Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Mar 07, 2007
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

Prosecution case lacks credibility, says defence

Staff Reporter

Coimbatore: Defence counsel in the Coimbatore serial blasts case on Tuesday questioned the credibility of the depositions by an eyewitness and the contentions of the prosecution. Defence counsel Mohammed Abubacker submitted his arguments before the judge of the Special Court for Bomb Blast Cases K. Uthirapathy. T. Balasundaram and T.A. Selvaraj represented the prosecution. Mr. Abubacker wanted to know how the prosecution eyewitness could visit the predominantly minority area Kottaimedu on November 30, 1997 (to witness the conspiracy meeting), especially in a riotous situation following the killing of 17-youths belonging to the minority community on the previous day.

Prosecution had contended that the eyewitness visited Kottaimedu to go to a tailor shop.

The defence questioned the possibility of a tailor shop remaining open during a riotous situation.

The tailor shop and the house where the conspiracy meeting allegedly took place were on different streets, the defence said.

The defence also questioned the contention of the prosecution regarding the investigating agency taking an undertrial Bashid to a reserve forest near Sathyamangalam in June 1998, where the accused reportedly conducted a test blast of the explosives in January 1998.

The investigating agency collected sand samples from the site, which were on the water flow path of wild streams.

The defence said during rainy days, the top layer of the soil could have been washed away and even the sample sent for forensic examination by the prosecuting agency was not packed and sealed.

Hence, the case of the prosecution was not only exaggerated but also fabricated, the defence said.

The investigating officer in his affidavit seeking custody extension of the accused had not mentioned any thing about the undertrial's confession.

Similarly, there were contradictions in the deposition of two undertrials on the house where the bombs were allegedly manufactured, Mr. Abubacker observed.

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 |

Citi Bank


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 © 2007, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu