The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Prosecution witnesses in blasts case not trustworthy, says defence

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Sep 21, 2006
ePaper

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Prosecution witnesses in blasts case not trustworthy, says defence

Staff Reporter

Counsel cite "contradictions" in their deposition

Coimbatore: Prosecution witnesses who had deposed on the alleged transportation of explosives from Mysore to Coimbatore via Sathyamangalam were not trustworthy, defence counsel P.Thirumalairajan told the Judge of the Special Court hearing the Coimbatore blasts Cases K.Uthirapathy on Wednesday.

The prosecution charge that Mohammed Ali Khan Kutty and Idayath Ali Khan sourced and despatched explosives, lacked "natural and independent" witnesses. One of the witnesses, a Hindu Munnani activist, was a "stock" and "interested" witness roped in to toe the prosecution line. Mr. Thirumalairajan said the prosecution had stated that the undertrials, in their narration to the witness, had described the explosives parcels as tamarind and jaggery cakes procured from Mysore for sale in Coimbatore. But the witness had claimed that even before the blasts, he had knowledge about the undertrials dealing with explosives. If this was true, why did he fail to alert the police?

`Lapses' listed

He said the prosecution should have produced owners of the shops next to the bakery, where the explosives were allegedly stocked, and the toll collection contractor at the Sathyamangalam bus stand who takes care of loading and offloading of parcels. It should have furnished the sketch of the three places where the alleged loading and offloading took place.

The prosecution should have produced the tricycle and the person who rode it carrying the explosives. The arrival timings of the bus from Mysore and the time of offloading or loading as contended by the prosecution were full of contradictions. Defence counsel wondered why the police failed to question authorised explosives dealers in and around Coimbatore immediately after the blasts.

Abubacker, another defence counsel, alleged there were contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses regarding the buildings in Coimbatore where the explosives were allegedly offloaded. He pointed out that the owner of a car (allegedly used for transporting the explosives) had stated that he had handed over the vehicle to the investigating agency within 45 days of the blasts. But the prosecution had claimed that it had recovered the vehicle during investigation. Such a glaring contradiction was enough to damage the case.

He also questioned the legal validity or enforceability of the statements obtained from two accused, Anwar Khalia and Abdul Razak.

The judicial magistrate had not endorsed the statements of the undertrials. Hence the court should not rely upon these statements.

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

Tamil Nadu