Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Nov 14, 2006
ePaper
Google



Tamil Nadu

News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |

Tamil Nadu - Coimbatore Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Non-examination of key witnesses questioned

Staff Reporter

"Contradicting versions of searches on undertrials' houses"

Coimbatore: Defence counsel in the Coimbatore serial blasts case on Monday questioned the prosecution for not examining key witnesses who had signed the search lists.

Defence counsel Mohammed Abubacker and P. Thirumalairajan submitted their arguments before the Judge of the Special Court for Bomb Blast cases K. Uthirapathy.

T. Balasundaram and T.A. Selvaraj represented the prosecution.

Undertrials

The defence accused the prosecution of coming out with confusing and contradicting versions of searches on houses of two undertrials and the materials recovered from there.

In respect of the searches carried out in the house of one of the undertrials, there were varying versions regarding the door number. The numbers in the charge sheet and FIR differed.

Similarly, there were contradictions in the list of materials recovered during the search operations.

There were differences in the recovered items in the search list and the letter given to the District Magistrate seeking sanction for prosecution.

Under such circumstances, when there were contradictions and confusions, the defence wanted the prosecution to explain why witnesses who had signed the search list had not been examined before the court.

Similarly, there was discrepancy on the time at which the recoveries were made. There were also contradictions relating to who made the recovery; the sub-inspector of the jurisdiction or the bomb squad sub-inspector or the jurisdiction inspector.

No explanation

These unanswered questions raises doubts about the prosecution version. The prosecution was not offering any explanation in respect of these contradictions.

The defence also charged that one of the undertrials was first included as a witness on May 25, 1998. He did not appear in court when summons was served on him.

After he failed to extend co-operation to the prosecuting agency, he was included as an accused on June 26, 1998 accusing him of involvement in petrol bomb making.

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



Tamil Nadu

News: ePaper | Front Page | National | Tamil Nadu | Andhra Pradesh | Karnataka | Kerala | New Delhi | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous | Engagements |
Advts:
Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary | Updates: Breaking News |



News Update


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |

Copyright © 2006, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu