchiefexaminationandthisaspect
is considerably agitated during the submissions by the learned
advocates and he was also crossexamined by learned advocate
Shetty during which the number of seats and the exact position
wherethewitnesssathascomeonrecord,viz.,thathesatonthe
eastsideinthewindowseatthatwastheendofthecoachwithhis
back to Churchgate and there was no seat behind him in that
compartment.Itisinrespectoftheseanswersthatitwassubmitted
duringtheargumentsthathecouldnothaveseentheaccusedand
the persons with him coming inside the bogie. To my mind, the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..506..
Ext.4825
answersbythewitnessinthisrespecthaveinfactfixedtheposition
wherehesatinthebogie,whichtomymind,mayhaveenabledhim
toseethepersonscominginsidefromthedoors.Itcanbesaidthat
hewasatavantageplacewherehecouldhaveeasilyobservedthe
passengerscomingin andgoingout.This canbeascertainedifa
sketchisdrawnonthebasisoftheseanswersandwhichIdid.
498.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..507..
Ext.4825
499.
InrespectofthesituationatDadaralso,hegaveanswersto
thequestionswhichheknewandexpressedhislackofknowledge
aboutsomequestions.Though,thewitnessinhischiefexamination
hasnotgivenmanydetailsinrespectofgettingdownatDadarfrom
thetrain,positivesentenceshavecomeonrecordduringhiscross
examinationthattherewasahugecrowdofpassengersatDadar,
thatassoonasthetrainstoppedthere,therewasarushofpersons
fromthecrowdtoenterthetrain,thathewasthefirstpersontoget
downonthatday,thathegotdownwhenthetrainwasaboutto
stop,thatitwasnotnecessaryforhimtorunwiththetrainwhenhe
gotdownandatthatmomentpeopleweretryingtogetinandget
down from the train. These positive statements have not been
controverted. In further crossexamination again some more
elaborations have come which show that he is a honest person,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..508..
Ext.4825
500.
Nowmuchstressislaidonthesentenceinparagraph17ofhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..509..
Ext.4825
ontherackabovehim,ithasbeenagainrepeatedwhenanomission
waspointedoutinrespectofsomeotherpersonsanditisrepeated
in paragraph 21 and a specific clarification has come in cross
examinationthattherackwasabovethewindowandnotabovehis
back.Nowthisspecificanswershownhisbonafidesandtakescareof
thesubmissionsofthelearnedadvocateWahabKhanthatthereisno
rack above the 7 seat bench, i.e., at the end of the coach. For a
limitedpurpose,thecontradictionExt.2512(2)alsomentionsthat
thebagwaskeptontherightsiderack.Ithasfurthercomeinhis
evidencethatotherpeoplehadkeptbagsonthatracks,butthey
were small type of suitcase bags or small bags of tiffins. He also
admitted that many persons in that compartment had kept their
luggageontheracksandthepersonwhohadkeptthebagandother
personwithhimstoodinthepassagebetweenthetwodoors.The
last sentence is a positive sentence in crossexamination, because
this wasnotstatedbyhim in chiefexamination.However,itwas
triedtobeusedforthepurposeofsubmittingthatifthepersonhad
stoodinthepassagehecouldnothaveseenthem.Nowobviously
this is an incorrect submission because he must have seen those
personswhentheycamenearhimandkeptthebagoverhishead.
Consideringthefactthatitwasabigbag,i.e.,abagbiggerthan
smalltypesofsuitcasebagsorsmallbagsoftiffins,itisbutnatural
foranypersontobemoreconsciousofitandinthatprocesstolook
atthefaceofthepersonwhoiskeepingthatbag.Thus,ontheother
handthisanswerhashelpedinendorsingtheinferencethatheisa
truthfulwitness.Theabovepositivestatementswhichhavecomein
JudgementMCOC21/06
..510..
Ext.4825
hiscrossexaminationareinrespectofthesituationthatarequite
normal.
501.
502.
Placingrelianceonsomestatementsmadebythewitnessin
paragraph28ofthecrossexaminationthatitwassubmittedthatif
thewitnesswantedtoavoidclimbingstairsthenhecouldhavegone
toThanefromCSTandcouldavoidclimbingstairs,whichshows
thatheisagotupwitness.Inthisconnection,heagainreiterated
thefactofhehavingapassofCST,ChurchgateviaDadar,statedthat
hewasandissufferingfromhighbloodpressureanddiabetesand
hewasindifficultytoclimbstaircaseatthattimeanddeniedthe
suggestions that he did not have any ailment at that time. He
submittedthatifhewouldbeattheCST,heusedtogohomebybus,
that the buses were frequent and he used to get down at
Thakurdwar. He admitted that if one goes from CST, one is not
JudgementMCOC21/06
..511..
Ext.4825
requiredtoclimbthestairsandansweredthathehadnotdecided
beforehandtogobythewesternlineandknewthatbydoingsohe
wouldberequiredtochangethetrainandclimbthestairsandthat
hedidnotrealizeon11/07/06thathecanavoidclimbingstairsby
goingbybustoCSTandthentoThane.Nowthiswitnessstaysat
ThakurdwarandanyMumbaikarwill,asanaturalusualpractice,go
tohisnearestrailwaystationratherthanbytravellingbybusand
going to a railway station which is far away. This aspect will
thereforenotaffecthiscredibility.Theabovediscussionabouthis
evidence in respect of the incident on that day shows that his
credibility has not been impeached and he is not shown as an
untruthfulwitnessand/oranunnaturalwitness,i.e.,thatheisagot
upwitness.Strangequestionswereaskedtohimastowhetherhe
came to know on seeing the news as to in which portion of the
compartmenttheblasthadtakenplaceandwhethertheblastdid
nottakeplaceintheportionofthecompartmentinwhichhewas
sitting.Tomymind,heisnottheinvestigatingofficerandhasnot
visitedthesiteoftheblastandmorethanthattheblastdidnottake
placeinhispresence.
503.
Hiscrossexaminationinrespectofhisactivitiesaftercoming
homeonthatdaywasdoneinordertoshowthatheisagotup
witness,ashewenttothepoliceon18/10/06,i.e.,afteraperiodof
nearly three months after the incident and this delay affects his
credibilityandshowsthatheisagotupwitness.Itisinhisevidence
thathesawthenewsaboutthesevenbombblastsontheTVand
alsothatabombwaskeptin5.57Virarfastlocalandithadgoneoff
JudgementMCOC21/06
..512..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..513..
Ext.4825
sawthenewsthathehadtravelledinthe5.57Virartrain.Thereisa
distinctionbetweentheknowledgethatabombbasthadtakenplace
in the 5.57 Virar train and the knowledge that rexine bags
containing bombs was kept in the firstclass compartment in that
train.Hedeniedthesuggestionattheendofthecrossexamination
bylearnedadvocateRasalthathedidnotgobyanytrainatCharni
Road Station, that the 5.57 train going to Virar does not stop at
Charni Road Station while going towards Churchgate, that he
deposedfalselyasthepolicedidnothaveanyevidenceagainstthe
personswhowereinthecustodyandtheusualsuggestionthathe
identifiedtheA1inthecourtashewasshowntohimoutsidethe
court.Inrespectofthisaspectinthecrossexaminationbylearned
advocateWahabKhanapositivestatementhascomeonrecordthat
hedidnotcometoknowonthenextdayonreadingthenewspaper
andonwatchingthetelevisionthattheblastshadtakenplaceinthe
firstclasscompartmenttowardstheVirarside.
504.
discredithisversioninrespectoftheincidentandhisconductonthe
dayofincidentaswellasgoingtothepoliceon18/10/06.Thus,
thismeansthatthereisnodelayinrecordingthestatementofthis
witness, because he had gone to the police for the first time on
18/10/06withtheknowledgethathehad.
505.
Itwasarguedbythelearnedadvocatesforthedefencethatit
isonlyaftertheretractionoftheconfessionbytheA1thatthepolice
createdtheevidenceofthiswitnessandthereforethiswitnessisa
gotupwitnessandforthatpurposetheyarerelyingonhiscross
JudgementMCOC21/06
..514..
Ext.4825
examinationinrespectofhisworkofincometax,hismobileaswell
aslandlinephoneandhisallegedassociationwithArunGawali,but,
tomymindalltheseareperipheralthingsanddonotdiscredithis
version. Initially, at the start of his crossexamination by learned
advocateRasalthewitnessstatedthathedoesnotwanttotellin
which company he used to serve after he had done the turning
courseinITIin1967fromMumbaiITIandthatwastheonlyservice
thathedid.Hetruthfullyansweredthattheproprietorshipofthe
estate broker business is not in his name, that he does not file
incometaxreturnsandhasnodocumentaryevidencetoshowthat
hedoesthatbusiness.Inthis respectin thecrossexaminationby
learnedadvocateWahabKhanheansweredthatheisfilingincome
tax returns since last four years from 2005, wherein he has not
shownhisbusinessasestateagent.Hisexplanationaboutitthatthis
isbecausetherewasnotmuchincomefromit,isacceptable.Priorto
thatithascomeinhisevidencethathehasapancard.Hegotit
beforefouryearsbyshowinghisbusinessascateringandhewasnot
inclinedtotellthenameofhisbusiness,aboutwhichhecouldnot
telltheyearlyvolumeoftransactionandthathehasnotregisteredit
anywhereelse,butdoesitinMumbaiwhereverhegetstheorder
andhas34labourers.Hemade apositivestatementthathehas
nevergivenanycateringserviceinanypoliceprogrammeandhas
notreceivedanychequesfromthepoliceaboutthatbusiness.He
alsostatedthathismainsourceofincomeiscateringbusinessand
estate agent and he was further crossexamined in respect of his
businessasestateagent,butthat,tomymind,isnotmuchrelevant.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..515..
Ext.4825
Hemadeapositivestatementthathecangivetheexactlocationsof
thepropertiesaboutwhichhehadmadethetransactions.Thusthis
lineofcrossexaminationisineffectiveindiscreditinghistestimony.
Hisreluctancetogivethenameofhisbusinessorhismobilenumber
canbeacceptedconsideringthenatureofthecase.Inrespectofhis
mobilenumber,ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationthathehada
mobileofRelianceCompanywhichwasinhisnameandhegave
that number and a positive statement has come in his cross
examinationthatonthatdayhismobilephonewasnotwithhim
anditwasathishouse.Hevolunteeredthatitwaswithhisdaughter
asshewastogotoBhandupsideonthatdayandhecouldnotsay
thatwhetherhehadleftthemobileathishouseasshewasgoto
BhandupanddoesnotknowwhethershewasatBhanduptakingthe
mobilewithheratthattime.Ithascomeinhiscrossexamination
thathehadpurchasedtwomobilesimcardsonhishouseaddress
and expressed his reluctance to give the number of the second
mobilethatwaswithhimonthedayoftheincident,whichcanbe
acceptedforthesamereasonasstatedabove.Whetherornothehad
amobilewithhim,whetheritwascarriedbyhimorbyhisdaughter
is of no significance as nothing has been brought on record in
respectofthecallsthatwerereceivedandmadeonbothmobileson
thatday.Hespecificallyturneddownthesuggestionthatthesaid
mobilewaswithhimandthathehadgonetoBhanduponthatday.
Hisapprehensionaboutdisclosinghismobilenumberorthenameof
hisbusinessisapparentfromhisanswerthathefeelsdangertohis
lifeifhedisclosesthenumberofhisothersimcard.
JudgementMCOC21/06
506.
..516..
Ext.4825
landline in his name and denied the suggestion that landline no.
23811910isinhisnameontheaddressofhishouse.Nowthishas
comeinhiscrossexaminationandhisclarificationfurtheristhatit
maybethatthislandlinenumberwasobtainedbygivinghisname
andaddressanditmaybethathehadrentedhishouseandtenant
by name Deepak wanted to take the landline number, that the
mobileisinhisnameandalsoclarifiedthatitwasnotforhim.He
candidlyadmittedthatheusedtousethelandlinesometimes,but
neverpaidthechargesandalsoadmittedthathehadgivencheque
for the charges to take the connection and had signed on the
applicationform.Infurthercrossexaminationheadmittedthatthe
mobilenumberthatheisusingnowwasnotbeingusedbyhimin
2006anditisnotinhisname,buthewasnotreadytogivethat
number.Hedeniedthatin2006therewasasimcardinthenameof
hisdaughterandapositivestatementhascomeonrecordthathe
neverhadanycontactwiththeATSofficesfromhistwomobilesor
landlinetillhisstatementwasrecorded.Allthiscrossexaminationis
justintheairanddoesnotleadtoanyinferenceaboutthefalsityof
thewitnessbecausehehasnothiddenanythingandisnotshyof
givingdetailswhereverhedoesnotapprehenddangertohislife.
507.
ThelastaspectisabouthisconnectionwithArunGawaliand
ithascomeinhis crossexaminationthatthelabourunioninhis
companywasheadedbyArunGawali,thathe,i.e.,thewitnesswas
anordinaryworkerofthatunion,thatthecompanywasorderedto
giveRs.4/crorestotheunioninasettlementbetweentheunion
JudgementMCOC21/06
..517..
Ext.4825
andthecompanyownerbeforetheHighCourtandheknowsthat
theArunGawaliisanotoriouscriminalandisincustodyandhad
given him about Rs. 4,00,000/ before the blasts. He denied the
suggestionthathedepositedthechequeofRs.4,00,000/afterthe
blast.Now,ifthisisthecase,thenthereisabsolutelynocorelation
betweenhisconnectionwiththesaidArunGawali,ifthereisany,
andthehappeningoftheblastorhegivingevidenceinthiscase.He
naturally turned down the suggestion that he is associated with
ArunGawalianddeposedfalselyonhissayandonthesayofthe
police.
508.
Theaboveistheentirecrossexaminationofthewitnessonall
JudgementMCOC21/06
..518..
Ext.4825
uncommon.Heisperfectlyrightinsubmittingthatnothingunusual
hadhappenedinhispresence.Butinsofarasthebagisconcerned,in
viewoftheanswerbythewitnessthatthereweresmallbriefcases
andtiffinbagsontheluggageracks,itisclearthatabiggerbagis
something uncommon. About the submission of the learned
advocatethatnodocumenthasbeenproducedbythewitnesseither
tothepoliceorbeforethecourtabouthistravelinthetrain,the
reasonsgiveninrespectofthedocumentsofthetaxidriverareonce
againapplicabletothiswitnessalso.
509.
answersgivenbythewitnessabouthismobileandlandlinephone,
abouthisbusinessandaboutreceivingcertainamountfromArun
Gawali,etc.Itwillnotbeincorrecttosaythattheconnectionofthis
witnesswithArunGawaliisabsolutelyirrelevantanditwasnothing
but a fishing expedition. I have already discussed about the
reluctanceofthewitnesstogivethenameofhisbusinessandhis
mobile number, etc. A baseless submission was made that the
witnesshasworkedasapanchforthepolicein2013.Thereisno
evidenceforthis.Thus,atthecostofrepetitionitwillhavetobe
saidthattheevidenceofSubhashNagarsekar,PW57,inrespectof
theincidentinquestion,isunimpeachedandisacogentevidence.
Hehaswithstoodthetestofcrossexaminationandnothingmaterial
hasbeenbroughtonrecordtodiscredithisversion.Thatthewitness
isatotallyindependentwitness,isabsolutelyclearfromthemost
important fact that he has no criminal antecedents and no prior
connectionwiththepoliceeitherasanaccusedorawitnessora
JudgementMCOC21/06
..519..
Ext.4825
panch.Thisrulesoutthepossibilityabouthebeingapliablepolice
witnessandagotupwitnessanditwillhavetobeheldthathis
evidence is not fabricated. I have, therefore, no hesitation in
acceptinghistestimonyastruthful.Thisisthecircumstanceno.3
proved by the prosecution against the accused. Hence, it will
havetobeheldthatbyhisevidenceprosecutionhasprovedthaton
11/07/06 the A1 had kept a big rexine bag in the firstclass
compartmentofthe5.57p.m.VirarfasttrainatChurchgateandhe
wasaccompaniedbyaperson,whodidnotgetdownatDadar.Itis
againsttheA1.
510.
Thoughbytheaboveevidence,theprosecutionhasproveda
circumstanceagainsttheA1,theA1hastakenthespecificdefenceof
alibiinhiswrittensubmissionandaspointedoutinthediscussion
above, there was only one suggestion to Subhash Nagarsekar,
PW57,inhiscrossexaminationinrespectofthisdefencebylearned
advocate Wahab Khan that the A1 was at Madhubani, Bihar on
11/07/06,whichmeans thathewas notin Mumbaionthatday,
whichsuggestionthewitnessturneddown.Theaccusedisrelying
ontheCDRofhismobileExts.3031to3033,thecontentsofwhich
were proved by Sandeep Sahay, DW14, Principal Circle Nodal
Officer,Bihar&JharkhandofBhartiAirtelLtd.Duringhisevidence
thetowerlocationsofthecallsfrom09/07/06to12/07/06were
brought on record as being in Madhubani District in Bihar and
learnedadvocateWahabKhanpointedouttothetowerlocationsin
supportofhissubmissions thatthe A1was athisnativeplacein
DistrictMadhubaniduringtherelevantperiod.However,therewere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..520..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..521..
Ext.4825
person who has seen the A1 on the day of the incident and the
evidence of the witness has been tested by rigorous cross
examination.
511.
Theaccuseddeniedtheknowledgeofmostofthequestions
JudgementMCOC21/06
512.
..522..
Ext.4825
respectofhegoingtoNepalon11/07/06,buttheapplicationdoes
notmentionhiscousin'sdaughtermarriageon10/07/06.
513.
probabilityabouthisdefenceofalibionthedates10thand11/07/06
anditwillhavetobeheldthathehastakenthisfalsepleaofalibi.
This is an additional circumstance in the chain of circumstances
againstalltheaccused.Itisthefirstadditionalcircumstanceagainst
theA1.
514.
NexttravellerisDevendraPatil,PW62,andatthestartitself
itcanbesaidthathisevidenceisaclearandnaturalevidenceand
there are no falsities and nothing appears to be fabricated
notwithstandingtheomissionsandcontradictionsinhisstatement.
HeisconcernedwiththeA3andithascomeinhisevidencethaton
thedayoftheincidentafterfinishinghisworkattheCustomHouse
inFort,hewenttoChurchgateStationat5.15p.m.ashewantedto
go to GoregaonMalad, that when he reached the platform, the
ChurchgateBorivali 5.36 p.m. slow local was coming on the
platform,thathewalkedtowardstheBorivalisideashewantedto
getdownonthefrontsideandboardedthefirstclassbogiethatwas
fourth from the motorman cabin when the train stopped on the
platformno.2.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathestoodnearthe
lastrowofseatsinbetweenthegapofthetworowsoftheseats,
thatsomepeopleweresitting,thatthereweresomevacantseats,
thattwopersonsboardedthetrainalongwithhim,outofwhomone
hadablackcolouredbagwithhimandafterenteringthetrainthey
JudgementMCOC21/06
..523..
Ext.4825
turnedrightandwenttowardstheseatsontheeastsideandthe
personwhohadtheblackbagwithhim,triedtokeepthebagonthe
rack,butthereweresomesmallbagsalreadyontherack,therefore,
hecouldnotkeephisbagthereandkeptitbelowtheseatnearthe
windowthatwasfacingtowardsChurchgateandsatonthatseat
andtheotherpersonstoodinbetweenthetworowsoftheseats.
Nowthiswitnessdidnotgetdownatsomestationsinbetween,but
wasinthebogiewhentheblasttookplaceandithascomeinhis
evidence that the crowd in the bogie increased at 23 stations
thereafter,thathewaspushedbackbecauseofwhichhecouldnot
seethosepersons.Inrespectoftheincident,hestatedthatthetrain
reachedatJogeshwariafterabout6.15p.m.andafteritstartedfrom
Jogeshwari,therewasaloudexplosion,thatthereweretallpersons
infrontofhim,thathewasthrowndowninthetrainandpeoplefell
onhimandhedidnotknowfor23minuteswhathadhappened
andaftermovingforsomedistancethetrainstopped.Inhisfurther
evidence, he described as to what he did after he came to his
senses,,viz.,thathesomehowgotup,sawpeopleseverelyinjured,
gotdownonthewestside,caughtanautorickshaw,wenttoDahisar
CheckNakaandcaughtanotherrickshawforgoingtoMiraRoad
and after reaching Mira road, he went home. It has come in his
evidencethathisearswereaffectedforhalfanhourbecauseofthe
explosionandhehadsustaineddumbinjuriestohisbackbecauseof
thefall,buthadnotsustainedanyinjuriesaspersonshadfallenon
him.Hestatedthattherewasonlywhistlingsoundinhisearsand
thereforehedidnotgotoanydoctorandalsodidnotgotothe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..524..
Ext.4825
policeandhecametoknowwhenhereachedhomethattherehad
beenaseriesofsevenbombblasts.Thisishisevidenceaboutthe
incidentofbombblaston11/07/06.
515.
Inrespectofheapproachingthepoliceon20/10/06,ithas
comeinhisevidencethatitwasinthenewsthatsomepersonshad
keptblackbagscontainingbombsinthetrainsandtheblastshad
takenplace,thathethoughtthathehadseenthepersonwhohad
keptthebaginthetrainandtherefore,heshouldgotothepolice,
thereafter,hewenttotheATSoffice,Bhoiwadaon20/10/06,met
ACPPatil,PW186,gavehimtheinformationandsomeofficertook
hisstatement.
516.
517.
happened in the train and what he saw in the train, his cross
examinationinparagraph15bylearnedadvocateShettyistoelicit
theinformationabouttherushinthelocaltrainsduringthattime,
occupancyofseatsandnumberofdoorsandwindowsinthebogie
JudgementMCOC21/06
..525..
Ext.4825
518.
Inthenextparagraphhewasaskedaboutthetimeatwhich
heenteredthetrainonthatday,afterwhattimethetrainstarted
and he stated the details. He could not tell the exact number of
personswhoenteredthecoachduringthisperiod,thenumberof
personswhoenteredatstationslikeCharniRoad,MarineLines,etc.,
how many got down, who entered the coach with bags at
Churchgateandatthefurtherstations,etc.Obviously,hecouldnot
tellthisthingsbecausenoonecantellthis.Thematerialansweris
thatinthecoachinwhichhewas,theluggagerackswerefull.Ithas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..526..
Ext.4825
comeinthenextparagraphsthathehadnoconfrontationwiththe
two persons who came with the bag and that the two persons
enteredthetrainbehindhimafter2025seconds.Nowheisgiving
thetimingsofenteringthetrainandtheperiodafterwhichthetwo
personsenteredthetrainbehindhimandwhenthetrainstartedas
he wasaskedandIdonotthinkthatanyperson can be specific
aboutit,notthatanyrelevanceofthishasbeenpointedoutduring
thearguments.
519.
witnessonseveralcountsonthebasisoftheanswersgivenbyhim
in the crossexamination and learned advocate Wahab Khan also
made submissions onthe same lines on those points.He submits
thatitcannotbebelievedthatthoughsomanypersonsinthatbogie
diedandwereinjured,thiswitnessdoesnotevensustainaslightest
injury,doesnotgotothedoctorandforthefirsttimehegoestothe
ATSofficeafteraboutthreemonthsandgiveshisstatement.Inthis
connection in his chiefexamination itself Devendra Patil, PW62,
hadexplainedthatafterthetrainstartedfromJogeshwari,therewas
aloudexplosion,thereweretallpersonsinfrontofhim,hewas
throwndowninthetrainandpeoplefellonhim.Inthisconnection,
hewasnotaskedastoatwhatdistancethebagwaskeptfromhim
whichcouldhaveshownthedistanceoftheplacewherethebomb
had been planted. Now, it has come in his evidence that for 23
minuteshedidnotknowwhathadhappenedandwhenhecameto
hissensesandbecauseoftheexplosionhisearswereaffectedfor
abouthalfanhourandhehadsustaineddumbinjuriesandthisis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..527..
Ext.4825
importantthataspersonshadfallenonhimhehadnotsustained
anyinjuries,whichcouldmeanthathehadnotsustainedanyvisible
injurybecauseoftheblast.Heexplainedfurtherthatashehadnot
sustainedanyinjuryandtherewasonlywhistlingsoundinhisears,
hedidnotgotoanydoctorortothepolice.Idonotthinkthatthisis
somethingunnaturalorunbelievable,becauseofthenatureofthe
injury, though it was not visible, the witness did not think it
necessary to go to the doctor. One often comes across news of
accidents, in which nearly all except one person of a vehicle are
killedandthepersonwhosurvivesisunscathed,hedoesnoteven
getasinglebruise.Apartfromthis,thechargesheetshowsthatthere
were142personsinjuredinthe blastatJogeshwari,butitcould
proveonlyinjurycertificatesof100personsaspertheTableNo.10
supra.Thatdoesnotnecessarilymeanthattheremaining42hadnot
sustainedinjuriesandhadnottravelledinthattrain.Nowoutofthis
Jayprakash Gurav, PW14, is also an injured. Surprisingly, this
witnesswasnotapassengerinthattrain,buthewasstandingon
theplatformno.2oftheJogeshwariStationforgoingtoDadarand
theblasttookplaceontheplatformno.1.Sowhetheritcanbesaid
thatJayprakashGurav,PW14,wasnotaninjuredinthesaidblast
because he was not travelling in that train. His friend Arvind
Chikane was with him at that time and he died because of the
injures sustained in the blast. He figures in the list of the dead
personsaspertheTableNo.9.Thenatureofinjurysustainedby
JayprakashGurav,PW14,isleftlegfromkneedownwastotallycut
off at that time. It appears that the learned advocates for the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..528..
Ext.4825
accusedhavenotgonethroughtheinjurycertificatesthatareproved
bytheprosecutionparticularlyinrespectofthisblast.Iftheywould
havedoneso,theywouldhavefoundmanycertificatesthatshow
simpleinjurieslikecontusedlaceratedwounds(CLW)aslessasone
CLW,hearinglossofoneearorbothearsonlyandnovisibleinjury,
but only dumb injuries. Noticeable amongst this is the certificate
Ext.2731(62)inrespectofinjuredPramodKumarThakorissuedby
themedicalofficerofSiddharthHospital,Goregaon(W),Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai, which describes the finding or
examination as 'no any fresh external injury seen on body, blunt
traumaalloverbodyandtendernesspresent'.OneisExt.2731(44
and45)issuedbyVijayENTHospitalofVirarinrespectofpatient
Supriya B. Kheratkar showing the history as 'ear SN loss alleged
duringtrainbombblaston11/07/06'andthefinding'normalear
drum'andadvisedtheaudiogramrightearandthefindingafterthe
audiogramisthat'rightearsevereSNloss'.Asasamplecase,the
injurycertificatesatExt.2231(2)and(40)showoneormoreminor
CLWs. The contents of the injury certificate at Ext.2731(20) only
showlossofhearing.Mostofthecertificatesshowearpain,lossof
hearingandbleedingthroughtheear.Thus,thisaspectalonedoes
notdiscreditthewitness.
520.
LearnedadvocateShetty'ssubmissiononthenextpointisin
respectofthedelaymadebythewitnessingoingtothepoliceand
thepolicetakinghisstatement.Hesubmittedthatitisnotthatthe
delay in giving the statement before the police in such a case is
unexplainable,buttheexplanationthatthewitnesshasgivencannot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..529..
Ext.4825
beacceptedandgivingallthelatitudetohim,onecanimagineif
there is a delayof a day or two in such a case,but it definitely
cannotstretchbeyondthreemonths.Hesubmittedthatthewitness
was travelling in the same compartment in which the blast took
place,severalpersonsdiedandseveralwereinjured,buthedidnot
sustainevenaslightestinjuryandforthefirsttimehegoestothe
ATS on 20/10/06, after about three months of the blast and the
police officer also records his statement. He submits that
undoubtedlythewitnessisagotupwitnesstocreatesomematerial
againstthearrestedaccusedwhentheinvestigatingmachineryfailed
tohaveanyconcreteevidenceagainstthem.Thebehaviourofthe
witnessisnotexpected,becausewhatwasexpectedfromhimwas
thatafterseeingtheblastinthebogieinwhichhewastravelling,
unliketheotherwitnessandonseeingtheseveraldeadbodiesand
having apersonseenkeeping abag,heshouldhavegonetothe
policeimmediatelyandmadeareport.Thisconductspeaksvolumes
anditinitselfissufficienttorejecthisevidence.Hesubmitsthatthe
witness gives a hopelessly vague description of the persons and
thereforewhileevaluatingandappreciatinghisevidence,thecourt
isrequiredtoapproachitwithutmostcareandprecaution.Learned
SPP Raja Thakare submitted that when the witness must have
approachedtheinvestigatingofficerafteraboutthreemonthsofthe
dateoftheincident,thefirstandforemostquestionthatwouldhave
comeinthemindoftheinvestigatingofficerwouldbeastowhatis
theobjectofthe witnessinapproachingthemandwhetherheis
expectinganybenefitforthesameandgivingcertaininformationso
JudgementMCOC21/06
..530..
Ext.4825
thathecangetsomecompensation.Healsoquestionswhetherthe
policewouldfabricatetheevidenceofsuchapersonbelatedlywhen
theyareawareofthefactthatsoonertheevidence,themoreitis
acceptable.Thisisthenormalcriteria.Iftheinvestigatingagencyin
thiscasewantedtofabricatetheevidence,theycouldhavedoneso
immediatelyafewdaysaftertheincident.Hequestionswhetherany
police officer in his senses would think of creating a good
eyewitness,thattoofalseandthattoosolate?Hesubmitsthatwhile
appreciatingtheevidenceofsuchwitness,thetestofreasonableness
willhavetobeapplied.
521.
discussionoftheevidenceofthiswitness,hisevidenceisaclearand
naturalevidenceandnothingappearstobefabricated.Thiscanbe
gatheredfromhisevidence,becauseitisinhisevidencethatafter
somedaysitwasinthenewsthatsomepersonshadkeptblackbag
containingbombinthetrainandtheblasthadtakenplaceandhe
thoughtthathehadseenthepersonkeepingthebaginthetrainand
thereforeheshouldgotothepolice.Nowthisevidencehasnotbeen
controvertedorshownasomissionorcontradictionandithascome
inhiscrossexaminationthathecametoknowaboutthereasonfor
thebombblast34daysbeforehewenttotheATSoffice.Thiscame
inparagraph13duringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocate
Shettyandtherearefurtherpositiveuncontrovertedstatementsthat
noonetoldhimtogototheofficeoftheATSatBhoiwada,thathe
contacted the control room on 18/10/06 from his mobile and
inquiredabouttheATSoffice,thathedidnotaskthenameofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..531..
Ext.4825
officerwhotalkedtohim,butthewitnesswasaskedhisnameand
particulars. These things are clarified in paragraph 43 in further
crossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhaninwhichhewas
grilledabouthisactivitiesinOctober,2006andheagainstatedthat
from18/07/06hestartedgoingforwork,heusedtogosometimes
wheneverhehadworkandusedtowatchtelevisionandreadthe
newspapersduringtheoneweekwhenhewasathomeandhedoes
not remember whether during that period police were asking for
persons having information to contact them. Now the further
sentence is that during that period he did not think that he had
someimportantinformationthatheshouldtellthepolice,thathe
wasregularlyattendinghisworkinMumbaioneweekaftertheblast
andupto19/10/06,thathecametoknowaboutthereasonforthe
blaston17th or18/10/06,thathecontactedthecontrolroomon
17thor18thonphonenumber100inbetween5.00to6.30p.m.,that
hedidnottellabouttheentireincidentonphoneandatthattime
hegottheaddressoftheofficeoftheATS.Nowallthesethingshave
comeinhiscrossexaminationaspositivestatementsandtheyhave
notbeencontrovertedandtheyinfactreflectthe bonafides ofthe
witnessandshowtheacceptablereasonastowhyhewenttothe
policesolate.Obviously,ashehadnotsustainedanyinjury,there
wasnoquestionofhemakinganyclaimorcompensationandhe
couldnothaveanyotherpurposeinmindingoingtothepolice
exceptthatofgivingtheinformationthathehadaboutthebomb
blasttothem.Thus,infactthereisnodelaymadebythewitnessin
approachingthepoliceorthepolicerecordinghisstatementandthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..532..
Ext.4825
aboveobservationsaswellassubmissionsbythelearnedSPPare
sufficienttocondonethedelay,ifitissoconstrued.Thusthisaspect
doesnotcomeinthewayofacceptinghisevidence.
522.
Therecordingofhisstatementisalsodisputedandthedetails
JudgementMCOC21/06
..533..
Ext.4825
showedhimphotographsofsomepersonsandaccordinglyhegave
hisstatement,thathehadnottravelledinthattrainon11/07/06,
thereforehedidnotshowhispasstothepoliceanddidnotgoto
anydoctororpolice.Lastly,abaselesssuggestionwasgiventhathe
isconnectedtothepolice,therefore,hewascalledbythemandthey
recordedhisfalsestatementandhedeposedfalselytohelpthem.
Thereisnoevidencetobackthissuggestionandnothinghasbeen
broughtonrecordtoshowhisconnectionwiththepolice.Onthe
otherhand,these suggestionsmeanthatitisunderstoodthathis
statementwasrecordedon20/10/06.Duringhiscrossexamination
by learned advocate Wahab Khan he has reiterated many things
aboutgoingtotheATSofficeon20/10/06andgivingthestatement.
He was grilled further and he gave positive answers that he first
wenttothePoliceStationBhoiwadaon20/10/06whereheinquired
abouttheATSoffice,firsthemettheguards,thensomeofficers,at
thattimeACPPatil,PW186,wasnotintheoffice,theofficerwho
hemetmadeinquiriesforabout10minutes,tookhimtoACPPatil,
PW186,whoinquiredwithhimforabout45minutes,butdidnot
takedownanythinginwritingandthenturneddownthesuggestion
thathisstatementwasnotrecordedonthatday.Thelastsuggestion,
tomymind,isagainasuggestionmadeforthesakeofmakingit
becausewhenawitnessisaskedaboutwhathedidonaparticular
dayandthewitnessgivestheanswers,whicharenotcontroverted
or shown to be false, there can be no question of giving such a
suggestion.Now,ACPJoshi,PW163,whorecordedhis statement
wasalsocrossexaminedaboutthisaspectandithascomeinhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..534..
Ext.4825
523.
ACPPatil,PW186,wasaskedinhiscrossexaminationabout
entryinthecasediaryandstationdiaryaboutthetimingsofgoing
for remand work in the court and with particular reference to
20/10/06,hestatedthatthereisnosuchentryinit.Butongoing
throughthecasediaryhe statedthattherewas judicialcustodial
JudgementMCOC21/06
..535..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
524.
..536..
Ext.4825
NextpointurgedbylearnedadvocateShettyisinrespectof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..537..
Ext.4825
credibility.
525.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..538..
Ext.4825
inwhosenameistheleaveandlicenceagreementofthatpremises,
etc.,butallthesethings have comeinthecrossexamination and
theydonotaffecthistestimony.Ontheotherhand,ithascomeon
recordthattheleaveandlicenceagreementofhisofficepremisesis
inthenameofhisfriendSandeepTadkar,whoisacustomlicence
holder, which evidence has not been controverted during further
crossexamination.Hedidnothaveanyrecordtoshowthathewas
doingtheworkofcustomclearingagent,thathedidthisworkfor
certainnumberofpartiesbeforeOctober,2006andthathehadgone
to the Custom House at Fort on 11/07/06. This is but natural
because he is not a licenced custom clearing agent. However, in
furthercrossexaminationhehasspecificallystatedthathecantell
forwhatworkhehadgonetotheCustomHouse,Forton11/07/06
andexplainedthathehadtogivedocumentstohisfriendDinkar,
whoisalicencedcustomclearingagent,thatthedocumentswere
givenbyapartyandthatthereafterhewastogotoGoregaonMalad
wheretherewasanewparty,hisnamewasAmitPatelwithwhom
hewantedtodiscussaboutthegoods.Atthecostofrepetition,it
will have to be stated that these things have come in his cross
examination because he was asked questions and they are not
controvertedandthereforeonthebasisoftheseanswersitcannot
bearguedthatheisafalsewitnessorthathehadnotgonetothe
CustomHouseinForton11/07/06.
526.
NextsubmissionofthelearnedadvocateShettyisinrespectof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..539..
Ext.4825
thereforehisoralevidenceonlyaboutitisunacceptable.Ithascome
in his crossexamination in paragraph 14 that he used to go to
ChurchgatefromMiraRoadforhisworkeveryday,thathealways
usedtotravelbyfirstclass,usedtotakequarterlypass,hispassat
thattimewasvalidupto22/08/06,therefore,heagainpurchaseda
passinAugust,2006.Headmittedthathedidnotproducehispass
beforethepolicewhenhegavehisstatementon20/10/06andhis
explanationfurtherthatpolicealsodidnotaskforitisanatural
conductandshowsthatitisnothisfault.Headmittedthatexcept
thatpass,hehadnoothermaterialordocumenttoshowthathewas
travellingonthatdayinthattrain,howeverhecouldstateaboutthe
costofthequarterlypassoffirstclassfromMiraRoadtoChurchgate
via harbour line. All these positive statements have come in his
crossexamination and have not been controverted further and in
respectofthissubmissionbylearnedadvocate,thereasonsgivenin
respect of noncollection of documents of taxi drivers as well as
Subhash Nagarsekar, PW57, are once again applicable to this
witnessalso.
527.
untruthfulbecausehisevidencethatheboardedthefirstclassbogie
thatwasfourthfromthemotorman'scabinisinconsistentwiththe
evidenceofthemotormanAnandDesai,PW7,andthiswillhaveto
bereadinconjunctionwiththepanchanamaofspotExt.494.Itis
truethatAnandDesai,PW7,statedthatthecoachthatwasaffected
bytheexplosionwasthethirdcoachfromthemotorman'scabin.
However, the contents of paragraph 2 of the panchanama of the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..540..
Ext.4825
affectedbogie,Ext.494,thecontentsofwhichareadmittedbythe
defence, describe the affected bogie as the fourth from the
motorman'scabinanditbeingagentsfirstclassbogie.EvenAnand
Desai,PW7,hasstatedthatitwasafirstclasscoach.Nowinviewof
thisitmaybethatAnandDesai,PW7,committedamistake,but
Ext.494isanadmitteddocumentanditscontentscorroboratethe
evidenceofDevendraPatil,PW62.InthisconnectionDy.SPRaskar,
PW139, proved the contents of the map of the spot, Ext. 1536,
whichhegotpreparedfromhisconstableandthisevidencehasnot
been controverted during his crossexamination. It shows the
affectedbogieasthefourthcoach.Thus,thisaspectdoesnotaffect
the credibility of the witness and does not show that he is a
untruthfulwitnesswhichinturndoesnotleadtoaninferencethat
hewasnotatravellerofthattrain.Ontheotherhandhisevidenceis
corroboratedbythecontentsoftheadmittedpanchanama.
528.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..541..
Ext.4825
SPRaskar,PW139,istheinvestigatingofficeroftheRailways,who
prepared the panchanama of spot, Ext. 494, and during the
discussionofhisevidenceitisobservedthatheadmittedthathedid
nottakethemeasurementsofthecompartment/middleportionorof
anypointsinsidethebogieorofthedistancebetweenthedamaged
portion of the roof,other portions of the bogie and the doors or
seats,thatheadmittedthatitisnecessarytolocatethespotwhere
thebombwasplacedandhehadinvestigatedinthatdirection.Itis
observed that he gave a proper explanation for all these
shortcomings,thathedidnotdothesethingsordidnotmentionin
thepanchanamaastherewasextensivedamagetothebogieandthe
entire bogie was damaged. Thus, this aspect will not affect the
credibilityofthewitness.
529.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..542..
Ext.4825
Ext.494,doesnotshowanydamagetothefloorportion.Inrespect
of this, it can only be said that there cannot be a straight jacket
formulaabouttheeffectsofabombandthedamagethatitmay
causetothesurroundings.Evenotherwise,inmyunderstandingasa
layman,thefloorportionoftherailwaytrainmustbemorethick
andstrongerthantheroofportion.Thus,thisaspectalonewillnot
make the evidence of Devendra Patil, PW62, untruthful.
ConsideringthecontentsofthespotpanchanamaExt.494,andthe
answersgivenbyDy.SPRaskar,PW139,itcannotbeheldthatthere
wasfailureonthepartoftheinvestigatingagencytobringonrecord
theactualconditionoftheaffectedbogie,whichinturndiscredits
the version given by Devendra Patil, PW62, and affects its
credibility.
530.
ThemainattackontheevidenceofDevendraPatil,PW62,by
learnedadvocateWahabKhanisinrespectofhisevidencethatthe
trainwasonplatformno.2,heenteredthebogiefromthedirection
of Hutatma Chowk, that the ChurchgateBorivali 5.36 p.m. slow
localwascomingtotheplatformwhenhereachedtheChurchgate
Stationon11/07/06after5.15p.m.Hesubmitsthattheinformation
obtained under the RTI Act, i.e., the Note, Ext. 3053, proved by
AvdheshkumarShukla,DW16,ChiefControllerofMumbaiDivision,
Western Railways and the PIO under the RTI Act shows that the
bombblasttookplaceatJogeshwariRailwayStationintrainBO619
DN on 11/07/06, that the scheduled departure of this train was
1736hoursanditdepartedrighttimeat1736hoursfromplatform
no.1.Healsopointedoutthecontentsofthetraincontrolchart
JudgementMCOC21/06
..543..
Ext.4825
provedbythesamewitness,Ext.3052(2),andsubmittedthatthe
scheduledandactualtimeofdepartureofthesaidtrainwas1736
hoursandthisshowsthatDevendraPatil,PW62,islyingbystating
thatthetrainwas23minuteslateanditshowsthepossibilitythat
hemayhaveboardedsomeothertrain.Thiswasalsobroughton
recordasanomissiontostatewhenDevendraPatil,PW62gavehis
statement to the police. The witness boarding the train from
platform no. 2 is also brought on record as an omission to state
before the police. In this connection, in his crossexamination by
learnedadvocateRasal,DevendraPatil,PW62,statedthathedoes
notrememberwhichtrainwasstandingonplatformno.1andinhis
crossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhan,hestatedthat
he cannot tell the exact time when the train started from the
ChurchgateStationandadmittedthatthetrainthathecaughtdid
notstartat1736hours.However,hedeniedthesuggestionthathe
didnotcatchthe1736trainthathadleftthestationat1736hours
andthatitwasnotlateonthatdayanditleftthestationontime.
Learnedadvocatesubmittedthatifthetraincontrolchartisseen
then the other trains going towards Borivali from Churchgate
aroundthe1736trainarenotfarapartintiming,whichmeansthat
thewitnessmayhaveboardedsomeothertraingoingtoBorivali.I
donotthinkthatthiscanbesounderstoodorinterpretedbecause
thetraincontrolchartExt.3052(2)showsanearliertraingoingto
Borivali at 1730 hours, which actually left one minute late, then
thereisatrainBO617forwhichtherearenotimingsuptoBandra
andthesubsequentisBO627at1739hours,whichleftoneminute
JudgementMCOC21/06
..544..
Ext.4825
lateandthenisBO629at1742hours,whichleftoneminutelate.
Thus,Idonotthinkthatthereisanyconfusioninthemindofthe
witnessaboutthetimingofthetrain.Now,insofarastheplatform
numberisconcerneditisafactthatattheterminuslikeChurchgate
orCST,i.e.,thestartingorendingpointoflocaltrainstheplatform
no. 1 comes after one enters the entry of the railway station,
thereafter is the first track, thereafter is the platform no. 2,
thereafteristheplatformno.3,thereafteristhesecondtrackandso
on.Soapersoncanboardthetrainstandingontrackno.1fromthe
platform no. 1 or the platform no. 2 also. Thus, considering this
situationandinviewofthediscussionuptonow,itcannotbesaid
thatDevendraPatil,PW62,didnottravelinthattrainonthatday.
531.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..545..
Ext.4825
seatsisalsobywayofexplanationandcannotbeconstruedasan
improvementoramaterialomission.Samecanbesaidaboutthe
nextomissionthatafterenteringthetrainthey,i.e.,thetwopersons
turnedrightandwenttowardstheseatsontheeastsidetowardsthe
Hutatma Chowk side (emphasis on 'towards the Hutatma Chowk
side').ACPJoshi,PW163,statedthatthewitnesshadstatedtohim
thatthatpersonkepthisbagbelowtheseatnearthewindowthat
wasfacingtowardsChurchgate.Thispositivestatementisinrespect
ofthematerialeventabouttheaccusedkeepingthebagbelowthe
seat.Subsequentomissionsareinrespectofhisactivitiespriorto
andsubsequenttoheboardingthetrainand,tomymind,theyare
notsomaterialtoaffecttheevidenceofthewitnessinrespectofthe
mainincident.
532.
1754(1)inrespectofDevendraPatil,PW62,statingabouttheblast
takingplacewhenthetrainstartedfromJogeshwari,whereasitis
in his statement that it took place when the train reached
Jogeshwari.Thoughitprimafacieappearstobeacontradictionhis
evidenceiscorroboratedbytheevidencegivenbytheguardofthe
saidtrainAnandDesai,PW7,whostatedthatafterthetrainstarted
andonlythethreerearcoacheswereontheplatform,therewasa
loudexplosion.Thus,thiscontradictiondoesnotaffectthematerial
evidenceofthewitnessinrespectoftheincidentoftherebeinga
loudexplosionandalsothereisnodisputeaboutitfromthesideof
thedefence.ThemapExt.1536thatwasdrawnbyDy.SPRaskar,
PW139, also shows that the train had crossed the platform. The
JudgementMCOC21/06
..546..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..547..
Ext.4825
aftersomedaysitwasinthenewsthatsomepersonshadkeptblack
bags,etc.Insteadofwords'accused'whowerecaughthehadstated
'somepersons'.Idoubtwhetherthiscanbesaidtoacontradiction
andonceagainatthecostofrepetitionitwillhavetobesaidthatit
doesnotconcernthematerialeventinthetrain.
533.
Itisclearfromtheabovediscussionthattheimprovements
madebythewitnessthatwerebroughtonrecordasomissionsto
statebeforethepolicewhenhegavehisstatementandthesocalled
contradictions,donotmateriallyaffecthisevidenceabouttheactual
incidentinquestion.ThewitnessdidnotsaythattheA3andthe
otherpersonwithhimgotdownatsomestationinbetweenandto
mymind,ifhewasagotupwitness,hecouldhavestatedaboutit.
Thematerialportionsofhisevidenceofseeingthepersonkeepinga
bagbelowtheseatisnotanomissionoracontradiction.
534.
LearnedSPPRajaThakareisjustifiedinsubmittingthatevery
answerthatisobtainedinchiefexamination,ifnotinthestatement
underSection161oftheCr.P.C.,cannotbeequatedtoanomission
amounting to contradiction and insofar as contradictions are
concerned,thereareboundtooccurwhenthecrossexaminationis
lengthyandtiring.Itissubmittedbyhimthattheprosecutormay
getsomemoredetailsinthechiefexaminationthoughtheymaynot
beinhisstatementunderSection161ofCr.P.C.
535.
AsagainstthisinhiswrittensubmissionsExt.2824,thecase
oftheA3aboutthiswitnessisthatheisaliarandisaregularpanch
andwitnessoftheATS.Thereisnoevidenceforthisandnothingis
broughtonrecordduringhiscrossexamination.Itishiscasefurther
JudgementMCOC21/06
..548..
Ext.4825
thathehasgivenfalseevidenceinthecourt,whichisestablishedby
theinformationaboutthetraintimingsobtainedundertheRTIAct
andthenumberofplatformfromwhereithadstarted.Thesethings
havebeenalreadyconsideredanditisheldthattheydonotaffect
thecredibilityofthewitness.Tothequestionsputtohiminrespect
oftheevidencegivenbythiswitnessinhisstatementundersection
313oftheCr.P.C.,theA3againrepeatedthesamethingsandto
somequestionshestatedthathedoesnotknowaboutitandstated
thatthewitnesshadnottraveledinthesaidtrain,buthasdeposed
falselyasinstructedbythepolice.Inanswertothequestionabout
thewitnessidentifyinghiminthetestidentificationparadehestated
thatitisfalse.Asmentionedearlierwhilediscussingtheevidenceof
RajeshSatpute,PW77,thereisnoexplanationbytheaccusedabout
hiswhereaboutson11/07/06andhisdefenceabouttheblastsis
onlyofgeneraldenialandhavingnoknowledgeaboutit.
536.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthat
DevendraPatil,PW62,hasgivencogentandconvincingevidence.
Consideringthefactthatnocriminalantecedentsorhisconnection
withthepoliceofhehavingactedasapanchorwitnessorasan
accusedinsomecasehavebeenbroughtonrecord,itwillhavetobe
heldthatheisanindependentwitness.Thisrulesoutthepossibility
ofhebeingapliablepolicewitnessandagotupwitnessanditwill
havetobeheldthathisevidenceisnotfabricated.Ihave,therefore,
nohesitationinacceptinghistestimonyastruthful.Hence,itwill
havetobeheldthatbyhisevidencetheprosecutionhasprovedthat
on11/07/06,theA3hadkeptablackcolouredbaginthefirstclass
JudgementMCOC21/06
..549..
Ext.4825
537.
ThethirdtravellerisVishalParmar,PW74,andhisevidence
hasevokedandconsiderablycrossfirefromtheA4likedocuments
under the RTI Act, witnesses to prove the contents of those
documents,hisownoralevidence,etc.
538.
Ithascomeinhisevidencethaton11/07/06hehadgoneto
anENTHospitalinfrontofHutatmaChowkat4.30p.m.,thatafter
hisworkwasoverandongettingacallfromhisemployerdirecting
himtogototheBMCBankatDadar,hewenttoChurchgateStation
at5.15p.m.andwenttoplatformno.3,stoodnearthefirstclass
bogiethatwasinfrontandsawtheindicatorontheplatformthat
wasshowingaVirartrainof5.19p.m.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thattwopersonscamethereandaskedhimwhetherVirarfasttrain
wouldgofromthere,helookedatindicatorandconfirmedit,that
outofthemthepersonwhohadaskedhimthetrainandtimehada
blackrexinebagwithhim,thattheystoodthere,that23minutes
thereafterthe train came,thosetwopersonsstartedtoboardthe
trainbeforehimandwhenhewasboardingthetrain,therexinebag
hithislegandthoughhewantedtocatchthewindowseat,hecould
notdosoandsatonthelongseathaving7seatsfacingChurchgate,
at the third seat from Hutatma Chowk side. It has come in his
evidencethatthetwopersonsstoodinthepassageinbetweenat
some distance and when he looked at the bag when the train
JudgementMCOC21/06
..550..
Ext.4825
started,hethoughtthatitwasabigbagbeingcarriedinthefirst
class compartment. It has come in his evidence that the bogie
becamecrowdedatBombayCentralandashewantedtogetdown
at Dadar, he started going towards the door after the train had
passedtheElphinstoneStation.Thetwopersonsgotdowninfront
ofhimandwerewalkingfastemptyhanded,aboutwhichhedidnot
thinkmuchatthattimeashewasengrossedinthethoughtofhis
work.Thereafterhisevidenceisabouthemeetingtheclientinthe
BMCBankinfrontofPlazaCinemaatDadarandcomingtoknow
afterhalfanhourthattherewereblastsinthetrains.Nowinrespect
ofheapproachingtheATSon02/11/06,ithascomeinhisevidence
thataftersomemonthstherewerenewsthatsomeaccusedhadkept
bombsinblackcolourbagsinthetrainsanditstrucktohismind
thatonthatdayhehadalsoseenthetwopersonskeepingablack
coloured bag in the train. It has come in his evidence that on
searchinginthenewspapershecametoknowthattheATSpoliceof
Bhoiwada are making the inquiry about the blasts. Therefore he
wentthere,metofficerPatilandtoldhimabouttheincidentand
thenhisstatementwasrecordedbyofficerKhandekar,PW174.
539.
Thisishisevidenceaboutwhathesawon11/07/06andin
whatcircumstancesandforwhatreasonshereportedthematterto
theATSandithascomeinhisevidencethatheparticipatedinthe
testidentificationparadethattookplaceon07/11/06,theevidence
ofwhichwillbediscussedsubsequentlyandinthesecondparade
conductedbySEOPurandare,PW80,heidentifiedthe A4asthe
personwhomhehadseenwiththeblackrexinebagatChurchgate
JudgementMCOC21/06
..551..
Ext.4825
andwhentheA4andtheotherpersongotdownatDadar,theydid
nothavethebagwiththem.IthascomeinhisevidencethatSEO
Purandare, PW80, asked the A4 his name and he told it as
EhteshamSiddiqueandhe,i.e.,VishalParmar,PW74,unhesitating
identifiedtheA4inthecourtwhichisasubstantiveevidence.
540.
crossfirefromthesideofthedefence.Hisoralevidenceconcerning
theincidenton11/07/06andhereportingaboutittotheATSoffice
isonlyofthreepagesandhisevidenceaboutthetestidentification
parade is of four pages, but the crossexamination runs into 35
pages.Notonlythis,thewrittenargumentsconcerningthiswitness
involumeIIIsubmittedbyhislearnedadvocateSharifShaikhrun
intoalmost100pages.So,itwillbenecessarytotakeupthepoints
of arguments in the written arguments one by one to assess the
evidenceandcredibilityofwitness.Intheentirewrittenarguments
submittedinfivevolumesrunningintoasmanyas839pages,the
evidencegivenbyconcernedwitnessinchiefexaminationaswellas
incrossexaminationhasbeenreproducedextensively.Sameisthe
caseinthesubmissionsunderthepointinrespectoftheevidence
givenbythiswitnessaswellasSr.PITajne,PW161,PIKhanvilkar,
PW168 and ACP Patil, PW186. It is alleged that these three
investigatingofficersavoidedtoadmitthatVishalParmar,PW74,is
anemployeeofMukeshRabadia,whichshowsthattheyarehiding
something and it is established from their evidence itself that
MukeshRabadiaisaregularwitnessforSr.PITajne,PW161.Itis
submittedthatVishalParmar,PW74,pleadedignoranceregarding
JudgementMCOC21/06
..552..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..553..
Ext.4825
thatVishalParmar,PW74,whoisanemployeeofMukeshRabadia
canbeinfluencedtobecomeawitnessandisawitnessprovidedby
himforimplicatingtheA4inthisbombblastscaseandthereforehis
depositionisnotreliableandisrequiredtobediscarded.
541.
thesaidfourpanchanamasinwhichMukeshRabadiaisseentohave
acted as a panch witness and submits that because of this
background the prosecution felt that it could not use Mukesh
Rabadia as an eyewitness, therefore through him, Vishal Parmar,
PW74, was introduced as an eyewitness and who following the
footstepsofhisemployeractedasawitnessforthepolice.
542.
LearnedSPPsubmitsthatevenifitisacceptedthatMukesh
JudgementMCOC21/06
..554..
Ext.4825
discreditedunlessitisdemonstratedthatboth,heandhisemployer,
hadthecommonintentiontofabricatefalseevidence.
543.
InhiscrossexaminationVishalParmar,PW74,statedthatthe
ATSpolicedidnotcallMukeshRabadiaatanytimeafterhegavehis
statement on 02/11/06, that he does not know whether his
employerhasactedasapanchwitnessinthiscaseon29/09/06,
thathedoesnotknowwhetherhewascalledbefore02/11/06,that
hedoesnothaveanyknowledgeabouthisrelationswiththepolice
anddoesnotknowwhetherpolicehadcalledhimtoactasapanch
witness in any other case prior to 02/11/06. In further cross
examinationhemadeapositivestatementthathehasnotsigned
alongwith Mukesh Rabadia on any panchanama prepared by the
policeandtomymindthisquestionwasjustintheair.Heexpressed
lackofknowledgetotheinquiriesaboutanycrimebeingregistered
against his employer during the last 23 years and whether his
employee and 34 other persons were arrested in a murder case,
were in prison and later on released on bail and whether his
employerwasinprisonfor45months.Hemadepositivestatements
thathisemployernevertalkedwithhimabouthisrelationswiththe
policeandthathedidnotseewhetherpoliceofCrimeBranchor
ATSusedtocometovisithim.Heexpressedlackofknowledgeasto
whetherhisemployerhasworkedasapanchwitnessmanytimes
since1999fortheCrimeBranchandlateronfortheATSandagain
madeapositivestatementthathisemployerdidnottellhimthathe
had acted as a panch witness in the case of train blasts. In this
respect,thelearnedSPPRajaThakareisjustifiedinsubmittingthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..555..
Ext.4825
544.
VishalParmar,PW74,,havingactedasapanchwitnessinseveral
cases,includinginthiscase,willnotpersediscredittheevidenceof
this witness, unless, as is rightly stated by the learned SPP, it is
demonstratedandshownspecificallythatheisawitnessprovided
byMukeshRabadia.ItdoesnotaffecttheevidenceofVishalParmar,
PW74,becauseitisnotshownthatattheinstanceofhisemployer
orundertheinfluenceofhisemployer,VishalParmar,PW74,gave
falseevidence.Infact,VishalParmar,PW74'sevidencewasrecorded
inMarch,2011andithascomeinhisevidencethathisemployer
diedintheyear2010,therefore,therewasreallynoneedforhimto
givefalseevidence.Theinfluence,ifany,wouldhavebeenremoved
when he gave the evidence. Not only this, to my mind such an
inferencecannotbedrawnconsideringthenatureofhisworkand
thebusinessofhisemployeraswellasthelocationoftheofficeof
hisemployer.Thereisnothingunnaturalinthiswitnesstravellingin
thewesternrailwaysforthepurposeofhiswork.
545.
panchwitness.Inthisrespectthedefencehasheavilyreliedonthe
answersgivenbythewitnessincrossexaminationdtd.08/03/11in
paragraph21thathehasnotworkedasapanchwitnessinanycase
andhasnotgivenanyevidenceinthecourtatanytimevisavishis
answersinrecrossexaminationdtd.29/08/12thathewascalledby
JudgementMCOC21/06
..556..
Ext.4825
TardeoPoliceStationwherehestatedtotheofficertherethathehad
actedasapanchwitnessinanaccidentcasethathadoccurredat
MahalaxmiRaceCourseandheisdenyinghavingactedasapanch
witnessforarecoverypanchanamainC.R.No.11of2006ofthe
CrimeBranch,UnitII.Thisplushisadmissionsthathehasactedas
apanchwitnessfortestidentificationparadesintheBycullaPrison
on21/01/12andintheArthurRoadPrisonon17/03/11relatingto
thecasesoftheCrimeBranchandagainintheArthurRoadPrison
on03/09/11.Inthisrespecthehasdeniedthesuggestionthatheis
theregularandstockpanchwitnessofthepolice,CrimeBranchand
theATS,therefore,heisbeingcalledtoactasapanchandbeafalse
witnessandthathedeposedfalsely.Thisfurthercrossexamination
was done as per the order below application Ext. 3024 filed on
17/08/12afterthedefencehadexamined13defencewitnessesand
the prayer was made on the basis of documents that they had
obtainedfromthecourtsandundertheRTIAct.Thus,aperiodof
about one and the half years had gone by since the witness had
given the evidence and in the order dtd. 23/08/12 allowing this
applicationExt.3024aswellasExt.3040to3042,Imentionedthe
closure of the prosecution case on 04/04/12 and the numerous
applicationsmovedbythedefenceadvocatesforissuingsummonsto
defencewitnessesaswellasrecallingsomeprosecutionwitnesses
andobservedthatthispracticebythedefenceofgivingapplications
fromtimetotimeafterrealizingsomethinglateronisnotacorrect
practiceanditwillbecomeendlesstorecallwitnessesortosummon
witnesses,ifsomenewmaterialcomesinthehandsofthedefence
JudgementMCOC21/06
..557..
Ext.4825
bywayofinformationundertheRTIActsubsequently.Iallowedthe
application with a view to give full and fair opportunity to the
defence.
546.
Thewitnesscandidlyadmittedthesuggestioninrespectofhe
havingactedaspanchwitnesspriortothiscaseandsubsequentto
this case. However, insofar as he having again acted as a panch
witnessinanaccidentcaseofTardeoPoliceStation,theevidenceis
atExt.2908,contentsofwhichareprovedby Sr.PIAjendrasingh
Thakur,DW1,whohadgiveninformationtotheACP,whoisthe
public information officer. The contents of the said letter do not
specifyinwhatcrimeVishalParmar,PW74,hadactedasapanch
witnessandontheotherhandtheinformationisgivenonthebasis
oftheinquirymadewithVishalParmar,PW74,himself.Thiscannot
saidtobetheevidenceaboutthewitnesshavingactedasapanch
witnessasithascomeinthecrossexaminationbythelearnedSPP
thataftertheappellateauthorityundertheRTIActcalledforthe
information,theydiligentlysearchedtheirentirerecordandmade
inquirieswiththedistricthawildarandcourtclerk,butdidnotfind
anyrecordaboutVishalParmar,PW74,andthenhewaspersonally
calledtothepolicestationandadetailedinquirywasmadeabout
his involvement as a witness or accused in any case. Thus, this
evidencecanbedescribedasvagueanduncogentevidence.
547.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..558..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..559..
Ext.4825
also,itcannotbesaidthatVishalParmar,PW74,hascloselinkswith
him.AsperthecontentsofthesaidpanchanamaExt.4555,thesaid
crimeisofDCB,CID,UnitIIandAPIKolhatkar,PW18,asperhis
evidence,wasdeputedtotheATSon17/07/06asanadditionalhelp
intheinvestigationinthiscaseandhisroleislimitedtotheextent
ofthearrestoftheA1andtherecoveryathisinstance.Itwillbefar
fetchedtolinksuchwitnessestothepoliceofficersmerelybecause
theyhaveappearedaspanchwitnessesearlierinsomecases.Police
officersinMumbaiaretransferredtodifferentpolicestationsduring
theirserviceperiod.ThewitnessisaresidentofMahalaxmiarea,
within the jurisdiction of Tardeo Police Station. Hence, it is not
improbablethathemayhavebeentakenasapanchwitnessatthat
timeanditisalsonotimprobablethathemighthavetravelledinthe
affectedtrainontheallegeddateandtime.Thisaspect,therefore,
doesnotaffecthiscredibilitythoughhehasdeniedhavingactedasa
panchwitnessinthatcase.
548.
ThethreeinstancesofVishalParmar,PW74,havingactedasa
panchwitnessfortestidentificationparadeareoftheyear2011and
2012,asperthecertifiedcopiesofthefinalreportsExts.3826,3827
and3828.Theconcernedcertifiedcopiesofthepanchanamasissued
bytheSessionsCourtareExts.3296,3297and2883,allofwhich
areunproveddocuments,astheyarenotprovedinthosecasesupto
now.Evenotherwisesincetheseinstancesareofaperiodsubsequent
tothepresentcase,tomymind,theyareofnoconsequenceandwill
notleadtotheinferencethatVishalParmar,PW74,isagotupand
falsewitnessorastockwitnessofthepolice.Itisafactthatpeople
JudgementMCOC21/06
..560..
Ext.4825
donotcomeforwardtoactaswitnessesevenaspanchwitnesses
when the police call them and if such a witness has come into
contactwiththepoliceinthemannerinwhichVishalParmar,PW74
has come, the probability cannot be ruled out that his help was
takensubsequently.
549.
550.
actedasapanchwitnessoncebeforehebeingawitnessinthiscase
andthricesubsequently,willnotmakehimaregularpanchwitness
ofthepoliceorapliablewitnessinthehandsofthepolice.
JudgementMCOC21/06
551.
..561..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..562..
Ext.4825
firstsentenceinhisfurthercrossexaminationthatheisnotstaying
attheaddressgivenbyhimafter2006,inreexamination bythe
learnedSPPheexpressedhisapprehensionthathehasfearinhis
mind as he is a witness in this case, therefore, he gave his old
addressanddidnotgivehisnewaddress,wherehelivesafter2006.
Itispointedoutthatduringrecrossexaminationitisbroughton
recordthatthewitnessdidnotapplytotheCommissionerofPolice
ortoanypoliceauthoritytogiveprotectiontohimashefearsforhis
life,etc.,anddidnottelltothecourtwhenhisevidenceisrecorded
earlierthatheisgivingadifferentaddressashefearsforhislife.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhansubmittedinthisrespectthattrue
addressofthewitnessis reflectedinExt.4557whichisareport
given bytheHeadConstable tothe Sr.PIof DCB,CIDandafter
actingasawitnessinthiscasehehasactedasapanchwitnessfor
threesubsequentmemorandumsoftestidentificationparadegiving
thesameaddress.Hehasallegedthatthesuppressionoftheidentity
ofthiswitnessbytheprosecutionisnotforsecurityreasonsbecause
thatisneverexplainedbythewitnessanditisonlytosuppresshis
associationwiththepolice.
552.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..563..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..564..
Ext.4825
witnessinnotgivinghiscurrentaddress.Therefore,Idoubtwhether
onthiscounthecanbecondemnedasanunreliablewitness.Itisbut
humanforacommonmantobeapprehensiveabouthislifeinacase
of such gravity and therefore this fact will not make him an
unreliablewitness.
553.
respectofhehavingtravelledbythetrainonthatday,itissubmitted
thatheisachancewitness.Itappearsthattheterm'chancewitness'
isnotproperlyunderstoodbythedefencebecauseitisalwaystobe
taken in the positive manner. It is submitted that Vishal Parmar,
PW74,isnotaregulartravellerofthelocaltrain,thathedidnot
haveafixedroutineoftravelling,hence,heisachancewitnessand
thereforehistestimonyisrequiredtobeexaminedmorecautiously
and evaluated. Some answers given by the witness in cross
examinationarereproduced,viz.,thathewasnotaregulartraveller
by the train, that from the talk and behaviour of the passengers
sittingaroundhimhedidnotthinkthattheywereregulartravellers
bytrain,thathedoesnotknowwhetheracasualpassengercanbe
identifiedamongsttheotherpassengersandwhetheritisdoubtful
for a person to keep light handbag on the rack, etc., and it is
submittedthatthisshowsthathedoesnotknowanythingaboutthe
regular passengers and their behaviour, that he is not a regular
travellerandthisinferenceisbasedontheadmissionthatpersons
whoarenewinMumbaiwillboardafastlocalgoingtoVirarfor
goingtoDadar,becausenormallyregulartravellerswouldcatcha
traingoingtoBandra,Andheri,Borivalioraslowtrainforgoingto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..565..
Ext.4825
Dadarandthisconductshowsthathehasnottravelledinthetrain
inquestion.Tomymind,thisinferencecannotbedrawninviewof
thefactthatthewitnessisaMumbaitandasalreadyobservedabove
thereisnothingunnaturalforhimtotravelinthewesternrailways
consideringthenatureofhiswork,thebusinessofhisemployerand
thelocationoftheofficeofhisemployer.Notonlythis,insomepart
ofcrossexaminationhehasspecificallyadmittedthatitisacommon
thingontheplatformsoftherailwaystationsinMumbaiforpersons
tomakeinquiriesabouttrains,theirtimings,thatitisacommon
thingtocarryluggageinthetrainandtobepushedaroundinthe
trains and quarrels and abuses are common in the train. These
answersshowthathehasaclearknowledgeaboutthetravelinthe
localtrainsandbeingaMumbait,Idonotthinkthatthewitness
wouldhavegivenasecondthoughtforboardingaVirartrainfor
going to Dadar. This aspect, therefore, does not make him an
unreliablewitnessandatthecostofrepetitionitcanbesaidthathe
isachancewitnessanditisthequalityofhisevidencethatmatters.
554.
Thereisconsiderableagitationinthenextpointinrespectof
VishalParmar,PW74,statinginhiscrossexaminationthenameof
the person, whom he had gone to meet in the ENT Hospital, as
BabanRankhambe.Theagitationisonthebasisoftheinformation
andthedocumentsobtainedundertheRTIAct.Attheoutset,itcan
besaidthatthisaspectisinrespectofaperipheralmatterandnot
relating to the main evidence and is, therefore, of not much
consequence.Even,otherwise,VishalParmar,PW74,onlystatedin
hischiefexaminationthathehadgonetoanENTHospitalinfront
JudgementMCOC21/06
..566..
Ext.4825
ofHutatmaChowkat4.30p.m.on11/07/06,whichstatementis
notanomissionorcontradiction.Itisinhiscrossexaminationin
paragraph12thathewasaskedandhegavethespecificnameof
Baban Rankhambe as the person whom he had gone to meet on
11/07/06andtofurtherquestionshesubmittedthatheknewhis
nameon02/11/06,i.e.,whenhisstatementwasrecordedanddoes
notrememberwhetherpoliceinquiredwithhimabouthisnameon
thatdayandstatedthathehadgonetomeetwithhiminconnection
withloan.Inparagraph15ofthecrossexaminationhegavesome
more clarifications that he was at the ENT Hospital for 1015
minutesonthatday,thepersonwhomhehadgonetomeetwas
working as a compounder there in the dispensary alongwith 45
otherpersons,thatasitisaBMCHospital,itisopenforthewhole
day,thedutyhoursofthatpersonwerefrom3.00p.m.to11.00p.m.
andthereisnoregisterinthathospitalforvisitorstomakeanentry
iftheywanttomeetanyemployee.Thusalongwithquestioningthe
existenceofapersonbynameBabanRankhambe,thedefencehas
alsoraisedaquestionaboutthevisitofVishalParmar,PW74,tothat
hospitalonthatdayandinthatconnectionhedeniedthefurther
suggestionthatnamesofvisitors,timeofvisitarerequiredtobe
written and an entry has to be made at the time of leaving the
hospitalintheregister.Hewasonlygivenasuggestionattheendof
the crossexamination by learned advocate Rasal that he had not
gonetotheENTHospitalonthatday,butthereisnosuggestionin
respectoftheexistenceofBabanRankhambeasanemployeeofthat
hospital and rightly so, because this was disclosed in his cross
JudgementMCOC21/06
..567..
Ext.4825
555.
556.
ThisisverymuchobviousbytheanswersgivenbyDr.Dipika
Rana,DW18,inhercrossexaminationbylearnedSPPthatperson
bynameBabanRankhambewasnotemployedintheirhospitalin
2006,thatshehadnotheardhisnameatanytimeexceptwhenthe
applicationundertheRTIActcametothem.Nextisimportantthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..568..
Ext.4825
thesecuritydepartmentof'A'Wardprovidesthesecurityguardson
rotation basis to their hospital. Such security guards are the
employees of the BMC and their record is not available in their
hospital.
557.
NowthedocumentsExts.3062to3067hadbeenobtainedby
theA4inthe year2010and2011,Dr.DipikaRana,DW18,was
examinedon28/08/12andsheprovedthecontentsoftheletters
andthedocuments.VishalParmar,PW74's,mainchiefexamination
and crossexamination by all advocates for all the accused was
conductedinbetween03/03/11to08/03/11.Hewasfurthercross
examinedon29/08/12aspertheorderbelowtheapplicationExt.
3024 made by the defence for recalling him, which was filed on
17/08/12.Thus,asonthedateofhisfurthercrossexamination,i.e.,
on29/08/12,theapplicationforrecallExt.3024,theinformation
andthedocumentsobtainedundertheRTIActandtheevidenceof
Dr.DipikaRana,DW18,wasinhandsofthedefence,however,nota
singlesuggestionwasgiventohimon29/08/12inhisfurthercross
examination that there is no person by name Baban Rankhambe
working in the ENT Hospital of the BMC at Churchgate as a
compounderorasecurityguard.Theanswertothequestionasto
whysuchasuggestionwasnotgivenandcouldnothavebeengiven
bythedefencetothewitnesscanbefoundinthedocumentsthat
wereproducedbythelearnedSPPaswellasbythedefence.Onthe
lastdayofthecrossexaminationofA4,i.e.,on13/06/13,learned
SPP produced several documents alongwith his application Ext.
3928andthedocumentswhichareatpages353and355,containa
JudgementMCOC21/06
..569..
Ext.4825
letterbyACP,ATS,Mumbaidtd.14/05/13totheCMO,ENTHospital
of BMC, Fort, Mumbai stating that the eyewitness Vishal Kishore
Parmar had stated in his evidence that he had gone to the ENT
Hospital on 11/07/06 to meet an employee by name Baban
Rankhambe, but on inquiry with him it was revealed that it was
Baban Rongya Kamble, who used to work in the dispensary/
laboratoryofthesaidhospitalin2006andisworkingeventoday
andthereafterheaskedthreequestionstowhichreplywasgiven,
whichisatpage355,thatemployeebynameBabanRongyaKamble
is working in that hospital from 09/05/88, was working as a
laboratoryassistantintheLaboratoryDepartmentofthehospitalin
2006andisworkingaslaboratoryassistantinthesamelaboratory
now. Though, the prosecution had closed its side and though no
attemptwasmadebytheprosecutiontocallawitnesstoprovethese
documents,theA4inhisoveranxietyoroverzealousnesssentan
applicationundertheRTIActandobtainedtheinformationinthe
letterExt.4391andtruecopyofmusterExt.4392,bothofwhich
arenotprovedbycallingthewitness,buttheyindicatethatBaban
Rongya Kamble was an employee of the ENT Hospital and was
workinginthelaboratoryasanassistant.Itappearsthatandthereis
a strong probability that the witness may have stated the name
BabanRongyaKamble,butwhiletakingitdown,becauseofsimilar
phonetics,itwasmistakenlyunderstoodbyallanddictatedtothe
typistas'BabanRankhambe'.Thedefencerealizedtheriskofgiving
a suggestion to Vishal Parmar, PW74, in his further cross
examinationon29/08/12thatnosuchpersonasBabanRankhambe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..570..
Ext.4825
wasanemployeeofthesaidhospital,becausetherewasapossibility
thatthewitnesswouldhaveexplainedthathehadnotstatedthe
saidname,buthadstatedthenameofBabanRongyaKamble.The
information in the letter Ext.4391, the contents of which are not
proved,showthatthesaidBabanKamblewasonnightduty,i.e.,
from10.00p.m.of11/07/06to7.00a.m.of12/07/06andasper
therecordshewasabsentonthesaidnightduty.ThelearnedSPP
hasrightlysubmittedthatevenifthisisaccepted,theexplanation
givebyVishalParmar,PW74,inhiscrossexaminationinparagraph
11is,thatforhisemployertogivealoantoaperson,itisnecessary
that such a person is a member of the BMC Bank and therefore
whetherornotBabanRongyaKamblewasondutyonthatdayor
not is not an issue that would arise. Same is the case about the
visitor's book. Though the contents of the certified copy of the
visitor'sbookareprovedbyDr.DipikaRana,DW18,learnedSPPis
right in submitting that though there is a provision in normal
hospitalstomakeentriesinthevisitor'sbook,thisruleisseldom
followed. True it is as it is even my personal experience that no
visitor'sbookwasplacedbeforemewheneverIvisitedgovernment
hospitalslikeJJHospital,StGeorgeHospitalorBMChospitalslike
KEMHospitalorevenrenownedhospitalslikeBombayHospitalor
HindujaHospitalinMumbai.Noentrywasmadeandnosignatures
weretaken.Thus,defencehasnotsucceededinprovingthatVishal
Parmar,PW74,hasliedaboutgoingtomeetapersonattheENT
Hospitalon11/07/06andevenotherwisewhatisimportantisthat
itisinrespectofaperipheralaspectandnotaboutthemainevent.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..571..
Ext.4825
Inthisrespectitissubmittedinthewrittennotesofargumentsthat
PIKhanvilkar,PW168,whohadrecordedthestatementofVishal
Parmar,PW74,aswellasthechiefinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186,didnotverifythetruthfulnessofthestatementmadeby
VishalParmar,PW74.Nowinthisrespecttheexplanationgivenby
both these witnesses has been reproduced before making the
submission and it is selfexplanatory and acceptable. Though PI
Khanvilkar,PW168,admittedthathedidnotverifywiththeENT
Hospital and with the client whom he met in the BMC Bank at
Dadar,ACPPatil,PW186,statedthatitisnotnecessarytoverifythe
materialinformationgivenbythewitnessifhedoesnotappearto
be an untruthful witness. He denied the suggestion that Vishal
Parmar,PW74,gavefalseinformationandhehadnotgonetothe
ENT Hospital, Churchgate nor he visited the BMC Bank at BMC
officeatDadar.
558.
TheconductofVishalParmar,PW74,travellingbyVirartrain
forgoingtoDadarisquestionedinthenextpointasbeingdoubtful
onthe basis of the answers givenbyhim in paragraph12of his
crossexamination and on the basis of the information and train
controlchart,Ext.3052(1to4)thatwereprovedbyAvdheshkumar
Shukla, DW16. It was submitted that a person who has some
commonsensewouldnottravelbyVirarfastlocalasthereisaheavy
rushinthattrainandpassengersareabusedandmoreoveritiseasy
foraprudentmantocatchaslowtrainorcatchtheBorivalifast
trainwhichmayreachwithinthesametimeatDadarorwilltake
oneor twominutes moreanditis alsoquestionedastowhyhe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..572..
Ext.4825
waitedforfourminutesfortravellingintheVirarfasttrainthough
atthesametimeBorivalifastlocalof5.15p.m.,whichdepartedat
5.16 p.m., was already standing there. To my mind, drawing an
inference that the evidence of Vishal Parmar, PW74, is doubtful
becauseofhisconductinchoosingtheVirartrainwillbefarfetched
and will amount to disbelieving the witness only for the sake of
disbelievinghim.Asalreadynotedearlier,thewitnessisaMumbait
anditisonlyaMumbaitwhowilldaretogobyanytrainhelikes
thoughhemaybeknowingthathewillencounteraheavyrushin
such a train. Moreover,it is common knowledge and it has been
broughtonrecordduring theevidenceofseveralwitnessthatall
trainsattheeveningtimehaveheavyrushbecausethosearethe
peak hours when commuters are returning to their homes from
SouthMumbaitowesternsuburbs.Hence,itwillbeabsurdtodraw
such inference and to hold that the testimony of Vishal Parmar,
PW74,isnotreliableandshouldbediscarded.ItisnotthatVishal
Parmar,PW74,wasadailycommuter.Inthatcasehewouldhave
chosenaspecifictrainorspecificbogietotravel.However,hewasa
regulartraveller.
559.
Nexttopicisanattemptbythedefencetosayonthebasisof
informationofthearrivalanddeparturetimingsoftheconcerned
trainthattheanswersgivenbyVishalParmar,PW74,provethathe
didnottravelinthattrainandhasgivenfalseevidenceatthebehest
theATS.VishalParmar,PW74,statedinhischiefexaminationthat
hewenttoChurchgateStationat5.15p.m.ashewantedtogoto
Dadar.Nowthissentencealongwiththeearliersentencethathegot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..573..
Ext.4825
acallfromhisemployerwhodirectedhimtogototheBMCBankat
Dadar,therefore,hewenttotheChurchgateStation,wasbroughton
recordasomissiontostatebeforethepolice.However,itisonlythe
previoussentencethatisanimprovement.Inrespectofthetimings
hestatednextthattheindicatorontheplatformwasshowingatrain
of 5.19 p.m. going towards Virar and that two or three minutes
thereafterthetraincamethere.Inhisfurthercrossexaminationhis
statementthattheindicatorontheplatformwasshowingatrainof
5.19p.m.wasbroughtonrecordasanimprovement.However,the
word'specifically'ismentionedinhisanswerastowhyhecannot
assignanyreasonwhyitisnotinhisstatement.Inparagraph28of
his crossexamination he has stated that he did not see the train
comingontheplatform,thatitcamethere34minutesafter5.15
p.m., did not see his watch before catching the train, does not
rememberwhetheritcameat5.18or5.19p.m.,whetheritstarted
on time or whether it was late and does not know whether the
scheduledtimeofarrivalof5.19p.m.VirarfasttrainatChurchgate
Stationwas5.07p.m.andwhetheronthatdayithadarrivedat
scheduledtimeandleftat5.20p.m.He,however,specificallydenied
thesuggestionthatithaltedforonlyoneminuteandthenstarted
again,whichtomymind,isawrongsuggestionifitisthecaseof
thedefencethatthetrainhadcomeat5.07p.m.attheChurchgate
Station.Hemadeapositivestatementthatthetrainhaltedfor23
minutesontheplatformanddeniedthesuggestionthathehadnot
boardedthe5.19p.m.trainonthatday.
560.
Tomymind,insofarasthescheduledtimingsofarrivaland
JudgementMCOC21/06
..574..
Ext.4825
departureoftrainsareconcerned,theforemostquestionisastohow
thewitnessisexpectedtoknowthescheduledtimingsandwhether
the train had come late. The crossexamination on the point of
timings is a general crossexamination having no impact on the
evidenceofthewitness.Insofarashisanswersinparagraph26are
concerned,hehasgivencandidanswersbyacceptingwhateverhe
doesnotknow.Nowthisevidenceissoughttobecontrovertedby
the oral and documentary evidence given by the defence by
examining Avdheshkumar Shukla, DW16, who proved the train
control charts, Exts. 3049, 3052(2) and 3051(4) alongwith Ext.
3049,whichisanoteissuedbythesaidwitnessonthebasisofthe
train control charts mentioning the particulars. In the written
submissionbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhthecontentsofthis
notearereliedtoshowthatrakeofVR556wasutilizedtoworkas
VR607 Churchgate and it reached on platform no. 3 of the
Churchgate Station on 1707 hours on 11/07/06 right time and
actual departure time of VR607 Churchgate is 1719 hours and it
departedrighttimeandthebombblasttookplaceinthattrainin
betweenMiraRoadandBhayandar.Nodoubtsucharetheentriesin
the train control chart, however, this is the information that is
receivedbytheaccusedundertheRTIAct,thecontentsofwhichare
proved by Avdheshkumar Shukla, DW16. However, his cross
examination by the learned SPP is interesting and as is rightly
submittedbythelearnedSPPthewitnesshasadmittedinhiscross
examinationthattheworkofgivingtheinformationaskedforunder
theRTIActislikeapostmanandtheygavetheinformationasper
JudgementMCOC21/06
..575..
Ext.4825
therecord.Now,insofarastheentriesinthetraincontrolchartare
concerned,hestatedthatthechartisnotfilledupmanually,butitis
filledupautomaticallyasperthesystemandthisisimportant,that
he does not have technical information about the system that
operatestofeedthedataandcannottellifthereisanytechnical
faultinthesystem.Nowifthisistheposition,itisaquestionasto
whether the entries in the train control chart can be relied upon
implicitlyforholdingthatthewitnessisgivingfalseevidenceorthat
hedidnottravelinthattrainonthatday.InrespectofthenoteExt.
3049,thecontentsofwhicharedescribedabove,hestatedthatits
contentsarecorrectaspertherecordthatwasavailablewithhim
and that he has brought the original record with him. In this
connection,inthecrossexamination,headmittedthattheentiresin
the train signal register brought by him to the court are made
manually, that he does not make the entries in the register, that
differentpersonsatdifferentcontroltowersmaketheentiresand
thisisimportantthathecannottellwhetherthereisanyerrorby
suchpersonsinthedetails,whichmeansthathehasnotdeniedthat
theremaybeerrors.Thus,againitisaquestionastowhetherthe
entriesinthetraincontrolchartscanberelieduponimplicitlyto
discredittheevidenceofthiswitness.
561.
Inmyhumbleopinion,itistoomuchtoexpectapersonto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..576..
Ext.4825
madeinhiscrossexaminationshowthathehasstatedapproximate
timings.Hemadepositivestatementsthathedidnotseethetrain
comingontheplatformanddidnotseehiswatchbeforecatching
thetrain.Thissupportstheinferencethatheisgivingapproximate
timingsanditisnotexpectedfromhimthatheshouldgiveperfect
timings.Goingahead,evenifitisconsideredthatthewitnesshas
givenincorrectanswersaboutthetimings,itdoesnotmeanandno
inferencecanbedrawnonlybecauseofthisthatheisafalsewitness
orthathedidnottravelinthattrain.Itisthetotalityoftheevidence
of the witness that is to be seen to appreciate whether he is a
truthful and believable witness. Hence this aspect alone will not
provethatheisafalsewitnessandthathehadnottravelledinthat
train on that day. Some omissions and contradictions that are
brought on recordduring the crossexamination of Vishal Parmar,
PW74,havebeenpointedoutalongwiththecrossexaminationofPI
Khanvilkar, PW168, who had recorded his statement and it is
submitted that the omissions are material and they amount to
contradictionswhichshowthatheisafalsewitnessandhisevidence
hastobediscarded.Therelevantportionsofthecrossexamination
ofboththewitnesseshavebeenreproduced,butitisnotnecessary
toreproducethemherebecauseitwillbesufficientiftheevidence
ofPIKhanvilkar,PW168,isdiscussed.ThisisbecauseVishalParmar,
PW74candidlytoldwhateverportionhehadstatedandwhatever
portion he had not stated and whatever portion he does not
remember he stated so and he could not assign any reason why
those are not mentioned in his statement. In respect of the first
JudgementMCOC21/06
..577..
Ext.4825
omissionpointedout,hisansweristhathecannotassignanyreason
whythesethingsarenotmentioned'specifically'inhisstatement.
(emphasisontheword'specifically').Thisispointedoutbecauseit
hasarelevancetotheanswersgivenbyPIKhanvilkar,PW168.The
answers given by him in his crossexamination in respect to the
omissions have come on record as positive statements. He stated
thatVishalParmar,PW74,hadstatedtohimthathestoodnearthe
firstclassbogiethatwasinfront,thattheindicatorontheplatform
wasshowingthetrainof5.19p.m.,thattwopersonscamethereand
asked him whether Virar fast train would go from there, that he
lookedattheindicatorandtoldthemthatsuchatrainwillgofrom
there. He positively stated that the second part of the above
omissioniswritteninthestatementandwhatisnotwrittenisthe
firstpartaboutthewitnesshavingstoodnearthefirstclassbogie
thatwasinfrontandtheindicatorshowingthetrainof5.19p.m.To
mymind,itwasbutnaturalforthiswitnesstostandattheplace
wherethefirstclassbogiewouldcome,becauseitisinhisevidence
incrossexaminationthathealwaystravelsbyfirstclass,thathehad
purchasedthepassonthe1stor2ndofJune,2006atChurchgateand
toldaboutthecostandthatitwaswithhimwhenhewenttothe
ATSofficeandthisevidencehasnotbeencontroverted.Thusinfact
itisnotanomissionbutisbywayofanexplanation.Theomission
inrespectoftheindicatorontheplatformshowingthetrainof5.19
p.m.cannotalsobesaidtobeanomissioninviewofthewordsin
his statement that are brought on record, that he looked at the
indicatorandtoldthetwopersonsthatsuchatrainisgoingfrom
JudgementMCOC21/06
..578..
Ext.4825
there.Theindicatordoesnotonlyshowthenumberanddestination
ofthetrain,butitalsoshowsthetime.
562.
PIKhanvilkar,PW168,nextstatedthatVishalParmar,PW74,
hadstatedtohimthat23minutesthereafterthetraincamethere,
butitiswrittenthatthetraincamethereaftersomeminutes.Ido
notseehowthiscanbeanomissionandasalreadyobservedearlier
thatapersonwillnotgoonlookingathiswatchtoseewhetherthe
trainhascomerighttimeorithascomelate.Onceagainitcanbe
saidthatitisonlybywayofanexplanation.PIKhanvilkar,PW168,
nextstatedthatthewitnesshadstatedbeforehimthat23persons
hadgotdownandhewasabouttoboard,whichisnotwritteninthe
statement,butheexplainedthatallpassengersgotdownfromthe
train.NowIthinkthatiftherewereonly23passengersthenthey
couldbedescribedasallpassengers.However,theexplanationgiven
byhimismeaningful.Whileadmittingthathedidnotchangethe
wordsofthewitnessonhisown,heexplainedthathetookwhatever
isimportant.Tomymind,thisisexactlywhatthepoliceofficerdoes
andisexpectedtodoandagainhewasgrilledaboutthisaspectand
heansweredthatitdidnothappenthathedidnotwritesomething
that the witness told as they were not important and very fairly
concededthatthereisnorecordotherthanthestatementandhis
memory about what the witness actually stated. In my humble
opinion,thedefenceistryingtoplaythegameofcatandmouse.
Thewitnessisaskedforanexplanationastowhycertainthingis
notinthestatementorwhyitisnotinparticularwordsandwhen
hegivesanexplanation,itissubmittedthatitisnotacceptable.This
JudgementMCOC21/06
..579..
Ext.4825
563.
PIKhanvilkar,PW168,verycandidlystatedthathedidnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..580..
Ext.4825
remember whether the witness had stated to him that the two
personshadstartedtoboardthetrainbeforehim.Asnotedearlier,
somethingsarebywayofexplanationandthisisoneofthem.The
further question and its answer by PI Khanvilkar, PW168, shows
howwithoutapplicationofmindthequestionswereaskedtothe
witnessaswellasthepoliceofficerbecausePIKhanvilkar,PW168,
positivelystatedthatthewitnesshadstatedtohimthatwhenhe
wasboardingthetraintherexinebaghithisleg.Whatisinfactan
omissionisthedescriptionofthebagasof'rexine'andtomymindit
isnotmaterial.Again,PIKhanvilkar,PW168,admittedthatitisnot
in the statementandhe does notremember whether the witness
statedthatafterthetrainstartedhelookedatthebagandthought
thatitwasabigbagbeingcarriedinthefirstclasscompartment.
Onceagainitcanbesaidthatthisisbywayofsomethingthatthe
witnessmayhaveseen,hadstatedtothepolice,butwasnotwritten
inhisstatementforthereasonsgivenabove.Thesubmissionthat
thematerialpartoftheevidenceregardingthepositionofthebag
andaboutboardingthetraininanomissionandthatitamountstoa
contradiction,isnotacceptableforthereasonsgivenabove.Again
thenextsocalledomissionisaplayofwordsbecausePIKhanvilkar,
PW168,explainedthatitisinthestatementasthewitnessstatedto
himbutnotintheexactwordsthatthetwopassengersgotdownin
frontofhimatDadarandtheywerewalkingfastemptyhanded.
This explanation is not controverted and infact it has to be
mentionedherethatwhereversuchtypeofexplanationsweregiven
bythepoliceofficerswhoconductedtheinvestigationinthiscase,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..581..
Ext.4825
theyhavenotbeencontrovertedorshowntobewrongorincorrect.
Itisonlyduringtheargumentsthatitisbeingsaidthattheofficers
aregivingfalseexplanations.ThenextcontradictedportionisExt.
1792(2)whichsaysthatalongwithhimmanyothersalsoentered
the said bogie and Vishal Parmar, PW74, answered in his cross
examinationthatitdidnothappenthatmanypeopleboardedthe
trainatthesametimewhenheboardeditandhedidnotstatesoto
thepolice.Nowcanthisbecalledasacontradiction,becauseone
cannotimaginemanypeopleboardingthetrainatthesametime.It
maybethatconsideringthewidthofthedoorofthelocaltrain34
personsmaybeabletoboarditatthesame time,butwhen the
witnesshasnotstatedaboutitinhischiefexaminationhowcanit
be a contradiction. In the first place he was specifically asked in
crossexamination in paragraph 18 and he stated that it did not
happenthatmanypeopleboardedthetrainatthesametimewhen
heboardeditandthenthesaidportionwasconfrontedtohimand
marked,buttomymind,itwillnotamounttoacontradictionashe
didnotstateaboutitinhischiefexaminationandifassumingthat
he had stated so to the police, he boarding the train cannot be
disputed as is submitted in the written submissions by learned
advocateSharifShaikh.
564.
Nextcomesaveryfunnysubmissionthatfourinjuredpersons,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..582..
Ext.4825
haltedatBombayCentral.Itissubmittedthatitisthefactthatevery
VirartraindepartingfromChurchgateafter4.00p.m.isslowupto
MumbaiCentral.Thefunnythingisthatthewitnesshasnotstated
thatthetraindidnothaltatMarineLinesandhewasnotasked
whetherthetrainhaltedatMarineLinesandwasnotgivensucha
suggestion.Idonotknowhowaninferenceassubmittedcanbe
drawnfromtheabovethathehadnevertravelledinthattrainon
thatday.
565.
KhanthatSr.PITajne,PW161,and PIKhanvilkar,PW168,appear
tobeverysmartofficersbecausewhenthey,i.e.,thedefencetriedto
proveomissions,theyexplainedthatthewitnesseshadtoldthem,
buttheytoldthewitnesstotellaboutitinthecourt.Hesubmitsthat
theofficersareindulginginsuchanexercisebysayingthatthough
thewitnessstatedsomething,buttheydidnotwrite,whereas,asper
thelawtheyhavetorecordwhateverthewitnesssaysanditisnot
theirclaimthatthethingswereirrelevant.ThelearnedSPPhasvery
nicely explained this. He submits that if the court comes to a
conclusion that whatever things the witness had stated are not
writtenintheirstatementwithminutedetails,thenthecourtmay
disbelieve the witness. But if they do not affect the caliber and
qualityoftheevidencethatthewitnessgivesinrespectofthemain
issue then he will have to be believed. He submits that the
investigatingofficerwillnotrecordminutedetailslikethewitness
mayhavestatedtohimthathegotdownatDadar,hadateaatthe
stall,etc.Therelevantimportantthingthatwouldbeisthatwhether
JudgementMCOC21/06
..583..
Ext.4825
566.
undersection161itiseitherwrittenthatmystatementisreadover
andfoundtobecorrectorthathehasreaditandfoundittobe
correct.Thegeneralimpressionofalaymanwhogoestothepolice
stationandgivesastatementisthatwhateverpolicehavewrittenis
correct.Thoughitiswrittenthathisstatementisreadovertohimor
given to him for reading, ordinarily no person tries to make any
JudgementMCOC21/06
..584..
Ext.4825
correction.Thepolicealsodonotattachmuchimportancetothis,
because ultimately the statement under section 161 has got no
evidentialvalue,itcannotbeadmittedinevidenceandcanbeused
only under section 162 for the purpose of contradiction. By and
large the statement under section 161 gives a general idea as to
whatthewitnessisnarratingaboutwhathesaw.
567.
statementundersection161inthelightofminorcontradictionsand
omissionsmayresultinmiscarriageofjustice.Theyardstickthatis
tobeappliedfortheappreciationofevidenceistofindoutwhether
thewitnesshasatendencyofmakingafalsestatementdeliberately
orsuppressingthetruthorwhetherhisanswersareinnocuousor
havecomeinacasualmannerorgivingspecificationsordetailsthat
isthetestandthatishowitistobeappreciated.Lookingfromthis
anglethecontradictionsthatarebroughtorevenmarkedasportions
donotmakeanysense.Thisisinreferencetothequestionsthatare
askedlikewhowasstandingnexttoyou,thecolourofthebag,etc.
Thesequestionsareinthenatureoftestingthememoryofawitness.
568.
Tomymind,ifthewitnesssaysthathedoesnotremember
whetherhehadstatedaportiontothepoliceandifitisshownas
omissionitwillnotamounttoacontradiction,becausehedoesnot
statethathehadnotstatedsotothepolice.Iftheofficerrecording
thestatementofawitnessgivesexplanationaboutcertainomissions
and positively states that some sentences that the witness spoke
were not recorded in the statement, then that will have to be
acceptedasthereisnoothermeanstoverify,becausethestatement
JudgementMCOC21/06
..585..
Ext.4825
undersection161cannotbelookedinto.
569.
calledomissionsandcontradictionswillnotaffectthecredibilityand
truthfulnessofthewitness.Inthisrespecttheobservationsinthe
case of Krishna Mochi & Ors., appellants V. State of Bihar,
respondent (cited supra) relied upon by the learned SPP that
minor discrepancies in the evidence of the witness have to be
ignoredisrelevantandapplicable.ItisalsoheldinthecaseofState
of Rajasthan v. Smt Kalki and Anr. (cited supra) that 'in the
depositionsofwitnessestherearealwayssomenormaldiscrepancies
howeverhonestandtruthfultheymaybe.Thesediscrepanciesaredue
tonormalerrorsofobservation,normalerrorsofmemoryduetolapse
oftime,duetomentaldispositionsuchasshockandhorroratthetime
oftheoccurrence,andthelike.Materialdiscrepanciesarethosewhich
are not normal, and not expected of a normal person'. These
observations are also relevant and applicable in respect of this
witness.
570.
VishalParmar,PW74'sstatementthathewantedtocatcha
windowseat,butdidnotgetit,istriedtobeprovedwrongonthe
basisoftheevidenceof MurarilalParekh,PW137.VishalParmar,
PW74, denied the suggestion in his crossexamination that a
windowseatwasvacantanditwasoccupiedbythepassengerswho
boarded the train at Marine Lines. To my mind, it is absolutely
impossiblethatwindowseatsatanystationremainvacant,much
lessatthestartingstations.ItisnodoubttruethatMurarilalParekh,
PW137,statedthatheboardedthefirstclassbogietowardsVirar
JudgementMCOC21/06
..586..
Ext.4825
sidefromthefrontdoorandsatinthewindowseatontheeastside
intherowofsevenseatsonVirarside.However,itisnotclarifiedas
towhetherheoccupiedtheseatimmediatelywhenheboardedthe
train atMarineLinesorhegotthatseatatsomestations ahead.
Hence,thisaspectdoesnotprovethatVishalParmar,PW74,didnot
travelinthesaidtrain.
571.
Thenextsubmissionisthatifapersonwantstogetdownat
Dadar,hemuststandonthegateofthedoorandifhegoesinside
thecompartment,thenhemaybethrashedbythepassengers,but
VishalParmar,PW74pleadingignoranceaboutthis,showsthathe
does notknow about a common thing thathappens in the train,
hence,hisevidenceshouldbediscarded.Itisalreadyobservedthat
Vishal Parmar, PW74, has stated that he travels regularly by the
localtrains,butitisnotthatheisacommutertravellingdailyby
localtrains,therefore,thissubmissionwillnotaffecthistestimony.
572.
Itappearsthatthedefenceisconfusedoriscreatingconfusion
JudgementMCOC21/06
..587..
Ext.4825
northernsideofthecoachintherowofthesevenseatstowardsthe
sideofViraranditisinhisevidencethathiscolleagueandfriend
KiranKini,PW191,satbyhisside.ThisKiranKini,PW191,had
becomedeafandisnotabletospeakproperly,becauseoftheloud
explosioninthecompartmentandtheinjuriesthathehadsustained
becauseofwhichhishearingwasseverelyimpaired.Therefore,the
defenceadvocatewasaskedtowritequestionsonebyoneandthe
witnesswrotetheanswers.HehasfiledhisaffidavitExt.1347as
wasfiledbyDevendraChavan,PW123,atExt.1389andtheywere
crossexamined.HeadmittedthatDevendraChavan,PW123,ishis
friend,thatheboardedthefirstclasscompartmentfromVirarside
in the Virar fast local of 5.22 p.m. from Marine Lines Railway
Station.However,hedeniedthesuggestionthathesatontheseven
seater seat facing towards the Churchgate and that his friend,
Devendra Chavan, PW123, was also sitting on the same seat,
thoughheadmittedthathesatbesidesDevendraChavan,PW123.
InanswertofurtherquestionheadmittedthatDevendraChavan,
PW123,wassittingatserialno.2fromtheeasternsideandhewas
sittingatserialno.3,butagaindeniedthesuggestionthattheserial
no.2wasfromtheeasternside,butreconfirmedthatheanswered
correctlyinthequestionthatDevendraChavan,PW123,wassitting
ontheeasternside.Healsodeniedthefurthersuggestionthatheas
well as Devendra Chavan, PW123, gave their seats to other
passengers. Realizing that these answers were not helping the
defence,hewassuggestedandhedeniedthesuggestionthatATS
officerMohitetalkedwithhimaboutthiscaseandconveyedtohim
JudgementMCOC21/06
..588..
Ext.4825
thatheshouldsaythatheandDevendraChavan,PW123,didnot
standorgotupatBorivaliRailwayStationandthattheyweresitting
onserialsno.2and3respectivelyonthesideofthesevenseats
bench facing towards Churchgate and also denied the suggestion
that he is giving false answers as he was tutored by ATS officer
Mohite.Thushisevidencedoesnotestablishthatheimmediatelysat
ontheseatno.3nearDevendraChavan,PW123,whenheboarded
thetrainatMarineLinesRailwayStationanditdoesnotcorroborate
hisevidence.NareshKalokhe,PW126,isonemoretravelleranditis
inhisaffidavitthatheboardedthefirstclasscompartmentinVirar
fastlocalatDadarandinhiscrossexaminationithascomethathe
satontherowofsevenseatswithhisbacktoVirarwhenthesecond
or third person got up. It is not clarified during his cross
examinationastowhetherhegotaseatatDadaritselforatsome
stationaheadandtheseatnumberisalsonotobtainedfromhim.It
issubmittedthattheinferenceisthatKiranKini,PW191,gotupat
BorivaliandgavehisseattoNareshKalokhe,PW126,whosaton
thethirdseat.Idonotthinkthatsuchaninferencecanbedrawn
becauseitisaconsiderabledistancefromDadartoBorivaliandone
cannotjumptosuchaconclusion,moresowhenNareshKalokhe,
PW126,wasnotaskedastowherehegottheseat.Ontheother
hand Kiran Kini, PW191, has specifically denied that he and
DevendraChavan,PW123,gavetheirseatstootherpassengersat
Borivali.TheevidenceofAtmaramDalvi,PW136,istakenhelpto
showthata10yearsoldboywassittingbythewindowonthewest
sideonthesevenseatsbenchinfrontofhim.Ithascomeinhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..589..
Ext.4825
crossexaminationthathesatinthewindowseatontheleftside
facingtowardsVirarintherowofthreeseatsinfrontoftherowof
sevenseats.Bythisitwastriedtobeshownthatonemoreseatin
thesevenseatsbenchwasoccupied.Awrongsuggestionwasgiven
tohimthatitiswritteninhisaffidavitthathewassittinginthe
windowseatontheleftsidefacingtowardsVirar.Hisaffidavithas
establishedthattherewasaboysittingonthewesternmostseaton
thesevenseatsbench,whichwasawindowseat.Thenagainitwas
establishedinthecrossexaminationofVijayNair,PW187,thathe
wassittinginthesecondseatfromthewesternsideontheseven
seatsbenchontheVirarsideanditisestablishedbytheevidenceof
BalamRane,PW190,thathewassittingonthemiddleseatonthat
bench facing towards Churchgate. It has come in the cross
examinationof AbhayShrivastav,PW192,asapositivestatement
thathewassittingonthethreeseatsbenchonthewesternside,that
wasinbetweenthetwodoors.Hemadeapositivestatementthathe
wasnotsittingonthethreeseatsbenchfacingthesevenseatsbench
thatwastowardsVirarandawrongandmisleadingsuggestionwas
giventohimthathehadstatedtothepolicethathewassittingin
the portion of the bogie towards Virar side after the door where
therewerethreeseatsbenchesandasevenseatsbench.Though,he
denied this, that portion from his statement, if any, was not
confrontedtohimandgotproved.Thushisevidencedoesnottake
usanywhereanditisclearfromtheanswersgivenbyKiranKini,
PW191,thattheevidenceofVishalParmar,PW74,thathesaton
thethirdseatfromtheeasternsideonthesevenseatsbenchfacing
JudgementMCOC21/06
..590..
Ext.4825
573.
AnimprovementmadebyVishalParmar,PW74,andcertain
JudgementMCOC21/06
..591..
Ext.4825
explanationgivenbythewitness,thattooincrossexaminationand
cannotbetermedasanimprovement.However,immediatelyhewas
askedandhestatedthatitdidnothappenthathegotdownfrom
the last door of the bogie, but then stated that he does not
rememberwhetherhehadstatedsotothepolice.Thisportionwas
markedasExt.1792(3).Tomymind,itisimmaterialwhetherhegot
downfromthefrontdoororthebackdoorsolongasitisstatedby
him that he got down at Dadar and it cannot be construed as a
contradiction moreso when it is not stated by him in his chief
examination before the contradiction can be pointed out. This
nullifiesthesubmissionthatitisverydifficultforapersontocross
theentiregangwayduringtherushhoursandanysensibleperson
willnotdoso,whichshowsthathedidnotalightfromthetrainas
he never travelled in it. In respect of the second sentence it is
submittedthatthewitnesscouldnotassignanyreasonwhyitisnot
mentioned in his statement and though PI Khanvilkar, PW168,
explained that the witness had stated so to him and it is in his
statementbutnotintheexactwords,itissubmittedthatthisisa
wrongdepositiongivenbyPIKhanvilkar,PW168,becauseitisnot
writteninthestatementofVishalParmar,PW74.Nextistheportion
thatwasconfrontedandmarkedasExt.1792(4)aboutwhichthe
witnessstatedthatitwillnotbecorrecttosaythatwhenhestarted
goingtowardsthebridgehesawthosetwopersonswalkingahead
ofhim,thathehadnotstatedsotothepoliceandinthisrespectPI
Khanvilkar,PW168,statedthathehadstatedso.Nowthisportion
willhavetobereadinthecontextofhisanswersthathegavebefore
JudgementMCOC21/06
..592..
Ext.4825
thesaidportionwasconfrontedtohimthathesaysthathesawtwo
persons at Dadar when he and they were walking, there was no
otherpersoninbetweenthemontheplatform,theywerefoursteps
awayfromhim,theywerewalkingfast,hewasalsowalkingfastand
thebridgewasatadistanceof1015stepsfromthespotwherehe
gotdown.Itisobviousthatonewillseeonlythepersonswhoare
walkinginfrontandnotthepersonswhoarewalkingbehindhim
anditisbutnaturalforanypassengertoclimbthebridgeforgoing
outofthestation.Therelevantpartishehavingseenthepersons
walkingfastemptyhandedandthecontradiction,particularlyabout
going towards the direction of the bridge is infact not a
contradiction,butacontinuationofhisearlierevidence.Inrespect
ofthethirdsentencewhenhewasconfrontedwiththeportionExt.
1792(5)hestatedthathehadnotstatedittothepolice.
574.
Tomymind,ifthethreesentencesreproducedaboveuttered
'WhentheDadarStationcame,hegotdownfromtheback
dooronthewesternsidealongwiththeotherpassengers,thatthere
waspushing,thatwhenhegotdownontheplatformandstarted
goingtowardsthebridge,atthattimehesawthetwopersonsalso
JudgementMCOC21/06
..593..
Ext.4825
Thus,infact,thesearenotomissionsandcontradictionsand
575.
IncontinuationofthesametopictheevidencegivenbyVishal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..594..
Ext.4825
thereasonwhyhedidnotdosoisthathenevertravelledinthesaid
train and is a got up witness of the ATS. It is obvious that the
defenceismissingthepointthatthisevidencegivenbythewitness
hasnotbeenshownasomissionsorcontradictionsandontheother
hand he has unhesitatingly given sufficiently detailed explanation
about the actions after the blasts and upto the point when he
realized about what he had seen on that day. So rather than
impeachinghiscredibility,theexplanationsgivenbyhimincross
examination in paragraphs 18, 31 and 39 have supported his
evidence and shown that he is a truthful witness. The important
answerthathegaveisthathedidnotfeelthathehadanyimportant
informationwithhimbeforehereadinthenewspaperaboutthebag
andhecametoknowaboutitfromthenewsthatwasgivenbythe
police.Itwasnotsuggestedtohimthathehadcometoknowabout
thepersonsplacingthebagsinthetrainsimmediatelyonthedayof
theincidentorwithinafewdaysafterit.Hence,thereisnoquestion
ofdrawinganinferencethathenevertravelledinthesaidtrainand
hedeposedfalsely.
576.
gettingdownatDadariscriticizedonthebasisoftheanswersgiven
byhimincrossexaminationandtheinformationobtainedunderthe
RTIActinrespectofthepersonwhomhehadgonetomeet.Ithas
comeinhischiefexaminationthathewenttotheBMCBankinfront
ofPlazaCinemaandmettheclient.Thus,hedidnotstatethename
oftheclientwhomhehadgonetomeet,nor,didhestatethatthe
saidclientisanemployeeoftheBMCBank.Thisismoreclearfrom
JudgementMCOC21/06
..595..
Ext.4825
theanswersinhiscrossexaminationthathegoestotheBMCBank
onthedateofdisbursementofloanbytheBMCBankandcallsthe
employeethereandafterhegetsthemoney,hetakeshimtothe
officeofhisemployerforrepaymentoftheloan,thathehadgoneto
meetLalitWaghelaatBMCCooperativeBankatDadarandpolice
didnotaskhimandhedidnottellthenameofthepersonwhomhe
hadgonetomeet.AfruitlessexercisewasmadebytheA4tocallfor
informationfromtheBMCBankundertheRTIAct,whichisatExt.
2911 and to prove it by examining Ankush More, DW2. By the
information in the letter, A4 was informed that Lalit Waghela is
neither employed in the said bank nor in G/North branch of the
bank. It has come in his crossexamination that any municipal
employee can become member of the bank. It is alleged in the
writtensubmissionsinrespectoftheanswersgivenbyhimincross
examinationthattheyshowthatheisawitnesswhoistutoredby
learnedSPP.Thisisobviouslyasillyandbaselesssubmissionbecause
thewitnessisanemployeeoftheBMCBankandmoreimportantly
he was called by the defence as a defence witness. Now as his
evidence didnothelpthe defence,the defenceexaminedSukhlal
Rathod,DW24,whoprovedthecontentsofletterExt.3083andthe
certifiedtruecopyofattendancebooks,Ext.3084,thoughExt.3083
is not signed by him, but it is signed by his superior who is
transferred.ThusitisaquestionwhetherthecontentsofExt.3083
canbereliedupon?Evenotherwise,theinformationgivenbyhim
showsthatLalitWaghelawasemployedasamotorloaderinthe'G'
NorthDepartmentoftheBMCandon11/07/06hewasabsent.This
JudgementMCOC21/06
..596..
Ext.4825
informationisreliedupontoshowthatVishalParmar,PW74,could
nothavemetLalitWaghelaonthatdaybecausehewasabsentfrom
his duties on that day. However, this submission is ignoring the
materialthathascomeonrecordduringthecrossexaminationof
Sukhlal Rathod, DW24, that the working hours of the BMC Co
operative Bank are from 11.00 a.m. to 3.30 p.m., that from the
attendancebook,certifiedcopyofwhichisatExt.3084,theycan
only tell whether an employee has attended his duty from 10.00
a.m.to1.15p.m.andcannottellwherehehasgoneafter1.15p.m.
andwhether he has gonetoBMCBank.This removesanydoubt
aboutVishalParmar,PW74,havingmetLalitWaghelaattheBMC
Bank,becauseitisonlyaftertheVirarfastlocalleftChurchgateat
5.19p.m.,thathemetLalitWaghelaatDadarwhenhegotdown
whichmaybearound5.40p.m.onthatday.Againitisinthecross
examinationofSukhlalRathod,DW24,thatExt.3084isthemain
attendance record and entries are made in the main attendance
bookbycopyingtheentriesinthespotmusterbookafter15days,
whichisnothisduty,therefore,intheabsenceofthespotmuster
bookhecannotsaywhetherthepersonwhohascopiedtheentries
has copied them correctly or not. Thus, the information in the
documents Exts. 3083 and3084are absolutelyof nohelp to the
defencetoshowtheprobabilitythatLalitWaghelawouldnothave
beenattheBMCBankaround5.40p.m.on11/07/06andforthis
reasonaninferencecanbedrawnthatVishalParmar,PW74,had
notgonetomeethimonthatday.Hisevidenceaboutitisbrought
on record as an omission to state before the police, but PI
JudgementMCOC21/06
..597..
Ext.4825
577.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..598..
Ext.4825
withaclosepersonaftertheincidentandthoughhewaskeeping
himselfupdatedwiththenews,hewasrequiredtosearchastowho
wasinvestigatingthecaseandhencehisevidenceisfalseandnot
reliable. This aspect is already considered and in this respect his
answerincrossexaminationthathedidnotfeelthathehadany
importantinformationwithhimbeforehereadinthenewspapers
aboutthebag,isthethingthatsparkedhismemorytakinghimback
totheincidentthathadtakenplaceon11/07/06andcorelatingit
withthefactsthathehadseenandperceived.Thus,hecannotbe
discreditedfortheonlyreasonthathehadnotdisclosedaboutwhat
hesawinthetraintothepersonsclosetohimortohisemployer
immediatelyaftertheblasts.
578.
nearly four months after the blast after which the statement of
VishalParmar,PW74,wasrecordedandevenifhisexplanationthat
itstrucktohismindthatonthatdayhehadalsoseentwopersons
keepingablackcolouredbaginthetrainwhentherewasnewsafter
somemonthsthatsomeaccusedhadkeptbombsinblackcoloured
bagsinthetrainisconsidered.Itistheonlyexplanationofdelay
whichis notbelievableasthe newsofthebagwas publishedon
01/10/06andthereafterthereisadelayof33days.Itisallegedthat
thereisasubstantialdelayinrecordinghisstatementandthatitwas
recordedafterallaccusedwereremandedtojudicialcustodyand
they had retracted their alleged confessional statements. The
submission that news of the bag was published on 01/10/06 is
obviouslybaselessbecauseitisnowherebroughtonrecordthatit
JudgementMCOC21/06
..599..
Ext.4825
hadsohappened.Nowinsofarastheevidencegivenbythewitness,
itisnotanomissionoracontradictionandinmyhumbleopinionit
isamostnaturalevidenceandwhatmoreexplanationofknowing
aboutaparticularthingcanbeexpected?Soinfactthereisnodelay
inrecordinghisstatement,muchlessadelayoffourmonthsbecause
assoonashecametoknowaboutitheapproachedthepoliceon
02/11/06. In this connection learned SPP has relied on the
observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Sheo Shankar
Singh,AppellantsVs.StateofJharkhandandAnr.,Respondent
(AIR2011SC1403).Itisobservedinparagraph49that,'thelegal
position is well settled that mere delay in the examination of a
particularwitnessdoesnot,asaruleofuniversalapplication,render
theprosecutioncasesuspect.Itdependsuponcircumstancesofthecase
andthenatureoftheoffencethatisbeinginvestigated.Itwouldalso
dependupontheavailabilityofinformationbywhichtheinvestigating
officercouldreachthewitnessandexaminehim.Itwouldalsodepend
upontheexplanation,ifany,whichtheinvestigatingofficermayoffer
forthedelay.Inacasewheretheinvestigatingofficerhasreasonsto
believethataparticularwitnessisaneyewitnesstotheoccurrencebut
he does not examine him without any possible explanation for any
such omission, the delay may assume importance and require the
Courttocloselyscrutinizeandevaluatetheversionofthewitnessbut
inacasewheretheinvestigatingofficerhadnosuchinformationabout
anyparticularindividualbeinganeyewitnesstotheoccurrence,mere
delayinexaminingsuchawitnesswouldnotipsofactorrenderthe
testimony of the witness suspect or affect the prosecution version'.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..600..
Ext.4825
LearnedSPPhasalsoreliedontheobservationoftheSupremeCourt
in the case of Shyamal Ghosh, Appellants Vs. State of West
Bengal, Respondent (AIR 2012 SC 3539). It is observed in
paragraph 38 that the, 'the delay in examination of witnesses is a
variablefactor.Itwoulddependuponanumberofcircumstances.For
example,nonavailabilityofwitnesses,theInvestigatingOfficerbeing
preoccupiedinseriousmatters,theInvestigatingOfficerspendinghis
timeinarrestingtheaccusedwhoareabsconding,beingoccupiedin
otherspheresofinvestigationofthesamecasewhichmayrequirehis
attention urgently and importantly, etc. Some delay was bound to
occurinrecordingthestatementsofthewitnesseswhosenamescame
to light after certain investigation had been carried out by the
Investigating Officer'. On the strength of the observations of the
SupremeCourt,itwillhavetobesaidthattheexplanationgivenby
VishalParmar,PW74,forapproachingthepoliceon02/11/06isa
veryvalidandacceptableexplanationandIhavealreadyheldthat
infactthereisnodelayinrecordinghisstatement.
579.
ThenextaspectisinrespectoftheevidencebyVishalParmar,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..601..
Ext.4825
who had recorded the statement, but this aspect rather than
discreditinghisversionshowsthathehasnopreacquaintancewith
anyoftheofficerandthenamesofKhandekarandKhanvilkarare
somewhatsimilar.Thisaspectdoesnotaffecthisevidence.
580.
Alargenumberofpagesaredevotedtodescribetheevidence
JudgementMCOC21/06
..602..
Ext.4825
identificationinthetestidentificationparade.
581.
PW74,inthecourt,itissubmittedinpointno.31thatA4inhis
depositionstatedthathewasalsopointedouttohimbysomeother
officerswhenhecametothecourtforgivingevidence,therefore,he
falselyidentifiedhim.ItisalsosubmittedthatVishalParmar,PW74,
residesbesidetheArthurRoadjailandhaseasyaccesstoseetheA4
veryclearly,thatinthecourttheaccusedaremadetowaitoutside
the court room where the witness also have a chance to see the
accused and can be pointed out by the ATS officers. Hence, the
identificationinthecourthasnovalue.Thesesubmissionsonthe
faceofitarevagueandbaselessandthereisonlyasinglesuggestion
toVishalParmar,PW74,whichheturneddown,thatheidentified
theA4beforethecourtsincehewasshownbySr.PITajne,PW161,
andhisphotographwasshowntohimintheATSoffice.
582.
Itisclearfromtheabovediscussionthatthoughthedefence
triedhardtodiscredittheevidenceofVishalParmar,PW74,bythe
answersgivenbyhimincrossexaminationandbytheevidenceof
defencewitnessesandthedocumentsobtainedundertheRTIAct,it
hasnotbeensuccessfulindoingsoandVishalParmar,PW74,has
withstood the test of crossexamination thereby rendering his
evidence as a cogent evidence. The answers given by him in
paragraph 11 in his crossexamination about the business of his
employerandtheanswersgiveninparagraph28aboutdaytoday
working,banks,namesofemployeesandthemannerinwhichthe
saidbusinesswasconductedshowthathehasfullknowledgeabout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..603..
Ext.4825
his work and he told the details unhesitatingly and clearly. This
evidence is not controverted which shows his bonafides and
establisheshishonesty.
583.
584.
Thoughbytheaboveevidencetheprosecutionhasproveda
circumstanceagainsttheA4,theA4hastakenthespecificdefenceof
alibiandinthiscontextVishalParmar,PW74,wasaskedandhe
expressed ignorance as to whether on that day from morning to
eveningtheA4wasatMiraRoad.Thisistheonlysuggestiongiven
to the witness and in comparison much more evidence and
submissionsaremadebytheA4inhiswrittensubmissionsExt.2825
andconsiderableoralevidenceisgivenbyhimandalsoofdefence
witnesses and the written submissions are also extensive. In the
writtensubmissionsExt.2825filedalongwithhisstatementunder
section313oftheCr.P.C.,theA4hasdescribedwhathedidon
JudgementMCOC21/06
..604..
Ext.4825
585.
Nodalofficer YogeshRajapurkar,DW36,provedthecontents
of the CDR and cell ID addresses Ext. 3765, of the mobile no.
9867139179, admittedly used by the A4. His evidence has been
discussedinparagraphs482and483.Inpointno.22ofthewritten
argumentstheevidencegivenbytheA4inrespectofwhathedidon
11/07/06isreproduced.Specificdetailsofcallsalongwiththetower
JudgementMCOC21/06
..605..
Ext.4825
locationsaredescribedonthebasisoftheCDRExt.3765(4)and(5)
anditissubmittedthattheyshowthathewasatMiraRoadat1530
hoursand1914hoursandcouldnothavebeenatBandraat1530
hoursandcouldnothavetravelledinataxitoChurchgate,alighting
atDadarandgoingbacktoMumbrawithin3hoursand45minutes.
Itissubmittedthathehadmadeacomplaintbeforethiscourtby
Ext.3798on03/11/06inwhichhestatedthathewasathishouse
whentheblasttookplaceandwasabouttogotothespotofthe
blastforhelpingtheinjured,butreturnedbackashecametoknow
thatpolicearenotallowinganyonetogothere.Thestatementsin
Ext.3798donotshow whathe didonthe whole of the day on
11/07/06anditisnotpossibletoexceptthathewouldbeatthesite
ofthebombblastatthetimeofthebombblast,becauseinthatcase
hewouldhavebeeninjured.
586.
submissions and has submitted that even before the CDRs were
obtainedtheA4hadgiventhedetailsofwhathedidon11/07/06
andhisevidenceonoathissubsequenttotheobtainingofCDRs.
Hence,hisoralevidenceiscorroboratedbythecontentsoftheCDRs
whichshowthatheisspeakingthetruth.LearnedSPPRajaThakare
submittedthatifthecrossexaminationinrespectofthemobilethat
wasadmittedlyusedbytheA4isconsidered,thenitisclearthathe
wasusingasimcardthatwasnotinhisnamebutwasinthename
ofsomeotherpersonandthisiswhyheallegesthatitwasusedfor
his nefarious and antinational illegal activities. He submits that
there is a reference of one Nathuram Tedgure from whom he
JudgementMCOC21/06
..606..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..607..
Ext.4825
thestorymadeupbytheA4whereinhetriedtowriggleoutwhen
facedwithanyawkwardquestion.ThelearnedSPPaskedhimasto
whetheritiscorrectthatinspiteofhavingsufficientdocumentary
evidenceabouthisresidence,hedidnotobtainasimcardinhis
ownname.Heansweredthathehadamobilein2004andthesim
card was in his name and in respect of the mobile of Nathuram
Tedgure,he statedthat he got it cheap withthe sim card,so he
purchasedit.Nowagainhegoesonmakingupthestorythathesold
the mobile that he had in 2004 when he went to U.P. and
surprisinglysaidthathedestroyedthesimcard.Realisinghisfolly,
hecorrectedhimselfandagainsaidthatthesimcardwasmisplaced.
Hewasobviouslycaughtonthewrongfoot.Hehadtoadmitthathe
could have obtained a sim card with the same number from the
service provider and that he had given that number to all his
relatives, acquaintances, friends and business contacts and
surprisinglydoesnotrememberthemobilenumberofthatsimcard
andalsoadmittedthathedidnotapplyforobtainingthesimcard
withthesamenumber.Idonotthinkthattheseanswerswillshow
thebonafidesoftheA4.Ontheotherhandtheyshowmalafidesand
thatheishidingsomethings.
587.
InrespectofthesaidNathuramTedgureheadmittedthathe
neitherproducedanydocumentsaboutpurchaseofthesaidmobile
nor he cited him as a defence witness. Thus, it is obvious that
thoughthedefencehasmadestrenuouseffortstoexaminealarge
number of defence witnesses, it did not even apply to summon
NathuramTedgureorevencitehimasadefencewitness.A4was
JudgementMCOC21/06
..608..
Ext.4825
specificallycrossexaminedaboutcertainlandlinenumbersreflected
intheCDRofhismobile,butallthatisnotsorelevantinsofarashis
defenceofalibiisconcerned.Themostimportantthingisthatthere
is no incoming or outgoing call for a period of 3 hours and 45
minutes on 11/07/06 from 1530 hours to 1914 hours, the exact
period when the alleged operation of carrying the bombs from
BandratoChurchgateandtravellingfromChurchgatetoDadarand
getting down at Dadar took place. Though it is submitted in the
writtenargumentsthatitisnotpossibletotravelsomuchinthis
period,thetraveltimingsarenotelaboratedtoexplainthis.Onthe
otherhandfromtheevidenceoftaxidriversRajeshSatpute,PW77,
andSantoshSingh,PW63,itcanbegatheredthatthetraveltime
fromBandratoChurchgateisabout1hourand15minutesbytaxi
andthetraveltimefromChurchgatetoDadarbytrainmaybenot
morethan20minutes.Thistraveltimecaneasilyfitinbetweenthe
blankperiodofcallsintheCDRoftheA4.Thusnoinferencecanbe
drawnonthebasisoftheentriesintheCDRofthemobilethatwas
admittedly used by the A4 that he may not have been in the
concernedtrainattherelevanttime.Theaccusedhasstatedthathe
haddonetheeveningnamajat5.30p.m.atShamsMasjid.Except
hiswordsthereisnoevidenceforit.Hecouldhavebroughtsome
witness,ifhewassosure,tosaythathewaspresentatthemasjid
fornamajfrom5.30p.m.onwards.
588.
LearnedSPP'ssubmissionsonthebasisoftheaboveanswers
JudgementMCOC21/06
..609..
Ext.4825
andatthecostofrepetitionhesubmittedthatmobileisnotabody
partandwillatthemostshowthelocationofthehandsetandnotof
thatperson.Inthisrespectmyobservationsinparagraph491supra
aresquarelyapplicableagaintothiscasewhereinIhaveheldthat
there cannot be a presumption that a mobile is always with the
personand,therefore,thelocationsintheCDRwillnotestablishthe
locationofthepersonusingit,becauseamobileisnotabodypart
ofanyperson.TheimportantsubmissionbythelearnedSPPisthat
theonusiscastonthiscourttoweightwothings.Ontheonehand
itistheevidenceinthenatureofabstractthingslikelocationsofthe
mobilesforwhichtherewouldnotbeanymeanstoascertainwho
actuallywaspossessingitattherelevanttime.Asagainstthis,onthe
otherhand,thecourthasbeforeitaconcretephysicalevidencein
thenatureofdepositionofawitnesswhoseversioncanbetestedon
the touchstone of crossexamination and the cardinal principle of
appreciationofevidence.Hesubmitsthatthereisatotalimbalance
inthesetwotypesofevidenceandbyitsverynaturetheevidenceof
aneyewitnesswillhaveweightovertheinferentialevidenceabout
locationofmobiletowers.
589.
ThelearnedSPPisperfectinmakinghissubmissions.Onthe
basisofthecontentsoftheCDRofthemobilethatwasbeingused
bytheA4noinferencecanbedrawnthathewasatMiraRoadatthe
timewhenVishalParmar,PW74,sawhiminthetrainatChurchgate
aswellasatDadarandnonegativeinferencecanbedrawnthathe
wasnotatChurchgateorDadaratthosetimes.Thusasmentioned
earlier,theA4hasnotgivenanyexplanationabouttheblankperiod
JudgementMCOC21/06
..610..
Ext.4825
590.
591.
ThelastwitnessinthisgroupisKishoreShah,PW60andit
can be said that by far he is the best witness out of the four
travellers considering the fact that he had gone to the Borivali
RailwayPoliceStationon14/07/06,i.e.,twodaysaftertheincident
andreportedhis suspicion.Heis the firstwitness in time,which
primafaciemakeshimareliablewitness.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thatheboardedthefirstfirstclasscompartmenttowardsVirarside
ofthe5.37p.m.Virarfastlocalonplatformno.3andstoodinthe
middleofthetwodoorsastherewasnoplaceforsitting,thattwo
persons entered the compartment about two minutes before the
departuretimeofthetrainandsaidthattheywantedtogoinside
andhemovedasidetoletthemgoandtheywentinside,thatone
mediumbuiltpersonoutofthosetwowashavingablackcoloured
JudgementMCOC21/06
..611..
Ext.4825
baghavingchain,whichtheykeptontherightsideluggagerack,if
one stands facing towards Virar in the train. It has come in his
evidencethattherewasmorecrowdinthecompartmentatMarine
Lines, that after Bombay Central those two persons tried to go
towards the door, had some exchange of words with other
passengers,whoaskedthemwheretheywanttogetdownandthey
told them that they want to get down at Dadar, that the other
passengers asked them as to why they were standing inside the
compartmentandthatthereweremanytrainsforgoingtoDadar
andwhytheycaughttheVirartrain,thathealsothoughtsimilarly,
thatthosepersonssaidthattheyarenewandthereaftertheygot
downatDadar.Thiswitnessisaninjuredintheblastashetraveled
uptoBorivaliandithascomeinhisevidencethathewenttowards
theoppositedoorashe wantedtogetdownatBorivaliandwas
waitingfortheplatformno.4tocomeandwhenthetrainreached
atBorivaliatabout6.30p.m.andwasabouttostop,therewasa
loudexplosionandhealongwithotherpersonswhowerestanding
near the door were thrown on the platform. It has come in his
evidence thathedidnotknowas towhathadhappened,people
werefallingoneachotherandtherewaschaosandcommotion,that
helosthisspectacles,purse,mobileandahandbagofclothesand
hispantwastorn,thathesustainedinjuresonhisforehead,lips,
both elbows andlegs andpeople started saying that there was a
bombwhichhealsorealized.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathe
wantedtogototheplatformno.6,buttherewasahugecrowdon
the bridge and he did not have the strength to go through it,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..612..
Ext.4825
therefore,hecrossedtherailwaytracks,wenttotheplatformno.6
andthenwentoutoftherailwaystation,thathewantedtocatchan
autorickshawbutapolicemanapproachedhimonseeingthatheis
injured and told him that he would take him to the Bhagwati
Hospital, which he declined and asked him to engage an
autorickshawforhimsothathecangohome.Ithascomeinhis
evidencethatacouplewasgoingbyanautorickshaw,thepoliceman
askedthemtocomeoutandmadehimsitinthatrickshawandthen
hewenthomeandfromhishomehewenttohisfamilydoctor,Dr.
GohilandinthesamenighthewenttoanENTdoctor,whoadvised
himtotakerest.Thisishisevidenceabouttheincident.
592.
Ithascomeinhisevidencethathehadadoubtaboutthetwo
593.
Hisevidenceisclearandunhesitatingandithascomeinhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..613..
Ext.4825
594.
LearnedadvocatefortheA13attackedthecredibilityofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..614..
Ext.4825
whenhewasarrestedon11/07/02.Thusin2011hisagewould
havebeen48years,whichdoesnotcomeanywhereneartheageof
Kishore Shah, PW60 in 2011, which is 57 years. There is a
differenceofnineyears.Adifferenceofoneortwoyearswouldhave
been acceptable. The address given in the chargesheet is of
Bhiwandi,Dist.Thane,whichwasverifiedbythepolice.Astrange
andbaselesssubmissionwasmadethatthisaddressisofagodown
oftheaccused.Thereisnothingtoshowthisandontheotherhand
theaddressthatisgivenappearstobearesidentialaddress.Infact
theaddressoftheaccusedno.1KamleshVeljiShahinthatcaseis
alsoofBhiwandi.Thusitcannotbeconcludedthatthesaidaccused
no.4inthatcaseisthewitnessKishoreShah,PW60.
595.
NextisExt.3418whichisthecertifiedcopyofjudgementand
othercasepapersinC.C.No.1246/PW/06whichclearlyshowsthat
theaccusedinthatcaseisKishoreShah,PW60,becausetheaddress
isthesame,i.e.,ofBorivali(E),andhisageonthedateofarreston
10/03/07is53yearsintheyear2011,whichmakesit57yearsin
the year 2011, which is what is stated by Kishore Shah, PW60.
However,thiscaseisinrespectofthecomplaintlodgedbyhiswife
undersection498AoftheIPCanditisofPoliceStationKasturba
MarganditdoesnotshowthatPSIKisanGaikwadandSr.PITajne,
PW161,weretheinvestigatingofficers.
596.
Itisclearfromtheabovediscussionthatthesubmissionsof
thelearnedadvocatethatKishoreShah,PW60,wasconnectedwith
somepoliceofficers,whowerelaterondeputedtotheATSandwho
introducedhiminthecase,isnotsubstantiatedbythedocuments
JudgementMCOC21/06
..615..
Ext.4825
thatareproduced.Thisalsotakescareofhissubmissionthatnon
examinationofKisanGaikwad,acitedwitness,istosuppresshis
connection with the accused. Sr. PI Tajne, PW161's, cross
examinationonthisaspecthasnotrevealedanything.Theimportant
thinghereisthatallthisisbeingsaidbehindthebackofthewitness
without applying for recalling him and confronting him with the
documents and without calling PSI Kisan Gaikwad as a defence
witnesssincehewasnotexaminedbytheprosecution.Youcannot
condemn a witness only on the basis of the documents without
confrontinghimwiththem.Alameandunacceptablesubmissionis
madethatthedefencecouldnotgivesuggestionsabouttheprevious
cases because documents were obtained later on. He could have
beenrecalledlikesomanyotherwitnesseswhowererecalled.
597.
PW60,wasnotinjuredandthemedicalcertificateExt.2733(71)is
false,duplicateandthedateischangedanditisfiledbybackdoor
and not proved by examining the doctor, who had issued it.
However,KishoreShah,PW60,doesnotsaythathehadgivenitto
thepoliceofficerandDy.SPAhir,PW144,andACPPatil,PW186,
donotsaythathegaveitortheycollecteditfromsomewhere.An
absurdsubmissionismadethatnofamilymemberofthewitnessis
examined to prove that he was injured in the blast. All these
submissions are obviously made ignoring the record. By the
applicationExt.1551,thelearnedSPPprayedundersection294of
theCr.P.C.forexhibitingtheinjurycertificatesofinjuredpersonsin
allthesevenblaststhatwerefiledalongwiththechargesheet.The
JudgementMCOC21/06
..616..
Ext.4825
advocatesfortheaccuseddidnotgivesaytotheapplicationthough
theywereaskedtodoso.Therefore,inviewofthefactthatthereis
nodisputeaboutpersonsbeingbeeninjuredinthesevenblasts,the
applicationwasallowedandasmanyas759injurycertificateswere
received in evidence and marked as exhibits. This was done on
07/04/12 and insofar as all the remaining injury certificates are
concerned, nodispute has been raised. So the dispute about this
certificate cannot be accepted and nonexamination of the doctor
whoexaminedthewitnessdoesnotmeanthatthecertificateisnot
proved. It is apparent that the investigating agency collected the
medical certificate later on and the doctor issued a duplicate
certificatementioningthedateonwhichheissuedit.Thecontents
of Ext. 2733(71) show the description of the injury sustained by
KishoreShah,PW60,whichgivesrisetotheinferencethatheisa
honestwitness.Itisinhisevidencethathehadgonetothedoorof
thebogieforgettingdownatBorivaliandwhentherewasaloud
explosionhealongwiththeotherpersons,whowerestandinginthe
door,werethrownontheplatformandhesustainedinjuriesonhis
forehead,lips,bothelbowsandlegs.ThecontentsofExt.2733(31)
describetheinjuriesasabrasionatbothkneejoints,abrasionatleft
elbow joints and few abrasions on lips. The important injury is
ruptureoflefteardrum,whichisaclassicalsymptomofeffectof
explosion.Hence,thesubmission ofthe learnedadvocate are not
borneoutfromtherecordandonthebasisofit,itcannotbesaid
thatthewitnessnevertravelledinthetraininwhichtheblasttook
place.
JudgementMCOC21/06
598.
..617..
Ext.4825
KishoreShah,PW60'sevidencethathehadsustainedinjuries
onhisfaceandonlefthandandthathetookthetreatmentfromDr.
Maliya,wasbroughtonrecordasomissiontostatebeforethepolice.
InthisconnectionDy.SPAhir,PW144'sevidenceandexplanationin
crossexaminationcoversupthisomissionandshowsthatinfactis
notanomission.Inparagraph10ofhiscrossexaminationhestated
thatthewitness(KishoreShah,PW60,)mayhavestatedbeforehim
thathehadsustainedinjuriestohisfaceandlefthand,thathehad
takentreatmentfromDr.Maliya'shospital,buthedidnotwriteall
thesethingsinhisstatementandtheexplanationforthisisgivenin
the earlierportionofthe same paragraphthathe wrote onlythe
things that appeared important to him and he might not have
writtenthesethingsinhisstatementastheywerenotimportantand
hewrotewhateverwasrelevantoutofthenarrativethathegave,
butdidnotwritewhateverwasirrelevant.Nodoubt,thisaspectof
witnessregardingsustaininginjurieswasalsorelevant,buthisone
answer in crossexamination has shown as to what exactly was
relevant with the help of this witness, viz., he was an important
witnessoutofthewitnesseswhosestatementsherecorded.Hegot
anideafromhisstatementabouttheculpritsashehadgiventhe
description of the twopersons and therefore he was like an eye
witness. The important explanation is in paragraph 10 that in
connectionwiththewitnessthedescriptionofthesuspectwasmore
important. This was in connection with the loss of articles and
tearingofpant,etc.
599.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..618..
Ext.4825
purse,mobileandahandbagofclothesisbroughtonrecordasan
omissiontostatebeforethepolicewhenhegavehisstatementand
when asked about it in crossexamination he answered that he
cannotassign anyreason whythese things arenotwritten inhis
statement.Hehowevergaveasoundexplanationbyexplainingthat
hethoughtthatthey,i.e.,thepolice,mustbetakingdownwhatever
theythoughtnecessary.Now,ithascomeinhiscrossexamination
thathecametoknowaboutthelossofsaidarticleswhenhewason
theplatformitself,butthepolicedidnotaskhimabouthisrailway
passonthatdayandevenofficerPatildidnotaskaboutituptothe
identificationparade.Hiscredibilityisendorsedbyhisanswerinhis
crossexaminationaboutthe officerwhotookhisstatementabout
which he stated that he does not know whether the officer was
havingtwostarsorthreestars,thathewasnotinuniformandhe
does not know whether he was an inspector or a constable. The
importantthingthathestatedthathewasofrailwaypolicestation.
Thecostofarticlesthathelostwasaskedandhestatedthatthe
mobilewaspurchasedatacostofRs.2,500/orRs.3,000/,there
weretwopantsandoneshirtinthebag,thevalueofwhichmaybe
maximumRs.1,000/andtherewasaroundRs.3,500/inthepurse.
The last answer that he gave in paragraph 12 of his cross
examinationthrowslightonhishonestyandwhatacommonman
thinks about loss of his articles in such an incident, because he
statedthatashislifewassaved,hedidnotthinkthatthearticles
thathelostwerevaluable.
600.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..619..
Ext.4825
lyingaboutthearticles,whichshowsthathehadnottravelledin
thattrainbecauseaninventory,Ext.1586,ofthearticlesfoundat
thespotaftertheblastswaspreparedanditscontentsdonotshow
anyofthearticlesthatthewitnessclaimstohavebeenlost.Perusal
of the inventory shows that the articles therein are described
alongwith the names of the owners wherever available and they
compriseofsteeltiffins,calculators,marklists,bankpassbooks,ATM
cards, cash amounts and miscellaneous articles and there is no
articlehavingthenameofthewitness.Tomymind,thearticlesthat
the witness lost, i.e., clothes, spectacles are inconsequential and
insofarasthecashamount,mobileisconcernedthereisapossibility
thattheymayhavebeenstolen.Thelistdoesnotincludeclothesand
itcannotbesaidthatallarticlesthatwerelyingatthespotmust
have been collected before police took the inventory and the
possibilitycannotberuledoutthatsomeoneoutofthepersons,who
hadrushedtheretohelpforcarryingdeadbodiesortheinjured,
mayhavepickedthevaluables.Onecannotexpectamathematical
accuracy in such a big incident considering the chaos and
commotionthatwouldhavebeenthereaftertheblast.Onecannot
expectanaccountofeachandeveryarticleandsaythatitshouldbe
found to indicate the presence of the witness at the time of the
explosion.Thus,tomymind,aninferencecannotbedrawnthatjust
becausenoarticleofthewitnessisintheinventoryExt.1586,that
hehadnottravelledinthesaidtrain.Hence,thisaspectdoesnot
discreditthewitnessparticularlyinviewofhisexplanationthathe
didnotthinkthatthearticlesthathelostwerevaluableashislife
JudgementMCOC21/06
..620..
Ext.4825
wassaved.
601.
LearnedadvocatesubmitsthattheevidenceofKishoreShah,
PW60,thatthebagwaskeptontheluggagerackisfalsifiedbythe
evidencegivenbyDy.SPAhir,PW144,inhischiefexaminationthat
thetinofthewesternsideofthebogiewastornapartandthiswas
alsoclarifiedfromACPKhandekar,PW174,inhiscrossexamination
thatplatformno.4wasontheeastsideofthetrainandtheblast
hadtakenplaceonthewesternsideofthebogieandthatifone
standstherefacingVirar,thesiteoftheblastisontheleftside.To
mymind,thesesubmissionsareobviouslymadeonthebasisofthe
evidence given by Kishore Shah, PW60, in his chiefexamination
thatthebagwaskeptontherighthandsideoftheluggagerack,if
onestandstowardsVirarsideinthetrain.However,thesubmissions
overlooktheanswersgivenbythewitnessincrossexaminationin
paragraph16thathehadkepthisbagontheluggagerack,thathe
wasfacingtowardstheChurchgatesidewhenhewasstandingin
the train and had kept the bag on his right side towards the
directionoftheLawCollegeandthisisimportant,whichisonthe
westside.Thenextsentenceismostimportantthatthepersonwho
hadkepttheblackbaghadkeptitontheluggagerackonthesame
side, which means on the west side. These answers are
uncontroverted.Inviewoftheseanswers,Ifailtounderstandhow
thelearnedadvocatehasmadethesesubmissionsandontheother
handtheanswergivenbyDy.SPAhir,PW144,thatthetinofthe
westernsideofthebogiewastornapartandtheanswergivenby
ACP Khandekar, PW174, that the blast had taken place on the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..621..
Ext.4825
western side of the bogie read with the contents of the spot
panchanama Ext. 540, which shows that the western side was
destroyed completely, corroborates the evidence given by Kishore
Shah,PW60.Thus,thissubmissionisincorrectandismadewithout
consideringtheentireoralanddocumentaryevidenceonthispoint.
ThesubmissionabouttheevidenceofKishoreShah,PW60,thatthe
bag was kept on the luggage rack is falsified by the evidence of
police officers is also obviously incorrect, if one considers the
answersgivenbyDy.SPAhir,PW144,inparagraph8ofhiscross
examination in which he has stated that all the four benches of
westernandeasternsideweretotallydamagedandthattheflooring
ofthebogiewasdamaged,butwasnotpusheddownorbroken,that
the portion ofthe bogie above the windows uptothe roof of the
bogiehadblownoutsidetowardsthewestsideandhisanswersin
paragraph 9 that the flooring below the blown up portion was
damaged, but not pressed down. Thus, one can gather that the
bombwasnotplacednearertothefloor,butitwasplacednearerto
theroofofthebogie,therebycausingmoredamagetotheupper
portionofthebogie.
602.
KishoreShah,PW60,statedinhischiefexaminationthathe
startedfromhisshopatabout5.00p.m.,wentthroughthesubway
to the Churchgate Station and boarded the 5.37 Virar fast local,
which was already standing on platform no. 3. In his cross
examinationhestatedthathecouldnottelltheexacttimewhenhe
reached the Churchgate Station, but the 5.37 Virar local was
standingthere.Thenhewasaskedastowhetherhehadstatedto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..622..
Ext.4825
thepolicethathereachedtheChurchgateStationat5.30p.m.and
thetrainwasalreadythereandhestatedthathecannotsaywhether
hestatedsotothepoliceandwhyitissowritteninhisstatement.
Thatportionfromhisstatementwasconfrontedtohimandproved
in the evidence of Dy. SP Ahir, PW144, and marked as Ext.
1589(5).Placingrelianceontheseanswers visavisthecontentsof
the train control charts, Exts. 3051(4), which show that the
scheduledtimeofarrivalofthistrainatChurchgatewas1730hours
and it arrived two minutes late and departed right time at 1737
hoursasperthecontentsofExt.3052(2)andasalsospecifically
givenintheNoteExt.2098,itissubmittedbythelearnedadvocate
fortheaccusedthatthewitnessstatingtothepolicethathereached
ChurchgateStationat5.30p.m.atwhichtimethetrainwasalready
thereisobviouslyfalseandshowsthathedidnotboardthattrainon
thatday.Inmyhumbleopinion,thesesubmissionsarebasedonthe
specificsuggestionthathehadstatedtothepolicethathereached
the Churchgate Station at 5.30 p.m., whereas, the portion Ext.
1589(5)readsthathecameintotheChurchgateRailwayStationin
theeveningatabout1730hours,which,tomymind,doesnotmean
thathereachedexactlyat1730hours.Hence,thissubmissiondoes
notaffecttheevidenceofthewitnessthatheboardedthe5.37Virar
fastlocal.Infact,thequestionthatwasaskedaftertheportionfrom
thestatementwasconfrontedtothewitnessandthespecificanswer
thatwasgiven,explainsthisverynicely.Hewassuggestedinthe
question that the 5.37 Virar fast local was not standing on the
platform no. 3 in the Churchgate Railway Station and the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..623..
Ext.4825
unhesitatinganswerthatthewitnessgavethathedoesnotknow
whenthattraincamebutwhenhereachedthere,itwasstanding.At
the cost of repetition, it will not be out of place to reiterate my
observationsaboutreliabilityoftheentriesinthetraincontrolcharts
provedbyAvdheshkumarShukla,DW16,inparagraph560supra
wherein after discussing the evidence of the said witness, I have
observedthatitisaquestionastowhethertheentriesinthetrain
control charts can be relied upon implicitly for holding that the
witnessisgivingfalseevidenceorthathedidnottravelinthattrain
onthatday.
603.
LearnedadvocatefortheaccusedsubmitsthatKishoreShah,
PW60,statedinhischiefexaminationthattherewasnoplacefor
sittingandincrossexaminationhealsostatedthatwhenthetwo
persons entered the train it was full and people were standing,
however,ithascomeinthecrossexaminationofACPKhandekar,
PW174, that two passengers, i.e., Nilesh Amrutlal Soni and one
moreperson,whosestatementshehadrecorded,hadstatedtohim
thattheyboardedthetrainfromplatformno.3atMarineLinesand
Nileshgotawindowseatandtheotherpersongotaseatonthe
sevenseatsbench.ThisshowsthatseatswereavailableatMarine
Lines and therefore the evidence of Kishore Shah, PW60, about
there being no place for sitting shows his falsity. In my humble
opinionthesubmissionisbaselessbecauseACPKhandekar,PW174,
wasaskedtorefertothestatementsundersection161oftheCr.P.
C.thathehadrecordedandtheircontents.Thecontentsofsuch
statementcannotbeconsideredasperlawandtheevidenceabout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..624..
Ext.4825
thecontentscannotbegivenorevenconsidered.Thedefencecould
haveveryeasilyaskedtheprosecutiontocallthesetwowitnessesfor
crossexamination or could have examined them as defence
witnessesinordertodisprovetheevidenceofKishoreShah,PW60,
that there was noplace for sitting. Hence, this submission is not
legal.
604.
respectofKishoreShah,PW60,istamperedbecauseitisadmitted
byDy.SPAhir,PW144,whorecordedthestatementofthiswitness,
thathedidnotputthedatesbelowhissignaturesinthestatements
of28witnesses,butheputthedateonlybelowthesignatureofthe
statementofKishoreShah,PW60.Atthecostofrepetitionitwill
havetobepointedoutthatthissubmissionisbaselessignoringthe
otherevidencegivenbythewitness.Dy.SPAhir,PW144,deniedthe
suggestion that PI Tajne and Khandekar of the ATS prepared the
statementofKishoreShah,PW60,andaskedhimtosignit.Hewas
askedtogothroughthecasediaryandhestatedthatthereisan
entry in the case diary that he had called him, that he is an
importantwitness,thatheisnotcomingandheorallyinformedall
thesethingstoPIKhandekarofATS,butdidnotthinkitnecessaryto
informthisinwritingtotheATSastheywereconstantlymeeting
themeveryday.Hewasnotsuggestedthatthereisnoentryinthe
case diary dtd. 14/07/06 about Kishore Shah, PW60's statement
beingrecordedonthatday,however,headmittedthatthereisno
entryinthecasediaryaboutthatwitnessafter14/07/06.Outof
curiosity,Iperusedthecasediarydtd.14/07/06ofC.R.No.156/06
JudgementMCOC21/06
..625..
Ext.4825
605.
advocatesfortheaccusedtimeandagainthatthecasediaryinthis
caseistamperedandtailored.LearnedadvocatefortheA13submits
that he has pointed out from the evidence of PI Bavdhankar,
PW152,howthenamesofwitnesseswhosestatementsheclaimsto
haverecordedarenotfoundinthecasediary.Hehaspointedoutto
thecrossexaminationofACPKhandekar,PW174,andsubmitshow
he dropped an important witness. The crossexamination of PI
Bavdhankar,PW152,onthispointisinparagraph11anditisin
respectofPWs43to47andthoughheadmittedongoingthrough
thecasediaryofC.R.No.77of2006thatthefactsofrecordingthe
statementsofthesewitnessesandtheirnamesisnotwrittentherein,
heexplainedthathehadnotmaintainedthecasediary,butSr.PI
Rathod, PW176, had maintained it and he handed over the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..626..
Ext.4825
statements,panchanamasandthedocumentsthathehadseizedto
him.ThisdoesnotconcernKishoreShah,PW60.
606.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..627..
Ext.4825
feelthathewasanimportantwitness,becausesuchthingshappen
manytimesintheVirartrain.
607.
PW60,identifiedtheA13astheA13wasshowntohimwhenhe
wasinthepolicecustodyintheBhoiwadalockup.Hesubmitsthat
theA13wasarrestedon03/10/06andwasinpolicecustodyupto
03/11/06andithascomeintheevidenceofKishoreShah,PW60,
thathewenttotheATSofficebehindBhoiwadaPoliceStationinthe
lastweekofOctober,2006,whereofficerPatiltoldhimthatthey
hadcaughtsomepersonsandaskedhimwhetherhecouldidentify
thepersonsaboutwhomhestatedinhisstatement.Hesubmitsthat
ACP Patil, PW186, admitted in his crossexamination that ACP
Khandekar,PW174,hadproducedKishoreShah,PW60,beforehim
anditwasinthefirstweekofNovemberandthatA13wasinthe
police station in the last week of October, 2006 and lodged in
Bhoiwada lockup and Kishore Shah, PW60 had come to the
Bhoiwadaoffice.HesubmitsthatA13inhisfirstcomplaintExt.4280
that he made on 09/11/06, stated that he was shown to some
personsandheelaboratedinhiswrittensubmissionsExt.2834filed
with the statement under section 313 of the Cr. P. C. and also
elaborated it when he gave evidence as DW49. He submits that
AmirKhan,PW49,andKhurshidBegum,PW51,havestatedthat
photographsoftheaccusedwereshownandallthesethingsshow
thattheinvestigatingofficersshowedtheA13tothewitnesses.
608.
InrespectofthewitnessesAmirKhan,PW49,andKhurshid
Begum,PW51,itisonlyAmirKhan,PW49,whohasadmittedthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..628..
Ext.4825
whenhewasintheATSofficehewasshownphotographsofthe
A13,however,awrongsubmissionismadethatKhurshidBegum,
PW51wasshownaphotograph.Sheflatlydeniedthisinhercross
examination,butsheadmittedthatpolicehadshowntheA13toher.
Therelevantthinghereisthatboththesewitnesseshavenotbeen
put up in the test identification parade in respect of any of the
accusedincludingtheA13andtheA13hasnotnamedtheminhis
writtenstatementExt.2834orinhisevidence.Thus,whetherornot
theyhadtheirphotographswiththemandwhetherhewasshownto
them in police custody, is immaterial insofar as Kishore Shah,
PW60,isconcerned.KishoreShah,PW60,hasflatlydeniedthathe
wasshowntheA13onthedayoftestidentificationparade,i.e.,on
07/11/06,andfurtherdeniedthatheidentifiedtheA13inthecourt
astheATSpoliceshowedhisphotographtohimandshowedthe
A13tohimintheofficeandthattheATSofficercametohishouse
twiceorthriceandshowedhimthephotographoftheA13saying
thatheisthepersontowhohehastoidentity.ACPPatil,PW186,
alsodeniedasimilarsuggestion.Asagainstthis,theA13hasvaguely
mentionedinhis application/complaintExt.4280thatduring the
police custody, police brought several people and showed him to
themandtoldthemtorememberthatitisAsif,whoisinvolvedin
the blast. No date, period or month is specified though the
applicationwasgivenasearlyason09/11/06,immediatelyafterhis
policecustodyperiodwasover.Itisobviousthatheimprovedhis
versionsubsequentlyafterprosecutionwitnesseshadbeenexamined
bymentioning in his writtenstatementExt.2834thatinthe last
JudgementMCOC21/06
..629..
Ext.4825
weekofOctober,i.e.,on31/10/06,ATSofficerACPPatilandKisan
GaikwadbroughtsomepeopletotheBhoiwadalockupandshowed
himtothemandtoldthemthatheisAsifKhanandtheyshouldsee
him properly and subsequently he came to know them to be the
witnessesMohd.Alam,PW59,KishoreShah,PW60,andSantosh
Singh,PW63.ThoughhementionedKisanGaikwadinhiswritten
statement,duringhisevidencehedidnotmentionhimandhemade
animprovementbysayingthatS.L.Patilandstaffbroughtsome
peopletoBhoiwadalockupandthosepeoplehadhispostcardsize
colour photograph in their hands, ACP Patil asked them whether
theyknowhimandtheysaidnoandthenhetoldthemtoseehim
properlyandthatheisAsifBashirKhanandhecametoknowtheir
namesasMohd.Alam,PW59,KishoreShah,PW60,andSantosh
Singh,PW63,whentheygaveevidenceincourt.Itisobviousthat
he has gone on improving the story as the case progressed and
consideringthefactthatAmirKhan,PW49,andKhurshidBegum,
PW51,havenotbeenputintheidentificationparadeandSantosh
Singh,PW63,has notbeen givena suggestion thatthe A13was
showntohimintheBhoiwadalockuporhisphotographwasshown
tohim,thestoryputforwardbytheA13isobviouslymadeupand
notacceptable.Hence,thesubmissionofthelearnedadvocateon
thispointisnotacceptableanddoesnotaffectthecredibilityofthe
witness.
609.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatthedefenceofalibiwasputto
thewitnessandhestatedthattheA13maybeondutyupto6.25
p.m. at Kandivali on 11/07/06. Other than this, the learned
JudgementMCOC21/06
..630..
Ext.4825
advocatedidnotmakeanysubmissionastowhatinferenceshould
bedrawnfromthis andtomymind,consideringthe evidenceof
KishoreShah,PW60,thattwopersonsgotdownatDadarwhich
maybearound1520minutesafter5.37p.m.,i.e.,whenthelocal
left,hecouldhaveprobablyreachedKandivalibefore6.25p.m.In
anycase,itisaninnocuousanswerbyapersonwhomaynotbe
knowingthatthisisthedefenceofalibiandthelegalimplicationsof
hisansweranditdoesnotcarrymuchsignificance,consideringthe
straightforward evidence given by Kishore Shah, PW60, about
seeingtheA13placingthebagontheluggagerackinthetrainat
Churchgatebeforethetrainstarted.
610.
advocate.Oneoutofwhichisthatthewitnesscannotdescribethe
officer,whotookhisstatementandthoughthesketchoftheperson
whomheidentifiedlateronwasnotdrawnonthedaywhenhegave
thestatement,hecouldidentifyhim.Tomymind,rememberingthe
faceofthepersonwithoutseeinghimandrememberingthefaceof
the person on seeing him are different aspects and cannot be
equated.Onemayrememberthefaceofthepersonandhisidentity
immediatelyonseeinghimaftermanydays,butonemaynotbe
able to recollect his face before seeing him, which is a normal
phenomena.Dy.SPAhir,PW144,aswellasKishoreShah,PW60,
have stated that as the sketch drawer did not come early and
KishoreShah,PW60,wasnotinaconditiontowaitlong,therefore
the sketch could not be drawn. The second submission is that
KishoreShah,PW60,wenttothepolicestationthreedaysafterthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..631..
Ext.4825
incident,whichisabigdelayconsideringtheseriousnessofthecase.
Itisnotthreedays,butitistwodaysaftertheincidentthatKishore
Shah, PW60, went the police station and that too because the
doctor had advised him rest. One can just imagine his mental
condition because of the psychological trauma thathe must have
receivedwhentheblasttookplace.Heisthefirstimportantwitness
intimeandhegoingtothepolicestationtwodaysaftertheincident
cannotbesaidtobeadelayatall.
611.
Learnedadvocatepointedouttothecontradictorystatements
madebythewitnessExts.1589(1to5)andsubmittedthatthese
are material contradictions that affect his evidence. Learned SPP
submittedthatthecontradictionsareinrespectoftheminutedetails
anditisirrelevantwhetherthewitnessgoeshomefirstortothe
doctor,sofarasthemedicalcertificateshowsthathehadgonetoa
doctor, that in respect of the description of the two persons as
mediumbuilt,itisinhisevidencethathehadgiventhedescription
andhadsaidthathewouldhelpinmakingthesketches,therefore,
at that time he did not describe them in detail. In other words
whatevercannotbeverballydescribed,wouldhavebeenprobably
pointedoutvisually,thatonlyshowsthatinhismindtheconcept
wasclearthatthereweretwopersonsandhecouldhaveidentified
thembothoroneofthem.
612.
InsofarasthecontradictedportionExt.1589(5)isconcerned,
itisalreadydiscussedbyme.ThecontradictedportionExt.1589(1)
showsthatthewitnesshadstatedtothepolicethatafterkeepingthe
bagontheluggagerack,thosepersonsstoodinbetweentherowsof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..632..
Ext.4825
seats,butdeniedthesuggestionthatithadsohappenedandthathe
doesnotrememberwhetherhehadstatedsotothepolice.Inthis
respect it is the evidence in chiefexamination that is material,
becausethewitnesshadstatedthathewasstandinginthemiddleof
thetwodoorsandwhenthepersonsenteredthecompartment,they
wentinsideandkepttheirbagontheluggagerackandthereafter
theycamethereandstoodnearhim.Nowtherowsofseatsandthe
passage in between the two doors are not so far apart so as to
differentiatethemandinthecrowdonemaybestandinginbetween
therowsofseatsaswellasnearthepersonswhoarestandingin
betweenthetwodoors.
613.
witnesshadstatedtothepolicethatheusedtotakemonthlyfirst
class pass of the railway, which he denied during his cross
examinationwhensuggested.Inthisconnectionhehadnotstated
anythingaboutthepassinhischiefexaminationandhisdenialofit
doesnotnecessarilymeanthathedidnothaveamonthlypassand
hewasnotevengivensuchasuggestion.Thecontradictedportion
Ext.1589(3)readsthathefirstwenttothedoctorandthenhewent
home, which he denied. In this connection, submission of the
learned SPP is correct. Same is the case in respect of the next
contradictedportionExt.1589(4)abouthedescribingtothepolice
thatbothpersonsweremediumbuiltaboutwhichhestatedincross
examination that the two persons were not similarly built. The
submissionofthelearnedSPPonthispointiscorrect,becausewhat
ismaterialisthatthereweretwopersonsandthathecouldhave
JudgementMCOC21/06
..633..
Ext.4825
identifiedthem.Thus,tomymind,allthesecontradictionsandthey
areveryfew,arenotmaterialanddonotaffecthiscredibilityand
exceptthecontradictionaboutthepersonsstandinginbetweenthe
rows,allotherareinrespectofperipheralmattersandarenotin
respect of the actual incident about which he deposed, and,
therefore,donotmateriallyaffecthisevidence.
614.
Learnedadvocatereadoutthenumberofimprovementsmade
bythewitnessoverhisstatementthathegavetothepolice,which
weregotprovedduringtheevidenceofDy.SPAhir,PW144,and
submitted that the nature of the omissions shows that all are
materialandtheyaffectthecredibilityothewitness.LearnedSPP
submittedthattheomissionsareaboutminutedetailsandtheydo
notchangethequalityoftheevidence,whichmattersmost.Healso
referredtohissubmissionsinrespectofastatementgivenbythe
witness to a police officer and the evidence given by him in the
court. In this connection, the explanation given by Kishore Shah,
PW60,aswellastheexplanationsgivenbyDy.SPAhir,PW144,are
veryrelevant.Whenaskedabouttheimprovements,heconsistently
statedthathedoesnotrememberthathehadstatedsotothepolice
and in paragraph 22 he gave a very normal and acceptable
explanationthathedoesnotremembertodaywhathehadstatedto
the police and what he had not stated. It will suffice if some
improvementsthatareimportanttothedefenceareonlydiscussed
and remaining are skipped in view of they being very minor or
omissions in respect of the peripheral matters not relating to the
incident.Ihavealreadyexplainedabouthisevidencethatthetwo
JudgementMCOC21/06
..634..
Ext.4825
personscamebackafterkeepingtheirbagontheluggagerackand
stoodnearhimuptoDadar.Thelastportionoftheimprovementis
infactincorrect,becauseitisnotsostatedbythewitnessthatthe
personsstoodnearhimuptoDadar.Nextishisdescriptionofoneof
thetwopersonsasbeingslightlyfatandoneofthembeingmedium
built.This,tomymind,willagainnotbeamaterialomissioninview
of there being not much difference between medium built and
slightly fat and the fact that the witness was ready to help in
preparing the sketch when he went to give the statement. His
statementincrossexaminationthathestatedtothepolicethathe
had sustained injuries on face and left hand is infact not an
improvement,becauseDy.SPAhir,PW144,corroboratedhisversion
andinviewofthemedicalcertificatebeingonrecord,itcannotbe
termedasanomissionthatwouldmateriallyaffectthiscase.About
thedescriptionofthepersons,hecandidlyadmittedandgaveavery
goodexplanationthatexceptdescribingthetwopersonsasmedium
builtandslightlyfat,hedidnotgivetheiranyotherdescriptionas
they,i.e.,thepolice,didnotaskhimandhehadconsentedtohelp
thepolicetopreparethesketch,butthesketchdrawerdidnotcome
early,therefore,heleft.
615.
Nextistheconfusionabouttheleftsideorrightsideandeast
sideorwestsideanditissubmittedbythelearnedadvocateforthe
accusedthatthisconfusionofthewitnessshows thatheis nota
truthful witness. In this respect the witness has very candidly
admittedthathedoesnotrememberwhetherhehadstatedtothe
policethatthebagwaskeptontherighthandsideluggagerack,if
JudgementMCOC21/06
..635..
Ext.4825
onestandsfacingtowardsVirarinthetrainandthenexplainedthat
he is getting confused between east and west, that he was not
confusedaboutthedirectionon14/07/06,thatwhenhegavehis
statementtothepolicehehadstatedthedirectionreferringtothe
east and west side and candidly answered that he is confused
betweenrightandleft,therefore,heisstatingaboutrightandleft
and when hegave evidence a daybefore he was confusedabout
rightandleftsideeventhenhereferredtotherightandleftside,
butdidnotrefertoeastandwestside.Thepositionofthewitness
andthesideonwhichthebagwasallegedlykepthasbeendiscussed
inparagraph601anditisobservedthatthewitnesswascorrectin
stating about it and this confusion, if any, does not affect his
evidence.
616.
Nextimprovementisaboutthewitnesshavingnotstatedto
thepolicethattherewasnocrowdinthecompartmentatMarine
Lines,thataftertheBombayCentralthetrainwastodirectlyhaltat
Dadar,thatthetwopersonshadsomeexchangeofwordswithother
passengerswhoaskedthem where theywantedtogetdown and
theytoldthepersonsthattheywantedtogetdownatDadar,that
theotherpassengersaskedthemastowhytheywerestandingso
much inside the compartment, etc. To my mind, these things
compriseofminutedetailsandmaynothavebeenrecordedbythe
policeofficer,whorecordedthestatementortheyareinthenature
ofexplanationwhilegivingevidenceincourt,wherethewitnessis
probedbytheprosecutortoelicitmoreandmoreinformation.The
nextimprovementmadebythewitnessisthathealsothoughtasto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..636..
Ext.4825
whytheyhadboardedthattrainand'troubledothers'.Theentire
portionofthissentenceisnotanimprovement,butthewordsin
invertedcommasistheonlyimprovement.Itwaslastlysubmittedby
thelearnedadvocatefortheaccusedthatthewitnesshasimproved
bystatingthathemetapolicemanontheplatform,whereas,itisin
hisevidencethatapolicemanapproachedhimwhenhewentoutof
therailwaystation.Hisevidenceaboutwhathedidaftertheblast
afterhehadfallenonthe platformbecauseoftheblastuptothe
pointwhenhewenttotheENTdoctorinthenightisbroughton
recordasomission,buttomymindthatevidenceismorebywayof
elaboration of his activity after the blast and in fact it is in the
provedportionExt.1589(3)thathehadgonetoDr.Gohilandhad
taken treatment there. The contents of medical certificate Ext.
2733(71) issued by Dr. Gohil corroborates his version. Another
improvementisthewitnessstatingthatonthatdayhestartedfrom
hisshopatabout5.00p.m.andwentthroughthesubwaytothe
Churchgate Station. If one considers the contents of the proved
portionExt.1589,whichshowsthathewentintotheChurchgate
RailwayStationatabout1730hours,itmustbethathemusthave
lefthisshopsometimebefore5.30p.m.Itisnotpermissibletoread
andreproducethecontentsofthestatementundersection161of
theCr.P.C.,butifoneperusestheportionjustbeforeExt.1589(5),
it shows that it was his birthday on that day and in order to
celebrateitwithhisfamilymembershehaddecidedtogohome.
617.
Theabovearesomeoftheomissionsthatarematerialfrom
JudgementMCOC21/06
..637..
Ext.4825
materialsoastoaffectthequalityandcredibilityofthewitness.In
thisrespect,submissionsmadebythelearnedSPPinparagraph473
duringthediscussionofSantoshSingh,PW63,inparagraph534
during the evidence of Devendra Patil, PW62, and in paragraphs
565,566and567duringtheevidenceofVishalParmar,PW74,are
squarely applicable to the omissions and contradictions of this
witnessaswellasallotherwitnesses.Therelevantcontradictions
and improvements thatcan betermed asomissions will be those
thatareinrespectofthemainincidentaboutwhichthewitnesshas
deposed and in that respect the evidence of this witness is
unscathed.
618.
Onemoreimportantthingthatispointedoutbythelearned
JudgementMCOC21/06
..638..
Ext.4825
619.
Anunacceptablesubmissionismadebythelearnedadvocate
fortheaccusedthatthroughouttheremandperiodoftheinitial
sevenaccusedandthesubsequentfouraccused,nowherethereisa
singlewhisperthatthepolicehadawitnesswiththemwhohadseen
theplanter.ThisshowsthatKishoreShah,PW60,isawitnesswhois
plantedbyPSIKisanGaikwadandSr.PITajne,PW161,andcase
diary was tampered with. I have seldom seen police mentioning
namesofwitnessesintheremandreportsandatleastonecannot
expectthisinsuchaseriouscase.Mentioningofthenameofany
eyewitnessintheremandreportwouldhaveobviouslyputthelifeof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..639..
Ext.4825
thewitnessinrisk.
620.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..640..
Ext.4825
PoliceandHomeMinistryanditisnotyetdecided.Thisexplanation
showsthatprimafacieaproperprocedurewasnotfollowedandhe
denied the suggestion that he is a master in manipulating the
investigationinthismanner,therefore,hewastakenbytheATSas
oneoftheinvestigatingofficers.Thissuggestioniswashedoutbyhis
answer in reexamination by the learned SPP that he was not
attachedtotheATSwhenhedidtheinvestigationinthiscaseand
voluntarilyaddedthattheorderwithholdinghisincrementforone
yearwasthefirstpunishmenttohiminhis28yearsofservice.Itis
inhisevidencethathewasworkingasSr.PIofBorivaliRailway
PoliceStationin2006andhadrecordedthestatementofKishore
Shah,PW60,on14/07/06inthatcapacityanditisnotthathewas
subsequentlytransferredordeputedtotheATS.Ontheotherhand,
it has come in his evidence that he handed over the papers of
investigationtotheATSon21/07/06incompliancewiththeorder
oftheDirectorGeneral,Maharashtraandoncehehandedoverthe
chargeoftheinvestigation,heceasedtobetheinvestigatingofficer
ofthatcase.Inmyhumbleopinion,theaspectofwithholdingofone
incrementofwitnessDy.SPAhir,PW144,doesnotatallaffecthis
credibility anditis alsonotshown as tohow ithas affected the
investigationdonebyhiminthiscase.
621.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthat
thereisabsolutelynoreasonwhythiswitnessshouldnotbebelieved
asanhonestandtruthfulwitness.Hehaswithstoodthetestofcross
examinationandhisevidenceiscogentandconvincingbeyondany
shadowofdoubt.Heisafullyreliableandtrustworthywitnessand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..641..
Ext.4825
thisinferenceisfortifiedbyasinglestatementmadebyhiminhis
evidence,thattooinhiscrossexamination,thoughhedidnotstate
about it in his chiefexamination. It has come in his cross
examinationinparagraph16thatthosepersonsdidnothavethe
bagwiththemwhentheygotdownatDadar.Thisstatementhasnot
beencontrovertedduringfurthercrossexamination.Thisstatement
cameafterhisanswersthatthepersonhadkepttheblackbagonthe
luggagerackonthesamesideonwhichhehadkepthisbag,that
afterthetraincrossedAndheri,hetookhisbagashewantedtoget
downatBorivaliandatthattimehesawthatblackbag,whichwas
atasmalldistancefromhisbag.Itisinrespectofthisstatementthat
thelearnedSPPsubmittedthathedoesnotknowwhetherhewill
havetopartwithpartofhisfeestothedefenceforbringingthis
evidenceonrecord.
622.
KishoreShah,PW60,isanunimpeachedandcogentevidenceand
asisallegedbythedefence,itcannotbesaidthatheisagotup
witness,becausehewenttotherailwaypolicestationon14/07/06,
i.e.,twodaysaftertheincidentwhentheATSwasnotinvestigating
thecrime.Hehasnocriminalantecedents,hehadnotactedasa
panchwitnessorawitnessinanypreviouscasetherebyhavingno
contactwiththepolice.Ihave,therefore,nohesitationinaccepting
histestimonyastruthful.Hence,itwillhavetobeheldthatbyhis
evidencetheprosecutionhasprovedthaton11/07/06,theA13had
kept a black coloured bag having chain in the firstclass
compartmentofthe5.37p.m.VirarfastlocalatChurchgateandhe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..642..
Ext.4825
wasaccompaniedbyonemoreperson.Thisiscircumstanceno.6
provedbytheprosecution.ItisagainsttheA13.
Itisthesecond
circumstanceagainsttheA13.
623.
A13 has taken the defence of alibi and the oral and
624.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..643..
Ext.4825
passengersfromPerryCrossRoad,Bandra.Though,RajeshSatpute,
PW77didnotstatethetimeatwhichhetookthesaidpassengers
andthetimewhenhereachedthematChurchgateStation,ithas
comeinhiscrossexaminationinparagraph11thatthetwopersons
engagedhistaxiatCarterRoadatabout3.30to4.00p.m.andhe
leftthematChurchgateatabout4.45to5.00p.m.SantoshSingh,
PW63, stated in his evidence that the two passengers for
Churchgatecameat3.15to3.30p.m.whenhewasatPerryCross
Road,butithasnotcomeinhisevidenceandalsonotbroughtin
crossexaminationastoatwhattimehereachedthetwopassengers
atChurchgateStation.Boththesewitnesseshavestatedthatthey
stopped the taxi near the subway from which one can go the
ChurchgateStation.Nowinrespectofthesubway,tomyknowledge,
therearethreesubwayentrances,onefromthesouthsideandtwo
fromtheeastside,bywhichonecangototheChurchgateStation,
otherthantwoentrancesfromtworoadsoneastandwestsideof
theChurchgateStation.Bythesubwayonthesouthsideandbythe
subwayontheeastsouthsideonegoesbelowaroadthatiseast
westandcomesinacommonsubwaybywhichonecangotothe
terminusorendsofallthefourtracks.Therearenoquestionsto
boththesewitnessesaboutthelocationsordirectionsofthesubway
atwhichtheypurportedlydroppedthepassengers.SantoshSingh,
PW63,wasonlyaskedinparagraph27ofhiscrossexaminationand
hestatedthathedoesnotknowwhetheratChurchgatethereare
subwaysforcrossingtheroadsandalsoforgoingtotheChurchgate
Station.Headmittedthathedidnottakepolicetothespottoshow
JudgementMCOC21/06
..644..
Ext.4825
from where he took the passengers and where he left them and
addedthatpolicealsodidnotaskhimtodoso,whichmeansthatit
isnothis fault.Thus,the twotaxi drivers have takenpassengers
fromtwodifferentplacesinBandra,butthecommonthingisthat
theyreachedthosepassengersatthesubway.Bothhaveelaborated
theroutebywhichtheywentfromBandratoChurchgateandthis
informationhasnotbeencontrovertedorprovedtobewrong.
625.
travelledinthe5.57Virarfastlocalinwhichtheblasttookplaceat
Matunga at 1624 hours. He saw the A1 keeping the bag on the
luggagerackandgettingdownatDadaralongwiththetwopersons,
whowerewithhimandherememberedlateronthattheA1went
towardsthewindowofthetrainandwassignalingsomeoneinside
thetrainbyhandtocomeoutandwhentheA1gotdownatDadar
Stationhedidnothavetherexinebagwithhim.Thiswitnesshas
got down atDadar,therefore,there was no question of he being
presentwhentheblasttookplaceandsustaininginjuries.
626.
NextisDevendraPatil,PW62.Heboardedthe5.36Borivali
slowlocalinwhichtheblasttookplaceatJogeshwariat1824hours.
HehadseentheA3keepingabagbelowtheseatnearthewindow.
Hedidnotgetdownatsomestationinbetween,butwasinthe
bogiewhentheblasttookplace,butwasnotinjured.Hehasnot
statedabouttheA3andthepersonwithhimgettingdownatDadar
oratanyotherstation.
627.
NextisVishalParmar,PW74,whotravelledinthe5.19p.m.
VirarfastlocalinwhichtheblasttookplaceatMiraRoadat1823
JudgementMCOC21/06
..645..
Ext.4825
hours.HesawtheA4andonemorepersonwithhimboardingthe
trainwitharexinebag.HedidnotstatethattheA4keptthebagon
the luggage rack or anywhere else. However, it has come in his
evidencethathegotdownatDadarandtheA4andthepersonwho
waswithhimalsogotdownatDadarandthebagwasnotwithhim.
628.
LastisKishoreShah,PW60,whoboardedthe5.37p.m.Virar
fastlocal,inwhichtheblasttookplaceat1828hours.Hesawthe
A13keepingabagontheluggagerackandtheA13andonemore
personwithhimgettingdownatDadar.Hewaspresentinthetrain
whentheexplosiontookplaceandhadsustainedinjuries.Hedid
notstateinhischiefexaminationthattheygotdownemptyhanded,
i.e.,withoutthebag.However,ithascomeinhiscrossexamination
inparagraph16thatthosepersonsdidnothavethebagwiththem
whiletheygotdownatDadar.
Itisclearfromtheabovediscussionthatthereisanoticeable
dissimilarityintheeventsaboutwhichthetwotaxidriversandthe
fourtravellersgaveevidence.Theirevidenceisnotcopybookandit
doesnotappeartobefabricated.Tomymind,iftheevidenceof
morethanonewitnessonsimilarpointsisfabricated,thereisalways
ariskoffindingitout,becauseofsomesimilaritiesintheirevidence.
Ihavealreadyacceptedtheevidenceofallthesesixwitnessesas
cogentandreliableandthedissimilarityintheeventsaboutwhich
theygaveevidenceisanadditionalfactorlendingcredencetotheir
credibilityandshowingtheirhonestyandtruthfulness.
Recoveryofbombsmakingarticles:
629.
Itisallegedbytheprosecutionthatbombswerepreparedin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..646..
Ext.4825
thehouseofA6atShivajiNagar,Govandion8,9and10/07/06and
someoftheaccusedwereentrustedwiththeworkofcollectingthe
bombmakingarticles.Forthispurpose,itisrelyingontherecoveries
ofexplosives,tracesofexplosives,chemicals,granules,detonators
andcircuitsfromsomeoftheaccused.Firstintimeistherecoveryof
RDXfromthehouseoftheA1atBasopatti,Dist.Madhubani,State
Biharon20/07/06.Sr.PITajne,PW161,gaveevidenceaboutitthat
hegatheredtheinformationfromreliablesourceon19/07/06that
theuserof9934610679,viz.,Kamal,i.e.,A1,fromBasopatti,Bihar,
isinvolvedinC.R.No.77/06ofMumbaiCentralRailwayPolice
Station,the investigation ofwhichhe wasassisting,thatafter he
passed on this information to his superiors, he was directed to
proceed for investigation to Patna and went to Patna by air
alongwithAPIKolhatkar,PW18,andPSISachinKadamandmade
stationdiaryentryno.6,Ext.1713,thecontentsofwhichheproved
and which corroborate his version and is an unchallenged
contemporaneous record. It has come in his evidence that on
reachingPatna,hecontactedtheSr.SuperintendentofPoliceandon
hisrequestKotwaliPoliceStationwasdirectedtoprovideassistance
andaccordinglyPSIRajanKumarandtwomoreofficersandstaff
andvehiclewasprovidedandtheyleftPatnaatabout8.00p.m.and
reachedatBasopattiat2.00a.m.on20/07/06.Theyreportedtothe
local Basopatti Police Station, requested PSI Rajan, PW107, then
arranged a trap near Prasad Cinema Hall in Basopatti after
preliminaryinquiryandat3.50a.m.theyaccostedtheA1andone
Khalid,thatPSIRajan,PW107,identifiedtheA1andheconfirmed
JudgementMCOC21/06
..647..
Ext.4825
it,twopanchaswerecalled,mobilesandcashamountswerefound
with both persons, Arts. 37 and 38, in their personal search
respectivelyandtheywereseizedunderpanchanamaExt.467that
waspreparedwiththehelpofpanchwitnessesAshok,PW22,and
one more. He identified the A1 in the court. His evidence is
corroboratedbytheevidenceofthepanchwitnessAshok,PW22,
PSIRajan,PW107,andAPIKolhatkar,PW18.
630.
Ithascomeinhisevidencethatthereafterhemadeinquiries
withtheA1abouthisresidenceandtheA1ledthemthereonfoot,
thatpanchasweresummonedastheywantedtocarryoutthehouse
search,theA1knockedthedoorofhishouse,whichwasopenedby
his wife, whom he identified and then they took the search and
found a plastic bag containing black coloured powder weighing
about 500 grams behind old clothes and an empty oil box kept
belowawoodencotintheroom.Hestatedaboutdrawing10grams
samplefromthepowder,wrappingitinakhakipaper,labelingand
sealingitandkeepingtheremainingpowderinaplasticjar,tyingit
with thread and labeling it with his and pancha's signatures. He
seizedallthesearticlesunderpanchanamaExt.500.Heidentified
theplasticjarArt.39andpowderArt.40inthesmallplasticbag
Art.40A.HisevidenceiscorroboratedbyAPIKolhatkar,PW18,and
panchwitnessAshok,PW22,andbothofthemalsoidentifiedthe
articles. PSI Rajan, PW107, also corroborated his version and
identifiedtheplasticjarandblackpowderinArt.39.
631.
searchoftheaccusedKhalidandpreparingpanchanamathere,but
JudgementMCOC21/06
..648..
Ext.4825
nothingincriminatingbeingfound.Therefore,thatpanchanamawas
not brought on recordand notprovedand also because the said
Khalid was discharged later from this case. It has come in his
evidencethatheputtheA1andKhalidunderarrest,intimatedhis
wifethattheyaretakingtheA1toMumbaiandalsointimatedPSI
Rajan,PW107.IthascomeinhisevidencethatheandPSISachin
KadambroughtthepersonstoMumbaibyair.Ithascomeinhis
evidence that when they found the plastic bag containing black
powder,theyinquiredaboutitwiththeA1onsuspicionandashe
failedtogiveanysatisfactoryaccountofthepowder,theysuspected
thatthepowderwasexplosivesubstance.API,Kolhatkar,PW18,as
well as PSI Rajan, PW107, corroborated his version and it is,
therefore,thathedeputedAPIKolhatkar,PW18,tocarrytheseized
explosivepowderbyroadastheywantedtogobacktoMumbaiby
airanditwasnotpossibletocarryitintheaeroplane.APIKolhatkar,
PW18,corroboratedhisversionandstatedthathereachedMumbai
on 22/07/06 and handed over the seized suspected substance to
ACPShengal,DW51,andmadeentryinthemuddemalregisterin
theKalachowkiofficeoftheATS.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,deposed
about sending the sample of black powder to the FSL, Kalina
alongwithhisforwardingletterExt.596,thecontentsofwhichhe
proved,alongwithHCAuti,PW41.HCAuti,PW41,statedthatSr.
PITajne,PW161,gavehimasealedpacketandaforwardingletter
Ext.596on31/07/06atKalachowkiofficeoftheATSforreachingit
totheFSL,Kalinaandhehandedoverthepacketandletterand
obtainedacknowledgment.HeidentifiedtheenvelopeArt.40Cthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..649..
Ext.4825
containedthesample.Thoughhesostated,ithascomeinthecross
examination of Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, that the letter was to be
signedbytheACP,butashewasnotpresent,he,i.e.,Sr.PIRathod,
PW176,signeditanditwassentbySr.PITajne,PW161.Ithas
comeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatthereportofthe
FSL, Ext. 469 in connection withthe sample was received and it
revealedthatthesamplewascontainingRDX.ThecontentsofExt.
469show thatCyclonite (RDX)andCharcoalaredetectedin the
exhibit,whichcontainsCyclonite(RDX)85%andCharcoal15%and
thatRDXisusedashighexplosive.
632.
Thusbytheevidenceofthesefourwitnesses,theseizureof
RDXfromtheA1isestablished.Allthesewitnesseshavebeencross
examinedheavilyinrespectofalltheaspects,buttheirevidencehas
remainedunshaken.BeforediscussingtheevidenceofSr.PITajne,
PW161, a short reference to the evidence of the panch witness
Ashok, PW22, will be sufficient. It has come in the cross
examinationofSr.PITajne,PW161,inparagraph19thattheywere
carryingthesealingandwritingmaterialwiththemwhentheywent
toBasopatti,thattheATSdidnothavethebrasssealonthatday
andhedidnotcarryanysealwithhim,thatheusedonlylacseal
there,thatBasopattiPoliceStationhadarubberseal,butnotbrass
sealandhedidnotusethatrubberseal.BasopattiPoliceStation
havingarubbersealandnothavingabrasssealisalsostatedbyPSI
Rajan,PW107,inhiscrossexaminationinparagraph7andithas
alsocomeinhiscrossexaminationthattheMumbaipolicedidnot
askforlacsealfromhim,theyhadbroughttheirownsealthatwas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..650..
Ext.4825
usedtosealthearticlesthattheyhadseizedatthehouseoftheA1.
InthisconnectionthepanchwitnessAshok,PW22,onlystatedthat
thesampleandthejarwaspacked,tied,labeledandthelabelwas
pastedforsealing,however,ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationas
apositivestatementthatpolicehadaffixedredsealinhispresence
onalltheseizedarticles.WhenhewasshownthejarArt.39,he
admittedthatthereisnolacsealonitandthenmadeaverypositive
statementthatthejarwasnotsealedbythelacseal,butthelacseal
wasputonthekhakipaper.Hedescribedindetailastohowthe
sample powder was sealed by stating that the sample powder of
approximately 10 grams was put in the plastic bag, then it was
wrappedinthekhakipaper,tiedwiththreadandthensealed,but
thelabelwasnotsealed.Art.40Bisthepolythenebagthathasbeen
identifiedbythreewitnessesandArt.40Cisthekhakipaperthat
wasalsoidentifiedbythem and itshows thatitis tied by white
threadcrisscross,therebeingawhitepaperlabelononeside,one
lacsealonthecrossbehindandonelacsealnearoneend.
633.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..651..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..652..
Ext.4825
not state from where he brought it or that it was with him and
though he was not asked about it in crossexamination, Ashok,
PW22,wasaskedinhiscrossexaminationthattheplasticjarwas
notinthehouseoftheaccusedandhedeniedit.Sameisthecase
aboutAPIKolhatkar,PW18,andithasalsocomeintheevidenceof
PSIRajan,PW107,thattheremainingpowderwasputinaplastic
jarthatwasinthehouse,whichhereaffirmedincrossexamination
andwhichwasnotcontroverted.
634.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..653..
Ext.4825
criminalgang.Itissubmittedthatthisshowsthatheisnotatruthful
witness.Tomymind,itisnotshownastohowthedepartmental
inquiryagainsthimaffectshisevidencewhenithasbeentestedby
crossexamination.Thus,hisevidenceaboutthesearchandseizure
atthehouseoftheA1isfullycredibleanditcorroboratesSr.PI
Tajne,PW161'sevidenceandthecontentsofboththepanchanamas,
Exts.467 and 500 corroborate his version. He gave a correct
description of the household articles like table, green coloured
landlinetelephoneonthetable,cot,suitcase,etc.,intheroomon
the ground floor of the house of the accused and also stated
correctlyabouttheprocedurebywhichtheplasticjarArt.39was
tiedwithawhitethreadandthecappastedwithlabel.
635.
PSIRajan,PW107,whowasattachedtoSpecialTaskForce,
Patna,Biharwhenhegaveevidence,wastheSHO(StationHouse
Officer) of Police Station Basopatti, District Madhubani, Bihar in
2006andasmentionedearlierhisevidencehasfullycorroborated
theevidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161.HehasdeposedabouttheATS
officersofMumbaiwithpoliceofficersofPatnacomingtohispolice
stationat2.30a.m.on20/07/06,makingtherequestforhelpin
arresting the A1 and Khalid, whose names they told and he, on
makinginquirywithlocalsources,comingtoknowthatA1wasnot
athishouseandmightcomeinthemorningtohishouse.Heproved
thecontentsofthestationdairyentryno.335inExt.1096aboutthe
arrival of the ATS officers which is a contemporaneous
uncontrovertedevidence.Hethendeposedaboutlayingofthetrap
and the A1 and the other person Khalid Aziz being accosted,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..654..
Ext.4825
searchedandthengoingtothehouseoftheA1,makingthesearch
thereandfindingblackcolourpowderfromwhichapproximately10
gramssamplewastakenoutandsealedandremainingblackpowder
beingputintheplasticjarArt.39,whichheidentified.Heproved
thecontentsofthestationdiaryentryno.336,whichisalsopartof
Ext.1096,aboutdeparturefromthepolicestationforthepurposeof
thetrap.Healsoprovedthecontentsofthestationdiaryentryno.
339,whichisalsoapartofExt.1096,whichhemadeonreturning
tohispolicestationaftertheMumbaiandPatnapolicewentback.
HeidentifiedtheA1inthecourt.Hiscrossexaminationiscovering
many points, some concerning the population of Basopatti, the
marketarea,nearestcourt,nearestsuperiorofficerandthelocation
of the spot where the accused were accosted. He gave specific
answerswithouthesitation.Insofarasthesealofhispolicestation
andlacsealandastowhatwasusedbySr.PITajne,PW161,atthe
time of seizure and how the search was conducted, his cross
examinationhasnotrevealedanythingadversethatwouldaffecthis
testimony.TheevidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,aboutuseoflacseal
for sealing khaki paper in which the plastic bag containing
approximately10gramsofblackpowderthatwastakenoutfrom
theapproximately500gramsofblackpowderhasbeendiscussed
earlier and the evidence of PSI Rajan, PW107, corroborates his
evidence.InrespectoftheidentificationoftheA1,ithascomeinhis
crossexaminationthattherewerethreechowkidarsatBasopatti,the
localchowkidarwhowaswiththemfirstidentifiedoneofthetwo
persons as A1 and all three chowkidars knew him and identified
JudgementMCOC21/06
..655..
Ext.4825
636.
Headmittedthatallthethingsdescribedbyhimtookplace
withinthejurisdictionofhispolicestationbuthedidnotprepare
anypanchanamaaboutthearticlesthatwerefound,didnotregister
anFIRinhispolicestationanddidnotfeelitnecessarytotakethe
accusedtothenearestmagistrateandforallthesehegaveavery
goodexplanationthathedidnotfeelthenecessitytodosoashe
hadnotarrestedtheaccused.Healsocorrectlyexplainedthathedid
notregisteracaseasnocasewas madeoutatthattime.Tomy
mind, I do not think that any officer of other police station will
interfereinamatterofnationalimportanceandthoughtheMumbai
ATS has jurisdiction in the State of Maharashtra only, it is but
naturalforpoliceoutsideMaharashtratorenderallpossiblehelpto
such organisation investigating terrorist act. The main issue is in
respectofhisnamebeingnotmentionedinboththepanchanamas,
i.e.,Exts.467and500,however,theuncontrovertedofficialrecord,
i.e.,thestationdiaryentriesinExt.1096,clearsthisaspect.Another
issueisthenameofPSIRanjankumaraboutwhichhestatedthathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..656..
Ext.4825
doesnotknowwhoheisandadmittedthathedidnotknowPSI
AnandkumarofBiharbefore2006,buthemethimonthatdayand
didnotmeethimthereafter.However,thisconfusionisclearedby
theevidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,aswellasbythecontentsof
stationdiaryentryinExt.1096.IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PI
Tajne, PW161, that Kotwali Police Station, Patna provided ASI
Ranjankuar,onemoreofficerbynameAnandkumar,PSIChoudhari
andstaffandvehicleandwhentheyreportedtolocalPoliceStation
Basopatti, it is PSI Rajan, PW107, to whom they requested for
assistance.Thereisnocrossexaminationtohimonthispoint.The
contentsofstationdiaryentryno.335inExt.1096showthatPI
Vasant Tajne, PSI Sachin Kadam, API Kolhatkar, other staff, PSI
Anandkumar,PSIChoudharyandstafffromPatnahadcometothe
policestationinsearchofthesuspectA1,etc.Thecontentsofthe
stationdiaryentryno.336inExt.1096showthathe,i.e.,PSIRajan,
PW107, accompanied the Mumbai ATS police alongwith his six
armed personnel for the purpose of assistance in the arrest. The
contentsofthestationdiaryentryno.339showsthathereturnedto
thepolicestationalongwitharmedpoliceandthisdiaryexplainsin
detail as to where the A1 and Khalid Aziz were accosted and
searchedandwhatwasfoundwiththem.Thus,thereisnodoubtas
towhetherPSIRajan,PW107,accompaniedSr.PITajne,PW161,
forthesearchandseizureonthatday.Thus,theevidenceofPSI
Rajan,PW107,isacogentevidenceandhiscrossexaminationhas
notaffecteditandithasfullycorroboratedtheevidenceofSr.PI
Tajne,PW161.
JudgementMCOC21/06
637.
..657..
Ext.4825
638.
Thereisanissueaboutsealingthekhakipaperinwhichthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..658..
Ext.4825
thatSr.PITajne,PW161,wascarryingsealingandwritingmaterial
withthemandheusedonlylacsealtosealthekhakipaperArt.40C
withoutembossingthelacsealbyanybrassseal.Infurthercross
examination,hewasshowntheforwardingletterExt.596alongwith
which HC Auti, PW41, had taken the said sample to the FSL at
Kalinaon31/07/06andhestatedthathehadnotusedtheseal,the
impressionofwhichisonExt.596,thatthesealimpressionisof
Police Station Kalachowki and they used the seal of that police
stationtilltheyreceivedtheirownseal.Infurthercrossexamination
he admitted that there is a prescribed procedure for sealing the
articles that are seized during the investigation to rule out the
possibilityoftamperingandatBasopattiaftertakingthechargeof
articlesheputthesampleofblackpowderinseparatesmallplastic
bags, wrapped them in separate khaki paper, pasted labels
containinghisandpanchassignatures,tiedthreadandputlacseal
ontheknot.Hewronglyansweredthatitdidnothappenthathe
onlytiedthreadonthekhakipacketsandwhenshownthepacket
Art.40C,headmittedthatthreadistiedonthepacketfirstandthen
labelispasted.
639.
Insofarasthebrasssealimpressiononthekhakipaperpacket
Art.40Cisconcerned,itisonthebacksidenearthelacsealandis
notonthelacsealandisobviouslyofPoliceStationKalachowki.
The two lac seals having no brass seal impression on them
corroborates the evidence of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, PSI Rajan,
PW107,Ashok,PW22,andAPIKolhatkar,PW18.Ext.596isthe
forwardingletteranditcontainsasimilarimpressionoflacseal.Itis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..659..
Ext.4825
notthecaseoftheprosecutionthatimpressionofthebrasssealof
PoliceStationKalachowkiwasputonthelacsealonthissample.It
hascomeintheevidenceof HCAuti,PW41,thatonreceivingthe
sealedpacketfromSr.PITajne,PW161,alongwithforwardingletter
Ext.596,hehadcheckedthelacsealandbrasssealonthepacket
andsignaturesontheletteranditscopyandithaspositivelycome
inhiscrossexaminationthatinJuly,2006theywereusingtheseal
ofPoliceStationKalachowkibecausetherewasnosealfortheATS.
HisevidenceisunshakenanditcorroboratestheevidenceofSr.PI
Tajne, PW161, and the contents of Ext. 596 corroborate the
evidenceofbothofthem.ThecontentsofExt.596areprovedbySr.
PIRathod,PW176.
640.
KalachowkiundertheRTIAct,Exts.2007to2009,asuggestionwas
given to Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, that it was only once, i.e., on
07/07/06,thatthebrasssealofPoliceStationKalachowkiwasused
byHC14438oftheATS.However,tomymind,thereisadifference
betweengivingthebrasssealofthepolicestationforuseoutsidethe
policestationandsomeonegoingtothepolicestationandtaking
the seal on a sealed packet. Even otherwise, the suggestion
presupposesthatthesampleofRDXwas preparedasearlyason
07/07/06,i.e.,fourdaysbeforetheblastanditisthissamplethat
wassenttotheFSL.Iamafraidonecannotstretchone'simagination
tosuchanextentandconsideritasaprobability.
641.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..660..
Ext.4825
PW107,identifiedoneofthemassuspectKamalandithascomein
theevidenceof PSIRajan,PW107,thatthelocalchowkidar,who
was with them, first identified one of the two persons as Kamal
AnsarianditcameinthecrossexaminationofSr.PITajne,PW161,
that the constable chowkidar who knew the accused was present
with them during the entire proceedings. Sr. PI Tajne, PW161,
stated the exact timings of both the panchanamas and his entire
crossexamination has not caused any dent in his evidence. The
contentsofboththepanchanamasExts.467and500corroboratehis
version.
642.
InsofarasthesearchinthehouseoftheA1,wheretherewere
twowomen,intheabsenceofanyladypoliceperson,Sr.PITajne,
PW161,deniedthesuggestionthathedidnotfeelitnecessaryto
callaladyconstable,thathehadinquiredatthepolicestationand
had come to know that no lady constable was available. In this
respect,ithascomeinthecrossexaminationofPSIRajan,PW107,
thattherewasnoladypolicememberinthatteam,thattheyhad
offeredtheirsearchestothe membersofthehouse,wife,mother
and45childrenoftheaccusedwereinthehouse,thattherewasno
malememberinthehouse,thathecannotsaywhetheraMuslim
woman can take search of the person of male police officers.He
positivelystatedthatheandSr.PITajne,PW161,askedthewoman
to take their search and also told them that they can get their
searches done from anyone, if they wish. Thus, his evidence
corroboratestheevidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,andthoughthe
factofofferingtheirsearchisnotmentionedinthepanchanamaExt.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..661..
Ext.4825
500,theirevidenceiscogentandinfacttheA1,husbandofoneof
thewomaninthehouse,waspresentwiththepoliceandshecould
have asked him to take their searches on her behalf. Thus, this
aspectdoesnotaffectthecredibilityoftheevidenceofsearch.
643.
Sr.PITajne,PW161,wasfurthergrilledabouttherebeingno
recordofthesourceofinformationthathehadreceivedaboutthe
A1, about monitoring of STD and ISD calls, whether ATS was
suspecting a particular SMS, the details about their travel from
MumbaitoPatnabyairandcomingback,theirreportingtoPatnaat
theofficeofSr.SP,thejourneyperiodfromPatnatoBasopatti,etc.,
andhegavesatisfactoryanswersandclarifiedallthethingsthathe
knew. He was asked about his mobile, when he stated that he
intimatedhissuperiorsimmediatelyafterthearrestoftheaccusedin
themorningof20/07/06fromhismobileno.9324282188,and,it
hascomeinhisevidencethatthemobilewasnotinhisname,itwas
inthenameofhisfriend,whowasabusinessmanwhomhehadmet
whenhewasatL.T.MargPoliceStation,etc.,andasuggestionwas
giventohimthatthesaidperson'snamewasKishorePopatlalShah,
i.e.,PW60,andhedeniedthatheintroducedthesaidKishoreas
eyewitness.However,hedeniedknowledgeaboutwhetherthesaid
person's name is Kishore Popatlal Shah. He is not even aware
whetherthesaidpersonisawitnessinthiscase.
644.
Hisevidencewastriedtobediscreditedbyaskinghimabout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..662..
Ext.4825
However,heclarifiedthatitwasafalseanticorruptioncase,which
is so mentioned in the judgement, by which he was honorably
acquittedinthatcaseanditisprovedonrecordthathewasnot
involved.Thus,thisaspectdoesnotaffecthisevidence.
645.
AstrangesuggestionwasgiventohimthattheA1wasinhis
custodypriorto20/07/06andaspertheplanchalkedoutbythe
ATS,he preparedthe panchanama and station diaryentry.In my
humbleopinion,itdoesnotappealtothereasonthatwithinnine
daysfromthebombblaststheATShadchalkedoutthemasterplan
offirstinvolvingtheA1,whowasaresidentofBasopattiinDist.
Madhubani,BiharandofshowingtherecoveryofRDXfromhim.
ThearrestoftheA1isfirstintimeandbynostretchofimagination
itcanbe accepted thatthe investigating machinery,i.e.,the ATS,
started manufacturing the evidence right from the day one when
theywereentrustedwiththeinvestigationofthebombblasts.
646.
Otherthantheabove,thereisnothingintheevidenceofSr.PI
Tajne,PW161,todiscredithisversionaboutthesearchandseizure
ofblackpowderthatwasfoundinthehouseoftheA1,whichturned
outtobeRDX.OneBharatlalMandal,PW20,Mukhiya,Basopatti
Paschimi,wasexaminedtoprovethattheA1livesinthehousefrom
whichtherecoveryofRDXwasmadeandheprovedhiscertificates
Exts.491and492andthevoter'slistExt.493.Thereisnodispute
fromthesideoftheaccusedabouthisresidenceinHouseno.83,
Wardno.8andthathisnameisenteredinvoter'slistatsr.no.550.
647.
LearnedadvocateShettyrepresentingtheA1submitsthatthe
presentaccusedhavebeenarrestedinthiscaseandtheevidencehas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..663..
Ext.4825
beenmanipulatedandplantedjusttocooldownthepublicoutcry.
Tomymind,thereisnoevidencefromthesideofthedefencethat
therewasapublicoutcryandtherecouldnothavebeenapublic
outcrybecausewithinaperiodof1015dayssevenaccusedwere
arrested and the investigation was going on speedily. Learned
advocatesubmitsthattherecoveryoftheallegedRDXfromtheA1
has no connection to the RDX that was used for committing the
present blast and cannot be linked to the blasts in Bombay even
through the confessional statements. Secondly, even if the entire
materialistakenasitis,nowhereitisestablishedbytheprosecution
thattheA1isapersonwhowasapartoftheconspiracyandhad
participatedinit.Evenaccordingtotheprosecutionhewasatotally
newpersonsofarasBombayisconcerned,havingnoassociationor
relationwiththerestoftheaccused.Hequestionstheprobabilityof
theRDXkeptbytheaccusedinhishousebyraisingaquestionasto
whetheritispossiblethatamanhavingafamily,consistingofwife,
motherandfourchildren,knowingverywellthatheisinpossession
ofexplosiveswillkeepitinhishousesoopenlywhenaccordingto
theprosecutionitwasgiventohiminMay,2006andheretainedit
tillhisarreston20/07/06.Hesubmitsthatitisnotthatthehouseof
theA1isisolatedandthatnobodyelsewasresidingthere.
648.
Inmyhumbleopinion,itisestablishedbytheprosecutionby
cogentevidencethatRDXwasfoundinthehouseoftheA1anditis
fortheA1toexplainhowhekeptitandwhyhekeptitthere.Itis
not that an explosive powder catches fire or explodes just by
handlingit.Ithastogothroughsomeotherprocesstobeableto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..664..
Ext.4825
explodeandtheinvestigatingmachinerycannotbefoundfaultwith
asitwasincumbentuponthemtoexploreallpossibleleadsandthis
wasthefirstintime.Inmyhumbleopinion,whetherornottheRDX
found with the A1 was used in the blast in this case is not the
question.Theimportantthingiswhatisfoundanditsrelevancyor
commonalitytowhatisfoundatthesitesoftheblastsandwiththe
otheraccused.
649.
Inrespectoftheseizureandsealing,learnedadvocatesubmits
JudgementMCOC21/06
650.
..665..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..666..
Ext.4825
besaidthattheinvestigatingmachineryinthiscaseisatfaultinnot
registeringacaseimmediatelyatBasopattiandwaitingforsucha
longperiod.
651.
Hisnextsubmissionisthatsignaturesoflocalpolicehavenot
beentakenonanyofthepanchanamas.Obviously,thissubmissionis
madeignoringthefactthatnamesoftheofficersandstafffromthe
KotwaliPoliceStation,Patnaarewritteninbothpanchanamasand
thecontemporaneousrecordbywayofstationdiaryentriesmadeby
PSI Rajan, PW107. Thus, learned advocate's submission, that all
thesefactorsweighagainsttheprosecutionmakingtheentiresearch
andseizuresuspiciousandartificial,isnotcorrect.
652.
LearnedadvocateagainrepeatedhissubmissionsaboutSr.PI
Tajne,PW161,nottakinganyactionatBasopattiPoliceStationafter
suspectingthattheblackpowderfoundwasexplosive.Duringhis
submission inrespectoftheevidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,he
submitsthatifthepoliceofficerhadadoubtaboutthepowderthat
it may be an explosive and if he has aware that possessing an
explosivesubstanceisbannedinBihar,thenifatallanyoffencewas
committed it was committed at that day and that too within
jurisdictionofBasopattiandnotinthejurisdictionofMumbai.Even
then this officer neither makes a report nor hands over the
concernedcontrabandtothelocalpolicestationandthisgoestothe
rootofthecaseandshowsthaton20/07/06nothingwasfoundin
thehouseoftheA1.Theofficerwasnotforbiddenfromlodgingthe
complaint, giving a sample of the contraband alongwith copy of
panchanamatotheconcernedpolicestation.Sinceithasnotbeen
JudgementMCOC21/06
..667..
Ext.4825
doneitwillshowthatnoblackpowderorcontrabandasallegedhas
beenrecoveredorfoundonthatdayinthathouse.Hesubmitsthat
theevidenceandthemannerinwhichtheinvestigationiscarried
out makes it clear that it was not done with seriousness, the
approach was very casual and no safeguards were taken and the
acceptedprocedureandguidelinesthatoughttohavebeentaken
arenotthere.Ihavealreadydealtwiththisaspect.Thoughitistrue
that Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, did not lodge any complaint or give
sampletothelocalpolicestation,thefactremainsthatstationdiary
entrieshavebeenmadeaboutthesearchandseizureandalsoabout
findingblackpowderlikesubstance.Thestationdiaryentryno.339
inExt.1096isaboutit.InthisconnectionthelearnedSPPhasrightly
submitted that the contemporaneous record made by a different
policestationisimportant,becauseassumingthereisdiscrepancyin
the evidence of the witnesses, it does not go to the root of the
matter.Thelawcannotbetakentoanabsurditythateverybodyis
managedandtherecordofBasopattiisalsomanaged.Inmyhumble
opinion,thereisnoprocedurallapse,becausewhentheexplosive
wasfoundinthehouseoftheA1,itwas primafacie inconnection
with CR No. 77/06 of Mumbai Central Railway Police Station
concerning the blast that had taken place. Hence, there was no
questionoflodgingareportorgivinganysampletothelocalpolice
station.
653.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhan'ssubmissioninrespectofthis
searchandseizureismainlypertainingtothesealingaspectandthe
useofbrasssealofKalachowkiPoliceStationonthekhakipacket,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..668..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..669..
Ext.4825
usedoncebygoingtothepolicestationtosealthesampleofblack
powdercollectedfromthehouseoftheA3and,thisisimportant,
that station diary entry was not made to that effect. Thus, the
submissionoflearnedadvocateonthispointthatsamplewasnot
properly sealed by the investigating machinery is not proper and
acceptable. In this connection, the learned SPP Raja Thakare
submittedthatonemoreverycrucialstepthatwastakenshowsthe
absolutehonestyoftheinvestigatingagency.Afterthearrestofthe
A1, recovery of black powder, sending it to the CA and report
showingittobeRDX,theconductoftheinvestigatingagencywas
thateventhentheywerenottoosureorconvincedthatthiswould
betheevidenceagainsttheA1inthiscase.Therefore,thenormal
stepthattheytookis as deposedbySr.PI Tajne, PW161.It has
comeintheevidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,thatonreceivinga
copy of the FSL report, Ext.469, on 05/09/06 from ACP Patil,
PW186,thattheblackpowderwashighexplosiveRDX,herecorded
API Kolhatkar, PW18's, statement as an FIR, registered a case
against the A1 at Sr. No. 0 as the powder was found in Bihar,
submittedareporttohissuperiortotransfertheinvestigationofthe
crime to Police Station Basopatti and made station diary entry,
certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1717.Ithascomeinhiscross
examination that he was entrusted with the investigation of this
crimeandAPIKolhatkar,PW18,andPSIKadamwereassistinghim
intheinvestigation.HisevidenceabouttheregistrationoftheFIR
Ext.468isnotchallengedinhiscrossexaminationandinfactthere
isnocrossexaminationtohimonthisaspect.APIKolhatkar,PW18,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..670..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..671..
Ext.4825
654.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..672..
Ext.4825
655.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedthatRDXwasfoundinthehouseoftheA1
on 20/07/06. This is the circumstance no. 7 proved by the
prosecution. It is against the A1. It is the second circumstance
againsthim.Tomymind,itisarelevantcircumstanceconsidering
theproximityofthedateofhisarresttothedateoftheblastand
findingofRDXinhishouseimmediatelyafterhisarrest.
656.
SubsequentintimeisthefindingoftracesofRDXinthehouse
oftheA3on28/07/06,immediatelyonthenextdayofhisarreston
27/07/06.IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,that
after receiving a memo on 27/07/06 from Crime Branch, UnitII
abouttakingtheA3andA9intheircustodyinconnectionwithC.R.
No.77of2006ofMumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation,heandhis
squad went to that office, made inquiry with the accused and
arrestedthemunderpanchanamaExt.1941andthecrimebranch
gave them a covering letter Ext. 1942 and certified true copy of
stationdiaryExt.1943aboutinquiringwiththesaidaccusedand
handingthemover.Ithascomeinhisevidencethattheyreturnedto
theofficeandmadestationdiaryentryno.14,certifiedtruecopyof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..673..
Ext.4825
whichisatExt.1944,producedtheaccusedonthenextdaybefore
the concerned court and obtained their police custody upto
09/08/06andintheeveningofthatdayitself,i.e.,on28/07/06
proceeded with both the accused, i.e., A3 and A9, to Bandra
alongwith ACP Shengal, DW51, PSI Kshirsagar and staff after
makingstationdiaryentryno.10,truephotocopyofwhichisatExt.
1947.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathewentnearthehouseofthe
A3 in Bandra, that some people had gathered at the Perry Cross
Road,CarterRoad,Bandra(W),Mumbai,thathetoldhisstafftocall
personstoactaspanchasandhisstaffbroughttwopersonswho
consentedtoactaspanchwitnessandtoldthemaboutthepurpose
ofthesearch,thattheveiloftheA3wasremoved,hewasshownto
thepanchas,hisnamewastoldandthepanchasweretoldthathis
housesearchwastobetaken.ThepanchwitnessSanfordFernandes,
PW31,corroboratedhisversionandithascomeinhisevidencethat
the other veiled person was kept in the jeep. It has come in the
evidenceofboththattheA3ledthemtohishouseonthe3rdfloorin
theLuckyVillaBuilding,thattheroomwasontherightsideand
foundtobelockedandoninquirywiththeA3aboutthekeyofthat
lock,hetookitoutfromagap/crackontherightsideabovethe
door.Policeaskedhimbeforeenteringtheroomwhetherhewanted
totaketheirandpanchassearch,theaccusedsaidnoandthenthey
enteredtheflat.Bothdescribedthesearchandfindingofthearticles
thataredescribedindetailinparagraph90ofthejudgment.Both
identifiedall the articles in the courtandthe panchwitnessalso
identified the A3. Both identified their signatures on the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..674..
Ext.4825
panchanamaExt.533thatwaspreparedinrespectofthesearchand
seizure of the articles and the contents of the panchanama
corroboratetheirversionfully.Theimportantandrelevantarticles
that were recovered are black powder that was wiped by cotton
swab, Art. 146, registration book of Bajaj Pulsar motor cycle No.
MH01TA9542inthenameoftheA9andcertificateofinsurance
Arts.148and148A,receiptdated10/01/05fortheamountofRs.
59,500/issuedbyBajajChoiceCenterinthenameoftheA9Art.
148C,photocopiesofcertificateofinsurance,registrationcertificate
anddrivinglicenceinthenameoftheA9andA3Arts.148Dto148F,
photocopyofleaveandlicenceagreementArt.149,i.e.,Ext.537,
eightbooksallegedlyissuedbySIMIorganisationArts.150to152,
mapofMumbaiArt.153,learninglicenceanddrivinglicenceinthe
nameoftheA3,Arts.155and156andaninternationalmapArt.
161,i.e.,Ext.1486.Themobileandnotesarenotsorelevantand
important.30SaudiRiyalsofthedenominationof500eachwere
alsorecovered.Theyarenotbeforethecourt.
657.
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,andpanchwitnessSanfordFernandes,
PW31,thendeposedaboutthesearchandseizureatthehouseof
theA9atMiraRoad.Thatpartoftheevidencewillbeconsidered
subsequently, but it has come in the evidence of Sr. PI Rathod,
PW176,thattheythereafterreturnedtotheofficeandstationdiary
entryno.10dated29/07/06,certifiedcopyofwhichisatExt.1951,
wasmadeasitwasaftermidnightand,thisisimportant,thatthe
seized property was deposited with the muddemal clerk. The
contents of the station diary entries Exts. 1944, 1947 and 1951
JudgementMCOC21/06
..675..
Ext.4825
corroboratetheir versionofhavinggoneforthesearchandwhat
wasfoundinthesearchofboththeaccused.
658.
PW176,andalsosearchingcrossexaminationtoSanfordFernandes,
PW31,however,exceptthemistakethatSanfordFernandes,PW31,
committedinrespectoftherebeingnoterraceonthe3rdfloor,rest
of his crossexamination has not discredited his version or
impeachedhiscredibility.Onthecontrary,hehasgivenadditional
positiveinformationduringhiscrossexaminationwhichshowshis
credibility. This witness has no criminal antecedents and nothing
was brought out in his crossexamination to show his connection
withthepoliceorthathehadactedaspanchwitnessorawitness
forthepoliceortheATSatanytimepriortothatday.Hisevidence
inspiresconfidenceandIhavenohesitationtoaccepthistestimony
astruthfulandcorroboratingtheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176.
AneffortwasmadeduringthecrossexaminationofSr.PIRathod,
PW176,toshowthatACPShengal,DW51,whoaccompaniedthem
forthesearchandseizure,wasconnectedwiththepanchwitnessas
the panchwitness is from Bandra and ACP Shengal,DW51, was
attachedtoBandraPoliceStation.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,admitted
that he had worked as Sr. PI of Bandra Police Station, but he
expressedignoranceastowhetherLuckyVillaandPerryCrossRoad
arewithinthejurisdictionofthatpolicestation.However,heturned
down the suggestion that both the panchas were known to ACP
Shengal,PW51,andhadactedforhimaspanchasearlier,forwhich
thereisnoevidenceandisobviouslyabaselesssuggestion.Onthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..676..
Ext.4825
otherhand,SanfordFernandes,PW31,wasnotgiventhesuggestion
that he was acquainted with ACP Shengal, DW51, but he was
suggestedthatheiswellacquaintedwithpoliceofficerRathodwho
tookhissignaturesonthealreadypreparedpanchnamas,whichhe
denied. As mentioned earlier there is nothing in the cross
examinationofSanfordFernandes,PW31,todiscredithisversion
andontheotherhandsomepositiveinformationhascomeinhis
crossexamination, which though not stated by him in his chief
examination,isfoundinthepanchanamaExt.533,i.e.,thenameof
thegroundoutsidewhichhewasstandingonthatday,i.e.,Bharat
KridaMandalgroundandthenameoftheotherpanchwitnessas
Christopher.Hecorrectlystatedthattheywereintheflatforabout
twohours.Thereisobviouslyawrongadmissionbyhiminrespect
ofthemapsArts.161and165thatthenos.885and887wereon
themwhentheywereseized,whereasthosenumbersareobviously
thenumbersofthepapersinthechargesheet.ThelearnedSPPhas
rightly submitted that this witness has no antecedents, no vested
interest, no previous connection with the police and he has not
exaggeratedanything,whichshowsthathisevidenceisofasterling
qualityandheisnotapersonwhoispliableatthehandsofpolice.
659.
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,aswellasthepanchwitnessSanford
JudgementMCOC21/06
..677..
Ext.4825
satisfactoryansweroninquirywiththeA3abouttheblackpowder
andasitwasnecessarytocollectthepowderaheadconstablewas
sentoutsidetobringcotton,thathebroughtit,itwasdividedin23
swabs and the powder was wiped with the swabs. Collecting the
powder by cotton swabs is written in the panchanama, however
sending a head constable to bring cotton, etc., is not in the
panchanama.Inmyhumbleopinion,therewasnoreasonforboth
thesewitnessestosaythisandtheycouldhavesimplystatedthat
theblackpowderwaswipedwithcottonswabs,becauseithascome
inthecrossexaminationofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatthewriting
pads, papers and packing material were with them when they
started from the office, which could have included cotton swabs
also. If, as alleged by the defence, this evidence of search and
seizure of incriminating articles is fabricated, to my mind, it was
veryeasytomentioninthepanchanamathattheyhadcottonswabs
with them. On the other hand, Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, candidly
admittedthathehadnottakencottonswabswhenhestartedforthe
searchanditisnotinthepanchanamathataheadconstablewas
senttobringthecotton.Thus,merelythesethingsbeingnotwritten
inthepanchanamawillnotaffecttheconsistenttestimonyofboth
thewitnesses.
660.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhangaveveryfunnysuggestionsto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..678..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..679..
Ext.4825
statedandhealsoexplainedatplacesthatsomethingsarewritten
inotherwords.Healsoexplainedthatthoughhestatedsomethings,
ACPPatil,PW186,didnotwritethemsayingthattherearestation
diaryentriesaboutit.Tomymind,theseexplanationsandcertain
portionsfromhisstatementthatwerepointedout,haveclarifiedthis
aspectandhasshownthattheallegedimprovementsandomissions
areinfactnotsoandtheydonotaffecthisevidence.
661.
afterreturningbacktotheofficehedepositedtheseizedproperty
withthemuddemaldepartment,i.e.,on29/07/06andhadsentthe
cottonswabscontainingtheblackpowdertotheFSLalongwithhis
forwarding letter, office copy of which is at Ext. 598 and
subsequentlyhereceivedthereportoftheFSLExt.599.Beforethat
hestatedthathehadsentthecottonswabstotheFSL,Kalinaon
03/08/06 alongwith his forwarding letter, but the packet was
returnedasitwasnotsealedanditwasinformedthattheyshould
affixlacsealofanypolicestationandsenditback.Therefore,PC
More, PW42, was sent to the Kalachowki Police Station on
04/08/06toputthelacsealonthesaidpacket.Hedidasdirected
andreachedthesamplewiththeoriginalforwardingletter,office
copyofwhichisatExt.598.Hiscrossexaminationonthispointhas
not revealed anything adverse. The letter Ext. 598 is dated
03/08/06,hestatedthathesignediton04/08/06.Thecontentsof
Ext.598corroboratehisversion,becausethedate04/08/06isinhis
handwritingbelowhissignatureattheendoftheletter.Hestated
thathedidnotgotothepolicestationKalachowkiandputsealon
JudgementMCOC21/06
..680..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..681..
Ext.4825
2).Theyaredated03/08/06andbearingoutwardno.748,whichis
the same number that was put on Ext. 598. Thus, his cross
examination has not discredited his version about sending the
sampletotheFSL.ThebrownpacketArt.40Ccontainsalabelon
thefrontsidecontainingthedescriptionofcrimenumberandthe
contentsofthepacketandsignaturesofSr.PIRathod,PW176,and
panchasanditispastedonwhitethreadwhichistiedcrisscrosson
the packet.Onthe back side there is alac seal obviouslyon the
junction of the four threads running crisscross and it is of Police
StationKalachowki.Thelabeliscoveringtheknotofthethreadson
thetopside.
662.
Rathod,PW176,inallrespects.IthascomeinhisevidencethatSr.
PIRathodcalledhiminhisofficeatBhoiwadaon03/08/06,gave
himaforwardingletterandtheofficecopyforgivingtotheCA,FSL,
Kalina,toldhimtogotothemuddemalclerkattheofficeoftheATS
atKalachowki,collectaboxwrappedinabrownpaper,sealedand
withlabelandtoreachittotheofficeoftheCAandgaveachitto
begiventothemuddemalclerk.Hewentthere,gavethechit,took
theboxthathegave,madeentryinthemuddemalregisterandalso
madeastationdiaryentryintheATSpolicestationatKalachowki.It
hascomeinhisevidencethatwhenhetriedtohandovertheboxto
theinwardclerkattheofficeoftheCA,hedidnotacceptitsaying
thatitshouldhavelacsealandthoughhetoldhimthatitisfromthe
ATS,etc.,theclerktoldhimtogetthesealofanypolicestationon
theboxandthenhewouldacceptit,therefore,hereturnedback
JudgementMCOC21/06
..682..
Ext.4825
and,thisisimportant,thathedepositedtheboxwiththemuddemal
clerkatKalachowki,madeanentryinthemuddemalregisteraswell
asstationdiaryandwenttothe officeatBhoiwada andtoldthe
eventstoSr.PIRathod,PW176.Ithascomeinhisevidencethaton
thenextday,i.e.,on04/08/06,Sr.PIRathod,PW176,madesome
necessarychangesintheletter,toldhimtogotoKalachowki,collect
the box, go to Police Station Kalachowki, put the lac seal of the
police station on that box and ink impression of the seal on the
originalletterandonitsofficecopyandthentotaketheboxtothe
CA. He did so accordingly, deposited the box and obtained
acknowledgmentonExt.598,returnedtoBhoiwadaofficeandgave
Ext.598 to Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, who took his statement on
13/08/06,ashe,i.e.,Sr.PIRathod,PW176,wasbusyonthatday
and PC More, PW42, was attached to that unit itself. His cross
examinationhasnotrevealedanythingexceptthathedidnotmake
entryon04/08/06inthemuddemalregister.Hecouldnotsaywhat
happenedtotheletterof03/08/06anditsofficecopy.Therefore,
Exts.601(1or2)wereproducedduringhiscrossexaminationand
infacttheircontentscorroboratewhathehadstated.Strangelyhe
wasgivenasuggestionandheadmittedthaton3rdand04/08/06Sr.
PIRathod,PW176,didnottakeoutthepacketfromhispossession
andhanditovertohimandhemadeaverypositivestatementthat
onbothdayshetooktheboxfromthemuddemalclerk.Hehonestly
replied that when he took the packet from muddemal clerk on
03/08/06,hehadrealizedthattherewasnolacseal,butdidnotgo
toSr.PIRathod,PW176,andtellhimaboutit.Theprocedureof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..683..
Ext.4825
sealinganyarticlebylacsealandbrasssealhasbeendescribedby
himperfectly.InrespectofhisomissionthathedidnottellSr.PI
Rathod,PW176,whenhegavehisstatementabouttheeventsof
03/08/06,hegaveaverygoodexplanationthatashehadgiventhe
informationtoSr.PIRathodon03/08/06aboutit,hedidnottellit
again on 13/08/06 when he gave his statement. Some other
improvementsarebroughtonrecordinrespectofwhattranspired
on04/08/06,buttherecord,i.e.,officecopyofforwardingletter
Ext.598 and the brown paper, Art. 40C, corroborate what he has
explained.InconnectionwithhisvisittoPoliceStationKalachowki,
he was crossexamined by learned advocate Wahab Khan and he
statedthathedidnottakeanyletterofSr.PIRathodoranyother
officertoPoliceStationKalachowkiaboutputtingthelacseal,that
hedidnotgiveanyapplicationtothepolicestationaboutit,that
KalachowkiPoliceStationdidnottakehissignatureintheirrecord
anddidnotmakeanyentryabouthisvisitandtheworkthatwas
done.ThelastisapositivesentenceasisstatedbySr.PIRathod,
PW176.PCMore,PW42,furtherstatedthathehadneverseenthe
seal of Police Station Kalachowki at the ATS office. Thus, his
evidenceisunimpeachedanditfullycorroboratestheevidenceofSr.
PIRathod,PW176.Therearenocontradictionsinhisaswellasin
theevidenceofSanfordFernandes,PW31.
663.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..684..
Ext.4825
calledforthestatementofthebankaccountfromtheICICIbankand
ACPTawdegavethelettertothebank,officecopyofwhichisatExt.
1948dated31/07/06andgotattestedcopyofthebankaccountthat
isinthenameofthefatheroftheA3,Ext.1950,andstatedthat
fromthisitshouldbegatheredthatthechequegivenbytheA3to
theflatownerSajid,PW48,wasfromthebankaccountofhisfather
and the said entry is reflected in the statement. Though Sr. PI
Rathod,PW176,didnotstateinhischiefexaminationthathetook
the statement of Sajid, PW48, in his crossexamination some
portionsthatwereconfrontedtothewitnessweregotprovedfrom
him.IthascomeintheevidenceofSajid,PW48,thathisstatement
wasrecordedbythepoliceandatthattimeheproducedtheoriginal
agreementExt.632andthezeroxcopyofhisbankpassbookArt.
263.Itisinhisevidencethatherentedoutonepartoftheflatno.
24ontheterraceofLuckyVilla,'A'buildingandduringtheirtalk
about the terms and conditions, the customer who was initially
introduced by the broker as Sameer, told him his name as Faisal
ShaikhandexplainedthatheisfondlycalledasSameer.Ithascome
inhisevidencethattheagreementwasexecutedfor11monthsand
he got the token amount of Rs.22,500/ in cash, cheque of Rs.
50,000/ and balance deposit of Rs.27,500/ in cash and stated
aboutthetermsofrent.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatthecheque
amountwascreditedtohisaccountintheAbhyudayabank,Link
Road,Bandra(W)branch.HeidentifiedtheA3unhesitatingly.His
crossexaminationismainlyconcerningthedescriptionoftheflat,its
area,etc.,andinfurthercrossexaminationithascomeonrecord
JudgementMCOC21/06
..685..
Ext.4825
thatatthetimeofagreementtheA3saidthathisnameisFaisal,but
he is fondly known as Sameer. His crossexamination has not
revealedmuchexceptthecontradictedportionsExts.2002(1and
2),thecontentsofwhich,tomymind,arenotsuchthattheyaffect
hisevidenceorimpeachhiscredibility.Thereisnodisputefromthe
side of the accused about he having taken the said flat on rent,
becausethereisnotasinglesuggestiontothiswitnessthathehad
notgiventhesaidflattotheA3byleaveandlicenceagreement.
Thus,someimprovementsmadebyhimorsomecontradictionthat
isbroughtonrecord,doesnotmateriallyaffectthefactthattheA3
hadtakenthesaidflatonleaveandlicencefromSajid,PW48.Itis
inthisrespectthatthelearnedSPPsubmittedthatthereisnothing
todisbelievethefactthattheA3isthepersonwhohadoccupiedthe
saidflatfromwheretheincriminatingarticleswererecovered.To
mymind,thefactthattheflatwastakenbytheA3bytheagreement
Ext.632on21/07/05atsomeplaceotherthanhisresidenceisvery
important and relevant, as it can be said to be the start of the
conspiracyoftakingadifferentflatnearlyoneyearbeforethebomb
blasts,whichindicatesalongdrawnoutconspiracy.
664.
Thus,bythecogentevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,and
Sajid,PW48,prosecutionhasprovedthattheA3hadtakentheflat
inLuckyVillaonrent.Thethoroughnessoftheinvestigationdone
bythe ATSofficers is apparentby the evidence of Sr.PIRathod,
PW176,thataletterwassenttotheSuperintendentofStampsto
verifywhethertheagreementthatwasfoundinthehouseoftheA3
wasregistered,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1953,andthereply,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..686..
Ext.4825
Exts.1954(1and2),wasreceivedfromthesaidauthoritythatthe
said agreement had been registered and the flat owner had
depositedthestampdutyofRs.750/. Sajid,PW48,obviouslydid
notknowthis.Headmittedthathedoesnotknowwhenthered
stamp of franking was put on the agreement, but explained that
AlbertFernandes,abroker,aboutwhomhestatedearlier,diditbut
hedoesnotknowwhenandfromwhere.Hecandidlyadmittedthat
hehadnotregisteredtheagreementwithdifferenttenantsinthe
Registraroffice,butcametoknow34yearsbeforethattheyare
requiredtobesoregistered.Thecrossexaminationonthispointto
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,inparagraph170doesnotdiscloseanything
and though he admitted that there are no particulars about the
personSajidShaikhinthereplyExts.1954(1and2),thecontents
ofExt.1953,i.e.,theofficecopyoftheletterwrittenbytheACP,
ATS, refer to leave and licence agreement between Sajid Shaikh
(licensor)andFaisalShaikh(licensee).Thus,itisobviousthatthe
reply was in connection with the said agreement. Thus, it is
establishedbytheprosecutionbydocumentaryevidencethattheA3
wasstayingintheflatinLuckyVillabuilding.
665.
LearnedadvocatefortheA3attackedtheevidenceofSr.PI
Rathod,PW176,withrespecttothemannerinwhichhemadethe
searchandseizureandalsoattackedhiscredibility.Firstsubmission
isthatthereisnosatisfactoryevidenceaboutthearrestoftheA3
andA9fromtheCrimeBranchon27/07/06andinthisrespecthe
submittedthatithascomeinthecrossexaminationofSr.PIRathod,
PW176,thathehadrecordedthestatementoffriendofA3byname
JudgementMCOC21/06
..687..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..688..
Ext.4825
666.
Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateisofthepolicenot
takingthesealandtherequiredmaterialwhilegoingforthehouse
search. Now in this respect it has come in the evidence of the
prosecutionwitnessesthattheATSdidnothaveitsownbrassseal
upto 12/08/06 and insofar as not using the lac seal at least for
sealingtheenvelopeArt.40Cinwhichtheblackpowdersamplewas
packedinabox,tomymind,ifatallthepolicewantedtofabricate
suchevidence,theywouldhavedoneitinaperfectmannerwithout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..689..
Ext.4825
leavinganylacuna.Admittedly,lacsealwasalsonotusedandthe
investigation has proceeded ahead as per the procedure that has
beenadoptedfortakingthesampleandpackingit,whichreflects
thehonesty.Thisaspecthasalreadybeendiscussed.
667.
Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateisaboutthekeyof
theflatbeinginacrackornicheabovethedooroftheflatofthe
accusedfromwhereheallegedlytookitout.Hesubmittedthatthis
isunimaginable,unnaturalandartificial.Nobodywillkeepthekey
ofhishouselikethatandthereisnosenseinlockingthedoorifthe
keyiskeptinsuchafashionsothatanybodywillgoandopenthe
door.Onecanunderstandthatthekeywaswithaneighbourorthat
itwaslostorakeymakerwasrequiredtobecalledtopreparea
duplicate.Hesubmitsthatthisistheheightofunnaturality.Tomy
mind,atthecostofrepetitionitwillhavetobesaidthatthisisnot
anuncommonphenomena.Therelevantthingisthatthefactthat
thekeywasinthenichewaswithintheknowledgeoftheA3andit
issowritteninthepanchanamaandSr.PIRathod,PW176,andthe
panch witness Sanford Fernandes, PW31, have given consistent
evidence about it. There was nothing to prevent Sr. PI Rathod,
PW176,tointroduceastoryoftakingthekeyfromaneighbouror
calling a key maker. He wrote and deposed whatever that had
happenedwithoutworryingastowhetheritwouldbeunnaturalor
unimaginable. Thus, this submission has not discredited his
evidence.
668.
Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateisthatsealingofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..690..
Ext.4825
evidenceaboutfindingtheRDXisnotcredible.Itwillbepertinent
topointoutthatthereisnosuggestiontoSr.PIRathod,PW176,
thatthesamplewastampered.Theonlysuggestionisthatitwas
planted.IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,that
immediately after returning back from the search, all the articles
that were seized including the sample, were deposited with the
muddemalclerkandthe station diaryentryno.10,certifiedtrue
copyofwhichisatExt.1951(5pages),wasmadeaboutthesearch
andseizure.Thisisacontemporaneousrecord,whichhasnotbeen
challengedorcontrovertedanditscontentscorroboratehisversion.
IthascomeinhisevidenceaswellasintheevidenceofPCMore,
PW42, that the box containing the sample was collected by PC
More,PW42,fromthemuddemalclerkfromtheofficeoftheATSat
Kalachowkion03/08/06,thathegaveitbackasitwasnotaccepted
inabsenceoflacsealbytheclerkoftheofficeoftheCAandthathe
againtookitfromthemuddemalclerkofKalachowki,ATSofficeon
04/08/06.Thus,itwasnotinthecustodyofSr.PIRathod,PW176.
Thus,this shows thatthere was noscope fortampering withthe
sampleandasisrightlysubmittedbythelearnedSPP,thatpossibility
is one thing and whether it is tampered is another thing. In this
respectthelearnedSPPreferredtotheevidencegivenbytheCA
Daundkar,PW189,whowasnotexaminedbytheprosecution,but
wascalledattherequestofthedefenceforcrossexamination.He
submitsthattheanswersgivenbythiswitnessinparagraphs1and
11areveryimportantparticularlythequestionandtheanswerin
paragraph 1. Daundkar, PW189, stated that police and the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..691..
Ext.4825
investigatingagencydonotsendcopiesoftheseizurepanchanama,
thatspecimencopyofthesealaffixedontheforwardingletteris
verified with the seal on the packet that is sent. In reply to a
question as to whether copy of label signed by the panchas is
requiredtobesentwiththeforwardingletterforcomparingwith
thelabelonthepacket,heansweredthatthedetailsofthelabelson
thepacketarealreadymentionedintheforwardingletterandthey
compareitwiththelabelonthepacket,i.e.,CRnumber,nameof
thepolicestation,etc.Hemadepositivestatementswhichhavenot
been controverted in further crossexamination, that it is not
necessarytosendthecopyofthelabelsignedbythepanchasthough
thereisacolumnintheforwardingletter,thatitisnotcompulsory
fortheforwardingauthoritytofillallthecolumnsintheforwarding
letter,becausethereisanalternativeasthedetailsarementionedin
theforwardingletterand,thisisimportant,thattheyonlyverifythe
seal that is on the forwarding letter with the seal on the packet,
thoughthesealmaybeofadifferentauthoritythanthatwhichsent
theparcel.Inparagraph11hestatedthatitisnecessarytosealthe
articlesthatarecollectedfromthespotorrecoveredattheinstance
oftheaccused,iftheyaresentforchemicalanalysisandthisisthe
precautiontobetakentopreventanytamperingwiththearticles.
Hestatedthatwheneveranyarticlesthatarenotproperlysealedor
labeledarereceived,theyreturnthemandif theyaresentagain
properly sealed, then they receive them. It is in this context the
submissionmadebythelearnedSPPthatpossibilityoftamperingis
one thing and whether it is tampered is another thing, assumes
JudgementMCOC21/06
..692..
Ext.4825
importance.LearnedSPPhassubmittedthattheinvestigatingofficer
isnotshyofstatingofwhathashappenedorconcoctedanything
andifhereallywantedtoconcoctthistypeofevidence,hecould
havepreparedtheevidenceasisusuallyfound.Hence,tomymind,
this aspect does not affect the evidence about the seizure and
drawingofthesampleanditbeingexaminedbytheCA,becausethe
evidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,andPCMore,PW42,isacogent
evidence.
669.
Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateisthatapurposeful
lapseiscommittedbytheinvestigatingofficerbynotrecordingthe
statementsofneighboursoftheallegedflatoftheA3orresidentsof
thatbuilding,whichshowsthatnosearchwasmade.Inmyhumble
opinion,whentheinvestigatingmachineryhasgonetotheextentof
recordingthestatementoftheowneroftheflat,i.e.,Sajid,PW48,
andcollectingdocumentaryevidenceaboutlettingtheflattotheA3,
nonrecording statements of the neighbours or residents of that
buildingcannotbeanissueandonthiscountitcannotbesaidthat
bogussearchwasmadeorthattheentiresearchisbogus,vitiatedor
unreliable.
670.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..693..
Ext.4825
PW31,erredinstatingthattherewasnoterraceonthethirdfloor.
671.
SanfordFernandes,PW31,thecupboardwasbeingsearchedbyone
constableandhetookthecottonfromthepersonwhohadgoneto
bringit.Now,SanfordFernandes,PW31,hasnotstatedthatitwasa
constable, but stated that it was a policeman. In this respect the
learnedadvocatefurthersubmittedthatthisprocedureofsendinga
constabletobringthecottoniswrong,thenthecottonbeingnot
showntothepanchasisalsowrongandunnaturalevidence,which
shows that the black powder was planted on the accused. If one
considers the crossexamination of Sanford Fernandes, PW31, he
hasgivenminutedetailsofwhathasexactlyhappened,viz.,thatthe
policemanwhohadbroughtthecottongaveittothepolicemanwho
had searched the cupboard and at that time officer Rathod was
standing at the distance of five feet from the cupboard and the
policeman after taking the cotton, put it in the cupboard and
showedthemtheblackpowderandthatwasthefirstoccasionwhen
hesawtheblackpowderonthecotton.Thenextstatementmadeby
himclarifiesalldoubts,becausehestatedthatwhenhehadgoneto
the cupboard he had seen the black powder, that it was not
removablebyhandandheandtheotherpanchdidnottouchit.
Thus,alldoubtshavebeenclearedandthereisnoreasontoinfer
thattheblackpowderwasplanted.
672.
whodealsinsuchactivitywillkeepsuchanevidencelikethisafter
theacthasbeenexecutedandtheinvestigationisgoingon.Tomy
JudgementMCOC21/06
..694..
Ext.4825
mind,itisnotthattheblackpowderwasinbulk,similartowhat
wasfoundinthehouseoftheA1,notevenlesserquantitykeptina
boxorapolythenebag.Theywerejusttraces,notnoticeabletoa
commonpersonintheusualcourseoflife.A3couldhaveknown
aboutthemprovidedheknewthattheywerethere.
673.
Inrespectofthenextsubmissionofthelearnedadvocatethat
thesearchofthevehiclewasnotgiventothepanchasandwhenthe
constablecamebackwiththecottonhissearchwasnottaken,once
againitwillhavetobementionedthatwhateverhadhappenedhas
beenwritteninthepanchanamaandIhavealreadydiscussedthis
aspect. No doubt, when he came back with a cotton, his search
shouldhavebeentakentoascertainwhetherthecottonbundlethat
hebroughtwasfactorypackedandunopened.Boththewitnesses
havenotstatedthatloosecottonwasbrought,buttheyhavestated
thatcottonbundlewasbrought,whichmeansmostprobablyfactory
bundleofcottonmusthavebeenbrought.Hence,thesubmissionof
thelearnedadvocateonthiscountcannotbeaccepted.Tomymind,
thesearchofthehouseoftheA3immediatelyonthenextdayofhis
arrestshowsthattherewasnodelayinmakingthesearch.Itshows
thepromptnessintheinvestigationandrulesoutanypossibilityof
deliberateplantingofsuchtypeofevidencetofalselyimplicatethe
accused.Ifreallytheofficerswhowentforthesearchhadintheir
mind to fabricate the evidence in such a manner and they went
therewithsomeblackpowder/RDXwiththemandsprinkleditin
thecorneroftheuppercompartmentofthecupboard,theycould
haveeasilycarriedcottonforcollectingthesaidpowderaswellas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..695..
Ext.4825
674.
Learnedadvocatehaspointedouttoanotheraspect,viz.,it
hascomeintheevidencethatafterthesearch,theflatwaslocked
andthepolicemankeptthekeyinhispocket,butitwasnotputin
anenvelopeandthiswasdonetopressurisetheowneroftheflat,
i.e.,Sajid,PW48,togiveevidenceaspertheirdictates.Thereisno
suggestiontoeitherSr.PIRathod,PW176,orSajid,PW48,inthis
respectandonecannotdrawsuchaninference.
675.
Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateisthatassumingthat
676.
Learnedadvocatethenquestionsastowhathadhappenedto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..696..
Ext.4825
thesamplebetween28/07/06whenitwasallegedlytakenandupto
04/08/06 when it was handed over to the FSL. This is already
explainedbytheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,and PCMore,
PW42,thatitwaswiththemuddemalclerk.
677.
678.
InfacttheA3isnotinapositiontodisownthepossessionof
theflat,becausehispersonaldocumentshavebeenfoundduringthe
searchalongwiththeblackpowder,viz.,photocopyoftheagreement
with the landlord Ext. 537, which contains his signature and the
originalofwhichExt.632isprovedbyasignatoryofthatagreement,
i.e., owner of the flat Sajid, PW48. In addition, photocopies of
drivinglicenceArt.148Fandoriginallearninglicenceanddriving
JudgementMCOC21/06
..697..
Ext.4825
licenceArts.155and156inhisnamewerefound.Notonlythis,
registration book of a motorcycle, certificate of insurance,
photocopiesofcertificateofinsurance,receiptofBajajChoiceCentre
inthenameoftheA9andregistrationanddrivinglicenceoftheA9,
whoishisbrother,werealsofound.
679.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatby
thecogentandconvincingevidencegivenbySr.PIRathod,PW176,
panchwitnessSanfordFernandes,PW31,thecarrierconstablePC
More, PW42, and the owner of the flat Sajid, PW48, the
prosecutionhasprovedthattheflatfromwhichtheblackpowder
was found, which as per the FSL report Ext.599 is RDX, was in
possessionoftheA3andthatRDXwasfoundinthatflat.Thisisthe
circumstanceno.8provedbytheprosecution.Itisagainstthe
A3.Itisthethirdcircumstanceagainsthim.
680.
Atthisstageitself,itwillbeconvenienttoconsidertheseizure
of the other articles from the house of the A3 that were found
alongwiththefindingoftheRDX,becauseitisonlytheevidenceof
Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, and panch witness Sanford Fernandes,
PW31, about it. It can be directly referred subsequently at the
appropriateplacesashavingbeenconsidered.
681.
Ihavealreadyheldthattheevidenceaboutsearchandseizure
givenbyboththesewitnessesisacogentandconvincingevidence.
Afterhisevidenceabouttakingthesampleoftheblackpowder,Sr.
PIRathod,PW176,describedaccuratelywhatwasfoundinared
handbagthatwasbythesideofthecupboard.SanfordFernandes,
PW31,alsoaccuratelydescribedtheotherarticlesthatwerefound
JudgementMCOC21/06
..698..
Ext.4825
andthen unhesitatinglyandspecificallyidentifiedeachandevery
packet,thelabelsthereon,hissignatureandthesignaturesofthe
policeofficersandoftheotherpanchonthelabelsandeachand
every article in the packets, which were also identified by Sr. PI
Rathod,PW176.Bothdescribedhowthearticleswerepackedand
labeled.Theotherimportantandrelevantarticlethatwasseizedis
thephotocopyoftheleaveandlicenceagreementArt.149,Ext.537,
theoriginalofwhichisprovedbySajid,PW48,asExt.632andthe
evidenceofitsrelevancehasbeendiscussedabove.
682.
Thenarethearticles,therelevanceofwhichwillbediscussed
attheappropriatestages.Theyare(i)30notesof500SaudiRiyals
each,whicharenotbeforethecourt,(ii)8booksallegedlyrelating
toSIMIorganisation,Arts.150(1and2),Arts.151(1and2)and
Arts.152(1to4),(iii)mapofMumbai,Art.153and(iv)photocopy
ofinternationalmapArt.161,Ext.1486.Theotherarticlesinclude
registration, insurance documents and receipt of Bajaj Pulsar
motorcycleinthenameofA9,Arts.148,148A,B&C,photocopies
of insurance,registration certificate anddriving licenceofthe A9
andA3,Arts.148D,E&F,twocurrencynotesofRs.1,000/each,
Arts.154(1and2),learninglicenceandmotordrivinglicenceinthe
nameofA9,Arts.155and156,thekeyoftheflat,Art.162,mobile,
battery and sim card, Arts.163, 163A & B respectively. These
documents have not been disputed and they show that A3 was
residingthereandobviouslyastheA9ishisbrother,hisdocuments
werealsothere.
683.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..699..
Ext.4825
learnedadvocateWahabKhanismainlyrelatedtotheknowledgeof
the witness about the locality and what happened and what was
doneduringthepanchanama,butnothingwaselicitedtodiscredit
histestimony.CrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateShettyforthe
A3coveringthispointhasalsonotdiscreditedhistestimony.Ithas
onlycomeinhiscrossexaminationthathedidnottaketheother
articlesinhishands,thathedidnotsignonthebooks,thathedid
nottakeanybookinhishandsandreaditscontentsaboutwhichhe
cannotsaywhethertheyareoriginalorcolourxeroxcopies,thatthe
books that are stapled did not contain pages in serial and are
withoutanynamesorhandwritingofanypersonandappeartobe
new and unused, that maps like Art. 153 are available on the
railwayplatforms,withthehawkersandinanyshopandthatthe
namesofthespotswheremarkingsaremadeonthemapsarenot
mentionedinthepanchanama.Theseanswersdonotdiscredithis
evidence, because he has deposed correctly what documents he
signed,i.e.,themapsandwhatdocumentshedidnotsign.Ithas
come as positive statements thathe andthe other panchdidnot
personallysearchboththeflats,buthetookthemapsinhishands
forsigningandsawthem.ThecrossexaminationofSr.PIRathod,
PW176,hasalsonotrevealedanythingtodiscredithistestimony
andheadmittedaboutnotobtainingsignaturesofpanchasonthe
railwaytickets,insurancepapers,registrationbook,drivinglicence,
thatnameoftheA3isnotmentionedontherailwayticketsandhe
doesnotknowwhothepersonsmentionedinthereservationslips
Arts. 159 (1 and 2) are. In this respect he explained that the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..700..
Ext.4825
addresseswerenotverifiedastheywereincomplete.Headmitted
thatsignaturesofthepanchaswerenottakenonthebooks,thathe
had not read them and cannot say whether they are coloured
photocopiesoforiginalsandadmittedthatexceptArts.152(1to4)
the pages in the other books are not in order and admitted that
colourofthetwobooksisdifferentfromtheothertwobooks.He
gaveaperfectexplanationaboutnotobtainingsignaturesofpanchas
onthebooksbystatingthathedidnotobtainthesignaturesasthe
books were put in the envelopes and label containing their
signatureswaspastedontheenvelopes.InsofarastheSaudiRiyals
are concerned, he admitted that he did not note their serial
numbers, which, to my mind, is unnecessary because Indian
currencynotesarerequiredtobeidentifiedbyserialnumbers,but
finding of Saudi Riyals is something uncommon. The cross
examinationconcerningthemobileoftheA3isnotrelevantasthe
prosecutionhasnotledanyfurtherevidenceaboutit.Attheendhe
deniedthesuggestionthatthesaidhousewasnotinpossessionof
theA3andtheyplantedallthearticlestocreatefalseevidenceto
involve the accused in the crime. This crossexamination was in
paragraphs 155 and 156 and in further crossexamination in
paragraph164acommonsuggestioninrespectoftherecoveryfrom
thehouseoftheA3andA9wasgiventhatthepanchanamasExts.
533and534arefalselypreparedandboththepanchaswereknown
toACPShengal,DW51,andhadactedforhimaspanchasearlier.Of
course,hedeniedboththesuggestionsandnothingisbroughton
recordtoshowtheconnectionofbothpanchaswithACPShengal,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..701..
Ext.4825
DW51.Aboutthemapsthatwerefound,headmittedinparagraph
146 that all the international maps that were seized were
photocopiesandaboutthemobilenumberswrittenonthemaps,he
madepositivestatementsthattheyarefromsomeGulfcountry,but
hedidnottrytoverifythembycallingfromhismobileand,thisis
important,thatonmakinginquirywithanSTDbooththroughhis
staffhecametoknowthattheyareofSaudiArabia.Henaturally
deniedthesuggestionthattheyplantedallthemapsofMumbaiand
theinternationalmapandthebooksontheaccused.
684.
LearnedadvocateShettysubmittedinrespectoftheseizures
ofallthesearticles,thatitwasnecessarythattheywerepackedand
sealedandtheimpressionofthesealoftheauthoritiesaffixedon
the lac seal. He submitted that giving all the latitude to the
prosecutionthattheATSdidnothavetheirbrasssealatthetimeof
seizure,Sr.PIRathod,PW176,whowastheinvestigatingofficerat
that time was from Bombay Central Railway Police Station and
nothingpreventedhimfromusingthesealofthatpolicestationor
of Kalachowki Police Station, which was near the ATS office, by
adopting appropriate steps. This was not done and these are the
suspiciousfactorswhichcastseriousdoubtaboutthisincriminating
materialanditdoesnotmakeoutanycaseagainsttheaccusedand
the planting cannot be ruled out and thus this material is a
suspiciousanddoubtfulcircumstanceagainsttheaccused,hence,it
isanunreliablecircumstance.Hesubmitsthatpossibilityofplanting
thebookscannotberuledoutandtheseizureofthebookscannot
beacceptedasreliablematerialandinallprobability,thesearethe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..702..
Ext.4825
books that are planted by the police after obtaining them from
Bhopalpolice,however,theydidnotnoticethenameofthearrested
accusedinthecaseinBhopalappearingonthebooksandthereisno
furtherinvestigationastoinwhatwaythebooksareantinational
and affects the sovereignty, integrity of the nation and causes
conflictsandthattheyareprohibited.InthisrespectthelearnedSPP
hasrightlysubmittedthatthesebooksareobviouslypublishedby
theSIMIorganisationandwerefoundintheyear2006,whereas,
SIMI was banned in the year 2001. There are no submissions in
respectoftheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,inrespectofthe
mapsbecausetherewasnotmuchcrossexaminationaboutit.
685.
InrespectoftheseizureofSaudiRiyals,thelearnedSPPhas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..703..
Ext.4825
takenonrentatsomeotherplaceaboutoneyearbeforetheblastsis
considered, it shows that it was the start of the long drawn out
conspiracy.
686.
plantingoftheRDX,books,SaudiRiyalsandmapscanbedrawnas
the investigating machinery was just seventeen days in the
investigationanditcannotbevisualizedthatonlyoneinvestigating
officer,outofseven,hatchedaconspiracyoffabricatingtheevidence
liketheSaudiRiyals,thebooksandthemapsandplantingitonthe
A3andtheotheraccusedinthiscase.
687.
PW176,showsthathehasnotsuppressedanythingandifatallthe
submissions of the defence that this evidence is fabricated and
plantedisconsidered,thenitwasveryeasyforhimtofabricatethe
evidenceinaperfectmannersoastoleavenoroomfordoubt.He
submitsthatthisisoneofthestrongestevidencethathascomeon
recordagainsttheA3andhasrightlysubmittedthatnoambiguityis
leftasregardstheissueofsealing,nolingeringdoubtremainsabout
thepremisesfromwheretheincriminatingarticleswereseizedand
the recoveryof the incriminating articles like Saudi Riyals,books
andmapsisprovedbeyonddoubt.
688.
Inviewoftheabovediscussionitisclearthattheevidenceof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..704..
Ext.4825
15000SaudiRiyals,booksrelatingtoSIMIArts.150to152,mapof
MumbaiArt.153andphotocopyofinternationalmapArt.161Ext.
1486,werefoundintheflatinpossessionoftheA3. Thisisthe
circumstanceno.9provedbytheprosecution. Itisagainstthe
A3.Itisthefourthcircumstanceagainsthim.
689.
containingHydrogenPeroxide,AcetoneandSulfuricAcidfromthe
lockeroftheA2inSabuSiddiquihospitalwherehewasworking.It
isanadmittedpositionbytheA2inhiswrittensubmissionExt.2823
aswellasinhisoralevidenceasDW41thathewasworkinginthe
saidhospitalatthattimeasMedicalRegistrarandhadalockerina
roomontheleftsideoftheICCUunit.Theonlyquestioniswhether
thethreebottlesofchemicalswerefoundthere.Ithascomeinthe
evidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatduringtheinterrogationof
theA4immediatelyafterhewasarrestedon12/08/06,theA4had
disclosedthattheA2wasgoingtoteachthemhowtopreparethe
bombswiththehelpofchemicals.ThoughtheA2wasincustodyin
C.R.No.41of2006,withthepermissionofhissuperiorsandSr.PI
Wadhankar, PW167, who was the investigating officer, he
interrogatedtheA2,whogaveavoluntarystatementthatheisready
toshowthebottlesofchemicalsthathehaskeptinthelockerof
SabuSiddiquihospital.ChandrakantShigwan,PW17,andonemore
hadbeencalledandtheA2madeastatementbeforethemandthe
memorandumofastatementExt.457wasprepared.Heaswellas
the panch witness Chandrakant Shigwan, PW17, proved the
contentsofthesaidmemorandum,aboutwhichstationdiaryentry
JudgementMCOC21/06
..705..
Ext.4825
no.16,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1803,wasprepared.He
deposed about going for the search alongwith the packing and
sealingmaterialtothesaidhospitalasperthedirectionsoftheA2,
theA2leadingthemtotheICUdepartmentonthefirstfloor, Dr.
Atiya, PW53, being present there and accounts manager
SalamatullahKhancomingthereandthentheaccusedtakingthem
totheroom,takingoutthekeyArt.33frombelowthemattresson
thecotandproducingthethreebottlesofchemicalsofSulfuricAcid,
Art.34,Acetone,Art.35andHydrogenPeroxide,Art.36andSr.PI
Rathod, PW176, putting the bottles in separate boxes, wrapping
thembykhakipaper,puttingthekeyinanenvelope,affixingsigned
labelsontheboxesandontheenvelopesandsealingthemunder
thepanchanamaExt.458thatwaswrittenbyPSIGaikwad,PW169.
PSIGaikwad,PW169corroboratedhis evidence aboutthe search
and seizure and about he writing the memorandum and the
panchanamaandChandrakantShigwan,PW17,alsocorroborated
their evidence. The contents of the memorandum and the
panchanamaExts.457and458respectively,corroboratetheversion
of all these three witnesses. All three witnesses identified the
articles,i.e.,thekey,thecover,inwhichthekeywaskept,thebottles
and the boxes and the signatures of Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, and
ChandrakantShigwan,PW17,aswellastheotherpanch.Infact,Sr.
PIRathod,PW176and,ChandrakantShigwan,PW17,alsostated
thatthesignaturesoftheaccusedweretakenonthememorandum
andseizurepanchanamaandbothidentifiedhissignatures.Ithas
comeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thathehadsentthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..706..
Ext.4825
bottlesofthechemicalstotheFSLimmediatelyonthenextday,i.e.,
on13/08/06,alongwithhisforwardingletter,officecopyofwhichis
atExt.908,thecontentsofwhichheproved,alongwithHCPadval,
PW91,whocorroboratedhisevidenceandstatedthathehadtaken
thesealedcartonon13/08/06andSr.PIRathod,PW176,hadtold
himtotakeitcarefullyastherewerebottlesinit.Thereportofthe
CAExt.909wasreceivedinhisevidenceandhisevidenceabout
carryingthesampleispracticallyunchallenged.Ontheotherhand,
positive statements have come on record during his cross
examinationthathehadseenthesealoftheATSwithPIRathodand
hedeniedthesuggestionthattheATSwasnotgivenanysealupto
13/08/06.Ithascomeinthecrossexaminationinparagraph113of
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,thatofficialsealwasnotallottedtotheATS
Bhoiwadaoffice,buteveryindividualinvestigatingofficerwasgiven
seal,thatSr.PITajne,PW161,hadgivenhimtheofficialsealfrom
Kalachowkiofficeon11/08/06byamemoanditwaswithhimon
11and12/08/06.ThishascomeincrossexaminationandIdonot
knowwhysuggestionsweregiventhattherewasonlyonebrassseal
at the Kalachowki office, etc., which of course he denied. The
contentsoftheFSLreportExt.909confirmedthecontentsasper
theirlabelsandinresponsetothequestionno.3inExt.908,theCA
opined that Hydrogen Peroxide is a strong oxidizing agent, that
Acetone is highly flammable liquid and as per literature
concentrated Sulphuric Acid is used as initiator with Chlorate in
explosivemixture.
690.
Thus,bytheevidenceoftheabovefourprosecutionwitnesses
JudgementMCOC21/06
..707..
Ext.4825
andthedocuments,theprosecutionhasprovedtherecoveryofthe
three bottles of chemicals and has proved the link with the FSL
reportwithcogentevidence.ThecrossexaminationofPSIGaikwad,
PW169,inparagraphs18,19and46 isinrespectofthearrestof
theaccused,interrogation,stationdiaryentriesandthelockersin
thatroom,butnothingisrevealedtodiscredithistestimonyandit
wasjustafishingexpedition.Hiscrossexaminationinparagraph28
isinrespectofsearchandseizureandagainithasnotdiscredited
hisversion.
691.
InsofarasthepanchwitnessChandrakantShigwan,PW17,is
concernedtherewasaconsiderablecrossexaminationtohimandit
hascomeonrecordthatpolicehadtakenphotographsofthebottles.
Theonlythingthatisbroughtonrecordishisadmissionthatthe
accused did not say anything before him and that he put all his
signaturesintheofficeofPIRathod.Obviously,thelaterisavague
suggestionandhewasnotspecificallysuggestedthathesignedon
thememorandumandthepanchanamaintheofficeofSr.PIRathod
and in respect of the first admission, he was not specifically
suggestedthattheaccuseddidnotstatebeforehimthathehassome
chemicalsandthatheisreadytoshowthem.Thereisnosuggestion
tohimthatthechemicalbottleswerenotseizedfromthelockerof
theA2.LearnedadvocateWahabKhanfortheaccusedpointedout
totheinconsistencyintheevidenceofthiswitnessaswellasthetwo
policeofficersinrespectofthevehicleinwhichtheyhadgonefor
searchbecausehestatedthatitwasaprivateMarutivan,whereas,it
hascomeintheevidenceofboththepoliceofficersthattheywentin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..708..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..709..
Ext.4825
692.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..710..
Ext.4825
theATSpolicehadcometothehospitalon12/08/06at4.00p.m.
fortheirinvestigation,thataninspector,twopanchasand23other
personshadcome,thattheA2waswiththemandtheyhadcometo
checkhislocker,thattheytookallthethingsinthelockerand,this
isimportant,thatshesawsomebottlesinthearticlesthattheyhad
taken.ThereisnodirectsuggestiontoherthatthepoliceortheA2
hadnottakenoutthebottlesfromthelockeroftheA2andthatthe
bottleswere not seized from the locker. Infact, she identified the
bottlesaswellasthekeyandduringhercrossexaminationbythe
learned SPP, after she was permitted to be declared hostile she
admitted that in her chiefexamination she was read over the
panchanamaandshesaidthatitscontentsarecorrectandatthat
timedidnotpointouttothecourtthatanyportionisnotcorrect.
ShehasidentifiedthepanchanamaExt.458andhersignatureand
thesignaturesoftheA2,panchasandtheinspector,however,she
statedthathersignaturewastakenafterafewdayswhenthepolice
camewiththepanchanama.Inthisrespect,incrossexaminationshe
admittedthatsheputthedate12/08/06belowhersignatureand
similarlysame date is writtenbelowthe signaturesofothers and
obviouslyduring hercrossexamination she admittedthatshe did
notdaretosaynotothepolice,whotoldhertoputthebackdate.
Obviously,becausethelearnedSPPsuggestedtoherthatshestated
aboutsigningonthepanchanamaafewdaysafterthevisitofthe
policeandaboutotherthingsastheA2ishercolleague.
693.
Leavingthisaside,evenifherevidenceabouttheactualactof
goingtothelockerroomandtakingoutthebottlesiskeptaside,the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..711..
Ext.4825
factremainsthatshehasstatedtothepolicethatpolicehadcometo
thehospitalwiththeA2onthatdayandtheytookallthethings
fromhislocker,whichincludedthebottlesArts.34to36.
694.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhancriticizedtheevidenceofthis
searchandseizurefromtheA2onseveralcounts.Hesubmitsthat
thefirstallegedrecoveryismadeon01/08/06asperthevoluntary
disclosuremadebytheA2andthisisthesecondrecoveryandit
cannotbeacceptedthattheaccusedmadedisclosuresinpiecemeal.
Inthis respectanexplanation given bySr.PIRathod,PW176,is
appropriateanditanswersthesubmissionsofthelearnedadvocate
becausehestatedinhischiefexaminationitselfthatfromthetime
ofhisarrest,theA2wasnotdisclosingallthethingsatonetime,
thatfirsthestatedabouthiswife,thenabouthispassportandthen
aboutthebooksandmaps.Thus,thisdisclosurecannotbesaidtobe
adelayedoranisolatedoneandinanswertoaquestionincross
examinationastowhethertheaccusedwerecooperatingininquiry,
hestatedthattheaccusedweremisleadingthem,werenotgiving
theentireinformationatonestretch,butbitbybit.Thisalsocovers
thesubmissionofthelearnedadvocatethattheA2wasarrestedon
23/07/06 and on the count of this delay it is required to be
discarded.
695.
Nexthesubmittedthattheprosecutionhasnotshownthatthe
saidchemicalshavebeenusedinthepresentblastbyshowingthat
theiringredientswerefoundatanyspot.Inthisrespectthelearned
SPP submitted that the significance of the recovery of these
chemicalsisapparentfromtheevidenceofAPIRevle,PW154,read
JudgementMCOC21/06
..712..
Ext.4825
withthereportofCA.APIRevle,PW154,whileexplainingexamples
ofexplosivesandtheireffectsstatedthatHydrogenPeroxideisused
asbleachingagent,e.g.,forcolouringthehair,Acetoneisusedas
varnishornailpaintremoverandSulfuricacidisanacid.Hefurther
explainedthatfromthesechemicalsTATP(TriAcetoneTriPeroxide)
liquidexplosivecanbecreatedandthemostimportantcharacteristic
ofthisexplosiveisthatitishighlysensitivetofrictionandimpact,
becauseofwhichitdoesnotrequiredetonatorandasthereisno
detonatorinit,itcannotbedetectedbymetaldetectorandsuch
type of explosives are used in the middleeast by terrorists. This
evidence has not been controverted during his crossexamination
andthelearnedSPPsubmitsthattheoffencesundertheMCOCAct
donotmerelycoverdirectacts,butalsocoverpreparatoryactsand
thereforethisdiscoveryisimportantandrelevant.Learnedadvocate
submitsthatasperthecontentsoftheremandapplicationsofthis
periodExts.4461,4462,4467and4469,theseizureofNitricAcid,
HydrogenPeroxide,SulfuricAcidandAmmoniumNitrateisshown,
butseizureofAcetoneisnotshownandthepanchanamadoesnot
showthatNitricAcidandAmmoniumNitratewererecovered.He
submitsthatthisleadstotheinferencethatinitiallytheinvestigating
machinerywantedtoplantallthesechemicalsandthereforethese
statementsweremadeintheremandapplicationstimeandagain,
butlaterontheycouldarrangeonlythethreechemicalswhichwere
allegedlyseizedattheinstanceoftheA2andwhichtheyplantedon
him.Thisisbecausealltheseitemsareeasilyavailableinthemarket
formedicinalanddomesticuse.Inmyhumbleopinion,itmaybe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..713..
Ext.4825
696.
Ameaninglesssubmissionwasmadebythelearnedadvocate
JudgementMCOC21/06
..714..
Ext.4825
697.
LearnedadvocatesubmitsthatChandrakantShigwan,PW17,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..715..
Ext.4825
statingthatthepanchanamawasoverby1500p.m.iscontradictory
tothecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.458,whichshowsthatitwas
overat1710hours.Tomymind,itisnotcontradictory,butitis
inconsistent and it appears that it is a mistake in rendering the
evidenceorintypingthetimingbecauseatthestartofhisevidence
itself the witness has stated that he was called to the lockup of
BhoiwadaPoliceStationatabout3.00to3.15p.m.EvenDr.Atiya,
PW53hasstatedthatthepolicehadcometothehospitalat4.00
p.m.Thusthissubmissionisofnoconsequenceanditdoesnotaffect
theevidenceabouttheseizure.
698.
Nextlearnedadvocatesubmitsthatthepoliceofficersknew
whatwastoberecoveredwhichisapparentfromtheanswergiven
byChandrakantShigwan,PW17,thatwhenhewascalledtothe
police station, he was taken to an officer who told him that an
accused is arrested in the bomb blast case and recovery is to be
made.Thissubmissionisignoringthenextsentencethatthewitness
stated,viz.,thattheofficerdidnottellhimwhatistoberecovered
andfromwhereitistoberecovered.Evenotherwiseithascomein
theevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatduringhisinterrogation
oftheA2,theA2statedthathewouldtellsomethingandtherefore
he called the two panchas. From this it can be said that the
investigating officer was expecting the accused to make the
statement about some articles considering his experience of the
accusedthathewasgivinginformationinbitsfromtimetotime.
699.
Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocatethatthebottlescould
nothavebeensealedastherewasnosealatBhoiwadaofficeandit
JudgementMCOC21/06
..716..
Ext.4825
hascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,PSIGaikwad,
PW169andpanchwitnessChandrakantShigwan,PW17thatfrom
Bhoiwada they had directly gone to the hospital, is obviously
overlooking the evidence of Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, in his cross
examinationthateveryindividualinvestigatingofficerwasgiventhe
sealandSr. PITajne,PW161,hadgiven him the official seal on
11/08/06byamemo.
700.
Learnedadvocatenextsubmittedthatthereisnoinvestigation
701.
DW41hasclaimedthatfromBhoiwadahewastakentoBombay
CentralRailwayPoliceStation,thatSr.PIRathod,PW176,collected
some heavy bag and then they went to Sabu Siddiqui Hospital,
whichiscorroboratedbytheentriesinthelogbookatpage39of
Ext. 3928 and the A2 had stated about this in his written
submissionsExt.2823thathehadfiledwithhisstatementunder
section313oftheCr.P.C.Itistruethattheentrydtd.12/08/06in
thelogbookofvehicleno.MH01BA669,whichisthevehicleby
whichthepolicehadtakentheaccusedtothathospital,showsthat
from Bhoiwada ATS the vehicle had traveled to Quilla Court, to
JudgementMCOC21/06
..717..
Ext.4825
BhoiwadaATS,toMumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation,toDongri,
toKalachowkiATS,BhoiwadaATS,etc.However,itisobviousthat
thisaccusedaswellasalltheotheraccusedmouldedtheirdefence
aspertheallegedflawsintheevidenceoftheprosecutionwitnesses
and on the basis of the documents obtained under the RTI Act
including the certified copies of the log books. No doubt, in his
writtensubmissionsExt.2823,A2statedthatSr.PIRathod,PW176,
tookhimfromthelockupatBhoiwadawithotherstaff,thathewas
takentoMumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation,thatSr.PIRathod,
PW176,gotdownfromthewhiteMarutivehiclewithathickplastic
carrybagandwentinsidethepolicestation,thathecameoutafter
1520minuteswiththesameplasticcarrybagcontainingsomething
init.Thenhestatedabouthebeingtakeninsidethehospitalandto
thelocker,etc.,andhewasforcedtositinthevehiclethereafterfor
about2030minutesandthereafterSr.PIRathod,PW176,cameto
the vehicle carrying the said plastic thick carry bag containing
somethingheavyinit.Hehasaccordinglydeposed,buthasmade
improvements,becauseinhiswrittensubmissionhedidnotstate
thatwhenSr.PIRathod,PW176,cameoutoftheMumbaiCentral
RailwayPoliceStationwiththethickplasticbagwhichcontained
somethingheavy,buthestatedsoinhisevidenceundersection315
oftheCr.P.C.Tomymind,theobservationandinferencethatthe
accused moulded their defence as per the alleged flaws in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and on the basis of the
documentsobtainedbythemisfortifiedbyasinglefactthatthis
storyoftheaccusedthathemustbeknowingsincethebeginning
JudgementMCOC21/06
..718..
Ext.4825
wasnotputtoanyoftheprosecutionwitnesseswhowerepresent
duringthesearch,i.e.,panchwitnessChandrakantShigwan,PW17,
PSIGaikwad,PW169,andSr.PIRathod,PW176.Thus,theentryin
the log book about the vehicle having been gone to the Mumbai
CentralRailwayPoliceStationisabsolutelyinconsequential.
702.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itisclearthatbythecogent
evidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,PSIGaikwad,PW169,andpanch
witnessChandrakantShigwan,PW17,whichiscorroboratedbythe
contentsofthememorandumofthevoluntarystatementExt.457
madebytheA2andthecontentsoftheseizurepanchanamaExt.
458,theprosecutionhasprovedtheseizureofthebottlesofSulfuric
Acid,AcetoneandHydrogenPeroxide,Arts.34,35and36fromthe
possessionoftheA2.ThefindingsoftheCAinhisreportExt.909
andtheevidenceof APIRevle,PW154,provethatthesechemicals
canbeusedforpreparingexplosivemixture.Hence,thisrecoveryis
relevant. Learned SPP submitted that he can understand if the
accusedwouldhavetakenthedefencethatthebottlesbelongedto
thehospitalandthepolicetookthemfromthereandpreparedthe
record.Herightlysubmitsthatitiscommonknowledgethatthese
bottlesarenotvaluablesthattheyshouldbekeptinlockersinthe
exclusiveuseandpossessionoftheA2andthesignificanceofthe
recoverycanbeseenfromtheevidenceofAPIRevle,PW154,who
hasexplainedthatapotentiallyhighliquidexplosiveTATPcanbe
preparedfromtheseexplosives.Tomymind,therewasnoreason
fortheA2tokeepthebottlesinhislockerconsideringthefactthat
theyareeasilyavailableinthemarket.Admittedly,hedoesnothave
JudgementMCOC21/06
..719..
Ext.4825
aprivateclinicwherehecouldhaveusedthesaidchemicalsand
obviouslyhemustbeusingthesetypesofchemicalsbelongingtothe
hospitalwhendoinghisdutyinthehospital.Acetone,tomymind,
cannot be used for any medicinal purpose and though Hydrogen
Peroxideisusedtowashwounds,tomyknowledge,SulfuricAcid
hasnomedicinaluse.Thus,itisaquestionastowhytheaccused
kepttheminthelockerandtheonlyinferencethatcanbedrawnis
assubmittedbythelearnedSPPandaspertheevidenceofSr.PI
Rathod, PW176, that the search was made in pursuance of the
informationgivenbytheA4duringinterrogationthattheA2was
going to teach them how to prepare the bombs with the help of
chemicals.Hence,itwillhavetobeheldthattheprosecutionhas
proved that on 12/08/06 bottles of chemicals, i.e., sulfuric acid,
acetone and hydrogen peroxide, Arts. 34, 35 and 36 respectively,
wereseizedfromthelockeroftheA2intheSabuSiddiquiHospital
where he was working and that the chemicals can be used for
preparing explosive mixture. This is the circumstance no. 10
proved by the prosecution. It
is against the A2. It is the first
circumstanceagainsttheA2.
703.
investigatingofficernoticingblackandwhitespotsontheinnerside
ofawoodenboxbedinthehouseoftheA6,samplesofwhichwere
takenandwhichturnedouttobeRDX.
704.
alongwithACPShengal,DW51,PIKhanvilkar,PW168,PSISachin
Kadamandstaff,hetooktheA6forhishousesearchtoGovandion
JudgementMCOC21/06
..720..
Ext.4825
29/09/06leavingtheofficeat6.00p.m.aftermakingstationdiary
entryno.15,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1720,thatwhen
theaccusedpointedouthisresidenceatShivajiNagar,PlotNo.33,
T2, two panchas were summoned, accused was introduced, the
accusedknockedthedoorofhisroom,itwasopenedbyhiswifeand
theyenteredthehousewiththepanchasandinthehallamongst
otherthingstheysawawoodenboxbedthere,thesearchofwhich
revealedoldclothes,suitcaseandoneKanchanpressurecookerand
on further minute observation of the bed they noticed black and
whitestainswhichtheysuspectedtobeofsomeexplosivesubstance.
Hence, theywipedthemwiththe help ofclean anddryseparate
cottonswabs,Arts.301and302,whichwereputinsmallplastic
bags,labeledandsealedandthepressurecookerArt.303wasalso
labeledandallthesearticleswereseizedunderpanchanamaExt.
716.Heprovedthecontentsofthepanchanamaandidentifiedthe
A6inthecourt,thenstatedaboutreturningtotheofficeandmaking
station diary entry no. 22, certified true copy of which is at Ext.
1721 (2 pages). Panch witness Pritam Mhatre, PW58, fully
corroborated his version except that he stated that he was taken
from Bhoiwada Police Station and he specifically described what
articleswerethereinashowcase,whichwasnotdeposedbySr.PI
Tajne,PW161.Healsoidentifiedthecottonswabsandcookerand
bothwitnessesalsoidentifiedtheirsignaturesonthelabelsandthe
panchanamaandthesignatureoftheA6onthepanchanama.The
contentsofthepanchanamaExt.716corroboratetheirversion.The
contentsofthestationdiaryentriesExts.1720and1721corroborate
JudgementMCOC21/06
..721..
Ext.4825
theirversionandtheyareuncontrovertedcontemporaneousrecord.
705.
PIKhanvilkar,PW168,didnotdeposeinhisexaminationin
chiefaboutthesaidsearchthoughhewasamongstthesearchparty,
and,thoughhiscredibilityasapoliceofficerhasbeentriedtobe
impeachedbyshowinghisinvolvementincorruptioncases,etc.,he
wasnotgivenasinglesuggestionthathehadnotgoneforthesaid
searchonthatday.Sameis the caseaboutACPShengal,DW51.
Boththesewitnesseswerenotgivenanysuggestionsonthelineof
thedefencetakenbytheA6inhiswrittensubmissionsExt.2827
thathefiledalongwithhisstatementundersection313oftheCr.P.
C.andinhisevidenceasDW42.PIKhanvilkar,PW168,wasasked
in his crossexamination by learned advocate Rasal about the
surroundingsofthehouseoftheaccusedinGovandiandhegaveall
thedetailscorrectlyandpositivestatementshavecomeonrecord
that there are some shops in the lane of the A6, which was the
secondhouseinthatlaneandhedeniedasuggestionthathehad
never gone to that area, therefore, he is not able to give any
information about it. This suggestion is not backed up by any
materialorinformationthatwouldcontradictthestatementmade
byhim.Thereisnothingelseinhiscrossexamination.
706.
IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thatthree
teamswereformedforsearchingthehouseoftheA6,A7andA8
after their arrest on 29/09/06 and on the same day the team
consistingofACPShengal,DW51,Sr.PITajne,PW161,andstaff
tookthehousesearchoftheA6,camebacktotheoffice,handed
over the panchanama Ext. 716, made the report about seizing a
JudgementMCOC21/06
..722..
Ext.4825
cookerandnoticingtwoblackandwhitespotsintheboxtypecotin
thehouse,ofwhichtheswabsweretakenandseized.Ithascomein
hisevidencethatthesaidarticlesweredepositedinthemuddemal
roomandhesentthecottonswabstotheFSLforanalysisundera
forwardingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.796,thecontentsof
whichheproved,alongwithPNKulkarni,PW72,whocorroborated
hisversionandalsoidentifiedthelabelsandtheplasticbagsArts.
301and302Binwhichthecottonswabswereput.Though,hehad
notdeposedaboutthecottonswabsinhischiefexaminationthat
came out in his crossexamination. His crossexamination has not
impeachedhistestimony.ThecontentsofthereportofCAExt.2383
that was received in evidence during the evidence of ACP Patil,
PW186,showthat cyclonite (RDX)andcharcoal aredetectedon
oneswabandammonium,nitrateandtracesofcyclonite(RDX)are
detected on the second swab. Crossexamination of ACP Patil,
PW186,bylearnedadvocateRasalisconsistingofinquiryaboutthe
localityofthehouseoftheaccusedandhedeniedthesuggestions
about the A6 being inquired with by the Crime Branch from
31/07/06 to 09/09/06 and at the Nagpada ATS office from
09/09/06to29/09/06andduringthisentireperiodofficersofthe
ATSandCrimeBranchunitregularlyvisitingthehouseoftheA6.He
clarifiedthattheymayhavevisitedhishouseforinquiringabout
him and turned down the suggestion that during such visits the
officers take search of the house of the suspect to find out any
incriminating article. This cannot be because unless a person is
arrested a search of his house cannot be taken. He could not
JudgementMCOC21/06
..723..
Ext.4825
describewhatwasaroundthehouseoftheA6,becauseobviouslyhe
hadnotgonethere,butturneddownthesuggestionthatonly23
personscanstandorsitinthathouseandthatthecookerthatwas
seizedwasacookerinuseanditwasseizedfrombrotherofthe
accused from the first floor. Surprisingly, he was only given the
suggestionthatthecookerisplanted,whichheobviouslydenied,
buthewasnotgivenasuggestionaboutplantingoftheRDXthough
hewasthechiefinvestigatingofficeratthattime.Now,inrespectof
the searchandseizure,Sr.PITajne,PW161,was crossexamined
andduringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhan
inparagraphs40and41,againthedetailsofwhatisaroundthe
houseoftheA6,atwhatdistanceitisfromtheofficeoftheDCBCID
inKurlaandtheShivajiNagarPoliceStation,etc.,wereaskedand
hegavespecificanswersthatshowhisknowledgeandprovethathe
hadreallygonethere.Inchiefexaminationhehadstatedthatafter
reaching the house of the accused they summoned two panchas,
which is not as per the contents of the panchanama Ext. 716.
However, this mistake was corrected in his crossexamination
wherein he deposed that they were taken from Bhoiwada. In his
chiefexaminationhestatedaboutwipingtheblackandwhitespots
withthehelpofcleananddryseparatecottonswabs,whereas,the
panchanamasaysthatthecottonswabswereslightlydampenedby
waterandthenitwasusedtowipethespots.Thismistakehasbeen
correctedduringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahab
Khanduringwhichhestatedthatthedrycottonwasdampenedwith
somewaterandalongwiththispositivesentencehealsostatedthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..724..
Ext.4825
thecottonswabswereintheinvestigationkitbagwiththestaff.His
crossexaminationbylearnedadvocateRasalinparagraphs40and
41hasnotrevealedanythingadversetodiscredithisversionandhe
aswellasPritamMhatre,PW58,correctlystatedthatthecotwason
theleftsideafterenteringtheroomandhedeniedthesuggestion
thatthecotwasofironandstatedthatitwasawoodenbox.Itwill
notbeoutofplacetomentionherethat ShaikhHazratAli,DW4,
brotheroftheA6,hasstrangelystatedinhiscrossexaminationby
thelearnedSPPwhileadmittingthatthereisabedandshowcasein
thehouse,thattheboxtypebedisofiron.Ihaveneverseenanybox
typebedmadeofiron.Sr.PITajne,PW161,deniedthesuggestions
denying the aspect of the search and seizure of the articles. In
further crossexamination in paragraphs 61 to 64 by learned
advocateWahabKhan,nothingwasrevealedexceptthequestions
aboutthepanchwitnesses,i.e.,PritamMhatre,PW58,andtheother
panch Mukesh Walji Rabadiya who is not examined. Again the
aspect of calling panchas has been cleared by answers in cross
examination that he did not call the panchas at Bhoiwada office
before going for search as the panchas were required at the
residenceoftheaccusedandhehaddecidedtocallthemthereand,
thisisimportant,thathesawPritamMhatre,PW58,inthevehicle
whilegoingtothehouseoftheaccusedashisconstablehadpicked
himupaftertheirvehiclestartedfromBhoiwadaandhetookthe
saidpanchashewasagoodpersonthoughhehadseenhimonce
and knew that he had acted as a panch witness in another case
sometime before. He was shown the panchanama Ext. 748 dtd.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..725..
Ext.4825
12/07/06,Ext.749dtd.17/06/06andExts.1745(1to4)andhe
admittedthatPritamMhatre,PW58,hasactedaspanchwitnessin
thispanchanamasanditisinthefirsttwopanchanamasonlythat
he,i.e,Sr.PITajne,PW161,istheinvestigatingofficer.However,it
isexplainedbyhimthatPritamMhatre,PW58,wasagoodperson,
therefore,heusedhimagainandfurtherexplainedthattheyusedto
face difficulties for obtaining panch witnesses at the spot, which
showsthepracticaldifficultythepolicefaceduringinvestigations.
He was given the suggestion and he denied that he planted the
pressurecooker,buthewasnotgivenanysuggestionthattheblack
andwhilespotswerealsoplantedorputbyhimoranyofhisofficer.
Ithascomeasapositivesentenceinhiscrossexaminationthathe
hadaskedtheaccusedaboutthepatches,buthekeptmum.Though
headmittedthatthisisnotwritteninthepanchanamathoughitwas
animportantthing,ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationandcannot
beconstruedasanomission.Hisevidencehasnotbeendiscredited
duringhiscrossexaminationanditprovesthesearchandseizure.
Same is the case about the evidence of panch witness Pritam
Mhatre, PW58, whose evidence in chiefexamination about the
search and seizure is clear and giving all the details about the
articlesinthehouseoftheA6aswellasprocedureofthesearch,
collecting the articles, sealing them and seizing them. His cross
examination has notdiscredited his version aboutthe search and
seizureandhecandidlyadmittedthatheknewofficerKhanvilkar,
whowasthePIinBhoiwadaPoliceStationandthereisonlyone
thing which he admitted that it did not happen that he was not
JudgementMCOC21/06
..726..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
707.
..727..
Ext.4825
ItisthisaspectofPritamMhatre,PW58,havingactedasa
JudgementMCOC21/06
..728..
Ext.4825
708.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhanfortheaccusedcriticizedthe
evidenceinrespectofthissearchandseizureonseveralpoints.He
submits that the investigating machinery had recorded the
statementsof ShaikhHazratAli,DW4,brotheroftheA6andhis
wife on 28/10/06, but they were not cited as witnesses in the
chargesheet,however,laterontheprosecutionproducedadditional
documents andtheywerecitedasprosecution witnessesandthis
showsthattheconductoftheprosecutionisimproper.Hesubmits
thatthedefencewasnotshyofexaminingoneofthetwowitnesses
in supportoftheir caseandhiscrossexamination bythelearned
SPPhasnotrevealedanythingandhisevidenceclearlyfalsifiesthe
caseoftheprosecutiononthepointofdrawingofpanchanamain
thehouse of the A6aswell as seizure of traces of stains.Tomy
mind,whatevermaybetheprocedurebywhichtheprosecutionfiled
thestatementsofthesaidtwowitnesses,thefactremainsthatthey
werefiledandobviouslylearnedadvocateisbankinguponcertain
statements made by Shaikh Hazrat Ali, DW4, during his cross
examination, but is overlooking the fact that he admitted the
signatureoftheA6onthepanchanamawhenitwasshowntohim
andthatthepolicehadwrittensomething.Plusthefactthatinhis
chiefexaminationhehasnotstatedanythingabouttheeventsofthe
dateofthepanchanama,i.e.,29/09/06.Thus,thissubmissionisof
no use and learned advocate's submission to link the event of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..729..
Ext.4825
29/09/06totheevidenceofShaikhHazratAli,DW4,inrespectof
8,9and10/07/06andsubmittingthatsincetheevidenceofthose
threedatesdiscardsthecaseoftheprosecution,thentheevidenceof
search and seizure on 29/09/06 looses its evidential value. I am
afraidbutnosuchinferencecanbedrawnmerelyonthebasisofthe
evidencegiveninchiefexaminationbyShaikhHazratAli,DW4.His
entireevidenceisrequiredtobeaccessedandhisevidenceaboutthe
saidthreedateswillbediscussedsubsequently.
709.
involvedinthesaidpanchanamaandconsideringhisbackgroundof
corruptioncasesthepresumptionabouttheofficialactwillnotbe
applicable. I have already discussed his evidence as well as the
evidenceofACPShengal,DW51,anditisfoundthatbothwerenot
givenasinglesuggestionthattheyhadnotgoneforthesaidsearch
onthatday.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthattheevidenceof Shaikh
HazratAli,DW4,clearlyfalsifiesthesearchandseizureashewas
notgivenanysuggestionthatsomestainswerecollectedfromthe
house and the witness has claimed that old pressure cooker was
takenaway,buttheprosecutiondidnotbothertoconfronthimwith
thepressurecookerArt.303thatisbeforethecourtandhewasnot
confronted with his signature on panchanama Ext. 716. These
submissionsareobviouslyignoringthefactthatShaikhHazratAli,
DW4,wasshownthepanchanamaExt.716anditisalsoignoring
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and contents of the
panchanamaExt.716,whichspecificallyshowthatanewpressure
cookerwasfoundandseized.
JudgementMCOC21/06
710.
..730..
Ext.4825
Astrangesubmissionwasmadebythelearnedadvocatethat
thoughACPShengal,DW51,wascitedasaprosecutionwitness,he
was not examined by the prosecution and because he was not
truthfullyansweringthequestionswhenhewasexaminedbythe
defence,hewasdeclaredhostileandevenfromhimtheprosecution
hasnotbroughtonrecordtheseizureofthecookerandfindingof
stainsfromthehouseoftheA6.Idonotknowhowsuchsubmission
canbemade.Thewitnesswasexaminedasadefencewitnessandhe
beingapoliceofficerwouldnotnaturallysupportthecaseofthe
accusedasitwasputtohim.Therewasnoneedanditwouldnot
havebeencorrectfortheprosecutiontocrossexaminehimandto
questionaboutthesearchandseizure.Forthattheprosecutionhas
ledthepositiveevidenceoftheofficerswhopreparedandsignedthe
panchanamaandthepanchwitnesswhowaspresentthere.
711.
Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocatethattheevidenceof
712.
prosecutionhasproducedtheconfessionalstatementoftheA6Ext.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..731..
Ext.4825
1071insupporttotheircase,butthereisnothinginittoshowthat
anything was kept in the wooden box and on one side the
prosecutionclaimedthattheworkofassemblingwasdoneon8,9
and10/07/06andabouttwoandhalfmonthsthereaftertheyclaim
to have seen two stains and the cooker, which is required to be
discarded on the ground of delay. To my mind, the confessional
statementgivenbyanaccusedisavoluntarystatementmadebythe
accusedandifatalltheATShadfabricatedit,itcouldhaveeasily
introducedthisaspect.Thattwostainsseparatefromeachother,one
blackandonewhiteincolour,werenoticedhasbeenprovedbythe
prosecution as cogent evidence and its existence now has to be
explainedbytheaccused.Thesestainsarenotliketheblackpowder
insubstantialquantitythatwasfoundinthehouseoftheA1ora
smallquantityofblackpowderfoundinthehouseoftheA3.These
arestainsandifreallytheATSwantedtofabricate,theofficercould
have sprinkled the black powder directly rather than only saying
that two separate stains, one black and one white, were noticed.
There is infactnodelaybecause the house ofthe A6issearched
immediately on the day of his arrest and stains of chemicals on
wood do not go away easily. The existence of the stains can be
explainedbythecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementmadebythe
A6 Ext. 1071 that the A3 had brought RDX to his house and
remaining articles like eight rexine bags, ammonium, nitrate,
detonators,watches,etc.,werealreadybroughtbyA13andkeptat
the house of the A6. Considering the evidence given by the
prosecutionwitnesses,excepttheplaceinthewoodenboxtypecot,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..732..
Ext.4825
therewouldhavebeennoplacetokeep/hidesuchtypeofarticlesin
thehouseoftheA6.
713.
Hisnextsubmissionisthatthereisnoevidenceinrespectof
theinvestigationinrespectofthesourceofthepressurecooker.True
itis,butithastobeacceptedthatthepressurecookerisanitemof
dailyhouseholduseandrecoveryofanewpressurecookerisbeing
relieduponbytheprosecutionasoneofcircumstance.Therefore,
findingofanewpressurecookerwouldbearelevantfactrather
thanfromwhereitwaspurchased,becausepurchasingorpossessing
apressurecookerisnotacrime,butifitisputtosomeillegaluse,
thenitsseizureisarelevantfact.
714.
Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateisthatantecedentsof
the stains that they were not contaminated and adulterated and
beforetheiruseonthatdaytheywereinsealedconditionhasnot
beenprovedbytheprosecution.Hence,possibilitycannotberuled
outthattheswabsweretakenfromthe490gramsRDXthatwas
availablewiththem,whichwasseizedfromthehouseoftheA1.
ThissubmissionpresupposesthattheRDXwasfoundinthehouseof
the A1, but it overlooks that it was only black powder that was
found and not white powder also. Secondly, except asking Sr. PI
Tajne,PW161,aboutwettingofthecottonswabs,etc.,thereisno
crossexamination and no suggestion was given to him that the
swabswerenotinasealedconditionbeforetheywereusedonthat
day.Ontheotherhandapositivesentencehascomeinhiscross
examinationthatthecottonswabswereintheinvestigationkitbag
thatwaswiththestaff.Itiscommonknowledgethatsuchtypesof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..733..
Ext.4825
swabsarethereintheinvestigationkitsofthepoliceortheother
investigating agencies andtheyareunusedandpackedinsucha
mannerthattheycannotbetouchedbyhumanhands,toeliminate
the possibility of contamination or adulteration. Thus, this
submission does not discredit the evidence of the use of cotton
swabs.
715.
716.
Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocatethatpanchwitness
JudgementMCOC21/06
..734..
Ext.4825
PritamMhatre,PW58,admittinghisassociationwithPIKhanvilkar,
PW168,showsthatheisnotanindependentandimpartialperson,
is not correct. Pritam Mhatre, PW58, has not admitted his
association, but has only stated that he knows PI Khanvilkar,
PW168,andhisevidenceinrespectofthepanchanamasisalready
discussedabove.Hisnextsubmissionisthatitisunnaturalonthe
partofanoffender/culprittoleavesuchstainsinhishousewhenthe
ATSofficerswerevisitinghishouseinconnectionwiththeinquiryof
the bomb blasts. This submission obviously overlooks the
presumptionthattheA6knewthattherearestainsinthatwooden
box.Asisobservedwhilediscussingthefindingofblackpowderin
the house of the A3, its existence can be known, provided the
accused knows that it is there. Relying on the answers given by
Pritam Mhatre, PW58, in paragraph 22 of his crossexamination
whereinheadmittedhavingactedaspanchwitnessinsomeearlier
cases, the details of which were provided to him by the learned
advocate,itissubmittedthatwithouttutoringthiswitness,hecould
not have deposed. The crossexamination of this witness was
adjourned on 14/12/10 and was resumed on 07/01/11 and
obviouslythewitnessgavetheseanswersbecauselearnedadvocate
gavehimanopportunitytothinkoverwhathehadstatedearlier
andnofaultcanbefoundinit.Ofcourse,hisevidenceisalready
discussed.
717.
that nothing was found on the ground floor, which falsifies the
evidencegivenbytheprosecution.Inthisrespectithascomeinhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..735..
Ext.4825
evidencethatA6usedtostayonthegroundfloorwithhisfamily
andhe,i.e.,ShaikhHazratAli,DW4andonemorebrotherMuktar
Ahmedusedtostayonthefirstfloorwiththeirfamilies.Itisinthe
evidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,aswellasPritamMhatre,PW58,
thatafterthesearchofthegroundfloor,theywenttothefirstfloor
where A6's brother and his wife were present. Thus, obviously
ShaikhHazratAli,DW4,wasonthefirstfloorandhecouldnot
haveknownwhattranspiredonthegroundfloor.Thus,hisevidence
thatnothingwasfoundisavagueevidence,whereas,ithascomein
his crossexamination that they had taken something and he is
obviouslytryingtosupportandsavehisbrother,theA6,bystating
thatthebedwhichisboxtypebedisofiron,whichisimpossible.
His evidence rather than supporting the defence of the A6, has
helped the prosecution in proving the panchanama about the
seizure.
718.
719.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..736..
Ext.4825
prosecutionhasledcogentevidencetoprovefindingofblackand
whitestainsinawoodenboxtypecotinthehouseoftheA6which
turnedouttobeCyclonite(RDX),Ammonium,Nitrateandtracesof
Cycloniteandhasalsoprovedtheseizureofnewpressurecooker,
Art. 303. This is the circumstance no. 11 proved by the
prosecution.ItisagainsttheA6.Itisthefirstcircumstanceagainst
theA6.
720.
Nextintimeistherecoveryofsevencookerrubberrings,five
JudgementMCOC21/06
..737..
Ext.4825
IndianMedicalAssociationbuildingatJuhuandtoldhimthathe
works in the ATS office, which shows his truthfulness. He
corroboratedtheevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,abouttheaccused
makingthestatementbeforehimandboththesewitnessesidentified
thesaidmemorandum,hissignatureandthesignaturesoftheother
panch and of ACP Dhawale. It has come in the evidence of PI
Tonapi,PW155,thatpanchastookthesearchofthepolicepartyand
the vehicle as per their practice, finding nothing objectionable
excepttheinvestigationkitandsealingmaterialandproceedingto
Dahisarsubwayasperthedirectionoftheaccused,gettingdown
andaccusedleadingthemtowardstherailwaytracksandthento
thewesternrailwaytracksforquitesomedistanceandpointingout
totheplaceswherehefeltthathehadthrownthearticlesandat
oneplacepointingouttoaplace,whichwasnearanelectriccabin
bearingno.L16inthemarshylandwheretheysawabrownplastic
bagpartlysubmergedinthemud,itbeingtakenout,broughttoa
cleararea,findingawhiteplasticbaginsidethatwastornatsome
placesandfindingsevenblackrubbercookerringsinsideitArts.331
(1to7),fivestainlesssteelcookerwhistleswithblackplasticcaps
havingthenameKanchanonthem,Arts.332(1to5),numberof
electricwires,aprintedcircuitboard,Art.334, intheplasticbox
Art.334A,cleaningallthearticlesastheyweremuddy,puttingthem
inseparateplasticbags,labelingandsealingthemandhewriting
the panchanama Ext. 1109 about the search and seizure, the
contentsofwhichheproved.Hisevidenceiscorroboratedbythe
evidenceof KirtirajDalvi,PW109,andbothidentifiedhisandthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..738..
Ext.4825
otherpanchassignaturesandsignaturesofACPDhawaleaswellas
thesignatureoftheA3,becauseithascomeintheevidenceofboth
thatthereafterphotocopyofthepanchanamawastakenoutandwas
giventotheaccused.Bothidentifiedallthearticlesaccuratelyand
specifically and both identified the A3 in the court. PI Tonapi,
PW155,provedthecontentsofthetruephotocopiesofstationdiary
entriesno.3and7,Ext.1667(twopages),firstofwhichwasmade
beforeleavingthepolicestationandthesecondthatwasmadeafter
returningtothepolicestation.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathe
handed over the articles to the muddemal clerk and gave the
panchanamatoACPPatil,PW186.Ithascomeintheevidenceof
ACPPatil,PW186,thatonthatdayPITonapi,PW155,handedover
thememorandumandpanchanamaExts.1108and1109,reported
about finding of the said articles, deposited the articles in the
muddemal room and he sending all the articles to the FSL on
11/10/06alongwithPCSantoshSalunkhe,PW97,withforwarding
letter, office copy of which is at Ext. 972, contents of which he
provedandithascomeinhisevidencethatthereportsExts.973
and974 werereceivedandtheyshownthat Cyclonite(RDX)was
detected on the plastic bags and the PCB can be used to form a
triggering device, etc. PC Santosh Salunkhe, PW97, corroborated
the evidence of ACP Patil, PW186, andidentified the forwarding
letterandtheplasticpacketsthathehadtakentotheFSL.Hiscross
examination has not discredited his version except insofar as his
bucklenumbernotbeingwrittenintheofficecopyoftheforwarding
letterExt.972aboutwhichheexplainedthatitwaswritteninthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..739..
Ext.4825
registerwiththereceivingclerk.Somepositivesentencesupporting
theevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,andKirtirajDalvi,PW109,have
comeonrecordduringhiscrossexaminationthattheofficershad
inquiredwiththeaccusedinhisoffice,i.e.,theJuhuWingofthe
ATS where he was attached since 2004 andinsofar as the panch
witnesses are concerned he stated that they were brought in
connectionwiththedisclosurestatementmadebytheaccused.It
hasalsocomeinhiscrossexaminationthathehadhelpedatthe
timeofpreparationofpanchanama,thatitwastwodaysbeforehe
went to Kalina, that ACP Dhawale, PI Deshmukh and other staff
werepresentatthattime,thatthepanchanamawasinconnection
withtheaccusedbynameFaisalandthiswason08/10/06andto
topitallthathehadseentheplasticpacketsinthehandsofthe
officerswhentheyreturnedfromthespot.Itisverysurprisingthat
such things are asked in crossexamination and they fortify the
evidencegivenbyotherwitnesses.Thereisnocrossexaminationto
ACPPatil,PW186,onthispoint.Thus,bytheevidenceofACPPatil,
PW186,andPCSantoshSalunkhe,PW97,andtheforwardingletter
andtheFSLreport,theproseuctionhasestablishedthelinkbetween
theseizedarticlesandthereportoftheFSL.
721.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..740..
Ext.4825
suggestionthattherewasonlyonesealanditwaskeptinthehead
officeandadmittedthatnorecordwaskeptaboutthemovementof
theseal.Explainingthecustodyoftheseal,hesaidthatthesealwas
in thecustodyoftheunitinchargeandiftheofficerofthatunit
wantedtouseit,itwasnotnecessaryforhimtogivearequisition
letter. This evidence is similar to the evidence of Sr. PI Rathod,
PW176,inhiscrossexamination.Thereissomecrossexamination
inrespectofthestationdiaryentiresExts.1666to1670and1672
aboutofficers like Sr.PITajne, PW161,PSIs AwariandGaikwad
resuming their duty on 08/10/06, but his name being not
mentionedinit,aboutwhichhevolunteeredthattheseofficerswere
attachedtoKalachowkiPoliceStationandKalachowkiunit,buthe
was not attached to the Kalachowki unit of the ATS, but was
attached to the ATS Police Station of Kalachowki and denied the
suggestion that he was not on duty on 31/07/06, 08/10/06 and
23/10/06. Strange questions were made in response to whichhe
answered that the duties are not assigned one day or two days
beforeintheATS.Thenagaininrespectofthestationdiaryentiry
no.3inExt.1667headmittedthatnameofACPDhawaleisnot
written in it and that the entires do not show from where they
started and where they returned, which should have been
mentioned. He denied the suggestion that ACP Dhawale and PI
Deshmukhwere notpresentat Chandanchowki on 08/10/06and
pointed outthat the names of the officers including the incharge
officer are mentioned in the panchanama. The contents of the
memorandumExt.1108aswellasthepanchanamaExt.1109shows
JudgementMCOC21/06
..741..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..742..
Ext.4825
confessionalstatementbeforethatdayandheexpressedhislackof
knowledge,whichtomymind,hastobeexpectedinviewofthefact
thathewasnottheinvestigatingofficerofanyparticularcrime.Very
positive statements have come in his crossexamination that the
accusedmadethevoluntarystatementwithin510minutesafterthe
panchasarrivedintheChandanchowkioffice,thatACPDhawalehad
told him to state whatever he wanted to state and nobody was
askinganyquestionstohimandtheaccusedmadethestatementin
HindiandACPDhawaledictatedtheentirepanchanamatohim,i.e.,
PITonapi,PW155.Hespecificallystatedthatthewordingswritten
inthepanchanamaareasperthenarrationoftheaccusedandthey
werenotdictatedbyACPDhawaleandagainexplainedthatitwas
asperthenarrationoftheaccusedandasperthedictationofACP
Dhawale.Thus,thesepositivesentencesincrossexaminationhave
supported his evidence in chiefexamination about the voluntary
natureofthestatementmadebytheaccused.
722.
Nexthewasaskedaboutrecoveryofanypressurecookeror
anypartofanypressurecookerandheexpressedignoraceaboutit
thoughheadmittedthatasamemberofinvestigationteamhewas
requiredtogothroughthepapersoftheinvestigation,buthadnot
gone through the physical papers and explained that he was
supposedtoassisttheconcernedinvestigatingofficersandduring
thebriefingsthedetailsoftheinvestigationweresharedandeach
memberoftheteamwasassignedaparticulartask,therefore,he
hadnotgonethroughthecasepapers.Whileadmittingthatitisnot
writteninthememorandumthattheaccusedtoldabout'pressure
JudgementMCOC21/06
..743..
Ext.4825
cookerring',headmittedthatitisnotwritten,butthattheword
'ring' is written therefore he stated that the accused had stated
'pressurecookerring'.
723.
Nowanissuewasraisedduringthecrossexaminationof PI
724.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..744..
Ext.4825
PW155,hasnotrevealedanythingthatwoulddiscredithisversion
orimpeachhistestimony.Heaswellasthepanchwitnessaccurately
identifiedall the articles anddescribedthe situtation atthe spot,
whichprovesthattheyhadgonetothespot.Thecrossexamination
ofKirtirajDalvi,PW109,inrespectofhiswork,incometaxreturns,
PANcardandcar,etc.,is,tomymind,irrelevant.Hegaveadetailed
descriptionofthespotastowheretheystopped,howtheywentto
the spot, from where the copper brown plastic bag Art. 335 was
takenoutandthisevidencehasnotbeencontrovertedduringhis
crossexaminationandhehasstatedsomemoredetails.Inrespectof
the process about accused making a voluntary statement in his
presence,hecorrectlydescribedaboutofficersACPDhawaleandPI
TonapibeingpresentandonlyofficerDhawalegivinginstructions
andhebeingintheATSofficeforonehour,whichiscorrboratedby
thecontentsofthememorandumExt.1108.Hespecificallystated
about ACP Dhawale dictating the contents of both parts of the
panchanama to officer Tonapi as per the events that were taking
placeafterhewenttothatoffice.Againsomepositivestatements
havecomeduringhiscrossexaminationthathecametoknowthat
theyweretogotoDahisaraftertheaccusedmadethestatement,
thattheintentionbehindgoingtoDahisarwastoseewhatcanbe
found and to prepare panchanama about it, but he denied the
suggestion that, therefore, they took the searches of vehicle and
policepersonnel.AsisrightlysubmittedbythelearnedSPPitcannot
beacceptedthatthepanchwintesswouldnotknowwhythesearch
ofvehicleandpolicepersonnelistobetaken.KirtirajDalvi,PW109,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..745..
Ext.4825
admittedthathecouldnotassignanyreasonwhytheaspectofthey
takingthesearchoftheofficersandvehicleisnotmentionedinthe
panchanama,but,tomymind,thepanchanamaisnotastatement
undersection161oftheCr.P.C.andPITonapi,PW155,explained
thisthatitisamatterofroutinepractice,henceitwasnotwritten.It
has come in his crossexamination that the search was going on
about2to2hours,whichwillhavetobeacceptedasthetotal
timingofthememorandumandpanchanamais1030hoursto1715
hours.Hisevidencethatthespotwasfound23ft.fromthetracksis
slightlyinconsistentwiththeevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,thatit
was78ft.fromthetrack,butobviouslythepanchanamadoesnot
give the distance and these are approximate distances, but other
thanthathehasgivenalldetailsinhiscrossexaminationaboutthe
conditionoftheplasticbags,thespot/smallpitfromwhichthebag
wasremoved,etc.Hewasaskedaboutthe innerdiameterofthe
cookerringsandwhetherthewhistlesweremeasured,whetherhe
had taken them in his hands and denied the suggestion that his
three signatures on Exts. 1108 and 1109 are different from one
another. He admitted that except Nokia headphones, which is
generallyavailableinthemarket,hedoesnothaveknowledgeabout
electrics and cannot describe any other item in the plastic bag,
whichiscorrectbecauseheisalaymananditcannotbeexpected
that he has specific knowledge about electric items. He admitted
that the five pairs of wires were measured and gave their
approximatelengthsandalsoadmittedthattheymaybeavailablein
anyelectricalshop.Hedoesnotknowwhetheritismentionedinthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..746..
Ext.4825
panchanamathatACPDhawaletoldthedrivertotakethevehicleas
per the directions that the accused would give, whether ACP
Dhawaleaskedtheaccusedwheretogoandcouldnotassignany
reasonwhythesethingsarenotinthepanchanama.However,the
contentsofExt.1109showthatpolicedirecteddriverofthejeepto
driveasperthedirectiongivenbytheaccusedFaisalShaikh.Ithas
comeinhischiefexaminationthattheaccusedwassearchingforthe
placewherehesaidthathehadthrownthearticlesfromwherethe
construction of a building that was going on was visible. This
evidence was brought on record as an omission to write in the
panchanama,buttomymind,itismorebywayofanexplanation,
because in his chiefexamination itself he has stated that at one
placeneararailwaypoletheaccusedpointedoutacopperbrown
plasticbagthatwaslyingthereandsaidthat,thatwasthesamebag
that he thrown. The contents of Ext. 1109 show that while
searching,thepolicereachedrailwayelectricpolebearingdistance
markedas37/146andtherewasasmallmetalcabinbearingno.
L16andwhensearchingintheareaadjacenttothepolefromcabin
the accused pointed out to a plastic bag that was partially
submergedinmudandwater.Thus,theexplanationgivenbyhim
clearsthisaspectandthoughheadmittedthattheareawasmarshy,
linedbygrass,however,itwasnotcoveredbyblackmudandthere
werenobushes,heagaincorrectedhimselfbystatingthathedoes
notrememberwhethertherewasblackmudandbushesinthatarea
and therefore he cannot say whether it is so rightly or wrongly
mentionedinthepanchanama.
JudgementMCOC21/06
725.
..747..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..748..
Ext.4825
726.
Thus,KirtirajDalvi,PW109,haswithstoodthetestofcross
examinationandasisrightlysubmittedbythelearndSPPheisa
totallyindependentwitnessasnothinghasbeenbroughtonrecord
todiscredithisversionbyshowingthathehascriminalantecedents,
thathehassomeconnectionwiththepoliceandwiththeATSor
that he had acted as a panch witness for the police or as their
witness. Thus, he is a fully reliable witness and his evidence has
corroboratedtheevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,andthecontentsof
Exts.1108and1109corroboratetheirversion.Thus,bythecogent
evidence of these two witnesses and the contents of the
memorandum and panchanama the prosecution has proved the
recoveryofthearticlesdescribedinthepanchanamaattheinstance
oftheaccused.
727.
Inconnectionwiththisrecovery,learnedadvocateShettyfor
theA3attackedthecredibilityofthewitnessonseveralcounts.His
mainattackisaboutthedateoftheallegedrecoveryinrespectof
whichhesubmitsthatitwasmadetwoandhalfmonthsafterthe
arrestoftheA3afterprolongedpolicecustodyandaftersomuchof
interrogation and 34 days after his so called confession being
JudgementMCOC21/06
..749..
Ext.4825
recorded.Hencethisrecoverycannotbesaidtobeinpursuanceofa
voluntary statement and he submits that the contents of the
confessionalstatementwhichwasrecordedupto07/10/06donot
showthattheaccusedhasspokenaboutthrowingthearticles.Till
thattimehedoesnotspeakanythingaboutit,butassoonasitis
completedhedesirestomakeastatementundersection27ofthe
EvidenceAct.Hesubmitsthatthisistheheightofartificialityofthe
evidenceleadingtotheoneandtheonlyinferencethatthematerial
against the accused is concocted. If the accused had knowledge
aboutthesearticles,hewouldhavediscloseditinhisconfessional
statementconsideringthefactthathehasgiventhedatewisedetails
ofhisactivities.Theaccusedwasbeingcontinuouslyinterrogatedby
several efficient senior officers since 27/07/06 in seven different
crimesandasperthecaseoftheprosecutionbefore08/10/06he
hadvolunteeredtomaketheconfessionalstatement.Asagainstthis,
thelearnedSPPsubmittedthatadmittedlythereisnoreferencein
theconfessionalstatementoftheaccusedaboutthearticles,butit
wouldhavebeenadifferentcase,ifitwouldhavebeenmentioned
init,inwhichcase,thesubmissionsofthelearnedadvocatewould
havebeenacceptablethatasitisintheconfessionalstatementthe
recovery was fabricated. Therefore, it cannot be said that the
evidenceofsearchandseizureisfabricatedorisanoutcomeofpre
mediatedthinking.Inthiscontexthepointstotherecoveryofsome
articlesattheinstanceoftheA7andsubmitsthattherecoveryofthe
articlesfromtheA3wasafterhisconfessionalstatement,whereas,
the recovery of articles from the A7 was before his confessional
JudgementMCOC21/06
..750..
Ext.4825
statement.Inmyhumbleopinion,ifatalltheconfessionalstatement
oftheaccusedwasconcoctedorfabricatedasallegedbythedefence
andontopofitifatalltheevidenceoftherecoveryandseizureof
the articles under the panchanama Ext. 1109 was also to be
fabricated and concocted, then the ATS could have very easily
introducedthis aspectin theconfessional statementofthe A3by
puttingthewordsinhismouthastowhathedidwiththeremaining
articles.Thus,tomymind,onthiscountonlyitcannotbesaidthat
theevidenceisartificialandcreatedbythepolice.
728.
InrespectoftheevidencegivenbyPITonapi,PW155,learned
advocatepointedouttothestatementmadebyhiminparagraph31
thathehadreachedChandanchowkiofficeinbetween8.00to8.30
a.m. which is inconsistent with the time mentioned in the
panchanama.Healsosubmittedthatthoughthisanswerisalsopart
of investigation,if one sees the tenor of his evidence,exceptthe
particular aspect about which he deposed, he feigned ignorance
abouttherestofthematters,whichshowsthathehassuppressed
the truth from this court and not deposing as the matter stands.
Insofar as the timing stated by the witness in paragraph 31 is
concerned it is obviously a mistake in rendering or typing or a
mistakewhilegivingevidence.Buthisevidenceinparagraph21in
thecrossexaminationisthathereached Chandanchowki atabout
8.00or8.30a.m.Thisevidencehasnotbeencontrovertedanditis
apparent that it is a mistake as mentioned above. Insofar as the
answers given by the witness expressing ignorance about certain
factorsoftheinvestigationbeingconductedbyotherofficers,itis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..751..
Ext.4825
clearfromhisevidencethathewasnottheinvestigatingofficerof
anyparticularcrime,wasnotheadoftheunitoftheATS,butwas
only assisting in the investigation. If the large canvas of the
investigation of the present case is considered, then it does not
appearprobablethatanofficerlikePITonapi,PW155,whowasjust
assistingtheinvestigatingofficersofthesevencrimes,wouldhave
knowledgeaboutallfactorsoraspectsoftheinvestigation.Thus,he
cannotbefoundfaultforansweringthequestionsinthismanner
anditcannotbeheldthatheissuppressingthetruth.Ontheother
hand,hehavingwrittenthememorandumandthepanchanamais
notchallenged.
729.
Learnedadvocatenextsubmittedthatthereisadiscrepancyin
thedescriptionofthearticlesduringhisevidenceandthearticles
that are produced before the court and the measurements of the
electric wires do not tally, which shows that something is wrong
somewhere and this casts a serious doubt about alleged recovery
anddirectlyaffectsthecredibilityoftheevidenceandshowsthatthe
investigationofthecaseisnotstraightforward,notuptothemark
andnotfair,henceitdoesnotinspireconfidenceandisrequiredto
be rejected. In this connection the learned SPP submits that the
evidence of discovery has remained unchallenged inspite of the
searching crossexamination by all the advocates. To my mind,
except the inconsistencies in the lengths of two wires, i.e., Arts.
333(3)and333(5),thelengthsoftheotherwiresarethesameand
thepossibilitycannotberuledoutthattheymayhavebeencutin
theFSLwhentheywerebeingexaminedandanalyzed.Ofcourse,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..752..
Ext.4825
730.
accusedprobablygotoveron9thor10/10/06anditdoesnotappear
probablythatatthefagendofthepolicecustody,theA3remembers
oneaspecttodiscoverthebagandonthisbackgroundtheevidence
hastobeappreciated.Tomymind,itcannotbesaidthatbecauseof
thisaspectonlytherecoveryissuspicious.Ontheotherhand,itcan
beunderstoodthatbecauseoftheprolongedsustainedinterrogation
JudgementMCOC21/06
..753..
Ext.4825
andconfrontationoftheevidencethathadbeencollectedtillthat
time,theA3gavehisconfessionalstatementandalsovolunteeredto
makethediscoveryaftertheconfessionalstatementwasover.The
contents of theconfessionalstatementExt.1218arenotin great
detailinrespectofthebombmakingprocessandhehasnotstated
anydetailsaboutthebombmakingprocessandeventsonthedays
ofthebombmakingprocessandthereafter.Hence,onthispointthe
evidenceofrecoverycannotbediscarded.
731.
LearnedadvocatehasattackedtheevidenceofKirtirajDalvi,
PW109,pointingouttotheimprovementsmadebyhiminrespect
ofthepoliceofferingtheirsearchesandsearchofthevehicleandthe
panchastakingthesearch,butthesethingsnotfindingplaceinthe
panchanama,abouttherebeingnomentioninthepanchanamathat
itwasgiventotheaccusedforreading,thatthoughthewitnessisa
businessmanheisunabletotellthedetailsofhisbusinesswhich
shows that he is not telling the truth. Hence, his evidence is
unreliableevidence andtherefore theevidenceaboutthedelayed
recovery from the A3 cannot be believed and it cannot be a
circumstanceagainsttheaccusedpointingtowardshisinvolvement
inthecrime,andsecondly,evenotherwisetherecoveriesarenot
relevantasconnectionsofthearticleswiththeallegedcrimehasnot
beenpointedout.Inmyhumbleopinion,asmentionedearlierwhile
discussingtheevidenceofthiswitnessthathiscredibilityhasnot
been impeached during his crossexamination and his evidence is
foundtobefullytrustworthyandreliableforthesinglereasonthat
heappearstobeatotallyuninterestedpersonhavingnocriminal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..754..
Ext.4825
antecedents,noconnectionwiththepoliceandnomaterialtoshow
thathehadactedasapanchwitnessearlierforthepoliceortheATS
orwasanaccusedinanycriminalcaseandhenceheisaperson
liableatthe hands ofthe police.Onthe otherhand,the witness
describedindetailtheareawheretheyhadgoneandstucktothat
descriptionduringsearchingcrossexaminationandgavesomemore
detailsunhesitatingly.
732.
Lastly,thelearnedadvocatesubmitsthatthecontentsofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
733.
..755..
Ext.4825
Thereissomediscrepancy inthedescriptionofthecopper
brownplasticbagArt.335andwhiteplasticbagArt.336inrespectof
theybeingdescribedastornatoneplace,twoplacesorthreeplaces
in the panchanama and in the evidence given by Kirtiraj Dalvi,
PW109.Tomymind,itisnotofmuchconsequenceconsideringthat
muchtimehaselapsedfromthedatewhentheywereseizedtillthe
date when they were opened in the court. They must have been
handledintheofficeoftheCAanditisnotthatthepanchanama
mentionedthatthetwoplasticbagswerenewandnottornandthe
panchwitnesswouldhavestatedsoandthenitwouldhavebeen
foundthattheyweretornatcertainplaces.Thisaspectis,therfore,
ofnoconsequence.Sameisthecaseaboutbagsbeingcoveredor
stainedwithmud,buttomymind,theevidenceaboutthesealingof
thefivebagsandtheybeingfoundinsealedconditionbytheFSL
andthesealedpacketoftheFSLbeingopenedinthecourt,shows
thatthelinkbetweentheseizedarticleswiththearticlesthatwere
examined by the FSL and with the articles that were produced
before the court has been duly established leaving no room for
doubt.
734.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatby
JudgementMCOC21/06
..756..
Ext.4825
againsthim.
ThefindingsoftheCAarerelevanttobenotedatthisstage
itself.Cyclonite(RDX)wasdetectedonthetwostainedplasticbags
as per the report Ext.973 and regarding physical examination of
rubberrings,metallicwhistles,electricwiresandcircuitboard,the
techincalreportalongwiththesupplementaryreportExt.974shows
thattheelectroniccircuitwithelectronicdevicesinitcanbeusedto
formatriggeringdevice.Thetechnicalreportofthesaidelectronic
circuitdescribeshowtheelectroniccircuitArt.334canbeusedand
what exactly it contains. It mentions that the electronic circut
contains Dual Tone MultiFrequency (DTMF) receiver integrated
circuit (IC) alongwith mobile wire, power wire and other
components, that these types of ICs are commonly used in the
telephonecircuits,thattheICconvertsDTMF(tone)signalintoits
equivalentBinaryCodedDecimal(BCD)code,thatamobilephone
oraspeciallybuiltreceivercircuitmustbeusedalongwiththesaid
electroniccircuittoprovidethenecessarytriggerforthedetonator,
that any action in the mobile phone like call form other phone
(landlineormobile),alarmfeatureofmobilephone,etc.,cantrigger
thedetonator,thatalsomostmobilephonescanbesettoemita
specialringtonewhenacallcomesinfromaspecificphonenumber
andtheringingofthattonecantriggerthedetonator.LearnedSPP
submittedinthisrespectthatthecomponentsofthecircuitsmatch
thecomponentsoftherecoverythatweremadefromtheA7and
thismuchlatitutdewillhavetobegiventotheprosecutionthatthis
cannot be fabricated or premeditated thinking. To my mind, the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..757..
Ext.4825
735.
thesixpressurecookerrubberringsandwhistles,iscollectingofa
samplepressurecookerringandwhistleofKanchanCompanyfrom
thatcompany.IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,that
theletterExt.1258wasreceivedfromtheFSLforprocuringoriginal
rubber gasket and whistle of pressure cooker from Kanchan
Companyandforwardthemtoitforthepurposeofcomparison,that
he gave this letter to PI Deshmukh and directed him to do the
needful.IthascomeintheevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,thatthe
FSLwantedanoriginalcookerringandwhistlefromtheKanchan
CookerCompany forcomparison.Hence,theletterdtd.14/10/06
wasprepared,panchaswerecalledandtheywenttoRajuIndustrial
Estate, near Dahisar Check Naka, to that company, that PSI
KandharkarstartedwritingthepanchanamaExt.1259attheJuhu
UnitandtheyhandedovertheletterArt.341toPrashantKothari,
AdministrativeHeadofthatcompanyandafterheproducedasealed
packet of pressure cooker ring and stainless steel whistle, it was
packed in a brown paper separately, labeled, sealed and seized
under the panchanama Ext. 1259. PSI Kandharkar was not
JudgementMCOC21/06
..758..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..759..
Ext.4825
FSLon16/10/06with PCTanajiPatil,PW148,whocorroborated
hisversionandprovedtheofficecopyofforwardingletterExt.1599
thatbearstheacknowledgmentofthereceivingclerkandhisbuckle
number. He also identified the packets Arts. 342A and 343A and
statedthattheywereinsealedconditionwhenhehadtakenthem.
Thereisnothing in hiscrossexamination aboutthe workthathe
did.ThereisnothinginthecrossexaminationofPITonapi,PW155,
to dispute the seizure of the pressure cooker rubber gasket and
whistle from Kanchan Cooker Company. In fact this aspect is
materialonlytoseewhetherthesevenrubberringsandfivewhistles
that were seized at the instance of the A3 were of the Kanchan
CookerCompanyornotandtheFSLreportinthisrespectExt.2388
shows the opinion of the CA that the rubber gasket and whistle
procured from the Company do not tally with rubber gasket and
whistles recovered from the A3 in respect of the markings and
physicalcharacteristics.ACPPatil,PW186,statedthatthisinother
wordsmeansthattherubbergasketandwhistlesrecoveredatthe
instance of the A3, though bearing the markings of Kanchan
Company,wereduplicate.
736.
aluminumtubes,towhichwireswerejoined,whichtheyfoundtobe
detonators,and,powder,whichwassubsequentlyfoundtobeRDX
atthe instance ofthe A13.Ithas comein the evidence of Sr. PI
Tajne,PW161,thathepreparedthememorandumofthevoluntary
statementExt.664madebytheA13on09/10/06aftertheaccused
expressedhisdesiretomakeitduringinterrogationandaftertwo
JudgementMCOC21/06
..760..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..761..
Ext.4825
seizure,thesecretaryandthechairmanofthatbuildinghadcome
there, introduced themselves and identified the accused as the
tenant of that flat. Panch witness Kevalkumar Jain, PW55, gave
evidence corroborating the evidence of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, and
deposedindetailastowhatstatementtheaccusedmade,howthe
memorandumofhisstatementwaswritten,whatarticlesweretaken
bypolicewiththemwhentheystartedforthesearch,aboutthey
searching the vehicles and the police personnel and the accused
leadingthemtothesaidflatandaboutpreparationofthekeyofthe
locker with the help of key maker and finding of the articles
describedabove.Hedescribedallthearticlesindetailandproved
the contents of the memorandum Ext. 664 and the seizure
panchanamaExt.665.HeaswellasSr.PITajne,PW161,identified
theirsignaturesonboththesedocuments,signaturesoftheother
panch and the signatures of the accused on both the documents.
Both identified the accused in court and both identified all the
articlesaccuratelyandspecifically.Thus,hisevidencecorroborates
the evidence of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, and the contents of the
memorandum Ext. 664 and the seizure panchanama Ext. 665
corroboratetheirversion.Thecontentsofthestationdiaryentries
Exts.1722and1723alsocorroboratetheirversion.Nothingadverse
wasrevealedinthecrossexaminationof KevalkumarJain,PW55,
todiscredithisversionortoimpeachhiscredibility.Thesubmissions
abouthisevidencebythelearnedadvocatesduringtheirarguments
willbeconsideredsubsequently.Sufficetosaythathehaswithstood
thetestofcrossexaminationandmostpartofhiscrossexamination
JudgementMCOC21/06
..762..
Ext.4825
is general in respect of what the police did not do, i.e., making
inquireswiththechairmanandthesecretaryofthatsociety,about
the person by name Zakir Umar Shaikh whose documents were
foundintheflat.Itisinhisevidencethatacamerawastakenbythe
police when they started for the search, but during his cross
examination he stated that he does not remember whether the
camera was used at the flat and whether there were any
photographs in the memory of that camera. The panchanama
mentionsthatadigitalcamerawastakenbythepolicewiththem
andinfurthercrossexaminationthewitnessexpressedhisignorance
astowhetherpolicetookphotographsofthedoorbeforeopeningit
andwhethertheytookphotographsoftheroombeforetouchingany
article, but made a positive statement that police had taken
photographswhentheaccusedtookoutthearticlesandalsoabout
hispresenceintheflatwhenthearticleswereseizedandsealed.
Learned advocate Wahab Khan for the accused called upon the
prosecutiontoproduceallthephotographs,whereupon,thelearned
SPPsubmittedthatthoughthephotographsweretakenatthattime,
butanewcamerawasgiventotheATSandthoughtheofficertook
thephotographstheycouldnotbeprintedbecauseofsometechnical
fault.Tomymind,photographsofsearchandseizureisnotabig
issue.
737.
KevalkumarJain,PW55,wasgenerallycrossexaminedabout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..763..
Ext.4825
738.
Hecommittedamistakeinhisstatementwhenhestatedthat
whentheaccusedwasaskedaboutthekeyoftheflat,hesaidthat
hehadthrownit.However,hecorrectedthismistakeinparagraph
33ofhiscrossexaminationbystatingthattheaccusedsaidthathe
lostitandtheaccuseddidnotsaythathehadthrownthekey.This
evidencehasnotbeencontroverted.
739.
Hecorrectlystatedaboutthesecretaryandchairmanofthat
buildingcomingthere,introducingthemselvesandonbeingasked
whethertheyknowtheaccused,theysayingthattheyknowhimand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..764..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..765..
Ext.4825
bombs and that the accused had not signed at any place on the
panchanama in the flat. Obviously, because a photocopy was
obtainedaftertheycamebelowthebuildingandthenitwasgivento
theaccused.Abaselesssuggestionwasgivenattheendofthecross
examination bythe learnedadvocate WahabKhan thatsince two
monthsbefore09/10/06theflatwasinthepossessionoftheATS
and that he deposed falsely as he is tutored by the police and
identifiedtheaccusedandthearticlesattheinstanceofthepolice.
740.
Hisevidencethatthepoliceaskedhimandtheotherpanchto
741.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..766..
Ext.4825
hasanycriminalantecedentsorconnectionwiththepolice,having
actedasapanchwitnessearlierorasanaccused,etc.Thus,heisan
absolutely uninterested witness, not pliable at the hands of the
policeandthoughtheremaybesomeminorinconsistenciesinhis
evidencevisavisthecontentsofthepanchanamaandevidenceof
Sr.PITajne,PW161,theydonotaffectthequalityofhisevidenceas
theydidnotgototherootofthecase.
742.
743.
IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thatSr.PI
Tajne,PW161,hadcometohimon09/10/06andhandedoverthe
memorandum and recovery panchanama, Exts. 664 and 665,
reportedaboutwhattheyhadrecoveredattheinstanceofA13and
that the articles were deposited in the muddemal room, which
included samples of white granulated powder in two separate
polythenebags.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathesentoneofthese
samplepacketsandthehandbagArt.279totheFSLon11/10/06
alongwithhisforwardingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1756,
thecontents ofwhichheprovedandwhichhe hadsentwith PC
Dinesh Gaikwad, PW164. PC Dinesh Gaikwad, PW164,
corroboratedhisevidence,provedthecontentsoftheofficecopyof
the forwarding letter Ext. 1756 and also identified the khaki
wrapperArt.279A and283Binwhichonesamplepacketandthe
handbaghadbeensent.Thereisnothinginhiscrossexaminationto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..767..
Ext.4825
disbelievehimandinrespectofhisanswerincrossexaminationthat
the malkhana of the ATSwas atBhoiwada andthe packetswere
giventohimatBhoiwadaandhisdenialthatthemalkhanaofthe
ATS was at Kalachowki and admission that he did not take the
packets at Kalachowki, it was submitted by the learned advocate
WahabKhanfortheaccusedthatheisobviouslyatutoredwitness,
because it has come in the evidence of other witnesses that the
malkhanawasatKalachowki.Tomymind,thisaspectwillnotaffect
theveracityoftheevidence,becausewhatmattersistheFSLfinding
the parcels to be in sealed condition with seals intact, as per its
report Ext. 2389. Thus, by the above oral and documentary
evidence,theprosecutionhasprovedthelinkbetweenthearticles
thatwereseizedfromtheabovedescribedflatattheinstanceofthe
accusedandthearticlesanalysedbytheCA.ThecontentsoftheFSL
reportExt.2389describewhatarticlesweresent,thefirstbeingthe
blackishoilylumpsinarexinebaghavingprintedlabel'Hindustan
kikasam'markedas'v'andsecondbeingthewhitegranulesina
polythenebagwrappedinpapermarkedas'c1',thesealsofwhich
werefoundtobeintact.Theresultoftheanalysisisthatthelumps
intherexinebagcontain82.34%RDXCyclonite,8%Charcoaland
9.17% Petroleum Hydrocarbon Oil and Ammonium and Nitrate
Radicalsweredetectedinthewhitegranules.
744.
Admittedly,thedocumentsorthearticlesthatwererecovered
from the said flat do not indicate that the flat was owned or
possessedbytheA13onrentandforthispurposetheprosecution
examinedtheowneroftheflat,i.e.,KhurshidBegum,PW51,andan
JudgementMCOC21/06
..768..
Ext.4825
estateagentAmirKhan,PW49.
745.
Ithascomeintheevidenceof KhurshidBegum,PW51,that
she had purchased flat no. 101 in Poonam Plaza, Hyderi Chowk,
MiraRoadin2005or2006,whichisnotadisputedpositionasthe
photocopy of an agreement by which she rented the flat to one
IrshadorHarshad,i.e.,Art.264Ext.654,is notdisputedbythe
defence,because learnedadvocate WahabKhan submittedat one
placethattheprosecutionhasprovedthesaidagreement.Itshows
thatsheistheownerofthatflat.Herevidenceaboutrentingtheflat
in2006tothesaidIrshadorHarshadthroughanestateagentAmir
Khan,i.e.,PW49,etc.,andAmirKhan,PW49sevidenceaboutit,is
therefore not disputed in view of the prosecution proving the
agreement.ThecontentsofagreementExt.654showthatitwasfor
theperiodfrom01/02/06to31/12/06.Thedisputeisaboutboth
thesewitnesseshavingseentheA13inthatflatwithawomanand
twochildren.Theevidenceofboththesewitnessesaboutthisaspect
is consistent in nature. It has come in the evidence of Khurshid
Begum,PW51,thatafterrentingtheflat,shehadfirstgonetoitin
thefirstmonthofrainyseason,where,shesawthesaidmanwith
thewomanandtwochildrenintheflatandthatthesaidmanwas
someotherpersonthanIrshadtowhomshehadrentedtheflat.She
wentinsideitandbeforethatshehadphonedAmirKhan,PW49,
andtoldhimthatsomeotherpersonisstayingthereandhadtaken
him and Kasambhai, secretary of the society, to the flat. She
describedwhathappenedwhensheknockedonthedoor.Shestated
that a woman opened the door and Amir Khan, PW49, and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..769..
Ext.4825
Kasambhaiwaitedoutside.Shewentinsidetheflat,sawtheman,
woman and two children in it and on seeing her the man went
insideandthemanwashavingabeardandsheaskedthewomanas
to who they are and told her that they are not the person with
whomshedonetheagreement.Thewomantoldherthattheyare
relativesofthatmanandthepersonwhohadtakentheflatonrent
isherbrotherinlaw.Hercrossexaminationonthisaspecthasnot
revealedmuchandsheemphaticallydeniedthesuggestionthatthe
A13wasnotinherflatanytime,thathewasshownleisurelytoher
intheATSoffice,thatshedidnotseethatmancorrectly,thoughshe
admittedthatpolicehadshownA13toherintheofficeofATSat
KalachowkionthefirstoccasionandtoldherthathisnameisAsif
KhanBashirKhan,whowascaughtfromherflatandarticlesfor
preparingthebombwerefoundfromherflat,sheturneddownthe
suggestion that therefore she identified him in the court. Two
portions from her statement were confronted to her and were
markedas AandB, butcould not beprovedbythe defenceas
prosecutiondidnotexamineASISachinKadam,whohadtakenher
statement. However, portion marked A is in connection with her
tenantIrshadandisnotmaterial.Nowthoughthesecondportion
wasconfrontedtoherthatshesaidthatitdidnothappenthatshe
hadaskedthatperson,i.e.,A13abouthertenantMohd.Irshadand
A13toldherthatheishisbrother,hehasgoneoutofstation,would
comeinaweekandatthattimeshehadseenherwifeandchildren.
Nothingfurtherwasaskedandsuggestedaboutthatportionasto
whyitisinherstatementandthatshehadstatedsotothepolice.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..770..
Ext.4825
746.
renting out the flat to Mohd. Irshad Mohd. Kasam and the
agreementbeing executed, rent being depositedin his office, she
collectingtherent,etc.Though,KhurshidBegum,PW51,couldnot
statetheexactdateormonthinwhichshehadgonetoherflatand
seen the A13, Amir Khan, PW49, stated that she phoned him in
June,2006andtoldhimthatsomeotherpersonisstayinginher
flat,therefore,alongwithher,he andKasambhai,the secretaryof
thatsociety,wenttothatflatandithascomeinhisevidencethata
bearded person, a woman and two children were in the flat.
KhurshidBegum,PW51,askedthemwherethepersontowhomshe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..771..
Ext.4825
hadrentedtheflatwasandtheytoldherthathehadgoneoutof
stationandthenhesaidthathehadseenthebeardedpersoninthe
flatandidentifiedtheA13inthecourtunhesitatingly. Mostofhis
crossexaminationisinconnectionwithhisworkasanestateagent,
howagreements are prepared,howkeys are preparedif theyare
lost,aboutthecollectionoftherentofthatflatbyKhurshidBegum,
PW51,andaboutthetenantMohd.Irshadandhisfamilymembers
andtheexecutionoftheagreement.Thoughhewasnotspecificin
his chiefexamination about the time, date and or week in June,
2006whenhewenttothatflatofKhurshidBegum,PW51,itcame
inhiscrossexaminationthattheyhadgoneonaworkingdayinthe
afternoonatabout2.30or2.35p.m.probablyinthesecondweekof
June.BoththesewitnesseshavestatedthatthesecretaryKasambhai
waspresentandithascomeinhisevidencethatKhurshidBegum,
PW51,cametoknowfromKasambhaiaboutsomeotherpersons
stayingintheflat.Hecandidlyadmittedanditisconsistentwiththe
evidenceofKhurshidBegum,PW51,thathedidnothaveanytalk
withtheinmatesoftheflat,didnotenterit,didnotcallanyperson
outsidetheflatand,thisisimportant,thatheandthesecretarydid
notgoinsideoftheflatandKhurshidBegum,PW51,toldhimwhat
talkshehadinside.Nowithascomeinhisfurthercrossexamination
thathehadgonetotheofficeoftheATSofficeatKalachowkiwhere
hisstatementwasrecordedandmadeapositivestatementthatthe
A13wasnotsittingthere.Atthattime,theofficerstoldhimthat
theywouldshowtheaccusedtohim,buthetoldhimthatitwasnot
necessaryandtheydidnotshowtheaccusedtohimandhehadnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..772..
Ext.4825
seentheaccusedthere,however,policeshowedphotographsofthe
accused to him. In respect of the concerned portion from his
statementhewasaskedandheansweredthatitdidnothappenthat
police showed him one person and asked him whether he was
residinginthesaidflatandheidentifiedhimasbrotherofMohd.
Irshadandstatedthathehadnotstatedsotothepolice,butthenhis
naivetyisapparentbecausehethenstatedthatifitissowrittenin
thestatementthenitiscorrect.Itis,therefore,thatthesaidportion
wasnotconfronted,but,tomymind,thiscannotbeanadmissionso
astowashawayhisevidenceabouthavingseentheA13inthatflat.
Seeingapersonphysicallyandseeinghisphotographissomething
differentandithascomeinhiscrossexaminationitselfaspointed
outabove,thathetoldthepolicethatitisnotnecessarytoshowthe
accusedtohimandtheydidnotshowtheaccusedtohim.
747.
prosecutionhasprovedthattheA13wasresidinginthesaidflat,
i.e.,flatno.101,'A'Wing,PoonamPark,NayaNagar,HyderiChowk,
MiraRoad,thoughhewasnotthetenanttowhomKhurshidBegum,
PW51,hadrentedthesaidflat.
748.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..773..
Ext.4825
copiesofwhichareatExts.1727and1728,andwhichcorroborate
his version. There is nothing in paragraph 70 of his cross
examinationonthispointtodiscredithisevidenceaboutitandmost
of the answers are positive statements and it has come in his
evidence that they had returned from Mira Road directly to
Kalachowkiofficeonthatday,i.e.,on09/10/06,viaBhoiwada,but,
thisisimportant,thattheydidnotstopthereandA13wasnotput
in the Bhoiwada lockup before going to Kalachowki office. Why
suchbaselessquestionswereaskedisaquestiontomebecausethere
is nothing to contradict his evidence on record and on the other
handithasstrengthenedhisevidenceabouttakingtheaccusedto
Kalachowkiandtheinspectionofthegranulesanddetonatorstaking
placeinthepresenceoftheaccused.Ofcourse,heturneddownthe
suggestiondenyinghisevidenceandthoughheadmittedthatthere
isnoentryinthestationdiaryaboutdepositingthedetonatorsand
granulesinthemuddemalroomaftertheywereinspected,itdoes
not lead to anything. Panch witness Kevalkumar Jain, PW55,
corroboratedhisevidencetotallyinallrespectsandbothwitnesses
identified their signatures on the labels on the packets that were
sealedandonthepanchanamaExt.667.Hiscrossexaminationon
this aspect has not affected his evidence and on the other hand
positivestatementshavecomeonrecordthathehadreachedthe
ATSofficeatabout6.45p.m.,wasthereupto9.30p.m.,thatthedog
squadcameat8.00p.m.,onlyonesamplepacketwasopened,that
beforethepolicedogwasgiventhesamplepowdertosmell,thedog
squad persons had stated about the powder being explosive. He
JudgementMCOC21/06
..774..
Ext.4825
deniedthesuggestionthattheaccusedwasnotpresentatthattime
andadmittedthefactualpositionthattheaccusedwasnotaskedto
signanywhereatthattime.Thus,hisevidenceisunscratchedandas
observedtimeandagain,abaselesssuggestionwasmadethatsince
twomonthsbefore09/10/06theflatwasinthepossessionofthe
ATS.Thereisnoevidenceforthisbythedefence.Therefore,Isaid
baseless.
749.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..775..
Ext.4825
containtensmallaluminumcylinders,about1or1incheslong
andtwowhiteelectricwiresbeingattachedtoeachcylinderandat
theendsofcylinderswherewireswereattachedbeingcrimpedand
theotherendswerepressedinside,i.e.,concaveandonthebasisof
hisexperienceherealizedthattheyaredetonators.Heknewthat
there is an ASA compound in the detonator, i.e., in the cylinder
which is of the weight of 0.35 grams and there is composition
explosive of about 0.55 grams in it, which is a primary high
explosive,sensitivetoheat,shockandanyimpulse.Therefore,he
separatedthemintwobunchesoffiveeach,wrappedthemincotton
andputtheminhalfcutseparateplasticbottlesandgavethemto
theATSastheyarehighlysensitiveandcanexplodeeveniftheyfall
onahardsurfaceandasitwasriskytokeepthetendetonators
together.
750.
Shettyinparagraph19hasnotrevealedanythingadversetoaffect
his testimonyexceptthathisstatementwasnotrecordedonthat
day.Buthedeniedthesuggestionthatnopanchanamawasprepared
whenthearticleswereshowntohimandheinspectedthem.Hehas
madeapositivestatementthatthegranuleswereapproximately1
to2kgs.,hehadinspectedtheplasticbagscontainingthegranules,
regarding the seal and label, that the date on the label was
09/10/06, that the weights of the contents of the cylinder about
whichhestatedarestandardasthedetonatorsarefactorymade.In
further crossexamination in paragraph 27 his evidence about
explosivesubstancebasicallycontaininghighoxygen,therefore,they
JudgementMCOC21/06
..776..
Ext.4825
doing the test by lighting it and that the ends of cylinders were
crimped and he realized because of his experience that they are
detonators, etc., was brought on record as improvement. His
evidenceabouttakingsomegranulesfromthepacketandlighting
them, the granules burning while melting which prima facie
confirmedthatitwasexplosive,wasbroughtonrecordasomission
tostatewhenhegavehisstatementtotheATSofficers.Tomymind,
theimprovementsandomissionsareinthenatureofexplanations
and they do not affect his testimony because the contents of the
panchanamaExt.667describetheprocedure.Hiscrossexamination
bylearnedadvocateRasalhasalsonotrevealedanythingadverseto
affect his testimony.On the otherhand, thoughhe admittedthat
eveniffivedetonatorstogetherwouldhavefallenitcouldhavebeen
dangerous,hedidnotkeepeachoneseparateashewrappedthem
inacottonandtookthenecessarysafetymeasures.
751.
Thus,theevidenceofAPI Revle,PW154,fullycorroborates
theevidenceof Sr.PITajne,PW161,andKevalkumarJain,PW55,
andthecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.667areprovedandthey
corroboratetheversionofthesethreewitnesses.
752.
Ithascomeintheevidenceof Sr.PITajne,PW161,thathe
handedovertheoriginalpanchanamaExt.667andthearticlesto
thechief investigating officerACPPatil,PW186. Theevidence in
connectionwithACPPatil,PW186,aboutsendingoneofthesample
packetsandthehandbagtotheFSLisalreadydiscussed.
753.
Nextsubsequentstepwasofdisposalofthedetonatorsasthey
werehazardousforstorageandithascomeintheevidenceofACP
JudgementMCOC21/06
..777..
Ext.4825
Patil, PW186, that he applied and got the permission from the
specialcourttodefusethemanddirectedSr.PITajne,PW161,todo
theneedful.Sr.PITajne,PW161,deposedaboutAPIRevle,PW154,
and staff of the BDDS team arriving at the Kalachowki office on
20/10/06 on being summoned for destroying the detonators,
handing over the two plastic bottles containing the detonatorsto
him and going to Girgaon Chowpaty with panchas, one of them
beingAjitSingh,PW158,showingthecourtordertothemandAPI
Revle,PW154,andtheprocedurethatAPIRevle,PW154,adopted
fordestroyingthedetonatorsonebyoneandthenhecollectingthe
remaining pieces of detonators and wires, packing them, labeling
themandsealingthemunderthepanchanamaExt.1692thatwas
prepared by PSI Kisan Gaikwad and then going back to the
KalachowkiofficeandPSIKisanGaikwadmakingthestationdiary
entryno.9,certifiedcopyofwhichisatExt.1730,thecontentsof
whichcorroboratehisversion.Hiscrossexaminationwithrespectto
this aspectin paragraph17has notrevealedanything adverseto
discredithisversion.Sameisthecaseaboutthecrossexamination
ofACPPatil,PW186,onthispoint.
754.
PanchwitnessAjitSingh,PW158,corroboratedtheevidence
JudgementMCOC21/06
..778..
Ext.4825
signaturesonthekhakiwrapperArt.282andthesignatureofthe
other panch also and on the panchanama Ext. 1692. His cross
examinationhasnotrevealedanythingadversethatwouldaffecthis
evidence about the events of destruction of detonators. His
inconsistent evidence that he was called at the ATS office at
Kalachowkiat3.00p.m.,whereas,thepanchanamashowsthathe
wascalledatGirgaonChowpaty,does notaffecthis testimonyas
nothingisbroughtonrecordtoshowthathe is apersonwhois
pliableatthehandsofthepoliceorthatheisahabitualwitnessor
accused.
755.
PW154, andAjitSingh,PW158,theprosecutionhasprovedthat
thetendetonatorsthatwereseizedattheinstanceoftheaccused
weredestroyedon20/10/06atGirgaonChowpatyaspertheorder
ofthiscourt.ThecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.1692corroborate
theirevidence.
756.
IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thatSr.PI
JudgementMCOC21/06
..779..
Ext.4825
thelettertohimon27/10/06andhewasdirectedtocollecthimon
30/10/06. This though inconsistent with his evidence in chief
examinationthathewasgivenaletterdtd.27/10/06on30/10/06,
doesnotaffectthefactofhehavingtakenthesaidletterandthe
sealedparceltotheFSLwhichisalsoprovedbythecontentsofthe
report of the FSL Ext.2390, which shows that one sealed parcel,
sealsintact,wasreceivedinthatofficeon30/10/06withaletter
dtd.27/10/06alongwithheadconstablebuckleno.951,whichisthe
bucklenumberofHCJagannathGolhar,PW86.Otherthanthis,it
hascomeinhiscrossexaminationthatPIMohiteoftheATShad
givenhisstatementforreadingandasmanydayshadgoneby,he
readit,therefore,hewasabletostateaboutthedates.However,the
nextsentenceisthathehadreadit23monthsbeforethedateofhis
evidence.Idonotthinkthatthereisanythingwrongindoingsoas
heisapolicewitnessandnotawitnessaboutsomeeventandif
necessary the statement may have been given to him for
rememberingthedates.Thatdoesnotaffecthisevidenceandalso
thefactthathehadreachedtheforwardingletterandsealedparcel
totheofficeoftheFSL.Inspiteofallthiscrossexamination,thereis
nosuggestiontohimthathehadnotdonetheworkasdeposedby
him.TheopinionoftheFSLreportExt.2390isthatnitriteandlead
radicals(postexplosionresidues)weredetectedinthetendefused
detonatorswithelectricalwires,metallicpiecesandadhesivepieces.
757.
Jain, PW55, API Revle, PW154, ACP Patil, PW186, Ajit Singh,
PW158, PCDineshGaikwad,PW164,and HCJagannath Golhar,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..780..
Ext.4825
758.
evidenceinrespectofthissearchandseizureonseveralcounts.His
maincontentionisabouttherebeingnoevidencebytheprosecution
inrespectoftheconnectionoftheA13withthesaidflat.Hesubmits
that in the chargesheet Ext. 2451 two addresses of the A13 are
given, one is of Jalgaon and one is of Belgaum, but there is no
referencetothisaddressandthereisnoreferenceofthataddressin
theconfessional statementofthe 11coaccusedas a placeofhis
residence.HesubmitsthatA13gaveevidenceasDW49andgave
his residential address of Shanti Nagar, Mira Road, Dist. Thane,
which is corroborated by the documents produced by the
prosecutioninrespectofhisemploymentExts.2088,2090and2091.
HesubmitsthattheaddressofPoonamParkApartment,NayaNagar,
MiraRoad,asdeposedbyKhurshidBegum,PW51,andAmirKhan,
PW49,isnottheaddressasperthecaseoftheprosecutionandas
statedbytheA13.DuringthediscussionoftheevidenceofKhurshid
Begum,PW51,andAmirKhan,PW49,learnedadvocatehasmade
JudgementMCOC21/06
..781..
Ext.4825
astatementthataleaveandlicenceagreementExt.654isprovedby
the prosecution and this court can read it. In this respect, he
submitted that Mohd. Irshad, the person with whom the said
agreementwas made,wouldhave beenthe bestperson tothrow
lightthatanyoneelseotherthanhimwashavingaccesstothatflat,
butsurprisinglythislinkinthechainismissingasheisnotmadea
witnessandtherearenoeffortsbytheprosecutiontosearchforhim
andexaminehim.
759.
Inmyhumbleopinion,thesesubmissionsoverlooktheaspect
oftheA13havingledthepolicetothatflat,whichwasnotintheir
knowledge.ItisnotthattheaddressofPoonamPark,NayaNagar,
MiraRoadwastheaddressthatwasgivenbytheaccusedearlieror
thatitwasknowntothepolicepriortohemakingthevoluntary
statementon09/10/06.InthisrespectthelearnedSPPsubmitted
thattheA13isaresidentofJalgaon,hewasstayinginShantiNagar,
MiraRoad,workingatAndheri,butwasfoundatBelgaum,thattoo
afteraconsiderablelapseoftime.Hesubmitsthattheevidenceof
Amir Khan, PW49, and Khurshid Begum, PW51, prove that
KhurshidBegum,PW51,ownstheflatinPoonamPark,NayaNagar,
MiraRoadandboththesewitnesseshavestatedaboutseeingthe
A13withawomanandtwochildreninthatflatprobably,hiswife
and children, sometime in the second week of June, 2006. He
submitsthateverycircumstanceistobejudgedbyapplyingthetest
whetherthestoryappealstoamanofordinaryprudence,inother
words, the court will have to come to the conclusion that this
woman,i.e.,KhurshidBegum,PW51,isagotupwitness,whois
JudgementMCOC21/06
..782..
Ext.4825
claimingthedocumentandtheflatofsomebodyelse,however,there
isnotinginhercrossexaminationtoshowthatshedidnotpurchase
theflatandshedidnotrentitouttoanybody.So,whatwasthe
reasonforhertosaysomethingagainsttheaccused?
760.
761.
Inmyhumbleopinion,thesubmissionsofthelearnedSPPare
JudgementMCOC21/06
..783..
Ext.4825
were unconnected with the A13 and about which they could not
gather any documentary evidence. Therefore, irrespective of the
evidence of Amir Khan,PW49,andKhurshidBegum,PW51,the
evidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,andKevalkumarJain,PW55,gives
risetotheonlylegitimateinferencethatitwastheA13whohad
showedtheflatandtheconsequentrecoveryoftheincriminating
articlesweremadeathisinstance.Theinferencecanalsobedrawn
that the flat was not given to him on rent, but it was given to
someone else,probably the saidMohd. Irshardand he may have
givenittotheA13tobeusedasashelter.Learnedadvocatesubmits
thatthefactsthataccusedwasarrestedon03/10/06,wastakento
theflaton09/10/06andhedidnothavethekeyoftheflatand
insteadofkeepinghisidentitysecrettillhewasputintheprison,he
orhisphotographwereshowntothewitnesses,whichshowsthat
theevidenceofbothAmirKhan,PW49,aswellasKhurshidBegum,
PW51,isrequiredtobediscarded.Inmyhumbleopinion,thereisa
ringoftruthintheevidencegivenbythesetwowitnessesreadwith
theevidencegivenby Sr.PITajne,PW161,and KevalkumarJain,
PW55. There is no explanation as to why out of the blue moon
thesetwowitnesseswereinquiredwithandexaminedbythepolice.
TheyhavenoantecedentsorlinkswiththeATSorpolice.Therefore,
I have no hesitation in accepting the evidence of these four
witnessesastruthful.
762.
LearnedadvocatenextsubmittedthattheCDRExt.3767of
theA13showsthatinJune,2006onworkingdaysheisathisplace
ofworkandthesalaryrecordExt.3093(2)ofthatmonthshowsfull
JudgementMCOC21/06
..784..
Ext.4825
salaryofthirtydays.Tomymind,drawingoffullsalaryofthirty
daysisinconsequentialanditdoesnotprovethefullattendancefor
wholeofthemonthandinsofarastheentriesofcallsintheCDR
Ext.3767ofthemobileoftheA13areconcerned,theyaremore
harmfultothedefenceoftheA13ratherthanbeinghelpful.Thisis
becausethelocationofasmanyas50callsinMay,2006arefrom
nearthetoweratNayaNagar,MiraRoad,asagainstonly5calls
fromthelocationofShantiNagar,MiraRoad.Whatevercallswere
retrievedforthemonthofApril,2006thereisonecalllocatedat
NayaNagar,MiraRoad.ThereisnoCDRfrom1st to15th ofJune,
whichgivesrisetomanyinferencesandsubsequentlythereisonly
onecalllocatedatShantiNagar,MiraRoadinthatmonth.InJuly,
2006thereisonecalllocatedatNayaNagarandsixcallslocatedat
ShantiNagar,MiraRoad.ThenumerouscallsinMay,2006areat
oddhoursinthenightgivingrisetotheinferencethattheA13was
stayingthereorgoingtheretemporarily.Thus,thesubmissionofthe
learnedadvocateonthebasisoftheCDRisincorrect.
763.
Khan,PW49,andKhurshidBegum,PW51,andthereforethepolice
shouldhavegothisidentityconfirmedfromthesetwowitnessesin
the identification parade, on the contrary, he was shown to the
witnessandhisphotowasshown.ItistruethatAmirKhan,PW49,
hasstatedthatthephotographoftheA13wasshown,buthedenied
the suggestion that therefore he identified him in the court.
KhurshidBegum,PW51,admittedthattheA13wasshowntoher
onthefirstoccasion,butdeniedthatshewasshownhisphotographs
JudgementMCOC21/06
..785..
Ext.4825
andalsodeniedthatshehadnotseentheA13properlywhenshe
wentintheflatandalsodeniedthathewasnotintheflatatany
time.BoththesewitnessesunhesitatinglyidentifiedtheA13inthe
courtandtherearenoallegationsagainstthemandnosuggestion
wasgiventothemthattheA13waspointedouttothemonthedate
oftheirevidenceorpriortoitorthathisphotographwasshown.
They being uninterested witnesses having noconnection withthe
police in any manner shows that they are truthful witnesses and
thoughtheywerenotputupintheidentificationparade,itdoesnot
materially affect the quality of their evidence. The substantive
evidenceisidentificationinthecourt.
764.
4180(1)supportstheclaimoftheA13thatafterhisarresthewas
takentohisresidentialaddressofShantiNagar.Perusalofthesaid
entry shows that PI Deshmukh and staff had gone from
Chandanchowki,toMiraRoad,toATSNagpada,toKalachowki,to
VikhroliChowki,toChandanchowki.However,itdoesnotshowthat
theyhadgonetothehouseoftheA13orthathewaswiththem.
Thisisnothingbuttakingadvantageoftheentrydtd.03/10/06in
thelogbook,whichmentionsMiraRoad.Noinferencecanbedrawn
thatthepolicehadgonetothehouseoftheA13.Evenotherwise
theywouldhavegonetohishouseinShantiNagar,becauseitwas
also in Mira Road and that was the address he had given. It is
submittedbythelearnedadvocatethattheA13hasinhisevidence
asDW49explainedabouttheeventsonthatday.Ofcourse,those
areonlyhiswordsandobviouslytherewasnopanchanamadrawn.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..786..
Ext.4825
Evenifitisconsideredthathewastakentothehouseasstatedby
himandthereisnorecoveryonthatday,ifthechronologyofthe
eventsthathehadstatedistaken,itshowsthatthepolicehadcome
withhisbrothertothehousewherehewasstayingatBelgaumat
about12.30or1.00a.m.on03/10/06andtheystartedwithhimat
1.00 p.m. and it is in the next paragraph that he was taken to
Chandanchowkiat10.30a.m.,whichmeansonthenextday,i.e.,on
04/10/06. That apart this evidence is meaningless and does not
affecttheevidencegivenbytheprosecutionwitnesses.
765.
RepeatedsubmissionsaremadebylearnedadvocateWahab
Khaninconnectionwiththenonproductionofmuddemalregister
and station diary entries, not mentioning the exact details of the
workforwhichthepoliceofficersandtheirstaffstartedfromthe
officeandabouttheworkthattheyhaddoneaftertheyreturned.In
my humble opinion, the station diary entries corroborate the
evidenceofthewitnessesinrespectofthesearchandseizureand
depositofmuddemalarticles,andthereportsoftheFSLsaythat
whatever packets and parcels were received alongwith the
forwarding letters, the seals were found to be intact. Thus this
submissiondoesnotaffecttheevidenceoftheprosecution.
766.
learnedadvocateisrelyingonthecertifiedcopyofthechargesheet
inC.C.No.319/06inC.R.No.80/06ofParksitePoliceStation,
Ext. 3928 and in this connection he points out to the cross
examination of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, in paragraph 46, however,
thereisnothinginthecrossexaminationofSr.PITajne,PW161,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..787..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
767.
..788..
Ext.4825
Next,itissubmittedthattheotherpanchJitendraChampalal
768.
prosecutionhasnotexplainedthedelayastheaccusedwasarrested
on03/10/06andthisrecoverywasmadeon09/10/06andithas
notprovedthevoluntarinessbecauseitisthecaseoftheprosecution
that the A13 volunteered to make a confessional statement, but
refusedbeforetheDCP.Ifailtounderstandhowsuchsubmissioncan
be made. The statement was made on 09/10/06 as a result of
interrogationaboutfivedaysafterhisarrestandIdonotunderstand
howitcanbeconnectedwiththeaspectofhehavingvolunteeredto
maketheconfessionalstatement,whichwaspurportedlymadeon
20/10/06,i.e.,subsequenttothevoluntarystatementinExt.664.
769.
evidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,andKevalkumarJain,PW55,asto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..789..
Ext.4825
770.
Learnedadvocatenextsubmitsthattherewasnoinvestigation
inrespectoftheeducationalandotherdocumentsthatwerefound,
which mention one Ansari Mohd. Imran and the copy of the
agreement that was found shows that the tenant Irshand had
attended the police station and his identity was verified. This
submissionismissingthepointthattheinvestigationislimitedto
theextentofrecoveryofincriminatingarticlesattheinstanceofthe
A13 from a place which he pointed out and the investigation in
respectof the documents that are not connectedwith him is not
relevant.
771.
LearnedadvocatesubmitsthattheactivityinwhichAPIRevle,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..790..
Ext.4825
areproducedwereobtainedundertheRTIAct.Theyhavenotbeen
proved and exhibited. Hence they cannot be considered. Even
otherwisetheorderoftheinvestigationisofApril,2013anditdoes
not relate to the evidence that he has given here. This type of
exerciseisjustanattemptofcharacterassassinationofthepolice
witnesses.Tomymind,thepoliceofficersarerequiredtodealwith
the members of the public day in and day out and during their
dischargingofpublicdutiestheyhavetoworkunderthepressure
fromallpossiblecorners.Ifacrimeisregisteredagainstthepolice
officer, that does not necessarily wash away his entire career or
brandhimasadishonestperson.
772.
evidenceasDW49hasdeniedtheseizureofthearticlesfromhim
andinthisconnectionhecomplainedtothecourtasearlyason
09/11/06byhisapplicationExt.4280andexplainedthesethingsin
his written submissions Ext. 2834 filed with his statement under
section313oftheCr.P.C.Itwillbefruitfultoconsiderthesethings
chronologically.ThecontentsofExt.4280donotmentionthedate
09/10/06 and it is only alleged that he was interrogated at
Chandanchowki, Juhu, that during interrogation police officers
torturedandbeathimbrutallyandobtainedsignaturesontheblank
papers and also obtained signatures and acknowledgment for
receivingthepanchanama,butnocopywasgiventohimandhis
signatureswereobtainedonthetwocopiesbycoercionwithdire
consequences.Thus,theseallegationsinparagraphs2and3ofthe
application are obviously vague. In his written submissions Ext.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..791..
Ext.4825
2834itisstatedthathedidnotgiveanydisclosurestatementduring
policecustodytotheATSofficers,didnotshowanyplace,didnot
takethemthereanddidnotproduceanyarticlebeforethemandit
is alleged that the ATS police prepared false panchanama dtd.
09/10/06puttingnamesandsignaturesoffalsewitnessesandasked
himtosignattwoplacesandwhenherefusedandaskedthemto
giveittohimforreading, PITonapi,PW155,SachinKadamand
Shelkegavehimthirddegreetorture,starvedhim,threatenedhim
andbecauseofthetorture,hesignedinthenightof13/10/06and
becauseofthetorturehisconditionworsenedandhewasrequired
tobeadmittedinahospitalinanemergencyconditionforwhichthe
documentisatExt.2340wherehetoldthedoctorthatpolicehad
given him third degree torture. So, it is clear that he has not
involved Sr. PI Tajne, PW161. As against this, in his evidence in
paragraphs 25 and 26 he has stated about PI Deshmukh and PI
Tonapi,PW155,inquiringwithhimabouthisjobandthepersons
fromhisofficebeingcalledandhisidentity,etc.,beingverifiedfrom
themandtheninparagraph27abouthebeingtakentoKalachowki
on10/10/06andPITonapi,PW155,tellinghimthathehastosign
some documents, i.e., panchanamas, that ACP Tawade and Sr. PI
Tajne,PW161,givinghimsomedocumentsandaskinghimtosign
and he being threatened and some persons with his photograph
being broughtthere andhe being shown tothemincluding Amir
Khan,PW49,andKhurshidBegum,PW51,andhebeingtortured
onthatdayaswellason11thand12thandhissignaturesbeingtaken
on 13/10/06 when his brother was brought with his file and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..792..
Ext.4825
torturedinhispresenceandhewasalsotorturedandforcedtosign
andputthedate09/10/06.Hehasdescribedthetortureandthen
hasstatedaboutbeingtakentothehospitalon14/10/06whenhis
conditiondeteriorated.
773.
complaintExt.4280,isvagueandthedetailsoftortureandpersons
whotorturedhimaswellashebeingadmittedinthehospitalinan
emergencyconditionarenotmentionedinit,thoughitwasjustone
month after the alleged incident of torture and admission in the
hospital.Thetwistingofthestoryisapparentfromhisevidencein
paragraph30ofhisevidencethathetoldthedoctorthathewas
heavilytortured,therewereinjurymarksonhisbody,thedoctors
askedtheATSofficersaboutit,whotoldhimthatitisamatterof
national security and he should not write his complaint and he
refusedtoputhisthumbimpressiononExt.2340whendoctortold
himtodososayingthathehasnotconsideredwhathetoldhim.
ThesethingsdonotfindplaceeitherinhiscomplaintExt.4280dtd.
09/11/06orinhiswrittensubmissionsExt.2834thatwerefiledin
thecourtinJuly,2012.Admittedly,theentryintheOPDregisterExt.
2340doesnotmentionfindingofanyinjuryorthathewasbrought
thereinanemergencyconditionandwasadmittedinthehospital
and it only mentions that he was referred for investigation. This
document was proved during the evidence of Dr. Gond, PW182.
AfterDr.Gond,PW182provedtheOPDcasepapersandcertified
copies of register, he stated at the end that none of the patients
examined by him and as per the record examined by the other
JudgementMCOC21/06
..793..
Ext.4825
doctors,hadcomplainedofilltreatmentandtortureatthehandsof
thepolice.Heprovedthecontentsofthesaidentryandstatedthat
Dr.DhirajDongrehadexaminedhimandduringcrossexamination
he admittedthatA13was alsoreferredtoEMSfor investigation,
thatthefindingsoftheCMOandhistoryandreasonforreferring
himtoEMSforinvestigationisnotmentioned,thatthefindingsof
theEMSarenotonrecordandhecanstateabouttheinvestigation
ongoingthroughitonly,but,heexplainedthathedoesnotknow
whetherthatrecordisdeliberatelyremoved.Hespecificallydenied
thesuggestionthatthepatienthadcomplainedofpolicetortureand
therewerevisiblemarksofhisinjuriesonhisperson,therefore,he
wasreferredtotheEMS.Thus,nothingisbroughtonrecordduring
his crossexamination to indicate that the A13 had sustained
injuries,wastakentothehospitalinanemergencyconditionand
wasadmittedthereashisconditionwasbad.Exceptthewordsof
theaccusedandtheinconsistentstatementsmadebyhim,thereis
nothingtosubstantiatehisallegations.Ontheotherhand,thereis
cogent evidence of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, and Kevalkumar Jain,
PW55,in respectofthesearchandseizureandalsoofKhurshid
Begum,PW51,andAmirKhan,PW49,abouthisresidencethere.
Thus,thissubmissionofthelearnedadvocateisnotsubstantiatedby
thedocumentsoftheaccusedaswellastheevidencegivenbythe
ATS.
774.
LearnedadvocatesubmitsthatthepanchwitnessKevalkumar
Jain,PW55,hasstatedthatSr.PITajne,PW161,waswriting en
route,butSr.PITajne,PW161,hasdeniedthis.Thissubmissionis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..794..
Ext.4825
obviouslyoverlookingthesubsequentevidencegivenbyKevalkumar
Jain,PW55,thatSr.PITajne,PW161,toldthemthatheiswriting
about the route and Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, stated in his cross
examination that the panchanama was not being written in the
vehicleduringtravel,buthehadnotedtherouteroughly.
775.
ascertainwhethertheyareexplosivesisanovelandunheardideaby
theATSofficers.Tomymind,thereisnosuggestionastowhatisthe
correctscientificmethodtoascertainthisandthisevidencebyAPI
Revle,PW154,isnotchallengedasbeingunscientificorimproper.It
wouldhavehadbeendifferentcaseifthedefencewouldhavecome
withaspecificsuggestionsaboutaparticularmethodbeingfollowed
for ascertaining whether the granules are explosives. Merely
criticizingsomethingisnotsufficient.Hefurthersubmitsthatthe
detonatorswerenotshowntothedefenceandnotdepositedinthe
courtbeforetheirdisposalandphotographswerenottakenduring
theprocedureofdisposal.Tomymind,defusingofthedetonators
wasduringtheperiodofinvestigationwhenthechargesheetwasnot
filedanditwasdonewiththeorderofthecourt.Thus,therewasno
questionofshowingittothedefenceordepositingitinthecourt.
Insofarasthesubmissionaboutphotographsnotbeingtaken,itis
nothingbuttheingenuityofthelearnedadvocatetosubstitutesome
other procedure than the usual one. The destruction of the
detonatorswasdoneinthepresenceofpoliceofficersandpanchas
and panchanama is prepared. There is no necessity of taking
photographs.
JudgementMCOC21/06
776.
..795..
Ext.4825
delayofthreedaysinsendingthearticlestotheFSLisnotworth
consideringbecauseithardlymattersastheFSLfoundthepackets
tobeinsealedcondition.
777.
Thusthereisreallynothingtodisbelievetheevidencegiven
JudgementMCOC21/06
778.
..796..
Ext.4825
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedthattheA13hadbeenresidinginflatno.
101, Poonam Park Apartment, Naya Nagar, Mira Road, that
Cyclonite(RDX)wasdetectedinahandbagthatwasrecoveredat
hisinstanceandwhitegranuleswerealsorecoveredandtheywere
found to be consisting of Ammonium and Nitrate radicals, and,
nitriteandleadradicals(postexplosionresidues)weredetectedin
the ten defused detonators that had also been recovered at the
instanceoftheA13.Thisisthecircumstanceno.13provedbythe
prosecution. It
is against the A13. It is the third circumstance
againsthim.
779.
Maruticarno.MH01V9568inwhichtheblackishspotswereseen
inthebootcompartmentandinbetweenthedriverseatandrear
seat,whichwerewipedbycottonswabsandonchemicalanalysis
were found to contain RDX amongst other things. PI Khanvilkar,
PW168, gave evidence about the A12 expressing his desire to
disclose certain important information concerning the crime on
22/10/06 and he directing HC Ghag to call two panchas in the
presenceofwhomtheaccusedmadeastatementthatheisreadyto
showtheplaceswherehehadgone,toshowthespotwherehehad
keptthecarandtoshowthepersontowhomhehadgiventhekey
ofthecarontheinstructionsoftheaccusedSajid.Thisisobviouslya
mistakebecausethecontentsofthememorandumofthestatement
oftheaccusedExt.636showthattheA12hadstatedthathehad
donesoontheinstructionsoftheaccusedFaisal,i.e.,A3.Heproved
JudgementMCOC21/06
..797..
Ext.4825
thecontentsofthememorandumExt.636andidentifiedtheA12in
thecourtandalsoprovedthecontentsofthestationdiaryentryno.
8,certifiedtruephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1782.Hehasdeposed
abouthowtheywenttothedifferentspotsasperthedirectionsof
theaccusedafterthepanchassearchedthevehicleandPSISachin
KadampreparingtheroughsketchesofthespotExts.637to640,
whichwereofShivajiNagar,Govandi,LuckyVillabuildingonCarter
Road,Bandra,AlMizabbuildinginMillatNagar,Andheriandfrom
theretotheAlHatimbuildinginMillatNagar,Andheri,wherethe
A12pointedouttoawhiteMaruti800caramongstothercarsthat
wereparkedbythesideofsouthcompoundwallandsaidthatitwas
thecaroftheA3.Theywentnearthecar,foundittobelockedand
asA12toldhimthatthepersonwhohadthekeyofthecarresides
inthatbuilding,theywenttothefourthfloortotheflatno.403as
theaccusedledthemthereandobtainedthekeyfromoneRizwan
Khot, came down below, opened the car with the key, found
documents and audio cassettes in the glove compartment. It has
comeinhisevidencethatheminutelyexaminedthevehicleandin
thebootcompartmentsawblackishspotsandalsosawsimilarspots
inbetweenthedriverseatandrearseat.Hedescribedtheprocedure
bywhichhewipedthespotsfromplacesinthebootaswellasin
betweenthedriverseatandrearseatandhowhepacked,labeled
and sealed them and marked them for identification. He also
deposed about wrapping the documents and audio cassettes,
labelingthemandsealingthemandcoveringthespotsintheboot,
andinbetweenthedriverseatandrearseatbykhakipaperand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..798..
Ext.4825
labelingthem.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatheverifiedtheengine
numberandchassisnumberofthevehiclebychalkandwrotethe
numbersinthepanchanamaandseizedthekeyofthecar,affixed
the label to it, but did not seal it and then seized the car and
preparedthepanchanamaExt.641,contentsofwhichheproved.He
askedthesaidRizwanKhottocometotheofficeforstatementand
recordedhisstatementonthesameday.PanchwitnessShrikrishna
Pawale, PW50, fully corroborated his version and insofar as the
statement made by the accused, he briefly mentioned that the
accusedstatedthatheis readytoshowtheplaceswherehehad
reachedhiscompanionsandwherehehadkeptaMaruticar.Heas
wellasthePIKhanvilkar,PW168,identifiedtheirsignaturesonthe
memorandumExt.636andthesignatureoftheotherpanchandhe
unhesitatinglyidentifiedtheA12inthecourt.Hedeposedaboutthe
furtherproceedingsofgoingforthesearchandseizure,preparation
of the maps at four places, accused pointing out the Maruti car,
policeobtainingakeyfromapersononthe4 thfloor,towhosehouse
theaccusedhadledthem,whosenamewasprobablyKhot,police
inspectingthecar,findingblackspotsonthebacksideofthedrier
seatandinthebootandoftheprocedurebywhichthepolicewiped
thespotsandpacked,labeledandsealedthemalongwiththepapers
of the car. He as well as PI Khanvilkar, PW168, identified their
signaturesonthesketchesExts.637to640aswellasontheseizure
panchanamaExt.641andtheydeposedaboutseizingthecarand
taking the key. During his evidence, six sealed khaki envelopes,
sealed by lac seal of the ATS and the FSL, were opened and he
JudgementMCOC21/06
..799..
Ext.4825
780.
IthascomeintheevidenceofPIKhanvilkar,PW168,thathe
returnedwiththe accused,handedovertheseizedarticlestothe
muddemalclerk,madeanentryinthemuddemalregisterinhisown
handatsr.no.67andalsomadestationdiaryentryno.12,true
photocopyofwhichisatExt.1783,thecontentsofwhichheproved.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..800..
Ext.4825
panchanamaExts.636and641alongwithsketchesExts.637to640
andreportedabouttheseizureoftheMaruticarattheinstanceof
theaccusedandtakingsamplesandseizingthedocuments.Ithas
comeinhisevidencethatthecarwaskeptinthecompoundofthe
ATSandtheotherarticlesweredepositedinthemuddemalroom
andhesentthesixcottonswabsandtheMaruticartotheFSLon
26/10/06foranalysisalongwithhisforwardingletter,officecopyof
whichisatExt.1686,thecontentsofwhichheproved,alongwith
PCBagwe,PW157.DuringhisevidencethereportoftheFSLExt.
2391, in respect of the six cotton swabs as well as the car was
received in his evidence containing the findings abovementioned.
His crossexamination on this point in paragraph 286 by learned
advocateShettyfortheA12hasnotdiscreditedhisversionandon
theotherhand,candidandfactualanswershavecomeonrecord
thatthestainsthatwerefoundinthecarwerenotsealedwhenthe
carwassenttotheFSL.Anacceptableexplanationwasgivenbyhim
thatthepurposebehindcoveringthestainswithbrownpaperwasto
seethatdustorotherarticlesarenotintermingledwiththestains
andtopreventtampering.HeadmittedthatFSLreportExt.2391
doesnotshowthattheportionsofthecarwherethestainswere
foundwerecoveredwithbrownpaperandhowthesampleswere
taken from the stains. To my mind, Ext. 2391 is just a report of
chemicalanalysisandisnotastatementorpanchanamawhereinall
these things are to be described. It has also come as positive
statements during his crossexamination that he was having
information that the car was last used on 10/07/06 and it was
JudgementMCOC21/06
..801..
Ext.4825
782.
evidenceofPCBagwe,PW157,andthereisabsolutelynothingin
his crossexamination to affect his testimony in any manner. He
identifiedtheofficecopyoftheforwardingletterExt.1686andthe
acknowledgment of the inward clerk of the FSL on it. He also
identifiedthesixsealedpacketsArts.265B,266B,267B,268B,269B
and270BandthekeyArt.271.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatan
expertofficerfromtheFSLcamewithhimtothecar,inspectedthe
bootandtheseatbehindthedriverseatandthespaceinbetween
thefrontseatandbackseatand,thisisimportant,thatallthese
placeswerecoveredbybrownpaper.HecouldidentifythekeyArt.
271becauseobviouslyhehaddriventhesaidcarfromtheATSoffice
atKalachowkitotheFSLatKalina.Ithascomeinhisevidencethat
the expert officer of the FSL removed the papers, made the
inspectionwithmagnifyingglassandthentookswabsofsomespots
bycottonfromtheseplaces.Hewasthenaskedtotakebackthecar
andhetookitbacktotheoffice,parkeditintheofficecompound,
gavethekeytothemuddemalclerkandmadestationdiaryentry.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..802..
Ext.4825
Heprovedthecontentsofthestationdiaryentriesno.7and10in
theoriginalstationdiary,photocopyofwhichheprovedatExt.1688
(2pages),thecontentsofwhichcorroboratehisversion.Thisisthe
contemporaneous record which is uncontroverted and which
corroborateshisversion.FirstonementionsthatHCPatilalognwith
PCBagwe,PW157,wenttotheFSLatKalinawiththepropertythat
wasatsr.no.67atthemuddemalregisteralongwiththecarno.
MH01V9568andsecondoneshowsthattheyreturnedwiththe
car after it was examined and deposited the other articles in the
laboratory.Somepositivestatementshavecomeonrecordduringhis
crossexaminationthathewasgivensixpackets,thatbrownpaper
wasfixedonthebordersofthefloorofthebootandthedoorofthe
bootcouldbeopenedwithoutdisturbingthebrownpaperandthat
brown paper behind the driver seat was of the size of the space
between thatseat andthe rearseatandthe FSL officer tookthe
brownpapersaftertheyremovedthem.Ithasalsocomethatthe
clerktowhomhehandedoverthepackets,toldhimthattheofficer
who was there is an expert officer and he came with him and
checked the vehicle. He was shown the seals on the packets and
askedtoreadthewordsandhecouldreadsomewords,butthereis
nosubmissionaboutthisinthearguments.Inhiscrossexamination
bylearnedadvocateWahabKhanheexplainedthatashehadtaken
thecarandbroughtitback,itisnotmentionedinhisstatementthat
the key was taken and deposited back. Thus, his evidence fully
corroborates the evidence of ACP Patil, PW186, as well as PI
Khanvilkar,PW168.
JudgementMCOC21/06
783.
..803..
Ext.4825
ThenextstepwastoascertaintheownershipoftheMaruticar
andithascomeintheevidenceofPIKhanvilkar,PW168,thaton
theinstructionsofACPPatil,PW186,hegavealettertotheRTO,
Mumbaion27/10/06togettheinformationabouttheownershipof
thecar.HeprovedthecontentsoftheofficecopyoftheletterExt.
1784andstatedthattheRTOgavethereportExt.1785onthesame
day that the car is of one Gulamraze M. Badam. He called that
person to the office and recorded his statement and that person
producedphotocopiesofthetransferformsthathehadgiventothe
A9Muzzammilandthe receiptbyA9ofhaving paidtheamount
Exts.1786(1to10).IthascomeinhisevidencethathecalledAfzal
Alwani,PW39,on02/11/06ashehadarrangedforsellingthecar
andthenherecordedhisstatement.ThisAfzalAlwani,PW39,isthe
soninlawofGulamrazeMohd.AliBadamandhedeposedabout
thetransactionofsaleoftheMaruticartotheA9inthefirstweekof
June,2006foranamountofRs.62,000/.HeidentifiedtheA9in
thecourtunhesitatinglyandithascomeinhisevidencethatallthe
transfer formswere duly signedbyhis fatherinlawandhe gave
themtothe A9,keeping copies of allthe signeddocumentswith
him,whichhehadwithhimwhenhegaveevidence.Thedefence
didnotdaretoaskhimtoproducethemandthephotocopiesofthe
saiddocuments,i.e.,receiptgivenbytheA9andthetransferforms
Exts.1786(1to10)arenotdisputed.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thathecalledA9fromhismobilephoneafter1015daystocheck
whether he had transferred the vehicle in his name. His cross
examination has not discredited his version and there is no
JudgementMCOC21/06
..804..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..805..
Ext.4825
ofthevehicle.Nodoubt,itisalsoalapseonhispartnottogetthe
vehicletransferredlegallyinthenameoftheA9,butequallyitwas
theresponsibilityoftheA9togetittransferredashewashanded
over all the transfer forms alongwith the original certificate of
registrationandotherdocumentsofthevehicle.Hehavingnotdone
soisaninferenceabouthismalafideintentioninkeepingtherecord
ofthevehicleasitisoritmeansthatthereafterthebombblaststook
placeon11/07/06andhedidnothavetheopportunitytogetthe
vehicletransferred.Inanycase,itisprovedthatthepossessionof
thevehiclewashandedovertotheA9andthisevidenceofAfzal
Alwani,PW39isunchallengedanduncontroverted.Hence,itwill
have to held that the prosecution has proved that the A9 had
purchased Maruti car No. MH01V9568 on 04/06/06 and was
handedoveritspossession.Thisisthecircumstanceno.14proved
bytheprosecutionagainsttheaccused.ItisagainsttheA9.Itis
thefirstcircumstanceagainsthim.
784.
Khan,ShrikrishnaPawale,PW50,admittedthatthecarthathesaw
inthecourtcompounddoesnothavenumberplateandtheC.R.
numberandmuddemalnumberasperphotographArt.278(3)and
nothingiswrittenonthebonnetofthecarasperthephotographs
Arts.278(1and2)andthatnowC.R.numberiswrittenonthe
bonnet by yellow pen. This plus other things that were asked in
respect of identification of the car are not followed by any
suggestionthatthecarArt.277isnotthecarthatwasseizedatthe
instance of the A12. During his crossexamination by learned
JudgementMCOC21/06
..806..
Ext.4825
advocateShettyheadmittedthatavehiclehaschassisnumberon
thebasisofwhichitcanbeidentifiedandthatchassisnumberofthe
saidcar was written in the panchanama andthen he was shown
page4ofcertificateofregistrationArt.272.Henceitwasreceivedin
evidenceandmarkedasExt.642andwasaskedtoreadthechassis
numberwhichhereadasSB308IN1252498andheadmittedthat
he did not verify it with the number that was written in the
panchanama.InthiscontextPIKhanvilkar,PW168,hadstatedthat
heverifiedtheengineandchassisnumberofthevehiclebychalk
andwrotethenumbersinthepanchanama.LearnedadvocateShetty
submittedduringhisargumentsthatthechassisnumberwrittenin
thepanchanamaExt.641isnotthechassisnumberthatisfoundin
the registration certificate Ext. 642. It appears that one digit is
wrongly mentioned. The chassis number in the registration
certificate Ext. 642 is SB308IN1252498, whereas, in the
panchanamaintheserialnumberitis1272498,i.e.,thethirddigitis
writtenas7insteadof5.Itiscommonknowledgethattheengraved
engine number and chassis number on vehicles are not easily
readableandthismightbeagenuinemistakeinwritingthethird
digit.Thisinferenceisfortifiedbytheenginenumberthatiswritten
inthepanchanamaasF8B1754094,whichisthesameasiswritten
inthecertificateofregistrationExt.642andtheletteroftheRTO
Ext.1785.Thus,onthiscountitcannotbesaidthatsomeothercar
wasseen.Thereisnosuggestionabouttheenginenumber.During
hiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhan,Shrikrishna
Pawale,PW50,describedthesurroundingsoftheplaceswhichwere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..807..
Ext.4825
shownbytheaccusedandthereisnothingtocontradicthim,which
shows his knowledge about the places and his truthfulnessabout
havinggonetotheseplaces,whichisalsofortifiedbyhisstatement
thatpolicedidnotseizeanythingatthesethreeplacesexceptthecar
atAlHatimbuildingandthatotherthanonthemapshissignature
wasnottakenonanypaperatthreeplacesthattheyvisitedearlier.
Hehonestlysaidthathewillnotbeabletogiveperfectanswersby
lookingatthemapsandfromhismemoryandcorrectlydescribed
theAlMizabbuildingasoffourfloorsandthatittouchestheroad.
He has also made positive statements in crossexamination that
policehadopenedthebootofthecarinhispresenceandtoldhim
thattheyhadfoundsomespots.Therewassearchingandrepeated
crossexaminationastoathowmanyplaceshesignedandwherehe
signedthemandfirsthestatedthathesignedatsevenplacesand
corrected himself and stated that he did not count therefore he
cannottellathowmanyplaceshesigned.However,hewassurethat
hesignedatAlHatimbuildingatsevenplacesonthepanchanama.
This aspect has not been pointed out as being incorrect and he
obviouslycommittedamistakebystatingthathissignatureonthe
lastpageandalsointhemarginsofExt.641wasmadeatAlMizab
building,thatsealingwasdonenearthatbuilding,whichisasper
hisevidenceinchiefexamination.Healsoadmittedthathealsoput
hissignaturesonthepanchanamaandalllabelsintheATSoffice.
Evenifthisisconsideredasbeingawrongstatementmadebyhim
inconsistentwiththecontentsofthepanchanamaandthemaps,the
factremainsthathehasdeniedthesuggestionthataccuseddidnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..808..
Ext.4825
takethemanywhere,policedidnotseizeanything,thatpolicedid
nottakethekey,didnottakethecottonswabsfromthespotsinthe
car and did not seize the car. This plus his admission in cross
examination by learned advocate Shetty that at Shivaji Nagar,
BandraandnearAlMizabbuilding,hewasjuststandingnearthe
policevehicleanddidnotgoanywhereisincorrectinsofarasthe
visit at Bandra is concerned, does not affect his testimony or
discredit his version. He described the route in detail during his
crossexaminationonthebasisofhisknowledgeandwherehecould
notdosohestatedthathedoesnotrememberordoesnotknow
aboutit.Abouthebeingparticularlycalledasawitnessoutofmany
persons on the road at that time, he gave a perfectly acceptable
explanationthatpolicewereaskingsomeotherpersonsbeforethey
askedhim,buttheywerenotwillingtobecomewitness.Thereis
somecrossexaminationtohimabouthiswork,butitisirrelevant
insofar as the aspect of search and seizure is concerned and
whatever information that he gave about his work is not
controverted or shown to be false. About the work of preparing
maps,hemadeapositivestatementthatthemapswerepreparedby
keeping the paper on the bonnet of the vehicle, i.e., the police
vehicleandpolicetoldhimthattheyarethemapsofthespots.It
has also come in his crossexamination that the person by name
Khotwasthereforabout45minutes.Now,thoughPIKhanvilkar,
PW168,didnotstateinhischiefexaminationaboutusingatorch
for searching the insides of the car, it has come in his cross
examination that there was ample daylight at that time, that he
JudgementMCOC21/06
..809..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..810..
Ext.4825
startedfromAlHatimbuildingcorrectshisearliermistakethathe
signedonthelabelsnearAlMizabbuildingandsealingwasalso
donethere.
785.
examinationtodiscredithisversionandthebestpartofthiswitness
isthatnothingisbroughtonrecordtoshowthatheisaninterested
witnessorapersonpliableatthehandsofthepoliceasnocriminal
antecedentsorhehavingactedasapanchwitnessorasanaccused
priortothisdateisbroughtonrecord.Thus,heisatotallytruthful
witness and inspite of some minor mistakes that he committed
becauseoftheconfusioninthenamesofbuildings,hehaswithstood
thetestofcrossexaminationandIhavenohesitationinaccepting
histestimonyastruthful.
786.
Theevidencegiveby PIKhanvilkar,PW168,iscorroborated
bystationdiaryentriesno.8and12,certifiedcopyofwhichisat
Exts.1782and1783,andhisevidenceisfullycorroboratedbythe
unimpeached and credible evidence given by the panch witness
Shrikrishna Pawale, PW50. His crossexamination by learned
advocate Wahab Khan is about the cases against him, the
interrogationoftheA12andwhatwasnotdonebyhim,likenot
taking the signature of the accused below the memorandum Ext.
636andnotwritingattheendofthepanchanamaExt.641astoat
whatplaceitwasover.Itisnotaprocedurelaiddownanywhere
thatsignatureofapersonmaking a voluntarystatementis taken
belowthememorandum.Itisdonebythepolicebywayofabundant
caution.InsofarasthecrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateShetty
JudgementMCOC21/06
..811..
Ext.4825
isconcerned,nothingadverseaboutthefactoftheA12makingthe
statementandtheconsequentdiscoveryandseizurewasbroughton
recordtodiscredithisversion.Theaspectaboutuseoftorchbeing
notmentionedinthepanchanamaisadmittedbyhim,butthatis
alreadyexplained.Hecorrectlygavethedetailsaboutthelocalities
atallthethreeplaces,thetimingsatwhichhewentthereandthe
periods for which he was there at the three places and honestly
admitted that he did not offer the search of the vehicle to the
accused.IthasalsocomethathehadinterrogatedwiththeA12on
21/10/06from11.00a.m.to4.00p.m.andonthatdaytheaccused
didnotvolunteer tomakeanyvoluntarystatementortomake a
confessionalstatement.Headmittedthathehadgonetothehouse
oftheA6atGovandion29/09/06atabout1830to1900hours.
ThismustbewhenthesearchofthehouseoftheA6wastakenon
29/09/06asperthepanchanamaExt.716.ThecontentsoftheExt.
716showthatthepolicehadgonetherewithpanchasatthattime
andthepanchanamawasoverat2030hours.Thushistestimony
hasremainedunshakeninhiscrossexamination.
787.
LearnedadvocateShettysubmittedduringargumentsthatPI
Khanvilkar,PW168,deposedwronglythattheA12hadstatedthat
hehadkeptthecarontheinstructionsoftheaccusedSajid,i.e.,A7,
instead of stating the name of the A3. It appears to be a slip of
tongue because during his further evidence wherever there is a
referenceabouttheA12havingstatedabouttheA3hehasstatedso
andtheimportantandrelevantamongstthemistheparkingofthe
whiteMaruti800carinthecompoundofAlHatimbuilding,about
JudgementMCOC21/06
..812..
Ext.4825
788.
Learnedadvocateattackedtheevidenceofthewitnessesabout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..813..
Ext.4825
therefore, they had knowledge about those places and thus they
cannotbesaidtobediscoveredanditdoesnotstandtothescrutiny
whenthehouseoftheA6atGovandiandoftheA3atBandrawere
knowntotheinvestigatingmachineryverywell.Learnedadvocateis
correctinhissubmissions,butthefactremainsthatitisavoluntary
statement of disclosure made by the A12 and he had shown the
placeswherehehadsomeroletoplay.Itcannotbesaidthathe
mighthavebeenappraisedofthevisitsofthepoliceofficerstothose
placesearlieronthatday.InthiscontextlearnedSPPsubmittedthat
theevidenceshowsthattheA12showedwherehehadgoneandin
such circumstances it would not have been proper for the
investigatingofficertotellhimthatheshouldfirsttakethemtothe
caratAndheri.Inthatcasethevoluntarinesswouldhavevanished.
Therefore,theevidenceofPIKhanvilkar,PW168,and Shrikrishna
Pawale,PW50,andthecontentsofthepanchanamaiswhatthey
perceived and in the final analysis while appreciating the entire
evidence and considering the facts that are established by the
confessionandtheotherevidence,theplacesatGovandiandBandra
arerelevantforthecaseoftheprosecutioninrespectofconspiracy.
Therefore,takingofthevehicleatShivajiNagarandBandra,though
isnotadisclosureundersection27oftheEvidenceActtoestablish
theknowledgeoftheA12,theyareveryrelevantandcrucialfacts
thatareestablishedbytheevidenceofthesetwowitnesses.Tomy
mind,onthiscountonlytheentiresearchandseizurecannotbesaid
tobevitiated.
789.
Itisthensubmittedbylearnedadvocatethattheblasttook
JudgementMCOC21/06
..814..
Ext.4825
placeon11/07/06andthecarwasrecoveredon22/10/06nearly
threeandhalfmonthsaftertheblastandithascomefromtheirown
witnessthatthecarwasbeingdrivenbyRizwanandnotbyany
defence witnesses. He submits that it cannot be accepted that in
such a situation the car would be kept unused for such a long
duration and under such circumstances the statements of the
residentsofthebuildingandthestatementofRizwanKhotandtheir
evidenceassumesimportanceandtheyarerelevantwitnessesand
adverseinferenceisrequiredtobedrawnagainsttheprosecutionfor
nothavingexaminedthemandtheentirematerialabouttheseizure
of the car and finding stains cannot be believed and should be
discarded. Learned advocate did not mention the name of the
witness who had stated so, but he is probably referring to the
statementmadebyMohd.Alam,PW59,attheendofparagraph7
thatoneKhotwhousedtodrivethecar.Thisstatementwasbrought
onrecordasanomissiontostatebeforethepolice.Tomymind,
thesesubmissions,thoughappeartobelogicalaremadeignoring
the factual position. As per the voluntary statement made by the
A12,hehadkeptthecarontheinstructionsoftheA3on10/07/06
andhadgiventhekeytoaperson.Thusitwason10/07/06thatthe
car waskept at the place where it was found on 22/10/06. The
bombblasts tookplace on11/07/06 andthe A3 wasarrestedas
early as on 27/07/06. If Mohd. Alam, PW59, is to be believed,
RizwanKhotalsousedtoaccompanyhim,A3andA12inthatcar.
So Rizwan Khot must have the knowledge that it was the car
purchased by the A3. Rizwan Khot must have come to know on
JudgementMCOC21/06
..815..
Ext.4825
27/07/06orsoonthereafterthattheA3isarrestedinconnection
withthebombblastscase.Whichsensiblepersonwoulddaretouse
thevehicleofsuchapersonafterknowinghisinvolvementinsucha
serious case? It is not that the prosecution shied away from
examiningthesaidRizwanKhot.BytheapplicationExt.841given
on30/03/11itprayedforissuingsummonstohimalongwithsix
othersoutofwhomfourhavebeenexamined.BythereportExt.
2453 it was reported that a policeman had gone for serving the
summons on the said Rizwan Khot at Flat No. 401, 4 th Floor, Al
Hatimbuilding,infrontofAlHeerabuilding,MillatNagar,Andheri,
that one Smt. Umja Khot was found living there and on making
inquiry with her she informed that she does not know where he
lives,therefore,hewasnotfoundatthegivenaddress.Thisreportis
notchallengedthoughtheaccusedweredirectedtotakenoteofit.
790.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthattheaccusedwerealwayskept
JudgementMCOC21/06
..816..
Ext.4825
becausesomerecoveriesstartfromChandanchowkiofficeoftheATS
willnotleadtotheinferencethatitdoesnotinspireconfidence.Itis
oneoftheunitoftheATSandonecannotexpectarulethatthestart
ofthepanchanamasshouldalwaysbefromtheKalachowkiorthe
BhoiwadaofficeoftheATS.Thus,thissubmissionisnotproperand
notacceptable.
791.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..817..
Ext.4825
ofnouse.
792.
respectofproductionoftheCDRsofthemobilesseizedfromseveral
accusedeitherduringtheirpersonalsearchortheirhousesearch,
but,calldetailswerenotverified,norecordofdialed,receivedand
missedcallsorSMShavebeenverified,thatitisthecaseofthe
prosecutionthattheycalledfortheCDRsfromrespectiveauthorities
andtimeandagaincustodywassoughtonthegroundofcallingthe
CDRs to find out the location and whether the accused were
interconnectedwitheachother,butfinallytheprosecutionfailedto
producetheCDRs.Hesubmitsthatinspiteofseveralqueriestothe
investigatingofficers,noclearcutanswercameintheevidenceand
noexplanationhascomeastowhyithasnotproducedtheCDRs?
Ultimately, full efforts were made to suppress these documents,
whichcompelledtheaccusedtocalltheCDRsoftheirmobilesand
when the CDRs came they gave a distorted version and are not
exhibitingthecorrectposition.Therefore,onthiscountalsoadverse
inferencecanbedrawnagainsttheprosecutionbecausetheseare
the documents whichhave been collectedand which would have
beengonetotherootofthematterandforthereasonsbestknown
toittheprosecutionchosenottodisclosethisvitalmaterialtothe
courtaswellastotheaccused.Thisfactorfurthersubstantiatesthe
contentionsofthedefenceandtheaccusedthattheentirecaseis
manipulated to suit the allegations of the prosecution and also
shows that the investigation is not free from suspicion and bias.
Learnedadvocatefairlysubmittedthatheisnotsuggestingthatthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..818..
Ext.4825
CDRswouldhavegivenaclearcutpictureinasmuchasamobileof
apersondoesnotremainwithhimthroughout,butatthesametime
weseeinallthecasesthatthesearethematerialsthatarecollected
andreliedandplacedbeforethecourt.Itissubmittedthatitisthe
bounden duty of the investigating machinery to produce such
materialbeforethecourtonceitiscollectedandifitisnotsodone,
thenobviouslyanadverseinferenceiswarranted.
793.
learnedadvocatebecauseinsofarastheA12isconcernedhehadnot
calledforhisCDRandhedidnotgivehismobilenumberduringhis
chiefexaminationasDW48thoughhehadgivenitinhiswritten
submissionsExt.2833thathefiledwithhisstatementundersection
313 of the Cr. P. C. However, during the crossexamination by
learnedSPPheadmittedthathewasusingthemobilephoneno.
9866772114priortohisarrest,thathehimselfdidnotaskforCDR
of his mobile number, did not ask any of his coaccused to
particularly call for it and it was not called for in the common
application.Consequently,hewassuggestedthathedidnotcallfor
theCDRofhismobilenumberasheknowsthatitwouldclinchhis
involvement in the present case. Thus, insofar as the A12 is
concerned,submissionsbythelearnedadvocateabouttheCDRsare
ofnoconsequence.Asmentionedinrespectofthenarcoanalysis
test,itisthechoiceoftheprosecutiontoproducebeforethecourt
thematerialthattheinvestigatingagencyhascollectedduringthe
investigationandtheprosecutioncannotbeforcedtoproducesome
material on which it does not want to rely. There has been
JudgementMCOC21/06
..819..
Ext.4825
794.
Incontinuationofhisearliersubmissionsaboutthedelayby
JudgementMCOC21/06
..820..
Ext.4825
795.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..821..
Ext.4825
witness.Evenassumingthatthereweremanycarsatthespot,the
relevantisthepointingoutoftheparticularcarbytheaccused.He
submits that these submissions are acceptable insofar as the
discoveryofthecarandfindingofthestainsisconcerned.Ihave
already discussed the credibility of the evidence of both the
witnesses.
796.
evidenceofMohd.Alam,PW59,abouttheA3andA12usingthis
car,soallthings,individualbitsandpiecesofevidenceformeda
chain and importantly the factum of discovery of this car at the
instance of the A12 is established by the evidence of Shrikrishna
Pawale,PW50,andconsequentlytheevidenceoffindingoftracesof
RDXonthecottonswabsthatwerecollectedfromthecarisagaina
strongcircumstancepointingtowardstheguiltofnotonlytheA12,
italsotakesinitscovertheA3aswellastheA9.
797.
LearnedSPPsubmitsthatthecontemporaneousrecordinthe
natureofthestationdiaryentriesestablishthefactumofsearchand
seizureandhesubmitsthatifeverythingislookedwithsuspicion
thenhewillhavetostarttheevidenceofawitnessaskinghimabout
hisdateofbirth,birthcertificate,schoolleaving,graduation,etc.
798.
Inviewoftheabovediscussionitwillhavetobeheldthatby
thecogentandconvincingevidenceofPIKhanvilkar,PW168,and
ShrikrishnaPawale,PW50, theprosecutionhasprovedtheseizure
ofthewhiteMaruticarbearingno.MH01V9568Art.277atthe
instanceofthe A12andoffinding theblackishspots inthe boot
compartment as well as in between the drive seat and rear seat,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..822..
Ext.4825
whichwerewipedbycottonswabs.Itwillalsohavetobeheldthat
by the cogent evidence of ACP Patil, PW186, and PC Bagwe,
PW157,andthedocumentaryevidenceinthenatureofofficecopy
offorwardingletterExt.1686andthereportoftheFSLExt.2391,
the prosecution has proved the link between the black spots that
werefoundinthecarandthematerialthatwasanalyzedbytheCA.
ThefindingsoftheCAreportExt.2391,whichareinparagraph167
supra,showthatCyclonite(RDX),PetroleumHydrocarbonOiland
Charcoal were detected on three cotton swabs and Ammonium,
NitrateandNitriteradicalsweredetectedintheotherthreeswabs.
It was opined that Cyclonite (RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite,
PetroleumHydrocarbonOilandCharcoalweredetectedinthecar,
whichisinconnectionwiththeswabsthatweretakenbytheexpert
officeroftheFSLwhenthecarwastakentothatoffice.Thus,thisis
thecircumstanceno.15provedbytheprosecutionagainstthe
accused. ItisagainsttheA12.Itisthefirstcircumstanceagainst
him.
799.
Thelastrecoveryoftheincriminatingbombmakingarticlesis
fromtheA7on23/10/06.PITonapi,PW155,gaveevidenceabout
thesearchandseizureon23/10/06thatwasmadeattheinstance
oftheA7.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatduringthecourseofthe
investigationtheA7wasbeinginterrogatedatJuhuunitbyhim,PI
Deshmukhandstaffandonthatdayheexpressedhisdesiretomake
a voluntary statement, whereupon the panchas, i.e., Raju Tapi,
PW129,andonemorewerecalled,explainedthebrieffactsofthe
caseandtheaccusedmadeastatementinHindibeforethemthathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..823..
Ext.4825
would show the places where the articles used for making timer
circuitdevicearekept.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathewrotethe
said memorandum Ext. 1479 and he identified his signature and
thatofpanchasandproveditscontents.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thatthereafterthepanchastookthesearchofthepolicepartyand
thevehicleandnothingotherthantheinvestigatingkitandsealing
materialwasnoticedbythemandthentheywentinavehicleto
gateno.6atMalwaniandaccusedaskedthemtostopthevehicle
near MotherTeresaSchoolandaftergettingdown,ledthemtoa
nearbystructurewhichwasgroundplusoneandwhichhadapaper
board'TanzeemeWalidaen'inEnglish,thattheaccusedledthemto
theofficeonthefirstfloorbyclimbingthestaircase,theysawthe
place,thatistheofficedividedintwopartsandportioncontaining
somecomputersontablesandanoldmansittingthere.Ithascome
inhisevidencethatPIDeshmukhintroducedhimselftotheoldman,
toldhimthepurposeoftheirvisitandonbeingaskedthatmangave
hisnameasMushtaqAli,inchargeofthatofficeandaccusedasked
himtogivethekeysofhisdrawerwhichhegaveandtheaccused
openedoneofthedrawersofthecomputertable,tookoutaplastic
bagwithnamePriyaGold andtookoutthearticlesfromthatbag
andputthemonthetable.Hedescribedallthosearticles,i.e.,Arts.
345to359,asaredescribedinparagraph169supraanddeposed
about putting the articles in separate plastic bags, labeling them
with the signatures of PI Deshmukh and panchas, tying them,
sealing them and seizing them under the panchanama Ext.1480,
whichisalsoinhishandwriting,thecontentsofwhichheprovedby
JudgementMCOC21/06
..824..
Ext.4825
identifyingthesignaturesofPIDeshmukhandpanchasandalsoof
the accused and the person Mushtaq Ali, who were given the
photocopies.Healsoidentifiedthehandwritingonallthelabels,i.e.,
Arts. 345A, 346A, 347A, 348A, 349A, 350A, 351A, 352A, 353A,
354A,355A,356A,357A,358Aand359Aseparatelyandsignatures
of the panchas and PI Deshmukh on them. It has come in his
evidencethathethenreturnedtothepolicestation,madestation
diaryentry,handedovermuddemaltothemuddemalclerkandgave
thepanchanamatoACPPatil,PW186.Heprovedthecontentsof
thestationdiaryentriesno.4and9intheoriginalstationdiary,true
photocopies of which are at Exts. 1669 (two pages). He also
identified the accused in the court. Panch witness Raju Tapi,
PW129, gave evidence corroborating the evidence of PI Tonapi,
PW155, and identified his signatures on the memorandum Ext.
1479aswellasonthepanchanamaExt.1480andthesignaturesof
theotherpanchandpoliceofficer.Hedescribedindetailastoby
whatroutetheywenttoMaladandtothegateno.6inMalwanias
perthedirectionsgivenbytheA7statingthatofficerDeshmukhhad
toldthedrivertotakethevehicleasperthedirectionsthatwouldbe
givenbytheA7.HecorrectlystatedabouttheA7askingthepolice
tohaltthevehiclenearMotherTeresaSchoolandleadingthemtoa
chawlinfrontofthatschool,comprisingofoneplusonefloor,going
toasmalllanebythesideofaladderandhestatedaboutthere
being a board outside the house containing the words in English
Valid Tanjeem. He stated about following the accused inside the
roomonthefirstfloorwhereanoldpersonwassitting,therebeing
JudgementMCOC21/06
..825..
Ext.4825
twopartsinthatroom,theoldpersonsittinginonepartandthere
being56computersintheotherpartandofficerDeshmukhcalling
theoldmanandtellinghimthatheisapoliceofficerandshowing
hisidentitycardandA7askingforakeyfromhimwhichhegave
fromthebunchofkeysthatwaswithhimandtheA7openingthe
drawer that was below a computer by the key and taking out a
plasticbag.HethenstatedaboutA7takingoutseveralarticlesfrom
thebagandhestatedthenamesofthearticlesthatheknewand
then deposed about officer Deshmukh putting each article in a
separateplasticpouch,wrapping,labelingandsealingthemanda
panchanamabeingpreparedandphotocopybeinggiventotheA7
after they obtained it when they got down. He identified his
signatureandthesignatureoftheotherpanchandthepoliceofficer
aswell as the signatures of the accusedandthe oldman on the
panchanamaExt.1480.Itisduringhisevidencethatasealedbox,at
sr.no.20oflistExt.16F,oftheFSL,StateofMaharashtra,Mumbai
bearingthedescriptionCaseNo.K398/06Exts.1to15,CRNo.
05/06,AntiTerroristSquad,MumbaiM505/06,wasopenedatthe
request of the learned SPP and on opening it, it was found to
containabigtransparentplasticbagcontainingasolderinggunand
14pouchescontainingtheassortedarticles.Thewitnessidentified
allthearticlesandhissignaturesaswellasthesignaturesofthe
otherpanchandofthepoliceofficeronallthelabels.Heidentified
allthearticlesinthepouchesandsolderinggun,i.e.,Arts.346to
359,andalsothepolythenebagArt.345.Hecorrectlystatedthatall
thiswasoverat1200hoursandthenunhesitatinglyidentifiedthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..826..
Ext.4825
A7inthecourt.Thus,hisevidencefullycorroboratestheevidenceof
PITonapi,PW155andthecontentsofthepanchanamacorroborate
theirversion.
800.
Tonapi,PW155,gavememorandumandseizurepanchanamaExts.
1479and1480,reportedabouttherecoveryofsolderinggun,wire,
paste,onePCB,multimeterandotherelectroniccomponentsatthe
instanceoftheA7,depositedthearticlesinthemuddemalroomand
that he sent those articles to the FSL for analysis on 27/10/06
alongwith HC Ranpise, PW146, alongwith his forwarding letter,
office copy of which is at Ext. 1596, the contents of which he
proved.HestatedaboutreceivingthereportsoftheFSLExts.2392
and2393lateron.HCRanpise,PW146,corroboratedhisevidence
andidentifiedtheofficecopyofforwardingletteraswellasthe15
packetsbyidentifyingthelabelsandtransparentplasticbags.His
crossexamination has not discredited his version and several
irrelevant things were asked to him in respect of deputation of
officers to the ATS from all over Mumbai, whether there was
muddemalpropertyroomatChandanchowkiandhowmanybrass
sealstheATShad,etc.HewasaskedwhetherhehasseentheA7at
Chandanchowkion22and23/10/06andheadmittedthathehad
seentheaccused,butstatedthathedoesnotrememberwhetherhe
hadmarksofinjuriesonhisperson.Theonlythingthatcouldaffect
hiscredibilityishisadmissionthathehadreadcopyofhisstatement
twodaysbeforeathishouseonthebasisofwhichhetoldallthe
datesanddetails.However,heexplainedthathehadtakenacopyof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..827..
Ext.4825
his statementon27/10/06whenitwasrecordedanddeniedthe
suggestion that the ATS officer gave him his statement two days
beforeandtutoredhimtogiveevidence.Thewitnessadmittingthat
hereadacopyofhisstatementtwodaysbeforeathishouseshows
hishonestyandnoexceptioncanbetakenforthisconductbecause
his evidence was recorded on 30/09/11, i.e., five years after the
work that he made. During his crossexamination by learned
advocateShettyhewasshownthebacksideofthelabelsandhe
admitted that it does not show gum marking and does not
remember whether the labels were affixed on the plastic bags or
were put inside them. This aspect, however, does not affect his
evidencebecausethereportoftheFSLExt.2392showsreceiptof15
sealedparcels,sealsintactandasperthecopysentalongwithPN
no. 22795 which is the buckle number of HC Ranpise, PW146.
ThereisnocrossexaminationtoACPPatil,PW186,inrespectofhis
evidenceaboutsendingthearticlestotheFSL.Thus,bytheevidence
ofPITonapi,PW155,ACPPatil,PW186,andHCRanpise,PW146,
andthe contents of the FSLreportExt.2392,the prosecution has
established the link between the articles that were seized at the
instanceoftheA7underthepanchanamaExt.1480withthearticles
thatwereanalyzedbytheCA.
801.
advocateWahabKhaninrespectofgeneralaspectslikemuddemal
register, seal, etc., is already discussed in paragraph 721 of the
judgementwhilediscussingtherecoveryattheinstanceoftheA3
and insofar as his evidence about the search and seizure is
JudgementMCOC21/06
..828..
Ext.4825
concerned,whichisinparagraphs18and19,therearesuggestions
denyingthesearchandseizureandastowhatthepoliceofficersdid
notdo,viz.,ofnotrecordingthestatementoftheinchargeofthe
instituteMushtaqAli,notbringinghimwiththeminthevehicleetc.,
butithasnotaffectedhisevidenceandinsofarastakingtheA7to
hishouseon22/10/06,hemadeaverypositivestatementthaton
thatdaytheyhadtakentheaccusedtohishouseatMiraRoadto
verify his house and he had accompanied PI Deshmukh, etc. He
denied the suggestion that he planted the PCB Art. 349 on the
instructions of his superiors and that the A7 did not make any
disclosure statement on 23/10/06, but admitted that a mobile
handsethasacircuitandsolderingmachine,wireandpaste,mobile
partsareavailableinthemarket.HedeniedthesuggestionthatPI
Deshmukhwasnotwithhimon22and23/10/06anddeniedthat
theA7didnotmakeanystatementon23/10/06,didnotdisclose
anythingandheandPSIKandharkarwithhisstafftooktheaccused
totheinstitutewithoutthepanchason23/10/06andcollectedthe
mobilerepairingarticles,exceptArts.349and353,andreturnedto
the unit without making any panchanama there. His cross
examination has not discredited his version. Now there was
considerable crossexamination to the panch witness Raju Tapi,
PW129,anditwasrevealedduringhiscrossexaminationthathe
hasactedaspanchwitnessinacasewherearevolverwasfound
withanaccused,whichiscorrectasperthecontentsofthecertified
copyofapanchanamamarkedasExt.20inS.C.No.598/10,Ext.
3336.Though,PITonapi,PW155,wasgiventhesuggestionthathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..829..
Ext.4825
andhisstaffcollectedthemobilerepairingarticlesfromtheinstitute
on23/10/06andnopanchanamawaspreparedthere,hewasnot
suggestedthattheywerenotsealed.Themainthrustofhiscross
examinationisinrespectoftheallegationsoftheA7abouthebeing
torturedandbeatenandhavinginjuriesonhispersonwhichwere
noticedbyhismotherwhenhewastakentohishouseon22/10/06
andaboutwhichshecomplainedtothecourt,butsurprisinglyRaju
Tapi, PW129, was not given any such suggestion. Raju Tapi,
PW129,admittedthathehasactedasapanchwitnessearlierinone
or two cases and that he gave evidence once in Mazgaon court
beforethiscase,butdoesnotrememberthedate,etc.,orthepolice
officer and this was in respect of S. C. No. 598/10, wherein, a
revolver was found with a wanted accused. Thus, it does not
discredithisversionandsamecanbesaidaboutabondthathegave
intheofficeoftheACPinD.N.NagarPoliceStationaboutwhichhe
explainedthatitwasthecaseoftheircomplaintagainstthebuilder
bynameKiranHemaniandthatbondwastakenfromhismother
andwifealso.Admittedly,bondsaretakeninchaptercases,though
hestatedthathedoesnotknowwhetheritwasachaptercaseand
evenifitissoconsidereditdoesnotmeanthatheisacriminaland
obviouslyitwasacomplaintmadebythemagainstabuilderandhe
deniedthesuggestionsthatpolicehadregisteredacaseagainsthim,
arrestedhimandfiledthechargesheetandthereforehisbondwas
taken.Thereisnoevidencetobackthesesuggestions.
802.
Hewasinquiredabouthisoccupationofelectricianandabout
his work and called upon to produce his licence, which was
JudgementMCOC21/06
..830..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..831..
Ext.4825
suggestiontohimthatthepanchasdidnottakethesearchofthe
policepartyandthevehicle.AboutotherthingsstatedbyRajuTapi,
PW129,thatwereshownasomissionstowriteinthepanchanama
Ext.1480,tomymind,theyaremorebywayofgivingthedetailsas
towhathadhappenedandtheydonotaffecthisevidence.Onthe
otherhandthereareseveralthingsthathavecomeonrecordduring
his crossexamination by way of positive statements which prove
thatinfacthewaspresentatthetimeofsearchandseizure.Though
he had not stated so in his chiefexamination it has come in his
crossexaminationinparagraph17thataconstablehadabagwith
thesealingarticlesandhehadbroughtbagintheroomatMalwani,
that it was emptied on the table, that there was a candle, a red
colouredstick,aseal,whitethreadandsmallandbigwhitepapers,
thatthearticleswereintheplasticbaganditwascarriedtothe
roomalongwiththem.Whatdoesthisdenoteexceptthehonesty?
Hedeniedthesuggestionthatnothingwassealedinhispresence.
Headmittedthatmostofthearticlesthatwereshowntohimare
easily available in the market and are used in reparing mobiles,
taperecorders, radios, etc. About obtaining photocopy of the
panchanama,ithascomeasapositivestatementthataconstable
hadgoneforobtainingaphotocopy,thatthephotocopyshopwas
two minutes from the house. Once these two positive staements
havecomeinhis crossexamination,thereisnopointingivinga
suggestion that there was no xerox shop in front or nearby that
house.Hehadmadethepositivestatementsashewasasked.So
thatistheendofthematter.Onemorepositivestatementisthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..832..
Ext.4825
803.
Tapi,PW129,prosecutionhasprovedthefactumofA7havingmade
thedisclosurestatementwritteninExt.1479andtheseizureofthe
articlesasdescribedinthepanchanamaExt.1480athisinstance.
804.
LearnedSPPsubmittedduringhisargumentsthatinfactthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..833..
Ext.4825
ofhiswrittensubmissionsExt.2828containsthestoryofthedates
19 to 23/10/06 as to how he was tortured and that the alleged
recoveryfromhimbeingtotallyfalseandbaseless.Itisallegedby
him that he was taken to Chandanchowki on 22/10/06 at about
4.00p.m.andthenatabout5.30or6.00p.m.hewastakentohis
classatMaladbyPITonapi,PW155,andPSIKandharkarandsome
otherconstables,butofficerSunilDeshmukhandpanchwitnesses
were not accompanied them and as it was Sunday, his classes at
Maladwereclosed.Thelastaspectthoughdeposedbyhiminhis
evidencehascomeoutasafalsityduringhiscrossexaminationby
thelearnedSPPinparagraph98duringhisanswertoaquestion
thatwasunconnectedwithhim.Hestatedthathisinstituteusedto
beclosedonSaturdays.
805.
Learned SPP submits that the fact that the accused was
workingintheinstituteatMaladisnotdisputedbyhimandwhatis
triedtobesuggestedbyhimisthatthearticlesfoundathisinstance
arethearticlesthatcanbeusedformobilerepairingandheusedto
dothesaidwork,therefore,theinferencecanbedrawnfromthisis
thatthe recoveryitselfhasbeenadmitted.Hesubmitsthatifthe
accusedsaidthatthesearethearticlesthatareusedforrepairing
the mobiles, then it can be said that he is not disputing the
recoveries.Ifhesaysthattheyareeasilyavailableinthemarketand
wantstosaythattheyareplanted,thequestioniswhywouldpolice
plantsomethingthatcouldbeexplainedbytheaccused?Inother
words,ifitcanbepointedoutbytheaccusedthatthearticlesare
suchthatcouldnothavebeenfoundinhispossessionorattheplace
JudgementMCOC21/06
..834..
Ext.4825
wherehewasworking,itcanbesaidthatsuchthingsareplanted.If
thereissomeoddthingamongstthem,thentherewillbescopefor
presumingthatitisplanted.Hepointsouttheevidencegivenbythe
accused in paragraph 33 and submits that this means that the
accusedisnotowningArts.349and353andsubmitsthatthisis
exactlywhyhewassayingthatitisadmittedthattheyhadgonefor
therecovery,buttheonlythingtheaccusedissayingthatthesaid
twoarticlesareplanted.OutoftheabovetwoarticlesArt.353isthe
emptypacketofAirtelrechargecard,inrespectofwhichhesubmits
thatastowhetherthisistobefabricatedorisitasubjectofadesign
of plantation? That card is the odd man out, then it should be
explainedwhatwastheobjectofplantingit.Itisallegedthatthe
printedcircuitboardArt.349isplanted,buttheaccuseddoesnot
talkofotherthingsandinthiscontexthepointsouttotheevidence
oftheaccusedinparagraph34whereintheaccusedadmitsbeing
takentotheinstitute,policetakingchargeofthearticlesfromthat
placeandpersonbyname Mushtaqbeingthereandthenhesays
that from there they went to Lamington Road for which he has
reliedontheentriesinthelogbook.Thismeansthattheaccusedis
sayingthatsomeofthearticlesthatarebeforethecourthavebeen
takenfromhisinstitute.
806.
InthisrespectA7hasstatedinparagraph34ofhisdeposition
thatofficerKandharkarandsomeconstablestookhiminthevehicle
on23/10/06,butSunilDeshmukhandpanchwitnesseswerenot
withthem,thathewastakentotheinstituteatMaladandPITonapi
inquired about him with the supervisor Mushtaq, that theyasked
JudgementMCOC21/06
..835..
Ext.4825
himwherehismobilerepairingtoolsareandtoldhimtoproduce
them and Mushtaq produced those tools which included some
computer repairing CDs, that they also collected data cables and
filledallthearticlesintheplasticbag,butdidnotlabelitorsealit
and no panch witness came there and no panchanama was
prepared.Thus,itisclearthattheA7wasadmittingthatthepolice
officers including PI Tonapi, PW155, who has written the
memorandumandthepanchanama,Exts.1479and1480,hadtaken
himtohisinstituteatMaladandhadtakenchargeofsomearticles
outofthearticlesthatareshowntoberecoveredfromhim.Now,it
ishisfurtherevidencethathewastakentoLamingtonRoadfrom
there, i.e., from Malwani, Malad, which is in Girgaon area and
wherecomputercomponentsandelectricalitemsareavailable,that
theypurchasedsomeitems,i.e.,Arts.349,354,355,357,358and
359,fromthereandshowedthemtohimandheidentifiedallthe
componentsashisbackgroundisofelectronics.Forthis,hereliedon
theentriesinthelogbookofthevehicleno.MH01BA4331that
wasproducedbytheprosecution,Ext.4179(1to3),andstatedthat
theentryof23/10/06showsthatPSIKandharkarhadtakenthat
vehicle from Chandanchowki, to Malwani, to Girgaon, to
Kalachowki,toNaigaon,toChandanchowki.Thismeansthatofficer
Sunil Deshmukh was not with them and they had gone to the
LamingtonRoad.Admittedly,theentryshowsthatthevehiclehad
gonetoGirgaon,butLamingtonRoadareaisnearGirgaon,butnot
apartofGirgaon.Nodoubt,nameofofficerSunilDeshmukhisnot
mentioned in the entry in the log book, but so also it does not
JudgementMCOC21/06
..836..
Ext.4825
mentionthenameof PITonapi,PW155,andtheotherstaff,who
according to the story in the written submissions Ext. 2828 in
paragraph28,hadalightedfromthevehiclenearGrantRoadStation
andpurchasedsomeelectricalcomponentsandmaterialandcame
backandsatinthevehicle.Inhisevidencehehasnotnamed PI
Tonapi, PW155, specifically as having purchased some electronic
componentsandmaterialanditisnotinhiswrittenstatementthat
theelectroniccomponentsandmaterialwereshowntohimandhe
identifiedthem.Infact,inhisoralevidencehehasnotevenstated
thatsomeelectroniccomponentsandmaterialwerepurchased.To
mymind,noinferencecanbedrawnonlyonthebasisoftheentry
dtd.23/10/06inthelogbookofMH01BA4331Ext.4179(3),that
thevehiclewastakentoLamingtonRoad,that PITonapi,PW155,
gotdownthere,purchasedsomeelectroniccomponentsandthatPI
SunilDeshmukhwasnotwiththemduringthesearchandseizure.
Leavingasideallthesethings,theaccusedstatinghisstoryinhis
writtensubmissionsExt.2828meansthatheknewaboutit,butthe
mostsurprisingthingandwhichhasexposedhisfalsityisthatthere
isnotevenasinglesuggestiontoPITonapi,PW155,ortothepanch
witness RajuTapi,PW129,aboutit.Itisobviousthattheaccused
went on developing their case as the trial progressed, as the
evidence was led by the prosecution and as the documents were
filedbytheprosecutionaswellasobtainedbytheaccusedunderthe
RTIAct.ItisallegedbyhimthatPISunilDeshmukhwasnotwith
thematthetimeofsearchandseizure,butPITonapi,PW155,has
producedafalsestationdiaryaboutit.Now,thememorandumand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..837..
Ext.4825
807.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..838..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
808.
..839..
Ext.4825
ItisclearfromtheabovediscussionthattheA7hasfailedto
809.
LearnedSPPhas lastlysubmittedthatthedefencetakenby
theA7aboutthediscovery,heisstatingonthebasisoftheentriesin
the logbook thatthe vehicle hadgoneto Girgaon. However,the
entrydoesnotshowthatithadgonetoLamingtonRoad,butletus
takeitthatitiscorrect.Hesubmitsthatheisonlyonthetestthatis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..840..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
810.
..841..
Ext.4825
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatby
thecogentevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,and RajuTapi,PW129,
andbythecontentsofthememorandumofthestatementoftheA7
Ext. 1479 and the seizure panchanama Ext. 1480, by the
contemporaneous record in the form of station diaries and more
importantly by the admissions given by the A7 in his written
submissionsExt.2828aswellasinhisoralevidence,itwillhaveto
beheldthattheprosecutionhasprovedtheseizureofthearticles
describedaboveattheinstanceoftheA7,viz., solderinggunArt.
346,solderingwireArt.347,boxofsolderingfluxArt.348,printed
circuitboardArt.349,resistorsArts.354(1to22),capacitorsArts.
355(1and2),transistorsArts.357(1to8),LEDsArts.358(1to9),
diodesArts.359(1to6)andyellowmultimeterArt.350,tweezers
Arts.351(1and2)andscrewdriverArt.352.Itisalreadyheldthat
the prosecution has established the link between the articles that
wereseizedattheinstanceoftheA7underthepanchanamaExt.
1480withthearticlesthatwereanalyzedbytheCA.Hence,itwill
alsohavetobeheldthatprosecutionhasprovedthatthe resistors
Arts. 354 (1 to 22), the capacitors Arts. 355 (1 and 2), the
transistorsArts.357(1to8),theLEDsArts.358(1to9)andthe
diodesArts.359(1to6)canbeusedtobuildatimer/triggering
device totrigger the detonator. This is thecircumstance no. 16
proved by the prosecution. It is against the A7. It is the first
circumstanceagainsthim.
811.
LearnedSPPpointedouttotherelevanceofthefindingsof
theCAinthereportsExts.2392and2393readwiththeevidenceof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..842..
Ext.4825
APIRevle,PW154,andthecontentsofthereportoftheCAExt.974
inrespectoftheelectroniccircuitrecoveredattheinstanceofA3.
HepointedouttotheforwardingletterExt.1596andsubmitsthat
theinvestigatingofficeraskedasmanyas18questionsinitandthe
lastquestionisrelevant,viz.,'anyotheropinionrelevanttothecase,
whichexpertmaydeemfit'andinthatrespecttheCAreportedthat
thecomponentsinExts.10to15exceptExt.12appeartobesimilar
withsomeofthecomponentsusedintheelectricalcircuitExt.(4)of
MLC K381/06 and hence they can be used to built a
timer/triggeringdevicetotriggerthedetonator.ThisMLCK381/06
isthecasenumberofthearticlesthatwereseizedfromtheA3as
perthereportExt.974andthetechnicalreportofelectriccircuit
Ext. (4) of that MLC number has been discussed earlier. It is
pertinenttonotethatthoughmuchhueandcrywasraisedabout
theprintedcircuitboardthatwasseizedattheinstanceoftheA7,
theCAhasnotgivenanyopinionaboutitaspertheopiniongivenin
Ext. 974 and he has only opined that it is found in working
condition. This reflects upon the honesty of the investigation.
LearnedSPPshowedallthearticlesthatwereseizedfromtheA7to
APIRevle,PW154,andalsoshowedArt.334whichistheprinted
circuitboardseizedattheinstanceoftheA3.APIRevle,PW154,
alsogaveopinionabouttheprintedcircuitboardArt.334thatitin
itselfcannotbetermedasatriggeringmechanism,butitcanbeused
forDTMFICs(DuelToneMultiFrequencies)forreceivingatoneand
converting it into binary code and if it is connected to a mobile
handsetandifthatmobilehandsetiscalledoranalarmissetinthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..843..
Ext.4825
mobile, then the circuit gets activated, it draws power from the
batteryandsendstheelectriccurrenttothedetonator.Aboutthe
electroniccomponentsseizedfromtheaccusedthatwereshownto
him, he stated that bomb triggering mechanism can be prepared
with the help of printed circuit board Art. 334 and the other
electronic components thathe described in his crossexamination.
Hecandidlyadmittedthathecannotsaywhethertheprintedcircuit
boardArt.334isofamobilephoneorawalkietalkieorradio,but
inparagraph32ofhiscrossexaminationhegaveallthedetailsasto
howacircuitcannotbecompletedwithoutpowersourceandmade
positivestatementsthatsuchcanbepreparedfromthemechanism
Art. 334 and explained that the function of a switch is that the
circuit is broken if it is switched off and it is completed if it is
switchedon.Againheadmittedthathecannotsaywhetherallthe
components required for making a complete switch are in the
printedcircuitboardArt.334,butstatedthatmaximumcomponents
are there. His evidence in chiefexamination as well as in cross
examinationisnotcontrovertedandisnotshowntobeincorrect.
Thus the learned SPP has shown the connection between the
electricalarticlesthatwereseizedattheinstanceoftheA7withthe
electroniccomponentsontheprintedcircuitboardArt.334thatwas
seizedattheinstanceoftheA3.
812.
LearnedSPPaswellaslearnedadvocateSharifShaikhhad
submittedsomeauthoritiesinrespectofsearchandseizureandthe
authorities relied upon by the learned SPP have been mentioned
beforestartingthediscussionoftheevidence.Thelawlaiddownin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..844..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..845..
Ext.4825
fromtheA3andsubmitsthatitisthecaseoftheaccusedthatitwas
predeterminedandhequestionsastowherewasthenecessitytoget
the discovery of material on 08/10/06 when they already had
sufficientmaterialagainstthe A3.Hesubmits thatthis courtwill
have to consider that the investigating officer can only collect
whatever is found at the relevant stage and whatever the FSL
reports were received they were just incorporated in the
chargesheet.Therewasnoopportunityfortheinvestigatingofficers
tocorelatetheFSLreportofthearticlesseizedfromtheA3withthe
FSLreportofthearticlesthatwereseizedfromtheA7.Hesubmits
thatitwouldbetoomuchtogivecreditoftheintelligenceofthe
officersthattheyfirstsawandstudiedwhatarethethingsrecovered
from the A7 and then they plant something and show it as the
recoveryfromtheA3.HesubmitsthattherecoveryfromtheA3on
08/10/06wasinpursuanceoftheexclusiveknowledgeoftheA3.
Hesubmitsthattillthetimehisargumentsstarted,itneveroccured
tohimthattherecoveriesfromtheA3andA7arematching.
813.
earlieratsr.no.(ix)inparagraph426anditisinconnectionwith
thefalseanswersgivenbytheaccusedprovidingamissinglinkfor
completingthechainofcircumstantialevidenceandfailureofthe
accusedtoofferanysatisfactoryexplanationforthepossessionof
incriminatingarticlesinhisstatementundersection313oftheCr.P.
C. The next authority in the case of State of Maharashtra,
appellants V. Sayeed Mohd. Hanif Abdul Rashim & Ors.,
respondentsdiscussedatsr.no.(x)inparagraph426isinrespect
JudgementMCOC21/06
..846..
Ext.4825
ofaspectofsealingofarticlesattimeofseizure.Thisisthecaseof
blastatGatewayofIndiaandobservationsoftheSupremeCourtin
paragraphs19and20inthecaseofBilalAhmedKaloovs.Stateof
A.P.reportedin(1997)7SCC431.InthiscontextthelearnedSPP
submitsthatanissueismadeoutofproportionbythedefencein
respectofthesealingoforabsenceoflacsealorbrasssealandon
thebasisofthesesubmissionstheywantthiscourttodiscardthe
evidenceofdiscoveriesandrecoveries.Hesubmitsthatinthefirst
casethiscourtwillhavetotakejudicialnoticethattill08/08/06the
ATS,Mumbaididnothaveanybrassseal.Secondly,unlessanduntil
itisdemonstrativelyshownthatabsenceofthelacsealgoestothe
root of the matter and whether there is per se presumption of
tampering.Hesubmitsthattheissueisthis,butthecourthasto
appreciateisthatifthereisnolacsealthenitmaybetampered.He
submitsthatheasksaquestiontohimselfthatevenifanenvelopeis
sealedbylac,canitnotbetamperedbyresealingit?Thereforeina
given case unless it is demonstrated that a particular sample has
beentampered,merelyapossibilityofitbeingtamperedcannotbea
groundforrejectingitonthatcount.Thisprincipleappliestothe10
grams sample that was taken from the black powder that was
recoveredfromthehouseoftheA1.Hesubmitsthatthisaspecthas
been considered by the Supreme Court and for this the learned
advocateforthedefencewillsaythatitwillamounttoputtingaside
theauthority.Hesubmitsthatheisonlyputtingthisquestionfor
appreciationofthecourtbecauseheisonsection3oftheEvidence
Actregardingappreciationofevidence.Forthistwothingswillhave
JudgementMCOC21/06
..847..
Ext.4825
tobeborneinmind:(i)thatinnoneofthecasesthesealswere
usedand(ii)thatoutof10/20,inoneortwotheyarenotused,but
fortherestthatareused.Hesubmitsthatinsuchcircumstancesifa
reasonableexplanationisavailablethencanjusticebemadesterile
bydiscardingsuchevidencewithouttakingintoconsiderationthe
explanationthatisgivenandavailable.
814.
teamgoesfromMaharashtratoBiharonsometipofftoarrestthe
accused.Insuchcircumstancesitcannotenoughlieinanybody's
mouth that a person from Bihar is to be brought and shown as
arrestedaccused.Secondly,atthatprimitivestageofinvestigation
unlessyouhaveinhandsomeimmediateeyewitness,itwouldbe
difficulttoenvisagethatthepoliceofficerortheinvestigatingofficer
wouldknowtheroleplayedbysuchaperson.Canitbesaidthatthe
policegotsomeinformation,therefore,theydecidedthattheymust
gotoBihartogettheA1andplantRDXonhim?Hesubmitsthathe
remembersthewordsoftheSupremeCourtthattheproceedingina
court is notafairytellwhere anyonecan tell stories.Itis not a
marketplacewhereanybodycansellanythingthereforethecourt
willhavetoacceptthis primafacie thatitwaspredeterminedthat
theofficerwouldgothereandarresttheA1andthathewouldbe
shownasaplanterandtherefore,theymustcarryRDXwiththem
andplantitonhim.Inrespectofthequestionstothepoliceofficers
whohadgonetoarresttheaccusedandalsotothepoliceofficerof
BasopattiaboutnothavingputthesealofBasopattiPoliceStation,
he submits that supposing an ATS team goes from Bhoiwada or
JudgementMCOC21/06
..848..
Ext.4825
KalachowkitoBhayanderorMiraRoad,recoverssomething,goesto
Pune,recoverssomethingthere,buttheydonothavetheirownseal,
therefore,theygotoPoliceStationWanwadi,obtainedtheirsealand
putitontheseizedarticlesandreturnbacktoMumbai.Thisseized
articlesarerequiredtobeforwardedtotheFSLforanalysis.The
procedureisthattheforwardinglettershouldhaveanimpressionof
thesamesealthatisusedforsealingthearticle.Inthecaseofthe
recoveryfromtheA1,theATSwouldhavebeenrequiredtosend
back a team with the forwarding letter to Bihar and obtain the
impressionofthebrasssealontheletterandthencomebackand
sendthearticlestotheFSL.Thus,willthisnotleadtoanabsurdity?
815.
Hesubmitsthataswesaythereisalongdistancerequiredto
betraveledbeforeafactthatmaybeprovedandafactwhichis
proved, here similarly there is a vast difference to be traveled
betweenthesubmissionsthatthesamplesweretamperedorcould
havebeentamperedandthattheywereactuallytampered.Inthat
case the court has to come to a positive finding that infact the
sampleshavebeentamperedwith,thenandthenonlysuchevidence
canbediscarded.Hepointsoutthattheinvestigatingofficerinthis
casehavenotbeensuggestedthatthesamplesweretamperedwith
whentheywerelodgedintheiroffice.
816.
bythelearnedSPPhavebeenmentionedatsr.no.(xi)inparagraph
426andlearnedSPPsubmitsthatitisobservedthattherewasno
allegationorsuggestionbytheaccusedthatthecontrabandarticle
wasinanywaymeddledbytheofficersandthereforetheappellant
JudgementMCOC21/06
..849..
Ext.4825
wasrightlyfoundtobeinpossessionofthecontraband.Inrespectof
the reliance on the authority in the case of Hardip Singh, he
submits that in our case when the samples of the black powder
recoveredfromthehouseoftheA1weresenttotheCA,theCA
foundthatthesealswerenotaffixed,therefore,itwassentbackand
thenthesealofKalachowkiPoliceStationwasputonit.
817.
courtshouldtakethejudicialnotice.Itisthatinallsuchcases,itis
notonebuttwosamplesthataredrawnandquestionsastowhich
officerwillruntheriskofbeingcaughtiftheothersampleissent.
ApartfromthatsofarastheRDXthatwasbroughtfromBihar,the
entirejarofabout1/2kg.ofRDXisbeforethecourt.Theaccused
who are so vigilant about their rights, could have made an
applicationtosendafreshsamplefromthecontentsofthejar.They
havenotdoneso.
818.
Inmyhumbleopinion,thesubmissionofthelearnedSPPand
theauthoritiesreliedonbyhimaresquarelyapplicabletothefacts
inthepresentcase.Notonlythis,itisclearfromthediscussionof
theevidencegivenbytheprosecutionthatithasgivencogentoral
anddocumentaryevidencetoprovealltheseizures.
819.
Withthis,wecompletetheevidencegivenbytheprosecution
inrespectoftheseizureofthebombmakingarticlesattheinstance
ofdifferentaccused.Itisthroughoutallegedbyalltheaccusedthat
thearticlesthatareshowntoberecoveredfromsomeofthemare
plantedandthe entire evidence is fabricated.Idonotthinkthat
suchaninferencecanbedrawnifoneconsidersthediversetypeof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..850..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..851..
Ext.4825
foundtocontainRDXamongstotherthingsattheinstanceofthe
A12on22/10/06thoughhewasarrestedon30/09/06.Andthelast
the8th istherecoveryofelectroniccomponentsandPCBonwhich
noexplosivesweredetectedattheinstanceoftheA7on23/10/06
thoughhewasarrestedon29/09/06.
820.
evidence,everysuspicioustypeofrecoveryoreverytypeofrecovery
thatwasmadewasplacedbeforethecourtandassubmittedbythe
learnedSPP,thecaseoftheprosecutionisunfoldednotbywayofa
story, but by way of evidence that was gathered during the
investigation.
821.
Icannotbutresistthetemptationofmakinganobservationat
this stage itself that it appears that rather than their advocates
decidingthecourseofactionastohowtofightthecase,itwasthe
accusedwhothoughtthattheyareknowledgeableenoughtodefend
themselves. This has led to inconsistent stands in the cross
examinationoftheprosecutionwitnesses,inthewrittensubmissions
madebytheaccused,whichtheyfiledalongwiththeirstatements
undersection313oftheCr.P.C.,intheiroralevidenceaswellas
whentheyexamineddefencewitnesses.Obviously,itisablunder
committedbythemandratherthanfalsifyingtheprosecutioncase
andtheevidencegivenbytheprosecution,thisapproachoreffort
hasfalsifiedtheirdefenceandfortifiedtheprosecutioncase.
ProcurementofRDX:
822.
reproducedinparagraphs218to252andtherelevantallegations
JudgementMCOC21/06
..852..
Ext.4825
concerningprocurementofexplosivesandexplosivedevices,arein
paragraphs219,220and221.Therelevantallegationsarethatasa
part of the conspiracytocause explosions in the western railway
localtrains,wantedaccusedAzamChimatooktheresponsibilityof
sending RDX and Pakistan based terrorists, including those who
wouldbeexpertsinassemblingtheexplosivedevicesandasapart
oftheconspiracy,theA5ofKolkataandthe A1fromBiharwere
entrustedtheresponsibilityofbringingPakistaniterroristsintoIndia
throughIndoBangladeshandIndoNepalbordersrespectively.Itis
alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in order to
achieve its object, the A5 made arrangements in May, 2006 and
ensuredtheinfiltrationofsixwantedaccused,whowerePakistani
nationals,viz.,Sabir,AbuBakr,KasamAli,AmmuJaan,Ehsanullah
andAbuHasan,i.e.,wantedaccusedno.8to13,intoIndiathrough
Bangladesh border and these accused traveled from Kolkata to
Mumbai by train. It is alleged that the wanted accused no. 12
Ehsanullah brought RDX with him, which was used for causing
explosions in Mumbai on 11/07/06. Toprove this, prosecution is
relying on the evidence of Mohd. Shakil, PW70, who is also a
residentofKolkata.
823.
IthascomeintheevidenceofMohd.Shakil,PW70,thatA5
ishischildhoodfriendandheidentifiedtheaccusedunhesitatingly
inthecourt.Thisisnotcontrovertedduringhisvoluminouscross
examination.HehasthengivenevidenceaboutheknowingAsif,a
relative of the A5, who stays in Bangladesh. This is also not
controverted.HisevidencethathehadmetAsifwhenhehadcome
JudgementMCOC21/06
..853..
Ext.4825
toKolkatainDecember,2003inthemarriageofhisuncleAsgarand
Asif'sfriendshadalsocomewithhim,etc.,isbroughtonrecordas
animprovement,which,tomymind,isinconsequentialinasmuchas
hisearlierevidencethatheknowsAsifhasnotbeencontroverted.It
isonlybywayofsomeadditionalinformationorexplanation.Ithas
come in his crossexamination by learned advocate Shetty as a
positivestatementthathemetAsifforthefirsttimeinthemarriage
ofAsgar,but,thereafterdidnotdevelopregularfriendshipwithhim
andheknowsTushar,Akbar@SamiandPapputhroughAsif.Hehas
thengivenevidenceaboutthe visitofthesepersonsin2004and
theygoingtoDelhi,abouthisthreebrothersthere,aboutAsifasking
himformoney,and,hisATMcardandbankaccountbeingsentby
courier by the A5 after collecting from his house, etc. All these
thingsareirrelevantandinconsequentialandthoughmostofthisis
brought on record as improvements, it is not concerning his
evidenceaboutthemainaspect.Thus,itisunnecessarytoconsider
the considerable crossexamination to him on that aspect, more
particularly,becausetheprosecutionisnottryingtolinkitwiththe
presentcrime.
824.
HiscloseassociationwiththeA5isestablishedbyhisevidence
inparagraph3abouttheydoingthebusinessofspectaclespowers
for two years during 20032004 about his business transactions.
Except the single statement that he made that the A5 was not
attentivetothebusinessin20032004,whichwasbroughtonrecord
as an improvement, there is nothing in his crossexamination to
controverthisevidenceaboutpartnershipbusinesswiththeA5.On
JudgementMCOC21/06
..854..
Ext.4825
theotherhandhisacquaintancewiththeA5andhisfamilymembers
andhisknowledge aboutthe inmates of the familymembers,his
house, his main business, marriage of the A5 has been asked in
crossexamination and he gave all the details. In respect of the
business,headmittedthatonlyhehadtheknowledgeofpreparing
powerglasses,buttheA5hadtheknowledgeofthebusinessashe
usedtogotothemarketforpurchasesanddeniedthesuggestion
that he did not have the knowledge about preparing spectacles.
Positive statements have come on record that they had taken
premisesonrentforthespectaclesshop,thatheandtheA5usedto
runthatshopandtheA5usedtoworkinthefootwearshopalso.
HisknowledgeaboutAsifbeingarelativeoftheA5isfurtherproved
by his answers in crossexamination that he was not treated as
outsideratthehouseoftheA5,butwastreatedasafamilymember
anddoesnotknowwhethermanyofhisrelatives areresidingin
Bangladesh,butheknowsonlyAsifwhoisthesonofsisteroffather
oftheA5.HecandidlyansweredthathedoesnotknowwhetherAsif
usedtooftencometovisitMajid,butpositivelystatedthatAsifused
tooftencometomeethisuncleAsgarintheirmohallaandthesaid
Asgarstaysacrosstheroadandwhomheknowssincehischildhood.
Inaddition,theA5hasalsoadmittedinhiswrittensubmissionsExt.
2826andhasstatedinhisoralevidenceasDW43thathewasdoing
spectacleswithMohd.Shakil,PW70,ofmanufacturingtheoptical
glassesduring2003.Ofcourse,hisstoryandhisallegationinhis
writtensubmissionsExt.2826isthatduringtheyear2003hecame
across the person by name Mohd. Shakil, i.e., PW70, who was
JudgementMCOC21/06
..855..
Ext.4825
residingintheirlocalityandwhotrickedhimintoobtainingcapital
forthebusinessofopticalglassmanufacturing,thatheobtainedthe
capitalbytakingtheloanfromhisbrothersandthatMohd.Shakil,
PW70,hadagreedtodepositRs.50/perdayforrepaymentofthe
loan,buthedidnotgiveproperaccountsanddidnotmakedeposits
as agreed, etc., and there being disputes between them after his
brothersstarteddemandingtherepaymentoftheloan,thatMohd.
Shakil, PW70, misused the time given for repayment and there
beingfivemeetingsetc.Allthesethingsareobviouslyafterthought
justtomalignthewitness,becausethereisnotasinglesuggestionto
Mohd.Shakil,PW70,abouthetakingtheA5inthebusinessand
cheatinghim.Ontheotherhandasmentionedearlierseveraldetails
in respect of the business have been asked in crossexamination,
which the witness stated correctly. The inference that all these
allegationsareafterthoughttomalignthewitnessisquiteobvious
fromtheallegationsmadebytheA5inhisoralevidencewhichdo
notfindplaceinhiswrittensubmissionsExt.2830.Heallegedin
paragraph 4 of his evidence that grandfather of Mohd. Shakil,
PW70,usedtodotheworkofmatka,hisfatherisaddictedtoliquor
and charas and does not do any work, that his brothers have
criminalrecordandhis23youngerbrothersareinvolvedinrobbery
cases, which he knew before his arrest in this case, that Mohd.
Shakil,PW70,hadillicitrelationswiththesisterofhisfriendMohd.
Shahid, etc. There is absolutely no material to support these
allegations,andtomymind,theyarebaselessandmadejustforthe
sakeofmaligningthewitness,becauseifatalltheyweretruethe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..856..
Ext.4825
accused,whoaresoindustrious,wouldhaveuncoveredsomethingif
it was there in respect of this witness. This also proves that the
witness does not have any criminal antecedents or record of he
being associated with the police as a panch or witness or as an
accused.
825.
Thencomesthematerialpartofhisevidenceinparagraph4
thatAsifagaincametoKolkatainFebruary,2006andmethimand
theA5andonaskinghimthereasonhetoldthathehadcomefor
secretworkaboutwhichhecouldnottellhim,buthadtoldtheA5
andonMohd.Shakil,PW70,askingtheA5aboutit,wastoldthat
AsifhadcometoIndiafordoingsomeworkinconnectionwiththe
plightofMuslimsinIndiaandthathealsowantstodothatwork.
This evidence is not brought on record as an improvement or
contradiction during his crossexamination and same can be said
aboutthelastsentenceinthesaidparagraphthatduringhistalks
withtheA5subsequentlyhecametoknowthatheisincontactwith
some persons of LeT in Mumbai. The remaining portion in that
paragraphisbroughtonrecordasimprovementsoverhisstatement
giventothepoliceandevenifitisnotconsidereditdoesnotaffect
hisevidenceaboutAsifhavingcometoKolkatain2006forsome
secretworkinFebruary,2006andhavingmethimandA5.During
his crossexamination by learned advocate Shetty the only words
thatwerebroughtonrecordasimprovementsoverhisstatementare
'aboutwhichhecannottellme',buttheyareinconsequential.
826.
Thereafterishisevidenceinparagraph5thatinMay,2006,
A5toldhimthathewantstodosomeworkforIslamandwhether
JudgementMCOC21/06
..857..
Ext.4825
hewouldhelphimandthenhesaidno.Thisisbroughtonrecordas
an improvement. Even if it is not considered, his subsequent
evidence has not been brought on record as improvement or
contradiction,whichis,thatinthesecondorthirdweekof2006,the
A5toldhimthatsomepersonsaretobebroughtfromBongaonon
the border of India and Bangladesh and he and the A5 went to
Bongaonbytrain,thatatthattimetheA5wastalkingwithAsifand
MunnaonhismobileandaftertheyreachedBongaon,theywent
towardstheBongaonmarketareaandaftersometimeMunnacame
withsixpersons.TheportionnextthattheygreetedtheA5andtold
theirnameswhichherepeated,i.e.,wantedaccusedno.8to13,is
brought on record as an improvement to state before the police
duringhisstatementundersection161oftheCr.P.C.Ithascome
during the crossexamination by learned advocate Rasal in
paragraph20aspositivestatementsthatMunnahadbroughtthose
six persons with him and he candidly admitted that he does not
knowfromwherehehadbroughtthemandhedidnothaveanytalk
with any of those persons. To my mind, he stating the names of
wanted accused is nothing but supplying some additional
information.Thisissomewhatsimilartothereasonableexplanation
that he gave in respect of an improvement that was brought on
record in respect of he stating the names of friends of accused
Tushar and the others about which he explained that he only
remembersthenameofTusharandnotthenamesofotherfriends
whenhegavehisstatementtothepolice,therefore,hehadstated
onlyhisname,but,thisisimportant,herememberedtheirnames
JudgementMCOC21/06
..858..
Ext.4825
whenhegavethestatementtothemagistrateafteraboutamonth.
Admittedly,thatstatementrecordedbytheACMMisproducedby
theprosecution,butitisnotproved,becausethewitnessstuckto
thecontentsofthestatementgiventothepoliceundersection161
oftheCr.P.C.Outofcuriosity,Iperusedthesaidstatementunder
section164oftheCr.P.C.andthereinhehasgiventhenamesofthe
six wanted accused. Leaving aside these observations, his next
evidenceisthattheywenttoanearbyhotelfortea,allofthemwere
inbetween2030yearsofage,allgavetheirpassportstoMunna
and,thisisimportant,hecouldgatherfromthepassportsthatthose
personswerefromPakistanasthenamePakistan waswrittenon
their covers and Munna took the passports and left them. This
evidence is not brought on record as an improvement over his
statement under section 161 of the Cr. P. C. or not shown as
contradiction. Thus, his earlier evidence that Munna came there
withsixpersonsandtheyweretogetherforteashowsthathewas
withthosepersonsforsometime.Thisinferenceisendorsedbyhis
answers in paragraph 20 in his crossexamination by learned
advocateRasalthathemetMunnaforthefirsttimenearBongaon
marketinBongaon,thattheywereinBongaonforonehour,but
werenottogetherfortheentireperiodandweretogetherwhenthey
hadtea.Obviously,hedoesnotknowwhethertherearemanyhotels
inthatmarketandcouldnottellthenameofthehotelwherehehad
tea and on which road it was. The questions on this line are
ridiculous. He explained further that they were sitting on a long
tableinthehoteltilltheyhadteaandtheremaybe34tables.Thus,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..859..
Ext.4825
thoughsomeportionofhisevidencemainlyaboutthenamesofthe
six persons is shown as an improvement, the fact remains that
Munnahavingbroughtsixpersonsthereisprovedasitisnotshaken
duringhiscrossexamination.Ontopofthisishiscrossexamination
bylearnedadvocateShettyaboutthePakistanipassportsandithas
comeinparagraph24aspositivestatementsthathecandescribethe
passports that were with those persons and then he went on to
describethattheword'Pakistan'waswrittenonthemandtherewas
a'chand'and'tara'ontopandthepassportsweregreencoloured.
Whatmorespecificationsonewantstoarriveataconclusionthathe
is an honest witness and his evidence is totally reliable and
trustworthy?Ifatallhewastutoredbythepoliceorifheisagotup
witness,thesethingswouldhavebeenintroducedinhisstatement
whenthepolicerecordedit.
827.
improvementonhisstatementgiventothepolice,inwhichhehad
statedabouthe,A5andsixpersonsgoingtotherailwaystationby
two rickshaws, A5 purchasing 8 tickets for going to Kolkata and
duringtheirtalk,hecomingtoknowthattheyarefromPakistan,
sentbyAzanChima,commanderofLeT,andhegoingtohishouse
and the six persons going with A5 to his house after reaching
Kolkata, that he is not ready to do that work, etc. Even if this
evidence is not considered, to my mind, the aspect of the six
PakistanipersonsbeingbroughtatBongaonandheandA5meeting
themisnotcontrovertedordisputed.BongaonisinIndiaanditis
justadjacenttotheBangladeshborderandis72kms.fromKolkata.
JudgementMCOC21/06
828.
..860..
Ext.4825
OnlytwoportionsfromthestatementofMohd.Shakil,PW77,
wereconfrontedtohimandgotprovedfromACPPatil,PW186,as
Exts.2516(1and2).Firstisthatafterlearningabouttheworkfor
which the persons had come from Bangladesh, he reluctantly
becamereadytohelpthem.Idonotknowhowthiswillhaveany
effect on his evidence on the factual aspects. Thus, it is of no
consequence.Secondisthattheywentbytaxitotherailwaystation.
Tomymind,thisportionalsohardlymakesanydifference,because
thefactthatcanbeinferredfromhisevidenceisthathe,theA5and
thesixpersonscamebytrainfromBongaontoKolkata.LearnedSPP
submits during his arguments that if on a plain reading of the
evidence of this witness, it does not show that there is anything
whichisapparentlyintroducedbythepolice,thenitisnothingbuta
truthful and honest evidence given by the witness and that his
evidencehasnotbeenmouldedinanyothermannertogiveany
specific role to the accused. In respect of the omissions and
contradictionshereferredtohissubmissionsmadebyhimearlierin
respect of the statement under section 161 of the Cr. P. C. and
submits that if contradictions or omissions are taken in bits and
pieces they may depict the picture that the witness is not giving
verbatim statement before the court. However, what needs to be
appreciatediswhethertherelevantgistforwhichhewasexamined
hascome or not,whetherthereis anydeviation or cracks inthe
material. He submits that the role attributed to the A5 is of a
conspirator and it is settled law that in a conspiracy every
conspiratorneednotknowwhattheotherpersonisdoing.Heis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..861..
Ext.4825
829.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhanattackedtheevidencegivenby
thiswitnessonseveralcountsandmostofthemhavebeenrepeated
in the written notes of arguments submitted by learned advocate
SharifShaikhinvolumeno.4.Hissubmissionsabouttheevidence
ofMohd.Shakil,PW70,inrespectofthevisitofAsifin2004are
unnecessarytobeconsidered.Itissubmittedbyhimaswellasin
thewrittensubmissionsbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhthatthe
witnesswascalledtothelocalATSofficeatKolkataandhestated
that all that he stated in chiefexamination and if he has given
materialinformationinrespectofthecrime,itshouldhavehadbeen
recorded on the first day itself. However, no record has been
producedinthatregardandthesilenceoftheprosecutioninrespect
of that inquiry suggests that deliberately time was consumed to
introduceaparticularstoryfromthemouthofthiswitness.Tomy
mind,thisinferencecannotbedrawninviewofhiscredibilitybeing
not impeached during the crossexamination and in view of his
evidencethattheinformationthathegavewasnotwritten,though
he does not exactly remember about it. Now in his cross
examinationbylearnedadvocateRasalinparagraph16heturned
JudgementMCOC21/06
..862..
Ext.4825
downthesuggestionthathedoesnotknowwhenhisstatementwas
recordedandgaveapositiveanswerthatitwasrecordedatMumbai
on03/11/06,whichiscorroboratedbytheevidenceofACPPatil,
PW186. He was repeatedly put questions about this aspect and
thoughheadmittedthatduringthisperiodtheofficersweremaking
inquiry with him, that he was interrogated for about 23 hours
everydayandwascalledagainon01/10/06aswellason03/10/06,
but he turned down the suggestion that whatever was being
inquiredwithhimwastakendowninwritten.Hedidnotremember
whether Mumbai police had come on the second occasion for
makinginquiries,butstatedthatevenatthattimehisstatementwas
notwritten.Inaddition,ithascomeinparagraph8ofthecross
examinationthatthepolicehadmadesomeinquirieswithhimasto
whetherheknowstheA5,etc.Whatthismeansisthatthepolice
mayhavebeentryingtocollecttheevidenceabouttheactivitiesof
the A5 and as to who were the persons connected with him
includingMohd.Shakil,PW70.Thisinferencecanbedrawnfrom
his answer in crossexamination that the person by name Asgar,
uncleofAsif,wascalledalongwithhimtotheATSofficeatKolkata.
Once the investigating officer became sure that the evidence of
Mohd.Shakil,PW70,isrelevant,hewentaheadandrecordedhis
statement.Thus,tomymindthereisnodelayandtheinvestigating
officernotdrawingthesketchesofthewantedaccusedwiththehelp
ofthiswitnessisalsoofnoconsequence.Ifhisstatementwasnot
recordedontheotheroccasions,thereisnoreasonforproducing
anyrecordabouttheinquirythatwasmadewithhim.
JudgementMCOC21/06
830.
..863..
Ext.4825
Astrangeandunacceptablesubmissionismadebythelearned
advocatethattheevidenceofthiswitnessgivestheimpressionthat
sixpersonswerehavingPakistanipassports,whichmeansthatthey
arecitizensofPakistanand,therefore,theycouldhaveconveniently
cometoIndiafromAttariorWaghaborder,therefore,theevidence
ofthiswitnessappearsunnatural.Isaidthatthisisastrangeand
unacceptablesubmission,becauseitcanbesaidthatthefactthat
thoughtheyhadPakistanipassports,theycameclandestinelywhich
showsthattheyhadcomeforsomeulteriormotiveandwantedto
hidetheiridentities.Thus,thissubmissionisofnoconsequence.
831.
witnessappearsveryunnaturalandimprobable,becausehedoesnot
claimorsaythatanyofthesepersonswascarryingaluggageorbag
orpouchwithhimandinviewoftheclaimoftheprosecutionthat
thewantedaccusedno.12broughtabout15kgs.ofRDX,itwasthe
bounden duty of the prosecution to establish this through the
evidenceofMohd.Shakil,PW70.Hesubmitsthat15kgs.ofRDXis
notsomethingthatcanbecarriedinthepantorshirtpocketandthe
witnesshasnotstatedthatanyofthemhadanybagofclotheswith
them. To my mind, the witness has not been asked in his cross
examinationastowhethertherewasanybagorluggagewithallthe
sixpersonsoranyoneofthem.Admittedly,hehasnotstatedabout
it.Consideringtheallegationsofthedefencethatheisafalseand
got up witness, to my mind, there was nothing to prevent the
investigatingagencytoputthisthinginthemouthofthewitness,
thatthepersonbynameEhsanulah,wantedaccusedno.12,was
JudgementMCOC21/06
..864..
Ext.4825
carryingabigandheavybagwithhim.Itisclearthattheyjusttook
whateverisstatedandhedeposedasperhisstatement.Hisevidence
aboutthefactthatsixPakistanipersonswerebroughtbyA5from
BongaontoKolkataisenoughtobearelevantfact.Inthiscontext,it
issubmittedbythelearnedadvocatethataspertheallegationsof
theprosecution,Ehsanulah,wantedaccusedno.12carriedtheRDX
with him and he and the other five traveled from Bongaon to
KolkataandfromKolkatatoMumbai,butnooneissuspectingthem.
Whywouldanyonesuspectpersonstravelingintrainunlessthereis
somespecific information or unlesspolice are on thelookoutof
suspicious persons? There are hundreds, thousands and lacs of
persons traveling in trains and other public vehicles everyday in
IndiacarryingvoluminousluggageandIdonotknowhowanyone
cansuspectaparticularpersontocarryanyexplosive.
832.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatithascomeintheevidenceof
thewitnessthatheusedtobeincontactwiththeA5bymobileand
onthedaywhentheywenttoBongaonbytrain,hewastalkingwith
Asif and Munna on mobile. This is also submitted in the written
submission by learned advocate Sharif Shaikh and it is also
submittedthatitistheallegationsoftheprosecutionthatasperthe
instructionsoftheAzamChima,mobileswerenottobeusedfor
operationalpurposes,whichmeansthattheA5wasnotcomplying
withtheordersoftheheadofthesyndicateandthisissufficientto
discardhisevidence.ItisalsosubmittedthatMohd.Shakil,PW70,
suppressedhismobilenumberbysayingthathedoesnotremember
itandalsodoesnotremembermobilenumberoftheA5andfailure
JudgementMCOC21/06
..865..
Ext.4825
833.
wasinstrumentalinbringingsixpersonsbycrossingtheBangladesh
borderclandestinelywiththehelpofMunna,thesepersonsarenot
madewitnessesorwantedaccused.Obviously,AsifisofBangladesh
anditisonlyonthebasisofMohd.Shakil,PW70,thathesaidthat
Asifwasinvolved.InsofarasMunnaisconcerned,hemaybejusta
persontohelpthepersonstocrosstheBangladeshborder.Nothing
must have come out in the investigation to indicate their
involvement in the conspiracy to commit the blast in the present
case insofar as their knowledge about the entire plan. Even
otherwise,theybeingnotmadewitnessesorwantedaccuseddoes
nothaveanyimpactontheevidenceofthiswitness.
834.
jihad,thewitnesshasstatedthatheisnotawareofitsmeaningand
his answersin crossexamination that heis aSunniandgoes for
JudgementMCOC21/06
..866..
Ext.4825
835.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatifthewitnesshadstatedtothe
A5thatheisnotinterestedintheworkwhichtheA5wantstodofor
Islam,howhewouldhavetakenthewitnesstoBongaonwithhim.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..867..
Ext.4825
Obviously,thisisfortheA5toexplain,butthishadtakenplacein
May,2006,thespecificdateorweekbeingnottoldbyhimandon
theA5askinghimwhetherhewouldhelpintheworkforIslamhe
saidno.However,inthenextsentencehestatedthatinthesecond
orthirdweekofMay,2006,theA5toldhimthatsomepersonsare
to be brought from Bongaon, therefore, he went with him. This
evidenceaspointedoutbymeearlierisnotbywayofimprovement
andnothinghascomeoutonrecordtodiscredithisversion.
836.
Lastly,learnedadvocatesubmitsinthelightofomissionsand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..868..
Ext.4825
837.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..869..
Ext.4825
credibility.
838.
Itisthensubmittedthatthewitnesskeptchanginghisversion.
Itcanbegatheredfromhisevidenceinparagraph4anditisargued
that it shows that Asif came for some work which he was not
intendingtoinformanyone,then,whyhedisclosedtoMohd.Shakil,
PW70,thathehadcomeforsomesecretworkandwhyhedisclosed
it to the A5, who was the close friend of Mohd. Shakil, PW70.
Therefore,itistotallyunnaturalandnotdigestible.Itisalsoargued
thatifAsifwasnotintendingtotellaboutthesecretworktoMohd.
Shakil,PW70,thenhewouldhavewarnedtheA5nottodisclose
anythingaboutittoMohd.Shakil,PW70.Ithinkthatratherthan
thewitnesschanginghisversion,itisthedefencethatischangingits
versionandaskingthecourttodrawaninferencefromthepositive
evidencethatthewitnesshadgivenratherthanshowinghowhis
evidencehasbeendiscreditedduringhiscrossexamination.
839.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..870..
Ext.4825
recall this witness after the accused made the statement under
section313oftheCr.P.C.Thissubmissionisthereforeabsolutely
untenable and does not show that the witness is an interested
witness who deposed against the A5 in order to swallow his
business.
840.
841.
ThelearnedSPPhassubmittedinbriefabouttheevidenceof
JudgementMCOC21/06
842.
..871..
Ext.4825
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itisclearthattheevidence
givenbyMohd.Shakil,PW70,isacogentandconvincingevidence
and I have no hesitation in holding that he is a honest and
trustworthy witness and to accept his evidence. Thus, the
prosecutionhasprovedbyhisevidencethatsometimeinthesecond
or third week of May, 2006, A5 brought six persons, who were
havingPakistanipassports,fromBongaon,whichisjustadjacentto
theBangladeshborderofIndia,toKolkataforbeingfurthertakento
Mumbai.The inferencethatthe persons werePakistaniscan very
well drawn from his evidence that they were having Pakistani
passports. This is the circumstance no. 17 proved by the
prosecution.ItisagainsttheA5.
Itisthefirstcircumstanceagainst
him.
Assemblingofbombs:
843.
10/07/06explosivedeviceswereassembledinthehouseoftheA6
atShivajiNagar,Govandiandforthis purpose itexamined Amar
Khan,PW75, and PCAmbekar,PW76.Theincidentaboutwhich
theydeposedisstatedinbriefinparagraphs193and194supraand
AmarKhan,PW75,gaveevidenceaboutit.Hisinitialevidenceis
abouttheA8andtwoothers,i.e.,IrfanandImran,beinghisfriends
inthelocality,A8beingaSIMIactivisttakingpartintheprograms
andtheactivitiesofSIMIandhehimselfhavinggoneononeortwo
occasions for attending the programs. He identified the A8
unhesitatinglyandthisevidencehasnotbeendisputedorshownas
an improvement or contradiction, except the words 'one or two
JudgementMCOC21/06
..872..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..873..
Ext.4825
tohimandaskedwhetherhehadstatedsotothe policeandhe
confirmedit,butthematterwasleftthere.
844.
Hisevidenceinparagraph4isthemainevidenceinrespectof
whichthereisconsiderableagitation.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thatAjmeriShaikhusedtodotheworkofplasterofparis(POP)and
interior decorator and for that purpose he used to go on his
motorcycletoGovandiforpurchasingthematerialandhe,i.e.,the
witness,usedtoaccompanyhimonmotorcycle.Thisevidenceisalso
notbroughtonrecordasanimprovement,buthisevidenceabout
goingwithAjmerionhismotorcycleisdisputedinthecontextofhis
answers in crossexamination that they both had gone on his
motorcycle, i.e., the motorcycle of the witness. The subsequent
evidencethathehadsogonewithAjmeri45daysbeforetheblasts
to Shivaji Nagar, Govandi is not brought on record as an
improvement,buttheonlyaspectaboutgoingthere45daysbefore
theblastswasprovedascontradiction visavis the portioninthe
statementExt.1657(5),whichshowsthattheyhadgone23days
before the blasts. How this contradiction is interpreted by the
defencewillbediscussedsubsequently.Hisfurtherevidenceisthat
he,i.e.,Ajmeri,parkedthemotorcycleinthatlaneandtheywere
walkinginthatlane,thathouseoftheA6isinthatlaneandAjmeri
saidthattheywillgotohishouseastheyhadnotmethimsince
manydaysandwouldgreethimandthengototheirwork.Again
thisevidenceisnotshownasanimprovementoverhisstatement
undersection161oftheCr.P.C.
845.
Hisevidenceaboutthemainincidentisthatwhentheywere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..874..
Ext.4825
atsomedistancefromthehouseoftheA6,theysawtheA2standing
outsidehishouselookingaround,atthattimetheA6cameoutof
thehouseinahurryandsaidsomethingtotheA2,thentheyboth
wentinsideandatthesametimetheA4enteredthehousefrom
outside with a tea kettle. This evidence is tried to be shown as
improvement during his crossexamination in paragraph 19 and
whenaskedthereasonwhytheyarenotinhisstatement,hesaid
thathecouldnotassignanyreason,butthelearnedSPPsubmitted
thatitcanbesogatheredfromthesentences.Admittedly,wecannot
lookintothestatementundersection161oftheCr.P.C.,however,
thesubmissionofthelearnedSPPisnotcounteredandthewitness
wasnotgivenasuggestionthathehadnotstatedsotothepolice
when he gave his statement and there is no further cross
examinationaboutit.Thus,thisevidencecannotbetermedasan
improvement.Itisinhisevidencefurtherthattheybothenteredthe
housebehindtheA4,hesaw34morepersonssittingthereoutof
whomonewasdoingsomethingwiththewire,thattherewaswhite
and black coloured powder on the newspapers and when they
greetedthosepersons,theA6saidthattheyarebusyinsomework
and they will meet afterwards, therefore, they came out of the
house. Now again this evidence is not brought on record as an
improvement or as a contradiction. There is considerable cross
examination to him in respect of this evidence. His cross
examinationbylearnedadvocateRasalinparagraph13isinrespect
of the locality or surrounding of the house of the A6 and he
describedwhatisthereandwhatisnotandpositivesentenceshave
JudgementMCOC21/06
..875..
Ext.4825
comeonrecordthattheywereatthehouseoftheA6onthatdayfor
hardly34minutesandthat,thisisimportant,hedidnotseethe
familymembersoftheA6thereatthattimeandthepersonswere
sittingonthefloor.Asagainstthis visavis theevidenceofSr.PI
Tajne,PW161,andpanchwitnessPritamMhatre,PW58,andthe
panchanamaofseizureExt.716,ishisevidenceaboutseeingacot
anditbeinginfrontofthedoorwhichtheyenteredandtherebeing
ahalfwallnearthecot.Thisevidenceisobviouslyincorrect.There
is nothing other than this in his crossexamination by learned
advocateRasalandhedeniedthesuggestionthatheneverwentto
thehouseoftheA6anddidnotseeanypersoninhishouse.Inhis
crossexamination by learned advocate Shetty in paragraph 18
thoughinitiallyhestatedthathedoesnotremembertheexactday
ordateonwhichtheyhadgonetoShivajiNagar,Govandi,ithas
comeinthecrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanin
paragraph 26 that it was probably a Sunday and as mentioned
earlierhestatedinhischiefexaminationthathehadsogonewith
Ajmeri45daysbeforetheblaststoShivajiNagar,Govandiwhichis
notbroughtonrecordasanimprovementandthisisagainrepeated
by him when repeatedly asked during his crossexamination by
learned advocate Shetty in paragraph 17 as well as by learned
advocateWahabkhaninparagraph26andaboutwhichhestated
thatthiswasanimportantfact,butcannotstateexactlywhetherit
was45daysbeforeandtheATSofficerdidnotaskhimtotellthe
exactdatewhenhetookthestatementandthenhecontradictedthe
portionfromhisstatementExt.1657(5)whereinhehadstatedto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..876..
Ext.4825
thepolicethathehadgone23daysbeforeandcouldnotassignany
reason why it is not mentioned that he had gone there 45 days
before. Thus, he has stuck with the version and submissions are
made by the learned advocates for the defence and also in the
written submission that 45 days before the date of the incident
means6thor7thofJuly,2006,whichisnotaspertheallegationsof
theprosecutionandthisshowsthatthewitnessisdeposingfalsely
andinfacthedidnotgothereonthatday.Inthisrespectthelearned
SPP submitted thatthis is justa manner of speaking and he can
understandwhenapersongivesaspecificdateandthenitturnsout
tobenotcorrect.Tomymind,thiscanbetermedasafigurative
mannerofspeakingwhichdepartsfromaliteraluseofwords.This
is commonly observed in India wherein people speak in general
terms as speaking about the distance of a particular house or
locality,theysayasitisjustfourstepsawayorthatitisjust1015
minutes.Therefore,muchwillnotturnorwhetheritis45daysorit
is23daysthoughthewitnessdenyingthathehadstatedsotothe
police. Leaving all this aside, even if we count backwards from
11/07/06thefourthdaywillbe08/07/06.Thus,noinferencecan
bedrawnfromthisinconsistencyorcontradictiontoholdthatthe
witnesshadnotgonethereatall.
846.
Shettyinparagraph18heagaindescribedthelocalityaroundthe
houseoftheA6anditisnotcontrovertedbypointingoutsomething
different.Hereagainhecommittedamistakeaboutthecotthathe
purportedlysawinthehouse,becausehestatedthathecouldnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..877..
Ext.4825
tellthedirectionofthecotoritsmeasurementandincorrectlystated
thatitwasnotboxtypeandwashorizontaltothedoor.Thisplushis
answerthathedidnotenterthehouse,buthestoodatthedoor
showsthathehadnotenteredthehouseoftheA6.Similarly,inhis
crossexamination by learned advocate Wahab Khan in paragraph
28,ithascomethatnoonestoppedAjmerifromgoinginsidethe
room,thatthedooroftheroomwasopen,thattheywentthere,that
onecouldseetheroominsidefromthedoorandhedidnottalk
withAjmeriwhenhewasintheroom.Theseadmissionsplusthe
portionExt.1657(7)whichreadsthatheandAjmeriweretalking
withtheA6andduringtheirtalkstheA4gavethemtea,establish
thathehadnotgoneinsidethehouseoftheA6.
847.
However,hehaving describedthesurroundingsandlocality
JudgementMCOC21/06
..878..
Ext.4825
thisisimportant,thatatthattimethesaidmentionedSIMIactivist,
i.e.,theA6,talkedwiththeA2outsidehishouse,thenagainwent
inside,establishthathehadinfactgonetothehouseoftheA6on
thatday.Irrespectiveoftheinconsistenciesaboutthedaysbeforethe
blastbeforewhichhe hadgonethere,thesethings showthathis
evidence about going there is unimpeached as it has remained
consistentevenduringsearchingandrepeatedcrossexamination.
848.
Anotherissuethatwasraisedwasinrespectofwhetherhe
andAjmerihadgonethereonthemotorcycleofAjmerioronhis
motorcycle.Hisevidenceinchiefexaminationmeansthattheyhad
gone on the motorcycle of Ajmeri, but, it has come in the cross
examinationbylearnedadvocateShettythatitwashismotorcycle
onwhichtheyhadgonethere.Hisevidencewasoveron14/03/11
andafteraboutoneandahalfyearsonobtainingthedocuments
under the RTI Act, he was recalled and during his further cross
examination by learned advocate Sharif Shaikh it came that the
motorcycle No. MH03AG794 is registered in the name of his
brother Sameer Khan, which he was using since 200607. This
number was obtainedfrom him during his crossexamination and
thentheresearchwasmadebytheaccused.however,itturnedout
tobefutilebecauseheturnedtablesonthedefencebydenyingthat
hedoesnotknowwhichmotorcyclehewasusingwhenhehadgone
toGovandi45daysbeforetheblastsandexplainedthathehada
Splendor motorcycle that was also in the name of his brother
Sameer Khan bearing registration no. MH03X7550. This
explanationandpositiveevidencehasnotbeencontroverted.Infact
JudgementMCOC21/06
..879..
Ext.4825
849.
Otherthantheabovethereisnothinginthecrossexamination
ofthewitnesstodiscredithisversionparticularlyabouttheaspectof
hehavinggonewithAjmerionthatdaytothehouseoftheA6.That
he did not enter the house of the A6 is established as described
aboveanditisinthisrespectthathisevidencethathehadseenthe
A7joiningthewiresandheidentifiedhiminthecourtasthesame
personisinconsistentwiththecontentsofthememorandumofthe
testidentificationparadeExt.834whereinheidentifiedtheA4as
thepersonwhowasjoiningthewires.Duringhiscrossexamination
learnedadvocateWahabKhanaskedtheA4tostandupandasked
the witness whether he had seen the A4 joining the wires,
thereupon, he affirmed it initially, but again denied it and also
deniedthesuggestionthathehadidentifiedtheA4intheprisonas
the person who was joining the wires. Alongwith this are his
answersinfurthercrossexaminationinparagraph40on04/02/14
thatwhentheywenttothelanehestoodoutsideandonlyAjmeri
ShaikhwentinsidethehouseoftheA6andthathedidnotfeelit
necessarytogoinsidethehouse.Asubmissionwasmadeduringthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..880..
Ext.4825
argumentsandinthewrittensubmissionthatinviewoftheanswers
givenbythewitnessinfurthercrossexaminationon04/02/14that
hewascalledintheUnitVIIintheCrimeBranchatGhatkoparon
13/07/06inconnectionwiththebombblaststhathadtakenplace
on11/07/06,thathedidnottellthoseofficersthathevisitedthe
house of the A6, 45 days before the blasts and saw what he
describedearlier.Thereafterhewasputaquestionthathedidnot
tellthistotheCrimeBranchofficerashehadnotseenitpersonally,
butwasinformedbyAjmeriShaikhtowhichheansweredinthe
affirmative.Itissubmittedthatthismeansthatthewitnesshadnot
gonetothehouseoftheA6anditisonlybecauseAjmeriShaikh
toldhimthathestatedso.Idonotthinkthatsuchaninferencecan
be drawn because his further statement that he did not tell it
becauseAjmeriShaikhtoldhimwhenhereadtheMumbaiMirror
meansthatthe witness didnotunderstandthe connection of the
questiontotheactualincidentofhegoingtothehouseoftheA6
anditappearsthatwhatAjmeriisinforminghimaboutwhathesaw
inthehouseoftheA6.
850.
InrespectofheandAjmeriShaikhgivinginformationabout
whattheysawatthehouseoftheA6onthatday,ithascomeinthe
evidence of Amar Khan, PW75, that Ajmeri Shaikh came to him
withacopyofMumbaiMirrordtd.01/10/06Ext.810andtoldhim
that the photograph of A6 was published in the news item
concerningtheblasts,thathereaditandatthattimeheandAjmeri
thoughthattheyshouldtellsomeoneabouttheincidentthatthey
saw45daysbeforetheblastsatthehouseoftheA6sothatthereal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..881..
Ext.4825
accusedwouldbecaught.Thisevidenceisnotbroughtonrecordas
animprovementoracontradiction,however,itisthesubjectmatter
of considerable agitation and crossexamination. It has come in
paragraph11ofhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateRasalas
apositivesentencethatitisonlyon01/10/06thathisfriendAjmeri
showed a news item in the Mumbai Mirror.He admitted that he
cametoknowabouttheblastsonthesamedayatnight,thathe
usedtoreadinthenewspapersabouttheblaststhereafterandused
towatchthetelevisionnewsalso,thatAjmeriusedtomeethimafter
theblasts,buthecannottellhowmanytimesandhedidnotcome
toknowduringthistimethattheA2,A4andA6werearrestedand
hecametoknowabouttheA6onlywhenhereadthenewsinthe
MumbaiMirroron01/10/06.Astrangequestionisaskedandhe
statedthathedidnotmakeanyeffortstogotothehouseoftheA6
andfindoutthefactualposition.Whowilltaketheriskbygoingto
thehouseofanaccused,whoiscaughtinabombblastscase?He
candidlyadmittedthathedidnotcometoknowduringtheperiod
from01/10/06to28/10/06astowhichpolicestationwasinquiring
intotheblastsanddidnotthinkofgoingtotheconcernedpolice
stationandtellingthemabouttheincidentwhenhecametoknow
abouttheplaceswheretheblastshadtakenplace.Idonotknow
howapersonwillcorelatetheaspectofseeingcertainpersonsata
particularplaceafewdaysbeforetheblastswiththehappeningsof
theblasts,thoughhemaycometoknowthattheywerearrestedin
thatcase.Thisaspectcanbeexplainedandasissubmittedbythe
learned SPP seeing of the photograph of the accused in the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..882..
Ext.4825
newspapermighthavetriggeredthememoryofthewitnesstoco
relatetheincidentwiththehappeningsoftheblasts.Ithascomein
hiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateShettythatheidentified
theA6onseeingthephotographintheMumbaiMirroron01/10/06
and,thisisimportant,andisapositiveuncontrovertedstatement
made by him, that on reading the news item they thought that
bombswerepreparedinthehouseoftheA6.
851.
Ofcourse,therewasanissueabouttheentireissueofMumbai
Mirrordtd.01/10/06beinggiventothepolicewhentheywentto
the ATSoffice,because Ext.810consists of the firstandthe last
page.Inthisconnectionheadmittedinhiscrossexaminationthat
theyhadtakentheentireissueoftheMumbaiMirrorwiththemon
28/10/06andgivenittothepolice,thatAjmerididnotreadthe
news item to him on 01/10/06, that he was present when he
produced the paper before the police,but didnot read the news
item to the police. A small portion was confronted to him and
provedasacontradictionExt.1657(2)abouthetellingthepolice
that Ajmeri read over the news item to him. This is not much
materialanddoesnotaffecthisevidenceabouttheissueofMumbai
MirrorExt.810beinghandedovertothepolice.Inthisconnection
healsoadmittedthatitisinthenewsitemthattheA6wasdetained
on14/07/06byMumbaipoliceinconnectionwiththebombblasts
andthatthenewsiscontinuedonpage8,butthatpageisnotbefore
thecourt.Tomymind,the contents ofthenewsitemfurtheron
page8abouttheinvestigation,etc.,arenotsomaterialandtomy
mind what is material is the photograph of the A6 and the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..883..
Ext.4825
informationonthefirstpageitselfthattheA6wasdetainedbythe
MumbaipoliceonJuly,14,threedaysaftertheblastsandwhotold
themastohowthebombswereputtogether.Thenewsitemasitis,
does not have any evidential value and the relevant thing that
triggeredthememoryofthewitnessisseeingthephotographand
theinformationthattheA6hadbeenarrestedinconnectionwith
theblasts.Thus,whetherornottheentireissueofMumbaiMirror
dtd.01/10/06isbeforethecourtandwhethertheevidenceofAmar
Khan,PW75,readwiththeevidenceofPIAlaknure,PW153,that
thewitnesshadnotgiventhenewspapertohimandtheevidenceof
PCAmbekar,PW76,thatthisnewspaperwasgiventothepolice,
doesnotmakemuchdifference,becausethefactremainsthatthe
page containing the relevant information, i.e., photograph of the
accusedandthathewasdetainedinconnectionwiththeblast,is
beforethecourtandisnotdisputedasbeingfalseorconcocted.
852.
ThereaftercomesthemostdisputedevidencebyAmarKhan,
PW75,aswellasPCAmbekar,PW76.Subsequenttohisevidence
about Ajmeri telling him about the photograph of the A6 being
publishedon01/10/06intheMumbaiMirror,ithascomeinthe
evidenceofAmarKhan,PW75,thatafterthinkingitindeepAjmeri
saidtohimon28/10/06thattheywouldtellaboutthistoPCVijay
Ambekar,i.e.,PW76,whoresidesinhisarea,thereforetheywentto
hishouse,thathetookthemtotheofficeoftheATSatNagpada,
talked with some senior officer, that they were called inside the
cabin of that officer, they talked with him and told PC Ambekar,
PW76,totakethemtotheATSofficeatBhoiwada.Thisevidenceis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..884..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..885..
Ext.4825
853.
TheevidenceofAmarKhan,PW75,thatPCAmbekar,PW76,
tookthemtotheofficeoftheATSatNagpada,talkedwithsome
senior officer and that officer also talked with them and told PC
Ambekar, PW76, to take them to the ATS office at Bhoiwada is
corroboratedbyPCAmbekar,PW76,andheexplainedthathemet
DCPNawalBajajoftheATS,toldhimabouttheinformationthathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..886..
Ext.4825
had received and also told him that he had brought those two
witnesseswithhim,thereuponDCPBajajaskedhimtocallthetwo
inside his office, heard the information that they had, on their
requestheassuredthemthattheirnameswouldbekeptsecretand
askedthemtohelpthepoliceintheinvestigationandtoldhimto
takethetwopersonstoACPPatil,PW186,ofATSatBhoiwada.This
conduct of PC Ambekar, PW76, is criticized on the basis of his
answersthatin2006hewasattachedtotheAntiDacoitySquadat
Kurla(W),thatPIVijaySalaskarwastheheadofthesquadandhis
answers in further crossexamination that PI Vijay Salaskar was
deputedtotheATSandhehadseenhimmakingtheinvestigationin
thiscaseandeventhenhedidnotreporteithertoPISalaskarorto
APIAlaknureandPSIDalvi,whowereinvestigatingthiscase.Itis
arguedthatthisconductisunnaturalbecausethewitnessdidnot
reportdirectlytohissuperiors,whowerealsoinvestigatingthesame
case,butwenttotheATSofficers.However,inthisconnectionhe
explainedinfurthercrossexaminationthathedidnotcallanyof
themashethoughtthatifhewouldtakethewitnessestoahigher
officerhewouldgetthecredit,thathewasappreciatedbutdidnot
getanycertificateormonetaryreward.Thus,thisaspectdoesnot
affecthiscredibilityorconduct.Ontheotherhand,ithascomein
the crossexamination in paragraph24 by learned advocate Rasal
thatitwasthefirsttimebeforetheDCPBajaj,thatthewitnesses
requestedthattheirnamesbekeptsecret,whichshowsthatheisa
truthfulwitness.
854.
AmarKhan,PW75,furtherstatedaboutPCAmbekar,PW76,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..887..
Ext.4825
takingthemtotheATSofficeatBhoiwada,tellingaboutthemand
theinformationthattheyhadto34officerswhoweresittinginthe
room,theybeingcalledinsidetheroomandtheytellingallthatthey
knew to a superior officer who was there, he telling the other
officerstotaketheirstatementsashehadtogooutandanofficer
taking there statement and they handing over the newspaper to
them.PCAmbekar,PW76,corroboratedhisversion,gavespecific
namesofACPPatiland34otherofficersbeingthereandtheybeing
informedindetailabouttheinformation,ACPPatilbeinginahurry
to go out and telling API Alaknure to record the statements and
accordinglyPIAlaknure,PW153,recordingthestatementofAmar
Khan,PW75,first,thenofAjmeriShaikhandthenhisstatement.
ThatistheendoftheevidencegivenbyPCAmbekar,PW76,andhis
evidenceaswellastheevidenceofAmarKhan,PW75,istriedtobe
shownasafalseevidenceonthebasisoftheanswersgivenbyhim
incrossexaminationaswellasonthebasisofstationdiaryentires
of the Crime Branch. It is submitted during the arguments by
learnedadvocateWahabKhanaswellasinthewrittensubmissions
bylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhthatPCAmbekar,PW76,didnot
gototheCrimeBranchon28/10/06aftertheirworkattheATS
office was over and the station diary entries show this. In this
respectAmarKhan,PW75statedinhiscrossexaminationthatthey
wenttothehouseofPCAmbekar,PW76,atabout10.00or11.00
a.m.,talkedwithhimforabouthalfanhour,thathedoesnotknow
exactlywherehewasondutyatthattime,butthathewasatKurla,
thathedoesnotknowonwhatdutyhewason28/10/06,buthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..888..
Ext.4825
855.
InrespectofdutiesofPCAmbekar,PW76,defenceisrelying
onthestationdiaryentriesoftheCrimeBranchExts.3271to3273
whichshowthatPCAmbekar,PW76,havingbuckleno.10988had
reportedon26,27,28and29/10/06fornightdutyandthereisno
entrythathewasondayduty.Asagainstthis,PCAmbekar,PW76,
statedincrossexaminationthathedoesnotrememberatwhattime
he reported for his duty on 27/10/06, but answered that he
reportedtodutyat11.00a.m.on29/10/06,whichisfalsifiedby
thesestationdiaryentires.Inmyhumbleopinion,relevantwouldbe
whether he was on duty during the day and more particularly
between10.00a.m.to3.00or4.00p.m.on28/10/06andthenonly
ifthestationdiaryentireswouldhaveshownhimondutyduring
thesetimingsonthatday,itcouldhavebeensaidthatheisdeposing
falselyaboutAjmeriShaikhandAmarKhan,PW75,comingtohim
JudgementMCOC21/06
..889..
Ext.4825
onthatdayandwhateverheandAmarKhan,PW75,deposedabout
going to the ATS office, etc., being false. On the other hand, it
definitelyshowsthathewasnotondaydutyon28/10/06andmay
bebecauseoflapseofnearlyfiveyearshestatedoffhandthathe
reported to duty at about 11.00 a.m. on 29/10/06, however his
inability to remember at what time he reported for his duty on
27/10/06andtillwhattimehewasondutyon29/10/06asmany
yearshavepassedendorsesthisinference.Itisatthisstageitself
thathemadeapositivestatementthathedidnotreporttodutyin
themorningorduringthewholedayon28/10/06.Tothequestions
inrespectofmakingofstationdiaryentires,hisanswersarethat
theyreporttoanofficerwhentheygoonduty,butdonotmakeany
entry or report about going back from duty in any register, that
inchargeASIorseniormostHCmakestheentryandhedoesnot
knowwhethertheentiresofhereportingthedutyon27,28and
29/10/06aremadeornot.Thus,makingofstationdiaryentiresin
respect of policeman coming on duty is not by the concerned
policeman,butbythepersonwhoisinchargeofthestationdiary
register. Thus, insofar as his absence in his office on 28/10/06
duringtheday,thestationdiaryentiresinfactexplainhisabsenceby
showingthathewasonnightduty.
856.
recordedthestatementsofthesetwowitnessesandAjmeriShaikh.
NowithascomeaspositivestatementsduringtheevidenceofAmar
Khan,PW75,thatitwasPIAlaknure,PW153,ashethenwas,who
had recorded their statements and PC Ambekar, PW76, has also
JudgementMCOC21/06
..890..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..891..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..892..
Ext.4825
857.
Theaboveisthediscussioninrespectoftheevidencegivenby
JudgementMCOC21/06
..893..
Ext.4825
AmarKhan,PW75,aboutwhathesawonthedaywhenheand
AjmeriShaikhhadgonetothehouseoftheA6andhisevidence
about what happened on 01/10/06 and on 28/10/06 is not
impeached in his crossexamination and it is corroborated by the
evidence of PC Ambekar, PW76, and PI Alaknure, PW153. The
evidenceofthesethreewitnessesiscriticizedonseveralcountsby
learnedadvocateWahabKhanduringhisoralsubmissionsandby
learnedadvocateSharifShaikhinhiswrittensubmissions,whichin
respectofthewitnessAmarKhan,PW75,runsintoasmanyas70
pages. Most of the points have been dealt with in the above
discussion,butasheisanimportantwitnessfromthepointofview
oftheprosecutionaswellasthedefence,Iwilldealbrieflywiththe
points. Learned advocate Shetty submitted in brief about the
evidence of these two witnesses that PC Ambekar, PW76, was
attached to the same Cell of the Crime Branch as PI Alaknure,
PW153,andtotheCellofPISalaskar,thatAjmeriShaikhwhohad
broughtthenewspaperisnotexamined.IfAjmeriShaikhwouldnot
havecometohim,AmarKhan,PW75,wouldnothavegoneonhis
ownandinformedthepoliceandatthesametimeitisclearthat
because of the previous cases against Amar Khan, PW75, he is
underthethumbofthepoliceandhasgiventhestatementasper
theirrequest.Thisaspectisalsosubmittedbytheotheradvocates.It
has come on record during the crossexamination of Amar Khan,
PW75,thatheheardaboutthebombblastsatGatewayofIndiaand
Zaveri Bazar and he and Ajmeri Shaikh had talked about them
before2006duringwhichAjmeriShaikhtoldhimthathehadgiven
JudgementMCOC21/06
..894..
Ext.4825
the statement to the Crime Branch in that case against the two
accused. In further crossexamination he admitted that Ajmeri
Shaikhismarried,buthedoesnotknowhiswifesmaidennameand
also admitted that she is a converted Muslim. As against this PC
Ambekar, PW76, though admitted that he knows Ajmeri Shaikh
sincemanyyears,deniedthattheirUnithadinvestigatedtheblasts
of Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazar. He also admitted that he
knewAjmeriShaikhpriortotheblastsandhewasawitnessinthe
caseofboththeblastsasAjmeriShaikhhadsotoldhimonce.Ithas
alsocomeinhisevidencethatAjmeriShaikhisavailabletoday,i.e.,
onthedayofhisevidence.HeexpressedignoranceastowhetherPI
Salaskar was knowing Ajmeri since the Gateway of India, Zaveri
BazarandGhatkoparblastsandmadeapositivestatementthatPI
SalaskarhadnotcalledAjmeriShaikhtoKurlaUnitinhispresence
before28/10/06.Heemphaticallyturneddownthesuggestionthat
PISalaskarwaspressurizingAjmeriShaikhtogiveevidenceinthis
caseashehadgivenintheearliercase,thathepreparedafalse
story with his help. Learned advocate Wahab Khan made
submissions that the investigating officer of those blasts was one
ACPWalishettyandPISalaskarwasoneoftheassistingofficer,that
there were two accused, that they were exonerated by the POTA
review committee and during the trial of that case Ajmeri was
examined,etc.,andallegedthatthenamesofthewitnessesinthe
copiesofthechargesheetsuppliedtotheaccusedweretruncated,
therefore,theycouldnotpinpointwithaccuracy,butoncomparing
thestatementofAjmeriShaikhinthiscasewiththestatementin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..895..
Ext.4825
thatcase,herealizedthatthepatternofthestatementconcerning
theissuewassubstantiallytallyingandthereforetheintroductionof
Amar Khan, PW75, without examining Ajmeri Shaikh showsthat
Amar Khan, PW75, is a got up witness and introduced by PI
Salaskar.Tomymind,allthesesubmissionsarenotbackedbyany
documentsaboutGatewayofIndiaandZaveriBazarblastscases.
The fact remains that Ajmeri Shaikh has not been examined, but
AmarKhan,PW75,whohadequallywitnessedalltheeventsonthe
daywhentheyhadwenttothehouseoftheA6,exceptaboutgoing
intothehouse,hasgivenevidence,whichhasbeenprovedtobea
cogentevidenceandcorroboratedbytheevidenceofPCAmbekar,
PW76.LearnedSPPsubmitsthattherewasnopointinduplicating
theevidencebyexaminingasimilarwitnessonthesamepointand
evenassumingthatAjmeriShaikhisawitnessinearliercases,those
caseswerefiledbytheCrimeBranchanditisnotshownthatAjmeri
Shaikhhadanycriminalantecedentsorconnectionwiththepolice.
AsIsaidearlier,thesubmissionsonthispointarenotbackedupby
anydocumentofthatcaseanditisnotshownthattheevidenceof
AjmeriShaikhinthatcasewasnotbelievedorshowntobefalse.
Samethingsarerepeatedextensivelyinthewrittensubmissionsby
learnedadvocateSharifShaikhandanotherbaselesssubmissionis
madethatAjmeriShaikhfalselydeposedthathiswifeandinlaws
are born by Muslims, which is disproved by the contents of the
gazette Ext. 3393 obtained by the A4 under the RTI Act, which
showsthatManisha RaghunathPatilisthewifeofAjmeriShaikh
andhernameischangedtoAmreenAjmeriShaikh.Icantbuthelp
JudgementMCOC21/06
..896..
Ext.4825
laughatsuchsubmissionswhicharebasedonthedocumentsthat
are not produced like certified copy of the deposition given by
AjmeriShaikhinthatcaseandthecourtholdingthathehasgiven
falseevidence.ThusAjmeriShaikhbeingnotexaminedasawitness
doesnotaffecttheevidencegivenbyAmarKhan,PW75,aswellas
PCAmbekar,PW76.
858.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..897..
Ext.4825
producedwiththechargesheetandhisnameissuppressed.Inthis
connectionthelearnedSPPsubmittedthatwhatisimportantisfor
whatpurposethewitnesswascalledandwhatwasbeingaskedand
the witness has merely clarified this aspect. He submits that the
defencehasclearedwhateverambiguitywasleftintheevidenceof
thiswitness.
859.
Inhisfurthercrossexaminationon29/08/12,i.e.,oneanda
halfyearafterhisdeposition,AmarKhan,PW75,statedthathewas
calledtotheParksitePoliceStationforoneortwodaysafterthe
blastsforinquiryandhisstatementwasrecorded.Headmittedthat
he had notstated abouthis visit to Govandi 45days before the
blaststothepoliceofficeratthattime.Thereasonthathegavefor
thisisveryveryimportant,becausehesaidthatatthattimehewas
notknowingitsrelevanceandhecametoknowonlywhenhesaw
the photo in the Mumbai Mirror. Again in his further cross
examinationon04/02/14aspertheorderoftheHighCourt,he
admittedthathewascalledattheUnitVIIoftheCrimeBranchat
Ghatkoparon13/07/06inconnectionwiththebombblaststhathad
taken place on 11/07/06. What he stated further is again very
important.Hestatedthattheofficersinquiredwithhimingeneral
about his mobile number and his whereabouts prior to and
subsequentto11/07/06andaskedhimastohowhecametoknow
abouttheblasts,inquiredwithhimabouthisfriendswhetherhehad
any cases against him and against his friends and he had stated
aboutnamesoffivefriends.Healsoadmittedthathewascalledto
theCrimeBranchmanytimesforinquiryafter13/07/06.Learned
JudgementMCOC21/06
..898..
Ext.4825
SPPreexaminedhimforclearingtheambiguitywithregardtothe
inquiryandhereiteratedwhathestatedearlieremphasizingonthe
aspectthattheCrimeBranchofficersdidnotinquirewithhimabout
anyotherthingexcepthismobilenumberandhiswhereaboutsprior
toandsubsequentto11/07/06andtheotherthings.Thus,tomy
mind,sincethewitnesshadabackgroundofbeingaSIMIactivist,
hemusthavebeencalledtoascertainwhetherhehadanythingto
do in connection with the bomb blasts. The contents of the true
photocopyofstationdiaryentryno.6dtd.12/07/06at5.05a.m.,
certifiedphotocopyofwhichisatExt.3360,showsthatAPITambe
broughtAmarKhan,PW75,IrfanAbdulSalamandHajimRashid
Kazitothepolicestationastheyareontherecordofthepoliceand
are accused in the case of banned organisation SIMI. They were
foundattheirhousesandwerebroughtforinquiry.Thestationdiary
entryno.7at1600hourson13/07/06oftheUnitVIIoftheDCB
CID,certifiedtruephotocopyofwhichisatExt.4210,showsthat
theSIMIactivistsMohd.HanifAbdulandAmarKhan,PW75,were
broughtforinquirytotheofficeandafterinquirywereaskedtogo
back.These entries endorse myinferenceandsubmissions bythe
learnedSPPthatAmarKhan,PW75,wascalledformakinginquires
inrespectofhiswhereaboutsinviewofhisbackgroundasbeinga
SIMIactivist.Ithinkthatsuchapersonwillbemoreafraidwhenso
calledbecauseofthefearofbeingimplicatedandtherecanbeno
reasonforthepolicetohaveaskedquestionstohimaboutseeing
anysuspiciousactivity,becausetillthattimethepolicealsodonot
knowthatthebombswereassembledinthehouseoftheA6on8,9
JudgementMCOC21/06
..899..
Ext.4825
860.
Learnedadvocatealsocriticizedtheconductofthiswitnessas
wellasAjmeriShaikhasbeingabnormalthoughtheynoticedhow
the A2, A4 and A6 were behaving on that day and though they
noticedthewhiteandblackpowder.Theaboveobservationscover
thesesubmissionsandalsothesubmissionthatevenafterseeingthe
newsitemon01/10/06theythinkitoverfor28daysandthisdelay
is not properly explained by the prosecution. In this context the
explanation given by Amar Khan, PW75 is very relevant and
convincing.Headmittedinparagraph11ofhiscrossexamination
thathemetAjmeriShaikhmanytimesfrom01/10/06to28/10/06,
butdidnotcometoknowwhichpolicestationwasinquiringinto
theblasts,thathecametoknowfromthenewsatwhatplacesthe
blastshadtakenplace,butdidnotthinkofgoingtotheconcerned
JudgementMCOC21/06
..900..
Ext.4825
policestationandtellingthemabouttheincident,thathecameto
know about the progress of the investigation and as to who was
investigatingthecase.Hisexplanationtothisisveryreasonableand
acceptable that as they were thinking about going through the
proper channel to tell about the incident, they did not go to the
authorityinvestigatingthecase.Thus,thisaspectexplainsthedelay
reasonablyanddoesnotdiscredittheevidence.
861.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatthewitnessislyingaboutthe
casesagainsthimwhichshowsthatheisinthehabitoflyingandit
ishiscasethatitisbecauseoftutoringbytheATS,whichisalso
evident from the changing stories about whose motorcycle was
taken.Idonotthinkthatthewitnesshassaidanythingabouthis
associationoronecansayattendanceattheprogramsofSIMI.Itis
inhischiefexaminationthatheknewthattheA8wasaSIMIactivist
andeventhenhehadgonewithhimononeortwooccasions.His
evidenceinchiefexaminationitselfaboutwhatusedtohappenin
theSIMIprogramsandabouthebeingarrestedbyParksitePolice
Stationin2001alongwithA8andIrfanontheallegationthatthey
areSIMIactivistsmakesitveryclearthatheisnothidinganything.
This is also clear from the details that he gave about the SIMI
programs in paragraph16 of his crossexamination andthough a
portionfromhisstatementwasbroughtonrecordascontradiction
inwhichhehadstatedthatIrfanandImranwereactivemembersof
SIMI,hehadnotdeposedaboutit.Thuswhetheritcanbesaidtobe
acontradictionisaquestion.Headmittedhis arrestinC.R.No.
877/01 of Parksite Police Station registered on 28/09/01 for the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..901..
Ext.4825
offencesundersections10and13oftheUA(P)Aandalsoadmitted
thatSIMIhadconductedamorchaatAzadMaidanon15/10/00
againstIsraelandhewasinthephotographthatwaspublishedin
theTimesofIndiadtd.16/10/00.Hedeniedasuggestionthathe
wasarrestedinC.R.No.862/01ofParksitePoliceStationforthe
offences under section 102 of the Bombay Police Actandin LAC
CaseNo.2361/00underthe BombayPoliceActforpossession of
weaponsandontheallegationthattheyweredoingSIMIactivities.
Thus,itcannotbesaidthathehidsomething.Inthiscontextinthe
written submissions by learned advocate Sharif Shaikh, the
informationundertheRTIActgivenbyPIPawar,DW25,Ext.3086,
isreliedupontoshowtheexistenceofthecasesagainsthimandhe
submitted that in a short span of two years these offences were
registered against him and the evidence of this witness has gone
unchallenged. The contents of Ext. 3086 establish that LAC No.
2361/00,862/01and877/01wereregisteredagainstthewitness.
Ofcourse,thisisonlyaninformationundertheRTIAct,butevenif
itisconsidered,excepttheallegationsinLACCaseNo.877/01,the
allegationintheothertwocrimesareundertheBombayPoliceAct
in respect of the obstruction to traffic and breach of order of
prohibitingassemblinginpublicplaces.Thelistofarrestedaccused
inLACCaseNo.877/01whichcontainstheallegationsunderthe
UA(P)AshowsthatA8inthepresentcaseistheA1inthatcase.Ido
notseehowthiswilldiscredittheevidenceofthiswitness.Onthe
otherhand,itcanbesaidthatthisisthereasonwhyheidentified
theA2,A4andA6,whowereallegedtobeSIMImembersandabout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..902..
Ext.4825
whomhisevidenceinchiefexaminationisnotcontrovertedwherein
hestatedthathehadmettheminthe programsofSIMIthathe
attended.Onceagainabaselesssubmissionismadeinthewritten
submissions by learned advocate Sharif Shaikh that this type of
personcaneasilybeapproachedbythepoliceonthepromisethatif
he becomes a witness and deposes as per their wish, the cases
againsthimwillbefinalizedandhewillbeacquittedandthisis
whathashappenedinthepresentmatterbecausehewasacquitted
in allthese threecasesafter his deposition in thecase.Noother
evidenceispointedoutinsupportofthissubmission.A8produced
certifiedcopyofjudgementinC.C.No.847/PS/05concerningthe
LAC Case No. 877/01, Ext. 4273, dtd. 09/07/13 by which the
metropolitanmagistrateacquittedtheA8andsevenothersincluding
AmarKhan,PW75.Evenotherwise,casesaretriedbycourtsand
their outcome is not decided by the police officers. This aspect,
therefore,doesnotaffecthiscredibility.
862.
LearnedadvocatesubmitsthateverytimeAjmeriisamaster,
hetakesAmarKhan,PW75,toGovandi,hetakeshimtothehouse
oftheA6,heentersthehouseoftheA6,Ajmericomestohimwith
theissueofMumbaiMirroron01/10/06andAjmeritakeshimtoPC
Ambekar,PW76.Hesubmitsthatthedelayof28daysfromthedate
ofthenewspapertilltheirstatementswererecordedisnotexplained
bytheprosecutioninthelightofthefactthatitcanbegatheredthat
AjmeriShaikhwasawitnessintheearlierbombblasts.Thusthe
strategythatisusedbythepoliceisthatoncetheyhadusedAjmeri
ShaikhandnowAmarKhan,PW75,isthesecondpersonwhois
JudgementMCOC21/06
..903..
Ext.4825
usedasastepny(sparewheel).Thisisinrespectofnearlyallpanch
witnessesoreyewitnesses,whoareeitheracquaintedwiththepolice
havingactedaspanchasforthemandthiscannotbeacoincidence.
Tomymind,thishasalreadybeenexplainedandmerelybecause
AjmeriShaikhwasleadingAmarKhan,PW75,oritwasbecauseof
himthatAmarKhan,PW75,wenttotheplaces,itcannotbesaid
thatheisagotupwitness.Hisevidenceisaboutwhatheperceived
and he has faced searching and lengthy crossexamination and
withstoodthetestofcrossexamination.
863.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatsuppressionofthenamesand
identitiesofthewitnessespreventedthemfromdoinganyresearch
about them and on the other hand the ATS was blocking the
informationandtheycouldgetitundertheRTIActatthebelated
stage. This fact read with the evidence of the defence, i.e., the
evidencegivenbytheA2,A4,A6andA7andtheirCDRs,willshow
thatthewitnessisnottellingthetruth.Whatevidencetheaccused
gaveintheirdefencewillbediscussedshortly.
864.
Itissubmittedbythelearnedadvocatethatfromalltheabove
JudgementMCOC21/06
..904..
Ext.4825
865.
866.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..905..
Ext.4825
Mumbai ATS office was at Nagpada and his statement was not
recordedthere.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathehadgonetothe
officeoftheATSatBhoiwadaandonthebasisofthisinconsistency
itissosubmittedbythelearnedadvocate.Tomymind,itisaminor
thing because the ATS even has its office at Bhoiwada and the
witness did not say that his statement was recorded at the head
office.Learnedadvocatefurthersubmitsthattheevidencegivenby
thiswitnessinrespectofgoingfromNagpadatotheATSofficeat
Bhoiwada with the two witnesses and thereafter what happened
theretillthepointofrecordingofhisstatementareimprovements
madebyhim,becausehestatedthathehadstatedallthesethingsto
PIAlaknure,PW153.Tomymindthesethingsareunnecessarytobe
mentioned in the statement. Learned advocate relied on several
station diary entries from 11/07/06 to 17/07/06 that are in the
certifiedtruecopyofstationdiaryentriesofCrimeBranchatExt.
4214.TheentriesnodoubtshowthatsquadincludingPCAmbekar,
PW76, had gone at difference places in connection with the
investigationofthebombblasts,however,thatdoesnotmeanthat
thewitnesswhoisapoliceconstableknewaboutwhatinvestigation
was being made unless and of course his help was taken in
preparing any panchanama or anything like that. He may have
accompaniedhissuperiors.Thus,thisaspectwillnotdiscreditthe
evidenceofPCAmbekar,PW76.
867.
ShaikhforA4arerequiredtobeconsideredastheyarerunninginto
asmanyas70pages,whichconsistsofreproductionofnearlyentire
JudgementMCOC21/06
..906..
Ext.4825
depositionofallthethreewitnesses,however,itisunnecessaryto
discussthesimilarpointsthathavebeenraisedbylearnedadvocate
WahabKhanandhavebeendiscussed.Outofthe24pointsthatare
discussedsomearequiteridiculous.Thefirstistheallegationthat
thewitnessAmarKhan,PW75,hasacommunalbackgroundand
thebasisforthisisthatheisamemberofBJPfrom2007to2010.
ThismeansthathejoinedtheBJPintheyear2002afterhisarrest
andreleasefromprisoninLACCaseNo.877/01.Theallegationin
thatcaseisthathewasaSIMIactivistdistributingthepamphlets
andagitatingdemolitionofBabriMasjid.Inspiteofthisallegationhe
joinedtheBJP,thetopleadershipofwhichwasaccusedinthatcase.
Thismeansthathe switchedfromonecommunal organisation to
another communal organisation and shows his mindset. It is also
submittedthathewasmadeawitnessinthiscasein2006andit
maybeasarewardthathewasmadeawardpresidentofBJPin
2007.ThisisnothingbutridiculousanditpresupposesthatSIMIas
well as BJP are communal organisations. There is again some
reference to Naroda Patia case in Gujarat which shows the
involvementofBJP.Itistotallyirrelevant.
868.
attendingSIMIprogramsandtherebeingaggressiveandprovocative
speechesaboutjihadinthoseprogramsandhiscrossexamination
onthataspect.Thequestionsareaskedastowhyhedidnotoppose
the police though he was so vigilant when he realized that the
speecheswereprovocativeandaggressiveandwereantinational,
whypolicedidnotcatchanypersonandbookhimfortherelevant
JudgementMCOC21/06
..907..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
869.
..908..
Ext.4825
Onemoreridiculoussubmissionabouthisevidenceaboutthe
lastprogramofSIMIthatwasthemorchabySIMIactiviststhathe
attendedbeingon15/10/00,isinconsistentwiththecontentsofthe
confessionalstatementExt.1060allegedlygivenbytheA4,wherein,
itismentionedthathestartedgoingtoSIMIofficein2001.The
defencehastoacceptoneofthetwothings.Alongwithallegingthat
thefalseconfessionwasprepareditcannotrelyonthestatementin
ittodisprovetheevidenceofthiswitness.
870.
NextisaboutthecrossexaminationofAmarKhan,PW75,in
respectofhisunderstandingthewordjihadanditissubmittedthat
when he says that the speeches or talks about jihad are anti
national, it shows that he is a got up witness. Learned advocate
Wahab Khan has asked this thing to many witnesses and in my
humble opinion irrespective of the dictionary meaning or the
meaningthatcanbegatheredfromtheholyKuran,themeaningof
this word as is used in common parlance nationally and
internationallyissomethingwhichisconnectedtoreligiouswarfor
thesakeofIslam.Onedoesnotgoaboutsearchingfordictionaryor
literallymeaningsofsomewordsinordertounderstandthemand
usethem.Thisaspect,therefore,doesnotaffecthisevidence.
871.
Anotherbaselesssubmissionisthatthereisnoshopthatsells
plasterofParismaterialaroundtheresidenceofA6,hence,there
wasnoreasonforAmarKhan,PW75,andAjmeriShaikhtogoto
thatarea.Isaidbaselessbecausenopositiveevidencehasbeenled
bythedefenceaboutthefactthatisassertedthatthereisnoplaster
ofParisshoparoundtheresidenceoftheA6.Abouttheinconsistent
JudgementMCOC21/06
..909..
Ext.4825
statementmadebythewitnesswhenhestatesinchiefexamination
thattheywenttoGovanditopurchaseplasterofparismaterial,but
incrossexaminationhestatedthattheyhadgonetomeetlabourers,
itisallegedthatthisshiftingofstandisonlytoimproveandavoid
questions in respect of address of the shop and therefore his
evidenceisnotreliable.Isaidbaselessbecausethereisnocross
examination in that respect, on the other hand he was asked
whetherheknowstheaddressofthehouseofthelabourer,whom
Ajmerihadgonetomeetinsidethelane.
872.
ItisallegedinrespectofconductofAmarKhan,PW75,that
hedidnotstateinhisoralevidenceaboutpolicehavingcalledhim
totheParksitePoliceStationon12/07/06inrespectofBombblasts
inquiryandheadmitteditinhiscrossexamination,buthehidthese
things.IdonotthinkhowitisexpectedfromAmarKhan,PW75,to
state about this, because that was not aspect for which he was
examinedandsamecanbesaidaboutthesubmissionthathedidnot
state about being called in the DCB CID Unit VII for inquiry on
13/07/06.Thus,noinferenceasissubmittedcanbedrawnthatthe
witnessishidingsomethinganditisacookedupstoryastheyare
got up witnesses. Next point is again a ridiculous point as it is
submitted that the evidence of PC Ambekar, PW76, is a hearsay
evidence inasmuch as he stated that Ajmeri Shaikh had told him
aboutthenewsitemintheMumbaiMirrorandfurtheraboutheand
AmarKhan,PW75,goingtothehouseoftheA6andseeingtheA2,
A4, etc., and what some other persons were doing. As the
prosecution did not examine Ajmeri Shaikh, who was the most
JudgementMCOC21/06
..910..
Ext.4825
importantwitnesses,theevidenceofPCAmbekar,PW76,ishearsay.
Tomymind,howcanitbehearsaywhenitisAmarKhan,PW75,
whohadaccompaniedAjmeriShaikhtothehouseoftheA6andto
thehouseofPCAmbekar,PW76.
873.
Anotherridiculoussubmissionisunderthetopicoffalsityof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..911..
Ext.4825
totheAntiRobberyCellatKurlaandasboththesewitnessesare
runningawayfromacceptingit,theirevidenceisnotreliable,needs
tobediscardedandultimatelyfalsifiestheevidenceofAmarKhan,
PW75. To my mind, the ridiculousness of this submission is
apparent.PCAmbekar,PW76,hasnotdeniedthesuggestion,but
hasansweredthathedoesnotremember.PIAlaknure,PW153,has
similarlyansweredsomequestionsanddeniedsomequestions.The
specificmedicalrecordshowingPCAmbekar,PW76,havingtaken
A3tothehospital,hasnotbeenconfrontedtohim.Howcanyou
drawaninferencefromthisthatthesetwowitnesseshavedeposed
falselyandthereforetheyfalsifytheevidenceofAmarKhan,PW75?
His evidence is an independent evidence decided by the cross
examination. How can the accused force and expect the police
officerstoacceptwhatevertheaccusedaresaying?Thus,thisaspect
alonewillnotdiscredittheirversion.
874.
PW75,whentheyareproducedbeforethecourtwithoutveiland
standinginthepremisesandcorridortillcalledinthecourtisraised
onthe basis of the evidence of A4asDW38thatPIMohite and
someconstablespointedhimtothewitnessbeforehisevidence.This
isanotherridiculoussubmission.Willitbelegaltoveiltheaccused
evenduringthejudicialcustody?Canjustsuchapossibilitybeused
fordiscreditingthesubstantiveevidenceofidentificationbyAmar
Khan,PW75,inthecourt?Obviouslyno.
875.
Inthenextsubmissioncontentsoftheentiresaboutcallsin
theCDRsofthemobilesoftheA4Ext.3765(4)andoftheA7Ext.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..912..
Ext.4825
4101from06/07/06to10/07/06arepointedoutinjuxtapositionto
thecontentsofthecontradictedportionExt.1657(5)tosubmitthat
theCDRshowsthefalsityoftheevidenceofAmarKhan,PW75,and
the prosecution case. Submissions of the learned SPP about CDR
needtobereiterated.Hehadsubmittedthatthegeneralproposition
isthattheCDRatthemostshowsthelocationofthehandsetand
notofthatperson.Itwasobservedbymethattherecannotbea
presumptionthatamobileisalwayswithapersonandthereforethe
locations oftheCDRwillnotestablishthelocation oftheperson
usingit,becauseamobileisnotabodypartofanyperson.Inthis
connectionthelearnedSPPsubmittedthatdirectevidenceofAmar
Khan,PW75,ispittedagainsttheinferentialevidencebywayofthe
entiresintheCDRs.LearnedSPPrepeatedthesamesubmissionsin
connectionwiththissubmissionmadebythelearnedadvocatefor
the accused and submitted that the onus is cast on this court to
weighthesetwothings,ononehandistheevidenceinthenatureof
abstractthingslikelocationofthemobileforwhichtherewouldnot
beanymeanstoascertainastowhoisactuallypossessingitatthe
relevanttime.Asagainstthisontheotherhandaconcretepositive
andphysicalevidenceinthenatureofdepositionofwitnesseswhose
version can be tested on the touchstone of crossexamination is
before the court. This is the cardinal principle of appreciation of
evidenceandhesubmitsthatthecourtwillfindthatthereisatotal
imbalanceinthesetwotypesofevidenceandbytheverynatureof
theevidenceoftheeyewitnessesthiscourtwillhavetoweighitwith
inferential evidence. I will go in much more detail in respect of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..913..
Ext.4825
entriesinthecallsoftheCDRsofboththeaccusedandthedefence
ofalibiwillbeconsidered.Sufficeittosaythattheentriesinthe
CDRs can be used only for drawing inference, whereas, oral
evidence of a witness can be used in proof of a fact in issue.
Obviously,thelattercarriesmuchweightandwillprevailoverthe
inferentialevidence.
876.
Nextsubmissionisthatitistheprosecutioncasethatbombs
wereassembledinthehouseoftheA623daysbeforetheblasts,
however,AmarKhan,PW75hasgivenevidenceaboutwhathesaw
outsideandinthehouseoftheA6,45daysbeforetheblasts.Ihave
discussedthisaspectalready.However,againaridiculoussubmission
is made that the evidence of Amar Khan, PW75, contradicts the
confessionalstatementofA2,A3,A4,A6,A7andA12whereinthey
havementionedthatbombswereassembledon8,9and10/07/06.
Atthecostofrepetition,Ihavetosaythatyouhavetoacceptone
thingortheotherthing.TheevidencegivenbyAmarKhan,PW75,
and PC Ambekar, PW76, has been discussed independently and
conclusionhasbeenarrivedat.Thissubmissionwillratherworkin
theotherway,whichIwilldiscussattherelevantstage.
877.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..914..
Ext.4825
wasgivenacleanchit.ThatwastheinquirybytheCrimeBranch
anditisonlywhentheATSsteppedinthepictureandhiscomplicity
wasrevealedthathewasarrested.Itisnotsubmittedastohowthis
affectstheevidencegivenbyAmarKhan,PW75,andPCAmbekar,
PW76.
878.
learnedSPPsubmittedthatwhatissignificantlyimportantisthat
this witness knows the A2, A4 and A6 as SIMI activists, but by
pointingafingerattheothershecannotabsolvehimself,whichis
apparent from his deposition. He submits that he has made this
submissionbecausewhileappreciatingtheevidenceofthiswitness,
thiscourtwillhavetoconsiderthetotalityofhisevidenceonthe
backgroundofthisaspectandtheprobabilitythatatthatpointof
time,thewitnessmayalsobesharingtheideologyofSIMI.
879.
Tomymind,thewitnesstooktheriskofsayingthathehad
attendedtheSIMIprograms.Thiscanbeshownasanadmissionin
someproceedingagainsthimanditcanbeinferredthathealsowas
aSIMIactivist.Infacthewasarrestedonthesameallegation.So
thequestionisastowhyhetooktherisk?Theonlyansweronecan
get is that he told whatever he saw and nothing more. He told
whatever he knew about the A2, A4 and A6 as well as A8 and
nothingmore.
880.
LearnedSPPsubmitsthatAmarKhan,PW75,hasbeencross
JudgementMCOC21/06
..915..
Ext.4825
Thediscrepanciesaremanywhichcanoccurinanybody'sevidence,
e.g.,inrespectoftheaspectofgoingtothehouseoftheA6,whether
he was driving or sitting on the pillion seat of the motorcycle,
whetherhesawthepersonsinsideoroutside,whethernewspaper
wasgiventothepoliceornot,whetherhereadthenewsornot,etc.
Severalsmallsmallthingsarethereanditappearsthathewasalso
calledforinquiryanditisallegedthathedidnotdisclosethisfactto
anybody at the earliest and his statement is after thought. He
submitsthateverythingthathascomeinthecrossexaminationand
theanswersareappreciatedbytakingabroaderview.Evenifthe
contradictionsandomissionsaretakenintoconsideration,thefact
thatheknowsthesepersonsasbeingassociatedwithSIMI,thefact
thathewas alsoassociatedwithSIMIatsomepointoftimeand
thereisacaseagainsthimisalsoafactor,asaresultofwhichthe
lurking fear is in his mind that he may also be looked at with
suspicion as an associate of the arrested accused and with that
hiddenfear,probabilityoftheanswersthathegavearewavering
typeofanswers.HesubmitsthatgoingtothehouseoftheA6and
seeingsomepersonstherewouldnotclickanideainhismindthat
bombs were being assembled there. Unless a person's memory is
triggeredbysomethinghappening,apersonwouldnotordinarilyco
relate two incidents that he may have seen or experienced. His
triggering of the memory was the arrest of the A6 and in that
contextinretrospectherememberedhavingseenthepersons,the
black and white powder, wire, etc. Then it is probable that the
memorymayclickandthentheymaythinkofreporting.Hesubmits
JudgementMCOC21/06
..916..
Ext.4825
thatperhapsifhewouldnothaveseenthephotographoftheA6
andreadthenewsaboutit,hewouldneverhadgonetothepolice
forgivingthe information.Thisconductshowsthatheisnotthe
kindofperson,whowouldfindoutastowhoisinvestigatingandgo
and report to him directly. He adopts the safest course. He and
Ajmeriwereconfirmedthatwhathasoccurredinthemindofone
hasalsooccurredinthemindoftheotherandifatallwhatever
struckthematthatmomentistrue,thenitisimportant,butevenit
turnsouttobefalse,itisequallyimportantandinthatwavering
stageofmindthey,therefore,decidedtogotoapersonknownto
themwhoisworkinginthepolicedepartment.Thus,theyadoptthe
safecourse.IhavealreadyconsideredalltheseaspectsandIhave
cometotheconclusionthatthoughthewitnessAmarKhan,PW75,
wascalledforinquiryimmediatelyonthenextdayoftheblastsand
oneortwodaysthereafteralso,hewasinquiredonlyabouthisown
whereabouts,hismobilenumber,etc.Tillthattimethepolicehadno
inklingthatthebombshadbeenassembledinthehouseoftheA6at
Govandion8,9and10/07/06.Therewas,therefore,noquestionof
making any inquiry with him and there was no reason for the
witnesstocorelatetheactivityoftheaccusedtothehappeningsof
the bomb blasts. It was only on 01/10/06 that his memory was
triggeredandthenhecorelatedtheincident.
881.
witnessinrespecttoSIMI,therearesomesentenceshereandthere,
but it can be restricted to his attendance and acquaintance. He
admits that it is not established that any of the accused gave
JudgementMCOC21/06
..917..
Ext.4825
provocativespeeches,butthefactthatremainsundisputedistheir
association with SIMI. To my mind, these submissions will be
relevantinthediscussioninrespectofconnectionwiththeaccused
withSIMI,butwhatthelearnedSPPsubmitsisthecorrectposition.
882.
InrespectofthewitnessidentifyingtheA7inthecourtasthe
person who was joining wires, learned SPP submits that he was
suggestedthathehadstatedduringtheidentificationparadethathe
hadseentheA4joiningthewires.Hesubmitsthatordinarilyaman
ofprudencewouldhaveleftthewitnessthereandwouldnothave
given an opportunity to the witnesses to clarify and there is no
reason to disbelieve what the witness stated before the court,
specificallywhenithascomeinhiscrossexamination.Therefore,
theambiguityifanythatwasavailablehasbeenshutbytheirown
evidenceandtheA7getsentangledinit.Ihavealreadydiscussed
theevidenceofAmarKhan,PW75,aboutheenteringthehouseof
theA6andIhaveheldthatitisnotestablishedthathehadgone
insidethehouseoftheA6.Thus,thissubmissionbythelearnedSPP
isnotacceptableinsofarasthewitnessseeingtheA7inthehouseof
theA6.
883.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..918..
Ext.4825
submissionsofthelearnedSPParelogicalandthereforeacceptable.
LearnedSPPfurthersubmitsthatwhateverdepositionAmarKhan,
PW75,gavestandstoreason.Hehasgivenexplanationforevery
questionthatwasputtohim.Thereisnodoubtaboutheknowing
theA6,A2andA4.Hesubmitsthatthereisagainonemorething.If
thecourtistojudgeonlyonthebasisofasolitarywitness,thenthe
appreciationofhisevidencewouldhavedifferentdimensions.Ifthis
istheonlypieceofevidenceforconsiderationperhapstheprincipal
ofbenefitofdoubtmaybegiventotheaccused.Butotherwise,ifit
isdecidedonthetouchstoneoffalsusinunofalsusinomnibus,then
thereisasubstanceinhisevidenceanditisverystronginnature
implicating the accused. It is for this that then he discussed the
evidence of PC Ambekar, PW76, and submits that his cross
examination is focused only about the aspect of Ajmeri Shaikh
comingtohimandhetakingthemtotheofficeofDCPBajaj.All
otherthingsthatareaskedareofsuchnaturethattheanswersgiven
bythesewitnessestoanyquestionincrossexaminationdonotaffect
theevidenceofAmarKhan,PW75.Tomymind,theevidenceofPC
Ambekar,PW76,isalreadydiscussedandacceptedandhiscross
examination also does not affect his evidence about taking Amar
Khan, PW75, and Ajmeri Shaikh to DCP Bajaj. His evidence
establishes the fact that Amar Khan, PW75, had approached the
investigatingagencythroughhim.
884.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecution has not proved that Amar Khan, PW75, saw some
personsincludingtheA7inthehouseoftheA6afewdaysbefore
JudgementMCOC21/06
..919..
Ext.4825
885.
Thoughtheabovementionedistheconclusion,theA2,A4and
A7havetakenthedefenceofalibiandhavetakenuponthemselves
theburdenofprovingthattheywerenotatGovandion8,9and
10/07/06.A6issayingthathisfamilyandtheentirefamilyofhis
brotherswereinthehouseofallthosedays.
886.
InrespectofA2,thedepositionsinchiefexaminationof Dr.
AbdulSumar,DW5,Dr.AminuddinAbulHasanKhan,DW7andhis
own oral evidence as DW41 are reproduced in the written
submissionbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhtosubmitthatasper
theirevidencethealibioftheA2isproved.Hence,itisclearthathe
is not present at the house of the A6 between 08/07/06 and
10/07/06andthereforetheevidenceofAmarKhan,PW75,isfalse,
concoctedandfabricatedbytheATS.Ideliberatelymentionedthat
the depositions in the chiefexamination are reproduced, because
thereisnoassessmentofthecogentnessoftheirentireevidenceand
the relevant answers given by them in crossexamination are not
evenmentioned.Thisobservationwillbeapplicableinrespectofthe
similarsubmissionsabouttheA4,A6andA7.
887.
Letusseewhatistheevidence.Therelevantevidencegiven
JudgementMCOC21/06
..920..
Ext.4825
by Dr.AbdulSumar,DW5,thehonorarymedicaldirectorofSabu
SiddiquiHospital,isatExt.2932,truecopyofbiometricattendance
card,certifiedbyhiminrespectofA2forthemonthofJuly,2006.
WhenshownExt.2932he statedthattheA2hadattendedduties
from03/07/06to20/07/06,takenweeklyoffson9thand16thJuly
and was absent on 1st, 7th, 14th and 18th July and in respect of
09/07/06hestatedthatintimingoftheA2is11.41a.m.andout
timeis2258hours.However,hiscrossexaminationbythelearned
SPPhasrevealedthathedoesnothaveanyqualificationlikedegree
or diploma in computers, that he has not taken any technical
traininginrespectofbiometricandcomputeranddoesnotknowthe
software that is used in the biometric machine.When confronted
withthedutyhoursmentionedinExt.2932as0400hoursto1100
hours,hedeniedthatthesewerethedutyhoursoftheA2inJuly,
2006andexplainedthatthetimingsarejustaformatandactual
timings of duties are mentionedin the columns inandout. He
admittedthataccordingtotherecordtheA2wasabsentfromhis
dutieson07/07/06thoughitwasnothisweeklyoff.Headmitted
thatExt.2932doesnotshowonwhatdatehesignedit,buthemust
havesignediton30/03/12inviewofthedatementionedinExt.
2931,whichisthecoveringletter.Howeverhefurtherstatedthathe
tookoutthe printouts andsignedthemafterhe receivedaletter
from the advocate of the accused in February, 2012 and then he
asked the computer department to take out the printouts of the
biometric attendance system of the attendance of the A2 in July,
2006andadmittedthatExt.2932isgeneratedon21/09/10,i.e.,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..921..
Ext.4825
oneandthehalfyearspriortoExt.2932.Healsoadmittedthatifa
printoutistakentoday,itwillshowtodaysdate.
888.
Idonotseehowthisevidencecanbeacceptedasacogent
evidencewhenExt.2392showsthedutytimingsoftheA2as0400
hoursto1100hours,whichmeansthattheydonotmatchwiththe
dutytimingsofinandout,whenitshowsthattheA2attendedhis
dutieson09/07/06,thoughDr.AbdulSumar,DW5,statedthathe
hadtakenweeklyoff.LearnedSPPrightlysubmittedthatthistypeof
evidencedoesnotestablishthattheA2wascontinuouslyonduty.
He pointed out to the entries in Ext. 2932 and in respect of
08/07/06 he submits that there is only incoming entry at 0802
hours,butthereisnoentryofgoingout.Thiswillnotestablishhis
continuous presence in the hospital. About 09/07/06, he submits
thatheclaimsthatitwashisweeklyoffholding,buthewasonduty.
In respect of 10/07/06, 11/07/06, 15/07/06, 16/07/06 and
20/07/06hesubmitsthatthereisonlyoneentryforcomingin,but
not going out. He submits that considering all these facts, the
cumulativeeffectofthisisthatthisevidencedoesnotestablishthe
alibioftheaccused.Pointing outtothe aboveentriesandtothe
answersgivenbyDr.AbdulSumar,DW5,inparagraph15thatthere
isnodataandnoprovisioninthebiometricattendancesystemfor
keepingrecordofhisstaffmembersgoingoutofthehospitalforany
purposeinbetweenhisdutyhours,hesubmittedthatthisevidence
cannot be accepted. To my mind, the evidence is brought by the
accusedhimself,itisnotbroughtbytheprosecution.Theruleoflaw
isthatifapersonassertsafactthentheonusisonhimtoproveit.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..922..
Ext.4825
Thus,theevidenceofthisnaturecannotbeacceptedtoholdthatthe
A2wascontinuouslyondutyon8,9and10/07/06andwasnotat
thehouseoftheA6.TheanswergivenbyDr.AbdulSumar,DW5,
mentioned above is the most damaging aspects that affects the
reliabilityofthisevidence.Itwouldhavehadbeenadifferentcaseif
there was evidence that there is only one door for going in and
coming out of the hospital, that it is electrically controlled and
unlessapersonentershisbiometriccardinthegivenslotthedoor
willnotopen,eitherwhileenteringorleavingthehospital.Noteson
thecasepapersofapatientof4,5and06/07/06Ext.2935(1to3)
wereprovedduringtheevidenceofDr.AbdulSumar,DW5,whichis
inthehandwritingoftheA2.Consideringthedutytimingstheyare
irrelevant. Moreover, the date 04/06/06 is written instead of
04/07/06.Thus,theyarealsounreliable.
889.
medicaladministratorofthathospital,wasexaminedbythedefence
toprovethealibioftheA2byproducingcasepapersExts.2946to
2956. Learned SPP raised objection for receiving them in the
evidence on the ground that separate pages from the entire case
papercannotbeexhibitedbecauseitisacompletedocumentandis
notapublicrecord.However,theyweremarkedasexhibitsinview
ofthesubmissionsofthelearnedadvocatethattheybeexhibited
subjecttoobjection.Therearenosubmissionsinthisregardduring
theargumentsbythelearnedadvocatesandconsideringtheanswers
incrossexaminationthesedocumentscannotbereadinevidence.
This is because he admitted that there are no notings in his
JudgementMCOC21/06
..923..
Ext.4825
handwritinginanyofthefilesandhewasnotpersonallypresentat
anytimewhenanypatientwasexamined.Evenotherwisehiscross
examinationbythelearnedSPPonthispointhasshownthatheisa
uselesswitnesstoprovethecontinuouspresenceoftheA2inthe
hospitalon8,9and10/07/06.Hewasshownthebiometricrecord
ofattendanceExt.2932andheadmittedthatthereisnoshiftduty
from 4.00 a.m. to 11.00 a.m., the timing of leaving duty on
08/07/06, 10/07/06 and 11/07/06 is not mentioned. He was
confrontedwiththenotingsinthecasepaperandheadmittedthat
somenotingsdonotcontaintimings,somedonotcontainthedates
and some do not contain either timings or the dates. He further
admittedthatnameoftheA2isnotmentionedinanyofthecase
papers about which he explained that 'seen by Registrar' is
mentioned.Tomymind,theexplanationgivenbyDr.AbdulSumar,
DW5,thatthetimings0400hoursto1100hoursarejustaformat
and the actual timings are mentioned in column 'in' and 'out', is
obviously incorrect and unacceptable. This is because there is a
column'late'afterthe'out'columnanditexactlyshowsthehoursby
whichtheA2camelateforhisduty.Thesubmissionsofthelearned
SPPinthiscontextaretothepointandacceptable.Hesubmitsthat
this witness,i.e., Dr.Aminuddin Abul HasanKhan, DW7,whois
supposed to be conversant with the handwriting of the accused,
couldnotfindoutalltheentriesthatweresupposedlymadebythe
A2. Therefore, the A2 himself pointed out some of the entries
claimingthattheyareinhishandwriting.Therefore,onbothcounts,
viz.,thatDr.AminuddinAbulHasanKhan,DW7didnothaveany
JudgementMCOC21/06
..924..
Ext.4825
opportunitytowitnessthenotingsbeingdoneinhispresenceorthat
therefore he could not have stated about the presence of the
accused, because none of the papers contain his handwriting.
Secondly,heisnotthoroughaboutknowledgeofhandwritingofthe
accusedandheadmittedthatmanyofthenotingsthatheclaimsto
beinthehandwritingoftheA2didnotcontaintimingsordatesat
someplaces.Moreover,thesearenotpublicdocumentsthatwould
raisethepresumptionabouttheentiresbeingmadeintheregular
coursebusinessandlastlynotevenasinglepatientisexaminedto
provethefactthatonaparticulardateandonaparticulartimethe
A2hadexaminedhimduringthetimingswhentheprosecutionsays
thathewaspresentatthehouseoftheA6ortheA3.
890.
A2gaveevidenceasDW41toprovethenotingsinthecase
papersandprovedthenotingsExts.2935(1to3)ofthedates4,5
and06/07/06,whichareirrelevant.ThenotingsareinExts.4001to
4015andalsoinExts.2950,2952,2946,2955,2953,2951,etc.In
thiscontextthoughhedeniedasuggestionthathehasnotexamined
asinglewitnessfromthehospitaltoshowhiscontinuouspresence
between3rdand11/07/06fromthetimeheenteredthehospitaltill
heleft,itisclearfromtheevidenceofDr.AbdulSumar,DW5,as
wellasDr.AminuddinAbulHasanKhan,DW7,andExt.2932that
therearenoentiresaboutleavingthehospitalontherelevantdates.
Headmittedfurtherthathehasnotcitedandexaminedanypatient,
who he says that he examined between 3rd to 17/07/06. Now
leaving aside all these things, his answers in further cross
examinationhaveshownhowunreliabletheevidenceofthenotings
JudgementMCOC21/06
..925..
Ext.4825
inthecasepaperis.Hedeniedthesuggestionthatdateandtimeis
requiredtobeputbeloweveryendorsementinthecasepaper.Ifthis
issothentherewasnopointindenyingthefurthersuggestionby
thelearnedSPPthatthereforeheagreesthattheendorsementofa
doctor on the case paper would not necessarily establish the
presenceorabsenceofadoctorataparticulartime.Theseanswers
showthatthenotingsofthecasepapersarenotsuchevidenceon
which reliance can be placed to disbelieve the witness, who has
givenoralevidence.ItisrightlysubmittedbythelearnedSPPthat
these are not public documents that would raise a presumption
abouttheentiresbeingmadeintheregularcourseofbusiness.
891.
ItisclearfromtheabovediscussionthattheA2hasfailedto
leadcogentandconvincingevidencetoprovethathewasatplaceof
hiswork,i.e.,SabuSiddiquiHospital,continuouslyon8th,9th and
10/07/06.Hehasthusfailedtoprovehisdefenceofalibianditis
found to be false. It is the fourth additional circumstance in the
chain of circumstances against all the accused. It is the first
additionalcircumstanceagainsttheA2.
892.
Inthesubmissionsthataremadeinrespectoftheevidence
givenonbehalfoftheA7toprovehisalibi,likewisedepositionsin
chiefexamination of Bilal Kadiwala, DW8, Mehmood Qureshi,
PW65,andoftheA7asDW46arereproducedandCDRExt.4101
ofthemobileoftheA7isonlymentionedtosubmitthathencealibi
oftheA7isalsoproved.Againthereisnoreferencetothecross
examinationofthesewitnessesandwhethertheirtestimonyisnot
discreditedbytheircrossexamination.Ithascomeintheevidence
JudgementMCOC21/06
..926..
Ext.4825
ofBilalKadiwala,DW8,thathegaveacounter2'x4'inhisshopof
xeroxcenterandSTDPCObooth,nearJogeshwariRailwayStation
totheA7onrentinApril,2006formobilerepairingbusinessand
thattheA7usedtorunitfrom11.00a.m.Healsodeposedabout
theeventson11/07/06,butatpresentwearenotconcernedwithit.
TheevidencethatisrelevanttothedefenceofalibiisthattheA7
used to work at his counter regularly before 11/07/06. So this
covers8th,9thand10/07/06.However,consideringhisevidencethat
hisshopandthecounteroftheA7usedtoremaincloseonSundays,
itisofnouseinrespectof09/07/06.Withrespectto10/07/06he
statedthathewasathomeonthatdayanddoesnotrememberwhat
hedidonthatday.Sothatleavesonly08/07/06tobeconsidered.
Thus,hisevidenceisapparentlyvaguewhenhestatesthattheA7
used to work at his counter regularly before 11/07/06. In this
connection,thelearnedSPPpointedouttotheanswersinhiscross
examinationthatnoagreementwasexecutedbetweenhimandthe
A7,thathehadnotevengiventhereceiptaboutthedepositamount
ofRs.5,000/andhenevergaveanyreceiptoftherenttotheA7.
Learned SPP submitted that the family of the A7 is not of an
illiterateperson,butitisawelleducatedfamily.Onebrotherisa
doctor,oneisahydraulicengineerandtheA7himselfisanengineer.
Theyknowtheirrightswellandinspiteofthat,itwouldhavebeena
clinchingevidence,haditbeentrue,ifthewitnessortheaccused
wouldhaveproducedsomedocumentsaboutrentingthecounter?
Hesubmitsthatthiswitnesshasbeenboughtandhehadobliged.To
my mind, the evidence of Bilal Kadiwala, DW8, can best be
JudgementMCOC21/06
..927..
Ext.4825
describedasvagueevidenceandinanycircumstances,itcannotbe
relied upon to prove the presence of the A7 in the shop at
Jogeshwarion8thand10/07/06.TheevidenceofA7thathewentto
the shop at 5.30 p.m. on 08/07/06 falsifies the evidence of this
witnessthatheusedtoworkfrom11.00a.m.to8.00p.m.
893.
Kadiwala,DW8isacceptedthenfromtheCDRofthemobilethat
theA7wasusing,hislocationsshowtheplacesdifferentthanhis
shop.HesubmitsthatthiscannotbethecreationoftheATS.Itis
producedthattheA7himselfandthisintrinsiccircumstanceisthe
testtodeterminewhetherthereisanysubstanceinthedefenceof
theaccused.
894.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..928..
Ext.4825
memorywhiledeposingabouttheeventson7th,8th and10/07/06
andonbeingpermitted,statedabouttakinghiswifetoahospitalon
07/07/06andgoingtotheshopatJogeshwariat5.30p.m.onthat
day. About 08/07/06 he clarified that his institute at Malad was
closed on Saturday (which is already pointed out as inconsistent
evidence)heworkedintheshopfrom11.30a.m.to9.30p.m.About
10/07/06hestatedthathetookhiswifetothehospitalat9.30a.m.
andwenttotheshopat3.30p.m.andwasthereupto9.30p.m.His
crossexaminationbythelearnedSPPhascompletelydiscreditedhis
testimony. He admitted that his written submission filed with his
statementundersection313oftheCr.P.C.isinhishandwriting,
runninginto89pages,thathedidnotwritethematonetimeata
stretchandrequiredoneandahalfweektowriteit.Hedeniedthe
suggestionthathewroteithurriedly.Headmittedthathedidnot
giveanysupplementarywrittensubmission,deniedthatherealized
forthefirsttimeduringhiscrossexaminationthatitiscomplete,
but admitted that some important things have remained to be
written.Hethenvolunteeredthatheforgottowritesomedatesand
aboutthebusinessrelationswiththeA4.
895.
Abouttheevidencethathegaveon18/07/13afterrecessfor
correctinghisevidencegivenontheearlierdate,heexplainedthat
his wife came to meet him in the recess and on seeing her he
remembered that at that time she was pregnant and he had not
stated about it. Of course, he denied the suggestion that his co
accused pointed out to him that he committed a mistake while
deposing about 7th, 8th and 10/07/06 and therefore he corrected
JudgementMCOC21/06
..929..
Ext.4825
896.
Thematterdoesnotstophere.Withrespecttothemobiles
JudgementMCOC21/06
..930..
Ext.4825
thelocationsatJogeshwarifrom9.55a.m.to3.44p.m.Thoughhe
statedaboutworkingupto9.30p.m.,acallat9.37p.m.showsthe
towerlocationsofMiraRoad.Sohereachedhomeinsevenminutes
fromJogeshwaritoMiraRoad?About10/07/06heinitiallystated
about not going to Malad, i.e., to the institute on that day, but
directlygoingtotheshopatJogeshwari,whichmeansworkingthere
throughouttheday.However,thecallsintheCDRsupto2.28p.m.
showtowerlocationsofMiraRoad,BorivaliandBhayandar.Asper
hisspecificversionhewenttotheshopat3.30p.m.onthatday,i.e.,
on10/07/06.Sohowcantherebeacallat3.20p.m.locatedat
Jogeshwari?ItisobviousthattheA7keptonchanginghisversion
andmadestatementsinconsistentwithhiswrittensubmissions.Itis
clearthathemouldedhisevidenceasperthecalldataintheCDRs
thatcameonrecordafterthewrittensubmissionswerefiled.Butit
isobviousthatheisgoingroundandround,tryingtoexplainevery
bitandpiece,however,heistrappedinthecircumstancesbyvirtue
oftheverymobiledataonwhichhewantedtorely.Hisexplanation
inhisfurtherchiefexaminationabouttakinghiswifeforcheckup
on7thand10/07/06toalocaldoctor'shospitaldoesnotfindplace
inhis89pageswrittenstatementthatareingreatdetailmentioning
timingsanddatesspecifically.Headmittedinhiscrossexamination
thatherequiredoneandhalfweekstowritehiswrittenstatement
butdoesnotfeelthatanythingimportantisremainedtobewritten
otherthanwhathestatedearlier,i.e.,forgettingtowritesomedates
andabouthisbusinessrelationswiththeA4.Aboutcorrectionsin
hisevidencethathemadeaboutthesethreedates,headmittedthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..931..
Ext.4825
herememberedatthattimewhathehadnarratedfrommorningtill
lunchbreakandthatwhenhiswifecametomeethimintherecess
herememberedthatsheispregnantandhehadnotstatedaboutit.
Of course, he denied the suggestion by the learned SPP that he
corrected himself by giving a different version as his coaccused
pointed out to him that he committed a mistake while deposing
about 7th, 8th and 10/07/06. The most important admission that
discreditshisversionisthatnothinghadhappenedconcerninghis
wifeon08/07/06.Thisadmissionexposeshimbecausehecorrected
hisversionabout08/07/06.Alsoincidentallyhehasnotgivenany
evidenceabouttakinghiswifetothedoctoron10/07/06.
897.
Thus,noinferencecanbedrawnfromthecalldataintheCDR
ofthemobileno.9867244681thatwasusedbytheA7thathewas
attheshopatJogeshwarion8th and10/07/06forthewholeday
from11.30a.m.asstatedbyBilalKadiwala,DW8,andasinitially
statedbyhimorthathehadgonethereat5.30p.m.on08/07/06
andat3.30p.m.on10/07/06andwastherecontinuouslytill9.00
or9.30p.m.
898.
upontoboostthedefenceofalibitakenbytheA7.Ithascomeinhis
crossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanthathisinlaws
arefromMiraRoad,thathehadgonewithhiswifeon09/07/06,a
Sundayandwastherefrom11.30a.m.uptothedinnerandtheA7
waspresentinthehousethroughouttheday.Itissubmittedthathis
evidencecorroboratestheevidenceoftheA7.Itispertinenttopoint
outthatthiswitness,thoughaprosecutionwitness,turnedhostileto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..932..
Ext.4825
theprosecution,obviouslybecauseheisrelatedtotheA7andA8.
Evenifweacceptthissubmission,theevidenceoftheA7andBilal
Kadiwala,DW8,andtheCDRofhismobileabout08/07/06and
10/07/06 discussed above is uncogent and unbelievable. But one
thingisprovedfromhisevidencethathewasassociatedwithSIMI
andhadacquaintancewiththeworkersoftheSIMI,viz.,A8andA4,
amongstothers.Thisevidencehasnotbeencontrovertedduringhis
crossexaminationbylearnedadvocatefortheA7thoughheturned
hostile to the prosecution in respect of story of the prosecution
againsttheA8andA4.
899.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
additionalcircumstanceinthechainof
900.
ThencomesthedefenceofalibibytheA4.Itissoughttobe
establishedbyhisoralevidenceandthecontentsoftheCDRofhis
mobile. Reliance is placed on his statements in chiefexamination
thatalsofindplaceinhiswrittensubmissions,Ext.2825,thathe
wasatMiraRoad,i.e.,athisresidence,on08/07/06and10/07/06,
and had gone to Mumbra on 09/07/06 and had never gone to
ShivajiNagar,GovanditothehouseoftheA6.Hisotherevidenceis
theallegationsthat AmarKhan,PW75,andPCAmbekar,PW76,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..933..
Ext.4825
deposedfalselyaboutseeinghimatthehouseoftheA6,45daysor
23daysbeforetheblasts.Atthecostofrepetition,itwillhavetobe
pointedoutthatitisonlyhisstatementsinchiefexaminationthat
arerelieduponandthereisnodiscussionabouthisoverallevidence.
Ofcourse,thisishisonlyevidenceandexceptthedataofthecallsin
theCDRofthemobilethathewasusing,thereisnootherevidence
orwitnessexaminedbyhim,aswasexaminedbytheA2andA7,to
provehisalibithathewasatMiraRoadon8 thand10/07/06andat
Mumbra on 09/07/06. Even otherwise, he has not explained the
blankperiodsofcallsofabout2hoursand24minutes,i.e.,from
0827hoursto1051hours,of2hoursand39minutesfrom1409
hoursto1648hoursandof2hoursand4minutesfrom1820hours
to 2024 hours on 08/07/06. Same is the case about the blank
periodsof2hoursand43minutesfrom0909hoursto1152hours
on09/07/06and6hoursand11minutesfrom1249hoursto1900
hourson10/07/06.
901.
TheabovediscussionshowsthattheA4isonlyrelyingonthe
absenceofcallsshowingthelocationsofShivajiNagar,Govandito
provethathewasnotthereduringthesethreedays.Thusabsenceof
calls,whichisanabstractthing,isbeingtakenhelpoftoprovea
negativefact,i.e.,hisabsenceatShivajiNagar,Govandi,onthese
threedays,butexcepthiswordsthereisnootherpositiveevidence
toprovethathewasatMiraRoadandMumbraasclaimedbyhim.
TheevidencegivenbytheA4toprovehisalibion11/07/06onthe
basisoftheCDRExt.3765ofthemobileno.9867139179admittedly
usedbyhimisalreadydiscussedbymeinparagraphs584to589
JudgementMCOC21/06
..934..
Ext.4825
anditisheldthatnoinferencecanbedrawnthathewasatMira
Road at the time when Vishal Parmar, PW74, saw him, after
discussinghisanswersinrespectofheacquiringthemobilehandset
andsimcardwhichisnotinhisname.Itisheldthattheseanswers
donotshowhis bonafides andontheotherhandtheyshow mala
fides and that he is hiding some things. The submissions of the
learnedSPPthatmobileisnotabodypartandwillatthemostshow
the location of the handset and not of that person and my
observation that there cannot be a presumption that a mobile is
alwayswiththepersonand,therefore,thelocationsintheCDRwill
notestablishthelocationsofthepersonusingit,areagainsquarely
applicablehere.
902.
ItisclearfromtheabovediscussionthattheA4hasfailedto
903.
ItisthedefenceoftheA6thathisentirefamilyandentire
familiesofhistwobrotherswereinthehousefrom8thto10/07/06
and for this purpose he is relying on the evidence of his brother
ShaikhHazratAli,DW4,andhisownevidenceanditissubmitted
that it is next to impossible that bombs were prepared in the
presence of 14 family members. It has come in the evidence of
ShaikhHazratAli,DW4,thatheandhisyoungerbrotherMuktar
JudgementMCOC21/06
..935..
Ext.4825
Ahmed are in private service and he gave the names, ages and
occupationofall14ofthemincludingtheirchildrenandtheschool
timingsof8childrenandhasstatedthathisandthefamilyoftheA6
andofbrotherMuktarAhmedwereattheirhouseon8th,9th and
10/07/06.Thoughhestatedabouttheschooltimingsofhischildren
andthechildrenoftheA6,hedidnotstateaboutthetimingsofhis
andMuktar'sservice.Obviouslytheremustbesometimingsoftheir
employment and it is common knowledge that private service
timingsaremorethangovernmentservicetimingswhichareof8
hours.IthascomeinhiscrossexaminationbythelearnedSPPthat
hewasworkingasaPROinaprivatenursinghomein2006.One
canguesswhatmusthavebeenhisworkinghoursandhowhecould
behomeon8thand10/07/06forthewholeday,theybeingworking
days, even if 09/07/06 Sunday is excluded. He has not stated
anythingaboutMuktar'semploymentandtimingsofhisservice.Itis
obviousthathehasdeposedsoonlybecauseheisbrotheroftheA6
and to support his story/defence. However, the most damaging
statementsthathemadeinhiscrossexaminationbythelearnedSPP
arethattheA6usedtogoforworkeverydayat10.00a.m.inthe
morningandreturnat1.00p.m.,thatthereafterheusedtoremain
inthehouseandnotgooutsideanddidnotusetogooutofthe
houseafter1.00p.m.evenformeetinghisfriends.Consideringthe
occupationoftheA6,viz.,thatofsellingTilismaMoti,itdoesnot
appearprobablythattheA6wouldbeathishouseforthewhole
day,consideringthefactthatthisoccupationwasthesourceofhis
livelihood.Evenotherwise,thesestatementsby ShaikhHazratAli,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..936..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..937..
Ext.4825
theA6,sincemanyyearsandtheA6sharesallthingswithhim.In
thiscontext,thelearnedSPPpointedouttotheanswergivenbyA6
in paragraph 62 of his crossexamination that he respects Shaikh
HazratAli,DW4,andhasfaithinhim.Hedeniedthesuggestion
thathedoesnothideanythingfromhimandthatheconfidesin
him.Whatthis means is thatA6does hide some thingsfromhis
brotheranddoesnotconfideinhim.
904.
Thus,itisclearthattheevidenceofShaikhHazratAli,DW4,
isnotacogentevidenceanditdoesnotcorroboratethestoryand
theevidencegivenbytheA6inrespectof8th,9thand10/07/06.
905.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhansubmittedthat ShaikhHazrat
Ali,DW4,isaprosecutionwitnessandwhatmustbethesituation
or reason to drop him can be gathered from his evidence. He
submitsthatthereisnocrossexaminationinrespectofhisevidence
of8th,9thand10/07/06.Tomymind,thissubmissionisnotcorrect.
Thetotalityoftheevidenceofthewitnesshastobeconsideredand
afterexaminingthewitnessinrespectofhisevidenceofthesethree
days, the learned SPP has finally given him a suggestion that he
deposedfalselytosavehisbrother.
906.
issuesinrespectofthiswitness,onepriortothearrestandotheris
subsequenttohisarrest,asallegedbytheprosecution.Asperthe
caseoftheprosecutionbombswerepreparedathishouseon8 th,9th
and10/07/06andafterhisarresttheyseizedpressurecookerand
foundtracesofRDXfromhishouse.Hesubmitsthat,therefore,from
theangleoftheprosecutioncase,theeventsof8th,9thand10/07/06
JudgementMCOC21/06
..938..
Ext.4825
are more important than the so called recovery. The ATS also
inquired with the wife of the A6 and she is also concerned with
thesetwoissuesaspertheprosecution.Nowinthisrespect,wifeof
the A6, Saidunissa, was summoned as defence witness by the
defence and Shaikh Hazrat Ali, DW4, admitted that she got the
summons at her house. Before starting his crossexamination,
learnedSPPfiledanapplicationExt.2929undersection231(2)of
the Cr. P. C. for deferring his crossexamination till the chief
examinationoftheotherwitness,i.e.,thewifeoftheA6,isrecorded
and when the application was allowed, learned advocate Wahab
KhansubmittedthatheisnotgoingtoexamineSaidunissa,wifeof
the A6. Thus, this submission is of no consequence. Learned
advocatesubmittedthattheprosecutiondidnotseekpermissionto
confrontanyportionfromthestatementofthiswitnesstohimand
theonlyreasonisthattherewasnoanyinconsistency.
907.
threedatesandonlysuggestingthathewasnotresidingthereisnot
sufficient. He submits that he has to point out reasonable doubt
about his theory and the evidence of Shaikh Hazrat Ali, DW4,
falsifiesthecaseoftheprosecutionthatthefamilyoftheA6andhis
brother'sfamilieswerenotinthehouse.Ihavealreadyheldthatthe
evidence of Shaikh Hazrat Ali, DW4, is not cogent. It does not
inspire confidence to raise a preponderance of probability about
whathestated.
908.
Ontheotherhand,thelearnedSPPsubmittedthatthefalsity
JudgementMCOC21/06
..939..
Ext.4825
909.
9224253454andcalledfortheCDR,butwhenitcamehestated
thattheCDRproducedinthecourtisincompleteandistampered
onthesayoftheATS.Howthisisdoneorispossibleisnotstatedby
him. Prashant Padvale, DW39, nodal officer of Tata Teleservices
(Maharashtra)LimitedproducedtheCDRExt.3815ofthemobile
JudgementMCOC21/06
..940..
Ext.4825
numberoftheA6andtheCellIDaddresses,Exts.3817and3818.
TheCDRdoesnotcontaincalldataofJuly,2006andduring his
crossexaminationbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikh,whenhewas
putaspecificquestionastowhetherhehasprovidedtheentiredata
askedfor,hespecificallyansweredthattheyprovidedwhateverdata
thatcouldberetrieved.Hedeniedthesuggestionthathedeleted
calls of the said mobile number and that he furnished tampered
CDRsonthesayoftheATSofficers.Thus,thereisnootherevidence
tocorroboratetheversionoftheA6.
910.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
A6hasfailedtoshowanypreponderanceofprobabilityofhisand
his two brother's family members being present in his house
continuously from 8th to 10/07/06 and it is proved to be a false
story. This is the seventh additional circumstance against all the
accused.ItisthefirstadditionalcircumstanceagainsttheA6.
911.
Thus,itisclearthatthedefenceofalibitakenbytheA2,A4
andA7andstoryputforthbytheA6hasnotbeenprovedandno
preponderance of probability about its existence has been shown
which could disprove the evidence given by Amar Khan, PW75.
Therefore, the circumstance no. 17 proved by the prosecution is
unaffected.
Conspiracy:
912.
AzamChimaandarrestedA3andA13conspiredsometimeinthe
year1999todoterroristactsandtheactsagainsttheGovernmentof
MaharashtraandGovernmentofIndiaandinpursuanceofthesaid
JudgementMCOC21/06
..941..
Ext.4825
conspiracyameetingwasheldinthemonthofMay,2006inthe
houseoftheA3atBandra(W)andtheplantocauseexplosionsin
thewesternrailwaylocaltrainswasfinalized.Toprovethismeeting,
theprosecutionexaminedMohd.Alam,PW59,bywhoseevidence
hisacquaintancewiththeA3,A12,A13,A4,A2,A11,A12andA9
andfourPakistanipersons,i.e.,wantedaccusedno.14and5and
deceasedaccusedno.1and2istriedtobeproved.Thematerialthat
wasdisclosedduringhisinterrogationisbrieflygiveninparagraphs
195and196supraandthestatementthathegavetothepolicewas
confirmed by him by giving a statement to a magistrate under
section164oftheCr.P.C.
913.
Mohd.Alam,PW59,describedhowhegotacquaintedwith
theA12sometimebefore2005anddevelopingfriendshipwithhim
and alsostated abouthowhe became acquaintedwiththe A3 in
September,2005andtheybecomingfriends,hevisitinghishouse
andtheygoingtodancebarstogethersometimes.Thisevidenceisin
paragraphs 1 and 2 of his chiefexamination and insofar as his
evidence about the A12 is concerned the improvements over his
statements under sections 161 and 164 of the Cr. P. C. that are
brought on record are that he used to attend the discos at Juhu
wheneverhegotthetimeandabouttheA12workinginacallcenter
atHyderabadandgoingtoHyderabadforthatwork.Insofarasthe
A3 is concerned his evidence about his relative Ashraf Qureshi
calling him to Bandra Railway Station and taking him to Carter
Road,BandratohisfriendbynameSameerandwhentheymetthey
becoming friends is brought on record as improvements over his
JudgementMCOC21/06
..942..
Ext.4825
statementsundersections161and164oftheCr.P.C.Thesethings
apartthereisnosuggestiontothiswitnessbythedefencethathe
wasnotacquaintedwiththeA3orA12.
914.
Nextcomesthemostimportantevidenceandwhichisrelevant
inrespectofthecoreissueoftheentireprosecutioncaseandthe
ideologyoftheaccused.Ithascomeinhisevidenceinparagraph3
thathewenttothehouseofSameertomeethim,talkedwithhim
about his business, asked for financial help whereupon the said
Sameeraskedhimastowhyheisrunningaftermoney,thatmoney
isnoteverything,thatheshouldthinkoftheirreligion,i.e.,Islam,
that said Sameer told him that for whatever atrocities are being
committedonMuslims,theonlywayoutisjihadwhichwillsolve
theirproblems,thathewasshockedonhearingthis,thatthesaid
Sameer toldhimthathe has given his lifeforjihadandthen he
disclosedhisrealnameasFaisalAtaurRehmanShaikh,i.e.,theA3,
andnotSameerandonaskingthereasonforthischange,hetold
thatitwastohidehisidentity.Ithasalsocomeinhisevidencethat
A3 told him that he had gone to Pakistan twice and had taken
training in the camps of LeT, A3 also mentioned the name of
wantedaccusedno.1AzamChimaandtoldhimthatAzamChima
gives financial help to him and he himself, i.e., the A3, is a
commanderofLeTinMumbai.Thisevidencehasnotbeenshown
asanimprovementoverhisstatementundersection161and164of
theCr.P.C.orasacontradiction.Nodoubt,itisbeinginterpreted
differentlyinrelationtothesubsequentconductofthewitness,but
thefactremainsthatthisevidenceisuncontroverted.
JudgementMCOC21/06
915.
..943..
Ext.4825
houseoftheA3inFebruary,2006,seeing56personsthere,who
had gathered for a discussion on some special subject and were
makingpreparationsfornamajwhenhereachedthere,beinginvited
fornamajandtheA3introducedthem,i.e.,A13,A2,A4,A10and
A9,thelastonebeingbrotheroftheA3.Hethendescribedwhat
theydidwhentheyweresittingtogether,viz.,thatA13tookaKuran
andaskedalltokeeptheirhandsonitandtotaketheoaththat
whateverdiscussiontheyhadtherewillbesecret.Itisthenthatthe
A13askedA3abouthim,i.e.,thewitness,andtheA3toldthatheis
hisbestfriendandthereisnotensionabouthim,thereuponA13
askedhim,i.e.,thewitness,totakeoath,buthedidnottakeitashe
didnothaveanyknowledgeaboutthesubjectmatterofthemeeting
andthenheleft.Tillthispoint,hisevidenceinparagraph4isclear
andhas notbeenbroughton recordas an improvementoverhis
statementsundersection161and164oftheCr.P.C.Itishisonly
laststatementthattheA3didnottellhimanythingwhenheasked
aboutthatmeetingafterwards,whichhasbeenbroughtonrecordas
animprovement.Nextcomeshisevidenceinparagraph5aboutthe
A3comingtomeethimatMiraRoadnearShamsMasjidinMarch,
2006alongwithA13,A2andA4,A3askinghimwhetherhecould
arrangeforahousefor67monthsforhisfriends,heexpressedhis
financialdifficultyandhislackofknowledgeinordertoavoiddoing
so,thereupontheA3askinghimtophonetheA12andtocallhim
therewhichhedidandA12comingthereaftersometimeandthen
theA3askinghimtoleavethatplacesayingthathewantedtotalk
JudgementMCOC21/06
..944..
Ext.4825
withtheA12andhe,i.e.,thewitness,feltbadaboutbeingtreatedin
this manner and leaving that place. This entire evidence in
paragraph 4 is also not shown as an improvement over his
statementsundersections161and164oftheCr.P.C.
916.
Hisnextevidenceinparagraph6isabouttheincidentinMay,
2006.Theimprovements madebyhimoverhisstatementsunder
sections161and164oftheCr.P.C.areabouthenoticinginMay,
2006thatA3wastakinglessinterestingoingtothedancebarsand
nottalkingmuchandappearingchanged,thereafterishisevidence
aboutseeingsomeguestsinthehouse,hisevidencethattheA3told
himthattheyarehisguestsfromPakistanandhavecomeforthe
goodworkforreligion,ofmeetinghimonceortwicethereafterand
ofnotsittinginhishouseforlongandtalkingwiththeA3outside
hishouseashecouldnotsitinhishouseforlongandcouldnottalk
with the A3 freely in presence of his guests. Other than this
evidence, his evidence about asking the A3 about his changed
behaviour, A3 telling him about being busy at that time as some
guestsfromPakistanhadcometohishouse,hegoingtothehouseof
theA3onceortwiceandseeingtheguestsinhishouseandtheA3
telling the names of those guests as Abdul Razzak, Abu Umed,
SohailShaikhandoneSalim,i.e.,wantedaccusedno.14,deceased
accusedno.2,wantedaccusedno.5anddeceasedaccusedno.1
respectively, and the guests not talking with him much. This
evidenceispracticallyuncontroverted.
917.
Hisevidencethereafterinparagraph7isintactasnotasingle
wordorsentenceisshownasanimprovementoverhisstatements
JudgementMCOC21/06
..945..
Ext.4825
undersections161and164oftheCr.P.C.orcontradiction.Itishis
evidencethatA3calledhimandA12tohishouseinJune,2006,
theyallwenttoadiscobarandastheywerethereuptolatehours,
theyhaltedatthehouseoftheA3,thatnextdaymorningA3told
A12 to make some arrangements for the guests as his house is
congestedbecauseoftheguests,thataftersomedayshecameto
knowfromtheA12thathe,i.e.,theA12,hadmadearrangementsof
two guests of the A3 at Millat Nagar, Andheri, that during that
month A3 introduced him to one Rizwan Khot, that during that
period,i.e.,inJune,2006,A3hadpurchasedawhitecolourMaruti
800carandthattheythreeusedtogoaroundinthatcar,which
usedtobedrivenbyRizwanKhot.Hisfurtherevidenceinparagraph
8isaboutmeetingA3on02/07/06,comingtoknowinthenews
aboutthearrestofA3andA12astheywereinvolvedintheblasts
andbeingcalledbytheATSpoliceon02/11/06andhisstatement
beingtakenandpoliceshowinghimaphotographofapersonwho
appearedtobecaughtinanaccidentandheidentifiedthatperson
asAbuUmed.HeunhesitatinglyidentifiedtheA12,A3,A2,A4,A9,
A10andA13inthatorder.However,thoughhestatedthenamesof
thepersonwhomhecouldidentify,includingthenameofA11,he
failedtoidentifyhim.Itisnotthatthewitnesswasaskedtoidentify
asinglepersonorasingleaccused,therefore,Itookitintheorder
inwhichheidentifiedthemafterlookingaroundthecourtroomand
pointingtothespecificaccused.Nowinrespectofthisevidenceit
will have to be mentioned at this stage itself that except the
suggestionduringthecrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateRasal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..946..
Ext.4825
thatheidentifiedtheaccusedattheinstanceofthepoliceandtheir
namesweregiventohimon02/11/06,thereisnoallegationthat
theaccusedwereshowntohimorpointedouttohimearliereither
in the office ofthe ATSoroutside the courtbeforehis evidence.
Thus, this evidence is absolutely unimpeached and it being a
substantiativeevidenceithasgotaheavyweight.
918.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..947..
Ext.4825
direction.Whenthewitnesshadanoccasiontomeettheaccused
morethanonceandwhentheinvestigatingofficerissatisfiedthat
hewouldbeabletoidentifythemdirectlyinthecourt,thenthereis
nonecessityofcallinghimfortheidentificationparade.Moreover,
his friendship with the A3 and A12 is not disputed in cross
examination.Onthesamelines,learnedadvocateShettysubmitted
thattheevidenceonrecordabouttheinvestigationdoesnotshow
thatanyaccusedwereshowntohim.Tomymind,thisisinfacta
goodthing.Ifhewouldhavebeenshowntheaccusedintheofficeof
theATSthenalsothedefencewouldhavecriticizedit.LearnedSPP
submittedinthisrespectthattheissueisthatwhenthepolicehave
recordedhisstatementinanaturalmanner,thenthereisnothing
artificialinthis.Hereisamanwhogivesthenames,thentheonly
inference is that he knows those persons and is in a position to
identify them by their names. He has not expressed any doubt
whetherhewillbeinapositiontoidentifythemornot.Thus,this
submissionisnotproper.
919.
Learnedadvocatesubmittedthattheevidenceofthiswitness
concerningtheA9andA11isofnousetotheprosecution,thathe
doesnotspeakoftheA9'sinvolvementandonlybecausetheA9is
brotheroftheA3,itdoesnotfixanyculpability.Tomymind,ifhe
wasagotupwitnesspolicewouldhaveputsomethinginhismouth
toinvolvetheA9.Itwillnotbeoutofplacetopointoutthathis
evidence is relevant and useful to show the association of the
accusedwhomhehasnamedandidentified.Learnedadvocatethen
submitsthatthewitnessdoesnotrefertothehouseoftheA3in
JudgementMCOC21/06
..948..
Ext.4825
LuckyVillainCarterRoadthoughhesaysthatheknowstheA3and
hadgonetohishouse.Thewitnesswasnotcrossexaminedaboutit
andnotaskedthenameofthebuilding.However,itisanincorrect
submissionthathedidnotrefertoCarterRoadbecausehestated
aboutgoingtoCarterRoadatBandra.
920.
Learnedadvocatesubmittedinrespectoftheevidenceofthe
witnessthathewasshownaphotographintheATSofficeandhe
identifieditasthatofAbuUmed,thatifoneanalysesthisevidence,
itiscrystalclearthatthisisthe photographofthedeadbodyof
SalimandnotofAbuUmed.Thetruthhasnotcomeoutandhis
memoryisrequiredtobetested,mainlybecauseheidentifiedsome
persons. This shows to what extent this witness can go to save
himselfandtohelpthepolice.Theseanswerswillshowthatheis
not a truthful witness and his evidence cannot be accepted. He
referredtotheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,andsubmitted
that as per his evidence he is the person who visited the site of
Matungablastandaccordingtotheprosecutionabodyabovethe
chestportionwasfoundatthesite,thebodieswerealreadyremoved
andvictimswerealsoremovedandthenhechangedhisversionthat
somebodieswerelyingthereandtheywereremoved,butdoesnot
speakanythingaboutthisbodyanddoesnotgiveitsdescriptionand
thepanchanamaofthesiteoftheblastisalsosilentonthisaspect.
He submits that Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, specifically says that he
inspectedthesite,butdidnotfindanybodypartandevenifitis
assumedthattheupperbodypartwasremovedbysomebodytothe
hospitalbeforehereached,thencanitbesaidthattheremaining
JudgementMCOC21/06
..949..
Ext.4825
partsofthebodylikehands,legs,etc.,willnotbefoundatthesite
oftheblast.Hesubmitsthatnothingwasfoundatthesitesofthe
blastsatMatungaorMahimbySr.PIRathod,PW176,whowasthe
investigating officer at both places. He submits that dead bodies
lyingatthespotarealwaysremovedbythepoliceafterpreparing
the site panchanama unless they find thatthere is an urgencyof
savingthelifeandiftheyarenotsurewhetherthepersonisdeador
alive.Nothingofthatsorthascomeforwardinthiscaseandthereis
nobodywhospeaksthatthisdeadbodywasremovedfromthesite
oftheblastsatMatungaorMahim.HesubmitsthatMohd.Alam,
PW59,identifyingthedeadbodyofthatofAbuUmedisacreation
oftheinvestigatingmachineryanditiswithoutanysubstance.To
mymind,partsofthebodywillbedefinitelyfoundatthesiteofthe
blastprovidedtheyarenotdestroyedcompletelyintheblast.The
factthatonlytheupperpartofthedeadbodywasfoundindicates
thatthesaidpersonwassoneartothesite oftheblastthatthe
lowerpartofhisbodywasblownoffandthereiseverypossibility
that it may have been destroyed completely. It has come in the
evidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,andtheinvestigatingofficersand
thepanchwitnessesoftherailwaysthatthereweremanybodyparts
lyinginthebogiesaswellasonthetracksandithasalsocomein
their evidence that people from the public carried the dead and
injuredandwhateverarticleswereleftwerealsocollectedbythem.
Bodyparts,fleshpiecesmusthavebeencollectedandtakentothe
hospitals,becauseonecanjustvisualizetheuncontrollablesituation
atthespotandonecannotexpectthemembersofthepublictodo
JudgementMCOC21/06
..950..
Ext.4825
thisworkinanorganisedandscientificmanner.Leavingasideall
thesethingsithasbeenestablishedbytheprosecutionthatthedead
bodywasthatofoneSalim,aPakistaninationalandthisistheonly
mistake this witness has committed. Except this lapse, there is
nothing in his crossexamination to discredit his version. On the
other hand, during his crossexamination in paragraph 46, the
witnessexplainedthatonseeingthephotographhethoughtthatit
wasofAbuUmed,butdeniedthesuggestionthatpolicetoldhim
thatitishisphotograph.However,apositivestatementhascomein
hiscrossexaminationthatthepolicetoldhimthathewaskilledin
thebombblastinthetrain.Whatthismeansisthatthewitnesshas
committedamistakeonlyaboutthenameofthesaiddeadbody.To
mymind,inviewofhisfurtheranswerincrossexaminationthathe
wasshownphotographoftheentirebody,thepossibilitycannotbe
ruledoutthathewasshownphotographofAbuUmed,whowas
killedinanencounterandnotofSalim.Thisisanobviousmixup
and the learned advocate has mixedup this issue because the
witness did not state in his chiefexamination that it was the
photographofapersonwhohadbeenkilledinthebombblastsin
thetrain.Thatcameinhiscrossexamination.However,hisevidence
about it, as mentioned above, is not brought on record as an
improvement or contradiction. Thus, he may have committed a
mistakeorhemaynothavecommittedamistakeandthereforeit
does not affect his evidence, more so he had stated in his chief
examination that the A3 had told him that the names of four
PakistanipersonsincludingAbuUmedandoneSalim.
JudgementMCOC21/06
921.
..951..
Ext.4825
defencethatduringtheperiodwhichheisstatingtobeinIndiaand
visitingthehouseoftheA3atBandra,hewasnotinIndia,butwas
inChinaanditishiscasealsothathewasvisitingChinaandforeign
country.Thelastsubmissioniswrongbecausethewitnessneversaid
thathehadgonetoChinaoranyforeigncountry.Learnedadvocate
submits that the important document was his passport of 2006,
whichwasvalidandwasinforceduringthatperiod,atthesame
time the witness did not chose to produce it and gave evasive
answers,butneverdeniedthathehadnevervisitedChinaorother
foreign country, but only says that during that period he was in
India.Hesubmitsthatthereforeadverseinferenceisrequiredtobe
drawn because of his refusal to produce the passport. These
submissionsarenotcorrectbecauseithasnotcomeintheevidence
ofthewitnesseitherinchiefexaminationorincrossexamination
thathehadevergonetoChinaoranyotherforeigncountry.Healso
submitsthatthoughthewitnessisaresidentofMumbai,hegavean
application for passport showing his address of Sambal, Bareli,
which shows that this man is of a doubtful conduct and the
transactionsthathewasmakingwiththegovernmentofficershas
gotnoclarity.LearnedSPPhassubmittedinthisrespectthatthis
issuehasbeenrakedupbythedefenceinthecrossexaminationof
thewitness.Tomymind,thesubmissionsbythelearnedadvocate
areentirelybaseless,becausethoughthewitnessadmittedthathis
elderbrotherParvezusedtovisitChinain2006andhe,i.e.,the
witness,haslosthispassport,hehasmadeapositivestatementthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..952..
Ext.4825
hehasnevergoneoutofIndiaanddeniedthesuggestionthatthe
passport was lost after he visited China in 2006. This came in
paragraph 14 during the crossexamination by learned advocate
Wahab Khan. There are no further questions and there is only a
suggestionattheendofthecrossexaminationbylearnedadvocate
ShettythathewasinChinaduringthisperiodandthereforeheis
notproducinghispassport.Tomymind,ifthedefenceisassertinga
factitisforittoproveit.Thereisnoreasonwhythewitnessshould
producehispassport.Itisobservedduringtheentiretrialthatthe
accusedareveryvigilantandhavenotleftanystoneunturnedto
discredit the prosecution witnesses and to prove their defence. It
wasnotimpossiblefordefence,tohavecalledtheinformationfrom
the airports about foreign travels of the witness, if any. Hence,
merelybecauseastrangethedefenceistakenandmerelybecause
the A12 has stated about it in his oral evidence as DW48, no
adverse inference can be drawn against the witness. Even if one
venturestodrawsuchaninferenceitisdoubtfulwhethersuchan
adverse inference would affect his cogent and straightforward
evidence.
922.
Learnedadvocatefurthersubmitsthatthereisaseriousdoubt
abouttheacquaintanceofthiswitnesswiththeA12becauseheis
notdenyingthattheA12wasworkingatHyderabad,buthesays
thathedoesnotknowandaboutworkingatGurgaonhesaysthat
hedoesnotknow.Ifoneconsiderstheanswersgivenbythewitness
onthisaspect,itisclearthathehastoldwhateverheknewcorrectly.
ItisnotthathisknowledgethatA12workingatHyderabadhasbeen
JudgementMCOC21/06
..953..
Ext.4825
controvertedinhiscrossexamination.Itisinhischiefexamination
thatatthattimetheA12usedtoworkinacallcenteratHyderabad.
Thoughthishasbeenshownasanimprovementoverhisstatement
giventothepolice,howeverithascomeinhiscrossexamination
thathemetA12forthefirsttimeduring2004,thattheA12served
in Hyderabad in 2005, but he has no idea since what month he
startedworkingthereandheexpressedhislackofknowledgeasto
whethertheA12wasworkingintheGeneralElectricCompanyin
HyderabadsinceSeptember,2004continuouslyupto2006andprior
to that from April to June, 2004 in the Saffron Global Limited.
However, his positive statements about the places where the A12
workedinMumbai,viz.,inPizzaHutinLokhandwala,Andheri,ina
MoonlightClubprobablyintheGoldenNestareaonthehighwayin
MiraRoadandthathehadgonetomeethimatbothplacesshows
hisexactknowledgeabouttheA12.Leavingallthesethingsasideit
appears that the learned advocate has missed reading or has not
mentionedtheanswersgivenbytheA12inhiscrossexamination.
Tomymind,theA12maybeworkingatGurgaonorHyderabad,but
thatdoesnotmeanthatheneverusedtocometoMumbai.A12has
notgivenanyevidenceaboutitexcepthiswords.Inthisconnection
learnedSPPpointedouttothelastsuggestioninparagraph25of
thecrossexaminationofthewitnessandsubmittedthatapparently
this suggestion was given on the instructions of the A12. The
suggestiontothewitnessisthathehadgonetomeettheA12at
Gurgaon.Tomymind,eventhesuggestionsinparagraph49tothe
witnessthathisgirlfriendwascaughtintheraidin2006,wasput
JudgementMCOC21/06
..954..
Ext.4825
intoChemburRemandHomeinMay,2006,thatinJanuary,2006
shebecamepregnantandtriedtocommitsuicideandthathehad
gotherabortiondone,areallindicationsofA12havinggiventhis
personal intimate information to his learned advocate, which
fortifiedtheinferencethatheknowstheaccusedandvisavis.AsI
saidearlier,learnedadvocatehasmissedornotmentionedwhatthe
A12 stated in his crossexamination and which conclusively
establishesthatthewitnessknewhim.Ithascomeinparagraph26
ofhiscrossexaminationbythelearnedSPPthathewasacquainted
withMohd.Alam,PW59,since1999,methimforthefirsttimeat
BhendiBazar,thatheusedtoworkinanSTDboothwithaboyby
name Imran and Mohd. Alam, PW59, was his friend and he got
introduced to him. This corroborates the evidence given by the
witnessthatthroughoneImranhegotacquaintedwiththeA12.Not
onlythis,theA12hasstatedthattheywereonvisitingtermswith
eachother,thatheusedtomeetMohd.Alam,PW59atCafeCoffee
DayandBaristaanditwillbecorrecttosaythatthewitnessusedto
confideinhimevenforanysmallproblem.Idonotthinkthatany
otherinferencethantheabovecanbedrawnfromtheseanswers
and about the China visit A12 has admitted that he has not
mentioneditinthewrittensubmissions.
923.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatthereisadelayinrecordinghis
statementbecauseassumingthatwhathesaysistrue,itshowssome
serious thing including some plan or something going on, some
doubtful conduct alongwith few Pakistani nationals, thereafter
comingtoknowabouttheblastson11/07/06andfurthercomingto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..955..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..956..
Ext.4825
924.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..957..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..958..
Ext.4825
havecalledhim,hewouldnothavegoneandgivenhisstatement.
925.
Inmyhumbleopinion,consideringthereasonsgivenbythe
witnessinparagraph19,Idonotthinkthatthereisanydelayin
recordingthestatementandifatallitisthere,tomymind,itdoes
notaffectthecredibilityofhisevidence.
926.
LearnedadvocateShettyplacedrelianceontheanswersgiven
927.
Learnedadvocatepointedouttotheinabilityofthewitnessto
tellthedateinJune,2006whenhecametoknowfromtheA12that
hehadmadearrangementsoftwoguestsoftheA3atMillatNagar,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..959..
Ext.4825
Andheriandduringfurthercrossexaminationinparagraph42he
tried to point out these statements as improvements on his
statementundersection161oftheCr.P.C.Infactthewitnessstated
that he had stated so and in that connection the learned SPP
submittedthatitisinthestatementthatsubsequentlyhecameto
knowfromNaveedthattwoofA3'sPakistanimehmanshadbeen
shiftedtosomehouseinMillatNagar,Andheri(W),Mumbai.This
submission has not been controverted and obviously one cannot
readthecontentsofthestatementundersection161oftheCr.P.C.,
butlearnedSPPhasmadethesubmissionanditisnotshowntobe
incorrect.Thus,infactthisisnotanimprovement.Inconnection
withthisaspectlearnedadvocatesubmitsthatcomingtoknowfrom
theA12thattwoguestsofA3wereshiftedtosomehouseinMillat
NagarisdifferentthantheA12himselftakingpartinshiftingtwo
persons.Thus,theknowledgeoftheA12aboutthetwoPakistani
guests being shifted in Millat Nagar does not show any criminal
intentor mensrea onhispart.Hesubmitsthatthisclaimismade
only to fix the A12 and therefore the two sentences cannot go
togetherandtheimprovementmadebythewitnessisaveryvital
improvementandthereforetheevidenceofthewitnessisnotatall
acceptable.Ihavealreadyheldthatthereisnoimprovementandthe
evidencebythewitnessisonlywhatknowledgetheA12gavehim.
HehasnotimputedanythingmoretotheA12thattheA12toldhim
thathehadmadethearrangements,etc.Thushisevidenceisnoton
the point to show the involvement of the A12 in any activity of
shiftingthetwoPakistaniguestsfromthehouseoftheA3toMillat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..960..
Ext.4825
Nagar,Andheri(W),butitisonlytoshowknowledgeoftheA12
aboutthesaidactivity.Learnedadvocateattackedthecredibilityof
thewitnessonthegroundthatheproducedtworationcards,oneof
villageSambal,Dist.BareliandotherofMumbai,whichshowthat
somebogusdocumentsunconnectedtohimandasanafterthought
have been produced by this witness. To my mind, this issue was
raisedandquestionswererepeatedlyaskedbymultipleadvocates
during the crossexamination and the witness was directed to
produce his ration card. Now when he has produced them, the
defence is saying that they are bogus documents. There may be
several reasonswhynames of personsare includedin tworation
cards,theonemostprobablebeingofhavingnoknowledgeabout
deletingone'snameintheearlierrationcardatsomeotherplaceor
thisthingremainingtobedone.This,tomymind,doesnotaffect
hiscredibilityanddoesnotshowthatheisanuntruthfulwitness.
Learned advocate Wahab Khan dissected the evidence of Mohd.
Alam,PW59,onseveralcountsandinsofarashisevidenceabout
what happened in the house of the A3 in February, 2006, he
submittedthatthewitnessdidnotsaythathedidnottaketheoath,
buttheotherswhowerepresent,tookitandsincethewitnesswas
not present during the discussion that had taken place before he
wentthere,therewasnoquestionofaskinghimtotaketheoathand
thisshowsthatthewitnessisnotstatingthetruth.Tomymind,itis
astrongpossibilitythatasMohd.Alam,PW59,isaMuslimandas
theA3assuredtheA13thatheishisbestfriend,A13askedhimto
take the oath but obviously he refused as he did not have any
JudgementMCOC21/06
..961..
Ext.4825
928.
credibilityofthewitnessinthelightoftheevidencegivenbyhim
thatA3haddisclosedtohiminJanuary,2006aboutbeingamember
ofLeT,undergoingtraininginPakistan,disclosinghisrealname
andidentity,butinspiteofthishedidnotbothertoseparatehimself
ordisassociatefromhim.Tomymind,itwouldhavebeenbetterif
thewitnesswouldhavebeenaskeddirectlyastowhyhedidnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..962..
Ext.4825
929.
prosecutionthatA3sentboysformilitanttrainingtoPakistan,he
does not ask this witness to go for training and that he would
arrangeforthepassportandvisa.Tomymind,thisisfortheA3to
explainastowhyhedidnotaskMohd.Alam,PW59,totakethe
callofjihadandgoformilitanttraininginPakistan.Itisobvious
fromthestatementbythewitnessthathewasshockedonhearing
the views of the A3 about religion, i.e., Islam, atrocities being
committedonMuslims,etc.,thathedidnotapproveoftheviews.
Secondlyitcanbesaidthathedidnothavethecommonlink,i.e.,of
beinganactivistofSIMI.ItmaybethatthereforetheA3didnot
thinkofincludinghimintheirgrouporgang.
930.
LearnedadvocatesubmitsthatMohd.Alam,PW59,sawsome
JudgementMCOC21/06
..963..
Ext.4825
meetingsatBandrainFebruary,2006,atMiraRoadinMarch,2006
andseeingsomePakistanisinthehouseoftheA3inMay,2006isall
abundleoflies.Tomymind,theevidenceofthewitnessinrespect
ofmeetingsiscogentandconvincingandtheimprovementsmade
byhimarenotsuchthattheyaffecthiscredibility.Itisnotunusual
for Pakistani persons to come to India on a valid passport. This
witnessdidnotknowthatthosePakistanishadenteredintoillegally
andhadcometoMumbaiforsomeillegalpurpose.Thus,therewas
noreasonforthewitnesstodiscontinuehisfriendshipwiththeA3
andtheonlyreasonforhecontinuingthefriendshipisapparently
theircommoninterestingoingtothedancebars.
931.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..964..
Ext.4825
thedefencecouldhaverecalledhimasitdidinrespectofseveral
other witnesses. If the A3 was knowing about calls made by this
witnesstohimcontinuouslyafter02/07/06andevenon11/07/06,
irrespectiveofthefactthattheCDRswereobtainedmuchlater,the
witnesscouldhavebeengivensuchsuggestionsandcouldhavebeen
crossexaminedaboutit.Thisisnotdoneandonthecontraryphone
contact of the A3 and the witness does establish that he was in
closelyacquaintedwiththeA3.
932.
LearnedadvocatesubmitsthattheA3isshowntobearrested
on27/07/06,wasinpolicecustodytilltheprovisionsoftheMCOC
Actwereapplied,thatstudyoftheCDRswasgoingonandasthere
weretwocallsbetweenhimandMohd.Alam,PW59,hewascalled
attheKurlaoffice,detainedthereandtorturedandthisisdeposed
byA2,A4,A6andA10whentheygaveevidence.Itisdeposedby
theA12andA13thattheysawhimatBhoiwadaofficeandA12has
alsostatedthathesawhimattheKalachowkioffice.Thus,thisdoes
notshowthattheprosecutionstoryishonest.Tomymind,thisisa
baselesssubmissiononlyonthebasisoftheoralevidencegivenby
theaccused.BaselessIsaidbecauseifsixaccusedknewaboutit,
thenthereisnoreasonornoexplanationwhyMohd.Alam,PW59,
wasnotaskedaboutitorgivenasuggestionthathewascalledto
theKurlaofficeorBhoiwadaoffice,etc.,anddetainedandtortured.
Except the words of the accused, there is no other evidence and
thereisnotevenanysuggestiontothewitnessorheisnoteven
inquiredaboutbeingcalledbythepolice forinquiryimmediately
aftertheblasts.Thus,thissubmissionisofnouse.
JudgementMCOC21/06
933.
..965..
Ext.4825
LearnedadvocatethensubmitsthatthoughtheA3disclosed
JudgementMCOC21/06
..966..
Ext.4825
thatperiod.Theabsenceofdatacannotbeinterpretedtomeanthat
Mohd.Alam,PW59,didnotmakeanycalltohimorthathewasin
Chinaduringthatperiod.Thus,thisaspectisimmaterialanditdoes
notaffecthiscredibility.
934.
AridiculoussubmissionismadebylearnedadvocateWahab
KhanthatthoughthewitnesshasnamedtheA2,A3,A4,A9,A10,
A12andA13noneoftheaccusedhavestatedintheirconfessions
thattheyknowhimandAmarKhan,PW75,alsodoesnotsayso.I
donotseeanyreasonastowhywouldtheaccusedmention the
witnessintheirconfessionalstatements.Theconfessionalstatements
aregivenbytheaccusedvoluntarilyandforreasonsbestknownto
them they may not have made a mention about this witness.
Considering the fact that the accused have alleged that all their
confessionalstatementsarefalseandarepreparedbytheATS,ifthe
ATShadreallyfabricatedtheconfessionalstatements,theywould
have introduced this aspect in them. This is also a baseless
suggestionbecauseinhisconfessionalstatement,theA3hasstated
thathe,Mohd.Alam,PW59,andA12usedtogotothedancebars
andA12alsomentionshiminhisconfessionalstatement.Thus,this
submissionisimproper.Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateis
inconsistent with the above submission, because he submits that
oncetheconfessionswererecordedthenthisexerciseofintroducing
witness to corroborate the confessions was undertaken. This
submissionisobviouslyselfcontradictoryandisofnoconsequence.
935.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatitistheevidenceofthewitness
thathecametoknowfromtheA12thattwoPakistaniguestshad
JudgementMCOC21/06
..967..
Ext.4825
beenshiftedtoMillatNagar,Andheri,butthereisnoevidenceabout
thesaidresidenceandontheotherhandtheprosecutionisrelying
onthepanchanamawhichshowsthatA12pointedoutabuilding
sayingthatthePakistanisusedtoresidethere.Nowwouldthisnot
betherelevantevidencegivenbytheprosecution?Tomymind,itis
therelevantevidence.
936.
fromthestatementundersection164oftheCr.P.C.ofthiswitness
and certain improvements made by him on his statement under
section161oftheCr.P.C.Thelastsentenceinparagraph13isnot
an omission, because he stated that he had stated so to the
magistrateandtheotheromissionsthatarepointedoutaremainly
withrespecttothestatementmadetothemagistrateundersection
164oftheCr.P.C.andnotinrespectofstatementundersection161
oftheC.P.C.beforethepolice.Thoseomissionsarenotmaterial
andinsofarasthecontradictedportionpartAofhisstatementunder
section 164 of the Cr. P. C. is concerned, it has not been proved
becausethedefencedidnotprayforcallingthemagistratewhohad
recordedit,thoughtheprosecutiondidnotexaminehim.Learned
advocatesubmittedthatnoreliancecanbeplacedontheevidence
ofsuchawitness,whoisofaloosecharacterindulgingindrinking
liquor,goingtothebarsandtoprostitutes.LearnedSPPsubmitted
inthisrespectthatwhatbetterevidenceisexpectedfromaperson
whoisdeposinghonestlyabouthisvicesaboutbeingawomanizer
andadrunkard.Hesubmitsthatsincetheprosecutionhasnotgiven
him a certificate as a man having a good character, assailing his
JudgementMCOC21/06
..968..
Ext.4825
characterisirrelevanttothefactinissueinthiscase.Inotherwords,
therecannotbeapropositioninlawthatapersonwhoishabituated
toliquorandwomanizingisnotreliable,trustworthyorbelievable
witness. To my mind, though the witness is a Muslim, he has
honestlyconfessedtowhathewasdoingandthisaspectisthelink
between him and the A3 and A12 and that is why they became
friends.
937.
Learnedadvocatenextsubmitsthatthewitnessislyingabout
hisChinavisitbecausethoughhehadstatedthathehadappliedfor
passport at Bareli, he did not produce the passport and the A4
appliedtotheBareliPassportOfficeundertheRTIActandreceived
thereplyExt.3088thatnopassporthadbeenissuedtosuchperson.
Ext.3088 has not been proved by calling any witness. But even
otherwise,theinformationthatwasgivenisthatnopassportwas
issuedtothewitness.Itprovesonlythisthingandnothingmoreand
ontheotherhandifnopassportwasissuedthereisnoquestionof
thiswitnesshavinggonetoChina.Thus,itcannotbesaidthatthe
witnessislyingandrunningawayfromthisissue.
938.
LearnedadvocatesubmitsthatMohd.Alam,PW59,hasstated
JudgementMCOC21/06
..969..
Ext.4825
nodoubttruethattheentryinthelogbookofthesaidvehicledoes
notshowthatithadgonetoChandanchowkiofficeoftheATSon
02/11/06. When ACP Patil, PW186, was asked a question in
paragraph 257 of his crossexamination whether the entries are
madeinthelogbooksofvehicleswhentheACPs,DCPs,etc.,ofthe
ATS go to the ATS units from the Head Quarter at Nagpada, he
explainedthatlogbooksaremaintainedforallthepolicevehicles
foradministrationpurposetoseethattheyareusedforofficework
andnotmisused.Theimportantexplanationthathegaveisthata
vehicleassignedtoanofficermaybeusedbysomeotherofficerat
anytime.Thus,noadverseinferencecanbedrawnfromthisaspect
onlythatACPPatil,PW186,didnotrecordthestatementofMohd.
Alam,PW59,andontheotherhandthoughheadmittedthatitis
notmentionedinthecasediaryastowhetherthewitnesshadcome
on his own or he was called, he volunteered that his name was
disclosedduringtheinterrogationoftheA3.Inthisconnectionthe
evidencegivenbyMohd.Alam,PW59,inparagraph38ofhiscross
examinationisgivingallthespecificationsastoatwhattimehis
statement was recorded, how it was recorded and who were the
officersrecordingit,thoughhedidnottelltheirnames.Thishas
comeinhiscrossexaminationandithasnotbeencontrovertedand
itisnotthatthereisnomentioninthecasediaryaboutrecordingof
hisstatement.
939.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatthewitnessdidnotgiveany
particulardateaboutmeetingtheaccusedorhegoingtothehouse
oftheA3,ontheotherhand,thedefenceevidencegivenbytheA2
JudgementMCOC21/06
..970..
Ext.4825
andthewitnessexaminedbyhim,i.e.,Dr.AbdulSumar,DW5,and
Dr.AminuddinAbulHasanKhan,DW7,aswellasDr.Atiya,PW53,
havegiventhedates.Ihavealreadydiscussedandhavearrivedata
conclusionthatthedefenceevidencegivenbytheA2isunreliable.
Thissubmissionisobviouslymisplacedbecausethedefenceevidence
given by the A2 is in respect of the dates 8th, 9th and 10/07/06.
Hence,itisirrelevantinsofarastheeventsaboutwhichthiswitness
deposed. The last submission made by the learned advocate is
clearly a ridiculous submission. He submitted that Mohd. Alam,
PW59,does notsay anything about the bombblasts, he has not
statedthatanyoftheaccusedtoldhimaboutthebombblastsand
thisisthecriteriaandthetesttoascertainwhetherheisanaturalor
gotupwitness.Tomymind,whateverthewitnesshasdeposedis
aboutwhathesawandhisevidenceisnotspiceduptoshowthathe
knew anything more or had seen anything more. The cross
examination of ACP Patil, PW186, has not revealed anything to
discredit his version in respect of recording the statement of this
witnessandtodiscredittheevidenceofthiswitnessalso.
940.
Thepointwisesubmissionsinthewrittennotesofarguments
submittedbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhinvolume4inrespect
ofthiswitnesshavebeenmostlycoveredduringthediscussionsof
thesubmissionsbylearnedadvocatesShettyandWahabKhan.In
the48pagessubmissionaboutthiswitness,againhisdepositionis
reproduced in extenso and each and every sentence and word is
givenanadversemeaningandinterpretedagainsthimtoshowhow
heisnotbelievable.ThedepositionsgivenbytheA2,A4,A10,A12
JudgementMCOC21/06
..971..
Ext.4825
andA13counteringtheevidencegivenbyhimarereproducedin
extensoanditissubmittedthatinferencebedrawnthatwhateverbe
deposedisafalseandfabricatedstory.Hisevidenceisnotreliable
andisrequiredtobediscarded.Tomymind,thesesubmissionsare
presuming that the evidence given by the accused is cogent and
truthful and has disproved the evidence of the witness. I do not
thinkthatsuchinferencescanbedrawnonlyonthebasisofstories
toldbytheaccusedintheirdepositions.Thus,onlythoseissuesthat
wouldaffectthecredibilityofthewitnessinrespectofcoreissue
willbeconsideredinordertoavoidburdeningtherecord.
941.
Mohd.Shakil,PW70,andAmarKhan,PW75,arealsomadeforthis
witness by placing reliance on the contents of the confessional
statementsoftheA2,A3,A4,A6,A9,A10,A11andA12anditis
submitted that they contradict the deposition of this witness,
therefore, his evidence has to be discarded and also all alleged
confessionalstatementsarerequiredtobediscarded.Atthecostof
repetition,Ihavetomentionasismentionedwhilediscussingthe
submissionoftheevidenceofAmarKhan,PW75,thattheineptness
ofthedefenceisevidentfromthissubmissionandthedefencehasto
acceptonethingortheotherthing.TheevidenceofMohd.Alam,
PW59, has been discussed independently and it is practically
unblemishedinsofarasthecoreissueisconcerned.
942.
evidenceinparagraph4aboutthemeetinginFebruary,2006,the
evidence in denial given by A2 as DW41, A4 as DW38, A10 as
JudgementMCOC21/06
..972..
Ext.4825
DW44andA13asDW49isreproducedanditissubmittedthatin
viewoftheirdepositions,itisclearthatA7deposedthathehad
nevergonetoBandraandhadnevermettheA3.Hence,hewasnot
presentintheallegedmeeting,thattheevidencebyA4hasnotbeen
challengedbytheSPP,therefore,itiscrystalclearthathehadnot
attended the meeting at Bandra and similarly about the denials
made by the A10 and A13. The evidence given by the different
accused is only by way of denial and they have not given any
positiveevidenceabouttheyhavingnevergonetoBandra.Itisonly
theiroralevidenceandthoughtheyhavetakenthepleaofalibiin
respectofmeetings,thereisnoevidencefromtheirsidetoproveit.
943.
NowinrespectoftheevidenceofMohd.Alam,PW59,that
theA13tookaKuranandaskedalltokeeptheirhandsonitand
taketheoath,itissubmittedthattheaccusedwereallegedtobe
presentforsomeworkabouttheirreligion,theyknowverywellthat
oathcannotbetakenotherthaninthenameofAllahandthepolice
mighthavegotthisideafromfilmsandactuallyaMuslimdoesnot
takeoathonKuran.Hence,hisdepositioniswrongandistutoredby
the ATS. To my mind, the possibility cannot be ruled out that
accused themselves got this idea as submitted. The witness has
deposedwhathesawandnothingmore.
944.
examinationaboutgoingtodancebars,havingcloserelationswitha
particulardancerforaboutamonth,havingclosephysicalrelations
with23girls,drinkingliquor,stayingoutforthewholenightand
tellinghisparentsthathewaswithhisfriendswheneverhedrank
JudgementMCOC21/06
..973..
Ext.4825
beerandwenttotheladiesbars,arecriticizedasbeingprohibited
byIslam,antiIslamandagainstthebasicprinciplesofIslam.These
thingsareallegedinthewrittensubmissionsbylearnedadvocate
SharifShaikhanditisalsoallegedthathedeposedfalselyonoath,
whichisalsoasininIslamandthistypeofpersondoingallthe
abovethingscanbeluredbythepoliceforgivingfalseevidence,
therefore,itisnotacceptableandisrequiredtobediscarded.Tomy
mind,thissubmissionisuntenableasthis courtis notacourtto
decidewhetherapersonactedaccordingtoreligionornot.Itisa
questioninthesemoderndaysastohowmanyMuslimsorforthat
matter Hindus or persons of any religion follow their religion
scrupulously.Iftheywouldhavefollowedtheirreligionscrupulously
therewouldnothavebeencrimesofmurder,rapeandbombblasts,
etc.
945.
abouthisplaceofbirththatheishidinghisplaceofbirthforsome
extraneousreasons,therefore,hisevidenceisnotacceptable.What
is the extraneous reason is not explained and just because the
witness gave inconsistent answers that too in crossexamination,
whenbeingrepeatedlyaskedaboutthesamethingsagainandagain
and again, it cannot be said that his evidence is not acceptable.
Sameisthecaseaboutwhetherhisfatherhadpassportornot.Itis
irrelevantandimmaterialandthesubmissionisunacceptablethatif
hedoesnotrememberaboutit,howheremembersabouthisfriends
whomhehadseenonlyonetwooccasions.Theissueoftworation
cardsExts.741and742,andthenamesofsomefamilymembersnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..974..
Ext.4825
appearinginoneandtheagesofbrothersbeingdifferent,etc.,is
alsoextraneousandnotgermanetothefactinissue.Inrespectof
hisevidenceaboutnamesofhistwobrothersJavedandFakreAlam
andtheirfamilymembersbeingnotincludedintherationcardExt.
741, though they stay in their ancestral house, to my mind, the
possibilitycannotberuledoutthattheymayhaveobtainedseparate
ration cards for obtaining cooking gas connections and for other
governmentandofficialpurposes.Thenextsubmissioninthetopic
inrespectoffriendshipwiththeA12isdownright,misleadingand
wrongandignoringtherelevantevidenceandithasbeendiscussed
earlier.
946.
Onthebasisoftheoralevidencegivenbytheaccused,similar
submissionsaremadeinrespectofmeetingsatMiraRoadinMarch,
2006andthe incidentofMay,2006. Theyareunnecessarytobe
discussed.Regarding the mentionofRizwanKhot,itis submitted
that the said person is a very important person, who used to go
aroundinthecarwiththeA3,A12andthiswitness,thatthesaid
person is a prosecution witness, but is not examined by the
prosecutionwithoutgivinganyreason,whichadverselyaffectsthe
prosecutioncase.ItmaybethatthewitnessRizwanKhotwasan
importantwitnessandalinktoestablishtherecoveryoftheMaruti
carattheinstanceoftheA12,thefactremainsthatthoughhewas
notcalledbytheprosecutionandthoughthedefencehasmadeall
outeffortstoexaminealargenumberofdefencewitness,theyhave
nottakenpainstosummonthispersonandtoexaminehimasa
defencewitness.Thisaspectobviouslyis anextraneousissue and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..975..
Ext.4825
doesnotaffecthisevidence.
947.
948.
Itisclearthatthesubmissionsmadebythelearnedadvocates
havenotshownastowhythewitnessshouldnotbebelieved.Inthis
respectthelearnedSPPsubmittedthatheisastarwitnessandhis
crossexaminationhasnotshakenhiscredibilityandthereisnodent
tohisevidenceincrossexamination.Inrespectoftheidentification
oftheaccusedinthecourt,thereisnosuggestionthattheaccused
werepointedouttohim.Hesubmitsthatifthechiefexaminationof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..976..
Ext.4825
949.
Mohd.Alam,PW59,statedisadirectevidence.IftheA3tellshim
something,hisevidenceistheevidenceofapersonwhodirectly
hearsitfromthepersonwhomadethestatement.SotheA3telling
himaboutvisitingPakistantwicefortakingtraining,meetingAzam
ChimaandbeingacommanderofLeT,etc.,isnothingbutanextra
judicialconfession.Thesesubmissionshavenotbeencounteredby
anyofthelearnedadvocatesfortheaccusedanditis,therefore,that
I said in the beginning that his evidence in paragraph 3 of his
depositionisthemostimportantevidenceinrespectofideologyof
theaccused.
950.
LearnedSPPalsomadeanimportantsubmissioninrespectof
recordingofstatementsofwitnessesundersections161and164of
theCr.P.C.Hesubmitsthattherearethreedistinctmethodsand
theyarerelevantforconsideration:
(A)atthestageofinvestigation,therecordingofstatementunder
section161oftheCr.P.C.isdirectlyinaninquisitivemanneranda
true and seasoned investigator will try to pump out maximum
informationfromawitnessbyputtingquestionsandtoughquestions
and more importantly the investigating officer is equipped with
certaininformationwhichhemayhavegatheredintheprocessof
collecting evidence or during the course of investigation of the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..977..
Ext.4825
suspectsortheaccusedorotherwitnesses.Normally,thestatement
ofthewitnesssorecordedgivemanydetails,manytimesandhe
pointstosubsection(3)ofsection161oftheCr.P.C.whereinitis
laiddownthatitisthediscretionofthepoliceofficertoreducethe
statementinwriting.Section161doesnotcastadutyonthepolice
officerstorecordverbatimeverywordthatflowsfromthemouthof
thewitness.Hecanusethediscretiontousethematerialcoming
fromthewitnesswhichaccordingtohimmayberelevanttothefact
in issue. Many witnesses have got the tendency to tell too much
thingsandattimestheofficerstellthemthattheycandeposeabout
itincourt.Normally,theideaofrecordingastatementundersection
161oftheCr.P.C.istogetanideaofthebackgroundortheissue
forwhichthewitnessis.Hadthestatementundersection161been
sacrosanct,thenthelegislaturewouldnothaveprovidedforabar
undersection162oftheCr.P.C.
(B)Whenthemattercomesbeforethemagistrateforrecordinga
statementundersection164oftheCr.P.C.,themagistratedoesnot
have an inkling as to the background and the circumstances and
whatthewitnessknowsandforwhatheismakingthestatement
and what he wants to say. He will only ask the witness to state
whateverhewantstostate.Thereisnoquestionofinquisitiveor
probingquestionsortryingtogetmoreinformation.Asaresult,164
statementsarenotasmuchindetailasthestatementsundersection
161.
(C) When the witness is being examined in the court by the
prosecutor,thoughordinarilytheareaofexaminationofthewitness
JudgementMCOC21/06
..978..
Ext.4825
iscircumscribedbysection161,thereisnolegalbarforaprosecutor
to pump out the requisite information in his own way without
puttingleadingquestions.Hehastostrikeabalancethatthewitness
doesnotgoatatangenttosection161.Butlatitudeisavailableto
him to examine him in such a manner that the best possible
informationcomesoutfromthewitness,whoattimesmaydeviate
fromhispreviousstatement.Hesubmitsthatfinallyitistheutmost
responsibility on the shoulders of the court to appreciate the
evidence of such witness or for that matter all witnesses on the
background of these three categories. He submits that in other
wordseverywordoreverysentencethatisstatedbythewitnessif
notfoundinhispreviousstatementdoesnotleadtotheconclusion
thatthewitnessisuntruthfulorunreliable.
951.
Inmyhumbleopinion,thesubmissionsbythelearnedSPPare
JudgementMCOC21/06
..979..
Ext.4825
financialassistancetotheA3,(iv)thattheA3wascommanderofL
eTinMumbai(v)thattheA2,A4,A9,A10andA13hadassembled
inthehouseoftheA3inFebruary,2006,(vi)thattheA2,A3,A4,
A12andA13hadassemblednear Shams MasjidinMiraRoadin
March, 2006 and (vii) that wanted accused no. 5 and 14 and
deceasedaccusedno.1and2wereinthehouseoftheA3inthe
secondorthirdweekofMay,2006andlaterontheywereshiftedto
thehouseoftheA3atMillatNagarinAndheri(W),Mumbai.Thisis
thecircumstanceno.19provedbytheprosecution.Itisagainst
theA2,A3,A4,A9,A10,A12andA13.Itisthethirdcircumstance
againsttheA2.ItisthesixthcircumstanceagainsttheA3.Itisthe
thirdcircumstanceagainsttheA4.Itisthefirstcircumstanceagainst
theA9.ItisthefirstcircumstanceagainsttheA10.Itisthesecond
circumstanceagainsttheA12.Itisthefourthcircumstanceagainst
theA13.
Recoveryofmaterialindicatingconspiracy:
952.
Thisisasubtopicunderthetopic'Conspiracy'anditisalleged
bytheprosecutionthatinpursuanceofthecriminalconspiracydone
bywantedaccusedno.1AzamChimaandarrestedA3andA13,A1,
A2,A3,A6,A9,A10andA11wenttoPakistanandreceivedmilitant
traininginthetrainingcamprunbywantedaccusedno.1Azam
Chima, that the travel plans were elaborately planned by the
conspiratorsinordertoensurethatpassportsoftheaccuseddidnot
bearthearrivalanddeparturestampsintoandoutofPakistanand
duringthecourseofinvestigationtheA3,A9,A10,A11andA2were
foundinpossessionofmapsshowingtravelroutefromTehranto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..980..
Ext.4825
953.
ThefirstrecoveryintimeistherecoveryofpassportoftheA2
athisinstanceon26/07/06,whichwasthefirstrecoveryfromhim
afterhisarreston24/07/06.Ithascomeintheevidenceof Sr.PI
Rathod, PW176, that he went for the house search of the A2
alongwiththeA2andhisstaffandstationdiaryentryno.17was
madeaboutit,truephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1797,thatpanchas
werecalledandhewenttothehouseoftheaccused,thatthedoor
ofthehousewasopenedbyfatheroftheA2,thathesearchedhis
house, but did not find anything and then he prepared the
panchanama Ext. 448. He proved the contents of the said
panchanama and his evidence is corroborated by the evidence of
panch witness Shridhar Gangan, PW15. Both identified their
signaturesonthepanchanama.
954.
IthasfurthercomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,
thatthereafterheinquiredwiththeA2abouthispassportandon
theA2informinghimthathehadgivenitforvisatoatravelagency
atFort,MumbaiandtheywenttotheofficeofInternationalTrade
LinksinFortalongwiththesamepanchwitnessesaccordingtothe
directionsgivenbytheA2andthemanagerwaspresentthere,the
accusedwasinveilandhewasshowntothemanagerbyremoving
theveil.ThemanagerrecognizedhimasTanveerandtoldthemthat
hehadgivenhispassportforvisa45monthsbeforeandthenhe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..981..
Ext.4825
produced the passport Ext. 449, which he, i.e., Sr. PI Rathod,
PW176,seizedunderthepanchanamaExt.450.Heidentifiedthe
passport and explained that it contains the stamps of arrival and
departureandthevisaofIranispastedonit.Heprovedthecontents
of the said panchanama and the evidence of Shridhar Gangan,
PW15, corroborates his version. There is nothing in the cross
examinationofShridharGangan,PW15,todiscredithisversionand
thoughatonepointheadmittedthattheaccuseddidnotmakeany
statementin his presence, his furtherstatementis thatthe travel
agency'sofficeaddresswastoldinhispresenceandithasalsocome
inhischiefexaminationthattheaccusedwasinveilandthefaceof
the accusedwas shown tothe person inthe travel agent'soffice.
Boththesewitnessesidentifiedtheirsignaturesonthepanchanama
Ext.450andShridharGangan,PW15,alsoidentifiedthepassport
Ext.449.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,thenstatedaboutreturningtothe
office and making station diary entry no. 20, true photocopy of
whichisatExt.1798.Hiscrossexaminationhasnotdiscreditedhis
versionandexceptasmallinconsistencyinhisevidenceinrespectof
takingpanchasfromtheirofficeorthepanchasbeingcalledatthe
spot, there is nothing to discredit his version. It was argued by
learnedadvocateWahabKhanthatthestationdiaryentryno.17,
Ext.1797,describesthattheystartedwithpanchas,whereas,Sr.PI
Rathod,PW176,hasstatedthattheycalledthepanchaswhenthey
were at the house of the A2. This small inconsistency is of no
consequenceparticularlywhenthepanchanamaExt.448saysthat
the panchas were called at the house of the A2 and Shridhar
JudgementMCOC21/06
..982..
Ext.4825
955.
The station diary entries Exts. 1797 and 1798, are the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..983..
Ext.4825
956.
prosecutionhasnotproducedanyofficialrecordaboutdepositof
thepassportwiththesaidtravelagencyandastoperiodpriorto
which it was deposited. To my mind, this is inconsequential and
there is no suggestion to Prakash Pillai, PW16, that he was not
workinginthatofficeandthathehadnotreceivedthepassport.The
panchwitness ShridharGangan,PW15, aswellasPrakashPillai,
PW16,didnotidentifytheA2inthecourtandthelearnedadvocate
JudgementMCOC21/06
..984..
Ext.4825
submitsthatthisshowsthattheyhadnotgoneforthesearchand
the panchanamas were prepared in the office of the ATS. In this
respect, the learned SPP submitted that whatever may be the
drawbacksintheevidenceaboutthisseizure,thefactofthematter
isthatthedocumentthatisrecoveredpursuanttothispanchanama
is a genuine document, i.e., passport Ext.449, and there is no
questionofanyfabricationinit.FranklyIshouldnothavediscussed
the evidence of all these witnessesandshouldhave directlyheld
that the recovery of the passport is proved by their evidence,
becauseitwasreallyaninnocuousrecoveryatthatpointoftime.
Tillthattimethemodusoperandioftheaccusedandtherelevancyof
the passport and the maps could not have been known to the
investigatingofficers.Itisunimaginablethatatsuchanearlypoint
oftime,theinvestigatingmachineryhatchedaplantocreatesuch
typeofevidenceandthentoshowtheirrecoveryfromrespective
accused.Thereisnoallegationthatthepassportwascollectedfrom
the house of the A2 or that the A2 himself produced it. Learned
advocateWahabKhansubmitsthatthisisaconcoctedevidencein
viewoftheevidencegivenbytheA2asDW41andpointedoutto
thelogbookentryExt.3928.ThecontentsofExt.3928corroborate
the evidence of Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, that the said vehicle had
gone to Agripada as well as to Fort. Not only this, the A2 has
admittedinhisevidencethathewastakentohishouse.
957.
Thusitwillhavetobeheldthattheprosecutionhasproved
the seizure of the passport Ext. 449 at his instance. This is the
circumstanceno.20provedbytheprosecution. Itisagainstthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..985..
Ext.4825
A2.Itisthefourthcircumstanceagainsthim.
958.
NextintimeistherecoveryofmapsfromthehouseoftheA3,
theevidenceofwhichhasbeendiscussedearlierwhilediscussing
therecoveryofbombmakingarticleson28/07/06,immediatelyon
thenextdayofhisarreston27/07/06andthattheevidenceofSr.
PI Rathod, PW176, and the panch witness Sanford Fernandes,
PW31, has proved the search as described in the seizure
panchanama,Ext.533,whichincludesmapofMumbai,Art.153and
aninternationalmapArt161,i.e.,Ext.1486and8booksallegedly
connectedwithSIMI,Arts.150to152andSaudiRiyals.Insofaras
themapsareconcerned,Sr.PIRathod,PW176,hasdeposedthaton
themapofMumbai,i.e.,Art.153,thereweremarksatsomeplaces
ingreenandredink,thattheothermapwasaninternationalmap
of India, Pakistan, Iran, Muscat, Afghanistan, Tehran, etc., that a
routefromMumbaitoTehran,TehrantoZahidanandZahidanto
Muzzafarabadwasdrawnonthemap.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thatheencircledthismatterbelowthemapthatwasinUrduand
also an international mobile number and email address as
guddu_sir@yahoo.com.byredinkandheandthepanchassigned
both the maps. The panch witness Sanford Fernandes, PW31,
corroboratedhisversion.There ispracticallynocrossexamination
on this point to Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, and there is only a
suggestionthatthesaidhousewasnotinpossessionoftheA3and
that they planted all the articles in that house to create false
evidence to involve the A3 in the crime. As mentioned earlier
Sanford Fernandes, PW31, identified both the maps and stated
JudgementMCOC21/06
..986..
Ext.4825
about there being red and green colour markings on the map of
MumbaiandaphonenumberandanemailIDontheothermap.
HeidentifiedhissignatureonthemapArt.161,i.e.,Ext.1486.He
admittedinhiscrossexaminationthatmaplikeArts.153and161
areavailableonrailwayplatformswiththehawkersandinanyshop
andinrespectoftheinternationalmap,headmittedthatpolicedid
not call the mobile number that was on that map, etc. There is
nothingmoreinhiscrossexaminationinrespectofthesaidmaps.I
havealreadyheldthisseizuretobecircumstanceno.9provedby
theprosecutionandthatitisthefourthcircumstanceagainsttheA3.
959.
NextintimeistherecoveryofpassportfromtheA9andmaps
JudgementMCOC21/06
..987..
Ext.4825
aredescribedindetailinparagraph92supra,therelevantamongst
thembeingthemapofMumbaiArt.164havingmarkingsatsome
placesingreenandredink,photocopyofinternationalmap,Art.
165,i.e.,Ext.1487,showingsimilarrouteaswasseenonthemap
Art.161,Ext.1486,passportArt.178,Ext.620andfourbooksArts.
166 (1 & 2), 167 and 168 allegedly connected to SIMI. Sanford
Fernandes, PW31, corroborated his version totally and both
witnessesidentifiedallthearticlesseparatelyandspecificallyand
bothidentifiedtheirsignaturesonthepanchanamaaswellasthe
signatureoftheA9andprovedthecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.
534. Sanford Fernandes, PW31, identified the A9 in the court
unhesitatingly.Itisalreadyobservedinparagraph658supra,while
discussingtherecoveryontheverysamedayfromthehouseofthe
A3,justsometimebeforethesearchofthehouseoftheA9,thatthis
witnesshasnocriminalantecedentsandnothingwasbroughtinhis
crossexaminationtoshowhisconnectionwiththepoliceorthathe
hasactedasapanchwitness,etc.,andIhaveconcludedthathis
evidenceinspiresconfidenceandIhavenohesitationtoaccepthis
testimony as truthful and corroborating the evidence of Sr. PI
Rathod,PW176.
960.
discreditedhistestimonyexceptforcertainthingsthathedidnot
do,e.g.,notobtainingsignaturesofthepanchasonthebooksArts.
166(1and2),167,168andthecertificatesExts.169and170and
not obtaining signatures of the inmates of that house on all the
articles,whichtomymindwasunnecessary.Hiscrossexamination
JudgementMCOC21/06
..988..
Ext.4825
inrespectofharddiskandtwoCPUsandhowtheywerelabeled,
etc., is inconsequential as prosecution has not given any further
evidence in that respect. He denied the suggestion that the
panchanamaExt.533inrespectofA3andthepanchanamaExt.534
inrespectoftheA9arefalselyprepared.Ontheotherhandpositive
statementshavecomeonrecordduringhiscrossexaminationthat
A9wasnottakentotheflatatLuckyVillaasthatflatwasoftheA3,
thatA3waskeptbelowthebuildingwhentheywenttotheflatat
MiraRoadasthatflatwasofA9andtheyhadgonetherewithall
thearticlesthattheyseized.Hisknowledgeaboutthebuildingin
whichtheflatoftheA9wassituatedandabouttheinmatesofthat
flatprovethathehadreallygonetothesaidflat.Healsodescribed
whattypeofroomstheflatwasconsistingof,viz.,ahall,kitchen,a
smallbedroomandabiggerbedroom,andithascomeaspositive
statementthattheyhadcarriedpackingmaterialwiththem,butHC
Padval was sent to bring boxes to pack the CPUs, etc. His cross
examination in respect of mobile that was found is also
inconsequentialandhecandidlyadmittedthatallthearticlesthat
wereseizedandpackedwerenotsealedbylacseal.Hedeniedthe
suggestionthatheplantedallthearticlesinthathouseandhadnot
foundthemthere,etc.Tomymind,asiscaseinrespectofA3,the
A9isalsonotinapositiontodenythesearchandseizurebecause
his personal documents, i.e., passport Art. 178, Ext. 620 and his
educational documents, viz., statements of marks and passing
certificateoftheMaharashtraStateBoardofSecondaryandHigher
SecondaryEducation,PuneArts.169and170,hisdrivinglicence,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..989..
Ext.4825
Art.171andhisidentitycardofOracleCompany,Art.173(1&2),
werefoundinthesaidsearch,whichcouldnothavebeenplanted.
Thus, the crossexamination of Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, has not
revealed anything to discredit his version about the search and
seizure.
961.
duringhisargumentsthattheseizureofthecomputer,monitor,CPU
hasnorelevancetothiscaseastheprosecutiondidnotbringout
anymaterialtoshowthattheywereusedtohatchtheconspiracy
and to pass the messages and therefore their seizure is of no
consequenceandthismaterialdoesnottaketheA9nearertothe
crime. In respect of books allegedly connected with SIMI, he
questionsastowhatisthereinthebooksthatlinkstheaccusedto
thecrimeandinwhatwayyoucansaythatthesearethebooksfrom
whereonecangetknowledgeofpreparingdestructiveactsorthat
they inspire you to commit an offence. He submits that the
prosecutiondidnotleadanymaterialtoshowthatanyindividual
willbeinfluencedtocommitsuchacrimeandthegenuinenessof
thebooksisindispute.Hesubmitsthatthereforethebooksandthe
mapsappeartobeplanted.Tomymind,thelearnedadvocatehas
not made any submissions in respect of the passport and the
educational documents of the A9 from his house and alongwith
finding them the investigating officer also found the books
connectedtoSIMIandthefewmapswhichcanbesaidtobealink
of the A9 to the present crime. The main link is of course the
passport.
JudgementMCOC21/06
962.
..990..
Ext.4825
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatthisrecoverycannotberelied
963.
Learnedadvocatequestionsastowhatisthepurposeofthe
markingononemapandthedirectionsontheothermapandfrom
bothmapsnothingcanbeinferredthatthemarksandthedirections
indicatetheinvolvementoftheA9inthecrime.Healsosubmitsthat
the route or the directions are innocuous and not relevant at all
because if one goes by air to Tehran, these directions are
meaninglessandevenifonehastogobyroad,theyarenothelpful
inthepresentadvancedageoftechnology.Hesubmitsthatallthis
will show that these are the concocted material created by the
investigatingofficers.Tomymind,ifonelooksatonlyoneseizureof
certainarticlesfromonlyoneaccused,thenthesubmissionsbythe
learned advocate can be said to be correct, however, we have to
JudgementMCOC21/06
..991..
Ext.4825
consideritasacircumstancealongwithalltheothercircumstances
of such type of recoveries from the other accused and have to
consider the allegations of the prosecution about there being a
conspiracy.
964.
Learnedadvocatecriticizedtheprocedurethatwasadoptedby
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,bypointingouttothecrossexaminationof
SanfordFernandes,PW31,inparagraph34,whichshowsthatthere
wasamanandtwoladiesinburkhainthathouse,thatthey,i.e.,the
panchas, did not ask the man whether he wants to take their
searches andnoladypanchorladypolice officer was withthem
whentheywenttotheflat.Similarly,whentheconstablebrought
thepackingmaterialfromoutsideandafterhereturnedtotheflat,
they,i.e.,thepanchasandthemembersofthehousedidnottakehis
search.Hesubmitsthatthesearetheadmissionsbythewitnessand
theycannotbelightlybrushedasideandallthesefactorswillshow
thatthematerialthattheprosecutionissayingisincriminatingis
nothing but a planted one. To my mind, these submissions are
ignoringthefactthatthepolicepartyalongwiththepanchashad
takenthesearchofthehouseoftheA3firstandithascomeinthe
evidence of Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, that even the A3 was asked
whether he wanted to take the searches of the police and the
panchas before they entered the flat and it has also come in his
evidencethatwhentheywenttotheflatoftheA9andknockedits
door,amanopenedthedooraboutwhomtheA9saidthatheishis
fatherandtheyintroducedthemselvesandtoldhimthepurposeof
theirvisittosearchthehouseandaskedhimwhetherhewantedto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..992..
Ext.4825
searchthem.Thus,therewasnoquestionforthepanchastoaskthe
inmatesofthathousetotaketheirsearches.Itistheworkofthe
investigatingofficer.
965.
Learnedadvocatethensubmittedthatsofarastherecoveryof
themobileisconcerned,ithasnotbeenascertainedastowhomit
belongs, no CDR has been verified and this assumes importance
becauseitwillalwayshavetobeacceptedthatamobileofaperson
always remains with the person/owner. These submissions are
obviouslybaseless,becausetheCDRoftheA9hasbeencalledfor
mentioningthemobilenumber.LearnedadvocatesubmitsthatA9
wasworking atBangalore,hewas takenincustodyanditis not
explainedfromwherehewastaken,thatallthesethingsareinthe
darkandthenyouexpectthecourttobelievethatitisthemobileof
that person, though the mobile remained in the residence of his
father.Hesubmitsthatthisisanartificialitybecausenormallyand
naturallyeverypersoncarriessucharticleswithhimandyoucannot
saythattheyarerecoveredfromhishousesearchafterseveraldays
andthisistheartificialmaterialthathasbeencreated.Tomymind,
tosomeextentIcanagreewiththelearnedadvocateparticularlyin
respectofthefindingofmobileinthehouseoftheA9thoughhe
waspickedupfromhisofficeatBangalore.However,thiscanbe
interpretedtheotherwayalsoastohowthemobileoftheA9was
notwithhimandwasinhishouse,whichwouldalsoindicatethe
deliberateactonhisparttokeephismobileawayfromhim.Last
submission by learned advocate is that the house search was not
taken immediately after his arrest in such a case. Obviously, it is
JudgementMCOC21/06
..993..
Ext.4825
ignoringthefactthatthehousesearchwastakenimmediatelyon
thenextdayofthearrestoftheA9bytheATS.
966.
LearnedSPPalsoagreedwiththesubmissionsofthelearned
advocate about the recovery of the hard disks, CPU, etc., being
inconsequential,buthesubmittedthatrelevantistherecoveryofhis
passport,booksandmapsandhesubmitsthattheevidenceofthe
search and seizure is supported and corroborated by the
contemporaneousrecordinthenatureofstationdiaryentryno.10,
certifiedcopyofwhichisatExt.1951(5pages).Ithascomeinthe
evidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatbeforegoingforthesearch,
stationdiaryentryno.10,truephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1951,
wasmadeandafterreturningthestationdiaryentryinExt.1951(5
pages)wasmadeandtheseizedpropertywasdepositedwiththe
muddemalclerk.Thecontentsofthestationdiaryentryareingreat
detaildescribingeachandeveryarticlethatwasfoundduringthe
housesearchoftheA3andA9.Thisisacontemporaneousrecord
whichcorroboratesandprovestheseizureandthefactofthepolice
officershavinggoneforthesearchandseizure.
967.
Inmyhumbleopinion,asmentionedearlier,whilediscussing
therecoveryofthepassportoftheA2,thatthistypeofrecovery
fromtheA3aswellasA9wasreallyaninnocuousrecoveryatthat
point of time. The investigation was being conducted by seven
differentofficersoftheATSanditcannotbevisualizedandaccepted
thatatsuchanearlypointoftime,i.e.,whenitwasonlythe17 thday
oftheinvestigation,thatoneoftheinvestigatingofficerhatcheda
masterplantocreatesuchtypeofevidenceandtoshowitsrecovery
JudgementMCOC21/06
..994..
Ext.4825
fromdifferentaccused,whichwillberelieduponandarguedbythe
learnedprosecutorasbeingevidenceofconspiracy.Tillthattimethe
relevanceofpassportsandmapscouldnothavebeenknowntothe
entireinvestigatingmachinery,i.e.,theATS,leavealoneonesingle
investigatingofficeroftherankofaPoliceInspectorinvestigating
only one crime. Therefore, no inference can be drawn that these
articleswereplantedandonlyoneinvestigatingofficerdidallthese
thingsandchalkedoutamasterplanastowhatevidencewouldbe
relevanttobooktheaccused.Inmyhumbleopinion,theprosecution
hasprovedtherecoveryofalltheabovedescribedarticlesfromthe
A9bythecogentandconsistentevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,
and Sanford Fernandes, PW31, which is corroborated by the
contents of the panchanama Ext.534 and the contemporaneous
record. This is the circumstance no. 21 proved by the
prosecution.ItisagainsttheA9.Itisthethirdcircumstanceagainst
him.
968.
Nextintimeistherecoveryon30/07/06fromthehouseof
theA10ofhispassport,similartypesofmapsaswerefoundinthe
housesearchoftheA3andA9andbooksallegedlyconnectedwith
SIMI,whichfollowedthesearchandseizureatthehouseof Abdul
Dawrey, PW71, the house of the wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan
Dawrey,bothatPune.TheevidenceofPSIGaikwad,PW169,about
thesearchandseizureatthehouseof AbdulDawrey,PW71,and
wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan Dawrey will be discussed
subsequently.SufficeittomentionthatthepanchanamaExt.758
about the search and seizure from the house of the A10 is in
JudgementMCOC21/06
..995..
Ext.4825
969.
PSIGaikwad,PW169,thenstatedaboutreturningtoMumbai,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..996..
Ext.4825
depositing all the seized articles with the muddemal clerk under
entryno.45/06inthemuddemalregisterandhemakingthestation
diary entry no. 1, true photocopy of which is at Ext. 1802, the
contentsofwhichheprovedandwhichcorroboratehisversion.The
evidence given by PSI Gaikwad, PW169, is corroborated by the
panch witness Alankar Mane, PW61, whose crossexamination is
notdiscreditedhisversioninanymanner.Headmittedthatonthe
coverofthebookArt.249(5)therearefaintwords'Mo.Akil'written
inhandandonthecoversofArt.249(1&2)thereisaprintedword
'Asia',aboutwhichhedoesnotknowastoinwhosehandwriting
theyare,whethertheywerewritten whenthe bookswereseized
andwhethertheywereseizedinCRNo.256/06ofPoliceStation
Kotwali,KhandwainApril,2006andwhetherthewordspointedout
abovearewrittenbythemtodistinctlyidentifytheaccusedcaught
inthatcase.Heemphaticallyturneddownthesuggestionthatthe
ATS police took out colour xerox copies of those books from the
KhandwaPoliceandplantedthemontheA10.Thiswasaridiculous
suggestionbecausehowcouldthewitnesshaveknownaboutit.He
candidlyadmittedthatnoarticlewassealedbyputtinglacandthe
seal of any police station and that the A10 did not make any
statement of disclosure of all these articles to the police in his
presence. He committed a mistake in further crossexamination
aboutthepanchanamabeingpreparedintheLashkarPoliceStation,
butsubsequentlycorrectedhimselfandclarifiedafterremembering
thatitwasnotwrittenthere.Hemadepositivestatementsthatthe
accusedwasveiledfromtheATSofficeitself,thatatboththepolice
JudgementMCOC21/06
..997..
Ext.4825
stationstheaccusedwassittingoutsideinthevehicleandalsostated
correctlyaboutthetimingsuptowhichhewasinthehouseofMohd.
Hussain Dawrey at the time of the first panchanama and at the
house of Abdul Dawrey, PW71, when asked during his cross
examinationandthisshowshishonesty.Healsocorrectlyanswered
andmadepositivestatementsthatA10wasnottakeninsideboth
thesehouses,wasinthevehicleatthattimewithaveilandthe
personfromthesecondhouse,i.e.,AbdulDawrey,PW71,hadcome
downwiththem.Hestatedthathewentinthehallandbedroomin
thefirsthouse,butnotinthekitchen,toiletandinthebathroom
andcandidlystatedthathedoesnotrememberwhetherthetoilet
andthebathroomwereadjacenttothekitchenortothebedroomor
to the hall, whether the doors of the kitchen and bedroom were
openinginthehall,etc.Allthisisinconsequentialandhemadea
positive statementthatthere was nogallerytothe hall,whichis
uncontroverted. He also specifically stated that signatures of the
inmatesofthe houseweretaken.This statementandthetimings
thathestatedarecorroboratedbythecontentsofthepanchanamas
Exts.756and757.InsofarasthesearchinthehouseoftheA10is
concerned,hestatedthattheyreachedthereatabout7.15or7.30
p.m.andwasthereforaboutonehour,whichiscorrectasperthe
contentsofthepanchanama.Hestatedthattheremayhavebeen
onlyoneroomandabathroomandatoiletbytheside,whichisnot
controvertedandhisinabilitytotellthemeasurementsofthatroom
orthedirectionsofthefrontdoororhowmanydoorswereopening
in that room, etc., is inconsequential and does not affect his
JudgementMCOC21/06
..998..
Ext.4825
evidence.Againapositivestatementthathemadeisthathesigned
ononelabelinthathouseandbeforesigningthelabelsatthetwo
earlierplacesalso,nopartsofthepanchanamawerewritten.While
headmittedthathehadseenthephotographonthepassportatthe
timeofhischiefexamination,heturneddownthesuggestionthat
therefore he identified the accused. He admitted that neither the
policenortheypanchassignedonthebooksandthexeroxcopiesof
thepassportArts.304to306,viz.,thoseofwantedaccusedRizwan
Dawrey.Otherthanthis,thereisnothinginhiscrossexaminationto
discredithisversion.Hewasaskedandheansweredthathehasnot
givenanyevidenceinanycourtbeforethatdayandhasnotactedas
a panch for the ATS before this. This witness has no criminal
antecedentsandnothingwasbroughtonrecordtoshowthathehas
anylinkswiththepoliceortheATSandwasanaccusedinanycase
oractedasapanchwitnessorwitnessinanycase.Thus,thereis
absolutelynoreasonwhyhisevidenceshouldnotbeacceptedand
believed.Ihave,therefore,nohesitationinacceptinghisevidenceas
a truthful one and corroborating the evidence of PSI Gaikwad,
PW169.Bytheirevidencebothhaveprovedthecontentsofallthe
three panchanamas, i.e., Exts. 756 to 758, the contents of which
corroboratetheirversion.
970.
searchandseizurefromparagraphs22to26bylearnedadvocate
WahabKhanandparagraphs41to45bylearnedadvocateShetty
hasnotrevealedanythingthatcoulddiscredithisversionorimpeach
hiscredibility.NothingwaspointedoutbylearnedadvocateWahab
JudgementMCOC21/06
..999..
Ext.4825
KhanforA10inrespectofhiscrossexaminationinrespectofthese
threepanchanamasthatwouldaffecthiscredibilityandfinallyhe
deniedthesuggestionthatthemapsandbookswerenotseizedfrom
thehouseoftheA10andthatthethreepanchanamaswereprepared
intheATSoffice.Inrespectoftheallegationofthedefencethatthe
books concerning SIMI are planted, he was given the similar
suggestions as were given to the panch witness Alankar Mane,
PW61,andhedeniedthem.Healsoadmittedaswasadmittedby
AlankarMane,PW61,thatnoarticlewassealedbyusinglacseal
andbrasssealatPune.Hiscrossexaminationinrespectofseizureof
CPU from the house of wanted accused Rizwan Dawrey is
inconsequential as no further evidence is led by the prosecution
aboutit.Thus,hiscrossexaminationdoesnotaffectthecredibility
ofhisversioninrespectofthesearchandseizureofthearticlesfrom
thehouseoftheA10.
971.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhanfortheA10submittedthatthe
A10 was in the custody of the police, but he has not made any
statement of disclosure and therefore the case of the prosecution
withrespecttohishousesearchisnotofexclusivepossessionand
admittedlyonthatdaynothingwassealedatthespotandtheyhave
put their case toboth the witnesses,which consists of the police
havingtakenphotocopiesofthebooksthatwereseizedbyKhandwa
Policeandplantedthemontheaccused.Inthisconnection,tomy
mind, it will not be out of place to point out that the A10 was
arrestedbytheATSon25/07/06underthepanchanamaExt.1937
alongwithA11andthehousesearchwastakenon30/07/06,i.e.,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1000..
Ext.4825
972.
Aridiculoussubmissionwasmadebylearnedadvocatethat
theprosecutionshouldhaveexplainedthesourceofthemaps.To
mymind,itisfortheaccusedtoexplainthesourceofthemaps.Itis
sufficientfortheprosecutiontoprovetheseizureofthemapsandto
trytoshowtheirrelevancewiththecaseoftheprosecution.Next
learnedadvocatecriticizedabouttakingofthepanchwitness,whois
aresidentofKalachowkiarea,thoughthepolicewantedtogoto
Puneforthesearchandthereisnopresearchpanchanamainthe
ATSoffice.NosuchsuggestionwasgiventoPSIGaikwad,PW169,
astowhyhedidnotprepareapresearchpanchanamaanddidnot
takepanchasfromPune.
973.
causedintheevidencegivenbyPSIGaikwad,PW169,inrespectof
hisevidenceaboutthesearchandseizureinthehouseoftheA10on
30/07/06.HisevidenceandtheevidenceofpanchwitnessAlankar
Mane, PW61, is corroborated by the evidence of Abdul Dawrey,
PW71,abouttheirvisittohishouseandtheseizureofSaudiRiyals
fromhimunderthepanchanamaExt.757,whichisinbetweenthe
panchanamasExts.756and758thatwerepreparedinthehouseof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1001..
Ext.4825
Mohd.HussainDawrey,fatherofwantedaccusedRizwanDawrey
andthesearchofthehouseoftheA10.Hence,itwillhavetobe
held that the prosecution has proved the search and seizure of
passportArt.251,Ext.621,mapofMumbai,Art.248,international
map,Art.250,i.e.,Ext.1489andbooksconnectedwithSIMI,Arts.
249(1to6)fromthehouseoftheA10underthepanchanamaExt.
758.Thisisthecircumstanceno.22provedbytheprosecution.
ItisagainsttheA10.Itisthesecondcircumstanceagainsthim.
974.
Nextintimeistherecoveryon31/07/06fromthehouseof
theA11ofhispassport,similartypeofmapsaswerefoundinthe
house search of the A3, A9 and A10 and similar books allegedly
connectedwithSIMIalongwithhismotordrivinglicence,ATMcard,
purse,etc.,asdescribedinparagraph99supra.Therelevantarticles
of the seizure are the passport of the A11, Art.133, Ext.619,
internationalmap,Art.134,Ext.1488,mapofMumbai,Art.137,Ext.
1664,motordrivinglicenceoftheA11Art.140,booksArts.135and
136,Exts.1678and1679respectively,booklettitledlatestroadmap
ofMumbaiandNaviMumbaiArt.138,Ext.1665andATMcardArt.
141.
975.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatACP
TawdedirectedPITonapi,PW155,totakethesearchofthehouseof
theA11andithascomeintheevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,that
heconductedthesearchasdirectedandwenttothehouseofthe
A11asperhisdirectionsandthenhedescribedtowhichhousethey
went,thenameplateonthatroom,thedoorbeingopenedbymother
of the accused, the accused leading them to a loft, opening a
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1002..
Ext.4825
976.
IthascomeintheevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,thathehad
directedtheSHOtomakestationdiaryentrieswhentheyleftthe
policestationforthepanchanamaandafterreturningbackandhe
provedthestationdiaryentriesno.16and18intheoriginalstation
diary, true photocopies of which are at Ext. 1666 (2 pages) the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1003..
Ext.4825
contentsofwhichcorroboratehisversion.Thisisanuncontroverted
and contemporaneous record. The panch witness Mukesh Jadhav,
PW30,haswithstoodthetestofcrossexaminationandnothingwas
revealedinhiscrossexaminationtodiscredithisversionaboutthe
factum of the search and seizure. Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 are
concerninghiseducation,theworkthathedoes,wherehestays,
etc.,andthoughhecouldnottellthenameofthebuildingwherehis
employer's office is situated or the phone number of that office,
thoughthereissomeissueabouthisoccupationinthepanchanama
being show as education and though he does not have any
documentary evidence to show that he was working with a
contractorofBMCforremovalofencroachment,thesethingsdonot
affecthisunimpeachedevidenceaboutthesearchandseizure.He
wasabletotelltheroutebywhichtheywenttothehouseofthe
accusedandhecouldalsotellthedescriptionoftheroomonthe
groundfloorandthesizeoftheloft.Hecorrectlyadmittedthatthe
cupboard and the drawer from which the accused took out the
articleswasnotlocked.Itisnotthecaseoftheprosecutionthatthe
cupboardandthedrawerwaslocked.Heexpressedhisignorance
whetherthepolicewerecarryinganybagwiththemandfromwhere
theybroughttheplasticbag,envelopesandpackingmaterial,butfor
thisPITonapi,PW155,hasexplainedthattheyhadnotkeptthe
investigationkitinthevehicle,butwerecarryingitwiththemand
hecandidlyadmittedthatitisnotwritteninthepanchanamathat
thepanchaswereofferedtheirsearchesandofthevehicleandthey
sawonlyinvestigationkitcontainingthearticlesdescribedbyhim
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1004..
Ext.4825
andfurtheradmittedthatitwasimportant,butitremainedtobe
written.Thereisnofurthersuggestiontohimafterobtainingthis
admissionandthereforeitisofnousetothedefence,butitshows
theexplanationgivenbyhim.MukeshJadhav,PW30,alsocandidly
admittedthathedidnotpersonallyopenthemapsandseethem
andthereforedoesnotknowwherethemarkingsweredoneand
wherethelinesweredrawnonthemap.However,hedeniedthe
suggestionthatpolicedidnotshowhimthepointswheretherewere
markingsandthelinesthereonthoughheadmittedthathedidnot
understand the spots shown by the police. There is considerable
crossexaminationtohiminrespectofthebooksArts.135and136
astowhethertheyareoriginal,whethertheycontainallthepages,
whetheritisnotacompletebook,whethertheyarestapledornot,
etc.Headmittedthatatmanyplacesinthebooksthesentencesare
underlinedandhesawtheunderlinesforthefirsttimethatisinthe
court, but cannot say who did the underline and when. These
admissionshavebeentakenadvantagebythedefence,becausein
thenextsuggestionheadmittedthattheunderlineappearstobea
photocopy.Whateveritisthefactremainsthatthebookscontainhis
signature and the signature of the other panch and PI Tonapi,
PW155.Ofcourse,hedeniedthesuggestionthatthebookswere
notseizedfromthehouseoftheA11,buttheywerefoistedonhim
bythepoliceandtheirsignaturesweretakenonthecoverslateron.
In respect of the ATM card Art. 141 some more clarification has
come out in his crossexamination, viz., that the full name Z A
LatifurRehmaniswrittenonitandthatheadmittedthatpolicedo
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1005..
Ext.4825
notmakeanyinquiryaboutthepersonbythatname.Itisobviously
theA11whosenameisZameerAhmedLatifurRehmanShaikh.
977.
OnlyissueaboutMukeshJadhav,PW30,ishisanswerinitially
inthecrossexaminationthathehasneverworkedaspanchwitness
foranyotherpanchanamaandhissubsequentanswerinparagraph
13thatafterthispanchanamahehadactedasapanchwitnesstwice
inthecasesoftheATSatKalachowki,doesnotrememberthename
ofthepoliceofficerswhohadcalledhim,butremembersthedates,
i.e., 08/01/10 and 23/04/10, and what the panchanama dtd.
08/01/10 was about but could not tell the nature of the
panchanamadtd.23/04/10.Itwassubmittedduringthearguments
by learned advocate Shetty that this shows that the witness is a
regularpanchoftheATSandthereforehisevidenceisnotrelevant.
However, this submission is ignoring the fact that the said two
occasions of he having acted as panch witness for the ATS are
subsequenttothispanchanamawhichisof2006.Thus,hehasno
antecedents of having acted as panch witness before this
panchanama.Noothercriminalantecedentsorlinkswiththepolice
are also shown. He denied the suggestion that before giving
evidencepolicegavethepanchanamatohimintheofficeandhe
wastutoredandalsodeniedthesuggestionthatasthepolicedidnot
tutorhimaboutsubsequenttwopanchanamas,hecannottellabout
theircontents.Thisisnotfactuallycorrectbecausehehaddescribed
whathadhappenedatthetimeofpanchanamadtd.08/01/10.Thus,
his evidencehas remainedunshakenanditfullycorroboratesthe
evidenceofPITonapi,PW155.Theevidenceofboththesewitnesses
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1006..
Ext.4825
iscorroboratedbythecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.527.
978.
Now,insofarasthecrossexaminationofPITonapi,PW155,in
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1007..
Ext.4825
whythesearticleswerenotwithhimandwhyhehadkeptthemin
his house. Even assuming that these things were found in his
personalsearchwhenhewasarrestedandwerenotrecordedinhis
arrestpanchanama,buttheirrecoverywasshownfromhishouse,
whataboutpassportandtheATMcard?AnIndiancitizendoesnot
carryhispassportwithhimwheneverhemovesaroundinIndia.His
crossexaminationinparagraphs26and27isinconsequentialand
he made positive statements that he went to the house of the
accusedtoseewhetherhecouldfindanyincriminatingarticleinhis
house.He was alsocrossexamined about the pages of the books
Arts.135and136,i.e.,Exts.1678and1679,whetherthecoversand
pagesarephotocopies,whethertheunderlininginsomepagesare
the photocopies, about which he stated that it may be offset
printingalsoandhefranklystatedthatthebookscannotbestatedto
beoriginalbooksasheunderstandsthemonthepointsofprinting,
binding,etc.Allthisisnotsomaterialandhedeniedthesuggestion
thatthetwobookswerenotfoundinthehouseoftheA11andhe
plantedthem.Thus,excepttheissueaboutthevehiclenothaving
gonetoWorliandthelogbookentrynotcontaininghisname,his
crossexaminationhasnotdiscreditedhisversioninanymanner.
979.
learnedadvocateShettyfortheA11submittedduringhisarguments
thatthisisthemostunnaturalpieceofevidencewhichcannotbe
accepted,astheArts.139to144whichtheyfoundinthehouseof
theA11cannotbetherebecausethesearethearticlesthataman
carrieswithhimwhenhemovesout.Thisveryfactitselfissufficient
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1008..
Ext.4825
toshowthatthehousesearchhadnottakenplaceandthesearethe
concocted materials created by the prosecution to involve the
accusedinthecrime.Ihavealreadyexplainedthisearlierthatthere
is no explanation about the finding of the passport, which is a
personaldocumentandnotnormallycarriedbyapersonwithhim
whenhemovesaroundinIndia.Itisalsoobservedthatitisforthe
accusedtoexplainwhyhekeptthesearticlesinhishouse.
980.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatthebooksthatareseizedare
incompleteandareobviouslycolourphotocopiesandthisshowsthat
theyhavebeenplanted.Tomymind,iftheATSwantedtoplantthe
books,theycouldhaveveryeasilyplantedthecompletebooks.The
booksandthemapscontainthesignaturesofthepanchasandthe
investigatingofficer.Thuswhateverwasfoundhasbeenproduced.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthattheprosecutionhasnotbroughtout
anythingtoshowthatunderwhatcircumstanceandwhatmaterial
in the books are detrimental to the integrity of the nation and
whetheritisposingdangertothenation.Theprosecutionhasalso
not shown the nexus of these books tothe incidentand had not
shown the origin of the books. To my mind, obviously the
prosecutionissimplyrelyingontheseizureofthebookspurportedly
issuedbyoronbehalfoftheSIMIorganisationafteritwasbanned
in2001.Whetherornotitcontainsmaterialthatisdetrimentalto
the integrity of the nation, etc., is a matter to be considered
subsequently. Insofar as their seizure is concerned, it has been
provedbycogentevidence.
981.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1009..
Ext.4825
982.
Learnedadvocatenextsubmitsthatinnormalcircumstances
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1010..
Ext.4825
983.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatinthisconnectiontheaccused
has examined himself before the court and has given plausible
explanation and by his evidence he has falsified the prosecution
evidence about the police visiting his house on that day. On the
contrary,hehadgiventheevidencethathewaspickedupfromhis
shop on 21/07/06 and from then till 25/07/06 he was illegally
detainedandwhentheCrimeBranchhadpickedhimuptheyhad
seized all his articles like purse, motor driving licence and
everythingwhichisultimatelyshowntobeseizedduringhishouse
search. This justifies the defence that the conduct of the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1011..
Ext.4825
984.
Lastly,andthemostagitatedpointisabouttheentryinthelog
bookofthevehicleMH01BA4328,i.e.,Exts.1676and1677,not
showing that the vehicle had gone to Worli on that day and not
containingthenameofPITonapi.Thesubmissionsinthisrespectby
thelearnedSPPcamepracticallyatthefagendofhissubmissions
abouttheentirecaseandaboutthesaidlogbookentryhesubmitted
thattheonlydrawbackisthatthevehiclenumberthatismentioned
in the panchanama does not match with the log book entries
broughtbytheaccusedandsubmittedthatthefactthatthepassport
oftheA11wasrecoveredortakenchargeunderthispanchanamaby
whichheisconnectedtothesomewitnesses,i.e.,PW43,PW44and
PW46,showsthehonestyoftheinvestigation.Hesubmittedthat
withrespecttothisentrytheremaybesomehonestmistakeandhe
ismakinghissubmissionwhenheisalmostatthefagendofhis
submissionsanditisforthefirsttimethathesaysthatthismaybe
anhonesterror.Hesubmitsthatitisnotthateveryshortfallinthe
evidenceisbeingtriedtobejustifiedbyclaimingittobeanerror.
ButifthequalityoftheevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,andMukesh
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1012..
Ext.4825
Jadhav,PW30,isappreciatedandifthesameinspiresconfidence
thenthecourtmayconsiderthatalogbookisneverconsideredasa
sacrosanctdocumentandmerelybecauseaparticularentrydoesnot
match,itwillbedisastroustodiscardtheentireevidencein that
behalf and that would be opposed to the standard norms of
appreciationofevidencebecauseultimatelythiscourthastoweigh
theevidence.Thesesubmissionsaretothepointandacceptable.The
truephotocopyofthelogbookentryofthesaidvehicleExt.1677
was obtained by the A11 under the RTI Act and it has not been
provedbycallingthepersonwhohadcertifieditorbycallingthe
personwhohadmadetheentriestherein.Tomymind,absenceof
mention in the log book entry about the vehicle having gone to
Worli on that day will not displace the oral and documentary
evidenceledbytheprosecutionaboutthesearchandseizure.There
isnoquestionofnameofanyparticularofficerbeingmentionedin
theentryashavingusedthatvehicle,becauseitisalreadyexplained
thatthevehiclesareallottedtoparticularofficersanditisonlytheir
names that are written in the column. As against this, there is
uncontrovertedcontemporaneousrecordofthestationdiaryentry
Ext.1666.Hence,asissubmittedbythelearnedSPP,theremayhave
beenanhonestmistakeofwritingthenumberofthatvehicleinthe
panchanama or to my mind the driver of the vehicle may have
omitted to make the entry about the vehicle being taken by PI
Tonapi,PW155,toWorli.Onlythisaspectthereforewillnotaffect
theentireevidencegivenbytheprosecution.
985.
LearnedSPPhasalsosubmittedthattheATSwasnotafully
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1013..
Ext.4825
constitutedbodyatthattime.Itwasnothomogeneous,officersfrom
variousbrancheswerecalled.Therecoveryofbooks,maps,etc.,was
ataveryinitialstageandatthattimetheentirestorywasnotclear
even to the investigating agency. So how could there be any
fabricationorplantingofevidence?Ihave observedinrespectof
similarrecoveriesfromtheotheraccusedthattheserecoverieswere
quiteearlyinpointoftimeaftertheblastsandafterthearrestofthe
accusedandonesingleinvestigatingofficeroutofsevencouldnot
have crafted a master plan visualizing what evidence would be
requiredtoconnecttheaccusedinterseandtoprovetheconspiracy
byrecoveryofsimilararticles.Infactasmentionedearlieruptonow
there was recovery of one printed map of Mumbai and one
photocopyofinternationalmapfromtheotheraccused.However,
from the A11 one more map has been recovered, i.e., Art. 138,
whichisaroadmapofMumbaiandNaviMumbai.
986.
Inviewoftheabovediscussionitwillhavetobeheldthatthe
evidencegivenbyPITonapi,PW155,andpanchwitness Mukesh
Jadhav,PW30,is a cogentand convincing evidence andbytheir
evidence and by the contents of the panchanama Ext. 527, the
prosecutionhasprovedtheseizureofpassport,drivinglicenceand
ATMCard,Art.133,i.e.,Ext.619,Art.140andArt.141respectively
of the A11, alongwith the international map, Art. 134, i.e., Ext.
1488,mapofMumbai,Art.137,i.e.,Ext.1664,booksconnected
withSIMIArts.135and136,i.e.,Exts.1678and1679androad
mapofMumbaiandNaviMumbaiArt.138,i.e.,Ext.1665. Thisis
thecircumstanceno.23provedbytheprosecution.Itisagainst
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1014..
Ext.4825
A11.Itisthefirstcircumstanceagainsthim.
987.
Nextintimeistherecoveryon01/08/06attheinstanceof
theA2inpursuanceofhisdisclosurestatementExt.484fromthe
house of his brother of map of Mumbai Art. 42, eight books
connectedwithSIMI,Arts.43(1and2),44(1to4),47and48and
international map Art. 116, i.e., Ext. 1490, as are described in
paragraph101supraunderthepanchanamaExt.485.
988.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatA2
expressedhis desiretomakeavoluntarystatementwhenhewas
taken out for inquiry on 01/08/06, therefore, he prepared the
memorandumExt.484ofhisstatementinthepresenceofthepanch
witnessesRohitWarang,PW19,andonemoreandthenstartedfor
goingtotheplacethattheaccusedwasgoingtoshowandforthat
purposemadestationdiaryentryno.14,truephotocopyofwhichis
atExt.1955.Ithascomeinhisevidencethattheyhadtakenpacking
materialwiththemandontheiraskingthepanchashadtakentheir
searchesandthesearchofthevehicleandtheyproceededwiththe
A2inveil,wenttohishousefirstwheretheA2calledhismother
andobtainedthekeyofthehouseofhisbrotherandthenledthem
toanotherbuilding,whichheinformedasPilaMahalandledthem
totheroomno.35onthesecondfloor,openedthelockwiththekey
anddeclinedtotaketheirandpanchassearcheswhenasked.Ithas
come in his evidence that the accused produced one map of
Mumbai,oneinternationalmapandbooks,whichheseizedunder
the panchanama Ext. 485 after signing on both the maps. He
deposedastohowthebooksandthemapswerepackedandlabeled
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1015..
Ext.4825
andaboutthecontentsofthemaps.Ithascomeinhisevidencethat
theroomwaslockedafterthepanchanamawasoveranditskeywas
giventothemotheroftheaccused,whohadcomethereandher
statementwasrecordedandthentheyreturnedtothepolicestation
wherestationdiaryentryno.16wasmade,truephotocopyofwhich
isatExt.1956.Ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationthatthesaid
stationdiaryentrywasmadebyhimanditisinhishandwriting.
989.
Hisevidenceiscorroboratedbytheevidenceofpanchwitness
990.
ThecrossexaminationofSr.PIRathod,PW176,bylearned
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1016..
Ext.4825
advocateWahabKhanfortheA2inparagraphs109and110hasnot
revealedanythingthatwouldaffecthisevidenceaboutthesearch
andseizure.Hisevidenceinchiefexaminationissimpleandclean.
He admitted that the accused did not disclose anything to him
before01/08/06andwhenaskedtogothroughthestationdiary
entryExt.1955headmittedthatitisnotwrittenthattheywere
leaving as per the statement made by the accused. However, he
clarifiedthatitisnotnecessarythatthisshouldbementionedinthe
stationdiary.Hewascrossexaminedinrespectofthebooksandhe
couldnotsaywhethertheyarecolouredphotocopies,thathedid
notinquireaboutitanddidnotfeelthattheprinterwhosename
was on the books should be made an accused. However, he
remembersthataninquirywasmadeandanoffencewasregistered
atDelhiandBhopalagainstthepublisher.Healsoadmittedthathe
didnotsendthebookstoanyexperttoascertainwhethertheyare
original or colour photocopies. I do not see any meaning in this
becausewhatisseizedisseized.Healsoadmittedthathedidnot
usebrasssealforsealingthepacketsanddidnotcallforbrassseal
fromthelocalpolicestation.Heexpressedignoranceastowhether
theoriginalofthesaidbookswereseizedbyKotwaliPoliceStation,
KhandwainC.R.No.256/06on16/04/06andwhetherthenames
oftheaccusedfromwhomtheywereseizedwerewrittenonthe
books.Heemphaticallydeniedthesuggestionthatthebooksthathe
statedtobeseizedfromtheA2arethecolourphotocopiesofthose
books, that the coloured photocopies of the books seized by the
Khandwapolicewereobtainedandplantedontheaccused.Except
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1017..
Ext.4825
thiscrossexaminationthereisnoothercrossexaminationtoSr.PI
Rathod, PW176, and not a single question was asked about the
seizureofthemapsoraboutthepanchwitness.Ihavementioned
thisparticularlyatthisstagebecausethereissomeagitationabout
somewhat inconsistent evidence given by Rohit Warang, PW19.
Thus the evidence of Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, is a totally
unimpeached evidence and nothing is revealed in his cross
examination to discredit it in any manner. The contents of the
memorandum and the panchanama corroborate his evidence and
theevidenceofthepanchwitnessandthecontemporaneousrecord
inthenatureofstationdiaryentriesinExts.1955and1956prove
thefactofthesearchandseizure.Insofarasthecaseputuptohim
about coloured photocopies of books seized by Khandwa police
beingplantedontheaccused,Iwilltakeupthatissuesubsequently.
Insofar as the seizure of the books is concerned, Sr. PI Rathod,
PW176's evidence is in itself sufficient to prove that the A2 had
giventhevoluntarystatementaswellasthemapsandthebooks
wereseizedathisinstanceafterheproducedthem.
991.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhancriticizedthefactumoftheA2
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1018..
Ext.4825
Indianfilmasiftosearchforatreasureandinthesamefashionina
Hindimovietheypreservethemap.Hesubmitsthatitappearstobe
oneofthestrategyoftheinvestigatingmachinery,becausenowa
days we find that they are involved in such type of activity. He
referredtotheattackonMumbaion26/11/08andsubmittedthat
inrespectofthetwoaccusedwhowereacquitted,thestoryofmaps
foundwiththemwasnotbelieved.Similarly,therewasanallegation
in that case that the map contained handwriting of some of the
accusedwhichalsoshowsacommonstrategy.Hesubmitsthatheis
onthepointofconduct.Tomymind,themaps,moreparticularly
theinternationalmapArt.116,Ext.1490,werefoundimmediately
afterthearrest.Therewasnotimeandnoreasonforconcoctionby
the investigating machinery. Crime No. 76 of 2006 of Mumbai
CentralRailwayPoliceStationwasbeingindependentlyinvestigated
by Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, and this voluntary disclosure and the
consequentseizurefromtheA2tookplacewithinsevendaysfrom
thedateofthearrestoftheA2on24/07/06bytheATS.Bymaking
thesubmissionabouttheinternationalmapbeingretainedforalong
period from the date of return from Iran upto the date of the
seizure,learnedadvocateispresumingthattheinternationalmap
wasgiventotheA2whenhehadgonetoIranandfromthereto
Pakistan.Evenifitissoaccepted,thepossibilitycannotberuledout
thatsuchtypeofmapsmayhavebeenretainedtohelpnewrecruits
whoweretobesentfortrainingtoPakistan.Thus,noinferencecan
bedrawnthatthepossessionofthemapisanimprobablething.
992.
LearnedadvocatenextsubmitsthatamanhasgonetoIran
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1019..
Ext.4825
oneortwoorthreeyearsbeforeandhasreturnedbackforwhichhis
passportistheevidenceandnotthemapwhichtheATShasplanted
toshowtherecovery.Tomymind,iftheATSreallywantedtocreate
theevidencebyplantingsuchtypeofmap,whyitdidsoinrespect
of4or5accusedonlyandnotforallaccused.Learnedadvocate
submitsfurtherthatthemapisnotreferredtointheconfessionsof
theaccusedisagainaridiculoussubmissionbecausetheconfession
isgivenbytheaccusedandifatallasallegedbytheaccused,the
confessionisalsoafabricatedone,thentherewasnoproblemfor
the investigating machinery to introduce this aspect in the
confessionsalso.HesubmittedfurtherthattheATSwasnothavinga
sealon01/08/06andtheyalsodidnotusethesealofanyother
policestationbuthewillpointoutsubsequentlythattheprosecution
has produced the articles in sealed condition. This submission is
factuallyincorrectbecausethepacketsthatwereshowntothepanch
witnessRohitWarang,PW19,beforetheywereopenedwerenotin
sealedcondition,butonlytiedwithwhitethreadacrossandpasted
withlabelcontainingthesignaturesoftheinvestigatingofficerand
panchas.Learnedadvocatefurthersubmitsthatonthedayofthe
arrestoftheA2hisaddresswasknowntotheATSandwithoutany
disclosurebyhimtheyhadtakenthehousesearchthereforetheir
claim that they came to know for the first time on 01/08/06 is
improbable. Similarly, illegal detention of the A2 vitiates the
voluntarynatureofthedisclosure.soalso,thedelayfrom24/07/06
to01/08/06alsovitiatesthevoluntarynatureofthedisclosure.He
againrepeatedhissubmissionthattherewasnoreasontotheA2to
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1020..
Ext.4825
preservethemapfortwoyearsafterreturningfromIranin2004
onlyfortheATStorecoverit,whichonthefaceofit,isunnatural.
Tomymind,thehousesearchoftheA2wasdoneimmediatelyon
thenextdayofhisarrestandinthisrespectSr.PIRathod,PW176,
whencrossexaminedastowhethertheaccusedmadeanystatement
ofdisclosurepriorto01/08/06,hisexplanationaboutitclearsthis
aspectandshowsthatinfactthereisnodelay.Ithascomeinhis
crossexaminationinparagraph104thattheyhaddecidedtogofor
thehousesearchoftheA2on25/07/06,butcouldnotgoonthat
day,therefore,theywentonthenextdayandtheyhadnotintended
tospecificallygoforseizinghispassport,butthatwasoneofthe
thingsthatwastobedoneduringtheseizurebecauseA2hadstated
earlierthathehadtornandthrownit.Headmittedthathestated
thisforthefirsttimebutdeniedthatitisnotmentionedinthecase
diary and when he was asked to go through the case diary of
25/07/06,hewentthroughitandstatedthatitissomentionedin
thecasediaryofthatdate.Thishasbeenmentionedearlieralsoand
in paragraph 120 of the crossexamination while answering the
question as to whether the accused were cooperating with the
inquiry, he gave a very specific answer that the accused were
misleadingthem,theywerenotgivingtheentireinformationatone
stretch,butweregivingitbitbybit.Thisexplainswhythevoluntary
disclosurewasmadebytheA2afteraperiodofsevendaysafterhis
arrestandinfactitcannotbesaidtobeadelay.Itmustbetheresult
ofsustainedinterrogationandinquiry.
993.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1021..
Ext.4825
confessionshowsthatthemanwasreceivedbyhandtohandand
thereforetherewasnoreasonforhimtobegivenamaportocarry
it, is also not an acceptable submission in view of the fact that
confessionsaregivenbytheaccused.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthat
thepanchanamadoesnotshowthattwoenvelopesorbundleswere
prepared for wrapping the books and the maps, but the panch
witnesswasshowntwopackets.Tomymind,thepanchanamaalso
doesnotshowthatthebooksaswellasthemapswerewrappedin
one packet and Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, as well as Rohit Warang,
PW19, have identified their signatures on the labels and on two
brown paper packets. Learned advocate further submits that the
panchanama shows seizure of eight books whereas the reopening
panchanama Ext. 566 prepared by Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, shows
thatsixbooksweretakenoutfromthepacketcontainingthearticles
seizedfromtheA2.Thereisnocrossexaminationonthispointto
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,whodidnotstateaboutthenumberofbooks
whiledeposingaboutthesaidpanchanamaExt.566.However,heas
wellasRohitWarang,PW19,haveidentifiedeightbooksandthere
mayhavebeenagenuinemistakeinwritingthenumberofbooksin
thepanchanamaExt.566.
994.
PW19,submittingthatinitiallyon21/07/10hedeniedhavingacted
aspanchwitness before 01/08/06andeven thereafter andwhen
specifically askedabout a particular case of NIAand a statement
made by an accused before him on 17/05/09, he has denied it.
However,hiscrossexaminationwasdeferredbyanapplicationand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1022..
Ext.4825
itwascontinuedaftermorethanfivemonthsandon07/01/11he
admitted that he was called in the ATS office for preparation of
memorandumpanchanamaofRaviDhirenGhoshinafakecurrency
case and DSP Ravi Gambhir of NIA had taken his statement on
10/10/09.Hesubmitsthatthisshowsthatthewitnesswaslyingon
oathanditcannotbeacoincidencethatheisevenconnectedwith
PIKhanvilkar,PW168.Forthispurposeheplacedhisrelianceonthe
certified copies of the panchanama in Sessions Case No. 674/09
issuedbytheCityCivilCourtandthecertifiedcopyofhisstatement
dtd.10/10/09.Thecertifiedcopyofthepanchanamashowsthatit
is dated 17/05/09. Hence, it is obviouslyafter a periodof about
three years after Rohit Warang, PW19, having acted as a panch
witness in this case. This also shows that as on 01/08/06 Rohit
Warang,PW19,hadnocriminalantecedentsandnothinghasbeen
broughtonrecordtoshowthathehadanylinksorwasconnected
withanypoliceofficerorasactedasapanchwitness.Itmaybethat
hewastakenasapanchwitnesslateron,butthatdoesnotaffecthis
evidenceinthiscase.
995.
LearnedadvocatesubmittedthatitisinthepanchanamaExt.
485aswellasdeposedbySr.PIRathod,PW176,thattheaccused
liftedaTVthatwaskeptonasewingmachinetableandtookout
somebooksandmapsfromthecardboardbelowit,however,Rohit
Warang,PW19,issayingthattheaccusedtookoutthemapsand
thebooksfromthebagthatwasbythesideofthesewingmachine
andinhiscrossexaminationhestoodfirmtohisstatement.Tomy
mind,hisfurtheranswerthathedoesnotrememberwhetherthere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1023..
Ext.4825
wasacardboardbelowtheTVandbooksweretakenoutbelowthe
cardboardexplainsthatheissomewhatconfusedastofromwhat
placethemapsandthebooksweretakenout.Againfurtherwhile
explaininghisinabilitytotellastowhyitisnotmentionedinthe
panchanamathatthebooksweretakenoutfromthebag,hestated
thathehadstatedwhateverheremembered.Thus,thisaspectwill
notaffectthissearchandseizuremoreparticularlywhenheaswell
asSr.PIRathod,PW176,havespecificallyidentifiedalltheeight
booksandthereisnocrossexaminationtoSr.PIRathod,PW176,
onthispointthoughhegaveevidenceaboutpreparingpanchanama
Ext.566.
996.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatby
thecogentandunimpeachedevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,and
the corroborating evidence of Rohit Warang, PW19, and the
contentsofmemorandumExt.484andtheseizurepanchanamaExt.
485,theprosecutionhasprovedtheseizureofmapofMumbai,Art.
42, international map Art.116, i.e., Ext. 1490 and the books as
described above from the A2. This is the circumstance no. 24
proved by the prosecution. It is against A2. It is the fifth
circumstanceagainsthim.
Defencecaseaboutseizureofbooksofbannedorganisation
fromaccused:
997.
Itisallegedbythedefencethatthebooksallegedlyconnected
withSIMIorganisationseizedfromtheA2,A3,A9,A10andA11are
the colour photocopies of the books that were seized from some
accusedbypoliceofKhandwaPoliceStation,MadhyaPradeshinC.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1024..
Ext.4825
R.No.256/06on16/04/06andwereplantedontheaccused.Itwill
notbeoutofplacetopointoutinitiallythatsuggestionsaboutthis
weregiventoSr.PIRathod,PW176,inrespectoftheseizurefrom
theA2underthepanchanamaExt.485,toPSIGaikwad,PW169,in
respectofseizurefromtheA10underthepanchanamaExt.758and
toPITonapi,PW155,inrespectoftheseizurefromA11underthe
panchanamaExt.527,whichtheyturneddown.However,nosuch
suggestion was given to Sr. PIRathod, PW176, in respect of the
seizureofsimilarbooksfromtheA3andA9underthepanchanamas
Exts. 533 and 534 respectively. Learned advocate Wahab Khan
submitted that the books are seized in the Khandwa crime and
Mohd.AkilandAsiyaarethenamesoftheaccusedinthecrimefrom
whom the books are seized. It is his case that names of those
accusedwerewrittenonthebookstoshowfromwhomparticular
bookswereseizedanditisalsotheircasethatcolourxeroxwere
obtainedbythe ATSandplantedontheaccusedinthis case.He
submitsthatnoneoftheaccusedinthiscasearechargesheetedin
thecrimeatKhandwa.Therefore,itcanbesaidthattheircasethat
the books seized from this case are the colour photocopies is
substantiated.Thedefenceisnotrequiredtoprovethisfactbeyond
reasonabledoubt.TheinvestigatingofficerofKhandwacrimeisa
witness in this case, but he is dropped by the prosecution. He
submitsthatthedefenceteamofthatcaseisnotrequiredtoputthe
caseofthepresentaccusedtothewitnessinthatcase.Onethingis
clearthatthebooksintheKhandwacrimeaswellasinthiscrime
are the same, i.e., the original and colour xerox, and therefore
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1025..
Ext.4825
adverseinferencebedrawnfornonexaminationofKhandwaofficer.
HesubmitsthattheA4whilegivingevidencehasdeposedaboutthis
andACPPatil,PW186,wasconfrontedwiththebooks,theyhave
notbeensenttotheFSLforascertainingwhethertheyareoriginal
orcolourphotocopies.
998.
paragraph76whereinhehasstatedaboutKhandwapolicecoming
to the ATS office on 26/07/06 with an accused, that they had
broughtmanybookswiththemandshowedhimonebyoneand
askedhimwhetherhehadprintedthemandthenitishisevidence
thatPIDineshAhirtookthosebooksandaskedaconstabletoget
their photocopies. Subsequently, he deposed about obtaining the
certifiedtruecopiesofthecoverpagesofthemagazinesthatwere
recoveredinthecase.HealsodeposedabouttheKhandwapolice
askinghimwhetherheknewthepersonbynameAshiya,Rafia,Akil
andNaeem.HiscrossexaminationonthisaspectbythelearnedSPP
inparagraphs115and116hasrevealedthathehasnotstatedasto
whetherKhandwapoliceshowedhimtheoriginalbooks,thoughhe
deniedthatheisnotinapositiontosayso.Itisveryclearfromhis
admission thathe hadnooccasion toseethe originalbooksthat
wereseizedinthatcase.Headmittingthathecametoknowfrom
thechargesheet(i.e.,thechargesheetinthiscase)aboutC.R.No.
256/06registeredatPoliceStationKhandwagoestoshowthatthe
investigating machinery has not hidden any aspect of their
investigation.Headmittedthathehasgonethroughthecopiesof
the panchanama andthe deposition,butnotthoroughly,however
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1026..
Ext.4825
copiesofthepanchanamaarenotproducedinthiscase.Hedoesnot
rememberwhetheraspertheallegationsinthatcase,objectionable
SIMIliteraturewasrecoveredandthoughheadmittedthatthereare
morethanoneaccusedinthatcase,hedoesnotknowwhetherthere
wasrecoveryofbooksfromeveryaccused.Outofthecoverpagesof
thebooksExt.3226to3231,headmittedthattwobooksaretitled
'TehrikEMillat' and one book is titled 'SIMI' and when asked
whethersuchbooksarethesubjectmatterofthepresentcasehe
statedthatcopiesofsuchbooksarethesubjectmatter.Thiswillbe
an aspect to be gone into when the prosecution case about the
accused being members of SIMI will be considered. ACP Patil,
PW186, admitted in his crossexamination that statement of PSI
GhanshyamMalviyaofKhandwawashandedovertohimbyoneof
hissubordinates,butdoesnotrememberwhetherhehasproduced
samplesofsomeliteratureseizedintheircase,whetherthecasewas
in connection with C. R. No. 256/06 of Kotwali Police Thana,
Khandwadtd.16/04/06against13accusedpersonsincludingAsia
and Akil, whether he was informed that the names of these two
accusedwerewrittenonthebookstoidentifyastofromwhomthe
bookswererecoveredandhadgivensamplecolourphotocopiesof
thebookswhenhegavestatement.Hemadeapositivestatement
thattheATSofficershadnotgiventhesamplecolourphotocopiesof
thebookstohimsayingthattheyhadreceivedthemfromthesaid
witness. When confronted with the book Art. 136, Ext. 1679, he
could not say whether it is a colour photocopy or that it is not
original or that original of the book is seized in the crime at
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1027..
Ext.4825
Khandwaandcannotsaywhetherthewritingbelowtheword'asiya'
isthesignatureoftheconcernedaccused.Now,thoughhedidnot
deny,butonlyexpressedhisinabilitytosaywhetherallthebooks
that have been seized in this case are the photocopies or the
originals,hispositivestatementsincrossexaminationthathehad
investigatedinconnectionwiththeprintingofthesaidbooksand
his officers had gone to Makbara Police Station, Kotta, Rajasthan
and had come to know that a case had been registered there in
connection with the printing and publishing of the said books,
throwslightonthethoroughinvestigationdonebytheATSandalso
showsthatthecaseputupbythedefenceisnotcorrect.Hedenied
thesuggestionthathedidnotfileanydocumentsinconnectionwith
thesaidinvestigationandsubmittedthathehasfiledthestatement
ofofficerofMakbaraPoliceStationandacopyoftheFIR.These
documents are in the bunch of additional documents that are
producedsubsequently.
999.
Inconnectionwiththisallegationofthedefence,learnedSPP
submitsthattheaspectshouldbeappreciatedthatevenifthereisa
writtenwordonthebooks,thepersonwhoisdistributingitmay
haveputhisorhernameonitandquestionsastowhetherisitnot
possiblethatcopiesofthebookswillgototenpeople?Secondly,the
personwhoreceivesacopymaymakesomemorecopiesandfurther
distribute them particularly as the books contain objectionable
materialandarenoteasilyavailabletoall.Hesubmitsthatevenifit
isassumedforthesakeofargumentsthatinonecopythesignature
is made by the person from whose possession the copy was
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1028..
Ext.4825
recovered,hequestionsastowhetheritisnotpossibleforthesame
persontoputthesamenameorinitialsonwhatevercopieshemay
otherwise have and inspite of the registration of the offence and
seizureofthebookshemaycontinuewiththedistributionofthe
copies. He submits that whatever documents are produced by
obtainingcertifiedcopieswouldnotindicatethatthecopywastaken
fromtheexhibitinthatcourtanditwasanoriginalbookcontaining
theoriginalsignature.Hesubmitsthatthiscompletelyexplainsthat
the submissions of the learned advocate for the accused are
fallaciouswhenhesaysthatcolourphotocopieswereobtainedfrom
theKhandwapoliceandplantedontheaccused.Hesubmitsthatthe
handwritten word is not found on every book that is seized and
thereisanotherhandwrittenword'Mo.'onArt.249(5)andifwhat
the defence says is correct then there would have been absolute
similarities.Hesubmitsthatthelongandshortofhissubmissionsis
thatmerelyonthebasisofthesignatureornameonthebooksthat
arebeforethiscourt,itdoesnotmakeoutthecasethattheyare
taken out from the seized articles in the Khandwa court for the
purpose of planting them in this case, because there would be a
presumptionthatthejudicialrecordthatismaintainedinthatcourt
would not be allowed to be accessed or tampered. To this
submission,Iputaqueryastowhethertheycouldnothavebeen
obtained from the investigating machinery? Learned SPP replied
that then this must be established and posed a question as to
whethertheofficerofapolicestationwouldriskhisjobbyallowing
anyone to take copies of books that he had seized and the basic
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1029..
Ext.4825
1000. ThelearnedSPPthenreferredtothecontentsofthecopyof
theapplicationgivenbytheA4undertheRTIAct,i.e.,Art.415and
submittedthatsince heis referring toits contents,the courtwill
receiveitinevidence.Hepointedouttotheitemno.4inparagraph
(3)(iii)ofthesaidapplicationandsubmittedthattheA4hadasked
fortheinformationastowhetherthenameoftheaccusedAsiyaand
hissignatureonthemagazineTeherikeMillatwerewrittenatthe
timeofrecoveryofthosebooks.Hepointedouttothereplygivenby
thePIOExt.3225thatthisinformationcannotbegivenasperthe
notification by the Madhya Pradesh Government and the
endorsementoftheHighCourtofMadhyaPradesh.Hethenreferred
tothechiefexaminationandcrossexaminationofPIB.M.Solanki,
PW23, in Sessions Case No. 180/06 pertaining to that crime of
Khandwa,certifiedcopyofwhichisatExt.3233andtothecertified
copyofthedepositionoftheinvestigatingofficerDSPMalviyaExt.
3234andsubmittedthatthereisnosuggestiontothemandithas
notcomeintheirevidencethatnamesorsignaturesoftheaccused
fromwhomthebookswereseizedwereputonthebooksatthetime
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1030..
Ext.4825
ofseizure.
1001. ThesubmissionsbythelearnedSPParecorrect.Notonlythis,
thereisnothinginthedepositionsofboththewitnessestoindicate
thatsignaturesoftheaccusedinthatcaseweretakenonthebooks
to indicate that they had been seized from them, but the most
importantthingisthattheA4hadnotaskedandobtainedcertified
copiesofthepanchanamaunderwhichthebookswereseizedfrom
around12accusedincludingtwogirlsRafiyaandAsiya.Thepolice
wouldcertainlyhavementionedinthepanchanamathatthenames
oftheaccusedfromwhomparticularbooksareseizedarewrittenon
thefrontcoverofthebooksandhis/hersignatureshavebeentaken
onthem.Thus,asisrightlysubmittedbythelearnedSPP,accused
hasproducedselectivedocumentstomisleadthecourt.Tomymind,
the fact that there are copies, may be colour photocopies, itself
demonstratesthatseveralcopiesweretakenoutforcirculationand
theirpossessionbytheaccusedinthatcaseaswellasinourcase
itselfshowsthelineofthinkingortheideologyofthepersonswith
whomtheywerefound.Thus,noinferencecanbedrawnfromthe
evidenceoftheA4,DW38,orfromthedocumentsExts.3226to
3234thatthe ATSobtainedcolour photocopies of the books that
were seized from some accused in C. R. No. 256/06 of Kotwali
PoliceThana,Khandwa,MadhyaPradeshandplantedthemonthe
fiveaccusedinthiscase.Atthecostofrepetitionitwillhavetobe
saidthattherecoveriesofsuchtypeofbookswasveryearlyinthe
dayanditcannotbevisualizedthattheinvestigatingmachineryora
handfuloftheinvestigatingofficerhatchedamasterplantothinkof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1031..
Ext.4825
creatingsuchanevidencetoimplicatetheaccusedinordertoshow
thattheybelongtotheSIMIorganisation.Hence,thedefencetaken
bytheaccusedisnotjustifiedandnotacceptable.Inthisconnection,
thelearnedSPPhaspointedouttoaphotocopysentbytheSHOof
City Kotwali Police Station, Khandwa alongwith the forwarding
letterExt.1513.Asitisaphotocopyofastatementmadebythe
accused,thoughitiscertifiedasatruecopybytheSHO,itcannotbe
readintheevidence.However,itispertinenttopointoutthatbythe
letterExt.1513theSHOinformedtheinvestigatingofficerofthis
casethatC.R.No.256/06wasregisteredagainstactivemembersof
SIMIfortheoffencesundersections3,10and13oftheUA(P)Aand
sections295and153(A)and(B)oftheIPCandduringinvestigation
oneImranAnsarisocalledGeneralSecretaryofSIMIwasarrested
and interrogated and disclosed the fact that Ehtesham Siddique,
resident of Mira Road, Mumbai, i.e., the A4, and others used to
publishtheTehriquemagazineforSIMIanditisbeingsuppliedto
various places in different States of India and is vulnerable and
creatingdisturbanceincommunalharmony.Arequestwasmadeto
theinvestigatingofficerofthiscasetofurnishthecopyoftheFIRof
CrimeNo.156/06ofBorivaliRailwayPoliceStationalongwithcopy
of seizure memo relating to unlawful activities of SIMI in
Maharashtra.Thisletterisdtd.22/10/06.Tomymind,thereisno
recoveryassuchfromtheA4.Even,thenhetookuponhimselfto
collecttheinformationofthatcase.However,thecontentsofExt.
1513showthatthesourceofbooksmaybetheA4himself.
1002. Beforethesearchandrecoveryofpassport,booksandmaps
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1032..
Ext.4825
fromthehouseoftheA10,therewererecoveriesfromthehouseof
Mohd. Hussain Dawrey, father of wanted accused no.2 Rizwan
Dawreyunderthe panchanamaExt.756andonlyphotocopies of
passportsofwantedaccusedRizwanDawreyandhiswife,Arts.306
and307werefoundalongwithtwobooks,Arts.304and305.PSI
Gaikwad,PW169,deposedaboutitandhisevidenceiscorroborated
by the evidence of Alankar Mane, PW61. Both identified the
articles,thesignatureofPIKadamandpanchwitnessesonthelabels
and the panchanama and on the books and the copies of the
passportsandthesignatureofMohd.HussainDawreytowhoma
copy was given. There was crossexamination to PSI Gaikwad,
PW169,inrespectofthecontentsofthebooks,butnothingwas
broughtonrecordtodiscredithisversion.Thereisnothinginthe
crossexaminationof AlankarMane,PW61,todiscredithisversion
also.Itisalreadyheldthattheirevidenceiscogent.Thecontentsof
thepanchanamaExt.756corroboratetheirevidence.However,this
pieceofevidenceisofnousetoprovethecaseoftheprosecution,
but I have discussed it only to show the truthfulness of the
subsequenttwopanchanamas,i.e.,Exts.757and758.Ext.757isthe
panchanamaunderwhich22notesof500denominationofSaudi
Riyalsand1noteof200denominationSaudiRiyalwereseizedfrom
Abdul Dawrey, PW71. This concerns the allegation of the
prosecutionthattheaccusedweregivenfundsforcarryingouttheir
subversiveactivities.Therefore,fromherewegotothenexttopic.
Fundingforexecutionofconspiracy:
1003. It is alleged by the prosecution that in pursuance of the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1033..
Ext.4825
conspiracy,wantedaccusedno.1AzamChimaorganisedtraining
camps in Pakistan for training of Indian Muslim youths in the
handlingofarmsandexplosivesandforthatpurposehesentmoney
toIndiathroughvariouspersonsandmeansforfundingtheirtravel
toPakistan.Itisfurtherallegedthatbetween1999and17/07/06
wantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,throughwantedaccusedno.2
MohammedRizwanDawreyandwantedaccusedno.3RahilAtaur
RehmanShaikh,sentmoneythroughvariousmeanstoIndiatothe
A3forpublishingjihadiliterature,promotingantiIndiasentiments
andbearingtheexpenditureofthetravelofthoseIndianMuslim
youthswhoweretobesentfortrainingtoPakistanandescapeof
thosewhoparticipatedinthebombingoperationswithanintention
to achieve the objectives of the larger conspiracy. Specific
transactionsaboutthemoneybyhawalabythewantedaccusedno.
1AzamChima,wantedaccusedno.2MohammedRizwanDawrey
andaccusedno.3whenhewasinSaudiArabiatotheA3andA9
fromMarch,2002toAugust,2004arementioned.Itisallegedthat
someoftheseamountswerereceivedbySmt.KhalidaIqbalShaikh,
cousinoftheA3andA9,andhandedovertoorcollectedbytheA9.
The second last transaction is of 02/07/06 and it is alleged that
wantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreysent15000SaudiRiyalswith
HidayatullaSundke,PW64,fortheA3.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1034..
Ext.4825
was a resident of Pune and who used to come for Namaj in the
masjid, that said Rizwan Dawreycame to India for vacation four
monthsbeforeJuly,2006atwhichtimehe,i.e.,HidayatullaSundke,
PW64, had given his brothers mobile number to him and the
mobilenumberofRizwanDawreytohisbrotherandhisbrotherhad
givenhisspectaclesandsomesweetswithRizwanDawreyforgiving
tohim.IthascomeinhisevidencethathecametoMumbaifrom
Jeddah on 02/07/06 and when he had met Rizwan Dawrey on
30/06/06athishouseandwhenRizwanDawreycametoknowthat
heisgoingonvacationtoIndia,heconvincedhimtocarry15000
SaudiRiyalswithhim,whichherefusedatfirstsayingthatthereisa
riskincarryingthismuchlargeamount,butRizwanDawreytold
himthathehascollectedthemoneyforconstructingamasjidinhis
village, therefore, he consented to take them with him. Rizwan
Dawrey told him that he should give this money to his friend
Muzzammil who stays in Kondhwa, Pune. It has come in his
evidencethatwhenhewasproceedingtotheairportinJeddahon
02/07/06,RizwanDawreycalledhimonhismobileandtoldhim
thatMuzzammilisnotinPune,butatpresentisinBangalore.Ithas
comeinhisevidencethathereachedIndiaon03/07/06andsentan
SMStoRizwanDawreyon04/07/06askingforMuzzammilsmobile
numberasithadnotbeengiventohim,hedidnotgetreplyonthat
day, but he got a call on his mobile from one Bilal Shaikh, i.e.,
PW66,whoaskedhimaboutthemoneyandwhenheaskedBilal
Shaikh,PW66,astowhohadtoldhimaboutit,hetoldhimthat
Muzzammil had told him. It has come in his evidence that Bilal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1035..
Ext.4825
Shaikh,PW66,thencametohishouseandashewasapprehensive
abouthandingoversuchabigamount,heaskedhimtolethimtalk
with Muzzammil. Therefore, Bilal called Muzzammil from his
mobile,he talkedwithMuzzammilandgotthe confirmation that
Rizwan had given him, i.e., Hidayatulla Sundke, PW64, the said
amountandconfirmedthatitshouldhandedovertoBilalwhichhe
accordinglydid.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatwantedaccusedno.
2 Rizwan Dawrey called him on his mobile from Jeddah on
09/07/06 and confirmed receipt of the money. His cross
examination by learned advocate Shetty has not brought out
anythingadversetoaffecthistestimony.Thoughheadmittedthat
Muzzammil, Rizwan and Bilal are common names in Muslim
communityandthoughitwassubmittedduringtheargumentsthat
neithertheA9norBilalShaikh,PW66,wasshowntohim,itisBilal
Shaikh, PW66, who has confirmed the identity of Muzzammil.
Thereisnotasingleimprovementmadebythiswitnessandnota
single omission or contradiction has come and was brought on
record during his crossexamination. His evidence is crystal clear
and truthful that there is no trace of untruthfulness, basically
becauseitisatotallyinnocuousevidence.Hedidnotknowthesaid
MuzzammilorBilalShaikh,PW66,priortothatdayandtherefore
thereisnoreasonforhimtohaveanyinteresteitherwayorfor
favouringtheprosecutionorfordeposingagainsttheaccused.This
aspectisendorsedbyhisanswersincrossexaminationthathenever
metRizwanDawreyinPune,thatheneverhasgonetohishousein
Puneandhasnoinformationabouthisfamilymembers,doesnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1036..
Ext.4825
know them and has never met them. It is also endorsed by his
answerthatbeforethatdayandevenafterthatdayhehadnotseen
Bilal Shaikh, PW66, does not know where he used to reside in
FatimaNagar,doesnotknowthemobilenumbersofMuzzammiland
Bilal,etc.Hisinabilitytostatehismobilenumberaswellasmobile
numbersofMuzzammilorBilalalsoshowsthathehadnocontact
withthempriortoorafterthesaidincident.Heevendoesnotknow
theirfullnames.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1037..
Ext.4825
HidayatullaSundke,PW64,tocompletethelink.Hewasgivena
baselesssuggestionthathedidnotcomefromJeddahtoIndiaon
02/07/06andthathedeposedfalselybecauseofthepressureofthe
ATS.WhatisthepressureoftheATSisnotputtohimandinsofaras
he coming to India on 02/07/06, it has come at the start of his
evidence itself that he had his passport with him when he gave
evidence,butthedefencedidnotdaretoseeoraskhimaboutit.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1038..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1039..
Ext.4825
1007. IthascomeintheevidenceofBilalShaikh,PW66,thatonthe
sameday,Faisal,i.e.,theA3calledhimonhismobileandtoldhim
thathewasnotabletocometoPuneandaskedhimtosendthe
moneytoMumbaiwithanypersonwhoiscomingtoMumbai.At
thattime,JunaidKhan,i.e.,maternaluncleofBilalShaikh,PW66,
who works as an inspector in the cleaning department of the JJ
Hospital,was admitted in that hospital for some major operation
andhisson,i.e.,MohsinKhan,whousedtostayinPunewasgoing
tovisithimatMumbai.BilalShaikh,PW66,knewthis,therefore,he
calledhimandtoldhimthatthereissomemoneyofFaisal,i.e.,the
A3,andheshouldtakeittoMumbaiandtheA3wouldcollectit
fromhimattheJJHospital.Asperthesequenceofthisevidence
givenbyBilalShaikh,PW66,theseeventsmusthavetakenplaceon
05/07/06, however, it has come during the evidence of Mohsin
Khan,PW67,thatBilalShaikh,PW66,toldhimtocarrythemoney
on 06/07/06 when he had gone to visit his grandmother at the
houseofBilalShaikh,PW66,andonthatdayhewastovisithis
fatherinMumbaiandhecollectedthatmoneyintheafternoonat
4.00p.m.andwenttoMumbaionthesameday,i.e.,on06/07/06.
ThereisconsiderableagitationabouthowandwhenBilalShaikh,
PW66, gave the message to Mohsin Khan, PW67, on what date
Mohsin Khan, PW67, came to his house, etc., because in
continuationofhisevidencethatA3calledhimonthesameday,i.e.,
on 05/07/06, Bilal Shaikh, PW66, stated that he had contacted
MohsinKhan,PW67,totakethemoneyatMumbaiandatthattime
MohsinKhan,PW67,hadcometomeethisgrandmother,butforgot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1040..
Ext.4825
totakethemoneyfromhishouse,therefore,heagaincalledhim
and inquired whether he had picked up the money, but Mohsin
Khan,PW67,saidthathehadcompletelyforgottenthesameand
assuredhimthathewouldcomeaftersometimeandtakeit.Ithas
comeinhisevidencethatBilalShaikh,PW66,wasoutofhishouse
at his friends birthday party and during that time Mohsin Khan,
PW67,wenttohishouseandpickedupthemoneyandwentto
Mumbaionthenextdaywiththemoney,thathecamebackaftera
week and on asking him told that Faisal had taken the money.
MohsinKhan,PW67,corroboratedhisversionstatingthatonthe
nextdaywhenhewasinhisfatherswardintheJJHospital,A3
calledhimonhismobilephone,camethereaftersometimeandtook
themoney.Thisishisonlyevidenceandithasfullycorroboratedthe
evidence of Bilal Shaikh, PW66. Irrespective of the inconsistent
evidencegivenbybothofthemaboutthegiveandtakeofmessages
andastoatwhattimeexactlyandonwhatdateexactlyMohsin
Khan,PW67,hadtakenthemoneyfromthehouseofBilalShaikh,
PW66, the relevant facts that are proved are that Mohsin Khan,
PW67, had taken 15000 Saudi Riyals from the house of Bilal
Shaikh,PW66,atPuneandA3hadcollectedthesaidmoneyfrom
himintheJJHospitalinMumbai.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1041..
Ext.4825
specificallystatedthat Sr.PIRathod,PW176,didnotcontacthim
onphoneatanytimeduringthelast34months(beforethedateof
hisevidence),thathedidnotreceiveanyphonefromtheATSoffice
during this period and never went to the ATS office during this
period.Afallaciousdemandwasmadefromthewitnesstoproduce
theCDRofhismobilephone.Onepositiveaspectthathedeposedis
thatanATSofficer Kshirsagarhadcome tohim alongwithothers
andhehadtakenthemtothehouseofHidayatullaSundke,PW64.
WhenaskedwhetherhisfamilymembersaskedhimwhytheATS
policehadcome,hegaveamostnaturalanswerthatwasexpected
fromarelative,thattheyknewitasitwasinthenewsthattheA3
and A9 are arrested in connection with the bomb blasts. Some
suggestions were made on the lines of the defence taken by the
accused in respect of they being shown on the television giving
confessions and Jt. CP Rakesh Maria giving interviews on the
television and he made positive statements that he did not see
whethertheA3andA9weregivingconfessionsontelevisionandhe
hadnotwatchedRakeshMariagivinganinterviewonthetelevision
that members of Indian Mujaheedin had committed the blasts
though he stated that he heard about it. During his cross
examinationbylearnedadvocateShettysomeimprovementsmade
byhimhavebeenbroughtonrecord,viz.,thaton04/07/06A9had
toldhimthenameofHidayatullaSundke,PW64,andthathestays
inSaudiArabia,thattheA9hadtoldhimthatA3willcollectthe
moneyfromhimandhetoldtheA9thathewillcallthatpersonon
thenextday,thatthepersoncameoutofthehouseandgavehim
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1042..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1043..
Ext.4825
1009. SameisthecaseaboutMohsinKhan,PW67,whoseevidence
inchiefexaminationhasbeendiscussedearlierandagainhiscross
examination hasnotdiscreditedhis version inrespectofrelevant
factsabouthehavingtakentheSaudiRiyalsfromthehouseofBilal
Shaikh, PW66, and A3 having taken them from him at the JJ
Hospital. Thus, the improvements made by them or the only
contradictedportionprovedthroughMohsinKhan,PW67,asExt.
2003consistingofhisstatementthathehadstartedforgoingto
Mumbaion06/07/06andhewenttoBilal'shouseat11.00a.m.,
which he denied having stated to the police, does not affect his
testimony.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,statedthatMohsinKhan,PW67,
hadtoldhimthatBilalcalledhimat4.00p.m.on06/07/06,hetold
himtotakethemoneyfromtheirgrandmotherwithwhomhehad
keptit.Heexplainedthatitisnotwritteninthesewordsbutitisin
otherwordsandthosewordsarereproducedinbracketthatBilal
phonedhimandtoldhimthatthemoneytobegiventoFaisalwasat
hishouseandheshouldtakeit,therefore,hewenttoBilal'shouse
andtookthe15000SaudiRiyalsfromtheirgrandmotherFatimabee
and came to Mumbai on that day. What this means is that the
witness may have not stated the exact timings when he received
phone calls, but that will not affect his evidence which is
corroboratingtheevidenceofBilalShaikh,PW66.Nowsomevery
positivestatementshavecomeinhiscrossexaminationwhichshow
histruthfulness.Whiledenyingthesuggestionthathedidnotknow
on21/08/06forwhatpurposepolicecalledhim,heexplainedthat
hewasawarethattheyweregoingtoquestionhimregardingthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1044..
Ext.4825
SaudiRiyals,becauseonedaybackofficerKshirsagarhadcomewith
thesummonsandhehadexplainedtohimwhateverhadhappened.
Hewasgivenabaselesssuggestionthathedeposedfalselywithout
showing the reason as to why he so deposed. There is again a
baselesssuggestion that he deposed falsely under the pressure of
ATSofficertohelpthem,withoutshowingastowhatpressurethe
ATS had exerted on him. Thus, there is nothing in his cross
examinationtodiscredithisversionortoimpeachhistestimony.
1010. Inconnectionwiththeevidenceofabovethreewitnesses,A3
inhiswrittenstatementExt.2824hasonlyreferredtoBilalShaikh,
PW66,andMohsinKhan,PW67,statingthathewasnotmuchin
contactwiththem,buthisbrother,i.e.,A9,wasdoingajobinPoona
andhisaunthadforcedhimtostaythereandhestayedthereashe
hadtheexperienceoffirstjob,though,their,i.e.,thefamilyofthe
A3andA9,didnothavegoodrelationswiththefamilymembersof
Mohsin Khan, PW67, and both had been illegally detained at
Bhoiwada and were released after they became ready to give
evidence.Surprisingly,thesethingsarenotputtoboththewitnesses
during their crossexamination and his contention about the bad
relations between the two families is falsified during the cross
examinationofA9,whogaveevidenceasDW47,thathehadgood
relationswithbothofthemastheyarecousinsandhealsoadmitted
thattheyhadnotstatedbeforethecourtaboutbeatingandthreats.
Thelastsuggestionisobviouslyinviewofacontentioninwritten
hisstatementExt.2823aswellasinhisevidencethathehadseen
them in the ATS lockup and he never instructed them to collect
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1045..
Ext.4825
1011. Learnedadvocatemadearidiculoussubmissionthatthereis
no authentic record about Hidayatulla Sundke, PW64, having
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1046..
Ext.4825
broughtthemoneywithhimthoughheadmittedthathedoesnot
bringhisownmoneyalsoincash.RidiculousIsaidbecauseitwas
obviouslybroughtattheinstanceofwantedaccusedRizwanDawrey
withoutdisclosingthepossessionofthemoneyattheairports.Again
a strange submission was made that he was not confronted with
BilalShaikh,PW66,inthecourt.Idonotknowwhetherthisisa
practiceorwhetheritwouldhaveprovedsomethingbecauseinthat
casethecourtwouldhavebeenthewitness.Learnedadvocatenext
submitsthateverybodyistryingtosavehisskinandtheyareready
toaccepttheresponsibilityofcarryingtheforeigncurrency,butno
CDRoftheirmobilesareproducedtoshowtalksbetweenthem.To
mymind,itwouldbetomuchtoexpecttheinvestigatingmachinery
tocollecttheCDRsofmobilesofallthewitnessesandtoproduce
them inevidence toproveonefactoutofseveralfacts andeven
otherwise the evidence by way of call details is an inferential
evidence whereas we have before us the direct evidence of three
witnesses.
1012. Learnedadvocatethensubmitsthatitisnotinthestatement
of Mohsin Khan, PW67, that A9 had told Hidayatulla Sundke,
PW64,andBilalShaikh,PW66,togivethemoneytotheA3.He
submitsthattheevidenceofthiswitnessisintotalconflictwiththe
evidenceofBilalShaikh,PW66,inrespectoftheaspectofgoingto
hishouseandthetimings.Ihavealreadyconsideredthisandhave
heldthatinsofarastherelevantaspectofhisevidenceisconcerned,
viz.,he going tothe house ofBilalShaikh, PW66,collecting the
SaudiRiyalsfromhishouseandA3takingthemfromhimattheJJ
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1047..
Ext.4825
HospitalatMumbai,itisunaffectedbytheminorinconsistencies.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1048..
Ext.4825
1014. Thelasttransactionthatisallegedbytheprosecutionispost
blast, i.e., on 14/07/06 and it is alleged that even after the
explosions,wantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreysent11200Saudi
Riyalson14/07/06throughoneAfzalofPuneforhandingoverto
AbdulDawrey,PW71,foronwardhandingovertotheA3.These
SaudiRiyalscouldnotbedeliveredtotheA3ashewasarrested
priortothedeliveryofthesaidamount.Thisamountwasseized
fromAbdulDawrey,PW71,brotherofwantedaccusedno.2Rizwan
Dawrey.Ihavealreadyheldinparagraphs969and973suprawhile
discussingtheevidenceaboutthesearchandseizurefromthehouse
oftheA10thatbytheevidenceofPSIGaikwad,PW169,andpanch
witness Alankar Mane, PW61, the prosecution has proved the
contentsofallthethreepanchanamas,Exts.756to758,andinsofar
astheseizureofSaudiRiyalsfromAbdulDawrey,PW71,underthe
panchanamaExt.757,itisheldthatAbdulDawrey,PW71'sevidence
corroboratestheir evidence abouttheirvisittohis house andthe
seizureoftheSaudiRiyalsunderthepanchanamaExt.757.Thesaid
panchanamaalsocontainshissignature.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1049..
Ext.4825
housein199697andtheygottoknoweachotherasRizwanaswell
as Rahil were in computers. After his evidence about wanted
accused no.2Rizwan's activities in connection withSIMIand he
identifying the A10,A3 andA9, SIMIbeing bannedin 2001 and
Rizwan continuing meeting the said accused, he stated about
RizwangoingtoJeddahinApril,2003,hegoingtoSaudiArabiafor
workinginSeptember,2003andworkingthereuptoJanuary,2005
andthatA3andwantedaccusedno.3Rahilcomingtomeetwanted
accusedno.2RizwanDawreyatJeddah.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thathereturnedbacktoIndiainJanuary,2005andthereafterwas
intouchwithwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreybyphoneande
mailandRizwanusedtosend500600Riyalsfortheexpensesofhis
father,mostofthetimethroughtheregularbankingchannels.Ithas
comeinhisevidencethatafamilyofPuneknowntohimwasin
Jeddah at that time and they were Gaffar and his brother Afzal
Shaikh,whowereresidentsofKondhwainPune.Ithascomeinhis
evidencethatwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreysenthimane
mailinthefirstweekofJuly,2006,thatAfzalisvisitingPuneon
12/07/06,thatheissendingaparcelofmedicinesandsweetsand
about 500 Riyals with him for their father and he, i.e., Abdul
Dawrey,PW71,collectedtheparceland500RiyalsfromAfzalon
17/07/06. It has come in his evidence that he found some
medicines, dates and one closed envelope when he opened the
parcelonreturninghome,that500Riyalswereseparatelygivenand
asRizwanhadnottoldhimabouttheenvelopehequestionedhim
when there was a telephone conversation with him, thereupon
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1050..
Ext.4825
Rizwan told him to keep the envelope safe till he gives further
instructions. So he safely kept it with him. It has come in his
evidencethatwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreycameonlineon
26/07/06 and told him that the envelope was for Mustafa, i.e.,
Faisal,i.e.,theA3.Alltheaboveisclearandexceptforhisstatement
that 500 Riyals were separately given and wanted accused no. 2
Rizwanhadnottoldhimabouttheenvelope,theotherevidencehas
not been shown as an improvement or a contradiction on his
statement. The relevant crossexamination by learned advocate
ShettyforA3isinparagraph13whereinpositivestatementshave
comeonrecordthatRizwanusedtointimatehiminadvanceabout
themoneysentbyhimandalsousedtoinformacodenumberusing
whichheusedtothemoneyfromtheexchangeshowinghisidentity
proof.Againapositivestatementhascomeonrecordthatthemoney
received from Afzal was the last money received from wanted
accusedno.2Rizwan.Hiscrossexaminationinparagraph14isin
respectofhiscommunicationwithwantedaccusedno.2Rizwanby
chattingontheinterneton26/07/06andheadmittedthatuptothat
datehehadnoknowledgeastowhatwasinthatenvelopeandfor
whomitwassentandhedoesnotrememberthedescriptionofthe
envelope,itscolourandwhetheranythingwaswrittenonit.Now,
alongwith seizure of the said Saudi Riyals, a CPU, Art. 308, was
seizedfromhishouseandithascomeinhisevidencethatheused
thesaidcomputer,itbelongedtowantedaccusedno.2Rizwanand
inthatconnectionheadmittedthathehadnotdeletedthechatting
thathehadwithwantedaccusedno.2Rizwanon26/07/06andthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1051..
Ext.4825
emailreceivedon05/07/06.Itisinthisconnectionthatthelearned
advocatesubmittedduringhisargumentsthatnoevidencehasbeen
collectedbytheinvestigatingmachineryinrespectofsaidchatting
andemailthereforetheevidencegivenbyAbdulDawrey,PW71,is
hisonlywordsandthereisnocorroborationtohim.Tomymind,
thematerialevidenceisaboutreceiptofSaudiRiyalsfromAfzaland
its seizure by the ATS. However, the evidence given by Abdul
Dawrey,PW71,hasnotbeendiscreditedorshowntobeuntruthful,
becausethiswitnessisnotshowntohaveanycriminalantecedents
oranypriorlinkswiththepoliceandtheATS.
1016. Hisnextevidencethatonthatday,i.e.,on26/07/06Rizwan
toldhimtodisposeofftheenvelopeandmoveoutfromPuneas
Mustafa,i.e.,A3,waspickedupinconnectionwiththe7/11railway
blastsandhetoldRizwanthathehasnotdoneanythingwrong,that
hehasgotafamilyandcannotmoveoutofPune,isbroughton
recordasanimprovementoverhisstatementtothepolice.Evenif
thisiskeptaside,hisevidencefurtherthattheATSofficersvisited
his house on 30/07/06, questioned him about his brother, he
revealed to them the discussion that he had with Rizwan and
handedovertheenvelopetothemisaclearevidenceanditisnotan
improvementoracontradictionandisuncontroverted.Hisevidence
further that the envelope, 500 Riyals and personal computer of
Rizwan were seized, corroborates the evidence of PSI Gaikwad,
PW169,andpanchwitnessAlankarMane,PW61.Heidentifiedthe
CPUArt.308andhissignatureattheendofpanchanamaExt.757.
Hedeniedthesuggestionthatheisdeposingfalselyinfavourofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1052..
Ext.4825
policetosavehisbrotherwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey.His
crossexaminationonthispointhasnotrevealedanythingadverse
thatwouldaffecthistestimonyandinfactthoughhehadstatedin
hischiefexaminationthathisfatherwaspresentinflatno.203from
wheretheCPUwasseized,i.e.,fromthehouseofwantedaccused
no.2RizwanDawrey,underthepanchanamaExt.756,inparagraph
9ofthecrossexaminationthis mistake was correctedbecausehe
stated that the CPU Art. 308 was taken from his living room. A
contradictionwastriedtobebroughtonrecordabouthestatingto
thepolicethatwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreytoldhimto
keeptheenvelopeofRiyalsfarawayfromthehouseaboutwhichhe
statedthathedoesnotrememberwhetherRizwanhadtoldhimso
andwhetherhehadstatedsotothepoliceandthenexplainedthat
itmaybethathemayhavestatedsotothepolice.Sothiswillnot
amounttoacontradiction.Moreover,hehasnotstatedtheopposite
inhischiefexamination.Theonlyinconsistentanswergivenbyhim
isinparagraph31duringthecrossexaminationbylearnedadvocate
WahabKhanwhereinhestatedthatthe envelopescontainingthe
notesthathegavetothepolicewasnotopenedinhispresenceat
hishouseaswellasattheATSoffice,thattheATSofficersdidnot
tellhimthatitcontainsnotesanddidnotgivethenotesinhishands
saying that it is foreign currency found in that envelope. The
contents of the panchanama Ext. 757 disclose that white colour
closedenvelopewasopenedandfoundtocontain22SaudiRiyalsof
500 denomination each and 1 Saudi Riyal of 200 denomination,
whichisalsoaccordinglydeposedbyPSIGaikwad,PW169,aswell
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1053..
Ext.4825
1017. Inthisrespect,learnedadvocateShettyfortheA3submitted
thattheseizureoftheCPUisinconsequentialandhisanswerthathe
wasusingthecomputerwhichwasofRizwan,showsthatheisnot
speaking the truth. Same is the case about his answers about
purchaseofthecomputerandhisinabilitytotellthenameofthe
shopfromwherehepurchasedit,whichtomymind,isirrelevantto
thefactinissue.Thesubmissionofthelearnedadvocatethatno
connecting material has been established about the talk and the
directionsgivenbywantedaccusedno.2Rizwanastowhomthe
packetistobegivenandforwhatpurposeithadbeensent,except
thebarewordsofthewitness,whomhecalledasataintedwitness
andthere is noevidence aboutchatting also is already discussed
beforethissubmission.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatthereisno
materialtosubstantiatethetalksthewitnesshadwithhisbrotherby
email or chatting, because though he admits that he had not
destroyed the said material, the investigating officer has not
produced any evidence about it and here is a witness who is
apprehending problems for himself and his brother that probably
theywouldbearrested,notforanyotherpurpose,butforpossessing
foreign currency unauthorizedly. Therefore, in all probability to
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1054..
Ext.4825
safeguardhimselfandsavehimself,thepossibilitycannotberuled
outthathisfalsestatementwaspreparedasrequiredbythepolice.
Tomymind,suchaninferencecannotbedrawnparticularlyifone
considers the evidence given by the witness in respect of his
brother'sassociationwithSIMIandtheirviewsandthetalkswhich
theA3andwantedaccusedno.2RizwanhadaboutthebanonSIMI
andwhathadtranspiredatJeddahbetweenthem.Itisbutnatural
forapersontoextricatehimselffromsuchtypeofproblems,but
eventhenthiswitnesshasnotdonesobecausehestatedthathe
usedtogototheofficeoftheSIMIonthefirstfloorofthemasjid
whereheandRizwanusedtogofornamajandwhereA3,wanted
accusedno.3Rahil,oneAsif KhanandFirozandothersusedto
comeandtheyusedtobediscussionsaboutMuslimissueslikearrest
andatrocitiesonMuslimsandallthepersonsnamedbyhimandthe
persons whose names he does not remember used to make
discussions. It would have had been a different case if he would
havejuststatedaboutknowingtheactivitiesofhisbrotherwanted
accusedno.2RizwaninconnectionwithSIMI,ratherhesaysthat
healsousedtogotothatofficeofSIMI.Hishonestyisdisclosed
fromhisevidencethathebecamefrightenedonlisteningtheviews
expressedinthetalksaftertheriotsinPunein2001afterthebanon
SIMIandthenstoppedmeetinganyofthosepersons,butwanted
accusedno.2Rizwancontinuedmeetingthem.
1018. LearnedadvocateShettyalsosubmittedthatthewitnesshas
statedthathisstatementwasrecordedon30/07/06itself,whenthe
SaudiRiyalswereallegedlyseizedfromhimandithascomeinhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1055..
Ext.4825
crossexaminationthathisstatementwasagainrecordedtwotimes
thereafterandparticularlyofficerDineshKadamrecordeditatthe
officeoftheATSatBhoiwadaon31/07/06bytypingitoncomputer.
Learned advocate submits that he called upon the prosecution to
producethestatementon30/07/06,butthelearnedSPPsubmitted
that there is no such statement but the witness referred to the
panchanama. To my mind, the submission of the learned SPP is
correctbecausethewitnessstatedthathissignaturewasobtained
onthestatementthatwasrecordedon30/07/06fromwhichitcan
beinferredthatheisreferringtothepanchanamaExt.757which
bearshissignature.
1019. ItisclearfromthediscussionthattheevidencegivenbyAbdul
Dawrey,PW71,in respectofreceiptandhanding over the Saudi
Riyalstothepoliceisacogentandclearevidence.Hence,itwill
have toheldthat the prosecution hasprovedthatAbdul Dawrey,
PW71, had received 11200 Saudi Riyals on 17/07/06 from one
Afzal of Pune which was sent by wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan
DawreyforbeinghandedovertotheA3.Thisisthecircumstance
no.26provedbytheprosecution. ItisagainsttheA3.Itisthe
eighthcircumstanceagainsthim.
SeizureofSaudiRiyalsbyEnforcementDirectorate:
1020. The 15000 Saudi Riyals seized from the A3 under the
panchanamaExt.533andthe11200SaudiRiyalsseizedfromAbdul
Dawrey,PW71,arenotbeforethecourt.Theywereseizedbythe
EnforcementDirectorateandithascomeintheevidenceofSr.PI
Rathod, PW176, that Arvind Kumar, PW40, Assistant Director of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1056..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1057..
Ext.4825
1021. HisevidenceiscorroboratedbytheevidenceofArvindKumar,
PW40,inwhoseevidenceithascomethattherewerealotofnews
abouttherailwaybombblastsin2006andwhilegoingthroughthe
newsitemstheycametoknowthatpolicehadseizedsomeforeign
currencies, viz., Saudi Riyals, from the residential premises from
some persons, therefore, one of his officers Sanjay Tripathi was
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1058..
Ext.4825
deputed to the ATS office, who went there and had a discussion
aboutit.TheycametoknowaboutthecasedetailsaftertheSpecial
DirectorofE.D.wrotealettertotheJt.CP,ATSforfurnishingthem
andcametoknowthattheaccusedarealreadyarrestedandasthey
wantedtointerrogatetheaccusedandtakeoverthecurrency,they
movedtheconcernedcourtatMazgaonandgottheorderExt.580
allowing them to interrogate the accused and to take over the
currency. His further evidence is about how he recorded the
statementoftheA3,whichinfactwaswrittenbytheA3inhisown
handinEnglish,truephotocopiesofwhichareatExts.585(1and2)
andthestatementofKhaleedaIqbalAhmedKhan,cousinsisterof
A3andA9andAbdulRehmanDawrey,PW71,truephotocopiesof
whichareatExts.587and586(1and2).Heprovedthecontentsof
thesaidtruephotocopiesfromtheoriginalsthathehadbroughtto
thecourtandwhenthelearnedSPPaskedhimaspecificquestionas
tohowheconfirmedfromKhaleedaandAbdulDawrey,PW71,that
theyweretalkingofthesameaccusedFaisal,i.e.,A3,heanswered
thattheyshowedthephotographoftheA3tobothofthemandthey
put their signatures on the confirmation. During his cross
examination it has come that photographs of the A3 were taken
whenhewasinterrogatedon21/08/06and24/08/06byoneofhis
officersbynameBandekarbyhismobile.
1022. Majorpartofhisevidenceinchiefexaminationisaboutthe
procedurethatheadoptedforrecordingthestatementoftheA3and
KhaleedaIqbalandAbdulDawrey,PW71,andithascomeinhis
evidencethathetooktheforeigncurrencyseizedbytheATStotal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1059..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1060..
Ext.4825
ofAbdulDawrey,PW71,andKhaleeda.Thereisnosuggestionby
learned advocate Wahab Khan that he had not seized the Saudi
RiyalsthathadbeenseizedbytheATSandalsobylearnedadvocate
ShettyfortheA3.Onemorepositivestatementhascomeonrecord
attheendofparagraph47thathetooktheRiyalsinhiscustodyfor
thefirsttimeon25/09/06.
1024. Though,ArvindKumar,PW40,didnotstateaboutpreparing
thepanchanamaExt.1256andsigningonit,ithasbeendeposedby
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,andthecontentsofboththepanchanamas
have been proved by him. His evidence is corroborated by the
evidence of Farid Bakir Mallik, (PW119)(Ext.1254), in whose
evidenceithascomethathewascalledat12.45p.m.on25/09/06
by the ATS police to their office behind Police Station Bhoiwada,
whereofficersbynameRathod,i.e.,PW176,andoneSingh,i.e.,
PW40,were present, one more person like him was present and
Rathodtoldthemthattheywantedtohandover15000SaudiRiyals
recoveredfromtheA3and11000SaudiRiyalsfromanotherperson
tothe officer byname Singh.He deposedaboutthere being two
packedpacketsinfrontofSr.PIRathod,PW176,onthetableoutof
whichheopenedonepacketinwhichtherewereSaudiRiyalswhich
werecountedandfoundtobe15000andhealsodeposedabout
there being a black pouch, a railway ticket, credit card and
somethingelse.Ithascomeinhisevidencethattheotherpacket
wasalsoopenedand11200SaudiRiyalswerefountinitandhe
described the denomination of notes that is 22 notes of 500
denomination and one of 200 denomination and 15000 Riyals
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1061..
Ext.4825
comprisingof500denominationnotes.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thatalltheSaudiRiyalswerehandedovertoofficerSinghandall
thearticlesinthetwopacketswereputinapacket,packedandtheir
signatures were taken and then the events were typed and the
contentsofthetypedocumentswereexplainedtothemandthey
signedonitalongwithofficerRathod.Heidentifiedhissignature,
signatureoftheotherpanchandsignatureoftheofficersRathod
and Singh on the panchanama Ext. 1255 and also identified the
outerenvelopeinwhichtheremainingarticleswereputandalsothe
articlesthatwereputinitseparatelyandspecifically.Hedeposed
aboutsigningonapaperpreparedbyofficerSinghandheidentified
signaturesofallasaboveonthepanchanamaExt.256.Hiscross
examination has not discredited his version or impeached his
testimonyasitisnotshownthathehasanycriminalantecedentsor
anypriorconnectionswiththepoliceortheATSorthathewasan
accused or acted as a witness or a panch witness for them. His
evidenceisinnocuousinasmuchasitisnotinthepresenceofany
accused. He was crossexamined about his work as a hawker,
whetherhehaslicenceaboutit,thefineamountsthathepaidfrom
timetotime,heresidinginahutinaslumwithoutanyrent,etc.,
butallthatisinconsequential.Nodoubtinhischiefexaminationas
wellasinhiscrossexaminationhehasdeposedincorrectlyabout
thesequenceoffindingofparticularnumberofSaudiRiyalsinthe
twopackets,butthatdoesnotaffecthistestimonysolongashis
evidenceestablishesthat30notesof500denominationeachwere
foundinonepacketand22notesof500denominationand1note
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1062..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1063..
Ext.4825
the articles at the instance of the police, etc. Thus, his evidence
whichcorroboratestheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,proves
thecontentsofboththepanchanamasExts.1255and1256.
1025. InrespectoftheevidenceofArvindKumar,PW40,thereare
elaboratesubmissionsbylearnedadvocateShettyandconsiderable
agitationaboutthemannerinwhichhehadrecordedthestatements
oftheA3,AbdulDawrey,PW71,andKhaleeda.Tomymind,allthis
isbesidesthepointbecausetheprosecutionisnotplacingreliance
onthecontentsofthestatementsofthesethree,truephotocopiesof
which are on record in support of its case and there are no
submissionsbythelearnedSPPastotheiradmissibilityinthiscase
orastothenatureofthatevidenceandtheirevidentialvalue.The
mootquestioniswhetherhandingoveroftheSaudiRiyalsbySr.PI
Rathod, PW176, to the officer of the Enforcement Directorate
ArvindKumar,PW40isprovedornotand,tomymind,therecannot
beanydoubtaboutit.TheEnforcementDirectoratemayormaynot
succeed in their case against the A3, Abdul Dawrey, PW71 and
Khaleeda,thefactremainsthatduringhisevidencehehasproved
thecopyoftheshowcausenoticeExt.582thatwasgiventothese
three containing the allegations about contravention of the
provisions of sections 3(c) and 40 of the Foreign Exchange
Management Act, 1999. Insofar as this show cause notice is
concerned,hewascrossexaminedindetailabouttheprocedurethat
istobeadoptedbeforeissuingshowcausenoticeparticularlytothe
A3,buttomymind,rightlyorwrongly,thefactisthatthenoticehas
beengiventothesethree.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1064..
Ext.4825
1026. Inviewoftheabovediscussionitwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecution has proved that 15000 Saudi Riyals seized from the
houseoftheA3and11200SaudiRiyalsseizedfromAbdulDawrey,
PW71, were seized by Arvind Kumar, PW40, an officer of the
Enforcement Directorate on the allegation that there was a
contravention of the provisions of the FEMA Act. This is the
circumstanceno.27provedbytheprosecution.Itisagainstthe
A3asitistheproofthatforeigncurrencyinthenatureofSaudi
RiyalsthatwereallegedlyseizedfromhimandseizedfromAbdul
Dawrey, PW71, which were to be handed over to him were a
contraventionoftheprovisionsoftheFEMAActandhadbeensent
by wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan Dawrey. It is the ninth
circumstanceagainsttheA3.
TravelofaccusedtoPakistanformilitanttraining:
1027. Itisallegedbytheprosecutionthatinpursuanceoftheobject
oftheircriminalconspiracy,theA3,A2,A1,A9,A10,A11andA6
went to Pakistan and received training in handling of arms and
explosivesintheterroristcamprunbywantedaccusedno.1Azam
Chima andthatthe travel plans were elaborately planned by the
conspiratorsinordertoensurethatthepassportsoftheaccuseddid
notbearthearrivalanddeparturestampsintoandoutofPakistan.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1065..
Ext.4825
on06/06/01byRPO,Pune.IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PI
Rathod,PW176,thatasitwasrevealedintheinvestigationthatthe
A3 had gone to Pakistan in 2001 through Attari Rail Checkpost,
Amritsar,wirelessmessagedtd.21/08/06,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext. 1981, was sent by DCP Nawal Bajaj to the Foreigners
RegistrationOffice(FRO),Amritsarundertheforwardingletterto
theAsst.IGP(Crime),MaharashtraState,WirelessGrid,Mumbai,
dtd.21/08/06,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1980,forpermission
tobroadcastwirelessmessage.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatthe
FRRO,BOI,AmritsarsentthefaxExt.1982confirmingthattheA3
had traveled through Attari Rail Checkpost on 01/10/01 and
returnedback via thesamerouteon29/11/01.Ithascomeinhis
evidencethatthecopiesofembarkationanddisembarkationcards
werenotsentwiththefax.Therefore,DCPBajajagaingavealetter
addressed to the FRRO, Amritsar dtd. 29/09/06, office copy of
whichisatExt.1188,forhandingovercopiesoftheembarkation
anddisembarkationcardsandtoinformthenamesoftheofficers
whohadgiventheclearance.IthascomeinhisevidencethatPSI
Gaikwad,PW169,wasappointedtocollectthedocumentsandto
recordthestatementsoftheconcernedofficersandithascomein
theevidenceofPSIGaikwad,PW169,thatafterreportingtoDCP
Bajajon29/09/06asperthedirectionsof Sr.PIRathod,PW176,
andtakingthe letterfromhim,hemetthe FRRO atAmritsaron
06/10/06,handedoverthelettergivenbyDCPBajajandonbeing
directedtogotoAFRROatAttaricheckpost,hewentwiththestaff
totheInternationalRailCheckpostatAttari,whichisnearAmritsar
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1066..
Ext.4825
andmettheAFRROPremrajSharma,gavehimtheletterandthe
AFRROinformedhimthatofficerSubhashChoudhary,PW114,was
ondutyon01/10/01atthetimeofdepartureandofficerSurjeet
Singh,PW115,wasondutyatthetimeofarrivalon29/11/01.The
AFRROgavehimaletteraddressedtotheDCP,ATS,Mumbaidtd.
06/10/06, Ext.1189andattested truecopies ofthe entries Exts.
1190and1192.Oncomingtoknowoninquirythatthesaidtwo
officers were posted elsewhere, he requested the AFRRO to send
them to the office of the ATS at Mumbai. The contents of the
wirelessmessageExt.1981showthespecificinformationaboutthe
A3 and his Indian passport no. B5403385 issued at Pune on
06/06/01.SomedetailsarealsogivenintheletterExt.1188and
thecontentsofExt.1189,whichisthelettergivenbytheofficeof
theInchargeBureauofImmigration,ICP,AttariRail,Attari,Amritsar,
whichshowthatitwasinformedthattheaforesaidA3,anIndian
nationalholderofthepassportofthesamenumber,hadtakenexit
toPakistanon01/10/01andreturnedbackon29/11/01 via ICP,
AttariRail,Amritsar.Thecontentsofthecertifiedtruecopyofthe
register Ext. 1190 discloses the name of the A3 alongwith his
addressofPuneandthesamepassportnumberandthecontentsof
Ext.1192showhisnameinshortasMohd.Shaikhinfrontofwhich
thesamepassportnumberiswrittenalongwithitsdateofissue.
1029. TheevidencegivenbySr.PIRathod,PW176,aswellasPSI
Gaikwad, PW169, and the documents produced by them were
unchallengedfromthesideoftheaccusedprobablybecausetheA3
hasadmittedhisvisittoPakistanduringthatperiodasitisinhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1067..
Ext.4825
1030.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1068..
Ext.4825
inadvertentlywrittenthedate10/10/01incolumnno.10belowthe
departureno.979insteadof01/10/01.Forthis,heexplainedthat
thetrainsusedtoarriveanddepartonMondayandThursdayand
therewasnotrainon10/10/01.
1031.
Boththewitnesseshavebeencrossexaminedinrespectof
someoverwritinginonedigitinpassportnumberinExt.1190andin
respectofsomeotheraspectoftheregisterandbothalsoadmitted
thatMumbaiPolicehavenotinquiredwiththemandhavenottaken
theirstatements.However,thereisnosuggestiontothemthatthey
werenotpostedasimmigartionofficersontheconcerneddatesat
theAttariRailwayStationandhavenotdonetheworkasdeposed
by them and they had not made the entries. Hence, by their
evidencetheprosecutionhasprovedtheentriesofdeparturefrom
IndiaandarrivalfromPakistanoftheA3intheregistersExts.1190
and1192.
1032.
submissionsaboutcertainshortcomingsintheregisterproducedby
two witnesses and also submitted that their statements were not
recorded.However,Idonotthinkthatitisnecessarytoconsiderthe
submissionsindetailinviewoftheA3havingadmittedthathehad
gonetoPakistanintheyear2001.Inviewoftheabovediscussion,it
willhavetobeheldthattheprosecution has provedthattheA3
wenttoPakistanbyrailwayfromAttariRilwayStation,Amritsaron
01/10/01andreturnedbacktoIndiafromPakistanfromthesaid
Railway Station on 29/11/01. This is the circumstance no. 28
proved by the prosecution. It is against the A3. It is the tenth
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1069..
Ext.4825
circumstanceagainsthim.WhetherornottheA3hadgonetherefor
avalidreasonorformilitanttrainingisanaspectthatwillhaveto
beconsideredsubsequentlyattheappropriatestage.
1033.
ItisallegedbytheprosecutionthattheA3againwentto
Pakistanforundergoingtraininginthehandlingofuseofarmsand
explosivesandduringthissecondvisit,inordertoavoiddetection,
heleftMumbaiforJeddahon08/11/03usingthesamepassport,
FromJeddah,heillegallyenteredPakistan via KishamIsland,Iran,
where he allegedly destroyed his passport and during return, his
mentors in Pakistan gave him a fake Pakistani passport on an
assumed name Mohammed Akram, using which he returned to
Jeddah, but while in Saudi Arabia, he was arrested for not
possessing a traveldocumentandwas departed toNewDelhion
01/12/04onanEmergencyCertificate.
1034.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,that
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1070..
Ext.4825
therelevantinrespectoftheA3beingMushtaqAhmed,PW46,and
Mohd.Umar,PW47.Hedeposedaboutseizingthedocuments,Arts.
261(1to5)and262(1to6)underthepanchanamaExt.1637from
Mohd.Umar,PW47,on08/08/06.Thesaiddocumentscannotbe
consideredastheyarenotdulyprovedbytheprosecution,however,
the relevant evidence is of the two witnesses. The evidence of
MushtaqAhmed,PW46,atravelsubagent,workingforprocuring
visasandticketsshowsthatheknowstheentirefamilyoftheA3
andA9andtheirfather,i.e.,AtaurRehman,washisneighbourand
hadtakenhimforworktoSaudiArabiain1995andthatfamilyof
AtaurRehmanconsistedofhiswife,threesons,i.e.,eldersonA3,
secondwantedaccusedno.3RahilandthirdA9,andadaughter.
Hisacquaintancewiththesaidfamilywasfurtherconfirmedduring
hiscrossexaminationinparagraph21bylearnedadvocateShettyin
whichithascomethatheknewAtaurRehman'sfamilycloselysince
1984,theyusedtovisiteachothershouse,goouttogether,stayedin
onehouseandworkedtogetherinSaudiArabiaandheandAtaur
Rehman used to do namaj together and used to go together in
Masjid or other pilgrimage centers in Saudi Arabia. He
unhesitatinglyidentifiedtheA3andA9inthecourt.
1035.
that the A3 had brought the work of obtaining visa for wanted
accusedno.3RahilandhimselfforUmrahinSaudiArabiain2003
andhegotthatworkdonefromagentMohd.Umar,PW47.Thisis
hisonlyevidenceconcerningtheworkgivenbytheA3ofhimself
andofwantedaccusedno.3Rahilandhisentirechiefexamination
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1071..
Ext.4825
is of just three pages and few lines more, whereas, his cross
examinationissixtimesmorethanhischiefexamination.Certain
portions from his statement given to the police were brought on
recordascontradictionsbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanandthe
relevantinsofarasA3isconcernedareExt.1643(1)and(2),that
weregotprovedfromPIBavdhankar,PW152.Thecontentsofthe
portionExt.1643(1)isinrespectoftheinquirymadebytheofficers
oftheATS,Mumbaiabouttheworkofobtainingvisaandticketsfor
A3andhisbrotherandforA2,A10andA11andsomemorepersons
isconcerned.Idonotseehowitisacontradictionbecauseitwasa
partofinquiryandwhilegivingastatement,awitnesswillnotstate
that he has been called by the ATS, Mumbai for the purpose of
inquiryinconnectionwiththebombblastsinthewesternrailway
localtrainson11/07/06,abouttheworkofobtainingofvisasand
tickets,etc.Thisistheinquiryandwhatheisrequiredtobestated
bythewitnesstothepoliceiswhatworkhehasdone.Thecontents
ofExt.1643(2)showthatpolicehadpointedoutA3andA9tohim
whenhehadgonetoATSofficeandhehadidentifiedthem.This
aspectwillhavenoeffecteitherway.Whethertheypointedhimout
orwhetherhesawthemonhisownbecauseheknewthemfrom
before.Evenotherwise,thispartisnotstatedbyhiminhischief
examinationandcannotamounttoacontradiction.
1036.
Whileweareatit,itwillbebetterifallthecontradictions
inhisevidencearetakenupanddiscussed.Itisinhisevidencethat
thereafterin2004,A3hadaskedhimtoobtainvisaforIranforhis
friendTanveerAhmedAnsari,i.e.,A2andhadsenthispassportwith
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1072..
Ext.4825
theA9.TheportionfromhisstatementExt.1643(3)thatwasputto
himisthattheA9hadbroughttheA2beforehimin2004andhad
toldhimthatheisaShiaandthathewantstogoforZiarattoIran.
Tomymind,thisdoesnotdisprovehisevidencethattheA3asked
himtoobtainvisaforIranfortheA2andhadsenthispassportwith
theA9.Evenotherwise,thoughtherelevantportionisshownasan
improvement,itisnotcontradictorytothisportionbecausehehas
not stated so in his chiefexamination or stated something
contradictorytothatevidence.NextisExt.1643(4),thecontentsof
whicharethatin2005A9hadbroughtFirozGhaswalatohimand
had told him to obtain visa for Ziarat in Iran. This also will not
amounttoacontradictionbecauseitisonlyhisevidencethatA9
hadalsogiventhepassportofFirozGhaswalaforobtainingvisafor
Iran which he had given to agent Johar Sayyed. Thus, the only
contradictionwillbeaboutA9takingFirozGhaswalatohim,which
tomymind,isofnotmuchconsequence.NextisExt.1643(5)which
showsthatfrom 2005toMay,2006A3hadbroughtA11,Mohd.
ChipaChandandZulfiquarFaiyyazandhadtoldhimthattheyare
Shia Muslims and askedhim toobtain visa for ZiarattoIranfor
them. Once again this will also not amount to a contradiction
thoughhedeniedhavingstatedsobecauseitishisevidencethatin
2005or2006,A3hadgiventhepassportofA11,FaiyyazAhmedand
Mohd. Chand for obtaining visa for Iran, which he had given to
agentAshikAli,PW44,andtheticketswerealsoobtainedfromthe
sameagent.TheonlycontradictionisabouttheA3havingtakenthe
threepersonstohimandtellingthemthattheyareShiaMuslims.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1073..
Ext.4825
NextisExt.1643(6)whichsaysthatinMay,2006,A3hadbroughta
passportofapersonforvisaandticketforZiaratinIran,butashe
hadnotbroughtthatpersonandhedidnotknowtowhichMuslim
secthebelongs,hedidnotdothework.MushtaqAhmed,PW46,
hasnotstatedanythingaboutitandthoughhedeniedhavingstated
sotothepoliceitcannotbeconsideredtobeacontradictionbecause
he did not state about it in his chiefexamination. Next is Ext.
1643(7)thatAshikAli,PW44,andagentJoharSayyedhadasked
himaboutthesaidpersonswhenhegavethemtheworkofvisaand
ticketandhetoldthemthattheyareShiaMuslimsandhehasnot
statedaboutitinhischiefexaminationandthoughhedeniedit,it
doesnotaffecthisevidenceabouttheworkthathehaddone.Ext.
1643(8)isthattheA3andA9hadposedtohimthattheyareShia
MuslimsandhadmisledhimandobtainedvisaandticketforZiarat
inIranandifhewouldhaveknownit,hewouldnothavedonetheir
work.Thisagainisnotstatedbyhiminhischiefexaminationand
thoughhedeniedhavingstatedsotothepolice,tomymind,the
portionsinExts.1643(3),(5),(6),(7)and(8)whichrefertohe
havingstatedaboutShiasect,whichhedeniedhavingstatedsoto
thepolice,isagoodthingwhichshowsthatheisnotdrawingany
conclusion or he is not inserting anything as per the case of the
prosecution,buthisevidenceismatteroffact.Infact,hisevidence
inconnectionwithallthesethingsisnotbroughtonrecordasan
improvementorasomission.Lastly,learnedadvocateWahabKhan
gavehimasuggestionthathehasdeposedfalselyattheinstanceof
theATS,thathehasnotdonetheworkofvisaandticketofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1074..
Ext.4825
personswhosenameshestatedandthatitwastheATSofficerswho
toldhimthathehaddonethatworkofthepersonswhosepassports
A3 and A9 had given to him, therefore, he is saying say so. Of
course,hedeniedallthesesuggestionsandtomymindtheyarejust
givenforthesakeofgivingthemwithoutsuggestinghimanyreason
astowhyhedeposedattheinstanceoftheATSorastowhyhe
deposedagainstA3andA9inthefirstinstanceandconsequentlythe
A2,A10andA11.Majorpartofhiscrossexaminationisinrespectof
pilgrimagetotheIranparticularlytothetombofImamReza,the
evidenceofwhichwillbediscussedsubsequently.
1037.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1075..
Ext.4825
policethathehadgonein1994andexplainedthatherealizedthat
hehadgonein1993whenhesawtheremittanceyesterdayathis
house.Thecontentsofthesaidremittancecorroboratehisversion
and show that he had generally deposed about going to Saudi
Arabiain199495,buthecorrectedhimselfonseeingtheremittance
thathehadgonein1993.Restofhiscrossexaminationbyboththe
learnedadvocates hasnotrevealedanythingthatwouldaffecthis
testimony inspite of certain improvements that were brought on
record.HismemoryaboutdoingtheworkoftheA3andA9andof
otherpersonsontheinstructionsoftheA3wastested.Headmitted
thathisworkisonlyconcernedwithtakingthepassportsfromthe
persons,givingthemtotheagentforvisaandaftertakingbackfrom
the agent to give them back to the persons. It has come in his
evidence that acquaintances from Kerala, Andhra Pradesh and
Hyderabadusedtobringtheworkofobtainingvisasandticketsand
heusedtogettheworkofMaldives,SaudiUmrahdonebyagent
Mohd.Umar,PW47,andadmittedinhiscrossexaminationthatitis
difficulttotellwhatworkhedidbeforeoneyearorbefore34years
about a particular person with his name and whether it was for
Umrah or Ziarat and also from which relative, friend or
acquaintanceapersonhadcometohimfortheworkofvisaand
tickets.Hemadepositivestatementsthathoweveritispossibleto
rememberaboutsomespecialpersonsandthepeoplewhosendhim
work from Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Mumbai are
specialforhim.Tomymind,thewitnessknowingthefamilyofthe
A3andA9since1984,makestheA3andA9specialpersonsandI
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1076..
Ext.4825
do not think that he would forget what work he did for them.
Insofarasthe recording ofhis statementis concerned,he gavea
perfect positive answer in his crossexamination that officers
KolhatkarandBawdhankarinquiredwithhimintheATSoffice.The
contentsofExt.626(1to3)showthenameofremittorasAtaur
Rehman,i.e.,thefatheroftheA3andbeneficiarynameofHasinabi
Mohd.Saheb,whichisasstatedbyhimatpagenos.627and628
showhisnameastheremittor.Thesedocumentsalsoprovethathe
hadgonetoSaudiArabiain199394andwascloselyacquainted
withAtaurRehman,fatheroftheA3andA9.Thereisnosuggestion
tohimthathewasnotacquaintedwiththeA3andA9andthereis
noreasonwhyhewoulddeposeagainsttheA3,A9,A2,A10and
A11.Thewitnesshasnocriminalantecedentsanditisnotshown
that he has any previous connection with the police or the ATS.
Thus,heisanabsolutelycrediblewitnessandthereisnohesitation
inacceptinghisentiretestimonyastruthful.
1038.
MushtaqAhmed,PW46'stestimonystandscorroboratedby
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1077..
Ext.4825
andRahilinSeptember,2003,whichisshownasanimprovement
overhisstatementbeforethepolice.Hisfurtherevidenceisclear
and practically unchallenged and he added to the above that
MushtaqAhmed,PW46,hadcomewithA3andwantedaccusedno.
3RahilfortheworkofvisaandticketforUmrahofRahilandhad
given his passport and came on the next day and gave him an
advanceofRs.12,000/forthevisaandticketworkwhichworkhe
gotdonefromGokulTravels,MarineLines,gavethevisaandticket
totheA3after8daysandgotacommissionofRs.1,500/forthe
saidwork.HisevidencethatMushtaqAhmed,PW46,knewtheA3
asA3'sfatherhadtakenhimwithhimtoSaudiandtheyhadhomely
relations,corroboratestheevidenceofMushtaqAhmed,PW46.He
unhesitatinglyidentifiedthe A3 inthe court,whichhas not been
challengedduringhiscrossexamination.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thatMushtaqAhmed,PW46,andA3againcametohimafter1015
daysforthevisaandticketworkofA3forUmrah.Thismeansthat
A3hadsoapproachedhimin2003andhestatedthathedidthat
workandgotacommission.Thisevidenceisclearandisnotbyway
of improvements over his statement and except for a single
contradiction,i.e.,Ext.1642,whichsaysthatA3hadbroughtfour
passports,nothingelsehasbeenrevealedinhiscrossexaminationto
discredithisversion.Thiscontradictionisnotmaterial.
1039.
recordabouthisworkandwhenhewascalledon08/08/06,the
ATSpolicehadaskedhimtobringwhateverproofhehadaboutthe
visaandticketofFaisalforUmrahthathehaddone,therefore,he
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1078..
Ext.4825
wenttoGokulTravelsandbroughtthepassportsandvisasofA3and
wantedaccusedno.3RahilandbillsofticketsArts.261(1to5)and
262(1 to 6). However, though PI Bavdhankar, PW152, deposed
about seizing them under the panchanama Ext. 1637, though he
identifiedthem andidentifiedhis signatureandsignatures of the
panchwitnessesonthesaiddocumentsandalsotheenvelopeArt.
262A,thosedocumentsremainedtobereceivedinevidenceatthat
time.Hence,theyarenowreceivedinevidenceandmarkedasExts.
4790(1to5)and4791(1to6)respectively.Theircontentsshowthat
thepassportoftheA3wasbearingNo.B5403385andhisAirIndia
ticket from Mumbai to Jeddah by flight no. AI865 was booked
through Akbar Travels. They also show passport no.1387118 of
wantedaccusedno.3RahilAtaurRehman,visaofKingdomofSaudi
Arabiaissuedon22/09/03andbillofAkbarTravelsissuedtoGokul
Travelsdtd.16/09/03ofAirIndiaofwantedaccusedno.3Rahilfor
MumbaitoJeddah.ThesedocumentsconclusivelyprovethatA3had
bookedaticketofAirIndiaforgoingfromMumbaitoJeddahand
backtoMumbaiandwantedacusedno.3Rahilhadalsodoneso
andavisavalidforonemonthwasissuedtohimon22/09/03by
theKingdomofSaudiArabia.
1040.
InrespectoftheevidenceofPIBavdhankar,PW152,about
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1079..
Ext.4825
gave a correct explanation which has been borne out from the
evidencegivenbytheotherATSofficers,thattheydidnotsealthe
registersbecausethebrasssealwasnotavailableatthattime.The
saidregistersandthedocumentswereseizedon08/08/06andit
hascomeonrecordthattheATSgottheirbrasssealon12/08/06.
Thus, no fault can be found with him for not having sealed the
packets in which he had put the documents and registers. Even
otherwise, the persons from whom they are seized have been
examinedandtheyhaveidentifiedthearticlesandstatedaboutthe
policehavingseizedthedocuments,registersfromthem.Another
aspectisthatpanchwitnessesforallthesepanchanamashavenot
beenexaminedandforthesamereasonasabove,itdoesnotaffect
theseizureofthedocumentsandregisters.
1041.
Mohd.Umar,PW47'smemoryinrespectofdoingthework
ofA3andwantedaccusedno.3Rahilwastriedtobetestedbyhis
crossexaminationandthoughheadmittedthathecannottellthe
namesofpersonsforwhomMushtaqAhmed,PW46,hadcometo
himforthefirsttimefortheworkofMaldivesandinwhichmonth
oryearhehadgonethere,thathecannottellthenameofpersons
whoseworkofMaldiveswasgiventohimsubsequentlybyMushtaq
Ahmed,PW46,hispositivestatementfurtherthatexceptforthetwo
persons, i.e., the A3 and wanted accused no. 3 Rahil, Mushtaq
Ahmed,PW46,hadnotcometohimfortheworkofUmrahforany
otherperson.Therefore,thiswasanexceptionalcasewhichisthe
reasonforhimtorememberitandthemainreasonforitbeingthat
MushtaqAhmed,PW46,knewA3asA3'sfatherhadtakenhimwith
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1080..
Ext.4825
himtoSaudiArabia.Otherthanthisthereisnothinginhiscross
examinationtodiscredithisversionandhedeniedthesuggestion
that he deposed falsely because of pressure of the police. What
pressureisthereisnotputtohimorexplained.Ihave,therefore,no
hesitationinacceptinghistestimonyastruthful.
1042.
InviewoftheevidencegivenbyMushtaqAhmed,PW46,
Mohd.Umar,PW47,andPIBavdhankar,PW152,itwillhavetobe
held that prosecution has proved that A3 had given the work of
obtainingvisatoMushtaqAhmed,PW46,forhimselfandwanted
accused no. 3 Rahil for Umrah in Saudi Arabia in 2003, that
Mushtaq Ahmed, PW46, had given this work to Mohd. Umar,
PW47,whohaddonethatworkandgiventhevisaandticketofthe
wantedaccusedno.3Rahil totheA3andhadgiventhevisaand
ticketofA3tohimin2003andthevisaofthewantedaccusedno.3
RahilofKingdomofSaudiArabiadtd.22/09/03andhehadbooked
aticketon16/09/03forgoingfromMumbaitoJeddahandback
andA3hadbookedaticketfor21/10/03goingfromMumbaito
Jeddahandback. Thisisthecircumstanceno.29provedbythe
prosecution.ItistheeleventhcircumstanceagainsttheA3.
1043.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,that
afteralettertotheSr.InspectorofPolice,AirportBranch,SBII,CID,
Mumbai, by DCP Bajaj and his, i.e., Sr. PI Rathod, PW176's
reminder,theygotaletterExt.1999fromtheSr.PIsendingthem
the information about the departure of the A3 from India. The
contentsofExt.1999showthattheA3wasclearedtoimmigration
ofthataircheckpostforhisdepartureon08/11/03.Thisevidence
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1081..
Ext.4825
isunchallengedandcoupledwiththeevidenceofMushtaqAhmed,
PW46,andMohd.Umar,PW47,itprovesthattheA3hadleftIndia
forJeddahon08/11/03.
1044.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,that
theA3hadbeendeportedonanemergencycertificatefromJeddah
in Saudi Arabia in December, 2004. Therefore, PSI Gaikwad,
PW169, was directed to collect the disembarkation/arrival card
fromtheFRRO,DelhiAirportandithascomeintheevidenceofPSI
Gaikwad,PW169,thatafterhehadcollectedthedocumentsfrom
the FRRO, he informed about the investigation to Sr. PI Rathod,
PW176,andDCPBajajonphoneandatthattimeSr.PIRathod,
PW176,toldhimabouttheA3havinggonetoJeddahbyairin2004
andhewasaskedtocollectthedetailsandinformationabouthis
travel.HedeposedaboutgoingtotheofficeofAFRROImmigration,
New Delhi at R. K. Puram on 10/10/06, meeting AFRRO Ravi
Saigal,whoinspectedtherecordandgavehimtheinformationthat
theA3hadcometoDelhionemergencycertificatefromJeddahon
01/12/04andhegavetheattestedphotocopyofthedisembarkation
card.ThecontentsofExt.1813showthenameoftheA3,hisdateof
birth, his port of boarding at Jeddah and date of arrival as
01/12/04, under the grid passport no.906081 dtd. 27/11/04 is
written.Itisobviouslynotthepassportnumberoftheaccused,but
itistheserialnumberoftheemergencycertificateExt.1580issued
by the Consul General of India in Jeddah. There is no cross
examinationtoPSIGaikwad,PW169,onthispointandithascome
inhisevidencethathereturnedbacktoMumbaiandgavereport
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1082..
Ext.4825
Ext.1814abouttheinvestigationthathehaddone,heprovedthe
station diary entry no. 7 about leaving for Delhi on 02/10/06,
certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1809,andtheentryno.8dtd.
12/10/06, truephotocopy of whichatExt. 1815,the contents of
whichcorroboratehisversion.Thisevidenceisalsounchallenged.
1045.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thata
letterdtd.09/08/06,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1572,wasgiven
tothepassportoffice,Puneforobtainingcopiesoftheapplication
andthedocumentsgivenbytheA3andtheSuperintendentofthat
office forwarded true photocopies of the application and the
documentssubmittedbytheA3,Ext.1574(17pages),underthe
covering letter Ext. 1573. The contents of Ext. 1573 show that
passport no. B5403385 was issued to the A3 by their office on
06/06/01andhisaddressisthatofPuneasmentionedearlierand
Ext.1574(colly)showsthepassportapplicationformfilledinbythe
A3 on 08/10/00 at Pune alongwith the correspondence and
supporingdocumentslikeHSCcertificateandrationcard.DCPBajaj
hadsentaletteron14/08/06tothepassportoffice,Pune,office
copyofwhichisatExt.1575,askingfortheemergencycertificateof
the A3 and the said office had sent a phtotocopy of the said
emergencycertificatealongwiththeirletterExt.1576.Therefore,he
again sent a letter dtd.19/09/06, office copy of which is at Ext.
1577(1)alongwiththeapplicationinformat,officecopyofwihchis
at Ext. 1577(2) asking the said office to hand over the original
emergencycertificateforthepurposeofinvestigation.Ithascomein
theevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatDCPBajajgavealetter
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1083..
Ext.4825
on30/10/06tothesameoffice,photocopyofwhichisatExt.1578,
forhandingovertheemergencycertificateoftheA3toPSIRavindra
KshirsagaroftheATS,Mumbaiandaccordinglybytheforwarding
letterExt.1579ManishaDoiphode,PW142,theSuperintendentof
thatofficehandedovertheoriginalemeregencycertificateExt.1580
to PSI Kshirsagar alongwith the covering letter Ext. 1579. The
contentsoftheemergencycertificateExt.1580showthatitisissued
by the Consul General of India, Jeddah on 27/08/04 to the A3
bearing no. 906081. Manisha Doiphode, PW142, gave evidence
aboutitandprovedthecontentsoftheletterissuedbyhercolleague
Ext.1573,lettersExts.1576and1579andtheoriginalemergency
certificateExt.1580.ShedeposedabouthandingoverExt.1580to
PSI Khsirsagar by her letter Ext. 1579. Her crossexamination by
learned advocate Shetty for the A3 is in respect of her personal
knowledge about when the emergency certificate was recieved in
theiroffice,whoreceivedit,whetheranyinquirywasmadeaboutit
andthattheemergencycertificateExt.1580doesnotcontainthe
passport number and the date of its issue. It has come in her
evidencethattheemergencycertificateisissuedwhenthepassport
islostaborad.Ifthisisso,thereisnoquestionofpassportnumber
andthedateofissueappearingontheemergencycertificate.Ithas
come in her reexamination by the learned SPP that the Indian
Embassyinaparticularcountryissuestheemergencycertificateon
the information given by the person to whom it is issued. Thus,
thereisnothinginherevidencetodiscreditherversionandinfact
theoriginalemergencycerticicateExt.1580isapublicdocument
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1084..
Ext.4825
1046.
Inthisrespect,learnedadvocateShettyfortheA3criticized
1047.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,that
correspondencewasmadewiththeSaudiAirlinesbywhichtheA3
was deported to India and the manifest containing the list of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1085..
Ext.4825
passengers was obtained and for that purpose a letter was sent
underthesignatureofACPTawde,officecopyofwhichisatExt.
1983,toobtainthemanifestandtheAirlinessentthemanifest,Ext.
1985, alongwith its covering letter Ext. 1984. It seems that
alongwiththeeffortsthatweremadetoobtainthedocumentsthat
the A3 had submitted with his application for passport and the
efforts made for obtaining the emergency certificate, ACP Tawde
also wrote a letter Ext. 1983 on 20/08/06 to the Saudi Airlines
asking for the arrival details and the said Airlines furnished the
manifest dtd. 01/12/04 Ext. 1985, which mentions three names
which are similar, viz., Ataur Rehman, Mohd. Shaikh and Shaikh
Mohd.,andbythecoveringletterExt.1984,itwasinformedthat
Delhi office of the Airlines checked the entire manifest, but they
couldnotfindanypassengerwiththeexactnameandtheytraced
few names which were similar. Leaving aside this evidence, the
emergencycertificateExt.1580issufficienttoprovethattheA3was
deportedfromJeddahinSaudiArabiatoIndiaon01/12/04.Inview
oftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthattheprosecution
hasprovedthatthewantedaccusedno.3RahilhadgonetoJeddah
inSaudiArabiasometimein2003fromMumbaiandtheA3had
gonetoJeddahinSaudiArabiaon08/11/03fromMumbaiandwas
deported from Jeddah on 01/12/04 as he did not have a valid
passport. This is the circumstance no. 30 proved by the
prosecution. It is against the A3. It is the twelfth circumstance
againsthim.
1048.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1086..
Ext.4825
1049.
MushtaqAhmed,PW46hasgiventhedetailsoffivemore
transactionsortheworkofvisaandticketthathehaddoneonthe
instructionsoftheA3:
(i)
FirstisthathehadobtainedvisaforIranfortheA3'sfriend
TanveerAhmedAnsari,i.e.,theA2,in2004andA3hadsentthe
passport of the A2 with A9. This is brought on record as
improvement.However,hisfurtherevidencethathehadgiventhat
worktoagentJoharSayyedandtheticketfortheA2wasobtained
from Akbar Travels is corroborated by Afzal Hirji, PW43, whose
evidencethatA2'spassportcamethroughAlMehdiToursin2005
and his ticket was not issued through them though the visa was
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1087..
Ext.4825
donebythem,isbroughtonrecordasimprovement.Heidentified
the photocopies of the letter dtd. 12/04/04 and the list of 25
persons,Arts.258(1and2),whichwereprovedduringtheevidence
ofPIBavdhankar,PW152,andreceivedinevidenceasExts.1641(1
and2).Ithascomeinhisevidencethathewascalledintheofficeof
theATSatBhoiwadaon08/08/06inconnectionwiththerailway
bombblastsandtheytoldhimthenamesoftheA2,A9andA11and
ZulfiquarFaiyazAhmed,Mohd.Chhipa,MehmoodShaikhandFiroz
Ghaswala.Thiswasbroughtonrecordasanimprovement,butIdo
notseehowthiscanbestatedbyawitnesstothepolicewhenhis
statementwasrecordedbecauseitisapartoftheinquirythatthe
policedidwithhim.TheevidenceofPIBavdhankar,PW152,and
thiswitnessisunchallengedandthecontentsofExt.1641(1)show
therequestmadetothevisasectionoftheConsulGeneralforthe
IslamicRepublicofIran,Mumbaiforissuingdoubleentryvisafor
performingZiaratforthe25Zaireenasperthelistenclosedandthe
listExt.1641(2)showsthenameoftheA2atsr.no.25,whichalso
showshispassportno.B0099830.ThepassportExt.449showsthe
stampsofMumbaiimmigrationofCSIAirportdtd.21/05/04andthe
otherstampshowsthathereturnedon25/06/04.Thevisaissuedby
Islamic Republic of Iran is for the period from 15/04/04 to
14/07/04.Thereisalsoastampofvisaextension.Thus,itwillhave
tobeheldthattheprosecutionhasprovedthatin2004theA3had
sent the passport of the A2 with the A9 to the travel agent for
obtaining visa for Iran for the A2 and that the A2 traveled from
MumbaitoTehraninIranon21/05/04andreturnedon25/06/04.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1088..
Ext.4825
Thisisthecircumstanceno.31provedbytheprosecution.Itis
againsttheA3,A9andA2.Itisthethirteenthcircumstanceagainst
the A3, fifth circumstance against the A9 and sixth circumstance
againsttheA2.
1050.
(ii)secondisaboutMushtaqAhmed,PW46,obtainingvisa
forIranfortheA9soonafterthevisaworkthathedidforA2in
2004andithascomeinhisevidencethataftersomedaysA9had
givenhispassportforobtainingvisaforIran,whichhehadgivento
AshikAli,PW44.IthascomeintheevidenceofAshikAli,PW44,
workingwithAsSeratToursasaToursandTravelsagent,thatthey
give the work of obtaining the visas to Afzal Hirji, PW43, of Al
ShayaNasserTravels,thattheymaintainarecordofthepilgrims,
i.e.,thepersonsthattheytakeonpilgrimagesandmakeentriesof
thedetailsofthepassportandpastephotographofthepersonsin
theregisters.IthascomeinhisevidencethatATSpersonshadcame
totheirofficeon07/08/06andshowedhim78namesandasked
himtocometotheofficeiftheyhaddonesomeworkforthemand
oncheckinghisrecordhefoundfournamesoutofthenamesthat
theATSofficerhadgiven,whoseticketandvisaworkwasdoneby
them.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathetooktheregisterstothe
officeoftheATSatBhoiwadaonthenextdayandpolicetookthe
registersintheircustodyunderthepanchanama.Heidentifiedthe
registersExts.616,617and618,whichwerereceivedinevidenceas
learnedadvocatesfortheaccusedconsented.Ithasfurthercomein
hisevidencethatheremembersthattheagentbynameMushtaq
Ahmed, i.e., PW46, had brought the passports of four persons,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1089..
Ext.4825
whosenameshefound,viz.,A9,A11,Mohd.ChandandZulfiquar,
thatthepassportsoffourpersonswerereceivedfromtimetotime
during2004to2006,thatMushtaqAhmed,PW46,toldthemthe
said persons want to go for Ziarat to Iran. It has come in his
evidencethatduringthattimehehadhisowngroupforgoingto
IranandafterafewdaysMushtaqAhmed,PW46,toldhimthatthe
four people would not go with the group and they will go by
themselves and asked him to obtain their tickets and visas. He
provedtheentryofanameandphotographintheregisterExt.616
asthattobeoftheA9.HeidentifiedthepassportoftheA9Art.178,
Ext. 620, on the basis of details written in the said register and
statedthataspertheentryintheregisterthispersonwasgotoIran
on 07/05/04. The contents of the said passport show stamps of
Mumbai immigration from CSI airport of departure on 06/08/04
andofarrivalon10/09/04.
1051.
AshikAli,PW44,ofAsSeratTourshadgivenfourpassportsfrom
20042006andheidentifiedtheA3andheprovedtheentryExt.
603intheregisteroftheyear2004oftheA9inrespectofpassport
no.E0634943andstatedthatthispassporthadcometoMushtaq
Ahmed,PW46,forvisatoIran.HewasshownthepassportArt.178,
Ext.620andheidentifieditasofthesamepersononthebasisof
thenumberandallotherdetailsinthepassportmentionedinthe
register.
1052.
(iii)ThirdisaboutMushtaqAhmed,PW46,obtainingvisa
forIranfortheA11.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatthepassportof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1090..
Ext.4825
theA11wasgiventohimbytheA3in2005or2006,whichhehad
giventoAshikAli,PW44.Thereisnothinginthecrossexamination
of Mushtaq Ahmed, PW46, except the contradicted portion Ext.
1643(5)discussedabove.AshikAli,PW44,provedtheentryinthe
registerExt.617pertainingtotheA11andstatedthatasperthe
saidentrythesaidpersonwasgotoIranin2005.Heidentifiedthe
passportArt.133,Ext.619,oftheA11onthebasisofitsdetails
mentionedintheregister.IthascomeintheevidenceofAfzalHirji,
PW43,thatthepassportoftheA11wasbroughtbytheagentofAs
SeratTours,i.e.,AshikAli,PW44,andheprovedtheentry,Ext.607,
whichisinhishandwriting.TheentryisconcerningtheA11andhe
identifiedthepassportArt.133,Ext.619,onthebasisofitsnumber
andtheotherdetailsthatareenteredintheregister.Thecontentsof
Ext.619showthe stamps of Mumbaiimmigration CSIAirportof
departuredtd.04/04/05andofarrivaldtd.29/04/05.
1053.
(iv)FourthisaboutMushtaqAhmed,PW46,obtainingvisa
forIranforFaiyyazAhmedandMohd.Chand.Ithascomeinhis
evidencethatA3hadgiventhepassportsofthesaidtwopersonsto
him for obtaining visa of Iran, which he had given to Ashik Ali,
PW44,andticketswerealsoobtainedfromhim.Thereisnothingin
the crossexamination of Mushtaq Ahmed, PW46, to discredit his
version except the contradicted portion Ext. 1643(5), discussed
above.AshikAli,PW44,provedtheentryintheregisterExt.617
pertainingtoChipaMohd.Aliandstatedthataspertheentryinthe
register,thispersonwasgotoIranin2005andexplainedthatthe
agenthadgivenonlythreephotographsofthisperson,therefore,his
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1091..
Ext.4825
photographisnotintheregister.Hehadearlierstatedthattheytake
fourphotographsofeachperson,butMushtaqAhmed,PW46,had
broughtfourphotographsofthreepersonsandthreephotographsof
onepersonandtoldthemthattheywouldbringonephotographof
theonepersonlateron.HealsoprovedtheentryintheregisterExt.
618pertainingtoZulfiquarFaiyyazAhmedandstatedthatasper
theentryintheregisterthispersonwasgotoIranon02/05/06.
AfzalHirji,PW43,provedtheentryExt.605ofobtainingvisafor
ChipaMohd.statingthatitwasobtainedforIran.Healsoproved
theentryExt.606whichisinhishandwritinginrespectofZulfiquar
FaiyyazAhmedstatingthatthevisaforthatpersonwasforIran.It
hascomeinhisevidencethattheworkofobtainingvisasforboth
thesepersonswasgivenbyagentofAsSeratTravels,i.e.,AshikAli,
PW44.
1054.
PW44,andAfzalHirji,PW43,inrespectofthepointsno.(ii)to(iv)
supra.TheevidenceofMushtaqAhmed,PW46,hasbeendiscussed
indetailwhilediscussingtheevidenceagainsttheA3inrespectof
hissecondvisittoPakistanintheyear2003andafterdiscussionof
hisentireevidenceitisobservedthatheisanabsolutelycredible
witnesshavingnocriminalantecedentsandnopreviousconnection
withpoliceortheATSandthereisnohesitationinacceptinghis
entiretestimonyas truthful.There is similar crossexamination of
AshikAli,PW44,andAfzalHirji,PW43,inrespectofpointsno.(ii)
to(iv)above.MajorportionofthecrossexaminationofAshikAli,
PW44, by learned advocate Wahab Khan is in respect of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1092..
Ext.4825
pilgrimage/visittothetombofImamRezaforhavingtakenNiyaz.
This evidence is totally unimpeached because no improvement or
contradiction or omission is brought on record during his cross
examination.Ontheotherhand,positivestatementshavecomeon
recordinparagraph9ofhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocate
Wahab Khan after he was questioned about the procedure of
obtaining visas, that they had given around Rs.15,000/ to Rs.
17,000/ per person in the office of Afzal Hirji, PW43, for the
purposeofticketandvisa,thatafterfewdays,onthegivendate,
theywenttothatofficeandcollectedtheticketsandvisas,thatthey
followedthesameprocedureforobtainingticketsandvisasandas
theyweregettingtheworkdonefromAfzalHirji,PW43,therefore,
ticketsandvisasofthesethreepersonsweredonefromhim.These
statements have not been controverted. His further cross
examinationinparagraph14isaboutvisitofthepolicetohisoffice
forinquiryon07/08/06,hegoingtotheATSofficeon08/08/06,
police seizing the registers under the panchanama, his statement
being recorded, etc., and nothing has come out to discredit his
testimonyorimpeachhiscredibility.Headmittedasperthefactual
positionthattheregisterswerenotsealedbythelacsealandhis
truthfulnessandthetruthfulnessoftheeventofseizureofregisters,
Exts.616to618,fromhimisevidentbyhisdenialthathedoesnot
knowwhatthepolicedidexceptencirclingcertainnamesbyredpen
andinthisconnectionhemadeapositivestatementthatthepolice
hadwrappedtheregistersinbrownpaper,pastedthebrownpaper
bygumandtwopersonshadsignedneartheencircledportion.He
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1093..
Ext.4825
1055.
1056.
Severalshortcomingswerepointedoutbylearnedadvocate
Shettyaboutmaintainingandmakingtheentiresintheregistersand
headmittedthathecannotsaywhooutofhisstaffmadetheentry
inrespectoftheA9,thattheregistersarenotseriallypaged,thatit
isnowherementionedintheregistersthatexcepttheA9remaining
passengerscamedirectlytohimingroupsorindividually,thatthe
entries in the registers are the only document with them about
arrangingvisasforthosepersons,etc.Withparticularreferenceto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1094..
Ext.4825
theentryoftheA9,headmittedthatthepagecontainingtheentry
containsphotographs,butnotserialnumbers,thatexceptthatentry
all other entries on that page are in his handwriting. He also
admitted that the photographs on this page are affixed in the
column of date and place of birth, the name and address of the
passengersiswritteninthecolumnofpaymentdetailsandticket
and visa particulars are written in the last column, that passport
detailsarenotmentionedintheentry,thatexcepttheentriesonthe
page containing the entry of A9 further about ten pages do not
contain such type of entries on the front pages like pasting the
photographs and writing the details in the continuation of the
columns on the first page and it is only on this page that the
passportdetailsofthepassengersarenotmentioned.Tomymind,if
passportsdetailsofallotherpassengersonthepagecontainingthe
entryoftheA9arenotmentioned,thisshowstheuniformitythat
was followed at that time. Insofar as the manner of pasting
photographsandwritingthedetailsonthefrontpageslikethepage
containingtheentryoftheA9,nodoubtfurthertenpagesdonot
contain such type of entries, but there are such entries on many
pages before that page and after that page. Insofar as writing of
names, addresses and particulars of ticket and visa in different
columnsthatissoforallotherentriesalsoonthatpage.Insofaras
theentriesoftheA9isconcerned,whichistheoddmanoutasitis
notinthehandwritingofthiswitness,itdoesnotappeartobean
interpollution,becausethelastentryonthenextpageofMerchant
Gulab Bano is similar. There are similar type of entries of single
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1095..
Ext.4825
1057.
AbouttheregisterExt.617containingtheentryaboutA11,
headmittedthatthefirstpagedoesnotmentionfromwhatdateto
whatdatetheregisteris.However,heexplainedthatitiswritten
thatitisfromJanuary,2005.Ext.616alsoshowstheyear2004to
bewrittenonthe firstpage.Exactlysimilar typeofshortcomings
thatwerepointedoutinrespectoftheentryoftheA9inExt.616
arealsopointedoutabouttheA11inExt.617.Hence,thesame
observationswillapplyhere.InrespectoftheentryoftheA11,he
admittedthatexceptthatentryallotherentriesonthatpagearein
onehandwriting.Perusalofthesaidregistershowsthatthereisa
similarentryonthepageaftertwopageswhichisofoneNaushad
Ali,aCharteredAccountant.AshikAli,PW44,deniedthesuggestion
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1096..
Ext.4825
thatentriesofA9andA11aremadeatthebehestoftheATSofficers
and he did not remember the date, but stated that he wrote the
words 'only Iran visa' in the entry of the A11. He specifically
explainedthatallthe remaining12personsweregiven onlyIran
visasasatthattimetheIraqborderwasclosed.Thisisaperfect
explanation. He admitted that in the entire register, the date of
travelandthedatesofissueofticketandvisaarenotmentioned,
thatthereisnomentionintheentriesfromthefirstpageaboutthe
monthandinthethirteenentries,thedateofdepartureandthedate
ofarrivalisalsonotmentioned.Heexplainedthatthisisnottheir
practice and generally they do not write these details and very
candidlyadmittedthateventodayhedoesnotknowthedatesofthe
departureandarrivaloftheA9andA11.Averypositivestatement
byhimthathedoesnottakeanypersonwithhimotherthanfor
pilgrimage corroborates his evidencein chiefexamination thatA9
andA11aswellasMohd.ChipaandFaiyyazhadnottraveledin
groupwithhim.Similartypesofshortcomingswerepointedoutin
respectoftheentryofMohd.ChipaintheregisterExt.617andsame
observationswillapply.
1058.
examinationinrespectofregistersthatthecolumnsarepreparedin
theregistersandeffortsaremadetoentertheinformationinthe
columntothebestoftheirability,however,itisnotahardandfast
practiceandtheentriesaremadehaphazardly.Obviously,thereisno
formatofregisterapprovedbyanygovernmentofficeanditisclear
that they are maintained only as notings or remembrance of the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1097..
Ext.4825
workdonebythem.Someoftheentriesdonotevencontainthe
amountoffeescollectedfortheworkthattheyhavedoneforthose
persons.Thus,noinferencecanbedrawnbecauseofthesocalled
shortcomingsinmaintainingtheregisters,thattheyareunreliable.
1059. Torecapitulate,AfzalHirji,PW43,hasprovedtheentriesin
theregistersseizedfromhim.OneisExt.603intheregisterofthe
year2004aboutA9,secondisExt.604intheregisteroftheyear
2005ofFirozGhaswala,thirdisExt.605intheregisterno.1ofthe
year200506ofChipaMohd.,fourthisExt.606intheregisterno.6
oftheyear2006ofZulfiquarFaiyyazAhmedandfifthisExt.607in
theregisterno.3oftheyear2005ofA11.Onceagainhiscross
examinationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanisinrespectofvisitto
thetombofImamRezaatMashadinIranandthecrossexamination
relevanttohisevidenceabouttheaccusedisinparagraph23.Itis
abouthowandwhentheATSapproachedhimorcontactedhimand
seizureoftheregisters,etc.,andhegavespecificanswersaboutthe
timingswhenhewenttotheofficeoftheATS,uptowhattimehe
wasthereandtheproductionoftheregistersbyhimandtheybeing
seizedbythepoliceunderpanchanama.Certainimprovementswere
brought on record and insofar as the improvements about the
relevantevidenceagainsttheaccusedthathegave,thefirstoneisto
thathehadstatedtothepolicethatthey,i.e.,thepolicetoldhimthe
namesoftheA9,A2,etc.,totalsevennames,showedhimpassport
copyofoneofthepersons,askedhimtobringtheregisterswhere
thenamesofthesevenpersonsappeared,thattheywentthrough
theregistersandcircledthenames.Idonotseehowthiscanbean
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1098..
Ext.4825
improvementbecauseitisapartofinquirythatthepolicedidwith
himanditisonlywhatworkhehasdoneinrespectoftheaccused
thatwillbehisevidencethatcanbeshownasanimprovement.Next
improvementwasinrespectofhisevidenceinparagraph2ofhis
chiefexaminationandthestatementinparagraph3thattheywere
brought by different subagents and the group leaders were
different,isobviouslyanexplanationaboutthesevenpersonsand
cannotamounttoanimprovement.Thesameisthecaseaboutthe
entire paragraph 4 of his chiefexamination wherein he has
explainedaboutissuingvisasforSunnipeoplebecausetheydonot
goforZiaratinIran,butthepassportsofthesevenpersons,whose
namesweretoldbytheATSweregiventothembytheirShiaagents
ingroupsandafterthevisawasstampedonpassports,theytookthe
passports back. Obviously, this is in respect of issue about Sunni
peoplenotgoingtoMashadandhissubsequentevidenceinthesaid
paragraphisaboutnotknowingthatthesevenpersonswereSunnis,
comingtoknowofitwhenthiscasecameupandhebeingcalledto
theofficeoftheATSandtheATSpeopleaskinghimastohowthey
couldnotrecognizebytheirnamesandwhytheyissuedvisaforIran
tothem.Tothelastquestionheexplainedthatasthenameslike
Zulfiqar, Muzzammil were similar to Shia names, they could not
identify.Subsequently,onlyonesentenceinparagraph5isshownas
animprovementthatthemealattombofImamRezaisgivenonly
onceinayeartoonepersonevenifhegoestentimesinayear.In
factthisisanadmittedpositionbydefencealsoandthissentence
has come after his evidence about there being a way to identify
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1099..
Ext.4825
whetherapersonhasgoneforZiarattoIranbyverifyingwhether
thereisaroundstampoftakingmealatthetombofImamReza.
Theimprovementinparagraph6ofhischiefexaminationthatall
theregistersaremaintainedintheordinarycourseofbusinessand
45staffmembersmake the entries in the registers,tomymind,
cannotbeapartofthestatementbecauseitiswhatisbroughton
record by the learned SPP in respect of the maintenance of the
registers.Thenextimprovementinthesameparagraphisthatthis
person,i.e.,theA9didnottravelinagroup.Thenextimprovement
isobviouslybypencilintheregisterinrespectofPNRoftheIndian
Airlines,whichtomymind,isanexplanationandcannotbepartof
statementtothepolice.Tomymind,alltheaboveimprovements,
eveniftheyareheldtobeso,arenotmaterialtothefactinissue
andthereforeareinconsequential.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1100..
Ext.4825
1061. DuringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateShetty,since
thelearnedadvocatereferredtoothercontentsandentriesinthe
register,theentireregisterswerereceivedinevidenceandmarked
asExts.608to612.Severalshortcomingsinmaintainingtheregister
aswerepointedoutduringthecrossexaminationofAshikAliand
some more were pointed out during the crossexamination by
learned advocate Shetty and same observations made by me in
respectofregistersExts.616and618maintainedintheofficeof
Ashik Ali, PW44, are applicable here. The crossexamination in
respectofregistershasshownthehaphazardmannerinmaintaining
them.Howeverthereisnoproblemaboutitastheregistershave
beenadmittedinevidenceandthereisnoprescribedformatbyany
government office. On the other hand he has given a very good
explanation that the registers do not contain the names of only
pilgrimsthathavegoneforZiaratorotherholyplaces,that5%of
thepersonsmaybenonpilgrims,thattheyusedtowritethenames
ofpersonsinagrouptogether,thatatoneortwoplacesnamesof
nonpilgrimsareincludedinthegroupsbecausetheywereflyingin
the same flight by the same agent and that pilgrims and non
pilgrims are not distinguished and no separate lists were made
anywhereintheregisters.Ithascomeinhisevidencefurtherthat
outof65,22entriesareinhishandwriting.Inconnectionwiththe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1101..
Ext.4825
entryatExt.607,heexplainedalltheentriesandtheoddentries
where there is a group of passengers. e.g., the passport in
connection with the entry at Ext. 606, they had received 81
passports,butinbetweensr.no.65and64thereisadifferentgroup
ofpersons.Finally,hedeniedthesuggestionthattheregistersare
manipulated.Thissuggestionismadewithoutassigninganyreason
foritandnothingisbroughtinhiscrossexaminationtoshowasto
whyheisdeposinginfavouroftheATSorasagainsttheaccused.
ThecrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateRasalisinrespectofthe
entryofZulfiquarFaiyyazAhmedandhisnamebeingtoldonthe
television and other things, which are not material. Thus, the
witnesshaswithstoodthetestofcrossexaminationandIdonotsee
whyhisevidenceshouldnotbeacceptedasacogentevidence.
1062. LearnedadvocateWahabKhancriticizedtheevidenceofthe
abovetwowitnesses,i.e.,AshikAli,PW44,andAfzalHirji,PW43,
bysubmittingthatthisisaneverychangingstorybytheATSandit
isthestoryoftheATSthatSunnisdonotgotothetombsinIranfor
ZiaratandPIIqbal,i.e.,ACPShaikh,PW162,wasthebestpersonto
explainthesethingsandalsoaboutjihadandkafir.Tomymind,the
lastsubmissionisnotcorrectbecausethoughACPShaikh,PW162,
was asked in paragraph 14 of his crossexamination about some
basicthings,hestatedthathecannotcommentwhethertheSunnis
arethefirstamongstMuslimstogoforZiaratatdurgahstohavethe
Niyaz. It is alsonot shown from his crossexamination that he is
somekindofanexpertinreligiousmatters.
1063. ThesubmissionofthelearnedadvocatethatShiaandSunnis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1102..
Ext.4825
isacreationoftheATS,istomymindtotallywrong.Itisignoring
thehistoryofstrifebetweentwosectssincelonginthemiddleeast
countries.ItisignoringthekillingsofShiapersonsinPakistaninthe
areaspopulatedbyShias.Itisignoringthecontinuousconflictgoing
oninIraqandSyriaandtheemergenceoftheterroristorganisation
IslamicStateofIraqandLevant(ISIL),whichisabannedterrorist
organisationandalsoknownasIslamicStateofIraqandSyria(ISIS)
andisnowknownasIslamicState(IS)whichisaSunnijihadist
group in the Middle East. The IS has proclaimed its State as a
'Caliphate'claimingreligiousauthorityoverallMuslimsacrossthe
worldaspiringtobringmuchoftheMusliminhabitedcountriesof
theworldunderitspoliticalcontrolanditisattractingyouthsfrom
othercountriesaswelltoparticipateinHolyJihadagainstallother
communitiesbyviolentmeansandisengagedinethniccleansingof
minoritiesandexecutionofnonbelievers.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1103..
Ext.4825
examined.Tomymind,thereisnocrossexaminationaboutthisto
theinvestigatingofficeror PIBavdhankar,PW152,whohadstated
about taking the statement of Jawar Sayyed and one Maulana
Zulfiquar.TheprosecutionprobablydidnotexaminethesaidJawar
Sayyedasitdidnotrelatetothearrestedaccusedorastheagents
whoactuallyobtainedthevisasareexamined.
1065.
InrespectoftheevidenceofAshikAli,PW44,hesubmits
thatthesaidwitnessdoesnothavepersonalknowledgeaboutthe
entriesintheregistersandthesaidregistershavenotbeensealed
whentheywereseizedanditisadmittedbyPIBavdhankar,PW152,
that case diary of the said crime does not mention recording of
statementofthesefivewitnesses,whichraisesthepossibilityabout
thestatementsaswellasthecasediaryhavingbeenmanipulatedor
tampered.Tomymind,Idonotseewhytheevidenceofthefive
agentsisbeingdisputedbecausetheaccusedhavecomeupwiththe
defencethattheyhadgoneforpilgrimagetoIran.So,iftheyhave
bona fidely traveled to Iran, they should accept all these things,
because leaving aside all this evidence, the visa stamps and
immigrationstampsonthepassportsoftheA2,A9,A10andA11are
sufficienttoprovethattheyhadgonetoIran.Thepurposeofthe
prosecutionforexaminingthesewitnessesistoshowthattheirvisas
wereobtainedfromthesameagentsaspertheinstructionsofthe
A3.Insofarastherebeingnoentryinthecasediaryaboutrecording
ofstatementsofthesewitnesses,itisexplainedbyPIBavdhankar,
PW152, that he had not maintained the case diary, that Sr. PI
Rathod, PW176, was maintaining it, that he handed over the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1104..
Ext.4825
statements,panchanamasandthedocumentsthathehadseizedto
him,aboutwhichalsothereisnomentioninthecasediaryanditis
alsonotmentionedthathehasdoneanypartoftheinvestigation
and he did not tell Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, to make entry in the
stationdiary,becausehewashissuperiorandhehaddonethework
as directed by him. He admitted that the station diary entry is
requiredtobemadeabouttherecordingsofthestatementsofthe
witnessesandinthiscasehedidnotmakeitabouttheworkthathe
did.Hisevidenceabouttakingthestatementsofthesefivewitnesses
and seizing the registers and documents under panchanamas is
corroborated by Sr.PI Rathod, PW176, in whose evidence it has
come that PI Bavdhankar, PW152, produced the statements,
panchanamas and the documents that were seized under the
panchanamas, which included registers and photocopies of travel
documents and that he deposited the seized articles with the
muddemalclerk.Thisevidenceisnotcontrovertedandthereisno
crossexaminationtohimonthispoint.Infact,allthewitnesses,i.e.,
PWs43 to 47, have not stated that their statements were not
recordedorthepanchanamaswerenotpreparedorthedocuments
werenotseized.Infact,thereisnosuggestiontothemthattheir
statementswerenotrecorded.
1066.
Arts.258(1and2)wereprovedbytheevidenceofPIBavdhankar,
PW152, and were marked as Exts. 1641 (1 and 2), but panch
witnesseshavenotbeenexaminedandthosedocumentsarexerox
documents and it shows the date 12/04/04 though Afzal Hirji,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1105..
Ext.4825
PW43,hadstatedthatA2spassporthadcometothemin2005.To
mymind, nonexamination of panch witnesses will not affect the
evidence of PI Bavdhankar, PW152, about seizure of these
documents, because the person from whom they are seized, i.e.,
Afzal Hirji, PW43, has deposed about it. It may be that he
committedanerrorinstatingtheyearas2005,butthecontentsof
thepassportExt.449oftheA2showsthestampsofimmigration
dtd. 21/05/04 for departure and 25/06/04 for arrival and the
periodofvisais15/04/04to14/07/04.Thus,thisdoesnotmake
anydifference.
1067.
1068.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,inviewoftherebeingno
improvements,omissionsorcontradictionsintheevidenceofAshik
Ali, PW44, there being no omissions or contradictions in the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1106..
Ext.4825
evidenceofAfzalHirji,PW43,andtheimprovementsmadebyhim
beingnotmaterialandnotaffectinghisevidencewithrespecttothe
factinissue,Ihavenohesitationinacceptingthetestimonyofthese
twowitnessesastruthful,cogentandreliable.Thesetwowitnesses
and Mushtaq Ahmed, PW46, are apparently impartial witnesses
havingnocriminalantecedents,nopriorlinkswiththepoliceorthe
ATSandnothingisbroughtonrecordtoshowthattheyhaveany
enmityorillwillagainsttheaccusedsoastoinducethemtospeak
infavouroftheprosecutionoragainsttheaccused.Itwilltherefore
havetobeheldthatbytheirevidencetheprosecutionhasproved:
(a)
Ahmed,PW46,forobtainingvisaforIranin 2004,thatMushtaq
Ahmed,PW46,gaveittothetouroperatorAshikAli,PW44,whoin
turngaveittoAfzalHirji,PW43,toobtainthevisaforIranforthe
A9.ThecontentsofthevisaandthepassportExt.620oftheA9
prove that it was obtained in the year 2004 and the stamps of
MumbaiimmigrationinitprovethathewenttoIranon06/08/04
andreturnedtoIndiaon10/09/04.Thislaterconclusioncannotbe
disputedasExt.620beingthepassportoftheA9containingthevisa
and the stamp of immigration is not denied. This is the
circumstanceno.32provedbytheprosecution. Itisagainstthe
A9.Itisthesixthcircumstanceagainsthim.
(b)
that the A3 had given the passport Ext. 619 of the A11 in
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1107..
Ext.4825
ThecontentsofthevisaandthepassportExt.619provethatitwas
issuedintheyear2004andthestampsofMumbaiimmigrationinit
provedthatA11wenttoIranon04/04/05andreturnedtoIndiaon
29/04/05.Infact,thelaterconclusioncannotbedisputedasExt.
619 being the passport of the A11 is not denied. This is the
circumstanceno.33provedbytheprosecution. Itisagainstthe
A3andA11.ItisthefourteenthcircumstanceagainsttheA3and
secondcircumstanceagainsttheA11.
(c)
thattheA3hadgiventhepassportofChipaMohd.Aliand
ZulfiquarFaiyyazAhmedtoMushtaqAhmed,PW46,forobtaining
visaforIranwhichhehadgiventoAshikAli,PW44,whointurn
hadgivenittoAfzalHirji,PW43,whoobtainedthevisaforthem
and these persons were to go to Iran in 2005 and on 02/05/06
respectively. This is the circumstance no. 34 proved by the
prosecution. It is against the A3. It is the fifteenth circumstance
againsttheA3.
(iv) The fifth transaction is about Mushtaq Ahmed, PW46,
obtainingvisaofIranforoneFirozGhaswalaandithascomeinhis
evidencethatthereafterin2005,A9hadalsogiventhepassportof
FirozGhaswalaforobtainingvisaforIran,whichhehadgivento
agent Johar Sayyed. It has come in the evidence of Shaikh
MohammadWasi,PW45,thatapersonbynameZawwarofhisShia
community had brought the passport of Firoz Ghaswala and told
him that he wants to go for Ziarat. He proved the entry in the
registerExt.624thatwasseizedfromhimstatingthattheentrywas
encircledbyredpenbytheATSofficerandthepanchashadsigned
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1108..
Ext.4825
it.Ithascomeintheevidenceof AfzalHirji,PW43,thatin2005
passport of Firoz Ghaswala had come through agent Mr. Wasi of
WesternTravels,i.e.,PW45.HeprovedtheentryExt.604inthe
register Ext. 609. There is no challenge to this evidence of Afzal
Hirji,PW43.AboutMushtaqAhmed,PW46'sevidence,itisonlythe
contradictedportionExt.1643(4)whichisdiscussedearlier.Insofar
astheevidenceofShaikhMohammadWasi,PW45,isconcerned,it
hascomeinhisevidencethathewenttotheATSofficeon08/08/06
ashewascalledthereontelephone,theATSofficerstoldhimtwo
names,i.e.,SohailShaikhandFirozGhaswala,askinghimwhether
thesepersonshaddonetheticketandvisaworkfromhisoffice,he
telephoned his office and asked them to verify and got the
information after some time that ticket and visa work of Sohail
ShaikhandonlyvisaworkofFirozGhaswalawasdonebyhisoffice,
that the copy of the passport of Sohail Shaikh and the register
containingtheentryofFirozGhaswalawasbroughtfromhisoffice,
that police saw the documents, prepared panchanama, thereafter
aftersometimetookhisstatement.Thisentireevidenceisbrought
onrecordasanimprovement,whichIwilldiscusssubsequently.He
identifiedtheregisterArt.259,whichwasreceivedinevidenceand
markedasExt.624asconsentedbylearnedadvocatesandhealso
identifiedthexeroxcopyArt.259AofthepassportoftheA10and
whenshownExt.621statedthattheArt.259Aisthexeroxcopyof
thesaidpassport.HeidentifiedtheentryofFirozGhaswalastating
that his name, address and passport details are written in the
registeranddeposedthattheentryofFirozGhaswalawasencircled
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1109..
Ext.4825
byredpenbytheATSofficersandthepanchashadsignedit.
1069.
HiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanis
onceagainmainlyontheaspectofvisittothetombofImamReza
and one portion from his statement, Ext. 1644, is proved as a
contradiction,whichsaysthatpolicehadshownhimxeroxcopiesof
passports of A3, A9, A11, A10 and A2 and asked him to verify
whether they had stamp of Ziarat. To my mind, even if it is
consideredthathehadstatedsotothepolice,hedidnotstatesoin
the court and it does not affect his evidence in respect of Firoz
GhaswalaortheA10.Theimprovementthatisbroughtonrecordas
pointedoutabove,tomymind,isaboutwhatactivityprecededthe
productionoftheregisterandphotocopyofthepassportoftheA10
fromhisofficeanditisnotsomaterialsoastoaffecthistestimony
abouttheentryintheregister.Hissubsequentevidenceinparagraph
8 is giving the details as to at what time the documents were
broughtfromhisoffice,howheshowedtheentryontherelevant
page,thattheATSofficersencircledtheentryinredinkandhowthe
registerandthephotocopyofthepassportwerepacked.
1070.
revealedthatthereisnoendorsementintheentryofFirozGhaswala
thathispassportwasgivenbyZawwar.Exceptthis,nothingadverse
was brought on record to discredit his version. He was cross
examinedabouttheendorsementinthecolumnslike,'ticket','visa
pilgrim','onemeal','endorsedbyparty'and'visa'andheexplained
themeaningsandalsoexplainedthatasitiswrittenintheremarks
columnintheentryofFirozGhaswalathatitisapilgrimvisa,he
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1110..
Ext.4825
saysthatvisasforthepersonsonpageno.14wereforIran,though
the specific word 'Iran' is not written. Of course, he denied the
suggestionthathepreparedtheregisterattheinstanceoftheATS,
whichwasgivenbylearnedadvocateShettyandalsothesuggestion
bythelearnedadvocateWahabKhanthathehadnotproducedthe
registerandxeroxcopyofthepassport.Thus,hehaswithstoodthe
testofcrossexaminationandhisevidenceaboutdoingtheworkof
visa for Firoz Ghaswala has remained unshaken. It is Afzal Hirji,
PW43,whohadobtainedthe visa for Firoz Ghaswalaasperthe
entryExt.604intheregisterExt.609.
1071.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthat
theprosecutionhasprovedthatA9hasobtainedvisaforIranforone
FirozGhaswalaintheyear2005fromtravelagentMushtaqAhmed,
PW46. This is the circumstance no. 35 proved by the
prosecution. It is against the A9. It is the seventh circumstance
againsttheA9.
1072.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceoftheirconspiracy,theA3on
returningtoIndiafromPakistanin2001instigatedtheA10andsent
himtoPakistanfortraininginthehandlinganduseofarmsand
explosivesandtheA10wenttoTehranfromMumbaion01/10/02
onZiaratvisatoavoidthedetectionandfromtheretoPakistan.It
hascomeintheevidenceof PIBavdhankar,PW152,thathehad
seizedtheregisterArt.259,Ext.624andphotocopyofpassportof
A10 Art. 259A under the panchanama Ext. 1639 from Shaikh
MohammadWasi,PW45,whocorroboratedhisversion.However,
their evidence is of no use as Art. 259A was not proved by the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1111..
Ext.4825
1073.
Itisallegedthatinpursuanceoftheirconspiracy,A6went
toDubaion01/02/03fromMumbaiandfromtherehetraveledto
KarachiinPakistanandunderwenttraininginthehandlingofarms
andexplosives.IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,
that it was disclosed in the investigation that the A6 was having
passportbyusingwhichhehadgonetoDubaiandthentoPakistan
for terroristtraining,returnedbackto Dubaiand fromDubai, he
went to Nepal and from there he entered in India, that it was
disclosedthathehadusedthisroutetohidehisvisittoPakistanand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1112..
Ext.4825
the passport was not traceable and it was suspected that he had
destroyedit.IthascomeinhisevidencethatDCPBajajsentaletter
totheRegionalPassportOfficer,Worli,photocopyofwhichisatExt.
2417,toobtainthedetailsofthepassportandthereplyExt.2418
alongwith photocopies of the documents furnished with the
application andthe copyofthe passportArts.380(1to6)were
received. It has come in his evidence that during the course of
investigationitwasfoundthattheA6hadtraveledtoDubaifrom
MumbaiInternationalAirport,therefore,he,i.e.,ACPPatil,PW186,
wrotealetter,photocopyofwhichisatExt.2419,totheSr.PIofSB
II,CID,AirportBranch,Mumbaion10/10/06andreceivedareply
Ext.2420 on 01/11/06 confirming the departure of the A6 on
01/02/03byflightno.WY802.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathe
wrote a letter, fax copy of which is at Ext. 2421, to the Airport
Service Manager, Oman Airways, CSI Airport, TerminalIIA,
Departure Level, Mumbai to inquire about his departure on
01/02/03andreceivedthereplyExt.2422alongwithphotocopiesof
thedocumentsArts.381(1to7).Apositivestatementhascome
duringthecrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateRasal,whowas
thenrepresentingtheaccused,thattheycametoknowduringthe
interrogationoftheA6,1015daysafterhisarrest,thathehada
passportandwhenaskedtogothroughthereplyExt.2422whichis
given by Oman Airways, he admitted that the letter does not
mentionthedestinationtowhichtheaccuseddeparted.Hewasthen
askedtogothroughthelistofpassengersandbaggageExt.2581(6),
who traveledon 01/02/03byOman Airways, MumbaitoMuscat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1113..
Ext.4825
andheadmittedthatthereisnodocumentotherthanthistoshow
that the accused had traveled anywhere apart from Muscat. He
deniedthesuggestionabouttheA6havingnottraveledtoDubaiat
anypoint,thesaidstoryiscookeduptosuittheirstory,thathehad
nevertraveledtoPakistanandneverundergonetrainingwhichishis
and his superior's creation and they accordingly prepared the
confessionalstatementoftheA6.
1074.
ItisclearthatthereplyExt.2422givenbyOmanAirwaysis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1114..
Ext.4825
AccusedgoingtoIranasacamouflageforgoingtoPakistan
formilitanttraining:
1075.
ItisallegedbytheprosecutionthattheA2,A9,A10and
A11,whoareSunniMuslims,traveledfromIndiatoIranonaZiarat
visa, but they did not visit Mashad where the tomb of the 8th
religiousleaderImamRezais situated.Itis submittedthatSunni
sectofMuslimsdonotbelieveintheteachingofImamRezaand
hence do not go for Ziarat to pilgrimage Iran, that they are not
granted Ziarat visa for Iran, that the person who undertakes this
pilgrimage usually travels in groups with a proper operator, all
pilgrimsgetholyfoodknownas'Niyaz'atthetombofImamRezaat
Mashad,butbeforeanypilgrimreceivestheNiyaz,hispassportis
stampedonthepageofZiaratvisabytheofficeoftheImamReza.It
is alleged that to camouflage their travel to Pakistan for militant
training,theA2,A9,A10andA11traveledtoIranonZiaratvisa,but
theydidnotvisitMashadandthencrossedtheIranborderillegally
andwenttoPakistanandunderwenttraining in the campofthe
wanted accused no. 1 Azam Chima. It is submitted that the
conclusiveproofofthisistheabsenceofstamps/sealofImamReza
tomb at Mashad on their passport. It is also alleged that these
accusedtraveledindividuallyinsteadofgoinginagrouponthetour
ofIran,whichisthenormalcourseofpilgrims.
1076.
Prosecutionisrelyingontheevidenceofthetravelagents
andtouroperators,PWs43to47,toprovetheaboveallegations.At
theoutset,itwillhavetobestatedthattheevidenceofthesefive
witnessesisnotabouttheabovefouraccusedillegallycrossingthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1115..
Ext.4825
1077.
Muslim,thathehasnotgonetoIranandthathehadperformedHaj
andUmrahpilgrimagewhenhewenttoSaudiArabia.Headmitted
thatinMuslims,Sunnisarethefirstpersonstogotodargahs,they
arethepersonswhofirstdistributeandeattheNiyazatthedargahs,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1116..
Ext.4825
1078.
Mohd.Umar,PW47,aSunniMuslim,didnotsayanything
aboutthisaspectinhischiefexamination,however,majorportionof
hiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanisrelatedto
thisissue.HestatedthathehasnevergoneforHajorUmrahand
admittedmostofthesuggestionsaboutHajpilgrimageduringwhich
peopleprincipallygotoMeccaandMedinaandvisitthetombof
ProphetMohammadandothertombsofhisrelativesandassociates.
Avagueanswerwasobtainedfromhimthatsamecanbesaidabout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1117..
Ext.4825
1079.
MuslimandgoesforpilgrimagetothedargahsatMahim,HajiAli,
Ajmer,NizamuddinatDelhi,etc.,inIndiaanditisthewishofevery
SunniMuslimtogoforpilgrimagetothetombsoftheascendants
and descendants of Prophet Mohammad. It has also come in his
crossexamination that Maulanas are responsible for spreading
differencesandhatebetweendifferentsectsofMuslims,thatthere
are no differences between different sects of Muslims insofar as
worshipingAllahandKuranisconcernedandthedisputesbetween
thesectsofMuslimsfromstarttoendisthehandiworkofMaulanas.
Soonethingisclearthatthereisexistenceofdisputesbetweenthe
sects of Muslims from start to end. His further admissions are
relevantaswillbepointedoutshortly.Headmittedthatthereareno
restrictions by the belief of the Sunni sect of Muslims or by the
GovernmentsofIran,Iraq,Syria,JordanandDamascus,forSunnis
to go for Ziarat, that it is the created restriction of some of the
Maulanas that as there is a Shia government in Iran the Sunni
MuslimsshouldnotgothereandifaSunniMuslimispossessedof
sufficient means, he will not hesitate to go to Iran for Ziarat. A
vaguequestionwasputtohimandavagueadmissionwasgivenby
himattheendofparagraph12thatatotherplacesofpilgrimageit
isnotnecessarythatapersoneatsNiyaztocompletethepilgrimage.
NospecificsuggestionaboutvisittothetombofImamRezainIran
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1118..
Ext.4825
isgiventohim.
1080.
PilgrimsaretakentoSaudiArabiaforpilgrimageofHajand
UmrahwhereallsectsofMuslimsgo,and,
(ii)
Pilgrims are taken to Syria, Iraq and Iran for Ziarat where
majorityShiasgo.
1081.
IthascomeinhisevidencethatMushtaqAhmed,PW46,
hadtoldhimthatthesefourpersons,i.e.,A9,A11,Mohd.Chand
andZulfiquarwanttogoforZiarattoIran,thatduringthattimehe
hadhisowngroupforgoingtoIran,butafterfewdaysMushtaq
Ahmed,PW46,toldhimthatthesefourpersonswouldnotgowith
thegroup,buttheywillgobythemselves.Thisevidenceisnotby
way of improvement and is not even controverted. In his chief
examination,hewasaskedtogothroughthepassportoftheA9and
A11andheexplainedthattheyhadgonetoIran,butnotforZiarat,
becausepersonswhogoforZiarattakeNiyazorprasadandastamp
isputontheirpassporttoshowitandthereisnosuchroundstamp
on the passports of the A9 and A11. However, in his cross
examination by learned advocate Wahab Khan, he admitted that
evenifapersongoestoIran,butdoesnotvisitMashad,butgoesto
otherreligiousplaces,theroundstampofMashadwillnotbeonhis
passport, thatif a person goes to Mashad,but does not take the
Niyaz,theroundstampwillnotbethereonhispassport.Hestated
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1119..
Ext.4825
thatNiyazmeansamealatthetombofImamRezaatnoontime
upto2006,thatifapersonvisitedthetombinthemorningforone
ortwohoursorintheevening,theroundstampwouldnotbethere
onhispassportandinrespectoftheguestvisitingthetomb,one
time free meal of good quality is given. He also admitted that a
personcanhavemealsthereonlyonceinayearthoughhemaygo
forZiaratfor30days,thatthereisnocompulsionatMashadfora
persontohavemealsandthenonlyhecandoZiarat.Headmitted
that in India Sunni sect people mostly visit dargahs, that Ziarat
meanspayinghomagetothepersonwhosetombitisandSunnis
maybeknownforgoingforZiarattodargahs.Hefurtheradmitted
thattherearereligiousplacesinIranotherthanthetombofImam
Reza,MasomequmandShahAbdulAzim,thattherearehistorical
andtouristplacesinIranand,thisisimportant,thatpeoplegoing
forZiarattoIranvisitthethreetombs.Headmittedinparagraph15
ofhiscrossexaminationthatitispossiblethatSunnipilgrimsgofor
ZiarattoIranandtheroundstampofMashadisputonthevisato
preventapersonfromhavingsecondmealinayear.Inhiscross
examinationbylearnedadvocateShetty,ithascomethatthemain
pilgrimagecentersinIranarethetombsofImamRezaatMashad,of
MasoomequmatQumandofShahAbdulAziminTehran.
1082.
AfzalHirji,PW43,isaShiaMuslim,whosefirmprocures
visasforpilgrimagetoHaj,UmrahandZiaratandithascomeinhis
evidencethatallpeopleofMuslimcommunitygotoHajandUmrah
andSunnisectMuslimsgotoZiaratalso,thatShiaandBohrasgoto
DamascusandIran,butSunnipeopledonotgoforZiarattoIran.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1120..
Ext.4825
1083.
thereisawaytoidentifywhetherapersonhasgoneforZiaratin
IrananditisthatwhentheygotovisitMashad,thetombofImam
Reza,theyaregivenonemeal,i.e.,lunchandaroundstampisput
on the visa by taking their passports, by which one can identify
whethertheyhadvisitedMashadornot.Ithascomeinhiscross
examinationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanthathewenttoIran
morethan15times,thathegoeswithhisfamilyindividuallyand
notinanygroupandthatthereare15stampsonhispassportof
visitingthetombofImamRezaatMashad.Hevolunteeredthatifhe
hadgonemorethanonceinayear,therewouldhavebeenonlyone
stamp.Inspite of giving the above answers,he candidly admitted
thatthereisnocircularoftheIranGovernmentaboutsendingonly
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1121..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
1084.
..1122..
Ext.4825
ImamRezaisnotasignofnotvisitingMashad,thatitisonlyan
indicationthatthepersonhasnottakenthemealsatthetombof
ImamReza,thattakingmealsisoptionalandisnotcompulsory,that
no stamp or endorsement is made on the visa about visiting
MasumaEQumandShahAbdulAzim.Hisfurtheradmissionsare
very relevant that there is a considerable population of Sunni
MuslimsinIran,thatundertheregimeofSaddamHussaintherewas
a restriction on members of Shia Muslim sect in Iraq as the
governmentwasofSunnisect,however,therewasnorestrictionon
SunnisinIranatanytime,althoughthegovernmentwasofShia
sect.Heemphaticallydeniedthesuggestioninhiscrossexamination
bylearnedadvocateShettythatSunnisrespectthetombsinIran.
1085.
Thelasttravelagentis ShaikhMohammadWasi,PW45,
whoisobviouslyaShiaMuslim,becausehestatedthathehasgone
toIranforZiaratseveraltimes,thathisagencydoesthebusinessof
conducting the tours to Haj, Umrah and Ziarat and all types of
clientscometothemforticketing.Ithascomeinhisevidencethat
heaskedZawwarorJoharSayyedofhisShiacommunitywhether
FirozGhaswalaisaShiasectMuslimgoingforZiarattothetombof
ImamRezainIran.Headmittedseveralaspectsaswereadmittedby
AfzalHirji,PW43,abouttheroundstampatthetombofImamReza
and there being norestriction by the Iran Government or by the
officeofthetombofImamRezafornonShiaMuslimsandpersons
from other religions to visit there, etc. He also admitted that a
person is not a Shia or Sunni by birth, but it is a question of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1123..
Ext.4825
followingaparticularfaithandthattheIranGovernmentdoesnot
makeadistinctionbetweenShiaandSunniwhileissuingvisafor
Ziarat.
1086.
submittedduringhisargumentsthatthefactofgoingtoIranisnot
at all an offence, that the witnesses have deposed quite clearly
withoutleavinganambiguity,thatgettingthestamponthepassport
isnotaconclusiveproofofthepersonhavinggoneforZiarattoIran.
Evenifapersongoesthere,thestampmaynotbethere.Therefore,
itisnotaconclusiveproofonwhichaninferencecanbedrawnthat
thepersonwhohadgonetherehadnotgoneforpilgrimage,buthad
goneforsometrainingofsometerroristactivity.Hesubmitsthatthe
material,i.e.,theevidencebythetravelagentsandtheIranvisitsof
theaccusedisnotconclusiveandsatisfactorymaterialpointingto
theguiltoftheaccused.LearnedadvocateWahabKhansubmitsthat
theATSisstillconfusedaboutthecasteandsubcasteoftheaccused
and again made an unacceptable submission that in some of the
confessions of the accused this aspect and about Ahle Hadis is
neglectedwhichiseverchangingtheoryoftheATS,butisincluded
intheconfessionsoftheA2andA9.Hesubmittedthatitwasthe
duty of the prosecution to explain the difference between Sunni,
ShiaandAhleHadisandsubmitsthattheIranissueisimaginaryand
isaconcoctedstoryofthe ATStogive supporttotheirsocalled
theoryoftheaccusedundergoingtraininginPakistan.Idonotthink
thatitisnecessaryfortheprosecutiontoexplainthereligiousthings
andthiscourtisnottheauthoritytodecidethesethings.Atypical
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1124..
Ext.4825
factemergedintheinvestigationanditisplacedbeforethecourt.
LearnedadvocatesubmittedthatPWs43to47havenotgivenany
particularreasonwhyonlyShiasgotoIranandnotSunnis,whereas,
thecrossexaminationofthewitnessescontradictsthisclaimofthe
prosecution. He pointed to the statement made by Afzal Hirji,
PW43,inparagraph15ofhis crossexaminationthatImamReza
andMasumaEQumtombsaredescendantsofProphetMohammad
andsubmittedthatthisitselfissufficienttodestroytheclaimofthe
prosecutionthatSunnisdonotgotoIranforZiarat.Heallegesthat
theATSismisusingtheabsenceofthestampsonthepassportsof
theaccusedtosaythattheydidnotgoforZiarat.Pointingouttothe
answersinparagraph17byAfzalHirji,PW43,thatgenerationsof
Moses and Jesus are considered as respectable by all sects of
MuslimsandtheBibleisalsorespectedbyallMuslims,hequestions
astowhetheritcanbeinterpretedoracceptedthatdescendantsand
ascendants of other religions are not respectable for the Muslims
andtheywillnotgotothetombsoftheascendantsanddescendants
ofProphetMohammad.Hesubmitsthatthesebasicthingswerenot
knowntotheATS.Therefore,theycreatedthedisputeofShiasand
SunnisandAhleHadis.Inthisconnection,myearlierobservationsin
paragraph 1063 in respect of the strife between the two sects of
MuslimsgoingonsincelongintheMiddleEastcountrieswillapply
withequalforce.
1087.
ThesubmissionsofthelearnedSPPinthiscontextarethat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1125..
Ext.4825
goingroups,butthesepersonsdidnotgowithgroups,thatitisnot
merelyacoincidencethatthoughtherearemanytravelagentsand
touroperators,theseaccusedlandupwiththesameagents.There
beingnostampofNiyazorprasadontheirpassportsisoneofthe
circumstance which is ultimately for the court to appreciate. He
submitsthatitmaybetruethatapersonmaygothereandnottake
Niyaz,butordinarilyitwouldnotsohappen.Inrespectofallthese
accusedgoingtothesameagentsortheirvisasbeingdonebythe
sameagents,hesubmitsthatthisissignificantifoneconsidersthe
claimoftheaccusedthattheydonotknoweachotherandthisis
oneoftheconnectinglinksshowingtheirinterconnectivity.
1088.
evidenceofthefiveagentsandtouroperatorsandbythecontentsof
the passports of the A2, A9, A10 and A11, the prosecution has
provedthatthesefouraccused,thoughSunniMuslims,traveledto
IranonZiaratvisa,butdidnotdopilgrimagethere,whichisobvious
fromtheabsenceofstampsofthetombofImamRezaatMashadin
IranabouthavingNiyazandthattheirtraveltoIranwasnothingbut
acamouflage.Theevidencegivenbythesefivewitnessesboilsdown
tothepositionthatthoughtheholyKuranhasnotcreatedsects,itis
theMaulanaswhohavecreatedthemandinpracticallifetheredo
existsdifferentsectsofMuslimslikeShiasandSunnis.Itisalsoclear
that Governments of Iran and Iraq, particularly of Iran, have not
bannedSunniMuslimsfromcomingtoIranforZiaratatthetombs
ofImamRezaandtwomore.ItisclearthattheConsulateofIran
doesnotdifferentiatebetweenShiaandSunniwhenitissuesvisas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1126..
Ext.4825
forZiaratinIran.However,theevidencegivenbythefivewitnesses,
twooutofwhomareSunniMuslims,underlinesandendorsesthe
factthatSunniMuslimsordinarilydonotgoforZiarattoIran.Itis
alsoclearthatapilgrimcanvisitthetombofImamRezaatMashad
inIrananddonottakeNiyazorprasad,becauseofwhichtherewill
benostampoftheofficeofImamRezaonhisvisaorpassport.Itis
also clear that it is not compulsory for a person to have
Niyaz/prasadatthetombofImamRezatocompletetheZiarat,i.e.,
pilgrimageofIran.ItisalsoclearthatdifferentsectsofMuslimdo
exists and it may be the handiwork of the Maulanas who are
responsibleforspreadingthedifferencesorhatebetweendifferent
sectsofMuslims.Thus,itisestablishedthattherearedifferentsects
ofMuslimsandtherearedifferencesandhatebetweenthemselves.
It is also clear that it is the created restriction of some of the
MaulanasthatasthereisaShiaGovernmentinIran,SunniMuslims
shouldnotgothere.Thisisalsoclearfromtheemphaticstatements
byallthefivewitnessesthatSunnisdonotrespectImamReza.Itis
alsoclearthatthemainpilgrimagecentersinIranarethetombsof
ImamRezaatMashad,ofMasoomequmatQumandofShahAbdul
AziminTehran.ItisalsoclearthatthereisnocircularoftheIran
GovernmentaboutsendingonlyShiastoIranoranyorderthatthey
canonlyvisitIranforthepurposeofZiaratandtherearenorules
displayedatthetombofImamRezathatonlyShiascanvisititfor
ZiaratandSunnisarenotallowed.Itisalsoclearthatabsenceof
stampsoftheofficeofImamRezaonthepassportisnotasignof
notvisitingMashad,thatitisonlyanindicationthatthepersonhas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1127..
Ext.4825
nottakenthemealsatthetombofImamReza,whichisoptional
andanyMuslimornonMuslimcangoforZiarattoIranandreturn
withouthavingstampoffreemealonhisvisa.
1089.
prosecutionhasprovedthatA2,A9,A10andA11,thoughSunnis,
havetraveledtoIranonZiaratvisa,butdidnotdothepilgrimage
there.Thereasonsforthisaremany.Themainamongstthembeing
theabsenceofroundstampofImamRezaofhavingthemealthere.
Ordinarily,apersonwhogoestothetombofImamRezaatMashad
inIranwilltrytohaveNiyazthatisdistributedthere.Hewillthen
obtain the stamp of he having taken the Niyaz, which will be a
proudthingforhimtoshowtoothers.Iwouldhaveunderstoodif
therewouldhavebeenastampoftheofficeofImamRezaonat
leastoneoutofthefourpassports.Secondly,AfzalHirji,PW43,had
deniedthesuggestionthathisagencyistheonlyagencyinMumbai
thatobtainsvisafromtheIranConsulateandinformedthatthere
aretwosuchmoreagencies.Thus,itisnotacoincidencethatthe
visas of the A2, A9and A11 atleast were obtained by the same
agent,i.e.,AfzalHirji,PW43,anditisprovedthatitwastheA3on
whose instructions the visas of the A2 and A11 were obtained.
Thirdly,allthesefourpersonsdidnottravelingroupsthoughthe
visaswereforZiaratandthoughAshikAli,PW44,isatouroperator
takingpilgrimagetoIran,eventhenallthesefouraccusedtraveled
individually.Thus,allthesethingspileuptotheinferenceofthere
beingacommonthreadbetweenthem.Nextallthesetravelagents
areMuslims,twoofthembeingSunnis,butthereisnothingintheir
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1128..
Ext.4825
evidencetoshowthattheyhaveanyillwillorenmityagainstthe
accusedortherehaveanypreviouscontactswiththepoliceinany
characterlikecomplainant,accusedorwitnessandtheillwilland
animosity against the accused is to such an extent that it would
extend to implicating them in such a serious crime. There is
absolutelynoreasonwhythepolicewouldpickoutonlythesefour
accused though there may be thousands of Muslims particularly
Sunnis,whomayhavetraveledtoIranduringthatperiodandwhose
passportsmaynotbehavingstampsofImamReza.Theabsenceof
thestamps,tomymind,isacrucialfactandacommonthread.To
mymind,if we visitthe TajMahal or the RedFort,wetake our
photographsonthebackgroundofthesetwohistoricalplacesand
eventhisissoinrespectofotherreligiousandtouristplaces.No
amount of arguments can explain the absence of stamp of Imam
Reza on the passports of the accused if they really had gone for
Ziarat,i.e.,pilgrimagetoIran.
1090.
Tomymind,theremaynotbeanywrittenrulesorlawor
circularbyIranorIraqGovernmentsayingthatonlyShiascancome
forZiarattoIranandSunniMuslimsarebanned,butasisseenat
several religious places, there are unwritten rules of practice and
suchunwrittenrulesofpracticeareapeculiarityofreligiousplaces.
Eg.,ifonevisitsaGurudwara,onehastowashhisfeetandcoverhis
head by scarf. One has to wear a lungi if one enters the inner
sanctuaryoftheTirumalaDevsthan.Forthesepracticestheremay
notbeanycircularsorrulesinwriting,butthatdoesnotmeanthat
theydonotexist.Moreover,allthesetravelagentsarenotexperts
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1129..
Ext.4825
onreligion.Theyarefollowingthepracticeoftheirownreligionas
isfollowedbyotherpeopleoftheircaste,subcasteorsect.There
may be nohard and fast rule for following or not following any
procedure or rule established by practice, but if one thinks as a
commonman,itisobvioustoexpectthatapersonwhogoesfor
Ziarat to Iran will take Niyaz at the tomb of Imam Reza and
consequentlywillgetthestampofthatofficeofhavingtakenthe
Niyaz.LeavingasideallthebasicsofIslamasaregivenintheHoly
Kuran,itiscommonknowledgethattherearetwosects,i.e.,Sunni
andShia,amongstthemandifnotinIndia,butintheMiddleEast
countriesandinPakistantherearedisputesbetweenthem,maybe
createdoverthetimebyMaulanas.
1091.
circumstanceagainsttheA2. Itistheeighthcircumstanceagainst
theA9.
ItisthefourthcircumstanceagainsttheA10.Itisthethird
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1130..
Ext.4825
circumstanceagainsttheA11.
ConnectionofaccusedwithbannedorganisationSIMI:
1092.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1131..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1132..
Ext.4825
promulgation,thatthestaffdidtheworkofpastingcopiesandASI
Parabwastheotherpersonwhowasannouncingonthemegaphone.
All these things have come in his crossexamination and there is
nothingtocontradictitandinfurthercrossexaminationhestated
thatafaxofthegazettewasreceivedon27/09/01fromtheHome
Ministryofthe Governmentof India,thatitwas in twopagesin
Hindi and English and photocopies of that fax was pasted. The
contentsofExt.1592showthatitisintwopages,firstinHindiand
secondinEnglish.Thusbyhisevidencetheprosecutionhasproved
thattheSIMIorganisationwasbannedon27/09/01.
1093.
IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thathe
had obtained the said gazette copies and had also obtained the
copiesofthegazettesextendingperiodofthebanbytheorderdtd.
08/02/06andgazettesregardingconfirmationoftheban,i.e.,Exts.
2437to2443.Ext.2437isthegazettepublishedbytheGovernment
of India on 09/04/02 reproducing the order of the Tribunal
constitutedundertheUA(P)A,whichwaspresidedoverbyJusticeS.
K. Agrawal and by the order dtd. 26/03/02 he confirmed the
declarationmadeintheNotificationdtd.27/09/01declaringSIMI
asanunlawfulassociation.Ext.2438isthesubsequentdeclaration
bytheGovernmentofIndiadtd.26/09/03declaringtheSIMItobe
an unlawful association. Ext. 2439 is the similar declaration dtd.
08/02/06andExt.2440isacorrigendumcorrectingawordinthe
mainnotification.Ext.2441isanotificationbytheGovernmentof
Indiaextendingthepowersundersections7and8oftheUA(P)Ato
theStateGovernmentsandtheUnionTerritoryAdministrationsin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1133..
Ext.4825
relationtotheunlawfulassociationSIMI.Ext.2442isanotification
dtd.07/03/06constitutingthetribunalundertheUA(P)Aforthe
purposeofadjudicatingwhetherornotthereissufficientcausefor
declaring the SIMI as unlawful association and Ext. 2443 dtd.
11/08/06reproducestheorderdtd.07/08/06passedbythesaid
TribunalheadedbyJusticeB.N.Chaturvedibywhichheconfirmed
the ban on SIMI imposed by Central Government by Notification
dtd.08/02/06readwithcorrigendumdtd.13/02/06.Thus,bythe
aboveevidencetheprosecutionhasprovedthattheStudentsIslamic
Movement of India, i.e., SIMI, was declared as an unlawful
associationundersection3(1)oftheUA(P)Aon27/09/01andthe
banhasbeenextendedfromtimetotimeuptoandevenafterthe
dateofthebombblastsinthiscase. Thisisthecircumstanceno.
39provedbytheprosecution.
1094.
ItisallegedbytheprosecutionthatthoughtheSIMIwas
bannedintheyear2001,A2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,A9,A11andA13
andwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreyandwantedaccusedno.3
Rahil Shaikh continued to remain members of the said banned
organisationandcontinuedtotakepartintheactivitiesofStudents
IslamicMovementofIndia,whichisadeclaredterroristorganisation
under sections 2(1)(m) and 35 of the UA(P)A and thereby
advocated,abetted,advisedandincitedtheIndianMuslimyouths
againstthepoliciesoftheGovernmentofIndia,promotedenmity
between different groups on grounds of religion by printing,
publishing and circulating seditious, inflammatoryand derogatory
materialandcollectedfundsandsubscriptionsfromothersforthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1134..
Ext.4825
achievementofthelargergoalofconspiracy.
1095.
Toprovethis,theprosecutionisrelyingon:
(a) therecoveryofbooksallegedlyconnectedwithSIMI,
(b)
thefactofpreviouscasesagainstsomeoftheaccusedalleging
thattheyareSIMIactivists,and,
(c)
theoralevidenceofsomewitnesses.
(a) Insofarastherecoveryofbooksisconcerned:
(i)
recoveryofeightbooks,Arts.150(1and2),151(1and2)
and152(1to4)fromtheA3on28/07/06isheldtobeprovedby
thecogentevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,andthepanchwitness
SanfordFernandes,PW31,andthecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.
533 of his house search, which is the circumstance no. 9 supra
provedbytheprosecution.
(ii)
recoveryoffourbooks,Arts.166(1and2),167and168from
theA9on28/07/06isheldtobeprovedbythecogentevidenceof
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,andthepanchwitnessSanfordFernandes,
PW31,andthecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.534ofhishouse
search, which is the circumstance no. 20 supra proved by the
prosecution.
(iii) recovery of six books, Arts. 249 (1 to 6) from the A10 on
30/07/06 is held to be proved by the cogent evidence of PSI
Gaikwad,PW169,andthepanchwitnessAlankarMane,PW61,and
thecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.758ofhishousesearch,which
isthecircumstanceno.21supraprovedbytheprosecution.
(iv) recoveryoftwobooks,Arts.135and136,Ext.1678and1679
respectively,fromtheA11on31/07/06isheldtobeprovedbythe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1135..
Ext.4825
recoveryofeightbooks,Arts.43(1and2),44(1to4),47
and48fromtheA2on01/08/06isheldtobeprovedbythecogent
evidence of Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, and the panch witness Rohit
Warang,PW19,andthecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.485ofhis
house search, which was as per his instance, which is the
circumstanceno.23supraprovedbytheprosecution.
1096.
Thecaseofthedefencethatthecolourphotocopiesofthe
booksthatwereseizedfromsomeaccusedbypoliceofKhandwa
PoliceStation,MadhyaPradeshinC.R.No.256/06on16/04/06
were obtained by the ATS and planted on the accused has been
discussedinparagraphs997to1001supraanditisheldthatno
suchinferencecanbedrawnfromtheevidenceofA4,DW38,or
fromthedocumentsExt.3226to3234.Atthecostofrepetitionit
willhavetobestatedthatthetheoryofplantationwillhavetobe
ruledoutonasingularaspect,viz.,thattherecoveryofthesaid
booksweremadeveryearlyafterthearrestoftheaccused.A2was
arrestedon24/07/06,A10andA11werearrestedon25/07/06and
A3andA9werearrestedon27/07/06.Therecoveriesofthebooks
fromtheA3andA9areontheverynextdayoftheirarrest,i.e.,on
28/07/06,andjust57daysafterthearrestoftheotheraccused.It
isalreadyobservedbymeanditwillhavetoberepeatedthatitwas
notpossibleforSr.PIRathod,PW176,whohadeffectedthreeout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1136..
Ext.4825
Hence,itwillhavetoheldthatbytheevidenceofseizureof
books,theprosecutionhasprovedthattheA3,A9,A10,A11andA2
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1137..
Ext.4825
werefoundinpossessionofbooksconnectedwithSIMI.
(b)
Insofarasthepreviouscasesagainsttheaccusedisconcerned;
(i)
ithascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatan
LACundertheUA(P)Aandanotherforriotingandundersection
353oftheIPChadbeenregisteredagainsttheA2andA4inPolice
StationKurlaandPSIKshirsagarobtainedthesaidcopies,i.e.,Exts.
462and463.Ext.462iscertifiedcopyissuedbycourtofACMM,
MumbaioffinalreportinLACNo.1839/01registeredon27/09/01
againsteightaccusedincludingtheA2andA4fortheoffencesunder
sections10and13oftheUA(P)AallegingthatSIMIwasbannedon
27/09/01andinviewofthebanorder,awatchwaskeptonthe
secretmovementofthesaidorganisationwiththehelpofSpecial
Squad at the office of the SIMI at 613, Fitwala Compound, Pipe
Road,Kurla(W),Mumbai70,thatinformationwasreceivedthatthe
IrshadKhan,presidentofMaharashtraZoneofSIMI,washavinga
privatediscussioninthatofficewiththemembersoftheSIMIand
accordinglyeightpersonswerefoundthereandwerearrested.Ext.
463isacertifiedcopyissuedbyACMMCourtofthefinalreportof
FIR no.2001dtd. 28/09/01 for the offences under sections 143,
147,353readwith34oftheIPC,10readwith13oftheUA(P)A
and 37(3) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act against 12
accusedincludingtheA2andA4ontheallegationthatwhenthey
wereproducedforremandon28/09/01inLACNo.1839/01inthe
11thCourtatKurlaandthecourtpassedanorderofreleasingthem
onbailofRs.3,000/andthecourtdirectedthemnottotakepartin
theactivitiesofSIMIorganisation,theaccusedhadbeentakenout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1138..
Ext.4825
fromthecourtandwerebeingtakentothepolicevehicle,atthat
timetheyshoutedantinationalslogans.
(ii)
arrestedaccusedwerehavingpreviouscasesregisteredagainstthem
atvariouspolicestationsandinformationaboutitwasobtainedby
procuring certified/true copies of the relevant documents. He
pointed out to the documents and the relevant against the A4 is
certifiedtruecopyissuedbySr.PI,ATS,Mumbai,Ext.1512,whichis
theFIRinLACNo.04/06ofATSPoliceStationfortheoffencesunder
sections10and13oftheUA(P)AagainsttheA4.Itisallegedinthe
chargesheetthatwhentheA4wastheactivememberofthebanned
organisationSIMI,hepromotedtheviewsoftheSIMIorganisation
andpublishedarticlesonthesubjectofjihadthatwouldinflamethe
feelings of Muslims and also tried to obtain money for the
organisation.
(iii) Ext.1514isthecertifiedtruecopyoftheFIRinCrimeNo.
256/06 issued by Dy. SP, Khandwa registered with Police Station
Kotwali,Dist.Khandwafortheoffencesundersections3,10and13
oftheUA(P)Aagainstthefiveaccusedandthebunchofdocuments
thatarewithitandwithcoveringletterExt.1513sentbySHOof
that police station to ACP and IO, ATS, Mumbai, which includes
photocopiesofstatementsofaccusedwhereintheyhaveinformed
thattheA4andtwoothersprintthebookletTehrikatMumbaiand
distribute it. The covering letter Ext.1513 shows that during
investigationofthatcrimeImranAnsari,socalledGeneralSecretary
ofSIMIinMadhyaPradesh,wasarrestedandinterrogatedandhe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1139..
Ext.4825
disclosedthefactthattheA4andothersinMumbaiusedtopublish
the Tehrik magazine for SIMI and the matter published in it is
vulnerable and creating disturbance for communal harmony. A
productionwarrantisissuedbyjudicialcourtatKhandwaagainst
theA4,whichwasenclosedwiththeletter,whichmakesitclearthat
theA4wasmadeanaccusedinthatcase.
(iv) Ext. 1518 is a certified copy of final report issued by MM
court,Mumbai,inrespectofLACNo.26/01registeredon28/01/01
fortheoffencesundersections10and13oftheUA(P)AofAndheri
PoliceStationagainsttheA7andhisbrotherKhalidanditisalleged
thatbothaccusedappealedtotheMuslimsinthatareainUrdumix
HindiandinflamedthembysayingthatnowallMuslimsbrothers
should come together and stay in Bharat and if necessary they
shouldprotestagainstAmericaatvariousplacesinBharatandon
this occasion, Pakistan should also help the Muslims and on this
occasionthepropertimehascomeforfightingtoliberateKashmir
from Bharat. This was done at 11.00 p.m. on 26/09/01 near
MograpadaMasjid,Mograpada,Andheri(E),Mumbai.Itisalleged
thatat9.30p.m.on27/09/01atthesameplacebrotheroftheA7
appealedtoMuslimandinflamedtheirfeelingsbysayingthatthe
worldisonfire,theIndiaGovernmenthasbannedtheSIMI,buthe
andSajid,i.e.,theA7,andtheotheractivistsofSIMIwillnotbe
afraidandwillgoonworkingforSIMIandtheMuslimsresidingin
Mograpadashouldbewiththem.
(v)
Ext.1519iscertifiedtruecopyissuedbyMMcourtoffinal
reportinFIRNo.132/01ofPoliceStationAndheriagainstthethree
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1140..
Ext.4825
accused including the A7 and his brother for the offences under
sections 153A, 120B, 153B, 505(2)(3) read with 34 of the IPC
allegingthatatthebehestoftheIrshadSalimKhan,whowasacting
asaPresidentofSIMI,thoughitwasbanned,A7andhisbrother
distributedpamphletsinUrducontaininginflammatorymatterthat
waslikelytoinciteandpromotethefeelingsofenmityandhatred
between Hindu and Muslims and that they had entered into
conspiracytodoso.
(vi) Ext.1516iscertifiedtruecopyissuedbyMMcourtofLACNo.
877/01ofVikhroliPoliceStationfortheoffencesundersections10
and 13 of the UA(P)A against 8 accused including A8 and Amar
Sardar Khan,PW75. Itis allegedthat even afterthe Notification
banning the SIMI was published, A1 to A8 in that case, took a
meeting at 5.30 a.m. on 28/09/01 in the office of the SIMI in
Vikhroliandtherebyconductedthe workofthesaidorganisation
withtheintentionofcreatingunrestinthesocietyandwerefound
inpossessionofpamphlets,magazinesandbooksandclothbanners
containingthepicturesofBabriMasjidwiththetitle'therevengeis
out'andofIslamicstrugglecontinuesfromAyodhyatoJerusalem.
(vii) Ext.1523iscertifiedtruecopyofstationdiaryentryno.46of
Lashkar Police Station, Pune City dtd. 28/08/03, which mentions
thatA10,aSIMIactivist,whowasnotfoundbythepolicesinceone
andhalfyears,wasarrestedundersection151(1)oftheCr.P.C.The
stationdiaryentryno.16ofthesamedaythatSIMIactivistshad
beenservedwiththenoticeaboutthebanonSIMIon27/09/01,
howevertheA10wasnotfoundforserviceofcopiesandoninquiry
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1141..
Ext.4825
withhisrelatives,itwasrevealedthathehadgonetoSaudiArabia,
Iraq, etc., and other countries, which was a false information to
mislead the police and it was revealed in the investigation that
beforethatdaySIMIactivistsofMumbaiusedtocometomeethim
andsometimesheusedtogotoMumbaitomeetthem.Therefore,it
was found that he may commit some subversive activity and
endangerthepublicpeaceandthereforearequestwasmadeforhis
detentionundersection151(3)oftheCr.P.C.
(viii) Exts. 1506 to 1509 are certified true copies of court
documentsissuedbydistrictcourt,JalgaonofRCCNo.919/01that
wasinconnectionwithFIRNo.178/99registeredwithMIDCPolice
Station,Jalgaonon03/12/99fortheoffencesundersection153A
read with section 34 of the IPC against the A13 and one Shaikh
Shakilontheallegationthattheyprintedanddistributedhandbills
in Urdu and English and posters of Masjids in order to provoke
peopleofMuslimcommunityandpromotefeelingsofenmityand
hatredbetweenHinduandMuslimcommunity.Ext.1511iscertified
truecopyissuedbyMIDCPoliceStationoffinalreportinFIRNo.
103/01dtd.28/07/01fortheoffencesundersections120B,153A,
121A,122,123,201,506Breadwith34oftheIPCandsections
4(a),4(b)and5oftheExplosiveSubstancesActagainsttenaccused
and six wanted accused, on the allegation that 45 days prior to
25/07/01atJalgaon,Nagpur,Delhi,JammuandKashmir,Dodha,
Kupwada, Shrinagar and Patna they gave lectures in weekly
meetings,publishedpostersandtherebypromotedandadvocatedto
promotefeelingsofenmitybetweenHinduandMuslimcommunity,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1142..
Ext.4825
1097.
prosecutionhasprovedthattheA2,A4,A7,A8,A10andA13had
previouscasesagainsttheminconnectionwiththeiractivitiesfor
thebannedorganisationSIMI.
(c) Five witnesses have been examined to prove that the said
accusedwereconnectedwithSIMI.
1098.
sisteroftheA7andtherebyrelatedtoA8.Heidentifiedboththe
accusedinthecourt.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathegottoknow
oneIsrarAhmedatTransInstituteofComputerTechnologyatMira
Road,wherehe didadiplomaincomputersin1999,asthesaid
Israr used to teach there and as he used to attend and give the
lectures of SIMI on Kuran, Hadis and life stories of Prophet
Mohammedandandhe,i.e.,thewitness,usedtoremainpresent
andhearthelectures,becauseofwhichhebecameconnectedwith
SIMIandstartedattendingitsprograms.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thattheofficeoftheSIMIwasatKurlaPipeRoad,whereheusedto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1143..
Ext.4825
1099.
connectionoftheaccusedwithSIMIaswellastoprovethattheA4
hadtakenthekeysofthehouseoftheA8inMay,2006fromhim
and took meeting in that house. Insofar as the first part, i.e., he
himself attending the lectures andprograms of SIMIbefore 2001
andA7andA8beingworkersofSIMI,hisevidenceaboutitistotally
unchallenged and there is not even a single suggestion to him
denyingthatevidence.Hence,insofarastheconnectionoftheA7
andA8withSIMI,i.e.,priorto2001isconcerneditisestablishedby
theprosecutionbeyondanydoubt.
1100.
InrespectofthesecondaspectMehmoodQureshi,PW65,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1144..
Ext.4825
admittedthathehadgoodrelationswiththeA8andtheywereon
visitingtermsattheirhousesandsometimetheA8usedtokeepthe
keysofthehousewithhimwhenheusedtogooutafterlockingthe
doorofhishouse.Hedidnotwalkwiththeprosecutioninrespectof
thesecondaspectandwhenaskedwhetherhehadgiventhekeysto
anyoneelsehestatedthathedoesnotrememberaboutitandthen
deniedthatA4hadcometoaskforthekeysofthehouseoftheA8.
HewasdeclaredhostilebythelearnedSPPandcrossexaminedand
ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationthattheATSpolicehadtaken
hisstatementon05/10/06andhehadgiventhestatementExt.767
toa magistrate atDadar,whichis obviouslythe statementunder
section 164ofthe Cr.P.C.Hedisownedseven portions from his
statement when confronted and those portions were got proved
fromPIKhanvilkar,PW168,asExts.1780(1to7).Hehasobviously
turnedhostiletotheprosecutioninviewofhisrelationwiththeA7
andA8andthoughheadmittedthathis statementwastakenon
05/10/06, typed on computer and explained to him in Hindi, he
deniedthatitwascorrectlywrittenasstatedbyhimanddeniedthe
portionExt.1780(1).Nowthoughhestatedthathecametoknowat
thattimeitselfthathisstatementisnotcorrectlywritten,hisfurther
answersarethathedidnotcomplainaboutittothepersonwho
recorded it saying that it was not correctly recorded or did not
complainaboutittoanyofhissuperiorofficer.Hemadepositive
statementsthathehadstatedtothemagistrateatDadarcourtin
October, 2006 that the police recorded an incorrect statement,
however, contents of Ext.767 do not show that he has so
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1145..
Ext.4825
complained.Headmittedthathedidnottellaboutthistoanyother
personduringtheperiodwhentheATSpolicetookhisstatement
andhecomplainedtothemagistrate.
1101.
Inrespectofstatementthathegavetothemagistratehis
story is that he was called to the ATS office three or four times
duringtheaboveperiodandheusedtobecalledthereforlearning
byheartthestatementthathewastogivebeforethemagistrateand
thatstatementinwritingwaswithhim,whichhedidnotgivetothe
magistrate.Though,thisisthestorytoldbyhimheadmittedthatas
heknewwhatstatementhehastogivetherewasnoquestionof
learning by heart the statement that he was to give before the
magistrate.InrespectofstatementrecordedbytheATSpolice,he
denied the suggestion that no portion of his statement that was
recordedon05/10/06wascorrect,whichinplaintermsmeansthat
someportionsofhisstatementsarecorrect.
1102.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1146..
Ext.4825
family,hisparentsareagedandthisisthereasonwhyhegavethe
statement and even now this fear is in his mind. However, he
admitted that he signed the statement that he made before the
magistrateandatthattimeinterpreterwaspresentandthereafterhe
admittedmostoftheportionsinthestatementbeforethemagistrate
exceptthathewasinspiredbyIsrarAhmedandthatEhtesham,i.e.,
the A4, taking the keys twice in May, 2006. Now wherever the
relevantportionswereputtohimhevolunteeredthathewastoldto
say so and that he was told that he may narrate anything in
beginning,buthisemphasisattheendshouldbethattheA4had
takenthekeystwiceinMay,2006.Allotherthingshehasadmitted
andeverywherevolunteeredthathewastoldtosaysoandhewas
toldthenamesthathestatedbeforethemagistrate.Onceagainin
respect of the procedure of recording statement before the
magistrate, he admitted that except the magistrate or interpreter,
therewasnootherpersonpresentinthechamberofthemagistrate
when his statement was recorded. This answer if read with his
admissionthathedidnothaveanyfearofthemagistrate,goesto
showthatheobviouslydeniedtherelevantfactsfalselyinrespectof
theA4.Thisisclearfromhisfurtheradmissionthatpolicehadtold
him a large number of things and admitted that he could have
avoidedstatingbeforethemagistratethewords'Iwasinspiredby
him,i.e.,IsrarAhmed'andthat'Ehteshamhadtakenthekeystwice
inMay2006'.HeadmittedtheentirecontentsofthestatementExt.
767asbeingcorrectlywrittenexcepttheabovetwoportionsthathe
denied.LearnedSPPveryskillfullygottheadmissionsfromhimthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1147..
Ext.4825
todayhedoesnothaveanyfearorapprehensioninhismindand
sincethelastdatetilltodaynoATSofficeroranypoliceofficerhas
threatenedhimorputhiminfear.Hisadmissionscoverandshow
thathisstatementsincrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahab
KhanthathereceivedcallsfromtheATSofficethriceinNovember,
twiceinDecember,2010andon18,19and20/01/11onhismobile,
thatthecallsweremadetopressurizehimtogiveevidenceasper
theirversionandhewascalledtotheATSofficeonthatnumberon
alltheoccasionsandwascalledtheretotutorhim,showthatheis
obviouslywonoverbytheaccusedparticularlyasheisrelatedtothe
A7andA8.Heproducedacopyofthetypedwrittenstatementdtd.
05/10/06,i.e.,Art.309,statingthatAPIVarpeforgottotakeitback
fromhimandthoughhedeposedabouthismobilehandsethaving
the records of the calls received from certain numbers, which he
allegestobeoftheATSofficeandwhenthemobileArt.310was
taken on record,itcame in his further crossexamination thathe
doesnothavethesimcardthatwasintheArt.310andadmitted
that calls that are received on a particular sim card that is in a
particular mobile handset are only recorded in that handset and
todaybylookingatthehandsetmemoryofArt.310onecannotsay
towhichsimcardnumberthecallswerereceived.Thus,thiseffort
bythedefencetoshowthathewascalledonhismobilefromthe
ATSofficetopressurizehimtogiveevidenceaspertheirversionand
calltotheATSofficefortutoringhimhasnotsucceeded.Nowwhat
remainsistheportionsfromhisstatementundersection161ofthe
Cr.P.C.whichhedeniedhavingstatedtothepolice,butwhichwere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1148..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1149..
Ext.4825
tothepoliceon05/10/06.Thisplusthelastrelevantcontradicted
portionExt.1780(7)concerningtheA4willalsohavetobeaccepted
asthestatementmadebythewitnesstothepolice,whichshows
thatheknowsA4since1999ashewasanofficebearer,thatA4used
tocometomeettheA8whenheusedtocometoMumbai,thatin
May,2006,A4cametohisshopHamjaGeneralStoresandtoldhim
that the A8 had asked him to take the keys of his house, which
MehmoodQureshi,PW65,gavetohimandatthattimeMehmood
Qureshi,PW65,knowthatA8andhiswifewerenotinthehouse,
thatatthattimetherewere56personswiththeA4andduringthat
periodhesotookthekeytwiceandtookmeetings.Thus,thoughhe
declinedtoidentifyanddidnotidentifytheA2,A4andA13when
theywereshowntohim,itisobviouslybecausehewaswonover
andhisevidenceabouttheA7andA8beingtheworkersofSIMI,is
probablygivenontheassumptionthatitisaninnocuousevidence
relating tothe events prior to 2001, but that evidence hasreally
fixedhisaswellastheA7andA8'sassociationwithSIMIandthe
proofoftheportionsinhisstatementwhicharenotchallengedhas
shownhisindepthknowledgeabouttheotheraccusedalsoandthe
activistsofSIMI.
1103.
Inrespectofhisevidence,therearesubmissionsbylearned
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1150..
Ext.4825
ThesubmissionsbylearnedadvocateShettyaremoreinrespectof
A8, whom he represents and his emphasis is more on what the
witnessstatedduringthecrossexaminationinrespectofpressureof
theATSandsurveillanceonhimandundueinfluencetogivethe
statementaspertheirdictates.Ihavealreadydiscussedthisandit
willnotbeoutofplacetopointoutthatlearnedadvocateskipped
theportionfromhisevidencethattherewasnoquestionoflearning
by heart the statement that he gave before the magistrate as he
knew what statement he had to give, which to my mind,
extinguishesthepossibilityofhebeingtutoredorforcedtogivethe
statementtothemagistrateasperthestatementthathegavetothe
policeearlier.Thesubmissionsofthelearnedadvocatethatitisnot
uncommon for a person to keep the keys with one's house with
neighbour is of no consequence and relevant thing is about A4
havingtakenthekeysofthehouseoftheA8fromthewitness.In
respectofthewitnessbeingregularlycalled,dailyfor15daysinthe
ATS office, shows the threat under which he was put and the
intimidation that he was given to give his statement, learned
advocatequestionsthatinviewofthiswhatvaluecanbeattachedto
astatementandwhetheritcanbesaidthatitisatruestatement
fromanindependentperson.Inthisconnection,itwillnotbeoutof
placetopointoutthatthewitnesshasnowherestatedthathewas
threatenedtogiveafalsestatementatthattime.Learnedadvocate
lastlysubmittedthattheevidenceofthewitnessdoesnotconnect
A8tothecrime.Thatwillbeadifferentaspect.
1104.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1151..
Ext.4825
exceptdeclaringthewitnesshostilethelearnedprosecutorhasnot
done anything for this witness is obviously ignoring the fact of
contradicted portions being proved through the concerned
investigating officer and the other answers discussed by me that
wereobtainedduringthecrossexaminationbylearnedSPP.Hisnext
submissionisinrespectofdefenceoftheA7aboutthedefenceof
alibiofbeing athis house on09/07/06, which hasalreadybeen
discussed.
1105.
Thereare13pointsinthewrittensubmissionsconcerning
thiswitnessgivenbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhandmostof
them have been covered in the discussion above. Some strange
submissions are made that Mehmood Qureshi, PW65, has not
identifiedanyofthe remaining accusedinthe courtandhasnot
deposedaboutseeingtheA4inSIMIprograms.Obviously,itisnot
intheunchallengedevidenceofthewitnessandevenintheproved
contradictedportionsofhisstatementthathehadseentheA4in
SIMIprograms though itis in his statementthatthis issoabout
lecturesintheyear1999(whenSIMIwasnotbanned).However,it
is in the portion Ext.1780(7)thatthe witness knewthe A4since
1999 as he was the office bearer of SIMI. On the basis of this
submission it is strangely submitted that hence the case of the
prosecutionaboutA4takingthekeysofthehouseoftheA8from
thewitnessisnotreliableandtheevidenceagainsttheA4hastobe
discarded.Inrespectofrecordingofstatementitissubmittedthat
whenthewitnesshasstatedthathisstatementwasnotrecordedas
statedbyhimthentheportionsconfrontedtohimandgotproved
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1152..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1153..
Ext.4825
collectthekeysfromhimonreturnandthatheneverhandedover
thekeystoanyoneelseotherthanhimandhiswife.Itissubmitted
thathenceitisnotprovedtothehiltthatMehmoodQureshi,PW65,
hadgiventhekeysofthehouseoftheA8totheA4.Tomymind,the
witnessmayhavestatedso,butitisnotsuggestedtohimthathe
hadnevergiventhekeysofthehouseoftheA8totheA4andthe
portionExt.1780(7)fromhisstatementtothepoliceprovesittothe
hilt that in fact it had so happened. The next submission about
MehmoodQureshi,PW65,beingthreatenedtobecomeawitness,
not identifying the A4 and he being pressurized to give false
evidencehasalreadybeenconsideredbyme.Again,entriesinthe
CDRsofthemobileoftheA4Ext.3765(2)forthemonthofMay,
2006showingabsenceoflocationsofMumbraarerelieduponto
showthathehadnotgonetothehouseoftheA8inMay,2006.This
is an inferential evidence and A4 is trying to disprove a positive
evidence by a negative circumstance which is not proper and
acceptable.
1106.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthat
bytheevidenceofMehmoodQureshi,PW65,theprosecutionhas
provedthatA7andA8weretheworkersofSIMIandthattheA2,A4
andA13weretheactivistsandmembersoftheSIMIandtheA4was
the officer bearer. To my mind, the prosecution took the risk of
examiningthiswitnessthoughitmayhaveexpectedthatthewitness
willnotsupportthem.However,theanswersgivenbyhimincross
examinationbylearnedSPPaswellastheprovedportionsfromhis
statementtothe policehave provedthe above factandhe being
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1154..
Ext.4825
1107.
NextwitnessisShaikhNoman,PW78,whoisarelativeof
theA3andA9andknowstheirentirefamilyandithascomeinhis
crossexaminationbythelearnedSPPthatpolicehadarrestedhim
whenhehadattendedAllIndiaMuslimEducationBoardprogramin
whichtherewereSIMImembers.Heresinedfromthestatementthat
hegavetothepoliceandduringhiscrossexaminationthelearned
SPPconfrontedhimwiththerelevantportionswhichweremarked.
However, those portions were not got proved from ACP Patil,
PW186,whohadrecordedhisstatement.Hedidnotidentifythe
A2,A4andA13whentheywereaskedtostandupandtheywere
shown to him. He is obviously won over by the defence because
thoughhestatedthatwhenpoliceinquiredwithhimaboutSIMI,he
toldthatwhateverknowledgehehadandwhateverhenarratedwas
typedonthecomputerbythepolice.Hestatedthatwhenitwas
readovertohim,hehadobjectedtomanythingsthatwerewritten
therein,buthedidnotcomplaintoanysuperiorofficer.Thereason
forthisthathegaveisthatthesituationatthattimewasthathe
fearedthathewouldbeinvolvedinanillegalcase.Headmittedthat
hehadgivenastatementinthecourtthatisinfrontofV.T.andthat
itwasonoath,however,hisendeavourtosupporttheaccusedis
clearfromhisadmissionthathedidnotstatethetruthbeforethe
magistratethoughhewasgiventheoathinthenameofAllahthat
hewasspeakthetruthandnountruthandeventhenhegaveafalse
statement. He admitted that he did not state anywhere and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1155..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1156..
Ext.4825
produceoriginalatonceandonthenextdaythoughhestatedthat
hehasbroughttheaffidavitswhicharewithhismother,whohas
come in the court, he does not want to produce them even for
comparingthemwiththexerox.Thelearnedadvocaterequestedto
directthewitnesstoproducethem,thesamewasrejectedasthe
witnesscouldnotbecompelledtodoso.Therefore,hewasasked
andheansweredthatheisafraidofproducingtheoriginalaffidavits
ashefearstheATSofficers,butthenstatedthathecannotreply
whetherbetweenyesterdayortodayhegotaphonecallfromthe
ATSofficerspressurizinghimnottoproduceaffidavitandtherefore
heisnotproducingtheaffidavit.
1108.
Thus,hisevidenceisofnousetotheprosecutionaswellas
tothedefence,astheportionsthatwereconfrontedtohimwerenot
gotprovedfromtheinvestigating officerandthoughheadmitted
thathehadstatedmostofthethingsthatareinhisstatementunder
section161oftheCr.P.C.,thatalonecannotbereliedupon.One
thingiscertainthathehasnotsupportedtheprosecutionasheis
relatedtotheA3andA9thoughhehasvaguelystatedthattheyhad
familydisputewiththefamilyoftheA3,A9andthisdisputearose
1015yearsbefore.Thisinferenceisfortifiedbyhisknowledgethat
he knows that the A9 had done computer course, which was
probably done by A9 about 56 years before his evidence. His
evidenceis of no use tothe defence because there is nothing on
record to substantiate his allegations about being threatened or
tutoredashehasfailedtoproducetheaffidavitsthatheallegedly
made on the day when his statement was recorded by the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1157..
Ext.4825
magistrate.ThoughhehasstatedabouttorturebythepoliceofUnit
IIatSatRasta,hehasnotcomplainedanywhereaboutitanditis
notagainsttheATS,thoughhestatedthathewascalledatKurla
alsowherehewasdetainedfor23days,buthecouldnottellthe
dateandmonthofallthevisitstothepolicestationsandofficesand
made a positive statement that there was no torture in Kurla.
Therefore,thereisnonecessityofconsideringthesubmissionsmade
bylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhinrespectofthiswitness.
1109.
ThethirdwitnessisAbdulUsmanKumbhar,(PW79)(Ext.
830),whoalsodidnotsupporttheprosecution,whowasdeclared
hostile and crossexamined by the learned SPP and though the
portions from his statement with which he was confronted were
marked,theywerenotprovedfromtheinvestigatingofficer,who
hadrecordedit.Hisevidenceisalsoofnousetotheprosecution.
1110.
ThefourthwitnessisAbdulDawrey,PW71,whosebrother
iswantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreyandhisevidenceaboutthe
A3andwantedaccusedno.3Rahilbeinghisfriendsandvisiting
theirhousein199697andthatA3hadabrotherMuzzammil,i.e.,
A9,whomhehadseensometimesandknewhimaswellasA3's
othernamebeingMustafaisunchallengedevidence.Itisnotbyway
ofanimprovementorcontradiction.Hisevidenceinparagraphs2
and 3 of his deposition is connected with the aspect of SIMI
connectionoftheaccusedandithascomeinhisevidencethatin
199697heusedtogotoKamruddinandUsmaniaMasjidsinCamp
area,Pune and sometimes wantedaccusedno.2Rizwan usedto
accompanyhim.Hisfurtherevidenceabouttherebeinganofficeof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1158..
Ext.4825
SIMIupstairsinthemasjidwheretheyusedtobecalledafternamaj
andthathemayhavevisitedthatoffice56timeswherelecturesof
Kuran and Hadis used to take place is brought on record as an
improvementoverhisstatementthathegavetothepolice.However,
hisfurtherevidencethatwantedaccusedno.3Rahil,A3,oneAsif
Khan,oneFirozandothers,whosenameshedoesnotremember,
usedtocometotheofficeofSIMI,thatbesidesKuranandHadis,
there used to be discussions about Muslim issues like arrests of
MuslimsandtheatrocitiesontheMuslimsandthepersonswhose
nameshedoesnotrememberusedtomakethesediscussions,isnot
animprovementoverhisstatement.Inthisconnectionhestatedthat
he can identify the persons, who used to participate in the
discussions,butwhosenameshedoesnotrememberandthenhe
pointed out the A10, A3 and A9, however insofar as the A9 is
concernedheadmittedthatA9usedtocometohishouse,buthe
hadnotseenhimatthemasjid.
1111.
HisevidencethatthereweremanyriotsinPunein2001
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1159..
Ext.4825
HepositivelystatedthatA3wasoneofthepersonswhousedtotake
partinthetalksandonlisteningtheviewsexpressedinthetalkshe
becamefrightenedandstoppedmeetingthem.Theaboveishisonly
evidenceandithasshownthatnotonlytheA3andA10,buthis
brother wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan and A3's brother wanted
accusedno.3RahilusedtoattendtheofficeoftheSIMIandthere
were some discussions after the ban on SIMI in 2001. His major
evidenceisinrespectof11200SaudiRiyalsreceivedfromhimfrom
one Afzal that were sent by his brother wanted accused no. 2
Rizwan for the A3 and its seizure by the ATS officers under the
panchanamaExt.756,whichhasalreadybeendiscussedandfound
tobeacogentevidence.Therelevantcrossexaminationinrespectof
thistopicbylearnedadvocateShettyisinparagraphs19and20of
hisdepositionandsomepositivestatementshavecomeonrecord
thathefirstbecameacquaintedwiththeA3in1997,thatheknew
himbythatnamefromthattimeandinSaudiArabiahecameto
knowhisanothernameMustafaandhecametoknowhimashe
used to come to meet his brother at his residence in 1997
occasionally, but the A9 did not come often. His further cross
examinationhasrevealedthatKamruddinandUsmaniamasjidsare
about5kms.fromhishouse,thatbothareabout1kmapartand
UsmaniamasjidisnearertohishousethanKamruddinmasjidand
therewasnoSIMIofficeinUsmaniamasjid.Hethendescribedthe
details of the office including its area andstated thathe didnot
becomememberofSIMIandneverparticipatedinitsactivities,that
hedoesnotknowwhetherRizwanwasitsmember,butstatedthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1160..
Ext.4825
he had called him to that office a couple of times to sit for the
lecturesandhemayhavevisitedtheofficefiveorsixtimesafter
1996, but not always with wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan. He
admitted that no pamphlets were distributed during the lectures
about the lectures and lectures were immediately held after the
namaj,normallyafter8.30p.m.,thattherewasnoannouncement
after the namaj about lectures in the SIMI office. To the last
statement, he clarified that however the information used to be
given from person to person and around 1520 persons used to
attendthelecturesintheSIMIoffice,whoweremostlyfromPune.
Oneimportantadmissionthathegaveisthattherewasnoissueof
arrestofMuslimsduringthelecturesintheSIMIofficeandhehad
not stated to the police that there used to be discussions about
harassment of Muslims. He was confronted with the portions
marked'B'and'C'inhisstatementinthisconnection,buttheycould
not be proved as the investigating officer who recorded his
statementisnotexaminedbytheprosecution.Intheremainingpart
ofhiscrossexaminationonthisaspect,mostoftheanswersthathe
gaveareexpressinghislackofknowledgeorinabilitytoremember
whethercertainthingshadhappenedornot.Thefactremainsthat
hisevidenceaboutattendanceoftheA3andA10intheofficeofthe
SIMIisunshakenandattheendofhiscrossexaminationhedenied
the suggestion that in order to take favour of the police to save
himself,heisimplicatingtheA3andthattherewasnoofficeofthe
SIMIinKamruddinmasjid.
1112.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1161..
Ext.4825
concerningthisaspectisinparagraphs25and26ofhisdeposition
duringwhichithascomethattherewasnoboardofSIMIofficeon
thatmasjid,thathedoesnotperformnamajinthemasjidofshias,
etc.,andtheremainingquestionswereaboutdifferentsectsofthe
muslims offering namaj in specific masjids, etc., which to mind
mind,isnotrelevanthere.Ithascomeasapositivestatementthat
thereisalibraryintheonlyoneroomthatisontheupperfloor
which discloses his knowledge and though he expressed his
ignoranceastowhethertherewasnoSIMIofficeatthefirstfloorin
that masjid he denied the suggestion that he did not attend any
lecturesinthatroom.Attheendofhiscrossexaminationhedenied
thatheisunderthepressureoftheATSandwasunderthepressure
evenin2006whentheyhadcometothehouse,thatheandhis
family members apprehended thathe wouldbe implicated in the
falsecaseandhedeposedfalselyastutoredbytheATS.Surprisingly,
thoughtherewasnoeffortbythelearnedSPPtoconnectthename
AsifKhanthathetoldinhischiefexaminationtotheA13,learned
advocateWahabKhantookuponhimselftoclarifythisaspectand
thehonestyofthewitnessisclearwhentheA13wasaskedtostand
upandthewitnesswasaskedwhetherhewasshowntohiminthe
Kalachowkiofficeaboutwhichhestatedthathedoesnotremember,
butfranklyadmittedthatA13isnotAsifKhanofPune.Ifailedto
understand why this exercise was undertaken by the learned
advocate.
1113.
Duringhisarguments,learnedadvocateShettyfortheA3
pointedouttotheimprovementsmadebythewitnessandsomeof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1162..
Ext.4825
theadmissionsgivenbyhim,whichIhavealreadydiscussedandhis
majorsubmissionsareinrespectofseizureoftheSaudiRiyalsfrom
him. Same can be said about the submissions of the learned
advocateWahabKhanandoneofthesubmissionmadebyhimis
thatthe witnesshasadmittedthatallthemeetings inthe masjid
were before the ban. I think this is ignoring the evidence of the
witnessthatatthattime,i.e.,duringtheriotsinPunein2001,some
personsofSIMIusedtosaythatitwillnotbesufficientonlytotalk
buttheyshouldtakesometraining.Tomymind,theevidenceof
AbdulDawrey,PW71,willhavetobeacceptedtothelimitedextent
ofA3andA10andwantedaccusedno.2Rizwanaswellaswanted
accusedno.3RahiltakingpartintheactivitiesofSIMI.
1114.
ThefifthandthelastwitnessisAmarKhan,PW75,andhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1163..
Ext.4825
evidencethatatthattimetheA8toldthepolicethatitisonlyhe
whodoestheworkofSIMIandallothersdonothaveanyconcern
withit,isheldtobeanuncontrovertedevidencewhichhasbeen
confirmedbyhimincrossexamination.Thus,tomymind,thereis
nopointingoingthroughtherigmaroleofreassessinghisevidence
onthatpoint.Itwillthereforehavetobeheldthatbyhiscogent
evidence the prosecution has provedthatthe A2,A4, A6 andA8
wereactivistsofSIMI.
1115.
Thecumulativeeffectofthefindingsinrespectofthethree
A2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,A9,A10,A11
the fourthcircumstanceagainst
theA6. ItisthesecondcircumstanceagainsttheA7
. Itisthefirst
circumstanceagainsttheA8.
Itistheninthcircumstanceagainstthe
A9. It
is the fifth circumstance against the A10. It is the fourth
circumstanceagainsttheA11andi
tisthefifthcircumstanceagainst
theA13.
1116.
TheinvestigatingofficersSr.PIRathod,PW176,and ACP
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1164..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1165..
Ext.4825
reconstructionofthefacewasreceivedinAugust,2006,buthehad
notseentheCDofthereconstructedface,didnotgetitprintedand
circulatedashehadseenthereconstructedfaceinthehospitalafter
20/07/06, therefore, there was no question of seeing the
photographs of that face. He expressed the possibility that the
photographofthefacemayhavebeencirculatedtothemedia.
1118. ThecontentsoftheFSLreportExt.1930(2pages)containing
theDNAprofileofthetissues/partsofthesaiddeadbodythatwere
senttotheFSLarenotmaterialtocometoanyconclusion.Ithas
comeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatitwasrevealed
intheinvestigationthatthedeadbodywasofaPakistaninational
bynameSalim,therefore,hesentletter tothe medical officer of
SionHospitaltowritehisnameinthememorandumofpostmortem
anddeathcertificate.Heprovedthecontentsoftheofficecopyof
theletterExt.1173andithascomeintheevidenceof Dr.Ghuge,
PW112, that the dead body in the memorandum of postmortem
examination Ext.1165 was initially not identified, hence, it was
writtenasunknown,however,afterreceivingalettersubsequently
fromtheATSon10/10/06informinghimthatthatperson'snameas
Salim, he made a correction in the memorandum of postmortem
examination and in the cause of death certificate under his
signature.Heobviouslycommittedamistakewhilestatingaboutthe
dateofreceiptoftheletterwhichisExt.1173.Ithascomeinhis
evidencethatheaswellasoneDr.Sapna,hisjunior,hadconducted
the postmortemson15bodiesofthepersons,whohaddiedinthe
trainblastatMahimandotherblasts,on12/07/06and13/07/06
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1166..
Ext.4825
andheisalecturerinForensicMedicineinL.T.M.G.Hospitalat
Sionandheproducedandprovedthecontentsofthememorandums
ofthepostmortemexaminationanddeathcertificatesExts.1139to
1170 stating that they bear his names, some of them bear his
signaturesandsomebearthesignaturesofDr.Sapna,butallthe
certificatesaboutcauseofdeathbearhissignature.Ithascomein
his crossexamination that the memorandum of postmortem
examinationExt.1165isinhishandwriting,thatExt.1166isinthe
handwriting of Dr. Sapna, which is a carbon copy, original going
withthedisposalofthebodyandthatitwaspreparedon13/07/06,
whichhesaysonthebasisofthedateandtimementionedinthe
column of the date and time of the postmortem examination.
Though,hehadnotstatedaboutmakingtheendorsementonthe
topleftcornerofExt.1165inhischiefexamination,itwasbrought
out in his crossexamination that the said endorsement is in his
handwritingandunderhissignatureanditwasroughlymadeafter
10/10/06.HecorroboratedtheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,
thatthebodywashalfupperportion,with1/3rdofthechest,front
portionofthefaceandneckasdescribedinparagraph17ofthe
memorandumandinrespectofinconsistencyinthecontentsofExts.
1165and1166heansweredthathedoesnotrememberwhetherDr.
Sapnawrotetheword'Hindu'inExt.1166orhesuggestedittoher
andadmittedthatitisnotmentionedinExt.1165.Hewasshowna
copy of Ext. 1165, which is in the chargesheet and which was
markedasExt.1171,andheadmittedthattheendorsementmade
inExt.1165isnotfoundinExt.1171.Itmaybethatthephotocopy
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1167..
Ext.4825
of the memorandum was taken out by the police and as per his
evidencetheendorsementonExt.1165wasmadesometimeafter
10/10/06. Thus, this is of no consequence. All this is during the
crossexamination by learned advocate Shetty and though he
admittedthathecannotsayonwhatbasisheidentifiedthebodyas
ofaHindu,hedeniedthesuggestionthatheisdeposingfalselyto
obligethepolice,whichsuggestiontomymindisbaseless.Sameis
thecaseaboutthesuggestionattheendofhiscrossexaminationby
learned advocate Wahab Khan that the endorsement on Ext.1165
wasmadejustbeforeenteringthewitnessboxtohelpthepolice,
whichtomymind,iswrongasthecorrespondencemadebySr.PI
Rathod,PW176,isofOctober,2006.Duringthecrossexamination
bylearnedadvocateWahabKhantheletterExt.1172wasreceived
inevidenceandheadmittedthatitisaddressedtotheDeanand
furtherstatedthatitwasinconnectionwithbodyno.31,whichis
obviouslywrong,becausethecontentsofExt.1172showthebody
no.41keptattheSionmortuary.Ofcourse,therewasnosubmission
aboutit.DuringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateRasalthe
letterExt.1173sentbySr.PIRathod,PW176,wasshowntohim
andreceivedinevidenceandtheendorsementofreceivingitinhis
hospital was pointed out to him and he admitted that the
endorsementshowsthattheletterwasreceivedon16/10/06.Ifone
peruses the endorsement, it is a carbon print, because the
endorsementmayhavebeenmadeontheoriginalExt.1173andas
itisacarbonprintitislightanditis,therefore,thatDr.Ghuge,
PW112,mayhavestatedthathereceivedtheletteron10/10/06.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1168..
Ext.4825
However,hisclarification aboutthedatecoversupeverything.In
respectofidentificationofreligionofthedeadbody,headmitted
thatinsomecasestheycanidentifywhetherthepersonisHinduor
MuslimandheidentifiedthepersonasaHinduattheinitialstage.
Thisisinconsequentialandhemadeapositivestatementthatno
police officer personally met him in connection with the
endorsementinthelefthandcornerofExt.1165.Ithascomeinhis
evidence that he made that endorsement on the basis of the
correctionmadebyDr.Sapnainthecauseofdeathcertificate.His
evidenceiscorroboratedbytheoriginalcauseofdeathcertificate
Ext.2556thatwasproducedbyDr.SantoshKrishnaraoRevankar,
(PW188),(Ext.2555), Dy.ExecutiveHealthOfficer,PublicHealth
Department,MunicipalCorporationofGreaterMumbai.Itwasnot
producedbytheprosecutionor Dr.Ghuge,PW112,asithadgone
withthedeadbodyatthetimeofdisposal,therefore,hewasnot
crossexamined about it, but Dr. Revankar, PW188, was cross
examinedaboutthecorrectionsmadetherein.Thefactremainsthat
thecontentsofExt.2556showthatitistheoriginalofExt.1166,
exceptthatthewords'unknown'and'Hindu'isstruckoffandthe
name 'Salim' and 'Muslim' are written and they are initialed and
there is a rubber stamp of the said medical college, same as the
rubber stamp at the bottom, which is also at the bottom of Ext.
1166.Thereisanendorsementatthelefthandcornerthatthename
iscorrectedon16/10/06asperO.No.O/3068/ACP/ATS/06which
istheletterExt.1173.Ithascomeintheevidenceof Dr.Ghuge,
PW112, that Dr. Sapna is not in service and he does not know
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1169..
Ext.4825
whethersheisavailableornot.Thus,byhisevidencethecorrection
thatwasmadeintheoriginalcauseofdeathcertificateExt.2556
andthecorrectionthathemadeunderhisownhandwritinginthe
memorandum of postmortem examination Ext. 1165, as per the
letterExt.1173givenbySr.PIRathod,PW176,isprovedbythe
prosecution.
1119.
Asmentionedabove,Dr.Revankar,PW188,producedthe
causeofdeathcertificateExt.2556asperthesummonsandhehad
broughttheoriginalrecordpertainingtoamaledeadbody,whose
date of death is 11/07/06 and was bearing postmortem no.
FM/786/06ofSionpostmortemcenterandhealsoproducedtheno
objectioncertificateExt.2557andphotocopyofletterdtd.15/10/06
bearingoutwardno.3068fromPI,ATS,Art.395,whichisthesame
asExt.1173.HealsoproducedthedeathreportExt.2558whichis
anofficialrecordrequiredtobemaintainedofficiallyandprepared
atthetimeofactualdisposalofthebody.Allthedetailsincluding
theADRno.457/06andpostmortemnumberandnameofdeceased
asSalim,dateofdeathas11/07/06,nameandaddressofinformant
asHCMarbhal,HC1793ofMCTRailwayPoliceStationarefoundin
thesaiddeathreport.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathedescribed
the procedureaboutthe registrationofthe deathandstatedthat
deathregistrationno.4803isgiveninthecrematoriumandafterall
thesedocumentsarereceived,theyareregisteredatthelocalward
office and the registration number is given, which in this case is
3853registeredon06/11/06.LearnedSPPaskedhimtogothrough
Ext. 1166 and he stated that it is the carbon copy of Ext. 2556
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1170..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1171..
Ext.4825
expressinghislackofknowledgeastowhomadecorrectionsinthe
words and in whose handwriting the remark is, is of no
consequence.Ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationfurtherthatthe
deathcertificateisfrom'C'Ward,Chandanwadicrematorium,butit
wasregisteredin the 'F'NorthWard,Matunga,thoughthereisa
separateofficeinthe'C'Ward.Hedoesnotknowthefactsofthe
case, therefore, he admitted that he cannot explain why the
registrationwasmadein'F'NorthWardandnotin'C'Ward.Tomy
mind,thisisobviouslybecausethedeadbodywasrecoveredfrom
theblastsiteatMatunga,whichmeansthatthepersonhaddiedin
that blast within the jurisdiction of that Ward and therefore the
deathwasregisteredintheofficeof'F'NorthWard,Matunga.There
canbenootherexplanationforthis.Nothingisrevealedduringhis
crossexamination by learned advocate Wahab Khan except about
thedeathreportExt.2558notbearingthesignatureandnameof
the registrar to which he explained that it is not there as the
registrar can delegate his power.It has also come that the death
reportisinbookformandasheetistakenoutforeverydeadbody
andhedeniedthesuggestionthattheleftportionoftheformiskept
intheofficeandtherightportionisdetachedandsentforstatistical
process. As per the contents of that portion about which he
explainedthatthedataisfedinthecomputernowandearlierit
used to be detached and sent it to the statistical department for
statistical record that was maintained manually, he denied the
suggestionthatitwaspreparedintheyear2012statingthatitwas
not given to the police earlier. Surprisingly, he was given a
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1172..
Ext.4825
suggestionthattheendorsementonthecorrectiononExt.2556is
madeon10/10/06,buthemadeapositivestatementthatitismade
onlyon16/10/06.Thushisevidencehasnotbeenshakenandithas
notinanywayraisedanydoubtaboutthedocumentsExts.2556to
2558.
1120.
Thus,itisprovedbytheprosecutionbytheevidenceofSr.
PIRathod,PW176,Dr.Ghuge,PW112,andDr.Revankar,PW188,
andthedocumentsproducedbythem,thatthecorrectionsinthe
causeofdeathcertificateExt.2556andinthememorandumofpost
mortem examinationExt.1165from'unknown'to'Salim'andfrom
'Hindu'to'Muslim'wasmadeon16/10/06.
1121.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,that
hegavealetter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1695totheDeanof
theSionHospitalforhandingoverthedeadbodyforfuneraltoHC
JadhavandHCMarbhal,PW159,andheproveditscontents.Ithas
alsocomeinhisevidencethathegavealetter,officecopyofwhich
isatExt.1696,contentsofwhichheproved,tothemedicalofficer,
inchargeofthepostmortemcenterforhandingoverthesaidbodyto
HCMarbhal,PW159,andithascomefurtherinhisevidencethathe
haddirectedHCMarbhal,PW159,todisposeoffthebodyasper
Muslimreligiousrites,whichhedidandaccordinglydisposedoffthe
body,gaveanoralreportandmadestationdiaryentry,certifiedtrue
copiesofwhichareatExt.1698.HCMarbhal,PW159,corroborated
hisversionbystatingthatSr.PIRathod,PW176,hadorderedhim
toburythesaidbodyonbehalfofthegovernmentandhadgiven
himtwolettersmentionedabove.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1173..
Ext.4825
wenttoSionHospitalon16/10/06alongwithHCJadhav,handed
over the letters to the Dean's office and to the medical officer
inchargeandthelattertoldhimthathecannotgivethebodyinhis
custodyasheisheadconstable,therefore,heinformedonphoneto
Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, to send some officer and accordingly PSI
Khsirsagarwassentandhesignedontheregisterinthepostmortem
centerabouttakingthebodyinpossession.Hisevidenceuptothis
stage is unchallenged. His further evidence is that the medical
officer gave cause of death certificate is brought on record asan
improvement,butitdoesnotaffecthisevidenceaswhoelsethan
themedicalofficerwillissuethecauseofdeathcertificate.Ithas
comeinhisevidencethattheyputthebodyinthehearthvehicle
andtookittoChandanwadikabrastan.Onlytheword'kabrastan'is
brought on record as an improvement, which to my mind, is
inconsequentialinviewofwhathascomeinhiscrossexamination
thattherearetwoplacesthere,oneChandanwadismashanbhumi
forHindusandtheotherChandanwadikabrastanforMuslims,that
theyhaveseparateentranceandthoughthedeathregistrationclerk
isone,butthestaffinbotharedifferent.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thattheyshowedthememoabouttheorderofdisposalofthebody
andcauseofdeathcertificatetotheclerkintheregistrationoffice
andobtainedtheacknowledgmentontheofficecopyofthereceipt
Ext.1697,whichSr.PIRathod,PW176,hadgiventothem,fromthe
incharge of burial ground (kabrastan). The contents of Ext.1697
showthenameofHCMarbhalandhisbucklenumberandthename
ofthedeadbodyandattheendofthepagethereisasignaturein
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1174..
Ext.4825
Urduabovethedate16/10/06,whichisabovetherubberstampof
Rajay Charities, Mumbai and the receipt is dtd. 16/10/06. His
evidence and the contents of the said receipt prove that he had
handedoverthedeadbodyofSalim,residentofLahore,Pakistanto
theincahrgeofburialground(kabrastan)atChandawadi.
1122.
Hisevidencethattheclerkmadetheentiresandthestaffin
theKabrastandug apitandburiedthebodythereisbroughton
record asan improvement, butthen whowouldhave done these
thingsthanthosetwoofficers.Therefore,itisinconsequential.He
provedthecontentsofthestationdiaryentryno.7,certifiedtrue
copyofwhichisatExt.1698,tobeinhishandwriting,whichhehad
donewhileleavingfortheworkandthecontentsofthestationdiary
entry no. 10 that was made after his return. During his cross
examinationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhan aportion from his
statementExt.2004wasprovedasacontradictioninwhichhehad
statedthattheADRnumberas285/06andhisexplanationaboutit
clears the confusion, because he explained that it is so written
initiallyasitwasregisteredunderanADRandthenitisconverted
intoacrimeandwhenhegaveastatementhegavethisnumberas
hedidnotknowtheCRnumber.Ifoneseestheotherdocumentsin
thisconnection,Ext.1696showsADR no.285/06,butExt.1165
shows ADR no. 457/06 and even Exts. 1166 and 2556 show the
samenumberbutthenoobjectioncertificatealsomentionsADRno.
285/06 and the death report Ext. 2558 mentions both numbers.
Thus, this is clarified by him as well as borne out from the
documents.Hewasshownthecarboncopyofthedeathcertificate
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1175..
Ext.4825
Ext.1166andhecorrectlystatedthatitisnotthecopyofthecause
ofdeathcertificate,becausetheoriginalcauseofdeathcertificate
containing thecorrections,i.e.,Ext.2556,hadgonealongwiththe
disposalofthedeadbody.Apositivestatementwasmadebyhim
thatthecertificategivenbyPSIKshirsagartohimmentionedthe
religion as Muslim after cancelling the word Hindu, but the
cancellationwasnotdoneinhispresenceorafterthecertificatewas
given to him. Now his experience in doing this type of work is
broughtonrecordandithasshownthathehasgonetothesaid
crematoriummanytimes,i.e.,2025times,andtothekabrastanfor
45timesandthatHindusarecrematedinthesmashanbhumiand
Muslimsareburiedinthekabrastan.Hisfurthercrossexamination
about the procedure of burying Muslim bodies has revealed his
ignoranceabouttheprocedureandheadmittedthateventhenhe
reportedthatthebodywasburiedinChandawadismashanbhumias
perMuslimritesandcustoms.Tomymind,itisnotforsuchtypeof
witness/person, who is only a carrier of dead bodies from post
mortem centers to the crematorium, to know about the exact
religiousprocedureandasithascomeinhisevidencethatthestaff
in the kabrastan dug a pit and buried the body there, that is
sufficientforhimtohavereportedaccordingly.Hewasthencross
examined about whether he got any receipt from the kabrastan
incharge, whether an entry was made when he took the body,
whetherhespentanymoneyforpurchaseofanyarticlebeforegoing
fortheburial,etc.Allthatisirrelevantandheclearlystatedthatthe
officebearersdonotissuereceiptaboutcremationorburialofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1176..
Ext.4825
body.HedoesnotknowwhetherthebodywasofHinduandhedid
notseethebodyasitwaswrappedinclothandhetookitinhis
custodyinthesameconditionandnopartofthebodywasvisible
andhedidnotmakeanyefforttoremovetheclothandseethebody.
Tomymind,thiswastotallyunnecessaryforhimtodoashehadthe
causeofdeathcertificateExt.2556andthenoobjectioncertificate
Ext.2557withhimandhisjobwasonlytoreachthebodythere.
Thus, his crossexamination has not discredited his version about
taking the dead body no. 41 bearing the name Salim to the
Chandanwadikabrastan where itwas buriedas perMuslimrites.
The contents of the station diary entry no. 10 in Ext.1698
corroboratehisversion.
1123.
Sr.PIRathod,PW176,wascrossexaminedextensivelyon
thisaspect.Itwillbeappropriateifthesubmissionsofbothparties
inrespectofhisevidenceaswellasevidenceofDr.Ghuge,PW112,
Dr. Revankar, PW188, and HC Marbhal, PW159, are considered
rather than doing the exercise of interpreting the answers in his
crossexamination.LearnedadvocateShettysubmittedthatthough
the correction in the name and religion was made in the
memorandum of postmortem examination Ext. 1165, it is not
reflected in the cause of death certificate Ext. 1166 and for that
purposehepointedouttotheanswersgivenbyDr.Ghuge,PW112,
inhiscrossexamination.Ihavealreadyconsideredthisissueand
haveheldthatExt.2556istheoriginalcauseofdeathcertificate
that went with the dead body at the time of disposal as per Dr.
Revankar,PW188,anditisinitthatthecorrectionsweremadeand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1177..
Ext.4825
Ext.1166isthecarboncopyofthatcertificateasitoriginallystood.
Hence,submissionsofthelearnedadvocatethatthismaterialshows
howthingsweremanipulatedbytheinvestigatingmachinerytofit
theaccusedinthepresentcrimeisnotacceptable.Hesubmitsthat
till10/10/06thebodywasofaHinduandthenitwasconvertedto
a Muslim, the photos of reconstructed face were shown to the
witnesses,butnonecouldidentifyhimandthereforetheevidenceis
manipulatedtofixtheaccusedinthecrimeandaccordinglySubhash
Nagarsekar, PW57, was made to depose in thatangle though he
gaveavaguedescriptionoftwopersonsonly.Ithas comein the
crossexaminationofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thathecametoknow
thatthebodyisofaMuslimwhenACPPatil,PW186,toldhimon
14th or15/10/06towritetothehospitaltoaddthename.Ihave
alreadyheldthattheevidencegivenbySubhashNagarsekar,PW57,
isacogentandacceptableevidence.Hence,thissubmissionbythe
learnedadvocateisnotacceptable.Inrespectofhissubmissionthat
maximum corrections are made by Dr. Sapna and she is not
examined,IhavealreadymentionedtheanswergivenbyDr.Ghuge,
PW112,thatsheisnotinserviceandhedoesnotknowwhethershe
is available or not. It does not make any difference because his
evidence that he and Dr. Sapna performed the postmortem
examinationsandhisnamebeinginthememorandumsissufficient
proof of his evidence about she issuing the death certificate and
moreoverithasnotbeenchallenged.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthat
Dr.Ghuge,PW112,clearlysaysthathemadetheendorsementin
thetopleftcornerofExt.1165roughlyafter10/10/06anditishis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1178..
Ext.4825
1124.
advocatesubmitsthatinJuly,2006hewasattachedtoGhatkopar'N'
Wardsobasicallyhedoesnothaveanypersonalknowledgeofthis
particularcaseandhecouldnotsaywhomadethecorrectionsin
Ext.2556.Itisverymuchobviousthatthiswitnessdoesnothave
any personal knowledge, but there can be no dispute about the
documentscomingfromhiscustodyandmoreovertheyareofficial
documents maintained in the office of a Semi Government. His
evidenceisclearandtomymindtherecanbenochallengeaboutit.
Learned advocate next questions as to whether HC Marbhal,
PW159,wasinapositiontoidentifythedeadbody?Tomymind,
there is no question of this because he was just acting on
instructionsofhissuperiors.Samecanbesaidabouthissubmission
thatthiswitnesshadnotseenthebodyandhowcanhesaythatitis
ofaMuslimmerelybecauseSr.PIRathod,PW176,saysso.This
aspecthasalsobeencoveredearlierthatSr.PIRathod,PW176,was
informedbyACPPatil,PW186,andthenwrotetheletterExt.1173.
Lastly,learnedadvocatesubmitsthatitcannotbeimagined,forget
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1179..
Ext.4825
aboutproofthatthebodyisofsocalledSalim,aPakistaninational
andthroughhimprosecutioncannotestablishthelinkbetweenthe
blasts and Pakistani terrorist organisation. The question here is
whetherinthedocumentspertainingtotheunidentifieddeadbody,
thebodywasgivenanidentificationandareligionornotandthis
hasbeenclearlyestablishedbytheevidenceoffourwitnesses.
1125.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhansubmittedthataverynovel
1126.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatthedeadbodywasnotof
Salim,butwasofapersonforwhomclaimantshadcome,butthere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1180..
Ext.4825
isnoevidenceabouttheclaimants.Inthisrespect,ithascomeinthe
crossexaminationofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatstatementsoftwo
witnesses were recorded in the second week of July, 2006 in
connectionwiththeunknownandunclaimeddeadbody,thatthey
weretwopartieswhowereclaimingthebody,however,lateronthey
saidthatitisnotthedeadbodyoftheirrelativeandtheymadethis
disclaimer twothree days after their statement. Sr. PI Rathod,
PW176, did not state about this in his chiefexamination and all
these things have come as positive statements in his cross
examination.Hewasaskedtogothroughthecasediaryandtellthe
namesofclaimantsandhetoldthenamesoftwoclaimantsandthe
datesonwhichtheirstatementswererecordedandhestatedthat
they were Chandansingh Pyarelal Banjara, occupation imitation
jewelryinfrontofVTstationandSureshsinghAtharsinghRajawal,
watchmaninICICIbank,butasperthecasediarytheirstatements
arenotseentoberecorded,butonlyinquirywasmadewiththem
on17/07/06.Ithasfurthercomeinhiscrossexaminationthatthe
saidtwopersonsdisclaimedon18/07/06,buttheirstatementswere
not recorded and denied a suggestion that he removed their
statements from the record and prepared false case diary. He
positively stated that these two had claimed the dead body and
disclaimeditinhispresenceandgaveaveryproperexplanationthat
hedidnotrecordtheirstatements,aswhentheyclaimedthedead
body,hetoldthemtobringtherecordtoidentifyit.Hehadtoadmit
thatthebodywassentforreconstructionoffaceastwopartieswere
claimingitasperthecontentsofhisletterExt.1172andtillthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1181..
Ext.4825
timetheydisclaimeditthefacehadnotbeenreconstructed.Nowhe
again stated that the two persons had not come before him
personally for disclaiming the body, but the ASI at Sion Hospital
informed him about it that the first party had told him that on
inquiringwithhisbrother,hesaidthatitwasnotthedeadbodyof
his relative and the second party said that the person whom he
thoughtwasdead,wasinfactalive.Now,headmittedthathedid
not record the statement of the ASI, but explained that the
information givenbytheASIwasnotimportantasnoclaimwas
made and same can be said about recording of the statement or
complaint of the two persons, because he explained that as they
weretoldtobringtherecordforidentification,hedidnotdoso.It
hasfurthercomeinhiscrossexaminationthatthetwopersonshad
come with missing complaint, therefore, they were sent with a
constabletoidentifythedeadbodyandatthattimetheydidnot
disclaimit,quitenaturallybecauseitisonlyonthenextday,i.e.,on
18/07/06thattheydisclaimeditforthereasonsmentionedabove.
Attheendhemadeapositivestatementthathehasmentionedin
thecasediaryabouttheclaimmadebythetwopartiesandthey
disclaiming it later on. This positive evidence has not been
challenged. Thus, the submission of the learned advocate in this
respectarenotacceptable.
1127.
thattherewillbeadifferenceintheappearanceofthepersonwho
haddiedinanencounterandapersonwhohaddiedinabombblast
andapersonwhoisborninametropolitancitylikeMumbaiwillnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1182..
Ext.4825
1128.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1183..
Ext.4825
1129.
thattheconfessionalstatementoftheA3namesthepairofA13and
SalimandnottheA1andSalimandthereforethisevidenceisnot
reliable. At the cost of repetition I have to say that the defence
should admit the contents of the confessional statement as being
proved before making such a submission. The confessional
statement is given by an accused whereas the evidence that has
comeinrespectofthisissueandinrespectoftheA1hasbeenheld
tobeacogentandconvincingevidence.Learnedadvocatefurther
submitsthatfindingofunclaimeddeadbodyinacitylikeMumbaiis
very common and has submitted that when there were two
claimants, in all fairness, the investigating officer should have
conducted DNA test and compared them with the DNA of the
deceased.Thissubmissioncanbeansweredsimply,thatthisdead
bodywasfoundatthesiteofthebombblastandoutof187persons,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1184..
Ext.4825
who had died, this is the only unclaimed body to claim which
nobodyhadcomeforward.Itwasnotabodythatwasfoundona
roadorrailwaytrack,etc.,andthefindingsinthememorandumof
the postmortem examination Ext. 1165 show that there were
injuries because of bomb explosion. Secondly, in view of the
explanationsgivenbySr.PIRathod,PW176,thattooinhiscross
examination,thatthetwopersonsdisclaimedonthenextday,there
wasnoreasonfordoingtheirDNAtestforcomparingitwiththe
DNAreportofthedeceased.Learnedadvocateallegesthatallthese
circumstances show that the body, which was unclaimed, was
claimedbysomeclassIVperson,buttheywereadvisedtorunaway
and not to claim. This is obviously a baseless submission. The
reasonsforwhichwillbeclearsubsequently.
1130.
Patil,PW186,gottheinformationaboutthenameoftheunclaimed
body from the confessional statement of the A1 recorded on
05/10/06 and of the A3 recorded on 06/10/06 and in his
confessionalstatementtheA1hasgiventhenamesoffourpersons
including Salim. Thus, the evidence given by the prosecution is
corroboratingtheconfessionalstatementsgivenbytheaccused.This
is exactly the story of the prosecution in respect of one body
remaining unclaimed. He pointed out to another cause of death
certificate,i.e.,Ext.1162,andsubmittedthatthisisanothercasein
which name of the body was put later on and the religion was
changedfromHindutoChristian.PerusalofExt.1162showsthatit
is in respect of postmortem no. FM/785/06 in respect of an
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1185..
Ext.4825
identificationoftheunclaimeddeadbodyasearlyason19/07/06
bysendingitforreconstructiontotheDeanoftheSionHospital.
CanitbeinferredfromthisthattheATSputintoactiontheirgame
planormasterplanortheirconspiracyfromthatdayitself,which
theymusthavepreparedpriortothatdate,whentillthatdateno
accusedhadbeenarrested?Wasthedeadbodyoritspartspreserved
asapartoftheplanorconspiracywiththeintentionoffoistingiton
theseaccusedornamingitasthatofthePakistaniwhohadbeen
involvedinplantingofbombinoneofthetrains?Asfarasthedead
bodiesareconcerned,Idonotthinkthatthepolicearehappyto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1186..
Ext.4825
keepanunidentifieddeadbodyontheirhands,becausetheyhaveto
makearrangementsforpreservingitordisposingitoff.Theymust
berelievedtofindclaimantsandtohandoverthedeadbodiesto
them.Thistheorydoesnotthereforeappealtothereason.Another
reason for not accepting this theory is that when out of 187
deceased,relativesof186hadcomeforwardtoclaimthebodiesof
theirkithandkin,whynotforthisdeadbody?Peopleofallfaiths
andreligionsmakealleffortstoobtainthedeadbodiesoftheirkith
and kin at whatsoever cost for performing the funeral and post
funeralrites.Sowhydidnoonecameforwardforthisbody?
1131.
Performingoffuneralandpostfuneralritesoftheirfamily
membersisveryimportantandsignificantandclosetotheheartsof
thekithandkin andrelativesofthe deadpersonsofwhatsoever
religionheorshemaybelong.Itisthereforethatbodiesofsoldiers
areflownfromhundredsandthousandsofmilesfromwhereverthey
areandreachedtotheirkithandkinandrelativesforthepurposeof
performingtheirfuneralandpostfuneralrites.Governmentofall
countries across the world make all out efforts to make
arrangementsforthetransportationofthedeadbodiesofsoldiersat
governmentexpenses.Deadbodiesofnotevensoldiersbutevenof
common citizens of countries are similarly brought by the
government if they are involved in any mishap anywhere in the
countryfarawayfromtheirnativeplaceorevenoutsidethecountry.
1132.
claimantsofthedeadbodiesof186outof187deadpersonshad
come forward and identified the dead bodies of their family
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1187..
Ext.4825
membersandrelatives,hadtakenthedeadbodiesforperforming
the funeral and post funeral rites and had also taken amount of
compensation that was offered and given by the Railways and
government, it does not appear probable that kith and kin and
relatives of the said unidentified dead body would not make all
possibleeffortstoestablishtheir connectionwithsuchdeadbody
andtoidentifyitatanycost.
1133.
Howcanitbeimaginedthattheinvestigatingmachinery
willkeepadeadbodyorwhateverremainingpartsofthedeadbody
as it is for so long, i.e., upto October, 06, when the process of
identifyingthepersonhadstartedasearlyason19/07/06?Canit
besaidthatthepolicearesodeviousorhavesuchdeviousmindsto
concoctsuchatheoryonlytobeabletofoistthedeadbodyonthe
accused or to name/identify it as that of a particular person of
Pakistani national. The only obvious inference that can be drawn
fromtheactionofthepoliceortheATSofidentifyingthedeadbody
aftersuchalongperiodisthatitmusthavebeenrevealedinthe
subsequentinvestigationorinterrogationoftheaccused.Itdoesnot
appear probablethatthis was the onlybodythatwas difficultto
identify.Thisisbecausethedescriptionofthedeadbodiesinthe
memorandumofthe postmortem examinationsshowsthatmostof
themwerebadlymutilated.Eventhetrunksofsomebodieswere
trisectedinbetween,thehandsandlegshadbeenseveredandthe
heads had been cut. It is also in the memorandums of the post
mortem examinationsthatmanypartsofmanybodieswereburnt
andcharred.Iamsurethatstrenuouseffortsmusthavebeenmade
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1188..
Ext.4825
bythekithandkinorrelativesofthedeadpersonsaswellasbythe
police for identifying such bodies and to get them back for
performing the funeral rites. It does not appear probable that if
really there existed some kith and kin or relatives of the said
unidentifieddeadbody,theywouldnothavemadesuchefforts.It
alsodoesnotappearprobablethatsuchfamilymembersofthesaid
unidentifieddeadbodywouldbecontentwiththefindingsofthe
policeofficersthattheyhavefailedtoestablishtheidentityofthe
said dead body and their claim to it. They would certainly have
agitatedthematterbeforethehigherupsinthepoliceandtheATS
orthiscourtorintheHighCourt,particularlywhentwodifferent
persons, who are named by Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, had come
forwardandstakedtheirclaimstothesaidbody.Iftheidentification
ofthesaiddeadbodyisdisputedbythedefencewhyitdidnotmake
effortstocallthesaidtwoclaimantsandexaminethemasdefence
witness?Ifthosepersonswouldhavecomeandgiventheevidence,
theywouldhavebeenabletoshowtheirrelationandconnection
withthedeadbodyanditwouldhaveautomaticallydisprovedthe
claimandstoryoftheprosecutionthatitwasthedeadbodyofa
PakistaninationalbynameSalim.Theeffortsthatweremadebythe
police officers for identifying the deceased are borne out by the
evidenceofDy.SPRaskar,PW139.Ithascomeinhisevidencethat
on14/07/06oneMithunJitendraGandhicametothepolicestation
andrequestedtoshowtheseizedarticlessothathecouldlocatehis
father who had gone missing after the incident and that he had
lodgedamissingcomplaintatAzadNagarPoliceStationandhad
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1189..
Ext.4825
searchedforhisfatheramongstthedeceasedatMumbaiCentraland
BandraRailwayPoliceStation.Hewasshownthearticlesandhe
identified a photograph, a railway pass and other documents as
belongingtohisfatherandconfirmedthathisfathertravelledupto
Jogeshwariandwasamongsttheinjuredordeceased,butthename
of his father did not figure in the list of the injured or the 28
deceased persons. Therefore, Dy. SP Raskar, PW139, appointed a
team of ASI Ghuge and staff to search for his father as per the
descriptionthathehadgiven.IthascomeinhisevidencethatPSI
GhugeandhisteamproducedamanbynameSagarVyaparianda
woman byname Sangeeta Vyapari, residents of Manji Pada,Dist.
Thaneon17/07/06andgavereportallegingthattheyhadtakenthe
body of Jitendra Darjibhai Gandhi (father of Mithun Jitendra
Gandhi,whohadcometothepolicestationon14/07/06insearch
ofhisfather)ofKandivalifromCooperHospitalonthepretextthat
itwasthedeadbodyofSunilVyapari,Sagar'sfatherandSangeeta's
husband and had cremated the body at Oshiwara and had taken
compensationofRe.1,00,000/fromtheStateGovernment.Dy.SP
Raskar,PW139,sentthecomplaintwiththetwoaccusedtoJuhu
Police Station as the crime had been committed within its
jurisdiction.CrimeNo.240/06wasregisteredatJuhuPoliceStation
fortheoffencesundersections419and420readwith34oftheIPC.
The postmortem report alongwith the inquest panchanama Ext.
2668 shows that the name of Sunil Thakur Vyapari has been
encircledandthenameofJitendraDarjibhaiGandhiiswrittenby
theside.Theprosecutionhasproducedseveraldocumentsinallthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1190..
Ext.4825
1134.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1191..
Ext.4825
evidenceandprovedthatanunidentifieddeadbodythatwasfound
at the site of the Matunga blast was that of Salim, a Pakistani
national. This is the circumstance no. 41 proved by the
prosecution.
HandwritingoftheA3onseizedmaps:
1135.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,that
itwasnecessarytoexaminethemapsandthepassportsthatwere
seizedfromtheaccused,therefore,on06/08/06inthepresenceof
panchas,hecalledfivepacketsfromthemuddemalroom,opened
them one by one, kept aside the international maps from all the
envelopesandthepassportsandeducationalcertificatesoftheA9
andpassportoftheA10andkepttheremainingbooksandmapsin
separateenvelopesalongwiththeoriginalwrappersandthenaffixed
labels containing his and panchas signatures on the separate
envelopes.HeidentifiedthelabelsontheenvelopesArts.45,153B,
177B,249Aand253Bandhissignaturethereonanddeposedabout
completingthepanchanamaExt.566andidentifiedhissignatures
andofthepanchas.HealsoidentifiedthepassportsoftheA9,Art.
178,i.e.,Ext.620andoftheA10,Art.281,i.e.,Ext.621andhisand
panchas signatures on the labels that were pasted on it. He also
identifiedthemapsArt.116,i.e.,Ext.1490,Art.161,i.e.,Ext.1486,
Art. 165, i.e., Ext. 1487 and Art. 250, i.e., Ext. 1488, that were
seizedfrom the A2,A3,A9andA10respectively. His evidence is
corroboratedbytheevidenceofpanchwitnessPrashantZunjarrao,
PW35,inwhoseevidencethedifferentpacketswereopenedandhe
specifically identified the documents, i.e., the articles mentioned
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1192..
Ext.4825
abovethatwerekeptasideandhedescribedtheprocedureadopted
bySr.PIRathod,PW176,foropeningthepackets,takingoutthe
relevantdocuments andputting themin aseparateenvelopeand
restofthedocumentsbeingputinseparateenvelopesalongwiththe
originalenvelopesthatwereopened.Heidentifiedtheotherarticles
that were found in the packets, their envelopes separately and
specificallyandalsothelabelsArts.45,153B,177B,249Aand253B
ontheenvelopesinwhichtheremainingarticleswereputandhis
signatures on them. He also identified his signature on the
panchanama Ext. 566. His crossexamination has not revealed
anythingadverseandmajorpartofhiscrossexaminationbylearned
advocateWahabKhanisinrespectofhisworkandoccupationand
he clearly admitted that no packet was in a lac sealed condition
whenitwasshowntohimandnopacketwassealedwiththelac
aftertheworkwasover.Suchisalsonotthecaseoftheprosecution
andSr.PIRathod,PW176,hasalsonotstatedaccordingly.Ithas
come in his crossexamination that police had told him that the
articles were recovered from the houses of the accused, which
questionwasnotreallynecessarytobeaskedtothiswitness.Same
canbesaidabouthisanswerthatpolicedidnottellhimwhenand
fromwherethexeroxmapsweremadeandwhereandwhenand
underwhatcircumstancesthehandwrittenmatterwaswrittenon
the maps. He also admitted that police did not prepare separate
envelopesofthemapsandthepassportsthatwerekeptaside,which
is also not the case of the prosecution and not stated by Sr. PI
Rathod,PW176.Hecommittedamistakewhilestatingthatitwas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1193..
Ext.4825
1136.
1137.
provedthatpacketcontainingthedocumentsseizedfromtheA2,
A3,A9andA10wereopenedon06/08/06andtheinternational
mapsArt.116,i.e.,Ext.1490,Art.161,i.e.,Ext.1486,Art.165,i.e.,
Ext.1487andArt.250,i.e.,Ext.1488andthepassportsoftheA9
andA10weretakenoutandremainingarticleswereagainputin
newenvelopes,packedandlabeledunderthepanchanamaExt.566.
1138.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,that
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1194..
Ext.4825
heobtainedthespecimenhandwritingsoftheA2,A9,A3,A11and
A10duringtheperiodfrom30/07/06to04/08/06andtheyaswell
asthefivemapsonwhichtherewasmatterinhandwritingwere
forwardedbyACPTawde on11/08/06byaletter,office copyof
which is at Ext. 1484, alongwith a questionnaire, office copy of
whichisatExt.1485,totheAdd.CP,CrimeBranch,CID,Mumbai
foronwardsubmissiontothehandwritingexpertforfindingoutthe
authorofthewritingsonthemaps.Thereisnochallengetothis
evidence. In this respect during his crossexamination by learned
advocateWahabKhanheadmittedthathedidnottakethesamples
ofhandwritingoftheaccusedbeforepanchasandexplainedthatit
is not necessary to do so. In this respect, ACP Patil, PW186,
admittedinhiscrossexaminationthatheisgovernedbythePolice
ManualandlearnedadvocateWahabKhanaskedhimtogothrough
the Rule 165(5)(b) in Chapter V of the Bombay Police Manual,
1959VolIIIPowersandDuties,(8thedition)andadmittedthatit
ismentionedinthebracketthatspecimenhandwritingsshouldbe
takenbeforepanchas.HeexplainedasperSr.PIRathod,PW176,
that as per their practice specimen handwritings are not taken
beforepanchas.Thispointwasagitatedbylearnedadvocatesforthe
accusedandtheysubmittedthatthisisnotacorrectpracticeand
therefore this evidence cannot be relied upon. To my mind, this
lacunaorlapseintheinvestigationcanbeexcusedforthesimple
reason that obtaining specimen handwriting of the accused as
deposedbySr.PIRathod,PW176,isnotdeniedbygivinghimany
suchsuggestionandtheaccusedwhosespecimenhandwritingwere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1195..
Ext.4825
takenhavealsonotdisputedthespecimenhandwritingattributedto
them,whichareinExts.1491(1to45).Eventhen,Iwouldcallita
lapseonthepartoftheinvestigatingofficer,becauseasamatterof
prudenceitisnecessarythatspecimenhandwritingsoftheaccused
areobtainedbeforeindependentpanchastoruleoutthepossibility
offorceorundueinfluencebeingusedontheaccusedtodoso.Not
only that Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, has not referred to the said
specimenhandwritingandhasnotidentifiedhissignaturesonthem.
1139.
ThesheetsExts.1491(1to45)werereceivedinevidence
duringtheevidenceof JayantAher,PW131,whoworksasaState
Examiner of Documents having examined about 2.25 lacs
documents and given opinion in respect of 4500 documents
approximately. He proved the letter received from the Add. CP,
Crime,Ext.1483,office copyofthe lettersentbyACP,ATS,Ext.
1484,andthelistofthedocumentssentwiththatletterExt.1484.It
has come in his evidence that he opened the sealed packet and
found the five questioned documents, i.e., maps, Arts. 161, 165,
250,134and116andfortyfivespecimensheetsExts.1491(1to
45). He described the procedure how he marked the written
portionsonthemaps,whichweregivenExts.1486to1490during
hisevidence,bymarkingthemasQ1toQ5ingreeninkandthe
bunchofninepaperseachofthespecimenhandwritingofthefive
accusedExt.1491(1to45)bymarkingtheredportionsmarkedby
theinvestigatingofficeringreeninkasS1toS45.Hedescribedthe
procedureduringhiscrossexaminationastohowheexaminedthe
questioned writing and figures in English and writing in Urdu in
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1196..
Ext.4825
questioneddocumentswiththeaidofscientificequipmentsandside
by side examined the specimen handwritings and figures and
preparedthereasons.Thetechnicalaspectsaboutparticularwords
were described by him. After giving his explanation about the
numberandthenatureofsimilaritiesandtheinferencethatcanbe
drawnfromthem,hedeposedthathecametotheonlyirresistible
conclusionthatthequestionedwritingsandfiguresmarkedQ1to
Q5(excludingUrduwritings)showssimilaritiesindicatingtowards
the common authorship of the writer of Exs. S1 to S9 and he
provedthecontentsofthetruephotocopyofthereasonsExt.1492
andthefinalconclusionExt.1493.AsstatedbyhimthesaidExs.
S1toS9isthespecimenhandwritingoftheA3.LearnedSPPtried
togetexplanationsfromhiminrespectofUrduhandwritingonthe
mapsandhestatedthatitispossibletoopineaboutadocument
that is in a language which is not known to him, i.e., Urdu, for
which they first study alphabetical letters or stroke by stroke
examination for this purpose. In respect of Urdu writing on the
photocopies of the international maps Exts. 1486 to 1490 he
explainedthatthefirstlineinUrduthatiscommoninallthefiveis
'Teheran,GulHotel,MeherHotel,AmirKadirRoad',thewordsinthe
secondlineinUrduare'Rizwanphone'andthewordsinthethird
lineare'ChimemailID'andthewordsinthefourthlineare'unka
adminakshememarkingbatayerastemanjillejayega'.
1140.
expressedhislacofknowledgeastohowthespecimenhandwritings
are required to be obtained by the police and whether specimen
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1197..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1198..
Ext.4825
examinationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanthatheadmittedthat
hecannotstateaboutasinglecaseinwhichhereceivedspecimen
writingwithoutsignaturesofpanchas.Hewasalsoaskedaboutthe
contentsofthemapsastowhethertheyareoldortheyshowtheold
geographical names, etc. Thereafter his crossexamination by
learnedadvocateWahabKhanis mainlyconcernedwithhebeing
suspendedfromservicebecauseofacasefiledagainsthimbythe
AntiCorruptionBureauontheallegationthathehadgivenfalse,
erroneousandincorrectopinionsin18casestothepoliceduringhis
tenure in the Nagpur region, etc., and he admitted most of the
things and also admitted that lastly he examined a document on
31/12/09andthereafterhasnotexaminedanydocumenttilldateas
heisundersuspension.
1141.
argumentsweremostlyrelatedtotheaspectofthecaseagainsthim
for having given false opinions by taking money from the police
officers and it is submitted that it was not correct for the ATS
officers,whohadobtainedthe opinion from suchanofficer.Itis
submittedthattaintedofficerslikePIKhanvilkar,Tajne,etc.,have
beenusedin thiscasetocreatefalseevidenceandthisis oneof
them. In this respect it is submitted by the learned SPP that the
abilityandtheskillofthewitnesshasnotatallbeingshakenduring
hiscrossexaminationandthecasethatisregisteredissubsequentto
thiscase andithas nobearing on theopinion givenin this case
which is supported by wellreasoned grounds and therefore his
evidence can be termed as unimpeached. He submits that his
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1199..
Ext.4825
opinionisnotbarewords,butitissupportedbyscientificreasons
andconsideringhisexperienceandthelengthofhisservice,hisskill
cannotbedisputed.Tomymind,whatthelearnedSPPhasstatedis
thecorrectposition.Inhisoralevidence,thewitnesshasdescribed
in great detail the procedure of examining the questioned and
specimen handwritings based upon the science of handwriting
examinationwhicharereflectedinthereasonsthathehadgiven.
ThoughthelearnedadvocateShettyhasconductedalengthycross
examinationonthetechnicalaspectofthehandwritingexamination
procedure as well as the reasons and has also made submissions
aboutit,theyarenotsuchastoaffecttheevidenceofhiswitness
insofararrivingattheopinionisconcerned.
1142.
hesitationinacceptingtheevidencegivenby JayantAher,PW131,
inrespectofhandwritingonthemapsExts.1486to1490beingthe
handwriting of the A3. However, considering the lapse in the
procedureofobtainingthespecimenhandwritingsoftheA2,A3,A9,
A10andA11,itwillbeunsafetoexplicitlyrelyontheopiniongiven
byhim.Hence,itwillhavetobeheldthattheprosecutionhasfailed
to prove that the handwriting on the photocopies of the
internationalmapArts.116,161,165,250and134,i.e.,Exts.1486
to 1490 that were seized from the A2, A3, A9, A10 and A11
respectivelyisoftheA3.
Identificationofaccusedbywitnessesintestidentification
parade:
1143.
IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thatby
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1200..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1201..
Ext.4825
ATStothem,gavethemthenamesofthewitnessesandintroduced
the witnesses to them. He then stated about the names of the
accusedthathetoldtoboththeSEOs.Ithascomeinhisevidence
that his staff rendered assistance to the SEOs in procuring the
panchasandwhentheycamehetoldthemabouttheparadebeing
organisedintheprisonandithascomeinhisevidencethatSEO
Purandare,PW80,leftforMumbaiCentralPrisonwithpanchasand
eightidentifyingwitnessesandACPJoshi,PW163,andstaff.
1144.
1145.
alsocomeinhisevidencethatonreachingtheprisonheaskedthe
SEO,twopanchasandeightwitnessestowaitoutsidethejail,he
wentinside,contactedtheconcernedjailofficers,showedthemthe
necessarydocumentsincludingthecourtorderandrequestedthem
tomakearrangementsfortheparadeandthereafterhecameoutof
thejailandwaitedoutside.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatafter
sometime jail officers called SEO Purandare, PW80, two panch
witnessesandeightwitnessesinsidethejailandhewaitedoutside.
Hiscrossexaminationhasnotrevealedanythingadverseandsome
additionalinformationhascomethathelefttheofficeat10.00a.m.,
thattheyallwentintwovehicles,thathewassittinginaBolero
vehicle and SEO Purandare, PW80, was with him and, this is
important,thatACPPatilandSEOBarve,PW82,werepresentinthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1202..
Ext.4825
ATSofficeatthattime.TheaboveevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,
andACPJoshi,PW163,iscorroboratedbySEOPurandare,PW80,
and he gave the entire details as were deposed by ACP Patil,
PW186,inrespectofACPPatil,PW186,givinghimtheinformation
aboutCrimeno.5of2006,tellinghimthenamesoffouraccused,
i.e., A2, A4, A6 and A7, whose identification parade he had to
conduct,tellinghimthenamesofeightwitnesseswhoweretotake
partintheparadeasmentionedaboveandintroducinghimtothe
witnesses.Ithas come in his evidencethatpolicehadcalledfive
personstoactaspanchwitnesses,thatheaskedthemwhetherthere
areanycrimesorcriminalcasesagainstthemtowhichtheysaidno,
thatheaskedthemwhethertheyarereadytoactaspanchwitnesses
fortheidentificationparade,theysaidyesandthenheselectedtwo
personsoutofthem,thenamesofwhichhegaveandstatedthathe
wrote down the names of the accused, the witnesses and the
panchas.HecorroboratedACPJoshi,PW163'sevidenceaboutgoing
totheprisonwiththewitnessesandpanchasintwovehiclesand
whathappenedthereafter.Inhiscrossexaminationonthispointa
positive statement has come on record that he inquired with the
panchas and not with the police before he selected them and in
furthercrossexaminationheadmittedthatACPPatil,PW186,did
nottellhimaboutthefactsofthecase,thatpolicehadcalledthe
panchas andhe had askedeverypanchwhether he hadactedas
panchwitnessearlierandatthattimeneitherACPPatil,PW186,
noranyotherATSofficerwaspresent.Duringhiscrossexamination
bylearnedadvocateRasalithas comethathemadenotes about
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1203..
Ext.4825
witnessidentifyinganaccusedandhowhehasidentifiedandthe
saidshortnoteswereinspectedbythelearnedadvocateandwhen
asked to produce them and as he stated that they are in his
handwritingandtheircontentsarecorrect,theyweremarkedasExt.
835.Hestatedthathehadwrittenthenamesofthewitnessesinthe
ATSoffice,butitwasnotthepaperExt.835,butitwasaseparate
paperthathetorelateron.Apartfromthis,hisevidenceabouthe
goingwithACPJoshi,PW163,twopanchasandeightwitnesseshas
notbeendisputed.Sameisthecaseabouttheevidenceoftheseven
witnesses mentioned above who took part in the identification
parade.TheirevidenceaboutgoingtotheATSofficeonthatday,
theybeingintroducedtoSEOsPurandare,PW80,andBarve,PW82,
goingtotheprisonintwovehicleshasnotbeendiscreditedexcept
thatduringthecrossexaminationofsomeofthemtheirevidence
hasbeenbroughtonrecordasimprovementsovertheirstatements
tothepoliceon07/11/06,butIwillcometothatlateron.
1146.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSEOPurandare,PW80,that
theyallreachedtheprisonandstoodoutside,ACPJoshi,PW163,
wentinsideofficeoftheprison,thathecameoutaftersometime,
that after the preparations were made he and two panchas went
insideonbeingcalled,hewenttotheofficeoftheprison,metthe
prisonofficersandweretakentoagrilledbarrackontheleftside
aftercrossingtwodoorsandhedescribedthebarrackashavingtwo
fullwallsontwosides,wallsonthetworemainingsidesuptowaist
levelandcurtainsabovethosewalls.Hedescribedindetailabout
thefouraccusedbeingintroducedtothembythejailofficers,who
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1204..
Ext.4825
toldhimtotaketheidentificationparadeofalltogether,buthesaid
no and told them that he will take the parade of two accused
together and described about looking at the accused, taking a
mentalnoteoftheirage,physiqueandappearanceandselecting12
personsoutof3035persons,whowerebroughtbythejailofficers,
moreorlesssimilartotheA2andA7,whomhedecidedtotakefirst,
dividing12dummysuspectsintwogroupsofsixeachandasking
themtostandatsomedistancefromeachother.Hethendescribed
aboutwhatprecautionshetookincludingasking thewitnessesin
thepresenceofpanchaswhethertheywereshownanyaccusedor
theirphotographsbythepolicetowhichtheysaidnoandgetting
verified from the panchas whether the identification room was
visiblefromthatroom,towhichtheysaidno.Thengoingbackto
thebarrack,askingthe accusedwhethertheywereshown toany
personbythepolice,towhichtheysaidnoandthensendingone
panchoutsideandaskinghimtobring thewitnesstothe parade
roomonebyone.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatafterthepanch
witnesswentoutsideheclosedthedoorofthebarrackandasked
the A7 to stand anywhere in the first row and the A2 to stand
anywhere in the second row and also asked them whether they
wantedtochangetheirclothes.Hethendescribedhowthewitnesses
werebroughtinsideonebyoneandhowheconductedtheparade
with their help, the first one being Amar Khan, PW75, who
identified both the accused by touching them and also described
theirrole,whichhewrote.Hethenstatedaboutaskingthesecond
panch to take the witness outside and bring the second witness
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1205..
Ext.4825
AjmeriShaikhandafterheleftheclosedthedoorfrominside,asked
theaccusedwhethertheywantedtochangetheirplacesandtheir
clothes, whereupon both accused removed their shirts and stood
therewithTshirtsthattheywerewearinginside,buthedoesnot
remember whether they changed their places. It has come in his
evidencethatonlyAmarKhan,PW75,andAjmeriShaikhidentified
both accused, but the remaining six witnesses did not identify
anyoneandhetookshortnotesaboutthewitnesseswhodidnot
identifytheaccusedastheprisonofficershasaskedhimtohurry.
Insofar as the identification by Amar Khan, PW75, and Ajmeri
Shaikh,hehasstatedthathekeptonwritingthememorandumas
pertheeventsthatweretakingplaceandstatedthatheadoptedthe
same procedure for remaining seven witnesses including Ajmeri
Shaikh.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatafterthefirstparadewas
overhegavetheaccusedanddummysuspectsinthecustodyofthe
prisonofficersandaskedthemtotakethemaway.
1147.
Inrespectofthesecondparade,ithascomeinhisevidence
thatheaskedtheprisonofficerstobringtheremainingtwoaccused
insidethebarrack,thathealsoaskedthemtobringthe12dummy
suspects that he had already selected from the remaining 2022
dummysuspects,notedtheirnames,askedtheA4andA6whether
theywereshowntoanypersonbythepolice,towhichtheysaidno,
that he went outside with the panchas to the room where the
witnessesweresitting,askedthemwhetherpolicehadshownthem
any accused or their photograph, to which they said no, that he
instructedthepanchastobringthewitnessesonebyoneandthen
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1206..
Ext.4825
1148.
the short notes Ext. 835 that he made during the parade were
receivedinevidenceandheadmittedthatthereisnorecordinthe
shortnotesofthepanchas,whomhedidnotselectthoughitwas
necessarytokeepanoteofthenames,occupationsandaddressesof
allthepersonswhowerebroughtbeforehimforbeingselectedas
panchas.Inrespectofpreparationsoftheshortnotes,heexplained
thatnamesofwitnessesandaccusedarewritteninthenotes,that
hemadenoteaboutthewitnessesidentifyingtheaccusedandhow
heidentifiedtheaccused,thatnotesweretakenaboutbothparades,
butforthefirstparadeentiredetailsarenotmentionedashehad
alreadywrittenthefirstmemorandumintheparaderoomand,this
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1207..
Ext.4825
isimportant,thathedidnotmentionaboutthefirsttwowitnesses,
i.e.,AmarKhan,PW75andAjmeriShaikhbecausehewroteitinthe
memorandumatthesametime.Itisbecausehewasaskedinhis
crossexaminationastowhetherhehasanyotherrecordotherthan
thememorandumsExts.833and834,thathevolunteeredthathe
hastheshortnotesExt.835abouttheparadewithhim.Therefore,
thesuggestionthathepreparedtheshortnotesyesterday,i.e.,the
day before he gave the evidence, is unwarranted. Again during
furthercrossexaminationhewasaskedaboutnotingsmadeinthe
short notes and he explained that the words 05/06, the date
11/07/06onthetopandtimings11.55to1.30p.m.onthetopright
handcornerarerespectivelyaboutthecrimenumber,thedateofthe
incident and the timings during which the identification parades
wereconducted.Thereisnomorecrossexaminationabouttheshort
notesExt.835andifthepaperonwhichtheyarewrittenisseen,it
isapparentthatitisanoldpaperandthecontentsthereonarevery
specific.Secondcolumnofthefirstparadecontainsthenamesofthe
two accused and the places where they stood, the third column
mentionswhetherclothesandplaceischanged,thefourthcolumn
mentionsthesurnameofthewitnessesandthelastcolumnwhether
they have identified or not. This table contains the names of six
witnessesexcludingAmarKhan,PW75,andAjmeriShaikhandthe
remarknotidentifiedaswellastheplaceswheretheaccusedstood
corroboratesthecontentsofmemorandumExt.833perfectly.Same
isthecaseabouttheshortnotesinthesecondportionthatarein
respectofthesecondparade.Theyalsocorroboratethecontentsof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1208..
Ext.4825
1149.
Allthesevenwitnesseswhotookpartintheidentification
paradesconductedbySEOPurandare,PW80,havecorroboratedhis
versionabouttheprocedureofconductingtheparadetotheextent
ofstatingthesequencenumberbywhichtheyenteredtheparade
room, how they identified particular accused and described their
roles. One or two of them have not stated about the sequence
numberatwhichhewentinsidetheparaderoom,however,allof
themunhesitatinglyidentifiedtheaccusedwhomtheyhadidentified
intheparadeandinrespectofwhatevent.ItisonlyAmarKhan,
PW75, who faltered some what in his crossexamination while
identifyingthepersonwhomhehadseeninthehouseoftheA6
doing something with wire. In his chiefexamination he correctly
statedthatheidentifiedtheA7intheparadeasthepersondoing
something with the wires, however, in crossexamination learned
advocate Wahab Khan asked the A4 to stand up and asked the
witnesswhetherhehadseenhimdoingsomethingwiththe wire
whenhevisitedthehouseoftheA6,towhichthewitnessanswered
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1209..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1210..
Ext.4825
whichthewitnesshavestatedaboutthemandapositivestatement
has come that till the witness identified the accused, he had no
knowledgeaboutthedetailsofthecases.Hewasveryemphaticin
stating that even today he knows the sequence in which the
witnesses were brought to the parade room and whom they had
identified.Positivestatementshavecomeinhis crossexamination
thatnoprisonofficerwaspresentwiththedummiesandtheaccused
whenhewentinsidetheparaderoom.Inrespectoflocationofthe
identificationbarrackandtheroomontheleftsideafterentering
themaingateoftheprisonwherethewitnessesweremadetosit,he
specificallydeniedthatthewindowofthatroomisexactlyopposite
tothedooroftheidentificationbarrack.Headmittedthathedidnot
describe that there were waist high walls on two sides of the
identification barrack and the upper portions being covered with
curtain and the other two sides having grills were covered with
curtain,buthedescribedthelengthandbreadthofthebarrackand
thatthe grillthathe mentionedwas in the natureof amesh.In
respectofhisevidenceaboutfouraccusedbeingbroughtbyprison
officers and he telling them that he will take the parade of two
accusedtogetheranddecidedtotaketheA2andA7firstandafter
selecting12dummiesmoreorlesssimilartotheaccused,givingthe
othertwoaccused,i.e.,A4andA6,andtheremainingsuspectsin
thecustodyofthejailofficersandaskingthemtowaitoutsidethe
barrack, he explained in his crossexamination that he was
continuouslyinsidetheidentificationbarrackfromthetimeofthe
saidparadeuptotheendofsecondparade,thatthetwoaccusedand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1211..
Ext.4825
1150.
SEOPurandare,PW80,describedthetopographyofthe
prison stating that there is a big room on the left side after one
entersthemaingateandthereareroomsontherightsideinwhich
theprisonofficerssit.Hecandidlyadmittedthathedidnotwritein
the memorandumsthathe askedthe panchasto see whetherthe
placewheretheyweregoingtoholdthetestidentificationparadeis
visible from that room. He was suggested that he prepared the
memorandumonthesayoftheATStohelpthemandwasaskedto
conducttheparadesasheisthefavouriteoftheATSofficersand
doeswhatevertheysay.Hedeniedthesuggestionanditisobviously
inconsistentwithhisearlieranswerinhiscrossexaminationthatit
wasthefirstoccasionforhimtoconductatestidentificationparade
fortheATS.Hedidnotrememberwhetherhehadconductedan
identificationparadeforV.P.RoadPoliceStationon07/03/10inC.
R.No.32/06andwhetherinspectorVilasJoshiwastheinvestigating
officerandwhetherHarishPopatandRaviPujariwerethepanchas.
DefenceproducedcertifiedcopyofthememorandumExt.3292to
showthatheisnotdeposingtruthfully,buttomymind,itdoesnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1212..
Ext.4825
affect his credibility because he has not stated that he had not
conducted,butthathedoesnotremember,whichconsideringthe
factthathehasconductedmanyidentificationparadescannotbe
foundfaultwith.ThesaiddocumentisobtainedundertheRTIAct
andthoughitiscertifiedasatruecopybythePoliceInspectorofV.
P.MargPoliceStation,itisnotadocumentwhichhasbeenprovedin
thecourtoflawandcannotberelieduponforanypurpose,notthat
itisnotnecessarytoconsideritsimportonhisevidence.Hewas
suggestedandhedeniedthatheidentifiedtheaccusedinthecourt
astheywereshowntohimoutsidethecourthallonthelastdate.He
admittedthathehasnotreadtheHighCourtCriminalManualand
does not know about the guidelines given or the precautionary
measures to be taken as mentioned in the said guidelines. Some
positivestatementshavecomeinhiscrossexaminationthatthere
werenowindowstotheidentificationbarrack,thattherewereno
windows towhichcurtains couldbefixedinside,that ACP Joshi,
PW163,didnotentertheprisonwithhim,thattheprisonofficer
andtheconstableswerewiththeaccusedandthedummysuspects,
thattillthattimenoneofthewitnesseshadcomeinsidetheprison
andhedeniedthatthepanchaswerealsooutsidestatingthatthey
werewithhim.Healsomadeapositivestatementthatbothpanchas
usedtobe inside the identification barrackwhen the witness did
their work. This is his crossexamination insofar as the place of
holdingtheparade,whetherpoliceofficerswerewithhimwhenhe
conductedtheparadeetc.,andithasnotdiscreditedhistestimony.
1151.
IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thatSEO
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1213..
Ext.4825
Barve,PW82,hadcometohisofficeon07/11/06andhegavehim
namesofwitnesseswhohadcomeforthetestidentificationparade
andintroducedthemtothewitnessesandhegavethenamesofthe
A1,A3,A12andA13tohim,forwhomhewasrequiredtotakethe
testidentificationparades,thatafterACPJoshi,PW163,andSEO
Purandare, PW80, left for Mumbai Central Prison, he alongwith
SEO Barve, PW82, two panchas and staff also left the office for
goingthere,thatheenteredtheprisonandthereafterSEOBarve,
PW82,enteredalongwithpanchas,thewitnessesweresittinginthe
officeofthesuperintendent,atabout1.30p.m.theearlierparades
wereover,therefore,hehandedthemovertoSEOBarve,PW82,
and requested him to commence the process. His evidence is
corroboratedbytheevidenceofSEOBarve,PW82,whostatedthat
ACPPatil,PW186,toldhimthenamesoftheA1,A3,A12andA13,
selectedtwopersonsoutofthefivearrangedbythepolice,toactas
panchwitnessesandgoingtotheprisonwiththemandACPPatil,
PW186, ACP Patil, PW186, going inside to take permission and
taking them inside after some time. He deposed about he asking
jailorPatiltoarrangefor12dummiessimilarinappearancetothe
accusedaftertellinghimnamesofthefouraccusedandhegoingto
theroomwherethewitnessesweresitting,ACPPatil,PW186,going
thereandintroducinghimtothewitnesses.Hedescribedhowhe
ascertainedwhethertheroomwhereheandpanchasweretakenby
jailorPatilwasaproperroomforholdingidentificationparadeand
thenaskingjailorPatiltobringtheaccusedandthedummiesandhe
selected12dummysuspectsforthefirstidentificationparadeofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1214..
Ext.4825
two accused out of the 2025 dummy suspects. About the first
parade, he deposed about taking the A3 and A13 and the 12
dummiesinsidetheroomandtheprocedurebywhichhesentpanch
witnessKailashnathtobring thefirstwitnessAmarKhan,PW75,
andsoon.IthascomeinhisevidencethatRajeshSatpute,PW77,
identified the A3 and described the role of the accused. He then
describedhowDevendraPatil,PW62,identifiedtheA3andSantosh
Singh,PW63,andKishoreShah,PW60,identifiedtheA13inthe
firstparadeandalsodescribedtheirroles.
1152.
happenedandafterthefirstparadewasoverhehandedoverthe
twoaccusedand12dummysuspectstojailorPatilandaftersome
time jailor Patil brought the remaining two accused, i.e., A1 and
A12,and24dummysuspectsoutofwhomheselected12persons
and followed the same procedure as per the first parade during
which only Subhash Nagarsekar, PW57, identified the A1. He
deposedaboutcompletingthememorandumintheofficeofjailor
Patilinthepresenceofpanchasandheprovedthecontentsofthe
memorandumExt.844,contentsofwhichcorroboratehisversion.
HeidentifiedtheA1,A3andA12inthecourtandcouldnotidentify
theA13.Hisevidenceabouttheprocedureofconductingthetest
identificationparade,thesequenceofthewitnessesgoinginsidethe
parade room and which witness identified which accused is
corroboratedbythecontentsofthememorandumExt.844.Itisalso
corroboratedbytheevidenceofthesevenwitnesses,whotookpart
init,viz.,RajeshSatpute,PW77,andDevendraPatil,PW62,who
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1215..
Ext.4825
identifiedtheA3,SantoshSingh,PW63,andKishoreShah,PW60,
who identified the A13 and Subhash Nagarsekar, PW57, who
identifiedtheA1.Othertwowitnesses,i.e.,VishalParmar,PW74,
and Amar Khan, PW75, did not identify any accused. The five
witnesses who identified the accused either stated about the
sequenceofenteringtheidentificationroomortheplacewherethe
accused,whomtheyidentified,wasstandingintherowofpersons
correctly,whichisaccordingtothesequenceandlocationwrittenin
thememorandum.
1153.
IthascomeintheevidenceofSEOBarve,PW82,thatheis
appointedasanSEOin1990andduringhiscrossexaminationit
wasrevealedthatthistestidentificationparadeistheonlyonethat
hehasconductedafterbecominganSEO.Heknowstheguidelines
givenbytheGovernmentofMaharashtrathatarementionedinthe
CriminalManualaboutconductingtheidentificationparades,which
areinthepapersthatwereprovidedafterhebecomeanSEO,but
does not know the guidelines given by the High Court, but he
followed the guidelines given by the Government of Maharashtra
and prepared the memorandum as per the proforma. About the
aspect of taking precautions and ascertaining from the witnesses
whether the accused or photographs were shown to them and
ascertaining from the accused whether they were shown to the
witnesses,hisevidenceisclear.However,hecommittedamistakeby
statingthathecameoutoftheparaderoomafterthefirstparade
andmetjailorPatiloutsidetheroom,whowaswiththeremaining
twoaccusedandthedummysuspectsjustoutsidethedoorofthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1216..
Ext.4825
room.However,thismistakeiscorrectedbyhisanswerinfurther
crossexamination that he did not know at the time of the first
parade where the other dummy suspects and the remaining two
accusedforthesecondparadewere.ItmaybethatjailorPatilmay
havebroughttheremainingtwoaccusedandthedummiesnearthe
paraderoomonseeingthefirstparadebeingconcluded,therefore,
no inference can be drawn from that they were standing outside
duringtheentireperiodofthefirstidentificationparade,thereby
enablingtheeightwitnesses,whocameonebyone,toseethem.Not
onlythis,noneofthesevenwitnessesexaminedhavebeengivenany
suggestionabouthavingseentheremainingtwoaccusedoutsidethe
parade room,whenthey,i.e.,thewitnesses,wentinsideitatthe
timeoffirstparade.
1154.
sevakofMLA,whowaswiththeShivsenaearlierandisnowwith
the Congress(I), nothing has beenshown as tohow itaffects his
capacityoftheworkthathedoesasanSEO.Abouthisappointment
as an SEO he had stated in his chiefexamination that he was
appointedintheyear1990andinhiscrossexaminationhestated
thathewasagainappointedon15/11/06upto15/11/11andthat
thesubsequentappointmentstartsaftertheearlierappointmentis
overandheiscontinuouslybeingappointedfrom1990.Therewasa
heavy dispute about his capacity to act as an SEO and defence
producedaphotocopyofgazettealongwithExt.4298dtd.02/04/05
accompaniedwithpartoflistdtd.23/06/06,whichdoesnotshow
hisnameatsr.no.631,whichisinhisrubberstamponeverypage
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1217..
Ext.4825
ofthememorandum.Sameisthecaseaboutthegazettecopydtd.
22/06/06and23/06/06whichdonotincludehisnameanddonot
showhimatsr.no.631,butinallthesethreegazettesapersonby
nameShamkumarGangaramLakampelliisshown.Asagainstthis,
theprosecutionproducedhisfirstappointmentorderbythegazette
dtd. 08/05/01 Ext. 4307 and also the gazette dtd. 15/11/06
showinghisnameatsr.no.1335.Itisnotnecessarytoconsiderthe
submissions of the learned advocates in view of the gazette dtd.
08/05/01Ext.4307appointinghimforaperiodoffouryearsfrom
thatdateoruntilfurtherordersandfurtherorderisthegazettedtd.
15/11/06,copyofwhichisalongwiththesaidgazetteshowinghis
name at sr. no. 1335. This means that his earlier appointment
continuedaheadforaperiodoffiveyears.Thecopiesofthesetwo
gazettes were verified by the sheristedar of the court with the
originalbroughtbytheprosecution.So,tomymind,itcannotbe
saidthatasonthedateofthetestidentificationparadeSEOBarve,
PW82, was not an SEO having authority to hold the test
identificationparade.Tomymind,nopersonwilldaretoworkas
such if his appointment is not in force. Conducting of test
identificationparadeisoneoftheworkthatisallowedtobedoneby
theSEOs.Thegazetteclearlyshowsthattheycandotheworkof
attestation, verification and certification of documents as well as
issuingcertificateinrespectofincomeofparents.Thus,hemustbe
doing the other work and must not have done the work of test
identificationparadeduringhislongperiod,butcertainlyitcannot
beconstruedonthebasisofGRsproducedbythedefencethathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1218..
Ext.4825
wasnotanSEOonthedayoftheidentificationparade.Itwillnotbe
outofplacetopointoutthatalongwithhisnameatsr.no.631in
theGRof08/05/01Ext.4307thenameofLakampelliShamkumaris
atsr.no.612inthesameGRandthesamepersonwasreappointed
orcontinuedbytheGRof23/10/06.
1155.
Amistakecommittedbythiswitnesswasbroughtonrecord
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1219..
Ext.4825
page8ofthememorandumarerepeatedonpages9and10andhe
cannotsaywhythecontentsarerepeated,butdeniedthesuggestion
thathecopiedthememorandumanddidnotconducttheparades.
This confusion is further compounded in his further cross
examination by learned advocate Wahab Khan. Learned advocate
gotadmissionsfromthewitnessthatthereisapossibilitythatthe
wordis writtentwicewhensomethingis beingwrittenaboutthe
workthatisgoingon,butthispossibilityisnotthereaboutanentire
sentence.Thoughhedeniedthatitisimpossiblethatanentirepage
isrepeatedwhenthewritingisbeingdoneabouttheworkthatis
goingon,itisapparentthathisdenialisnotcorrect.Headmitted
that if a person is copying from some matter, some sentences or
pagescanberepeatedifthepagesaredisplacedorthrownawayby
air.Whenthespecificquestionwasputastowhetherhecansayfor
sure whether the repetition of the contents from the second
paragraphonpage6uptotheendofpage8ofthememorandumon
pages9and10wasbecauseofcopyingordictation,heanswered
thatitwasbecausethepapersinhishandflewawayandthepapers
on which he had already written were found subsequently. This
answerisobviouslygivenbecauseoftheclueprovidedearlierbythe
learnedadvocate.Hecouldnotsaywhetherthepageshadflownin
the parade room or in the jailor's office, but stated that the first
pageswerenotbeforehimwhenherewrotethecontentsandthe
alreadywrittenpagesthathefoundsubsequentlyweremixedupin
thepapers.He,ofcourse,deniedthesuggestionattheendofthe
crossexamination that he did not take the identification parade
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1220..
Ext.4825
insidetheprisonanddidnotwritememorandumthereandthatACP
Patil,PW186,dictatedtohimthecontentsofthememorandumin
hisofficeandbecauseofthedictationthereisrepetition.
1156.
1157.
Fromthiswegotothesubmissionsofbothsidesonthis
issue.LearnedadvocateWahabKhanmadegeneralcommentsabout
theprecautionstobetakenwhileconductingthetestidentification
paradeandsubmittedthatitisrequiredtobeconductedasearlyas
possible. Hesubmitsthatnonholdingofparadeisnotsofatalto
thecaseoftheprosecutionthanholdingofadefectiveparade.He
submitsthatbecauseoflapsesontheirpart,thewitnessishavinga
glimpseoftheaccusedandisseeinghimandonthatbasisalsoheis
identifyinghiminthecourt.Thiswillfrustratetheverypurposeof
thetestidentificationparade.
1158.
AfterpointingouttotheguidelinesgivenintheCriminal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1221..
Ext.4825
habitualpanchwitnessusedbyPIKhanvilkarandforthispurpose
hepointedouttothedocumentsproducedbythedefence.Firstis
Ext.1742whichistheallegedpanchanamadtd.29/09/06oftheA7
in this case, which cannot be disputed. Then there is Ext. 2904,
house search panchanama dtd. 03/01/04 in C. R. No. 277/03 of
BhoiwadaPoliceStation,Ext.2905ispanchanamaofthesamedate,
however,bothshowthenameofthepoliceofficerasPSIPatiland
ShindeandnotofPIKhanvilkar,PW168.Ext.2906iscopyoffinal
reportinthesamecrimeshowingSachinKoltharkarasthepanch
witnessandonePSID.P.AvariistheinformantandPIKhanvilkar,
PW168,astheinvestigatingofficer.Ext.2602isthesameasExt.
2905.Exts.2904to2906havebeenobtainedundertheRTIActand
theyarephotocopiesissuedastruecopiesbythepoliceinspectorof
theconcernedpolicestationandweresuppliedtotheA7asperthe
letterExt.2896.Theyareunproveddocuments,i.e.,theyhavenot
beenprovedinanycourtandexhibited.Hence,thereisaquestion
astowhethertheycanbeconsidered?Eventhenanoteistakenthat
Sachinwiththesameageandaddressisapanchwitnessinthat
case. Ext. 2468 is certified copy of a memorandum of test
identification parade dtd. 26/07/06 in MCOC Special Case No.
16/06 showing the same person to have acted as panch witness.
Thoughitis issuedbythis courtitis alsoa copyofadocument
whichisnotprovedinthatcase.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatthe
namesofthewitnesseswerehiddeninthechargesheetandinspite
ofseveralapplicationswhichhementioned,theprosecutiondidnot
disclose the names ofthe witnesses towhom they were goingto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1222..
Ext.4825
examine.Hesubmitsthattheabovedocumentsshowthatawitness
whowaswellknowntoPIKhanvilkar,PW168,hasbeeninvolvedin
the proceedings of the parade, which is not a coincidence and
thereforeheisnotanindependentandimpartialperson,buthehas
beendeliberatelyplantedinthisparade.Hesubmitsthatheadmits
that for the other panch witness, he has failed to prove his
associationwiththepoliceandforthatheblamestheprosecutionto
handicapthedefenceandnotsupplyingthenamesofthewitness
andbyblockingtheapplicationsundertheRTIAct.Inmyhumble
opinion,theprosecutionhasnotexaminedanypanchwitness,who
hadtakenpartinthetestidentificationparade.Hence,itwillnotbe
propertocondemnapersonbehindhis back.Inthis respect,the
learnedSPPsubmittedthatitwouldbeunjusttogiveanyfinding
about the said panch witnesses, equally so there cannot be a
presumptionthatthepanchwitnessesdidnotdotheirjobhonestly
andsincerely.LearnedSPPalsosubmittedthatwecannotfindfault
withtheSEOwhoconductedtheparade,becauseheisnotsupposed
toassumetheroleoftheinvestigatingofficerandgointothehistory
andgeographyofapersontofindoutwhetherheistellingthetruth
ornot.However,areasonableapplicationofmindisdemonstrated
from his evidence thathe hadquestionedthe panch witnesses to
satisfyhimself.Trueitis,becauseithascomeintheevidenceofSEO
Purandare,PW80,thatheinquiredwiththepanchastoascertain
whethertheyhadanycriminalantecedents.Tomymind,heneed
not have asked them whether they had acted as panchas earlier.
LearnedSPPfurthersubmittedthattheSEOselectedtwooutoffive,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1223..
Ext.4825
1159.
Tomymind,aspanchwitnesseshavenotbeenexamined
thereisnoquestionofassessinghisroleintheconductofthetest
identificationparade.Themostimportantpointisthatneitherthe
two SEOs nor the seven witnesses,who took part in it and gave
evidence,havebeensuggestedfromthesideofthedefencethatany
panch out of the two had indicated at what place a particular
accused who was to be identified, was standing in the row of
personsintheidentificationparadeorthatthesaidaccusedwasofa
particular description or having some special features. Thus, not
onlythisaspectdoesnotaffecttheirevidence,italsodoesnotaffect
theaspectoftheprosecutionofnotexamininganypanchwitnesses.
1160.
Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateisthatitwasthe
police who brought the five witnesses and from whom the SEOs
selectedtwoandallegesthatallfivepersonswereregularpanchas
andwhenitisshownthatSachinKoltharkarisspeciallyassociated
withPIKhanvilkar,PW168,thenconsideringhisbackgroundnowit
canbeinferredthatheprovidedthismantotheSEO.Tomymind,
there is nothing wrong in the police bringing persons for being
selected as panch witnesses because paragraph 16(3)(iii) of
ChapterIfromtheCriminalManualsaysthatthepolicethemselves
will have normally arranged to callup such persons. Thus this
submissionis notjustified.Learnedadvocate WahabKhan further
submits that to frustrate the purpose of the parade, the ATS
undertookafurtherexercise,viz.,ofpublishingthephotographsof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1224..
Ext.4825
theaccusedandcirculatingtheminthemedia.Hesubmitsthatthe
ATShaditsownideathatasitwasnotexpectedtoshowthefaceof
theaccusedtothewitnesses,therefore,theypublishedphotographs
inallthenationalDailysandifitisestablishedthatphotographs
werecirculatedorpublishedthenitwillfrustratetheparades.For
thispurpose,he reliedon theevidence of SiddiquiAli,DW12,a
journalistworkingintheTimesofIndiaandthenewsitemExt.3036
givenbyhimandevidenceofAbdulMateen,DW13,ajournalistand
crimereporterworkingintheTimesofIndiaandthenewsitemin
thenewspaperExt.3015.SiddiquiAli,DW12,deposedthathehad
writtenthenewsitemintheTimesofIndiadtd.26/07/06,copyof
whichisatExt.3036,andthatthephotographisoftheA11andhis
photograph was given by police source. The publication of
photographoftheA11isinconsequentialinasmuchashehasnot
been identified by anyone in the test identification parade dtd.
08/11/06. During his crossexamination by the learned SPP the
witnesswasexposedinrespectofhisknowledgeabouttheA11and
abouthissourceofphotograph,becauseheadmittedthathedidnot
haveanyoccasiontoseetheaccusedpersonsbeforetheywereinthe
news items, that he does not have the photograph of a person
ZameerthatisinthenewsitemExt.3036andadmittedthatitisnot
mentioned below the photograph or in the article as to whose
photograph it is. He admitted that the photograph was available
withthemediapeopleandhisstatementinchiefexaminationthat
hehadgonetothehouseoftheA11andinterviewedhisfamilyand
hisanswerincrossexaminationthathehadgonetothehouseofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1225..
Ext.4825
A11beforepublishingthenewsitem,clearlyshowsthepossibility
thatthephotographoftheA11whichheprintedinhisnewsitem
mayhavebeenobtainedfromthefamilymembersoftheA11.This
inference can be readily drawn as the photograph is not of the
mannerinwhichpolicetakethephotographsoftheaccused,butit
is the photograph that is usually obtained by a person when he
appliesforlicencetodrivecommercialvehicleslikeataxiorbusor
truck,becausesuchaphotographisrequiredbytheRTOauthorities.
He denying that he did not ask his family members to give his
photographisobviouslytosupporthisstatementthatitwasgivenby
thepolicesource.AbdulMateen,DW13,provedthearticlethatis
writtenbyhiminthesaidnewspaperon27/07/06,copyofwhichis
atExt.3015.However,hedidnottoethelineofthedefencebecause
he stated on being asked as to who had supplied him with the
photographoftheA2,heansweredthatinanongoingstory,theydo
use photographs. Sometimes they get the photographs from the
police, sometimes from the families of the person concerning the
storyandsometimesfromtheirownsourceandinthisparticular
storyhegotthephotographinJuly,2006,butdoesnotremember
theexactsourcefromwhichhegotit.Hewasdeclaredhostilebythe
defenceadvocateandcrossexaminedandspecificsuggestionswere
given that the photograph in Ext. 3015 was provided by the
ATS/CrimeBranchtowhichherepliedthathedoesnotremember.
Naturally, learned SPP did not crossexamine him. Thus, his
evidenceisofnouse.
1161.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1226..
Ext.4825
PrabhudayalChavala,DW10,whowasworkingasaneditorofIndia
Todayofeditionsofalllanguagesin2006andwhobroughttocourt
theofficecopiesofEnglisheditionsofIndiaTodaydtd.16/10/06
andHindieditiondtd.30/08/06statingthatthecopiesExts.2545
and 2544 respectively that are on record are as per office copies
withhim.Heisobviouslyaverycleverwitnessbecausewhenasked
whetherthecontentsofpageno.34inExt.2545andofpage29in
Ext.2544aretrueandcorrect,heansweredthatsincethecontents
havenotbeendeniedtillhewastheeditor,hecansaythattheyare
trueandcorrect.Onecouldhavegatheredanimpressionfromthis
answerthatthearticlesinthesaidissuesofIndiaTodayaretrueand
correct,however,itwasdisprovedduringhiscrossexaminationby
learnedSPP,becauseheadmittedthattheeditionsofIndiaToday
thathebroughtwithhimareoneofthecopiesthatheprintedand
hedoesnotremembertheoriginaldataisstoredinthecomputer,
thatvariousdepartmentheadslookintovariousstoriesthatarefiled
by the correspondents and he has no personal knowledge of the
sourceofthenewsasitisnothisjobtoknowit,thatitisnothisjob
topersonallyverifythetruthofeachandeverystory,therefore,he
doesnotknowitandhedoesnothavepersonalknowledgeasto
whotookthephotographsthatareonthosepagesandwherethey
weretaken.Thus,itisobviousthathehasnopersonalknowledge
aboutthephotographsastowhotookthemandwheretheywere
taken. The source of the photograph is therefore not clear. The
photographsonperusalshowthatthephotographoftheA11isthe
sameasthephotographthatwaspublishedintheTimesofIndiaon
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1227..
Ext.4825
26/07/06, i.e., Ext. 3036 and probably the source is that it was
availablewiththemediaandobtainedfromthefamilymembersof
theA11.ThephotographoftheA1issuchthatitwouldnothave
hadbeentakenbythepolice.ThephotographoftheA2appearsto
beaphotographofaphotograph.Leavingasideallthesethings,the
questioniswhetherIndiaTodaymagazinecouldhavebeenreadby
thewitnessesliketaxidriversandthetravellers,whohaddeposed
before the courtandidentifiedthe accusedinthe parade.Tomy
mind,consideringtheirsocialstatus,Idonotthinkthattheymust
bereadingIndiaTodaymagazine.Notonlythatnoneofthemhave
been suggestedabouthaving seen photographofthe A1,A2and
A11intheIndiaTodaymagazineandwhethertheyusedtoreadthe
said magazine. A different class of persons particularly affiliate
personsreadmagazineslikeIndiaToday.Thus,noinferencecanbe
drawnontheevidenceoftheabovethreewitnessesthatbeforethe
testidentificationparadethewitnesseshaveseenphotographsofthe
accused in the print media. In this context, reliance is placed by
learned advocate Sharif Shaikh on the authorities in the case of
Vijayan Rajan, K. V. Sadanandan, Appellant V. State ofKerala,
Respondents(LAWS(SC)1999295) and Ravi@Ravichandran,
Appellant V. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Respondents
(LAWS(SC)20074143). They are of no use because they are
differentonfacts.Inthecaseof VijayanRajan thefactwasthat,
'photograph of the accused was shown to a witness before the test
identificationparadeandfurtherjustbeforeshewasenteringtheSub
jail toidentifytheaccused somebody toldhertoidentify thetallest
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1228..
Ext.4825
manintheparade'.Thesecondauthorityisalsonotapplicableon
thefactsbecausethephotographsoftheaccusedwerepublishedinthe
Local Daily with caption that they were persons accused of causing
murder in question. Thus, the submission on this point is not
acceptedandnoinferencecanbedrawnthatpolicehaveprovided
photographsoftheaccusedtothemediaandthatthewitnesseshad
seenthephotographsoftheA1,A2andA11intheTimesofIndiaas
wellasintheIndiatodaymagazine.
1162.
Thenextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateisthemost
hotlycontestedissue.Learnedadvocatesubmittedthathewantsto
point out how the jail officers were cooperating with the ATS
officersduringthetestidentificationparade.Itiscontendedbythe
defence that as per SEO Purandare, PW80, the first test
identificationparadewasconductedinbetween1155hoursto1250
hoursandthesecondparadewasconductedinbetween12.55to
1.30p.m.However,theentriesintheregistermaintainedinsidethe
prisonatthegateofthehighsecuritycellbytheprisonofficials,
copyofwhichisatExt.2474,showsthattheA2,A4andA7were
takenoutforthepurposeofidentificationparadeat1235hoursand
wereputbackat1240hours.Hesubmittedthattheparadescannot
be completed within 5 minutes or 20 minutes. His further
submissionisridiculousbecausehestatedthatprosecutioncitedthe
then superintendent of MCP Swati Sathe as a witness in the
chargesheetandifatalltherewasanypossibilityoffalsityinthe
documents of the defence, they would have examined her.
Therefore, the nonexamination of the said witness assures and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1229..
Ext.4825
certifiesthegenuinenessandauthenticityofExt.2474.Hesubmits
thathehasputthetimingsmentionedinExt.2474toallconcerned
witnesses including ACP Patil, PW186, and the SEO and if the
prosecutionwouldhaveexaminedSwatiSathe,thedefencecould
have shown this document to her and could have succeeded in
provingthetimings.Hesubmitsthattheprosecutionoughttohave
ledherevidenceforsuchimportantpieceofevidenceandthereason
astowhysheisnotexaminedisbecausesheishandinglovewith
theATSfortorturingandassaultingtheaccused.
1163.
Itappearsthatthelearnedadvocatewasconsciousofthe
factthatthesaiddocumenthadbeenobtainedundertheRTIAct
and its contents were not proved by the defence by calling
concernedwitnesswiththeoriginalrecord.Inrespectofthesaid
document,thelearnedSPPsubmittedthatitisnotshownthatthe
saidregisterisaregisterthathastobestatutorilymaintainedbythe
prisonauthoritiesandmoreoverithasnotbeenprovedbycalling
thepersonswhohadmadethoseentires.Inmyhumbleopinion,no
reliance can be placed on the contents of Ext. 2474 as it is a
documentobtainedundertheRTIActanditisnotprovedbycalling
personwhohadactuallymadetheentriestherein.Inthisconnection
thelearnedSPPpointedouttotheapplicationsmadebytheA2,A4
andA13inrespectoftheparadesthatwereconductedon07/11/06
inwhichtheymadecertainallegations,whichwillbesubsequently
considered. He, however,pointed out them in the context of this
point submitting that none of the accused have stated in their
applicationsthattheyweretakenoutonlyforfiveminutesandthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1230..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1231..
Ext.4825
wasexpectedfromhimwasthatofdenial.Tomymindandasis
pointedoutbythelearnedSPP,thelastsentenceofhisdeposition
thatisvolunteeredbythewitnessclearsthisconfusionbecausehe
statedthattheaccusedwerewithhimforabouthalfanhour.Thisis
thedirectoralevidenceofSEOandithasbeencorroboratedbythe
witnesses, who took part in the parades conducted by him. As
against this, it is the information in Ext. 2474, which is not a
documentthatcanbedescribedasapublicdocument.Hence,this
pointisnolongeranydoubt.
1164.
ItisfurthersubmittedbythelearnedadvocatethatA2,A4,
A7andA13havedeposedthattheentriesinthesaidregisterwere
madeintheirpresenceandtheirevidencehasgoneunchallenged.
Hehasthenexplainedthattheaccusedstatedthattheirnamesare
calledatthegateofthebarracks,theygatheratthegateandafter
makingentryinthesaidregister,theyareallowedtogoandwhen
theycamebackagainthereisentryandtheyareallowedtogoin
theirrespectivebarracks.Learnedadvocate admittedthataccused
havenotstatedsowhenitwaspointedouttohimthattheaccused
onlystatedthattheentriesweremadeintheirpresence.Thustheir
evidencedoesnotaffecttheveracityoftheevidencegivenbySEO
Purandare,PW80,andtheevidenceofthewitnessesVishalParmar,
PW74,andAmarKhan,PW75.
1165.
Learnedadvocatethenraisedtheissueaboutrepetitionof
dummiesintheidentificationparadesanditisalsoraisedbylearned
advocateShetty.Namesoftwodummies,i.e.,AmarjeetSinghJasbir
Singh and Selvan Nagu in the memorandum Ext.833 of the first
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1232..
Ext.4825
paradeinthefirstlistofdummiesandthenamesofAmanJabbar
Abdul Shaikh, Vinod Pappuchand Gaikwad and Mohd. Mushtaq
Kamrul Shaikh in the second list of dummies in the same
memorandumandthenameofGangadharAbhayWarikinthefirst
listExt.834andinExt.844arepointedoutanditissubmittedthat
thesewererepeatedintestidentificationparadeconductedbySEO
Barve,PW82,asmentionedinthememorandumsExt.844anditis
submitted that if the dummies that are used in one parade have
beenrepeatedinsecondparadeforthesamesetofwitnesses,then
theoptionisverylessandthewitnesshasonlytopointoutthenew
persons.Icannotsubscribetothissubmissionbecausetheseareonly
twowitnessesand,infact,SelvanNaguisoneofthedummiesin
Ext.833whereasSelvanShahnazNadiisoneofthedummiesinExt.
844. Thus the similarity is only the first name. However, learned
advocateisrightinsubmittingthatonenamethatisofAbdulSamad
Mulla isrepeatedinboththe lists inthe memorandum Ext.833.
SEO Purandare, PW80, was asked about it and when he was
pointedoutthenameAbdulSamadMullaappearinginbothlists,he
admitted that except the age difference of four years of the last
dummysuspectinthememorandumsofboththeparades,hisname
isthesame.Thissuggestionisnotcorrectbecausethenameofthis
dummysuspectisnotthereinthememorandumExt.834,however,
itisrepeatedinboththelistsofdummysuspectsinExt.833.Tomy
mind,exceptthismistake,thereisnoothermistakeintheprocedure
aswellaswritingofthememorandumExt.833.ThelearnedSPPin
thisconnectionsubmittedthatyoucanfindsomethingwrongwith
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1233..
Ext.4825
thememorandum,butnowrongcanbefoundinrespectofthefact
inissue,whichistheidentificationoftheaccusedbythewitnessin
thetwoparadesconductedbySEOPurandare,PW80.Tomymind,
it is not the case of the defence andithas notbeen brought on
recordduringthecrossexaminationoftheSEOortheidentifying
witnesses or by pointing it out from the contents of the
memorandumsthatthesaiddummysuspectwasmadetostandby
thesideoftheaccusedsoastofacilitateeasylocation.Samething
canbesaidinrespectofthenamesoftheotherfivedummysuspects
being repeated in the identification parades conducted by SEO
Barve,PW82.
1166.
1167.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1234..
Ext.4825
inthememorandumExt.834inordertoshowtheseparationofthe
twoparadesaswellasthecompletenessofthesecondparade.This
aspectagaindoesnotaffectthefactinissueabouttheidentification
parade being held and the evidence given by the SEO and the
identifying witnesses. It is also corroborated by the applications
given by the A2, A4 and A13 by which they have admitted the
factumofholdingofthetestidentificationparadeintheprisonon
thatday.
1168.
SubmissionbythelearnedadvocateaboutshortnotesExt.
835thatwerebroughtonrecordduringthecrossexaminationof
SEOPurandare,PW80,arethatthenamesofthedummiesarenot
written in Ext. 835. Therefore, the memorandum Ext. 834 is not
basedonit.IthascomeinthecrossexaminationofSEOPurandare,
PW80,thathehadalreadywrittenthefirstmemoranduminthe
paraderoomandhewrotethesecondmemorandumintheroom
thatwasprovidedbytheprisonofficeraftertheparadeandthatthe
notesweretaken outbeforetheparades.Exceptthis,thereisno
suggestiontohimthathepreparedtheentirememoranduminthe
roomthatwasprovidedbytheprisonofficers.Nodoubt,learned
advocate is right in submitting that the names of the dummy
suspectsarenotwrittenintheshortnotesExt.835,butconsidering
hisanswerfurtherthatheknowseventodaythesequenceinwhich
thewitnesseswerebroughttotheparaderoomandwhomtheyhave
identified, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the names of
dummy suspects must be fresh in his mind when he wrote the
memorandumExt.834.Thusthesubmissionofthelearnedadvocate
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1235..
Ext.4825
1169.
SEOPurandare,PW80,thataftertheA2andA7wereputinthe
identificationparadealongwiththe12dummysuspects,heandthe
two panchas went out of the barrack, keeping them inside the
barrack and submitted that the SEO cannot go outside during
conductionoftheparadeanditisagainsttheguidelines.Thereisno
guidelineintheCriminalManualthattheSEOshouldnotgooutside
theidentificationroomduringtheconductionoftheparade.Onthe
otherhandwhathashappenedisthatbeforeactuallystartingthe
processofwitnessescominginsidetheidentificationroom,theSEO
had gone to the room where the witnesses were sitting and had
asked them whether they were shown any accused or their
photographsandwhethertheplacewheretheyweregoingtohold
theparadeisvisiblefromthatroom.Healsosubmittedthatitis
necessaryfortheSEOtodeposeaboutwhatthewitnessdescribed
abouttheroleoftheaccusedwhomhehasidentified.Tomymind,
thereisnosuchlaw,butitisnecessaryforthewitnesses,whohave
takenpartintheidentificationparadetodeposeaboutitandthey
havedonesointhepresentcase.
1170.
LearnedadvocatesubmittedthatSEOPurandare,PW80,is
lying when he has stated that he has not conducted any other
identificationparadeaftertheseparadeson07/11/06.Hepointed
outtoExt.3292whichisacertifiedcopyofamemorandumofan
identification parade seen to be conducted by SEO Purandare,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1236..
Ext.4825
PW80,on07/03/10inthecrimeofV.P.RoadPoliceStation.Again
itwillhavetobepointedoutthatthisisadocumentobtainedunder
theRTIActfromV.P.MargPoliceStationandhasnotbeenprovedin
the court of law and exhibited. Moreover, the witness was not
confrontedwiththisdocumenttoexposehisfalsity.Itisseentobe
obtainedbytheA4on03/01/12aspertheletterExt.3291with
whichhereceivedit,buttherewasnoeffortfromthesideofthe
defence to recall the witness and to confront him with the said
document.Thus,thiswitnesscannotbecondemnedbehindhisback
andthisiswhathashappenedduringtheentiretrialwheneverthe
accusedobtainedthedocumentsundertheRTIAct.Theyrecalled
somewitnesses,butnotthiswitness.Itisnotshownastohowthis
single answer will totally discredit the oral and documentary
evidencegivenbySEOPurandare,PW80,whichiscorroboratedby
theevidenceoftheidentifyingwitnesses.
1171.
LearnedadvocatethensubmitsthattheevidenceofSEO
Purandare,PW80,ofhavingwrittenthememorandumExt.834in
anotherroomis againsttheguideline'E'in theCriminalManual.
This is not what is written in guideline 'E' in paragraph 16 in
ChapterIoftheCriminalManual.Whatiswrittenisthateverything
in respect of the identification parade should take place in the
presenceandhearingofthesuspect,includinganyinstructionsto
the witnesses attending to it as to the procedure that is to be
adopted.Tomymind,writingofmemoranduminthepresenceof
thesuspectsisnotaguideline.Thus,thissubmissionisnotcorrect.
The last submission by the learned advocate is that once the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1237..
Ext.4825
1172.
MostofthesubmissionsmadebylearnedadvocateShetty
inrespectofthetestidentificationparadehavebeencoveredwhile
considering the submissions by learned advocate Wahab Khan.
Learned advocate Shetty made general comments about the
precautions that are required to be taken and his additional
submission is that the identification parade is required to be
conductedasearlyaspossible,butthathasnothappenedinthis
case.Hesubmitsthattheparadesinthiscasewereconductedafter
aboutfourmothsoftheincidentandafteraboutthreemonthsofthe
arrestofthevariousaccusedandonthiscountalsotheevidenceof
thesewitnessesandthefactoftheidentificationisrequiredtobe
discarded.Inthisconnectionhehasplacedrelianceonthelawlaid
down in the case of Nana Somnath Trimbake V. State of
Maharashtra (2009 ALL MR (Cri) 434) wherein it is held that
therewasadelayofalmostamonthinholdingtheidentification
paradeanditwasnotexplainedbytheprosecution.Alongwiththis
factor itwasalsonoticedthatafterthefirstidentificationparade
wasover,whereinthewitnesshadfailedtoidentifytheaccusedno.
4,therewasonlychangeofonepersoninsubsequentidentification
paradeandallthedummieswerecommon,thatthelockupwasjust
adjacenttotheplacewherethetestidentificationparadewasheld,
thedummieswereroamingaroundpriortotheidentificationparade
andthepossibilityofthesuspectbeingseenbywitnessbeforethe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1238..
Ext.4825
parade was held was not ruled out. Hence, the evidence of
identification parade was not believed. In myhumble opinion, at
thispointitselfitwillnotbeoutofplacetopointoutcertainthings.
Nodoubt,theA1,A2,A3,A4,A6andA7hadbeenarrestedinJuly,
2006,howeverexceptKishoreShah,PW60,alltheremainingsix
witnesses,i.e.,SubhashNagarsekar,PW57,DevendraPatil,PW62,
SantoshSingh,PW63,Vishal Parmar,PW74,AmarKhan,PW75,
and Rajesh Satpute, PW77, had approached the police or were
tracedbythepolicefrom18/10/06onwards.Theidentificationin
respect of the A3, A4 and A13 by Santosh Singh, PW63, Vishal
Parmar,PW74andRajeshSatpute,PW77,waswithin45daysand
oftheA1,A2,A4,A6andA7by SubhashNagarsekar,PW57,and
AmarKhan,PW75,waswithinonemonth.Soinfacttherewasno
delayinholdingtheidentificationparadebecausetheinvestigating
machinerydidnotknowaboutthesaidwitnessesbeforetheycame
totheATSofficeorwerebroughttotheATSofficeonthedatesof
theirstatements.
1173.
Alongwithmakingsubmissionsidenticaltothesubmissions
MusheerKhanAliasBadshahKhan,AppellantV.Stateof
MadhyaPradesh,Respondents(AIR(SC)20100762).
(ii)
Respondents(LAWS(SC)2003257).
(iii) Rajesh Govind Jagesha, Sarif Anwar Saiyyad, Harish
Govind Jagesha, Appellants V. State of Maharashtra,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1239..
Ext.4825
Respondents(LAWS(SC)1999111).
(iv) HariNath,ChhabiNath,RajNath,AppellantsV.Stateof
UttarPradesh,Respondents(LAWS(SC)1987119).
1174.
Ihavecarefullygonethroughtheseauthorities.Inviewof
itbeingheldabovethatinfactthereisnodelayinholdingthetest
identificationparade,thereisnoquestionofconsideringthecase
lawonthepointofdelay.Evenotherwiseinthecaseof Musheer
KhanAliasBadshahKhanwheretherewasagapoftwomonthsit
washeldbytheSupremeCourtthatnoreliancecanbeplacedon
such delayed test identification parade for which there is no
explanationbytheprosecution.IthascomeintheevidenceofACP
Patil,PW186,thatby01/11/06alltheaccusedwereremandedto
judicialcustodyandthereafterhestartedmakingpreparationsfor
holding the test identification parade. So if the accused were in
judicialcustodypriorto01/11/06,therewasnoquestionofholding
thetestidentificationparade.Thus,thisauthoritydoesnothelpthe
defence.ThelawinthecaseofAnilKumar,tomymind,helpsthe
prosecutionratherthanthedefenceanditisawrongreliancebythe
learnedadvocate.InthecasebeforetheSupremeCourttherewasa
delayof47days inholding the testidentification parade andon
factualaspects,i.e.,byholdingthatthewitnesswhoidentifiedthe
accusedwouldhavebeenimpressedbythefacialexpressionsofthe
assailants,thedelayof47dayswasconsideredasmerelapsenot
sufficienttoerasethefacialexpressionsfromhismemoryandthe
ApexCourtagreedwiththetrialcourtandappellatecourtthattheir
evidence is believable. The law in the case of Rajesh Govind
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1240..
Ext.4825
Jagesha isinrespectofunexplaineddelaybytheprosecutionand
also on certain infirmities in the test identification parade like
accusedbeingdescribedashavingbeardandlonghairs,butbeing
identifiedthoughhehadremovedthelonghairandbeard.Itwas
also observed by the Apex Court that the High Court was not
justified in holding that the parade could not be held early on
accountofallegeddifficultiesoftheSpecialExecutiveMagistrate.
Thus,onfactualaspectsthisauthorityisofnohelptothedefence.
InthecaseofHariNaththerewasonemonth'sdelayafterthearrest
oftheaccusedandthereisnoexplanationforit.Itisobservedthat
there might conceivably be occasions when there could be
justification or acceptable explanation for the delay.Tomymind,
thisiswhathashappenedinthepresentcasebecausetheaccused
were in the police custody upto the end of October, 2006 and
thereforetherewasnoquestionofholdingtheirtestidentification
paradeduringthatperiod.Secondly,thewitnessescameforwardin
OctoberandinthefirstweekofNovember,2006asdescribedabove
andthereforefactuallythereisnodelay.Itwillnotbeoutofplaceto
pointoutthatincaseof AnilKumar suprareferencewasmadeto
thelawinthecaseofDayaSinghvs.StateofHaryanareportedin
AIR2001SC1188whereintheidentificationparadewasheldafter
aperiodofalmost8yearsinasmuchastheaccusedcouldnotbe
arrested in a period of 71/2 years. Reliance was placed on the
evidenceofthetestidentificationparadeinthatcaseforthereason
thattherewasanenduringimpressionoftheidentityonthemind
andmemoryofthewitnesses.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1175.
..1241..
Ext.4825
InthisrespectthelearnedSPPhasplacedrelianceonthe
followingauthoritiesinrespectoflawaboutthetestidentification
parade, delay in holding the test identification parade and
publishingthephotographsinnewspapers:
(i)
Mohd.FarooqAbdulGafurandAnr.,AppellantsV.Stateof
Maharashtra,Respondent((2010)14SCC641).
(ii)
1176.
paragraph109thattheSupremeCourtdidnotacceptthecontention
ofthecounselfortheaccusedthattheTIPwasconductedaftera
periodof45daysaftertheaccusedweretakenincustodyandheld
that it is not such a long period to cast any doubt over the
evidentiaryvalue of the TIP.Itis alsoheldthat the identification
proceedings are in the nature of test and significantly, therefore,
thereisnoprovisionforitintheCr.P.C.,1973andintheEvidence
Act.Itisheldthatiftherearecircumstancesthatarebeyondcontrol
ofthepoliceandthereissomedelay,itcannotbesaidtobefatalto
theprosecution.InthecaseofMunnaKumar,itwasthecontention
oftheaccusedthattheidentificationoftheaccusedwasconducted
inamannercontrarytolawandmuchaftertheirarrest.Furtherthe
photographsoftheaccusedhadbeenpublishedinanewspaperon
19/03/03, i.e., on the date of their arrest, and the parade was
conductedon20/06/03.Itisthenobservedinparagraph45that
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1242..
Ext.4825
therewassomedelayinholdingtheidentificationparade,butthe
delay per se cannot be fatal to the validity of holding an
identificationparade,inallcases,withoutexception.Thepurposeof
identification parade is to provide corroborative evidence and is
more confirmatory in its nature. In respect of publication of
photographsoftheaccusedinthenewspaperitisheldthatthereis
nothingonrecordtoshowthatthephotographsoftheaccusedwere
actuallyprintedinthenewspaperanditisobservedthatevenifthat
beso,theywereprintedmonthspriortotheidentificationparade
andwouldhavelosttheireffectonthemindsofthewitnesseswho
were called upon to identify an accused. The Supreme Court
hastenedtoclarifythatitisalwaysappropriatefortheinvestigating
agency to hold identification parade at the earliest in accordance
withlawsothattheaccuseddoesnotfaceprejudiceonthatcount.A
referencewasmadetothecaseofMullagiriVajramv.StateofA.P.
62anditwasheldthatthoughtheaccusedwasseenbythewitness
incustody,infirmityinTIPwillnotaffecttheoutcomeofthecase,
sincethedepositionsofthewitnessesinthecourtwerereliableand
could sustain a conviction. The well settled law is reiterated by
holdingthatthephotoidentificationandTIPareonlyaidesinthe
investigationanddonotformsubstantiveevidence.Thesubstantive
evidenceistheevidenceinthecourtonoath.Itdidnotacceptthe
pleathatmerelybecauseofdelay,thecourtshouldrejecttheentire
evidenceofidentificationoftheaccusedinthepresentcase.More
so,theaccusedpersonsweredulyidentifiedbytheseverywitnesses
intheopencourt,whiletheyweredeposing.LearnedSPPsubmitted
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1243..
Ext.4825
1177.
timingsoftheparadesthefirstparadewillnotbeoverinhalfan
hour.8witnessesweretoparticipateandevenifwesaythatfor
eachwitnessminimumfiveminutesarerequired,itwouldbenear
about 40 minutes and before that selection of dummies and
completingtheinitialformalitieswillhavetobecompletedwhich
will not be less than 1520 minutes. Therefore, at any stretch of
imagination you cannot complete the parade within one hour
minimumwhere8witnessesidentifiedtheaccused.Hesubmitsthat
inthiscontextSEOPurandare,PW80,statedthattheaccusedwere
withhimforhalfanhourandsecondlywhenhesaysthathedoes
notknowwhethertheaccusedweretakenoutat1235hoursand
putbackat1240hours,isitselfsufficienttodiscardhisevidence
aboutconductingtheidentificationparade.Thesecondpartofthe
submissionisalreadydiscussedandinrespectofshortspanoftest
identificationparadethelearnedSPPreliedonthelawlaiddownin
thecaseof C.MuniappanandOrs.,AppellantsV.StateofTamil
Nadu, Respondent (AIR 2010 SC 3718). The facts before the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1244..
Ext.4825
SupremeCourtwerethattheentireproceedingsoftheidentification
hadbeenconcludedwithinashortspanof2hoursand25minutes
inrespectof18witnessesinthreeroundsandthiswasobjectedto
bythecounselappearingfortheappellantssubmittingthatthisisa
shortspanoftime,whichmeansthatoneroundwascompletedin
three minutes and this could not be treated to be a proper
identification. After going into factual aspect the Supreme Court
heldthatallpreparations/arrangementshadbeenmadeinadvance
bythejailauthoritiesasperthedirectionsofthesaidofficer,the
arrangementsofstandingoftheaccusedalongwithotherinmatesin
jailofthesameheightandcomplexionhadalreadybeenmade,that
there had been no haste or hurry on the part of the officer to
concludetheproceedingsandmoreso,forreasonsbestknownto
thedefence,noquestionhadbeenaskedtotheofficerinhiscross
examination as to how he could conclude the said proceedings
withinsuchashortspanoftime.Forthisreasons,itdidnotconsider
thesubmission.Samethinghashappenedinourcasealsobecause
thereisnoquestiontotheSEOastohowtheycouldconcludethe
proceedingswithinashortspanoftime.Thus,thissubmissionby
the learned advocate does not make the evidence of the test
identificationparadeunacceptable.
1178.
Thenextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateisthatboth
theSEOshavestatedthatfouraccusedalongwith24dummieswere
brought together before them and they decided to take the first
paradeoftwoaccusedalongwith12dummies.However,theyhave
not explained in their evidence as to where the remaining two
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1245..
Ext.4825
accusedandthedummieswereduringthefirstparade.Idonotsee
howthiswillaffecttheevidenceoftheSEOs,becausenoneofthe
witnesseswereaskedwhethertheyhadseentheothertwoaccused
when they came out of the room and proceeded towards the
identificationbarrackanditwasnotsuggestedtothemthatthey
hadseentheothertwoaccusedoutsidetheidentificationroomor
anywhereelsebeforetheyidentifiedtheminthesecondparade.An
untenablesubmissionmadebylearnedadvocateisthatSEOBarve,
PW82,isattachedtoaCongressMLA,whowaspreviouslywiththe
Shivsenaandthereforethis personhas aprejudicedmind.Tomy
mind,itmaybethattheSEOBarve,PW82,isasevakofanMLA,
whowasoftheShivsenaearlierandisnowwiththeCongress(I),
butthatdoesnotmeanthatheisaworkerofaShivsenapartyand
noactivityonhisparthasbeenbroughtonrecordtoindicatethat
becauseofhisassociationwiththeMLAhehasaprejudicedmind.
1179.
Hesubmitsthatonecanacceptpanchaswhoareresidents
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1246..
Ext.4825
1180.
evidenceofSEOBarve,PW82,thattheA3worearoundcapbefore
thewitnessRajeshSatputecameinsideandhetoldthedummies
thattheycanwearthecaps,iftheyhaveany,soastoappearsimilar
totheaccusedand45personsworeroundcaps.Learnedadvocate
submitsthatinhiscrossexaminationtheSEOadmittedthattheA3
hadthecapwithhim,thattillthattimehedidnotknowthathehad
acapwithhim,thatnopersonwaswearingacaptilltheworkofthe
fourth witness was over and he did not provide any caps to any
dummysuspects,thathedidnotknowtilltheA3tookoutthecapas
towhetheranydummysuspectshadcapswiththemandbylooking
attheirnamesinthememorandumhecannottellwhooutofthe
dummy suspects wore caps. Learned advocate has again made a
pointthere,butitwillhavetobeconsideredthatitwastheA3,who
woreawhiteroundcapbeforewitnessRajeshSatpute,PW77,came
insidetheparaderoom,whichissowritteninthememorandumExt.
844. No doubt it is not written that the SEO told the dummy
suspects to wear caps, but these things have come in his cross
examinationandonthisgroundalonethememorandumofthetest
identificationparadeortheevidencegivenbySEOBarve,PW82,
andthewitnessescannotbediscredited.
1181.
Lastsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateisagaininrespect
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1247..
Ext.4825
ofrepetitionofabouttwoandhalfpagesinthememorandumand
he submits that the answer given by the witness to the specific
question in paragraph 28 is not a plausible explanation. In this
connection the learned SPP pointed out that you can find wrong
withthememorandum,butyoumustconsiderwhetheritisthefault
oftheidentifyingwitnesses.However,learnedadvocateisrightin
submitting that the repetition of the contents of more than two
pagesinthememorandumaffectsthecredibilityoftheevidence.
1182.
reasonablecarethatwasrequiredtobetakenisexhibitedbythe
SEOs. We have found that the witnesses were made to sit in a
separateroomaftertheparadeandwereaskednottotalkwitheach
other.The SEOs ensuredfrom the panchas thatthe identification
room/barrack was not visible from the room where they were
sitting.Theplacewheretheidentificationparadeswereheldwas
again beyond the office premises of the prison as it was in the
barracks, that it is commonly known that jail barracks have iron
grills/bars and both SEOs have also stated that the identification
barrackhadwaisthighwallsandcurtains.Thisshowsthatsufficient
precautionwastakentoseethatwhatwasgoingoninsideisnot
visible from outside, the dummies also were selected from many
persons,sothatprecautionisalsotakenandtheaccusedwerealso
askedwhethertheywantedtochangetheirplacesandclothesevery
timewhenthepanchaswentoutsidetheroomtocallawitness.This
precaution was also taken. Lastly when the identifying witness
identified the suspect, the SEOs confirmed the name from the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1248..
Ext.4825
1183.
InrespectofsubmissionsbylearnedadvocateWahabKhan
aswellaslearnedadvocateSharifShaikhinhiswrittensubmissions
about the time when SEO Barve,PW82,came to the ATSoffice,
whether the witnesses were introduced to him, etc., it is rightly
submittedbythelearnedSPPthatforthepurposeofappreciating
theevidenceofprosecutionwitnesses,thecourtmaytakeitinany
waywhichthedefencewantstotake.Thequestionthatheputsto
himselfiswhetherpresenceofSEOBarve,PW82,intheATSoffice
beforethewitnesseswenttotheprison,willhaveanybearingonthe
depositionofthewitnessesandevenofSEOBarve,PW82,andhe
conductingthetestidentificationparade.Tomymind,thisaspect
willnotaffecteithertheevidenceofthesevenwitnessesorofSEO
Barve,PW82,orofthememorandumExt.834.
1184.
authoritiesinsupportofhissubmissions:
(i)
(AIR1973SC1200).
(ii)
Respondent(AIR1981SC1392).
(iii) Devendra Bhima Naidu, Appellant V. The State of
Maharashtra,RespondentsinCriminalAppealNo.709of2010
dtd.10/04/12byHighCourt.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1185.
..1249..
Ext.4825
ThefactsbeforetheSupremeCourtinthecaseofChander
Singhwerethatoneoftheaccusedwerehavingbrowneyesandthe
persons with such brown eyes were not mixed in parade and
thereforetheidentificationwasnotrelieduponandhewasgiven
benefit of doubt. On the other hand another accused not having
features which would distinguish him from outsiders was mixed
withhimintheparade,buthewasnotheldentitledtothebenefitof
doubtalthoughidentifiedbylessernumberofwitnesses.Factually,
this authority is not helpful to the defence. The case before the
Supreme Court in the case of Wakil Singh was that none of the
witnesseshadgiventhedescriptionofdacoitsintheirstatementsor
in oral evidence, whom they have alleged to be identified in the
dacoity, nor did the witness give any identification marks, viz.,
statureofaccusedorwhethertheywerefatorthinorofafaircolour
orblackcolour.Therewasidentificationoftheaccusedbyasingle
witness and therefore it was held that in the absence of such
descriptionitisimpossibleforthemtoconvictanyaccusedonthe
basis of the single identification, in which case the reasonable
possibility of mistake in identification cannot be excluded. This
authorityisalsofactuallydifferentbecausethewitnessesinthiscase
have given the description of the suspects whom they had seen
outsidethehouseoftheA6orintheirtaxisorinthetrains,though
thedescriptionwasnotclear.Thus,itisnotthecasethattheyhave
not at all given the description of the suspects. In the case of
DevendraNaidu beforetheBombayHighCourtthefactualaspect
ofthetestidentificationparadewasthatfouraccusedwereputup
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1250..
Ext.4825
inoneidentificationparadeinthemidstof24dummies.Thisisnot
thecaseherebecausethoughjailauthoritiesbroughtfouraccused
beforeboththeSEOsatthetimeofstartoftherespectiveparades,
theSEOswiselyandprocedurallychooseonlytwoaccusedtobeput
up in one parade. Thus, this authority is also of no help to the
defence.
1186.
submissionssubmittedbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhinrespect
of the test identification parade conducted by SEO Purandare,
PW80,havebeencoveredwhileconsideringthesubmissionsmade
bylearnedadvocatesWahabKhanandShetty.Thesubmissionsby
learnedadvocateSharifShaikhareinrespectofthesecondparade
conductedbySEOPurandare,PW80,thememorandumofwhichis
atExt.834inwhichVishalParmar,PW74,AmarKhan,PW75,and
AjmeriShaikhhadidentifiedtheA4.Atthecostofrepetitionitwill
havetobesaidthatthewrittensubmissionsconsistofreproduction
ofmajorportionofevidenceofthewitnessesinchiefexaminationas
wellascrossexaminationandin thiscaseitisinrespectofSEO
Purandare,PW80,ACP Patil,PW186, Vishal Parmar,PW74, and
AmarKhan,PW75,andsome referencetothe evidenceofSr.PI
Tajne,PW161.Referenceisalsomadetotheevidencegivenbythe
A4 in connection with the test identification parade and it is
contended on the basis of the submission made by him in chief
examinationthatsoandsofactstandsproved,whichtomymind,is
anincorrectsubmission.Inrespectofentriesinthesocalledregister
keptoutsidethehighsecuritybarrack,theevidenceoftheA4isonly
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1251..
Ext.4825
thatallentriesweremadebeforehim.However,heaswellasall
otherremainingaccused,whogaveevidenceabouttheidentification
parade,havenotstatedthenameoftheprisonofficerwhomadethe
entriesthoughitisabsolutelycertainthattheymusthavecometo
knowhisname.Atthecostofrepetition,itwillhavetobestated
thatdefencehadmadenoeffortstoexaminethepersonwhohas
madeentriesinthesaidregisterExt.2472toprovethem.Againthe
evidenceofA4isvaguewhenhehasstatedthathesawsomeATS
officerspointinghimtosomepersons.Itmaybethaton09/11/06
hemaynothavecometoknowthenameofthesaidATSofficer,but
bythattimewhenhegavehisevidenceasDW38,hemusthave
certainlycometoknowaboutitandshouldhavedeposedaboutit.It
isfallaciouslysubmittedthatitisprovedfromtheevidenceofA2,
A4andA7thattheyweretakenoutfromtheAndaBarrackat1235
hoursandputbackat1240hoursandthereforetheevidenceofSEO
andtwowitnessesisrequiredtobediscardedintoto.
1187.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1252..
Ext.4825
aboutthephotographsoftheaccusedbeingshowntohimthoughhe
did not take part in the identification parade and how can it be
submittedthatitcanbeconstruedthatphotographsweretakenonly
forthepurposeofshowingthemtothewitnessesanditisproved
thatthephotographsweretakenandwereshowntothewitnesses
beforethetestidentificationparadeandthereforetestidentification
paradeheldon07/11/06isinvalidandneedstobediscarded.This
isstretchingthethingstoomuch.
1188.
Itissubmittedthatinhiswrittencomplaintdtd.03/11/06,
A4hadallegedthathewasshownto2025personsinthelockup
andhisnamewastoldtothosepersons.Itisallegedthatwhenhe
was produced alongwith the other accused in the court on
03/11/06, Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, showed him to Vishal Parmar,
PW74, however, Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, stated that he does not
remember whether he had come to the court on 03/11/06
alongwithVishalParmar,PW74,andVishalParmar,PW74,inturn
denied the suggestion. The evidence given by A4 as DW38 is
reproduced,whichisinaccordancewiththesuggestiongiventoSr.
PITajne,PW161,butitisnotincludedintheallegedcomplaintExt.
3798orinapplicationExt.3799.Ontheotherhand,contentsofExt.
3799 described the procedure how identification parade was
conducted.HisallegationinExt.3799thatthewitnesseswerekept
intheroomtogetherinsidetheprisoncorroboratestheevidenceof
SEOPurandare,PW80,andthe identifyingwitnesses.Hisfurther
allegationisvaguethattheroomhadwindowandtheATSofficer
indicatedeachaccusedtotherespectivewitnessesfromthewindow.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1253..
Ext.4825
ItisstrangelysubmittedthatfromthesaiddepositionoftheA4and
thedocument,theonlyinferencecanbedrawnthatA4wasshown
tothewitnesses.
1189.
ItissubmittedthatA4wasremandedtojudicialcustodyon
09/10/06andthereafterthedateofappearanceinthecourtwason
20/10/06andthen03/11/06andhealongwithA1,A2,A3,A9,A10
and A11 were produced before the court without veil and the
answersgivenbyACPPatil,PW186,arereproducedduringwhich
hepleadedignoranceabouttheproductionoftheaccusedwithveil
or without veil. However, to my mind, ACP Patil, PW186, has
specifically explained that they have no control over the accused
remandedtojudicialcustody.Fromthisalone,itcannotbesaidthat
the accused were shown to the witnesses in the court. In this
connection,relianceisplacedbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhon
the authority in the case of Shyam Singh Etc. V. State of U. P.
(2003CriLJ3441).Similarfactsweretherethattheaccusedwere
produced twice for judicial custody before the court and coupled
with it the delay in holding the test identification parade was
consideredandtheaccusedwasgiventhebenefitofdoubt.Tomy
mind,unlessitisshownbytheaccusedthatinfacthewasshownto
thewitnessesonthedatesofthejudicialcustodyorthatSr.PITajne,
PW161,hadcometothecourton03/11/06,thissubmissioncannot
be acepted. Strangely reliance is placed on the absence of
mentioning in the roznamas of the remand applications dtd.
09/10/06 and 03/11/06 about any direction by the court to the
prison authority to produce the accused in veil. In my humble
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1254..
Ext.4825
opinion,itisnotcorrectlegallytogivesuchadirectionbecauseonce
theaccusedareremandedtojudicialcustody,thereisnoquestionof
theybeingproducedinveil.Thissubmissionthereforeisofnouse.
1190.
Itissubmittedthatitisthecaseoftheprosecutionthat
AmarKhan,PW75,knewtheA2,A4andA6ashehadseenthemin
SIMIprogramsandevenwhenthereisawellsettledpositionoflaw
that identification of the named accused is not required, he was
askedtoidentifythem.Thereisnoauthorityrelieduponbylearned
advocateinsupportofhissubmissions.Hence,itisnotconsidered.
Itisallegedthatthemannerofconductingthe testidentification
parade invalidates it because the distribution of the accused who
were put to be in the identification parade is made for some
extraneousreasonsandACPPatil,PW186,selectedtheaccusedto
beidentifiedasperhisplanforidentifyingthem.Tomymind,this
canbeacceptedforthesimplereasonthattwoaccusedmoreorless
similarinphysiquewereputupinoneparadeandthereforethey
wereselected.Thenextsubmissionisanexamplehowthemindsof
theaccusedworkintheoppositedirection.Itissubmittedthatthe
letterExt.2415sentbyACPPatil,PW186,totheprisonauthority
for rendering assistance for holding the test identification parade
bearsthelistofnamesofalltheaccusedandthenamesofA5,A9,
A10,A11andA12aretickmarked,whichmeansthattheywerenot
tobeidentifiedandthiswasaplanoftheinvestigatingofficer.Itdo
notseehowsuchinferencecanbedrawnandontheotherhandit
can be said that the remaining 8 accused were to be put up on
07/11/06andthetickmark5accusedwereputupon08/11/06.All
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1255..
Ext.4825
theclausesinRule16(1)(2)and(3)havebeenmentionedinthe
pointno.15andrelyingontheevidencegivenbytheaccusedand
other circumstancesitis submittedthatthereforethe allegedtest
identification parade is required to be discarded. I think most of
themhavebeencoveredwhileconsideringthesubmissionsofthe
learnedadvocatesanditisnotnecessarytoagainconsiderthem.
Theremaybeslightvariationsandinconsistenciesintheevidenceof
the SEOs and witnesses and there may be a few lapses in the
proceedingsofthetestidentificationparades,buttheyalonearenot
sufficienttodiscredittheevidencegivenbythewitnessesandthe
SEOsandtheobservationsinthecaseof StateofMaharashtraV.
Sureshmentionedhereinafterwillcoverallthesethings.
1191.
1192.
ThereisafreshissueanditisinrespectofPIAlaknure,
PW153, having gone to the prison to reach the SEO and two
panchas for an identification parade in connection with this case
fromhisofficeatKurlainvehicleno.MH01BA4205.PIAlaknure,
PW153,admittedthathehadgonetotheprisonalongwiththeSEO
andtwopanchasbutdidnotremembertheirnamesandwhetherhe
hadtakenAmarKhan,PW75,andAjmeriandwhetherhehasgone
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1256..
Ext.4825
inhisofficevehicleanditisinthisconnectionthatitissubmitted
that neither the SEO nor the witnesses have stated about his
presence.Helpistakenofanentryinthelogbookofthatvehicleof
07/11/06,truephotocopyofwhichisatExt.3279,whichmentions
thathehadgonetherefromKurlaofficetoBhoiwadaPoliceStation,
from there to Arthur Road prison and from there to Ghatkopar
RailwayStationandbacktoKurlaofficeanditiscontendedthathe
had carried the witnesses Amar Khan, PW75, and Ajmeri. This
documentisobtainedbytheaccusedundertheRTIActandhasnot
beendulyprovedbycallingthepersonwhohadmadetheentries.
Evenotherwise,itisaquestionhowaninferenceassubmittedcan
bedrawnonlyonthebasisoflogbookandtheevidencegivenbyPI
Alaknure,PW153,whenithasnotbeenputtoanyoftheSEOor
AmarKhan,PW75.Itisalsowronglycontendedthatthisdocument
falsifies the deposition of ACP Patil, PW186, ACP Joshi, PW163,
andAmarKhan,PW75,andotherwitnessesconcerningrecordingof
thestatementof8witnessesafterthetestidentificationparadeon
07/11/06.
1193.
Learnedadvocatereliedonthefollowingauthorities,which
tomymind,areinapplicableonfacts:
(i)
(LAWS(SC)2007322).
(ii)
Respondents(LAWS(BOM)20053126).
(iii) Budhsen, Appellant V. State Uttar Pradesh, Respondents
(AIR(SC)197001321).
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1257..
Ext.4825
1194.
weretwoaccusedwhowereputtobeinoneparade,outofwhom
onewasamanandonewasawomananditwasthereforeheld
placingrelianceonparagraph16(2)(b)oftheCriminalManualthat
iftwosuspectswerenotsimilarinappearance,twoparadesshould
beheld.Thus,onfacts,this isnotapplicable inthe presentcase
becausethereisnowomanaccusedinthiscase.Notonlythatthe
sentenceinthesamesubclausethattwosuspectsof'roughly'similar
inappearanceshouldbeparadedwith12otherpersons.Itdoesnot
meanthatthetwosuspectsshouldbeidenticaltoeachother.Even
theguidelinesgivenbytheGovernmentofMaharashtrareproduced
inparagraph3ofRule16showthatnotmorethan twoaccused
shouldbeplacedinanysingleidentificationparade.
1195.
ThefactsinthecaseMaheshRohidasKinalkarwerethat
1196.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1258..
Ext.4825
witnesseswasconsideredfornotrelyingupontheevidencebyway
oftestidentificationparade.Theothercircumstancesarenotpresent
inourcaseandinsofarasnonexaminationofindependentpanch
witnessesisconcerned,tomymind,consideringthefactthatneither
theSEOsnortheidentifyingwitnesseshavebeensuggestedthatany
of the panch witness gave them indications or hints as to which
accusedhastobeidentified,itdoesnotaffectanddoesnotvitiate
theevidenceoftestidentificationparade,moreso,whentheA2and
A4themselveshaveadmittedthefactumoftestidentificationparade
beingheldonthatday.
1197.
InthecaseofBudhsenthemagistratewhoconductedthe
paradehadtoldthewitnessesthenameoftheaccusedbeforehe
went for identification and to describe as to what that particular
accusedwasdoingatthattime.Thatisnotthecasehereandinsofar
as the other aspect on which the evidence of the identification
parade was notconsideredis thatthe memoof the identification
wasfilledupverycasually,whichisalsonotthecasehere.Thusthis
authorityisalsonothelpfulandisondifferentsetoffacts.Idonot
know why reliance is placed on the authority in the case of
Dhananjay Shanker Shetty because the Supreme Court just
referredtothecircumstancesagainsttheappellantbeingidentified
inthetestidentificationparadebytwowitnessesandobservedthat
the trial court as well as the High Court has found various legal
infirmities in holding the test identification parade. As such, no
reliancehasbeenplacedonit.Moreover,theappellantwasnamed
asanaccusedperson,therefore,hissocalledidentificationinthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1259..
Ext.4825
1198.
LearnedSPPsubmittedthathemustadmitthatthereisa
slightcontradictionwheresomeofthe witnesseshavestatedthat
onepanchusedtobeinsideandonepanchusedtobeoutsidethe
paraderoomandSEOBarve,PW82,statedthatbothpanchasused
tobeinside.Hesubmitsthatwhatisrelevantandimportantisthis
thatafterthepanchwitnesswhowassentouttofetchawitness,
would leave the parade room, it is only thereafter that the SEO
would ask the accused whether he wants to change his place or
clothes.Hesubmitsthatsolongastheseprecautionsaretakenthen
irrespective of whether both panchas were present in the parade
room or not assumes no importance and no relevance. In other
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1260..
Ext.4825
1199.
inspiresconfidenceofall?
(ii)
WhethertheprocedurethatwasfollowingbySEOsandthe
precautionsthatweretakenwereproperandadequateornot?
(iii) Whetherhisdepositionisconsistentwiththecontentsofthe
memorandumandwhetherthememorandumcorroborateshisoral
evidence?
(iv) Andinthelightoftheabovethree,iftheidentifyingwitnesses
havegiventheirevidencebeforethecourt,whetheritcorroborates
theirsubstantiveevidenceofidentifyingaccusedinthecourtornot?
Hesubmitsthatifthecourtissatisfiedthattheseyardsticks
JudgementMCOC21/06
1200.
..1261..
Ext.4825
ThoughthelearnedSPPsubmittedthatifthecourtfeelsit
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1262..
Ext.4825
ignoringtheevidenceofthetestidentificationparade,thecourtcan
base its findings on the basis of substantial identification in the
court.HehasthenbrieflytakenmethroughtheevidenceofSubhash
Nagarsekar, PW57, and Kishore Shah, PW60, and has submitted
thateverywitnesswhohascomeforward,hasgiventhedistinctive
factorsandreasonswhytheyrememberedaparticularpersonand
with respect to each witness, he has pointed out how they were
tracedbythepoliceorhowtheycametothepolice.Inthiscontext
hereliedonthelawlaiddowninthecaseofSheoShankarSingh,
whichisalreadydiscussed.Inrespectofthedefencecasethatthere
wasadelayintakingthestatementsofthewitnesses,hepointsto
thediscussioninparagraphs36and37.Paragraph36consistsofthe
contentionsofthelearnedcounselfortheappellantsanditisheldin
paragraph37that, 'thefailureoftheinvestigatingagencytoholda
test identification parade does not, in that view, have the effect of
weakening the evidence of identification in the court. As to what
should betheweightattached tosuch anidentification is a matter
whichthecourtwilldetermineinthepeculiarfactsandcircumstances
ofeachcase.Intheappropriatecasesthecourtmayaccepttheevidence
ofidentificationinthecourtevenwithoutinsistingoncorroboration'.
TheobservationsinthecaseofMalkhansinghandOrs.V.StateofM.
P.((2003)5SCC746)inrespectoflawaboutthetestidentification
paradearereiteratedandinparagraph38theobservationsinthe
caseofPramodMandalV.StateofBihar((2004)13SCC150),itis
heldthat,'itisneitherpossiblenorprudenttolaydownanyinvariable
ruleastotheperiodwithinwhichatestidentificationparademustbe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1263..
Ext.4825
1201.
SupremeCourtinthecaseofShyamalGhosh,AppellantsV.State
ofWestBengal,Respondent(AIR2012SC3539),whereinitis
held that, 'it is accordingly considered a safe rule of prudence to
generally look for corroboration of the sworn testimony of the
witnessesincourtastotheidentityoftheaccusedwhoarestrangersto
them, in the form of earlier identification proceedings. This rule of
prudenceis,howeversubjectedtoexceptions'.
1202.
LearnedSPPsubmitsthatthecourtshouldappreciatethat
thisisasensitivematterbecausehundredsofinnocentshavelost
theirlivesandtheinvestigationisbeingconducted,theinvestigating
agencyisthesame,theactionofthestateduringthecourseofthe
investigation is the same, i.e., conducting the test identification
parade,officerswhoareresponsiblydoingtheworkarethesame,
i.e.,ACPPatil,PW186,whowastheinvestigatingofficer,thedateof
the test identification parade conducted by both the SEOs is the
sameandtheplacewhereitisconductedisthesame.Hequestions
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1264..
Ext.4825
astowhetheritisconceivablethatonetestidentificationparadeby
SEOPurandare,PW80,issuchthatitinspiresconfidencethatsuch
athinghadhappenedortakenplaceandthefactumofholdingthe
secondidentification parade bySEO Barve,PW82,is afalseand
fabricatedevidence?Itdoesnotstandtologicthatonthesameday,
atthesameplacesuchathingcanhappen.Finally,hesummarized
that there were four test identification parades, there were two
officers,sameday,sameplace,totalfourparades,twoparadesby
SEO Purandare, PW80, and two by SEO Barve, PW82, all
identifyingwitnessessaythattheywerecalledinthemorningatthe
ATS office, all of them say that they were taken to the Mumbai
Central Prison, all of them described how they were called for
identificationonebyoneandwhomtheyidentified.Inthisrespect
the evidence about the parades conducted by SEO Purandare,
PW80, is flawless, so even if there are any discrepancies in the
evidenceinrespectofparadesconductedbySEOBarve,PW82,in
respectofthedayofthetestidentificationparadesandtheevent,
therecanbenodispute.
1203.
Purandare,PW80,isacogentandconvincingevidenceinrespectof
the parades that he had conducted. I have already discussed the
evidence of seven identifying witnesses on the material aspects
aboutrolesoftheaccusedbeforeandonthedayoftheblasts.Ihave
acceptedtheirevidenceholdingthattheyaretruthfulwitnesseson
thosepoints.Theywerealsocrossexaminedontheaspectofthetest
identification parade and as is mentioned earlier some of them
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1265..
Ext.4825
specificallystatedtheserialnumberatwhichtheywentinsidethe
identificationroomandsomeofthemdescribedatwhatplaceinthe
rowofdummysuspects,theyidentifiedtheparticularwitness.Their
crossexaminationhasnotdiscreditedtheirversion.Inthiscontextit
willnotbeoutofplacetopointouttheobservationsoftheSupreme
CourtinthecaseofD.GopalkrishnanV.SadanandNaikandOrs.
((2006)1SupremeCourtCases(Cri)600)whereinitisheldthat,
'therearenostatutoryguidelinesinthematterofshowingphotographs
tothewitnessesduringthestageofinvestigation.Butnevertheless,the
police is entitled to show the photographs to confirm whether
investigationisgoingonintherightdirection.Duringthecourseof
investigation if the witnesses had given identifying features of the
assailants,thesamecouldbeconfirmedbytheinvestigatingofficerby
showingthephotographsofthesuspects'.Asisobservedinthatcase,
same thing can be said in respect to our case that there is no
concrete evidence on recordtoshowthatthe photographsofthe
accusedwereshowntothewitnessesortheaccusedwereshownto
thewitnesses.TheimportantobservationsoftheSupremeCourtare
in the caseof State of Maharashtra V. Suresh (2000 SCC (Cri)
263)whensimilarobjectionsorcontentionswereraisedtochalleng
theevidentiaryvalueoftestidentificationparade.Itwasheldbythe
Supreme Court that, 'if potholes were to be ferreted out from the
proceedingsoftheMagistratesholdingsuchparadespossiblynotest
identificationparadecanescapefromoneortwolapses.Ifascrutinyis
madefromthatanglealoneandtheresultoftheparadeistreatedas
vitiated everytest identificationparade would becomeunusable.We
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1266..
Ext.4825
remindourselvesthatidentificationparadesarenotprimarilymeant
forthecourt.Theyaremeantforinvestigationpurposes.Theobjectof
conductingatestidentificationparadeistwofold.Firstistoenablethe
witnessestosatisfythemselvesthattheprisonerwhomtheysuspectis
really the one who was seen by them in connection with the
commission of the crime. Second is to satisfy the investigating
authoritiesthatthesuspectistherealpersonwhomthewitnesseshad
seeninconnectionwiththesaidoccurrence.Sotheofficerconducting
thetestidentificationparadeshouldensurethatthesaidobjectofthe
parades is achieved. If he permits dilution of the modality to be
followedinaparade,heshouldseetoitthatsuchrelaxationwouldnot
impairthepurposeforwhichtheparadeisheld'.
1204.
Tomymind,inthepresentcasealsoevenifitisassumed
forthesakeofargumentsthattherearelaxities,contradictionsin
theevidenceoftheSEOsandtheidentifyingwitnesses visavisthe
memorandum of the test identification parades, it cannot be said
thattheyarefatalenoughtoaffecttheirevidentiaryvalue.Nothing
isbroughtonrecordtoshowthatanyunfairaidorassistancewas
giventotheidentifyingwitnessesbytheinvestigatingagencysoas
tofacilitatetheidentificationoftheaccused.Itdoesnotappearthat
the investigating agency played any hand in conducting of the
parades.
1205.
identificationparadeconductedbySEOBarve,PW82,isconcernedI
haveheldthatitisnotacogentevidenceinviewofthemistakethat
isobviousfromtherepetitionofsomepagesinthememorandum
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1267..
Ext.4825
Ext.834.Itwillbeunsafetorelyonhisevidencebecauseofthis
lapse.Itisnotthathisevidenceistreatedasfalseevidenceandit
cannot be held that he had not conducted the test identification
parade on that date and the witnesses had not identified the
accused.Thus,IsayinviewoftheapplicationsgivenbytheA2,A4,
A9,A11andA13on09/11/06,whichareatExts.B,3799,4262,
4157and4280respectively.Asmentionedearlier,theA2hasonly
mentionedaboutthetime,i.e.,1230hours,buttheotheraccused
havenotmentionedanytime.Outofthefiveaccused,exceptA13,
otheraccusedhavestatedthattheparadewasconductedinopen
place/ground. Surprisingly, the A4 has stated that the witnesses
wereintheroom.A2andA13havestatedthattherewasnodummy
suspectshavingbeard.However,A2andA4havestatedthat2and3
witnessesrespectivelyidentifiedthem,i.e.,AmarKhan,PW75,and
AjmeriShaikhfortheA2andAmarKhan,PW75,AjmeriShaikhand
VishalParmar,PW74,fortheA4.Thisisaspertheprosecutioncase
andaspertheoralanddocumentaryevidencegivenbytheSEOs
and the identifying witnesses. A9 and A11 have stated that they
were not identified by anybody, which is correct as per the
prosecution case because they were put up in the identification
parade dtd.08/11/06 conducted by SEO Bendge and were not
identifiedbyanywitness.
1206.
Obviously,thefiveapplicationsgivenbythefiveaccusedon
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1268..
Ext.4825
courtstodisbelievesuchevidence.Howdidtheaccusedknowat
thatstageitselfthatthetestidentificationparadeisrequiredtobe
conductedin acloseroomandthereforetheyallegedthatitwas
conductedinopenplace?Howtheyknewtheword'dummies'?How
they knew that four persons cannot be put up in one test
identification parade? How they knew that dummies should be
similar in appearance to the suspects? How they knew what
allegation is to be made against the officers of the investigating
agency, viz., ATS officers showing them to the witnesses from a
window? Of course, it is vaguely alleged and no ATS officer is
indicatedbynamethoughadmittedlybythattimetheymusthave
cometoknowtheofficersbyname.
1207.
Keepingasidetheallegationsandtheshortcomingspointed
out,onethingcancertainlybegatheredfromthesefiveapplications
thatinfactthetestidentificationparadeswereheldon07/11/06
and08/11/06.Followingthingsarealsocertainandprovedbythe
applications:
(i)
AmarKhan,PW75andAjmeriShaikh)aspertheprosecutioncase,
(ii)
VishalParmar,PW74,AmarKhan,PW75,andAjmeriShaikh)asper
theprosecutioncase,
(iii) thatA13wasputupintheparade,and,
(iv) thatadmittedlyinthetestidentificationparadedtd.08/11/06
A9andA11werenotidentifiedbyanyone,whichisasperthecase
oftheprosecution.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1269..
Ext.4825
Theseinferencescanlegitimatelybedrawnfromthecontents
ofthefiveapplicationsgivenbyA2,A4,A9,A11andA13.These
were the applications given on 09/11/06 for retraction of
confessionalstatements.
1208.
Asagainstthis,intheapplicationsgivenbyA1Ext.Aand
A1,bytheA3Ext.C,bytheA5Ext.E,bytheA6Ext.FandF1,by
theA7Ext.4199,bytheA8Ext.3936,bytheA10Ext.KandK1
andbytheA12Ext.4270,noneoftheseaccusedhavemadeany
reference to the holding or nonholding of the test identification
paradesexcepttheA3,whohasstatedthathewasnotidentifiedby
thepersonwhomtheATShadbroughtintheArthurRoadJailand
thetestidentificationparadewasconductedinopenplace.Onthe
other hand A7 in his application Ext. 4199 has specifically
mentionedinparagraph7thathedoesnothaveanyproblemwith
the jail administration. Thus, indirectly the A3 is admitting the
holding of the test identification parade. In view of the above
discussionandinviewofthelawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourtin
theseveralauthorities,itwillhavetobeheldthattheprosecution
hasledcogentevidencetoprovethatSEOPurandare,PW80,had
conducted the test identification parade on 07/11/06 as per the
memorandumsExts.833and834.Itwillalsohavetobeheldthat
AmarKhan,PW75hasidentifiedtheA2inthefirstparadeandhas
identifiedtheA4andA6inthesecondparadeasthepersonswho
were present outside the house of the A6 a few days before
11/07/06.ItwillalsohavetoheldthatVishalParmar,PW74,has
identifiedtheA4inthesecondtestidentificationparadeashaving
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1270..
Ext.4825
boardedthe5.19p.m.VirartrainatChurchgateon11/07/06witha
blackrexinebagandhegotdownatDadarwithoutthebag.Thisis
thecircumstanceno.42provedbytheprosecution.Itisagainst
theA2,A4andA6.ItistheninethcircumstanceagainsttheA2.Itis
conductingtheinvestigationofC.R.No.156of2006ofBorivali
RailwayPoliceStationfrom12/07/06,paralleltotheinvestigation
beingconductedbytheinvestigatingofficerofthe railwayblasts,
conducted further investigation after receiving the papers of
investigationdonebytheinvestigatingofficeroftherailwaypolice
on 21/07/06. As described in paragraphs 127 and 128 of the
judgment, he gave oral evidence most of which was brought on
record asan improvementto state before the ACPPatil,PW186,
whorecordedhisstatement.Tomymind,attheoutsetitwillhave
tobesaidthatthestatementoftheinvestigatingofficerifrecorded
further by the chief investigating officer will be in respect of the
physical investigation that he has done and not about what
informationhegotfromtheotherinvestigatingofficersorwhatwas
goingoninhismindandhowhecametocertainconclusions.Thus
thisaspectdoesnotaffecthistestimony.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thathecametoknowfromotherinvestigatingofficersaboutseizure
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1271..
Ext.4825
ofRDXfromthehouseoftheA1,seizureofSaudiRiyalsfromthe
house of the A3, seizure of books connected with SIMI from the
houseoftheA2,A3andA9toA11,seizureofbottlesofchemicalsat
the instance of the A2, seizure of maps of Mumbai as well as
internationalmapshowingthemarkedroutefromIndiatoPakistan
and other inputs about the activities of different accused having
takenmilitanttraininginPakistan.Themostimportantisthathe
came to know from Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, and during his
interaction with the accused that the literature found with them
contained the information how the democracy in India can be
replaced by a Muslim Government, how to create disharmony in
differentwaysinIndiansocietyandhowtodoitandcametoknow
thattheideologyandobjectofSIMIwasbehindtherailwayblasts
anditwastocreatepublicopinionagainstthegovernment,sothat
thegovernmentwouldtopple,thatthisfellwithinthemeaningof
promoting insurgency. The investigating officers of the ATS who
wereinvestigatingtheothersixcrimeshavestatedintheirevidence
thatthereusedtobeinteractionbetweenallofthem,includingACP
Khandekar,PW174.
1210.
ThencomestheimportantinformationabouttheA13,an
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1272..
Ext.4825
areprovedagainsttheA13.Thus,hewasontherighttrack.The
nextstepthathetookisthathegavealltheinformationtoDCP
Bajaj,whodirectedhimtogathermoreinformationandtoprepare
and give a comprehensive report about it. It has come in his
evidencethathecametoknowthattheA13isanactivememberof
SIMIandsomecasesarefiledagainsthimatJalgaonandhetold
ACPTawdethathewantedinformationabouttheaccusedandACP
Tawdesentaletteranddeputedanofficertocollecttheinformation.
HehadstatedthathestatedthistoACPPatil,PW186,whenhis
statementwasrecorded,butitisshownasanimprovement,which
tomymind,doesnotaffecthisevidencebecause,theseareabstract
thingsofwhichmentalnoteistakenandoralrequestismadeand
cannotbepenneddownasapartofphysicalinvestigationthathe
did. The officer who was deputed by ACP Tawde to Jalgaon to
collect the information is API Deore, PW180. ACP Khandekar,
PW174,didnotstateaboutitandbywayofanaturalevidencehe
stated that he got information about two crimes being registered
againsttheA13withtheMIDCPoliceStationatJalgaon,oneCRNo.
178/99 in which he was released on bail, but was declared as a
proclaimedoffenderashedidnotattendthecourtsubsequentlyand
thesecondCRNo.103/01,inwhichhewasnotarrestedbutthe
chargesheetwasfiledshowinghimasawantedaccusedandother
accusedinthiscrimebeingtriedandsentenceof3to10yearsbeing
imposedonthemfortheoffencesundersection153AoftheIPCand
in the second case the offences included the offences under the
ExplosiveSubstancesActandsection120BoftheIPC.Thisevidence
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1273..
Ext.4825
isnotanimprovementonhisstatementthathegavetoACPPatil,
PW186.
1211.
conclusionthatitwasnecessarytoapplytheprovisionsoftheMCOC
Act to the crime that he was investigating. He gave evidence as
describedinparagraph130ofthejudgmentaboutrelyingonthe
above information that he received and realized that the main
accused,i.e.,A13,hadmorethanoneoffenceregisteredagainsthim
duringthelasttenyears,thathewasconvincedthattheA1toA4
were involved in the commission of the crime that he was
investigating,thathehadreceivedtheinformationthattherewere
twochargesheetsagainsttheA2andA4undertheUA(P)Aonthe
allegationsthattheywereinvolvedinSIMIactivitiesin2001after
thebanonSIMIandithascomeinhisevidencethatherealizedthat
though SIMI was banned it was operating as an illegal criminal
organisation, i.e., an organised crime syndicate and the accused
were continuing with the unlawful activities under that syndicate
andpromotinginsurgencyandobtainingpecuniarygains.Thelatter
partabouthecomingtoknowabouttwochargesheetsagainstthe
A2andA4uptotheend,isbroughtonrecordasanimprovement,
butatthecostofrepetitionitwillhavetobesaidthatthesearenon
physicalthingsforwhichtherecannotbeanyphysicalevidenceand
neednothavebeenstatedbyhimtoACPPatil,PW186.
1212.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1274..
Ext.4825
sentittoACPBajajforonwardsubmissionandreceivedtheorderof
priorapprovalExt.1841givenbyAddl.C.P.Jaiswalon24/09/06in
whichACPPatil,PW186,wasappointedasaninvestigatingofficer
ofthiscrime.Heprovedthecontentsofthepriorapprovalbysaying
thatitbearsthesignatureofAddl.C.P.JaiswalandstatedthatACP
Patil,PW186,recordedhisdetailedstatementaftertheorderwas
received.IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thathe
took over further investigation of the said crime from ACP
Khandekar,PW174,onreceiptofthepriorapprovalorder,recorded
hisstatementonthesamedayandtreateditasinformationunder
section23(1)(a)oftheMCOCAct,aboutwhichstationdiaryentry
no. 23 was made, true photocopy of which is at Ext. 2367, the
contentsofwhichheproved.Hiscrossexaminationonthispointat
paragraph149hasnotrevealedanythingandhehasdeniedthat
signatureoftheinformantisrequiredtobetakenandhedidnot
recordanystatement,thathefabricatedtheentrylateron.
1213.
Though ACPKhandekar,PW174,onlystatedinhischief
examinationaboutgettinginformationabouttwochargesheetsfiled
againsttheA13atJalgaon,hehadnotstatedabouthowhegotthe
information, but it has come in his crossexamination that API
Deore, PW180, who was then PSI, had first informed him on
telephoneaboutthechargesheetsandsubsequentlyhegavecopies
ofthechargesheets.APIDeore,PW180,gaveevidenceaboutthe
stepshetookforobtainingtheinformationabouttheA13bygoing
toJalgaonasdescribedinparagraph129ofthejudgement.Ithas
comeinhisevidencethatinthemiddleofSeptember,2006hewas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1275..
Ext.4825
askedtotakeinformationastowheretheA13,residentofJalgaon,
aSIMIactivist,isandwhetherthereisanycaselodgedagainsthim
at Jalgaon, keep the information secret and to contact ACP
Khandekar,PW174,immediatelyifhegetsaninformation.Ithas
comeinhis evidencethathewenttoJalgaonaccordinglyonthe
samedayandreachedthereinthemorning.Hedidnotstateon
whatdatehewenttoJalgaonandreachedthere,butithascomein
his crossexamination that he started at about 9.00 p.m. on
15/09/06fromMumbai,whichmeansthathemusthavereached
Jalgaonon16/09/06.Thisaspectisseriouslyagitatedfromtheside
ofthedefenceplacingrelianceonastationdiaryentryof18/09/06.
Whenhedeniedthesuggestionthathestartedon18/09/06after
1405hours,hewasaskedtogothroughthestationdiaryentryno.
15inthestationdiaryregisterandheadmittedthattheentryisnot
wrongandwasagainaskedtogothroughthestationdiaryregister
andaftergoingthroughit,headmittedthatthereisnoentryabout
heleavingforJalgaonpriorto18/09/06andaboutreturningback
before or after 18/09/06. In this connection in further cross
examination he admitted that the station diary entry no. 15 of
18/09/06 is made as per the information given on phone. It is
further submitted that he had not gone to Jalgaon prior to
18/09/06, on which date ACP Khandekar, PW174, sent the
proposal.Thoughthestationdiaryregisterwasshowntohimandhe
wasconfrontedwiththeentry,learnedadvocatedidnotaskforits
copytobetakenonrecordandreceiveitinevidence.Thusonthe
basisofthisonlyonecannotsaythatAPIDeore,PW180,hadnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1276..
Ext.4825
gonetoJalgaonpriorto18/09/06.Furtherhewasaskedaboutthe
contentsofthedocumentsExts.1506,1507,1509,1510and1511
andinrespectofExts.1510and1511headmittedthathegotthe
certifiedcopies on22/09/06andgotthe judgementinC.R.No.
178/99 on 18/09/06. The main thrust of the submission of the
defenceisthattherewerenopapersofthecasesagainsttheA13at
JalgaonbeforeACPKhandekar,PW174,senttheproposalonthat
dayandhedidnothaveanyinformationaboutthesaidtwocases
before that date as API Deore,PW180, had not gone to Jalgaon
before18/09/06.LearnedadvocateskippedshowingExt.1508to
thewitness.ItiscertifiedcopyofthejudgementinRCCNo.219/01,
deliveredon12/08/02bytheCJM,Jalgaonandtheslipcontaining
thedetailsofthecopyingapplicationshowthattheapplicationwas
presented on 16/09/06, it was completed on 18/09/06, but the
applicantwascalledon19/09/06andthecopywasdeliveredon
18/09/06.ThiscertifiedcopywasobtainedfromtheDistrictCourt,
Jalgaon.Whatthismeansthattheapplicationforobtainingcertified
copyofthesaidjudgementwasmovedon16/09/06.Ithascomein
theevidenceofAPIDeore,PW180,whenhedescribedthestepsthat
hetookon16/09/06,thathenoteddownallthedetailsandthe
dateswhenheperusedthecasepapersfromtherecordalongwith
theAPPworkingintheCJMCourtandtoldtheAPPthathewanted
copiesofrelevantpapers,theAPPtoldhimthatanapplicationwill
havetobemovedandhetoldtheAPPtomakeanapplicationand
theAPPmoveditonthesamedaytellinghimthatthecopieswould
be available after 23days. Though he didnot state the date on
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1277..
Ext.4825
whichallthesethingstookplace,ithascomeaspositivestatements
in his crossexamination in paragraph 20 that the APP may have
filedanapplicationon16/09/06andinparagraph34thathemet
theAPPforthefirsttimeon16/09/06andtoldhimonthatdayto
applyforcertifiedcopies,thathedidnotgetanycertifiedcopyon
17/09/06,buthegetoneon18/09/06,i.e.,thejudgementinC.R.
No.178/99.Theslipcontainingtheparticularsofthecopiesofthe
applicationfullycorroboratehisversionandprovethathehadgone
toJalgaonon16/09/06itself.He,therefore,deniedthesuggestions
that he went to Jalgaon for the first time on 18/09/06, that his
superiorshadalreadytalkedwithAPPR.D.Pawarbeforethatday,
that the applications were made in the court for applying the
provisionsoftheMCOCAct,thathedeposedfalselyaboutgoingto
Jalgaonanddoingtheworkthere,etc.Thusthisissueissettledand
needsnofurtherdiscussion.
1214.
evidenceaboutwhathedidonthefollowingdaystillthedatehe
reached Mumbai, i.e., on 23/09/06, fall in place chronologically,
lendingcredencetohisentireevidenceaboutwhathedidduringthe
sevendayswhilehewasatJalgaon.Ithascomeinhisevidencethat
onePCChorgewaswithhimandonthefirstday,i.e.,on16/09/06,
he sawthe photograph of the A13 thatwas in the record of the
DistrictSpecialBranch,handlingthecellofSIMIactivistsintheSP
officeandalsocametoknowaboutthenameoftheA13andthe
informationhegotthathewasthePresidentofJalgaonUnitofSIMI
and therewere twocrimesregisteredagainsthim,one C.R. No.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1278..
Ext.4825
178/99andthesecondC.R.No.103/01,bothregisteredwithMIDC
PoliceStation,Jalgaonundersection153AoftheIPC,thefirstone
hadbeeninvestigatedbythesaidpolicestation,butthesecondone
being investigated by the Local Crime Branch, Jalgaon, who had
arrestedwantedaccusedbynameParvezKhaninAugust2006.It
hascomeinhisevidencethathenotedallthisinformationonpaper
andrequestedthemtogivecopiesofthephotographsofA13.As
thereisadisputeofthesaidcopiesofthephotographs,itwillbe
appropriatetotakethisissueatthisstageitself.Ithascomeinhis
evidencethatlateintheday,hewenttotheDSBofficeandcollected
copies of the photographs of the A13. It has further come in his
evidencethatACPPatil,PW186,directedhimon26/09/06toagain
gotoJalgaontosearchfortheaccused,tocollectcertifiedcopiesof
the documents and record the statements of the investigating
officersandafterstatingaboutpreparingpanchanamaExt.2803of
thehousesearchoftheA13inthepresenceofhisyoungerbrother
AzizKhan,herecordedthestatementofAPIDhakraoandshowed
himthecopyofthephotographoftheA13,whoconfirmediton
seeinghisrecord,identifiedhimonthebasisofthephotographand
signedacertificateExt.2084behindthephotographArt.376.Ithas
comeinhisevidencethathegotthe similarcertificateExt.2085
signedfromAzizKhan,youngerbrotheroftheaccusedbehindthe
photographArt.377,wenttoNasikonthenextday,metAPITare,
whoalsoidentifiedtheA13onthebasisonhisphotographArt.378
andgavecertificateExt.2086.Thephotographsassuchwerenot
received in evidence at that time and though in the written
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1279..
Ext.4825
submissionsgivenbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikh,hesubmitted
thatthecertificateshavenotbeenprovedasthewitnesswhosigned
themhavenotbeenexamined,tomymind,thecertificateisinthe
handwritingofAPIDeore,PW180,andthatissufficienttoproveits
contents.DuringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahab
Khan, API Deore, PW180, was shown Ext. 2088, photocopy of
application form, that was collected from the Lokhandwala
ConstructionIndustriesPvt.Ltd.,wherehewasemployed.Thesaid
applicationformExt.2088wasreceivedinevidenceasitscontents
werereferredandshowntothewitnessandsubsequentlytheother
documentsthatwereseizedfromthesaidcompanyExts.2089to
2094werealsoreceivedinevidenceaslearnedadvocateadmitted
the said documents. API Deore, PW180, was asked to see the
photographoftheaccusedinExt.2088andsaywhethertheshirtin
the photographs, Arts. 376 to 378, show the pocket and blue
colouredpencap.Hecouldnotsaywhetherthatisthepositionand
denied that the photographs Arts. 376 to 378 are the enlarged
copies of the photograph of the A13 in Ext. 2088. To my mind,
consideringthefactthatthecontentsofthephotographsArts.376
to378wereshowntothewitnessandhewasaskedtogothrough
them,thephotographsshouldhavehadbeenreceivedinevidenceat
thatstageitself.Theyarenowreceivedinevidenceandmarkedas
Exts.4796to4798.Thesuggestionsthatthesaidthreephotographs
Exts.4796to4798aretheenlargedcopiesofthephotographofthe
A13inExt.2088isbasicallywrongbecausethephotographinExt.
2088is axeroxof the original photographandfrom suchxerox,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1280..
Ext.4825
photographslikeExts.4796to4798cannotbeprepared.Notonly
this,theknotofthetieinthephotocopyofthephotographinExt.
2088ismoretowardstheleftsideofthecollarandtheknotisbroad
ascomparedtotheknotofthetiewhichisinthecenterofthecollar
inthephotographsExts.4796to4796andthetieisalsoanarrow
one.Similarly,thesubstantialportionofthepockethascomeinthe
photographinExt.2088,whereas,thatisnotthe positioninthe
three photographs. The facial expressions of the A13 in the
photographinExt.2088cannotbedescribedassmiling,whereas,
thereisahintofasmileinthethreephotographs.This muchis
sufficient to infer that Exts. 4796 to 4798 are not copies of the
photographsinExt.2088.Ithinkthemistakeingivingthiswrong
suggestion was realized by the learned advocate Wahab Khan,
therefore the suggestion was given during his further cross
examinationthatcopiesofthephotographsoftheaccusedweregot
printedatMumbaifromthepassportphotographoftheaccusedthat
was at his service place. Considering the differences in the
photographpointedoutabove,thispossibilityisalsonotthere.His
crossexamination in connection with obtaining the copies, viz.,
whetherhehadgivenarequisitionlettertothatoffice,whetherhe
tookstatementofanyofficerabouthandingovercopiesandthathe
didnottake stampofthatoffice orinitialsofthe officersonthe
photographsanddidnotputthephotographsinanenvelopeand
sealthemthoughheadmittedthatthereisnootherproofthathe
obtained the photographs from that office, is to my mind,
inconsequential.Samecanbesaidabouthehavingspentmoneyfor
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1281..
Ext.4825
printingthemfromaprivatelabatJalgaon,whichworkhegotdone
from the constable. It has come as positive statements that the
photosoftheaccusedthatheobtainedfromtheDSBatJalgaon,
werenotprintedinhispresence,butweregotprintedfromaprivate
laboratory, that he paid Rs.200/ for them, but has not claimed
reimbursementanddidnotpreservethereceiptashehadtoldthe
constable to obtain them and that he gave the money at about
11.0011.30 a.m. and collected the photos in the evening. Thus
these statements strengthen his evidence and in further cross
examination he stated that he had seen the photographs of the
accused in the DSB branch, that it was a single passport size
photograph, he again corrected himself and stated that it was a
postcardsizephotograph.Thus,whathehasnotdoneinrespectof
photographdoesnotaffecthistestimonyandontheotherhanditis
theevidenceoftheA13,whogaveevidenceasDW49,whichalso
corroboratesthisaspect,becauseithascomeinhisevidencethat
API Tare was one of the officers, who was involved in the
investigationofC.R.No.103/01andinparagraph43inhischief
examinationthe visitbyAPIDeore,PW180,andheshowingthe
photographoftheA13toPSIDhakraowasconfirmed,becauseithas
come in his evidence that Jalgaon police took his custody on
29/12/06in C.R. No. 103/01, that PSIDhakrao of MIDC Police
Stationwasthere,thatPSIDhakraotoldhimthatPSIDeorehad
come to him on 29/09/06 for inquiry and he had written a
certificate behindthe colour photographthatwas broughtbyPSI
DeorefromMumbai.Thelastportionofthesentenceisobviouslyas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1282..
Ext.4825
perthecaseofthedefencewhichhestatedafterreferringtothe
threephotographsandstatingthattheyaretheenlargedcopiesof
the photographs that he had given with the application form to
Lokhandwala Construction company. The fact remains that his
evidence proves the visit of API Deore, PW180, to Jalgaon on
29/09/06andshowingthephotographoftheA13toAPIDhakrao.
Thisaspectthereforenolongerremainsdoubtful.
1215.
notesoftheinformationaftergoingthroughthepapersofC.R.No.
103/01intheofficeoftheLCBandmeetingPIThakareandcoming
to know that 1012 accused were arrested, 67 accused were
wanted,chargesheethadbeensenttotheSessionsCourtandsome
accusedhavebeenconvictedfortenyearsanditwasalsorevealed
that after the arrest of the wanted accused Parvez Khan, the full
nameofAsifKhanwasdisclosedasAsifKhanBashirKhan@Junaid.
Thiswasalsodoneonthesameday,i.e.,onthefirstdayonwhich
hewenttoJalgaon.i.e.,on16/09/06anditisalsoonthesameday
thathecollectedphotocopiesoftheFIRandotherpapersofboth
crimesfromtheMIDCPoliceStationaftermeetingAPIDhakraoand
HCPradeepBadgujarandalsotooktheinformationaboutthestatus
ofthecasethatwasregisteredinconnectionwithC.R.No.178/99,
thatitwasregisteredasRCCNo.219/01inthecourtanddisposed
off.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatastheydidnothaveanydetails
ofthecase,hetookHCBadgujarwithhim,wenttothecourt,met
theAPPworkingintheCJMcourtandperusedthecasepapersfrom
whichhecametoknowthatoneoftheaccusedwasacquittedinthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1283..
Ext.4825
1216.
Alltheaboveeventshadtakenplaceon16/09/06.Thereis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1284..
Ext.4825
hegottheinformationfromAPIDeore,PW180,aboutthetwocases
against the A13, it has come as positive statement in his cross
examination that he prepared the proposal on the basis of the
telephonicinformationreceivedfromAPIDeore,PW180,andinthe
crossexaminationbylearnedadvocateShetty,ithasalsocomeas
positivestatementthatAPIDeore,PW180,toldhimonphonethat
he had collected some photographs and some information of the
accused from DSB or LCB. Thus, his evidence, that too in cross
examination,corroboratestheevidenceofAPIDeore,PW180,about
the information of the two crimes registered against the A13 at
Jalgaonanditprovesthisfact.Incidentally,inthesameparagraphin
whichthisevidenceis,hestatedthatAPIDeore,PW180,methim
personallybeforegoingtoJalgaon,whichhehadnotstatedinhis
chiefexamination,butAPIDeore,PW180,hadstatedsoandstated
further that he did not give him any document or API Deore,
PW180, did not inform him that any document concerning the
presentcasewaswithhimand,thisisimportant,thathedidnot
hand over anyphotograph tohim and he did notshow him any
photograph. This further endorses the evidence of API Deore,
PW180,aboutcollectingphotographsfromtheDSBatJalgaonon
16/09/06andthathehadgonethereonthatday.Inturn,italso
falsifiesthedefencethatExts.4796to4798werethecopiesofthe
photographsoftheA13onhisapplicationattheplaceofhisjobat
Mumbai.
1217.
IthasthencomeintheevidenceofAPIDeore,PW180,that
onthenextday,i.e.,on17/09/06,hewenttotheSessionsCourt,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1285..
Ext.4825
butthestafftheredidnotfindthepapersandhewascalledonthe
nextdayandonthatdayhewentalongwiththeconstable,whowas
withhiminTambapuraandShirsoliareas,wheretheA13usedtobe
and tried to collect the information about him by making
confidentialinquiry.
1218.
Ithascomeinhisevidencethatonthenextday,i.e.,on
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1286..
Ext.4825
examinationthatthepaperswererelevantpapersofbothCRsand,
thisisimportant,andalsothecertifiedcopyprovidedbyAPP,viz.,
Ext. 1508. His evidence in chiefexamination as well as cross
examinationisveryspecificandhefurtherexplainedthathehadnot
receivedExts.1506,1507and1510before18/09/06andhadnot
sent them to Mumbai before that day and that he received Exts.
1509and1511on29/09/06.Thisfactisagaincorroboratedduring
thecrossexaminationofACPKhandekar,PW174,whostatedthata
constable who has gone with PSI Deore, brought the papers
includingthephotocopiesofthechargesheetandjudgementandhe
receivedthemforthefirsttimeon20/09/06.APIDeore,PW180,
then deposed about what he did on the next morning, i.e., on
19/09/06,aboutcontactingAPITawde,whodirectedhimtomeet
Addl.SP(Home),DilipSawantatJalgaon,whotoldhimtowaitfor
twodaysatJalgaonwhenhetoldhimthathewantedthepapersof
theHighCourtandaccordinglyhewaitedtherefortwodays,i.e.,on
20/09/06 and 21/09/06, and during which period he took
confidentialinformationaboutthewhereaboutsoftheA13,butdid
notgetanyinformation.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatheonly
cametoknowthatA13wasreleasedonbailafterhisarrestin1999,
attendingthecourtsregularly,butleavingthatareaafterC.R.No.
103/01wasregisteredandsomeboyswerearrestedandhisname
croppedupinthatcrimeandthatinbetweentheA13hadcomeand
takenhiswifeandchildrenalsoandtherewasnoinformationabout
hispresentwhereabouts.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathewentto
the office of the Addl. SP, Jalgaon on 22/09/06 and was given
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1287..
Ext.4825
1219.
Ithascomeinhisevidencethatontheinstructionsofthe
Addl.CP,JalgaonhewenttoMIDCPoliceStation,metAPIDhakrao
and collected photocopies of supplementary chargesheet that was
filedagainsttheA13andheidentifiedallthedocumentsthathehad
collected which include certified copies and photocopies of Exts.
1506to1511.Ofcourse,Ext.1508wasalreadyobtainedbyhimon
18/09/06, but the slips containing the details of copying
applicationsonExts.1506and1507showthattheapplicationsfor
copiesweregivenon20/09/06andthecopiesweredeliveredon
22/09/06.Thesedocumentsalsofullycorroboratehisevidenceand
they interalia provethathewasverymuchatJalgaonduringthe
entireperiodfrom16/09/06to22/09/06andhadinfactdonethe
work as narrated by him. No amount of crossexamination can
disprovetheabovefactsandasisthecasewithallthepoliceofficers
whomadeinvestigation,heaswellasACPKhandekar,PW174,was
askedastowhetheranystationdiaryentriesabouteachandevery
thingthattheydidandatsomeplacestherearenostationdiary
entries,butthatdoesnotaffectthetruthfulnessofhisevidenceand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1288..
Ext.4825
thetruthfulnessofthepartoftheinvestigationthathedid.There
wassomecrossexamination asto whether all the papers thathe
collected are amongst the documents that are on record and he
admittedthatallpapersbroughtbyPCChorgearenotamongstExts.
1506to1511.
1220.
IthascomeinhisevidencethathecamebacktoMumbai
1221.
Theaboveishiscompleteevidenceabouttheworkthathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1289..
Ext.4825
ontheslipsalongwithcertifiedcopiesofthedocumentsissuedby
theHighCourtandtheDistrictCourtatJalgaonfullycorroborate
hisversion.Admittedly,hisstatementwasnotrecorded,buthehas
explainedthathetookthedetailsofthetwocasesonhisownand
notasinstructedbyACPKhandekar,PW174.Hewasaskedwhether
the charge under section 153A is not triable by Sessions Court,
whetherSCno.meansSessionsCasenumber,etc.,butallthatis
irrelevantinsofarastheworkthathehaddoneandthedocuments
thathehadcollectedandthereisnohesitationinacceptingthatthe
documents Exts. 1506 to 1511 were collected by him. His cross
examinationontheotheraspectsastowhethertherewasorderin
C.R.No.178/99undersection173(8)oftheCr.P.C.,etc.,isnot
relevant and his knowledge as to how certified copies are to be
obtained from the District Court and the High Court is also not
relevant.
1222.
contentsofthedocumentsthatheproduced:
(i)
Ext.1506isthecertifiedcopyofroznamainRCCNo.219/01
thatwasbeforetheChiefJudicialMagistrateandthetitleshowsthat
itisthecaseoftheStateagainstAsifKhanBashirKhan,i.e.,the
A13,undersection153(1)(a),34oftheIPCandonemoreandthe
firstroznamaisdated09/01/01,onwhichdatethechargesheetwas
filedandprocesswasissuedagainstthemastheywereonbailand
bothaccusedwerepresentonnextdate,i.e.,on03/04/01,andthe
casewasfixedforcharge.Itappearsthatthetwoaccusedinthat
caseremainedabsentfrom04/08/01andhenceNBWswereissued
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1290..
Ext.4825
andtheA2wastakenincustodyon08/03/02whenheremained
presentinsomeothercaseandthechargewasframedagainsthim
andhewasacquittedbythejudgementdtd.12/08/02.
(ii)
chargesheetExt.1507andcertifiedcopyofthejudgementExt.1508
which shows that the charge was framed and the trial was
conductedagainsttheaccusedShaikhShakilShaikhHannan,also
residentofJalgaon,andthe charge mentions absconding accused
AsifKhanBashirKhan.Paragraph3ofthejudgementshowsthatthe
A13wasdeclaredasproclaimedoffenderon08/03/02andhistrial
wasseparated.Thisdate08/03/02isrelevant.TheCJM,Jalgaon
directed the prosecution to file separate chargesheet against the
abscondingaccused.
(iii) Ext.1509isthetruecertifiedcopyoftheFIRinC.R.No.
178/99showingtheA13asA1,PresidentofSIMIofJalgaonDistrict
and Shakil Shaikh as A2, President of SIMI of Jalgaon city.
AlongwiththisFIRisthecertifiedtruecopyofannualreportform.
Thereisalsoatruephotocopyofsupplementarychargesheetinthe
samecrimefiledagainsttheA13.Thesedocumentshavebeengiven
byMIDCPoliceStationcertifyingthemtobetruecopies.Theyare
photocopiesoftheoriginals.Thereisnodisputefromthesideofthe
defenceaboutthedocumentsinrespectofC.R.No.178/99.
(iv) Ext.1510iscertifiedcopyissuedbythecertifiedcopybranch
ofHighCourtatAurangabadofthechargeinSessionsCaseNo.126
of 2002, which mentions one Asif Khan as absconding accused
alongwithfivemoreabscondingaccused.Thechargeinthiscaseis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1291..
Ext.4825
for the offences under section 153A read with sections 34, 121,
121A,122,123,201,506Breadwith34oftheIPCandsections4(a)
(b)and5oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct.
(v)
Ext.1511istruephotocopyoftheFIRinC.R.No.103/01
registeredon28/07/01fortheoffencesundersection153A,120(b)
read with 34 of the IPC and sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act registered with MIDC Police Station against six
accusedandsomemorewantedaccusedontheallegationsthatthey
werebelongingtoaspecificMuslimorganisationandthroughthat
organisationtheyconspiredwiththeabscondingandothermembers
ofthe saidorganisation anddidacts topromote enmitybetween
differentgroupsonthegroundsofreligionandhadtakentraining
and had attempted to do bomb blasts in Hindu localities in
Maharashtra.
1223.
Mostofthesubmissionsthataremadebythelearnedadvocatesfor
the accused have been covered while discussing the particular
evidenceofACPKhandekar,PW174,andAPIDeore,PW180.Itwill
befruitfuliftheadditionalsubmissionsofthelearnedadvocatesthat
are made on the basis of crossexamination of witnesses are
considered rather than assessing their crossexamination
independently.Thefirstandimportantsubmissionmadebylearned
advocate Shetty and learned advocate Sharif Shaikh in written
submissionsisthattheauthoritywhograntedpriorapprovalhasnot
beenexaminedwhichhascausedagreatprejudicetotheaccused
inasmuchasitcannotbesaidwhatwerethedocumentsproduced
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1292..
Ext.4825
before him and what was the material produced before him to
accordthepriorapproval.ItissubmittedbylearnedadvocateShetty
thatinthepresentcase,itisAddl.CPJaiswal,whograntedtheprior
approval Ext.1841 and it is necessary that he is examined in the
court,thatprosecutionexamined CPRoy,PW185,thesanctioning
authority, but it cannot be said that as he is examined, it is not
necessarytoexaminetheauthoritygrantingthepriorapprovaland
itcannotbesaidthattheearlierlapsesarecured.Hesubmitsthat
nonexamination of Addl. CP Jaiswal is a fatal blow to the
prosecution insofar as the provisions of the MCOC Act are
concerned.Hesubmitsthattodaythedefenceiskeptinthedark
about the material that was placed before him and therefore the
invocationoftheprovisionsoftheMCOCActinthiscasehastofail.
He submits that there are two things. First is that without prior
approvalnoinvestigationcanbecarriedoutundertheMCOCAct
andsecondisthatifthereisnopriorapprovalthennosanctioncan
begrantedundertheMCOCAct.Hesubmitsthatbecauseofnon
examinationofthe authoritywhograntedthepriorapproval,the
defenceishandicapped.InthisrespectthelearnedSPPsubmitted
thatmanyatimesahueandcryismadefornonexaminationofthe
officer who according prior sanction and submitted that it is not
absolutely necessary to examine him for the simple reason that
when the matter ultimately comes before the court, the court is
boundtosatisfyitselfabouttheexistenceofthepriorapproval.The
courtisboundtosatisfythatwhenthepriorapprovalwasgiven,
there were two chargesheets of which the court had taken
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1293..
Ext.4825
cognizanceandtheoffenceforthesaidchargesheetsarepunishable
withmorethanthreeyears.Evenbeforethatadutyiscastonthe
officeroftherankofanAddl.DGP,whohastogivesanctionunder
section23(2)anditishewhofirstsatisfieshimselfwhether,inthe
firstcase,thereispriorapprovalornot.Ifitistherethenhewill
consideritonitsownmerits.Ifthereisnopriorapproval,thereis
noquestionofgivingsanction.Hesubmits thatultimatelyin this
casenotonlythereisasanctionbecauseofwhichthiscourtcantake
cognizanceandthetrialcanproceed,butthesanctioningauthority
hasalsobeenexaminedandwhethertherewaspriorapprovalornot
and whether the sanctioning authority applied its mind or not is
reflectedfromthesanctionorderitself.Hereferredtoparagraph2
in the sanction order Ext.13dtd.25/11/06,whichmentionsthe
prior approval and submitted that there are more than adequate
reasonstoacceptthispartthatafterobtainingthepriorapprovalthe
sanction was accorded and therefore there was no necessity of
examining the authority. He referred to the judgement of the
Bombay High Court in the case of John D'Souza, Appellant V.
AssistantCommissionerofPolice,B1/Special,DCB,CID,Joint
Commissioner of Police (Crime) Crime Branch, CID,
Commissioner of Police and The State of Maharashtra,
Respondents(CriminalWritPetitionNo.147of2007decidedon
30/04/07) relied upon by learned advocate Sharif Shaikh and
pointedoutparagraphs9and10ofthejudgementsubmittingthatit
issaidthatsections23(1)(a),section23(1)(b)andsection23(2)of
theMCOCActareinterdependent.Sounlessthepersonwhogives
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1294..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1295..
Ext.4825
1386of2009dtd.31/07/09).Itisheldinparagraph8that,'itwas
alsonotjustifiedforthelearnedsinglejudgetoholdthattheDistrict
Magistrate who had passed the sanction order should have been
subsequently examined as a witness by the prosecution in order to
provethesame.Thesanctionorderwasclearlypassedindischargeof
routineofficialfunctionsand hencethereisapresumptionthatthe
samewasdoneinabonafidemanner.Itwasofcourseopentothe
Respondent to question the genuineness or validity of the sanction
orderbeforetheSpecialJudgebuttherewasnorequirementforthe
DistrictMagistratetobeexaminedasawitnessbytheprosecution'.To
mymind,on the principles of analogy,these observations can be
imported to the present case, though that was a case under the
PreventionofCorruptionActanditreferstoasanction.Itisheldby
theDivisionBenchoftheHighCourtinthecaseof AnilSadashiv
Nanduskar V. State of Maharashtra (2008 (3) MAH.L.J. (CRI)
650)inparagraph13that,'thesettledlawbyacatenaofdecisionsof
the Apex Court is to the effect that it is desirable that every order
whethertheapprovalorsanctionitshouldspeakforitself,i.e.,exfacie
itshoulddiscloseconsiderationofthematerialsplacedbeforeitand
application of mind thereto. However, failure to reproduce or refer
those recitals in the resolution or order itself would not render the
orderofapprovalorsanctiontobeinvalidunlesstheprosecutionfails
toestablishbyleadingevidencethatallthematerialsnecessaryforthe
grant of approval or sanction were placed before the concerned
authority for due application of mind by such authority before the
grantofapprovalandorsanction.Itapparentlydisclosesthatquestion
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1296..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1297..
Ext.4825
meaningoftheobservationswillhavetobeconstruedtoholdthatit
isnotalwaysnecessarytoexaminetheauthority,whichhasgiven
thepriorapproval,moreso,whenitisawrittenapproval.Learned
SPPhasreliedontheauthoritiesoftheHighCourtandSupreme
CourtinthefirstcaseoftheMCOCActforsomeotherpurpose.It
willnotbeoutofplacetopointoutthatinthejudgementofthe
Division Bench of the High Court in the case of The State of
Maharashtra, Appellant V. Mohd. Zuber Kasam Shaikh alias
TabrejaliasJuganuandAnr.,Respondents(ConfirmationCase
No. 01 of 2001 dtd.17/12/03) with four criminal appeals, in
paragraph 11 there is a reference to the Joint Commissioner of
Police (Crime), Bruhan Mumbai granting permission to apply
provisionsofMCOCOrdinance,1999tothesaidcaseandthereafter
reference to the investigation being taken up by ACP Pradeep
Sawant,PW61.Allotherwitnesseswhoareexaminedarereferred
tobytheirprosecutionwitnessesnumbers,buttheJt.CP(Crime),
BruhanMumbaiisnotsoreferred.IntheJudgementoftheappeal
thatwascarriedtotheSupremeCourtreportedinthecaseofState
ofMaharashtra,AppellantsV.Mohd.ZuberKasamSheikhand
Ors.,Respondent((2010)14SCC641),alsotheSupremeCourt
hasreiteratedthesamepositionwithoutreferringtotheprosecution
witness number of the Jt. CP (Crime), who granted permission.
Though nonexamination of the authority granting the prior
approval was not an issue before the High Court as well as the
SupremeCourt,thefactremainsthathehadnotbeenexaminedin
thatcaseandthispointwasnotraisedbeforeboththecourtsthough
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1298..
Ext.4825
theapplicationoftheprovisionsoftheMCOCActwerechallenged
and it is observed by the High Court that the trial court had
answeredthisquestionintheaffirmative.
1224.
Tomymind,inviewoftheabovelegalpositionitwasnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1299..
Ext.4825
Similarly,sufficientevidencehasbeenledbytheprosecutioninthe
form of the oral evidence of ACP Khandekar, PW174, and API
Deore, PW180, and the documentary evidence, and, both these
witnesses have been crossexamined extensively and it is for this
court to consider whether the relevant material was or was not
beforetheauthoritygrantingthepriorapproval.Tomymind,the
defencecouldhaveinsistedontheprosecutiontoproduceAddl.CP
S. K. Jaiswal for giving evidence as they did in respect of many
witnesses even after the main investigating officer ACP Patil,
PW186, was examined and his evidence was over. Thus, non
examinationofAddl.CPS.K.Jaiswalwhogavethepriorapproval
toinvoketheprovisionsoftheMCOCActinC.R.No.156of2006is
notfataltotheprosecution.
1225.
LearnedadvocateShettyhasthenreferredtothecontents
ofthepriorapprovalExt.1841andsubmitsthattheauthoritysays
that he has gone through the documents andfoundthat the key
member,i.e.,A13,hadbeenindulgingincontinuedunlawfulactivity
andtwochargesheetsagainsthimhavebeentakencognizanceby
thecompetentcourts.HehasalsoconsideredthattheA2andA4are
the active members and A13 is the key member and they are
indulging in continuing unlawful activity. He submits that if he
wants tocomeoutfrom this,in whatwayhe couldchallenge it,
becauseonecannotknowwhatarethetwochargesheetsagainstthe
A13.Tomymind,thelastsentenceinparagraph2ofExt.1841says
thattwochargesheetsfiledagainstA13havebeentakencognizance
bythecompetentcourtasdefinedinsection2oftheMCOCAct,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1300..
Ext.4825
and,thisisimportant,thisisreflectedfromthereportsubmittedby
theinvestigatingofficer.Idonotthinkanythingmoreisnecessary,
becauseatthestartofthepriorapproval,thereisareferenceatsr.
no.2ofthereportdtd.18/09/06initiatedbyPIP.M.Khandekar,the
investigatingofficerintheabovecase(i.e.C.R.No.156of2006of
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStation)andsubmittedbyDCP,ATSandACP
Khandekar, PW174, has deposed as to what information he got
about previous cases against the A13 on the basis of which he
prepared the proposal. To my mind, it is not necessary for the
authoritytomentionthecrimenumberorcasenumberintheprior
approval.IthascomeinthecrossexaminationofACPKhandekar,
PW174,inparagraph24thathehadstatedtoACPPatil,PW186,
about the information that he got and he gave the two crime
numbersthatwereregisteredagainsttheA13andthesectionsofthe
offences.Ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationthathehaddiscussed
abouthiscaseandtheinformationthathereceivedwithAddl.CPS.
K.Jaiswalon22or23/09/06andthepriorapprovalwasaskedfor
in the crime that he investigated. It has also come in his cross
examinationthathisproposalcontainedthefactsofthiscaseand
onlytwopreviouscasesatJalgaonarerelieduponforinvokingthe
provisionsoftheMCOCAct.Thistakescareofthenextsubmission
ofthelearnedadvocatethatitisnotclearastowhichtwocasesthe
authorityrelieduponforgrantingthepriorapproval.Ithascomein
hisevidencethatAddl.CPS.K.Jaiswalhadaskedforthecertified
copiesofthechargesheetsduringtheirdiscussionandhetoldhim
thattheyhadnotbeenreceivedtillthattime.Whatthismeansis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1301..
Ext.4825
thattheinformationaboutthetwocrimesregisteredagainsttheA13
atJalgaonwasverymuchbeforeAddl.CPS.K.Jaiswalandthere
canbenodoubtthatthosetwopreviouscaseshadbeenreliedupon
to grant the prior approval. Though he admitted in his cross
examinationthattheproposalthathesentisnotbeforethecourt,he
explainedthatitwasinthenotingformandthedefencedidnot
insistuponhimorontheprosecutiontoproducetheproposal.In
thisrespectagainithascomeinhiscrossexaminationthatrestof
thecasestowhichhereferredinhisevidencewerenotconsidered
for giving the priorapproval.In his crossexamination bylearned
advocate Wahab Khan he has specifically explained that he had
understood the entire case before sending the proposal for prior
approvalandhedidnotrelyonthecasesagainsttheA2andA4as
theywereLACcaseswithlessimprisonment,thatislessthanthree
yearsandhadnotaskedforthepapers.Hewasgrilledaboutthe
sectionsoftheUA(P)AforwhichtheA2andA4wereprosecuted
and about the punishment referred to in the different parts of
section10,i.e.,(a)and(b),andheadmittedthathedoesnotknow
forwhichoutofthesetwotheaccusedhadbeencharged.Though
he admitted that he had referred to these cases against the two
accusedintheproposal,however,theywerenottobeconsideredfor
invokingtheprovisionsoftheMCOCActandthathedidnotcollect
theirchargesheetsortheordersofthecourttakingcognizanceof
thosecasesthoughhewasawarethatthechargesheetshavebeen
filedinboththecases.Heagainreiteratedthatthetwochargesheets
at Jalgaon were the only basis of showing continuous unlawful
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1302..
Ext.4825
activities.Thistakescareofthesubmissionofthelearnedadvocate
thatitisnotclearastowhicharethetwocasesreliedupononthe
basisofwhichtheauthoritygrantedthepriorapproval.
1226.
association'inthepriorapprovalsubmittingthattheyarealiento
the provisions of the MCOC Act, under which it is only for an
organisedcrimesyndicateforwhichyoucanapplytheprovisionsof
theMCOCAct.ForunlawfulactivitiesthereisaseparateActthat
hasbeenenactedbytheCentralGovernmentandthisorderdoesnot
showthattheapprovalwasgrantedundertheUA(P)Aandthesame
thingsarerepeatedinvariouspartsoftheorder.Tomymind,the
wordsunlawfulassociationareprecededbyastrokeandbeforethat
thewordsorganisedcrimesyndicateareatalltheplaceswherever
unlawful association words are used. It does not make much
differencebecauseitisclearthatwhattheauthorityconsideredwas
organised crime syndicate and it may be that they are by way
abundantprecautionthatthosesuperfluouswordshavebeenused.
1227.
vagueandbeyondhisauthorityandisseentobepassedwithout
studyingthedocumentsandwithoutapplicationofmind.Idonot
seehowthisinferencecanbedrawnbecausereferenceno.1atthe
startofthepriorapprovalistothepapersofinvestigationinC.R.
No. 156 of 2006 and the second reference is to the report dtd.
18/09/06 initiated by ACP Khandekar, PW174, and the opening
words of the second paragraph are that the authority has gone
throughthedocumentsandreportplacedbeforehimandissatisfied
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1303..
Ext.4825
thattheA4,A2andA13aretheactivemembersoftheorganised
crimesyndicateandtheA13andhisassociatesA4andA2havebeen
indulgingincontinuingunlawfulactivities.Thus,thissubmissionby
thelearnedadvocateisnotacceptableandsamecanbesaidabout
hissubmissionthatifwelookatitfromthisanglethentheentire
process of invoking the provisions of the MCOC Act is nullified,
illegalandtotallyunjustifiedanditisonlybecauseoftheprovisions
ofsection18toextorttheconfessionsfromtheaccused.Heagain
reiteratedthesubmissionthatunderthesecircumstancesandonthis
backgroundnonexaminationofAddl.CPS.K.Jaiswalhasaffected
thecaseoftheprosecutionandcausedprejudicetothecaseofthe
defence and the prior approval is totally illegal and without
jurisdiction.InrespectofthenonexaminationofthesaidauthorityI
have already come to the conclusion that it is not fatal to the
prosecution.
1228.
advocatesubmitsthattheydonotshowthatboththechargesheets
werefiledagainsttheA13andcognizancewastakenbythecourts
and there is no connection between the FIR Ext. 1511 and the
chargeExt.1510.Thecontentsofthedocumentsareindicatedin
detailinparagraph1222supraandtherecanbenodoubtinsofaras
C.R.No.178/99thatwas registeredagainstthe A13whichwas
givenRCCNo.219/01inthecourtoftheCJM,whichmeansthat
thechargesheetwasfiledandthecontentsoftheroznamaExt.1506
showthattheA13hadappearedinthatcase,wasbailedoutand
subsequentlyheabscondedandwasdeclaredasproclaimedoffender
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1304..
Ext.4825
aslongbackason08/03/02andtheCJM,Jalgaonhaddirectedthe
prosecutiontofileseparatechargesheetagainsthim.Itisclearthat
the trial against the A2 in that case, i.e., Shaikh Shakil Shaikh
Hannan,wasconductedandajudgementwasgiven,whichmeans
thatthecourthadtakencognizanceofthatoffence.Thisdispenses
anydoubtaboutthechargesheetbeingfiledandcognizancebeing
taken.Hehasraisedsomedisputesaboutthewrongmentionofthe
offenceas1531AinthecertifiedcopyoftheFIR.Tomymind,this
wrong mentioning of section is corrected by the Chief Judicial
Magistrate in the charge Ext. 1507 and the judgement Ext. 1508
wherein the proper section 153A is mentioned and it is also
mentioned that the accused, who was tried, had committed the
crimeinfurtheranceoftheircommonintentionwiththeabsconding
accusedAsifKhanBashirKhan,i.e.,A13,inthiscase.
1229.
Inrespectofthecrimeno.103/01learnedadvocatesubmits
thatthereisabsolutelynoreferencetotheA13intheFIR,copyof
whichisatExt.1511,andthereisnomaterialtolinkthechargeExt.
1510tothesaidFIRorthatitwasonthebasisofthesaidFIR.Inmy
humbleopinion,thissubmissionisalsonotacceptableforthesimple
reason that A13 is indicatedas an absconding accusedalongwith
five more absconding accused in the charge and the charge is
against 10 accused whose names are very much there in the
contentsofthecopyoftheFIRExt.1511.Notonlythis,onceagain
thepolicehadcommittedamistakeofwritingthesectionas153(A),
buttheSessionsJudgehascorrecteditandwritten153Aandthe
allegationsintheFIRfindplaceinthecharge.Inthisrespectthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1305..
Ext.4825
learnedSPPsubmittedthatinhisevidence,theA13hasadmitted
thattheSessionsCaseNo.126/02institutedinconnectionwithC.
R.No.103/01ofMIDCPoliceStationisstillpendingagainsthim.
Afteradmittingthis,theA13explainedthattheSessionsCasewas
nottriedagainsthimandhewasnotthewantedaccusedinthat
caseanddeniedthathewasshownaswantedaccusedinthecharge
thatwasframedagainsthiminthatcase.Thisdenialisobviously
againstthedocumentofthecourt.Nowthishascomeinhiscross
examination, but it is in his chiefexamination itself that he was
arrestedinC.R.No.103/01on29/12/06,i.e.,afterfilingofthe
chargesheetinthiscaseandhewasproducedbeforePIPatilofLCB
on30/12/06.NodoubtitishisstorythatPIPatiltoldhimonasking
thathewasarrestedinthesaidCRnumber,thatheisnotwantedin
thatcase,buttheyarefittinghiminthatcaseonthesayofAddl.CP
S.K.JaiswalandNawalBajajastwochargesheetsarerequiredfor
theapplicationofthe MCOCActandheisbeinginvolvedinthe
chargesheetagainstsomeotherperson.Howfallaciousthisstoryis
clearfromthefactthathisinvolvementinthatcrimewasdisclosed
inSeptember,2006itselfandthepriorapprovalundertheMCOC
ActwasalsograntedinSeptember,2006.Similarly,hisstoryisnot
atallanacceptableonebecauseIdonotthinkthatanypoliceofficer
willtellanaccusedthathehasarrestedhiminanycaseonthesay
of superiors though he is not wanted in that case. This is not
believableatall.Secondly,itishisstorythatPSIDhakraowasalso
presentintheMIDCPoliceStationwhenhewasproducedbeforePI
PatilandhetoldhimthatwhenAPIDeore,PW180,hadcometo
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1306..
Ext.4825
himon29/09/06,he,i.e.,PSIDhakrao,hadsaidthesamethingto
him,that Asif Bashir Khan is not a wanted accused in C. R.No.
103/01. How this story is fallacious is obvious from his further
statementthatPSIDhakraohadsaidtohimthathehadwrittena
certificatebehindthephotographthatwasbroughtbyAPIDeore,
PW180, from Mumbai. Now what is the certificate given by PSI
Dhakrao?ThesaidcertificateisreceivedinevidenceasExt.2084
anditshowsthatAPIDhakraohadcertifiedthatitisthephotograph
oftheaccusedAsifKhanBashirKhanonthebasisofrecordthatis
available with the police station. Thus, unless PSI Dhakrao knew
abouttheinvolvementoftheA13inthesaidcrime,hewouldnot
havegiventhecertificatebehindthephotographandthiscertificate
alsofalsifiestheclaimoftheA13thatthephotographwasacopyof
thephotographthathehadaffixedonhisapplicationattheplaceof
hisjob.Nodoubt,thecontentsoftheFIRExt.1511donotmention
theA13asawantedaccused,butunlesshisnamewasbroughtto
thenoticeoftheSessionsCourt,itwouldnothavehadcomeinthe
charge as an absconding accused. No doubt, the charge only
mentions his name as Asif Khan, however, it is clear from the
evidence of API Deore, PW180, that he came to know on going
throughthepapersofC.R.No.103/01intheofficeoftheLCBat
Jalgaon that during the interrogation of wanted accused Parvez
Khan,whowasarrestedbytheLCBinAugust,2006,i.e.,priorto
API Deore, PW180, visiting Jalgaon, the full name of wanted
accusedAsifKhanwasdisclosedasAsifKhanBashirKhan@Juned
andhehadtakennotesofalltheinformationwhichhesubsequently
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1307..
Ext.4825
conveyedtoACPKhandekar,PW174,onphoneon16/09/06itself.
Theseobservationstakecareofthesubmissionsbylearnedadvocate
Shetty as well as learned advocate Sharif Shaikh in his written
submissionsinrespectofthenameAsifKhanonlybeingmentioned
inthechargeExt.1510beingnotthefullnameandthatthereisno
evidencetolinkcrimeno.103/01tothechargeExt.1510.Nodoubt
the charge does not mention C. R. No. 103/01 of MIDC Police
Station,Jalgaon,butthisisthepracticeinallthecourts.
1230.
Tomymind,itneedstobementionedthatifatalltheA13
wasnotawantedaccusedinC.R.No.103/01,itisaquestionasto
whyhedidnotapplyfordischargeafterbeingarrestedinthatcase
on29/12/06,thoughimmediatelyafterfilingofthechargesheethe
had prayed for discharge in this case and had gone up to the
Supreme Court on the ground that there were no previous
chargesheetsagainsthim.Thoseproceedingsarenotrelevanttothis
stage,butabriefreferencewillnotbeoutofplace.HehadfiledM.
A.No.58/07forinvocationoftheprovisionsoftheMCOCActon
thegroundthatthepriorapprovalisbadinlawinasmuchasthere
are no two chargesheets filed against him and the reference was
madetothedocumentsthatarebeforethecourtinconnectionwith
thetwocrimes.Itwasalsocontendedthatsincehewasnotarrested
in connection with the offence for which S. C. No. 126/02 was
pending,itcannotbetreatedthatthechargesheetinthatcasehad
beenfiledagainsthim.MylearnedpredecessorjudgeMrs.Mridula
R.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)rejected
theapplicationholdingthatnonfilingofthechargesheetagainstthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1308..
Ext.4825
A13hasnoadverseeffectonthecomplianceofthesection2(1)(d)
of the MCOC Act and has also observed that admittedly in the
second case, i.e., in S. C. No. 126/02, the accused was never
arrested and never brought before the court till filing of the
chargesheet in the present case, but the charge dtd. 12/12/03
framedbytheSessionsJudgeofJalgaonExt.1510mentionsthatthe
accused no. 1 to accused no. 10 had committed the offence
describedthereinalongwithabscondingaccusedA13,whichshows
thatthesaidcourthadtakencognizanceoftheoffencesforwhich
chargesheetagainstthosetenpersonswasfiled.Itisalsoobserved
thatitissettledlawthatthecourttakescognizanceoftheoffence
andnotoftheoffenderandthefactofframingofthechargeshows
thatthecompetentcourthadtakencognizanceoftheoffence.Itis
also observed that A13 was absconding and therefore the charge
wasnotframedagainsthim.However,itdoesnotmeanthatthe
competent court had not taken any cognizance of the offence as
contemplatedundersection2(1)(d).Itisheldthatitisanadmitted
factthattheseparatechargesheetwasfiledon27/03/07,however,
itdoesnotmeanthatitisadifferentchargesheet.Itwasheldthat
thereforethecognizancetakenbytheSessionsCourtofJalgaonin
Sessions Case No. 126/02 brings the case of the A13 within the
definition of section 2(1)(d) of the MCOC Act. This order was
carriedtotheHighCourtbyfilingCriminalAppealNo.749of2006
andbythejudgementdtd.16/10/06,itwasdismissedasfailedon
merits.ItwascanvasedbeforetheDivisionBenchthatatnopointof
time two chargesheets were filed against the petitioner,i.e., A13,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1309..
Ext.4825
1231.
Learnedadvocatenextsubmittedthatevenifitisassumed
thattheoffenceundersection153Aisappliedinboththecrimes,
therearethreesubclausestosubsection(1),eachhavingdifferent
ingredientsofoffenceandthereforeitisnotclearthatwhichoffence
was alleged to have been committed in that crime. To my mind,
wrong application of section is immaterial. We have to go by
substanceofallegations.Nextpointagitatedbylearnedadvocateis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1310..
