Tamil Nadu - Coimbatore   

Serial blasts: defence alleges discrepancies

Staff Reporter

Questions prosecution's claims

Coimbatore: The prosecution charges and evidence on procurement of accessories and assembly of bombs are full of discrepancies, defence counsel Mohammed Abubacker submitted before the judge of the Special Court hearing the Coimbatore bomb blasts cases, K. Uthirapathy, on Tuesday.

Defence counsel said the prosecution had alleged that two of the accused were present at a place where the bombs were assembled, and had produced a witness.

But, another prosecution witness had mentioned the presence of the accused at a different place at the same time.

Three versions

There were three versions on the location of Ilahi Nagar where, the prosecution contended, the bombs were assembled.

On the charge of loading the explosives onto the boot of a car by an undertrial in front of his house, the relevant witness had not said anything during the police inquiry.

The "embellishment" was introduced in his deposition before the trial court.

Where the prosecution had charged somebody it had failed to produce evidence. And where it had evidence, it was unable to pinpoint the accused.

One of the prosecution witnesses had stated that he came to know about the two undertrials and their activities (assembling bombs) when he visited the Saramedu area.

But the accused were residing at Kottaimedu and not Saramedu.

"Prosecution failure"

On the charge of assembly of bombs at the house of one of the accused at Tippu Nagar, the defence said the prosecution had failed to prove that the undertrial was residing there.

Examination of the case diary of the investigating officer had revealed that a tip-off received by him regarding the use of the said house for assembling bombs had not been translated into legally sustainable evidence.

No records

There were no revenue records or reports on the inquiry conducted by the investigating agency with the neighbours to prove the presence of the accused at the particular address.

Even after arresting the accused, the prosecuting agency had failed to conduct a search operation to secure clinching evidence.

There was neither any evidence nor any witness to prove the charge that explosives were transported from the house of one of the undertrials in the Variety Hall Road area to the house at Saramedu.

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

Stories in this Section

Rival camps keep confidence level high
Serial blasts: defence alleges discrepancies
Deepavali gifts bring cheer to HIV positive children
Regulations on parking in city from today
Reliance launches plans with add-ons
Bonus issue unlikely to trigger stir in textile mills
KCT joins Project Green Hands
Hutch service for customers
BSNL offer
Free sari distribution
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