THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. KAMAL AHMED MOHD. VAKIL ANSARI AND ORS

5

A.1 - Kamal Ansari

i. Sec. 302 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to death and pay a fine of Rs. 30000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

ii. Sec. 307 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced imprisonment for life.

iii. Sec. 326 r/w 120-B IPC - sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

iv. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

v. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

vi. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-(in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

vii. Sec. 325 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and fine of 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

viii. Sec. 324 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 10,000 (in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month)

ix. Sec. 3(b) (Explosive Substances Act, 1908) - Sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 30000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

x. Sec. 9-B(2) Explosives Act, 1884 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years

xi. Sec. 16 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 30,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

xii. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

xiii. Sec. 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to death and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

xiv. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

6

xv. Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

xvi. Sec. 152 (Railways Act, 1989) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life.

xvii. Sec. 151(1) and 153 (Railway Act, 1989) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years on each count.

xviii. Sec. 3 (2) (e) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

(Acquitted for the charges u/s 19 and 40 of UAPA, 1967) A.2 - Tanveer Ansari

i. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

ii. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

iii. Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months)

iv. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

v. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

vi. Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and fine Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

vii. Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

viii. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) of MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

7

ix. Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

x. Sec. 9B(2) Explosives Act, 1884 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years

(Acquitted for charge under 124A of IPC)

A.3 - Mohd. Faisal Shaikh

[

i. Sec. 302 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to death and pay a fine of Rs. 30000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

ii. Sec. 307 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced imprisonment for life.

iii. Sec. 326 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

iv. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

v. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

vi. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

vii. Sec. 201 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-(in default to suffer imprisonment for one (1) month)

viii. Sec. 325 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and fine of 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

ix. Sec. 324 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 10,000 (in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month)

x. Sec. 3(b) (Explosive Substances Act, 1908) - Sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 30000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

xi. Sec. 6 r/w 4 (ii) Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months)

xii. Sec. 9-B(2) Explosives Act, 1884 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years

8

xiii. Sec. 16 (UAPA Act, 1967) - Sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 30,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

xiv. Sec. 19 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

xv. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

xvi. Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and fine Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

xvii. Sec. 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to death and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

xviii. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

xix. Sec. 3(4) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

xx. Sec. 3(5) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 9 months)

xxi. Sec. 152 (Railways Act, 1989) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life.

xxii. Sec. 151 (1) and 153 (Railway Act, 1989) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years on each count.

xxiii. Sec. 3 (2) (e) (Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

(Acquitted for charges under 124-A IPC, Sec. 40 UAPA, 1967 and Sec. 12 (1) (c ) of Passport Act, 1967)

A.4 - Ehtesham Siddique

i. Sec. 302 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to death and pay a fine of Rs. 30,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

ii. Sec. 307 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced imprisonment for life.

9

iii. Sec. 326 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

iv. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

v. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

vi. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

vii. Sec. 325 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and fine of 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

viii. Sec. 324 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 10,000 (in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month)

ix. Sec. 3(b) (Explosive Substances Act, 1908) - Sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 30000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

x. Sec. 16 (UAPA Act, 1967) - Sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 30,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

xi. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

xii. Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967 ) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and fine Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

xiii. Sec. 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to death and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

xiv. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

xv. Sec. 3(4) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

xvi. Sec. 152 (Railways Act, 1989) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life.

10

xvii. Sec. 151 (1) and 153 (Railway Act, 1989) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years on each count.

xviii. Sec. 3 (2) (e) (Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

xix. Sec. 9-B(2) (Explosives Act, 1884) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years.

(Acquitted for charges under section 124-A IPC, Sec. 17 and 19 of UAPA, 1967)

A.5 - Mohd. Majid

[

i. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

ii. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

iii. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

iv. Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months)

v. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

vi. Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

vii. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

viii. Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

(Acquitted for charges under section 19 of UAPA , 1967)

11

A.6 - Shaikh Mohd. Ali Alam Shaikh

i. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

ii. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

iii. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

iv. Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months)

v. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

vi. Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967 ) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and fine Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

vii. Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

viii. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

ix. Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

x. Sec. 6 r/w 4 (ii) Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months)

xi. Sec. 9-B(2) Explosives Act, 1884 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years

(Acquitted for charges under section 124-A IPC, Sec. 40 UAPA, 1967 and 12 (1) (c ) of Passport Act, 1967. A.7 - Sajid Ansari

i. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

12

ii. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

iii. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

iv. Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months)

v. Sec. 201 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-(in default to suffer imprisonment for one (1) month)

vi. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

vii. Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967 ) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and fine Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

viii. Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

ix. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

x. Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

xi. Sec. 6 r/w 4(ii) Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months)

(Acquitted for charges under section 124-A IPC, Sec. 40 and 19 of UAPA, 1967)

A.9 - Muzzammil Shaikh

i. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

ii. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

13

iii. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

iv. Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months)

v. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

vi. Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and fine Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

vii. Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

viii. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

ix. Sec. 3(4) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

(Acquitted for charges under section 124-A IPC) A.10 - Suhail Shaikh

i. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

ii. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

iii. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

iv. Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months)

v. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

14

vi. Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and fine Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

vii. Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

viii. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

ix. Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

(Acquitted for charges under section 124-A IPC) A.11 - Zameer Shaikh

i. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

ii. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

iii. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

iv. Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months)

v. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

vi. Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967)- Sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and fine Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

vii. Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

viii. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

15

ix. Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

(Acquitted for charges under section 124-A IPC) A.12 - Naveed Khan

i. Sec. 302 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to death and pay a fine of Rs. 30000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

ii. Sec. 307 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced imprisonment for life.

iii. Sec. 326 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

iv. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

v. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

vi. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

vii. Sec. 325 r/w 120-B IPC - Senteneced to imprisonment for 7 years and fine of 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

viii. Sec. 324 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 10,000 (in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month)

ix. Sec. 3(b) (Explosive Substances Act, 1908) - Sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 30000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

x. Sec. 9-B(2) Explosives Act, 1884 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years

xi. Sec. 16 (UAPA Act, 1967) - Sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 30,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

xii. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967)- Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

16

xiii. Sec. 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to death and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

xiv. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

xv. Sec. 3(4) MCOCA,1999- Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

xvi. Sec. 152 (Railways Act, 1989) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life.

xvii. Sec. 151 (1) and 153 (Railway Act, 1989) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years on each count.

xviii. Sec. 3 (2) (e) (Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

A.13 - Asif Khan

i. Sec. 302 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to death and pay a fine of Rs. 30000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

ii. Sec. 307 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced imprisonment for life.

iii. Sec. 326 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

iv. Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for life on each count and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

v. Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 15,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 and half months)

vi. Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 Years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

vii. Sec. 201 IPC - Sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/-(in default to suffer imprisonment for one (1) month)

viii. Sec. 325 r/w 120-B IPC - Senteneced to imprisonment for 7 years and fine of 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

17

ix. Sec. 324 r/w 120-B IPC - Sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs. 10,000 (in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 month)

x. Sec. 3(b) (Explosive Substances Act, 1908) - Sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 30000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

xi. Sec. 6 r/w 4 (ii) Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- (in default to suffer imprisonment for 2 months)

xii. Sec. 9-B(2) Explosives Act, 1884 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years

xiii. Sec. 16 (UAPA Act, 1967 ) - Sentenced to death and fine of Rs. 30,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 3 months)

xiv. Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 20,000/- ( in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 2 months)

xv. Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and fine Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

xvi. Sec. 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to death and fine Rs. 1,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 6 months)

xvii. Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA, 1999 - Sentenced on each count to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one year)

xviii. Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA,1999 - Sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year)

xix. Sec. 152 (Railways Act, 1989) - Sentenced to imprisonment for life.

xx. Sec. 151 (1) and 153 (Railway Act, 1989) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years on each count.

xxi. Sec. 3 (2) (e) (Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984) - Sentenced to imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- (in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month)

(Acquitted for charges under section 124-A IPC and 19 of

UAPA, 1967)

18

2. It may be noted that in this case there are fifteen wanted accused.

3. During the pendency of the confirmation case, the accused no. 1 died.

4. The Special Court has granted acquittal to A.8 - Abdul Wahid Din Mohammad Shaikh.

5. It is, thus, it is evident that along with accused no. 1, A.3, 4, 12, and 13 were sentenced to death for the offences punishable u/s 302 r/w 120-B of IPC, Section 3b of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, section 16 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as

"UAPA") and under section 3(1)(i) MCOC Act, 1999.

6. Hence, the learned Special Court referred the proceeding, Confirmation Case No. 2 of 2015, in terms of Section 366(1) of Cr.PC.

APPEALS

7. Except accused no. 1, who died during the pendency of this case, all other accused persons have filed respective criminal appeals.

8. The State has not filed appeal against the acquittal of A.8 Abdul Wahid

9. Hence, with the confirmation case no. 02/2015, there are following appeals which are taken for hearing and to decide the same. The chart given hereunder is in respect of the respective appeals filed by the A.2 to 7 and 9 to 13:

19

CHART NO. 1

10. This Court, vide order dated 16/07/2024, allowed the accused to remain present during the hearing through video conferencing in view of the judgments in the cases of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar ..vs.. Rajesh Ranjan Alias Pappu Yadav & Another, reported in (2005) 3 SCC 284 and State of Maharashtra ..vs.. Dr. Praful B. Desai, reported in

(2003) 4 SCC 601.

11. Total thirteen accused along with 15 wanted accused and two deceased accused, i.e., (1)Salim, Pakistani National and (2)Abu Osama @ Abu Umed @ Mohd. Ali @ Mohammad Chinag, Pakistani National were chargesheeted for having caused the bomb explosions and thereby having committed the murders of 187 persons, for having attempted to

20

cause the death of some persons, for having voluntarily caused hurt, grievous hurt, mischief, mischief by fire or explosive substance, for having conspired to commit these offences, for having conspired to wage war or attempt to wage war or abet waging war against the Government of India, for having collected men, arms or ammunition or otherwise made preparations with the intention of waging war against the Government of India, for having concealed the existence of a design to wage war against the Government of India, for having committed an act of sedition, and for having caused disappearance of evidence of offence, which are the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 324, 325, 326, 427, 436, 120-B, 121-A, 122, 123, 124-A, 201 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (the IPC).

12. They are also chargesheeted for having committed the above offences as an organised crime of promoting insurgency, for having conspired, advocated, abetted and knowingly facilitated the commission of the organised crime, for having harbored or concealed any member of the organised crime syndicate, for being members of an organised crime syndicate and for holding property derived or obtained from the commission of an organised crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime syndicate's funds, alongwith the fifteen wanted accused and 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 Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (the MCOC Act).

13. They are also chargesheeted for being members of an association declared as an unlawful association under section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (the UA(P)A), for committing unlawful activities, for committing terrorist act, for raising funds for terrorist act, for conspiring to commit the terrorist act, for harbouring

21

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, which are the offences punishable under sections 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 40 of the said Act.

14. 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 Government under section 6 of the Explosives Act, 1884 and having committed an offence punishable under section 9B of the said Act.

15. 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 possession of explosive substance for unlawful object and for having 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, which are the offences punishable under sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the 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 Public Property Act, 1984.

16. They are also chargesheeted for having intended to cause damage and destruction of the public property and having caused death, having endangered the safety of persons travelling in local trains,

22

alongwith the fifteen wanted accused and two deceased accused, which are the offences punishable under sections 151 to 154 of the Railways Act, 1989.

17. Two accused are chargesheeted for having failed to produce their passports and travel documents and thereby having committed the offences punishable under section 12(1) (c) of the Passports Act,

1967.

The case of the prosecution is as follows: -

18. Mumbai is known as the financial capital of India due to its role as the hub of commerce, banking, and industry. It is home to the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE), Reserve Bank of India (RBI), major national and international banks, financial institutions, and corporate headquarters. The city generates a significant portion of India's GDP and attracts a large workforce from across the country. The Mumbai local trains are rightly called the lifeline of the city. They transport millions of passengers daily, connecting distant suburbs with the city center. Operating across three major lines - Western, Central, and Harbour - the local train network is vital for the daily commute of millions of Mumbaikars, supporting the city's fast-paced economic and social life.

19. As noted by the learned Trial Court in the impugned judgment, millions of commuters travel each day southwards in the morning and northwards in the evening in the western railway suburban trains between Churchgate and Virar during peak hours. These commuters comprise of executives, businessmen, students and persons in the employment at various levels in the Government as well as private

23

establishments. Hence, the suburban trains are aptly called as essential services and the lifeline of the Mumbai metropolis. It is alleged that this lifeline came to a grinding halt on the evening of 11th July, 2006 when seven high intensity, highly sophisticated explosive devices ripped through the first-class gent's compartment of seven suburban trains that were headed towards the distant western/northern suburbs. The blasts at Mahim and Borivali took place when the trains were near the stations, while the remaining five blasts took place in moving trains and away from platforms. The explosions were so powerful that they ripped through the double layered steel roofs and sides of each of the seven compartments, throwing bodies of the injured and dead passengers out of the compartments, and, at Mahim and Borivali Railway Stations, apart from the passengers in the compartments, the explosions even killed and injured passengers waiting on the platform and those travelling from the trains proceeding to the opposite direction. The roof of the platform no.3 of Mahim station was blown off by the explosion. Some passengers from the Borivali bound train that witnessed an explosion near Mahim station, jumped out of the train and got killed under a local train proceeding in the opposite direction. The prosecution states that from the record, three blasts simultaneously took place at 1823 hours near Mahim, Bandra and Mira Road stations, while the last took place at 1828 hours near Borivali station. This suggests that timer devices were used to cause the blasts simultaneously and at specific places and were aimed at large scale devastation of life and property and 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 western railway, suburban as well as main line, came to a grinding halt. The commuters poured on the western express highway, thereby disrupting

24

the north as well as south bound vehicular traffic and causing hindrance to the rescue operations. It was reported that 187 persons lost their lives in the explosions and 817 had sustained injuries of various gravity and railway property worth Rs. 85,61,039/- was reportedly damaged till the time of filing of the chargesheet. One of the unclaimed dead was identified as a Pakistani national involved in the planting of an explosive laden bag in one of the trains.

20. The individual crimes of bomb blasts were initially registered separately at the respective railway police stations as per the table below: -

CHART NO. 2

(Reproduced From The Trial Court Judgment) Sr. Police Station Time of Place of Train No. Affected Persons No. C.R. No. Blast (FIR) Offence Coach Killed Injured (Blast)

1 Mumbai Central 1824 hrs. Matunga 645 DN 864 A 28 127 Railway 77/06 Virar Fast

2 Mumbai Central 1823 hrs. Mahim 641 DN 0528 A 43 096 Railway 78/06 Borivali

Fast

3 Bandra Railway 1823 hrs. Bandra 637 DN 8003 A 22 107 86/06 Borivali

4 Bandra Railway 1825 hrs. Khar 635 DN 849 A 09 102 87/06 Subway Borivali

Slow

5 Andheri Railway 1824 hrs. Jogeshwari 619 DN 0634A 28 115 41/06 Borivali

Slow

6 Borivali 1828 hrs. Borivali 621 DN 935A 26 153 Railway156/06 Virar Fast

7 Vasai Road 1823 hrs. Mira Road 607 DN 846A 31 122 Railway 59/06 Virar Fast

21. Initially, the investigation was being handled by different investigating officers from seven different police stations where the crimes were registered. Later, Considering the sensitivity of the matter,

25

the DGP Maharashtra State, deemed it fit to transfer the investigation of all the cases to the ATS, Maharashtra on 12th July, 2006 itself. As the investigation was already in progress by the respective railway police, they were directed to make compilation of the statements and documents and handover the charge of all the papers to ATS, and the ATS effectively got all papers of investigation on 20th July, 2006. Thereafter, different police officers were entrusted with the investigation of seven different crimes except PW-176 PI Rathod, who continued with the investigation of Cr. No. 77 of 2006. Although, all the 7 cases were transferred to ATS, the investigation in respect of each case was independently conducted by each of the aforementioned investigating officer and till 12th of August 2006, following accused were arrested, namely Dr. Tanveer (A-2) on 23rd July, 2006, Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman (A-11) on 25th July, 2006, Suhail Mohammad Sheikh (A-10) on 25th July, 2006, Faisal Ataur Rehman Sheikh (A-3) on 27th July, 2006, Muzzamil Ataur Rehman Sheikh (A-9) on 27th July, 2006 and Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique (A-4) on 12th August,

2006.

22. During the course of their investigation, it occurred to PW-174 PI Khandekar, who was analyzing the evidence collected and proceeding with investigating CR. No. 156 of 2006, that the then arrested accused (A2 and A4) and one wanted accused have been associated with the banned organization SIMI and that the present bomb blast appears to be a work of a banned organization, namely SIMI, with the intention to promote insurgency and commit terrorist acts. Therefore, he gathered material in respect of wanted accused Asif Khan Bashir Khan (A-13), when it transpired that there are already 2 charge sheets for the offences under 153A (1) and Explosives Act in

26

Jalgaon (Maharashtra) and hence he came to the conclusion that the cases of Railway Bomb Blast in Mumbai were the handy work of the banned organization, SIMI. It was in these circumstances that the provisions of the UAPA came to be invoked to the said case on 17th September 2006 and also the investigating officer brought it to the notice of chief-investigating officer that the case was a fit one for also invoking the provisions of MCOCA and a proposal to that effect was submitted to the Competent Authority through the DCP. The said proposal was submitted on 18th September 2006. Further, on 24th September 2006, on receiving the prior approval from the officer of the rank of DIG, the provisions of MCOCA were invoked to CR No. 156/2006 of Borivali Railway Police Station, which was being investigated by PI Khandekar (PW-174) and after the invocation of MCOCA the investigation was transferred to the officer of the Rank of ACP i.e. PW 186 i.e. ACP Sadashiv Patil. During the course of further investigation of the said crime, further arrests were made as under; 29/09/06 Mohammed Majid Mohammed Shafi (A-5), 29/09/06 Shaikh Mohammed Alam Shaikh (A-6), 29/09/06 Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari (A-7), 29/09/06 Abdul Wahiuddin Mohammed Shaikh (A-8), 30/09/06 Naveed Hussain Khan (A-12), 03/10/06 Asif Khan Bashir Khan (A-13).

23. It was, thus, revealed that causing seven powerful serial bomb blasts almost within a span of 6 minutes, resulting in the death of several people and causing grievous injuries to several people, was nothing more than a single larger conspiracy of the members of the Organized Crime Syndicate, and thus all seven cases were clubbed together on 13/10/2006, by registering ATS police station Cr. No. 5/2006, to which all the sections mentioned below were applied, viz.

27

302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 427, 436, 120(B), 121,. 122, 123, 124A, 201,

212 of IPC r/w 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(3), 3(4), 3(5) of MCOCA r/w section 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 40 of UAPA, r/w 6 and 9B of the Explosives Act r/w 3, 4, 5, 6 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 r/w 3, 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984 r/w 151, P152, 153 and 154 of the Indian Railways Act r/w 12(1)(c) of Passport Act.

24. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer ACP Patil, PW 186, sent a proposal for obtaining sanction u/s 23(2) MCOCA, which was granted by the CP Mumbai (PW185), on 25/11/06, and finally the chargesheet came to be filed before the MCOCA Special Court on 30th November 2006, which was registered as MCOCA 21/2006. Thereafter, chargesheet was filed against 13 arrested accused persons and 15 wanted accused, most of which were Pakistani. It is the case of the prosecution that 2 of the Pakistani Nationals viz. Salim and Mohammed Ali @ Abu Umed @ Abu Osama died. One died in the explosion itself and other one was encountered at Antop Hill.

INVOLVEMENT OF ACCUSED INCLUDING WANTED

ACCUSED (Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

25. It is alleged by the prosecution that it transpired during the course of investigation that wanted accused Azam Cheema @ Babaji, a Pakistani national, the arrested accused A3, A13 and others, conspired sometime in the year 1999 and thereafter, both within and outside India, to do and cause to be done illegal acts, i.e., to wage war against the Government of India, to collect men and explosives with the intention of waging war against the Government of India, to overawe

28

by means of criminal force the Government of Maharashtra and Government of India, to terrorise the people in general and railway commuters in particular by indulging in wanton killings and destruction of property through bomb explosions in local trains, thereby disrupting public transport system in Mumbai, the economic capital of India, to create instability in the State of Maharashtra and in India by the aforesaid subversive activity, to shake and reduce the faith of the common citizen in its elected democratic government by large scale violence, destruction of lives 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 Muslims and to provoke them in the name of religion in order to resort to terrorist acts, to collect money from across the border and by sale of provocative SIMI literature in India for achieving the objective of the criminal conspiracy, to organize training camps in Pakistan in order to impart training to Indian Muslim youths in the handling and use of arms and explosives for causing the explosions, to establish training camps in India too and organise training in the 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, to store and conceal such explosives at such safe places alongwith the Pakistani wanted accused for achieving the objective of criminal conspiracy, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objective of criminal conspiracy, to continue unlawful activities of banned organisations, i.e., SIMI and L-e-T, with an intention to promote enmity between different groups on grounds of religion prejudicial to the maintenance of harmony, incite individuals

29

or group of individuals to cause disaffection against India or the Government of India or encourage or aid persons to undertake any unlawful activity like bomb explosions or of which the members undertake such activities and to continue activities of organised crime syndicate, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, conspire, advocate, abet or knowingly facilitate the commission of an organised crime by use of violence or other unlawful means and promote insurgency by causing explosions in local trains in order to cause large scale loss to life and railway property.

26. 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 co-conspirators were assigned specific responsibilities. As a part of the conspiracy, wanted accused Azam Cheema took the responsibility of sending RDX and Pakistan based terrorists, including those who would be experts in assembling the explosive devices. As a part of the conspiracy, the A5 of Kolkata and the Al from Bihar were entrusted the responsibility of bringing Pakistani terrorists into India through Indo-Bangladesh and Indo-Nepal borders respectively. It was also decided to assemble explosive devices in the house of A6 in Govandi, Shivajinagar, Mumbai. Co-conspirator A13 was entrusted with the responsibility of procuring rexene bags, utensils, ammonium nitrate/nitrite, detonators, etc., and make arrangements to send them to the house of the A6 at Govandi, Shivajinagar, Mumbai. The A7 was entrusted with the responsibility of procuring timer electric circuitry and other relevant devices and keep it ready for the 'D' day.

30

27. It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and in order to achieve the object of conspiracy, in the month of May, 2006, the A5, an Indian national and residing in Kolkata, made arrangements and ensured the infiltration of wanted accused and Pakistani nationals, viz., Sabir, Abu Bakr, Kasam Ali, Ammu Jaan, Ehsanullah and Abu Hasan into India through Bangladesh border. These accused persons traveled from Kolkata to Mumbai by train. Similarly, in the month of May, 2006, wanted accused, viz., Salim, Sohail Shaikh, Abdul Razak and 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, while Abdul Razzak is a resident of Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh and Sohail Shaikh is a resident of Pune, but now both are learnt to be settled in Pakistan. As a part of the same conspiracy, the Al made arrangements for and illegally escorted wanted accused Pakistani nationals, viz., Aslam and Hafizullah into India through Nepal border.

28. It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and in order to achieve the object of conspiracy, wanted accused, Pakistani national Ehsanullah brought RDX with him, which was used for causing explosions in Mumbai on 11/07/06.

29. It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, the above mentioned wanted accused illegally crossed over into India and came to Mumbai. The accused who crossed over from Bangladesh border were received by the A13 and were harbored in Flat no.304, Amrapali Apartments, Naya Nagar, Mira Road, Thane. Similarly, wanted accused, who crossed over into India from Kutch border, were provided safe house and harbored in flat no.24, Lucky Villa building,

31

Kant Wadi, Perry Cross Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai 400 050 belonging to the A3. The two wanted accused and Pakistani nationals, who illegally infiltrated into India through Nepal border and brought to Mumbai by the Al, were housed and harbored in Flat No.101, Saba Parveen Apartment, Pooja Nagar Road, Naya Nagar, Mira Road, Thane, belonging to the A7. It has also come on record that as a part of the same conspiracy, after the bomb blasts on 11/07/06, the A4 provided shelter and harbored wanted accused Pakistani nationals and co-conspirators by name Ammu Jaan, Sabir, Abu Bakr, Kasam Ali, Ehsanullah and Abu Hasan brought by the A5, at 202, B Wing, 2nd Floor, Moonlight Apartment, Opp. Kalsekar College, Kausa, Mumbra, Thane, rented by the A8.

30. It is alleged that, in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, during the said period, A3, A2, A10, A11, A9 and A4 traveled in western railway local trains between Mumbai and Virar in order to make a reconnaissance of the target. The conspirators decided to cause bomb blasts in the evening of a working day so as to cause maximum damage to the lives and to the property and also to strike against a symbolic institution of governmental authority. The same was approved by the blast master-mind wanted accused Azam Chima, top commander of L-e-T, based in Bahawalpur, Pakistan. The act of causing bomb explosions was aimed at disturbing public peace and subverting the authority of government established by law under the constitutional framework of India. The above modus confirms to the professed ideology and agenda of L-e-T. The L-e-T has repeatedly claimed through its web sites that its main aim is to destroy the Indian Republic and annihilate Hinduism.

32

31. It is alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, sometime in the month of April, 2006, A4, A2, A3 and A12 went to the house of the A6 and surveyed the surroundings.

32. It is alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in order to achieve objectives of the conspiracy, between 08/07/06 upto 10/07/06, accused persons, viz., A7, Sohail Shaikh, Pakistani national and one more unknown Pakistani national assembled seven explosive devices in the house of A.6, at Plot No.33, T. Line, Room No.2, Shivajinagar, Govandi, Mumbai 43, to plant the explosives in local trains. They were assisted, aided and abetted by various means by co- conspirators, viz., A6, A2, A4, A12, A13 and A3.

33. It is alleged that in pursuance of the conspiracy referred to above, wanted accused Azam Chima, a Pakistani national, and an office bearer of banned terrorist outfit L-e-T, organised training camp in Pakistan for training of Indian Muslim youths in the handling and use of arms and explosives. For the said purpose, he sent money to India through various persons and means for funding travel of Indian Muslim youths, desirous of undergoing the said training, to Pakistan. During the course of and after the said training, Azam Cheema incited the trained youths to avenge the alleged atrocities committed on Muslims in India, by causing wide spread insurgent and terrorist activities by exploding / bombing financial nerve centers and causing mass damage to life and property thereby crippling the economy of the nation.

34. It is alleged that between 1999 and 17/07/06 wanted accused Azam Chima, through wanted accused Mohammed Rizwan Dawrey

33

and Rahil Ataur Rehman Shaikh, sent money through various means to India to the A3 for publishing jihadi literature, promoting anti-India sentiments and bearing the expenditure for the travel of those Indian Muslim youths who were to be sent for training to Pakistan and escape of those who participated in the bombing operations with an intention to achieve the objectives of the larger conspiracy referred to above. After the A3 returned from Pakistan, after receiving training in March, 2002, he received Rs.1,80,000/-through hawala transaction from wanted accused Azam Chima. In November, 2003, Mohammed Rizwan Dawrey sent 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. Khalida Iqbal Shaikh and handed over to the A9. In the same year and after about 3 to 4 months, wanted accused Rizwan Mohammed Dawrey sent Saudi Riyals 14000 to the A3. In April, 2004, Rizwan Mohammed Dawrey and the A3 sent Saudi Riyals 40000 through hawala to Smt. Khalida Iqbal Shaikh, which was in turn collected by the A9. In the same month, A3 sent Rs.10,000/- to Smt. Khalida Iqbal Shaikh, which was collected by the A9. Sometime in July or August 2004, wanted accused Rizwan Mohammed Dawrey and the A3 sent Rs.20,000/-to Smt. Khalida Iqbal Shaikh for the A9. On 02/07/06 Mohammed Rizwan Dawrey again sent Saudi Riyals 15000 through one Hidaytulla Mehboob Sundke, PW-64, for the A3. Even after the explosions, Mohammed Rizwan Dawrey sent Saudi Riyals 11200 on 14/07/06 through one Afzal of Pune for handing over to Abdul Rehman Dawrey for onward handing over to the A3. Saudi Riyals 15000 mentioned above, were seized during the house search of the A3 at Bandra (W), Mumbai on 28/07/06. Saudi Riyals 11200 sent by wanted accused Rizwan Dawrey as stated above, could not be

34

delivered to the A3 as he was arrested prior to the delivery of the said amount. This amount was seized on 30/07/06 from Abdul Rehman Dawrey, PW-71, brother of wanted accused Mohammed Rizwan Dawrey. The amounts mentioned above and received by the conspirators, was used by the accused to send others to Pakistan for training and other purposes, to achieve the larger goal of conspiracy as well as for facilitate the escape of those who participated in the bombing operation. As a part of the conspiracy and with a view to gain respectability and status, some of the conspirators fraudulently obtained forged and fake degree/education certificates using which they got gainfully employed even in foreign countries, ostensibly for the purpose of raising funds for the organised crime syndicate and/or for the purpose of siphoning funds from foreign countries for achieving the larger goal of conspiracy.

35. It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, the A3, A2, A1, A9, A10, A11 and A6 went to Pakistan and received training in the handling of arms and explosives in the training camp run by wanted accused Azam Chima. The travel plans were elaborately planned by the conspirators in order to ensure that passports of the accused did not bear the arrival and departure stamps into and out of Pakistan. During the course of investigation, the A3, A9, A10, A11 and A2 have been found in possession of maps showing travel route from Tehran to Pakistan with details, i.e., names and/or phone numbers of persons who could be contacted for making their travel arrangements. Investigation disclosed that the accused persons were trained in the handling and use of arms and explosives. The trainees were repeatedly indoctrinated by their foreign trainers to avenge the alleged atrocities committed on Indian Muslims. The

35

feelings and sentiments of the accused trainees were exploited to the fullest and they were exhorted to cause wide spread 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 directly against the authority of the government. That in pursuance 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 undergoing the said training.

36. It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, sometime in the year 2000, wanted accused Azam Cheema on behalf of banned organisation L-e-T alongwith wanted accused Hafiz Zuber and Abdul Rehman, recruited the A1. Accordingly Al traveled to Pakistan on a fake Nepalese passport on an assumed name Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Munshi through Wagha border. This passport was prepared for the Al by wanted accused Hafiz Zuber, an Indian national presently based in Nepal. One Khalid Saifulla asked the A1 to motivate and recruit alienated and marginalised Muslim youths. One Ibrahim Rayeen (suspected accused) of Nepal, provided money to the Al with instructions to send more Muslim youths to undergo training in Pakistan. He accordingly sent his co-brother Anwar Ul Haque to Pakistan for undergoing training in the handling and use of arms and explosives.

37. It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid criminal conspiracy, the A3 went to Pakistan for undergoing training in the handling and use of arms and explosives, firstly, on 01/10/01 and returned to India on 29/11/01 through Wagha border using Indian

36

passport bearing No. B-5403385 issued on 06/06/01 by RPO, Pune. During his second visit and in order to avoid detection, the A3 left Mumbai for Jeddah on 08/11/03 using the above passport. From Jeddah, he illegally entered Pakistan via Kisham Island, 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. While in Saudi Arabia, he was arrested for not possessing a travel document and on 01/12/04 he was deported to New Delhi on an Emergency Certificate. During his both visits, the A3 received training in the handling and use of arms and explosives in a training camp of wanted accused Azam Chima. He also asked A3 to recruit Muslim youths for arms training in Pakistan and also to survey targets for terrorists attacks.

38. It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, on return to India and using the money that he had received from wanted accused Azam Chima, the A3 incited A10 and sent him to Pakistan for undergoing training as stated above. The A10 traveled to Pakistan on 01/11/02 on Indian passport bearing No.E-1185233. In order to avoid detection of his Pakistan visit, the A10 traveled from Mumbai to Tehran on a ziyarat visa and from there infiltrated into Pakistan. A10 too underwent training in the training camp of wanted accused Azam Chima.

39. 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.E-1560453 issued by RPO, Mumbai on 13/02/02. He left Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai

37

and went to Dubai from where he traveled to Karachi and underwent training in the handling and use of arms and explosives.

40. It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and while the A3 was still in Pakistan, he instructed his brother, i.e., the A9 to send some more Muslim youths to Pakistan for undergoing training. Accordingly, the A9 paid and arranged for the travel and training of the A2 in Pakistan. In order to avoid detection, the A2 went illegally to Pakistan via Iran from Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport, Mumbai. The A2 traveled on Indian passport bearing No. B-0099830 issued by RPO, Mumbai on 21/05/04 and underwent training in the training camp of wanted accused Azam Chima.

41. It is alleged that, as a part of the same conspiracy and as instructed by the A3, the A9 illegally traveled to Pakistan via Iran on 09/08/04. But. First he traveled from Mumbai to Tehran and then illegally crossed Iran border into Pakistan. He too underwent training in the militant training camp of wanted accused Azam Chima.

42. It is alleged that on return from training, the A2 induced the All to undergo training in Pakistan to achieve the larger objective of conspiracy. Accordingly, the A2 collected All's passport bearing no. A- 1886227 issued by RPO, Mumbai on 12/09/96 and handed it over to the A9 who in turn got the same stamped with ziyarat visa for Iran. The A11 left Mumbai for Tehran on 04/04/05, from where he illegally crossed into Pakistan and received training in the training camp of wanted accused Azam Chima.

38

43. It is submitted by the investigating officer ACP Patil, PW-186, that members of Shiya sect of Muslim community visit Iran on ziyarat visa. This tour is necessarily for pilgrimage and for the visit of a holy place by name Mashad, where there is a tomb of the 8th 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 Muslims do not believe in the teachings of Imam Raza and hence do not go to ziyarat pilgrimage to Iran. It is also a known fact that Sunnis are not granted a ziyarat visa to Iran. During visit to Mashad, all pilgrims get holy food known as 'Niyaz'. Before any pilgrim receives Niyaz, his passport is stamped accordingly on the page bearing ziyarat visa. However, A2, A9, A10 and All are all Sunnis. Though they traveled from India to Iran on a ziyarat visa, they did not visit Mashad, but instead crossed the Iran border and went to Pakistan and underwent training in the camp of wanted accused Azam Chima. Though the A2, A9, A10 and All traveled to Pakistan via Iran on a ziyarat visa, their visas are not stamped as required at Mashad. The absence of the stamps/seals on their ziyarat visa page are conclusive proof of the same. Against the regular practice, these accused persons also traveled individually instead of going in a group or with a tour operator.

44. It is submitted by the investigating officer ACP Patil, PW-186, 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. PSI Vijay Bharatrao Mandlik, (PW-145) (Ext.1591), was attached to Kurla Police Station as ASI in 2001. He went with his staff by the Pipeline Road in Kurla (W) on the orders of the Sr. PI and with the help of megaphone

39

they promulgated the ban by the Government and also pasted copies of the notification of the official gazette, Ext.1592, containing the ban order, at conspicuous places like beat chowkis, madarsa, sewage center of BMC, tahasil office, Pipe Road masjid, etc., and also pasted a copy on the office of the SIMI that was on the Pipe Road. It is alleged by the prosecution that though the SIMI was banned in the year 2001, A13, A3, A2, A4, A10, A11, A7, A8, A6, A9, wanted accused Rizwan Mohammed Dawrey and wanted accused Rahil Ataur Rehman Shaikh, continued to remain members of the said banned organisation and took part in the activities of 'Students Islamic Movement of India', which is a declared terrorist organisation under sections 2(1)(m) and 35 of the UA(P)A and thereby advocated, abetted, advised and incited the Indian Muslim youths against the policies of the Government of India, promoted enmity between different groups on grounds of religion by printing, publishing and circulating seditious, inflammatory and derogatory material and collected funds and subscriptions from others for the achievement of the larger goal of conspiracy. The A4 even distributed receipt books to others and by using the said receipt books, personally collected subscriptions for and on behalf of SIMI under assumed names. Similarly, wanted accused Azam Cheema and the other Pakistani nationals continued to remain members of the banned terrorist organisation 'Lashkar-e-Taiba' and continued to take part in the activities of L-e-T. They thereby advocated, abetted, advised and incited the Indian Muslim. youths against the policies of the Government of India. For achieving their objectives, they funded the travel of selected Muslim youths to Pakistan, bore the expenditure for their training in the handling and use of arms and explosives, indoctrinated them in the name of religion and also supplied explosives like RDX. All this was done in order to prepare a group of youths,

40

Indian as well as Pakistani, to conspire against the Government or civil authorities and wage war by striking terror in the minds of the people or section of people by use of violence or force by causing large scale destruction of life and property in order to cripple the national economy through the disruption of the public transport system, which tantamounts to insurgency. The objective of the conspiracy was to continue unlawful 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 chosen for executing the conspiracy.

45. It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, the said accused persons advocated, abetted, advised and incited the Indian Muslim youths and knowingly facilitated the commission of terrorist act, to wit, to cause bomb explosions in seven first-class compartments of western railway trains in Mumbai on 11/07/06. Accused persons, viz., A13, A3, A2, A4, A10, A11, A7, A8, A6, A9 and Rizwan Mohammed Dawrey and Rahil Ataur Rehman Shaikh continued to be members of 'Students Islamic Movement of India' and remained in contact with wanted accused Azam Chima, commander of L-e-T, both banned terrorist outfits, as declared by the Government of India in the schedule as laid down under section 2(1)(m) and 35 of UA(P)A.

46. It is alleged that the A13 is one of the key conspirators continuously indulging in committing terrorist acts and unlawful activities for and on behalf of SIMI, an organisation banned by the Government of India since 27/09/01. A case under section 153(1) (A) read with 34 of the IPC was registered at M.I.D.C. Police Station,

41

Jalgaon, Maharashtra vide C. R. No. 178 of 1999 against him in 1999. The Court had taken cognizance of the said case vide C. C. No. 219 of 2001. The A13 was declared as proclaimed offender on 08/03/02. While he was so absconding, another case was registered against him by the M. I. D. C. Police Station, Jalgaon, Maharashtra vide C. R. No. 103 of 2001 under sections 153A, 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 201, 506(II), 120B, 34 of the IPC read with sections 4(a) and 4(b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. In the said case too, A13 evaded arrest and remained absconding till his arrest in this case. The six co-accused in the said case have since been convicted for various terms ranging from 3 years to 10 years vide S. C. No. 126 of 2002.

47. 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, near Shams Masjid, Mira Road, Dist. Thane and at 101, Saba Parveen Apartment, Pooja Nagar Road, Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane, i.e., house of the A7. The said meetings were attended by A13, A10, A3, A4, A2, A9, A11, A12, A6 and A7. In the said meetings it was decided to survey and select targets for causing large scale explosions.

48. It is alleged that in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy and in order to achieve the object of the conspiracy, wanted accused Azam Cheema asked the A3 during May, 2006 to identify likely targets to cause large scale damage and fear in the minds of general citizens. Accordingly the A3, A11 and A10 surveyed places like World Trade Centre, Mumbai Stock Exchange, Mahalaxmi Temple, Siddhi Vinayak Temple, local trains and some large shopping complexes. Except for the

42

local trains, the conspirators avoided the other targets as all the said places had tight security arrangements. The A3 informed the wanted accused Azam Cheema that local trains were crowded and soft targets and hence, suitable for causing explosions.

49. It is alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in order to achieve objectives of the conspiracy, on the evening of 10/07/06, accused persons, viz., A6, A3, A12 and Sohail Shaikh, Pakistani national and one unknown Pakistani national, transported seven rexene bags containing explosive devices from the house of the arrested accused A6, i.e., Plot No.33, T. Line, Room No.2, Shivajinagar, Govandi, Mumbai-43 to Flat No.24, Lucky Villa, Perry Cross Road, Kant Wadi, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50, i.e., the house of the A3 in his Maruti car bearing no.MH-01-V-9568 and one taxi.

50. It is alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in order to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, on 11/07/06 between 1500 hours and 1630 hours arrested accused persons, viz., A4, A12, A13, A3 and Al and wanted accused Hafizullah, Aslam, Salim, Ammu Jaan, Abu Umed @ Abu Osama, Sabir and Abu Bakr traveled with the seven bags containing explosives devices from Flat No.24, Lucky Villa, Perry Cross Road, Kant Wadi, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50, i.e., the house of the A3, in different taxies to Churchgate Railway Station on western railways.

51. It is alleged that the Al alongwith wanted Pakistani accused Salim, Hafizullah and Aslam planted explosive device in bogie no. 864A, which blasted at Matunga Railway Station, for which C. R. No. 77 of 2006 was registered at Mumbai Central Railway Police Station. It

43

is alleged that the A12 alongwith wanted Pakistani accused Abu Umed @ Abu Osama planted explosive device in bogie no. 849A, which blasted in between Santacruz and Khar Railway Stations, for which C. R. No. 87 of 2006 was registered at Bandra Railway Police Station. It is alleged that the A3 alongwith wanted Pakistani accused Abu Bakr planted explosive device in bogie no. 0634A, which blasted at Jogeshwari Railway Station, for which C. R. No. 41 of 2006 was registered at Andheri Railway Police Station. It is alleged that the A13 alongwith wanted Pakistani accused Sabir planted explosive device in bogie no. 935A, which blasted at Borivali Railway Station, for which C. R. No. 156 of 2006 was registered at Borivali Railway Police Station. It is alleged that the A4 alongwith wanted Pakistani accused Ammu Jaan planted explosive device in bogie no. 846A, which blasted at Mira Road Railway Station, for which C. R. No. 59 of 2006 was registered at Vasai Road Railway Police Station. It is alleged that unidentified Indian and Pakistani accused planted explosive devices in bogies no. 528A and 8003A, which exploded at Mahim and Bandra Railway Stations, for which C. R. No. 78 of 2006 and 86 of 2006 were registered at Mumbai Central Railway Police Station and Bandra Railway Police Station respectively.

52. It is alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy, the arrested and wanted accused persons planted explosive devices in the first-class compartments of local trains with intent to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause damage or destruction to railway property, i.e., compartments of western railway local trains, station platforms, overbridges, overhead wires, electric poles, etc. The accused persons by causing explosions in running local trains, caused the deaths of 187 passengers and injuries of various gravity to 817 passengers and

44

generally endangered the safety of passengers traveling by local trains on 11/07/06.

53. It is alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in order to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, the arrested and wanted accused procured explosives, detonators, electric circuits and other logistics for achieving the larger goal of conspiracy. During the course of investigation, the Al came to be arrested on 20/07/06. 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. Also traces of RDX were recovered from Plot No. 33, T Line, Room No.2, Govandi, Shivajinagar, Mumbai-43 on 29/09/06, i.e., residential premises of the A6. It is alleged that between 08/07/06 to 10/07/06 the conspirators used this very place for assembling the explosive devices. Traces of RDX were also recovered from Maruti car No.MH- 01-V-9568 belonging to the A3 on 22/10/06 recovered from the compound of Al Hatim building, Millat Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai. This very vehicle was used by the accused to transport the explosive stacked bags from the house of A6 at Govandi, Shivajinagar to the house of A3 at Bandra (W), Mumbai.Traces of RDX were also recovered from Bldg. No.1, 25/B, Kant Wadi, Lucky Villa, Perry Cross Road, Bandra(W), Mumbai-50, on 28/07/06, i.e., the house of the A3. It is alleged that on 10/07/06 after the explosive devices were assembled and kept in black rexene 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 Ammonium Nitrite powder and 10 detonators were recovered from his house at Poonam Park, 'A' Wing, Flat No.101, Near Lodha Complex, Mira Road, Dist. Thane. Similarly, corrosive materials

45

namely Sulphuric Acid, Acetone and Hydrogen Peroxide were recovered from the possession of A2. The same, according to expert's opinion, could when mixed in the right proportions, be turned into a deadly mixture called TATP, capable of causing high intensity blasts. Experts have opined that RDX, Ammonium Nitrate, Nitrite and Petroleum Hydrocarbon oil was used in the explosions that took place in the seven first-class compartments of western suburban trains of Mumbai on 11/07/06.

54. It is alleged that in pursuance of the said conspiracy and in order to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, the arrested and wanted accused, singly or jointly, either as member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, conspired, advocated, abetted or knowingly facilitated the commission of an organised crime by use of violence, promoted insurgency by causing explosions on 11/07/06 in seven different compartments of western railway local trains causing damage to property worth Rs. 85,61,039/- and deaths of 187 persons and injuries to 817 others.

55. It is alleged that all the arrested, wanted and two dead accused persons did commit murders by intentionally and knowingly causing the deaths of 187 persons and also did cause injuries of various gravity to 817 persons, with such intention and knowledge and under such circumstances that if by that act all accused had caused the death of such persons, they would have been guilty of murder and that all the accused had done the said illegal acts in furtherance of the common objective of the criminal conspiracy referred to above and also caused damage to public property, to wit, Western Railway local trains, platforms, overbridges, electric poles, overhead electrical wires, etc.

46

56. 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, the object of which was to do and cause to be done such illegal acts for achieving the aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and such illegal acts were done intentionally and knowingly by participating in furtherance of the common objectives of the criminal conspiracy.

57. It is alleged that as a part of the larger conspiracy, while committing various illegal acts, the members of the organised crime 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 respectability and also for employment and did gain employment on the strength of these forged documents.

58. It is alleged that as a part of the larger conspiracy, while committing various illegal acts, the A3 and the A6 obtained Indian passports from the office of the Regional Passport office, Pune and Mumbai respectively. Both these accused traveled to Pakistan using the said passports. However, in order to obliterate all evidence relating to their visit to Pakistan, they destroyed/disposed off their Indian passports and failed to produce the said passports before police, when directed to do so for the purpose of investigation.

59. It is alleged that as a part of the larger conspiracy and while committing various illegal acts, between May, 2006 and July, 2006, the arrested Indian conspirators, knowing fully well that their Pakistani

47

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 arrangements for and harboured them. Accordingly, in the month of May, 2006, wanted Pakistani accused, viz., Sabir, Abu Bakr, Kasam Ali, Ammu Jaan, Ehsanullah and Abu Hasan entered India through Bangladesh border and were housed in 304, Amrapali Building, Sector-XI, Shanti Nagar 'A', Mira Road(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, Abdul Razzak and Abu Umed (deceased) illegally crossed over from Pakistan into India from Kutch border in Gujarat and were harbored in Flat No.24, Lucky Villa, Kant Wadi, Perry Cross Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50, house belonging to the A3.

60. As a part of the same conspiracy, wanted Pakistani accused Aslam and Hafizullah entered India through Indo-Nepal border and were harboured in 101, Saba Parveen Apartment, Naya Nagar, Mira Road (E), Thane, house belonging to the A7. Prior to the blasts, two of the wanted accused, who were staying in Flat No.24, Lucky Villa, Kant Wadi, Perry Cross Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai-50, shifted their hide out to a flat in Millat Nagar. After the commission of the bomb blasts, the A4 escorted wanted Pakistani accused, viz., Ammu Jaan and brought him to stay in 202, B Wing, Moonlight Apartment, Opp. Kalsekar College, Kausa, Mumbra, Dist. Thane, which was rented by the A8. Five other Pakistani nationals were also provided shelter in this flat after the bomb blasts. After staying for a while, these accused were provided a safe passage out of Mumbai, by the A.5.

48

GIST OF THE PROSECUTION STORY AS EVIDENT FROM

THE DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE FOR

INDIVIDUAL ACCUSED PERSONS

A.1 - Kamal Ansari Fir/Arrest/Crime No.

61. To get insights regarding the arrests of the A.1 in relation to his involvement in different blasts, a chart is produced herein below: -

CHART NO. 3

49

Investigation-Recovery From A.1

62. PW-176 PI Rathod was assigned CR 77/06 (Matunga blast) on 12/07/06. PW-161 PI Tajne who was an assistant I.O in Cr. No. 77/06, on July 19, 2006, received information from a reliable source implicating Kamal Ansari, a suspect from Basopatti, Bihar. PI Tajne along with API Kolhatkar and PSI Sachin Kadam led to Basopatti and reached Basopatti on 20/07/06 around 2:00 A.M, where they arrested Kamal and Khalid Ansari with the help of PSI Rajan Singh of Basopatti Police Station. During a house search of A.1, they discovered 500 grams of black powder, out of which they took 10 gms of powder as sample in a small plastic bag and sent it to the FSL. Forensic analysis (FSL report Ext. 469) confirmed the powder contained RDX (85%) and charcoal (15%). After Kamal's arrest, PI Tajne conducted further investigations and received confirmation from a cybercafe owner in Madhubani that Kamal frequently used the internet to send emails. The investigation linked Kamal to multiple bomb blasts, including those at Borivali and Bandra stations. The case was eventually consolidated under the MCOC Act due to the larger conspiracy behind the bombings. Conspiracy

63. Prosecution alleges conspiracy against the nation in which A.1 is involved.

Passenger Of The Train Who Identified A.1

64. PW-57, Subhash Kamlakar Nagarsekar, was a train traveler during the 2006 bomb blast. On July 11, 2006, he boarded a local train at Charni Road for Churchgate travelling in the opposite direction of his intended direction. After reaching Churchgate, instead of getting

50

down, he continued to Virar (Virar Fast Local 5:57), intending to switch at Dadar. According to him, two men with a large black rexine bag boarded the train at Churchgate and placed it on the luggage rack. When PW-57 got off at Dadar, the two men also got down from the train. He later got to know about the blast on the Western Railway and, in October 2006, saw news reports about the bomb blast and the arrest of suspects. Reports indicated that the bomb was planted on the 5:57 Virar Fast Local. Recognizing the connection to his train journey, he visited the ATS on October 18, 2006, there he met ACP patil and shared his recollection of the events. On 07/11/06, he was called into the ATS office for T.I.Parade. During the TIP held on 07/11/2006, PW-57 identified A.1 - Kamal as one of the men who had placed the black coloured rexine bag on the luggage rack of the train. A.2 - Tanveer Ansari

Fir/Arrest/Cr. No

65. To get insights regarding the arrests of the A.2 in relation to his involvement in different blasts, a chart is produced herein below: -

CHART NO. 4

51

House Search - Seizure Of Passport

66. On 26/07/06, PW-176 PI Rathod (I.O of CR. No. 77/06) searched the residence of A.2 - Tanveer. Post search, which yielded no findings, PW-176 inquired with A.2 about his passport. A.2 disclosed that his passport was with a travel agency in Fort for a visa. PW-176, along with the panchas, visited International Trade Links, where the manager recognized Tanveer and confirmed the passport was submitted for an Iranian visa. PW-176 seized the passport under panchnama Exh. 450, passport contains the stamps of departure and arrival and visa of Iran is pasted on it.

67. On 08/08/06, PW-176 directed API Bavdhankar to take statements from travel agents involved with A.2 - Tanveer and others who traveled to Pakistan via Tehran, gathering pertinent documentation. These were recorded and deposited properly. PW-43, Hafzal Herzi, indicated that A.2's passport processing was through AL Mehndi Tours in 2005, though the ticket was not issued by them.

52

Recovery from A.2 Brother's House

68. On 01/08/06, A.2 -Tanveer was taken for inquiry where he expressed a desire to show the maps and books that he has hidden in his brother's house, accordingly the memorandum of his statement Ext.484 was written.

69. PW-176 with his staff and panchas followed Tanveer's directions to Momin Pura and arrived at 31, 2nd Floor, BIT Chawl No.4, where he called his mother to obtain the key to his brother's house. A.2 informed them that the building is known Pila Mahal and the house of his brother is on the 2nd floor, which was room no. 35. He opened the lock with the key and entered the house, inside the room, they found a sewing machine table and a Panasonic TV. Tanveer lifted the TV and kept it aside, took out some books and maps from the cardboard, the books were concerning SIMI organization titled 'Atankwad Ke Jimmedar Kaun', one map was of Mumbai and one was an international map showing India, Pakistan, Afghanisthan, Tehran, Iran, some places in the map of Mumbai were marked with green and red colour, a route from Mumbai to Muzzafarabad in Pakistan via Tehran, Zahidan, Bhawalpur was drawn on the international map. After completing the panchanama Ext. 485, the room was secured, and the key was returned to Tanveer's mother. Additionally, Panch witness PW-

19 R.S. Warang identified the articles in the court recovered from Tanveer's brother's house.

Recovery From Saboo Siddique Hospital

70. PW-176 interrogated A.2 on 12/08/06 while he was in the custody of PI Wadhankar (I.O of Cr. No. 41/06). A.2 voluntary made a statement that he is ready to show bottles of chemicals that he has kept

53

in the locker of the Sabu Siddhiqui Hospital. A.2's statement recorded in a memorandum (Ext. 457) written by PW-169 PSI Gaikwad (Assistant I.O in CR. No. 77/06), led to a station diary entry (Ext. 1803).

71. As per the directions given by A.2 - Tanveer PW-176 with staff and along with panchas, went to Sabu Siddiqui Hospital, A.2 led them to the ICU department on the 1st floor of the hospital. In the ICU, Dr. Atiya Sayyed and an accounts manager, Salamatullah Khan, were present. A.2 indicated a room adjacent to the ICU, where he retrieved a key from under a mattress and opened a locker revealing three sealed bottles of chemicals: Hydrogen Peroxide, Acetone, and Sulphuric Acid. It has also come in the evidence of Dr. Atiya Sayyed that on 12/08/2006. ATS police had come to the Sabu Siddique Hospital at

4.00 pm for their investigation, an inspector, two panch, two-three other persons had come, that A.2 was with them, that they had come to check his locker, that police took the bottles Arts. 34 to 36 and the key Art.33 and the other articles with them, that the panchanama Ext. 458 bears her signature on the last page.

72. The recovered chemicals were sent for forensic analysis on August 13, 2006. Contents of the FSL report Ext.909 shows that the bottles in CR No. 77/06, contain Hydrogen Peroxide, Acetone and concentrated Sulphuric Acid, that Hydrogen Peroxide is a strong oxidizing agent, Acetone is a highly flammable liquid and as per the literature, concentrated Sulphuric Acid is used as initiator with chlorate in explosive mixture. Due to the hazardous nature of the seized chemicals, the court granted permission for disposal, which occurred on December 16, 2006. A panchanama, empty bottles, and a report were subsequently filed in court.

54

Link Between Accused Persons - Visit To Pakistan - Connection With SIMI- Conspiracy

73. It was revealed during A.4 - Ehtesham's interrogation that A.2 - Tanveer was going to teach them how to prepare bombs with the help of chemicals. Cases under UAPA and IPC Section 353 were registered against A.2 and A.4 in Kurla; PSI Kshirsagar collected chargesheets (Exts. 462-463). Ext. 462 showed A.2 and A.4 illegally assembled at SIMI office on September 27, 2001. Ext. 463 showed them shouting anti-national and pro-SIMI slogans at Kurla court on September 28, 2001. PW-65 (Hostile witness regarding SIMI activities) named A.2 and A.4 among 24 SIMI activists.

74. PW-176 learned A.2 - Tanveer, A.10 - Suhail, A.11 - Zameer , A.3 - Faisal, and A.9 - Muzzammil went to Pakistan for militancy training and were associated with L-e-T and SIMI. It has has come in the evidence of PW-176 that he had obtained true photocopies Regional Passport Office, Mumbai of the application and documents submitted by A.2 Ext.1993 (1 to 13) and A.11 Ext 1992 (1 to 10) alongwith the covering letter Ext. 1991. A.2, A.9, A.11 and A.10 had gone from Mumbai Airport to Tehran, Iran and from there to Pakistan.

75. A.3 - Faisal in his confessional statement before the PW-40 Arvind Singh( Assistant Director of E.D) stated that he had sent A.2 - Tanveer to get training in L-e-T camps via Iran route. Further he stated that A.2 was sent on the reference of A.4 - Ehtesham. A.2 had gone to Pakistan for training in the month of May and June 2004 after resigning his job in Prince Ali Khan Hospital, therefore he wrote a letter (Exh.2445) to the Medical Superintendent of the Prince Ali

55

Khan hospital, Mazgaon, Mumbai-10 to furnish his service details, the hospital gave reply Ext. 2446 (1 and 2) furnishing the details of resignation.

76. It was alleged that PW-75-Amar Sardar Khan that he met A.2 - Tanveer, A.4 - Ehtesham and A.6 - Mohd Ali in the programs of SIMI that he attended and has identified them all in the court. There used to be aggressive and provocative speeches about jihad at the SIMl programs, that the jihad that they were talking about was in respect of atrocities committed on Muslims. That A.2 and A.4 used to give such speeches. Four or five days before the blast, PW-75 and Ajmeri Shaikh saw A.2 outside A.6's house in Govandi, where they later saw A.2, A.6, A.4, and others with wires and powders. A.2, A.4 and A.6 were supervising the assembling. PW-76 (Vijay Ambekar -PC Crime branch) corroborated this, stating Ajmeri told him about seeing A.2, A.4, A.6, and others with wires and powders at A.6's house.

77. PW-59 saw A.2 - Tanveer, A.4 - Ehtesham, A.3 - Faisal, A.10 - Suhail, A.9 - Muzzammil and A.13 - Asif Khan at A.3's house in February 2006, that they had gathered there for discussion on some special subject, and later in March 2006 A.3 came to meet PW-59 at Mira Road near Shams Masjid with A.3's three friends, A.13, A.2 and A.4. A.3 asked PW-59 to arrange a house for his friends.

78. It has come in evidence of PW-78-Shaikh Noman Ahmedon (hostile witness) that he knew that SIMI was banned in the year 2000. Even after the A.2 - Tanveer, A.3 - Faisal and A.4 - Ehtesham used to go to the office of SIMI. In 2004, A.2 had gone to Pakistan.

56

79. The acts were committed by an organized crime syndicate and the conspiracy was spread over a large period of time and wanted accused Azam Cheema had arranged for the training of A.2 - Tanveer in the camps of Lashkar-e-Talba situated in Pakistan. Identification Of The Accused

80. Witness PW-75 Amar Sardar Khan and Ajmeri Shaikh with 6 more witnesses arrived at the ATS office on 07/11/06, accompanied by police and SEOs, who would take them to Arthur Road Jail for identification of the accused persons. The parade conducted by PW-80 SEO Purandare on 07/11/06, the TIP was conducted in two groups, with witnesses PW-75 Amar Sardar Khan and Ajmeri Shaikh identifying A.2 - Tanveer in connection with its role outside and in the house of A.6 - Mohd. Ali on the day when they had gone there. A.3 - Mohd. Faisal And A.9 - Muzzammil Shaikh

Fir/Arrest/Cr No.

81. To get insights regarding the arrests of the A.3 and A.9 in relation to their involvement in different blasts, a chart is produced herein below: -

CHART NO. 5

57

House Search Of A.3 And A.9

82. On 28/07/06, Sr. PI Rathod, ACP Shengal of ATS, and PSI Kshirsagar, along with staff, conducted a house search at A.3 - Faisal's residence in Bandra. They arrived at the Lucky Villa Building, where A.3 showed them his room on the third floor. Upon entering, they searched the kitchen and living room. In the living room, they found black powder in a cupboard compartment and collected it for analysis, later identified as RDX and ammonium nitrate. During the search, a red handbag was found containing railway tickets, debit cards, licenses, cash, 30 notes of 500 Saudi riyals, vehicle documents, and books of SIMI and book titled "Atankwad ka jimmedar kaun". In the second compartment of the said bag additional items included two maps with marked routes, one was of Mumbai and on the backside Mumbai-

58

suburbs, there were marks at some places on the map of Mumbai in green and red ink, the other map was an international. map of India, Pakistan, Iran, Muscat, Afghanistan, Tehran, etc, that a route from Mumbai to Tehran, Tehran to Zahidan and Zahidan to Muzzafarabad was drawn on the map, there was some matter in Urdu below the map, an International mobile number and e-mail address as guddu_sir @ yahoo.com, and contact information, along with a Motorola mobile phone. PW-31 Sanford Fernandes (Panch witness) have identified the articles in the court that were seized from the house of A.3.

83. After concluding the house search of A.3 - Faisal, they proceeded to A.9 - Muzzammil's location in Mira Road, who led them to his flat. During house search they found 2 new CPUs and an Echolac company travel bag, the contents of the bag were inspected, they found a CD pouch containing CDs, the name Rahil Shaikh was written on the pouch, they also found a Maxell company hard disk, a passport in the name of A.9, his educational documents issued by Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, certificates of Higher Secondary Board Examination, Data Core Technology's appointment letter in his name, identity card of Oracle company in his name, red coloured packet containing many cards like internet cards, netwala card, sifi I card, books of SIMI organization and books titled 'Atankwad Ka Jimmedar Kaun', In another compartment of the bag they found two maps, one was of Mumbai and on the backside of Mumbai suburbs, there were marks at some places on the map of Mumbai in green and red ink, the other map was an international map of India, Pakistan, Iran, Muscat, Afghanistan, Tehran, etc., a route from Mumbai to Tehran, Tehran to Zahidan and Zahidan to Muzzafarabad was drawn on the map, there was some matter in Urdu below the map, an international mobile

59

number and e-mail address as guddu_sir@yahoo.com. PW-31 Sanford Fernandes (Panch witness) have identified the articles in the court that were seized from the house of A.9.

Recovery From The Railway Track

84. On 08/10/06, during the interrogation of A.3 - Mohd. Faisal by ACP Dhawale, PI Deshmukh, and PI Tonapi, A.3 - Mohd. Faisal voluntarily gave a statement (Ext. 1108), that he could show where he discarded some items. He led the officers to a location near Dahisar; he led them from the western railway track towards Mira Road and pointed out the places where he felt that he had thrown the articles. Faisal pointed out to a spot in the marshy land from where the officers recovered a brown plastic bag in mud, containing several items including 7 rubber gaskets, 5 whistles, broken electric wires, a PCB, and plastic bags. These were seized and documented in Panchanama Ext. 1109. The items were cleaned, sealed, and labeled, and Faisal signed the panchanama.

85. FSL reports (Exts. 973 and 974) revealed that Cyclonite (RDX) was detected on plastic bags, indicating their use in explosives. The rubber rings and whistles could be used in cookers, but the electric wires did not match those used in the PCB (printed circuit board). The PCB could act as a triggering device, containing components like a DTMF receiver IC, commonly used in phone circuits. When connected to a mobile phone, the device could be triggered by actions such as receiving a call. FSL report Ext. 2388 further indicated that the rubber gaskets and whistles recovered from Faisal were duplicates, as they did not match the original products from the Kanchan company in terms of markings and physical characteristics.

60

PW-62 Devendra Lahu Patil (Train Passenger Who Identified A.3)

86. PW-62 Devendra Patil testified that on 11/07/2006, after finishing work at the Custom House, he went to Churchgate station around 5:15 p.m. He boarded the 5:36 p.m. Churchgate-Borivali slow train and stood near the last row of seats in the first-class bogie. Two men boarded the train with a black bag, one of whom tried to place it on the rack but kept it below the seat near the window that was facing towards churchgate. After the train left Jogeshwari, there was a loud explosion,he was thrown down in the train and people fell on him. After some days in the news, he got to know about bomb blasts in the trains and that some persons had kept black bags containing bombs in the train. Therefore, he went to the ATS office on 20/10/2006 and gave his statement about the incident. He identified one of the men, A.3 - Faisal, in a police identification parade on 07/11/2006. In court, he again identified A.3 as the person who had kept the black bag in the train.

PW-77 Rajesh Satpute (Taxi Driver Who Identified A.3)

87. PW-77 Rajesh Satpute testified that on 11/07/2006, he was driving taxi MH-01-J-4066 when two men entered in his taxi near Carter Road, Bandra. One of the men had a black bag, which he placed on the front seat by his side. They asked him to drive to Churchgate. During the drive, there was an instance when the driver applied a brake due to which the bag moved ahead. The man sitting behind grabbed the bag and warned Satpute to drive carefully. Satpute offered to put the bag in the boot, but the other man refused, saying the bag contained valuable items. Satpute described the men, one being around

61

30-35 years old with a small beard and long hair, and the other about 25-28 years old The witness identified A.3 - Faisal in the TIP dated 07/11/06 conducted by SEO Barve. Further, he also identified A.3 in Court as one of the passengers in his Taxi.

Handwriting Analysis

88. During the search & seizure, the IOs had obtained some maps which contained handwritten notes. Therefore, PW-176 Sr.PI Rathod collected specimen handwriting from several accused persons, including Tanveer, Muzzammil, Faisal, Zameer, and Suhail, between July 30, 2006, and August 4, 2006. These specimens, along with maps containing handwritten notes, were forwarded to the Additional CP, Crime Branch, CID, Mumbai, for onward submission to the handwriting expert for finding out the author of the writings on the maps. PW-131 Jayant Ahir (handwriting expert) confirmed that the handwriting on the maps matched Faisal's handwriting, specifically the e-mail addresses written on them.

89. The handwriting expert explained the process of analyzing the questioned documents (maps) and the specimen handwriting. He concluded that the writings on the maps (Exhibits 1486 to 1490) showed similarities with Faisal's handwriting (Exhibits 1491, Sheets 1-

9). The expert further noted that, despite the presence of Urdu script, the handwriting was similar enough to indicate that the same person wrote the markings on the maps. The Urdu phrases on the maps contained specific names, phone numbers, and references to email addresses.

62

Recovery From The Car Of A.3

90. A.12 - Naveed voluntarily took police officers, including PW-50 Shrikrushna Pawale (Panch Witness) and PI Khanvilkar (PW-168), to several locations as part of a reconstruction. They traveled from Shivaji Nagar, Govandi, to Lotus Junction, then to Geeta Vikas Beat Police Chowki, where A.12 indicated he had stopped a Maruti 800 car. He claimed A.3 (Faisal), A.7 (Sajid), and two Pakistani nationals had got down from the vehicle there.

91. A.12 then led them to Bandra Perry Cross Road, pointing out Lucky Villa, A.3's residence, and noted that two Pakistanis lived with Faisal in a temporary structure on the terrace. Following his directions, they also went to Millat Nagar, where Naveed indicated a building near Ocaz Shopping Center, stating he dropped A.3 there to meet Pakistani guests.

92. Naveed identified a white Maruti 800 parked at Al Hatim Building as A.3's car. Mohd. Alam (PW-59) testified that A.3 had recently purchased this vehicle. Police found black spots inside the car and collected them with swabs for analysis. ACP Patil sent the swabs and the car to FSL on 26/10/06. The FSL report revealed the presence of RDX, petroleum hydrocarbons, charcoal, and ammonium compounds in the swabs and the vehicle.

63

Conspiracy - Link Between The Accused - Visit To Pakistan - Connection With SIMI

93. The prosecution alleges A.3 - Faisal and A.9 - Muzzammil, along with other accused, conspired against the nation and participated in train bomb blasts, citing the following reasons:

i) A.9 and A.3 contacted the wanted accused Azam Cheema of Lashkar-e-Taiba through their associates, Rahil and Rizwan Dawrey, to receive funds. A.3 used this money to facilitate the travel of radicalized youths from India to Pakistan via Tehran.

ii) Abdul Rehman Dawrey (PW-71) testified about discussions at the SIMI office concerning Muslim issues and identified Faisal, Muzzammil, and others. Literatures connected with SIMI were also found at the houses of A.3 and A.9.

iii) Following riots in Pune in 2001 and the ban on SIMI, some members used to say that it will not be sufficient only to talk but they should take some training. Faisal traveled to Pakistan for training in 2002, meeting Hafiz Sayyed of LeT, and had traveled through Attari Rail Check-post in 2001.

iv) PW-95, Tafheem Akmal Hashmi, a former Pakistani Army hawaldar, testified that he joined the Mujaheeddin after leaving the army in 1994-95, receiving training in Afghanistan and Azad Kashmir, including Muzaffarabad. He claimed to have met A.3 Faisal at a Lashkar-e-Taiba training camp near Muzaffarabad in June or July 2004.

v) Training in militancy was reported, with connections to Azam Cheema (chief commander of L-e-T), who funded the accused's training and A.3 had gone to pakistan twice and had taken training in the camps of Lashkar-e-Taiba.

64

vi) PW-59, Mohammed Alam, revealed he was close to Faisal, who changed his name to conceal his identity and admitted training in Pakistan. In February, 2006 once he went to the house of A.3, that at that time he saw 5-6 persons in his house, that they had gathered there for discussion on some special subject.

vii) Despite SIMI's ban, accused members continued their activities, keeping in contact and sharing shared ideological materials.

viii) During the course of investigation 26,200 Saudi Riyals were recovered, some from the residence of A.3 and some from witness Abdul Rehman Dawrey, which were meant for A.3, that wanted accused Azam Cheema had asked A.3, A.13 and others to make preparations for bomb blasts strike in the city of Mumbai.

ix) Investigations revealed a conspiracy dating back to 1999, involving several trips to Pakistan for training in subversive activities.

x) Evidence indicated 15 kg of RDX was smuggled in by Pakistanis, and explosives were procured locally. Pakistani nationals associated with the accused used multiple residences in Mumbai before the blasts. Investigative officers confirmed that Faisal lived in a rented flat in Bandra, with connections to local and infiltrated individuals.

Links With Wanted Accused Rizwan Dawrey - Foreign Funding

94. On inquiry about wanted accused Rizwan Dawrey, his father informed police that Rizwan was in Saudi Arabia and his other son, Abdul Rehman Dawrey, resided in flat no. 202 of the 'C' wing in the

65

same building. Police, with panch witnesses, visited Abdul Rehman's flat, where he told that Rizwan had sent 500 and 200 Saudi Riyals for A.3 - Faisal. Abdul Rehman stated that Rizwan informed him via email about sending the money. The police seized the envelope and Riyals, properly labeled and signed.

95. Abdul Rehman also shared that A.3 - Faisal and wanted accused Rahil used to visit him in 1996-1997. He knew A.3's brother, A.9 - Muzzammil, and was aware A.3's other name was Mustafa. Abdul Rehman stated that Rizwan went to Jeddah in 2003 and worked as a system administrator. Faisal and Rahil visited him there. At one instance, Faisal showed him his Pakistani passport and suggested sending Rizwan for training in Pakistan, which Abdul Rehman opposed. Abdul returned to India in 2005. Rizwan continued to send 500-600 Saudi Riyals for the expenditure of their father. On 17/07/06, Abdul collected a parcel of medicines, sweets and an envelope containing about 500 Riyals sent by Rizwan.

96. In a conversation on 26/07/06, Rizwan told Abdul that the envelope of 500 Riyals was for A.3 - Faisal and told him to dispose of the envelope and move out from Pune as A.3 was picked up in connection with the 07/11 railway blasts. On 30/07/06, Abdul Rehman handed the envelope over to the ATS when they visited, along with the 500 Riyals and Rizwan's personal computer.

97. In 02/07/2006, Hidayatulla Sundke traveled from Jeddah to Mumbai, carrying 15,000 Saudi Riyals for A.9 - Muzzammil, sent by Rizwan stating that they were for a mosque construction project. Hidayatulla later handed the money to Bilal. Bilal later arranged for

66

Mohsin Khan to deliver the money to A.3 - Faisal in Mumbai. A.3 was unable to explain the source of 26,200 Saudi Riyals found in his house during the house search, which was linked to funds from Azam Cheema, commander of LeT, Pakistan, sent via Rizwan Dawrey. The investigation revealed these funds were intended for militant activities.

CHART NO. 6

Trail of 15,000/- Saudi Riyals from Rizwan Dawrey to Mohd. Faisal Rizwan Dawrey (WA)

(It is alleged that he used to obtain funding from Azam Cheema. Rizwan convinced Hidayatulla (PW-64), who was working in Jeddah, to take 15,000 Saudi Riyals and give it to A.9 - Muzzammil Shaikh in Pune. He told Hidayatulla that he has collected the money for constructing a masjid in his village.)

↓

Hidayatulla Mehboob Sundke (PW-64)

(Hidayatuula agreed to take the cash. Upon reaching Pune, he received a call from Bilal (PW-66) who told him that Muzzammil had asked him to pick up the cash. Hence, after talking with Muzzammil on call, Hidayatulla handed over the cash to Bilal.) ↓

Bilal Salauddin Shaikh (PW-66)

(He was a maternal relative of A.3 - Faisal. A.9 - Muzzammil called Bilal & requested him to collect the Saudi Riyals from Hidayatulla and told him that Faisal shall collect it from him later. Bilal collected the amount. On the same day, Faisal called Bilal and told him to send the cash to Mumbai.)

↓

Mohsin Khan (PW-67)

(He is cousin of Bilal (PW-66). Mohsin's father was admitted in J.J.Hospital in Mumbai, therefore, he was going to Mumbai. Bilal told him to take the cash with him to Mumbai and that Faisal will collect it from there. He did as instructed. Faisal came to collect the cash at J.J.Hospital. Mohsin handed over the cash to Faisal.)

↓

Mohd. Faisal (A.3)

Foreign Travel / Passport Agent / Link Between Accused

98. In 2004, A.3 - Faisal asked PW-46 Mushtaq Ahmed to arrange a visa for his friend, A.2 - Tanveer Ansari, by submitting Tanveer's passport to an agent named Johar Sayyed. Faisal later repeated similar

67

actions with other individuals, including A.9 - Muzzammil, A.11 - Zameer, and others, using agent Ashik Ali to obtain their visas and tickets for travel to Iran. A.3 - Faisal used to give such work to him every 2-3 months.

99. PW-44 confirmed that he worked with Mushtaq to arrange tickets and visas for these individuals between 2004 and 2006, noting that they were initially going to travel as part of a group but later traveled independently. The ATS later investigated and retrieved the relevant passport records, identifying several individuals, including Muzzammil, Zameer, and others.

100. Further evidence from PW-114, an Immigration Officer, confirmed that passport records linked to Faisal showed his departure to Karachi in 2001. Additionally, PW-115, another immigration officer, testified about an incorrect entry in his records concerning the date of departure for Faisal.

101. Overall, the evidence points to a network of individuals, primarily Faisal, who facilitated the processing of visas and travel documents for various individuals between 2001 and 2006, possibly as part of a broader scheme.

A.4 - Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique

FIR/Arrest/Crime No.

102. To get insights regarding the arrests of the A.4 in relation to his involvement in different blasts, a chart is produced herein below: -

68

CHART NO. 7

Train Passenger Who Identified A.4

103. On 11/07/06, PW-74 Vishal Parmar after the work was over, received a call from his employer who directed him to go to the BMC Bank at Dadar, therefore, at 5:15 p.m., he went to Churchgate Station as he wanted to go to Dadar he went to platform no.3, he waited for the 5:19 p.m. Virar fast train on platform 3. Two men asked him about the train, then boarded ahead of him. One of them, carrying a black rexine bag, unintentionally hit Parmar's leg as they boarded. He sat in a crowded first-class compartment, noticing the bag but not thinking much of it. After stopping at Dadar, the two men exited quickly without the bag.

104. Later, amid reports of bombings involving black bags, Parmar recalled this incident. He approached the ATS police in Bhoiwada, met

69

Officer Patil, and gave his statement, later identifying accused Ehtesham Siddique during the test identification parade conducted by PW-80 SEO Purandare in Arthur Road jail.

105. PW-80 SEO Purandare adopted the same procedure for another parade. In this parade witnesses PW-75 Amar Khan and Ajmeri Shaikh identified A.4 Ehthesham and accused no.6 Mohd. Ali Alam Shaikh, in connection with their role outside and in the house of Accused no.6 Mohd. Ali on the day when they had gone there.

Link Between Accused - Connection With SIMI - Conspiracy

106. During the interrogation of A.4 - Ehtesham, he disclosed that A.2 - Tanveer, was teaching them how to make bombs with chemicals. Both A.4 and A.2 faced charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and for rioting at Kurla Police Station. PSI Kshirsagar collected and presented the relevant chargesheets (Exts. 462-463). Ext. 462 shows that on 27/09/2001, A.4 and A.2 illegally assembled at the banned SIMI office, while Ext. 463 indicates that on 28/09/2001, they shouted anti-national slogans in support of SIMI near Kurla court.

107. A.3 - Faisal, in his confessional statement, stated before PW-40 Arvind Singh (Assistant Director of E.D) that A.2 and A.11 - Zameer were sent to pakistan to get training in L-e-T camps via Iran route on the reference of A.4.

108. It has come in the evidence of PW-174 (I.O of Cr. No. 156/2006) that PI Dinesh Ahir had recovered literature connected with SIMI from A.4 - Ehtesham in an LAC case. He was also convinced that, A.4 was involved in the commission of the crime that he was investigating.

70

109. It has come in the evidence of PW-75 that he met A.4 - Ehtesham in SIMI programs, there used to be aggressive and provocative speeches about jihad at the SIMl programs, that the jihad that they were talking about was in respect of atrocities committed on Muslims, that A.4 used to give such speeches.

110. PW-75 had gone with his friend Ajmeri Shaikh four or five days before the blast to Shivaji Nagar in Govandi at A.6 - Mohd. Ali's house, before entering the house, they saw A.4 - Ehtesham entered the house from outside with a tea kettle. They both entered the house behind A.4, they saw three-four more persons sitting there, one person was doing something with a wire, two- three newspapers were spread in front of the persons, there was white and black coloured powder on the newspapers, that when they greeted them, A.6 said they are busy in some work and they would meet afterwards, therefore they came out of the house.

111. PW-59 saw A.4 - Ehtesham along with A.2 - Tanveer, A.10 - Suhail, A.9 - Muzzammil and A.13 - Asif at A.3's house in February 2006, that they had gathered there for discussion on some special subject, and later in March 2006, A.3 came to meet PW-59 at Mira Road near Shams Masjid with A.3's three friends, A.4, A.13 and A.2.

112. PW-65 Mehboob Qureshi (Hostile witness) had stated in his 161 statement that when A.4 - Ehtesham used to come to Mumbra, he used to meet his brother-in-law (Sadu) A.8 - Abdul Wahid, that in May 2006 when he was in his shop Hamja General Stores, A.4 came to his shop and asked him to give the keys of A.8's house, that thereupon he

71

gave the keys of the room of the house in which A.8 used to live, i.e., 202 (room no.2), 2nd floor, Moonlite building, B-wing, near Bharat Gear company and Kalshekar college, Kausa, Mumbra, Thane to A.4, at that time A.8 and his wife were not at home and there were five-six other persons with A.4 and during that period A.4 took the keys from him twice and took meetings.

113. It has come in the evidence of PW-186 that it was found that there were cases against A.2 - Tanveer, A.4 - Ehtesham, A.7 - Sajid and A.8 - Wahid, which were of similar nature and were under the provisions of Section 153 A of the IPC or under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

114. It has come in his evidence of PW-186 that when the investigation came to him, the admissible evidence that was against A.4 - Ehtesham was the evidence about he being member of SIMI, that he was arrested earlier in the offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, that at the time of arrest he was found in possession of objectionable books, that he was continuing with the activities of the SIMI even after the ban and collecting funds for the organization, that he was knowing most of arrested accused in this case, etc. Further, A.4, along with A.2 - Tanveer and A.6 - Mohd. Ali were supervising the assembling of bombs.

115. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the bomb blast that exploded ahead of Mira Road Railway Station was planted by A.4 Ehtesham along with wanted accused Ammujaan.

72

A.5 - Mohd. Majid FIR/Arrest/CR No

116. A.5 was arrested only in one crime; the details are given as under:

CHART NO. 8

Sr. No. Cr. No. Police Station Place of Blast Date of Arrest Borivali Railway

Borivali Railway Station (Platform no.

1. 156/06 29/09/2006 Police Station 4 of Borivali Railway Station)

Conspiracy - Link Between The Accused

117. PW-70 M. Shakeel, a childhood friend of A.5 - Majid, identified him in court. He has told that A.5 resides nearby, that he knew one of his relatives by name Asif, who stays in Bangladesh. PW-70 recounted meeting Asif in Kolkata in December 2003 during his uncle's wedding and again in February 2006, when Asif came to Kolkata met him and A.5. Asif told to PW-70 that he had come for some secret work about which he cannot tell him and said that he would tell A.5 about the work for which he had come. PW-70 asked A.5 about the work that Asif told him. He said Asif had come to India for doing some work in connection with the plight of Muslims in India and that he also wants to do that work. PW-70 questioned A.5 as to why he is doing that work. A.5 said that he is doing it as he wants to do something for Islam. PW-70 did not feel it good as A.5 was not attentive to the business of spectacles which PW-70 was doing with A.5.

118. One day, A.5 - Majid said that he wants to do some work about jihad and that Asif and some of his friends are going to do some big work for jihad. PW-70 was shocked on hearing this and told A.5 that

73

he does not want to do that work and he does not want to be concerned with it. While talking with A.5, he came to know that A.5 is in contact with some person of Lashkar-e-Taiba in Mumbai and during the second or third week of May 2006, A.5 told PW-70 that some persons are to be brought from Bongaon on the border of India and Bangladesh, therefore, one day A.5 and PW-70 went to Bongaon by train. At that time, A.5 was talking with Asif and Munna on his mobile. On reaching Bongaon, PW-70 and A.5 went towards the Bongaon market area. After some time, Munna came with six persons. They greeted A.5 and told their names, they were Abu Bakar, Sabir, Kasam Ali, Ammujaan, Abu Hassan and Ehsanulla, all wanted accused.

119. PW-70, A.5 - Majid and the six wanted accused went to a nearby hotel for tea. All of them were between 20 to 30 years of age, all of them gave their passports to Munna. PW-70 could gather from the passports that those persons were from Pakistan as the name Pakistan was written on the covers of the passports. Munna took the passports and left them.

120. PW-70, A.5 - Majid and those six wanted accused persons went by two rickshaws to the railway station. A.5 purchased eight tickets for going back to Kolkata. During their talk, PW-70 came to know that those wanted accused persons are from Pakistan and are sent by wanted accused Azam Cheema, commander of Lashkar-e-taiba in Pakistan. After reaching Kolkata, PW-70 went to his house and the six wanted accused persons went with A.5 to his house. PW-70 told A.5 that he is not ready to do that work as it is not a good work and that he is a small man and has business, but A.5 was not ready to listen.

74

121. That wanted accused Azam Cheema sent six persons from Bangladesh in May 2006, who were collected by A.5 and brought to Mumbai and handed over to A.13 - Asif, who made arrangements for their stay, that the names of those persons were disclosed as wanted accused Sabir, wanted accused Ammu Jaan, wanted accused Ehsanullah, wanted accused Abu Hasan, wanted accused Abu Bakar and wanted accused Kasam Ali, all of them Pakistani nationals and it was disclosed that wanted accused Ehsanullah had brought about 15 kgs of RDX with him.

122. The six wanted accused persons who had come from Bangladesh border had assembled in the house of A.8 - Wahid, and from there, they were taken away by A.5 - Majid and A.5 dispatched them out of India from the Bangladesh border.

Evidence Of Hotel Manager-(PW-141) (Hotel Heena At Bhendi Bazar)

123. It has come in the evidence of PW-141 Jairam Mahabal Shetty that he was in Mumbai from 2001 to 2007 working at his brother's Hotel Heena in Bhendi Bazar. The ATS police had come to the hotel on 03/11/06 for making inquiries, that they wanted·to know whether a person by name Mohd. Majid and four-five persons whose names they gave, had stayed in the hotel, that on seeing the register he saw entry in the name of Mohd. Majid, who had stayed in room no. 401 in the hotel for three days from 04/01/04 upto 06/01/04 and Shami, Asif, Pappu and Mohsin, who had come from Kolkata, had stayed with him.

124. It has come in his evidence that he was present when the entry no. 6 (Exh.1569) was made by A.5, who had signed it.

75

125. A.5 - Majid had again come on 10/01/04 and stayed in the hotel in room no. 401 along with the same persons, that they had come from Kolkata and stayed upto 14/01/04 and person by name Shami had signed the entry no. 38 (Exh.1570), which was made by A.5 who had signed it and there was a talk between them when the persons left the hotel on 14/01/04, that they said that the lodging charges were less in Bangladesh and Pakistan than in Mumbai. That the photocopies of the said pages of the register were taken by the ATS when he was called to the ATS office, Bhoiwada.

A.6 - Shaikh Mohd. Ali Alam Shaikh

FIR / Arrest / Crime No.

126. A.6 was arrested only for one crime; the details are given as under:

CHART NO. 9

House Search

127. On 29/09/06, the team consisting of ACP Shengal, PI Tajne- PW- 161(Assistant IO) and staff took the house search of A.6 Mohd. Ali and they came back to the office and handed over the house search panchanama Ext. 716 to him and reported that during the search one Kanchan pressure cooker was seized and they had noticed two black and white spots in the box type cot in the house, that they had taken

76

swabs of the spots and had seized the swabs and the pressure cooker was kept in a plastic bag and seized, that the packets of the cotton swabs were marked as Exb- A and B and the cooker was marked as Exb-C, that the said articles were deposited in the muddemal room.

128. PW-161 and PW-58(Panch Witness) have identified the A.6 and also identifies the articles that were seized i.e cotton swabs Art 301 and Art. 302, pressure cooker Art 303 and rubber ring Art-337 in the court.

129. Contents of the FSL report Ext. 2383 show that cyclonite (RDX) and charcoal were detected on one swab and ammonium, nitrate and traces of cyclonite (RDX) were detected on the other swab. Identification Of Accused

130. PW-75 Amar Sardar Khan is a witness who has been examined to establish the conspiracy. All the Accused had assembled at the house of A.6 at Govandi for assembling the bombs which at that particular time the witness did not pursue, but it was only later when his friend Ajmeri Shaikh brought the Mumbai Mirror newspaper to him and he read about the arrest of A.6 and others. That he realized that A.2, A.4, A.6 and others whom he had seen on that particular day all sitting in the house of A.6 with two three newspaper spread in front on them, a black coloured power on the said newspapers and some wires were there. It was thereafter that he approached the ATS and his statement came to be recorded and later in TIP he also identified A.6.

131. The Test Identification Parade was held by PW-80 SEO purandare wherein witnesses PW-75 Amar Khan and Ajmeri Shaikh

77

identified accused no.6 Mohd. Ali Alam Shaikh and stated that they had seen some persons at the A. 6's house before 4-5 days of the blast and one person was doing something with wires, and they had also seen black-colored powder on the newspapers.

Link Between The Accused - Connection With SIMI/Conspiracy

132. PW-75-Amar Sardar Khan stated that he met accused no.6 Mohd Ali in the programs of SIMI that he attended and has identified him in the court.

133. PW-75 had gone with his friend, Ajmeri Shaikh, four or five days before the blast to Shivaji Nagar in Govandi, that Ajmeri parked the motorcycle outside a lane and they were walking in that lane as A.6's house is in that lane, they were at some distance from A.6's house, they saw A.2 - Tanveer standing outside his house looking around. At that time A.6 came out of the house in a hurry and said something to A.2. Then A.2 and A.6 both went inside the house. At the same time, A.4 - Ehtesham entered the house from outside with a tea kettle. They both entered the house following A.4. There they saw that three-four more persons sitting there, one person was doing something with a wire, two- three newspapers were spread in front of the persons, there was white and black coloured powder on the newspapers, that when they greeted them, A.6 said they are busy in some work and they would meet afterwards, therefore they came out of the house.

134. It has also come in the evidence of PW-76 Vijay Ambekar (PC, Crime branch) that he knew one Ajmeri Shaikh and on 28/10/06 Ajmeri Shaikh came to his house at about 10:00-10:30a.m with his

78

friend Amar Khan and said he wants to talk to him about something special and confidential. Ajmeri Shaikh looked around to confirm that no one is hearing him and then showed him the issue of Mumbai Mirror dated 01/10/06 Ext, 810 that was with him, that it was in the news item that two or three days before the bomb blasts, bombs were prepared in the house of A.6 Mohd. Ali in the presence of some Pakistani persons, that Ajmeri Shaikh further told him that two or three days before the blasts he and his friend PW-75 Amar Khan had gone to the Shivaji Nagar area in Govandi in the afternoon and had gone to the house of A.6, their friend, as they had not met him since many months.

135. Ajmeri told PW-76 that when they went to A.6 - Mohd. Ali's house, they saw A.2 - Tanveer, A.4 - Ehtesham and three unknown persons present in A.6's house, that he wondered as to how A.6, A.2 and A.4 were together, where Ajmeri saw an electric wire in the hands of one unknown person and that he was joining the wires, there were heaps of black, gray and white powder in front of the other two unknown persons.

136. It has come in the evidence of PW-186 ACP Patil that it was disclosed in the investigation that A.6 - Mohd. Ali was having a passport, that by using the said passport he had gone to Dubai and then to Pakistan for terrorist training, thereafter, he came back to Dubai and from Dubai he went to Nepal and from Nepal he entered in India, that it was disclosed that he had used this route to hide his visit to Pakistan and the passport was not traceable and it was suspected that he had destroyed it.

79

137. It was found during the investigation that the leaders of the Lashkar-e-Taiba organization made use of the SIMI cadre because their ideologies are similar, that one of the commanders of Lashkar-e-Taiba wanted accused Azam Cheema @ Babaji had played a vital role behind the activities of arrested accused as an organized crime syndicate. Wanted accused Azam Cheema had arranged for the training of A.6 Mohd. Ali, in the camps of Lashkar-e-Talba situated in Pakistan. A.7 - Mohd. Sajid Margoob Ansari

FIR / Arrest / Crime No.

138. A.7 was arrested only for one crime; the details are given as under:

CHART NO. 10

House Search

139. During the course of investigation, A.7 - Sajid was being interrogated on 23/10/06 at Juhu Unit by PI Tonapi, PI Deshmukh and staff. At that time, A.7 expressed his desire to make a voluntary statement. Therefore, two panchas were called by the staff. PI Tonapi (PW-155) recorded the events chronologically as dictated by PI Deshmukh. PI Tonapi gave his name as 'Sajid Margub Ansari' on being asked before the panchas and made the statement in Hindi Ext. 1479 before them voluntarily disclosing that he would show the place where

80

the articles used for making timer circuit devices were kept, which he wrote down.

140. PI Tonapi, PI Deshmukh, staff, PW-129 Raju Tapi (Panch witness), one another panch and A.7 - Sajid went to Malvani Gate No. 6 via Link Road. A.7 asked to stop the vehicle near Mother Teresa School. They got down from the vehicle, went ahead, and went through a small lane by the side to a ladder. A.7 was walking in front of PI Deshmukh. They were behind him. There was a board outside the house containing the words in English "Valid Tanjeem'. They followed him inside the room on the first floor. An old person was sitting there. There were two parts in that room. The old person was sitting in one part, there were 5-6 computers in the other part.

141. A.7 - Sajid asked the old man to give the keys to his drawer. The old man, i.e. Mushtaq Ali gave him a key, by which he opened one of the drawers of the computer table, took out one plastic bag with the name 'Priya Gold".

142. A.7 - Sajid took out the articles from the plastic bag and put them on the table. The articles were - one soldering gun, four pieces of soldering wire, soldering paste, one screwdriver, two stainless steel tweezers, one multimeter, one packet of Airtel recharge voucher with a sticker containing Sim number and mobile number and certain electric components like - resistors, capacitors, one coil, transistors, LEDs, diodes, etc. These articles were seized and taken in possession and the panchanama Ext. 1480 was completed.

81

143. Contents of the FSL report Ext. 2392 show that Art-346 is a 35 watt soldering rod, in working condition and used earlier. Art-347 (1 to 4), the four pieces of soldering wire are used to connect electronic components on PCB and Art-350 is a multimeter in working- condition. Art-351 (1 and 2) are two stainless steel tweezers in working condition, Art-352. is a T-6 type screw driver particularly used for mobile repairing in working condition, Arts-354(1 to 22) are resistors of different values in working condition, Arts-355 (1 and 2) are two electrolytic capacitors in working condition, Art-356 is silvery white metallic wire wound on graphite rod, Art-357 (1 to 8) are transistors in working condition, Art-358 (1 to 9) are red coloured Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs) in working condition, Art-359 (1 to.6) are Zener Diodes, generally used as voltage regulator and appeared to be in working condition.

Identification Of Accused/Important Witness

144. PW-80 SEO purandare conducted the Test Identification parade on 07/11/06 at Arthur Road Jail, wherein PW-75 Amar Sardar Khan identified Mohd. Sajid. Amar Khan as the person who was present in the house of A.6 Mohd. Ali and was doing something with a wire. Ajmeri Sheikh, a friend of PW-75, who went to A.6's house at Govandi with PW-75 before 4 to 5 days of the blast, also identified A.7 in the TIP conducted on 07/11/06 by SEO Purandare.

Link Between Accused Persons - Connection With SIMI - Conspiracy

145. It was found that there were cases against A.7 - Sajid, A.2 - Tanveer, A.4 - Ehtesham, and A.8 - Abdul Wahid, which were of

82

similar nature and were under the provisions of Section 153A of the IPC or under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

146. Evidence shows that the Pakistani persons were staying at three places in Mumbai, i.e., at the residence of A.3 Faisal at Bandra, at the residence of A.7 Sajid at Mira Road and in the office of SIMI at Mira Road. After the blasts, they went to the residence of A.8 Abdul Wahid at Mumbra.

147. Some of the accused persons had organized a meeting in the month of February 2006 and discussed the proposal of wanted accused Azam Chima, who had promised the accused persons that he would send about 12 people from Pakistan, who would help them in assembling explosive and triggering devices. Wanted accused Azam Cheema had also promised to send high explosives along with those persons. Similarly, wanted accused Azam Cheema sent two persons from the Nepal border and they were collected by A.1 Kamal and brought to Mumbai and handed over to A.7 Sajid, who arranged for their stay. Their names were disclosed as wanted accused Aslam and wanted accused Hafizullah.

148. The wanted accused persons and two dead accused were staying in the safe houses arranged by A.13 Asif Khan, A.3 Faisal and A.7 Sajid.

149. All the accused decided to assemble the explosive devices in the house of A.6 Mohd. Ali, situated at Govandi. Three days prior to the explosions, the explosive devices were assembled by A.7 Sajid and experts in assembling explosive devices, i.e., wanted accused Sohail Shaikh from Pune, who had come from Pakistan and one more Pakistani wanted accused. On the night of 10/07/06, the assembled

83

explosive devices were transported in the motor car no. MH-01-V-9568 belonging to A.3 Faisal and in one taxi, by A.3 Faisal, A.12 Naveed, A.7 Sajid and the Pakistani nationals and taken to the house of A.3 Faisal and stored there.

150. It has come in the evidence of PW-65 Mehmoob Qureshi (Hostile witness regarding SIMI Activities) that the office of the SIMI was at Kurla Pipe Road where he used to go sometimes. Similar types of programs used to be conducted there. In the year 2000, he had visited Akola for a convention of SIMI. He became acquainted with the workers of SIMI, they were A.8 Abdul Wahid, A.7 Sajid, Irshad Khan, who was the Maharashtra President, etc. PW-65 has identified A.8 Abdul Wahid and A.7 Sajid in the court. PW-65 stated that he knows some SIMI activists, out of which A.7 Sajid is his brother-in-law.

151. PW-78 Shaikh Noman Ahmed (Hostile witness) had stated that there was a program at the house of A.7 Sajid Ansari in 2003 and in that program A.2 Tanveer Ansari, A.4 Ehtesham Siddiqui, Shanu and many others were present.

A.10 - Suhail Shaikh

Fir/Arrest/Cr. No

152. To get insights regarding the arrests of the A.10 in relation to his involvement in different blasts, a chart is produced herein below: -

CHART NO. 11

84

House Search Of Suhail Shaikh (A.10), Rizwan Dawrey And Abdul

Rehman Dawrey

153. A.10 - Suhail used to reside in Pune. Therefore, A.10's residence in Pune was searched after consulting with ACP Tawde. PW-176 directed API Kadam and PSI Gaikwad went to Pune with A.10 to conduct a search of A.10's house and conduct the search of the house of Rizwan Dawrey; therefore, a house search of A.10 and Rizwan Dawrey was conducted as they were directed.

154. When they entered the house of A.10, his mother, wife and two brothers were present in the house, police started the search, there was a cupboard on the right side,police opened it, in the middle drawer they found four audio cassettes some cassettes were titled 'Al-Quran' and some were titled 'Beauty of Islam, a passport in his name, a Samsung mobile, six books two books were titled 'SIMI, Student Islamic

85

Movement of India', the address of SIMI's office of Delhi was at the bottom of the front cover, two books were titled 'Tehrik-e-Millat, Atankwad ka jimmedar kaun' and two books were titled 'April-2004' Tehrik-e-Millat;, two maps and one ISD call rate card, two chits stapled to that card on which names and phone numbers were written, two of the books were green coloured, one of the maps was of Asia continent, a route from Salet, Tehran in Iran upto Muzzafarabad in Pakistan was marked on this map, there were some numbers in handwriting and e- mail ID and the other map was titled Map of Mumbai', certain spots in, Mumbai like Veer Savarkar Marg, Dadar, Mahalaxmi Temple, Reserve Bank of India, Zaveri Bazar, etc, were marked in red ink encircled by green ink on this map, a tariff card of ISD calls was found.

155. While searching Rizwan Dawrey's house police received details of Rizwan from his father- Mohd. Hussain that he is in Saudi Arabia, he had gone to Saudi Arabia on 06/04/06 and, found items in his cupboard, including books titled "India's Muslim Problem" "Islamic Directives to Reform the Individuals and Community" and photocopies of passports for Rizwan and his wife, which were seized (Arts. 304-307).

156. Additionally, Rizwan's father informed the police that his elder son Abdul Rehman Dawrey (Rizwan's brother) resides in flat no. 202 of the 'C' wing in the same building. Therefore, they went to flat 202, where Abdul Rehman Dawrey revealed that Rizwan sent money for accused number 3. Abdul rehman Dawrey produced white closed envelope which was opened and they found Saudi Arabian Riyals- 22 notes of 500 riyals and one note of 200 riyals.

86

Link Between Accused - Connection With SIMI- Visit To Pakistan - Conspiracy

157. It has come in the evidence of PW-71Abdul Rehman Dawrey that wanted accused Rahil, A.3 - Faisal, A.13 - Asif, Firoz and others whose names he does not remember, used to come to the office of the SIMI, that besides Kuran and Hadis; there used to be discussions about Muslim issues like arrests of Muslims and the atrocities on the Muslims, the persons whose names he told and the persons whose names he does not remember used to make the above discussions. He has identified A.10, A.3 and A.9.

158. A.3 - Faisal, in his confessional statement, stated before the Assistant Director of E.D (PW-40) that out of the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- received by him in July 2002, he had made a payment of Re. 1/- lakh to A.10 - Suhail for sending him to Pakistan for training in L-e-T camp. A.10 have returned from Pakistan after getting training in L-e-T camp and told him that he ie. A.10 would be looking after the L- e-T work and assignments in Pune, that for this work A.3 had been paying Rs. 4000-5000/-occasionally to A.10 and have paid around Rs.

1.5 lakhs to him.

159. Literatures recovered from the house of A.10 are connected with SIMI, A.10 continued working for the said organization and used to take part in the activities of SIMI.

160. A.10 - Suhail had undergone terrorist training in handling of arms and ammunition and explosives in the terrorist camp of Lashkar- e-Taiba (L-e-T) situated at Muzzafarabad in Pak occupied Kashmir

87

(POK) of Pakistan and A.3 - Faisal had sent A.10, for militancy training in Pakistan.

161. It had come to the notice that A.10 - Suhail had gone to Iran by obtaining Ziyarat Visa and thereafter infiltrated into Pakistan by clandestine way, and had contacted wanted accused Azam Cheema @ Babaji, who is a wanted accused in this case and who is one of the commanders of L-e-T and that had sponsored accused persons training in the training camp of L-e-T at Muzaffarabad.

162. PW-45 (Passport Agent) went to the ATS office on 08/08/06 as the ATS police had telephoned him. Upon reaching there, the ATS officer told him two names, i.e., Suhail Shaikh (A.10) and Firoz Ghaswala and asked him whether these two persons had done the ticketing and visa work from their office. He telephoned his office and asked them to verify. After some time, it was informed that the ticketing and visa work of A.10 - Suhail was done by their office and only visa work of Firoz Ghaswala was done by their office. A.10 had given his passport for visa in 2002.

163. PW-59 saw A.10 Suhail along with Ehtesham, Faisal, Suhail, Muzzammil and Asif Khan at Faisal's house in February 2006, that they had gathered there for discussion on some special subject. A.11 - Zameer Shaikh

Fir/Arrest/Cr. No

164. To get insights regarding the arrests of the A.11 in relation to his involvement in different blasts, a chart is produced herein below: -

88

CHART NO. 12

House Search Of A.11

165. ACP Tawde directed PI Tonapi on 31/07/06 to conduct the search of the house of arrested A.11 - Zameer. PW- 155 PI Tonapi along with panchas and staff entered the house of A.11. There was a nameplate on the room bearing the description '100-6/7, L Block, Latifur Rehman'. A.11 - Zameer knocked on the door, it was opened by a lady, whom he identified as his mother, A.11 Zameer led them to a loft in that house, there was a wooden cupboard on the western side of the loft, A.11 opened the cupboard, opened a drawer and took out a passport in his name and photograph, they checked the passport, there were stamps of Mumbai Immigration, Mehrabad airport and visa of Iran.

89

166. There were two booklets, one Tehrik-e-Millat Atankvad Ka Jimmedar Kaun and the second was titled Tehrik-e-Millat Asia 2004, another booklet titled 'Road Map of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai', it was a road map of only Mumbai, certain places in the map were marked, like RBI, Rajabai Tower, CST, Mumbadevi, Mahalaxmi and somewhere near Century Bazar, another map containing portions of India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Oman and Iran, a route from India to Tehran, Tehrari to Zaidan, Zaidan to Quetta, Quetta to Bahawalpur and Bahawalpur to Muzaffarabad was marked, it also contained an international number 0066 etc in writing, one E-mail ID, 'gudu_sir@yahoo.com'. A.11 produced a black wallet containing some cash, two Canara Bank ATM-cum-debit cards, one in the name of Latifur Rehman and other in the name of Zubair Ansari, one motor driving license in his name and a small pocket diary containing some names and some figures.

Link Between The Accused - Visit To Pakistan - Connection With SIMI - Conspiracy

167. In 2005 or 2006, A.3 - Faisal had given the passport of A.11 - Zameer for obtaining a visa for Iran, which he had given to agent PW-

44 Ashik Ali. PW-46 Mushtaq Ali (Passport Agent) said that A.3 used to give such work to him every two-three months. The details of the passport Art-133 are mentioned in the entry in the register Art-617. As per the entry in the register, A.11 was to go to Iran in 2005. On going through the passport Art-133, Ashik Ali stated that A.11 had gone to Iran but not for Ziarat, because persons who go for Ziarat take Niyaz or Prasad and a stamp is put on their passport to show that they had taken the Niyaz and there is no such round stamp on the passport Art 133.

90

168. A.11 - Zameer had gone to Iran by obtaining ziarat visa and thereafter infiltrated into Pakistan by clandestine way, and had contacted wanted accused Azam Cheema @ Babaji, who is a wanted accused in this case and who is one of the commanders of L-e-T and that had sponsored accused persons training in the training camp of L- e-T at Muzaffarabad.

169. A.3 - Faisal, in his confessional statement, stated before the PW-

40 Arvind Singh (Assistant Director of E.D) that he had sent A.11 - Zameer, SIMI activist, in 2004, Feroz Ghaswala and Mohd. Ali Chipa in 2005 and Zulfiquar Faiyaz in 2006 to get training in L-e-T camps via Iran route. He further stated that A.11 was sent on the reference of A.4 - Ehtesham.

170. PW-95 Tafheem Akmal Hashmi (hostile witness) joined the Pakistan Army in 1993 or 1994 and was a hawaldar when he left service and was posted in 637, Infantry in Bimber in Azad Kashmir. He left army for the first time in 1994 or 1995 and joined the Mujahideen thereafter. He had stated that when he was in police custody in Bombay he was kept in lockup, that there were other persons kept in separate lockups, that they were A.3 - Faisal, A.11 - Zameer, A.9 - Muzzammil, Shakil Warsi and A.2 - Tanveer. A.11, while in custody, told him that he had been to Pakistan for training with Lashkar-e-Taiba and that he had taken the training for 10 days.

171. Literatures recovered from the house of A.11 are connected with SIMI. A.11 continued working for the said organization and used to take part in the activities of SIMI.

172. A.11 - Zameer had undergone terrorist training in handling of arms and ammunition and explosives in the terrorist camp of Lashkar-

91

e-Taiba (L-e-T) situated at Muzzafarabad in Pak occupied Kashmir (POK) of Pakistan and A.3 - Faisal had sent A.11, for militancy training in Pakistan.

173. It was found during the investigation that the leaders of the Lashkar-e-Taiba organization made use of the SIMI cadre because their ideologies are similar, that one of the commanders of Lashkar-e-Taiba wanted accused Azam Cheema @ Babaji had played a vital role behind the activities of arrested accused as an organized crime syndicate. Wanted accused Azam Cheema had arranged for the training of A.11 Zameer and his other co-accused in the camps of Lashkar-e-Talba situated in Pakistan.

A.12 - Naveed Khan

Fir/Arrest/Cr. No

174. A.12 was arrested only for one crime; the details are given as under:

CHART NO. 13

Involvement Of A.12 - Link Between Accused - Recovery From Maruti

Car

175. PI Khanvilkar, his staff, API Dudhgaokar and PSI Sachin Kadam were inquiring with A.12 - Naveed on 22/10/06, arrested in CR. No 05/06 of ATS Police Station, Mumbai. A.12 expressed his desire to disclose certain important information concerning the crime. He gave

92

the statement (Ext.636) before two panchas, in which he wrote, that he is ready to show the places where he had gone, to show the spot where he had kept the car and to show the person to whom he had given the key of the car on the instructions of A.7 - Sajid.

176. They went to Shivaji Nagar, Govandi and proceeded towards Geeta Vikas Beat Police Chowki and in the lane ahead of the chowki. At some distance, in the lane, A.12 - Naveed asked them to stop the vehicle. A.12 was going to show some places. A.12 led them on foot towards Sandeep Tailor and told them that he had halted the Maruti car there. He told them that A.3 - Faisal, A.7 - Sajid and two Pakistani nationals had got down there. A.12 further told them that he had remained standing near the car.

177. Thereafter, the vehicle was taken to Bandra Perry Cross Road, where the vehicle was stopped as per A.12 - instructions. A.12 - Naveed led them and they followed him and after crossing three 'baithi chawls', A.12 pointed to a building and informed them that it was the Lucky Villa building where A.3 - Faisal used to reside. Then, they went by the staircase to the terrace of the building, there was a temporary structure room on the terrace and A.12 pointed to it and informed them that this was the residence of the A.3 where two Pakistanis used to reside with

A.3.

178. Thereafter, as per the direction of A.12 they went to Millat Nagar, Andheri to Khar Danda, Santacruz, Juhu Chowpatty. He led them to a compound in which there was Ocaz Shopping Center. There was a four storied building in front of the shopping center to which he pointed out and informed them that he had dropped A.3 Faisal below

93

that building and A.3 Faisal had gone to meet the Pakistani guests in that building. There is an iron gate behind the building. A.12 - Naveed informed them that he had halted the Maruti-800 vehicle near that gate and had waited there for A.3 Faisal. On his direction, PSI Sachin Kadam prepared a rough sketch of the spot Ext. 639. Then, A.12 led them to the compound of AL Hatim Building and pointed out a white Maruti 800 car amongst other cars that were parked by the side of the south compound wall and said that it was the car of A.3 Faisal.

179. The car was locked. A.12 - Naveed said that the key of that car is in a building nearby. He led them to that building and to a room on the fourth floor. A police officer knocked on the door. A person opened the door, A.12 told him that he had come with the police and asked him to give the keys of the car. The name of that person was Rizwan Khot. Rizwan gave the keys of the car to him.

180. The police inspected the car by torch, they saw some black spots on the back side of the driver seat; the black spots were wiped by three cotton swabs. There were similar black spots in the boot, they wiped the black spots by three cotton swabs and put them in separate plastic bags, Police seized the car and took the keys. The report of the FSL Ext. 2391 was received and the contents of the report show that cyclonite (RDX), petroleum hydrocarbon oil and charcoal, were detected on three cotton swabs and ammonium, nitrate and nitrite radicals were detected in the other three swabs and cyclonite (RDX), ammonium, nitrate, nitrite, petroleum hydrocarbon oil and charcoal were detected in the car.

94

Conspiracy

181. Mohd. Alam (PW-59) Stated in his evidence that during the month of june 2006, A.3 - Faisal Shaikh had introduced him to one Rizwan Khot and during that period A. 3 had purchased a white coloured Maruti 800 car. Mohd. Alam, Rizwan Khot, A.12 - Naveed and A.3 - Faisal Shaikh used to go around in that car, which Rizwan Khot used to drive.

182. In June 2006, A.3 - Faisal Shaikh called PW-59 Mohd. Alam and A.12 - Naveed to his house. Then, they all went to a disco bar. As they were at the disco bar upto late hours, they halted at PW-59 Mohd. Alam's house. On the next morning, A.3 - Faisal Shaikh told A.12 - Naveed that because of the guests, his house is congested and that he should make some arrangements for the guests. After some days, PW- 59 came to know from A.12 Naveed, that A.12 Naveed had made arrangements of two guests of A.3 Faisal at Millat Nagar, Andheri.

183. All the accused decided to assemble the explosive devices in the house of A.6.Mohd. Ali, situated at Govandi. On the night of 10/07/06 assembled explosive devices were transported in the motor car no. MH- 01-V-9568 belonging to A.3 Faisal and in one taxi, by A.3 Faisal, accused no. 12 Naveed, accused no. 7 Sajid and the Pakistani nationals and taken to the house of A.3 Faisal and stored there.

184. It has come in the evidence of PW-186 that it was disclosed in the investigation that the bomb that exploded at Khar subway was planted by accused no. 12 Naveed along with deceased accused Abu

95

Umed @ Abu Osama @ Mohd. Ali, who was killed in an encounter later on.

A.13 - Asif Khan Bashir Khan @Junaid

Fir / Arrest / Crime No.

185. A.13 - Asif was arrested only for one crime; the details are given as under:

CHART NO. 14

Recovery

186. On 07/10/06, PI Tajne (PW-161) received a memo from the chief IO instructing him to interrogate A.13 - Asif, alongside ACP Tawde and PSI Kadam. During this interrogation on 09/10/06, A.13 made a voluntary statement(Ext. 664) in the presence of panchas, indicating his willingness to reveal additional evidence. He then led the team to Mira Road, stopping near Naya Nagar at Haidar Chowk, where he directed them to a locked flat (no. 101) in A wing, claiming he had lost the key. A keymaker was called to make a duplicate key, which PI Tajne took possession of before entering the flat with A.13 and the panchas.

187. A.13 - Asif led the police and panchas to a bedroom where he retrieved a rexine bag hidden beneath suitcases. Upon opening the bag,

96

he produced a white plastic bag containing approximately 2.7 kg of white granules. When questioned about the granules, A.13 remained silent. Due to the strong odor of the substances, the police suspected they were explosives and collected two samples of 10 grams each, placing them in separate plastic pouches for further examination.

188. Thereafter, A.13 - Asif took out a blue coloured plastic bag from the other side of the rexine bag, containing 10 aluminum tubes to which wires were joined (20 pieces of white wire). On examination, they found them to be electronic detonators. They carefully kept those detonators in plastic bottles and labels containing his and panchas' signatures on the samples of granules and the plastic bottle containing detonators and sealed them.

189. The rexine bag was having ash coloured, having chain and the words 'Hindustan ki Kasam' on it, that there was a khaki coloured cardboard box in a corner of that bedroom, that police asked A.13 - Asif to open it, There were 23 books in Urdu language and 2 files containing some documents. They noticed one computer set and CPU while searching the hall, a copy of leave and licence agreement of that flat, Reliance electric bills and some newspaper cuttings were in the hall. PI Tajne seized all these articles under panchanama Ext. 665.

190. The report of the FSL (Ext. 2389) was received and the contents of the FSL report show that Cyclonite (RDX), charcoal and petroleum hydrocarbon oil were found in the blackish oily lumps in the rexine bag in the percentage of 82.34%, 8.00% and 9.17% respectively and ammonium and nitrate radicals are detected in the white granulated powder.

97

Train Passenger Who Identified A.13

191. PW-60 Kishore Popatlal Shah boarded the train going to Virar from Churchgate station at 5:37 PM wherein two boys had boarded the train at Bombay Central Station and kept a black colour bag on the luggage rack. Then they got down at Dadar station and those persons did not have the bag with them when they got down at Dadar. Thereafter, he had gone towards the door on the east side to get down at the next station i.e. Borivali. The train reached Borivali at 6:30 p.m. When it was about to stop, that time the blast had taken place. He along with other passengers who were standing in the door were thrown on the platform.

192. Two days later, on 14/07/06, he reported his injuries and suspicions about the two individuals to the Borivali Railway Police, providing a description; however, police asked him to wait as they were going to call a person who would prepare a sketch. He waited for some time but the person did not come, therefore, he went back.

193. On being called, he went to the ATS office on 07/11/2006 for the purpose of an identification parade, the parade was conducted by PW-82 SEO Barve. When Kishore Popatlal Shah was taken inside the room in Arthur Road jail, he identified a person, i.e. A.13 Asif Khan @ Junaid, standing at the 8th place out of the fourteen persons standing in the row there. He told the SEO that A.13 was the person who had kept the bag in the train on the day of the blast. SEO Barve asked A.13 his name which he told as Asif Bashir Khan.

98

Taxi Driver Who Identified A.13

194. On the orders of his superiors, PW-175 PI Devram Dagadu Wadmare searched for taxi drivers who may have transported individuals from Bandra to Churchgate on the day of the 11/07/2006 blasts. After 15 days, he located taxi driver PW-57 Santosh Kedar Singh at Hill Road, Bandra. PW-57 told PI Devram that he had a suspicion about two persons. On 11/07/2006, around 3:15 to 3:30 p.m., he picked up two passengers at Perry Road heading to Churchgate. One had a heavy black bag and an umbrella. They asked him to drive carefully as the articles that they had with them were delicate. One passenger was medium-built, aged about 30-35, while the other was thin, aged about 23-25.

195. PW-57 dropped them off at the subway for Churchgate station. The fare was Rs. 180, but they paid with a Rs. 500 note. However, he did not have change to return the the balance amount. Therefore, he told them that he would bring it and they should wait for two minutes. However, those two persons were in a hurry and told him to keep the change and got off the taxi, taking the bag with them.

196. On being called, PW-63 had gone to the ATS office at Bhoiwada on 07/11/06 for the purpose of an identification parade. There, he met ACP Patil (PW-186), who told him that he would be required to go for identifying the persons whom he had taken in his taxi. The parade was conducted by PW-82 SEO Barve. When PW-63 went inside the room in Arthur Road Jail, there were fourteen persons standing there. SEO Barve(PW-82) asked him to look at them and see whether he could identify anyone. He looked at those persons and identified one person,

99

ie, A.13 Asif Khan as one of the persons who had traveled in his taxi on that day. SEO Barve asked him his name, which he told as Asif Bashir Khan.

Link Between Accused - Connection With SIMI- Conspiracy

197. PW-174 Prasad Khandekar came to know that A.13 - Asif is an active member of the SIMI and there were some cases filed against him at Jalgaon. He told ACP Tawde that he wanted information about the cases, so he sent a letter and then deputed an officer to collect the information. Two crimes were registered against him in jalgaon under the Explosives Substances Act and IPC. PW-180- API Padmakar Pandharinath went to the SP office of Jalgaon and met the concerned officers in the District Special Branch, who were handling the cell of SIMI activists. They showed him the record of SIMI activists. The name of A.13 and his photograph was in the record and there was information in it that he was the President of Jalgaon unit of SIMI and there were two crimes registered against him.

198. In February 2006, once PW-59 (Mohd. Alam Gulam Qureshi) went to the house of A.3 - Faisal. At that time, he saw 5-6 persons in his house. They had gathered there for discussion on some special subject. A.3 introduced those guests to PW-59. One of them was by name Asif Khan (A.13). Thereafter, in March 2006, A.3 came to meet PW-59 at Mira Road near Shams Masjid with his three friends, A.13 - Asif, A.2 - Tanveer and A.4 - Ehtesham.

199. PW-65- Mehmood Qureshi (Hostile witness) had stated to the police that when he had gone to Akola for a convention of SIMI.

100

Ashraf Jafari and Shahid Badar Falai of SIMI had come there from Delhi. A.13 - Asif and others were present in that convention. He further stated to the police the names of twenty-four SIMI activists and addresses of some and mobile numbers of some, including A.13 - Asif, A.4 - Ehtesham, A.2 - Tanveer, A.7 - Sajid, and A.8 - Abdul Wahid.

200. PW-78 Shaikh Noman Ahmed (Hostile witness) had stated to the police that there was a program at the house of A.7 Sajid Ansari in 2003 and in that program, people were desirous of giving some post in the SIMl organization to A.13 Asif Khan.

201. During the course of investigation, 26,200 Saudi Riyals were recovered, some from the residence of A.3 - Faisal and some from witness Abdul Rehman Dawrey, which were meant for A.3. Wanted accused Azam Cheema had asked A.3, A.13 and others to make preparations for bomb blasts strike in the city of Mumbai.

202. The wanted accused Azam Cheema sent six persons from Bangladesh in May 2006, who were collected by A.5 - Majid and brought to Mumbai and handed over to A.13 - Asif, who made arrangements for their stay. The names of those persons were disclosed as wanted accused Sabir, wanted accused Ammu Jaan, wanted accused Ehsanullah, wanted accused Abu Hasan, wanted accused Abu Bakar and wanted accused Kasam Ali, all of them Pakistani nationals and it was disclosed that wanted accused Ehsanullah had brought about 15 kgs of RDX with him. The wanted accused persons and two dead accused were staying in the safe houses arranged by A.13, A.3 and A.7.

101

203. It was also disclosed that the bomb exploded at Borivali Railway Station was planted by A.13 - Asif along with wanted accused Sabir. During the investigation, 500 gms black powder was recovered from A.1 - Kamal. Samples of black and white spots were noticed in the houses of A.3 - Faisal and A.6 - Mohd. Ali and in the hand bag recovered at the instance of A.13 - Asif. The CA reports about these articles are received showing similar explosive substances as found at the spots.

PERSONS AFFECTED INCLUDING DIED AND INJURED AND

DOCTOR'S EVIDENCE REGARDING POSTMORTEM (Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment) C. R. No. 77 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway Police Station:-

204. On the orders of the superior officers, Dadar Railway Police Station and Bhoiwada Police Station officers prepared inquest panchanamas on the dead bodies that were in the KEM hospital and Sion Police Station officers prepared inquest panchanamas on the dead bodies that were in the Sion hospital. These three police stations registered ADRs at zero numbers and sent the inquest panchanamas to Mumbai Central Railway Police Station, on receipt of which, ADRs were registered and the inquest panchanamas were included in the respective CRs. These three police stations had handed over all dead bodies, except one, to the claimants directly. 28 persons had died in the Matunga blast vide inquest panchanamas, memorandum of post- mortem examinations and cause of death certificates, Exts. 854, 856, 865, 866, 873, 874, 878, 1143, 1144, 1157 to 1160, 1163 to 1166, 1871 to 1890. The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

102

CHART NO. 15

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

103

205. Out of the above, post-mortem examinations were done on 18 bodies at Sion Hospital and on 10 bodies at KEM Hospital. Random post-mortem examinations of two bodies of deceased Nitin Sukhlal Patil and Shojiram Modulal Meena were done, the memorandums of which are at Exts.854 and 856 respectively. The opinions as to the probable causes of deaths mentioned in the memorandums of post- mortem examinations and cause of death certificates were explosive cranio cerebral trauma, terminal cardio respiratory failure due to septicemia in operated case of contaminated grievous facial and left foot injuries, shock due to polytrauma/multiple injuries, haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries, head injury as a result of bomb explosion, etc.

206. Dr. Dhirendra Shantilal Balsara, (PW-83) (Ext.846), and Dr. Walter Francis Vaz, (PW-84) (Ext.872), of KEM Hospital had performed the post-mortem on the dead body of Nitin Sukhlal Patil and had recovered fragments of shrapnel for metallurgical analysis, Arts. 313(colly), pieces of burnt/partially burnt explosive material, Arts. 314(colly), and blood for grouping and for chemical analysis from the dead body, which he forwarded to the FSL alongwith his forwarding letters, office copies of which are at Exts.848 to 850. Infact HC Shrimant Maruti Jadhav, (PW-90) (Ext.896), took the sample bottles from the hospital on 24/07/06 and reached them to the FSL, Kalina alongwith the forwarding letter of his police station, office copy of which is at Ext.898. The reports of the FSL, Exts. 851 to 853 were

104

received by the hospital and they were sent to the police station. The reports, Exts.851 and 852, showed that Nitrite (post explosive residue) was detected in the splinters and pieces of burnt/partially burnt explosive material that were recovered from the dead body of Nitin Sukhlal Patil.

207. Both the above doctors had also performed post-mortem on the dead body of Shojiram Modulal Meena and had recovered fragments of shrapnel for metallurgical analysis, Arts.315(colly), pieces of burnt/partially burnt explosive material, Arts.316 (colly), and blood for grouping and chemical analysis from the dead body and had sent them to the FSL alongwith Dr. Balsara's forwarding letter, copy of which is at Exts.857 to 859. HC Jadhav, PW-90, had taken the sample bottles from the hospital and had reached them to the FSL alongwith the forwarding letter of his police station, office copy of which is at Ext.897. FSL reports, Exts.860 to 862, were received by the hospital and sent to the police station. They showed that Nitrite (post explosive residue) was detected in the splinters and brownish material taken out from the dead body of Shojiram Modulal Meena. The cause of death was hemorrhagic shock in a bomb blast, cerebral and spinal concussion and massive bilateral pulmonary contusion as effects of a bomb blast (unnatural) and that all the external and internal injuries were collectively responsible for the death of that person and all the external injuries may have been 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 removed from the body of an injured Kalpesh Raut, alongwith their letter, Ext.900, addressed to the police station. Sr. PI Rathod, PW-176, sent the said sealed bottle alongwith his forwarding letter, office copy of

105

which is at Ext.899, alongwith HC Jadhav, PW-90, to the FSL, Kalina. Contents of the report, Ext.901, that was received subsequently, showed the result of analysis that traces of Nitrite (post explosion residue) were detected on the metal piece.

208. Dr. Balsara, PW-83, and Dr. Vaz, PW-84, had issued cause of death certificates, Exts.865, 866, 873, 874 and 878 in respect of five dead bodies and Dr. Mukesh Shamrao Ghuge (PW-112) (Ext. 1138) and his junior Dr. Sapna had conducted post-mortem on 15 bodies of the persons who had died in the train blasts at Mahim and other places. They had performed post-mortem on 5 bodies concerning the blast at Matunga and had issued the memorandums of post-mortem examination and cause of death certificates, Exts. 1879, 1157, 1158 and Exts.1883, 1163, 1164 and Exts.1885, 1159, 1160 and Exts. 1886, 1143, 1144. Ext.1165 was of an unidentified dead body.

209. 127 people were injured in the Matunga blast vide injury certificates Exts. 894, 2727 (1 to 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 27, 29, 32 to 37, 39, 40, 46 to 50, 52, 55 to 57, 59, 79). The relevant details thereof, to show that those persons had sustained injuries, are given in the table below:

CHART NO. 16

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

106

107

108

109

C. R. No. 78 of 2006 of Mumbai Central Railway Police Station:-

210. 43 persons had died in the blast at Mahim Railway Station vide inquest panchanamas, memorandums of post-mortem examinations and cause of death certificates, Exts. 863, 864, 867 to 871, 875 to 877, 879 to 881, 1139, 1141, 1142, 1147 to 1151, 1154 to 1156, 1161, 1162, 1167 to 1170, 1891 to 1894, 1897 το 1925. The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

110

CHART NO. 17

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

111

211. These documents show the opinions as to the causes of deaths to be head injury in case of explosion, shock following 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 result of bomb explosion.

212. 96 persons were injured in the blast at Mahim Railway Station vide injury certificates, Exts. 2728 (1 to 96). The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

112

CHART NO. 18

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

113

114

115

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

213. Dr. Kalpesh Jayantkumar Gajiwala, (PW-69) (Ext.779), a consultant plastic surgeon in the Holy Family Hospital, Bandra, had operated on Devdas Situ Shetty, (PW-23) (Ext.501), an injured in C. R. No.86 of 2006 and had removed the foreign body, Art.94, from the scalp of that patient and had issued the injury certificate, Ext. 781. Dr. Russell Pinto, (PW-56) (Ext.681), consultant surgeon in the Holy Family Hospital at Bandra, had treated Ashok Raghuvir Rao, (PW-27) (Ext.594), an injured in C. R. No.86 of 2006 and had removed the foreign body, Art.93, from the wound on the right side of his chest and had issued the injury certificate Ext.684. He had also treated Vishal Vijaykumar Nagaich, (PW-13) (Ext.445), an injured in C. R. No.87 of 2006 and had removed a triangular shaped foreign body, Art.95, from the right side of his neck and had issued the injury certificate Ext.682.

214. Holy Family Hospital phoned the police station that they had taken out foreign bodies from the bodies of three injured persons. St. PI Kadri, PW-138, sent PSI Pednekar to bring them. PSI Pednekar seized them under the panchanama Ext.504 in the presence of panch witnesses Suresh Dagdu Vandre, (PW-24) (Ext.503), and one more. Sr. PI Kadri, PW-138, sent the foreign bodies/metal pieces in C. R. No. 86 of 2006 to the FSL, Kalina alongwith WPC Savita Raghunath Satav, (PW-87) (Ext.886), alongwith his forwarding letters, copies of which

116

are at Exts.888(1 and 2). He also sent the foreign body/metal piece taken out from the body of the injured Vishal Nagaich alongwith WPC Satav, PW-87, alongwith his forwarding letters, copies of which are at Exts. 889 (1 and 2). 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) of the injured Vishal Nagaich, show the result of analysis that traces of Nitrite (post explosive residue) was detected. Exts. 2434(2) and 2433(2) are the FSL reports in respect of analysis of trace elements in the metal pieces.

215. 22 persons had died due to haemorrhagic shock due to 2 polytrauma in the blast occured near Bandra Railway Station vide inquest panchanamas, memorandums of post-mortem examinations and cause of death certificates Exts.2610 to 2631. The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

CHART NO. 19

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

117

216. 107 persons were injured in this blast as per the injury certificates, Ext.2729 (1 to 134). The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

CHART NO. 20

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

118

119

120

121

217. 9 persons had died due to shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries in the Khar Subway blast near Santacruz Railway Station vide inquest panchanamas, memorandums of post-mortem examinations and cause of death certificates, Exts.2632 to 2640. The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

CHART NO. 21

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

218. 102 persons were injured in the same blast as per the injury certificates, Ext.2730 (1 to 118). The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

122

CHART NO. 22

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

123

124

125

C. R. No. 41 of 2006 of Andheri Railway Police Station :-

219. 28 persons had died due to haemorrhage and shock due to polytrauma, and multiple injuries suffered in the blast at Jogeshwari vide inquest panchanamas, memorandums of post-mortem examinations and cause of death certificates, Exts.2641 to 2668. The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

CHART NO. 23

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

126

220. 115 persons were injured in the same blast as per the injury certificates, Ext.2731 (1 to 110). The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

127

CHART NO. 24

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

128

129

130

131

C. R. No. 156 of 2006 of Borivali Railway Police Station :-

221. 26 persons had died because of complications due to head injury with polytrauma, haemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries in the blast at Borivali Railway Station vide inquest panchanamas, memorandums of post-mortem examinations and cause of death certificates, Exts. 2669 to 2694. The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

CHART NO. 25

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

132

222. 153 persons were injured in the same blast vide injury certificates, Exts.2733 (1 to 152). The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

133

CHART NO. 26

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

134

135

136

137

138

C. R. No. 59 of 2006 of Vasai Road Railway Police Station :-

223. 31 persons had died in the blast near Mira Road Railway Station as per the contents of the inquest panchanamas, memorandums of post-mortem examinations and cause of death certificates, Exts.2695 to 2725. One of the injured witnesses by name Amit Dinesh Singh had been admitted in-the Jaslok Hospital after the blast in an unconscious condition and was decerebrating. He died on 03/05/13, i.e., nearly 7 years after the incident, and the prosecution produced his death certificate Ext. 4731 and death summary issued by the Jaslok Hospital Ext.4733. Thus, in all 32 persons have died in this blast. The opinion as probable causes of deaths mentioned in the memorandums of post mortem examinations and cause of death certificates was haemorrhagic shock due to multiple perforating injuries over forehead, chest wall, abdomen, multiple fractures, multiple injuries, and injuries to vital organs of pelvis, haemorrhagic shock due to fracture occipital region of skull vault and multiple fracture of extremities, fractures of right ulna and radius, shock due to amputation of left hand below elbow, amputation of left leg below knee and head injury, fracture of right lower legs, humerus. The relevant details thereof are given in the table below:

139

CHART NO. 27

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

140

224. 122 persons were injured in the same blast as per the injury certificates, Ext.2732 (1 to 54). The relevant details thereof are given in the table below.

CHART NO. 28

(Reproduced from the Trial Court Judgment)

141

142

143

144

145

146

INVOCATION OF MCOCA

225. During the investigation of CR No. 156 of 2006, PW-174 PI Khandekar, who was analyzing the collected evidence, formed the view that the arrested accused (A.2 and A.4) and one absconding accused, were associated with the banned organization SIMI. It further appeared that the present bomb blast was the handiwork of SIMI, aimed at promoting insurgency and committing terrorist acts. Consequently, PW-174 gathered material concerning the A.13 - Asif, and discovered that two charge-sheets had already been filed against him under Section 153A(1) IPC and the Explosives Act in Jalgaon, Maharashtra.

226. Based on the above information, PW-174 concluded that the railway bomb blasts in Mumbai were perpetrated by SIMI. Accordingly, on 17th September 2006, the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were invoked in the case. Further, the investigating officer brought to the attention of the chief investigating officer that the case was appropriate for invocation of the MCOCA, and a proposal to that effect was submitted to the Competent Authority through the DCP on 18th September 2006.

227. Subsequently, upon receiving the prior approval from S.K Jaiswal, an officer of the rank of Deputy Inspector General (DIG) on 24th September 2006, the provisions of MCOCA were formally invoked in CR No. 156/2006 of Borivali Railway Police Station. At that point, the investigation, which had been handled by PW-174, was transferred to an officer of the rank of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), namely ACP Sadashiv Patil (PW-186 ).

147

228. Thereafter, the sanction under Section 23(2) of the MCOCA was accorded by PW-185 A.N. Roy, Commissioner of Police, Mumbai on 25/11/2006, after recording his subjective satisfaction.

CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

229. As alleged, 11 accused gave confessional statements during the course of investigation. These accused are A.1 to A.7 and A.9 to A.12. These confessions were recorded between the period from 04/10/2006 to 25/10/2006. Total 7 DCPs recorded these confessional statements. After recording of confessional statements of all the accused, the accused persons have retracted their confessional statements before the court. The accused have retracted their confessional statements on the following dates: -

CHART NO. 29

148

230. We have dealt with the statement, in detail, in the later part of the judgment, while discussing its admissibility in the law.

