The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Al-Umma hurled pipe bombs after serial blasts: Prosecution

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Aug 02, 2006

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Al-Umma hurled pipe bombs after serial blasts: Prosecution

Staff Reporter

Judge tells prosecution to respond to "discrepancies" in FIRs

Coimbatore: Prosecution counsel T. Balasundaram told the Special Court on Tuesday that Al-Umma activists hurled pipe bombs and indulged in rioting at Kalaingar Karunanidhi Nagar in Rathinapuri on the night of February 14, 1998, soon after the serial blasts rocked the city. He was arguing on the basis of depositions by a number of witnesses already examined before the court.

A woman was injured in the explosions that damaged a number of houses in four streets. They hurled pipe bombs at a party office, houses and a police outpost in an attempt to create panic. Prosecution witnesses had identified more than 40 undertrials as members of the mob, Mr. Balasundaram submitted.

Defence plea

Defence counsel P. Thirumalairajan and Bhavani B. Mohan raised objections saying that the delayed First Information Report filed by the Saravanampatti police in the riot case had too many discrepancies. The other defence counsel, S.K. Raghavan, R. Gopalan, and Mohammed Abubacker, requested the court to take note of the discrepancies.

The serial numbers in the FIR did not tally with the current FIR numbers and the Saravanampatty police used an FIR index book meant for the Kattoor Police station, they said. Mr. Balasundaram clarified that printing of FIR books was stopped after the Chiefs of State Police units, who met at the National Police Academy, decided to amend the format to make it computer-friendly.

The State Government had directed the Director General of Police to suspend the printing of FIR index books for computerisation. Hence the police were forced to make local arrangements wherein maintaining the format and serial numbers was not possible.

Query raised

The defence, citing Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Police Standing Orders, wanted the prosecution to explain whether a Government Order could prevail over the CrPC and PSO. The defence raised the same issue when the prosecution relied on two FIRs registered by the Podanur police in connection with a blast and recovery of another bomb at a shopping complex in Sundarapuram closely followed by one more blast near Pongaliamman temple along the Kurichi tank.

It said the two FIRs registered by the same police station on the same day were in different formats. The defence also pointed out that in the shopping complex FIR, the police said one bomb had gone off while another one was recovered and blasted by the Bomb Squad personnel.

But Bomb Squad reports indicated blasting of two bombs — on February 15 and 16. It wanted the prosecution to explain whether there was a seizure of two unexploded bombs or whether "the same bomb was blasted twice."

Similarly, citing discrepancies in the deposition by witnesses, the defence said according to the prosecution, "one undertrial was seen at two places on the same day at the same time."

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu