COIMBATORE: The defence counsel in the Coimbatore serial blasts case on Tuesday raised questions about the credibility of the prosecution witnesses regarding the making of bombs in two houses.

Defence counsel Mohammed Abubacker and P. Thirumalairajan placed their arguments before the Judge of the Special Court for Bomb Blast cases, K. Uthirapathy. T. Balasundaram and T.A. Selvaraj represented the prosecution. More than 50 people were killed and over 250 injured in the serial blasts of February 14, 1998.

Mr. Abubacker accused the prosecution of having failed to examine the parents of Tailor Raja (who is absconding), especially when the prosecution had contended that he had made the bombs in a rented house. Competent witnesses such as house owners or neighbours had not said anything about the period of tenancy. The prosecution had also not explained how they came to know about the two chance witnesses. A prisoner introducing other Al-Umma cadres to these witnesses without any necessity and letting them enter the house without any resistance or restriction especially when they were allegedly making bombs was totally unbelievable. The confession by one of the detainees threw light on the said house only on June 15, 1998, whereas officers from the prosecuting agencies had recovered bulbs with fingerprints on February 20, 1998, itself. Thus the entire case of the prosecution stood falsified, counsel said. The defence said the houses were taken on rent only towards the end of January 1998 as deposed by the investigating officer whereas the witnesses had seen the bomb making on January 10 and 12.

The house owner had said he had mentioned the name of Tailor Raja as one of those present in the house (when bombs were allegedly manufactured) only after the police told him. Otherwise, he had had no knowledge of him. With the prosecution not declaring him as a hostile witness, the deposition remained unchallenged. The defence said the prosecution had made the witnesses identify the detainees by giving them photographs and videographs. The deposition of witnesses on the presence of detainees and explosives at the said houses were only an "embellishment."

Prosecutor T. Balasundaram said police had obtained handwriting specimens from 16 detainees when they were in custody and not based on any directions from the magistrate as contended by the defence on Monday. The specimens could not be treated as inadmissible evidence since neither the Identification of Prisoners Act nor the Indian Evidence Act denied rights to the investigating agency to obtain the specimen, he argued.

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