Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 2006 Mumbai Train Serial Bomb Blast Case Judgement

    Uploaded by

    Sampath Bulusu
    1K views1,839 pages
    Closing a long chapter in the history of terror attacks in Mumbai, a Special MCOCA Court on 11th Sept 2015 convicted 12 persons of hatching a criminal conspiracy and subsequently executing a series of bombings on Mumbai’s local trains on July 11 2006, which claimed 189 lives and injured over 800 people. Of the total 13 accused arrested and charge sheeted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad, one person Abdul Wahid Din Mohammad Shaikh was acquitted of all the charges after nine years in jail. The 12 convicts, including key conspirators Faisal Shaikh and Asif Khan Bashir Khan alias Junaid, were chiefly found guilty of being members of terrorist organisation under section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and of being part of an organised crime syndicate under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, among other sections. They were also found guilty of criminal conspiracy (section 120B) to commit offences related to waging war against the Government of India (sections 121A, 122) under the Indian Penal Code. Five of the convicts, namely Kamal Ansari, Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Mumbai chief Faisal, SIMI activist Ehtesham Siddiqui, Naveed and Junaid were planters of bombs at Jogeshwari, Mira Road, Bandra and Borivali. They were found guilty of murder, attempt to murder, causing hurt and criminal conspiracy. Some of accused were separately convicted and acquitted under few other individual sections of UAPA, MCOCA, IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Explosives Substances Act, Railways Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 5 Convicts were sentenced to Death while the rest were sentenced to life imprisonment.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Closing a long chapter in the history of terror attacks in Mumbai, a Special MCOCA Court on 11th Sept 2015 convicted 12 persons of hatching a criminal conspiracy and subsequently executing a series of bombings on Mumbai’s local trains on July 11 2006, which claimed 189 lives and injured over 800 people. Of the total 13 accused arrested and charge sheeted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad, one person Abdul Wahid Din Mohammad Shaikh was acquitted of all the charges after nine years in jail. The 12 convicts, including key conspirators Faisal Shaikh and Asif Khan Bashir Khan alias Junaid, were chiefly found guilty of being members of terrorist organisation under section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and of being part of an organised crime syndicate under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, among other sections. They were also found guilty of criminal conspiracy (section 120B) to commit offences related to waging war against the Government of India (sections 121A, 122) under the Indian Penal Code. Five of the convicts, namely Kamal Ansari, Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Mumbai chief Faisal, SIMI activist Ehtesham Siddiqui, Naveed and Junaid were planters of bombs at Jogeshwari, Mira Road, Bandra and Borivali. They were found guilty of murder, attempt to murder, causing hurt and criminal conspiracy. Some of accused were separately convicted and acquitted under few other individual sections of UAPA, MCOCA, IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Explosives Substances Act, Railways Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 5 Convicts were sentenced to Death while the rest were sentenced to life imprisonment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1K views1,839 pages

    2006 Mumbai Train Serial Bomb Blast Case Judgement

    Uploaded by

    Sampath Bulusu
    Closing a long chapter in the history of terror attacks in Mumbai, a Special MCOCA Court on 11th Sept 2015 convicted 12 persons of hatching a criminal conspiracy and subsequently executing a series of bombings on Mumbai’s local trains on July 11 2006, which claimed 189 lives and injured over 800 people. Of the total 13 accused arrested and charge sheeted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad, one person Abdul Wahid Din Mohammad Shaikh was acquitted of all the charges after nine years in jail. The 12 convicts, including key conspirators Faisal Shaikh and Asif Khan Bashir Khan alias Junaid, were chiefly found guilty of being members of terrorist organisation under section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and of being part of an organised crime syndicate under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, among other sections. They were also found guilty of criminal conspiracy (section 120B) to commit offences related to waging war against the Government of India (sections 121A, 122) under the Indian Penal Code. Five of the convicts, namely Kamal Ansari, Lashkar-e-Taiba’s Mumbai chief Faisal, SIMI activist Ehtesham Siddiqui, Naveed and Junaid were planters of bombs at Jogeshwari, Mira Road, Bandra and Borivali. They were found guilty of murder, attempt to murder, causing hurt and criminal conspiracy. Some of accused were separately convicted and acquitted under few other individual sections of UAPA, MCOCA, IPC, Explosive Substances Act, Explosives Substances Act, Railways Act and Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 5 Convicts were sentenced to Death while the rest were sentenced to life imprisonment.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1839

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..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.

    Terror struck the city of Mumbai when the firstclass

    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

    executed with the help of persons allegedly belonging to the


    StudentsIslamicMovementofIndia(SIMI),anorganisationbanned
    bytheGovernmentofIndia.

    2.

    The series of bomb blasts in this case is one of the largest

    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

    Rahman Shaikh, Indian National, (4)Hafiz Zuber @ Mohammad


    Zuber,IndianNational,(5)SohailShaikh,IndianNational(6)Aslam,
    Pakistani National, (7)Hafizullah, Pakistani National (8)Sabir,
    PakistaniNational,(9)AbuBakr,PakistaniNational(10)KasamAli,
    Pakistani National, (11)Ammu Jaan, Pakistani National,
    (12)Ehsanulah, Pakistani National (13)Abu Hasan, Pakistani
    National (14)Abdul Razzak, Pakistani National and (15)Abdul
    Rahman,PakistaniNational,alongwithtwodeceasedaccused,i.e.,
    (1)Salim, Pakistani National and (2)Abu Osama @ Abu Umed @
    Mohd.Ali@MohammadChinag,PakistaniNational,whicharethe
    offencespunishableundersections302,307,324,325,326,427,
    436,120B,121A,122,123,124A,201and 212oftheIndian
    PenalCode,1860(theIPC).Theyarealsochargesheetedforhaving
    committedtheaboveoffencesasanorganisedcrimeofpromoting
    insurgency,forhavingconspired,advocated,abettedandknowingly
    facilitated the commission of the organised crime, for having
    harboured or concealed any member of the organised crime
    syndicate,forbeingmembersofanorganisedcrimesyndicateand
    forholdingpropertyderivedorobtainedfromthecommissionofan
    organisedcrimeorwhichhasbeenacquiredthroughtheorganised
    crimesyndicate'sfunds,alongwiththefifteenwantedaccusedand
    two deceased accused, which are the offences punishable under
    sections 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4) and 3(5) of the Maharashtra
    ControlofOrganisedCrimeAct,1999(the MCOCAct).Theyare
    alsochargesheetedforbeingmembersofanassociationdeclaredas
    anunlawfulassociationundersection3oftheUnlawfulActivities

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..8..

    Ext.4825

    (Prevention) Act, 1967 (the UA(P)A), for committing unlawful


    activities,forcommittingterroristact,forraisingfundsforterrorist
    act, for conspiring to commit the terrorist act, for harbouring
    terrorists, for being members of a terrorist gang or terrorist
    organisation and for raising funds for terrorist organisation,
    alongwith the fifteen wanted accused and two deceased accused,
    whicharetheoffencespunishableundersections10,13,16,17,18,
    19, 20 and 40 of the said Act. They are also chargesheeted for
    having possessed, transported and used explosives, alongwith the
    fifteen wanted accused and two deceased accused, and thereby
    having contravened the notification issued by the Central
    Governmentundersection6oftheExplosivesAct,1884andhaving
    committedanoffencepunishableundersection9BofthesaidAct.
    They are also chargesheeted for having conspired to cause
    explosions of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious
    injury to property by means of explosive substance, for being in
    possessionofexplosivesubstanceforunlawfulobjectandforhaving
    procured, counseled, aided, abetted or become accessory to the
    commission of offences under the Explosive Substances Act,
    alongwith the fifteen wanted accused and two deceased accused,
    whicharetheoffencespunishableundersections3,4,5and6ofthe
    Explosive Substances Act, 1908. They are also chargesheeted for
    having committed mischief and causing damage to the public
    property of the Western Railways, alongwith the fifteen wanted
    accused and two deceased accused, which are the offences
    punishable under sections 3, 4 of the Prevention of Damage to

    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

    chargesheet. One of the unclaimed dead was identified as a


    Pakistaninationalinvolvedintheplantingofanexplosiveladenbag
    inoneofthetrains.

    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

    1824hrs. Jogeshwari 619DN


    BorivaliSlow

    41/06
    6 Borivali
    Railway

    637DN

    1828hrs. Borivali

    621DN
    VirarFast

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..12..

    7 Vasai Road 1823hrs. MiraRoad 607DN


    Railway
    VirarFast
    59/06

    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.

    He became convinced that unknown persons had kept

    explosives in the said bogie and caused the explosion. Hence, he


    lodgedthecomplaintagainstunknownpersonsthattheyhaddone
    soandkilledandinjuredpassengers.

    10.

    The Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad (BDDS) personnel

    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.

    C. R. No. 78 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway Police


    Station:
    12.

    PI Vijaykumar Nana Godbole, (PW140)(Ext.1559), was on

    day duty in the Mumbai Central Railway Police Station as


    PI(Administration)on11/07/06andhadreturnedalongwithSr.PI
    Rathod,PW176,tothepolicestationat5.30p.m.afterpatrolling.
    He,Sr.PIRathod,PW176,andAPIInamdarandstaffleftthepolice
    stationinpolicevehicleat1835hoursonreceivingtheinformation
    fromPCJadhav,3286,fromMatungaPoliceStationabouttheblast
    in alocaltrainatMatungaRailwayStation andreachedthereat
    about1900hours.Theycametoknowonreachingtherethatthere
    hadbeenablastinthelocalrailwayonplatformno.3andwhen
    theyreachedatthespot,someoneinformedthattherehadalsobeen
    a blast in a fast local train at Mahim Railway Station. He
    immediatelywenttothespotwithstaffinthepolicevehicleonthe
    directions of Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, and reached there at about
    1930hours.Hecametoknowoninquirywithapolicemanoutside
    thattheblasthadtakenplaceontheplatformno.3.Heandhisstaff
    wentrunningtothespotonthenorthernsideandsawthatthetrain
    had halted at about 100 to 150 meters distance ahead of the

    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

    he is serving in the railways since 10 years, has done electrical


    diploma and, after giving the examination of motorman, he is
    appointedas suchfrom 4years and6 months inthe Churchgate
    Headquarters.Theirdutiesarefixedasperthelocaltimetableand
    theydotheirjobonthelocaltrainsaspertheirappointment.There
    isamotormanandaguardineverylocalandtherailwaytrainsare
    runfromthefirststationtothelaststationasperthesignals.He
    was the motorman on ChurchgateBorivali fast local 641 DN on
    11/07/06,thedeparturetimeofwhichwas1754hours,therefore,
    hecameondutyat1730hours.Therewasacrowdofpassengersat
    therailwaystationandinthelocaltrainasitwaseveningtime.He
    sawthelocaltrain641DNstandingonplatformno.4ofChurchgate
    station at 1750 hours when he came to take its charge. One
    Ravindra Dalvi was on guard duty of that train and he was also
    present near the train. He started going towards the motorman
    cabinonthefrontside,atthattimeannouncementsweregoingon
    andpassengerswereboardingthetrain.Therewaslesscrowdinthe
    trainasitwasthestartingstation.Asthetraingotthegreensignal
    late,the train startedtwominutes late,i.e.,at1756hours.After
    leavingChurchgate,itstoppedatallstationsuptoMumbaiCentral
    andasitwasafasttrain,afterMumbaiCentral,itwastostopat
    Dadar,Bandra,AndheriandafterAndheri,itwastostopatevery
    stationuptoBorivali.Thetrainwasofninebogies,thefourthbogie
    fromthemotormanwasthefirstclassbogieandthesixthbogiewas
    alsofirstclassforladiesandgents.ThetraincameatDadarstation

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..19..

    Ext.4825

    at 1820 hours. There was crowd at Dadar station, therefore, he


    haltedthetrainfor1520seconds.HestartedthetrainfromDadar
    station towards the Bandra station when the guard signaled by
    sounding the bell twice. He was driving the train at the regular
    speedof50kms.asthesignalwasgreen.GuardDalviinformedhim
    ontheP.A.systemwhenthetrainenteredtheMahimstation,that
    themotorgeneratorsystemofthetrainhadfailed.Hewastryingto
    knowmoreaboutitandinthemeantimewhenthemotormancabin
    wentuptotheendoftheplatformno.3,therewasatremendous
    loudsoundofexplosionandherealisedthattheexplosionhadtaken
    placeinthetrain.Heappliedtheurgentbrakestostopthetrainand
    was successful in stopping the train at the distance of at about
    100125 meters. He also started the flasher to signal the trains
    comingfromtheoppositedirectionsandloweredthepantograph.
    He took the fire extinguisher, battery and other articles and got
    downformthewesternsideofthetrain.Hesawthattheexplosion
    hadtakenplaceinthefirstfirstclassbogie,whichwasdestroyed
    andsawpassengersofthetrainshoutingloudlyandjumpingout
    from the train. He ran towards the bogie. Other passengers and
    outsidepeople,whohadcomeforhelp,weretryingtotakeoutthe
    seriouslyinjuredpassengers.Hesawthatsomeinjuredweredead.
    Many passengers were seriously injured as it was rush hour and
    passengersofotherbogieshadbecomeinjuredastheyhadjumped
    outside.

    14.

    He saw that western portion, portion of roof, sitting

    arrangement and eastern portion were totally destroyed and the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..20..

    Ext.4825

    bogie was entirely damaged because of the explosion. Some


    passengerswerelyinginjuredbelowthebrokenpartsofthebogie.
    The passengers in the bogie were thrown outside because of the
    explosionfromthebackside.Somepassengerswerecrushedunder
    thefastlocaltrain(upthrough)onthetrackno.4duringthisperiod.
    Thetrainrunningonthetrackno.2gotthesignalandstoppedat
    somedistancebehindashehadswitchedontheflasher.

    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.

    C. R. No. 86 and 87 of 2006 of Bandra Railway Police


    Station:
    17.

    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

    its middle firstclass bogie had been destroyed. He instructed his


    staff members to immediately take the injured and bodies of the
    deceasedtotheBhabhaHospital.Hesawthattheroofofthefirst
    classbogiewasblownup,theseats,westsideluggagerackswere
    broken,thetinofthefloorontheeasternsidewaspresseddown
    and gaps were created, the lights had broken and fallen down,
    glasseshadbrokenandpiecesofglasswerelyingthere,bloodwas
    spread in the bogie and bags, purses and other articles of the
    passengerswere lying onthe floor.Hedirectedhis stafftogoto
    Bhabha Hospital to prepare inquest panchanamas and take
    statementsoftheinjured.

    18.

    Hecametoknowatthattimethatasimilartypeofblasthad

    taken place in between Santacruz and Khar Railway Stations. He


    thereforeappointedtwostaffmemberstoguardthespotandwent
    byjeeptoSantacruzstation.Therehesaw635DNBorivalislow
    localstandingontrackno.1neartheSantacruzRailwayStationand
    itsfirstclassbogie,whichwasfourthcoachfromVirarside,being
    destroyed.Thewesternandcentralportionsoftheroofwereblown
    up,westernluggagerackandseatswerelyingdown.Westernside
    doorhadbrokenandwaslyingonthegroundonthewesternside.
    Theoverheadbarwithhandleshadbroken,thefloorexactlybelow
    theportionthathadblownupwasalsopresseddown.Hesawthat
    therewasasecondclassportiontothatbogieafterapartitionof
    mesh. The said partition was pressed towards the second class
    portion and there was a hole in the mesh on the western side.
    Articlesofpassengerswerelyingonthefloorandtherewasblood

    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.

    He then went to the police station and recorded the

    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.

    Station Master of Santacruz Railway Station Nizamuddin,

    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.

    Nizamuddin, PW2, showed the spot and he prepared the


    panchanama Ext.517 in the presence of the same panchas. He
    collectedburntpiecesofcloth,plasticcarrybag,paper,coir,plastic,
    piecesofmetalwire,etc.,Art.115(colly),labeledandsealedthem
    andseizedthemunderthepanchanama.Whenhelookedaround
    thespot,hesawpiecesofflesh,bags,footwear,papers,sunmicaand
    other articles of use of passengers, lying at the distance of 100
    metersfromtheguardbogietowardsChurchgateonbothsidesof
    the tracknear KM 16/14pole, whichwas bent outside the track
    towardswestside.Thekilometerboardonthatboardwasalsobent.

    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

    the Western Railways from 25 years as a guard. He was on his

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..29..

    Ext.4825

    appointed duty on 11/07/06 on set no.209 alongwith motorman


    Mushraf Firoz Khan. They started from platform no.2 of the
    Churchgate station at 1736 hours with the train no.619DN,
    ChurchgateBorivalislowlocalofninebogies.Thetraintookstopsat
    everystationasitwasaslowlocalandstoppedatplatformno.1of
    JogeshwariRailwayStationat1823hours.Passengersboardedand
    gotdown,herangthebelltwicetointimatethemotormantostart
    thetrain.Thetrainstartedandwhenthelastthreebogieswereat
    theplatformandthetrainwasrunning,therewasaloudsoundlike
    thatofanexplosionatabout1824hours.Hesawsmokecomingout
    fromthe4thand5thbogieswhenhelookedtowardsthedirectionof
    the sound and passengers shouting and jumping out. He realised
    thatsomeuntowardincidenthadhappened,henceherangthebell
    oncetointimatethemotormantostopthetrain.Hegotdownafter
    thetrainstoppedandsawthesituation.Hesawthatoneortwo
    passengerswerelyingonthenorthernsideoftheplatformininjured
    conditionandotherpassengerswerehelpingthem.Hewentahead
    andsawthattheexplosionhadtakenplaceinthe6thbogiefromthe
    guard cabin that was the firstclass bogie no.0634A and doors of
    both sides, roof, the benches inside had broken and had been
    destroyed.

    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

    spot Ext.494 in the presence of panch witnesses, Ratan Namdeo


    Tarware,(PW21)(Ext.495),andonemore.Healsogotamapofthe
    spot Ext.1536, prepared from PC Satish Jadhav, 714, during the
    panchanama. He collected umbrella, documents, railway pass,
    valuablearticles,mobilehandsets,etc.,total22articles,fromthe
    spotinthepresenceofpanchasandputtheminawhiteplasticsack.

    29.

    PSIGawadeandJumadeoftheBombDetectionandDisposal

    Squad (BDDS) came to the spot during the preparation of the


    panchanama with the dog by name Prince and its handler. They
    produced certain suspicious articles, i.e., wrist watch of Gruen
    companywithbeltbroken,Art.49,brokenchainwithpieceofrexine
    bag, Art. 50, two deformed steel pieces, Art.51 (1 & 2), one
    deformedspring,Art.52,onesmallspringattachedwithblackmetal
    piece,Art.53,onebrokenbatterycell,Art.54,atubeofwhitemetal,
    Art.55,backportionofsteelwristwatch,Art.56,ahookwithnuts
    engravedwiththewords'M6andJumbo',Art.57andpulpofgray
    colour like cotton, Art.58. Dy. SP Raskar, PW139, showed these
    articlestothesamepanchas,labeledandsealedthemandseized
    themunderthepanchanamaExt.496intheirpresence.TheStation
    SuperintendentofJogeshwariRailwayStationappliedbytheletter
    Ext.1537 to him for shifting the bogie as per the instructions
    receivedfromtheSr.DSO,BCT.HegavepermissionExt.1538(1&

    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.

    Hence, he lodged the complaint alleging that on inquiring

    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

    three teams of officers and staff and directed them to collect


    informationaboutaccusedandtomakeinquiries.Relativesofthe
    injuredanddeceasedcamethereforinquiriesandtotakebackthe
    bodiesofthedeceased.

    C.R.No.59of2006ofVasaiRoadRailwayPoliceStation:
    36.

    Sr. PI Suresh Rajaram Kulkarni, (PW133)(Ext.1498), was

    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,

    accordingly he came on duty at 1400 hours, platform porter


    GhanshamPandeandDnyaneshwarChoudharywereondutywith
    himontheplatform.607DNVirarlocalwasgiventheindicator.Its
    arrivaltimeatMiraRoadwas1814hours,butitcameattheMira
    RoadRailwayStationat1819hoursandleftforVirarat1820hours.
    Heheardthesoundofablastatabout1823hourswhenhewasin
    hisofficeafterithadleft.Therefore,hecameontheplatformno.1
    and saw that the local train had stopped in between, passengers
    werejumpingoutofthetrainforsavingtheirlivesandrunninghere

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..38..

    Ext.4825

    and there. Therefore, he called GRPs on duty, Chavan and Page,


    hamal Kallu, Rakesh, Hiralal and Hariprasad and started going
    towardsthetrain.However,ashesawthattherehadbeenabig
    explosion and thought that many people had been injured, he
    returnedtotheoffice,informedtherailwaycontrolandthenphoned
    theambulanceandcalledittoMiraRoadandthenalongwiththe
    abovementionedstaffwenttothespotandsawthatVirarlocalno.
    607DNwasstandingonthedowntrack,signalno.506Awasbroken,
    overheadwirewasbrokenandthebombblasthadtakenplacein
    thefirstclasscoachno.864AthatwasontheVirarside.Thetinof
    theroofandsidesofthebogieweretotallytorn.Hesawthatabout
    11personswerelyingdeadonbothsidesofthetrainandinthe
    bogie,and,sawbodypartslyingscattered.Healsosawthatmany
    personshadbeen injuredandnearbyresidents had gatheredand
    hadstartedhelpwork.11deadbodiesand33injuredweresentto
    thehospitalsinambulanceandprivatevehicles.Someinjuredwent
    walking. Police and RPF staff came for bandobast and they also
    made arrangements to send the injuredto the hospital. Pieces of
    fleshandbloodandbagsofpassengerswerelyingscattered.

    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.

    The abovementioned six police officers continued the

    investigation of the crimes registered at their respective railway


    policestationsexceptSr.PIRathod,PW176,whowasattachedto
    the ATS by the order of the Director General of Police that the
    investigation of the blasts should be taken over by the ATS. He
    reported to the ATS office on 12/07/06 and was assigned the
    investigation of C.R. no. 77 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway
    PoliceStationconcerningtheblastatMatungaRailwayStation,as
    hewasalreadyinvestigatingit.

    C. R. No. 77 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway Police


    Station:
    42.

    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

    in thenightof11/07/06torecordthestatements ofthe persons


    injuredintheMahimandMatungablastsadmittedintheSionand
    KEMhospitalsandhealsowenttothehospitalson12/07/06and
    inquiredwiththewitnesseswithaviewtoobtaininformationabout

    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.

    Dr. Dhirendra Shantilal Balsara, (PW83)(Ext.846), and Dr.

    Walter Francis Vaz, (PW84) (Ext.872), of KEM Hospital had


    performedthe postmortem onthedeadbodyofNitinSukhlalPatil
    andhadrecoveredfragmentsofshrapnelformetallurgicalanalysis,
    Arts.313(colly),piecesofburnt/partiallyburntexplosivematerial,
    Arts.314(colly),andbloodforgroupingandforchemicalanalysis
    fromthedeadbody,whichheforwardedtotheFSLalongwithhis
    forwarding letters, office copies of which are at Exts.848 to 850.
    Infact HC Shrimant Maruti Jadhav, (PW90) (Ext.896), took the
    samplebottlesfromthehospitalon24/07/06andreachedthemto
    theFSL,Kalinaalongwiththeforwardingletterofhispolicestation,
    officecopyofwhichisatExt.898.ThereportsoftheFSL,Exts.851
    to853werereceivedbythehospitalandtheyweresenttothepolice

    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

    the dead body of Shojiram Modulal Meena and had recovered


    fragments of shrapnel for metallurgical analysis, Arts.315(colly),
    piecesofburnt/partiallyburntexplosivematerial,Arts.316(colly),
    andbloodforgroupingandchemicalanalysisfromthedeadbody
    andhadsentthem tothe FSL alongwithDr. Balsara's forwarding
    letter,copyofwhichisatExts.857to859.HCJadhav,PW90,had
    takenthesamplebottlesfromthehospitalandhadreachedthemto
    theFSLalongwiththeforwardingletterofhispolicestation,office
    copy of which is at Ext.897. FSL reports, Exts.860 to 862, were
    receivedbythehospitalandsenttothepolicestation.Theyshowed
    that Nitrite (post explosive residue) was detected in the splinters
    andbrownishmaterialtakenoutfromthedeadbodyof Shojiram
    Modulal Meena. The cause of death was hemorrhagic shock in a
    bomb blast, cerebral and spinal concussion and massive bilateral
    pulmonarycontusionaseffectsofabombblast(unnatural)andthat
    alltheexternalandinternalinjurieswerecollectivelyresponsiblefor
    thedeathofthatpersonandalltheexternalinjuriesmayhavebeen
    caused in a high explosive blast and the internal injuries
    corresponded to the external injuries. Sion Hospital had also
    forwarded a sealed bottle containing a foreign body that was
    removedfromthebodyofaninjuredKalpeshRaut,alongwiththeir

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..45..

    Ext.4825

    letter, Ext.900, addressed to the police station. Sr. PI Rathod,


    PW176,sentthesaidsealedbottlealongwithhisforwardingletter,
    officecopyofwhichisatExt.899,alongwithHCJadhav,PW90,to
    theFSL,Kalina.Contentsofthereport,Ext.901,thatwasreceived
    subsequently, showed the result of analysis that traces of Nitrite
    (postexplosionresidue)weredetectedonthemetalpiece.

    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.

    Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, requested the Dean of the Sion

    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

    C. R. No. 78 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway Police


    Station:
    49.

    PIGodbole,PW140,duringtheinvestigationofthiscrime,

    sent five articles handed over by the FSL people alongwith


    forwarding letter, office copy of which is at Ext.906, under the
    signatureofSr.PIRathod,PW176,alongwithHCJadhav,PW90.
    The report, Ext.1561, dtd.17/07/06 from the FSL was received,
    opining that Cyclonite (RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and
    Petroleum Hydrocarbon Oil were detected in the post explosion
    debrisincludingthecottonacetoneandwaterswabs.PIGodbole,
    PW140,andhis staffrecordedstatements ofsomewitnessesand
    injuredpersonsintheblastatMahimRailwayStation.Thestaffof
    otherpolicestationsalsorecordedthestatementsofsomeinjured.
    Constable Avinash Marishchadra Meher, who works in the
    photographdepartment,hadtaken29photographsofthespoton
    11/07/06andgotitdevelopedfromBawanPhotoStudio.Hegave
    the said photographs, Arts.257 (1 to 29) to PI Godbole, PW140.
    OneD.B.Ranehaddonevideoshootingofthespot.HegavetheCD
    ofthevideoshootingtoPIGodbole,PW140.PoliceStationShahu
    Nagarhadhandedoverfourteenarticlesofpassengers.Heseized
    themunderapanchanamaandtheimportantarticleinthesearticles
    wasanamountofRe.1,00,000/belongingtoadeceasedbyname
    AnujKillawala.HehandedoverthisamounttohisdaughterKrution
    18/07/06. He, the head constable and two constables returned
    manyarticlestotheinjuredandrelativesofdeceasedsubsequently.

    50.

    PI Godbole, PW140, handed over all the papers of

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..53..

    Ext.4825

    investigationtoACPShengaloftheATSon21/07/06onreceiving
    ordersfromhissuperiors.Hetookthestatementsoftheinjuredwho
    cametohispolicestationafterthatdayandsentthemtotheATS
    andalsosentsomeinjuredtotheATS.

    51.

    Subsequently, Sion Hospital sent two letters, Exts.903 and

    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

    per the inquest panchanamas, memorandums of postmortem


    examinationsandcauseofdeathcertificates,Exts.863,864,867to
    871,875to877,879to881,1139,1141,1142,1147to1151,1154
    to1156,1161,1162,1167to1170,1891to1894,1897to1925as
    perthetablebelow.

    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

    multiple/polytrauma injuries in case of bomb explosion,


    haemorrhage and shock due to polytrauma with complete
    transection of trunk, head injury in bomb blast, terminal cardio
    respiratory arrest with acute respiratory distressed syndrome
    following lung contusion following bomb blast, septicemia with
    bilateral lobar pneumonia due to multiple traumatic injuries as a
    resultofbombexplosion.

    53.

    96 persons were injured in the blast at Mahim Railway

    Station as per the injurycertificates,Exts. 2728(1to 96)as per


    table below, contents of which show that they had sustained the
    injuriesinthebombblastinthelocaltrainon11/07/06.

    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

    C. R. No. 86 and 87 of 2006 of Bandra Railway Police


    Station:
    54.

    Sr.PIKadri,PW138,sentseizedarticlesinboththecrimesto

    the FSL, Kalina alongwith his forwarding letters, office copies of


    whichareatExts.656(1&2)and657(1&2)respectively,alongwith
    PCGurudasBhadiJadhav,(PW52)(Ext.655).Thecontentsofthe
    reportsoftheFSL,Exts.2430and2429respectively,withrespectto
    thearticlesthatwereseizedfromthespotsinC.R.No.86and87of
    2006,showtheresultsofanalysisthatCyclonite(RDX),Ammonium,
    Nitrate,NitriteandPetroleumHydrocarbonOilweredetectedinthe
    postexplosiondebris.

    55.

    Dr. Kalpesh Jayantkumar Gajiwala, (PW69)(Ext.779), a

    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

    as per the inquest panchanamas, memorandums of postmortem


    examinationsandcauseofdeathcertificatesExts.2610to2631 as
    perthetablebelow.Theopinionastotheprobablecausesofdeaths
    mentionedinthememorandumsof postmortem examinationsand
    causeofdeathcertificateswas duetohaemorrhagicshockdueto
    polytraumainbombblast.

    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

    investigation to ACP Shengal at the ATS office, Nagpada on


    19/07/06aspertheorderoftheDirectorGeneralofPolicetohand
    overtheinvestigationofthecrimestotheATS.

    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

    Basavraj Shivsangapa Autgiri, (PW96)(Ext.959), alongwith his


    forwardingletteron13/07/06,officecopyofwhichisatExt.960.
    ThecontentsoftheFSLreport,Ext.961,showstheresultofanalysis
    that Cyclonite (RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and Petroleum
    HydrocarbonOilweredetectedinthepostexplosiondebris.

    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.

    Dy. SP Raskar, PW139, continued with the investigation,

    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.

    28persons had died in the blastat Jogeshwarias per the

    table below as per the contents of the inquest panchanamas,


    memorandums of postmortem examinations and cause of death
    certificates, Exts.2641 to 2668. The opinion as to the probable
    causes of deaths mentioned in the memorandums of postmortem
    examinationsandcauseofdeathcertificateswerehaemorrhageand
    shockduetopolytrauma,multipleinjuriesincaseofbombblast.

    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.

    Dy. SP Ahir, PW144, continued with the investigation and

    duringthattimetherewasanorderthattheATSwouldconductthe
    furtherinvestigation.AccordinglytheATSofficerscametothepolice
    stationandheinformedthemabouttheprogressoftheinvestigation
    and had discussions with them. They also started making the
    investigationparalleltohisinvestigation.Hetook29photographs
    andaCDofthevideoshootingdonebyJigneshWaghadiaunderthe
    panchanama,Ext.1587.

    74.

    Kishore Popatlal Shah, (PW60)(Ext.745), the first witness

    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.

    They inquired with many persons and recorded the

    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

    injury certificates, Exts.2733 (1 to 152) as per the table below,


    whichshowthatthosepersonshadsustainedinjuries,asdescribed
    inthecertificatesinthebombblastinlocaltrainon11/07/06.

    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.

    Dy. SP Ahir, PW144, sent all the papers of investigation

    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.

    31 persons had died in the blast near Mira Road Railway

    Station as per the contents of the inquest panchanamas,


    memorandums of postmortem examinations and cause of death
    certificates,Exts.2695to2725asperthetablebelow. Oneofthe
    injuredwitnessesbynameAmitDineshSinghhadbeenadmittedin
    theJaslokHospitalaftertheblastinanunconsciousconditionand
    wasdecerebrating.Hediedon03/05/13,i.e.,nearly7yearsafter
    theincident,andtheprosecutionproducedhisdeathcertificateExt.
    4731anddeathsummaryissuedbytheJaslokHospitalExt.4733.
    Hence,now32personshavediedinthisblast.Theopinionastothe
    probablecausesofdeathsmentionedinthememorandumsofpost
    mortem examinations and cause of death certificates was
    haemorrhagic shock due to multiple perforating injuries over

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..97..

    Ext.4825

    forehead, chest wall and abdomen due to explosion, multiple


    fractures,multipleinjuriesandinjuriestovitalorgansofpelvisdue
    toexplosion,haemorrhagicshockduetofractureoccipitalregionof
    skull vault and multiple fracture of extremities due to explosion,
    fracturesofrightulnaandradius,shockduetoamputationofleft
    hand below elbow, amputation of left leg below knee and head
    injuryduetoexplosion,fractureofrightlowerlegs,humerus, in
    caseofbombblast.

    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

    112 Mrs.SwatiRavindraWalinjkar Ext.1400

    113 NileshRamvilasSharma

    Ext.1456

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..105..

    Ext.4825

    114 KiritRamanlalShah

    Ext.1401

    115 RajeshPondrekar

    2732(1)

    82.

    Sr. PI Kuklarni, PW133, handed over all the papers of

    investigationthathehaddonetoACPShengalofATSasperthe
    orderoftheCommissionerofRailwayPolice,Mumbai.

    TransferofinvestigationtotheATS:
    83.

    Sr.PIRathod,PW176,continuedwiththeinvestigationofC.

    R. No.77 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway Police Station as


    mentioned above. ACP Iqbal Hasan Shaikh, (PW162)(Ext.1748),
    was attached to Police Head Quarters, Naigaon as PI. He was
    deputedtotheATSon22/07/06andassignedtheinvestigationofC.
    R.No.78of2006ofMumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.ACP
    RajaramRamchandraJoshi,(PW163)(Ext.1752),whowasattached
    totheATSasPI,wasentrustedwiththefurtherinvestigationofC.R.
    No.86of2006ofBandraRailwayPoliceStationon20/07/06,the
    papers of which he received from ACP Shengal on 20/07/06. PI
    VijayKadamoftheATSwasentrustedwiththeinvestigationofC.R.
    No.87of2006ofBandraRailwayPoliceStationinconnectionwith
    thebombblastthathadoccurredatKharSubway.Sr.PIWadhankar,
    PW167, who was attached to the EOW on 11/07/06 as PI, was
    asked to report to the ATS, Nagpada unit immediately. A team
    consistingofhim,oneAPI,twoPSIsandstaffwasconstitutedon
    12/07/06formakingtheinvestigationofC.R.No.41of2006of
    AndheriRailwayPoliceStationpertainingtotheblastthathadtaken
    place at Jogeshwari. ACP Prasad Mahendra Khandekar, (PW174)

    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

    containing black coloured powder weighing 500 gms. during the


    housesearchoftheA1.Itwaskeptbehindoldclothesandanempty
    oilboxbelowthewoodencot.TheyinquiredwiththeA1aboutiton
    suspicion, but he failed to give any satisfactory answer. They
    suspectedthatthepowderwasexplosivesubstance,hence,hedrew
    asampleofabout10gms,Art.40,inthesmallplasticbag,Art.40A,
    puttheremainingpowderinaplasticjar,Art.39,labeledandsealed
    thesampleandpackedandlabeledtheplasticjar.Heseizedthese
    articles under panchanama, Ext.500, before the panch witnesses
    Ashok,PW22,andonemore.HearrestedtheA1andKhalidShaikh
    andgaveintimationtothewifeoftheA1thattheyarebeingtaken
    to Mumbai and also intimated PSI Rajan, PW107, about taking
    themtoMumbai.HealsosearchedthehouseoftheaccusedKhalid
    at Malmal, but did not find any incriminating thing. They left
    BasopattiforPatnaalongwiththeaccused.Hemadeentryaboutthe
    arrestoftheaccusedintheKotwaliPoliceStation,Patna,deputed
    APIKolhatkar,PW18,tocarrytheseizedpowderbyroadasthey
    wantedtocomebacktoMumbaibyairanditwasnotpossibleto
    carry the explosive powder in the aeroplane. He and PSI Sachin
    KadambroughtboththeaccusedtoMumbaibyairandreportedto
    theChief IOabouttheir arrest.He alsohandedoverthe original
    panchanamaandtheseizedarticles,i.e.,mobileandcashamountto
    ACPShengal,whohandedthemovertoSr.PIRathod,PW176,on
    thesameday.

    86.

    APIKolhatkar,PW18,reachedMumbaion22/07/06byroad

    with the suspected explosive substance, i.e., black powder seized

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..109..

    Ext.4825

    fromthehouseoftheA1andhandeditovertoACPShengal.

    87.

    PI Sunil Deshmukh had arrested one suspect by name

    Mumtaz Chaudhary from Navi Mumbai on 20/07/06 on the


    informationthathehadreceivedandhadtakenhishousesearchon
    21/07/06.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,arrestedtheA2underthearrest
    panchanamaExt.1933on24/07/06fromtheCrimeBranch,UnitII,
    atJacobCircle/SatRasta,wherehehadgoneasperthedirectionsof
    hissuperiors.HearrestedA10andA11underthepanchanamaExt.
    1937 on 25/07/06 as the officers of the same unit of the Crime
    Branch brought them to the ATS office at Kalachowki. He also
    arrested A3 and A9 from the said unit on 27/07/06 under the
    panchanamaExt.1941.

    88.

    Sr.PITajne,PW161,wenttoPatna,Biharon24/07/06as

    per directions, for verifying the information given by the A1. He


    visited Madhubani on 26/07/06, made inquiry with Nitishkumar
    Kalishchanddra Mishra, (PW68)(Ext.776), owner of Shanti
    Communication Cyber Cafe, who told him that the A1 used to
    frequentlyvisithisinternetcafeforoperatinginternetandsending
    emails. He recorded his statement and also visited a number of
    places for tracing the associates of the A1 and then returned to
    Mumbaion29/07/06andhandedoverthestatementtothechief
    IO.

    89.

    Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, obtained police custody of all the

    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.

    Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, alongwith ACP Shengal, PSI

    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.

    The A3 had led them to the third floor of the LuckyVilla

    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.

    The A3 was made to sit in another vehicle after the

    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

    application and the other documents, Art.372 (1 to 4). From the


    entries in the bank account statement, it was gathered that the
    chequegivenbytheA3totheflatowner,Sajid,PW48,wasfromthe
    bankaccountofhisfather.

    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.

    794), thereafter. He was found present and was informed about

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..116..

    Ext.4825

    their intention to search his house. He produced a closed white


    envelopewhentheyenteredthehouseandinformedthemthathis
    brother,wantedaccusedRizwanDawreyhadsentsomeRiyalsfor
    theA3.Theenvelopewasopenedandfoundtocontain22notesof
    500Riyalseachandonenoteof200Riyals.AbdulDawrey,PW71,
    also informed that Rizwan Dawrey had informed him by email
    aboutsendingtheRiyalstohim.Therefore,theydisconnectedthe
    cordsoftheCPUArt.308,thatwasinthecomputersetinfrontof
    themainentrancedoor,labeleditontheinputsocketsontheback
    sideandpackedit.Acopyofthepanchanama,Ext.757,wasgivento
    AbdulDawrey.

    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.

    Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, recorded the statement of Khalida

    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.

    Sr.PIRathod, PW176, opened the five packets containing

    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.

    PI Hemant Anant Bavdhankar, (PW152) (Ext.1636), who

    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

    visas and tickets of the A9, A11, Chhipa Mohammedali and


    Zulfequar Fayaz during the periodfrom2004to2006,underthe
    panchanama,Ext.1638.HealsoseizedtheregisterArt.259,Ext.624,
    andphotocopyofpassportofA10Art.259A,underthepanchanama,
    Ext.1639fromShaikhMohammadWasi,(PW45)(Ext.623),atravel
    agent of Western Travel Services Agency.PI Bavdhankar, PW152,
    alsoseizedtheregistersExts.608to612fromAfzalHussainSalim
    Hirji,(PW43)(Ext.602),managerinAlShayaNaseerTravels,asthe
    registerscontainedtheentriesofthenamesofA10,FirozGhaswala,
    A2,A9, ChhipaMohammedaliandZulfequarFayazfortheperiod
    from2002to2006,underthepanchanama,Ext.1640.Theentries
    areatExts.603to607andincludetheentryabouttheA11ofthe
    year2005.HehadalsoseizedlettersExts.1641(1&2),thatwere
    sentbythetravelcompanyofthiswitnesstothevisasectionofthe
    ConsulateofIran,whichcontainedthenameofA2.PIBavdhankar,
    PW152,depositedtheseizedarticleswiththemuddemalclerkand
    handedoverthestatements,panchanamasanddocumentstoSr.PI
    Rathod,PW176.

    105.

    Sr. PI Rathod, PW176 opened the envelope in which the

    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.

    Sr.PIRathod,PW176, arrested A4on 12/08/06 while he

    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

    submitted by wanted accused Rahil Shaikh at Zensor Technology

    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

    about the certificates that were obtained by A9 and his brother,


    wantedaccusedRahilfromtheDirector,BharatiyaShikshaParishad,
    Lucknow, UP, asking them to produce the marksheet registers of
    199697to199899.TwoadvocatesPravinrajGuptaandAjayYadav
    hadcomefromLucknowwiththreeregistersandaletter.Heseized
    theregistersunderthepanchanama,Ext.1978on22/09/06ashe
    primafaciefoundthattheyappearedtobeforged.Aseparatecrime
    offorgerywasregisteredlateronagainsttheA9andtheDirector,
    Bharatiya Shiksha Parishad. Data Core Technology Pvt. Ltd,
    BangaloreregisteredanoffenceofforgeryagainstA9intheHigh
    GroundPoliceStation atBangalore.Theeducationalcertificateof
    theA9thatwereprovidedbyhimfromBharatiyaShikshaParishad
    weresenttothepolicestation.

    111.

    JointCommissioner ofCustoms andCentralExcise, Arvind

    Kumar Singh, (PW40)(Ext.579), who was working as Assistant


    Director in the Enforcement Directorate of Government of India,
    Zonal Office, Mumbai in 2006, took the statement of A3 on
    21/08/06and24/08/06,certifiedtruephotocopiesofwhichareat
    Exts.585(1&2),whilehewasinthepolicecustodyoftheATS,after

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..126..

    Ext.4825

    obtaining an order from the Addl. CMM, 2nd Court, Mazgaon on


    18/08/06 allowing them to interrogate him and to take over the
    foreigncurrency,i.e.,SaudiRiyals,aboutwhichtheyhadcometo
    knowthatthepolicehadseizedthemfromtheresidentialpremises
    ofsomepersons.Amongstotherthings,theA3statedtothemthat
    hehadvisitedforeigncountries45times,twicetoPakistan,thaton
    the first visit he had gone to Muzafarabad, where there was a
    training camp and on the second visit he had taken elaborate
    training in terror camps organised by militant organisation. In
    respectoftheforeigncurrencypart,hestatedthathewasgettingit
    by hawala from wanted accused Azam Chima through wanted
    accused Rizwan Dawrey and used the money for sending young
    peopletoPakistanforarmstrainingandhadtoldthenamesofthe
    A2, A10, one Ghaswala and 45 persons. Arvind Kumar, PW40,
    gatheredfromthestatementsthattheterrorfinancingnetworkwas
    that wanted accused Azam Chima used to send money to A3 as
    described above through his cousin sister or through some other
    people. He also recorded the statement of Abdul Dawrey, PW71,
    certifiedtruecopiesofwhichareatExts.586(1&2)on14/09/06
    and 15/09/06 and of Khaleeda Iqbal Ahmed Khan, Ext.587 on
    19/09/06. He had gone to the ATS office on 25/09/06. The
    statement of the A3 resulted in issuing showcase notice by the
    EnforcementDirectortotheA3,hissisterandAbdulDawrey,PW71.
    He went to the ATS office on 25/09/06 and on his request and
    authorityletter,Sr.PIRathod,PW176,handedover26,200Riyalsto
    himunderthepanchanama,Ext.1255and1256inthepresenceof

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..127..

    Ext.4825

    panchwitnesses, FaridBakir Mallik,(PW119)(Ext.1254),and one


    more.ArvindKumar,PW40,producedattestedtruecopyofshow
    cause notice, Ext.582 issued by the Deputy Director of the
    Directorate of Enforcement and attested true photocopy of
    complaint,Ext.583.

    112.

    Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, collected certified copies of

    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.

    DCP Bajaj gave letter to the Passport Office, Worli on

    04/09/06, office copy of which is at Ext.1990, for obtaining the


    copiesoftheapplicationsanddocumentsgivenbytheA2andA11.
    ThePRO(Policy)oftheRegionalPassportOffice,Mumbaisentletter
    Ext.1991andforwardedattestedtruecopiesofthedocumentsof
    theA11,Exts.1992(1to10)andoftheA2,Exts.1993(1to13).

    116.

    DCPBajajsentawirelessmessageon21/08/06,officecopy

    of which is at Ext.1981, alongwith his request letter to the Asst.


    Inspector General of Police (Crime), Maharashtra State, Wireless
    GridMumbai,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1980,forpermissionto
    broadcastthewirelessmessagetotheForeignersRegistrationOffice
    (FRO),AmritsarasitwasrevealedintheinvestigationthattheA3
    had gone to Pakistan in 2001 through Attari Rail Check Post,
    Amritsar. The FRRO, BOI, Amritsar sent a fax on 20/09/06, Ext.

    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

    corresponded with the Saudi Airlines by sending letter dtd.


    20/08/06,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1983.TheSaudiAirlines
    sent the information, i.e., the manifest containing the list of
    passengers,Ext.1985,alongwithhisforwardingletterExt.1984.The
    listofpassengersshowedthenameoftheA3on01/12/04.

    119.

    Inthemeanwhileon05/09/06ACPSadashivLaxmanPatil,

    (PW186)(Ext.2361), gave copy of FSL report to Sr. PI Tajne,


    PW161,inrespectofthesampleoftheblackpowderthatwasfound
    in the house of the A1. The FSL report Ext.469 showed that the
    blackpowderwashighexplosiveRDX.Hence,Sr.PITajne,PW161
    recordedthestatement/complaintExt.468ofAPIKolhatkar,PW18,
    against the A1 at sr. no. 0 on 05/09/06. API Kolhatkar, PW18,
    requestedSr.PITajne,PW161,tosendtheoriginalpapersandthe
    explosivesubstancetoPoliceStationBasopatti,DistrictMadhubani
    inBiharastheexplosivesubstancewasfoundinthehouseoftheA1
    initsjurisdiction.Sr.PITajne,PW161,submittedhisreporttohis

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..132..

    Ext.4825

    superior to transfer the investigation of this crime to the Police


    Station Basopatti. PSI Rajan Prasad, PW107, received letter dtd.
    05/09/06fromtheAddl.CP,ATS,Mumbaion09/09/06informing
    himthattheblackpowderthatwasseizedfromthehouseoftheA1
    wasRDXpowder.PSIYogeshwarChoudharymadeastationdiary
    entry about it, certified copy of which is at Ext.1097, lodged the
    formalFIRNo.102of2006,copyofwhichisatExt.1098,andgave
    theinvestigationtoPSIB.Upadhyay.

    C. R. No.78 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway Police


    Station:
    120.

    ACP Shaikh, PW162, learnt during the course of

    investigation that a person by name Tafheem Akmal Hashmi,


    (PW95)(Ext.952),wasapprehendedbytheIndianArmyinKashmir
    andwasinthecustodyofD.H.PoraPoliceStation,Kulgam,Jammu
    andKashmirandwassuspectedtobeinvolvedinthepresentbomb
    blastscase.Heappliedtothemagistrateforatransferwarrantand
    the said Tahfeem, PW95, was brought toMumbaiunder transfer
    warrantbytheATSstaffon02/09/06.HearrestedthesaidTafheem,
    PW95,inthiscrimeonthatday.Hecouldnotgatheranysubstantial
    andtangibleevidenceagainstthesaidperson.Therefore,hefiledan
    applicationbeforetheMetropolitanMagistrate,2ndCourt,Mazgaon
    on13/10/06fordischarginghimandobtainedorders.Onthesame
    day the said accused Tafheem, PW95, had sent an application
    throughthejailoraddressedtothecourtstatingthathewantedto
    makeastatementbeforethecourt.Thisapplicationwasforwarded
    totheATSandmarkedtoACPShaikh,PW162.Hepresentedthe

    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. 86 and 87 of 2006 of Bandra Railway Police


    Station:
    122.

    ACP Joshi, PW163, received the case papers from ACP

    Shengal on 20/07/06 and perused them. PSI Datir, PSI Yogesh


    Chavan,PSIPatare,APIPophaleandfourpolicemenweregivento
    himforthepurposeofinvestigation.Heinstructedthemtocontact
    the injured and to collect maximum information with a view to
    knowabouttheidentityoftheaccusedpersons.Healsoinstructed
    themtotravelinthesamesemifastBorivalilocaltrainatthesame
    timeandtocontactthecommutersregularlytravellinginthebogie
    with a view to get more information useful for the investigation.
    Thereafter, he arrested the A1 on 14/08/06, Khalid Shaikh and
    MumtazChaudharyon16/08/06,A2on17/08/06,A11andA10on
    21/08/06,A3andA9on22/08/06andA4on08/09/06.A1,A2,A3
    andA9toA11hadalsobeenarrestedinC.R.No.87of2006before
    theywerearrestedinC.R.No.59of2006.

    C.R.No.59of2006ofVasaiRoadRailwayPoliceStation:
    123.

    Addl. CP Jaijeet Singh directed PI Agrawal, PW173, to

    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

    the unclaimed baggage and articles and found a small green


    colouredbag.Heopeneditandfoundatelephonediary,bunchof
    keys and some money. The telephone diary showed that it was
    belonging to one Kailash Mehta, who was admitted in Kasturi
    Hospital. Hence he took that bag and came back to his office,
    showedthebagtothewitnessRamanandMachewarandconfirmed
    thatitwasthesamebag.

    124.

    ACPShengalhandedoverthecasepaperofthiscrimetohim

    on 21/07/06.Thereafter he arrestedthe A1on11/09/06,A2on


    14/09/06,A10andA11on16/09/06andA3andA9on18/09/06.
    He gathered from the interrogation of the accused by the other
    investigatingofficersthatmostofthemweremembersofSIMI,that
    SIMIliterature was recoveredfromthem,thatsome of them had
    gonetoPakistantoundergomilitanttrainingintheLeTcampsat
    Muzaffarabad in Pakistan occupied Kashmir and that certain
    incriminatingarticleshadbeenrecoveredfromthem.

    C.R.No.156of2006ofBorivaliRailwayPoliceStation:
    125.

    ACP Khandekar, PW174, on being directed by Addl. CP

    Jaijeet Singh, started conducting the investigation of this crime


    paralleltotheinvestigatingofficersoftherailways.Hewenttothe
    Kandivali car shed on 12/07/06, surveyed the affected bogie no.
    935A,inspectedthearticlesthatwerelyinginthebogiewithaview
    toobtainevidence,thenwenttoBorivaliRailwayStationandhad
    discussion with Dy. SP Ahir, PW144, took information of the
    hospitalsin whichabout 100injuredpersons hadbeen admitted,
    allotted different hospitals for visits amongst himself, API

    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

    discharged later on, had been arrested first by Sr. PI Rathod,


    PW176,andintheothercrimesoneafterotherbytherespective
    investigatingofficerswithwhomheusedtosharetheinputsthat
    werereceivedduringtheinterrogationoftheaccusedbythem.Sr.PI
    Rathod,PW176,informedhimabouttheseizureof500gms.black
    powderfromthehouseoftheA1inMadhubani,Biharandthatthe
    FSLreportofthatpowdershowedthatitwasRDXpowder.Healso
    informedthattheA1hadgonetoPakistanandhadtakenmilitancy
    trainingfromMuzzafarabadinPakistanoccupiedKashmir.Healso
    informedthathehadfoundtwoblackspotsofwhichhehadtaken
    swabs,duringthesearchofthehouseoftheA3inBandraandhad
    alsoseized26200SaudiRiyals,aboutwhichtheA3couldnotgive
    anysatisfactoryexplanation.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,alsotoldhim
    thatitwasrevealedintheinvestigationthattheA3hadreceivedthe
    said Saudi Riyals from the wanted accused Azam Chima,
    commanderofLeT,Pakistan via wantedaccusedRizwanDawrey
    fromSaudiArabiaandthathehadalsofoundbooksofSIMI,which
    wasabannedorganisation.Healsoinformedabouttherecoveryof
    bottles of Sulfuric Acid, Hydrogen Peroxide and Acetone at the
    instance ofthe A2from the locker of SabuSiddiquihospital and
    foundliteratureconnectedwithSIMIatthehousesoftheA2,A3
    and A9 to A11. Dy. SP Ahir, PW144, of the ATS had recovered
    literatureconnectedwithSIMIfromtheA4inanLACcase.Sr.PI
    Rathod, PW176, had recovered maps from the different accused
    showingthemarkedroutefromIndiatoPakistanviaIranandmaps
    ofMumbaiwhereinsomeimportantandstrategicpointshadbeen

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..139..

    Ext.4825

    marked. He also came to know that the A3 had visited Pakistan


    twiceandhadtakenmilitancytrainingthereandhadsenttheA2
    andA9toA11formilitancytrainingthereandthathewasbeing
    funded by the wanted accused Azam Chima for sending Muslim
    youthsfortraining.ACPKhandekar,PW174,cametoknowfromSr.
    PIRathod,PW176,thatduringhisinteractionwiththeaccusedhe
    came to know that the literature found with them contained the
    informationastohowthedemocracyinIndiacanbereplacedbya
    MuslimGovernment,tocreatedisharmonyindifferentwaysinthe
    Indiansocietyandhowtodoit.Hecametoknowthattheideology
    andobjectofSIMIwasbehindtherailwayblastsanditwastocreate
    public opinion against the government, so that the government
    would topple, which fell within the meaning of promoting
    insurgency.

    128.

    PI Agrawal, PW173, and PI Kadam had received the

    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

    arrested and 67 accused were wanted, that the chargesheet was


    senttotheSessionscourtandsomeaccusedhadbeenconvictedfor
    10 years. It was revealed during the interrogation of the wanted
    accused Parvez Khan, that the full name of wanted accused Asif
    KhanwasdisclosedasAsifKhanBashirKhan@Junaid. Hethen
    wenttotheMIDCPoliceStationandgottheinformationaboutthe
    status of the case of C. R. No. 178 of 1999 that it had been
    registered in the court and given RCC No.219 of 2001 andwas
    disposedoff.HecollectedphotocopiesoftheFIRandotherpapersof
    boththecrimes,wenttothe courtandwiththe helpofthe APP
    working in the CJM court, perused the case papers and came to
    knowthatoneoftheaccusedhadbeenacquittedintheyear2002
    and the other accused, i.e., the A13, was shown as proclaimed
    offender in March, 2002. He noted down all the details and the
    datesandaskedtheAPPtogetcopiesoftherelevantpapers.He
    thenwenttotheSessionsCourt,butcouldnotgetanyinformation.
    He then went to the DSB office and collected the copies of the
    photographsandthencalledACPKhandekar,PW174,onphoneand
    gave him the information that he had gathered, viz., the crime
    numbersofthetwocrimes,thenamesoftheaccused,sectionsof
    offences, date of proclamation, date of order of conviction, etc.,
    whichACPKhandekar,PW174,wrotedown.Onthenextdayhe
    cametoknowfromtheSessionsCourtthattheconvictedaccused
    hadfiledappealintheHighCourt.HewenttotheCJMcourtand
    collectedthecertifiedtruecopiesofthedocuments,thencontacted
    theATSoffice,MumbaiandtoldACPTawde,whowasonthephone,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..142..

    Ext.4825

    about having received certified copies of papers of one case and


    informedhimthatthepapersoftheothercasehavebeensenttothe
    HighCourtatAurangabadinanappeal.Hetookoutphotocopiesof
    allthedocumentsthathehadcollectedandsentthedocumentsthat
    hehadcollectedwithPCSantoshChorgetotheATSofficeonthe
    directionsofACPTawdeandtoldhimtohandoverthedocuments
    toACPTawde.HemetDilipSawant,Addl.SP(Home),Jalgaon,on
    thedirectionsofACPTawdeandtoldhimabouttherequirementof
    thecasepapersfromtheHighCourt.Hewastoldtowaittherefor
    two days. During his stay at Jalgaon, he and his constable went
    aroundTambapuraandShirsoliareawheretheA13usedtobeand
    triedtocollectthe informationabouthimbymakingconfidential
    inquiry. At that time he did not get any information about the
    whereabouts of the A13, but only came to know that when the
    offencewascommittedin1999andtheA13wasarrested,hehad
    beenreleasedonbailandusedtoattendthecourtdatesregularly.
    However,afterCrimeNo.103of2001wasregisteredandsomeboys
    werearrestedandhisnamealsocroppedupinthatcrime,heleft
    thatareaandwasnotseenthereafter.Healsocametoknowthatthe
    A13camesometimeinbetweenandtookhiswifeandchildrenand
    thereisnoinformationabouthispresentwhereabouts.Hecollected
    certifiedcopiesofthedocumentsobtainedon22/09/06bytheAddl.
    SP from the High Court and copies of the supplementary
    chargesheet that had been filed against the A13 from the MIDC
    PoliceStation.ThecertifiedcopiesandphotocopiesareatExts.1506
    to1511,outofwhichhehadcollectedthephotocopiesExts.1509

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..143..

    Ext.4825

    and1511fromthepolicestation.

    130.

    On receiving the information about the cases registered

    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

    some maps showing Asian countries and a route marked from


    Mumbai toTehran,Tehran to Zaydan, Zaydan to Quetta, then to
    BhavalpurandtoMuzaffarabadwererecoveredfromsomeofthe
    arrested accused and there were some email addresses and
    telephonenumberswrittenonthemaps.Healsocametoknowthat
    wantedaccusedAzamChimawasprovidingfundstotheA3forthe
    expenses of sending boys for arms training, that wanted accused
    RizwanDawreyandRahilShaikhwereactingasconduitsbetween
    Azam ChimaandA3andA9,thatoutofthe moneysent,15000
    Saudi Riyals were recovered from the A3 and that 11200 Riyals,
    which were meant for the A3, were recovered from one Abdul
    Dawrey,PW71,andthatwantedaccusedAzamChimausedtosend
    moneyviaDubaieitherthroughcarriersorbyhawala.Healsocame
    toknowthatRDXwasrecoveredfromthehouseoftheA1,spotsof
    RDXwerenoticedinthehousesearchoftheA3andthereportsof
    theFSLweretallyingwiththeFSLreportsofthebombblastdebris
    from the seven bomb blasts sites. Similarly, three bottles of
    chemicalswererecoveredattheinstanceoftheA2,whichtheFSL
    opined as being capable of causing explosion. A13's name was
    disclosedasthemainconspiratortotheinvestigatingofficerofC.R.
    No.156of2006onconductinginquiriesabouthisantecedentsand
    hehadcometotheconclusionthathewasindulgingincontinuing
    unlawful activity. ACP Patil, PW186, was aware that the said
    investigatingofficerhadcometotheconclusionthattheprovisions
    oftheMCOCActareattractedandthathehadsubmittedaproposal
    toAddl.CPJaiswal,whoisoftherankofDIG,forgrantingprior

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..146..

    Ext.4825

    approval forinvocation of theprovisions ofthe MCOCActtohis


    case.

    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

    their involvement in this case was disclosed during the course of


    investigationandfromtheinformationgatheredfromthearrested
    accused.OneteamheadedbyPISalaskarwassenttoKolkataonthe
    basisofcertaininformationabouttheA5.PISalaskar,APIPhadke
    andstaffreturnedfromKolkataon29/09/06andproducedtheA5
    beforehimandreportedthattheyhadarrestedhimatKolkataon
    28/09/06 with the help of the local police and produced the
    memorandumofarrestandinspectionmemo,Exts.2374and2375.

    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.

    Separate teams of officers and their staff were formed for

    interrogationoftheaccusedandACPPatil,PW186,alongwithother
    seniorofficersweresupervisingtheinterrogation.Heinstructedthe
    officerstotakeimmediatestepsifneeded,ifsomethingimportant
    camefromtheinterrogationandtokeephimpostedaboutit.Allthe
    arrestedaccusedwereputunderconstantinterrogationaftertheir
    arrest.

    Confessionalstatementsgivenbytheaccusedu/s.18ofthe
    MCOCAct:
    142.

    ACPPatil,PW186wasinformedon29/09/06bytheteamof

    officers interrogating the A2 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested
    theJt.C.P.,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.C.P.,ATS
    nominated Superintendent of Police Sanjay Vilasrao Mohite,
    (PW102)(Ext.1014), who was DCP (Preventive), Crime Branch,
    MumbaiatthattimetorecorditandherecordedPartIandIIofthe
    confessionalstatementoftheA2on04/10/06and05/10/06,Exts.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..152..

    Ext.4825

    1019and1020respectively,afterfollowingthedueprocedureand
    taking the necessary precautions and sent the sealed envelopes
    containingtheconfessionalstatementstotheCMM,whosentitto
    thiscourtalongwithhisletterExt.1028.

    143.

    Thecontentsoftheconfessionalstatements ofthe accused

    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

    preparing bombs and getting information about detonators. He


    confessed about returning to Mumbai, meeting the A4, who
    collected many SIMI activists in a flat at Mira Road in February,
    2004,whereA4playedaCDofMasoodAzhar,theChiefofJaishe
    Mohammed. He confessed about A3 calling him to his house at
    BandrainFebruary,2006,wheretheA3,A4,A9,A10,A11andA13
    werepresent,theA3tellingthemabouttheplanofblastingbombs
    inthelocaltrainshatchedbywantedaccusedAzamChimaonthe
    say of ISI and that some Pakistani guests would be coming for
    executingtheplan.Heconfessedabouttheyconductingarecceof
    theprobablespotswherethebombsweretobeplaced,bytraveling
    intrainsfromChurchgatetoVirar,theA3andA13havingdecidedto
    makethebombexplosions,therebeingmanymeetingsatthehouse
    oftheA3whereinheusedtoremainpresent,bombsbeingprepared
    atthehouseoftheA6atGovandion8th,9thand10/07/06astoldby
    theA3,A13bringingthearticlesforpreparingthebombs,A7and
    twoPakistanipersons,outofwhomonewaswantedaccusedSuhail
    Shaikh, doing the work of preparing bombs, he keeping watch
    outsidethehouseofA6asinstructedbytheA4,sevenbombladen
    bagsbeingtakentothehouseoftheA3inBandraintheeveningof
    10/07/06andbeinginstructedbytheA3tobereadyon11/07/06,
    iftheneedarose.

    145.

    ACPPatil,PW186wasinformedon29/09/06bytheteamof

    officers interrogating the A4 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested

    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

    on Pipe Road, Kurla, reading religious books, getting acquainted


    with members of SIMI, attending programs of SIMI, being
    introducedtoSIMImembers,beingsenttotheheadquartersofSIMI
    at Delhi for training in August, 2001 where he heard lectures of
    manyactivists,becomingacquaintedwiththeA3atDelhiwhohad
    alsocametherefortraining,beingarrestedon27/09/01whenhe
    was in the SIMI office at Kurla alongwith several other persons
    includingtheA2andA13,whowastheSecretaryofMaharashtra,
    SIMI, and was absconding in a case at Jalgaon and staying in a
    rentedroomatKurlaafterthebanonSIMIanddoingtheworkof
    SIMIandforthatpurposetouringIndiaandtheA13beingelected
    asPresidentofAllIndiaSIMIatthemeetinginKeralainFebruary,
    2006,buttheA13refused,therefore,beingexpelledfromSIMI.He
    confessedaboutbeingappointedasPresidentofSIMIofMiraRoad
    inMarch,2002studyingQuranandmoreparticularlyaboutjihad,
    downloadingtheliteratureofthejihadfromthewebsiteofLeT,

    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

    of officers interrogating the A1 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested
    theJt.C.P.,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.C.P.,ATS
    nominated Regional Passport Officer Vinoy Kumar Choubey,
    (PW113)(Ext.1175),whowasDCP,ZoneIXatthattimetorecordit
    andherecordedPartIandIIoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA1
    on03/10/06and04/10/06,Exts.1180and1181respectively,after

    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

    of officers interrogating the A3 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested

    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.

    A3 confessed about becoming acquainted with some

    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

    accused Abdul Razzak, an Indian from Hyderabad, who used to


    workforLeTandwhosenthimtoMuzaffarabadfortrainingatthe
    campofLeT,thathewasgiventhetrainingofhandlingofAK47,
    PistolandTTRevolver,preparingbombsandcausingexplosion,that
    hewassenttoAlAksatrainingcamp,wherepeopleusedtocomein
    military vehicles and in military uniforms, that thereafter he met
    wantedaccusedAzamChimaatYurbjibungalow,nearLahore,that
    wantedaccusedAbdulRazzaktoldhimthatbytheorderofZakiUr
    Rehman,trainingchiefcommanderofLeT,he,i.e.,theA3hasto
    workwithwantedaccusedAzamChima,thathereturnedtoIndia
    andthereafterworkedonlyforLeTandduringthistimesearched
    for youngsters and able boys for training of Lashkar, for which
    purpose he asked for money from wanted accused Azam Chima,
    which he sent by hawala, that he sent the A10 for training to
    PakistaninNovember,2002andgaveRe.1,00,000/tohim,thathe
    used to remain in contact with wanted accused Azam Chima
    throughwantedaccusedRahilandwantedaccusedRizwan,thathe
    started obtaining detailedinformation aboutthe workofLeTin
    thismannerthroughwantedaccusedAzamChima,thathewentto
    Saudiattheendof2003,changedhisnameasMustafa,wentto
    DubaiinMarch,2004,fromwherehewenttoAbbasBandargaah
    (Iran),thencrossedIranPakborderandfinallyreachedBahawalpur,
    wherehewasgivenanewnameAmin,thatfromtherehecontacted
    wanted accused Rizwan Dawrey and asked him to send more
    persons for training from India, that accordingly wanted accused
    RizwanDawreyinformedhimabouttheA2beingreadytocometo

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..161..

    Ext.4825

    Pakistan through A4 for training at Muzaffarabad and where he


    went via Iranrouteandcompleted15daystraining,thatA9also
    underwenttrainingatMuzaffarabadinAugust,2004,thathecame
    to know from wanted accused Rizwan Dawrey that one Sohail
    Shaikh from Pune is undergoing training in Muzaffarabad and is
    staying there since last 78 months and had obtained six months
    training.HeconfessedthatheobtainedalotofinformationaboutL
    eTfromwantedaccusedAzamChima,thatthesaidorganisationis
    abranchofMarkajUdDavaUlIrshad,lookingaftertheexecutionof
    itsterroristactivities,thatHafizMohmadSaeedisthechiefsargana
    of Markaj and Lashkar and wanted accused Azam Chima
    (Bahawalpur),wantedaccusedAbuMuzammil(Islamabad)andArif
    Kasmani(Karachi)andmanymoresimilarcommandersworkunder
    HafizSaeedandtheyrecruitpersonsandgiveterroristtrainingto
    themfortheLeT.HeconfessedthatwantedaccusedAzamChima
    wantedtocommitabigincidentinMumbaiandforthispurpose,he
    wantedtosendtheA3toIndia,thathewassenttoDelhionan
    emergencycertificateattheendofyear2004ashisIndianpassport
    wastakenawayfromhimbythepoliceatSaudiArabia.

    151.

    He also confessed about sending the boys by name Firoz

    Ghaswala,UbedChipaof Ahmedabad,ZulfiqarFaiyyaz Ahmedof


    AurangabadandA11towantedaccusedAzamChimafortrainingin
    Pakistan, that wanted accused Azam Chima had sent him a total
    amount of Rs.10,00,000/ by hawala through wanted accused
    RizwanDawrey.

    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

    of officers interrogating the A9 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested
    theJt.CP,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.CP,ATS

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..164..

    Ext.4825

    nominated DCP Dnyaneshwar Mansingrao Phadtare, (PW93)(Ext.


    916)torecorditandherecordedPartIandIIoftheconfessional
    statementoftheA9on04/10/06and05/10/06,Exts.921and924
    respectively, after following the due procedure and taking the
    necessaryprecautionsandsentthesealedenvelopescontainingthe
    confessional statements to the CMM, who sent it to this court
    alongwithhisletterExt.2810.

    154.

    A9confessedthathisbrotherA3usedtoworkforLeT,that

    he and his brother A3 and wanted accused Rahil used to go to


    Macca Masjid in Mominpura, Pune and used to take knowledge
    aboutDarseQuranandjihadfromSIMIworkers,whousedtogive
    theminformationaboutatrocitiesbeingcommittedonMuslimsby
    tellingthetalesofthedemolitionofBabriMasjid,bytellingthem
    aboutmassacreofMuslimsinthecommunalriotsthathadtaken
    placeinGujarat.Heconfessedthattheyweretaughtandinstigated
    to commit jihad and since then he started working for SIMI
    alongwith his two brothers, that he had attended Zonal Tarbiyati
    School,abigprogramorganisedonceinayearbySIMI,attheend
    of the year 2001, in the hall of Unani Medical College in Azam
    Campus,Pune,where A3,wanted accusedRahil,wanted accused
    RizwanDawreyandotherswerepresentandA3introducedtheA4
    andhealsometA13.HeconfessedthathisbrotherA3hadgoneto
    PakistaninthemonthofRamzanin2002andmettheleadersofLe
    T,wantedaccusedAbdulRazzak,AbuZuber,ArifKasmani,wanted
    accusedAzamChimaandAbuMuzammilandhadreceivedweapons
    trainingandmakingbombsinthetrainingcentreatMuzzafarabad,

    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

    of officers interrogating the A10 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested
    theJt.CP,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.CP,ATS

    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.

    A10 confessed that he started going to Kamruddin Masjid

    with his neighbour Imran Shaikh, a SIMI member and attending


    SaturdaynightSIMIprogramsofDarseQuran,wherehebecame
    acquaintedwiththeA13,whowasthepresidentofSIMIunit,that
    he became deeply hurt because of Babri Masjid demolition in
    December1992,thatin1995healongwiththesaidImran,A13and
    othershadburnedAmericanflagsintheIdeMiladprocession,for
    which a case was registered at Lashkar Police Station, that he
    becameacquaintedwiththefatheroftheA3andlateronwiththe
    A3 and his brother wanted accused Rahil, who also became
    acquainted with the A13 and thereafter started going to SIMI
    organisationandgotacquaintedwiththewantedaccusedRizwan
    Dawreyandallofthemstartedmeetingeachotherintheofficeof
    SIMIatPune.HeconfessedabouthavingworkedforSIMIupto1999
    for which purpose, he visited Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh and
    Aurangabad to participate in the seminars organised by SIMI,
    obtainedpassportin2002,thatinspiteofthebanonSIMI,heand
    A3 used to have secret meetings at masjid and discuss about
    injustice on the SIMI, that A3 offered to improve his financial

    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

    of officers interrogating the A11 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested
    theJt.CP,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.CP,ATS
    nominated DCP Makarand Madhusudan Ranade, (PW111)(Ext.
    1117),whowasDCP,ZoneXI,Mumbaiatthattime,torecorditand
    herecordedPartIandIIoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA11on
    04/10/06 and 05/10/06, Exts.1122 and 1127 respectively, after
    followingthedueprocedureandtakingthenecessaryprecautions

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..170..

    Ext.4825

    and sent the sealed envelopes containing the confessional


    statementstotheCMM,whosentittothiscourtalongwithhisletter
    Ext.1133.

    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

    confessed having met wanted accused Azam Chima after the


    training,whotoldhimaboutcausingexplosionsatcrowdedplaces
    likeStockExchangeandFilmIndustryandtoinformtheA3tosend
    moreandmoreboysfortrainingsayingthathewouldbesendingan
    explosive expert as early as possible for giving training to
    Hindustanipeople.HeconfessedhavingreturnedtoIndiathereafter,
    meeting A2 and telling him about the training, that the A2 had
    alreadyintroducedhimtotheA3andaftercomingtoMumbai,he
    maintaining regular contact with the A3. He confessed about the
    A13callingameetinginthehouseoftheA3atBandra,inwhichhe
    participated alongwith them both and A2, A4, A9 and A10, A13
    discussing with them about selecting targets and causing bomb
    explosions in Mumbai and ordering them to make a survey for
    targets,thattheA3tookhimandtheA10forsurveyingMumbaiand
    they visited Mahalaxmi Mandir, Siddhivinayak Mandir in Dadar,
    WorldTradeCentreinColaba,sharebazar,bigshoppingmallsand
    localrailwaystationsandfindingthatsecurityarrangementsatlocal
    railwaystationswerenotsostrictandusedtobeheavilycrowded,
    hencetheyrealizedthatlocaltrainswouldbethecorrecttargetfor
    blaststhantheotherplaceswherethesecuritywasmore.Healso
    confessedaboutkeepingregularcontactwiththeA3andtravelling
    inthelocaltrainsfromMumbaitoViraralongwiththeA2toA4,A9
    andA10andassessingthesituationandfindingthatthereismore
    crowdin theevening afterthe offices closedandthinking thatit
    wouldbeeasytocausebombblastsinthelocaltrains.Heconfessed
    havingmetA3on10/07/06,whotoldhimthatbombshavebeen

    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

    on 11/10/06 with PC Santosh Hindurao Salunkhe, (PW97)(Ext.


    971),underhisforwardingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.972.
    TheFSLreports,Exts.973and974,aboutexaminationofthearticles
    werereceivedandtheircontentsshowedthatCyclonite(RDX)was
    detected on the plastic bags, that the rubber rings and metallic
    whistlescanbeusedindomesticcookers,thatelectricwiresarenot
    tallyingwiththeelectricwiresusedinthePCBinrespectofphysical
    characteristicsandthePCBcanbeusedtoformatriggeringdevice.
    TheFSLsentletter,Ext.1258,toACPPatil,PW186,forprocuring
    originalrubbergasketandwhistleofpressurecookerfromKanchan
    Companyandforwardthemtoitforthepurposeofcomparison.He
    gavethislettertoPIDeshmukhanddirectedhimtodotheneedful.
    PIDeshmukhwrotearequestletter,officecopyofwhichisatArt.
    341,addressedtothemanagerofKanchanCompanyon14/10/06.
    PITonapi,PW155,calledpanchwitnessesSimonLouisDevinadan,

    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

    he stated that he is ready to show the remaining material.


    Thereafter,heledthepoliceandpanchwitnessestoFlatNo.101on
    thefirstfloorin'A'WingofPoonamParkApartments,NayaNagar,
    HaidarChowkinMiraRoad.Theflatwasfoundlockedfromoutside
    and the A13 disclosed on the inquiry that the key was lost.
    Therefore,Sr.PITajne,PW161,deputedaconstableforbringinga
    keymaker.Akeymakerwasbroughtandhepreparedaduplicate
    keyandopenedthelockanddoorandSr.PITajne,PW161,tookthe
    keyinhispossession.Whentheyandpanchwitnessesenteredthe
    flatwiththeA13,theynoticedthatthewindowsofthehallwere
    latchedfromtheinsideandotherthings.AttheinstanceoftheA13,
    a plastic bag containing white granules,weighing about2.7 kgs.,
    Art.284,wasseizedwhenhetookoutawhiteplasticbagfroma
    rexine bag. Sr.PITajne, PW161, drew two samples of 10 grams
    each, Arts.280 and 283, and put them in small separate plastic
    pouches.TheA13thentookoutabluecolouredplasticbagfromthe
    othersideoftherexinebag.Itcontainedtenaluminumtubesjoined
    withwires,Art.281(colly).Onexaminationtheywerefoundtobe
    detonators.Hekepttheminplasticbottlesandlabeledandsealed
    thesamplesofgranulesandtheplasticbottles.TheA13ledthemto
    anotherbedroomfromwheretheyseized,athisinstance,22books
    inUrdulanguage,Art.285(1to23),onebookinEnglish,Art.286,
    outercoverofFrontlineweekly,Art.287,pamphletofVectorClasses,
    Art.288, visiting card of Bombino Collection, Art.289, file and
    documents,Art.290(1to26),Urdunewspaper,Art.290A,fileand
    handwrittendocumentstherein,Art.291(colly),onemorefileandits

    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.

    ACP Patil, PW186, applied and got permission from the

    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.

    Sr. PI Tajane, PW161, handed over the panchanama Ext.

    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

    gave order Ext.2394 on 12/10/06 giving the investigation of


    remainingsixcases,i.e.,C.R.No.77of2006,C.R.No.78of2006,
    C.R.No.86of2006,C.R.No.87of2006,C.R.No.41of2006and
    C.R.No.59of2006toACPPatil,PW186,forfurtherinvestigation
    andalsograntedpermissionforclubbingthesix,crimestogether.
    ACP Patil,PW186,on receiptof this order clubbed allthe seven
    casesofthebombblastsandgaveanewC.R.No.5of2006ofthe
    ATSforthesakeofconvenience.Theinvestigating,officersofthesix
    crimes handed over the papers of the investigation to him on
    13/10/06 and 14/10/06 on his direction and he recorded their
    statements about the progress in the investigation. The said
    investigatingofficersterminatedtheremandsoftheaccusedintheir
    respectivecasesonhisdirections,byapplyingt,othecourtsandthey
    also discharged Khalid Shaikh, Mumtaz Chaudhary and Tafheem
    AkmalHashmi,PW95,fromtheirrespectivecases.Theycontinued
    toassistACPPatil,PW186,intheinvestigation.

    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

    car on 26/10/06 to the FSL with PC Mahesh Digambar Bagwe,


    (PW157)(Ext.1685),withhisforwardingletter,officecopyofwhich
    isatExt.1686.PIKhanvilkar,PW168,appointedHCPatilandPC
    Bagwe,PW157,totakethecarandthesealedpacketstotheFSL,
    whichhedidaccordingly.AnexpertofficerfromtheFSLinspected
    thebootofthecar,theseatbehindthedriverseatandthespace
    behindthefrontseatandbackseatbymagnifyingglassbyremoving
    thekhakipaperandtooksomeswabsofsomespotsbycottonand
    askedPCBagwe,PW157,totakebackthecar.TheFSLopinedinits
    reportExt.2391,thatCyclonite(RDX),PetroleumHydrocarbonOil
    andCharcoalweredetectedonthreecottonswabsandAmmonium,
    NitrateandNitriteradicalsweredetectedintheotherthreeswabs.
    It was opined that Cyclonite(RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite,
    PetroleumHydrocarbonOilandCharcoalweredetectedinthecar.

    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.

    A7 expressed his desire on 23/10/06 to make a voluntary

    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

    giving photocopies to the A7 and to the said Mushtaq Ali. They


    returnedtothepolicestation,handedoverthearticlestotheclerk,
    put the A7 in the lockup and PI Tonapi, PW155, gave the
    panchanamatoACPPatil,PW186.

    170.

    ACP Patil, PW186, sent the seized articles to the FSL on

    27/10/06 with PC Anil Vitthal Ranpise, (PW146)(Ext.1595),


    alongwithhisforwardingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1596.
    The FSL opined in its reports, Exts.2392 and 2393, that no
    explosivesweredetectedfromtheseizedarticles.Itfurtheropined
    thattheelectroniccomponentsrecoveredfromtheaccusedcanbe
    usedforbuildingatimer/triggeringdevicetotriggeradetonator.
    Thiswasinthetechnicalreport.

    171.

    ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon19/10/06bytheteam

    of officers interrogating the A6 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested
    theJt.CP,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.CP,ATS
    nominatedSuperintendentofPoliceKarale,PW104torecorditand
    herecordedPartIandIIoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA6on
    24/10/06 and 25/10/06, Exts. 1068 and 1071 respectively, after
    followingthedueprocedureandtakingthenecessaryprecautions
    and sent the sealed envelopes containing the confessional
    statementstotheCMM,whosentittothiscourtalongwithhisletter
    Ext.1077.

    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

    of officers interrogating the A7 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested
    theJt.CP,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.CP,ATS
    nominatedSuperintendentofPoliceMohite,PW102torecorditand
    herecordedPartIandIIoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA7on
    24/10/06 and 25/10/06, Exts. 1033 and 1037 respectively, after
    followingthedueprocedureandtakingthenecessaryprecautions
    and sent the sealed envelopes containing the confessional

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..192..

    Ext.4825

    statementstotheCMM,whosentittothiscourtalongwithhisletter
    Ext.1043.

    174.

    A7confessedhavingattendedaprogramatHajhouseinthe

    year 2000 in connection with the difficulties faced by Muslim


    communityandthesolutionaboutit,thatreligiousdiscourseswere
    givenbyShahidBadarFalahi,SadarofAllIndiaSIMIandotherSIMI
    activists,whosaidthatitisnecessarytodojihadfortheMuslim
    community,thatMuslimyouthsshouldremovethefearfromtheir
    heartsaboutgoinginprisons.Heconfessedthathewasimpressed
    bythesetalksandaftersomedayshewenttotheofficeofSIMIin
    Kurla(W), became acquainted with Irshad Khan, Sadar of
    MaharashtraSIMI,onwhoseproposalheagreedtoworkforSIMI,
    that24monthsthereafterwhenhereadthenewsofKuranburning
    atDelhiinUrduTimesnewspaper,hewenttotheKurlaofficeof
    SIMI,obtainedthepamphletsthatwerepreparedbyIrshadKhan
    aboutthatincidentanddistributedthemtopeoplebystandingin
    frontofmasjid,thatheandhisbrotherwerearrested,thatinspiteof
    thebanonSIMIinSeptember2001,heworkedforitandwasmade
    ansarofSIMI,thateightmonthsthereafterhisbrotherandothers
    werearrested,thathebecameacquaintedwithA2,A3,A4,A6,A9to
    A11andA13duringthisperiod,thattheyallwereactivistsofSIMI
    andusedtohavejihadimentalityandtheyusedtodiscussissueslike
    communalriotsinGujarat,Babrimasjid,Kashmir,etc.,andhowto
    takerevengeabouttheatrocitiescommittedontheMuslimsinthe
    whole world.Heconfessedthatthere alsousedtobe discussions
    about sending Muslim youths to Pakistan to take training of

    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.

    He confessed that when he contacted the A3 in February,

    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

    of officers interrogating the A12 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested
    theJt.CP,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.CP,ATS
    nominated Addl. CP Brijesh Singh, PW117, to record it and he
    recordedPartIandIIoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA12on
    23/10/06 and 25/10/06, Exts. 1226 and 1230 respectively, after
    followingthedueprocedureandtakingthenecessaryprecautions
    and sent the sealed envelopes containing the confessional
    statementstotheCMM,whosentittothiscourtalongwithhisletter
    Ext.1235.

    177.

    A12 confessed in his confessional statement that he was

    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

    to cause the explosions at the evening time on the western line,


    becauseatthattimeeverybogieofthelocaltrainsisjampackedand
    all these things have been finalized by the A3 after talking with
    wantedaccusedAzamChima,thatA3alsotoldthemthatwanted
    accusedAzamChimaisgoingtosendsomeexpertPakistanipersons
    toIndiaforexecutingtheplanandtoldhimthathewouldbegiven
    someresponsibility,whichhewouldhavetofulfillwithallhisability
    anditwasdecidedthatthebombswouldbepreparedatthehouse
    oftheA6.

    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

    bag containing bomb asking him to go to Churchgate with Abu


    Umed,thathetookthebag,gotdownwithAbuUmed,tookataxi,
    reachedChurchgateat5.30intheevening,purchasedtwofirstclass
    tickets,boardedthefirstclassbogieofBorivalislowlocalthatwas
    ontheplatformno.2andkeptthebagcontainingthebombonthe
    luggage rack. He confessed that he and Abu Umed got down at
    DadarstationaspertheplanandstartedforMiraRoadbytaxi,that
    hedroppedAbuUmednearthehouseofA3andheproceededto
    MiraRoadandcollectedhismobilefromtheA7,thatontheadvice
    ofA3onphoneinthesamenight,hestayedinhishousefor810
    daysandwenttoHyderabadon22/07/06.Heconfessedthatafter
    hisarreston29/09/06,hegaveavoluntarystatementtothepolice
    on22/10/06andshowedthemtheplacewherehehadkeptthecar
    andshowedthemthecaralso,broughtthekeyfromRizwanKhot's
    houseandthepoliceinspectedthecarandtooksamplesbycotton
    andseizedthecarunderpanchanama.

    181.

    ACPPatil,PW186,wasinformedon20/10/06bytheteamof

    officers interrogating the A5 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested
    theJt.CP,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.CP,ATS
    nominatedDCPPhadtare,PW93,torecorditandherecordedPartI
    and II of the confessional statement of the A3 on 24/10/06 and
    25/10/06,Exts.934and937respectively,afterfollowingthedue
    procedureandtakingthenecessaryprecautionsandsentthesealed
    envelopescontainingtheconfessionalstatementstotheCMM,who

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..202..

    Ext.4825

    sentittothiscourtalongwithhisletterExt.2812.

    182. A5confessedinhisconfessionalstatementthatheruns shoe


    shopsbynameRajaFootwearandNewStarFootwearonDr.M.M.
    ChatterjeeSarane,RajaBazar,Kolkata9andotherthanthesetwo
    shopshedoesthebusinessofspectacleswithhischildhoodfriend
    Mohd.ShakilMohd.Mehboob,(PW70)(Ext.782).Heconfessedthat
    Mohd. Asif son of step aunt of Dhaka, Bangladesh used to visit
    Kolkata tomeethisstepuncleMohd.Aslamandduringhisvisits
    they used to roam around and Mohd. Asif used to make all the
    expenditure,thatinDecember,2001,Mohd.Asifhadcomewithhis
    friendsformarriageandthentheyallwenttoMumbaiandGoafor
    sightseeing,thatinFebruary,2006hetookAsif'sfriendSamifrom
    SealdahStationtoBongaonbytrainontherequestofMohd.Asif
    andSamimadealltheexpensesandatBongaonhehandedover
    SamitoKalluforcrossingtheborderandforthisworkhegotRs.
    3,000/fromSami,thatinthesamemannerhereachedtwopersons
    fromSealdahStationtoBongaonontherequestofAsifandSami
    andhadhandedthemovertoapersonforwhichpurposehegotRs.
    5,000/.Heconfessedthataftersomedays,AsifcametoKolkataand
    toldhimthattherehavebeenatrocitiesonMuslimsintheriotsin
    Gujarat,butthegovernmenthasnottakenanyactioninrespectof
    Babrimasjidandthesaidriots,therefore,itisnecessarytodojihad
    inHindustan,thenhe,i.e.,theA5feltthatthiswasproperandsaid
    thatheisreadytohelpinthisgoodwork.ThereuponAsiftoldhim
    thatheisincontactwithwantedaccusedAzamChima,commander
    ofLeT,andhisdiscipleAbdulRazak.HeconfessedthatAsiffurther

    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.

    He confessed that in the first week of July, 2006 he got a

    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

    officers interrogating the A13 about his willingness to make a


    voluntaryconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,about
    whichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningtheaccused.Herequested
    theJt.CP,ATStonominateaDCPforrecordingit.TheJt.CP,ATS
    nominated DCPRanade,PW111,torecordit. ACPPatil,PW186,
    senttheA13toDCPRanade,PW111,on29/10/06.However,the
    DCP sent the A13 back on 31/10/06 alongwith letter Ext.2410

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..205..

    Ext.4825

    informingthathehadrefusedtomakeaconfessionalstatement.

    Furtherinvestigationandwitnesses:
    185.

    The officers working under ACP Patil, PW186, were

    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.

    PSIKadam recordedthe statements of AmirKaramatKhan,

    (PW49)(Ext.633), an estate agent, and, Khurshid Begum Shaikh


    Ayyaz,(PW51)(Ext.653),ownerofFlatNo.101,'A'Wing,Poonam
    Park,NayaNagar,HyderiChowk,MiraRoad,on10/10/06,asitwas
    foundduringtheinvestigationthattheA13usedtoresideinthat
    flat.Itwasdisclosedthatthesaidflatwasgivenonrentforeleven
    months from February, 2006 to one Mohd. Irshad Mohd. Kasam
    through Amir Khan, PW49, vide agreement Ext.654. It was
    disclosed that Khurshid Begum, PW51, had gone to the said flat
    onceinthefirstmonthofrainyseason,sawaman,womanandtwo
    children in the flat. On realising that the man was some other
    personthanIrshad,towhomshehadrentedtheflat,shecalledAmir
    Khan,PW49,onphoneandtoldhimaboutit.ShethentookAmir
    Khan,PW49,andKasam,Secretaryofthesociety,totheflat.When
    sheknockedonthedoor,awomanopenedit.Therewasaman,the
    womanandtwochildrenintheflatandonseeingher,theman,who
    washavingabeard,wentinsideandoninquirythewomantoldher
    thattheyarerelativesoftheperson,whohadtakentheflatonrent
    and he is her brotherinlaw. Amir Khan, PW49, confirmed these
    things.Boththesewitnessesgavestatementstoamagistrateunder
    section164oftheCr.P.C.confirmingwhattheyhadstatedtothe
    police.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    187.

    ..207..

    Ext.4825

    ACP Patil, PW186, recorded the statement of Tafheem,

    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.

    It was revealed to Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, during the

    investigation that an unclaimed dead body in the Matunga blast,


    was of a Pakistani national by name Salim.Therefore,he gave a

    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,

    tookthebodyintheirpossessionfromthe postmortem center,the


    medical officer gave cause of death certificate and they went to
    Chandanwadikabrastan,obtainedreceipt,Ext.1697,fromtheclerk
    ofthedeathregistrationofficeandtheclerkburiedthebodyinthe
    kabrastan.

    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.

    API Kolhatkar, PW18, went to Basopatti, Dist. Madhubani,

    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.

    ACP Joshi, PW163, recorded the statement of eyewitness

    Devendra Lahu Patil, (PW62)(Ext.761), on 20/10/06, on the


    instructionsofACPPatil,PW186,ashehadgonetotheATSoffice
    andstatedthathewastravelinginthetraininwhichtheblasthad
    occurredatJogeshwariandhadseentwopersons.Itwasdisclosed

    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.

    Amar Khan Sardar Khan, (PW75)(Ext.809), went with his

    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

    information that can be useful in the investigation of the crime.


    Hence,hetookAmarKhan,PW75,andAjmeriShaikhtotheoffice
    ofATSatNagpadaastheATSwasinvestigatingthecrime,metDCP
    NawalBajajoftheATSandtoldhimabouttheinformation.DCP
    Bajajcalledthetwoinsideandheardtheinformationandthentold
    PCAmbekar,PW76,totakethemtoACPPatil,PW186,attheATS
    office at Bhoiwada. Hence he took them there, met ACP Patil,
    PW186, and 34 other officers and informed them about the
    detailedinformation.PINitinRamchadraAlaknure,(PW153)(Ext.
    1649),recordedtheirstatementsasACPPatil,PW186,toldhimto

    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.

    Itwas disclosedthaton his visittothe houseofthe A3in

    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

    four Pakistani persons who were introduced by the A3 as Abdul


    Razak(wantedaccusedno.14),SohailShaikh(wantedaccusedno.
    5,AbuUmed(deceasedaccusedno.2)andSalim(deceasedaccused
    no.1).ItwasdisclosedthathecametoknowinJune,2006fromthe
    A12(withwhomhehadgotacquaintedearlier)thatthePakistani
    guestsoftheA3hadbeenshiftedtotheA3'shouseinMillatNagar,
    Andheri(W),Mumbai.ItwasdisclosedthattheA3hadintroduced
    his friend Rizwan Khot to him and that the A3 had purchased a
    whiteMaruti800carin2006.Hewasshowntwophotographsof
    twodeceasedpersonsandfromthemheidentifiedonetobethatof
    AbuUmed(deceasedaccusedno.2),whowasintroducedbyA3at
    hishouseatBandra.

    197.

    The said Mohd. Alam, PW59, also gave a statement to a

    magistrate under section 164 of the Cr. P. C. confirming his


    statementgivenbeforethepolice.

    198.

    PI Khanvilkar, PW168, went to the Bhoiwada office on

    02/11/06 on being called by ACP Patil, PW186, and on his


    instructions he recorded the statement of Vishal Kishore Parmar,
    (PW74)(Ext.804).

    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.

    PI Khanvilkar, PW168, deputed his staff to Carter Road,

    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.

    ACP Patil,PW186, recorded the statement of Mohd. Shakil

    Mohd. Mehboob, (PW70)(Ext.782), partner of the A5 in the


    spectaclebusiness,on03/11/06andwhosehelpA5hadtakenfor
    bringingsixPakistanipersonsfromBangladeshinMay,2006.Itwas
    disclosedthattheA5,whoishischildhoodfriend,hasrelationsin
    Bangladesh,outofwho,he,i.e., Mohd.Shakil,PW70,knewone
    Asifsince2003,thathestartedthebusinessofmanufacturingpower
    opticals in partnership with the A5, that the said Asif came to
    KolkatainthelastweekofFebruary,2006andmethimandtheA5
    andtoldthemthatheisonsomeconfidentialvisitswhichhehad
    discussed with the A5, that on being asked, the A5 told him
    subsequentlyabouthebeingworriedabouttheplightofMuslimsin
    IndiaandthinkingofdevotingmajorpartofhistimeforIslamand
    usedtospeakaboutjihadallthetimeandthatAsifandsomeother
    elementsarecontemplatingsomemajorjihadiactioninIndia.Itwas
    disclosedthattheA5requestedhim,i.e.,Mohd.Shaikh,PW70,to
    helpif theneedaroseandhelearntfromtheA5thathewasin
    contactwithLeToperativesinMumbai.

    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.

    API Phadake recorded the statement of Jairam Mahabal

    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.

    Itwas disclosedthatthe A3andA9usedtoattendvarious

    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.

    All the accused were remanded to judicial custody by

    01/11/06. Thereafter ACP Patil, PW186, started making


    preparations for holding the test identification parade of all the
    accused and for that purpose he alongwith seven former
    investigating officers scrutinised the papers and had discussions
    amongst themselves and identified eight witnesses, who were
    requiredtobeplacedinthetestidentificationparade.Theywere
    AmarKhan,PW75andAjmeriShaikhwhohadgonetothehouseof
    theA623daysbeforethebombblastsandhadseentheA2,A4and
    A6thereandapersonwhowasdoingsomethingwithwire,Subhash
    Nagarsekar, PW57, Devendra Patil, PW62, Vishal Parmar, PW74
    and Kishore Shah, PW60, who had seen persons keeping black
    colouredrexinebagsinthelocaltrainsatChurchgateonthedateof
    the incident. Rajesh Satpute, PW77, and Santosh Singh, PW63
    were the taxi drivers, who had taken persons from Bandra to
    Churchgateintheirtaxiandthosepersonswerecarryingrexinebags
    with them.ACP Patil, PW186, obtained the permission from this
    court to conduct the test identification parade of all the arrested
    accused in the premises of the Mumbai Central Prison, then he
    contacted Special Executive Officers Kirti Ramchandra Purandare,
    (PW80)(Ext.832), Shashikant Balwant Barve, (PW82)(Ext.843)
    and Bendge and requested the first two to attend his office on

    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.

    SEO Barve, PW82, also conducted two test identification

    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

    confirmed that the cheque was issued by the A8 and it was


    depositedandencashedfromtheaccountofthelandlady.

    217.

    PIRathod,PW176,sentaletteron22/12/06,officecopyof

    which is at Ext.2425, to the Sr. DCM, Mumbai Central Division,


    Mumbai Central as ACP Patil, PW186, asked him to collect the
    information about the daily passengers load on Western Railway
    Suburban Trains. The Western Railways sent the reply Ext.2426
    informingthatthenumberofaveragepassengerstravelingdailywas
    more than 30 lacs. PI Rathod, PW176, sent letter on 22/12/06,
    office copy of which is at Ext.2427 to the Sr. Divisional Personal
    Manager, Mumbai Central Division, Mumbai Central on the
    directionsofACPPatil,PW186,tocollectinformationastowhether
    servicesoflocaltrainsinMumbaiarecoveredundertheessential
    services. Western Railways informed by the reply Ext.2428 that
    railwayservicesaredefinedasessentialservicesundersection2of
    theEssentialServicesMaintenanceAct,1968andphotocopyofthe
    Act,Art.385,wasalsoenclosed.

    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

    Maharashtra and Government of India, to terrorise the people in


    generalandrailwaycommutersinparticularbyindulginginwanton
    killings and destruction of property through bomb explosions in
    localtrains,therebydisruptingpublictransportsysteminMumbai,
    theeconomiccapitalofIndia,tocreate instabilityintheState of
    Maharashtra and in India by the aforesaid subversive activity, to
    shake and reduce the faith of the common citizen in its elected
    democraticgovernmentbylargescaleviolence,destructionoflives
    and property and thereby destabilize the system of Government
    established by law, to organize the spread of secessionist and
    rebellious thoughts through covert and secret meetings with like
    minded Muslim youths, to exploit the communal sentiments of
    Muslimsandtoprovoketheminthenameofreligioninorderto
    resorttoterroristacts,tocollectmoneyfromacrosstheborderand
    by sale of provocative SIMI literature in India for achieving the
    objectiveofthecriminalconspiracy,toorganizetrainingcampsin
    PakistaninordertoimparttrainingtoIndianMuslimyouthsinthe
    handlinganduseofarmsandexplosivesforcausingtheexplosions,
    toestablishtrainingcampsinIndiatooandorganisetraininginthe
    handling of arms and explosives to like minded Indian Muslim
    youths locally, to facilitate infiltration of Pakistani militants from
    across the Indian border along with explosives for causing the
    explosions,tostoreandconcealsuchexplosivesatsuchsafeplaces
    alongwiththePakistaniwantedaccusedforachievingtheobjective
    ofcriminalconspiracy,todoandcommitanyotherillegalactsas
    were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objective of criminal

    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.

    It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy,

    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

    Shivajinagar,Mumbai.Coconspirator A13was entrustedwiththe


    responsibility of procuring rexene bags, utensils, ammonium
    nitrate/nitrite, detonators, etc., and make arrangements to send
    themtothehouseoftheA6atGovandi,Shivajinagar,Mumbai.The
    A7wasentrustedwiththeresponsibilityofprocuringtimerelectric
    circuitryandotherrelevantdevicesandkeepitreadyforthe'D'day.

    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

    in order to achieve the object of conspiracy, wanted accused,


    Pakistani national Ehsanullah brought with him RDX, which was

    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.

    It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy,

    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

    order to achieve objectives of the conspiracy, between 08/07/06


    upto10/07/06,accusedpersons,viz.,A7,SohailShaikh,Pakistani
    nationalandonemoreunknownPakistaninationalassembledseven
    explosivedevicesatPlotNo.33,T.Line,RoomNo.2,Shivajinagar,
    Govandi,Mumbai43,housebelongingtotheA6forplantingin
    localtrains.Theywereassisted,aidedandabettedbyvariousmeans
    bycoconspirators,viz.,A6,A2,A4,A12,A13andA3.

    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.

    It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal

    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

    It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy,

    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.

    It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal

    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.

    It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal

    conspiracy,A6 traveled to Pakistan on 01/02/03 using his Indian


    passport bearing No.E1560453 issued by RPO, Mumbai on
    13/02/02.HeleftChatrapatiShivajiInternationalAirport,Mumbai
    and went to Dubai from where he traveled to Karachi and
    underwenttraininginthehandlinganduseofarmsandexplosives.

    233.

    Itisallegedthatinpursuanceoftheaforesaidconspiracyand

    whiletheA3wasstillinPakistan,heinstructedhisbrother,i.e.,the
    A9tosendsomemoreMuslimyouths toPakistan forundergoing
    training.Accordingly,theA9paidandarrangedforthetraveland
    trainingoftheA2inPakistan.Inordertoavoiddetection,theA2

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..236..

    Ext.4825

    went illegally to Pakistan via Iran from Chatrapati Shivaji


    InternationalAirport,Mumbai.TheA2traveledonIndianpassport
    bearingNo.B0099830issuedbyRPO,Mumbaion21/05/04and
    underwenttraininginthetrainingcampofwantedaccusedAzam
    Chima.

    234.

    It is alleged that as a part of the same conspiracy and as

    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,

    that members of Shiya sect of Muslim community visit Iran on


    ziyaratvisa.Thistourisnecessarilyforpilgrimageandforthevisit
    ofaholyplacebynameMashad,wherethereisatombofthe8th
    religious leader, Imam Raza of Shiya sect. The persons who
    undertake this pilgrimage usually travel in groups with a proper
    operator. It is a known fact that members of the Sunni sect of
    MuslimsdonotbelieveintheteachingsofImamRazaandhencedo

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..237..

    Ext.4825

    not go to ziyarat pilgrimage to Iran. It is also a known fact that


    SunnisarenotgrantedaziyaratvisatoIran.DuringvisittoMashad,
    all pilgrims get holy food known as 'Niyaz'. Before any pilgrim
    receives Niyaz, his passport is stamped accordingly on the page
    bearingziyaratvisa.However,A2,A9,A10andA11areallSunnis.
    ThoughtheytraveledfromIndiatoIranonaziyaratvisa,theydid
    notvisitMashad,butinsteadcrossedtheIranborderandwentto
    Pakistan and underwent training in the camp of wanted accused
    AzamChima.Theabsenceofthestamps/sealsontheirziyaratvisa
    pageareconclusiveproofofthesame.ThoughtheA2,A9,A10and
    A11traveledtoPakistanviaIranonaziyaratvisa,theirvisasarenot
    stampedasrequiredatMashad.Againsttheregularpractice,these
    accused persons also traveled individually instead of going in a
    grouporwithatouroperator.

    237.

    ItissubmittedbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,PW186,

    that activities of the organisation Students Islamic Movement of


    India (SIMI)were bannedin India witheffectfrom27/09/01 by
    declaring it as an unlawful association under section 3(1) of the
    UA(P)A. PSI Vijay Bharatrao Mandlik, (PW145)(Ext.1591), was
    attachedtoKurlaPoliceStationasASIin2001.Hewentwithhis
    staffbythePipelineRoadinKurla(W)ontheordersoftheSr.PI
    andwiththehelpofmegaphonetheypromulgatedthebanbythe
    governmentandalsopastedcopiesofthenotificationoftheofficial
    gazette,Ext.1592,containingthebanorder,atconspicuousplaces
    likebeatchowkis,madarsa,sewagecenterofBMC,tahasiloffice,
    PipeRoadmasjid,etc.,andalsopastedacopyontheofficeofthe

    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

    said accused persons advocated, abetted, advised and incited the


    IndianMuslimyouthsandknowinglyfacilitatedthecommissionof
    terrorist act, to wit, to cause bomb explosions in seven firstclass
    compartments ofwesternrailwaytrains inMumbaion11/07/06.
    Accusedpersons,viz.,A13,A3,A2,A4,A10,A11,A7,A8,A6,A9
    andRizwan MohammedDawreyandRahilAtaurRehmanShaikh
    continuedtobemembersof'StudentsIslamicMovementofIndia'
    and remained in contact with wanted accused Azam Chima,
    commanderofLeT,bothbannedterroristoutfits,asdeclaredbythe
    Government of India in the schedule as laid down under section
    2(1)(m)and35ofUA(P)A.

    239.

    It is alleged that the A13 is one of the key conspirators

    continuously indulging in committing terrorist acts and unlawful


    activitiesforandonbehalfofSIMI,anorganisationbannedbythe

    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.

    It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy,

    between February and May, 2006, arrested accused persons held


    several conspiratorial meetings in the house of the A3 at Bandra
    (W),Mumbai,nearShamsMasjid,MiraRoad,Dist.Thaneandat
    101,SabaParveenApartment,PoojaNagarRoad,NayaNagar,Mira
    Road (E), Thane, i.e., house of the A7. The said meetings were
    attendedbyA13,A10,A3,A4,A2,A9,A11,A12,A6andA7.Inthe
    saidmeetingsitwasdecidedtosurveyandselecttargetsforcausing
    largescaleexplosions.

    241.

    Itisallegedthatinpursuanceoftheaforesaidconspiracyand

    in order to achieve the object of the conspiracy, wanted accused


    AzamChimaaskedtheA3duringMay,2006toidentifylikelytargets

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..241..

    Ext.4825

    to cause large scale damage and fear in the minds of general


    citizens. Accordingly the A3, A11 and A10 surveyed places like
    WorldTradeCentre,MumbaiStockExchange,MahalaxmiTemple,
    Siddhi Vinayak Temple, local trains and some large shopping
    complexes.Exceptforthelocaltrains,theconspiratorsavoidedthe
    othertargetsasallthesaidplaceshadtightsecurityarrangements.
    TheA3informedwantedaccusedAzamChimathatlocaltrainswere
    crowdedandsofttargetsandhence,suitableforcausingexplosions.

    242.

    Itisallegedthatinpursuanceofthesaidconspiracyandin

    order to achieve objectives of the conspiracy, on the evening of


    10/07/06, accused persons, viz., A6, A3, A12 and Sohail Shaikh,
    PakistaninationalandoneunknownPakistaninational,transported
    sevenrexenebagscontainingexplosivedevicesfromthehouseof
    the arrested accused A6, i.e., Plot No.33, T. Line, Room No.2,
    Shivajinagar,Govandi,Mumbai43toFlatNo.24,LuckyVilla,Perry
    CrossRoad,KantWadi,Bandra(W),Mumbai50,i.e.,thehouseof
    theA3inhisMaruticarbearingno.MH01V9568andonetaxi.

    243.

    Itisallegedthatinpursuanceofthesaidconspiracyandin

    order to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, on 11/07/06


    between1500hoursand1630hoursarrestedaccusedpersons,viz.,
    A4,A12,A13,A3andA1andwantedaccusedHafizullah,Aslam,
    Salim,AmmuJaan,AbuUmed@AbuOsama,SabirandAbuBakr
    traveledwiththesevenbagscontainingexplosivesdevicesfromFlat
    No.24, Lucky Villa, Perry Cross Road, Kant Wadi, Bandra (W),
    Mumbai50, i.e., the house of the A3, in different taxies to
    ChurchgateRailwayStationonwesternrailways.

    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.

    It is alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the

    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.

    It is alleged that all the arrested, wanted and two dead

    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.

    It is alleged that all the accused persons mentioned in the

    report were parties to a criminal conspiracy hatched by holding


    meetings in Maharashtra and outside India between 1999 and
    October,2006,theobjectofwhichwastodoandcausetobedone
    suchillegalactsforachievingtheaforesaidobjectivesofthecriminal
    conspiracy and such illegal acts were done intentionally and
    knowinglybyparticipatinginfurtheranceofthecommonobjectives
    ofthecriminalconspiracy.

    250.

    It is alleged that as a part of the larger conspiracy, while

    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.

    It is alleged that as a part of the larger conspiracy, while

    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

    same conspiracy, wanted Pakistani accused Aslam and Hafizullah


    entered India through IndoNepal border and were harboured in
    101,Saba ParveenApartment,Naya Nagar,MiraRoad(E),Thane,
    housebelongingtotheA7.Priortotheblasts,twoofthewanted
    accused,whowerestayinginFlatNo.24,LuckyVilla,KantWadi,
    PerryCrossRoad,Bandra(W),Mumbai50,shiftedtheirhideouttoa
    flatinMillatNagar.Afterthecommissionofthebombblasts,theA4
    escortedwanted Pakistani accused,viz.,Ammu Jaan and brought
    himtostayin202,BWing,MoonlightApartment,Opp.Kalsekar
    College,Kausa,Mumbra,Dist.Thane,whichwasrentedbytheA8.
    FiveotherPakistaninationalswerealsoprovidedshelterinthisflat
    afterthebombblasts.Afterstayingforawhile,theseaccusedwere
    providedasafepassagebytheA5outofMumbai.

    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

    required under section 23(2) of the MCOC Act to prosecute the


    arrestedandwantedaccusedundersections3(1),3(2)and3(4)of
    the MCOC Act. Anami Narayan Roy, (PW185)(Ext.2255), who
    retired as Director General of Police, Maharashtra in 2010, was
    CommissionerofPolice,MumbaifromFebruary,2004toFebruary,
    2007, in the rank of Additional Director General of Police. He
    receivedtheproposalsentbyACPPatil,PW186,throughtheDCP,
    Addl. CP and Jt. CP, ATS and it was accompanied with several
    volumes of documents. He studied the proposal, scrutinised the
    papers, took the assistance of the investigating officer, the legal
    advisorofhisofficeandsometimestheJt.CP,ATSandaccorded
    sanctionforprosecution,Ext.13,afterhewassatisfiedthataprima
    facie casewasmadeoutagainstalltheaccusedwhowerearrested
    andwhowereshownasabsconding.

    Filingofchargesheet:
    254.

    ACPPatil,PW186,filedchargesheetinthiscourton30/11/06

    onthebasisoftheinvestigationconducteduptothatdateagainst13
    arrestedaccusedand15wantedaccused.Atthattime,herequested
    thiscourttoallowthemtoconductfurtherinvestigationandwas
    permitted.

    SanctionsunderotherActs:
    255.

    ACP Patil, PW186, had submitted proposals to various

    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.

    Ruprao Natthuji Deshmukh, (PW149)(Ext.1602), Jt.

    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.

    Sambhaji Sadashiv Zende, (PW166)(Ext.1765), was the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..250..

    Ext.4825

    Collector and District Magistrate, Thane from December, 2006 to


    September,2008andwasthecompetentauthoritytoissueconsent
    forprosecutionundersection7oftheExplosiveSubstancesActasa
    District Magistrate. He received a proposal in the beginning of
    March,2007fromtheATS,Mumbaitoissueconsentforprosecuting
    theaccusedinvolvedintheserialbombblaststhathadtakenplace
    inMumbaiinJuly,2006.HehaddiscussionswiththeAddl.District
    Magistrate, Tahasildar and ACP Patil, PW186, and after being
    subjectivelysatisfiedonthebasisofthedocumentsthatweresent
    withtheproposalandthediscussionsthathehadwithACPPatil,
    PW186,andhisstaff,thatthecasewasfitforaccordingconsent,he
    accorded consent Ext.1766 on 09/03/07 for prosecuting three
    accused.

    258.

    Valsa Nair Singh, (PW151)(Ext.1633), was Collector and

    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.

    He obtained information about previous cases registered

    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

    which is at Ext.1681 to the Divisional Railway Manager, Western


    Railways,Mumbai,inordertofindouttherevenuelossessuffered
    by the railway authorities, amount paid as compensation to the
    injuredandtothenextofkinofthedeceasedpersonsandother
    losses.TheRailwayAuthoritiessentreplyExt.1682mentioningthat
    the loss towards the revenue till 27/11/06 was estimated at Rs.
    2,80,00,000/andthelossesonaccountofcompensationpaidwere
    estimatedRs.2,92,17,270/.

    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.

    R. No. 102 of 2006 registered at Basopatti Police Station, Dist.


    Madhubani, Bihar to this court for trial in connection with 500

    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

    that were forwarded by PI Rathod, PW176, to the handwriting


    expert alongwith the maps seized from the said accused were
    examined by Jayant Kashiram Aher, (PW131)(Ext.1482), State
    ExaminerofDocumentsandhegavetheopinionExt.1493alongwith
    thereasonsExt.1492,thatthehandwritingoftheemailidsonthe
    mapsweretallyingwiththespecimenhandwritingoftheA3.

    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.

    ACP Patil, PW186, alongwith other officers and men

    conducted remaining investigation in the case after filing the


    chargesheetandfiledadditionaldocumentsinthecourt.

    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

    my learned predecessor passed an order in the noting that the


    chargewasexplainedtotheaccused,however,theaccusedmoved
    anapplicationfortransferandhaveexpressedthattheydonothave
    faithinthiscourt,however,aspersection230oftheCr.P.C.,ifthe
    accusedrefusestopleaordoesnotpleaorclaimtobetried,theyare
    askedindependentlyandthepleaisexhibited.A2andA3refusedto
    mentionanythingwhencalledupontoplea,hencetheirpleaswere
    marked Exts.58 and 59. A4 refused to participate in the legal
    proceedings,whencalledupontoplea,hencehispleawasmarked
    asExt.60.A5wascalledupontopleaandmylearnedpredecessor
    observedthatthroughouttheperiodofpolicecustodyandjudicial
    custody,heneverinformedthecourtthathedoesnotunderstand
    HindiandnowheisinformingthecourtinHindithathedoesnot
    understandHindi.SheobservedthattheA5isconversinginHindi
    and understands Hindi, so there is no need to explain charge in
    Urdu.A5refusedtosayanythingontheplea,henceitwasmarked
    asExt.61.A6toA13refusedtosayanythingorsignthepleawhen
    calledupontoplea,hencetheirpleasweremarkedasExts.62to69.
    ThusexceptA1nootheraccusedsignedtheirpleas.

    270.

    The charge, Ext.53, was framed against all the accused for

    having committed the offences under sections 120B of the IPC,


    sections3(1)(i)and(ii)oftheMCOCActreadwithsection120Bof
    theIPC,section3(2)oftheMCOCAct,section3(3)oftheMCOC
    Act,section19oftheUA(P)A,section212oftheIPC,section3(4)of
    theMCOCActreadwithsection120BoftheIPC,section3(5)ofthe
    MCOCAct,section302readwithsection120BoftheIPC,section

    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.

    He has mentioned about his arrest on 27/09/01 by Kurla

    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.

    A4 filed documents Exts. 3267 to 3300, Exts. 3049, 3052,

    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

    prosecution. He has alleged that the evidence that proves his


    innocenceissuppressedanddestroyedbytheATSofficersandthey
    havealsofalselyfabricatedtheevidenceagainsthimthroughtheir
    regularwitnesses.

    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.

    He has thereafter made allegations about being forcefully

    pickedupfromhisshopon28/09/06andbeingtortured.Hehas

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..270..

    Ext.4825

    denied having made any confessional statement or expressing his


    desiretogiveit.HehasallegedthattheATSattemptedtoturnhim
    and the other accusedas approver with the help of Swati Sathe,
    SuperintendentofMumbaiCentralPrison.Hehasmentionedabout
    beingbeatenbythejailofficerson28/06/08andsenttovarious
    otherjailsinMaharashtra.Hesubmitsthathewasneverincontact
    withanyofhiscoaccusedbeforehisarrestasheneverknewthem
    personally.

    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

    Farsi, Maulana Hussain and a boy by name Ravi and a woman,


    whosehusbandwassick,hadgonetoK.E.M.Hospitaltoadmithim
    inthathospitalandfromtherehereturnedhomeat8.30p.m.and
    cametoknowfromthenewsontheT.V.aboutthebombblasts.He
    submitsthathehadgonetoMumbraon12/07/06tosellTilisma
    Motiandwhenhereturnedhomeintheeveningahawaldarcame
    andtoldhimthatATSofficerShaileshGaikwadhadcalledhimto
    Chembur.Hewentthereandwasmadetositforthreehoursfor
    inquiryandthenallowedtogo.Hehasthendescribedindetailand
    datewisehowhewascalledrepeatedlyfromtimetotime,thatthe
    constablesandATSofficersgavetheirmobilenumberstohim,about
    seeingA4,A10andA3forthefirsttimeintheATSofficeatKurla,
    aboutseeingAbdulDawrey,PW71andonemoreperson,abouthis
    mobilebeingusedbyATSofficersShaileshGaikwad,Alaknure,etc.,
    hebeingkeptatKurlaATSofficeupto09/09/06,ATSofficerstelling
    himthattheyknowthatheisinnocentandheisnotinvolvedinthe
    railwayblast,buttheyarein searchof a person byname Mohd.
    NaeemTailorresidingonroadno.7andarenotfindinghimandtill
    heisfoundtheywouldbekeepinghimthere,aboutseeingA7for
    thefirsttimeon25/09/06incustodyandbeingtoldon29/09/06
    thatheisarrestedinthiscase.Hehasthendescribedthetortureby
    the ATS officers on him as well as his brother, forcing him to
    undergo narco test, continuous beating and senior officers of the
    ATS forcing him to learn a false story about Malegaon blast and
    Mumbairailwayblastandtotellitbeforetheirseniorofficersand
    gettinghissignaturesonallegedconfessionsforcibly.Hehasalleged

    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.

    A7 produced documents Exts. 3307 to 3381, 3047, 3080,

    3081,3018,3019,3072andArts.401,433to445.Itishiscasethat
    hestayswithhismother,wife,twobrothersandtheirfamiliesathis
    residenceatMiraRoad(E),Thaneandhasnotrentedorpurchased

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..274..

    Ext.4825

    any room or flat or house anywhere in Mira Road, Thane or


    anywhereelse,thathewasusinghismobilephoneno.9224446830,
    whichheusedtokeepathisresidencetocontacthisfamilyfrom
    mobileno.9867244681,whichhewaspersonallyusing,asitwasa
    dealercardoreasyrechargecardthroughwhichheusedtorefillthe
    talktimeofAirtelmobilephonesofcustomersanditusedtobewith
    himallthetimewhereverhewent.Hesubmitsthathehasdone
    threeyearsdiplomainIndustrialElectronicsEngineeringandinJuly,
    2006 was conducting classes of computer hardware and
    maintenance and mobile phone repairing at Hitech Computers at
    Malwani, Malad(W), Mumbai daily from 8.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m.
    except Sunday and was having rented shop at Jogeshwari(W),
    whereheusedtorepairmobilephonesfrom11.00a.m.to8.00p.m.
    dailyexceptSundays,thatinJuly,2006hewasworkingatboththe
    placesandhadattendedhisclasson6,7,8and10/07/06atMalad
    andhisshopatJogeshwariandhadnotvisitedanyplaceatShivaji
    Nagar,Govandionthesedays.Hesubmitsthaton09/07/06hewas
    athisresidenceasitwasSunday,weeklyholiday,thatoneofhis
    sistershadcomewithherhusbandMehmoodQureshi,PW65,and
    children to meet them and he was with them since morning to
    evening 10.00 p.m. and had not left the house at any time. He
    submits that he had never visited the house of the A6 at Shivaji
    Nagar,Govandisincehisbirthtilldate,thatheisnotacquainted
    withanyoftheaccusedofthiscase,excepttheA8,hisbrotherin
    lawandhadseentheotheraccusedeitherinthepolicecustodyorin
    thejudicialcustody.Hesubmitsthaton11/07/06alsohevisitedhis

    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

    assaulted under a false alarm by Swati Sathe, Superintendent of


    Mumbai Central Prison and the jail staff. He has also made
    allegations about ATS officers continuously tutoring witnesses
    duringthetrial,pointingthemouttothewitnessesandtheybeing
    showntothewitnessesinthepolicecustody.Thewrittenstatement
    also consists of discussions about the evidence given by the
    prosecutionandastohowitis falseandgotupandthealleged
    confessionoftheaccusedinMCOCSpecialCaseNo.4of2009about
    theIndianMujaheedinhavingdonetheblastsinthiscase.Hehas
    made allegations against the ATS and the prosecution about
    deliberately concealing the identities of the witnesses to prevent
    them and their lawyers from preparing their defence and they
    harassingandtorturingfamilymembers,colleagues,relativesofthe
    accused to extract false statements. Finally, he submits that he is
    totallyinnocentandhasallegedthatheisfalselyimplicatedinthis
    case,thattheonlyreasonofhebeingarrestedisthatheiseasily
    availabletotheATS,hewasattendingtheirofficeregularlyandfully
    cooperating with them and that two false cases were registered
    againsthiminthepast.

    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

    movements on 11/07/06 and tortured him by hitech methods


    physicallyandmentally.Heallegesthatduringthepolicecustody
    periodwiththeATS,hewastorturedandforcedtosignonblank
    andwrittendocumentsandhisvideowasalsorecordedmakinga
    statement,hewasapproachedbyATSofficerSachinKadaminjail
    custody to become an approver and implicate others with the
    promiseofmoneyaswellasearlyrelease.Hesubmitsthathewas
    never taken to any place for recovery nor did he make any
    disclosure/discovery statement nor he ledthe police party to any
    placeandproducedanyarticles.HehasallegedthattheATSofficers
    preparedfalsepanchanamasaswellasstatementsofwitnessesin
    connivance with those panchas and witnesses.He allegesthat he
    wastorturedbyPISalaskarandhisstaff,thaton08/11/06hewas
    takenoutfromhishighsecuritycellfor15minutesandtherewas
    notestidentificationparade.Hehasdiscussedsomedocumentsthat
    heobtainedundertheRTIAct.

    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

    undergo narco test illegally at Chandanchowki on 10/10/06 and


    24/10/06andatBangaloreon20/10/06and28/10/06,thatsome
    personswerebroughttoBhoiwadalockupon03/10/06andhewas
    showntothemandthesewerethefalseandgotupwitnesses,i.e.,
    Mohd. Alam, PW59, Kishore Shah, PW60, and Santosh Singh,
    PW63. He submits that he never went to the flat of the A3 at
    Bandra,hadnevermetthesaidaccusedorPW59thereandnever
    attended any meeting and not participated in any antinational
    activity,hadnotmetorcontactedany Pakistanipersons, hadnot
    seenanyarticles for preparing bomb,hadnotcollectedany such
    articlesandgivenittotheA6andkepttheremainingarticlesathis
    flatinMiraRoad.Heallegesthatthisisafalsestorycookedupby
    policeinordertoreducepublicpressureandtoinvolvethemfalsely.
    Heallegesthathewasgiventhirddegreetortureonthenightof
    29/10/06 and produced before DCP Ranade to sign on a ready
    made false confession, but he refused and then he was again
    tortured more and ACP Patil told him that he would be falsely
    involved in the Malegaon blast case also and was accordingly
    involvedinthatcase.HehasthendescribedthedocumentsExt.2088
    to 2094 obtained from Lokhandwala Construction Company,
    Kandivali(E) site office, which includes the attendance muster
    record and pay slip record, which shows that he was present
    throughoutinthemonthofJuneathiswork,whichfalsifiesAmir
    Khan,PW49'sevidenceaboutseeinghiminPoonamParkatMira
    Road in the month of June. These documents also falsify the
    evidenceofPW60'sthathehadseenhimatChurchgateRailway

    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

    Kamlesh Jhabu Rajbhar, (PW25)(Ext.505) and Lalji Ramakant


    Pande, (PW85)(Ext.883), were examined in connection with the
    blastatMahimforwhichC.R.No.78of2006wasregisteredat
    MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.MaheshManharlalTrivedi,
    (PW8)(Ext.433), Vishal Vijaykumar Nagaich, (PW13)(Ext.445),
    DevdasSituShetty,(PW23)(Ext.501),JagdishBalajiGodia,(PW9)
    (Ext.434),AshokRaghuvirRao,(PW27)(Ext.514),wereexamined
    inconnectionwiththeblastsatBandraandKharSubwayforwhich
    C.R.Nos.86and87of2006wereregisteredinBandraRailway
    PoliceStation.JayprakashBalkrishnaGurav,(PW14)(Ext.446),was
    examinedinconnectionwiththeblastatJogeshwariforwhichC.R.
    No.41of2006wasregisteredatAndheriRailwayPoliceStation.
    Kishor Dattatraya Mhatre, (PW10)(Ext.435), was examined in
    connectionwiththeblastatMiraRoadforwhichC.R.No.59of
    2006wasregisteredatVasaiRoadRailwayPoliceStation.Rajaram
    SavlaramChavan,(PW11)(Ext.440)andShwetaNarayanAmbede,
    (PW37)(Ext.573),wereexaminedinconnectionwiththeblastat
    BorivaliforwhichC.R.No.156of2006wasregisteredatBorivali
    RailwayPoliceStation.

    291.

    The prosecution filed affidavitsinevidence of 55 injured

    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

    Exts. 2734 to 2783. Out of these, at the request of the defence,


    injuredpersonslikeChitrasenSinghDharamRajSingh,(PW121)
    (Ext.1290),VijayMadanlalJain,(PW124)(Ext.1268),Manohardutt
    Bisandutt Fulora, (PW125)(Ext.1275), Parkel Cherian Verghees,
    (PW132)(Ext.1274) and Thomas Francis Lopez, (PW135)(Ext.
    1277), were examined in connection with the blast at Matunga.
    Ashwin Ramesh Boricha, (PW134)(Ext.1453), was examined in
    connection with the blast at Jogeshwari. Devendra Pandurang
    Chavan, (PW123)(Ext.1389), Naresh Maruti Kalokhe, (PW126)
    (Ext.1380),NandkishoreBajaj(PW127)(Ext.1390),JosephAnthony
    Almeida, (PW128)(Ext.1392), Vilfred Walter Naronha, (PW130)
    (Ext.1344),AtmaramVishnuDalvi,(PW136)(Ext.1388),Murarilal
    Haridyalji Parekh, (PW137)(Ext.1385), Claudius Wilfred Saldana,
    (PW147)(Ext.1366) and Vijay Krishna Nair, (PW187)(Ext.1379)
    wereexaminedinconnectionwiththeblastatMiraRoad.Evenafter
    theprosecutioncloseditsevidenceinApril,2012andduringthe
    examinationofthedefencewitnesses,attherequestofthedefence,
    threemoreinjuredinthesameblast,i.e.,theblastatMiraRoad,
    whoseaffidavitswerefiled,werecalledforcrossexamination.They
    are Balam Pushpasen Rane, (PW190)(Ext.1351), Kiran Ramdas
    Kini,(PW191)(Ext.1347)andAbhayDineshShrivastav,(PW192)
    (Ext.1461). Prosecution relies on the affidavitsinevidence of the
    injured witnesses and their medical certificates. Prosecution also
    examinedmedicalofficersofdifferenthospitalstoprovethatduring
    thepolicecustodyperiodtheaccusedweremedicallygotexamined
    regularly.TheyareDr.GaneshKrushnakantDhangar,(PW184)(Ext.

    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.

    Prosecution also examined Samir Lohani, (PW156)(Ext.

    1680),SeniorDivisionalSafetyOfficerofWesternRailwaystoprove
    the revenue loss and the damage property report, Exts.1681 and
    1682.

    293.

    Prosecution examined the police officers of the ATS and of

    differentpolicestationstoprovethecomplianceoftheprocedural
    aspectsofrecordingtheconfessionalstatementsofelevenaccused
    andalsotoprovethattheaccusedhadbeentakentotheDCPs,to
    theCMMandtothemedicalofficers.

    294.

    ACPShaikh,PW162,istheATSofficer,whohadproducedthe

    A1 before DCP Choubey, PW113, on 03/10/06. PI Subhash

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..293..

    Ext.4825

    Janardan Gaikwad, (PW116)(Ext.1193), of Police Station Bandra


    tooktheA1inhiscustodyfromDCPChoubey,PW113,on03/10/06
    andputtheaccusedinthelockupofBandraPoliceStationonthe
    same day. He produced the accused before the DCP again on
    04/10/06,theDCPgavehimthecustodyoftheaccusedat2.30a.m.
    on05/10/06,heputtheaccusedinthelockupandproducedhim
    before the CMM on 05/10/06 and then reached him to the ATS
    officeatBhoiwadaonthesamedayandgavehiminthecustodyof
    thedutyofficerandAPIMohite.

    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.

    PI Shashank Ganpatrao Shelke, (PW150)(Ext.1614), is the

    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

    police station. He had produced the accused before the DCP on


    04/10/06 and 05/10/06 and had put him in the lockup of his
    policestationagain.Hehadthenproducedtheaccusedbeforethe
    DCPon06/10/06andaftertheaccusedwasgiveninhiscustody,he
    hadtakenhimtoG.T.HospitalandthentotheCMMandthenback
    tohispolicestationwhereheputhiminthelockup.Hehadtaken
    theaccusedonthenextdaytotheCMMandproducedhimbefore
    theCMMandthentakenhimtotheofficeofATSatBhoiwadaand
    givenhiminthecustodyofACPPatil,PW186.

    297.

    APIDeore,PW180,oftheATShadproducedtheA4beforeSP

    Karale, PW104, on 06/10/06. API Vinod Mahadev Randive,


    (PW106)(Ext.1086),ofPoliceStationMatungahadtakentheA4in
    hiscustodyfromSPKarale,PW104on06/10/06andhadputhim
    inthelockupofhispolicestationandproducedhimbeforetheDCP
    againon07/10/06andfromthereheproducedtheaccusedbefore
    theCMMandthenhandedhimovertoAPIDeore,PW180,atPolice
    StationMatunga.

    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.

    API Kolhatkar, PW18, produced the A6 before SP Karale,

    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

    API Yadav, PW178, attached to the ATS as PSI in 2006,

    alongwithPI SunilDeshmukh,tookthe A10tothe office of DCP


    Dumbre,PW118,on08/10/06asdirectedbyACPPatil,PW186,
    and handed over the custody of the A10. PSI Prakash Babulal
    Thakur,(PW110)(Ext.1111),attachedtoL.T.MargPoliceStationin
    theyear2006,reportedtotheofficeofDCPDumbre,PW118,on
    05/10/06asdirectedbyhisPIandwasgiventhe custodyofthe
    A10.Hetooktheaccusedtohispolicestationandputhiminthe
    lockup as per the directions of the DCP and got him medically
    examinedattheG.T.Hospital.Heproducedtheaccusedbeforethe
    DCPonthenextday,i.e.,on06/10/06,theDCPgavethecustodyof
    theaccusedtohimatabout9.15p.m.andasperhisdirections,he
    tookhimtothepolicestationandagainputhiminthelockupand
    onthenextday,i.e.,on07/10/06gothimmedicallyexaminedinG.
    T.HospitalandthenproducedhimbeforetheCMM.TheCMMgave
    theaccusedinhiscustodyaftersometime,thenhetooktheaccused
    totheofficeoftheDCPandasperhisdirectionshetooktheaccused
    totheATSofficeatBhoiwadaandhandedoverhiscustodytoACP
    Patil,PW186.

    303.

    PI Mathadhikari of Borivali Police Station in October, 2006

    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

    Singh, PW117, on 23/10/06 on the instructions of ACP Patil,


    PW186, and gave the accused in his custody. PI Dhananjay
    Pandharinath Sonavane, (PW122)(Ext.1468), was attached to
    PoliceStationAzadMaidanasPSIsinceAugust,2006andasperthe
    directionsofhisPI,hewenttotheofficeofAddl.CPBrijeshSingh,
    PW117,on23/10/06andwashandedoverthecustodyoftheA12.
    He took the accused to his police station after first getting him
    medicallyexaminedatG.T.Hospital,thenputhiminthelockupof
    his police station. He produced the accused before the DCP on
    24/10/06andwas toldbythe DCP thathe couldnotrecordthe
    confessionalstatementoftheaccusedonthatday,therefore,asper
    thedirectionsoftheDCPhetookhimtothepolicestationandput
    himinthelockup.Heproducedtheaccusedonthenextday,i.e.,on
    25/10/06asdirectedbytheDCPandatabout9.30p.m.theDCP
    gavehimthecustodyoftheaccused.Hethenproducedtheaccused
    beforeCMMShisodeathishouseatKurlaasperthedirectionsof
    theDCPandaftersometimewasgiventhecustodyoftheaccused.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..299..

    Ext.4825

    HetooktheaccusedtotheofficeoftheATSatBhoiwadaandgave
    himinthecustodyofPIShelke,PW150.

    Defencewitnesses:
    305.

    Accused examined 28 witnesses to prove their defence.

    SandeepSahay,(DW14)(Ext.3030),PrincipalCircleNodalOfficer,
    Bihar&JharkhandofBhartiAirtelLtd.,wasexaminedtoprovethe
    CDRsofmobileno.9934610679oftheA1,toprovehiscaseofalibi
    thathewasathisvillageandnotinMumbaifrom9to12/07/06.

    306.

    Dr. Abdul Rauf Sumar, (DW5)(Ext.2930), the honorary

    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

    examined to prove that his, A6's and one more brother'sfamilies


    wereintheirhouseson8,9and10/07/06.

    309.

    BilalAbdulJamalKadiwala,(DW8)(Ext.2984),wasexamined

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..300..

    Ext.4825

    to prove the A7's defence of alibi that on 11/07/06, the A7 was


    working at his shop on the counter rented by the A7. He also
    examinedIqbalAminQureshi,(DW9)(Ext.2985),aresidentofthe
    samebuildinginwhichtheA7hasflatatMiraRoad,toprovethat
    theA7wasbroughtbytheCrimeBranchpeoplefromGhatkopar,45
    daysafter11/07/06,wasreleasedthereafter,butcalledtothepolice
    chowki every 23 days, which continued for 23 months and 23
    days before Ramjan Eid, he saw the police bringing the A7
    handcuffed in the building. Dr. Arun Sonaram Pol, (DW6)(Ext.
    2936),SuperintendentofJ.J.Hospital,wasexaminedtoprovethe
    medicalexaminationofA7on25/10/06.

    310.

    Sr. PI Ajendrasingh Sadansingh Thakur, (DW1)(Ext.2907),

    Ankush Sahdev More, (DW2)(Ext.2910), General Manager,


    Municipal Cooperative Bank, Mumbai, Dr. Dipika Ajay Rana,
    (DW18)(Ext.3061),ChiefMedicalOfficerinSethA.J.B.Municipal
    ENTHospital,SukhlalAmbadasRathod,(DW24)(Ext.3082),Asst.
    HeadSupervisorofBMC,Dadar,wereexaminedinconnectionwith
    VishalParmar,PW74'sevidence.

    311.

    ACP Chandrakant Babanrao Katkar, (DW3)(Ext.2925),

    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.

    Prabhudayal J.Chavala,(DW10)(Ext.2995),Editor ofIndia

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..301..

    Ext.4825

    Today in 2006 and Saurabh Sureshchandra Shukla, (DW11)(Ext.


    2996),AssociateEditorofIndiaTodayin2006wereexaminedto
    provearticlesthathadappearedinIndiaTodaymagazine.

    313.

    Siddiqui Ahmed Ali, (DW12)(Ext.2997), and Abdul Mateen

    AbdulHafeez,(DW13)(Ext.3012),journalistsintheTimesofIndia,
    wereexaminedtoprovecertainnewsitems.

    314.

    Avdheshkumar Ayodhyaprasad Shukla, (DW16)(Ext.3048),

    Chief Controller of Mumbai Division, Western Railways, was


    examinedtoprovedocumentsissuedbyhimunderRTIconcerning
    traintimings.Dr.UmeshRangaPai,(DW27)(Ext.3090),Dy.Deanof
    LTMGHospital,Sion,wasexaminedtoprovedocumentsissuedby
    him underthe RTIin connection withthe opinion aboutmedical
    checkupofprisoners.

    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

    mobile service providers of different mobile companies were


    examined as per the order of the High Court dtd.10/12/12 in
    Criminal Appeals No.973 and 992 of 2012. They are Anand
    RajkumarBhatnagar,(DW29)(Ext.3606),PrashantAnandAgrawal,
    (DW30)(Ext.3609), Nipun Pravinchandra Mehta, (DW31)(Ext.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..302..

    Ext.4825

    3621), Changdeo Haribhau Godse, (DW32)(Ext.3705), Yogesh


    Shrikrishna Rajapurkar, (DW36)(Ext.3764), Rakeshchandra
    Rambujh Prajapati, (DW37)Ext.3784) and Prashant Hemant
    Padvale, (DW39)(Ext.3813). They were examined to prove the
    contentsoftheCDRsofthemobilesoftheaccusedthattheyhad
    produced.

    317.

    Accused also examined Sadiq Israr Ahmed Shaikh (DW33)

    (Ext.3719), Mohd. Arif Badruddin Shaikh(DW34)(Ext.3744) and


    Ansar Ahmed Badshah Shaikh (DW35)(Ext.3753), accused in
    MCOC Special Case No. 4 of 2009 (Indian Mujaheedin Case), to
    provetheconfessionalstatementsthattheyhadgivenundersection
    18oftheMCOCActinthecrimeforwhichMCOCSpecialCaseNo.
    4of2009wasfiled.

    318.

    DCPSanjeevKumarYadav,(DW50)(Ext.4319),wasexamined

    to prove a disclosure statement of DW33 given by him during


    interrogation in FIR Nos. 418 and 419 of 2008 of Police Station
    ConnaughtPlace,Delhi,FIRNo.166of2008ofPoliceStationKarol
    Bagh,Delhi,FIRNo.130of2008ofPoliceStationGreaterKailash,
    DelhiandFIRNo.293of2008ofPoliceStationTilakMarg.

    319.

    Thoughtheaccusedhadstatedduringtheirstatementsunder

    section 313 of the Cr. P. C. that they do not want to examine


    themselvesonoath,A2,A4,A5,A6,A7,A8,A10,A11andA13filed
    applicationsExts.3773to3781undersection315oftheCr.P.C.on
    25/04/13aftertheevidenceofDW36wasoveron25/04/13for
    allowingthemtoexaminethemselvesonoathasdefencewitnessin
    support of their case and they gave evidence as DW41, DW38,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..303..

    Ext.4825

    DW43, DW42, DW46, DW40, DW44, DW45 and DW49


    respectively.Subsequently,A9andA12alsogavesimilarapplications
    on08/07/13and19/07/13andexaminedthemselvesasDW47and
    DW48respectively.

    320.

    Accusedwentonproducingseveraldocumentsfromtimeto

    timeandevenatthetimeoffilingtheirwrittensubmissionswith
    theirstatementsundersection313oftheCr.P.C.andsubsequently.
    Thedocumentswillbereferredtoanddiscussedattheappropriate
    place.

    321.

    ACP Kisan Narayan Shengal, (DW51) (Ext.4342), was

    examinedinviewoftheorderoftheHighCourtdtd.19/09/13in
    CriminalAppealNo.451of2013.

    322.

    Sr. PI Sunil Dattatray Wadke, (Court Witness No. 1) (Ext.

    4312),wasexaminedasacourtwitnessaspertheorderoftheHigh
    Courtdtd.10/12/12inCriminalAppealsNo.973and992of2012.
    CertifiedtruecopyofhisaffidavitExt.4313,thathehadfiledinthe
    saidappealsintheHighCourt,wasreceivedinevidenceduringhis
    examinationbythecourt.

    323.

    Prosecution intimated by its application Ext. 4327 on

    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

    A8 and A13 harboured the wanted harbouredwantedaccusedno.


    accused no. 5 and 8 to 14 and the 5and14anddeceasedaccused
    deceasedaccusedno.1and2?

    no.1and2inhishouse.

    13. Has it proved that A3 alongwith Yesproved.


    wanted accused no. 2 held property
    derivedorobtainedfromthecommission
    of an organised crime or acquired from
    the funds of an organised crime
    syndicate?
    14. Has it proved that A1, A3, A4, A12 Yes proved, murder of 188
    andA13alongwithwantedaccusedno.6 personsandattempttocommit
    to9and11anddeceasedaccusedno.1 murderandvoluntarilycausing
    and 2 conspired and committed the hurt and grievous hurt to 557
    murderof187+1,total188personsand persons.
    attempted to murder and voluntarily
    caused hurt and grievous hurt by
    dangerousmeansto829persons?
    15. Has it proved that all the accused Yes proved, except against the
    facingthetrialalongwithfifteenwanted A8.
    accused and two deceased accused
    conspired to wage war against the
    Government of India or attempted to
    wagesuchwarorabetthewagingofsuch
    warortooverawebymeansofforceorto
    showacriminalforce,theGovernmentof

    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

    screening the offender from legal


    punishment?
    20.Hasitprovedthatallthirteenaccused Yes proved, except against the
    facingthetrialalongwithfifteenwanted A8.
    accused and two deceased accused took
    part in, committed, advocated and
    abetted the commission of an unlawful
    activity as contemplated under the
    UA(P)AAct,1967?
    21. Has it proved that all the above Yes proved, except against the
    accusedcommittedaterroristact?

    A8.

    22. Has it proved that the A4 raised or Notproved.


    collectedthefundsorprovidedfundsor
    attempted to do so, to any person or
    persons or a terrorist organisation,
    knowingthatsuchfundsarelikelytobe
    usedbysuchpersonorpersonstocommit
    aterroristact?
    23.HasitprovedthattheA1,A3,A6,A7 Notproved.
    alongwith wanted accused no. 2 and 3
    raised or collected funds or provided
    funds or attempted to do so, to any
    person or persons or a terrorist
    organisation,knowingthatsuchfundsare
    likely to be used by such person or

    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

    facing trial alongwith fifteen wanted A8.


    accusedtwodeceasedaccusedconspired
    todoanddidalltheaboveillegalacts?
    35.Whatoffence,ifany,havetheaccused Asperfinalorder.
    committed?
    36.Whatorder?

    A1 to A7 and A9 to A13 are


    convictedasperthefinalorder.

    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

    C. R. No. 77 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway Police


    Station:
    327.

    Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, deposed as per the case of the

    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.

    Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, stated about preparing the

    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.

    Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, proved the contents of the certified

    truecopiesofstationdiaryentries,Exts.1860to1863,inrespectof
    receivingtheknowledgeaboutthebombblast,heandhisstaffgoing
    tothespot,hesendingtheinformationgivenbySachinkumarSingh,
    PW4, he preparing the panchanamas, Exts. 441 & 443 and
    collectingthearticlesfromthespot.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    333.

    ..317..

    Ext.4825

    Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, and panch witness Prithvirajsingh

    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.

    Prosecution examined an injured witness Hitesh Gandecha,

    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

    and out of them Chitrasen Singh, PW121, Vijay Jain, PW124,


    ManoharduttFulora,PW125,ParkelVerghees,PW132andThomas
    Lopez,PW135,werecalledforcrossexaminationattherequestof
    the defence. Two portions in the statement of Chitrasen Singh,
    PW121,wereconfrontedforthepurposeofcontradictionandwere
    marked, but not proved by the defence. Same is the case of one

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..319..

    Ext.4825

    contradiction during the crossexamination of Parkel Verghees,


    PW132.Thedefencechosetocrossexaminethesefivewitnessesfor
    someparticularpurpose,buttheirevidencebywayoftheiraffidavits
    abouttheyhavingtravelledinthesaidtrainontheallegeddateand
    timeandhavingsustainedinjuries,whichiscorroboratedbytheir
    injurycertificates,Exts.2727(24,17,29and27respectively),isnot
    controvertedanddenied.

    337.

    The prosecution examined Dr. Balsara, PW83, and Dr. Vaz,

    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

    postmortem examination of three persons as a sample case by


    examining three medical officers, who had performed the post
    mortem in respect of remaining 42 deceased persons. Their
    memorandumofpostmortemexaminationsarereceivedinevidence
    andgivenexhibitsasmentionedinTableNo.1.Theircontentsand
    thecontents ofthe causeofdeathcertificates showshockdue to
    polytraumaincaseofbombblast(unnatural).

    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.

    C. R. No. 78 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway Police


    Station:
    346.

    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.

    It has come in the evidence of Girishchandra Chaurasiya,

    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.

    Nothing was brought forward in the crossexamination of

    panch witness Hemant Satarde, PW29, to discredit his version,


    exceptforaslightdifferencebetweentheinkandthewritingand
    crowdingofwordsonthefirstpageascomparedtothethirdpageof
    the panchanama and they being smaller than the third page. He
    turned down the suggestion that no articles were seized in his
    presence,thatpanchanamawasnotpreparedinhispresenceandhe
    gave false evidence and identified the articles as tutored by the
    police.Thelastsuggestionisobviouslyfallaciousasitisnotshown
    astohowheisaninterestedwitness.However,hisanswerinhis
    crossexamination further that chemical experts team had come
    there,showshistruthfulness.Hehasdeniedthesuggestionthatthe
    chemical experts team did not do anything at the spot in his
    presenceandhadnottakencottonswabsfromthespot.

    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.

    Prosecution examined two injured witnesses as sample

    witnesses in respect of the blast and the injuries that they had
    sustained.KamleshRajbhar,PW25,isratheranunfortunateperson,
    becausehewasnottravellinginthesaidtrainatthattime,butwas

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..329..

    Ext.4825

    standing on the platform no. 2 and when there was a blast he


    sustainedinjurestohisbothlegs,theywerecutfromthekneebelow
    and he was hospitalized for three months. There is no cross
    examinationtothiswitness.Theimpactofthebombexplosioncan
    bevisualizedfromhisevidence.LaljiPande,PW85,wastravelling
    in the said train and his evidence about there being a loud
    explosion,somethinghittinghimonthebackofhisneckandhis
    headwhilehewasstandingnearthemiddlepoleinthedooronthe
    eastsideandhavingsustainedinjuriesonthebackofhisneck,etc.,
    is unchallenged. It has come in his evidence that the doctors
    removed some article from the back of his neck when he was
    operated in the Sion Hospital and he identified the said metallic
    object,Art.317,whenitwasshowntohim,statingthatitwasshown
    tohimimmediatelyaftertheoperation.Ithascomeinhisevidence
    that even now he is not able to hear properly as his hearing is
    impairedpartially.Allthisevidenceisuncontrovertedandhiscross
    examinationisconcentratedontheaspectofhegivingstatementto
    the police that he had seen two persons getting down hurriedly,
    lookingfrightened,therefore,hebecomingsuspiciousandlookingat
    them carefully, etc. This aspect will be discussed at the relevant
    stage.Some omissions were broughton recordduring hisfurther
    crossexaminationandaportionfromhisstatementwasconfronted
    tohimbywayofcontradiction,butitwasnotproved.

    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.

    Dr. Vaz, PW84, has proved the contents of the death

    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.

    C. R. No. 86 and 87 of 2006 of Bandra Railway Police


    Station:
    360.

    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

    Ext.413 of Hemant Tayde, PW3, who was the Station Master on


    duty,contentsofwhichwereprovedbyHemantTayde,PW3,and
    whichcorroboratehisandSr.PIKadri,PW138'stestimony.Hemant
    Tayde, PW3, also described the damage to the coach and the
    situationatthespot.Thereisnocrossexaminationtohim.

    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

    also took the information Ext.408 of Nizamuddin Shaikh, PW2,


    Station Master of Santacruz Railway Station and Nizamuddin
    Shaikh,PW2,provedthecontentsoftheinformation,thecontents
    of which corroborates the evidence of both of them. Nothing is
    brought forward during the crossexamination of Nizamuddin
    Shaikh, PW2, in respect of the information. Nizamuddin Shaikh,

    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.

    The crossexamination of Sr. PI Kadri, PW138, by learned

    advocate Wahab Khan is mainly pertaining to the record of the


    statementsofwitnesses,someofwhomarenotincludedinhiscase
    diary,etc.,whichisnotrelevantforthepresent.Inconnectionwith
    therecordingofthefirstinformationreportandpreparationofthe
    panchanama,hiscrossexaminationhasnotdiscreditedhisversion
    and some inconsequential shortcomings while preparing the
    panchanamawerebroughtonrecordlikebucklenumberofwriter
    constable Bade, who wrote both the panchanamas being not
    mentioned in them, that he did not take photographs or video
    shootingofthearticlesatthespotbeforeliftingthemfromthespot,
    etc.,whichdonotaffecthiscredibility.Hehasdeniedthesuggestion
    that he did not prepare the spot panchanama, did not seize any
    articlefromthespotanddidnotsendthemtotheFSL.Duringhis
    crossexamination bylearnedadvocate P. L.Shetty,he stated that
    drawing of spot panchanama is an important event in the
    investigationofacrimeandinfurthercrossexaminationonceagain
    some minor shortcomings at the time of the preparation of the
    panchanamawerebroughtonrecordinrespectofthenumberof
    overheadrods,henottakinginternalmeasurementsofbothbogies,
    oftheportionoftheroofsthatwereblownupandofthefloorthat
    hadbeenpresseddownwards,ofthediameteroftheseportions,not
    mentioningtheexactlocationsofthedamages,etc.Howeverthat
    doesnotaffecthisevidenceandthedescriptionofthespotwhere

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..336..

    Ext.4825

    theblasttookplaceandthepositionintheaffectedbogie.Hedid
    notagreewiththesuggestionthatcorrectsketchofthespotgiving
    the measurements of the damaged portions may enable the
    investigatortofixtheidentityoftheculprits.

    365.

    Ithascomeinhisevidencethathesenttheseizedarticlesto

    FSL, Kalina alongwith PC Jadhav, PW52, alongwith the letters,


    officecopiesofwhichareatExts.656(1&2)and657(1&2),in
    respectofC.R.No.86and87of2006respectively.Heprovedthe
    contentsofboththeletters,whichbeartheacknowledgmentofthe
    receiving clerk of the FSL, Kalina. The evidence of PC Jadhav,
    PW52,corroborateshisevidenceandtheonlythingthathascome
    inhiscrossexaminationisthathisbucklenumberisnotmentioned
    ontheacknowledgmentoftheFSLinboththeletters.However,he
    explainedthatthereceivingclerkattheofficeoftheFSLasksabout
    hisbucklenumberandmakesanentryintheregister.Hedeniedthe
    suggestionthathehadnotpersonallytakentheparcelstotheoffice
    oftheFSL,buthisversionisnotaffectedbythecrossexamination.

    366.

    ThecontentsoftheFSLreportExt.2430ofthearticlesseized

    fromthebogieandthespotofthefirstblastofC.R.No.86of2006
    andExt.2429ofthesecondblastofC.R.No.87of2006showthe
    resultofanalysisthatCyclonite(RDX)AmmoniumNitrate,Nitrite
    andPetroleumHydrocarbonOilweredetectedinthepostexplosion
    debrisintheexhibitandanoteisappendedthatRDXisusedashigh
    explosive.

    367.

    Prosecution examined three injured witnesses out of 107

    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

    second blast of C. R. No. 87 of 2006. Jagdish Godia, PW9, and


    Vishal Nagaich, PW13, described about the blast, losing
    consciousness,sustaininginjuriesandVishalNagaich,PW13,stated
    aboutsplintersandmetalpiecesbeingtakenoutfromhisbodyby
    the doctors by operations. They are not crossexamined on the
    factualaspectandtheirevidenceisunchallenged.

    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.

    Dy. SP Raskar, PW139, gave evidence as narrated in

    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

    forwarding letter, office copy of which is at Ext.976, contents of


    whichheproved.PCTambe,PW98,corroboratedhisversionand
    the only thing that is brought on record during his cross
    examinationisthatthedateattheend,belowthesignatureofDy.
    SPRaskar,PW139,is14/07/06,whereasthedateontopofletteris
    altered to 15/07/06. However, it is inconsequential and he has
    deniedthesuggestionthathehadnotgonethereon15/07/06and
    thereceivingstampandsignaturewereobtainedlateron.

    377.

    The contents of the FSL report Ext. 966 in respect of the

    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

    investigation is not discredited by his crossexamination. He was


    questionedaboutmaintenanceofrecord,aboutuseofbrasssealof
    the police station and he answered that there is no record like
    stationdiaryentryorsealmovementregisterorrequisitiontothe
    propertyinchargeabouttakingthesealoutsidethepolicestation.
    Majorportionofhiscrossexaminationisdevotedtoascertainthe
    namesofinjuredpersonswhosestatementhehadrecorded,tothe
    statementsofinjuredwhichhehadnotrecordedbutareonrecord,
    etc.

    381.

    Death certificates and memorandums of postmortem

    examination of 28 persons, who were killed and of 100 persons,


    whowereinjuredinthisblastasmentionedinTablesNo.9and10
    respectively supra, are not disputed by the defence. Thus, these
    contentsstandproved.

    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

    The memorandums of postmortem examinations and the injury


    certificatesprovethat28personswerekilledand100personswere
    injuredinthebombexplosionthattookplaceatJogeshwariRailway
    Station.

    C.R.No.156of2006ofBorivaliRailwayPoliceStation:
    383.

    Dy. SP Satish Ahir, PW144, gave evidence as narrated in

    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

    the police. There are no submissions in the arguments by the


    defence advocates about this witness. Dy. SP Ahir, PW144, was
    however crossexamined at length on the point of preparation of
    spot panchanama and he gave specific answers in respect of the
    positionoftheaffectedbogieandthedamagethatwascausedto
    specific portions of the bogie and it has come in his cross
    examinationthattheportionthatwasmostdamagedwasimportant
    fromthepointofinvestigation,onecouldascertaintheplacewhere
    explosivewasplantedfromthelocationofthedislocatedbenches
    andbreakingofthewindows.He,however,explainedthatflooring
    ofthebogiewasdamaged,butwasnotpusheddownorbroken.He
    admittedthatthepointwheretheblownupportionwas,wasan
    important point and it has come in his evidence that the central
    portionoftheflooringwasdamaged,themeasurementofwhichare
    notdescribedinthepanchanama.Heturneddownthesuggestion
    thathedeposedfalselytohelptheATSandkeptmanylacunasinthe
    spotpanchanamatomakeitconvenienttobefilledupduringthe
    further investigation.However,the relevance of this suggestion is
    notexplainedorpointedoutduringthearguments.Hewasfurther
    crossexaminedinrespectofthemovementofthesealofthepolice
    stationoutsidethepolicestationandtherecordthatisrequiredto
    bekeptaboutit.However,thepreparationofthespotpanchanama,
    seizure of the nine articles under it and the factual position as
    describedinthepanchanamaarenotdisputed.

    385.

    IthascomeintheevidenceofDy.SPAhir,PW144,hesentthe

    seizedninearticleswithHCKhot,PW143,alongwithaforwarding

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..351..

    Ext.4825

    letter. He proved the contents of its office copy, Ext.1582. It has


    comeintheevidenceofHCKhot,PW143,thathehadtakenthe
    saidarticleson12/07/06totheFSLandtheofficecopy,Ext.1582,
    containstheacknowledgmentofthereceivingclerkoftheFSLoffice.
    Thewordsonthesealsofthesealedpacketsweredisputedduring
    hiscrossexaminationinthesensethatsomewordsarenotreadable
    andtheemblemof'AshokPillar'isalsonotvisibleandthecolourof
    sealononepacketisdarkerthanthesealsontheanotherpacket,
    that the seals on both of the police station and word 'Forensic'
    appearsonthesealofthepolicestation.However,hehasturned
    downthesuggestionthathedidnottakethesealedpacketstothe
    FSL.Therearenosubmissionsabouttheabovecrossexamination.
    ThecontentsofthereportoftheFSLExt.2416,however,mention
    receiptofthesealedparcelswithsealsintactandasperthecopy,
    similarly,thereisnocrossexaminationtoDy.SPAhir,PW144,in
    respect of his evidence about seizure of the articles and sealing
    them.

    386.

    The contents of the FSL report Ext.2416 in respect of the

    articles seized from the spot show the result of analysis that
    Cyclonite (RDX), Ammonium, Nitrate, Nitrite and Petroleum
    HydrocarbonOilweredetectedinthepostexplosiondebrisinall
    ninearticles.

    387.

    Prosecution examined three persons who are the injured in

    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.

    Death certificates and memorandums of postmortem

    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.

    Sr. PI Kulkarni, PW133, gave evidence as narrated in

    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

    filed their affidavits, were called for crossexamination by the


    defenceinrespectofthisblast,wheretheysatin thesaidbogie.
    However,thereisnodenialtotheirevidencebywayofanaffidavit
    abouttheyhavingtravelledinthesaidtrainandbogieandhaving
    sustainedtheinjuriesasmentionedintheinjurycertificatesinTable
    No.14supra.Theirnamesarenotmentionedhereastheirevidence
    willbediscussedattheappropriatestage.

    396.

    Sr.PIKulkarni,PW133,wascrossexaminedinrespectofthe

    statement of one Ramanand Marutirao Macheware and Joseph


    Anthony Almeida. He could not say whether the statement of
    RamanandMachewarewasrecordedbytheATSandsenttohimon
    15/07/06.However,subsequentlyongoingthroughthecasediary
    at the request of the defence advocate he stated that it was not
    recordedon15/07/06,butherecordedthestatementofthatinjured
    on12/07/06,whichisrecordedinhiscasediary.Otherthanthis,

    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.

    The death certificates, memorandums of postmortem

    examination of 32 persons and the affidavits and the injury


    certificates of 116 persons injured in the blast as mentioned in
    Tablesno.13and14respectivelyarenotdisputedbythedefence.
    Thus,theircontentsareprovedbytheprosecution.

    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

    that there was damage to and destruction of railway property


    because of the bomb explosions. The 'railway' is a Central
    GovernmentUndertakingasperTheRailwaysAct,1989anditis
    administeredbytheCentralGovernment.Clause(b)ofSection2of
    the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 defines,
    ''publicproperty'meansanyproperty,whetherimmovableormovable
    includinganymachinerywhichisownedby,orinthepossessionof,or
    underthecontroloftheCentralGovernment'.Thusanydamageor
    destruction to railway property will amount to damage or
    destructiontopublicproperty.Itisallegedbytheprosecutioninthe
    chargesheet that railway property worth Rs.88,66,239/ was
    destroyedbecauseofthebombexplosions.Prosecutionproduceda
    letter dtd.13/09/06 from the General Manager (Safety), Head
    Quarters Office, Churchgate, Mumbai20, dated 13/09/06,
    addressedtothe ACP&CIO,Office of the AntiTerrorismSquad,
    BhoiwadaPoliceStationCompound,Mumbai14,whichmentions
    thedamagetotherailwayassetsinallthesevenbombblasts.This
    letter was produced at page no. 4621 of Volume AIII of the
    chargesheetandatpage463isanotherletterdated20/11/06giving
    thespecificationsofthedamagesateveryindividualsiteoftheblast.
    Prosecution called upon the defence to admit as many as 1077
    documents by its application Ext.111 filed on 20/12/06. These
    documentsincludetheabovetwolettersfromtheGeneralManager

    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

    explosions within a shortspan of timesuggestthat timerdevices


    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.
    Thus, it is its case that Mumbai, which is the capital of State of

    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

    in continuing unlawful activities and resorting to various acts of


    violence, including bomb blasts, with the object of spreading
    communal disharmony, disturbing public tranquility, destabilizing
    the economy, spreading terror in the rank and file of common
    citizens and promoting insurgency. Keeping aside the aspect of
    allegations against the accused, to my mind, the very fact of the
    happeningofthe bombexplosions,thatexactlysimilarexplosives
    wereusedtocausethebombexplosions,theundisputedfactsofthe
    number of persons killed and injured and proof of damage and
    destructiontopublicproperty,leadstotheonlyinferencethatthisis
    anunlawfulactivity,anactofviolencewiththeobjectofspreading
    communal disharmony, disturbing public tranquility, destabilizing
    the economy, spreading terror in the rank and file of common
    citizensandpromotinginsurgency.Consideringthemagnitudeofthe
    incidentsofthebombblastsandthecalculatedmannerinwhichthe
    bombexplosionsweredone,itwillhavetobesaidthatitisnotthe
    handiworkofanindividualoragroupofpersons,buttheremustbe
    some organisation behind the actual executors and such an
    organisationmustbeinimicalagainsttheGovernmentofIndia.The
    intentionofcripplingtheeconomybymeansofforceisasclearas
    daylight,inviewofthetargetsthatwereselectedandthetimingsof
    thebombblasts.The targets were the western suburbanrailways
    and the timing was evening, when businessmen, employees of
    privateandpublicsectorsreturntotheirhomesafterthedayswork
    inMumbai.Thesepersonsareapartoftheeconomicworkforceof
    thestateandcentralgovernmentsandofbigandsmallbusinesses

    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

    an intention to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity,


    security, economic security or sovereignty of India with intent to
    striketerrororlikelytostriketerrorinthepeopleoranysectionof
    the people of India or in any foreign country by using bombs,
    dynamiteorotherexplosivesubstances,etc.,tocauseorlikelyto
    causedeathoforinjuriestoanypersonorpersons,orlossofor
    damagetoordestructionofproperty,ordestructionofanysupplies
    orservices essentialtothe life of the communityin India.Inmy
    humbleopinion,theactsdescribedaboveintheanswertopointsno.
    1to4suprasquarelyfallinthedefinitionof'TerroristAct'.Ifthisact
    isnotaterroristact,thenwhatis?Inaddition,itisobviousthatthe
    tremendous devastation and destruction was caused with the
    intentionofignitingthefeelingsthatthegovernmentisincapableof
    handling and looking after the safety and security of its people,
    whichleadstotheinferencethatitwasforthepurposeofpromoting
    insurgency.Itwillhavetobesaidthatthiscrimewascommittedin
    anorganisedmanner,whetherornotitamountstoorganisedcrime
    as defined in section 2(1)(e) of the MCOC Act is a different
    question, but the very fact of the meticulous timings and the
    executionofthebombexplosionscertainlyforcemetoholdthatit
    wasanactofpromotinginsurgency.

    409.

    Inviewoftheabovediscussion,itwillhavetobeheldthatthe

    facts speaks for themselves, i.e., the bomb explosions amount to


    conspiring to wage war against the Government of India or

    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.

    It is necessary first to take up the issue in respect of the

    documents produced by the accused during the trial, before


    proceedingtothediscussionoftheevidenceledbytheprosecution
    onthesepoints,becauseargumentshavebeenadvancedonbehalf
    oftheaccusedonthebasisofthedocumentsproducedbythemfrom
    time to time and reliance has been placed on them on such
    documents,mostofwhichhavebeenobtainedundertheRTIActas
    iftheyareproveddocuments.Theaccusedobtainedcertifiedcopies
    of documents from various courts and also obtained numerous
    documents from various authorities under the RTI Act. They
    producedallsuchdocumentsobtainedbythemfromtimetotime
    duringeverystageofthetrialandevenaftertheargumentswere
    concluded.Theapplicationsforproductionofthedocumentsbefore
    thestartoftheargumentswereallowedandthedocumentswere
    takenonrecord.However,afterthestatementsoftheaccusedunder
    section 313 of the Cr. P. C. were recorded in July, 2012, learned
    advocatefortheA4andA5filedapplicationsExts.2986,2987and
    2988 to give exhibits to various documents and information

    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.

    During final arguments, the learned SPP reiterated his

    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)

    Marwari Kumhar, Appellant V. Bhagwanpuri Guru


    Ganeshpuri,Respondents(LAWS(SC)20008148).

    (iv)

    JagdishchandraChandulalShahV.StateofGujarat&Ors.
    (1989CriLJ1724).

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    413.

    ..374..

    Ext.4825

    I have carefully gone through the authorities. There is no

    citation for the first authority and it is not known whether it is


    reported. It is inapplicable because it is in connection with the
    official documents like provisional assessment order, copies of
    noticesandfinalassessmentordermaintainedinregularcourseof
    the official work by the M. P. State Electricity Board. These
    documents cannot be equated to copies of documents supplied
    undertheRTIActortheinformationgivenbythePIOinhisletterto
    apersonaskingtheinformation.Inthesecondauthority,reference
    was made to sections 74 and 77 of the Evidence Act and to an
    authorityoftheApexCourtwhereinithadbeenobservedthatifa
    documentisacertifiedcopyofapublicdocument,itneednotbe
    provedbycallingawitness,whichisasperthebasiclaw.Thethird
    authority is not applicable on facts because the facts of the case
    beforetheSupremeCourtwerethatanordinarycopyofjudgement
    inapreviousproceedingwasproducedbeforethefirstandsecond
    AppellateCourts,butthecourtsheldthatitwasnotprovedandwas
    inadmissibleinevidence,ignoringthefactthattherespondentswere
    notclaimingthatthecopywhichwasproducedwasnotacorrect
    copy.Thelastauthorityisconcerningthepublicrecordkeptinany
    Stateofprivatedocumentsasprovidedinsubsection(2)ofsection
    74oftheEvidenceAct.ThefirstauthorityisoftheM.P.HighCourt,
    the second is of the Rajasthan High Court and the last is of the
    GujaratHighCourt.

    414.

    Learnedadvocatefortheaccusedhasnotcitedanyauthority

    under the RTI Act in support of his submissions. Obviously, a

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..375..

    Ext.4825

    certifiedcopyofapublic documentis inthenatureofsecondary


    evidenceaspersection63oftheEvidenceAct.Section65prescribes
    thatsecondaryevidencemaybegivenoftheexistence,conditionor
    contentsofadocumentinthefollowingcases,therelevantisclause
    (f), which reads, '(f) when the original is a document of which a
    certifiedcopyispermittedbythisAct,orbyanyotherlawinforcein
    Indiatobegiveninevidence'.Now,thereisnoprovisionintheRTI
    ActpermittingtheinformationorcertifiedcopygivenunderthatAct
    tobegiveninevidence.

    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.

    The progress of the investigation has been chronologically

    given in the earlier part of the judgment. It is now necessary to


    appreciate/evaluatetheevidencegivenbytheprosecutionandthe
    defenceoftheaccusedandtheevidencegivenbythemonthepoints
    underconsideration.Bothsideshavereliedonnumerousauthorities
    coveringallpossibleaspectsofthecase.ThelearnedSPPstartedhis
    argumentson28/03/14onfactsandconcludedthemon30/04/14.
    Beforehecouldconcludehisarguments,learnedadvocatesforthe
    accused filed application Ext. 4642 that the learned SPP has not

    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.

    Both sides have submitted various authorities in respect of

    appreciationofevidenceofwitnessesaswellasdefencewitnesses
    andthedefencetakenbytheaccusedanditisthereforenecessaryto
    considerthelawlaiddownbytheHighCourtsandtheApexCourt
    beforeproceedingfurtherwiththediscussionoftheevidence.

    423.

    LearnedadvocateShettyhasplacedrelianceonthefollowing

    authorities and the specific paragraphs on which he relied are


    reproducedinordertoappreciatehissubmissions:
    (i)

    GurcharanSinghandanotherV.StateofPunjab(AIR1956
    SC460).

    Learnedadvocatehasplacedrelianceontheobservationsin

    paragraphs 5 and 6 of the judgment. Paragraph 5 contains the


    discussionabouttheaccusedfailingtoprovethedefenceofalibiand
    inparagraph6,itisheld'Butevenso,theburdenofprovingthecase
    againsttheappellantswasontheprosecutionirrespectiveofwhether
    ornottheaccusedhavemadeoutaplausibledefence'.
    (ii) DudhNathPandeyV.StateofU.P.(AIR 1981Supreme
    Court911).

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..379..

    Ext.4825

    Itisobservedinparagraph5thattheburdenofprovingthe

    'alibi'undoubtedlylayontheappellant.

    Learned advocate placed reliance on head noteC in which

    certainportionsfromparagraph19ofthejudgmentarereproduced
    asfollows:

    'Defencewitnessesareentitledtoequaltreatmentwiththoseof

    the prosecution. And, Courts ought to overcome their traditional,


    instinctivedisbeliefindefencewitnesses.Quiteoften,theytellliesbut
    sodotheprosecutionwitnesses.

    The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the

    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

    considered as an additional circumstances if other circumstances


    proved and established point out the guilt of the accused. In this
    connection,referencemaybemadetothedecisionofthisCourt,in
    ShankarlalGyrasilalV.StateofMaharashtra,AIR1981SC765'.
    (iv) HarbhajanSinghV.StateofPunjabandanother(AIR1966
    SupremeCourt97).

    Learned advocate placed reliance on the observations in

    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)

    S. Gopal Reddy, Appellant V. State of Andhra Pradesh,

    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.

    Learned advocate Dr. Yug Choudhary for advocate Wahab

    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)

    Kashmira Singh, Appellant V. State of Madhya Pradesh,

    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)

    Ashish Batham, Appellant, V. State of Madhya Pradesh,

    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

    recordings, no eyewitnesses, no hard evidence though there are


    CCTVs everywhere. He also criticized the quality of prosecution
    witnesses as being habitual and of criminals on record and the
    possibilityoffabricationoftheconfessions,whicharenotworththe
    paperonwhichtheyarewritten.
    (iii) Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit, Appellant V. State of
    Maharashtra,Respondent(AIR1981SupremeCourt765).

    Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheobservationsinparagraph

    32asfollows:

    'The High Court, it must be said, has referred to the recent

    decisions of this Court in Mahmood v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR


    1976SC69andChandmalv.StateofRajasthan,AIR1976SC917in
    whichtherulegoverningcasesofcircumstantialevidenceisreiterated.
    But,whileformulatingitsownviewtheHighCourt,withrespect,fell
    intoanerrorinstatingthetruelegalpositionbysayingthatwhatthe
    Court has to consider is whether the cumulative effect of the
    circumstancesestablishestheguiltoftheaccusedbeyondashadowof
    doubt.Inthefirstplace,the'shadowofdoubt',evenincaseswhich
    dependondirectevidenceisshadowofreasonabledoubt.Secondly,
    in its practical application, the test which requires the exclusion of
    otheralternativehypothesisisfarmorerigorousthanthetestofproof
    beyondreasonabledoubt'.
    (iv) MousamSinghaRoyAndOthers,AppellantsV.StateofW.
    B.,Respondent((2003)12SupremeCourtCases377).

    Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheobservationsinparagraph

    8ofthejudgementinwhichtheobservationsinparagraph10ofthe

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..385..

    Ext.4825

    judgementinthecaseofHanumantGovindNargundkarV.Stateof
    M.P.(AIR1952SC343)arereproducedasfollows:

    'In dealing with circumstantial evidence the rules specially

    applicabletosuchevidencemustbeborneinmind.Insuchcasesthere
    isalwaysthedangerthatconjectureorsuspicionmaytaketheplaceof
    legalproof.Incaseswheretheevidenceisofacircumstantialnature,
    thecircumstancesfromwhichtheconclusionofguiltistobedrawn
    shouldinthefirstinstancebefullyestablished,andallthefactsso
    establishedshouldbeconsistentonlywiththehypothesisoftheguiltof
    theaccused.Again,thecircumstancesshouldbeofaconclusivenature
    andtendencyandtheyshouldbesuchastoexcludeeveryhypothesis
    buttheoneproposedtobeproved.Inotherwords,theremustbea
    chainofevidencesofarcompleteasnottoleaveanyreasonableground
    foraconclusionconsistentwiththeinnocenceoftheaccusedandit
    mustbesuchastoshowthatwithinallhumanprobabilitytheact
    musthavebeendonebytheaccused'.

    To my mind, the quoting in an English Judgement in

    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

    Raj Kumar Singh@Raju @Batya, Appellant V.Stateof

    Rajasthan,Respondent((2013)5SupremeCourtCases722.

    Learnedadvocatehasplacedrelianceontheobservationsin

    paragraphs 22 to 28 submitting that this is a much more recent


    judgement wherein the test is laid down in very great detail. He
    submitsthatthereisafact,itmaybeestablished,itmaybetrue,yet
    theinferencedrawnfromthefactmaynotbetrueandthisisthe
    danger.Thesecondthingisthattheinferencedrawnmayalsobe
    truebutitmaynotbeonlytheinferencethatcanbedrawnfromthe
    setofthefacts.Paragraphs22to28areasfollows:

    '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.

    In Hodge, In re the Court held that before a person is

    convicted entirely on circumstantial evidence, the court must be


    satisfied not only that those circumstances were consistent with his
    havingcommittedtheact,butalsothatthefactsweresuch,soastobe
    inconsistentwithanyotherrationalconclusionotherthantheonethat
    theaccusedistheguiltyperson.

    24.

    InSharadBirdhichandSardathisCourtheldasunder:

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..387..

    Ext.4825

    (SCCp.185,para153)

    153.(2)thefactssoestablishedshouldbeconsistentonlywith

    the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.....they should not be


    explainableonanyotherhypothesisexceptthattheaccusedisguilty,

    (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and

    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

    accused may appear tobeguilty on thebasis of suspicion butthat

    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

    by William Wills by T. & J. W. Johnson & Co. 1872, it has been


    explainedasunder:

    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.

    Circumstances generally but not necessarily, lead to

    particularinferences;forthefactsmaybeindisputableandyettheir
    relationtotheprincipalfactmaybeonlyapparentandnotreal;and

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..389..

    Ext.4825

    even when the connection is real, the deduction may be erroneous.


    Circumstantialandpresumptiveevidencediffer,therefore,asgenusand
    species.

    The force and effect of circumstantial evidence depend

    upon its incompatibility with, and incapability of, explanation or


    solutionuponanyothersuppositionthanthatofthetruthofthefact
    whichitisadducedtoprove;themodeofargumentresemblingthe
    methodofdemonstrationbythereductioadabsurdum.

    28.

    Thus,inviewoftheabove,thecourtmustconsideracase

    of circumstantial evidence in light of the aforesaid settled legal


    propositions. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the judgment
    remains essentially inferential. The inference is drawn from the
    establishedfactsasthecircumstancesleadtoparticularinferences.The
    courthastodrawaninferencewithrespecttowhetherthechainof
    circumstances is complete, and when the circumstances therein are
    collectively considered, the same must lead only to the irresistible
    conclusion.Thattheaccusedaloneistheperpetratorofthecrimein
    question.Allthecircumstancessoestablishedmustbeofaconclusive
    nature, and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
    accused.
    (vi) Lakshmi Singh and others, Appellants V. State of Bihar,
    Respondent(AIR1976SupremeCourt2263).

    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.

    The question which arises in this case is : Even if the

    defence version is not held to be fully established, by a balance of


    probabilities,weretherenotsufficientpointersinevidenceofwhatwas
    probably the truth which leaked out from some statements of the
    prosecutionwitnessesthemselves?'

    He also relied on the observations in paragraphs 29 to 31

    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

    (ix) Bapurao Annaji Khond, applicant V. Emperor, opposite


    party(A.I.R.1936Nagpur160).

    It is observed in this case that, 'when the accused gives a

    reasonableexplanationwhichmaybetrue,theneventhoughtheJudge
    ortheJury,asthecasemaybe,isnotconvincedthatitistrue,heis
    entitledtoanacquittal'.
    (x)

    Rabindra Kumar Dey, appellant V. State of Orissa,

    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

    proving exceptions mentioned in the Indian Penal Code lies on the


    accused, but this section does not at all indicate the nature and
    standardofproofrequired.TheEvidenceActdoesnotcontemplatethat
    theaccusedshouldprovehiscasewiththesamestrictnessandrigour
    astheprosecutionisrequiredtoproveacriminalcharge.Infact,from
    thecardinalprinciplesreferredtoabove,itfollowsthat,itissufficient
    if the accused is able to prove his case by the standard of
    preponderance of probabilities as envisaged by Section 5 of the
    EvidenceActasaresultofwhichhesucceedsnotbecauseheproveshis
    casetothehiltbutbecauseprobabilityoftheversiongivenbyhim
    throwsdoubtontheprosecutioncaseand,therefore,theprosecution
    cannotbesaidtohaveestablishedthechargebeyondreasonabledoubt.
    Inotherwords,themodeofproof,bystandardofbenefitofdoubt,is
    notapplicabletotheaccused,whereheiscalledupontoprovehiscase
    ortoprovetheexceptionsoftheIndianPenalCodeonwhichheseeks
    torely.Itissufficientforthedefencetogiveaversionwhichcompetes
    inprobabilitywiththeprosecutionversion,forthatwouldbesufficient

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..394..

    Ext.4825

    tothrowsuspicionontheprosecutioncaseentailingitsrejectionbythe
    Court. This aspect of the matter is no longer res integra but is
    concludedbyseveralauthoritiesofthisCourt'.

    ReferencetotheobservationsinthecaseofStateofU.P.V.

    Ram Sarup reported in AIR 1974 SC 1570 at page 1576 were


    reiterated as, 'that is to say an accused may fail to establish
    affirmativelytheexistenceofcircumstanceswhichwouldbringthecase
    withinageneralexceptionandyetthefactsandcircumstancesproved
    byhimwhiledischargingtheburdenunderSection105oftheEvidence
    Act may be enough to cast a reasonable doubt on the case of the
    prosecution,inwhicheventhewouldbeentitledtoanacquittal.The
    burdenwhichrestsontheaccusedtoprovetheexceptionisnotofthe
    same rigour as the burden of the prosecution to prove the charge
    beyondareasonabledoubt.Itisenoughfortheaccusedtoshow,asin
    acivilcase,thatthepreponderanceofprobabilitiesisinfavourofhis
    plea'.
    (xi)TheStateofPunjab,appellantV.HariSinghandAnother,
    respondents((1974)4SupremeCourtCases552).

    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

    (xii) Sarwan Singh, appellant V. State of Punjab, respondent


    ((2003)1SupremeCourtCases240).

    Learnedadvocatereliedonasentenceinparagraph9,'Itisa

    ruleof essential justicethat whenever theopponenthas declined to


    availhimselfoftheopportunitytoputhiscaseincrossexaminationit
    must follow that the evidence tendered on that issue ought to be
    accepted'.
    (xiii) Gianchand & others, appellants V. State of Haryana,
    respondent((2013)14SupremeCourtCases420).

    Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheobservationsinparagraph

    14 of the judgement and submitted that the confessions were


    recorded behind the back of this court, the prosecution gave
    evidenceaboutit,theaccusedgaveoralevidence,theprosecution
    havetheconfessionsoftheaccusedinitshand,buttheywerenot
    confrontedwiththeconfessions.Observationsinparagraphs14are,
    'The effect of not crossexamining a witness on a particular
    fact/circumstancehasbeendealtwithandexplainedbythisCourtin
    LaxmibaiV.Bhagwantbuvaobservingasunder:(SCCp.114,para40)

    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.

    Learned advocate Sharif Shaikh relied on the following

    authorities:
    (i)

    State of Goa, appellants V. Sanjay Thakran, respondent

    (Laws(SC)2007322).

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..399..

    Ext.4825

    Learnedadvocatehasreliedonthesettledpropositionsoflaw

    when a case raised upon circumstantial evidence in paragraph 6


    whichisunnecessarytoreiterate.
    (ii)

    Surajit Sarkar, appellant V. State of West Bengal,

    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

    Learned advocate has relied on paragraphs 7 to 14, which

    containadiscussionaboutthefactualaspectsofthecase.
    (v)

    RonChayakV.StateofGoa(2007ALLMR(Cri)2786).

    Learnedadvocatehasreliedontheheadnoteandparagraphs

    7, 9, 13, 15, 18 and 19 of the judgement in support of his


    submissionthatpliablewitnesseswhohadactedaspanelwitnesson
    several occasions were taken alongwith for the search which
    rendered doubtful the entire raid for lack and absence of
    independentwitnesses,whomthesearchofficerfailedtotakealong.
    Thiscaseisinrespectofthesearchandseizureofnarcoticdrugs
    andthediscussioninparagraphsismainlyinrespectofthefactual
    aspectsofthecasewhereinitwasobservedthatthepanchwitness
    hasactedasmuchon45occasionsandthereforehisevidencedid
    notcarryanyvalue.Referenceismadeinparagraph9toanearlier
    authorityoftheBombayHighCourtwhereinitwasobservedthat,
    'thelearnedDivisionalBenchobservedthatthecircumstancethatthe
    publicpanchisahabitualpanchwouldcertainlyweighwiththeCourt
    ifitfindsthattheevidenceofpolicewitnessesisnotfreefromblemish'.
    Reference is also made to the observation in an authority of the
    SupremeCourtwhereinobservationsbytheGujaratHighCourtand
    theconclusionarrivedatarereproduced.
    (vi) StateofRajasthanV.SherSingh(1994CriLJ904).

    Learnedadvocatehasreliedonparagraphs12,14,16,19,25,

    28, 30, 32, 35 and 37 of the judgement in support of the


    submissionsthatburdenisalwaysontheprosecutionanditnever
    shifts.Paragraph12containsthesubmissionsoftheadvocateforthe

    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

    by learned advocate Yug Choudhary in support of his submission


    thattheprosecutioncannotrelyondefenceevidencetoproveits
    case.Itappearsthatthesubmissionsareincorrectandinfactthe
    learnedadvocatewantstorelyontheobservationsinparagraphs20
    to23ofthejudgement,inrespectofthechancewitnesses,whichis
    summarizedinheadnotec.Itis observedin the paragraphs that
    evidence of chance witnesses requires a very cautious and close
    scrutinyandhemustadequatelyexplainhispresenceattheplaceof
    occurrence,thatdepositionofachancewitnesswhosepresenceat
    the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded and
    conductofthechancewitness,subsequenttotheincidentmayalso
    be taken into consideration particularly as to whether he has
    informedanyoneelseabouttheincident.
    (viii) NagappaDondibaKalal,appellantsV.StateofKarnataka,
    respondents(Laws(SC)1980711).

    Learnedadvocateplacedrelianceonparagraphs2and3of

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..403..

    Ext.4825

    the judgement in support of his submission, which contains only


    threeparagraphs,thatprosecutionmustproveitscaseandcannot
    getanystrengthfromtheconductoftheaccusedinremainingsilent.
    (ix) Murugesans/oMuthu&Ors.,appellantsV.Statethrough
    InspectorofPolice,respondent((2013)1SupremeCourtCases
    (Cri)69).

    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

    Binay Kumar Singh V. State of Bihar [(1997) 1 SCC 283] is

    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).

    Learned advocate has placed his reliance on paragraphs 11

    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).

    Learned advocate relied on this authority in support of his

    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).

    Learned advocate relied on head notes B, D and E and

    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

    spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused, but it can be


    subjectedtoclosescrutinyandthatportionoftheevidencewhichis
    consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence may be
    accepted.'
    (xvi) Asif Mamu, appellant V. State of Madhya Pradesh,
    respondents(Laws(SC)20081154).

    Learned advocate has relied on paragraphs 15 and 16 in

    supportof his submission thatdiscrepantevidenceon recordand


    faultyinvestigationwillnotprovetheprosecutioncase.Tomymind,
    paragraphs15and16containdiscussionaboutthefactsofthecase.

    426.

    LearnedSPPRajaThakarehasreliedonfollowingauthorities

    inreplytothelegalsubmissionsmadebythelearnedadvocatesfor
    theaccused:

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    (i)

    ..408..

    Ext.4825

    Krishna Mochi & Ors., appellants V. State of Bihar,

    respondent(AIR2002SC1965).

    Learned SPP has relied on paragraphs 76 and 77 of the

    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:

    '76. It is matter of common experience that in recent times

    therehasbeen sharpdecline of ethical valuesin publiclife evenin


    developed countries much less developing one, like ours, where the
    ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not
    inclinedtodeposeortheirevidenceisnotfoundtobecrediblebycourts
    formanifoldreasons.Oneofthereasonsmaybethattheydonothave
    couragetodeposeagainstanaccusedbecauseofthreatstotheirlife,
    moresowhentheoffendersarehabitualcriminalsorhighupsinthe
    Governmentorclosetopowers,whichmaybepolitical,economicor
    otherpowersincludingmusclepower.Awitnessmaynotstandthetest
    ofcrossexaminationwhichmaybesometimebecauseheisabucolic
    personandisnotabletounderstandthequestionputtohimbythe
    skillful crossexaminer and at times under the stress of cross

    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

    crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and society is so


    muchmore.Nowthemaximlethundredguiltypersonsbeacquitted,
    butnotasingleinnocentbeconvictedis,inpractice,changingworld
    overandcourtshavebeencompelledtoacceptthatsocietysuffersby
    wrongconvictionsanditequallysuffersbywrongacquittals.Ifind
    thisCourtinrecenttimeshasconscientiouslytakennoticeofthesefacts
    from time to time. In the case of Inder Singh and Anr. v.
    MANU/SC/0093/1978 : state (Delhi Administration) 1978 CriLJ
    766,KrishnaIyer,J.laiddownthatProofbeyondreasonabledoubtis
    a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it
    becausetruthsufferssomeinfirmity whenprojectedthroughhuman
    processes.Inthecaseof StateofU.P.v.MANU/SC/0503/1988:
    AnilSingh 1989CriLJ88,itwasheldthataJudgedoesnotpreside
    overacriminaltrialmerelytoseethatnoinnocentmanispunished.A
    Judgealsopresidestoseethataguiltymandoesnotescape.Oneisas
    importantastheother.BotharepublicdutieswhichtheJudgehasto
    perform.InthecaseofStateofWestBengalv.MANU/SC/0321/1994
    : OrilalJaiswalandAnr. 1994CriLJ2104,itwasheldthatjustice
    cannotbemadesterileonthepleathatitisbettertolethundredguilty
    escape than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape is not doing
    justice, according to law. In the case of Mohan Sigh and Anr. v.
    MANU/SC/0035/1999 : State of M.P. 1999CriLJ1334, it was held
    that the courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to
    dispersethesuspiciouscloudanddustoutthesmearofdustasallthese
    thingsclogtheverytruth.Solongchaff,cloudanddustremains,the
    criminalsareclothedwiththisprotectivelayertoreceivethebenefitof

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..411..

    Ext.4825

    doubt.Soitisasolemndutyofthecourts,nottomerelyconcludeand
    leavethecasethemomentsuspicionsarecreated.Itisonerousdutyof
    thecourt,withinpermissiblelimittofindoutthetruth.Itmeans,on
    onehandnoinnocentmanshouldbepunishedbutontheotherhand
    toseenopersoncommittinganoffenceshouldgetscotfree.Ifinspite
    ofsucheffortsuspicionisnotdissolved,itremainswritatlarge,benefit
    ofdoubthastobecreditedtotheaccused'.
    (ii)

    Gangadhar Behera & Ors., appellants V. State of Orissa,

    respondent(AIR2002SC3633).

    LearnedSPPhasreliedonparagraphs16,18,19,21and22

    intheauthoritysubmittingthatthisisoneoftheclassicjudgement
    withrespecttotheguidancetothejudicialofficersinrespectofthe
    ruleofbenefitofreasonabledoubt.Theparagraphsrelieduponare
    follows:

    '16. Tothesameeffectisthedecisionin StateofPunjabv.

    Jagir Singh MANU/SC/0193/1973 : 1973CriLJ1589 and Lehna v,


    State of Haryana MANU/SC/0075/2002 : [2002]1SCR377. Stress
    waslaidbytheaccusedappellantsonthenonacceptanceofevidence
    tenderedbysomewitnessestocontendaboutdesirabilitytothrowout
    entireprosecutioncase.Inessenceprayeristoapplytheprincipleof
    falsus in uno falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in
    everything).Thispleaisclearlyuntenable.Evenif majorportionof
    evidenceisfoundtobedeficient,incaseresidueissufficienttoprove
    guiltofanaccused,notwithstandingacquittalofnumberofotherco
    accused persons,hisconvictioncanbemaintained.Itisthedutyof
    Courttoseparategrainfromchaff.Wherechaffcanbeseparatedfrom

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..412..

    Ext.4825

    grain, it would be open to the Court to convict an accused


    notwithstandingthefactthatevidencehasbeenfoundtobedeficientto
    prove guilt of other accused persons. Falsity of particular material
    witnessormaterialparticularwouldnotruinitfromthebeginningto
    end.Themaximfalsusinunofalsusinomnibushasnoapplication
    in India and the witnesses cannot be branded as liar. The maxim
    falsusinunofalsusinomnibushasnotreceivedgeneralacceptance
    nor has this maxim come to occupy the status of rule of law. Itis
    merelyaruleofcaution.Allthatitamountsto,isthatinsuchcases
    testimonymaybedisregarded,andnotthatitmustbedisregarded.
    Thedoctrinemerelyinvolvesthequestionofweightofevidencewhicha
    Courtmayapplyinagivensetofcircumstances,butitisnotwhatmay
    becalled'amandatoryruleofevidence.'(SeeNisarAlliv.TheStateof
    Uttar Pradesh MANU/SC/0032/1957 : 1957CriLJ550). Merely
    because some of the accused persons have been acquitted, though
    evidenceagainstallofthem,sofarasdirecttestimonywent,wasthe
    samedoesnotleadasanecessarycorollarythatthosewhohavebeen
    convicted must also be acquitted. It is always open to a Court to
    differentiate accused who had been acquitted from those who were
    convicted. (See Gurucharan Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab
    MANU/SC/0122/1955:1956CriLJ827).Thedoctrineisadangerous
    onespeciallyinIndiaforifawholebodyofthetestimonyweretobe
    rejected,becausewitnesswasevidentlyspeakinganuntruthinsome
    aspect,itistobefearedthatadministrationofcriminaljusticewould
    cometoadeadstop.Witnessesjustcannothelpingivingembroideryto
    astory,however,trueinthemain.Therefore,ithastobeappraisedin

    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.

    In matters such as this, it is appropriate to recall the

    observations of this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of


    MaharashtraMANU/SC/0167/1973:1973CriLJ1783:

    ....Thedangersofexaggerateddevotiontotheruleofbenefitof

    doubtattheexpenseofsocialdefenceandtothesoothingsentiment
    thatallacquittalsarealwaysgoodregardlessofjusticetothevictim
    andthecommunity,demandespecial emphasisinthecontemporary
    contextofescalatingcrimeandescape.Thejudicialinstrumenthasa
    public accountability. The cherished principles or golden thread of
    proofbeyondreasonabledoubtwhichrunsthroughthewebofourlaw
    shouldnotbestretchedmorbidlytoembraceeveryhunch,hesitancy
    anddegreeofdoubt....

    ....The evil of acquitting a guilty person lightheartedly as

    learned author Glanville Williams in 'Proof of Guilt' has sapiently


    observed,goesmuchbeyondthesimplefactthat,justoneguiltyperson

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..416..

    Ext.4825

    has gone unpunished. If unmerited acquittals become general, they


    tendtoleadtoacynicaldisregardofthelaw,andthisinturnleadsto
    a public demand for harsher legal presumptions against indicted
    'persons'andmoreseverepunishmentofthosewhoarefoundguilty.
    Thustoofrequentacquittalsoftheguiltymayleadtoaferociouspenal
    law,eventuallyerodingthejudicialprotectionoftheguiltiness....

    ....amiscarriageofjusticemayarisefromtheacquittalofthe

    guiltynolessthanfromtheconvictionoftheinnocent....

    21.

    Atthisjuncture,itwouldbeappropriatetodealwiththe

    plea that ocular evidence and medical evidence are at variance. It


    would be erroneous to accord undue primacy to the hypothetical
    answers of medical witnesses to exclude the eyewitnesses' account
    whichhadtobetestedindependentlyandnottreatedasthevariable
    keepingthemedicalevidenceastheconstant.

    22.

    In Krishna Gopal's case (supra), the position has been

    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

    other witnesses held to be creditworthy; consistency with the


    undisputedfactsthe'credit'ofthewitnesses,theirperformanceinthe
    witnessbox;theirpowerofobservationetc.Thentheprobativevalueof
    suchevidencebecomeseligibletobeputintothescalesforacumulative
    evaluation.

    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.

    The concepts of probability, and the degrees of it, cannot

    obviously be expressed in terms of units to be mathematically


    enumerated as to how many of such units constitute proof beyond
    reasonabledoubt.Thereisanunmistakablesubjectiveelementinthe
    evaluation of the degrees of probability and the quatum of proof.
    Forensic probability must, in the last analysis, rest on a robust
    commonsenseand,ultimatelyonthetrainedintuitionsofthejudge.
    While the protection given by the criminal process to the accused
    personsisnottobeeroded,atthesametime,uniformedlegitimization
    of trivialities would make a mockery of administration of criminal
    justice.'
    (iii) State of Rajasthan, appellants V. Smt. Kalki & Anr.,
    respondents(AIR1981SC1390).

    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.

    Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the

    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.

    In reply, learned counsel for the State submitted that

    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:

    '15. Admittedly, the IO did not collect any gunshot residue

    from the appellant's hand. Obviously, presence of gunshot residue


    wouldhavecorroboratedtheprosecutionversion.Itisverydisturbing
    tonotethatevenin21st centuryscientificinvestigationisnotcarried
    outproperlybytheinvestigatingagency.But,atthesametime,defect
    in investigation will not enure for the benefit of an accused. In
    ParamjitSinghv.StateofPunjabMANU/SC/8084/2007:(2007)13
    SCC530theSupremeCourtemphasizedthatadefectiveinvestigation,
    howeverseriousbyitself,cannotvitiateandnullifythetrial.Similar
    sentimentswereechoedbytheSupremeCourtinitslaterjudgmentin
    Gajjov.StateofUttarakhandMANU/SC/0747/2012:(2012)9SCC
    532 where serologist's report was not obtained in relation to the
    darantiEx.2andbloodstainedpyjamaEx.KA5.Paras19and20of

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..422..

    Ext.4825

    thejudgmentinGajoo,theSupremeCourtobservedasunder:

    19....Now we turn to the last submission on behalf of the

    accused that no serologist report was obtained in relation to the


    daranti,Ext.2andbloodstainedpyjama,Ext.Ka5,andtherefore,the
    prosecutioncaseshouldfail.Thisargumentdoesnotimpressusatall.
    No doubt both these exhibits were not sent to the laboratory for
    obtainingtheserologist'sreport,buttheabsencethereofpersewould
    not give any advantage to the accused. This is merely a defect in
    investigation.Adefectiveinvestigation,unlessaffectstheveryrootof
    theprosecutioncaseandisprejudicialtotheaccused,shouldnotbean
    aspectofmaterialconsiderationbythecourt.PW5hasdulyproved
    therecoveryofdaranti,Ext.2andthebloodstainedpyjama,Ext.Ka5
    andhasdulystoodthetestofcrossexaminationinthecourt.Both
    these articles were recovered by the Investigating Officer Brahma
    Singh,PW6andtherecoverieshavebeendulyestablishedbeforethe
    court. The recoveries having been proved and the case of the
    prosecutionbeingdulysupportedbytwoeyewitnesses,PW2andPW3
    andtwowitnesses,PW 4and AW5who werepresentimmediately
    aftertheoccurrence,haveprovedthecaseoftheprosecutionbeyond
    anyreasonabledoubt.

    20....In regard to defective investigation, this Court in Dayal

    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.'

    28....Dealing with the cases of omission and commission, the

    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.

    32....In State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy

    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.

    33....In Ram Bali v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0345/2004 :

    (2004) 10 SCC 598 the judgment in Karnel Singh v. State of MP.


    MANU/SC/0497/1995:(1995)5SCC518wasreiteratedandthis
    Court had observed that : (Ram Bali case MANU/SC/0345/2004 :

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..425..

    Ext.4825

    (2004)10SCC598,SCCp.604,para12)

    12....Inthecaseofdefectiveinvestigation thecourthastobe

    circumspect[while]evaluatingtheevidence.Butitwouldnotberight
    inacquittinganaccusedpersonsolelyonaccountofthedefect;todoso
    wouldtantamounttoplayingintothehandsoftheinvestigationofficer
    iftheinvestigationisdesignedlydefective.'

    34...Where our criminal justice system provides safeguards of

    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).

    Learned SPP relied on paragraphs 23, 24 and 34 of the

    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:

    3....As the appellant admitted that he was in charge of the

    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

    we have cited hereinabove, leads to the following statement of law.


    Recoveryofstolenpropertyfromthepossessionofaccusedenablesa
    presumptionastocommissionofoffenceeithertheftordacoitybeing
    drawnagainsttheaccused soastoholdhim aperpetrator of such
    otheroffencesonthefollowingtestsbeingsatisfied:(i)Theoffenceof
    criminal misappropriation, theft or dacoity relating to the articles
    recoveredfromthepossessionoftheaccusedandsuchotheroffences
    canreasonablybeheldtohavebeencommittedasanintegralpartof
    thesametransaction;(ii)thetimelagbetweenthedateofcommission
    oftheoffenceandthedateofrecoveryofarticlesfromtheaccusedis
    notsowideastosnapthelinkbetweenrecoveryandcommissionofthe
    offence; (iii) availability of some piece of incriminating evidence or
    circumstances,otherthanmererecoveryofthearticles,connectingthe
    accusedwithsuchotheroffence;(iv)cautiononthepartoftheCourt
    to see that suspicion, howsoever strong, does not take the place of
    proof. In such cases the explanation offered by the accused for his
    possessionofthestolenpropertyassumessignificance.Ordinarilythe
    purposeofSection313ofCodeofCriminalProcedureistoaffordthe
    accused an opportunity of offering an explanation of incriminating
    circumstancesappearinginprosecutionevidenceagainsthim.Itisnot
    necessaryfortheaccusedtospeakandexplain.However,whenthecase
    restsoncircumstantialevidencethefailureoftheaccusedtoofferany
    satisfactory explanation for his possession of the stolen property
    thoughnotanincriminatingcircumstancebyitselfwouldyetenablean
    inference being raised against him because the fact being in the
    exclusiveknowledgeoftheaccuseditwasforhimtohaveofferedan

    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)

    The State of Maharashtra, appellants V. Sayeed Mohd.

    HanifAbdulRashim&Ors.,respondents(inConfirmationCase
    No. 5 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal No. 880 of 2009 by the
    DivisionalBenchofBombayHighCourt).

    LearnedSPPhasreliedontheparagraphs262,263,265and

    266 in respect of the aspect of sealing of articles at the time of


    seizure. Learned advocate Sharif Shaikh submitted that this
    judgementisstayed,however,learnedSPPsubmittedthatitisnot
    stayed but the appeal has been admitted and even in case it is
    stayed,solongasthefindingshavenotsetaside,itwillholdthe
    field. The discussion in paragraph 262 and 263 contain the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..432..

    Ext.4825

    discussioninthefactsofthecase.Theobservationsinthecaseof
    BilalAhmedKaloovs.StateofA.P.reportedin((1997)7SCC431)
    arereproducedasfollows:

    '19....Learned counsel for the appellant, however, assailed the

    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:

    '265....We have recited the aforesaid observation in view of

    misconception prevailing regarding the said test in the criminal

    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.

    266....As a net result of the aforesaid discussion, it will be

    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).

    Learned SPP has placed reliance on the discussion in

    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).

    Learned SPP has placed reliance on the discussion in

    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).

    Learned SPP has placed reliance on paragraph 42 of the

    judgement of the Bombay High Court and paragraph 45 of the


    judgementoftheSupremeCourtinsupportofhissubmissionthat
    what matters is the quality of evidence that a witness gives in
    connection with the allegation of the defence that professional
    panch witnesses were used. The Bombay High Court observed in
    paragraph42that,'Learnedcounselfortherespondenthascontended
    thatP.W.13HariharishabitualPanchwitnessandhehastakenus
    throughcrossexaminationinwhichhehasassertedthatduringthe
    period1978to1981hehadgivenevidenceasPanchincourtin56
    casesandthatheresidesinfrontofthepolicecolony.Inouropinion,
    simplyonthatcounthisevidencecannotbedisbelieved.Nodoubt,he
    hasadmitted that till 1981 he was working as Panch on behalfof
    Police,butfactremainsthathisevidencewasrecordedsometimein
    1989.Itisdifficulttobelievethatsimplybecauseofhisadmissionthat
    till 1981 he was acting as police Panch, he is still acting as police
    Panchandsigningthepanchanamasblindly.Wehavealreadypointed
    outthatP.W.9Khobragadeislegalpractitionerandnothingispointed
    outbythedefencetoshowastowhatwasthereasonforhimtodepose
    falseagainsttherespondent.Therefore,ithastobeheldthatarrest
    Panchanamaoftheaccusedhasbeenproperlyproved'.

    The Supreme Court has affirmed the view taken by the

    Bombay High Court and has observed in paragraph 45 that, 'the

    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

    witnesses, if heso desires, inhis defence. Itisthe discretionof the


    prosecutiontotenderthewitnessestoprovethecaseoftheprosecution
    andthecourtwillnotinterferewiththeexerciseofthatdiscretion
    unless, perhaps, it can be shown that the prosecution has been
    influencedbysomeobliquemotive.Inanextraordinarysituation,if
    thecourt comestothe conclusionthatamaterial witness hasbeen
    withheld,itcandrawanadverseinferenceagainsttheprosecution,as
    hasbeenprovidedunderSection114oftheEvidenceAct.Undoubtedly,
    thepublicprosecutormustnottakethelibertytopickandchoosehis
    witnesses,ashemustbefairtothecourt,andtherefore,tothetruth.
    Inagivencase,theCourtcanalwaysexamineawitnessasacourt
    witness, if it is so warranted in the interest of justice. In fact, the
    evidence of the witnesses, must be tested on the touchstone of
    reliability,credibilityandtrustworthiness.Ifthecourtfindsthesame
    tobeuntruthful,thereisnolegalbarforittodiscardthesame'.

    Hehasalsopointedouttheobservationsinparagraph10in

    thecaseofMasaltiv.StateofU.P.,AIR1965SC202,whereinitis
    heldthat, 'itwouldbeunsoundtolaydownasageneralrule,that
    everywitnessmustbeexamined,eventhough,theevidenceprovidedby
    suchwitnessmaynotbeverymaterial,orevenifitisaknownfact
    thatthesaidwitnesshaseitherbeenwonoverorterrorised.Insuch
    cases,itisalwaysopentothedefencetoexaminesuchwitnessesas
    theirownwitnesses,andthecourtitself mayalsocalluponsucha
    witnessintheinterestofjusticeunderSection540Cr.P.C'.

    He has also relied on the observations in paragraph 23,

    whereintheobservationsinStateofMaharashtrav.Suresh,(2000)

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..438..

    Ext.4825

    1SCC471,wereconsidered,whichareasfollows:

    'When the attention of the accused is drawn to such

    circumstancesthatinculpatehiminrelationtothecommissionofthe
    crime,andhefailstoofferanappropriateexplanationorgivesafalse
    answer with respect to the same, the said act may be counted as
    providingamissinglinkforcompletingthechainofcircumstances'.

    'Undoubtedly, the prosecution has to prove its case beyond

    reasonabledoubt.However,incertaincircumstances,theaccusedhas
    tofurnishsomeexplanationtotheincriminatingcircumstances,which
    hascomeinevidence,puttohim.Afalseexplanationmaybecounted
    asprovidingamissinglinkforcompletingthechainofcircumstances'.

    Discussion of the evidence given by the prosecution, the


    defencetakenbytheaccusedandtheevidencegivenbythe
    accused:
    427.

    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.

    To my mind, the submissions of learned advocate Yug

    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.

    Ithas comein the evidenceofRajeshSatpute,PW77,that

    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

    particular day from a particular point to a particular point. You


    cannotdiscredithisversionjustbecauseheisataxidriver.Ifthe
    policecalladoctororanengineeroranadvocateoranyexpertasa
    witnessinrespectofhisprofessionalwork,theydonotcollectthe
    documentsoftheirprofessiontoshowthattheyarereallydoingthat
    workorprofession.Everyone acceptstheirprofessionandtitleso
    whynotforataxidriver?Idonotthinkthatthesethingswillcome
    inthewayofacceptingthiswitnessasatruthfulandhonestwitness.
    Thiswasinrespectoftheperipheryofthemainevidence.Inrespect
    oftheactualevent,hewasgrilledaboutthenumberofpassengers
    thathecarriedonthatday,i.e.,11/07/06,thetimingsoftheyhiring
    the taxi, the points from where and upto where he took the
    passengers,thedescriptionofthepassengers,theirages,thefareof
    a particular passenger, etc. In respect of the passengers at Khar,
    whom he reached about 1.00 or 1.30 p.m., he stated that the
    passengerwasalady,whohadhiredhistaxiatSionHospitalfrom
    thesideofthegateatDharavi.Hehasgivenaveryspecificanswer,
    butthenextwasaquestionintheairtowhichhecouldnotsay
    whethershewasaMaharashtrian,MuslimorGujarathi,thoughhe
    statedherapproximateage.Nowthewitnesscouldhaveanswered
    thisquestionspecificallyandcouldhavealsoansweredhowmuch
    farethesaidpassengerpaidandinwhatdenominationnotesshe
    paid him and there would have been no means of ascertaining
    whetheritistrueorfalse.Thus,thisandotherlineofquestioning,
    tomymind,isofnoconsequence.

    435.

    About his evidence about the relevant event, though in his

    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.

    In further crossexamination he gave the specific route by

    which he went to his sisterinlaw's house in Gulab Nagar,


    Khardandaandalsostatedaboutthelandmarkcorrectly,viz.,about
    therebeingaMarutitempleafteraturn,thattheroadhasheavy
    trafficandthereisamarketareaafterthelane.Allthesestatements
    are not controverted or shown to be incorrect. He also gave a
    straightforwardanswerthathedoesnotstopatthespotonCarter
    Roadregularly.

    439.

    Hewascrossexaminedinrespectofthemaintenanceoflog

    bookandheansweredthathedoesnotknowwhetheralogbookis
    requiredtobegiventotheRTOofficeandhehasneverseenanylog
    bookinanytaxiandsomemorequestionsaboutmakingofentries
    inthelogbook.TheseareunimportantquestionsandIdonotthink
    thatanyonehasseenanytaxidriver,exceptthetaxidriverofafleet,
    maintainingalogbookortherebeingalogbookinataxi.Inrespect
    ofhislicenceandbadge,hedidnotrememberwhetherhehadgiven
    theirnumbersortheircopiestothepolicewhenhisstatementwas

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..449..

    Ext.4825

    recorded and whether the police officer asked him to do so. In


    respectofthemaineventaboutwhichhedeposedaverycrucial
    answerhascomeonrecordintheformofapositivesentenceinhis
    crossexaminationinparagraph32thatthetwopassengerswhomhe
    hadtakendidnothavemobileintheirhandsandthathedidnotsee
    themmakingorreceivingcalls.Ithasalsocomeinhisevidencethat
    hehadtoldthepolicethatitwasarexinebag,thoughhehadnot
    describedtheheight,lengthandwidthofthebagtothepolice.

    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.

    In respect of his evidence about the two policemen

    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.

    Learned advocate Shetty for the A3 attacked the evidence

    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

    notkept it anywhere.In myhumble opinion,this will notbe an


    inconsistency, because no further clarifications are asked from
    DevendraPatil,PW62,inrespectofthehandbag.Thehandbag
    maybe4''x6''or8''x10''andascomparedwithabigbag,itmaybe
    apouchnotnoticeabletothetaxidriver.Itmayormaynothave
    beenwiththepersons,butthisinconsistencyevenifitisassumedto
    betrue,isinconsequential.

    445.

    LearnedadvocatesubmittedthatRajeshSatpute,PW77,isa

    gotupwitnessandasheisoftheKalachowkiareainwhichtheATS
    PoliceStation is situated,hewas justgotupbythe investigating
    machinerytostopthepublicoutcryandtosavethemselvesfromthe
    electronicmediafromfailuretoinvestigateandtobringtheculprits
    tothebookbycreatingtheevidencetofixthepersons,whowere
    arrestedonsuspiciousdoubtswithouthavinganymaterial.

    446.

    LearnedadvocateWahabKhanattackedthecredibilityofthe

    witness submitting that there was nothing unusual in the two


    passengerstravellinginthetaxiofthewitnessfromCarterRoad,
    BandratoChurchgateRailwayStationwithabagkeptonthefront
    seat, which would have impressed the mind of the witness as
    somethingunusual.Ataxidrivercarriesmanypassengersinaday
    fromoneplacetoanotherandpassengersdogive instructionsto
    driveslowortotakeaparticularroute.Therefore,itisunnaturalon
    thepartofthewitnesstorememberalltheseparticularsaboutthe
    twopassengersandabouttheroutethathetookonthatparticular
    date. Learned advocate discussed the evidence of this witness
    alongwiththeevidenceofPIKhanvilkar,PW168,whohadrecorded

    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

    Churchgate Railway Station and the dropping of passengers at


    Churchgateisanormalroutinethathehadperformed.Therefore
    there was noting extraordinary for him to go and report and his
    memoryistriggeredwhentheconstablesaskedhimaboutitandhis
    directionofthinkingwouldbetorecollectthatthing,whichwould
    corelatetotheincidentof11/07/06.Hesubmitsthatabsolutelyno
    spiceshavebeenaddedbythewitnessandhisevidenceissimple,
    straightforwardandhonest.Healsosubmitsthatsufficetosaythat
    the evidence of this witness on the facts that there were two
    passengers,theyhadabagwiththem,itwaskeptonthefrontseat,
    therewasajerk,thebagmovedaheadanditwascaughtbyoneof
    thepassengers,hasnotbeenchallenged.Whowasholdingthebagis
    immaterialandifthewitnesswasconfused,suchaconfusioncannot
    beequatedtofalsity.

    448.

    Learned SPP also submitted in respect of the memory that

    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

    not record the statement of Rajesh Satpute, PW77, but it was


    recorded by PI Khanvilkar, PW168, and he told the address of
    RajeshSatpute,PW77,asJijamataNagar,Kalachowki,whichisin
    thejurisdictionofKalachowkiPoliceStation.Hecametoknowwhen
    thestatementwasplacedbeforehimthatRajeshSatpute,PW77,
    wasdrivingthetaxiofsomeoneelse.Themostimportantanswer
    thathegaveisthattheconstableshadmadeinquirieswiththetaxi
    driversathisinstance,thathehaddirectednumberofofficersand
    constablesingeneraltomakeinquiriestofindoutthetaxidrivers,
    thatthisdirectionwasgivenabout15dayspriorto03/11/06,that
    theyweremakingefforts,thattheysucceededinfindingtwotaxi
    driverson03/11/06only.Nowthispieceofevidenceissufficientto
    show the truthfulness of the investigation insofar as the
    independenceofRajeshSatpute,PW77,isconcernedandfullyrules
    outthepossibilityofhebeingagotupwitness.

    450.

    It was argued in respect of the delay in recording the

    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

    gonethroughallthe confessional statements andgottheir copies


    throughhis stafffromthe concernedDCPsasperhisrequest23
    daysaftertheywererecordedandthereisamentioninthecase
    diary dtd. 08/10/06 about the confessional statements being
    received.Relyingonthis,itissubmittedbythelearnedadvocatesfor
    the defence that in view of the contents of the confessional
    statementtheevidenceinthenatureofthetaxidriversandtravelers
    wascreated.Thissubmissionisnotacceptableifoneconsidersthe
    cogentandunimpeachedevidencegivenbyRajeshSatpute,PW77,
    aboutwhichthereiscontemporaneousentryinthecasediarywhich
    is brought on record during crossexamination itself. On the
    contrary,itappearsthatafterreadingtheconfessionalstatement,the
    investigatingmachinerymadetheinquiriesintherightdirectionand
    got certain witnesses. PI Khanvilkar, PW168, was crossexamined
    aboutthe taxi of RajeshSatpute,PW77,and though he gave an
    answer inconsistent to the statement made by Rajesh Satpute,
    PW77,bystatingthatthewitnesshadnotbroughthistaxitothe
    office on that day, which does not affect the credibility of the
    evidenceofRajeshSatpute,PW77,hegaveveryconvincingreasons
    fornotinspectingorexaminingthetaxi.Theseconvincingreasons
    wereinreplytothequestionsputtohimduringcrossexamination
    andthereforetheyareofgreatimportance.Hestatedthathedidnot
    feelitnecessarynorhissuperiorssuggestedhimtoinspectthetaxi,
    thathedidnotfeelthattherewouldbesomeobjectionablestainsin
    itbecauseitwasapublicvehicleandthewitnesshadcomeafter
    fourmonths.Hefurtheransweredthathisrolewaslimitedtotaking

    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.

    The discussion of the evidence given by Rajesh Satpute,

    PW77, and the evidence of PI Khanvilkar, PW168, who had


    recordedhisstatementandtheevidenceoftheinvestigatingofficer
    ACP Patil, PW186, shows the type of the person Rajesh Satpute,
    PW77,isandhisnature,and,itdoesnotappearthatheisthetype
    ofpersonwhoiscapableofgivingfalseevidence.Hisevidenceisof
    unquestionablequalityandthereisabsolutelynothinginhiscross

    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.

    The only omission that was brought on record during his

    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.

    As Ihave alreadyobservedit is not unnatural andunlikely

    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

    in respectofthe witness identifying himin the testidentification


    parade,hisansweristhatitisfalseandinrespectofthewitness
    identifying him in the court, his answer is that the witness was
    instructedbytheATS.InhiswrittensubmissionExt.2821,thecase
    oftheA3aboutthiswitnessisonlythatheisaregularwitnessofthe
    police,thathestaysneartheATS,Kalachowkiofficeandtheowner
    of the taxi also stays there. There is no explanation about his
    whereaboutson11/07/06andhisdefenceabouttheblastsisonlyof
    generaldenialandhavingnoknowledgeaboutit.

    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

    event. Next contradiction is portion Ext. 1854(6) that the person


    whowastalkingHindiwithPunjabiaccentwasaPakistani.About
    thisthewitnessstatedthathedoesnotrememberwhetheritwasso
    writteninhisstatementandcouldnotassignanyreasonwhyitisso
    written. The fact is that in the said portion in the statement, a
    possibilityisexpressed,butthewitnessdidnotstatesoinhischief
    examination. This contradiction is also not material because both
    personswereunknowntothewitnessonthatdayandevenifwe
    consider it either way, it does not affect its credibility. Next
    contradictionisExt.1854(7)aboutwhichhestatedthathedidnot
    statetothepolicethatoneofthepersonhadablackbagandthe
    otherwashavinganumbrellaandcouldnotassignanyreasonwhy
    itissowritteninhisstatement.Inhischiefexaminationhestated
    thatoneofthetwopersonshadablackheavybagandanumbrella.
    Sothisisacontradictionproper,butthefactremainsthathehas
    statedabouttheblackheavybagandanumbrella.Idonotknowfor
    whatpurposethefurtherquestionswereputtothewitness,because
    theyareinthenatureofgivingdetailsaboutthetransactionoffare
    andaboutwhichthewitnessstatedthathehadstatedtothepolice
    anditdidhappenthatoneofthetwopassengersaskedhimabout
    fare,hetoldhimthatitisRs.180/andhegavehimRs.500/note.
    InhischiefexaminationheonlystatedthatthefarewasRs.180/
    andtheygavehimanoteofRs.500/.ThenexttwoomissionsExt.
    1854(8)and(9)areincludedinthestatementintheportionswhere
    thewitnesshasdescribedthetwopersonsoneaftertheotherand
    the witness stated that he cannot assign any reason why it is so

    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

    he left them at the subway by which one can go to Churchgate


    Station.ThisisalsocorroboratedbyPIWadmare,PW175,andthe
    sentence that at about 3.15 to 3.30 p.m. two passengers for
    ChurchgatecamehasnotbeenputtoPIWadmare,PW175.Inthe
    nextomissioninthenextsentence,theemphasisisonthewords'en
    route'.Itappearsthattheomissionthatatabout3.15to3.30p.m.
    twopassengersforChurchgatecameandoneofthemhadaheavy
    bag and an umbrella, is in view of the statement made by the
    witness inhis chiefexamination,butitis notthatitis notatall
    thereinhisstatement.Asmentionedearlierthefactisthatthetwo
    personshadablackbagandanumbrellaandmaybethewitness
    incorrectlystatedthatoneofthemhadboththearticles.However,
    insofarastheaspectofhecarryingtwopassengersonthatday,there
    cannotbeanydisputeandthereisnocontradictionaboutit.

    459.

    Thus, the omissions discussed above do not amount to

    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

    above, he had given a good explanation in respect of the


    contradictionExt.1854(2)aboutthereasonwhyitiswritteninhis
    statementthathewastheownerofataxi.Therewasaconsiderable
    crossexaminationtohimaboutwhohadpurchasedthesaidtaxi,
    whatmodelitwas,whowasthepreviousownerandwhousedto
    get it passed from the RTO.The witness stated thatthe previous
    owner was one Anil Kumar, who is no more. Learned advocate
    submittedthattheinformationundertheRTIActdoesnotmention
    thenameofsaidAnilKumarSinghasapreviousowner.Obviously,
    thelearnedadvocatehasnotcarefullygonethroughthecontentsof
    Ext.1853, because the information that is provided is from 2001
    uptothedateofthatletter,i.e.,14/12/11,andithascomeinthe
    crossexaminationofthewitnessthathetookpermitin1995andhis
    fatherusedtogetthetaxipassedfromtheRTOfrom1989to1994.
    Thewitnesshasrightlyansweredthatthetaxiwasnottransferredin
    hisfather'snameatanytimetilltoday.Thiscanmeanthatthetaxi
    waspurchasedinthenameofwitnesshimself.Inanycasethatdoes
    notaffectthematerialevidenceofthewitnessinrespectofthemain
    eventofcarryingtwopassengers,oneoutofthembeingA13,onthe
    allegeddateandtimeinhistaxifromPerryCrossRoad,Bandrato
    Churchgate.Inrespectofthepoliceapproachinghimon03/11/06,
    he gaveveryclear andspecific answers thattwopolicemenwere
    making inquiries at the Hill Road, that he does not know their
    names and buckle number, that he did not give the entire
    informationtothemandthisisimportantthathehadseenthem
    makinginquireswithabout56taximen.PIWadmare,PW175,is

    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.

    Now insofar as the investigation done by this witness is

    concerned, viz., to search for taxi drivers, he has deposed in his


    chiefexaminationthathissuperiorshaddirectedhimtosearchfor
    taxi drivers, who may have taken some persons from Bandra to
    Churchgateondateoftheblastsandalongwithtwoconstableshe
    searchedfortaxidriversatvarioustaxistandsandaftersearching
    for15dayshecameacrossSantoshSingh,PW63.Inthisconnection
    headmittedinhiscrossexaminationthathedidnotmaintainany
    official record about his visits to various places for 15 days, but
    statedthathewasnotinaparticularteamthatwasinvestigatinga

    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.

    PI Wadmare, PW175, was further crossexamined on the

    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

    askedabouthis workofdrivingthe saidtaxiin shifts andithas


    comeinhiscrossexaminationthatduringthisperiodhehadgoneto
    HillRoadandPerryCrossRoad,thathehadseentheregularlocal
    taxidriversonthosestops,thatduringthisperiodhedidnotgetany
    information from them that the police are inquiring about the
    passengers being taken by them to Churchgate and that on
    11/07/06onthreeoccasionshetookpairsofpassengers.Nowthe
    last statement is a very specific statement which shows that the
    memoryofthewitnessistriggeredevenduringcrossexamination
    aftersomanyyearsoftheincident.Hisfurthercrossexaminationis
    inrespectoftheallegedlacunaintheinvestigationaboutpolicenot
    preparingsketchofthebagorthetwopersonswithhishelp,thathe
    hadnotdescribedthelengthandbreadthofthebag,thatpolicedid
    notaskhimaboutthelogbookanddidnottellhimthattheywant
    toseeandsearchthetaxiandhedidnottakethepoliceandpolice
    alsodidnotaskhimtotakethemtothestopstoshowfromwhere
    hetookthetwopassengersandwhereheleftthem.Tomymind,if
    thepolicehavenotdoneso,itisnotfaultofthewitnessandeven
    otherwiseitdoesnotmateriallyaffecthisevidence.Whatcouldhave

    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.

    In the crossexamination by learned advocate Rasal some

    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.

    ACP Patil, PW186, was also crossexamined in detail in

    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.

    Learned SPP Raja Thakare submitted during his arguments

    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

    this witness was foundby chance andquestions as to whether it


    wouldnothavebeeneasierfortheinvestigatingagencytopropa
    taxidriverwhousedtoberegularlyatthesaidtaxistand,ifthey
    reallywantedtofabricatetheevidence.Hesubmitsthatanoutsider
    cannotgiveabetterinformationthanthepersonwhoisregularly
    thereandisinabetterpositiontobeusedasatruthfulwitness.In
    respectofthequestionaskedtothewitnessastowhetherhedidnot
    feelthathehadsomeimportantinformationinconnectionwiththe
    blast, he raised a question as to how a man would think of co
    relatingthefactthathehadcarriedtwopassengerswhenthebomb
    blastshavetakenplaceatsomeplacesfarawayfromChurchgate
    and that too not in the proximity of the time at which he had
    droppedthematChurchgate.

    474.

    In myhumbleopinion itis clear fromthe above discussion

    that the evidence of Santosh Singh, PW63, is a cogent and


    convincing evidence and his credibility has not been impeached
    duringhiscrossexamination.Themostimportantfactisthathehas
    nocriminalantecedents,nohistoryofhehavingactedasapanchor
    awitnessinanyothercaseandnocontactwiththepolice,which
    rules out the possibility of he being a pliable police witness.
    Therefore,itwillhavetobeheldthatheisnotatallgotupwitness
    andhisevidenceisnotfabricated.Heissurelyatotalindependent
    witnessandhisevidenceinspiresconfidence.Ihave,therefore,no
    hesitation in accepting his testimony as a truthful. Hence, it will
    havetobeheldthatbyhisevidenceprosecutionhasprovedthaton
    11/07/06theA13alongwithonemorepersonhadtraveledinataxi

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..483..

    Ext.4825

    from Perry Cross Road, Bandra at about 3.15 to 3.30 p.m. to a


    subwayofChurchgateRailwayStation,reachingthereatabout4.45
    to5.00p.m.andthattheywerecarryingablackheavybagwith
    them. Thisisthecircumstanceno.2provedbytheprosecution
    againsttheaccused.ItisthefirstcircumstanceagainsttheA13.

    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.

    In connection with his evidence, his advocate Wahab Khan

    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.

    In this respect the learned SPP submitted during his

    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.

    Yogesh Rajapurkar, nodal officer of Bharti Airtel Company,

    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

    again endorsed by the answer in crossexamination that he is


    competenttogivecertificateabouttheauthenticityofthedataonly
    inrespectofthedatathatisonline,i.e.,withinoneyear.However,
    asmentionedearlier,sincebothpartieshavereliedonthecontents
    oftheCDRtheyarebeingdiscussed.

    483.

    Nodal officer Yogesh Rajapurkar, DW36, has explained the

    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.

    In this connection, his learned advocate Wahab Khan

    submittedthatthe ATSrecordedthe statements of the concerned


    personswhowereworkingwiththeaccused,buttheprosecutiondid
    notexaminethemandPISunilDeshmukh,whohadrecordedtheir
    statements,therefore,anadverseinferenceisrequiredtobedrawn.
    Hesubmitsthatthereasonforthisisobvious,viz.,thatthemuster
    role shows that the A13 was present throughout the day on
    11/07/06 at his work place and it is impossible that he was at
    BandraorChurchgate.InthisconnectionlearnedSPPRajaThakare
    submittedthattoestablishthedefenceofalibi,theA13hasreliedon
    attendanceregisteraswellastheCDR ofhis mobiletoshowhis
    presence at his office at Lokhandwala Construction Company at
    Kandivalion11/07/06.However,thoughhehasgiventhenamesof
    his colleagues Santosh Gosai, the name of senior engineer
    Deshpande from the head office, the name of security guard
    Ramsingh,musterkeeperSandeepPatilandcontractorKale,hehas
    notexaminedthem.Hesubmitsthattheeffortsoftheinvestigating
    machineryaswellastheprosecutionshouldbetakenintoaccount.
    Theinvestigatingmachineryinquiredwiththestaffmembersinthe
    officeoftheA13,tooktheirstatementsandobtainedthedocuments

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..495..

    Ext.4825

    Exts. 2088 to 2094, which though were not proved by the


    prosecution were admitted in evidence as the defence admitted
    them.

    489.

    Perusaloftherecordshowsthattheprosecutionappliedfor

    summoning the security guard Kisan Singh Laxman Singh by the


    application dtd. 10/03/11 Ext. 813 and for summoning Pappu
    Shetty,whowasoftheaccountsdepartmentandwhohadproduced
    thedocumentsaswellasallegedcolleagueandfriendoftheaccused
    SantoshGosaibytheapplicationdtd.08/04/11Ext.892.Itfiledthe
    reportExt.2453on24/02/12thatthewitnessPappuShettyisdead,
    whichissupportedbythedeathcertificatealongwithhisreportand
    thatKisanSinghLaxmanSinghandSantoshsinghBhimsinghGosai
    werenotfoundonthegivenaddress,thehouseofSantoshbeing
    foundlockedandthehutofKisanSinghbeingdemolishedbythe
    forestofficerandthoughtheycametoknowthatKisanSinghhad
    shiftedtoSangharshNagar,Sakinaka,hecouldnotbefoundthere
    also.Thusnofaultcanbefoundwiththeinvestigatingagencyorthe
    prosecutionandnoadverseinferencecanbedrawn.Ontheother
    hand an adverse inference is required to be drawn against the
    accusedashehasnotcitedthesethreewitnessesinhisdefenceand
    in addition has not cited the senior engineer Deshpande or
    contractorKale,orsecurityguardRamsinghortimekeeperSandeep
    Patil.Itwasveryeasyforthedefencetosummonthesewitnessesas
    defencewitnessesconsideringthelargenumberofdefencewitnesses
    forwhichsummonswereappliedforandexaminedbythedefence.
    Leave alone these four persons, he could have summoned and

    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.

    In my humble opinion, the oral and documentary evidence

    given by accused to prove his defence of alibi is not cogent and


    convincingandontheotherhandhisfalsityisexposedinviewofhis
    onesingleboldstatementthathewasregularlymakingcallsfrom
    hismobiletohisfamilymembersorofficestaff,etc.,whentheCDR
    showsthatthereisnotasingleoutgoingcallorsmsforaperiodof8
    daysfrom04/07/06upto12/07/06.Hence,itwillhavetobeheld
    thattheA13hasfailedtoshowapreponderanceofprobabilityabout
    hisdefenceofalibiaboutthedates8thto11/07/06andtoproveit
    andthereforethecircumstanceno.2provedbytheprosecutionis

    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.

    This groupwill be of the four travellers in the localtrains,

    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,

    that as it was Gurupournima on 11/07/06, he wanted to go for


    darshantotheSaibabaTempleinVartakNagar,Thane.Therefore,
    hesatinthefirstclasscompartmentthatwasthefirstfromVirar
    sideinthefasttraingoingtowardsChurchgate,thathesatbythe
    window side facing towards Virar, that he did not get down at
    ChurchgateashewantedtogotoDadarandthentoThane,thatat
    ChurchgateStationpeopleenteredthecompartment,somepeople
    kepttheirbagsontheracks,thatatthattimetwopersonsentered
    thetrainfromtheleftsidedoorwithabigrexinebagandkeptthe
    bagontherackabovehim.Ithascomeinhisevidencethatthere
    wasmorecrowdinthetrain,heinquiredwithhisneighbourasto
    whichtrainitwasandwastoldthatitwasthe5.57p.m.Virarfast

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..499..

    Ext.4825

    train, that the train had halted at Churchgate. He described the


    colourofthebagasblackishandstatedthatthetwopersonsstood
    in the passage.In respectofthe nextpartof the incident,ithas
    comeinhisevidencethatthetrainstartedat5.57p.m.,itwasslow
    upto Bombay Central, that as he wanted to get down at Dadar,
    before Bombay Central came, he went towards the left door and
    stood there, that there was a heavy rush at Dadar, therefore, at
    Dadarhegotdownfromthecornerimmediatelyandstoodbythe
    sidewipinghisfacebyhishandkerchief.Ithascomeinhisevidence
    that the person who had kept the bag there had also got down
    alongwithhimatDadarandthattwopersonswerewithhimwhen
    hegotdown.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathethenwenttothe
    CentralRailwaysideandwenttoThanebyslowtrain,wherethere
    wasacrowdattheThanestationandoninquiringcametoknow
    thattherewerebombblastsintheWesternRailwaysandafterhe
    tookdarshaninthetemple,hereturnedhome.Onthesamedayhe
    sawthenewsontheTVaboutsevenbombblaststakingplaceinthe
    westernrailwaysaheadofDadarandmanypeoplehavingdied.It
    hascomeinhisevidencethathereadinthenewspapersinthefirst
    weekofOctoberthattheATSpeoplehadcaughtthirteenaccused,
    thatitwasintheTVnewsthatrexinebagscontainingbombswere
    keptinthefirstclasscompartmentsandtheywentoffandalsothat
    abombwaskeptin5.57p.m.Virarfastlocaltrainandithadgone
    off.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathethenrememberedthathe
    wasalsointhattrainandthinkingthatheshouldgotothe ATS
    officeandinquireinwhichfirstclasscompartmentthebombwas

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..500..

    Ext.4825

    placed, hewentto the ATSoffice at Bhoiwada on 18/10/06and


    madeinquiries,thathewasdirectedtoACPPatil,PW186,whomhe
    met and informed that he was travelling in the firstclass
    compartment of the said train and inquired in which firstclass
    compartmentthebombblasthadtakenplaceandwasinformedthat
    ithadtakenplaceinthe1stfirstclasscompartmenttowardsVirar.It
    hascomeinhisevidencethatpolicetookhisstatementabouthis
    travelonthatdayandwhathadhappenedinhispresenceandhe
    alsotoldthemthathecouldidentifythepersonwhohadkeptthe
    bag,iftheyhavecaughthim.Hegavethedescriptionofthepersons.
    Hisfurtherevidenceisinrespectofthetestidentificationparade
    conductedon7th and08/11/06,whichwillbediscussedatalater
    stage,butithascomeinhisevidencethatintheparadeconducted
    bySEOBarve,PW82,heidentifiedtheA1bytouchinghimasthe
    personwhomhehadseenkeepingthebagonthatdayontherack
    in the train. Ithas come in his evidencethatSEO Barve,PW82,
    askedthatpersonhisnamewhichhestatedasKamalVakilAnsari.
    He unhesitatingly identified the A1 in the court, which is a
    substantive evidence. His further evidence is about the test
    identificationparadesonbothdays,tellingACPPatil,PW186,that
    herememberedthattheotherpersonwiththe A1wasstoutand
    havingabeardandwearingblackshirtandwhitepantsandwhen
    theA1gotdownatDadarStationbehindhimtwomorepersonshad
    gotdownwithhim,butthestoutpersonwhowaswithhim,hadnot
    gotdown,therefore,theA1wenttowardsthewindowofthetrain
    andwassignalingsomeoneinsidethetrainbyhandtocomeoutand

    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.

    His crossexamination is in great detail and though in his

    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.

    He expressed his ignorance as to whether trains going to

    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.

    He was crossexaminedfurther in respect of the number of

    seats that were occupied before reaching Churchgate Station, the


    numberofseatsthatwerevacant,whethertherewasabigcrowdat
    Churchgateandthecompartmentfilledup,forwhatdurationthe
    trainhalted,whethertheseatswerevacantandsomepeoplewere
    standingduringthisperiod,whetherhefeltitnecessarytogetdown
    fromthetrainandgoandsitintheslowtrainconsideringhisage,
    aboutpeoplecominginandgoingoutduringtheperiodthetrain
    was at the station, whether the passengers who had boarded at
    Charni Road and Marine Lines were seated, whether the
    compartmentwasfullwhenitreachedBombayCentral,whetherhe
    rememberstheageandclothesofhisneighboursittingbyhisside,
    the numberof passengers standing in the passage,the makeand
    coloursofbriefcases/smallbagskeptbypeopleontheracks,number
    ofpersonswhogotdownatDadarandtheirdescription,etc.The
    witness expressed lack of knowledge in answer to some of the
    questions,deniedcertainquestionsandgavespecificationstosome
    questions. All these things though asked during his cross
    examination,tomymind,donotdiscredithisversioninrespectof
    theincidentasnocorelationtothatevidencehasbeenpointedout.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..507..

    Ext.4825

    Infact positive answers have come on record that people were


    keepingtheirbriefcasesandsmallbagsontheracks,thatthetrain
    hadhaltedforabout78or1012minutesandthoughsomeseats
    were vacant, some people were standing. He did not commit an
    errorwhilestatingthepositionofthepersontowhomhehadasked
    aboutthetrain,becausehecorrectlystatedthatthesaidneighbour
    wassittingonhisleftside.Thisiscorrectbecauseithascomeinhis
    crossexamination that the window was on his right side. He
    confirmed that it did happen that as he wanted to get down at
    Dadar,hewasabitworriedwhenhisneighbourtoldhimthatthe
    Virartrainisalwayscrowded.Anotherpositivestatementmadeby
    himisthatnoonetookobjectiontotheA1keepingthebagthere.

    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

    because hestatedthatbecauseof his advancedage,atDadar he


    wenttoplatformno.4toavoidclimbingthestaircase,thatitdid
    happen that when he reached Churchgate from Charni Road, as
    soon as the train stopped at Churchgate, people entered the
    compartmentand it became full, that he was engrossedwith the
    thought of getting down at Dadar when the train left Bombay
    Central andhe wentto the door.Nowa specific explanation has
    comeashestatedthatafterthetrainpassedBombayCentral,the
    crowd came in his compartment and after the local started, he
    immediatelygotupandwenttotheleftsidedoorandstoodthere,
    therewasaconsiderablecrowdtherealso.Nowthisisnotexactly
    consistentwithhisstatementinhischiefexaminationthathewent
    towardstheleftdoorbeforeBombayCentralashewantedtoget
    down at Dadar. However, the positive statement in the cross
    examinationhasnotbeencontroverted.

    500.

    Nowmuchstressislaidonthesentenceinparagraph17ofhis

    crossexamination that it did happen that when he got down at


    Dadarandstoodtherewipinghisfacewithhandkerchief,hesaw'a
    person' keeping a bag on the rack and the other two with him
    comingoutandthenimmediatelythelocalstartedandleft.Relying
    onthis,thelearnedadvocateWahabKhansubmitsthatthisindicates
    thatthebagwaskeptatDadarandnotatChurchgate.Itappears
    thatinsteadoftheword'theperson','aperson'hasbeentyped.Itis
    neitheracontradictionnoranomissionandthereforedoesnotaffect
    his evidence about the actual incident. Now in respect of his
    statementinhischiefexaminationthatthepersonhadkeptthebag

    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.

    Insofar as the omissions discussed earlier, a very beautiful

    statement was made by this witness in paragraph 20 during his


    crossexaminationthaton18/10/06hisstatementwasreadoverto
    himanditwasgenerallycorrectlywrittenasstatedbyhim.Nowthis
    istheaptdescriptionofwhatthepolicedowhenthepolicetake
    statementsofwitnesses,asissubmittedbylearnedSPP.Healsogave
    answersaboutthelocationsoftheplatformatDadar,abouthebeing
    requiredtogotoplatformno.4atDadartoavoidclimbingstaircase
    and about the entrance at the Charni Road Station, the road
    adjacenttoit,footoverbridgeentrance,gates,etc.Theseanswers
    showhis knowledgeaboutthe detailsoftherailwaystations and
    showthatheisaregulartraveller.

    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

    and then he remembered that he was also in that train. This is


    reiterated by him during his crossexamination, however, the
    relevantthingisthatonthedayoftheblastshehadonlycometo
    knowabouttheblasttakingplaceinthe5.57Virarfastlocaltrain.
    Whatpromptedhimtogotothepoliceon18/10/06ishisstatement
    thathereadinthenewspaperinthefirstweekofOctoberthatthe
    ATSpeoplehadcaught13accusedanditwasintheTVnewsthat
    rexine bags containing bombs were kept in the firstclass
    compartmentsandthebombshadgoneoff.Thus,thetriggerforhis
    memorywasprovidedbytheinformationinthenewspaperaswell
    asintheTVthatrexinebagscontainingbombswerekeptinthe
    firstclasscompartment.Therewasconsiderablecrossexamination
    to him in respect of his access to newspaper, the newspaper he
    reads, he seeing TV and the news about bomb blasts being
    continuouslyshownontheTV.Thesuggestionthathewasfollowing
    thenewsaboutthebombblasttogathertheinformation,whichhe
    denied,istomymindnotanacceptablesuggestion.Ontheother
    handhespecificallyansweredthatuptothefirstweekofOctober,he
    did not think it necessary to find out the persons who were
    responsiblefortheblastsandtomymindinfactitwasnothisjob.
    Healsodeniedthesuggestionthatthenamesandphotographsof
    suspected persons caught by the police were published in the
    newspaperandalsoshownontheTV.Hereiteratedthefactofhe
    acquiringknowledgeinthefirstweekofOctoberthatthebombblast
    had taken place in the firstclass compartment in which he had
    travelled.However,hehadtoldhiswifewhenhereturnedhomeand

    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.

    Other than the above crossexamination there is nothing to

    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

    At one place he made a statement that he never took any

    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

    possible aspects and it is clear that nothing is revealed from his


    crossexaminationtodiscredithisversionorimpeachhiscredibility.
    Thesubmissionsofthelearnedadvocatesoftheaccusedhavebeen
    coveredattheappropriateplacesanditwillsufficetomentionafew
    submissionsaboutthefactorsthatwerepointedoutbythelearned
    advocates.LearnedadvocateShettyfortheaccusedsubmittedthat
    whenapersontravelsinthetrainatsuchpeakhours,hecomesin
    contact with so many persons and therefore it is not possible to
    remember the individual featuresof any person,keep him in the
    mind for a long period and to identify him. This submission is
    coveredbythelearnedSPP'ssubmissioninrespectofthetaxidriver
    andhowthe memoryofaperson is triggeredif certain factsare
    provided. It is submitted by the learned advocate that nothing
    uncommonhadhappenedinthepresenceofthewitness,because
    railwaycommutersenterinthetrainorgooutandthebagisnot

    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.

    Learned advocate Wahab Khan laid much stress on the

    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

    no submissions on this point by learned advocate Shetty, who


    representstheA1.Atthecostofrepetitionitisaquestionwhether
    thewitnessiscompetenttoprovethecontentsofthesaidCDRand
    whetherhis evidencecanbeacceptedascogentevidence.Thisis
    becauseincrossexaminationheadmittedthatheworksinthenodal
    department, which is separate from the information technology
    department,whichlooksafterthecomputerandinformationsystem
    andisthecustodianoftheentirerecord,thatheisnotconcerned
    with the information technology department, that he is not in a
    positiontotellaboutthetypeofcomputersystemandthesystem
    thatwasinplaceintheircompanypriorto13/08/07andthatheis
    notinapositiontotellthenameoftheofficerwhowashavingthe
    authority to use password and access the data. His subsequent
    answershaveshownthatthecontentsoftheCDRofthemobileof
    theaccusedcannotbeacceptedasanevidenceprovedasperlaw,
    becausehehasansweredthatthecompanyhasastandardformatof
    certificatethathegaveinthiscase,thatheobtainedtheprintout
    fromtheITdepartmentanditistruethatheissuedthecertificate
    withoutverifyingtherecordafterheobtainedtheCDRfromtheIT
    department.Thus,hisevidenceaswellastheevidencebywayof
    CDRExts.3031to3033isofnohelptotheA1.Evenotherwisethe
    A1hasnotsteppedinthewitnessboxandhasnotexplainedabout
    particularcallsandthelearnedSPPisjustifiedinsubmittingthatthe
    accusedwantingthecourttodrawaninferenceonthebasisofthe
    CDRthathewasataparticularplace,makestheCDRaninferential
    evidence, whereas the prosecution has led primary evidence of a

    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

    put to him in respect of this witness during his statement under


    section313oftheCr.P.C.andinrespectofthequestionaboutthe
    identification parade, about the witness identifying him he stated
    thatitisfalseandthewitnessidentifiedhimonthesayoftheATS.
    Inanswertoaquestioninrespectofthemobileofthewitness,a
    strangeanswerwasgiventhathe,i.e.,theA1wasathisvillageand
    inNepalon11/07/06aboutwhichthereisanentryattheborder.
    Infact,nosubmissionshavebeenmadebyhislearnedadvocatein
    respect of his alibi and though it is mentioned in his written
    submissionExt.2822filedalongwithhisstatementundersection313
    oftheCr.P.C.thattherewasamarriageofhiscousin'sdaughteron
    10/07/06inhisvillageinwhichmanyrelativesandvillagershad
    participatedandthaton11/07/06hewasathisvillageBasopatti
    andhadgonetoNepalforfourhourstomeethisrelativesabout
    whichtheevidenceistheentriesintheentryregistershowinghis
    name,drivinglicencenumberandnumberofthetwowheeler,no
    evidencehasbeenledbytheaccusedtosubstantiatethisstory.He
    couldhaveveryeasilycalledfortheentryregistertoprovethathe
    hadgonetoNepalonthatdayandcouldhaveeasilycalledanyof
    hisrelativesparticularlyhiscousinwiththemarriageinvitationcard
    toprovethathewasinhisvillageon10/07/06andhadgoneto
    Nepalon11/07/06.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    512.

    ..522..

    Ext.4825

    Similar contentions are made in his application Ext. A in

    respectofhegoingtoNepalon11/07/06,buttheapplicationdoes
    notmentionhiscousin'sdaughtermarriageon10/07/06.

    513.

    Thus, the A1 has failed to show a preponderance of

    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.

    As mentioned earlier his evidence is clear and unhesitating

    and it has come in his evidence that he participated in the test


    identificationparadethattookplaceon07/11/06,theevidenceof
    whichwillbediscussedsubsequentlyand,intheparadeconducted
    bySEOBarve,PW82,heidentifiedtheA3asthepersonwhohad
    keptthebaginthetrainonthedayoftheblast.HestatedthatSEO
    Barve, PW82, called that person and asked his name and that
    persontoldhisfullname,butthewitnesscouldonlyrememberhis
    name as Faisal. He unhesitatingly identified the A3 in the court
    whichisasubstantiveevidence.

    517.

    In respect of his evidence about boarding the train, what

    happened in the train and what he saw in the train, his cross
    examinationinparagraph15bylearnedadvocateShettyistoelicit
    theinformationabouttherushinthelocaltrainsduringthattime,
    occupancyofseatsandnumberofdoorsandwindowsinthebogie

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..525..

    Ext.4825

    and he has given the answers as per his understanding and


    knowledgeandhasexpressedignoranceaboutcertainthingsthathe
    didnotknow.Initiallyhestatedthattherearesixdoorstoafirst
    class compartment, but candidly stated further that he cannot
    contradict the learned advocate if he says that there are no six
    doors,butonlyfourdoors.Heconfirmedthattherearepartitions
    betweenthecompartmentsbythesidesofthetwopairsofdoors
    andthemiddlecompartment,butveryclearlydeniedthesuggestion
    thatbecauseofthepartition,onewillnotbeabletoseeaperson
    whoisstandingnearthewindowinthemiddlecompartmentifhe,
    i.e., the witness is standing near the window at the end of the
    compartment.Learnedadvocatewantedtoshowfromtheanswer
    thatthiswitnesswasnotinapositiontoseetheaccusedkeepingthe
    bagbelowtheseat.However,itisnotthatthewitnesswassittingin
    thetrain,buthewasstandinginthegapofthetworowsoftheseats
    anditiseasilypossibleforapersonwhoisstandingtoseewhatthe
    otherpassengersaredoing.

    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.

    Learned advocate Shetty attacked the credibility of this

    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.

    In my humble opinion, as mentioned at the start of the

    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

    that he gave during his crossexamination by learned advocate


    Shettywereclarifiedmorewhenhewasaskedaboutthesamething
    duringthecrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhan.In
    paragraph 21 he denied the suggestion that at the time of his
    statementpolicedidnotaskhimtoshowthespotwherehewas
    standingandwherethetwopersonswerestandingandsittinginthe
    bogie or a sketch of the bogie and volunteered that he himself
    markedthoseplacesandkeptthatpaperonthetableandhehad
    preparedthesaidroughsketchwhenhewastellingtheinformation
    beforehisstatementwasrecorded.Hehasfurtherstatedthatthe
    statementwaswrittenafterhegavetheentireinformation,thathe
    doesnotrememberthenameoftheofficerwhorecordedit,that
    therewere23officerspresent,thatexceptACPPatil,PW186,he
    cannottellthenamesoftheothersandallofthemweremaking
    inquiry with him. He expressed his inability to tell about which
    officeraskedwhatquestionsorhisname,orthenameoftheofficer
    whotypedthestatementorwhosigneditorwhoreaditoverto
    him,which,Idonotthink,canbeexpectedfromanypersonwho
    goestothepolicestation.Attheendofthecrossexaminationby
    learnedadvocateShettyheturneddownthesuggestionthathedid
    notdescribeanypersononhisownbutwasshownthephotographs
    andtutoredbythepolice,hencehegavethedescription,thatpolice

    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

    evidence that on the instructions of ACP Patil, PW186, he had


    recordedthestatementofthis witness.DevendraPatil,PW62,as
    wellasACPJoshi,PW163,werecrossexaminedaboutthetimings
    astowhenhereachedtheATSoffice,fromwhattimetowhattime
    hewaswithACPPatil,PW186,whomadeinquireswithhimandat
    what time his statement was recorded and there are some
    discrepanciesinthetimingsgivenbyboththewitnesses.Apartfrom
    that, ACP Joshi, PW163, specifically mentioned that he did not
    mentioninthestationdiaryaboutrecordingofthestatement.These
    things came during his crossexamination by learned advocate
    ShettyandhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhan
    haspracticallyclearedanydoubtaboutrecordingofhisstatement
    becausehewasaskedtogothroughthecasediaryandongoing
    through it, he stated that it is mentioned in the case diary dtd.
    20/10/06 that he had recorded the statement of Devendra Patil,
    PW62,thoughthetimeofrecordingofstatementisnotmentioned.
    He turned down the suggestion thathe was supposedtomakea
    station diary entry and that timing of recording of statement is
    required to be written in the case diary. What more clarity is
    required and this removes any doubt about the recording of
    statementofDevendraPatil,PW62,on20/10/06.

    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

    remand on 20/10/06. In subsequent crossexamination, he stated


    that Devendra Patil, PW62,hadcome tohis office on20/10/06,
    thathedidnotinspecthistraveldocuments,thatthewitnessdidnot
    produceanytraveldocumentandstatedthathedoesnotremember
    whetherhedidnotshowanytraveldocumentstohimandwhomhe
    contacted, etc. However, he positively stated that ACP Joshi,
    PW163,recordedhisstatementonhisdirection.Healsostatedthat
    hedidnotverifyfromthepassengersofthetrains,whosestatements
    were recorded, about their travel documents like season pass or
    railwayticketofthatdayashedidnotfeelitnecessarytoverify
    them.Thus,hisanswersdonotdisprovethefactofthestatementof
    witness Devendra Patil, PW62, being recorded on 20/10/06 and
    thiscanbesaidwithcertaintybecauseACPJoshi,PW163,when
    asked to go through the case diary, stated that recording of his
    statementismentionedtherein.InthisrespectACPJoshi,PW163,
    was shown SubRule 5of Rule 135 in ChapterIVof the Bombay
    PoliceManual,1959,VolIIIandhestatedonreadingitthattheSub
    Rule requiring superior officer to initial the panchanamas,
    statementsofwitnessesandcasediaries,isnotahardandfastrule
    andofficersarerequiredtodosotoshowtheirpresenceduringthe
    investigation.Hemadeapositivestatementthatitisnotmandatory
    thatrecordingofstatementofwitnessshouldbementionedinthe
    correspondingcasediary.Hedeniedthesuggestionthatheprepared
    thefalsestatementofDevendraPatil,PW62,ontheinstructionsof
    hissuperiors.Theabovediscussionshowsthatthereisnopossibility
    ofhebeingagotupwitness.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    524.

    ..536..

    Ext.4825

    NextpointurgedbylearnedadvocateShettyisinrespectof

    the witness going to Churchgate from Fort, then he going to


    Churchgate for boarding the train and that this conduct of the
    witnessraisesaquestionastowhetherheactuallyhadtravelledin
    that train on that day. Now this can be easily explained by the
    evidenceofthewitnessthatashewantedtogotoGoregaonMalad,
    therefore,hewenttotheChurchgateStation.Thus,thisaspectwill
    notcomeinthewayofbelievingthewitness.Placingrelianceonthe
    crossexaminationbylearnedadvocateinrespectoftheworkthat
    thewitnessclaimedtobedoingatthattime,bothlearnedadvocates
    submittedthattheanswersgivenbythewitnessshowthathecould
    nothavebeeninFortashewasnotdoinganysuchworkandthis
    alsoshowsthatheisnotanaturalwitnessandhedoesnotinspire
    confidence.Inhischiefexamination,DevendraPatil,PW62,stated
    thathehadgonetotheCustomHouseintheFortatabout3.00p.m.
    on 11/07/06 as he had some work there. This evidence is not
    broughtonrecordasomissionorcontradiction.Whatisbroughton
    record is the sentence in his statement that he does the work of
    customclearingagentindependently,whichwasconfrontedtohim
    and proved as Ext. 1753(3) during the crossexamination of ACP
    Joshi, PW163. However, he had not stated so in his chief
    examination,butgavehisoccupationascustomclearingagent.In
    anycase,thisomissiondoesnotamounttoacontradictionashehad
    not stated about it and he answered that he does not remember
    whether he had stated so to the police. Thus, this aspect of
    contradiction will have to be ignored as it does not affect his

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..537..

    Ext.4825

    credibility.

    525.

    He was grilled on the aspect of his occupation during his

    crossexamination by learned advocate Wahab Khan from


    paragraphs31to33andin39andthewitnessgavestraightforward
    andcandidanswerstoallquestionswithoutanyhesitation.Though,
    headmittedthathedoesnothavelicenceofcustomclearingagent,
    did not have an independent business and never did the custom
    clearingworkindependently,theparticularsabouttheprocedureof
    theworkofacustomclearingagentwasexplainedbyhimingreat
    detail and very clearly without any hesitation. I do not think it
    necessary to reproduce or comment on the answers that he has
    giveninrespectofhisworkinviewofhisadmissionthathedidnot
    have licence of custom clearing agent and did not do the work
    independently,butsufficeittosaythattheworkthathewasdoing
    doesnotappeartobeaworkwhichissomethingoutofthewayand
    unknown to him. This is because of single sentence in his cross
    examinationthathisfatherwasservingintheBombayPortTrust.
    Now it is common knowledge that because of the knowledge of
    somerelativeorfamilymemberdoinganyparticularwork,persons
    doventureintothatfieldanddothework.Itisalsonotuncommon
    andtheremaybethousandsofsuchpersonsinMumbaidoingthe
    workofcustomclearingagent,RTOagent,exciseagent,passport
    agentandconcerningsomeothergovernmentdepartments,whodo
    nothavealicence,whenitisrequiredorwhodosuchworkthough
    it is not authorized. There was considerable crossexamination to
    himontheaspectastowhetherheworksalone,wherehisofficeis,

    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

    the prosecution having not produced any document to show that


    DevendraPatil,PW62,hadtravelledinthattrainonthatdayand

    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.

    Learned advocate Shetty submitted that the witness is

    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.

    Next submission by learned advocate Shetty is that the

    investigating agency kept everything vague while describing the


    condition of the bogie and if they would have given a clearcut
    description of the damage to the bogie and would have given
    evidencetofixtheseatofthebomb,itwouldhavecorelatedwith
    the position of the witness in the bogie and this was relevant to
    appreciatehisevidence.Asmentionedearlier,thiswitnesswascross
    examinedinrespectofthesittingcapacity,doorsandwindows,etc.
    Ithascomeinhisevidencethathewasnotsittinginthetrain,but
    hewasstandinginbetweenthegapoftworowsoftheseatsand
    wasinapositiontoseewhattheothercopassengersaredoing.Dy.

    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.

    This also covers the specific submission of the learned

    advocate that the investigating officer could have visited the


    Kandivalicarshedwheretheaffectedbogiesweretakenandcould
    have drawn a clearcut panchanama. It also takes care of the
    submission bythe learnedadvocate thatitis the evidenceof the
    prosecution that seats and doors were broken and the roof was
    blownoffandifatallthishadhappenedtheninallprobability,the
    bomb must be on the rack and not below the seat and even
    assumingthattheroofcanbeblownoffevenifabombisplaced
    belowtheseat,thenitwasnecessarytopinpointtheportionofthe
    roof to show the seat of the bomb. It was submitted by learned
    advocateWahabKhanthatiftheevidenceofthiswitnessthatthe
    bagwaskeptbelowtheseatisacceptedthenthespotpanchanama,

    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.

    The improvements made by this witness were brought on

    record as omissions to state before the police while giving his


    statementandportionsfromhisstatementwereprovedasExts.1754
    (1 to 5). The improvements that when he, i.e., Devendra Patil,
    PW62, reached the platform, the ChurchgateBorivali 5.36 p.m.
    slowlocalwascomingtotheplatform,tomymind,isnotmaterial.
    Thesubsequentomissionsthatwhenthetrainstoppedheboarded
    thefirstclassbogiethatwasfourthfromthemotormancabinand
    thatthetrainwasontheplatformno.2,havebeendiscussedearlier
    andithasbeenheldthatitisthecorrectposition.Itisonlyinthe
    nature of explanation and does not amount to contradiction that
    affectsthecredibilityofthewitness.Subsequentimprovementthat
    he entered the bogie from the direction of Hutatma Chowk and
    stoodnearthelastrowofseatsinbetweenthegapoftworowsof

    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.

    Now in respect of the contradictions, first is portion Ext.

    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

    second contradiction Ext. 1754 (2) is the statement of Devendra


    Patil,PW62,thatitdidnothappenthatafterleavingChurchgate
    therewasaheavycrowdatsubsequentstationsandhiscoachwas
    jampackedwithpeople.This,tomymind,cannotbesaidtobea
    contradictionbecause,thewitnessstatedthathedoesnotremember
    whetherhehadstatedsotothepoliceand headmittedthat itdid
    happenthatbecauseofthecrowdofthepeoplehecouldnotsee
    thosetwopersonsfromtheplacewherehewasstanding.Inrespect
    ofthenextcontradictionExt.1754(3)ithasalreadybeenexplained
    and discussed. About the contradiction Ext. 1754(4) it is in his
    statement that some days after the blasts he came to knowfrom
    newspapersandtelevisionthattheATShadcaughtsomeaccused
    whohaddonetheblasts,whereashestatedinhiscrossexamination
    thatitwillbeincorrecttosaythataftersomedayshecametoknow
    thatpolicehadcaughtsomepersons.Tomymind,thiscannotbe
    saidtobeacontradictionbecausethewitnessdidnotstateaboutit
    inhischiefexamination.Heacquiredtheknowledgesomedaysafter
    theblaststhattheATShadcaughtsomeaccusedwhohaddonethe
    bombblasts.Hence,thiscontradiction,ifitissoconstrued,doesnot
    materiallyaffecthisevidenceanditisnotinrespectofthematerial
    event in the train. The next contradiction is the portion in his
    statementExt.1754(5),thathecametoknowaftersomedaysfrom
    thenewsthattheaccusedwhowerecaughthadkeptblackbagsin
    thelocaltrainsatChurchgateandhadcausedtheblasts(emphasis
    on'theaccusedwhowerecaught').Hestatedthathehadnotstated
    sotothepolice.Thewitnesshasstatedinhischiefexaminationthat

    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

    compartment of the 5.36 p.m. ChurchgateBorivali slow train at


    Churchgateandhewasaccompaniedbyonemoreperson. Thisis
    circumstanceno.4provedbytheprosecution. Itisagainstthe
    A3.ItisthesecondcircumstanceagainsttheA3.

    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.

    As mentioned earlier, his evidence has evoked considerable

    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

    the relation of Mukesh Rabadia with the police, that Mukesh


    Rabadia has acted as a panch witness in many cases, which is
    evidentfromthecertifiedcopiesofpanchanamas,Exts.716,2886,
    3295 and one more panchanama that is produced alongwith the
    application Ext. 4553, that Sr. PI Tajne, PW161 is the common
    policeofficerinallfourpanchanamas(whichisnotcorrectasitis
    seenthatheisonlypresentatthetimeoftwopanchanamas).Itis
    submittedthatExt.716isthepanchanamainthiscaseinrespectof
    searchofthehouseoftheA6on29/09/06atGovandi.ThenExt.
    2886isinrespectofLACNo.03/06,whichisMCOCSpecialCase
    No. 16/06, the panchanama is dtd. 14/05/06. Ext. 3295 is dtd.
    31/12/99andisinrespectofthecrimeno.02/2000ofDCBCID
    andthepanchanamaExt.4453isofLACNo.01/06ofATSPolice
    Stationdtd.14/01/06.ItissubmittedthatSr.PITajne,PW161,did
    not deny having used Mukesh Rabadia as a panch witness, but
    pleadedignorancewhichisverydifficulttobelievebecausehewas
    usingMukeshRabadiaasapanchsince1999,whenhewasinthe
    CrimeBranch,whichshowsthatMukeshRabadiawasinhisregular
    contact.ItissubmittedthatPIKhanvilkar,PW168,waspresentat
    the time of the panchanamas in this case as well as in LAC No.
    01/06ofATSPoliceStation,thatheadmittedthatVishalParmar,
    PW74, was employee of Mukesh Rabadia and it is difficult to
    believethathedoesnotknowMukeshRabadia.Itissubmittedthat
    theconnectionofMukeshWaljiRabadiawiththepolicecannotbe
    ruledoutinviewofhehavingactedaspanchwitnessasdescribed
    above,thattooalongwiththesaidofficers.Itisthereforealleged

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..553..

    Ext.4825

    thatVishalParmar,PW74,whoisanemployeeofMukeshRabadia
    canbeinfluencedtobecomeawitnessandisawitnessprovidedby
    himforimplicatingtheA4inthisbombblastscaseandthereforehis
    depositionisnotreliableandisrequiredtobediscarded.

    541.

    Learned advocate Wahab Khan also discussed the details of

    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

    Rabadia is a person having a bad character or a criminal record


    havingcasesagainsthimorhavingactedasapanch,thequestionis
    whetherthisincapacitatesthiswitness,i.e.,VishalParmar,PW74,
    whohasgivenstraightforwardanswerstoallthequestionsrelevant
    tothefactinissue.Hesubmitsthatevenifthecourtcomestothe
    conclusion that this witness is suppressing the facts about his
    employer,thenitshouldbeunderstoodthatheisdoingsobecause
    hisemployerisprovidinghimwithhisdailybreadandbutter.He
    alsosubmits thatevenif itisacceptedthatMukeshRabadia isa
    regularpanchwitness,thatbyitselfdoesnotdisqualifythiswitness
    fromtravellinginwesternsuburbantrainsandnarratingwhathe
    hadseen.Thewitnesshadappearedbeforethecourtanddeposed
    andhasfacedsearchingcrossexaminationbyabatteryoflawyers.
    Hesubmits thatthe evidenceofVishalParmar,PW74,cannotbe

    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

    there is really no reason for the witness to know whether his


    employerwascalledearlierbythepolice,consequentlywhateveris
    askedtohimisofnoconsequence.

    544.

    To my mind, the aspect of Mukesh Rabadia, employer of

    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.

    NextpointisVishal Parmar,PW74,himselfbeing aregular

    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.

    The next piece of evidence is about Vishal Parmar, PW74,

    having acted as a panch witness in LAC No.11/06 of the Crime


    Branch,UnitIIandthisisprovedbytheinformationwritteninExt.
    3071,contentsofwhichareprovedbyPINishikantPatil,DW20,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..558..

    Ext.4825

    which mentions that Vishal Kishore Parmar has acted as a panch


    witness in LAC No. 11/06 for the offences under section 3
    punishableundersection25oftheArmsAct.Itisalsoprovedbythe
    certifiedcopyofthepanchanamaExt.4555,thecontentsofwhich
    was proved by Vishal Parmar, PW74, when he gave evidence on
    27/01/14inC.C.No.675/PW/06beforetheACMM,37th Court,
    Esplanade,Mumbai,asperthecertifiedcopyofhisdepositionExt.
    4554.Inthisrespectitissubmittedinthewrittenargumentsthat
    API Kolhatkar, PW18, is involved in the preparation of the
    panchanamaandthatheisataintedofficerashewassuspendedfor
    attendingpartyatChemburGymkhanathatwasorganisedbyRajan
    gangandbecauseofthisallegationheisundersuspensionwhichhe
    hasadmitted.Hence,heisnotanhonestofficerandhiscloselink
    withVishalParmar,PW74,cannotberuledoutandthereforethe
    evidence of Vishal Parmar, PW74, has to be discarded. API
    Kolhatkar, PW18, was examined in this case and the defence
    recalled many prosecution witnesses from time to time, however,
    after Vishal Parmar, PW74, gave evidence in March, 11 and was
    furthercrossexaminedinAugust,2012,APIKolhatkar,PW18,was
    notrecalledinrespectofthisspecificallegationbythedefencethat
    he is closely linked with Vishal Parmar, PW74, and even Vishal
    Parmar, PW74, was not given such a suggestion. Thus, this is a
    singleinstancewhenVishalParmar,PW74,has actedasapanch
    witnessbeforethiscase,thattoofortheCrimeBranchandmerely
    because,APIKolhatkar,PW18,haspreparedthesaidpanchanama
    andsubsequentlyhewasinvolvedintheinvestigationinthiscase

    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.

    In this respect the authority in the case of Ron Chayak V.

    State of Goa (cited supra) is relied upon by learned advocate


    Sharif Shaikh wherein it is observed that 'the public panch is a
    habitualpanchwouldcertainlyweighwiththeCourtifitfindsthatthe
    evidenceofpolicewitnessesisnotfreefromblemish'.Asagainstthis,
    thelearnedSPPhasreliedontheobservationslaiddowninthecase
    of State of Maharashtra V. Mahesh s/o. Janardhan Gonnade
    (cited supra) that simply on the count that a witness has given
    evidenceasapanchincourtin56casesandheresidesinfrontof
    policecolony,hisevidencecannotbedisbelieved.Itwasheldthatit
    isdifficulttobelievethatapersonisstillactingasapolicepanch
    andsigningthepanchanamablindlysimplybecauseofhisadmission
    thattill1981hewasactingasapolicepanch.Nowthisjudgement
    waschallengedintheSupremeCourtandbythejudgementinthe
    caseof Maheshs/o.JanardhanGonnade,appellantsV.Stateof
    Maharashtra,respondent(citedsupra) thisobservationhasbeen
    acceptedandendorsedbytheSupremeCourt.

    550.

    Thus, in my humble opinion, Vishal Parmar, PW74, having

    actedasapanchwitnessoncebeforehebeingawitnessinthiscase
    andthricesubsequently,willnotmakehimaregularpanchwitness
    ofthepoliceorapliablewitnessinthehandsofthepolice.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    551.

    ..561..

    Ext.4825

    In the next point it is alleged that Vishal Parmar, PW74,

    deposed falsely by giving wrong address on oath and hence his


    evidenceisnotreliableandrequiredtobediscarded.Theaddress
    givenbythewitnessandhisstatementinchiefexaminationthathe
    residesatthegivenaddresssincehisbirthistriedtobefalsifiedby
    hisanswergiveninfurthercrossexaminationthatheisnotstaying
    attheaddressgivenbyhimafter2006.Inthisrespecttheaddresses
    ofthiswitnessincertifiedcopiesofdocuments,viz.,Ext.3830an
    FIR,Exts.3296,3297and2883,memorandumsoftestidentification
    parade,arementionedanditissubmittedthattheyarethesameas
    given by the witness in his deposition. However, the information
    obtained under the RTI Act Ext. 2908 discloses that he was not
    residingatthesaidaddresssincelastfouryears.Thisprovesthatthe
    witnessgavefalseaddressbeforethecourtonoath.Itissubmitted
    thatthelearnedSPPtriedtofillupthis lacunaduring thecross
    examinationof Sr.PIAjendrasinghThakur,DW1,duringwhichhe
    statedthatVishalParmar,PW74,informedthemthatheisawitness
    in this case and because of the fear of the accused, he left his
    residenceandisresidingelsewhereandrequestedthathispresent
    residentialaddressshouldnotbegiventoanyone.Itisallegedthat
    Sr. PI Ajendrasingh Thakur, DW1, did not depose in his chief
    examinationabouttheapprehensionfeltbyVishalParmar,PW74,
    norhementionedintheletterExt.2908anditisallegedthatSr.PI
    Ajendrasingh Thakur, DW1, being a police officer is tutored by
    prosecution for deposing so and hence this theory is also not
    believable.Itisalsosubmittedthatthoughthewitnessstatedinthe

    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.

    To my mind, all these submissions are very candidly and

    forthrightly explained by Vishal Parmar, PW74, as well as Sr. PI


    AjendrasinghThakur,DW1.Thiswasnotanissueduringtheinitial
    crossexaminationthatwasdonefrom03/03/11to08/03/11andit
    isonlyaftercollectingthedocumentsthatthewitnesswasrecalled
    forfurthercrossexaminationaspertheorderontheapplicationof
    thedefenceExt.3024.Now,Sr.PIAjendrasinghThakur,DW1,was

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..563..

    Ext.4825

    examined by the defence on 23/07/12 and though it is not


    mentioned in the letter Ext. 2908 issued by him to the Public
    InformationOfficerundertheRTIAct,thisinformationcameinthe
    crossexamination by the learned SPP. Now on that date the
    applicationforrecallingVishalParmar,PW74,wasnotevenmoved.
    Itwasmovedon17/08/12andVishalParmar,PW74,wasfurther
    crossexaminedon29/08/12.Ifthedefencecalledapoliceofficeras
    their defence witness, they should be prepared for the cross
    examinationbythelearnedSPP,whichwouldbeasofright.These
    submissions are apparently afterthought, because if what Sr. PI
    AjendrasinghThakur,DW1,statedinhiscrossexaminationabout
    callingVishalParmar,PW74,andhestatingabouthisfear,etc.,is
    notmentionedintheletterExt.2908,therewasnoattemptfromthe
    sideofthedefencetoreexaminehimtopointouttheimprovement
    madebyhim,notthatitcanbecalledasanimprovementbecauseit
    hascomeinthecrossexaminationaspositivestatementswhichare
    uncontroverted.OntherequestofthelearnedSPPthathewantsto
    get an explanation from the witness about he giving an address
    though he does not stay there after 2006, which request was
    consented to by the learned advocates for the defence, Vishal
    Parmar,PW74wasreexaminedbythelearnedSPPandhegavethe
    explanation about the apprehension that he feels in giving his
    correctaddress.Consideringthestraightforwardandcandidanswers
    givenbythewitnessinhisfurthercrossexaminationthatheisnot
    stayingattheaddressgivenbyhimafter2006andconsideringthe
    above discussion, to my mind, no fault can be found with the

    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.

    Based on the answers given by Vishal Parmar, PW74, in

    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

    examination. Now other than this crossexamination, there is


    absolutely no crossexamination or suggestion to Vishal Parmar,
    PW74,aboutthesaidBabanRankhambe.

    555.

    The nonexistence of a person by name Baban Rankhambe

    was tried to be established by the evidence of Dr. Dipika Rana,


    DW18,whoprovedthecontentsofherletters,Exts.3062and3063,
    bywhichshehadgiventheinformationandExt.3064bywhichshe
    suppliedthecertifiedcopiesofthedocuments.Thedocumentsthat
    she supplied are the attested true photocopies of charge handing
    overbookofthesecurityguards,Ext.3065(1and2),ofvisitors
    entry book Ext. 3066 and register containing the entries of
    emergencypatient,Ext.3067(1to3),thelastbeingirrelevant.Now
    assumingthattheinformationthatwasgivenisprovedthatBaban
    RankhambeisnotanemployeeofENTHospitalandisalsonota
    securityguardandwasalsonotondutyasasecurityguardwhoare
    not on the roll of the ENT Hospital, but were provided by the
    securitydepartmentofthe'A'WardoftheBMC,thisinformationand
    thedocumentsarenotinrespectofapersonwhowasworkingasa
    compounderinthedispensaryofthathospital,aspertheevidence
    given by Vishal Parmar, PW74. Thus, the information and the
    documentsreceivedundertheRTIActareirrelevantandofnouse.

    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

    know the scheduled timings of arrival and departure, whether it


    arrivedonthescheduledtimeanddepartedaminutelate,etc.The
    learnedSPPsubmittedthatnotwowatcheswillshowthesametime
    anditisinthisconnectionthatthetwostatementsthatthewitness

    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

    line of crossexamination will not lead us anywhere. This also


    explainsthecontradictedportionExt.1792(6).Asubmissionismade
    thatitisverycommoninMumbaiespeciallyatChurchgateatthe
    timeofheavyrush,i.e.,eveningtime,thatwhenatrainarrivesat
    Churchgate,firstallpassengerswaitingattheplatformboardthe
    trainandthenthepassengersinsidealightfromthetrain.Imustsay
    thatthisisverystrangeandunacceptableandevenifitisso,itis
    notaruleanditcannotbeconsideredtoholdthatVishalParmar,
    PW74,has falselydeposedthatsomepersonsor23personsgot
    down first from the train. Next is a typical example of how the
    defenceistryingtotwistthethingsthoughtherecorddoesnotbear
    itout.PIKhanvilkar,PW168,admittedthatitisnotwrittenthough
    the witness hadstatedtohim thatoutof those twopersons,the
    person,otherthanthepersonwhohadaskedhimaboutthetrain
    andthetime,hadablackrexinebagwithhim.Theexplanationthat
    hegaveisveryimportant.Hestatedthatitisnotwritteninthese
    words,butitiswritteninthestatementas'tyapaikidusryaismachya
    hatat kalya rangachi handbag hoti'. This is exactly what can be
    gatheredfromthechiefexaminationofVishalParmar,PW74.The
    firstsentenceisthattwopersonscamethereandaskedhimwhether
    Virarfasttrainwouldgofromthere.Subsequentlyhestatedthatout
    ofthose twopersons,the person other than the person whohad
    askedhimaboutthetrainandtime,hadablackrexinebagwith
    him.Tomymind,theofficerhasgivenanexactexplanationwhich
    meansthisisinfactnotanomission.

    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,

    i.e., Murarilal Parekh, PW137, Vijay Nair, PW187, Balam Rane,


    PW190andKiranKini,PW191,havedeposedthattheyboardedthe
    train from Marine Lines Railway Station, whereas Vishal Parmar,
    PW74,deposedthatafterstartingfromChurchgatethetrainhad

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..582..

    Ext.4825

    haltedatBombayCentral.Itissubmittedthatitisthefactthatevery
    VirartraindepartingfromChurchgateafter4.00p.m.isslowupto
    MumbaiCentral.Thefunnythingisthatthewitnesshasnotstated
    thatthetraindidnothaltatMarineLinesandhewasnotasked
    whetherthetrainhaltedatMarineLinesandwasnotgivensucha
    suggestion.Idonotknowhowaninferenceassubmittedcanbe
    drawnfromtheabovethathehadnevertravelledinthattrainon
    thatday.

    565.

    In this context it is submitted by learned advocate Wahab

    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

    the witness had got down at Dadar or not. He submits that


    everythingverbatimwhateverawitnesshasstatedcannotbetermed
    asanomission.Whatisworthappreciatingisthatifsuchtypeof
    omissions are to be found in the evidence of one witness then
    probably the court can come to the conclusion that there is
    somethingabnormalaboutthewitness.Butinthiscaseomissions
    have come in the evidence of a number of witnesses. This
    demonstratesthegeneralityandthebehaviourofanycommonman
    and such evidence of any witness does not smack of any
    artificialness.Wegotoajoggingpark,wefindeveryonegoingina
    clockwise direction, but if somebody goes anticlockwise it is
    different. When any witness is in the witness box, he is virtually
    givenafreehandtodeposewhateverhewantstosay.Theevidence
    that is recorded is whatfalls from the mouth of the witness and
    what is recorded by the court. But a statement recorded by the
    policeundersection161istothatextentarestrictivestatement,in
    thesensethattheofficerwouldnormallytaketheimportantaspects.
    Does this mean that the witness should also state to the police
    whetherhehadwaterorhewenttoawashroomandwhere?

    566.

    He submits that in all the cases and in all the statements

    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.

    He further submits that interpreting the meaning of a

    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.

    In view of the above discussion, in my humble opinion, so

    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

    to mislead by pointing out to the evidence of several injured


    witnessestoshowthatVishalParmar,PW74,couldnothavesaton
    thethirdseatfromHutatmaChowksideonthesevenseatsbench
    facingtowardsChurchgateasperhisevidence.Butinfactthecross
    examinationofthosewitnessesdoesnotestablishthisandonthe
    other hand it leads to the inference that in fact Vishal Parmar,
    PW74, may have sat on the seat as stated by him. Though,
    Devendra Chavan,PW123,didnotstate in his affidavitastoon
    whatseathewassitting,ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationthat
    hesatonthesecondseatfromthewindowontheeastside,onthe

    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

    towards Churchgate has not been controverted or proved wrong.


    Thecontentsofthestatementsundersection161oftheCr.P.C.of
    fivewitnessesarereliedupontoshowthattotalninepersonshad
    satonthesevenseatsbenchanditwasnotpossibletomakespace
    for a 10th person, i.e., Vishal Parmar, PW74, and though it is
    submitted that the statement under section 161 of the Cr. P. C.
    cannot be used for proving the guilt of the accused, a strange
    submissionwasmadethatitcanbeusedfortheinnocenceofthe
    accused.Thereisnoneedtomakeanycommentonthisandsome
    submissionsaremadeinrespectoftheanswersgivenbyACPPatil,
    PW186,abouttheabovewitnesses,buttheyareirrelevant.

    573.

    AnimprovementmadebyVishalParmar,PW74,andcertain

    portions from his statement with which he was confronted and


    provedascontradictionsarethebasisofthesubmissionsthathis
    evidenceisnotreliableandisrequiredtobediscardedandtherefore
    hiswholedepositionbecomesdoubtful.Ifonegoesindetailthenthe
    threesentencesthatthewitnessstatedinhischiefexaminationare
    thesubjectmatteroftheomissionsandcontradictions.Theyare,(i)
    'IgotdownatDadar',(ii)'twopersonsgotdowninfrontofmeat
    Dadar and were walking fast empty handed', and (iii) 'as I was
    engrossedinthethoughtofmywork,Ididnotthinkmuchaboutthe
    persons walking away without taking their bag with them'. In
    respectofthefirstsentence,itisclearthathedidnotstatefrom
    which door he got down. However, in crossexamination in
    paragraph29onbeingaskedhestatedthathegotdownfromthe
    same door by which he boarded the train. Thus this is an

    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

    by the witness in his chiefexamination are read visavis the


    confrontedportionsExts.1792(3)to1792(5),becausetheyarealso
    consecutivesentences,theywilldefinitelyconveythesamemeaning
    as the evidence given by the witness though not in those exact
    wordsandsequence,exceptthewitnessstatingaboutgettingdown
    fromthebackdoor.Theseportions,i.e.,Exts.1792(3)to1792(5),
    wasconsecutivelyreadasfollows:

    'WhentheDadarStationcame,hegotdownfromtheback

    dooronthewesternsidealongwiththeotherpassengers,thatthere
    waspushing,thatwhenhegotdownontheplatformandstarted
    goingtowardsthebridge,atthattimehesawthetwopersonsalso

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..593..

    Ext.4825

    walking in front of him in speed, however both of them were


    walkingfastmovingtheirhandsandherealizedthattheblackbag
    was not in the hands of any of them, that he became suspicious
    aboutit,however,ashewasthinkingabouthisworkatthattimehe
    neglecteditandstartedclimbingthebridge'.

    Thus,infact,thesearenotomissionsandcontradictionsand

    infact they corroborate his evidence rather than contradicting it,


    becausetheygivesomemoredetailsandarebywayofexplanations.
    Hence,thesocalledomissionsandcontradictionsdonotaffectthe
    credibilityofthewitnessanddonotmakehisevidencedoubtful.

    575.

    IncontinuationofthesametopictheevidencegivenbyVishal

    Parmar, PW74, in paragraphs 2 and 3 of his evidence about he


    going in front of the Plaza Cinema to the BMC Bank at Dadar,
    meetinghisclient,comingtoknowafterabouthalfanhourwhere
    therewasatalkinthepublicabouttheblastsinthetrainsandhe
    returninghome,aboutherealizingthathehadseenthetwopersons
    keepingtheblackcolouredbaginthetrainwhentherewerenews
    aftersomemonthsthatsomeaccusedhadkeptbombintheblack
    colouredbagsinthetrains,hesearchinginthenewspapersabout
    the investigating machinery and coming to know about it, is
    reproducedandhiscrossexaminationonthatpointandtheanswers
    givenbyhiminhiscrossexaminationarealsoreproducedanditis
    submitted that so many things happened to this witness in
    connectionwiththeblasts,butheneverapproachedthepolice,that
    beinganawarecitizenandhavingcontactwiththepoliceheshould
    haveapproachedtothepolicestationwhenhegotsuspiciousand

    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.

    The conduct and evidence of Vishal Parmar, PW74, after

    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

    Khanvilkar, PW168, who had recorded his statement, positively


    statedinhiscrossexaminationthatthewitnesshadstatedtohim
    thatatDadarhewenttoBMCBankinfrontofPlazaCinemaand
    mettheclient,butitisnotinthestatementanditremainedtobe
    written not because it is not important, but because, he, i.e., PI
    Khanvilkar,PW168,toldVishalParmar,PW74,tostateaboutitin
    the court. This explanation by PI Khanvilkar, PW168, is also
    criticized though it has come in the crossexamination and it is
    submittedthatitshowsthatheismakingamockeryofthelawof
    thelandandtheomissionamountstoacontradiction,becauseitisa
    materialpartofthestatement.Tomymind,PIKhanvilkar,PW168,
    hasgivenaverygoodexplanationandasissubmittedbythelearned
    SPP Raja Thakare that it is not that the investigating officer is
    requiredtotakedowneachandeverywordthatthewitnessstates
    andhetakeswhatisrelevant.Thisisaveryimportantsubmission
    becausethequestionisnotwhetherVishalParmar,PW74,methis
    friendorclientatDadar,whetherthepersonwasanemployeeofthe
    BMCBankoranemployeeoftheBMCandwhetherhewasonduty
    ornot,butthequestioniswhetherhegotdownatDadarandinthat
    respecthisevidenceisclearandnotcontrovertedandnoinference
    canbedrawnthatbecauseoftheabovethingsitwillhavetobeheld
    thathedidnotgetdownatDadar.

    577.

    The next submission about the conduct of Vishal Parmar,

    PW74, after the blast about coming to know as to who is


    investigatingthecaseafterseveralmonthsiscriticizedbysubmitting
    thatitisnotanaturalconductofanormalpersonifhedoesnottalk

    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.

    Itis allegedinthenextsubmissionthatthereis adelayof

    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,

    PW74, that officer Khandekar took his statement, whereas, it is


    clarifiedbyACPPatil,PW186,aswellasPIKhanvilkar,PW168that
    he had recorded the statement. It is submitted that this is a
    contradiction in the evidence of Vishal Parmar, PW74, and the
    policeofficersandtheonlyinferencethatcanbedrawnisthathis
    statementwaspreparedbyATSofficerandnotrecordedasnarrated
    byhim.Inmyhumbleopinion,nodoubtVishalParmar,PW74,has
    wronglystatedthenameofACPKhandekar,PW174,astheofficer

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..601..

    Ext.4825

    who had recorded the statement, but this aspect rather than
    discreditinghisversionshowsthathehasnopreacquaintancewith
    anyoftheofficerandthenamesofKhandekarandKhanvilkarare
    somewhatsimilar.Thisaspectdoesnotaffecthisevidence.

    580.

    Alargenumberofpagesaredevotedtodescribetheevidence

    that is against PI Khanvilkar, PW168, and it is alleged that the


    evidenceshowsthathewasataintedandcorruptofficer.Suspension
    ofAPIKolhatkar,PW18,andSr.PITajne,PW161,arealsorelied
    upontoshowthatallthesethreeofficersaretaintedofficershaving
    criminalbackgroundandbeingsuspendedduringservice,therefore,
    theirconnectionwithVishalParmar,PW74,isestablishedandthis
    shows that the evidence of Vishal Parmar, PW74, is liable to be
    discarded.Thecredibilityofpoliceofficersvisavistheirsuspension,
    etc.,willbediscussedsubsequently,but,tomymind,insofarasthe
    evidenceofVishalParmar,PW74,isconcernedIfailtoseehowthe
    bad patches in the career of the police officers will affect the
    evidenceofVishalParmar,PW74,whenitis notshown thatany
    corrupt practice was used for propping up this witness. There is
    absolutelynomaterialbythedefencetoshowthatthesethreepolice
    officershavepreparedthisfalsewitness.Subsequenttothissome
    other submissions about real eyewitnesses being dropped by the
    ATS, etc., are made, but that is not relevant for the purpose of
    assessing the evidence of Vishal Parmar, PW74. There are also
    allegations that before the test identification parade, the A4 was
    shown to Vishal Parmar, PW74, outside the court when he was
    producedfromjailcustodywithoutveilandalsosubmissionsabout

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..602..

    Ext.4825

    identificationinthetestidentificationparade.

    581.

    In respect of the identification of the A4 by Vishal Parmar,

    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.

    It is clear from the above discussion that in respect of the

    incident in question the evidence of Vishal Parmar, PW74, is


    unimpeachedandacogentevidenceandlookingatthefactsand
    circumstances of the case it cannot be said that he is a got up
    witness or that his evidence is fabricated. I have, therefore, no
    hesitationinacceptinghistestimony.Hence,itwillhavetobeheld
    thatbyhisevidencetheprosecutionhasprovedthaton11/07/06,
    theA4hadablackrexinebagwithhimwhenheboardedthefirst
    classcompartmentofthe5.19p.m.VirartrainatChurchgateandhe
    wasaccompaniedbyonemorepersonandwhentheygotdownat
    Dadar,theydidnothavethebagwiththem. Thisiscircumstance
    no.5provedbytheprosecution.ItisagainsttheA4.

    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

    11/07/06, viz., getting up at 0500 hours at his house, offering


    namaz in Shams Masjid, starting the work of his business at his
    houseonhiscomputer,visitingcybercafeforinternetsurfingafter
    lunch,returningtohishouseat1600hours,offeringnamajinthe
    sameMasjidat1745hoursandcomingtoknowaboutbombblasts
    atMiraRoadandBhayanderfromthepublicwhenhewasgoingto
    offer Maghrib namaj and talking with his mother and wife, who
    wereathishouseatU.P.fromhismobilephone.Allthesethingsare
    reiteratedbyhiminhisoralevidence,butthereisaninconsistent
    statementthathismothercalledhimonhismobileaftersometime
    fromthevillagetoaskhimabouthiswhereaboutsandtheytalked
    for56minutes.Hedidnotspeakaboutcomingtoknowaboutthe
    blastatBhayanderandtalkingwithhiswifeandthathehadmade
    the phone call and talked with his mother and wife. Further he
    deposedthathetalkedonhismobilewithhisbusinesscontactsfrom
    08/07/06to11/07/06asusualandsentSMSfornewsandhecan
    showthisfromthecallsintheCDRExt.3765(3),whichisofthe
    mobile he was using and the tower locations from 07/07/06 to
    11/07/06areofdifferentlocationsandacallthathismothermade
    isat8.45p.m.on11/07/06.

    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.

    Learned advocate Wahab Khan reiterated the above

    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

    purchased a Nokia mobile handset with sim card which he was


    personallyusing,buttheaccused/thedefencedidnottakeanysteps
    tocallthesaidpersonforgivingtheevidence.Perusalofthewritten
    submissionsExt.2825showsthecontentionoftheA4thathehad
    purchased a Nokia mobile handset with sim card from his friend
    NathuramTedgure,thenumberbeingasmentionedabove,thathe
    was personally using it for his personal and official work and
    contactinghisfamilymembers,friendsandbusinesspartiesandit
    hasbeenwithhimallthetimetill27/07/06.Duringtheevidence,
    the A4 stated inconsistently that he was acquanted with the said
    NathuramTedgureinconnectionwiththeprintingbusinessandhe
    purchased his mobile handset as he was going to Qatar. In this
    respect,thelearnedSPPgrilledhimincrossexaminationandthe
    onlyconclusionthatcanbedrawnfromtheanswersisthattheA4is
    nothonestandhasnotshownhisbonafides.Thoughitisnotstated
    byhimanywhereearlier,itcameoutthathehadalandlinephoneat
    hisresidencesince2003or2004,whichwasinhisname,thathe
    wasreceivingtelephonebillsonceinsixmonthsasthephonewas
    underascheme,thathehadgiventheaddressofhisresidencefor
    thebankaccountsandthepassbooksofhisbankaccountsshowhis
    addressandhisnamewasregisteredinthevoter'slistandadmitted
    thathehadsufficientdocumentaryevidencetoshowthathehada
    fixedresidentialaddress.Headmittedthatheisawareaboutthe
    natureofthedocumentsrequiredforobtainingasimcardandsim
    cards of every service provider are available in every nook and
    corneroftheplacewhereheresides.Nowherecomesthetwistin

    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

    are very much logical and legal and therefore acceptable. He


    submitsthatA4wasusingthatphonebenamitoconcealhisidentity

    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

    of 3 hours and 45 minutes, except that he was at his house, for


    whichthereisnomeanstoascertainandthereisnoevidenceabout
    it.

    590.

    In my humble opinion, the oral and documentary evidence

    given by the A4 to prove his defence of alibi is uncogent and


    unconvincing and does not even show a preponderance of
    probabilityaboutitbeingtrue.Hence,itwillhavetobeheldthathe
    has failed to prove his defence of alibi and therefore the
    circumstanceno.5provedbytheprosecutionisunaffected.Itwill
    havetobeheldthathehastakenthisfalsepleaofalibi,whichisan
    additionalcircumstanceinthechainofcircumstancesagainstallthe
    accused.Itisthethirdadditionalcircumstanceagainstallaccused.It
    isthefirstadditionalcircumstanceagainsttheA4.

    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

    persons, that he went to Borivali Railway Police Station on


    14/07/06,i.e.,aftertwodays,andtoldthemabouthisdoubtand
    that he was injured in the blast, his statement was taken during
    whichhegavesomedescriptionofthetwopersons.Hewaitedthere
    forsometimeasthepolicetoldhimthattheywerecallingaperson
    toprepareasketch,butasthatpersondidnotcomehewentback.It
    hascomeinhisevidencethatpolicevisitedhishousetomeethim
    23timesinbetween,buthewasnotathome,therefore,inthelast
    weekofOctober,06hewenttotheATSofficetoinquire,wastaken
    toofficerPatilwhotoldhimthattheyhadcaughtsomepersonsand
    askedhimwhetherhecouldidentifythepersonsaboutwhomhe
    hadstatedinhisstatementandhesaidthathecoulddosoifthey
    werebroughtbeforehim.

    593.

    Hisevidenceisclearandunhesitatingandithascomeinhis

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..613..

    Ext.4825

    evidence that he participated in the test identification that took


    place on 07/11/06 and in the parade conducted by SEO Barve,
    PW82,heidentifiedtheA13asthepersonwhohadkeptthebagin
    thetrainonthedayoftheblasts.SEOBarve,PW82,askedA13his
    nameandhetolditasAsifBashirKhan.Theevidenceinrespectof
    theidentificationparadewillbediscussedsubsequently.However,he
    unhesitatinglyidentifiedtheA13inthecourt,whichisasubstantive
    evidence, as the person whom he had seen keeping the bag on
    11/07/06andwhomhehadidentifiedon07/11/06.

    594.

    LearnedadvocatefortheA13attackedthecredibilityofthe

    witness onvariousgrounds.Firstis hispriorassociationwiththe


    police,particularly,PSIKisanGaikwadandSr.PITajne,PW161,on
    thebasisofthecertifiedcopiesoftwoearlierchargesheets.Firstis
    Ext.2502, which is the certified copy of chargesheet of C. C. No.
    40/P/03inconnectionwithC.R.No.129/02ofL.T.MargPolice
    Station.ItshowsPSIKisanGaikwadastheinvestigatingofficerand
    thecaseisfortheoffencespunishableundersections420and414of
    theIPCreadwith34oftheIPCandthefourthaccusedisshownas
    KishorePopatlalShah,whowasdischargedfromthatcaseasperthe
    orderdtd.25/06/09,certifiedcopyofwhichisatExt.4382.Nowin
    thisrespectthelearnedSPPhasrightlysubmittedthatexceptthe
    similarityofthename,theageandtheaddressofthispersonandof
    thewitnessaretotallydifferent.KishoreShah,PW60,gavehisage
    as57yearswhenhegaveevidenceon04/01/11andhisresidential
    addressofBorivali(E).ThepersonKishorePopatlalShahdescribed
    inthechargesheetinExt.2502isshowntobeoftheageof39years

    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.

    Learned advocate for the A13 submits that Kishore Shah,

    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.

    Kishore Shah, PW60's evidence that he lost his spectacles,

    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.

    Learnedadvocate for the A13submittedthatthewitnessis

    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.

    It is alleged by the learned advocate that the case diary in

    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

    of Borivali Railway Police Station and found that it contains the


    entry about Kishore Shah, PW60, having come to give the
    informationabouttwopersons,etc.TheaspectaboutDy.SPAhir,
    PW144,signingthestatementofthiswitnessonlycanbeexplained
    byhisanswersinparagraph6thathewasanimportantwitnessout
    ofthewitnesseswhosestatementsherecorded,thathehadgotan
    ideafromhisstatementabouttheculprits,thathehadgiventhe
    descriptionoftwopersonsinhisstatementandthereforehewaslike
    aneyewitness.Tomymind,thiswasthefirstwitnessintimewho
    gavesomeclueaboutthesuspectsinthecrimeandthereisnothing
    abnormalinthepoliceofficerinputtingthedatebelowhissignature
    inthestatementofthiswitnessonly.

    605.

    It is necessary to consider a submission made by learned

    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.

    Inthecrossexaminationof ACPKhandekar,PW174, onthis

    point in paragraphs no. 14 and 15 of his deposition, though he


    admittedinitiallythattherewasnootherwitnessotherthanKishore
    Shah,PW60,andSureshSuvarna,whostatedaboutanysuspects,
    that on reading the statement of SureshSuvarna,initially he felt
    thathewasanimportantwitness,attheendofthesaidparagraph
    he stated that he did not think it necessary to call said Suresh
    Suvarnaforidentificationparadeasthewitnessdidnotgivehimany
    important information. The crossexamination in paragraph 15
    showsthatthesubmissionofthelearnedadvocatefortheaccused
    thatcasediaryistamperedandtailoredisnotcorrectbecausehe
    admitted that a police constable had been injured in this blast,
    though he does not remember his name as Santosh Prakash
    Khanwilkarandwhenaskedtogothroughthecasediaryandstate
    when his statement was recorded, he wentthroughitand stated
    that his name is mentioned in the case diary of 22/07/06. Now
    aboutthesubmissionofdroppingthiswitness,ithascomeinhis
    crossexaminationthatthoughitwasrevealedinthestatementof
    thewitnessthathehadseenthesuspectwhohadboardedatBandra
    andwhoalightedatAndheriStation,he, ACPKhandekar,PW174,
    didnothaveanysuspicionafterreadinghisstatementbecause,this
    is important, he had not stated about the alleged suspect having
    anything in his hands. He explained that he did notcall him for
    identificationparadeanddidnotprepareanysketchashedidnot

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..627..

    Ext.4825

    feelthathewasanimportantwitness,becausesuchthingshappen
    manytimesintheVirartrain.

    607.

    Learned advocate for the A13 submits that Kishore Shah,

    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.

    Some untenable submissions are made by the learned

    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.

    The next contradicted portion Ext. 1589(2) says that the

    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

    the side of the defence and as discussed by me they are not so

    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

    advocate for the accused is a contradiction in the statement of


    Kishore Shah, PW60, in his statement dtd. 07/11/06 after the
    identificationparade,whichwas provedasExts.2513(1and2),
    whereinhehasmentionedaboutidentifyingtheA13intheparade
    conductedbySEOPurandare,PW80,whereas,theA13wasputup
    in the identification parade allegedly conducted by SEO Barve,
    PW82,asperthememorandumoftestidentificationparadeExt.
    844.InthisrespectthelearnedSPPpointedouttheevidencegiven
    byACPPatil,PW186,thatthewitnesshadstatedthatSEOBarve
    askedtheaccusedhisnameandhetolditasAsifBashirKhanand
    thenACPPatil,PW186,explainedthatitiswronglytypedbyhimas
    SEO Purandare and he realized this mistake when he filed the
    chargesheet.Astrangeandunproceduralquestionwasaskedasto
    why he did not file any application to correct the statement. He

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..638..

    Ext.4825

    stated that PI Mohite is appointed as a court liaison officer, but


    turneddownthesuggestionthatPIMohitehastakennotesatthe
    timeoftheevidenceofeverywitnessandhastutoredhim,therefore,
    heisgivingtheexplanationsandthatPIMohiteisappointedtotutor
    witnesses.ItisthereforesubmittedbythelearnedSPPandrightly
    so, that it is obviously a typographical mistake for which the
    investigatingofficerhasgivenanexplanationandquestionsasto
    whetherthis blamecan beattributedtothe witness,whois very
    categoricalaboutitandhecanunderstandifhewouldhavebeen
    askedthathepointedouttoSEOPurandareandsaidthatinthe
    parade conductedbyhimheidentifiedtheA13.Thewitnesshad
    categorically stated that it was in the parade conducted by SEO
    Barve,PW82,thatheidentifiedtheA13andtheconfusionisonlyin
    the name of the SEOs written in the statement prepared by the
    investigatingofficerandforthisreasonthewitnessshouldnotbe
    disbelieved.

    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.

    Learned advocate for the accused submitted that the

    presumption in favour of the police officer that they are duly


    discharging their dutiesisnotavailableinrespectof Dy.SPAhir,
    PW144,inviewofadepartmentalinquiryagainsthiminwhichhis
    incrementwasstoppedforoneyearasperthecontentsofExt.4291.
    Dy.SPAhir,PW144,admittedinhisfurthercrossexaminationas
    pertheorderoftheHighCourtdtd.30/01/14inCriminalAppeal
    No.1194/13,thatExt.4291iscertifiedcopyoftheorderwithholding
    hisincrementforoneyear.Thoughheadmittedit,thisdocumentis
    obtainedundertheRTIActandhasnotbeenprovedbycallingthe
    signatoryofthedocumentorbycallingtheoriginalforcomparingin
    the court. Even otherwise, the explanation given by the witness
    duringthefurthercrossexaminationitselftakesawaytheforceout
    of that order, because he denied that there was a departmental
    inquiryagainsthimastheaccusedwereacquittedinacaseunder
    the Prevention of Corruption Act that he had investigated and
    volunteeredthathegotaletterin2006thattherewerelacunaein
    his investigation and his explanation was asked, that the lacunae
    were that the complainant and the panch witness no. 1 did not
    support the prosecution and he had kept some lacuna in the
    investigation,thathehadaskedfortheconcerneddocumentatthat
    timeitself,buttheydidnotprovidehim,thathegaveexplanationin
    September, 2011, but it was rejected on the last day of his VRS
    noticestatingthathisoneincrementwasstopped.Hefurtherstated
    thathehaschallengedthesaidorderbeforetheDirectorGeneralof

    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.

    It is clear from the above discussion that the evidence of

    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

    documentary evidence given by him has been discussed while


    discussing the evidence given by Santosh Singh, PW63, anditis
    heldthathehasfailedtoprovehisdefenceofalibi.Thusitisnot
    necessarytorediscussitandtheevidenceofKishoreShah,PW60,
    remainsunaffected.

    624.

    With this, we come to the end of the discussion of the

    evidence of the two groups of witnesses, i.e., taxi drivers and


    travellers.Athreadbarediscussionwasnecessaryinviewofthesesix
    witnessesbeingthemostimportantwitnessesfromthesideofthe
    prosecutionaswellasfromthesideofthedefenceandconsidering
    the heavy crossexamination that they faced and the oral and
    documentaryevidencegivenbythedefencetodiscreditthem.Tomy
    mind,iftheinvestigatingagencywantedtofabricatetheevidenceby
    proppingsuchwitness,itwouldhaveproppedsomemorewitnesses
    forsomemoreaccusedthoughnotforallthe13accused.Thescript
    of falsity would have been exposed if there would have been a
    similarityintheevidenceorstorygivenbythesewitnesses.Whatwe
    findandwhatlends credencetotheir credibilityandshows their
    honestyandtruthfulnessisthedissimilarityintheeventscomprising
    oftheincidentsaboutwhichtheygaveevidence.Outofthetwotaxi
    driversRajeshSatpute,PW77,saysthathegotthetwopassengers
    at Carter Road, Bandra, whereas, Santosh Singh, PW63, got the

    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.

    Next comes the travellers. Subhash Nagarsekar, PW57,

    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.

    Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, then gave evidence about the house

    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.

    Ashok, PW22, committed a mistake by stating that both

    panchanamas,i.e, Exts. 467and500,were written bythe same


    officerwhodidnotsignonthepanchanamas.However,ithascome
    intheevidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,aswellasAPIKolhatkar,
    PW18,thatAPIKolhatkar,PW18,wrotethepanchanamaExt.467
    and PSI Sachin Kadam wrote the panchanama Ext. 500 on his
    dictation and Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, signed them alongwith the
    panchas. Reverting back to the evidence of Ashok, PW22, it is
    revealedinhisevidencethatheknewtheA1whoisofhisvillage

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..651..

    Ext.4825

    and his evidence about the search in the house of the A1


    corroborates the evidence of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, and API
    Kolhatkar, PW18, and the contents of the panchanama Ext. 500
    corroborate the evidence of all these four witnesses. Thiswitness
    knowstheA1sincehischildhoodasheishisneighbourandthough
    headmittedthattherewasamarriageofTayyab'sdaughterinthe
    villageon10/07/06,whothisTayyabis,isnotputtohimandhe
    flatly denied the suggestion that on that day the A1 was in the
    village. A baseless suggestion was made to him that he deposed
    falselybecauseheisinimicalwiththeA1'sfamilyandhedeniedthe
    suggestionthattherewasnosearchinhispresenceandnothingwas
    seized.Inrespectofthewritingandsealingarticles,hedeniedthe
    suggestionthatatthetimeofsearchandseizure,policedidnothave
    paper,carbonorstationerywiththemtowritethepanchanama.He
    specificallystatedthatthepoliceofficerfromMumbai,whosigned
    on both the panchanamas,is Vasant Tajne,i.e.,PW161. There is
    some issue aboutthe colourof the inkof his andother pancha's
    signature on Art.40C, but he answered earlier that local police
    officer Ranjankumar gave him apenon both occasions andafter
    signing,hegavebackthepentohimanddoesnotknowwithwhich
    pen Rameshwar Purve signed and he did not give the pen to
    RameshwarPurveafterhesigned,whichmeansthatsomeotherpen
    mayhavegiventotheotherpanch.Otherthanthesethings,thereis
    nothinginhiscrossexaminationtodiscredithisversionandheisa
    totally uninterested witness and his evidence is trustworthy. In
    respectoftheplasticjarArt.39,though,Sr.PITajne,PW161,did

    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.

    As mentioned earlier, API Kolhatkar, PW18, has fully

    corroboratedthe evidenceof Sr.PITajne,PW161,andhis cross


    examinationhasnotrevealedanythingadversethatwouldaffecthis
    testimony.Ontheotherhand,duringcrossexaminationhegavethe
    approximatedistancefromBasopattitoPatnaandthatMalmaland
    Basopattiaretwodifferentvillages,thatA1wasnotarrestedat4.00
    a.m.andasalocalpolicestationofficerwaswiththem,therewas
    noquestionofinformingthelocalpoliceabouttheseizureofthe
    powderandarrestoftheaccusedastheyhadgonetothepolice
    stationandmadeanentry.Certainthingswereaskedtohimasto
    whetherhehadgivenareporttothePoliceStationBasopattiorto
    the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Patna about finding of the
    suspected substance and he frankly stated that he had not given
    suchareportordoesnotknowwhetherhisseniorofficer,i.e.,Sr.PI
    Tajne,PW161,gaveitorPSISachinKadamgaveit.Todiscredithis
    version,hewasaskedandheadmittedthatheispresentlyunder
    suspension because of a departmental inquiry against him, DCP
    Salvi,ACPWaniandothersaboutattendingapartyofunderworld

    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

    him. In respect of locating the A1, it has come in his chief


    examination and it is elaborated in his crossexamination that he
    madeinquiriesabouttheA1inthatnightitselfbytelephoninghis
    sourcesaftertheMumbaipolicecamethereandwhenquestionedas
    towhetherhedidnotfeelitnecessarytogotothehouseoftheA1
    andverifywhetherhewasorwasnotinthehouse,hegaveavery
    sound explanation that he did not feel it necessary as it was an
    important case and his visit to the house of the A1 would have
    alertedhim.

    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

    Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, was crossexamined extensively, but

    nothing adverse has come out in his crossexamination so as to


    affecthiscredibilityorthecredibilityoftheevidencethathegave
    about the search and seizure at Basopatti. Insofar as the
    identificationoftheA1isconcerned,thoughithascomeinhiscross
    examinationthattheywerenotawarewhentheyreachedBasopatti
    asto which Kamal was usingthe mobile number, butonmaking
    preliminaryinquirytheycametoknowofitandhemadeapositive
    statement that he came to know it from one local chowkidar
    constableandadmittedthatitwasanimportantclueforthemand
    hewasanimportantpersongivingsuchinformation,buthedidnot
    record his statement. PSI Rajan, PW107, has corroborated his
    evidenceashestatedthathecametoknowabouttheA1fromthe
    localchowkidarconstableandthisisfurtherfortifiedbySr.PITajne,
    PW161,whostatedthatthepreliminaryinquirythathemadewas
    withthelocalpolicestationofficersandthestaff.Therecoveryof
    mobileandthecontentsoftheCFSLreport,Hyderabadpertainingto
    thedatainthesaidmobileoftheA1arenotrelevantasnothing
    incriminatingwasfoundtherein.Therefore,thecrossexaminationin
    thatrespectisinconsequentialexceptinsofarasitpertainstotheA1
    beingaccostedatthatparticulartime.

    638.

    Thereisanissueaboutsealingthekhakipaperinwhichthe

    polythene bag containing the sample of black powder that was


    foundinA1'shouseandtheevidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,aswell
    asPSIRajan,PW107,hasbeendiscussedabove.Thatevidencehas
    comeinthecrossexaminationofboththewitnessesanditmeans

    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.

    Based on the documents obtained from Police Station

    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.

    In respect of the A1 being identified when accosted, it has

    come in the evidence of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, that PSI Rajan,

    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

    his suspension in 198990 and he admitted that he was under


    suspensionfrom21/03/89to04/03/91whenhewasintheCrime
    Branch. He admitted that there was a departmental inquiry.

    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

    that the entire material about it is not reliable. I have already


    discussedthisandfoundthatitisareliableevidence.Now,insofar
    asthe plastic jar Art.39is concerned,itis submittedbylearned
    advocateforthedefencethatitwasnotsealedandpointedoutthe
    mannerinwhichitistiedandlabeledtoshowthatitisnottamper
    proof.PerusaloftheplasticjarArt.39showsthatobviouslyitdoes
    nothavealacseal.However,themannerinwhichitistiedandthe
    mannerinwhichthelabelispastedacrossthelidanduponthebody
    ofthejarattheendsofthelabelshowthatitisasgoodassealed.
    Onewillnotbeabletoremovethelabelandrefixitinthemanner
    inwhichitisfixed.Onewillnotbeabletoremovethethreadthatis
    tiedcrisscrossaroundeighttimesandknottedonthetopofthelid
    belowthelabelthatispasted,withoutcuttingthethread.Thus,this
    aspectwillnotaffecttheseizureoftheRDXandontheotherhandif
    atallthedefencewantedtochallengethisevidencebyshowingthat
    thesamplewasnotfromtheblackpowderintheplasticjarArt.39,it
    could have very well asked for sending a sample from it
    independentlytoascertainit.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    650.

    ..665..

    Ext.4825

    Next submission by learned advocate is that though the

    alleged RDX was found within the jurisdiction of a local police


    station,noreportwasgivenandthoughtherewasadoubtaboutthe
    powder,itwasnotgiveninthepossessionoflocalpolicestationand
    approximately500gramswas carriedbyroad anddepositedtwo
    dayssubsequently.Hesubmitsthatnoconcreteproofisnecessary
    forregisteringthecaseevenonthebasisofsuspicion.Ihavealready
    discussed this aspect pointing out that it was a case of national
    importanceandtheevidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,APIKolhatkar,
    PW18,andPSIRajan,PW107,inrespectofregisteringtheFIRon
    05/09/06atzeronumberafterobtainingtheFSLreportshowsthat
    they were conscious about their duty. Not only this, Sr. PI Tajne,
    PW161, submitted a report to his superior to transfer the
    investigation of this crime to Police Station Basopatti and the
    contentsofthetruephotocopyofthestationdiaryentryno.1717
    corroborates his version. He had taken the statement of API
    Kolhatkar,PW18,asanFIRandhadregisteredthecaseagainstthe
    A1.PSIRajan,PW107,hasgiventheevidenceaboutitandabout
    theinvestigationthatwasdonebyoneofhiscolleaguesandthen
    abouttransfer of all the original papers of the crime to the ATS,
    MumbaiaspertheorderoftheSupremeCourt.Ithascomeinhis
    evidence that PSI Yogeshwar Chaudhari lodged formal FIR no.
    102/06dtd.09/09/06andgavetheinvestigationtoPSIUpadhyay.
    Heprovedthecontentsofthetruephotocopiesofthestationdiary
    entiresinExt.1097andthephotocopyoftheFIRExt.1098andthe
    letterExt.30andthedocumentsaccompanyingit.Thus,itcannot

    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

    Art.40C, which I have already discussed. He referred to the


    information Exts. 2007 to 2009 obtained from Police Station
    KalachowkiundertheRTIActsubmittingthatthestationdiaryat
    7.10 a.m. on 07/07/06 shows that the brass seal was given to
    HC14438oftheATSonthatday.However,inconnectionwiththis
    aspect,Ihavementionedearlierthatthereisadifferencebetween
    givingthebrasssealtothepolicestationforusingoutsidethepolice
    stationandsomeonegoingtothepolicestationandtakingtheseal
    impressiononapacket.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,hasexplainedthisin
    hiscrossexaminationinparagraph96thatthesealimpressionof
    Police Station Kalachowki on the letter Ext. 596 may have been
    affixedbySr.PITajne,PW161.InhisevidencethedocumentsExts.
    2007to2009obtainedfromtheKalachowkiPoliceStationunderthe
    RTIActweremarkedasexhibitsandtheywereshowntohimin
    respectofstationdiaryentrydated07/07/06.Thesedocumentsare
    not proved as per law by calling the person who had given the
    information alongwith the original information. No doubt the
    certifiedtruecopyofstationdiaryentrycanbereadinevidence,but
    asexplainedearlierthereisadifferencebetweengivingthebrass
    seal of a police station for using outside the police station and
    someonegoingtothepolicestationandtakingtheimpressionofthe
    brasssealonasealedpacket.Thiswasexactlytheprocedurethat
    seemstohavebeenfollowedbytheofficersoftheATS,becausethe
    officeoftheATSatKalachowkiisbythesideofthebuildingofthe
    PoliceStationKalachowki.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,volunteeredinhis
    crossexamination that seal of the Kalachowki Police Station was

    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

    corroborated his version and proved the contents of Ext.468.


    ThoughtherewasobjectionbylearnedadvocateShettyforreceiving
    itinevidenceonthegroundthatitisastatementunderSection161
    and not an FIR under Section 164 of the Cr. P. C., there is no
    submissionaboutitduringthearguments.Hiscrossexaminationon
    thispointhasnotdiscreditedhisversionandithasonlycomethat
    hesawthereportoftheCAon05/09/06intheKalachowkiUnit,
    thathewasnotgoingthroughthecasediaryofthiscaseeveryday
    andnooneinstructedhimtogivecomplaint.TheCAreportExt.469
    was shown to him and he admitted that it was received on
    11/08/06.Thoughhewasgiventhesuggestionthatthereisdelayin
    giving the complaint, his explanation earlier that he was not the
    investigating officer, but was a member of the investigating team
    andhadnotseenthecasepapersoftheinvestigationfrom11/08/06
    to05/09/06,showsthatinfactthereisnodelay.PSIRajan,PW107,
    corroborated the evidence given by both these witnesses on this
    aspect.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathereceivedtheletterdated
    05/09/06 from Addl. Commissioner of Police, ATS, Mumbai on
    09/09/06thattheblackpowderthatwasseizedfromthehouseof
    theA1wasRDXandashewasonleaveonthatday,PSIChaudhary
    madestationdiaryentry,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1097
    andlodgedformalFIRNo.102/06,certifiedcopyofwhichisatExt.
    1098andgavetheinvestigationtoPSIUpadhyay.Ithascomeinhis
    evidencethataspertheorderoftheSupremeCourtalltheoriginal
    papersweresenttotheATS,MumbaialongwiththeletterExt.30.
    Nowsomepositivestatementsmadebyhiminhiscrossexamination

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..671..

    Ext.4825

    are the best answers to the submissions by the learned advocate


    Shettythattheoffenceofpossessingexplosive,ifany,wasmadeout
    on20/07/06itselfatBasopattiandnotwhentheFSLreportwas
    received.Hestatedthathedidnotregisterthecaseon20/07/06as
    nocasewasmadeoutatthattimeandcorrectlyexplainedthatthe
    casewasmadeouton09/09/06whenhereceivedtheletterfrom
    Mumbaipolice.Hisspecificcrossexaminationonthispointhasnot
    revealedanythingandapositivestatementmadebyhimonceagain
    clarifies this aspect, that it is only when it is proved that some
    substanceisanexplosivesubstance,thenitbecomesanoffenceto
    possessitinhisjurisdiction.Hiscrossexaminationinparagraphs20
    and21isinrespectoftheformatoftheFIR,thedetailsthatareto
    befilledin,thepreparationoftheFIR,etc.,andhehasgivenallthe
    answersanddeniedthesuggestionthatthedateofsendingthecopy
    oftheFIRtothemagistrateisnotmentionedandpointedoutthatit
    isatthetoprightcornerofExt.1098.Thiswitnesshadbroughtto
    court the original first information register and he proved the
    contentsofthecopyExt.1098.Nothingadversehascomeoutfrom
    hiscrossexamination.

    654.

    Learned SPP then submitted that it is only at a later stage

    when the investigation progressed, when the provisions of the


    MCOCActwere appliedandtheclueswere received,thatitwas
    noticed that the RDX found in the house of the A1 could be
    connected to the present case and therefore it is a muddemal
    propertyinthiscaseandthereforetheapplicationwasmadetothe
    SupremeCourtandtheSupremeCourtpassedtheorderExt.29on

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..672..

    Ext.4825

    05/04/07. He has rightly submitted that this action of the ATS


    officers,shows thatthe actof the ATSwas notpreconceivedone
    donewithapredeterminedstateofmind.Italsoshowsthatthere
    wasnopredeterminedconceptaboutinvolvingtheA1inthiscase
    and therefore, the case was sent to Basopatti on 05/09/06, but
    finallyitwasrequiredtobecalledbackbyapplyingtotheSupreme
    Court.

    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.

    There is voluminous crossexamination to Sr. PI Rathod,

    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

    Fernandes, PW31, have stated something more in respect of the


    collection of the black powder, which is not written in the
    panchanama. They stated that they noticed black powder on the
    flooroftheuppercompartmentofaclothcupboardthatwashaving
    a zip. Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, stated that they did not get any

    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

    Sr.PIRathod,PW176,during hiscrossexamination inrespectof


    most of the evidence given by him being improvements over the
    statementthathegavetoACPPatil,PW186,whenhehandedover
    thepapersofhisinvestigationtohim.Themajorportionofhischief

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..678..

    Ext.4825

    examination was shown as omission to state before ACP Patil,


    PW186,butinmyhumbleopinion,Sr.PIRathod,PW176,isnotan
    ordinarywitness.HeisaninvestigatingofficerandIdonotthink
    thatanyonewillexpectaninvestigatingofficertogive adetailed
    statement about the investigation that he has done, more
    particularlyinsuchavoluminouscase.Itisfoolishtoexpectthis.
    The crossexamination in this respect from paragraphs 71 to 89
    consisting of as many as 35 pages is nothing but unnecessary
    burdeningoftherecord.LearnedSPPhasrightlysubmittedthatit
    was not at all necessary to record his statement as he was an
    investigating officer and with particular reference to a statement
    thatisrecordedundersection161oftheCr.P.C.,thelearnedSPP
    submitted that such statement is ordinarily recorded of a person
    supposedtobeacquaintedwiththefactsofthecase,whichmeansof
    apersonwhoisprivytoparticularfacts.Tomymind,recordingof
    statement under section 161 of the Cr. P. C. will not cover the
    statement of an investigating officer and ACP Patil, PW186, may
    havedonesotoapprisehimselfoftheinvestigationthatwasdone
    bySr.PIRathod,PW176.Inthisconnection,thelearnedSPPhas
    drawnmyattentiontotheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,that
    hegavehisstatementinbrieftoACPPatil,PW186,therefore,such
    omissions will not affect the truthfulness of what he deposed. In
    addition,itwillnotbeoutofplacetopointoutthatSr.PIRathod,
    PW176,hasveryattentivelygivenexplanationstosomequestions.
    Whateverhehadnotstatedhesaidso,whateverhehadstatedhe
    saidso,whateverhestatedinbriefconveyingthesamemeaninghe

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..679..

    Ext.4825

    statedandhealsoexplainedatplacesthatsomethingsarewritten
    inotherwords.Healsoexplainedthatthoughhestatedsomethings,
    ACPPatil,PW186,didnotwritethemsayingthattherearestation
    diaryentriesaboutit.Tomymind,theseexplanationsandcertain
    portionsfromhisstatementthatwerepointedout,haveclarifiedthis
    aspectandhasshownthattheallegedimprovementsandomissions
    areinfactnotsoandtheydonotaffecthisevidence.

    661.

    Ithas come in the evidenceof Sr.PIRathod,PW176,that

    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

    the packet and again repeated what he stated in the chief


    examination that PC More, PW42, went to police station
    Kalachowki,putthesealofthatpolicestationonthepacketandthe
    specimenofsealontheforwardingletteranditscopy.Contentsof
    Ext. 598 and the seal on Art.40C corroborate his version. It has
    alreadycomeinhiscrossexaminationthatthepacketwasnotgiven
    tohimon04/08/06,butitwasinthemalkhanaonthatdayandthis
    evidenceiscorroboratedbytheevidenceofPCMore,PW42.Hehad
    recorded the statement of PC More, PW42, and certain
    improvements were tried to be brought on record about the
    evidenceofPCMore,PW42,thathehadtoldtheinwardclerkof
    theCAofficethatthepacketisfromtheATSandasthereisnolac
    seal,thelabelcontainingthesignatureisaffixedonit,buthedid
    notacceptitandhetoldhimtogetthelacsealofanypolicestation
    ontheboxandthenhewouldacceptit,therefore,he,i.e.,PCMore,
    PW42, returned back and deposited the box with the muddemal
    clerk.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,explainedthatthisiswritteninother
    wordconcisely,viz.,thatitiswrittenthatwhenhewenttoKalina,
    the officer there returned it as the box did not have lac seal,
    therefore, he brought it back, made station diary entry and
    depositedtheboxwiththemuddemal.Thus,infacttheevidenceof
    PCMore,PW42,aboutwhathadhappenedon03/08/06isnotby
    way of improvement,but it is explaining the events of what had
    happenedonthatday.Sr.PIRathod,PW176,statedthathehad
    handedoverthe original andthe office copyof forwarding letter
    dated03/08/06toACPPatil,PW186,whichareatExts.601(1and

    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.

    PC More, PW42, has corroborated the evidence of Sr. PI

    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.

    In connection with the photocopy of the agreement of that

    flat/room between the A3 and flat owner Sajid, PW48, Sr. PI


    Rathod,PW176,statedthataspertheagreementExt.537,partof
    theamountwastobepaidbycashandpartbycheque,therefore,he

    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

    Shah Faisal Alam, in whose statement it had come that A3 was


    arrestedbyCrimeBranchon21/07/06andhequestionsastowhy
    the accused had not been produced immediately before any
    magistratethoughhewasarrestedsixdaysbefore.Thissubmission
    obviouslycannotbeconsideredbecauselearnedadvocateisplacing
    relianceontheevidencegivenbySr.PIRathod,PW176,inrespect
    ofthestatementofawitnessthatwasrecordedundersection161of
    theCr.P.C.aboutwhich,tomymind,noevidencecanbegivenor
    theevidencegivenaboutitcannotbeconsidered.Thedefencedid
    notasktheprosecutiontoexaminethiswitnessanddidnotsummon
    himasadefencewitness.Ontheotherhand,ifthecoveringletter
    and the certified true copy of station diary Exts. 1942 and 1943
    respectivelyareperusedtheydonotindicate thatthe A3andA9
    werearrestedbytheCrimeBranchon21/07/06.Thecoveringletter
    Ext. 1942 reveals that on the basis of reliable information the
    inquirywasmadewiththeA3andA9anditwasrevealedthatthey
    areconnectedwiththeLeTorganisationandhadillegallyentered
    Pakistanandtookthetrainingofdisruptiveactivitiesand,therefore,
    theyaretakenincustodyandarebeinghandedovertotheATSfor
    furtheraction.Thecontentsofthestationdiaryentryareinmore
    detail.ItshowsthatontheinquirythatwasmadewiththeA3and
    A9,itwasrevealedthattheyhadenteredPakistanviaIranandhad
    obtained the training of operating automatic weapons, preparing
    bombs,explodingbombsandtorecruitandtrainnewmembers.It
    wasalsorevealedthattheyhadenteredintoabigconspiracytodo
    bomb blasts in Mumbai and other places and as a part of that

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..688..

    Ext.4825

    conspiracy they might have committed the bomb blasts in the


    westernrailwaysandthereforetheyhavebeentakenincustody.Itis
    nodoubttruethatSr.PIRathod,PW176,admittedthathedidnot
    record the statement of any officer of the Crime Branch in
    connectionwiththeinquirythattheyhadmade,butexplainedthat
    hedidnotfeelitnecessary,therefore,hedidnotrecordthemanda
    positivestatementwasmadebyhimthatPIHargudeandDabhade
    oftheCrimeBranchhadtakenthemincustodyonsuspicionoftheir
    involvement in the bomb blasts case. He was suggested and he
    admittedthatexceptthisfactnootherdetailsarementionedinthe
    letterandinthestationdiary,buttomymind,whatmoredetails
    were expected in view of the contents of the station diary
    reproducedabove.Thus,thisaspectdoesnotaffectthecredibilityof
    theinvestigationdonebyhimandevenotherwiseitisanactionthat
    waspriortothearrestbytheofficersoftheATS.Italsoshowsthat
    theCrimeBranchsatisfieditselfabouttheinvolvementoftheA3
    andA9andtheyhadsuspicionandthereforetheyhandedoverboth
    theaccusedtotheATS.

    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

    cotton swabs was compulsory and in the absence of this, the

    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.

    Next submission by the learned advocate is that the panch

    witness Sanford Fernandes, PW31, has stated that there was no


    nameplateontheflatandtherewasnoterraceonthethirdfloor,
    whichistotallycontradictorytotheevidenceoftheownerofthat
    flat,whichshowsthathehadnotgonethere.Idonotthinkthat
    such an inference can be drawn merely because there was no
    nameplate on the door of the flat or because Sanford Fernandes,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..693..

    Ext.4825

    PW31,erredinstatingthattherewasnoterraceonthethirdfloor.

    671.

    Next submission is that according to the panch witness

    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.

    Next submission by the learned advocate is that no person

    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

    the sealing material with them to make the evidence watertight.


    Hence,Idonotfindanysubstanceinthesubmissionofthelearned
    advocate.

    674.

    Learnedadvocatehaspointedouttoanotheraspect,viz.,it

    hascomeintheevidencethatafterthesearch,theflatwaslocked
    andthepolicemankeptthekeyinhispocket,butitwasnotputin
    anenvelopeandthiswasdonetopressurisetheowneroftheflat,
    i.e.,Sajid,PW48,togiveevidenceaspertheirdictates.Thereisno
    suggestiontoeitherSr.PIRathod,PW176,orSajid,PW48,inthis
    respectandonecannotdrawsuchaninference.

    675.

    Nextsubmissionbythelearnedadvocateisthatassumingthat

    the A3 had taken the flat on 20/07/05, then the period of


    agreementin Ext.632is of11months,i.e.,from21/07/05upto
    20/06/06,andthereisnoevidencetoshowthatthisagreementwas
    renewed.Thissubmissionisoverlookingtheaspectthatinthatcase
    itwasfortheA3tofirstcomeoutandsaythathehadtakentheflat
    onrentaspertheagreementandhadhandedoverthepossessionon
    20/06/06oronanyotherdate,butbeforethesearchwasconducted
    on28/07/06.ThereisnocrossexaminationonthispointtoSr.PI
    Rathod,PW176,orSajid,PW48,andnosuggestionhasbeengiven
    thattheA3wasnotinpossessionthoughasalesseeholdingover
    after the expiry of the period of the lease agreement. Mere
    submissionsarenotsufficientandthisfactwouldhavetohavebeen
    admittedandthentheA3shouldhavecomewithaspecificcasethat
    hehadgivenuppossession.

    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.

    The above sums up the attack by the learned advocate in

    respect of the evidence of the search and seizure. Sr. PI Rathod,


    PW176, denied the suggestion about planting black powder or
    concoctingtheevidenceandontheotherhandapositivestatement
    hascomeinhiscrossexaminationthathedidnotvisitLuckyVilla,
    BandrapriortothearrestoftheA3orafterhisarrest,butpriorto
    hishousesearch.Thispracticallyclearsanydoubtabouttheveracity
    oftheevidenceinrespectofthesearchandrecoveryoftheRDX
    from the house of the A3. Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, has candidly
    admittedthathedidnottakecottonswabswiththemandpositive
    statementsaremadethathehadsentPCJagdalebuckleno.1956to
    bringthecottonandhebroughtthebundleofcottonandthatitwas
    PSI Kshirsagar, who collected the powder by the swabs. These
    positivestatementshaveinfactgiventhedetailsthatSr.PIRathod,
    PW176,didnotwriteinthepanchanamaExt.533.

    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.

    The crossexamination of Sanford Fernandes, PW31, by

    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

    rightly submitted that it is not the case of the defence and it is


    practically impossible that some Saudi Riyals are brought and
    dumpedinthehouseoftheA3andatthatstageoftheinvestigation
    atleastnobodycouldhaveenvisagedthatthiscircumstanceexistsor
    ifitexists,itwillbecrucialtonailtheaccused.Tomymind,the
    recoveryofSaudiRiyalswasveryveryearlyinthedaytodrawthe
    inference of planting and fabrication. Learned SPP submits that
    threeveryveryimportantincriminatingcircumstancesarisefromthe
    housesearchoftheA3,i.e.,(a)blackpowderthatturnedouttobe
    RDX,(b)recoveryofSaudiRiyalsand(c)theinternationalmapon
    whicharoutewasmarkedaswellasthemapofMumbaihaving
    marks at specific places. He submits that alongwith this if the
    recoveryofleaveandlicenceagreement,whichprimafacieindicates
    that a different flat other than the residence of the accused was

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..703..

    Ext.4825

    takenonrentatsomeotherplaceaboutoneyearbeforetheblastsis
    considered, it shows that it was the start of the long drawn out
    conspiracy.

    686.

    In my humble opinion, no inference about fabrication and

    plantingoftheRDX,books,SaudiRiyalsandmapscanbedrawnas
    the investigating machinery was just seventeen days in the
    investigationanditcannotbevisualizedthatonlyoneinvestigating
    officer,outofseven,hatchedaconspiracyoffabricatingtheevidence
    liketheSaudiRiyals,thebooksandthemapsandplantingitonthe
    A3andtheotheraccusedinthiscase.

    687.

    Learned SPP submits that the evidence of Sr. PI Rathod,

    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

    Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, as well as the panch witness Sanford


    Fernandes,PW31,inrespectoftherecoveryofthearticlesother
    thantheRDX,isacogentandconvincingevidence.Hence,itwill
    havetobeheldthattheprosecutionhasprovedthaton28/07/06,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..704..

    Ext.4825

    15000SaudiRiyals,booksrelatingtoSIMIArts.150to152,mapof
    MumbaiArt.153andphotocopyofinternationalmapArt.161Ext.
    1486,werefoundintheflatinpossessionoftheA3. Thisisthe
    circumstanceno.9provedbytheprosecution. Itisagainstthe
    A3.Itisthefourthcircumstanceagainsthim.

    689.

    Next in time is the recovery of three chemical bottles

    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

    government vehicle. This aspect does not affect his credibility


    becausethepossibilitycannotberuledoutthatthevehiclebeinga
    vehicleofaspecializedagency,liketheATS,mightnotbebearing
    theidentificationofapolicevehiclelikenameoranybeaconlight,
    etc.LearnedadvocateWahabKhansubmittedthatithascomeinthe
    crossexaminationofthiswitnessthatthepolicedidnotshowhim
    thearticlesthattheyhadtakenwiththemwhentheyleftthepolice
    stationandthattheyhadacarrybagwiththem,whichwasinthe
    handsofaconstableandpolicedidnotoffertheirsearchestothem
    anddidnottaketheirsearches.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatin
    thisconnectionPSIGaikwad,PW169,statedthatpanchastooktheir
    searches,butdidnotfindanything,whichisinconsistentwiththe
    evidence of this witness. Obviously, he is reading part of the
    sentence because whatPSIGaikwad,PW169,stated in his cross
    examinationisthatthepanchasdidnotfindanyobjectionablething,
    whichisdifferentfromnotfindinganythingandontheotherhand
    hehasspecificallystatedthatthearticlesrequiredforseizurelike
    thread,papers,envelopes,polythenebags,etc.,werewiththemand
    Sr.PIRathod,PW176,hasalsoendorsedthisbystatingthatthey
    tookpackingandsealingmaterialwiththemandonhisaskingthe
    panchastooktheirsearchesandthesearchofthevehicle.Ofcourse,
    ChandrakantShigwan,PW17,didnotadmitthis,butPSIGaikwad,
    PW169,hasalsospecificallystated.ThecrossexaminationofSr.PI
    Rathod,PW176,hasalsonotrevealedanythingsoastodiscredithis
    versionandmostofitisinthenatureofafishingexpeditionabout
    entriesinrespectoftakingouttheaccusedfromthelockup,giving

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..709..

    Ext.4825

    memo to the lockup incharge, making station diary entry about


    takingtheA2,aboutcallingstationdiaryentryregistertoBhoiwada
    fromKalachowkioffice,etc.ItisinthisrespectthatthelearnedSPP
    pointedouttothecontemporaneousrecordbywayofstationdiary
    entry Ext. 1803, which was prepared after the accused gave the
    statementandhismemorandumwaspreparedandExt.1804when
    theyreturnedwiththeseizedarticles,thecontentsofwhichisthat
    afterreturning,thepropertywasdepositedwiththemuddemalclerk
    andregisteredatsr.no.54/06.

    692.

    In connection with the seizure of the three bottles of

    chemicals, the answers given by Dr. Atiya, PW53, in her cross


    examinationarerelieduponbythelearnedadvocatefortheaccused
    tosaythattherewasnosuchrecoveryandthebottleshavebeen
    foistedontheaccused.Hepointsouttotheevidencegivenbythe
    witnessthatshedoesnotknowhowthepoliceopenedthelocker
    because she was not present at that time and she denied the
    suggestiongivenbythelearnedSPPthattheaccusedtookoutakey
    frombelowthebedandopenedthesecondlockerfromthemiddle
    rowandtookoutthearticlesthatwereseized.Hepointsouttothe
    answersinhercrossexaminationthatshedidnotseewhotookout
    thekey,whotookoutthearticlesfromthelockerandwhatarticles
    weretakenoutandthatpolicedidnotinvolveherintheprocedure
    of search by asking her to remain present when the locker was
    openedandthatthepanchanamawasnotpreparedinherpresence
    nor any person signed on it in her presence,etc. Thoughhe has
    reliedontheseanswers,tomymind,herrelevantevidenceisthat

    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

    that there is a difference between what is stated in the remand


    applicationsandwhatisactuallyrecoveredunderthepanchanama
    fromtheA2,butthatalonewillnotleadtotheinferencethatwhat
    was easily available in the market was planted on the A2. If, as
    alleged by the defence, RDX was also planted on some of the
    accused,itwasnotdifficultforaprimeagencyliketheATStosecure
    NitricAcidandAmmoniumNitrateandtoplantitontheA2.Thus
    thissubmissiondoesnotholdwater.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthat
    noneofthesechemicalscomewithinthepurviewoftheExplosive
    Substances Act or the Explosives Act and has pointed out to the
    evidenceofsanctioningauthorityValsaSingh,PW151,inparagraph
    10ofhercrossexaminationthatthesethreechemicalscouldbeused
    in hospitals. To my mind, this is one of the use of which the
    chemicalscanbeputto,buttheCAhasopinedaswellasAPIRevle,
    PW154,hasgivenevidenceastoforwhatotherpurposethesaid
    chemicalscanbeused.

    696.

    Ameaninglesssubmissionwasmadebythelearnedadvocate

    that if the evidence of Chandrakant Shigwan, PW17, is seen, it


    showsthatthechemicalbottleswerenotinsealedconditionandit
    isonlythecartonthatisfoundtobesealed,whichisnotmentioned
    inthepanchanamaExt.458.MeaninglessIsaidbecausethethree
    boxesinwhichthebottlesofchemicalswereputandsealedhad
    beensenttotheCAforanalysisandtheymusthavebeenopened
    there. During the evidence of Chandrakant Shigwan, PW17, a
    sealedcartononwhichawhitelabeldtd.16/12/06ispastedand
    which describes C. R. No. 77 of 2006 and the other details, was

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..714..

    Ext.4825

    openedanditwas found to contain three open boxes containing


    labelsandthreebottles,oneineachbox.ThebottlesareArts.34,35
    and36andtheboxesareArts.34A,35Aand36A.Hehasidentified
    hissignaturesonthelabelsonallthethreeboxesandsignaturesof
    otherpanchandofthepoliceofficerbytheside.Nowthesealed
    cartoninwhichthethreeboxescontainingthreebottleswerefound
    is Art. 36C and its label is Art. 36D. The label is describing the
    contents, viz., that the chemicals in the three bottles that were
    recoveredattheinstanceoftheA2weresenttoCAandthereafter
    thechemicalshavebeendestroyedandtheemptybottlesalongwith
    thepackingareinthebox.Thelabelalsobearssomemarkingsof
    redlacsealonboththesidesandtheboxwasapparentlypackedby
    brownpackingtapeonallthesides.Perusalofrecordshowsthat
    articles were produced by the prosecution by the list Ext.16 on
    14/12/06 and by the application Ext.17 learned SPP applied for
    destroying corrosive chemicals. My learned predecessor Mrs.
    MridulaBhatkar (nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)
    madeanotingthatthreebottlesofthethreechemicalsarebefore
    thecourt,theybeingcorrosiveinnatureareallowedtobedestroyed
    and report of destruction be submitted and bottles be preserved.
    Hence,thepacketofthreebottleswerereturnedtotheinvestigating
    officer and as per the report Ext.18 filed on 26/12/06 the
    investigatingofficersubmittedthereportofdestructionalongwith
    panchanama.Thus,thisaspectisclearedbytheabovenoting.Thus
    thissubmissionisofnoconsequence.

    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

    in respect of the source of the bottles from where the A2 had


    obtainedthem or purchased them.To my mind,the bottles were
    factory packed containing the description of their contents
    alongwiththenameofthecompany.Thus,therewasnoneedforthe
    investigatingofficertodoanyfurtherinvestigationaspossessionof
    thesechemicalsisadmittedlynotanoffenceunderanyActinview
    ofthemedicinalanddomesticusethattheycanbeputto.

    701.

    Learned advocate submits that the A2 in his evidence as

    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.

    Then comes the most important recovery, which is of the

    investigatingofficernoticingblackandwhitespotsontheinnerside
    ofawoodenboxbedinthehouseoftheA6,samplesofwhichwere
    takenandwhichturnedouttobeRDX.

    704.

    It has come in the evidence of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, that

    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

    called at Shivaji Nagar, Govandi and if it is so written in the


    panchanama then it is wrong. Of course, his answers about the
    locality in which the house of the A6 is situated and about the
    articlesinthehouseoftheA6provesthathehadgonetothehouse
    oftheaccusedonthatdayandthedetailsthathegavearepositive
    sentencesincrossexaminationthatarecorroboratedbythecontents
    ofthepanchanamaExt.716.Ithascomeinhischiefexamination
    thatthe cotton swabs were firstwettedandthenthe stains were
    scrubbed, but in crossexamination he specifically denied the
    suggestion that the cotton swabs were entirely wetted and his
    statementearlierthatthestainsdidnotgoawayafterthe swabs
    weretakenshowsthatheisatruthfulwitness.Hecorrectlystated
    thatofficerShengalaskedthewomantotaketheirsearchesasis
    mentionedinthepanchanamaandthoughitisnotmentionedinthe
    panchanama, he made a positive statement that other than the
    woman,the accusedwas askedthere whether he wantedtotake
    theirsearches.Inrespectofthecookerhespecificallystatedthatit
    was a new and unused cooker,which he had stated in his chief
    examination. The crossexamination by learned advocate Wahab
    Khan,thatwasdoneon14/12/10,ismainlyinrespectofhehaving
    acted as a panch witness earlier in the cases of Bhoiwada Police
    Station as well as of the ATSandhe candidly admittedall these
    thingsandalsoadmittedinhisfurthercrossexaminationthatwas
    doneon07/01/11,abouthavingactedasapanchwitnessforsome
    morepanchanamasfortheKalachowkiPoliceStationaswellasfor
    theATS.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    707.

    ..727..

    Ext.4825

    ItisthisaspectofPritamMhatre,PW58,havingactedasa

    panch witnesses in many earlier cases,on the basis of which the


    credibilityofhisevidenceistriedtobeimpeachedallegingthatheis
    ahabitualpanchwitnessofthepoliceandATSand,therefore,the
    evidence of search and seizure is not reliable. In this respect the
    learnedSPPhassubmittedthatirrespectiveofhisevidenceandde
    horshisevidenceandevenifthecourtcomestotheconclusionthat
    theevidenceofPritamMhatre,PW58,isabitshaky,forthereasons
    thathehasactedasapanchwitnessfortheATSearlier,theevidence
    of Shaikh Hazrat Ali, DW4, brother of the A6 has proved the
    panchanama. Therefore, the evidence of Pritam Mhatre, PW58,
    beingabitshakydoesnotaffectthecaseoftheprosecutionabout
    thesearchandseizure.HepointedouttotheevidenceofShaikh
    HazratAli,DW4,statingthathehasstatedonlyabouttheeventsof
    8, 9 and 10/07/06, but it is in his crossexamination that he
    admittedthatpolicehadcometohishouseafterhisbrotherwas
    arrested,thatitistruethattheyhadcomeon29/09/06atabout
    9.00 p.m. and this is important, that they had taken something.
    Though he stated further that no panchanama was prepared he
    admittedthatduringtheperiodofoneandhalfhourssomepolice
    werestandingoutside,somewereinsidethehouseandtheywere
    writingsomething.HeadmittedthesignatureoftheA6attheendof
    Ext.716andstatedthatitistruethathehadsignedwhenthepolice
    hadcome.Thus,thisevidenceleavesnoroomofdoubtaboutthe
    evidenceofPritamMhatre,PW58,beingatruthfulevidenceandby
    hisevidenceandtheevidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,prosecution

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..728..

    Ext.4825

    has proved the contents of the panchanama Ext.716 beyond any


    shadow of doubt. Further the contemporaneous record, i.e., the
    stationdiaryentries,Exts.1720and1721,alsoprovethisfact.

    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.

    Learned advocate submitted that PI Khanvilkar, PW168, is

    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

    the panch witness Pritam Mhatre, PW58, does not inspire


    confidence,thatthepanchanamaisnotapanchanamaundersection
    27 of the Evidence Act, therefore, it was necessary for the
    prosecution to examine the inmates of the house. Of course, the
    defenceisentitledtosaythattheevidenceofPritamMhatre,PW58,
    isnotreliable,buthowcouldtheprosecutionexaminetheinmates
    ofthehouseandwhoaretheinmates?Theywerewifeandbrother
    of the accused and their statements have been recorded, but
    obviouslytheywouldnothavesupportedtheprosecution.

    712.

    Next submission of the learned advocate is that the

    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.

    Next submission by the learned advocate is that the

    prosecution was not prevented from producing the malkhana


    registerextractsandexaminingclerkoftheATStoprovethatallthe
    articlesweredepositedthereimmediatelyaftertheirseizure.Inthis
    respectthecontentsofthestationdiaryentryno.22,certifiedcopy
    ofwhichisatExt.1721,aboutreturnofthepolicepartythathad
    goneforsearchareselfspeaking.Attheenditisnotedthatthe
    exhibits, i.e., cotton swabs and pressure cooker, were stored vide
    MM No. 63/06. ACP Patil, PW186, also deposed that the said
    articlesweredepositedinmuddemalroom.Ithascomeinhiscross
    examination in paragraph 180 that the ATS malkhana is in the
    Kalachowkioffice.Theycallitmuddemalroomandthemuddemal
    registeris maintainedthere,butdeniedthe suggestion thatsome
    seized articles are not taken from Kalachowki office. Except this
    thereisnothing.Thisoralanddocumentaryevidencehasnotbeen
    controverted. Thus this submission is of no avail and it does not
    affecttheevidencegivenbytheprosecutionbecauseeventheoffice
    oftheFSLfoundthesealsputonthepacketstobeintactandthat
    evidenceisalsonotcontroverted.

    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.

    The lastsubmission is that ShaikhHazratAli,DW4,stated

    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.

    Learned SPP in his submission pointed out the aspect of

    differentcolours of the stainsindicating thatthere weredifferent


    colouredpowdersstoredthere,whichisunliketheotherdiscoveries
    whereonlyblackstainswerefoundandpointedouttothereportof
    the CA that shows that the swabs of the white coloured stains
    containAmmonium,NitrateandtracesofCyclonite.Hesubmitsthat
    the line of crossexamination was to show that the place was
    crowdedandonly23personscouldhavesatontheground,butthe
    crossexaminationofSr.PITajne,PW161,andothersdoesnotshow
    thatitwassosmallplace.

    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

    cooker whistles, some electric wires, circuits and plastic bags on


    which Cyclonite (RDX) was detected and it was found that the
    electroniccircuitwiththeelectronicdevicecouldbeusedtoforma
    triggering device, at the instance of the A3. It has come in the
    evidence of PI Tonapi, PW155, that when the A3 was being
    interrogated at the Juhu Unit by him and ACP Dhawale, PI
    Deshmukh and staff on 08/10/06, he volunteered to make a
    voluntarystatement,therefore,twopanchaswerecalledbyoneHC
    Patil,theywereexplainedthebrieffactsofthecase,theyconsented,
    they were taken to the room where the accused was kept, the
    accusedgavehisnameandmadeavoluntarystatementthatheis
    readytoshowtheplacewherehehadthrownremainingarticleslike
    pressurecookerrings,whistles,circuits,whilegoingtoMiraRoadby
    trainandhe,i.e.,PITonapi,PW155,wrotethememorandumofhis
    statement Ext. 1108 made by the A3 and the statement of the
    accused in Hindi verbatim. Panch witness Kirtiraj Dalvi, PW109,
    corroboratedhisverisionandevenstatedspecificallythataperson
    bynamePatilstoppedhimonthatdaywhenhehadgonetothe

    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.

    The evidence of PI Tonapi, PW155, about the search and

    seizure has not been discredited by his crossexamination. Some


    qeustions were asked by learned advocate Wahab Khan about
    possession andmovementof the seal andpositive statements are
    madebyhiminparagraph12thatbrasssealswerereceivedbyall
    units in August, 2006 by an allotment letter. He denied the

    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

    that the names of these officers are mentionedtherein alongwith


    buckle numbers of the subordinate staff and infact it is ACP
    Dhawale,whosignedonboththedocuments,whichwerewrittenby
    PITonapi,PW155,himself.Ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationin
    paragraph21thathe reached at Chandanchowki at8.00 or 8.30
    a.m.andwhenhereachedthereACPDhawaleandPIDeshmukh
    wereinterrogatingtheA3,whowasalreadythereandansweringthe
    questions,butthepanchaswerenotpresentatthattime.Nowinhis
    crossexaminationbylearnedadvocateShettyhewasagainaskedas
    towhenhereachedChandanchowkiofficeonthatdayandhestated
    thathedoesnotremembertheexacttime,butitmustbebetween
    8.00to8.30p.m.,whichisobviouslyinconsistentwithhisanswerin
    paragraph 21. An attempt was made to show that he was not
    present for the said search and seizure by asking him questions
    abouthisknowledgeastowhentheA3wasarrested,sincehowlong
    hewasincustody,whetherheattendedtheremandwork,whether
    any identification parade was conducted, but all these things are
    irrelvantinsofarasheisconcerned.Hereiteratedwhathestatedin
    chiefexaminationthattheaccusedhadexpressedhisdesiretomake
    avoluntarystatementandACPDhawaleaskedhimtoarrangefor
    thepanchasandtherafterhetoldheadconstabletobringpanchas.
    Thatheadconstableis one HCPatil as perhis evidence in chief
    examination.Hegavethenamesandthenumberofstaffmembers
    presentwhentheaccusedmadeastatement.Hewasinquiredabout
    hisknowledgeastowheretheA3wasdetainedfrom03/10/06to
    06/10/06andwhetherhewastakenbeforeaDCPforrecordinghis

    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

    Tonapi, PW155, as well as Kirtiraj Dalvi, PW109, about police


    askingthepanchastotaketheirsearchesandsearchofthevehicle
    andthisbeingnotmentionedinthepanchanama.Headmittedthat
    itisnotsowrittenanditisalsonotwrittenthattheytookthesearch
    anddidnotfindanythingobjectionableexcepttheinvestigationkit
    andsealingmaterial.Forthis,hegaveaverygoodexplanationthat
    as the search is routine practice, it was not written. His cross
    examinationaboutthespothasnotrevealedanythingadverse,but
    ontheotherhand,ithasshownhisknowledgeaboutthelocality
    andtheconditionsofthespot.Hecandidlyadmittedthattherings
    likeArt.331andwhistlelike Art.332are easilyavailable in the
    marketinutensilsshopandhevolunteeredthattheringswerenot
    submergedin mud,butthe plastic bagcontaining the ringswere
    submergedinmud.HecouldnotsaywhetherthecircuitArt.334
    andthecordattachedtoitisofamobileandcandidlyadmittedthat
    wireslikeArts.333(1to5)areeasilyavailableinanyelectrical
    shop.Hewasgivenanironscaleandaskedtomeasurethewires
    and the measurements were recorded. Finally, he denied the
    suggestionthatA3didnotmakeanyvoluntarystatementanddid
    notleadthemtoanyplaceandallthesearticleswerenotrecovered
    athisinstance.

    724.

    In my humble opinion, the crossexamination of PI Tonapi,

    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

    Nothing was revealed in his crossexamination by learned

    advocate Rasal to shake his testimony and on the other hand


    positivestatementshavecomeonrecordthatthearticlesweretaken
    outfromthebagintheclearingandtheywenttothevehicleafter
    about1hourand15minutesafterthebagwasfoundandtheywere
    eightpeopleatthespot.Hisstatementthatitwillnotbecorrectto
    saythatconstructionofabuildingcomplexwasgoingonanditwas
    visiblefromthespotcanbeunderstoodifoneconsidersthatthebag
    containing the articles that were found was thrown sometime in
    July, whereas the recovery was made three months thereafter in
    October, till that time the building must have been completed,
    becausehisnextsentenceisthattherewasonlyonebuildingthere
    andastherewasnoonethere,theofficerdidnotinquirewithany
    person.CrossexaminationbythelearnedadvocateWahabKhanin
    respect of Pan card and his work as labour contractor is already
    discussed as being irrelevant and in further crossexamination he
    madepositivestatementthattheaccuseddidnotsignbeforehimin
    the ATS office, but he signed when he received the copy of the
    panchanamaandthiswasnotatthespotwheretherecoverywas
    made.Thisclearstheevidenceofboththewitnessesbecausethey
    deposed inconsistently,i.e., this witness stating that photocopy of
    thepanchanamawasgiventotheaccusedwhentheyreturnedback
    totheofficeandPITonapi,PW155,statingthatitwasgiventohim
    aftertheycameoutofthespotbyobtainingaphotocopyfroma
    nearbyshopandbeforetheysatinthevehicle.Thoseinconsistencies
    apart,thefactremainsthatgivingaphotocopytotheaccusedisnot

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..748..

    Ext.4825

    challenged by the accused denying his signature thereon. The


    witness was not ready to give his personal details like pan card
    number,natureofbusiness,etc.,whichtomymind,wasirrelevant
    and not necessary unless it could have been shown that he was
    doingsuchabusinessthatwouldhaveaffectedhisevidence.Hewas
    given a baseless suggestion that he signed on readymade
    panchanamaasheisaninformerwitnessoftheATS.

    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

    there is no evidence about it, but this possibility remains and as


    mentionedearlier,exceptthisinconsistency,thedescriptionofallthe
    remainingarticlesisperfectandisaccordingtotheirdescriptionin
    thepanchanama.Tomymind,this alonewillnotcastanydoubt
    aboutthematerialproducedbeforethecourtparticularlywhenit
    wasdulypacked,labeledandsealed,whentheywereputinthefive
    separate plastic bags andwhen the CA has foundthe five sealed
    parcelswithsealsintactandaspercopiessent,asperthecontents
    ofthereportExt.973,whichevidencehasnotbeenchallenged.The
    contentsoftheforwardingletterExt.972andtheFSLreportsExts.
    973and974andtheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,andPCSantosh
    Salunkhe, PW97, has also proved that the seized articles were
    carried in the same form in which they were found in sealed
    conditionandthesealedpacketsreceivedfromtheFSLhavebeen
    openedinopencourtduringtheevidenceofpanchwitness Kirtiraj
    Dalvi,PW109,andthesealedpacketshavebeenidentifiedduring
    theevidenceofPCSantoshSalunkhe,PW97.Hence,thisaspectof
    thematterdoesnotaffectthecredibilityoftheevidenceaboutthe
    searchandseizure.

    730.

    Learned advocate submits that the police custody of the

    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

    memorandum Ext.1108 at the end of paragraph 1 are police


    requestedustoactaspanchwitnesstothevoluntarystatementof
    theaccusedandsubsequentdiscoveryifanytowhichweagreed
    showsthatthepolicehadpriorknowledgeastowhatarticleswere
    to be discovered and in his submissions if the articles that were
    discoveredareknownthenitcannotbeadmissibleundersection27
    oftheEvidenceActandcannotbereliedupon.Inrespectofthis
    submission,learnedSPPsubmittedthathedoesnotunderstandwhy
    these things are asked and submits that the A3 was being
    interrogatedforlongandthereforethereisnothingwrongifitis
    writteninthememorandumandsubsequentdiscoveryifany.It
    hascomeintheevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,thattheaccusedhad
    volunteeredtomake astatementand,tomymind,obviouslythe
    policeknowthatgenerallyvoluntarystatementsmadebyaccused
    arefollowedbydiscoveriesandrecoveries.Hence,thereisnothing
    wronginwritingthisinthememorandumandthisaspectdoesnot
    meanthatthepoliceknewwhatweretobethearticlesthatwereto
    bediscovered.

    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

    the cogent evidence of PI Tonapi, PW155, Kirtiraj Dalvi, PW109


    and the contents of the memorandum Ext. 1108 and seizure
    panchanama Ext. 1109, which corroborate their version, the
    prosecutionhadprovedtheseizureofthearticlesdescribedaboveat
    theinstanceoftheA3.Thisisthecircumstanceno.12provedby
    the prosecution. Itis

    against the A3.


    Itis the fifthcircumstance

    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

    police officers are not technical experts to chalk out a plan of


    plantingsuchtypeofarticlesinordertoshowtherecoveryofsuch
    typeofarticlessubsequentlyfromtheA7andtolinkthemwiththis
    recovery.Therewasnoreasonforthemtowaitforsolongbecause
    theycouldhaveshownthisrecoveryimmediatelyafterthearrestof
    theaccusedon28/07/06thattoofromhishousealongwithfindings
    oftheblackpowder,whichturnedouttobeRDX.

    735.

    Furtherstepin the investigation concerning the recoveryof

    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

    examined,but the panchwitness SimonDevinadan,PW120, was


    examinedandhedeposedaspertheevidencegivenbyPITonapi,
    PW155,identifiedtheletterExt.1258,deliverychallanArts.340
    and341andprovedthecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.1259.He
    identifiedhissignaturesonthelabelsontheenvelopesArts.342B
    and343AandalsoidentifiedtheKanchanCompanypolythenebag
    Art.342AthatcontainsgasketArt.342andwhistleArt.343.His
    crossexaminationhasnotdiscreditedhisversionandthereareno
    submissionsabouthisevidence.Ontheotherhandheunhesitatingly
    gavetheaddresswherehehadgonetoJuhuonthatdayfromhis
    residenceinVasaianddescribedthelocalityofthefactoryaswellas
    thedetailsoftheeventsthathappenedandapositivesentencehas
    comeinhiscrossexaminationthatpolicedidnotcarryanyarticle
    withthemlikethegasketandwhistlesArts.342and343whenthey
    wenttothefactory.Howsuchquestionwasaskedisitselfaquestion
    inmymindandtheonlyinconsistentthingthathestatedthatno
    portion of the panchanama was written till they left the
    Chandanchowki Police Station. This does not affect his evidence
    about the search and seizure considering the fact that no
    antecedents or connection with the police have been shown. PI
    Tonapi,PW155,identifiedtheirsignaturesandalsoidentifiedthe
    articles, i.e.,whistle Art. 343 andthe plastic bag of the Kanchan
    CookerCompanycontainingthepressurecookerringArt.342A.He
    alsoprovedthecontentsofthetruephotocopiesofthestationdiary
    entriesno.11and17,Ext.1668(twopages).Ithascomeinthe
    evidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thathesentthesaidarticlestothe

    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.

    Nextin timeis therecoveryofwhite powder,granules,ten

    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

    panchas were called. He proved the contents of the said


    memorandumandthenbeforeproceeding for going tothe place,
    whichthe accusedwas going toshow,he made the station diary
    entry no. 8, contents of which he proved and true photocopy of
    whichisatExt.1722.Hethendeposedaboutgoingtoflatno.101,
    thatwasshownbytheaccusedinthe'A'WingofPoonamParkin
    NayaNagar,HaidarChowkandgaveevidenceaboutthesearchand
    seizureofthearticles,whichisdescribedindetailinparagraph161
    of the judgement. He proved the contents of the seizure
    panchanama Ext. 665 and it has come in his evidence that the
    photocopyofthepanchanamawasobtained,giventotheaccused
    andhissignaturewasobtainedonthepanchanama.Inhisevidence,
    hehasstatedaboutdrawingtwosamplesof10gramseach,Arts.
    280and283,fromtheplasticbagcontainingwhitegranules,putting
    theminsmallseparateplasticpouches,labelingandsealingthem.
    Healsodeposedaboutfindingoftenaluminumtubesjoinedwith
    wires,Arts.281(colly),whichwerefoundtobedetonatorsandkept
    theminplasticbottlesandlabeledandsealedthemalso.Ithasalso
    comeinhisevidencethattherexinebagArt.279wasalsoseized.
    Healsodeposedaboutseizureoftheotherarticles,whicharenot
    much material except for the key Art. 299. It has come in his
    evidence that he returned back to the ATS office, reported the
    seizure to the chief investigating officer, gave him the original
    panchanamaandthearticlesandmadestationdiaryentryno.13,
    contentsofwhichheprovedandtruephotocopyofwhichisatExt.
    1723.Ithasalsocomeinhisevidencethatduringthesearchand

    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

    hiswork,aboutthe panchJitendraJain,butallthis is notmuch


    relevant and nothing has come on record to show that he is a
    regular panch witness. A positive statement was made by him in

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..763..

    Ext.4825

    connection with his business of stationery that he never supplied


    stationerytotheATSoffice.HeisaresidentofBhandupanditisin
    hisevidencethatonthatdayhewasgoingtowardsApanaBazar
    fromGovindKeniRoad,Naigaon.Whenaskedastohowhewasat
    Naigaon on that day, he explained and this has come in cross
    examination,thathisbrotherhasaroominNaigaon,wherehewas
    notresidingatthattimeanditwasvacantandhehadtakenhis
    friend Devraj there, as he wanted the room on rent. His further
    answersaboutthelocalityinBhoiwadaandaboutthedistanceof
    theATSofficefromthatroomandotherdetailsshowhisknowledge
    aboutthelocalityandindicatehistruthfulness.Aboutsigningbelow
    the memorandum, he correctly described the sequence of the
    accusedgivingthestatement,policewritinghisnameandaddress
    andthereafterwhattheaccusednarrated.Healsospecificallystated
    inparagraph33ofhiscrossexaminationthattheaccusedmadehis
    signaturefirstafterthewritingofthememorandumwascompleted,
    thereafter,theofficersignedandthentheypanchassigned.

    738.

    Hecommittedamistakeinhisstatementwhenhestatedthat

    whentheaccusedwasaskedaboutthekeyoftheflat,hesaidthat
    hehadthrownit.However,hecorrectedthismistakeinparagraph
    33ofhiscrossexaminationbystatingthattheaccusedsaidthathe
    lostitandtheaccuseddidnotsaythathehadthrownthekey.This
    evidencehasnotbeencontroverted.

    739.

    Hecorrectlystatedaboutthesecretaryandchairmanofthat

    buildingcomingthere,introducingthemselvesandonbeingasked
    whethertheyknowtheaccused,theysayingthattheyknowhimand

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..764..

    Ext.4825

    he used to stay there. Specific questions were asked in cross


    examination about these two persons and he stated that the
    secretaryandthechairmancameintheflatatabout4.00p.m.,i.e.,
    aboutonehouroroneandhalfhoursaftertheyreachedthereand
    thattheywerestoppedbeforeentering.Infact,ithascomeinhis
    crossexaminationthattheprocessofseizingandsealingthearticles
    was going on when they came. About the aspect of sealing the
    articles,hecorrectlydescribedhowthearticleswerepacked,labeled
    andsealed.Ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationthatallthepackets
    were sealed and about the rexine bag in which the articles were
    found,hedeposedthatitwaswrappedinakhakipaperanditwas
    sealed.Thisevidencehasnotbeencontroverted.Hebeingatruthful
    witness is established by a statement made by him in cross
    examination that it was revealed during the inquiry with the
    neighbours, watchman, chairman and secretary that Zakir Umar
    Shaikh was the owner of that flat and when police asked those
    personsabouthiswhereabouts,theystatedthathehadsoldittoa
    woman. This is also what is stated by Sr. PI Tajne, PW161.
    Admittedly,Sr.PITajne,PW161, didnottakethestatementofthe
    key maker who was calledthere and this the witness stated that
    policedidnottakehissignatureanywhere.Hedeniedthesuggestion
    thatpolicedidnotpayanychargestohim,buthedidnotseehow
    muchchargesthekeymakerwaspaidandthatthechargeswerenot
    agreedandpaidinhispresence.Againsomepositivesentenceshave
    comeonrecordduringhiscrossexaminationthatpolicehadgiven
    informationthatthewiresandpowdercanbeusedforpreparing

    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

    take their searchesandtheytooktheir searches,butexcepttheir


    personalarticlesdidnotfindanythingelse,isobviouslynotinthe
    panchanama, because the contents of the panchanama onlyshow
    thatpoliceaskedthepanchastotakethesearchofthevehicle.This
    wasbroughtonrecordasanimprovementasitisnotwritteninthe
    panchanama.However,hedescribedindetailastowhichpersonshe
    hadsearchedincludingSr.PITajne,PW161,andwhichpersonsthe
    otherpanchhadsearched.Hishonestyisfurtherrevealedfroma
    positive sentence made by him in crossexamination when asked
    aboutthenamesofthechairmanandsecretary,becausehestated
    that someone out of the chairman or the secretary was by name
    Kasambhai.ThecontentsofthepanchanamashowsthatoneMohd.
    Kasam Mohd. Hussain Shaikh, secretary of the society, had come
    therealongwithchairmanYunusDawoodPatel.

    741.

    As mentioned earlier his lengthy crossexamination has not

    revealed anything that could discredit his version or impeach his


    credibility.Nothingisbroughtonrecordtoshowthatthiswitness

    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.

    Thus, by the evidence of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, and panch

    witness Kevalkumar Jain, PW55, the prosecution has proved the


    recoveryofwhitegranulesanddetonatorsfromthesaidflatatthe
    instanceoftheA13.

    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

    Remaining part of the crossexamination is not so material and


    about the main aspect her evidence in chiefexamination is again
    reiteratedwhileansweringquestionsincrossexaminationwherein
    shestatedthatAmirKhan,PW49,andKasambhaiwerewithher
    when she knocked the door, that she entered the flat after the
    womanopenedthedoorandatthattimeshesawherandtheman
    alsoandwhensheenteredtheflatthemanhadgoneinsideandshe
    sawthemanbriefly(zalak)andwhenshesaidthatsheistheowner
    oftheflat,hewentinside.Shedeniedthesuggestionthatatthat
    timeshefeltthattherewasamaninthehouse,butshedidnotsee.
    Shedescribedtheagesofthechildrenandsaidthatthepolicedid
    notaskhertodescribethewoman,themanandthechildren.There
    issomecrossexaminationtoherabouttheinquiryattheATSoffice,
    hervisitstoKalachowkiATSoffice,etc.,butagainthatisnotmuch
    material.SheunhesitatinglyidentifiedtheA13inthecourt.

    746.

    Amir Khan, PW49, corroborated her version in respect of

    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.

    Thus, by the evidence of the above two witnesses the

    prosecutionhasprovedthattheA13wasresidinginthesaidflat,
    i.e.,flatno.101,'A'Wing,PoonamPark,NayaNagar,HyderiChowk,
    MiraRoad,thoughhewasnotthetenanttowhomKhurshidBegum,
    PW51,hadrentedthesaidflat.

    748.

    Next consequent step was of ascertaining whether the

    granules were explosives and whether the detonators were live


    detonators. Sr.PITajne,PW161,deposedabouttheprocedureby
    whichthegranuleswereinspectedbytheBDDSteamcomprisingof
    APIRevle,PW154,andthedogMax,asdescribedinparagraph162
    of the judgement and also deposed about preparing panchanama
    Ext.667andmakingthestationdiaryentriesno.16and14,certified

    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.

    The contents of the panchanama Ext. 667 corroborate the

    evidence given by Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, and Kevalkumar Jain,


    PW55, and it is also corroborated by the evidence of API Revle,
    PW154,whodeposedaboutgoingtotheATSofficeatKalachowki
    withhisofficersandstaffon09/10/06onbeingcalled,meetingSr.
    PITajne,PW161,whogavehimasealedkhakienvelopethathada
    labelcontainingsignaturesofpanchasandbeingaskedtoexamine
    thematerialandtosaywhetheritwasanexplosive.Ithascomein
    hisevidencethathetooktheenvelopetotheopenspacebehindthe
    KalachowkiATSoffice,openedit,foundittocontainwhitecoloured
    granulesinaplasticbag,askedthehandlertodirectthedogMaxto
    sniffthegranules,whichthedogdidandgaveapositivemessageby
    barkingthatitwasexplosivesubstance.Ithascomeinhisevidence
    thatasexplosivesubstancebasicallycontainshighoxygen,theyalso
    doatestbylightingittoseehowitburns,therefore,hetooksome
    granules from the packet and lighted it and they burned while
    melting,which primafacie confirmedthatitwasexplosive.Ithas
    comeinhisevidencethathewasaskedtoinspectarticlesthatwere
    inasealedplasticbottle,whichheopenedandwhichwasfoundto

    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.

    His crossexamination on this point by learned advocate

    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

    of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, and API Revle, PW154, identified the


    articles,i.e.,theremainingwiresofthecylindersArts.281(colly),
    piecesofaluminummetalArts.282(colly)andpiecesofredsticking
    tapestatingthatafterthepersonswhohadcometheretodestroy
    the bombs blasted the cylinders, the police had collected these
    articlesfromthepitinwhichtheywereblasted.Heidentifiedhis

    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.

    Thus, by the evidence of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, API Revle,

    PW154, andAjitSingh,PW158,theprosecutionhasprovedthat
    thetendetonatorsthatwereseizedattheinstanceoftheaccused
    weredestroyedon20/10/06atGirgaonChowpatyaspertheorder
    ofthiscourt.ThecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.1692corroborate
    theirevidence.

    756.

    IthascomeintheevidenceofACPPatil,PW186,thatSr.PI

    Tajne, PW161, handed over the panchanama Ext.1692 and the


    residue of the defused detonators seized by him under the said
    panchanama,whichhedepositedinthemuddemalroomandthat
    hesenttheresiduetotheFSLforanalysison27/10/06alongwith
    hisforwardingletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.886,thecontents
    of which he proved and that he had sent it with HC Jagannath
    Golhar, PW86, who corroborated his version. A portion from his
    statementwasconfrontedtohimandprovedasExt.2518duringthe
    evidenceofACPPatil,PW186,whichreadsthatACPPatilhadgiven

    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.

    Thus by the evidence of Sr. PI Tajne, PW161, Kevalkumar

    Jain, PW55, API Revle, PW154, ACP Patil, PW186, Ajit Singh,
    PW158, PCDineshGaikwad,PW164,and HCJagannath Golhar,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..780..

    Ext.4825

    PW86, and by the contents of the memorandum and voluntary


    statementmadebytheA13Ext.664,panchanamaExt.665andthe
    otherpanchanamas,officecopiesoftheforwardinglettersandthe
    reports of the FSL, prosecution has proved the link between the
    whitegranules,ahandbaganddetonatorsthatwereseizedfromthe
    said flat at the instance of the accused and by the evidence of
    KhurshidBegum,PW51,andAmirKhan,PW49,ithasprovedthat
    A13wasresidinginthatflat,sometimeinthesecondweekofJune,
    2006.

    758.

    Learned advocate Wahab Khan for the A13 criticized the

    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.

    To my mind, the evidence of Khurshid Begum, PW51, and

    Amir Khan, PW49, is a cogent evidence, they are totally


    uninterestedwitnesseshavingnocriminalantecedentsorprevious
    contactswiththepoliceandthereisnoreasonforthemtogivefalse
    evidenceto implicate the A13,whom theydidnotknowtill that
    date.LearnedSPPsubmitsthathehasmadethesaidsubmissionsfor
    testingthetheoryofplantationandheasksaquestiontohimselfas
    to why would the ATS try to create evidence in respect of the
    premisesthatwasunconnectedtotheA13?Theanswertothisis
    thatitistheA13wholedthepolicetothatflat.Hethenasksa
    questionastowhatisthereasonoroccasionforthepolicetogoto
    thatflatwhichisofsomeunknownpersonandrentedtosomeone
    else?Hepossesthequestionastowhatwouldhavebeennaturalfor
    thepolicetofoistthediscovery?Wouldtheynothavedoneitatthe
    residentialaddressgivenbytheaccused?Hesubmitsthattheentire
    story of the prosecution inspires confidence in respect of the
    discoveryofthearticlesfromtheA13andthefindingsoftheFSL
    reportcorroborateandmatchwiththefindingofarticlesfromthe
    coaccusedandthearticlesseizedfromthesitesoftheblasts.

    761.

    Inmyhumbleopinion,thesubmissionsofthelearnedSPPare

    correct. There was no reason for the investigating machinery to


    showtherecoveryofsuchtypeofarticlesfromsomepremisesthat

    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.

    Learned advocate submits that A13 was unknown to Amir

    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.

    Learned advocate submits that the log book entry in Ext.

    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.

    To discredit the panch witness Kevalkumar Jain, PW55,

    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

    becausehedeniedthat KevalkumarJain,PW55,islinkedto Sr.PI


    Tajne,PW161.PerusalofthecertifiedcopiesofRoznamaandall
    other documents of C. C. No. 319/PW/06 pertaining to the 34th
    Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Vikhroli, Mumbai, shows that one
    KevalkumarDalchandJainisanaccusedandheischargesheeted
    alongwith other accused for the offences under section 420 read
    with34oftheIPC.ItdoesnotindicatetheinvolvementofSr.PI
    Tajne, PW161, anywhere and is therefore irrelevant. Learned
    advocatesubmitsthatthiswitnessisgivinghisnameasKevalkumar
    TarchandJaininthiscourt,butinthepanchanamasExts.664and
    667 it is Kevalkumar Dalchand Jain which shows that he is an
    untruthful witness. To my mind, there is a possibility that while
    renderingorhearingthewitnessthewordTarchandisunderstoodto
    havespokenbyhimandaccordinglyrenderedandtyped,buteven
    otherwise, it does not make any difference so long as he has
    identifiedhissignaturesonthepanchanamaandhisidentityhasnot
    beendisputedduringcrossexamination.Itisapparentlyagenuine
    mistakeinwritinghisfathersname.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthat
    his identity was suppressed to hide the fact that he is a regular
    panchwitness,buttheabovedocumentsshowedthatheisgiving
    twodifferentaddressesandthoughheisaresidentofBhandup,he
    wascalledfromBhoiwadaarea.Tomymind,nosuchinferencecan
    bedrawnandKevalkumarJain,PW55,hasgiventhereasonforhis
    presenceinBhoiwadaareaonthatday.Thus,thissubmissiondoes
    not affect his evidence and the witness was not given any
    suggestionsonthisline.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    767.

    ..788..

    Ext.4825

    Next,itissubmittedthattheotherpanchJitendraChampalal

    Jain is of Kalachowki and Ext.71 in S. C. No. 719/06, which is


    obtained under the RTI Act, shows that he has acted as panch
    witnessfor Sr.PITajne,PW161and ACPShengal,DW51.Tomy
    mind,maybethesaidwitnessisbeingrepeated,buthisresidencein
    thesaidpanchanamaisofKalachowkiandinthisconnectionthe
    learned SPP pointed out to the crossexamination of A13 in
    paragraph 86 wherein he admitted that the said witness has not
    giventheevidenceinthiscaseandthatheknowsthattheSewree
    Court had convicted the accused in the case in which he, i.e.,
    JitendraJaingaveevidence.Tomymind,thiswitnesshasnotbeen
    examinedbytheprosecutionandthisaspectdoesnotcomeinthe
    wayofdisbelievingtheotherevidenceoftheprosecution.

    768.

    Next submission by the learned advocate is that the

    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.

    His next submission is in respect of the discrepancy in the

    evidenceofSr.PITajne,PW161,andKevalkumarJain,PW55,asto

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..789..

    Ext.4825

    where and how many panchas sat in the vehicle. It is a minor


    discrepancyandwillhavetobeignoredonthebackgroundofthe
    KevalkumarJain,PW55,beingawitnesshavingnoantecedentsor
    linkswiththepolice.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatthewatchman
    of the building and key maker have not been examined by the
    prosecutionthoughtheyarecitedasthewitnesses.Tomymind,itis
    theprerogativeoftheprosecutionandiftheprosecutorfoundthe
    evidencethathadbeenledinthatrespecttobesufficient,thereis
    noneedtoduplicateit.Sameisthecaseaboutthechairmanand
    secretaryofthatsociety.Theywerealsocitedaswitnesses.

    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,

    PW154, has been indulging is required to be seen. A crime is


    registered against him as per the order of the magistrate under
    section 156(3) of the Cr. P. C. and for this he points out to the
    documents thatare producedalongwiththe application Ext.4600.
    Thisapplicationwasmovedon28/03/14andthedocumentsthat

    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.

    Learned advocate submits that the A13 while giving his

    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.

    Thus, it is clear that the first document in time, i.e., the

    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.

    Learned advocate then submits that burning of granules to

    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

    The last submission of the learned advocate that there is a

    delayofthreedaysinsendingthearticlestotheFSLisnotworth
    consideringbecauseithardlymattersastheFSLfoundthepackets
    tobeinsealedcondition.

    777.

    Thusthereisreallynothingtodisbelievetheevidencegiven

    by the prosecution in respect of the A13 making the voluntary


    statement, in respect of the search and seizure of incriminating
    articles, in respect of ascertaining from experts whether they are
    explosives, in respect of destroying detonators and in respect of
    documentary evidence by way of findings of the FSL about the
    granules,lumpsinthehandbag,aboutresidueofthedetonatorsand
    inrespectofthepresenceoftheA13inthatflatandmostimportant
    ofallistheA13himselfleadingthepolicetothatflat.Thecross
    examinationofSr.PITajne,PW161,isgeneralinnatureandmore
    concerned as to what he did not do, viz., about not taking the
    statements of neighbours of the flat, etc., and nothing adverse is
    revealedfromhiscrossexaminationtodiscredithisversion.Insofar,
    astheevidenceofKhurshidBegum,PW51,andAmirKhan,PW49,
    is concerned, it can be summed up by simply stating that their
    evidenceisinnocuousevidence.ItisonlyaboutseeingtheA13in
    theflatownedbyKhurshidBegum,PW51.Boththesewitnessesdid
    notknowhimpriortothatdateandtheirevidencedoesnottoshow
    forwhatperiodhewasresidingthere.Asmentionedbymeearlier
    therewasnoearthlyreasonfortheinvestigatingofficertocollect
    suchtypeofevidencetobringthesetwowitnessesoutoftheblue
    moon.

    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.

    Next in time is the recovery at the instance of the A12 of

    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

    identified his signatures on the labels on all the envelopes and


    packetsandthesignaturesoftheotherpanchandpoliceofficerand
    alsoidentifiedthecottonswabsArts.265to270,key,Art.271and
    certificateofregistrationofthecarArt.272,xeroxcopyofcertificate
    ofinsurance,Art.273,PUCcertificateArt.274andabillArt.275as
    wellastheaudiocassettesArts.276(1to3).Ontherequestofthe
    learnedadvocatefortheA12,thecarwasbroughttothecourtand
    learnedSPPandlearnedadvocatesfortheaccusedwentwiththe
    panchwitnesstothecarthatwasbelowinthecourtcompoundand
    heidentifieditasthesamecarwhichwasgivenarticlenumberas
    Art.277andhealsoidentifiedthephotographsArts.278(1to3)as
    thatofthecar,thatweretakenbyPCVishalBargeoftheATSatthe
    spot where it was in the compound of the ATS office. Thus, his
    evidenceinchiefexaminationabouttheA12makingthevoluntary
    statement and leading them to the spots and the subsequent
    discoveryandrecoveryofthearticlescorroboratestheevidenceofPI
    Khanvilkar,PW168.PIKhanvilkar,PW168,alsoidentifiedall the
    above articles unhesitatingly and also identified the A12 in the
    court.

    780.

    IthascomeintheevidenceofPIKhanvilkar,PW168,thathe

    returnedwiththe accused,handedovertheseizedarticlestothe
    muddemalclerk,madeanentryinthemuddemalregisterinhisown
    handatsr.no.67andalsomadestationdiaryentryno.12,true
    photocopyofwhichisatExt.1783,thecontentsofwhichheproved.

    781. It has come in the evidence of ACP Patil, PW186 that PI


    Khanvilkar, PW168, handed over the memorandum and seizure

    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

    disclosedinthe investigation thatitwasnotusedfromthatdate


    upto22/10/06.Idonotknowwhysuchthingsareaskedincross
    examinationwhennoneofthewitnesseshavestatedanythingabout
    it in their evidence. The importance of this evidence as a link is
    discussedsubsequently.Restofhiscrossexaminationisnotmaterial
    andhedeniedthesuggestionthattherewerenostainsinthecar
    andthecarwasplantedontheaccused.Thelastsuggestionwasnot
    giventoPIKhanvilkar,PW168.

    782.

    PI Khanvilkar, PW168s evidence is corroborated by the

    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

    suggestion to him that he is not soninlaw of the owner of the


    vehicle.Hehasdescribedindetailthathehadgiventhetransfer
    documents,registrationdocumentsofthecarandRTOdocumentsto
    thepurchaser.Hehadnotstatedaboutthenatureofthedocuments
    inhischiefexaminationandonbeingaskedincrossexaminationhe
    described them, even then he was asked and he answered
    specificallythathedidnotdescribethespecificdocumentsthathe
    had given to the purchaser when he gave his statement. His
    evidenceidentifyingtheA9isunchallengedandinfacttherewereno
    suggestions by the learned advocate for the accused about the
    evidencegivenbythesewitnesses.Theregistrationcertificateofthat
    carExt.642andletterfromtheRTOExt.1785showsthatitstill
    stands in the name of Gulamraze M. Badam. By the evidence of
    AfzalAlwani,PW39,andPIKhanvilkar,PW168,andthedocuments
    Exts.1786(1to10)theprosecutionhasprovedthatcarno.MH01
    V9568wassoldtotheA9on04/06/06,buttheA9didnottransfer
    itinhisname.Asperlaw,itistheresponsibilityoftheselleraswell
    asthepurchaserofanymotorvehicletointimateandgetthevehicle
    transferredinhisname.BytheevidenceofAfzalAlwani,PW39,itis
    provedthatA9didnotdosointheperiodabout1015daysafter
    thesaleanditisonlyaftertheATScalledthem,i.e.,AfzalAlwani,
    PW39,andhisfatherinlaw,inrespectofsomeproblemaboutthe
    vehicle,thathisfatherinlawgavealettertotheRTOthattheyhad
    sold the vehicle. The intention of the owner of the vehicle to
    completethetransactioncanbeinferredfromthefactofhehaving
    obtainedtheentirepriceofthevehicleandhandingoverpossession

    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.

    During his crossexamination by learned advocate Wahab

    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

    started the inspection of the car at about 1805 hours, that he


    required2025minutestoinspecttheentirevehicle,whichhedid
    withthehelpofnaturallightandwherevertherewascavities,he
    called for the torch in the kit and with the help of the torch he
    inspected the cavities, i.e., the portions below the front and rear
    seats.Thishascomeinhiscrossexaminationandisnotwrittenin
    the panchanama, but it is uncontroverted. On the other hand,
    Shrikrishna Pawale, PW50, deposed about it in his chief
    examinationanditwasbroughtonrecordasomissiontomentionin
    the panchanama that he called for the torch that was in the kit,
    whichisundisputed.Onemoreomissionisbroughtonrecordabout
    hisevidencethatonestaffmemberofthepolicehadsomestationery
    articlesinabaglikepapers,tape,smallplasticbags,etc.Admittedly,
    it is not there, but the panchanama Ext. 641 mentions that PI
    Khanvilkar,PW168,askedtheaccusedtotakesearchofthesealand
    sealingmaterialkitthatwaswithHCGhagbuckleno.2327andto
    takesearchofthepolicestaffalsoandtheaccusedinspectedthekit,
    butdidnotsearchthepolicepersons.Thus,thisisnotanomission
    and it does not affect his evidence and the only thing that the
    witnessdidnotstateistheword'kit'andwhatitreferstointhe
    panchanama.However,hehasdescribedthecontentsofthatkit.He
    correctlystatedthatpolicedidnotaskthem,i.e.,thepanchas,to
    take their personal searches. He also correctly stated that they
    startedfromtheAlHatimbuildingat7.30or7.45p.m.,whichisas
    per the time mentioned at the end of the panchanama and his
    evidence in the said crossexamination in paragraph 29 that they

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..810..

    Ext.4825

    startedfromAlHatimbuildingcorrectshisearliermistakethathe
    signedonthelabelsnearAlMizabbuildingandsealingwasalso
    donethere.

    785.

    Other than the above, there is nothing more in his cross

    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

    whichhestatedthatthe A12saidthatitwas the carofaccused


    Faisal.NowinrespectofthewordingsinthememorandumExt.636
    thatthepanchasweretoldthattheaccusedismakingastatement
    voluntarily and a panchanama is to be prepared about it, it is
    submitted bylearned advocate that everything was known tothe
    officersbeforetheycalledthepanchas.Therefore,thiswillnotbe
    coveredbysection 27of the IndianEvidence Act,because if you
    alreadyhavetheknowledge,youcannotdiscoverathing.Idonot
    seehowsuchasubmissionismadebecausecallingofpanchasand
    thereafter preparing memorandum of statement made by the
    accusedisprecededbytheinquiryorinterrogationaboutwhichPI
    Khanvilkar, PW168, stated. Next submission by the learned
    advocateisonthepointofdelayandhesubmitsbypointingtothe
    crossexaminationofPIKhanvilkar,PW168,inparagraph28that
    A12wasprobablyarrestedon30/09/06,wasinpolicecustodyfor
    about2022days,hadbeeninterrogatedbyACPJoshi,PW163,and
    wasinterrogatedtwiceon30/09/06and21/10/06,buttherewas
    nostatementofdisclosurebefore22/10/06.Idonotunderstandthe
    pointthelearnedadvocatewantstomake.Itcanbesaidthatthe
    accused was prompted to make the voluntary disclosure on
    22/10/06asapartofsustainedandpersuasiveinterrogationand
    merelybecauseitwasmade21daysafterhisarrestorthathewas
    interrogatedonedaybeforedoesnotmakemuchdifference.

    788.

    Learnedadvocateattackedtheevidenceofthewitnessesabout

    the accused showing the places at Shivaji Nagar and Bandra,


    submitting that police had already visited those places earlier,

    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

    at Chandanchowki specially the A3 and many panchanamashave


    been drawn there and the recovery on 08/10/06 made at the
    instanceoftheA3wasalsofromChandanchowki.Thuslookingat
    the nature of the evidence that has been brought through these
    witnesses it cannot be said that this recovery is a true recovery
    inspiringconfidenceandthattheevidencestandsthescrutinyandis
    thereby acceptable, therefore, it is required to be discarded. He
    submitsthattheA12hadexplainedallthecircumstancesthathave
    come against him in his evidence and his explanations are very
    naturalandplausible.Learnedadvocatemadesubmissionaboutthe
    evidencebyA12inrespectofhisconfession.Tomymind,merely

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..816..

    Ext.4825

    becausesomerecoveriesstartfromChandanchowkiofficeoftheATS
    willnotleadtotheinferencethatitdoesnotinspireconfidence.Itis
    oneoftheunitoftheATSandonecannotexpectarulethatthestart
    ofthepanchanamasshouldalwaysbefromtheKalachowkiorthe
    BhoiwadaofficeoftheATS.Thus,thissubmissionisnotproperand
    notacceptable.

    791.

    Learned advocate next submits that several accused were

    subjected tonarcoanalysis test by taking them to Bangalore and


    evidenceaboutthishascomenotonlyfromtheaccused,butalso
    fromthepoliceofficers,buttheprosecutionhasnotproducedthe
    reportsofthenarcoanalysis.Thiswillbeanotherfactorwhichwill
    show innocence of the accused so far as the present crime is
    concerned. He submits that here the question is not of the
    admissibilityorreliabilityofthereportsofthesaidtest,butonce
    youcarryoutcertaininvestigationthenthesereportsarerequiredto
    beplacedbeforethecourt,speciallywhentheyarescientificreports
    andnotplacingthembeforethecourtandwithholdingthemfrom
    thecourtpointstowardstheinnocenceoftheaccused.Tomymind,
    itissettledlawthatreportsofscientifictestlikenarcoanalysisare
    inadmissiblein evidenceandIdonotknowhowwe wouldhave
    beeninapositiontoreadthemiftheyareinadmissibleinevidence
    andtoarriveatanyconclusionagainstorinfavouroftheaccusedor
    theprosecution.Tomymind,itisnotnecessaryfortheprosecution
    toputfortheachandeverybitofinformationcollectedduringthe
    investigationbeforethecourtandwhatisrelevantandadmissibleis
    onlyrequiredtobeplacedbeforethecourt.Thus,thissubmissionis

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..817..

    Ext.4825

    ofnouse.

    792.

    Similar submissions are made by the learned advocate in

    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.

    The above are obviously general submissions made by the

    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

    considerable crossexamination to the investigating officers in


    respectoftheCDRsandonethingthathasemergedisthathard
    copies of the CDRs were obtained and the CDRs have not been
    producedasnothingmaterialaboutthelocationoftheaccusedon
    particulardayswasrevealedfromtheCDRs.Hencethesubmissionis
    notapplicableinsofarastheA12isconcerned.

    794.

    Incontinuationofhisearliersubmissionsaboutthedelayby

    the A12 in making the voluntary disclosure, learned advocate


    submitsthattheprocessofrecordingtheconfessionalstatementof
    theA12hadstartedpriortohemakingthevoluntarydisclosureand
    the recording of the confessional statement started on 23/10/06,
    i.e., on the next day of the voluntary disclosure made by the
    accused, though he had not made any voluntary disclosure or
    expressed his desire to give any confessional statement before
    22/10/06.Tomymind,itmaybethattheprocessofrecordingof
    theconfessionalstatementstartedbefore22/10/06butasobserved
    bymeearlier,theaccusedmakingavoluntarystatementinrespect
    ofsomediscoveryisanentirelydifferentaspectthanheexpressing
    his desire to give a confessional statement. It has come in the
    evidence of ACP Patil, PW186, that the team of officers
    interrogating the A12 informed him on 19/10/06 about his
    willingnesstomakeavoluntaryconfessionalstatement.Soitcanbe
    gatheredthattheaccusedwasbeinginterrogatedanditisasaresult
    ofsustainedinterrogationthathemayhaveexpressedhisdesireon
    22/10/06 to disclose the important information concerning the
    crime.Merelybecausethedatesareoneaftertheotherorplaces

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..820..

    Ext.4825

    near to each other does not raise the inference of concoction or


    fabrication.Duringtheinterrogationoftheaccusedpolicemayhave
    confrontedhimwiththerecoveryofincriminatingarticlesfromthe
    other accused, with the other evidence against the other accused
    andwithmaterialinthe confessionalstatements made byhisco
    accused.Therefore,theaccusedmayhaverealizedthateverythingis
    over and the police have found out everything and have the
    evidenceandthenhemayhavegiventhevoluntarystatementand
    alsosubsequentlythevoluntaryconfessionalstatement.

    795.

    Learned SPP submitted during his arguments that the

    admissible portions in respect of this search and seizure are the


    discoveryofthecarandthekey.Hesubmitsthattheevidenceofthe
    panchwitnessShrikrishnaPawale,PW50,andalsoofPIKhanvilkar,
    PW168,thattheseplaceswhichthe accusedshowedwerepublic
    placesisafactwhichisrelevantanditcorroboratesthefactinissue.
    He submits that the panch witness had not made any tall claims
    aboutseeinganythingelseandinthecontextofthestatementmade
    bytheaccusedandtheroutechosenbyhimandheshowingthe
    threeplaceswhichhehadvisitedearlier,isacircumstanceinfavour
    oftheprosecution.Healsosubmitsthatthelastpartofthesearchis
    theactualdiscoveryofthecarandthefactthattheaccusedledthem
    tothehouseofRizwanKhot,gotthekeyfromhimandthatthekey
    wasofthecar,showsthatthesethingswerediscoveredordisclosed
    becausetheywerewithintheexclusiveknowledgeoftheaccused
    andanyamountofcrossexaminationinrespectofthesurrounding
    circumstancehasnotbeenabletodisplacetheevidenceofthepanch

    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.

    Learned SPP submits that a reference has come in the

    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.

    It has come in the evidence of ACP Patil, PW186 that PI

    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.

    The crossexamination of PI Tonapi, PW155, by learned

    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

    produced by the learned SPP by the application Ext.1495 on


    12/08/11,i.e.,onthenextdayofhisevidence.Whatisproduced
    withtheapplicationisaphotocopyofanapplicationExt.1496dtd.
    14/10/10bytheIndustriesEnergyandLabourDepartmentabout
    having received the application for the examination of electrician
    and Ext. 1497 is issued by the Electrical Inspector of that
    Departmenton12/08/11thathehaspassedelectricalexamination
    thathegaveinNovember,2010andthathislicenceandcertificate
    numberbearingno.265089willbegiveninashorttime.Thisshows
    hishonestyandthoughitissubmittedduringargumentsthatthis
    letterisof12/08/11,i.e.,ofthedateonwhichitwasproduced,the
    factremainsthathehadgiventheexaminationinNovember,2010,
    whichreflectsonhishonestyandaboutwhichhehadunhesitatingly
    giventhedetailsinparagraph14ofhiscrossexaminationthough,to
    mymind,itwasnotsorelevant.Hisevidenceaboutgoingtothe
    office, seeing the officers, that the officers asking him and other
    panchtotaketheirsearchesandhesearchingPISunilDeshmukh
    andfindingthearticlesasdescribedbyhiminhischiefexamination,
    theplacewheretheaccusedsatinthevehicle,whichwassearched
    bythemandseveralotherdetailswerebroughtonrecordasbeing
    not written in the panchanama, but insofar as the search of the
    policeandvehicleisconcernedPITonapi,PW155,hasstatedabout
    itbystatingthatthepanchastookthesearchofthepolicepartyand
    the vehicle as per their practice, but nothing objectionable was
    found except the investigation kit and the sealing material. This
    evidencegivenbyhimhasnotbeencontrovertedandtherewasno

    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

    officer Tonapi wrote the panchanama in his own handwriting, of


    course, he committed a mistake when he stated that some other
    officerbynameKandharkarhadwrittenitinthepolicechowki,but
    thismistakeisinsignificantanddoesnotshowthatheisdishonest
    consideringtheotherevidencegivenbyhimanditbeingnotshaken
    hiscrossexamination.Hedeniedallothersuggestionsdenyingthe
    aspectofdisclosureandseizureandidentificationofthearticlesand
    theaccused.Againduringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocate
    Shettyhecorrectlystatedthatprobablythenameofotherpanchis
    Godfi,whichisphoneticallysimilartothefirstnameofGodfrayof
    thatpanchinthesaiddocuments.Otherthanthisthereisnothingin
    hiscrossexaminationtodiscredithisversion.

    803.

    Thusbythecogentevidenceof PITonapi,PW155,and Raju

    Tapi,PW129,prosecutionhasprovedthefactumofA7havingmade
    thedisclosurestatementwritteninExt.1479andtheseizureofthe
    articlesasdescribedinthepanchanamaExt.1480athisinstance.

    804.

    LearnedSPPsubmittedduringhisargumentsthatinfactthe

    seizure of the articles from the institute at Malad is as good as


    admittedbytheA7inviewofthesuggestiongivento PITonapi,
    PW155,inparagraph19ofhiscrossexaminationandinviewofthe
    storyputforthbytheA7inhiswrittensubmissionsExt.2828andin
    hisoralevidenceasDW46.Ongoingthroughtheevidenceofthe
    A7andhiswrittensubmissions,itisobviousthattheA7isadmitting
    thathewastakentothesaidinstituteon23/10/06andnotall,but
    someofthearticleshadbeentakenbythepolicefromthereand
    thosearticlesaremobilerepairinginstruments.Paragraphs21to28

    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

    the panchanama Exts. 1479 and 1480 bear the signatures of PI


    Deshmukhwhohadsignedthem.Thecontentsofthestationdiary
    entriesno.4and9,truephotocopyofwhichisatExt.1669,shows
    thatPISunilDeshmukhwasinthepolicepartythathadconducted
    thesearchandseizure.Whatmoreevidencewouldtherebetoprove
    thepresenceofapoliceofficer?Thisisthebestevidencepossible
    includinghissignaturesonthememorandumandpanchanamaand
    alsoonthelabelsthatwereaffixedtothebagsinwhichthearticles
    wereputandsealed.OnthebasisoflogbookentryExt.4179(3),
    theA7contendedinhisevidencethatthesaidvehicleisusedon
    23/10/06 by PSI Kandharkar only and Sunil Deshmukh was not
    withhimonthatday.Sowhataboutthedriverofthevehicle,what
    aboutPITonapi,PW155,andwhatabouttheotherstaff,whowere
    admittedlywithhimwhentheyhadtakentohisinstitute?Itisby
    way of office procedure that a vehicle is allotted to a particular
    officer and he is incharge of that vehicle and he has the
    responsibility of signing the log book. Thus, the contentions and
    allegationsoftheA7arenotbornefromthedocumentaryevidence
    andarenotacceptable.

    807.

    Before giving evidence about 23/10/06, the accused gave

    evidence about he being taken to his institute at Malad on


    22/10/06,policeaskinghimtoshowtheroad,butastheinstitute
    wasclosedasitwas Sunday,theytookhimtohishouseatMira
    Road, where Iqbal Qureshi, DW9, saw him. Now, insofar as this
    evidence that the institute was closed on Sunday, I have already
    pointedoutthatinhis crossexamination inparagraph98hehas

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..838..

    Ext.4825

    stated that the institute used to be closed on Saturdays. Iqbal


    Qureshi,DW9,thoughhasstatedaboutpolicehavingbroughtthe
    accused to the house in their building two or three days before
    Ramzan Eid, has not stated about the exact date, i.e., 22/10/06.
    Even otherwise, PI Tonapi, PW155, has admitted in his cross
    examination that on that day they had taken the accused to his
    houseatMiraRoadwheretheyhadgonetoverifyhishouseand,
    thisisimportant,thathehadaccompaniedPIDeshmukh.Themain
    contentionofthe accusedhereinthatPIDeshmukhwasnotwith
    them on that day also and for this purpose he is relying on the
    entriesinthelogbookofthevehicleno.MH01BA4255produced
    bytheprosecution,Ext.4180(1to3)andhasstatedthatitshows
    that the vehicle was used by Sunil Deshmukh on 22/10/06 from
    1230 to 1550 hours from Chandanchowki to Kalachowki to
    Chandanchowki JuhuanddoesnotshowthatithadgonetoMira
    Road on that day and the entry dtd. 23/10/06 shows that the
    vehiclewasusedbySunilDeshmukhfrom1000to1820hoursfrom
    Chandanchowki to Kalachowki to Chandanchowki Juhu which
    shows that he was not with him on that day, but had gone
    elsewhere. Similar observations as above will apply to the
    interpretationofthelogbookentriesofthesaidvehiclethatmust
    havebeenallottedtoPIDeshmukhandnoinferencecanbedrawn
    onlyonthebasisoftheseentriesthathehadnotgonetothehouse
    oftheA7on22/10/06andtohisinstituteon23/10/06withthe
    accused.ThisleadstotheinferencethatPIDeshmukhmusthave
    goneinthevehiclethatwasallottedtoPSIKandharkar.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    808.

    ..839..

    Ext.4825

    ItisclearfromtheabovediscussionthattheA7hasfailedto

    substantiate his allegation about plantation of some articles


    particularlyArts. 349,354,355,357,358and359bythepolice,
    whopurchasedthemfromLamingtonRoadinhispresence.Inthis
    contextthelearnedSPPsubmitsthatifatallthepolicewantedto
    fabricate the evidence, if the investigating officer knows with
    certaintyaboutwhatarethearticlesthatarenecessaryandwhat
    theyarelookingforandtheyaretobeplantedontheA7,thenhe
    would have first gathered all these articles and then would have
    gonetotheplaceoftheaccused.Herewhattheaccusedissaying
    thattheyhadgonewithhimtohisinstituteandthentheywentto
    LamingtonRoad.Thestoryoftheaccusedthattheofficerpurchased
    someelectronicitemspostulatesthattheofficerhadknowledgeas
    towhatevidenceisrequiredtobecollectedandwhateveritemshe
    hadcollectedfromtheinstitutesareofnouse.Hesubmitsthatthe
    officerisnotatechnicalpersonwhowillunderstandwhatarethe
    articlesandforwhattheyaremadefor.Thereisnothingtosuggest
    thatheconsultedwithsomebodyastowhatarethearticlesthatare
    requiredorthattheyaskedtheaccusedwhatisrequiredandhetold
    themandthentheypurchased.Thewholestorythatistriedtobe
    paintedbytheaccused,doesnotstandtothereasonandlogic.

    809.

    LearnedSPPhas lastlysubmittedthatthedefencetakenby

    theA7aboutthediscovery,heisstatingonthebasisoftheentriesin
    the logbook thatthe vehicle hadgoneto Girgaon. However,the
    entrydoesnotshowthatithadgonetoLamingtonRoad,butletus
    takeitthatitiscorrect.Hesubmitsthatheisonlyonthetestthatis

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..840..

    Ext.4825

    differently applied, whether the test stands to scrutiny and it is


    acceptabletoamanofordinaryprudence.A7wenttohisinstitute
    with PI Tonapi, PW155, and panchas, but what he says in his
    evidenceinparagraph35thatallhisarticlesthatwerepickedupon
    23/10/06 are not amongst the articles that are shown to be
    recoveredfromhiminExt.1480.LearnedSPPsubmitsthatheisa
    person who is dishonest to the court, he wants to fabricate
    something and he wants to use it against a man. What would a
    prudentmando?DoIobtainthem,procurethemorpurchasethem
    intheabsenceofthatmanordoIdosoinhispresencekeepinghim
    as a witness? He submits that it does not stand to logic by any
    means.Hesubmitsthatwhattheaccusedsaysisthatinthatentire
    recoverytheemptyAirtelpacketisbroughtfromhishouseandput
    inthispanchanama.LearnedSPPsubmitsthathescratchedhishead
    repeatedlyastowhytheinvestigatingofficerwoulddothisandhow
    it is an incriminating thing that would clinch the issue? In my
    humbleopinion,thesubmissionsofthelearnedSPParetothepoint,
    logicalandfullyacceptable.Ifonegoesbythestoryputforthbythe
    A7, then it would mean that PI Tonapi, PW155, purchased the
    electricalitemsfromLamingtonRoad,keepinghimasawitnessand
    not only he was shown those articles after the purchase, he
    identified all the components as his background is of electronics.
    Thisabsolutelydoesnotstandtothereason,moreparticularlywhen
    PITonapi,PW155,and RajuTapi,PW129,havenotbeengivena
    suggestionaboutgoingtoLamingtonRoadorcrossexaminedonthe
    aspectofthereturntotheoffice.

    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

    the case of Anter Singh, Appellant v/s. State of Rajasthan,


    Respondent(AIR2004SupremeCourt2865)isinsupportofthe
    submissionsoflearnedadvocateSharifShaikhinrespectofwhatisa
    discoveryoffact.Thelawastowhatamountstoadiscoveryand
    whatisadmissibleandwhataretherequirementsofsection27have
    been laid down in this authority and this law has to be strictly
    applied. Learned advocate relied on the authority in the case of
    SalimAkhtar@Mota,Appellantv/s.StateofU.P.,Respondent
    ((2003)5SupremeCourtCases499)insupportofhissubmissions
    thatthe incriminating articlesthatare seizedor recoveredatthe
    instanceoftheaccusedhavetobesealedonthespot.Thefactin
    thatcasewastherecoverywasmadefromanopenplaceaccessible
    toallandeveryoneandtheonlypublicwitness(aphotographer)
    examinedwasnotonlyintimatebutwasalsoobligedtothepolice
    partyandthoughapistolwasallegedtohavebeenrecovered,itwas
    notsealedanditsnumberormake,etc.,werenotmentionedinthe
    recoverymemoorFIRtofixitsidentity.Tomymind,thesearenot
    thefactsinourcase,becausethereisnorecoveryofanyarmsorany
    suchidentifiablearticleonwhichtherearenumbersandmarkings.
    Hence this authority is not helpful to the defence. On the other
    hand,theauthoritiesatsr.no.(vi),(ix),(x),(xi)and(xii)described
    inparagraph426supraarerelieduponbythelearnedSPP.Insofar
    asthelawinthecaseofShantiDeviisconcerneditisinrespectof
    appreciation of circumstantial evidence and knowledge of an
    accused about a relevant fact. The learned SPP submitted in this
    respectthatthisauthorityisinthecontextofwhatwasrecovered

    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.

    The law laid down in the case of Ganesh Lal is discussed

    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.

    In respectof the recoveryfrom the A1 he submits that the

    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.

    Theobservationsintheauthorityof KhetSingh reliedupon

    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.

    He submits that there is one more safeguard of which the

    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

    recoveries of diverse articles made from different locations from


    sevenaccused.The1stisrecoveryofRDXpowderfromthehouseof
    theA1on20/07/06immediatelyfollowinghisarrestonthatday.
    The2nd isthefindingoftracesofRDXinthehouseoftheA3on
    28/07/06immediatelyonthenextdayofhisarreston27/07/06.
    The3rdisrecoveryofthreechemicalbottlesattheinstanceoftheA2
    from Sabu Siddiqui Hospital on 12/08/06 though the A2 was
    arrestedon23/07/06,butitwasmadeinpursuanceofinformation
    gathered from the A4 immediately after he was arrested on
    12/08/06.The4thisnoticingofblackandwhitespotsontheinner
    sideofawoodenboxbedinthehouseoftheA6,whichturnedout
    tobeofRDX,whichwereseizedon29/09/06afterthearrestofthe
    accused on 28/09/06. The 5th is the recovery of printed circuit
    board,cookerrubbergasketandwhistleandthepolythenebagsin
    whichtheywerekept,whichalsorevealedtracesofRDXandthe
    technicalreportinrespectofthecircuitboardshowedthatitcanbe
    usedasatriggering device ofdetonator ifitis usedalongwitha
    specially built receiver circuit on mobile phone, from the A3 on
    08/10/06 though he was arrested on 27/07/06. The 6th is the
    recoveryofwhitegranulesthatturnedouttocontainammonium
    andnitrateradicalsandthelumpsintherexinebagtocontainRDX
    as well as the postexplosive residue of the detonators that were
    seized to contain nitrite and lead radicals, which was done on
    09/10/06attheinstanceoftheA13fromapremises primafacie
    unconnected to him after his arrest on 03/10/06. The 7th is the
    seizureofMaruticarinwhichblackishspotswereseenandwere

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..851..

    Ext.4825

    foundtocontainRDXamongstotherthingsattheinstanceofthe
    A12on22/10/06thoughhewasarrestedon30/09/06.Andthelast
    the8th istherecoveryofelectroniccomponentsandPCBonwhich
    noexplosivesweredetectedattheinstanceoftheA7on23/10/06
    thoughhewasarrestedon29/09/06.

    820.

    Considering the fact that this is a case of circumstantial

    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.

    The allegations of the prosecution in the final report are

    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.

    His evidence in paragraph 6 is brought on record as an

    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

    only to perform a role attributed to him for furthering the


    conspiracy. He submits that the A5 doing the spectacles
    manufacturingbusinessinpartnershipwithMohd.Shakil,PW70,is
    alsocorroboratedbytheevidenceofMohd.Sajid,DW23,brotherof
    theA5,whohasonlystatedtothatextentandhasnotstatedabout
    Mohd.Shakil,PW70,trickingtheA5intothebusinessandplaying
    fraudonhim.

    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.

    Learned advocate next submits that the evidence of this

    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

    of the prosecution to produce the CDRs of both these numbers


    showsthatithasnotshownthelinkbetweentheotheraccusedand
    theA5.ItissubmittedbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanthatthe
    CDRoftheA3doesnotshowthatthereareanycallsfromKolkatato
    him or visavis. To my mind, whatever evidence the prosecution
    foundhasbeenplacedbeforethecourt.A5alsodidnotmentionhis
    mobilenumberinhiswrittensubmissionsorinhisoralevidenceand
    alsodidnotmakeanattempttocallforCDRofhismobilenumber
    to give positive evidence that he had no contact with the A3 or
    Mohd.Shakil,PW70,orwithAsifandMunna.Thus,thissubmission
    isofnoavail.

    833.

    Learned advocate next submits that though the person Asif

    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.

    Learned advocate then submits that in respect of the term

    jihad,thewitnesshasstatedthatheisnotawareofitsmeaningand
    his answersin crossexamination that heis aSunniandgoes for

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..866..

    Ext.4825

    namaj in masjid as well as the dargahs shows that he is an


    untruthfulwitness.Tomymind,itisnotshownthatthewitnessisa
    scholaroranexpertinMuslimlaw.Therefore,whatevertheanswers
    hegavearenotmaterialanddonotaffecthisevidence.However,
    the importantpositive statementmade byhimis thathe being a
    Sunni,hedoesnoteatNiyazatthedargahs.Itsrelevancewillbe
    pointedoutsubsequently.Thesubmissionthatthelearnedadvocate
    madeisthatthoughhehasnoknowledgeaboutjihadandasisalso
    submitted in his written submissions by learned advocate Sharif
    Shaikh,whywouldsuchapersonbeshockedonhearingtheword
    jihadandeventhenaccompanytheA5toBongaonandnotdisclose
    thesaidfactstoanyone,butremainsilentforaboutfivemonths,
    whichiscontrarytoanaturalconductandthereforeisrequiredto
    bediscarded.Tomymind,thisaspecthasbeenclearedinthecross
    examination itself, because he admitted in paragraph 11 that he
    thoughtthathehadsomeimportantinformationwithhim,butdid
    not feel that he should go and give the information to the local
    policestationaboutwhichhegaveareasonableexplanation,thatit
    wasbecausetheA5washisfriend.Whensuggestedastowhyhedid
    not sever relations with the A5 as he had lost interest in the
    business,hesaidthatitwasnotnecessarytodosoastheA5was
    doingsomeotherwork.Thus,thesesubmissionsareofnoavailto
    impeachhiscredibilityortoshowthathisevidenceisunnatural.

    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

    contradictions thatthe witness is anaccomplice andunworthyof


    credit,thathedoesnotsaythatsixpersonsenteredclandestinelyby
    illegally crossing the border, therefore, the silence of the
    investigating machinery toinvestigate this aspectwith the border
    agency suggests that it was well within their knowledge that the
    story is concocted one and they are showing the crossing of the
    border as if the persons are coming from Sion and Kurla.
    Prosecutionshouldatleasthavesomecorrespondencetoshowtheir
    fairness and it appears that Salaskar and the ATS officers have
    plantedthewitnessaswellasMohd.Alam,PW59,inthecasein
    ordertointroduceaconcoctedversionandimpressuponthemthat
    theyarenotgoingtogiveevidenceaboutthebombblastsandthey
    havebeenintroducedinthecaseaftertheaccusedretractedtheir
    confessions.Tomymind,suchaninferencecannotbedrawnfrom
    thecrossexaminationofthiswitnessbecausenosuchsuggestionis
    giventohimandhehaswithstoodthetestofcrossexamination.To
    mymind,heisoneofthebestwitnessesoftheprosecutionbeinga

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..868..

    Ext.4825

    totally uninterested person having no criminal antecedents or


    connectionswiththepolice.Hedoesnotknowabouttheintention
    orgoalofthesesixpersonsforgoingtoMumbai.Hehasnotstated
    that anyone was carrying anything in his hands that would have
    helpedinthepreparationofbombs.Thus,theirroleorintentions
    werenotknowntohimandthereforetheinferencethatthelearned
    advocatewantstodrawcannotbedrawn.

    837.

    The topics in the written submissions given by learned

    advocate Sharif Shaikh insofar as they are common with the


    submissionsofthelearnedadvocateWahabKhanarenotrepeated
    andsubmissionsaboutthevisitofAsifandhisfriendin2004and
    theirtriptoDelhiarealsonotconsidered.Anaspectoftheevidence
    ofthewitnessispointedouttosubmitthathewasarespectable
    guest of the ATS, tutored for seven days while he was there,
    threatenedforgivingfalseevidenceagainsttheA5andthereforehis
    entireevidencehastobediscarded.TheevidencegivenbyMohd.
    Shakil,PW70,inparagraph10ofhisdepositionisreproduced.Itis
    inrespectofhearrivingon07/02/11inMumbai,i.e.,sevendays
    beforehisevidencewasrecorded,stayingaloneintheguesthouse
    above the Kalachowki Police Station, not paying any charges of
    lodgingandboarding,butbeingprovidedwithteaandtiffin,etc.To
    my mind, the witness denying the suggestion that he was in the
    custodyoftheATSforlastsevendaysandpressurizedandreadover
    thestatementtohim,dispensesalldoubtsaboutitanditcannotbe
    ruledoutthatforsecurityandsafetyofthewitnesshewaskeptin
    thepoliceguesthouse.Thisisnotsuchafactthatwouldaffecthis

    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.

    It is alleged in the written notes of arguments that Mohd.

    Shakil, PW70, is a fraudster/just a business partner and the


    evidence of the A5 as DW43 in paragraphs 3 and 4 has been
    reproducedextensivelyandissubmittedthatthewitnesswasnota
    friendofA5,butabusinesspartner,whocheatedtheA5inbusiness
    andisnotarightpersontobebelieved.Thestorynarratedbythe
    A5inhisoralevidenceinrespectofallegedfraudbyMohd.Shakil,
    PW70, is obviously a new story put forth by the accused, there
    beingnotasinglesuggestiontothewitnessaboutit.Evenifthisis
    keptbythesideforamoment,thoughnumberofwitnesseswere
    recalled, some twice, no effort has been made by the defence to

    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.

    The ineptness of the defence is evident from the last

    submission that Mohd. Shakil, PW70, has deposed about Munna


    bringingthesixpersonsatBongaon,whereas,itisintheconfession
    oftheA5thatoneKalluhadbroughtthesixpersons,therefore,this
    is the contradiction and both do not corroborate each other and
    thereforehisevidenceshouldbediscarded.Ofcourse,itshouldbe
    discardedprovidedweacceptonethingoutofthetwo.Eitherwe
    acceptthatMohd.Shakil,PW70,istellingthetruthortheA5has
    told the truth in his confessional statement. Of course, this is a
    subsequentaspectandwillbediscussedattherelevanttime,butthe
    fact remains that Mohd. Shakil, PW70's evidence about Munna
    havingbroughtsixpersonshasnotbeenimpeachedduringcross
    examination.

    841.

    ThelearnedSPPhassubmittedinbriefabouttheevidenceof

    this witness and there being no challenge about he going to


    Bongaonandcomingtoknowthenamesofthewantedsixaccused
    andtheA5bringingthemtoKolkata.Inadditionhehaspointedout
    totheevidenceofJairamShetty,PW141,whowasworkinginthe
    hotel Heena of his brother at Bhendi Bazar. I will refer to this
    evidenceattherelevantstage,becauseAsifbeingarelativeofthe
    A5isnotdisputedduringthecrossexaminationofthiswitness.

    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.

    It is alleged by the prosecution that between 08/07/06 to

    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

    occasions', which is of no consequence. It has also come in his


    evidencethathemettheA2,A4andA6intheprogramsthathe
    attended and he identified them in the court unhesitatingly. This
    evidencehasnotbeenshownasanimprovementandhasnotbeen
    controvertedandinfactheknowingtheA2,A4,A6andA8isan
    unchallengedevidence.Thenhisevidenceisaboutaggressiveand
    provocativespeechesaboutjihadbeingmadeatSIMIprogramsand
    thejihadthattheyweretalkingaboutbeinginrespectofatrocities
    committedonMuslims.HisnextevidencethattheA2andA4used
    togivesuchspeechesisbroughtonrecordasanimprovementand
    thenhehasstatedthatitwashisviewthattheyshouldnottalklike
    this,theyusedtosaythatiftheywanttodosomethingtheywill
    takethehelpfromoutsideandwilldoanythingandsincebeginning
    itwashisopinionthattheyshouldnotusethislanguageandshould
    not think of doing such activities. He has then stated about his
    longstanding friend Ajmeri Shaikh, resident of Ghatkopar, but his
    evidenceaboutthesaidAjmeriaccompanyinghimfortheprograms
    ofSIMIforoneortwotimesandhisviewoftheactivitiesofthe
    SIMIwaslikehisview,isbroughtonrecordasanimprovement.His
    furtherevidenceisabouthe,A8,ImranandIrfanbeingcaughtby
    Parksite Police Station in 2001 on the allegation that they are
    activistsofSIMI.HisfurtherevidenceisthatatthattimetheA8told
    thepolicethatitisonlyhewhodoestheworkofSIMIandallothers
    donothaveanyconcernwithit.Allthisevidenceisuncontroverted
    and has not been brought on record as an improvement, on the
    otherhand,inhiscrossexaminationinparagraph27,itisagainput

    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.

    During his further crossexamination by learned advocate

    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

    nearthe houseoftheA6duringthe crossexamination byallthe


    learnedadvocatesandhisanswersincrossexaminationbylearned
    advocateShettyinparagraph19thatheparkedthemotorcycleata
    distanceof2025stepsfromthehouseoftheA6ontheroadoutside
    thelane,thattheywerenearthemotorcyclewhentheyfirstsawA2
    outsidethehouseoftheA6,thattheyparkedthemotorcyclethere
    forgoingtothehouseoftheA6andhisanswersinparagraph28
    duringthecrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanthat
    hehadfirstseentheA2fromthedistanceof2025stepsandthere
    wasnootherpersonthereplushebeingaskedandhestatingthatit
    didnothappenthathehadstatedtothepolicethatatthattimethey
    hadanoccasiontogofromthesideofthehouseoftheA6whom
    theyknewandwhowasconnectedwiththeSIMIorganisationand,

    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

    itappears thatin his statementtothepolice the witnessdidnot


    stateaboutgoingonmotorcycletoGovandi,eitherhisorAjmeri's,
    and this came during his chiefexamination. Infact, as is again
    submitted by the learned SPP, the witness giving his motorcycle
    numberasMH03AG794doesnotmeanthathehadgoneonthat
    motorcycletothehouseoftheA6.LearnedSPPsubmittedthatheis
    thankfultothelearnedadvocatesforclearingthisambiguityintheir
    minds.

    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

    not shown as an improvement or a contradiction and the only


    improvementthatisshownis thatfamilyofPCAmbekar,PW76,
    waspresentinhishouse,therefore,theycalledhimoutsideandtold
    him about the incident. This is not so material and infact it is
    corroboratedbyPCAmbekar,PW76,inwhoseevidenceithascome
    thatAjmeriShaikhcametohishouseat10or10.30a.m.withhis
    friendAmarKhan,PW75,toldhimthathewantstotellhimabout
    somethingspecialandconfidentialandastherewerechildreninthe
    housetheywentoutsidetoasecludedplace.Thisevidencebyhimis
    alsonotbroughtonrecordasanimprovementoverhisstatement.
    Nowthough,AmarKhan,PW75,didnotsaythattheyshowedthe
    issue of Mumbai Mirror Ext. 810 to PC Ambekar, PW76, PC
    Ambekar,PW76,statedaboutitandalsostatedthatitwasinthe
    newsitemthat23daysbeforebombblasts,bombswerepreparedin
    thehouseofMohd.AliinthepresenceofsomePakistanipersons
    and he identified Ext. 810. He admitted in his crossexamination
    that he did not see the news item in the Mumbai Mirror before
    AjmeriShaikhshowedittohimon28/10/06.Headmittedthattill
    todayhehasnotreadtheMumbaiMirrordtd.01/10/06,butstated
    thatthenewsitemwasonthefrontpageandwhengivenExt.810
    andaskedwhetheritismentionedthat23daysbeforetheblasts
    bombswereassembledinthehouseoftheA6byPakistaninationals
    headmittedthatonreadingthefirstpagethesethingsarenotinthe
    newsitem.Ifthisisreadincontextwithhisearlieranswersthatas
    Ajmeripersonallytoldhimaboutithedidnotreadthenewsitem
    andhecannottellwhatwasinthenewsitem,showsthathereading

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..885..

    Ext.4825

    the news item or not is not of much consequence, because the


    relevantfactisaboutAjmeriandAmarKhan,PW75,comingtohim
    onthatdaywiththesaidnewspaper.AmarKhan,PW75'sevidence
    thattheycalledPCAmbekar,PW76,outsideandtoldhimoutside,
    thoughisshownasanimprovement,itisanaturalconductandhas
    tobewaivedinviewofhissubsequentevidencethatPCAmbekar,
    PW76, told them that they should inform about this to the ATS
    officers.WhattheytoldPCAmbekar,PW76,abouttheincidentis
    describedbyPCAmbekar,PW76,thatAjmeriShaikhtoldhimthat
    23daysbeforetheblastsheandAmarKhan,PW75,hadgoneto
    ShivajiNagarinGovandiintheafternoon,thattheyhadgonetothe
    houseoftheA6,theirfriend,astheyhadnotmethimsincemany
    months, that when they went to his house they saw A2, A4 and
    threeunknownpersonspresentinhishouse,thathewonderedhow
    A6,A2andA4weretogether,thattheysawanelectricwireinthe
    hands of one unknown person, who was joining them and there
    wereheapsofblack,grayandwhitepowderinfrontofothertwo
    unknown persons. This evidence is not brought on record as an
    improvementoverhisstatementundersection161oftheCr.P.C.
    andisnotalsocontroverted.

    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

    waswiththem throughoutthe day andreturnedwiththem after


    their statements were recorded. In respectof his visit tothe ATS
    officeatNagpada,hestatedthathedoesnotknowthenameofthe
    officertowhomtheyweretakenthereandhisevidencethatthere
    wasnootherofficerinhiscabinatthattime,thathedidnotsend
    anyofficerwiththemtoBhoiwada,buthesentPCAmbekar,PW76,
    anddidnotgiveanyforwardingletterfortheBhoiwadaofficeto
    taketheirstatements,areallpositivestatementsalsocorroborated
    byPCAmbekar,PW76.Furtherithascomeaspositivestatements
    andwhichcorroboratetheevidencegivenbyPCAmbekar,PW76,
    thatitwasofficerPatiltowhomtheyfirsttoldabouttheincident
    anditwasofficerAlaknurewhotooktheirstatements.

    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.

    Next aspect is whether really PI Alaknure, PW153, had

    recordedthestatementsofthesetwowitnessesandAjmeriShaikh.
    NowithascomeaspositivestatementsduringtheevidenceofAmar
    Khan,PW75,thatitwasPIAlaknure,PW153,ashethenwas,who
    had recorded their statements and PC Ambekar, PW76, has also

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..890..

    Ext.4825

    endorsed this. PI Alaknure, PW153, did not state in his chief


    examination that he had recorded their statements, however, on
    goingthroughthecasediaryofC.R.No.156/06hestatedthathe
    hadrecordedthestatementsofthesethreewitnesseson28/10/06,
    butthetimingsarenotmentionedinthestationdiaryentry,thathe
    doesnotrememberwhosestatementherecordedfirstandatwhat
    timehestartedrecordingthestatement,whichisnotmuchrelevant.
    TheportionsthatwereconfrontedtoAmarKhan,PW75,andandto
    PCAmbekar,PW76,weregotprovedandtheimprovementsthat
    theymadewerealsobroughtonrecord.Theimprovementsinthe
    evidence of Amar Khan, PW75, were in respect of two or three
    wordsinasentenceandnottheentiresentences.Theimprovements
    in respect of PC Ambekar, PW76, is apparently inconsequential,
    becauseitstatesaboutPCAmbekar,PW76,nothavingstatedbefore
    himthathehadgonefromNagpadatoATSofficeatBhoiwadaupto
    the recording of their statements by PI Alaknure, PW153. Other
    thanthis,therewasnothinginhiscrossexaminationonthisaspect
    tillthedateofhiscrossexaminationwascompletedon13/10/11.
    Afterobtainingcertifiedcopiesofthestationdiaryentries,hewas
    recalledforrecrossexaminationafteraperiodofabouttenmonths
    afterhisevidencewasrecordedon13/10/06.Hewasconfronted
    withthestationdiaryentriesconcerningPCAmbekar,PW76,of27,
    28and29/10/06.Abouthimselfhewassuggestedandhedenied
    thesuggestionthathewasnotpresentatATSofficeatBhoiwada
    between1.00p.m.to3.00p.m.andthereforedidnotrecordthe
    statementsofthesaidthreewitnesses.Heexplainedthathecannot

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..891..

    Ext.4825

    saywhether the station diaryentries arecorrectly made,because


    theyaremadebytheinchargeheadconstableofthestationdiary.It
    was submitted during the arguments and even in the written
    submissionsthatentryno.2of28/10/06,Ext.3092,inthestation
    diaryregisteroftheCrimeBranchshowsthathecameondutyat
    10.00a.m.andthenextentryshowsthatheleftforgoingtothe
    officeoftheACPatBhoiwada.Theentryno.4showsthathewas
    notattheofficeofthe ATSatBhoiwadawhenthe statementsof
    threewitnesseswererecorded,becauseasperAmarKhan,PW75,
    theyhadgonetothesaidofficeatabout2.003.00p.m.Itmayhave
    been so stated by Amar Khan, PW75, but PC Ambekar, PW76,
    statedthathemetPIAlaknure,PW153,onthatdayatabout1.00or
    1.15p.m. Amar Khan,PW75,mayhave given the vague timings
    becausetheentrieswillnotlieandbecausethestationdiaryentries
    of the Crime Branch that are pointedout definitelyshow thatPI
    Alaknure,PW153,hadgonetotheofficeoftheACP,Bhoiwadaon
    that day, may be reaching there some time before 1.45 p.m. PC
    Ambekar,PW76sevidenceaboutthetimingisnotcontroverted.In
    thiscontextthelearnedSPPreexaminedthewitnessinrespectof
    entriesaboutrecordingofstatementofwitnessesandithascomein
    hisrecrossexaminationthatthefactofrecordingofstatementsof
    thesewitnessesismentionedinthecasediary,butnotmentionedin
    the station diary. His recrossexamination has not disturbed his
    evidenceandforthesakeofascertainingmyselfIhaveperusedthe
    case diary of 28/10/06 of C. R. No. 05/06 of the ATS and it
    mentions about recording of statements of Amar Khan, PW75,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..892..

    Ext.4825

    Ajmeri Shaikh and PC Ambekar, PW76, by PI Alaknure, PW153,


    andtheinformationthatAmarKhan,PW75,gaveisreproducedin
    detail.Thusmerelyonthebasisofinconsistenciesinthetimingsin
    thestationdiaryentriesaswellasoralevidencebythewitnesses,
    does not make the evidence of either Amar Khan, PW75, PC
    Ambekar,PW76,orPIAlaknure,PW153suspectanditishonest
    andthereforereliable.Idonotthinkthatapoliceofficerwillgoto
    suchanextenttofabricatetheevidence.PIAlaknure,PW153,was
    crossexamined in respect of his association with PI Salaskar and
    aboutAjmeriShaikhbeingawitnessonthepointofconspiracyin
    the case of Gateway of India and Zaveri Bazar blasts that was
    investigated by ACP Walishetty and he expressed his ignorance
    aboutitandhedeniedthesuggestionthatonthesayofPISalaskar
    he planted these three witnesses in this case and recorded their
    statements.HeadmittedthattheydidnotgivethecopyofMumbai
    MirrorcomprisingofallpagestohimandwhenshownExt.810,he
    statedincorrectlythatthewitnesseshadnotgiventhisnewspaperto
    himanddoesnotrememberwhethertheATSshowedittohimand
    answeredthathedidnotgiveittotheATS.Asmentionedearlierthe
    relevance of the said newspaper is only in respect of memory of
    AmarKhan,PW75,beingtriggeredandtheycorelatingwhatthey
    hadseenatthehouseoftheA6withtheincidentoftheblastson
    11/07/06.Memoryofthewitnessmayfalterbutthatdoesnotmake
    them entirely unbelievable and moreso when two witnesses, i.e.,
    AmarKhan,PW75,andPCAmbekar,PW76,statedaboutit.

    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.

    Learned advocate then submitted about the newspaper Ext.

    810,andthe inconsistentanswers givenbyPIAlaknure,PW153,


    andACPPatil,PW186,inrespectofAjmeriShaikhhandingoverthe
    newspapertoPIAlaknure,PW153.Ihavealreadyconsideredthis
    aspect.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthatasperthestationdiaryentry
    no.6of5.05a.m.on12/07/06ofParkSitePoliceStation,certified
    copyofwhichisatExt.3360,AmarKhan,PW75,wascalledfor
    inquirywithregardtothebombblasts,hisstatementwasrecorded
    andhewas allowedtogo,whichsuggests thathehimself wasa
    suspect.Hesubmitsthatifthewitnesswouldhaveseenanything
    suspicious as claimedby him during the surrounding days of the
    bombblasts,hewouldhavedefinitelyreportedtothepolicethat45
    daysbefore,hehadgonetothehouseoftheA6andhadseenwhat
    hedeposed.Hesubmitsthathedoesnotthinkthatanyprudentman
    will need anything more than this for expressing his suspicion,
    becauseitishisclaimthathehadseenA2andA4outsidethehouse
    andinthehousehesawblackandwhitepowderonthenewspaper
    andsomepersonsconnectingwiresandimmediatelyonthenextday
    morninghewaspickedup,buthedoesnotsayanything.Hesubmits
    that his statement recorded by Park Site Police Station is not

    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

    and 10/07/06. Thus, no fault can be found with the conduct of


    AmarKhan,PW75,innotinformingthepoliceaboutwhathehad
    seen45daysbefore,becauseinfacthehadonlyseenA2,A4andA6
    atthehouseoftheaccusedandasperhisevidencehadseensome
    personswithblackandwhitepowderinfrontofthemandaperson
    joiningwires.Howhecouldvisualizethatitwasasuspiciousthing
    and/or that they were assembling bombs? This would have
    positivelystrucktohimandtriggeredhismemoryonlyonseeingthe
    photographofA6andcaptiononthefirstpagethattheA6madeall
    thebombsinhishouseandthenewsitemthattheA6hasemerged
    asthemainpersoninstrumentalinassemblingallthesevenbombs
    thatweretriggeredofon11thJuly,2006.Nootherinferencebutthis
    canbedrawn.

    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

    circumstances it can be gathered that Amar Khan, PW75, is not


    tellingthetruthandAjmeriShaikhisinstrumentalinarranginghim
    attherequestofPISalaskarandthepainthatheisfeelingcanbe
    gatheredbyhisoneanswerastowhyhehassurrenderedandhe
    pointed out to the question and the answer in the further cross
    examination on 04/02/14. The question was whether he is very
    muchtroubledinhisentirelifebecauseofthecasesinconnection
    with SIMI against him to which he replied that one is always

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..904..

    Ext.4825

    troubled because of court cases. I think that rather than the


    inferencethatthelearnedadvocatewantstodrawfromthisanswer,
    the positive inference can also be drawn that anyone is troubled
    becauseofthecourtcases.Thisdoesnotleadtotheinferencethat
    hewasunderthepressureofPISalaskar.

    865.

    Learned advocate pointed out to the contradictions Ext.

    1657(1 to 8) in the statement of witness and submitted that


    therefore he is not a reliable witness. At the relevant stages the
    contradictionshavebeendiscussedandthequestioniswhetherthey
    canbecalledascontradictionsbecausethewitnesshadnotstatedin
    hischiefexaminationthecontentsoftheportionsconfrontedtohim
    and it was only during his crossexamination that he was asked
    aboutthemtowhichhestatedthathehadnotstatedso.Apure
    contradiction would have been if the witness would have stated
    somethinginhischiefexaminationthatwasdirectlycontradictoryto
    what he had stated to the police. Even otherwise except the
    contradictionaboutthematerialaspect,i.e.,goingtothehouseof
    theA6,45daysbeforetheblastsandheandAjmeriShaikhgoing
    insidethehouseoftheA6andA6talkingwiththemandA4giving
    teatothem,theothersarenotmuchmaterialanddonotamountto
    contradictionsthatwouldaffecthisevidence.

    866.

    In respect of the evidence of PC Ambekar, PW76, learned

    advocate Wahab Khan submits that the policeman himself is


    contradicting aportionofhisstatement.ThatportionisExt.1658
    anditsaysthathisstatementwasrecordedattheofficeoftheATS,
    Mumbaionthatdate.Ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationthatthe

    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.

    The written submissions made by learned advocate Sharif

    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.

    Next point is about Amar Khan, PW75s evidence about

    attendingSIMIprogramsandtherebeingaggressiveandprovocative
    speechesaboutjihadinthoseprogramsandhiscrossexamination
    onthataspect.Thequestionsareaskedastowhyhedidnotoppose
    the police though he was so vigilant when he realized that the
    speecheswereprovocativeandaggressiveandwereantinational,
    whypolicedidnotcatchanypersonandbookhimfortherelevant

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..907..

    Ext.4825

    offence?This has not happenedwhichmeans thatthere wereno


    provocativeandaggressivespeeches.Idonotunderstandwhysuch
    questionsareaskedandhowsuchinferencecanbedrawnfromthe
    evidenceofthewitness.Evenotherwise,itisnotdirectlyrelevantto
    thefactinissueforwhichthewitnessisexamined.Itisthenpointed
    outthatthewitnessadmittedthathedoesnotknowhowmanyand
    whowerethepersonswhogavethespeechesonmegaphone,which
    showsthathedoesnotknowanythingaboutitandthenitisalleged
    thattheprosecutiontriedtoimprovethematterbyreexaminingthe
    witness in the absence of the accused persons during which he
    stated that his statement in chiefexamination relates to the
    aggressiveandprovocativetalksoftheA2andA4aftertheprogram
    atAzadMaidan,butatthesameplacewhenabout57peoplewere
    aroundandotherwisealsowhenevertheyusedtomeet,thosetwo
    accused used to talk accordingly about jihad. A scandalous
    allegationismadethatthisimprovementismadebythelearnedSPP
    incollusionwiththewitness,becauseintheearlierdepositionhe
    referredtospeechesandnowthespeechesbecometalksandthat
    too not in only two programs, but whenever they met and this
    improvementshowsthefalsity.Itispointedoutthatintherecross
    examinationthewitnessadmittedthathedidnotstatethesethings
    to the police when he gave statement. All these submissions are
    baselessanduntenablelegallybecausereexaminationofawitness
    is not to cover up some lacuna in his evidence but it is only for
    obtaininganexplanationaboutsomeambiguityanditwasdonein
    thepresenceoftheadvocatesfortheaccused.

    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

    PC Ambekar, PW76, and PI Alaknure, PW153. The cross


    examinationofboththesewitnessesinrespectoftheinvestigationof
    this crime by the Crime Branch at Kurla, more particularly by PI
    Salaskar'sUnit,whetherPCAmbekar,PW76,remembersthefaces
    ofsuspectsA2,A3,A4,A10andA11,whomhehadtakentoBhabha
    hospital,whetherPIAlaknure,PW153hadseentheA2,A3,A4,A5,
    A9,A10andA11andwitnessMohd.Alam,PW59,intheiroffice
    during 13/08/06 to 15/08/06 is reproduced in extenso. Placing
    relianceonthestationdiaryentriesinExt.3092,whichmentions
    bucklenumbersofpolicemenattachedtothatofficeandpointing
    out to the buckle numbers of the policemen mentioned in the
    medical papers of the Bhabha hospital Exts. 2061 to 2077, it is
    submittedthatboththesewitnessesarerunningawayfromthese
    aspects, hence their deposition is false and is required to be
    discarded.Thereafter,depositionsofA4,A2,A6,A5,A10,A11and
    A9 in respect of they being taken to the said unit of the Crime
    Branch,theirallegedtorturebythepoliceofficers,whosenamesare
    specificallymentionedandbeingtakentoBhabhahospital,where
    false records were prepared, are reproduced in extenso and it is
    submittedthatnowitiscrystalclearfromtheirevidenceandthe
    evidenceofDr.Ochaney,PW179,thatthesaidaccusedweretaken

    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.

    The possibility of the accused being shown to Amar Khan,

    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.

    The last ridiculous submission relying on the station diary

    entires no.8 dtd.14/07/06 and26/07/06, Exts. 4210and 4206


    respectively,inrespectofinquirywiththeA6intheUnitVIIofthe
    DCB,isthattheonlyinferencethatcanbedrawnisthatthewhole
    storyiscookedupandfalselyprepared.Howitiscookedupisnot
    explainedandmerelybecausetheA6hadbeencalledonthosetwo
    daysforinquiryandallowedtogodoesnotipsofactomeanthathe

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..914..

    Ext.4825

    wasgivenacleanchit.ThatwastheinquirybytheCrimeBranch
    anditisonlywhentheATSsteppedinthepictureandhiscomplicity
    wasrevealedthathewasarrested.Itisnotsubmittedastohowthis
    affectstheevidencegivenbyAmarKhan,PW75,andPCAmbekar,
    PW76.

    878.

    In respect of the evidence given by Amar Khan, PW75,

    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

    examined extensively on all possible aspects and he says in all


    fairnessthattherearesomecontradictionsandsomeofthemare
    evenmaterial,butnotreallyverysignificantastothefactinissue.

    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.

    Learned SPP submits that in the crossexamination of the

    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.

    Learned SPP further submits that Amar Khan, PW75, and

    Ajmeri Shaikh did not go to PC Ambekar, PW76, as a man who


    would be a proper man to guide them, but because he was a
    neighbourandacquaintanceofAjmeriShaikh.Theonlyhesitation
    forexplainingthedelayfrom01/10/06to27/10/06isthatgiving
    suchtypeofexplanationwouldconstruethattheyareapartofthe
    organisationconsideringtheyareSIMIbackground.Tomymind,the

    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

    the blasts. However, it will have to be held that by the cogent


    evidence of Amar Khan, PW75, PC Ambekar, PW76, and PI
    Alaknure,PW153,prosecutionhasprovedthatAmarKhan,PW75
    hadgonetothehouseoftheA6afewdaysbeforetheblastsand
    had seen the A2, A4 and A6 outside his house. This is the
    circumstanceno.18provedbytheprosecution.ItisagainstA2,
    A4andA6.ItisthesecondcircumstanceagainsttheA2,A4andA6.

    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.

    One more witness Dr. Aminuddin Abul Hasan Khan, DW7,

    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.

    Learned SPP submits that even if the evidence of Bilal

    Kadiwala,DW8isacceptedthenfromtheCDRofthemobilethat
    theA7wasusing,hislocationsshowtheplacesdifferentthanhis
    shop.HesubmitsthatthiscannotbethecreationoftheATS.Itis
    producedthattheA7himselfandthisintrinsiccircumstanceisthe
    testtodeterminewhetherthereisanysubstanceinthedefenceof
    theaccused.

    894.

    It is in the written submission Ext.2828 of the A7 and he

    accordingly deposed that on 6th, 7th, 8th and 10/07/06 also he


    attendedhisclassesatMaladataround8.00a.m.andhismobile
    repairingshopatJogeshwariataround11a.m.anddidnotvisitany
    placeatShivajiNagar,Govandionthesedaysandon09/07/06he
    wasathishouseforthewholedayandhissisterandbrotherinlaw
    MehmoodQureshi,PW65,hadcometomeetthemandwerewith
    themforthewholedayandwentbackintheevening.However,he
    deposedinconsistentlythathewenttothe shop atJogeshwariat
    5.30p.m.on08/07/06anddidnotgototheinstituteatMaladon
    10/07/06, but directly went to the shop at Jogeshwari. This
    evidencewasrecordedon17/07/13.However,whenherestarted
    givingevidenceonthenextdayon18/07/13aftertherecess,he
    requested permission to state about some problem about his

    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

    himself by giving different version. He admitted that nothing


    concerninghiswifehadhappenedon08/07/06andreiteratedthat
    hedoesnotfeelthatanythingimportanthasremainedtobewritten
    in his written submissions other than what he stated about. The
    explanation thathe gave on18/07/13does notfind placein his
    writtensubmissionsandthereasonthathegaveforremembering
    the events of 7th, 8th and 10/07/06 are obviously improvements.
    Thus, it is clear that his testimony is discredited because of his
    inconsistentevidence.

    896.

    Thematterdoesnotstophere.Withrespecttothemobiles

    that he was using, he stated as per paragraph 2 in his written


    submissions that in 2006 he was using two mobiles, one
    9224446830inhisname,whichheusedtokeepathishousefor
    contactingandother9867244681,whichheusedtokeepwithhim
    continuouslywhereverheusedtogo.HereferredtotheCDRsExts.
    3814,4101and4102respectivelyoftheabovetwomobilenumbers
    inhisfurtherevidence.Inrespectof8th to10/07/06thereisonly
    one sentence that the tower locations of his mobile from 5 th to
    10/07/06areatMiraRoad,Malad,JogeshwariandBorivali.Itis
    obviouslyavaguestatementandnospecificcallsfromtheCDRsare
    pointedout.Asperhisdepositionrecordedon17/07/13hewentto
    hisshopatJogeshwariat5.30p.m.at08/07/06,however,twocalls
    at3.44p.m.and3.48p.m.inExts.4101and4102ofhismobileno.
    9867244681showtowerlocationsofJogeshwari.Inhisdeposition
    recorded on 18/07/13 he stated that he was at the shop for the
    wholeday,i.e.,from11.30a.m.However,therearenocallsshowing

    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.

    The evidence given by Mehmood Qureshi, PW65, is relied

    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

    A7 has failed to prove his defence of alibi about 08/07/06 and


    10/07/06 and insofar as 09/07/06 it is only the evidence of his
    brotherinlawMehmoodQureshi,PW65,whoisawitnesshostileto
    theprosecution.Hence,itwillhavetobeheldthathehastakenthis
    falseplea. Thisisthefifth

    additionalcircumstanceinthechainof

    circumstances against all accused. It is the first additional


    circumstanceagainsttheA7.

    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

    prove his defence of alibi that he was not at Shivaji Nagar in


    Govandi on 8th, 9th and 10/07/06, but was at Mira Road and
    Mumbra.Itisclearthathispleahasbeenfalsified.Thus,thisisthe
    sixthadditionalcircumstanceinthechainofcircumstancesagainst
    alltheaccused.Itisthesecondadditionalcircumstanceagainstthe
    A4.

    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

    DW4, are directly contradictory and inconsistent with the


    statementsmadebytheA6inhiswrittenstatementExt.2827that
    on08/07/06and10/07/06hesoldTilismaMotifrom9.00a.m.and
    8.00 a.m. respectively to 9.00 p.m. to 9.30 p.m. respectively, at
    variousplaces.Itisalsodirectlycontradictoryandinconsistentwith
    thesimilarevidencegivenbytheA6asDW42.Thus,thisstatement
    falsifies his evidence. There is no other corroboration to the
    statementsmadebytheA6inhiswrittenstatementandinhisoral
    evidence. It has come in the evidence of the A6 that his brother
    MuktargaveacomplaintMiscellaneousApplicationNo.309of2006
    inthecourtthroughhislawyeron07/11/06ashe,i.e.,theA6,had
    toldhimon06/11/06whenhemethimintheprison,thatheis
    falsely involved, that his signatures have forcibly taken on the
    confessionalstatement,thathewasthreatenedofbeinginvolvedin
    theMalegaoncaseandinvolvinghisfamilymembersinthiscaseif
    he does not become approver, etc. In this connection during his
    crossexamination by learned SPP he admitted that his brother
    Muktar wrote all things in Miscellaneous Application No. 309 of
    2006onhisinstructions,butthereisnoallegationinitthatpolice
    werepressurizinghimtosaythatheandhisfamilymemberswere
    not residing in his house from 8th to 10/07/06. Though he
    volunteeredthereafterthathehadtoldhisbrothertowriteit,buthe
    musthaveforgottentowriteit,headmittedthatitdidnothappen
    that he, i.e., the A6, did not tell him some things, but he wrote
    anything. Shaikh Hazrat Ali, DW4, stated during his cross
    examinationbythelearnedSPPthathestayswithhisbrother,i.e.,

    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.

    Learned advocate submitted that there are two important

    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.

    He submits that the witness gave minute details of all the

    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

    of the defence is exposed by the evidence of Shaikh Hazrat Ali,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..939..

    Ext.4825

    DW4. Though wife of the A6 was present in the court when


    summonedbythedefence,shewasdropped.Hepointedoutthat
    ShaikhHazratAli,DW4,onlysaysthatthefamiliesofallthethree
    brotherswereintheirhouseonthesaidthreedays,buthehasnot
    statedabout11/07/06orthereafter.Hehasnotstatedthatnoguest
    cametotheirhouseduringthatperiod.Tomymind,thiscanmean
    thathedoesnotknowaboutitashewasoutofthehouseonthese
    threedays.LearnedSPPthenpointedouttothecontradictoryand
    inconsistent statements made by the witness in respect of work
    timings of the A6, which I have already discussed. Learned SPP
    submits that what is important is that this contradictory and
    inconsistent answers given by Shaikh Hazrat Ali, DW4, are not
    correctedbyreexamininghim.Hesubmitsthatwhereastheaccused
    wantstocreatesomematerialwhichwillappeartobebelievable,
    whathashappenedinfactisthatalltheaccusedhavechosento
    examinethemselvesonlyaftertheycollectedwhateverinformation
    theycouldundertheRTIActandtheytriedtomouldtheirevidence
    in suchamanner thattheir depositionswouldbejustifiedinthe
    lightoftheevidencethattheyhavecollected.However,heretheA6
    isdirectlyexposedwhenhetalksaboutreturningat9.00p.m.

    909.

    Though the A6 stated about using prepaid mobile no.

    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.

    It is alleged by the prosecution that wanted accused no. 1

    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

    His next evidence in paragraph 4 is about he going to the

    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.

    I will not discuss in detail the crossexamination of this

    witness because as mentioned earlier except a few improvements


    thathemadeoverhisstatementsundersections161and164ofthe
    Cr.P.C.,hisevidenceispracticallyunblemished.Moreover,hiscross
    examination is more on extraneous issues rather than the core
    issues.Iwill,therefore,directlygotothesubmissionsmadebythe
    learned advocates of the respective accused. Learned advocate
    ShettyfortheA1,A3,A8,A9,A11andA12submittedthatheisnot
    areliablewitnessandthoughheissuchanimportantwitnessin
    viewoftheeventsaboutwhichhedeposed,hewasnotcalledfor
    identificationoftheaccusedotherthantheA1andA2andthough
    hetookthenameofA11,hecouldnotidentifyhiminthecourt
    inspiteofeffortsbythelearnedSPP.LearnedSPP'ssubmissionson
    thispointarethatthepointthatheismakingisthathadthewitness
    beingatutoredorgotupwitness,hewouldnothavesavedanybody
    andwouldhaveidentifiedtheA11also.Thefactthathewasunable
    toidentifytheA11onlygoestoshowthatheisatruthfulandhonest
    witness.Tomymind,identificationparadeisnotalwaysnecessary.It
    issettledlawthatidentificationparadesarebywayofassuranceto
    the investigating machinery that they are proceeding in the right

    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

    Learned advocate submits that it is the specific case of the

    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

    knowthat his closefriends have been arrested,then in thatcase


    thereisnoreasonforthismannottoapproachthepoliceandgivea
    statement. The very fact that till 02/11/06 he did not give any
    statementtothepoliceshowsthathedoesnotknowanythingand
    has not witnessed anything. His crossexamination shows that he
    cametoknowabouttheblastsontheveryday,thathesawthenews
    ontelevisionandreadinthenewspaperaboutthearrestoftheA3
    andA12,sawtheA12onthetelevisionalsoandultimatelyhesays
    thatthoughheknewthathisfriendswerecaughtbythepolice,he
    didnotcontactthemupto02/11/06.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthat
    ifweseethetenorofhisevidence,itdoesnotstandtothescrutiny
    and it is required to be rejected. Learned SPP submitted in this
    respectthatifapersonisaninformerofthepolice,hemaygotothe
    police to report about any suspicious thing. However, it is not
    necessarythatanyordinarypersonwillgotothepolicestationto
    reportaboutanysuspiciousthing.Hequestionsastowhowillthink
    ofinvolvinghimselfinpolicematters?Tomymind,thewitnesshas
    notstatedaboutanythingsuspiciousgoingonorthathesuspected
    something. Learned SPP submits that if his evidence in chief
    examinationisread,itdoesnotshowthatthereisanythingartificial
    or exaggerated or imaginative because he has not drawn any
    conclusion,notdrawnanyinferenceandhasonlynarratedwhathe
    saw and experienced. To my mind, the explanation given by the
    witnessinparagraph19dispenseanydoubtabouttherebeingdelay
    inrecordinghisstatement,becauseafteradmittingthatitistheduty
    ofeverycitizentohelpthepoliceandinformifacrimeisdoneor

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..956..

    Ext.4825

    any person is doing anything wrong and it is necessary to keep


    distancefromapersonwhoisterroristorinvolvedinillegalactivity,
    thatheknowsandhasheardaboutterroristactivitiesagainstthe
    nationandaboutLeT,anorganisationinPakistandoingterrorist
    activities,hedeclinedknowledgeofanysuchactivitiesandsaidthat
    hewasnotsureafterJanuary,2006thathehadsuchinformation
    thatheshouldtellthepoliceand,thisisimportant,becausetheA3
    washisfriend.Further,hestatedthathedidnotthinkitnecessaryto
    tellthepoliceevenafterthemeetingofFebruary,2006and,thisis
    againimportant,becausehedidnotknowwhathadtranspiredin
    thatmeeting.Lastly,evenaftercomingtoknowthatpersonsfrom
    Pakistan have come to the house of the A3, he did not think it
    necessary to tell the police about it and, this is again important,
    becausetheydidnotsayanythingwronginhispresence.Thisshows
    thatheisnotprejudicedjustbecausehesawsomePakistanipersons
    inthehouseoftheA3,becausethereisnobanonPakistannationals
    legallyenteringIndiathoughhemaynotbeknowingwhetherthey
    havereallylegallyenteredornot.Ithinkthatthereasonsgivenby
    him are perfect, if one considers that the A3 and A12 were his
    friends and if one considers that they used to go to dance bars
    together.Itissaidthatrelations ofliquorarethickerthanblood.
    Secondly,ifnothingtranspiredinthemeetinginhispresenceandif
    nothingwrongwassaidinhispresence,howcouldhecorelatethe
    happeningsofthebombblastsandthearrestoftheaccusedwith
    thosemeetings.

    924.

    The above aspect is also submitted in point no. 18 in the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..957..

    Ext.4825

    written submissions in volume4 given by the learned advocate


    SharifShaikhandpointno.19issayingthatthestatementofthis
    witnesswasnotrecordedbyACPPatil,PW186.Afterreproducing
    substantial part of his crossexamination in this respect, it is
    submittedthatitappearsthatthewitnesswasinMumbaionthe
    dateoftheblaststillhisstatementwasrecorded,thattheCDRExt.
    3768ofthemobilethatwasbeingusedbytheA3showsthathewas
    in regular contact with him even on 11/07/06 and then it is
    submittedthatA4,A6,A10andA12havestatedintheirevidence
    thatMohd.Alam,PW59,was calledatthe ATSoffice in August,
    torturedandinterrogated.Thusthedelayinrecordinghisstatement
    show that he has stated a false story. Reliance is placed on the
    answersgivenbyACPPatil,PW186,inhiscrossexaminationthat
    thenameofthiswitnesswasdisclosedduringtheinterrogationof
    theA3andthenitissubmittedthatA3wasremandedtojudicial
    custodyon09/10/06,therefore,thereisdelayof23days,which,
    ACPPatil,PW186,triedtoexplain,butitcannotbeconsideredin
    respect of such an important witness. This submission obviously
    ignorestheanswersgivenbyACPPatil,PW186,thatitisnotthatin
    all the cases where the names of witnesses are revealed in the
    interrogationoftheaccused,theinvestigating officercontactsthe
    witness immediately for verification. He also explained that they
    contactthewitnessaspertheirconvenienceandnotattheirwhims
    anditwilldependontheavailabilityofthewitnesswhentheofficer
    maybeabletocontacthim.Inthisconnection,themostimportant
    answer given by Mohd. Alam, PW59, is that if police would not

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..958..

    Ext.4825

    havecalledhim,hewouldnothavegoneandgivenhisstatement.

    925.

    Inmyhumbleopinion,consideringthereasonsgivenbythe

    witnessinparagraph19,Idonotthinkthatthereisanydelayin
    recordingthestatementandifatallitisthere,tomymind,itdoes
    notaffectthecredibilityofhisevidence.

    926.

    LearnedadvocateShettyplacedrelianceontheanswersgiven

    by the witness in paragraph 38 of his crossexamination in


    connectionwithrecordingofhisstatementbeforethepoliceaswell
    asbeforethecourtandquestionedastowhatistheindicationwhen
    the witness was told on 02/11/06 that he has to state the same
    thingsbeforethecourtwhichhestatedbeforethepolice.Idonot
    thinkthatthereisanythingwronginthepoliceaskingthewitnessto
    statethesamethingsbeforethemagistrate,whichhehadstatedto
    themon02/11/06.Therefore,thesanctityofthestatementrecorded
    before the magistrate is not affected. Placing reliance on the
    statementmadebythewitnessthathesawtheA9forthefirsttime
    inFebruary,2006,thereafterhedidnotmeethimandthereafterhe
    sawhiminthecourtonly,learnedadvocatesubmitsthattherefore
    theparticipationandanyassistancebytheA9istotallyruledout.I
    donotknowhowsuchinferencecanbedrawn,becausecertainly
    thewitnessstatedaboutseeingtheA9inthehouseoftheA3onlyin
    February,2006andnotonanysubsequentoccasioninMarch,May,
    JuneorJuly,2006.

    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

    knowledge about the subject matter of the meeting. Learned


    advocatenextsubmitsthatthedefencecalledfortheCDRsofthe
    mobiles of A3,A4, A7and A13 and it can be gatheredfrom the
    evidence of the investigating officers that the CDRs were already
    collected and studied, but when the A2, A4, A9 and A13 gave
    evidence,theywerenotsuggestedthattheirlocationinFebruary,
    2006 was in the house of the A3 and on the contrary the
    investigatingofficersaresayingthattherewasnothingusefulinthe
    CDRs.Tomymind,nodoubttheaccusedgaveevidenceandrelied
    ontheCDRsoftheirmobiles,buttheprosecutioncannotproveits
    case only by giving such a suggestion to them in their cross
    examination. It can only show the improbability of the defence,
    whichisthesameasitisnecessaryfortheaccusedonlytoshowthe
    probability of their defence being true. On the same point he
    submits that there is no record of CDR of the mobiles that the
    locationsofthetowersshowthattheA2,A3,A4,A12andA13were
    atMiraRoadinMarch,2006.Muchhasbeensaidanddiscussed
    abouttheevidencebywayofentriesintheCDRsandIdonotthink
    thatthiswasfortheprosecutiontoprove.

    928.

    Learned advocate raises a question about conduct and

    credibilityofthewitnessinthelightoftheevidencegivenbyhim
    thatA3haddisclosedtohiminJanuary,2006aboutbeingamember
    ofLeT,undergoingtraininginPakistan,disclosinghisrealname
    andidentity,butinspiteofthishedidnotbothertoseparatehimself
    ordisassociatefromhim.Tomymind,itwouldhavebeenbetterif
    thewitnesswouldhavebeenaskeddirectlyastowhyhedidnot

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..962..

    Ext.4825

    sever relations with the A3 immediately in January, 2006 after


    coming to know about his activities and his contacts with Azam
    ChimaofLeT.However,thereisnoquestioningonthisaspectand
    theanswergivenbythewitnessinhiscrossexaminationthathewas
    notsurewhetherafterJanuary,2006hehadsuchinformationthat
    he should tell the police, explains his conduct of continuing his
    contactwiththeA3.Notonlythathehasalsoexplainedthathedid
    notgotothepolicebecausetheA3washisfriendandnotonlyjusta
    friend, but they were together in their vises, which is a more
    bondingfactor.

    929.

    Learned advocate submits that though it is alleged by the

    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

    Pakistanis in the house of the A3 still he continues with his


    friendshipandgoestobarsandthereforethestoriesnarratedbyhim
    about the information given by the A3 in January, 2006 and

    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.

    Placing reliance on the call data in the CDR Ext. 3768 of

    mobile number of the A3, i.e., 9833059249, learned advocate


    submitsthatasperthewitnesshelastlymettheA3on02/07/06,
    but then there are calls on that day, on 5th, 6th and even on
    11/07/06.Inrespectofcallson11/07/06hepointsoutthatonecall
    isat1523hoursof132pulse,thenonthesamedayinthenight
    thereisacallat2359hoursof126pulse.Thesewereonthedayof
    theblastsitself.Thentherewerecallson14/07/06and18/07/06.
    Therefore, the claim of the witness that he lastly met the A3 on
    02/07/06isfalse,becauseevenafterthatdayheiscontinuouslyin
    touch with the A3. To my mind, meeting a person in person is
    differentthancallinghimonmobilephone.Thereisnothinginthe
    crossexaminationofthiswitnessinrespectofhiscallstotheA3.It
    can be argued that the CDRs were obtained much later and
    thereforethiswitnesscouldnotbequestionedaboutthem.However,

    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

    his association with the LeT, Mohd. Alam, PW59, continued


    associationwithhimanditappearstobeabsolutelyunnaturalthat
    though he called the A3 on the day of the blasts, it was after a
    period of about three months. There are no calls by him from
    February to April, 2006 and the first call by this witness is on
    17/06/06,whichfortifiestheircasethatthewitnesswasinChina
    andthereforehisevidenceaboutthemeetingsinFebruary,March
    andMayisafalsestorybecausethereisnocallpriorto17/06/06.
    Tomymind,the production andproving ofthe CDR andrelying
    uponitasevidenceisbytheaccusedandnotoftheinvestigating
    agency.ThewitnesswasnotsuggestedthathehadnotcalledtheA3
    fromFebruarytoApril,2006becausehehadgonetoChina.The
    CDRthatisproducedcontainsthecalldataofJanuary,May,June
    andJuly,whichmeansthattheCDRofFebruary,MarchandAprilis
    notretrievedandproduced.TheCDRsExt.3768(1to4)forthe
    months of January and May to July, 2006 were proved by nodal
    officer Yogesh Rajapurkar, DW36, of Bharti Airtel Company and
    whenhewasaskedhecouldnotexplainastowhydataofsome
    periodisnotintheCDR.However,hisanswersinparagraph15of
    his crossexamination showthatwhatever data was available was
    produced before the court and more than one year old data is
    purgedandarchivedonmagnetictapesandthereisnoscopefor
    manipulationofthearchiveddataandwhateverisretrievedisthe
    correctdata.ThismayalsomeanthatA3didnotusehismobile
    fromFebruarytoApril,2006andthereforethereisnocalldataof

    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.

    Learned advocate next points out the contradicted portion

    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

    that the statement was recorded at Chandanchowki office of the


    ATS,whereas,ACPPatil,PW186,saysthathedoesnotremember
    wherehehadrecordedit.Ontheotherhandtheentriesinthelog
    book Ext. 4299 produced by the prosecution during the cross
    examinationoftheA4,DW38,inrespectofMH01SA131,shows
    that the vehicle had not gone to Chandanchowki on 02/11/06,
    whichclearlyshowsthatfalsestatementhasbeenintroduced.Itis

    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.

    Similar ridiculous submissions as were made in respect of

    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.

    In the point no. 9 after reproducing Mohd. Alam, PW59's

    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.

    The particulars given by Mohd. Alam, PW59, in his cross

    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.

    Itis allegedbyplacing relianceon his inconsistentanswers

    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.

    A ridiculous submission was made that it has come in his

    crossexamination that when he was called by the police he was


    frightenedandthereforeitis possiblethathehas becameafalse
    witnessbecauseofthethreatsgivenbythepolice.Thereafterthe
    evidence given by the A12 about assaulting and threatening the
    witnessbyPIKhanvilkar,PW168,isreproducedanditissubmitted
    that it is proved that he was threatened and because of this any
    personcandoanything.Thissubmissionismisplacedbecauseithas
    comeinparagraph15ofMohd.Alam,PW59,whileexplainingsome
    improvements,thatthereasonwhythesethingsarenotmentioned
    in his statement before the police and magistrate is that he was
    afraid at thattimeandtherefore he hadforgotten totellandhe
    couldnottellashehadgonetocourtfirsttime.Thus,noinference
    canbedrawnfromtheevidencegivenbytheA12thatthewitness
    wasinfactthreatenedbecausenosuchthinghasbeenputtohimor
    suggestedtohim.Noinferencecanbedrawnthatjustbecausehe
    wasfrightenedonbeingcalledbythepoliceorwhenhewenttothe
    courtthatitispossiblethathehasbecomefalsewitness.

    948.

    Itisclearthatthesubmissionsmadebythelearnedadvocates

    havenotshownastowhythewitnessshouldnotbebelieved.Inthis
    respectthelearnedSPPsubmittedthatheisastarwitnessandhis
    crossexaminationhasnotshakenhiscredibilityandthereisnodent
    tohisevidenceincrossexamination.Inrespectoftheidentification
    oftheaccusedinthecourt,thereisnosuggestionthattheaccused
    werepointedouttohim.Hesubmitsthatifthechiefexaminationof

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..976..

    Ext.4825

    the witness is seen, there is no exaggeration or imagination and


    anythingartificialaboutitbecausehehasnotdrawnanyconclusion,
    hasnotdrawnanyinferenceandhehasnarratedonlywhathehas
    experienced.

    949.

    Learned SPP made an important submission that whatever

    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

    very much valid for appreciating the evidence of all types of


    witnesses. Applying, these tests to the evidence of Mohd. Alam,
    PW59,Ihavenohesitationtoholdthatheisanimpeccablewitness.
    Hehasnocriminalantecedents,noconnectionwiththepoliceeither
    asawitnessorpanchoraccusedandnoanimosityagainstanyofthe
    accused. Thus, I have no hesitation in accepting his evidence as
    truthful. Hence, it will have to be held that by his evidence the
    prosecution has proved : (i) that the A3was concernedwith the
    atrocitiesbeingcommittedonMuslimsandwasoftheviewthatthe
    onlywaytosolvetheirproblemswasbywayofjihad,(ii)thatthe
    A3hadgonetoPakistantwiceandhadtakentraininginthecamps
    of LeT, (iii) that wanted accused no. 1 Azam Chima rendered

    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

    Pakistan,etc.Thus,the prosecution is relying onthe evidence by


    wayofrecoveryofmapsfromthesaidaccusedaswellasonthe
    recoveryofpassportsofA2,A9,A10andA11andtheemergency
    certificateoftheA3bywhichhewasdeportedfromSaudiArabia.

    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

    Gangan, PW15, has accordingly deposed and his evidence is


    uncontroverted. Secondly, learned advocate pointed out to the
    struckouttheword'nived'inthestationdiaryentryno.1797and
    submittedthatfalsestationdiaryentryismade.Idonotseehow
    suchaninferencecanbedrawn.Itisusualforapolicepartytogo
    for search and seizure after an accused makes a statement, i.e.,
    'nivedan',andthepossibilitycannotberuledoutthatthesaidword
    musthavebeenstartedtobewrittenbytheSHO,butasitwasnot
    factually correct, it was struck out before it was written fully.
    LearnedadvocatealsoraisedanissueaboutthenameofPCJagdale
    beingnotmentionedinthepanchanamaExt.450asSr.PIRathod,
    PW176,hasdeposedaboutit,butitisofnoconsequence.Sr.PI
    Rathod,PW176,deniedthesuggestionthatthehousesearchofthe
    accusedwasnottakenandbothpanchanamaswerepreparedinthe
    ATSofficewiththehelpofregularpanchas.Asmentionedearlier,
    thecrossexaminationofShridharGangan,PW15,isveryshortand
    there is absolutely nothing to show that he has any criminal
    antecedents or that he has any links with the police. However,
    learned advocate Wahab Khan referred to a photocopy of the
    panchanama in a crime of Police Station Kalachowki Ext. 3196,
    which is certified as a true copy by the PI of Kalachowki Police
    StationandwasobtainedundertheRTIAct.Thisdocumentisnot
    provedasperthelawandevenotherwiseitisofasubsequentdate,
    i.e., of 11/09/07, and does not affect the evidence of panch
    witnesses.

    955.

    The station diary entries Exts. 1797 and 1798, are the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..983..

    Ext.4825

    contemporaneousrecordwhichcorroborate the evidenceofSr.PI


    Rathod, PW176, and Shridhar Gangan, PW15. PSI Gaikwad,
    PW169,hadalsoaccompaniedthemforthesearchandseizureand
    hisevidencehasalsocorroboratedtheirevidenceandthepertinent
    statementsthataremadebyhimarethatofreachingthehouseof
    theA2,twopanchasbeingcalledandtheaccusedbeingtakeninveil
    whentheyproceededforthesearch,thatonreachingthehouseof
    theA2,twopanchaswerecalledandtheyveiledtheaccusedinhis
    houseandthencameoutofthehouse.Healsoidentifiedboththe
    panchanamas and stated that a person by name Prakash Krishna
    Pillai, i.e., PW16, was present in the office of the International
    TradeLinksandheidentifiedtheA2andproducedthepassportExt.
    449,whichhealsoidentified.HealsoidentifiedtheA2inthecourt.
    He also correctly stated that both the panchanamas contain the
    signaturesoftheA2,butcommittedamistakebysayingthatthe
    panchanama Ext. 450 contains the signatures of Prakash Pillai,
    PW16,whichis factuallyincorrect.Thereis nothinginhiscross
    examinationaboutthisevidence.

    956.

    Learned advocate submitted during his arguments that the

    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

    and certain books allegedly issued by the SIMI similar to those


    recovered from the A3 under the panchanama Ext.534. This
    recovery followed the recovery of the house from the A3 on
    28/07/06,i.e.,thenextdayofthearrestoftheA3aswellastheA9.
    IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thatafterthe
    panchanamainrespectofthesearchandseizureintheflatoftheA3
    wasover,theA3wasmadetositinveilinanothervehicle,thaton
    his, i.e., Sr. PI Rathod, PW176's, request the same panchas
    consentedtoactaspanchwitnessesforthesearchoftheA9,that
    they were taken to the vehicle in which the A9 was and he was
    showedtothembyremovingveilandonaskinghisnamehetoldthe
    same.HedescribedtheprocedureofsearchatthehouseoftheA9in
    theflatno.203onthesecondflooroftheTirupatiApartmentin
    MiraRoad(E),aboutthefatheroftheA9openingthedoorandthen
    theyenteringthehouseandsearchingitandfindingthearticlesthat

    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.

    Crossexamination of Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, has not

    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.

    In this respect, learned advocate Shetty rightly submitted

    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

    upon as it is not that the A9 is the only person residing in that


    house.InfactbeforehisarresttheA9wasathisplaceofworkat
    Bangalore,whichisalsoadmittedby Sr.PIRathod,PW176,and
    duringthisperiodhisparentsandotherfamilymemberswereinthe
    house.ThoughtakingoutkeyfromthebagisattributedtotheA9,
    thatdoesnotshowhisexclusiveknowledgeofthearticlesbecause
    the key was not hidden anywhere, thereby giving access to
    everybody.Tomymind,thisrecoverywasnotattheinstanceofthe
    accused,butitwasaregularhousesearch.MaybetheA9tookout
    the key and then produced the articles, but relevance of this
    recovery lies in the nature of the articles that were found, viz.,
    passport,mapsandthebooks.Hence,thisaspectdoesnotweaken
    theevidenceofthesearchandseizure.

    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

    continuation to the panchanamas Exts. 756 and 757. His further


    evidenceisaboutgoingtothehouseoftheA10alongwithpanchas,
    searchingitandfindingandseizingthearticlesasaredescribedin
    paragraph97supra,underthepanchanamaExt.758.Therelevant
    articlesthatwerefoundandseizedarethepassportoftheA10,Art.
    251,Ext.621,mapofMumbaiandaninternationalmapArts.248
    and250,Ext.1448respectivelyandbooksArts.249(1to6)similar
    to those that where found and seized from the A3 and A9. This
    evidenceiscorroboratedbytheevidenceofpanchwitness Alankar
    Mane, PW61, who deposed exactly as per the contents of the
    panchanamaExt.758.Bothidentifiedallthearticlescorrectlyand
    separately,identifiedsignaturesofAPIKadamandpanchasonthe
    labelsandtheirsignaturesandsignatureoftheA10andhisbrother
    onthepanchanama.Bothprovedthecontentsofthepanchanama
    Ext.758, the contents of which corroborate their version. Both
    identifiedtheA10inthecourtunhesitatingly.Asmentionedabove,
    thispanchanamaisincontinuationofthepanchanamasExts.756
    and 757 with breaks at the end of each panchanama with the
    signatures of the officers, panchas, occupants of the concerned
    house andthe accused.Ext.756contains the signature of Mohd.
    HussainDawreybythesideofthesignatureofthepoliceofficerand
    panchas,Ext.757containsthesignatureof AbdulDawrey,PW71,
    similarly of having received copy and Ext. 758 contains the
    signaturesofA10andhisbrother.Thisissufficienttovouchsafethe
    authenticityofthepanchanamaExt.758.

    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.

    Crossexamination of PSI Gaikwad,PW169, concerning this

    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

    within a period of five days, and in addition to what I observed


    aboveaboutitbeingimpossibleforasingleinvestigatingofficerof
    the rank of a Police Inspector to prepare a master plan to plant
    similartypeofarticlesonsomeoftheaccused,i.e.,thebooksand
    themaps,itwillhavetobeobservedthattheseizurewithinfive
    dayscannotbedisbelievedanddiscountedonlybecauseitwasnot
    followedbyavoluntarydisclosuremadebytheaccused.

    972.

    Aridiculoussubmissionwasmadebylearnedadvocatethat

    theprosecutionshouldhaveexplainedthesourceofthemaps.To
    mymind,itisfortheaccusedtoexplainthesourceofthemaps.Itis
    sufficientfortheprosecutiontoprovetheseizureofthemapsandto
    trytoshowtheirrelevancewiththecaseoftheprosecution.Next
    learnedadvocatecriticizedabouttakingofthepanchwitness,whois
    aresidentofKalachowkiarea,thoughthepolicewantedtogoto
    Puneforthesearchandthereisnopresearchpanchanamainthe
    ATSoffice.NosuchsuggestionwasgiventoPSIGaikwad,PW169,
    astowhyhedidnotprepareapresearchpanchanamaanddidnot
    takepanchasfromPune.

    973.

    In view of the above discussion, it is clear that no dent is

    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

    wooden cupboard on the western side of the loft, taking out a


    passport from a drawer, two booklets and maps alongwith the
    sundryarticleslikeblackwallet,ATMdebitcardofCanaraBank,
    motordrivinglicence,etc.Hedeposedaboutaskingthepanchasto
    sign on the two books and on the maps and also putting his
    signaturesandseizingallthesearticlesunderthepanchanamaExt.
    527. Panch witness Mukesh Jadhav, PW30, corroborated his
    evidenceintotoandspecificallydescribedwhatarticleswerefound
    including three maps which he described. Now this is something
    unusual because from the other accused only two maps were
    recovered,viz.,oneaphotocopyofaninternationalmapandthe
    otherthemapofMumbai.Hedescribedallthearticlesandhowthey
    were taken in possession and identified his signature on the
    panchanamaExt.527andthesignatureofthepoliceofficerandthe
    otherpanchandalsooftheaccused.Both,heaswellasPITonapi,
    PW155, specifically and individually identified each and every
    article,theirsignaturesonthelabelsandthemapsandthebooks
    andonthepanchanama.PITonapi,PW155,identifiedA11inthe
    courtandMukeshJadhav,PW30,identifiedhimunhesitatingly.The
    articlesthattheyareidentifiedaremoreparticularlydescribedin
    paragraph99supra.

    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

    respect of this search and seizure is concerned, the cross


    examinationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhaninparagraphs15to
    17 has revealed nothing except that the entries in the log book,
    certified true copies of which were produced and received in
    evidenceandmarkedasExts.1676and1677inrespectofthepolice
    vehicleno.MH01BA4328,donotshowthathehadgoneinthat
    vehicletoWorli.HewasalsogivenasuggestionthatthebooksArts.
    135and136arecolourphotocopiesofallbooksthatwereseized
    from some accused by Khandwa police in C. R. No. 256/06 on
    16/04/06 and they have been planted on the accused. It is also
    suggestedthatthemapArt.138wasplantedontheaccused.Insofar
    as the crossexamination by the learned advocate Shetty is
    concerneditisfromparagraphs26to30,butnothingadversecould
    bebroughtfromhiscrossexaminationexceptnotmentioningthat
    theyhadtakentheinvestigationkitwiththemandpanchaswere
    offeredtheirsearchesandsearchofthevehicle.Headmittedthathe
    didnotputhissignaturesanddidnotaskpanchastosignonthe
    driving licence, wallet, diary, ATM card, visiting cards, chits and
    currencynotes,butinfactthoseareincidentalseizuresanddriving
    licence Art. 140 and ATM card Art. 141 requires no particular
    identificationandarebythemselvesdocumentsofidentification.His
    admission that generally persons carry their wallets and driving
    licence with them, rather than helping the accused, to my mind,
    helpstheprosecution,becauseitisfortheaccusedtoexplainasto

    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.

    In respect of the evidence about this search and seizure,

    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.

    Learned advocate submits that the panch witness is a

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1009..

    Ext.4825

    professional panch because he has admitted that he worked as a


    panchwitness,theevidenceisnotuptothemark,hehadnotseen
    thearticlestakenbythepoliceandhadnotinspectedthemandthe
    searchofthevehiclewasnottakenandthepanchanamadoesnot
    showthatsomewitnessesfromthatareawerecalledwhereasthe
    panchwitnessisaresidentofBhoiwadawhereanotherATSofficeis
    situated.Tomymind,thepolicehadstartedfromtheirofficewith
    theintentionoftakingthehousesearchoftheA11,sonofaultcan
    befoundwiththemintakingpanchasfromthatarea,etc.Thoughit
    isadmittedbyMukeshJadhav,PW30,thathehadnottakenthe
    articles in his hands and not inspected them, the maps and the
    bookscontainhissignatureandthelabelonthepassportandthe
    envelopescontainhissignatureandofPITonapi,PW155.Itisnot
    forapanchwitnesstoinspectthecontentsofanybooksormapsin
    detail,becauseheisconcernedonlywiththeseizure,recoveryandit
    isfortheinvestigatingofficertoreadthecontentsandtointerpret
    them.Thus,thissubmissionisnotacceptable.

    982.

    Learnedadvocatenextsubmitsthatinnormalcircumstances

    sealing of material is not always necessary, but where there are


    chancesofmanipulationorconcoctionthenitisnecessarythatthe
    articles must be sealed with lac seal, because chances of
    manipulationcannotberuledout.Hesubmitsthatmapsarefound,
    theinvestigatingofficercouldhaveverywellputthemarkingson
    the printed map in red and green ink, draw the line on the
    internationalmapandifitispackedandsealedbeforethepanchas
    andtheevidenceofthepanchasisbelievablethentheseizurecanbe

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1010..

    Ext.4825

    acceptable. Otherwise, it can always be said that these are the


    tampereddocuments.Inmyhumbleopinion,thearticlesthatwere
    seizedconsistedofpapers,i.e.,passport,maps,books,purse,etc.,
    andthere was noquestion of sending them tothe laboratoryfor
    chemicalanalysis.TheybearthesignaturesofthepanchasandA11
    hasnotdisownedthe purse,ATMcardandpassport,etc.Infact,
    thesedocumentsareverypersonalinnatureandtheveryfactof
    findingtheminthehouseoftheaccusedisthemostnaturalthing
    anditcannotbesaidthattheyhavebeenplanted,ascanbesaidin
    respect of the maps and the books. However, the fact they were
    found alongwith the maps and the books lends credibility to the
    recoveryandtheseizure.Itisalsoanadmittedpositionthatupto
    12/08/06theATSdidnothaveitsownbrasssealanditisnotthat
    thearticleshavebeensimplytaken.Signaturesofthepoliceofficers
    andthepanchashavebeenmadebythematthespotandalsoon
    thelabelsandtheyhavebeenpackedintheenvelopes.

    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

    investigating machinery and the entire evidence about the house


    searchisnothingbutafabrication.Tomymind,suchaninference
    cannotbedrawnmerelyontheoralevidencegivenbytheaccused.
    Asagainstthis,itis theoralevidenceofPITonapi,PW155,and
    panchwitnessMukeshJadhav,PW30,theirsignaturesonthemaps,
    books, labels, on the passport and the envelope and the
    contemporaneous record, i.e., the station diary entries which are
    uncontroverted.Thus,thissubmissionisofnouse.

    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

    Rohit Warang, PW19, who deposed exactly about the accused


    makingthestatement,thatheisreadytoproducethemapsandthe
    booksandthestatementbeingwrittenbythepoliceandhesigning
    it.Heidentifiedhis signatureandaswellasthe signatureofthe
    otherpanch,ofthepoliceofficerandoftheA2.Hethendescribed
    theroutebywhichtheywenttothehouseoftheaccusedandthe
    accusedobtainingakeyofthehouseofhisbrotherfromhismother,
    takingthemtothebuildingbynamePilaMahalandtothehouseof
    his brother on the second floor, opening the lock and producing
    somemapsandsomebookswhichpolicetookintheircustodyunder
    the panchanama Ext. 485. He as well as Sr. PI Rathod, PW176,
    identified the two maps and the eight books separately and
    specifically.Theyalsoidentifiedtheirsignaturesonthelabelsandon
    themapsandtheirsignaturesandthesignatureoftheotherpanch
    andtheaccusedonthememorandumExt.484andthepanchanama
    Ext.485andRohitWarang,PW19,unhesitatinglyidentifiedtheA2
    inthecourt.

    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

    giving the voluntary statement and making the discovery of the


    booksandmaps.HesubmittedthatthepassportoftheA2thatis
    seizedshowsthedateonwhichhehadgonetoIran,butthereisa
    widegapfromthedayofhisreturnfromIranuptothedateofthe
    allegedseizureofthemap.HesubmitsthatinaworldofInternet
    whereeverythingisavailableattheclickofthemouse,itappears
    improbableonthefaceofitthatamancarriesamaplikeinanold

    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.

    Again the submission by the learned advocate that the

    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.

    Learned advocate attacked the credibility of Rohit Warang,

    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.

    In this respect the evidence of the A4 as DW38 is in

    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

    presumption is that a public servant does his duty honestly and


    diligently.Hesubmitsthatthequestionisastowhatisthemotiveor
    reason for the investigating officer in that case to part with the
    copies and it will have to be appreciated that the investigating
    machineryisofadifferentStateanditistoomuchtoquestionthe
    integrity of every policeman. To my mind, these submission are
    correctandIdonotthinkthattheATSofMaharashtrawouldhave
    anyinfluenceontheinvestigatingmachineryofanotherState.

    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.

    1004. It has come in the evidence of Hidayatulla Sundke, PW64,


    who is a resident of Pune, that he was working in Jeddah from
    17/01/00 to 06/09/10, that 78 months before July, 2006 he
    becameacquaintedwithwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey,who

    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.

    1005. He was crossexamined in respect of how much foreign


    currencyonecanbringinIndiaandwhetherhehasbroughtany
    moneywithhimanytime,etc.,butthatisirrelevantinsofarasthe
    fact about he carrying the Saudi Riyals with him to India is
    concerned.Headmittedthathedidnotdeclarethathewascarrying
    15000SaudiRiyalsattheJeddahairportortheMumbaiairportand
    that except his words he has no evidence to show that he had
    broughtthatamountwithhim.ThisispreciselywhatIwassaying.
    His evidence is a totally innocuous evidence without any other
    evidencetocorroboratehisversionaboutbringingtheSaudiRiyals
    with him from Jeddah to Mumbai and handing it over to Bilal
    Shaikh, PW66. There is no whiff of any untruthfulness in his
    evidenceorintheactthathedid.Hiscrossexaminationbylearned
    advocateWahabKhanisongeneralaspectsaboutplightofpersons
    workinginSaudiArabiaandontheotherhandithascomethatBilal
    Shaikh, PW66, had brought officer Kshirsagar to his house, who
    made inquiry with him. This means that after the investigating
    machinery interrogated Bilal Shaikh, PW66, they came to

    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.

    1006. Thus the evidence of Hidayatulla Sundke, PW64, is totally


    unimpeachedandIhavenohesitationinaccepting itastruthful.
    TheblanksabouttheidentityofthesaidMuzzammilbeingtheA9
    and of Bilal Shaikh, PW66, have been filled up by Bilal Shaikh,
    PW66,andMohsinKhan,PW67,becauseboththesewitnessesare
    relatives of A3andA9and the Muzzammil towhom Hidayatulla
    Sundke,PW64,referred,isconfirmedbybothofthemtobetheA9
    before the court. About the said transaction, it has come in the
    evidence of Bilal Shaikh, PW66, that the A9 called him on his
    mobilephonefromBangaloreon04/07/06(thisdateisrelevant)
    and told him that A3s money has come and a person by name
    Hidayatulla,whostaysatSalunkheVihar,hasmoneyandhegave
    the mobile number of Hidayatulla and asked him to collect the
    moneyfromhim,tellinghimthatmaybetheA3willcometohim
    andcollectthemoney.He,i.e.,BilalShaikh,PW66,inturntoldA9
    thathewouldcallthatpersonHidayatullaSundke,PW64,onthe
    nextday,i.e.,on05/07/06(thedateisrelevant)andaccordingly
    called Hidayatulla Sundke, PW64, and told him that the A9 had
    givenhimhisnumberandthataskedhimtocollectthemoneyof

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1038..

    Ext.4825

    Faisal that had come to him, whereupon, Hidayatulla Sundke,


    PW64,toldhimtocometohisresidence.Ipointedouttheabove
    twodatesasbeingrelevantbecausetheycorroboratetheevidenceof
    Hidayatulla Sundke, PW64, that he got a call on his mobile on
    05/07/06fromBilalShaikh,PW66.Fromthis,itcanbeinferred
    thatthemobilenumberofHidayatullaSundke,PW64,wasgivento
    theA9,whomusthavegotitfromwantedaccusedno.2Rizwan
    Dawrey.IthascomeintheevidenceofBilalShaikh,PW66,thathe
    wenttotheresidenceofHidayatullaSundke,PW64,whocameout
    of the house and gave him the money which was 15000 Saudi
    Riyals.ThisaspectofhandingovertheSaudiRiyalsisprovedby
    boththesewitnesses.TheevidenceofBilalShaikh,PW66,furtheris
    somewhat inconsistent with the evidence of Hidayatulla Sundke,
    PW64,becausehestatedthathewasshockedonseeingthemoney,
    thatasitwasforeigncurrencyheaskedHidayatullaSundke,PW64,
    aboutitwhosaidthatitisfortheconstructionofmasjidandthatit
    wassentbywantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey,whowasinSaudi
    Arabia at that time, that he therefore called Muzzammil on his
    mobile and asked him about the money and Muzzammil assured
    himthateverythingwasfine.Thisevidenceisinconsistentwiththe
    evidenceofHidayatullaSundke,PW64,butthefactabouthanding
    over15000SaudiRiyalstoBilalShaikh,PW66,on05/07/06athis
    houseisprovedbeyonddoubtandtheinconsistentevidencegiven
    byboththesewitnessesdoesnotaffectitsveracity.Thisistheendof
    thistransactioninsofaritrelatestotheroleplayedbyHidayatulla
    Sundke,PW64.

    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.

    1008. Most of the crossexamination of Bilal Shaikh, PW66, by


    learnedadvocateWahabKhanisirrelevantandinthenatureofa
    fishingexpeditionandabsolutelynothingadversewasbroughton
    record to discredit his version. On the other hand, when he
    attemptedtoshowthatthewitnessistutored,BilalShaikh,PW66,

    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

    15000 Saudi Riyals and he was shocked on seeing it as it was


    foreigncurrencyandabouthistalkwithA9onhismobileinfrontof
    HidayatullaSundke,PW64,andagainthathehadcalled Mohsin
    Khan,PW67,andtoldhimthatthereissomemoneyofA3andhe
    shouldtakeittoMumbaiandA3willcollectfromhimatthe JJ
    Hospital.Now,alltheseimprovementshavebeenwashedoutbythe
    suggestion given to him at the end of paragraph 22 which he
    admittedandinwhichhehadstatedthatitdidhappenthatMohsin
    Khan,PW67,cametohimtohishouseinthemorning,he,i.e.,Bilal
    Shaikh,PW66,toldhimtotakethemoneytoMumbaiandgiveitto
    theA3,that MohsinKhan,PW67,askedhimforwhatpurposethe
    moneyisandhetoldhimthatwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey
    had sent it from Saudi Arabia for construction of masjid and
    MuzzammilhadcalledhimonphonefromBangaloreandtoldhim
    totakeitfromapersonbyname Hidayatulla,thatMohsinKhan,
    PW67,agreedandthereafterBilalShaikh,PW66,wentoutofthe
    house, that in the afternoon when he reminded him on phone,
    MohsinKhan,PW67,tookthe15000SaudiRiyalsthathehadkept
    withhisgrandmother.Hestatedthathehadstatedsotothepolice
    andpolicehadwrittenitcorrectly.Sowhateverinconsistenciesor
    improvementsmightbethereintheevidenceofBilalShaikh,PW66,
    or MohsinKhan,PW67,arecoveredbythesestatementsandthey
    areconclusivelyestablishthefactofMohsinKhan,PW67,having
    takentheSaudiRiyalsfromthehouseofBilalShaikh,PW66.Thus,
    there are no contradictions in his evidence and there is no
    impedimentinacceptingitasatruthfulevidence.

    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

    money on his behalf from any person either on telephone or in


    person. In connection with the evidence of these three witnesses
    learnedadvocateShettyhasaskedcertainquestionstoquestionthe
    credibilityofthistypeofevidencebroughtbytheprosecution.He
    submitsthatthereisnoinformationastoinwhichvillagethemasjid
    wastobeconstructed.Thissubmissionisobviouslyignoringthefact
    that it was a ploy used by wanted accused Rizwan Dawrey to
    convinceHidayatullaSundke,PW64,tocarrytheSaudiRiyalswith
    him.LearnedadvocatesubmitsthatotherparticularsofA9except
    that he is resident of Kondhwa had not been provided. This
    submissionorqueryisalreadycoveredasBilalShaikh,PW66,and
    Mohsin Khan, PW67, are relatives of the A9 and admittedly
    HidayatullaSundke,PW64,hadnoconcernwhatsoeverwithanyof
    them.Hisnextsubmissionisthat HidayatullaSundke,PW64,was
    notgiventhefullparticularsofA9includinghismobilenumberand
    even though he sent an SMS to wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan
    Dawreyon04/07/06askingforthemobilenumberoftheA9,hedid
    notgetanyreply,butsuddenlyonthe5th hegotacallfromBilal,
    whoaskedformoneyandexcepthisbarewords,thereisnoother
    corroboratingmaterialaboutthetalkandotherdetails.Atthecost
    ofrepetitionitwillhavetobepointedoutthattheevidencegivenby
    HidayatullaSundke,PW64,isfullycorroboratedbytheevidenceof
    Bilal Shaikh, PW66. Thus this submission does not affect his
    credibility.

    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.

    1013. Inmyhumbleopinion,consideringthefactthat Hidayatulla


    Sundke,PW64,BilalShaikh,PW66,andMohsinKhan,PW67,have
    nocriminalantecedentsandnothingwasbroughtonrecordtoshow
    theirpreviousconnectionwiththepoliceortheATSandthefact
    thatBilalShaikh,PW66,andMohsinKhan,PW67,arerelativesof
    the A3 and A9 and no enmity have been shown on their part
    towards the said accused, all these three witnesses are the most
    impartial witnesses and I have no hesitation in accepting their
    testimony as truthful. Hence, it will have to be held that the
    prosecutionhasprovedthatwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawrey
    sent15000SaudiRiyalsfromJeddahinSaudiArabiatoIndiawith
    HidayatullaSundke,PW64,on03/07/06forbeinggiventotheA9,
    that Bilal Shaikh, PW66, collected this money from Hidayatulla
    Sundke,PW64,on05/07/06ontheinstructionsoftheA9,thatat
    theinstructionsofBilalShaikh,PW66,themoneywascollectedby
    MohsinKhan,PW67,andtakentoMumbaiontheinstructionsof
    theA9forbeinghandedovertoA3,thatMohsinKhan,PW67,took
    thesaidmoneytoMumbaiandA3collecteditfromhimattheJJ
    Hospital in Mumbai. The seizure of 15000 Saudi Riyals from the
    houseoftheA3on28/07/06,i.e.,onthenextdayofhisarrest,
    underthepanchanamaExt.533leadstotheinferencethattheyare
    the same Saudi Riyals that he had collected from Mohsin Khan,
    PW67. This is the circumstance no. 25 proved by the
    prosecution. It is against the A3 and A9. It is the seventh
    circumstanceagainsttheA3andfourthcircumstanceagainsttheA9.

    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.

    1015. The investigating officer recorded the statement of Abdul


    Dawrey,PW71,inconnectionwiththeseizureoftheSaudiRiyals
    fromhim,butmainlyforthepurposeofshowingtheconnectionsof
    theA3andwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreywithSIMI.His
    evidenceaboutitwillbeconsideredattheappropriatestage.Ithas
    comeinhisevidencethatA3andhisbrotherwantedaccusedno.3
    Rahil Ataur Rahman Shaikh were friends of his younger brother
    wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan Dawrey and they used to visit his

    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

    as panch witness Alankar Mane, PW61. To my mind, this aspect


    alone will not discredit his earlier unimpeached evidence about
    receiptoftheSaudiRiyalsfromhisbrotherwantedaccusedno.2
    RizwanDawreyatthehandsofAfzalandATSpoliceseizingitfrom
    himon30/07/06,thatwantedaccusedno.2RizwanDawreyhad
    informedhimon26/07/06thattheenvelopewasfortheA3.

    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

    EnforcementDirectorate hadtakenthe permission from the court


    andinquiredwithandtakenthestatementoftheA3inconnection
    with both the amounts of Saudi Riyals and on his request and
    authorization, the Saudi Riyals were handed over to him before
    panchason25/09/06underthepanchanamaExt.1255.Ithascome
    inhisevidencethathehandedover26200SaudiRiyalsto Arvind
    Kumar,PW40,underthepanchanamaExt.1255beforethepanchas
    andheprovedthecontentsofthesaidpanchanamasandidentified
    his signature, signatures of the panchas and of Arvind Kumar,
    PW40.IthascomeinhisevidencethatArvindKumar,PW40,also
    prepared a panchanama about seizure of the Saudi Riyals and
    obtained his signature and of the panchas and he identified
    signatures of all on the panchanama Ext. 1256. His cross
    examination by learned advocate Wahab Khan is in respect of
    whatever he stated in court being an improvement over his
    statementgiventoACPPatil,PW186,however,itwasnoticedthatit
    was written in other words. His crossexamination by learned
    advocateShettyfortheA3hasnotrevealedanythingadversethat
    would affect his testimony or impeach his credibility about the
    evidencethathegave.Hemadeapositivestatementthathedidnot
    informtheEnforcementDirectorateabouttheseizureoftheSaudi
    Riyals,theycameontheirownandaskedfortheRiyalswhichwas
    precededbytheircorrespondencewiththeJt.CP,ATSandtheyhad
    cometoknowthattheATShadseizedsomeSaudiRiyalsandhad
    askedforthedocumentsinconnectionwiththeseizureandhe,i.e.,
    Sr.PIRathod,PW176,wasdirectedtocomplywiththatletter.His

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1057..

    Ext.4825

    statement further that the Enforcement Directorate got the


    information from the newspapers wherein seizure of the Saudi
    Riyals was published is corroborated by the evidence of Arvind
    Kumar,PW40.HewasconfrontedwiththepanchanamasExts.1255
    and1256andaskedwhetherthefontinboththepanchanamasare
    the same and he stated that they are same. However, when
    confrontedwiththeauthorizationletterExt.2037heexpressedhis
    inabilitytosaywhetherthefontinitissimilarwiththefontinthe
    panchanamas.Nowwhathevolunteeredis veryimportantandis
    natural.Hestatedthatthefontintwocomputersmaybesimilaras
    theyaredefaultfonts.Thisiscorrectandacceptableinviewofboth
    the panchanamas being prepared in the office of the ATS on the
    computersoftheATS.Thereisnothingotherthanthisinhiscross
    examination and he specifically explained that after a discussion
    betweenhimandArvindKumar,PW40,thetwopanchanamaswere
    prepared by them separately on two computers in his office, his
    writerPCJagdaleusedtooperatethecomputers,onepanchanama
    wastypedbyhimandonewastypedbyawriterwhowastaken
    from the adjacent room. Thus, there is nothing fishy about the
    preparationofthepanchanamasintheATSofficeonthatday.

    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

    amounting to 26200 Riyals. He identified the A3 in the court


    unhesitatingly.

    1023. During his crossexamination by learned advocate Wahab


    Khanwhenhewasaskedtostatethenameofnewspaperinwhich
    hehadreadthe news aboutseizure of foreigncurrency,he went
    throughhisrecordonbeingpermittedandstatedthatthenewsitem
    had appeared on 01/08/06 in the Free Press Journal, Mumbai
    Edition.Mostofhiscrossexaminationisconcerningtheprocedure
    thatheadoptedforrecordingthestatementsoftheA3,Khaleeda
    and Abdul Dawrey, PW71, and in respect of some improvements
    andcontradictionsinhisstatementthathegavetothepolice,which
    aremostlyconcerningtheaspectofrecordingofhisstatements.He
    made a positive statement that he did not go the ATS office
    thereafterexcepton25/09/06,i.e.,thedateoftheseizureofthe
    Saudi Riyals. Same is the case about the crossexamination by
    learned advocate Shetty for the A3. Admittedly, Arvind Kumar,
    PW40, did not state about preparation of the panchanama Ext.
    1256,thecontentsofwhichshowtheseizureofSaudiRiyalsatthe
    ATSofficeon25/09/06anditisonlyinhisevidencethatheseized
    theforeigncurrency,i.e.,26200SaudiRiyals,thatwereseizedby
    theATS.Therefore,therewasnocrossexaminationtohimonthe
    pointoftheseizure.Ontheotherhand,anindirectstatementhas
    comeinparagraph31ofhiscrossexaminationthatupto25/09/06
    hehadnooccasiontoseetheseizedcurrencyandhedidnotaskthe
    police and they did not produce the Saudi Riyals before him on
    21/08/06and24/08/06andevenwhenherecordedthestatement

    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

    of 200denomination were found in another packet. He admitted


    thathecannotreadandwriteUrdu,hasneverseennotesasthose
    hesawonthatdayandexceptthedigitof500doesnotknowabout
    thecontentsofthenotes.Thisadmissionisirrelevantinsofarasthe
    aspectofopeningthetwopacketsandhandingthemovertoArvind
    Kumar,PW40,isconcerned.Hisevidencethathewentoutofthat
    office at 2.30 p.m. is corroborated by the contents of the
    panchanamaExt.1255whichshowsthatitwasoverat1430hours.
    Now,insofarasthepreparationofthetwopanchanamasbythetwo
    officers is concerned, he stated that both were preparing the
    panchanamasatthesametimeandspecificanswershavecomein
    paragraph11ofhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahab
    KhanthatcorroboratetheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thathe
    sawthatthereweretwodifferenthavildarsforhelp,thatofficers
    weredictatingtothem,thattherewasadistanceof10feetbetween
    theofficers,thatoneoftheofficerswasnearonewallandother
    officerwasattheotherwall,thatbothpanchanamasstartedatthe
    sametimeandhewasnearofficerRathodinitially,butitdidnot
    happenthatinbetweenhetoldhimtogonearofficerSinghand
    thencomebacktohimandsignhispanchanama.Allthistypeof
    crossexamination is inconsequential and does not affect his
    evidenceandaverypositivestatementwasmadebyhimthathedid
    notmovefromhisplacetillofficerRathodexplainedthecontentsof
    thepanchanamatohim.Lastlyheturneddownthesuggestionthat
    officer Vijay Salaskar called him in Kurla Crime Branch and had
    takenhissignaturesonreadymadepanchanamasandheidentified

    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.

    1028. It is alleged by the prosecution that in pursuance of the


    aforesaid criminal conspiracy, the A3 went to Pakistan for
    undertakingtraininginthehandlinganduseofarmsandexplosives
    firstly on 01/10/01 and returned to India on 29/11/01 through
    WagahborderusingIndianpassportbearingNo.B5403385issued

    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

    written statement Ext.2829 filed alongwith his statement under


    section313oftheCr.P.C.thathehadgoneforthemarriageofhis
    cousinsisterinKarachi,thoughhehasmentionedthathehadgone
    inDecember,2001.

    1030.

    The prosecution examined Subhash Choudhary, PW114,

    whowas postedas immigration officer in 2001atAttari Railway


    Station,Amritsar,to prove the entry Ext.1190 and he provedthe
    entryatsr.no.979,whichshowsthatoneMohd.Faisals/oAtaur
    Rehman, r/o 1B1/24, Kubera Garden, NIBM Road, Pune,
    DOB1974, passport No.B5403385 issued on 06/06/01, visa no.
    251828dated27/08/01haddepartedIndiaon01/10/01andhis
    destination was Karachi.He provedacknowledgmentofhisoffice
    belowExt.1188andtheletterExt.1189sentbyhisofficesaying
    thattheyareaspertheoriginalandalsotheentriesinExt.1190(2
    pages),whichareof01/10/01andareinhishandwriting.Then,
    SurjeetSingh,PW115,whowaspostedasimmigrationofficeratthe
    samerailwaystationinNovember,2001andwasatcounterno.19
    concerningMaharashtraandGujaraton29/11/01,provedtheentry
    no.4inExt.1192.Hehadbroughttheoriginalregisterof29/11/01
    andithascomeinhisevidencethatalltheentiresonthatdayarein
    hishandwritingandtheentryatsr.no.4isconcerningthepersonby
    nameMohd.Shaikh,whosepassportnumberwasB5403385,dateof
    issueis06/06/01andyearofbirthis1974andstatedthatthedate
    ofdepartureandtheserialnumberiswrittenincolumnno.10and
    thenameofthecitywherehewouldgoinIndiaiswritteninthelast
    column, which is Pune. He explained that he had wrongly and

    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.

    In this respect learned advocate Shetty for the A3 made

    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

    he directed PI Bavdhankar, PW152, on 08/08/06 to take the


    statements of the travel agents who had obtained the visas and
    ticketsfortheA2,A9,A10andA11,hadgonetoPakistanviaTehran
    andtocollectthedocumentsinthatconnectionandithascomein
    hisevidencethatPIBavdhankar,PW152,afterdoingthesaidwork,
    produced the statements, panchanamas and the documents that
    were seized under the panchanama which included registers and
    photocopies of travel documents and deposited them with the
    muddemalclerk.PIBavdhankar,PW152,corroboratedhisversion
    andstatedaboutmakinginquiries andtakingstatementsofeight
    travelagents,outofwhomtheprosecutionexaminedPWs43to47,

    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.

    It has come in the evidence of Mushtaq Ahmed, PW46,

    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.

    During his crossexamination by learned advocate Shetty

    one more contradiction is brought on record, i.e., Ext. 1643(9)


    whichisabouthestatingtothepolicethathehadgonetoSaudi
    Arabia in 199495. What happened is this that during his cross
    examinationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanhewasdirectedto
    producebankpassbookofhissisterorhisstatementofaccountfrom
    thebankinrespectofhisremittancetohishomeinthenameofhis
    sisterwhenhewasworkinginSaudiArabiaandonthenextdayof
    hiscrossexaminationhereportedthathehadgonetothebank,but
    thebankofficialstoldhimthattheydidnotkeeptherecordthatis
    more than 10 years old and stated that he had brought three
    remittance slips, Exts. 626(1 to 3), 627 and 628, which are dtd.
    23/10/93,24/11/93and21/02/94.Itis,therefore,thatduringhis
    crossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanhestatedthat
    hedidnotgotoSaudiArabiain1994,buthadgoneinApril,1993
    butdoesnotremembertheexactdate,butthathehadstatedtothe

    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

    the evidence of Mohd. Umar,PW47, who works as a travel sub


    agent,doingtheworkofobtainingvisasandticketsandfrom1997
    mostlydidtheworkofsendingpeopletoMaldives.Ithascomein
    hisevidencethatsomepersonscomedirectlytohimandsomesub
    agentsalsobringtheworkandoneofsuchsubagentsisMushtaq
    Ahmed, PW46, whom he knows since 10 years, that he became
    acquaintedwithhim910yearsbefore,hehadbroughttheworkof
    atailorforbeingsenttoMaldives.Ithascomeinhisevidencethat
    MushtaqAhmed,PW46,hadcomewiththepersonsbynameFaisal

    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.

    It has come in his evidence that he does not maintain

    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

    the seizure of various documents and registers under the


    panchanamasExts.1637and1641,headmittedduringhiscross
    examinationthatarticlesthatareseizedunderthepanchanamaare
    required to be sealed using lac seal and brass seal and that the
    registersanddocumentsthatheseizedarenotsealed.Forthis,he

    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

    and can be read as it is. There is no crossexamination to Sr. PI


    Rathod,PW176,aboutit.

    1046.

    Inthisrespect,learnedadvocateShettyfortheA3criticized

    the evidence given by Manisha Doiphode, PW142, but only


    submittedthatasshedoesnotknowactuallyinwhatcircumstnaces
    their department received the emergency certificate, it cannot be
    linkedtothepassportoftheA3andthatherevidencedoesnotlead
    to any conclusion as to how and in what circumstances the
    certificate was issued. He submitted that looking at the reason
    narratedbytheprosecutionitcannotbesaidthattheaccusedhad
    goneforsomeillegalactivityandoverstayedthereevenafterthe
    lapse of visa. Learned SPP submitted that the evidence of this
    witness only shows that the A3 was deported on the emergency
    certificate and it was the effort of the A3 to screen his visit to
    Pakistan,therefore,thepassportwaslostordestroyedandasthe
    original passport was not available the emergency certificate was
    issued.Tomymind,itwillalsoshowthathemayhaveoverstayedin
    Pakistanormayhavemovedaroundinaforeigncountrywithout
    havingavalidIndianpasport.Thecorrespondenceandtheinquiry
    madebytheinvestigatingmachineryshowsthepromptactionand
    theproperlineofinvestigationastheA3wasarrestedon27/07/06
    andthefirststepthatwastakenbyissuingthefirstletterinquiring
    aboutthisaspectisdated09/08/06.

    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.

    It is alleged by the prosecution that in pursuance of the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1086..

    Ext.4825

    aforesaid conspiracy and while the A3 was still in Pakistan, he


    instructedtheA9tosendsomemoreMuslimyouthstoPakistanfor
    undergoingtrainingandaccordinglytheA9paidandarrangedfor
    thetravelandtrainingoftheA2inPakistan,thatinordertoavoid
    detection,theA2wenttoPakistan via IranfromChatrapatiShivaji
    International Airport, Mumbai on 21/05/04, traveling on Indian
    passportbearingNo.B0099830issuedbyRPO,Mumbai.Itisalso
    allegedthatasapartofthesameconspiracyandasinstructedby
    theA3,theA9illegallytraveledtoPakistanviaIranon09/08/04.It
    isalsoallegedthatonreturnfromtraining,theA2inducedtheA11
    to undergo training in Pakistan to achieve the larger objective of
    conspiracy and collected A11's passport bearing no. A1886227
    issuedbyRPO,Mumbai,handeditovertotheA9whointurngotit
    stampedwithziyaratvisaforIranandA11leftMumbaiforTehran
    on04/04/05.

    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.

    It has come in the evidence of Afzal Hirji, PW43, that

    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.

    It is the evidence of Mushtaq Ahmed, PW46, Ashik Ali,

    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

    admitted that the registers are not maintained as per any


    governmentrulesorguidelines,butthenhehasnotprofessedso.He
    admittedthatthereisnoendorsementoftheIranConsulateorof
    thepolicehavingcheckedtheregisters,thattherearenosignatures
    of the persons whose names and details are mentioned in the
    entires,thattheregistersarenotseriallypagedandnotmaintained
    datewise.However,heemphaticallydeniedthattheregistersarenot
    ofhisfirmandhedidnotproducethemandexplainedinresponse
    to the question about the registers not being maintained
    chronologically,thatentriesaremadeintheregistersasandwhen
    thepassportsofthepassengerswerereceived.

    1055.

    His crossexamination by learned advocate Shetty from

    paragraphs 17 to 21 is more specific and to the point. It is with


    respecttotheformat,contentsoftheregistersandtheirpractice.To
    recapitulate,therearefourentriesprovedbyhim,oneintheregister
    Ext.616pertainingtotheA9,secondandthirdintheregisterExt.
    617 pertaining to the A11 and Chipa Mohd. and fourth in the
    registerExt.618pertainingtoZulfiquarFaiyyazAhmed.

    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

    passengers in groups or other passengers where handwriting in


    respectoftheentriesofalltheotherpassengersisthesame,butthe
    handwritingoftheentryofonepassengerisdifferentandeventhe
    inkisdifferent.Sothesethings,tomymind,ruleoutthepossibility
    ofconcoctionandsaidentryisnotsuspect.Secondly,thefirstentry
    onthatpageandthethreeentriesbelowtheentryoftheA9appear
    tobeinthesamehandwritingandappeartobeofagroup,because
    thefirstandsecondentryshowthedateanddepartureas02/08/04
    andthedateofarrivalas13/08/04.Ifthesefourpersonsareina
    group,therewasnoreasonforleavingthespacefortheentryin
    respectoftheA9inbetweenthefirstandthirdentry.Thismeans
    thattheexplanationbyAshikAli,PW44,thattheymakeentriesin
    the registers as and when they receive the passports is correct.
    Hence,thereisnothingsuspectinthesaidentry.

    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.

    In my humble opinion, it is obvious from the cross

    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.

    1060. In his crossexamination further he admitted that the ATS


    peopletoldhimthatthesevenpersonswhosenamestheytoldhim
    are Sunnis, that they had obtained visas for Iran from his travel
    agent,thattheyhadbeencaught,thatthepersonswhosepassports
    theyshowedhimdidnothavethestampoffreemealofImamReza.
    Inthisconnection,hehasgivenaperfectlyacceptableexplanation
    thatthepersonAshikAli,PW44,hadtoldtheATSpeopleallthese
    things on seeing the passport. No improvements, omissions or
    contradictionshavebeenpointedoutduringtheevidenceofAshik
    Ali, PW44. In fact, this witness, i.e., Afzal Hirji, PW43, though
    examinedpriortoAshikAli,PW44,hasstatedsoandtheevidence
    of Ashik Ali, PW44, is stainless, there being no improvements,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1100..

    Ext.4825

    omissions and contradictions in his evidence. He denied the case


    thatattheinstanceoftheATShestatedthatthesevenpersonshad
    goneforZiarattoIran,etc.,however,thereisnosuggestiontohim
    inrespectoftheentrieswhichheproved.

    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.

    1064. Learned advocate then pointed out some portions in the


    confessionalstatementsofA2,A9andA11andsubmittedthatall
    thethingsaboutwhichevidenceisgivenbyPWs43to47arenotin
    the confessional statements of the accused. To my mind, this
    submissionisirrelevantinsofarastheaccusedhavingobtainedvisas
    and tickets through these agents is concerned and at the cost of
    repetition the confessional statement is a statement given by the
    accusedvoluntarily.IftheATSwantedtomakethemperfectthere
    wasnoproblemforthemtoincludewhatthesewitnesshadstated
    tothemwhentheygavethestatements.Hisnextsubmissionisthat
    theagentsJoharSayyed,Anis,AkbarTravels,AlMediToursarenot

    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.

    Learned advocate further submitted that the documents,

    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.

    Learned advocate Shetty has mainly submitted that no

    inference can be drawn about the accused going to Pakistan for


    trainingandinsofarasthematerialproducedbyAshikAli,PW44,
    andAfzalHirji,PW43,hesubmitsthatitisitselfsuspiciousandnot
    convincing and in the entire documents there are lot of
    manipulationspointedoutbyhiminthecrossexaminationofthe
    witnesses and the explanation given by the witness is not
    convincing. He submits that the evidence about seizure of the
    documentsdoesnotruleoutthepossibilityofmanipulation.Ihave
    alreadyconsideredthe aspectof manipulation ormaintainingthe
    registersbythesetwowitnessesandinsofarastheaspectofsealing
    isconcerned,admittedlyonthatday,i.e.,on08/08/06,therewasno
    lacsealwiththeATS.

    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)

    that the A9 had given his passport Ext. 620 to Mushtaq

    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

    2005toMushtaqAhmed,PW46,forobtaining visa forIran,that


    MushtaqAhmed,PW46,gaveittoAshikAli,PW44,whointurn
    gaveittoAfzalHirji,PW43,toobtainthevisaofIranfortheA11.

    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.

    His crossexamination by learned advocate Shetty has

    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

    prosecution. It has come in the crossexamination of Shaikh


    MohammadWasi,PW45,bylearnedadvocateShettythattheA10
    hadgivenhispassportforvisain2002.Thisisapositivestatement
    inhis crossexaminationanditisnotaffectedbyheadmittingin
    further crossexamination that from the stamp on the visa of the
    passportExt.621oftheA10,hecannotsaywhetherthevisawas
    donebythem.Admittedly,therecanbenoentryofanytravelagent
    toobtainthevisaforaparticularpersononthepassportofsuch
    person.However,hisofficebeinginpossessionofthephotocopyArt.
    259AofthepassportoftheA10issufficienttoprovethathehad
    done the visa work of the A10. In addition, the contents of the
    passportExt.621oftheA10provethatthevisaofIslamicRepublic
    ofIranwasissuedfortheperiodfrom25/10/02to23/01/03and
    the stamps of Mumbai immigration proved that the A10 had left
    IndiaforIranon01/11/02andhadreturnedtoIndiaon29/11/02.
    Thisisthecircumstanceno.36provedbytheprosecution.Itis
    againsttheA10.Itisthethirdcircumstanceagainsthim.

    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

    in respect of A6, whose name is mentioned in the subject of the


    letterandnodoubtitdoesnotshowthedestinationbutthebooking
    ofthatpassengerreflectstheflightdetailsasWY802BOMMCTat
    MCT/DXB WY 411, however, PTN reflects its MCT/DXB flight
    numberas WY 501.BOMis obviouslyBombay,MCT is obviously
    Muscat.Ext.2581(1)appearstobethelistofpassengersofflight
    no.WY802dtd.01/02/03anditincludesthenameoftheA6.Ext.
    2581isthepassengerandbaggagelistofthesameflightofthesame
    dayfromMumbaitoMuscatanditshowsthenameoftheA6atsr.
    no.111.ThecontentsofthereplyExt.2420givenbySr.PI,Airport
    Branch,LBII,CID,CSIAirport,Mumbai,showthattheA6hasbeen
    clearedthroughimmigrationatthataircheckpostforhisdeparture
    byflightWY802on01/02/03at0656hours.Hence,itwillhaveto
    heldthattheprosecutionhasprovedthattheA6hadtraveledfrom
    MumbaitoMuscatinDubaion01/02/03.Thisisthecircumstance
    no.37provedbytheprosecution.ItisagainsttheA6.Itisthe
    thirdcircumstanceagainsthim.

    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

    Iran borderandgoing in Pakistan,butitis aboutobtaining their


    visasandabouttherebeingnostampsoftheofficeofImamRezaon
    theirpassports,whichindicatesthattheyhadnotgoneforZiarat.I
    have already accepted the evidence of these five witnesses as
    truthful,reliableandcogentwithrespecttotheobtainingofvisasfor
    A2,A9,A10andA11forIranandIhavealsoheldthattheyare
    impartialwitnessessincetheyhavenocriminalantecedentsandno
    priorcontactwiththepolice. MushtaqAhmed,PW46,isaSunni
    Muslim,throughwhomtheA3andtheA9hadobtainedvisasfor
    ZiarattoIranforthemselvesandforA2,A11,wantedaccusedno.3
    Rahil,FirozGhaswala,ZulfiquarFaiyyazAhmedandMohd.Chipa
    Chandduringtheyears2003to200506.MushtaqAhmed,PW46,
    hadgiventheworkofobtainingthevisastotravelagents Mohd.
    Umar, PW47, and Johar Sayyed, Ashik Ali, PW44, and Shaikh
    Mohammad Wasi, PW45, who had obtained it from Afzal Hirji,
    PW43.WithrespecttotheaspectofpilgrimagetoIran, Mushtaq
    Ahmed,PW46,statedthatallthevisaswereobtainedforZiaratand
    mostlyShiasectofMuslimsgoforZiarattoIran.Hisevidenceabout
    AshikAli,PW44,askinghimforwhatpurposethesepersonswantto
    gotoIranandhefacilitatingthetalkbetweenhimandtheA3on
    phoneisbroughtonrecordasanimprovement.

    1077.

    He admitted in his crossexamination that he is a Sunni

    Muslim,thathehasnotgonetoIranandthathehadperformedHaj
    andUmrahpilgrimagewhenhewenttoSaudiArabia.Headmitted
    thatinMuslims,Sunnisarethefirstpersonstogotodargahs,they
    arethepersonswhofirstdistributeandeattheNiyazatthedargahs,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1116..

    Ext.4825

    that they also have photographs of dargahs in their houses, that


    descendants of Prophet Mohammad like his daughter, soninlaw
    andgrandsonsarerespectablepersonsforSunniMuslimsandvisit
    tothetombsofthesepersonsandofthepersonswhowerearound
    theProphetatthattimeisapiousactforSunniMuslims.Thoughhe
    soadmitted,attheendoftheparagraph12containingtheabove
    statements,hemadeapositivestatementsthatSunnisdonotrespect
    Imam Reza. This is not controverted during his further cross
    examination. He expressed his lack of knowledge about the
    procedureofNiyazatthetombofImamRezaashehasnotgoneto
    Iran,butmadeapositivestatementthathehadstatedtothepolice
    thateveryShiaMuslimwhogoesforZiarattoIranvisitsthetombof
    ImamRezaandtakestheNiyazthereandforthatpurposearound
    stampisputonthevisaofthatperson.Infurthercrossexamination,
    headmittedthatImamReza,MasomequmandShahAbdulAzim
    are respected by Sunni Muslims, that as they are descendants of
    Prophet Mohammad, Sunni Muslims have the wish to visit their
    tombsinIranandifpossibleintheirlifetime,theyvisitthem.

    1078.

    Mohd.Umar,PW47,aSunniMuslim,didnotsayanything

    aboutthisaspectinhischiefexamination,however,majorportionof
    hiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanisrelatedto
    thisissue.HestatedthathehasnevergoneforHajorUmrahand
    admittedmostofthesuggestionsaboutHajpilgrimageduringwhich
    peopleprincipallygotoMeccaandMedinaandvisitthetombof
    ProphetMohammadandothertombsofhisrelativesandassociates.
    Avagueanswerwasobtainedfromhimthatsamecanbesaidabout

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1117..

    Ext.4825

    visits to the tombs of relatives and associates of Prophet


    Mohammad.HeadmittedthatSunniMuslimsareinfamousfortheir
    visitstosuchtombsandinamajorityfordoingthepilgrimages.

    1079.

    It has come in his crossexamination that he is a Sunni

    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.

    Ashik Ali, PW44, a Shia Muslim, whose firm organizes

    tours for the pilgrimages of Haj, Umrah and Ziarat, beautifully


    explained the destinations of the pilgrimages and the persons of
    whichsectgoforthepilgrimages:
    (i)

    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

    His evidence in paragraph 4 which is brought on record as an


    improvement,aboutwhichIhavealreadydiscussed,isthattheydo
    notissuevisasforSunnipeopleforIranbecausetheydonotgofor
    ZiaratinIran,thattheydonotbelieveinImamRezaatMashadin
    Iran,thatthepassportsofallthesevenpersonsweregiventothem
    by their Shia agents, that after the visa was stamped in the
    passports,theytookthepassportsback.Heexplainedthathedidnot
    cometoknowthatthesesevenpersonswereSunnisandcameto
    knowonlywhenthiscasecameupandhewascalledtotheofficeof
    theATS,wheretheyaskedhimhowhecouldnotrecognizethemby
    theirnamesandwhytheyissuedvisasforIrantothem,aboutwhich
    he explained that as the names like Zulfiqar, Muzzammil were
    similartoShianames,theycouldnotidentify.

    1083.

    He explained as is explained by Ashik Ali, PW44, that

    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

    Shias to Iran. Further it has come in his crossexamination that


    peoplewhogotothetombofImamRezaareconsideredhisguests,
    that tour operators take groups of persons there, that the
    arrangement of stamping the visas at the Imam Reza is made to
    preventthetouroperatorsfrommisusingthefacilityoffreefood.
    Thoughheadmittedaboutstampingthevisatopreventmisuseof
    thefacilityoffreefood,heemphaticallydeniedthatwithoutstamp
    onthevisaandwithoutatoken,anindividualorhisfamilycanhave
    meals there. His further admissions are relevant that he cannot
    produceanycertificateorletterfromtheIranConsulateaboutthis
    procedure,thathehasnotseenanyrulesdisplayedatthetombof
    ImamRezasayingthatonlyShiascanvisititforZiaratandSunnis
    arenotallowedandhedoesnotknowofanycircularororderissued
    bytheIranGovernmentthatonlyShiascanvisitIranforthepurpose
    ofZiarat.Hisevidencewillcarryconsiderableweightinviewofhis
    statementthatheisdoingthisworksincelast24years.Hefurther
    admittedthat present Muslimcommunitypersons areconsidering
    thattheyarethefollowersofProphetMohammad,thatallsectsof
    Muslims consider Allah as the Supreme and consider Prophet
    MohammadasthelastmessengerandthatallMuslimsaregoverned
    byKuran,thereafterbyHadisandthereafterbyconsensusandthere
    isnoconceptofsectsinKuran.Hisstatementthatonalloccasions
    he went only to Iran underlines the aspect of only Shia Muslims
    goingforZiarattoIranthoughheadmittedthatthereisnobanby
    theIranandIraqGovernmentsforSunniandShiasectMuslimsto
    visitthereligioustombsthere.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    1084.

    ..1122..

    Ext.4825

    He also admitted that absence of stamp of the office of

    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.

    In connection with this topic, learned advocate Shetty

    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

    the passports of the accused speak for themselves and what is


    importantisthatordinarilypeoplewhogoforpilgrimagelikeZiarat

    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.

    In my humble opinion, by the oral and documentary

    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.

    Inspite of the above position, I have held that the

    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.

    In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the

    prosecution has proved that there is a common thread in the


    conduct of the accused in approaching the same travel agents in
    goingforZiarattoIranthoughtheyareSunniMuslimsandinthe
    absenceofstampsoftheofficeofImamReza,ontheirpassportsin
    respect of having Niyaz there. This is a relevant circumstance,
    thoughitwill notamounttoan offence of merelygoingtoIran.
    Hence,fromallthistheonlyinferencethatcanbedrawnisthatthe
    prosecutionhasprovedthatA2,A9,A10andA11traveledtoIranon
    Ziarat visa as a camouflage. This is the circumstance no. 38
    provedbytheprosecution. ItisagainsttheA3,A2,A9,A10and
    A11.ItisthesixteenthcircumstanceagainsttheA3.
    Itistheseventh

    circumstanceagainsttheA2. Itistheeighthcircumstanceagainst

    theA9.
    ItisthefourthcircumstanceagainsttheA10.Itisthethird

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1130..

    Ext.4825

    circumstanceagainsttheA11.

    ConnectionofaccusedwithbannedorganisationSIMI:
    1092.

    It is the case of the prosecution that activities of the

    organisation Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) were


    banned in India with effect from 27/09/01 by declaring it as an
    unlawful association under section 3(1) of the UA(P)A. To prove
    this, the prosecution examined PSI Mandlik, PW145, who was
    attachedtoPoliceStationKurlaasanASIin2001andithascomein
    hisevidence that on being directed byhis Sr. PIon28/09/01 to
    promulgatethebanbythegovernmentontheSIMIorganisation,he
    wentwithhisstaffbythePipelineRoadinKurla(W)andwiththe
    helpofmegaphonetheypromulgatedthebanbythegovernment.
    He stated that they also pasted copies of the Notification of the
    officialgazettecontainingthebanorderatconspicuousplaceslike
    beatchowkis,madarsa,sewagecenterofBMC,tahasiloffice,Pipe
    Roadmasjid,etc.andalsoontheofficeoftheSIMIthatwasonthe
    PipeRoad.HeidentifiedthecopyofthegazetteExt.1592(2pages),
    whichwasobtainedbyACPPatil,PW186.Itscontentsshowthatthe
    GovernmentofIndiahadon27/09/01declaredSIMIasanunlawful
    associationandhadimposedabanonitundersection3(1)ofthe
    UA(P)A. PSI Mandlik, PW145 could not produce station diary
    entriesabouthedoingtheworkofpromulgationbecausetheyhad
    been destroyed as per the office rules and for that purpose he
    produced certified true copy of station diary entry no. 53 dtd.
    04/03/09ofPoliceStationKurlawhichshowsthatamongstother
    documentsstationdiaryentryupto31/12/01wasdestroyedasper

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1131..

    Ext.4825

    the order of the ACP, Kurla Division, dtd.19/09/08. He also


    producedtruecopyoftheapplicationgivenbyACP,Sr.PIandPI
    (ADMM)ofKurlaPoliceStationtotheACP,KurlaDivisionMumbai
    forpermissiontodestroythedocumentslistedinthatapplicationas
    per the office order no. 65B, the station diary register upto
    31/12/01 being at sr. no. 1. His crossexamination has revealed
    nothingadversetoaffecthistestimonyaboutpromulgationandon
    thecontraryhegavetotalandexactdetailsabouttheprocedureof
    promulgation,viz.,thattheSr.PIhadnotspecifiedtheplaceswhere
    the copies were to be pasted, but had told them to do so at
    conspicuouspublicplacesandhepastedthecopiesofthegazetteat
    tenplaces,thathepromulgatedthegazetteandpastedthecopieson
    28/09/01,thathestartedfromthepolicestationatabout6.00p.m.
    onthatday,thatthecopyofofficialgazettewasreceivedintheir
    policestationon27/09/01,whichhesawforthefirsttimewhenit
    wasgiventohimon28/09/01.Therearenoimprovementsmadeby
    himandnoomissionsandcontradictionsandhestatedtheaddress
    oftheofficeoftheSIMIisinfrontoftheMadarasa,PipeRoad,Kurla
    (W)andthoughheexpressedhisinabilitytostatethenameofthe
    Madarasaorthebuildingnumber,heclarifiedthatitwasbytheside
    ofthemunicipalschoolin'L'wardandtheSIMIofficewasonthe
    firstfloorofatwostoriedbuilding.Healsostatedthattheyhad
    goneinMobileIIIvehicle,thattheywerefiveincludingthedriverof
    thatvehicle,thatheandthestaffmemberswereusingmegaphone
    oneaftertheotherandtheypromulgatedinHindi,thattheyusedto
    getdownatcertainplacesandpastethecopiesandalsomakethe

    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

    cogent evidence of PI Tonapi, PW155, and the panch witness


    MukeshJadhav,PW30, andthecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.
    527 of his house search, which is the circumstance no. 22 supra
    provedbytheprosecution.
    (v)

    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

    of the five seizures or for PSI Gaikwad, PW169, and PI Tonapi,


    PW155,tobe soresourceful atthatstage of theinvestigationto
    plantsuchtypeofevidenceagainsttheaccusedinordertoshow
    thattheyarethemembersofanunlawfulassociation.Insofarasthe
    contentsofthebooksseizedfromtheaccusedisconcerned,thereis
    crossexaminationtoACPKhandekar,PW174,aswellasACPPatil,
    PW186.However,thereisnodoubtthatthebookstitledSIMIon
    thefrontpageandbearingtheyears199702areconnectedwiththe
    SIMIorganisationandhavebeendefinitelypublishedaftertheban
    onitin theyear2001. Thepossessionofthesebooks ofSIMIor
    about SIMI or connected with SIMI after the ban on that
    organisationisoneoftheindicationoftheconnectionoftheA3,A9,
    A10,A11andA2withSIMIandinterse.Insofarasthebook'Tehrik'
    April,2004issueisconcerned,thelearnedSPPpointedoutthelast
    paragraphonpage33andfurnishedatranslationinEnglish,which
    runsasfollows:

    'This DEMOCRACY iscompletelycontrarytothethoughtand


    wayofIslam.Thisviewpointiscompletelyinconflictwiththevalues
    of Islam. To those true muslims to embrace this, to make a move
    towardsthis,andtobasethelifeonthis,toadoptthisaviewpointin
    life asa guide and law,or to participate in any manner in this is
    absolutely'HARAM'.Thisisnotacceptable,itisnecessarytouproot
    thisfromtheveryroot,andthisisthesolemndutyofeveryMuslim.
    Thisistyrannyandisthethoughtofa'KAAFIR'anditsconsequence.
    ThereisnocorrelationofthisandIslamicthought.Itisnecessaryfor
    muslimstoliveaccordingtomuslimsanditisnecessarytoupholdand
    praisetheIslamprinciples'.

    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)

    It has come in the evidence of ACP Patil, PW186, that

    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

    prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony between two


    communities and disturbed the public tranquility, that they made
    effortstoenrollpersonsofMuslimcommunitytobecomemembers
    ofSIMIandinstigatedthembyprovocativespeechesandpublication
    ofpostersandprovidingtraininginarmsandpreparationofbombs,
    supplyingarmsandammunitiontoinstigateyoungMuslimpersons
    andmembersofSIMItocausebombblasts,i.e.,wagingwaragainst
    Indian army in Dodha and Kashmir and admitted to cause bomb
    blastsatNagpuron20/05/01,etc.

    1097.

    By the above unchallenged documentary evidence, the

    prosecutionhasprovedthattheA2,A4,A7,A8,A10andA13had
    previouscasesagainsttheminconnectionwiththeiractivitiesfor
    thebannedorganisationSIMI.
    (c) Five witnesses have been examined to prove that the said
    accusedwereconnectedwithSIMI.

    1098.

    The first one is Mehmood Qureshi, PW65, husband of

    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

    go sometimes and he became acquainted with some persons, but


    cannottelltheirnames,thatsimilartypesofprogramsusedtobe
    conducted there as were conducted in the Trans Institute of
    ComputerTechnologyatMiraRoad.Ithascomeinhisevidencethat
    intheyear2000hehadvisitedAkolaforaconventionofSIMIand
    hadacquaintancewiththeworkersofSIMI,i.e.,A8,A7andIrshad
    Khan,whowas the Maharashtra President,etc.Ithascomein his
    evidencethatheattendedtheSIMIofficeupto2001andinthatyear
    theSIMIwasbannedandasfarasheknowsfromtheprogramsthat
    heattended,the SIMImembers usedtoconductthe programsas
    statedbyhimearlier,buthehadnotattendedanyotherthanthe
    abovedescribedlecturesandconvention.Ithascomeinhisevidence
    thathewasarrestedalongwith125similarpersonsinNovemberor
    December,2001ontheallegationthatitwasSIMIprogramwhenhe
    hadgonetoSuratforaneducationalprogram.

    1099.

    The prosecution examined this witness to show the

    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.

    Insofar as his statement recorded by magistrate is

    concerned,hewenttothe extentofstating thatinspite oftaking


    oath,he didnotstate the truthbeforethe magistrate,thoughhe
    admittedthat hedidnothave anyfear ofthe magistrate andhe
    couldhavetoldthemagistrate,buthedidnottellhim,thathewas
    roundeduprepeatedlybytheATSpoliceafterthearrestoftheA7
    and A8 and was threatened to state as per the statement dtd.
    05/10/06orelsehewouldbemadeawitnessoranaccusedand
    alsoconfirmeditbysayingthateventhenhedidnotcomplaintothe
    magistrateoranysuperiorofficer.Hevolunteeredthathedidnotdo
    soasatthattimehewasafraid,wasthesoleearningmemberofhis

    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

    got proved during the evidence of PI Khanvilkar, PW168, and


    received in evidence as Exts. 1780 (1 to 7). Leaving aside the
    portionsinrespectoftheA7andA8,becauseIhavealreadyheld
    that his oral evidence about they being members of the SIMI is
    unchallenged,therelevantportioninsofarastheotheraccusedis
    concernedistheportionsExt.1780(1and2),viz.,thatatthesame
    place,i.e.,attheTransInstituteofComputerTechnologyatMira
    Road,followingactivistsofSIMImembersusedtocomeforlectures
    andhehasgivenfivenamesincludingthatofAsrarAhmed,about
    whichhisevidenceisunchallengedandthefifthistheA4.Secondly
    istheportionmarkedExt.1780(3)whichsaysthatatAkola,persons
    of SIMI, i.e., Ashraf Jafari of Delhi, Shahid Badar Falai of Delhi,
    AsrarAhmed,Muzzammil,AsifKhanandotheractivistsandofficer
    bearerswerepresent.ThecontentsofExt.1780(4)showthathehad
    stated that he knows following activists and members of SIMI
    organisation and he has given the names of 24 persons, which
    includestheA7atsr.no.1,A13atsr.no.7,A4atsr.no.8,A2atsr.
    no.10andA8atsr.no.19.Though,PIKhanvilkar,PW168,proved
    the contents of these portions by stating that Mehmood Qureshi,
    PW65,hadstatedsobeforehim,thereisnotasinglesuggestionto
    himduringhisentirevoluminouscrossexaminationthatMehmood
    Qureshi,PW65,hadnotsostatedtohimorthathehadprepareda
    false statement in the name of the witness. Therefore, all the
    contentsofallthecontradictedportionsthatweregotprovedtohim
    willhavetobereadinevidenceandwillhavetobeacceptedas
    beingstatedbyMehmoodQureshi,PW65,whenhegavestatement

    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

    advocate Shetty and Wahab Khan and written submissions by


    learned advocate Sharif Shaikh. To my mind, no amount of
    argumentswillsetasidehisunchallengedevidenceinrespectofA7
    andA8beingworkersofSIMIandtheunchallengedproofofthe
    portionsinhisstatementthatwasprovedandalsonotchallenged.

    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.

    The submissions of learned advocate Wahab Khan that

    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

    arenotacceptableagainst the A4.Tomymind,itis becausethe


    witnessdisowned the particular portions from his statement, that
    theyweremarkedandgotprovedfromtheinvestigatingofficer.This
    submission is obviously a wrong one. Next submission that the
    portions from the said statement that were got proved from PI
    Khanvilkar,PW168,havetobediscardedfromtheevidencebecause
    asperMehmoodQureshi,PW65,PIKhanvilkar,PW168,hadnot
    recordedhisstatementandtheportionshavenotbeenprovedby
    APIVarpe,whohadrecordedthestatementofthewitnessasperthe
    defence,whichsubmissiontomymindisalsoincorrect.WhenPI
    Khanvilkar,PW168,hasstatedaboutrecordingofstatementofthis
    witness and has identified his signature on it and there is no
    suggestiontohimthathehasnotrecordedthestatement,sucha
    submission will not be correct. The next submission is again the
    allegation in respect of PI Khanvilkar, PW168, about he being a
    corruptofficerandthereforetheevidencebasedonthestatement
    recordedbyhimisrequiredtobediscarded,isindirectlyadmitting
    thathehadrecordedthestatement.Ihavealreadyconsideredthe
    allegationsagainstthesaidofficer.Itisallegedthatthestatement
    undersection164oftheCr.P.C.isfalseandtutored.Ihavealready
    held that it cannot be so in view of his answers in the cross
    examination and there being no fear in his mind about the
    magistratewhenhisstatementwasrecorded.Nowrelianceisplaced
    ontheanswersgivenbythewitnessincrossexaminationbylearned
    advocateShettythatA8mayhavegiventhekeysofhishousetohim
    on 4 or 5 occasions when he went out, that he himself used to

    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

    related to the A7 is also proved that he is not supporting to the


    prosecutionbecauseofhisrelationwiththem.

    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

    complain to anyone about giving a false statement before the


    magistrateunderpressureandthoughhehadattendedthecourta
    daybeforehisevidencewasgivenandinformedthattheaccused
    were not produced, therefore, his evidence is not recorded, he
    admittedthathedidnotcomplaintothiscourtabouttheATSorthe
    magistrate.NowheisnotdenyingwhetherA3,A9andtheirbrother
    wantedaccusedno.3RahilhadbecomemembersofSIMIin the
    year2000,buthesaysthatheisnotconfirmedaboutit.Thenhe
    again admitted most of the things that he stated before the
    magistrateandthenhisstatementundersection164oftheCr.P.C.
    Ext.829wasshowntohimandheadmittedhissignature.Atthe
    endofhiscrossexaminationbylearnedSPPthoughheconfirmed
    thathehasfaithinthiscourt,hestatedthathehadpreparedan
    affidavitincourtabouthisstatementwhichwasnotwithhimwhen
    he was in the witness box, but had its xerox and that he had
    prepareditinthiscourtwiththehelpofanadvocateontheday
    when his statement was recorded before the magistrate, but
    admittedthathehadprepareditforhisownsecurityandhasnot
    produced it before the court or before the police or before the
    communityorbeforeanyminister.Thiswastakenadvantagebythe
    defenceadvocateandtheyproducedphotocopiesofthreeaffidavits
    Arts.312(1to3)duringhiscrossexaminationbylearnedadvocate
    WahabKhanandwhenthelearnedadvocateaskedhimwhetherhe
    wouldproducetheoriginalaffidavitonthenextday,hequestioned
    whether it is necessary to produce that and he does not wish to
    produce because of fear. Learned advocate then asked him to

    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

    and there were incidents of burning Kuran and there was an


    atmosphere of tension, is brought on record as an improvement.
    However,hisfurtherevidenceisclearandhehasdeposedthatat
    thattime,whichpresumablyreferstotheincidentsduringtheriots
    inPunein2001,somepersonsofSIMIusedtosaythatitwillnotbe
    onlysufficienttotalk,buttheyshouldtakesometraining,thatthe
    above talks took place in Ramzan in Camp area 'when they had
    gathered for tea'. The portion into inverted commas is an
    improvementoverhisstatement,whichtomymind,isnotmaterial.

    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.

    His crossexamination by learned advocate Wahab Khan

    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

    evidence has been considered threadbare alongwith his cross


    examinationandextensivesubmissionsbylearnedadvocatesforall
    the accused and the learned SPP and it has been held that his
    evidenceisacogentevidence.HisevidenceaboutA8beingaSIMI
    activist,takingpartintheprogramsandtheactivitiesofSIMIand
    meetingtheA2,A4andA6inthesaidprogramswhichhehadalso
    attended and identifying them in the court unhesitatingly is an
    unchallenged evidence. His further evidence about there being
    aggressiveandprovocativespeechesaboutjihadbeingmadeatSIMI
    programsandthejihadthattheyweretalkingaboutbeinginrespect
    ofatrocitiescommittedonMuslims,isheldtobeagoodevidence.
    He,A8andtwomorebeingcaughtbyParkSitePoliceStationin
    2001ontheallegationthattheyareactivistsofSIMIandhisfurther

    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

    types of evidences led by the prosecution, viz., finding of books


    connectedwithSIMI,previouscasesandtheoralevidenceofsome
    witnessesisthattheprosecutionhassucceededinprovingthatthe
    A2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,A9,A10,A11andA13wereeithermembers
    ofandwereeitheractivistsorofficebearersofSIMIorganisation
    andcontinuedtoworkforthesaidorganisationevenaftertheban
    onSIMIin2001. Thisisthecircumstanceno.40provedbythe
    prosecution.Itisagainstthe

    A2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,A9,A10,A11

    and A13. It is the eigth circumstance against the A2. It is the


    seventeenth circumstance against the A3. It
    is the fourth
    circumstanceagainsttheA4. Itis

    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

    Khandekar, PW174, and ACP Patil, PW186, have been cross


    examinedontheaspectastowhethertheyhavegonethroughthe
    allegedSIMIliteratureandACPPatil,PW186,wasaskedwhether
    he had gone to the SIMI office at Delhi and obtained the list of
    membersandaboutheattendingtheSIMItribunal,etc.,butallthat
    crossexaminationdoesnotaffecttheabovediscussedevidence.

    Identification of an unclaimed dead body as that of a


    PakistaniNational:
    1117. IthascomeintheevidenceofSr.PIRathod,PW176,thata
    deadbodyintheMatungablastwasunclaimed,whichconsistedof
    onlychestandheadportion,butthefacewastornanddisfigured.It
    hascomeinhisevidencethatherequestedtheDeanoftheSion
    Hospital by his letter, office copy of which is at Ext. 1172, to
    reconstructthefaceofthatpersonandalsorequestedtopreserve
    the tissue parts of dead body for DNA test. It has come in his
    evidencethatthedoctorstherereconstructedthefaceofthatperson,
    gaveaCDtohim,whichhehandedovertoAddl.CP,ATS,tosendit
    totheCFSL,ChandigarhforverificationandthecoveringletterExt.
    1927andtheexaminationreportExt.1928wasreceivedfromthe
    CFSL.Insofarashemakingthesaidrequest,theonlythingthathas
    comeinhiscrossexaminationthathehadreadallthestatementsof
    thewitnessesinC.R.No.77of2006beforehemadetherequestto
    theDeanofSionHospitalandhisevidenceaboutitisnotdenied
    though there is a dispute in respect of his contention about the
    unclaimeddeadbodyinthatblast,towhichwewillpresentlycome.
    It has come in his crossexamination that the report of

    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

    except the correction of words 'unknown' and 'Hindu' and also


    described the remark in the left hand bottom corner about the
    correctionbeingmadeon16/10/06aspertheletteroutwardno.
    3068/ACP/ATS/06. It has come during his crossexamination by
    learnedadvocateShettythatthepapersarereceivedforregistration
    afterthepostmortems,thathesawallthesedocumentsforthefirst
    timetwodaysbackandhedoesnothaveanypersonalknowledge
    about the dead body and the documents that he produced. One
    thing is certain that the custody of the documents Exts. 2556 to
    2558 produced by him cannot be disputed, he being the Dy.
    ExecutiveHealthOfficerinthePublicHealthDepartmentofMCGM
    and therefore whatever evidence he gave is on the basis of his
    officialrecord.Now,inrespectofthecorrectionsmadeinExt.2556,
    headmittedthatdateisnotputbelowthecorrectionsinthename
    andreligion,butdeniedthattherearenoinitialswheretheword
    'Hindu'isscoredoffandtheword'Muslim'iswrittenandcouldnot
    say whether the initials near the scored off word 'unknown' is
    differentfromthesignatureofthemedicalofficeratthebottomof
    thecertificate,etc.Idonotthinkanythingcanbeinferredfromthis
    inviewofscoringoftheword'Hindu'andwritingtheword'Muslim'
    being initialed by none other than Dr. Sapna, who had issued it,
    because her signature there and at the end of the certificate is
    obviouslysame.Itisasignatureandnotaninitialanditisquite
    obviousthatabovethestruckoff'unknown'shehadmadeinitials.It
    isobviousfromtheremarkatthelefthandbottomcornerthatthe
    correction was made on 16/10/06. Thus, Dr. Revankar, PW188,

    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

    submission that this is a clear case of manipulating the record


    without having any sufficient material. To my mind, Dr. Ghuge,
    PW112, acted upon the letter Ext. 1173 given by Sr. PI Rathod,
    PW176,anditisnotthatonhisownhehasdonethecorrections.
    Obviously,thebodywasofapersonwhohaddiedinthetrainbomb
    blastanditwasthesubjectmatterofinquiryofADRno.457/06.
    Thusthissubmissionisnotacceptableandmedicalofficerswillnot
    gototheextentofconcoctingsuchtypeofmaterial.

    1124.

    In respect of evidence of Dr. Revankar, PW188, learned

    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

    practice has been adopted by Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, and other


    officerstointroduceadeadbodyinthiscaseandtosaythatitisofa
    terrorist,whodiedinthebombblast.Iwilldealwiththisaspect
    lateron.Hesubmitsthatreconstructionofthefacewasdone,butit
    hasnotbeenidentifiedbyanybody,eitherthewitnessMohd.Alam,
    PW59, who stated that it was the body of Abu Umed or in the
    evidenceoftaxidriver.Thisisnotthecaseoftheprosecutionandas
    pertheA1'sconfession,theprosecutionissayingthatitisthedead
    bodyofoneSalimandinthatcasethephotographofreconstructed
    faceshouldhavebeenshowntothewitnessesinthewitnessbox.
    Therefore,identityofbothdeceasedisnotestablished.Tomymind,
    nosuchinferencecanbedrawnandbecauseitwasnecessaryforthe
    investigating officer to firstestablishthe identityof reconstructed
    faceofthedeadbody,andtomymind,areconstructedfacemaynot
    be exactly identical to the face of a living person. Therefore, no
    usefulpurposewouldhavebeenservedbyshowingthephotograph
    tothewitnessesexaminedinthecourt.

    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.

    Astrange submission was made bythe learnedadvocate

    thattherewillbeadifferenceintheappearanceofthepersonwho
    haddiedinanencounterandapersonwhohaddiedinabombblast
    andapersonwhoisborninametropolitancitylikeMumbaiwillnot

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1182..

    Ext.4825

    be confused between these two and will not be confused about


    identityandifatallthereissomeconfusion,itcanberuledoutby
    showingtheirphotographs.Iamnotabletofollowthelineofthis
    submission which is made as is made by a layman based on a
    presumption that every person in metropolitan city is intelligent
    enoughtoknowthedifferencebetweentwotypesofinjuries.His
    submission that how Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, can only make oral
    inquiryandsaythatlaterontheclaimantsdisclaimedthedeadbody
    isalsonotacceptableinviewofSr.PIRathod,PW176,explaining
    thathedidnotdosoastherewasnoclaim.

    1128.

    The next submission by the learned advocate is that

    considering the circumstances that witness who are cited and


    examinedbytheprosecutionarenotidentifyingthebodyandthe
    prosecutionistryingtoestablishhisidentityonlyonthebasisofthe
    confessionsitselfsuggestthatthisbodyisintroducedandplantedin
    thiscasetogiveweightagetothecase.Tomymind,thissubmission
    isshowingtheprobablesourceoftheinformationonthebasisof
    whichACPPatil,PW186,directedSr.PIRathod,PW176,towrite
    the name of the said person in the documents in respect of the
    unclaimeddeadbody.Thus,fromthisaloneitcannotbesaidthat
    thisbodyisintroducedandplanted.Learnedadvocatesubmitsthat
    firstSr.PIRathod,PW176,statedthatthestatementsofthetwo
    claimantswererecordedandhehadtakenthem,butsubsequently
    hestatedthattheywerenotrecorded,butonlyinquirywasmade
    andthisshows thatthereis suppressionandtamperingofrecord
    andsupportstheclaimofthedefencethatthereweretwoclaimants

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1183..

    Ext.4825

    whose statements were recorded and then it was decided to


    introduce one dead body as that of one wanted accused. To my
    mind,learnedadvocateshouldhavenotgonefurtherafterobtaining
    theseanswersfromSr.PIRathod,PW176,thathehadtakenthe
    statements of two claimants which were of second week of July,
    2006. However, he did not stop and he asked the witness to go
    throughthecasediaryanditisthenthatSr.PIRathod,PW176,
    statedthatonlyinquirywasmadewiththemon17/07/06andthat
    theydisclaimediton18/07/06asperthecasediary,therefore,their
    statementswerenotrecorded.Thissubmissionis,therefore,ofno
    usetodiscredithisevidence.

    1129.

    Learned advocate then again made a strange submission

    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.

    Learned SPP submitted during his arguments that ACP

    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

    unknown body whose religion was shown as Hindu. It clearly


    appears that this is a carbon copy of the original cause of death
    certificatethatmayhavegonewiththebodywhenitmighthave
    beenhandedovertotherelativesofthatperson.Itisseentobe
    signedbyDr.Sapnaandhersignaturesimilarlyappearsasacarbon
    copy just above the word Hindu which is struck off. Here the
    correctionsaremadeinblueinkandthenameofoneJosephRobert
    Naronaandhisaddressindetailiswritten.Hisreligionischanged
    from Hindu to Christian. Thus this shows that the case of the
    unknownbodythatwaslateronidentifiedasthatofoneSalimof
    Pakistanisnotasolecaseandtheremayhaveseveralsuchcases
    consideringthefactthatthebodieswerehavingmarksofinjuriesof
    bombblastandsomemayhavebeenevenunidentifiedinitially,but
    wouldhavehadbeenidentifiedspecificallybytheirrelativesafter
    dueinquirybythepolice.

    To my mind, Sr. PI Rathod, PW176, took steps for the

    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.

    Another and very important aspect is that when the

    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

    seven crimes and in the documents of C. R. No. 41 of 2006 of


    Andheri RailwayPoliceStation,theyproducedcertifiedtrue copy
    issued by Sr. PI of Juhu Police Station of the FIR as well as the
    complaint lodged by one PSI Dilip Kachru Ghuge. As they are
    certifiedtruecopies,theyarereceivedinevidenceatthetimeofthe
    judgementandmarkedasExts.4796and4797.Thecontentsofthe
    complaintlodgedbyPSIGhugedisclosethestoryofthecheating
    done bySunil Vyapari and Sangeeta Vyaparifor whichcrime no.
    240/06wasregisteredagainstthemasperthecontentsoftheFIR
    Ext.4796fortheoffencesundersections419,420,201,205,181
    and114oftheIPC.Thesedocumentscorroboratetheevidenceof
    Dy.SPRaskar,PW139.

    1134.

    The purpose of mentioning these prima facie innocuous

    acts isto show that such things had alsohappenedin respectof


    some other dead bodies. Same could have happened about the
    unidentifieddeadbodythatwaslateronidentifiedasthatofSalim,
    aPakistaniNational.Eithertherealclaimants,i.e.,thekithandkeen
    ofthesaidbodywouldhavecomeforwardtoclaimitandtoenable
    them to perform the funeral and postfuneral rights, or, some
    fictitious persons like Sunil Vyapari and Sangeeta Vyapari would
    have come forward and made a false claim to get compensation
    from the government and railways. This lends credence to the
    evidencegivenbySr.PIRathod,PW176,inrespectofthetworival
    claimantswhohadcomeforclaimingthesaiddeadbodyandwhose
    claimswerenotfoundtobegenuineorwithdrawnbythem.Inview
    oftheabovediscussion,itisclearthatprosecutionhasledcogent

    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

    PSI Kshirsagar, who signed the panchanama, whereas, it is Sr. PI


    Rathod, PW176, who had signed it. That does not affect his
    evidence about the opening of the envelopes, keeping aside the
    photocopies of the international maps and putting the remaining
    articles in separate envelopes and the preparation of the
    panchanama. There is nothing more in his crossexamination to
    discredithisversion.Thus,hisevidencecorroboratestheevidenceof
    Sr.PIRathod,PW176,andthecontentsofthepanchanamaExt.566
    corroboratetheevidenceofbothofthem.

    1136.

    In this connection, the relevant crossexamination by

    learned advocate Shetty is in paragraph 168 and it is mainly


    pertaining totheaspectsastowhohadcalledthepanchas,from
    wheretheywerecalled,withinwhichtimetheywerecalledanda
    suggestion was given that known and habitual panchas of Kurla
    CrimeBranchUnitwereusedforpreparingfalsepanchanamas.It
    wasnotshownthatthepanchwitnesshasanycriminalantecedents
    or any prior links with the police. Thus, Sr. PI Rathod, PW176's
    evidenceisunimpeached.

    1137.

    Thus, it will have to be held that the prosecution has

    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.

    In his crossexamination by learned advocate Shetty he

    expressedhislacofknowledgeastohowthespecimenhandwritings
    are required to be obtained by the police and whether specimen

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1197..

    Ext.4825

    handwritings are required to be taken in the presence of the


    independent panchas by drawing separate panchanama and does
    notrememberwhetherhehasseenthesignaturesofthepanchason
    the2.25lacsdocumentsthatheexamined.Onthesamepoint,he
    admittedthatthereareguidelinesforthepoliceofficersgiveninthe
    Police Manual in VolIII for obtaining specimen handwriting and
    admitted documents, but he cannot tell about the provision and
    whenaskedwhetherheisinapositiontocontradictthe learned
    advocateifhesaysthatspecimenhandwritingaretobetakenbefore
    thepanchasunderseparatepanchanamaheansweredthatheisnot
    concerned about it, but had to admit that none of the specimen
    handwritings contain the signatures of the panchas. He was then
    crossexamined about the science of handwriting being a perfect
    scienceandhedidnotagreewiththelearnedadvocatethatitisnot
    aperfectscience,butadmittedthattherecanbeanhonesterrorin
    giving the opinion about a particular handwriting. He was then
    crossexamined in respect of specific procedure by which
    characteristics of handwriting are identified and used for
    consideringwhethertheyaresimilarordissimilarandotherthings
    andalsoaboutthereasonsthathegaveandwassuggestedthatthe
    reasonsarehopelesslyvague.Hedeniedthis,butadmittedthatthe
    contentsofparagraphs2to4inthereasonsExt.1492donotshow
    whichquestioneddocumentswerecomparedwithwhichspecimen
    handwriting.Apartfromthecrossexaminationonthemeritsofhe
    examiningthespecimenhandwritingandquestioneddocumentsin
    the present case by learned advocate Shetty, it was in the cross

    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.

    The submissions by the learned advocates during their

    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.

    In view of the above discussion, there should be no

    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

    01/11/06 all the accused were remanded to judicial custody and


    thereafter he started making preparations for holding the test
    identificationparade,thatforthatpurposeheandthesevenformer
    investigating officers scrutinized the papers, discussed among
    themselvesandidentifiedeightwitnesseswhowererequiredtobe
    placed in the test identification parade, i.e., Subhash Nagarsekar,
    PW57,KishoreShah,PW60,DevendraPatil,PW62,SantoshSingh,
    PW63,VishalParmar,PW74,AmarKhan,PW75,RajeshSatpute,
    PW77 and Ajmeri Shaikh and for that purpose he filed an
    applicationinthiscourtandobtainedpermissiontoorganizethetest
    identification parade of all the accused in the Mumbai Central
    Prison. It has come in his evidence that he contacted SEOs
    Purandare,PW80,andBarve,PW82,andBendge,inquiredabout
    their availability on 7th and 08/11/06 and asked the first two to
    attendhisofficeon07/11/06.Hehadgivenrequestletterstothe
    SEOs,officecopiesofwhichheprovedatExts.2412and2414and
    alsotheofficecopyoflettergiventotheSuperintendent,Mumbai
    Central Prison Ext. 2415, to make arrangements and render the
    assistanceforholdingthetestidentificationparade.Heprovedthe
    contentsofthesethreeletters.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathe
    askedhisofficerstocontactthewitnessesandtorequestthemto
    attendhisofficeon07/11/06at9.00a.m.forparticipatinginthe
    testidentificationparades,thattheofficersreportedtohimthatthe
    witnessesareavailableandtheyareinstructedtocome,thatSEOs
    Purandare, PW80, and Barve, PW82, came to his office on
    07/11/06,heexplainedthebrieffactsofC.R.No.5of2006ofthe

    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.

    His crossexamination on this point in paragraph 97 has

    not revealed anything adverse and he had confirmed that he


    introduced the witnesses to the SEOs in his ofifce and his staff
    assistedtheSEOsinprocuringthepanchas.

    1145.

    ACP Joshi, PW163,corroboratedhis version and it has

    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

    he wentbacktothe identification barrackandadoptedthe same


    procedureforthesecondparadeasperthefirstparade.Ithascome
    inhisevidencethatinthisparadeAmarKhan,PW75,andAjmeri
    Shaikh identified the A4 and A6 and Vishal Parmar, PW74,
    identified the A4 and both witnesses described the roles of the
    accused.Hethendeposedabouthandingovertheaccusedandthe
    dummysuspectsinthecustodyoftheprisonofficersandsittingina
    separateroomtocompletethewritingofthememorandumandhe
    completing the memorandum before the panchas, whowere with
    him.Heprovedthe contentsofthememorandumsExts.833and
    834,thecontentsofwhichcorroboratehisversionandshowthathis
    evidence is as per their contents. It is clear that he has given
    meticulous evidence about the precautions that he took while
    conductingtheparadesandabouttheprocedureoftheparades.

    1148.

    During his crossexamination by learned advocate Rasal,

    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

    the memorandum Ext.834perfectly.Tomymind,in viewof the


    meticulousanddetailedevidencegivenbySEOPurandare,PW80,
    and the contents of memorandums Exts. 833 and 834 being
    corroboratedbythecontentsoftheshortnotesExt.835nothingin
    hiscrossexaminationissufficienttodiscredithistestimony.Hewas
    grilledextensivelyaboutminorthingswhich,tomymind,donot
    affecthisevidence.However,thosethingswillbediscussedwhen
    thesubmissionsofbothsidesabouthisevidencewillbetakenup.
    HehasspecificallyidentifiedtheA2,A4,A6andA7inthecourt.

    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

    that he may have seen the A4 joining the wires. Immediately


    thereafterhecorrectedhimselfvolunteeredandstatedthatheknew
    theA4earlier,buthadseenanunknownpersonjoiningthewires
    andthenstatedthathehadnotseentheA4joiningthewires.A
    misleadingsuggestionwasgiventohimthathehadidentifiedthe
    A4intheprisonasthepersonwhomhehadseenjoiningthewires,
    which he of course denied. Misleading I say because it is not so
    written in the memorandum Ext. 833 however this part of his
    evidenceisinconsequentialasIhaveheldthattheprosecutionhas
    notprovedthatAmarKhan,PW75,sawsomepersonsincludingthe
    A7inthehouseoftheA6afewdaysbeforetheblast.AmarKhan,
    PW75,statedaboutidentifyingtheA2andA7inthefirstparade
    andtheA4andA6inthesecondparadeandVishalParmar,PW74,
    statedaboutidentifyingtheA4inthesecondparade.Asisthecase
    in respect of SEO Purandare, PW80, all the seven witnesses are
    extensively crossexamined and their crossexamination will be
    considered while discussing the submissions made by both sides.
    Thegeneral crossexamination ofSEOPurandare,PW80,hasnot
    affectedhistestimonyorimpeachedhiscredibility.Heisobviously
    an experienced person in doing such work as he had conducted
    about30identificationparadesbeforethatday.Whileadmittingthat
    theGovernmentofMaharashtrahasgiventheguidelinesofwriting
    the memorandum, he stated that he follows the guidelines
    scrupulouslyandthememorandumsExts.833and834areasper
    the proformas. He denied the suggestion that ACP Patil, PW186,
    appraisedhimabouttheroleoftheaccusedandinthemannerin

    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

    the remaining dummy suspects, who were to be paraded in the


    secondparadewereinthecustodyoftheprisonofficersandhedoes
    notknowwheretheywerewhenhewasconductingthefirstparade
    andansweredthattheywerebroughtintheidentificationbarrack
    afterfiveminutesafterthefirstparadewasover.Fromthis,itcannot
    begatheredthattheremainingtwoaccused,i.e.,A4andA6,andthe
    12dummysuspectsusedinthesecondparadewerestandingjust
    outsidethebarrack.

    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.

    Ithas come in his evidencethathe wrote whatever had

    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.

    Though it has come in his crossexamination that he is

    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

    during his further crossexamination, which is in respect of


    repetitionofsomepages.Ithascomeinhiscrossexaminationthat
    he had started writing the memorandum before he entered the
    paraderoomandhehadsowrittentheportiononpage4uptothe
    namesofthewitnesses.Nowinhischiefexaminationhehasstated
    thathewaswritingthememorandumaspertheeventsthatwere
    happening and after the second parade was over he went to the
    officeofjailorPatilalongwithpanchasandcompletedtheremaining
    part of the memorandum there. Now it has come in his cross
    examinationthatthesecondparadestartedat2.30p.m.andwas
    overat3.15p.m.andhewasintheofficeofjailorPatilupto5.15
    p.m.completingremainingportionofthememorandumanddenied
    thesuggestionthathehadentirelywrittenthememorandumafter
    the last witness left. Learned advocate Shetty was successful in
    pointingoutthemistakethatSEOBarve,PW82,committed.Before
    that he got an admission that there may be some repetition or
    mistakeswhilewritingthememorandumandheremembersthatit
    isaboutnamesofdummiesbeingwrittentwice.Hisattentionwas
    drawntopages6to10ofthememorandumandheadmittedthat
    thecontentsfromthesecondparagraphonpage6uptotheendof

    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.

    To my mind, considering the fact that it was the first

    occasion for SEO Barve, PW82, to conduct the test identification


    parade,consequentlytopreparethememorandumofit,considering
    his explanation about it, that the evidence of seven witnesses
    corroborateshisevidenceabouttakingthetestidentificationparade,
    noinferencecanbedrawnthattherepetitionisbecausethecontents
    ofmemorandumweredictatedtohimbyACPPatil,PW186,inhis
    officeandbecauseofthedictationthereisrepetition.However,it
    willhavetobeheldthatthisaninfirmityintheevidencegivenby
    SEOBarve,PW82,anditisnotacogentevidence.

    1157.

    Fromthiswegotothesubmissionsofbothsidesonthis

    issue.LearnedadvocateWahabKhanmadegeneralcommentsabout
    theprecautionstobetakenwhileconductingthetestidentification
    paradeandsubmittedthatitisrequiredtobeconductedasearlyas
    possible. Hesubmitsthatnonholdingofparadeisnotsofatalto
    thecaseoftheprosecutionthanholdingofadefectiveparade.He
    submitsthatbecauseoflapsesontheirpart,thewitnessishavinga
    glimpseoftheaccusedandisseeinghimandonthatbasisalsoheis
    identifyinghiminthecourt.Thiswillfrustratetheverypurposeof
    thetestidentificationparade.

    1158.

    AfterpointingouttotheguidelinesgivenintheCriminal

    Manual, learned advocate submits that the panch witness in the


    memorandumsExts.833and834SachinKrushnaKoltharkarisa

    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

    which in other words means that he rejected three. Therefore,


    reasonablecarethatwasrequiredtobetakenisexhibitedbyhim.

    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.

    Learned advocate then relied on the evidence of

    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

    too on different timings. He submits that he has demonstrated


    throughseveralinstanceshowtheaccusedmouldedtheirdefenceas
    andwhentheygotsomeinformationundertheRTIActandthisis
    one of the instance. What the learned SPP has submitted is the
    correct position. A2 filed an application Ext. B, A4 filed an
    application Ext. 3799 and A13 filed an application Ext. 4280 on
    09/11/06inrespectofthetestidentificationparadethatwereheld
    on 07/11/06, though A2 has wrongly mentioned the date as
    06/11/06.ItistheonlyA2whohasmentionedthetimeas1230
    hours,butthoughthesethreeaccusedhaveallegedthattheparades
    wereconductedintheopenspace,etc.,A2statedthattwowitnesses
    identifiedhimandA4hasstatedthatthreewitnesseshadidentified
    him, which is correct as per the prosecution case. If really the
    accused would have been taken out only for five minutes, they
    would have certainly mentioned in their applications, particularly
    whentheyweresovigilant,soastomentionaboutthepointson
    whichthetestidentificationparadesarenotbelievedbycourts,viz.,
    openplaceorground,beardornobeardandbeingpointedoutby
    policeofficers.Itisthusclearthatafterobtainingtheinformation
    under the RTI Act, they moulded their evidence and it was
    accordinglyputtothewitnesses.Inthisconnection,itissubmitted
    bylearnedadvocateShettythatwhenSEOPurandare,PW80,was
    asked in further crossexamination as to whether the A2 and A7
    weretakenoutfromtheirhighsecuritybarrackat1235hoursand
    whethertheywereputbackat1240hours,hestatedthathedoes
    notknowaboutit.Learnedadvocatesubmittedthattheanswerthat

    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.

    Learned advocate Wahab Khan criticized the evidence of

    SEO Barve, PW82, on several points, which to my mind, is not


    necessarytobeconsideredinviewofitbeingheldthattheevidence
    givenbySEOBarve,PW82,isnotacogentevidence.Notthatitis
    untruthful,whichwillbeclearfromthesubsequentdiscussion.

    1167.

    Learned advocate then submitted that SEO Purandare,

    PW80, started writing the memorandum from the ATS office at


    Bhoiwadawhichisnotinaccordancewiththeguidelinesgivenin
    theCriminalManualandhedidsoinrespectofthememorandum
    Ext.833ofthefirstparadeaswellasmemorandumExt.834ofthe
    second parade, which means that he started writing two
    memorandums at Bhoiwada itself. To my mind, the opening
    paragraphs of both memorandums are a narration as to what
    transpiredintheATSofficeatBoiwadabeforegoingtotheprison
    anditcanbeunderstoodthattheSEOwroteabouttheeventsagain

    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

    that the case on this aspect and the version in chiefexamination


    losesitsvalueandcannotbeaccepted.

    1169.

    Learned advocate pointed out to the statement made by

    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

    evidence of the parades is discarded the acts of the witnesses


    identifyingaccusedbeforethecourtlosesitsvalue.Thissubmission
    isagainstthesettledlawandisthereforenotcorrect.

    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

    made by learnedadvocate Shetty, learned advocate Sharif Shaikh


    reliedonthefollowingauthoritiesaboutthistopic:
    (i)

    MusheerKhanAliasBadshahKhan,AppellantV.Stateof

    MadhyaPradesh,Respondents(AIR(SC)20100762).
    (ii)

    Anil Kumar, Appellant V. State of Uttar Pradesh,

    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)

    Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Upadhyaya,

    Appellants V. The State of Andhra Pradesh Through Public


    Prosecutor,Hyderabad,AndhraPradesh,Respondent(AIR2012
    SC2470).

    1176.

    In the case of Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur, it is held in

    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

    that the photographs of the accusedarepublishedin our case in


    IndiaToday,whichonlyaffluentpersonsreadandnotcommonmen
    andwehavetoseefromwhatsetupthewitnessesinthiscaseare
    andmoreovertheyhavedeniedseeingthephotographs.Samecan
    besaidabouttheissueofMumbaiMirror.Thus,thelawlaiddown
    inthesetwoauthoritiesclearlycoversthedelayifanyinholdingthe
    testidentificationparade.However,onfactsIhaveheldthatinfact
    thereisnodelay.

    1177.

    Learned advocate Shetty submitted that considering the

    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

    of Parel village, which is near Bhoiwada/Naigaon/Dadar, to be


    selected as panch witness for the parades conducted by SEO
    Purandare,PW80.Howeverthepanchaswhowereselectedforthe
    identificationparadesconductedbySEOBarve,PW82,areresidents
    of Saat Rasta area, which is near Mumbai Central Prison and it
    cannot be accepted that they were called from there to the ATS
    office at Bhoiwada. Learned advocate has certainly made a point
    here, however, the fact remains that the said two panchas, i.e.,
    KailashnathKedarnathJaiswalandShahadurPrasadRajghar,have
    notbeenexaminedbytheprosecutionandnothingisbroughton

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1246..

    Ext.4825

    record as is the case in respect of the panch witness Sachin


    Koltharkar,toshowthattheyhadanypreviousconnectionswiththe
    policeorhadactedaspanchwitnessesearlierforanyotherpolice.
    ThisaspectalonedoesnotaffecttheentireevidenceoftheSEO.

    1180.

    Learned advocate then submits that it has come in the

    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.

    Learned SPP submitted during his arguments that the

    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

    identifying person and confirmed the role from the identifying


    witnesssobyandlarge the standardpractice andprocedureand
    standardprecautionswereapparentlytakenaspertherecordand
    depositionofthesewitnesses.

    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.

    Learned advocate Shetty has relied on the following

    authoritiesinsupportofhissubmissions:
    (i)

    Chander Singh, Appellant V. State of U. P., Respondent

    (AIR1973SC1200).
    (ii)

    Wakil Singh and others, Appellants V. State of Bihar,

    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.

    Most of the points raised in the 48 pages written

    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.

    It is submitted that the accused were photographed and

    videographed in police custody and reliance is placed on the


    evidence of Shaikh Noman, PW78, a witness hostile to the
    prosecution, that ACP Patil, PW186, had shown him the
    photographsoftheA2andA4on07/11/06andtheevidenceofACP
    Patil, PW186, was that photographs of the accused were taken.
    Admittedly,ShaikhNoman,PW78,wasnotputintheparadeandhe
    is a relative of the A3 and A9 and his evidence is found to be
    relevant insofar as the accused being connected to SIMI is
    concerned.Itis a wonder whyreliance is placedon hisevidence

    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.

    Next submission is about the inconsistencies in the

    evidence of ACP Patil, PW186, ACP Joshi, PW163, and SEO


    Purandare,PW80,abouthandingoverthememorandumsExts.833
    and 834 to ACP Patil, PW186, whether they were handed over
    outsidetheprisonwhenhecameoutaftercompletingtheparades
    orwhethertheywerehandedoverintheATSoffice.Tomymind,it
    doesnotmakemuchdifference.

    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)

    State of Goa, Appellant V. Sanjay Thakran, Respondents

    (LAWS(SC)2007322).
    (ii)

    Mahesh Rohidas Kinalkar, Appellant V. State of Goa,

    Respondents(LAWS(BOM)20053126).
    (iii) Budhsen, Appellant V. State Uttar Pradesh, Respondents
    (AIR(SC)197001321).

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1257..

    Ext.4825

    (iv) Dhananjay Shanker Shetty, Appellant V. State of


    Maharashtra,Respondents(LAWS(SC)200277).

    1194.

    Thefactsinthecaseof SanjayThakran werethatthere

    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

    four accusedwere paradedinoneparade andfour accusedwere


    paradedin the secondphase of the parade while 13dummiesin
    boththephasesremainedthesameandnotonlythattheystoodat
    thesameplaceandonlytheplacesofaccusedwerechanged.Thus,
    thisauthorityisnotapplicableonfacts.

    1196.

    The facts in the case of Vilas Vasantrao Patil werethat

    independent respectable persons, who were associated with the


    parade,werenotexaminedatthetrialandthisfactalongwiththe
    othercircumstancesliketheparadebeingheldinthepolicestation
    andsamesetofdummiesbeingusedinthenextparadeforthesame

    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

    test identification parade could not be of any avail to the


    prosecutionasitwasmeaningless.Thereisnodiscussionaboutthe
    proceduralaspectsofthetestidentificationparadeandIthinkthat
    thisisinrespectofAmarKhan,PW75,knowingtheA2,A4andA6
    andheidentifyingthemintheidentificationparade.However,tomy
    mind, he was put in the identification parade to see whether he
    couldidentifytheA7,whomhedidnotknowearlierandduringthe
    courseoftheparadeheidentifiedtheA2,A4andA6andtheSEO
    alsotookdownwhateverhestated.Thisalsoshowsthenaturalness
    and the honesty of the parades conducted by SEO Purandare,
    PW80,becauseiftheparadeswereafarceandmemorandumshave
    been prepared as per the dictates of the ATS officers, the
    identificationoftheA2,A4andA6wouldnothavebeenthereand
    onlytheidentificationoftheA7wouldhavecomeintheparade.
    Thus,thisauthoritydoesnothelpthedefence.

    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

    words,the precaution istaken toruleoutthepossibilitythatthe


    suspectshouldnottakehispositionandchangehisclotheswithin
    theknowledgeofthepanchwitness,whoistobesenttofetchthe
    identifyingwitness.Tomymind,itisobviousfromtheevidenceof
    both the SEOs that this precaution has been followed and as I
    pointedoutearliernotasinglewitnesshasbeensuggestedthatthe
    panchwitnesshadtoldhimthefeaturesofanyparticularaccused
    thathehadtoidentifyortheplacewherehewasstandingorthe
    typeofclothesthathewerewearing.

    1199.

    Learned SPP formulated four yardsticks on the basis of

    which the evidence by way of test identification parade is to be


    considered:
    (i)

    Whether the fact of holding the test identification parade

    inspiresconfidenceofall?
    (ii)

    WhethertheprocedurethatwasfollowingbySEOsandthe

    precautionsthatweretakenwereproperandadequateornot?
    (iii) Whetherhisdepositionisconsistentwiththecontentsofthe
    memorandumandwhetherthememorandumcorroborateshisoral
    evidence?
    (iv) Andinthelightoftheabovethree,iftheidentifyingwitnesses
    havegiventheirevidencebeforethecourt,whetheritcorroborates
    theirsubstantiveevidenceofidentifyingaccusedinthecourtornot?

    Hesubmitsthatifthecourtissatisfiedthattheseyardsticks

    are fulfilled, then there would be no difficulty in accepting the


    prosecutioncaseasitisinrespectofidentificationoftheaccusedin
    thetestidentificationparadebytherelevantwitnesses.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    1200.

    ..1261..

    Ext.4825

    ThoughthelearnedSPPsubmittedthatifthecourtfeelsit

    may keep outof consideration the evidence given by SEOBarve,


    PW82,inviewoftheexplanationthathegaveaboutthetwopages
    inthememorandumthatareverbatimreproducedorrepeatedand
    fairlyconcededthatthe defencewillbe justifiedin criticizinghis
    evidence, he submitted that it does not affect the substantive
    evidenceofthewitnessesgivenbeforethecourt.Hesubmitsthatif
    even for the sake of arguments the memorandum of the
    identificationparadeExt.844iskeptaside,thedepositionofSEO
    Barve,PW82,thathehadgonetotheMumbaiCentralPrison,that
    he had conducted the test identification parade coupled with the
    evidenceoftheidentifyingwitnessesthatinthatparadetheyhave
    identifiedconcernedaccused,arethefactsonrecordandmorethan
    that the substantive evidence of the identifying witnesses in the
    court identified the concerned accused is very convincing and
    thereforetheinfirmityinthetestidentificationparadememowill
    notseriouslyaffecttheprosecutionevidence.Secondly,thelapses,if
    any, in the conduct of the SEO Barve, PW82, will not affect the
    evidence of the witnesses, who say that they had identified the
    particularaccused.Hesubmitsthatthecourtshavegonesoforward
    thatevenwithoutapriortestidentification parade ifthe witness
    identifiedthesuspectsforthefirsttimeinthecourt,hisevidence
    canalsobe acceptedprovideditis acceptableandbelievable.He
    submitsthatitboilsdowntothis,thatthiscourtwillhavetoweigh
    theevidenceoftheidentifyingwitnessesandonthebasisofthat
    evidenceifthecourtacceptstheinvolvementoftheaccused,then

    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

    held, or the number of witnesses who must correctly identify the


    accused,tosustainhisconviction.Thesemattersmustbelefttothe
    courtsoffacttodecideinthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.Ifa
    rule is laid down prescribing a period within which the test
    identification parade must be held, it would only benefit the
    professional criminal in whose cases the arrests are delayed as the
    police have no clear clue about their identity, they being persons
    unknowntothevictims.They,therefore,haveonlytoavoidtheirarrest
    fortheprescribedperiodtoavoidconviction'.

    1201.

    Learned SPP also relied on the law laid down by the

    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.

    In my humble opinion, the evidence given by SEO

    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.

    However, insofar as the evidence in respect of the test

    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

    09/11/06, i.e., immediately one or two days after the test


    identificationparades,havecomeoutoflegalbrains,otherwisehow
    wouldtheaccusedknowtheprocedurallapsesthatweighswiththe

    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)

    that admittedly A2 was identified by two witnesses, (i.e.,

    AmarKhan,PW75andAjmeriShaikh)aspertheprosecutioncase,
    (ii)

    that admittedly A4 was identified by three witnesses, (i.e.,

    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

    the fifth circumstance against the A4. It is the fifth circumstance


    againsttheA6.ItisalsothesixthcircumstanceagainsttheA4.

    Why and how provisions of the MCOC Act came to be


    invokedinC.R.No.156of2006ofBorivaliRailwayPolice
    Station:
    1209.

    ACP Khandekar, PW174, the ATS officer who was

    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

    active member of SIMI, being connected with the railway blasts,


    whichhegotfromPIAgrawal,PW173,andPIKadamandhe,i.e.,
    ACPKhandekar,PW174,himselfgettingtheconfirmationfromhis
    sourcesatthesametimethattheA13hadplayedavitalroleinthe
    Borivali blast. How this information turned out to be correct is
    evidentfromthediscussionuptonowaboutthecircumstancesthat

    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.

    His further evidence is about how he came to the

    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.

    Ithas further comein his evidencethatonreachingthe

    above conclusion he prepared a proposal for application of the


    provisionsoftheMCOCActtothecrimethathewasinvestigating,

    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.

    Once the above conclusion is arrived at, his subsequent

    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.

    The next step that API Deore, PW180, took is of taking

    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

    year2002andA13was shown as proclaimedoffenderin March,


    2002andhenoteddownallthedetailsandthedatesandrequested
    theAPPtomaketheapplicationashewantedcopiesoftherelevant
    papers,whichaspectis covered.This wasinrespectofC.R.No.
    178/99andtogetinformationaboutC.R.No.103/01ithascome
    inhisevidencethathewenttotheSessionsCourtonthesameday,
    i.e.,on16/09/06,butdidnotgetanyinformationasitwaslateand
    thereforehewentbacktotheofficeandcollectedthecopiesofthe
    photographs.

    1216.

    Alltheaboveeventshadtakenplaceon16/09/06.Thereis

    no challenge to this evidence and his major crossexamination is


    pertainingtoobtainingthedocumentsinhishand.Ithascomeinhis
    evidencethathethencalledACPKhandekar,PW174,onphoneand
    informedhimaboutalltheinformationthathehadgathered,viz.,
    crimenumbersofthetwocrimes,thenamesoftheaccused,sections
    oftheoffences,dateofproclamation,dateoforderofconviction,
    etc., and ACP Khandekar, PW174, wrote all this information. A
    ridiculous question was asked to him in his crossexamination by
    learned advocate Wahab Khan as to whether ACP Khandekar,
    PW174,tookdowntheinformationthathegaveinhispresence.Of
    course,hesaidthatitdidnotsohappenandthenhewasshownthe
    stationdiaryandaskedwhetherthereisanystationdiaryaboutit,
    towhichhesaidno,butexplainedthatitdependsupontheperson
    whotakes the informationtomake the station diaryentryifany
    important information is received on phone. Though, ACP
    Khandekar,PW174,didnotstateinhischiefexaminationastohow

    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

    18/09/06,hecame toknowthatall thepapersweresenttothe


    HighCourtastheconvictedaccusedhadfiledanappeal.Ithascome
    inhisevidencethatthereafterhewenttotheAPPintheCJMcourt
    andcollectedthecertifiedtruecopies,aboutwhichtheapplication
    had been given earlier. The endorsement on the slip Ext.1508
    corroborateshisversion.Thenithascomeinhisevidencethathe
    informedonphonetoACPTawdeabouthavingreceivedcopiesof
    papersofonecase,butthepapersoftheothercasehavingbeensent
    totheHighCourtatAurangabadinanappealandaskedhimasto
    whatheshoulddo,whereupon,ACPTawdeaskedhimtosendall
    thedocumentsthathehadcollectedandtowaitthereandhewould
    informhimonthenextdayastowhattodo.Ithascomeinhis
    evidencethatthenhetookoutthephotocopiesofthedocuments
    that he had collected and sent the documents with PC Santosh
    ChorgetotheATSoffice.Alltheseeventstookplaceon18/09/06
    whichiscorroboratedbyapositivestatementbyhiminthecross
    examination by learned advocate Wahab Khan that he sent PC
    SantoshChorgebackon18/09/06intheeveningwiththepapers
    thathehadcollecteduptothattime,whichmeansthatPCChorge
    musthavereachedMumbaion19/09/06.Heexplainedinhiscross

    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

    certified copies of documents obtained from the High Court. Ext.


    1510isthecertifiedcopyofchargeinSessionsCaseNo.126/02that
    was issued by the certified copy branch of the High Court of
    Judicature,Bombay,BenchatAurangabadandtheslipcontaining
    the particulars of the application for copy mention that the
    applicationwasgivenon20/09/06andthecopywasdeliveredon
    22/09/06.TheseparticularsfullycorroboratetheevidenceofAPI
    Deore,PW180.

    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

    and handed over the documents that he had collected to ACP


    Tawde. His further evidence is in respect of ACP Patil, PW186,
    directing him on 26/09/06 to again go to Jalgaon, search the
    accused,collectthecertifiedcopiesofthedocumentsfromthepolice
    stationandrecordthestatementsoftheinvestigatingofficersand
    thenwhathedidatJalgaon,viz.,aboutpreparingthepanchanama
    ofthehousesearchoftheaccusedExt.2083,recordingthestatement
    ofAPIDhakraoandAPITare,obtainingtheircertificatesbehindthe
    photographsoftheA13,etc.,whichIhavealreadydiscussedand
    thenitisinhisevidencethathereturnedtotheATSoffice,Mumbai
    onthenextdayandhandedoverallthedocumentsofinvestigation
    that he had done to ACP Patil, PW186. It has also come in his
    evidence that he again went to Jalgaon on 20/10/06 on the
    instructionsofACPPatil,PW186,andrecordedthestatementsofPI
    Thakare,whowastheinvestigatingofficerofC.R.No.103/01.

    1221.

    Theaboveishiscompleteevidenceabouttheworkthathe

    did in connection with getting information and collecting the


    relevantpapersofthetwopreviouscasesagainsttheA13atJalgaon
    andthereisnothinginhiscrossexaminationtodiscredithisversion
    andIhavealreadyheldthatthedetailsofthecopyingapplications

    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.

    Before proceeding further, it is necessary to discuss the

    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)

    Who this A2 is, is clear from the certified copy of the

    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.

    Exts. 1510 and 1511 are the most disputed documents.

    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

    the sanction under section 23(2) satisfies himself that there is a


    priorapprovalundersection23(1)(a),hewillnotaccordsanction.
    Further unless that sanctioning authority is satisfied that the
    investigationhasbeendonebytheofficerappointedundersection
    23(1)(b), he will not grant sanction. Particularly when the
    chargesheetisattemptedtobepresentedbeforethespecialcourt.
    Thespecialcourtwillnottakecognizanceunlessitissatisfiedthat
    thereissanction.HesubmitsthatsinceinthewordsoftheBombay
    HighCourtthesefiltersareinterconnected,therefore,thiscourthas
    an opportunity to satisfy itself about the compliance of statutory
    requirementsbyexaminingthesanctioningauthority.Thecourthas
    tosatisfyitselfaboutthecompetenceoftheauthoritiesgivingthe
    priorapprovalaswellasthesanction.Hesubmitsthatitisnobody's
    case that Addl. CP Jaiswal, who is the rank of DIG, was not
    competenttogivepriorapproval.Itisreflectedonthefaceofthe
    prior approval that the sanctioning authority was subjectively
    satisfied.Hesubmits thatthe lawhas gonefurther andsays that
    eveninagivencaseifthesubjectivesatisfactionisnotreflectedon
    thefaceofthesanctionorderinthatcasealsothesanctioncannot
    bethrownoutatthethresholdandtheprosecutioncansupplement
    whateverthingswhicharenotapparentonthefaceofthesanction
    documentsbyexaminingtheauthority.Therefore,ifitisapparenton
    the face of the document, then the prosecution is not obliged to
    examine additional witnesses unnecessarily. He has relied on the
    judgementoftheSupremeCourtinthecaseof StateofMadhya
    Pradesh,AppellantsV.Jiyalal,Respondent(CriminalAppealNo.

    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

    of validity of approval or sanction cannot be decided unless the


    prosecution is afforded opportunity to lead evidence in that regard'.
    TheHighCourthasgonetotheextentofholdinginparagraph17
    that, 'theprovisionsoflawundersection23(1)(a)oftheMCOCAct
    preciselyprovidesthatinordertoinitiateinvestigationunderMCOC
    Act, prior approval of the police officer, not below the rank of Dy.
    InspectorGeneralofPoliceisnecessary.Thesaidprovisionoflawdoes
    notregulatetheapprovaltobenecessarilyinwriting.Undoubtedly,
    beingamatterforinvestigationinrelationtoacriminaloffenceof
    seriousnature,itwouldalwaysbeexpectedandadvisabletohavesuch
    approvalinwriting'.Itisfurtherheldinparagraph18that, 'inthe
    caseinhanditisnotindisputethatsuchapprovalwasinwriting
    grantedon28thAugust2004.Whetheritwasonproperapplicationof
    mind on the basis of the materials placed before the concerned
    authorityornotandwhetheralltherequiredmaterialswereactually
    placed before the concerned authority or not, are the points to be
    decided at the conclusion of the trial so that the prosecution gets
    sufficientopportunitytoestablishallthefactsnecessarytoprovethe
    validapprovalandsanctionfortheprosecution'.Themostimportant
    observationsareinparagraph25whereinitisheldthatifthereisa
    writtenapprovalorwrittensanction,theargumentthattherulethat
    theapplicationofmindcanbeestablishedbyleadingevidencewill
    notapply.Nodoubt,thisauthorityisinrespectofchallengetothe
    rejectionoftheobjectionraisedbytheaccusedforframingofcharge
    on the ground of invalid approval under section 23(1)(a) and
    invalidsanctionundersection23(1)(b)oftheMCOCAct,butthe

    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

    absolutelynecessarytoexamine Addl.CP S.K.Jaiswal,whohad


    grantedthepriorapproval.Whathadhappenedisthatduringthe
    crossexamination of ACP Khandekar, PW174, learned advocate
    WahabKhanstoppedafterhehadcrossexaminedhimextensivelyin
    respectofobtainingknowledgeoftwopreviouscasesagainstA13
    andthencalledupontheprosecutiontosaywhetheritisgoingto
    examine the person who gave the prior approval, to which the
    learnedSPPsubmittedthattheofficerisprobablyoutofIndiaand
    theprosecutiondoesnotwanttodelaythetrial.LearnedSPPfurther
    submittedthattheofficerwhogavethepriorapprovalwillnotbe
    examinedasheisnotavailableandwillnotbeavailablefornext
    twomonths.Inthisconnection,ithasbeensubmittedinthewritten
    submissions by learned advocate Sharif Shaikh that though this
    submission was made by the learned SPP on 23/12/11, the
    prosecutioncasewentonupto04/04/12andaftertwomonthsthe
    learnedSPPcouldhaveexaminedAddl.CPS.K.Jaiswal,however,
    becauseoffearthathisexaminationwillfurtherdamagethecaseof
    theprosecution,hewasdropped,therefore,thepriorapprovalwas
    notprovedasperlaw.Hence,itisnotreceivableinevidenceand
    onceitisvitiated,thesanctionorderExt.13loosesitsvalue.Inmy
    humbleopinion,thesesubmissionspresupposethatthecaseofthe
    prosecution is damaged. Therefore, they cannot be accepted.

    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.

    Learned advocate pointed out to the words 'unlawful

    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.

    He submits that the order of prior approval is obviously

    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.

    Referring to the documents Exts. 1506 to 1511, learned

    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

    during the preceding period of ten years, it was held that


    chargesheetis essential in relation to the offence committed in a
    matter.ThisorderwascarriedtotheSupremeCourtbyfilingSLP
    (Crl.)No.2012/08andwasdisposedoffaswithdrawnon21/03/08
    as the counsel for the petitioner sought leave of the court to
    withdrawit.Thus,thisaspecthasbeentestedandhasbeendecided
    byourHighCourt.Referencecanbemadetothejudgementofthe
    Supreme Court dtd. 15/04/15 in Criminal Appeals No.
    19671970/10, which was against the judgement of the Division
    Bench of the High Court dtd. 19/07/10 in Criminal Appeal No.
    867/09againsttheorderofthiscourtdtd.31/07/09inSpecialCase
    No.01/09(MalegaonBombBlastCase2008).Theviewtakenbythe
    BombayHighCourtwasupheldanditwasheldthatcognizanceof
    anoffenceistakenandfilingofthesupplementarychargesheetdoes
    notandwillnotamounttotakingcognizancebythecourtafresh
    whomsoeveragainstwithreferenceforthesameoffence.Itwasheld
    thatthiswassatisfiedandfulfilledtherequirementofcognizanceof
    offence by filing of more than one chargesheets before the
    competentcourtasstipulatedinsection2(1)(b)oftheMCOCAct.

    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.

    Learned advocate then submitted that if we analyze or

    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

    when he was in his custody and therefore the evidence by ACP


    Khandekar,PW174,isanafterthoughtandanimprovementonhis
    statement given to ACP Patil, PW186. Once again at the cost of
    repetition, it will have to be held that the information that ACP
    Khandekar, PW174, got from the other investigating officers,
    includingPIAgrawal,PW173,wasnonphysical.Statementofthe
    A2mayhavebeenrecordedbytheotherinvestigatingofficersand
    theinvolvementoftheA13wouldhavebeendisclosedtherein.IfPI
    Agrawal, PW173, wouldhave given the evidence aboutitsaying
    thatA2andA4hadstatedintheirstatementsaboutthecomplicity
    oftheA13inthiscrime,wouldthisevidencehavebeenadmissible?
    Obviouslyno.Thusthissubmissionisofnohelptothedefence.

    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.

    The evidence of A13 as DW49 in connection with what

    happened after his arrest on 29/12/06 in C. R. No.103/01 is


    reproducedalongwithreproducingwhathadhappenedin2001and
    itissubmittedthathewithstoodinthecrossexaminationandhis
    evidenceis morereliablethan the hearsayevidencegiven byAPI
    Deore, PW180, and it is clear that the A13 is not the wanted

    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)

    Ashraf Khan @ Babu Munnekhan, Appellants V. State of

    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.

    LearnedSPP has reliedonthe judgementof theDivision

    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.

    Recording of information under section 23(1)(a) of the


    MCOCAct:
    1242.

    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

    discussed. ACP Khandekar,PW174,stated that after the order of


    prior approval was received, ACP Patil, PW186, recorded his
    detailedstatement.Hiscrossexaminationinrespectofhisstatement
    is, as discussed earlier, mainly concerned with the improvements
    andomissionswhilegivingthestatementandhiscrossexamination
    on the other points has been discussed earlier. In his cross
    examination he reiterated that ACP Patil, PW186, recorded his
    informationon24/09/06anditisinthenatureofhisstatementand
    asperhisknowledgethatistheinformation.Hewasaskedtogo
    throughsection23(1)(a)oftheMCOCActandheaffirmsthatthe
    provisions of the said section show that information should be
    recordedafterpriorapprovalisreceived.Ithascomeinthecross
    examinationofACPPatil,PW186,thatthisistheonlycaseunder
    theMCOCActthatheinvestigatedduringhisserviceperiodandhe
    alsoaffirmedthattheinformationistoberecordedundersection
    23(1)(a)oftheMCOCAct.Ithasalsocomethathealsodiscussed
    thisissuewithDCPBajajonthedaywheninvestigationcametohim
    andspecificallyexplainedthathehasnotreadanywhereaboutthe
    procedureforrecordingsuchinformation.Hedeniedthesuggestion
    thatthesignatureoftheinformantisrequiredtobetakenandthe
    stationdiaryentryExt.2367isfabricatedlateron.Otherthanthis
    thereisnothinginhiscrossexamination.Certifiedtruephotocopyof
    Ext. 2367 of the station diary entry no. 23 dtd. 24/09/06 refers
    firstlytostationdiaryentryno.20ofthesamedayaboutreceiptof
    theorderofthepriorapprovalappointingACPPatil,PW186,asthe
    investigatingofficeranddirectinghimtorecordtheinformationof

    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.

    It is submitted by learned advocate Sharif Shaikh in his

    written submission in volume1afterreproducing the evidence of


    ACPPatil,PW186,thattheinformationthatisrecordedbyhimis
    notexhibitedinthecourtasitisastatementundersection161of
    theCr.P.C.andnotaninformation,thatevenlateron,aseparate
    crime number, i.e., C. R. No. 05/06, was registered but no
    information was recorded.Hencethiscaseis withoutinformation
    andthereforethepriorapprovalandsanctionundertheMCOCAct
    becomeinvalid.Inthisconnectionthelawhasbeenwellsettledas
    longbackasintheyear2007bytheDivisionBenchofourHigh
    Court in the case of John D'Souza, Appellant V. Assistant
    Commissioner of Police, 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),whereseveralquestionswereraisedinrespectofthe
    MCOC Act and this was the very first question whether it is
    necessarythataseparateinformationundersection23(1)(a)ofthe
    MCOCActshouldberecordedaftertheapprovalisaccordedunder

    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.

    Confessional statements of the accused recorded under


    section18oftheMCOCAct:
    1244.

    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

    the arrested accused were put under constant interrogation, that


    different teams were formed for interrogating them and he
    alongwith the superior officers were supervising the same. It has
    comeinhisevidencethattheteaminterrogatingtheA2informed
    him on 29/09/06 about his willingness to make a voluntary
    confessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers,aboutwhichhe
    satisfiedhimselfbyinterrogatinghim,thatthereafteronhisrequest,
    theJt.CP,ATSdirectedSPMohite,PW102,byhisletterExt.1015
    dtd.03/10/06 to record his confessional statement and thereafter
    received letter from SP Mohite, PW102, Ext.1016 dtd.04/10/06
    directinghimtoproducetheA2beforehimonthesamedayat2.00
    p.m.IthascomeinhisevidencethathedirectedACPKhandekar,
    PW174,byhisletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.2395,totakethe
    A2 to SP Mohite, PW102, and also prepared the letter Ext.1018
    addressedtotheDCPaboutproducingtheA2beforehimwithACP
    Khandekar,PW174.HeprovedthecontentsofExt.1018aswellas
    Ext.2395.IthascomeinhisevidencethatACPKhandekar,PW174,
    andstaffproducedtheA2beforeSPMohite,PW102,onthatday,
    returnedbackandreportedthattheDCPhadtakentheaccusedin
    hiscustody.ACPKhandekar,PW174,corroborateshisversionandit
    hascomeinhisevidencethathealongwithAPIWadmare,PSIPatil

    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.

    SP Mohite, PW102, corroborated the evidence of the

    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

    which he is arrested, that he was taken in his custody from the


    custodyoftheATSandthattillthetimeheisinhiscustody,noATS
    officerscancomeinhiscontactandcanpressurizehim.Ithasalso
    come in his evidence that he had also ascertained from ACP
    Khandekar,PW174,aboutthesufficientperiodofthePCtoenable
    him to give the accused time for reflection and to complete the
    confessionalstatement.Hedescribedwhatquestionsheaskedand
    whatwarninghegavetotheA2andaboutrecordingPartIofthe
    confessional statement in his handwriting andtelling the accused
    thatheis givinghim24hourstothinkoverwhethertogive the
    confessionalstatementanddeposedabouthebeingsatisfiedthatthe
    accusedwaspreparedtogivetheconfessionalstatementvoluntarily.
    HeprovedPartIoftheconfessionalstatementExt.1019,identified
    his signatures and the signatures of the A2 on all the pagesand
    statedabouthavingreadoverthePartItotheA2andheaccepting
    thatitwascorrectlywrittenasperhisnarration.

    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.

    SP Mohite, PW102, had deposed about PSI Gangurde,

    PW105, producing the A2 on the appointed date and time and


    reportingtohimonbeingaskedaboutgettingtheaccusedmedically
    examinedandcomplyingwithotherinstructionsandalsogivinghim
    theletterExt.1022,whereuponhetooktheaccusedinhiscustody
    andaskedPSIGangurde,PW105,andhis stafftogooutside his
    chamber. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PSI
    Gangurde, PW105, who specifically deposed about veiling the

    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

    that he took as per the earlier day, asking preliminary questions


    about medical examination, etc., and the necessary questions to
    ascertain whether the A2 was ready to give the confessional
    statementvoluntarilyandbeing satisfiedfromthe answersof the
    accused that it was so. He then stated about recording the
    confessional statement of the A2 in his own words and in his
    language,readingitovertohimafteritwasfinishedandobtaining
    his signaturesonallpagesafterheaffirmedthatitwascorrectly
    writtenasnarratedbyhimandputtinghiscountersignaturesand
    givingacertificatebelowthestatementaspertheprovisionsofthe
    MCOCAct.Heprovedthesignaturesoftheaccusedandhiscounter
    signatureandsignaturesinPartIIExt.1023,statedaboutputtingthe
    originalintheenvelopeExt.1024,sealingitandendorsingitafter
    havingtakenouttwophotocopies,oneforhisrecordandonefor
    givingtotheinvestigatingofficer.

    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

    in veil to the court of the CMM on 06/10/06 after making the


    stationdiaryentryno.40,certifiedtruephotocopyofwhichisat
    Ext.1082,theaccusedbeingcalledinthechamberoftheCMMat
    about 4.30 p.m. and he handing over the letter and two sealed
    envelopestotheCMM,beingaskedtowaitoutsideandtheA2being
    given in his custody at about 5.30 p.m., he veiling the accused,
    takinghimbacktothepolicestationandreportingtoSPMohite,
    PW102,abouttheworkofproductionoftheA2beforetheCMM
    being over and asking for his further instructions and on being
    directed,takingthe A2tothe office oftheATSatBhoiwada and
    giving him in the possession of ACP Patil, PW186, and ACP
    Khandekar, PW174. He deposed about making the station diary
    entryno.49tothateffect,certifiedtruephotocopyofwhichisat
    Ext.1082.HeprovedthecontentsofthecopyoftherequisitionExt.
    1083thathegavetothemedicalofficerforexaminingtheA2on
    05/10/06 and identified the A2 in the court unhesitatingly. The
    CMMforwardedthesealedenvelopeoftheconfessionalstatement
    alongwithletterExt.1028intheenvelopeExt.1028AtothisCourt
    and they were received in evidence as they are the official
    communicationfromonecourttoanother.

    1253.

    Thus the above is the oral and documentary evidence in

    respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA2fromtheATSofficetothe
    office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
    station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
    theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1332..

    Ext.4825

    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.

    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.

    API Randive, PW106, corroborated the evidence of SP

    Karale, PW104,, deposing about the DCP giving the A4 in his

    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.

    API Randive, PW106, corroborated the evidence of SP

    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.

    Thus the above is the oral and documentary evidence in

    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.

    DCP Choubey, PW113, corroborated the version of the

    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.

    Thus the above is the oral and documentary evidence in

    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.

    ACP Patil, PW186, deposed about coming to know on

    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.

    Addl.CP Brijesh Singh,PW117,corroborated hisversion

    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.

    Addl.CP Brijesh Singh,PW117,corroborated hisversion

    and confirmed the compliance of his instructions from the escort


    partyandaskedthemtogooutofhischamber,ensuredthatnoone
    was within sight and hearing of the proceedings going on in his
    chamber.Hethendeposedaboutthestepshetookformakingthe
    accused comfortable and asking him the necessary questions and
    givinghimthestatutorywarningandalsoinquiredwhetheranyone

    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

    Ext.1220, the contents of which he proved. He also proved the


    contentsoftheletterExt.1221,officecopyofaletteraddressedby
    him to the investigating officer of the ATS about handing over
    custodyoftheaccused.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathedirected
    the escort party to produce the accused before the CMM
    immediatelyalongwiththeenvelopesandtheforwardingletterand
    then handing over to the ATS. He identified the A3 in the court
    unhesitatingly.

    1274.

    API Dasurkar, PW101, corroborated his version and

    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.

    Thus the above is the oral and documentary evidence in

    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.

    DCP Phadtare, PW93, corroborated the evidence of both

    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

    handwriting, certified true copy of which is at Ext.944 and


    producingtheaccusedinthecabinoftheDCPinveilandtheDCP
    tellingthemtowaitoutside.

    1278.

    DCP Phadtare, PW93, corroborated his version and

    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

    to the CMM, office copy of which is at Ext.927, the contents of


    whichheprovedanddirectedPSIPowar,PW94,toproducetheA9
    beforetheCMMonthenextday,i.e.,on06/10/06,andtillthattime
    to keep the accused in a separate cell as earlier and to take the
    necessaryprecautionswhichheincorporatedinalettertotheSr.PI
    ofthatpolicestation,officecopyofwhichisatExt.928,contentsof
    whichheproved.PSIPowar,PW94,corroboratedhisversionabout
    custodyoftheA9beinggiventohimwiththedirectiontoproduce
    himbeforetheCMMonthenextdayandgivinghimfourenvelopes,
    oneaddressedtotheSr.PIcontainingletterExt.928andremaining
    threeaddressedtotheCMM.Hestatedthatoutofthreeenvelopes
    addressedtotheCMM,twowereclosedandhadrubberstampson
    them.HethendeposedabouttakingtheA9tothepolicestation,
    producing him before the duty PI and handing over all the
    envelopes, putting the accused in a separate cell and giving the
    necessaryinstructionstotheguardsandstationdiaryentryno.1
    beingmadebythenightdutyofficer,certifiedtruecopyofwhichis
    atExt.943.PSIPowar,PW94,thendeposedabouttheeventsthat
    tookplaceon06/10/06,viz.,abouthegoingtothepolicestationat
    about9.00a.m.,takingouttheA9fromthelockupinhiscustody,
    veilinghim,takingthethreeenvelopesaddressedtotheCMMand
    startingforgoingtothecourtoftheCMMaboutwhichstationdiary
    entryno.21wasmade,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.943.
    He deposed about producing the accused before the CMM and
    handingoverthethreelettersandbeingaskedtowaitoutsidefor
    sometime.Hedeposedaboutbeingcalledinsidethecourthallat

    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.

    Thus the above is the oral and documentary evidence in

    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

    for nominating an officer of the rank of a DCP to record the


    confessional statement of the A10 as the team of officers
    interrogatingthesaidaccusedreportedtohimon02/10/06thathe
    is willing to make a voluntary confessional statement before the
    superiorofficersaboutwhichhesatisfiedhimselfbyquestioningthe
    accused.HedeposedaboutDCPDumbre,PW118,beingappointed
    bytheletterExt.1243,andreceivingaletterfromtheDCP,office
    copyofwhichisatExt.1244,bywhichhewasdirectedtoproduce
    the accused before him on 05/10/06 and he in turn directing PI
    Deshmukhtodosobyaletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.2400,
    thecontentsofwhichheproved.Hedeposedaboutaddressingthe
    letterExt.1245,thecontentsofwhichheproved,totheDCPabout
    PI Deshmukh and staff producing the A10 before the DCP on
    05/10/06andAPIYadav,PW178,reportingafterreturningthatthe
    DCP had taken the accused in his custody. API Yadav, PW178,
    corroboratedhisversionanddeposedthatheaccompaniedPISunil
    Deshmukh,whoasperthedirectionofACPPatil,PW186,tookout
    theaccusedfromtheBhoiwadalockup,veiledhimandaboutwhich

    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.

    DCP Dumbre, PW118, corroborated his version and

    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

    alongwith two letters and two sealed envelopes, he veiling the


    accused and taking him to the police station, putting him in the
    separate lockup and giving similar instructions to the guard
    amaldar, then going to the Sr. PI, giving him the letters and
    envelopes,whoonreadingthelettersaskedhimtokeepthesealed
    envelopesinthecustodyoftheSHOanddirectedhimtoproduce
    theaccusedintheKillaCourtonthenextday.Hedeposedabout
    keeping the letter addressed to the CMM and the two sealed
    envelopes in the safe custody of the SHO about which the SHO
    madestationdiaryentryno.66asperhisinstructions,certifiedtrue
    copyofwhichisatExt.1114(2).Ithascomeinhisevidencethathe
    tookouttheaccusedfromthelockupatabout10.00a.m.onthe
    next day, i.e., on 07/10/06, veiled him, collected the forwarding
    letter and sealed envelopes and as per his instructions, the SHO
    madestationdiaryentryno.23,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisat
    Ext.1115(1).Hedeposedaboutgettingtheaccusedexaminedinthe
    GTHospitalandobtainingcopyoftheOPDcasepaperArt.339.Dr.
    Paikrao,PW181,provedthecontentsofArt.339,whichwasthen
    marked as Ext.2107, and he also produced and proved the true
    photocopyofthecasualtyregister,Ext.2106,thecontentsofwhich
    aresimilartoExt.2107andwhichshowsthattheaccusedhadno
    complaints. PSI Thakur, PW110, then deposed about taking the
    accused inside the cabin of the magistrate in Killa Court in veil,
    handingovertheforwardingletterandtwosealedenvelopesand
    beingaskedtowaitoutsideandagainbeingcalledinsideafter1520
    minutesandbeingaskedtotaketheaccusedtotheDCPwhichhe

    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.

    Thus the above is the oral and documentary evidence in

    respectoftheprocedureoftakingtheA10fromtheATSofficetothe
    office of the DCP, from there to the lockup of the local police
    station,thenbacktotheDCP,thenbacktothepolicestation,thento
    theofficeoftheCMMfromwherehewasagaingiveninthecustody

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1368..

    Ext.4825

    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.

    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

    examined from time to time. Addl. SP Bhavsar, PW100, deposed


    aboutbeingattachedtoBorivaliPoliceStationasPoliceInspectorin
    October, 2006, one Tiwari being a Sr. PI and PI Mathadhikari
    bringingA11fromDCPRanade,PW111,on04/10/06alongwith
    theletterExt.990givenbytheDCPaboutwhichstationdiaryentry
    no. 53 was made, certified true copy of which is at Ext.991. He
    deposed about PI Mathadhikari having got the A11 medically
    examinedbeforehekepthiminthelockupintheseparatecell.He
    deposed that as PI Mathadhikari was busy in some urgent office
    work, he was directed to comply with the orders of the DCP of
    producingtheaccusedbeforehimon05/10/06.Therefore,heasked
    PSISuryavanshitotakeouttheaccusedfromthelockupinveiland
    heproducedtheaccusedbeforeDCPRanade,PW111,aboutwhich
    stationdiaryentriesno.40and45weremade,certifiedtruecopies
    ofwhichareatExt.992.HedeposedthatheproducedtheA11inthe
    cabinofDCPRanade,PW111,andgavehiminhiscustodyandwas
    madetowaitoutside.

    1289.

    DCP Ranade, PW111, corroborated his version, but he

    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

    copy of which is at Ext. 1132 alongwith sealed envelopes to PSI


    Suryavanshi.HeidentifiedtheA11inthecourtunhesitatingly.He
    deposedaboutdirectingtheSr.PIofPoliceStationBorivalitohand
    overtheenvelopeandforwardinglettertotheCMM.

    1290.

    Addl. SP Bhavsar, PW100, corroborated his evidence

    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.

    Thus the above is the oral and documentary evidence in

    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

    letters between the three authorities inter se and there is no


    hesitation to accept that the confessional statement has been
    recordedbyfollowingdueprocessoflaw.

    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

    work done by him. However, it has come in the evidence of SP


    Karale, PW104, that API Kolhatkar, PW18, brought the accused
    beforehimon24/10/06inveilalongwithacopyofletterExt.1067
    andthendeposedaboutaskinghimtounveiltheaccused,taking
    briefinformationfromAPIKolhatkar,PW18,aboutthefactsofthe
    caseandthenaskinghimandhisstafftogooutside.Hedeposed
    abouttakingthenecessaryprecautionstoseethattheproceedingsin

    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

    1200 hours. He deposed about giving a letter containing these


    directions,officecopyofwhichisatExt.1070,thecontentsofwhich
    heproved.

    1295.

    PSI Divekar, PW108, corroborated his version by stating

    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.

    He deposed about taking the A6 in veil to the DCP on

    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.

    Thus the above is the oral and documentary evidence in

    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.

    SPMohite,PW102,fully corroboratedthe version of the

    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

    precautions that should be taken which was incorporated in the


    letter,Ext.1035.Hedeposedaboutveilingtheaccusedandtaking
    himtotheGTHospitalformedicalexaminationandthentakinghim
    to the police station, putting the accused in a separate cell and
    givingtheinstructionsasweregivenbytheDCPandmakingstation
    diaryentryno.20inhishandwriting,certifiedtruecopyofwhichis
    atExt.1047.Ext.2111isthecarboncopyoftheOPDcasepaper
    dtd.24/10/06whichisprovedbyDr.Paikrao,PW181,whoalso
    provedtruephotocopyoftheOPDregisteroftheGTHospitalExt.
    2110,thecontentsofwhicharesameasthecontentsofExt.2111.
    Theaccusedwasexaminedat12.25p.m.andheonlycomplainedof
    fainting, for which he was given glucose water, ORS and Rantac
    tablets.

    1301.

    APIShinde,PW103,thendeposedabouttakingtheA7in

    his custody from the lockup on 25/10/06 at about 11.00 a.m.,


    puttingaveilonhimandtakinghimtotheofficeoftheDCPand
    makingstationdiaryentryno.28inhisownhandwriting,certified
    truecopyofwhichisatExt.1048,contentsofwhichheproved.He
    deposedaboutproducingtheaccusedbeforetheDCPandhanding
    overhisletterExt.1036aboutproducingtheaccused,thecontentsof
    whichheprovedandtheDCPtakingtheaccusedinhiscustodyand
    asking him to wait outside for some time. SP Mohite, PW102,
    corroboratedhisversionanddeposedaboutaskingtheofficerand
    his staff to go out of his chamber, again ensuring that the
    proceedingsbetweenhimandtheaccusedcannotbeseenorheard
    fromoutside,makingtheaccusedcomfortable,askinghimwhether

    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

    officer, office copy of which is at Ext.1041, asking him to take


    possessionoftheaccusedatthecourtoftheCMMaftertheworkof
    theCMMwasover.Heprovedthecontentsofalltheseletters.He
    deposedaboutverifyingintheeveningonthesamedaywhetherthe
    accusedhadbeenproducedbeforetheCMMandthathereceiveda
    detailed report from API Shinde, PW103, on 02/11/06 about
    following his instructions. He identified the A7 in the court
    unhesitatingly.

    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

    about taking the accused to the GT Hospital and getting him


    medicallyexamined.Ext.2113isthecarboncopyofOPDcasepaper,
    which is proved by Dr. Paikrao, PW181, who also proved a true
    photocopy of the entry in the casualty register Ext.2112, the
    contentsofwhicharesameasthatofExt.2113.Againonthisday,
    thecomplaintoftheA7wasofgiddiness.APIShinde,PW103,then
    deposedabouttakingtheA7totheSessionsCourtandgivinghimin
    thecustodyofACPPatil,PW186,,goingbacktothepolicestation
    andmakingstationdiaryentryno.42inhishandwriting,certified
    truecopyofwhichisatExt.1048.HeidentifiedtheA7inthecourt
    unhesitatingly. The CMM forwarded the sealed envelopes of the
    confessionalstatementalongwithhisletterExt.1043intheenvelope
    Ext.1043A, which were received in evidence as they are official
    communicationbetweentwocourts.

    1303.

    Thus the above is the oral and documentary evidence in

    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

    Addl. CP Brijesh Singh, PW117, to record the confessional


    statementoftheA12byhisletter,Ext.1223onhisrequestasthe
    team of officers interrogating the A12 had reported to him on
    19/10/06 about his willingness to make a voluntary confessional
    statementbeforesuperiorofficersaboutwhichhesatisfiedhimself
    byquestioningtheaccusedandhealsoreceivingaletter,Ext.1224
    fromtheDCPdirectinghimtoproducetheaccusedbeforehimon
    23/10/06. He deposed about directing PI Shelke, PW150, by a
    letter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.2404,toproducetheaccused
    beforetheDCPonthesameday,i.e.,23/10/06,andalsogivinga
    letterExt.1225addressedtotheDCPregardingproductionofthe
    accused.HedeposedaboutPIShelke,PW150,andstaffproducing
    theaccusedbeforetheDCPonthatday,returningbacktotheoffice
    andreportingthattheDCPhadtakentheaccusedinhiscustody.PI
    Shelke,PW150,corroboratedhisversionanddeposedabouttaking
    theA12inhiscustodyon23/10/06andtakinghimtotheofficeof
    theDCPasperthedirectionsofACPPatil,PW186,andstationdiary
    entryno.8beingmadebyHCGhagonhisdirections,certifiedtrue
    copy of which is at Ext.1618. He deposed about producing the
    accusedbeforetheDCPandhandingoverthelettergivenbyACP
    Patil,PW186,,returningbacktoBhoiwadaastheDCPtoldhimto
    gobackandstationdiaryentryno.10beingmadebyHCGhagon
    his directions, certified true copy of which is at Ext.1619. He
    identifiedtheA12inthecourtunhesitatingly.

    1305.

    Addl.CPBrijeshSingh,PW117,corroboratedtheversionof

    both the above officers and deposed that he was directed by the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1388..

    Ext.4825

    letter, Ext.1223 of the Jt. CP, ATS to record the confessional


    statement of the A12, whereupon he wrote letter, office copy of
    whichisatExt.1224,directingtheinvestigatingofficertoproduce
    theaccusedbeforehimon23/10/06at1400hoursandpursuantto
    thatletterPIShelke,PW150,andhisteamproducedtheaccused
    before him in veil accordingly alongwith the letter of the
    investigating officer Ext.1225. He deposed about ascertaining the
    generalfactsofthecasefromtheescortparty,aboutwellbeingof
    theaccusedandthenaskingtheATSteamtogooutofhischamber,
    askingtheaccusedtoremovehisveil,ensuringthattherewasno
    onewithinthesightandhearingoftheproceedingsinhischamber,
    but his stenographer was with him and then inquiring with the
    accused aboutthereasonastowhyhewasproducedbeforehim,
    whereupon the accused said that he was produced to make the
    confessionalstatementashewantedtomakeit.Hedeposedabout
    introducing himself and putting general questions and being
    informed by the accused that he is fluent in Hindi and English,
    thoughheknowsUrduandArabicaswell.Hedeposedaboutgiving
    the statutorywarning tothe accusedandascertainedwhetherhe
    wasgivenanykindofinducement,threatorpromiseaboutwhich
    theaccusedrepliedinnegativeandthathetoldtheaccusedthathe
    would give him time for reflection. He deposed about becoming
    confidentthattheaccusedwishedtomaketheconfessionstatement
    before him and deposed that he was dictating the questions and
    answers and his stenographer was typing them on computer and
    afteritwascompleted,aprintoutwastakenoutandgiventothe

    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.

    Thus the above is the oral and documentary evidence in

    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

    DCP Phadtare, PW93, by his letter, Ext.930 to record the


    confessional statement of the A5, on his request as the officers
    interrogatingtheA5hadreportedtohimon20/10/06thatheis
    willingtomakeaconfessionalstatementbeforethesuperiorofficers

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1394..

    Ext.4825

    about which he satisfied himself on questioning the accused. He


    deposedaboutreceivingaletter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.931,
    fromtheDCPdirectinghimtoproducetheaccusedbeforehimon
    24/10/06 and thereupon he directing PI Alaknure, PW153, by a
    letter,officecopyofwhichisatExt.2405,toproducetheaccused
    before the DCP on 24/10/06 and also giving a letter, Ext.932,
    addressedtotheDCP.HedeposedaboutPIAlaknure,PW153,and
    staffproducingtheaccusedbeforetheDCPon24/10/06,returning
    backtotheofficeandreportingthattheDCPhadtakentheaccused
    inhiscustody.PIAlaknure,PW153,corroboratedhisversionand
    deposedinadditionthaton23/10/06,ACPPatil,PW186,hadgiven
    himasealedenvelopewithadirectiontoreachittoDCPPhadtare,
    PW93,whichhedidandtheDCPonopeningtheenvelopeandafter
    readingtheletterinside,gavehimtheletterExt.931addressedto
    ACPPatil,PW186,directinghimtoproducetheA5beforehimon
    24/10/06at10.00a.m.andhereturningbacktotheATSoffice,
    handingitovertoACPPatil,PW186,,whointurndirectedhimto
    dotheneedful.Hedeposedabouttakingouttheaccusedabout7.30
    or8.00a.m.on24/10/06,veilinghimandleavingforgoingtothe
    officeoftheDCPandstationdiaryentryno.2beingmadeasperhis
    directions,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisatExt.1654.Hedeposed
    aboutproducingtheaccusedbeforetheDCP,whotookhiminhis
    custodyanddirectedhimandhisstafftoleavetheofficeandgave
    theletter,Ext.933,acknowledginghavingtakentheaccusedinhis
    custody,hereturningtotheATSofficeandstationdiaryentryno.10
    beingmadeasperhisdirections,certifiedtruecopyofwhichisat

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1395..

    Ext.4825

    Ext.1655.

    1311.

    DCP Phadtare, PW93, corroborated the evidence of both

    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.

    PSIPowar, PW94,deposedabouttaking outthe accused

    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.

    DCP Phadtare, PW93, corroborated his version and

    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.

    PI Alaknure, PW153, corroborated his version, but he

    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.

    Thus the above is the oral and documentary evidence in

    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.

    Legal submissions about the evidence regarding


    confessionalstatements:
    1316.

    Learned SPP submitted during his arguments that if the

    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

    learned advocates for all the accused in respect of the evidence


    given by the prosecution about recording of the confessional
    statements.Lengthyargumentsaremadeandthelargenumberof
    caselawsarereliedbecauseconfessionalstatementsareimportant
    evidence insofar as cases of this nature are concerned. Each and
    every word, sentence, paragraphs in the oral and documentary
    evidenceisdiscussed,dissectedandinterpretedpossiblybecauseof
    themisconceivedmotionofthedefencethatthisistheonlyevidence
    against the accused, which is also oft repeated by the learned
    advocates for the accused during their submissions. It will be
    appropriatetostartwiththeprinciplesofthelawlaiddownbythe
    ApexCourtinthisregard.Itneedstobementionedattheoutset
    that the authorities relied upon by the defence advocates are in
    respect of the confessions recorded under the provisions of the
    TADA,POTA,undersection24oftheEvidenceActandsection164
    oftheCr.P.C.However,thereisnoanswerbythedefenceadvocates
    tothe lawlaiddown bythe Division Benchofthe Bombay High
    Courtdtd.17/12/03inConfirmationCaseNo.01/01,whichwasthe

    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.

    Learned advocate Yug Choudhary relied on the following

    authoritiesinsupportofhissubmissions:
    (i)

    Kartar Singh, Petitioner V. State of Punjab, Respondent

    ((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)

    Balbir Singh, Appellant V. State of Punjab, Respondent

    (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

    the case of Devendra Pal Singh supra and submits that it


    distinguishestheauthorityinthecaseof StateofMaharashtraV.
    BharatChaganlalRaghani&Ors.,((2001)9SCC1),thatmaybe
    relieduponbytheprosecution.Healsoreliedupontheauthorities
    inthecaseofState(N.C.T.ofDelhi),AppellantV.NavjotSandhu,
    Respondent(AIR2005SupremeCourt3820)andthejudgement
    of the Supreme Court dtd. 16/05/14 in the case of Adambhai
    Sulemanbhai Ajmeri & Ors., Appellants V. State of Gujarat,
    RespondentinCriminalAppealNos.22952296of2010.

    1320.

    LearnedadvocateShettyreliedonthefollowingauthorities

    insupportofhissubmissions:
    (i)

    StateofMaharashtraV.SirajAhmedNisarAhmed&Ors.

    (AIR2007SupremeCourt1859).
    (ii)

    Shivappa, Appellant V. State of Karnataka, Respondent

    (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)

    Parmananda Pegu, Appellant V. State of Assam,

    Respondent((2004)7SupremeCourtCases779).
    (vi) K. I. Pavunny, Appellant V. Assistant Collector (HQ),
    CentralExciseCollectorate,Cochin,Respondent(1997Supreme
    CourtCases(Cri)444).

    1321.

    Learned advocate Sharif Shaikh relied on the following

    authorities:
    (i)

    Khatri, Appellant V. State of Bihar, Respondents (LAWS

    (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)

    The State of Maharashtra, Appellant V. Mohd. Zuber

    Kasam Shaikh @ Tabrej @ Judanu & Anr. Respondents


    (ConfirmationCaseNo.01/01decidedon17/12/03).
    (vi) Mohd.FarooqAbdulGafur&Anr.,AppellantsV.Stateof
    Maharashtra,Respondent((2010)14SCC641).

    1323.

    It is necessary to discuss some submissions made by

    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

    interpolation or manipulation is ruled out as a later date' in


    paragraph36in DevendraPalSingh'scase,hesubmittedthatthis
    canonlybedonebyopeningtheenvelope.LearnedadvocateWahab
    Khanreliedonparagraph38ofthejudgementinthecaseofBharat
    ChaganlalRaghani,whichsaysthattheguideline(3)mandatesthe
    magistratetoscrupulouslyrecordthestatement,ifany,madebythe
    accusedsoproducedandgethissignatureandintheeventofany
    complaint oftorture,thepersonshouldbedirectedtobeproduced
    formedical examination andnoduty is cast upon the magistrate
    concerned to record the confessional statement afresh or
    himself/herselftoascertainthenatureandthecircumstancesunder
    whichtheconfessionalstatementwasmade,unlessthecomplaintis
    madebytheaccusedregardingtorture,etc.Hesubmittedthatthese
    observations will have to be read to mean that if the accused
    complains,thentheenvelopehastobeopenedandthemagistrate
    has to ascertain the nature and circumstances under which the
    confessionwasmade.

    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

    cognizable offence is first produced before the magistrate. The


    accusedwouldneedalawyertoresistremandtoPCorJCandfor
    granting bail,to clearly explain tohim the legal consequences in
    caseheintendstomakeaconfessionalstatementintermsofsection
    164oftheCr.P.C.However,failureofprovidinglegalaidtothe
    accused at the beginning or before his confessional statement is
    recordedundersection164oftheCr.P.C.,wouldnotrenderthe
    trialillegal.(MohammedAjmalKasab).
    (ii)

    The magistrate or sessions judge before whom the accused

    appears must be held to be under an obligation to inform the


    accused that if he is unable to engage the services of lawyer on
    accountofpovertyorindigence,heisentitledtoobtainfreelegal
    servicesatthecostoftheState.(Khatri).
    (iii) Beforeactinguponaconfession,thecourtmustbesatisfied
    thatitwasfreelyandvoluntarilymade.(NavjotSandhureferringto
    ShankariaV.StateofRajasthan).
    (iv) Further the confession should have been made with full
    knowledgeofthenatureandconsequencesoftheconfession.Ifany
    reasonabledoubtisentertainedbythecourtthattheseingredients
    are not satisfied, the court should eschew the confession from
    consideration. Recognizing the stark reality of the accused being
    envelopedinastateoffearandpanic,anxietyanddespairwhilein
    policecustody,theEvidenceActhasexcludedtheadmissibilityofa
    confession made to a police officer. (Navjot Sandhu referring to
    ShankariaV.StateofRajasthan).
    (v)

    Accused kept in PC even after a substantial part of the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1411..

    Ext.4825

    investigation is over. This should be kept in mind in considering


    whether the confession made subsequently is voluntary or not.
    (BabuSingh).
    (vi) Prolongedcustodyimmediatelyprecedingthemakingofthe
    confessionissufficient,unlessitisproperlyexplained,tostampthe
    confession as involuntary. The investigating officer should explain
    theunusualcircumstances.(NathuandHariRam).
    (vii) Every inducement, threat or promise does not vitiate a
    confession.Iftheinducement,threatorpromiseissufficientinthe
    opinion ofthe court, togive the accusedpersons grounds, which
    would'appear'tohimreasonableforsupposingthatbymakingithe
    would gain any advantage or avoid any illwill, it is enough to
    excludetheconfession.(Rajaram).
    (viii) The expression 'appears' in section 24 of the Evidence Act
    connotesthatthecourtneednotgototheextentofholdingthatthe
    threat, etc., is in fact have been proved. If the facts and
    circumstances emerging from the evidence adduced make it
    reasonablyprobablethattheconfessioncouldbearesultofthreat,
    inducementorpressure,thecourtwillrefrainfromactingonsuch
    confession, even if it be a confession made to a magistrate or a
    person other than the police officer. (Navjot Sandhu referring to
    ShankariaV.StateofRajasthan).
    (ix)

    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

    (xv) Rule 15(5) requires that every confession recorded under


    section15oftheTADAActshouldbesentforthwitheithertothe
    CMM or to CJM having jurisdiction and the magistrate should
    forthwithforwardtherecordedconfessionreceivedbyhimtothe
    designatedcourt.(KartarSingh).
    (xvi)(a)

    Writing the certificate and making the memorandum

    underRule15(3)(b)ismandatory.
    (b)

    Thelanguageofthecertificateandthememorandumisnot

    mandatory.
    (c)

    Incasethecertificateandthememorandumisnotprepared,

    butthecontemporaneousrecordshowssubstantialcompliancewith
    what is required to be contained therein, the discrepancy can be
    curedifthereisoralevidenceoftherecordingofficerbasedonsuch
    contemporaneousrecord.
    (d)

    In the absence of contemporaneous record, discrepancy

    cannot be cured by oral evidence based on the memory of the


    recordingofficer.(Bharatbhai).
    (xvii)

    Omissiontogetsignatureontheconfessionalstatement

    is fatal and it makes the confessional statement inadmissible.


    (DhanajayaReddy).

    Retractedconfessions:
    (xviii)

    Atrueconfessionmadevoluntarilymaybeactedupon

    with the slight evidence to corroborate it, but the retracted


    confession requires corroboration that the retraction was an
    afterthoughtandthattheearlierstatementwastrue,however,thisis
    notaruleoflaw,butitisonlyaruleofprudence.Itcannotevenbe

    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)

    As to the extent of corroboration required each and

    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)

    With a view to arrive at a finding as regards the

    voluntarynatureofaretractedconfession,thecourtmustbearin

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1415..

    Ext.4825

    mindtheattendingcircumstances,whichwouldincludethetimeof
    retraction,thenaturethereof,themannerinwhichsuchretraction
    hasbeenmadeandotherrelevantfactors.(VinodSolanki).
    (xxii)

    If multiple confessions are retracted, subsequently

    proper approachis toconsider eachconfession as a wholeon its


    merits and use it against the maker. It may form the basis of
    convictionprovidedthecourtconcludesthatitisvoluntaryandtrue,
    but rule of practice and prudence requires that it should be
    corroboratedbyindependentevidence.(BalbirSingh).
    (xxiii)

    The court must play a proactive role in unearthing

    objectiveevidenceformingthebackdropofretractionandlaterthe
    examinationofsuchevidenceofretraction.Affirmativeindicationof
    external pressure will renderthe retractedconfessionnugatoryin
    effect.(AlokeNathDutta).
    (xxiv)

    Ifinrealitythereisnoconfession,thequestionofany

    retractiondoesnotarise.(GulamMohammed).
    (xxv)

    Ifthecourtissatisfiedthatitwasretractedbecauseof

    anafterthoughtoradvice,the retraction maynotweighwiththe


    court if the general facts proved in the case and tenor of the
    confession as made and the circumstances of its making and
    withdrawal warrants its user. The courts do not act upon the
    retracted confession without finding assurance from the other
    sourcesastotheguiltoftheaccused.(NavjotSandhureferringto
    Bharat V. State of UP, Subramania Koundar, Pyarelal and
    Premanand).
    (xxvi)

    Retractedconfessionisaweakevidence,therefore,no

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1416..

    Ext.4825

    judgement of conviction on uncorroborated retracted confession.


    (AlokeNathDutta).

    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

    of the TADA Act by the authorized police officer is admissible in


    evidence.(AhmedHusseinValiMohammedSaiyed).
    (xxix)

    Theconfessionalstatementrecordedundersection 15

    oftheTADAActisasubstantivepieceofevidence.(AhmedHussein
    ValiMohammedSaiyed).
    (xxx)

    Confessional statement under section 15 of the TADA

    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)

    Strict compliance with Rule 15 of the TADA Rules is

    necessary for the confessional statement made before the police


    officer,whichneedsnocorroborationorcontemporaneousrecordto
    proveitsveracity,tobeadmissibleasevidence.(AhmedHusseinVali
    MohammedSaiyedTADA).

    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)

    (a) A confession must either admit in terms of the

    offenceoratanyrate,substantiallyallthefactswhichconstitutethe
    offence. An admission of a gravely incriminating fact, even of a
    conclusiveincriminatingfact,isnotofitselfaconfession.
    (b)

    The statement that contains selfexculpatory matter cannot

    amounttoaconfession,iftheexculpatorystatementisofsomefact,
    whichiftrue,wouldnegativetheoffenceallegedtobe confessed.
    (PalvinderKaur).
    (xxxiv)

    Itis notnecessarythatthere shouldbe corroboration

    from independent evidence adduced by the prosecution to


    corroborate each detail in the confessional statement. (K. I.
    Pavunny).
    (xxxv)

    Use of word 'pitaji' by accused, who are Muslims,

    indicatesthatwitnessesaretutoredbecauseitisnotthelanguageof
    aMuslimtoaddresshisfatheras'pitaji'.(AbdulWahid).
    (xxxvi)

    If any part of the confessional statement is excluded

    underanyprovisionoflawthentheentireconfessionalstatement
    mustbeexcluded,unlesstheproofofitispermittedbysomeother
    provisions.(DhanajayaReddy).
    (xxxvii)

    It is unsafe to regard mere wealth of uncorroborated

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1418..

    Ext.4825

    detail in a confessional statement as a safeguard of truth.


    (Muthuswami).
    (xxxviii)

    One broad method by which a confession can be

    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.

    Following principles of law emerge from the judgements

    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)

    Rule 15 of the TADA Rules does not oblige the magistrate

    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)

    After thought and belated retractions and allegations

    regarding coercion, threat, torture, etc., that may be products of

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1421..

    Ext.4825

    ingenuityoftheadvocatesoftheaccused,arenotvalidgroundsto
    discardtheconfession.(MohmedAmin).

    Evaluation:
    (xi)(a)

    Corroborationoftheconfessionalstatementisnota

    rule of law, but a rule of prudence. Whether in a given case


    corroboration is sufficient would depend upon the facts and
    circumstancesofthatcase.(BharatRaghani).
    (b)

    Inordertosustainaconvictiononthebasisofaconfessional

    statement, it is sufficient that there is a general corroboration.


    (BharatRaghani).
    (xii) Merelybecause the confessional statementofsome accused
    are more or less similar, it cannot be said that they are neither
    normal nor unnatural which would vitiate their value. (Manjeet
    Singh).
    (xiii) Duecredenceistobegiventotheconfessionalstatementif
    theaccuseddidnotclaimbeforetheCMMthattheirconfessional
    statement was fabricated or that they have been tortured or that
    theyhavebeenmadetosignonblankpapers.(ManjeetSingh).
    (xiv) Structure of the statement, the sequence of the events
    narrated therein and use of some words, though prima facie
    unnatural,arenotsurprising.Itneedstobekeptinmindthatthe
    appellant(MohammedAjmalKasab)wasmakingthestatementafter
    beinginPCforseveralmonths.Thepolice,inthecourseofcountless
    sessionsofinterrogations,wouldhaveturnedhiminsideoutandhe
    could have earlier made the very same statement in the same
    sequence before the police many times. Under relentless

    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.

    Formalities observed in recording confessions and the

    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

    sufficient to base a conviction on the maker of it. It was, however,


    furtherobservedthatwhethersuchconfessionrequirescorroboration
    ornot,isamatterfortheCourtconsideringsuchconfessiononfactsof
    eachcase.
    92.Section18(1)ofMCOCActmakesitclearthataconfession
    made by a person before a police officer not below the rank of
    SuperintendentofPoliceshallbeadmissibleinthetrialofsuchpersons
    orcoaccusedabettor orconspirator,providedtheyarechargedand
    triedinthesamecasetogetherwiththeaccused.InKalpanathRaivs
    State...1997(8)S.C.C.732,adifferentviewwastakeninthecontext
    ofconfessionsrecordedundersection15oftheTADAActanditwas
    held that such a confession cannot be used as substantive piece of
    evidenceagainstcoaccused.Itwasfurtherheldthataconfessionmade
    admissibleundersection15oftheTADAActcanbeusedasagainstco
    accused only in the same manner and subject to the conditions as
    stipulatedbysection30oftheEvidenceAct.Thisviewwashowever,
    overruled by the larger bench of the Supreme Court in State of
    TamilnaduvsNalini(AIR1999S.C.2640)anditwasheldthaton
    the language of subsection (1) of section 15 of the TADA Act, a
    confession of an accused is made admissible evidence as against all
    those tried jointly with him. It is implicit that the same can be
    consideredagainstallthosetriedtogether.Thecourt,however,observed
    thatinsofarasuseofconfessionofanaccusedagainstacoaccused,is
    concerned, rule of prudence cautions the judicial discretion that it
    cannotberelieduponunlesscorroboratedgenerallybyotherevidence
    on record. In Lalsingh vs State of Gujarat 2001 IAD (1) Apex

    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

    confessions immediately when they were produced before the Chief


    Metropolitan Magistrate. It was therefore, contended that the
    immediate retraction of confessions by these four accused is aclear
    indicatoroftheirnotbeingvoluntaryandtherefore,theyshouldnot
    have been relied upon. Merely, because a confession is retracted it
    cannot be excluded from consideration. In Pyarelal V/s State of
    RajastanAIR1963SC1094,theSupremeCourtconsideredacaseof
    retractedconfessionandheldthatretractedconfessionmayformthe
    legalbasisofconvictionifthecourtissatisfiedthatitwastrueand
    voluntary. It was however, indicated that the court shall not base
    conviction on such retracted confession without corroboration. The
    courtindicatedthatitisnotaruleoflawbutsuchcourseisfollowed
    by the rule of prudence. The same view has been followed in the
    Variyam Sing's case (Supra). We, have earlier referred to certain
    SupremeCourtdecisionswhichlaydownthatconvictioncanbebased
    solelyupontheconfessionoftheaccused,butinviewofthefactof
    retractionofconfessionbysomeoftheaccused,itwouldbeadvisable
    toinsistonsomecorroborativeevidence.

    1329.

    It is necessary to refer to the factual matrix of the case

    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.

    DCP Parambir Singh, PW51, recorded the confessional

    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.

    The trial court believed al the confessional statements,

    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

    recorded the preliminary statement. Therefore the confessional


    statements were found to be vitiated for want of compliance of
    mandatoryprovisionsofsections18(3)and3(iii)oftheRules.The
    confessionsofthecoaccusedwerealsonotusedagainsttheA5and
    A6becausethequestionsinrespectofthoseconfessionswerenot
    puttothemundersection313oftheCr.P.C.TheSupremeCourt
    believedtheconfessionalstatementsoftheA5andA6holdingthat
    thetypist,whotypedthepreliminarystatements,wasexaminedand
    shestatedabouttypingthem,andsecondly,theprovisionsofsection
    313oftheCr.P.C.arenotattractedinviewofthenonobstante
    clauseinsection18(3)whichprecludestheapplicationoftheCr.P.
    C. and therefore held that the evidence of the coaccused is
    admissibleasapieceofsubstantiveevidence.Itthereforeconvicted
    theA1,A5andA6whohadbeenacquittedbytheHighCourtwhile
    maintainingtheconvictionsoftheotheraccused.

    1331.

    Similar type of objections were raised before the High

    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.

    The firstcontention or objection in respectofall thesix

    confessions was that none of them is recorded under free


    atmosphere. It was held that the MCOC Act does not define or
    explain as to what is meant by 'free atmosphere' and it was
    explained that the atmosphere is free when the person giving a
    confessionalstatementisneitherforcednorcompelledtomakeitor

    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.

    The third objection before the High Court was thatDCP

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1440..

    Ext.4825

    ParambirSingh,PW51,whorecordedtheconfessionoftheA1,was
    interestedintheinvestigationandhewassupervisingitandonfacts
    itwasfoundthattheadmissionsgivenbytheDCPcreatedadoubt
    aboutthevoluntarynatureoftheconfessionoftheA1.

    1337.

    Thefourthobjectionraisedbythedefencerelatedtonon

    compliance of subsection (3) of section 18, which requires the


    policeofficerrecordingtheconfessiontoexplaintotheaccusedthat
    heisnotboundtomaketheconfessionandthatifhedoessoitmay
    beusedasevidenceagainsthimandthismandatoryquestionwas
    notputtosomeoftheaccused,therefore,theirconfessionscannot
    berecordedasvoluntary.Ongoingthroughtheevidenceitwasheld
    inparagraph82,thatfromtheaboveexamination,itisseenthatthe
    specificwarning contemplatedbysection 18(3)of the MCOCAct
    wasgiventofouroutofthesixaccusedwhentheywereproduced
    before the concerned DCP for the first time, however it was not
    repeatedonthesecondtime,whentheywereagainproducedbefore
    the DCP. It was held that there is substantial compliance of the
    provisionsofsection18(3)anditisnotthattheaccusedwerenotat
    all given to understand that they were not bound to give a
    confession,etc.

    1338.

    Thereafter, the contents of the confessional statement of

    each accused were reproduced and then the observations from


    paragraph91onwardsreproducedearlierweremade.

    1339.

    The Supreme Court confirmed the findings of the High

    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

    materia to section 18 of the MCOC Act, that


    evidence of the coaccused is admissible as a piece of substantial
    evidenceandinviewofthenonobstanteclause,theCr.P.C.willnot
    apply. Observations in paragraph 416 in Nalini's case were
    reproduced, viz., 'the
    term 'admissible' under section 15 has to be
    givenameaning.Whenitsaysthatconfessionisadmissibleagainsta
    coaccused,itcanonlymeanthatitissubstantiveevidenceagainsthim
    aswellasthemakeroftheconfession'.Theobservationsinthecaseof
    JayawantDattatrayV.StateofMaharashtra((2001)10SCC109)in
    paragraph60werealsoreproduced:
    'ConfessionalstatementbeforethepoliceofficerunderSection15
    oftheTADAissubstantiveevidenceanditcanberelieduponinthe
    trialofsuchpersonorcoaccused,abettororconspiratorforanoffence
    punishable under the Act or the Rules. The police officer before
    recordingtheconfessionhastoobservetherequirementofSubsection
    (2)ofSection15. Irregularitieshereandtherewouldnotmakesuch
    confessionalstatementinadmissibleinevidence.Ifthelegislatureinits
    wisdomhasprovidedafterconsideringthesituationprevailinginthe
    society that such confessional statement can be used as evidence, it
    wouldnotbejust,reasonableandprudenttowaterdownthescheme
    of the Act on the assumption that the said statement was recorded
    under duress or was not recorded truly by the officer concerned in

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1442..

    Ext.4825

    whomfaithisreposed. Itistruethat theremaybesomecaseswhere


    thepowerismisusedbytheauthorityconcerned.Butsuchcontention
    canberaisedinalmostallcasesanditwouldbeforthecourttodecide
    towhatextentthesaidstatementistobeused.Idealgoalmaybe:
    confessionalstatementismadebytheaccusedasrepentanceforhis
    crime but for achieving such ideal goal, there must be altogether
    differentatmosphereinthesociety.Hence,unlessafoolproofmethodis
    evolved by the society or such atmosphere is created, there is no
    alternative,buttoimplementthelawasitis'.

    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.

    He had engaged learned advocate Shakil Ahmed on

    14/08/06inRemandApplicationNo.229/06,Ext.4490.

    His advocate was present on 11/09/06 in Remand

    ApplicationNo.264/06,Ext.4474.

    His advocate M. H. Bhandarkar has filed application on

    25/09/06inRemandApplicationNo.264/06formeetingrelatives.

    His advocate Shakil Ahmed has filed application on

    07/09/06 in Remand Application No. 228/06 for medical


    examination.

    Hehadnotmadeanycomplaintagainstthepoliceabout

    torture or illtreatment on all the earlier dates whenever he was


    producedbeforetheMagistrateduringthePCremand.

    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.

    Though he was represented by advocate Shakil Ahmed

    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

    in Remand Application No. 264/06 for medical checkup and


    meetingrelatives.

    Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:

    HewastakentotheDCPon03/10/06forrecordinghis

    confessionalstatement.

    Hewasmedicallyexaminedat5.45p.m.on03/10/06at

    BhabhaHospital,wherehewastakenby PIGaikwad,PW116,of
    BandraPoliceStation,afterhewasgiveninhiscustodybytheDCP.
    Hehadnocomplaintandnoexternalinjuriesaspertruephotocopy
    oftheOPDregisterExt.2197provedbyDr.Yelkar,PW183.

    He was produced at 1.15 p.m. on 05/10/06 before the

    CMM.

    HedidnotmakeanycomplainttotheCMMagainstthe

    police of torture to obtain his confessional statement. In his


    statementExt.1204recordedbytheCMM,headmittedentirePartI,
    Ext.1180,andmostofthecontentsofPartIIoftheconfessional
    statementExt.1181,exceptthoserelatedtothiscrime,howeverhe
    admittedhissignaturesonbothpartsofhisconfessionalstatement
    anddidnotmakeanygrievanceaboutrecordingofhisconfessional

    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:

    He was produced from PC on 09/10/06 in Remand

    ApplicationNo.67/06beforethiscourtpresidedoverbymylearned
    predecessorjudgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeof
    theBombayHighCourt)andwasremandedtoJCupto20/10/06.
    HewasrepresentedbylearnedadvocateA.A.Siddiquionthisdate.
    Hesubmittedorallytothecourtthathisconfessionalstatementwas
    recordedunderpressureanditisnotvoluntary.

    He did not make any retraction of his confessional

    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.

    He did not make any retraction of his confessional

    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.

    84/06 when he was produced from JC on 09/11/06 before this


    courtpresidedoverbymylearnedpredecessorjudgeMrs.Mridula
    R. Bhatkar (nowHon'ble Justice of the BombayHigh Court) and
    remanded to further JC upto 23/11/06. He was represented by
    learnedadvocateA.A.Siddiqui.InExt.Aheallegedtortureduring
    PC.Healsoallegedthaton02/10/06ACPShaikh,PW162,whohad
    takenhimtotheDCP,hadthreatenedandpressurizedhimbytelling
    himtokeepquietandtosayyesandthat DCPChoubey,PW113,
    tookhissignatureon2530blankpageswithouthisconsent.

    Nosuggestionontheselineswasgiventoboththeabove

    witnesses in their crossexamination. Though, the accused had


    submittedorallytothecourton09/10/06inRemandApplication
    No. 67/06 that his confessional statement was recorded under
    pressure and it is not voluntary, he had not stated so before the
    CMMon05/10/06thoughtheCMMhadrecordedhis statement.
    Thereafter,hedidnotsayanythingonthesubsequenttwodatesof

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1447..

    Ext.4825

    productionfromJC,i.e.,on20/10/06and03/11/06.

    1342. FactualpositionregardingA2:

    A2 was arrested on 23/07/06 in C. R. No. 77 of 2006 of

    MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.

    HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe

    bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
    recorded.

    He had engaged advocate Solkar on 17/08/06 in Remand

    ApplicationNo.229/06,Ext.4492andinRemandApplicationNo.
    243/06. His advocate had filed an application for legal interview
    andmeetingrelatives.

    He had engaged advocate Solkar on 31/08/06 in Remand

    ApplicationNo.251/06.

    He had not made any complaint against the police about

    torture or illtreatment on all the earlier dates whenever he was


    producedbeforetheMagistrateduringthePCremand.

    ArrestundertheMCOCAct:

    He was arrested on 25/09/06 in C. R.No.156 of 2006 of

    BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
    PW186.

    He was produced on 25/09/06 in Remand Application No.

    60/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
    judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
    HighCourt)andremandedtoPCupto09/10/06.

    Though he was represented by advocate Solkar since

    17/08/06 in Remand Application No. 229/06, Ext. 4492, his

    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.

    His advocate Amin Solkar had filed Bail Application No.

    123/06on03/10/06.

    Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:

    He was taken to the DCP on 04/10/06 for recording his

    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.

    He statedto the CMM that he does not wantto make any

    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:

    He was produced from PC on 09/10/06 in Remand

    Application No. 67/06 before this court, presided over by my


    learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now Hon'ble
    JusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andwasremandedtoJCupto
    20/10/06.HewasrepresentedbyadvocateKhalipheh/fadvocate
    Amin Solkar on this date. He submitted orally to the court that
    policeshowedhimapartofhisconfessionwhichistotallywrong,
    thathehas signedconfessionalstatementunderfearandthathe
    deniedtheconfessionalstatementbeforethemagistrateS.S.Shrike,
    whodidnotobtainhissignature.

    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

    by my learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now


    Hon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andremandedtofurther
    JCupto09/11/06.HewasrepresentedbyadvocateAminSolkar.By
    Ext.4028heallegedtortureduringfirstpolicecustodyremandfor
    takingsignaturesonblankpapers.HestatedthatACPKhandekar,
    PW174,tookhimtoSPMohite,PW102,on04/10/06andalleged
    thatACPKhandekar,PW174,warnedhimnottospeakmoreandto
    makesignaturesquietly.HeallegedthatonthenextdayATSofficers
    harassed him, insisted and pressurized him to sign, without his
    knowledgeandwill,andthreatenedthatifhedoesnotsign,they
    woulddraghismother,sisters,wife,brotherandfatherinthecase.
    He alleged that SP Mohite, PW102, continuously harassed and
    torturedhimmentallyandphysicallyandthereforehesignedunder
    pressure.HestatedthatwhenhewasproducedbeforeCMMShriS.
    S.Shirke,herefusedhavinggiventheconfession.

    Nosuggestionisgivento SPMohite,PW102,ontheabove

    lines. The CMM's letter Ext. 1028 specifically mentions


    unwillingness of the accused to give any statement and he not
    complainingofilltreatmentatthehandsofthepolice.Suggestions
    onthelineoftheaboveallegationsweregivento ACPKhandekar,
    PW174,inhiscrossexamination,whichofcoursehedenied.Inhis
    oral evidence as DW41, A2 stated that ACP Patil, PW186, ACP
    Khandekar,PW174,andotherofficershadthreatenedhimnotto
    sayanythingbeforethejudgeortheywouldtakehisPCandtorture
    himagain,thatheretractedhisconfessionalstatementbeforethe
    judge andtoldher thathehadretracteditbefore the magistrate

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1451..

    Ext.4825

    also,thathehadnottakenhissignatureanywhereandthathehad
    signedtheconfessionalstatementbecauseofpressureandforceand
    notvoluntary.NosuggestionsontheabovelinesweregiventoACP
    Patil, PW186, or ACP Khandekar, PW174, during their cross
    examination.

    1343. FactualpositionregardingA3:

    A3 was arrested on 27/07/06 in C. R. No. 77 of 2006 of

    MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.

    HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe

    bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
    recorded.

    He had engaged advocate Shahid Azmi on 13/09/06 in

    Remand Application No. 229/06, Ext. 4504 and in Remand


    ApplicationNo.243/06.His advocate hadfiledanapplication on
    14/09/06forlegalinterviewandmeetingrelatives.

    His advocate Renu Bhatt had filed vakalatnama and

    application on 18/09/06 in Remand Application No. 264/06 for


    legal interview and meeting relatives. He had engaged advocate
    ShahidAzmion18/09/06inRemandApplicationNo.243/06.

    HisadvocateRenuBhatthadfiledapplicationon25/09/06in

    RemandApplicationNo.204/06formeetingrelatives.

    His advocate Niranjan Mogre had filed application on

    30/09/06inRemandApplicationNo.264/06forlegalinterviewand
    meetingrelatives.

    He had not made any complaint against the police about

    torture or illtreatment on all the earlier dates whenever he was

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1452..

    Ext.4825

    producedbeforetheMagistrateduringthePCremand.

    ArrestundertheMCOCAct:

    He was arrestedon 28/09/06in C.R.No. 156of 2006 of

    BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
    PW186.

    He was produced on 28/09/06 in Remand Application No.

    61/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
    judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
    HighCourt)andremandedtoPCupto09/10/06.

    HewasrepresentedbyadvocateShahidAzmionthatday,i.e.,

    on28/09/06.

    He did not make any complaint of illtreatment or torture

    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:

    He was taken to the DCP on 03/10/06 for recording his

    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.

    He stated to the CMM that he does notwant to make any

    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:

    He was produced from PC on 09/10/06 in Remand

    Application No. 67/06 before this court, presided over by my


    learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now Hon'ble
    JusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andwasremandedtoJCupto
    20/10/06. He was represented by advocate Shahid Azmi on this
    date. He submitted orally to the court that his confessional
    statement is recorded under pressure, that his signatures were
    obtainedonblanksheets,thathehasnotsignedinthepresenceof
    themagistrate,buthesigneditafterwardsanddoesnotknowwhat
    waswritteninthestatement.

    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

    Shahid Azmi in Remand Application No. 84/06 when he was


    producedfromJCon09/11/06beforethiscourtpresidedoverby
    mylearnedpredecessorjudgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'ble
    JusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andremandedtofurtherJCupto
    23/11/06. He was represented by advocate Shahid Azmi on this
    date.InExt.CheallegedaboutbeingbeatenbyRaghuvanshi, CP
    Roy, PW185, Jaijeet Singh, Inspector Salaskar and other police
    officers,hisfatheralsobeingdetainedandhumiliatedandtorture
    andhebeingmadetosignonblankpapers.Whenthesethingstook
    place is not mentioned by him. In respect of confession, he only
    allegedthatherefusedtoconfessbeforetheDCPasheisinnocent,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1455..

    Ext.4825

    that he was forcibly made to sign several typewritten/computer


    printouts by one officer, that DCP took his signatures on several
    handwrittenpapersunderduressandcoercionandhewasmerely
    producedbeforethemagistratewhodidnotverifyfromhim.

    Nosuggestion on these lines wasgivento Addl.CPBrijesh

    Singh,PW117.A3didnotgiveanyoralevidence.

    1344. FactualpositionregardingA4:

    A4 was arrested on 12/08/06 in C. R. No. 77 of 2006 of

    MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.

    HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe

    bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
    recorded.

    He had not made any complaint against the police about

    torture or illtreatment on all the earlier dates whenever he was


    producedbeforetheMagistrateduringthePCremand.

    ArrestundertheMCOCAct:

    He was arrested on 28/09/06 in C. R.No.156 of 2006 of

    BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
    PW186.

    He was produced on 28/09/06 in Remand Application No.

    61/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymylearnedpredecessor
    judgeMrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombay
    HighCourt)andremandedtoPCupto09/10/06.

    Hehadnotengagedanyadvocatetillthen.

    He did not make any complaint of illtreatment or torture

    againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on28/09/06.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1456..

    Ext.4825

    He was medically examined on 28/09/06, 30/09/06,

    02/10/06and04/10/06intheKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaint
    andnoexternalinjuriesaspertheOPDcasepapersExts.2212and
    2214provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.

    Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:

    He was taken to the DCP on 06/10/06 for recording his

    confessionalstatement.

    He was medically examined at 1.45 p.m. on 06/10/06 at

    LTMGHospital, where he was taken by API Randive, PW106, of


    MatungaPoliceStation,afterhewasgiveninhiscustodybytheDCP
    Therewerenovisiblemarksofinjuriesasperthetruephotocopyof
    casualtyregisterExt.1825andcarboncopyExt.1826provedbyDr.
    Singal,PW171.

    Hewasproducedat3.30p.m.on07/10/06beforetheCMM.

    He statedto the CMM that he does not wantto make any

    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:

    He was produced from PC on 09/10/06 in Remand

    Application No. 67/06 before this court, presided over by my

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1457..

    Ext.4825

    learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now Hon'ble


    JusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andwasremandedtoJCupto
    20/10/06.HewasrepresentedbyadvocateKhalipheh/fadvocate
    AminSolkaronthisdate.Hesubmittedorallytothecourtthatone
    portionofhisconfessionalstatementistotallywrong.

    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.

    78/06 when he was produced from JC on 03/11/06 before this


    courtpresidedoverbymylearnedpredecessorjudgeMrs.Mridula
    R.Bhatkar (now Hon'ble Justice of the Bombay HighCourt) and
    remanded to further JC upto 09/11/06. He was represented by
    advocate Amin Solkar.In Ext. 3798 he alleged torture during PC
    beforeandafternarcoanalysistestandthereafterbeingthreatened
    thathismotherandsisterwouldbebroughtthereandrapedandhis
    fatherandbrotherswouldbeinvolvedintheblastcaseifhedoes
    notsignonapaperwhenheistakentoanotherofficer.Healleged
    thatPITajne,PW161,andAPIDeore,PW180,werepresentinthe
    office of SP Karale, PW104, that he was given the papers of

    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

    him not to say anything when he goes to court and if he said


    anything,theywouldinvolvehisfatherandbrothers,thatonbeing
    produced before Judge Bhatkar madam on 09/10/06 and on she
    askinghimwhetherhewantedtosayanything,hetoldherthathis
    signatures are taken on some papers in which false things were

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1459..

    Ext.4825

    written.

    1345. FactualpositionregardingA5:
    ArrestundertheMCOCAct:

    A5 was arrested on 29/09/06 in C. R. No. 156 of 2006 of

    BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
    PW186.

    He was produced on 29/09/06 in Remand Application No.

    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.

    He was produced on 13/10/06 in Remand Application No.

    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.

    He did not make any complaint of illtreatment or torture

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1460..

    Ext.4825

    againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on13/10/06.

    Hewasmedicallyexaminedon14/10/06inKEMHospitalas

    per true photocopy of casualty register Ext.2218, proved by Dr.


    Gond,PW182.

    Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:

    He was taken to the DCP on 24/10/06 for recording his

    confessionalstatement.

    Hewasmedicallyexaminedat10.25a.m.on25/10/06atGT

    Hospital,wherehewastakenbyPSIPowar,PW94,ofMahimPolice
    Station,afterhewasgiveninhiscustodybytheDCP.Hedidnot
    complainofassaultortraumaandhadnoexternalinjuries,freshor
    oldaspertruephotocopyoftheMLCbookExt.2196,provedbyDr.
    Yelkar,PW183.

    Hewasproducedon25/10/06beforetheinchargeCMM.

    He statedto the CMM that he does not wantto make any

    statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
    policeaspertheletterExt.2812sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.

    Aftertheconfessionalstatement:

    HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon28/10/06at

    KEMHospital,afterhewashandedovertoit.Ext.2217istheOPD
    casepaperprovedbyDr.Gond,PW182,whichshowsandasisalso
    deposedbythemedicalofficerthattheaccusedhadnocomplaints
    andnoexternalinjuries.

    AfterbeingremandedtoJC:

    He was produced on 26/10/06 in Remand Application No.

    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:

    A5 filed Ext. 4142 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
    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:

    A6 was arrested on 29/09/06 in C. R. No. 156 of 2006 of

    BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
    PW186.

    He was produced on 29/09/06 in Remand Application No.

    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

    11/10/06 in the KEM Hospital and had no complaints and no


    external injury as per the OPD case paper Exts. 2219 and 2220
    provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.On03/10/06hecomplainedofpainin
    left scapular region since 15 years, but there was no history of
    trauma,TBorexternalinjuryaspertheOPDcasepaperExt.2220
    andasdeposedbyDr.Gond,PW182.

    He was produced on 13/10/06 in Remand Application No.

    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.

    He did not make any complaint of illtreatment or torture

    againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on13/10/06.

    Hewasmedicallyexaminedon14th,16th,19thand20/10/06in

    KEMHospitalas per the OPDcasepapersandtrue photocopyof


    casualtyregisterExts.2227to2231provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1464..

    Ext.4825

    Hehadacomplaintofloosestoolstentimessincethedaybefore
    complaintofgiddinesson19/10/06,fastingsincemorningroja,x
    rayofchestsuggestingofoldfracture,rightribcage.

    Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:

    He was taken to the DCP on 24/10/06 for recording his

    confessionalstatement.

    Hewasproducedon25/10/06beforetheCMM.

    He statedto the CMM that he does not wantto make any

    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:

    Advocate of A6filedExt.F on 09/11/06,on whichthe A6

    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

    police witnesses. A6 has not stated in these applications that his


    signaturesweretakenontheconfessionalstatement.However,he
    hasnotdeniedhissignaturesatthetrial.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1466..

    Ext.4825

    InhisoralevidenceasDW42,A6statedthathedidnotsay

    anythingbeforeJudgeMridulaBhatkaron26/10/06becauseofthe
    threatsgivenbyRaghuvanshiandCPRoy,PW185,thatheshould
    notsayanythinginthecourtonthatdayandifhesaysthatthey
    hadbeatenhimandtakenhisconfessionalstatement,theywould
    involvehimintheMalegaoncaseandhisfamilymembersinthis
    case.NosuchsuggestionisgiventoCPRoy,PW185.

    1347. FactualpositionregardingA7:
    ArrestundertheMCOCAct:

    A7 was arrested on 29/09/06 in C. R. No. 156 of 2006 of

    BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
    PW186.

    He was produced on 29/09/06 in Remand Application No.

    62/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
    judgeShriA.M.Thipsay(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHigh
    Court)andremandedtoPCupto13/10/06.

    Hewasnotrepresentedbyanyadvocateonthatday,i.e.,on

    29/09/06.

    He did not make any complaintofilltreatmentagainstthe

    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.

    He was produced on 13/10/06 in Remand Application No.

    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.

    He did not make any complaint of illtreatment or torture

    againstpoliceonthatday,i.e.,on13/10/06.

    He was medically examined on 15th, 18th, 20th, 21st and

    23/10/06inKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsaspertheOPD
    casepapersandtruephotocopyofcasualtyregisterExts.2239to
    2241provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.

    Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:

    He was taken to the DCP on 24/10/06 for recording his

    confessionalstatement.

    Hewasproducedon25/10/06beforetheCMM.

    He stated to the CMM that he does notwant to make any

    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.

    84/06 when he was produced from JC on 09/11/06 before this


    courtpresidedover bymy learnedpredecessorjudgeMrs.Mridula
    R. Bhatkar (nowHon'ble Justice of the BombayHigh Court) and
    remandedtoJCupto23/11/06.Hewasrepresentedbyadvocate
    Sarpande h/f Amin Solkar on this day. He alleged that Jt. CP
    Raghuvanshi,PIKhanvilkar,PW168,Sr.PITajne,PW161,PISachin
    Kadamandother810officershadobtainedhissignaturesonblank
    papers,thathewastakentohishomeforallegedrecoveryofsim
    card,whether(sic)hismotherobservedtheinjurymarksonhisbody
    andappliedforproducinghimanddoinghismedicalexamination,
    whichsubsequentlyprovedthathehadaround8contusionsand2
    healing ulcers on his buttocks. He submits that he could not say

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1469..

    Ext.4825

    anything on 25th and 26/10/06 about the cause of the injuries,


    becausehewasunderconstantthreatofthepolicethattheywill
    againbeathim.Heallegedthattheinjuriesweresustainedbecause
    ofpoliceviolenceandtortureincustodyforconfessingtheoffence,
    which he did not do. He stated that on 24/10/06 he was taken
    beforeSPMohite,PW102,whoaskedhimwhetherheisgivingthe
    statement soumotu. He alleges that he has threatened by ACP
    Khandekar,PW174.Heallegesthaton25/10/06hewastakentoSP
    Mohite, PW102, who gave him already prepared statement and
    tookhissignaturewithoutallowinghimtoreadit.Hesubmitsthat
    hewastakentosomemagistrateinKurla,wherehedidnotsign
    anything.

    No suggestions on the above lines were given to ACP

    Khandekar,PW174.

    InhisoralevidenceasDW46,A7statedaboutproducinghim

    before this court on 25/10/06 and the ATS officers PI Agrawal,


    PW173, and ACP Khandekar, PW174, staring at him and when
    MadamBhatkaraskedhimwhetherhewasbeingbeaten,hesaidno
    toherbecauseofthethreatsoftheATSofficersandtheirfear.He
    could have complained immediately on the next day, i.e., on
    26/10/06, when he was produced in Remand Application No.
    77/06.

    1348. FactualpositionregardingA9:

    A9 was arrested on 27/07/06 in C. R. No. 77 of 2006 of

    MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.

    HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1470..

    Ext.4825

    bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
    recorded.

    He had engaged advocate Shahid Azmi on 13/09/06 in

    Remand Application No. 229/06, Ext. 4504 and in Remand


    Application No.243/06. His advocate had filed an application on
    14/09/06forlegalinterviewandmeetingrelatives.

    HisadvocateRenuBhatthadfiledanapplicationon18/09/06

    in Remand Application No. 264/06 for meeting relatives. He had


    engagedadvocateShahidAzmiinRemandApplicationNo.243/06
    on18/09/06.

    His advocate Renu Bhatt had filed vakalatnama and

    application on 18/09/06 in Remand Application No. 264/06 for


    legalinterviewandmeetingrelatives.

    His advocate Niranjan Mogre had filed application on

    30/09/06inRemandApplicationNo.264/06forlegalinterviewand
    meetingrelatives.

    He had not made any complaint against the police about

    torture or illtreatment on all the earlier dates whenever he was


    producedbeforetheMagistrateduringthePCremand.

    ArrestundertheMCOCAct:

    He was arrestedon 30/09/06in C.R.No. 156of 2006 of

    BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
    PW186.

    He was produced on 30/09/06 in Remand Application No.

    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.

    He did not make any complaint of illtreatment or torture

    againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on30/09/06.

    He was medically examined on 30/09/06, 02/10/06 and

    04/10/06intheKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsandexternal
    injuriesaspertheOPDcasepapersExts.2279and2275provedby
    Dr.Gond,PW182.

    Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:

    He was taken to the DCP on 04/10/06 for recording his

    confessionalstatement.

    Hewasproducedat1.40p.m.on06/10/06beforetheCMM.

    He stated to the CMM that he does notwant to make any

    statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
    policeaspertheletterExt.2810sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.

    Aftertheconfessionalstatement:

    HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon06/10/06and

    08/10/06atKEMHospital,afterhewashandedovertoit.Ext.2275
    isthetruephotocopyofthecasualtyregisterofthathospitalproved
    by Dr.Gond,PW182,whichshowsandasisalsodeposedbythe
    medicalofficer,thattheaccusedhadnocomplaints.

    AfterbeingremandedtoJC:

    He was produced from PC on 09/10/06 in Remand

    Application No. 67/06 before this court, presided over by my

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1472..

    Ext.4825

    learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now Hon'ble


    JusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andwasremandedtoJCupto
    20/10/06.HewasrepresentedbyadvocateRenuBhatth/fShahid
    Azmionthisdate.Hesubmittedorallytothecourtthathesigned
    confessional statement under pressure and fear and that before
    confession,hehadaskedforlegalinterview.

    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:

    A9 filed Ext. 4263 dtd. 02/11/06 signed by him and his

    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.

    There are no suggestions on the above lines to ACP Joshi,

    PW163,andDCPPhadtare,PW93,andtheCMM'sletterExt.2810
    thoughcontainshissignature,theCMMhasinformedthathedid
    notwanttomakeanystatementandrefusedtomakeitandhadno
    complaintofilltreatmentagainstthepolice.

    InhisoralevidenceasDW47,A9didnotsayanythingabout

    hiscomplainttothecourton09/10/06.

    1349. FactualpositionregardingA10:

    A10 was arrested on 25/07/06 in C. R. No.77 of 2006 of

    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

    He had engaged advocate Shahid Azmi on 14/09/06 in

    RemandApplicationNo.228/06,Ext.4505.

    He had not made any complaint against the police about

    torture or illtreatment on all the earlier dates whenever he was


    producedbeforetheMagistrateduringthePCremand.

    ArrestundertheMCOCAct:

    He was arrestedon 30/09/06in C.R.No. 156of 2006 of

    BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
    PW186.

    He was produced on 30/09/06 in Remand Application No.

    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.

    He did not make any complaint of illtreatment or torture

    againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on30/09/06.

    He was medically examined on 30/09/06, 02/10/06 and

    04/10/06intheKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsasperthe
    OPDcasepaperExt.2302,provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.

    Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:

    He was taken to the DCP on 05/10/06 for recording his

    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.

    He stated to the CMM that he does notwant to make any

    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:

    He was produced from PC on 09/10/06 in Remand

    Application No. 67/06 before this court, presided over by my


    learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now Hon'ble
    JusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andwasremandedtoJCupto
    20/10/06.HisadvocateMs.FarhanaShahwasnotpresentonthis
    date.Hesubmittedorallytothecourtthatapartofhisconfessional
    statement is totally wrong, that he did not sign confessional
    statementinpresenceofmagistrate,thatheonlysignedinpresence
    ofDCP.

    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

    being taken toChandan Police Station in Andheri, where he was


    shown some papers and promised huge amount of money and
    settlementanywhereinIndiaifhedoesastheATSwants.Healleged
    that on the same day, i.e., on 3rd October, he was taken to DCP
    Dumbre,PW118,whereATSofficerstookhissignaturesonpapers,
    whichhewaspreventedfromreading.Heallegedthatonthesame
    day,i.e.,on3rd October,hewastakentoamagistratewhodidnot
    askhimasinglequestionandwassentoutwithinaminute.

    NosuggestionsontheabovelinesweregiventoDCPDumbre,

    PW118,andhisevidenceandtheevidenceofPSIThakur,PW110,
    andtheletteroftheCMM,Ext.1253, showthathewasproduced
    beforetheDCPon05/10/06andbeforetheCMMon07/10/06and
    noton03/10/06asallegedbyhim.

    In his oral evidence as DW44, A10 stated that on being

    producedbefore this courton 09/10/06,he toldBhatkar Madam


    thathehadnotgivenanyconfessionalstatement,thatheadmitted
    thedetailsofhimandhisfamilywritteninit,butdidnotadmit
    othercontents.Hesubmittedthatthejudgenotedhisretractionin
    theroznamaandmarkeditasExt.K.Thisiswrong,becauseExt.K
    isdated03/11/06anditwasfiledon09/11/06.

    1350. FactualpositionregardingA11:

    A11 was arrested on 25/07/06 in C. R. No.77 of 2006 of

    MumbaiCentralRailwayPoliceStation.

    HewascontinuouslyinPCindifferentcrimesinvolvingthe

    bomb blasts upto and even after his confessional statement was
    recorded.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1478..

    Ext.4825

    HisadvocateRenuBhatthadfiledapplicationon08/09/06in

    Remand Application No. 251/06 for legal interview and meeting


    relatives.

    He had engaged advocate Shahid Azmi on 14/09/06 in

    RemandApplicationNo.243/06andhisadvocatehadappliedfor
    legalinterviewandmeetingrelatives.

    His advocate Shahid Azmi had applied on 16/09/06 in

    Remand Application No. 264/06 for legal interview and meeting


    relatives.

    HisadvocateRenuBhatthadfiledanapplicationon25/09/06

    inRemandApplicationNo.264/06formeetingrelatives.

    His advocate Niranjan Mogre had filed an application on

    30/09/06inRemandApplicationNo.264/06forlegalinterviewand
    meetingrelatives.

    He had not made any complaint against the police about

    torture or illtreatment on all the earlier dates whenever he was


    producedbeforetheMagistrateduringthePCremand.

    ArrestundertheMCOCAct:

    He was arrestedon 30/09/06in C.R.No. 156of 2006 of

    BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
    PW186.

    He was produced on 30/09/06 in Remand Application No.

    65/06beforethiscourt,presidedoverbymy learnedpredecessor
    judgeShriA.M.Thipsay(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHigh
    Court)andremandedtoPCupto09/10/06.

    He had engaged advocates Shahid Azmi/Renu Bhatt since

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1479..

    Ext.4825

    08/09/06,buttheywerenotpresentonthisdate.

    He did not make any complaint of illtreatment or torture

    againstthepoliceonthatday,i.e.,on30/09/06.

    Hewasmedicallyexaminedon30/09/06and02/10/06inthe

    KEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsaspertheOPDcasepaperExt.
    2326,provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.

    Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:

    He was taken to the DCP on 04/10/06 for recording his

    confessionalstatement.

    Hewasmedicallyexaminedat11.00a.m.on06/10/06atGT

    HospitalandhadnocomplaintsaspertheOPDcasepaperExt.2105
    andtruephotocopyofthecasualtyregisterExt.2101,provedbyDr.
    Paikrao,PW181.

    Hewasproducedat3.30p.m.on06/10/06beforetheCMM.

    He stated to the CMM that he does notwant to make any

    statementandalsodidnotcomplainofilltreatmentatthehandsof
    policeaspertheletterExt.1133sentbytheCMMtothiscourt.

    Aftertheconfessionalstatement:

    HewasgotmedicallyexaminedbytheATSon08/10/06and

    09/10/06atKEM Hospital,after he washandedovertoit.Exts.


    2326and2327arethetruephotocopiesofthecasualtyregisterof
    thathospitalprovedbyDr.Gond,PW182,whichshowandasisalso
    deposedbythemedicalofficer,thattheaccusedhadnocomplaints.

    AfterbeingremandedtoJC:

    He was produced from PC on 09/10/06 in Remand

    Application No. 67/06 before this court, presided over by my

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1480..

    Ext.4825

    learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now Hon'ble


    JusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)andwasremandedtoJCupto
    20/10/06. He was represented by advocate Shahid Azmi on this
    date. He submitted orally to the court that 23 days back his
    confessionalstatementwasrecorded,thatitwasnotvoluntaryand
    trueandthatpoliceobtainedhissignatureunderpressure.

    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

    court in Remand Application No. 77/06, presided over by my


    learned predecessor judge Mrs. Mridula R. Bhatkar (now Hon'ble
    Justice of the Bombay High Court) and remanded to JC upto
    23/11/06. He was represented by advocate Shahid Azmi on this
    date.HeallegedinExt.4158thathewastorturedphysicallyand
    mentally during PC and compelled to sign on blank and written
    papers.Inrespectofhisconfessionalstatementheallegedthathe
    wastoldtosignsomepapersbeforeDCPandonrefusalwarnedof
    furtherpolicetorture,thattheDCPacceptedthattherewasample
    pressure on him from higher authorities and that he pleaded
    innocence before magistrate S. S. Shirke and alleged that police
    obtainedhissignaturebypressureandhedoesnothaveknowledge
    aboutthe contents of the papers, which according tothem ishis
    confession. He also reminded the court of having retracted the
    confessionbeforethecourton09/10/06withsixothers.

    InhisoralevidenceasDW45,A11statedthatwhenhewas

    produced on 09/10/06, he had stated to the court that his


    signatureshadbeenforciblyobtainedonpapers.

    1351. FactualpositionregardingA12:
    ArrestundertheMCOCAct:

    A12wasarrestedon30/09/06inC.R.No.156of2006of

    BorivaliRailwayPoliceStationbytheinvestigatingofficerACPPatil,
    PW186.

    He was produced on 30/09/06 in Remand Application No.

    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.

    He did not make any complaintofilltreatmentagainstthe

    policeonthatday,i.e.,on30/09/06.

    Hewasmedicallyexaminedon29/09/06,2nd,4th,6th,8th,10th,

    11thand12/10/06intheKEMHospitalandhadnocomplaintsand
    noexternalinjuryaspertheOPDcasepaperExts.2329and2336
    provedbyDr.Gond,PW182.

    He was produced on 13/10/06 in Remand Application No.

    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.

    He did not make any complaint of illtreatment or torture

    againstthepoliceonthatdate,i.e.,on13/10/06.

    Hewasmedicallyexaminedon21/10/06inKEMHospitalas

    per true photocopy of casualty register Ext. 2337, proved by Dr.


    Gond,PW182.

    Processofrecordingtheconfessionalstatement:

    He was taken to the DCP on 23/10/06 for recording his

    confessionalstatement.

    Hewasmedicallyexaminedat4.50p.m.on23/10/06atGT

    Hospital, where he was taken by PI Sonavane, PW122, of Azad

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1483..

    Ext.4825

    MaidanPoliceStation,afterhewasgiveninhiscustodybytheDCP.
    HehadnocomplaintsaspertruephotocopyofcasualtyregisterExt.
    2102andOPDcasepaperExt.2103,provedbyDr.Paikrao,PW181.

    Hewasproducedon25/10/06beforetheCMM.

    He stated to the CMM that he does notwant to make any

    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

    about it in crossexamination and it came voluntarily. Thus, this


    closestheissueaboutthereasonastowhytheaccusedexpressed
    their desire to give their confessional statements. In the same
    paragraph, he stated that all the accused were under constant
    interrogationfromthedateoftheirarrestandalsodeniedthathe
    hadnotmadeanynotinganywhereabouttheofficersinforminghim
    aboutthedesireoftheaccused.Though,headmittedthathedidnot
    recordstatementsofthoseofficersandthereisnoevidencebefore
    thecourtabouttheaccusedhavingexpressedtheirdesirebeforethe
    saidofficers,heemphaticallydeniedthatthesuggestionthatheis
    unable to tell what type of interrogation the officers carried on.
    Thereisnofurthercrossexaminationthereafteronthispoint.

    1358. The next objection that is taken is that the alleged


    confessionalstatementsofalltheaccusedarerecordedafteralong
    periodofpolicecustodyfromthedateoftheirarrest.Thedatesof
    theirarrestandthedatesoftheirconfessionsarelistedinthetable
    inthewrittensubmissionsbylearnedadvocateSharifShaikh,the
    delayindaysiscalculatedanditissubmittedthatthereismorethan
    twomonthsdelayforrecordingtheconfessionalstatementsofthe
    A1 to A4 and A9 to A11 and 25 days delay in recording the
    confessionsofA5toA7andA12.Inthisconnectionreliancewas
    placedbylearnedadvocateYugChoudharyontheauthoritiesinthe
    casesof Babu Singh and Nathu (supra)andin the case of Hari
    Ram(supra)bylearnedadvocateSharifShaikh.InthecaseofBabu
    Singh the accused were kept in police custody even after a
    substantialpartofinvestigationwasoveranditwasheldthatthe

    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

    1361. Incidentally, it will not be out of place to take up the


    submissionsofthelearnedadvocateWahabKhanthattherecordof
    refusaloftheA13togivetheconfessionalstatementhasnotbeen
    produced and therefore an adverse inference be drawn. He
    submittedthatconfessionorretraction,bothhavetobesenttothe
    CMM and after confirmation, the CMM has to forward it to the
    SpecialCourt.HesubmitsthatthismandatewasviolatedbyDCP
    Ranade, PW111, and submits that he may say that his
    understanding of this is that the A13 was not ready to sign,
    therefore,thedocumentsweretorn.Hesubmitsthatthisalsoshows
    that while indulging in this exercise of not sending the
    confession/retractionoftheA13,DCPRanade,PW111,hasshown
    his collusion with the ATS officers, otherwise in all fairness the
    documentsshouldhavecomebeforethecourt.Tomymind,these
    submissionsarewrongandunacceptable.Givingevidenceaboutit
    byDCPRanade,PW111,orproducingofanydocuments thathe
    mayhavepreparedwouldhavebeenredundant,becauseitwould
    have been evidence about a negative fact. It would have also
    burdenedtherecordoftheCourt.Idonotseehowitwouldhave
    furthered the case of the prosecution or the defence. ACP Patil,
    PW186,provedtheletterExt.2410sentbyDCPRanade,PW111,to
    him,whichshowsthatA13wasproducedbeforehimon29/09/06
    for recording his confessional statement, but before PartI could
    start,heaskedfortimetothinkoverit,therefore,hewaskeptinthe
    generallockupofBorivaliPoliceStationinaseparatecellandwhen
    hewasagainproducedon31/10/06beforehim,herefusedtomake

    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

    challenged in his crossexamination. The fact remains that DCP


    Ranade,PW111,sentbacktheaccusedwhenherefusedtomake
    theconfessionbeforehim.

    1362. The next objection in the written submissions of learned


    advocate Sharif Shaikh is that four DCPs have recorded the
    confessionsoftwoaccusedeachanditissubmittedthatforbeing
    fair,oneDCPshouldnothavebeenallowedtorecordtheconfession
    oftwodifferentaccusedinthe samecrime.Astrangeandillegal
    submissionismadethatthisisaviolationofRule3(2)oftheMCOC
    Rules, because once a DCP has recorded the confession of one
    accused,heis deemedtobe involvedin the investigation of that
    case,becausebeforerecordingconfessionofthesecondaccusedin
    the same case he becomes well aware about the facts and
    circumstances of the case disclosed in the first confession. It is
    submittedthatthereforetheconfessionalstatementsofA5,A6,A7
    andA12bediscardedonthispointonlyastheDCPswhorecorded
    themhadalreadyrecordedtheconfessionalstatementsofA2,A3,
    A4andA9.Itissubmittedthatthequestionisastowhythesame
    DCPs were directed for this purpose, because it has come in the
    crossexaminationofCPRoy,PW185,thattherewereabout3839
    DCPs.Itissubmittedthattheonlyinferencethatcanbedrawnis
    thattheotherDCPswerenotwillingtorecordtheconfessionsinthe
    mannerinwhichtheATSofficerswereaskingthemtodo.Tomy
    mind,Rule3(2)doesnotsaythattheconfessionofonlyoneaccused
    shouldberecordedbyapoliceofficer.Itonlysaysthatnopolice
    officerwhohastakenpartintheinvestigationshallbeallowedto

    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

    313 of the Cr. P. C. and their oral evidence, contain a vivid


    description as to how they were tortured and how third degree
    methodswereusedduringthepolicecustodyperiodtoobtaintheir
    signaturesonblankpapersforthepurposeofshowingtheseizureof
    some articles from them and in respect of the confessional
    statements.Tomymind,consideringtheextentandthenatureof
    thetorturethatisallegedanddescribedbytheaccusedandtheir
    evidencethatitwasunbearablebecauseofwhichtheysignedonthe
    confessionalstatementsorwereforcedtosignonblankpapers,it
    doesnotappearprobablethattheywouldhaveremainedquietfor
    such a long period of more than two months till they filed their
    retractionapplicationsbytwoaccusedon03/11/06andbyallof
    them on 09/11/06, because except the A4, all the other accused
    wererepresentedfromtimetotimebyadvocateswhoappliedtothe
    magistrateforhavinglegalinterviewandforpermittingtheaccused
    tomeettheirfamilymembersorrelativesalongwithpermissionto
    carrycertainpersonalitemswiththem.Tomymind,consideringthis
    fact,itdoesnotappearprobablethattheaccusedwouldhavekept
    quietforsuchalongtimeorwouldnothaveindicatedtoevena
    singlepersonoutoftheirfamilymembersorrelativesortotheir
    advocate about any illtreatment, torture or beating by the ATS
    police.Itisveryeasytomakeallegationsoftortureanditisvery
    easy to make a retraction of a confessional statement. The fact
    remains as can be gathered from the factual position before and
    afterrecordingoftheconfessionalstatements,thattheapplications
    for retraction of the confessional statements containing the

    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.

    1367. From the above discussion, it is clear that except the


    allegationsmadeintheirretractionapplicationsbytheaccused,in
    theirwrittensubmissionsalongwiththeirstatementsundersection
    313oftheCr.P.C.andintheiroralevidence,thereisnoevidenceto
    substantiatetheirallegationsaboutthetorture.Thefactualposition
    inrespectofeachandeveryaccusedwhoseconfessionalstatements
    wasrecordedgivesaveryclearpictureaboutallofthem,exceptthe
    A4, being represented by advocates in the remands before the
    magistratesinceasearlyas14/08/06andfromthenondifferent
    dates and, on not even a single occasion whenever they were
    producedbeforethemagistrateforobtaining theirpolicecustody,
    didtheymakeanycomplaintagainstthepoliceabouttortureandill
    treatment.Theywereproducedbeforemylearnedpredecessorjudge
    Mrs.MridulaR.Bhatkar (nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHigh
    Court)forthefirsttimeaftertheapplicationoftheMCOCAct,some
    on25/09/06andsomeonsubsequentdatesandwererepresented

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1508..

    Ext.4825

    by advocates, except the A4, who came to be represented on


    9/10/06,buttheydidnotmakeanycomplaintaboutthetortureand
    illtreatmentatthehandsoftheATSpolicepriortothatdate.They
    havealsobeenmedicallyexaminedfromtimetotimeandtheyhad
    nocomplaintsandnoexternalinjurieswereseenaspertheOPD
    casepapersandtruephotocopiesofthecasualtyregister.AsIsaid
    earlier,itisveryeasytomakeallegationsoftorture,buttherecord
    shouldsubstantiatethesaidallegations.Itisnotthatthereisonly
    oneortwoaccused,buttherearethirteenaccusedanditisnotthat
    theyhavebeenproducedfromthepolicecustodyremandonceor
    twice,buthavebeenproducedbeforethemagistrateorthiscourt
    repeatedly.Itisunacceptableanditdoesnotappealtothereason
    consideringtheallegedunbearablelevelsoftortureforsolongthat
    not a single out of all the accused would not have complained,
    though duly represented by advocates, i.e., having the legal
    assistance.ThisisIndiawhereevenaPakistaniterroristgetsafair
    trial and fullest opportunity. This is Mumbai, a cosmopolitan
    commercialcity,wherehumanrightsarewellknownandupheld,
    themediaisstrongandrecourse/approachintheHighCourtand
    knowledgeofitsplenarypowersisthere.Thisisnotthefirstcaseof
    bombblast.Thatthereisaknowledgeabouttheplenarypowers,is
    clearfromtheadmissionbytheA2,whogaveevidenceasDW41,in
    hiscrossexaminationthatduringthepolicecustodyperiod,hehad
    told his advocate Amin Solkar about his illegal arrest and illegal
    detention and that he had filed a petition in the High Court on
    24/08/06prayingthathiscustodyshouldnotbetakenrepeatedlyas

    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

    at the hands of the police when he was produced before the


    magistrate in Remand Application No. 264/06, Ext.4476, on
    18/09/06, on which date he had engaged advocate, who had
    applied for permitting the accused to meet his relatives. He was
    arrested on 30/09/06 under the MCOC Act and produced in
    RemandApplicationNo.65/06beforemylearnedpredecessorjudge
    ShriA.M.Thipsay(nowHon'bleJusticeoftheBombayHighCourt)
    andremandedtopolicecustodyupto09/10/06andonthisdayhe
    did not complain about any illtreatment or torture against the
    policeandwasalsorepresentedbyadvocate.Thus,thereisnothing
    toinferfromthis.

    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.

    1375. A11 complained of two episodes of loose motions on


    03/08/06aspertheOPDcasepaperExt.2312,buthadnoexternal
    injuries.BeforethathewasproducedinaremandapplicationofC.
    R. No. 77/06, Ext.4450, on 26/07/06 and remanded to police
    custodyandhadnocomplaints.Afterthatdate,hewasproducedon
    07/08/06inremandapplicationofthesamecrime,Ext.4452,and
    remanded to judicial custody and on that day also he did not
    complainofanyilltreatmentortortureagainstthepolice.Hewas
    remandedtopolicecustodyupto03/09/06inRemandApplication
    No. 243/06 when he was produced before the magistrate on
    21/08/06.On02/09/06hecomplainedoferythematouslesionon
    lowerlip.Therefore,hewasreferredtotheskinspecialisttowhom
    he complained about fluid filled lesions over lower lip since two
    days, history of fever three days back and history of similar
    complaintfollowingfevereveryyear34timesperyear,buthehad
    no complaints. Thus, this is not an injury, but a sort of infection
    havinghistorypriortohisarrest.Hedidnotcomplainaboutiton
    03/09/06whenhewasproducedbeforethemagistrateinRemand
    Application No. 243/06. On 22/09/06 he complained of loose

    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.

    1378. A strange and unacceptable submission is made that the


    sentenceinparagraph1inPartIoftheconfessionalstatementofthe
    A4andA6,Exts.1057and1068,showingperusalofreportofACP,
    ATS,MumbaiShriS.L.Patil,isdeletedinPartIoftheconfessional
    statementoftheA3,Ext.1212,anditisfurthersubmittedthatSP
    Karale,PW104,ranawayfromthisbysayingthattheletterssentby
    ATSwasitselfreportandACPPatil,PW186,alsosaysthis.Tomy
    mind,ifboththewitnessesaresayingthesamething,howcanthe
    accusedaskedthecourttodrawtheinferencethatadetailedreport
    alongwithreadymadeconfessionalstatementwassenttotheDCP
    andthattooonthebasisofitsabsenceinExt.1212.Infact,two
    prosecutionwitnesseshavecorroboratedeachotheronthatpoint.In
    fact, Addl. CP Brijesh Singh, PW117, was not asked about the
    absenceofthesaidsentenceinExt.1212thoughheadmittedthatit
    iswrittenintheroughnotes,Ext.1213.Headmittedthatcontentsof
    paragraphs2,3and4inExt.1212arewrittenonthebasisofthe
    letterExt.1209whichwassentbytheJt.CPtohimandalsoonthe
    basisofhisinquirywiththeescortingofficers.

    1379. Next submission and objection is that many important


    questionswerenotaskedbytheDCPstoascertainthevoluntariness
    of the confession and hence all the confessional statements are
    requiredtobediscarded.Thequestionsareenumeratedinpointno.
    16 of the 1st part of volume2 of the written submissions by the

    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.

    1380. To my mind, insofar as the warning to the accused, as is


    submitted,thattheconfessionmaybeusedagainsthiscoaccused,
    thereisnolawforitanditisnotnecessarytobeasked.Insofaras
    thequestionstobeaskedtotheaccusedaboutthedate,placeand
    thereasonforhisarrest,tomymind,itisunnecessary,thoughitis
    strenuously submitted by all the learned advocates that it was
    necessary to ascertain the police custody period to ascertain the
    voluntariness.Theinformationtobegiventotheaccusedthathe
    willnotbesentbacktothepolicewhoareinvestigatingthecase,if
    herefusedtomaketheconfessionalstatementisalsonotnecessary
    becauseitisnotsoprovidedintheTADAActorMCOCActthoughit
    hasbeenprovidedforinthePOTAAct.Thesubmissionaboutthe
    DCPsnothavinginformedtheaccusedthattheyarenotconnected
    withthecaseisfactuallywrongbecauseitisfoundinPartI,Ext.
    1019,oftheconfessionalstatementoftheA2andPartI,Ext.1033,
    oftheconfessionalstatementofA7andnodoubtitisnotfoundin
    theconfessionalstatementsoftheA3,A4,A5,A6,A9,A10,A11and
    A12, butendorsements just above the questions in PartIof their
    confessional statements specifically mention that the accused was
    informedthatheisnolongerinthecustodyoftheATS,Mumbai.To
    my mind, this can be certainly interpreted to mean that it was
    informedtotheaccusedthattherecordingofficerisnotconcerned
    withtheinvestigationofthecase.Thesubmissionthatthequestion
    astowhytheaccusedisproducedbeforehimisnotaskedisalso
    factuallyawrongsubmission,becauseitissoaskedinPartIofthe

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1522..

    Ext.4825

    confessional statement of the A2 and A7 also. However, it is not


    thereintheremainingconfessionalstatements.Itissubmittedthat
    themostimportantquestionastowhytheaccusedismakingthe
    confessional statement is also not found in any of the eleven
    confessionalstatements.Tomymind,itisnotnecessaryinviewof
    thelawlaiddowninthecaseofS.N.DubeyV.N.B.Bhoir(2000)
    Cri.L.J.830,wherein,theSupremeCourtreferredtosection15of
    theTADAAct andpointedoutthatthepoliceofficerrecordingthe
    confessionalstatementundersection15isreallynotboundtofollow
    anyotherprocedureandthattherulesandguidelinesframedbythe
    BombayHighCourtforrecordingtheconfessionbythemagistrate
    undersection164oftheCr.P.C.,donotbythemselvesapplyto
    recordingofconfessionundersection15oftheTADAAct.Section15
    oftheTADAActisparimateriatosection18oftheMCOCAct.This
    judgement was referred and followed in Confirmation Case No.
    01/01 (The State of Maharashtra, Appellant V. Mohd. Zuber
    KasamShaikhaliasTabrejaliasJuganuandAnr.,Respondents).
    Thus,thissubmissionisalsoofnoconsequence.

    1381. Asmanyas14questionswereaskedtotheA1,10questions
    wereaskedtotheA2andA7and8questions wereaskedtothe
    remainingaccusedwhentheywerefirstproducedbeforetheDCPs.
    Thesequestionscompriseofthestatutorywarningsthatarerequired
    tobegiventothe accused,thattheyarenotboundtomakethe
    confessionalstatementsandiftheymakeit,itcanbeusedagainst
    themasevidence.Theyincludequestionstoascertainwhetherany
    threatsweregivenoranyinducementwasmadeorwhetherthey

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1523..

    Ext.4825

    were beaten to make the confessional statements. They also


    invariably include information to the accused that they are given
    timetothinkoverandwouldbein thecustodyoftheDCPsand
    would not be in the custody or pressure of the police who are
    investigating the case. In my humble opinion, the nature of the
    questions,thoughsomeofthemareclumsilydrafted,wassufficient
    to ascertain the voluntariness of the accused for making the
    confessional statements. The statutory warnings given in the
    questionsweresufficienttomaketheaccusedawarethatthereisno
    compulsiononthemtomaketheconfessionalstatementsandeven
    theniftheydidmaketheconfessionalstatementstheycouldbeused
    againstthem.Thequestionsalsocontaintheinformationthatthey
    aregiventimeforreflectiontothinkoverwhethertheyreallywant
    tomaketheconfessionalstatements.Inthisrespect,itissubmitted
    inpointno.28intopicno.1involume2ofthewrittensubmissions
    bylearnedadvocateSharifShaikhthattheaccusedwerenotgiven
    24 hours for reflection or reconsideration and the timing is
    calculated from the lodging time in the lockup of the concerned
    police station till he was removed from the lockup and then a
    meticulous arithmetic is made for each accused showing that the
    accusedwerekeptinthelockupforaperiodrangingfrom21hours
    and5minutesto23hoursand15minutesandthereforeitwasless
    than24hourswhichisaviolationofRule3(4)oftheMCOCRules.
    Tomymind,maybythattheperiodinthelockupisnottotalingto
    exact 24 hours, but it is nearby and it can also be said that the
    periodcanbecalculatedfromthetimetheDCPgavetheaccusedin

    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.

    1382. There is one more objection/submission in respect of the


    voluntarinessoftheaccusedtomaketheconfessionalstatementand
    itisthattheaccusedweresenttothecustodyoftheATSagainafter
    theirallegedconfessionalstatementswererecordedandtheyknew
    that if they refused to sign on the confessional statements they
    wouldagainbesenttothecustodyoftheATSandwouldbetortured
    thereagainandthereforethisthreatofagainbeingsenttopolice
    custody is sufficient to discard the confessional statements. It is
    allegedthattheyweretoldbytheATSthattheycangetanother15
    dayspolicecustody.Tomymind,thissubmissionisinconsequential
    inasmuch as within a day or two all the accused were produced
    beforethiscourtagainandtheprovisionsoftheMCOCActdonot
    prescribedthataftertheconfessionalstatements,theaccusedareto
    besenttothejudicialcustody,asisthecaseunderthePOTAAct.

    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

    represented by advocate, but he did not make any retraction or


    grievanceorallegeanythingabouthisconfessionalstatement.Itis
    onlyon09/11/06whenhewasproducedfromjudicialcustody,that
    hemadetheapplicationretractinghisconfessionalstatement,which
    I have discussed earlier. I will discuss the case of the A7
    subsequently.A9wasproducedbeforethiscourton09/10/06after
    the date of his confessional statement, was represented by an
    advocate and he only orally submitted that he signed the
    confessional statement under pressure and fear. However, on the
    subsequenttwodates,i.e.,on20/10/06and03/11/06,hedidnot
    make any retraction or grievance or allege anything about his
    confessional statement. It is only on 09/11/06 that he filed the
    applicationdtd.02/11/06forretraction.Thus,foraperiodofabout
    one month, he had not retracted his confessional statement. The
    retraction application has been discussed by me earlier. A10 was
    produced before this court on 09/10/06 after the date of his
    confessionalstatement,wasrepresentedbyadvocateandinhisoral
    submissionsheadmittedhavingsignedinthepresenceoftheDCP,
    butstatedthatapartofhisconfessionalstatementistotallywrong
    andhedidnotsigninthepresenceofthemagistrate.Idonotsee
    how this can be considered as a retraction because it is not so.
    Moreover, he did not make any retraction, grievance or allege
    anythingabouthisconfessionalstatementwhenhewasproduced
    fromjudicialcustodyon20/10/06and03/11/06anditisonlyon
    09/11/06thathefiledtheapplicationdtd.02/11/06containingthe
    retractionwhichIhavealreadydiscussed.Thus,foraperiodofmore

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1529..

    Ext.4825

    than a month, there is no retraction by him. A11 was produced


    before this court on 09/10/06 after the date of his confessional
    statement, he was represented by an advocate and he orally
    submitted that his confessional statement was recorded 23 days
    back, but it was not voluntary and true and police obtained his
    signature under pressure. He did not make any retraction or
    grievanceorallegeanythingabouthisconfessionalstatementonthe
    twosubsequentdatesofremandon20/10/06and03/11/06.Itis
    only on 09/11/06 that he filed the retraction application dtd.
    02/11/06,whichIhavealreadydiscussed.A12wasproducedbefore
    thiscourton26/10/06afterthedateofhisconfessionalstatement,
    butdidnotmakeanyretractionoranygrievanceorallegedanything
    about it. It is only on 09/11/06 that he filed the application for
    retraction,whichIhavealreadydiscussed.Theoralevidencegiven
    byalltheaccusedinrespectoftheirretractionsisalsomentioned
    and discussed in the factual position about the retraction. It is
    surprisingtonotethatthoughitisthecaseoftheprosecutionthat
    A8didnotexpresshisdesiretomakeanyconfessionalstatement
    andthathisconfessionalstatementwasrecorded,heinformedthe
    courton26/10/06thatpoliceobtainedhissignaturestwiceandhe
    doesnotknowthecontentsofthewrittenmatter.Admittedly,his
    confessionalstatementwasnotrecordedashedidnotexpresshis
    desiretomakeitandthereisnorecoveryfromhimandthereisonly
    one panchanama of his house search and he also accordingly
    deposedaboutit,butitisinconsequential.

    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

    and no amount of arguments can make this court drawn any


    inferenceabouttheaccusedbeingundersuchpressurethathecould
    not even complain to the court. It is obvious that my learned
    predecessortookgreatpainstoascertainwhethertheaccusedhad
    anycomplaintagainstthepoliceandirrespectiveofhehavingnot
    complainedshesenthimformedicalcheckup.Idonotthinkitis
    thefaultoftheinvestigatingagencyorthecourtiftheaccuseddoes
    notcomplainaboutanyilltreatmentortorturebythepoliceandno
    inferencecanbedrawnthathewastorturedorbeatenbeforethe
    dateofhisconfessionalstatement.

    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.

    The secondtesttoevaluateaconfessionis whether itis

    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

    DCPs committed common mistakes, did common changes and


    additionsandbythistheonlyinferencecanbedrawnisthatallthe
    confessionalstatementswerepreparedbytheATSofficersintheATS
    office and were supplied to the DCPs only for signing. It is also

    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.

    The points on which the submissions of common

    authorship of theconfessional statements is basedare changesin


    sequenceandadditionofsectionsconcerningthefirstbatchofthe
    sevenaccused,thencopyingofwordtowordwithmistakesfrom
    other confessions, etc. The changes in sequence and addition of
    sectionsispointedoutinrespectoftheletterssentbytheJt.CP,ATS
    totheDCPs,theletterssentbytheDCPtotheACP,ATS,theletters
    bytheDCPtotheinchargeoflocalpolicestationandthelettersby
    theDCPtotheCMManditissubmittedthatbeforerecordingPartI
    oftheconfessionalstatement,theDCPhastwoletterswithhim,one
    fromtheJt.CP,ATSandonefromtheinvestigatingofficerofthe
    case.Itissubmittedthatthesequenceofthesectionsandadditionof
    thesectionsbytheDCPsisthesamewhentheyhavewrittenletters
    totheaboveauthorities,butitischangedinPartIandPartII.The
    sequence is changed and section 34 of the IPC is deleted. It is

    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.

    In my humble opinion, as submitted by the learned

    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.

    Same can be said about the submission of the learned

    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

    and how fallacious and unacceptable they are. A fallacious


    submissionismadebythelearnedadvocatereferringtoExt.3912
    (photocopyofPartIoftheconfessionalstatementofA4containing
    signatureofSPKarale,PW104,butnotcontainingthesignaturesof
    theA4),obtainedbytheA4undertheRTIAct,thatthereshouldbe
    no question of a copy unsigned by the accused or the DCP. He
    submitted that the sequence of the procedure of recording of
    confessionalstatementshowsthatitisonlyafterobtainingsignature
    of the accused that a copy can be provided. In this connection,
    referring to the evidence of SP Karale, PW104, about taking out
    photocopy of PartI after putting his signature and taking the
    signatureoftheA4,itissubmittedinthewrittensubmissionsby
    learnedadvocateSharifShaikhthatExt.3912isthecopysentbythe
    ATStotheCollectorofficeforgettingconsentorderforprosecution
    andthismeansthatitwaspreparedintheATSofficeandtheyhada
    copyandSPKarale,PW104,onlytooksignatureoftheA4onPartI
    and this shows that as the confessional statement of the A4 was
    prepared in the ATS office, they had the copy and therefore the
    confessionalstatementoftheA4hastobediscarded.Tomymind,as
    mentioned earlier, this is a fallacious submission and is not
    acceptable.Ext. 3912 is a document obtained under the RTI Act,
    which has not been proved as per law. Even otherwise, I do not
    understandhowtheinferenceassubmittedcanbedrawn,whenitis
    only a copy of PartI, which is obviously typed on the computer.
    Similarly it is not proved that it was sent with the proposal for
    obtainingconsenttotheCollectoroffice.Thematerialdocumentis

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1540..

    Ext.4825

    PartIIoftheconfessionalstatement.

    1395.

    LearnedadvocateWahabKhanquestionedastowhyDCP

    BrijeshSingh,PW117,shouldbebelievedwhenhe says thatthe


    notes/endorsement at the end of PartII of the confessional
    statementoftheA12,thatwasapartandparceloftheproceedings,
    areinhisfileandnotbeforethecourt,thoughhemusthaveput
    themintheenvelope?Hesubmitsthatthisshowsnonapplicationof
    mindandjustcopyingthematerialthatwasprovided.Tomymind,
    this submission is unacceptable for the simple reason that the
    notes/endorsement, if any, made by the recording officer are
    superfluousandnotmademandatorybythelaw.Therefore,their
    presenceorabsenceisimmaterial.

    1396.

    It is next submitted that the memorandum in PartII is

    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

    Words 'c;ku fy[kk/cksyk/dcqyh c;ku/I called steno and I started


    dictating' are the only differences and thus there is a doubt. Are
    thesenotdissimilarities?Cantheinferenceassuggestedbedrawn?
    Obviouslynot.

    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

    of the memorandum of PartI Ext. 1068 of A6 is handwritten as


    againsttheentirememorandumbeingtypedandthetimeisover
    written,butnotinitialed.Thereareblankspacesattheplaceswhere
    timingshouldbewritteninthenotingExt.1213ofPartIoftheA3
    and name of the police station is added though Addl. CP Brijesh
    Singh,PW117,statedthathewaswritingthemsimultaneously.To
    mymind,howcanthesethingssaidtobeunnatural,improbableand
    indigestible,whenExt.1213arejustnotesanditcanbeunderstood
    thatthetimingsmusthavebeenputinthefairversion,Ext.1212.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    1400.

    ..1542..

    Ext.4825

    LearnedadvocatesubmittedthatmemorandumsafterPart

    I and PartII of two different accused, i.e., A5 and A6, by two


    differentDCPs,butofthesamedateareexactlysimilar,thoughnot
    providedbylaw.TheyhavebeendevelopedbytheDCPsaspertheir
    ownunderstanding.Asagainstthis,SPMohite,PW102,appliedhis
    mind by copying the first half portion of the memorandum and
    skippingthesecondhalfportionintheconfessionalstatementofthe
    A7. However, certificates of all three are same, except the last
    sentenceinthecertificateoftheA6,whichisnotinthecertificateof
    theA5andA7.Itissubmittedthatthesesimilaritiesandpresence
    and absence of certificate cannot be a coincidence and show
    common authorship which is evident on the background of the
    prosecution case that the accused were not telling/disclosing
    anything,werenotconfessinganything,butonlygivingpiecemeal
    informationandsuddenlytheydecidedtogiveconfessionsingroup.
    Learnedadvocatesubmittedthattheanswertothequestionasto
    whytheDCPsdidthismechanicallywithoutapplyingtheirmindsis
    obvious that it was done by them on the instructions of CP Roy,
    PW185,andJt.CPRaghuvanshiandtheyjustcopiedthematerial
    providedtothem.However,learnedadvocatefairlyadmittedthat
    theconfessionalstatementsofthesevenaccusedinthefirstgroup
    substantiallytallywitheachotheronmaterialparticulars,butthose
    ofthefouraccusedinthesecondgroupdeferinsomeparticulars.
    Now, to my mind, if the material parts of the confessional
    statements,viz.,whichtheaccusedstated,isdifferentin content,
    butcorroboratingeachotherinrespectoffactinissue,theother

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1543..

    Ext.4825

    things pointed out are inconsequential and no inference as


    suggestedorconcludedcanbedrawnabouttheDCPobligingtheir
    superiors.

    1401.

    In respect of word 'fQj' in a question in PartII of the

    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.

    Next submission is that all the accused have taken

    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,

    their respective positions in the hierarchy and their roles in the


    organization,againthereisnothingunusualaboutit.Itistobenoted
    thattheappellantwasnotamercenaryhiredfortheoperation.Hewas
    a highly committed and devoted member of the organization and,
    therefore,thereisnothingstrangeorwronginhiscomingtoknow
    manypeopleintheorganizationduringthecourseofhistraining.As
    to the recording of certain statements within quotes by the learned
    magistrate, that is only a manner of how the appellant spoke. The
    appellantwouldsayalongsentenceandthenaddthatthiswaswhat
    soandsosaid.Themagistratewouldthenrecordthestatementwithin
    inverted commas even though the sentences would be made by the
    appellanthimself,paraphrasingthewordsof others.Further,tosay

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1547..

    Ext.4825

    thattheconfessionalstatementwasintendedtoconfirmthefindingsof
    thepoliceinvestigationisactuallytoblamethepoliceforanexcellent
    investigation.Iftheconfessionalstatementconfirmsthefindingsofthe
    investigationthatshouldgotothecreditoftheinvestigation,andit
    cannotbesaidthattheconfessionalstatementwasrecordedtoconfirm
    thepoliceinvestigation.'Thus,thesubmissiononthispointisbaseless
    andunacceptable.

    1404.

    Inviewoftheabovediscussion,thesubmissionaboutthe

    changes in sequence, addition of sections, commonality of words


    andmistakesintheconfessions,usesofparticularwords,improper
    useofsomewordsthatarewronglywritten,sequenceofnamesof
    wantedaccusedaswellastheaccusedinthiscasebeingcommon,
    coveredinthetopicthecommonauthorshipoftheconfessions,are
    untenableanddonotaffecttheevidentialvalueoftheconfessional
    statements.Theyalsodonotleadtoanyinferencethattherewasa
    common author for all the confessional statements and that they
    wereprovidedbytheinvestigatingmachinery.

    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

    confessional statements of A3, A4 and A12 are required to be


    discarded. These submissions are in respect of the PartI of the
    confessionalstatements.PartIoftheconfessionalstatementsofthe
    A3andA12are typed,butPartIIarehandwritten.Itis onlythe
    confessionalstatementoftheA4,whichistyped.Inthisrespectitis
    heldbytheSupremeCourtinthecaseofStateofT.N.V.Sivarasan
    AliasRaghu((1997)1SCC682),that,'thereisnojustificationfor
    interpreting thewords'recorded bysuchpoliceofficer inwriting'to
    meanrecordedbysuchpoliceofficerinhisownhandwriting.Thereis
    no reason why aSuperintendent of Policewho,for some reason, is
    unable to write down the confession, cannot take help of another
    personforwritingthesame.WhycannotaSuperintendentofPolice,
    whose handwriting is not good, record the confession by using a
    typewriter?Typewritingisalsowriting.Atypewrittenthingisalsoa
    writingpreparedwiththehelpofatypewriter.It,therefore,heldinthe
    factsofthatcase,whichwasundertheTADAAct,thatthelearned
    SessionsJudgecommittedanerroroflawintreatingtheconfessionsas
    inadmissibleonthegroundthattheywerenotrecordedinaccordance
    withtherequirementofsection15oftheAct'.

    1406.

    Itissubmittedthatsection18(3)oftheMCOCActstates

    that after recording the confessional statement, the police officer


    shallcertifyinwriting belowtheconfessionputting the date and
    time on the same. It is pointed out that there no certificates
    appended to the confessional statement of the A1, A3 and A10,
    therefore,theylosetheirvalueandarerequiredtobediscarded.In
    thiscontext,the SupremeCourtinthecaseof BharatChaganlal

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1549..

    Ext.4825

    Raghani (supra) referred to the factual position about the


    confessionalstatementofthetwoaccused,i.e.,A5andA6,having
    been recorded by a DCP and observed in paragraph 32 that the
    epicentre of all the prosecution evidence is the said confessional
    statements. Three grounds on which the confessional statements
    were not relied upon and excluded from the evidence by the
    designatedtrialjudgewerenotedinthe saidparagraphandina
    discussion later on they were not held to be good grounds for
    discarding the confessional statement. The Supreme Court before
    dealing with the said grounds noted in paragraph 33 some
    observationsofthedesignatedtrialjudgeregardingtheconfessional
    statements that, 'after referring to Exhibits 147 to 150, the Judge
    observed : By looking to the questions, it appears that by putting
    certain questions to these accused the officer did ascertain that the
    accusedpersonsveryvoluntarilyconfessingtheguilt....'.TheSupreme
    Courtobservedinparagraph34that'Despitenoticingtheomissionof
    thecertificatebelowtheconfessionalstatementsasperrequirementof
    Rule15(3)oftheTADARulesandrelyinguponthejudgmentofthis
    CourtinSharafatHussainAbdulRahamanShaikhV.StateofGujarat
    thecourtheldthat

    absenceofthecertificatebelowtheconfessionalstatementwill

    notmaketheconfessionalstatementipsofactoapieceofpaperworth
    throwinginthedustbin.Theofficercanverywellappearinthewitness
    box and satisfy the court that the confessional statement was
    voluntarilymade....

    Thetrialcourtfurtherheldthatlookingtothestatementof

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1550..

    Ext.4825

    DCP it appears that the confessional statements have been made


    voluntarily by the accused.' The Supreme Court did not held the
    observations of the designated trial judge about absence of
    certificateasnotthecorrectpositionoflaw.Itacceptedandrelied
    upontheconfessionalstatementofthetwoaccused(whichwerethe
    epicentre of all the prosecution evidence) though there was no
    certificate at the end of their confessions and overturned the
    acquittaloftheA1,A5andA6bythetrialcourtandconvictedthem.
    LearnedSPPhasreliedonthecaseof Afzalkhan@Babu(supra)
    and in paragraph 11 of the judgement the Supreme Court has
    referredtotheobservationsinthecaseofHardeepSinghSohaland
    Ors.V.StateofPunjabthroughCBI(2004CriLJ4627),inwhichit
    wasobservedthat'Ext.PAAdoesnotcontainsuchacertificatehaving
    beengivenbyPW34.ItistruethatPW34hadputcertainquestionsto
    theaccusedastowhetherhewasawarethatthestatementwhichhe
    wantstomakecouldbeusedagainsthimandonthebasisofthesame
    hewillbesentenced.Theofficeralsoaskedhimwhetherthereisany
    pressure,fearonhimandheansweredinthenegative.However,PW
    34 did not give the certificate at the end of the confession. The
    certificateshouldhavespecificallystatedthathehadexplainedtothe
    person making the confession that he was not bound to make the
    confessionand,ifhedoesso,theconfessionhemaymakemaybeused
    againsthimandthathebelievedthatthisconfessionwasvoluntarily
    madeanditwastakeninhispresenceandrecordedbyhimandwas
    readovertothepersonmakingitandadmittedbyhimtobecorrect,
    anditcontainedafullandtrueaccountofthestatementmadebyhim.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1551..

    Ext.4825

    Thus, the question as to where irregularity, if any had been

    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

    typewritten and the memorandum at the end of the confessional


    statement was also typewritten, was not a good ground and the
    sessions judge was wrong in holding that the two confessions were
    inadmissible as they did not comply with the requirement of Rule
    15(3)(b)'.ItisalsoheldinthecaseofDevenderPalSingh(supra)
    that merely because the confessional statement was recorded in
    computer, it cannot be a ground for holding that it was not
    voluntary.Itwasheldthatitwouldbetootechnicaltodiscardthe
    confessionalstatementordoubtitsauthenticityonthescorethatthe
    DCPhasgivenacertificateintypingwhentherequirementisthatit
    shouldbe'underhisownhand'.Itobservedthatthisismerelya
    proceduralrequirementanditsnonobservancedoesnotcauseany
    prejudicetotheaccused.Itisheldthatprocedureishandmaidand
    notthemistressoflaw,intendedtosubserveandfacilitatethecause
    of justice and not to govern or obstruct it. Like all rules of
    procedure, the requirement of recording 'under his own hand'
    demandsanapproachwhichwouldberationalandpracticalandnot
    otherwise.Suchminordeficiency,itany,cannotbeconsideredtobe
    a fatal factor so far as the prosecution case is concerned. These
    observations also cover the subsequent submission that the
    certificatemustbejustbelowtheconfessionandnotontheseparate
    pageasisthecaseinrespectoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA4,
    A5, A6, A9, A11 and A12 and the certificate of the confessional
    statementoftheA2toA7,A9,A11andA12donotbeardateand
    timeandthecertificatesarewordtowordcommon.Inrespectof
    thispoint,thelearnedSPPsubmittedthatheisputtingthisserious

    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

    as the CMM was not examined. It is also submitted that the A4


    deposed that he was not produced before the CMM. In this
    connection,itissubmittedbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanthatA9
    andA11deposedonoaththattheycomplainedtotheCMMonthe
    dayoftheproductionbeforehim,buteventhenthelearnedSPP
    refusedtoexaminetheCMM.Inthisconnection,thelearnedSPP
    submittedthatinviewofsection80readwithsection114ofthe
    Evidence Act, it was not necessary and the prosecution was not
    obliged to examine the CMM. Learned advocate Wahab Khan
    submittedthatthepresumptionundersection80oftheEvidenceAct
    isrebuttable.ThedefencehadfiledanapplicationExt.2590todirect
    theprosecutiontoexamine33citedwitnessesincludingtheCMM
    andACMM.Itwasrejectedon04/04/10.Hesubmitsthatthiswas
    notchallengedbecauseofthefinancialconstraintsoftheaccused,
    appeal being not maintainable against that order and more
    importantly as the defence wanted to reserve something for the
    argumentandwantedthiscourttodrawadverseinference.Tomy
    mind, similar application was given by the defence Ext.2848 for
    examiningthemascourtwitnessesanditwasrejectedon20/07/12.
    Thesubmissionsaboutfinancialconstraints,etc.,donotlieinthe
    mouthofthedefenceconsideringthefactthattheyhadrepeatedly
    gone to the High Court and the Supreme Court to air their
    grievances by challenging many orders passed by this court. Not
    onlythis,thedefencedidnotcallthemasdefencewitnesses,when
    theycalledseveralothers.Thepointisthatthedefencecannotnow
    raise this point and say that no opportunity was given. Learned

    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

    unacceptable submission. In fact, in the case of the State of


    Maharashtra, Appellant V. Mohd. Zuber Kasam Shaikh alias
    Tabrej alias Juganu and Anr., Respondents, i.e., Confirmation
    CaseNo.01of2001 decidedbytheDivisionBenchofourHigh
    Courton17/12/03andintheappealagainstthatjudgementinthe
    caseofMohd.FarooqAbdulGafur&Anr.,AppellantsV.Stateof
    Maharashtra,Respondent relieduponbythelearnedSPP,though
    thereisareferenceabouttheaccusedbeingproducedbeforethe
    CMM,theCMMwasnotexaminedinthatcase.Thus,thisaspect
    doesnotaffectthecredibilityoftheconfessionalstatement.Itistoo
    muchtosuspecttherecordmadebytheCMMaboutalltheaccused
    notdesiringtomakeanystatementandnotmakinganycomplaint.
    Denialoftheaccusedtomakeanystatementcannotbeequatedtoa
    statement that has to be recorded. Subsection (6) of section 18
    specificallysaysthattheCMMortheCJMshallscrupulouslyrecord
    thestatement,ifany,madebytheaccusedandthengethissignature
    onit.Soitisonlyiftheaccusedmakesastatement,thenitistobe
    recordedandthenhissignatureistobeobtained.Thus,noinference
    aboutdenialofopportunitycanbedrawnfornonexaminationof
    theCMM.

    1411.

    It is further submitted that the A5 to A7 and A12 were

    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

    incharge, was considerably agitated during the evidence of the


    DCPswhohadrecordedtheconfessionalstatementsoftheA5toA7
    andA12andduringtheevidenceofthepoliceofficersofthelocal
    policestationswhohadtakenthesaidaccusedtotheresidenceof
    the said ACMM. However, this issue is not taken up by learned
    advocate Wahab Khan during his arguments and it is also not
    agitated in the written submissions by learned advocate Sharif
    Shaikh.A7asDW46gaveevidenceindetailinparagraph46thathe
    was not produced before the CMM as per the order given by SP
    Mohite,PW102,toAPIShinde,PW103,butwasproducedbeforeS.
    Y.Shisode,whowasnottheinchargeCMMonthatday.Forthis
    purposehereliedontheinformationobtainedbyhimundertheRTI
    Act,Ext.3339,whichshowsthatShriS.S.ShirkewastheCMM
    between 01/10/06 to 30/11/06. Though, this issue has not been
    raisedduringthearguments,Ideemitnecessarytotakeitupasit
    might be again agitated before the higher courts. To the second

    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

    how the defence is relying on incomplete information that they


    obtainedundertheRTIActandistryingtomisleadthecourt.He
    submitted that the DCPs and the escorting officers were given to
    understand that the CMM Shri S. S. Shrike is not there and his
    charge is kept with ACMM S. Y. Shisode and it is in that

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1560..

    Ext.4825

    circumstancesthattheaccusedwere producedbeforethe ACMM,


    thattooathisresidenceasitwasaholiday.Hesubmitsthatbythe
    application Ext. 2891the RegistrarandAsst.Registrar,whowere
    alsothePublicInformationOfficers,weresummonedbythedefence
    aswitnessestobringtheattendancerecordanddetailsoftheCMM
    and incharge CMM between 01/10/06 to 30/11/06. However,
    whenthesetwowitnessesremainedpresenton24/07/12asperthe
    summons, by the pursis Ext. 2912 learned advocate Wahab Khan
    intimatedthathedoesnotwanttoexaminethemasthedocuments
    obtainedundertheRTIActhavebeenproduced.Tomymind,the
    gameplayedbythe defenceis veryobvious.They producedonly
    those documents which furnish incomplete information and even
    incompleteinformationwasaskedbycarefullyframingthequestions
    intheirapplicationsundertheRTIAct.Itisinthiscontextthatthe
    prosecution produced numerous documents alongwith their
    applicationExt.3928,includingthelogbookofvehiclesandstation
    diaryentriesthathadbeencalledbythedefenceduringthecross
    examinationofvariouswitnesses.Alongwiththesameapplication,
    prosecution produced certified copies of documents in connection
    withthechargeoftheCMM,whichareatpages339,341and343
    of the documents that are with that application. Since they are
    certifiedcopiesofthecourtrecord,theyarereceivedinevidence
    directlyandmarkedasExts.4804to4806atthetimeofjudgement.
    Ext. 4804 is the certified true copy of application by Shri S. S.
    Shirke,CMM,totheRegistrarGeneraloftheBombayHighCourt
    requesting permission to leave headquarter from 20/10/06 till

    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.

    Next submission is that the DCPs supplied copies of the

    confessional statements to the investigating officer before the


    originalconfessionalstatementsweresentbytheCMMtothiscourt,
    which is a violation of Rule 3(8) of the MCOC Rules. This is in
    respectofcopiesofconfessionalstatementsoftheA3toA7,A10and

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1562..

    Ext.4825

    A12anditiscontendedthatthereforetheconfessionalstatements
    arerequiredtobediscarded.Tomymind,thisisjustaprocedural
    irregularityanditdoesnotaffecttheevidenceabouttheprocedure
    ofrecordingofconfessionalstatements.

    1415.

    Voluminous submissions are made by learned advocate

    Wahab Khan as well as in the written submissions by learned


    advocateSharifShaikhthatthewrittensubmissionsoftheaccused
    filedwiththeirstatementsundersection313oftheCr.P.C.,their
    depositionsundersection315oftheCr.P.C.,thedefencewitnesses
    examined, the contents of the CDRs and the contents of the
    confessional statements of all the accused inter se falsify the
    confessionalstatementsofalltheaccused.Inmyhumbleopinion,
    thecontentionsmadebytheaccusedintheirwrittensubmissions
    filedwiththeirstatementsundersection313oftheCr.P.C.andin
    theirdepositionsareonlywords.Whatisnecessarytobeconsidered
    is their retractions and whether their evidence that they gave on
    oathaswellastheircontentionsmadeinthewrittensubmissions
    aresubstantiatedornot.Itisclearfromthediscussionuptonow
    thattheallegationsoftorturehavenotbeensubstantiated.Hence,
    the evidence of the accused on oath and in writing is of no
    consequence and does not affect the evidential value of the
    confessional statements. It is easy to make allegations, but these
    allegationsinwritingaswellasoralarepittedagainstthepositive
    physical evidence given by several witnesses examined by
    prosecution which is supported by contemporaneous record. It is
    submittedthatsufficientopportunitywasgiventothelearnedSPP

    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.

    Next is the submission that there are contradictions

    betweentheconfessionalstatementsoftheaccused interse which


    meansthattheconfessionalstatementsarenottrue,whichisthe
    secondtestforrelyingontheconfessions,therefore,theconfessional
    statements of the A1 to A4, A7, A9 and A12 are required to be
    discarded.Thesocalledcontradictionspointedoutareinfactnot
    contradictions,butinconsistenciesandacertainthingstatedbyan
    accused in his confessional statement, but not stated by the
    corresponding accusedin hisconfessionalstatement.Thesethings
    arenotmaterialbecausewhatwehavetoseeiswhetherthereisa
    generalcorroborationfromtheevidenceledbytheprosecutionand
    whether there is a general corroboration in the confessional
    statements of the accused inter se. Each and every detail in the
    confessional statement of one accused need not be specifically
    corroboratedbyotheraccusedintheirconfessionalstatements.Thus
    thissubmissionisnotlegalandthereforenotacceptable.

    1418.

    Lastly, it is submitted that substance of the crime is not

    disclosed in the confessional statements and there is no


    specificationsastowhathouseholdutensilswereusedascontainers,
    thatthereisnoreferencetoanypressurecookerinanyconfessional

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1565..

    Ext.4825

    statement, that no confessional statement mentions from where


    rexine bags were purchased and it is not clear till date whether
    circuitboardorQuartzwatchwasusedastimerdevicesandthereis
    noinquiryastofromwheretheA13broughtthearticlesforthe
    preparation of bombs. In this respect, the learned SPP submitted
    that it will have tobe kept atthe backof the mind that we are
    dealingwiththecaseundertheMCOCActandforthepurposeof
    subsection(2)ofsection3oftheMCOCAct,thedefinitionofthe
    term'abetment'makesitclearthatactspreparatorytotheorganised
    crimealsogetscovered.Hesubmitsthattheargumentsthatmaybe
    usedagainsthimwillbethattheconfessionalstatementswillnot
    showthatanyaccusedhascommittedtheblastandthereforeitis
    not admission of guilt. He submits that it would be wrong and
    fallacious tocontendthatthis is onlyacaseofbombblasts.The
    continuing unlawful activity has culminated in the seven bomb
    blasts on 11/07/06, but it is preceded by several acts that were
    preparatory to the organised crime. He submits that if the
    confessions were doctored, why take the trouble of recording so
    manypagesofhistoryandgeographyoftheaccused.Theycould
    have directly started with their statements about how they
    participatedinthebombblasts.Evenotherwise,iftheconfessional
    statements would have been fabricated containing the direct
    admissionaboutthecommissionofthebombblastsandtherewas
    nohistoryaboutit,thepolicewouldhavenotbeenabletoknowthe
    conspiracybehindit.Iftheconfessionalstatementswouldhavebeen
    restrictedonlytotheroleofaparticularaccused,thenitwasopen

    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.

    The above discussion covers the general submissions in

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1567..

    Ext.4825

    respect of the confessional statements made by all the learned


    advocatesforalltheaccused.Therearesubmissionsinrespectofthe
    individual accused by the learned advocates in respect of
    inconsistenciesandirregularitiesinthedocumentscomprisingofthe
    correspondence, the difference in ages of the accused and other
    things.Iwilltakeuponlyfewinstancestoshowastohowthesaid
    submissionarenotacceptablelegallyaswellasfactuallyandalso
    logically.ItiscontendedbytheA4thathissurnameisadmittedly
    Siddique,buttheJt.CPinhisletterExt.1054wrotehissurnameas
    AnsariandinthiscontextACPPatil,PW186,admittedthatitisso
    written and he remembered that it is a typographical mistake.
    However,SPKarale,PW104,deposedthathewasdirectedbytheJt.
    CP to record the confessional statement of Ehtesham Siddique,
    though, Ext. 1054, shows the surname Ansari. His admission in
    crossexamination is pointed out that he did not know anything
    abouttheA4tillhereceivedthisletterandheadmittedthatthe
    letterthathewrotetoACPPatil,PW186,Ext.1055forproducing
    the A4 before him, contained the surname of the accused as
    Siddique.Ofcourse,hedeniedthesuggestionthathehadreceived
    the entire information and documents about the accused on
    04/10/06, therefore, he wrote the correct surname. He also
    admittedthathecannotsayfromwherehegottheinformationto
    writethecorrectnameoftheaccusedinExt.1055.Tomymind,the
    possibilitycannotberuledoutthatthemessengerwhohadcarried
    theletterExt.1054totheDCPmayhavebeeninquiredwithandhe
    mayhavestatedthecorrectnameoftheaccused,becauseitisa

    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.

    A serious contention is made in the written submissions

    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

    remanded to police custody upto 14th of April and remanded to


    judicialcustodyonthatday.Thus,theentryinthelockupregister
    willbeof1stofApriland14thofApril.But,inbetweentherewillbe
    noentrywhenevertheaccusedistaken outforthe investigation.
    Therewouldbeentriesinthelockupdiaryandthatiswhatisstated
    byAPIRandive,PW106.Hesubmitsthatafantastic argumentis
    madethattheseentriesinthelockupregistershowthattheA4was
    nottakentotheDCP.Similar,fantasticargumentismadethatthe
    CMMhasalsofabricatedrecordbecausethelockupregistershows
    that he was taken out on 07/10/06 at 1630 hours, whereas, the
    letteroftheCMMshowsthathewasproducedbeforehimat3.20
    p.m.,i.e.,1520hours.Tomymind,itistoomuchtocontendthat
    theCMMalsofabricatedtherecord.Apart,fromallthesethings,the
    factremainsthatwhentheA4wasproducedbeforehiscourton
    09/10/06inRemandApplicationno.67/06hedidnotsaythathis
    confessional statement was not recorded, that he was not taken
    beforetheDCPorbeforetheCMM.Hesubmittedorallythatone
    portionofhisconfessionalstatementiswrong.Thiscanonlymean
    that he admits that his confessional statement was recorded. As
    againsthisoralevidencethatSr.PITajne,PW161,and APIDeore,
    PW180,cametothelockupat10.00a.m.on06/10/06withtyped
    papersandforcedhimtosignonthem,inhisapplicationExt.3798
    dtd.03/11/06,whichwashisretraction,heallegedthatthesetwo
    officerswerepresentintheofficeofSPKarale,PW104,thathewas
    giventhepapersoftheconfessionforreadingonhisrequest,but
    theyweresnatchedfromhimwhenhehadreadonlyapageandwas

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1571..

    Ext.4825

    forcedtosign quietly.Itisalsostatedinthesaidapplicationthat
    fromtherehewasproducedbeforethemagistrate.Thisinconsistent
    standtakenbytheA4showhisuntruthfulnessingivingevidence
    and in making the allegation andthis aspect,therefore,doesnot
    showthathisconfessionalstatementwasnotrecorded.

    1421.

    Some minor inconsistencies about difference in his age

    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

    Bengal,that he does not know Hindi language and therefore the


    Hindiwordsinhisconfessionalstatementortheentireconfessional
    statement being in Hindi shows that it was fabricated. A5 gave
    evidenceasDW43,producedsomeprogressreportsofhisschool,
    which shows that he studied in Urdu medium and did not learn
    Hindiasitwasnotasubjectinhiscurriculum.Thesaidprogress
    reportarenotprovedandduringhiscrossexamination,thelearned
    SPPcouldelicitsuchanswersfromhimwhichwouldshowthathe
    hadadequateworkingknowledgeofHindithoughhemaynotknow
    how to write it, especially in paragraphs 22 and 23 of his cross

    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

    A general submission was made by learned advocate

    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

    In connection with the submissions in respect of the

    confessional statement of the A5, it is submitted that as per the


    evidenceofA5asDW43andthediaryofhisbusiness,Ext.4144
    (colly),hewasathisshopon8thand09/07/06andon10/07/06he
    wasalsoatKolkataandon11/07/06hewasalsoattheshopas
    usual.Hisevidenceaboutitisreproducedanditissubmittedthat
    fromthisitiscrystalclearthatA5didnotgooutofKolkataduring
    the alleged date of incident, was at his shop and Mohd. Shakil,
    PW70, was not his childhood friend and considering all this
    evidence,theevidenceofDCPPhadtare,PW93,hastobediscarded.
    Thus,itistriedtobesubmittedthattheoralevidenceoftheA5and
    thedocumentaryevidenceintheformofdiaryofhisshopisbyway
    ofalibitotheallegationsoftheprosecutionthathehadcometo
    Mumbaiduringthatperiod.Inthisconnectionitisallegedbythe
    prosecutionthatinMay,2006,A5madearrangementsandensured
    theinfiltrationofwantedaccusedno.8to13intoIndia through
    Bangladeshborder.Itisalsoallegedthatafterthebombblasts,A5
    providedasafepassageforthemoutofMumbai.Inthisconnection
    theevidenceofMohd.Shakil,PW70,isdiscussedunderthetopic
    'procurementofRDX'inparagraph822andtheevidenceoftheA5is
    alsodiscussedanditisheldthattheprosecutionhasprovedbythe
    evidenceofMohd.Shakil,PW70,thatsometimeinthesecondor
    third weekof May,2006,A5 had broughtsixpersons, who were
    havingPakistanipassports,fromBongaon,whichisjustadjacentto
    theBangladeshborderofIndia,toKolkataforbeingfurthertakento
    Mumbai,whichiscircumstanceno.16provedbytheprosecution.In

    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

    of May, 2006 he and Mohd. Shakil, PW70, went by railway to


    BongaonandfromtherebytaxitoBongaonmarketasKalluhad
    toldhimthatheisgoingtobringsixPakistanipersonstothemarket
    bycrossingtheBangladeshborderuptoBongaonborderandthose
    peoplearebeingsentasperthedirectionsofwantedaccusedno.1
    andaretobetakentoMumbai,thatKallucamethereaftersome
    timewithsixPakistanipersons,whosenameshetold,i.e.,wanted
    accusedno.8to13,thatallhadtheirownbags,butthewanted
    accusedno.12hadadifferentbigsuitcaselikebagandhesaidthat
    thereisRDXinthebagandithastobetakencarefullytoMumbai.It
    isalsoinhisconfessionalstatementthattheytookthesaidpersons

    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

    taken in his written submissions Ext.2826 filed alongwith his


    statementundersection313oftheCr.P.C.,hedeposedaccordingly
    and also examined his brother Mohd. Sajid, DW23. Now his
    evidenceisuncogentanduninspiringinasmuchashehasnotproved
    anyentryinthediaryExt.4144thoughheidentifiedthediaryandit
    hascomeinhisevidencethattheyusedtomaintainadiaryinUrdu

    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.

    Other than the above, the points that were raised by

    learned advocate Shetty during his arguments, there are certain


    specificpointscommontoallthesixaccusedwhomherepresented,
    arenecessarytobediscussedinbrief.HesubmittedthattheDCPs
    shouldhaveexaminedthebodyoftheaccusedtofindaboutany
    injuriesandthirddegreetorture.Tomymind,nolawsaysthisandit
    istoomuchtoexpecttheDCPstodosuchathing.Learnedadvocate
    submitted that it is the duty of the CMM to verify whether the
    confessionalstatementisacorrect,isvoluntaryandiswithoutany
    pressureandinfluence.Tomymind,thisisnotthedutyoftheCMM,
    itisthejobofthiscourt.InrespectoftheroughnotesExt.1213
    aboutPartIoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA3,hesubmitted
    thatitisatvariancewiththecontentsofPartI.Tomymind,this
    aspectisinconsequentialastheyareroughnotes.Learnedadvocate
    submittedthatthestatutorywarningisonlyinPartIandnotinPart
    II.Tomymind,itisnotnecessarytorepeatthestatutorywarning

    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

    gave directions by letters about the safeguards that were to be


    observedbytheofficersofthelocalpolicestations,butthatinitself
    isnotsufficientandthereisnoevidencebeforethecourtastohow
    the safeguards were followed and the officers should have given
    compliancereportandmerelyexaminingthemisnotsufficient,but
    the constables on the guard at the lockup should have been
    examined. To mymind, the evidence of the officers about taking
    precautions and the entries in the station diaries are more than
    sufficient. All persons connected with the process need not to be
    examined.Inthatcase,allthepolicemenintheescortpartyshould
    beexamined,allthestationhouseofficershouldbeexaminedand
    all the police station incharge should be examined. Learned
    advocatesubmittedinrespectoftheconfessionalstatementofthe
    A1 that by the letter Ext. 1178 dtd. 03/10/06, the DCP directed
    PoliceStationBandratosendescorttoproducetheaccusedat1900
    hours on 04/10/06 and questions as to how could the DCP
    anticipate on 03/10/06 that the accused should be produced at
    1900hourson04/10/06?Tomymind,theanswertothisquestion
    issimple.ItisbecausetheDCPhaddirectedACPPatil,PW186,bya
    letterExt.1177toproducetheA1beforehimon03/10/06at1500
    hours.Sothereshouldbenoproblemaboutthisandontheother
    hand it is a good thing that he did it in anticipation and it is
    corroboratedbytheendorsementinExt.1180whichisPartIofthe
    confessionalstatement.Learnedadvocate submittedinconnection
    withtheconfessionalstatementoftheA1thatifthespaceswhere
    signatures are placed in PartI and PartII of the confessional

    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

    It is clear from the above discussion that the objections

    raised by the defence about the voluntariness of the eleven


    confessionalstatementsareimproperandunacceptableanddonot
    affect their voluntariness. The facts emerging from the evidence
    adduceddonotshowanyreasonableprobabilitythattherewasany
    inducement,threatorpromisetogivetheaccusedpersonsgrounds
    thatwouldappeartothemreasonableforsupposingthatbymaking
    theconfessionalstatementstheywouldgainanyadvantageoravoid
    any ill will. There is no room for inferring that the authorities
    obtained the invented confessions as a source of proof. I have
    concludedandIamsatisfiedthattheconfessionalstatementswere
    retracted because of an afterthought or legal advice, hence, the
    retractionsdonotcarryanyweightanddonotaffectthevoluntary
    natureoftheconfessionalstatements.Duecredencewillhavetobe
    giventotheconfessionalstatementsastheaccuseddidnotclaim
    beforetheCMMthattheirconfessionalstatementswerefabricated
    orthattheyhavebeentorturedorthattheyhavebeenmadetosign
    onblankpapers.Iamalsosatisfiedthatthereisnomaterialtoinfer
    thattherewasanytrap,trackandimportuneseekingofevidence
    during the custodial interrogation for obtaining the confessional
    statements.

    1432.

    Thesecondtesttobeappliedtoevaluateaconfessionis

    whetheritistrueandtrustworthy.Truthfulnessoftheconfessional
    statements will have to be ascertained from their contents and
    whetherthecontentsaregenerallycorroboratedonfactualaspects
    bytheoralanddocumentaryevidenceadducedbytheprosecution

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1589..

    Ext.4825

    and also whether there is general corroboration between the


    confessionalstatementsoftheaccused interse.Toestablishthata
    confessional statement is true, it is necessary to examine the
    confessional statement and compare it with the rest of the
    prosecution evidence and probabilities of the case. It is not
    necessary, as per the settled law, that there should be a
    corroboration from independent evidence adduced by the
    prosecutiontocorroborateeachdetailintheconfessionalstatement.
    As to the extent of the corroboration required, each and every
    circumstance mentioned in the retracted confession regarding the
    complicity of the matter need not to be separately and
    independentlycorroborated.Itwouldbesufficientthatthegeneral
    trend of the confession is substantiated by some evidence which
    wouldtallywithwhatiscontainedinit.

    1433.

    It would be repetitive if the exercise of ascertaining the

    truthfulness of the confessional statements on the above point is


    donefirsttocometotheconclusionastowhethertheconfessional
    statements are true andtrustworthy andthen consider how their
    contents prove the allegations of the prosecution. It would be,
    therefore, appropriate to make a composite discussion of the
    contentsofalltheconfessionalstatementsalongwiththefactsthat
    areprovedbytheprosecutionuptonow.

    1434.

    The confessional statement of the A3 is the longest one

    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

    prosecution and the confessional statements of the other accused


    andtoseewhetherthereisanycorroboration.

    Association of accused with an unlawful association, i.e.,


    SIMI,andhowtheycametogether:
    1435.

    A3 in his confessional statement explained how he got

    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

    something in respect of the atrocities on Muslims and he was


    especially moved because of the communal riots in Mumbai and
    Gujaratandbecauseofallthesereasonshedecidedtomigrateand
    settle in some Muslim country and while staying there to take
    revenge in respect of the atrocities committed on Muslims in
    Hindustan.ProsecutionhasprovedbycogentevidencethattheA3
    wasconcernedwiththeatrocitiesbeingcommittedonMuslimsand
    wasoftheviewthattheonlywaytosolvetheirproblemswasby
    jihad,whichisthecircumstanceno.19provedbytheprosecution.

    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

    got acquainted with a SIMI member, who was his neighbour in


    198889andstartedgoingto KamruddinMasjidwithhimforthe
    SaturdaynightSIMIprogramsofDarseQuran,wherehebecame
    acquainted with the A13, the president of SIMI unit, whom he
    alwaysmetandbecauseofBabriMasjiddemolition in December,
    1992hewasdeeplyhurt.Hestatedabouthe,A13andsomemore
    personsburningAmericanflagsintheIdeMiladprocessioninthe
    year1995forwhichacasewasregisteredagainsthiminLashkar
    Police Station, Pune. He stated that he became acquainted with
    AtaurRehmanShaikh,fatheroftheA3andA9inthebeginningof
    1995andalsobecameacquaintedwithhissonsA3,wantedaccused
    no.3Rahilandthroughhim,i.e.,A10,A3andwantedaccusedno.3
    Rahil became acquainted with the A13 and thereafter he started
    attendingtheprogramsofSIMIandgoingtotheSIMIorganisation
    andallofthemstartedmeetingeachotherintheofficeofSIMIat
    Pune.HealsostatedthatheworkedforSIMIupto1999andvisited
    Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh and Aurangabad to participate in its
    seminars.

    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.

    A2 in his confessional statement Ext. 1023 stated that

    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

    dayin the year 1999while hewas going toKurla,he sawsome


    books kept alongwith the photographs of Babri Masjid and Aksa
    Masjid(Jerusalem,Isreal)putupoverthere,thatonseeingthose
    pictures,hewasimpressedandthenreadthenewspaperthereand
    becameacquaintedwithamanbynameWaqar,whogavehimthe
    informationofSIMIorganisation,thereuponheexpressedhisdesire
    toworkforitandthesaidWaqargavehimtheaddressofSIMIat
    IqwanuSafanearMadanpura,Mumbaiandaskedhimtogothere
    forenteringtheSIMIorganisation,thathevisitedthatofficewhere
    KuranandHadiswasreadaftertheIshaNamaj.Hestatedthathe
    gotintroducedtotheA2andothersintheofficeofIqbanuSafaand
    becamewellacquaintedwiththeA2afterhiswifesufferedfromTB
    andwastreatedbyA2andashispregnantwifewasadmittedin
    August,2000inFauziyaHospitalwiththehelpofA2.Hestatedthat
    thereafter his meetings with A2 increased and they both used to
    participate in the programs of SIMI at Iqwanu Safa office at
    MadanpuraeverySaturday.

    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

    SIMI. By oral and documentary evidence, prosecution has proved


    that SIMI was declared as an unlawful association under section
    3(1)oftheUA(P)Aandthebanhasbeenextendedfromtimeto
    timeandevenafterthebombblasts,whichisthecircumstanceno.
    39provedbytheprosecution.Theprosecutionhasalsoprovedby
    cogentoralanddocumentaryevidencethatA2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,
    A9, A10, A11 and A13 were members or were either activists or
    officebearersofSIMIorganisationandcontinuedtoworkforthe
    saidorganisationevenafterthebanonSIMIin2001,whichisthe
    circumstanceno.40provedbytheprosecution. Prosecutionhas
    also proved by cogent oral and documentary evidence that eight
    booksrelatingtoSIMIArts.150to152werefoundon28/07/06in
    theflatinpossessionoftheA3, whichisthecircumstanceno.9
    provedbytheprosecution. Prosecutionhasalsoprovedthatfour
    books,Arts.166(1and2),167and168allegedlyconnectedtoSIMI
    wererecoveredon28/07/06attheinstanceoftheA9,whichisthe
    circumstanceno.21provedbytheprosecution.Prosecutionhas
    alsoprovedthatsixbooks,Art.249(1to6)allegedlyconnected
    withSIMIwererecoveredattheinstanceoftheA10on30/07/06,
    which is the circumstance no. 22 proved by the prosecution.
    Prosecutionhasalsoprovedthattwobooksallegedlyconnectedto
    SIMIArts.135and136wererecoveredon31/07/06attheinstance
    of the A11, which is the circumstance no. 23 proved by the
    prosecution. Prosecution has also proved that eight books, Arts.
    43(1and2),44(1to4),47and48,allegedlyconnectedwithSIMI
    wererecoveredattheinstanceoftheA2on01/08/06,whichisthe

    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.

    A3 stated in his confessional statement Ext.1218, that

    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.

    He stated having told his brothers, i.e., A9 and wanted

    accused no. A3 Rahil about obtaining training in Pakistan and


    meeting wanted accused no.1 Azam Chima and also stated that
    thereafterhewassearchingforyoungstersandableboysfortraining
    ofLashkarandhadaskedwantedaccusedno.1AzamChimafor
    moneyonphoneforthatpurpose.

    1446.

    A9 in his confessional statement Ext.924 generally

    corroboratedalltheabovestatementsmadebytheA3.

    1447.

    A7 in his confessional statement Ext.1037 also

    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.

    The A3 stated that four months after his return from

    Pakistan he received Rs.1,80,000/ sent by wanted accused no. 1


    AzamChimabyhawala,thatfromthatmoneyheconvincedtheA10
    to go for training in Pakistan and gave Rs.1,00,000/ to him for
    expenses.HestatedthatvisaandairticketforIranwasarranged
    andthe A10wasdispatchedon18/11/02byairtoTehran,from
    there he contacted wanted accused no. 2 Rizwan Dawrey and
    wanted accused no. A3 Rahil in Dubai and through them he
    contactedwantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,whoarrangedforthe
    trainingfortheA10inLeTincampinMuzaffarabadforonemonth
    andthenreturnedtoHindustan.

    1450.

    TheA10inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1249confirms

    thattheA3instigatedhimforgoingfortrainingtoPakistanshowing
    him a rosy picture of improvement of his financial condition. He
    statedthattheA3arrangedforhisvisainSeptember,2002andhe

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1602..

    Ext.4825

    left for Tehran by air on 01/11/02 from Mumbai and wanted


    accused no. 2 Rizwan Dawrey had given him Rs. 10,000/ and
    12,000/ Saudi Riyals. He stated that from Tehran he went to
    Pasargadh,fromwherehecontactedwantedaccusedno.3Rahilon
    phoneforhisonwardjourneytoPakistanandwenttoZahidanas
    per his instructions, that at Zahidan an LeT operative, wanted
    accused no. 15 Abdul Rehman received him and took him to
    Bahawalpur in Pakistan,introducedhimtowantedaccusedno.1
    AzamChima,whotoldhimaboutjihadandGujarat.Hestatedabout
    anISIpersontakinghimtoLahoretotheISIoffice,whereinquires
    weremadewithhim,thenbeingtakentoRawalpindi,wherehewas
    explainedaboutISIandprovokedtoworkfortheminBharatand
    wastoldaboutLeTanditbeingsupportedbyISI,whichrunsitand
    wastoldtoworkforISIandtriedtobeconvincedtobecomeanISI
    agentinHindustan.HestatedaboutagainbeingtakentoLahore,
    meetingan ISIofficer,having discussions aboutGujaratriots and
    attacksofAfghanistan,toldaboutatrocitiesonMuslimscommunity
    and told to get news from Hindustan about Mumbai, Goa and
    Maharashtraborders,aboutpoliceofficersofGujarat,aboutBhabha
    AtomicResearchCenter,aboutspecialplacesofarmy,etc.,andsend
    ittothem.HestatedaboutbeingtakentoBahawalpur,meetingthe
    wantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,whotoldhimthatISIandLeT
    areoneandonhisasking,he,i.e.,theA10expressedhiswishto
    workforLeT,thereuponthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChima
    toldhimtoworkwiththeA3andpromisedthatarrangementsfor
    hismoneywouldbemadewhenhereachesback,thatthewanted

    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.

    The prosecution has proved that passport Ext. 621 and

    photocopy of international map Ext. 1489 were recovered on


    30/07/06attheinstanceoftheA10,whichisthecircumstanceno.
    22provedbytheprosecution.

    1453.

    The prosecution has also proved by cogent, oral and

    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.

    The A3 stated further in his confessional statement Ext.

    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.

    The A9 in his confessional statement Ext. 924,

    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

    him cross the border of Pakistan and took him to Bahawalpur,


    introducedhimtowantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,wherehealso
    mettheA3,whointroducedhimtothewantedaccusedno.5Sohail
    UsmanGaniShaikh@MunnafromPune,whohadundergoneone
    yeartraininginPakistan.Hestatedthatthewantedaccusedno.1
    Azam Chima sent him to the training camp of LeT near
    Muzzaffarabadafterhehadexpressedhisdesiretoundergotraining
    inhandlingarmsandpreparingbombsandthentoreturnbackto
    India and make jihad against kafirs, that he was introduced to a
    commanderbynameZakiurRehmaninthetrainingcampwherehe
    underwent training of 13 days in handling AK47 rifles, pistols,
    preparingbombsandspecialtrainingforpreparingdetonators,that
    thereafterhereturnedtoBahawalpurtothebungalowofthewanted
    accusedno.1AzamChima,wherehesawsomepersonstalkingwith
    himandtheA3waspresentthere,whoonaskingtoldhimthatthey
    arepersonsfromPakistansecurityagency,i.e.,ISI,thatalltraining
    campsareconductedontheirdirectionsandtheybeartheexpenses
    ofthetrainingcamps.Hefurtherstatedthatheinformedabouthis
    trainingtothewantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,whotoldhimto
    sendanultravioletlamptocheckfakecurrencynotes,thatwiththe
    helpofthewantedaccusedno.15AbdulRehmanhecrossedthe
    PakistanIran border extending his visa at Iran and returned to
    Mumbaiin July2005,metthe A4andgavehimthe information
    aboutthe training andsentan ultravioletlampfor checkingfake
    currencynoteswiththeA9whenhewentfortrainingtoPakistan
    viaIranaftersomedays.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    1460.

    ..1610..

    Ext.4825

    The A7 in his confessional statement. Ext.1037,

    corroboratedtheversionoftheabovethreeaccusedbystatingthat
    whenhemettheA3inthesimilarmeetingalongwiththeA13,A4
    andtheA2,theA3toldhimthathehadtakentrainingbygoingto
    PakistantwiceandtoldhimthattheLeTorganizationconductsthe
    trainingcampsunderthedirectionsoftheISIandthemoneyforthis
    comesfromtheISI,thatonthatbasishe,i.e.,theA3hadsentthe
    A2,A9,A10andA11andsomeotherpersonsfortraining.

    1461.

    The prosecution has proved by cogent, oral and

    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

    and documentary evidence prosecution has also proved that


    photocopy of international map, Ext.1490, was recovered at the
    instanceoftheA2on01/08/06,whichisthecircumstanceno.22
    provedbytheprosecution.ProsecutionhasalsoprovedthattheA3
    wasinstrumentalinobtainingvisaofIranfortheA2andtheA2
    traveled to Iran on ziarat visa as a camouflage, which is the
    circumstanceno.38provedbytheprosecution.

    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.

    A9 further stated that in the meanwhile the A2 had

    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

    accusedno.2 Rizwan Dawrey.He statedthat once while he was


    goingtoMeccaSharif,whichhevisited23times,thepolicefounda
    Hindustanidrivinglicencewithhimduringhissearch,whenhetold
    themthathewasPakistani,therefore,hewaskeptinprison,taken
    toJeddahandthensenttoDelhionanemergencycertificateinthe
    lastdaysof2004,thathehadkepthis14,000/Riyalswithwanted
    accusedno.2RizwanandhetoldaboutallthesethingstotheA9
    afterafewmonths,thatatthattimewantedaccusedno.3Rahilwas
    workingatBangalorewherehewentandmethimandtoldhimall
    thethingsandaskedhimtobeincontactwithwantedaccusedno.1
    AzamChima.

    1469.

    Bycogentoralanddocumentaryevidenceprosecutionhas

    proved that the A3 had gone to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia from


    Mumbaion08/11/03andwasdeportedfromthereon01/12/04on
    anemergencycertificateashedidnothaveavalidpassport,which
    is the circumstance no. 30 proved by the prosecution.
    Prosecution has also proved that photocopy of international map
    Ext.1486wasfoundon28/07/06intheflatinpossessionoftheA3,
    which is the circumstance no. 9 proved by the prosecution.
    ProsecutionhasalsoprovedthattheA3hadgonetoPakistantwice
    and had taken training in the camp of LeT, which is the
    circumstanceno.19provedbytheprosecution.

    1470.

    The A3 further stated about coming to know from his

    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.

    The A11 corroborated the version of the A3 in his

    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

    in the year 2000 he came in contact with a SIMI activist Riyaz


    Bhatkal,thatherequestedRiyaztoprovidehimfinancialassistance
    tostartsomebusiness,thatRiyazBhatkalreferredhimtoadvocate
    ShahidAzmi,whointurnintroducedhimtoAsifRazaKhan,that
    whenheaskedAsifRazaforfinancialassistanceAsifRazatoldhim
    thatifheispreparedtodosomethingforIslamthenallthefinancial
    assistancewillbeprovidedtohim,towhichhe,i.e.,theA6agreed.
    HedescribedhowsinceMarch,2002RiyazBhatkalstartedproviding
    financial assistance to him and about motivating a person for
    committingjihadandtogofortraining.HestatedthatinFebruary,
    2003RiyazBhatkalsenthimandthatpersonMushiruddinSiddique
    fortraininginPakistanbyairviaDubaiandfromtheretoKarachi,
    thattheytook16daystrainingandtheyreturnedtoIndiainMarch,
    2003 via Dubai by air and from there to Kathmandu and then
    crossedtheIndoNepalborder.Hestatedthattheyweretrainedin
    theuseoffirearmsincludingAK47andLMG,handgrenadeand
    preparing bomb, taught about jihad and ISI officers visited that
    camp. He stated that he sent Shabbir of Malegaon and Nafis of
    MumbaiforthemilitanttraininginPakistan.

    1480.

    Prosecutionhasprovedbycogent,oralanddocumentary

    evidence that the A6 had traveled from Mumbai to Muscat on


    01/02/03, which is the circumstance no. 37 proved by the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1623..

    Ext.4825

    prosecution.

    Accused doing acts preparatory to causing the bomb


    explosions:
    Generalreconnaissanceofvarioustargetsandmeetingof
    February,2006:
    1481.

    TheA3inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218statedthat

    after coming to Mumbai he was in continuous contact with the


    wantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,thatthewantedaccusedno.1
    AzamChimatoldhimtosearchforagoodtargetforcommittinga
    bigincidentinMumbai,thathe,i.e.,theA3alongwiththeA11and
    the A10 toured Mumbai and went to the Stock Exchange, World
    TradeCenter,MahalaxmiMandir,SiddhivinayakMandir,somebig
    shoppingmallsandlocalrailwaystationsandatthattimehefound
    thatthereweretightsecurityarrangementattheStockExchange,
    WorldTradeCentersandthetemplesandherealizedthatthelocal
    traintargetwasproperasthesecurityarrangementstherewerenot
    tightenoughandallrailwaystationswerealwayscrowded.

    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

    corroborated the statements made by the A3 about the


    reconnaissancedonebyhim,A3andtheA11andfindinglocaltrains
    tobethepropertargets.

    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.

    The A9 in his confessional statement, Ext.924,

    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.

    The A2 in his confessional statement Ext. 1023

    corroborated the statements made by the A3, A10, A11 and A9


    aboutthemeetingbeingcalledatthehouseoftheA3inwhichhe,
    i.e., the A2 alongwith the A3, A13, A4, A9, A10 and A11 were
    present.

    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.

    The A12 in his confessional statement Ext.1230, stated

    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.

    The A12 stated in his confessional statement Ext.1230,

    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.

    This is also corroborated by the A6, who stated in his

    confessionalstatementExt.1071aboutthe A4callinghiminthe
    eveningnearLuckyHotelinBandrainthefirstweekofApril2006,
    wherehemettheA3andtheA12andtheA11andA10werealso
    there.

    1495.

    The A12 and A6 both stated in their confessional

    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.

    In respectof the meeting in March, 2006 the A2 in his

    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

    were several meetings in the house of the A3 at Bandra during


    whichheusedtoremainpresentandinthosemeetingstheA3told
    themthattheworkofpreparingbombswillbedoneinthehouseof
    theA6atShivajiNagarandthatthearticlesrequiredforpreparing
    bombsarekeptbytheA13inthehouseoftheA6.

    1497.

    TheA3inhisconfessionalstatementExt.1218,statedthat

    when he talked with the wanted accused no.1 Azam Chima in


    February, 2006 and gave him the information about the target,
    wantedaccusedno.1AzamChimaalsoapproveditandaskedhimto
    paymoreattentiontoitandmentionedaboutsendingsomepersons
    fromPakistanforthatpurposeandtoldhimthathewouldsendthe
    gueststoMumbai,thathehadinstructedtheHindustanipersons,
    whohadtakentraining inPakistan throughhim tobe in contact
    withhim,accordinglytheA6,A12,A13,A7wereinconstantcontact
    withtheA4andtheA11,A10andA2werealsoincontactwithhim
    alongwithsomemorepersons,thatonthesayofwantedaccusedno.
    1AzamChima,theA1andtheA5weremaintainingcontactwith
    him and wanted accused no. 1 Azam Chima had talked about
    sendingabout11guestsfromPakistantoHindustan.

