The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Coimbatore News : Defence raises questions on pardon proceedings

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Sep 14, 2006
ePaper

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Coimbatore

Defence raises questions on pardon proceedings

V.S. Palaniappan

`Approver's statements made before the court alone should be taken into account'

Coimbatore: Defence counsel P. Thirumalairajan on Wednesday submitted before the Judge of the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases, K. Uthirapathy, that non-compliance to legal procedures in grant of pardon for the approver Riaz-Ur-Rehman had been overlooked by the Judicial Magistrate.

Not taken at face value

He contended that the statements given by the approver as part of the pardon proceedings should not be taken at face value since the approver had told the trial court that he was induced by the prosecutor to turn an approver and toe the lines of the prosecution for getting pardon. He was arguing along with Bhavani B. Mohan.

T. Balasudaram and T.A. Selvaraj represented the prosecution. More than 50 persons were killed and over 250 injured in the serial blasts of Coimbatore on February 14, 1998. Mr. Thirumalairajan said that a prosecution witness let in by the investigating agency had not deposed anything in favour of the prosecution.

Deposition

The deposition by the approver had been contrary to the statements given by him as part of the pardon proceedings.

With the approver not having stood by the statement in the pardon proceedings, the prosecution should have moved a motion under Sec. 308 of Cr. PC against the approver.

He had not been treated as a hostile witness either. His statements made before the court alone should be taken into account and not his pardon proceedings statements.

Copies

Neither the accused nor the defence had been handed over copies of the statements given as part of the pardon proceedings. Under such circumstances the accused had no avenue for registering their objections in respect of the version of the approver.

Mr. Thirumalairajan wanted to know who the advocate for the approver was and how the pardon proceeding statements reached the magistrate court.

The pardon proceeding statements neither had the signature of the magistrate nor the court seal. The contents of pardon proceedings had been written in a particular colour of ink while the signature and address of the approver were in different ink.

Above all, the investigating officer, without even going through the contents or merits of the statements made by the approver, had readily given his consent. The approver had not taken any oath before the magistrate for the grant of pardon, he alleged.

No link witness

He submitted that there had been no link witness to prove the connection between Mohammed Ali Khan Kutty (the seventh accused) and Samjith Ahmed and Mohamed Dasthagir of Mysore (the 106th and 107th accused in the case).

It was the duty of the prosecution to prove the link with substantial evidence since the seventh accused was charged with sourcing of the explosives from the other two.

Explosives transported

In addition, one of the prosecution witnesses, Zakir, inquired by the investigating agency (in one of his statements) had confessed that he had transported explosives from Mysore at least 15 to 20 times.

The prosecuting agency, in its chargesheet, had stated that entire explosives for the serial blasts were transported from Mysore only 15 to 20 times in total. Inclusion of Zakir as an accused would defeat the contention and dilute the case of the prosecution against Mohammed Ali Khan Kutty.

Hence, the prosecution had "conveniently" chosen to not include him as an accused. It wilfully failed to include Zakir to implicate Mohammed Ali Khan Kutty, he argued.

Adverse notice

Similarly, the witnesses from Mysore cited by the prosecution to establish the source and transportation of explosives were stock witnesses in the adverse notice of the Mysore police and were not independent or natural witnesses, he said.

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

Tamil Nadu