Tamil Nadu - Coimbatore   

Prosecution accused of fabricating evidence

V.S. Palaniappan

Intention is to get "pre-determined accused" convicted: Defence

Coimbatore : The prosecution has fabricated evidence to secure convictions of "pre-determined accused," the defence counsel in the Coimbatore serial blasts case, Bhavani B. Mohan, told the Special Court hearing the case here on Thursday.

Justice K. Uthirapathy is hearing the case. Over 50 persons were killed and over 250 injured in the blasts of February 14, 1998.

Te prosecution could rely either on direct or circumstantial evidence to prove transporting of the explosives, he said. But it was the duty of the prosecution to prove the circumstances and related evidence beyond reasonable doubt. Witnesses might lie but not the circumstances, Mr. Mohan contended.

"The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should be consistent with the guilt of the accused and should not be inconsistent with their innocence," he said, adding that the circumstantial evidence should unshakably point at the accused.

The statements by approver Riaz-Ur-Rehman for tender of pardon, before the case was committed to court, were totally inconsistent with his deposition before the trial court. When it was clearly established that the prosecuting agency had fabricated evidence to get either life or capital punishment for the accused, it should be punished under Section 194 and 195 of the Indian Penal Code, Mr. Mohan argued.

Only offenders in dispute

Citing a Supreme Court judgement, he said that in case of any fabricated evidence, the officer should be imprisoned "since the onus or burden of sending an innocent person to the gallows rests on him."

Mr. Mohan pointed out that it was agreed that an offence was committed but only the offenders were in dispute.

The prosecuting agency that filed petitions under Section 173 (8) of Criminal Procedure Code thrice for further investigations had "wilfully closed its eyes and ears" towards other angles and the likelihood of the involvement of other agencies to prosecute the "pre-determined accused." There had been glaring violations in the searches, arrests and sealing of explosives shops at Chamaraj Nagar and Mysore, he said.

The defence wanted the prosecution to explain, in the absence of any confession, on what basis and authority were the 106th and 107th accused arrested when there had been no incriminating recovery.

The investigating agency chose to arrest all under suspicion and on fabrication of evidence it had recorded arrests on a piecemeal basis indulging in "not an irregularity but a totally illegal act," he alleged.

He pointed out violation of Police Standing Orders (PSOs) in respect of arrest records and `seizure mahazars' not being sent with the remand report and glaring discrepancies in the serial numbers of various forms. Prosecution counsel Balasundaram intervened to say that PSOs were only directives or guidelines in the form of codified Government orders and not mandatory. Mr. Mohan, citing a recent Supreme Court ruling, countered it.

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

Stories in this Section

School - college adoption scheme
Telugu Brahmin Street welcomes daredevils
Prosecution accused of fabricating evidence
Open and Distance Learning courses at TNAU
This street welcomes daredevils
City to get two more link roads
LPG dealers sore over `unrealistic conditions'
New scheme from Hutch
Tourist cab owners seek sops
`Enna Thavam Seidhom' project soon
Need to combat nematode diseases stressed
Around the City
In Coimbatore Today

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu