Tamil Nadu - Coimbatore   

`Charges against key accused lack evidence'

Staff Reporter

Prosecution failed to prove them: defence

Coimbatore: G. Vridhachala Reddiar, defence counsel in the Coimbatore serial blasts case, on Tuesday argued that the prosecution had failed to prove charges against Kerala-based People's Democratic Party (PDP) leader Abdul Nasir Maudany.

Mr. Vridhachala Reddiar was placing his arguments before the judge of the Special Court for Bomb Blasts Cases K. Uthirapathy. T. Balasundaram and T.A. Selvaraj represented the prosecution.

Over 50 persons were killed and over 250 injured in the serial blasts of February 14, 1998.

Mr. Reddiar said the investigation officer had admitted that Maudany had no role in the conspiracy as well as the "lack of evidence to show that the conspiracy meetings were held in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka." Similarly, the charges under the Arms Act against the other accused from Kerala were not applicable. The article that appeared in a magazine was only a translation and Maudhany was only an honorary editor, hence the charges against him for the article were not legally sustainable, he said.

Police protection

Another defence counsel Bhavani B. Mohan appeared for the first accused in the case Syed Ahmed Baasha, Mohammed Ansari and Nawab Khan. Mr. Mohan said the conspiracy charges had not been proved in an admissible and acceptable way by the prosecution.

He added that Baasha could not have played a key role in the case, since the State Government had provided protection by deploying two personal security officers from the State Police, who were guarding him, round-the-clock.

The security officers had deposed in the court that they saw Ansari, Ozir, Nawab Khan and Oom Babu and a few others attending the conspiracy meetings at Triplicane in Chennai. The security officers had deposed that the accused were talking about taking revenge for the murder of 18 youths in Coimbatore on November 29 and 30, 1997.

If the contention of the prosecution were to be true, Mr. Mohan said the security officers should have informed their higher officials immediately, whereas the two officers had disclosed it before the court that too after one year, and such a conduct was unreliable. Contrary to the claims of the two security officers that they had informed their higher officials, no investigations had been done on those lines.

Mr. Mohan argued that Baasha had a very poor bank balance and Al-Umma was not having any resources to engineer such a conspiracy or to execute it. No police officer from the respective States had vouched to the conduct of conspiracy meetings in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Kerala as contended by the prosecution, Mr. Mohan pointed out.

Interaction over phone

As per the case of the prosecution Maudany and Baasha had interacted over phone based on the numbers found in the call details in respect of their phone numbers. There was no evidence from the prosecution to prove as to who spoke at both the ends.

The Prosecution had contended that another accused Bashid spoke to Baasha at 10.30 p.m. on February 14, 1998 but as per the prosecution evidence Baasha was arrested at 8.30 p.m. and the office was also sealed.

As regards Ansari and Nawabkhan, Mr. Mohan said that the charges against them had not been proved.

He also argued that the arrest of these accused were not informed to the local police stations and the seized materials were neither sealed nor the Chief Controller of Explosives was informed of the seizures.

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

Stories in this Section

`Charges against key accused lack evidence'
`Need to preserve Telugu culture'
Income tax survey detects cases of undisclosed wealth
Probe into suicide attempt
Talks inconclusive
Around the City
In Coimbatore Today

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