Ext.4825
thatthepunishmentofallthreecategoriesofoffencementionedin
section1ofsection153AoftheIPCisuptothreeyearsandthereis
a lot of difference between the requirement of the cognizable
offenceasdescribedinClause(d)ofsubsection(1)ofsection2of
theMCOCAct,whichsaysthatthereshouldbeacognizableoffence
punishable with imprisonment or three years more. In this
connectionlearnedSPPsubmittedthatimprisonmentofthreeyears
is separated from the words 'or more' in section 2(1)(b). If the
offence is punishable upto 3 years and section 153A(1) is to be
excluded then the wording in section 2(1)(b) would have been
punishableforimprisonmentformorethanthreeyears.However,
hereitiscategorical,whichmeansthat3yearsisincludedandwhat
wouldbeexcludedwouldbetheoffencepunishablewith2years
and364days.Tomymind,thesubmissionsofthelearnedadvocate
arenotcorrectandacceptableforasimplereasonthattheoffences
under section 153A(1) are punishable with imprisonment upto 3
years and therefore they cannot be excluded from the scope of
continuing unlawful activity as defined in section 2(1)(a) of the
MCOCAct.
1232.
evaluatetheevidenceofACPKhandekar,PW174,itisapparentthat
withoutstudyingthematerial,withoutexaminingthedetails,hehas
submitted the proposal for invoking the MCOC Act. He has not
consultedalltheinvestigatingofficersoftheothersixcrimes,their
casepaperswerenotstudiedandnotlookedintoandaccordingto
his version without study of all the material he submitted the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1311..
Ext.4825
proposalon18/09/06.Evenonthatdaysocalledmaterialoftwo
chargesheetsatJalgaonwasalsonotavailablebecausetheevidence
ofAPIDeore,PW180,showsthathewenttoJalgaonon20/09/06
andcollectedthematerialon22/09/06.Thereforeon18/09/06,it
cannotbeimaginedthatthematerialofthetwocaseswasavailable
withACPKhandekar,PW174.Tomymind,thesesubmissionsare
notacceptablebecauseitisprovedfromtheabovediscussionthat
APIDeore,PW180,hasverymuchgonetoJalgaonon16/09/06
anditison16/09/06itselfthathegavetheinformationaboutthe
twocasesagainsttheA13toACPKhandekar,PW174.Nodoubtitis
truethatthematerialwasnotinphysicalform,i.e.,truecopiesor
photocopiesofthecasepapers,buttomymind,informationofthe
two cases is also sufficient. In respect of the submission that the
materialwiththeothersixinvestigatingofficerswasnotstudied,to
mymind,ithascomeintheevidenceofACPKhandekar,PW174,as
wellastheinvestigatingofficers,whowereinvestigatingtheother
crimes,thatthereusedtobeinteractionanditisobviousthatfrom
thatinteractionACPKhandekar,PW174,couldgatherwhatmaterial
wascollectedduringtheirinvestigation.Hehasdeposedspecifically
aboutwhatinformationhegotabouttheactivitiesoftheaccused.
LearnedadvocateShettythensubmittedthatACPShengal,DW51,
wastheACPoftheDivision,manyaccusedwhowerecaughtwere
brought before him, many articles that were seized were handed
over to him, even then ACP Khandekar, PW174, submitted the
proposal keeping everyone in the dark including ACP Shengal,
DW51,andSr.PIRathod,PW176,andothersuperiorofficers.This
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1312..
Ext.4825
showsthehighhandednessofthewitnessandhismaliciousintention
andeagernessofthewitnesstoinvoketheMCOCAct.Hedidnot
feelitnecessarytoarresttheaccusedandinterrogatethem,didnot
consultortakematerialfromvariousofficers,whoinvestigatedthe
crime, did not bother to consult with the 34 ACPs, who were
concerned with the case, but directly submitted the proposal.
Therefore,lookingatthematerialonrecordandtheevidencethat
hascome,itcanbesafelysaidthatprovisionsoftheMCOCActare
not applicable on the given material and they have been applied
maliciouslywithamalafideintentionofdetainingtheaccusedfor
moreandmoreperiodinpolicecustodyandtoextortconfessionor
tolegalizethestatementsoftheaccusedaftertheirarrestbygiving
themthecolourofconfessionsandanotherreasonisthattheycould
not submit the chargesheet during the period of 90 days. To my
mind,itmaybethatACPKhandekar,PW174,didnotconsulthis
immediatesuperiors,butforthatalonehisactioncannotbefound
faultwithit.ItwastheofficeroftherankoftheDCP,whocould
have taken such decisions and merely because he bypassed his
immediatesuperiors,suchaninferencecannotbedrawn.Secondly,
itmaybethatACPKhandekar,PW174,didnotfeelthenecessityto
arrest the accused andinterrogate them because he had come to
knowabouttheactivitiesoftheaccusedandtheevidencethathad
beencollectedfromtheotherinvestigatingofficers.Amanmayhave
a different thought process than others and he may be only a
thinkingman anditmaybethatthis conceptof organisedcrime
cametohismindonconsideringtheactivitiesofalltheaccusedwho
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1313..
Ext.4825
had been arrested till then and on coming to know of the two
previous cases against the A13 and their nature. Thus, this
submission is alsonotacceptableandnoinference can be drawn
thattheprovisionsoftheMCOCActwereinvokedmaliciouslyand
with malafide intentiontolegalizethestatementsoftheaccused
after their arrest by giving them the colour of confessions. The
submissions of the learned advocate about another reason being
inability of the investigating agency to submit the chargesheet
during the prescribed period of 90 days is of no consequence,
becausetheperiodhasbeenvalidlyextendedbythiscourtonmerits
andsecondly,if one considers the arrestof the A1 on 20/07/06,
even then the investigating machinery had sufficient time upto
20/10/06tofilethe chargesheet inthis case and aboutamonth
beforetheexpiryoftheperiodof90daysthepriorapprovalwas
granted.
1233.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatinthetwocasesagainstthe
A13noneoftheremainingcoaccused,whoarefacingtrialisan
accused.Thismeansthattherecouldnothavebeenanorganised
crime syndicate. This point is well settled by several judgements
whereinithasbeenheldthatitisnotnecessarythatthereshouldbe
two chargesheets against each accused and moreover that all the
accusedinaparticularcaseorsomeofthemshouldbeshownasco
accusedinthecasesthatareconsideredforinvokingtheprovisions
of the MCOC Act. Continuing unlawful activity is defined in the
MCOCActasanactivityprohibitedbylaw,whichisacognizable
offence with imprisonment of three years or more and, this is
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1314..
Ext.4825
important,undertaken eithersinglyorjointly,asamemberofan
organisedcrimesyndicateoronbehalfofsuchsyndicate.Thus,even
ifitisasingleaccused,whohadcommittedcognizableoffence,as
described,asamemberofanorganisedcrimesyndicate,itwillbe
coveredbythedefinitionofcontinuingunlawfulactivitywhichhas
been so mentioned in the prior approval Ext. 1841. What was
organisedcrimesyndicateisclearfromtheallegationsinthecharge
inC.R.No.178/99andthecontentsofthechargeExt.1510which
referredtotheSIMI.ItisalsoclearfromtheFIRandthecontentsof
thefinalreportformExt.1509inrespectoftheC.R.No.178/99
thatitwastheorganisationSIMIofwhichtheA13wasamember.At
thisstageitselfitwillbeappropriatetoconsiderthepointraisedin
thewrittensubmissionsfiledbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhthat
thetwocasesagainsttheA13arepriortothebanonSIMIinasmuch
as C. R. No. 178/99 was registered on 03/12/99 and C. R. No.
103/01wasregisteredon28/07/01,whereas,SIMIwasdeclaredas
anunlawfulassociationon27/09/01.Tomymind,ifthissubmission
isconsideredthenmostofthecasesundertheMCOCActuptoten
yearsafteritcameintheexistencewillhavetobethrownout.This
submissionisignoringoneoftheingredientofcontinuingunlawful
activity,whichismorethanonechargesheetwithinthepreceding
periodoftenyears.Thus,thissubmissionisbadonthepointoflaw.
1234.
Mostofthepointsthatareraisedinthewrittensubmissions
bythelearnedadvocateSharifShaikhhavebeencovereduptonow.
Inaddition,itissubmittedthatPIAgrawal,PW173,didnotdepose
thatnameoftheA13wasrevealedduringtheinvestigationofA2
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1315..
Ext.4825
1235.
Nextpointraisedisthatalmostalltheinvestigatingofficers
oftheothercrimes,whohadarrestedtheaccused,hadstatedthat
theydidnothavesufficientevidencetofilethechargesheettillthe
investigation of that crime was with them and Sr. PI Rathod,
PW176, has stated that he did not get any eyewitness in the
investigation of his crime and there was no evidence against the
accused,whowerearrested,toshowtheirinvolvementinthebomb
blasts. This shows that the material collected by the ATS upto
24/09/06wasnotsufficienttoshowtheinvolvementoftheaccused
in the bomb blasts and the question is asked as to how ACP
Khandekar,PW174,thoughtofproposingapplicationofMCOCAct?
ItisalsosubmittedthatACPKhandekar,PW174,hasalsoadmitted
thesamethingsalongwithadmittingthattherewasnoconfession,
recovery, discovery from any accused and no accused had been
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1316..
Ext.4825
arrestedandnotestidentificationparadehadbeenconductedinhis
crime.InthisrespectitisclearfromtheevidenceofACPKhandekar,
PW174,thathehadnotarrestedtheaccused,therefore,therewas
noquestionofanyconfession,recovery,etc.,inhiscrime.Theearlier
submissionisalreadyansweredthatitwasthethoughtprocessof
one of the investigating officers, viz., ACP Khandekar, PW174,
which led him to the conclusion about the bomb blasts being an
organisedcrimecommittedbytheorganisedcrimesyndicate.Tomy
mind,thematerialsandthescenariothatwouldbeconsideredfor
consideringapplicationoftheprovisionsoftheMCOCActwouldbe
quitedifferentfromtheinsufficiencyofevidencetofilechargesheet
inaparticularcrimeoutofthesevencrimes.Thus,theallegation
thattheprovisionsoftheMCOCActwereinvokedthoughtherewas
no evidence and were invoked only for the satisfaction of the
superiorofficersastheywantedtoimplicatefalselyinnocentpersons
intheblastscaseisbaselessandunacceptable.
1236.
AwrongsubmissionwasmadethatchargeExt.1510does
notmentionthenameofAsifKhan,butitmentionsthenameofone
AsifShaikhSupbu.WrongIsaybecauseboththesenamesarethere
anditisthecourtrecordandnotthecreationofthepolice.
1237.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1317..
Ext.4825
accusedinC.R.No.103/01.Tomymind,thesesubmissionsare
fallacious for the simple reason that A13 has not examined any
witnessincludinghisbrotherorfatheroranyofthepoliceofficersof
Jalgaon,whomhenamesashavingstatedtohimthathehasbeen
falsely implicated on the say of Nawal Bajaj, as his defence
witnesses.Itisonlyhiswordsandthestorythathetold.Onthe
otherhand,theevidenceofAPIDeore,PW180,iscorroboratedby
the documents as is held earlier and his evidence is only about
collectionofthedocumentsandthereisnoquestionofhearsayin
thatcase.Thenextsubmissionthatthecaseofawantedaccused
cannotbeconsideredforinvocationoftheMCOCActiscoveredby
thefateofthedischargeapplicationfiledbyA13beforethiscourtas
wellastheappealthathefiledintheHighCourtandalsobythe
recentlawlaiddownbytheSupremeCourtintheMalegaonBomb
BlastCaseof2008.ThenextsubmissionisthatSIMIisnotnamedin
thepriorapprovalasanorganisedcrimesyndicate,butitisonly
ACPKhandekar,PW174,throughwhomitwasbroughtonrecordby
theprosecution.Similarlyhehasadmittedthathedoesnotknowtill
today whether chargesheet is filed against A2, A4 and A13. The
question is asked as to why then he proposed invocation of the
MCOCAct?Tomymind,notmentioningSIMIinthepriorapproval
doesnotvitiatethesaidorderiftheallegationsinC.R.No.178/99
and C. R. No. 103/01 registered with the MIDC Police Station,
JalgaonagainsttheA13areconsidered,whichspecificallyshowthat
the organisation was SIMI and though ACP Khandekar, PW174,
might have or might not have mentioned the name SIMI in the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1318..
Ext.4825
proposal,thefactthatthereweretwopreviouschargesheetsofthe
natureasIdescribedearlier,wassufficientfortheauthoritygranting
thepriorapprovaltocometotheconclusionabouttheorganised
crimesyndicate.Thus,thissubmissionisnotproperandawrong
submission is made further that the name SIMI is also not
mentionedinthesanctionorderExt.13.
1238.
LearnedadvocateDr.YugChodharyreliedonthefollowing
authoritieswithrespecttothispoint:
(i)
Gujarat((2012)11SupremeCourtCases606).
(ii)
RangkuDutta@RanjanKumarDutta,AppellantV.Stateof
Assam,Respondent((2011)6SupremeCourtCases358).
(iii) Pulin Das @ Panna Koch, Appellant V. State of Assam,
Respondent((2008)5SupremeCourtCases89).
(iv) Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari, Appellant V. State (N. C. T. of
Delhi),Respondent(2005CRI.L.J.2569).
TomymindalltheauthoritiesareundertheTADAandare
inapplicableonfactsinissue,inasmuchasinthefirstandfourth
case before the Supreme Court, on facts it was found that the
documentsforpriorapprovalwerenotonrecordanditdoesnot
comeundertheTADA.Thesecondisconcerningregardingrecording
ofinformationwithoutapriorapproval,whichisnotthecasehere.
Inthethirdauthority,itisheldthatthehighestpoliceofficer,viz.,
SuperintendentofPolice,orequivalentofficerofthedistrictshould
explain all the details about the banned organisation and that
accusedareconnectedtothebannedorganisation.Tomymind,this
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1319..
Ext.4825
hasbeenexplainedbyACPPatil,PW186,theinvestigatingofficer
aftertheapplicationoftheMCOCAct,byreferringtotheliterature
thatwasseizedfromtheaccusedandbyexplainingtheideologyof
SIMIanditsactivitiesbeingbanned.Thus,thisauthorityisalsonot
helpfultothedefence.
1239.
BenchofourHighCourtinthecaseof SachinBansilalGhaiwal,
AppellantV.StateofMaharashtra,Respondent(CriminalAppeal
No.24of2014dtd.16/07/04).TheorderoftheMCOCActcourt
wasinrespectofthedischargeapplicationbytheaccusedanditwas
also considered and it was held that on perusal of the prior
approval,thecourtwasoftheopinionthatthecompetentauthority
has recorded its subjective satisfaction and accorded sanction.
Reliance was placed on the ratio laid down in the case of Anil
Nanduskar whichwasalsoacaseofdischargebeforethecharge
wasframedanditwasheldthattheprosecutionhastobeafforded
an opportunity to lead evidence with regard to the subjective
satisfactionrecordedbythecompetentauthoritybyleadingevidence
atthetimeoftrial.
1240.
SubmissionsofthelearnedSPPwhilesubmittinghisreply
onlawpointsare,thathadtherebeennosanctionundersection
23(2)oftheMCOCAct,thiscourtcouldnothavetakencognizance,
butthefactisthatcognizancehasbeentakenandthetrialhasbeen
conductedundertheMCOCAct.Thefactisalsothatthewritten
priorapprovalisproducedandexhibitedinthiscaseasadocument
admissible in law. The fact cannot be disputed that the prior
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1320..
Ext.4825
approvaldoesmentiontheexistenceoftwopreviouschargesheets.
LearnedSPPsubmittedthatultimatelythiscourtwillhavetotestthe
evidenceonthegroundofreasonableness.Althoughitistherightof
theaccusedtotakerecourseofeverytechnicalityandtotrytopicka
hole in the prosecution case, the court is saddled with the
responsibilityoftestingitonthegroundofreasonableness.Lastlyhe
raisedthequestionastowhoistheotherAsifKhanmentionedin
Ext.1510 and to what extent imagination is to be stretched? He
submits that otherwise he will have to be establish that he has
passedLLB,thathehasaSanadandthatheisnotifiedasanSPP
andthereforeheistryingthiscase.Atthecostofrepetitionitwill
havetobepointedoutthatitwasveryeasyforthedefenceand
particularlytheA13tocallfortherecordofC.R.No.178/99and
SessionsCaseNo.216/02orthepapersofthecriminalcasethatwas
institutedinthelowercourtinrespectofC.R.No.103/01.Ifhe
wouldhavedoneso,itwouldhaveeasilydisplacedthecaseofthe
prosecutionabouttherebeingtwopreviouscasesagainsthim,which
wouldhaveinturntakenthecaseoutoftheambitoftheMCOCAct.
1241.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthat
thereweretwopreviouschargesheetsagainsttheA13inrespectof
thecognizableoffencepunishablewithimprisonmentofthreeyears
or more, that they were done on behalf of SIMI, which was
subsequentlybanned,withingtheprecedingperiodoftenyearsand
thecompetentcourthadtakencognizanceoftheoffence.Itwillalso
havetobeheldthattheabovefactaswellasthecasesagainstthe
A2andA4showthattheywereactingasmembersofSIMI,which
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1321..
Ext.4825
waslaterondeclaredasunlawfulassociationandthesefactswere
before the authority, who granted the prior approval Ext. 1841.
Paragraph 3 of the approval reflects the subjective satisfaction to
whichtheauthorityarrivedatonthebasisofthematerialthatwas
before him in respect of there being sufficient evidence to prove
continuingunlawfulactivitiesoftheorganisedcrimesyndicateand
wasalsofurthersatisfiedthatA1andA3hadabettedandknowingly
facilitatedthecontinuing unlawfulactivitiesofthesaidorganised
crime syndicate by rendering financial and other assistance and
indulging in various acts preparatory to the commission of the
organisedcrime.Paragraph2alsorecordsthesatisfactionthatthe
continuingunlawfulactivitiesoftheA13,A4andA2inrespectof
cognizableoffencepunishableforimprisonmentforthreeyearsor
morerevealedtheirconspiracyforpromotinginsurgencytooverawe
thegovernmentbycriminalforce.Thus,itisclearthattheAddl.CP
S.K.Jaiswal,whowasoftherankofDGP,hadappliedhismind
beforegrantingthepriorapprovalandnofaultisfoundinhisorder.
Hence,itwillhavetobeheldthattheprovisionsoftheMCOCAct
have beenproperlyinvokedin C.R.No.156of 2006of Borivali
RailwayPoliceStation.Thisisthecircumstanceno.43provedby
theprosecution.
Recordingoftheinformationundersection23(1)(a)ofthe
MCOC Act has been discussed in paragraph 1212 supra and the
evidence of ACP Khandekar, PW174, and ACP Patil, PW186, is
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1322..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1323..
Ext.4825
thecommissionoftheoffenceundertheMCOCActandthestation
diary entry no. 23 states that ACP Patil, PW186, reports having
recordedtheinformationaboutcommissionoftheoffenceunderthe
MCOC Act, 1999 by recording the statement of ACP Khandekar,
PW174,andapplyingsectionsoftheMCOCActtoC.R.No.156of
2006.Tomymind,thismuchprocedureissufficientandthereisno
needforaseparateinformationtoberecorded.
1243.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1324..
Ext.4825
thissectionevenincaseswherecrimehadalreadybeenregistered
after recording the FIR under section 154 of the Code for the
offencesundertheIPC.Thisquestionwasansweredinthenegative
holdingthatnoseparateFIRneedstoberecordedbyapoliceofficer
after the prior approval contemplated under section 23(1)(a) is
grantedbytheJt.CP.Itwasalsoheldthatiftheexpression'shallbe
recorded' is read only to mean 'recording of an information' or
'reducing an information in writing' and not 'registration of an
offence' it would create an anomalous situation which would be
unsustainableinlaw.Therecannotbe,inanycase,twoFIRs.There
is no special format prescribed for recording information under
section23(1)(a).Whatisnecessaryisonly'priorapproval'ofthe
high ranking police officer for recording and/or registering an
information/offence about the commission of an offence of
organised crime. Thus, this objection and submission is
unsustainable in law and no separate crime number being given
when the information of ACP Khandekar, PW174, was recorded
doesnotandwillnotinvalidatethepriorapprovalaswellasthe
sanction.
Theconfessionalstatementsof11accusedwererecorded
andA8didnotexpresshisdesiretomakeaconfessionalstatement,
whereas,thoughtheA13desiredtomakeitandwastakenbefore
DCP Ranade, PW111, was sent back on 31/10/06 with the
information that he had refused to make it. The confessional
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1325..
Ext.4825
statementswererecordedintwobatches,firstoftheA1toA4and
A9toA11duringtheperiodfrom03/10/06to06/10/06andthe
secondoftheA5toA7andA12from24/10/06to25/10/06.
ConfessionalstatementoftheA2:
1245.
IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thatall
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1326..
Ext.4825
andstafftooktheA2totheDCPandPSIPatilmadethestationdiary
entry no. 8, true photocopy of which is at Ext.1842, contents of
whichheproved,atKalachowkiwhilegoingandheproducedthe
accusedinveilbeforetheDCPandhandedoverthelettergivenby
ACPPatil,PW186,tohim.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathegave
brieffactsofthecrimeincludingthenumberandthenameofthe
accused,thereupon,theDCPtooktheaccusedinhiscustodyand
askedhimtogobackandwhentheyreturned,APIWadmaremade
stationdiaryentryno.11,truephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1843,
contentsofwhichheproved.HeidentifiedtheA2inthecourt.
1246.
abovewitnessesandstatedaboutreceivingtheletterExt.1015from
the Jt. CP, ATS, issuing the letter Ext.1016, contents of which he
proved, to ACP Patil, PW186, to produce the accused and also
issuingthelettertoSr.PI,AzadMaidanPoliceStationtosendone
PSIandfourconstablesat1400hours,officecopyofwhichisatExt.
1017,contentsofwhichheproved.HealsoconfirmedaboutACP
Khandekar, PW174, producing the accused before him at 1420
hours alongwith report Ext.1018, i.e., the letter by ACP Patil,
PW186.HethendescribedaboutaskingACPKhandekar,PW174,to
brieflynarratethefactsofthecaseandafterhenarratedthem,he
asked all the policemen to go outside his chamber. He then
describedastowhatprecautionshetooktoensurethatnoother
policeman would see and hear them, how he made the accused
comfortable by asking some preliminary questions and informing
himthathehasnoconcernwiththeinvestigationofthecrimein
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1327..
Ext.4825
1247.
Ithasthencomeinhisevidencethathehandedoverthe
custodyoftheA2toPSIGangurde,PW105,ofAzadMaidanPolice
Station, who had come there as per his letter, alongwith two
constables and gave letter, office copy of which is at Ext.1021,
addressed to the Sr. PI, Azad Maidan Police Station, contents of
whichheproved,containingdirectionsaboutkeepingtheaccusedin
aseparatecellinhislockup,totakecarethatnopoliceofficerorno
onefromthe ATSaswellasnootherpersonmeets him,thathe
shouldbegotmedicallyexaminedandcareshouldbetakenabout
hisbeddingandfoodtomakehimcomfortableanddirectinghimto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1328..
Ext.4825
producetheaccusedbeforehimon05/10/06at5.00p.m.Ithas
come in the evidence of PSI Gangurde, PW105, that on being
directed,hereportedwithtwoconstablestoSPMohite,PW102,of
whichstationdiaryentryno.29,truecopyofwhichisatExt.1080,
was made by the duty officer and on reporting the DCP, he was
askedtowaitoutsideforsometime,calledinsidehisofficeatabout
1645hoursandtheDCPtellinghimthattheA2isinhiscustodyand
isgivinghiminhis,i.e.,inthecustodyofPSIGangurde,PW105.
PSI Gangurde, PW105, corroborated the version of SP Mohite,
PW102, and proved his endorsement below Ext.1021 of having
received the A2 in his custody and his signature below it. It has
comeinhisevidencethatheveiledtheaccusedandtookhimtothe
GTHospitalinapolicevan,gothimmedicallyexaminedthere,took
himtothepolicestationandputhiminthelockupinaseparate
cellgivingstrictinstructionstotheguardamaldarandtotheduty
officerasgivenbytheDCPandalsointimatingtheinstructionsto
the night PI Sonavane and making station diary entry no. 39,
certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1080.
1248.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1329..
Ext.4825
accusedaftertakinghimoutfromthelockupandmakingstation
diaryentryno.25,truephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1081,contents
of which he proved. PSI Gangurde, PW105, then deposed about
producingtheaccusedbeforetheDCPalongwithletterExt.1022and
being asked to wait outside and that he, i.e., the DCP and the
accusedwereinsidetheoffice.
1249.
SPMohite,PW102,thendescribedabouttheprecautions
1250.
Hethendeposedaboutthenextstepthathetook,viz.,of
preparingthreeletters,addressedtotheCMM,Sr.PI,AzadMaidan
PoliceStationandtheinvestigatingofficeroftheATS,officecopies
ofwhichareatExts.1025to1027,thecontentsofwhichheproved.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1330..
Ext.4825
Ithascomeinhisevidencethathethengavetheaccusedinthe
custody of PSI Gangurde, PW105, alongwith the letters and the
sealed envelopes and then he identified the A2 in the court
unhesitatingly.
1251.
PSIGangurde,PW105,corroboratedhisevidencefullyand
statedaboutDCPcallinghiminsidehisofficeatabout10.00p.m.,
givinghimsimilardirectionsasweregivenontheearlierdayabout
takingcareoftheaccusedandprecautionsthatweretobetaken.He
specifically described about the DCP handing over two sealed
envelopesandoneletterinanenvelopeaddressedtotheCMMwith
adirectiontoproducetheA2onthenextdaybeforetheCMM.He
also deposed about the DCP giving him the letter Ext.1026
addressed to his Sr. PI and directing him to get the accused
medicallyexamined,thatheveiledtheaccusedandtookhimtothe
GT Hospital and got him medically examined. Ext. 2109 is the
carbon copy of the OPD case paper and Ext.2108 is the true
photocopyoftheextractfromtheOPDregistershowingthattheA2
was examined at 10.30 p.m. on that day and there were no
complaints.ThecontentsofExts.2108and2109areprovedbyDr.
Paikrao,PW181.Ithasfurthercomeinhisevidencethatheputthe
A2inthelockupgivingtheinstructionstotheguardamaldaras
givenontheearlierday,informedthedutyofficerandthenightPI
about the instructions, keptsealedenvelopes in the locker of the
police station safely and then made station diary entry no. 39,
certifiedtruephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1081,contentsofwhich
heproved.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1252.
..1331..
Ext.4825
PSIGangurde,PW105,deposedabouttakingtheaccused
1253.
respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA2fromtheATSofficetothe
office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1332..
Ext.4825
ConfessionalstatementoftheA4:
1254.
IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,,thatafter
theteamofofficersinterrogatingtheA4informinghimon29/09/06
about his willingness to make a voluntary confessional statement
before the superior officers and the Jt. CP, ATS, at his request,
nominatedSPKarale,PW104,,bytheletterExt.1054dtd.03/10/06,
thereafterhereceivedtheletterExt.1055fromSPKarale,PW104,
directinghimtoproducetheA4beforehimonthatdayitselfand
thendirectingAPIDeore,PW180,totaketheaccusedtotheDCPby
theletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.2396,thecontentsofwhich
heproved.HealsoinformedtheDCPbyhisletterExt.1056about
producing the accused before him and he provedthe contents of
thatletter.IthascomeinhisevidencethatAPIDeore,PW180,and
hisstaffproducedtheA4beforetheDCPonthatday,returnedback
totheoffice,reportingthattheDCPhastakenhiminhiscustody.
1255.
APIDeore,PW180,corroboratedhisevidenceanddeposed
thatonthedirectionsofACPPatil,PW186,hetooktheA4inhis
custodyon06/10/06,veiledhimandalongwiththeletterExt.1056
hetooktheaccusedwithhim,producedtheaccusedbeforetheDCP
at9.00a.m.andhandedovertheletter.Beforeproceedingahead,he
hadgonetotheKalachowkiATSofficeandmadestationdiaryentry
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1333..
Ext.4825
no.1,truephotocopyofwhichisatExt.2087,contentsofwhichhe
proved,whichareinhishandwriting.Ithascomeinhisevidence
that on asking he gave the particulars of the case in which the
accusedisinvolvedinbrief,theDCPtooktheaccusedinhiscustody
and asked them to leave and then he went back with his staff,
handedoverofficecopyoftheletterExt.1056toACPPatil,PW186,
andheidentifiedtheA4inthecourtunhesitatingly.
1256.
SPKarale,PW104,corroboratedtheevidenceofboththe
abovewitnessesanddeposedaboutgettingtheletterExt.1054from
theJt.CP,ATSdirectinghimtorecordtheconfessionalstatementof
theA4,heinformingtheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,PW186,by
hisletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1055,toproducetheaccused
before him at 9.00 a.m. on 06/10/06 and API Deore, PW180,
producingtheaccusedbeforehimalongwiththeletterExt.1056,he
inquiringwithAPIDeore,PW180,aboutcaseinwhichtheaccused
wasinvolved,directingtheaccusedtoremovehisveilandasking
APIDeore,PW180,andstafftogooutsidehischamber.Hedeposed
that he and the A4 were only in his chamber and that after
ascertainingthatnoonefromoutsidecouldseetheproceedingsthat
wasgoingoninhischamber,hemadepreliminaryinquirywiththe
accusedandinformedhimabouthisdesignation,observedhisbody
language to ascertain whether he was giving the confessional
statementvoluntarilyandafterascertainingwhetherhewasbeaten
orthreatenedbypoliceorgivenanyinducement,beingsatisfiedthat
the accused was ready to make the confessional statement
voluntarilyaftergivinghimstatutorywarningandtheninformedthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1334..
Ext.4825
accusedthathewouldgivehim24hourstoreflectwhethertomake
theconfessionalstatement.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathewas
dictatingthequestions andanswerstohisstenographerwhowas
typingthemonthecomputerandafteritwasover,takingoutthe
printout,reading itover tothe A4toaffirm thatitwas correctly
written on being asked and putting his signature and asking the
accused to put his signature. He identified his signature and
signaturesoftheaccusedonPartI,i.e.,Ext.1057.
1257.
IthascomeinhisevidencethatAPIRandive,PW106,of
MatungaPoliceStationandhisstaffhadcometohisofficeasperhis
telephonicdirectionstotheSr.PIofthatpolicestation,whichison
thegroundfloorofhisoffice.Healsoprovedthecontentsofthe
officecopyofExt.1059containingthis directiontotheSr.PI.He
callingtheminside,tellinghimthattheA4isinhiscustodyand
askingAPIRandive,PW106,tokeeptheaccusedinaseparatecell
in the lockup of Police Station Matunga and he described the
precautionsthatweretobetakeninrespectoflodgingandfoodof
the accused and also to give medical treatment if necessary and
aboutalwaysescortingtheaccusedinveil.Allthesedirectionswere
incorporatedinhislettertotheSr.PI,officecopyofwhichisatExt.
1058, contents of which he proved. He then deposed about the
escort party veiling the A4 and taking him out and he having
directedthemtoproducetheaccusedbeforehimat11.00a.m.on
thenextday,i.e.,on07/10/06.
1258.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1335..
Ext.4825
custodyatabout10.45a.m.on06/10/06alongwiththeletterExt.
1058andbeinggiveninstructionsastohowtokeeptheaccusedand
whatcareshouldbetaken,etc.,andthedirectionthathehastobe
produced on the next day, i.e., on 07/10/06 at 11.00 a.m.. He
deposed about veiling the accused and taking him for medical
examinationatLokmanyaTilakRugnalaya,Sion.Hehadproduced
xerox copy of requisition, Art.328, that he gave to the medical
officerofSionHospitalandxeroxtruecopyoftheOPDcasepaper
Art.329toACPPatil,PW186,,whotookhisstatement.Dr.Singal,
PW171, provedthe entryatsr.no.26216in the casualtyregister
dtd.06/10/06,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1825,andits
carboncopyExt.1826aboutexamining theA4at10.45a.m.and
everything being normal and there being no visible marks of
injuries.HethendeposedaboutputtingtheA4inaseparatelockup,
giving directions to the guard hawaldar not to allow any ATS or
policeofficeroranyonetomeethimandthenmadeanentryinthe
lockupdiary,certifiedcopyofwhichisatExt.1089.Ithascomein
hisevidencethathedidnotgettheoriginallockupdiaryasitwas
informedthatitwasdestroyedasitwasanoldrecord,therefore,he
producedthecertifiedcopiesoflettersgivenbySr.PIofhispolice
station to ACP of Matunga Division, Exts.1087 and 1088, for
permissiontodestroytheoldrecordwiththelistofrecordthatwas
tobedestroyed.ThelistExt.1088includesthelockupdiaryatsr.
no.30fromJanuary,2004toDecember,2006.Heexplainedthathe
didnotmakestationdiaryentrywhenhewascalledbytheDCPas
hisofficeisonthefirstfloorabovetheMatungaPoliceStation.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1259.
..1336..
Ext.4825
APIRandive,PW106,thendeposedabouttakingoutthe
A4fromthelockupat10.30a.m.on07/10/06,makingentriesin
theinwardoutwardregisterofthelockupandinthelockupdiary
andproducingtheaccusedbeforetheDCPat11.00a.m.andthe
DCPaskinghimtowaitoutside.SPKarale,PW104,corroboratedhis
versionandthendeposedaboutaskingtheaccusedtoremovehis
veilandtheprecautionsthathetooktoscreentheproceedingsinhis
chamberfromoutsideandagainascertainedfromtheaccusedabout
hiswillingnesstomaketheconfessionalstatementvoluntarilyand
onreceivinganaffirmativeanswercallinghisstenographerandthen
puttinghimquestionswhetherthetimeforreflectionwassufficient,
whether he was pressurized in any way, etc., and the statutory
warningandtheaccusedonunderstandingthewarningsayingthat
eventhenheisreadytomakeit.Hedeposedaboutbeingsatisfied
ontheinquiryandonobservingthebodylanguageoftheA4andhis
confidence level that the accused was ready to make the
confessional statement voluntarily and then starting dictating the
confessionalstatementtothestenographerinthelanguageofthe
accused as narrated by him. He deposed about taking out the
printoutofthePartIIaftertheA4finishednarrating,signingonall
the pages andasking the accused tosign,whichthe accuseddid
afterreadingitandaffirmingthatitwascorrectlywrittenasperhis
narration.Hedeposedaboutdictatingthecertificateasrequiredby
the MCOC Act, taking out its printout and signing it and he
identifiedsignaturesoftheaccusedaswellashissignatureonPart
II,i.e.,Ext.1060andproveditscontentsaswellasthecontentsof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1337..
Ext.4825
thecertificate,Ext.1061.Acopy,i.e.,Ext.1062,thathehadprepared
forhisrecordwasalsoattachedwiththeoriginalandithascomein
his evidence thatheputPartIIin an envelopeandcloseditand
preparedaletteraddressedtotheCMM,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext.1063, the contents of which he proved. He deposed about
handingoverthecustodyoftheaccusedtoAPIRandive,PW106,
givinghimtheforwardingletterwiththedirectiontoproducehim
withtheletterandsealedenvelopesbeforetheCMMandthereafter
tohandovertheaccusedtotheATSaftertheprocedurebeforethe
CMMwasover.HeidentifiedtheA4inthecourtunhesitatingly.
1260.
Karale,PW104,,aboutbeingcalledinsideandgivingtheA4inhis
custody alongwith two sealed envelopes and a separate letter
addressedtotheCMMwithadirectiontoveiltheaccusedandto
producehimbeforetheCMMandhemakingthestationdiaryentry
no.20,certifiedcopyofwhichisatExt.1090andthecertifiedtrue
photocopy of which was produced and marked as Ext.1100. The
contentsofExt.1100corroboratehisevidence,thoughthedatein
Ext.1090 is 06/10/06 instead of 07/10/06, which is obviously a
typographicalerrorasExt.1090isatypedphotocopyofthreestation
diaryentries.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatheveiledtheaccused
andtookhimtothecourtoftheCMM,producedtheaccusedbefore
him and handed over the forwarding letter and the two sealed
envelopesandwasaskedtowaitoutside.Hedeposedthathewas
called inside after about half an hour, the A4 was given in his
custodyandaletterinanenvelopewasgiventohim,whereuponhe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1338..
Ext.4825
againveiledtheaccused,wentbacktotheofficeoftheDCPand
gavehimtheletter,buttheDCPtoldhimthattheATSofficersare
cominganddirectedhimtokeeptheaccusedinthelockupofhis
policestationtilltheycome,whichhedidandmadestationdiary
entryno.24,certifiedtruephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1100and
whichisinhishandwriting.IthascomeinhisevidencethatAPI
Deore, PW180, came after sometime and A4 was given in his
custodyalongwiththeletterArt.330andthenhemadethestation
diaryentryno.25,certifiedtruephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1100.
IthascomeinhisevidencethattheA4wassentinveilinthesame
jeep with API Deore, PW180, and API Deore, PW180's evidence
corroborates his version, who deposed about going to the Police
StationMatunga,meetingAPIRandive,PW106,takingtheaccused
inhiscustody,veilinghimandbringinghimbacktotheATSoffice
andputtinghiminthelockupandinformingACPPatil,PW186,
aboutit.APIRandive,PW106,andAPIDeore,PW180,identified
theA4inthecourtunhesitatingly.TheCMMforwardedthesealed
envelopesoftheconfessionalstatementtothiscourtintheenvelope
Ext.1064AalongwithhisletterExt.1064andtheywerereceivedin
evidenceasitisanofficialcommunicationbetweenthetwocourts.
1261.
respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA4fromtheATSofficetothe
office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody
of the ATS. All these actions are corroborated by the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1339..
Ext.4825
contemporaneousentriesinthestationdiary,medicalcertificateand
letters between the three authorities inter se and there is no
hesitation to accept that the confessional statement has been
recordedbyfollowingdueprocessoflaw.
ConfessionalstatementoftheA1:
1262.
ACPPatil,PW186,deposedaboutgettinginformationon
01/10/06fromtheteamofofficersinterrogatingtheA1abouthis
willingness to make a confessional statement before the superior
officers,hesatisfiedhimselfafterquestioningtheaccusedandonhis
requestJt.CP,ATS,nominatingDCPChoubey,PW113,byaletter,
office copy of which is at Ext.1176, to record the confessional
statementoftheA1.Hedeposedaboutreceivingaletter,officecopy
ofwhichisatExt.1177,fromtheDCPdirectinghimtoproducethe
accusedon03/10/06andhedirecting ACPShaikh,PW162,bya
letter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.2397,todosoandalsogiving
him the letter Ext.1179 addressed to the DCP and ACP Shaikh,
PW162,andstaffproducingtheA1beforetheDCPonthatdayand
comingbackandreportingthattheDCPhadtakentheaccusedin
his custody. ACP Shaikh, PW162, corroborated his version and
deposedabouttakingtheaccusedtotheofficeoftheDCPatBandra
beforewhichhemadestationdiaryentryno.9,truephotocopyof
whichisatExt.1749,andhandingovertheA1inthecustodyofthe
DCP,whoaskedhimandhisstafftowithdrawfromhisofficeandgo
back. He deposed about returing back and making station diary
entryno.13,truephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1750,aboutthework
that he had done and he identified the A1 in the court
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1340..
Ext.4825
unhesitatingly.
1263.
abovetwoofficersanddeposedaboutreceivingtheletterExt.1176
oftheJt.CP,ATSdirectinghimtorecordthestatementoftheA1,he
sending letter, office copy of which is at Ext.1177, to ACP Patil,
PW186,forproducingtheaccusedbeforehimandalsowritinga
lettertoSr.PI,PoliceStationBandratosendateamofescorttohis
officeat1700hourstotakecustodyoftheaccused,officecopyof
which is at Ext.1178. The letter contained instructions about
transportingtheaccusedinveilandgettinghimmedicallyexamined
andscreeninghimfrommeetinganyperson.HedeposedthatACP
Shaikh, PW162, produced the accused before him alongwith the
letterExt.1179,thatheobtainedbriefinformationaboutthecase
from him andinquiredaboutthe PC,gotthe veil of the accused
removedandtold ACPShaikh,PW162,andhisstafftowithdraw
fromhischamber.Hedeposedaboutensuringthattheproceedingin
thechamberwouldnotbeheardorseenfromoutside,aboutasking
preliminary questions to the A1 to make him confortable, about
informinghimthathewasnolongerinthecustodyoftheATSand
that he was DCP of that area, but had no relation with the
investigationofthecaseinwhichhehasarrested,etc.Hedeposed
aboutaskingquestionstoascertainwhethertheA1wasvoluntarily
goingtomaketheconfessionalstatementbyaskinghimaboutany
influnece, pressure, etc., on him and giving him the statutory
warningandongettingthepositiveanswersfromtheaccused,being
convinced that the accused was ready to make the confessional
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1341..
Ext.4825
statement.Hedeposedaboutinformingtheaccusedthathewould
begiven24hoursforreflectionandthatnobodyfromtheATSor
anyotherbrancheswouldmeethimorcontacthimandstatedthat
hewaswritingdownmostofthequestionsandanswersputtothe
accusedandattheendwroteabouttheproceedingsinbrief,read
themovertotheaccusedtoaffirmthattheywerecorrectlywritten
andtosignaftergoingthroughthepapersoneachpageandhealso
signingit.Heidentifiedhissignatureandsignatureoftheaccused
onPartI,i.e.,Ext.1180,oftheconfessionalstatementanddeposed
aboutkeepingitinhispersonalcustodyandthencallingPIGailwad,
PW116,whohadcomefromPoliceStationBandra,instructinghim
togettheaccusedmedicallyexamined,transporthiminveiland
keep him in an independent cell in the lockup of Police Station
Bandraandwhatprecautionsweretobetakenthereanddirections
toproducetheaccusedonthenextday,i.e.,on04/10/06at1900
hours.PIGaikwad,PW116,corroboratedhisevidenceanddeposed
thathealongwiththePSIandtwoconstableswenttotheofficeof
theDCPaftermakingstationdiaryentryno.44inhishandwriting,
certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1194,reportingtothereader
about their arrival and being asked to wait outside. He deposed
about he and his staff being called inside by the DCP and being
askedtotakethecustodyoftheA1withtheinstructionstokeephim
inaseparatecell,toveilhim,togethimmedicallyexaminedand
nottoallowanyATSofficertomeethimandtoproducehimonthe
nextdayat7.00p.m.HedeposedabouttakingtheA1tothepolice
stationfirstandthengettinghimmedicallyexamined.Ext.2197is
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1342..
Ext.4825
truephotocopyoftheOPDregisterofBhabhaHospital,thecontents
ofwhichareprovedbyDr.Yelkar,PW183,whichshowthathehad
no complaints and no history of assault. PI Gaikwad, PW116,
deposedabouthavingmadestationdiaryentryno.48onreturning
from DCP office, station diary entry no. 49 on returning from
hospitalandentryno.52afterputtingtheaccusedinthelockup,all
ofwhichareinhishandwriting,truephotocopiesofwhichareat
Exts.1195and1196,thecontentsofwhichcorroboratehisversion.
1264.
PIGaikwad,PW116,thendeposedabouttakingtheA1to
theDCPofficeon04/10/06aftermakingthestationdiaryentryno.
46,truephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1197,reportingtotheDCPand
producingtheaccusedbeforehim,theDCPaskinghimwhetherall
theinstructionswerefollowedandtellinghimthatitwasfollowed
andthentheDCPtakingtheA1inhiscustodyandtellingthemto
waitoutsideandnottoallowanyonetocomeinsideandaccordingly
theywaitedoutside.DCPChoubey,PW113,corroboratedhisversion
even abouthe asking PIGaikwad,PW116,as towhether all the
instructionwerecompliedandafterinstructingtheescorttoleave
hischamber,heensuringthattheproceedingsinthechamberwere
notheardandseenbyanyoneelseandthenhedeposedaboutthe
procedure he adopted to ascertain whether the accused was
voluntarilygoingtomaketheconfessionalstatement,byputtingthe
necessaryquestionstohimandalsothestatutorywarningandhe
beingsatisfiedthattheA1wasreadytogiveitvoluntarily.Ithas
come in his evidence that he told the A1 to state whatever he
wantedtostateandstartedwritingasperhisnarrationinhisown
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1343..
Ext.4825
handwritingandaftercompletingit,readingitovertotheA1and
A1 going through the papers, signing on every page and he also
signingsimilarlyandputtinghisstamp.Heidentifiedhissignatures
andsignaturesoftheaccusedonPartII,i.e.,Ext.1181,whichhehad
startedwritingbelowthePartIanddeposedaboutputtingboththe
partsintheenvelopeExt.1182.Hedeposedabouthandingoverthe
custodyoftheaccusedtoPIGaikwad,PW116,andgivinghimletter
addressed to the CMM, office copy of which is at Ext.1183 and
givingdirectionstoagainkeeptheaccusedinanindependentcellof
the lockup of Police Station Bandra and also handing over the
sealedenvelopewiththedirectiontoproducetheaccusedandthe
documents before the CMM on 05/10/06, as the confessional
statement was over at 2.30 a.m. on 05/10/06. He also gave
instructionstohandoverthecustodyoftheaccusedtoACPPatil,
PW186,afterthecourtformalitieswereover.HeidentifiedtheA1
inthecourtunhesitatingly.
1265.
PIGaikwad,PW116,corroboratedhisversionbydeposing
thatat2.30a.m.on05/10/06theDCPcalledhiminsideandgave
him the custody of the accused and also two letters, one in an
envelopeaddressedtotheCMMandoneasealedenvelopeExt.1182
containing the confessional statement of the accused, which he
identified.HealsoconfirmedthattheDCPhadinstructedhimtoget
the accused medically examined and stated about putting the
accusedinthelockupandtheenvelopesinthesafeandmaking
stationdiaryentryno.7,certifiedtruephotocopyofwhichisatExt.
1198.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatheresumeddutyat9.00a.m.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1344..
Ext.4825
on05/10/06andtookthecustodyoftheA1fromthelockupinhis
custodyandstartedgoingtotheCMMcourtatthetimeofwhichhe
made station diary entry no. 17 in his own handwriting, true
photocopyofwhichisatExt.1199.Ithascomeinhisevidencethat
he had verified and confirmed whether the accused is medically
examinedinthemorning.TheOPDcasepaperdtd.06/10/06inthe
bunchExt.2151,provedbyDr.Gond,PW182,showsthattherewere
nocomplaintsandthefindingswerenormal.
1266.
PIGaikwad,PW116,thendeposedaboutbeingcalledby
theCMMinhischamberat2.30or2.45p.m.andheproducingthe
accusedbeforehimandtheCMMaskinghimtowaitoutside,being
called inside at about 5.00 p.m. and giving the accused in his
custody,thereafterhegoingbacktothepolicestationandmaking
station diary entry no. 52 in his handwriting, true photocopy of
whichisatExt.1200.HedeposedthatasperinstructionsoftheDCP,
aletterwaspreparedandhetooktheaccusedtotheATSofficeat
Bhoiwada, making station diary entry no. 53 in his handwriting,
certifiedtruephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1201,givingtheaccused
inthecustodyofthedutyofficerandAPIMohite.Heidentifiedthe
A1inthecourtunhesitatingly.TheCMMforwardedtheconfessional
statementoftheaccusedalongwithhisforwardingletterExt.1203
andstatementoftheA1Ext.1204intheenvelopeExt.1204A.They
werereceivedinevidenceastheyareofficialcorrespondencefrom
courttocourt.
1267.
respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA1fromtheATSofficetothe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1345..
Ext.4825
office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody
of the ATS. All these actions are corroborated by the
contemporaneousentriesinthestationdiary,medicalcertificateand
letters between the three authorities inter se and there is no
hesitation to accept that the confessional statement has been
recordedbyfollowingdueprocessoflaw.
ConfessionalstatementoftheA3:
1268.
01/10/06ofA3'swillingnesstomakeaconfessionalstatementas
the team of officersinterrogating him reportedsotohim andhe
satisfiedhimselfaboutitonquestioningtheaccused,thenAddl.CP
BrijeshSingh,PW117,beingnominatedbytheJt.CP,ATSbythe
letterExt.1209torecordtheconfessionalstatementaboutwhichhe
receivedaletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1210,fromtheDCP
forproducinghimon03/10/06andhedirectingPIDeshmukhbya
letter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.2398,todosoandalsosending
theletterExt.1211totheDCP,contentsofwhichheproved.Ithas
comeinhisevidencethatPIDeshmukhandstaffdidasdirectedand
PI Shelke, PW150, reported to him that the DCP had taken the
accusedinhiscustody.PIShelke,PW150,corroboratedhisversion.
It has come in the evidence of PI Shelke, PW150, that he
accompaniedPISunilDeshmukhtotaketheA3totheofficeofthe
DCPandtheytooktheA3fromthelockupoftheATSaskingHC
Ghag to make station diary entry and on his direction HC Ghag
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1346..
Ext.4825
madestationdiaryentryno.8,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.
1616.HedeposedabouttakingtheA3inveilandproducinghim
beforetheDCP,handingoverthelettergivenbyACPPatil,PW186,
andreturningbacktoBhoiwadaofficeonbeinginstructedbythe
DCPandthenonhisdirection,HCGhagmakingstationdiaryentry
no.11,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1617.
1269.
Addl.CPBrijeshSingh,PW117,corroboratedtheevidence
oftheabovetwoofficersanddeposedaboutreceivingtheletterExt.
1209 by which Jt. CP, ATS had directed him to record the
confessional statement of the A3, he writing a letter to the
investigating officer, office copy of which is at Ext. 1210, the
contentsofwhichheproved,toproducetheaccusedbeforehimon
thesamedayat5.00p.m.,accordingtowhichdirections,teamof
ATSofficersproducedA3beforehimalongwithletterExt.1211.He
deposedthatbeforethathehadgivendirectionstoAzadMaidan
Police Station to send an escort party to take the custody of the
accused.HedeposedaboutcursorilyinquiringwiththeteamofATS
officersaboutthefactsofthecase,etc.,thenaskedthemtogooutof
hischamberanddescribedtheprocedurebywhichheendeavoured
to ascertain that the A3 was willing to make the confessional
statementvoluntarilyandthepurposeofhisproduction,towhich
theA3repliedhewantstomakeavoluntaryconfessionalstatement.
He gave evidence about the questions that he asked to ascertain
whethertherewasanypressureontheaccusedandgavehimthe
statutorywarningandalsotoldhimthatheisgivinghim24hours
forreflectionandrecordedPartIoftheconfessionalstatement,Ext.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1347..
Ext.4825
1212,afterascertainingthevoluntarinessandbeingconvincedthat
it was recorded in free atmosphere, which was evident from the
body language of the accused. A rough sheet Ext.1213 was also
broughtonrecordaboutwhichheexplainedthathewasrecording
thequestionsandanswersfromthemandtheywereincludedinthe
papersastheaccusedinsistedthathewantedtoseethemandthat
theyshouldbeincludedinthepapers.Heidentifiedhissignature
andsignaturesoftheaccusedonboththedocumentsafterstating
thathehadgivenittotheaccusedforreadingandtheaccusedhad
readandadmittedittobecorrectlywrittenandthensignedit.Ithas
comeinhisevidencethatthereafterhewrotealetter,officecopyof
which is at Ext.1214, to API Dasurkar, PW101, giving him
instructions about keeping the accused in a separate cell and
precautionsthatweretobetakenandthenkeepingPartIandrough
notes in the envelope Ext.1215 and sealing the envelope and
keepingitinhislockandkey.
1270.
APIDasurkar,PW101,corroboratedhisversionbydeposing
thatonbeingdirectedhewenttotheofficeoftheDCP,ZoneIwith
staffandbeforegoingtheremadestationdiaryentryno.45inhis
handwriting, certified true copy of whichis atExt.998,which he
proved, reported to the DCP, who gave the A3 in his custody
alongwiththeoriginaloftheletterExt.997(whichisthesameas
Ext.1214)andstatedabouttheDCPgivinghimdirectionstoveilthe
accused,keepinghiminaseparatecellinthelockupandtotake
the precautions that no police officer and no other person meets
him.Ithas comein his evidence thathe tookthe accusedin his
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1348..
Ext.4825
custody and took him to the GT Hospital and got him medically
examinedthere.Ext.1006isthecarboncopyoftheOPDcasepaper
oftheGTHospitalwhichshowsthattheA3wasexaminedat8.10
p.m.on03/10/06andnophysicalcomplaintsorexternalinjuries
were seen. It also bears his thumb impression. API Dasurkar,
PW101, has deposed that he had handed over the medical
certificates of 03/10/06 and 05/10/06 to ACP Patil, PW186. Dr.
Helaskar,PW170,provedthecontentsofExt.1006astheyareinhis
handwritingandalsoprovedaphotocopyoftheoriginalExt.1823,
thecontentsofwhichhealsoproved.APIDasurkar,PW101,then
deposedaboutputtingtheaccusedinaseparatecell,directingthe
HConguarddutyofthelockupnottoallowanyonetomeetthe
accusedandstatedaboutaseparateHCbeingputonguardoutside
the cell and then deposed about giving report to the Sr. PI and
makingstationdiaryentryno.59inhishandwriting,certifiedtrue
copyofwhichisatExt.998.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatonthe
nextday,i.e.,on04/10/06,hetookouttheA3fromthelockupin
veilandproducedhimbeforetheDCPat1900hoursbeforewhich
stationdiaryentryno.37wasmade,certifiedtruecopyofwhichis
at Ext.1000. It has come in his evidence that the DCP took the
accused in his custody and asked him to wait outside and again
calledhiminsideatabout8.00p.m.toldhimtotakebacktothe
accusedandkeephimasearlierintheseparatecellandtoldhim
thathehadgivenmoretimetotheaccusedforthinkingoverabout
givingconfessionandgavetheletterExt.999(whichisthesameas
Ext.1216) alongwith similar directions and with the direction to
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1349..
Ext.4825
producehimat10.00a.m.onthenextday.
1271.
anddeposedaboutescortpartyinforminghimabouttheinstructions
being complied alongwith the instructions about medical
examinationafterhe madeinquiryandtheaccusedsuggestingto
himthathisstatementwouldtakealongtimeasheremembered
that he had given a confession and written statement before the
officeroftheEnforcementDirectorate.Therefore,hegavehim14
hours more time and told him that he would be produced on
05/10/06at10.00a.m.Hedeposedaboutrepeatingtheinstructions
giventotheescortpartyandgivingtheletterExt.1216addressedto
APIDasurkar,PW101,whodeposedabouttakingtheaccusedinveil
andputtinghiminaseparatecellinthegenerallockupandgiving
similarinstructionstotheguardHCandmakingstationdiaryentry
no. 40 in his handwriting, certified true copy of which is at Ext.
1000.IthascomeinhisevidencethathetookouttheA3inveilon
05/10/06fromthelockupandproducedhimbeforetheDCPabout
whichstationdiaryentryno.20wasmade,certifiedcopyofwhichis
atExt.1002,andtheDCPaskinghimtowaitoutside.
1272.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1350..
Ext.4825
hadmethimduringtheperiodofreflectionandcontemporaneously
wrotedownthequestionsandanswerswhichwerebeingtypedby
hisstenographerwhowasinhischamberatthattime.Hedeposed
thatonascertainingthegeneralstateofwellbeing,demeanorand
body language of the A3 and the answers that he gave to the
questions, he came to the conclusion that the accused wanted to
maketheconfessionalstatementvoluntarilyandwasnotunderany
threat,inducementorpromise.Atthispointoftime,theprintoutof
thequestionsandanswerswasshowntotheaccused,whoreadit
andsigneditafteradmittingittobecorrect.Hethendeposedabout
proceeding to write the narration of the accused in his own
handwritingafteraskingthestenographertogooutandstopping
theproceedingsat1430hoursashehadtoattendthevisitofPrime
Minister Manmohan Singh that was in his jurisdiction and about
makinganoteofthisfactinhisownhandwritinginthenarration
part itself and keeping it in his lock and key in his chamber.He
deposed about sending back the accused to Azad Maidan Police
Stationandgivingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1217,toAPI
Dasurkar,PW101,andgivinghimtheinstructionstoproducethe
accused on the next day. API Dasurkar, PW101, corroborated his
versionanddeposedabouttheDCPgivinghimtheletterExt.1001
(which is the same as Ext.1217), taking the accused in veil and
putting him in a separate cell in the general lockup and giving
similarinstructionstotheguardHCandmakingstationdiaryentry
no.28,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1002.Ithascomeinhis
evidencethataftertakingcustodyoftheaccusedfromtheDCPon
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1351..
Ext.4825
thatday,hehadtakenhimtotheGTHospitalandgothimmedically
examined.Ext.1007isthecarboncopyoftheOPDregisterwhich
showsthattheaccusedwasexaminedonthatdayandhehadno
complaintanditalsobearshisthumbimpression.
1273.
APIDasurkar,PW101,thendeposedabouttakingtheA3
outfromthelockupinveilon06/10/06atabout9.40a.m.and
takinghimtotheofficeoftheDCP,aboutwhichstationdiaryentry
no.26,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1003,wasmade.He
deposedaboutproducingtheA3beforetheDCPgivinghiminhis
custodyandhebeingaskedtowaitoutside.Addl.CPBrijeshSingh,
PW117, corroborated his version about the production of the
accusedbeforehimanddeposedaboutconfirmingcomplianceofthe
instructions,askingthemtogoouthischamberandagainaskingthe
A3 whether he still continuous to want to make a confessional
statement and on receiving an affirmative answer again ensuring
that the accused is not under any kind of inducement, threat or
promiseduringtheinterveningperiodandcontinuingtorecordhis
narration in his own handwriting after being satisfied about his
voluntariness.Hedeposedaboutaccusedsigningoneachpageafter
hewasgivenpaperstoreadwhenitwascompletedandafterhe
expressed satisfaction that it was truthfully recorded as per his
versionandhe,i.e.,Addl.CPBrijeshSingh,PW117,alsoputtinghis
signatures.Heidentifiedhissignatureandsignatureoftheaccused
onPartII,Ext.1218,oftheconfessionalstatementandputtingitin
theenvelopeExt.1219.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathewrotea
lettertotheCMMforfurtherlegalaction,officecopyofwhichisat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1352..
Ext.4825
1274.
deposedthatthecustodyoftheA3wasgiventohimatabout3.30
p.m.alongwithaforwardingletterandtwosealedenvelopeswitha
directiontoproducehimbeforetheCMM,whichhedid,butasthe
CMM was busy in court work, he was directed to take back the
accusedandproducehimonthenextdayat11.00a.m.Hedeposed
abouttakingtheaccused,puttinghiminaseparatecellandgiving
directionsasbefore,reportingtohissuperiorsandmakingstation
diaryentryno.46inhishandwriting,certifiedtruecopyofwhichis
atExt.1003.Hedeposedabouttakingouttheaccusedfromthelock
uponthenextdayfortakinghimtotheCMMcourtandtheduty
officer making station diary entry no. 32, certified true copy of
whichisatExt.1004,andproducingtheaccusedbeforetheCMM
andhandingovertheforwardingletterandtwosealedenvelopesto
him,beingaskedtowaitoutsideandtheaccusedbeinggivenback
inhiscustodyat1.00p.m.andhetakingtheaccusedtotheofficeof
theATSatBhoiwadaandgivinghiminthecustodyofACPPatil,
PW186,andreturningbacktothepolicestationandmakingstation
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1353..
Ext.4825
diaryentryno.47,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1004.He
identified the A3 in the court unhesitatingly. The CMM sent the
sealed envelopes of the confessional statement of the accused
alongwithhisforwardingletterExt.1222intheenvelopeExt.1222A.
Theywerereceivedinevidenceasitistheofficialcorrespondence
fromcourttocourt.
1275.
respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA3fromtheATSofficetothe
office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody
of the ATS. All these actions are corroborated by the
contemporaneousentriesinthestationdiary,medicalcertificateand
letters between the three authorities inter se and there is no
hesitation to accept that the confessional statement has been
recordedbyfollowingdueprocessoflaw.
ConfessionalstatementoftheA9:
1276.
IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thathe
requestedtheJt.CP,ATStonominateanofficerforrecordingthe
confessionalstatementoftheA9astheteamofofficersinterrogating
theA9reportedtohimon01/10/06abouthiswillingnesstomakea
voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficersandhe
satisfied himself about it by questioning the accused, that DCP
Phadtare, PW93, was appointed for recording the confessional
statementbytheletterExt.917andhegotaletterfromtheDCP,
office copy of which is at Ext.918, directing him to produce the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1354..
Ext.4825
accusedbeforehimon04/10/06.HedeposedthathedirectedACP
Joshi,PW163,toproducetheaccusedbeforetheDCPbyaletter,
officecopyofwhichisatExt.2399,contentsofwhichheprovedand
alsogaveletterExt.919addressedtotheDCPaboutproducingthe
A9.IthascomeinhisevidencethatACPJoshi,PW163,andstaff
producedtheA9beforetheDCPonthatday,returnedbacktothe
office and reported that the DCP had taken the accused in his
custody.ACPJoshi,PW163,corroboratedhisversionanddeposed
that on the directions of ACP Patil, PW186, he produced the A9
beforetheDCP,whotookhiminhiscustodyandgavehimtheletter
Ext.920tothateffectandaskedhimtoleavehisofficeimmediately.
Hedeposedaboutreturningbackandgivinginstructionstomake
stationdiaryentry,whereuponentryno.14,certifiedtruecopyof
which isatExt.1753,wasmade.HeidentifiedtheA9inthecourt
unhesitatingly.
1277.
theabovewitnessesanddeposedaboutbeingdirectedbyletterExt.
917oftheJt.CP,ATSforrecordingtheconfessionalstatementofthe
A9,hethereupondirectingACPPatil,PW186,toremainpresentin
his office at 10.00 a.m. and then directing him to produce the
accusedbeforehimat1500hoursonthesamedayandgivinghima
letter for that purpose, office copy of which is at Ext.918, the
contentsofwhichhe proved.Hefurtherdeposedthat ACPJoshi,
PW163,producedtheA9beforehimalongwiththeletterExt.919,
that he took the accused in his custody and gave letter Ext.920
addressedtotheIOabouttakingtheaccusedinhiscustody,before
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1355..
Ext.4825
whichhetelephonicallydirectedSr.PI,MahimPoliceStationtosend
anofficerandpartytohimtotakethecustodyoftheaccusedafter
recording his statement.Hethendeposedaboutensuringthatno
onecouldseeorheartheproceedingsandthendeposedaboutthe
informationthathegavetotheaccusedabouthenotbeinginthe
custodyoftheinvestigatingofficeroftheATS,theeffortsthathe
took for making the accused comfortable and wrote down the
questions and answers and also ascertained whether the accused
wasgivinghisconfessionalstatementvoluntarily.Hedeposedabout
givingthenecessaryinformationtotheaccusedandbeingsatisfied
that the accused was ready to give confessional statement
voluntarily. He deposed about accused signing PartI of the
confessional statement Ext.921, after he had read it and
acknowledgedthatitwascorrectlywrittenandhehimselfsigningit
andheidentifiedthesignaturesofbothonallthepagesofPartI,
Ext.921.Hedeposedthatheinformedtheaccusedaboutgivinghim
24hoursoftimeforreflectionandtillthatperiodhewouldbeinhis
custodyandhewillbekeptinthelockupofMahimPoliceStation
andthenputPartIoftheconfessionalstatementintheenvelope,
Ext.922,closeditandputhisstampandsignatureonstamps.He
deposedaboutcallingPSIPowar,PW94,ofPoliceStationMahim,
whohadcomethereinsidehischamber,givingthecustodyofthe
accusedtohimandgivingthedirectionabouttheprecautionstobe
taken,viz.,keepingtheaccusedinaseparatecellinthelockupof
thatpolicestation,notallowinganyoneincludingthepoliceofficers,
policemen,public,relativesorfriendstotalkwithhimormeethim
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1356..
Ext.4825
and to produce him on the next day at 5.30 p.m. and these
instructionswereincorporatedinaletter,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext.923, the contents of which he proved. PSI Powar, PW94,
corroboratedhisversionbydeposingthathereportedtotheofficeof
theDCPalongwiththestaffandatthattimestationdiaryentryno.
26aboutitwasmade,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.943.He
deposedaboutbeingcalledinthecabinoftheDCPandtheA9being
giveninhiscustody,whichhetookandputveilandthentheDCP
gave the letter Ext.923, alongwith the instructions to take the
accusedinveilandtotakecare,nottoallowanyonetospeakwith
him and to keep him in a special cell of the police station and
producehimonthenextdayat5.00or5.30p.m.Hedeposedabout
takingtheA9tothepolicestation,givingtheletterExt.923totheSr.
PI,whotoldhimtolockuptheaccusedinaseparatecellandto
takecarethatnobodytalkswithhimormeetshim.Ithascomein
his evidence that the ATS had already got the accused medically
examinedbefore producing him before the DCP.Ext.2275 are the
OPDcasepapersofseveraldatesandthecasepaperof04/10/06
showsthattheaccusedwasexaminedandhehadnocomplaint,the
contents of which were proved by Dr. Gond, PW182. PSI Powar,
PW94, deposed about putting the accused in a separate cell and
dutyofficerPSIKumbharmakingstationdiaryentryno.32,certified
truecopyofwhichisatExt.943.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathe
andhisstafftooktheaccusedtotheofficeoftheDCPonthenext
dayaftertakinghimoutofthelockupatabout4.004.30p.m.,
veilinghim andhemaking station diaryentryno.37inhis own
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1357..
Ext.4825
1278.
deposedthatonthebeingaccusedproducedbeforehim,heasked
PSIPowar,PW94, andhisstafftogooutsidehischamber,thathe
againensuredaboutsecrecyoftheproceedingsinhischamber,that
heagaininformedtheaccusedthatheisnotinthecustodyofthe
investigatingofficerortheATSteamandisinhiscustodyandmade
himcomfortableandascertainedwhetherheisinfearofsomeoneor
threatenedbyanyoneorpromisetobereleasedortobemadea
witnessandalsogavethestatutorywarningafterwhichtheaccused
expressedhiswillingnesstogivehisconfessionalstatementandhe
himselfwasalsosatisfiedaboutit.Hedeposedaboutwritingdown
all the questions and answers in his own handwriting and then
recordingthestatementinhisownhandwritingasnarratedbythe
A9andaftercompleting,readingitovertotheaccused,givingitto
theaccusedforreadingandaskinghimtoputhissignatureonall
thepages,thattheaccusedaccordinglysignedwhenheconfirmed
thatitwascorrectlywrittenandthenhealsoputtinghissignatures.
He identified signatures of both of them on PartII Ext.924, and
proveditscontentsandthendeposedaboutwritingthecertificate
Ext.925aspersection18oftheMCOCActandputtingthePartIIin
theenvelopeExt.926andstampedandsignedit.Hedeposedabout
givingtheA9inthecustodyof PSIPowar,PW94,andgivinghim
threeenvelopescontainingtheconfessionalstatementandtheletter
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1358..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1359..
Ext.4825
about1.00or1.30p.m.andbringingtheaccusedinsidethecourt
hallinveilonbeingaskedbytheCMMandthenwaitingoutside
withhisstaffasdirected,thenagainbeingcalledinsidethecourt
hallatabout3.003.15p.m.andtheCMMtellinghimtotakethe
accusedandproducehimbeforethesameDCP,whichhedidafter
putting veil on him. He deposed about the DCP directing him to
handoverthecustodyoftheaccusedto ACPJoshi,PW163,and
giving him the letter, office copy of which is at Ext.929. DCP
Phadtare, PW93, corroborated his evidence and deposed about
handingoverthecustodyoftheA9toACPJoshi,PW163,alongwith
givingalettertotheinvestigatingofficer,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext.929,thecontentsofwhichheproved.Healsodeposedabout
satisfyinghimselfthathisdirectionsarebeingfollowedbychecking
thestationdiaryentriesandasthenightroundofficersinformed
himaboutit.HewasnotinapositiontoidentifytheA9inthecourt,
butPSIPowar,PW94,identifiedhiminthecourtunhesitatinglyand
statedaboutreturningbacktothepolicestationandmakingstation
diaryentryno.40inhishandwriting,certifiedtruecopyofwhichis
atExt.943. TheCMMsentthesealedenvelopesoftheconfessional
statementoftheaccusedalongwithhisforwardingletterExt.2810in
theenvelopeExt.2811directlytothiscourtandtheywerereceived
inevidenceasitistheofficialcorrespondencefromcourttocourt.
1279.
respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA9fromtheATSofficetothe
office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1360..
Ext.4825
theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody
of the ATS. All these actions are corroborated by the
contemporaneousentriesinthestationdiary,medicalcertificateand
letters between the three authorities inter se and there is no
hesitation to accept that the confessional statement has been
recordedbyfollowingdueprocessoflaw.
ConfessionalstatementoftheA10:
1280.
ACPPatil,PW186,deposedaboutrequestingtheJt.CP,ATS
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1361..
Ext.4825
stationdiaryentryno.4,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.2055,
wasmade.HedeposedaboutheandPIDeshmukhproducingthe
A10beforetheDCP,PIDeshmukhhandingovertheletterExt.1245
andtheDCPaskingsomepreliminaryinformationaboutthename,
etc., of the accused and the crime and asking them to leave. He
deposedaboutreportingtoACPPatil,PW186,afterreturningback
totheBhoiwadaofficeandonhisdirectionstationdiaryentryno.8,
wasmadebytheSHOatKalachowki,certifiedtruecopyofwhichis
atExt.2056.HeidentifiedtheA10inthecourtunhesitatingly.
1281.
DCPDumbre,PW118,corroboratedtheversionofboththe
abovewitnessesbydeposingthathewasdirectedbytheletter,Ext.
1243,oftheJt.CP,ATS,torecordtheconfessionalstatementofthe
A10andheinturndirectingACPPatil,PW186,byaletter,office
copyofwhichisatExt.1244,thecontentsofwhichisproved,to
produce the accused before him on 05/10/06 at 1200 hours. He
deposed about directing the officer on duty of L. T. Marg Police
Station to provide a PSI and escort to his office at around 1130
hoursandwas informedat1145hoursthatPSIThakur,PW110,
hadcometherewithhisstaffandwhomheaskedtowaitoutside.
HedeposedaboutPIDeshmukhproducingtheA10beforehimat
1210hoursinveilalongwithaletterExt.1245ofACPPatil,PW186,
askingpreliminaryinformationaboutthefactsofthecasefromPI
DeshmukhandaboutthePCoftheaccusedandthenaskinghimto
leavehiscabin.Hedeposedthatheandtheaccusedonlywereinhis
cabin and he ensured that the proceedings between him and the
accusedwouldnotbeseenandheardbyanybodyandthenasked
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1362..
Ext.4825
theaccusedtoremovehisveilandintroducedhimselfandgavehim
thenecessaryinformationasperlawandmadehimcomfortable.He
deposed about asking the necessary questions to ascertain the
voluntarinessoftheaccusedtomaketheconfessionalstatementand
whether he had been threatened, tortured or lured by police, to
which the accused replied in the negative and also about any
inducement. He deposed about giving the statutory warning and
thentellingtheaccusedthathewouldgivehim24hourstoagain
think whether he wants to make the confessional statement. He
deposedaboutreducingallthequestionsandanswersinhisown
handwriting,givingwrittenpaperstotheaccusedforreading,the
accusedsigningthemafterhereaditandconfirmedthattheywere
writtenasperhisnarrationandhealsocountersignedthepapers.
He identified signatures of both on PartA of the confessional
statementExt.1246,thendeposedaboutrecordingtheproceedings
ofthedaybelowthequestionandanswers,puttingtheoriginalin
theenvelope,Ext.1247.Hethendeposedabouthandingoverthe
custodyoftheA10toPSIThakur,PW110,andgivinghimaletter
addressedtotheSr.PIofhispolicestation,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext.1248,thecontentsofwhichheprovedanddeposedaboutthe
letter containing the instructions about keeping the accused in a
lockupofthepolicestationinaseparatecellandnottoallowany
officerorstaffoftheATSoranyotherbranchofthepolicetotalk
withhimandheorallyinstructedPSIThakur,PW110,toalwaysveil
theaccusedwhileescortinghim,tokeephiminacell,togethim
medicallyexaminedandtoproducehimonthenextdayat1500
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1363..
Ext.4825
hours.
1282.
PSIThakur,PW110,corroboratedhisversiondeposingthat
hereportedtotheofficeoftheDCPalongwithhisstaff,aboutwhich
the SHO made station diary entry no. 34 on his instructions,
certified true copy of which is at Ext.1113(1). He deposed about
beingdirectedtowaitoutsidewhenhewenttothecabinoftheDCP
andreportedabouthisarrivalandthendeposedaboutbeingcalled
bytheDCPatabout1500hoursandafterheprocuringavehicleand
theveil,beinggiventhecustodyoftheA10withadirectiontoveil
him while escorting and toget him medicallyexamined and was
alsogiventwolettersandwasalsodirectedtokeeptheaccusedina
separatelockupoftheirpolicestationandnottoallowanyrelative
oftheaccusedoranyotherpersonoranyATSofficeroramaldarto
meet him. He deposed that the DCP told him that he had given
instructionsintheletteraboutbringingbacktheaccusedtohimon
thenextdayat1500hours,thathetooktheaccusedandthetwo
letterstothepolicestation,gavethetwoletterstotheSr.PI,who
read them and told him to follow the instructions given by DCP
aboutnotallowinganyonetomeettheaccusedandtoldhimtoget
the accused medically examined. He deposed about getting a
requisition prepared from his constable addressed to the medical
officeroftheJJHospitalandsigningit,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext.1112,thecontentsofwhichheproved.Hedeposedabouttaking
the accusedin veil totheGTHospitalandgetting himmedically
examined.HeproducedthecopyoftheOPDcasepaper,Art.338,
whichwasmarkedasExt.2105,afterDr.Paikrao,PW181,provedits
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1364..
Ext.4825
contentsandalsoprovedatruephotocopyofcasualtyregisterExt.
2104,bothdocumentsshowingthattheA10hadnocomplaints.PSI
Thakur,PW110,thendeposedaboutputtingtheaccusedinthelock
upafterpersonallygoinginsideit,seeinglockupbeingemptyand
telling the guard amaldar to put the accused in the lockup and
giving him the instructions as given by DCP and Sr. PI and then
ascertainingthattheaccusedwasputinaseparatelockup about
whichstationdiaryentryno.48wasmade,certifiedtruecopyof
whichisatExt.1113(2)andwhichcorroborateshisversion.
1283.
PSIThakur,PW110,furtherdeposedabouttakingoutthe
accusedinveilfromthelockuponthenextday,i.e.,on06/10/06,
afterbeingdirectedbyhisPIandtheSHOmakingthestationdiary
entry no. 34, certified true copy of which is at Ext.1114(1). He
deposedabouttakingtheaccusedtotheofficeoftheDCP,producing
himinveilbeforetheDCP,whoaskedhimtowaitoutsideandwhere
hewaitedupto9.00p.m.
1284.
deposedthatA10wasproducedbeforehimbyPSIThakur,PW110,
at1500hourson06/10/06,theveiloftheaccusedwasgotremoved
andhegettingitconfirmedfromPSIThakur,PW110,aboutmedical
examination of the accused being done and confirming it by
perusingthemedicalpapersoftheGTHospital.Hedeposedabout
telling PSI Thakur, PW110, to leave his cabin and then deposed
abouttakingthenecessaryprecautionsaboutensuringthesecrecyof
theproceedingsandagainaskingtheaccusedwhetherhewantedto
maketheconfessionalstatement,towhichtheaccusedrepliedinthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1365..
Ext.4825
affirmative.Hedeposedaboutgivingtherequiredinformationtothe
accused about the nature of his custody, about statutory warning
and about the questions that he asked to ascertain whether the
accusedwaswillingtomaketheconfessionalstatementvoluntarily
and writing down the questions and answers. He deposed about
beingsatisfiedaboutthevoluntarinessoftheaccusedformakingthe
confessional statement and then starting to write it as per his
narrationinhisownhandwriting,whichcontinuedupto2000hours,
after which he handed over the written part to the accused for
reading,whichhedid,thenheagainreaditovertotheaccused,
whotoldhimthatitis asnarratedbyhim andthentheaccused
signedonallthepagesandhealsocountersignedit.Heprovedthe
signaturesofbothofthemonPartBoftheconfessionalstatement
Ext.1249andalsoitscontentsandthatheputittheenvelopeExt.
1250sealingitunderhissignature.Hedeposedthathegavethe
custodyoftheaccusedtoPSIThakur,PW110,withthedirectionto
keephiminthelockupinaseparatecellandtofollowthesame
instructionsasgivenontheearlierdayandtoproducehimbefore
theCMMonthenextdayat1100hoursandhegivingalettertothe
Sr. PI of that police station, office copy of which is at Ext.1251,
contentsofwhichheproved,andanotherletteraddressedtothe
CMM, office copy of which is at Ext.1252, contents of which he
proved, alongwith sealed envelopes containing the confessional
statementoftheaccused.
1285.
PSIThakur,PW110,corroboratedhisversionanddeposed
thatatabout9.15p.m.theDCPgavehimthecustodyoftheaccused
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1366..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1367..
Ext.4825
didafterveilingtheaccusedandreportedtotheDCPabouthaving
gottheaccusedmedicallyexaminedandhavingtakenhimbefore
the magistrate. He deposed about the DCP giving him a letter
addressed to ACP Patil, PW186, and directing him to take the
accusedtotheofficeoftheATSandhandoverhiscustody,whichhe
didandafterobtainingthesignatureofACPPatil,PW186,onthe
officecopyoftheletter,returningbacktotheDCPofficeandgiving
it there. He deposed about returning to the police station and
reportingabouttheeventstotheSr.PIandstationdiaryentryno.
47,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1115(2),beingmadebytheSHO
as per his instructions. He identified the A10 in the court
unhesitatingly.DCPDumbre,PW118,fullycorroboratedhisversion
anddeposedaboutgivingletteraddressedtotheACPoftheATS
abouthandingoverthecustodyoftheaccusedbacktotheATS.He
proved the office copy of his letter Ext.1253, which contains the
acknowledgmentofACPPatil,PW186,andwhichwasgiventohim
byPSIThakur,PW110,intheevening.HeidentifiedtheA10inthe
courtunhesitatingly.TheCMMforwardedthesealedenvelopesto
thiscourtwithhisletterExt.1253intheenvelopeExt.1253Aand
theywerereceivedinevidenceastheyareofficialcommunication
fromcourttocourt.
1286.
respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA10fromtheATSofficetothe
office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1368..
Ext.4825
ConfessionalstatementoftheA11:
1287.
ACPPatil,PW186,deposedaboutJt.CP,ATS,nominating
DCPRanade,PW111,byhisletterExt.1118,onhisrequestafterthe
teamofofficersinterrogatingtheA11reportingtohimon02/10/06
about his willingness to make a voluntary confessional statement
beforethesuperiorofficersaboutwhichhesatisfiedhimself,about
receivingaletterfromDCPRanade,PW111,officecopyofwhichis
atExt.1119,directing him toproduce the accusedbeforehim on
04/10/06andhedirectingPISalaskarbyalettertodoso,office
copyofwhichisatExt.2401andalsogivingtheletter,Ext.1120,
addressed to the DCP. He deposed about PI Salaskar and staff
producing the said accused before the DCP on 04/10/06 and PI
Alaknure,PW153,returningbackandreportingthattheDCPhad
takentheaccusedinhiscustody.PIAlaknure,PW153,corroborated
hisversionanddeposedabouttakingouttheaccusedfromthelock
upon04/10/06andtakinghiminveiltotheofficeoftheDCPat
BorivaliasperthedirectionsofACPPatil,PW186,andproducing
him before the DCP and he deposed about a HC making station
diaryentryno.9onhisdirection,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisat
Ext.1651 when he started from the Bhoiwada office and DCP
Ranade, PW111, acknowledging having taken the accused in his
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1369..
Ext.4825
custodybytheletterExt.1121anddirectinghis stafftoleavehis
office.HedeposedaboutreturningtotheATSofficeatBhoiwada
andstationdiaryentryno.17,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.
1652,beingmadeasperhisdirection.
1288.
DCPRanade,PW111,corroboratedtheversionofboththe
abovewitnessesanddeposedaboutbeingdirectedbytheletterExt.
1118torecordtheconfessionalstatementoftheA11,writingletter
to ACP Patil, PW186,, office copy of which is at Ext.1119, the
contentsofwhichheproved,toproducetheaccusedbeforehimat
5.00p.m.onthatday,i.e.,on04/10/06,andPIAlaknure,PW153,
producingtheaccusedbeforehimandgivinghimtheletterExt.1120
fromthe investigating officer,uponwhichhe gavealettertothe
investigatingofficerabouttakingtheaccusedinhiscustody,office
copy of which is at Ext.1121, and thereafter asked PI Alaknure,
PW153,andstafftogooutside.Hethendeposedaboutthesteps
thathetooktogiveintroduction,tomakethepreliminaryinquiry
withtheaccusedandalsoaskedtheaccusedwhetherheknowswhy
hewasbroughtbeforehimwhereupontheaccusedtoldhimthathe
wantstomakeaconfessionalstatementandthereforeheisbrought
before him. He then deposed about asking him questions to
ascertainwhethertheaccusedwasmakingthestatementunderthe
pressureorinfluence,whetherhehadbeenbeatenortorturedor
induced andafter getting a replyin the negative,giving him the
statutorywarningandtellinghimthathewouldgivehim24hours
tothinkoverwhetherhewantstomaketheconfessionalstatement
ornotalongwithtellinghimthatheisinhiscustodyandnotinthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1370..
Ext.4825
custodyoftheATSandnoonefrominvestigating machinerywill
meethim,etc.Hedeposedaboutwritingdowntheconversationthat
he had with the accused, giving the writing to the accused for
readingandtheaccusedsigningonallthepagesafterreadingitand
stating that it was written as stated by him and he also
countersigningallthepages.Heidentifiedthesignaturesofbothon
PartI,Ext.1122andproveditscontentsanddeposedaboutputting
theoriginalintheenvelopeExt.1123andsealingtheenvelopeby
puttingroundstamp of his office atthe backandsigning on the
roundstamp.HethendeposedaboutPSISuryavanshiandtheescort
partyofBorivaliPoliceStationhavingcometheretotakecustodyof
theaccusedasperhislettertotheSr.PI,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext.1124,thecontentsofwhichheproved,andgivingcustodyofthe
accusedinhispossessionwiththenecessaryinstructionsofputting
theaccusedinaseparatecellintheBorivaligenerallockup,making
arrangementsforappointingseparateguardathiscellandtosee
thatnoATSofficer,policeofficer,etc.,meetstheaccusedandalsoof
givingalettercontaininghisinstructions,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext.1125,thecontentsofwhichheproved.Hedeposedaboutalso
givingaletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1126,thecontentsof
whichheproved,totheACP,BorivaliDivision,tosuperviseoverthe
arrangementsoftheaccusedinthelockup.Healsodeposedabout
givingsimilarinstructionsinpersontotheACP,BorivaliDivisionand
Sr. PI of Borivali Police Station and to report compliance in the
morningonthenextdayandtoproducetheaccusedbeforehimat
1800 hours on the next day and also get the accused medically
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1371..
Ext.4825
1289.
statedthatitwasPSISuryavanshiandhisstaff,whoproducedthe
accusedbeforehimat5.20p.m.inveil,whichiscorroboratedbythe
stationdiaryentryno.45,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.993.
He deposed that he asked the police officers to go outside,
ascertained the secrecy of the proceedings in his chamber, asked
somequestionstotheaccusedtomakehimcomfortableandalso
asked him whether his medical checkup was done and he was
providedwithmeals,towhichtheaccusedansweredinaffirmative
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1372..
Ext.4825
andthenagainsatisfiedhimselfthattheaccusedwasnotmakinghis
confessionalstatementbecauseofanyallurementorunderthreatof
any person and from the answers given by the accused he was
satisfied that he was ready to make the confessional statement
voluntarilyandwasmentallyandphysicallypreparedtomakeit.He
deposedaboutstartingtowritePartIIoftheconfessionalstatement
asnarratedbytheaccusedafterhavingwrittenallthequestionsand
answersandafterfinishingwritingtheconfessionalstatementgiving
ittotheaccusedforreading,whoreaditcarefullyandsignedonall
thepagesafteraffirmingthatitwascorrectlywrittenasnarratedby
him. He deposed about countersigning on all the pages and
identifying the signatures of both of them on PartII of the
confessional statement, Ext.1127, and proved its contents. He
deposed about getting the certificate, Ext.1128, typed on the
computerbydictatingittohiswriterandproveditscontents.He
deposed about putting the PartII in the envelope, Ext.1129 and
sealing it by putting the office round stamps and signing on the
stamps.Hedeposedabouthandingoverthecustodyoftheaccused
toPSISuryavanshialongwithalettertotheSr.PI,officecopyof
whichisatExt.1131,thecontentsofwhichheproved,forkeeping
theaccusedinthelockupandgivinghimthesamedirectionsas
beforeandthedirectionofproducingtheaccusedbeforetheCMM
on the next day, i.e., on 06/10/06. He also gave him a letter
addressedtotheCMM,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1130,contents
ofwhichheproved,andgavetheoriginalandtheofficecopiesof
theExts.1130and1131andalettertoACPPatil,PW186,office
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1373..
Ext.4825
1290.
statingthathewasgiventhecustodyoftheaccusedwithadirection
tokeephiminBorivalilockupashewastobeproducedbeforethe
CMM at 11.00 a.m. on the next day. Accordingly, he took the
accusedinhiscustodyanddirectedPSISuryavanshitoagaintake
the accused and keep him in Borivali lockup, which he did and
aboutwhichstationdiaryentryno.54wasmade,certifiedtruecopy
ofwhichisatExt.992.HedeposedthatDCPRanade,PW111,gave
himaletter,Ext.993,addressedtotheSr.PIforkeepingtheaccused
inthelockupandproducinghimbeforetheCMMonthenextday
andtwosealedenvelopesalongwithaforwardingletteraddressedto
theCMM.Hedeposedabouttakingtheaccusedinhiscustodyfrom
the Borivali lockup at 9.15 a.m. and getting him medically
examinedattheGTHospital.Ext.2101isthecertifiedtruecopyof
theOPDregisterwhichwasprovedbyDr.Paikrao,PW181,whohad
examinedtheA11at11.00a.m.andtheaccusedhadnocomplaints.
IthascomeinhisevidencefurtherthatheproducedtheA11inveil
beforetheCMM,handedovertwosealedenvelopesandforwarding
letter andwas asked to wait outside,called after one and a half
hours,theCMMgavetheaccusedinhiscustodyandaskedhimto
taketheaccusedtotheDCP,whichhedidandtheDCPgavehimthe
letterExt.994addressedtotheACPPatil,PW186.Hedeposedabout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1374..
Ext.4825
makingstationdiaryentryno.19,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisat
Ext.995,abouttakingtheaccusedoutfromthelockupbythemand
PI Mathadhikari making station diary entry no. 54 on his
instructionsafterhereturnedbacktothepolicestationandhanded
overalltheofficecopiesoftheletterstotheDCPoffice,certified
truecopiesofwhichisatExt.995.HeidentifiedtheA11inthecourt
unhesitatingly.
1291.
PIAlaknure,PW153,corroboratedhisversionbydeposing
thatAddl.SPBhavsar,PW100,broughttheA11totheATSofficeat
Bhoiwadaon06/10/06andhetooktheaccusedinhiscustodyand
gaveanacknowledgmentoncopyoftheletterExt.1132,whichhe
hadbrought,whichwassentbyDCPRanade,PW111.Hedeposed
thatheputtheaccusedinthelockupandonhisdirections,station
diaryentryno.14wasmade,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.
1653. He also identified the A11 in the court unhesitatingly. The
CMM sent the sealed envelopes containing the confessional
statementstothiscourtdirectlyalongwithhisletterExt.1133inthe
envelope Ext. 1133A, which was received in evidence directly as
theyareofficialcommunication.
1292.
respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA11fromtheATSofficetothe
office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody
of the ATS. All these actions are corroborated by the
contemporaneousentriesinthestationdiary,medicalcertificateand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1375..
Ext.4825
ConfessionalstatementoftheA6:
1293.
ACPPatil,PW186,deposedaboutJt.CP,ATSnominating
SPKarale,PW104,byhisletter,Ext.1065,torecordtheconfessional
statement of the A6 on his request as the team of officers
interrogating the said accused had reported to him on 19/10/06
about his willingness to make a voluntary confessional statement
before the superior officers about which he satisfied himself by
questioningtheaccusedandthenreceivingaletterfromtheDCP,
office copyofwhichisatExt.1066,directinghimtoproducethe
accused before him on 24/10/06 and he directing API Kolhatkar,
PW18,todosobyaletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.2402.He
deposedaboutgivingletter,Ext.1067,totheDCPaboutproducing
theaccusedbeforehimandbeforethatAPIKolhatkar,PW18,and
staffdidso,returningbacktotheofficeandreportingthattheDCP
hadtakentheaccusedinhiscustody.
1294.
Somehow,APIKolhatkar,PW18,forgottodeposeaboutthis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1376..
Ext.4825
hischamberwerenotseenfromtheoutside,thendeposedabout
givingtheinformationtotheaccusedandintroducinghimself,etc.,
and asking him questions which he wrote alongwith the answers
andalsoquestioningtheaccusedtoascertainhisvoluntarinessby
askinghimwhetherhewasbeaten,threatenedorforcedtomakethe
confessionalstatementtowhichtheaccusedrepliedinthenegative.
Hedeposedaboutgivingthestatutorywarningstotheaccusedand
beingsatisfiedonhisinquiryandonobservingthebodylanguageof
theaccusedandthefactthathewaslookingcool,thathewasready
tomaketheconfessionalstatementvoluntarilyandthenhetoldthe
accusedthathewouldgivehim24hourstoreflectwhethertomake
theconfessionalstatement.HedeposedaboutgivingPartI,Ext.1068
to the accused for reading, who read it and stated that it was
correctly written and then both put their signatures, which he
identified and he also proved the contents of PartI specifically
statingthatthefirstpagewastypedbyhimandaboutputtingitin
theenvelope,Ext.1068A.HedeposedaboutdirectingSr.PIofPolice
StationMatungaonphonetosendtheirofficerandstafftotakethe
accused,whichhealsoinformedbyaletter,officecopyofwhichis
atExt.1069,thecontentsofwhichheproved.Hegavetheaccused
inthecustodyofPSIDivekar,PW108,tellinghimthattheaccused
isinhispersonalcustody,thatheshouldbekeptinaseparatecellin
the lockup of Police Station Matunga, that care should be taken
abouthisfoodandmedicaltreatmentandnotallowinganyperson
fromtheATSoranyotherpolicemanoranyotherpersontomeet
himandtoproducehiminveilonthenextday,i.e.,on25/10/06at
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1377..
Ext.4825
1295.
thathereportedtotheofficeoftheDCPasdirectedon24/10/06,
makingstationdiaryentryno.13inhishandwriting,certifiedtrue
copyofwhichisatExt.1103andSPKarale,PW104,gavehimthe
custodyoftheA6alongwiththeletterExt.1070andoraldirections
tokeeptheaccusedinaseparatecellinthelockupoftheirpolice
stationandtotakecarethatnopoliceofficertalkswithhimand
comes in his contact and to produce the accused before him on
25/10/06andtoalwaysescorthiminveil.Hedeposedthathetook
theaccusedtothepolicestation,kepttheaccusedinaseparatecell,
appraisedthelockupguardinchargeabouttheinstructionsgiven
by the DCP and made station diary entry no. 24 in his own
handwriting,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1103.
1296.
25/10/06asdirectedbytheDCPandmakingstationdiaryentryno.
15inhishandwriting,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1104,
whichisdtd.25/10/06,producingtheaccusedbeforetheDCP,who
asked him to wait outside. His evidence is corroborated by SP
Karale,PW104,whodeposedaboutaskinghimwhethertherewas
any difficulty during the last 24 hours and on getting a negative
reply asking him and his staff to go outside. He deposed about
ascertaining thatthe proceedings in his chamber were secretand
thendeposedaboutaskingtheaccusedwhetherheisstillreadyto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1378..
Ext.4825
makehisconfessionalstatement,whetherthetimeof24hoursgiven
to him for reflection was sufficient, then repeating the statutory
warningsandascertainingthevoluntarinessoftheaccusedtomake
theconfessionalstatementandontheanswersthattheaccusedgave
andonobservinghisbodylanguagebeingsatisfiedthattheaccused
wasreadytomaketheconfessionalstatementfreelyandvoluntarily.
Hedeposedaboutwritingdownthequestionsandanswersinhis
own handwriting and then started to write the confessional
statementinthelanguageoftheaccused,givingittotheaccusedfor
readingafteritwasfinished,puttinghissignaturesonallthepages
andaskingtheaccusedtosignandheidentifiedthesignaturesof
both of them on PartII, Ext. 1071 and proved its contents. He
deposedaboutwritingobservationsabouttheprocedure,Ext.1072,
andpreparingthecertificateasrequiredbysection18oftheMCOC
Act,Ext.1073andsigningit.Heprovedthecontentsofallthese
documentsanddeposedthatheputtheoriginalintheenvelopeExt.
1073A.HedeposedaboutgivingtheaccusedinthecustodyofPSI
Divekar,PW108,alongwithforwardingletter,Ext.1074,thesealed
envelopes, office copy of the letter to the Sr. PI, Matunga Police
Station, Ext. 1075, to produce the accused before the CMM and
anotherlettertohim,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1076,directing
himtohandovertheaccusedtotheATSaftertheprocedurebefore
theCMMwasover.HeidentifiedtheA6inthecourtunhesitatingly.
PSIDivekar,PW108,corroboratedhisversionfullybydeposingthat
hewascalledbytheDCPinhischamberatabout5p.m.andgiven
custodyoftheaccusedwithadirectiontoproducehimbeforethe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1379..
Ext.4825
CMMalongwithtwosealedenvelopesforgivingtotheCMM,one
forwardingletteraddressedtotheCMMandtwoletters,Exts.1076
and1075,addressedtotheSr.PIforproducingtheaccusedbefore
theCMMandforhandingoverhiscustodytotheATS.Hedeposed
about the DCP telling him to produce the accused before the in
chargeCMMShriShisodeathishouseasitwasacourtholiday.He
madethestationdiaryentryno.23inhishandwriting,certifiedtrue
copyofwhichisatExt.1104,abouttakingtheaccusedtothecourt.
HedeposedaboutproducingtheaccusedbeforetheinchargeCMM
Shri Shisode, handing over the forwarding letter and two sealed
envelopes, being asked to wait outside and called inside after
sometime and directed to take the accused in his custody. He
deposedabouttaking theaccusedtotheATSofficeatBhoiwada,
handingoverhiscustodytoACPPatil,PW186.Hedeposedabout
returningbacktothepolicestationandmakingstationdiaryentry
no.30inhisownhandwriting,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.
1104. He identifiedthe A6in the courtunhesitatingly. The CMM
forwarded the sealed envelopes of the confessional statement
alongwithhisletterExt.1077intheenvelopeExt.1077A,which
werereceivedinevidenceastheyareofficialcorrespondence.
1297.
respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA6fromtheATSofficetothe
office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody
of the ATS. All these actions are corroborated by the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1380..
Ext.4825
contemporaneousentriesinthestationdiary,medicalcertificateand
letters between the three authorities inter se and there is no
hesitation to accept that the confessional statement has been
recordedbyfollowingdueprocessoflaw.
ConfessionalstatementoftheA7:
1298.
ACPPatil,PW186,deposedaboutJt.CP,ATSnominating
SPMohite,PW102,torecordtheconfessionalstatementoftheA7
byhisletterExt.1029astheofficersandmeninterrogatingtheA7
reported to him on 19/10/06 about his willingness to make a
voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficersabout
which he satisfied himself by questioning the accused, about
receivingtheletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1030,fromthe
DCPdirectinghimtoproducetheaccusedbeforehimon24/10/06,
whereuponbyaletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.2403,contents
ofwhichheproved,hedirectedACPTambe,PW177,whowasthen
PSI,toproducetheaccusedbeforetheDCPon24/10/06andalso
gavehimaletterExt.1032addressedtotheDCP.Hedeposedthat
ACPTambe,PW177,returnedbackandreportedthattheDCPhad
takentheaccusedinhiscustody.ACPTambe,PW177,corroborated
hisversionanddeposedthathetookouttheA7on24/10/06from
the Bhoiwada lockup, veiled him and on his information station
diaryentryno. 1was made in the Kalachowki office of the ATS,
certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.2050,andthenproducedthe
accusedbeforeSPMohite,PW102,andhandedovertheletterExt.
1032andtheDCPaskedhimthebrieftheinformationofthecrime
and the accused and asked him to go out of his chamber. He
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1381..
Ext.4825
deposedaboutreturningtoKalachowkiofficeandonhisinstructions
the SHO making station diary entry no. 9, certified true copy of
which is at Ext.2051. He identified the A7 in the court
unhesitatingly.
1299.
abovetwoofficersbydeposingthathewasdirectedbytheJt.CP,
ATStorecordtheconfessionalstatementoftheA7byhisletter,Ext.
1029, whereupon he directed the investigating officer, ATS by a
letter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1030,thecontentsofwhichhe
proved, to produce the accused before him on 24/10/06 at 9.00
a.m.AtthesametimehedirectedSr.PI,AzadMaidanPoliceStation
tosendaPSIandtwoconstablesbyaletter,officecopyofwhichis
atExt.1031.HedeposedaboutACPTambe,PW177,producingthe
accused before him alongwith the letter Ext.1032 and asking the
policeofficerandthestafftogooutofhischamberandensuring
thattheproceedingsinhischamberweresecret.Hedeposedabout
making the accused comfortable and asking him preliminary
questions and giving him the information about he being not
connectedwiththecaseinwhichhewasarrested.Hedeposedabout
askingtheaccusedwhetherheknowsastowhyhehadtobrought
there,towhichtheaccusedrepliedthathewasbroughttherefor
givinghisconfessionalstatementashehadvolunteeredtodoso.He
thendeposedaboutgivinghimastatutorywarningandaskinghim
thequestionstoascertainthevoluntarinessoftheaccusedwhether
he was induced, threatened, coerced or influenced by any police
officeroranypersonforgivingtheconfessionalstatement,towhich
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1382..
Ext.4825
theaccusedrepliedinthenegative.Hedeposedaboutwritingthe
questionsandanswerssimultaneouslyandtellingtheaccusedthat
hewouldgivehimmorethan24hoursforthinkingoverwhetherto
give thestatementandtoldhimthathe wouldbeinhis custody
during that period. He deposed about reading over PartI of the
confessionalstatementtothe accused after itwas completedand
obtainedhissignaturesonallpagesafterheadmittingthatitwas
correctlywrittenasnarratedbyhimandhealsocountersigningon
allpages.HeidentifiedsignaturesofbothofthemonPartI,Ext.
1033andproveditscontentsanddeposedaboutputtingtheoriginal
intheenvelope,Ext.1034,sealingit,endorsingitinhishandwriting.
HedeposedaboutgivingtheaccusedinthecustodyofAPIShinde,
PW103,whohadcomefromAzadMaidanPoliceStationalongwith
hisletterExt.1035,thecontentsofwhichheproved,addressedto
the Sr. PI of that police station containing the directions about
gettingtheaccusedmedicallyexamined,keepinghiminaseparate
cell,providingmealstohimandtoseethatnopoliceofficermeets
and talks with him during that period and also to produce the
accusedbeforehimon25/10/06inveilat1100hours.
1300.
APIShinde,PW103,corroboratedhisversionanddeposed
thatonthedirectionsofSr.PIhewentwithhisstafftotheofficeof
theDCPon24/10/06,makingstationdiaryentryno.17inhisown
handwriting, certified true copy of which is at Ext. 1047, the
contentsofwhichheproved,reportingtotheDCPat1120hours
andbeinggiventheA7inhiscustodywiththedirectiontokeephim
in a separate cell inthe lockup of theirpolice station andother
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1383..
Ext.4825
1301.
APIShinde,PW103,thendeposedabouttakingtheA7in
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1384..
Ext.4825
thetimeof24hoursgiventohimforreflectionwassufficientto
whichtheaccusedansweredintheaffirmative,askinghimwhether
anyonehadmethiminthelockupandpressurized,threatenedor
intimidatedhimtowhichtheaccusedrepliedinthenegativeand
thengivingthestatutorywarningthatifhegivestheconfessional
statement,itmaybeusedagainsthimandtheaccusedrepliedthat
heknowsitandeventhenhewantstogiveit.Hedeposedabout
beingsatisfiedontheabovequestionsandanswersthattheaccused
was willing to give the confessional statement voluntarily and
thereafter starting recording the narration in the words of the
accusedinhishandwritingandafteritwasfinishedreadingitover
tohimandaskinghimtoputhissignaturewhenheconfirmedthat
it was correctly written as narrated by him. He deposed about
accusedsigningonallpagesandhealsocountersigningonallthe
pages and writing the certificate at the end and signing it. He
identifiedhissignatureandsignatureoftheaccusedonallthepages
andhissignaturebelowthesignatureofPartIIExt.1037andstated
aboutputtingtheoriginalintheenvelopeExt.1038,sealingitand
endorsingit.Hedeposedaboutgivingtheaccusedinthecustodyof
API Shinde, PW103, and giving him the two sealed envelopes
alongwith office copy of the forwarding letter Ext.1039 for being
handedovertotheCMM.Hedeposedabouttwolettersaddressedto
theSr.PI,oneofficecopyofwhichisatExt.1040,directingtheSr.PI
toproducetheaccusedbeforetheCMMandsecondtheofficecopy
ofaletteraddressedtotheSr.PI,Ext.1042toproducecopiesofthe
relevantstationdiaryentriesandalsoalettertotheinvestigating
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1385..
Ext.4825
1302.
APIShinde,PW103,corroboratedtheversionofSPMohite,
PW102,anddeposedaboutbeingcalledinsidetotheofficeofthe
DCP at about 2.30 or 2.45 p.m., the DCP giving him two sealed
envelopesandaforwardingletteraddressedtotheCMMandaletter
addressedtothe Sr.PIanddirectinghimtoproducethe accused
beforetheCMMandtogethimmedicallyexaminedandheputting
aveilontheaccused.HeidentifiedthelettersExts.1039and1040
andithascomeinhisevidencethatoninquiryhecametoknow
thatoneShriShisode,ACMMwasinchargeofworkoftheCMMas
itwasaholidayandafterobtaininghisphonenumberandinquiring
whetherheshouldproducetheaccusedbeforehiminhishouseand
receivinganaffirmativereply,hetooktheaccusedtothehouseof
theACMM,handedoverthesealedenvelopesandforwardingletter,
wasaskedtowaitoutsideandcalledinsideaftersometimeandtold
totaketheaccused,whereuponhetooktheaccusedinhiscustody,
veiledhimandinformedtheDCPonphoneaboutthecomplianceof
hisordersandwasinturndirectedtogivehiminthecustodyofthe
ATSashewastobeproducedbeforetheSessionsCourt.Hedeposed
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1386..
Ext.4825
1303.
respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA7fromtheATSofficetothe
office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody
of the ATS. All these actions are corroborated by the
contemporaneousentriesinthestationdiary,medicalcertificateand
letters between the three authorities inter se and there is no
hesitation to accept that the confessional statement has been
recordedbyfollowingdueprocessoflaw.
ConfessionalstatementoftheA12:
1304.
ACPPatil,PW186,deposedaboutJt.CP,ATSnominating
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1387..
Ext.4825
1305.
Addl.CPBrijeshSingh,PW117,corroboratedtheversionof
both the above officers and deposed that he was directed by the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1388..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1389..
Ext.4825
accusedforreading,whosigneditafteradmittingittobecorrectly
written and then put his signatures. He deposed about he also
signing the PartI of the confessional statement, Ext.1226, and
identified signatures of both of them and deposed about sealing
PartIoftheconfessionalstatementintheenvelope,Ext.1227and
keepingitinhislockandkey.Hedeposedabouthandingoverthe
custody of the accused to PI Sonavane,PW122, of Azad Maidan
Police Station, who had come there as per his instructions on
telephoneandalsogaveletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1228,
thecontentsofwhichheproved,containingtheinstructionsabout
keepingtheaccusedinaseparatecellinthelockupoftheirpolice
station,notallowinganyATSofficeroranyotherpersontomeet
himandtoalwaysescorthiminveil,etc.,andafurtherdirectionof
producingtheaccusedbeforehimon24/10/06at1800hours.PI
Sonavane, PW122, corroborated his version and deposed that he
wentwithhisstafftotheofficeoftheDCPon23/10/06asdirected
by his Sr. PI and made station diary entry no. 29 in his own
handwriting,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1465,whichhe
proved.Hedeposedaboutreportingtothereaderintheofficeofthe
DCP,whotoldhimthattheDCPhadtoldthemtowaitandbeing
calledbytheDCPinhiscabinat1635hours,introducingtheA12
andgivinghiminhiscustodyalongwithaletterExt.1228andthe
instructionstokeeptheaccusedinaseparatecellinthelockupof
theirpolicestationandtoseethatnoonefromthepoliceorhis
relatives to meet him and also to get the accused medically
examinedandtoalwaysescorthiminveil.Hedeposedaboutveiling
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1390..
Ext.4825
theaccusedandtaking himtotheGTHospitalwhenhegothim
medicallyexamined.Ext.2103isthecarboncopyoftheOPDcase
paper,thecontentsofwhichwereprovedbyDr.Paikrao,PW181,
whoalsoprovedtruephotocopyoftheentryinthecasualtyregister,
Ext.2102, the contents of which are the same as Ext.2103. The
accusedwasexaminedat4.50p.m.andhehadnocomplaints.PI
Sonavane,PW122,thendeposedabouttakingtheA12tothepolice
stationandtellingthehavildaronguarddutytokeeptheaccusedin
aseparatecellandkeepingtheaccusedinaseparatecellandgiving
himtheinstructionsasweregivenbytheDCPandalsopersonally
checkingthecellno.1wheretheaccusedwastobekeptandthen
makingstationdiaryentryno.31,inhisownhandwriting,certified
truecopyofwhichisatExt.1466,thecontentsofwhichheproved.
1306.
PISonavane,PW122,thendeposedabouttakingoutthe
accusedfromthelockupon24/10/06,veilinghimandtakingthe
A12totheofficeoftheDCPandmakingstationdiaryentryno.25in
his handwriting, certified true copy of which is at Ext.1467, the
contentsofwhichheproved.Hedeposedaboutreachingofficeof
theDCPat1800hours,butthereaderinforminghimthattheDCP
hadaskedhimtowait,thattheDCPcameoutsideatabout7.45or
8.00 p.m. and said that there was a law and order problem in
BhendiBazarareawherehe wasrequiredtogoandthenheleft
returningat9.30p.m.,callinghiminsideinhiscabinandtelling
himthatheisunabletorecordtheconfessionalstatementofthe
accusedonthatdayandaskinghimtotakehimbacktothepolice
station,tofollowtheinstructionsasgivenontheearlierdayandto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1391..
Ext.4825
producehimonthenextdayat1200hoursandalsogavetheletter
Ext.1229.Addl.CPBrijeshSingh,PW117,corroboratedhisversion
fullyandprovedthecontentsofhisletterExt.1229.PISonavane,
PW122,deposedabouttakingtheaccusedbacktothepolicestation
inveil,puttinghiminthelockupandgivingsimilarinstructionsto
theguardhavildarasgivenontheearlierdayandmakingstation
diary entry no.31 in his own handwriting,certifiedtrue copy of
whichisatExt.1468,thecontentsofwhichheproved.
1307.
HedeposedabouttakingouttheA12fromthelockupon
thenextday,i.e.,on25/10/06,veilinghimandtakinghimtothe
officeoftheDCPandmakingstationdiaryentryno.33inhisown
handwriting,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1469,thecontents
ofwhichheproved.Hedeposedaboutproducingtheaccusedbefore
theDCP,whotoldhimtowaitoutside,wherehewaitedupto9.30
p.m.Addl.CPBrijeshSingh,PW117,corroboratedhisversionand
deposedthatontheaccusedbeingproducedbeforehiminveil,he
inquired and was given report by the escort party that the
instructionsin his letter werecomplied,then heaskedthe escort
party to go out and asked the accused to remove the veil. He
deposedaboutensuringsecrecyoftheproceedingsinhischamber
andatthis timethestenographerwasnotwithhimandthenhe
asked necessary questions to the accused, gave him the statutory
warning, checked to see whether he was under any kind of
inducement,threatorpromiseandcametoapersonalsatisfaction
that the accused voluntarily wished to make a confessional
statement. He deposed about writing down the questions and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1392..
Ext.4825
answersinhisownhandwriting,givingthemtotheaccusedtoread,
whosigneditafterreadingitandadmittedittobecorrectlywritten
andhealsoputtinghissignatureandthenproceededtorecordthe
narrationoftheaccusedinhisownhandwriting.Hedeposedabout
givingthewritingtotheaccusedforreadingafteritwasover,the
accusedsigningitafterreadingit,admittedittobecorrectandhe
also signing on all pages of PartII, Ext.1230 and appending the
certificate Ext.1231 regarding his satisfaction about the
voluntariness of the confessional statement. He proved the
signaturesofbothofthemandthecontentsofPartIIandcertificate
anddeposedaboutsealingitintheenvelopeExt.1232.Hedeposed
aboutaskingtheescortpartytotaketheaccusedtotheCMMand
gavethemaforwardingletteraddressedtotheCMM,officecopyof
whichisatExt.1233,thecontentsofwhichheproved,alongwith
twosealedenvelopesandalettertotheinvestigatingofficertotake
custody of the accused after his production before the CMM. He
unhesitatinglyidentifiedtheA12inthecourt.
1308.
PISonavane,PW122,corroboratedhisversionanddeposed
thattheDCPcalledhiminsidehiscabinat9.30p.m.,handedover
thecustodyoftheaccusedalongwithaforwardingletteraddressed
totheCMM,twosealedenvelopesandonemoreletteraddressedto
theATSwithadirectiontoproducetheaccusedbeforetheCMM
andtogive the envelopeandforwarding letters tothe CMM.He
deposedabouttakingtheaccusedinveiltothehouseoftheCMM
Shisode at Kurla, producing the accused before him and handing
overtheletterandtwosealedenvelopesandbeingaskedtowait
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1393..
Ext.4825
outside,beingcalledinsideafterhalfanhourandgivingtheaccused
backinhiscustody.Hedeposedaboutveilingtheaccused,takingthe
accusedtotheofficeoftheATSatBhoiwadaandhandingoverhis
custody,thenreturningbacktothepolicestationandmakingstation
diaryentryno.1inhishandwriting,certifiedtruecopyofwhichis
atExt.1470,thecontentsofwhichheproved.HeidentifiedtheA12
inthecourtunhesitatingly.TheCMMsentthesealedenvelopesof
the confessional statement alongwith his letter Ext.1235 in the
envelopeExt.1235Aandtheywerereceivedinevidenceastheyare
officialcommunicationbetweencourts.
1309.
respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA12fromtheATSofficetothe
office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody
of the ATS. All these actions are corroborated by the
contemporaneousentriesinthestationdiary,medicalcertificateand
letters between the three authorities inter se and there is no
hesitation to accept that the confessional statement has been
recordedbyfollowingdueprocessoflaw.
ConfessionalstatementoftheA5:
1310.
ACPPatil,PW186,deposedaboutJt.CP,ATSnominating
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1394..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1395..
Ext.4825
Ext.1655.
1311.
theofficersanddeposedthatbytheletterExt.930,theJt.CP,ATS,
had directed him to record the confessional statement of the A5,
which PI Alaknure, PW153, had brought to him, whereupon he
directedACPPatil,PW186,byhisletter,officecopyofwhichisat
Ext.931,toproducetheaccusedbeforehimon24/10/06at10.00
a.m.HedeposedaboutPIAlaknure,PW153,producingtheA5on
24/10/06 alongwith a letter, Ext.932, he ascertaining that the
offenceswerecommittedintheStateofMaharashtra,thentaking
theaccusedinhiscustodyandgivingaletter,officecopyofwhichis
atExt.933,addressedtotheinvestigatingofficerabouthavingtaken
theaccusedinhiscustody.Heprovedthecontentsofalltheabove
lettersanddeposedaboutaskingPIAlaknure,PW153,andhisstaff
togooutofhischamber,ensuringthatnobodycouldseeorhearthe
proceedings of recording of the confessional statement in his
chamber,givingtheinformationtotheaccusedthatheisnotinthe
custody of the investigating officer or the ATS team that is
investigatingtheoffenceandmakingtheaccusedcomfortable.He
deposed about putting general questions to the accused and
ascertaining from him whether he was threatened to give the
statementorgivenanyinducementofreleaseorofbeingmadea
witness and writing all the questions and answers in his own
handwriting.Hedeposedaboutgivingthestatutorywarningtothe
accusedaboutitbeingnotbindingonhimtomaketheconfessional
statement and he would record it only if he is ready to give it
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1396..
Ext.4825
voluntarilyandalsothatanyconfessionalstatementthathemakes
canbeusedagainsthimasevidenceinthecourt.Hedeposedabout
theaccusedexpressinghisdesiretogivehisconfessionalstatement
voluntarilyandhetellinghimthathewouldgivehim24hoursfor
reflection and thereafter only he would record it if he gives it
voluntarily.Hewassatisfiedontheanswersgivenbytheaccused
thathewasreadytogivetheconfessionalstatementvoluntarilyand
thenhegavethewritingtotheaccusedforreading,whosignedit
afterreadingitandstatingthatitwascorrectlywritten.Hedeposed
abouthealsosigningPartIoftheconfessionalstatement,Ext.934,
andputtingitintheenvelopeExt.935,sealingtheenvelopewithhis
stampandsigningonthestamps.Heidentifiedhissignatureand
signature of the accused on all the pages of PartI, Ext.934 and
proveditscontents.HedeposedaboutcallingPSIPowar,PW94,and
hisstaffofPoliceStationMahim,whohadcomethereasperhis
directionstotheSr.PIofthatpolicestation,totakethecustodyof
theaccusedandgavehimaletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.936,
the contents of which he proved, containing the directions about
keepingtheaccusedinaseparatecellinthelockupofMahimPolice
Stationandtotakecarethatnopoliceofficerornopolicemanor
anyotherpersonmeetshimandtalkswithhimandtoproducethe
accusedbeforehimonthenextdayat11.00a.m.Healsogavethese
directions orally. PSI Powar, PW94, corroborated his version and
deposedabouttakingstaffwithhimandgoingtotheofficeofthe
DCPasperthedirectionsoftheSr.PIon24/10/06andstationdiary
entryno.21beingmade,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.943,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1397..
Ext.4825
thecontentsofwhichheproved.HereportedtotheDCP,whotold
himtotaketheA5inhiscustodywhichhedidandputaveilonhim
andaftersometimewasgivenletteraddressedtotheSr.PI,office
copy of which is at Ext.936. He deposed about the DCP giving
instructions to keep the accused in a separate cell and to give
instructionstotheguardcommandernottoallowanyonetomeet
himortalkwithhimandproducehimonthenextdayat11.00a.m.
Hedeposedabouttakingtheaccusedinveiltothepolicestation,
puttinghimintheseparatecellandgivingtheguardcommander
necessary directions as given by the DCP and then making the
stationdiaryentryno.31inhishandwriting,certifiedtruecopyof
whichisatExt.943,thecontentsofwhichheproved.
1312.
fromthelockuponthenextday,i.e.,on25/10/06,at10.15a.m.
and making station diary entry no. 23 in his own handwriting,
certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.943,thecontentsofwhichhe
provedandthengettingtheaccusedmedicallyexaminedatBhabha
Hospital. Ext.2196 is the true photocopy of the MLC book, the
contentsofwhichwereprovedbyDr.Yelkar,PW183,whichshows
thattheA5wasexaminedat10.25a.m.andtheonlycomplaintthat
he made was headache for one month and was brought by
PC29346 of Mahim Police Station, who according to PSI Powar,
PW94, was with him. PSI Powar, PW94, then deposed about
producing the accused before the DCP and being asked to wait
outside.
1313.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1398..
Ext.4825
deposedthatPSIPowar,PW94,producedtheA5beforehimat1210
hours, that he took the accused in his custody and asked the
policementogooutofhischamber,ensuredthatnobodycouldsee
or hear the proceedings of the recording of the confessional
statementandthenagainmadetheaccusedcomfortablebytelling
himthatheisinhiscustodyandnotinthecustodyoftheATSorthe
investigating officer.He deposedaboutagain asking him whether
anybody had threatened him or tortured him or given him any
promisetowhichtheaccusedrepliedinthenegativeandwhetherhe
is giving his statement voluntarily, to which he replied in the
affirmative. He deposed about giving statutory warning to the
accused and being satisfied from his answers and from his body
languagethattheaccusedisreadytogivetheconfessionalstatement
voluntarily.Hethendeposedaboutstartingtowritetheconfessional
statement in his own handwriting, giving it to the accused for
readingafterhecompleteditandaskinghimtoputhissignature
whentheaccusedtoldthatitwascorrectlywrittenasnarratedby
him.Hedeposedabouthealsoputtinghissignatureonallthepages
of PartII of the confessional statement, Ext.937, and writing the
certificate,Ext.938aspersection18oftheMCOCActandputting
bothin the envelope Ext.939. He identified signatures of both of
themonPartIIandproveditscontents.Heexpressedhisinabilityto
identifytheaccused.Hethendeposedabouthandingovercustody
oftheaccusedtoPSIPowar,PW94,andhisstaffalongwiththree
envelopes,directinghimtoproducetheaccusedbeforetheCMMon
thesamedayandprovedtheofficecopyoftheletterwrittentothe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1399..
Ext.4825
CMM,Ext.940,thatheputinanenvelope,whichhegavetoPSI
Powar,PW94,whocorroboratedhisversiondeposingthattheDCP
calledhiminsidehiscabinafter3.00p.m.andtoldhimtotakethe
custodyoftheaccused,whichhetookandputveilonhimandthe
DCPgivinghimthreeenvelopesaddressedtotheCMM,outofwhich
twowereclosedhavingrubberstampsonthem.Hedeposedabout
theDCPdirectinghimtotaketheaccusedtothehouseoftheACMM
asitwasapublicholidayonaccountofRamzanIdandaccordingly
he going there,producing the accusedand giving the letters and
then waiting outside. He deposed about being called inside after
sometimeandbeingtoldtotaketheaccusedtotheDCP,whichhe
did,thereuponDCPgavealetter,Ext.941addressedtotheATSand
askedhimtotaketheaccusedtotheATSoffice,whichhedid.He
deposed about returning back to the police station and making
stationdiaryentryno.37inhisownhandwriting,certifiedtruecopy
of which is at Ext.943, the contents of which he proved. He
identifiedtheA5inthecourtunhesitatingly.DCPPhadtare,PW93,
corroboratedhisversionaboutPSIPowar,PW94,producingtheA5
beforehimagaintobehandedovertotheinvestigatingofficerand
he giving the custody of the accused to PI Alaknure, PW153,
alongwithaletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.941.
1314.
deposedslightlyinconsistentlybydeposingthatPSIPowar,PW94,
ofPoliceStationMahimbroughttheaccusedtotheofficeoftheATS
at Bhoiwada and gave his custody to him and took his
acknowledgmentontheletter,Ext.941.Ithascomeinhisevidence
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1400..
Ext.4825
thatheputtheaccusedinthelockupandonhisdirectionsstation
diaryentryno.9,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1656,was
made, the contents of which he proved. The incharge CMM
forwardedthetwosealedenvelopestothiscourtalongwithhisletter
Ext.2812intheenvelopeExt.2813,whichwasreceivedinevidence
asitisanofficialcorrespondencebetweenthecourts.
1315.
respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA5fromtheATSofficetothe
office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody
of the ATS. All these actions are corroborated by the
contemporaneousentriesinthestationdiary,medicalcertificateand
letters between the three authorities inter se and there is no
hesitation to accept that the confessional statement has been
recordedbyfollowingdueprocessoflaw.
chronologyoftheeventsthathavetakenplaceandthedocuments
thatareproducedareseen,therecannotbeanyhesitationtoaccept
thattheconfessionshavebeenrecordedbyfollowingdueprocessof
law.Hesubmitsthattheprosecutionhasprimafacieestablishedhow
the confessions were recorded, all the relevant documents
corroboratingthetestimonyoftheDCPshavebeenproduced,the
DCPshavewithstoodthetestofcrossexaminationandhavegiven
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1401..
Ext.4825
frank answers to all the questions that were put to them, the
procedure postrecording of the confessions of producing the
accusedbeforetheCMMhasalsobeencompliedandtheconfessions
havereachedthiscourtinsealedconditiondirectlyfromtheofficeof
theCMM,therefore,theprimafaciecomplianceofsection18ofthe
MCOC Act is apparent on the basis of oral as well as the
documentaryevidence.
1317.
Thereisamultiprongedattackfromfourallsidesbythe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1402..
Ext.4825
firstcaseundertheMCOCActandthejudgementoftheSupreme
Courtdtd.06/08/09intheappealagainstthejudgementoftheHigh
Court reported in (2010) 14 SCC 641, both of which have been
relieduponbythelearnedSPP.Answerstomostofthelegaland
factual objections on points raised by learned advocate for the
defencecanbefoundinthesetwojudgementsundertheMCOCAct.
ItissubmittedbythelearnedadvocateYugChoudhary,whoargued
forlearnedadvocateWahabKhan,onlawpoints,thattheprovisions
of recording confessional statements in TADA and MCOC Act are
pari materia, therefore, the judgements under the TADA, POTA,
section24oftheEvidenceActandsection164oftheCr.P.C.will
applyequalforce.Tomymind,theguidanceinthejudgementofthe
HighCourtandSupremeCourtunderaspecialstatutelikeMCOC
Actwouldbemostrelevantandapplicable.Eventhensincelengthy
arguments are made, the principles of law laid down in the
judgementsarebeingenumerated.
1318.
authoritiesinsupportofhissubmissions:
(i)
((1994)3SupremeCourtCases569)(UnderTADA).
(ii)
AhmedHusseinValiMohammedSaiyed&Anr.,Appellants
V.StateofGujarat((2009)7SupremeCourtCases254)(Under
TADA).
(iii) State of Maharashtra, Appellant V. Shiraj Ahmed Nisar
Ahmed & Ors. ((2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 161) (Under
TADA).
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1403..
Ext.4825
(iv) State(NCTofDelhi),AppellantV.NavjotSandhu@Afsan
Guru(2005SupremeCourtCases(Cri)1715)(UnderPOTA).
(v)
Ayyub,AppellantV.StateofU.P.,Respondent((2002)3
SupremeCourtCases510)(UnderTADA).
(vi) Bharatbhai@ Jimi Premchandbhai,AppellantV. State of
Gujarat, Respondent ((2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 447)
(UnderTADA).
(vii) HardeepSinghSohal&Ors.,AppellantsV.StateofPunjab
ThroughCBI,Respondent((2004)11SupremeCourtCases612)
(UnderTADA).
(viii) DevendraPalSingh,AppellantV.StateofNCTofDelhiand
Anr.,Respondents((2002)5SupremeCourtCases234)(Under
TADA).
(ix) GulamMohammed@GulalShaikh,AppellantV.Stateof
Gujarat, Respondent ((2008)15 Supreme Court Cases 402)
(UnderPOTA).
(x)
(AIR1957SC216)(Undersection24oftheEvidenceAct).
(xi) Muthuswami, Appellant V. State of Madras, Respondent
(AIR1954SC4)(Undersection24oftheEvidenceAct).
(xii) Aloke Nath Dutta & Ors., Appellants V. State of West
Bengal, Respondent ((2007) 12 Supreme Court Cases 230)
(Undersection24oftheEvidenceActandsection164oftheCr.
P.C.).
(xiii) Nathu, Appellant V. State of Uttar Pradesh, Respondent
(AIR1956SC56)(Undersection24oftheEvidenceAct).
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1404..
Ext.4825
(xiv) Bharat,AppellantV.StateofU.P.,Respondent(1971(3)
SupremeCourtCases950)(Undersection164oftheCr.P.C.
andsection24oftheEvidenceAct).
(xv) State of Rajasthan, Appellant V. Raja Ram, Respondent
((2003)8SupremeCourtCases180)(Undersection24ofthe
EvidenceAct).
(xvi) Babu Singh, Appellant V. State of Punjab, Respondent
(1964(1)Cri.L.J.566)(Undersection164oftheCr.P.C.).
(xvii) Arup Bhuyan, Appellant V. State of Assam, Respondent
(2011)3SupremeCourtCases377)(UnderTADA).
(xviii) Vinod Solanki, Appellant V. Union of India & Anr.,
Respondents ((2008) 16 Supreme Court Cases 537) (Under
section24oftheEvidenceAct).
(xix) BhagwanSingh&Ors.V.StateofMP(2003ALLMR(Cri)
564(S.C.)(Undersection24oftheEvidenceAct).
(xx) PyareLalBhargava,AppellantV.TheStateofRajasthan,
Respondent(AIR1963SupremeCourt1094)(Undersection24
oftheEvidenceAct).
(xxi) Haroon Haji Abdulla, Appellant V. State of Maharashtra,
Respondent(AIR1968SupremeCourt832)(UnderSection30
oftheEvidenceAct).
(xxii) Manjit Singh @ Mange, Appellant V. Central Bureau of
Investigation,Respondent((2011)11SupremeCourtCases578)
(UnderTADA).
(xxiii)PrakashKumar@PrakashBhutto,AppellantV.Stateof
Gujarat, Respondent ((2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases 266)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1405..
Ext.4825
(UnderTADA).
(xiv) SarwanSinghRattanSingh,AppellantV.StateofPunjab,
Respondent ((8) AIR 1957 SC 637) (Under section 24 of the
EvidenceAct).
(xxv)HaricharanKurmi,AppellantV.StateofBihar,Respondent
(AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1184) (Under section 30 of the
EvidenceAct).
1319.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhanreliedontheauthoritiesin
1320.
LearnedadvocateShettyreliedonthefollowingauthorities
insupportofhissubmissions:
(i)
StateofMaharashtraV.SirajAhmedNisarAhmed&Ors.
(AIR2007SupremeCourt1859).
(ii)
(AIR1995SupremeCourt980).
(iii) Dhanajaya Reddy, Appellant V. State of Karnataka,
Respondent(2001SupremeCourtCases(Cri)652).
(iv) Palvinder Kaur, Appellant V. The State of Punjab,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1406..
Ext.4825
Respondent(AIR1952SupremeCourt354).
(v)
Respondent((2004)7SupremeCourtCases779).
(vi) K. I. Pavunny, Appellant V. Assistant Collector (HQ),
CentralExciseCollectorate,Cochin,Respondent(1997Supreme
CourtCases(Cri)444).
1321.
authorities:
(i)
(SC)19801220).
(ii)
AbdulVahid,AppellantV.StateofRajasthan,Respondents
(AIR(SC)200403211).
(iii) Sharafat Hussain Abdul Rahaman Shaikh & Ors.,
AppellantsV.StateofGujarat&Anr.,Respondents((1996)11
SupremeCourtCases62).
(iv) Mohamad Iqbal Farooq Sheikh, Appellant V. State of
Maharashtra,Respondents(LAWS(BOM)2006960).
(v) Daya Singh, State of Haryana, Appellant V. State of
Haryana,DayaSingh,Respondents(LAWS(SC)2001238).
(vi) HariRam,AppellantV.State,Respondent(1972Cri.L.J.
961).
(vii) Dhanajaya Reddy, Appellant V. State of Karnataka,
Respondent((2001)4SupremeCourtCases9).
1322.
(i)
LearnedSPPreliedonthefollowingauthoritiesinreply:
State of Maharashtra, Appellant V. Bharat Chaganlal
Raghani&Ors.,Respondents((2001)9SupremeCourtCases1).
JudgementMCOC21/06
(ii)
..1407..
Ext.4825
ManjitSingh@Mange,AppellantsV.CBI,throughitsS.P.,
Respondent(AIR2011SC806).
(iii) Afzalkhan @ Babu Murtuzakhan Pathan, Appellants V.
StateofGujarat,Respondent(AIR2007SC2111).
(iv) Mohmed Amin @ Amin Choteli Rahim Miyan Shaikh &
Anr., Appellants V. C.B.I. through its Director, Respondent
((2008)15SCC49).
(v)
1323.
learnedadvocatesYugChoudharyandWahabKhanforthedefence
in respect of the reliance by the learned SPP on an authority.
Anticipating that the learned SPP would cite the authority in the
case of Bharat Chaganlal Raghani, learned advocate Yug
ChoudharycitedDevenraPalSinghandsubmittedthattheviewin
BharatChaganlalRaghani'scase(twojudges)wasthatitwasnot
necessary for the CMM to open the envelope containing the
confessionalstatement.However,thisisacomplicatedaspectasa
contraryviewistakeninDevendraPalSingh'scase(threejudges),
whichhasmadethejobofthiscourtabitdifficult.Pointingoutthe
word'confirmation'inthesentence'Thepurposeoftheconfessional
statement being sent to the court by producing the accused for
confirmation(emphasissupplied)ofthestatementistoensurethat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1408..
Ext.4825
1324.
Iamafraidbutsubmissionsofbothlearnedadvocatesare
notonlywrong,butanexampleofmisinterpretation,i.e.,tryingto
readwhatisnotthereandnotreadingwhatisthere.Inclearterms
theSupremeCourthassaidinparagraph36inthecaseof Bharat
Chaganlal Raghani that, 'Rule 15 does not oblige such Magistrate
either to open the envelope containing the confessional statement
recorded by the police officer or to satisfy himself regarding the
voluntarynatureoftheconfession.TheMagistrate,atthemost,can
record the statement of the accused if made regarding alleged
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1409..
Ext.4825
harassment,tortureorthelike.IftheMagistrate,referredtoinsub
rule (5) of Rule 15 has to ascertain the voluntary nature of the
confessionalstatement,thepurposeofSection15authorisingapolice
officertorecordtheconfessionalstatementshallstandfrustrated'.In
my humble opinion, it cannot be interpreted that the use of the
word'confirmation'inparagraph36inDevendraPalSingh'scaseis
a contrary view to the law laid down in the case of Bharat
ChaganlalRaghani andcannotbeinterpretedtomeanthatifthe
accused complains then the envelope has to be opened and the
magistrate has to ascertain the nature and circumstances under
whichtheconfessionwasmade.Itcanalsonotbesaidthatthelaw
laid down in Bharat Chaganlal Raghani case has been
distinguished by the law laid down in the case of Devendra Pal
Singh.In myhumbleopinion, itcan be said thatthe purpose of
sendingthesealedenvelopecontainingtheconfessionalstatement
tothemagistrateisonlytoensurethatitistakenoutofthehandsof
theDCPandistransmittedinthesameconditionasitwaswhenit
was sent by the DCP and does not fall in the hands of the
investigating police, and, then it is sent by the magistrate to the
designatedcourt.
1325.
Therelevantprinciplesoflawthatcanbeculledoutfrom
thejudgementsrelieduponbythelearnedadvocatesfortheaccused
canbeenumeratedasfollows:
General:
(i)
Rightofaccesstolegalaid,toconsultandtobedefendedbya
legalpractitionerariseswhenapersonarrestedinconnectionwitha
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1410..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1411..
Ext.4825
Apersonaccusedofcommissionofanoffenceisnotexpected
toprovetothehiltthattheconfessionhadbeenobtainedfromhim
byanyinducement,threatorpromisebyapersoninauthority.The
burdenisonprosecutiontoshowthattheconfessionstatementis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1412..
Ext.4825
voluntaryinnatureandnotobtainedasanoutcomeofthreat,etc.,if
thesameistoberelieduponsolelyforthepurposeofsecuringa
conviction.(VinodSolanki).
(x)
Recordingofaconfessionundersection164oftheCr.P.C.is
notexcludedbyanyexclusionaryprovisionintheTADAAct.Police
officer investigating the case under the TADA Act can get the
confession recorded by any metropolitan magistrate, judicial
magistrate, executive magistrate or special executive magistrate.
(KartarSingh).
(xi) To establish that the confession is true, it is necessary to
examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the
prosecutionevidenceandprobabilitiesofthecase.(SarwanSingh).
Procedural:
(xii) Nobreachofprocedureandtheacceptednormsofrecording
the confession which should reflect only the true and voluntary
statementandthereshouldbenoroomforhypercriticismthatthe
authorityhasobtainedaninventedconfessionasasourceofproof.
(KartarSingh).
(xiii) Statutoryobligationundersubsection(2)ofsection15ofthe
TADAonthepoliceofficerrecordingtheconfessiontoexplaintothe
person making it that he is not bound to make it and to give a
statutory warning that if he does so, it may be usedas evidence
againsthim.(KartarSingh).
(xiv) Rule15oftheTADARules,requiresthepoliceofficertomake
amemorandumattheendofconfessionthathehasexplaineditto
themakerintermsofsr.no.(ii)above.(KartarSingh).
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1413..
Ext.4825
underRule15(3)(b)ismandatory.
(b)
Thelanguageofthecertificateandthememorandumisnot
mandatory.
(c)
Incasethecertificateandthememorandumisnotprepared,
butthecontemporaneousrecordshowssubstantialcompliancewith
what is required to be contained therein, the discrepancy can be
curedifthereisoralevidenceoftherecordingofficerbasedonsuch
contemporaneousrecord.
(d)
Omissiontogetsignatureontheconfessionalstatement
Retractedconfessions:
(xviii)
Atrueconfessionmadevoluntarilymaybeactedupon
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1414..
Ext.4825
laiddownasaninflexibleruleofpracticeorprudencethatunderno
circumstancescansuchaconfessionbemadewithoutcorroboration
oracourtmayinaparticularcasebeconvincedoftheabsolutetruth
ofaconfessionandcompelledtoactuponitwithoutcorroboration;
butitmaybelaiddownasageneralruleofpracticethatitisunsafe
torelyuponaconfession,muchlessonaretractedconfessionunless
the court is satisfied that the retracted confession is true and
voluntarilymadeandhasbeencorroboratedinmaterialparticulars.
(Navjot Sandhu referring to Bharat V. State of UP, Subramania
Gounden,PyarelalandParmanandPegu).
(xix)
everycircumstancementionedintheretractedconfessionregarding
the complicity of the maker need not be separately and
independentlycorroborated.Itwouldbesufficientthatthegeneral
trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which
would tally with what is contained in the confession. (Navjot
Sandhu referring to Bharat V. State of UP, Subramania Gounden,
PyarelalandParmanandPegu).
(xx)
Acourtmaytakeintoaccounttheretractedconfession,
butitmustprobeforthereasonsformakingoftheconfessionas
well as for its retraction and must weigh the two to determine
whetherretractionaffectsthevoluntarynatureoftheconfessionor
not.(NavjotSandhureferringtoBharatV.StateofUP,Subramania
Gounden,PyarelalandParmanandaPegu).
(xxi)
voluntarynatureofaretractedconfession,thecourtmustbearin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1415..
Ext.4825
mindtheattendingcircumstances,whichwouldincludethetimeof
retraction,thenaturethereof,themannerinwhichsuchretraction
hasbeenmadeandotherrelevantfactors.(VinodSolanki).
(xxii)
objectiveevidenceformingthebackdropofretractionandlaterthe
examinationofsuchevidenceofretraction.Affirmativeindicationof
external pressure will renderthe retractedconfessionnugatoryin
effect.(AlokeNathDutta).
(xxiv)
Ifinrealitythereisnoconfession,thequestionofany
retractiondoesnotarise.(GulamMohammed).
(xxv)
Ifthecourtissatisfiedthatitwasretractedbecauseof
Retractedconfessionisaweakevidence,therefore,no
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1416..
Ext.4825
Admissibility:
(xxvii)
Thecourttryingtheoffencemust,whiledecidingthe
questionofadmissibilityorreliabilityofaconfession,initsjudicial
wisdomstrictlyadheringtothelaw,satisfyitselfthattherewasno
trap, no track and no importune seeking of evidence during the
custodialinterrogationandalltheconditionsarefulfilled.(Kartar
Singh).
(xxviii)
Theconfessionalstatementrecordedundersection 15
Theconfessionalstatementrecordedundersection 15
oftheTADAActisasubstantivepieceofevidence.(AhmedHussein
ValiMohammedSaiyed).
(xxx)
Actisalsoasubstantivepieceofevidenceagainstthecoaccused,
however in the case of coaccused, though taken as substantive
evidence, as a rule of prudence, the court would look upon
corroborative evidence as well. (Ahmed Hussein Vali Mohammed
Saiyed).
(xxxi)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1417..
Ext.4825
Evaluation:
(xxxii)
Thetwintesttobeappliedtoevaluatetheconfession
are (i) whether the confession was perfectly voluntary, (ii) if so,
whetheritistrueandtrustworthy.Ifthefirsttestisnotsatisfied,the
question of applying second test does not arise. (Navjot Sandhu
referringtoShankariaV.StateofRajasthan).
(xxxiii)
offenceoratanyrate,substantiallyallthefactswhichconstitutethe
offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even of a
conclusiveincriminatingfact,isnotofitselfaconfession.
(b)
amounttoaconfession,iftheexculpatorystatementisofsomefact,
whichiftrue,wouldnegativetheoffenceallegedtobe confessed.
(PalvinderKaur).
(xxxiv)
indicatesthatwitnessesaretutoredbecauseitisnotthelanguageof
aMuslimtoaddresshisfatheras'pitaji'.(AbdulWahid).
(xxxvi)
underanyprovisionoflawthentheentireconfessionalstatement
mustbeexcluded,unlesstheproofofitispermittedbysomeother
provisions.(DhanajayaReddy).
(xxxvii)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1418..
Ext.4825
evaluatedisthatthecourtshouldcarefullyexaminetheconfession
and compare it with the rest of the evidence, in the light of the
surroundingcircumstancesandprobabilitiesofthecase.Ifonsuch
examination and comparison, the confession appears to be a
probable catalogue of events and naturally fits in the rest of the
evidence and the surrounding circumstances, it may be taken to
havesatisfiedthesecondtest.(NavjotSandhureferringtoShankaria
V.StateofRajasthan).
1326.
relieduponbythelearnedSPPRajaThakare:
Procedural:
(i)
Thetesttojudgetheconstitutionalandlegalacceptabilityofa
confessionrecordedundersection164oftheCr.P.C.isnotwhether
the accused would have made the statement, had he been
sufficientlyscaredbythelawyer,regardingtheconsequencesofthe
confession. The true test is whether or not the confession is
voluntary.Ifadoubtiscreatedregardingthevoluntarinessofthe
confession, notwithstanding, the safeguards stipulated in section
164 of the Cr. P. C., it has to be trashed, but if a confession is
established as voluntarily,it must be taken into account not only
constitutionally and legally, but also morally. (Mohammed Ajmal
Kasab).
(ii)
TheaccusedinPCbeforerecordingtheirconfessionandnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1419..
Ext.4825
havingaccesstolegalassistanceandconfessionsbeingrecordedby
officers,whowereactivelysupervisingtheinvestigationofthecase
andwereinapositiontoinfluencetheappellantscannotmakethe
confessioninadmissibleorunreliableifthereistotalcomplianceof
themandateoflawinrecordingconfessionandiftheaccuseddid
not utter a word about any threat, coercion, inducement or
allurementbeforetheCMManddidnotmakeanygrievanceofill
treatment,torture(physicalormental)inducementorallurementby
the investigating officer to the court before whom they were
producedforremand.(MohmedAmin).
(iii)
eithertoopentheenvelopecontainingtheconfessionalstatement
recordedbythepoliceofficerortosatisfyhimselfaboutvoluntary
natureoftheconfession.Themagistrate,atthemost,canrecordthe
statement of the accused if made regarding alleged harassment,
tortureorthelike.(BharatRaghani).
(iv)
Thereshouldbenohesitation toholdthattheconfessional
statementsaremadevoluntarilywithoutanythreat,inducementor
pressureifmemorandumasdesiredbysubrule(3)ofRule15ofthe
TADARulesisnotrecorded,butiftheDCPhascompliedwithallthe
mandatoryprovisionsofsection15oftheTADA.(BharatRaghani).
(v)
Departurefromtheformorthewordscannotadverselyaffect
theobjectoftheprovisionsorthepersonmakingtheconfessionso
long as the court is able to conclude that the requirements have
beensubstantiallycompliedwith.Nopublicpurposeislikelytobe
achieved by holding that the certificate and the memorandum
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1420..
Ext.4825
shouldbeinthesameformandalsointhesametermsasaretobe
foundinRule15(3).(Nalini).
(vi)
Nospecificstatementincertificatethattherecordcontains'a
fullandtrueaccountofconfessionmade',buttheveryfactthatthe
confessionisrecordedinthehandwritingofthepoliceofficerwill
implythatitwasrecordedinhispresenceandwasrecordedbyhim.
Soalsowhenitismentionedinthecertificatesandmemorandums
thattheconfessionwasrecordedasperthesayoftheaccusedthatit
wasreadovertohimfully,etc.,wouldmeanthatitcontains'atrue
andfullaccountoftheconfession'.(AfzalKhanreferringtoS.N.
DubeyV.N.B.Bhoir(2000)Cri.L.J.830).
(vii) ConfessioncannotberegardedasnotinconformitywithRule
15(3)(b)oftheTADAActifstatutorywarningofprecautionsgiven
toaccusedaremixedupbywritingcertificateandmemorandumor
ifsuchstatementsinsteadofappearingattheendoftheconfession
inthememorandumappearintheearlierpartoftheconfessionin
questionandanswerform.(AfzalKhan).
Retractedconfessions:
(viii) Retracted confessions are good confessions if held to have
beenmadevoluntarilyandinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoflaw.
(ix)
Aconfessionalstatementgivenundersection15oftheTADA
Actshallnotbediscardedmerelyforthereasonthatithasbeen
retracted. (Manjeet Singh referring Ravinder Singh V. State of
Maharashtra(2002)9SCC55).
(x)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1421..
Ext.4825
ingenuityoftheadvocatesoftheaccused,arenotvalidgroundsto
discardtheconfession.(MohmedAmin).
Evaluation:
(xi)(a)
Corroborationoftheconfessionalstatementisnota
Inordertosustainaconvictiononthebasisofaconfessional
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1422..
Ext.4825
interrogation,hewouldhaverecalledsmallestdetailsofhispastlife,
especiallyrelevanttothepreparationsandtrainingfortheattackon
Mumbaiandwhentheappellant(MohammedAjmalKasab)wentto
the magistrate to make his confession, everything would be
completely fresh in his mind, he would also have unconsciously
pickedup words from his interrogation and those would have
becomepartofhisownvocabulary.(MohammedAjmalKasab).
(xv) Use of bold letters does not make the confession doubtful
justifyingtheconclusionthattherehadbeeninterpolations.(Bharat
Raghani).
(xvi) Confession recorded under section 15 of the TADA Act is
substantivepieceofevidencenotonlyagainstthemakerofit,but
also against his coaccused, because it is an important departure
fromtheordinarylawandmustreceivethatinterpretationwhich
would achieve the object of that provision and not truncate it.
(BharatRaghani).
(xvii)Voluntaryandtruthfulconfessionalstatementrecordedunder
section 15 of the TADA Act requires no corroboration. (Manjeet
SinghreferringtoRavinderSinghwhichreferstoNalini,S.N.Dube
andDevenderPalSingh).
1327.
RatherthanenumeratingtheprinciplesoflawintheVth
andVIthauthoritiesrelieduponbythelearnedSPP,itwouldbeapt
toreproducetheconspectusoflawregardingconfessionsdoneby
theDivisionBenchoftheBombayHighCourtanditsobservationsin
ConfirmationCaseNo.01/01,whichwasthefirstcaseunderthe
MCOC Act. This judgement was delivered on 17/12/03. The
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1423..
Ext.4825
provisionsregardingrecordingofconfessionsundertheMCOCAct
were discussed alongwith similar provisions in section 15 of the
TADAActalongwiththeleadingcaselawonthattopic:
'ProvisionsregardingrecordingofconfessionsunderMCOCAct(XXIV)'
71.
Themainstay(emphasissupplied)oftheprosecutioncaseisthe
confessionsmadebyA1,A4,A5,A6,A7andA8,whereinthesesix
accused have clearly admitted their connection and/or participation
(emphasissupplied)intheallegedcrime.Theconfessionsarerecorded
notbyanyMagistratebutbythreedifferentpoliceofficersoftherank
of Dy. Commissioner of Police under section 18 of the MCOC Act.
Undersection25oftheEvidenceActaconfessionmadetoapolice
officercannotbeprovedasagainstapersonaccusedofanyoffence.
However,section18oftheMCOCActisacleardeparturefromtherule
statedinsection25oftheEvidenceAct.(Section18oftheMCOCAct
wasreproduced).
InthisconnectionitmaybepointedoutthatundertheTerrorist
andDisruptiveActivities(Prevention)Act,1987(forshortTADA,Act),
therewasasimilarprovisioninsection15,whichpermittedrecording
ofconfessionsmadebytheaccusedbeforeapoliceofficer,notlowerin
rankofSuperintendentofPoliceandwhichshallbeadmissibleinthe
trialofsuchpersonorcoaccused,abettororconspiratorforanoffence
under that Act or rules made thereunder. The question about the
constitutionalvalidityoftheprovisionsofsection15oftheTADAwas
consideredbytheSupremeCourtinthecaseofKartarSinghvs.State
ofPunjab1994(3)SCC569.Itwasheldthatiftheexigenciesof
certainsituationwarrantsuchalegislationthenitisconstitutionally
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1424..
Ext.4825
permissible.Thecourtpointedoutthatinsomeadvancedcountrieslike
UK,USA,AustraliaandCanada,etc.,confessionofanaccusedbefore
thepoliceisadmissibleandhavingregardtothelegalcompetenceof
thelegislaturetomakethelawprescribingthedifferentmodeofproof,
themeaningfulpurposeandobjectofthatlegislation,thegravityof
terrorismunleashedbytheterroristanddisruptionistsendangeringnot
onlythesovereintyandintegrityofthecountrybutalsothenormallife
ofthecitizens,andthereluctanceofeventhevictimsaswellasthe
publicincomingforward,attheriskoftheirlife,togiveevidence,the
said section could not be said to be suffering from any vice of
unconstitutionality.Itmaybepointedoutthatconstitutionalvalidity
oftheMCOCActwaschallengedbeforethiscourtalsobutthedivision
benchofthiscourtupheldtheconstitutionalityofalltheprovisions
except Ss. 13 to 16 and part of Section 21 (5). The Court further
clarifiedthatS.3and4contemplateexistenceofmensreainherently
and shall always be read therein as a necessary ingredient of the
offence(videBharatShahV.sStateofMaharashtra2003Bom.C.
R.Cri.947).Theprovisionsofsection15(1)oftheTADAandthoseof
section 18 (1) of the MCOC Act are almost identical. In Kartar
Singh'scasetheSupremeCourt,however,laiddowncertainguidelines
toensurethattheconfessionobtainedinpreindictmentinterrogation
byapoliceofficernotbelowtherankofSuperintendentofPoliceisnot
tainted with any vice but is in strict conformity with the well
recognisedandacceptedaestheticprinciplesandfundamentalfairness.
Itispertinenttonotethatthesaidguidelinesarefoundtohavebeen
incorporatedinsubsection2to6ofsection18oftheMCOCAct.It,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1425..
Ext.4825
therefore,followsthatconfessionofanaccusedrecordedundersection
18 (1) of the MCOC Act by a police officer not below the rank of
SuperintendentofPoliceisadmissibleinevidence,providedthesame
hasbeenrecordedincompliancewiththeguidelinesincorporatedin
subsection2to6ofsection18.AsobservedinBharatBhaivs.State
ofGujarat(2002)8SCC447,itisfortheprosecutiontoprovethat
the confessional statement which is being relied upon is voluntary,
truthfulandallsafeguardswerecompliedwithwhilerecordingit.It
wasfurtherheldthatiftheconfessionisdulyrecordedandisprovedto
bevoluntaryandtruthful,thenitcanbetakentobeamostreliable
pieceofevidencecomingfromtheaccusedhimselfandcanbemadethe
solebasisofconviction.Itwasallegedthataconfessionrecordedunder
section 15 of TADA Act is substantive piece of evidence, which is
admissible. These observations will apply with equal force to a
confessionrecordedundersection18oftheMCOCAct.Thecourtwill
havefirsttoverifythattherehasbeencomplianceofalltheguidelines
laiddowninsubsection2to6ofsection18oftheMCOCAct.(Sub
rules1to8ofRule3ofMCOCRuleswerediscussed).Itwillthusbe
seenthatalltheserulesareinthenatureofproceduralguidelines.
1328.
objectionsraisedinthecasewerethendiscussed.Thenthecontents
of the confessional statements of each of the six accused were
reproducedandthenfollowingobservationsweremade:
Admissibilityofconfessions(XXXII)
91.ShriGupte,thelearnedcounselforaccusedno.7pointed
outthatthelearnedtrialJudgehasstartedwiththeconfessionsofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1426..
Ext.4825
accusedandthenproceededtoseekcorroborativeevidenceinsupport
ofthesame.AccordingtoShriGuptethisapproachofthelearnedtrial
Judgeistotallyerroneousasconfessionscannotbemadesolebasisof
conviction. RelyinguponthedecisioninKashmirasinghvsStateof
MadhyaPradesh(A.I.R.1952S.C.159),andHarichranKurmi
vsStateofBihar(AIR1965S.C.1184),ShriGuptesubmittedthat
confessionscannotbemadefoundationforaconvictionandcanonly
beusedinsupportoftheotherevidence.Inthesaidcases,itwaslaid
downthattheproperwayisfirsttomarshaltheevidenceagainstand
accusedexcludingtheconfessionaltogetherfromconsiderationandsee
whetherifitisbelievedaconvictioncouldsafelybebasedonit.Itwas
furtherheldthattheJudgemaycallinaidtheconfessionanduseitto
lendassurance totheother evidence. The law regarding confessions
appears to have undergone a considerable change since the above
mentionedtwodecisions.InS.N.DubevsN.B.Bhoir2000Cr.L.J.
830,theSupremeCourtheldthatconfessionrecordedundersection15
ofTADAActissubstantivepieceofevidenceanditcanbeusedagainst
coaccusedalsoifotherwiseitisfoundtobeadmissible,voluntaryand
believable.ThesameviewwastakenbytheSupremeCourtinthecase
of JaywantDattatrayavs.StateofMaharashtra(2002Cr.L.J,
226) and JamilAhmedvsStateRajasthan(2003(2)Crimes53
(S.C.),whichwerethecasesundertheTADAAct.Inthelattercase,it
was held that if the confessional statement is properly recorded
satisfyingthemandatoryprovisionsofsection15oftheTADAActand
theRulesmadethereunderandifthesameisfoundbythecourtas
havingbeenmadevoluntarilyandtruthfulthenthesaidconfessionis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1427..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1428..
Ext.4825
Decision(S.C.),189,itwasheldthatsection15oftheTADAActis
animportantdeparturefromtheordinarylawandmustreceivethat
interpretationwhichwouldachievetheobjectofthatprovisionandnot
frustrate or truncate. The correct legal position is that aconfession
recorded under section15 of the TADA Act is a substantive piece of
evidenceandcanbeusedagainstacoaccusedalso.Similarviewhas
been taken by the Supreme Court in the subsequent decision in
RavinderSinghvsStateofMaharashtra2002Cri.L.J.2957.
TheabovedecisionsapplytocasesundertheM.C.O.C.Act
withequalforcesincetherelevantprovisionsundertheTADAActand
MCOCActareparimateriathesame.Inshortaconfessionrecorded
undertheMCOCActcanverywellbeusedassubstantiveevidencenot
onlyagainsttheaccusedwhomakesitbutalsoagainstthecoaccused
subjecttotheconditionthattheyaretriedtogetherinthesamecase.
POSTCONFESSIONFORMALITIES(XXXIII)
94. Subsection 3 of Section 18 of the MCOC Act interalia
requiresthepoliceofficerrecordingtheconfessiontocertifyinwriting
belowtheconfessionabouthispersonalsatisfactionofthevoluntary
characterofsuchconfessionputtingthedateandtimeofthesame.
Rule3(6)oftheMCOCRules1999prescribestheformofcertificate.
(Formatofcertificateisreproduced).
95.Itistruethatnoneoftheseconfessionsbearsacertificateof
theconcernedD.C.P.intheaboveterms. TheconfessionofA1Ex
P188AstatesseveralquestionswereputtotheaccusedNo.1andhe
freelyandvoluntarilymadetheconfession.Itwasgiventounderstand
thathewasnotboundtogiveconfessionandthatanyconfessiongiven
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1429..
Ext.4825
byhimcouldbeusedasevidenceagainsthim.TheconfessionofA4Ex.
P149collectivelyrecordsthecertificatetotheeffectthathewasgiven
tounderstandthathewasnotboundtomakeanyconfessionandthat
ifhedoesso,itmaybeusedasevidenceagainsthim.Thecertificate
further records that the confession was made voluntarily. The
certificatesgivenbyD.C.P.ShindeP.W.60belowtheconfessionofA5
Ex.P210, A6 Ex.P212 and A7 Ex. P216 are to the effect I m
personally satisfied the above made confessions have been done
voluntarily.TheconfessionofA8Ex.P151denotesthataccusedwas
explainedthathewasnotboundtomakeconfessionandthatifhe
doesso,itmaybeusedaevidenceagainsthim.Thecertificatefurther
recordsthesatisfactionoftheD.C.P.Kadamthattheconfessionwas
voluntarily made by the accused. It will thus be seen that the
certificatesbelowallthesixconfessionsarenotstrictlyinaccordance
withtheformgiveninRule3(6).Inouropinion,thesaidruleisnot
mandatorybutdirectoryashavingregardtosubsection3ofSection
18whatisimportanttobecertifiedisthepersonalsatisfactionofthe
concernedpoliceofficeraboutthevoluntarycharacteroftheconfession
recordedbyhim.Therefore,inouropinion,therehasbeensubstantial
complianceofRule3(6)sofarasthecertificatesbelowtheconfessions
areconcerned. Intheinstantcase,allthesixconfessionsreferredto
abovehavebeencertifiedbytheconcernedD.C.P.asbeingofvoluntary
character. Thus, there is compliance of the third condition
contemplatedbysection18(3).
96.Subsection(4)requirestheconfessiontobeforwardedto
the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the Chief Judicial Magistrate
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1430..
Ext.4825
havingjurisdictionovertheareainwhichsuchconfessionhasbeen
recorded.TheMagistratewhohasreceivedtheconfessionisrequiredto
forwardthesametotheSpecialCourtwhichmaytakecognizanceof
theoffence.Intheinstantcase,allthesixconfessionsweresenttothe
ChiefMetropolitanMagistratewhothereafter,forwardedthesameto
theSpecialCourtunderhisseparateletters.Subsection5ofSection18
requiresthepersonwhoseconfessionhasbeenrecorded,tobeproduced
beforetheChiefMetropolitanMagistrateorChiefJudicialMagistrate
alongwiththeoriginalstatementorconfession.Subsection6requires
suchMagistratetoscrupulouslyrecordthestatement,ifanymadeby
theaccusedsoproducedbeforehimandobtainhissignaturethereon.
In case of any complaint of torture, such Magistrate is required to
directproductionoftheaccusedbeforeamedicalofficernotlowerin
rank of an Assistant Civil Surgeon. In the instant case, all the 6
accused were produced before the Metropolitan Magistrate on the
respectivedatesonwhichtheirconfessionswererecorded.TheChief
Metropolitan Magistrate has also recorded the statements of the
concernedaccusedandobtainedtheirsignaturethereon.Noneofthe
six accused made any complaint of torture before the Chief
MetropolitanMagistrate.Thereafter,theChiefMetropolitanMagistrate
forwarded all the confessions to the Special Court alongwith his
separateforwardingletter.ItisnecessarytopointoutthatA4,A5,A6
andA7retractedtheirconfessionsintheirstatementsrecordedbythe
ChiefMetropolitanMagistrate.Thus,therehasbeenformalcompliance
oftheprovisionsofsubsection5and6ofRule18.ShriMajidMemon,
thelearnedcounselforA5andA6submittedbeforeusthatitwasthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1431..
Ext.4825
dutyoftheChiefMetropolitanMagistratetoopenthesealedpackets
containing confessions of the accused and examine the same to
ascertain that they really amounted to confessions. He further
submitted that confession is not completed until the Magistrate
certificatesittobevoluntary.AccordingtoShriMemon,sendingofthe
accusedandforwardingofconfessiontotheMagistrateisnotanempty
formality and the Magistrate is not supposed to act like a mere
postman.WehavecarefullyconsideredthissubmissionsofShriMemon
inthelightofprovisionsofsubsection18andweareunabletoaccept
thesame.Thereisnothinginthesetwosubsectionswhichrequiresthe
Magistratetoquestiontheaccusedinconnectionwithhisconfession
recordedbythepoliceofficerandtoascertainwhetherornotthesame
isvoluntary.AllthattheMagistrateissupposedtodoistorecorda
statementof concerned accused if anymadeby him and obtainhis
signatures thereon. In case of complaint of torture, Magistrate is
requiredtosendtheaccusedtothemedicalofficer.Ifthelegislature
hadintendedtogiveanysuchpowertotheMagistratetoverifythe
voluntarinessorotherwiseoftheconfessionforwardedtohim,thenin
our opinion, it would have certainly provided for the same in sub
section6.InthisconnectionlearnedSPPdrewoutattentiontoRule
15(5) of the TADA Rules 1987 which enjoins that every confession
recordedundersection15ortheTADAActtobesentforthwithtothe
ChiefMetropolitanMagistrateortheChiefJudicialMagistratehaving
jurisdictionovertheareainwhichsuchconfessionhasbeenrecorded
andtheMagistratehastoforwardtherecordedconfessionsoreceived
tothedesignatedcourtwhichmaytakecognizanceoftheoffence.It
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1432..
Ext.4825
willthusbeseenthatRule15(5)oftheTADARuleissubstantially
similartosubsection6ofSection18oftheMCOCAct.Ms.Salian
relieduponthefollowingdecisionsoftheSupremeCourt.InVariyam
SinghV/s.StateofU.P.(1995)6SupremeCourtCases458and
JamilAhmd.V/s.StateofRajastan(Supra),itwasheldthatRule
15oftheTADARulesisnotmandatorybutdirectoryandthatsending
ofconfessionalstatementdirectlytothedesignatedcourtwasmerelya
procedural irregularity which did not vitiate the trial. In State of
Maharashtra V/s. Bharat Chaganlal 2001 (3) Crimes 234
Supreme Court, it was held that Rule 15 of TADA Rules does not
obligetheMagistrateeithertoopenenvelopecontainingconfessional
statementrecordedbythepoliceofficerortosatisfyhimselfregarding
voluntary nature of the confession. It was further held that the
Magistrateatthemostcanrecordedthestatementoftheaccusedif
maderegardingallegedharassment,tortureorthelike.Itistruethat
unlikeTADAAct,therequirementofsendingconfessionalongwiththe
accused to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or Chief Judicial
Magistrateisincorporatedinthesubsection5and6oftheSection18
of the MCOC Act. However, that does not make much difference
becausethesaidrequirementsaremattersofprocedure.Thepurposeof
making such provisions appears to be that the accused can at the
earliestopportunitycomplaintotheMagistratethathisconfessionwas
recorded under threat, inducement, etc., and he can also make a
complaintoftorturetohim.Theotherpurposeseemstobetogetthe
recorded confession out of the hands of the police and forward the
sametotheSpecialCourtforthwithsothattherewouldnotbeany
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1433..
Ext.4825
changeorinterpolationmadeintheconfession.Subsection6ofthe
Section18however,doesnotatallcontemplateanyverificationofthe
confessionasregardsitsvoluntarynatureortruthofcontentsbythe
Magistrate.ItisfortheSpecialCourttodecidethatquestion.Forthese
reasons,weareunabletoacceptthesubmissionsmadebyShriMemon.
AsalreadystatedA4,A5,A6andA7retractedtheirrespective
1329.
beforetheHighCourt.Thedateoftheincidentwas04/03/99.The
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1434..
Ext.4825
provisionsoftheMCOCActwereinvokedinthecrimeon26/03/99.
AccusedNo.
DateofArrest
Dateofconfession
A1
13/03/99
10/04/99
A4
21/06/99
13/07/99
A5
18/06/99
26/07/99
A6
18/06/99
26/07/99
A7
15/06/99
05/08/99
A8
21/07/99
13/07/99
ConfessionsofthesesixaccusedwererecordedbythreeDCPs.
statementoftheA1on10/04/99.
DCP Anant Shinde, PW60, recorded the confessional
statementsoftwoaccused,i.e.,A5andA6onthesameday,i.e.,on
26/07/99.HealsorecordedtheconfessionalstatementoftheA7on
05/08/99.
DCPKadam,PW39,alsorecordedtheconfessionalstatements
of two accused, i.e., the A4 and A8 on the same day, i.e., on
13/07/99.
1330.
whichwasthemainstayoftheprosecutioncase,andconvictedthe
A1andA4toA8andacquittedtheA2andA3.TheHighCourtdid
not believe the confessional statements of A5 and A6 as their
preliminary statements (PartI) were not forthcoming and DCP
Shinde,PW60,inhisevidencestatedthathehadsentthemtothe
investigatingofficer,ACPSawant,PW61,whodidnotsayso.Itwas
heldthatthereforetherewasafailureonthepartoftheDCPwho
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1435..
Ext.4825
1331.
Courtasareraisedinthiscaseanditwillnotbeoutofplacetorefer
tothembrieflyastheywouldcovermostoftheobjectionsraisedin
the present case. It was observed that there is a common set of
questionsaskedtoeachofthesixaccusedand, thisisimportant,
there are only three questions, viz., (i) whether the police had
assaultedtheaccused,(ii)whetherthepoliceoranyotherperson
hadthreatenedtheaccusedbygivinganinducementtomakethe
confession,and,(iii)whetherthe police oranyother person had
givenanypromisetotheaccusedthatonhismakingtheconfession,
hewouldbereleasedorhewouldgetalesserpunishmentorthathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1436..
Ext.4825
wouldbemadeawitness.Itwasobservedfromtheevidenceofthe
DCPs that they had made it clear to the accused that it was not
necessary or compulsoryfor them to make a confession, that the
accusedwerealsogiventounderstandthatincaseofmakingany
confession,samecouldbeusedagainstthemasevidence,thatafter
recordingtheanswersoftheaccusedtothesepreliminaryquestions,
theyweregivennotlessthan24hourstimeforretractionandgiven
tounderstandthattheywerebeingkeptinalockupotherthanthat
of the investigating machinery, so that the police officer who
arrestedthemorwhowereinvestigatingthecasewouldnotbeina
position to pressurize them. On going through the questions and
answersputtoeachofthesixaccused,itwasobservedthatallthe
statementsweresignedbyallrespectiveaccusedandtheHighCourt
heldthatitwassatisfiedthatonthewhole,thequestionsputtothe
accusedwere sufficienttoascertain their willingnesstomakethe
confession.
1332.
OngoingthroughtheevidenceofthethreeDCPs,itwas
observedthatsamequestionsaswereputonthedateonwhichthe
accusedwereproducedthembeforethefirsttime,i.e., onlythree
questions,wereagainputtothemwhentheywereproducedbefore
theDCPafterthetimeofretractionwasoverinordertoascertain
whethertheystillwantedtomaketheconfessions.Itwasobserved
thatmoreorlessthequestionsputtoeachaccusedarethesame
thoughinrespectofsomeoftheaccusedthenumberofquestions
defers. It was also found that the concerned officer had first
ascertainedwhether the timeofreflection giventothe respective
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1437..
Ext.4825
accusedwasfoundtobesufficientbythemortheywantedfurther
timetothinkoverthematter,buteachoftheaccusedtoldthatthe
time given for retraction was sufficient and he did not want any
moretimeforthatpurpose.Itwasobservedthateachoftheaccused
wasthenaskedsomequestionsaboutthreateningorintimidatingby
the police or promise or inducement to make the confessional
statementandwhetherhewasmakingitonhisfreewillorunder
thepressureofsomeoneandeachaccusedwasgiventounderstand
andthattherewerenocompulsiononhimtomakethestatement.
1333.
Itwasobservedthatitisonlyuponconsiderationofthe
answersgivenbytheaccusedthatthethreeDCPsfeltsatisfiedabout
thevoluntarinessoftheaccusedtomaketheirstatements,therefore,
theyproceededtorecordthem,thatthequestionsputtotheaccused
onbothoccasionswereinHindi,theiranswerswerealsogivenin
HindiandtheirstatementswerealsorecordedinHindiandtheDCP
as well as the accused signed at the end of the confessional
statementandbelowthattheconcernedDCPcertifiedthattheyhad
ascertainedthattheaccusedhadgiventheconfessionsfreelyand
voluntarily.Itwasobservedthatafterrecordingtheconfessionsof
theaccused,theywereforwardedtotheCMMofMumbai.
1334.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1438..
Ext.4825
misledundersomepromiseorinducementtomakeitorthreatened
or intimidated to make it. It was observed that the confessional
statementdoesnotbecomeinvoluntaryoritcannotbesaidnotto
havebeenrecordedinafreeatmospheremerelybecauseithasbeen
recordedbyapoliceofficer.Forthispurpose,thepoliceofficeris
requiredtocertifyabouthispersonalsatisfactionofthevoluntary
character of such confessions which is to be based upon the
preliminaryquestionswhichheputstotheaccusedandtheanswers
giventothembytheaccused.Inthecasebeforeit,itwasobserved
thatinordertoensurefreeatmosphere,theDCPdidnotsendthe
accused back to the custody of the investigating machinery after
givingtheaccusedtimeforreflection,butweresenttothelockup
ofdifferentpolicestations.Therefore,thecontention/objectionby
thelearnedadvocatefortheaccusedwasnotaccepted.
1335.
Thesecondcontention/objectionbythelearnedadvocates
fortheaccusedwasthatnoneoftheaccusedwasaskedthemost
pertinentquestions,viz.,astowhyhewasmakingtheconfession.It
was observed that this fact was apparent from the questions and
afterdiscussingwhataconfessionis,viz.,thatitisanadmissionof
guiltbytheaccused,itisagainsthisowninterest,whichnormally
nopersonwouldliketodo,becausethereisaninherentreluctance
to disclose one's own misdeeds to protect one's own interest,
however,incertaincasesthisreluctancydisappearswhenthereis
profoundrepentanceonthepartoftheaccusedfortheactwhichhe
haddoneandthereforethequestion,viz.,whytheaccusedwantsto
makeaconfessionbecomesrelevantinordertoascertainwhetherit
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1439..
Ext.4825
wasbecauseofrepentanceorotherwisethathehasdecidedtomake
a confession. The High Court found much substance in the
submissions of the learned advocate for the accused, however, it
questionedastowhetherfailureonthepartofthepoliceofficerto
putsuchaspecificquestiontotheaccusedisfatalandwhetherit
makestheconfessioninvoluntary.Itwasobservedthatparagraph18
oftheChapterIoftheCriminalManualissuedbytheHighCourt
contains some guidelines given to the magistrate to record the
confessions and the guidelines incorporate model questions
supposedtobeaskedtotheaccusedandoneofsuchquestionstobe
asked to the accused is 'why are you making a confession?' The
decisionin S.N.DubeyV.N.B.Bhoir(2000)Cri.L.J.830,which
was relied upon by learned SPP Mrs. Salian was considered
observingthattheSupremeCourtreferredtosection15oftheTADA
Actandpointedoutthatthepoliceofficerrecordingtheconfessional
statementundersection15isreallynotboundtofollowanyother
procedureandthattherulesandguidelinesframedbytheBombay
High Court for recording the confession by the magistrate under
section164oftheCr.P.C.,donotbythemselvesapplytorecording
ofconfessionundersection15oftheTADAAct.Itwasfurtherheld
bytheSupremeCourtthatmerelybecausesomeofthoseguidelines
werenotfollowedwhilerecordingtheconfessions,itcannotforthat
reason,beheldthatthe saidconfession havelosttheirevidential
value. It was held by the High Court that it is bound by the
observationsmadebytheSupremeCourt.
1336.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1440..
Ext.4825
ParambirSingh,PW51,whorecordedtheconfessionoftheA1,was
interestedintheinvestigationandhewassupervisingitandonfacts
itwasfoundthattheadmissionsgivenbytheDCPcreatedadoubt
aboutthevoluntarynatureoftheconfessionoftheA1.
1337.
Thefourthobjectionraisedbythedefencerelatedtonon
1338.
1339.
CourtaboutabsenceofcertificateasperRule15oftheMCOCRules
and held on perusing the confessional statements that they
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1441..
Ext.4825
substantiallycomplywiththerequirementofsection18ofthe
MCOCActreadwiththeRules.Referringtothelawlaiddownin
thecaseofStateV
.Nalini((1999)5SCC253),itobservedthatit
washeldbythesamecourtinthecontextofsection15oftheTADA
Act, which is pari
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1442..
Ext.4825
FactualPosition:
1340.
Onthebackgroundoftheabovelegalposition,thefactual
positionemergingfromtherecordandtheevidencegivenbythe
prosecutioninrespectofrecordingofconfessionalstatementofthe
accused is necessary to be considered for appreciating the
allegationsoftorture,etc.,priortotherecordingoftheconfessional
statementandduringtheconfessionalstatementand,thefactumof
retractionofconfessionalstatementsmadebyalltheaccusedwhose
confessionalstatementswererecorded.
TheprovisionsoftheMCOCActwereinvokedon24/09/06in
C.R.No.156of2006ofBorivaliRailwayPoliceStationandACP
Patil, PW186,, was appointed as the investigating officer of that
crime.
Theevidenceaboutrecordingoftheconfessionalstatementof
eachaccusedwillhavetobeconsideredindependently.
1341.
FactualpositionregardingA1:
A1wasarrestedon20/07/06inC.R.No.77of2006of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1443..
Ext.4825
MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.
HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe
bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
recorded.
14/08/06inRemandApplicationNo.229/06,Ext.4490.
ApplicationNo.264/06,Ext.4474.
25/09/06inRemandApplicationNo.264/06formeetingrelatives.
Hehadnotmadeanycomplaintagainstthepoliceabout
ArrestundertheMCOCAct:
Hewasarrestedon25/09/06inC.R.No.156of2006of
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186.
Hewasproducedon25/09/06inRemandApplicationNo.
60/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andremandedtoPCupto09/10/06.
since14/08/06inRemandApplicationNo.229/06,Ext.4490,his
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1444..
Ext.4825
advocatewasnotpresenton25/09/06.
Hedidnotmakeanycomplaintofassaultagainstthepolice
onthatday,i.e.,on25/09/06.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon29/09/06and01/10/06in
theKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintandnoexternalinjuriesas
pertheOPDcasepaperExt.2151provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.
HisadvocateFarhanaShahfiledapplicationson30/09/06
Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:
HewastakentotheDCPon03/10/06forrecordinghis
confessionalstatement.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedat5.45p.m.on03/10/06at
BhabhaHospital,wherehewastakenby PIGaikwad,PW116,of
BandraPoliceStation,afterhewasgiveninhiscustodybytheDCP.
Hehadnocomplaintandnoexternalinjuriesaspertruephotocopy
oftheOPDregisterExt.2197provedbyDr.Yelkar,PW183.
CMM.
HedidnotmakeanycomplainttotheCMMagainstthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1445..
Ext.4825
statementanddidnotallegethathissignaturesweretakenon2530
blankpapers.
Aftertheconfessionalstatement:
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon06/10/06atKEMHospital,
afterhewashandedovertotheATSagain.Ext.2151istheOPD
case paper of that hospital proved by Dr. Gond, PW182, which
shows and as is also deposed by him, that the accused had no
complaint.Hewasalsosimilarlyexaminedon08/10/06bythesame
medicalofficerandsimilarfindingswerenoted.
AfterbeingremandedtoJC:
ApplicationNo.67/06beforethiscourtpresidedoverbymylearned
predecessorjudgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeof
theBombayHighCourt)andwasremandedtoJCupto20/10/06.
HewasrepresentedbylearnedadvocateA.A.Siddiquionthisdate.
Hesubmittedorallytothecourtthathisconfessionalstatementwas
recordedunderpressureanditisnotvoluntary.
statementanddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingabout
it when he was produced on 20/10/06 from JC in Remand
ApplicationNo.71/06beforethiscourtpresidedoverbymylearned
predecessorjudgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeof
the Bombay High Court) and was remanded to further JC upto
03/11/06.HewasrepresentedbyadvocateA.A.Siddiquionthis
date.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1446..
Ext.4825
statementanddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingabout
it when he was produced on 03/11/06 from JC in Remand
Application No. 78/06 before this court, presided over by my
learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now Hon'ble
JusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andremandedtofurtherJCupto
09/11/06.HewasrepresentedbyadvocateA.A.Siddiquionthis
date.Hewasallowedtomeethisfamilymembersontheapplication
byhisadvocate.
Retraction:
A1filedExt.Adtd.02/11/06inRemandApplicationNo.
Nosuggestionontheselineswasgiventoboththeabove
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1447..
Ext.4825
productionfromJC,i.e.,on20/10/06and03/11/06.
1342. FactualpositionregardingA2:
MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.
HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe
bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
recorded.
ApplicationNo.229/06,Ext.4492andinRemandApplicationNo.
243/06. His advocate had filed an application for legal interview
andmeetingrelatives.
ApplicationNo.251/06.
ArrestundertheMCOCAct:
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186.
60/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andremandedtoPCupto09/10/06.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1448..
Ext.4825
advocatewasnotpresentonthisdate.
Hedidnotmakeanycomplaintofassaultagainstthepolice
onthatday,i.e.,on25/09/06.
Hisfatherandbrotherhadfiledanapplicationon30/09/06
forlegalinterviewandmeetingrelatives.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon26/09/06,01/10/06andon
03/10/06at11.50a.m.atKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsand
noexternalinjuriesaspertheOPDcasepaperExt.2176provedby
Dr.Gond,PW182.
123/06on03/10/06.
Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:
confessionalstatement.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedat10.30p.m.on05/10/06atGT
Hospital,wherehewastakenby PSIGangurde,PW105,ofAzad
MaidanPoliceStation,afterhewasgiveninhiscustodybytheDCP.
Hehadnocomplaintsandnoexternalinjuriesaspertruephotocopy
oftheOPDregisterExt.2197provedbyDr.Yelkar,PW183.
Hewasproducedat4.55p.m.on06/10/06beforetheCMM.
statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
policeaspertheletter,Ext.1028,sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.
Aftertheconfessionalstatement:
HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon07/10/06at
KEMHospital,afterhewashandedovertoit.Ext.2176istheOPD
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1449..
Ext.4825
casepaperprovedbyDr.Gond,PW182,whichshowsandasisalso
deposedbythemedicalofficer,thathehadnocomplaints.Hewas
similarlyexaminedon09/10/06bythesamemedicalofficerand
similarfindingswerenoted.
AfterbeingremandedtoJC:
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingaboutitwhenhe
was produced on 20/10/06 from JC in Remand Application No.
71/06 before this court presided over by my learned predecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andwasremandedtofurtherJCupto03/11/06.He
wasrepresentedbyadvocateKhalipheh/fadvocateAminSolkaron
thisdate.
Retraction:
A2filedExt.4028inRemandApplicationNo.78/06whenhe
wasproducedfromJCon03/11/06beforethiscourtpresidedover
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1450..
Ext.4825
Nosuggestionisgivento SPMohite,PW102,ontheabove
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1451..
Ext.4825
also,thathehadnottakenhissignatureanywhereandthathehad
signedtheconfessionalstatementbecauseofpressureandforceand
notvoluntary.NosuggestionsontheabovelinesweregiventoACP
Patil, PW186, or ACP Khandekar, PW174, during their cross
examination.
1343. FactualpositionregardingA3:
MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.
HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe
bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
recorded.
HisadvocateRenuBhatthadfiledapplicationon25/09/06in
RemandApplicationNo.204/06formeetingrelatives.
30/09/06inRemandApplicationNo.264/06forlegalinterviewand
meetingrelatives.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1452..
Ext.4825
producedbeforetheMagistrateduringthePCremand.
ArrestundertheMCOCAct:
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186.
61/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andremandedtoPCupto09/10/06.
HewasrepresentedbyadvocateShahidAzmionthatday,i.e.,
on28/09/06.
againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on28/09/06.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon28/09/06,30/09/06andon
02/10/06intheKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsasperthe
OPD case paper Ext. 2188 and Ext. 2186 proved by Dr. Gond,
PW182.
Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:
confessionalstatement.
(i)Hewasmedicallyexaminedat08.10p.m.on03/10/06at
GTHospital,wherehewastakenbyAPIDasurkar,PW101,ofAzad
MaidanPoliceStation,afterhewasgiveninhiscustodybytheDCP.
HehadnophysicalcomplaintandnoexternalinjuriesasperOPD
casepaperExt.1006provedbyDr.Helaskar,PW170.
(ii)Hewasmedicallyexaminedon05/10/06atGTHospital.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1453..
Ext.4825
HehadnocomplaintsasperOPDcasepaperExt.1007.
Hewasproducedat12.45p.m.on07/10/06beforetheCMM.
statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
policeaspertheletterExt.1222sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.
Aftertheconfessionalstatement:
HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon09/10/06at
KEMHospital,afterhewashandedovertoit.Ext.2189isthetrue
photocopy of the casualty register of that hospital proved by Dr.
Gond,PW182,whichshowsandasisalsodeposedbythemedical
officer,thattheaccusedhadnocomplaints.
AfterbeingremandedtoJC:
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingaboutitwhenhe
was produced on 20/10/06 from JC in Remand Application No.
71/06 before this court presided over by my learned predecessor
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1454..
Ext.4825
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andwasremandedtofurtherJCupto03/11/06.He
wasrepresentedbyadvocateRenuBhatth/fShahidAzmionthis
date.
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingaboutitwhenhe
was produced on 03/11/06 from JC in Remand Application No.
78/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymylearnedpredecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andremandedtofurtherJCupto09/11/06.Hewas
representedbyadvocateRenuBhatth/fShahidAzmionthisdate.
Hewasallowedtomeethisfamilymembersontheapplicationby
hisadvocate.
Retraction:
A3filedExt.Cdtd.09/11/06signedbyhimandhisadvocate
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1455..
Ext.4825
Singh,PW117.A3didnotgiveanyoralevidence.
1344. FactualpositionregardingA4:
MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.
HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe
bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
recorded.
ArrestundertheMCOCAct:
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186.
61/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymylearnedpredecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andremandedtoPCupto09/10/06.
Hehadnotengagedanyadvocatetillthen.
againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on28/09/06.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1456..
Ext.4825
02/10/06and04/10/06intheKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaint
andnoexternalinjuriesaspertheOPDcasepapersExts.2212and
2214provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.
Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:
confessionalstatement.
Hewasproducedat3.30p.m.on07/10/06beforetheCMM.
statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
policeaspertheletterExt.1064sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.
Aftertheconfessionalstatement:
HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon09/10/06at
KEMHospital,afterhewashandedovertoit.Ext.2215isthetrue
photocopy of the casualty register of that hospital proved by Dr.
Gond,PW182,whichshowsandasisalsodeposedbythemedical
officer,thattheaccusedhadnocomplaints.
AfterbeingremandedtoJC:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1457..
Ext.4825
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingaboutitwhenhe
was produced on 20/10/06 from JC in Remand Application No.
71/06 before this court presided over by my learned predecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andwasremandedtofurtherJCupto03/11/06.He
wasrepresentedbyadvocateSiddiquih/fadvocateAminSolkaron
thisdate.
Retraction:
A4filedExt.3798dtd.03/11/06inRemandApplicationNo.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1458..
Ext.4825
confessionforreadingonhisrequest,butthepapersweresnatched
fromhimwhenhehadreadonepageandwastoldtosignquietly,
which he did. He alleged that from there he was taken to a
magistrate near Azad Maidan and enroute API Deore, PW180,
threatenedhimnottosayanythingbeforetheMagistrate,orelse
theywouldcompletethethreatgiventohimearlierandthatAPI
Deore, PW180 was present when he was produced before the
Magistrate,whoonlysawhisfaceandaskedhimhisdateofarrest.
HeallegedthatthereafterhewasputinBhoiwadalockup,thaton
4th and5th October(sic)DCPBajaj,PIMandgemethim andtold
himnottoretracthis confessional statementon 9th October (sic)
when he would be produced before Bhatkar Madam or else they
wouldtake his police custodyandarresthis familymembers.He
submitsthateventhenheretractedhisconfessionalstatementwhen
hewasproducedbeforemylearnedpredecessorjudgeMrs.Mridula
R. Bhatkar (now Hon'ble Justice of the Bombay High Court) on
09/10/06.
TherearenosuggestionseithertoSr.PITajne,PW161,orAPI
Deore,PW180,intheircrossexaminationonthelinesoftheabove
allegations.
InhisoralevidenceasDW38,A4statedthatDCPBajajtold
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1459..
Ext.4825
written.
1345. FactualpositionregardingA5:
ArrestundertheMCOCAct:
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186.
62/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeShriA.M.Thipsay(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHigh
Court)andremandedtoPCupto13/10/06.
Hewasnotrepresentedbyanyadvocateonthatday,i.e.,on
29/09/06.
Hedidnotmakeanycomplaintof illtreatmentagainstthe
policeonthatday,i.e.,on29/09/06.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon29/09/06and01/10/06inthe
KEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsandnoexternalinjuryasper
the OPD case paper Exts. 2216 and 2217 proved by Dr. Gond,
PW182.
68/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
High Court) and remanded to PC upto 26/10/06. He was
representedbylearnedadvocateShahidAzmi@Mohd.Hashimon
thatday.Hewasallowedtohavelegalinterviewwithadvocatesand
allowedtomeetfamilymembers.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1460..
Ext.4825
againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on13/10/06.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon14/10/06inKEMHospitalas
Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:
confessionalstatement.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedat10.25a.m.on25/10/06atGT
Hospital,wherehewastakenbyPSIPowar,PW94,ofMahimPolice
Station,afterhewasgiveninhiscustodybytheDCP.Hedidnot
complainofassaultortraumaandhadnoexternalinjuries,freshor
oldaspertruephotocopyoftheMLCbookExt.2196,provedbyDr.
Yelkar,PW183.
Hewasproducedon25/10/06beforetheinchargeCMM.
statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
policeaspertheletterExt.2812sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.
Aftertheconfessionalstatement:
HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon28/10/06at
KEMHospital,afterhewashandedovertoit.Ext.2217istheOPD
casepaperprovedbyDr.Gond,PW182,whichshowsandasisalso
deposedbythemedicalofficerthattheaccusedhadnocomplaints
andnoexternalinjuries.
AfterbeingremandedtoJC:
77/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1461..
Ext.4825
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
High Court) and was remanded to JC upto 09/11/06. He was
representedbyadvocateHashmionthatday.Heprayedforlegal
interviewandmeetingwithrelatives.Thereafter,oneadvocateAsif
Kittekar submitted to the court that when he went to obtain
signatureofaccused,theytoldhimthattheywanttosaysomething
tothecourt.MylearnedpredecessorjudgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar
(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)calledtheescort
officialsandtheyinformedthattheydidnothearanyconversation
betweentheaccusedandadvocateKittekar.Shecausedtheaccused
tobeproducedagainbeforeher,whereuponhesubmittedthathis
confessional statement was recorded yesterday by DCP Sanjay
Mohite,whodidnotshowittohim.Thisistotallywrongbecauseit
isDCPPhadtare,PW93,whorecordedhisconfessionalstatement.
Retraction:
advocateShahidAzmiinRemandApplicationNo.84/06whenhe
wasproducedfromJCon09/11/06beforethiscourtpresidedover
by my learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now
Hon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andremandedtofurther
JCupto23/11/06.Hewas representedbyadvocateShahidAzmi
alongwithMohammedHashimonthisdate.InExt.4142healleged
thathewaspickedupon28/10/06(whichiswrong).Healleges
physical and mental torture during PC and threats not to say
anythingtothecourt.Heallegesthathewasthreatenedthatifhe
did not comply with their advise to confess, he will be further
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1462..
Ext.4825
tortured,thathiswifeandwomenrelativeswillbehumiliated,that
PI Alaknure, PW153, used to tell him that he will sell his two
monthsolddaughtertosomebeggarandundersuchthreatshewas
taken toDCP on23/10/06 (whichis wrong) andtoldtoconfess
whateverJaijeetSinghhadtoldhimandhissignaturewasobtained
onsomeblankpapersandon25/10/06hewasmadetosignon
blankpapersagain.Heallegedthathewastakentoamagistratein
Kurla,whodidnotaskhimanythingandturnedhimawaysaying
thateverythingisalright,buthedidnotsayanythingtohimdueto
fear.
NosuggestionsontheabovelinesaregiventoPIAlaknure,
PW153,orDCPPhadtare,PW93.
InhisoralevidenceasDW43,A5statedthatbeforehewas
producedon26/10/06beforethiscourt,PIAlaknure,PW153,and
constableshadthreatenedhiminthevehiclenottotellanythingto
thecourt,thathismentalandphysicalconditionwasbadandasa
constable stood behind him repeatedly telling him not to tell
anythingtothecourt,therefore,hecouldnotsayanythingtothe
court.ThereisnosuggestiontoPIAlaknure,PW153ontheabove
lines.
1346. FactualpositionregardingA6:
ArrestundertheMCOCAct:
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1463..
Ext.4825
62/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeShriA.M.Thipsay(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHigh
Court)andremandedtoPCupto13/10/06.
Hewasnotrepresentedbyanyadvocateonthatday,i.e.,on
29/09/06.
Hedidnotmakeanycomplaintof illtreatmentagainstthe
policeonthatday,i.e.,on29/09/06.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon29/09/06,1st,5th,7th,9thand
68/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
High Court) and remanded to PC upto 26/10/06. He was
representedbyadvocateAnjaliIyeronthatday.Hewasallowedto
have legal interview with advocates and allowed to meet family
members.
againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on13/10/06.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon14th,16th,19thand20/10/06in
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1464..
Ext.4825
Hehadacomplaintofloosestoolstentimessincethedaybefore
complaintofgiddinesson19/10/06,fastingsincemorningroja,x
rayofchestsuggestingofoldfracture,rightribcage.
Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:
confessionalstatement.
Hewasproducedon25/10/06beforetheCMM.
statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
policeaspertheletterExt.2812sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.
Aftertheconfessionalstatement:
HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon26/10/06at
KEMHospital,afterhewashandedovertoit.Ext.2220istheOPD
casepaperprovedbyDr.Gond,PW182,whichshowsandasisalso
deposedbythemedicalofficerthattheaccusedhadnocomplaints
andnoexternalinjuries.
AfterbeingremandedtoJC:
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceaboutitwhenhewasproducedon
26/10/06 in Remand Application No. 77/06 before this court,
presided over by my learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R.
Bhatkar (now Hon'ble Justice of the Bombay High Court) and
remandedtoJCupot09/11/06.Hewasrepresentedbyadvocate
Ms.AnjaliIyeronthatday.
Retraction:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1465..
Ext.4825
signedon23/11/06.A6filedExt.F1dated09/11/06on09/11/06
inRemandApplicationNo.84/06whenhewasproducedfromJC
on 09/11/06 before this court presided over by my learned
predecessorjudgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeof
theBombayHighCourt)andremandedtoJCupto23/11/06.He
was represented by advocate Anjali Iyer on this day. He alleged
assault and beating by police officers during PC, threats of false
implication in Malegaon Bomb Blast Case and allurement. He
alleged similar threatening if he does not sign on confessional
statement,thathewillremaininprisonforalongtimeandifheco
operateshewouldbereleasedin1months.Heallegedthat SP
Karale,PW104,justaskedhimhisnameandaddressandtoldhim
thathisstatementwillbesent.Hewasnotallowedtoreadthough
herequested.Heallegedthathissignatureswereforciblytakenon
theconfessionalstatement,thecontentsofwhichhedoesnotknow.
HeallegedthathewasthreatenedasabovebySr.PITajne,PW161,
PIKhanvilkar,PW168andotherofficersnottostateanythingbefore
thecourton26/10/06,buthewassendformedicalexaminationon
the directions of this court. Application Ext. F was filed by his
advocatewhoendorsedonthelastpagethattheaccusedwastaken
backtotheprison,therefore,hissignaturecouldnotbetakento
soughtpermissiontotakeitonthenextremanddate.
NosuggestionontheabovelinesaregiventotheDCPorthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1466..
Ext.4825
InhisoralevidenceasDW42,A6statedthathedidnotsay
anythingbeforeJudgeMridulaBhatkaron26/10/06becauseofthe
threatsgivenbyRaghuvanshiandCPRoy,PW185,thatheshould
notsayanythinginthecourtonthatdayandifhesaysthatthey
hadbeatenhimandtakenhisconfessionalstatement,theywould
involvehimintheMalegaoncaseandhisfamilymembersinthis
case.NosuchsuggestionisgiventoCPRoy,PW185.
1347. FactualpositionregardingA7:
ArrestundertheMCOCAct:
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186.
62/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeShriA.M.Thipsay(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHigh
Court)andremandedtoPCupto13/10/06.
Hewasnotrepresentedbyanyadvocateonthatday,i.e.,on
29/09/06.
policeonthatday,i.e.,on29/09/06.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon29/09/06,1st,3rd,5th,9th,11th
and13/10/06intheKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsandno
external injury as per the OPD case paper Exts. 2219 and 2220
provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.
68/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1467..
Ext.4825
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
High Court) and remanded to PC upto 26/10/06. He was
representedbyadvocatesA.K.UsmaniandShabanaShahonthat
day. He was allowed to have legal interview with advocates and
allowedtomeetfamilymembers.
againstpoliceonthatday,i.e.,on13/10/06.
23/10/06inKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsaspertheOPD
casepapersandtruephotocopyofcasualtyregisterExts.2239to
2241provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.
Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:
confessionalstatement.
Hewasproducedon25/10/06beforetheCMM.
statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
policeaspertheletterExt.1043sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.
Aftertheconfessionalstatement:
HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon26/10/06at
KEMHospital,afterhewashandedovertoit.Ext.2241istheOPD
casepaperprovedbyDr.Gond,PW182,whichshowsandasisalso
deposedbythemedicalofficerthattheaccusedhadnocomplaints
andnoexternalinjuries.
AfterbeingremandedtoJC:
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1468..
Ext.4825
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceaboutitwhenhewasproducedon
25/10/06inM.A.No.302/06filedbyhismother,beforethiscourt,
presided over by my learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R.
Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andstated
thathedoesnothaveanycomplaintagainstthepolice.
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceaboutitwhenhewasproducedon
26/10/06 in Remand Application No. 77/06 before this court,
presided over by my learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R.
Bhatkar (now Hon'ble Justice of the Bombay High Court) and
remandedtoJCupto09/11/06.Hewasrepresentedbyadvocate
AminSolkaronthisday.
Retraction:
A7filedExt.4199dtd.09/11/06inRemandApplicationNo.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1469..
Ext.4825
Khandekar,PW174.
InhisoralevidenceasDW46,A7statedaboutproducinghim
1348. FactualpositionregardingA9:
MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.
HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1470..
Ext.4825
bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
recorded.
HisadvocateRenuBhatthadfiledanapplicationon18/09/06
30/09/06inRemandApplicationNo.264/06forlegalinterviewand
meetingrelatives.
ArrestundertheMCOCAct:
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186.
65/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeShriA.M.Thipsay(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHigh
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1471..
Ext.4825
Court)andremandedtoPCupto09/10/06.
Though,hewasrepresentedbyadvocatesince13/09/06in
Remand Application No. 229/06 Ext. 4504, his advocate was not
presentonthisdate.
againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on30/09/06.
04/10/06intheKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsandexternal
injuriesaspertheOPDcasepapersExts.2279and2275provedby
Dr.Gond,PW182.
Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:
confessionalstatement.
Hewasproducedat1.40p.m.on06/10/06beforetheCMM.
statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
policeaspertheletterExt.2810sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.
Aftertheconfessionalstatement:
HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon06/10/06and
08/10/06atKEMHospital,afterhewashandedovertoit.Ext.2275
isthetruephotocopyofthecasualtyregisterofthathospitalproved
by Dr.Gond,PW182,whichshowsandasisalsodeposedbythe
medicalofficer,thattheaccusedhadnocomplaints.
AfterbeingremandedtoJC:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1472..
Ext.4825
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingaboutitwhenhe
was produced on 20/10/06 from JC in Remand Application No.
71/06 before this court presided over by my learned predecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andwasremandedtofurtherJCupto03/11/06.He
wasrepresentedbyadvocateRenuBhatth/fShahidAzmionthis
date.
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingaboutitwhenhe
was produced on 03/11/06 from JC in Remand Application No.
78/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymylearnedpredecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andremandedtofurtherJCupto09/11/06.Hewas
representedbyadvocateRenuBhatth/fShahidAzmionthisdate.
Hewasallowedtomeethisfamilymembersontheapplicationby
hisadvocate.
Retraction:
advocateShahidAzmiinRemandApplicationNo.84/06whenhe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1473..
Ext.4825
wasproducedfromJCon09/11/06beforethiscourtpresidedover
by my learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now
Hon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andremandedtofurther
JC upto 23/11/06. In Ext. 4263 he alleged that he was tortured
duringPC,thaton04/10/06ACPJoshi,PW163,informedhimthat
hewouldbesenttoDCPofanotherZoneandhehastosignon
whateverpapersaregiven,thatDCP,ZoneVtookhissignaturewhen
hewasproducedbeforehimonthatdayaswellasonthenextday,
withoutlettinghimread,thathewastakeninfrontofMagistrate
andhedeniedtheconfession,buthedidnotpayheedandtookhis
signature,withoutlettinghimtoread.
PW163,andDCPPhadtare,PW93,andtheCMM'sletterExt.2810
thoughcontainshissignature,theCMMhasinformedthathedid
notwanttomakeanystatementandrefusedtomakeitandhadno
complaintofilltreatmentagainstthepolice.
InhisoralevidenceasDW47,A9didnotsayanythingabout
hiscomplainttothecourton09/10/06.
1349. FactualpositionregardingA10:
MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.
HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe
bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
recorded.
HehadengagedadvocateMs.FarhanaShahon08/09/06in
RemandApplicationNo.229/06,Ext.4501.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1474..
Ext.4825
RemandApplicationNo.228/06,Ext.4505.
ArrestundertheMCOCAct:
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186.
65/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeShriA.M.Thipsay(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHigh
Court)andremandedtoPCupto09/10/06.
HehadengagedadvocateMs.FarhanaShahon08/09/06in
RemandApplicationNo.229/06,Ext.4501,butshewasnotpresent
onthatday,i.e.,on30/09/06.
againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on30/09/06.
04/10/06intheKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsasperthe
OPDcasepaperExt.2302,provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.
Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:
confessionalstatement.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon05/10/06atGTHospitaland
hadnocomplaintsaspertheOPDcasepaperExt.2105andtrue
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1475..
Ext.4825
photocopyofthecasualtyregisterExt.2104,provedbyDr.Paikrao,
PW181.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedat11.00a.m.on07/10/06atGT
HospitalandhadnocomplaintsaspertheOPDcasepaperExt.2107
andtruephotocopyofthecasualtyregisterExt.2106,provedbyDr.
Paikrao,PW181.
Hewasproducedat12.30p.m.on07/10/06beforetheCMM.
statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
policeaspertheletterExt.1253sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.
Aftertheconfessionalstatement:
HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon09/10/06at
KEMHospital,afterhewashandedovertoit.Ext.2303isthetrue
photocopy of the casualty register of that hospital proved by Dr.
Gond,PW182,whichshowsandasisalsodeposedbythemedical
officer,thattheaccusedhadnocomplaints.
AfterbeingremandedtoJC:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1476..
Ext.4825
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingaboutitwhenhe
was produced on 20/10/06 from JC in Remand Application No.
71/06 before this court presided over by my learned predecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andwasremandedtofurtherJCupto03/11/06.His
advocateMs.FarhanaShahwasnotpresentonthisdate.
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingaboutitwhenhe
was produced on 03/11/06 from JC in Remand Application No.
78/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymylearnedpredecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andremandedtofurtherJCupto09/11/06.Hewas
represented by advocate Ms. Leena Mehta on this date. He was
allowed to meet his family members on the application by his
advocate.
Retraction:
A10filedExt.Kdtd.02/11/06signedbyhimandhisadvocate
andExt.K1signedbyhimon09/11/06whenhewasproducedfrom
JCon09/11/06beforethiscourtinRemandApplicationNo.77/06,
presided over by my learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R.
Bhatkar (now Hon'ble Justice of the Bombay High Court) and
remandedtoJCupto23/11/06.Hewasrepresentedbyadvocate
Ms.MehtaalongwithFarhanaShahonthisdate.InExt.Khedidnot
makeanyallegationinrespectoftheconfessionalstatement.InExt.
K1 he alleged torture and beating in PCand that on 3rd October
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1477..
Ext.4825
NosuggestionsontheabovelinesweregiventoDCPDumbre,
PW118,andhisevidenceandtheevidenceofPSIThakur,PW110,
andtheletteroftheCMM,Ext.1253, showthathewasproduced
beforetheDCPon05/10/06andbeforetheCMMon07/10/06and
noton03/10/06asallegedbyhim.
1350. FactualpositionregardingA11:
MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.
HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe
bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
recorded.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1478..
Ext.4825
HisadvocateRenuBhatthadfiledapplicationon08/09/06in
RemandApplicationNo.243/06andhisadvocatehadappliedfor
legalinterviewandmeetingrelatives.
HisadvocateRenuBhatthadfiledanapplicationon25/09/06
inRemandApplicationNo.264/06formeetingrelatives.
30/09/06inRemandApplicationNo.264/06forlegalinterviewand
meetingrelatives.
ArrestundertheMCOCAct:
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186.
65/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeShriA.M.Thipsay(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHigh
Court)andremandedtoPCupto09/10/06.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1479..
Ext.4825
08/09/06,buttheywerenotpresentonthisdate.
againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on30/09/06.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon30/09/06and02/10/06inthe
KEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsaspertheOPDcasepaperExt.
2326,provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.
Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:
confessionalstatement.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedat11.00a.m.on06/10/06atGT
HospitalandhadnocomplaintsaspertheOPDcasepaperExt.2105
andtruephotocopyofthecasualtyregisterExt.2101,provedbyDr.
Paikrao,PW181.
Hewasproducedat3.30p.m.on06/10/06beforetheCMM.
statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
policeaspertheletterExt.1133sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.
Aftertheconfessionalstatement:
HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon08/10/06and
AfterbeingremandedtoJC:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1480..
Ext.4825
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingaboutitwhenhe
was produced on 20/10/06 from JC in Remand Application No.
71/06 before this court presided over by my learned predecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andwasremandedtofurtherJCupto03/11/06.He
wasrepresentedbyadvocateRenuBhatth/fShahidAzmionthis
date.
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceorallegeanythingaboutitwhenhe
was produced on 03/11/06 from JC in Remand Application No.
78/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymylearnedpredecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
HighCourt)andremandedtofurtherJCupto09/11/06.Hewas
representedbyadvocateRenuBhatth/fShahidAzmionthisdate.
Hewasallowedtomeethisfamilymembersontheapplicationby
hisadvocate.
Retraction:
A11 filed Ext. 4157 dtd. 09/11/06 and Ext. 4158 dtd.
02/11/06whenhewasproducedfromJCon09/11/06beforethis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1481..
Ext.4825
InhisoralevidenceasDW45,A11statedthatwhenhewas
1351. FactualpositionregardingA12:
ArrestundertheMCOCAct:
A12wasarrestedon30/09/06inC.R.No.156of2006of
BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
PW186.
65/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeShriA.M.Thipsay(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHigh
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1482..
Ext.4825
Court)andremandedtoPCupto13/10/06.
Hewasnotrepresentedbyanyadvocateonthatday,i.e.,on
29/09/06.
policeonthatday,i.e.,on30/09/06.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon29/09/06,2nd,4th,6th,8th,10th,
11thand12/10/06intheKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsand
noexternalinjuryaspertheOPDcasepaperExts.2329and2336
provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.
68/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
High Court) and remanded to PC upto 26/10/06. He was
representedbylearnedadvocateShahidAzmi@Mohd.Hashimon
thatday.Hewasallowedtohavelegalinterviewwithadvocatesand
allowedtomeetfamilymembers.
againstthepoliceonthatdate,i.e.,on13/10/06.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedon21/10/06inKEMHospitalas
Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:
confessionalstatement.
Hewasmedicallyexaminedat4.50p.m.on23/10/06atGT
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1483..
Ext.4825
MaidanPoliceStation,afterhewasgiveninhiscustodybytheDCP.
HehadnocomplaintsaspertruephotocopyofcasualtyregisterExt.
2102andOPDcasepaperExt.2103,provedbyDr.Paikrao,PW181.
Hewasproducedon25/10/06beforetheCMM.
statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
policeaspertheletterExt.2812sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.
Aftertheconfessionalstatement:
HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon26/10/06at
KEMHospital,afterhewashandedovertoit.Ext.2334istheOPD
casepaperprovedbyDr.Gond,PW182,whichshowsandasisalso
deposedbythemedicalofficerthattheaccusedhadnocomplaints
andnoexternalinjuries.
AfterbeingremandedtoJC:
Hedidnotmakeanyretractionofhisconfessionalstatement
anddidnotmakeanygrievanceaboutitwhenhewasproducedon
26/10/06 in Remand Application No. 77/06 before this court,
presided over by my learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R.
Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andwas
remandedtoJCupto09/11/06.Hewasrepresentedbyadvocate
Patankarh/fShahidAzmionthisdate.
Retraction:
A12 filed Ext. 4270 dtd. 09/11/06 signed by him and his
advocateShahidAzmiinRemandApplicationNo.84/06whenhe
wasproducedfromJCon09/11/06beforethiscourtpresidedover
by my learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1484..
Ext.4825
Hon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andremandedtofurther
JCupto23/11/06.HewasrepresentedbyadvocateShahidAzmi@
Mohammed Hashim on this date. He alleged being beaten and
abusedon20/10/06bySr.PITajne,PW161,andAddl.CPJaijeet
Singh.Inrespectofhisconfessionalstatementhestatedthatwhen
hewasinJChewastakentoDCPon23/10/06andon25/10/06
wasforcedtosigncertainpapers,whichhewasnotallowedtoread.
HestatedthattheDCPexpressedhishelplessnessandtoldhimthat
becominganapproverwillsavehim.Hesubmittedthathedidnot
giveanyconfessionandhadneverdesiredtogiveitbeforeanyother
person.Hestatedthathewastakentotheresidenceofamagistrate
inKurlaat11.30p.m.andallegedthatthemagistratedidnotputa
singlequestiontohim,butmerelysignedwhateverwasgiventohim
bytheATS.
NosuggestionsontheabovelinesaregiventoSr.PITajne,
PW161.
InhisoralevidenceasDW48,A12statedthathedidnotsay
anythingbeforethejudgeon26/10/06ashewasfrightenedasPSI
SachinKadamhadtoldhiminthemorningon26/10/06thathe
shouldnotcomplainaboutanyilltreatmentoranythingagainstthe
ATSoffices,otherwisehisbrotherwouldbepulledinthecaseand
hisparentswouldbeharassed.
Evaluationofconfessionalstatements:
1352. Asperthesettledlaw,thefirsttesttobeappliedtoevaluatea
confessioniswhetheritisvoluntary.Thedefencehascomedown
very heavily on this aspect. It is submitted by learned advocates
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1485..
Ext.4825
PrakashShettyandWahabKhanaswellaslearnedadvocateSharif
Shaikhinhiswrittensubmissionsthattheinvestigatingofficersof
thedifferentcrimesconsistentlydeposedthatnoneoftheaccused
expressed their desire to give confessional statements, that the
accused started singing like parrots within 89 days after the
provisions of the MCOC Act were applied, that the investigating
officer under the MCOC Act ACP Patil, PW186, deposed that on
differentdatestheofficersinterrogatingtheaccusedinformedhim
about the willingness of the accused to give the voluntary
confessionalstatement,buthecouldnotgivethenamesofthesaid
officersandcouldnotpointoutfromthecasediaryaboutanyentry
inthisrespect.Itisnotoneortwoaccused,butelevenaccusedwho
havegiventheirconfessionalstatementsaspertheprosecution,but
not a single officer is coming forward to say that a particular
accusedexpressedhis desirebeforehimtomaketheconfessional
statement. Hence, it is submitted that this creates a reasonable
doubt about the very beginning of the process of recording the
confessionalstatementsandwhenACPPatil,PW186,saysthathe
hadcommunicatedthewillingnessoftheaccusedtohissuperiorsby
wayofnotings,theyshouldhavebeenproducedforjudicialscrutiny
andcontemporaneousrecordoughttohavebeenproducedinthis
respect.LearnedadvocateWahabKhansubmittedthatthedefenceis
justifiedinallegingthattheconfessionalstatementsareconcocted,
manipulatedandtailoredbythehigherauthorities.Theanswersin
crossexaminationgivenbythefourinvestigatingofficersoftheATS,
whohadbeenexaminedbytheprosecution,arereproducedinthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1486..
Ext.4825
writtensubmissions,thestatementsmadebyACPPatil,PW186,in
crossexamination in this connection are also reproduced and the
datesofarrestarementionedinthrwrittensubmissionsbylearned
advocate Sharif Shaikh and it is submitted that none of the four
investigating officers stated about any of the accused having
expressedtheirdesiretomaketheconfessionalstatementtothem,
whichwasalsoconfirmedbyACPPatil,PW186.Itissubmittedthat
itis an admittedfact that during the periodof police custody of
more than two months there was also no evidence against the
accusedregardingtheirinvolvementinthebombblasts,butwithout
any evidence, the ATS succeeded in taking the custody of the
accused under the provisions of the MCOC Act. Thus the only
inference that can be drawn is that the accused never expressed
theirdesiretomakeconfessionalstatementsandprovisionsofthe
MCOCActwereinvokedonlytoextorttheconfessionalstatements.
Nowinsofarasthesubmissionsthattherewasnoevidenceagainst
the accused in the application of the MCOC Act for filing
chargesheet,someoftheinvestigatingofficershaveadmittedthis,
however, Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, has specifically denied this
suggestion,aboutwhichitissubmittedthathehasfalselydeniedit.
1353. Theabovesubmissionisalsothesubmissionbythedefencein
respectofthereasonforwhichtheaccusedvolunteeredtogivetheir
confessionalstatementsanditissubmittedthatthisreasonisnot
disclosedanywhere.
1354. Tomymind,iftheevidenceoftheinvestigatingofficerACP
Patil, PW186, is considered, it will be more than clear that the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1487..
Ext.4825
accusedhadvolunteeredtomaketheirconfessionalstatements.He
admittedthatACPShaikh,PW162,ACPJoshi,PW163,PIAgrawal,
PW173,and Sr.PIWadhankar,PW167,hadmadeinquiriesafter
takingtheaccusedintheircustodyandtheydidnotreporttohim
aboutanyvoluntarystatementmadebytheaccused,anyrecoveryat
their instance and any confession made by them. Similar type of
questions were asked by learned advocate Shetty and learned
advocateSharifShaikhduringtheircrossexaminationinrespectof
theaccusedwhomtheyrepresentedandACPPatil,PW186,fairly
admitted similarly. In categorical terms he admitted that no
investigatingofficershadtoldhimthatanyoftheA1toA4andA9
to A11 had expressed their willingness to give their confessional
statement,buthedeniedthesuggestionthatprovisionsoftheMCOC
Actwereappliedtothiscaseonlyfortakingconfessions.Hewas
askedtogothroughthecasediarybylearnedadvocateWahabKhan
whenhestatedthathehadinformedhissuperiorsonthedayon
whichhewassatisfiedabouttheaccusedexpressingtheirdesireto
make the confessional statement, that this report was under his
signatureintheformofnotings,aboutwhichhedidnotmakeany
stationdiaryentryanditisnotinthecasediaryalso.However,he
remembered that entries are made in the case diary about this
aspectandwhenaskedtogothroughthecasediary,hestatedthat
thereisanentryon29/09/06abouttheA4andon01/10/06about
theA9expressing their desiretomakethevoluntaryconfessional
statement. This line/point was thereafter not pursued further in
respectofotheraccused.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1488..
Ext.4825
1355. Headmittedthathedoesnotrememberwhichofficertoldhim
aboutthewillingnessoftheaccused,thatthereisnomentionofthe
namesoftheofficersinthecasediary,thatnoofficergavewritten
reportaboutit,thatthereisnomentioninthecasediaryastowhen
aparticularofficercametoknowaboutdesireoftheaccused,that
hecannottellthenameofaparticularofficerwhotoldhimabouta
particularaccusedexpressinghisdesireandhedoesnotremember
whether ACP Shaikh, PW162,, ACP Khandekar, PW174, Sr. PI
Rathod,PW176, PIAgrawal,PW173, Sr.PIWadhankar,PW167,
ACPJoshi,PW163,andPIVijayKadamtoldhimaboutit.However,
hedeniedthesuggestionthatno officertoldhimaboutit.Inthis
connection,itwillbenecessarytorefertotheevidencegivenbyACP
Patil,PW186,inhischiefexaminationaboutthemannerinwhich
hehandledtheinvestigationofthiscase.Ithascomeinhisevidence
thatherequestedJt.CP,ATS,K.P.Raghuvanshitoallotateamof
officerstoassisthimintheinvestigationsincetheinvestigationwas
very voluminous and widespread and on his request the Jt. CP
allottedateamofofficerstohimaspertheorderExt.2387andhe
alsostatedthatduringtheinvestigationhealsousedtheservicesof
officers other than those mentioned in the order as and when
needed,withthepermissionofthesuperiors.Ext.2387showsalist
of19officerswhoweredirectedtoassistACPPatil,PW186,.The
seveninvestigatingofficersfromsr.no.8to14wereobviouslydoing
thefieldwork.TwoACPsatsr.no.1and2weresupervisingoverthe
investigation.Outoftheremaining,Sr.PITajne,PW161,PITonapi,
PW155, and API Deore, PW180, have been examined and have
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1489..
Ext.4825
taken part in the investigation. Other than this, there were six
officersincludingthreePIsatsr.no.3,5and7andfourAPIsatsr.
no. 15 to 18. Thus, these officers and their staff must have
interrogatedtheaccusedonthedirectionsofACPPatil,PW186,and
astheywerenotentrustedwiththeinvestigationofanyparticular
crime, there was no question of they making any separate
investigationorreportinginwritingaboutwillingnessoftheaccused
to make the confessional statements. They were directly working
underthechiefinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,PW186.Thisisclear
bytheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thatthe separateteamsof
officers and their staff were formed for the interrogation of the
accused,thathealongwithotherseniorofficersweresupervisingthe
interrogation,thatallthearrestedaccusedwereputunderconstant
interrogationandhehadinstructedtheofficerstotakeimmediate
steps if needed, if something important came out from the
interrogation and they were asked to keep him posted about the
same. To my mind, there was no problem for the investigating
officersofthedifferentcrimes,examinedbytheprosecution,tosay
whenaskedthatsoandsoaccusedhadexpressedhisdesirebefore
him on so and so date for making confessional statement before
superior officers. However, they stated per the facts. Thus, the
submissioninthisrespectisnotacceptableanditdoesnotaffectthe
evidence of ACP Patil, PW186, that the accused volunteered to
maketheirconfessionalstatementsanddoesnotcreateanydoubt
about the beginning of the process of recording confessional
statement.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1490..
Ext.4825
1356. SinceithasbeenheldthattheprovisionsoftheMCOCAct
havebeenproperlyinvoked,theallegationthattheywereinvoked
onlytoextorttheconfessionsneednotbeconsideredandinviewof
thedenialbySr.PIRathod,PW176,thattherewasnosufficient
evidenceinhiscrimetofilechargesheet,thefurthersubmissionthat
therewasnoevidenceagainsttheaccusedconcerningtheblasttill
theinvocationoftheMCOCActisalsounacceptableanditwillhave
tobestatedherethattheconfessionswasnotthefirstevidencethat
wasbroughtbytheinvestigatingagency.Thiswasinsofarasthefirst
sevenaccused,i.e.,A1toA4andA9toA11,whohadbeenarrested
before the provisions of the MCOC Act were invoked. Similar
answers are given by ACP Patil, PW186, in respect of the four
accused,i.e.,A5,A6,A7andA12,whoseconfessionswererecorded
aftertheprovisionsoftheMCOCActwereappliedtothecrime.Itis
allegedthathecouldnottellthedatesandhedoesnotremember
thenamesoftheofficerstowhomthesaidaccusedfirstexpressed
theirdesiretomaketheconfessionalstatementsandheadmitted
thatnospecialtechniquewasusedtomakealltheaccusedtogive
the confessional statements. It is then alleged that the special
techniqueswerebywayoftortureandthreats,whichwereusedto
get the signatures of the accused on so called confessions. Same
reasoningasisgiveninrespectofthefirstsevenaccusedaboutthe
officersoutofthe19officerswhoweredirectedtoassistACPPatil,
PW186,appliestothesefoursubsequentaccusedalso,becausethe
evidenceofACPPatil,PW186,iscommon.
1357. Itissubmittedthatthefirstsevenaccused,i.e.,A1toA4and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1491..
Ext.4825
A9 to A11 were in the custody of the ATS since more than two
monthsandaquestionisaskedastowhathappenedintheirminds
justafterinvocationoftheMCOCActtoexpresstheirdesiretogive
the confessional statement. Learned advocates Wahab Khan and
ShettycleverlyavoidedaskingthisquestiontoACPPatil,PW186,
andtheyskirtedtheissued.However,duringthecrossexamination
bylearnedadvocateRasalinparagraph351,hewasaskedaboutthe
arrestoftheA5andhisinterrogationandinrespectofnotingsinthe
casediaryabouttheinterrogationoftheaccusedandhestatedthat
theremaybesomenotingsinthecasediaryabouttheinterrogation
and firmly stated that there are notings in the case diary about
interrogating A1 and A6 before their confessional statements.
Positive statements have come on record during further cross
examination that the officers who were interrogating the accused
usedtobriefhimandtheyhadinformedthedesireoftheaccusedto
maketheconfessionalstatements.Hewasaskedandhespecifically
answeredthathetriedtofindoutfromthesaidofficersthereason
forwhichtheaccuseddesiredtomaketheconfessionalstatements
andthenvolunteered,andthisisimportant,thathelearntfromthe
officersthattheaccuseddecidedtomakeacleanbreastofthecrime
bygivingconfessionalstatementsbeforethesuperiorofficersasthey
realizedthatalltheaccusedinthiscasewerearrestedandtheentire
storybehindtheconspiracywasrevealedtothepolice.Tomymind,
this explanation is completely acceptable and reflects the factual
position.ItisnotthatACPPatil,PW186,statedaboutthisinhis
chiefexamination.Itcameoutofhismouthwhenhewasprobed
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1492..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1493..
Ext.4825
detentionoftheaccusedpersoninpolicecustodyisamatterwhich
hastobeborneinmindinconsideringthequestionastowhether
theconfessionssubsequentlymadebytheaccusedarevoluntaryor
not.Thisisnotthefactinourcasebecauseitisnotacaseofasingle
murder,butthecompassofthecaseisinvolvingsevenbombblasts
and the investigation was widespread. The investigation was still
underwaywhentheprovisionsoftheMCOCActwereappliedand
therewassomemorefurtherinvestigation.InthecaseofNathuthe
facts wereentirelydifferentinasmuchas theprosecution hadnot
dischargeditsdutyofpositivelyestablishingthattheconfessionwas
voluntaryandtoprovethecircumstanceunderwhichtheunusual
stepofrecordingconfessionwastaken.Thenatureofthepresent
case once again shows that this authority is not helpful to the
defence.Inthecaseof HariRam therewasasingleaccusedand
againitwasfoundthatthedelaycausedintheproductionofthe
accusedbeforethemagistratewasnotexplainedbytheprosecution.
All thesethree casesrelieduponbythe learnedadvocatesarein
connectionwiththeconfessionalstatementsrecordedundersections
24oftheEvidenceActand164oftheCr.P.C.However,thelawlaid
down in the case of Mohmed Amin (supra) relied upon by the
learnedSPPisundertheTADAActandtheSupremeCourtrejected
theargumentsofthelearnedcounselfortheaccusedthatthetrial
courtcommittedagraveerrorinrelyingupontheconfessionsofthe
accusedignoringthatattherelevanttimetheywereinthecustody
of the investigating officer and did not have access to legal
assistanceandalsobecausetheconfessionswererecordedbythe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1494..
Ext.4825
officerswhowereactivelysupervisingtheinvestigationofthecase
andwereinapositiontoinfluencetheaccused.Thisargumentdid
notfindfavourwiththeSupremeCourtinviewoftheprosecution
evidencegivingtheexplanationaboutthepolicecustody.Thus,this
objection is of no substance. Same can be said about the next
objection that there was a delay of 27 days in recording
confessionalstatementsaftertheaccusedexpressedtheirdesire.Itis
clearfromtheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thattheprocedureof
physically sending the accused for recording the confessional
statementswasprecededbytheofficialprocedureofhemakinga
request to the Jt. CP for appointing the DCPs for recording the
confessionalstatements,theDCPwritingtotheinvestigatingofficer
toproducetheaccusedonaparticulardate,etc.Thisobjectionis,
therefore,irrelevantandthesubmissionthatitisnecessaryforthe
investigating officer to produce the accused before the recording
officer as soon as possible is of no substance. Pointing to the
evidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thatheinformedtheJt.CPinthe
form of notings about the desire of the accused to make the
confessions, it is submitted that these notings are not before the
courtandappointingaDCPisnottheworkwhichrequiredtimeand
itissubmittedthattheonlyinferencethatcanbedrawnisthatthe
ATSmanagedtheDCPstoanyhowgetthesignaturesoftheaccused
ontheconfessionsthatwerepreparedbyit.Nosuchinferencecan
be drawn ifoneconsiders thatinfactthere was nodelayas the
procedureprecedingtherecordingoftheconfessionalstatementwas
underway.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1495..
Ext.4825
1359. The next point that is urged is that the accused were not
producedbeforethemagistrateforrecordingtheirconfessionsunder
section164ofthe Cr.P.C.Itis submittedthatthe accusedwere
producedbeforetheDCPswhowerelocatedatlongdistanceslike
CSTtoBorivali,whereas,themagistratecourtwasjustadjacentto
Bhoiwadalockupandaconfessionundersection164oftheCr.P.C.
isamorereliablepieceofevidenceandamagistrateistrainedto
performajudicialdutywithoutanypressure.Itissubmittedthat
when accused themselves expressed the desire to make the
confessional statement, there should have been no apprehension
thattheywouldnotgive aconfession beforethemagistrate.Itis
allegedthatthesefactsshowthattheaccusednevershowedtheir
desire, that the ATS knew that if they are produced before the
magistrate,theywouldnotgetanyconfessionandtheDCPswere
managed by the ATS for doing the illegal work as they are
habituatedtofollowthedirectionsoftheirsuperiorswhetherlegal
orillegal.Iamafraid,butthesubmissionsaretotallyunacceptable
andnosuchinferenceassubmittedcanbedrawnonlybecausethe
confessionalstatementshavebeenrecordedundersection18ofthe
MCOCAct. Itis alsosubmitted by the learned defence advocates
that the investigating officers, who were investigating individual
crimes,couldhavegottheconfessionalstatementsoftheaccused
recorded under section 164 of the Cr. P. C. To my mind, if the
accusedhadnotexpressedtheirdesireduringtheinvestigationby
theconcernedinvestigatingofficers,therewasnoquestionofdoing
so.ThoughinthecaseofKartarSingh,recordingoftheconfession
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1496..
Ext.4825
undersection164oftheCr.P.C.isnotexcluded,whichalsoapplies
totheMCOCAct,thesubmissionsofthelearnedSPPRajaThakare
on this point are acceptable as they are perfectly logical. He
submittedthatordinarilyeverypoliceofficerinvestigatinganytype
ofcrimeisconsciousofthefactthatthestatementbytheaccused
duringthecourseofinvestigationhasgotnoevidentialvalueand
thereforeordinarilyunder the ordinarylaw nopolice officer ever
dreamsofexploringthepossibilitywhethertheaccusedwouldbe
confessingbygoingbeforethemagistrateundersection164ofthe
Cr.P.C.Hesubmitsthatevenifweseetheratioofthecases,accused
givingconfessionundersection164isminimal.Therefore,tillthe
timethematterisinvestigatedundertheordinarylaw,itisdifficult
to accept that every investigating officer would explore the
possibilityundersection164.However,themomentaspecialstatute
isapplied,thereisachangeinscenario,theinvestigatingofficeris
changedandthatinvestigatingofficerisconsciousoftheprovisions
ofthespecialstatuteandbydefaulteverysuchofficerknowsthat
thereisaspecialprovisionwherebytheconfessionalstatementof
the accused can be recorded by a police officer and that such
confessionalstatementwouldbeadmissibleinevidence.Soatthat
stage, when the investigating officer is conscious that he is
investigatingunderaspecialstatute,heisconsciousthatthereisa
specialprovisionunderthespecialstatutewhyshouldhenottakes
its help rather than going to the general law. This is what has
happenedinthepresentcasebecausetheprovisionsoftheMCOC
Actwereinvokedon24/09/06andthereaftertheinvestigationwas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1497..
Ext.4825
donebytheofficeroftherankofACP.Tomymind,onthefactsand
circumstancesofthiscase,thisobjectionbythedefenceisincorrect
andunacceptable.
1360. AfallacioussubmissionwasmadethatthelettersoftheJt.CP,
ATStothe DCPscontainedtheword'directed',whichmeansthat
theywerenotnominatedorappointedforrecordingtheconfessional
statement,thatthereisadifferenceofthreeranksbetweentheDCP
andJt.CPandifthereisadirectionbyasuperiorofficertodosome
work, the inferior officer is bound to do it. It is submitted that
because of these directions, the DCPs in the present case had to
recordtheconfessionsoftheaccusedeveniftheyrefused.Atthis
stageitselfitismadeclearthattheconfessionalstatementofthe
A13wasnotrecordedbyDCPRanade,PW111,thoughhewassent
to him and as submitted 'was directed to record it'. A strange
inference is asked to be drawn that CP Roy, PW185, was
instrumental in influencing the DCPs to record the confessional
statementsashevisitedtheATSofficemorethan32times.Tomy
mind,visittotheATSofficeisdifferentthanactuallyvisitingthe
officeoftheDCPs,whowerenotattachedtotheATS.TheDCPsdid
theworkofrecordingtheconfessionalstatementsaspertheletterof
theJt.CPoftheATSandthereisnothingonrecordtoshowthatit
wasasperthedirectionsoftheCP.Infact,thevisitbytheCPtothe
ATS office was in pursuance of the order dtd. 14/08/06 by the
ACMMinRemandApplicationNo.229/06inC.R.No.41/06,which
isatExt.4490.Thus,thissubmission/objectionisfallaciousandnot
acceptable.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1498..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1499..
Ext.4825
theconfessionalstatement.Thus,itisnotthattheprosecutionhas
notproducedanyrecord.Thereisnothinginthecrossexamination
ofDCPRanade,PW111,aboutitandthereisnothinginthecross
examinationofACPPatil,PW186,aboutit.NotonlytheletterExt.
2410,butACPPatil,PW186,alsoprovedtheletteroftheJt.CPExt.
2406 directing DCP Ranade, PW111, to record the confessional
statement of the A13, Ext.2407 by which DCP Ranade, PW111,
askedhim,i.e.,ACPPatil,PW186,tosendtheaccusedtohimon
29/10/06andthelettersExts.2408and2409,givenbyACPPatil,
PW186, to PSI Kandharkar for producing the accused before the
DCPandtotheDCPaboutproductionoftheaccusedrespectively.
Thus,thissubmissionisbaselessasitisnotbasedonthefacts.Not
onlythis,thereistheevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,abouthaving
taken back the A13 from the DCP as he refused to make a
confessional statement. It has come in his evidence that PSI
Kandharkar had taken the A13 to the DCP on 29/10/06 for that
purpose, but the DCP informed on 31/10/06 that the accused
refused and directed them to take him back, accordingly after
makingstationdiaryentryno.9,truephotocopyofwhichisatExt.
1672,hehadbroughtbacktheaccusedandfirsthehadgothim
medicallyexaminedatCooperHospitalbygivingaletter,officecopy
ofwhichisatExt.1671,andafterexamination,medicalcertificate,
Art.368,wasissuedbythemedicalofficer.Heprovedthecontentsof
thestationdiaryentriesmadebyPSIKandharkarandstaffabout
takingtheaccusedtotheDCP,comingbacktothepolicestation,true
photocopiesofwhichisatExts.1672(5entries).Thisevidenceisnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1500..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1501..
Ext.4825
remainpresentatthetimeofrecordingoftheconfession.Soalsoit
cannotbedeemedthatonceaDCPhasrecordedtheconfessional
statement of one accused, he should not record the confessional
statementofanotheraccusedinthesamecaseasheisdeemedtobe
involved in the investigation or becomes aware of the facts and
circumstancesofthecase.Thefactualpositionthatisfoundinthe
caseof StateofMaharashtraV.Mohd.ZuberKasamSheikhand
Ors.,isthat twoDCPshadrecordedtheconfessionalstatementsof
twoaccusedeach,thattooonthesameday.Eventhentheywere
upheldanditwasnotfoundtobeprocedurallyorlegallywrong.
1363. The next objection is that the DCPs who recorded the
confessional statements were assisting in the investigation of the
case, which is a violation of Rule 3(2) of the MCOC Rules. It is
admittedthattheDCPswerenotdeputedtotheATSnortheywere
connectedwiththeinvestigatingagency,butasperCPRoy,PW185,
they had assisted the ATS in the investigation, which means that
theyhadtakenpartinit.Thisisobviouslyfactuallywrongbecause
CPRoy,PW185,deniedthesuggestionthattheDCPsatthezonal
level were taking part in the investigation of this case. He
volunteeringthattheATSwasdoingtheinvestigationandallothers
were assisting them, cannot be construed to mean that the DCPs
were interested in the investigation or were taking part in the
investigation. Statements made by DCP Phadtare, PW93, about
givinginstructionstohissubordinatetofollowtheleadoftheblasts
that had taken place at Mahim Railway Station, by SP Karale,
PW104,thatheattended34meetingswiththeCommissionerof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1502..
Ext.4825
Policeaftertheblastsandvisitedthehospitalstoseetheinjuredas
perthelogbookofhisvehicleandalsovisitedSector9inAntopHill
whereanencounterhadtakenplacewhichisalsoasperthelog
book of his vehicle and DCP Ranade, PW111, having formed a
special investigation team, mention of which is found in the
statementofaninjuredwitness,arereliedupontoshowthatthese
DCPs were interested in the investigation. This submission is not
acceptableforthe simple factthatthey were notattachedtothe
ATS, the accused were not in their custody and they were not
investigatinganyparticularcrimeoutofseven,thoughitmayhave
occurredwithintheirjurisdiction.
1364. Thenextandmostimportantobjection/allegationinrespect
oftheconfessionalstatementsoftheaccusedbeingnotvoluntaryis
theallegationsoftorturemadebytheaccusedandthethreatsgiven
tothem.Itissubmittedthatallaccusedmadecomplaintsoftorture,
threat andinducement on 09/11/06and filed written complaints
themselves and also through their advocates describing the third
degreetortureandDCPsandATSofficersobtainingtheirsignatures
forcibly. It is also submitted that all accused in their written
statementsfiledalongwiththeirstatementundersection313ofthe
Cr. P. C. described how they were arrested, illegally detained,
torturedandforcedtosignontheconfessionalstatements.Except
A1andA3,theremainingaccused,whoseconfessionalstatements
were recorded, gave evidence on oath describing all the above
things. It is also submitted that A2 and A4 and A9 to A11 were
handedover tothe AntiRobberyCellatKurlafor specialtype of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1503..
Ext.4825
tortureandthemedicalrecordoftheBhabhaHospitalshowsthis.
The said accused have also deposed about the torture meted out
themintheKurlaUnitofVijaySalaskar.A3andA4weretakento
theUnitIIoftheDCBCIDforspecialtorture.Itisalsosubmitted
thattheyhavementionedintheirwrittensubmissionsthattheyfiled
with their statements under section 313 of the Cr. P. C., in their
applications for retraction of their confessional statement and in
theiroralevidencethattheATSofficersthreatenedthemnottosay
anythingaboutthetortureorbeatingwhenevertheywereproduced
beforethemagistratesandbeforethiscourtonthedatesofremand
andwhenevertheywereproducedbeforethemedicalofficers.Itis
submittedthatconsideringalltheabovedocumentsandevidence,
theonlyinferencethatcanbedrawnisthattheATSofficersand
CrimeBranchofficershadsubjectedalltheaccusedtothirddegree
torture.
1365. Thedatesofmedicalexaminationofeachandeveryaccused
are listed in paragraph 11 of the written submissions by learned
advocate Sharif Shaikh and also submitted by learned advocate
WahabKhanandthenthegapsof3to10daysarepointedouton
whichdaystheaccusedwerenotexaminedanditissubmittedthat
aspertheguidelinesinD.K.Basu'scase,everyaccusedarrestedin
anycrimemustbemedicallyexaminedinevery48hours,butthese
guidelineswerenotfollowed.Itisalsosubmittedthatallthedoctors
whoexaminedtheaccusedarenotexaminedbytheprosecution,as
has come in the evidence of Dr. Ochaney, PW179, Dr. Paikrao,
PW181, Dr. Gond, PW182, Dr. Yelkar, PW183 and Dr. Dhangar,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1504..
Ext.4825
PW184.Itisthereforesubmittedthatthemedicalrecordforwhich
theconcerneddoctorswerenotexaminedbytheprosecution,are
not legally proved, which means that the accused were not
medicallyexaminedonthosedates.Itisfurthersubmittedthatifthe
accusedcomplaintothedoctorduringpolicecustodyabouttorture
bythepolice,thedoctoraskedthemastowhathappenedtothem
andwhentheaccusedtoldtheirproblems,thedoctordidnotwrite
that the complaint was due to police torture, but only wrote the
complaint.Itissubmittedthatconsideringtherecordoftheinjuries
totheaccusedanddeficiencyinthemedicalexaminationthathas
emerged from the crossexamination of the doctors coupled with
theirwrittensubmissionsandtheoralevidence,thecourtcaneasily
arriveattheconclusionthattheaccusedweretortured.
1366. Inmyhumbleopinion,ifthefactualpositionandtheevidence
given by the prosecution in respect of the recording of the
confessionalstatementsoftheaccuseddescribedinparagraphs1340
to1351isconsidered,thenitisabundantlyclearthatalltheabove
submissionsarebaselessastheyarenotbasedonfacts.Alongwith
theaboveallegations,istheallegationinpointno.12inthetopic
'commonargumentsofallallegedconfessions'involumeno.1ofthe
writtensubmissionsfiledbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhthatthe
recordofthemagistratecourtorthespecialcourtdoesnotshow
that the magistrate or the special judge had asked the accused
whethertheyhadanycomplaintagainstthepolice,thoughatsome
places it is written that there is no complaint against the police,
whichdoesnotmeanthatthemagistrateorthejudgehadaskedthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1505..
Ext.4825
accused.Itissubmittedthattheaccusedintheirwrittenstatements
filedwiththeirstatementsundersection313oftheCr.P.C.andin
their evidence have explained about this aspect stating that they
were threatened and tortured not to make any complaint and
thereforeonconsideringthisitcanbesafelyconstruedthatallthe
accused were tortured and threatened and therefore the alleged
confessionalstatementsarerequiredtobediscarded.Thisisnothing
butcastingaspersionsonthemagistratesorthespecialjudge.All
thejudicialofficersinvariablyaskeachandeveryaccusedwhenthey
areproducedduringthepolicecustodyastowhethertheyhaveany
complaintofilltreatmentatthehandsofthepoliceandsuchtypeof
allegationsonthebackgroundofthefactualpositionoftheaccused
beingrepresentedbyadvocatesthroughouttheirperiodsofpolice
custodyremandarebaselessandjustmadeforthesakeofmakingit.
Thetwistingoffactsandsubmissionsaboutdrawinganinferencein
their favour either way is nothing but trying to be in a winning
positionwhetheritisheadsortails.ThefactremainsthattheCourt
record of the remand applications before the magistrate and the
recordofthiscourtasdescribedinthefactualpositionsinrespectof
eachaccusedshowsthatthereisnotanysinglecomplaintbyany
accusedagainstthepoliceabouttortureorilltreatmentandthereis
no evidence in respect of any torture or illtreatment. There is
medical evidence about some physical ailments of some of the
accused which I will presently discuss. The applications for
retractingtheirconfessionalstatementsfiledbytheaccused,their
writtensubmissionsfiledalongwiththeirstatementsundersection
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1506..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1507..
Ext.4825
allegationsoftortureduringthepolicecustodyperiodhavecome
very belatedlyandconsidering the nature ofthe retractions,they
haveobviouslycomeoutoflegalminds.Thisinferenceisfortified
because some of the applications are in the handwriting of their
advocates and they contain the words like 'voluntary' and
'retraction', etc., which are legal words. The contents of the
retractionstatementsalsoindicatethesupposedlegallacunaeinthe
procedureoftherecordingofthestatements.Thefactremainsthat
noneoftheaccusedhasdisputedhissignatureontheconfessional
statement.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1508..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1509..
Ext.4825
theblastsareone.Soatthecostofrepetition,itwillhavetobe
statedthattheallegationsofilltreatmentandthirddegreetorture
have been made belatedly and obviously on legal advice. It will,
therefore,havetobeheldthattheretractionsbytheaccused,oralas
wellaswritten,areafterthought,notbonafideandnottrue.Theydo
notaffectthe credibilityandveracityofthe prosecution evidence
aboutrecordingoftheconfessionalstatements.
1368. Insofarastheevidenceaboutphysicalcomplaintsduringthe
policecustodyperiodconcerningsomeaccused,itwillnotbeoutof
placetomentionattheoutsetthattheywereproducedduringthe
policecustodyperiodsbeforethemagistratesandbeforethiscourt,
but they did not make complaint of illtreatment or torture. In
respect of A1, the OPD case paper dtd.15/08/06 Ext.2122 shows
thattheaccusedwascomplainingofgiddinesswithearpainandloss
ofhearingoftheleftear.ThiscasepaperwasprovedbyDr.Gond,
PW182. When the A1 was produced before the magistrate on
14/08/06inpolicecustodyinRemandApplicationNo.243/06ofC.
R.No.86/06,thelearnedmagistratehadspecificallynotedthatthe
A1wasearlierarrestedinC.R.No.41/06,wasremandedtopolice
custodytillthatdate,thatheisarrestedinthisC.R.,i.e.C.R.No.
86/06,withtheprayerforpolicecustodyand,thisisimportant,that
he has repeatedly questioned the accused whether he has any
complaint against the police, but the accused did not make any
complaintandonlyrepeatedthatheisinnocentandsaidthathehad
somepainintheear.Theaccusedwasrepresentedbytheadvocate
onthatdayandthoughhedidnotmakeanycomplaintagainstthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1510..
Ext.4825
police,thelearnedACMMdirectedthe CommissionerofPoliceto
supervisetheinvestigationandtoexaminetheaccusedanddirected
thatthereportbeproducedonthenextdate,i.e.,16/08/06,asto
whattreatmentisgiventotheaccused.Consideringthefactthatthe
OPDcasepaperExt.2121showsthatthesymptomsweregiddiness
with left ear pain since last two days read with the accused not
having made any complaint against the police, this physical
complaintisofnoconsequenceanddoesnotleadtoanyinference
about illtreatment or torture or beating. On the other hand, the
continuationsheetoftheOPDcasepapershowingtheexamination
intheENTDepartmentshowshistoryofbudusage,sothatwasthe
cause of ear pain which ultimately leads to giddiness. He was
produced before the ACMM in the same remand application on
28/08/06andthereisnomentionabouthecomplainingaboutany
illtreatment or torture by the police and on that day he was
remandedtojudicialcustody.
1369. NextistheOPDcasepaperdtd.23/09/06Ext.2152provedby
Dr.Gond,PW182,whichmentionsthatthepatientisnotwillingto
makeanycomplaint,butheismoaning.Hewasreferredtoexpert
andthefindingsoftheEMR,i.e.,EmergencyMedicalRegistrar,were
thatinviewofcooingsoundmakingthroughmouth,whenaskedto
patient,noanysymptomsafteraskingdeeply.Therewashistoryof
painatgroin,prickingpainatinguinalregionandthesonography
that was done to rule out renal colic was normal, but he had a
historyofvomitingtwiceontheearlierday,xraywasalsoadvised
andhewasagainreferredtoEmergencySurgicalRegistrarinview
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1511..
Ext.4825
ofpainatinguinalregionandtheOPDcasepaperExt.2145shows
thatthepatientcomplainedofpaininabdomen,backandinguinal
regionrightsidefromthreedaysand,thisisimportant,historyof
hematuriatendaysback.A1wasexaminedbyDr.DongreandDr.
AmitSharmaon23/09/06and25/09/06andtheyhavenotbeen
examinedbytheprosecution,buteventhendefenceisrelyingon
thatevidence.Thisshowsthedoublegameoftheaccusedthat,that
whichisfavourableispointedoutforgettingatthesametimethatit
issubmittedthatsuchdocumentshavenotbeenproved.Dr.Gond,
PW182,nodoubtadmittedinhiscrossexaminationthatifaperson
iskickedinthescrotum,hecansustainthetypeofinjurysustained
by the A1, i.e., spermatic cord haematoma. This is of course a
possibilityandintheabsenceofanycomplaintbytheA1himself,it
cannotbeunderstoodorinterpretedtomeanthathewastortured.
Againhewasproducedbeforethiscourton25/09/06inRemand
ApplicationNo.60/06afterhisarrestundertheMCOCAct,buthe
didnotmakeanycomplaintofassaultagainstthepolice.Afterthat
day,hewasexaminedon27/09/06aspertheOPDcasepaperExt.
2152,wherehecomplainedofbackpainsincefivedaysalongwith
the nominal complaint of pain in abdomen, etc., and it is also
mentioned that there is a history of injury to his back five days
before.Obviously,therewasnoexternalinjuryvisibletotheeyes,
butitwasonthecomplaintbytheaccused.Afterthatday,hewas
examinedon29/09/06and01/10/06aspertheOPDcasepaper
Ext.2151provedbyDr.Gond,PW182,whichismentionedinthe
factual position and he did not have any complaint or external
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1512..
Ext.4825
injury.Thereafter,istheprocessofrecordingofhisconfessionand
hewasthenmedicallyexaminedon06/10/06and08/10/06and
hadnocomplaints.
1370. A2hadaphysicalcomplainton26/09/06aspertheOPDcase
paper Ext.2176 proved by Dr. Gond, PW182. As per the history
givenbyhim,hehadtwoepisodesofloosemotionswithabdomen
pain.Beforethisdate,hewasproducedon25/09/06afterhisarrest
undertheMCOCActandhehadnocomplaintsofassaultagainst
thepolice.Thereasonforthisisobviouslythathewasonreligious
fast. He was again produced in Remand Application No. 67/06
before this court on 09/10/06 when also he did not make any
complaintoftortureagainstthepolicethoughheretractedhaving
giventheconfessionalstatement.
1371. NextisthecaseofA6,whowasdirectlyarrestedunderthe
MCOCActon29/09/06andwasproducedinRemandApplication
No.62/06beforemylearnedpredecessorjudgeShriA.M.Thipsay
(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andremandedto
policecustodyupto13/10/06.Hewasexaminedon29/09/06and
on01/10/06aspertheOPDcasepaperExt.2220whereinhehadno
complaints. However, during his examination on 03/10/06, he
complainedofshoulderpainonleftside,therefore,hewasreferred
to orthopedic reference and as per the evidence of Dr. Gond,
PW182,thenotesoftheorthopedicsurgeonshowsthatthepatient
wascomplainingofpainintheleftscapularregionsince15days,
therewasnohistoryoftrauma,TBorexternalinjuryand,thisis
important,thatlocalexaminationdidnotshowswelling,deformity
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1513..
Ext.4825
andtendernessandnoswellinganddeformityontheleftscapula,
buttendernesswaspresent.Inthiscontext,Dr.Gond,PW182,was
suggestedinhiscrossexaminationandheadmittedthattherecan
bepaininscapulaifamanishangedataheightbytyinghishands
byropeaftertakingcarethattherewillbenomarksoftheropeon
the hands and in that situation pain in overhead abduction and
tenderness present on left scapula on left side is also possible.
However,heexplainedthattherewasnopainintheotherjoints.
Nowthesearepossibilitiesandunlesstheaccusedcomplainstothe
medicalofficersortothecourt,noinferenceaboutilltreatmentor
torture can be drawn. The notes of orthopedic surgeon dtd.
03/10/06have come under attackin viewof the strikingoff the
word'days'andthenwritingtheword'years'anditissubmittedby
learned advocate Wahab Khan that this correction in the notes
showsthattheATSofficersprevaileduponthemedicalofficerofthe
KEMHospitalandotherhospital.Trueitistheword'days'isstruck
offandthenword'years'iswritteninthecomplaintthatwasmade
by the accused about pain in left scapular region. However, the
importantthingisthatthepatientdidnotgiveanyhistoryoftrauma
andiftheentirenotesoftheorthopedicsurgeonisseen,itappears
thatheisinthehabitofwritingwordsandstrikingthemoffand
thenwritingsomenewwords.Fromthisaloneonecannotdrawthe
inference as submitted by the learned advocate that pain was
becauseoftraumawithinaperiodof15days.How,thisispossibleis
not explained by him, because the accused was arrested on
29/09/06 and 03/10/06 is the fourth day of his arrest and in
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1514..
Ext.4825
betweenhewasexaminedon29/09/06and01/10/06whenhehad
nocomplaintsandhehadcomplainedtothedoctoraboutpainsince
15days,i.e.,prior tohis arrest.Accuseddidnotcomplain of ill
treatmentortorturebythepoliceonthenextdayofremand,i.e.,on
13/10/06,whenhewasproducedinRemandApplicationNo.68/06
beforethiscourt.
1372. ThenagainthereistheOPDcasepaperdtd.19/10/06Ext.
2230,whichisaftertheaboveremanddatewhereinhecomplained
of giddiness. The lecturer of that medical college noted that the
patientisapparentlyonfastforreligiousreasons,whichtomymind
wasthecauseofthegiddiness.Therecouldhave beenonemore
reasonthatofundergoingnarcoanalysistesttwodaysback.One
more thing in respect of the complaint of A6 of pain in the left
scapulaisthehistorygivenbytheaccusedhimself,whichisnotedin
the date column by the lecturer in Ext.2230 and it is history of
fracture of right rib cage about 15 years back. Thereafter, the
accused was produced before this court on 26/10/06 in Remand
Application No. 77/06 after his confessional statement was
recorded,buthedidnotmakeanycomplaintofilltreatmentatthe
handsofthepolice.Itisonthatdayitselfthathewasmedically
examined as per the OPD case paper Ext. 2220 and had no
complaints.
1373. InrespectoftheA9itistheOPDcasepaperExt.2281dtd.
26/09/06whereinhecomplainedoftwoepisodesofloosemotions
on that day, but, to my mind that was because of he being on
religiousfast.Hedidnotcomplainaboutanytortureorilltreatment
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1515..
Ext.4825
1374. NextistheA10whowasarrestedon25/07/06andtheOPD
case paper Ext. 2284 dtd.25/07/06 shows nocomplaint, butExt.
2286,dtd.27/07/06,showscomplaintofchestpainintheleftside
sincesixhours.Hewasreferredtothehigherauthority,i.e.,EMS,
whonotedthatheisatobaccochewerandthefindingwasatypical
chestpainontheleftsideradiatingtowardstheleftarmsince2.30
p.m.Now,beforethisdate,hewasproducedbeforethemagistrate
inaremandapplicationExt.4450ofC.R.No.77/06andremanded
topolicecustodyupto07/08/06,buthehadnocomplaintsagainst
the police. Same was the position on 07/08/06 in the remand
applicationExt.4452.TheOPDcasepaperExt.2298dtd.11/09/06
showsthathewasfeelingfeverishandbodyacheandwasreferredto
thehigherauthority.Hehadnocomplaintswhenhewasproduced
before the magistrate on 03/09/06 in Remand Application No.
243/06andonthesamedateinRemandApplicationNo.229/06,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1516..
Ext.4825
Ext.4497,inwhichhewasremandedtopolicecustody.Similarly,he
hadnocomplaintsagainstthepoliceaboutilltreatmentortorture
on14/09/06inRemandApplicationNo.229/06,Ext.4505,andon
16/09/06in RemandApplication No.264/06inC.R.No.59/06
Ext.4477. Thus no inference can be drawn from these medical
certificatesoftheaccusedaboutanytortureorilltreatmentbythe
ATSpolice.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1517..
Ext.4825
motionsandvomitingaspertheOPDcasepaperExt.2324.Hehad
no complaint against the police of illtreatment or torture on
16/09/06whenhewasproducedbeforethemagistrateinRemand
ApplicationNo.264/06andwasremandedtopolicecustodyupto
30/09/06. Similarly, he had no complaint on 30/09/06 when
producedinthesameremandapplicationExt.4479andremanded
tojudicialcustodyupto06/10/06.Thus,themedicalrecorddoes
notsubstantiate any allegation of torture andilltreatment atthe
handsofthepoliceandtheaccusedhadalsonotcomplainedabout
thesame.
1376. Intheirapplicationsforretractionofconfessionalstatements,
theirwrittensubmissionsfiledwiththeirstatementsundersection
313oftheCr.P.C.andintheiroralevidencetheaboveaccusedhave
vividly described, as mentioned earlier, about the nature of the
tortureandtheextentofthetortureandthatitwasinhumanand
unbearable.However,therecordoftheremandapplicationsofthe
courtsofthemagistrateaswellasthiscourtandthemedicalrecord
doesnotsubstantiatetheirallegations.Ihavealreadyheldthatitis
unacceptable and impossible that the accused who were duly
represented by their advocates and who had been meeting their
familymembers,didnotcomplainevenonasingleoccasiontothe
magistrateswhentheywereproducedfromtimetotime.Thusitwill
havetobeheldthattheaccusedhavefailedtoprovetheallegations
ofilltreatmentandthirddegreetorturebytheATSpolice.
1377. The next objection is that the DCPs did not know the law
regarding confession because though they deposed that they had
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1518..
Ext.4825
givencertificatesasperformatsintheMCOCRules,thecertificates
givenbythemarenotaccordingtotheformatandrules.Substantial
submissions were made by learned advocate Wahab Khan in this
regard. He submitted that the DCPs have developed their own
formatofcertificatethoughitisnotprovidedbylawandthatall
seven certificates are similar, but in none of the confessional
statements,thereisamemorandumattheendoftheconfessional
statement as prescribed in Rule 6 of the Rules and the
memorandums have not been placed before the court. Before
addressingthemeritsofthissubmission,itwillnotbeoutofplaceto
pointoutthatnomenclatureas'certificate'or'memorandum'isnot
so significant. Section 18(3) says that below the confessional
statement, the police officer should certify in writing that it is
voluntary.Rule6saysthatattheendoftheconfession,thepolice
officershall,underhisownhandwriting,alsomakeamemorandum
andthentheformatisgiven,butwhatisimportant,arethelastfour
words 'to the following effect'. Thus, both, certificate in section
18(3)andthememoranduminRule6,refertotheendorsementthat
isputattheendoftheconfessionalstatement,whichshouldcontain
thesatisfactionofthepoliceofficeraboutthevoluntarinessofthe
confessional statement and that the accused was given to
understandthatitmaybeusedagainsthim,etc.Itisheldinmany
authoritiesthatwordingofthecertificateisnotmandatoryandnone
oftheauthoritiesmakeanydistinctionbetweenmemorandumand
certificate. Even absence of certificate is condoned by some
authoritiesifitisfoundthatotherthingshavebeencompliedwith
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1519..
Ext.4825
and the police officer has given evidence about his satisfaction.
Thus, this submission does not affect the credibility of the
confessionalstatements.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1520..
Ext.4825
learnedadvocateSharifShaikh,viz.,thattheDCPsdidnottellthe
accusedthattheyarenotconnectedwiththe investigation ofthe
case,inwhichtheywerearrested,theDCPsdidnotasktheaccused
fromwhere,whenandwhypolicearrestedthem,theDCPsdidnot
ask why the accused are produced before him and why they are
making the confessional statements, the DCPs did not inform the
accusedthatiftheyrefusetomaketheconfessionalstatement,they
willnotbesentbacktothepolicewhoareinvestigatingthecaseand
did not ask them whether they want to keep their advocates or
relativespresentduringtherecordingoftheconfessionalstatement.
ItissubmittedthatsomeoftheDCPsdeposedinchiefexamination
bywayofanimprovementthattheyhadaskedthesequestions,but
admitted in crossexamination that the questions remained to be
writteninbothpartsoftheconfessionalstatementandalsoadmitted
thatthereisnocontemporaneousrecordtoshowthattheyaskedthe
questions. Hence, their evidence on this point is not acceptable.
Alongwiththis,itisalsosubmittedthatexceptintheconfessional
statement of the A1, the warning that the confessional statement
maybeusedagainsthimiswritteninPartI,butitisnotwrittenin
thePartII.Alongwiththis,itissubmittedthatnowarningisgivento
anyaccusedexcepttheA1thattheconfessionwillbeusedagainst
his coaccused. It is submitted that all the DCPs except, DCP
Choubey, PW113, unanimously deposed that they warned the
accused about it, but it is not found in the record and it is also
admitted that there is no contemporaneous record about it. It is
submittedthatallthisshowsalltheDCPsaretutoredonthispoint
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1521..
Ext.4825
andallofthemmadeimprovements.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1522..
Ext.4825
1381. Asmanyas14questionswereaskedtotheA1,10questions
wereaskedtotheA2andA7and8questions wereaskedtothe
remainingaccusedwhentheywerefirstproducedbeforetheDCPs.
Thesequestionscompriseofthestatutorywarningsthatarerequired
tobegiventothe accused,thattheyarenotboundtomakethe
confessionalstatementsandiftheymakeit,itcanbeusedagainst
themasevidence.Theyincludequestionstoascertainwhetherany
threatsweregivenoranyinducementwasmadeorwhetherthey
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1523..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1524..
Ext.4825
thecustodyofthepoliceofficerofthelocalpolicestationtillthe
timewhenhewasagainproducedforthesecondtimebeforethe
DCP.Thisaspectisthereforenotofmuchconsequenceanditdoes
notamounttoviolationofRule3(4)oftheMCOCRules.Moreover,
the accusedhave notcome outwiththe casethatthe periodfor
reflectionwasverylessandtheywantedsomemoretimetothink
over.Allinall,Iamfullysatisfiedthatthenatureofthequestions
asked to the accused was sufficient for the DCPs to come to the
conclusion that the accused are desirous of making their
confessionalstatementvoluntary.
1383. ItisthensubmittedthatA1toA4andA9toA11retracted
theirallegedconfessionalstatementson09/10/06beforethiscourt,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1525..
Ext.4825
thatA2andA4madewrittencomplainton03/11/06,A7madea
retraction on 26/10/06 and all accused made the complaints on
09/11/06 and considering the nature of the complaints and the
retraction at the earliest point of time, all the confessional
statementsarerequiredtobediscarded.Ihavealreadyconsidered
theaspectofretractiondonebytheaccusedandhaveheldthatthey
areobviouslymadeonlegaladvice.Thefactualpositionabouteach
accusedbeforetheirarrestundertheMCOCAct,aftertheirarrest
under the MCOC Act and before and after the dates of their
confessional statements has been discussed in detail earlier in
respect of their production before the concerned magistrates and
beforethiscourt.Itisnotnecessarytodiscussindetailthecontents
ofthewrittenapplicationsthatweremadeon03/11/06bytheA2
andA4andbytheotheraccusedon09/11/06,becausetillthattime
allofthemhadproducedbeforethiscourtonceortwiceandhad
beenremandedtojudicialcustody.
1384. Abriefreferencetothefactualpositionofeachaccusedwillbe
sufficient.Admittedly,theCMMrecordedthestatementoftheA1
whenhewasproducedbeforehimandheadmittedtheentirePartI
andmostofthecontentsofPartIIofhisconfessionalstatementand
atthesametimeadmittedhissignatureonbothpartsanddidnot
makeanygrievancetotheCMMthatitwasbecauseofthreator
torturethathewasforcedtosignonblankpapers.Hewasproduced
on09/10/06beforethiscourtandheonlyorallysubmittedthathis
confessional statement was recordedunder pressure anditis not
voluntary.Hewasrepresentedbyadvocateandobviouslythelegal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1526..
Ext.4825
terminologyusedbyhim.Thereafter,hewasproducedbeforethis
courtontwooccasions,i.e.,on20/10/06and03/11/06,buthedid
not retract his confessional statement and did not make any
grievance or allege anything though he was represented by
advocate.Itisonlyon09/11/06thathefiledtheapplicationExt.A
dtd. 02/11/06 making certain allegations, about which I have
already discussed in the topic 'Retraction' in the 'Factual position
regardingA1'.A2onlysubmittedtothiscourton09/10/06afterthe
date of his confessional statement, on which date he was duly
representedbyanadvocate,thattooorally,thatthepoliceshowed
himapartofhisconfessionwhichwastotallywrongandhesigned
it under fear, etc., however, he did not make any retraction or
grievance or allege anything about the confessional statement on
20/10/06afteraperiodof11daysofbeinginjudicialcustody.Itis
onlyon03/11/06thathefiledtheapplicationforretractionmaking
certainallegations,whichIhavealreadydiscussedunderthetopic
'Retraction'inthe'FactualpositionregardingA2'.A3wasproduced
before this court on 09/10/06 after the date of his confessional
statement,wasrepresentedbyanadvocateandsubmittedorallythat
his confessional statement was recorded under pressure, etc.,
however he did not make any retraction of his confessional
statementonsubsequenttwodateswhenhewasproducedbefore
thiscourtfromjudicialcustodyandwasalsoremandedtojudicial
custody.Itisonlyon09/11/06thathegaveanapplicationsignedby
him and his advocate containing the allegations, which I have
alreadydiscussed.Thus,from07/10/06to09/11/06therewasno
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1527..
Ext.4825
retractionbyhim,thoughhehadbeenproducedbeforethiscourt
twice after 09/10/06 and during this entire period, he was in
judicial custody. A4 was produced before this court on 09/10/06
afterthedateofhisconfessionalstatement,wasrepresentedbyan
advocateandheonlysubmittedthatoneportionofhisconfessional
statementwaswrong.Howcanhemakesuchastatementwhenhe
sayslateronthathisconfessionalstatementwasnotrecordedatall.
Hedidnotdenyhavingsignedtheconfessionalstatementorhaving
giventheconfessionalstatement.Thisisveryimportantconsidering
theallegationsthathemadeinhisapplicationofretractionfiledon
03/11/06,whichisdiscussedearlier.Inbetweenhewasproduced
from judicial custody on 20/10/06 and he did not make any
retractionoranygrievanceorallegeanythingabouthisconfessional
statement.Thusfrom07/10/06upto03/11/06hedidnotmakeany
retraction.Hisoralsubmissiontothecourton09/10/06cannotbe
construed as retraction proper. He has made inconsistent
contentions and allegations in his written submissions Ext. 2825
filedwithhisstatementundersection313oftheCr.P.C.,inhis
applicationExt.3798dtd.03/11/06andinhisoralevidence.A5
wasproducedbeforethiscourton26/10/06afterthedateofhis
confessional statement, was represented by an advocate and he
admitted that his confessional statement was recorded the day
before,butcommittedamistakebystatingthatitwasrecordedby
SP Mohite, PW102. He filed retraction application on 09/11/06
whichisdiscussedbymeearlier.A6wasproducedbeforethiscourt
on26/10/06afterthedate ofhis confessionalstatement,hewas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1528..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1529..
Ext.4825
1385. ItwillbenecessarytotakeupthecaseoftheA7asthereis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1530..
Ext.4825
muchagitationaboutthemedicalevidencethathascomeonrecord.
ItissubmittedbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanfortheA7thatas
pertheOPDcasepapersExts.1051and1052dtd.24/10/06and
25/10/06, the accused had complained of fainting and giddiness
respectivelyandthesewerethedocumentsofmedicalexamination
of the GT Hospital proved by the concerned medical officer
examinedbytheprosecution.However,itisthecaseoftheA7that
on22/10/06hewastakentohisresidenceforsomesearch,where
hismothernoticedblackmarksbelowbothofhiseyesandswelling
onthefaceandbothhands andthe skinalsopeeledoffandthe
accusedlimpingandwhensheinquiredwhetherhewasassaulted
hedidnotspeakanything,butindicatedbywaivinghishandsthat
hewasassaultedinthepolicecustody.Therefore,shefiledM.A.No.
302/06 before this court on 24/10/06 and on that day itself my
learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now Hon'ble
JusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)directedtheinvestigatingofficer
to produce the accused before her on the next day, i.e., on
25/10/06,at1200hours.Theaccusedwasproducedat4.40p.m.
on25/10/06andshespecificallyaskedhimwhetherhewantsto
complainagainstanybodyorwhetherhewantstosayanythingto
the court and the accused specifically answered that he does not
haveanycomplaintagainstthepolice.Consideringtheallegationsin
theapplication,sheaskedtheaccusedtorolluphissleevesandsaw
forherselfthattherewerenomarksofinjuryorpeelingofskin,but
onlysawslightblackcirclesundertheeyes.Eventhenshedirected
thatheshouldbesentforcompletebodycheckuptotheJJHospital
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1531..
Ext.4825
permittingDr.AshpakUbhare,afamilyphysicianoftheaccused,at
therequestofadvocatefortheaccused,toremainpresentatthe
timeofcheckup.HesubmittedthattheSuperintendentoftheJJ
Hospital sent a letter to this court on 26/10/06 and as per the
certificateExt.1744itwasinformedthatthepatientdidnothave
any complaint of any assault in police custody or by any other
person or by any other authority, that he does not have any
complaint of having injuries, but as per the court's order he was
thoroughly examined and no fresh wounds were found, however
eightcontusions,twooldscabsandoldepidermalskinexfoliation
wasseenoverbothbuttocksandalltheabovewoundsweremore
than57daysold.
1386. Learnedadvocatesubmittedthatthisclearlyshowsandproves
beyondreasonabledoubtthatthe A7wassubjectedto3rd degree
torture.HesubmittedthattheJJdoctorsfound11injuriesandthe
prisondoctorintheBycullaprisonalsofoundsimilarinjuriesasper
Exts.1742and2136andsubmittedthateitherthegroupofdoctors
intheJJHospitalsandBycullaprisonarecreatingfalserecordorthe
groupofdoctorsofKEMandGTHospitalsaredoingso.Hesubmits
that the accused was taken by the ATS officers for medical
examinationtotheJJHospitalandwhathascomeisthefindingof
11injuries.Fromthisaninferencecanbedrawnthatthemedical
officersatKEMandGTHospitalspreparedfalserecordunderthe
thumbofATS,thattheydidnotexamineorquestionthisaccusedas
wellasotheraccusedbecauseofthepressureoftheterroristaccused
anditalsoshowsthatthetorturewastosuchanextentthattheA7
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1532..
Ext.4825
did not even complain when the court asked him and when the
doctors asked him. In my humble opinion, no such inference as
submittedcanbedrawn.Ifaccuseddidnotcomplaintothemedical
officer,howcanheknowabouthisinjuries,iftheaccuseddidnot
complaintothecourtaboutanytorture,illtreatmentor3rddegree
torturebythepolicehowcanitbeinferredthathissilenceshows
thatthetorturewastotheextentthathecouldnotevencomplain,
thoughhewasrepresentedbyanadvocateinM.A.No.302/06that
wasfiledbyanadvocate.Tomymind,itistoomuchtosuspectthe
courtrecordandthisisnothingbutanattempttotwistthefactual
aspectsonthebasisofthecourtrecord.Whateveritis,theorder
dtd.01/11/06disposingofM.A.No.302/06passedbymylearned
predecessorjudgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeof
the Bombay High Court)filed bythe mother of the A7is a very
speakingorderandingreatdetail.Afterreproducingthefindingsin
themedicalreport,itwasobservedthattheaccuseddidnotmake
anycomplaintofassaultbypoliceon25/10/06and26/10/06,that
hisadvocateswerepresentandhewasremandedtojudicialcustody.
Itisobservedthatnonameofthepoliceofficerisquotedandno
submissionsweremadebythelearnedadvocatefortheaccusedon
26/10/06 in respect of the observations made by their medical
practitioner, who had remained present at the time of medical
checkupoftheaccused.TheM.A.was,therefore,disposedoffas
there was no complaint from the accused himself on consecutive
dateswhenhewasinpolicecustodyandthereaftertransferredto
judicialcustody.Inmyhumbleopinion,thisorderhasbecomefinal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1533..
Ext.4825
1387. Inviewoftheentirediscussionuptonowitisclearthatthe
accusedhavefailedtosubstantiatetheirallegationsofilltreatment
andtortureandthemedicalevidenceinrespectoffewaccusedalso
does not corroborate their evidence, though they have given
elaborate evidence vividly describing the illtreatment and third
degreetortureduringthepolicecustody.Thequestionsthatwere
askedbyalltheDCPsweresufficienttoenablethemtoascertainthe
voluntariness of the accused to make the confessional statements
andmoreoverthestatutorywarningswerealsogivenandsufficient
timewasgivenforreflection.Hence,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe
prosecutionhasprovedthattheconfessionalstatementsofallthe
elevenaccusedwerevoluntary.
1388.
trueandtrustworthy.Thisaspecthas beenattackedonfactualas
wellaslegalaspectsbyallthelearnedadvocatesfortheaccused.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhanstartedhisargumentson02/05/14
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1534..
Ext.4825
andfromthatdateupto18/06/14,i.e.,foraperiodofmorethan
one and half months, he went on and on and on pointing out
similarities,dissimilarities,useofspecificwords,nonuseofspecific
words, repetitions of similar mistakes, etc., in the preliminary
questionsandanswers,inthenotingsmadebytheDCPsandintheir
certificates,etc.Ifthereisacertificateattheendoftheconfessional
statement,hesubmittedthatthereisnomemorandum,thenifthere
arecertificates,hepointedouttothesimilaritiesinthecertificates,
thenhepointedoutthesimilaritiesinthequestionsandanswersin
bothpartsoftheconfessionalstatement,etc.Allhissubmissionsas
well as submissions made by learned advocate Shetty have been
summarized in the written submissions filed by learned advocate
SharifShaikhinthepointno.1ofvolume2andlearnedadvocate
SharifShaikhalsosubmittedorallythatoralsubmissionsoflearned
advocate Wahab Khan have been reproduced and summarized in
them.
1389.
Thefirstsubmissioniswithrespecttotheidentificationof
theaccusedbytheDCPsandtheescortofficers,aboutwhichitis
submittedthatexceptDCPPhadtare,PW93,allremainingsixDCPs
identifiedtheaccusedinthecourt,thatDCPPhadtare,PW93,was
thefirstDCPexaminedinthecourtandtheATSforgottopointout
theaccusedtohimwhomhewastoidentify.Itissubmittedthat
when hedidnotidentifyduetolapseoftime,howalltheother
DCPscouldidentifywithoutanyhesitationwhichonlyshowsthat
theaccusedwerepointedouttothem.Itissubmittedthatthecourt
isopen,theaccusedusedtobeproducedbeforethecourtwithout
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1535..
Ext.4825
veilandusedtostandoutsidewaitingforbeingcalledinthecourt
andtheATShadeasyaccesstopointthemouttotheDCPsandthe
escortofficers.Hence,theidentificationbyalltheofficersconnected
totheprocessofconfessionalstatementisrequiredtobevitiated.To
mymind,firstofallitisonlyapossibilitythatissuggestedinthe
submissionthattheATScouldhaveeasilypointedouttheaccusedto
theDCPwhentheywerestandingoutsidethecourt.Insofaraslapse
oftimeisconcerned,DCPPhadtare,PW93,hadnotsaidsoandhe
wasonlysuggestedthatbecausetheA5andA9werenotproduced
beforehim,hecouldnotidentifytheaccused.Similarly,exceptDCP
Choubey, PW113, Addl. CP Brijesh Singh, PW117 and DCP
Dumbre,PW118,remaining three DCPs werenoteven suggested
thattheaccusedhadbeenpointedouttothembytheATSofficers.
Ofcourse,theaboveDCPsdeniedthesaidsuggestionandthereis
nothing more than that in their crossexamination. Insofar as the
escorting officers are concerned, except the suggestion to PI
Gaikwad,PW116,thatPIMohiteoftheATSpointedouttheA1to
him,thereisnotasinglesuggestiontoanyoftheescortingofficer
either of the ATS or local police station about the accused being
pointedouttothemandthereforetheyidentifyingtheaccusedin
thecourt.Thus,thisobjectionisfactuallywrongandunacceptable.
1390.
Nextandthemostagitatedobjectionisthatalltheseven
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1536..
Ext.4825
submittedthattheaccusedweretakentotheDCPsonlytogettheir
signatures and make record in the police station that they were
brought to the DCP for recording of the confessional statement.
Insofar as the later submission is concerned, the voluminous and
contemporaneousdocumentaryrecordintheformoflettersbythe
DCPs to the investigating officer of the ATS, to the local police
stations, the oral evidence of the DCPs, the oral evidence of the
escortingofficers,stationdiaryentiresandthemedicalrecordfully
provesthattheaccusedweretakentotheDCPsforthepurposeof
recording their confessional statement and not for taking their
signatures.
1391.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1537..
Ext.4825
submittedthatifthisisdonebyoneDCP,itcanbeunderstood,itcan
beacoincidenceifdonebytwoDCPs,butifitisdonebyallthe
sevenDCPs,thentheonlyinferencethatcanbedrawnisthatallthe
confessionalstatementsweresuppliedbytheATStotheDCPsand
theaccuseddidnotmakeanyconfessionbeforethemandtherefore
thesevenconfessionalstatementsoftheA1toA4andA9toA11are
requiredtobediscardedonthisground.LearnedadvocateWahab
Khan submitted that the sequence of sections of offence in the
correspondence/set of letters prior to the recording of the
confessionalstatementsofalltheelevenaccusedischangedbythe
DCPsinPartIandPartIIoftheconfessionalstatement.However,in
thecorrespondencebytheDCPsaftertheconfessionalstatements
wererecorded,includingtheletterstotheCMM,thesequenceof
sections in the correspondence prior to the recording of the
confessional statements is maintained. He submits that the DCPs
havewrittenthefirstandsecondpartoftheconfessionalstatements
by applying their minds uninfluenced by any outside things.
Therefore,thesequenceofsectionsofoffenceinthecorrespondence
afterrecordingoftheconfessionalstatementsshouldbeconsistent
withthesequenceinthefirstandsecondpartoftheconfessional
statement.Hesubmitsthatitmaybesaidthatthisisaminorthing,
butpointsoutthatthispracticeisfollowedbyallthesevenDCPs
whichisnotnaturalandcannotbedigestedanditcannotbesaid
thatsoftcopiesofthelettersweregiventoalltheauthoritiesright
fromtheJt.CP,ATSuptotheACP.
1392.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1538..
Ext.4825
advocatehimself,thisisaminorthing.TheletterssentbytheDCPs
areontheirletterpadsbearingthelogoof'BrihanmumbaiPolice'
andthepossibilityofsoftcopyofformatoflettersbeingprovided
cannot be ruled out. However, only on the basis of such
commonality,itwouldbepreposteroustodrawtheconclusionthat
the confessional statements themselves are fabricated and were
dictatedorpreparedbyasingleauthority.
1393.
advocateinrespectofaliasnamesoftheA3andA9appearingin
PartIandPartIIoftheirconfessionalstatementswhentheydonot
appearinthecorrespondencepriortoandaftertherecordingofthe
confessionalstatementinthecorrespondenceinbetweenPartIand
PartII.InrespectoftheA12itisaboutremovalofword's/oRashid
Khan'inPartIofhisconfessionalstatementandinrespectoftheA7
itisthedifferenceofagefrom30to29yearsinPartIandPartII.To
mymind,atthecostofrepetition,itwillhavetobesaidthatthese
areminorthingsandnoinferenceassubmittedcanbedrawnthat
PartIand PartIIwere preparedseparately atone stroke and the
correspondencethatwasmadepriorto,inbetweenandsubsequent
to the recording of the confessional statement, was prepared
separately. To my mind, all the above things will not affect the
factumofrecordingofconfessionalstatementandcannotsuggest
common authorship or that the DCPs were not independent and
impartial,havingnonexuswiththeinvestigatingagency.
1394.
AfewpointsraisedbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanwill
sufficeasexamplesaboutthelargenumberofpointsthatheraised
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1539..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1540..
Ext.4825
PartIIoftheconfessionalstatement.
1395.
LearnedadvocateWahabKhanquestionedastowhyDCP
1396.
absentinPartIIoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA2andA11,
bothweresentonthesameday,butcontentsoftheircertificateare
similar.Thisisfactuallywrongsubmissionbecauseonecertificateis
hand written andone is typed and there are other dissimilarities
thoughminor.Anotherwrongsubmissionismadethatthisishow
theDCPsrecordedtheconfessionalstatementandthisisthesole
evidence on which there can be death penalty. I said wrong
submission,becauseitisobviousfromthefindingsarrivedatupto
nowthatthisisnotthesoleevidence.
1397.
Achildishandcontradictorysubmissionismadethatthe
DCPs followed cut, copy and paste formula and made cosmetic
changes to show application of mind, e.g., at one place only the
word 'accused' is used and the other place 'the accused' is used.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1541..
Ext.4825
1398.
Anincorrectsubmissionismadebylearnedadvocatethat
thememoranduminPartIoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA5
andA6bydifferentDCPssittingattwodifferentplacesonthesame
day,i.e.,on24/10/06,areexactlysimilarincontent,butthatofthe
A5 is hand written and of the A6 is typed, that PartI of the
confessional statement of the A6 is handwritten, but the
memorandumistypedandtherearenotimings.Thissubmissionis
incorrect because the memorandum/endorsement at the end
mentionscommencementtimeas1000hoursandconcludingtime
as 1100 hours. It cannot be said from this that the investigating
officerpreparedtheentirethingandtheonlyaboveisapplicationof
mindandthattheauthorissame.
1399.
Itissubmittedthatthedateandtimeinthefirstparagraph
JudgementMCOC21/06
1400.
..1542..
Ext.4825
LearnedadvocatesubmittedthatmemorandumsafterPart
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1543..
Ext.4825
1401.
confessionalstatementsoftheA3,A4,A5,A9andA10relatingto
theinquirywhetherpoliceoranyotherpersonhavethreatenedor
frightenedtheaccused,itissubmittedthatitcanbeinterpretedin
two ways : either that there was some complaint of threatening
earlier which is not digestible, because though similar questions
wereaskedinPartI,theanswersbeinginthenegative.Thereforeit
isonlybecausetheDCPsjustcopiedandpastedthequestions,which
meansthatthereisacommonauthor.Tomymind,maybethesaid
wordisusedandmaybeasetofquestionswereprovidedinsoft
copy,isthistouchesandaffectsthecoreissue?No.Thisisonlyfor
fiveaccusedandthattoorecordedondifferentdates.Soifthereare
somesimilaritiesinsomedocumentslikememorandumorcertificate
inmorethanoneconfessionalstatementrecordedonthesamedate,
yousayitscopyandpasteandevenifitisrecordedondifferent
dates,yousaythesamething.Thereforethissubmissionisofno
consequence.
1402.
Learnedadvocatepointedoutthatfirstparagraphbefore
thequestionsinPartIIoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA3,A4,
A5, A9 and A10 is the same. However, the second and third
paragraphisnotintheconfessionalstatementoftheA3.Thelast
line in the confessional statement of the A4 is not in other
confessionalstatements.Questionsno.2,3and4arethesameas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1544..
Ext.4825
questionsno.1,2and3.Theanswerno.3cannotbeaquestionand
thequestionno.4cannotbeananswerbecauseitisaquestion.He
submits that all eleven questions and all eleven answers are
sequentialandwordtowordsame.Thisshowsthatsoftcopywas
given and a slight modification to paragraphs in the confessional
statement of the A3 were added and one sentence in the
confessional statement of the A4 was added and this cannot be
plausiblyexplained.Tomymind,thelearnedadvocatehashimself
pointedoutthedifferencesordissimilaritiesinthememorandums
and in paragraphs. So are they not dissimilarities? The questions
thatarethereareasperthelegallynecessarypoints.Restofthe
thingsaresameandcanyouexpectaliteraryexpertiseinformatting
different types of questions for each accused? What would have
beenthequestions?Thus,thissubmissionisalsoimproperandnot
acceptable?
1403.
educationinUrdumediumexcepttheA9,theirmothertongueand
familybackgroundisUrdu.Therefore,theuseofpureHindiwords
indicates dictation or drafting by a person wellacquainted with
Hindiwords.Fromthisitcanbesafelyinferredthatthelanguage
usedinthebodyoftheconfessionalstatementisnotofanyofthe
accused. To my mind, what the learned advocate is saying is
impossibleinMumbai.Thereisnoevidencebytheaccusedexcept
theirwordsthattheirmothertongueisUrdu.ExcepttheA1,A5,
A10 and A13, remaining accused are Mumbaites. Just being a
Muslim,doesnotmeanthattheywillspeakpureUrdu.Onedoesnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1545..
Ext.4825
talk as per perfect dictionary Urdu words. The DCPs asked the
accusedinwhichlanguagetheyarecomfortableandtheysaidHindi
andtalkedinHindi.Soitisnotsurprising.Itmayhavehappened
thatifsomeUrduwordswereused,theDCPcouldhaveaskedits
meaning and he would have written the meaning rather than
writingtheUrduword.Itishumannaturetosubstitutewordsthat
oneunderstands.Evenassumingthatitmaybethattheaccusedare
Urdu speaking persons, but when they try to tell or explain
somethingtoaperson,whodoesnotunderstandorspeaksUrdulike
theDCPs,theymusthaveusedthosewordsforclarification.This
possibilityisverymuchthere.Thisinferencecanbedrawnfromthe
firstquestionaskedbytheDCPs.Nooneusespurelanguage.Thus,
thissubmissionisofnouse.ItisobservedbytheSupremeCourtin
the case of Mohammed Ajmal Kasab (supra) that the accused
would have unconsciously picked up the English words from his
interrogatorsandthesewouldhavebeenmadeapartofhisown
vocabulary. It did not find anything surprising in the accused
utteringthewords'sahzish','POK'.Whileweareatthisjudgement,it
will not be out of place to reproduce the observations of the
Supreme Court in paragraph 230 in respect of structure of the
confessionalstatement,thesequenceofeventsnarratedthereinand
the use of some words that prima facie seems unnatural in the
mouthoftheaccused.Itisobservedinparagraph230that,'Itneeds
tobekeptinmindthattheappellantwasmakingthestatementafter
beinginpolicecustodyforseveralmonths.Thepolice,inthecourseof
countlesssessionsofinterrogations,wouldhaveturnedhiminsideout,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1546..
Ext.4825
andhewouldhaveearliermadetheverysamestatementsinthesame
sequence before the police many a times. Under relentless police
interrogations,hewouldhaverecalledthesmallestdetailsofhispast
life,speciallyrelatingtothepreparationandtrainingfortheattackon
Mumbai.(Thestatementsmadebeforethepolicewerenot,however,
admissibleinevidenceasbeingbarredbythevariousprovisionsofthe
CrPCandtheEvidenceAct,asdiscussedindetailabove.)Butwhenthe
appellantwenttothemagistratetomakehisconfession,everything
would be completely fresh in his mind. He would also have
unconsciously picked up those words pointed out by Mr.
Ramachandranfromhisinterrogators,andthesewouldhavebecome
partofhisownvocabulary.We,therefore,findnothingsurprisingin
hisutteringwordslike'SahzishorPOK.
AstohisknowingthenamesofmanypeopleinLashkareToiba,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1547..
Ext.4825
thattheconfessionalstatementwasintendedtoconfirmthefindingsof
thepoliceinvestigationisactuallytoblamethepoliceforanexcellent
investigation.Iftheconfessionalstatementconfirmsthefindingsofthe
investigationthatshouldgotothecreditoftheinvestigation,andit
cannotbesaidthattheconfessionalstatementwasrecordedtoconfirm
thepoliceinvestigation.'Thus,thesubmissiononthispointisbaseless
andunacceptable.
1404.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,thesubmissionaboutthe
1405.
Thenistheobjectionaboutproceduralviolations.Firstis
thatsection18(1)makesitmandatoryfortheDCPtorecordthe
confessional statement made before him in his handwriting. It is
submittedthatinthepresentmattermanyDCPshaveviolatedthis
procedure.Itissubmittedthatparagraphs1to5andquestions1to
11inExts.1212and1218,theentireExt.1226wasrecordedbythe
stenographerofAddl.CPBrijeshSingh,PW117,andExts.1057and
1060wererecordedbythestenographerofSPKarale,PW104,but
the stenographer was not examined therefore the alleged
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1548..
Ext.4825
1406.
Itissubmittedthatsection18(3)oftheMCOCActstates
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1549..
Ext.4825
absenceofthecertificatebelowtheconfessionalstatementwill
notmaketheconfessionalstatementipsofactoapieceofpaperworth
throwinginthedustbin.Theofficercanverywellappearinthewitness
box and satisfy the court that the confessional statement was
voluntarilymade....
Thetrialcourtfurtherheldthatlookingtothestatementof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1550..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1551..
Ext.4825
committedinrecordingtheconfessionalstatementoftheaccusedorthe
sameotherwisewouldnotinspireconfidencebeforeacourtoflawisa
matterwhichinouropinionwouldfallforconsiderationofthelearned
TrialJudge'.Tomymind,consideringthequestionsthatwereasked
bytheDCPsandtheendorsementsmadebythem,itismorethan
clearthatnecessarystatutorywarningsweregiventotheaccused
and the questions were put to ascertain the voluntariness of the
confessional statement. I have already held that the confessional
statements of all the eleven accused are voluntary. Thus, this
irregularity, to my mind, does not affect the admissibility of the
confessionalstatement.EventheDCPshaveexplainedhowtheyhad
ascertainedthevoluntariness.Itisnotthecaseoftheaccusedexcept
the A4thattheyhadnotbeen takenbefore theDCPs.Thus,this
objectiondoesnotcomeinthewayofacceptingtheconfessional
statements.
1407.
Itisthensubmittedthataspersection15(3),thecertificate
shouldbegiveninwritingbytheDCPundersection15(3),butthe
certificatesappendedtotheconfessionalstatementoftheA4,A6,
A11 and A12 are typed. Hence, their confessional statements are
requiredtobediscarded.TheSupremeCourthasalsoconsidered
thisaspectinthecaseof StateofT.N.V.SivarasanAliasRaghu
(supra).Itisheldinparagraph29that''underhisownhand'asused
insubrule(3)(b)ofRule15doesnotmeaninhisownhandwriting
anditheldthatthegroundonwhichthelearnedsessionsjudgeheld
the two confessions are inadmissible, viz., that the certificate was
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1552..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1553..
Ext.4825
propositionbeforethecourtwhethernotgivingcertificatebelowthe
confession or giving it on the separate sheets vitiates the entire
confession? He wondered as to whether at any time in the past,
there was an occasion in any matter to consider what is the
legislativeintentbehindmakingsuchaprovision?Hesubmittedthat
bylogicalreasoningandbyusingcommonsense,theanswerliesin
thefactthatthereisacutoffportionandthereshouldnotbeany
scopeforinterpolationaftertheconfessionpartisover.Hesubmits
thatthereisnootherlogicformakingthisprovisionandsubmits
thatifthisexplanationappealstothiscourt,thenafterrecordingof
the confession is concluded, the DCP has made signature/
endorsementimmediatelybelowit.TheactionoftheDCPtakescare
of the objection and eliminates the possibility of interpolating
anythingafterrecordingoftheconfessionalstatementisoverand
serves the same purpose of placing the certificate just below the
confessional statement. Therefore, on this ground, the confession
cannotbediscarded.ThesubmissionsbythelearnedSPParelogical
andacceptableandexceptthatallegingthatthispracticeisnotas
pertheprovisionsoflaw,theaccusedhavenotallegedanythingor
havenotsaidthatthishasprejudicedthem.
1408.
Theobservationsinthecaseof MohammedAjmalKasab
(supra)inrespectoflanguageoftheconfessionalstatementsbeing
notlanguageoftheaccusedcoversthenextsubmissionaboutavery
hard(?) Hindi word like 'Pitaji' being found in the confessional
statementoftheaccusedanditissubmittedthataMuslimaccused
can never use this word, but he will use the words like 'Abbu',
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1554..
Ext.4825
'Walid','Abba'andallconfessionalstatementscontainingthesame
language and words indicate thattheywere prepared atthe ATS
office.Itis,therefore,submittedthatrecordingoftheconfessions
wasnotinthelanguageoftheaccusedandthisis aviolationof
section18(2)oftheMCOCAct.Inviewofthelawlaiddowninthe
case of Mohammed Ajmal Kasab (supra), this objection is not
tenable.
1409.
ItissubmittedthatA1wasproducedbeforetheCMM,who
openedtheconfessionalstatementandreaditovertohimandA1
deniedthecontentsinrespectofthepresentoffence.However,the
CMMdidnotopentheconfessionalstatementsoftheA2toA4and
A9 to A11 when they were produced before him and forwarded
themtothiscourtintactwithoutverification.Thisiscoveredinthe
earlier discussion in paragraph 1323 supra in which the law laid
downinthecaseBharatRaghaniisdiscussed.Itwasnotincumbent
upontheCMMtoopentheenvelopesoftheconfessionalstatements.
1410.
InrespectoftheproductionbeforetheCMM,itisfurther
contendedthattheCMMtooksignaturesoftheA9andA11onthe
letters,butdidnottakethesignaturesoftheA2,A3,A4andA10,
though section 18(6) of the MCOC Act says that the CMM shall
scrupulouslyrecordthestatement,ifany,madebytheaccusedand
gethissignatures.Itissubmittedthateventheword'yes'or'no'told
by the accused is his statement, therefore, it is necessary for the
CMM to record the statement and to get the signature. It is
submittedthatthereisnoexplanationastowhytheCMMadopted
theabovethreetypesofproceduresandthishasnotbeenexplained
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1555..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1556..
Ext.4825
advocateWahabKhanpointedouttothejudgementsinthecasesof
State (N.C.T. of Delhi) V. Navjot Sandhu and Adambhai
SulemanbhaiAjmeri&Ors.V.StateofGujarat,whichshowthat
theCMMorACMMwasexaminedinthosecases.Tomymind,there
isnoauthoritywhichsaysthattheCMMshouldbeexamined.Inour
case,theCMMinhislettershasinformedthattheaccuseddidnot
giveanystatementexcepttheA1.ThestatementgivenbytheA1has
beenforwardedtothecourtbytheCMManditscontentshavebeen
referredtoanditis takenonrecord.A1hasnotaddedanything
moretothecontentsofthestatementthathegavebeforetheCMM
or he has not stated in his written submissions filed with his
statementundersection313oftheCr.P.C.thathemadeallegations
beforetheCMMabouttorture,etc.Insofarastheotheraccusedis
concerned,tomymind,iftheirstatementswerenotrecordedasper
theletterstotheCMM,whatwasthepointinexaminingtheCMM.
Atthemost,defencewouldhavegivensuggestionstotheCMMthat
theaccusedhadcomplainedoftortureorthattheyhadnotgiventhe
confessional statements. These would have been only suggestions
whichwouldhavebeennaturallydeniedbytheCMMandACMM.
Thus,thereisnoquestionofanydenialofopportunity.Insofarasthe
submissionsaboutthreetypesofproceduresadopted,tomymind,it
appears that in respect of the A1, CMM committed a mistake in
openinghisconfessionalstatementandonrealizingit,hedidnotdo
sofortherestofthetenconfessionalstatementsbecausethatisthe
correctlegalposition.Thus,thesubmissionthatalltheconfessions
goawayfornoncomplianceofthisrequirementisnotcorrectand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1557..
Ext.4825
1411.
producedbeforetheACMMathisresidenceon25/10/06.However,
theACMMS.Y.Shisodewrotetheletterstothiscourtforwarding
theconfessionalstatementson30/10/06anditisonlyinrespectof
theA12thathepreparedaroznamadtd.25/10/06whichisbehind
theletterExt.1233.Though,itissubmittedthatroznamainrespect
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1558..
Ext.4825
oftheA7isalsoonrecord,thesaiddocumenthasnotbeenproved,
butitappearsbehindthexeroxcopyofthelettersentbySPMohite,
PW102,atpageno.0479ofthechargesheetandisdated25/10/06.
Itissubmittedthattheseroznamasareveryshortandaquestionis
raisedastoonthebasisofwhatrecordtheCMMwrotetheletters
afteradelayoffivedays.Tomymind,therecordmustbeinthe
courtoftheACMM.Nojudicialworkisdoneunlessanyrecordor
noting is made somewhere. Thus, this objection is of no
consequence.
1412.
TheissueinrespectofACMMShriS.Y.Shisodebeingnot
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1559..
Ext.4825
question,theinformationprovidedwasthatthechargeoftheCMM
wasgiventotheACMMfrom27/11/06to30/11/06.Thereasonfor
thisbeingthattheCMMhadgonetoDelhitoattendsomecourse.To
thefourthquestionastowhowastheCMMandtheinchargeCMM
on25/10/06,theinformationwasgiventhatShriS.S.Shirkewas
the CMM on 25/10/06 and because of Diwali vacation from
23/10/06to30/10/06,nocourtwasworkingon25/10/06.A7also
wants to rely on the information Ext.3315 in respect of outward
number register in confidential section in the office of the CMM
showingforwardingofconfessionalstatementsanditissurprising
how sucha document is producedby the defence, though rather
thanhelpingthedefence,itfullycorroboratestheprosecutioncase.
ItshowsthattheconfessionalstatementsoftheA1toA4andA9to
A11weresenttothiscourtonthedatesmentionedinthesaidletter
bytheCMMShriS.S.Shirke.A7isalsorelyingontheinformation
Ext.3372obtainedbyhimundertheRTIActfromtheofficeofthe
CMMbywhichitwasinformedthataspertheoutwardregisterof
the year 200607, the confessions were not verified by Shri S. Y.
Shisode, the then ACMM during the period from 01/10/06 to
30/11/06.
1413.
Inthisconnection,thelearnedSPPrightlypointedoutasto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1560..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1561..
Ext.4825
30/10/06andintimatingthatShriS.Y.Shisode,ACMMwouldbe
holding his charge from 24/10/06 to 30/10/06. Ext. 4805 is the
certified true copy of outward register showing this letter being
forwarded to the High Court by O. No. 3199/06. Ext. 4806 is
certified true copy of confidential outward register showing
forwarding of confessional statements of A5, A6, A7 and A12 on
30/10/06.WhatmoreproofisrequiredtoshowthatinfactShriS.
Y. Shisode, ACMM, was incharge CMM and since it was Diwali
holidays,theaccusedwereproducedbeforehimathisresidence.It
isintheinformationproducedbytheaccusedthattherewasDiwali
vacation from 23/10/06 to 30/10/06 and no court was working.
Thatisthereasonwhytheaccusedisproducedattheresidenceof
Shri S. Y. Shisode. That is also the reason that though all four
accusedwereproducedbeforehimon25/10/06,heforwardedthe
confessional statements to this court on 30/10/06 when he must
havegonetothecourtanditexplainsthedelay.Thisshowshowthe
accusedwentaboutcollectingtheincompleteinformationunderthe
RTI Act and relying upon it for making any kinds of allegations
againsteachandeveryauthorityconnectedwiththecaseincluding
thejudges.Tomymind,nojudicialofficerwilldaretodoanywork
ofanyotherjudgeunlessheiskeptinchargebyawrittenorder.
1414.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1562..
Ext.4825
A12anditiscontendedthatthereforetheconfessionalstatements
arerequiredtobediscarded.Tomymind,thisisjustaprocedural
irregularityanditdoesnotaffecttheevidenceabouttheprocedure
ofrecordingofconfessionalstatements.
1415.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1563..
Ext.4825
forcrossexaminingtheaccusedandhehadcrossexaminedthemat
length,butdidnotsucceedindiscreditingtheevidencegivenbythe
accused, who are credible, reliable and competent witnesses. The
evidence of nine accused out of the eleven accused, whose
confessional statements were recorded, is in the nature of
allegations in respect of the torture and illtreatment and mainly
consistingofdenialsabouttheevidencegivenbytheprosecution.To
mymind,thelearnedSPPgivingthesuggestionsthattheydeposed
falselyandmakingspecificsuggestionsabouttheybeingpartsofthe
conspiracy and they having given voluntary confessions is a
sufficient crossexamination. It was not necessary for the learned
SPPtopinpointeachandeverypositiveevidence,oralaswellas
documentary, given by the prosecution against each and every
accused and to confront the accused with that evidence, because
ultimatelytheaccusedwouldhavesimplydeniedit.Sonopurpose
wouldhavebeenservedanditisforthecourttoconsiderthenature
and volume of the evidence and its credibility given by the
prosecution as against the nature and credibility of the evidence
givenbytheaccused.Thus,thisaspectisofnoconsequence.Insofar
asthedefencewitnessesexaminedbydifferentaccusedinsupportof
theirrespectivecasesisconcerned,theirevidencehasalreadybeen
discussedattheappropriateplaces.
1416.
InrespectoftheentriesintheCDR,adetailedanalysisis
madeinthewrittensubmissionspointingouttothedatesofentries
ofallandtheirlocationsvisavisthedatesgivenintheconfessional
statementsoftherespectiveaccused.Atthecostofrepetition,itwill
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1564..
Ext.4825
havetobesaidthatthisisaninferentialevidenceandtheCDRdoes
not and will not show the location of a particular person at a
particularplace.Itwillonlyshowlocationofthemobilehandsetas
isadmittedbytheA7inhiscrossexamination.Absenceofcallsat
particulartimewillnotraiseanyinferenceaboutaparticularperson
oraccusedbeingnotpresentataparticularplace.
1417.
1418.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1565..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1566..
Ext.4825
tothedefencetosaythatitwasdoctored.Thesesubmissionswere
madebythelearnedSPPinparticularreferencetotheconfessional
statementoftheA2andhesubmittedthatwhatisnecessarytobe
seen is whether there is general corroboration between the
confessionalstatementoftheaccusedinterse.Thishepointedoutin
respectoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA2,A3,A4,A9andthe
evidenceofMohd.Alam,PW59.Thus,asmentionedearlier,tomy
mind,itisthegeneralcorroborationthatisrequiredtobeseenand
notminorinconsistenciesrelatingtoparticularsmallinstancesthat
arementionedinthewrittensubmissions.Insofarasuseofgeneral
termhouseholdutensilsbeingusedascontainersforthebombsby
theaccusedintheirconfessionalstatements,tomymind,ifatallthe
ATS had fabricated the confessional statements, they would have
givensomemorespecificationsintheconfessionalstatementsitself.
This lends credence to the evidence by the DCP that whatever
accused stated before them, they wrote in their confessional
statements. It was very easy for the ATS to introduce specific
descriptionofhouseholdutensilorpressurecookerortimerorbag
andfromwheretheywerepurchasedorprocuredandwhatexactly
wasusedasatimerdevice.Theconfessionalstatementsweremade
bytheaccused.Thesethingsarenotintheirconfessionalstatements
becausetheydidnotgiveanyspecificationaboutit.Thissubmission,
therefore,ratherthansupportingthecaseofthedefence,supports
the case of the prosecution to lead to the inference that the
confessionswerenotdoctoredorfabricatedbytheATS.
1419.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1567..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1568..
Ext.4825
letterbytheJt.CPoftheATSandthepersonwhotooktheletter
must also be of the ATS. The fact remains that the oral and
documentaryevidencegivenbytheprosecutionabouttheprocedure
for recording the confessional statements of notonlythe A4, but
alsoofalltheotheraccused,isinaccordancewiththeprovisionsof
section 18 of the MCOC Act and from such minor things, no
inference can be drawn that the letters and confessions were
preparedattheATSoffice,moreparticularly,whentheletterExt.
1055bearsthelogo'BrihanmumbaiPolice'andoftheletterpadof
SPKarale,PW104.Anothersuchinconsistencyisshownintheletter
of the CMM Ext. 1064 by which he forwarded the confessional
statementtothiscourt,inwhichhissurnameiswrittenasShaikhin
thesubjectmatterandontheenvelopeExt.1064A,however,thisis
ofnoconsequencebecauseinthemainbodyofthelettercorrect
surnameSiddiqueiswritten.
1420.
thattheA4wasnotproducedbeforetheCMMandtheevidenceof
theA4asDW38inparagraph25isreproducedanditissubmitted
thatitiscrystalclearfromhisevidencethathewasnotproduced
beforetheCMM,butinviewofthesurnameShaikhbeingused,itis
possiblethatsomeotherpersonacquaintedwiththepolicehadbeen
producedandhemayhaveforgottenhis,i.e.,A4'soriginalsurname
asSiddiqueandtolditasShaikh.Relianceisplacedontheevidence
givenbyAPIRandive,PW106,whostatedabouttakingtheaccused
beforetheCMMat1445hours,whereas,theletterExt.1064ofthe
CMMshowsthattheywereproducedbeforehimat3.20p.m.This
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1569..
Ext.4825
submissionisbaseless,becauseevenifpolicebringtheaccusedto
thecourtatparticulartimings,itisnotthatthejudgetakesupthe
matterimmediatelyandhewritesthetimeonlywhentheaccusedis
physicallyproducedbeforehim.ItisalsocontendedbytheA4that
hewasnottakenbeforetheDCP,butoncehewasputinthelockup
ofMatungaPoliceStationat1330hoursat06/10/06,hewasonly
taken out at1630 hours on 07/10/06 as per the entries in Exts.
1093. The evidence of API Randive, PW106, is pointed out in
respect of destruction of the lockup register within three years
thoughasperthestandingorderExt.2542,ithastobepreserved
forfiveyears.ItissubmittedthattheonlyreasonisthattheATS
wantedtosuppressthefactthathewasnotremovedfromthelock
up for confessional statement and this lends credence to the
evidence of the A4 that Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, and API Deore,
PW180,cametothelockupat10.00a.m.on07/10/06andforced
him to sign on typed papers. These submissions are ignoring the
evidencegivenbyAPIRandive,PW106,thatthelockupdiaryis
alsoreferredasKothadiNondVahiinMarathiandanotherregister
bynameAvakJavakismaintainedinthelockup.Inthisrespect,the
learnedSPPsubmittedthattheevidenceofAPIRandive,PW106,is
veryspecific.Hesubmittedthatlockupdiaryandlockupregister
are two different things. The lockup register will show when an
accusedislodgedinthelockupandwhenheisfinallyremoved.
However, the lockup diary would show the movement of the
accusedduringthatperiod.Hegaveanexampleforthis.Supposing
thatanaccusedisarrestedandputinthelockupon1st ofApril,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1570..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1571..
Ext.4825
forcedtosign quietly.Itisalsostatedinthesaidapplicationthat
fromtherehewasproducedbeforethemagistrate.Thisinconsistent
standtakenbytheA4showhisuntruthfulnessingivingevidence
and in making the allegation andthis aspect,therefore,doesnot
showthathisconfessionalstatementwasnotrecorded.
1421.
mentionedinlettersanddifferenceinoutwardnumbersoflettersis
made, on the basis of which he submits that some crucial and
importantthingsaresuppressedandthereforehisconfessionisnot
reliableandrequiredtobediscarded.Ifthefactualpositionandthe
descriptionoftheevidenceregardingtheconfessionalstatementsin
paragraphs1254to1261isseen,thenthesethingsareobviously
incorrect.Hisnextsubmissionpointingouttothedate05/10/06in
theletterExt.1078anditisaccordinglydeposedbyhimthathewas
producedon05/10/06before SPKarale,PW104,beforewhomhe
said that he had not done the blast and did not want to say
anything,etc.,andthisletterwassuppressedbytheDCPanditishis
evidencethatthereafterhewastakenbacktotheATSlockupand
torturedandthenagainproducedbeforehimon06/10/06,isnot
necessary to be considered in view of the oral statement on
09/10/06 before this court after the date of his confessional
statement.
1422.
Outoftheremainingpointstheonlyimportantpointthat
remainsisabouthebeingnotrepresentedbyanadvocateduring
police custody and in this context his evidence as DW48 is
reproduced,thathisuncle,motherandwifehadcometohimandhe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1572..
Ext.4825
talkedwiththem(whichwasduringpolicecustody)andhisuncle
toldhimthatpolicehadphonedhimonceandtoldhimabouthis
arrestandaskedhimnottoengageanyadvocateorelsehewould
arresthimalsoanditissubmittedthatthemagistrateaswellasthis
courtdidnotaskhimwhetherhewantedanadvocatefromthelegal
aidschemeanditisonlyon09/10/06thathewasrepresentedby
anadvocate.Itissubmittedthatthereforenoadvocaterepresented
himtillretractionofhisconfessionalstatementandthereforethis
proves that he had retracted without any legal advice or legal
instructions.InthisrespectinthecaseofMohammedAjmalKasab
(supra),theSupremeCourthasheldinparagraph207that,'Tosay
thatthesafeguardsbuiltintoSection32ofthePOTAhavetheirsource
inArticles20(3),21and22(1)isonething,buttosaythattheright
toberepresentedbyalawyerandtherightagainstselfincrimination
wouldremainincompleteandunsatisfiedunlessthoserightsareread
outtotheaccusedandfurthertocontendthattheomissiontoreadout
thoserightstotheaccusedwouldresultinvitiatingthetrialandthe
convictionoftheaccusedinthattrialissomethingentirelydifferent.As
weshallseepresently,theobligationtoprovidelegalaidtotheaccused
assoonasheisbroughtbeforethemagistrateisverymuchpartofour
criminal law procedure, but for reasons very different from the
Miranda rule, aimed at protecting the accused against self
incrimination.Andtosaythatanyfailuretoprovidelegalaidtothe
accusedatthebeginning,orbeforehisconfessionisrecorded under
Section164CrPC,wouldinevitablyrenderthetrialillegalisstretching
thepointtounacceptableextremes'.Itisalsoheldinparagraph208
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1573..
Ext.4825
that,'wearealsonotimpressedbyMr.Ramchandran'ssubmissionthat
providingalawyeratthestageoftrialwouldprovideonlyincomplete
protection to the accused because, in case the accused had already
madeaconfessionunderSection164CrPC,thelawyerwouldbefaced
with a fait accompli and would be defending the accused with his
handstied'.Itisalsoheldinparagraph216that,'butthefailureto
providealawyertotheaccusedatthepretrialstagemaynothavethe
sameconsequenceofvitiatingthetrial.Itmayhaveotherconsequences
like making the delinquent magistrate liable to disciplinary
proceedings, or giving the accused a right to claim compensation
againsttheStateforfailingtoprovidehimlegalaid.Butitwouldnot
vitiate the trial unless it is shown that failure to provide legal
assistanceatthepretrialstagehadresultedinsomematerialprejudice
totheaccusedinthecourseofthetrial.Thatwouldhavetobejudged
onthefactsofeachcase'.
1423.
InrespectoftheA5,itissubmittedthatheisfromWest
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1574..
Ext.4825
examination.Hegaveverystrangeanswersthathedidnottalkin
HindiwithJudgeThipsaybeforewhomhewasproducedforthefirst
time,that Hindiand Urdu are similar when talked, butadmitted
thatheinteractedwiththiscourtinHindi.Whiledenyingthathe
gavehisevidenceinHindi,hevolunteeredthatitwasinHindiand
Urdu.HeadmittedthathisadvocateaskedquestionsinHindi,but
againtriedtocorrecthimselfbysayingthatthequestionswerein
HindiandUrdu.However,hehadtoadmitthathedidnotsayin
respect of any question asked by his advocate that he did not
understand it. About the questions asked by the learned SPP,
surprisinglyhedeniedthatthequestionswereaskedonlyinHindi
and explained that they were in Hindi and Urdu. However, his
answerthathecanunderstandifanyonetalkswithhiminHindiis
sufficient to draw the inference that he has adequate working
knowledgeofcommunicatinginHindi.Healsoadmittedthathedid
not tell the learned SPP or his advocate or this court during his
entireevidencethathedoesnotunderstandwhattheyaresaying.
The learned SPPthen tookpains topointoutspecific words and
phrasesusedinthequestionsintheconfessionalstatementsbythe
DCP and the accused admitted that he understands almost all of
them, but pointed out to a few Hindi words. He admitted in
paragraph25thathewatchesTV,butstatedthathedoesnotwatch
Hindiserials andadmittedthathe hadseen Hindicinemas some
times and that he did not get good marks in Bengali language
subject.Idonotthinkanythingmoreisnecessarytoshowthatthe
A5didknowHindi.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1424.
..1575..
Ext.4825
WahabKhanthatthecertificatesappendedtotheeightconfessional
statementsarenotinaccordancewiththecertificatethatisgivenin
theCriminalManual,thoughtheyaremutatismutanditallyingwith
each other. What is missing in the certificates are the words 'the
confessionwasmadeinmypresenceandhearingwhichisrecorded
bymeasnarratedbytheconfessorandafterhavingreadoverthe
same, he admitted the contents to be correct'. He incorrectly
submittedthatthereisnoformatofcertificate,butthereisformatof
memorandumintheMCOCAct.Hesubmittedthatifthismissing
portionsfromthecertificatearereliedwiththeinfirmitiespointed
outbyhim,itgivessupporttotheweightageandsubmissionofthe
defencethattheDCPsmechanicallycopiedthemfromthematerial
that was provided to them. In this connection, learned advocate
Shettysubmittedthattheprovisionsofsection18oftheMCOCAct
showthatallthingsthataretobedonearemandatorybecausethe
word'shall'isused.Hesubmittedthatthecertificateisnotinthe
wordsasprovidedinrule3(6)oftheMCOCRules.Tomymind,this
aspect has been considered in many authorities and in the
Confirmation Case No. 01/01 in the case of The State of
Maharashtra V. Mohd. Zuber Kasam Shaikh alias Tabrej alias
Juganu and Anr., decided by the High Court, it was held in
paragraph 95 that Rule 3(6) is not mandatory, but directory as
havingregardtosubsection3ofsection18.Whatisimportanttobe
certifiedisthepersonalsatisfactionoftheconcernedpoliceofficer
aboutthevoluntarycharacteroftheconfessionrecordedbyhim.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1425.
..1576..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1577..
Ext.4825
his written submissions Ext. 2826 filed with his statement under
section313oftheCr.P.C.,A5allegedthatthestorytoldbyMohd.
Shakil,PW70,aboutvisitingtheborderofBongaoninthemonthof
May,2006toreceivesomePakistaninationalsisfabricatedandhe
deniedthesame.Hesubmittedthathecanfurnishhisattendance
registeraswellasbusinessdiarythatwasmaintaineddailytoprove
his claim that he was physically in Kolkata and can provide the
details of money deposited daily in the Sahara Bank by him
personally.Though,hehastakenthisstand,hehasonlystatedinhis
oral evidence that he never went out of Kolkata and Hindustan
duringthisperiod,whichisalsostatedbyhisbrother Mohd.Sajid,
DW23.Hehasnotfurnishedhisattendanceregisterorhisbusiness
diary or details of money deposited in the Sahara Bank to
substantiatehiscontentionsandallegations.
1426.
Itisinhisconfessionalstatementthatinthesecondweek
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1578..
Ext.4825
toKolkatabytrainandhethentookthemtoMumbaibyrailwayon
thenextdayandmetA13,whotookthemtoaplaceaboutwhichhe
cametoknowthatitwastheofficeofSIMIearlier,thathehalted
thereforonenightandreturnedtoKolkataandA13toldhimto
remainincontactwithhim.Itisintheconfessionalstatementofthe
A4thathecametoknowfromtheA3thattheA5hadbroughtsix
Pakistanipersons,i.e.,wantedaccusedno.8to13,fromBangladesh
bycrossingtheDhakaborderandthatwantedaccusedno.12had
brought15k.g.RDXwithhim.Thus,thereisnoevidencebytheA5
tosupporthiscontentionthatheneverwentoutsideKolkataand
thatthestorytoldbyMohd.Shakil,PW70,isafalsestory.Thus,he
hasfailedtoprovethedefenceofalibiconcerningthisallegationof
theprosecutionthathehadbroughtwantedaccusedno.8to13,
whowerePakistaninationals,inthesecondweekofMay,2006to
MumbaiandhandedthemovertoA13.Itwillthereforehavetobe
held that he has taken this false defence. This is the eighth
additionalcircumstanceinthechainofcircumstanceprovedbythe
prosecution against the accused. It is the first additional
circumstanceagainsttheA5.
1427.
Inrespectofhisdefenceofalibiabout9,10and11/07/06
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1579..
Ext.4825
andEnglishaboutthefinancialtransactionsandsalesoftheshop
andthatitusedtobemaintainedbytheA5andinhisabsenceby
anotherbrotherMohd.Wahidandmostoftheentriesof07/07/06
and 09/07/06 are in the handwriting of the A5, the entries of
08/07/06and11/07/06areinthehandwritingofA5andMohd.
Walidand10/07/06wasMonday,onwhichdaytheshopusedtobe
closed. His evidence is that Mohd. Majid was at the shop on
09/07/06inviewoftheentiresinthediaryinhishandwriting,but
doesnotsaythatthisisbecauseofhisownpersonalknowledge.It
hascomeinhisevidencethatheremembersthatinthatnightA5
hadgonetohissister'shouseforwatchingtheworldcupfootball
final match, that he had repaired the shutter of their shop on
10/07/06 and again in view of the entries in the diary in the
handwritingoftheA5,A5waswithhimintheshopon11/07/06
and 12/07/06.Thus,his evidenceis onlyonthe basis ofalleged
diary Ext. 4144. A5 repeated what he wrote in his written
submissionsExt.2826andheprovedhishandwritinginthediary,
whereveritwas,statingthatthehandwritingthereinismostlyhis
andrestofhistwobrothers.Itisinhisevidencethathewasinhis
shopcontinuouslyduringJuly,2006andneverwentoutsideKalkata
as per his diary and stated about the accounts of 08/07/06 and
09/07/06beingwrittenbyhim.Thesetwodatesarenotrelevant.
However,ithascomeinhisevidencethathewenttothehouseof
hisbrotherinlawNoorMohd.afterclosingtheshopat10.00a.m.
(which should be 10.00 p.m.) on 09/10/06 (which should be
09/07/06)toseetheFIFAWorldCupfootball,watchedittilllate
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1580..
Ext.4825
night and slept there. Now he has not examined the said Noor
Mohd., his brotherinlaw, to prove that he was at his house on
09/07/06 upto the morning of 10/07/06 and he admitted in his
crossexaminationthathehasnotcitedorexaminedthesaidperson
toprovethathewasinhishouseon09/07/06.Itisinhisevidence
thathereturnedfromhissister'shouseat1200hourson10/07/06
anddidrepairingworkofshutteroftheshopintheafternoonat
4.00 p.m. and returned home in the evening. 10/07/06 was a
Mondayonwhichdate,asperhim,hisshopusedtobeclosed.He
admitted in his crossexamination that he has not produced any
evidencetoshowthathehadrepairedtheshutterofhisshopon
10/07/06. It is in his further evidence that he attended the
engagementofhisbrother'sdaughterintheeveningof10/07/06
and it is in his crossexamination that it was the engagement of
daughterofhiselderbrotherMohd.Shakir.ThesaidMohd.Shakiris
notexaminedandheadmittedthathehadnotexaminedhimashis
witnesstoshowhispresenceon10/07/06.Tomymind,itwasvery
easyfortheA5toexaminehisbrotherinlawNoorMohd.andhis
brother Mohd. Shakir to prove his defence of alibi. His brother
Mohd.Sajid,DW23,hashowevernotstatedabouttheengagement
ofthedaughteroftheirbrotherMohd.Shakiron10/07/06inthe
evening.Thus,hehasfailedtoestablishthathewasinKolkataon
10/07/06.
1428.
About11/07/06hegavetheitineraryastothetimewhen
hewenttotheshop,cameback,etc.,andisrelyingontheentriesin
thediary,Ext.4144of11/07/06and12/07/06andhasindicated
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1581..
Ext.4825
certaintransactionsofthesetwodatesinthediarydtd.11/07/06
and12/07/06.Itisinhisevidencethathehadobtainedthepolicy
ofICICIon11/07/06fromthesonoftheadjoiningshopownerof
theshopGoldenFootwear,whodoesthatworkandhadgiventhe
amountofthepolicytohimonthatday.Headmittedinhiscross
examination that he has not cited or examined the person from
whomhetookthepolicyofICICIandnotproducedanydocumentin
connection with the policy. A lame effort was made by him by
volunteeringthatthedocumentofpolicywasinhispurseandhe
does not know where the ATS people have thrown them. To my
mind,itisnotpossiblethatapolicydocumentcanbekeptinapurse
ofamanbecauseitisawalletandpolicydocumentsarequitebig
documents.Nowinrespectofthediaryentriesandthemaintenance
ofthediary,learnedSPPhasdemolishedhisentireevidenceabout
it.A5admittedinhiscrossexaminationthathehasnotmentioned
intheapplicationdtd.09/11/06andintheMANo.62/07about
two shoe shops and maintaining a diary and that he has not
producedanydiaryofanyperiodpriorto2006.Hemadeapositive
statementthatthemarketinwhichtheirshopsare,remainsclosed
on Monday, but denied that no diary is written on any Monday
volunteeringtheexplanationthattheshopisopenduringRamzan
andDurgaPujaandadmittedthatDurgaPujawasinSeptemberin
theyearinwhichhearrested.HealsoadmittedthatRamzanand
Durga Puja did not come in February, 2006. Learned SPP then
confrontedhimwiththeentriesdtd.20/02/06and24/07/06and
headmittedthatthosedayswereMonday,deniedthattheaccounts
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1582..
Ext.4825
ofthatdayarewritteninitandthenvolunteeredthattheaccounts
areof19/02/06and23/07/06respectively,buttheyforgottocut
thedate20/02/06and24/07/06.However,hehadtoadmitthat
thewords'24thJuly'arewrittenbypenonthetopofthepage.When
confrontedwiththepageof10/07/06,headmittedthattheword
'Monday'isstruckoffandwrittenas'Sunday'andinrespectofdate
18/09/06, it is struck off and 17/09/06 is written and the word
'Monday'isstruckoffandwritten'Sunday'.Healsoadmittedthatin
the page of 18/09/06 the account of Monday 18th and Tuesday
19/09/06iswrittenandfinallyadmittedthatthereisnoaccount
afterOctober,2006inthediary.Hecouldnotgiveanyexplanation
aboutthelastanswerandthoughhedeniedthattheentriesinthe
diary did not show that they were made contemporaneously, he
admittedthathehasnotproducedanydocumentsofaccountsthat
are required to be submitted to the Government. This admission
coupledwithhisadmissionthathedidnotpayincometaxandtheir
shopswerenotregisteredforsalestaxupto2006,leadtotheonly
inference that the diary and entries therein have absolutely no
evidentiaryvalueintheeyesoflawandthemannerinwhichthe
diarywasmaintained,evenassumingthatitisaboutthebusinessof
the shop, makes it clear that it does not confirm to the known
methods of accounting. No other document is produced and no
other evidence is given in support of the entries in the diaries.
Hence, the entries in the diaries are worthless as evidence to
corroboratehisdefenceofalibi.
1429.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1583..
Ext.4825
theA5hasfailedtoprovehisdefenceofalibithathewasatKolkata
on10,11and12/07/06andthathehadnotcometoMumbaion
thosedays.Itwillalsohavetobeheldthatitisprovedthatitisa
falsealibibecauseitwasveryeasyforhimtohaveexaminedthe
personsnamedbyhiminhisdefence.Thus,itwillhavetoheldthat
thisistheninthadditionalcircumstanceinthechainofcircumstance
proved by the prosecution against the accused. It is the second
additional circumstance against the A5. Thus, this additional
circumstances do not disprove the evidence of DCP Phadtare,
PW93,orthecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA5.
1430.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1584..
Ext.4825
againinPartIIoftheconfessionalstatement.Thisaspectiscovered
bythejudgementinConfirmationCaseNo.01/01inrespectofthe
StateofMaharashtra,AppellantV.Mohd.ZuberKasamShaikh
aliasTabrejaliasJuganuandAnr.,Respondents relieduponby
thelearnedSPP.LearnedadvocatesubmittedthatA12complained
thatvideorecordingofhemakingtheconfessionalstatementwas
done,aboutwhichhefiledcomplaintMANo.500/07.Thedefence
has not proved that the video recording was done and video
shootingthatisproducedbytheaccusedisnotprovedasperlaw.
Learnedadvocatenextsubmitsthatitisunnecessarythataccused
willnarratefamilydetailsandgiveachronologicaldescriptionofthe
eventswhicharenotrelatedtothecrime.Theobservationsofthe
Supreme Court reproduced hereinabove answer this submission.
Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatauthenticrecordlikelockupregister
isnotproducedtoprovethattheaccusedwereinfactputinthe
lockups of the concerned local police stations. To my mind, the
evidenceoftheescortingpoliceofficersdiscussedindetailearlier
andthetruephotocopiesofthestationdiaryentries,whichisthe
contemporaneousrecord,issufficienttoprovethattheaccusedwere
put in the lockup. Learned advocate submitted that the accused
disclosed everything to high ranking officers of the ATS, who
disclosedeverythinginthemedia,whichishighlyobjectionableand
required to be condemned. I agree with the learned advocate.
However,thereisnoevidenceaboutpublicationinthemediaand
even otherwise it does not take away the evidential value of the
confessionalstatement.LearnedadvocatesubmittedthattheDCPs
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1585..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1586..
Ext.4825
statementoftheA1areseen,itisclearthatthesignatureshadbeen
takenearlierontheblankpapersandthedocumentswerewritten
subsequently and therefore it is fallacious. To my mind, no such
inferencecanbedrawnbecausethesignatureoftheaccusedappear
tohavebeenmadebythesamepenasthecolouroftheinkissame.
NotonlythisA1hasadmittedhissignaturesonbothpartsofhis
confessionalstatementbeforetheCMMimmediatelyafterrecording
ofhisconfessionalstatementwasoverandhadnotcomplainedthat
hissignaturesweretakenearlier.Tomymind,thestatementbefore
theCMMbytheaccusedisanobviousattempttoextricatehimself
fromtheinvolvementinthiscase.Thisinferencecanbedrawnfrom
headmittinghissignaturesonbothpartsandstatingthathedidnot
complain tothe DCP thathe wasinducedorforcedtomake the
confessional statement. This plus the fact that he also did not
complaintotheCMMaboutanythirddegreetorture,etc.,whichhe
wouldhavedonehadhebeentortured.Fromthisaswellasfrom
theletterssentbytheCMMandACMMforwardingtheconfessional
statementsofalltheremainingaccused,aninferencecanbedrawn
thatalltheaccusedwhoseconfessionalstatementswererecorded,
were not under any pressure, etc., when their confessional
statementswererecordedandtheyhadgiventhemasfreepersons
and were voluntary and the same position continued when they
weretakenbeforetheCMM.Itcanbeconcludedthatifatallthe
accused had been tortured, threatened or forced to make the
confessionalstatementsasalleged,theenvironmentbeforetheCMM
was conducive and free enough to put forth their grievances.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1587..
Ext.4825
However,theydidnotputforththeirgrievancesanditisonlyaftera
lapseoftimeandonthebasisoflegaladvice,whichisobvious,that
they made retractions alleging torture, etc. Learned advocate
submittedthattheconfessionalstatementoftheA9iswrittenon
frontandbackofallpages,butthecertificateisondifferentpage.
To my mind, this aspect is inconsequential because there is an
endorsementbytheDCPaftertheendoftheconfessionalstatement
containing the narration by the accused. Learned advocate
submittedthattheDCPsdidnotreplytotheretractionsfiledbyall
the accused though, they were the persons connected with the
processanditwasnecessarytothemtodoso.Tomymind,Idonot
see how the DCPs, who are supposed to be independent and
impartial officers for the purpose of doing this work, can be
expectedtotakepartinthecourtproceedingswhentheyarenot
partoftheinvestigatingmachinery.Ontheotherhand,iftheywould
havefiledreply,thedefencewouldhavesaidthattheyhavetaken
interestintheinvestigationandareinterestedintheprosecution.
Lastly,learnedadvocatesubmittedthatmaximumnumberofDCPs
have chosen evening or night time for recording a confessional
statement,whichshowspressuretacticsandacompellingsituation
fortheaccused,whowereonfastbecauseofRamzantomakethe
confessionalstatements.Tomymind,itcanbeinterpretedotherwise
alsothatitshowsthattheDCPsdidthisadditionaloutoftheway
workconcerningsomeaccusedafterdoingtheirregularworkand
after the rehearsal and bandobast for visit of Prime Minister to
Mumbai.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1431.
..1588..
Ext.4825
1432.
Thesecondtesttobeappliedtoevaluateaconfessionis
whetheritistrueandtrustworthy.Truthfulnessoftheconfessional
statements will have to be ascertained from their contents and
whetherthecontentsaregenerallycorroboratedonfactualaspects
bytheoralanddocumentaryevidenceadducedbytheprosecution
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1589..
Ext.4825
1433.
1434.
containingadetailednarrationofalleventsfromaslongbackasthe
year 2000. Therefore, it will have to be taken as the base for
considering and comparing it with the evidence given by the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1590..
Ext.4825
motivatedtowardscommittingjihad.Hestatedthatduring2001he
usedtogo toMeccaMasjidlocatedinMominpuraareaforNamaz
andduringthesameperiodhegotacquaintedwithsomemembers
ofSIMI,viz.,A10,wantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreyandothers.
He stated that a program called DarseQuran used to be
conductedonbehalfoftheSIMIintheMasjidonceortwiceaweek
andhisbrothersA9andwantedaccusedno.3Rahilalsousedto
participateintheseprogramsandgotverywellacquaintedwithalot
of SIMI activists from Mumbai and Pune. He stated that a big
programusedtobearrangedbySIMIonceinayearandinMay,
2001 a big zonal tarbiyati program was organized at Unani
Medical College in Pune, that all major SIMI activists from all
districtsofMaharashtraattendedthisprogram,thathisbrothersA9
andwantedaccusedno.3Rahilalsotookpartinthisprogramand
therehebecameacquaintedwiththeA4andA13andthereafterhe
usedtomeetthesepersonswheneverthereweresuchbigprograms
inMaharashtra.Hestatedthatthereusedtobetakrirandlectures
intheseprogramsofSIMI,inwhichtheyusedtobetoldaboutthe
atrocitiesandexcessesonMuslimsinallthecountriesintheworld
andbecauseofrepeatedlytakingpartinsuchtypeofprograms,he
developed concern for his Muslim brothers and the wish to do
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1591..
Ext.4825
1436.
A3'sstatementsarecorroboratedbytheA9,hisbrother,in
hisconfessionalstatement,Ext.924andhestatedthatwhenhe,A3
and wanted accused no. 3 Rahil used to visit Mecca Masjid in
Mominpura, Pune for offering Namaj, at that place all the three
brothersusedtotakeknowledgeaboutDarseQuranandJihadfrom
the workers of SIMI, who used to give them information about
atrocities being committed on Muslims by telling the tales of the
demolitionofBabriMasjidandweretoldtoraisevoiceagainstthe
temple being built on that place, that they were also told about
massacre of Muslims in the communal riots that had occurred in
Gujaratandwerebeingtaught&instigatedforcommittingjihadand
sincethenhestartedworkingforSIMIalongwithA3andwanted
accusedno.3Rahil.HecorroboratestheA3'sstatementsaboutthe
Zonal TabiyatiSchoolheldatthe endof the year 2001in Unani
MedicalCollege,Puneandinadditionhestatedthatabouthundred
peoplewerepresent,thatinthesaidprogramrecitationofentire
Quran,discourses,readingofHadisandlecturesonthehistoryof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1592..
Ext.4825
Islamreligionandjihadweregiven,whichwasattendedbytheA3
wantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey,wantedaccusedno.3Rahil
andothersandA3introduced himtoSIMIactivistsA4andA13
fromMumbaiandJalgaonrespectively.
1437.
A10inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1249statedthathe
1438.
A4statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1060thathe
learntaboutSIMIorganisationduringhisacademicdaysandstarted
visitingSIMIofficeatPipeRoad,KurlasinceApril,2001andbecame
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1593..
Ext.4825
acquaintedwithothermembersofSIMIandusedtoremainpresent
fortheprogramofDurseQuranoneverySundaynight.Hestated
that he became friendly with one Asrar Ahmed, who had been
presidentofSIMIofMiraRoadandwhointroducedhimtomany
otherworkersofSIMIandsenthimtoDelhifortrainingatthehead
office ofSIMIinthemonthofAugust,2001alongwithonemore
person,duringwhichtheyheardthelecturesofYasinPatelFalahi,
Shahid Butt Falahi, Jamal Siddique and Safdar Nagori and there
they were introduced to A3, who had also come there for SIMI
training.HestatedaboutattendingameetingofSIMIon02/09/01
atAnjumaneIslam Highschool,nearVT station,Mumbai,which
was attended by 250 SIMI workers. He stated about A13 from
JalgaonbeingsecretaryforMaharashtraintheyear2001andbeing
abscondinginacaseofJalgaon,thatafterthebanonSIMI,A13
obtainedaroomonrentatKurlaandstartedworkingforSIMIand
usedtogoalloverIndia,waselectedpresidentofAllIndiaSIMI
OrganisationinthemeetingatKeralainFebruary2006,butrefused
toacceptitandthereforewasexpelledfromSIMI.Hestatedthat
A13broughthiswifeandchildrentoMumbaifromJalgaoninMay,
2006andwasresidinginarentedroomatMiraRoad.Hestatedthat
IsrarAhmedappointedhimasSIMIPresident,MiraRoad,thatat
thattimehestartedstudyingQuranandconcentratedonjihad,that
hewasdownloadingliteratureandTaraneofjihadfromthewebsite
jamatuddawa.org. of LashkareTaiba, studied them and used to
searchbygoogleanddownloadspeechesofMassoodAzhar,chiefof
JaisheMohammed and hear them. He stated that Ishad Khan,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1594..
Ext.4825
presidentofSIMI,MaharashtrahadgivenhimRs.50,000/andhe
reachedthatamounttoImranAnsari,theFinanceSecretaryofAll
IndiaSIMIOrganisationatIndore,MPinApril,2003formeetingthe
expensesofthecaseofSIMIintheSupremeCourt.Hestatedthat
oneTariqueIsmailofKurlaintroducedhiminMay,2002toRiyaz
Bhatkal, residing at Bhatkal, Karnataka, the member of Jaise
Mohammed Organisation, who was also member of SIMI before
2001andwhojoinedAsifRazaGroupaftertheSIMIwasbanned.
1439.
duringtheperiodwhenhewastakingeducationatNagpur,hewas
residinginaroomatMominpura,nearJamaMasjidatNagpur,that
intheyear1997hestartedattendingSundayprogramofDarse
QuraninthatMasjid,whichwasarrangedbySIMIandafterwards
hebecameamemberofthatorganisation,thataftercompletinghis
education in 1999 and on returning to Mumbai, he remained
connectedwithSIMI,usedtovisitSIMIofficeatKurla,undergone
trainingof10daysatSIMIHeadOfficeatDelhiintheyear2000,
duringwhichShahidBadarFalahi,SafdarNagori,Dr.AnnesAhmed,
Dr. Akram Falahi gave speeches and that he spent from his own
pocket for this training, that he was Ansar in SIMI when the
GovernmentimposedbanonitinSeptember,2001,butheremained
anactivememberofSIMIevenafterthebanandusedtoworkforit.
HestatedthatIshadKhan,thepresidentofMaharashtraSIMI,sent
himandoneTanveerofSolapurduringthemonthofRamzaninthe
year 2002 to Hyderabad to bring money for SIMI from Maulana
AbdulAlimIstahi,whousedtocollectmoneythereforSIMI,thathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1595..
Ext.4825
knewtheA3sincetheyear2002asheusedtocometotheofficeof
SIMIatKurlaandhebecameacquaintedwiththeA3.Hestatedthat
hewasmadesecretaryofMumbaiSIMIin2003,butwasremoved
fromthe postinDecember,2003andtillthattimehis mindhad
been prepared to do something for jihad and had decided to do
jihadfortheatrocitiescommittedonMuslimsinKashmir,Palestine
andChecheniaandIraq.HestatedthatheknewtheA4,whowasan
activememberofSIMI.
1440.
A11statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1127thatone
JudgementMCOC21/06
1441.
..1596..
Ext.4825
A6inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1071statedthathe
wastakentoBandraforaSIMIprogrambytwopersons,thereafter
heusedtogowiththemintheKurlaofficeofSIMIandbecame
memberofSIMIin1993,thatherepeatedlywenttothatofficeand
gave lectures and Takrir outside the mosque alongwith other
membersofSIMI.HestatedthathehadgonetoYeotmalDistrictin
1994 for a program of SIMI where 10,00012,000 activists were
present, that all India secretary of SIMI Ashraf Jafari was also
present, that he had gone to Aurangabad for three days SIMI
programinNovember1999.Hestatedthathewenttoathreedays
SIMIprogramatJalgaoninJuly,2000wherehegotacquaintedwith
A13andwheretheyweretoldaboutjihad.Hestatedaboutretiring
fromSIMIinDecember,2000asmembersofSIMIareretiredatthe
ageof30,thatthereafterheusedtoattendtheprogramsofSIMIat
AnjumanIslamHighSchool,Mumbai,wherethechiefguestShahid
BadarFalahiusedtoremainpresent.Hestatedthathealwaysused
tomeetRiyazBhatkal,anofficebearerofSIMI,nearthemasjidon
theKurlaPipeRoad.
1442.
A7statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1037thathe
attendedaprogrambyHajHouseinBambaiintheyear2000in
connectionwiththedifficultiesfacedbyMuslimcommunityandthe
solutionaboutit,thatShahidBadarFalahi,SadarofAllIndiaSIMI
andotherSIMIactivistsgavereligiousdiscourseandsaidthatitis
necessary to do jihad for the Muslim community, that he was
impressedbythe talks andaftersome days wenttotheofficeof
SIMIinKurla(W),becameacquaintedwithIrshadKhan,Sadarof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1597..
Ext.4825
MaharashtraSIMIandacceptedhisproposalforworkingforSIMI.
HestatedthatafterreadingthenewsinUrduTimesaboutburning
ofKuraninDelhi,hewenttotheKurlaofficeofSIMI,obtainedthe
pamphletsthatwerepreparedbyIrshadKhanaboutthatincident
anddistributedthemtopeoplebystandinginfrontofmasjid.He
stated that though Bharat Sarkar banned SIMI organisation in
September2001,heworkedforitagainsttheatrocitiesonMuslim
people and was made ansar of SIMI. He stated that in 2002 he
becameacquaintedwithA2,A3,A4,A6,A9,A10,A11andA13,who
were SIMI activists and had jihadi mentality, that during their
acquaintance, they used to discuss issues like communal riots in
Gujarat,BabrimasjidandKashmirissueandhowtotakerevenge
about the atrocities being committed on Muslims in the whole
world.HestatedthatheremainedincontinuouscontactwiththeA3
and A13 and took on rent Room No. 304, Amrapali Building,
Sector11, Shanti Nagar, Mira Road (E) for his office of SIMI
organisation, where meetings of that organisation used to be
conducted, that elections of Maharashtra SIMI organisation were
conducted in March, 2006 by the A4 as General Secretary of
Maharashtra SIMI, in which, he, i.e., the A7, was elected as
PresidentofMiraRoadUnit,thathe,A4andA13hadthekeysof
thatofficeandA13stayedinthatroomfor34months.
1443.
Itisclearfromtheabovediscussionthatthecontentsof
theconfessionalstatementsoftheA2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A9,A10and
A11corroborateeachotherinrespectoftheyaswellasA13being
members and activists and some of them being office bearers of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1598..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1599..
Ext.4825
circumstanceno.24provedbytheprosecution.Thus,itwillhave
tobeheldthatprosecutionhasprovedthattheA2,A3,A4,A6,A7,
A8, A9, A10, A11 and A13 and wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan
Dawreyandwantedaccusedno.3Rahilaremembersofanunlawful
association. I have to, therefore, answer point no. 6 in the
affirmative.
AccusedacquiringmilitanttraininginPakistan:
1444.
becauseofrepeatedlytakingpartinprogramsofSIMIandbecause
of the lectures delivered in SIMI programs, he got motivated to
commitjihadtofightagainsttheatrocitiescommittedonMuslimsin
Hindustan.HestatedthathedecidedtosettleinaMuslimcountry
likePakistan,thathemanagedtoobtainPakistanivisathroughone
ofhisfriendAbdulUsmanKumbhar,(i.e.,PW79),thatoneofhis
friend Asif Abdul Rashid gave him a telephone number of Abu
Harara, an LeT operator in Pakistan. He stated that he took
Samjhauta Express from Attari and went to Lahore, Pakistan and
called Abu Harara, who referred him to wanted accused no. 14
AbdulRazzak,anIndianstayinginPakistan,whointurnhanded
himovertoLeTcommanderArifKasmaniinKarachithroughone
AbuZuber.HestatedthatheagreedtoworkforLeTonbeingtold
by wanted accused no. 14 Abdul Razzak. He stated that in
Muzaffarabadhewasgiventraininginhandlingfirearmsincluding
AK47,preparingbombsandcausingexplosions.Hestatedthathe
wassenttoAlAksatrainingcampfortraining,wherepersonsfrom
PakistanmilitaryconnectedtoISIusedtocomeinmilitaryvehicles.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1600..
Ext.4825
He statedthatwantedaccusedno.14AbdulRazzaktookhim to
Lahoreandintroducedhimtowantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,
trainingcommanderofLeTatBahawalpur,whotoldhimtoready
peoplefromHindustanandsendthemfortrainingandalsogave
himRs.2025,000/forexpenses.Hestatedthathereturnedbythe
sameroutetoAttariborder,wenttoDelhiandfromtheretoPune.
1445.
1446.
corroboratedalltheabovestatementsmadebytheA3.
1447.
corroboratedthestatementsoftheA3andaddedthatthereusedto
be discussions about sending Muslim youths to Pakistan to take
trainingofoperatingarmsandammunitiontodoterroristactivities,
thattherewasameetingatMiraRoadamongstthemaftersome
monthsinwhichtheA3toldthemthatheisincontinuouscontact
with the wanted accused no. 1 Azam Chima who had said that
Muslimspersonsshouldbereadiedforjihadtrainingandforthat
purpose they should be sent to Pakistan and promised that
arrangementsforthatwouldbemadeforhimonbehalfoftheISI.
HeconfirmedthattheA3wassearchingforboysforthatpurpose
andtheA3toldhimthatheiscalledbywantedaccusedno.1Azam
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1601..
Ext.4825
ChimatoPakistanandwouldgotheresoon.
1448.
Prosecutionhasprovedbycogentoralanddocumentary
evidencethattheA3hadtraveledbytraintoPakistanfromAttari
RailwayStation,Amritsaron01/10/01andreturnedbythesame
methodon29/11/01,whichisthecircumstanceno.28provedby
the prosecution. Though the period stated by the A3 does not
match this period proved by the prosecution, it is an admitted
positionbytheA3inhiswrittensubmissions,Ext.2824filedwithhis
statement under section 313 of the Cr. P.C., that he had gone to
Pakistanin2001,albeitthereasonthathegaveisforattendinghis
cousinsister'smarriage.
1449.
1450.
TheA10inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1249confirms
thattheA3instigatedhimforgoingfortrainingtoPakistanshowing
him a rosy picture of improvement of his financial condition. He
statedthattheA3arrangedforhisvisainSeptember,2002andhe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1602..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1603..
Ext.4825
accusedno.1AzamChimagavehimknowledgeofarmsandmade
him practice operating arms for two days. He stated that he
returnedbackbythesamerouteescortedbythewantedaccusedno.
15AbdulRehmanuptoZahidan,mettheA3inPuneandtoldhim
aboutthetraininginPakistan.
1451.
TheA9inhisconfessionalstatementExt.924corroborated
theabovefactsandstatedthattheA3hadsenttheA10forterrorist
traininginPakistaninNovember,2002.
1452.
1453.
documentaryevidencethattheA10wentfromMumbaitoIranon
01/11/02andreturnedon29/11/02, whichisthecircumstance
no.36provebytheprosecution.Theprosecutionhasalsoproved
thattheA10traveledtoIranonziaratvisaasacamouflage,which
isthecircumstancesno.38provedbytheprosecution.
1454.
TheA3describedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218,
aboutwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreycomingtomeethimat
Mumbai whenever he used to come to Pune from Dubai, that
wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan Dawrey went to Jeddah in Saudi
Arabia in April,2003andhe,i.e.,A3wasalsothinkingof going
there,thathecametoknowthatthewantedaccusedno.14Abdul
Razzak,whomhehadmetinPakistanwasinDubaiatthattimeand
thewantedaccusedno.3Rahilwasalsothereandtheybothmet
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1604..
Ext.4825
andhefacilitatedtalkbetweenwantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,
wantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey,wantedaccusedno.A3Rahil
andhe,i.e.,theA3wasaskedtocontactwantedaccusedno.1Azam
Chima,wantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreyandwantedaccused
no. A3 Rahil for the purpose of executing any action of LeT in
Hindustan,forfearofbeingcaughtifhegotaphonefromPakistan.
Hestatedthatthiswasthemodeofcontactofwantedaccusedno.1
AzamChimawithhim,thatwantedaccusedno.1AzamChimaused
tosendmoneythroughthewantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey
andwantedaccusedno.A3Rahil,thathe,i.e.,theA3triedtosend
morepersonsfortraining,butexceptforsendingtheA10hefailed
tosendanyotherperson.HestatedthathewenttoJeddahinSaudi
Arabia for finding a job after the wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan
Dawreyaskedhimtocomethereforthatpurpose,thathestayed
thereforabout1monthsduringwhichperiodhetalkedwiththe
wantedaccusedno.14AbdulRazzakandoncomingtoknowthat
thewantedaccusedno.1AzamChima'sworkhadagainstarted,he
phonedhimandtoldhimthathewantedtocometoPakistanandas
hecouldnotgetanyjobinSaudiinspiteofefforts,heonceagain
contactedthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChimaandrepeatedhis
wish to come to Pakistan, whereupon the wanted accused no. 1
AzamChimaaskedhimtotakevisaforDubai,thathewenttoDubai
inMarch,2001,thatfromthereagaincontactedthewantedaccused
no.1AzamChima,whoaskedhimtogotoKisham,anislandinIran
where he went by aeroplane, that wanted accused no. 1 Azam
ChimahadarrangedforjourneybyshiptoAbbasBandargadh(Iran
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1605..
Ext.4825
port)andfromtherecrossedtheIranPakistanborderandreached
Bahawalpur and went to the house of the wanted accused no. 1
Azam Chima, who gave him a new name Amin, expressed his
displeasureaboutsendingfewpersonsfromHindustanfortraining
inproportiontothemoneysentbyhimandprovokedhim,i.e.,the
A3todosomethingandprovehimselfandtosendmorepersonsas
candidatesfortrainingasabigactionistobedoneinMumbai.
1455.
1218,thatheusedtocallthewantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey
on phone and ask him to send more persons for training from
Hindustan, that accordingly the wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan
DawreytoldhimabouttheA2throughtheA4willingtocometo
Pakistanfortraining,whereuponhe,i.e.,theA3toldhimtomake
arrangementsforvisaandticketsoftheA2fromthemoneykept
withtheA9andaccordinglytheA9arrangedforthevisaandtickets
for the A2 through agent Mustaq (i.e., PW46),and sent him for
trainingviaIranroute.HestatedthathemettheA2inthetraining
camp of the wanted accused no. 1 Azam Chima in Muzaffarbad,
wheretheA2completed15daystrainingandreturnedtoHindustan
viaIranroute.
1456.
corroboratedtheversionoftheA3,thatwhentheirfamilyshiftedto
Mumbai,theA3usedtoprepareMuslimyouthstogotoPakistanfor
trainingofterroristactivities,thattheA3hadsosenttheA10,that
hethinksthattheA3andtheA13sentAbdulRauf,SameerLulle
and wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan Dawrey for LeT training. He
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1606..
Ext.4825
statedthatduringAprilMay,2003,theA3toldhimthathispaternal
cousin sister Khalida Iqbal Khan, i.e., Khalida Apa, staying in
Nagpadahadreceivedmoneythroughhawala,thathe,i.e.,theA3
wastogototheGulfwiththehelpofthatmoney,thathecameto
knowthatthewantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrayhadcometo
PunefromDubaiin2003. HestatedthattheA3obtainedUmrah
visa and went to Saudi Arabia in November, 2003, that there he
informed him on phone that the wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan
Dawreywaswithhim,thatthesaidwantedaccusedno.2Rizwan
DawreyinformedhimonphoneafterseveraldaysthattheA3had
gonetoPakistanandgavehisemailIDonwhichheusedtochat
withbothofthem.HedescribedtwotransactionsofhawalaofRs.
50,000/andRs.1,00,000/donebyhimontheinstructionsofthe
wantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreyandtheA3.Hestatedthatin
May,2004thewantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreytoldhimtoask
theA4astowhenhewouldbecomingfortrainingtoPakistan,that
heknowstheA4asaworkerofSIMIandafriendoftheA3,thathe
wenttothehouseoftheA4whodeclinedtogofortraining,buttold
him that the A2 wants to go to Pakistan for training, that he
conveyedthistothewantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey,whotold
himtotakehispassportandgaveittoMustaqbhai,(i.e.,PW46)for
obtainingvisa,whichhedidaftertakingpassportoftheA2,which
theA2gavetohimatMiraRoadstationandtoldhimthatheisa
friendoftheaccusedno.4,takingRs.20,000/fromKhalidaApa
andgivingbothtoMushtaqbhai,(i.e.,PW46)whodidthework.He
furtherstatedthatontheinstructionsofthewantedaccusedno.2
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1607..
Ext.4825
RizwanDawreyhetookRs.20,000/fromKhalidaappaandgavethe
passportandairticketsandRs.20,000/totheA2atMiraRoad
Stationandalsogavetwophonenumbersofthewantedaccusedno.
1AzamChima,askingtheA2tocontacthimonreachingIranand
thattheA2wenttoPakistan viaIraninMay,2004.TheA9further
statedinhisconfessionalstatementabouttakingRs.10,000/from
KhalidaApaontheinstructionsoftheA3andgivingittotheA4for
goingtoAjmer.
1457.
TheA4statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1060,that
the A3 had told him about his close relations with the wanted
accusedno.4HafizSayeed,chiefofLeTandgavehimRs.25,000/
toprintabookonjihad,thathepublishedbooktitledIslamKo
Chotibydownloadingmaterialfromthewebsites'munwahideen.tk'
and'jamatuddawa.org.'andonshowingittotheA3,theA3asked
himtoprint250copies.HestatedthattheA3gavehiminformation
aboutjihadandAhleHadisandthatheandtheA9hadundergone
trainingatLeTatLeTtrainingcampinPakistanandaskedhimto
comefortraining,whichherefused,thatheaskedtheA3astowhat
istobedoneaftertakingsuchtraining,thattheA3toldhimthat
theyhavetoarrangefortheirstayandotherfacilitiesofthepersons
whocometoBharatfromPakistanforterroristactivities.
1458.
TheA4furtherstatedinhisconfessionalstatement,Ext.
1060,thattheA3askedhimwhethertheA2cangofortraining,
thatwhenheaskedtheA2aboutit,theA2expressedhisreadiness
and he, i.e., the A4 arranged the meeting between them both at
MuslimAmbulanceatBhendiBazar.Hestatedaboutcontactingthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1608..
Ext.4825
A3inMarch,2004,whowasinPakistanfortraining,thattheA3
toldhimthatthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChimawouldsenda
manofLeTtoAjmer,Rajasthanon09/04/04,whoisaguideand
whowillshowtherouteforgoingtoPakistanfromRajasthanborder
andbookedticketsforAjmerbytakingRs.10,000/fromtheA9,
however,hecouldnotgoashisbrotherwasinjuredashefellfrom
train.HestatedthathehadmotivatedtheA2forgoingfortraining
andtogetknowledgeofmakingbombs,therefore,hehandedover
thepassportoftheA2totheA9on20/04/04,thattheA9arranged
forA2'svisaandticketandtheA2leftfortraininginMay2004.He
statedthattheA2returnedfromtraininginthesecondweekofJune
2004andmethimandtoldhimeverythingaboutthetraining.
1459.
TheA2corroboratedtheversionoftheA3,A9andA4and
statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1023,abouttheA4telling
himinApril,2004thattheA3isinPakistanandisreadytoarrange
forhis,i.e.,theA2'smilitancytraininginPakistan,thathegavehis
passporttotheA4,whotoldhimtocollectthepassport,visaand
ticket from the A9, that he contacted the A9, who gave him his
passport,visaforIran,airticket,Rs.20,000/andtwotelephone
numbersofwantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,commanderofLeT
atBahawalpur.HestatedthatatthattimehewasworkinginPrince
AliKhanHospitalandthenheresignedfromthereandhadgoneto
TehranfromMumbaion21/05/04,fromtherewenttoZahidanby
domesticflight,thathegaveinformationabouthisarrivalbyphone
toBahawalpur,thattwodaysthereafterapersonfromLeT,i.e.,the
wantedaccusedno.15Abdul Rehmancame there andfacilitated
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1609..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
1460.
..1610..
Ext.4825
corroboratedtheversionoftheabovethreeaccusedbystatingthat
whenhemettheA3inthesimilarmeetingalongwiththeA13,A4
andtheA2,theA3toldhimthathehadtakentrainingbygoingto
PakistantwiceandtoldhimthattheLeTorganizationconductsthe
trainingcampsunderthedirectionsoftheISIandthemoneyforthis
comesfromtheISI,thatonthatbasishe,i.e.,theA3hadsentthe
A2,A9,A10andA11andsomeotherpersonsfortraining.
1461.
documentaryevidencethattheA3hadobtainedvisaforhimselfand
thewantedA3Rahil,hisbrother,intheyear2003andbookedtheir
airticketsforgoingfromMumbaitoJeddahandback,whichisthe
circumstanceno.29provedbytheprosecution.Theprosecution
hasalsoprovedthatthewantedA3RahilwenttoJeddahinSaudi
Arabia in 2003 from Mumbai and the A3 also went there from
Mumbaion08/11/03andwasdeportedfromJeddahon01/12/04
ashedidnothavevalidpassport,whichisthecircumstanceno.30
provedbytheprosecution.
1462.
TheprosecutionhasalsoprovedthattheA3hadsentthe
passportoftheA2withtheA9tothetravelagentforobtainingvisa
ofIranandwiththeA2hadtraveledfromMumbaitoTehranon
21/05/04andreturnedon25/06/04, whichisthecircumstance
no. 31 proved by the prosecution. By cogent, oral and
documentaryevidenceprosecutionhasprovedseizureofpassport,
Ext.449, of the A2 at his instance on 26/07/06, which is the
circumstanceno.20provedbytheprosecution.Bycogent,oral
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1611..
Ext.4825
1463.
TheA3statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218,that
theA9camefortrainingtoPakistaninAugust,2004,thathemet
himthere,thattheA9completed15daystraininginMuzzaffarabad
andreturnedtoHindustanviaIranroute.TheA9inhisconfessional
statementcorroboratestheversionoftheA3andinhisconfessional
statementExt.924,statedthatafewdaysafterApril,2004,wanted
accusedno.2RizwanDawreyaskedhimaboutgoingtoPakistanfor
trainingtowhichhesaidyes,thatwantedaccusedno.2Rizwan
DawreyaskedhimtotakeRs.20,000/fromKhalidaApaandgiveit
toMushtaqbhai,(i.e.,PW46)forticketandvisa,thathehadalready
obtained a passport from Pune in 2002 and he gave it and Rs.
20,000/toMushtaqbhaiforgettingthevisaofIranstampedonhis
passport and for purchasing ticket and then contacted wanted
accused no. 2 Rizwan Dawrey about the training and he gave a
numberofSaudi.
1464.
returnedaftertakingtraininginPakistanandhadinformedhimon
phoneaboutitandalsodescribedindetailthetrainingthathetook
whentheymetpersonallyandhowonehastogotothetraining
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1612..
Ext.4825
campatAlAksainMuzzafarabad,thattheA2alsotoldhimabout
meeting the A3 in the house of the wanted accused no. 1 Azam
ChimaandthentheA2gavehimanultravioletlampmachinefor
identifyingcounterfeitcurrencynotesandaskedhimtohanditover
tothewantedaccusedno.1AzamChimainPakistan.Hefurther
statedthathewenttoTehranfromMumbaion09/08/04andwas
carrying5,000/Tuman(Iranicurrency)and$70andonreaching
there he made contact on the phone number given by wanted
accused no. 2 Rizwan Dawray, thereupon wanted accused no. 15
AbdulRehmancametotakehimandtookhispassport,visa,ticket
and money, gave him a Pathani dress to wear and facilitated
crossing the Pakistan border and from there he was taken to
Bahawalpurandtothehouseofwantedaccusedno.1AzamChima
wherehemethimaswellastheA3andhandedovertheultraviolet
lampmachinetowantedaccusedno.1AzamChimatellinghimthat
theA2hadgivenitforhim.Hestatedthathewasthentakento
Muzzafarabadandwasgiventraining.Hestatedthathemetone
Abu Bakr, wanted accused no. 9, who was incharge of the said
trainingcenterandheunderwent15daystrainingthereandthen
returnedbacktoBahawalpur,mettheA3inthehouseofwanted
accusedno.1AzamChima,whomhealsometandwhotoldhim
that jihad is the duty of every musalman and every musalman
shoulddojihad,thathewasdoingallthisforIslam,thatthereare
atrocitiesonMuslimsinKashmirinHindustan,therefore,jihadhas
tobedoneinHindustanandonheaskingwantedaccusedno.1
AzamChimaastowhatworkhewillhavetodoforthis,wanted
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1613..
Ext.4825
accusedno.1AzamChimatoldhimthattheA3willtellhimabout
itandwhenheaskedtheA3aboutit,theA3saidthathewilltellit
at the appropriate time. He further stated that he returned to
Mumbaiinthesecondweekof2004bythesameroute,i.e.,crossing
the IranPakistan border and reaching Zahidan in Iran and from
theretoTehran,thatonhisreturnhemettheA2andtoldhimabout
thetraining.
1465.
Prosecutionhasprovedbycogentoralanddocumentary
evidencethatpassportExt.620andphotocopyofinternationalmap
Ext.1487 were recovered on 28/07/06 at the instance of the A9,
whichisthecircumstanceno.21provedbytheprosecution.
1466.
Bycogentoralanddocumentaryevidenceprosecutionhas
provedthatin2004theA9hadobtainedvisaforIranandtraveled
from Mumbai to Iran on 06/08/04 and returned on 10/09/04,
which is the circumstance no. 32 proved by the prosecution.
Prosecution has also proved that the A3 was instrumental in
obtainingvisasofIranfortheA9andotheraccused,whotraveledto
Iranonziaratvisaasacamouflage,whichisthecircumstanceno.
38provedbytheprosecution.
1467.
A3inhisconfessionalstatement,Ext.1218,statedthathe
knewwantedaccusedno.5SohailShaikhofPune,whosefullname
wasdisclosedlateronasSohailUsmanGaniShaikh,(whereasthe
fullnameoftheA10isSuhailMehmoodShaikh),thathecameto
know from the wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan Dawrey that the
wanted accused no. 5 Sohail is undergoing training in
Muzzaffarabad,thattherefore,hecontactedhiminMuzzaffarabad
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1614..
Ext.4825
andonhisrequestwenttomeethim,thatatthattimehecameto
know that the wanted accused no. 5 Sohail was staying in
Muzzaffarabad training center since last 78 months and had
obtained6monthstraining,thatthereafterheandwantedaccused
no.5SohailShaikhwenttoBahawalpur,metwantedaccusedno.1
AzamChima,took4monthstrainingthereandthenwantedaccused
no.5 Sohail Shaikh went to Dubai via Iran route. He stated that
duringhisstaythereheobtainedalotofinformationaboutLeT
organizationfromthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,viz.,that
theLeTorganizationisabranchofMarkazDawawalIrshad,that
it looks after the education of its terrorists activities, that Hafiz
Mohd. Saeed is the chief sargana of Markaj and Lashkar and
wantedaccusedno.1AzamChima(Bahawalpur),AbuMuzzammil
(Islamabad) and Arif Kasmani (Karachi) and many more similar
commanderslikethemworkunderhim,thatallcommandersrecruit
personsandgivethemterroriststrainingfortheLeTorganization
andalsogivethemwhateverhelptheyneedtoexecuteterrorists
actions.
1468.
TheA3statedthatthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChima
wantedtocommitabigincidentinMumbaiandforthatpurposehe
senthimbacktoHindustan,however,ashispassportremainedina
hotel in Kisham, there were difficulties for him to come to
Hindustan, therefore, wanted accused no.1 Azam Chima got
prepareda Pakistanipassportshowing his nameasMohd.Akram
andaffixedvisaofUmrahofSaudiArabiawiththehelpofwhichhe
went to Saudi in October, 2004 and started staying with wanted
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1615..
Ext.4825
1469.
Bycogentoralanddocumentaryevidenceprosecutionhas
1470.
friend Rahil Shaikh from Grant Road, that a boy by name Firoz
Ghaswalaisreadytogofortrainingandheobtainedziaratvisafor
IranforthesaidFirozfromagentMushtaq,(i.e.,PW46)andsent
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1616..
Ext.4825
Firoz for training via Iran, that he had also sent Ubed Chipa of
Ahmedabadfortrainingbyobtaininghisvisaandticket.Prosecution
hasprovedbycogentevidencethatintheyear2005theA9obtained
visaforIranforFirozGhaswala,whichisthecircumstanceno.35
provedbytheprosecution.
1471.
TheA3statedthatduringthisperiodwantedaccusedno.2
Rizwansenthisi.e.,A3's14,000/Riyals.Hestatedthatheshifted
hisresidencetodifferentplacesupto2006ashefounditdifficultto
operatefromMiraRoadashisparentswerestayingthereandthere
used to be sudden checking by police, therefore, after receiving
money from wanted accused no.1 Azam Chima through wanted
accused no.2 Rizwan he took on rent flat no. 24 in Lucky Villa
Building,nearPerryCrossRoad,Bandra.Prosecutionhasprovedby
cogentevidencethathewasinapossessionofthesaidflat,whichis
thecircumstanceno.8provedbytheprosecution.
1472.
TheA3statedthatwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey
usedtostayinHindustaninMarch,2006andwantedtogotoSaudi
Arabiaandhecametomeethim,i.e.,theA3atBandra,thatthey
talked about the training in Pakistan and the intentions of the
wantedaccusedno.1AzamChimaandaboutsendingmorepersons
fromHindustanfortrainingandhetoldthewantedaccusedno.2
Rizwantosendmoremoneyfromthewantedaccusedno.1Azam
Chima.HestatedthatthesaidRahilShaikhofGrantRoadbroughta
passportofanAurangabadresidentZulfiqarFaiyyazAhmedandhe
obtainedavisaforhimandsenthimtowantedaccusedno.1Azam
Chima for training in Pakistan. He further stated that wanted
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1617..
Ext.4825
accused no.1 Azam Chima had sent him a total amount of Rs.
10,00,000/byhawalathroughwantedaccusedno.2Rizwan,outof
whichhedepositedRs.2,00,000/intheaccountofhisfatherinthe
ICICIBank,thatfromthatamounthespentmoneyforsendingthe
boys for training and till that time he had sent seven boys for
training,i.e.,A9,A10,A2andthesaidZulfiqarFaiyyazAhmed,Firoz
Ghaswala,onemorepersonChipaMohd.AliandalsotheA11.
1473.
TheA9inhisconfessionalstatementconfirmedtheversion
oftheA3aboutdepositofmoneyintheICICIbankaccountoftheir
fatherintheMiraRoadbranch,whichwasreceivedbyKhalidaApa
throughhawalaandwhichhedidontheinstructionsoftheA3and
hadobtainedsignaturesofhisfatheronblankchequesandonthe
instructionsoftheA3heusedtowithdrawmoneyfromthebank.
HealsocorroboratedtheA3shiftinghisresidenceinMumbaifrom
time to time and finally taking the flat at Bandra on rent and
startingtostaythere.
1474.
TheprosecutionhasprovedbycogentevidencethattheA3
hadobtainedvisasforIranforChipaMohd.AliandZulfiqarFaiyyaz
AhmedandthattheyweretogoIranintheyear2005and2006
respectively, which is the circumstance no. 34 proved by the
prosecution.
1475.
confessionalstatement,Ext.1127,andstatedaboutbeingimpressed
bythelecturesgivenbytheA2onHadistodojihadandtheA2
tellinghimthathewillhavetogooutandtaketraining,butfew
daysthereaftertheA2leftthecountryalonefortakingtraining.He
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1618..
Ext.4825
statedthatonreturningfromtrainingtheA2methimandprepared
himfortrainingandhegavehispassportandRs.8,000/totheA2,
thatafter1520daystheA2gavehimhispassport,visaofIranand
ticketand$200andtoldhimtofirstgotoTehranwhereaperson
willcometomeethimandtakehimtoPakistanfortrainingandtold
himnottotalkmuchthereandtoposeasaAhaleHadis.Hestated
thathewenttoIranon04/04/05byairtellinghisfamilymembers
thatheisgoingforajobinterview,thatatTehranheconvertedthe
dollarsintoriyalsandmadeaphonecallonnumbersgivenbythe
A2,thatwantedaccusedno.1AzamChimawasonthelineandtold
him that his man will come to take him, that accordingly one
Abdullasentbywantedaccusedno.1AzamChimacametothehotel
wherehewasstaying,madehimtositinabusgoingtoZahidan,
thatafterreachingZahidanwantedaccusedno.15AbdulRehman
received him, took his passport, ticket and money and facilitated
crossingtheborderandenteringintoPakistanandwasthentakento
Bahawalpurtothehouseofthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,
that wanted accused no. 15 Abdul Rehman took him to
MuzzaffarabadtotheMaskar(Aksa)trainingcenter,thathewas
given knowledge about explosive materials by a person by name
Dawoodandhistraininghadstartedfrom14/04/05,thathewas
giventhetrainingofexplosivematerialsfor5days,thatMushtaq
gavehimknowledgeofuseofexplosivesubstancesandhowtouse
themtocausemaximumlossoflifeandpropertyincrowdedplaces,
that during the training two military officers came in a vehicle,
whichwasbearingaPakistaniflag,thattheytrainedhimand67
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1619..
Ext.4825
otherpersoninsettingthetimeupto3monthsbyusingtimerdevice
and preparing time bomb, that he was told later on that those
officersweretheofficersoftheISIandthetrainingcenterwasrun
under the ISI, that during the training he was given practice of
operatingautomaticfirearmsandassemblinganddismantlingthem
andfiringthem.Hestatedthatafterhistrainingwasoverhewas
taken to Bahawalpur to the house of wanted accused no.1 Azam
Chimawhoinquiredaboutthetrainingandjourneyandtoldhimto
cause explosions at crowded places like stock exchange and film
industry,toinformAmintosendmoreandmoreboysfortraining
andthathewouldbesendingexplosiveexpertsasearlyaspossible
forgivingtrainingtoHindustanipeople.Hestatedthatwiththehelp
of wanted accused no. 15 Abdul Rehman he crossed the Iran
PakistanborderandreturnedtoMumbaibyair. Hestatedabout
meetingtheA2andtellinghimaboutthetrainingandthemessage
ofthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChimathatAminshouldbetoldto
sendmoreandmoreboysfortrainingandthatoneexplosiveexpert
would be coming from there to Hindustan and thereafter he
regularlymettheA2.
1476.
Prosecutionhasprovedthaton31/07/06attheinstance
oftheA11hispassport,Ext.619,andphotocopyofinternational
map, Ext.1488, were recovered from his house, which is the
circumstanceno.23provedbytheprosecution. Prosecutionhas
alsoprovedbycogentevidencethattheA3hadobtainedvisafor
IranfortheA11in2005andtheA11hadtraveledfromMumbaito
Iran on 04/04/05 and returned on 29/04/05, which is the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1620..
Ext.4825
circumstanceno.33provedbytheprosecution. Prosecutionhas
provedbycogentevidencethattheA3wasinstrumentalinobtaining
visa of Iran for A11 who traveled to Iran on ziarat visa as a
camouflage, which is the circumstances no. 38 proved by the
prosecution.
1477.
TheA1statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1181,that
duringhisstayinDelhihewasintroducedtooneDr.Joharbyone
Anwar, that Dr. Johar is a homeopathic doctor and working as
professor in Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, that Dr. Johar
hailsfromBalkatwa,aneighbouringvillagetoMadhubanioftheA1,
that the wanted accused no.4 Hafiz Zuber is step brother of Dr.
JoharandthuswasknowntotheA1.Hestatedthatinthe year
2000,oneIbrahimRahin,friendofthewantedaccusedno.4Hafiz
Zuber,approachedhimandaskedhimtoaccompanyhimtoNepal
ashewascalledbythewantedaccusedno.4HafizZuber,thatthey
reachedSitapaila,Kathmandu,metthewantedaccusedno.4Hafiz
Zuber andwantedaccusedno.15AbdulRehman,thattheyboth
motivated and convinced him to go to Pakistan for collection of
donationforMadarsashere.Hestatedthatthewantedaccusedno.
4HafizZuberandwantedaccusedno.15AbdulRehmanmanaged
topreparehisNepalesepassportandobtainedPakistanivisaforhim
inthefakenameasKamalAhmedMohd.Munshi,thathetraveled
toAmritsarandfromtheretoLahore,Pakistanbybus via Wagha
border, that after reaching Lahore, as per the instructions of the
wantedaccusedno.4HafizZuberhecalledthewantedaccusedno.6
Aslam,anLeTcommander,wholedhimtothetrainingcampofL
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1621..
Ext.4825
eTinMuzzaffarabad.Hestatedthathetooktwomonthsmilitant
traininginMuzzaffarabadandBahawalpurtrainingcampsofLeT,
whichwasimpartedbytrainersAmirandSaifullaKhalid,thatafter
completion of training he returned via same route and reached
Nepal. He stated that he went to Kathmandu and met wanted
accusedno.4HafizZuber,whotookhisNepalesepassportandasked
himtoreturntoMadhubaniandwaitforfurtherinstructions.He
statedthatinthetrainingtheyweretoldaboutatrocitiesonMuslims
allovertheworld,thathetoldthemaboutBabriMasjiddemolition
andatrocitiesbyHindustanisonMuslimsinKashmir,womenbeing
raped and about merciless killings. He stated about being given
trainingofAK47rifles,revolversandassemblingbombs.Hestated
aboutbeingemployedintheofficerofNICETravelsownedbythe
wantedaccusedno.4HafizZuber,whichwasrunbyoneSaifula
Khalid,whotaughthimtooperatecomputerandpreparedthreee
mailIDsandaskedhimtobeintouchbyusingthem.Hestatedthat
said Saifulla also asked him to prepare other poor, educated and
needyboystobesenttoPakistanfortrainingunderthepretextof
collectingdonations.Hestatedthathereturnedtohisvillage,that
he used to be in touch with Ibrahim Raeen and Saifulla through
computer and during the period of about one year Ibrahim had
given Rs. 75,000/ to him, but he did not send a single boy for
training.HewasluredbyIbrahimtotogottoDelhi,wherehewould
getRs.20,000/andoneAK47andwastrappedandgotarrestedat
DelhibyDelhiPoliceforpossessingafirearm.
1478.
TheA4inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1060indirectly
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1622..
Ext.4825
corroboratedtheversionoftheA1ashestatedthattheA3hadtold
himthattheA1hadtakentraininginthetrainingcampofLeTin
Pakistan.
1479.
TheA6inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1071,statedthat
1480.
Prosecutionhasprovedbycogent,oralanddocumentary
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1623..
Ext.4825
prosecution.
TheA3inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218statedthat
1482.
TheA10corroboratedtheversionoftheA3bystatingin
hisconfessionalstatementExt.1249thatwhenhewenttoMumbai
inFebruary,2006toaskforsomemoneyfromtheA3,theA3told
himthatifhewantsmoneyheshoulddoashe,i.e.,theA3saysand
ashe,i.e.,theA10wasinneedofmoneyheagreed,thatthereafter
theA13calledameetinginthehouseoftheA3,wheretheA3,A13,
A4,A2,A9andA11werepresentandtherewasadiscussionasto
whichtargetsinMumbaiaretobeselectedforbombblasts,thatthe
A13 ordered all the person to survey for targets. He then
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1624..
Ext.4825
1483.
TheA11inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1127statedthat
theA2hadintroducedhimtotheA3earlierandaftercomingback
toMumbaihemaintainedregularcontactwiththeA3andthenhe
corroborated the statements made by the A10 about the meeting
calledbytheA13atthehouseoftheA3andaboutthediscussion
thattookplaceinthemeetingandtheA3takinghimandtheA10
forthereconnaissanceandrealizingthatthecorrecttargetwouldbe
thelocaltrains.
1484.
TheA4inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1060statedthat
amessagewasreceivedfromwantedaccusedno.1AzamChimato
selecttargetsaboutwhichtheA3hadadiscussionwiththeA13,
thatonthedirectionsofthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,the
A3startedchoosingtargetsinMumbaiandthattheA3toldhimthat
hewasorderedtocheckouttargetslikeWorldTradeCenter,etc.,as
described above and he, i.e., the A3 alongwith the A10 and A11
aftertouringMumbaihadfoundthatitwaseasytotargetthelocal
trainsbecausetherestoftheplaceshadgoodsecurityarrangements.
1485.
corroboratedthestatementsmadebytheA3,A10andA11abouta
meetingbeingheldattheinstanceoftheA13atthehouseoftheA3,
wherehewaspresentalongwiththeA13,A3,A4,A2andA10,that
the A13 ordered the A3 and all of them to search for target for
causingbombexplosionsinMumbai,thattheA3alongwiththeA10
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1625..
Ext.4825
andotherswentaroundinSouthMumbai,buttheA3saidthatno
placewasfoundtobeappropriate.
1486.
1487.
Theprosecutionhas provedbycogentevidencethatthe
A2,A4,A9,A10andA13hadassembledinthehouseoftheA3in
February2006, whichisthecircumstanceno.19provedbythe
prosecution.
1488.
TheA2statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1023,that
theA4hadaskedhimaboutthemethodsofpreparingbombsand
hadtakenthelistofarticlesrequiredforpreparingbombs,thatthe
A4usedtorepeatedlyrequesthimin2005tobringthearticlesfor
preparing bombs and on his demand, he, i.e., the A2 collected
Acetone, Sulfuric Acid and Hydrogen Peroxide and kept it in his
locker.Theprosecutionhasprovedbycogent,oralanddocumentary
evidencethaton12/08/06bottlesofthesaidthreechemicalswere
seized from the locker of the A2 at his instance from the Saboo
Siddhiqui Hospital where he was working, which is the
circumstanceno.10provedbytheprosecution andprosecution
hasalsoprovedthatthesechemicalscanbeusedforpreparingthe
explosivemixture.
1489.
TheA2hadalsostatedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.
1023,thatinJanuary,2006theA4hadcollectedSIMIactivistsina
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1626..
Ext.4825
flatatMiraRoadandplayedaCDofthelectureofMasoodAzhar,
theChiefofJaisheMohammed,thatinthatmeetinghewaspresent
andtheA4,A13,SafdarNagooriandShahanwazKhanofUPand
remainingmembersofSIMIwerepresent.TheA2alsostatedinhis
confessionalstatement,thatinFebruary,2006theA3hadaskedhim
togivearoomonrentasitisrequiredfortheresidenceofsome
guestswhoarecomingfromPakistan,thatheshowedaroomtothe
A3inNagpadaarea,buttheA3refusedasthedepositamountwas
high.
MeetingofMarch,2006:
1490.
thathereturnedtoMumbaifromHyderabadinFebruary2006and
startedstayinginthehouseofhisbrotheratMiraRoadandkepton
meetingMohd.Alam,PW59,whowashisfriend,thatinthesecond
or third week of March 2006 when he was at the house of his
brotheratMiraRoad,Mohd.Alam,PW59,calledhimnearShams
Masjid, that when he reached there, he saw the A3 there, with
whomhehadgotacquaintedthroughMohd.Alam,PW59,thatthe
A3introducedthreeboyswhowerewithMohd.Alam,PW59,i.e.,
theA4,A13andtheA2andthatMohd.Alam,PW59,leftfromthere
aftersometime,buttheyallstayedback.ThoughtheA2,A3,and
A4 have not stated about this, prosecution has proved by cogent
evidence that the A2, A3, A4, A12 and A13 had assembled near
Shams Masjid in Mira Road in March, 2006, which is the
circumstanceno.19provedbytheprosecution.
1491.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1627..
Ext.4825
thattheA3toldhimthattheA4printsandpublishesTehrikiand
Jihadibooks intheShahadahPublishinghouseatMiraRoad,that
whentheyallweretalking,theA6alsocamethereandhecameto
knowthattheA6wasafriendoftheA3andusedtodotheworkof
SIMI. He further stated that he came to know during the talks
between themthatthe A3, A2 andA6hadgone toPakistan and
obtainedjihaditraining,thatduringthetalkshecametoknowthat
theA3isindirectcontactwithLeTcommanderwantedaccused
no.1AzamChimaandthattheA3isresponsiblefortheLeTof
Western India. He stated that on listening to their thoughts his
thoughtalsobecamelikejihadiandthewishfordoingsomethingfor
Muslimbrotherswasawakenedinhimandoncomingtoknowof
thistheA3toldhimthattheyaresoongoingtomakepreparations
ofabigincidentandhewouldalsobegivensomeworkandasked
himtoremainincontact.
1492.
TheA6corroboratedtheversionoftheA12inconnection
withtheaboveaccusedbeingneartheShamsMasjidinsecondor
thirdweekofMarch,2006.Beforethathestatedthatfordoinghis
businessofsellingTilismaMoti,heusedtogotoSabooSiddhiqui
Hospital,DongriinJanuary,2006wherehegotacquaintedwiththe
A2,whomheknewfrombeginningasaSIMIactivist,thatatthat
timetheA2introducedhimtotheA3,that1520daysthereafterhe
againwenttothesaidhospitalwherehemettheA3,thatduring
theirtalksatthattimehecametoknowthattheA3isalsoaSIMI
activist and the thinking of both is similar, that they both talked
aboutjihadandIslamandthereaftercamenearertoeachother,that
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1628..
Ext.4825
hesawtheA3wasapersonofjihadinatureandhe,i.e.,theA6had
alsothewishinsidehimtodosomethingaboutjihadandfeltthathe
could get an opportunity to do something for tehrik and jihad
throughtheA3.HestatedthattheA3toldhimthathehadobtained
jihaditrainingtwicefromLeTthroughISI,thathe,i.e.,theA6told
theA3abouttheworkthathehaddoneforSIMIandaskedtheA3
aboutRiyazBhatkal,buttheA3toldthathedidnotknowanything
abouthimandaskedtheA6tomeethimleisurelyatMiraRoadand
askedhimtocometotheshopoftheA4atMiraRoad,whomtheA6
knew as a SIMI worker and the A3 asked him to contact him
throughtheA4.HestatedthatthereafterhewenttoMiraRoadin
thesecondorthirdweekofMarch,2006bythesideofShahadah
PublishinghouseatShamsMasjidwherehemettheA4,A13,A2,A3
and A12, that he had met the A12for the firsttime and the A3
introducedtheA12ashisfriendandalsoasimiactivistwhoworks
atHyderabad. Hestatedthatduringtheirtalkshecametoknow
thattheA3isincontactwiththewantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,
commanderofLeTandtheA3istheheadofLeT ofWestern
India,thatashe,i.e.,theA6wasoftehrikandjihadinaturehesoon
mixedwiththemandtoldthemaboutobtainingtraininginPakistan
through Riyaz Bhatkal. He stated that he also told them that he
could not do anything for jihad after returning from Pakistan in
March,2003ashecouldnotmeetRiyazBhatkal.Hestatedthatat
thattimetheA3toldhimthatitisnotamatterofworry,thathe
shouldkeepincontactwiththemandhishelpwouldbeneeded,
thatatthattimetheA3alsotoldhimthatplanningisgoingonfor
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1629..
Ext.4825
causingbombexplosionsinHindustan,moreparticularlyinMumbai
andaskedhimtobeincontactwiththeA4. Thus,theA6inhis
confessionalstatementstatedabouttheeventsthattookplaceinthe
meetingafterMarch2006afterMohd.Alam,PW59,hadleftthe
spot.
MeetingofApril,2006:
1493.
ThereisanothermeetinginthefirstweekofApril,2006,
aboutwhichtheprosecutionhasnotbeenabletogiveanyevidence.
TheA12statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1230,thatinthe
firstweekofApril,2006heandtheA3werestandingnearLucky
hotelinBandra,wheretheA3hadcalledtheA4andtheA6and
whentheycametheysatthereandaftertalkingforsometimewent
tothehouseoftheA3inBandrawheretheA10andtheA11were
present.
1494.
confessionalstatementExt.1071aboutthe A4callinghiminthe
eveningnearLuckyHotelinBandrainthefirstweekofApril2006,
wherehemettheA3andtheA12andtheA11andA10werealso
there.
1495.
statementsExts.1230and1071respectivelyfurtherthattheytalked
forlonginthehouseoftheA3,thattheA3saidthatintheriotingin
Gujarat there was a considerable loss of lives and property of
Muslims,therefore,GujaratipeoplearetobetargetedinMumbai
anditwouldbepropertocauseexplosioninthefirstclassbogiesof
thelocaltrainsinMumbai,becausemostlyGujaratipeopletravelin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1630..
Ext.4825
them,thatitwouldbepropertocausetheexplosionsintheevening
timeonthewesternlineaseverybogieoflocaltrainsatthattimeis
jampackedandthathehasfinalizedallthese thingsaftertalking
withthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChimaofPakistan.BothA12
andA6furtherstatedthattheA3alsotoldthemthatthewanted
accusedno.1AzamChimaisgoingtosendsomeexpertPakistani
personstoIndiaforexecutingtheplanandtheA3toldtheA12that
hewouldbegivensomeresponsibilityatthattime,whichhewould
havetofulfillwithallabilityanditwasdecidedthattheworkof
preparingbombswillbedoneatthehouseoftheA6atGovandi.
TheA6inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1071statedthatthe A3
hadaskedhimtomakearrangementsforstayoftheexpertPakistani
personinhishouse,buthesaidnoashishouseissmall,thereupon
theA3toldhimthathishouse,i.e.,thehouseoftheA6wouldbe
usedfortheworkofpreparingthebombsandthathe,i.e.,theA6
consentedforthis.
1496.
confessionalstatementExt.1023,statedthattheA3toldallofthem
thatonthesayoftheISI,wantedaccusedno.1AzamChimahas
madeaplantocausebombexplosionsinthelocaltrainsinMumbai,
thatsomePakistaniguestswerecomingforexecutingtheplanand
requestedallofthemtohelphim,thatatthattimetheA3asked
him,i.e.,theA2abouttheelectriccircuitinbombsandhe,i.e.,the
A2toldhimthathehadtakingthetrainingofchemicalbombsand
doesnotknowanythingaboutelectriccircuit.Hefurtherstatedthat
theA13andtheA3decidedtocausebombexplosions,thatthere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1631..
Ext.4825
1497.
TheA3inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218,statedthat
1498.
TheA3alsostatedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218,
thatontheinstructionofthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChimafor
causing explosions in the local trains, the A13 started collecting
articlesthroughsomepersonsinMay,2006andasdecidedbyhim
he, i.e., the A13 kept all the articles in the house of the A6 at
Govandi.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1632..
Ext.4825
Inspectionofplaceusedforpreparingbombs:
1499.
Thereisanotherincidentaboutwhichtheprosecutionwas
notabletocollectevidence.ItisoftheA2,A3,A4andA12goingto
thehouseoftheA6atShivajiNagarinGovandiandsurveyingit.
TheA12statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1230,thatinthe
lastweekofApril,2006whichwasaSaturdayatabout8.30inthe
nighthe,theA4,A2andtheA3wenttothehouseoftheA6where
theyweretakenbytheA4asheknewitandtheretheyallwent
around the house of the A6 and surveyed it. The A6 in his
confessionalstatementExt.1071,hascorroboratedtheversionofthe
A12andstatedthattheyhadsocomeonthedayofSaturdayoflast
weekofApril,2006andhadsurveyedhishouse.
1500.
TheA7inhisconfessionalstatement,Ext.1037,statedthat
whenhecontactedtheA3inFebruary2006,theA3toldhimthathe
had talked with the wanted accused no.1 Azam Chima, who has
selectedlocaltrainsinMumbaiastargetsforbombexplosions,that
he came to know from the A3 that wanted accused no. 1 Azam
Chima was going to send some Pakistani terrorists and on the
instructionsoftheA3he,i.e.,theA7maintainedcontactwiththeA3
andtheA13.
1501.
TheA6inhisconfessionalstatement,Ext.1071,statedthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1633..
Ext.4825
placesalongwithsomeaccomplice,allhadsaidthattargetoflocal
trainsisthemostappropriate.
Specificreconnaissanceoffinalizedtarget:
1502.
TheA3statedinhisconfessionalstatementthathe,the
A4,A2,A11,A9andA10traveledinthelocaltrainsfromMumbaito
Virarandsurveyedthesituation,thathefoundthatitwouldbeeasy
tocauseexplosionsinrunninglocaltrainsatthetimeofcrowdand
decided that the evening time on working days for causing the
explosions would be proper, because at that time there is more
crowdinthetrainanditiseasytomixinthecrowd.
1503.
TheA4inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1060,statedthat
1504.
TheA2statedthattheyallhadarideinVirardowntrains,
thatthereisaheavyrushintheeveningonworkingdays,thatthe
A13 and A3decided to cause bombexplosions atthattime,that
therewereseveralmeetingsatthehouseoftheA3atBandraandhe
usedtoremainpresent,thatinthemeetingstheA3toldthemthat
theworkofpreparingbombswillbedoneinthehouseoftheA6in
ShivajiNagarandthatthearticlesrequiredforpreparingbombsare
keptbytheA13inthehouseoftheA6.
1505.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1634..
Ext.4825
thathekeptregularcontactwiththeA3andthencorroboratedthe
statementsmadebytheA3,A4andtheA2abouttravelinginthe
localtrainsfromMumbaitoViraralongwiththeA9andA10and
assessingthesituationandfindingthatthereismorecrowdinthe
eveningaftertheofficesclosedandthoughtthatitwouldbemore
easy to cause the bomb blasts in the local trains and they could
easilymingleinthecrowd.
1506.
TheA9inhisconfessionalstatementstatedthattheA3,
A10andotherswentaroundinSouthMumbaibuttheA3didnot
findanyplacetobeappropriate,therefore,theA3tookhim,i.e.,the
A9 and A4, A2, A10 and A11 and traveled in local trains from
ChurchgatetoVirarandfoundthatthetargetoftrainwasproperfor
explodingbombsinthecrowdandthattheyfeltthatthereisnorisk
ofbeingcaught.
1507.
HowtheA1cameinpossessionofRDX:
1508.
aboutwantedaccusedno.4HafizZubercomingtohisvillageinMay,
2006 and asking him to accompany him to Janakpur where he
wouldtalkwithhimandgivehimmoney,therefore,he,i.e.,theA1
wenttoJanakpurandtherewantedaccusedno.4HafizZubermade
himtalkwithSaifullaonphone,thatSaifullatoldhimthatwhenhe,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1635..
Ext.4825
i.e.,theA1wasarrestedinDelhi,he,i.e.,Saifullacouldnothelp
himashewasbusyandthenheaskedhim,i.e.,theA1totakeRs.
10,000/fromwantedaccusedno.15AbdulRehmanandreturnto
hisvillage,thatwantedaccusedno.15AbdulRehmangavehimRs.
10,000/andaplasticbagthatcontainedabouthalfkilogramblack
colouredpowder,thatheinquiredaboutitwiththewantedaccused
no.15AbdulRehman,whotoldhimthatitisRDXpowder,which
willbeusedformakingbombswhenitisnecessary,thathe,i.e.,the
A1thenreturnedtohisvillagewiththemoneyandtheRDXpowder
andhidthesaidbagcontainingRDXpowderbelowhiscot.
1509.
Prosecutionhasprovedbycogentoralanddocumentary
evidencethatRDXwasfoundinthehouseoftheA1atBasupatti,
districtMadhubani,Biharon20/07/06,whichisthecircumstance
no.7provedbytheprosecution.
Arrivalofwantedaccused,i.e.,PakistanisinMumbai:
1510.
TheA3inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218,statedthat
wantedaccusedno.1AzamChimasentsomePakistanipersonsto
Hindustan in May, 2006, that out of them, the A1 brought two
persons,i.e.,wantedaccusedno.6Aslamandwantedaccusedno.7
HafizullahfromtheNepalborder,thattheA5broughtsixPakistani
personsfromtheDhakaborderofBangladesh,i.e.,wantedaccused
no.8Sajid,wantedaccusedno.9AbuBakr,wantedaccusedno.10
KasamAli,wantedaccusedno.11Ammujan,WANo12Ehsanullah
andwantedaccusedno.13AbuHasan,thatthewantedaccusedno.
12Ehsanullahbrought15kgRDXwithhimwhilecoming.Hestated
thatwantedaccusedno.14AbdulRazzak,residentofHyderabad,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1636..
Ext.4825
whoisnowinPakistan,broughtthreePakistanipersonsfromKutch
borderofGujarat,viz,deceasedaccusedno.1Salimanddeceased
accusedno.2AbuUmedandwantedaccusedno.5SohailShaikh.
Hestatedthathehadkeptthewantedaccusedno.14and5andthe
twodeceased accused in his house atBandra and the A13made
arrangementsforthestayofthePakistanipersonsbroughtbythe
A5.
1511.
1512.
TheA5inhisconfessionalstatementExt.937,statedabout
hisstepbrotherMohd.AsifresidentofDhaka,Bangladeshvisiting
Kolkata to meet his stepuncle Mohd. Aslam and they roaming
aroundduringhisvisitsandMohd.Asifmakingalltheexpenditure,
thathehadcometoMumbaiin2001forsightseeingwithhisfriends
ofKolkata,thatinDecember,2001hisstepbrotherandhisfriends
from Bangladesh had come and they went for sightseeing for six
daystoDarjeelingandhefurtherstatedaboutMohd.Asif'svisitsin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1637..
Ext.4825
December2002and2003.Hefurtherstatedthathethendescribed
aboutfacilitatingcrossingofBangladeshborderofsomepersonson
theinstructionsofMohd.AsifinFebruary,2006andononemore
occasionthereafterandhegettingsomemoneyfromhim.Hefurther
statedthataftersomedayshisstepbrotherAsifcametoKolkotaand
methim,thatatthattimehetoldhimthatatrocitiesonMuslimsin
Indiahaveincreasedquitealotbutthegovernmenthasnottaken
anyactioninrespectofBabriMasjid,thattherehavebeenatrocities
onMuslimsintheriotsinGujarat,butthegovernmenthasnottaken
any action against the people responsible for this, therefore, it is
verynecessarytodojihadinHindustan,thathe,i.e.,theA5feltthat
whateverAsifwassayingisproperandexpressedhiswillingnessto
helpinthisgoodwork,thereupon,Asiftoldhimthatheisincontact
withwantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,commanderofLeTandhis
disciplewantedaccusedno.14AbdulRazzak.Hefurtherstatedthat
Asiftoldhimthatwantedaccusedno.1AzamChimaisgoingtosend
somePaksitanipersonsfromtheBangladeshborderforcausingabig
incidentinHindustan,thathecametoknowfromAsifthatsome
personsofMumbaiareworkingonthisontheinstructionsofthe
wantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,thatoutofthemA13andA3are
the main coordinators, that on the instructions of the wanted
accusedno.1AzamChimahe,i.e.,theA5remainedincontactwith
theA3andtheA13.HestatedthathecametoknowinMay,2006
fromtheA3andtheA13thatlocaltrainsinMumbai havebeen
decidedasthetargetsforthebombblastsandhe,i.e.,theA5was
given the responsibility of bringing six persons sent by wanted
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1638..
Ext.4825
accusedno.1AzamChimafromtheBangladeshborderinHindustan
andhandthemovertotheA13andA3inMumbai,thathewas
warnednottokeephismobilephonewithhim.Hestatedthathe
requiredthehelpofKalluforthiswork,whosehelphehadtakenfor
similartransactions earlier,therefore,hecontactedKalluandalso
told his partner Mohd. Shakil, (i.e., PW70) to help if the need
arises.
1513.
TheA5statedinhisconfessionalstatement,Ext.937,that
thesaidKallutoldhiminthesecondweekofMay,2006thatheis
goingtobringsixPakistanipersonstoBongaonmarketbycrossing
theBangladeshborderuptoBongaonborderandtoldhimthatthose
peoplearebeingsentasperthedirectionsofthewantedaccusedno.
1AzamChimaandthattheyaretobetakentoMumbaiandhewas
requiredtogotoBongaonforthosePakistanipersons,therefore,he
askedMohd.Shakil,(i.e.,PW70),toaccompanyhimtowhichhe
consented.HestatedthatonthenextdayheandMohd.Shakil,(i.e.,
PW70), went by railway to Bongaon and from there by taxi to
Bongaonmarket,that aftersometimeKallucametherewithsix
Pakistanipersons,whose nameshe toldas wantedaccusedno.8
Sabir, wanted accused no.9 Abu Bakar, wanted accused no. 10
KasamAli,wantedaccusedno.11Ammujan,wantedaccusedno.13
Abu Hsan and wanted accused no. 12 Ehsanullah, that all the
wantedaccusedhadtheirownbagswiththem,butwantedaccused
no.12hadadifferentbigsuitcaselikebagandhetoldhim,i.e.,the
A5thatthereisaRDXinthebigbagandithastobetakencarefully
to Mumbai. He stated that thereafter they all reached Kolkata,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1639..
Ext.4825
Mohd.Shakil,(i.e.,PW70),wenttohishouseandonthenextday
he, i.e., the A5 reached the six Pakistani persons, i.e., wanted
accusedno.8to13toMumbaibyrailwayandasdecidedmetthe
A13atMiraRoad,thattheA13tookthemtotheoffice ofSIMI,
where he, i.e., the A5 also halted for one night and returned to
KolkataandtheA13toldhimtoremainincontact.
1514.
is the 8
additionalcircumstanceprovedbytheprosecution.
1515.
TheA2inhisconfessionalstatement,Ext.1023,statedthat
hehadseenfivePakistaniguestsinthehouseoftheA3atBandra,
thattheA3introducedthemtohimandalsotoldhimthattheyare
membersofLeT.
1516.
TheA4corroboratedthestatementsmadebyalltheabove
accused,butbeforethathestatedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.
1060,thatwhenhehadmettheA3atBandraStationinAugust,
2005,atthattimetheA3hadtoldhimthatontakingstockofthe
situationduringthetraininginPakistan,hehadunderstoodthatall
thetrainingcampsconductedinPakistanarecontrolledbytheISI
and are conducted as per their directions, that the attack on
Ayodhya Mandir was done on the directions of ISI by LeT and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1640..
Ext.4825
1517.
TheA6inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1071,statedthat
ononedayinJune,2006theA3hadcalledhimtoLuckyhotelin
Bandra (W) and told him that as decided Pakistani persons had
cometoIndiaandthentoldhimthattheworkofpreparingbombs
wouldbedoneathishouse,etc.
1518.
TheA7inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1037statedthat
ontheinstructionsofwantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,theA1and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1641..
Ext.4825
1519.
abouthe,theA3andA6havinganoutinginthethirdweekofJune,
2006andhesleepinginthehouseoftheA3wherehesawsome
Pakistani persons on that day and on the next day also, i.e., on
27/06/06,thatonthenextdaytheA3toldhimthathishouseisnot
sufficient,thatrepeatedvisitsofpeoplehaveincreasedbecauseof
whichthepeopleofthebuildingmayhavedoubtandforthisreason
itisnecessarytoshiftsomePakistanipersonswhoarestayinginhis
house to some other place, that therefore, he, i.e., the A3 has
arrangedforthestayofsomeoutofthePakistanipersonsatMillat
NagarthroughtheA13.Hefurtherstatedthatonthenextdaythe
A3askedhimtoaccompanyhimtoMillatNagarandenroutetheA3
toldhimthattheyaregoingtomeetthePakistanipersons,whoare
shiftedfromhishouse.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1520.
..1642..
Ext.4825
Theprosecution hasprovedbycogentevidencethatthe
1521.
thathewenttothehouseoftheA3inLuckyVilla,PerryCrossRoad,
Bandra(W)inthefirstweekofJuly,2006onbeingcalledbytheA3,
thatatthattime45morepersonscamethere,whomhedidnot
knowandtheyweretalkingwiththeA3andonseeinghimthey
stopped the talk and left from there after 510 minutes, that
thereafteronheinquiringwiththeA3aboutthem,theA3toldhim
thattheywereguestswhohavecomefromPakistan,thatwiththeir
helptheyaregoingtocauseabigbombexplosioninMumbaiand
theyhavecomeforthosepreparations,thatatthattimetheA13was
alsopresentthereandgavehim,i.e.,A10,Rs.5,000/.
TheA3statedinhisconfessionalstatement,Ext.1218,that
wantedaccusedno.1AzamChimasent11200Riyalsforexecuting
theexplosionswithAbdulRehmanDawrey(i.e.,PW71),brotherof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1643..
Ext.4825
wantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey,however,beforehe,i.e.,the
A3couldgetthemoney,hewascaughtandhecametoknowlater
onthatpolicehadseizedtheRiyalsduringtheinquiry.
1523.
Prosecutionhasprovedbycogent,oralanddocumentary
evidencethatwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreyhadsent11200
SaudiRiyalson14/07/06forbeinghandedovertotheA3andthey
were seized on 30/07/06, which is the circumstance no. 26
provedbytheprosecution.
1524.
TheA3inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218,statedthat
wantedaccusedno.1AzamChimahadsent15000Riyalstohim
duringthebombexplosionsforthepurposeofmeetingtheexpenses
aftertheexplosions,thathe,i.e.,theA3keptthemoneyinhishouse
afterhereceiveditandhewastogivethemoneytothepersonswho
had executed the explosions, however, as there was tight police
bandobastaftertheblastsandtherewasnakabandiandcheckingin
everysquare,hethoughtitfittokeepthemoneywithhimandto
giveittothepersonsafterthemattercoolsdown,however,police
caughthimon27/07/06andseizedthemoneyduringinquiry.
1525.
TheA9inhisconfessionalstatement,Ext.924,statedthat
wantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreycontactedhimonhismobile
phonefromSaudiArabiainMay,2006andtoldhimthattheA3had
askedforanamountof15000Riyals,whichhewouldbesending
from Saudi Arabia with an acquaintance by name Hidayatulla
Sundke,(i.e.PW64),toPuneandwantedaccusedno.2Rizwan
Dawreygavehimthemobilenumberofthesaidpersonandasked
himtocontacthim.HefurtherstatedthatinMayitselfhetoldthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1644..
Ext.4825
A3aboutthe15000Riyalsthatwouldbesentbywantedaccused
no.2 Rizwan Dawrey, thereupon the A3 told him that he knows
aboutitandtoldhimthatHidayatullaSundke,(i.e.,PW64),came
from Saudi and reached Pune on 02/07/06. He stated that from
BangalorehecontactedHidayatullaSundke,(i.e.,PW64),andtold
himtogivetheRiyalstoBilalShaikh,(i.e.,PW66),hisrelative,that
hecalledBilalShaikhandgavehimthemobilenumbergivenby
wanted accused no.2 Rizwan Dawrey and instructed him to take
15000RiyalsfromHidayatullaSundke,(i.e.,PW64),whohadcome
fromSaudiArabiaandgivethemtohisanotherrelative Mohsin
Khan,(i.e.,PW67), living in Pune,thataccordingly Bilal Shaikh,
(i.e.,PW66),tookthesaidRiyalsfromHidayatullaon05/07/06,
thatA3contactedBilalandinstructedhimtogivethesaidRiyalsto
anotherrelativebynameMohsinKhan,(i.e.,PW67),ofPune,that
BilalShaikh,(i.e.,PW66),gavethesaid15000RiyalstoMohsin,
(i.e., PW67), that Mohsin, (i.e., PW67), came to Mumbai from
Punetomeethisfather,whowasadmittedintheJJHospitaland
broughttheSaudiRiyalswithhimandtheA3collecteditfromhim
intheJJHospital.Thus,hehascorroboratedthestatementsmade
bytheA3.
1526.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1645..
Ext.4825
25provedbytheprosecution.Prosecutionhasalsoprovedthatthe
foreigncurrency,i.e.,the15000SaudiRiyalsseizedfromtheA3and
11200SaudiRiyals,bothofwhichweresentforhimbythewanted
accusedno.2RizwanDawrey,wasacontraventionoftheprovisions
oftheFEMAAct,whichisthecircumstanceno.27provedbythe
prosecution. Prosecution has proved by cogent evidence that the
wantedaccusedno.1AzamChimarenderedfinancialassistanceto
the A3, which is the circumstance no. 19 proved by the
prosecution.
FixingofDday,i.e.,dateforcausingthebombexplosions
and accused being in contact with each other and
discussing about the conspiracy for causing the bomb
blasts:
1527.
TheA3inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218,statedthat
11th Julywasfixedasthedateforexecutingthework,thatbefore
thatitwasdecidedtopreparethebombsatthehouseoftheA6,that
the A4,A2,A13,A6and some other persons were in continuous
contactwithhim,thatsometimestheyusedtocomeathishouseat
Bandraformeetingandthatsomesuchmeetingswereheldinthe
houseoftheA7atMiraRoad.
1528.
TheA4inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1060,statedthat
theA3toldallofthemthat11/07/06hasbeendecidedforcausing
thebombexplosionsandthatwhenitwasplannedtopreparethe
bombs,atthattimeitwasdecidedthatthebombswillbeprepared
atthehouseoftheA6atGovandi.
1529.
TheA6inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1060,statedthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1646..
Ext.4825
theA3toldhimthatthepreparationsforbombexplosionshavebeen
completed,thatotherthanhim,i.e.,theA6,theA13,A12,A7,A4,
A11,A2,A10andA9werehelpinginexecutingthiswork.TheA6
furtherstatedthattheA3hadalsosaidthatitwasdecidedthatthe
bombexplosionsaretobedoneintheeveningon11/07/06,that
accordingly a complete plan is being prepared,that the complete
planning of bomb explosions was done by A3 and A13 on the
instructionsofwantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,commanderofL
eT.TheA7inhisconfessionalstatement,Ext.1037,statedthatthey
haddecidedtocausethebombexplosionsintheeveningon11th
JulyinthetrainsinwesternlinegoingfromChurchgatetoVirar.
1530.
TheA9inhisconfessionalstatementExt.924,statedthat
theA3toldhimthat11thJulyhasbeenfixedforcausingthebomb
explosions and that for that purpose wanted accused no.1 Azam
ChimawassendingseveralmenfromPakistan,thattheA3alsotold
himtobereadyfordoinganyworkandifnecessary,hishelpwould
betaken.
1531.
thatwhenhehadgonetoMumbaitothehouseoftheA3forgetting
moremoney,theA3hadtoldhimthatthebombsareready,that
theywoulddothebombexplosionsinthelocalrailwayinMumbai
on11/07/06,thatifthereissomeworkthathe,i.e.,theA10cando,
hewouldbetoldaboutitandheshouldbereadyforit.
1532.
thattheA3askedhimaboutfittingtimerdevicesinsidethebombs,
thathetoldtheA3thatalongtimehaspassedsincehehadtaken
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1647..
Ext.4825
the training and he does not remember about it. He stated that
whenhemettheA3on10/07/06,theA3toldhimthatthebombs
havebeenpreparedandaccordingtotheplantheexplosionswill
takeplaceon11th Julyinlocaltrainsandfurthertoldhimthathe
shouldbereadyathisownplaceandhe,i.e.,theA3willtellhim
anyworkofhiscaliberincaseofemergency.
1533.
thattheA3methimat5.30intheeveningon30/06/06atNarendra
ParkinMiraRoad,wheretheA3introducedhimtoA7,stayingat
MiraRoadanddoingtheworkofrepairingmobilesandelectronic
remote.HestatedthathereachedthehouseoftheA3atBandrain
theeveningon07/07/06andtheywentinthecaroftheA3tothe
SeashoreofCarterRoad,wheretheA2,A4andA11werealready
standingandtherewasonemorepersonthere,whomhesawforthe
firsttime,whowasintroducedtohimastheA1KamalAnsariof
Bihar,thattheyalldiscussedaboutthe conspiracyof causingthe
bombblasts.
TheA3inhisconfessionalstatementstatedthatthework
ofpreparingthebombswasdoneatthehouseoftheA6atShivaji
NagarinGovandion8th,9thand10/07/06,thattheactualworkof
assembling the bombs was done by wanted accused no. 5 Sohail
Shaikh,whohadcomefromPakistan,bytheA7andtwoPakistani
persons,thattheA7hadashopofmobilerepairingatJogeshwari,
becauseofwhichhehadknowledgeofelectroniccircuits,thatthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1648..
Ext.4825
A4wassupervisingtheentireworkofpreparingbombsandtoldthe
A3thatwantedaccusedno.5SohailShaikhandtheA7haddone
the work of preparing the bombs and he further stated that the
sevenbagscontainingbombswerebroughttohisBandrahouseand
keptthereon10/07/06.TheA3statedthataspertheinstructionsof
thewantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,sevenpairsconsistingofone
Pakistaniandonelocalpersonwereformedforplantingthebombs,
thathe,i.e.,theA3wasoneofthelocalpersonandthePakistani
person with him was wanted accused no. 9 Abu Bakr, that he
remembersthattheA4,A12,A1andA7wereamongsttheother
persons.
1535.
thattheA3calledhimtohishouseatBandraon08/07/06inthe
morning and when he reached there the A7 and two Pakistani
personswerealreadythere,thathetookallthesepersonsinthecar
oftheA3tothehouseoftheA6atGovandiandwhentheyreached
Govandi,theyfoundtheA2,A4andA6presentthere.Hestatedthat
asdecidedtheA7andtwoPakistanipersonswentinsidethehouse
of the A6, that he came to know that the name of one of the
Pakistanipersonsis Sohail ShaikhofPune,butwhois staying in
Pakistanwherehehastakenmilitanttrainingofterrorismandarms
andisanexpertinpreparingbombs,thatthereafterheandtheA3
returnedtothehouseoftheA3atBandrawherehehaltedandin
thatnighthe,theA3andsomePakistanipersonstalkedaboutjihad
and tehrik upto late night, that there were again discussions
betweenthemon09/07/06intheafternoonabouttheexplosionsin
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1649..
Ext.4825
thelocaltrain,thatatthattimetheA3openlytoldhimabouthis
responsibility saying that after the bombs are prepared the bags
containingthebombsaretobecarefullybroughtfromGovandito
hishouseatBandra,thathe,i.e.,theA12wouldbegiventhebag
containingbombsatabout3.30or4.00intheafternoonon11thJuly
andtherewouldbeaPakistaniperson,i.e.,deceasedaccusedno.2
AbuUmed@AbuOsamawithhim.HestatedthattheA3further
toldhimthathe,i.e.,theA12hastogowiththePakistanipersonin
taxitoChurchgateandreachplatformno.2withthebagcontaining
thebombandhe,i.e.,theA12hastheresponsibilityofkeepingthe
bagcontainingthebombinthefirstclassbogieintheBorivalislow
train that would be leaving at quarter to six in the evening. He
stated that the A3 also told him that it would be risky for those
personswhoaregoingforkeepingbombsinthelocaltrainstokeep
theirmobileswiththem,therefore,itwasdecidedthatnoonewould
keepmobileswithhim. HestatedthatforthatreasontheA3told
himtogivehismobiletotheA7,whowouldbestandingnearthe
signalnearLuckyHotelinBandraat3.30intheafternoonon11th
JulyandtocollectthemobilefromtheA7bygoingtoMiraRoadin
thenight.
1536.
thatasdecidedheandtheA3wentbycartothehouseoftheA6in
thenightof10/07/06,thattillthattimetheworkofpreparingthe
bombswasover,thataspertheplanallthesevenbagscontaining
thebombsweretobereachedtothehouseoftheA3,thattheykept
fourbagscontainingthebombsinthecaroftheA3andremaining
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1650..
Ext.4825
1537.
TheA2statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1023that
hewentwiththeA4tothehouseoftheA6atShivajiNagaron8th,
9thand10thJuly,theA7andtwoPaksitaniswerethere,outofwhom
onewaswantedaccusedno.5SohailShaikhandtheA7andthose
twowerepreparing bombsandthe A4toldhimtokeepawatch
outside the house of the A6. He stated that on 10/07/06 in the
eveningsevenbagscontainingbombsweretakenfromthehouseof
theA6tothehouseoftheA3atBandra,thathe,i.e.,theA2had
seenthosebagswhenhehadgonetothehouseoftheA3inthe
night of the same day, that the A3 told him that seven pairs of
plantersareformedtoplantthebagscontainingthebombsinthe
train,thattheA3alsoaskedhimtobereadyon11/07/06andthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1651..
Ext.4825
hemaybecalledifitisnecessaryandthenhewasaskedtogofrom
there.
1538.
documentaryevidencethattheA9hadpurchasedaMarutiCarNo.
MH01V9568 on 04/06/06 and was handed over its possession,
which is the circumstance no. 14 proved by the prosecution.
Prosecution has also proved that on 22/10/06 the said car was
seizedattheinstanceoftheA12,thattherewereblackspotsinthe
car, which were found to contain Cyclonite (RDX), Petroleum
HydrocarbonoilandcharcoalandalsoAmmonium,Nitrate,Nitrite,
th
whichisthe15circumstanceprovedbytheprosecution
1539.
TheA4inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1060statedthat
theworkofpreparingbombswasdoneon8th,9thand10thJulyatthe
houseoftheA6atGovandi,thattheworkofpreparingbombswas
donebywantedaccusedno.5SohailShaikhandbytheA7andone
morePakistaniperson,thatRDX,AmmoniumNitrate,Diesel,9Volts
BatteryandaQuartzwatchwasusedforpreparingthebombs.He
statedthattheA13andwantedaccusedno.11andoneParvezwere
present, that he, i.e., the A4 was supervising the preparations of
bombs, that the A2 was present and was on watch outside for
security,thatthebombswerekeptinthesevenbagsandthoseseven
bagsweretakentothehouseoftheA3atBandraintheeveningon
10/07/06.
1540.
TheA6inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1071statedthat
whenhewenttoLuckyhotelinBandra(W)ascalledbytheA3in
June2006,theA3toldhimthattheworkofpreparingbombswould
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1652..
Ext.4825
bedoneathis,i.e.,theA6'shouseon8th,9thand10thJuly,thathe
shouldkeeptheentirehouseempty,thattherefore,bytellingsome
reasons,he,i.e.,theA6senthisbrotherandfamilyon7thJulytothe
houseofhisrelativeatRafiqNagarfor56days.Hestatedthatas
pertheplantheA3,A12,A7andtwoPakistanipersonscametohis
houseintheeveningon8th July,thatoneofthePakistanipersons
wasthewantedaccusedno.5SohailShaikh,residentofPune,but
staying in the training camp of LeT in Pakistan and expert in
making bomb, that on that day those people did the work of
preparing bomb in late night, that the A4 was present and was
makingarrangementsoffoodforallandtheA2waskeptoutsidethe
houseonwatch.
1541.
Prosecutionhasprovedbycogentevidencethatafewdays
beforetheblasts,theA2andA4wereoutsidethehouseoftheA6,
whowasalsopresent,whichisthecircumstanceno.18provedby
theprosecution.ItisalsoheldthattheA2hastakenafalsepleaof
alibiabouthebeingcontinuouslyathisplaceofworkintheSaboo
th
Siddhiqui Hospital on 8th, 9th and 10/07/06, which
is the 4
additionalcircumstanceagainstalltheaccused. Itisalsoheld
thattheA7hastakenafalsepleaofalibiabouthebeingathisshop
th
at Jogeshwari on 08/07/06 and 10/07/06, which
is the 5
additionalcircumstanceagainstalltheaccused.Itisheldthatthe
A4hastakenafalsepleaofalibiabouthebeingatMiraRoadon8 th
and 10/07/06 and at Mumbra on 09/07/06 for the whole day,
th
whichisthe6additionalcircumstanceagainstalltheaccused.
ItisheldthattheA6hasgivenafalsestorythathisandhistwo
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1653..
Ext.4825
is the 7
additional circumstance
1542.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1654..
Ext.4825
1543.
1071,thataftersometimetheA3andA12cameintheMaruticarof
theA3,thattheykeptfourbagsintheMarutiCarandhehireda
taxi and kept three bags in them and he, wanted accused no. 5
SohailShaikhandaPakistanipersonwentinthattaxitothehouse
oftheA3atBandrawheretheA3andtheA12reachedintheircar
andsevenbagscontainingthebombsandweretakentothehouse
of the A3 and kept there with the help of some more Pakistani
persons,whohadgotdownfromthehouseoftheA3.
1544.
TheA7statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1037,that
1545.
TheA7furtherstatedinhisconfessionalstatement,Ext.
1037,thatasdirectedbytheA3,hewenttothehouseoftheA3at
about1.00p.m.on08/07/06takingwithhimalltheinstruments
necessaryforpreparingfortimerdevices,thathesawfourPakistani
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1655..
Ext.4825
personsinthehouseoftheA3,thattheA12alsoreachedthereafter
sometimeandasdirectedbytheA3,thetwoPakistanipersonsand
he,i.e.,theA7wenttothehouseoftheA6bythecaroftheA3
drivenbytheA12.HestatedthatoneofthePakistanipersonwas
thewantedaccusedno.5SohailShaikh,residentofPune,butnow
stayinginPakistan,whohadundergonejihaditrainingandobtained
expertiseinpreparingbombs.Hestatedthatasperthe plan,the
bombswerepreparedon8th,9th and10/07/06inthehouseofthe
A6 at Govandi, that household utensils were used for preparing
bombs,thatwantedaccusedno.5SohailShaikhandonePakistani
personpreparedthemixtureforsevenbombswiththehelpofRDX,
AmmoniumNitrateanddieselandfitteddetonatorsinit,thathe
preparedtimerdeviceforwhichpurposehepreparedconnectionby
piecesofwiresonthecircuitboardandfittedthetimerdeviceson
sevendifferentbombs.HestatedthattheA4waspresentthere,the
A2waskeepingvigiloutsidethehouseoftheA6,thatduringthat
periodhe,i.e.,theA7hadatalkwiththeA4aboutwhattheHome
MinisterofMaharashtrahadsaidaboutthenewsofanincidentthat
hadtake place in Bhivandi,viz.,It kajawabgolisedenge,that
becauseofthisnewstheyallbecameangryandexcited,thattheA4
ridiculedthenewsitemandsaidthattheywouldalsogivethereply
togolibybombsintwodays.Hefurtherstatedthatbombswere
prepareduptolatenighton10/07/06andpackedinsevenseparate
bags,thattheA6,A12andtheA3transportedthesevenbagstothe
houseoftheA3,thattheA13tooktheremainingarticlesoutofthe
articlesthathehadbroughtforpreparingthebombs,thatasperthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1656..
Ext.4825
planhewastoldthatitwouldberiskyforthosewhowouldbegoing
forkeepingthebombsinthelocaltrainstokeepmobileswiththem,
therefore,itwasdecidedthatnobodyshouldkeepmobilewithhim.
He stated that because of the above reason the A13 told him to
reachthesignalnearLuckyHotelinBandraat3.30intheafternoon
andA12wouldgivehismobiletohimon11th Julyatthattime,
whichheshouldkeepwithhim.
1546.
1547.
documentaryevidencethatCyclonite(RDX)wasfoundon28/07/06
in the Flat no. 24, 3rd floor, Lucky Villa, A building, Perry Cross
Road,CarterRoad,Bandra(W),Mumbaithatwasinthepossession
of the A3, which the circumstance no. 8 proved by the
prosecution.
1548.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1657..
Ext.4825
board,Art334,canbeusedtoformatriggeringdevice, whichis
thecircumstanceno.12provedbytheprosecution.
1549.
ProsecutionhasprovedthattheA13wasresidinginflat
no.101,'A'wing,PoonamParkapartment,NayaNagar,MiraRoad,
thaton09/10/06athisinstancefollowingarticlesarerecovered:
(i) a rexine bag, Art279, the blackish oily lumps in which were
found to contain RDX (Cyclonite), Charcoal and Petroleum
hydrocarbon oil, (ii) 2.700 kilograms white granules, Art284, in
which Ammonium Nitrate radicals were detected and (iii) 10
aluminumtubesjoinedwithwires,Arts.281and282(colly.)which
wereprovedtobelivedetonators, whichisthecircumstanceno.
13provedbytheprosecution.
PLANTINGOFBOMBS:
1550.
TheA3statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218,that
on11/07/06allpairsstartedfromBandrainbetween3.00p.m.to
4.00p.m.byseparatetaxisforgoingtoChurchgate,thatheandthe
wantedaccusedno.9AbuBakrstartedsimilarly,thatnooneoutof
them hadkepttheirmobileswiththemasallweresoinstructed,
thatallpairsonebyonewenttotheeastsideoftheChurchgate
stationandaspertheplancametotheplatformscomingoutofthe
subwaywiththebombladenbags,thateachpairkeptthebagsin
differentlocalsaspertheplanandthatitwasdecidedthatafterthe
bagswerekeptinthetrains,theyhavetotravelinthesamebogie
andgetdownafterMumbaiCentral.Hestatedthathealongwith
the wanted accused no. 9 Abu Bakr boarded the first class
compartmentofthedecidedtrain,thataspertheplanhehadto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1658..
Ext.4825
keepthebagontherackabovetheseat,buttherackswerefullof
luggage,therefore,hekeptthebombladenbagbelowaseat,that
thereafter,heandwantedaccusedno.9AbuBakrtraveledinthe
samecompartmentuptoDadarandgotdownatDadar,thatthere
wasaheavycrowdatDadar,becauseofwhichtheyfaceddifficulty
ingettingdown,thataftergettingdownhetookwantedaccusedno.
9 Abu Bakr to his house at Bandra and as per the plan wanted
accused no. 9 Abu Bakar himself caught a bus and went out of
Bombay.
1551.
11/07/06theA3alongwithonemorepersonhadtraveledinataxi
fromCarterRoad,Bandraatabout3.30or4.00p.m.toasubwayof
ChurchgateRailwayStation,reachedthereatabout5.00p.m.and
thattheywerecarryingablackcolouredbagwiththemthatwasof
rexine, which is the circumstance no. 1 proved by the
prosecution.Prosecutionhasalsoprovedthaton11/07/06theA3
hadkeptablackcolouredbaginthefirstclasscompartmentinthe
5.36p.m.ChurchgateBorivalislowtrainatChurchgateandhewas
accompaniedbyonemoreperson,whichisthecircumstanceno.4
provedbytheprosecution.
1552.
TheA1inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1188,statedthat
wantedaccusedno.15AbdulRehmantoldhimon9thJulythathe
hastoreachthehouseoftheA7inMiraRoad,Mumbaiatanycost,
thattherehehastoexecuteabigworkofLeTcommander,wanted
accused no.1 Azam Chima with the help of WA No. 6 Aslam,
wantedaccusedno.7HafizullaandtheA7inMumbai,therefore,he
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1659..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
1553.
..1660..
Ext.4825
Prosecutionhasprovedthaton11/07/06theA1hadkept
abigrexinebaginthefirstclasscompartmentinthe5.57p.m.Virar
fasttrainatChurchgateandhewasaccompaniedbyaperson,who
didnotgetdownatDadar,whichisthecircumstanceno.3proved
bytheprosecution.ItisheldthattheA1hastakenafalsepleaof
alibiaboutbeingathisnativeplaceon10thand11/07/06,whichis
thesecondadditionalcircumstanceagainsttheaccused.
1554.
documentaryevidencethatanunidentifiedbodythatwasfoundat
thesiteoftheMatungablastwasthatofdeceasedaccusedno.1
Salim, a Pakistani national, which is the circumstance no. 41
provedbytheprosecution.
1555.
TheA4inhisconfessionalstatement,statedthattheA3
askedhimtocomeonthenextdayafternoon,i.e.,on11/07/06and
theA3hadaskedhimnottobringhismobile,thataccordinglyhe
reachedthehouseoftheA3at3.30p.m.,that10/12personswere
presentthere,thattheA3gavehimabagcontainingbombandgave
apersonwithhim,i.e.,thewantedaccusedno.11Ammujanand
askedhimtogetacab,gotoChurchgateandkeepthebagonthe
luggage rack on the first class compartment of the train going
towards Virar at about 1715 hours. He stated that as per the
instructionsoftheA3heandthewantedaccusedno.11Ammujan
caught a taxi, went to Churchgate railway station, took two first
classticketsforVirar,thatatthattimeafastlocaltrainforVirarwas
onplatformno.3andwastodepartat1719hours,thatheand
wanted accused no. 11 Ammujan boarded the front first class
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1661..
Ext.4825
compartmentofthetraintakingtheblackbagcontainingthebomb
andhe, i.e., the A4 placediton the luggage rack andtheyboth
stayedinthecompartment,thataspertheplantheybothwentupto
DadarRailwayStationandgotdownthereandthenwentbytaxito
thehouseoftheA8atMumbra.
1556.
11/07/06theA4hadablackrexinebagwithhimwhenheboarded
thefirstclasscompartmentofthe5.19VirartrainatChurchgateand
that he was accompanied by one more person and they had got
downatDadaremptyhanded, which is thecircumstanceno.5
provedbytheprosecution.ItisheldthattheA4hastakenafalse
rd
pleaofalibiaboutbeingatMiraRoadon11/07/06,whichisthe3
additionalcircumstanceagainstalltheaccused.
1557.
Prosecutionhasprovedbycogentoralanddocumentary
evidencethattheA4hasbeenidentifiedinthetestidentification
parade as having boarded the 5.19 Virar train at Churchgate on
11/07/06withablackrexinebag,thattherewasonemoreperson
withhimandbothgotdownatDadarwithoutthebag, whichis
thecircumstanceno.42provedbytheprosecution.
1558.
thathestartedgoingtothehouseoftheA3atBandraon11/07/06,
thatatthattimehereceivedacallfromtheA3remindinghimto
givehismobiletotheA7nearLuckyHotel,thathe gotdownat
BandrastationandasinstructedbytheA3gavehismobiletotheA7
inbetweennearLuckyHotel,andreachedthehouseoftheA3at
aboutquarterpastfour.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1559.
..1662..
Ext.4825
1560.
TheA12statedfurtherinhisconfessionalstatementExt.
1230,thatasdecidedtheA3gavehimabagcontainingbomband
asked him to go to Churchgate with Abu Umed, i.e., deceased
accusedno.2,thatthereafterhetookthebagcontainingbomb,got
down with the deceased accused no. 2 Abu Umed, took a taxi
keepingthebagcontainingthebombonaseatnearhim,reached
Churchgateatabout5.30p.m.,leftthetaxi,crossedtheroad,went
toChurchgatestation,purchasedtwofirstclasstickets,boardedthe
firstclassbogieoftheBorivalislowlocalthatwasontheplatform
no.2,thatbeforesittinghekeptthebagcontainingthebombonthe
luggagerack.Hestatedthatasthetrainwentaheadthecrowdin
thebogieincreased,butaspertheplantheygotdownattheDadar
station and after coming out of the station they started for Mira
Roadbytaxi,thatenrouteheleftdeceasedaccusedno.2AbuUmed
nearthehouseoftheA3andhewentaheadtoMiraRoad.Hestated
thatbeforereachingMiraRoadhecametoknowfromthesituation
outside that there were bomb blasts in the local trains, that on
reachingMiraRoadhecollectedhismobilefromtheA7whotold
himthathehadalsocametoknowofthenewsofthebombblasts.
TheA7inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1037,statedthatthereafter
hereturnedbytraintoMiraRoad,thatlateintheeveninghecame
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1663..
Ext.4825
toknowaboutthebombblastsinthelocaltrains,thatasdecided
theA12cametoMiraRoadandcollectedhismobilefromhimand
left.
1561.
11/07/06,theA13alongwithonemorepersonhadtraveledinataxi
from Perry Cross Road, Bandra at about 3.15 to 3.30 p.m. to a
subwayofChurchgateRailwayStation,reachingthereatabout4.45
or5.00p.m.andthattheywerecarryingablackheavybagwith
them, which is the circumstance no. 2 proved by the
prosecution.Prosecutionhasalsoprovedbycogentevidencethat
on11/07/06,theA13hadkeptablackcolouredbaghavingchainin
the firstclass compartment of the 5.37 p.m. Virar fast local at
Churchgateandhewasaccompaniedbyonemoreperson,whichis
thecircumstanceno.6provedbytheprosecution.Itisheldthat
theA13hastakenafalsepleaofalibiaboutbeingathisworkplace
st
on9th,10thand11/07/06,whichisthe1
additionalcircumstance
provedbytheprosecution.
WantedaccusedwhohadcomefromPakistansafelygoing
outofMumbai:
1562.
TheA3inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218,statedthat
aftertheblastsallPakistanipersons,i.e.,wantedaccused,remained
stayedattheplaces where theyhadstayedandonebyone they
went by bus out of Mumbai to other cities and from there by
catching different trains went to Pakistan, that he came to know
lateronthatoutofthepairoftheA13anddeceasedaccusedno.1
Salim,thedeceasedaccusedno.1Salimcouldnotgetdownontime
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1664..
Ext.4825
1563.
TheA4inhisconfessionalstatementstatedthatafterhe
reachedthehouseoftheA8,fourmorePaksitanis,i.e.,thewanted
accused who had executed the conspiracy came there halted for
about23hoursandwentoutsideMumbaibybus.
