The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Coimbatore News : Defence cites contradictions in depositions by witnesses; `doubts arise on credibility'

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Thursday, Jan 04, 2007
ePaper

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Coimbatore

Defence cites contradictions in depositions by witnesses; `doubts arise on credibility'

V.S. Palaniappan

Coimbatoreserialblasts

Coimbatore: Defence counsel in the Coimbatore serial blasts case on Wednesday accused the prosecution of letting in interested witnesses to implicate the "already determined'' accused in connection with a blast reported at an election office of the BJP in Sivananda Colony on February 14, 1998.

Defence counsel Bhavani B Mohan submitted his arguments along with P. Thirumalairajan and Mohammed Abubacker before the judge of the special court of the 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 of February 14, 1998.

Mr. Mohan said the prosecuting agency had not located the accused for nearly six months.

Regarding the explosion, a complaint was preferred only after five months. The injured or those affected had not chosen to prefer any complaint immediately after the incident.

Citing contradictions in the deposition by witnesses, he said the prime prosecution eyewitness had deposed that a bag containing the bomb was handed over to the undertrial on February 14, whereas the other eyewitnesses had stated that the bomb was handed over on February 12.

The contradicting versions in the deposition by the prosecution eyewitnesses falsified the case of the prosecution and its charge against the undertrials, he argued.

He also questioned the possibility of the police videographer and photographer taking pictures or footage of the scene of explosion the next day, when the investigating officer had claimed that he had seized all the material objects recovered from the scene of occurrence the very same day.

This gave room for suspicion that the prosecution had fabricated the charge to implicate the pre-determined accused after managing to rope in interested witnesses.

The defence also disputed the version of the investigating officer who claimed to have handed over all materials and said the materials were handed over only at a later date and not as claimed by the officer.

No beverage

The defence said two of the prosecution eyewitnesses had deposed saying that they witnessed the planting of the bomb while having tea in a bakery close to the scene of explosion, whereas the bakery owner had deposed saying that he was not selling any beverage such as coffee or tea. This raised doubts on the credibility or reliability of the prosecution witness.

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

Tamil Nadu