Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy
IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge
HYD, Criminal Court Complex · Hyderabad · Telangana
Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy, IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, is posted at HYD, Criminal Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana, India. 334 court orders on record since 2015. 17 judgments with full text available. Primarily handles SC, CRLA, CRLRP cases.
Featured Judgments
1
THE COURT OF IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE CUM
SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF N.I.A.CASES : HYDERABAD
Dated this the 16th day of April, 2018
PRESENT : K.RAVINDER REDDY,
IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
SPL SESSIONS CASE NO. 03 of 2013
BETWEEN:
The State through National Investigation Agency,
Hyderabad. ...Complainant
And
A-1Devendra Gupta @ Bobby @ Ramesh S/o. Satya Prakash Gupta, Aged about 30 years, Occ: Vibagh Pracharak, R/o. Bhihari Ganj, Opposite to Pehli Galli, Ajmer, Rajasthan State. (Date of Birth: 17-01-1974)
A-2Lokesh Sharma @ Ajay Tiwari @ Ajay @ Kalu S/o. Gopal Krishna Sharma, Aged about 37 years, Occ: Property Dealer, R/o. H.No. 180, Sanghi Street, MHOW, Madhya Pradesh.(Date of Birth: 02-10-1977)
A-3 Sandeep V. Dangey @ Vasudev A-4 Rama Chandra Kalsangara @ Ramji (Case against A3 and A4 separated and pending vide Spl.SC No. 4 of 2013) A-5 Sunil Joshi (Died)
A-6Naba Kumar Sarkar @ Swami Asimanand @ Omkarnand @ Ram Das, S/o. Bibhuti Bhushan Sarkar, Aged about 63 years, Occ: Head of Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram R/o. Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, Shabridham, PO Subair AHWA, Dang District, Gujarat. (Date of Birth: 19-11-1951)
A-7Bharath Mohanlal Rateshwar @ Bharath Bhai S/o. Mohanlal Rateswar, Aged about 36 years, Occ: Private Job, R/o. Thakurghar, Mahdevi Nagar, Mograwadi, Valsad, Gujarat. (Date of Birth: 02-09-1968)
A-8Rajender Chowdary @ Samundhar @ Dasharath @ Laxman Das Maharaj, S/o. Vikram Singh Pehalwan Occ: Farmer, R/o. Depalpur, Indore, Madhya Pradesh (Date of Birth: 01-12-1983) ….Accused 2
This case is coming before me finally and upon hearing the arguments of Sri N. Harinath Reddy, Special Public Prosecutor for NIA Sri G. Siddi Ramulu, Public Prosecutor for NIA, Smt. Bhanu Chandrika and J. Venugopal, Counsel for the Accused Nos.1 and 2, Sri V. Surender Rao, Counsel for the Accused No.6, Sri B. Rajavardhan Reddy and Sri L. Prabhakar Reddy, Counsel for the Accused No.7 and Sri Buvana Sundar Reddy, Counsel
for the Accused No.8 and upon hearing the arguments of both sides, this
court made the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1 PW226 the Additional Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of
Investigation ('C.B.I.' for short), SCR-III, New Delhi filed charge sheet against first accused, second accused on 13.12.2010 in RC.5&6(S)/2005/SCR-III/New
Delhi for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC, 307 IPC, 326 IPC and 324 IPC read with 120(B) IPC, Sections 13, 15 read with 16, 17, 18, 19 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (as amended in 2004) ('U.A.P.Act' for short) and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 ('E.S.Act' for short.)
PW221 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, National Investigating
Agency ('N.I.A.' for short), Hyderabad filed charge sheet in Crime No.02 of 2011 dated 6.4.2011 against seventh and eighth accused on 28.8.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC, 307 IPC, 324 IPC, 325 IPC, 326 IPC, 427 IPC, 153(A) IPC read with 120(B) IPC, Sections 3 and 4 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 16, 17, 18 and 23 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
PW184 the Additional Superintendent of Police, N.I.A., Hyderabad filed charge sheet in Crime No.02 of 2011 dated 6.4.2011 against sixth accused on 16.5.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC, 307 IPC, 326 IPC and 324 IPC read with 120(B) IPC, Sections 13, 15 read with 16, 17, 18, 19 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (as amended in 2004) and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
3
The present case is tried against first accused, second accused, sixth accused, seventh accused and eighth accused vide Spl.S.C.No.3 of 2013.
The case against third and fourth accused is pending vide Spl.S.C.
No.4 of 2013. The fifth accused has not been charge sheeted since he died.
2.This is a case of Mecca Masjid bomb blast. The Mecca Masjid (the mosque) is the historic monument. It is located in the Old City area of
Hyderabad. The construction of this mosque was commenced in the year 1614 by Sultan Mohammed Qutub Shahi. It was completed in the year 1693 by one of the Moghal emperors, Aurangazeb. The name is derived from grand mosque in Mecca, on which it is modeled. The said mosque can accommodate 10,000 Mussallis (worshipers) at a time.
In that historical monument, a incident of disaster of bomb blast was occurred on 18.5.2007 at 1.25 PM in the Friday (Zohar) prayers resulting in death of 9 persons and causing simple and grievous injuries to 58 persons out of which 44 persons have been examined by the prosecution.
The names of the deceased persons as under:
1) Sajeed Ali Khan s/o.akram Ali Khan, aged 28 years,
2) Md.Azeems/o.Md.abdul Jabbar, aged 15 years,
3) Mohd.Sameer s/o.Mohd.Mahaboob, aged 12 years,
4) Yousuf Khan @ Kalu s/o.Ramzan Khan, aged 35 years,
5) Shafiq-ur-Rahman s/o.Munnawar Ali, aged 27 years,
6) Sheik Nayeems/o.Akbar Ali, aged 25 years,
7) Mohd.Jaffar s/o.Mohd.Khaja Miyan, aged 25 years,
8) Irfan Sharif s/o.Mohd.Osman Sharif, aged 17 years, and
9) Mohd. Riyaz s/o.Gore Miyan, aged 18 years.
The following are the injured persons examined by the prosecution:
The PW7, PW9 to P24, PW55 to PW64, LW30 Asif Ali, LW33 Maqbool
Shareef, LW37 Mohd.Zaffer, LW40 Sayeed Ahmed, LW46 Mujeed Farooqui, 4
LW47 Syed Salman, LW48 Shaik Gaush, LW49 Shaikh Jahangir, LW53 Abdul
Wasay Mirza, LW59 Syed Mahmood Ali, LW60 Master Shahbaj Khan, LW61
Master Altaf Khan, LW62 Mohd. Pasha, LW63 Mohd. Ahmed, LW64 Mohd.
Hissamuddin, LW69 Mohd.Yusufuddin, LW72 Sayiyad Saheb Ali.
The PW1 is a Police Head Constable. He was assigned with the observation duty of Mecca Masjid premises from the year 2003 onwards and he was discharging his duties on 18.5.2007 and he lodged a report in Ex.P1 stating that on 18.5.2007 in the early morning at about 4.45 AM he woke up and the early morning namaz was held at about 5.15 AM. After said namaz he checked the premises and left to his house. Subsequently, he came to the duty at 9.00 AM on 18.5.2007 ie., Friday and he again checked the premises of the mosque. Thereafter he went to the office of Assistant Commissioner of
Police (ACP) Charminar for reporting for the Friday duty. They were in civil dress. He was also in civil dress. The briefed them. They reached the Mecca
Masjid at about 12.15 PM. The duty police were divided into three groups (5+5+6) and each group was given duty at each gate of the mosque. He was positioned at graveyards (maqbara) in the mosque. The Friday afternoon prayer (Zohar) commenced at 1.10 PM. He was also offering prayer at graveyards. At the place of graveyards in the said mosque Dhuva was being observed at about 1.20PM. When the Dhuva prayer time they heard a big sound and there was smoke. The explosion was at some marble structure (Takhat) at a distance of 20 feet away from the graveyards on the right side of the main gate while facing towards mosque. He went near to that Takhat (marble benches) and found four or five dead bodies who died on the spot. There were hues and cries and people became angry and uncontrollable and they were causing slogans against the government and the police. Some people around 50 persons also sustained injuries in the blast. The public have taken the injured persons outside the mosque for 5 providing medical aid to them. Then he informed to the in-charge officer ie.,
Inspector of Police, Hussaini Alam by making a phone call about the incident.
Some police officials came there along with Bomb Disposal squad and dog squad, but the public prevented them to reach the spot by alleging that the government has failed to maintain law and order and the police are coming after the incident. The public were raising slogans against the government and the police. Subsequently, the bomb squad entered into the mosque and checked the premises and the blast spot.
In the meanwhile, the public raised cries by spotting a bag by the side of the Manager's office of the masjid inside, then the bomb squad rushed there and removed the said blue colour bag that was hanging to the grill of the office suspecting that there were explosives in the said bag and taken the said bag outside the mosque. Subsequently he learnt that there were bombs in that bag. On the evening he preferred report to the police of
Hussaini Alam at 7.00 PM.
Upon which, one Shaik Ghouse, the then Head Constable of Hussaini
Alam Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.100/2007 for the offences punishable under sec,302, 307, 120B IPC and Sec.3 & 5 of Explosive
Substances (ES) Act and he issued FIR under Ex.P216. Thereafter the PW177 who was the then Inspector of Police, Police Station, Hussaini Alam took over the matter and he secured two panchayatdars viz. PW4 and LW6 Md.Zaheed and in their presence he conducted the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama in Ex.P2 and seized MO1 to MO14 with the assistance of CLUES team lead by PW69. He has also prepared a rough sketch map of the scene of offence in Ex.P3 in the presence of the above said mediators. He has also conducted the observation cum seizure panchanama in the presence of the above said mediators under Ex.P5 and seized MO15 to MO26.
6
On 20.5.2007 one R.Paul Raj, AC-II, BD Team, NSG, New Delhi came to the police station and he gave requisition to him to accompany him to the place of incident and they went there. The said R.Paul Raj collected four articles ie., 1) Granite Black, white marble stone and other stone pieces quantity of five kgs. approximately 2) Metal (Splinter), Metal Dust and etc., from component – quantity 1 Kg. 3) Clothes and leather pieces, 100 Grms.
and 4) Mobile phone, Nokia 6030 – 1. The said articles were collected and taken away by him by conducting the proceedings in his presence on the same day. On 31.5.2007 the said Paul Raj came and handed over the above said cell phone ie., Nokia 6030 to him under acknowledgment without opinion. On 20.5.2007 the Superintendent of Mecca Masjid ie. PW51 came to the police station and handed over some material objects to him stating that he found them while cleaning the water house (wazoo house) in the premises, that are: 1) Electric circuit with red colour bulb, red colour switch and copper wire 2) Electric circuit having batter fixing wire 3) Magnet pieces
4) Broken plastic pieces and 5) Monitor mirror piece. Those articles were already seized under Ex.P4 in the presence of PW4 and LW6 Md.Zahed. On 23.5.2007 he received a report from PW69 Inspector of Police, CLUES team stating that the articles collected on18.5.2007 found in rexine bag are that of explosive substances capable of causing blast. The Ex.P217 is the said letter placed by the PW69 before him on 23.5.2007 under his hand writing and signature.
Upon which, suo moto he registered a case in Crime No.107 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 120 B IPC, S.4 and 5 of ES Act,
S.10, 12 and 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 read with S.511
IPC and I issued FIR in Ex.P218. He recorded the statements of PW2, PW51,
PW69 and PW70. Ex.P219 is the attested copy of the rough sketch map of the scene of offence.
7
In pursuance of the notification No. G.O.M.S.No.115, dated.2.6.2007 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under Section 6 of the Delhi
Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 the case in Cr.No.100 of 2007 was transferred to Central Bureau of Investigation (for short 'C.B.I.') by the
Government of India and in pursuance of the notification No.149 dated 2.7.2007 by the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued in pursuance of
Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 the case in
Crime No.107 of 2007 of Police Station, Hussaini Alam was transferred to
CBI. Thereupon, the LW193 R.S.Dhankar (died) the then SSP, CBI, ACR-III
New Delhi re-registered the Crime No.100 of 2007 of Police Station, Hussaini
Alam into RC.No.5(S)/2007/ACR-III dated 9.6.2007 under Ex.P345 and he also re-registered the case in Crime No.107 of 2007 of Police Station Hussaini
Alam into RC.No.6(S)/2007 dated 6.10.2007 under Ex.P347. Exs.P345 and
P347 have been issued on the basis of the notification dated 2.7.2007 vide
G.O.Ms.No.149 issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in Crime
No.107 of 2007 of Police Station, Hussaini Alam to the CBI for investigation under Ex.P347, another notification dated 20.9.2007 vide Gazette notification No.228/32/2007-AVD-II issued by the Government of India pertaining to the Crime No.107 of 2007 under Ex.P.348, and vide Notification
dated 02.06.2007 vide G.O.Ms.No.115 issued by the Government of Andhra
Pradesh transferring Crime No. 100 of 2007 of Police Station Hussainialam to the CBI for investigation under Ex.P.349, Government of India vide notification dated 08.06.2007 vide reference No.228/32/2007-AVD-II under
Ex.P.350.
The PW226 who is the Chief Investigating Officer handed over the investigation in RC.No.5(S)/2007/SCR-III to the PW200 after receiving the case record from PW224.
8
The PW224 who was the then DSP, CBI, SCR-III conducted the investigation from 11.6.2007 to November, 2007 as per the instructions of
LW193 R.S.Dhankar, the then SSP, CBI, SCR-III. His investigation team consisted of PW179, PW180, PW181, PW198, PW201 and one Anil Kumar and others. He has also examined and recorded the statements of PW4, PW8,
LW6 Md.Zahed and LW30 Arif Ali. On 13.6.2007 he collected the case diaries from PW212 through Production cum Receipt Memo under Ex.P309. On 15.6.2007 he collected the copy of CLUES report, SIM contents reports from
PW69 under Ex.P86. On 27.8.2007 he received report from FSL, Hyderabad through Police, Charminar Division under a covering letter in Ex.P339 along with copies of reports in Exs.P188 to P190. The copy of report dated 3.7.2007 bearing File No.SER/535/2007 is marked as Ex.P340.
The PW179 is one of the Assisting Investigating Officers and he was entrusted with the work of examination of important witnesses who witnessed the incident and who received the injuries and also the officials of the Mecca Masjid. During the course of investigation, he examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW3, PW16, PW19, PW20 to PW22, PW51 to PW53, PW58 to PW60, LW4 Md.Hanif, LW11 Md.Nayeem, LW12
Md.Ghouse, LW13 Md.Habib, LW20 Mirza Hyder Baig, LW21 Md.Mahmood,
LW22 Md.Abdul Khadir, LW23 Md.Ayub Khan, LW24 Md.Ali, LW25 Syed Siraj
Ahmed, LW26 Shaik Ahmed, LW46 Mujeed Farooqui, LW47 Syed Salman,
LW48 Shaik Ghouse, LW49 Shaik Jahangir, LW59 Syed Md. Mahmood Ali,
LW60 Master Shahbaz Khan, LW61 Master Altaf Khan, LW62 Md.Pasha, LW63
Md.Ahmed and Lw64 Md.Hisamuddin.
The PW180 is also one of the Assisting Investigating Officers and on the instructions of LW193 R.S.Dhankar he took up the investigation in the month of July,2007 and accordingly he visited the Asansol, West Bengal and recorded the statements of PW50, PW71, PW79, PW85, PW166 and PW167.
9
The PW181 is also one of the team members of the Chief Investigating
Officer PW224 and he investigated into the matter. During the course of investigation, he recorded the statements of PW5, PW6, PW9 to PW12,
PW47, PW48, PW54 to PW57, PW68, PW75, PW176, Ishanth Chawla (PW187),
Devasis Benarji (PW188), LW7 Mr.Faiz Mohammed Khan, LW14 Md.Abdul
Azeez, LW17 U.Nazeer, LW18 Ahmed Hussain, LW33 Maqbool Shareef and
LW37 Md.Jafar. He collected Ex.P69 invoice of DNS Distribution Private
Limited dated 21.4.2007 from PW47 and the corresponding entry is Ex.P71.
He has also requested PW176 to draw the portrait of the suspect on the basis of the description given by Ishant Chawla (PW187). Accordingly, he has drawn the same as in Ex.P215. On 6.7.2007 he collected Exs.P72 to Ex.P76 which are invoices issued by the DNS Distribution Private Limited to Cosmo
Telecom from PW48. He has also collected the carbon copy of the bill book under Ex.P232. On 18.6.2007 he visited the office of Associated
Broadcasting Company Limited, Banjara Hills Hyderabad and collected the original DVD, PRO cassette which is Panasonic made model No.126LAJ P 126LP Black colour and one CD which was the copy of original DVD which contains raw video footage of blast in Mecca Masjid on 18.5.2007 from
P.Pandarinath, the reporter of TV9 under Ex.P85 marked through PW68.
The PW198 is also one of the Assisting Investigating Officers. During the course of investigation, he called Ashok Kumar Pandey (PW216) for the purpose of getting information in respect of Mecca Masjid bomb blast case and he came on the next day along with the first accused Devender Gupta and he has taken the mobile phone number of the Devender Gupta. Further he recorded the statements of PW49, PW72, PW80, PW84 and PW167. He seized two invoice books from Khem-Ka-Bengal Telecom owned by PW84, that are Exs.P256, P257 (Exs.P107 to P110 are the relevant entries). Ex.P111 is the Activation copy of mobile numbers. Ex.P258 is the office copy of 10 invoice receipt referred in the statement of PW84. He has also seized
Exs.P78 and Ex.P79 from the PW49. He has also seized Ex.P90 from the
PW72. Ex.P259 is the seizure memo dated 16.10.2008 from PW49. Ex.P260 is the seizure memo dated 17.10.2008 in respect of the seizure of the record from PW84. Ex.P261 is the seizure memo dated 22.10.2008 in respect of the documents seized from PW72.
PW201 is also one of the Assisting Investigating Officers to the PW224 and he recorded the statements of PW73, PW74, PW77 to PW79. He has also seized some documents that are carbon copies of cash memo of Agarwal
Sales for the period commencing from 31.102006 to 18.11.2006 containing details of mobile sets sold including details of Nokia 6070 IMEI
No.353235013075663 sold to center point on 05.11.2006 and the said bill book is Ex.P82 and the corresponding entry is Ex.P82(A). The said book was seized from PW50 under seizure memo Ex.P65. On 13.10.2008 he seized carbon copies of bill book of Sargam Audio Vision containing details of Nokia 3120 IMEI 357088006508513 from pages 703 to 797 from the shop of PW71 and the relevant entry is Ex.P89. Ex.P266 is the bill book of Sargam Audio which was seized under Ex.P267. On 12.10.2008 he seized rough pad containing details of mobile sets sales, SIM recharge cards and SIMs sold to the customers being found in handwriting which is Ex.P268 and the relevant entry in Ex.P268 is sale of mobile handset to on Babulal Yadav, IMEI
No.359396000373331 for Rs.5,200/- which is already marked as Ex.P101.
The another notebook containing details of mobile sets sold, SIM Recharge cards and SIM cards sold to the customers running from pages Sl.No.1 to 90 is Ex.P269 and the relevant entry corresponding to the sale of mobile set to the Babulal yadav is Ex.P269(A).
The said books were seized from PW75 under seizure memo in
Ex.P270. On 17.10.2008 he seized carbon copy of Challan book of 11
M/s.Sudarshan Trading Company regarding sales of recharge vouchers and
SIM Cards to different retailers including the details SIMs sold to Chanchala
Telecoms dated 24.05.2006, Jhamtara owned by PW73 and the relevant entry is Ex.P93. The challan book of M/s.Sudarshan Trading Company is
Ex.P271. He has also seized the carbon copy of challan book of
M/s.Sudarshan Trading Company regarding sales of recharge vouchers and
SIM Cards to different retailers including the details SIMs sold to Chanchala
Telecoms dated 27.05.2006, Jhamtara of PW73 in respect of SIM card last digits 37432 dated 27.05.2006 at page no.703 and the relevant entry is
Ex.P94 and the said challan is Ex.P272. He seized the copy of prepaid enrollment form sent report dated 25.05.2006 containing the details of mobile numbers activated by M/s.Sudarshan Trading Company including the details of Mobile no.9931310168 in the name of Babulal Yadav under Ex.P92.
He has also seized copy of prepaid enrollment form sent report
dated:01.06.2006 containing the details of mobile numbers activated by
M/s.Sudarshan Trading Company including the details of Mobile no.9931310202 in the name of Babulal Yadav, already the same is marked as Ex.P91 through the PW73 through seizure memo in Ex.P273. He has also seized carbon copies of bill books of Sarawagi Communications from PW74 containing details of mobile sets sales including bill dated 1.6.2016 in respect of mobile set Nokia 3220 IMEI No.350396000373331 to Babulal
Yadav and the relevant entry is Ex.P100. Ex.P274 is the carbon copy of bill book. He has also seized daily panna under Ex.P97. He has also seized retail invoice dated 11.05.2006 of BR Distributors in favour Sarawagi
Communications containing details of Nokia mobile set sales including details of Nokia 2600 DB, 358815003298501 containing in two pages under
Ex.P98. He has also seized retail invoice dated 24.05.2006 of B.R.
Distributors in favour Sarvagi Communications containing details of Nokia 12 mobile set sales including details of Nokia 3220 B K 359396000373331 containing in two pages under Ex.P99. He seized the above said documents under Ex.P275 from PW74. On 14.10.2008 he seized carbon copy of bill book of Center Point for the period 08.10.2006 to 07.03.2007 containing details of
Mobile Sets sold including the details of Nokia 6070 IMEI
No.353235013075663 under Ex.P276 bill book and the relevant entry is
Ex.P276(A). He has also seized the daily panna from PW76 in Ex.P277 which was seized under Ex.P278. On 16.10.2008 he seized original cash memo in
Ex.P102 from Sunith Mandal from Burdwan District of West Bengal State.
The Ex.P276 (A) is none other than the carbon copy of Ex.P102 and the seizure memo dated 16.10.2008 is Ex.P279.
On 18.01.2010 once again the above said two cases were entrusted to
PW226 to investigate into the matter after retirement of LW-193 R.S.
Dhankhar. Then he recorded the statements of PW50, PW75, PW87, PW129,
PWs132 to PW134, PW222, PW215, PW189, PW208, PW190, PW191, PW88,
PW135, PW136, PW192, PW214, PW89, PW137, PW216, PW90, PW91,
PW193, PW209, PW210, PW93, PW211, PW92, PW94, PW95, PW138, PW96,
PW97, PW98, PW197, PW99, PW100, PW101, PW102, PW217, PW169,
PW198, PW104, PW105 and PW106. He took out a print out copy of CDR of
Mobile Number 9732110207 from Rajastan ATS officer Mr. Bhatnagar under
Ex.P351. The said mobile number is in the name of one Babulal Yadav. He has also collected copies of CDR of mobile numbers 9931310202, 9732110289, 9832912555, 9932330048, 9931304642, 9931310168, 9732510019, 9932510019, from Rajastan ATS officer Mr. Bhatnagar. Ex.P352 is the CDR of mobile number 9931310202, Ex.P.353 is the CDR of mobile number 9732110289, Ex.P.354 is the CDR of mobile number 9832912555,
Ex.P.355 is the CDR of mobile number 9932330048, Ex.P.356 is the CDR of mobile number 9931304642, Ex.P.357 is the CDR of mobile number 13 9931310168, Ex.P.358 is the CDR of mobile number 9732014822, Ex.P.359 is the CDR of mobile number 9932510019.
The CAF (Customer Applicant Form) in the name of Yuvraj Singh but it was allegedly used by accused Sunil Joshi (A5). The CDR of mobile number 9424060007 is Ex.P.360. He has also collected photocopy of pocket diary of
Sunil Joshi (A5) in Ex.P.361. He has also collected copy of FIR No.661 of 2007
dated 29.12.2007 from PS Industrial Area, Dewas, MP pertaining to
information of murder of Sunil Joshi (A5) in Ex.P.362. He has also collected statement of Rohit Jha recorded under Section 164 Cr.PC by Judicial Officer in
Ex.P.363. He has also collected the statement of PW138 recorded under
Section 164 Cr.PC by Judicial Officer in Ex.P.364. He gave requisition to the concerned Judicial Officer to conduct Test Identification Parade (TIP) on the
Accused No.4 Lokesh Sharma at present Accused No.2 with PW187 and
PW96. He gave requisition to the Executive Magistrate PW219, Jam Tara under Ex.P.317 to conduct photographs test identification on the list of suspects namely Sunil Joshi (A5), Ramachandra Kalsangara, Sandeep Dange,
Amit Chowhan.
He has also given requisition to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New
Delhi to record the confessional statement of Accused No.6 Naba Kumar
Sarkar @ Swamy Asimananda and it was entrusted to PW165 to record the statement of Accused No.6 and Ex.P196 is the confessional statement of
Accused No.6. On 19.11.2010 he arrested the Accused No.6 Naba Kumar
Sarkar @ Swamy Asimananda. Ex.P.365 is the arrest memo of Accused No.6.
Ex.P.366 is the arrest cum personal search memo of Accused No.6. Ex.P.367 is the personal search memo of Accused No.6. Ex.P.368 is personal inspection memo of Accused No.6. Ex.P.369 is the list of items found in the possession of Accused No.6. Ex.P.370 is the Indian Passport bearing No.
F5973917 with photograph in the name of Accused No.6. Ex.P.371 is the 14 ration card with photograph bearing No. 284494 issued by Gram Panchayat,
Development Officer Village Bongla, Haridwar on 08.08.2010 in the name of
Swamy Om Karanand. Ex.P.372 is the Voter Identity Card bearing No.
IF10081307 in the name of Swamy Om Karanand. MO29 is the Vodaphone 136 mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 352786038823819 S/N 329493463490 with a Reliance Sim Card bearing No. 8991221810000630175 and reported to have a public number 9027877712. MO30 is the cash of Rs.79,350/- under the FDR.
The above said documents and material objects were seized from the possession of Accused No.6. He filed a requisition before the XIV Additional
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Hyderabad to produce first accused and second accused on PT Warrants who were in Central Jail, Ajmer. Ex.P373 is the call data records of mobile number 9334371425 for the period 01.02.2007 to 07.12.2007. Ex.P374 is the sanction order to prosecute the first accused Devander Gupta and second accused Lokesh Sharma for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 511 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act and Sections 3 to 5 of ES Act. Ex.P375 is the sanction proceedings according sanction to prosecute first accused Devender Gupta and second accused Lokesh Sharma for the offence under sections 302, 307, 326, 511
IPC read with Section 120B IPC and Sections 13, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 23 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Sections 3 to 5 of ES Act. Ex.P376 is the sanction order to prosecute third accused, fourth accused and fifth accused.
On 12.10.2010 he received a letter from Nodal Officer, Reliance
Communications along with original CAF of Mobile Number 9334371425 in the name of Devender Gupta (first accused) along with the copy of Driving
License in the name of Devender Gupta and a copy of Election Identity Card 15 of Paban Kumar Mathur. Ex.P377 is the covering letter dated 12.10.2010.
Ex.P.378 is the CAF of mobile number 9334371425 in the name of Devender
Gupta (first accused) along with a copy of driving license and the copy of election identity card in the name of Paban Kumar Mathur. On 09.01.2009 an email communication was received from Hutch regarding the scan copy of
Customer Application Form in the name of Bharat Bai Mohanlal Rateshwar (Accused No.7) of mobile number 9825352827 under Ex.P.379. Ex.P380 is the scanned copy of customer application form of Accused No.7 pertaining to above said mobile number. Ex.P381 is the one loose sheet of paper containing some travel itinary in some handwriting. Ex.P.382 is the E-Ticket in the name of Accused No.6 Naba Kumar Sarkar @ Swamy Asimananda
dated 11.11.2010.
On 14.12.2010 he drafted the disclosure memo in Ex.P384 in respect of Accused No.6 and Ex.P383 is the admissible portion. Ex.P.385 is the rough sketch map of the said place as shown in the discovery memo. He found one
SIM Card and Mobile phone number 9732110289 with IMEI No.
353938014288999 and it was in the name of one Babulal Yadav in the unexploded device and on verification it was found that the mobile number 9732110289 was earlier used in NOKIA 3120 Model with IMEI No.
357088006508510. He also recorded the statement of PW187 on 26.6.2010.
In the year 2007, there was series of Bomb Blast at different places in the country and the investigating agencies got photograph of a person in the name of Babulal Yadav and portrait a person who had purchased two NOKIA 6030 from PW187 including one bearing IMEI No.353938014288999 found at the scene of offence in this matter (Mecca Masjid Bomb Blast case). He has addressed letter to the Sub Divisional Officer of Motor Vehicles Department,
Asansol, Burdwan District of West Bengal seeking original application form of driving license application number 6944 and 6945 dt.8.7.2005. He received 16 the same on 4.6.2010 under Ex.P386. Exs.P387 to P396 are the fee payment receipts for driving license, driving certificates, ration cards and learners driving license in the name of the first accused and Manoj Kumar @ Sunil
Joshi (A5). After completion of investigation, he filed charge sheet against
Devender Gupta (first accused) and Lokesh Sharma (second accused) on 13.12.2010.
The PW184 worked as Addl.SP, NIA, Hyderabad. On 11.4.2011 as per the DIG, NIA he has taken over the investigation in this matter and on 30.4.2011 he proceeded to Haridwar when they came to know that the
Accused No.6 was taking shelter clandestinely in the name of Swamy
Omkarananda. He recorded the statement of PW141, PW142, LW213
Hemanandpuri Maharaj, PW143 to PW149 and PW168. He seized ration card in Ex.P131 by conducting seizure panchanama in Ex.P130 in the presence of
PW108 and PW150. He has also collected the Exs.P172, P173 from PW145 and the 173-A is the relevant entry at Sl.No.835 of the said register is the name of the Swamy Omkarananda (Accused No.6). He has also collected the
Exs.P174, P176 to P179 from the PW168. Ex.P176 is affixed with the photograph of Accused No.6 Aseemanand in the name of Swamy
Omkarananda. The Ex.P174 is also affixed by the photograph of Accused
No.6 in the name of Swamy Omkarananda, so also the name of Swamy
Omkarananda is referred to in Ex.P178 and Ex.P179. Ex.P234 is the sanction order dated 10.5.2011 to prosecute the Accued No.6 and he has also filed the charge sheet against the Accused No.6 on 16.5.2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326, 511 r.w.120-B IPC, Sec.13 and 15 r.w.16, 18, 19 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Sec.3 to 5 of ES Act.
The PW221 is one of the Investigating Officers who worked as DSP, NIA and on 14.7.2011 he was entrusted with Investigation in this case. On 17 22.9.2011 he filed a petition in MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organized
Crime Act) Court at Mumbai requesting that court to supply a certified copy of transcription of speech found in laptop of Major Upadhyaya (Pw208) which was seized in a case vide No.136 of 2011 in special S.C.No.1 of 2009. As per the requisition a certified copy of said transcription of speech supplied to him. On 14.2.2012 he has examined PW114 to PW17. On 24.3.2013 he examined and recorded the statements of PW127, PW128 and PW157. He has also initiated Sec.82 and 83 CrPC proceedings against Accused No.4 and attached his house property at Indore and he has also addressed a letter to
Foreigner Region Registration Officer (FRRO) New Delhi to furnish travel details of Accused No.3 whether the Accused No.3 (Sandeep Dange) fled away from India to abroad as he was possessing Indian Passport. He has also issued look out circular against Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 through joint Deputy Director Immigration, New Delhi. He received communique from
Joint Secretary, Government of West Bengal Dt.29.5.2012 stating that
DL.No.WB/28/201934 and WB/28/289892 was not operational in the state of
West Bengal. Ex.P326 is the said letter dated.29.5.2012 received from
Ramakrishna Maity.
On 14.3.2012 he has filed a petition in the designated court with a request to abate action against Accused No.5 (Sunil Joshi) who was killed in
Cr.No.661 of 2007 of PS Dewas. On 02.04.2012 he has addressed a letter to
Regional Passport Office, Bhopal to impound the passport of Accused No.A3 (Sandeep Dange). On 30.05.2012 he received reply from the pass port granting officer Bhopal that the office has taken immediate action and impounded the passport of Accused No.3.
On 22.012.2012 the Investigating Officer namely Vishal Garg (LW268) of Samjhouta Express Train Bomb Blast Case informed me through his letter that Rajendra Chowdary @ Samundar (Accused No.8) was arrested on 18 15.12.2012 in that case who disclosed that he along with one Tejoram of
Jaipalpur, Indore District had planted two IEDs in Mecca Masjid premises on 18.05.2007. Ex.P327 is the said letter.
Accordingly, on 22.03.2013 basing on the disclosure memo revealed by Accused No.8 on 14.3.2013 he took the Accused No.8 to Indore wherein he has prepared a pointing out memo in Ex.P328 at Door No.52,
Sarwasampanna Nagar, Manavata Nagar and also prepared rough sketch map of the said house at Door No.52 in Ex.P329. On 24.03.2013 he has prepared pointing out memo at Sadar Bazar Police station, Indore at the instance of Accused No.8 where he has shown a silver colour maruthi van bearing Reg.No.MP-09V-5629 which was used for their transportation by
Accused No.4 and it was in white colour at that time and it was seized by another investigating officer in Cr.No.9 of 2010 Samjhouta Train Blast Case.
He secured the certified copy of seizure of vehicle No.MP09V-5629 and filed in this matter under which is marked as Ex.P330. On 25.03.2013 at the instance of Accused No.8 he prepared a rough sketch map in Ex.P331. The notarized true English translation of certified copy in Hindi transcript
dated:17.1.2009 is Ex.P333 and its English is Ex.P334. The Ex.P333
contained audio file which is said to have taken place between Sudhakar
Dwivedi and Major Upadhyaya where they widely discussed about the strategy and future plan. The SIM Card 9732110289 was purchased in the name of Babulal Yadav from Sargam Audio, Chittranjan, Jarkhand with forged
ID and the same was confirmed by CFSL report. Another unexploded IED was found in Ajmir Shareef Blast Case on 11.10.2007 where a Nokia cell phone instrument Model – 3120 with IMEI No.359351004947432 with mobile
No.9732110207 which was purchased in the name of Babulal Yadav from
Sargam Audio, Chittranjan, Jarkhand with forged ID and the same was confirmed by CFSL. ExP335 is the admissible portion of the statement of 19
Accused No.8 leading us to House No.52, near BSNL tower, Manavata Nagar,
Indore. Ex.P336 is the photograph of unexploded IED box found in Mecca
Masjid Ex.P337 is also a photograph of unexploded IED box found in Ajmir
Shareef Dargah. Ex.P338 is the certified copy of test identification proceedings conducted on Accused No.8 in RC.3 of 2011 that is Malegaon
Blast Case. After completion of investigation he filed charge sheet against
Accused No.3 and Accused No.4 on 17.12.2012 and Accused No.7 and
Accuse No.8 on 28.8.2012.
3The learned XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the case against first accused, second accused and sixth accused for the offences under Sections 302 IPC, 307 IPC, 326 IPC read with 120(B) IPC, 511 IPC and Sections 13, 15 read with 16, 18, 19, 23 of the
U.A.P.Act and Sections 3, 4, 5 of E.S.Act. On securing the presence of the said accused and after furnishing copies of documents and after hearing both sides, the case was committed to the Hon'ble I Additional Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C.
The learned I Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad also took cognizance of the case against seventh accused and eighth accused for the offences punishable under Sections 120(B) IPC read with 302 IPC, 325
IPC, 324 IPC, 326 IPC, 427 IPC and 153(A) IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of E.S.Act and Sections 16, 17, 18 and 23 of the U.A.P Act 1967.
The said case was numbered as Special S.C.No.3 of 2013 against first accused, second accused, sixth accused to eighth accused. During the course of trial, the said case was transferred to this court. Before this court, the first accused, second accused and eighth accused are in jail and the other accused are on bail.
20 4After hearing both sides, charges under Sections 120(B) IPC, 302 IPC read with 120(B) IPC, 307 IPC read with 120(B) IPC, 326 IPC read with 120(B)
IPC, Section 13 read with 23 of U.A.P.Act, Section 16 read with 23 of the
U.A.P.Act, Section 18 read with Section 23 of the U.A.P.Act, Section 3 of the
E.S.Act and Section 4 of E.S.Act read with 23 of the U.A.P.Act have been framed against the first accused, second accused, sixth accused to eighth accused, read over and explained to them. Charge under Section 19 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is also framed against the sixth accused.
They denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.
5To substantiate its case, the prosecution adduced the evidence of PW1 to PW226 and exhibited documents as in Exs.P1 to P396, Exs.X1 to X3 and
MO1 to MO30. The accused did not choose to adduce any oral evidence, but marked Exs.D1 to D5.
6 The first accused, second accused, sixth accused to eighth accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them. They denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence.
7Heard both sides. The learned Special Public Prosecutor filed his written arguments.
8Now the points that arose for determination are under:
1) Whether the prosecution proved the time, date, place and occurrence of the incident due to bomb blast, resulting in death of nine persons and injuring to fifty-eight (58) persons?
21
2) Whether the extra-judicial confessional statement of the sixth accused (A6) said to have made before PW104 and PW105 is proved to be voluntary one or not?
3) Whether the prosecution proved that the confessional statement of the sixth accused (A6) under Ex.P196 recorded by PW165 on 18.12.2010 was voluntary one or not? If so or not so, what would be the effect of his retracted confessional statement subsequently made?
4) Whether the prosecution proved that the A6 was hiding in Atmalpur Bongla village assuming the name of Swamy Omkarananda and got obtained ration card, voter ID card from the competent authority beyond reasonable doubt?
5) Whether the prosecution proved whether the first accused (A1) is a communal hatred being a Pracharak of Rastriya Swayam Sevak Sangh beyond reasonable doubt?
6) Whether the prosecution proved the nexus between the first accused (A1) and Exs.P351 to P359?
7) Whether the prosecution proved the nexus between the first accused (A1) and Ex.P373 beyond reasonable doubt?
8) Whether the prosecution proved the nexus between the first accused (A1) and Exs.P387 toP396 beyond reasonable doubt?
9) Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the second accused (A2) as he purchased two mobile sets ie., Nokia 6030 from PW187, salesman in LEC communications on 24.4.2007 beyond reasonable doubt?
10) Whether the prosecution proved that the seventh accused (A7) participated in several meetings of conspiracy held at his house at Thakur Ghar, Mahadev nagar, Mograwadi, Valsad, Gujarat State and he paid an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the A5 Sunil Joshi (died) for procuring SIM cards and Pistols beyond reasonable doubt?
11) Whether the prosecution proved whether the A5 Sunil Joshi (died) has taken an amount of Rs.40,000/- from the house of the seventh accused (A7) for carrying out the blast at Hyderabad beyond reasonable doubt?
22
12) Whether the prosecution proved that the eighth accused (A8) planted the bomb at Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad on or
before 18.5.2007 beyond reasonable doubt?
13) Whether the prosecution proved the conspiracy of all the accused in planting the bomb at Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad on or before 18.5.2007 beyond reasonable doubt?
14) Whether the prosecution proved guilt of the first accused (A1) beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 307 IPC read with 120B IPC, 326 IPC read with 120B IPC, Section 13 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 16 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
15) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the second accused (A2) beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 307 IPC read with 120B IPC, 326 IPC read with 120B IPC, Section 13 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 16 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
16) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the sixth accused (A6) beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 307 IPC read with 120B IPC, 326 IPC read with 120B IPC, Section 13 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 16 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 19 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
23
17) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the seventh accused (A7) beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 307 IPC read with 120B IPC, 326 IPC read with 120B IPC, Section 13 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 16 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
18) Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the eighth accused (A8) beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 307 IPC read with 120B IPC, 326 IPC read with 120B IPC, Section 13 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 16 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967?
9Point No.1:
In order to prove this point, the prosecution relief upon the oral testimony of PW1 to PW46, PW51 to PW68 and PW177 and Exs.P1 to P68,
P84, P85 and P216 to P219.
The PW1 is the retired Head Constable who worked at Police Station,
Hussaini Alam from the year 2001 to 2010. It is evident from his version that he had been assigned with the observation duty at Mecca Masjid near
Charminar, Hyderabad in the year 2003 and he was continuing the same.
According to him, on 17.5.2007 he was on duty upto 2.00 PM and on the next day being Friday he continued night duty till the intervening night of 17/18.5.2007 to avoid storing of stones and any untoward incident inside the masjid. On that night he checked the premises lastly at 2.00 AM. Further he 24 deposed that on 18.5.2007 in the wee hours at about 4.45 AM he woke up and the early morning namaz was held at 5.15 AM. Then he checked the premises again and left to his house. Further he deposed that he came to duty at about 9.00 AM on 18.5.2007 ie. on Friday and again he checked the premises of the mosque. Thereafter he went to the office of the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Charminar reporting the Friday duty. About 16 police personnel of different police stations have been deputed to Mecca Masjid on
Friday duty and they were in civil dress. Further he deposed that he was also in civil dress and they reached Mecca Masjid at 12.15 PM and the duty police were divided into three groups ie., 5+5+6. They were observing the premises to maintain law and order and he was positioned at graveyards (Maqbara) in the mosque. His evidence reveals that the Friday After Noon prayer (Zohar) was commenced at about 1.10 PM and he was also offering prayers and the Dhuva was being observed at about 1.20 PM. Then he heard a big sound and there was some smoke.
According to him, there was an explosion at some marble structure (Takhat) at a distance of 20 feet away from the place where he was positioned ie., on the right side of main gate while facing towards the mosque. He went nearer to the marble benches and found four or five dead bodies who died instantaneously. Further he found the hues and cries of the people who became angry and they were uncontrollable. Further he found fifty members also sustained injuries in the blast. Having witnessed the incident, he informed the same to the in-charge officers by making a phone call. The police officials came there with Bomb Disposal squad and dog squad. Further he deposed that the bomb squad entered into the mosque and checked the premises and the place of bomb blast and in the meanwhile the public raised alarm by spotting a bag by the side of the office of the
Manager of Mecca Masjid ie., inside the mosque. Further he found that the 25 bomb squad rushed there and removed the said blue colour bag which was hanging to a grill of the office. The bomb squad has taken the said bag outside the mosque and he learnt that there were bombs in that bag. He lodged a report in Ex.P1 at about 7.00PM. The above said witness was cross- examined in length by the accused, but no suggestion was given to him denying the time, date and place of offence.
The PW2 who is the Manager of the Mecca Masjid since the year 1993.
He deposed that on 17.5.2007 being Thursday as on the next day being
Friday they have checked the premises and cleaned the premises for the
Friday prayers. Further he deposed that by the time of cleaning the premises on 17.5.2007 nothing suspicious articles were found. Further his evidence reveals that on 17.5.2007 the TV9 channel people came for permission to videograph the Friday prayers, then the Superintendent of the mosque asked them to obtain permission from the police. It is evident from his version that on 18.5.2007 he came to the mosque at 10.30 AM and inspected the premises with the aid of sweeper and checked the arrangements and on that day the first Azan (call) was performed at 12.30
PM, the second Azal (call) was performed at 12.45 PM, the Qutba was performed at 12.50 PM and the Namaz was started at 1.08 PM. His evidence reveals that at 1.18 PM Salam followed by Dhuva was performed and at that time there was a bomb blast beneath the marble platform.
According to him, the said marble platform was broken into two pieces and there was a big sound. Further he found the people scattered from there. He has also found four dead bodies and fifty persons sustained injuries in the said blast. Further they shifted the injured for medical aid. In the mean time, the public noticed a blue colour bag hanging to the grill of his office. The bomb squad came and removed the said bag and found the bombs in it and they defused them. Further he deposed that he came to 26 know that the TV9 channel personnel have videographed the Friday noon prayers without their permission. The above said witness has also been cross-examined at length, but there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of the incident.
The PW3 is an Attender in Mecca Masjid since 25 years. He deposed that in the month of May on 18th day he was on duty in the masjid. In the morning hours, he has spread the carpet in the masjid for the purpose of
Friday prayers. It is evident from his version that he sat for Namaz at a place ie. at Asra Mubarak which is adjacent to the Manager office in the masjid. At about 1.20 PM when he was offering Dhuva he heard a big sound, found there was smoke which spread over the area.
According to him, on hearing the said sound, people started running here and there and he found dead bodies of five persons and he learnt that sound was due to bomb blast. Further he deposed that subsequently somebody stated that there was a bag at the grills of the manager room. No suggestion is given to the above said witness by the accused denying the time, date and place of the incident.
The PW4 who is a Watchman working in the Mecca Masjid since 1984, he deposed that there are two watchmen and he is one among them and another is by name Zahed. He has spoken to in his evdience that on 18.5.2007 on Friday he came to the masjid at 12.30 PM, he went to the office, went to the water tank in the masjid and cleaned his hands and legs.
Thereafter he sat for Namaz. Further he deposed that by the time of Dhuva at 1.20 PM he heard a big sound, the people began to run here and there.
Then he went to the spot and it was at Takhat.
It is evident from his version that he found four or five dead bodies who died on the spot and 40 to 50 persons sustained injuries due to blast.
According to him, the injured were taken by the people for medical aid. He 27 has also spoken to that the public found a bag hanging to a railing (grill) in front of the manager's room, then the dog squad team of the police came there, removed the bag and found two bombs in it. Further he has spoken to that the Police Hussaini Alam observed the scene and collected the incriminating material, such as pieces of bag of orange colour, pocket calendar, SIM card, one mobile phone, blood sustained Zanimas in his presence and in the presence of Mohd.Zahed and seized the items. Ex.P2 is the observation cum seizure panchanama dated 18.5.2007. Ex.P3 is the rough sketch map of the scene of offence. Further he deposed that he has also spoken to in his evidence that one week thereafter at the time of cleaning the water tank he found one cell phone and one SIM card in it and they were also seized by the police. The Ex.P4 is the seizure report dated 20.5.2007 and MO1 to MO26 are the seized material objects. The Ex.P5 is also the panchanama in respect of seizing the blue colour bag. The above said witness was cross-examined by the accused, but there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of the incident.
The PW5 who worked as a police constable who was deputed to Mecca
Masjid on 18.5.2007 in the morning hours for bundobust duty. He deposed that on the same day at 10.00 AM he reported to duty. The Assistant
Commissioner of Police allotted the duties to the police personnel. According to him, he was assigned with the duty at Gate No.1 of the Mecca Masjid. He deposed that after commencement of namaz at 1.05 POM he was standing near the 6th Nawab's grave in the mosque, then the namaz prayer was completed at 1.18 or 1.19 PM on that after noon, then there was a bomb blast. He found the blast occurred between two marble Takhats and they were broken. Further he found dead bodies of four to five persons and some injured. He was also cross-examined by the accused, but there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of the incident.
28
The PW6 is also a constable who was deputed to bundobust duty on 18.5.2007. He deposed that he was positioned at Gate No.2 of the Mecca
Masjid. On that day at about 1.10 PM all the Namazis (worshipers) stood in lines in the mosque and he has also stood to offer namaz. It is evident from his version that after completion of namaz, at the time of dhuva, there was a bomb blast in the Mecca Masjid. He went to that place where the blast was occurred and found three or four dead bodies of namazis and 30 to 40 persons sustained injuries. He along with others shifted the injured for the purpose of medical aid. The above said witness was cross-examined by the accused, but there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of the incident.
The PW7 is also a constable who was deputed to bundobust duty on 18.5.2007 at Mecca Masjid. He deposed that the namaz commencement at 1.10 POM and he was near water house of the masjid and when the dhuva was being performed there was a bomb blast near Takhat near water house.
Further he deposed that he found people began to run here and there and he also tried to run away from that place, but he lost his conscious and fell down. He received injuries due to the bomb blast on his right leg and on his right hand and also on his right temple region. He regained consciousness in
Alfa Hospital, Hyderabad. Thereafter he was shifted to Osmania General
Hosiptal and treated as out patient. He was cross-examined by the accused, but there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of the incident and receipt of injuries.
The PW8 is a sweeper who has been working in the Mecca Masjid since 14 years. He has spoken to in his evidence that on 18.5.2007 at about 1.10
PM he was at Mecca Masjid and he performed his duties. Further he deposed that when he was standing at Ashre Mubarak for namaz prayer at Mecca
Masjid, then the namaz prayer commenced at 1.05 PM, while they were 29 offering dhuva, they heard a big sound of bomb blast. Further he deposed that he found six persons died. He was cross-examined by the accused, but there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of the incident.
The PW9 is an injured cum eye witness who had been to Mecca Masjid on 18.5.2007 to offer noon prayer. He deposed that the prayer was commenced at about 1.15 PM and at the time of dhuva, there was a bomb blast behind a Takhat in the Mecca Masjid. Further he deposed that at about 40 to 50 persons sustained injuries and he found a dead body near Takhat.
Further he deposed that he also sustained injuries to his left hand, nearer to left eye and on his left leg. He went to the Asra hospital and took the first aid. He was cross-examined by the accused, but there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of the incident and his receipt of injuries.
