Tamil Nadu - Coimbatore   

"No evidence against accused from Kerala"

V.S. Palaniappan

Prosecution failed to prove pilferage of defence explosives, says counsel

Coimbatore: The prosecution has failed to prove the role of the accused from Kerala as well as their links with Al-Umma, defence counsel G.M. Vridhachala Reddiar on Tuesday told Special Court Judge K. Uthirapathy, who is hearing the Coimbatore blasts case, on Tuesday.

More than 50 persons were killed and over 250 injured in the serial blasts of February 14, 1998.

Mr. Reddiar arguing for the nine accused from Kerala, including the People's Democratic Party (PDP) leader, Abdul Nasser Maudhany. J. Sankaran, Mohammed Sherief, Akbar Ali, Bhavani B Mohan, S.K. Raghavan and R. Gopalan assisted him.

Concluding his arguments on the second day, Mr. Reddiar said the charges levelled against the Kerala accused of harbouring Al-Umma undertrials, transportation of explosives and taking part in the conspiracy were not legally sustainable. Referring to the Supreme Court verdict in the former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, he said though the trial court had convicted all the 28 accused, but the apex court on appeal had acquitted 22 in respect of conspiracy charges. The prosecution had advanced similar theories relating to conspiracy, harbouring and transportation against them. Hence, this could be taken as a precedent for this case.

Prosecution counsel T. Balasundaram pointed out that the Rajiv Gandhi case could not be taken as a parallel, since the objective of conspiracy in that case was to eliminate the former Prime Minister. But for his status, it would be just a murder case, whereas in this case it was a conspiracy for retaliation resulting in a chain of incidents and this case involved a totally different set of facts.

Mr. Reddiar submitted that neither the prosecution witnesses nor the documents let in by the prosecution complied with legal norms in respect of arrest or recovery of weapons from the accused from Kerala. Similarly confessions of the accused at the time of arrest and recovery were not legally sustainable under Sec. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act.

He pointed out that the investigating officer, in his cross examination, had not mentioned anything adverse to the undertrials or in favour of the prosecution regarding the links of Abdul Nasser Maudhany with the other eight accused from Kerala or for that matter with Al-Umma. However, the prosecution, citing the deposition of 23 witnesses in respect of the Kerala accused, had misled the Supreme Court with false affidavits opposing the bail plea of Maudhany.

Regarding the charge against Army K. Raju of Kerala that he had provided TNT (Tri-Nitro-Toluene) and Plastic Explosive Kirki (PEK), the defence pointed out such high-grade explosives were present only with defence forces and Government agencies. The suspicion of the prosecution was that the solider, who deserted from the Assam Rifles, should have pilfered the explosives from there. If so, the prosecution should have produced the custodian of explosives from Assam Rifles before the court. No records had been marked before the court regarding pilferage or shortage of explosives. If at all there had been a pilferage, was there any disciplinary action against any custodian in charge of these explosives, he asked.

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

Stories in this Section

"No evidence against accused from Kerala"
Chikungunya camps begin in slums
CBI arrests two over false insurance claim
Bringing charm of Bengal to Coimbatore
Investment and insurance expo from Thursday
Minimum wages: Government urged to form committee
City getting ready to celebrate peace
Strike at gas refilling plant
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