Tamil Nadu - Coimbatore   

Car bomb charges based on presumptions: defence

Staff Reporter

Coimbatoreserialblasts Delay in special aircraft carrying Advani not probed

Coimbatore: The defence counsel in the Coimbatore serial blasts case on Tuesday argued that the case of the prosecution in respect of an explosives laden car was based on presumptions.

The defence counsel, P. Thirumalairajan, and Mohammed Abubacker were submitting 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 persons were killed and over 250 injured in the serial blasts on February 14, 1998 when the Bharatiya Janata Party leader, L.K. Advani visited Coimbatore for electioneering.

No evidence

Dismissing the theories advanced by the prosecution accusing three undertrials of using a second hand car with forged records and fake number plates for planting explosives, Mr.Thirumalairajan said that the prosecution lacked conclusive evidence to prove its charges.

Prosecution contended that a car laden with explosives originally bearing a Kerala registration number was fitted with a Tamil Nadu registration number plate and was parked on East Lokmanya Street in R.S. Puram close to the venue where Mr.Advani was scheduled to address a public meeting. The defence wanted the prosecution to furnish evidence to prove charges of forgery.

The engine number in the original registration records never tallied with that of the number embedded in the car engine (seized and marked as a material object in the case). The defence said that the prosecution should not expect presumptions to operate against the accused.

The defence wanted the prosecution to explain as to why the bandobust scheme for the visit of Mr.Advani was not marked before the court.

Permission

It also wanted the prosecution to explain as to who gave permission to conduct a public meeting at R.S. Puram and why the particular officer was not examined before the court.

The police officers posted in charge of bandobust arrangements should have been examined to lend credence to the version of the prosecution.

With none of the police officers preferring a complaint, the police had subsequently registered a case in respect of car bomb after commencing investigations. There was a discrepancy regarding the serial numbers of the FIR, the defence noted. Mr.Advani came under Z plus security cover.

The prosecution had contended that the extremists could penetrate into the security cordon but at the same time they had accused the undertrials of planting explosives at various places close to the public meeting venue.

Examine Advani

The defence pointed out that the prosecution should have examined Mr.Advani or the authorities at the Thiruvananthapuram airport to ascertain the reasons as to how and why the special aircraft carrying Mr.Advani was delayed in reaching Coimbatore airport.

The defence said that it was the duty of the prosecution to explain as to whether it was a delay due to natural reasons or whether it was a deliberate or intentional delay.

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

Stories in this Section

Car bomb charges based on presumptions: defence
Security stepped up for Babri Masjid demolition anniversary
Awards for saving accident victims
`Safeguards' sought
Manual workers asked to join welfare board
Rectified spirit seized
`Dream car' contest
Police arrest two call taxi drivers
Anganwadi workers placed under suspension
Refresher course postponed
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