The Hindu : Tamil Nadu News : Seizures, recoveries cannot be relied on, says Defence

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Sep 27, 2006
ePaper

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu

Seizures, recoveries cannot be relied on, says Defence

V.S. Palaniappan

Discrepancies in Rajamundry arrests, seizures highlighted

Coimbatore: Post-arrest seizures and recovery of arms and ammunition from the accused cannot be relied on, the defence counsel in the serial blasts case submitted before the Judge of the Special Court for bomb blast cases, K. Uthirapathy, on Tuesday.

P. Thirumalairajan and Bhavani B Mohan, argued for the defence, while T. Balasundaram and T.A. Selvaraj represented the prosecution.

The defence contended that provisions relating to Section 50 (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) had not been complied with in the arrest of some of the undertrials. Similarly, the prosecution had not adhered to legal norms in instances such as sealing and packing of seized materials to prevent further fabrication of evidence or introduction of incriminating material objects, Mr. Mohan argued.

The prosecution had chosen to rely on "unnatural, chance witnesses" rather than examining or bringing in competent and natural witnesses, thus strengthening the suspicion of defence. But for the post-arrest confessions, the prosecution had not brought in any direct or independent witnesses to strengthen its case in respect of the arrests and seizures.

Onus on prosecution

Mr. Thirumalairajan, arguing for the seven undertrials from Rajamundry in Andhra Pradesh, said the onus of proving the case rested on the prosecuting agency in the Indian jurisprudence system. Unless and until there was an instance of alibi (presence of the accused at another place), the defence was not duty bound to prove the alibi by bringing in reasonable belief under Section 11 of the Indian Evidence Act.

The presence of the fifth accused Basith at Omalur near Salem was only a contention of the prosecuting agency. It had also implicated Basith as a co-conspirator in the charge of conspiracy (hatched at Coimbatore), but in another version the prosecution had placed Basith at Omalur. Thus, the task of proving the presence of Basith rested only on the prosecuting agency.

Clarity sought

Asking the prosecution to clarify its charges, evidence and witnesses, Mr.Thirumalairajan said the defence, under such circumstances, would take advantage of "lapses, shortfalls, discrepancies, inconsistencies and glaring differences" in the depositions.

The defence said the investigating officers had gone against the dictum of the Supreme Court in having a witness of their choice in respect of the arrests at Rajamundry. The prosecution should have either had a head load worker or a railway employee or a passenger as a witness for the arrest of Siddiq Ali and Yusuf. Instead, it had brought in a chance witness, Perumal, who had no reason to be present at the station at that time.

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

Tamil Nadu