FILING OF CHARGESHEET

231. ACP Patil, PW-186, filed chargesheet in this court on 30/11/06 on the basis of the investigation conducted upto that date against 13 arrested accused and 15 wanted accused. At that time, he requested the trial court to allow them to conduct further investigation and was permitted.

SANCTIONS UNDER OTHER ACTS

232. PW-186 ACP Patil had submitted proposals to various authorities before filing chargesheet. He submitted proposals to the Addl. Chief Secretory (Home), Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai to grant sanction to prosecute the accused under the provisions of the UA(P)A and under sections 121A, 122, 123, 124A and 120B of the IPC. Awadhesh Prasad Sinha, (PW-160) (Ext. 1699), Vice-Chairman of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, retired from the Indian Administrative Service on 30/06/07 as Addl. Chief Secretary, Home, Government of

149

Maharashtra, on which post he was working from 2005 till retirement. He received the proposal sent by ACP Patil, PW-186, through the Commissioner of Police. He studied the entire proposal together with the comments of other officers and departments and after he was prima facie and subjectively satisfied about the applicability of the provisions of Chapter III of the UA(P)A, he accorded sanction and then forwarded the file to the minister incharge of the Home Department for consideration of rest of the proposal under the UA(P)A and the Passport Act. He issued the common sanction order Ext.1700 in the first week of January, 2007, under his signature for prosecution under the UA(P)A and the Passport Act.

233. Ruprao Natthuji Deshmukh, (PW-149) (Ext.1602), Jt. Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Maharashtra Government received a proposal from the Jt. CP, ATS for according sanction to prosecute the accused in C. R. No. 5 of 2006 for the offences under sections 121A, 122, 123 and 124A of the IPC. He studied the proposal and discussed it with ACP Patil, PW-186, and after complying with the formalities and the Home Minister giving the approval, he issued the sanction order Ext. 1603 under section 196 of the Cr.P.C. against 13 arrested accused and 15 wanted accused.

234. Sambhaji Sadhashiv Zende, (PW-166) (Ext.1765), was the Collector and District Magistrate, Thane from December, 2006 to September, 2008 and was the competent authority to issue consent for prosecution under section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act as a District Magistrate. He received a proposal in the beginning of March, 2007 from the ATS, Mumbai to issue consent for prosecuting the accused involved in the serial bomb blasts that had taken place in

150

Mumbai in July, 2006. He had discussions with the Addl. District Magistrate, Tahasildar and ACP Patil, PW-186, and after being subjectively satisfied on the basis of the documents that were sent with the proposal and the discussions that he had with ACP Patil, PW-186, and his staff, that the case was fit for according consent, he accorded consent Ext.1766 on 09/03/07 for prosecuting three accused.

235. Valsa Nair Singh, (PW-151) (Ext.1633), was Collector and District Magistrate, Mumbai City from July 2006 to April 2007. She received a proposal on 02/03/07 from the ATS, Mumbai for consent order for prosecuting six accused in C. R. No. 5 of 2006 regarding the bomb blasts in seven local trains, as required under section 7 of Explosive Substances Act. She went through the proposal, had discussions with ACP Patil, PW-186, scrutinised all the documents and after satisfying herself, issued consent order Ext.1634 on 17/03/07 to prosecute six accused under section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act.

236. Vishwas Mahipati Patil, (PW-165) (Ext.1761), was Collector of Brihanmumbai Suburban District from 15/12/06 to 21/05/10 and had the power to sanction the prosecution under section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act. He got the proposal for grant of sanction to prosecute the accused in this case under the said act in the first week of March, 2007. He scrutinised it and he, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar went through the proposal and documents sent with it and on perusing the prosposal and the documents, and after applying his mind, he was satisfied that the case was fit for granting the sanction for prosecution. Hence he granted sanction Ext.1762 on 15/03/07 for prosecuting nine persons under the Explosive Substances Act.

151

237. Thereafter, a trial was conducted. The prosecution examined 189 witnesses. At the same time, the defence has also examined total 51 witnesses, including A.2, A.4, A.5, A.6, A.7, A.8, A.9, A.10, A.11, A.12 and A.13. Moreover, the prosecution has filed total 252 affidavits of formal witnesses comprising of injured persons, panch witnesses of inquest panchnamas, person who helped to take the injured and dead bodies to the hospitals, claimants of dead-bodies, and doctors who had treated the injured. Some of them were examined as witnesses of the prosecution.

238. The learned Special Judge, after hearing both the parties and scrutiny of evidence, in detail, passed the impugned judgment and order convicting the accused for the offences as under: - A.1 - Kamal Ansari : [Sec. 302 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 307 r/w 120-B IPC,Sec. 326 r/w 120-B IPC,Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec. 325 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 324 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 3(b) (Explosive Substances Act, 1908), Sec. 9-B(2) Explosives Act, 1884 - Sentenced to imprisonment for 3 years, Sec. 16 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3

(4) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 152 (Railways Act, 1989), Sec. 151 (1) and 153 (Railway Act, 1989), Sec. 3 (2) (e) of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.]

A. 2 - Tanveer Ansari : [Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 9-B(2) Explosives Act,

1884]

A.3 - Mohd. Faisal Shaikh : [Sec. 302 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 307 r/w 120- B IPC, Sec. 326 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC,Sec.

152

120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec. 201 IPC, Sec. 325 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 324 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 3(b) (Explosive Substances Act, 1908), Sec. 6 r/w 4 (ii) Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sec. 9-B(2) Explosives Act, 1884, Sec. 16 (UAPA Act, 1967), Sec. 19 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 3(4) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 3(5) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 152 (Railways Act, 1989), Sec. 151 (1) and 153 (Railway Act, 1989), Sec. 3 (2) (e) (Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984)] A.4 - Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddique : [Sec. 302 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 307 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 326 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and

122 IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec. 325 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 324 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 3(b) (Explosive Substances Act, 1908), Sec. 16 (UAPA Act, 1967), Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3(4) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 152 (Railways Act, 1989), Sec. 151 (1) and 153 (Railway Act, 1989), Sec. 3

(2) (e) (Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984), Sec. 9- B(2) (Explosives Act, 1884)]

A.5 - Mohamad Majid Mohamad Shafi : [Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999,Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA, 1999]

A.6 - Shaikh Mohd. Ali Alam Shaikh : [Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 10 (a)

(i) (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3(1)

(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 6 r/w 4 (ii) Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sec. 9-B(2) Explosives Act, 1884] A.7 - Mohammad Sajid Margub Ansari : [Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 201 IPC, Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i)

153

MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 6 r/w 4(ii) Explosive Substances Act, 1908] A.9 - Muzzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh : [Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and

122 IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3(4) MCOCA, 1999] A.10 - Suhail Mehmood Shaikh : [Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 3(1)

(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA, 1999] A.11 - Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh : [Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec. 120-B IPC r/w 16 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 120B of IPC r/w 3(1)(i) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 3 (4)

MCOCA,1999]

A.12 - Naveed Hussain Khan Rasheed Hussain Khan : [Sec. 302 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 307 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 326 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 120- B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec. 325 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 324 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 3(b) (Explosive Substances Act, 1908), Sec. 9-B(2) Explosives Act, 1884, Sec. 16 (UAPA Act, 1967), Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 3(1)

(i) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 3(4) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 152 (Railways Act, 1989), Sec. 151 (1) and 153 (Railway Act, 1989), Sec. 3 (2)(e) (Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984)]

A.13 - Asif Khan Bashir Khan : [Sec. 302 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 307 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 326 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 121-A and 122 IPC, Sec. 120-B r/w 123 IPC, Sec. 120-B of IPC r/w 13(1) UAPA, 1967, Sec.

201 IPC, Sec. 325 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 324 r/w 120-B IPC, Sec. 3(b)

154

(Explosive Substances Act, 1908), Sec. 6 r/w 4 (ii) Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sec. 9-B(2) Explosives Act, 1884, Sec. 16 (UAPA Act, 1967), Sec. 20 (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 10 (a) (i) (UAPA, 1967), Sec. 3(1)(i) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 3(1)(ii) & 3(2) MCOCA, 1999, Sec. 3 (4) MCOCA,1999, Sec. 152 (Railways Act, 1989), Sec. 151 (1) and 153 (Railway Act, 1989), Sec. 3 (2) (e) (Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984)]

239. A.1, A.3, A.4, A.12, and A.13 are punished with death penalty. Accordingly, this reference under section 366(1) of Cr.PC is made to this Court for confirmation. Accordingly, the confirmation as well as the appeals filed by the accused are heard together.

240. At this juncture, before proceeding, it is beneficial to look into the scope of section 366(1) of Cr.PC.

241. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Mohinder Singh v. State Of Punjab ., (2013) 3 SCC 294, has held thus :

"10. We are conscious of the fact that in terms of Section 366(1) of the Code,

"when the Court of Session passes a sentence of death, the proceedings shall be submitted to the High Court, and the sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court."

The scope and application of the above section is only in cases where a sentence of death has been passed by the Court of Session. The Court of Session should refer the proceedings to the High Court and the High Court can only deal with them as a court of reference. It is the practice of the High Court to be satisfied on the facts as well as the law of the case, that the conviction is right, before it proceeds to confirm that sentence. In other words, the High Court has to come to its own independent conclusion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, independently of the opinion of the Sessions Judge. In a reference for confirmation of death sentence, the High Court must examine the entire evidence for itself independent of the Session Court's views. While confirming the capital sentence, the High Court is under an obligation to itself consider what sentence should be imposed and not be content with the trial court's decision on the point unless some reason is shown for reducing the same. Where, in

155

addition to an appeal filed by an accused sentenced to death, the High Court has to dispose of the reference for confirmation of death sentence under Section 366 of the Code, the High Court, while dealing with reference, should consider the proceedings in all its aspects and come to an independent conclusion on the material on record apart from the views expressed by the Sessions Judge. The confirmation of death sentence cannot be based only on the precedents and/or aggravating facts and circumstances of any other case."

242. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab ., (1980) 2 SCC 684 has held thus :

157. We may next notice other provisions of the extant Code (corresponding to Sections 374, 375, 376 and 377 of the repealed Code) bearing on capital punishment. Section 366(1) of the Code requires the court passing a sentence of death to submit the proceedings to the High Court, and further mandates that such a sentence shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the High Court. On such a reference for confirmation of death sentence, the High Court is required to proceed in accordance with Sections 367 and 368. Section 367 gives power to the High Court to direct further inquiry to be made or additional evidence to be taken. Section 368 empowers the High Court to confirm the sentence of death or pass any other sentence warranted by law; or to annul or alter the conviction or order a new trial or acquit the accused. Section 369 enjoins that in every case so submitted, the confirmation of the sentence, or any new sentence or order passed by the High Court, shall, when such court consists of two or more Judges, be made, passed and signed by at least two of them. Section 370 provides that where any such case is heard before a Bench of Judges and such Judges are equally divided in opinion, the case shall be referred to a third Judge.

157-A. In this fasciculus of sections relating to confirmation proceedings in the High Court, the legislature has provided valuable safeguards of the life and liberty of the subject in cases of capital sentences. These provisions seek to ensure that where in a capital case, the life of the convicted person is at stake, the entire evidential material bearing on the innocence or guilt of the accused and the question of sentence must be scrutinised with utmost caution and care by a superior court. (emphasis supplied)

158. The High Court has been given very wide powers under these provisions to prevent any possible miscarriage of justice. In State Of Maharashtra v. Sindhi Alias Raman . [(1975) 1 SCC 647 : 1975 SCC (Cri) 283 :

156

AIR 1975 SC 1665] , this Court reiterated, with emphasis, that while dealing with a reference for confirmation of a sentence of death, the High Court must consider the proceedings in all their aspects, reappraise, reassess and reconsider the entire facts and law and, if necessary, after taking additional evidence, come to its own conclusions on the material on record in regard to the conviction of the accused (and the sentence) independently of the view expressed by the Sessions Judge.

243. In the teeth of the law discussed hereinabove, about the scope of confirmation, we now proceed to examine the correctness of the impugned judgment and order imposing death penalty to A.1, A.3, A.4, A.12, and A.13 for the purpose of confirmation. At the same time, we will also examine the merit in the appeals filed by the accused.

244. On 11/07/2006, seven bomb blasts had taken place in first class compartments of seven different local trains, resulting in deaths of 187 persons and causing injuries to around 827 persons, is an admitted fact, as it is not disputed by anyone. Thus, the discussion hereinbelow would be to find out an answer to a question whether the accused are the perpetrators of the bomb blasts?

245. The prosecution, while supporting the judgment of the trial court, has relied upon three categories of evidence. The evidence is namely: -

(1) The eyewitnesses who claim to have seen the accused while taking them to Churchgate station in their taxis, or while planting the bombs in the trains, or while making the bombs, or while hatching the conspiracy. There are total eight such witnesses namely, PW-63, PW-77, PW-57, PW-60, PW-62, PW- 74, PW-75 and PW-59.

157

(2) Recoveries of RDX, granules, detonators, books and maps, CPUs, wires, printed circuit board, soldering gun, pressure cooker, a Maruti-800 car, etc.

(3) The confessional statements of the A.1, A.2, A.3, A.4, A.5, A.6, A.7, A.9, A.10, A.11, and A.12.

246. We have dealt with the above referred evidence independtly, category-wise, in the same sequence.

247. The first category of evidence, i.e., evidence of eyewitnesses has been challenged by the defence on numerous grounds, including trustworthiness and credibility of these witnesses, and some of them are either got up witnesses or stock witnesses, etc.

248. The second category of evidence is challenged by the defence on many grounds, including the ground that the recovered articles, including the RDX, were not kept in a proper custody and in a sealed condition throughout, till the time it was sent to the FSL, etc.

249. The admissibility of the confessional statements is also challenged on various grounds, including the grounds namely, validity of prior approval to invoke MCOCA, the voluntariness of the confessional statements, truthfulness/completeness of the confessional statements, extortion of confessional statements by inflicting torture, etc.

250. We accordingly proceed to examine the above referred evidence as under.

158

EYEWITNESSES

T.I. Parade

251. The multiple T.I. Parades were conducted in this case on 07/11/2006 and 08/11/2006. Total seven witnesses identified the accused in T.I. Parades and also in the court. Four out of them claimed to have seen the accused planting the bombs in the trains. Two witnesses (taxi drivers) claimed to have ferried the accused to Churchgate Station in their taxis. The seventh one claimed that he saw the accused preparing bombs.

252. Whereas, the eighth witness, who claimed to have witnessed the accused hatching the conspiracy, identified the accused in court. This witness was not called for the T.I. Parade.

253. There is one more witness who was an injured witness, and he claimed to have seen the suspects after they alighted the train. His statement u/s 161 of Cr.PC was recorded within a short span of the incident, and with his help, two sketches of the suspects were prepared, but he was not called for TIP. Though he was examined, he was not asked to identify the accused in the Court.

254. Following table states the names of the above referred eyewitnesses, dates of sighting, the dates of their statements u/s 161 of Cr.PC, and the accused they have identified.

CHART NO. 30

159

4. PW-75 Amar Sardar Khan 28.10.06 09.07.06 & A.7

5. PW-74 Vishal Kishore Parmar 11.07.06 02.11.06 A.4

A.2, A.3, A.4,

February, March

6. PW-59 Alam Gulam Qureshi 02.11.06 A.9, A.10, & May 2006

A.12, & A.13

7. PW-63 Santosh Kedar Singh 11.07.06 03.11.06 A.13

8. PW-77 Rajesh Satpute 11.07.06 03.11.06 A.3

27.07.06,

Supplementary

9. PW-85 Lalji Pande 11.07.06 ---

160

258. In the Chart No. 30 of nine witnesses, the dates of statements under Section 161 of Cr.PC show that, except the statement of PW-60 and PW-85, the statements of all other witnesses were recorded after a delay of 100 or more days, i.e., after more than three months.

259. Similarly, there is a delay of four months in conducting the T.I. Parade, which is one of the common grounds to raise a question to the fairness in conducting the T.I. Parades.

260. These witnesses may be categorized as follows: -

i) The taxi drivers who took A.3 and A.13 to Churchgate station (PW-63 & PW-77),

ii) The witnesses who saw the accused planting bomb in the trains (PW-57, PW-60, PW-62, & PW-74),

iii) The witness to assembling of bombs (PW-75),

iv) The witness to the conspiracy (PW-59),

v) The injured witness who saw the suspects while alighting the train. He was not called for T.I. Parade, though with the help of him, two sketches of suspects were prepared. Further, though he was examined, he was not asked to identify the accused in the Court (PW-85), and

161

vi) The witnesses, who saw the suspects and gave their statements u/s 161 of Cr.PC within short span of the incident, with the description of the suspects, but were neither called for T.I. Parade nor examined as witnesses (Total 6 witnesses).

261. The T.I. Parades were conducted by two Special Executive Officers (SEOs), namely, Shri. Barve and Shri. Purandare.

262. The T.I. Parades of A.1, A.3, A.12, and A.13 were conducted by Shri. Barve on 07/11/2006, wherein A.1 was identified by PW-57, A.3 was identified by PW-62 and PW-77, A.13 was identified by PW-60 and PW-63, and no one identified A.12. A challenge to the validity of the T.I. Parades conducted by Shri. Barve is raised by the defence on the ground that Shri. Barve was not an SEO on the date of T.I. Parade conducted by him on 07/11/2006, therefore, the T.I. Parades conducted by him vitiate. Since this point goes to the root of the validity of T.I. Parade, we intend to deal with it first. Authority of Shri. Barve as SEO

263. Learned Counsel Shri. Chaudhary has argued that the appointment of Shri. Barve as SEO expired on 07/05/2005 and his fresh appointment was made on 15/11/2006. Thus, from 07/05/2005 to 15/11/2006, he had no authority to conduct T.I. Parades. Whereas, he conducted T.I. Parades on 07/11/2006.

264. The learned SPP, in reply, has argued that Shri. Barve was continued after 07/05/2005 as SEO and had authority as SEO on 07/11/2006 to conduct the parade. It is further argued that the T.I. Parades held by Shri. Barve were held under the bona fide belief that he

162

was a duly empowered SEO and all precautions, as required, were duly complied with. It is submitted that it is a settled law that a T.I. Parade is mainly for the guidance of the investigating agency as to whether they are proceeding in the right direction. It is submitted that the witnesses identified these accused in the court also, which is a substantive evidence.

265. It is evident from the record that, Shri. Barve (PW-82) was appointed as SEO vide Government Resolution dated 08^thMay 2001 (Exh.4307), for four years, and assigned a stamp bearing Sr. No. 631. The aforesaid period of four years expired on 07/05/2005.

266. The government issued GRs dated 22/06/2006 and 23/06/2006 (Exh.4377) appointing SEOs. One Mr. Lakampalli Shamkumar was appointed as SEO, who was assigned the Stamp bearing Sr. No. 631, vide GR dated 23/06/2006.

267. It is pertinent to note that Shri. Barve used the Stamp bearing no. 631, which was assigned to Shri. Lakampalli Shamkumar, while conducting the T.I. Parades of A.1, A.3, A.12, and A.13 on 07/11/2006. In this backdrop, the prosecution failed to bring any evidence on record to show that, after the expiry of period of appointment of Shri. Barve (PW-82) as SEO on 07/05/2005, he was continued till his fresh appointment vide GR dated 15/11/2006.

268. The fact that on the date of T.I. Parade, on 07/11/2006, Shri. Barve (PW-82) was not SEO is fortified by his cross-examination. He deposed that he was appointed as SEO again on 15/11/2006 up to 15/11/2011. However, he showed ignorance about the date of his

163

appointment as SEO before 15/11/2006 and the date up to which his appointment was.

269. Thus, we have no hesitation to hold that on the date of T.I. Parade, i.e. 07/11/2006, Shri. Barve (PW-82) had no authority to conduct T.I. Parade, and hence, the T.I. Parades of A.1, A.3, A.12, and A.13 conducted by him vitiate and need to be discarded.

270. However, the fact that these accused were also identified in dock identification, cannot be ignored in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Budhsep vs. State of UP (1970) 2 SCC 128, wherein it has been held that the identification parades belong to the investigation stage. They are generally held during the course of investigation with the primary object of enabling the witnesses to identify persons concerned in the offence, who were not previously known to them. This serves to satisfy the investigating officers of the bonafides of the prosecution witnesses and also to furnish evidence to corroborate their testimony in Court. It is further held that the identification of the accused in the court constitutes substantive evidence.

271. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Bollavaram Pedda Narsi Reddy v. State of A.P., (1991) 3 SCC 434, has held thus: -

"8. The evidence given by the witnesses before the court is the substantive evidence. In a case where the witness is a stranger to the accused and he identifies the accused person before the court for the first time, the court will not ordinarily accept that identification as conclusive. It is to lend assurance to the testimony of the witnesses that evidence in the form of an earlier identification is tendered. If the accused persons are got identified by the witness soon after their arrest and such identification does not suffer from any infirmity that circumstance lends corroboration to the evidence given by the

164

witness before the court. But in a case where the evidence before the court is itself shaky, the identification before the magistrate would be of no assistance to the prosecution."

272. Thus, it is incumbent upon the Court to exercise caution while scrutinising the evidence of the witnesses who identified A.1, A.3, and A.13 in the Court, as if there is no T.I. Parade.

273. Let us, therefore, first reiterate the law as regards dock identification in absence of T.I. Parade.

274. In the case of Dana Yadav v. State of Bihar, (2002) 7 SCC 295, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that, if a witness identifies the accused in court for the first time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal so much so that it becomes, as a rule of prudence and not law, unsafe to rely on such a piece of evidence.

275. However, there are exceptions to this general rule, one of which is where the court is impressed by a particular witness on whose testimony it can safely rely, without such other corroboration, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Budhsep (supra).

276. The other exceptions as carved out in the following authorities are as under: -

i) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sukhdev Singh (1992) 3 SCC 700, laid down that if a witness had any particular reason to remember about the identity of an accused, in that event, the case can be brought under the exception and upon solitary evidence of

165

identification of an accused in court for the first time, conviction can be based.

ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Ronny vs. State of Maharashtra (1998) 3 SCC 625, has observed that where the witness had a chance to interact with the accused or that in a case where the witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused which lends assurance to his testimony in court, the evidence of identification in court for the first time by such a witness cannot be thrown away merely because no test identification parade was held

277. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Bollavaram Pedda (supra), has held that the credibility of the evidence relating to the identification depends largely on the opportunity the witness had to observe the assailants when the crime was committed and memorize the impression. The visibility of the light at the place of occurrence and proximity to the assailants had a clear vision of the action of each one of the accused persons in order that their features could get impressed in their mind to enable them to recollect the same and identify the assailants even after a long lapse of time.

278. Thus, it is evident that to the general rule that if a witness identifies the accused in Court for the first time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal, the exceptions are : -

i) Where the Court is impressed by a particular witness,

ii) If a witness had any particular reason to remember about the identity of an accused,

iii) The witness had a chance to interact with the accused, and

166

iv) The witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused.

279. In the teeth of above referred observations, let us now revert back to the facts of the present case.

First Category of Witnesses

The taxi drivers who took A.3 and A.13 to Churchgate (PW-63 & PW-77)

280. We have already categorized the witnesses in six categories. Witnesses PW-63 and PW-77 fall in the first category, i.e., the taxi drivers who took A.3 and A.13 to Churchgate in their taxis on the day of the incident. We, therefore, first proceed to scrutinize and examine the evidence of PW-63 and PW-77.

281. Learned defence counsel submits that till 02/11/2006, PW-63 and PW-77 did not think that they had any important information about the bomb blast. It is argued that as PW-63 and PW-77 had no reason to remember the passengers they took to Churchgate, it strains credence and is unbelievable that they remember and can accurately identify the passengers. It is submitted that PW-63 admits that after about a week, it is difficult to remember a passenger and it becomes more difficult after a month.

282. Learned SPP, while justifying as to how do PW-63 and PW-77 remember so much about that particular day, submitted that the human tendency is such that we recollect the memories of special days. It is

167

submitted that both the witnesses have stated about such special events in their evidence, because of which, they both could recollect the description of A.3 and A.13.

283. In light of the above referred rival submissions, on perusal of record, it is evident that though PW-63 and PW-77 claimed to have taken A.13 and A.3 respectively, in their taxis on 11/07/2006, they remained silent till 02/11/2006 and did not disclose anything to anyone about it.

284. The statements of these witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.PC were recorded on the same day, i.e., 03/11/2006 (after 116 days of sighting).

285. PW-63 identified A.13 in Court on 17/01/2011. Whereas, PW- 77 identified A.3 on 16/03/2011. Thus, the dock identification of both the accused is after more than a period of four and half years.

286. As we have seen the exceptions to the general rule of identifying the accused first time in the Court without corroborated evidence of T.I. Parade, namely, 1) if a witness had any particular reason to remember about the identity of an accused, 2) the witness had a chance to interact with the accused, and 3) the witness had an opportunity to notice the distinctive features of the accused, let us thus, examine the impact on memory with the passage of time.

287. There are many psychological and neurological studies that support the idea that memory fades over time, but can be re-triggered

168

or recalled under certain conditions. It is known as 'memory retrieval through cues' or 'cue-dependent memory'. There is another study involving emotional memory triggers, which helps explain why we vividly remember emotionally intense events sometimes even years later.

288. There are two theories. One is decay theory. The other one is cue-dependent theory. Decay theory suggests memory fades simply with time. However, cue-dependent theory says that the memory isn't gone. It is just inaccessible until the right trigger or cue occurs. Sensory cues, contextual cues, emotional states, words, phrase, or conversation are stimuli that help bring a memory to the surface.

289. At the same time, it would be beneficial to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pargan Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in (2014) 14 SCC 619, wherein it has observed on the theory of 'memory' as under: -

"18. Before entering upon the discussion on this aspect specific to this case, we would like to make some general observations on the theory of "memory". Scientific understanding of how memory works is described by Geoffrey R. Loftus while commenting upon the judgment dated 16-1-2002 rendered in Javier Suarez Medina v. Janie Cockrell [Case No. 01-10763, decided on 16-1-2002 (5th Cir 2002)] by the United States Court of Appeals. He has explained that a generally accepted theory of this process was first explicated in detail by Neisser (1967) and has been continually refined over the intervening quarter-century. The basic tenets of the theory are as follows:

18.1. First, memory does not work like a video recorder. Instead, when a person witnesses some complex event, such as a crime, or an accident, or a wedding, or a basketball game, he or she acquires fragments of information from the environment. These fragments are then integrated with other information from other sources. Examples of such sources are: information previously stored in memory that leads to prior expectations about what will happen,

169

and information—both information from external sources, and information generated internally in the form of inferences—that is acquired after the event has occurred. The result of this amalgamation of information is the person's memory for the event. Sometimes this memory is accurate, and other times it is inaccurate. An initial memory of some event, once formed, is not "cast in concrete". Rather, a memory is a highly fluid entity that changes, sometimes dramatically, with the passage of time. Every time a witness thinks about some event—revisits his or her memory of it— the memory changes in some fashion. Such changes take many forms. For instance, a witness can make inferences about how things probably happened, and these inferences become part of the memory. New information that is consistent with the witness's beliefs about what must have happened can be integrated into the memory. Details that do not seem to fit a coherent story of what happened can be stripped away. In short, the memory possessed by the witness at some later point (e.g. when the witness testifies in court) can be quite different from the memory that the witness originally formed at the time of the event.

18.2. Memory researchers study how memory works using a variety of techniques. A common technique is to try to identify circumstances under which memory is inaccurate versus circumstances under which memory is accurate. These efforts have revealed four major categorys of circumstances under which memory tends to be inaccurate. The first two categorys of circumstances involve what is happening at the time the to-be- remembered event is originally experienced, while the second two categorys of circumstances involve things that happen after the event has ended.

18.3. The first category of circumstances involves the state of the environment at the time the event is experienced. Examples of poor environmental conditions include poor lighting, obscured or interrupted vision, and long viewing distance. To the degree that environmental conditions are poor, there is relatively poor information on which to base an initial perception and the memory that it engenders to begin with. This will ultimately result in a memory that is at best incomplete and, as will be described in more detail below, is at worst systematically distorted.

18.4. The second category of circumstances involves the state of the observer at the time the event is experienced. Examples of sub- optimal observer states include high stress, perceived or directly inflicted violence, viewing members of different races, and diverted attention. As with poor environmental factors, this will ultimately result in a memory that is at best incomplete and, as will be described in more detail below, is at worst systematically distorted.

170

18.5. The third category of circumstances involves what occurs during the retention interval that intervenes between the to-be- remembered event and the time the person tries to remember aspects of the event. Examples of memory-distorting problems include a lengthy retention interval, which leads to forgetting, and inaccurate information learned by the person during the retention interval that can get incorporated into the person's memory for the original event.

18.6. The fourth category of circumstances involves errors introduced at the time of retrieval i.e. at the time the person is trying to remember what he or she experienced. Such problems include biased tests and leading questions. They can lead to a biased report of the person's memory and can also potentially change and bias the memory itself."

290. In the case at hand, since we are dealing with identification of accused by the witnesses either in T.I. Parade or in dock identification, which mainly relates to face recognition, it is relevant to know about face recognition.

291. Studies show that face recognition is primarily handled by a specific part of the brain. It processes and stores facial features as complex visual patterns. If you met the person regularly before the break, you are more likely to recognise them later. A single brief encounter may not leave a strong imprint unless it was emotionally or contextually significant. Faces associated with emotionally impactful or unique events are remembered better. For example, you might remember a person you met during a crisis more than someone from a routine meeting. Unusual features (hairstyle, facial structure, voice) aid recognition. Generic or familiar looking faces are harder to recall precisely after some time. Seeing the person in a similar context, for example, same office, same spot acts as a cue.

171

292. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Lal Singh v. State of U.P., (2003) 12 SCC 554, has held that where there is an inordinate delay in holding a test identification parade, the court must adopt a cautious approach so as to prevent miscarriage of justice. In case of inordinate delay, it may be that the witnesses may forget the features of the accused put up for identification in the test identification parade. It is further held that this, however, is not an absolute rule because it depends upon the facts of each case and the opportunity which the witnesses had to notice the features of the accused and the circumstances in which they had seen the accused committing the offence. Where the witness had only a fleeting glimpse of the accused at the time of occurrence, delay in holding a test identification parade has to be viewed seriously. Where, however, the court is satisfied that the witnesses had ample opportunity of seeing the accused at the time of the commission of the offence and there is no chance of mistaken identity, delay in holding the test identification parade may not be held to be fatal. It all depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

293. As it is the case of the prosecution that A.3 and A.13 traveled in the taxis of PW-77 and PW-63, respectively to go to Churchgate, it was a brief and single encounter and there was no previous acquaintance. These witnesses, as we have noted, identified A.3 and A.13 in dock identification after four and half years of sighting. In case of such inordinate delay, an exception to the rule of a possibility that the witness may forget the features of the accused is that, the witness had ample opportunity of seeing the accused at the time of commission of offence.

172

294. In the present matter, there was a single encounter of the witnesses PW-63 and PW-77 with A.13 and A.3, respectively. Therefore, it is important to ascertain whether, in this case, both these witnesses had ample opportunity of seeing the accused to recollect their faces after such a long delay.

295. It is a matter of common knowledge that the taxi drivers in Mumbai operate in a manner distinct from many of the cities across India. Therefore, to appreciate the evidence of both these witnesses in right perspective, it is necessary to understand how the taxis operate in Mumbai.

296. It is a matter of general public knowledge and common experience for anyone who travels by taxi in Mumbai that, prior to commencing the journey, there is no need for elaborate instructions or negotiations with the driver. The passenger simply states the intended destination, upon which, the driver either agrees or declines by a simple gesture or verbal response. Many times a passenger first boards the taxi and then tells the destination.

297. With respect to the fare, there is no opportunity or practice of bargaining, as the fare is calculated strictly in accordance with the fare meter installed in the taxi. This meter automatically determines the total payable amount based on the distance travelled and displays the fare upon reaching the destination.

298. Furthermore, upon arrival at the destination, it is customary for the driver to inform the passenger of the fare without getting down

173

from the vehicle. The fare is received by the driver while he remains seated in the driver's seat.

299. From the above discussion of the manner in which taxi drivers operate in Mumbai, it can be certainly said that, in normal circumstances, there is hardly any chance for any taxi driver to have long interaction with any passenger and to have sufficient and ample opportunity to notice and observe the passengers and their faces, and to store the same in the memory for long period, unless there is some special reason. PW-63 fairly admits in his deposition that it is difficult to remember a passenger after a week and it becomes more difficult after a month. Although this ability to recall a human memory appears general, it is specific in respect of such ability of PW-63, because the said admission is applicable to him, which is important here.

300. If a witness identified an accused, it means the witness identified the accused by his face. Hence, identification in TI parade and court refer to facial recognition. Therefore, memory involved must relate to the person, not just the event. A witness' memory must link to actual person, predominantly through facial recognition. Let us, therefore, scrutinize the evidence of PW-63 and PW-77 to ascertain what opportunity both the witnesses had, to notice and observe A.13 and A.3, and their faces.

301. However, before making such scrutiny, it is also important to note few important aspects, other than the delay in identification, which demand to have a cautious approach while appreciating the evidence of these witnesses. Such aspects are namely: -

174

i) Both these witnesses PW-63 and PW-77 did not go to police on their own till 03/11/2006 (for 116 days). According to them, they did not think they had any important information.

ii) As per the prosecution, police had undertaken search for 15 days to find out taxi drivers who had taken the accused by taxis to Churchgate. There are no station diary entries to this effect to establish the said fact.

iii) Both these witnesses were searched by the police on the same day, i.e., on 03/11/2006. There is no case diary entry showing that on 03/11/2006 police went for search of taxi drivers at some particular location/s.

iv) The police could search them only after retraction of the confessional statements by the accused.

v) According to the defence, these witnesses are got up witnesses.

vi) Constable P.N. Salvi, who searched PW-77, did not enter into the witness box.

PW-63 Santosh Kedar Singh

302. While narrating an incidence of encounter of PW-63 with A.13, PW-63 deposed that, at about 3.15 to 3.30 p.m., two passengers came for Churchgate. One of them had a black heavy bag and an umbrella. They sat in his taxi on the back seat, keeping the bag in between them. He took them to Churchgate. En route they told him to drive the taxi carefully as the articles that they had with them were delicate. They asked him how much time it would take. He told them that it would take about one hour and if required more than that.

175

303. In this part of his narration, admittedly, PW-63 nowhere states about any interaction taken place between them before A.13 sat on the back seat of the taxi. In this part, there is also no mention about anything unnatural found by PW-63 relating to the behaviour or anything of the accused.

304. PW-63 further deposed that he left them at the subway by which one can go to Churchgate station. The fare was Rs.180/-. They gave him a note of Rs.500/-. He did not have change to return the balance amount to them. He told them that he would bring it and they should wait for two minutes. However, they were in a hurry and they told him to keep the change. They got down taking the bag with them. This was his first experience about passengers keeping such a big amount of change. He deposed that, normally, before they take passengers, they look at the passengers. En route one of the passengers was talking in Mumbai-Hindi language and the other was talking somewhat in Punjabi language. One of the passengers was medium built aged about 30-35 years and the other was thin aged about 23-25 years.

305. In this subsequent part of PW-63's narration, again there is no mention about any interaction with accused, which facilitated him to have sufficient opportunity to notice and observe A.13 and his face.

306. From his own version, it is evident that A.13 paid the fare amount while sitting in the back seat of the taxi before they alighted. In absence of any contrary evidence, it can safely be presumed that PW-63 accepted the amount while sitting in his driver seat.

176

307. Thus, the encounter of A.13 with PW-63 can be said to be a brief encounter. And, there was no sufficient opportunity for PW-63 to observe and notice A.13 and his face and store it in his memory.

308. As far as triggering of memory of PW-63 is concerned, it is tried to be canvassed before this Court by the prosecution that it was his first experience that some passenger gave him Rs. 500 for a fare of Rs. 180.

309. This possibility, as suggested by the prosecution, may not be ruled out. However, it would help PW-63 to trigger his memory to recollect the events relating to this incidence or events prior to or after this incidence. But, we are ascertaining the possibility of recollection of face of A.13 after a huge gap, that too in absence of any evidence brought on record for justifying the reasons to recollect the face of A.13. No one will have any quarrel on the point that identification of an accused by a witness, either in identification parade or in dock identification, means that the witness identified the accused by his 'face'.

310. Therefore, having held that PW-63 had no sufficient opportunity to interact with A.13 or to observe and notice him minutely, it can be said that an exception to the rule that if a witness identifies the accused in Court first time, the probative value of such uncorroborated evidence becomes minimal, is absent. In that view of the matter, the manner in which PW-63 got to the police as the witness and considering the fact that the present matter pertains to capital punishment, we are of the opinion that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW-63 to hold A.13 as guilty.

177

PW-77 Rajesh Satpute

311. Similar is the quality of evidence of PW-77, another taxi driver who claimed to have taken A.3 in his taxi on the date of incident from Carter Road, Bandra to Churchgate.

312. However, before scrutinizing the evidence of PW-77, there is one important question raised by the defence that no T.I. Parade was conducted. In his statements u/s 313 and 314 of Cr.PC, A.3 states that he was taken out from the Anda Cell at around 1:30 pm and he was put back at 1:50pm and no TIP was held

313. This submission made by the defence requires us to look into the Awak-Jawak Register (Ingress-Egress Register) maintained in the Arthur Road Jail and referred by the defence.

314. The entries taken in such Awak-Jawak Register, in relation to the T.I. Parade of A.3, held on 07/11/2006, are as under: -

CHART NO. 32

315. From the above referred chart, it can be seen that A.3 was taken out of the barrack at 1:30 pm and was put back at 1:50 pm, indicating that he was outside for only 20 minutes. In view of the specific allegation made by A.3 that no T.I.Parade was conducted, it is imperative to exercise caution while appreciating the evidence of PW-

77.

178

316. Let us now examine the evidence of PW-77. In his oral testimony, he deposed that two persons came there from the left side of his taxi and asked him whether the taxi is empty. He said yes to them. They sat in the back seat in the taxi.

317. PW-77, in his cross-examination, states that he was in his seat reading a newspaper when those two persons came. He did not get down from the seat till the time they sat in the taxi and he started the taxi.

318. The above referred deposition of PW-77 shows that when the said two passengers came, PW-77 was sitting in his driver seat and was reading newspaper and there was no interaction between them, except an inquiry made by the passengers whether the taxi is occupied or empty. The evidence further shows that both the passengers sat in the back seat.

319. Then, PW-77 deposed that one of them had a black bag with him. He kept it on the front seat by his side. When he started the taxi, he asked them where to take it. They told him to take the taxi to Churchgate. He was required to apply the brakes when they had gone some distance, at that time, the bag moved ahead slightly. The person behind caught the handle of the bag at that time and told him to drive the taxi carefully, he asked him whether he should keep the bag in the boot. Thereupon, the other person said that there are valuable articles in the bag and said that the bag should remain there.

320. In this part of evidence of PW-77, he does not refer or mention any unnatural thing. Moreover, in this part of evidence, he does not say

179

that he saw A.3 and that he had sufficient opportunity, or any reason, to observe or notice him minutely or otherwise, or to store his face in his memory for any particular reason. As far as interaction took place in between them relating to the bag or otherwise, at that time, PW-77 was in his driver seat and A.3 was on the back seat. Therefore, though there was conversation between them, it was without looking at each other's faces or eye contacts with each other.

321. PW-77 further states that he stopped the taxi near a subway at Churchgate station. The persons asked him about the fare and he told them that it was Rs. 140/- They gave him two notes of Rs.100/- each and he returned Rs.60/- to them. They gave back Rs. 10/- to him. Thereafter, they went towards the subway.

322. Here again, there is nothing to suggest that before alighting the taxi, there was any long interaction between them. On the contrary, in cross-examination, PW-77 says that there was no waste of time when he reached the passenger at Churchgate subway except the talks that they had about the fare. He states that he was not required to get down since the time they sat in his taxi upto Churchgate. He states that when they got down, he was sitting in his seat.

323. Thus, the gist of the evidence of PW-77, as regards his encounter with A.3, is that when A.3 came, PW-77 was reading a newspaper sitting in driver seat of the taxi. The passengers asked him whether his taxi is available. After this brief interaction, A.3 sat along with a person accompanying him in the backside of the taxi. After reaching Churchgate subway, the passengers did not speak except asking the fare. The passengers paid the amount while PW-77 was

180

sitting in his seat. He did not get down from the taxi right from the time when they boarded till the time they got down from the taxi.

324. In the whole evidence, PW-77 does not speak about any sufficient opportunity he could get to notice or observe A.3 or his face. He nowhere states about the reason for triggering of his memory and to recollect the face of PW-77 after a long period. He does not speak about any unnatural thing or special thing to give reason for storing A.3's face in his memory. Moreover, in the evidence which we have discussed, there is nothing which would trigger the memory of PW-77 and to recollect A.3's face.

325. According to the prosecution, the reason for triggering the memory of PW-77 was that, he had been to his sister in law's house on that day for lunch.

326. As suggested by the prosecution, this may be the reason to trigger his memory, but, it would help PW-77 to recollect the events, and not the faces of all the passengers who traveled in his taxi or the strangers who met him on that day.

327. But, for the sake of convenience, we again say that, here we are ascertaining the possibility of recollection of face of A.3 after a huge gap. When PW-77 identified A.3, he identified him by his face. Thus, it is doubtful, in absence of any evidence brought on record for justifying the reasons to recollect the face of A.3.

328. Therefore, we are of the opinion that it is highly unsafe to rely upon the evidence of PW-77 to hold A.3 as guilty.

181

329. In the backdrop of the above observations we have recorded, let us see the relevant portion of the observations made by the Learned Special Court while accepting the evidence of PW-63 and PW-77, which read thus: -

Observations relating to the evidence of PW-63:

"474. In my humble opinion it is clear from the above discussion that the evidence of Santosh Singh, PW-63, is a cogent and convincing evidence and his credibility has not been impeached during his cross-examination. The most important fact is that he has no criminal antecedents, no history of he having acted as a panch or a witness in any other case and no contact with the police, which rules out the possibility of he being a pliable police witness. Therefore, it will have to be held that he is not at all got up witness and his evidence is not fabricated. He is surely a total independent witness and his evidence inspires confidence. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting his testimony as a truthful. Hence, it will have to be held that by his evidence prosecution has proved that on 11/07/06 the A13 alongwith one more person had traveled in a taxi from Perry Cross Road, Bandra at about 3.15 to 3.30 p.m. to a subway of Churchgate Railway Station, reaching there at about 4.45 to 5.00p.m. and that they were carrying a black heavy bag with them. This is the circumstance no. 2 proved by the prosecution against the accused. It is the first circumstance against the A13. "

Observations relating to the evidence of PW-77:

"456. It will have to be held that Rajesh Satpute, PW-77, has given a very straightforward evidence, it is not artificial, it is not articulated or decorated with any fantasies or falsehood and he has not made any tall claims. To my mind, if the investigating machinery, i.e., the ATS wanted to fabricate such type of evidence practically at the end of investigation, because the chargesheet was filed on 30/11/06, it would not have stopped at only two taxi drivers. Nothing prevented them from creating such type of evidence of taxi drivers to give evidence against some more accused. The ATS could have done this earlier also. Why wait till 03/11/06? This shows the naturalness. Hence, it will have to be held that by the evidence of Rajesh Satpute, PW- 77, the prosecution has proved that on 11/07/06, the A3 alongwith one more person had travelled in a taxi from Carter Road, Bandra at 3.30 to 4.00 p.m. to a subway of Churchgate Railway Station, reaching there at about 5.00 p.m. and that they

182

were carrying a black coloured bag with them which was of rexine. This is the first circumstance proved by the prosecution against the accused. It is the first circumstance against A.3."

330. Having held that it is highly unsafe to base conviction on the evidence of PW-63 and PW-77 for the reasons recorded, we are of the considered view that the above referred observations of the Trial Court are perverse and are contrary to well settled principles of law. Second Category of Witnesses

The witnesses who saw the accused planting bomb in the trains (PW-57, PW-60, PW-62, & PW-74)

331. Moving further to the second category of witnesses namely, the witnesses who saw the accused planting bombs in the trains. These witnesses are the passengers who were traveling in the trains wherein the blasts had taken place. These witnesses are PW-57, PW-60, PW-62, and PW-74.

332. Except PW-60, the witnesses PW-57, PW-62 and PW-74 remained silent for 100 or more, and thereafter, they approached the police and gave statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC.

333. In the T.I. Parades held on 07/11/2006, PW-57 identified A.1, PW-62 identified A.3, and PW-74 identified A.4. All these witnesses further identified the above referred accused in the court too, after more than four years from the date of sighting of the accused.

183

334. PW-57, PW-62, and PW-60 identified A.1, A.3, and A.13 respectively in T.I. Parades held by Shri. Barve. We have already held that on 07/11/2006, Shri. Barve had no authority as SEO to conduct T.I. Parades. Therefore, the T.I. Parades conducted by Shri. Barve, wherein PW-57, PW-62, and PW-60 have identified the above referred accused, vitiate. The effect of the same will be that there were no identification parades identifying A.1, A.3, and A.13 by PW-57, PW-62, and PW-60 respectively, but only dock identification is there.

335. One more factor, other than delay, which needs to be kept in mind while scrutinizing the evidence of these witnesses, is that they all have given their statements under Section 161 of Cr.PC after retraction of confessions by the accused namely A.1, A.3, and A.4. Furthermore, according to the defence, PW-57 and PW-62 are got up witnesses, whereas, PW-74 is a stock witness.

336. There is another reason for the defence to say that these witnesses are either got up or stock witnesses, i.e., there were five injured passengers who were traveling in the trains in which the blasts had taken place. These five injured passengers were Suresh Suvarna, Constable Santosh Prakash Khanwilkar, Ramanand Marutirao Machchewar, Prabhakar Dattatray Sadekar, and Vijaykumar Babanna Rayappa. They all claimed that they saw the suspects of the blasts and gave description of the suspects in their statements u/s 161 of Cr.PC which they gave within a short span of the incident, and much prior to invocation of MCOCA. Despite this, none of them was examined as witness or called for T.I. Parade.

184

337. As far as PW-60 is concerned, he gave his statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC on 14/07/2006, i.e., on the fourth day of the incident. However, despite the fact that the first arrest was made on 20/07/2006 and further arrests were continued till 03/10/2006, PW- 60 was not called for T.I. Parade till 07/11/2006.

338. Thus, the factors which prompt us to be cautious are, namely: -

i) Not calling PW-60 for identification for more than three and half months from the date of recording of his statement u/s 161 of Cr.PC, despite the fact that the first arrest was made on 20/07/2006,

ii) A huge delay of 100 or more days in approaching the police for giving statement u/s 161 of Cr.PC, by PW-57, PW-62, and PW-74,

iii) Delay of four months in conducting T.I. Parade, wherein PW- 74 identified A.4,

iv) The witnesses who have given their statements u/s 161 of Cr.PC within a short span of the incident and much before invocation of MCOCA, were not examined or called for T.I. Parade,

v) One Mohanlal Kumawat who claims that some Kashmiri people purchased eight cookers from his shop in the month of May 2006. Though his statement is relevant from the point of view of the prosecution story that the bombs were packed in cookers by the accused, he was not examined or called for T.I. Parade, and

185

vi) According to the defence, these witnesses are either got up witnesses or stock witnesses.

339. Learned Counsel Shri. Chaudhary submits that it is almost impossible for someone to be attentive to a stranger. Virar bound trains are always crowded and there is a heavy rush on them in the evenings. It is very difficult to get down at Dadar on a fast train, because as soon as the train stops at Dadar, a rush of persons enters the train. It is, thus, difficult to believe that he remembered a complete stranger whom he saw in such strenuous circumstances, remembered his bag so many days after the incident, and remembered the type of bag for four years, and identified that person who he claimed to have seen just for few moments.

340. On the other hand, the learned SPP argues that the reason for triggering their memory has come in the evidence of these witnesses. He, accordingly, submits that these witnesses are trustworthy and can be made basis for conviction.

341. In the above referred backdrop, let us now examine the evidence of witnesses PW-57, PW-60, PW-62, and PW-74.

PW-57 Subhash Nagarsekar

342. PW-57 claims that he saw A.1 - Kamal keeping a big rexine bag on the luggage rack of 5:57 PM virar Fast train on 11/07/2006. However, he remained silent till 18/10/2006 (i.e for 100 days) and on that day, he gave his statement under section 161 of Cr.P.C. He identified A.1 in TI parade held on 07/11/2006 (i.e after four months of the sighting). Therefore, the defence has questioned his credibility.

186

343. Before scrutinizing the evidence of PW-57, there is one important question raised by the defence that no T.I. Parade was conducted. It is argued that A.1, in his 313 statement, states that he was taken out from the Anda Cell at around 1:30pm and put back at 1:50pm. He further states that no T.I. Parade was held.

344. This submission made by the defence requires us to look into the Awak-Jawak Register maintained in the Arthur Road Jail and referred by the defence. In the said register, whenever any accused goes outside and comes inside, on both occasions, the entries are made as regards the name of the accused and the time of going outside and coming inside the barrack.

345. The entries in such Awak-Jawak Register in relation to the T.I. Parade of A.1, held on 07/11/2006 are as under : -

CHART NO. 33

346. However, PW-57, who identified A.1 in the fourth round, which according to him, took place at around 2:15 pm. Whereas, we have in the above referred chart that A.1 came out at 1:30 and went back in the Barrack at 1:50pm.

187

347. At the same time, PW-82 Shri. Barve, who conducted the T.I. Parade wherein PW-57 identified A.1, has stated in cross-examination that the parade started at about 2:30 pm and was over at about 3:15 pm.

348. The above referred discrepancies, are serious and have not been explained by any satisfactory explanation. Therefore, it can be said that the relevant entries in the Avak-Javak Register, maintained in the Prison, are contrary to the contents of Panchnama of T.I. Parades. Moreover, panchas to this panchnama are not examined.

349. We now proceed to examine the evidence of PW-57. According to PW-57, it was Guru Pournima, therefore, he wanted to go for darshan to the Saibaba Temple in Vartak Nagar, Thane.

350. As per prosecution, for PW-57, the reason for triggering his memory as regards his encounter with A.1, is that on 11/07/2006, there was Guru Pournima and he went for darshan to SaiBaba Temple in Vartak Nagar, Thane.

351. This possibility, as suggested by the prosecution, may not be ruled out. Therefore, it would help PW-57 to trigger his memory to recollect the events relating to this incidence or events prior to or after this incidence. But, we are ascertaining the possibility of recollection of face of A.1 after a huge gap, that too in absence of any evidence brought on record for justifying the reasons to recollect the face of A.1. Identification of an accused by a witness, either in identification parade or in dock identification, means he identified the accused mainly by his face.

188

352. PW-57 deposed that at about 5.15 to 5.30 p.m., he started from his house and went to the Charni Road Station. He sat on the fast train going towards Churchgate. He was in the first class compartment, which was the first from Virar side. He was sitting inside the compartment by the window side, facing towards Virar. He did not get down at Churchgate as he wanted to go to Dadar and then to Thane.

353. PW-57 further deposed that at Churchgate station, people entered the compartment. Some people kept their bags on the racks. At that time two persons entered the train from the left side door, with a big rexine bag. They kept it on the rack above him. As there was more crowd, he asked his neighbour as to which train it was. He told him that it was the 5.57 p.m Virar fast train. It had halted at platform no.3 at Churchgate. The bag was blackish in colour. The two persons stood in the passage.

354. From this part of narration, it is evident that, at Churchgate station people entered the compartment. It is further evident that some people kept their bags on the racks. At that time, PW-57 noticed two persons enter the train from the left side door with a big rexine bag.

355. While referring to these two persons, he has not given any reason to attract his attention towards these two persons. Thus, these two persons entered into the train like other passengers. Similarly, these persons entered with a bag and kept their bag on the rack like other passengers.

189

356. If the big rexine bag was the reason to attract the attention of PW-57 towards these two people, he could not give the description of the bag.

357. However, in absence of such description, if we consider the prosecution story that the bombs were packed in the cookers, and therefore, if we try to ascertain the possible size of the bag on the basis of the size of the cooker, then we need to undertake an exercise on the basis of two pieces of evidence available on record.

358. From the evidence on record, we can ascertain both, the diameter of the gasket and the capacity of the cookers used. The first relevant piece of evidence is the House Search Panchnama of A.6 (Exh.716). This Panchnama reveals that the pressure cooker recovered from the residence of A.6 had a capacity of 5 litres. This supports the conclusion that the cookers employed in the offence were of 5-litre capacity.

359. The second relevant piece of evidence concerns the diameter of the gaskets used in the cookers. Seven gaskets, claimed to be of the cookers used for the bombs, were recovered under Panchnama Exh.1108 (Recovery Panchnama of leftover bomb materials at the instance of A.3), which shows the outer diameter of the gasket as 220 mm (approximately 8.661 inches). This measurement is consistent with the standard dimensions of a 5-litre pressure cooker.

360. It is pertinent to note that the typical dimensions of a 5-litre pressure cooker, irrespective of the manufacturer, are approximately 41 cm in width and 20 cm in height (equivalent to 16.14 inches in width, including handles, and 7.874 inches in height).

190

361. Therefore, the size of the cookers used can be stated to be approximately 16.14 inches in width and 8 inches in height. To put this in perspective, if these dimensions are compared with a standard A4- size paper (used for Court proceedings) which measures 8.27 inches in width and 11.69 inches in height, it can be observed that the height of the cooker is nearly equal to the width of an A4 sheet, while its width exceeds the height of an A4 sheet by approximately 4 inches. This comparative visualization aids in comprehending the physical dimensions of the cookers used in the offence.

362. This exercise we have done just to find out the size of the bag required for putting a cooker. From the above referred discussion, as regards size of 5-litre cooker, it is now certain that the bag required to put such cooker will be of a normal size and in any case it will not be of an abnormal size, which would attract anybody's attention, including the attention of PW-57, and give cue for triggering memory.

363. PW-57 then, deposed that the train started at 5.57 p.m. It was slow upto Bombay Central. As he wanted to get down at Dadar, before Bombay Central he went towards the left door and stood there. The train started from Bombay Central. There was a heavy rush at Dadar, therefore, at Dadar from the corner he got down immediately and stood by the side wiping his face by his handkerchief. At that time he realized that the person who had kept the bag there had also got down along with him at Dadar. Two persons were with him when he got down.

364. PW-57 in this part of his narration states that there was heavy rush at Dadar therefore from the corner he got down. Further, in cross-

191

examination, he states that he was the first person to get down when the train was about to stop which suggests that he got down in a moving train. Though he again speaks about these two persons who got down along with him at Dadar Station, but he could not tell in the cross-examination how many persons got down behind him or their, age group or the people who were trying to get in and get out of the train.

365. From the above referred evidence of PW-57, it can be safely said that the accused was seen by him in the train barely for a very short time in the middle of crowd, which makes it impossible for him to clearly view or record the face of the accused.

366. Furthermore, PW-57 did not give any special reason for remembering A.1 and his face, even after about 100 days. Such explanation is required in the backdrop that PW-57 in his cross deposed that, he was not paying much attention to the persons entering the coach and was not in a position to tell any description of any other passenger. The train became crowded at Churchgate.

367. It is important to note that, when PW-57 claims that he can identify and describe A.1, he could not describe the person who was sitting beside him in the train to whom he asked about the train. In cross-examination, he failed to tell the age of that person or his clothes. He also failed to tell the description of the person who was sitting in front of him. He could not tell the number of person standing in the passage. Though he saw people keeping their briefcases, small bags on the racks, he could not tell the make and the colour of those bags. He

192

could not describe the persons who were standing beside him in the passage when he stood there at the Bombay Central Railway Station.

368. In these circumstances, the evidence of this witness creates doubt about the trustworthiness and credibility of this witness.

369. As far as his silence for about 100 days, PW-57 states that he realized in the first week of October that a bomb blast had taken place in the first class compartment of the train in which he had traveled and that it was 5:57 pm train. At the same time he deposed that he told his wife when he returned home on 11/07/2006 that he traveled in the 5:57 Virar train, and also saw in the news that the blast had taken place in the 5:57 Virar Train.

370. Thus, it is evident that from day one he knew that the blast had taken place in the 5:57 Virar Fast train. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that he first time realized in the first week of October 2006 that the bomb blast had taken place on the train in which he had traveled, cannot be accepted.

371. Thus, in the circumstances, if the evidence of PW-57 is considered in totality it doesn't inspire confidence for basing the conviction on his evidence. The credibility and trustworthiness of this witness itself is thus doubtful for the reasons recorded herein above.

372. Let us see the observations made by the Learned Special Court while accepting the evidence of PW-57 which read thus: -

"509. … Thus, it will have to be said that the evidence of Subhash Nagarsekar, PW-57, in respect of the incident in question, is unimpeached and is a cogent evidence. He has withstood the test of cross-examination and nothing material has been brought on record

193

to discredit his version. That the witness is a totally independent witness, is absolutely clear from the most important fact that he has no criminal antecedents and no prior connection with the police either as an accused or a witness or a panch. This rules out the possibility about he being a pliable police witness and a got up witness and it will have to be held that his evidence is not fabricated. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting his testimony as truthful. This is the circumstance no. 3 proved by the prosecution against the accused. Hence, it will have to be held that by his evidence prosecution has proved that on 11/07/06 the Al had kept a big rexine bag in the first-class compartment of the 5.57 p.m. Virar fast train at Churchgate and he was accompanied by a person, who did not get down at Dadar. It is against the A1."

373. In light of the findings recorded by us, we have no hesitation to hold that the Learned Special Court committed a grave error on placing reliance on the evidence of PW-57.

PW-60 Kishore Popatlal Shah

374. PW-60 Kishore Popatlal Shah identified A.13 in T.I. Parade held on 07/11/2006. He claims that he saw A.13 keeping a black bag on the luggage rack of 5:37pm Virar Fast train (621 DN) on 11/07/2006. The explosion in the said train occurred at 06:28pm while the train was at Platform no. 4 of Borivali Railway Station.

375. It is pertinent to note that we have already held that the T.I. Parades held by Shri. Barve vitiate for the reason that on the date of T.I. Parade, he had no authority as SEO. Thus, the T.I. Parade, in which PW-60 identified A.13, is to be discarded as it was conducted by Shri. Barve.

376. Despite this, even if for a moment, if we consider the T.I. Parade, in which PW-60 identified A.13, it is evident that the T.I.

194

Parade was held after four months of the alleged sighting of A.13 by PW-60. It is to be noted that the first accused was arrested on 20/07/2006 and the last accused was arrested on 03/10/2006. If the ATS had no knowledge to whom PW-60 had seen keeping a black bag in the train, ATS ought to have called PW-60 immediately after the first few arrests, for T.I. Parade.

377. In addition to this factor, we have already discussed the factors as regards the witnesses of second category which prompt us to be cautious while scrutinizing the evidence of PW-57, PW-60, PW-62, and PW-74.

378. There is one more reason to be cautious as regards PW-60, and that is the evidence brought on record by way of cross-examination by the defence to the effect that PW-60 was called in Bhoiwada Police Station in the last week of October 2006 and at the same time A.13 was also kept in Bhoiwada Police Station. Therefore, it is argued by the defence that A.13 was shown to PW-59, PW-60, and PW-63 in the last week of October 2006.

379. PW-60 identified A.13 in the court on 04/01/2011, i.e., after a period of about more than four and a half years from the alleged date of sighting.

380. It is argued by the defence that PW-60 deposed that he would not have recognized any of the dummies in the T.I. Parade if they were repeated in the subsequent parade. Thus, it is submitted that PW-60 does not have an unusual memory, or an eye for detail or remembering faces. If he would not have recognized the dummies, whom he had a

195

chance to see carefully, there was no reason for him to remember the passenger with the bag.

381. Learned Counsel Shri. Choudhary submitted that the IO PW- 144 states that the description given by PW-60 was not sufficient for identifying any person. Even the IO PW-174 states that the statement of PW-60 was insufficient to identify the culprit.

382. Learned SPP, on the other hand, submits that this witness had identified the accused in TIP. However, on coming to know that the police had visited his house repeatedly he went to Bhoiwada ATS office. This explains that there has not been any delay.

383. Before we peep into the evidence of PW-60, let us reiterate the law as to why holding T.I. Parade without unreasonable delay is necessary. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Gireesan Nair vs. State of Kerala, (2023) 1 SCC 180, has held that it is a matter of great importance both for the investigating agency and for the accused and a fortiori for the proper administration of justice that a TIP is held without avoidable and unreasonable delay after the arrest of the accused. This becomes necessary to eliminate the possibility of the accused being shown to the witnesses before the test identification parade. This is a very common plea of the accused, and therefore, the prosecution has to be cautious to ensure that there is no scope for making such an allegation. It is further held that if identification in the TIP has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of TIP inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless.

196

384. In the case at hand, PW-186 Chief I.O. Shri. Patil admits that A.13 was in Bhoiwada lock-up in the last week of October 2006. And at the same time, PW-60 himself and PW-186 Shri. Patil both admitted that PW-60 was called to the ATS, Bhoiwada office in the last week of October 2006.

385. In the said backdrop, it is important to note that A.13, in his complaint dated 09/11/2006, has stated that while he was in police custody he was shown to some persons. He said 'some persons' because on the date of complaint he was unaware of their names. However, after PW-59, PW-60 and PW-63 entered into witness box, he got to know their names. He, therefore, in the statements under sections 313, 314 of Cr.PC and in his oral evidence on oath, stated that he was shown to PW-59, PW-60 and PW-63 in the last week of October 2006.

386. The evidence of PW-60 will show that he has not given a special reason for triggering of his memory and to recollect the face of A.13 at the time of dock identification. Therefore, possibility of showing A.13 to PW-60 in Bhoiwada prison in the last week of October 2006 is difficult to rule out.

387. In the above referred backdrop, let us scrutinize the evidence of PW-60. According to PW-60, he boarded the 5.37 p.m. Virar fast local. He was standing in the middle of the two doors. About two minutes before the departure time of the train, two persons entered the compartment and said that they wanted to go inside. He moved aside to let them go inside and they went inside and kept their bag on the luggage rack. Thereafter, they came and stood near him. Out of the two men, one was slightly fat and one was medium-built. The bag was in

197

the hand of the medium built person. The bag was black coloured having chain. He does not know whether it was of rexine. There was more crowd in the compartment at Marine Lines. After Bombay Central, the train was to directly halt at Dadar. At that time those two persons tried to go towards the door and they had some exchange of words with other passengers who asked them where they wanted to get down. The two persons told them that they want to get down at Dadar. The other passengers asked them as to why they were standing so much inside in the compartment and that there were many trains for going to Dadar and why they caught the Virar train. He also thought that why they had boarded that train and troubled others.

388. From this part of narration of PW-60, it is evident that the train was crowded and therefore, according to PW-60, A.13 had some exchange of words with other passengers who asked them as to why they were standing so much inside in the compartment and there were many train for going to Dadar and why they caught the Virar train. At that time, PW-60 also thought that why they boarded that train and troubled others.

389. If this part of the narration is the reason to trigger the memory, there is nothing unusual in exchange of words between the passengers in the crowded local trains in Mumbai. Such incidences happen everyday. Even if this is so, and it is accepted that this was the reason for triggering of memory, this would help to recollect this event even after lapse of time, but unless a special reason is mentioned about imprinting of face of accused in his mind, it is difficult to accept that PW-60 could recollect the face of A.13 after such a long gap. There is one more reason to say so as he has not given description of the

198

accused, except stating that one was slightly fat and one was medium built (Whereas, in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC, he described both the persons as medium built).

390. PW-60 further deposed that thereafter they got down at Dadar. He went towards the opposite door as he wanted to get down at Borivali and he was waiting for the platform no. 4 to come. The train reached Borivali at about 6.30p.m. When the train was about to stop, there was a loud explosion and he along with the other persons who were standing in the door were thrown on the platform. He lost his spectacles, purse, mobile and a handbag of clothes and his pant was torn. He sustained injuries on his forehead, lips, both elbows and legs.

391. Then he states that a policeman approached him and told him that he is injured and he would take him to the Bhagwati Hospital. He told him that he did not want to go to the hospital and asked him to engage an autorickshaw for him so that he can go home. A couple was going by an autorickshaw, the policeman asked them to come out and made him sit in that rickshaw and then he went home. When he went inside his home, even his wife could not recognize him as his face had blackened and there were injuries and blood on his face. Then he went and took treatment from Dr. Gohil, who is his family doctor. In the same night he also went to an ENT doctor, who advised him to take rest.

392. He further states that after about two days, i.e., on 14/07/2006, he went to Borivali Railway Police Station. He told the police that he was injured in the bomb blast and he had a doubt about two persons. Police took his statement about the incident. He gave some description

199

of the two persons, but the police asked him to wait as they were going to call a person who would prepare a sketch. He waited for some time but he did not come, therefore, he went back.

393. He further states that in between police visited his house two or three times to meet him but he was not at home. Thereafter, in the last week of October, 2006, he went to the ATS office behind Bhoiwada Police Station to inquire as to why they (police) had come twice or thrice. He was taken to officer Patil. Officer Patil told him that they had caught some persons and asked him whether he could identify the persons about whom he had stated in his statement. He told Officer Patil that if they are brought before him, he can identify them.

394. Then, PW-60 was called by PW-186 on 07/11/2006 for the purpose of identification parade. In a parade conducted by Shri. Barve, he identified a person standing at the 8th place out of the fourteen persons standing in the row there. He told Shri. Barve that he was the person who had kept the bag on the train on the day of the blast. Shri. Barve asked him his name and he told it as Asif Bashir Khan (A.13).

395. In cross-examination, PW-60 deposed that the police did not ask him to describe the size of the bag. He states that it is not unusual for people to board trains with bags and keep them on the luggage racks. Even the persons who get seats, keep their bags on the luggage rack.

396. He further states that except describing the two persons as medium built and slightly fat, he did not give any other description as the police did not ask him. He did not give any other description as the

200

police asked him whether he would help them in preparing sketches and he said yes.

397. Whereas, PW-144 (PI Satish Ahir), who recorded the statement of PW-60, states that the description given by PW-60 was not sufficient for identifying any person. He deposed that he wrote down the description of the suspects as per PW-60's version. He did not give more description than that he gave. PW-144 further admits that he did not make any query to him about the description. The description that he (PW-60) gave was not sufficient for identifying any person. He did not ask him further questions about the description as they had other sources like preparing sketches, showing photographs of the person. He did not get any sketch prepared. He further states that witness (PW-60) had not stated to him that one out of two persons was slightly fat.

398. Admittedly, the sketch of A.13 was not prepared for whatsoever reasons.

399. Similar is the statement of IO PW-174 who deposed that the statement of PW-60 was insufficient to pin point the identity of the culprit.

400. The evidence of PW-144 and PW-174 sufficiently make it clear that the description given by PW-60 about the person who kept the bag was not sufficient to identify the accused. Thus, the description given by PW-60 within four days of the incident is said to have not sufficient to identify the accused. This fact strengthens the submission made by the defence that A.13 was shown to PW-60 in Bhoiwada lock- up.

201

401. Having held so, the evidence of PW-60 loses its credibility and is not safe to place reliance upon for conviction of A.13.

402. Let us see the observations made by the Learned Special Court, while placing reliance on the evidence of PW-60, which read thus: -

"622. It is clear from the above discussion that the evidence of Kishore Shah, PW-60, is an unimpeached and cogent evidence and as is alleged by the defence, it cannot be said that he is a got up witness, because he went to the railway police station on 14/07/06, i.e., two days after the incident when the ATS was not investigating the crime. He has no criminal antecedents, he had not acted as a panch witness or a witness in any previous case thereby having no contact with the police. I have, therefore, no hesitation in accepting his testimony as truthful. Hence, it will have to be held that by his evidence the prosecution has proved that on 11/07/06, the A13 had kept a black coloured bag having chain in the first-class compartment of the 5.37 p.m. Virar fast local at Churchgate and he was accompanied by one more person. This is circumstance no. 6 proved by the prosecution. It is against the A13. It is the second circumstance against the A13."

403. In light of the observations and the findings recorded by us as regards the evidence of PW-60, we have no hesitation to hold that the Learned Special Court committed a grave error on placing reliance on the evidence of PW-60.

PW-62 Devendra Lahu Patil

404. PW-62 Devendra Lahu Patil identified A.3 in T.I. Parade held on 07/11/2006. He claims to have seen A.3 keeping a black coloured bag below the seat near the window on the 5:36 pm Borivali Slow train (619 DN) on 11/07/2006. The explosion in the said train occurred at 06:24 pm at Jogeshwari Railway Station.

202

405. Learned Sr. Counsel Nagamuthu submitted that, more than 101 days after the incident, PW-62 thought that he had seen a person keeping a bag on the train and therefore, his S.161 statement was recorded on 20/10/2006. He identified A.3 as the said person in TIP on 07/11/2006, i.e., 119 days after the incident. He also identified A3 in Court. This delayed disclosure of almost 101 days in his 161 statement in itself renders his evidence unreliable.

406. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri. Nagamuthu argues that PW-62, in his statement under section 161 of Cr.PC, does not describe the men that he saw with the bag. He also does not describe the bag to the police. PW-62's statements in chief regarding where the two men went upon entering and that they kept the bag under the seat comes by way of omission.

407. It is argued that in his evidence in court, PW-62 attempts to explain this delay by stating that he found out the fact about the use of bags only on 17th or 18th October 2006. However, this contradicts his S. 161 statement which was earlier in time and more likely to be accurate.

408. On the other hand, Learned SPP argued that PW-62 has given cogent evidence and he has no criminal antecedents or connection with police as a panch witness. It is argued that his testimony is truthful and his credibility nowhere has shaken in cross examination. It is further argued that the Learned Special Court has rightly placed reliance on his evidence for conviction of A.3.

203

409. It is evident from the record that PW-62 remained silent till 20/10/2006, i.e., for 102 days and gave a statement under section 161 of Cr.PC on 20/10/2006 and the T.I. Parade was conducted on 07/11/2006. However, it is pertinent to note that Shri. Barve conducted the said T.I. Parade. We have already held that the T.I. Parades held by Shri. Barve vitiate for the reason that on the date of T.I. Parades he had no authority as SEO. Thus, the T.I. Parade in which PW-62 identified A.3 is to be discarded, and only dock identification needs to be considered keeping in mind the value of dock identification without corroborative evidence of T.I. Parade. At the same time, the factors which we discussed in the beginning which suggest us to be cautious, also need to be kept in mind while scrutinizing the evidence of this witness.

410. According to PW-62, he had some work at about 3.00 p.m. at the Custom House in Fort. Therefore, he had gone there. The work there was finished in one and a half hours and then he wanted to go to Goregaon-Malad. He went to Churchgate station. When he reached the platform, the Churchgate-Borivali 5.36 p.m. slow local was coming to the platform. He boarded the first class bogie that was fourth from the motorman cabin. He stood near the last row of seats in between the gap of the two rows of seats. Some people were sitting and there were some vacant seats. A person had boarded the train along with him. He had a black coloured bag with him. There was another person with him. The person who had the black bag with him, tried to keep the bag on the rack. As there were some small bags already on the rack, he could not keep his bag there. Therefore, he kept his bag below the seat near the window that was facing towards Churchgate. He sat on that seat. The other person stood in between the two rows of the seats.

204

411. PW-62 further states that at the two-three stations thereafter, the crowd in the bogie increased. He could not see those persons thereafter. He was pushed back because of the crowd. The train reached Jogeshwari after about 6.15 p.m. After the train started from Jogeshwari, there was a loud explosion.

412. PW-62 further states that after some days it was in the news that some persons had kept black bags containing bombs in the trains and the blasts had taken place. He thought that he had seen the person keeping a bag in the train and therefore, he should go to the police. Therefore, he went to the ATS office, Bhoiwada on 20/10/06. He met ACP Patil there and told him that he wanted to give some information about that incident. He gave him the information about the incident in the train that had taken place in his presence. They wrote his statement. He described the two persons whom he had seen.

413. We have already discussed, in detail, what would be the size of the bag used for keeping the pressure cookers loaded with bomb while discussing the evidence of PW-57. And after a detailed discussion, and after ascertaining the possible size of the bag used for keeping such cookers, we have held with certainty that a bag could not be of an abnormal size but it would be of a normal size which could not be the reason to attract anybody's attention.

414. Therefore, it is difficult to accept that on a reference in the news, about a 'black bag' containing bomb, PW-62 recollected the event and went to the police. Even if it is accepted for a moment, it will help PW- 62 to recollect the event, and not the face of A.3. It is to be noted that in a statement given under Section 161 of Cr.PC, no description of the accused is given by PW-62.

205

415. Moreover, PW-62 has not given any special reasons for storing the face of A.3 in his memory. In absence of such evidence, one may recollect the event, but it is difficult to accept that he can recollect the face of A.3 after such a long gap.

416. PW-62 identified A.3 in the court and stated that he was the same person whom he had identified in the T.I. Parade on 07/11/2006 as the person who had kept the black bag in the train on 11/07/2006.

417. Similarly, in his statement under section 161 of Cr.PC, PW-62 claims that he works as a customs clearing agent and on 11/07/2006, i.e. on the date of blasts, he had gone for customs clearing work to Fort and after completing the work he had gone to Churchgate station. However, in the cross examination, he admits that he had not gone there for customs clearing work. He further admits that he did not have any work in custom house on that day.

418. PW-62 claims that from Fort he boarded the train at Churchgate in order to travel to Goregaon. However, he is unable to give any reason as to why he had to go to Goregaon. He claims that he was going to Goregaon to meet some parties for customs work, but he is unable to name them or even state their office address. He is also unable to state any of the details of the parties for whom he deposited custom duty with bank. He admits that he has never obtained any challan from the customs office for payment of custom dues. He is also unable to name any party he had worked for on 11/07/2006. Therefore, the evidence of PW-62 creates doubt about the credibility of this witness.

206

419. A.3, in his statements under section 313 and 314 of Cr.PC, states that on 07/11/2006 he was taken out at 1:30 pm from the lock up and put back at 1:50 pm and no T.I. Parade was held. This fact is corroborated with the jail register (Exh.2474) which shows that A.3 was taken out at 1:30 pm and put back at 1:50 pm. Whereas, according to PW-82, the parade started at around 12:10 hrs. and ended at 2:30 hrs.

420. Thus, the identification of A.3 goes on the ground of truthfulness and on the ground that Shri. Barve SEO had no authority on 07/11/2006 to conduct TI Parade of A.3.

421. In the circumstances, in absence of any cogent evidence to show that there was some special reason for PW-62 to recollect the face of A.3 after such a long gap, it will be hazardous to rely upon this witness to convict A.3.

422. Let us see the observations made by the Learned Special Court while placing reliance on the evidence of PW-62, which read thus: -

"536. In view of the above discussion, it will have to be held that Devendra Patil, PW-62, has given cogent and convincing evidence. Considering the fact that no criminal antecedents or his connection with the police of he having acted as a panch or witness or as an accused in some case have been brought on record, it will have to be held that he is an independent witness. This rules out the possibility of he being a pliable police witness and a got up witness and it will have to be held that his evidence is not fabricated. I have, therefore no hesitation in accepting his testimony as truthful. Hence, it will have to be held that by his evidence the prosecution has proved that on 11/07/06, the A3 had kept a black coloured bag in the first-class compartment of the 5.36 p.m. Churchgate-Borivali slow train at Churchgate and he was accompanied by one more person. This is circumstance no. 4 proved by the prosecution. It is against the A3. It is the second circumstance against the A3."

207

423. In light of our findings, it can be said that the Trial Court committed a grave error on placing reliance on the evidence of PW-62. PW-74 Vishal Parmar

424. PW-74 Vishal Parmar identified A.4 in T.I. Parade held on 07/11/2006. He is claiming to be an eyewitness who saw A.4 with a black rexine bag at the time of boarding 607 DN Virar Fast train on 11/07/2006. He further claims that when A.4 got down at Dadar with one more person said bag was not with them. The explosion in the said train occurred at 06:23 pm when the train had just departed from Mira Road Station.

425. However, after the incident, he remained silent for 115 days and gave a statement under section 161 of Cr.PC on 02/11/2006. His evidence came to be challenged on various grounds including a ground that he is a stock witness and has acted as a Panch in at least four cases other than the present case. It is further challenged on the ground that he is an employee of one Mukesh Rabadiya who is also a stock witness of the police and who acts regularly as a panch witness for the police and has acted as RDX seizure panch in the present case.

426. Learned Counsel Shri. Chaudhary argues that PW-74 did not visit ENT Hospital to meet one Baban Rankhambe, therefore, the whole story is falsehood.

427. Whereas, the Learned SPP submits that there is a strong probability that the witness might have stated incorrect name because of similar phonetic, it was mistakenly understood by the typist as 'Baban Rankhambe' instead of 'Baban Rongya Kamble'.

208

428. Learned SPP opposed the connection of Mukesh Rabadiya with the police on the ground that he has not been examined as a witness in this case. He further submits that on the ground that Mukesh Rabadiya was panch witness in three cases, the evidence of PW-74 cannot be discarded.

429. Learned Counsel Shri. Chaudhary further pointed out that even a story that PW-74 on the date of incident, had gone to meet one Lalit Waghela at BMC Bank is also false as the said person was on leave.

430. There is one more challenge raised by the defence in relation to the discrepancies in the jail register and timing mentioned in the TIP Panchnama. This submission by the defence requires us to look into the Avak-Jawak Register. A comparative chart of of the timings mentioned in the jail register as well as the TIP Panchnama can be seen in the chart herein under.

CHART NO. 34

431. PW-80, in cross, while referring to Exh.835 (short notes taken by PW-80 during TIP), stated that he conducted the TIP between 11:55 am to 1:30 pm. Learned Counsel states that, as per PW-80, the accused were outside the barracks for this entire duration.

432. As early as his complaint on 09/11/2006, A.4 states that he was taken into an open ground for a few minutes and were shown to

209

witnesses who were inside a room and further that proper dummies were not selected. A.4 has stated that he was taken out of the barrack for 5 minutes and no T.I.Parade was held. The so called T.I.Parade was conducted within 5 minutes, three witnesses identified him on the pointing of the officers. This fact, in addition to the earlier observations, brings the truthfulness of this witness under shadow of doubt.

433. PW-74 Vishal Parmar has deposed that he had gone to ENT hospital in front of Hutatma Chowk at 4.30 pm on 11/07/06. After the work there was over, he got a call from his employer who directed him to go to the BMC Bank at Dadar.

434. This part of the deposition of PW-74 relates to the prior events before boarding the train. According to PW-74, as he stated in cross- examination, he went to ENT Hospital to meet one Baban Rankhambe. Whereas, the information obtained by the defence under RTI (Exh.3808) shows that there is no person 'Baban Rankhambe' working in the ENT Hospital. As per the information obtained by the prosecution from ENT Hospital vide Exh.3929, it is revealed that one Mr. Baban Rongya Kamble was an employee in ENT Hospital. According to Learned Counsel Shri. Chaudhary, the whole story of PW-74 is false because no such person was working. However, Learned SPP argues that there is a strong probability that the witness might have stated the name as 'Baban Rongya Kamble' but because of the similar phonetic, it was wrongly typed as 'Baban Rankhambe'.

435. Even if the argument of learned SPP is accepted, the RTI information (Exh.4391) shows that Baban Rongya Kamble was

210

supposed to be on night shift on the date of the incident, however, he was absent. Thus, it creates doubt about the veracity of the evidence of PW-74.

436. PW-74, in his oral evidence, further deposed that at 5.15 p.m., he went to Churchgate Station as he wanted to go to Dadar. He went to platform no.3. He stood near the first class bogie that was in front. The indicator on the platform was showing a train of 5.19 p.m. going towards Virar. Two persons came there and asked him whether Virar fast train would go from there. He looked at the indicator and told them that such a train is going from there. Thereupon they stood there. After two or three minutes the train came there. Out of those two persons, the person other than the person who had asked him about the train and the time, had a black rexine bag with him.

437. From this part of the narration, it is evident that there was a brief interaction while making inquiry about the train, between the witness and the accused. In this part, there is a reference to black bag, about which, we have made detailed discussions while considering the evidence of PW-57. With the evidence available on record, we also recorded our finding as regards the probable size of the bag and at the end of the said discussion, we observed that the bag in any case could not be of an abnormal size which will attract anybody's attention.

438. PW-74 further deposed that they had started to board the train before him and when he was boarding the train, the rexine bag hit his leg. He wanted to catch a window seat, but he did not get it. He sat on the seven-seater long bench, facing Churchgate, at the third seat from Hutatma Chowk side. Those two persons stood in the passage in

211

between at some distance. After the train started, he looked at the bag and thought that it was a big bag being carried in the first class compartment.

439. Here, in this part, PW-74 refers to hitting of black bag to his legs, and further he deposed that though it was a big bag, it was being carried in first class compartment. If the incident of hitting of the bag to his leg is the cue to triggering his memory, then unless PW-74 specifically states that he noticed the face of the accused or stored the same in his memory for certain special reasons, such cues would, at the most, help the witness to recollect the event, and not the face of the accused, that too after a long gap of 120 days.

440. PW-74 further deposed that at Bombay Central, the bogie became crowded. After Bombay Central, the train stopped at Dadar. After the train had passed the Elphinstone Station, he started moving towards the door as he wanted to get down at Dadar. He got down at Dadar. The two persons got down in front of him at Dadar and were walking fast empty handed. As he was engrossed in the thought of his work, he did not think much about the persons walking away without taking their bag with them. At Dadar he went to the BMC Bank in front of Plaza Cinema and met the client. After about half an hour there was a talk in the public that there were blasts in the trains.

441. In this part of the narration, he has stated that after alighting the train at Dadar, he went to the BMC Bank, infront of the Plaza Cinema and met the client. PW-74, in his cross-examination, stated the name of the person as Lalit Waghela, to whom he went to meet in BMC Bank. However, no person named 'Lalit Waghela' is employed at the said

212

bank as disclosed in Exh.2911 (RTI Information obtained by A.4). Furthermore, one Sukhlal Ambadas Rathod was examined as defence witness no. 24. DW-24 was working as assistant head supervisor. He refers to Exh.3083 which shows that one Lalit Waghela was working as motor loader in BMC. However, on 11/07/2006, he was on leave.

442. Thus, the gist of the above observation is that there was no Lalit Waghela in BMC Bank, Dadar. One Lalit Waghela was there in BMC, but he is a motor loader. In the circumstances, even if it is considered that PW-74, on the date of incident, went to meet this Lalit Waghela, who was working as a motor loader in the BMC, he was on leave. Though, the Learned SPP tried to raise a question regarding the correctness of the information obtained via RTI Act vide Exh.3083, it will not help the prosecution in absence of any positive and cogent evidence to support its own case that on the date of incident, PW-74 went to meet one Lalit Waghela.

443. The above referred observations create a doubt about the veracity of the evidence of PW-74, and also whether he traveled in the said train on the date of incident. There are further reasons for such doubt, which are mentioned herein under.

444. It is to be noted that PW-74 had acted as a Panch witness in four crimes, and interestingly, out of four crimes, three crimes were related to DCB CID police station. PW-74 acted as a seizure panch in CR. No. 11/2006 (CC 675/PW/2006) of DCB CID Police Station, in which a gun and a cartridge was recovered on 11/03/2006. (Exh.4554), just four months before the incident dated 11/07/2006.

213

445. He further acted as a Panch in the following cases: -

i) Acted as a TIP Panch in Panchnama dated 17/03/2011 in FIR No. 27/2011 of DCB CID Police Station for the offences punishable under S.302 of IPC r/w S.325 and S.327 of Arms Act. (Exh.3828)

ii) Acted as a TIP Panch in panchnama dated 03/09/2011 in CR No. 105/2010 of DCB CID Police Station for the offence punishable under S.307, S.34 of IPC r/w S.3, 25 and 27 of Arms Act. (Exh.3827)

iii) Acted as a TIP Panch in panchnama dated 21/01/2010 in Cr. No. 107 of 2011 of Crime Branch for the offences punishable under S.394, 395 of IPC r/w S.35 of Arms Act r/w S.37(1)(a), 135 of Bombay Police Act r/w S.3(1)(ii), 3(2), 3(4) of MCOC Act. (Exh.3826)

446. PW-74, in his deposition, has stated that one Mukesh Rabadiya is his employer. The Learned Counsel for A.4 has pointed out that Mukesh Rabadiya is also a stock witness and he acted as a panch witness in the present offence in the house search of A.6.

447. Mukesh Rabadiya is a money lender and it is pointed out that he has acted as a search and seizure panch in Cr. No.256/P/203 of DCB CID Unit-II Police Station (Exh.3295) in which Shri. Kolhatkar (PW-

18) & Shri. Tajne (PW-161) were the investigating officers. In Spl. LAC 03/2006 (Exh.4812) , ACP Shengal (DW-51), Shri. Tajne (PW-161) were the officers. And in LAC No. 01/2006, PW-161 and PW-168 were the officers in the investigation team.

448. Let us now look at the law as regards stock witnesses.

214

449. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Tarseem Kumar vs. Delhi Administration, reported in (1994) SCC Cri 1735, it is held that many witnesses who can be said to be the stock witnesses of the police, have been produced on behalf of the prosecution to prove important circumstances. In this background, the court has to be very cautious about the investigation done by the police in such case.

450. In light of the above referred law and considering the fact brought on record that PW-74 acted as a panch witness in many cases, it appears that he is a stock witness, and therefore, on this count also, his evidence creates doubt about the truthfulness of his evidence.

451. The learned Special Court, while placing reliance upon the evidence of PW-74, has observed thus: -

"583. …In respect of the incident in question the evidence of Vishal Parmar, PW-74, unimpeached and a cogent evidence and looking at the facts and 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 hesitation in accepting his testimony. Hence, it will have to be held that by his evidence the prosecution has proved that on 11/07/06, the A4 had a black rexine bag with him when he boarded the first- class compartment of the 5.19 p.m. Virar train at Churchgate and he was accompanied by one more person and when they got down at Dadar, they did not have the bag with them. This is circumstance no. 5 proved by the prosecution. It is against the A4."

452. In light of the above referred observations and findings recorded by us, as regards the evidence of PW-74, it can be said that the learned Special Court committed a grave error in placing reliance on the evidence of PW-74.

215

Third Category of Witnesses The witness to assembling of bombs (PW-75)

453. Moving further to the third category of witnesses namely, the witness who saw the accused assembling bombs. This witness is PW-75 Amar Sardar Khan.

454. PW-75 Amar Sardar Khan identified A.2, A.4, A.6, and A.7 in TIP conducted by SEO Purandare on 07/11/2006 and also in Court. Though, according to him, he saw A.2, A.4, A.7 at A.6's house 4-5 days before the incident, he gave statement to the police under section 161 of Cr.PC on 28/10/2006, i.e. after about 112 days from the date of sighting. It is important to note that PW-75 himself was a suspect in this case and he was repeatedly called by police for inquiry immediately after the incident. However, he did not disclose anything to the police at that time about the preparation of bomb at the house of A.6 by the accused. One more important aspect which needs to be considered is that he gave statement u/s 161 of Cr.PC after the retraction of confessions by the accused. The above referred factors suggest us to be cautious while examining the evidence of PW-75.

455. Before scrutinizing the evidence of PW-75, there is one important question raised by the defence that no T.I. Parade was conducted. It is argued that A.2, in his 313 statement, states that he was taken out of the barrack to an open area with other co-accused A.4 & A.7 at 12:35 pm and after 5 minutes he was again sent back with co- accused A.4 and A.7. He was forced to stand in an open ground and then he was forced to stand with some other inmate of the jail, and he was shown to some persons.

216

456. Further, it is argued that A.7, in his 313 statement, states that he was taken out at 12:35 pm for a few minutes and made to stand in an open ground and no TIP took place.

457. This submission made by the defence requires us to look into the Avak-Jawak Register maintained in the Arthur Road Jail and referred by the defence.

458. The entries in such Awak-Jawak Register (Exh.2474) in relation to A.2 & A.7 on 07/11/2006, i.e. the date of T.I. Parade disclose the entries of date and time of outward and inward, given in the chart herein below: -

CHART NO. 35

459. PW-75, who identified A.2 and A.7 during the first round of the TIP, in cross-examination, stated that he may have gone inside the parade room on the first occasion on 07/11/2006 at about 11:45 am to 12:00 pm.

460. PW-80 SEO Purandare, in cross, while referring to Exh.835 (short notes taken by PW-80 during TIP), stated that he conducted the TIP between 11:55 am to 1:30 pm.

217

461. On perusal of the above referred entries in the Avak-Javak register and in view of the contention of the defence that no T.I. Parade was conducted, since it creates doubt about holding T.I.Parades, it is imperative to exercise caution while scrutinising the evidence of PW-

75.

462. According to PW-75, he met Dr. Tanveer (A.2), Ehtesham Siddique (A.4) and Mohd. Ali (A.6) in the programs of SIMI that he attended.

463. PW-75 further states that they used to give provocative speeches about jihad at the SIMI programs. The jihad that they were talking about was in respect of atrocities committed on Muslims. A.2 and 4 used to give such speeches. However, it was his view that they should not talk like this. Yet, they used to say that, if they want to do something, they will take the help from outside and will do anything. He states that he had a long-standing friend by name Ajmeri Shaikh, he used to meet him often and states that Ajmeri Shaikh had also come with them for the programs of SIMI.

464. He deposed that Ajmeri Shaikh used to do the work of plaster of paris (POP) and interior decorator and for the purpose of purchasing the material required for POP he used to go on his motor cycle to Govandi. He used to accompany Ajmeri on Ajmeri's motorcycle. He had so gone with him four or five days before the blast to the Shivaji Nagar in Govandi. He parked the motorcycle outside a lane and they were walking in that lane. A.6's house is in that lane. Ajmeri said that we would go to his house as we had not met him since many days and would greet him and then go to our work. They were at some distance

218

from his house. At that time, they saw A.2 standing outside his house, and looking around. At that time, A.6 came out of the house in a hurry and said something to A.2.

465. Then they both went inside the house. At the same time A.4 entered the house from outside with a tea kettle. They both entered the house behind him. They saw three-four more persons sitting there. One person was doing something with a wire. Two-three newspapers were spread in front of the persons. There was white and black coloured powder on the newspapers. He further states that when they greeted them, A.6 said that they are busy in some work and that they will meet afterwards. Therefore they came out of the house.

466. From the above referred narration of PW-75, it can be seen that he saw 3-4 more persons other than A.2, A.4, and A.6. He then states that they greeted them and A.6 said that they are busy in some work and they will meet afterwards. Therefore, they came out of the house. Thus, it is evident that PW-75 did not get sufficient time even to see whether there were 3 persons or 4 persons inside the room other than A.2 and A.6. Therefore, a question arises, if he did not get sufficient time even to notice the exact number of persons present in the room, he could see the face of A.7 minutely, with whom, admittedly, he had no acquaintance, to identify him after more than four months of sighting him.

467. He further deposed that in Mumbai Mirror dated 01/10/06 a photograph of A.6 was published concerning the blasts. Ajmeri had read the said newspaper and he had come and told him about it. At that time he and Ajmeri thought that they should tell someone about the

219

incident that they saw four-five days before the blasts at the house of the A.6, so that the real accused would be caught. After thinking it in deep, on 28/10/06 Ajmeri said to him that they would tell about this to one police constable Vijay Ambekar.

468. Thereupon, PW-75 was called for T.I. Parade on 07/11/2006 and he identified A.2, A.4, A.6 and A.7. At the same time, he identified the above referred accused in the Court.

469. According to PW-75, it was probably on Sunday when he had gone with his friend Ajmeri Sheikh to pick up Plaster of Paris material, and passed A.6's house in Govandi. However, the record from Saboo Siddique Hospital shows that A.2 was at the hospital from 11:41 am till 10:58 pm on Sunday, i.e., 09/07/06 (Exh.2932). Thus, this document falsifies the claim of PW-75 that when PW-75 allegedly visited A.6's house, A.2 was present there.

470. PW-75 knew A.4 from previous SIMI meetings. PW-75 states in his chief that he saw A.4 entering A.6's house with a kettle and that he saw A.7 joining wires inside A.6's house. However, during TIP (Exh.833), he identified A.4 as the person who was joining wires.

471. In cross-examination, PW-75 admits that he did not go inside the house and see anything but merely repeated what Ajmeri Shaikh had told him. Thus, it is clear that PW-75 did not himself see what he deposed in chief.

472. In his examination in chief, PW-75 stated that he and his friend Ajmeri Shaikh used to go on Ajmeri's motorcycle to Govandi, and that

220

PW-75 used to accompany Ajmeri on his motorcycle. He further stated that before 4-5 days of the blast, he had gone to Govandi with Ajmeri. However, later in his cross-examination, PW-75 stated that Ajmeri did not have a motorcycle in 2006, and that PW-75 had taken his own motorcycle, driven it and parked it on that day. Further PW-75 states that Ajmeri does not know how to drive a motorcycle. He also stated that what he stated in the examination-in-chief was not correct.

473. During cross-examination, PW-75 admits that he was called to the Park Site Police Station one or two days after the blast, and the police had inquired with him, but it was not for four-five hours. His statement was recorded at that time. He had not stated about his visit to Govandi four-five days before the blasts to the police officer at that time, because at that time he was not knowing its relevance. He came to know only when he saw the photo in the Mumbai Mirror.

474. The gist of the evidence of PW-75 is that he was a suspect in the present case and he was called by police immediately after the blast, and at that time though his statement was recorded, he did not disclose anything about alleged making of bomb at the house of A.6. According to him, he did not know the relevance of it. He then suddenly realised its relevance and went to ATS after 112 days just on seeing photo of A.6 in the newspaper. That apart, he saw the photo on 01/10/2006, however, he went to the police station delayedly on 28/10/2006.

475. PW-75 identified A.7, who was stranger to him. Whereas, in fact, he could not get sufficient opportunity to even see whether there were three persons or four persons other than A.2, A.4, and A.6. He further changed his version of going to A.6's house on a motorcycle of

221

Ajmeri as a pillion rider, and stated in the cross-examination that Ajmeri had no motorcycle in 2006, he did not know how to drive motorcycle. Most importantly, he said in the cross-examination that he did not enter into the room but Ajmeri told him about the presence of the accused in the room and their suspected activities. Admittedly, Ajmeri has not been examined as a witness by the prosecution.

476. PW-75 says that a few days prior to the blast he went to the house of A.6 and several accused were present there including A.2, A.4, A.7, and A.6. At that time, they were preparing something. Later, he realised that it must be a bomb. However, he says that some papers, materials, chemicals, wires were there and they were doing something. He is not sure whether what was made by them or prepared by them was a bomb.

477. Thus, it can be said that the evidence of PW-75 has been completely shattered in the cross-examination. And considering his cross-examination, it can be said that he is not a trustworthy and credible witness to rely upon his evidence. There are further reasons to discard his evidence. The same are discussed herein below.

478. PW-75 states that Ajmeri and his statements were recorded by PW-153 API Alaknure in ATS Bhoiwada office between 2-3 pm on 28/10/2006. However, the station diary entry dated 28/10/06 (Exh.3322) shows that API Alaknure returned to Crime Branch Office at 1:45 pm. There is no entry of leaving of PW-153 from the crime branch officer thereafter.

222

479. PW-153 though initially states that he does not remember whether he had recorded the statement of PW-75, but on going through the case diary, admits that he did record the statements of PW- 75 and Ajmeri Shaikh on 28/10/06, but the time is not mentioned in the station diary.

480. Ajmeri Shaikh also identified A.2, A.4, A.6 and A.7 in TIP dt. 07/11/06 conducted by PW-80 Shri. Barve. However, he was not examined in this case. Therefore, a question arises here is that, if he was an important witness to bomb making in A.6's house, then why did he not enter into the witness box.

481. Amar sardar Khan and Ajmeri Sheikh were also used as witnesses in the Ghatkopar blast. The list of witnesses in that case shows that Amar sardar Khan and Ajmeri Shaikh are cited as witnesses at sr. no. 169 and 170.

482. Thus, there are numerous grounds to discard the evidence of this witness.

483. The Learned Special Judge, while relying on the evidence of PW-75, has recorded its conclusion to accept the evidence, as under: -

"884. … It will have to be held that the prosecution has not proved that Amar Khan, PW-75, saw some persons including the A7 in the house of the A6 a few days before the blasts. However, it will have to be held that by the cogent evidence of Amar Khan, PW-75, PC Ambekar, PW-76, and PI Alaknure, PW-153, prosecution has proved that Amar Khan, PW-75 had gone to the house of the A6 a few days before the blasts and had seen the A2, A4 and A6 outside his house. This is the circumstance no. 18 proved by the prosecution. It is against A2. A4 and A6. It is the second circumstance against the A2, A4 and A6."

223

484. Having held that PW-75's evidence is not trustworthy and credible, the reliance placed by the Learned Special Judge on such evidence is nothing but a grave error committed by the Learned Trial Court.

Fourth Category of Witnesses

The witness to the conspiracy (PW-59)

485. Let us now examine the witness who falls in the fourth category, and who claims that he is a witness to the hatching of conspiracy.

486. PW-59 claims to be a close friend of A.3 and A.12 and met A.2, A.4, A.9, A.10, and A.13 through A.3. He identified A.2, A.3, A.4, A.9, A.10, A.12, and A.13 in the Court. The prosecution examined this witness to establish the conspiracy and also his acquaintanceship with the above referred accused.

487. PW-59 gave his statement under section 161 of Cr.PC on 02/11/2006 after retraction of confessional statements of A.2, A.3, A.4, A.9, and A.10. He states in his oral evidence that if the police would not have called him, he would not have gone and given his statement. It is to be noted that the statements under Section 161 of Cr.PC of PW- 59 and PW-74 were recorded on the same day, i.e., on 02/11/2006.

488. Learned SPP states that PW-59 is an important witness as he is not somebody who is a stranger to the accused persons but he is conversant with the some of the accused. He is a friend of A.3 and A.12 and also well acquainted with A.2, A.4, A.9, A.10, A.11 and A.13. It is submitted that A.9 is the brother of A.3, and A.3 was a close friend of

224

PW-59. Therefore, he has unmistakably identified A.9 to be present in the conspiracy meeting and there is no reason to discredit his evidence.

489. It is further argued by Learned SPP that PW-59 knew A.3's name as 'Sameer' which, according to PW-59, A.3 used to use the said name to hide his identity. It is argued that though cross examination of this witness was made by multiple counsels, no contradiction could be brought on record which would go to the root of the matter branding this witness as a liar.

490. Before scrutinizing the evidence of PW-59 on the point of conspiracy, it would be beneficial to reiterate the law as regards conspiracy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Yogesh

v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 10 SCC 394, has held thus: -

"20. The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are :

(i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or

(b) an act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means. It is, therefore, plain that meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of criminal conspiracy. Yet, as observed by this Court in Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi v. State of Maharashtra [(1980)

2 SCC 465 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 493] a conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy and it is impossible to adduce direct evidence of the common intention of the conspirators. Therefore, the meeting of minds of the conspirators can be inferred from the circumstances proved by the prosecution, if such inference is possible.

21. In Mohd. Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra [(1981) 2 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 477] it was observed that for an offence under Section 120-B, the prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do and/or cause to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary implication.

22. In Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.) [(1988) 3 SCC 609 :

1988 SCC (Cri) 711] the gist of the offence of the conspiracy has been brought out succinctly in the following words [Ed. : Quoted

225

from Russell on Crime (12th Edn., Vol. I, p. 202).] : (SCC p. 731, para 271)

"271. … 'The gist of the offence of conspiracy then lies, not in doing the act, or effecting the purpose for which the conspiracy is formed, nor in attempting to do them, nor in inciting others to do them, but in the forming of the scheme or agreement between the parties. Agreement is essential. Mere knowledge, or even discussion, of the plan is not, per se, enough.' "

23. Again in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [(1996) 4 SCC 659 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 820] a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that to establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to establish that a particular unlawful use was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not be put to any lawful use.

24. More recently, in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu [(2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715] , making exhaustive reference to several decisions on the point, including State v. Nalini [(1999) 5 SCC 253 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 691] Venkatarama Reddi, J. observed thus : (Navjot Sandhu case [(2005) 11 SCC 600 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1715] , SCC p. 689, para 97)

"97. Mostly, conspiracies are proved by circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open affair. Usually both the existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused (per Wadhwa, J. in Nalini case [(1999) 5 SCC 253 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 691] at p. 516). The well-known rule governing circumstantial evidence is that each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable evidence and 'the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible' (Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State Of Gujarat ., (1997) 7 SCC 156 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1004] , SCC p. 185, para 45). G.N. Ray, J. in Tanviben Pankajkumar [Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia v. State of Gujarat, (1997) 7 SCC 156 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1004] observed that this Court should not allow suspicion to take the place of legal proof."

25. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to prove the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless, existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused. But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be drawn. It is well

226

settled that an offence of conspiracy is a substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit an offence punishable, even if an offence does not take place pursuant to the illegal agreement."

491. In light of the above referred well settled principle of law, let us examine and scrutinize the evidence of PW-59.

492. According to PW-59, in February 2006, once he went to the house of A.3. At that time, he saw 5-6 persons in his house. They had gathered there for discussion on some special subject. After the namaj, A.3 introduced them to him. One of them was by name Asif Khan (A.13), Dr. Tanveer Ahmed (A.2), Ehtesham Siddique (A.4), Suhail Shaikh (A.10), and Muzzammil Shaikh (A.9). They were sitting together. Asif Khan took a Quran and asked all to keep their hands on it and to take the oath that whatever discussion they had there will be secret. Asif Khan asked about him. Faisal told him, he was his best friend and he should not take tension about him. Asif Khan asked him to take the oath but he did not take it as he did not have any knowledge about the subject matter of the meeting. Afterwards, he asked Faisal about that meeting but he did not tell him anything.

493. PW-59 further deposed that thereafter in March 2006, A.3 came to meet him at Mira Road, near Shams Masjid with his three friends Asif Khan (A.13), Dr. Tanveer (A.2), and Ehtehsam (A.4). A.3 asked him whether he could arrange for a house for 6-7 months for his friends. Then he asked him to phone A.12 - Naveed and call him. Accordingly he phoned A.12 and told him to come near Shams Masjid in the restaurant where they were sitting. After some time, A.12 came there. Faisal asked him to leave that place saying that he wanted to talk with A.12.

227

494. PW-59 further states that in May 2006 once or twice he went to A.3's house. He saw the guests in his house. He told him that they are his guests from Pakistan and they have come for the good work of religion. A.3 told him the names of those guests as Abdul Razzak, Abu Umed, Sohail Shaikh, and one Salim. PW-59 states that in June 2006, A.3 called him and Naveed (A.12) to his house. On the next day morning, A.3 told A.12 that because of the guests, his house is congested and he should make some arrangements for the guests. After some days, he came to know from A.12 that he had arrangements of two guests of Faisal at Millat Nagar, Andheri. During that month, A.3 had introduced him to one Rizwan Khot. During that period, A.3 had purchased a white colored Maruti-800 car. PW-59 then deposed that he and Rizwan Khot, A.12 and A.3 used to go around in that car. Rizwan Khot used to drive the car. He met A.3 lastly on 02/07/2006. After some days he came to know from the news that A.3 and A.12 were caught by the police as they were involved in the blasts.

495. In cross examination, PW-59 states that the police did not ask him to describe any person. He did not describe any person to police on his own. The ATS police did not ask him any identification mark on any accused or person, and he did not tell the police on his own. The police did not prepare a sketch of any person with the help of any expert in his presence.

496. According to PW-59, when he went to A.3's house, he saw 5-6 persons in his house. They had gathered there for discussion on some special subject. PW-59 gave the names of who were there, including Pakistanis. He saw the accused in the month of February and March 2006, and the incident took place on 11/07/2006. However, he was

228

quiet for 170 days and gave his statement under section 161 of Cr.PC on 02/11/2006.

497. PW-59 claims that A.3 had made an extra-judicial confession to him in January 2006 that A.3 was a Jihadist and had gone to Pakistan for arms training by the L-e-T. Despite such anti-nation and serious disclosure by A.3, PW-59 did not think of immediately alerting the police nor he disclosed that fact to anyone till October 2006, even after knowing that A.3 had been arrested in connection with the bomb blasts a few days after the incident. Thus, this inordinate delay in disclosure, in itself, renders PW-59 as a wholly unreliable witness and so his testimony.

498. According to PW-59, in May 2006, he went to A.3's house where he saw guests from Pakistan, namely Abdul Razzak, Abu Umed, Sohail Shaikh, and one Salim. PW-59 had never met those four Pakistani accused before. Some special reasons are required to recollect the names heard on a single solitary instance. It, therefore, creates doubt that PW-59 could recollect all these names with full name and surnames, more particularly when he himself claims that there was nothing unnatural and that he did not have any knowledge about the subject matter of the meeting. He admits that even A.3 did not tell him about the meeting.

499. At the same time, he could not recollect the name of a particular dancer, with whom he had a close relationship for over a month in the same year. He does not even remember the name of the policeman who had called him on 02/11/2006.

229

500. Furthermore, the prosecution does not seem to have done any investigation to corroborate PW-59's claim regarding having met the accused at Shams Masjid or at A.3's house. The prosecution could have produced the CDR of either PW-59 or the accused to establish the their location.

501. PW-59 did not approach the police himself and claims that the police approached him for the first time on 02/11/2006 by a call from a landline number to his mobile number. The prosecution did not produce any CDR. On the contrary, when the defence made an application to call the CDR of two mobile numbers used by PW-59 for the period of February to June 2006, it was strongly objected as frivolous. Therefore, PW-59's statement is shrouded in doubt.

502. It is further pointed out that his statement was recorded by ACP Patil (PW-186) at Chandan Chowki. However, the certified true copy of the log book (Exh.4299) of the Bolero MH-01-SA-131 shows that ACP Patil had not even gone to Chandan Chowki on 02/11/2006.

503. A.4 was a stranger to PW-59. At best, PW-59 had only a brief glimpse of A.4 sitting along with other persons and had no reason to remember him. T.I. Parade was therefore necessary to be conducted. However, it was not conducted. PW-59 did not describe any of the persons he saw, in his statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC, nor did the investigating officer ask for any identifying features. In the circumstances, a T.I. Parade ought to have been conducted for identification of A.4 and the other unknown accused.

230

504. Furthermore, when a photograph of Salim (Pakistani national) was shown to PW-59, he said that it is of Abu Umed. At the same time, he could not identify A.11 in the court. Therefore, it again creates a doubt as to how could PW-59 remember the full names of all those persons without any reason to remember their names, that too after so many months.

505. Learned Sr. Counsel Shri. Nagamuthu submits that PW-59 was in China in the period from February to May 2006. It is submitted that PW-59's elder brother Parvez had business at China of Chinese products.

506. It is submitted by Learned SPP that although an attempt was made by the defence to show that PW-59 was not in India but was in China at the relevant time, the defence could not succeed in establishing the said fact.

507. Though, in the cross-examination, PW-59 denies the suggestions regarding his trip to China, on being asked to produce his passport, he refused to produce the same with an excuse that it had gone missing in his house in 2006.

508. Moreover, PW-59 has deposed that he had no knowledge about the subject of discussion between the accused, and A.3 did not tell him. In these circumstances, in absence of direct evidence of conspiracy, as per the well-settled principle of law, a chain of events has to be completed from which a conclusion of guilt of the accused can be drawn. The said chain, in this case, could not be completed having found the other seven witnesses as unreliable. In these circumstances,

231

the evidence of PW-59 in the above referred backdrop, is of no consequence or help to the prosecution to establish hatching of conspiracy by the accused.

509. The learned Special Judge, while relying on the evidence of PW- 59, has recorded its conclusion to accept the evidence, as under: -

"951. In my humble opinion, the submissions by the learned SPP are very much valid for appreciating the evidence of all types of witnesses. Applying, these tests to the evidence of Mohd. Alam, PW- 59, I have no hesitation to hold that he is an impeccable witness. He has no criminal antecedents, no connection with the police either as a witness or panch or accused and no animosity against any of the 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 A3 was concerned with the atrocities being committed on Muslims and was of the view that the only way to solve their problems was by way of jihad, (ii) that the A3 had gone to Pakistan twice and had taken training in the camps of L- e-T, (iii) that wanted accuiled no. 1 Azam Cheema rendered financial assistance to the A3, (iv) that the A3 was commander of L- e-T in Mumbai (v) that the A2, A4, A9, A10 and A13 had assembled in the house of the A3 in February, 2006, (vi) that the A2, A3, A4, A12 and A13 had assembled near Shams Masjid in Mira Road in March, 2006 and (vii) that wanted accused no. 5 and 14 and deceased accused no. 1 and 2 were in the house of the A3 in the second or third week of May, 2006 and later on they were shifted to the house of the A3 at Millat Nagar in Andheri (W), Mumbai. This is the circumstance no. 19 proved by the prosecution. It is against the A2, A3, A4, A9, A10, A12 and A13. It is the third circumstance against the A2. It is the sixth circumstance against the A3. It is the third circumstance against the A4. It is the first circumstance against the A9. It is the first circumstance against the A10. It is the second circumstance against the A12. It is the fourth circumstance against 15 the A13."

510. Having held that PW-59's evidence is not trustworthy and credible, the reliance placed by the Learned Special Judge on such evidence is nothing but a grave error committed by the Learned Trial Court.

232

Fifth Category of Witnesses The injured witness who saw the suspects after they alighted the train, but not called for T.I. Parade, though with his help two sketches of suspects were prepared. Further, though he was examined, he was not asked to identify the accused in the Court (PW-85).

511. PW-85 Lalji Ramakant Pande boarded Borivali semi-fast 5:54 pm train from Churchgate. As the train left Mahim Station, there was a loud explosion in which he sustained injuries on the back, head, hands, stomach, legs, etc. He was operated in the hospital. He was discharged from the Sion Hospital on 24/07/2006. Police took his statement on 27/07/2006 at his house and again on 21/08/2006 at ATS Office.

512. In cross, PW-85 deposed that he saw two persons getting down hurriedly and they looked frightened, therefore, he became suspicious. He looked at them carefully. He described the two persons, their features, age, appearance, body structure, and the clothes worn by them. He had stated about mustache and beards that they had. He told the police about the features of the two persons that he remembered. Police prepared sketches of the two persons on the basis of their description that he gave. According to PW-85, police prepared the sketches correctly as per the description that he gave.

513. He further deposed that the description of one of the persons that he gave was that he was around 27-28 years old, height 5 '10", wheatish complexion, a longish face, medium build, clean-shaven, with a small mustache, wearing a half shirt and full pants. He had described another suspect as being around 28-30 years old, height 5'7" tall, with

233

a sallow complexion, a round face, slim build, clean-shaven, with a small mustache, wearing a checked full shirt and full pants.

514. It is evident from the evidence of PW-85 that he gave detailed description of the accused and helped the police to prepare sketches of the suspects. He found that the sketches were correctly prepared. The reason for giving detailed description was that he looked at the suspects carefully as he became suspicious about them.

515. His statement u/s 161 of Cr.PC was recorded immediately after he was discharged from the hospital. Thus, it can be said that when everything was fresh in his memory namely, the occurrence, faces of the suspects, and their other description, his statement was recorded and the sketches were prepared. Despite the said fact, he was not called for T.I. Parade. Furthermore, he was even not asked to identify the accused in the Court. This conduct of the prosecution speaks volume, in absence of any explanation offered by the prosecution for the same, and an adverse inference needs to be drawn for not calling him for T.I.Parade and also not asking him to identify the accused in Court. Sixth Category of Witnesses

The witnesses who saw the suspects, and gave their statements under Section 161 of Cr.PC within short span of incident with the description of the suspects, but were neither called for T.I. Parade nor examined as witnesses. (Total 6 witnesses)

516. It is argued by the defence counsel that injured and material eye- witnesses whose statements were recorded within 2-4 days of the blast were not called for TIP. Learned Counsel Ms. Roy states that

234

immediately after the blasts, various investigating officers recorded statements of a number of injured witnesses who claimed to have seen suspicious travellers or passengers in the bogie in which the blasts happened. It is submitted that these witnesses gave detailed descriptions and features of the people they saw; sketches were also made on the basis of their descriptions. However, none of them were called for TIP.

517. It is further submitted that considering the fact that the first 7 accused persons were arrested in the month of July itself, the investigating agency should have immediately put the arrested accused persons for a TIP & called the injured witnesses to identify them. However, no such thing was done.

518. It is further submitted that instead of calling the injured witnesses who gave description, and whose S.161 statements were promptly recorded within few days of the blast, the investigating agency called those witnesses whose statements were recorded after more than three months after the blast, who were not injured, and who gave no description. It is further submitted that, except the statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC of PW-60 Kishore Popatlal Shah and PW-

85 Lalji Pande, statements of all other witnesses who were called for TIP were recorded more than three months after the train blasts.

519. Learned SPP, on the other hand, submits that the submission of the defence is baseless. It is submitted that the I.Os and Chief I.O. have explained the reasons for not examining them.

235

520. Learned SPP submits that the contention of the defence is that some of the persons who were the eyewitnesses like Ramanand Machchewar, Prabhakar Dattatray Sadekar, Vijay Kumar Rayappa and constable Khanvilkar had been held back and were not called for TIP. Learned SPP further submits that one of the injured witness Khanvilkar is from police department and if it was really the intention of the investigating agency to falsely fabricate the evidence or to falsely implicate anyone then this witness would have been best available to the police. However, the prosecution has been transparent, and ACP Patil has given straight forward answers.

521. In light of rival contentions, we perused the record in this regard, wherefrom it is evident that there are five witnesses who claimed to have seen the suspected passengers planting bombs. Sixth witness claims that some Kashmiri persons purchased eight pressure cookers from his shop. These six witnesses were not examined. Furthermore, none of these six witnesses was called for TIP.

522. Before, scrutinising the evidence of the I.O.s and the police officers as to why these witnesses were not called for T.I. Parade or examined as prosecution witnesses, let us first see the law as regards adverse inference.

523. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in the case of Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing, reported in (2001) 6 SCC 145, has held thus : -

"19. ...It is true that if a material witness, who would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness who though available is not

236

examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness would oblige the court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not have supported the prosecution case. On the other hand if already overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other witnesses would only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence already adduced, non-examination of such other witnesses may not be material. In such a case the court ought to scrutinise the worth of the evidence adduced. The court of facts must ask itself — whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to examine such other witness, and if so, whether such witness was available to be examined and yet was being withheld from the court. If the answer be positive then only a question of drawing an adverse inference may arise. If the witnesses already examined are reliable and the testimony coming from their mouth is unimpeachable the court can safely act upon it, uninfluenced by the factum of non- examination of other witnesses. ..."

524. In the present case, the statements given by these six witnesses under section 161 of Cr.PC, shows that five of the said witnesses are the injured witnesses and they gave the description of the suspicious passengers.

Prabhakar Dattatray Sadekar

525. An injured passenger in the Borivali blast named Prabhakar Dattatray Sadekar, whose statement u/s 161 of Cr.PC was recorded on 13.7.06 by IO PW 140 PI Godbole. IO PW 162 PI Iqbal Shaikh further recorded the supplementary statement on 09.08.06.

526. Learned Counsel Ms. Roy argues that the witness described the suspects, including the apparels on their body. Sketches of the suspects were prepared on this description. It is further argued that even though IO PW-140 admits that he was an important witness, he was not called for T.I.Parade.

237

527. PW-140, in his cross, admits that statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC of Prabhakar Dattaram Sadekar was taken on 13/07/2006. He further states that he cannot say whether Prabhakar Dattaram Sadekar was an eyewitness.

528. PW-162 Iqbal Shaikh (I.O. of Cr. No 78/2006), in his cross- examination states that on going through the case papers he realized that there were two eye-witnesses by name L. R. Pandey (PW-85) and Prabhakar Dattaram Sadekar and they had been injured.

529. On a question put to him as to whether he had informed PW-

186 ACP Patil that these two eye-witnesses (L. R. Pandey and Prabhakar Dattaram Sadekar) would be required to be called for identification parade, he answered that no planter was found in CR No. 78/06, therefore, he did not inform accordingly to ACP Patil.

530. PW-162 further states that ACP Patil did not call and inquire with the two witnesses in his presence. No planter was detected in CR No. 78/06 upto 13/10/06. He does not know whether these two witnesses were not called for identification parade. He had read the final report filed by ACP Patil it is true that it is written in the final report that as per his investigation in CR No. 78/06, the Indian and Pakistani accused in that CR were unknown and their total number was not revealed.

Suresh Suvarna

531. Suresh Suvarna, who was injured in the Borivali blast, in his statement dated 15.7.06 stated that he had seen a suspect, who was approximately 25 years old, wearing a pathani dress, sallow

238

complexion, slim, 5'6" height, having a slight beard, hurriedly getting down from that train at Bandra.

532. Learned Counsel Ms. Roy submits that even though the IO PW-

174 PI Khandekar admits that he was an important witness, Suresh Suvarna was not called for TIP.

533. PW-174 Khandekar (I.O. of Cr. No. 156/2006) in his cross- examination states that on reading the statement of Suresh Suvarna, initially he felt that he was an important witness. It is not true that he had given facial description along with describing the wearing apparel, height and beard. He had described the suspects as wearing Pathani dress, approximate height and that they had beards. He had stated approximate age. He does not remember whether he had mentioned about sallow complexion and slim built. He denied that when they take description they inquire about description, they record only the height, built, complexion, average age and whether the suspect has beard. He did not record the supplementary statement of the witness Shri. Suvarna when he met him. He did not get any sketch prepared with his help. Only one statement of this witness was recorded. It was on 15/07/06. He was one of the injured in that case. He did not think it necessary to call him for identification parade. He further states that the reason for not calling Suresh Suvarna for identification parade, according to him is the statement given by him about the alleged suspect boarding at Bandra without any luggage and getting down at Andheri.

239

Constable Santosh Prakash Khanvilkar

534. Santosh Prakash Khanvilkar was injured in the Borivali blast and gave his statement under Section 161 of Cr.PC on 22/07/2006. He described a suspect's complexion, age, height and dress and that the suspect boarded the train at Bandra and rushed out at Andheri.

535. Learned Counsel Ms. Roy argues that IO PW-174 is unable to explain why Santosh Khanvilkar was not called for TIP despite giving a detailed description of a possible suspect.

536. PW-174 Khandekar in his cross-examination stated that he had gone through the statement of Santosh Prakash Khanwilkar. On going through his statement he did not think that he was an important witness. He did not think on going through his statement that he could fix the identity of the culprits.

537. PW-186 in his cross-examination, states that he does not remember whether we had got a witness by name Santosh Prakash Khanvilkar, claiming to be an eye-witness in the Borivali blast. He remember having discussion about witness Suresh Shekhar Suvarna, who was claiming himself to be an eye-witness in the Borivali blast. He was not found to be reliable. He denied that all these witnesses were deliberately not called for the test identification parades. Ramanand Marutirao Machchewar

538. Ramanand Marutirao Machchewar who was injured in the Mira Road blast, gave his statement on dt.12.7.06. Macheware described a suspect who boarded his bogie at Andheri Railway Station as 30-35 years, medium built, wheatish complexion, height about 5'.4'', clean

240

shaven face, high cheek bones and hollow cheeks, appearing old and weak. He further stated that the suspect was holding a small green coloured bag when he boarded the train, kept the bag on the luggage rack, but left the train at Mira Road Station without the bag.

539. Learned Counsel Ms. Roy submits that though PW-150 API Shelke and PW-173 PI Agrawal both admit that he was an important and material witness, he was not called for TIP. Learned counsel further stated that PW-173 PI Agrawal claims that Ramanand Machewar was not called for TIP as the subsequent investigation revealed that the green bag that he had spotted belonged to an injured witness Kailash Mehta. He further states that it was subsequently returned to Kailash Mehta's brother. The counsel further submits that there is no evidence of the fact that the person to whom the bag was returned was Kailash Mehta. This explanation given by PW-173 has come by way of omission and is wholly uncorroborated and without any contemporary record.

540. PW-150 API Shelke, who recorded the statement of Ramanand Machchewar on 15/07/06, in his cross-examination states that he cannot say when identification parades were arranged and who took the initiative for arranging them. As far as his knowledge is concerned, Ramanand Machchewar was an important and material witness so far as the blast is concerned.

541. PW-173 PI Agrawal (IO of Cr. No. 59/2006) in his cross- examination states that Ramanand Machchewar boarded the train at Bandra Railways Station, when the train came at Andheri Railway Station, he saw a person boarding the same bogie holding a small green

241

coloured bag, which was passed through other commuters to be kept on the luggage rack; that he suspected this as he thought that the small bag could be held in hand and there was no necessity of keeping it on the luggage rack; that moreover, at Mira Road Station, the witness saw that person alighting from the train without the bag. He checked the unclaimed baggage and articles and found a small green coloured bag; that, on opening it was found to contain a telephone diary, bunch of keys and some money; that, the telephone diary showed that it was belonging to one Kailash Mehta who was admitted in Kasturi Hospital; that, he took that bag and came back to his office; that, he showed the bag to the witness and he confirmed that it was the same bag. He states that the four articles that were handed over to him as per the receipt are not the articles described at Sr. No. 24 in the panchnama. HE admits that bunch of keys, telephone diaries and cash amount of RS.80/- is not mentioned in the articles described at Sr. NO. 24 in the panchnama. He further admits that the articles described at Sr. no. 24 in the panchnama are not returned to Kailash Mehta as per the receipt (Exh.1838).

Vijaykumar Babanna Rayappa

542. Learned counsel stated that PW 167 and PSI Umesh Kadam recorded S.161 statement of Vijaykumar Babanna Rayappa who was injured in the Jogeshwari blast on 05.08.06. He described two persons reading an Urdu newspaper whose movements were suspicious. However, he was not called for T.I.Parade.

543. PW-167 initially attempts to deny that Vijaykumar Rayappa was an eye witness and had travelled in the same bogie as where the blast took place.

242

544. PW-167, in his cross-examination, states that he had inquired with the witness. He denied that it was revealed that the witness was traveling in the same bogie in which the blast took place. He was traveling in the same train. It was revealed during his interrogation that he had seen two travelers, looking like Muslims having Urdu newspaper with them and whose movements were suspicious. He had given the description of those persons. He did not feel that the information given by the said witness was important. He had informed his superiors about the witness in the discussion with ACP Patil and ACP Tawde. They did not tell him to bring the witness before them for inquiry. They did not opine that he is not an important witness. He did not feel it necessary to take the identification parade with the help of this witness.

545. PW-186 stated, in his cross-examination, that they had a witness by name Vijaykumar Babanna Rayappa, claiming himself to be an eye- witness in the Jogeshwari blast. They had a discussion about him and they found that he was not reliable to be called for the identification parade of the arrested accused.

Mohanlal Kumawat

546. PSI Yadav recorded statements on 28.9.06 of three shop keepers in Santa Cruz East, Arvind Umarshi Shah, Mahendrabhai Dedhia and Mohanlal Kumawat who state that two Kashmiri looking men had bought 8 pressure cookers and loaded them into a white Santro car in May 2006. These witnesses had given detailed descriptions of those two Kashmiris and their sketches were prepared. The witnesses stated that the suspects had made many calls.

243

547. PW-167 Shri. Wadhankar (I.O of Cr. No. 41/2006) states in his cross-examination that PSI Yadav recorded the statement of Mohanlal Kumawat, shop owner on 28/09/06, from whose shop the pressure cookers were purchased. It was revealed from this witness that the persons had kept the cookers in white coloured Santro car and he had given the description of the persons. Sketch was prepared. It was not circulated for finding that person. He had informed his superiors about the information that they gave. He did not think of calling them for the identification parade and they were not called. It was revealed from the statements of these three witnesses that eight pressure cookers were purchased and loaded in white Santro car.

548. The above referred explanations by the IOs go against the prosecution and show that till the confessional statements were recorded, there was no evidence worth showing the involvement and complicity of the accused. The prosecution has examined only two witnesses PW-60 and PW-85, who had given their statement under section 161 of Cr.PC within a short span of the incident, like the witnesses of sixth category.

549. These witnesses, who claim to have seen the suspects and gave their statement immediately after the incident, have given detailed description of the suspects in their S.161 statements. Their memory was fresh when the statement was given. If these statements are compared with the statements given by the accused, subsequent to the retraction of the statement, i.e. after 100 or more days of the incident, the statements of the witnesses of the sixth category appear to be more helpful to identify the accused. Despite the same, for no valid reason, they were not called for T.I. Parade or examined as prosecution

244

witnesses. Therefore, we are of the opinion that an adverse inference needs to be drawn against the prosecution for not examining the material and important witnesses.

550. Now, we will proceed to the second category of evidence, i.e., recovery of RDX, detonators, granules, and other recoveries.

RECOVERIES

551. We have examined and scrutinised the evidence of eye- witnesses. The other evidence, on which the prosecution has placed heavy reliance while trying to bring the guilt at home against the accused, is the recoveries made from the accused.

552. Following are the recoveries made from the respective accused.

A) A.1 - Kamal (Exh.500) One Plastic bag containing 500gms black coloured powder. (As per CA Report: 1) Cyclonite (RDX - used as high explosive) and charcoal are detected in the exhibit. 2) Exhibit contains about 85% RDX and 15% Charcoal.)

B) A.2 - Tanveer

a) Hospital Search (Exh.458) : Three bottles recovered from Tanveer's hospital locker situated in ICU:

i. One black plastic bottle having label of 'Hydrogen Peroxide Solution' of 500 ml, ingredients, manufacturer's name etc.

ii. One brown glass bottle having the label of 'Acetone' of 500 ml, ingredients, manufacturer's name, etc.

iii. One brown glass bottle having the label of 'Sulphuric Acid' of 500 ml, ingredients, manufacturer's name, etc.

245

b) House Search of his brother's house (Exh.485):

i. 3 books having name Teherik-E-Milat: Atankvaad ka zimmedaar kon,

ii. One book related to SIMI having name - 'April 2004, Tehrik-E-Millat, Ashiya, Shaikh Ahmed Yasin sukoon se so gye, Israeli kabhi sukoon se nahi reh sakenge - Hamas,

iii. One book named 'Sahi Disha Me Shatra Shakti: SIMI Sangarsha Yatra Ke 25 Varsh',

iv. One book- related to SIMI,

v. One local map of Mumbai wherein on the left side 'Map of Mumbai' and on the right side 'Tourist map of Mumbai' was written. (Some places were marked with green and red ink on the map),

vi. One International Map - shows the countries - Iran, Afghanistan, India, Muscat, and Oman. This map is a Xerox copy. (Map has one telephone no. i.e. 00966507551451 and one email ID - gudu_sir@yahoo.com)

c) Passport Agent Office Search (Exh.450): Passport of Tanveer Ansari recovered from travel agent

C) A.3 - Faisal

a) House Search (Exh.533):

i. Cardboard box,

ii. a plastic bag in which there is cotton on which there is black powder-like substance (As per the CA Report: Cyclonite (RDX - used as high explosive) and charcoal are detected in the exhibit.),

iii. A black coloured rexine pouch containing:

- A train ticket from Howrah to Mumbai dated 20/05/2006. - Two train tickets from Howrah to Mumbai dated 22/05/2006.

- ATM Card of ICICI Bank

- One learning licence and one driving licence, - Currency notes of Rs. 1000/

- 30 notes of denomination of 500 Saudi Riyals (15,000 Saudi Riyals)

246

- A train ticket from Mumbai to Howrah dated 14/05/2006

iv. Letter of Oriental Insurance Co. in the name of insured Nizamoddin Abdul Siddhique,

v. Motorcycle Documents. The registration book of Bajaj pulsar motor cycle no. MH-01-TA- 9542 in the name of Mohd. Muzamil Ataur. Certificate of insurance of New India Assurance Co. in the same name,

vi. One leave and license agreement,

vii. Two books titled 'April 2004, Tehrik-E-Millat, Ashiya, Shaikh Ahmed Yasin sukoon se so gye, Israeli kabhi sukoon se nahi reh sakenge - Hamas', and two books titled 'Tehrik- E-Millat Atankwad ka jimmedar kaun',

viii. Four books, two having green cover and two having pink cover titled SIMI, Sangharsh yatra ke pachis varsha,

ix. Xerox copy of the map of part India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran etc., (Some places were marked with green and red ink on the map),

x. The receipt dated 10/01/05 of Bajaj choice center for Rs.

59500,

xi. Key of the flat of Mohd. Faisal bearing the words china,

xii. Motorola, reliance and Sony Ericson mobile handsets, sim cards , batteries, etc.

b) Recoveries from Railway Track (Exh.1108): One Plastic bag was recovered which is copper-brown in colour, damaged and torn at some places measuring 30cm × 45 cm covered in mud. Inside the plastic bag, another thin white plastic bag torn at one place and covered in mud. That plastic bag contained:

i. 7 black rubber gaskets labeled as 'Kanchan' in white colour and soaked in mud,

ii. 5 pressure cooker whistles of stainless steel fitted with black plastic cap. Kanchan is marked on the surface of the plastic cap,

iii. 5 pieces of electric wire with red and white coloured PVC insulation. The length of the pieces of wires are 12cm, 28 cm, 28 cm, 60cm and 82 cm,

iv. Printed Circuit board with wire and other material. There also a black wire attached to the circuit with intermediate

247

black switch with NOKIA marking - cylindrical in shape and terminating in a pin generally used for headphone connection of a mobile,

v. Copper Brown and white coloured plastic bag (Cyclonite (RDX) is detected)

D) A.6 - Mohd. Ali House Search (Exh.716):

i. Plastic pouches and cotton swabs taken during house search, (As per CA Report, Cyclonite(RDX) and Charcoal are detected on the Blackish stained cotton swab in a polythene bag, and Ammonium Nitrate and traces of cyclonite (RDX) are detected on the cotton Swab in a polythene bag)

ii. Pressure cooker of 5 litre with the lid, whistle and steam plate, the khaki wrapper with label, two seals and white thread.

E) A.7 - Sajid Office Search (Exh.1480):

i. One torn plastic bag with Priyagold and Magic-Gold written on it

ii. One soldering gun- old & used of MAXGOLD Co.

iii. 4 pieces of Soldering wire

iv. Round metallic 'dabbi' of soldering paste of Quick fix company.

v. One printed Circuit board,

vi. One multimeter of UNI-T company, Model No. DT830D having two wires-one red & one black . On black of the sad multimeter 3030598732 is paste,

vii. 2 tweezers made of steel.

viii. 1 screwdriver with green handle,