The PW10 is an auto driver by profession and he is an injured cum eye witness. His evidence reveals that on 18.5.2007 he went to Mecca Masjid for
Friday prayers at about 1.15 PM and he stood in the third row near a Takhat in the Mecca Masjid. Further his testimony reveals that at the time of dhuva there was a bomb blast near Takhat. He sustained injury to his right leg. He was taken to Asra hospital and from there to the Osmania General Hospital.
Thereafter he was shifted to Yashoda hospital, where he was treated as in- patient till 22.5.2007. The above said witness was cross-examined by the accused, but there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of the incident and receipt of injuries.
The PW11 is a lecturer who was working in the Government Nizamia
Tibbi college, Charminar, Hyderabad. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 he had gone to Mecca Masjid to perform Friday prayers and he stood between
Takhat and water tank towards left side of the Mecca Masjid. Further he deposed that after performing the namaz at about 1.00 PM or 1.15 PM, he heard some big sound and he received injuries on his left hand and on the 30 right side of the nose. He was shifted to his college hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Dhureshava Hospital, Purani Haveli, Hyderabad and he was treated for a period of 22 days. He was cross-examined by the accused, but there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of the incident and receipt of injuries.
The PW12 is a lecturer and he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he went to
Mecca Masjid for Friday prayers. He stood near Takhat in the first row.
According to him, after completion of namaz when they were performing dhuva at about 1.30 PM he heard a big sound. Then he sustained multiple injuries on his back and on his legs. Further he deposed that he was shifted to Asra Hospital by some people, thereafter he was shifted to Owaisi hospital. He was there for five days by taking treatment. The above said witness was cross-examined by the accused, but there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of the incident and receipt of injuries.
The PW13 is also one of the injured cum eye witnesses. He deposed that his elder brother namely Mohd.Khaja used to lookafter a footware of namazis (worshipers) at the Mecca Masjid. Further he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he went to Mecca Masjid for Friday prayers and he stood at a distance of 10 feet behind the Takhat and when they were performing dhuva they heard a big sound of bomb blast. He sustained injuries on his left cheek and on his left shoulder and hand and on his left leg. He was shifted to Asra
Hospital, thereafter he was shifted to Owaisi Hospital. On the next day, he was shifted to L.V.Prasad hospital. He was treated for three days in that hospital. In the cross-examination, there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of the incident and receipt of injuries by him.
The PW14 is also an injured cum eye witness. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 he went to Mecca Masjid to offer Friday prayers at about 1.00 Pm or 1.15 PM from Asra Hospital. He stood in the third or fourth row from the 31
Takhat in the Mecca Masjid. He further deposed that at the end of the prayers, when they were performing dhuva he heard a huge sound of a bomb blast. He further deposed that he sustained multiple pellet injuries on whole right side of his body and some pellets entered into his chest and stomach also. He was shifted to Asra Hospital. On the same day, he was shifted to Owaisi Hospital. He took treatment for a period of 25 days in the said hospital. He was cross-examined by the accused, but there is no denial in respect of date, time and place of incident and his receipt of injuries.
The PW15 is a resident of Begum Bazar. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 at about 1.00 Pm he went to Mecca Masjid for attending Friday prayers and he stood near Takhat in the masjid. Further he deposed that after performing the namaz, when they were offering dhuva he heard a huge sound and he sustained multiple injuries on all parts of his body including his right hand, left shoulder, stomach and chest. He has also spoken to in his evidence that so many other persons also sustained injuries. He was shifted to Osmania
General Hospital, thereafter he was shifted to NIMS. The above said witness was cross-examined by the accused, but there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of incident including receipt of injuries.
The PW16 is one of the injured cum eye witnesses who had been to the Mecca Masjid on 18.5.2007 to offer the Friday noon prayers. He deposed that he stood in the third row near Takhat and after performing the namaz while they were offering dhuva, he heard a huge sound and he sustained multiple injuries all over his body including his face, shoulders and also on his back. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, thereafter he was shifted to NIMS hospital and he took treatment for four days. In the cross- examination by the accused, there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of incident including receipt of injuries.
32
The PW17 is also one of the injured who had been to the Mecca Masjid to offer Friday noon prayers on 18.5.2007. He deposed that he stood behind the Takhat ie., nearer to the Water house in the Mecca masjid. He further deposed that while offering dhuva he heard a big sound, as a result of which he sustained multiple injuries on his face, stomach and also on his hands. He was shifted to Asra hospital and on the same day he was shifted to Owaisi hospital. He was treated for four days as inpatient.
The PW18 is a private teacher who had been to Mecca Masjid on 18.5.2007 to offer Friday noon prayers. He deposed that he stood in a row nearer to the water house behind Takhat and while performing dhuva he heard huge sound of bomb blast for two or three times. Further he deposed that after seeing the pellets and injured persons he was fainted. He regained consciousness at about 2.15 PM in the Osmania General Hospital. He was shifted to NIMS where he was treated for four days as inpatient. He was cross-examined by the accused and there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of incident and with regard to receipt of injuries.
The PW19 is one of the injured cum eye witnesses. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 he was at Mecca Masjid at about 1.00 PM or 1.10 PM and when they were performing namaz and at the time of dhuva, he heard a huge sound. As a result of which, he sustained injuries all over the body and he was shifted to Yashoda hospital and he was treated for about one-and-a-half month as inpatient. He was cross-examined by the accused and there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of incident and with regard to receipt of injuries.
The PW20 is also an injured cum eye witness. He deposed that at about 10 or 12 years back one day at 1.20 PM he went to Mecca Masjid for
Friday Noon prayers. He stood nearer to water tank at a distance of 10 or 15 feet. He deposed that after performing namaz when they were performing 33 dhuva he heard a huge sound and he sustained pellet injuries on his lower lip, on his head and also on right side of stomach. He fell down and he was shifted to Asra hospital, but on the next day he was shifted to Owaisi hospital. He was treated there for four or five days as inpatient. In the cross- examination, there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of incident and with regard to receipt of injuries.
The PW21 is also one of the injured cum eye witnesses. He has spoken to in his evidence that on 18.5.2007 he went to Mecca Masjid for offering
Friday noon prayers at about 1.00 PM and he stood in the fourth row in front of the Takhat at the Masjid. He deposed that while they were offering dhuva there was a bomb blast near the Takhat and he sustained injuries on his hip, stomach and back. He was shifted to Asra hospital, thereafter to Care
Hospital, Nampally where he was treated as inpatient for 20 days. In the cross-examination, there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of incident and with regard to receipt of injuries.
The PW22 is also one of the injured cum eye witnesses. His evidence reveals that in the year 2007 on one day he went to Mecca Masjid to offer
Friday prayers at 1.10 PM and he stood in the last row by the side of water house. He deposed that at the time of his performing namaz, he heard a big sound of bomb blast and he received injuries on his right side of the body ie., back and near shoulder. He was shifted to Owaisi hospital where he was treated for a period of seven days as inpatient. In the cross-examination, there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of incident and with regard to receipt of injuries.
The PW23 is also an injured cum eye witness who had been to Mecca
Masjid on 18.5.2007 at 1.00 PM and he stood in the third line near Takhat of the masjid. He deposed that at the time of offering dhuva, he heard huge bomb blast and he sustained bleeding injuries on his backside and on his left 34 side of the forehead. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, thereafter he was shifted to NIMS hospital where he was treated as inpatient for four days. In the cross-examination, there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of incident and with regard to receipt of injuries.
The PW24 is a Home Guard and he was on bundobust duty at Mecca
Masjid on 18.5.2007. His evidence reveals that on that day he joined the
Friday non prayers and he stood in the third row between the Takhat and water house and in the last stage of namaz, he heard a huge sound of bomb blast. Further he deposed that due to that he got confused and began to run away from that place, but he fell down. He sustained injuries on his both hands, cheat and on both legs. The pellets entered into his body. He was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, thereafter to the Yashoda hospital where he was treated as inpatient for seven days. In the cross-examination, there is no denial with regard to the date, time and place of incident and with regard to receipt of injuries.
The PW25 worked as a Tahsildar at Amberpet and he conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Sajid Ali Khan. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 on the directions of RDO, Hyderabad he went to Osmania
General Hospital and he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Sajid Khan in the presence of mediators Moinuddin (PW26) and
Mazidullah Khan and Ex.P6 is the inquest. The above said witness has not been cross-examined by the accused.
The PW26 is one of the mediators. His evidence reveals that on 18.5.2006 at the request of the police of Hussaini Alam, he and Majeed went to Osmania General Hospital. According to him, the PW25 conducted the inquest over the dead body of Sajid Ali Khan in their presence. Further he deposed that they opined that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in the bomb blast at Mecca Masjid. Ex.P6 is the inquest report. Further he 35 deposed that in their presence the clothes of the deceased were seized under Ex.P6. The above said witness has not been cross-examined by the accused.
The PW27 is a Tahsildar who deposed that on 19.5.2007 at about 1.45 he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Mohd.Sameer under Ex.P8 inquest report in the presence of mediators Wasim Khan and
Aizaz Ahmed. The accused did not cross-examine the above said witness.
The PW28 who worked as MRO deposed that he conducted inquest over the dead bodies of Yousuf Khan @ Kalu and Mohd. Riyaz on 19.5.2007 during night time in the presence of mediators M.A.Majeed (PW29) and
Meenaz and Mansoor Ahmed Khan and Shaik Qayum under Exs.P9 and P10.
The accused did not cross-examine the above said witness.
The PW29 is one of the mediators to the inquest panchanama and he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he went to Osmania General Hospital and during night time the MRO conducted the inquest over the dead body of deceased
Yousuf Khan @ Kalu and another panchayatdar Meenaz under Ex.P9. Further he deposed that the police have also seized the green colour checks lungi, full shirt, baniyan, neckar and iron pieces under Ex.P11. The accused did not cross-examine the above said witness.
The PW30 worked as Tahsildar, Shaikpet. He deposed that on 18.5.2009 he conducted inquest over the dead body of deceased namely
Shafiq-ur-rahman @ Shaik Shafi under Ex.P12 in the presence of mediators, namely, Hafiz Khan and Mohd.Fayaz. During the course of cross-examination nothing was elicited denying the inquest being conducted over the dead body of Shafiq-ur-rahman @ shaik Shafi.
The PW31 is one of the mediators. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 he and one Fayaz Ahmed (LW170) acted as mediators and they opined tha the 36 death of the deceased shafi-ur-rahman was due to the bomb blast. Ex.P12 is the inquest report and Ex.P13 is the seizure report wherein the clothes of the deceased were seized in their presence. The above said witness was cross- examined, but nothing is elicited to impeach his creditworthiness.
The PW32 is one of the mediators to the inquest panchanama over the dead body of the Shaik Nayeem. His evidence reveals that on 18.5.2007 the
MRO conducted inquest over the dead body of Shaik Nayeem in his presence and one Abdul Hafeez. Further he deposed that they found bleeding injuries on the dead body of the Shaik Nayeem and they opined that the deceased died due to bomb blast in Mecca Masjid. Further he deposed that the police have also seized the blood stained drawer and pants of the deceased under cover of seizure report. The Ex.P14 is the inquest report. The Ex.P15 is the seizure report. He was not cross-examined by the accused.
The PW33 who worked as Tahsildar conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Mohd.Jaffar on the intervening night of 18/19-5-2007.
His evidence reveals that he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Mohd.Jaffar in the presence of mediators Safdar Hussain and
Ghouse Moinuddin. Ex.P16 is the said inquest. The said witness was not cross-examined by the accused.
The PW34 is also a Tahsildar who conducted inquest over the dead bodies of deceased Shaik Nayeem and Mohd. Irfan Shareef. He deposed that on the intervening night of 18/19-5-2007 he conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased Shaik Nayeem in the presence of panchayatdars
Mohd.Qutubuddin and Abdul Hafeez under Ex.P14 panchanama. Further he deposed that he has also conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased Mohd.Irfan Shareef in the presence of the panchayatdars Khadir
Shareef and Syed Zakir Hussain under Ex.P17. The above said witness was not cross-examined by the accused.
37
The PW35 is a doctor who conducted the autopsy over the dead bodies of the deceased Mohd.Azeem, Sajid Ali Khan, Yousuf Khan, Shafqur Rahman and Mohd.Riyaz. His evidence reveals that on 19.5.2007 on the request of
SHO, Hussaini Alam Police Station, he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Mohd.Azeem, aged about 17 years between 2.30 AM and 3.30 AM and noted the ante mortem injuries at Page No.2 Column No.9 of the Postmortem Examination Report (PME report) in Ex.P18. He opined that the dead of the deceased was due to blast injury to the head about 12 hours prior to the PME examination.
He further deposed that on the same day he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Sajid Ali Khan, aged about 28 years between 00.30 AM and 1.30 AM and noted the ante mortem injuries at Page No.2 in
Column No.9 of the PME report in Ex.P19. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to blast injury to the chest and abdomen about 12 hours prior to the PME examination.
His evidence reveals that on the same day between 4.30 AM to 5.30
AM he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the Yousuf Khan, aged about 36 years and he noted down the ante mortem injuries at Page No.2 in
Column No.9 of the PME report as in Ex.P20. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to blast injury to the head associated with other multiple injuries about 12 hours prior to PME examination.
He also deposed that on the same day, at about 1.30 AM and 2.30 AM he conducted autopsy over the dead body of Shafqur Rahman, aged about 27 years and he noted down the ante mortem injuries at Page No.2 and column No.9 of the PME report as in Ex.P21. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to blast injury to chest and abdomen about 12 hours prior to PME examination.
38
His evidence further reveals that on the same day between 6.30 PM and 7.30 PM he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased
Mohd.Riyaz, aged about 18 years and noted down the ante mortem injuries at Page No.2 and Column No.9 of the PME report as in Ex.P22. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to blast injury to head about 24 to 36 hours prior to PME examination. The above said witness was not cross- examined by the accused.
The PW36 is a retired Professor who worked in the Osmania Medical
College till September, 2013. He deposed that on 19.5.2007 between 3.00
AM and 4.00 AM he conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mohd. Sameer and noted down the ante mortem injuries at Page No.2 in Column No.9 of the
PME report as in Ex.P23. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to blast injury to head received about 12 to 18 hours prior to PME examination.
He further deposed that on the same day, between 2.00 AM and 3.00
AM he conducted autopsy over the dead body of Shaik Nayeem between 2.00 AM and 3.00 AM and noted down the ante mortem injuries at Page No.2 in column No.9 of the PME report as in Ex.P24. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to blast injury to head and abdomen received about 12 to 18 hours prior to PME examination.
He further deposed that on the same day between 1.10 AM and 2.00
AM he conducted autopsy over the dead body of Mohd.Jaffar, aged about 25 years and noted down the ante mortem injuries at Page No.2 and column
No.9 of the PME examination as in Ex.P25. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to blast injury to abdomen.
He further deposed that on the same day between 4.00 AM and 5.00
AM he conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased Irfan Shareef, aged about 16 years and noted down the ante mortem injuries found on the 39 dead body at Page No.2 in column No.9 of the PME report as in Ex.P26. He opined that the death of the deceased was due to blast injury to head. The accused reported no cross-examination for the above witness.
The PW37 is a doctor who examined Yaseen Shareef (PW7) and he found that the injured received multiple injuries over the upper limb and lower limb and also on the abdomen region and multiple abrasion all over his body. He treated PW7 and issued wound certificate in Ex.P27. The accused reported no cross-examination for this witness.
The PW38 is a doctor who examined Mohd.Maseeuddin (PW9) on 18.5.2007 at about 2.00 PM and found multiple pellet injuries on the left hand and left leg and also on the right eye and issued wound certificate in
Ex.P28. Further he deposed that on the same day, he examined one Maqbool
Shareef (LW33) and he found that the injured received multiple injuries in the right arm, both buttocks and he was treated by an operation on the same day by their Trauma team headed by Orthopedic Plastic and General
Surgeon. Ex.P29 is the wound certificate. He further deposed that on the same day, he examined Mohd.Maqbool (PW12) and found blunt injury with multiple pellet injuries to the left scalp region and they have conducted pellet removal surgery. Further he deposed that the patient was discharged on 23.5.2007. Ex.P30 is the wound certificate. Further he deposed that on the same day he examined one injured namely Mohd.Jaffar (LW37) and he found crushed injury on the left hand for which plastic surgery was performed and he was discharged on 21.5.2007. Ex.P31 is the wound certificate. Further he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he examined Mohd.Iqbal (PW13) and found he received multiple injuries in the right knee and right arm and he was operated on the same day and he was discharged on 23.5.207. Ex.P32 is the wound certificate. On the same day, he examined
Dr.Khaja Naseeruddin (PW14) and found he received multiple injuries for 40 which debardement pellet removal was performed and he was discharged on 5.6.2007. Ex.P33 is the wound certificate. Further he deposed that on 20.5.2007 he examined Syed Shaheb Ali (PW17) and he received multiple pellet injuries to his right leg and they have performed debridement procedure and he was discharged on 21.5.2007. Ex.P34 is the wound certificate. Further he deposed that on 19.5.2007 he examined Mohd.Osman (PW20) and found a laceration to frontal area and for which debridement and suturing was performed and he was discharged on 23.5.2007. Ex.P35 is the wound certificate. Further he deposed that on 19.5.2007 he examined one
Osman (Pw20) and treated for laceration to frontal area in debridement procedure and suturing was also performed and he was discharged on 23.5.2007. Ex.P36 is the wound certificate.
He further deposed that on 18.5.2007 he examined one injured Master
Shahbaz Khan(LW60) for lacerated wound over the right leg and fracture right tibia for which debridement and closed reduction under C-Arm was done followed by POP application and he was discharged on 23.5.2007.
Ex.P38 is the wound certificate. Further he deposed that on the same day he examined one injured Master.Mohd.Altaf Khan (LW61) and found he received multiple abrasion and trauma to left leg and the patient reported later again on 28.5.2007 and discharged on 18.6.2007. Ex.P39 is the wound certificate issued by him. Further he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he examined the injured Mohd.Pasha (LW62) who received lacerated wound on both legs and he was discharged on 18.6.2007. Ex.P40 is the wound certificate. Further he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he examined Mohd.Ahmed (LW63) for fracture of both bones right fore arm and he was treated and discharged on 5.6.2007.
Ex.P41 is the wound certificate. On 18.5.2007 he examined injured
Mohd.Hissamuddin (LW64) and found that he received head injury in the frontal region and he was discharged on 21.5.2007. Ex.P42 is the wound 41 certificate. Further he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he examined one injured
Shaik Irshad (LW65) and found that he received lacerated wound right and he was discharged on 22.5.2007. Ex.P43 is the wound certificate.
PW38 further deposed that on 18.5.2007 he examined injured
Mohd.Javed (LW66) who received lacerated wound over the left leg and he was discharged on 21.5.2007. Ex.P44 is the wound certificate. Further he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he examined another injured Mohd.Yousuf (LW69) who received laceration over the scalp and he was discharged on 21.5.2007. Ex.P45 is the wound certificate. On the same day, he examined one injured Naseerullah Khan, aged about 20 years who received bullet injury on the right fore arm and he was discharged on 21.5.2007. Further he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he treated the following injured persons:
Mohd.Mansoor, M.A.Aziz, Mohd.Taj, Asif, Shaik Omer, Mohd.Ibrahim,
Mohd.Qaiser, abdul Akther, and Mohd.Younus. Furthr he deposed that on 19.5.2007 he examined one injured Mohd. Amjad Ali and treated for the bullet injuries. The above said witness was cross-examined by the accused, but nothing is elicited to impeach his creditworthiness showing that he has not treated the above said injured persons.
The PW39 is also a doctor. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 during after noon he examined Mohd.Mohsin (PW11) and he found blister injuries over the nose and over one of the little finger. He treated him as outpatient and issued wound certificate as in Ex.P46. On the same day he examined another injured by name Moula (LW56) who received blister injury over the upper left eye lid and treated him as outpatient and Ex.P47 is the wound certificate. He further deposed that on 20.5.2007 he examined injured by name, M.A.Aziz (LW51) and found blister injuries over the back of the chest and right occipital region on the bone and he treated him as out patient and issued wound certificate in Ex.P48. On the same day, he examined one 42 injured Shaik Moizuddin (LW38) and he found blister injury to his right hand and he was treated as outpatient and he issued wound certificate in Ex.P49.
The accused reported no cross-examination for this witness.
The PW40 is also a doctor. He deposed that one Dr.Asha Jyothi issued medical certificates in Exs.P50 to P53 in respect of injured persons Master
Saibaz Mohammed, NaseeruddinMohammed, Master Riyazuddin and Azam
Mohammed. He was cross-examined by the accused, but nothing is elicited to disprove the issuance of the said certificates by Dr.Asha Jyothi.
The PW41 is also a doctor and he deposed that on 20.5.2007 at 1.20
PM he examined one injured Sadam, aged 15 years and found the following injuries 1)swelling on the right side of the face about 15x15cm, 2)sutured wound on cheek and 3)sutured wound on left side of chest. He deposed that he treated him and issued wound certificate.
The PW42 is a doctor who examined the injured Syed Ahmed (LW40) and found the following injuries: 1)multiple punctured wounds on the back and 2)tenderness over the chest and issued wound certificate inEx.P54. On the same day he also examined Abdul Sattar, aged 40 years and found the following injuries: 1)perpetrated wounds on right side of lower lips, 2)multiple perpetrated wounds on the right upper limb, 3)multiple perpetrated wounds on the right thigh and leg and 4)amputation of ring finger of left hand and he issued Ex.P55 medico-legal record. During the course of cross-examination, it is elicited that he has not prepared Exs.P54 and P55, but there is no denial that he has not treated the above said witnesses.
The PW43 is also a doctor who examined Mir Mohammed Ali (PW21) on 18.5.2007 and he received bomb blast injuries ie., on the right sciatic nerve injury and he was discharged on 7.6.2007 and Ex.P56 is the wound certificate. Nothing is elicited during the course of his cross examination to 43 disprove the said examination.
The PW44 is also a doctor who examined the injured Sk.Jahangir (LW49) who deposed that on 18.5.2007 he treated the above said injured and found that he received concussional head injury and he was discharged from the hospital. Ex.P57 is the wound certificate. The accused reported no cross-examination for this witness.
The PW45 is also a doctor. She deposed that on 11.5.2011 on the request of Medical record section, she issued case sheets of the patients and issued MLC certificates in Exs.P58 to P62 in respect of the injured
Mohd.Farooq Ali, Syed Majeed, Syed Afzar, Mir Mohammed Ali and abdul
Hannan. It is elicited in the cross-examination that she did not peruse the case sheets pertaining to Exs.P58 to P62.
The PW46 is also a doctor. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 the injured
Shaik Ghouse was treated by one Dr.Mahender Reddy for crush injury on right leg and knee joint and issued medico legal record in Ex.P63. He further deposed that on the same day another injured Salman, aged 11 years was treated by Dr.Mahender Reddy for the crush injury on right leg and issued medico legal record in Ex.P64. He further deposed that on the same day
Syed Kaleem Ahmed was treated by Dr.Mahender Reddy for the pellet injuries on left elbow joint and right side of the tharox and abdomen and issued Medico legal record in Ex.P65. On the same day Mohd.Ibrahim, aged about 31 years was treated by Dr.Mahender Reddy for the pellet injuries and he issued medico legal record in Ex.P66. He further deposed that on the same day Mohd.Shaji, aged about 18 years was treated by Dr.Mahender
Reddy for the lacerated injury all over body and issued medico legal record in Ex.P67. Further he deposed that Dr.Mahender Reddy treated the injured
Yousuf Ali, aged about 26 years for fracture of left leg and lacerated injury on left leg and issued medico legal record Ex.P68. During the course of cross- 44 examination it is elicited that Exs.P63 to P68 does not reveal that
Dr.Mahender Reddy treated the above said patients, but he stated that the name of the said doctor reflected in the case sheets.
The PW51 who worked as Superintendent of Mecca Masjid from 1.1.2007 till September, 2007 deposed that on 17.5.2007 electronic media people that are TV9 channel personnel came to him and they sought permission to videograph the Mecca Masjid, then he advised them to take permission from the government and also from the police. Further he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he was on leave as his son was admitted in hospital and he heard about the incident of bomb blast in Mecca Masjid.
Further he deposed that soonafter receipt of the said information he had been to Mecca Masjid and found gathering of Muslim people were shouting and giving slogans. Further he deposed that TV9 people have videographed the incident.
Further he deposed that on 20.5.2007 the water house of Mecca masjid was cleaned. Further he deposed that he came to know that the
National Security Guard personnel found some incriminating material at the scene of offence. Further he deposed that on 20.5.2007 the water house of the Mecca Masjid was cleaned and at that time they found two circuits of phone and one Nokia mobile phone and he handed over the same to the police. He was cross-examined by the accused, but nothing is suggested to him denying handing over of the material objects which were found in the water tank of Mecca Masjid to the police.
The PW52 who was a Sweeper in the Mecca Masjid deposed that on 18.5.2007 at 1.10 PM he heard bomb blast sound in the premises of Mecca
Masjid and he found four or five persons died and some people injured.
Nothing is elicited in his cross-examination by the accused denying the date, time and place of offence.
45
The PW53 was also a sweeper who worked in the Mecca Masjid. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 at 9.00 AM he went to Mecca Masjid to attend duties and he cleaned the premises along with other sweepers, at about 1.00 PM in the noon time he heard bomb blasting sound in the premises of
Mecca Masjid and about five to seven persons died and several persons received injuries. Nothing is elicited in his cross-examination by the accused denying the date, time and place of offence.
The PW54 worked as a police constable and he was on duty at Gate
No.3 at Mecca Masjid on 18.5.2007. He deposed that on that day at about 1.10 PM in the noon timed while offering dhuva he heard bomb blast sound, then he went to the place of bomb blast and found some dead body. Nothing is elicited in his cross-examination by the accused denying the date, time and place of offence.
The PW55 was a rickshaw puller and he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he went to Mecca Masjid to offer prayers and while seeking dhuva he heard a bomb blasting sound in that premises and he fell down. Nothing is elicited in his cross-examination by the accused denying the date, time and place of offence.
The PW56 was a fruit vendor having a fruit stall in front of Mecca
Masjid and he deposed that on 18.5.2007 at about 1.05 PM in the noon time he went to Mecca masjid to offer prayers, while seeking dhuva (blessings) he heard some bomb blasting sound within the premises and he sustained injuries on his right hand and right side of his stomach and on his left thigh.
He was shifted to Durreshwar hospital and he has undergoing treatment for a period of 11 days and then he was discharged. Nothing is elicited in his cross-examination by the accused denying the date, time and place of offence.
46
The PW57 is a student who deposed that on 18.5.2007 in the non time he went to mecca Masjid to offer prayers, that at 1.00 PM while seeking dhuva (blessings) he heard the sound of bomb blasting, as a result of which splinters of bomb blasting caused injuries on is head. He has also deposed that along with him one Shahbaz and Riyazuddin who were his cousins and who also had been to Mecca Masjid on the same day to offer prayers also received injuries. No cross-examination was reported by the accused.
The PW58 was a businessman and he deposed that on 18.5.2007 at about 1.00 PM he went to Mecca Msjid for offering prayers. While doing so, he stood nearer to the water house of said Masjid and he was seeking dhuva, then he heard the sound of bomb blast. Further he deposed that as a result of the bomb blast, he sustained injuries on his head and also on his right hand and also on his back and he was shifted to hospital. No cross- examination was reported by the accused.
The PW59 is a private employee. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 at about 1.10 PM he went to Mecca Masjid for offering prayers and while seeking dhuva he heard a sound of blast and the splinters of bomb blast came into contact with him and he received injuries on his face and cheat.
He was shifted to Alpha hospital and thereafter to Osmania General Hospital.
The accused reported no cross-examination for this witness.
The PW60 is a private employee. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 at 1.10 PM when he was seeking dhuva after namaz at Mecca Masjid nearer to
Takhat, then he heard the sound of bomb blast and realised that he received injuries on his left eye brow, head and arm and he fell into unconscious state. Further he deposed that he was shifted to Durreshwar hospital, purana haveli where he was treated for one month. The accused did not cross- examine the said witness.
47
The PW61 who was a resident of Maharashtra state and he deposed that on 17.5.2007 in the evening hours he had been to Hyderabad from his village to attend marriage of his relatives and on 18.5.2007 at 1.05 PM he went to Mecca Masjid for namaz, while offering prayers between water house and Takhat and while seeking dhuva he heard the sound of bomb blast and he received injuries to his right leg, left hand and to his private parts due to splinters of bomb blast, he received bleeding injuries and he fell unconscious. He was shifted to Owaisi hospital where he was treated for seven days. The accused reported no cross-examination for this witness.
The PW62 is a resident of Maharashtra state and on 17.5.2007 himself,
Pw61 and Lw67 Abdul Hannan had been to Hyderabad to attend a marriage of our relatives and on 18.5.2007 in the noon time at about 1.05 pm they went to Macca Masjid to offer Namaz and while they were offering prayers between water house and Takhat and after Namaz they were seeking Dua then they heard the sound of bomb blasting and he received an injury on left leg and on the left side of the waist by the splinter of the bomb blast and he received bleeding injuries and fell in to unconscious state. He was shifted to
Owaisi hospital. The accused reported no cross-examination for this witness.
The PW63 is also a resident of Maharashtra state and on 17.5.2007 himself, Pw61 and Pw62 had been to Hyderabad from their village to attend a marriage and on 18.5.2007 in the noon time to offer Namaz they went to the Macca Masjid. He deposed that they were offering prayers at about 1.05 pm between the place i.e., water house and Takhat and after the Namaz they were seeking the Dua then they heard the sound of bomb blasting and one of the splinters emanated from the bomb blasting came in to contact with him as a result of which he received injury on his right leg, right hand and on stomach and other parts of the body and his right leg and right hand are fractured and he lost his little finger and ring finger of the left hand, he 48 also received bleeding injuries and fell in to unconscious state. Thereafter somebody shifted him to Osmania General Hospital and thereafter NIMS hospital where he had undergone treatment for a period about 10 days. No cross-examination was reported by the accused.
The PW64 is a resident of Medak. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 himself, his mother Rehana Begum and his cousins came to Hyderabad to attend engagement (Rasam) of one of their close relatives. He further deposed that at about 1.05 pm himself, his cousin went to Macca Masjid for
Namaz then they got some place nearer to water house and they offered the prayer and after Namaz while they were seeking the dhuva then he heard a sound of bomb blasting and he realized something came and hit him on the right side of his right arm and he was scared and sought some help and he also received bleeding injuries. Then he was shifted to Osmania General
Hospital and thereafter to the Yashoda hospital for treatment purpose where he was treated in the above said hospital for a period of 8 days. The accused reported no cross-examination for this witness.
The PW65 is a plumber by profession. He deposed that on 18.5.2007 in the evening hours he had been to the Osmania General Hospital since brother-in-law of deceased Azeem is known to him. He further deposed that the Tahsildar conducted inquest over the ded body of the above said Azeem in his presence under Ex.P84. The accused reported no cross-examination for this witness.
The PW66 who worked as Tahsildar and he deposed that on 18.5.2007 he conductd inquest over the dead body of Mohd. Azeem in the presence of
PW65 and LW160 Khaja Nayeemuddin and Ex.P84 is the inquest. The accused reported no cross-examination.
The PW67 is one of the mediators and he deposed that on 18/19-5-2007 at about 1.30 PM he was called by PW34 Tahsildar to act as 49 one of the inquest panchayatdars and accordingly PW34 conducted inquest over the dead body of Irfan shareef and Ex.P17 is the inquest. No cross- examination is reported by the accused.
The PW68 who worked in TV9 Television channel as Creative Head of
Sanskruthi Channel deposed that on 18.5.2007 he along with his team members had been to Mecca Masjid and his team members viz. Praveen (camera person) shooted the noon prayers in the Masjid and while doing so they heard a sound of bomb blast in the premises of the said masjid. He further deposed that he was told that a bomb was not blasted at a distance about 10 meters away from their place. He handed over DVC PRO cassette to Pandarinath, one of their ream members attached to crime section. The witness identified the DVC PRO cassette is in his handwriting on the lable pasted.
The DVC PRO cassette is displayed in the open court with DVC pro player and monitor and the learned Public Prosecutor, Special Public
Prosecutor for NIA cases, learned counsel for accused are also present while displaying the above said cassette. Ex.P85 is the DVC PRO cassette(it was recorded on 18.5.2007 and it is original one) wherein the bomb blast incident at Mecca Masjid being found. Nothing is suggested by the accused that the said DVC PRO cassette was not recorded by his team members.
The PW69 who worked as a Scientific Officer, in-charge of CLUES Team in CCS, Hyderabad deposed that on 18.05.2007 at about 1:30 pm he received a message from main control and also the Inspector of Police, Police
Station Hussaini Alam about reporting of explosion in Makka Masjid.
Immediately he rushed to the scene of offence along with his team members including the photographer and scientific gadgets and he collected pieces of broken metal with block colour paint, suspected to container of the bomb.
Further he deposed that he also collected the pieces of metal (cast iron like 50 objects), he has also collected shattered pieces of metal, fiber, wires, etc.
and he has also collected the pieces of Saffron Colour rexine bag. Further he deposed that he has also collected pieces of jeans pants, pieces of shirt, pieces of white cloth, pieces of electronic gadget cap marked as Nokia.
Further he deposed that he has also collected soil from the crater, the blood stained swabs in several places, a packet calender marked DYFI having blood stains.
He has also collected one Jhanima Namaz (floor carpet) containing blood stains measuring 45 x 5 inches, electric circuit with red colour bulb, switch and copper wire under after defusing live bomb connected to cell phone are under (1) Electric circuit having battery fixing wires. (2) Magnet piece, (3) Broken plastic piece, (4) Monitor mirror piece, (5) Blue Rexin zip bag, (6) Metal Box with black colour paint with on off switch containing with marking No.2. (7) Two metal shells with threaded lids, (8) Four Electric detonators, (9) Sample of chemical in a bottle, (10) Electronic circuit, (11)
Nokia 6030 cell phone, (12) SIM Card (taken out from the cell phone), (13)
White cloth for packing material, (14) Small wet battery (15) Round pieces of
Telugu News papers. MO27 is two metal shells with threaded lids and MO28 is one small wet battery. The MOs 1 to 26 have been marked already through PW4 being collected by him.
PW69 further deposed that he assisted and guided the investigating officer in identification, collection, preservation and packing of physical evidence found at the place of incident and he has also submitted a report to the ACP, Charminar Division. Ex.P86 is the Report submitted by him to the ACP, Charminar Division, Dated 22.05.2007 containing in four pages along with the circuit diagrams of the IED and description and measurements of the bomb containing material and finally given chain of detonation of IED. During the course of cross-examination, it is suggested to 51 him that he has not assisted the Investigating officer for collection of the above said material on the date of the incident, but he denied the same. He also denied a suggestion that Ex.P86 is a created one.
The PW70 is the Inspector of Police, Bomb Squad. He deposed that he received information from main control room regarding some bomb blast occurred at Mecca Masjid, then he along with team members had been to
Mecca Masjid around 1:40 pm and conducted the search to trace out any unexploded bomb or IED. During the course of search they found a dark blue colour bag hanging to railing to the north side of Makka Masjid and nearer to the office of Makka Masjid, then they conducted anti sabotage test and found metal inside of the above said rexine bag. They got suspected that some IED was in the said bag and he cut the said bag by using a blade. He further deposed that he found a metal box wrapped in white colour cloth and he picked the above said box and kept in the bomb blanket and shifted it to
Kilwath ground where he opened the box and found two iron shells and some mechanism of wires connected to cell phone. He has also found the detonator wires coming from iron shells. Then he separated the detonator wires from iron shells by cutting the same and separated the mechanism from the explosives and made it was safe by defusing. He further deposed that during the course of his proceedings PW69 was also with him and participated in the proceedings. He identified the MOs 27 and 28. He was cross-examined by the accused. It is elicited from his cross-examination that he was not examined by the police nor his statement was recorded. He denied a suggestion that he has not conducted the search at Mecca Masjid and he has not defused any bomb or IED on the date of incident.
The PW177 who worked as Inspector of Police, Police Station, Hussaini
Alam and he deposed that on 18.5.2007 as usual centralized bundobasth scheme he posted eight pickets in his police station limits, he was stationed 52 at Charminar bus stand picket for Friday Mecca Masjid Noon Prayers. He further deposed that as usual 16 muslim police constables in civil dress from various police stations of South Zone were posted inside the Mecca Masjid by the ACP, Charminar. It is evident from his version that while the prayers were going on in the Mecca Masjid there were about 4500 worshipers and at about 1.20 pm on 18.5.2007 he heard a big sound of blasting from the side of Mecca Masjid, and some persons moving in panic. He further deposed that he enquired with them and came to know that a bomb blast was taken place inside of the Mecca Masjid and due to which some of the persons who were offering prayers died and some of the persons were injured, then he alerted all pickets to face the situation. The ACP, DCP contacted the control room for directing BD (bomb disposal) teams, clues teams and sniffer dogs and the ambulance (108) vehicles for shifting the injured. Further he has spoken to that meantime some muslim youth came out side of the Mecca masjid by raising the slogans and obstructed the police from entering in to the mosque to attend the injured persons. After some time of the incident himself, his staff members, BD team members, Clues Team members with sniffer dogs entered in to the Mecca Masjid. The BD team and clues teams with the help of sniffer dogs conducted the search of the premises of the mecca masjid for tracing out incriminating material in respect of the bomb blasting.
Meanwhile he came to know one of the mufti police constable (PW1) lodged a complaint in PS Hussainialam under Ex.P1, basing on the same one Shaik
Ghouse Mohiuddin, Head constable of P.S. Hussainialam registered a case in
Crime No.100 of 2007 and he issued F.I.R. in Ex.P216.
He further deposed that thereafter he conducted the investigation. He got inspected and checked the scene of offence thoroughly and secured two panchayatdars namely PW4 and Md.Zaheed (Lw6) and conducted the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama and seized the fourteen (14) Articles 53 with the assistance of clues team led by T.Suresh (Pw69) which was already marked as Mo1 to Mo14. The Ex.P2 is the scene of offence cum seizure panchanama of MO1 to MO14 being already marked through PW4. He has also prepared the rough sketch map of the scene of offence in Ex.P3. He has also sent a requisition to the RDO to depute Tehsildars and executive
Magistrates to conduct inquest on the dead bodies of the deceased at the
scene of offence. He furthr deposed that the photographs of the scene of offence were taken by one Md.Fasi Moinuddin, S.I. of police, CCS and with the aid of one private photographer Syed Hameed. He further deposed that they searched the inside premises of mecca masjid with the help of clues team, BD team with the help of sniffer dogs and while searching they found a blue colour rexine bag hanged on two rods of grills. He suspected the above said material object and the BD team defused suspected explosive material by cutting the wires by taking the same to an open place nearer to the mosque. Then he secured two panchayatdars that are Pw4 and Lw6
Md.Zaheed and in their presence he conducted the observation cum seizure panchanama and seized the above said material under Ex.P5 that are MO15 to MO26. The MO15 to MO26 were handed over to CLUES team. He examined the pw1 and recorded his detailed statement. Then, he visited the
OGH mortuary room and came to know that nine persons succumbed to injuries in the blast. On 19.5.2007 he recorded the statements of Shaik
Qadeer and Md.Ibrahim Khan and instructed his S.I. of police namely
Sadique Hussain to assist the MRO to conduct the inquest on the dead body of the deceased Riyaz (D9). Thereafter he handed over case file in Crime
No.100 of 2007 to the ACP, Charminar on 19.5.2007 for further investigation under the orders of the DCP.
Again PW177 deposed that on 20.5.2007 one R.Pal Raj (AC2 BD team,
NSG, New Delhi) came to the police station and gave a requisition asking 54 him to accompany with him to the place of incident, accordingly he went to there where he collected four articles that are 1) Granite Black, white marble stone and other stone pieces quantity of five kgs. Approximately 2) Metal (Splinter), Metal Dust and etc., from component with quantity one KG.
3) Clothes and leather pieces of 100 Grms. 4) one Mobile phone, Nokia 6030. The said Pal Raj collected the above articles by conducting the proceedings in his presence and took away the same on 20.5.2007. Again he came on 31.5.2007 and handed over the above said cell phone to him under acknowledgment without opinion. In turn, he handed over the same to ACP, Charminar for further investigation.
Further he deposed that on 20.5.2007 the Superintendent of Mecca
Mosque, Hyderabad namely Ali Ahmed Murtuza Khan (Pw51) came to the police station and handed over some material objects to him stating that he found while cleaning the water house (wazoo house) in the premises of the said mosque. He handed over five items which are 1) Electric circuit with red colour bulb, red colour switch and copper wire 2) Electric circuit having batter fixing wire 3) Magnet pieces 4) Broken plastic pieces 5) Monitor mirror piece. He seized the same vide seizure report under Ex.P4 in the presence of
Pw4 and Lw6 Md.Zahed. On 23.5.2007 he received a report from T.Suresh (Pw69) inspector of clues team stating that the articles collected on 18.5.2007 found in the rexine bag are that of explosive substances capable of causing blast and advised him to take necessary action as per law.
Ex.P217 is the said letter placed by Pw69 before me on 23.5.2007 under his handwriting and signature. Therefore he registered a case in Crime No.107 of 2007 Suo motto and issued F.I.R. in Ex.P218. He has also recorded the statements of Pw69, Pw70, Pw51, Pw2 Md.Abdul Mannan and Md.Wahed, store keeper of Mecca Masjid. Ex.P219 is the attested copy of scene of rough sketch map of the scene of offence panchanama dated 23.5.2007 in the 55 presence of Pw4 and Lw6 Zahed. He has also deposited the case property in
Crime No.100 of 2007 in the committal court.
During the course of cross-examination of PW177 it is elicited that on 23.5.2007 he came to know that the suspected bag was found in the mosque containing the explosives and was confirmed on the same day.
Further it is elicited that preliminarily he came to know that the suspected bag was containing explosives as on the date of defusal by the BD team on 18.5.2007. He admitted that Ex.P3 does not depict the place of lying of unexploded suspected bag to the grills. He also admitted that the place of presence of bag is shown in the Ex.P219. He denied a suggestion that no bag was found on 18.5.2007 or any subsequent date within exploded IED in the scene of offence and the same was subsequently planted for the purpose of this case. He admitted in the cross-examination that PW2 stated
before him as in Ex.D1. He denied a suggestion that he registered a case in
Crime No.107 of 2007 and issued FIR in Ex.P218 for the purpose of strengthening the case by planting the suspected bag and explosives. He denied a suggestion that MO1 to MO26 were not seized by him and seizure reports and panchanama were prepared at the instance of National Security
Guards and his superiors.
The PW161 is Additional Director, Forensic and Science Laboratory,
Telangana State. His evidence reveals that he received a requisition from
Assistant commissioner of police, Charminar Division received on 25.5.2007 through Sri.Md.Jameeruddin, Inspector of police, SIT of Hussainialam PS.
Further he deposed that In this case a cardboard box was received containing 10 polythene covers and 6 paper covers. The polythene cover labelled as S.NO.1(A) Crime no.100/2007 of PS Hussainialam, dated.18.5.2007 along with signed chit containing :
56
1. pieces of broken metal with black coloured paint on one side marked as item no.1. A polythene cover labelled as S.No.2(B), Cr. No.100/2007,
PS H. alam Dt.18.5.07, along with signed chit containing,
2. pieces of metal marked as item no.2,
A polythene cover labelled as S.No.3(C) , Cr.No.100/2007 , PS H.alam,
Dt.18.5.07, along with signed chit containing,
3. pieces of metal, fibre, wires etc., marked as item no.3,
A polythene cover labelled as S.No.4(D), Cr.No.100/2007, PS H.Alam,
Dt.18.5.07, along with signed chit containing,
4. Pieces of wire, metal etc., marked as item no.4,
A polythene cover labelled as S.No.5(E), Cr.No.100/2007, PS H.Alam
Dt.18.5.07 along with signed chit containing,
5. pieces of torn red and orange coloured rexine marked as item no.5.
A polythene cover labelled as S.NO.6(F), Cr.NO.100/2007, PS. H.Alam,
Dt.18.5.07 along with signed chit containing,
6. pieces of torn brown coloured jeans cloth marked as item no.6.
A polythene cover labelled as S.No.7(G), Cr.No.100/2007 PS.H.Alam,
Dt.18.5.07 along with signed chit containing,
7. piece of torn checked design cloth marked as item no.7.
A polythene cover labelled as S.No.8(H), cr.NO.100/2007, PS H. Alam
Dt.18.5.07 along with signed chit containing,
8. Torn pieces of white coloured cloth marked as item no.8.
A polythene cover labelled as S.No.9(I), Cr.No.100/2007, PS.H.Alam
Dt.18.5.07 along with signed chit containing
9. pieces of metal one of the metal piece printed as Nokia marked as item no.9.
A polythene cover labelled as S.No.10(J), Cr.No.100/2007, PS H.Alam
Dt.18-5-07 along with signed chit containing, 57
10.Soil etc., marked as item no.10
A paper cover labelled as S.No.11 (K) , Cr.No.100/2007, PS H.Alam,
Dt.18.5.07, along with signed chit containing,
11.A piece of gauze cloth with dark brown stains marked as item no.11.
A paper cover labelled as S.No.12(L), Cr.No.100/2007, PS H.Alam,
Dt.18.5.07, along with signed chit containing,
12.A - A piece of gauze cloth with dark brown stains marked as item no.12A.
A paper cover labelled as S.No.12(L2), cr.No.100/2007, PS H.alam,
Dt.18.5.07, along with signed chit containing, 12B. A piece of gauze cloth with dark brown stains marked as item no.12B.
A paper cover labelled as S.NO.12(L3), Cr.No.100/2007, PS H.Alam,
Dt.18.5.07, containing 12 C. A piece of gauze cloth with dark brown stains marked as item no.12C.
A paper cover labelled as S.No.12(L4), Cr.No.100/2007, PS,H.Alam
Dt.18.5.07, containing, 12 D. A piece of gauze cloth with dark brown stains marked as item no.12 D.
A paper cover labelled as S.No.12(L5), Cr.No.100/2007, PS H.Alam
Dt.18.5.2007 containing, 12 E. A piece of gauze cloth with dark brown stains marked as item no.12 E.
A polythene cover labelled as S.No.13(M), Cr.No.100/2007, PS H.Alam
Dt.18.5.07 containing
13.A pocket calendar printed as “DYF1 2007, Greetings Marked” as 58 item no.13.
Further he deposed that in the nature of examination / tests conducted based upon physical examination, chemical tests, thin layer chromotography and instrumental analysis (HPTLC) and he reported the case file no.CHE/ 244/2007, Dt.19.7.2007. The report is dispatched on 24.7.2007.
Further he deposed that in his report item 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 were analysed and a mixture of cyclotrinethylene trinitramine commonly known as RDX and trinitrotoulene commonly known as TNT a high explosive composition commonly known as cyclotol is found in them. The report is signed by him and approved and forwarded by Mr.O.Narsimha Murthy,
Director FSL. Ex.P188 is his report/opinion dated.19.7.2007 containing in two pages in file no.CHE/244/2007.
He further deposed that in continuation of file CHE/244/2007 a fresh requisition was received from ACP Charminar Division in Cr.No.100/2007 of
PS Hussainialam on 20.5.2007 received on 25.5.2007. In that case we received five items that are :
1. Electric circuit sheet connected with red coloured on/off switch, red coloured bulb along with copper wire printed as WT.663-11, Dt.53- 00004004,, SUPER CHP SCT X 2B. A 302200659 marked as item no.1.
2. A circuit plate with battery and wires marked as item no.2.
3.A metal piece marked as item no.3.
4. Small piece of plastic tube marked as item no.4.
5.Piece of cell phone monitor mirror marked as item no.5.
Based on nature of examination/ tests conducted that are physical examination, chemical test and instrumental analysis HPLC and he reported the case in file No.CHE/244/2007-A but no explosive material or its residue found in them. Ex.P189 is his report and opinion.
PW161 further deposed that in continuation to file number
CHE/244/2007(A) a fresh requisition was given by the ACP, Charminar in 59
Cr.No.107/2007 of PS Hussainialam by sending 11 items containing in a cardboard box under the seal. The items were :-
1. A black coloured metal box with on/off switch containing small quantity of whitish yellow coloured powder along with signed chit marked as item no.1.
2. Two sets of metallic cylinders along with threaded lids having small hole along with signed chit marked as item no.2.
3. Four nos.electrical detonators marked as item no.3.
A polythene cover along with signed chit containing,
4. whitish yellow coloured powder marked as item no.4.
A polythene cover along with signed chit containing,
5. Electronic circuit sheet connected to red and blue coloured wires marked as item no.5.
A polythene cover along with signed chit containing,
6. cell phone printed as NOKIA marked as item no.6.
A polythene cover along with signed chit containing,
7. “Sim card” printed as 899167.3001, 455993705 marked as item no.7.
A polythene cover along with signed chit containing,
8. white coloured cloth marked as item no.8.
9. A Blue coloured rexine bag printed as JANS SPORT along with signed chit marked as item no.9.
A polythene cover along with signed chit containing,
10.Small battery printed as SAU6 130005AA A13MP2.0619# 48508794 marked as item no.10.
A polythene cover along with signed chit containing,
11.Circular pieces of Telugu newpaper (Andhra Jyothi) of 30th
March and 4th April marked as item no.11.
Based upon the nature of examination/ tests conducted that are physical examination, chemical tests, thin layer chromotography and instrumental analysis (HPLC) and he issued a report in file no.CHE/245/2007 as the items 2, 4 5, 6, 8 to 11 are analysed as per the above methods and a mixture of cyclotrinethylene trinitramine commonly known as RDX and trinitrotoulene commonly known as TNT a high explosive composition 60 commonly known as cyclotol is found in them. Ex.P190 is his report in file no.CHE/245/2007 send on 19.7.2007 and dispatched on 24.7.2007.
During the course of cross-examination of PW161, it is elicited that during his analysis they used to maintain a record called as worksheet and the worksheets have not been appended to the above said reports in
Exs.P188 to P190. He denied a suggestion that the work sheets were not sent along with the reports because they do not correspond with each other.
He denied a suggestion that under Ex.P90 being an unexploded material the explosive powder will not be found on all the items referred to in the report.
He also denied a suggestion that under the influence of the Investigating agency he issued the above said report.
The admitted facts need not be proved as per Section 58 of the Indian
Evidence Act. The accused did not dispute with regard to the time, date and place of incident resulting in death of nine persons and injuring 58 persons (some of them have not been examined by the prosecution).
In view of the evidence of PW1 to PW44, PW8 a bag was found to the grills by the side of the Manager's office at Mecca Masjid. It is evident from the version of PW1 that the bomb squad has taken the said bag outside the mosque and subsequently he learnt that there were bombs in the said bag.
The PW2 has also deposed that in the meanwhile the public noticed a blue colour bag hanging to the grills of his office and raised cries and the bomb squad have taken the bag and noticed bombs in it and they defused it.
The PW3 has also spoken to in his evidence that he went to the
Manager's office of the Mecca Masjid, then somebody stated that there was a bag at the grills of the Manager's room. The PW4 has also stated that the public stated about a bag hanging to the railing in front of the Manager's room, then the police came and removed the bag and found the bombs in it.
61
He is also one of the mediators and he has spoken to that the said bag was hanging to the railing of the office. He has spoken to that the other items which were found in the said bag that are MO21 to MO26.
The PW8 has spoken to in his evidence that it was told that there were bombs in the bag and the police have taken the said bag containing bombs outside the mosque.
The above said ocular evidence can not be brushed aside in respect of hanging of the bag to the grills nearer to the Manager's room in the Mecca
Masjid. The PW69 who worked as the Scientific Officer in the Clues team,
CCS has spoken to that he collected the incriminating material on 18.5.2007 which includes the blue colour rexine zip bag. The cross-examination of the accused is that the PW69 has not assisted the Investigating officer for collection of the material on the date of the incident. It is also suggested to the PW70 that he has not conducted any search at Mecca Masjid and he has not defused any bomb or IED on the date of the incident. But the evidence of PW69 and PW70 is corroborated by each other as both were present on the date of the incident at the Mecca Masjid. Their evidence is also supported by the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW4 and PW8 as the police taken away the bag to outside of the mosque and defused the bombs.
Further the evidence of PW69 and PW70 is supported by the evidence of PW177 who is one of the Investigating Officers who had been to the place of incident ie., Mecca Masjid at the earliest point of time.
The evidence of PW69 and PW70 in respect of collection of incriminating material from the place of scene of offence under MO1 to
MO28 and being sent by PW177 to the FSL for analysis and report coupled with the evidence of PW161 proves a fact that the explosive material like a mixture of cyclotrinethylene trinitramine commonly known as RDX and trinitrotoulene commonly known as TNT a high explosive composition used 62 in the bomb blast and unexploded bombs found in the MO20 rexine bag.
Mere suggestion by the accused that the above said material objects in MO20 bag were planted for the purpose of in this case by the investigating agency does not hold any substance as the ocular evidence
PW1 to PW3 and PW8 in respect of the presence of the said bag in Mecca
Masjid on 18.5.2007 is very much relevant and admissible in evidence. The planting of explosive material like RDX or TNT can not be possible, which are like the other things which are available in the market. Further there is no scope to doubt the veracity of PW69, PW70 and PW177 as they investigated into the matter being part of their duty. More over, the PW161 is an Expert and one can not influence him at any stretch of imagination. Therefore, his evidence is admissible. Added to it, as on that date, the said officers could not know who were the offenders.
Therefore, the evidence of PW1 to PW46, PW51 to PW70, PW161 and
PW177 goes to prove a fact that on 18.05.2007 at 1.20 PM the incident of bomb blast occurred at Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad, resulting in death of nine persons and injuring 58 persons. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the prosecution.
10Point No.2
To prove this point, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of
PW104 and PW105 as well as PW226. The PW104 has spoken to in his evidence that he was in Chanchalguda jail, Hyderabad in the year 2011. He does not remember the month and he does not remember the barrack number, but he was in the single barrack of that jail. Further his evidence reveals that he was in the jail for a period of 7 or 8 months and he was arrested in a case of attempt murder of Golconda Police Station. Further he deposed that he knows one Swamy Asimanand (A6) who was also in the 63
Chanchalguda jail in a barrack abutting to his barrack. It is evident from his version that he was also entrusted with the warden work of the entire barrack and the jail warden instructed me to see that he has to look after him inanticipation there should not be any religious feelings of Hindu Muslim communities in the jail. He deposed that he was locking the room of the above said Swamy and he was giving the food. Further he deposed that he was also talking with him whenever the time permits. As he came to know through him that he was arrested in the Mecca Masjid Blast Case he has also asked Swamy as to whether he involved in any other case. Then he told me that he involved in Balegaon Blast case, Samjhouta Express Blast case. His evidence further reveals that one Kaleem (P105) had also been to jail in connection with the Mecca Masjid Blast case and he was also in their barrack. He has been acquainted with the above said Kaleem when he came to Chanchalguda Jail. He further deposed that the above Kaleem had also conversed with the Swamiji. His evidence reveals that he asked the A6 as to why the Kaleem is involved in the Mecca Masjid Blast case since he committed the same, then the Swamyji repented and found fault with him and told him that he wanted to embrace the Muslim religion. He has spoken to in his evidence that he knows Devender Gupta (A1) and Lokesh Sharma (A2) who were also in the jail.
During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that the jail warden orally instructed him to look after the Swamiji who was kept in the barrack of high security (solitary). Further it is elicited that he was involved in 5 or 6 cases and he was also a history sheeter of the police. It is also elicited that as and when all the barracks were locked the jail authorities were releasing for while in the walking place of the barracks to walk.
According to him, Devender Gupta, Swamyji and Lokesh Sharma were kept in different barracks solitarily but they were in the same alignment and he 64 has also conversed with Lokesh Sharma and Devender Gupta. He denied a suggestion that no duties of the warden been entrusted to him. He denied a suggestion that he did not state before police that he asked Swamiji why
Kaleem involved in the Mecca Masjid Blast case since Swamiji committed the same, then the Swamiji repented and found fault with him. He admitted in the cross-examination that he has not stated before the police that Swamiji told him that he wanted to embrace the Muslim religion and that he has not referred the names of Devender Guptaji and Lokesh Sharma in his statement
before the police.
The PW105 is another witness with whom A6 alleged to have confessed the offence. He deposed that in the year 2007 the police arrested him in the Mecca masjid blast case and he was in the jail approximately for a period of one-and-a-half year. Further he deposed that in the year 2010, he went to Cherlapally jail to meet his brother then the police arrested him alleging that he was smuggling the mobile phones in to the said prison. The police Kushaiguda arrested him, then he was kept in the Chanchalguda jail and he was in the chanchalguda jail for a period of three (3) months. Further he deposed that he was in the Chanchalguda jail and he had been acquainted with the Swamy Asimanand (A6). Further he deposed that the
Pw104 was incharge of the entire block of our barracks and he told that the
Swamy Asimanand (A6) about his arrest in the Mecca masjid blast case.
Further he deposed that he was in touch with the A6 and the said A6 enquired about the incident of Mecca masjid blast, then he told him the poor persons were killed and effected, then he found that the above said Swamyji (A6) feelings of sorriness. Further he deposed that at that time, the A6 did not say anything, thereafter he was sent to a Court and on reading the news papers he came to know that A6 confessed about the incident of Mecca
Masjid Balst. Again A6 was brought to the Chanchalguda jail then he asked 65
A6 about his statement then A6 told that he gave his statement before the
Court and he revealed that no innocent persons like him be suffered. He further deposed that he told about his education to the Swamiji (A6) then he got admission of his Medicine in the Kamineni Medical College and he never attended the college since he was arrested in the year 2007. He further deposed that the said Swamyji (A6) advised him to continue his studies and hereafter he should not be suffered. The Swamyji told him that he confessed
before the Judge about the Mecca Masjid blast case, Samjhouta Express
case, Malegaon case, Ajmir Dargah case and told him that no other innocent person should be suffered.
During the course of cross-examination of PW105, it is elicited that the police registered two cases against him in the year 2007 with regard to the possession of RDX and using and supplying of SIM cards. Further it is elicited that in the year 2010 the police registered a case about smuggling of the mobile phones in to the jail. It is also elicited that along with him three others were arrested and tried in RDX case and his elder brother Shaik Khaja was also arrested in the RDX case. It is elicited that in SIM card case 4 or 5 persons were there along with him, namely, Fasi, Sohail, Imran, Sujauddin. It is also elicited that in the mobile phones case of smuggling in to the jail himself, his brother Shaik Khaja, Aslam, Jahed and Kaleem were there. He denied a suggestion that he was not arrested and he was not kept in the jail in Mecca masjid blast case for a period of one-and-a-half years. It is elicited that he gave his evidence in Ajmir Dargah blast case and in Samjhouta
Express trial case. He admitted that the above said Swamyji (A6) was kept in a solitary confinement cell of the block of the Chanchalguda prison under the lock and key and they were not kept in the barracks under the lock and key. He denied a suggestion that he has not arranged food to the Swamiji (A6) and he never spoken to with the Swamiji at any point of time in the 66
Chanchalguda jail. He denied a suggestion that on reading the news papers he came to know that A6 gave a statement before the Court and on his enquiry A6 also told that he confessed to the Judge about his involvement in the Samjhouta Express, Ajmir Dargah, Malegaon in addition to Mecca Masjid.
He denied a suggestion that he is under the surveillance of the police therefore at their at their instance he was deposing false and he is obliging to get favour from the police. He denied a suggestion that he was never kept nearer to he barrack of the A6 in the Chanchalguda Jail.
Coming to the evidence of PW226, who is one of the Investigating
Officers, he deposed that on 19.11.2010 he arrested the A6 Naba Kumar
Sarkar @ Swamy Asimananda. He has also recorded the statements of
PW104 and PW105 on 20.12.2011. During the course of cross-examination, it is elicited that PW104 was under trial prisoner and he was assigned to work as a warden according to Superintendent of the jail in the barrack where the
A6 was lodged. He admitted in the cross-examination that he has not filed any documentary evidence that PW104 was assigned with the job of jail authorities. He has also admitted that he is not collected any documentary evidence from the jail authorities that PW104 and PW105 were in the
Chanchallguda jail at the relevant time. He admitted in the cross- examination that the Devender Gupta (A1) and Lokesh Sharma (A2) were produced on Production Transit Warrants and they were sent to Ajmeer jail even before remand of A6 into the judicial custody.
Except the oral testimony of PW104 and PW105, there is no other record to show that they have been in Chanchalguda jail when the A6 was kept in that jail. The PW226 who one of the Investigating Officers, has not collected any documentary evidence and produced before this court showing that the PW104 and PW105 have been in Chanchalguda jail along with A6 when he was in that jail. Further he did not examine the then Superintendent 67 of the Chanchalguda jail and record his statement showing that they were in the Chanchalguda jail during the period when the A6 was in that jail. He could have collected the said material or recorded the statement of the
Superintendent of the Jail, but he did not do so. The evidence of Pw226 shows that Devender Gupta (A1) and Lokesh Sharma (A2) were sent to
Ajmeer jail even before remand of Swamy Asimananda (A6).
Further he admitted in the cross-examination that during the course of his first spell of investigation he sought permission from the court to examine 26 muslim militants who were in the judicial custody in other cases and among them he examined PW105 (shaik Abdul Kaleem). He has also admitted that the PW105 was undergone Narco analysis test at FSL,
Bangalore and in that test he disclosed that he was involved in the bomb blast case and to help his brother in placing the bomb in Mecca Masjid.
Added to it, he voluntarily added that this part of the claim in the report did not match with the videographic contents of the Narco analysis test.
The said evidence itself disproves the version of PW104 wherein he stated that Devender Gupta (A1) and Lokesh Sharma (A2) were in the
Chanchalguda jail at the time when the Swamy Asimananda (A6) was kept in that jail. Thus, this court holds that the testimony of PW104 is untrustworthy and it is false. The PW105 was also interrogated by the PW226 in the Mecca
Masjid bomb blast case in the first spell of investigation and he was also subjected to Narco analysis test. Thus, it may probablise that PW105 is under the surveillance of the police and he obliged to become as a witness.
At the same time, no documentary evidence is there on record to show that
PW105 was in the Chanchallguda jail when the A6 was languishing in the same jail. Therefore, this court holds that the evidence of PW105 is untrustworthy and false. Further this court holds that the presence of PW104 and PW105 in Chanchalguda prison when A6 was in jail is not proved beyond 68 reasonable doubt.
Having regard to so, the extra-judicial confession said to have made by the A6 before the PW104 and PW105 is beyond scope and held to be false.
11Point No.3:
To prove this point, the prosecution mainly relied upon the oral testimony of PW165 and PW226 and Exs.P194 to P197. On the other hand, the accused in defence relied upon Ex.D4 along with translation copy in
Ex.D5.
The learned Special Public Prosecutor for N.I.A. submitted that the sixth accused (A6) gave his confessional statement before the PW165 in
Ex.P196 voluntarily and his retracted confessional statement subsequently made on 18.4.2011 can not be taken into consideration which being filed at a belated stage after four months. On the other hand, the counsel for the sixth accused (A6) submitted that the A6 was in continuous custody and he was not having an opportunity to retract the confession dated 18.12.2010 at the earliest opportunity. Further he contended that the retracted confession application dated 8.4.2011 which is part of the record may be taken into account while appreciating the evidence. Further he submitted that theA6 was taken into police custody by the PW226 at the first spell from 27.11.2010 to 4.12.2010 and he was also taken into custody in the second spell from 10.12.2010 to 18.12.2010 and during that period on 16.12.2010 the PW226 moved an application before the learned CMM Delhi for recording proceedings under section 164 CrPC in respect of A6 and the said application was assigned to the PW165. Further he contended that again the A6 was given into custody by PW226 after recording the confessional statement under 196 CrPC. Therefore, his contention is that the A6 was in police custody and even though he was sent to the judicial custody from 69 16.12.2010 to 18.12.2010 for reflection and also to be regarded as custodial surveillance and that the above said confessional statement was not voluntary one.
In this context the learned Special Public Prosecutor relied upon the authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in (2014) 7 SCC 443 referred to Md.Jamiluddin Nasir, Appellants v. State of West Bengal,
Respondents wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:
“16. Keeping the above prescription of Section 164 in mind, when we examine the answers of Nasir to the questions 1 to 18 we find that PW97 explained to appellant Nasir that his confession shouldbe voluntary and that whether he was really making it on his own. Appellant Nasir also specifically stated that nobody including the police, enticed him to make the statement, that No.3rd degree method was applied on him by the police for making his confession. PW97 also made it clear to him that he was not a police officer, that he is a Magistrate of a Court, that he was not under any compulsion to make a statement, that if he withdraws from his offer to make the concession he will not hand him over to the police and that he will be sent back to the jail. After explaining all the above when he asked the appellant Nasir about his desire to make the confession, he started that he still wanted to give his statement by adding that he was not able to bear the pain of his conscience and wanted to get rid of it. He also stated that he was brought from the jail, that the previous night he was only staying in the jail, that he had absolutely no fear in his mind and that he wanted to depose on his own accord. In question No.11, the Magistrate while stating that Nasir was free to make his statement, mentioned that such statement might ultimately lead to his conviction and might attract either a life sentence or even capital punishment and even after explaining to that extent, when PW97 asked him whether the appellant Nasir still wanted to give the statement and asked him to give a serious thought before answering the said question, Nasir's answer to question No.11 was “I know. I have sinned and I deserve punishment.” Again in question No.12, PW97 wanted to ascertain whether he was voluntarily making the statement or under any compulsion to which Nasir replied that it was absolutely voluntary. When he was asked as to why he wanted to make the statement Nasir replied that because of the sin he committed by carrying out the attack on the American Center on 22.1.2002 along with his gang members, his conscience was heavy and he felt guilty that he carried out the attack on his own homeland and that he could not eat or sleep and, therefore, he came forward to give the statement. PW97 thereafter gave 10 minutes time for Nasir to think over, for which Nasir replied that he did not need 70 any more time and only thereafter, the Magistrate PW97 proceeded to record the statement.” “62. On this aspect reliance was placed upon State (NCT of Delhi)v.NavjotSandhu@AfsanGuru MANU/SC/0465/2005 : (2005) 11 SCC 600. As far as the decision in Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (supra) is concerned, out attention was drawn to paragraphs 304, 306, 315 and 320. In paragraph 304 this court after adverting to certain deficiencies in the recording of the concession this court declined to rely upon it. Thereafter, in paragraph 306 excluding the confession from consideration this court proceeded to examine the circumstantial evidence against the accused and assess whether he joined the conspiracy. After discussing the various circumstances, this court also referred to the reliance placed upon the evidence of a witness who was examined as PW45 in the case to implicate the accused in the factum of conspiracy and found that there were no clinching circumstance so as to reach a conclusion unaffected by reasonable doubt that the particular accused was a party to the conspiracy along with his cousin, the prime accused. In the case on hand we have held that there was no deficiency much less any serious one in accepting the confession recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 as we have found that the Magistrate was examined as PW97 observed all the ingredients required in law in particular section164 Code of Criminal Procedure. As the facts involved in Navjot Sandhu (supra) are not comparable to the one in the case on hand, we can not apply the reasoning stated in that case to the facts of this case. In the light of our above finding on the confession of appellant Nasir, we find that the reliance placed upon Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (supra) is of no assistance to the appellant.”
Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR 1957 SCC 637 rendered between Sarvan Singh v. Statement of Punjab wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India held as under:
“It is hardly necessary to emphasize that the act of recording confessions under section 164 of the Code of Criminal procedure is a very solemn act and, in discharging his duties under this section, the Magistrate must take care to see that the requirements of sub section (3) of section 164 are fully satisfied. It would of course be necessary in every case to put the questions prescribed by the High Court circulars but the questions intended to be put under sub section (3) of section 164 should not be allowed to become a matter of a mere mechanical enquiry. No element of casualness should be allowed to creep in and the Magistrate should be fully satisfied that the 71 confessional statement which the accused wants to make is in fact and in substance voluntary.
The whole object of putting questions to an accused person who offers to confess is to obtain an assurance of the fact that the confession is not caused by any inducement, threat or promise having reference to the charge against the accused person as mentioned in section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. There can be no doubt that, when an accused person is produced before the Magistrate by the investigating officer, it is of utmost importance that the mind of the accused person should be completely freed from any possible influence of the police and the effective way of securing such freedom from fear to the accused person is to send him to jail custody and give him adequate time to consider whether he should make a confession at all. It would naturally be difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as to the time which should be allowed to an accused person in any given case. However, speaking generally, it would, we think, be reasonable to insist upon giving an accused person at least 24 hours to decide whether or not he should make a confession. Where there may be reason to suspect that the accused has been persuaded or concerned to make a confession, even longer period may have to be given to him before his statement is recorded. In our opinion, in the circumstances of this case it is impossible to accept the view that enough time was given to the accused to think over the matter. Indeed, any
Magistrate with enough criminal experience would have
immediately decided to give longer time to Sarwan Singh in the presence case for the obvious reason that Sarwan Singh appeared to the learned Magistrate to be keen on making a confession straightway. The learned Magistrate himself has fairly stated that he would have given him longer time but for his insistence to make a confession without delay. This insistence on the part of Sarwan Singh to make a confession immediately should have put the learned Magistrate on his guard because it obviously bore, traces of police pressure or inducement. Unfortunately, the effect of the failure of the learned Magistrate to grant enough time to the accused to consider the matter has not been considered by the learned Sessions Judge and has been wholly ignored by the learned Judges of the High Court. Besides, in neither court below has any attention been paid to the fact that Sarwan singh appeared to have been kept in police custody without any justification between November 26 and November 30. We have carefully considered all the relevant facts bearing on this question and we see no escape from the conclusion that the failure of the learned Judges of the High Court to take into account these material facts has introduced a serious legal infirmity in their conclusion that the confession made by Sarwan Singh is voluntary. That is why we think we must reverse this conclusion.
72
Even if the confession is held to be voluntary, it must also be established that the confession is true and for the purpose of dealing with this question it would be necessary to examine the confession and compare it with the rest of the prosecution evidence and the probabilities in this case. In our opinion, some material points mentioned in the confessional statement are not shown to be true.
Unfortunately these discrepancies between the confessional statement and the main prosecution evidence given by the approver have not been noticed by the learned Judges of the High Court. Indeed, after having found that the concession was voluntary, it appears to have been assumed by the learned judges that the confession was true and that, in our opinion, is another infirmity in the conclusion reached by the High Court.”
In this backdrop, the evidence of PW165 and PW226 is to be appreciated.
The evidence of PW165 reveals that he worked as a Metropolitan
Magistrate as well as Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Tees Hajari
Courts, New Delhi and on 16.12.2010 the Investigating Officer ie. PW226 moved an application before learned CMM, Delhi for proceedings under section 164 CrPC in respect of A6 and the same was assigned to him by learned CMM, Delhi and after receipt of said order the investigating officer produced the A6 before him in his chamber of the court. Further he deposed that the A6 was produced before him on 16.12.2010 and requested him to record statement / confession of the said person and he directed the investigating officer as well as prosecutor to leave his chambers. He further deposed that consequently they left his chambers and he explained to the
A6 that he is not bound to make statement / confession at all and if he chooses not to do so he shall not be remanded to custody of police / CBI and he had also told the A6 that he is a Magistrate and not a police officer and also explained to the A6 that if he chooses to make confession then it may be read against him in evidence and it may be used against during the trial.
He has also spoken to that he had also put certain other questions to A6 73 regarding his family, educational qualifications etc., and the A6 as to why he is making the confession and he had also asked the A6 whether he is under any fear, force, coercion or inducement or threat by CBI police or any other person. He further deposed that A6 replied that he is making confession voluntarily without any fear, force, coercion or inducement and A6 also informed him that while he was in jail a boy named Kaleem (PW105) had served him very well and had provided him food, as well as clothing and A6 also informed that said Kaleem (PW105) was also arrested in connection with
Mecca Masjid Blast case. He further deposed that A6 further told him that he was moved by the good conduct of Kaleem and he decided to do
Prayaschit (repentance) and A6 further told him that he wants that real culprits should be punished and no innocent should be punished for said
Mecca Masjid Bomb Blast case. He further deposed that after making enquiries as mentioned in the proceedings dated.16.12.2010 he was satisfied that A6 was making confession voluntarily and without any fear, force, coercion and inducement, however in order to give time to the accused for reflection / re-think over his plea, he remanded accused to judicial custody till 18.12.2010.
He also deposed that he had also informed the A6 that he has a right to consult a lawyer of his own choice or a counsel from legal aid if he desires and A6 has stated that he does not want to take the services of any counsel. He further deposed that A6 had also informed him that he is well qualified and he had done M.Sc, Physics in the year 1974 and he had also told him that he can read, write, speak and understand Hindi, English,
Gujarati as well as Bengali language. He further deposed that he directed the investigating officer to get the A6 medically examined in order to rule out possibility of any physical harm/ injury on the person of A6 and he had also sent a letter to the jail superintendent, Tihar Jail to keep the A6 separate 74 from other inmates in order to ensure that no physical/ metal harm caused to the A6 and he had also directed to the concerned jail superintendent to provide legal assistance to the A6 as and when he requests for the same and also directed the concerned jail superintendent to ensure that no officer from
CBI is able to meet accused in jail during this period.
The PW165 further deposed that on 18.12.2010 he had received compliance report from the concerned jail superintendent and he had also received report regarding medical examination of A6, again on 18.12.2010 he had informed the A6 that he is not bound to make confession or any statement at all and if he chooses not to make any statement then he will not be remanded to police custody / custody of CBI and he had again put several questions to accused in order to satisfy himself that A6 is making confession before him voluntarily. He further deposed that all the said questions and answers mentioned in the proceedings dated.18.12.2010 and
before asking those questions in his chamber he had asked the investigating
officer to leave the chamber and at that time of asking of preliminary questions himself, his steno and accused were present and he had also informed the accused that no person from outside can see and hear the proceedings taking place inside the chambers and he will not be sent to custody of CBI/ police if he chooses not to make any statement. Then, the A6 was informed of a right to consult the lawyer of his own choice or seek the assistance of a lawyer from the legal aid, to which the accused refused.
After putting those preliminary questions and after talking with the accused he was satisfied that accused is making confession voluntarily without any fear, force, coercion or any inducement, thereafter he had sent his stenographer out of his chambers and he had personally recorded in his own handwriting the statement of accused. He further deposed that before recording the said statement had also asked the A6 as to in which language 75 he wants to make his statement, then the A6 told me that he wants to make confession in Hindi, thereafter he had recorded his entire statement in Hindi language. He further deposed that after recording the entire statement of accused he had appended his certificate to the effect that he is satisfied that the A6 had made his confessional statement voluntarily without any fear, force, coercion or any inducement and in the said certificate he had also specifically mentioned that the A6 is free not to make confession or statement at all and if he chooses to do so then it may be read in evidence against him.
The PW165 further deposed that the contents of the confessional statement recorded by him in his handwriting were read over to the A6 and after hearing the same the A6 has accepted the same to be true and correct and he had recorded the statement of A6 without administering oath to him and accused had signed and put his thumb impression on each and every paper of his confessional statement and he had also subscribed his signature on each and every page of the confessional statement of accused. He further deposed that in nutshell the accused A6 in his confession statement deposed regarding his inclination toward RSS and various services rendered by him and the work done by him in the tribal areas of Gujarat and A6 had also stated about his resentment about attacks on worship places/ temples of the Hindus. He further deposed that A6 has also stated that he was of the opinion that they should not keep silent and should also do something and
A6 had also informed me that he shared his views with several other persons but he was told by those persons that he should concentrate on working in tribal areas and some work in that direction is being done. He further deposed that the A6 further told him about meetings with other persons and discussing with them regarding taking revenge and the A6 also told him that he suggested places of Mecca Masjid, Ajmeer Dargah etc., for planting 76 bombs etc. and A6 also told him about the phone calls he had received from other accused persons after the bomb blast which had taken place at those places. He further deposed that A6 had also told him about his meetings with Pragya Singh, Manoj and Sunil Joshi and A6 also told him that one
Bharat Bhai who was known to him since 1998 was also present during such meetings and A6 specifically told him about the bomb blast which had taken place in 2006 in Kashi in Sankatmochan Mandir.
He further deposed that the A6 further told him that after that blast they had decided that they will give answer to those blasts and A6 also told him that it was decided that Sunil Joshi (A5) (died) and Bharat Bhai (A7) will go to Jarkhand and will procure pistols and SIM cards, etc. the accused told him that he suggested to go to Gorakhpur as well as Agra and meet Yogi
Adityanath as well as Rajeshwar Singh and the accused further told him that he had handed over a sum of Rs,25000/- to Sunil Joshi and Bhrarat Bhai to procure aforesaid things. He further deposed that A6 also told him about meeting in June, 2006 wherein it was decided that reply of bomb will be given by bomb and A6 also told him that he was asked to sit quietly as efforts are already being made in this direction and further told him that he suggested that in Malegaon, Maharashtra 80% population are Muslims and they should plant a bomb there also. He further deposed that the A6 further told him that he had also suggested that Nizam of Hyderabad was willing to go with Pakisthan at the time of Independence, therefore they should plant a bomb in Hyderabad also and A6 also told him that in Ajmeer, Hindu as well as Muslims go, therefore we should plant a bomb in Ajmeer also due to which Hindus will stop going there and A6 further told him that Sunil Joshi (A5) (died) suggested that Samjhauta Express train runs between India and
Pakisthan and mostly Pakisthani people travel in the same and they should plant bomb in that train also.
77
He further deposed that A6 told him that in the said meeting Sunil
Joshi informed them that pistols and SIM cards have been obtained from
Jarkhand and A6 also told him that Sunil Joshi had informed them that they had not got any help from Yogi Adityanath and Rajeshwar singh and further told him that Sunil Joshi had also told them that in Samjhouta Express bomb blast cannot be carried out with SIM and some chemicals are required for the same, for which Sandeep will arrange. He further deposed that A6 also told him that Sunil Joshi had informed in that in order to carry out bomb blast there should be three groups: one group should assemble the bomb, the second group should arrange funds and third group should execute the work and A6 also told him that it was decided that Sunil Joshi will co-ordinate all the three groups and A6 further told him that he was assigned the job of arranging funds and identifying / arranging places and A6 further told him that Sandeep was assigned the work of assembling the bombs and planting them. He further deposed that A6 further told him that after Diwali Sunil visited him in Shabaridham and by that time blasts at Malegaon had already taken place and A6 further told him that Sunil had informed him about the blast at Malegaon was carried out by our people and A6 further told him that he asked Sunil that in the newpapers it has been reported some Muslims had carried out the said work and some Muslims have been apprehended for the same. He further deposed that A6 further told me that he asked Sunil about the persons who had carried the said blast but Sunil refused to disclose the same and A6 also told him that in February, 2007 Sunil Joshi and Bharat Bhai had met him. He further deposed that A6 further told him that Sunil informed him that in a day or two you will get good news through newspapers and after two or three days he had reached the house of Bharat
Bhai where Sunil and Pragya were already present and A6 further told him that by that time Samjhouta Express bomb blast had already taken place.
78
He further deposed that A6 further told him that Sunil informed him that the said blast was carried out by their men and A6 further told him that
Sunil Joshi had taken a sum of Rs.40,000/- from them in the house of Bharat bhai to carry out bomb blast in Hyderabad and A6 further told him that after three to four days of blast in Mecca masjid, Hyderabad was reported in newspapers. He further deposed that A6 further told him that after seven or eight days Sunil reached Sabari Ashram and told him that the said blast was carried out by their persons and A6 further told him that in October, 2008 he received a phone call from Sandeep Dange and he informed Sandeep Dange that he is going to Nandiad and A6 further told him that Sandeep asked him that whether they were going to Nandiad then he should take them along with them and A6 further told him that he reached Vyara Bus Stand in his
Santro Car and Sandeep and one more person were already present there and both of them boarded his car in hurry. He further deposed that A6 further told him that they were having two or three heavy bags with them and A6 further told him that those two persons informed him that they are coming from Maharashtra and they were not able to talk properly and A6 further informed me that later on he realised that he had met him on the next day of Malegaon bomb blast. He further deposed that A6 further told him that the name of other persons who was accompanying Sandeep was
Ramji and A6 further told him that two or three days before or after every bomb blast Sunil used to inform him that it was a work of their persons and
A6 also told him that till bomb blast at Malegaon, 2008 Sunil was murdered and later on he came to know that Malegaon Blast of 2008 was also carried out by their men.
He further deposed that A6 further told him that till Sunil was alive all the said bomb blasts were carried out jointly by them and A6 further told him that now if he feels that what ever they had done was not correct and 79 he is feeling guilty from inside and therefore he has made present confession. The Ex.P194 is the proceedings dated 16.12.2010 conducted by him containing in eleven pages and Ex.P195 is the proceedings dated 18.12.2010 conducted by him containing in thirteen pages and Ex.P196 is the confessional statement of A6 recorded by him in Hindi language containing in thirty nine 39 pages. The Ex.P197 is the certificate appended to it.
During the course of cross-examination of PW165, it is elicited that the investigating officer did not furnish the investigation case diary to him for perusal along with the requisition. Further he admitted that apart from the nature of the custody of the accused he was not aware of the earlier investigations conducted by the investigating officer. He admitted that the investigating officer did not reveal to him what was revealed by the accused during the course of interrogation and during the period custody from 27.11.2010 to 4.12.2010. He categorically admitted that the investigating officer did not inform him whether the accused was kept from 10.12.2010 till 15.12.2010 and what was revealed in the interrogation. It is elicited in the cross-examination that he directed the investigating officer ie.,
PW226 to leave the A6 in the Tihar Jail on 16.12.2010 for which he came to know that all the buses which take accused persons from court to Tihar Jail had already left and this effect has been mentioned in his proceedings. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that the investigating officer did not inform him that the accused was provided with legal aid at Hyderabad during the police custody. He admitted in the cross-examination that on his own accord he has not chosen to appoint any legal aid to the accused. He volunteered that the accused was very well educated and he did his M.Sc.
Physics and he did not oblige for the legal aid. He has also admitted in the cross-examination that the accused was in CBI custody as on the date of 80 recording the proceedings on 16.12.2010 or 18.12.2010. Further he admitted that he has not cancelled the police custody specifically since he is not competent to cancel the police custody given by the local jurisdiction court.
He agreed that he has not cancelled the police custody expressly. He admitted that he has not sent the statement of accused to the local but he has sent the same to the learned CMM, Delhi for onward transmission to the local jurisdictional court. He denied a suggestion that the headquarters of
CBI is in Delhi and under their influence the statement of accused (A6) was recorded and that he was not volunteer. He denied a suggestion that the the accused was under the control and fear of CBI police on 16.12.2010 and on 18.12.2010 and I have not dispelled his fear.
During the course of cross-examination of PW226, it is elicited that one
Chennakesava Rao was appointed as Legal Aid to defend the A6 during the first spell of police custody from 27.11.2010 to 4.12.2010. He admitted that the above said Legal Aid namely, Chenna Kesava Rao opposed the police custody petition and the court gave directions that the A6 shall be interrogated in the presence of his legal aid. It is elicited that during the police custody in the second spell from 10.12.2012 to 16.12.2010 till he took the accused to Delhi the accused did not make any disclosure leading to recovery of Ex.P383, P384 and P385. It is elicited that A6 disclosed that he intends to confess each and everything. Further he admitted that the said disclosure was made by the A6 on 10.12.2010. When a question posed to him whether A-6 disclosed the above said fact on 10.12.2010 at Hyderabad why he has not taken any steps to get his statement be recorded before the judicial officer at Hyderabad, then he gave his answer that A6 told him that he is slowly beginning to recall the things and he wanted them to give some time to recall and they were also anxious to test the veracity of his claim and tested with one whom he was implicating as prime architect of conspiracy.
81
He denied a suggestion that the A6 did not make any disclosure or intention to make his statement, therefore, he did not reduce the same into writing on 10.12.2010. It is elicited in his cross-examination that A6 was produced
before the jurisdictional court on 20.12.2010. He admitted that he deposed
before a court as a witness in Ajmer Bomb Blast Case. Further he admitted
that Ex.D4 is certified copy of his deposition in the above case and and its true translation is Ex.D5. He admitted in the cross-examination that on 18.12.2010 after recording the confessional statement, A-6 was handed over to him by the PW165.
Adverting to the above said evidence, the PW165 has taken all the precautions in recording the confessional statement of A6 except providing the legal aid. He admitted in the cross-examination that the A6 was in the custody of C.B.I. police as on the recording of his statement on 16.12.2010 and 18.12.2010 and he has also not cancelled the police custody specifically as he is not competent to do so. The evidence of the above said judicial officer PW165 manifestly proves a fact that the A6 was in the police custody on 18.12.2010. Any person who is under surveillance of police it could be regarded as custodial surveillance. More over, as per the testimony of
PW226, the A6 made a disclosure intending to make a confessional statement on 10.12.2010. Ex.D5 is the true translation to the certified copy of the deposition of PW226 in D4 in the court of Special Judge, CBI-I, at Jaipur in Case No.2 of 2011 (Sessions Case).
The above said witness categorically admitted in the cross- examination that on 16.12.2010 when they reached Delhi, for the first time
Asimananda (A6) expressed his desire to confess and he told the same to him in the afternoon. Whereas he stated before this court that the A6 expressed his desire to confess on 10.12.2010. The above said witness has 82 spoken to before this court that A6 disclosed to confess on 10.12.2010.
Thus, it entertains a reasonable doubt as to whether A6 made such a disclosure on10.12.2010 or on 16.12.2010. However, the statement of
PW226 made before the court of Special Judge, CBI-I, at Jaipur in Case No.2 of 2011 (Sessions Case) in Ex.D4, is held to be correct, on the ground that it was made at the earliest point of time. If it is taken into consideration, then the A6 for the first time expressed his desire to confess before the PW226 on 16.10.2010. There is no proper explanation as to why the PW226 was hurry in moving an application before the CMM at New Delhi with a request to record the confessional statement of A6. He had ample opportunity to come down to Hyderabad and after expiry of the police custody of A6 he would have moved an application before the jurisdictional court with a request to record the confessional statement of A6. The A6 was not provided with the legal aid by the PW165 though he was provided with legal aid during the first spell of police custody.
The testimony of PW165 itself proves a fact that on 18.12.2010 the A6 was in the police custody. Thus, this court holds that the confessional statement of A6 under Ex.195 is hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act.
This court holds that the confessional statement of A6 was not a voluntary one, which was recorded during the course of police custody. The said statement has also been retracted by the accused four months thereafter.
The facts and circumstances of the above said authority relied on by the
N.I.A. wherein the officer who recorded the concessional statement of accused has assured that he will not hand him over to police and he will send back to jail. But the facts and circumstances of the case on hand shows that the PW165 handed over the A6 to the PW226 after recording the statement under section 164 CrPC. More over, it is an admitted fact that the
A6 was in the police custody on 18.12.2010. Thus, the facts and 83 circumstances of the above said authority does not apply to this case.
Thus, this court holds that the confessional statement of A6 under
Ex.195 is hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and the same is not a voluntary one which was recorded during the course of police custody. The point is answered accordingly.
12Point No.4:
To prove this point the prosecution relied upon the testimony of
PW108, PW141 toP150, PW184 and PW226 and Exs.P130, P131, P168 to
P173, P173A, P174 to P179, P365 to P372.
The contention of the prosecution is that the A6 was hiding at
Atmalpur Bongla village of Haridwar district of Uttarakhand state andhe obtained voter ID card, ration card in the name of Swamy Omkaranand.
Therefore, the said conduct is relevant in this matter. On the other hand, the contention of the accused is that the prosecution failed to prove the above said hiding and obtaining of those documents in his name.
Coming to the evidence of PW108 that he was working as Assistant
Accounts Officer, Food and Civil Supplies of Uttarakhand State and previously he was accountant in District Panchayatraj Office. He further deposed that one day in the year 2011 and it was on a holiday himself and
PW150 had been to Rurki city since it was a holiday and they found large gathering in front of a BDO office Badrabad, then they went to there and found NIA police, namely Murthy (PW184) and one Ganesh Kumar told the
NIA police that they are Government employees and the NIA police asked to put their signatures in respect of a Ration Card, then they put their signatures on written papers and also on the Ration Card. Ex.P130 is the seizure panchanama dated:1.5.2011d and Ex.P131 is the Ration Card in the name of Swamy Omkaranand. During the course of cross-examination, he 84 has spoken to that he does not know the contents of Ex.P130 and the contents therein has not been read over and explained to them. Further he admitted that the police did not seize Ex.P131 in their presence but they were already holding it. Further he admitted that he does not know what was the reason for seizing of the ration card. Having regard to so, the above said witness does not know about the contents of the seizure panchanama and h put his signatures on the written papers at the instance of N.I.A. police.
Thus, the evidence of PW108 does not have any significance.
The PW141 is a resident of Athmal Bhongla of Haridwar Dist,
Uttarakhand State and at present he is doing Agriculture. He is a retired teacher and he knows one Bhanu Singh Pradhan who is his Villager. He also knows one Shakthi Singh who is also his villager. According to him, the villagers constructed a room in the premises of Temple for residence of one
Swami Brahmanand and he knows Swami Brahmanand. He is not aware one
Swami Omkanand came to the residence of Swami Brahmanand at their village and stayed during the Khumbamela. The above said witness did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
The PW142 is also a resident of Athmalpur Bhongla of Haridwar Dist,
Uttarakhand State and he is a retired employee of BHEL. He has spoken to in his evidence that he does not know anything about this case. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
The PW143 is a resident of Atmalpur, Bongla, Haridwar District,
Uttarakhand and he was was the Pradhan of their village from the year 1989 till 1996. His wife was also Pradhan of their village from the year 2000 to 2005. He knows PW141 and PW144. Further he deposed that he knows
Brahmanand Swamiji who was coming to their village, the villagers constructed a room for residence of Brahmanand Swamiji in the land 85 belongs to Gram Panchayat. He further deposed that In the year 2010
Kumbh Mela was celebrated at Haridwar. He deposed that he does not know one Omkaranand Swamiji. The above said witness did not support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
The PW144 is also a resident of Atmalpur, Bongla, Haridwar District,
Uttarakhand and he is an attender in Revenue Department. He knows
PW141 to PW143, but he does not know anything about this case. He did not support the case of the prosecution. His evidence is not helpful to the prosecution.
The PW145 worked as Village development officer Atmalpur Bongla village of Haridwar District during the year 2011 and PW146 was his predecessor.He deposed that the NIA police served a notice under section 91
CrPC to him and asked to hand over the Ration Card holders Register of
Atmalpur Bongla village. Then he handed over the register to the NIA by endorsing the same on the above said notice. Ex.P172 is the said notice wherein he endorsed that he handed over the said register to the NIA on 30.4.2011. The Ex.P173 is the register containing some pages, Ex.P173-A is the relevant entry at serial no.835 where in the name of Swami
Omkaranand, S/o.V.V.Sarkar, Paramhams, ration card no.284494, unit 1 have been reflected in the said register. During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that the above said register in Ex.P173 and the contents of the said register is known to the author.
The PW146 is also working as Village Development Officer of Atmalpur
Bongla during the years 2006 to till November 2010. According to him,
Ex.P173 was maintained in his office during his tenure, Ex.P174 is the
Photostat certified copy of ration card issued on 18.8.2010 by him in the name of Omkaranand (A6). The witnessed confronted with the Ex.P173 and 86
Ex.P173-A and that he deposed that during his tenure the said register was maintained. During the course of cross-examination he admitted that the
Ex.P173 is not in his hand writing. Further he deposed that he can not identify Omkaranand. It is also elicited that the said person by name
Omkaranand never came and submitted application for ration card. As seen from the evidence of Pw145 and Pw146 they can not identify Swamy
Omkaranand. More over, the above said person Omkaranand never came to the office of PW146 and submitted application for ration card. Then it would be give a scope to as to who submitted the application form of Omkaranand for ration card.
The PW147 is also working as Village Development Officer at Atmalpur,
Bongla village prior to the year 2007-2008. The Pw146 was his successor.
He further deposed that he issued the ration card in Ex.P131 which bears his signatures, the ration card in Ex.P131 was prepared in the name of
Omkaranand Swamy. He further deposed that he issued the Ex.P131 as VDO of Atmalpur, Bongla. During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that Ex.P131 does not bear photograph of the said card holder. He issued
Ex.P131 on the basis of the application submitted to the Gram Panchayath.
Further it is elicited that he does not know the above said Swamy
Omkaranand. Further he admitted that the Ex.P131 does not contain the date of issue. As seen from his evidence that the ration card in Ex.P131 does not bear any photograph. Therefore, no credence will be given to Ex.P131.
Further the issuance of the ration card in Ex.P131 appears to be defective since no photograph was affixed.
The PW148 was the village president of Atmalpur, Bongla from the year 2005 to 2010. He deposed that he heard the name of Brahmanand
Swamiji and earlier to his tenure a room was constructed in the land of Gram
Panchayat for stay of Brahmanand Swamiji and other Swamijis. He deposed 87 that he knows one Samgram Singh is their villager and he never approached the then VDO and requested him to issue a fresh ration card to Swami
Omkaranand. Further he deposed that he came to know through news papers one Swami Omkaranand was involved in Bomb Blast Cases. Thus, the evidence of PW148 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
The PW149 was appointed as Booth Level Officer at Bongla village in the year 2010. She deposed that she was receiving the applications from the villagers of Bongla for enrollment as voters. Further she deposed that she received one application in the name of Swami Omkaranand for enrollment as voter of their village under Ex.P176 which bears her signature.
Further she deposed that she has also prepared the Pariwardhan Suchi wherein the name of Swami Omkaranand ji is reflected at Sl.No.918 and the said Pariwardhan Suchi is marked as Ex.P177 being prepared by her and which bears her signature. The Ex.P178 is Form No.7 of electoral authority issued by her and Ex.P179 is the Vilopan Suchi (Deletion list) prepared by her. During the course of her cross-examination, it is elicited that she has not seen the above said Swamiji and met him personally at the time of submission of application for enrollment as a voter and thereafter. Further he admitted that on enquiry the above said Swamiji found not to be resident of Atmalpur Bongla, therefore his name was reflected in the Ex.P179 vilopan suchi (Deletion list). As seen from her evidence, she does not know who filed the application for the Pariwardhan Suchi wherein the name of Swami
Omkaranand ji is reflected. She received the said application in Ex.P176 but she does not know who filed the said application. Therefore, the evidence of
PW149 does not make any significance for the purpose of identifying theA6.
The PW150 is a village development officer and he deposed that he knows PW108 and at about 5 or 6 years back he and PW108 were going from
Block Office at Bahadarabad and on that day it was a holiday and at about 88 11.00 am or 12.00 noon they found gathering of people in the said office then they went to there and one Ganesh who told NIA personnel that they were Government Employees. The NIA police have shown a ration card and obtained their signatures on the proceedings and also on the ration card.
The Ex.P130 and Ex.P131 bears their signatures. During the course of cross- examination, it is elicited that he does not know the ration card was brought by the NIA police and does not know when the above said panchanama was prepared and he also does not know what are the contents of the said ration card and panchanama. Having regard to so, the evidence of PW150 is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
The PW184 is one of the Investigating officers and he deposed that on 11.4.2011 as per the instructions of DIG, NIA he had taken over the investigation in this matter. Further he deposed that on 30.4.2011 he proceeded to Haridwar as they came to know that the A6 was taking shelter clandestinely in the name of Swamy Omkarananda. Further he deposed that in that connection he recorded the statements of Pw141, Pw142, Lw213
Hemanandpuri Maharaj, Pw143, Pw144, Pw145, Pw146, Pw147, Pw148,
Pw168, Pw149. Further he deposed that in the presence of Pw108 and
Pw150 by conducting the seizure panchanama under Ex.P130 he seized
Ex.P131 that is ration card in the name of Swamy Omkarananda. Further he deposed that he served a notice under section 91 CrPC on Pw145 to produce shop register bearing ration shop dealer Kalyan Singh village, Atmalpur
Bogla, Uttaranchal under Ex.P172 accordingly he produced the said register under Ex.P173. According to him, the relevant entry is 173-A showing at
Sl.No.835 of the said register the name of the Swamy Omkarananda S/o. P B
Sarkar is referred to. Further he deposed that he served a notice under
Sec.91 CrPC to Pw168 to produce Form No-6, application for additional voter list, the original containing photographs of Swamy Omkarananda, 89 photo copy of ration card in the name of Swamy Omkarananda, addition list (original), laser print copy of addition list, Form No.7 Deletion from voter list, deletion list (original) and laser print list of deletion list. Ex.P233 is the said notice served on Pw168. Further he deposed that the said officer has handed over the Ex.P174, Ex.P176, Ex.P177, Ex.P178 and Ex.P179. The
Ex.P176 is affixed by the photograph of A6 Aseemanand in the name of
Swamy Omkarananda, Ex.P174 is also affixed by the photograph of A6 in the name of Swamy Omkarananda, so also the name of Swamy Omkarananda is referred to in Ex.P178 and Ex.P179. During the course of cross-examination, it is elicited that he can not say whether PW173 and PW173A were in the handwriting of Pw145 and Pw146. Further he admitted that he does not know in whose handwriting that the Ex.P173 and Ex.P173-A were prepared.
Further he admitted that he has not collected the original of Ex.P174. He admitted that as the Pw146 issued the Ex.P131 in the name of
Omkarananda. It is elicited that as per his investigation earlier the name of
Swamy Omkarananda was enrolled in the voter list and thereafter it was deleted as no such person was residing at that place.
As the PW147 deposed that Ex.P131 does not bear the photograph of the card holder, it is held the issuance of the ration card is defective. Further the PW149 who received the application in the name of Swamy Omkaranand in Ex.P176 admitted in the cross-examination that she has not seen the above Swamy and met him personally. Further her evidence reveals that the name of the said Swamiji was entered in the Ex.P179 Vilopan Suchi, later he was not found to be a resident of their village. As the evidence of PW147 and
PW149 does not make sure as the Swamy Asimanand submitted applications for ration card and for enrollment of his name in the voters list.
Admittedly when A6 was found to be not in village there is every probability of filing application on his name may be possible and it entertains a 90 reasonable doubt. Therefore, the documentary evidence under Exs.P174,
P176, P178 and P179 does not give any raise showing that A6 moved such applications for his ration card and for enrollment of his name in the voters list of the said village. The investigating agency has not referred to the admitted specimen handwritings and signatures of A6 with that of the disputed hand writings and signatures found on the applications purported to have been submitted by A6 for issuance of ration card and to get enrollment in the voters list for comparison. Hence it entertains a reasonable doubt as to whether the A6 has submitted such application forms for the purpose of getting the ration card as well as enrollment of his name in the voters list of Atmalpur Bongla village or not. In view of the evidence of
PW147 and PW149, the evidence of Pw184 does not make any significance.
Coming to the evidence of PW226, he arrested the A6 on 19.11.2010 at Atamalpur Bongla, District Haridwar, Uttarkhand. Ex.P.365 is the arrest memo of A6 Naba Kumar Sarkar @ Swamy Asimananda issued by him.
Ex.P366 is the arrest cum personal search memo of A6. Ex.P.367 is the personal search memo of A6. Ex.P.368 is personal inspection memo of A6.
Ex.P369 is the list of items found in the possession of A6. Further Ex.P.370 is the Indian Passport bearing No.F5973917 with photograph in the name of A6
Naba Kumar Sarkar @ Swamy Asimananda. Ex.P.371 is the ration card with photograph bearing No.284494 issued by Gram Panchayat, Development
Officer Village Bongla, Haridwar on 08.08.2010 in the name of Swamy
OmKaranand. Ex.P.372 is the Voter Identity Card bearing No. IF10081307 in the name of Swamy OmKaranand. MO29 is the Vodaphone 136 mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 352786038823819 S/N 329493463490 with a
Reliance Sim Card bearing No. 8991221810000630175 and reported to have a public number 9027877712. MO30 is the cash of Rs.79,350/-.
91
He further deposed that Ex.P.381 is one loose sheet of paper containing some travel itinary in some handwriting. Ex.P.382 is the E-Ticket bearing PNR No.8404988298 in the name of A-6 Naba Kumar Sarkar @
Swamy Asimananda, Ujjain to Haridwar dated 11.11.2010 which were found in the position of A-6 when he conducted the search on the date of arrest.
The above said documents in Exs.P370, P371, P372, P381 and P382 and MO29 and MO30 have not been seized. On perusal of Ex.P365 arrest memo, Ex.P366 arrest cum personal search memo of A-6, Ex.P367 personal search memo, Ex.P368 personal inspection memo and Ex.P369 list of items found in possession of A6, it is found that the said proceedings were conducted in the presence of mediators namely Mr.BenoyV.Murali @
Binoth.v.Murali and Mr.Mukesh Sharma. The above said mediators have not been examined by the prosecution so as to prove conducting of the above said proceedings and seizure of all the above said documents and material objects, except examination of PW226. Ex.P.382 is the E-Ticket bearing PNR
No.8404988298 in the name of A-6 Naba Kumar Sarkar @ Swamy
Asimananda, Ujjain to Haridwar dated 11.11.2010. Had the A6 intended to hide his name he would have taken the E-ticket in the name of Omkaranand in stead of his original name as Naba Kumar Sarkar @ Swamy Asimananda.
Therefore, this court holds that it is not fully established that A6 was hiding at Atmalpur Bongla village of Haridwar district of Uttarakhand in the name of Swamy Omkaranand and he had also moved applications for ration card and getting enrollment in the voters list. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
92 13Point No.5:
To prove this point, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of
PW216.
Coming to the evidence of PW216, he worked as Sub Inspector of police cum Special Branch police officer at Jhamtara of Jarkhand State from the year 2007 to the year 2009. He was entrusted with the duty of collecting local intelligence i.e., activities of various Hindu Organizations and extremists organizations. According to him, Jamtara area is communally sensitive area wherein the population of Muslims is more than 30%. He identified the A1 who is produced before this court through Electronic video linkage from Jaipur Jail. He deposed that A1 was the District Pracharak of
RSS of Jamtara District. He further deposed that he was also conversing with him to know the activities of RSS at Jamtara and collecting the information regarding the communal issues. It is evident from his evidence that the speech given by the A1 happened to be aggressive and provoking the communal feelings. Further he deposed that the A1 knows one Joshi, DSP of
Rajasthan police. In the year 2007 the above said Joshi came to Jamtara to enquire with regard to fake SIMs purchase in the name of Babulal yadav and in respect of the Ajmir Bomb Blast and Mecca Masjid Bomb Blast and met him. He further deposed that he also assisted Mr.Joshi in the investigation when he had been to Jamtara and the A1 also met Joshi, DSP when he was present. The A1 enquired with regard to the above said cases details from
Joshi, DSP. The above said Joshi asked him to keep watch on the A1 and his activities. Further he deposed that Pw198 came to Jamtara with regard to the identification of persons who purchased the SIM cards and mobile phones basing on the false documentation. He has spoken to in his evidence that the A1 was calling me from two mobile numbers and he can recollect the last three digits of those mobile phone numbers that are 425 and 338.
93
During the course of his cross-examination, it is elicited that whenever the information collected by him was reduced into writing and he was submitting the same to his superior officers periodically. Further it is elicited that he was also informing the information collected by him during his official duties to the local police for immediate action. He categorically admitted that during the said period when he working as a special branch police officer he had not submitted anything against the A1 by reducing in to writing to his superior officer, but he informed against A1 to the local police officer. It is also elicited that he was contacting with one Dubey and one
Agarwal who were activists of Hindu organizations at Jamtara. It is elicited that he cannot remember the names of the activists of extremists organizations (naxalites). It is also elicited that he was also conversing with the Dubey and Agarwal on cell phones. Further he admitted that whenever any speech of any person in any public meeting he used to reduced the same briefly and submitting the same to the local police and superior officers. He denied a suggestion that the A1 did not give any aggressive speech at any point of time provoking the communal tensions. He denied a suggestion that he never introduced A1 to Mr.Joshi, DSP.
There is no record to show what were the communal hatred speeches of Devender Gupta (A1) being delivered at Jamtara. The oral evidence of
PW216 does not give any raise that the A1 was giving hatred speeches. Had the A1 given the hatred communal speeches, definitely the PW216 would have reported the same to the superior officers, thereby an action would have been initiated. Nothing is there on record to show the A1 was booked in any case for his alleged speeches in Jamtara area. The Rashtriya Swayam
Sevak Sangh is not proscribed organization. If any person works in it, it does not give any scope that he is a communal and anti-social.
94
Hence, this court holds that the evidence of PW216 does not give any scope that the A1 was a communal hatred being a Pracharak of RSS beyond reasonable doubt. Hence this point is answered accordingly.
14Point No.6:
To prove this point, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of
PW226 and Exs.P351 to P359.
It is evident from the version of PW226 that he took out the print out copy of CDR (Call Data Record) of Mobile Number 9732110207 from Rajastan
ATS officer Mr. Bhatnagar and the said mobile number is in the name of one
Babulal Yadav. He deposed that Ex.P.351 is the printout which being marked subject to objection raised by the defence counsel. Further he deposed that he also collected copies of CDR of mobile numbers 9931310202, 9732110289, 9832912555, 9932330048, 9931304642, 9931310168, 9732510019, 9932510019, from Rajastan ATS officer Mr. Bhatnagar. Further he deposed that out of which mobile bearing Nos.9832912555 and 9932510019 are in the name of Sri Ramesh Agarwal and the rest are in the name of Babulal Yadav. Ex.P.352 is the CDR of mobile number 9931310202 containing 2 pages, Ex.P.353 is the CDR of mobile number 9732110289 containing 2 pages, Ex.P.354 is the CDR of mobile number 9832912555 containing one page, Ex.P.355 is the CDR of mobile number 9932330048 containing one page, Ex.P.356 is the CDR of mobile number 9931304642 containing 1 page, Ex.P.357 is the CDR of mobile number 9931310168 containing one page, Ex.P.358 is the CDR of mobile number 9732014822 containing one page, Ex.P.359 is the CDR of mobile number 9932510019 containing one page. The Exs.P.352 to P.359 have been marked subject to objection raised by the defence counsel with regard to their admissibility.
95
It is evident from the version of PW226 that the mobile numbers 9832912555 and 9932510019 are in the name of Sri Ramesh Agarwal and the 9931310202, 9732110289, 9932330048, 9931304642, 9931310168, 9732510019 are in the name of Babulal Yadav. Ex.P351 refers to Mobile
Number 9732110207. The said document is signed by the PW226, but not under the authority ie. The service provider. Ex.P.352 is the Call Data Record of mobile number 9931310202, which is one of the mobile numbers in the name of Babulal Yadav. Teh said document reveals that on 1.6.2006 from the above said number a call was given to IME No.359396000373330. The said document is under the signature of PW226, but not under the signature of the competent authority. Ex.P352 is also the Call Data Record with reference to Mobile Number 9931310202 which is giving a call to IMEI
No.359396000373330 and IMEI No.359351004947430. The calls were given on 6.2.2006, 6.3.2006, 6.8.2006, 15.7.2006 and 12.8.2006.
The Ex.P353 is also the Call Data Record referring to Mobile number 9732110289 which is in the name of Babulal Yadav containing 2 pages, wherein it is mentioned in the second page that a call was made on 6.3.2006 to the IMEI No.359396000373330. Ex.P354 is the Call Data Record in respect of Mobile number 9832912555 containing one page in the name of Babulal
Yadav and call was given to SIM with IMEI No.358849003705420 on 26.11.2006. The above said document is under the signature of PW226, but not under the signature of the competent authority. Ex.P355 is also the Call
Data Record referring to Mobile number 9932330048 containing one page which is in the name of Babulal Yadav vide IMEI No.358849003705420 and calling om mobile numbers 9831012345 on 8.6.2006. The above said document is under the signature of PW226 but not under the signature of the competent authority.
96
The Ex.P356 is the Call Data Record referring to Mobile number 9931304642 which is in the name of Babulal Yadav and from which a call said to have given to SIM with IMEI No.359396000373330. Ex.P357 is the
Call Data Record referring to Mobile number 9931310168 being in the name of Babulal Yadav calling IMEI No.358815003298500 on 1.6.2006 and 5.6.2006. The above said document is under the signature of PW226, but not under the signature of the competent authority. Ex.P358 is also the Call Data
Record referring to Mobile number 9732014822 with party No.01202701607 from 1.9.2006 to 29.6.2007 with S.Date 19.11.2006 and IMEI
No.358849003705420. The above said is under the signature of PW226, but not under the signature of the competent authority. Ex.P359 is the Call Data
Record referring to mobile number 9932510019 which is in the name of
Ramesh Agarwal with IMSI No.405511001356728 and IMEI
No.353235013075660, 358849003705420 and the call date was on 11.7.2006. The above said document is under the signature of PW226 but not in the signature of the competent authority.
The case of the prosecution is that while exhibiting Exs.P87 to P90 through PW71, PW72 submitted that the two SIM card Numbers, one Mobile
Number 9732110289 which was found at Mecca Masjid bomb blast in an unexploded IED with Nokia Mobile Number with IMEI No.353938014288999 and other SIM card with Mobile Number 9732110207 which was found at
Ajmeer bomb blast case and exploded Nokia Mobile with IMEI No.
357088006508510 were purchased from M/s.Sargam Audio Limited bearing fictitious Driving License No.WB-28-289892 in the name of Babulal Yadav.
The above said documents were not under the seal and signatures of the service providers. The PW226 has admitted in the cross-examination that he has not examined the service providers of mobile numbers under Exs.P351 toP359. Further he has not examined the ATS Rajasthan Officer Mr.Bhatnagar 97 as a witness from whom he received the said printout copies of the above said CDRs under Exs.P351 to P359. The said documents are electronic records which come under 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
In this regard, the accused relied upon the authority of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.4226 of 2012 rendered
between Anvar P.V. v. P.K.Basheer reported in AIR 2015 SC 180, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
“14. Under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) there must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement, (b) the certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced, (c) the certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record, (d) the certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act, and (e) the certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
15. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, compact disc (CD), Video compact disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.
16. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of section 65B of the Evidence Act the question would arise so as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A – opinion of examiner of electronic evidence.
17. The evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India.
22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted herein before, being a special provision, the general law on 98 secondary evidence under section 63 read with section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia special bus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, the court omitted to take note of sections 59 and 65A dealing with the admissibility of electronic record. Sections 63 and 65 have no application in the case of secondary evidence by way of electronic record,the same is wholly governed by sections 65A and 65B. To that extent, the statement of law on admissibility of secondary evidence pertaining to electronic record, as stated by this court in Navjot Sandhu case (supra), does not lay down the correct legal position. It requires to be overruled and we do so. An electronic record by way of secondary evidence shall not be admitted in evidence unless the requirements under section 65B are satisfied. Thus, in the case of CD, VCD, chip, etc. the same shall be accompanied by the certificate in terms of section 65B obtained at the time of taking the document, without which, the secondary evidence pertaining to that electronic record, is inadmissible.”
On the other hand, the prosecution relied upon the authority of
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India rendered between Shafi Mohammad v. the
State of Himachal Pradesh reported in (2018) 2 SCC 801 wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as under:
“11. Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 can not be held to be a complete code on the subject. In Anwar P.V. (Supra) this court in para 24 clarified that primary evidence of electronic record was not covered under sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act. Primary evidence is the document produced before court and the expression 'document' is defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act to mean any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.
12. The term 'electronic record' is defined in section 2(t) of the Information Technology Act, 2000 as follows: 'Electronic record' means data, record or date generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro film or computer generated micro fiche.
13. Expression 'data' is defined in Section 2(o) of the Information Technology Act as follows: 'Data' means a representation of information, knowledge, facts, concepts or instructions which are being prepared or have been prepared in a formalised manner, and is intended to be processed, is being processed or has been processed in a computer system or computer network, and may be in any form (including computer printouts magnetic or optical 99 storage media, punched cards, punched tapes) or stored internally in the memory of the computer.
14. The applicability of procedural requirement under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act of furnishing certificate is to be applied only when such electronic evidence is produced by a person who is in a position to produce such certificate being in control of the said device and not of the opposite party. In a case where electronic evidence is produced by a party who is not in possession of a device, applicability of sections 63 and 65 of the Evidence Act can not be held to be excluded. In such case, procedure under the said sections can certainly be invoked. If this is not so permitted, it will be denial of justice to the person who is in possession of authentic evidence/witness but on account of manner of proving, such document is kept out of consideration by the court in absence of certificate under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, which party producing can not possibly secure. Thus, requirement of certificate under section 65B(h) is not always mandatory.”
Admittedly, the PW226 has not examined the service providers of all the documents under Exs.P351 to 359 and he has not examined the ATS
Rajasthan Officer Mr.Bhatnagar as a witness from whom he collected the printout copies of the above said documents. The PW226 did not obtain any certificate as required under Section 65B. At least he could have examined the service providers of the Mobile Numbers mentioned under Exs.P351 to
P359 to prove the above said documents. The Pw226 could have examined the above said Officer Mr.Bhatnagar, but he failed to do so. Then, the source of getting the above said Call Data Records has not been proved.
Thus, the Exs.P351 to P359 are not admissible in evidence and the prosecution failed to prove the nexus between the A1 and Exs.P351 to P359 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, this point is answered accordingly.
15. Point No.7:
To prove this point, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of
PW226 and Ex.P373. Further it relied upon Exs.P377 and P378.
100
The PW226 has spoken to in his evidence that on 12.10.2010 he received a letter from Nodal Officer, Reliance Communications along with original CAF of Mobile Number 9334371425 in the name of Devender Gupta (A1) along with the copy of Driving License in the name of Devender Gupta (A1) and a copy of Election Identity Card of Paban Kumar Mathur and his address referred to in copy of election identity card is shown as the address of Devender Gupta in Customer Application Form. Ex.P.377 is the covering letter dated 12.10.2010 and Ex.P.378 is the CAF of mobile number 9334371425. It is revealed from the cross-examination of PW226 that he has not referred the hand writings and signatures found on Ex.P378 with that of the hand writings and signatures of A1. The PW226 did not examine any of the persons from Sri Mahalaxmi Enterprises, Jamtara said to have verified the details of the customers. The agency which issued the above said Mobile
Number in the name of Devender Gupta (A1) is not examined. The PW226 deposed that LW193 R.S. Dhankhar has received the call data records of mobile number 9334371425 for the period 01.02.2007 to 07.12.2007 containing 124 pages which is marked as Ex.P.373 (subject to objection raised by the defence counsel to decide the same at the time of delivering in the judgment). As seen from Ex.P373 it is a copy of call data details. The competent authority which issued the same has not subscribed any signature. The PW226 subscribed his signature.
In view of the judgment of Shafi Mohammed (stated supra) the
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that the legal position on the
admissibility of electronic evidence especially by a party which is not in possession of the device from which the document is produced, such party would be required to produce certificate under section 65B of the Indian
Evidence Act and the applicability of the procedural requirement of the certificate is not mandatory in the interest of justice. Therefore, the 101 certificate under section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as required for
Ex.P373 can be relaxed in the interest of justice. But the prosecution failed to prove the above said document being issued by the concerned service provider. Mere exhibiting the document does not dispense with proof. No officer of the Reliance Communication is said to have issued Call Data
Record under Ex.P373 has been examined. In absence of such evidence, it is not safe to place reliance on Ex.P373.
Hence, this court holds that the above said document in Ex.P373 is not admissible in evidence. Even assuming that the person ie., A1 being customer of the Mobile Number 9334371425 made phone calls to the
Mobile number 942406007 on 17.5.2007 or 18.5.2007 referred in Ex.P373 at 8.25 AM, 6.25 PM, 8.40 AM and 8,.41 AM on 17.5.2007 and 18.5.2007 respectively, that does not give raise what was the communication between them unless and until the conversation under the interception being produced. There is no evidence on record showing that the mobile phone number 9424060007 was used by Sunil Joshi (A5) (since died) in the name of
Yuvraj Singh. As the prosecution failed to adduce the evidence of Sri
Mahalaxmi Enterprises, Jamtara who allotted the Mobile Number 9334371425 allegedly in favour of Devender Gupta (A1) and the disputed hand writings and signatures on the Ex.P378 has not been referred to the handwriting expert with that of hand writings and signatures of A1 to prove that the Ex.P378 is under the signature of A1. At the same time, there is no record showing that the Mobile Number 9424060007 has been used by Sunil
Joshi (A5) (since died) in the name of Yuvraj. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the nexus between the A1 and Ex.P373. The point is answered accordingly.
102 16Point No.8:
To prove this point, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of
PW226 and Exs.P386 to P396.
The PW226 deposed that he learnt from ATS Officer of Rajasthan
Mr.Bhatnagar that A1 disclosed that he obtained Learners Driving License by creating fake documents for himself and Sunil Joshi (A5) (since died) in the name of Manoj Kumar and it was in the last week of May, 2010 and then he went to Mr.Bhatnagar and gave a letter under Ex.P386 and he received
Exs.P387 to P396. Ex.P387 is the fee payment receipt for driving license in the name of D.Gupta dated 30.9.2005 and Ex.P388 is the learners license number 6944 dated 8.7.2005 in the name of Devender Gupta (A1). The transfer certificate in the name of Devender Gupta issued by Heerapur
Manikchand Thakur Institution, Burdwan is Ex.P389 which is unattested photostat copy and Ex.P390 is also a fee receipt for learner license in the name of Devender Gupta dated 7.7.2005 and the photostat copy of ration card bearing No.15225505 in the name of Devender Gupta is Ex.P391. The learners license bearing No.6945 in the name of Manoj Kumar dated 8.7.2005 is Ex.P393 and Ex.P394 is the fee receipt dated 7.7.2005 for learners license in the name of M.Kumar. Ex.P395 is the photostat copy of ration card in the name of Manoj Kumar s/o.Ram Dayal bearing
No.15225505. Ex.P396 is the photostat copy of transfer certificate in the name of Manoj Kumar issued by Heerapur Manikchand Thakur Institution.
Further he deposed that the name of PW102 whom he has examined appears on Ex.P388 (Form No.2) and also Ex.P393 (Form No.2) and also on
Ex.P394. Further he has spoken to in his evidence that except Exs.P391 and
P395 have the same number 15225505 and serial number 224/01 have been created by the applicants ie,. Devender Gupta (A1) and Manoj Kumar @ Sunil
Joshi (A5) (since died).
103
During the course of cross-examination, it is elicited that he has not collected any document showing disclosure of A1 before ATS Rajasthan. He admitted that he has not collected any document from ATS Rajasthan or from the concerned court to prove the above said fact that is alleged disclosure. Further he admitted that he has not recorded the statement of
Satyender Singh Ranawath who informed him about the disclosure by A1. It is elicited in his cross-examination that the handwriting of word 'Parimal' written on Ex.P388 and on Ex.P394 is different but he can not say they are one and the same. It is also elicited that the above said documents are corroborative piece of evidence. He admitted that he did not examine any official from the Transport Department of Burdwan District to prove the authenticity of the above said documents. Further he has not referred to the above said documents to prove the dispute hand writings with that of the admitted hand writings of either the accused or the witnesses.
The attempt of the prosecution is that A1 and A5 Sunil Joshi (since died) @ Manoj Kumar obtained the learners driving license under the above said documents, therefore, they are known to each other. The A1 Devender
Gupta stated in his examination under Section 313 CrPC that he learnt driving from one subbatro and he obtained his signatures for the purpose of getting the license. Mere getting the license by the A1 under the above said documents in Ex.P388 in the year 2005 does not give any raise or scope as the same was obtained with an intention to use the same in the alleged conspiracy. More over, there is no proof on record that Manoj Kumar is the A5
Sunil Joshi (died).
Hence, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove the nexus between the A1 and the Exs.P387 to P396 beyond reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly.
104 17Point No.9:
In order to prove this point, the prosecution relied upon the testimony of PW47, PW96, PW176, PW187 and PW194 and Exs.P215 and P249.
Coming to the evince of PW47, he deposed that he is a resident of
Fareedabad, Hariyana state and he is doing business in Mobile Cell Phone and his shop name is LEC communication, Fareedabad, Hariyana state.
Further he deposed that their shop deals with all brands of mobile phones including Nokia, Samsung, Mircomax, Karbon, etc. Further he deposed that their salesman has sold Nokia handset model no.6030 in the year 2007 and he can not give the date and he does not remember the IMEI number of the said handset. Ex.P69 is the DNS Distribution Private Limited invoice dt.21.4.2007 and Ex.P70 is the Day book of their shop and Ex.P71 is the relevant entry in Ex.P70. During the course of cross-examination there is nothing to show that Ex.P70 pertains to their shop. He has also admitted that their shop might have sold so many Nokia 6030 model phones in that month ie., in April, 2007.
The PW96 is a resident of Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh and he deposed that he is not aware of the SIM cards purchased by Sunil Joshi, Ramji from
Jhamtara which were used in Ajmeer Blast and the procurement of SIM cards of various mobile phones by the A1. Further he deposed that he was taken to the Chanchalguda prison, Hyderabad on 26.6.2010 to participate in the TI parade on some suspect and the CBI police has shown a photograph of that suspect and asked me to identify that person in the TI parade. He did not support the case of the prosecution.
The PW176 has been working as ASI of the Delhi Police since the year 1983. He deposed that he got training of portrait courses in the year 2000 from NCRB, Delhi. Further he deposed that on the request of SP, CBI he met
Inspector Jha and he introduced one PW187 who will give the physical 105 features and descriptive particulars of suspect and asked me to prepare the portrait of such suspect by drawing it, then he prepared the portrait of the above said suspect when the PW187 gave the physical features and descriptive particulars of suspect. Ex.P215 is the printout of the portrait of suspect. During the course of cross-examination he admitted that he has not noted down the descriptive particulars and physical features of suspect as furnished by PW187. Further he admitted that as per the data fed in the computer of the suspect he prepared the hard copy of Ex.P215. He admitted that portrait in Ex.P215 was not compared with any photograph of a person.