1564.
TheA1statedinhisconfessionalstatementExt.1118,that
afteralightingfromthetraintheyallthreereachedthehouseofthe
A7atMiraRoadbychangingbuses,thathedroppedthewanted
accused no. 6 Aslam and wanted accused no. 7 Hafizulla at the
house of the A7, returned to Dadar railway station by changing
buses,thatfromDadarCentralStationhetookatrainandreached
KalyanandcaughtKalyanPatnatrainat1.00hoursinthenightand
reachedPatnaonthenextdayfromwherebybushereachedtohis
villageon13/07/06.
1565.
TheA5statedinhisconfessionalstatement,Ext.937,that
hegotamessagefromMumbaiinthefirstweekofJuly,2006that
hehastoreachMumbaiatanycoston10/07/06,thataccordingly
he reached there andthe A13 receivedhim andtook him tothe
houseoftheA8,aSIMIpersoninMumbraareaoutsideMumbaiand
advised him to stay there and to take those Pakistani wanted
accusedpersonswhomhehadbroughtinHindustanbycrossingthe
Bangladeshborder,backtoBangladeshbythesameway.Hestated
thatasinstructedthePakistaniwantedaccusedno.8to13methim
inthelatenighton11/07/06,outofwhomonehadbeenbrought
therebytheA4,thathetookthemfirstbybustoGujaratandfrom
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1665..
Ext.4825
therebytraintheyallreachedKolkataandthroughKalluhereached
theminBangladeshbycrossingtheIndiaborder.Itisheldthatthe
A5hastakenafalsepleaofalibiabouthebeingatKolkataon10th,
th
11th and 12/07/06, which
is the 9
additional circumstance
provedbytheprosecution.
1566.
concoctedandarefalseandarepreparedbytheATSofficers.Ifso,
howcomethereareafewinconsistenciesintheirconfessions?Are
theinconsistenciesalsoconcocted?Idonotthinkso.Perceptionand
memories of different persons vary and the reproduction of a
particular fact may also vary. Therefore, the inconsistencies and
contradictions, if any, inter alia mean that they are natural and
cannotbeconcoctionbytheATSofficers,becauseifitisso,then
there would not have been such type of inconsistencies or
contradictions. They would have made efforts to make them
watertight. One of the inconsistency is about A3 stating in his
confessionalstatementthatsevenpairsconsistingofonePakistani
andonelocalpersonwereformedforplantingthebombs,which
included him and wanted accused no. 9 Abu Bakr and he
remembered that A4, A12, A1 and A7 were amongst the other
persons. Thus, he has wrongly stated about the A7 and has not
statedabouttheA13.However,theissueabouttheA7issortedout
bytheA12andA7intheirconfessionalstatementsbystatingthat
A12wastoldbytheA3himselftogivehismobiletotheA7,who
wouldbestandingnearthesignalnear LuckyHotelinBandraat
3.30intheafternoonon11thJulyandtocollectthemobilefromA7
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1666..
Ext.4825
bygoingtoMiraRoadinthenight,whichheaccordinglydid.A7
statedthatA13toldhimtoreachnearthesignalnearLuckyHotelin
Bandraat3.30on11thJulyintheafternoonandthattheA12would
givehismobiletohimatthattime,whichheshouldkeepwithhim.
SothisrulesoutthepossibilityoftheA7beingoneoftheplanters.
AboutnonmentionbytheA3oftheA13asoneoftheplanters,the
circumstancesno.2,3and6provedbytheprosecutionclearthis
ambiguityalso.Infact,itisalsoclearedbytheA3inthelastportion
ofhisconfessionalstatementwhereinhehasstatedthathecameto
know later on that out of the pair of the A13 and the deceased
accusedno.1Salim,thedeceasedaccusedno.1Salimcouldnotget
downontimeandwaskilledinthebombexplosion.Sothisinvolves
the A13 as a planter. In fact, Salim going with the A13 is also
inconsistentwiththecaseoftheprosecutionthathewasintheteam
oftheA1.FromthetenoroftheconfessionalstatementoftheA3,it
is apparent that he has generally stated about the persons who
wouldbegoingforplantingthebombsandinfacthedidnotstate
abouttwomoreplanters.However,thecircumstanceno.3proved
by the prosecution clears this aspect because there is cogent
evidenceofthewitnesswhosawtheA1signalingthepersoninside
the train after he, i.e., the A1, got down at Dadar. Thus, these
inconsistencies do not affect the veracity of the confessional
statements.
1567.
Inviewofthecircumstancesthathavebeenprovedbythe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1667..
Ext.4825
themwiththerestoftheevidenceinthelightofthesurrounding
circumstancesandthepossibilitiesofthecase,itisfoundthatthe
contentsoftheconfessionalstatementsarecorroboratedtoalarge
extentbythecircumstancesthatareprovedbytheprosecution.Not
onlythis,thereismaterialcorroborationonmostoftheaspectsin
betweentheconfessionalstatementsofalltheaccusedinterseasis
clearfromtheabovediscussion.
1568.
acceptingalltheelevenconfessionalstatementsmadebytheeleven
accusedasvoluntary,trueandtrustworthy.Itissettledlawthatthe
confessionalstatementssomadeundersection18oftheMCOCAct
is substantial evidence. Hence, there is no legal impediment in
actinguponthemtodrawtheconclusionsagainsttheirmakersas
wellasagainstthecoaccusednamedinthem. Thereisnotevena
single confessional statement that is exculpatory. I have to,
therefore,holdthattheprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonable
doubtthattheconfessionalstatementsgivenbytheA1toA7andA9
toA11arevoluntary,trueandtrustworthy.Thisisthecircumstance
no.44provedbytheprosecution.
Sanctions:
Sanctionundersection23(2)oftheMCOCAct:
1569.
CPRoy,PW185,wastheCommissionerofPolice,Mumbai
fromFebruary,2004toFebruary,2007,intherankofAddl.Director
GeneralofPolice.HeretiredasDGPofMaharashtrain2010.Ithas
come in his evidence that he receivedthe proposal for according
sanctionforprosecutionundertheprovisionsoftheMCOCActon
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1668..
Ext.4825
18/11/06fromtheinvestigatingofficerthroughtheDCP,Addl.CP
andJt.CPoftheATS,thatitwasaccompaniedwithseveralvolumes
ofdocuments,thathetookmanydaystostudyandscrutinizethe
papers,thathetooktheassistanceoftheinvestigatingofficer,the
legaladvisorofhisofficeandsometimestheJt.CP,ATS.Ithascome
in his evidence that he accorded sanction for prosecution on
25/11/06,whenhewassatisfiedthataprimafaciecaseismadeout
againstalltheaccused,whowerearrestedandwhowereshownas
absconding. He proved his signatures and the contents of the
sanctionorderExt.13.Hischiefexaminationisonlyofoneandhalf
pages,whereas,thecrossexaminationisof58pages.However,the
crossexamination also includes the crossexamination on several
otheraspectsofthecase,whicharenotrelevantforthepurposeof
consideringthisissue.ThesanctionorderExt.13isundersection
23(2)oftheMCOCActforprosecutionofallthe13accusedunder
sections3(1)(i),3(2),3(3),3(4)and3(5)oftheMCOCAct.
1570.
greatdetailinrespectofsanctionandratherthandiscreditinghis
versionorshowingthathehadnotappliedhismind,ithasinfact
shown his total grasp of the facts and has shown complete
applicationofmindwhilegrantingthesanction.Thereisnothingin
his crossexamination to discredit his version in respect of the
sanctionorder.Ontheotherhand,thedetailsthathegave,thattoo
after about more than five years after having given the sanction,
withoutreferringtoanypapersordocuments,showhisbrilliance
andendorsestheinferencethathehadappliedhismindfully.Ithas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1669..
Ext.4825
comeinhiscrossexaminationthattheproposalwassentbyACP
Patil, PW186, of the ATS, who may be working as a supervising
officeroftheinvestigationofthecasesbeforehisappointmentasan
investigatingofficersincesometimeattheendofSeptember,2006
aftertheprovisionsoftheMCOCActwereapplied.Insofarasthe
process of arriving at the conclusion to grant sanction, positive
statements have come in his crossexamination that he took the
assistanceoftheDCPandtheJt.CPmanytimesafterhereceived
theproposal,thattheconcernedDCP,Addl.CPandJt.CPoftheATS
had verified the proposal and put their endorsements and
recommendedsanctioningtheproposalbeforeforwardingittohim,
thathetookassistanceofChiefPPPawarmanytimes,thatsome
timestherewerejointmeetingswiththeDCP,Jt.CPoftheATSand
thelegaladvisor.Hisdepthofknowledgeonthefactualaspectsis
revealedfromhisanswersthatallthesevencrimeswereclubbed
togetherunderoneC.R.No.05/06oftheATSatsomestageafter
theprovisionsoftheMCOCActwereapplied,thattheproposalwas
about61pages,thathewasacquaintedwiththefactsoftheseven
blastsandthedevelopmentintheinvestigationbeforehereceived
theproposal,thatthoughnoofficerreportedhimabouttheprogress
in the investigation prior to 18/11/06, he kept himself generally
awareofthedevelopmentsintheinvestigationbydiscussingitwith
theJt.CP,ATSandmonitoringit,thattherewereabout2526bound
volumesofpapers,thatheminutelywentthroughthedocuments
thatwerenecessaryforarrivingathissatisfaction,etc.Whenhewas
questionedabouthis subjective satisfaction,he answeredthatthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1670..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1671..
Ext.4825
witnesses,identificationbywitnesses,multipleaccusedwereseento
beinvolvedinthecasesofsimilarnatureanddifferentmembersof
the syndicate were meeting and corroborating and planning to
execute the blasts. When asked whether the record of the
involvementofthe arrestedaccusedin previouscaseswasplaced
beforehim,hestatedthattherecordwasplacedbeforehim,many
ofthemwereinvolvedinpreviouscasesandwhenaskedwhether
specificpreviouscasewasconsideredforaccordingsanction,hesaid
noandsaidthatitisnotnecessary.Whenhewasaskedwhetherhe
consideredanypreviouscaseagainsttheorganisedcrimesyndicate
before according sanction, he answered that entire record of
involvement of the arrested accused in the previous cases was
consideredandthenexplainedindetailthatrelevantpapersoftwo
previouscasesagainsttheA13,oneoftheyear1999,inwhichhe
wasarrested,buthadabscondedandtheotheroftheyear2002in
whichhe wasnotarrested,butthe chargesheetwas filedagainst
him,werethetwocasesconsideredbythecompetentauthorityfor
invokingtheprovisionsoftheMCOCActundersection23(1)ofthe
MCOC Act. Once again he emphatically stated that it was not
necessary for him to consider only those cases for according
sanction. When questioned as to whether the orders of the
concerned courts taking cognizance of the offence were placed
beforehim,heexplainedthattheywereplacedbeforehimandthey
includedchargeframedbytheconcernedcourtandthejudgement
givenbytheconcernedcourt.Whenaskedastowhetherthename
oftheA13wasspecificallymentionedinthechargesframedinboth
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1672..
Ext.4825
thecases,hementionedthatinonecasetheaccusedwasarrested,
releasedonbail,buthejumpedbailanddidnotappearduringthe
trialandwhilepassingthejudgementagainsttheotheraccused,the
court ordered to present the muddemal again during the trial
againsthim.Inthesecondcase,chargewasnotframedagainsthim,
buthisnamewasmentionedintheorder.Hethenstatedthatinthe
firstcasethenameoftheA13wasmentionedasAsifBashirKhan,
butinthesecondcasehisnamewasmentionedasAsifKhan.He
statedthisfromhismemoryandthematterissixyearsold.
1571.
NowaboutthenameoftheA13beingmentionedonlyas
AsifKhaninthechargeinthesecondcaseagainsthim,headmitted
thathisnamewasnotmentionedintheFIR,butonlythenameAsif
Khanismentionedinthecharge.WhileadmittingthatAsifKhanisa
commonnameinMuslims,thatKhanissurname,theevidencethat
he gave thereafter voluntarily, not only shows his complete
knowledgeandtotalgraspoftheentirefactsoftheinvestigation,
butitalsoprovesthatwhateverevidencetheprosecutiongavein
respectoftwopreviouscasesagainstA13,wasdefinitelyagainstthe
A13andthatwasdoneafterascertainingastowhetherhewasthe
same person. He volunteered that since the name Asif Khan is a
commonname,someofficersweresentformakinggroundinquiries
andtheseinquiriesestablishedthatthesaidAsifKhanmentionedis
thesameabscondingAsifKhanBashirKhan@Junaid.Heexplained
that field inquiries made by a team that was sent to Jalgaon
establishedtheidentityandthematerialwasfirstplacedbeforethe
competentauthorityundersection23(1).Hedidnotrememberthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1673..
Ext.4825
specificdocumentthathehadseeninthisregard,butstatedthathe
satisfiedhimselfabouttheveracityoftheinquiriesthatweremade.
Though,hedidnotrememberonwhatdatetheinquiryismade,he
explainedthatitwaspriortotheapplicationoftheprovisionsofthe
MCOCActpriortoseekingpriorapproval.Whileadmittingthatthe
other12accusedinthepresentcasewerenotshownasarrestedor
wanted in those two cases, he gave details of the previous cases
againsttheotheraccused,viz.,thattheA2andA4wereinvolvedin
twocasesatKurla,A1wasinvolvedinacaseatDelhiandsome
accusedwasinvolvedinacaseatBangalore,butitwasunrelated.
1572.
AboutmentionofnamesofseveralPakistaninationalsin
thesanctionorder,heexplainedthatitwasaspertheproposalsent
tohim.HestatedthatoneSuhailShaikhfromPunewasarrested
andthoughhecouldnotrememberwhetheroneSuhailShaikhfrom
Pune was a wanted accused when he accorded the sanction, he
statedthatonePakistaninationalbynameSuhailShaikhwasshown
asabscondingaccused.Thisstatementisfoundtobecontradictory
tohisanswersinparagraph18whenhewasconfrontedwiththe
contents of the order that the name of accused Suhail Shaikh,
residentofPune,Maharashtra,presentlybasedinPakistan,isshown
inthelistofabscondingaccusedandthathewasnotaPakistani
national.Tomymind,thoughthisappearstobeacontradiction,itis
notsoandontheotherhanditrevealshisdepthofknowledge.Itis
again endorsed by his answers that a person claimed to be a
Pakistaninational,whowasidentifiedasSalim,waskilledinthe
blast,thathisdeadbodywasfoundatMahimorMatungablastsite,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1674..
Ext.4825
thathehadseenthephotographsofthatbody,whichwasofonly
theupperportionofthebodyincludingtheface.
1573.
Hewastriedtobecontradictedwiththestatementsthat
1574.
HeadmittedhavingvisitedtheATSofficemanytimes,but
heturneddownpointedquestionsabouthegivinganydirectionsto
thesupervisoryofficeroftheATSastohowtheinvestigationshould
be carried out and to the investigating officers. He correctly
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1675..
Ext.4825
answeredthatJt.CPRaghuvanshiofATShadorderedtheclubbing
ofthecrimessometimeinbetween10th and15th ofOctober,2006,
that C. R. No. 05/06 was registered after invocation of the
provisions of the MCOC Act. He was crossexamined about the
conclusionofconspiracythathearrivedatandheexplainedthatit
hadstartedsomewherearoundFebruary,2006andwhenconfronted
withthecontentsofparagraph4oftheorderhestatedthatitis
correctlyrecordedthattheperiodofconspiracywasfrom1999to
October,2006andthenexplainedvoluntarilyandperfectlythatthe
periodoflargerconspiracyfrom1999includesthemultipleaccused
goingtoPakistanonanumberofoccasionsbydifferentroutesby
camouflagingtheirjourneytogettrainedinconductingsubversive
activities including bomb blasts. Then about the material that he
examinedtoarriveattheconclusionabouttherebeingaconspiracy,
he explained that the material that was before him was the
statementsofwitnessesandtheaccusedincludingtheirconfessional
statements showing multiple accused meeting each other, talking
about their plans, collecting material, trying to get Pakistani
nationals, making of the bombs, etc., and all this material was
pertainingtotheperiodpriortotheoccurrenceofthecrimeandthis
material did not travel beyond 11/07/06. When asked about the
dateonwhichtheinformationoftheoffenceoforganisedcrimewas
recordedundertheMCOCAct,heexplainedperfectlythattheFIRs
regardingthebombblastswereregisteredon11/07/06underthe
provisions of the IPC, Explosives Act and others and that the
provisionsoftheMCOCActwereinvokedon24thor25/09/06.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1575.
..1676..
Ext.4825
Inrespectofhisconclusioninthesanctionorderthatthe
conspiracywasinbetweentheyear1999toOctober,2006hewas
askedastowhetheranymaterialwasplacedbeforehimindicating
that the conspiracy continued even after 11/07/06, he answered
that the conspiracy culminated in the blasts and then explained
perfectlythattheonlyfactaftertheblaststhatherecallsisthatthe
accused persons who brought six Pakistani nationals through
BangladeshborderfromKolkatatoMumbai,tookthembackfrom
MumbaitoGujaratandfromGujarattoKolkata,wheretheywere
madetocrosstheborderwiththe helpofthesameperson,who
helpedthemtocrosstheborderwhilecomingandthismaterialwas
the confessional statement of the A5 and, this is important,
statementsofsomewitnesseswhosenameshedoesnotrecall.He
correctlyexplainedthatretractionofconfessionswasnotamaterial
factwhileapplying his mindtoaccordthe sanction.Headmitted
thatnamesofwitnessesandtheaccusedandtheotherdocuments
whichinfluencedhismindandthetwopreviouscasesoforganised
crimesyndicatearenotspecifiedintheorder.Tomymind,itisnot
necessary.
1576.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1677..
Ext.4825
werenotvideorecorded.
1577.
Inrespectofcalldetailrecord,i.e.,CDR,hestatedthat
theywerenotinthedocumentssubmittedwiththeproposal,thathe
did not call for it and did not feel that they were necessary to
establishtheroleoftheaccused.Hethenvolunteeredthatduring
their interrogation, many accused told that there were clear
instructionstothemnottousemobilephonesforanyoperational
purpose or important communication between themselves, they
generallyusedonlylandlineandPCOs,thattheyhadevenstated
thattheysometimesgaveonlymissedcallstoeachotherasasignal
andthencontactedeachotherfromadesignatedPCO.Now,these
thingshavecomeinhiscrossexaminationbeforetheCDRsofthe
mobilephonesusedbytheaccusedcameonrecord.TheCDRsshow
contact of the accused with each other, though during their
statementsundersection 313oftheCr.P.C.,accusedstatedthat
theydonotknoweachotherand,onbeingconfrontedwiththeir
contactwiththeotheraccused,infactnumerouscalls,theaccused
developed new stories in their evidence. Learned advocate also
crossexamined him in respect of an encounter case of
Lakhanbhaiya,aboutwhichhe hadfiledaffidavits in theBombay
HighCourt,manyencounterstakingplaceduringhistenureasCP,PI
SalaskarandPIPradeepSharmatakingpartinmanyencountersin
whichcriminalswerekilled,aboutencounterofdeceasedA2Abu
Umaid@Mohd.Aliandhebeingsuggestedthathewasbroughtby
DG of ATS Vanjara of Gujarat. To my mind, all these things are
irrelevanttothefactsinissue.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1578.
..1678..
Ext.4825
specificallythatitwasbecauseofanorderpassedbyamagistrate
that the investigation of this case be carried out under the close
supervisionoftheCPanditwaspassedwhentheA1wasproduced
beforethemagistratesometimeinearlyAugust,showsthatitwas
mainlybecauseofthemagistrate'sorderthatheusedtovisittheATS
officeregularly.NotthatithasmucheffectbecauseasaCPheis
expected to supervise over the law and order situation in his
jurisdiction,whichtomymind,willalsoincludetheinvestigationof
cases in which the law and order of the city is in issue. His
knowledgeaboutthefactualaspectsisagainseenbyhisanswersin
respect of an unclaimed dead body and about a family being
prosecutedforfalselyclaimingadeadbodyintheAndheriblast.
1579.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itisclearthatnotonlyon
thebasisoftheproposalandthedocumentsthatwereforwardedto
him,butalsoonthebasisofpersonalknowledge,CPRoy,PW185,
hadcompleteknowledgeandhadcompletelyunderstoodthefactual
as well as the legal aspects of the case and had accorded the
sanction,whichmeansthatitwasaccordedwithfullapplicationof
mind.Hence,itisprovedbytheprosecutionthatthereisavalid
sanctionforprosecutingalltheaccusedfortheoffencesunderthe
MCOCAct.
Sanctionundersection45oftheUA(P)A,1967andsection
15ofthePassportAct,1967:
1580.
AwadheshSinha,PW160,whowasworkingasAddl.Chief
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1679..
Ext.4825
retirementon30/06/07,gavethesanctionExt.1700undersection
45oftheUA(P)Aagainstalltheaccusedtoprosecutethemforthe
offencesundersections10,13,16,17,18,19,20andonbehalfof
the State Government for the offence under section 45 of the
UA(P)Aandundersection15ofthePassportActfortheprosecution
ofA3andA6fortheoffencesundersection12(1)(c)ofthePassport
Act.HedescribedaboutreceivingtheproposalinitiatedbytheATS,
Mumbai,runningintomorethan40pages,whichwasaccompanied
bytwovolumesofsupportingpapers,itbeingexaminedatdifferent
levelsintheHomeDepartmentandthenbytheLawandJudiciary
DepartmentintheStateGovernmentbeforebeingputupbeforethe
competentauthorityforaccordingsanction.Hedeposedthatafter
the proposal was examined at the lower level in both the
departments,itcametohimforsanctionunderChapterIIIofthe
UA(P)A and through him for the sanction of prosecution under
ChapterIVandVIofthesameactandunderthePassportAct.Ithas
come in his evidence that as secretary incharge of the Home
Department, he studied the entire proposal together with the
commentsofotherofficersanddepartmentsandafterhewasprima
facie and subjectively satisfied that the prosecution under the
provisionsofthesaidlawwasjustified,heaccordedthesanction,
then forwarded the file to the minister incharge of the Home
Departmentforconsiderationoftherestoftheproposalunderthe
sameactandthePassportAct.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathe
alsoagreedwiththeproposalofthedepartmentthatiftheminister
thinksitfittoaccordsanctionforprosecutionunderthetwoacts,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1680..
Ext.4825
thenacommonsanctionorderwouldbeissuedunderhissignature
inaccordancewiththerulesandregulationsofthegovernment.He
proved the contents of the sanction order Ext.1700, which he
accordedinthefirstweekofJanuary,2007.
1581.
Hiscrossexaminationhasnotaffectedhisevidenceabout
themannerinwhichheaccordedthesanctionanditdoesnotshow
thathehadnotappliedhismind.Thoughheadmittedthatdetailed
descriptionofthedocumentsthatwereproducedisnotgiveninthe
sanctionorderanditdoesnotreflecthismeetingwithanyofthe
ATSofficers,heclarifiedthathedidnothaveanymeetingwithany
ATSofficeratthattime,thattheproposalwasstudiedbyatleastten
peoplefromhisandotherdepartmentsandwhiledescribingasto
what was the material that was before him, he stated that there
werenumerousdocumentsintwovolumesthatweresentwiththe
proposal, which included books, pamphlets, statements, police
reportsandcopiesofbanorder.Inreplytoaquestionastowhether
hehastosatisfyhimselfthatingredientsoftheoffencesforwhich
thesanctionissoughtare primafacie fulfilledonthebasisofthe
materialplacedbeforehim,heansweredthatonthe basisofthe
material placed before him, he has to be satisfied that in all
probabilitythe offencesforwhichthesanction issoughtforhave
beenprimafacieandinallprobabilityoccurredanditisnecessaryto
see whether the ingredients of the offences are prima facie and
broadlymadeout.
1582.
whetheritisbasedonthesamesetoffactsandbooksthatwere
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1681..
Ext.4825
consideredwhilegivingthesanctiondtd.02/01/07,i.e.,Ext.1700,
andhesaidthathecouldnotsayaboutit.However,heclarifiedthat
bookletspurportedlypublishedbySIMIwereapartofthematerial
thatwassentwiththeproposalforwhichhegavethesanctionon
02/01/07, though he admitted that he did not go through the
bookletsforthereasonsgivenbyhim.ThesaidsanctionorderExt.
1709 is produced by the defence and it is of LAC No. 04/06
registeredwithATSPoliceStation,MumbaiagainsttheA4andfour
morefortheoffencesundersections10and13oftheUA(P)A.Ido
notunderstandwhatdefencewantedtoshowfromthis.Thesaid
orderisdated15/01/07andapparentlyhasnoconnectionwiththe
orderinpresentcase.
1583.
Thecontentsofthesanctionorderareattackedonseveral
aspects.FirstisthattheforwardingletterExt.1710mentionsinthe
lastfourlinesthatifthereisanydiscrepancyinthematter,reportis
tobe sentin thatrespect.He statedthathe didnotsuspectany
discrepancy in the sanction order and did not instruct his Jt.
Secretarytoconveythesethings.Tomymind,maybebywayof
abundantcautionorasapracticethosesentencesmayhavebeen
incorporated in the forwarding letter, but they do not affect the
veracityofthesanctionorder.Heexplainedthatifanerrorapparent
onthefaceoftherecordisbroughttohisnoticebytheproposingor
any other authority, then he may issue corrigendum or may take
someothercorrectivemeasuresoritmaybethatR.N.Deshmukh,
Jt.Secretarysowroteinthecoveringletter,Ext.1710,bywayof
abundantprecautionandalsocorrectlystatedthatthereisnothing
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1682..
Ext.4825
1584.
Aboutabsenceofsignaturesorinitialsofapprovalofthe
HomeMinisterinthesanctionorder,heexplainedthatitwasdone
under his, i.e., the witness's signature under his, i.e., the Home
Minister'sauthorityandasitisnottheprocedurethatthesanction
ordershouldbearthesignaturesorinitialsoftheHomeMinister.
About reflection of his subjective satisfaction in the order, he
explainedthattheentireorderincludingthe schedulereflectshis
subjectivesatisfaction.Hewasconfrontedwiththecontentsofthe
anothersanctionorderExt.1603issuedbytheJt.SecretaryR.N.
Deshmukh,PW149,andheadmittedthatexceptparticularsofthe
nameoftheaccused,materialfactsofthecase,sectionsunderwhich
he is prosecuted and the section and the Act under which the
sanctionisgiven,allothercontentsaresimilar.Idonotseehowthis
willaffecttheveracityoftheorderandwhatinferencecanbedrawn
fromthisandnoinferencecanbedrawnthatdraftofthesanction
orderwasprovidedtohim.
1585.
Themainattackonhisevidenceandthesanctionorder
passedbyhimisthatheaswellastheGovernmentofMaharashtra
didnothavethepowertograntsanctionundersection45ofthe
UA(P)A.Forthispurpose,thedefenceisrelyingontheletterExt.
1706 dtd. 27/09/01 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Government of India to the Chief Secretary, Government of
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1683..
Ext.4825
Maharashtrasayingthatinexerciseofthepowersconferredunder
section17oftheUA(P)A,1967,theCentralGovernmentauthorizes
theSecretaryofalltheStateGovernmentstoexercisethepowersto
sanctionprosecutioninrespectoftheoffencespunishableunderthe
said Act triable by the court in his State. It is submitted by the
defencethattheUA(P)Awasamendedin2004andtheprovisionsof
delegationofthepowerwastobeinsection45oftheAct.Defence
hasproducedGazetteofIndiaExt.1704obtainedbytheA4under
the RTI Act dtd. 21/06/07, by which the Central Government
authorizedtheSecretaryoftheStateGovernmentstoexercisethe
powerstosanctionprosecutioninrespectoftheoffencespunishable
under ChapterIII of the said Act, which was sent to the chief
secretariesofallthestategovernmentsbythecoveringletterExt.
1702.Itwassubmittedthatitisonlyon21/06/07thatthepowers
weredelegated.Thewitnesscouldnotsaywhetherthementionof
section17inExt.1706,wasamistake.However,tomymind,Ext.
1706isthedocumentthatclarifiesthematter,asisrightlysubmitted
by the learned SPP.Ext. 1706 is dated 27/09/01, i.e., before the
amendmenttotheUA(P)Aintheyear2004andaspersection24of
the General Clauses Act, 1897, the effect of that order continues
even after the amendment was made in the year 2004 and the
powerofdelegationinthatorderthuscontinuedandwasinforcein
theyear200607tillafreshnotificationwasissuedasperExts.1703
and1704.Thusthereisnothinginthisobjectiontoaffectthepower
ofthewitnesstoaccordthesanction.
1586.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthat
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1684..
Ext.4825
theprosecutionhasprovedthattherewasavalidsanctionunder
section45oftheUA(P)Aforprosecutingallthe13accusedforthe
offencesunderthesaidActandforprosecutionoftheA3andA6for
theoffencesundersection12(1)(c)ofthePassportAct.
Sanctionundersection196oftheCr.P.C.:
1587.
Jt.Secretary,HomeDepartment,Mantralaya,Maharashtra
GovernmentR.N.Deshmukh,PW149,accordedsanctionExt.1603
undersection196oftheCr.P.C.forprosecutingalltheaccusedfor
theoffencesundersections121A,122,123,124Areadwith120B
andalsofortheoffencesundersections201and212readwith120
B of the IPC. It has come in his evidence that his department
receivedaproposalfromtheJt.CP,ATS,Mumbaion13/12/06for
accordingsanctiontoprosecutetheaccusedinC.R.No.05/06for
the aboveoffences,thatthe proposal was of 40pagesgiving the
entirefactsofthecase,thathestudiedtheproposalandcalledthe
investigating officer ACP Patil, PW186, of the ATS and had
discussionswithhimfor23days.ACPPatil,PW186,corroborates
hisversion.Hethendescribedtheprocedureaboutsendingthedraft
ofthesanctionorderforapprovalofthesecretary,aftergettingit,
sending it to the Law and Judiciary Department, which gave the
approvalon06/01/07andsubmittingittotheminister,whogave
hisapprovalon07/02/07afterwhichheissuediton09/02/07.He
proved the contents of the order Ext. 1603 and stated that the
approvalwasgivenateverystageafterdueapplicationofmind.His
crossexaminationhasnotaffectedhisevidenceabouttheprocedure
andinrespectofthecontentsoftheorder,hestatedthatheandhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1685..
Ext.4825
deskofficerpreparedtheschedulewiththehelpoftheinvestigating
officer,thatheandhissectionofficerpreparedthesanctionorder
andhegavedictationtothestenoandthethirdparagraphmentions
his subjective satisfaction.Exceptsomegrammatical mistakesand
againtheuseofwords'anyotheroffences',theeffectofwhichis
alreadydiscussedinthesanctiongivenbyAwadheshSinha,PW160,
thereisnothinginhiscrossexaminationtoshownonapplicationof
mind.
1588.
submittedbythedefencethattheATSdidnothavethepowerto
investigatetheoffencesundertheMCOCActandUA(P)Aandfor
that purpose letters and notifications, Exts. 1606 to 1612, were
produced by the defence. Ext. 1608(2) is the notification dtd.
17/04/04bytheHomeDepartment(Spl.),declaringtheATS,MS,
Mumbai,asapolicestationundertheprovisionsoftheIPC,Arms
Act,N.D.P.S.Act,ExplosiveSubstancesActandOfficialSecretsAct
withinthejurisdictionextendingtotheStateofMaharashtra.Thus
asonthatdatetheATSdidnothavethepowerstoinvestigatethe
offencesundertheMCOCActandUA(P)A.However,thenotification
dtd.31/08/06Ext.1609(2)gavetheATSthepowerstoinvestigate
theoffenceunderbothacts.TheprovisionsoftheMCOCActwere
appliedtothiscase,i.e.,C.R.No.156/06ofBorivaliRailwayPolice
Station,on24/09/06.Thus,thisissuenolongerremainsanissue.
1589.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthat
theprosecutionhasprovedthattherewasavalidsanctionunder
section196oftheCr.P.C.forprosecutingalltheaccusedunderthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1686..
Ext.4825
abovementionedsections.
SanctionsundertheExplosiveSubstancesAct,1908:
1590.
FirstintimeisRahulSingh,PW26,whowasCollectorand
DistrictMagistrateatMadhubani,Biharandwhogavetheconsent
Ext.511undertheExplosiveSubstancesActinconnectionwiththe
crimeofPoliceStationBasopatticoncerningtheA1.Ithascomein
theevidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,thatpossessionofRDXbythe
A1wasanoffencethathadtakenplacewithinthejurisdictionof
Police Station Basopatti, District Madhubani. Therefore, it was
registeredat00numberwiththeATSinSeptember,2006andthe
FIRalongwithseizurepanchanamaandtheFSLreportweresentto
PoliceStationBasopattiforregisteringthecrimeaboutwhichPSI
Rajan,PW107,gaveevidenceaboutregisteringtheFIRExt.1098.
HeexplainedthattheproposalsentbytheDistrictSuperintendentof
Police,BasopattiwasaccompaniedwiththecopyoftheFIRandthe
otherdocumentsandthatthecrucialdocumentwasthereportof
theFSL,MumbaiwhichsaidthatCyclonite(RDX)andCharcoalare
detectedintheexhibit.HealsoprovedthesanctionExt.512granted
to the ATS, Mumbai after he received a proposal from the ATS,
whichwasaccompaniedbysimilardocumentsandanorderofthe
SupremeCourttransferringtheentireFIRofBasopattiPoliceStation
oftherecoveryofRDXfromthehouseoftheA1totheSpecialCourt
under the MCOC Act as the said recovery was part of the larger
conspiracyinvolvedinthesaidbombblasts.Heprovedthecontents
ofbothsanctionordersandthereisnothinginhiscrossexamination
todiscredithisevidence,becausehehasspecificallystatedthathe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1687..
Ext.4825
1591.
TheonlyissueisastowhetherthesanctionorderExt.512
istheoriginalorderorwhetheritisacopyasitdoesnotcontainhis
signaturebelowthe main partof the order.This aspecthasbeen
clarified by the learned SPP in his reexamination wherein he
submittedthatthepracticeintheirStateisthattheofficecopyof
themainorderissignedandthecopiesareissuedtotheconcerned
authoritiesandthememorandumbelowthemainorderissigned.
Heexplainedthatthecopyissuedistreatedasoriginalandthereis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1688..
Ext.4825
nodifferenceinthematterofExt.512andtheofficecopyofit.In
crossexamination,hewassuggestedthatExt.512isnotsignedby
him or his subordinate as a true copy, to which he correctly
explainedthatitis signedbyhimasitistheoriginal.Thus,this
clearstheissueandthereisnothinginhisentirecrossexamination
todiscredithisversion.
1592.
Itwill,therefore,havetobeheldthattheprosecutionhas
1593.
S.S.Zende,PW166,whowastheCollectorandDistrict
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1689..
Ext.4825
accordingconsent.Ithasalsocomeinhisevidencethattheproposal
wasforconsentforprosecutionofnineaccused,butherealizedthat
onlythreeaccusedwereconcernedwiththeincidentthathadtaken
place within the jurisdiction of Thane District, therefore, he
accordedtheconsentforprosecutingonlythreeaccused.Heproved
thecontentsoftheconsentorder.
1594.
theaspectofapplicationofmindforgrantingthesanctionandhe
describedtheterritorialjurisdictionofThaneDistrict.Hisknowledge
aboutthefactualaspectsofthecaseisclearfromtheanswersthat
hegaveabouthisjurisdictionstartingfromMiraRoadafterDahisar
inthewesternsuburbanexplainingthatDahisarispartofGreater
Bombay,butDahisarsubwayisinThanedistrict.Hedescribedthat
thepanchanamawasthedocumentthatshowedthattheexplosive
material was found near Dahisar subway, which was in the
geographical area of Thane district. When asked to explain, he
specificallystatedthattheDahisarsubwayisaboutoneandahalf
kilometersnorthofDahisarwheretheboundaryofBMCendsandit
is actuallyin Mira Road.The purpose forwhichthe consentwas
soughtforisalsonicelyexplainedbyhiminhiscrossexamination
that preparation and planting of explosives in this case was not
withinhisjurisdiction,botharetheactspriortotheexplosion.He
explained that the proposing authority had asked for consent for
planting explosivebyanaccusedthatexplodedinhis jurisdiction
andsecondlyforfindingexplosiveswithinhisjurisdictioninrespect
ofthetwoaccused.Healsoexplainedthatpreparation,plantingand
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1690..
Ext.4825
explosionofexplosivesisacontinuousoffenceandthatobtaining
the consent for preparation and planting of explosive is not
sufficient,butitshouldalsobetakeninrelationtotheexplosion
thattookplace.HeadmittedthattheexactpostaladdressinMira
RoadoftheA13isnotwrittenintheconsentorder,butexplained
thatitmustbein his fileandwhen confrontedwiththeconsent
orderExt.1762issuedbyVishwasPatil,PW165,headmittedthat
thecontentsaresimilarandeventhedifferenceinthespellingofthe
nameoftheA2attwoplacesissimilarinboththeorders.Some
typographicalmistakessimilaranddissimilarinboththeordersis
admittedbyhimstatingthatitisacoincidence.Allthesethingsdo
notaffecttheapplicationofmindthathedidwhileaccordingthe
consentthough he admitted that the order does not describe the
statements and panchanamas and as to with whom he had
discussionsandwhohadpreparedthedraftandtheorder.Inhisre
crossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhan,certifiedcopy
of the consent order in MCOC Special Case No. 04/09 was got
provedandmarkedasExt.2842,toproveitscontentsinrespectof
the consentbeing given forIndian Mujaheedin having committed
the blasts in Mumbai also, i.e., the blasts in this case. That is a
differentissueanditwillbediscussedattheappropriateplace.
1595.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthat
theprosecutionhasprovedthatthereisvalidsanctionundersection
7oftheExplosiveSubstancesActforprosecutingtheA3,A4and
A13fortheoffencesundersections3,4,5and6ofthesaidact.
1596.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1691..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1692..
Ext.4825
1597.
Healsoadmittedthatthecontentsofhisorderaresimilar
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1693..
Ext.4825
orderdoesnotindicatetheirnames.Heexplainedperfectlythatthey
arenotincludedintheorderasaseparateproposalwillbemoved
aftertheirarrestandtheATSdidnotaskforconsentagainstthem.
HealsoclarifiedthattheconsentforprosecutionagainsttheA7was
forpossessingexplosivesubstanceandagainsttheA4itwasgiven
fortransporting,and,foraccordingconsent,hebasicallyreliedupon
theFSLreport.Duringhisrecrossexaminationbylearnedadvocate
WahabKhan,hewasshowncertifiedcopyoftheconsentordergiven
byhiminMCOCSpecialCaseNo.04/09,whichwasmarkedasExt.
2842,whichisagaininrespectofthecaseagainstthemembersof
theIndianMujaheedinandtheallegationthattheycommittedthe
bombblastsinMumbaialso,includingtheblastsinthiscase,which
isadifferentissue.
1598.
Itwillthushavetobeheldthattheprosecutionhasproved
1599.
Magistrate, Mumbai City from July, 2006 to April, 2007 and she
gavetheconsentundersection7oftheExplosiveSubstancesActin
C. R. No. 05/06 against the A1, A2, A3, A4, A12 and A13 for
prosecutingthemundersections3to6ofthesaidact.Ithascomein
herevidencethatshereceivedaproposalfromtheATSon02/03/07
forissuingthesanctionorderforprosecutionofaccusedregarding
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1694..
Ext.4825
thebombblastsinsevenlocaltrains.Ithascomeinherevidence
thatshehadreceivedalargebunchofdocumentswiththeproposal,
that on going through it, she realized that she would have to
scrutinizeitcarefully,therefore,shecalledtheinvestigatingofficer
ACPPatil,PW186,andhadthreeroundsofdiscussionswithhim
andhisstaff.Shestatedthatshescrutinizedallthedocumentsthat
wereproducedbeforeherandaftershesatisfiedherselfsheissued
the consent order on 17/03/06 for prosecuting six accused. She
proved the contents of the consent order Ext. 1634. The first
problemthatsheencounteredduringhercrossexaminationisthat
hersignatureontheorderandtheschedulewithitisaphotocopy,
aboutwhichsheexplainedthattheorderandschedulecontaining
heroriginalsignaturewassenttotheofficeoftheATS.Thisproblem
wasovercomebytheprosecutionbyproducingtheoriginalorder
Ext.1648, the contents of which she proved during her recross
examinationbythelearnedSPP.
1600.
Onceagainhercrossexaminationhasalsonotdiscredited
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1695..
Ext.4825
1601.
Itisclearfromtheabovediscussionthattheprosecution
has proved that there was valid consent under section 7 of the
Explosive Substances Act issued by the District Magistrate of
Mumbai City against the A1, A2, A3, A4, A12 and A13 for
prosecutingthemundersections3to6oftheExplosiveSubstances
Act.
1602.
Inrespectofthesanctions,learnedadvocateSharifShaikh
reliedonthefollowingauthorities:
(i)
RambhaiNathabhaiGadhvi,StateofGujarat,AppellantV.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1696..
Ext.4825
StateofMaharashtra,Respondents(MANU/MH/0235/2007).
(iii) StateofMaharashtra,AppellantV.LalitSomdattaNagpal,
Respondent(LAWS(SC)20072171).
(iv)
Taru,Respondent(LAWS(BOM)2011558).
(v)
Ihavecarefullygonethroughalltheauthorities.Inthecaseof
RambhaiNathabhaiGadhvithesanctionordergrantedbytheDIG,
Gujarat, Ahmedabad under section 20A(2) referred only to two
documents,i.e.,FIRandtheletterbyDSP,Jamnagarandwhathe
didwasthathegrantedpermissiontoaddsections3,4and5ofthe
TADAActtothecrime.Thus,itwasheldthatitwasnotasanction
asrequiredbysection20A(2)oftheTADAAct.Thus,thisauthority
isinapplicabletothefactsofthepresentcase.Inthecaseof John
D'Souza the issue was unrelated to the grant of sanction under
section23(2)oftheMCOCAct.Theissueinthematterbeforethe
DivisionBenchofourHighCourtwasastowhetherthereshouldbe
a separate recording and registration of the FIR after the prior
approvalundersection23(1)oftheMCOCActisgranted.In Lalit
SomdattaNagpal'scasethepreviouscasesagainsttheaccusedwere
inrespectofviolationoftheprovisionsoftheSalesTaxandExcise
Laws,whichwerefoundtobenotcoveredunderthedefinitionof
organisedcrimeanditwasheldthatsuchcaseswerenotintended
tobethebasisforapplicationoftheprovisionsoftheMCOCAct.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1697..
Ext.4825
1603.
(i)
LearnedSPPhasreliedonthefollowingauthorities:
StateofMadhyaPradesh,AppellantV.Jiyalal,Respondent
(CriminalAppealNo.1386/08decidedon31/07/09byHon'ble
SupremeCourt).
(ii)
Respondent(AIR2011SC1748).
(iii) Indu Bhusan Chatterjee, Appellants V. The State of West
Bengal,Respondent(AIR1958SC148).
(iv) State (N.C.T. of Delhi), Appellants V. Navjot Sandhu @
AfsanGuru,Respondent(AIR2005SC3820).
DistrictMagistratewhopassedthesanctionorderforprosecutionof
the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was held
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1698..
Ext.4825
1604.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1699..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1700..
Ext.4825
launched.Itwasobservedthattherewasnoreasontodisturbthe
sanctioning authority's statement that before he accorded his
sanction he went through all the papers andafter being satisfied
thatsanctionshouldbegivenheaccordedit.Itwasheldthatitwas
notforthesanctioningauthoritytojudgethetruthoftheallegations
made against the appellant by calling for the records of the
connectedclaimcasesorotherrecordsinconnectionwiththematter
fromhisoffice.Thepapersthatwereplacedbeforehimapparently
gavehimthenecessarymaterialuponwhichhedecidedthatitwas
necessaryintheendsofjusticetoaccordhissanction.Onacareful
scrutinyofthesanctionorderandtheevidenceofthesanctioning
authorityandreadingthemtogetheritwasfoundthattherecanbe
nodoubtthatthesanctionaccordedwasavalidsanction.
1605.
LearnedSPPreliedonthetopicsanctioninparagraph5of
thejudgementinthecaseofNavjotSandhu@AfsanGuruandin
respectofthesubmissionsoftheadvocateoftheaccusedthatthere
was no sanction for the offences under the POTA, whereas, the
sanctionwasgivenforinapplicableoffencesundertheIndianPenal
Code,thefactsconstitutingtheoffencehavenotbeenstatedinthe
sanctionorderandnoevidencehadbeenadducedtoshowthatthe
competent authority addressed himself to the relevant facts and
material.TheSupremeCourtobservedthatthecarelessandinept
drafting of the sanction order has given scope for some of those
commentsandfoundthattheoffenceswerenotmentionedinthe
firstparagraphoftheordercontainingtherecitalastothe prima
facie satisfactionoftheLt.Governor.However,itobservedthatthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1701..
Ext.4825
drafterreversedthatprocessbymentioningthePOTAoffencesunder
theresiduaryexpression'apartfromotheroffences'.Itisfurtherheld
thatthiscarelessdraftingcannotdealafatalblowtothesanction
order.Itwasfoundthatadistinctionwasmaintainedbetweenthe
sanctionunderPOTAandthesanctionunderCr.P.C.,becausethere
wasaseparatesanctionorderundersection196oftheCr.P.C.
1606.
additionoftheoffenceundersection120B,whichdoesnotrequire
sanction,revealstotalnonapplicationofmind.Itwasobservedthat,
'thoughtheconspiracytocommittheoffencespunishablebySection
121 is covered by Section 121A, probably Section 120B was also
referredtobywayofabundantcautionthoughtheprosecutionforthe
saidoffencedoesnotrequiresanction.Atanyrate,theinsertionofa
seeminglyoverlappingprovisiondoesnotandcannotaffectthevalidity
ofthesanctionorder.NorcanitbesaidthattheadditionofSection
124whichhasreallynoapplicationtothepresentcasebyitselfvitiates
thesanctionorder.Fromtheinsertionofoneinapplicableprovision,a
reasonableinferencecannotbedrawnthattherewasnoapplicationof
mind by the competent authority. A meticulous and legalistic
examination as to the offences applicable and not applicable is not
whatisexpectedatthestageofgrantingsanction'.Itwasheldthatthe
mentionofaninapplicablesectiondoesnotgototherootofthe
matterorotherwisemakeitvulnerabletoattack.
1607.
ItwasheldbytheSupremeCourtthat,'ultimatelythetest
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1702..
Ext.4825
authorityandthesamewasperusedbeforegrantingsanction.Weare
oftheviewthatthistesthasbeenamplysatisfiedintheinstantcase.
Thesanctionordersontheirfaceindicatethatallrelevantmaterial,
viz., FIR, disclosure statements, recovery memos, draft charge sheet
and other material on record was placed before the sanctioning
authority. The fact that the sanctioning authority perused all this
materialisalsodiscerniblefromtherecitalinthesanctionorders.The
sanction orders make it clear that the sanctioning authority had
reached the satisfaction that prima facie the accused committed or
conspired to commit the offences mentioned therein. The elaborate
narration of facts culled out from the record placed before the
sanctioningauthorityandthediscussionastotheapplicabilityofeach
and every Section of the penal provision quoted therein is not an
imperativerequirement.Apedanticrepetitionfromwhatisstatedin
theFIR or thedraftchargesheetor other documents isnotwhatis
calledforinordertojudgewhethertherewasdueapplicationofmind.
Itmustbenotedthatthegrantofsanctionisanexecutiveactandthe
validitythereofcannotbetestedinthelightofprinciplesappliedtothe
quasijudicial orders'. Hence,on principles of law this authority is
squarelyapplicabletothepresentcase.
1608.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,thelawlaiddownbythe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1703..
Ext.4825
DefencetheoryabouttheIndianMujaheedinorganisation
havingcommittedtheblastsinthepresentcase:
1609.
Thediscussionuptonowisabouttheevidencegivenby
theprosecutiontoprovethechargeslevelledagainsttheaccused.
Thedefencehascomeoutwithaverystrongcaseandallegation
that it was not the present accused, but it was the members of
IndianMujaheedin,whocommittedtheblastsinthiscase,whichis
clear from the confessional statements of three accused given in
MCOCSpecialCaseNo.4of2009.Forthatpurposetheyexamined
accusedno.2,3and5inthatcase,i.e.,SadiqIsrarAhmedShaikh,
DW33, Mohd. Arif Badruddin Shaikh, DW34, and Ansar Ahmed
BadshahShaikh,DW35.
1610.
InthisrespectthelearnedSPPsubmittedthatthoughthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1704..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1705..
Ext.4825
outthehouseofRashid,butitwasnotthere.Itisallegedthattimers
werepreparedbyanaccusedwhowasincustody.Hewasinquired,
but he denied. He submits that with this material, the ATS filed
discharge application and this court believed their words and
dischargedhim.Hefurthersubmits thatin respectofthis,itwas
thoughtthatcertainissueswerenotexplainedbytheprosecution,
becauseasperlawtheyhavetoleadconcreteevidence.Therefore,it
wasdecidedthattheywillleadcontradictoryevidenceandwillleave
ittothediscretionofthecourtandwillsaythatthisisnaturaland
wearenotgivingwatertightevidence.Heallegesthattherewasa
designtodroptheshopkeepersandcertainthingswerekeptinthe
greyareatogiveitanaturalcolour.Healsotookmuchpainstotake
methroughtheentireevidencegivenbyDW33toDW35andat
particular places submitted that so and so inference should be
drawn.HesubmittedthatSadiqIsrar,DW33,wastutoredbythe
prosecution toadmitinhis crossexamination bythe learnedSPP
thathewasfedupwiththerepeatedquestionsbyadvocateKhan
AbdulWahabinrespectof7/11railwaybombbastscase,therefore,
hesaidtoonequestionthathedoesnotwanttoanswerit.
1611.
Tomymind,thesubmissionsofthelearnedadvocateare
stretchingthepointtounacceptablelimits.Hissubmissionaboutthis
courtdischargingtheaccused,believingthewordsoftheATS,isnot
justifiable.Thereisnoreasonwhythedefencedidnotchallengethe
dischargeorderthoughitisvehementlysubmittedbythelearned
advocate,thattoowrongly,thatsincebeginningitistheircasethat
someotherorganizationhaddonethebombblasts.Thisisbecause
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1706..
Ext.4825
Sadiq,DW33,madethisclaiminhisconfessionalstatementafterhe
wasarrestedin2008,i.e.,twoyearsafterthiscase.Thesubmission
that Sadiq, DW33, was tutored by the prosecution is not only
ridiculousandscandalous,itisalsoanattempttowinatanycost,be
itheadsortails,becauseitisthedefencewhohadcalledhim.His
submissions about the prosecution leading contradictory and
inconsistent evidence is also unacceptable. Why would the
prosecutiondothisanddamageitsowncase.Theprosecutionhasto
lead cogent and convincing evidence to prove its case. His
submissionaboutthedesigntodroptheshopkeepersandthekeep
certainthingsinthegreyareatogiveanaturalcolourisanindirect
admissionthatthereissomethingnaturalintheevidencegivenby
the prosecution. One cannot go on suspecting everything and
makingallegationsagainsteveryone.
1612.
statementgivenbySadiqIsrar,DW33,inMCOCSpecialCaseNo.4
of 2009, who was arrested in this case and produced before this
court.Beforegoinganyfurther,itisalsonecessarytopointoutwhat
thesaidwitnessstatedinhis confessionalstatementin thatcase,
about the bomb blasts in this case. Certified true copy of the
confessional statement is at Ext. 3727, which has not yet been
legallyprovedinthatcase.Itwasjustmarkedforthepurposeof
identification and though Sadiq Israr, DW33, admitted his
signatureshehasnotadmittedthecontentstherein.Evenotherwise,
itisinhisconfessionalstatementExt.3727onpage8thatwhen
someboyscamebackaftertakingtraininginPakistan,AmirRaza
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1707..
Ext.4825
told him to show some work. He, Riyaz Bhatkal, Arif Badruddin
Shaikh,DW34,Atif,Dr.Shahnawazwiththehelpofallremaining
boysdidtheblastsonthesayofAmirRazaatMominPura,Delhi,
Sankatmochan Mandir in Varansi, in the Shramjeevi Express and
MumbaiRailwayBlasts,thattheseblastsweredonebythemduring
theperiodfromFebruary,2005toSeptember,2008.AmirRazaused
tosendexplosivesandmaterialforthis purposewiththe helpof
RiyazBhatkalorhisboys.ArifBadarpreparedclocktimercircuit.
He,ArifBadar,RiyazBhatkalandAtifknewhowtopreparebomb
andcircuit.Theseareonlystatementsthatareconcernedwiththe
presentblastsanditisobviousthattheyarevaguestatements.
1613.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1614.
..1708..
Ext.4825
SadiqIsrar,DW33,wasarrestedinthiscasebytheATSon
21/02/09aftertheyreceivedatruephotocopyoftheconfessional
statementmadebyhiminC.R.No.152/08forwardedtoitbyJt.CP,
CrimeBranch,Mumbai.Hewasproducedbeforethiscourtonthe
same day and remanded to police custody on that day and
subsequently upto 21/03/09, on which day he was remanded to
judicial custody upto 03/04/09 and further upto 11/05/09. On
12/03/09hewasproducedbeforetheinchargejudgeinC.R.No.
55ofthiscourtinRemandApplicationNo.16/09andatthattime
theaccusedreportedtothejudgethathehasnoconcernwiththe
7/11bombblastsandrelatedmatters,thathealsoclaimstohaveno
acquaintance with any of the coaccused person, that whatever
statementhemade,wasastoryreportedunderduress,thatoneAtif
from Azamgarh had asked him to take responsibility of the 7/11
bombblastslesthisfamilymemberswouldhavetofaceproblems.
Healsostatedtothejudgethathe,therefore,tookresponsibilityof
thisbombblastswithouttherebeinganyinvolvementonhispart
andwhateverhewasaskedtodisclosebyAtifhasbeenreportedby
him in his statement (i.e., in his confessional statement). His
advocatewaspresentonthatdayandthelearnedSPPrequestedto
pass necessary order to record the necessary statement of the
accusedbyacompetentmagistrateundersection164oftheCr.P.C.
On11/05/09,RemandApplicationNo.28/09wasfiledprayingfor
releasinghimfromthiscrime,i.e.,C.R.No.05/06,undersection
169oftheCr.P.C.,asthereisnosufficientevidenceagainsthimto
indicatehisinvolvementinthecrime.OnhearingthelearnedSPP,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1709..
Ext.4825
ongoingthroughthecasediaryandthestatementoftheaccused
undersection164oftheCr.P.C.recordedbythemagistrate,Ext.4,
it was found that there was no sufficient evidence against the
accusedtoindicatehisinvolvementinC.R.No.05/06.Hence,the
applicationwasallowedandhewasreleasedundersection169of
theCr.P.C.inC.R.No.05/06oftheATS,Mumbai.
1615.
ThethoroughnessoftheinquirymadebytheATSisclear
fromthecontentsofRemandApplicationNo.28/09,wherein,itwas
revealedthatafterdeepinvestigationandinquirywiththeaccused
andwiththeinformationgivenbyhim,itwasfoundthathehad
indicatedhisinvolvementonthesayofRiyazBhatkalandoneAtif
withtheintentionofconfusingtheinvestigatingagencyandthiswas
doneaspertheAlQuiadamanual.Thepointsonwhichtheinquiry
wasmadeisthatintheinitialquestioninghestatedabouttheuseof
5ltr.pressurecookers,whichwerepurchasedatRs.300/eachand
heshowedtheshop,statementsoftheshopownersandsalesmen
wererecorded,buttheystatedthatno5ltr.cooker,brandedorlocal,
waspriceatRs.300/threeyearsbefore.Whentheaccusedshowed
theshopfromwhereheallegedlypurchasedthebagsthatwereused
inthebombblasts,itwasfoundthattherewasnosuchshopthere,
buttheshoptherewasofsaleofchappals.Abouthisresidencein
the Raza Society, Sewree Cross Road, Mumbai, in which he had
allegedlystayedonthe5thFloor,itwasfoundthatoneIklakShaikh
andhissonAbuRashidandtheirfamiliesstaythere.Itwasfound
thatCrimeBranchofficershadvisitedthatplaceearlier,buttheir
visitwasconcernedwiththecrimethattheywereinvestigating.The
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1710..
Ext.4825
visitoftheATSwasinrespectofserialbombblastsintherailway
locals.AcorrespondencewasmadewiththeRegistrar,Maharashtra
Counsel of Indian Medicine,having its office in Fort,Mumbai, to
inquirewhetherDr.ShahnawazShadabAhmedShaikh(Unani)was
registered as a medical practitioner, but the reply was in the
negative,therefore,theinformationgivenbytheaccusedwasnot
corroborated.Inquirywas alsomade withthe accusedin custody
from whom,as per Sadiq Israr,DW33,the timers for the bombs
wereprepared.However,thesaidaccusedinformedthatdifferent
typesoftimerswereusedintherailwaybombblastsandthey,i.e.,
IndianMujaheedin,hadusedSamaytableclocksastimers.Itwas
allegedthatIndianMujaheedinisaterroristorganizationinclined
towardsPakistan,whosefounderisRiyazBhatkalandmembersof
thisorganisationhadcommittedthebombblastsatLucknow,Delhi,
Waransi, Ahmedabad, Surat, that Atif, referred to by Sadiq Israr,
DW33, was killed in an encounter at Batla House in Delhi in
September, 2008 and Abu Rashid, Dr. Shahnawaz and Sajid are
wantedaccusedinthebombblastsatSarojiniNagar,Delhi.Itwas
informedthatonaminuteinvestigation,itwasrevealedthatSadiq
Israr,DW33,isinvolvedinterroristactivitiesandheknowsRiyaz
Bhatkal,however,hehasnoconcernwiththecrimesofthebomb
explosionsinthesuburbanrailwaysinMumbai.
1616.
Application no. 28/09 has not been challenged and has become
final.ThereisnosuggestionfromthesideofthedefencetoSadiq
Israr, DW33, that the accused facing the trial had not done the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1711..
Ext.4825
blasts. Obviously, the defence could not have taken such a stand
becauseoftheriskinvolvedifthewitnessspokeotherwise.
1617.
ThedefencecasethattheIndianMujaheedinisresponsible
for the blasts cannot be accepted for one more reason. It is the
allegedknownstrategyoftheIndianMujaheedintomakeemailsto
mediahousesinformingthatabombblastisabouttotakeplace.
The involvement of the Indian Mujaheedin in the present case is
indicatedintheconfessionalstatementofSadiq,DW33,only.Itwas
obviouslyaplantodisorienttheinvestigatingmachinery,whichwas
disclosedafterthearrestoftheoneoftheaccusedinMCOCSpecial
CaseNo.4of2009,i.e.,accusedno.2Sadiq,DW33,inthiscaseand
his subsequent statement under section 164 of the Cr. P. C. How
muchtheplanwassuccessfulisevidentfromthemannerinwhich
higherupsofthepolicefellpreytoitandwentpublicandmade
irresponsible and inconsistent statements. The modus operandi
alleged against the Indian Mujaheedin is that they send emails
beforeanyblastsandhavenohesitationinowningresponsibilityof
anyblastthatitsmembershadcommitted.However,nosuchthing
happenedinthiscase.Therewasnoemailbeforetheblastsandno
oneowneduptheresponsibilityaftertheblasts.Againnosuchthing
happenedinthiscasefortwoyearsanditwasonlyin2008,i.e.,
aftertwoyears,thattheaccusedno.2inMCOCSpecialCaseNo.4
of 2009, i.e., Sadiq Israr, DW33, made such a statement in his
confessionalstatement,thattoovague.Theconfessionalstatements
oftheaccusedno.3and5inMCOCSpecialCaseNo.4of2009,i.e.,
DW34andDW35inthiscase,areofnoconsequencebecausethey
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1712..
Ext.4825
straightawayamounttohearsay.InsofarasSadiqIsrar,DW33,is
concerned, he has been examined by the defence and he has
disowned everything. So, the holding of conference in which the
allegedstatementsweremadebythehigherofficersofthepoliceis
ofnoconsequence,becauseitappearsthattheyfellintothetrapof
the Indian Mujaheedin and made the statements based on the
statementsmadebytheaccusedandnotbasedonanyindependent
investigationasconductedbytheATSinthiscase.
1618.
SadiqIsrar,DW33,hasemphaticallydeniedinhiscross
examinationbythedefenceadvocateafterbeingdeclaredhostile,
thatheandhisassociateshavedonethe7/11blasts,thathegavea
confessional statement before the DCP voluntarily, that he had
voluntarilystatedatruestoryatthetimeofvideoshootingandthat
heisdeposingfalselysothathemaynotbeimplicatedinthiscase.
1619.
membersoftheIndianMujaheedinisruledoutasitisnotprovedby
thedefence.Therefore,theevidencegivenbytheaccusedaboutit
andthecrossexaminationofprosecutionwitnesses,particularlythe
investigating officers, is redundant and needs no discussion.
RelianceplacedonthecertifiedcopyofthechargesheetinMCOC
Special Case No. 4 of 2009 and on the consent order Ext. 1764
issuedbyVishwasPatil,PW165,isalsoofnouse.Atthecostof
repetition,itwill have tobe statedthatthe authority issuing the
consenthasonlytogothroughtheprimafaciematerialtoissuethe
consentorderandheisnotexpectedtoverifythetruthfulnessofthe
contentions in the proposal. In view of the above discussion, no
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1713..
Ext.4825
inferenceasarguedbythelearnedadvocatesfortheaccusedcanbe
drawnonthebasisoftheevidenceofDW33toDW35andonthe
basis of the contents of the certified copies of their confessional
statementsandthestatementmadebySadiqIsrar,DW33,under
section164oftheCr.P.C.Moreover,evenifSadiq,DW33,would
haveadmittedthecontentsofhisconfessionalstatement,whichwas
an impossibility, his confessional statement would not have been
admissibleinthiscaseinviewoftheprovisionsofSec.18(1)ofthe
MCOC Act, which says that a confessional statement of a person
recordedundersection18shallbeadmissibleinthetrialofsuch
person or coaccused, abettor or conspirator, provided they are
charged and tried in the same case together with the accused.
Leavingasidedrawinginferences,nodoubtiscreatedonthebasisof
theirevidenceabouttheinvolvementofthemembersoftheIndian
Mujaheedinincausingthebombexplosionsinthiscase.Hence,this
defencetakenbytheaccusedisnotprovedandisnotprobablealso.
Itisclearthattheaccusedhavetakenthisfalsedefence.Hence,it
th
willhavetobeheldthat thisisthe10
additionalcircumstancein
Applicationsfiledduringthecourseofarguments:
1620.
JudgementMCOC21/06
(i)
..1714..
Ext.4825
Ext.4600isanapplicationfiledbylearnedadvocateWahab
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1715..
Ext.4825
affectthecaseoftheprosecutionconsideringthefactthatitisofa
subsequentperiodandtheevidenceofJayantAher,PW131,isnot
reliedupontoarriveatanyconclusion.
(iii) Ext.4640 is an application filed by the A2 submitted by
advocate Wahab Khan for producing certified true photocopies of
panchanamaanddepositionsofthreewitnessesinSessionCaseNo.
674/09concerningwitnessRohitWarang,PW19.Itsproductionis
objectedtobythelearnedSPPonthegroundthatfinalarguments
havestartedandareinprogressandnodocumentbepermittedto
beproducedatallatthisstage.Consideringthefactthattheyare
certifiedtruecopiesofproveddocumentsanddepositionissuedby
thecopyingsectionofthiscourtandtheyareconcerningthesaid
witnessand PIKhanvilkar,PW168,theapplicationdeservestobe
allowed. Hence, it is allowed at the time of judgment and the
documents are received in evidence and marked as Exts. 4808,
4809,4810and4811.Theeffectofthesedocumentshasalready
been considered during the discussion of the evidence of Rohit
Warang,PW19.
(iv) ApplicationExt.4647isfiledbyadvocate Sharif Shaikhon
06/05/14 for producing certified copies of panchanama and
deposition in MCOC Spl. Case No. 16/06. The learned SPP has
objectedonthegroundthattheyarebeingproducedatabelated
stage.Consideringthedescriptioninthelistofdocumentsalongwith
theapplicationthattheyareinconnectionwithExt.2886,whichwas
already produced by the defence and as they relate to a witness
Mukesh Walji Rabadia, employer of Vishal Parmar, PW74, the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1716..
Ext.4825
applicationdeservestobeallowed.Hence,Ext.4647isallowedand
disposedoffatthetimeofjudgmentandthecertifiedtruecopyof
panchanamaanddepositionarereceivedinevidenceandmarkedas
Exts.4812and4813.ContentsofExt.2886,whicharethesameas
Ext. 4812, have already been considered while discussing the
evidenceofVishalParmar,PW74.
(v)
ApplicationExt.4652isanapplicationdated07/05/14bythe
A8submittedbyhisadvocateforproducingaletterreceivedbyhim
fromtheRPO,CentralPublicInformationofficerinconnectionwith
hispassport.ItisobjectedtobythelearnedSPPonthegroundthat
nonewmaterialbeallowedtobeproducedatthisbelatedstage.As
itisjustaninformationobtainedundertheRTIAct,thereisnopoint
in allowing its production at this stage. Hence, the application is
rejectedanddisposedoffatthetimeofjudgment.Evenotherwise
evidencerelatingtothepassportoftheA8isirrelevanttothefactin
issue.
(vi) Ext.4693is anapplicationfiledbylearnedadvocateWahab
Khan for producing of certified copy of final report and
panchanamas in Session Case No.761/13submitting thatitis in
connection with Subhash Nagarsekar, PW57. Learned SPP has
objectedtotheirproductiononthegroundthathisfinalarguments
areoverandproductionshouldnotbeallowedatthisbelatedstage.
Since the documents are certified copies issued by the copying
section of this court and are concerning the witness Subhash
Nagarsekar,PW57,theapplicationdeservestobeallowedanditis
allowedanddisposedoffatthetimeofjudgmentandthedocuments
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1717..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1718..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1719..
Ext.4825
toVishwasPatil,PW165,whichshowsthatreadymadedraftcopyof
theconsentorderwasprovidedtothecollector.Theevidencegiven
byVishwasPatil,PW165,andtheconsentorderExt.1762issuedby
himhasbeendiscussedanditisconcludedthatitisprovedthathe
had applied his mind in issuing consent order. Hence, these
documentsdonotaffecthisevidence.
Afterconclusionoffinalarguments:
(i)
Ext.4742isanapplicationdated21/08/14sentbytheA8by
postfromthe prisonforwardinganinformationobtainedbyhim
undertheRTIActfromthepublicinformationofficerintheofficeof
SP, North24Parganas, Barasat. Learned SPP has objected to the
productionofthisdocumentonthegroundsthatthestageoftaking
on record any evidence was over long back, the final arguments
werealsoconcludedlongbackandreplyonlawpointswerealso
givenandthecaseispostedforpronouncementofjudgment.Hence,
thereisnoquestionofconsideringanynewmaterialatthisstage
whenthedictationofjudgmentmustbeinprogress.Thedocument
sought to be produced is only an information under the RTI Act
whichcannotbeprovednowanditwillbepointlessifsuchtypeof
productionisallowed.Hence,theapplicationExt.4742isrejected
anddisposedoffatthetimeofjudgment.Evenotherwiseitissimilar
totheinformationthatwassoughtbytheA8inrespectofwanted
accusednos.8to13.
(ii)
Ext.4757isanapplicationdated10/12/14sentbytheA4by
postforproducingcertifiedcopiesofjudgmentsdated20/11/14in
CC79/P/2003and80/P/2013concerningLACNo.1839/01andCR
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1720..
Ext.4825
No.275/01ofKurlaPoliceStationinwhichtheA4andA2werethe
accused and they were acquitted by the MM, 51st Court, Kurla.
LearnedSPPhasconsentedtotakethedocumentsonrecordasthey
arecertifiedcopyofjudgments,buthassubmittedthattheoutcome
ofthejudgmentsisimmaterialforthepurposeofsection2(1)(d)of
theMCOCAct.Astheyarecertifiedcopiesofjudgmentsissuedbya
courtandareconcerningthepreviouscasesagainsttheA4andthe
A2relieduponbytheprosecution,theapplicationdeservestobe
allowed.Hence,theapplicationExt.4757isallowedanddisposedoff
atthetimeofjudgment.Thedocumentsarereceivedinevidence
andmarkedasExts.4821and4822.Itisrightlysubmittedbythe
learnedSPPinhissaythattheoutcomeofthepreviouscasesagainst
theA2andtheA4isimmaterialforthepurposeofsection2(1)(d)
oftheMCOCAct.Tomymind,whatismaterialisthattheywere
arrestedinconnectionwithcertainallegationsandthecompetent
courthadtakencognizanceoftheoffencesagainstthem.Ofcourse,
thesearenotthecasesonthebasisofwhichtheprovisionsofMCOC
Actwereappliedinthecrimeinthepresentcase.
(iii) TheapplicationExt.4762dated05/01/15issentbytheA4by
postforproducingcertifiedcopyjudgmentdated26/11/14inCC
No. 577/PW/08 acquitting the A4 for the offences under section
353,506(2)oftheIPC.LearnedSPPconsentedfortheproduction
of the documentas itis a certified copy,but submitted thatitis
immaterialfor the purpose of section2(1)(d)of theMCOCAct.
Hence,theapplicationExt.4762isallowedanddisposedoffatthe
time of judgment and the document is received in evidence and
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1721..
Ext.4825
markedasExt.4823.Itisirrelevantinasmuchasitisconcerningthe
incidentdated25/03/08during whichthe A4allegedlyassaulted
theescortpoliceman.Thus,itisofnoconsequence.
(iv) TheapplicationExt.4789dated03/05/15issentbytheA13
by post for producing certified true copy of judgment dated
29/04/15 in RCC No. 30/07. Learned SPP has consented for
producing it and has submitted that the result of the case is
immaterialforthepurposeofsection2(1)(d)oftheMCOCAct.
Hence,theapplicationExt.4789isallowedanddisposedoffatthe
timeofjudgment.Thedocumentisreceivedinevidenceandmarked
asExt.4824.Itisconcerningoneofthepreviouscasesagainstthe
A13 relied upon by the prosecution, i.e., RCC No. 219/01 filed
againsttheA13inwhichtheA13abscondedafterbeingreleasedon
bail.However,asissubmittedbythelearnedSPPtheresultofthe
caseisimmaterialforthepurposeofsection2(1)(d)oftheMCOC
Act.WhatismaterialisthattheA13wasarrestedinthatcasein
connection with certain allegations and the competent court had
taken cognizance of the offences against him. This case was
consideredasapreviouschargesheetforapplyingtheprovisionsof
theMCOCActtothepresentcrime.
Somemoreissuesraisedbythedefenceduringthetrial:
1621.
defencelikeallegedillegaldetentionbytheCrimeBranchofsome
accusedbeforetheywerearrestedbytheATS,sendingtheaccused
totheCrimeBranchofficeatKurla,prosecutionnotconfirmedabout
thetheoryofpressurecooker,i.e.,containersusedforkeepingthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1722..
Ext.4825
bombsandabouttriggeringdevicebeingnotestablishedandthere
beingnoevidenceaboutthepurchaseofbags.Therearealsoissues
aboutthedateoftransferofACPPatil,PW186,totheATSandthe
date on which he took charge and nonexamination of alleged
materialwitnesses.
1622.
Alltheseissues,tomymind,donotaffectthenatureand
qualityoftheevidencegivenbytheprosecutiontobringthehome
theguilttotheaccused.Therefore,Ifindnoneedtodiscussthem
independently and in detail. It will suffice if a brief reference is
made.Insofarastheallegationofillegaldetentionofsomeaccused
priortotheirarrestbytheATSisconcerned,thecertifiedcopiesof
the station diary entries of the Crime Branch proved during the
evidence of Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, indicate that the concerned
accusedwerecalledtotheirofficeongettinginformationthatthey
aremembersoftheterroristorganisationLeTandwereinquired
withanditwasdisclosedthattheyhadgonetoPakistan via Iran,
wheretheyobtainedmilitanttraininganditwassuspectedthatthey
conspiredtocommitthebombblasts in this case,therefore,they
weredetainedonsuspicionandthereafterhandedovertotheATS
for further investigation. Insofar as nonexamination of material
witnessesisconcerned,Sr.PIWadhankar,PW167,hasgivenspecific
evidenceabouttheinquiryinconnectionwithtwoKashmiriyouths,
who had allegedly purchased pressure cookers from a shop in
Santacruzandabouttakingstatementsoftheshopkeepers,etc. PI
Agrawal, PW173, has explained about an injured Ramanand
Machewarandaboutfourpersonsbeingapprehendedundersection
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1723..
Ext.4825
41(2)oftheCr.P.C.andoninquiringwiththemherulingoutthe
possibility of they being suspects in our case. ACP Khandekar,
PW174,clarifiedthepositionofSureshSuvarnaandPCKhanvilkar.
Thus,nonexaminationofthesesocalledmaterialwitnessesisofno
consequence.Infacttheywerenotmaterialwitnesses.
1623.
Inrespectofthetriggeringdeviceorcontainersthatwere
usedtokeepthebombs,inallprobabilitytheprosecutioncouldnot
go ahead with a specific theory about the triggering device or
container, whether it was a timer device or a remote operated
device,asnosucharticleswerefound.Tomymind,theycouldnot
havebeenfoundbecauseoftheeffectofthepowerfulexplosions.
ThecircuitthatwasshowntoAPIRevle,PW154,isnotthecircuit
thatwasusedorthatsimilarcircuitswereused.Itwasjustshownto
himtogiveanopinionaboutit.Infactinparagraph13hesaysthat
bombtriggeringmechanismcanbepreparedwiththehelpofthe
PCB,Art.349andtheotherelectroniccomponents,Arts.354,355,
357, 358 and 359. It appears that the learned SPP wanted the
witnesstodemonstratetothecourtastohowabombisprepared
withexplosives,detonators,powersourceandtriggeringmechanism
ifpressurecookerisusedandthewitnessexplaineditasperhis
knowledge. His evidence is not specifically about the triggering
deviceinthiscaseorthatthecircuitboardssimilartothecircuit
boardshowntohimwereusedastimerdeviceortriggeringdevice.
Itappearsthattheaccusedhaveverycleverlysidesteppedandnot
mentionedaboutthetriggeringdeviceandthecontainersintheir
confessionalstatements.Theabsenceofanyexplanationorphysical
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1724..
Ext.4825
evidencefromthesideoftheprosecutioncannotbereadagainstthe
prosecution and cannot lead to an inference that because it has
failedtoexplainthis,itscaseisnottrue.Itisquiteprobablethat
somesophisticatedcircuitortriggeringdevicewasbroughtbythe
Pakistaninational,whoarewantedaccusedinthiscaseandtheA7
didtheworkofsolderingthewiresandcompletingthecircuitasper
theinstructionsthatweregiventohimbythem.Inthisconnection
perfectrelianceisplacedbythelearnedSPPonthelawlaiddownin
thecaseof InspectorofPolice,TamilNadu,AppellantsV.John
David,Respondent((2011)2SCC(Cri)647).Itisheldinparagraphs
38and39that,'38. Itiswellsettledpropositionoflawthatthe
recovery of crime objects on the basis of information given by the
accusedprovidesalinkinthechainofcircumstances.Alsofailureto
explainoneofthecircumstanceswouldnotbefatalfortheprosecution
caseandcumulativeeffectofallthecircumstancesistobeseeninsuch
cases.Atthisjuncturewefeelitappositetomentionthatinthecaseof
State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy reported in
MANU/SC/0633/1999:(1999)8SCC715thisCourthasheldthat;
thecourtmusthavepredominanceandpreeminenceincriminaltrials
over the action taken by the investigating officers. Criminal justice
should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the
investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is
convincedthatthetestimonyofawitnesstotheoccurrenceistruethe
courtisfreetoactonit.
investigationprocesscannotformthecruxofthecaseonwhichthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1725..
Ext.4825
Respondentcanrelyupontoprovehisinnocencewhentherearestrong
circumstantial evidences deduced from the said investigation which
logicallyandrationallypointtowardstheguiltoftheaccused.'
1624.
nationalbynameRiyazNawabuddinwastriedtobeconnectedwith
this case and the concerned investigating officers have been
suggestedthatinfactthesaidpersonisinvolvedinthebombblasts
in the present case. However, the investigating officers have
sufficientlyandclearlyexplainedaboutthefactsinrespecttothat
person,whileadmittingthathehadshownthehideoutofdeceased
accusedno.2AbuOsama@AbuUmed@Mohd.Ali,whowasthen
killedintheencounterbytheATSstaff.
1625.
ByexaminingACPShengal,DW51,asadefencewitness,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1726..
Ext.4825
wheretheyarekept.
Conclusion:
1626.
1627.
1628.
Theevidencethatisproducedbytheprosecutioninthe
presentcaseisofasterlingquality.Someofthecircumstancesare
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1727..
Ext.4825
broughtonrecordbytheaccusedthemselvesandtheyareconsistent
withthecaseoftheprosecution.Whereasifthedefenceevidenceis
considered,itdoesnotpassthetestofreliabilityandacceptability
anddoesnotevenshowpreponderanceofprobabilities.Theposition
isdifferentvisavisastatementundersection313andtheevidence
givenbytheaccusedonoath.Iftheaccusedwouldhavementioned
certain things in 313, the court would have taken it into
considerationforappreciation,butiftheygaveevidencethenitis
requiredtobeestablishedbythemandifinthatcasetheyfail,then
thepositionisdifferent.Thisiswhathashappenedinthepresent
case. The learned SPP has turned the tables on the defence by
completelydemolishingthecredibilityofthedefencetakenbythe
accused who gave evidence and on the other hand succeeded in
showingtheinterconnectivitybetweentheaccusedandhasexposed
thefalsityofthespecificdefenceslikealibi,torture,etc.,takenby
them.
1629.
Thecumulativeeffectofthetotalityofthecircumstances
Whatisprovedbytheprosecution:
1630.
Thecircumstancesprovedbytheprosecutionare:
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1728..
Ext.4825
(I)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton11/07/06theA3alongwithone
more personhadtravelledinataxifrom Carter Road,Bandraat
about3.30or4.00p.m.toasubwayofChurchgateRailwayStation,
reachedthereatabout5.00p.m.andthattheywerecarryingablack
colouredbagwiththemthatwasofrexine.(Circumstanceno.1).
(II)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton11/07/06,theA13alongwith
one more person had travelled in a taxi from Perry Cross Road,
Bandra at about 3.15 to 3.30 p.m. to a subway of Churchgate
RailwayStationreachingthereatabout4.45to5.00p.m.andthat
theywerecarryingablackheavybagwiththem.(Circumstanceno.
2).
(III)ItisheldthattheA13hastakenafalsepleaofalibliabout
beingathisworkplaceon9th,10th and11/07/06.(1st additional
circumstance).
(IV)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton11/07/06theA1hadkeptabig
rexinebaginthefirstclasscompartmentinthe5.57p.m.Virarfast
trainatChurchgateandhewasaccompaniedbyaperson,whodid
notgetdownatDadar.(Circumstanceno.3).
(V)ItisheldthattheA1hastakenafalsepleaofalibiaboutbeing
at his native place on 10 and 11/07/06. (2nd additional
circumstance).
(VI)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton11/07/06theA3hadkepta
blackcolouredbaginthefirstclasscompartmentofthe5.36p.m.
ChurchgateBorivali slow train at Churchgate and he was
accompaniedbyonemoreperson.(Circumstanceno.4).
(VII) Prosecutionhasprovedthaton11/07/06theA4hadablack
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1729..
Ext.4825
rexinebagwithhimwhenheboardedthefirstclasscompartmentof
the5.19p.m.VirartrainwithablackrexinebagatChurchgateand
he was accompanied by one more person and they got down at
Dadaremptyhanded.(Circumstanceno.5).
(VIII)ItisheldthattheA4hastakenafalsepleaofalibiaboutbeing
atMiraRoadon11/07/06.(3rdadditionalcircumstance).
(IX)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton11/07/06,theA13hadkepta
blackcolouredbaghavingchaininthefirstclasscompartmentof
the5.37p.m.VirarfastlocalatChurchgateandhewasaccompanied
byonemoreperson.(Circumstanceno.6).
(X)ProsecutionhasprovedthatRDXwasfoundinthehouseofthe
A1 at Basopatti, Dist. Madhubani, Bihar on 20/07/06.
(Circumstanceno.7).
(XI)ProsecutionhasprovedthattheA3wasinpossessionofflatno.
24,3rdfloor,LuckyVilla,'A'building,PerryCrossRoad,CarterRoad,
Bandra(W),MumbaiandthatCyclonite(RDX)wasfoundinthat
flaton28/07/06.(Circumstanceno.8).
(XII)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton28/07/06,15000SaudiRiyals,
8booksrelatingtoSIMIArts.150to152,mapofMumbaiArt.153
andphotocopyofinternationalmapArt.161,Ext.1486,werefound
intheflatinpossessionoftheA3.(Circumstanceno.9).
(XII)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton12/08/06bottlesofchemicals,
i.e.,sulphuricacid,acetoneandhydrogenperoxide,Arts.34to36
respectively, were seized from the locker of the A2 in the Sabu
SiddqiquiHospital where he was working andthat the chemicals
canbeusedforpreparingexplosivemixture.(Circumstanceno.10).
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1730..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1731..
Ext.4825
(Circumstanceno.15).
(XIX) Prosecutionhasprovedthaton23/10/06attheinstanceof
theA7therewasrecoveryofarticles,i.e.,Arts.346to352,354,355
and 357 to 359 and that a timer/triggering device to trigger the
detonatorcanbebuiltwiththehelpofresistors,Arts.354(1to22),
capacitorsArts.355(1and2),coil,Art.356,transistors,Arts.357
(1to8),LEDs,Arts.358(1to9)anddiodes,Arts.359(1to6).
(Circumstanceno.16).
(XX) Prosecutionhasprovedthatsometimeinthesecondorthird
week of May, 2006, the A5 brought six Pakistani persons from
Bongaon,whichisjustadjacenttotheBangladeshborderofIndia,
to Kolkata for being further taken to Mumbai. (Circumstance no.
17).
(XXI) Prosecutionhasprovedthatafewdaysbeforetheblaststhe
A2andA4wereoutsidethehouseoftheA6,whowasalsopresent.
(Circumstanceno.18).
(XXII)ItisheldthattheA2hastakenafalsepleaofalibiabouthe
being continuously at his place of work in the Sabu Siddiqui
Hospitalon8th,9thand10/07/06.(4thadditionalcircumstance).
(XXIII)ItisheldthattheA7hastakenafalsepleaofalibiabouthe
beingathis shopatJogeshwarion08/07/06and10/07/06. (5th
additionalcircumstance).
(XXIV)ItisheldthattheA4hastakenafalsepleaofalibiabouthe
being at Mira Road on 8th and 10/07/06 and at Mumbra on
09/07/06forthewholeday.(6thadditionalcircumstance).
(XXV)ItisheldthattheA6hasgivenafalsestorythathisandhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1732..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1733..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1734..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1735..
Ext.4825
on04/04/05andreturnedon29/04/05.(Circumstanceno.33).
(XLI) ProsecutionhasprovedthattheA3hadobtainedvisasforIran
forChipaMohd.AliandZulfiquarFaiyyazAhmedandtheywereto
go to Iran in the year 2005 and on 02/05/06 respectively.
(Circumstanceno.34).
(XLII)Prosecutionhasprovedthatintheyear2005theA9obtained
visaforIranforFirozGhaswala.(Circumstanceno.35).
(XLIII)ProsecutionhasprovedthattheA10wentfromMumbaito
Iran on 01/11/02 and returned on 29/11/02. (Circumstance no.
36).
(XLIV) Prosecution has proved that the A6 had traveled from
MumbaitoMuscaton01/02/03.(Circumstanceno.37).
(XLV)Prosecution has proved that the A3 was instrumental in
obtainingvisasofIranforforA2andA11andtheA2,A9,A10and
A11traveledtoIranonZiaratvisaasacamouflage.(Circumstance
no.38).
(XLVI)ProsecutionhasprovedthatStudentsofIslamicMovementof
India,i.e.,SIMI,isdeclaredasanunlawfulassociationundersection
3(1)oftheUA(P)Actandthebanhasbeenextendedfromtimeto
timeandevenafterthedateofthebombblasts.(Circumstanceno.
39).
(XLVII)ProsecutionhasprovedthattheA2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,A9,
A10, A11and A13 were members of andwere either activists or
officebearersofSIMIorganisationandcontinuedtoworkforthe
saidorganisationevenafterthebanonSIMIin2001.(Circumstance
no.40).
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1736..
Ext.4825
(XLVIII)Prosecutionhasprovedthatanunidentifieddeadbodythat
was found at the site of the Matunga blast was that of Salim, a
Pakistaninational.(Circumstanceno.41).
(XLIX)(i)ProsecutionhasprovedthattheA2,A4andA6havebeen
identifiedinthetestidentificationparadeasthepersonswhowere
presentoutsidethehouseoftheA6afewdaysbefore11/07/06.
(Circumstanceno.42).
(ii)ProsecutionhasprovedthatA4hasbeenidentifiedinthetest
identificationparadeashavingboardedthe5.19p.m.Virartrainat
Churchgateon11/07/06withablackrexinebagandhegotdown
atDadarwithoutthebag.(Circumstanceno.42).
(XLX)ProsecutionhasprovedthatprovisionsoftheMCOCActhave
beenproperlyinvokedinC.R.No.156of2006ofBorivaliRailway
PoliceStation.(Circumstanceno.43).
(XLXI)ItisheldthattheA5hastakenafalsepleaofalibiabouthe
beinginKolkatainthesecondweekofMay,2006.(8th additional
circumstance).
(XLXII)ItisheldthattheA5hastakenafalsepleaofalibiabouthe
being in Kolkata on 10th, 11th and 12/07/06. (9th additional
circumstance).
(XLXIII)Prosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe
confessionalstatementsgivenbytheA1toA7andA9toA12are
voluntary,trueandtrustworthy.(Circumstanceno.44).
(XLXIV)Itisheldthattheaccusedhavetakenthefalsedefenceof
theIndian Mujaheedin organisationhavingcommittedtheblastsin
thepresentcase.(10thadditionalcircumstance).
JudgementMCOC21/06
1631.
..1737..
Ext.4825
Proofofthepointno.6abouttheA2toA4,A6toA11and
A13andwantedaccusedno.2and3beingmembersofanunlawful
associationreadwiththecontentsoftheirconfessionalstatementsin
respect of the ideology of SIMI shows how they developed their
mindsettocommitjihad.TheideologyofSIMIisreflectedinthe
passageinoneofthebooks,thetranslationofwhichisinparagraph
1096 supra, which says that the democracy in this country is
completely contrary to the thought and way of Islam is not
acceptableanditisnecessarytouprootitfromtheveryroot,which
isthesolemndutyofeveryMuslim.Thattheycouldgotoanylength
toachievetheirobjectsisprovedbythecircumstancesofA2,A3and
A9toA11travellingtoPakistanunderacamouflage.Thecontentsof
theirconfessionalstatementsprovethattheytookmilitanttraining
in Pakistan which included handling of sophisticated arms,
preparationofbombsandcausingexplosions.Itisalsoprovedfrom
theconfessionalstatementoftheA3,A10,A9,A2andA11thatthey
travelled to Iran and from there they clandestinely entered into
Pakistanandundertookthetrainingandtheirjourneywasfinanced
bywantedaccusedno.1,2and3,whowerethemembersoftheLe
T.ItisprovedbytheconfessionalstatementsoftheA4,thattheA3
hadtoldhimtoprintabookonjihadandhadgivenRs.25,000/and
hepublishedthebooktitled'IslamKoChoti'andtheA3alsotold
him about his close relations with wanted accused no. 4. The
contentsoftheconfessionalstatementsoftheA2,A3andA9toA11
prove that they came in contact with the wanted accused no. 1,
training commander of LeT at Bahawalpur in Pakistan, wanted
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1738..
Ext.4825
accusedno.14,15,2,3and5duringthetrainingandthatthey
werethemembersoftheLeT.
1632.
ThecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementsoftheA3and
A9provethattheA3wasinstrumentalinsendingtheA2andA9to
A11forobtainingmilitanttraininginPakistanandhehadalsosent
threemorepersonsforthesaidreason,whoareunconnectedwith
the present case. It is proved by the contents of the confessional
statementoftheA1thathehadtakenmilitanttraininginthecamp
oftheLeTinMuzzafarabadattheinstanceofthewantedaccused
no.4HafizZuberintheyear2000.Itisprovedbythecontentsof
theconfessionalstatementoftheA6thathetookmilitanttrainingin
PakistaninFebruary,2003.
1633.
Prosecutionhasprovedbytheproofofthecircumstances,
theconnectionandtheassociationoftheA2toA4,A6toA11and
A13wantedaccusedno.2and3withtheunlawfulassociationSIMI
andhasalsoprovedthecircumstanceswhichprovetraveloftheA2
andA9toA11toIranasacamouflageandoftheA3,firstlydirectly
toPakistanintheyear2001andsecondlytoJeddahinSaudiArabia
for13months in 200304.All thesecircumstancesprovedbythe
prosecutionreadwiththecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementsof
therespectiveaccusedprovethattheyhadobtainedmilitanttraining
inPakistananditwastheA3whomotivatedtheotheraccusedto
undergothetraining.
1634.
ThecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA3prove
thatwantedaccusedno.1AzamChimasenthimbackafterhehad
undergonethetrainingonthesecondoccasionashe,i.e.,wanted
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1739..
Ext.4825
1635.
((1991)3SupremeCourtCases27).
(ii)
StatethroughCentralBureauofInvestigation,AppellantV.
MahenderSinghDahiya,Respondent((2011)3SupremeCourt
Cases109).
InthecaseofMahenderSinghDahiyaitisheldthatburden
JudgementMCOC21/06
1636.
..1740..
Ext.4825
authorities:
(i)
StateofU.P.,AppellantV.BabuRam,Respondent((2000)
4SupremeCourtCases515).
(ii)
Bihar,Respondent((2013)1SupremeCourtCases(Cri)872).
(iii) MunishMubar,AppellantV.StateofHaryana,Respondent
((2013)1SupremeCourtCases(Cri)52).
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1741..
Ext.4825
Thesaidmotivemaynotevenbeknowntothevictimofthecrime.The
motivemaybeknowntotheassassinandnooneelsemayknowwhat
gavebirthtosuchevilthoughtinthemindoftheassassin.Inacaseof
circumstantialevidence,theevidenceindicatingtheguiltoftheaccused
becomesuntrustworthyandunreliable,becausemostoftenitisonly
the perpetrator of the crime alone, who has knowledge of the
circumstancesthatpromptedhimtoadoptacertaincourseofaction,
leadingtothecommissionofthecrime.Therefore,iftheevidenceon
recordsuggestssufficient/necessarymotivetocommitacrime,itmay
beconceivedthattheaccusedhascommittedthesame.'
1637.
LearnedadvocateShettyistothepointonplacingreliance
onthefollowingauthorities:
(i)
Investigation,Respondent((2010)1SupremeCourtCases(Cri)
164).
(ii)
N.V.SubbaRao,AppellantV.State,throughInspectorof
thatthecriminalconspiracyisanoffencewhichisindependentof
otheroffences,ittakesplacewhenthereisanagreementtodoor
causetobedoneanillegalact,oranactwhichmaynotbeillegal
butbyillegalmeans.Itwasheldthatintheabsenceofagreement,
merethoughttocommitacrimedoesnotconstituteanoffence,that
conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, direct evidence is
thereforedifficulttobecomeavailableandcriminalconspiracycan
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1742..
Ext.4825
1638.
(i)
LearnedSPPreliedonthefollowingauthorities:
State of Maharashtra, Etc. Etc., Appellants V. Som Nath
Thapa,Etc.Etc.,Respondent((1996)4SCC659).
(ii)
Inthecaseof SomNathThapaitwasheldinparagraph22
that,'asinthepresentcasethebombblastwasaresultofchainof
actions,itiscontendedonbehalfoftheprosecution,onthestrengthof
this Court's decision in Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab,
MANU/SC/0169/1977:1978CriLJ189,whichwasnotedinpara9of
AjayAggarwal'scase,thatofsuchasituationtheremaybedivisionof
performancesbypluralityofmeanssometimesevenunknowntoone
another;andinachievingthegoalseveraloffencesmaybecommitted
bytheconspiratorsevenunknowntotheothers.Allthatisrelevantis
thatallmeansadoptedandillegalactsdonemustbeandpurportedto
beinfurtheranceoftheobjectoftheconspiracy,eventhoughtheremay
besometimesmisfireorovershootingbysomeoftheconspirators.'A
referencewasmadetothecaseofAjayAggarwalwherein itwas
stated that, 'the law has developed several or different models or
techniquetobroachthescopeofconspiracy.Onesuchmodelisthatof
a chain, where each party performs even without knowledge of the
other,arolethataidssucceedingpartiesinaccomplishingthecriminal
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1743..
Ext.4825
objectivesoftheconspiracy.Referencewasmadetotheillustrationof
procuringanddistributingnarcoticsanditwasheldthat,'thusthe
conspiratorsatoneendatthechainknowthattheunlawfulbusiness
would not, and could not,stop with their buyers,and thoseat the
otherendknowthatithadnotbegunwiththeirsettlers.Theactionof
eachhastobeconsideredasaspokeinthehub,therebeingarimto
bindallthespokestogetherinasingleconspiracy.'learnedSPPhas
reliedinthecaseofNavjotSandhuAliasAfsanGuruwhereinitis
heldreferringtoNalini'scasethatmostlyconspiraciesareprovedby
the circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open
affair.Usuallyboththeexistenceoftheconspiracyanditsobjects
havetobeinferredfromthecircumstancesandtheconductofthe
accused. It is held in paragraph 97 that, 'the wellknown rule
governingcircumstantialevidenceisthateachandeveryincriminating
circumstancemustbeclearlyestablishedbyreliableevidenceandthe
circumstancessoprovedmustformachainofeventsfromwhichthe
onlyirresistibleconclusionabouttheguiltoftheaccusedcanbesafely
drawnandnootherhypothesisagainsttheguiltispossible.'Itisheld
inparagraph98that,'inmostcasesitwillbedifficulttogetdirect
evidenceofanagreementtoconspirebutaconspiracycanbeinferred
even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive or irresistible
inferenceofanagreementbetweentwoormorepersonstocommitan
offence.Inmostcasesproofofconspiracyislargelyinferentialthough
the inference must be founded on solid facts. Surrounding
circumstancesand antecedentand subsequentconduct,amongother
factors,constituterelevantmaterial.'Lastlyitisheldinparagraph101
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1744..
Ext.4825
that,'onemoreprinciplewhichdeservesnoticeisthatthecumulative
effect of the proved circumstances should be taken into account in
determiningtheguiltoftheaccusedratherthanadoptinganisolated
approach to each of the circumstances. Of course, each one of the
circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in
regardtotheappreciationofevidencerelatingtotheconspiracy,the
Courtmusttakecaretoseethattheactsorconductofthepartiesmust
be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the
commondesignanditsexecution.'
1639.
Inthelightoftheabovelawinrespectofconspiracy,the
subsequentconductoftherespectiveaccusedisrelevant.Firstisthe
preparatoryacts.Thecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementofthe
A3provethathewasincontinuouscontactwiththewantedaccused
no.1,whotoldhimtosearchforagoodtarget,therefore,theA3,
A10 and A11 toured Mumbai and went to different places in
Mumbai and realized that local train target was proper as the
securityarrangementswerenottight.Thishasalsocomedirectlyin
theconfessionalstatementoftheA10andA11andknowledgeabout
thereconnaissanceofvarioustargetshascomeintheconfessional
statementsoftheA4andA10.Subsequenttothatistheactofthe
A2ofcollectingchemicalsasperthedemandoftheA4andkeeping
them in his locker at his place of work, which has come in the
confessional statement of the A2 and is corroborated by
circumstanceno.10provedbytheprosecution.Thattherewas a
conspiracymeetinginFebruary,2006inbetweentheA2,A3,A4,A9,
A10andA13inthehouseoftheA3isprovedbythecircumstance
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1745..
Ext.4825
no.19provedbytheprosecution.Thecontentsoftheconfessional
statementsoftherelevantaccusedare,therefore,corroboratedand
eventheA11hasstatedthathewaspresentinthemeeting.
1640.
1641.
ContentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA6andA12
provethatA2,A3,A4andA12hadgonetothehouseoftheA6at
Shivaji Nagar, Govandi and surveyed it as bombs were to be
preparedinhishouse,whichwasdecidedinthemeetinginMarch,
2006,whichisprovedbythecontentsoftheconfessionalstatements
oftheA2,A6andA12.Thecontentsoftheconfessionalstatements
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1746..
Ext.4825
oftheA3,A4,A2,A11,A9andA10provespecificreconnaissanceof
finaltarget,i.e.,thelocaltrainsfromChurchgatetoVirar.
1642.
PossessionofRDXbytheA1isprovedbytheprosecution
bytheproofofcircumstanceno.7anditcorroboratesthecontents
thecontentsofhisconfessionalstatement.
1643.
Wantedaccusedno.8to13,whoarePakistaninationals,
enteringIndiainMay,2006fromtheDhakaborderofBangladesh
withthehelpoftheA5isprovedbytheprosecutionbyprovingthe
circumstanceno.17anditcorroboratestheconfessionalstatements
oftheA3andA5andthepresenceofthosePakistanipersonsinthe
house of the A3 is proved by the contents of the confessional
statementsoftheA2,A4,A6,A7andA12.Itisalsoprovedbythe
contentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA3andA5thatwanted
accusedno.12brought15kgs.RDXwithhimtoMumbai.
1644.
Wantedaccusedno.6and7beingbroughtbytheA1to
MumbaibycrossingtheNepalborderattheendofMay,2006is
provedbythecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA1,A3
andA4.Bytheproofofcircumstanceno.19prosecutionhasproved
thatthewantedaccusedno.5and14andtwodeceasedaccusedhad
cometoMumbaiandwereinthehouseoftheA3inthesecondor
thirdweekofMay,2006.
1645.
Prosecutionhasbytheproofofcircumstancesno.26,25
and19provedthatfundswereprovidedbythewantedaccusedno.
1and2forcausingthebombblastsandmeetingtheexpensesafter
the explosions, which is corroborated by the contents of the
confessionalstatementsoftheA3andA9.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1646.
..1747..
Ext.4825
BythecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementsoftheA3,
A4,A6,A9,A10,A11andA12prosecutionhasprovedthat11 thJuly
wasfixedasthedateforcausingthebombexplosionsinthelocal
railways.Prosecutionhasprovedcircumstancesno.14and15about
purchaseofMaruticarbearingno.MH01V9568bytheA9andit
beingrecoveredattheinstanceoftheA12andtheblackspotsin
whichwerefoundtocontainCyclonite(RDX)andotherchemicals
andbytheproofofthecircumstanceno.18presenceoftheA2,A4
andA6atthehouseoftheA6on8th,9th and10/07/06hasbeen
proved.ThecontentsofconfessionalstatementsoftheA3,A4,A6
provethattheassemblingofthebombswastobedoneatthehouse
oftheA6on8th,9thand10/07/06.Thecontentsoftheconfessional
statementsoftheA3,A12,A2,A4,A6andA7provethattheworkof
assemblingbombswasdoneinthehouseoftheA6atShivajiNagar,
Govandiandthebombswereassembledbywantedaccusedno.5
andonemorePakistanipersonandalsotheA7andthatA13and
wantedaccusedno.11werealsopresentthere.Thecontentsofthe
confessionalstatementoftheA6provethatwantedaccusedno.12
hadbrought15kgs.RDXwithhimforpreparingbombs,thattheA3
broughtthesaidRDXtohishouse,thattheA13hadalreadybrought
remainingarticleslikeeightblackcolouredrexinebags,Ammonium
Nitrate,detonators,cords,watches,etc.,andkepttheminthehouse
of the A6 and the A7 had brought battery, wire, soldering gun,
circuit board, etc., articles, as he was to do the work of electric
circuitry.
1647.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1748..
Ext.4825
1648.
ThecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA3prove
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1749..
Ext.4825
1649.
Itisprovedbythecontentsoftheconfessionalstatement
oftheA3thatheandwantedaccusedno.9boardedthefirstclass
compartmentofthedecidedtrain,thataspertheplanhehadto
keepthebagontherackabovetheseat,buttherackswerefullof
luggage,therefore,hekeptthebombladenbagbelowaseat.Bythe
proofofcircumstanceno.4theprosecutionhasprovedthatonthat
dayA3hadkeptablackcolouredbaginthefirstclasscompartment
inthe5.36ChurchgateBorivalislowtrainatChurchgateandhewas
accompaniedbyonemoreperson.
1650.
corroboratethecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA3and
itisprovedthathereachedMumbaion11/07/06atthehouseof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1750..
Ext.4825
theA7,wherewantedaccusedno.6andA7werepresentandfrom
theretheythreewenttoBandraandmettheA3inhishouseandhe,
i.e.,theA1,wasgivenabagandasdirectedhe,wantedaccusedno.
6and7anddeceasedaccusedno.1Salimwentbytaxi,reached
ChurchgateRailwayStationatabout5.00p.m.,boardedthefirst
classcompartmentofthe5.57trainandhe,i.e.,theA1,keptthebag
containingthebombonthepassengerrack.Itisalsofurtherproved
thatwhenthetrainreachedDadarRailwayStation,becauseofrush,
deceasedaccusedno.1Salimcouldnotgetdownandwastrapped
inside.Bytheproofofcircumstanceno.3prosecutionhasproved
thatonthatdaytheA1hadkeptabigrexinebaginthefirstclass
compartmentinthe5.57p.m.VirarfasttrainatChurchgateandhe
wasaccompaniedbyaperson,whodidnotgetdownatDadar.By
theproofofcircumstanceno.41prosecutionhasprovedthatthe
unidentifieddeadbodythatwasfoundattheMatungablastsitewas
thatofthedeceasedaccusedno.1Salim,aPakistaninational.
1651.
corroboratethecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA3and
itisprovedthathereachedthehouseoftheA3at3.30p.m.on
11/07/06, that the A3 gave him a bag containing bomb and he
alongwithwantedaccusedno.11wenttoChurchgatebytaxi,that
theybothboardedthefrontfirstclasscompartmentofthetrainand
he,i.e.,theA4,keptitontheluggagerackandaspertheplanboth
gotdownatDadar.Bytheproofofcircumstanceno.5prosecution
hasprovedthatonthatday,theA4hadablackrexinebagwithhim
whenheboardedthefirstclasscompartmentofthe5.19p.m.Virar
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1751..
Ext.4825
1652.
corroboratethecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA3and
it is proved that he got down at Bandra Station as per the
instructionsoftheA3,gavehismobiletotheA7inbetweennear
LuckyHotelandreachedthehouseoftheA3atabout4.15p.m.The
contents of the confessional statement of the A7 corroborate the
confessionoftheA12abouthe,i.e.,theA12,givinghimhismobile
phoneatBandraatabout4.15p.m.Itisprovedbythecontentsof
the confessional statement of the A12 that A3 gave him a bag
containingthebombandhealongwiththedeceasedaccusedno.2
wentbytaxiandreachedChurchgateatabout5.30p.m.,boarded
thefirstclassbogieofBorivalislowlocalandhe,i.e.,A12,keptthe
bag containing the bomb on the luggage rack and they both got
downatDadar.Itisalsoprovedthathecollectedhismobilefrom
theA7bygoingtoMiraRoadandthisisalsocorroboratedbythe
contentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA7.
1653.
Thoughtheprosecutioncouldnotproveanycircumstance
toshowthattheA12wasoneoftheplanters,itisprovedbythe
substantive evidence by way of contents of the confessional
statementsoftheA3andtheA12himselfandtherecoveryofcar
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1752..
Ext.4825
thatwasprovedtohavetracesofRDX,whichisthecircumstance
no.15provedbytheprosecution.
1654.
A13didnotgiveanyconfessionalstatement,buthebeing
aplanterisprovedbythecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementof
theA3whereinhestatedthathecametoknowlateronthatoutof
the pair of the A13 and the deceased accused no. 1 Salim, the
deceasedaccusedno.1Salimcouldnotgetdownontime.Other
than this, there is direct evidence, because by the proof of
circumstanceno.2,itisprovedthaton11/07/06theA13alongwith
onemorepersontraveledinataxifromPerryCrossRoadatBandra
at about 3.15 to 3.30 p.m. and reached a subway of Churchgate
RailwayStationatabout4.45to5.00p.m.andtheywerecarryinga
blackheavybagwiththem.Bytheproofofcircumstanceno.4itis
provedthatonthatday,theA13keptablackcolouredbaginthe
firstclasscompartmentofthe 5.36p.m.ChurchgateBorivalislow
trainatChurchgateandhewasaccompaniedbyonemoreperson.
1655.
Itisprovedbythecontentsoftheconfessionalstatement
oftheA3thataftertheblasts,allthePakistanipersons,i.e.,wanted
accused,wentbybusonebyoneoutofMumbaitoothercitiesand
fromtherebycatchingdifferenttrainswenttoPakistan.Itisproved
bythecontentsofthe confessionalstatementofthe A4thatfour
more Pakistanis, i.e., the wanted accused, who had executed the
conspiracywentoutsideMumbaibybus.Itisprovedbythecontents
of the confessional statement of the A5 that he took the wanted
accusedno.8to13firstbybustoGujaratandfromtherebytrainto
Kolkata and through Kallu, he reached them in Bangladesh by
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1753..
Ext.4825
crossingtheIndiaborder.
1656.
Itisprovedbythecontentsoftheconfessionalstatement
1657.
Duringthecourseofjudgement,learnedadvocateWahab
Khanproducedon18/05/15adownloadedandprintedcopyofthe
judgementoftheSupremeCourtdtd.15/04/15inCriminalAppeal
No.19691970of2010,Ext.4781,andreliedonpages11,12,46,
47,74to79,91to94and95.Ihavecarefullygonethroughthe
judgementandIdonotseehowitishelpfultotheaccused.Inthat
case,twopreviouschargesheetsofwhichcognizanceoftheoffence
inwhichwastakenbythecompetentcourts,whichwereinrespect
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1754..
Ext.4825
Offencesprovedbytheprosecution:
1658.
Inviewoftheentirediscussionuptonow,inviewofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1755..
Ext.4825
chainofcircumstances,inviewofthecontentsoftheconfessional
statementsofA1toA7andA9toA12,whicharecorroboratedby
the circumstances proved by the prosecution and in view of the
conclusionsarrivedat,itwillhavetobeheldthat:
(i)
provingpointno.6thattheA2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,A9,A10,A11
and A13 and wanted accused no. 2 and 3 are members of an
unlawful association, i.e., SIMI, and all of them except the A8,
continued to be its members and have thereby committed the
offenceundersection10(a)(1)oftheUA(P)A,1967.Thoughitis
provedthattheA8wasalsoamemberofSIMI,noovertacthas
beenattributedtohimandprovedinconnectionwiththiscrime.I,
therefore,holdtheA2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A9,A10,A11andA13guilty
forhavingcommittedtheoffencepunishableundersection10(a)(i)
oftheUA(P)A,1967.
(ii)
Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatall
accusedfacingtrial,exceptA8,weredirectlyorindirectlyconnected
and affiliated to a terrorist organisation, i.e., LashkareTaiba, of
which the 15 wanted accused and 2 deceased accused were
members, and, therefore A1 to A7 and A9 to A13 were also its
membersandhavetherebycommittedtheoffencepunishableunder
section20oftheUA(P)A,1967.Ihaveto,therefore,answerpoint
no.7accordinglyintheaffirmative.I,therefore,holdtheA1toA7
andA9toA13guiltyforhavingcommittedtheoffencepunishable
undersection20oftheUA(P)A,1967.
(iii) Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1756..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1757..
Ext.4825
wantedaccusedand2deceasedaccusedconspiredandcausedthe
bombexplosions,whichwasanunlawfulactivity,thattheydida
terrorist act, that they committed an organised crime, that they
conspiredtowagewaragainsttheGovernmentofIndia,thatthey
collectedmenandammunitionandotherwisepreparedthemselves
forwagingwaragainsttheGovernmentofIndiawiththeintention
ofdoingso,thattheyconcealedtheexistenceofadesigntowage
war against the Government of India, intending by such
concealment to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that such
concealmentwillfacilitatethewagingofwarandtherebycommitted
theoffencepunishableundersection120Breadwithsections121
A, 122 and 123 of the IPC read with sections 13 and 16 of the
UA(P)A,1967readwithsections3(1)(i),3(1)(ii)and3(2)ofthe
MCOCAct,1999. Ihaveto,therefore,answerpointsno.9,10,
11,15,16,17,20,21and34accordinglyintheaffirmative.I,
therefore, hold the A1 to A7 and A9 to A13 guilty for having
committed the offence punishable under section 120B read with
sections121A,122and123oftheIPCreadwithsections13and16
oftheUA(P)A,1967readwithsections3(1)(i),3(1)(ii)and3(2)of
theMCOCAct,1999.
(v)
Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe
A3harbouredterrorists,i.e.,wantedaccusedno.5and8to14and
deceased accused no. 1 and 2 in his house, which is the offence
punishable under section 19 of the UA(P)A, 1967, but has not
provedthattheA1,A4,A5,A7,A8andA13harbouredthem.Ihave
to,therefore,answerpointno.12intheaffirmativeaccordingly.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1758..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1759..
Ext.4825
A12 and A13 guilty for having committed the offence punishable
undersection9BoftheExplosivesAct,1884.
(ix) Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe
A1,A3,A6,A12andA13wereinpossessionofexplosivesforan
unlawfulobjectandtherebycontravenedtherulesundersection5
of the Explosives Act, 1884 and thereby committed an offence
punishableundersection9BofthesaidAct.Ihaveto,therefore,
answerpointsno.26and28intheaffirmative.I,therefore,hold
the A1, A3, A6, A12 and A13 guilty for having committed the
offencepunishableundersection9BoftheExplosivesAct,1884.
(x)
Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1760..
Ext.4825
1908.
(xii) Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe
A3andA6providedpremisesandA7andA13suppliedmaterialand
wereaccessorytothecommissionoftheoffenceundertheExplosive
SubstancesAct,1908andtherebycommittedtheoffencepunishable
undersection6ofthesaidAct.Ihaveto,therefore,answerpoint
no.29intheaffirmative.I,therefore,holdtheA3,A6,A7andA13
guiltyforhavingcommittedtheoffencepunishableundersection6
oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct,1908.
(xiii) Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe
A1,A3,A4,A12andA13alongwithwantedaccusedno.6to9,11
and12anddeceasedaccusedno.1and2committedmischiefby
damaginganddestroyingpublicpropertybyexplosivesubstanceand
thereby committed the offence punishable under section 3 of the
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. I have to,
therefore, answer point no. 30 in the affirmative. I, therefore,
holdtheA1,A3,A4,A12andA13guiltyforhavingcommittedthe
offencepunishableundersection3ofthePreventionofDamageto
PublicPropertyAct,1984.
(xiv) Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe
A1,A3,A4,A12andA13alongwithwantedaccusedno.6to911
and12anddeceasedaccusedno.1and2damagedanddestroyed
propertyoftherailwaybyexplosivesubstancewiththeintentionof
doingsoknowingitlikelythattheycandosoandendangeredthe
safetyofpersonstravelingontherailwaysbycausingexplosionsby
explosivesubstanceandtherebycommittedtheoffencepunishable
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1761..
Ext.4825
undersections151,152and153oftheRailwaysAct,1989.Ihave
to,therefore,answerpointsno.31and32intheaffirmative.I,
therefore, hold the A1, A3, A4, A12 and A13 guilty for having
committedtheoffencespunishableundersections151,152and153
oftheRailwaysAct,1989.
(xv) Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthat:
(a) theA1alongwithwantedaccusedno.6and7anddeceased
accusedno.1conspiredandcommittedthemurdersof28persons
andattemptedtomurderandvoluntarilycausedhurtandgrievous
hurtto110persons,
(b) the A3 alongwith wanted accused no. 9 conspired and
committedthemurdersof28personsandattemptedtomurderand
voluntarilycausedhurtandgrievoushurtto100persons,
(c) the A4 alongwith wanted accused no. 11 conspired and
committedthemurdersof32personsandattemptedtomurderand
voluntarilycausedhurtandgrievoushurtto115persons,
(d) the A12 alongwith deceased accused no. 2 conspired and
committedthemurdersof9personsandattemptedtomurderand
voluntarilycausedhurtandgrievoushurtto102persons,
(e) the A13 alongwith wanted accused no. 8 conspired and
committedthemurdersof26personsandattemptedtomurderand
voluntarilycausedhurtandgrievoushurtto130persons,
andtherebycommittedtheoffencespunishableundersections
302,307,326,325and324readwithsection120BoftheIPC. I
have to, therefore, answer point no. 14 in the affirmative. I,
therefore, hold the A1, A3, A4, A12 and A13 guilty for having
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1762..
Ext.4825
committedtheoffencepunishableundersections302,307,326,325
and324readwithsection120BoftheIPC.
(xvi) ProsecutionhasnotprovedthattheA2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,
A9, A10, A11 and A13 alongwith wanted accused no. 2 and 3
committedtheoffencepunishableundersection124AoftheIPC.I
have to, therefore, answer point no. 18 in the negative. I,
therefore,holdthattheA2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,A9,A10,A11and
A13 are not guilty of having committed the offence punishable
undersection124AoftheIPC.
(xvii)ProsecutionhasnotprovedthattheA4committedtheoffence
punishable under section 17 of the UA(P)A, 1967. I have to,
therefore,answerpointno.22inthenegative.I,therefore,hold
thattheA4isnotguiltyofhavingcommittedtheoffencepunishable
undersection17oftheUA(P)A,1967.
(xviii)ProsecutionhasnotprovedthattheA1,A3,A6,A7alongwith
wanted accused no. 2 and 3 committed the offence punishable
undersection40oftheUA(P)A,1967.Ihaveto,therefore,answer
pointno.23inthenegative.I,therefore,holdthattheA1,A3,A6
andA7arenotguiltyofhavingcommittedtheoffencepunishable
undersection40oftheUA(P)A,1967.
(xix) ProsecutionhasnotprovedthattheA3andA6committedthe
offencepunishableundersection12(1)(C)ofthePassportAct,1967.
I have to, therefore, answer point no. 33 in the negative. I,
therefore, hold that the A3 and A6 are not guilty of having
committed the offence punishable under section 12(1)(c) of the
PassportAct,1967.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1763..
Ext.4825
Thesummaryoftheaboveconclusionsisasfollows:
(I)
(i)
A1,A3,A4,A12andA13arefoundguiltyofhaving
committedtheoffencepunishableundersections302,307,326,325
and324readwith120BoftheIPC.
(ii)
Theyarealsofoundguiltyofhavingcommittedthe
offencepunishableundersection3oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct,
1908.
(iii)
Theyarealsofoundguiltyofhavingcommittedthe
offencepunishableundersections151,152and153oftheRailways
Act,1989.
(iv)
Theyarealsofoundguiltyofhavingcommittedthe
offencepunishableundersection3ofthePreventionofDamageto
PublicPropertyAct,1984.
(v)
Theyarealsofoundguiltyofhavingcommittedthe
offencepunishableundersection9BoftheExplosivesAct,1884.
(II)
A2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A9,A10,A11andA13arefoundguiltyof
havingcommittedtheoffencepunishableundersection10(a)(i)of
theUA(P)A,1967.
(III) (i)
A1toA7andA9toA13arefoundguiltyofhaving
committedtheoffencepunishableundersection20oftheUA(P)A,
1967.
(ii)
Theyarealsofoundguiltyofhavingcommittedthe
offencepunishableundersection3(4)oftheMCOCAct,1999.
(iii)
Theyarealsofoundguiltyofhavingcommittedthe
offencepunishableundersection120Breadwithsections121A,
122and123oftheIPCreadwithsections13and16oftheUA(P)A,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1764..
Ext.4825
1967readwithsections3(1)(i),3(1)(ii)and3(2)oftheMCOCAct,
1999.
(IV) (i)
havingcommittedtheoffencepunishableundersection9Bofthe
ExplosivesAct,1884.
(V)
A3,A6,A7andA13arefoundguiltyofhavingcommittedthe
offencepunishableundersection6oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct,
1908.
(VI) A3, A7 and A13 are found guilty of having committed the
offencepunishableundersection201oftheIPC.
(VII) (i)
A3isfoundguiltyofhavingcommittedtheoffence
punishableundersection19oftheUA(P)A,1967.
(ii)
offencepunishableundersection3(5)oftheMCOCAct,1999.
(VIII)(i)
A2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,A9,A10,A11andA13are
foundnotguiltyofhavingcommittedtheoffencepunishableunder
section124AoftheIPC.
(ii)
offencepunishableundersection17oftheUA(P)A,1967.
(iii)
A1,A3,A6andA7arefoundnotguiltyofhaving
committedtheoffencepunishableundersection40oftheUA(P)A,
1967.
(iv)
A3andA6arefoundnotguiltyofhavingcommitted
theoffencepunishableundersection12(1)(c)ofthePassportAct,
1967.
(v)
A1,A4,A5,A7,A8andA13arefoundnotguiltyof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1765..
Ext.4825
having committedtheoffencepunishableundersection19ofthe
UA(P)A,1967.
(vi)
acquittedundersection235(1)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,
1973ofthechargeoftheoffencespunishableundersections120B,
121A,122,123,124A,201,324,325,326,307,302readwith120
BoftheIndianPenalCode,1860,sections10,13,15,16,17,19,20,
40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with
section120BoftheIndianPenalCode,1860,sections3(1)(i),3(1)
(ii), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Maharashtra Control of
OrganisedCrimeAct,1999readwithsection120BoftheIndian
Penal Code, 1860, section 5 punishable under section 9B of the
Explosives Act,1884readwithsection 120Bof the Indian Penal
Code,1860,sections 3,5and6of the Explosive SubstancesAct,
1908 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
section3ofthePreventionofDamagetoPublicPropertyAct,1984
readwithsection120BoftheIndianPenalCode,1860andsection
151,152,155oftheRailwaysAct,1989readwithsection120Bof
theIndianPenalCode,1860andsection12(1)(c)ofthePassport
Act,1967readwithsection120BoftheIndianPenalCode,1860.
2.
Hebereleasedforthwithifnotrequiredinanyothercase.
3.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1766..
Ext.4825
1659.
Onreachingtheaboveconclusions,Istopheretohear
theaccusedonthepointofsentence.
Date:11/09/2015
(Y.D.SHINDE)
Spl.Judge,under
MCOCAct&NIA,
SpecialCourtNo.1,
Mumbai.
Date:14/09/2015
1660.
A1toA7andA9toA13werecalledaheadonebyoneand
wereaskedtosaywhattheywanttosayonthepointofsentence.
They made oral submissions and also filed written submissions
prepared by their advocates and some of the accused also filed
handwritten submissions. The typedwritten submissions prepared
by their advocates contain common grounds except for some
personal aspects about the accused. I will take the common
submissionsattheendandthesubmissionsaboutparticularaccused
individuallyaftertheiroralsubmissionsalongwiththewitnesses,if
any,examinedbythem.
1661.
A1orallysubmitsthathehasfivesmallchildren,whoare
dependentonhimandtherefore,minimumpunishmentbeimposed
onhim.Hesubmitsthatheisalsofilingthewrittenstatement.Inhis
writtensubmissionsExt.4831,A1afterreproducingthecontentsof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1767..
Ext.4825
1662.
A2orallysubmitsthatheisadoctorandhehaschosenthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1768..
Ext.4825
1663.
InhishandwrittensubmissionsExt.4833hesubmitsthat
heisinnocent,hasnothingtodowiththeoffenceinthiscaseandis
falselyimplicatedbytheATS,Mumbai.Mostofthesubmissionsinit
aretherepetitionofthesubmissionsExt.4832andinadditionhe
submits that he spent the period in the prison as a law abiding
prisoner, not having any bad habits like smoking, etc., that he
studiedlawbooks toknowandbetter understandthe lawofthe
land, that he successfully completed a post graduation diploma
course in Disaster Management (P. G. D. D. M.) from IGNOU to
improvehiseducationalrecordandhastakenadmissioninamaster
degree course in Public Administration (M. P. A.) from the said
university.Hesubmitsthatbeinganexperiencedandtraineddoctor,
specially in critical care management and emergency, he helped
manyjailpolicepersonnelmedically,gavethemadviceaspertheir
ailmentsanddiseases,prescribedmedicaltreatmentandsentthem
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1769..
Ext.4825
totherightmedicaldepartmentofhospitalsandreferredthemto
some best physicians, surgeons known to him. He submits that
before his arrest he was a law abiding citizen, duly paying
government taxes, has performed his duty as a doctor and made
goodeffortstosavethelivesofhumanbeingswithoutthinkingof
cast, sect, religion, etc. He submits that he was prevented from
performinghisdutytowardshisoldagedfather,disabledsister,wife
andtohisonlydaughterashewasintheprison.Hesubmitsthathe
has full faithin the Indian judiciaryand prays for mitigating the
punishmentandpardonthefinesashehasnopropertyandwealth.
He examined his elder brother Ishtiyak Ahmed Mohd. Ibrahim
Ansari, witness no. 2 for the defence on the point of mitigating
circumstances,Ext.4856andDr.KedarToraskar,witnessno.5for
thedefenceonthepointofmitigatingcircumstances,Ext.4864.
1664.
A3orallysubmitsthathehasnotcommittedanycrime,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1770..
Ext.4825
1665.
A4orallysubmitsthatheisfromapoorfamily,thathe
usedtomaintainitbydoingsomesmallwork,thatbecauseofhis
arresthisbrotherhadtostopeducationandhishouseholdisrun
withgreatdifficulty.Hesubmitsthatheobtainededucationduring
his period in prison, that he is producing certificates, that he is
pursuingthesecondL.L.Bcourse.Hesubmitsthatthereisnooneto
lookafterhisfamilyandrequeststhathebegivenminimumpossible
sentence. He submits that he is filing written submissions. In his
written submissions Ext.4835he gave his age as 24yearsonthe
dateoftheoffence.Hesubmitsthatduringtheperiodofnineyears
hewasinprison,heendeavouredtoimprovehimselfbyenrollingin
various educational and selfhelp programs offered by the prison
administration to enable the prisoners to reform themselves and
become responsible citizens, that he has completed a three years
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1771..
Ext.4825
degreeofBachelorinTourismStudies(BTS),sixmonthscertificate
courseinArabic,sixmonthscertificatecourseinUrdu,sixmonths
certificatecourseinHumanRights,sixmonthscertificatecoursein
Guidance,sixmonthscertificatecourseinRuralDevelopmentandis
presentlyenrolledinatwoyearsMasterDegreePrograminPolitical
ScienceandasixmonthscertificatecourseinEnglishteaching.He
submitsthatheisalsocurrentlypursuinghisLLBandhascompleted
hisfirstyear,theduringthatentiretimethathewasinprison,he
hasnotaskedthecourtforanyfacilitiesbuthasconcentratedonhis
studies.Eversinceaccesstotheopenuniversityeducationalfacilities
(IGNOU)weremadeavailableintheprison,hehasconvincedmany
prisonerstoavailofthisandimprovethemselves.Hesubmitsthathe
hashelpedindigentprisonersformakingapplicationsforbail,etc.,
beforetheirtrialcourtsandhashelpedthemintheirstudies.He
submits that he comes from a very poor family, that he used to
publishbooksfromhishouseusinghiscomputer,thatduringthe
periodintheprisonhisgrandmother,whohadbroughthimup,died
and his wife is waiting for him since last nine years. He has
producedcertifiedtruecopiesofthecertificatesofhiseducation.He
hasexaminedthejailteacherAnkushVishnuDhengle,witnessno.6
forthedefenceonthepointofmitigatingcircumstances,Ext.4865
andNadeem Akhtar Ashfaq Ahmed Shaikh, witness no.4for the
defenceonthepointofmitigatingcircumstances,Ext.4858.
1666.
A5orallysubmitsthathehasnopreviouscriminalrecord,
thathehasafootwearshop,thathisentirefamilyiseducated,that
hiswifeishomeopathydoctor,thatafterhewasputinprisonhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1772..
Ext.4825
familycontractedmanyillnesses,thathiswifehasproblemsofboth
kidneys, arthritis and problems in the eyes, that he has a small
daughterandhiswifeislookingafterher,thathismotherisover75
yearsofageandsufferingfrommanydiseases.Hesubmitsthathis
behaviourintheprisonwasgoodandhisrecordisgood,thathehas
neverquarreledwithanyaccusedorprisonstaff,thathealwaystold
otheraccusedwhocameintheprisonnottodocrimes.Hesubmits
thathehastakeneducationduringhisstayinprisonandispursuing
B.A. first year. He submits that he is producing a file of medical
papersofhiswifeandmotheralongwithhiswrittensubmissions
and the treatment of his wife is going on. He submits that
consideringallthesethingshebegivenminimumpossiblesentence.
Hesubmitsthatheisfilingwrittensubmissionsandphotocopiesof
medicalpapers.InhiswrittensubmissionsExt.4836,hehasgiven
hisageas28yearsonthedateoftheoffenceandsubmitsthathe
comesfromapoorfamily,wasashopkeepersellingslippers,that
duringthenineyearsofhisundertrialincarcerationintheprison,
he has endeavoured to improve himself by enrolling in various
educational and selfhelp programs offered by the prison
administration to enable the prisoners to reform themselves and
becomeresponsiblecitizens.HesubmitsthathehaspassedhisHSC
(BPP)fromIGNOUandcommencedhisBAinUrdu.Hesubmitsthat
he is suffering from psychiatric illness for which he has been
receivingtreatmentandalsosufferingfromAsthmaandspondylitis.
Hesubmitsthathismotherisbedriddenandhiswife'skidneyshave
failedandsheisondialysis,thatsheissufferingfromarthritis,eye
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1773..
Ext.4825
1667.
InhishandwrittensubmissionsExt.4837hehasrepeated
allthethingsthathestatedorallyandinthewrittensubmissions
Ext.4836andalsosubmitsthatheisinnocentandhavingnodirect
orindirectconnectionwithanyaccusedinthiscase,thatheshall
restartthebusinessinKolkataforwhichhewillhavetodoublethe
hard work in order to raise his daughter, who is currently in 3rd
standard, for providing better education to her. He submits that
thereisahugevoidinthefatherdaughterrelationshipandhiswife
is not getting the proper medical treatment because of financial
constraints.Hesubmitsthatbecauseofageandvariousillnesseshis
mother is vulnerable and helpless and requires special care and
continuous physical help. He submits that he will become a law
abiding citizen of India after having been in the prison for nine
years, which has instilled a sense of responsibility in him to be
sensitivetowardfamilyandtheirwelfare,thathedoesnotwishto
remaininjailforanylonger.Hesubmitsthatduringtheperiodin
prison,headvisedalotofinmatesnottocommitanycrimesandlive
arespectfullifebydoinghardworkandearnalivingandnotto
steal,that there have been temptations in the prison, but he has
overcome the enticements and practiced selfcontrol, which has
helpedoneinbecomingabetterperson.Hesubmitsthathealways
assistedpeopleinneedandhelpedthemandneverharmedanyone
inhiswholelife,thatintheprisonnewpeopleareeasilypulledby
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1774..
Ext.4825
hardcorecriminalsandtheyformgangsandwhentheygetacquitted
they perform more confidently and become hard core criminals
themselves. He submits that he has cleared Business Preparatory
ProgramsintheprisonandtakenadmissioninBAinUrdulanguage.
HesubmitsthatheisaneducatedpersonandhasfullfaithinIndian
judiciaryandpraysformitigatingpunishmentandpardonthefines
ashehasnopropertyandwealth.HehasproducedhisownOPD
casepapersinoriginalaswellasphotocopiesandthephotocopiesof
themedicalpapersofhismotherandwife.Hehasexaminedhiswife
FarzanaYasminMajid,witnessno.3forthedefenceonthepointof
mitigatingcircumstances,Ext.4856.
1668.
A6orallysubmitsthatheisinnocent,thathewashawking
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1775..
Ext.4825
Bank,thathelosthisjobasthebankshutdown,thatwantingto
earnameansoflivelihood,hesoughtaloanandwastoldthatifhe
didsomethingforIslamthatpersonwouldhelp,towhichheagreed
andinMarch,2002RiyazBhatkalpaidhimRs.5,000/andassured
thathewouldbepaidRs.5,000/eachmonth,henceheagreedto
go to Pakistan. He submits that he was told about the atrocities
committedagainstMuslimsduring thecommunalriots inGujarat
andsubmitsthatduringhisillegaldetentionhismotherdied,buthe
wasnotallowedtoattendherfuneral.Hegavehisageas37years
onthedateoftheoffenceandsubmits thatduringthe periodin
prison he enrolled for a graduation course through IGNOU and
completedthesame,thathehasalsocompletedaoneyearTourism
Course,thathealsodidaUrdulanguagecertificatecourseandhad
obtainedandread20booksonMahatmaGandhiinordertoreform
himself. He submits that he is illiterate, having studied upto 10 th
standardandwasworkingasahawkersellingseasonalitems.He
submitsthatheismarriedandhasfourchildren,whowerestudying
inschoolatthetimeofhisarrestandthathisfatherisparalyzed.
1669.
A7orallysubmitsthatheisinnocentasisthecasewiththe
accusedintheMalegaon2006casewhohavebeenreleasedonbail,
that the ATS has implicated him in a false case by giving false
evidence,thatthecourthasfailedtorecognizethefalsityoftheATS,
thathehassympathyforallthevictimsofthisblast,thatheiswith
themintheirgriefandpain,becauseheisalsoavictimoftheblasts.
A7 was unwilling to file the written submission prepared by his
advocate,thoughlearnedadvocateaskedhimtodosoandhewent
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1776..
Ext.4825
1670.
A9orallysubmitsthathestillconsidershimselfinnocent,
thathehasnopreviouscasebeforethiscase,thatthereisnooneto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1777..
Ext.4825
lookafterhisoldparents,thathisbrotherisalsoshownaswanted
and it is not known whether he is alive or dead, that he has
forgottenhisprofessionbecauseofbeingincustodyfornineyears,
thatheissufferingfrommemorylossandhasforgottenmanybasic
thingsandthatminimumpossiblepunishmentbegiventohimand
hebetransferredtotheprisonnearesttoMumbaisothathisparents
will not be troubled. In his written submissions Ext. 4841, A9
submitsthathewasinformedaboutBabriMasjiddemolitionandthe
Gujarat riots and atrocities committed against Muslims and such
informationcausedhimmentaldisturbance.Hesubmitsthatsuch
information made him vulnerable to manipulation and he was
repeatedly instigated to seek vengeance, that during his arms
training he met the mastermind and main conspirator wanted
accused no. 1 Azam Chima, who told him that atrocities were
committedagainstMuslimsinKashmirthereforeitisnecessarytodo
jihadinIndia.Hegavehisageas22yearsonthedateoftheoffence.
Hesubmitsthathisbrotherishiscoaccusedinthiscase,another
brother is shown to be absconding, that his entire family's life is
disrupted,thathisparentsareoldwithnobodytocareofthem,that
duringthepolicecustodyhisfatherwasbroughttothepolicestation
andstrippednakedinfrontofhimandhisbrotherandsomeofthe
coaccused.
1671.
A10orallysubmitsthatifthecourtispassingsentenceon
himthenleniencybeshown,thathewasservingthesocietyasa
spiritual healer before he was put in prison, that he learnt Kyro
practiceandacupressureintheprisonandwastreatingtheother
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1778..
Ext.4825
prisoners,thatthismeansthathewasservingthesocietywhenhe
wasoutsideandevenwhenhewasintheprison,thatheandhis
family has suffered during these nine years, that his father and
motherhavebothdiedduringthisperiod,thathiseldersonwasin
12th standardwhen he was arrestedandbecauseof his arresthe
couldnotpursuehisstudiesfurther,thathisothertwochildrenare
takingeducationwithgreatdifficulty,thathiswifehascontracted
manydiseaseslikecervicalspondylitis,backache.Hesubmitsthatif
this court is imposing sentence on him, he be sentenced to the
periodundergone byhim.He submits thathe is pursuingsecond
yearBAfromIGNOUniversity.Hesubmitsthatheisfilingwritten
submission.Inhiswrittensubmissions,Ext.4842hesubmittedthat
hewasmentallydisturbedandprovokedbythedemolitionofBabri
Masjidandthereforevulnerabletomanipulation.Hesubmitsthathe
wasindireeconomiccondition,thatforworkpurpose,hewastogo
toJapanbutduetofinancialconstraintswasunabletodoso,thatto
earnmoneyhegatheredRs.2,50,000/andinvesteditinascheme
ontheinternet,butitwasabogusscheme,andhelostthemoney,
thatthereafterhewastoldtogotoPakistanfortrainingandtold
thatforthesamehewillreceiveRs.1,00,000/anddesperatetoearn
moneytocareforhisfamily,hewenttoPakistan.Hesubmitsthat
hisconfessionshowsthathedidnotplayanyroleonthedateofthe
incident.Hegavehisageas36yearsonthedateoftheoffenceand
submitsthathehasendeavouredtoimprovehimselfbyenrollingfor
hisgraduationandhaspassedthesamefromIGNOU,thathehas
selftaughthimselfinjailbyreadingbooksregardingbones,sprains,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1779..
Ext.4825
etc.,andhadacquiredaskillintreatingsuchailmentsandusedto
help or treat other prisoners and jail staff who suffered such
ailments.Hesubmitsthathisfamilyiscrippledbyhisabsenceandit
has suffered greatly. He examined his younger brother Ahmed
Mehmood Shaikh, witness no. 7 for the defence on the point of
mitigatingcircumstances,Ext.4866.
1672.
A11orallysubmitsthatheisagraduateandeventhenhe
usedtohelphisfatherinhisbusiness,thathisfatherisnow75years
old,thathisoneeyeisremovedandthereiscataractinthesecond
eyeandcanonlyseewith1011numberedglasses,thateventhen
hegoestotheshopandworksashehastomaintainthefamily,that
his mother died when he was in custody, that his brother, who
earlierusedtodriveataxiisnowalsorequiredtolookafterthe
business and because of which the condition of the family has
becomecritical,thatdaytodayneedsofthefamilyaremetbyhelp
fromoutsiders,thathistwochildrenandhisbrother'sthreechildren
aretakingeducationinspiteofallthesedifficultiesandhefeelsthat
theyshouldbecomegoodmembersofthesociety.Hesubmitsthat
hisbrother'sonelegis1inchesshort,thathisbrotherhassuffered
accidenttwicebecauseofwhichhewasrequiredtobeoperatedand
a plate has been inserted below the knees, because of which he
cannotdrivethetaxiforlonganditispossiblethathemayhaveto
stopdrivingthetaxiandtositintheshop.Hesubmitsthathehasa
familyandrelativesandevenafterhisarresttheyhavenotsevered
theirrelationswithhimandaremeetinghimregularlyintheprison
andinthecourt,thatduringhisperiodofcustodyhisconductwas
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1780..
Ext.4825
goodandhehasnotdoneanyactivityagainstthesociety,thatheis
helpingtheotherprisonersbywritingtheirapplications,thathehas
passedthefirstyearpostgraduationandwillbegivingthesecond
yearpostgraduationexaminationshortly.Hesubmitsthathewasof
asocialpointofview,therefore,duringtheprisonhedidcourses
thatwouldenablehimtoservethesocietywhenhecomesout,that
heisnotathreattosociety,thatitisthesayoftheprosecutionalso
thatoutofthethirteenaccusedheistheonlyonewhosaysthatthe
victimsareinnocents.Hesubmitsthatheisafamilymanandisnot
ofabadcharacterandtherefore,leniencybeshownwhileimposing
thesentence.Hesubmitsthatheisfilingwrittensubmissions.He
requeststhathisfatherbecalledandhisconditionbeseen.
1673.
InhiswrittensubmissionsExt.4843hesubmitsthatasper
hisconfession,hewaspassingbySIMIofficein1999andsawsome
postersaboutthedemolitionofBabriMasjidwhichmadehimvery
emotional,thatapersoncameuptohimandadvisedhimtojoin
SIMI, that from 2004 onwards he was repeatedly told about
atrocitiesagainstMuslimsandthatthosewhofightsuchoppression
wouldbeblessedinparadise.Hesubmitsthathewasinstigatedby
thisandunderwentarmstraining,thatduringthetraininghewas
instigated to avenge the massacre of Muslims during the Gujarat
riots,thatherepliedthatinrevengeinnocentpersonsshouldnotbe
killed.Hesubmitsthatthisupsetthetrainerandhistrainingwas
suspendedforsometime,thathewasagainindoctrinatedintosuch
thoughts of revenge. He submits that it was in this context and
backgroundthatheisallegedtohaveparticipatedinthecommission
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1781..
Ext.4825
ofthepresentoffence.Hesubmitsthathewasakeymaker,hada
stallontheroad,comesfromapoorfamilyandusedtodriveataxi
tosupplementhisincome.Hegavehisageas31yearsonthedateof
theoffenceandsubmitsthatduringthenineyearsofhisundertrial
incarceration,hehasendeavouredtoimprovehimselfbyenrolling
invariouseducationalandselfhelpprogramsofferedbytheprison
administration to enable the prisoners to reform themselves and
becomeresponsiblecitizens.Hesubmitsthathehasbeensuffering
from various psychiatric ailments and has been under medical
treatment and submits that his mother died in 2010 and his
children'seducationwasdisruptedafterhisarrest.
1674.
A12orallysubmitsthatheisaresponsibleandlawabiding
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1782..
Ext.4825
submission.InhiswrittensubmissionsExt.4844hesubmitsthatas
perhisconfessionhewasnotinitiallyinterestedinreligion,thattwo
monthsbeforethe offence,in March,2006,hecameintocontact
withsomepersonswhopersuadedhimtotakeupreligiouswork,
thatinApril,2006hewastoldaboutthemassacreofMuslimsinthe
Gujarat riots and instigated to take revenge and it was in this
contextandbackgroundthatheisallegedtohaveparticipatedinthe
commissionofthepresentoffence.Hegavehisageas26yearson
thedateoftheoffenceandsubmitsthatduringtheperiodofhis
imprisonmenthehasendeavouredtoimprovehimselfbyenrolling
invariouseducationalandselfhelpprogramsofferedbytheprison
administration to enable the prisoners to reform themselves and
becomeresponsiblecitizens.Hesubmitsthathehascompletedhis
HSC(BPP)inprisonandisinthefinalyearofhisBA(Psychology)
degreecourse,thathehasalsopersuadedmanyprisoninmatesto
takeupeducationandhashelpedtheminobtainingadmissionin
such courses. He submits that he comes from a poor family, has
studied upto 12th standard and was employed in a call centre in
Secundrabad,thathehasbeensufferingmentalillnessandisunder
psychiatrictreatmentintheprison.
1675.
judiciary,thathehasdonediplomaincivilengineering,thatbefore
arresthewasmaintaininghisfamilyconsistingofhisparents,wife
andthreechildren,thatheusedtoworkforlabourreformsatthe
worksites,thatheusedtogivefinancialhelpfortheeducationof
children of labourers, that when he heard about the blasts on
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1783..
Ext.4825
11/07/06hewassaddened,thathisarrestinthiscasehasbadly
affectedhisfamily,thathisfatherdiedofcancerin2011without
getting any treatment, that his mother is suffering from many
illnessesincludinggangreneandheartproblemandisnotgetting
propermedicaltreatment,thathissonistakingeducationinfirst
year B. Sc. and is not getting proper education, that his two
daughtersarebeingeducatedoncharity,thathisbrotherwhoisa
mechanicalengineerstaysseparatewithhiswifeandchildrenand
heisalsoburdenedwithmaintaininghis,i.e.,theA13'sfamily,that
hisfinancialconditionisbad,therefore,hetooklegalaidfroman
NGO.Hesubmitsthathewaskeptinsolitaryconfinementinthe
prisonfornineyears,becauseofwhichhismentalconditionisbad,
thathehascontinuouspaininhisstomach,thathetookadmission
forBAintheIGNOUUniversitywhenhewasintheprison,thathe
participatesinactivitieslikeyogaintheprison,thathehasread27
books on Mahatma Gandhi from the prison library, which has
brought about a positive change in him and the desire to serve
humanityandweakpeopleiscreatedinhim,thatbecauseofthishe
hasdoneblooddonationtwelvetimes,thatbecauseofreadingthe
booksthefeelingofforgivenesshasbeendevelopedinhim,thathe
hasnoillfeelingormalicetowardsanyone,thatheforgivestheATS
becausetheyfabricatedevidenceagainsthimthoughheisinnocent.
Hesubmitsthatduringtheperiodthatheisinprison,hisfamilyhas
been put to a lot of trouble and he wishes that this should not
happentotheATSpeople.Hesubmitsthatheusedtohelptheother
prisonersbywritinglettersforthemtotheirfamilies.Hesubmits
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1784..
Ext.4825
thatheisnotathreattosociety.Hepraystothecourtforimposing
minimumsentence.Hesubmitsthatheisfilingwrittensubmission
andanapplicationwrittenbyhimintheprison.
1676.
InhiswrittensubmissionsExt.4845hegavehisageas35
years on the date of the offence and submitted that during the
period in the prison he has endeavoured to improve himself by
enrollinginvariouseducationalandselfhelpprogramsofferedby
the prison administration to enable the prisoners to reform
themselvesandbecomeresponsiblecitizens.Hesubmitsthatheis
presently doing his BA from IGNOU, that he has read 27 books
writtenbyoronMahatmaGandhiwhichhasbroughtaboutagreat
transformation in his thinking and character and that he has
donatedblood12timesduringthenineyearshewasinprison.He
submits that he has chronic stomach and knee pains and is also
afflicted with neurological ailments which cause blackouts and
splitting headaches. He submits that his father died in 2011. He
submits that the education of his son and two daughters was
compromisedbecauseofhisarrest.
1677.
mostofthethingsthathestatedorallyandsubmitsthathiselder
brotherisB.E.(Mech),thathestaysseparatewithhiswifeandtwo
sonsandisburdenedofmaintaininghis,i.e.,theA13'sfamily,andof
the treatment of their mother. He has examined his brother Aziz
BashirKhan,witnessno.1forthedefenceonthepointofmitigating
circumstances,Ext.4855.A1,A2,A5toA7andA9toA13examined
ArunThomasFerreira,witnessno.9forthedefenceonthepointof
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1785..
Ext.4825
mitigatingcircumstances,Ext.4874.
1678.
JudgementMCOC21/06
1679.
..1786..
Ext.4825
1680.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1787..
Ext.4825
tremendoushardshipduetotheharshprisonconditions,thatthe
accused'sfamilieshavebeencrippledbytheirabsenceandtheytoo
havesufferedgreatly,thattheyhaveledahandtomouthexistence
astheaccusedwerethechiefbreadearners.Poortobeginwith,they
havebeenreducedtoabjectpovertyandreducedtolivingonhand
outsgivenbytheirfriendsandrelatives.
1681.
Itissubmittedthatforalmosttheentirenineyearsoftheir
incarceration,theaccusedwerenotkeptintheprisonbarrackwith
the general population, but were kept in the extremely harsh,
punitiveandrestrictedconfinesoftheandacellandthereafterthe
andacellisdescribedanditissubmittedthattheandacellprisoners
arenotallowedtoleavetheandabarrackeventomeetthedoctoror
tovisitthecanteen,thatthedoctorisbroughttothecell,asarethe
desiredcanteenproducts,thatthereisnofreshair,vegetation,trees
or sunlight, that the prisoners are surrounded by iron rods and
thereaftertheaccusedhavealreadybeenpunishedveryseverelyby
theharshnatureoftheincarcerationinflictedonthem.
1682.
policecustody,aboutwhichtheyhavegivenevidence.Thereafter,it
isallegedthattheaccusedwerebrutallyassaultedbytheprisonstaff
on28/06/08,whichhasbeendocumentedinthejudgementofthe
BombayHighCourtdtd.21/07/09passedinWritPetition(Crl)No.
1377of2008andtheobservationsoftheHighCourtinparagraph9
ofthisjudgementisreproduced.
1683.
Itisfurthersubmittedthattheaccusedbelongtoverypoor
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1788..
Ext.4825
andthenthedatesofthearrestoftheaccusedarementionedand
thedatesuptowhichtheydidnothavealawyerduringtheremand
stage are also mentioned. It is submitted that the accused have
shown that they are capable of leading a lawabiding life as a
responsiblememberofsociety,thattheyarenotadangertosociety
anddonotposeathreattoanyperson.Itis,therefore,submitted
thattheaccusedhavealreadybeenpunishedveryseverelyinmany
ways,thatnoadditionalbenefitwillbederivedbysentencingthe
accusedtodeathandthatthemitigatingcircumstancesenumerated
aboveshowthattheaccuseddonotdeservetobegiventhedeath
sentence.
1684.
LearnedadvocatePrakashShettyforA1,A3,A8,A9,A11
andA12submittedthatthiscourthasheldtheA1,A3,A4,A12and
A13guiltyfortheoffenceundersection302readwithsection120B
andreadwith307,326,etc.,andalsofortheoffencespunishable
undersection3oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct,etc.,andalsounder
theprovisionsoftheMCOCActandUA(P)A,thatfortheoffences
under section 302 read with 120B, there are two options, i.e.,
capitalpunishmentofdeathorimprisonmentforlife,thatthelaw
has been discussed on many aspects that we have to see the
possibility of reform and also the mitigating circumstances. He
submitsthatsofarastheA1,A3andA13areconcerned,thereis
oneeyewitnessforthemeach,butsofarastheA12isconcerned,
thereisnosuchevidenceanditisonlyonthebasisofcircumstantial
evidence,therefore,heshouldnotbeawardedcapitalpunishment,
thoughhehasbeenheldguilty.Hesubmitsthatwhateverevidence
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1789..
Ext.4825
hasbeenadducedisaweaktypeofevidenceandwhileawarding
sentence, this should be taken into consideration alongwith
consideringwhetherthewitnesseshaveactuallyspokenthetruth.
Hesubmitsthatsofarastheconfessionalstatementsareconcerned,
therewerecircumstanceswhichthrowtheconfessionalstatements
in the shadow of doubt, therefore, on this count minimum
punishmentoflifeimprisonmentbeawardedtotheA1,A3andA12.
In respect of the evidence against the A12, he submits that the
circumstanceofrecoveryofcarisafter34monthsoftheincident
and2monthsafterhisarrestandfindingofblackspotsinthecaris
overshadowed with the possibility of use and it is a suspicious
circumstanceandthesearethefactorsthathavetobeconsidered.
Hesubmits thatthe capital punishmentof deathis exceptional if
thereis suchtype of weakevidence andlifeimprisonmentisthe
rule.Aboutthe offencesundertheMCOCActandUA(P)Awhich
carry death sentence, he submits that the above submissionsalso
holdgoodforthem.Hesubmitsthatitisnotacasewhereastrong
evidence has been adduced through the eyewitness and their
evidencehasnotcomeoutoftheshadowofdoubtand,therefore,it
isnotsufficienttoawardcapitalpunishment.
1685.
HesubmitsthatthechainofcircumstancesagainsttheA1
isnotcompletebecausetheblackpowderallegedlyseizedfromhis
house was brought in unsealed condition. Insofar as the A3 is
concerned,therewasadraftoftheconfessionalstatementanditas
wellasthefinalconfessionalstatementhaveloopholes.
1686.
Hesubmitsthattheaccusedareincustodyfornineyears
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1790..
Ext.4825
1687.
thereisnobodyoftheA1inMumbai,hisfamilyandeveryoneisin
Biharandhehadnotindulgedinanycriminalactivity.AbouttheA3,
he submits that his entire family is involved because A9 is his
brotherandhisonemorebrother,i.e.,wantedaccusedno.3Rahil,
istermedasabsconding.Insuchcircumstancesinthefamilywhere
thereisa75yearsoldfather,whohadtoundergoallthistrauma
and there is nobody else to look after them. A9 is a software
engineer,whowasworkinginBangaloreandheisalsoinvolvedand
lost everything. A12 comes from an educated family and has no
antecedentsandnoadverseremarks.A11isfromtheworkstrataof
thesocietyandhehasnarratedthepitiableconditionofhisfamily,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1791..
Ext.4825
wherein,hisfatherisalmostblindandbrotherishandicappedand
thereisnobodytolookafterhisfamily.HesubmitsthatA3andA12
both are suffering from ailments. A3 has brain tumor and spinal
problem.Thesefactorshave tobeconsideredwhileawardingthe
sentence. Each and every accused has narrated his plight and
condition of his family and their background, which may be
consideredandA1,A3,A9andA12beawardedminimumsentence.
HesubmitsthatthechargeundertheMCOCActisagainstallthe
accused,thattheA9andA11cannotbetermedasthepersonswho
planted the bombs. The participation in a conspiracy is different
fromactualparticipationinthecrime.Itisnobody'scasethatallthe
accusedhavetakenpartinplantingthebombsandthisfactorwill
have to be considered though provisions under the MCOC Act
providefordeathpenaltyifdeathiscaused.
1688.
chancestoreform,thatevenduringtheircustodytheaccusedhave
takeneducationanditcannotbesaidthattherearenochancesof
reformation.
1689.
Bothsidesarguedextensivelyonthepointofsentenceand
placedrelianceonseveralauthoritiesoftheApexCourtinsupportof
their submissions, the defence lawyers placing reliance on the
authorities that lay down the law that as far as possible capital
punishmentshouldnotbeawardedandfortheoffenceswhichinvite
the capital punishment, the court should consider the mitigating
circumstances of the accused and possibility of reform and have
indicatedtheprocedurethathastobeadoptedforassessingthese
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1792..
Ext.4825
twofactorsandthelearnedSPPhasreliedontheauthoritieswhich
laydownthelawastowhataretherarestoftherarecasesandthe
theory of penology and why the capital punishment should be
imposed.
1690.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1793..
Ext.4825
outoffearorbecausetheirconfidencelevelwasnottotheextent
thatitwouldhelpthemindoingthatwork.Hence,inmyhumble
opinion thoughall12accusedhave been foundguiltyfor having
committed two offences punishable with death, it would not be
justifiabletoimposethedeathpenaltyontheA2,A5,A6,A7,A9,
A10andA11.InsofarastheA1,A3,A4,A12andA13areconcerned,
alongwithbeingfoundguiltyfortheoffencesundersection16ofthe
UA(P)Aandsection3(1)(i)oftheMCOCAct,whichcarrythecapital
punishmentofdeath,theyarefoundtohaveactuallyplantedthe
bombsthatcausedthedeathsofsomanylivesalongwiththenear
fatalinjuriestohundredsandlossofproperty.Allthe12accused
whoarefoundguiltyforhavingcommittedseveraloffencesarenot
footsoldiers.Thoughtheideaofthepresentcrimegeneratedfrom
across the border, they formed an independent organized crime
syndicate on the basis of their background of being
members/activists of the banned organization SIMI. They did the
spadework and the ground work using their brains. The idea of
assembling bombs at the house of the A6 was of the A3. The
culpabilityofalltheaccusedinsofarasconspiringtocommitallthe
offences with which they are charged is equal. Some of them
procuredRDX,someofthemdidreconnaissanceofgeneraltargets
as well as the specific targets, some transported it to particular
place, some procured some more articles that were necessary for
preparing the bombs, some brought wanted accused Pakistani
persons from across the border, some supervised over and
participatedintheworkofassemblingthebombs,sometransported
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1794..
Ext.4825
thebombsfromtheplacewheretheywereassembledtothehouse
oftheA3inBandraanditwastheA1,A3,A4,A12andA13who
actually planted the bombs. Thus, each and every accused is
involved in the conspiracy that culminated in the bomb blasts.
However,themostculpablearetheabovefiveastheytookthefinal
stepthatkilledsomanypersonsandinjuredhundreds,etc.Insofar
as the A1 is concerned he travelled all the way from Bihar and
reached Mumbai in the morning on 11/07/06 with the specific
knowledgethathehastoexecuteabigworkofLeTcommander
wantedaccusedno.1AzamChimawiththehelpofwantedaccused
no.6and7asitwastoldtohimbywantedaccusedno.15anddid
nothesitateincarryingouttheworktoitslogicalend.A4wasavery
proactiveactivistofSIMI,beingacquaintedwithRiyazBhatkalalso
and having had discussions with him about jihad and setting up
campsfortrainingMuslimsforjihad,abouthavingknowledgeofthe
A3,A2andA9havinggonefortrainingandmaintainingcontinuous
contact with the A3 from whom he came to know about
reconnaissanceofthetargetsinMumbaiaspermessageofwanted
accused no. 1 Azam Chima, having knowledge about the plan of
causingbombexplosionsintheseventrains,thathewaspresentin
conspiracy meetings and he himself surveying specific targets
alongwith other accused and being a part of the team that
assembledthebombsinthehouseoftheA6.Hedidnotstopthere,
buthewenttotheextentoftakingthefinalstepofplantingthe
bombs without any hesitation and of taking the conspiracy to its
logicalend.A12wascloselyassociatedwiththeA3,notonlywith
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1795..
Ext.4825
respecttotheconspiracyinthiscase,buttheirviceofgoingtothe
dancebars,hewaspresentinconspiracymeetingswhereinhiswish
fordoingsomethingforMuslimbrotherswasawakenedandgotthe
knowledgefromtheA3thattheyaregoingtomakepreparationsfor
abigincidentandhe,i.e.,theA12,wouldalsobegivensomework
andwasaskedtoremainincontactwiththeA3.Hehadknowledge
abouttheplanoftargetingGujaratipeopleinMumbaibycausing
explosions in the firstclass bogies of the western railway local
trains.HehadseenPakistanipersonsstayinginthehouseoftheA3,
he drove the A3 in the car of the A9 wherever he wanted to go
includingvisitingthewantedaccused,goingtothehouseoftheA6
at Govandi alongwith the A3 and A7, transporting the bags
containingbombsfromGovanditoBandraon10/07/06andthen
taking the final step in executing the conspiracy by planting the
bombinaparticularrailwaytrain.A3andA13weremasterminding
and coordinating the entire operation and had a part to play in
every aspect of the conspiracy right from planting, preparation,
recruitmentuptothefinalexecutionoftheconspiracybyplanting
the bombs in specific local trains. It was they who convened
conspiratorialmeetingsandsawtoitthattheirmissionwouldbe
accomplishedbyplaningitingreatdetail.
1691.
Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itisclearthattheA1,A3,
A4,A12andA13deservenothinglessthanthedeathpunishment
andinsofarastheremainingsevenaccusedareconcerned,itwill
sufficeifthealternativepunishmentoflifeimprisonmentisawarded
to them. Thus, it will be necessary to consider the mitigating
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1796..
Ext.4825
circumstancesinsofarastheA1,A3,A4,A12andA13areconcerned
only.
1692.
ShettyfortheA1,A3,A8,A9,A11andA12andlearnedadvocateDr.
Yug Choudhary h/f learned advocates Wahab Khan and Sharif
Shaikhfortheremainingaccusedhavemadesubmissionsinrespect
of the general principles about the law of death penalty in India
relying on the law laid down in the cases of Bachan Singh,
Appellant V. State of Punjab, Respondent ((1980) 2 Supreme
Court Cases 684) and Santosh Kumar Satishbhushan Bariyar,
Appellant V. State of Maharashtra, Respondent ((2009) 6
SupremeCourtCases498).LearnedadvocateDr.YugChoudhary
tookmeingreatdetailthroughmostpartsofthesaidjudgements
andtookgreatpainstoexplainwhattheSupremeCourthassaid.
Heparticularlyreliedonseveralparagraphsinthecaseof Bachan
Singhandwasatgreatpainstoemphasisrepeatedlythemitigating
circumstances enumerated in paragraph 206 and to think about
imposingthedeathpenaltyonlyaftereliminatingthecircumstances
no.3and4fromthemind.Itwouldbeappropriatetosummarize
thelawlaiddowninthesaidauthorityasitisrelevanttoourcase.
ThiswasalandmarkdecisioninwhichtheApexCourtupheldthe
Constitutionalvalidityofdeathpenaltyandforthefirsttimeevolved
the formula of 'rarest of rare' case and laid down the following
propositionsinthesaidcase.
(i)
Theextremepenaltyofdeathneednotbeinflictedexceptin
gravestcasesofextremeculpability.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1797..
Ext.4825
(ii) Beforeoptingforthedeathpenaltythecircumstancesofthe
'offender'arealsorequiredtobetakenintoconsiderationalongwith
thecircumstancesofthe'crime'.
(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an
exception. In other words, death sentence must be imposed only
when life imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate
punishment having regard to the relevant circumstances of the
crime, and provided, and only provided, the option to impose
sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be conscientiously
exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of the
crimeandalltherelevantcircumstances.
(iv) Abalancesheetofaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances
hastobedrawnupandindoingsothemitigatingcircumstances
have to be accorded full weightage and a just balance has to be
struck between the aggravating and the mitigating circumstances
beforetheoptionisexercised.
(a)
planningandinvolvesextremebrutality;or
(b)
ifthemurderinvolvesexceptionaldepravity
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1798..
Ext.4825
CourthaslaiddownthatCourtsshalltakeintoaccountfollowing
circumstancesviz.,
(1)
extremementaloremotionaldisturbance;
(2)
theageoftheaccused.Iftheaccusedisyoungor
old,heshallnotbesentencedtodeath;
(3)
criminalactsofviolenceaswouldconstituteacontinuingthreatto
society;
(4)
andrehabilitated;
(5)
thatinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasethe
(6)
theaccusedactedundertheduressordominationof
anotherperson;
(7)
wasmentallydefectiveandthesaiddefectimpairedhiscapacityto
appreciatethecriminalityofhisconduct.
1693.
InthecaseofSantoshKumarBariyartheSupremeCourt
concludedthat,'wehavepreviouslynotedthatthejudicialprinciples
forimpositionofdeathpenaltyarefarfrombeinguniform.Without
goingintothemeritsanddemeritsofsuchdiscretionandsubjectivity,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1799..
Ext.4825
wemustneverthelessreiteratethebasicprinciple,statedrepeatedlyby
thisCourt,thatlifeimprisonmentistheruleand death penaltyan
exception. Each case must therefore be analysed and the
appropriatenessofpunishmentdeterminedonacasebycasebasiswith
deathsentencenottobeawardedsaveinthe'rarestoftherare'case
where reform is not possible', after analysing entire cases from
BachanSinghonwards.
1694.
LearnedadvocateDr.YugChoudharyreliedonasmanyas
43authoritiesthathegaveinthecompilationoftwovolumesand
two more authorities that he gave during the course of his
arguments.LearnedSPPRajaThakarehasreliedonasmanyas21
authorities.Bothhavesubmittedwrittensubmissions,Ext.4875by
learnedadvocateDr.YugChoudharyandExt.4877bylearnedSPP
RajaThakare,whichmoreorlessreiteratewhattheyhavesubmitted
acrossthebarandthereforeIdonotfeelitnecessarytoreproduce
theirarguments.Ihavegonethroughthemcarefully.Ialsodonot
feelitnecessarytodiscussalltheauthoritiesrelieduponbythem
and it will be sufficient if the landmark decisions and important
latestcaselawsarepointedoutandsummarized.
1695.
InthecaseofMachhiSinghandOrs.,AppellantsV.State
(a)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1800..
Ext.4825
(b)
Arethecircumstancesofthecrimesuchthatthereis
I.Mannerofcommissionofmurder.
II.Motiveforcommissionofmurder.
III.Antisocialorsociallyabhorrentnatureofthecrime.
IV.Magnitudeofcrime.
V.Personalityofvictimofmurder.
1696.
Inthiscontext,tomymind,theobservationsinthecaseof
AjitsinghHarnamsinghGujralV.StateofMaharashtra((201114
SCC401) arerelevant.TheApexCourtafterexaminingtheentire
gamutofcaselawsummedupthepositioninparagraph96ofits
judgmentasunder:
'Itisonlythelegislaturewhichcanabolishthedeathpenalty
andnotthecourts.Aslongasthedeathpenaltyexistsinthestatute
bookithastobeimposedinsomecases,otherwiseitwilltantamount
torepealofthedeathpenaltybythejudiciary.Itisnotforthejudiciary
torepealoramendthelawasthatisinthedomainofthelegislature.
Theveryfactthatithasbeenheldthatdeathpenaltyshouldbegiven
onlyintherarestofrarecasesmeansthatinsomecasesitshouldbe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1801..
Ext.4825
givenandnotthatitshouldneverbegiven.Astowhenithastobe
given,thebroadguidelinesinthisconnectionhavebeenlaiddownin
MachhiSinghcase[(1983)3SCC470:1983SCC(Cri)681]which
hasbeenfollowedinseveraldecisionsreferredtoabove.'
1697.
Similarly,inthecaseof MohammedAjmalMohammed
AmirKasab@AbuMujahidV.StateofMaharashtra((2012)9
SCC1),theApexCourtobserved:
'Puttingthematteronceagainquitesimply,inthiscountry
deathasapenaltyhasbeenheldtobeconstitutionallyvalid,thoughit
is indeed to be awarded in the rarest of rare cases when the
alternativeoption(oflifesentence)isunquestionablyforeclosed.Now,
as long as the death penalty remains on the statute book as
punishmentforcertainoffences,includingwagingwarandmurder,it
logicallyfollowsthattheremustbesomecases,howsoever,rareorone
inamillion,thatwouldcallforinflictingthatpenalty.....'.
1698.
Inthecaseof SandeshaliasSainathKailashAbhangV.
'22........................itisnotonlythecrimeanditsvarious
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1802..
Ext.4825
exerciseofjudicialdiscretion'.
1699.
Inthecaseof SunderV.State((2013)3SCC215),the
Apex Court noted the extreme misery and trauma caused to the
aggrievedparty(thevictim)andheldthat,miseryofanaturewhich
canneverbeeffacedfromthemindsoftheparentsofthevictim,is
ofcriticalsignificanceandhenceitneedstobeconsideredbythe
Court.
1700.
ItisalsoheldbytheApexCourtinthecaseof Machhi
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1803..
Ext.4825
withdrawntheprotectionbysanctioningthedeathpenalty.Butthe
communitywillnotdosoineverycase.Itmaydoso'inrarestofrare
cases'whenitscollectiveconscienceissoshockedthatitwillexpectthe
holdersofthejudicialpowercentretoinflictdeathpenaltyirrespective
of their personal opinion as regards desirability or otherwise of
retaining death penalty. The community may entertain such a
sentimentwhenthecrimeisviewedfromtheplatformofthemotivefor,
or the manner of commission of the crime, or the antisocial or
abhorrentnatureofthecrime,suchasforinstance....'.
1701.
LearnedadvocateDr.YugChoudharylastlyreliedonthe
1702.
learnedSPPsubmittedthattwooutofthethreejudges,whodecided
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1804..
Ext.4825
KaluKhan'scasealongwithonemorejudgealsodecidedthecaseof
Shabnam and Ors., Appellants V. State of U. P., Respondent
((2015) 6 SCC 632) on 15/05/15 and the observations therein
squarely applicable to the fact of the present case. It will be
appropriatetoreproducethesaidobservationswhereinreportofthe
probation officer was not called. The Supreme Court held that,
'havingregard,however,totheconditionsinIndia,tothevarietyof
socialupbringingofitscitizens,tothedisparityinthelevelofmorality
and education in the country, to the vastness of its area, to the
diversityofitspopulationandtotheparamountneedformaintaining
lawandorderinthecountryatthepresentjuncture,inevaluatinga
crimeandapportioningthemostappropriatepunishment,oneofthe
most important functions court performs while making a selection
betweenlifeimprisonmentanddeathistomaintainalinkbetween
contemporary community values and the penal system. Criminal
jurisprudence indicates that society's perceptions of a crime with
respect to appropriate penalties are not conclusive. Concurrently, it
alsostandsthatthesaidstandardshavealwaysbeenprogressiveand
acquiremeaningaspublicopinionbecomesenlightenedbyahumane
justice.Thescopeof determiningthestandardsisnever preciseand
rarelystatic.Thecourtsmustthusdrawitsmeaningfromtheevolving
standardsofpublicmoralityandconsciousnessthatmarktheprogress
ofamaturingsociety.'
1703.
Itisalsoheldthat,'theaggravatingcircumstancesindicate
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1805..
Ext.4825
andoftheirabstainingfromfuturecrime'.Itisfinallyheldthat,'death
penaltyisnotproportionalifthelaw'smostseverepenaltyisimposed
on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a
substantialdegree,byreasonofyouthandimmaturity.Thishowever
doesnotseem tobethecaseherein.TheAppellantaccusedpersons'
preparedness,activeinvolvement,schemingexecutionandsubsequent
conduct reeks of calculated and motivated murders. The act of
slaughtering a ten month old child by strangulation in no chance
reflectsimmatureactionbutevidenceforthelackofremorse,kindness
andhumanity.Thecrimeiscommittedinthemostcruelandinhuman
mannerwhichisextremelybrutal,grotesque,diabolicalandrevolting.
Therefore,astheinstantcaserequiresustoawardapunishmentthat
is graduated and proportioned to the crime, we have reached the
inescapable conclusion that the extreme culpability of both the
Appellantsaccusedmakesthemthemostdeservingfordeathpenalty'.
1704.
FinallylearnedadvocateDr.YugChoudharyalsoreliedon
extractsfromthereportno.262oftheLawCommissionofIndia
thatwasgiveninAugust,15submittingthatheisnotonthepoint
oftherecommendationsmadebytheLawCommissioninrespectof
thedeathpenalty,buthewantstopointoutthediscussiononthe
saidtopicbytheLawCommission.Perusalofthesaidreportshows
that the discussion of the case laws including Bachan Singh and
othercaselawsthathasbeenrelieduponbythelearnedadvocates
and the empirical data on the imposition of death penalty which
shows that in only 4.3% of the cases, the death sentence was
confirmed by the Supreme Court and which shows that the trial
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1806..
Ext.4825
courtserroneouslyimposedthedeathpenaltyin95.7%cases.
1705.
LearnedSPPsubmittedtheentirereportandpointedout
tothediscussiononpage84underthetopicno.IVpertainingtothe
casesofterrorismandthefinalrecommendationsoftheComission
that the death penalty be abolished for all crimes other than
terrorismrelatedoffencesandwagingwar.
1706.
abovereferredauthoritiesaswellastheotherauthoritiesreliedupon
by both the sides, Ipropose to drawup the balancesheetof the
aggravating and mitigating circumstances. They are succinctly
enumerated by the learned SPP in paragraph 4 of his written
submissionsasfollows:
(a)
Thisoffenceisnotdirectedagainstanindividualoutofany
previousenmityorforsettlinganyotherpersonalscore.
(b)
almostinsuchawaythatwithinaspanofjust5minutes7powerful
bombblastscausedthedisaster.
(c)
Thetimeandtargetchosenisalsosignificant.Thesuburban
trainsgoingfromChurchgatetoVirarintheeveningtimearevery
crowded and therefore the helpless and defenseless innocent
commuterswouldhavenoopportunitytosavethemselvesfromthe
dastardlyactinanymanner.
(d)
The terror wave which was created not only disturbed the
even tempo of the community but the life of the entire city of
Mumbaiwastotallydisruptedassuburbanrailwaysarethelifeline
ofMumbaiwhichisthecapitalcityoftheState.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1807..
Ext.4825
(e)
Theactismotivatedwiththeobjectofpromotinginsurgency.
(f)
Thereisaforeignhandinthecommissionoftheoffenceand
Aspecialcategoryexplosiveviz.,RDX,hasbeenusedinthe
commissionoftheoffencewhichiscapableofmassdestructionand
thisisthespecialfeatureofthecrime.189livesareextinguished
fromthesurfaceoftheearthandaround825wereseriouslyinjured.
(h)
ThereisalossofaroundRs.28crorestotheStateExchequer.
(i)
Apartfromthephysicaldamage,thefearpsychosisthatwas
createdinthemindsofthegeneralpublicspeciallythe suburban
train travellers did cause incalculable trauma and agony in the
mindsofthepublic.
(j)
Itisnotjustanisolatedincidentbutitsacaseofsystematic
plantingof7powerfulbombsinadiabolicmannerwhichwasset
withextremeprecisionsothatalltheexplosionsoccurredwithina
spanofjust5minutestocauseutterchaosandconfusionamongst
helplessanddefenselessvictims.
(k)
Evenconsideringtheperiodofconspiracyitcanbeseenhow
determinedtheaccusedwereincausingthedisasterwithoutcaring
forlivesandlimbsofinnocentcitizens.
(l)
Fromthebackgroundofalltheaccusedpersonsasstated
bythemwhilemakingsubmissionsonsentenceitcanbeseenthat
allofthemweresettledintheirlifeandnoneofthemwasavictim
of monetary temptation or was unwillingly dragged in to the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1808..
Ext.4825
1707.
submittedbyalltheaccusedandalsopleadedbytheintheirwritten
submissionsandIproposetodiscussthemonebyone.
1708.
Insofarastheageoftheaccusedonthedateoftheoffence
isconcerned,itissubmittedthattheA1andA3wereof32years,A4
wasof24years,A12wasof26yearsandA13wasof35yearson
thedate ofthe offence.Inthis contextbothsides have reliedon
severaljudgements,whichshowbothviews.Tomymind,youngor
old age is not universally accepted as a mitigating circumstance.
Even in the latest case of Shabnam the Supreme Court did not
considertheyoungageoftheaccusedasamitigatingcircumstance
and even the pregnancy of Shabnam was notheld tobe a good
groundforreducingthesentence.Itwasheldinparagraph33that,
'themitigatingcircumstancesregardingyoungageoftheAppellants
accused at the time of commission of crime do not bear any
significanceintermsofoutweighingtheaggravatingcircumstancesof
theirwantonact.Further,ithasalsobeenpointedoutbeforeusthat
the Appellantaccused Shabnam was pregnant at the time of
commission of offence and the couple now has a dependent minor
child.Whilethesaid circumstancesstand assuch,itispertinentto
noticethatthisCourthasconsistentlyheldthatsuchcompassionate
groundsarepresentinmostcasesandarenotrelevantinconsidering
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1809..
Ext.4825
commutationofdeathsentence.Theprinciplethatwhentheoffenceis
gruesomeandwascommittedinacalculatedanddiabolicalmanner,
the age of the accused may not be a relevant factor, was further
affirmed by this court in Mofil Khan case (supra). It is however
shockingthatatthepinkoftheiryouth,thecoupleindulgedinsuch
debasedactofmultiplemurdersdrivenbyinfatuationandexhibitedno
remorse'.
1709.
Thus,thismitigatingcircumstanceisnotavailabletothe
fiveaccusedwhofacethedeathpenalty.
1710.
Thesecondmitigatingcircumstanceisthattheprosecution
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1810..
Ext.4825
1711.
Thenextmitigatingcircumstanceistheillnessandthough
thelearnedadvocatereliedonthejudgementinthecaseof Yakub
AbdulRazakMemonV.StateofMaharashtrainCriminalAppeal
No. 1728 of 2007, learned SPP has also relied on the same
authority submitting that it was submitted to the Supreme Court
thatYakubMemonwassufferingfromdepressionsince1996,but
thisfactdidnotweightotheSupremeCourtandultimatelyhewas
hanged.Generalsubmissioninrespectofalltheaccusedaremade
about they being subjected to narco analysis repeatedly and they
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1811..
Ext.4825
beingassaultedbytheprisonstaffintheyear2008.However,asis
rightlysubmittedbythelearnedSPP,asonthedateonwhichthe
scientifictestswereperformed,theywerenotconsideredultravires.
Hence, they cannot be considered as mitigating circumstance. In
respect of the incident in the Mumbai Central Prison in the year
2008,tomymind,itisirrelevantandcannotbeconsideredasa
mitigatingcircumstance.
1712.
individualaccusedinrespectoftheillhealth.Itispertinenttopoint
outatthisjuncturethatthemitigatingcircumstanceenumeratedin
the written submissions filed by the learned advocates for the
accusedare obviously basedon the lawlaid down in the several
authoritiesand primafacie donotappeartobe bonafide andare
made just for the purpose of making them. They are stereotype
writtensubmissions.
1713.
ItisthecontentionoftheA1thatheisundertreatmentfor
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1812..
Ext.4825
0.5CDRand0.6CDRintherightandlefteyerespectively.Tomy
knowledge,theyaresignsofglycoma,whichiscurablebytimely
drugsoroperationanditisnotachronicillnessthatwouldaffecthis
healthadversely.Hence,thisgroundisnotmadeoutbytheA1.
1714.
A3hascontendedthathehasdevelopedabraintumour
andalsoadvancedspondylitisbecauseofwhichheisunabletosit
andrequiresarubberballoon.Hehasproducedthephotocopiesof
the OPD case papers. The first one is dtd. 12/12/13 wherein he
complainedofnumbnessofrightthumbandindexfingeralongwith
numbness of right side of lips, tongue and face and there were
multipleepisodeson07/12/13and08/12/13between12.00p.m.
to9.00p.m.Hewasinvestigatedanditwasfoundthattherewasno
neurodeficitandtheMRIbrainplusangiographywasdone,which
gavethefindingandthereportisthatthefindingsaresuggestiveof
infectivegranulomamostlikelytuberculoma.Tomyknowledge,this
isanoduleoftuberculosis,whichiscausedbytuberculosisinfection.
Tuberculosis is very common in India and even tuberculoma is
commoninIndia.Itistotallycurableiftreatedproperlyanditisa
verycommoninfectivediseaseinIndia.TheOPDcasepapershows
thehistorygivenbythispatientascigarettesmoking,whichmeans
thatitisbecauseofthishabitthathehascontractedtuberculosisas
wellashebeingobese. TheECGreportisnormalanditdoesnot
show any epileptogenic focus. He was put under treatment of
tuberculosis,i.e.,AKT,fromJanuary,2014,whichwasplannedfor
ninemonths.ThemedicalfilesoftheA3producedbytheprison
authoritycontainsthesheetofTherapeuticDrugMonitoring(TDM)
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1813..
Ext.4825
1715.
A4hasnotpleadedthegroundofillness.
1716.
A12hassubmittedthathehasbeensufferingfrommental
illnessesandisunderpsychiatrictreatment.ThemedicalfileofOPD
casepapersofJJHospitalproducedbytheprisonauthorityshows
hiscomplaintsofdecreasedconcentration,forgetfulness,irritability,
etc.,since2013andthatheisatobaccochewer.However,thereis
noreportaboutanypsychiatricillnesslikeschizophrenia,etc.,and
hehasbeenreceivingregularandtimelytreatment.
1717.
painsandisalsoafflictedwithneurologicalailmentswhichcause
blackoutsandsplittingheadaches.ThelastOPDcasepaperinhis
fileoftheJJHospitalisaboutoneyearbefore,i.e.,22/11/14,which
doesnotindicatethesaidillnessandthecomplaintofpaininknees
on22/11/14,isreferabletoatraumasixmonthsback.Thereisno
further medical case paper since November, 2014 showing the
ailmentsthathehasmentionedinhiswrittensubmissions.
1718.
Thus,itisclearthattheaccusedhavefailedtomakeout
thegroundofillhealthasamitigatingcircumstance.
1719.
economichardshipandsocioeconomicbackground.Tomymind,it
cannotbeaconsideration.LearnedSPPhasrightlysubmittedthatit
isnotthecaseofasingleaccusedthathewaslivingbelowpoverty
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1814..
Ext.4825
1720.
educationduringcustodyasamitigatingcircumstance.Idonotsee
how this can be a ground. A4 examined the jail teacher Ankush
Vishnu Dhengle, witness no. 6 for the defence on the point of
mitigating circumstances, Ext. 4865 to prove that he pursued
education even while within the prison. His evidence is equally
relevantfortheA12andA13.However,A4didnotgetanysupport
fromhisevidence,whichequallyappliestotheA12andA13also.It
wastheattemptoftheA4toshowthathehasencouragedother
prisonerstotakeeducationandaboutchangeinhisbehaviouror
improvementinhimbyexaminingthiswitness.However,hestated
thatastheA4isinthehighsecuritycell,hecannottellwhetherhe
hasencouragedotherprisonerstotakeeducation.Onbeingasked
aboutthereasonwhyprisonerstakeeducation,hestatedthatthey
dosoasthey,i.e.,thewitness,andotherslikehimencouragethem,
asthey,i.e.,theprisoners,haveamplefreetimeontheirhandsand,
thisismostimportant,thatastheopenuniversitiesdonottakeany
fees from them, which means that it is a free education. In this
context, the learned SPP submitted that Yakub Memon was a
Chartered Accountant and had impeccable antecedents. However,
thisdidnotappealtotheSupremeCourt.Healsosubmittedthatthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1815..
Ext.4825
accusedtakeeducationintheprisonastheyhaveampletimeand
under that guise they get an opportunity to mix with the outer
world.Therefore,takingeducationintheprisonwillnotshowthat
theyarereformed.Hesubmitsthatthisisthefirstcaseinwhichthis
courthasexaminedninewitnessesontherequestoftheaccusedto
showtheirconductthoughitisaknownfactthatordinarilyinno
casesuchprocedureisfollowed.
1721.
ArunThomasFerreira,witnessno.9forthedefenceonthe
pointofmitigatingcircumstances,Ext.4874,wasexaminedtoshow
thegoodconductoftheA1,A2,A5toA7andA9toA13ashehad
met them in the Nagpur Central Prison, where he himself was
lodgedastherewere11casesagainsthim.Healsodeposedabout
keeping him and A5, A7 and A9 in the 'Fasi Yard', which is a
collectionofsolitarycellsadjoiningthegallows,etc.,andheknows
thattheyareverysoftspokenpersonsandhealsopersonallyknows
theA5,A7andA9andstatedabouttheirnature.AbouttheA1,A12
and A13 he has not stated anything. His crossexamination has
revealedthatthechargesagainsthimwerefortheoffencesunder
sections302,307oftheIPCandundertheUA(P)Aandtheywere
concerning Maoist activities in respect of cases registered by the
policestationsinNagpur,GondiaandGadchirolidistricts.Nodoubt,
hedeniedthesuggestiongivenbythelearnedSPPthattheideology
ofMaoististogoagainsttheadministrationandtohaveagrudge
against the government, therefore, he came to the court to give
evidence. However, it is common knowledge that the ideology of
persons who follow the Maoist ideology is as suggested by the
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1816..
Ext.4825
learnedSPP.Hence,itisaquestionhowmuchreliancecanbeplaced
onhisevidenceinrespectofA5,A7andA9.Hisevidencedoesnot
throwanylightinsofarasthegoodconductoftheA1,A12andA13
areconcerned.
1722.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1817..
Ext.4825
01/10/06andinquiredabouthim,he,i.e.,thewitnessAziz,told
themthathehadgonetoBelgaonwithhisparentsandfamilyand,
thisisimportant,thathe,i.e.,thewitness,accompaniedthemon
02/10/06fromJalgaontoBelgaumtoshowthemhisaddressand
theycametothehousewherehewasstayingon03/10/06.Thus,it
isaquestionastohowmuchreliancecanbeplacedontheevidence
ofAzizBashirKhan,witnessno.1oftheA13.Thus,theprevious
goodconductoftheA13isnotmadeoutanditisalsoirrelevant.
1723.
Insofarasthenextcircumstancethatispleaded,itisthe
conductoftheaccusedintheprisonanditisvehementlysubmitted
acrossthebarthattheconductoftheaccusedintheprisonhasbeen
exemplaryandlearnedadvocateShettyhasalsosubmittedthatthis
courthasobservedtheconductoftheaccusedintheperiodofseven
years and their conduct has been beyond reproach. Learned SPP
submittedinthisrespectthatthecourtrecordwillitselfshowthe
conductoftheaccusedandhasthenreferredtoseveralreportssent
bytheprisonauthoritiesofKolhapur,NagpurandMumbaiaboutthe
misconduct of the accused submitting that the A4 used foul
languageinconnectionwiththepresidingofficerofthiscourt,some
oftheaccusedwerefoundinpossessionofunauthorisedmoneyand
the applications Exts. 74 to 84 given by accused to my learned
predecessorjudgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeof
the Bombay High Court) show totally noncooperation of the
accusedandtheirefforttocausehurdlesinthetrial.Hesubmitsthat
thismaterialonrecordissufficientfordrawingtheinferencethat
theyareneitherreformednorcapableofreformationandtheyhave
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1818..
Ext.4825
shownstandregardforthejudicialofficersalso.Tomymind,this
materialcannotbelookedintoasindicationsofmisconductofthe
accused. However, no inference can be drawn otherwise that the
conductofthe accusedhas beengoodorexemplarywhichisthe
wordusedbylearnedadvocateDr.YugChoudhary.Thisisbecause
of the simple reason that the accused were in prison which is a
controlledsituationandthereisnootheroption,buttobehaveas
per the discipline of the prison. However, the relevance of the
reportsoftheprisonauthoritiesandthevariousapplicationsgiven
bytheaccusedagainstmylearnedpredecessorjudgeMrs.Mridula
R. Bhatkar (nowHon'ble Justice of the BombayHigh Court) is a
pointerthattheyhavescantregardforthejudicialsystemandthere
isnoscopeforanyreformationinthem.Itis,therefore,assubmitted
by the learned SPP, not necessary for the prosecution to lead
evidenceandtoprovethattheyarenotcapableofreform.Infact
whatevidencecantheprosecutionlead?ThelearnedSPPsubmits
that as per the tactics adopted by the accused to examine the
witnesses to show the mitigating circumstances, the prosecution
couldhavealsoproducedtenwitnessestoshowtheirbadconductor
toshowthattheyareincapableofbeingreformed.Whatthelearned
SPP has submitted is the correct position and therefore this
circumstanceisalsonotmadeoutbytheaccusedanditalsocovers
the submissions of the learned advocate that the possibility of
reformoftheaccusedshouldbeconsidered.
1724.
accusedhavenotabandonedthem,theyaremeetingthemregularly
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1819..
Ext.4825
intheprisonandinthecourtandtherewillbeadevastatingeffect
ofthedeathsentenceonthefamilyoftheaccused.A3,A9andA12
areunmarriedanditisacommonthingthatparentsofpersonswho
areofthisagearegenerallyoldandgenerallysufferfromsomeor
the other illness. Insofar as family of the accused having not
abandoned them, as is rightly submitted by the learned SPP, the
members of the family of the prisoners do not forsake them just
becausetheyhavecommittedsomecrime.Hence,thiswillnotbea
mitigatingcircumstance.Insofarastheeffectofdeathsentenceon
thefamily,learnedSPPsubmittedthatitisnowthattheaccusedare
sayingthattherewillbeaneffectontheirfamilymembers,butdid
they bother about the family members of the deceased and the
injured?Theyneverthoughtanythingelseandnowwhentheyare
faced with the death penalty, they are pleading as to what will
happen to their families after their death. In this context, the
Hon'bleSupremeCourtwhiledealingtheNitishKataramurdercase
saidthat'criminalscryforjustice,buttheydonotunderstandwhat
theydid.Theycommitthecrimefirstandthencryforjustice'.Thus,
thiswillnotbeamitigatingcircumstance.
1725.
Thenexttwomitigatingcircumstancesarethatthelong
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1820..
Ext.4825
concernedhesubmitsthatitistheaccusedthemselveswhohaveby
theirapplicationsExts.87,89,90,91,92,93and94appliedtothis
courttokeeptheminhighsecuritycellandnowtheyaresayingthat
theywerekeptthere.Thiscannotbeaccepted.Hehasalsopointed
outthatAjmalKasabwaskeptinasolitarycellforsecurityreason
andeventhenhewashanged.
1726.
torture.Itisirrelevantatthisstageanditisalsoheldthatthoseare
onlyallegationsbytheaccusedwhichhavenotbeenproved.Itis
submittedbythedefenceadvocatesthattheoffencewascommitted
outoffrustrationandneglect,theyweremisguidedandtheyarenot
extremist.InthisrespectthelearnedSPPhasrightlypointedoutthe
the education and work of the A4 and A12 and submitted that
during the course of the trial all accused have given number of
applications in their own handwriting which shows that they are
sufficientlymaturedandarecapableofknowingwhatisrightand
wrong and what is humanity and what is not. It cannot be,
therefore,statedthattheywerevictimsofcircumstancesorthatthey
wereunknowinglydraggedintheunlawfulactivity.Hesubmitsthat
theprosecutionhasledevidencetoshowthatsomeoftheaccused
hadgonetoPakistanfortakingmilitanttrainingandA3hadgone
twice.Hesubmitsthatwhatisimportanttonoteisthattheactisnot
performedonthespurofmoment,butitistheoutcomeofalong
planning.Thereisalongtimegapbetweenthetimetheyhadgone
fortrainingandbetweenthebombblasts.Inotherwordstheyhad
ampleopportunitytoretractandtoreform.Onthecontrarythey
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1821..
Ext.4825
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1822..
Ext.4825
1727.
A13haspleadedinhiswrittensubmissionsExt.4845,asis
pleadedbyalltheaccused,thathedidnotabscondandwasarrested
fromBelgaumwherehehadgonewithhisfamilyforvisit.Thisis
nothingbutapalpableuntruth,becausethefactofhegoingwithhis
family and parents, though mentioned in his written submissions
Ext. 2834, is elaborated in a different manner when he gave
evidence. It has come in his evidence that he came to know on
19/08/06 that his mother had suffered a severe heart attack,
therefore,hewenttoJalgaonwithhisfamily,admittedherinthe
hospitalandservedherandhealsostatedthatashisfatherwasalso
notwell,hestayedatJalgaon.Hefurtherstatedthathewentto
Belgaum with his family for an outing after his mother started
feeling better and stayed at the house of his friend at Hassan
Cottage.Thesaidfriendisnotexaminedbyhimandontheother
handhisbrotherhasstatedthathedoesnotknowfromwherethe
A13 was arrested. In his crossexamination the learned SPP
suggestedtohimthatheleftMumbaiandabscondedon18/08/06
whenhecametoknowabouttheA7beingcaughtbythepoliceon
17/08/06 and therefore he did not mention in his written
submissionsthathewenttoJalgaonashismotherwassick.Thus,
thereasonthathegaveaboutleavingMumbaiandgoingtoJalgaon
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1823..
Ext.4825
isobviouslyanimprovementmadebyhimtocoverhisabscondence.
As per section 114 of the Evidence Act the court may presume
existenceofcertainfacts.Ordinarilythemerefactthattheaccused
hadabscondeddoesnotleadtoapresumptionofguilt.Butifthe
circumstanteswarrant,afairinferencecanbedrawnthatthefact
thattheydidabscondisduetoconsciousnessofguilt.LearnedSPP
rightlysubmittedinthisrespectthatitisnotmerelyacoincidence
thatthemobilesoftheA7andA13wereswitchedoffafterthearrest
oftheA2,therefore,nocallsarereflectedintheCDRsofthemobiles
duringthatperiod.Hesubmitsthatordinarilyifapersonisrequired
insomeemergency,hetakesleavefromhisjob,e.g.,hehimselfis
sickorsomeofhisfamilymemberissick.Whatisexpectedisthat
thepersonwilljoinhisdutyattheearliest.However,whattheA13
hasdoneinthiscaseisthatinsteadofgoingandjoininghisduty
which was his source of livelihood, he vanishes and says that he
wenttoBelgaumforouting,whichisnotpalatable.Tomymind,as
per the accused himself, he left Mumbai with his family on
19/08/06. There is no evidence that he went to Jalgaon and his
brotherhasalsonotstatedaboutit.Hewasfoundafteraperiodof
oneandahalfmonthsthattooatBelgaum.Apositiveinferencecan
bedrawnfromthisfactthatthedragnetwasclosinginandcoming
to know of the arrest of the A2 and A7, the A13 had the
apprehensionthathewouldbeapprehendedsoon.Thisinference
proves his guilty consciousness, because till that time his
involvementinthecrimehadnotbeendisclosed.
1728.
NextcomestheturnoftheA7.Nodoubthestatedinhis
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1824..
Ext.4825
writtensubmissionsExt.2828thathehadgonetohisnativeplacein
BijnourDistrictinUPon25/07/06withhisauntandthenhasstated
aboutcomingtoknowfromhisbrotheronphonethathewascalled
bytheATSofficeandreturningtoMumbaion15/08/06andthen
contactingtheATSofficeron18/08/06.Thus,foraperiodofmore
than20dayshewasnotavailableinMumbai.Hehasaccordingly
givenevidence,butthemostdamagingaspectisthathehadstopped
hisbusinessofmobilerepairingbeforegoingtoUP.Ithascomein
hisevidencethatheconcludedhisagreementwiththeshopowner
inJuly,takingbackhisdepositandhadgonetoUPon25/07/06.
Thedateisveryrelevantbecausethereasonfordongthisthathe
gaveisthattheclassesattheinstituteweredisturbedbecauseofall
thisandtherewasaproblemattheshop.Whattheproblematthe
shopwasisnotexplainedbyhim.Thedisturbanceoftheclassesat
theinstitutewas,theeventscallinghimforinquirythathenarrated
beforehestatedthis.However,theyaretotallyinconsistentbecause
theyaretheeventsofAugustandSeptember,2006andhowcome
heconcludedtheagreementon25/07/06,i.e.,inJuly,2006?Does
thisnotshowguiltyconsciousnessorculpablemindbecausetheA2,
A3,A9,A10andA11hadbeenarrestedbythattime?Apositive
inferenceofguiltyconsciousnessonthepartoftheA7canbedrawn
fromthisconduct.
1729.
NextistheconductoftheA9.Ext.1522isthecopyofthe
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1825..
Ext.4825
1730.
innocentandtheirculpabilityisevident.
1731.
Itisclearthatthemitigatingcircumstancespleadedbyall
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1826..
Ext.4825
circumstanceseveniftheyareheldtobeso.Theseaccusedarenot
likehardenedcriminals,inthesensethecriminalswhosesourceof
livelihoodiscrime.Theyareterroristswithaparticularmindsetand
followers of an ideology that is adverse to the society and the
democraticallyestablishedgovernment.Theyhavebeenshoutingat
thetopoftheirvoicesthattheyareinnocent.Tomymind,itisbut
natural.Nocriminalwillsaythatheisguiltyforhavingcommitted
anycrime.Theaccusedinthiscasethoughtthattheycanoutsmart
theintelligenceandinvestigatingagenciesandthereforedeveloped
newstorieseverytimeandadoptedvarioustactics.Iam,therefore,
constrained to hold that A1, A3, A4, A12 and A13 deserve only
deathpenaltyandnothinglessthanthat.
1732.
Toshowleniencyormercyin thecaseofcrimeofsuch
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1827..
Ext.4825
1733.
Inthecontextofthenatureofthecrimeandthepurpose
2014attheWagahborderinPakistan.Theblastleftmorethan60
deadandabout200injured.Whyshouldtherebenewsofthiskind
fromMuslimcountries?Obviously,thepurposeofthisviolenceisto
achievesomegoal.But,whateverbethegoal,theviolentmethodhas
become quite irrelevant in present time. The violent method was
perhapsrelevantinpreviouscenturieswhenpeoplelivedinaprimitive
and/ortribalculture.But,nowwearelivingintheageoffreedomand
science.Now,thepeacefulapproachisfarmoreeffectivethanviolence.
But,itseemsthatcertaingroupsofMuslimsarestillbesetbyoutdated
tribalobsessionsandaretotallyunawareofthefactthattimeshave
changedandthatpeacefulmethodshavereplacedviolentmethods.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1828..
Ext.4825
terrorismormilitancy.Islamisareligionofpeace.Allteachingsofthe
Quranarebasedonpeace,directlyorindirectly.Forexample,thereisa
relevantverseintheQuranthattellsusthatthepeacefulwayisthe
bestone(4:128).Moreover,Islamicteachingsarecrystal clearwith
regardtosanctityoflife.TheQuransays,Whoeverkilledahuman
beingexcept as punishment for murder or for spreading fasad,
disorder, in the landshall be regarded as having killed all of
mankind.(5:32)Accordingtothisverse,lifeisthefundamentalright
ofeveryhumanbeing.Nooneisallowedtotakeawayalife,exceptby
wayofajudicialverdictthatisissuedafterpassingthroughthedue
processoflaw.
Accordingtomyexperience,thesolutiontotheproblemof
violenceliesineducation.Thegreatestproblemwithalargesectionof
the Muslim community is that its members are lagging behind in
modern, scientific education. It is modern education alone that can
changetraditionalmindsets.
Thereisanotherproblem.SomeMuslimthinkersofthe20th
centuryhaveinterpreted Islam inpolitical terms.Anumberofsuch
MuslimsareobsessedwithapoliticisedideologyofIslam.Theneedof
thehouristocounterthisproblem.However,itcannotbecounteredby
meansofthegun.Thisproblemcanbesolvedonlythroughideology.It
isnotanissueof'gunversusgun',butisratheranissueof'gunverses
ideology'.WehavetopresentIslamasareligionofpeace.Changing
mindsthroughthismethodwilltakesomeconsiderabletime,asitisa
longtermmethod.Counteringtheproblemwiththeguncannotmake
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1829..
Ext.4825
thosewhoareengagedinviolenceabandontheirviolentways.Because
thesepeopleareengagedinviolenceinthenameofIslam,theycanbe
stopped from indulging in such activities only if the true peaceful
pictureofIslamisshowntothem.
Theveracityofthismethodcanbejudgedfromtheexample
ofKashmir.AfterIndependence,militancybecamewidespreadamonga
few groups of Kashmiri Muslims. We, at the Centre of Peace and
Spirituality,quietlydisseminatedpeacefulliteratureamongKashmiris.
Today militancy in Kashmir has reduced considerably. The same
literarycampaignisrequiredinothermilitancyaffectedareas.
ThereisthewidespreadnotionthatIslampromotesviolence.
However,thisistheresultofsheermisunderstanding.Thereasonis
thatpeoplefailtodifferentiatebetweenMuslimsandIslam.Allthese
violentactivitieswehearoftodayarelaunchedbymisguidedMuslims.
ItisthisgroupwhichistoblameandnotthereligionofIslam.
ItisafactthatsomeMuslimsareengagedinmilitancyin
thenameofIslam.But,thisisanexampleoftheexploitationofIslam
and not of the following of Islam. The problem is that under the
influenceofcertainthinkers,someMuslimshavecometobelieveinthe
conceptofestablishinganIslamicsystemintheworld.Forthis,they
requiredpoliticalpower.Butwhentheysetouttoestablishthissystem,
theyseethatagroupisalreadyoccupyingthepoliticalseat.So,they
try to overthrow or unseat those who are in possession of political
power.Itisthisthinkingthathasledsuchirategroupstoperpetrate
violence. But this thinking is completely unIslamic, because Islam
enjoinsonitsfollowerstofollowitsteachingsattheindividuallevel,
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1830..
Ext.4825
ratherthatfoistingthemonothersbyforceorviolence.
Then,thereisthequestionofwhyreligionsadvocatepeace
and not violence. The reason is very clear. The target of religion,
includingIslam,istobringaboutreformintheindividualandnotin
thepoliticalsystem.And,anykindofspiritualorintellectualchange
can be brought about in an individual only when he is addressed
peacefully. Only those who have set political targets for themselves
engageinviolence,andsincereligionsdonothaveanypoliticaltarget,
theydonotenjoinviolence.Islamhasadoptedaverypracticalformula
in this matter, that is, idealism at the level of the individual and
pragmatismatthelevelofsociety.
ThereisapropheticsayingthatsomeMuslimswillindulge
in unIslamic activities in their later generations. The Prophet was
askedhowthiswouldhappen.TheProphetansweredthattheywould
giveIslamicnamestononIslamicactivities.Whatiswrongwiththem
isthattheyhavegiventhenameofjihadtotheirmilitancytoseek
justification for their militant activities. The need of the hour is to
correctthisselfstyledinterpretationofIslamandtheneverythingwill
fallintoplace.
1734.
IwillbefailinginmydutyifIdonotappreciatethehelp
andsupportgivenbymystaffmembers,i.e.,Sheristedar,Interpreter,
Stenographer,Typistandmypeons,whowerepreventedfromtaking
leaveswhentheoccasionaroseandwhoremainedpresentevenon
holidaysandduringvacation.Imustalsomakeamentionofthe
assistance of PI D. N. Mohite, Court Liaison Officer of the ATS,
whosecompleteknowledgeofeachandeverydocumentofthecase
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1831..
Ext.4825
hasnotonlyhelpedme,butalsothedefencecounsel.
1735.
Hence,Ipassthefollowingorder:
ORDER
1.
Mohd.FaisalAtaurRahmanShaikh,no.4EhteshamQutubuddin
Siddique,no.12NaveedHussainKhanRasheedHussainKhanand
no.13AsifKhanBashirkhan@Juned@Abdullaareconvicted
undersection235(2)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973for
havingcommitted:
(i)
120BoftheIndianPenalCode,1860andeachoneissentencedto
death and to pay a fine of Rs.30,000/ (Rupees Thirty Thousand
Only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three (3)
months.Theyshallbehangedbytheirneckstilltheyaredead.
(ii)
120BoftheIndianPenalCode,1860andeachoneissentencedto
sufferimprisonmentforlife.
(iii) the offence punishable under section 326 read with section
120BoftheIndianPenalCode,1860andeachoneissentencedto
sufferimprisonmentforlifeandtopayafineofRs.20,000/(Rupees
TwentyThousandOnly),indefaulttosuffersimpleimprisonment
fortwo(2)months.
(iv) the offence punishable under section 325 read with section
120BoftheIndianPenalCode,1860andeachoneissentencedto
sufferrigorousimprisonmentforseven(7)yearsandtopayafineof
Rs.10,000/(RupeesTenThousandOnly),indefaulttosuffersimple
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1832..
Ext.4825
imprisonmentforone(1)month.
(v)
120BoftheIndianPenalCode,1860andeachoneissentencedto
sufferrigorousimprisonmentforthree(3)yearsandtopayafineof
Rs.10,000/(RupeesTenThousandOnly),indefaulttosuffersimple
imprisonmentforone(1)month.
(vi) the offence punishable under section 3(b) of the Explosive
SubstancesAct,1908andeachoneissentencedtodeathandtopay
afineofRs.30,000/(RupeesThirtyThousandOnly),indefaultto
suffer simple imprisonment for three (3) months. They shall be
hangedbytheirneckstilltheyaredead.
(vii) the offence punishable under section 16 of the Unlawful
Activities(Prevention)Act,1967andeachoneissentencedtodeath
andtopayafineofRs.30,000/(RupeesThirtyThousandOnly),in
defaulttosuffersimpleimprisonmentforthree(3)months.They
shallbehangedbytheirneckstilltheyaredead.
(viii) the offence punishable under section 3(1)(i) of the
MaharashtraControlofOrganisedCrimeAct,1999andeachoneis
sentencedtodeathandtopayafineofRs.1,00,000/(RupeesOne
Lac Only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six (6)
months.Theyshallbehangedbytheirneckstilltheyaredead.
(ix) theoffencepunishableundersection152oftheRailwaysAct,
1989andeachoneissentencedtosufferimprisonmentforlife.
(x)
theoffencepunishableundersection151(1)and153ofthe
RailwayAct,1989andeachoneissentencedtosufferimprisonment
forfive(5)yearsoneachcount.
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1833..
Ext.4825
(xi) theoffencepunishableundersection3(2)(e)ofthePrevention
ofDamagetoPublicPropertyAct,1984andeachoneissentencedto
suffer imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/(RupeesTenThousandOnly),indefaulttosuffersimple
imprisonmentforone(1)month.
(xii) theoffencepunishableundersection9B(2)oftheExplosives
Act, 1884 and each one is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
three(3)years.
2.
Accusedno.2TanveerAhmedMohd.IbrahimAnsari,no.3
Mohd.FaisalAtaurRahmanShaikh,no. 4EhteshamQutubuddin
Siddique,no.6ShaikhMohd.AliAlamShaikh,no.7Mohammad
SajidMargubAnsari,no.9MuzzammilAtaurRahmanShaikh,no.
10 Suhail Mehmood Shaikh, no. 11 Zameer Ahmed Latifur
Rehman Shaikh and no. 13 Asif Khan Bashir khan @ Juned @
Abdullaareconvictedundersection235(2)oftheCodeofCriminal
Procedure,1973forhavingcommittedtheoffencepunishableunder
section 10(a)(i) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967
andeachoneissentencedtosufferimprisonmentfortwo(2)years
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only), in
defaulttosuffersimpleimprisonmentforone(1)month.
3.
TanveerAhmedMohd. IbrahimAnsari,no.3Mohd.FaisalAtaur
Rahman Shaikh, no. 4 Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique, no. 5
Mohamad Majid Mohamad Shafi, no. 6 Shaikh Mohd. Ali Alam
Shaikh,no.7MohammadSajidMargubAnsari,no.9Muzzammil
AtaurRahmanShaikh,no.10SuhailMehmoodShaikh,no.11
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1834..
Ext.4825
Activities(Prevention)Act,1967andeachoneissentencedtosuffer
imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/(Rupees
TwentyThousandOnly),indefaulttosuffersimpleimprisonment
fortwo(2)months.
(ii)
theoffencepunishableundersection3(4)oftheMaharashtra
ControlofOrganisedCrimeAct,1999andeachoneissentencedto
suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00,000/
(RupeesFiveLacsOnly),indefaulttosuffersimpleimprisonment
forone(1)year.
(iii) theoffencepunishableundersection120Breadwithsections
121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and each one is
sentencedtosufferimprisonmentforlifeoneachcountandtopaya
fine of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty ThousandOnly), in defaultto
suffersimpleimprisonmentfortwo(2)months.
(iv) theoffencepunishableundersection120Breadwithsection
123ofthe IndianPenalCode,1860 andeachoneissentencedto
sufferrigorousimprisonmentforten(10)yearsandtopayafineof
Rs.15,000/(Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only), in default to suffer
simpleimprisonmentforoneandahalf(1)months.
(v)
theoffencepunishableundersection120Breadwithsection
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1835..
Ext.4825
oneissentencedtosufferimprisonmentforseven(7)yearsandto
payafineofRs.10,000/(RupeesTenThousandOnly),indefaultto
suffersimpleimprisonmentforone(1)month.
(vi) theoffencespunishableundersection3(1)(ii)and3(2)ofthe
MaharashtraControlofOrganisedCrimeAct,1999andeachoneis
sentencedoneachcounttosufferimprisonmentforlifeandtopaya
fine of Rs.5,00,000/(Rupees Five Lacs Only) on each count, in
defaulttosuffersimpleimprisonmentforone(1)year.
4.
Accusedno.2TanveerAhmedMohd.IbrahimAnsari,no.5
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1836..
Ext.4825
months.
5.
TanveerAhmedMohd. IbrahimAnsari,no.3Mohd.FaisalAtaur
RahmanShaikh,no.6ShaikhMohd.AliAlamShaikh,no.12
NaveedHussainKhanRasheedHussainKhanandno.13AsifKhan
Bashirkhan@Juned@Abdullaareconvictedundersection235(2)
oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973forhavingcommittedthe
offencepunishableundersection9B(2)oftheExplosivesAct,1884
and each one is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for three (3)
years.
6.
Accusedno.3Mohd.FaisalAtaurRahmanShaikh,no.6
ShaikhMohd.AliAlamShaikh,no.7MohammadSajidMargub
Ansariandno.13AsifKhanBashirkhan@Juned@Abdullaare
convictedundersection235(2)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,
1973forhavingcommittedtheoffencepunishableundersection6
readwithsection4(ii)oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct,1908and
eachoneissentencedtosufferimprisonmentforlifeandtopaya
fine of Rs.20,000/(Rupees Twenty ThousandOnly), in defaultto
suffersimpleimprisonmentfortwo(2)months.
7.
Accusedno.3Mohd.FaisalAtaurRahmanShaikh,no.7
MohammadSajidMargubAnsariandno.13AsifKhanBashirkhan
@Juned@Abdullaareconvictedundersection235(2)oftheCode
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for having committed the offence
punishableundersection201ofthe IndianPenalCode,1860 and
eachoneis sentencedtosufferimprisonmentforseven(7)years
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/(Rupees Ten Thousand Only), in
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1837..
Ext.4825
defaulttosuffersimpleimprisonmentforone(1)month.
8.
convictedundersection235(2)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,
1973forhavingcommitted:
(i)
theoffencepunishableundersection3(5)oftheMaharashtra
9.
(i)
Accusedno.2TanveerAhmedMohd.IbrahimAnsari,
Accusedno.4EhteshamQutubuddinSiddiqueisacquitted
undersection235(1)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973ofthe
chargeoftheoffencepunishableundersection17ofthe Unlawful
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1838..
Ext.4825
Activities(Prevention)Act,1967.
(iii) Accusedno.1KamalAhmedMohd.VakilAnsari,no.3
Mohd.FaisalAtaurRahmanShaikh,no.6ShaikhMohd.AliAlam
Shaikhandno.7MohammadSajidMargubAnsariareacquitted
undersection235(1)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973ofthe
chargeoftheoffencepunishableundersection40ofthe Unlawful
Activities(Prevention)Act,1967.
(iv) Accusedno.3Mohd.FaisalAtaurRahmanShaikhandno.6
ShaikhMohd.AliAlamShaikhareacquittedundersection235(1)of
theCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973ofthechargeoftheoffence
punishableundersection12(1)(c)ofthePassportAct,1967.
(v)
EhteshamQutubuddinSiddique,no.5MohamadMajidMohamad
Shafi,no. 7 MohammadSajidMargubAnsariandno.13Asif
KhanBashirkhan@Juned@Abdullaareacquittedundersection
235(1)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973ofthechargeofthe
offence punishable under section 19 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention)Act,1967.
10.
Accusedno.8AbdulWahidDinMohammadShaikhisalready
acquittedundersection235(1)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,
1973ofthechargeofalltheoffenceswithwhichheischargedas
pertheorderdated11/09/15.
11.
concurrently.
12.
Accusedareentitledtosetofffortheirperiodofdetentionas
persection428oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973(subjectto
JudgementMCOC21/06
..1839..
Ext.4825
13.
wantedaccused.
14.
TheentireproceedingsbesubmittedtotheHighCourtand
thesentenceofdeathshallbesubjecttoconfirmationbytheHigh
Courtandshallnotbeexecuteduntilitisconfirmed.
15.
ATS,Mumbaiisdirectedtofileseparatechargesheetagainst
thewantedaccusedaftertheirarrest.
Date:30/09/2015
(Y.D.SHINDE)
Spl.Judge,under
MCOCAct&NIA,
SpecialCourtNo.1,
Mumbai.
Dictatedon
:30/09/2015
Transcribedon :30/09/2015
Signedon
:07/10/2015
IaffirmthatthecontentsofthisPDFfilearethesame,wordtoword,
aspertheoriginaljudgement.
NameofStenowithpost:Mrs.MugdhaM.Paranjape(StenographerH.G.)
NameoftheJudge:H.H.J.ShriY.D.Shinde(C.R.No.57)
Dateofpronouncement
oforder:30/09/2015
Ordersignedbythe
P.O.on:07/10/2015
Orderuploadon:07/10/2015