    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

    he came to know from the A3 that wanted accused no.1 Azam


    ChimahadtoldtheA3thatStockExchangebuilding,WorldTrade
    Center, big shopping malls, government officers responsible for
    GujaratRiots,policeofficersandlocaltrainsshouldbetargetedfor
    jihad,thattheA3furthertoldhimthatwhenhesurveyedallthese

    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

    the A3toldhim thatthe wantedaccusedno.1AzamChima has


    decidedtocausebombexplosionsinseventrainsonthewesternline
    inMumbaiintheeveningatthetimeofrush,thatthereafterhe,i.e.,
    the A4 alongwith the A3, A2, A11, A9 and A10 made survey by
    travelingintrainsfromChurchgatetoVirar,thatsometimestheyall
    usedtovisitthehouseoftheA3.

    1504.

    TheA2statedthattheyallhadarideinVirardowntrains,

    thatthereisaheavyrushintheeveningonworkingdays,thatthe
    A13 and A3decided to cause bombexplosions atthattime,that
    therewereseveralmeetingsatthehouseoftheA3atBandraandhe
    usedtoremainpresent,thatinthemeetingstheA3toldthemthat
    theworkofpreparingbombswillbedoneinthehouseoftheA6in
    ShivajiNagarandthatthearticlesrequiredforpreparingbombsare
    keptbytheA13inthehouseoftheA6.

    1505.

    The A11 stated in his confessional statement Ext.1127,

    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.

    The A10 in his confessional statement Ext.1249, stated

    that he remained in continuous contact with the A3 and then


    corroboratedthestatementsmadebyalltheaboveaccusedabout
    travelinginlocaltrainsinthesamemonthfromMumbaitoVirar,
    etc.

    HowtheA1cameinpossessionofRDX:
    1508.

    The A1 in his confessional statement Ext.1188, stated

    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.

    The A1 in his confessional statement Ext.1188,

    corroborated the statements made by the A3 by stating that the


    wantedaccusedno.15AbdulRehmancalledhimatJanakpuratthe
    endofMay,2006andwhenhewentthereheintroducedhimtotwo
    Paksitanis,i.e.,wantedaccusedno.6Aslamandwantedaccusedno.
    7Hafizullahandthenwantedaccusedno.15AbdulRehmanasked
    himtotakebothofthemtoMumbaiandtohandthemovertoSajid
    chacha,thataccordinglyhebroughtthemtoPatnaviaJanakpurand
    then by train to Mumbai, that he took them to the shop of
    Sajidchaha in Jogeshwari and handed them over to him and
    returnedtohisvillageatBasupatti.

    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.

    Prosecution has proved by cogent evidence that in the

    second or third week of May, 2006 the A5 brought six Pakistani


    persons from Bongaon, which is just adjacent to the Bangladesh
    border of India, to Kolkata for being further taken to Mumbai,
    whichisthecircumstanceno.17provedbytheprosecution.Itis
    heldthattheA5hastakenafalsepleaofalibiabouthebeingin
    th
    Kolkata in the second week of May, 2006, which

    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

    JaisheMohammed jointly,that the people who had executed the


    attack had first come to Mumbai and they had the intention of
    causing bomb explosions in the trains in Mumbai, however, as
    arrangementsfortheirstayandotherfacilitieswerenotmade,the
    ISIaskedthemtoattackAyodhyaMandirandthentheA3toldhim
    that wanted accused no. 1 Azam Chima has decided to do some
    actioninMumbai.Hestatedthathewasinconstantcontactwith
    theA3andtheA3wasinforminghimabouttheprogressoftheir
    plan,thathemettheA3afterhe,i.e.,theA3returnedfromPakistan
    aftertakingtraining,thattheA3wasinconstantcontactwiththe
    wantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,commanderofLeT,thatinMay,
    2006 wanted accused no.1 Azam Chima sent some Pakistani to
    Hindustan via Nepal border out of which the A1 had brought
    wanted accusedno. 6andwantedaccused no.7from the Nepal
    border.HestatedthathealsocametoknowfromtheA3thattheA5
    hadbroughtsixPakistanipersons,i.e.,wantedaccusedno.8to13
    through Dhaka border of Bangladesh, that wanted accused no.12
    Ehsanulla had brought 15 kgs RDX with him and that some
    PakistanishadcomethroughKutchborder.

    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

    A5 were in contact with them, that the A3 told him that he


    alongwiththeA4andsomeaccompliceshadtraveledinthelocal
    trainsandmadestudyastohowbombexplosionscanbemade,that
    thereweresomemeetingsaboutthisathishouseatMiraRoadand
    someatthehouseoftheA3atBandraandduringthosemeetings
    theA13andA3hadgiventheresponsibilityofcausingthebomb
    explosions to each of them. He had further stated that wanted
    accused no.1 Azam Chima had sent Pakistani terrorists from
    separateplacestoMumbai,someofwhomwerehaltedatthehouse
    oftheA3andtheA13hadarrangedforthestayofsomePakistani
    personsintheofficeofSIMIatMiraRoadandhewastoldthatthe
    Pakistanipersonshadbrought15kgsRDXwiththem.

    1519.

    The A12 stated in his confessional statement Ext. 1230,

    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

    wanted accused no. 5 Sohail Shaikh, whose full name is Sohail


    UsmanGaniShaikh,residentofPune,butnowresidinginPakistan
    andwantedaccusedno.14AbdulRazzak,aresidentofHyderabad,
    butnowresidinginPakistananddeceasedaccusedno.1Salimand
    deceasedaccusedno.2Abu Osama@Abu Umed@Mohd.Ali,
    bothPakistaninationalswereinthehouseoftheA3inthesecondor
    thirdweekofMay,2006andlaterontheywereshiftedtothehouse
    of A3 in Millat Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai, which is the
    circumstanceno.19provedbytheprosecution.

    1521.

    The A10 stated in his confessional statement Ext. 1249,

    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/.

    Funding for causing the bomb blasts and meeting the


    expensesaftertheexplosions:
    1522.

    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.

    The prosecution has proved by cogent, oral and

    documentary evidence that wanted accused no.2 Rizwan Dawrey


    had sent15000SaudiRiyals for being handedover tothe A9at
    PuneandthatultimatelythesaidSaudiRiyalswerecollectedbythe
    A3inMumbaiandarethesameSaudiRiyalsthatwereseizedfrom
    thehouseoftheA3on28/07/06, whichisthecircumstanceno.

    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.

    The A10 in his confessional statement Ext. 1249 stated

    thatwhenhehadgonetoMumbaitothehouseoftheA3forgetting
    moremoney,theA3hadtoldhimthatthebombsareready,that
    theywoulddothebombexplosionsinthelocalrailwayinMumbai
    on11/07/06,thatifthereissomeworkthathe,i.e.,theA10cando,
    hewouldbetoldaboutitandheshouldbereadyforit.

    1532.

    The A11 in his confessional statement Ext.1127, stated

    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.

    The A12 stated in his confessional statement Ext.1230,

    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.

    Assembling of bombs by the accused with the help of


    wantedpakistaniaccused:
    1534.

    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.

    The A12 stated in his confessional statement Ext.1230,

    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.

    The A12 stated in his confessional statement Ext.1230,

    thatasdecidedheandtheA3wentbycartothehouseoftheA6in
    thenightof10/07/06,thattillthattimetheworkofpreparingthe
    bombswasover,thataspertheplanallthesevenbagscontaining
    thebombsweretobereachedtothehouseoftheA3,thattheykept
    fourbagscontainingthebombsinthecaroftheA3andremaining

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1650..

    Ext.4825

    three bags containing bombs were kept by the A6 in taxi, that


    wantedaccusedno.5SohailShaikhandonemorePakistanisatwith
    the A6 in the taxi and both vehicles started for Bandra, that on
    reachingthebuildingoftheA3bycarandtaxi,theA6tookoutthe
    threebagscontainingbombsfromthetaxi,thattillthattimetwo
    morePakistanipersonsgotdownfromthehouseoftheA3andallof
    themkeptthesevenbagscontainingbombsinthehouseoftheA3.
    HestatedthatatthattimeonethingstrucktheA3andhetoldhim,
    i.e.,theA12thatitwouldberiskytokeeptheMaruticarnearthe
    houseoftheA3,therefore,theA3toldhimtoparkthecarinthe
    compoundofAlHatimbuildinginMillatNagarofhisfriendRizwan
    KhotandtogivethekeytoRizwan,thataccordinglyhe,i.e.,theA12
    parkedthecaroftheA3atthehouseofRizwan,lockeditandgave
    thekeytoRizwanKhot.

    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.

    The prosecution has proved by cogent oral and

    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

    brother's family members were present in his house continuously


    th
    from 8th to 10/07/06, which

    is the 7
    additional circumstance

    against all the accused. Prosecution has proved that Cyclonite


    (RDX),AmmoniumNitrateandtracesofCyclonitewerefoundinthe
    houseoftheA6on29/09/06, whichisthecircumstanceno.11
    provedbytheprosecution. Prosecutionhasalsoprovedthatthe
    A2, A4 and the A6 have been identified in the test identification
    paradeasthepersonswhowerepresentoutsidethehouseoftheA6
    a few days before 11/07/06, which is the circumstance no. 42
    provedbytheprosecution.

    1542.

    The A6 further stated in his confessional statement Ext.

    1071, that wanted accused no. 12 Ehsanulla had brought 15 kgs


    RDXwithhimforpreparingbombs,thattheA3broughtthesaid
    RDXtohishouse,i.e.,thehouseoftheA6,thattheA13hadalready
    brought remaining articles like eight black coloured rexine bags,
    AmmoniumNitrate,detonators,cords,watches,etc.,andhadkept
    theminthehouseoftheA6,thattheA7wastodotheworkof
    electriccircuitry,therefore,hehadbroughtbattery,wire,soldering
    gun,solderingwire,circuitboard,etc.,articles.Hestatedthatthe
    workofpreparingbombswasgoingonforthreedays,thatsome
    householdutensilswereusedforpreparingthebombs,thatwanted
    accusedno.5SohailShaikhandtheotherPakistanipersonsmixed
    theexplosivesandpreparedthemixture,fixeddetonatorsinitand
    thereaftertheA7didtheworkofjoiningthecircuitandwires,which
    couldbeusedforexplodingthebombs.Hestatedthattheworkof
    preparingbombswascompletedinthismannerinhishousetillthe

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1654..

    Ext.4825

    evening of 10th July, that thereafter seven bombs were packed in


    separate black coloured bags, that the A13 took the remaining
    articles out of the articles that he had brought for preparing the
    bombsandputtheminabagandtookthemwithhim.

    1543.

    The A6 further stated in his confessional statement Ext.

    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

    as per the plan the responsibility of fitting timer devices on the


    bombs was given to him, that he had gathered the instruments
    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,thattheA13wasgiven
    theresponsibilityofcollectingthearticlesnecessaryforpreparing
    thebombsandkeeptheminthehouseoftheA6.

    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.

    The prosecution has proved by cogent, oral and

    documentary evidence that on 23/10/06 there was recovery of


    articles,i.e.,Arts.346to352,354,355and357to359andthata
    timer/triggeringdevicetotriggerthedetonatorcanbebuiltwiththe
    helpofresistors,Arts.354(1to22),capacitorsArts.355(1and2),
    coil,Art.356,transistors,Arts.357(1to8),LEDs,Arts.358(1to9)
    anddiodes,Arts.359(1to6), attheinstanceoftheA7, whichis
    thecircumstanceno.16provedbytheprosecution.

    1547.

    The prosecution has proved by cogent, oral and

    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.

    Prosecution has proved that on 08/10/06 seven black

    rubber cooker rings, Art331 (1 to 7), five steel cooker whistles,


    Art332 (1 to 5), electric circuit board, Art334 and plastic bags,
    Arts335and336,wererecoveredattheinstanceoftheA3,that
    Cyclonite(RDX)wasdetectedontheplasticbagsandthatthecircuit

    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.

    Prosecution has proved by cogent evidence that on

    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

    startedon9th Julyandreachedinthemorningof11th Julyatthe


    houseoftheA7wherewantedaccusedno.6andwantedaccused
    no.7werepresentandfromtheretheythreewenttoBandraand
    mettheA3inhishouse,where810morepersonswerewiththeA3.
    TheA1furtherstatedthatthereweresevenblackrexinebagskept
    inthehouseinwhichpreparedbombswerekept,thattheA3said
    thatthosesevenbagsaretobekeptinsevendifferentlocaltrainsat
    Churchgate,thatoutofthosesevenbags,theA3gavehimonebag
    andtoldthem,i.e., theA1,wantedaccusedno.6Aslam,wanted
    accusedno.7Hafizullaanddeceasedaccusedno.1Salimtoreach
    theChurchgatestation,goonplatformno.3andkeepthebomb
    ladenbagontheluggagerackinthefirst1st classcompartmentof
    the5.57fasttrainandtoalight fromthetrainatDadarRailway
    Stationatanycost.TheA1furtherstatedthattheyallfourleftthe
    houseoftheA3bytaxi,reachedChurchgatestationatabout5.00
    p.m., purchased four first class tickets, that after the 5.57 train
    reachedtheplatformno.3allofthemboardedthefirstIst Class
    compartmentandhe,i.e.,theA1keptthebagcontainingbombon
    thepassengerrackandallfourstoodinthepassageleadingtothe
    door.HestatedthatwhenthetrainreachedDadarRailwayStation,
    theyallstartedgettingdownfromit,buttherewasabigrushof
    people for entering the train, therefore, with great difficulty and
    pushing persons they managed to get down from the train, that
    however,becauseofthehugecrowdSalim,i.e.,deceasedaccused
    no. 1couldnotgetdown with themandwas trappedinside the
    compartmentandbythattimethetrainstarted.

    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.

    The prosecution has proved by cogent, oral and

    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.

    The prosecution has proved by cogent evidence that on

    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.

    The A12 in his confessional statement Ext.1230, stated

    thathestartedgoingtothehouseoftheA3atBandraon11/07/06,
    thatatthattimehereceivedacallfromtheA3remindinghimto
    givehismobiletotheA7nearLuckyHotel,thathe gotdownat
    BandrastationandasinstructedbytheA3gavehismobiletotheA7
    inbetweennearLuckyHotel,andreachedthehouseoftheA3at
    aboutquarterpastfour.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    1559.

    ..1662..

    Ext.4825

    The A7 in his confessional statement Ext. 1037, has

    corroborated his version by stating that on 11/07/06 he went to


    BandrafromMiraRoadreachingthereatabout4.15p.m.,thatthe
    A12reachedtherebyrickshawandgavehimhismobilephoneand
    leftfromtheretogotothehouseoftheA3.

    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.

    Prosecution has proved by cogent evidence that on

    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

    and was killed in the bomb explosion, that he was a resident of


    Lahoreandhadstayedinhishouse.

    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.

    It is alleged by the defence that the confessions are

    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

    prosecution upto now and on a careful examination of the


    confessional statements of all eleven accused and on comparing

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1667..

    Ext.4825

    themwiththerestoftheevidenceinthelightofthesurrounding
    circumstancesandthepossibilitiesofthecase,itisfoundthatthe
    contentsoftheconfessionalstatementsarecorroboratedtoalarge
    extentbythecircumstancesthatareprovedbytheprosecution.Not
    onlythis,thereismaterialcorroborationonmostoftheaspectsin
    betweentheconfessionalstatementsofalltheaccusedinterseasis
    clearfromtheabovediscussion.

    1568.

    In viewof theabove discussion,Ihave nohesitation in

    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.

    His crossexamination by learned advocate Shetty is in

    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

    entire sanction order is based on his subjective satisfaction for


    accordingsanction,thathepassedtheorderonlyafterhearrivedat
    it and paragraph 4 shows recording of his satisfaction. His
    knowledge of law is also reflected from his answers that the
    existenceoftheorganisedcrimesyndicateisnecessaryforaccording
    sanctionforprosecutionundertheMCOCAct,thatthereshouldbe
    continuousunlawfulactivity,thatmorethanonepriorchargesheets
    should have been filed against the syndicate or even a single
    member of the said organisation and cognizance of the offence
    should have been taken by the concerned court. He denied the
    suggestionthattheunlawfulactivityshouldbewiththeobjectof
    obtaining only pecuniary gain for the syndicate or member and
    explainedthatitmaybeforanygain.Whenhewassuggestedthat
    documentsshowingtheexistenceoftheorganisedcrimesyndicate
    werenecessarytobeperused,heansweredthatthedocumentsof
    the investigation disclosed the existence of an organised crime
    syndicateandalsoshowedotheringredientsrequiredforaccording
    sanction.Whileadmittingthatthereisnotonesingledocumentor
    material showing this, he explained that the totality of the
    investigationshowedtheexistenceofanorganisedcrimesyndicate
    and then elaborated a few instances, that more than one
    chargesheet was pending against a member of the syndicate of
    whichthecourthadtakencognizance,thatmorethanoneaccused
    was involved in earlier cases, that there were confessional
    statements of many accused, that there was recovery of material
    undersection27oftheEvidenceAct,thattherewerestatementsof

    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

    he allegedlymade in a press briefing thathe gave atthe endof


    September,2006inwhichJt.CPRaghuvanshi,Addl.CPandDCPsof
    theATSwerepresentandPasricha,theDirectorGeneralofPolice,
    wasalsopresentforsometime,inwhichbroaddetailsaboutthe
    informationdiscloseduntilthenweregiventothemedia,withthe
    factualaspectsthatwererevealedintheinvestigationlateron.To
    mymind,itdoesnotmakeanydifference,becauseanystatements
    madebythepoliceofficersduringthecourseofinvestigationwere
    probablymadeonthebasisofinvestigationtillthattimeandonthe
    clues that were available with them. You cannot bound the
    prosecution to such statements made to the media, if on further
    investigationbyfollowingsomenewleads,someotherthingswere
    disclosed,whichwerenotasperthestatementsmadebyhiminthe
    pressbriefing.Thusitisunnecessarytoconsidertheotherquestions
    inrespectofthepresentcaseandastowhetherhehadmadesome
    statements about the containers that were used for keeping the
    bombs,aboutdetentionofsomeoftheaccusedbytheCrimeBranch
    from14/07/06,especiallytheA3andothersandthedatesoftheir
    arrest,etc.

    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.

    Crossexamination by learned advocate Wahab Khan is

    mostly in respect of press briefing, an alleged VCD that was


    allegedly shown by a news channel containing confessional
    statementoftheaccusedandheemphaticallydeniedallthesethings
    andstatedthataninquirywasheldanditwasfoundthatthosewere
    notanyCDspreparedbytheinvestigatingagencyorgiventothe
    newschannelandasfarasheknows,theconfessionalstatements

    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

    About his visits to the ATS office, he explained very

    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

    Secretary, Home, Government of Maharashtra, from 2005 till his

    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.

    He was shown the sanction order Ext. 1709 and asked

    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

    objectionable about it. He denied the suggestion that he gave a


    blanketsanctionorder,butstatedthatbytheuseofthewords'and
    for any other offence committed by the accused persons', his
    intentionwastocoverotheroffencesifanyundertheUA(P)A.

    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.

    An issue was raised in his crossexamination and it is

    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

    had a discussion with an ATS officer before giving the consent.


    Thoughithascomeinhiscrossexaminationthatexceptthereport
    oftheFSLhehadnoothermaterialbeforehimabouttheseized
    powderbeing RDX,tomymind,thatmaterial was sufficientand
    therewasreallynoneedforhimtoagaingetthesampleanalyzed
    fromanygovernmentFSLinBiharbeforegrantingthesanction.He
    admittedthattheATS,Mumbaihadgivenadraftconsentorderwith
    theproposal,butexplainedthathemadesomecorrectionsinitand
    alsoexplainedthatexceptgrammaticalmistakes,thereisnoother
    mistake in the paragraphs that were pointed out. His knowledge
    about the factual aspects is clear from his answers in cross
    examinationthattheseizurewaseffectedon20/07/06andtheFIR
    was registered in Police Station Basopatti on 09/09/06. While
    admittingthattheorderExt.511isfortheprosecutioninBihar,he
    explained the legal compliance that was done by him, i.e., of
    sending copies to the CJM, Madhubani, the ACJM, Jhanjharpur,
    officer incharge of Police Station Basopatti and the District
    SuperintendentofPolice,Basopatti.

    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

    provedthattherewas a validsanction order under the Explosive


    Substances Act for prosecution of the A1 for the offences under
    sections4and5oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct.

    1593.

    S.S.Zende,PW166,whowastheCollectorandDistrict

    Magistrate of Thane District from December, 2006 to September,


    2008,issuedtheconsent,Ext.1766,undersection7oftheExplosive
    SubstancesActfortheprosecutionoftheA3,A4andA13forthe
    offencesundersection3,4,5and6ofthesaidAct.Ithascomein
    hisevidencethathereceivedaproposalinthebeginningofMarch,
    2007from the ATS,Mumbaito issue consentfor prosecuting the
    accusedinvolvedintheserialbombblaststhathadtakenplacein
    Mumbai in July, 2006, that the proposal was accompanied with
    panchanamas,statements,FSLreports,etc.,thathehadadiscussion
    with his additional district magistrate, the home tahsildar and
    consideringthegravityoftheoffence,hehadadiscussionwithATS
    officerPatil,whichisalsocorroboratedbyACPPatil,PW186,.Ithas
    comeinhisevidencethathewassubjectivelysatisfiedonthebasis
    ofthedocumentsthatwassentwiththeproposalandthediscussion
    thathehadwithofficerPatilandhisstaff,thatthecasewasfitfor

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1689..

    Ext.4825

    accordingconsent.Ithasalsocomeinhisevidencethattheproposal
    wasforconsentforprosecutionofnineaccused,butherealizedthat
    onlythreeaccusedwereconcernedwiththeincidentthathadtaken
    place within the jurisdiction of Thane District, therefore, he
    accordedtheconsentforprosecutingonlythreeaccused.Heproved
    thecontentsoftheconsentorder.

    1594.

    His crossexamination has notdiscreditedhis version on

    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.

    Vishwas Patil, PW165, who was Collector of

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1691..

    Ext.4825

    Brihanmumbai Suburban District from 15/12/06 to 21/05/10,


    issuedthesanctionundersection7oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct
    fortheprosecutionoftheA1,A2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A9,A12andA13
    forprosecutingthemfortheoffencesundersections3to6ofthe
    saidact.Ithascomeinhisevidencethathegottheproposalinthe
    firstweekofMarch,2007,thatitwasscrutinizedbyhisofficeand
    byhimalso,thathe,theDy.CollectorandTahsildarwentthrough
    theproposalandthedocumentssentwithit,whichincludedtheFSL
    reports, statements, panchanamas, FIRs etc., and on perusing the
    documentsandtheproposalandapplyinghismind,hewassatisfied
    thatthecasewasfitforgrantingthesanctionforprosecution.He
    proved the contents of the sanction order Ext. 1762. Though, he
    mentioned it as a sanction order in his chiefexamination, he
    admittedinhiscrossexaminationthathewasempoweredtoissue
    consentandnotsanctionorder.Infact,Ext.1762mentionstheword
    consentandnotsanction.Theeffortsthathetookwerebroughton
    recordduringhiscrossexamination,duringwhichhedescribedthat
    aTahsildarandoneRDChelpedhiminscrutinizingtheproposal,
    thattheRDCwasoneAmolYadav,thattheTahsildarscrutinizedit
    forfourdaysandtheRDCscrutinizeditforthreedaysandhehada
    joint meeting with both of them on 11/03/07. When asked to
    describe about the documents, he explained that he does not
    recollectthenumberofdocumentsthatwhereintheproposal,butit
    was one big bunch and there may be more than 200 pages. He
    describedthattherewerearrestpanchanamas,gatheringexplosive
    substancesfromonedoctor,fromGovandi,fromPerryRoad,Bandra,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1692..

    Ext.4825

    fromoneplacefromDahisarandonefromBihar.This shows his


    knowledge about facts and endorses the inference that he had
    appliedhismindaboutwhichhestatedthatthematerialthatwas
    sentwassufficient.Whenaskedtodescribethecontentsofthetable
    thatisonpage4oftheorderandtheblastsitesatsr.no.1and7,
    beingnotwithinhisjurisdiction,whichheadmitted,hevolunteered
    thatasthefactswerethatthematerialwastransportedfromBandra
    toChurchgate,PerryRoadinBandrawasinhisjurisdiction.While
    admittingthattheblastsiteatsr.no.2inthetablewasnotinhis
    jurisdiction,hevolunteeredandexplainedthatasthematerialwas
    gatheredfromShivajiNagar,Govandi,itwaswithinhisjurisdiction
    andalsoexplainedthatasthematerialwasgatheredfromShivaji
    Nagar, Govandi and transported to Perry Road, Bandra, both the
    places come in his jurisdiction. His knowledge about the factual
    aspects is also clear from his answers that unknown persons are
    describedasarrestedandwantedinrespectoftheblastsatMahim
    andBandra.

    1597.

    Healsoadmittedthatthecontentsofhisorderaresimilar

    to the contents of the order Ext. 1634 passed by Valsa Singh,


    PW151,andtherearesomespellingmistakesinthenameoftheA2
    at two places. These things do not affect his credibility or his
    applicationofmind,becausehehasdeposedabouttheprocedureby
    whichhearrivedatthe conclusion andaccordedtheconsent.He
    admittedthattheproposalthatwaswithhimindicatesthenameof
    Rahil,wantedaccusedno.3asbasedintheUKandthenameof
    RizwanDawreyaswantedaccusedno.2asbasedinDubaiandthe

    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

    that there was a valid sanction under section 7 of the Explosive


    Substances Act issued by the District Magistrate of Mumbai
    SuburbanDistrictagainsttheA1toA4,A6,A7,A9,A12andA13for
    prosecutingthemundertheprovisionsoftheExplosiveSubstances
    Act.

    1599.

    Last is Valsa Nair Singh, PW151, Collector and District

    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

    her version in respect of her application of mind for issuing the


    consentorder.Asmallissueisraisedaboutthedateoftheorderas
    towhetheritis17/03/07or16/03/07andsheremainedfirmabout
    itbystatingthatitis17/03/06.Idonotthinkthatthismakesany
    difference. It has also come in her crossexamination that the
    proposalwasaccompaniedwithcopiesofpanchanamas,reportsof
    theFSL,thatshehadaskedforcopiesofinterrogationreportsand
    statements before and after the identification parade on the
    subsequent occasions. She stated that she remembers that there

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1695..

    Ext.4825

    were statements of witnesses concerning five accused and the


    statementconcerningoneaccusedwasnotthere.Sheadmittedthat
    theATShadsentdraftorderandACPPatil,PW186,corroborated
    herversionaboutshehavingdiscussionswithhim.Inmyhumble
    opinion,evenifthefewmistakesandirregularitiesintheconsent
    orderpointedoutduringhercrossexaminationareconsidered,the
    onlyaspectthatconclusivelyprovesthatshehadappliedhermindis
    the fact that the investigating officer had asked for consent for
    prosecutionofnineaccused,however,sheaccordedconsentforsix
    accused only. Her knowledge of the facts is also clear from her
    answerthatconsentwasgivenagainsttheA4ashewastheplanter
    oftheexplosives,whichindicatespossession.

    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.

    State of Gujarat, Rambhai Nathanhai Gadhvi, Respondents


    (SCC19977744).
    (ii)

    John D'Souza, Appellants V. Assistant Commissioner of

    Police, B1/Special, DCB, CID, Joint Commissioner of Police


    (Crime), Crime Branch, CID, Commissioner of Police and the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1696..

    Ext.4825

    StateofMaharashtra,Respondents(MANU/MH/0235/2007).
    (iii) StateofMaharashtra,AppellantV.LalitSomdattaNagpal,
    Respondent(LAWS(SC)20072171).
    (iv)

    State of Maharashtra, Appellant V. Rahul Ramchandra

    Taru,Respondent(LAWS(BOM)2011558).
    (v)

    Sherbahadur Akram Khan, Akhtar Hussain Siddiqui,

    Appellant V. State of Maharashtra, Respondents


    (LAWS(BOM)200612105).

    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

    Thus, this authority is not applicable to this case. Rahul


    RamchandraTaru'scaseisalsonotapplicableasitrelatestothe
    interpretationoftheterms'continuingunlawfulactivity','organised
    crime'and'organisedcrimesyndicate'definedinsubclauses(d),(e)
    and(f)respectivelyofsubsection(1)ofsection2oftheMCOCAct
    andtherewasnoquestionofinterpretationofsection23(2)ofthe
    saidact.ThejudgementinthecaseofSherbahadurAkramKhanis
    also not on the point of requirement of sanction under section
    23(2).Hence,itisinapplicable.Itwasonlyfoundthatthesanction
    orderdidnotinanymannerindicatethattherewasanymaterial
    before the Commissioner or that he had considered the material
    showingthattheaccusedhadassaultedothersforthepurposeof
    economicalgain.

    1603.
    (i)

    LearnedSPPhasreliedonthefollowingauthorities:
    StateofMadhyaPradesh,AppellantV.Jiyalal,Respondent

    (CriminalAppealNo.1386/08decidedon31/07/09byHon'ble
    SupremeCourt).
    (ii)

    Satyavir Singh Rathi, Appellants V. State thr. C. B. I.,

    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).

    The law in the case of Jiyalal is about nonexamination of

    DistrictMagistratewhopassedthesanctionorderforprosecutionof
    the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was held

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1698..

    Ext.4825

    that, 'the sanction order was clearly passed in discharge of routine


    officialfunctionsandhencethereisapresumptionthatthesamewas
    doneinabonafidemanner.ItwasofcourseopentotheRespondentto
    questionthegenuinenessorvalidityofthesanctionorderbeforethe
    SpecialJudgebuttherewasnorequirementfortheDistrictMagistrate
    tobeexaminedasawitnessbytheprosecution'.However,itisnot
    applicabletothepresentissue.InthecaseofSatyavirSinghRathi
    inparagraph47itismentionedthattheCBIhadmadearequestfor
    accordingsanctionfortheprosecutionoftheappellantsinthatcase
    alongwiththeinvestigationreportandadraftofthesanctionorder.
    Onfacts,itwasfoundthatfromthevariousdocumentsonrecord
    that adequate material was available before the Lt. Governor for
    according sanction and the sanction order was found to be
    extremelycomprehensiveasallthefactsandcircumstancesofthe
    case had been spelt out. Admittedly, in that case only the
    investigationreportandthedraftsanctionorderhadbeenputup
    beforetheLt.Governor,eventhen,theSupremeCourtfoundfroma
    readingofthesanctionorderthatitreferredtotheentireevidence
    collected in the matter. Thus, this authority is applicable to the
    presentcaseinsofarasthedraftofsanctionorderbeingsuppliedto
    oneortwosanctioningauthoritiesbytheinvestigatingofficerACP
    Patil,PW186,,asisadmittedbyhim.Itisalsoapplicableinsofaras
    thesanctionandconsentorderscontainingfactualdetailsofthecase
    andthematerialthatwascollectedagainsttheaccused.

    1604.

    Learned SPP while discussing the case of Indu Bhusan

    Chatterjee, submitted that probably he could not have a better

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1699..

    Ext.4825

    judgement than this in respect of all the sanctions. He relied on


    paragraph10,whichisadiscussionaboutthesanctionorderthatis
    reproduced in the preceding paragraph 9. It was held that the
    sanctionalsoclearlystatesallthefactswhichareconcernedwiththe
    prosecutioncaseallegedagainsttheappellant,thatitclearlystates
    thatthesanctioningauthorityhadappliedhismindandwasofthe
    opinionthatintheinterestofjusticeappellantinthatcaseshouldbe
    prosecuted. The Supreme Court wondered as to what more facts
    wererequiredtobestatedinthesanctionitselfanditwasunableto
    understandit.Itwasadmittedbythesanctioningauthoritythatthe
    sanctionorderwaspreparedbythepoliceanditwasputupbefore
    himbythepersonalbranchofhisoffice,thathedidnotcallforany
    recordinconnectionwiththismatterfromhisofficeandthathedid
    notcallfortheconnectedclaimcasesnordidheenquireaboutthe
    positionofthoseclaimcases.Itwasalsofoundthattheobservations
    oftheHighCourtofCalcuttaabouttherebeingnoproperdischarge
    of duty in granting the sanction order by merely putting one's
    signatureonareadymadesanctionpresentedbythepolicearenot
    correctanditwasheldthatitistruethatthesanctioningauthority
    didnothimselfdictateordraftthesanction,buthisevidencedoes
    notprovethathemerelyputhissignatureonareadymadesanction
    presentedbythepolice.Itwasheldthatsanctioningauthoritywas
    anofficerofhighrankintheRailwayanditisinconceivablethathe
    wouldblindlysignareadymadesanctionpreparedbythepolice.It
    wasobservedthatapparentlythesanctionalreadydraftedcontained
    all the material facts upon which the prosecution was to be

    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.

    The Supreme Court dealt with the submissions that the

    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

    to be applied is whether relevant material that formed the basis of


    allegationsconstitutingtheoffencewasplacedbeforethesanctioning

    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

    Supreme Court in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th authorities is squarely


    applicabletothefactualaspectsofthesanctionordersinthepresent
    case and there is no legal impediment in holding that all the
    sanctionswerevalidlygiven.

    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

    defence called these witnesses, they themselves declared them


    hostile.He submits that the court will appreciate that little more
    thandenialundersection313oftheCr.P.C.,theaccusedhavetaken
    thefurtherstepofcallingthemtothewitnessbox.Therefore,they
    havevolunteeredtotakeontheirshoulderstheburdentoprovea
    particular fact, which they have failed to prove. He submits that
    another issue is that Sadiq Israr, DW33, was given a clean chit,
    thoughhewastherealculprit.Hesubmitsthattheentirerecordin
    thatrespectisbeforethecourtandwhattranspiredisbeforethe
    court. The order discharging Sadiq Israr, DW33, has not been
    assailedinanyhighercourtandithasattainedfinality.Therefore,
    thereisabsolutelynodamagedonetothecaseoftheprosecution.In
    this respect,learnedadvocate WahabKhan has made voluminous

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1704..

    Ext.4825

    submissions pointing out to certain answers given by Sadiq Israr,


    DW33,andhenotgivinganswerstosomequestionsandsubmitted
    thatthereforesoandsoinferenceshouldbedrawn.Hesubmitsthat
    in the emails that were sent to media homes, the Indian
    Mujaheedinchallengedthepolicetodowhatevertheycandoand
    ownedresponsibilityof2530blasts anditwasconveyedthatall
    blastsinMumbaiaftertheyear2000,includingthetrainblastsof
    theyear2006weredonebythem.Hesubmitsthatavideorecording
    wasmadeofSadiqIsrar,DW33,makingtheconfessionandaclip
    wasshownbythemediawhichwasof23minutes.However,itwas
    justthetipoficeberg.Thesaidwitnesshasnarratedtheentiretruth
    beforethecourtandhascorroboratedthedefenceoftheaccused.
    He submits that the witness admitted before the court that the
    officersoftheCrimeBranchwereconfessingtohimaboutfalsely
    implicating the 13 boys in this case, i.e., the present case. He
    submits that the ATS considered this issue and had a deal with
    SadiqIsrar,DW33.Theygothimarrestedinthiscaseandthedeal
    wasthattheywilldischargehim.Theydecidedtogiveagobyto
    whateverevidencetheyhadgathered.TheSantacruzshopkeepers
    werenotcalledinatestidentificationparadetoidentifySadiqIsrar,
    DW33,asnoparadewasheld.Hesubmitsthatitwassubmittedby
    theATSthathewantedtomakeastatementandthecourtpermitted
    itanditisclaimedthathepointedoutthepressurecookershop,but
    itwassubmittedthatthepressurecookersavailablethereweretoo
    costlyoncomparing.SadiqIsrar,DW33,pointedoutashopfrom
    wherehepurchasedbags,buttheshopwasnotthere.Hepointed

    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.

    In this context, it is pertinent to see the confessional

    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.

    It appears that the investigating agency fell prey to the

    tactics or the strategy of terrorist organizations to confuse the


    investigatingagencyandintheirexuberanceanotherbranchofthe
    policemayhavegivenaninterviewinthemedia.Bethatasitmay,
    the fact remains that on the basis of the alleged confessional
    statements of DW33 to DW35, which they had given in MCOC
    SpecialCaseNo.4of2009,theinvestigatingmachineryinthiscase,
    i.e.,theATS,dulytookthecustodyofSadiqIsrar,DW33,inthis
    case and thoroughly inquired with him and only when it was
    establishedthathehadstatedfalselyabouttheinvolvementofthe
    IndianMujaheedinatthebehestofoneAtif,didtheycometothe
    conclusionthatheormembersoftheIndianMujaheedinwerenot
    responsible for the blasts and therefore they applied for his
    discharge. The thoroughness of the inquiry is very much evident
    fromthecontentsoftheRemandApplicationNo.28/09.

    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.

    The order of this court dtd. 11/05/09 in Remand

    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.

    In view of the above discussion, the involvement of the

    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

    the chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution against the


    accused.

    Applicationsfiledduringthecourseofarguments:
    1620.

    Before going to the concluding part of the judgment, it

    would be appropriate to consider the applications filed by the


    defencecontainingtheprayersforproductionofdocumentsduring
    thecourseofargumentsandevenafterthefinalargumentswere
    concluded.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    (i)

    ..1714..

    Ext.4825

    Ext.4600isanapplicationfiledbylearnedadvocateWahab

    Khan on 28/03/14, before the final arguments could start, for


    productionoftruephotocopies issuedbySr.PIofCharkopPolice
    StationoftwoFIRs,twocertifiedtruephotocopiesofordersunder
    section156(3)oftheCr.P.C.passedbytheACMM,24 th Court,
    Borivali, Mumbai on 15/04/13 and the photocopies of a private
    complaint, which include the name of API Revle, PW154, as an
    accused.LearnedSPPbyhissayhasobjectedtotheproductionof
    documentsonthegroundthattheyaretotallyirrelevanttothefacts
    inissue.ThesedocumentsareobtainedundertheRTIActandhave
    not been proved. Even otherwise they are in respect of incidents
    fromJanuary,2011upto2013andhavenorelevancetothefactin
    issueinthepresentcaseandtheydonotaffecttheevidencegiven
    by API Revle, PW154. Hence, the application is rejected and
    disposedoffatthetimeofjudgment.
    (ii) Ext. 4616 is an application filed on 04/04/14 by the A2
    submittedbylearnedadvocateWahabKhanforproducingcertified
    truephotocopyofchargeinSpecialCase(ACB)No.13/11against
    JayantAher,PW131,on21/12/13.Itsproductionisobjectedtoby
    learned SPP on the ground that the arguments have already
    progressed.AgainthisisadocumentobtainedundertheRTIand
    thoughitisthecertifiedtruephotocopyitisstamped'Forprivateuse
    only'.Evenotherwiseatitis certifiedtruephotocopyissuedbya
    court,itisreceivedinevidence.TheapplicationExt.4616isallowed
    and disposed off at the time of judgment and the certified true
    photocopyofchargeismarkedasExt.4807.Onceagainitdoesnot

    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

    are receivedin evidence and markedas Exts.4814to4818.The


    contentsoffinalreportformcanberead,however,thepanchanamas
    donotappeartohavebeenprovedinthatcase.TheFinalReport
    FormExt.4814showsthenameofSubhashNagarsekar,PW57,asa
    panch witness concerning some incident that had taken place on
    13/05/13.Evenifhehasactedaspanchwitnessinthatcrime,itis
    about seven years after he being a witness in this case and his
    evidence has been accepted as a cogent and convincing evidence
    inspite of searching and voluminous crossexamination to him.
    SubhashNagarsekar,PW57,actingaspanchwitnesssubsequentlyin
    some other case is of no consequence and does not affect his
    credibility.
    (vii) Ext.4713 is an application dated 07/08/14 by the A8
    submittedbyhisadvocateSharifShaikhforproductionofseveral
    documents under the RTI Act, including photocopies of his
    applicationsthathesenttothePIOofBongaonMunicipality,District
    Parganas,WestBengalandalsototheIntelligenceBureau,Ministry
    ofHomeAffairsandPoliceStationBongaon.Theproductionofthe
    documents is objected by the learned SPP submitting that atthis
    stagewhenhisfinalargumentshavebeencompleted,theunending
    requests for taking on record the documents being made by the
    accuseddeservetoberejected.Tomymind,onceagaintheyarethe
    documentsobtainedundertheRTIActandcannotbeprovednow.
    EvenotherwisetheinformationthatwassoughtbytheA8isabout
    themapofBongaonfromtheBongaonMunicipalityandinformation
    fromtheIntelligenceBureauaswellasBongaonPoliceStationabout

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1718..

    Ext.4825

    the wanted accused nos. 8 to 13 having entered into India from


    Bangladesh.TheIntelligenceBureauhasnotgiveninformationasit
    is exempted from providing information under the RTI Act and
    policestationalsodidnotgiveanyinformation.Evenotherwiseitis
    nottheprosecutioncasethatwantedaccusednos.8to13crossed
    the Bangladesh border and came to Bongaon legally by showing
    theirpassportsandvalidvisas.Itisprovedbytheprosecutionthat
    theycrossedtheborderillegally,sotherecannotbeanyrecord.Even
    otherwisesincethedocumentsareconsistingofonlyinformation,
    theapplicationisliabletoberejected.Hence,theapplicationExt.
    4713isrejectedanddisposedoffatthetimeofjudgment.
    (viii) Ext.4714isanapplicationdated07/08/14filedbyadvocate
    Sharif Shaikh for production of true copies of proposal dated
    02/03/07byACPPatil,PW186,andconsentdated15/03/07issued
    byVishwasPatil,PW165.TheyaredocumentsissuedundertheRTI
    Act.LearnedSPPhasobjectedfortheproductionofthedocuments
    onthesamegroundsasabove.Thetruephotocopiesareissuedby
    theofficeoftheCollector,MumbaiSuburbanDistrictundertheRTI
    Act. Since they are relevant to the fact in issue, the applications
    deservestobeallowed.Hence,theapplicationExt.4714isallowed
    and disposed off at the time of judgment. The documents are
    received in evidence and marked as Exts. 4819 and 4820. It is
    submitted in the application itself that there are extra things in
    proposal Ext.4819, which are not in the consent order Ext.4820
    issuedbyVishwasPatil,PW165,andthedocumentsmentionedin
    theconsentorderExt.1762werenotprovidedbyACPPatil,PW186,

    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.

    There are some issues raised during the trial by the

    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.

    39. Hence, minor loopholes and irregularities in the

    investigationprocesscannotformthecruxofthecaseonwhichthe

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1725..

    Ext.4825

    Respondentcanrelyupontoprovehisinnocencewhentherearestrong
    circumstantial evidences deduced from the said investigation which
    logicallyandrationallypointtowardstheguiltoftheaccused.'

    1624.

    The arrest, prosecution and conviction of a Pakistani

    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,

    who was the investigating officer in the case of bomb blasts at


    Malegaonin2006,itwastriedtobeshownthatitwasthe modus
    operandi oftheATSofficerstoshowtherecoveryoftracesofRDX
    from the houses of the accused. It was submitted that there is a
    similarityintheinvestigationofthatcaseandintheinvestigationof
    this case where also traces of RDX have been found during the
    search.Tomymind,itmaybethattracesorstainswerealsofound
    intheinvestigationoftheMalegaonbombblastcase,theincidentof
    whichtookplace after the incidentof the present case. But then
    whatelsecanbefoundifRDXhasbeenused.Chemicalsthatarein
    powderformhavethetendencytoleavetraces,e.g.,talcumpowder,
    cement,dust,etc.,anditisacommonlyobservedphenomenonthat
    howsoevertheymaybepacked,theystillleavetracesattheplaces

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1726..

    Ext.4825

    wheretheyarekept.

    Conclusion:
    1626.

    The stage is now set for considering whether the

    prosecution has succeeded in establishing the charges against the


    accused.Thecircumstancesprovedbytheprosecutionagainstallthe
    accused,theadditionalcircumstancesagainsttheindividualaccused
    and thesubstantiveevidencebywayofconfessionalstatement
    of eleven accused, which is not only substantive, but also
    substantial,willhavetobeconsidered.

    1627.

    What lies at the bottom of the various rules shifting

    evidential burden or burden of introducing evidence in proof of


    one'scase,asopposedtothepersuasiveburdenorburdenofproof,
    i.e.,of proving all the issues remaining with the prosecution and
    which never shifts, is the idea that it is impossible for the
    prosecution to give wholly convincing evidence on certain issues
    from its own hand, and it is, therefore for the accused to give
    evidenceonthem,ifhewishestoescape.Positivefactsmustalways
    beprovedbytheprosecution.Butthesamerulecannotalwaysapply
    to negative facts. It is not for the prosecution to anticipate and
    eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may
    exonerateanaccused.Again,whenapersondoesnotactwithsome
    intentionotherthanthatwhichthecharacterandcircumstancesof
    theactsuggest,itisnotfortheprosecutiontoeliminatealltheother
    possibleintentions.

    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

    proved by the prosecution and a combined reading of the


    confessional statements of the accused gives a clear picture and
    provesthe allegationsofthe prosecution.Thecircumstances/facts
    provedbytheprosecutioncorroboratetherelevantportionsofthe
    confessionalstatementsandwheretherearegaps,theyarefilledin
    andsupplementedbythecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementsof
    multipleaccused,whichissubstantiveevidence.

    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

    (XIII)Prosecution has proved that on 29/09/06 Cyclonite (RDX),


    AmmoniumNitrateandtracesofCyclonitewerefoundinthehouse
    oftheA6.(Circumstanceno.11).
    (XIV) Prosecutionhasprovedthaton08/10/06sevenblackrubber
    cookerrings,Arts.331(1to7),fivesteelcookerwhistles,Arts.332
    (1to5),printedcircuitboard,Art.334andplasticbags,Arts.335
    and336,wererecoveredatthe instanceoftheA3andCyclonite
    (RDX)wasdetectedontheplasticbagsandthecircuitboardArt.
    334canbeusedtoformatriggeringdevice.(Circumstanceno.12).
    (XV) ProsecutionhasprovedthattheA13was residinginflatno.
    101,'A'Wing,PoonamParkApartment,NayaNagar,MiraRoad,that
    on09/10/06athisinstancefollowingarticleswererecovered:
    (i)A rexine bag Art.279, the blackish oily lumps in which were
    found to contain RDX cyclonite, Charcoal and Petroleum
    HydrocarbonOil,(ii)2.700kgs.whitegranules,Art.284inwhich
    Ammonium and Nitrate radicals were detected and (iii) 10
    aluminumtubesjoinedwithwires,Arts.281and282(colly),which
    wereprovedtobelivedetonators.(Circumstanceno.13).
    (XVI) ProsecutionhasprovedthatA9hadpurchasedMaruticarno.
    MH01V9568 on 04/06/06 and was haded over its possession.
    (Circumstanceno.14).
    (XVIII) Prosecution has proved that on 22/10/06 Maruti car No.
    MH01V9568wasseizedattheinstanceoftheA12,thattherewere
    blackspotsinthecar,whichwerefoundtocontainCyclonite(RDX),
    Petroleum Hydro Carbon Oil and Charcoal and also Ammonium,
    Nitrate, Nitrite, Petroleum Hydrocarbon Oil and Charcoal.

    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

    two brother's family members were present in his house


    continuouslyfrom8thto10/07/06.(7thadditionalcircumstance).
    (XXVI)Prosecutionhasprovedthat(i)theA3wasconcernedwith
    theatrocitiesbeingcommittedonMuslimsandwasoftheviewthat
    theonlywaytosolvetheirproblemswasbyjihad,(ii)thattheA3
    hadgonetoPakistantwiceandhadtakentraininginthecampof
    theLeT,(iii)thatthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChimarendered
    financialassistancetotheA3,(iv)thattheA3wasthecommander
    of LeT in Mumbai, (v) that A2, A4, A9, A10 and A13 had
    assembledinthehouseoftheA3inFebruary,2006,(vi)thatA2,A3,
    A4,A12andA13hadassemblednearShamsMasjidinMiraRoadin
    March, 2006 and (vii) that wanted accused no. 5 and 14 and
    deceasedaccusedno.1and2wereinthehouseoftheA3inthe
    secondorthirdweekofMay,2006andlaterontheywereshiftedto
    the house of the A3 in Millat Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
    (Circumstanceno.19).
    (XXVII) ProsecutionhasprovedseizureofpassportExt.449ofthe
    A2athisinstanceon26/07/06.(Circumstanceno.20).
    (XXVIII)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton28/07/06attheinstanceof
    theA9mapofMumbai,Art.164,photocopyofinternationalmap,
    Art.165,Ext.1487,hispassport,Art.178,Ext.620andfourbooks,
    Arts.166(1and2),167and168allegedlyconnectedtoSIMIwere
    recovered.(Circumstanceno.21).
    (XXIX)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton30/07/06attheinstanceof
    theA10,hispassportArt.251,Ext.621,mapofMumbai,Art.248,
    photocopyofinternationalmap,Art.250,Ext.1489andsixbooks,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1733..

    Ext.4825

    Art. 249 (1 to 6) allegedly connected to SIMI were recovered.


    (Circumstanceno.22).
    (XXX)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton31/07/06attheinstanceof
    theA11,hispassportArt.133,Ext.619,photocopyofinternational
    map,Art.137,Ext.1488,mapofMumbaiArt.137,Ext.1664,road
    map of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai, Art. 138, Ext.1665 and two
    books allegedly connected to SIMI Arts. 135 and 136 were
    recovered.(Circumstanceno.23).
    (XXXI)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton01/08/06attheinstanceof
    the A2, map of Mumbai, Art.42, photocopy of international map,
    Art.116,Ext.1490andeightbooks,Arts.43(1and2),44(1to4),
    47 and 48 allegedly connected with SIMI were recovered.
    (Circumstanceno.24).
    (XXXII)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton03/07/06wantedaccused
    no.2RizwanDawreyhadsent15000SaudiRiyalsforbeinghanded
    overtothe A9atPune andthatultimatelythe saidSaudiRiyals
    werecollectedbytheA3atMumbaiandarethesameSaudiRiyals
    that were seizedfrom his house on28/07/06.(Circumstance no.
    25).
    (XXXIII)Prosecutionhasprovedthaton14/07/06wantedaccused
    no.2RizwanDawreyhadsent11200SaudiRiyalsforbeinghanded
    overtotheA3andtheywereseizedon30/07/06.(Circumstance
    no.26).
    (XXXIV) Prosecution has proved that foreign currency, i.e., the
    15000SaudiRiyalsseizedfromtheA3and11200SaudiRiyals,both
    ofwhichweresentforhimbythewantedaccusedno.2Rizwan

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1734..

    Ext.4825

    Dawrey, was a contravention of the provisions of the FEMA Act.


    (Circumstanceno.27).
    (XXXV)ProsecutionhasprovedthattheA3hadtraveledbytrainto
    Pakistan from Attari Railway Station, Amritsar on 01/10/01 and
    returnedbythesamemethodon29/11/01.(Circumstanceno.28).
    (XXXVI)Prosecutionhasprovedthatintheyear2003theA3had
    obtained visa for himself and wanted accused no. 3 Rahil Ataur
    RehmanShaikhforUmrahinSaudiArabiaandhadbookedanair
    ticket on 16/09/03 for going from Mumbai to Jeddah and on
    16/09/03 for wanted accused no.3 Rahil and had booked an air
    ticketforhimself,i.e.,theA3,on21/10/03forgoingfromMumbai
    toJeddahandback.(Circumstanceno.29).
    (XXXVII) Prosecution has proved that the wanted accused no. 3
    RahilhadgonetoJeddahinSaudiArabiain2003fromMumbaiand
    the A3 had gone to Jeddah in Saudi Arabia from Mumbai on
    08/11/03andwasdeportedfromJeddahon01/12/04ashedidnot
    haveavalidpassport.(Circumstanceno.30).
    (XXXVIII)Prosecutionhasprovedthatin2004theA3hadsentthe
    passportoftheA2withtheA9tothetravelagentforobtainingvisa
    for Iran and the A2 had traveled from Mumbai to Tehran on
    21/05/04andreturnedon25/06/04.(Circumstanceno.31).
    (XXXIX)Prosecutionhasprovedthatin2004theA9hadobtained
    visaforIranandhadtraveledfromMumbaitoIranon06/08/04
    andreturnedon10/09/04.(Circumstanceno.32).
    (XL) Prosecutionhasprovedthatin2005theA3hadobtainedvisa
    forIranforA11andthattheA11hadtraveledfromMumbaitoIran

    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

    accused no. 1 Azam Chima, wanted to commit a big incident in


    Mumbai.Thisandtheearliercontentsofhisconfessionalstatement
    whereinthewantedaccusedno.1AzamChimatoldtheA2,A3and
    A9toA11aboutdoingjihad,whichisthedutyofeveryMuslimfor
    the purpose of avenging the atrocities on Muslims in Kashmir in
    Hindustan proves the start of the conspiracy. In this respect,
    argumentsweremadebybothsidesonthelawofconspiracyand
    relianceisplacedonseveralauthoritiesincludingtheauthoritiesin
    respectofthecasesoncircumstantialevidence.

    1635.

    Learned advocate Yug Choudhary placed reliance on

    following authorities, which are concerning the cases of


    circumstantialevidenceandhowthecircumstantialevidenceistobe
    assessed and considered for the purpose of proof of guilt. They
    containtheoftquotedconditionsthathavetobesatisfiedinthecase
    ofcircumstantialevidence.
    (i)

    Jaharlal Das, Appellant V. State of Orissa, Respondent

    ((1991)3SupremeCourtCases27).
    (ii)

    StatethroughCentralBureauofInvestigation,AppellantV.

    MahenderSinghDahiya,Respondent((2011)3SupremeCourt
    Cases109).

    InthecaseofMahenderSinghDahiyaitisheldthatburden

    ofproof visavis strongfeelingofrepulsionanddisgustincaseof


    diabolical crime, the initial burden still remains on prosecution
    howsoeverheinouscommissionofcrimemaybe.Itisheldthatthe
    court'sdutyistobaseitsconclusionsonevidence,insteadofbeing
    swayedbypublicemotion.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    1636.

    ..1740..

    Ext.4825

    Learned advocate Sharif Shaikh relied on the following

    authorities:
    (i)

    StateofU.P.,AppellantV.BabuRam,Respondent((2000)

    4SupremeCourtCases515).
    (ii)

    Mohd. Faizan Ahmad Alias Kalu, Appellant V. State of

    Bihar,Respondent((2013)1SupremeCourtCases(Cri)872).
    (iii) MunishMubar,AppellantV.StateofHaryana,Respondent
    ((2013)1SupremeCourtCases(Cri)52).

    The first one is in respect of the motive in a criminal trial

    being equally relevant where the case is based on circumstantial


    evidence. It is also held in the said authority that if prosecution
    provesexistenceofsomemotiveitsfailuretoshowhowitdeveloped
    in the mind of the accused impelling him to commit the crime,
    wouldnotbefataltothe prosecution case.Inthe caseof Mohd.
    Faizan itwasheldbytheSupremeCourtthatifacriminalcourt
    allows its mind to be swayed by the gravity of the offence and
    proceedstohandoutpunishmentonthebasis,intheabsenceofany
    credible evidence, it would be doing great violence to the basic
    tenetsofcriminaljurisprudence.InthecaseofMunishMubaritis
    heldbytheSupremeCourtthat,'inacaseofcircumstantialevidence
    motiveassumesgreatsignificanceandimportanceforthereasonthat
    theabsenceofmotivewouldputthecourtonitsguardandcauseitto
    scrutiniseeachpieceofevidenceverycloselyinordertoensurethat
    suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof.
    However,theevidenceregardingexistenceofmotivewhichoperatesin
    themindofanassassinisveryoftennotwithinthereachofothers.

    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)

    R. Venkatkrishnan, Appellant V. Central Bureau of

    Investigation,Respondent((2010)1SupremeCourtCases(Cri)
    164).
    (ii)

    N.V.SubbaRao,AppellantV.State,throughInspectorof

    Police, CBI/SPE, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh, Respondent


    ((2013)1SupremeCourtCases(Cri)891).

    Inthecaseof R.Venkatkrishnan theSupremeCourtheld

    thatthecriminalconspiracyisanoffencewhichisindependentof
    otheroffences,ittakesplacewhenthereisanagreementtodoor
    causetobedoneanillegalact,oranactwhichmaynotbeillegal
    butbyillegalmeans.Itwasheldthatintheabsenceofagreement,
    merethoughttocommitacrimedoesnotconstituteanoffence,that
    conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, direct evidence is
    thereforedifficulttobecomeavailableandcriminalconspiracycan

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1742..

    Ext.4825

    be proved on the basis of circumstantial evidence and/or by


    necessaryimplication.Similarobservationsaremadeinthecaseof
    N.V.SubbaRao.

    1638.
    (i)

    LearnedSPPreliedonthefollowingauthorities:
    State of Maharashtra, Etc. Etc., Appellants V. Som Nath

    Thapa,Etc.Etc.,Respondent((1996)4SCC659).
    (ii)

    State (NCT of Delhi), Appellant V. Navjot Sandhu Alias

    Afsan Guru, Respondent (2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri)


    1715).

    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.

    That there were other conspiratorial meetings in March

    and April,2006,whichis the circumstanceno.19provedbythe


    prosecution and it corroborates the contents of the confessional
    statementoftheA12,A6andA2.Collectionofarticlesrequiredfor
    preparing bombs by the A13 is proved by the contents of the
    confessionalstatementsoftheA2andA3andthattheywerekeptin
    thehouseoftheA6isalsoproved.Thecontentsoftheconfessional
    statementoftheA3provethatwantedaccusedno.1AzamChima
    had finalized the target of local trains for causing the bomb
    explosionsandthisisalsocorroboratedbytheA2,A6andA12in
    their confessional statements. It is proved by the contents of the
    confessional statement of the A3 that on the instructions of the
    wanted accused no. 1, A6, A12, A13 and A7 were in constant
    contactwiththeA4andtheA11,A10andA2werealsoincontact
    withhim.ItisalsoprovedthattheA1andA5weremaintaining
    contact with the A3 and wanted accused no. 1 had talk about
    sendingelevenguestsfromPakistantoHindustan.

    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.

    The contents of the confessional statements of the A3,

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1748..

    Ext.4825

    A12,A2,A4,A6andA7alsoprove thatthe assembling ofseven


    bombswascompletedon10/07/06andtheyweretransportedin
    theMaruticarabovementionedandinataxifromthehouseofthe
    A6inShivajiNagaratGovanditotheflatoftheA3inLuckyVilla,
    Bandra.Bytheproofofcircumstanceno.11prosecutionhasproved
    thatCyclonite(RDX),Ammonium,NitrateandtracesofCyclonite
    werefoundinthehouseoftheA6,thatbyproofofcircumstanceno.
    16 it has proved that timer/triggering device to trigger the
    detonatorscanbebuiltwiththehelpofresistors,capacitors,etc.,
    thatbytheproofofcircumstanceno.8prosecutionhasprovedthat
    Cyclonite (RDX) was found in the flat of the A3 in Lucky Villa,
    Bandra,thatbyproofofcircumstanceno.12prosecutionhasproved
    thatCyclonite(RDX)wasdetectedontheplasticbagrecoveredat
    theinstanceoftheA3alongwithaprintedcircuitboardthatcould
    be used to form a triggering device and that RDX(Cyclonite),
    CharcoalandPetroleumHydrocarbonOilweredetectedinarexine
    bagand2.700kgs.whitegranulesinwhichammoniumandnitrate
    radicalsweredetectedandtenlivedetonatorswererecoveredatthe
    instance of the A13 from a flat in Mira Road by proof of
    circumstanceno.13.

    1648.

    ThecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA3prove

    that as per the instructions of the wanted accused no. 1 Azam


    Chima,sevenpairsconsistingofonePakistaniandonelocalperson
    wereformedforplantingthebombs,thathe,i.e.,theA3,wasoneof
    thelocalpersonandwantedaccusedno.9waswithhimandthat
    theA4,A12,A1andA7wereamongsttheotherpersons.Itisfurther

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1749..

    Ext.4825

    proved by his confessional statement that on 11/07/06 all pairs


    startedfromBandrainbetween3.00p.m.to4.00p.m.byseparate
    taxisforgoingtoChurchgateandheandthewantedaccusedno.9
    started similarly,that no one outof them hadkept their mobiles
    withthemaspertheinstructions,thatallpairswentonebyoneto
    theeastsideoftheChurchgatestationandaspertheplancameto
    theplatformscomingoutofthesubwaywiththebombladenbags,
    thateachpairkeptthebagsindifferentlocalsaspertheplan.Bythe
    proof of circumstance no. 1 prosecution has proved that on
    11/07/06theA3alongwithonemorepersonhadtraveledinataxi
    fromCarterRoad,Bandraat3.30p.m.or4.00p.m.toasubwayof
    ChurchgateRailwayStation,reachingthereatabout5.00p.m.and
    thattheywerecarryingablackcolouredbagwiththemthatwasof
    rexine.

    1649.

    Itisprovedbythecontentsoftheconfessionalstatement

    oftheA3thatheandwantedaccusedno.9boardedthefirstclass
    compartmentofthedecidedtrain,thataspertheplanhehadto
    keepthebagontherackabovetheseat,buttherackswerefullof
    luggage,therefore,hekeptthebombladenbagbelowaseat.Bythe
    proofofcircumstanceno.4theprosecutionhasprovedthatonthat
    dayA3hadkeptablackcolouredbaginthefirstclasscompartment
    inthe5.36ChurchgateBorivalislowtrainatChurchgateandhewas
    accompaniedbyonemoreperson.

    1650.

    The contents of the confessional statement of the A1

    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.

    The contents of the confessional statement of the A4

    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

    train at Churchgate and that he was accompanied by one more


    personandtheygotdownatDadaremptyhanded.Bytheproofof
    circumstance no. 42 prosecution has proved that the A4 was
    identifiedinthetestidentificationparadeashavingdonetheabove
    actsandheandonemorepersongettingdownatDadarwithouta
    bag.

    1652.

    The contents of the confessional statement of the A12

    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

    of the A5 that he reached Mumbai on 10/07/06, that the A13


    receivedhimandtookhimtoMumbra,whichisoutsideMumbai
    area,tothehouseoftheA8,aSIMImember,thatlateinthenightof
    11/07/06wantedaccusedno.8to13cametothehouseoftheA8
    and then he took them outside Mumbai. These statements are
    corroboratedbythecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA4
    whereinhehasstatedthatafterplantingthebomb,heandwanted
    accused no. 11 went to the house of the A8 where four more
    Pakistanis, who had taken part in executing the conspiracy also
    cameandhaltedtherefor23hoursandthenwentoutofMumbai
    by bus. However, prosecution has not been able to prove any
    independent circumstance to show that A8 harboured any of the
    wantedaccusedinhishouse,thathetookpartintheconspiratorial
    meetings and that he had any role to play in the subsequent
    activitiesleadingtothebombblasts.Hence,hewillhavetobegiven
    thebenefitofdoubt.

    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

    oftheA7inthatcase,were primafacie heldtobenotconnected


    withthecrimeforwhichtheotheraccusedinMCOCSpecialCase
    No.01/09arechargesheeted.Nexusofthesaidaccusedwiththe
    crimeatMalegaonwasalsoprimafaciefound.However,inourcase
    theoffenceforwhichthetwochargesheetswerefiledagainstthe
    A13atJalgaonandwhichwereconsideredfortheinvocationofthe
    provisions of the MCOC Act, were in respect of the banned
    organisationSIMIandallegedactivitiesoftheA13asamemberand
    office bearer of that organisation. It has been proved by the
    prosecution in this case that A2 to A4, A6 to A11 and A13 and
    wantedaccusedno.2and3kneweachotherevenpriortotheban
    on SIMI and that they were members or were either activists or
    officebearersoftheSIMIorganisationandcontinuedtoworkforthe
    organisation even after the ban on SIMI. Thus, the offences with
    whichtheA13waschargedinthetwopreviouscasesagainsthim
    hasadirectnexustothebannedorganizationSIMIandwereapart
    of its activities as the coaccused mentioned above were also
    members of the SIMI organisation and all had developed the
    mindsettocommitjihad.Hence,thisauthorityisofnohelptothe
    defence.

    Offencesprovedbytheprosecution:
    1658.

    Inviewoftheentirediscussionuptonow,inviewofthe

    points no. 1 to 5 proved by the prosecution, in view of the 44


    circumstances proved by the prosecution against the accused, in
    view of the 10 additional circumstances in the chain of
    circumstances proved against the accused, which completes the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1755..

    Ext.4825

    chainofcircumstances,inviewofthecontentsoftheconfessional
    statementsofA1toA7andA9toA12,whicharecorroboratedby
    the circumstances proved by the prosecution and in view of the
    conclusionsarrivedat,itwillhavetobeheldthat:
    (i)

    the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt by

    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

    A1 to A7 and A9 to A13 are members of an organised crime


    syndicate.Itismanifestfromtheactionsandconductofthesaid
    accusedthatthoughtheA2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,A9,A10,A11and
    A13 were members of the unlawful association SIMI and though
    they,excepttheA8,wereguided,instigated,aidedandfinancedby
    theterroristorganisationLeT,theyalongwiththeA1,A5andA12
    formedanorganisedcrimesyndicateundertheleadershipoftheA3
    andtheA13,withtheobjectiveofpromotinginsurgencyandwere
    therefore its members and have thereby committed the offence
    undersection3(4)oftheMCOCAct,1999. Ihaveto,therefore,
    answer point no.8accordingly intheaffirmative.I,therefore,
    holdtheA1toA7andA9toA13guiltyforhavingcommittedthe
    offencepunishableundersection3(4)oftheMCOCAct,1999.
    (iv) TheprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatA1
    to A7 and A9 to A13 alongwith the 15 wanted accused and 2
    deceasedaccusedconspired,didpreparatoryactsandabettedeach
    otherforcausingthebombexplosions.Whilediscussingthepoint
    no. 5 supra, I have drawn the inference from the facts that are
    establishedbytheprosecutionforprovingpointsno.1to4supra,
    that the facts speaks for themselves, i.e., the bomb explosions
    amounttoconspiringtowagewaragainsttheGovernmentofIndia
    orattemptingtowagesuchawarorabettingthewagingofsuch
    warortooverawe,bymeansofforceortheshowofcriminalforce,
    theGovernmentofIndiaortheGovernmentofMaharashtraandisa
    terroristactandalsoanactofpromotinginsurgency.Hence,itwill
    have to be held that the A1 to A7 and A9 to A13 alongwith 15

    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

    I, therefore,hold the A3guiltyfor having committed the offence


    punishableundersection19oftheUA(P)A,1967.
    (vi) Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe
    A3andthewantedaccusedno.2heldpropertyderivedorobtained
    from the commission of an organisedcrime or acquiredfromthe
    funds of an organised crime syndicate, which is the offence
    punishableundersection3(5)oftheMCOCAct,1999. Ihaveto,
    therefore, answer point no. 13 in the affirmative. I, therefore,
    hold the A3 guilty for having committed the offence punishable
    undersection3(5)oftheMCOCAct,1999.
    (vii) Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe
    A3, A7 and A13 knowing that they had the articles required for
    preparingbombs,whichistheevidenceofthatoffence,causeditto
    disappear or concealed them, with the intention of screening
    themselves and the coaccused involved in the process of bomb
    makingandtherebycommittedanoffencepunishableundersection
    201oftheIPC. Ihaveto,therefore,answerpointno.19inthe
    affirmative.I,therefore,holdtheA3,A7andA13guiltyforhaving
    committedtheoffencepunishableundersection201oftheIPC.
    (viii)TheprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatA1,
    A3,A4,A12andA13alongwithwantedaccusedno.6to9,11and
    12 and deceased accused no. 1 and 2, used and transported
    explosivesincontraventionoftherulesmadeundersection5ofthe
    ExplosivesAct,1884andtherebycommittedanoffencepunishable
    under section 9B of the said Act. I have to, therefore, answer
    pointno.24intheaffirmative.I,therefore,holdtheA1,A3,A4,

    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

    A2 was in possession of explosives in contravention of the rules


    made under section 5 of the Explosives Act, 1884 and thereby
    committedanoffencepunishableundersection9BofthesaidAct.I
    have to, therefore, answer point no. 25 in the affirmative. I,
    therefore, hold the A2 guilty for having committed the offence
    punishableundersection9BoftheExplosivesAct,1884.
    (xi) Theprosecutionhasprovedbeyondreasonabledoubtthatthe
    A1,A3,A4,A12andA13alongwithwantedaccusedno.6to9,11
    and 12 and deceased accused no. 1 and 2 caused explosions by
    explosivesubstance,likelytoendangerlifeortocausesevereinjury
    to property and thereby committed the offence punishable under
    section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. I have to,
    therefore, answer point no. 27 in the affirmative. I, therefore,
    holdtheA1,A3,A4,A12andA13guiltyforhavingcommittedthe
    offencepunishableundersection3oftheExplosiveSubstancesAct,

    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)

    A1,A2,A3,A6,A12and A13are found guiltyof

    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)

    A3 is also found guilty of having committed the

    offencepunishableundersection3(5)oftheMCOCAct,1999.
    (VIII)(i)

    A2,A3,A4,A6,A7,A8,A9,A10,A11andA13are

    foundnotguiltyofhavingcommittedtheoffencepunishableunder
    section124AoftheIPC.

    (ii)

    A4 is found not guilty of having committed the

    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)

    A8 is found not guilty of having committed any

    offence with which he is charged. Hence, I pass the following


    order:
    ORDER
    1.

    Accused No. 8 Abdul Wahid Din Mohammad Shaikh is

    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.

    He is directed to furnish PR Bond of Rs.25,000/ (Rupees

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1766..

    Ext.4825

    Twenty Five Thousand Only) with solvent surety in the same


    amount under section 437A of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
    1973toappearbeforethehighercourtasandwhenitissuesnotice
    inrespectofanyappealorpetitionfiledagainstthejudgementof
    thiscourt.

    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

    his confessional statement about he having gone to Pakistan for


    trainingandthreatsgivenbywantedaccusedno.4HafizZuber,has
    submitted that it was in this context and background that he is
    alleged to have participated in the commission of the present
    offence, that even according to the prosecution he was not the
    mastermindorthemainconspiratorinthisoffence.Hehasgivenhis
    ageas32yearsonthedateoftheoffenceandsubmitsthatduring
    the period of nine years he was in prison he has been under
    treatmentforpsychologicalillness,hehasalsocontractedglycoma
    and this has severely affected his eyesight. He submits that his
    childrenhadtodropoutofschoolastheywereunabletopayfor
    theireducationandheisanilliteratelabourer.

    1662.

    A2orallysubmitsthatheisadoctorandhehaschosenthe

    medical profession of critical care and had chosen a charitable


    hospital on humanitarian grounds. He submits that he has no
    criminal record.He submits thatduring his stay inthe prison he
    improvedhisbehaviourandhasdonehispostgraduationindisaster
    management.Hesubmitsthatheisnotathreattothecommunity
    andsubmitsthathebegiventheminimumpossiblesentence.He
    submits that he is filing written submissions. In his written
    submissionsExt.4832,hesubmitsthatasperhisconfession,asthe
    memberofSIMI,hewasexposedtoinflammatoryspeechesabout
    atrocitiescommittedonMuslimsandhewasfilledwithadesireto
    avengethem.Hegavehisageas32yearsonthedateoftheoffence.
    Hesubmitsthatduringthenineyearsofhisundertrialincarceration,
    he has endeavoured to improve himself by enrolling in various

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1768..

    Ext.4825

    educational and selfhelp programs offered by the prison


    administration to enable the prisoners to reform themselves and
    become responsible citizens and has enrolled in IGNOU for a
    managementcourseinmedicine,thatheisaUnanidoctorandwas
    working as a resident medical officer,thathe comes from a very
    poorfamilyandthathehasbeengivingmedicaltreatmenttofellow
    prisonersandhelpingthemcopewiththeharshprisonregime.He
    submits that he has been receiving treatment for psychiatric
    problems suffered by him, his mother died in 2008 and shortly
    thereafterhisyoungersisteralsodiedandhisdaughter'seducation
    hasbeenaffected.

    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,

    that he has no criminal background and has no intention of


    committinganycrimeinfuture.Hesubmitsthathehascalmlyand
    silently conducted himself during the period of nine years in the
    prison. He submits that he developed a brain tumor during the
    periodinprisonandalsospineproblem.Hesubmitsthathisparents
    areveryoldandthereisnoonetotakecareofthemandtheyare
    afflictedwithmanydiseases.Hesubmitsthathebegivenminimum
    possiblesentence.Hesubmitsthatheisfilingwrittensubmissions
    and photocopies of medical papers. A3 submitted in his written
    submissions Ext.4834 that as per his confession, he met some
    persons at the mosque, at whose instance he attended some

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1770..

    Ext.4825

    meetings held by SIMI about education to Muslim children, that


    duringsubsequentSIMIprograms,hewasinformedaboutatrocities
    onMuslimsespeciallyinGujaratandwasinstigatedtoavengethis
    andwasalsogivenmoney.Itisinthiscontextandbackgroundthat
    heisallegedtohaveparticipatedinthecommissionofthepresent
    offence.Hegavehisageas32yearsonthedateoftheoffenceand
    submitsthatheisilliterate,studiedupto5thstandard,hadnofixed
    jobandcomesfromaverypoorfamily,thatduringtheperiodin
    prison,hehaddevelopedabraintumorandadvanced spondylitis
    becauseofwhichheisunabletositandrequiresarubberballoon.
    He submits that his parents are very aged. He has produced
    photocopiesofOPDcasepapersofJJHospitalandreportsoftests.

    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

    infection and cataract and also undergoing psychiatric treatment,


    that his daughter was born after his arrest and due to financial
    constraints,hereducationhasbeencompromised.

    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

    during the period of bomb blasts, that he is known as a social


    workerinhisareaandhehadstoppedillegalbusinesses,becauseof
    whichhaftaofRs.16lakhstothepolicestoppedandtherefore,they
    threatenedthattheywouldinvolvehiminabigcase,thathewas
    illegallydetainedfortwomonthsduringwhichhelosthismother,
    thathisfathersufferedheartattacktwiceafterhisarrest,thatduring
    custodyhesufferedinjurytohisscapulabecauseoftortureandheis
    still suffering from that, that during custody he was in the good
    books,thathecompletedhisgraduationintheprisonandhastaken
    admissionforM.A.now.Hesubmitsthatheisnotathreattothe
    societyandhehaswitnesseswhocanvouchforhischaracter.He
    submitsthathebegivenminimumpossiblepunishmentandthathe
    isfilingwrittensubmissions.InhiswrittensubmissionsExt.4839A6
    submitsthathewasworkingwithAsudhaUrbanCreditCooperative

    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

    back to the dock. Thereafter, his advocate filed it under his


    signature.Itissubmittedinhiswrittensubmissionsthataccording
    tohisconfessionheattendedaneducationalprogramatHajHouse,
    whereheheardspeechesabouttheproblemsofMuslimsandthe
    need to do something about it, that he then joined SIMI where
    discussions focused on the killing of Muslims in Gujarat, the
    demolitionofBabriMasjid,atrocitiesonMuslimsinKashmir,and
    howthisshouldbeavenged,thatitwasinthiscontextofideological
    brainwashing that he is alleged to have participated in the
    commissionofthepresentoffence.Hegavehisageas29yearson
    the date of the offence. He submits that he has endeavoured to
    improve himself by enrolling in various educational and selfhelp
    programs offered by the prison administration to enable the
    prisonerstoreformthemselvesandbecomeresponsiblecitizensand
    that he has completed his BA with 75% and also a diploma in
    Tourism Studies. He is presently enrolled in a Masters Degree
    program in Rural Development in IGNOU and LLB in Siddharth
    College.Hesubmitsthathecomesfromapoorfamily,hasadiploma
    inelectronicrepairsandhadamobilerepairingstallonrent,that
    duringhisimprisonmenthismotherexpiredafteraprolongedillness
    thatcommencedshortlyafterhisarrestandhisdaughter'seducation
    wascompromisedduetofinancialconstraints.Hehasexaminedhis
    elderbrotherKhalidMarghoobAnsari,witnessno.8forthedefence
    onthepointofmitigatingcircumstances,Ext.4868.

    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

    citizen of India, that he has been working in multinational


    companiessincehewasstudying,thathedoesnothaveanypast
    criminalrecord,thathedoesnothaveanycontactwithanyillegal
    criminalorganization,thatunfortunatelyheisconvictedinthiscase
    butheisnotdisheartenedashehasfaithinthejudiciary,thathe
    belongstoaliteratefamily,thathislatemotherwasaviceprincipal,
    thathisfatherstillworks in Kuwait,thathis elderbrotherworks
    withtheIVthEstate,thathehimselfwasworkingandheplanstodo
    hisLLBandwantstojoinhisadvocateShetty,thatheisnotathreat
    tosocietyandheneverhasbeen.Hesubmitsthathisconductand
    behaviourintheprisonwasgoodandthiscanbeverifiedfromthe
    prisonsuperintendentwhoisnowDIG.Hesubmitsthatconsidering
    allthesethingshissentenceberestrictedtotheperiodthathehas
    undergone in the prison. He submits that he is filing written

    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.

    A13 orally submits that he has full faith in the Indian

    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.

    In his handwritten submissions Ext. 4846 he repeated

    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.

    The common mitigating circumstances in the written

    submissions prepared by learned advocates for the accused are


    dividedintotwoparts,viz.,thefactsrelatingtotheoffenceandthe
    factsrelatingtotheaccused.Inthefirstpartitissubmittedthatas
    pertheconfessionsrelieduponbytheprosecution,theoffencewas
    plannedbywantedaccusedno.1AzamChima,aPakistaninational
    andISIoperative,thathemadetheplans,gavetheorders,selected
    thetargetandthetimewhenthebombswouldbeexplodedand
    provided the explosives. It is submitted that according to the
    prosecution the presentaccusedwere mere pawnsin thisoffence
    whichwasmastermindedbywantedaccusedno.1AzamChimaand
    others.Thentheroleascribedtotheaccusedbytheprosecutionis
    described.Itisfurthersubmittedthatthiscourthasreliedonthe
    confessionsallegedlymadebytheaccusedundertheMCOCActand
    thenthecontentsoftheconfessionalstatementoftheA1pertaining
    tohegoingfortrainingtoPakistan,etc.,arereproducedanditis
    submitted that it was in this context and background that the
    accused is alleged to have participated in the commission of the
    presentoffence.Itissubmittedthattheprosecutioncaseagainstthe
    accusedisbasedonconfessionstothepoliceofficersrecordedunder
    theMCOCActandcircumstantialevidenceandthesaidconfessions
    provided detailed information about Pakistan's covert operations
    against India, the role of the ISI and LashkareTaiba and other
    terrorist organizations. This information has proved invaluable to
    thesecurityservicesinIndia.

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    1679.

    ..1786..

    Ext.4825

    The case of the prosecution in respect of the wanted

    accused no. 1 Azam Chima that he incited the trained youth to


    avenge the alleged atrocities committed on Muslims in India by
    causing widespread insurgent and terrorist activities, etc., is
    reproducedanditissubmittedthatitis,therefore,theprosecution's
    casethattheextensivebrainwashingdisturbedthementalcondition
    of the accused and rendered them extremely vulnerable to
    manipulationbywantedaccusedno.1AzamChimaandotherswho
    mastermindedthisoffence.Itissubmittedthatthiscourthasheld
    that the accused made free, voluntary and truthful confessions,
    whichshowsthattheaccusedhavecooperatedintheinvestigation.
    It is also submitted that the accused did not abscond and were
    arrestedfromtheplaceoftheirresidenceorwork,etc.,anddidnot
    resisttheirarrest.

    1680.

    In the facts relating to the accused in addition to the

    particular circumstance in respect of the each accused mentioned


    above,itissubmittedthattheaccusedhavenotbeenconvictedin
    any case apart from this, that they thus have no criminal
    antecedents,thatthereisnoadversereportagainsttheaccusedfrom
    theprisonauthorities,thatrightthroughthetrialofthiscase,the
    conductoftheaccusedhasbeenexemplary,thatrightthroughthe
    investigationandtrialofthiscourt,i.e.,about9years,theaccused
    werenotabandonedbytheirfriendsandfamily,whichshowsthat
    they have roots in society and that they can be reformed and
    rehabilitated.Itissubmittedthattheaccusedhavealreadysuffered
    9 years of imprisonment, during this period they have suffered

    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.

    It is alleged that the accused were tortured during the

    policecustody,aboutwhichtheyhavegivenevidence.Thereafter,it
    isallegedthattheaccusedwerebrutallyassaultedbytheprisonstaff
    on28/06/08,whichhasbeendocumentedinthejudgementofthe
    BombayHighCourtdtd.21/07/09passedinWritPetition(Crl)No.
    1377of2008andtheobservationsoftheHighCourtinparagraph9
    ofthisjudgementisreproduced.

    1683.

    Itisfurthersubmittedthattheaccusedbelongtoverypoor

    families,theywere representedbylawyers appointedbyan NGO

    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

    and they have undergone hardship in custody and this factor is


    required to be considered. The time taken from the date of the
    incidenttillthedateofthefinalorderwillagainbeafactortosay
    thatdeathpenaltyshouldnotbeawarded.Hesubmitsthatitcannot
    besaidthatitwastheaccusedwhocausedthedelay,becauseifthey
    haveappealedagainstanyorderofthiscourtbeingaggrievedbyit,
    theydidsoastheyhavethefundamentalrighttodoit.Hesubmits
    thatfromthedatetrialstarted,itwasgoingondaytodayandhe
    candidly stated that he has not saying that there is delay and
    thereforethetimefactorwillhavetobeconsidered.Hesubmitsthat
    the court has observed the conduct of the accused, that nothing
    abnormaloradversewasbroughtonrecordsofarastheirbehaviour
    or conduct in court or outside is concerned and this calls for
    leniency.

    1687.

    About the background of the accused, he submits that

    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.

    Lastly he submits that the court has always to see the

    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.

    I have held 12 accused guilty of having committed

    different types of offences including the offences which are


    punishablewithdeath.Itis,therefore,necessarytoconsiderfirstas
    to who out of the 12 accused are liable for imposing the capital
    punishment and who are not visavis their participation in the
    crime.Theoffencesthatinvitethecapitalpunishmentofdeathare
    sections 302 read with 120B of the IPC and section 3 of the
    ExplosivesSubstancesAct,1908forwhichtheA1,A3,A4,A12and
    A13 are found guilty and the offences under section 16 of the
    UA(P)Aandsection3(1)(i)oftheMCOCActforwhichallthe12
    accused,i.e.,A1toA7andA9toA13havebeenfoundguilty.No
    doubt,theprosecutionhasprovedandIhaveheldallthe12accused
    guiltyforhavingcommittedaterroristactpunishableundersection
    16oftheUA(P)Aandforhavingcommittedtheoffenceoforganised
    crimepunishableundersection3(1)(i)oftheMCOCAct,bothof
    whichsectionscarrythecapitalpunishment.However,thelaststep
    taken by the A1, A3, A4, A12 and A13 in actually planting the
    bombs, shows that they are the most culpable out of the twelve
    accused. One cannot say with certainty that the remaining seven
    accused would have taken the last step of pulling the trigger,
    plantingthebombsorwouldhavebackedout.Onedoesnotknow
    whethertheyalsohadbeenaskedtodothatwork,buttheydeclined

    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.

    In this context, as mentioned earlier learned advocate

    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.

    In the words of the Apex Court, as laid down in Bachan

    Singh, there are certain mitigating circumstances in every case.


    Similarly,thereareaggravatingcircumstancesalso.TheApexCourt
    haslistedsomeaggravatingcircumstancesasfollowsbystatingthe
    Courtmayinthefollowingcasesimposethepenaltyofdeathinits
    discretion.

    (a)

    if the murder has been committed after previous

    planningandinvolvesextremebrutality;or

    (b)

    ifthemurderinvolvesexceptionaldepravity

    Sofar as mitigating circumstances are concerned, the Apex

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1798..

    Ext.4825

    CourthaslaiddownthatCourtsshalltakeintoaccountfollowing
    circumstancesviz.,

    (1)

    extremementaloremotionaldisturbance;

    (2)

    theageoftheaccused.Iftheaccusedisyoungor

    old,heshallnotbesentencedtodeath;

    (3)

    the probability that accused would not commit

    criminalactsofviolenceaswouldconstituteacontinuingthreatto
    society;

    (4)

    the probability that the accused can be reformed

    andrehabilitated;

    (5)

    thatinthefactsandcircumstancesofthecasethe

    accused believed that he was morally justified in committing the


    offence;

    (6)

    theaccusedactedundertheduressordominationof

    anotherperson;

    (7)

    that the condition of the accused showed that he

    wasmentallydefectiveandthesaiddefectimpairedhiscapacityto
    appreciatethecriminalityofhisconduct.

    As regards all these aggravating and mitigating

    circumstances, the Apex Court has made clear that these


    circumstancesarenotexhaustiveandeverycasewillagaindepend
    onthefactsandcircumstancesofeachcase.

    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

    of Punjab, Respondent (AIR 1983 SC 957) relied upon by the


    learnedSPPwhichisalsoalandmarkdecision,theApexCourthas
    statedthatthefollowingquestionsmaybeaskedandansweredasa
    testtodeterminethe'rarestofrare'caseinwhichdeathsentence
    canbeinflicted:

    (a)

    Is there something uncommon about the crime

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1800..

    Ext.4825

    which renders sentence of imprisonment for life inadequate and


    callsforadeathsentence?

    (b)

    Arethecircumstancesofthecrimesuchthatthereis

    no alternative but to impose death sentence even after according


    maximumweightagetothemitigatingcircumstanceswhichspeakin
    favouroftheoffender?

    In this authority, the Apex court laid down following five

    criterion as parameters for the assistance of the Courts in


    determiningwhetheracasefallsinthecategoryof'rarestofrare':

    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.

    State of Maharashtra ((2013) 2 SCC 479), the Apex Court


    reiterated:

    '22........................itisnotonlythecrimeanditsvarious

    facets which are the foundation for formation of special reasons as


    contemplatedunderSection354(3)CrPCforimposingdeathpenalty
    butitisalsothecriminal,hisbackground,themannerinwhichthe
    crimewascommittedandhismentalconditionattherelevanttime,
    the motive of the offence and brutality with which the crime was
    committedarealsotobeexamined.Thedoctrineofrehabilitationand
    doctrineofprudencearetheothertwoguidingprinciplesforproper

    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

    Singh,while justifying the punishment of death in 'rarest of rare


    case'that,'32.Thereasonswhythecommunityasawholedoesnot
    endorse the humanistic approach reflected in 'death sentenceinno
    case'doctrinearenotfartoseek.Inthefirstplace,theveryhumanistic
    edificeisconstructedonthefoundationof'reverenceforlife'principle.
    Whenamemberofthecommunityviolatesthisveryprinciplebykilling
    anothermember,thesocietymaynotfeelitselfboundbytheshacklesof
    thisdoctrine.Secondly,ithastoberealizedthateverymemberofthe
    communityisabletolivewithsafetywithouthisorherownlifebeing
    endangeredbecauseoftheprotectivearmofthecommunityandon
    accountoftheruleoflawenforcedbyit.Theveryexistenceoftherule
    oflawandthefearofbeingbroughttobookoperatesasadeterrentfor
    thosewhohavenoscruplesinkillingothersifitsuitstheirends.Every
    member of the community owes a debt to the community for this
    protection.Wheningratitudeisshowninsteadofgratitudeby'killing'a
    memberofthecommunitywhichprotectsthemurdererhimselffrom
    being killed, orwhen thecommunity feelsthat forthesakeof self
    preservation the killer has to be killed, the community may well

    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

    judgement in the case of Kalu Khan, Appellant V. State of


    Rajasthan,Respondent(CriminalAppealNos.189192of2014
    delivered on 10/03/15) and read out paragraphs 22 to 28
    containingtheanalysisoftheevolvingjurisprudenceontheaspects
    of'qualityofevidence'asamitigatingfactor,soastoindicatethat
    the case proved entirely on circumstantial evidence must not be
    placed into the category of 'rarest of the rare' without due
    examinationofthefactualmatrix.Theobservationsinparagraph29
    ofthejudgementareinthefactsofthecasediscussingtheevidence
    inthatcaseanditisheldinparagraph30that,'thatthefirstand
    foremosteffortofthecourtshouldbetocontinuethelifetillitsnatural
    endandthedelegateddivineauthorityshouldbeexercisedonlyafter
    arrivingataconclusionthatnootherpunishmentbutdeathwillserve
    theendsofjustice'.

    1702.

    It is in context of the above judgement and that the

    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

    the extreme brutal, calculated and diabolical nature of the crime,


    whichsuggeststhatthereislittlelikelihoodofreformoftheseaccused

    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.

    On the background of the law laid down in the

    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)

    The conspiracywas hatchedin the mostcalculatedmanner

    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

    some of the accused involved have even obtained training in


    preparationofbombs,armsandexplosivesandhandlingexplosives
    etc.,inPakistanbasedtrainingcamps.
    (g)

    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

    conspiracy. Most of the accused are well educated and having


    families. They never had a second thought of retreating from
    commission of such offence. All these aggravating circumstances
    certainlymakeoutacaseofrarestoftherare.

    1707.

    I have reproduced the mitigating circumstances orally

    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

    has relied on the confessions made by the accused to the police


    officers,whichhaveprovideddetailedinputstothesecurityagencies
    regarding the extent of the covert operations of Pakistan against
    India.Itissubmittedthatthustheconfessionsoftheaccusedarenot
    onlyareasignofremorsebythem,butalsotheirwillingnesstoco
    operatewiththeinvestigativemachineryintheirfightagainstterror.
    Inmyhumbleopinion,thisisnothingbuttryingtowinwhetheritis
    heads or tails. It is submitted by the learned SPP in his written
    submissions that the court accepting the confessions as voluntary
    cannotbeunderstoodtomeanthattheaccusedcooperatedinthe
    investigation. In my humble opinion, the reason for making the
    confessional statement is made clear by the chief investigating
    officer ACP Patil, PW186, who explained that when the accused
    wereconfrontedwiththeevidencethatwasgatheredagainstthem,
    theydecidedtomakeacleanbreastofthecrime.Ithasnowhere
    comeintheevidenceoftheDCPsoranyoftheinvestigatingofficers

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1810..

    Ext.4825

    or in the contents of the confessional statement that the accused


    werepromptedtogivetheirconfessionalstatementsoutofremorse
    or repentance. In fact, the A13 though volunteered to make a
    confessionalstatementandwassenttotheDCPs,refusedtomakeit.
    Thus,hehasnotgivenanyconfessionalstatement.Inthiscontext,
    thelearnedSPPsubmittedthatthissubmissionhastoberejected
    becausethesubsequentconductoftheaccuseddoesnotshowany
    remorseorrepentancefortheacts.Tomymind,thereisnotasingle
    wordbythesaidaccusedaswellastheremainingsevenaccusedin
    theiroralsubmissionsaswellasintheirwrittensubmissionsthat
    theyrepenttheactwhichthecourthasheldtobedonebythem.
    LearnedSPPsubmittedthatmanyaccusedaresayingthattheyread
    numberofbooksonMahatmaGandhiduringtheprisonandhedoes
    notwanttoraiseanycontroversy,butiftheaccusedclaimthatthey
    showed repentance by giving the confessional statements, where
    was the question of filing retractions? In my humble opinion,
    therefore,thisaspectwillnotbeamitigatingcircumstance.

    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.

    It is, however, necessary to take up the case of the

    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

    psychological illness, has also contracted glycoma whilst in the


    prisonandthishasseverelyaffectedhiseyesight.Attherequestof
    thedefence,theprisonauthoritywasdirectedtoproducetheentire
    medicalfileofalltheaccused.PerusalofthemedicalfileoftheA1
    whichcomprisesofphotocopiesoftheOPDcasepapersoftheJJ
    Hospital,do notshowanyfinding of psychological illnessor any
    treatmentgiventohimforthatpurpose.Heseemstobesuffering
    fromheadacheandgiddiness,etc.,andthelatestOPDcasepaperof
    04/08/15 shows that he complained of difficulty in reading, but
    doesnotusespectacles.Thereisalsoafindingthattherearediscs

    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

    dtd. 05/06/15 wherein it is mentioned that AKT medicines now


    stoppedfrom27/01/15.Thus,inallprobabilitythetuberculosisof
    theA3musthavebeencured.Insofarasspondylitisisconcerned,it
    isprobablybecauseofhisobesityaswellaswrongsittingposture.

    1715.

    A4hasnotpleadedthegroundofillness.

    1716.

    A12hassubmittedthathehasbeensufferingfrommental

    illnessesandisunderpsychiatrictreatment.ThemedicalfileofOPD
    casepapersofJJHospitalproducedbytheprisonauthorityshows
    hiscomplaintsofdecreasedconcentration,forgetfulness,irritability,
    etc.,since2013andthatheisatobaccochewer.However,thereis
    noreportaboutanypsychiatricillnesslikeschizophrenia,etc.,and
    hehasbeenreceivingregularandtimelytreatment.

    1717.

    A13 has pleaded that he has chronic stomach and knee

    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.

    Next circumstance pleaded by all the accused is their

    economichardshipandsocioeconomicbackground.Tomymind,it
    cannotbeaconsideration.LearnedSPPhasrightlysubmittedthatit
    isnotthecaseofasingleaccusedthathewaslivingbelowpoverty

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1814..

    Ext.4825

    line and it was a monetary temptation of quick earning that


    promptedhimtocommitthecrime.Tomymind,thereisnopoint
    fortheaccusedinnowsayingthattheirfamilyispoororthatthere
    isnoonetotakecarefortheirfamilyincludingtheirownparents.
    This,therefore,cannotbeconsideredasamitigatingcircumstance.

    1720.

    A4, A12 and A13 have pleaded about they taking

    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.

    A13 examined his younger brother Aziz Bashir Khan,

    witness no. 1 for the defence on the point of mitigating


    circumstances, Ext. 4855, who stated about their family, his and
    A12'seducationalconductinschoolandattheplaceofserviceand
    theproblemsfacedbytheirfamiliesafterthearrestoftheA13and
    the views of the A13 about the law. However, the utility of his
    evidence is negatived by his answers in crossexamination. If the
    A13 was staying at Jalgaon continuously upto 2001, the witness
    mustbeknowingabouthisarrestinthecaseatJalgaonintheyear
    2001. However, what he stated is that there were two cases
    registered against the A13 at Jalgaon after this case, which is
    obviously factually incorrect. He also stated incorrectly about the
    allegations in those cases. He also obviously stated falsely about
    comingtoknowaboutthosecaseswhenJalgaonpolicearrestedthe
    A13afterhewasarrestedinthiscaseandthenarrestedinMalegaon
    2006case.Ontopofthatheisnotconsistentwiththestoryofthe
    A13aboutlivinginJalgaonupto2003,becausehestatedthatA13is
    notresidinginJalgaonsince2001.Theheightoftheuselessnessof
    hisevidenceisprovedbyasingleanswerinhiscrossexamination
    thathedoesnotknowfromwhichplaceA13wasarrestedwhereas
    itisthecaseoftheA13,whohasgiventheevidenceaccordingly,
    thattheATSteamofMumbaipickeduphisbrotherfromJalgaonon

    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.

    The next two circumstances are that families of the

    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

    custody period is a relevant consideration and the accused have


    enduredharshprisonconditionsandsolitaryconfinementprohibited
    bylaw.InthiscontextthelearnedSPPsubmittedthatthecustody
    periodisirrelevantbecausetheprocessoftrial,thattoosuchabig
    trial,naturallytakesalongtimeanditcannotbeconsideredasa
    mitigating circumstance. Insofar as solitary confinement is

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1820..

    Ext.4825

    concernedhesubmitsthatitistheaccusedthemselveswhohaveby
    theirapplicationsExts.87,89,90,91,92,93and94appliedtothis
    courttokeeptheminhighsecuritycellandnowtheyaresayingthat
    theywerekeptthere.Thiscannotbeaccepted.Hehasalsopointed
    outthatAjmalKasabwaskeptinasolitarycellforsecurityreason
    andeventhenhewashanged.

    1726.

    The next mitigating circumstance is about the custodial

    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

    continuedin their activitywithutmost secrecy.Learned SPPthen


    triedtoshowthespecificevidenceagainsttheparticularaccused,
    buthewasstoppedbecausethefactsofthecasearenotrelevantfor
    considering the mitigating circumstance. In any case what the
    learned SPP has submitted is the correct position. The accused,
    therefore,havenotshownthattheycommittedtheoffenceoutof
    frustration and neglect, etc. On the other hand the meticulous
    planning, the synchronization of events and the exactness with
    which they successfully accomplished their mission shows their
    extreme culpability. Therefore, this circumstance cannot be
    considered as a mitigating circumstance. Not only that, the
    alternativeoptionofsentencingthemtolifeimprisonmentisalso
    foreclosedbythesimplefactofthemassacreofhumanbeings.The
    prosecutionhasprovedthattheA1committedthemurdersof28
    personsandattemptedtomurderandvoluntarilycausedhurtand
    grievoushurtto110persons,theA3committedthemurdersof28
    personsandattemptedtomurderandvoluntarilycausedhurtand
    grievoushurtto100persons,theA4committedthemurdersof32
    personsandattemptedtomurderandvoluntarilycausedhurtand
    grievoushurtto115persons,theA12committedthemurdersof9
    personsandattemptedtomurderandvoluntarilycausedhurtand
    grievoushurtto102personsandtheA13committedthemurdersof
    26persons and attemptedtomurder and voluntarilycausedhurt
    andgrievoushurtto130persons.Thesearenotthesimplemurders
    andthisisnotasimplemurdercase.Itwasmindless,coldblooded
    and wanton killings of innocent defenceless and unsuspecting

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1822..

    Ext.4825

    persons. The learned SPP has rightly described the accused as


    'MERCHANTS OF DEATH'. Hence, the alternative option of
    imprisonment for life is foreclosed and there are no two views
    possibleanditisonlythedeathpenaltywhichistheappropriate
    penalty.

    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

    FIR lodged at the High Ground Police Station, Bangalore in


    KarnatakaagainsthimbytheofficeofDataCoreTechnologiesPvt.
    Ltd., through whom the A9 had secured employment in the

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1825..

    Ext.4825

    prestigious Oracle Company at Bangalore. The contents of the


    complaintdtd.30/08/06alongwiththeFIRareveryrelevantand
    show how the accused were trying to infiltrate into prestigious
    organizations for achieving their goal of terrorist activity. In his
    complainttothepolicestation,theofficerhasmentionedthatthe
    A9wasgivenemploymentletteron28/06/06andwasdeputedat
    theplaceoftheirclient,i.e.,OracleIndiaPvt.Ltd.atBangalore.Itis
    mentionedinthecomplaintthattheywereinformedbytheofficer
    of the Central Crime Branch, Bangalore that A9 was arrested by
    MumbaiPoliceasasuspectinrecentMumbaiblasts.Theofficers
    whohadvisitedtheirofficehadinquiredaboutthecredibilityofthe
    A9 and collected his details. The subsequent words are very
    important. It is mentioned in Ext. 1522 that, 'looking into the
    seriousnessofthematter,wehadinitiatedfurtherinquirytoknowthe
    factofthesameandhisintentionswhereinwefoundthathehadmade
    an attempt to enter into unauthorized areas at our client Oracle,
    BangaloreOffice(wherehewasofficiallydeputed)whichwasrestricted
    tointendedmembersonly'.

    1730.

    The above instances prove that the accused are not

    innocentandtheirculpabilityisevident.

    1731.

    Itisclearthatthemitigatingcircumstancespleadedbyall

    the accused by their nature are not sufficient to displace the


    aggravatingcircumstances.Theypaleintoinsignificanceinthelight
    oftheaggravatingcircumstances.Thiscase,therefore,withoutany
    doubt, falls into the category of the 'rarest of rare case'. The
    aggravating circumstances far outweigh the mitigating

    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

    magnitude to the accused, who have shown no repentance or


    remorse after exhibiting extreme depraved mentality, would be a
    travestyofjustice.Though,Iamfullyconsciousofthe irrevocable
    natureofthedeathpenalty,Ihavetoawardthedeathpenaltytothe
    A1,A3,A4,A12andA13.Lawiswellsettledthatthecourthastodo
    justicenotonlytotheaccusedbutalsotothevictimandthesociety
    atlarge.AsheldbyApexCourtitself,unduesympathytoimpose
    inadequatesentencewoulddomoreharmtothejusticesystemand
    wouldunderminethepublicconfidenceintheefficacyoflawand
    societywouldnolongenduresuchseriousthreats.Therefore,itis
    thedutyofthiscourttoawardpropersentencehavingregardtothe
    nature of offence and the manner in which it was executed. To
    expect society to be a silent spectator to this kind of depraved

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1827..

    Ext.4825

    behaviour and to continue to extend its protective arms to the


    convicts would be both unnatural and ridiculous. Hence, the
    exemplaryandrarestofrarepunishmentisrequired. TheChinese
    philosopherConfucius said 'If justices goes astray,the people will
    standaboutinhelplessconfusion'.

    1733.

    Inthecontextofthenatureofthecrimeandthepurpose

    for which it was committed, the words of the Islamic Scholar


    MaulanaWahiduddinKhan reportedinthearticleintheTimesof
    India publication of The Speaking Tree dtd. 09/11/14 are very
    relevant.Itwasinconnectionwiththedeadlysuicidebombattack
    that took place on November 2, 2014, at the Wagah border in
    Pakistan.Hepleadedthattheterroristsneedtocomeoutoftheir
    primitive, violent mindsets by getting educated and embracing
    peacefulmethods.Hewrotethat,

    'A deadly suicide bomb attack took place on November 2,

    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

    It is a fact that no religion, including Islam, advocates

    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.

    Accused no. 1 Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari, no. 3

    Mohd.FaisalAtaurRahmanShaikh,no.4EhteshamQutubuddin
    Siddique,no.12NaveedHussainKhanRasheedHussainKhanand
    no.13AsifKhanBashirkhan@Juned@Abdullaareconvicted
    undersection235(2)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973for
    havingcommitted:
    (i)

    the offence punishable under section 302 read with section

    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)

    the offence punishable under section 307 read with section

    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)

    the offence punishable under section 324 read with section

    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.

    Accused no. 1 Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari, no. 2

    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

    Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh, no. 12 Naveed Hussain


    KhanRasheedHussainKhanandno.13AsifKhanBashirkhan@
    Juned@Abdullaareconvictedundersection235(2)oftheCodeof
    CriminalProcedure,1973forhavingcommitted:
    (i)

    the offence punishable under section 20 of the Unlawful

    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

    13(1)of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 andeach

    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

    Mohamad Majid Mohamad Shafi, no. 6 Shaikh Mohd. Ali Alam


    Shaikh,no.7MohammadSajidMargubAnsari,no.9Muzzammil
    AtaurRahmanShaikh,no.10SuhailMehmoodShaikhandno.11
    ZameerAhmedLatifurRehmanShaikhareconvictedundersection
    235(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for having
    committed:
    (i)theoffencepunishableundersection120Bofthe IndianPenal
    Code, 1860 read with section 16 of the Unlawful Activities
    (Prevention) Act, 1967 and each one is sentenced to suffer
    imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/(Rupees
    TwentyThousandOnly),indefaulttosuffersimpleimprisonment
    fortwo(2)months.
    (ii)theoffencepunishableundersection120Bofthe IndianPenal
    Code,1860readwithsection3(1)(i)oftheMaharashtraControlof
    Organised Crime Act, 1999 and each one is sentenced to suffer
    imprisonmentforlifeandtopayafineofRs.1,00,000/(RupeesOne
    Lac Only), in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six (6)

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1836..

    Ext.4825

    months.

    5.

    Accused no. 1 Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari, no. 2

    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.

    Accused no. 3 Mohd. Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh is

    convictedundersection235(2)oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,
    1973forhavingcommitted:
    (i)

    the offence punishable under section 19 of the Unlawful

    Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and sentenced to suffer


    imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/(Rupees
    TwentyThousandOnly),indefaulttosuffersimpleimprisonment
    fortwo(2)months.
    (ii)

    theoffencepunishableundersection3(5)oftheMaharashtra

    Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and sentenced to suffer


    imprisonmentforlifeandtopayafineofRs.2,00,000/(RupeesTwo
    Lacs Only),in defaultto suffersimple imprisonmentfornine (9)
    months.

    9.

    (i)

    Accusedno.2TanveerAhmedMohd.IbrahimAnsari,

    no. 3 Mohd. Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh, no. 4 Ehtesham


    QutubuddinSiddique,no.6ShaikhMohd.AliAlamShaikh,no.7
    MohammadSajidMargubAnsari,no.9MuzzammilAtaurRahman
    Shaikh,no.10SuhailMehmoodShaikh,no.11ZameerAhmed
    LatifurRehmanShaikh,andno.13AsifKhanBashirkhan@Juned
    @ Abdulla are acquitted under section 235(1) of the Code of
    CriminalProcedure,1973ofthechargeoftheoffencepunishable
    undersection124AoftheIndianPenalCode,1860.
    (ii)

    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)

    Accused no. 1 Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari, no. 4

    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.

    All substantive sentences of imprisonment are to run

    concurrently.

    12.

    Accusedareentitledtosetofffortheirperiodofdetentionas

    persection428oftheCodeofCriminalProcedure,1973(subjectto

    JudgementMCOC21/06

    ..1839..

    Ext.4825

    the Prison Rules and G. R. No. RLP1006/C.R.621/PRS3, dated


    15/03/2010 issued by the Home Department, Government of
    Maharashtra).

    13.

    Seized articles/muddemal property be preserved for trial of

    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

    You might also like