Coming to the evidence of PW187 he worked as a salesman in M/s.LEC
Communications during the year 2004-2005 to the year 2008 and PW47 and one Amit Bansal were the owners of the M/s.LEC Communications. Further he deposed that he does not know whether a person had been to their shop on 24.04.2007 and purchased two mobile phones of Nokia model 6030 without obtaining the bill. He further deposed that he has not given any descriptive particulars and physical features of a person said to have purchased two mobile phones from their shop. He further deposed that in the year 2010 he was brought to the Hyderabad by the CBI police and they took me to a jail i.e., Chanchalguda Jail. Further he deposed that he was brought to Hyderabad for a day purpose but he was kept for a period of 10 days by the CBI police and his mother was also brought to the Hyderabad along with him. Further he deposed that they were kept in the guest house of the CBI at Hyderabad and they have shown a photograph of a person stating that he had to identify the said person in the jail. He identified the above said person (A2 Lokesh Sharma) as he had seen his photograph prior to TI parade. He has participated in the TI parade conducted on 26.06.2010 on the A2 by the Judge. The above said witness did not support the case of 106 the prosecution. He has not identified the A2 in the court hall.
Coming to the evidence of PW194, who is a judicial officer who conducted the Test Identification Parade (T.I.Parade) on Lokesh sharma (A-2 in this matter) with PW96 and PW187. He further deposed that he has also addressed a letter to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Chanchalguda for making necessary arrangements of T.I.Parade. He deposed that on 26-06- 2010 the CBI police produced the above said witnesses ie., PW96 and PW187 after serving the summons and the said witnesses have been produced
before him in the court hall of XII ACMM. He recorded the statement of the
witnesses as to whether they can identify the above said suspects or not as well as the physical features of the above said suspects. Further he deposed that thereafter himself, the witnesses, my attender went to the Central
Prison, Chenchalguda at 3.45 pm. Further he deposed that the jail authority provided five Non-suspects and the suspect Lokesh Sharma in the guard room, he noted their names and obtain their signatures. He further deposed that the PW96 and PW187 identified the A2 Lokesh Sharma who was standing in the fourth position and second position in the row respectively.
The Ex.P249 is the T.I.Parade proceedings. During the course of cross- examination, it is elicited that he prepared the annexures at the place of
T.I.Parade and returned back to the court and dictated the same to the
Typist. It is elicited in his cross-examination that the witness the Annexure-III does not disclose from which direction of the row Serial No.1 starts ie., from left or right. Further he admitted that the Annexure III does not disclose the names of the non-suspects who stood in their positions. He admitted that the statement of PW187 that the suspect was with Bald head and wearing
Spects and there was little bit hair on the head. Further he admitted that he has not not selected the non-suspects from the prisoners provided by the jail authority. He has also admitted that there is no reference in the TI parade 107 proceedings that the non-suspects were having similar features with that of the suspect.
As seen from the above, the procedure of conducting the T.I.parade in the jail and coming over to the court and dictating the proceedings in the court hall, is nothing but illegal and not in consonance with Rule.34 of the
Criminal Rules of Practice. It is also not mentioned from which direction of the row the Serial No.1 starts ie., from left or right. If it is not shown, if a person stands in the row, for example at second position with five non- suspects if it is from left side that person would be at second position and if it is from right side that person would be at fourth position. There is no reference with regard to the non-suspects were also having similar features with that of the suspects ie,. bald head and etc.
Both the witnesses have not identified the Lokesh Sharma (A2) in the court as they do not know that person. Admittedly the Lokesh Sharma (A2) was a stranger to the PW96 and PW187. The identification of the A2 by the above said witnesses in the T.I.Parade conducted by PW194 is a weak piece of evidence. More over, it is held supra that the proceedings conducted by
PW194 are not in consonance with Rule.34 of the Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders.
Hence, it is held that identification of the second accused is not proved that he purchased two Nokia 6030 mobile handsets from the shop of PW187 on 24.4.2007 beyond reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly.
18Points Nos.10 and 11:
To prove this point, the prosecution relied upon the confessional statement of A6 under Ex.P196 and the testimony of PW165 and PW221.
The Ex.P196 reveals that in the month of February, 2007, A6 met Sunil
Joshi (A5) and Bharath Bhai (A7) and Sunil Joshi informed him that in one or 108 two days he will get good news through the newspaper. Further it reveals that A6 told that after 2 or 3 days he had reached the house of A7 where
Sunil Joshi (A5) (since died) and Pragya were also present. Further it reveals that they told him that Samjhauta Express bomb blast had also been taken place. Further it reveals that Sunil Joshi (A5) (since died) informed the A6 that the blast was carried by them. Further it reveals that Sunil Joshi (A5) (since died) told A6 that he had taken a sum of Rs.40,000/- from them in the house of A7 to carry out the bomb blast in Hyderabad. Further it reveals that
A6 knows the A7 since 1998 who was also present during such meetings. It also revels that A6 handed over Rs.25,000/- to Sunil Joshi (A5) (since died) and A7 to procure SIM cards and pistols.
The PW221 is one of the Investigating officers who filed the charge sheet against A7. He categorically admitted in the cross-examination that no incriminating material or documents were recovered at the instance of A7.
He has also admitted that as on the date of filing of charge sheet against A3 and A4, the A7 was a witness as per the case diary.
It is held supra in Point No.3 that the confessional statement of A6 was not voluntary one and it was hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act. It is held supra that A6 retracted the said confession.
Thus, participating in several meetings by A7 at Thakur Ghar, Mahadev
Nagar, Mograwadi, Valsad, Gujarat State and payment of amount of
Rs.25,000/- to Sunil Joshi (A5) (since died) for procuring SIM cards and pistols and Sunil Joshi (A5) had taken an amount of Rs.40,000/- at the house of A7 for carrying out the Mecca Masjid Bomb Blast at Hyderabad, held to be not proved which is based on discarded confessional statement of A6. Hence these points are answered accordingly.
109 19Point No.12:
To prove this point the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of
PW118, PW119, PW186, PW221, PW223 and Exs.P327, P328, P329 and P331.
Coming to the evidence of PW118 he deposed that he worked as
Inspector in Central Excise at Hyderabad from the year 2013 and the NIA personnel called him and PW119 Inspector of Central Excise to the NIA office, Begumpet, then they went to there and the NIA police introduced A8 who confessed about the offence and when he enquired with him as to why he is in the custody of the NIA. Further he deposed that the NIA recorded the confessional statement of A8 and obtained their signatures. Further he deposed that they also visited the scene of offence, Nampally Railway station, Sulabh Complex nearer to the Nampally Railway station and MGBS along with the A8 and NIA personnel and the NIA personnel prepared the rough sketch map of the above said areas. During the course of cross- examination, he denied a suggestion that A8 did not confess anything about the offence in their presence and he did not take them to the above said place.
The PW119 who worked as Inspector of Central Excise Hyderabad has also spoken to in the same lines of PW118. During the course of cross- examination, he denied a suggestion that A8 did not confess anything before them and he did not take them to the above said places.
The PW186 has spoken to in his evidence that on 14.03.2013 he summoned PW118 and PW119 and he examined the A8 in their presence who confessed how he came to Hyderabad along with Tejoram (A9 who is not charge sheeted) and they got down at Nampally Railway Station and they attended the natural calls at Sulabh complex opposite to Nampally railway station from there they went to Charminar area and the business area in and around Charminar and Mecca Masjid and they conducted the 110 recci and later they returned back and collecting two bags and they reached
Hyderabad at about 7.00 am and they went to Mecca Masjid within half an hour or one hour and they entered in to Mecca Masjid under the guise of pilgrims separately and they separately planted the bombs inside of the premises that is under the Taqath and another hanged to the grills and they returned back and on the next day they read the newspapers and came to know about one bomb blast kept under the Taqath and other bomb was not exploded. Further he deposed that he involved in other cases of Samjhouta
Express Bomb blast and Malegaon Bomb blast and he told that the can lead the places where he had been earlier. Ex.P237 is rough sketch map of pointing out memo of Nampally railway station. Ex.P238 is the rough sketch map of pointing out memo of sulabh complex opposite to Nampally station.
Ex.P239 is the rough sketch map of pointing out memo of Mecca Masjid.
Ex.P240 is also rough sketch map pointing out map of MGBS. During the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he did not ask the mediators to reduce the statement of A8. He admitted that no incriminating material was recovered at Nampally Railway Station nor at Sulabh complex or
Charminar area, Mecca Masjid, MGBS. Further he admitted that he did not collect any documentary evidence to show that they traveled in the train and came down to Hyderabad.
The PW221 deposed that on 22.12.2012 the Investigating Officer (PW223) of Samjhouta Express Train Bomb Blast Case through his letter inEx.P327 informed him A8 was arrested on 15.12.2012 in that case who disclosed that he along-with one Tejoram of Jaipalpur, Indore District had planted two IEDs in Mecca Masjid premises on 18.05.2007. He further deposed that accordingly on 22.03.2013 basing on the disclosure memo revealed by A8 on 14.3.2013 he took the A8 to Indore wherein he had prepared a pointing out memo at Door No.52, Sarwasampanna Nagar, 111
Manavata Nagar where he revealed that he along-with Tejoram shared that house and left in a white colour maruti van driven by A4 to go to Hyderabad on 17.05.2007. Further he deposed that he has also prepared the rough sketch map of Door No.52, Sarwasampanna nagar, Manavata nagar which is marked as Ex.P328. He further deposed that on 24.03.2013 he has prepared one more disclosure cum pointing out memo of A8 of Baghlee Hills and forest area and Dewas District containing in three pages. He further deposed that he has also prepared rough sketch map which is marked as Ex.P329. He further deposed that on 24.03.2013 he has prepared pointing out memo at
Sadar Bazar Police station, Indore at the instance of A8 where he has shown a silver colour maruthi van bearing Reg.No.MP 09 V 5629 which was used for their transportation by A4 and it was in white colour at that time and it was already seized by another investigating officer in Cr.No.9 of 2010 Samjhouta
Tran Blast Case. Further he deposed that he secured the certified copy of seizure of vehicle No.MP 09 V 5629 and filed in this matter which is Ex.P330.
Further he deposed that on 25.03.2013 the A8 pointed out Bhopal Railway
Station where he along-with Tejoram were dropped by A4 on 17.05.2007 in
Maruthi Van and he has also prepared a rough sketch which is Ex.P331.
During the course of cross-examination the above said witness admitted that he has not found any incriminating material or evidence at the instance of A8 during his investigation except the pointing out and disclosure memos.
The PW223 has spoken to in his evidence that on 15.12.2012 an absconder Rajendra Chowdary (A8) was arrested by him and during the course of remand on 22.12.2012 he disclosed his role and involvement in
Mecca Masjid Bomb Blast Case along-with one Co-accused Tejoram. Then he shared the information with his supervisor officers of NIA. Accordingly, he wrote a letter to PW221 under Ex.P327. He denied a suggestion that A8 did 112 not disclose his alleged role and involvement in Mecca masjid bomb blast case along-with with one co accused Tejoram at any point of time and to fill up the lacunae of investigation of this case and on the instructions of his supervisor officers he has written the letter in Ex.P327 to implicate him.
As seen from the evidence of PW118, PW119, PW186, PW221 and
PW223 no incriminating material was found in pursuance to the statement of
A8 connecting him with the Mecca Masjid bomb blast case. The alleged confession of A8 is not admissible in the evidence and it is hit by Section 26 of the Evidence Act. In terms of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act if by any reason of statements made by accused some facts have been discovered, some would be admissible against person who had made the statement ie., the information must relate distinctly to the fact discovered. In other words, articles recovered must be shown to have been connected with the offence. Here nothing is seized or recovered or any new facts is disclosed in pursuance to the statement of A8.
Thus, the prosecution failed to prove as the accused (A8) planted the bomb along with Tejoram at Mecca Masjid on 18.5.2007 and there is no other corroborative piece of evidence connecting to A8 to the crime in this matter.
The point is answered accordingly.
20Point No.13:
To prove this point the prosecution relied upon the confessional statement of A6 under Ex.P196 and pointing out memos under Exs.P237 to
P240, P328 and P329.
The case of prosecution is that one Nokia Model 6030 cell phone 9732110289 was recovered from the unexploded IED at Mecca Masjid and on verification of the IMEI number identified as 353938014288999 and the mobile number 9732110289 was found that it was used earlier in the mobile 113 phone in hand set bearing IMEI number 357088006508510 which was found in the unexploded IED of Ajmeer bomb blast case with the mobile number 9732110207. The evidence of PW221 shows that the mobile number 9732110289 with IMEI No.353938014288999 was purchased in the fictitious name of Babulal Yadav from the shop of M/s.LEC Communications,
Fareedabad. Further its case that the second mobile number 9732110207 with IMEI No.357088006508510 purchased in the name of Babulal Yadav and seized from Chandrasekhar Baarod under Nokia Model 3120 at Sargam
Audio, Chittranjan, Jarkhand.
The PW71 deposed that he is doing business in the name of one
Sargam Audio Vision shop was there at Mihijam, Jamtara of Jarkhand state.
He deposed that one Babulal Yadav purchased a SIM card bearing no.IMSI 5599370 and the mobile phone number 9732110289. Ex.P87 is customer application form (CAF) dated 4.6.2006. The hand writings and signatures found on Ex.P87 has not been referred to the Handwriting Expert with that of the admitted signatures of A2 to establish the identity.
The PW226 who is one of the Investigating Officers deposed that he found the SIM card and mobile number 9732110289 with IMEI No.
353938014288999 and it was in the name of one Babulal Yadav, on his verification he found that the mobile number 9732110289 was also used in
Nokia 3120 model cell phone with IMEI No. 357088006508510. Further he deposed that Nokia 3120 model cell phone was purchased by someone in the name of Babulal Yadav on 31.5.2006 from Sargam Audio Vision,
Chittaranjan of West Bengal. Further his enquiries with the service providers reveals that IMEI No. 357088006508510 and other subscribers with the name of Babulal Yadav over different combinations they furnished information of 9 SIM cards were purchased in the name of Babulal Yadav at different places nearer to the Jarkhand, Bihar and Bengal states. He also 114 deposed that the handset was found at the scene of offence bearing IMEI No.
353938014288999 had been purchased from PW187 ie., from M/s.LEC
Communications, Fareedabad, Hariyana state and the hand set which was found in the scene of offence stated above was purchased about three weeks before the incident of Mecca Masjid Bomb Blast. He further deposed that upon enquiry he found that the said persons purchased two mobile phones of Nokia model 6030 with bill. Further he deposed that the investigating agencies got photograph of a person in the name of Babulal
Yadav and portrait of a person who had purchased two Nokia 6030 handsets from PW187 including one bearing IMEI No. 353938014288999 found at the scene of offence in this matter.
Further The PW219 who worked as Executive Magistrate of Jamtara
District from the year 2008 to the year 2014. He deposed that on 20.9.2010 he conducted the photo test identification proceedings on the suspects by name Sunil Joshi (A5), Ramchandra kalasangara (A3), Sandeep Dange (A4),
Amit Chowhan (A10) with the Pw75, Pw217, Pw209, Pw93 (not attended),
Pw211, Pw193 and PW92. He deposed that PW75 appeared voluntarily in his office and he participated in the photo test identification proceedings. He further deposed that on his instructions seven (7) photographs of non suspects and one photograph of Ramji (A3) was arranged, then the above said witness identified the photograph of A3. Further he deposed that on the same day the Pw217 appeared and on his instructions twelve photographs of non-suspects with two photographs of suspects by name Ramji (A3) and
Sandeep Dange (A4) was arranged, thereafter the said witness identified both of them.
He further deposed that on the same day he conducted photo test identification proceedings on photographs of Sunil Joshi (A5) and Ramji (A3) with PW209 and he identified both of them. He further deposed that on the 115 same day he conducted photo test identification proceedings on the photographs of Sandeep Dange (A4), Ramji (A3) and Sunil Joshi (A5) with
PW210 and he identified all the suspects.
He further deposed that on the same day, he conducted the photo test identification proceedings on the photographs of Sandeep Dange (A4) Ramji (A3) and Sunil Joshi (A5) with PW211, then he identified the photographs of the suspects by name Sandeep Dange A4, Ramji A3 only, but he did not identify the photograph of the Sunil Joshi (A5).
He further deposed that on the same day her conducted photo test identification proceedings on the photographs of Sunil Joshi, A5, Sandeep
Dange A4 and Ramji A3 with PW193, then the said witness identified the photographs of A3 to A5 in the said identification proceedings. He further deposed that on the same day he conducted photo test identification proceedings on the photograph of Sunil Joshi A5 with PW92, then he identified the photograph of A5.
He further deposed that Ex.P318 is the attested photostat copy of the photograph test identification proceedings with the witnesses Pw75, Pw217,
Pw209, Pw211, Pw193 and Pw92 and on the suspects by name Sunil Joshi (A5), Ramchandra kalasangara (A3), Sandeep Dange (A4), Amit Chowhan (A10) containing in eight sheets. He further deposed that on the same day he arranged the proceeding when Pw50 appeared. Then he identified the photograpohs of one suspect by name Sandeep Dange (A4), but he did not identify the photograph of other suspects by name Ramji (A3) and Sunil Joshi (A5). The Ex.P320 is the attested photostat copy of the proceedings of photograph test identification with the photographs of non-suspects and with the photograph of suspects by name A3 to A5 with the witness Pw50 containing in three sheets.
116
During the course of his cross-examination, it is elicited that he has not mentioned in the proceedings under what provision of law he conducted them and he has not given any summons to the witnesses. Further he deposed that the CBI police arranged the photographs of suspects and anonymous persons in the legal section office of District Magistrate. Further it is elicited that he has not attested the Ex.P317 to Ex.P323. Having regard to so, the above said suspects are not accused before this court in this matter.
The PW50 has spoken to in his evidence that in the year 2010, the CBI police called him to the Deputy Collector office, Jamtara district, Jarkhand, where they have shown him some card size photographs of male persons and asked him to identify the customer of their shop for the purchase of SIM card from his shop. Further he has spoken to that he identified one photograph as that of the customer of SIM card. Therefore, his evience does not have any significance.
The PW75 who is resident of Jamtara of Jharkhand District and he has spoken to in his evidence that the CBI police called him to the office and they have shown some photographs and he identified the photographs of a person which would be like so. He did not support the case of prosecution.
Therefore, his evidence does not carry any significance.
The PW193 has spoken to in his evidence that the person who conducted the proceedings has shown five or six photographs of the persons and out of them he asked him to put his signature on a photograph of a person and asked him to go away. Thus, his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
The PW209 has spoken to in his evidence that at about five or six years back the police took him to a house, by the time they reached there, there were three or four persons and three local police came along with him 117 and they have shown ten or twelve photographs of persons and they told that if he does not put his signatures on the photographs of three persons as identification then they will take him to Delhi, then he put his signatures on three photographs of the persons and the officer who was present in that house has also taken two or three signatures on white papers. He did not support the case of prosecution. Therefore, his evidence does not carry any significance.
The PW211 has spoken to in his evidence that the police took him to their custody for a period of ten days and they forced him to put his signatures on some papers and he does not know about the photographs of the persons on which photo test identification proceedings was conducted by the Executive Magistrate. He did not support the case of the prosecution.
Hence his evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
The PW217 has spoken to in his evidence that at about seven or eight years back the police took him to the government office and they asked him to put his signatures. He did not support the case of the prosecution. His evidence is not helpful to the case of prosecution.
As the evidence of PW50, PW75, PW193, PW209, PW211 and PW217 held to be not helpful to the case of prosecution, then the evidence of
PW219 does not carry any weight.
It is held supra, in the point No.3, that the confessional statement of
A6 was not voluntary one, thereby A6 retracted. Further it is held under the same Point No.3 that the confessional statement is A6 is not admissible in evidence who stated to have confessed during the course of his police custody. More over, one Chandrasekhar Barode is not accused in this matter.
Admittedly there is no evidence on record to show as the A2 and another purchased the Nokia 6030 model handset with mobile no. 9732110289 with 118
IMEI No. 353938014288999 which was recovered from the unexploded IED at Mecca Masjid, Hyderabad. Thus, the conspiracy of all the accused in this case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly.
21Point No.14:
In view of the findings at Points Nos.2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 13, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the first accused (A1) beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 307 IPC read with 120B IPC, 326 IPC read with 120B IPC, Section 13 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
Section 16 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with
Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This point is answered accordingly.
22Point No.15:
In view of the findings at Points Nos.2, 3, 9 and 13, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the second accused (A2) beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 307 IPC read with 120B IPC, 326 IPC read with 120B IPC, Section 13 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 16 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 of the 119
Explosive Substances Act read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This point is answered accordingly.
23Point No.16:
In view of the findings at Points Nos.2, 3, 4 and 13, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the sixth accused (A6) beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 307
IPC read with 120B IPC, 326 IPC read with 120B IPC, Section 13 read with
Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 16 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
Section 19 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 3 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances
Act read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
This point is answered accordingly.
24Point No.17:
In view of the findings at Points Nos.2, 3, 10, 11 and 13, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the seventh accused (A7) beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 307 IPC read with 120B IPC, 326 IPC read with 120B IPC, Section 13 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
Section 16 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with
Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities 120 (Prevention) Act, 1967. This point is answered accordingly.
25Point No.18:
In view of the findings at Points Nos.2, 3, 12 and 13, it is held that the prosecution failed to prove guilt of the eighth accused (A8) beyond reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 307 IPC read with 120B IPC, 326 IPC read with 120B IPC, Section 13 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
Section 16 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with
Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. This point is answered accordingly.
26.IN THE RESULT, the first accused (A1), second accused (A2), sixth accused (A6), seventh accused (A7) and eighth accused (A8) are found not guilty for the offences punishable under sections 120B IPC, 302 IPC read with 120B IPC, 307 IPC read with 120B IPC, 326 IPC read with 120B IPC, Section 13 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
Section 16 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Section 18 read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with
Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The sixth accused (A6) is also found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 19 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Therefore, in terms of Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. A1, A2, A6, A7 and A8 are 121 acquitted and the bail bonds of A6 and A7 shall stand cancelled. The A1, A2 and A8 shall be set at liberty forthwith if they are not required in any other case.
There shall be no order in respect of case property in MO1 to MO30 since the matter is pending against A3 and A4 vide Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2013.
Ex.P370 shall be returned to A6 after expiry of appeal time on substitution.
27.It is the duty of this court to mark and record the appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr.Harinath Reddy, Learned Spl.Pubilc
Prosecutor for N.I.A.Cases, Mr.Siddiramulu, learned Public Prosecutor;
Mr.J.Venu and Mrs.Bhanu Chandrika, learned counsel for A1 and A2,
Mr.V.Surender Rao, learned counsel for A6, Mr.Rajavardhan Reddy and
Mr.L.Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for A7 and Mr.Bhuvanasundar Reddy, learned counsel for A8; and Mr.Mukharjee, DSP, N.I.A., Mr.Manmadha Rao,
ASI., N.I.A., Mr.Younis Khan, A.S.I., N.I.A., Mr.M.N.Baig, Head Constable of
N.I.A. and Mr.Shiva Sagar, Constable of N.I.A., Mr.P.Rajashekar, Technical
Team, N.I.A., in conducting the proceedings. Further it is the duty of this court to mark and record the valuable contribution rendered by my Personal
Assistant Mr.Bh.Lakshmikanth, Mr.Ch.Ganga Raju, Senior Superintendent,
Mr.P.Srinivasa Rao, Senior Assistant and other staff members of this court for conducting the proceedings and rendering the judgment within time.
Dictated to the Stenographer Grade-I, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in
the open court this the 16th day of April, 2018.
Sd/- K. Ravinder Reddy
IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
CUM SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF N.I.A.CASES
HYDERABAD
122
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
WITNESSES EXAMINED
FOR PROSECUTION FOR DEFENCE/ACCUSED
PW-1Mirza Abdullah Baig -NIL- PW-2Mohammed Abdul Manan PW-3Masood Ali Baig PW-4Mohd.Abdul Khadir PW-5Mohd. Ahmed Basha PW-6Ahmed Salahuddin PW-7Mohd.Yaseen Shareef PW-8Mohd. Abdul Hameed PW-9Maseiddin PW-10Abdul Farooq PW-11Dr.Mohd. Mohsin PW-12Shaik Maqbool Ahmed PW-13Md.Iqbal PW-14Dr.Khaja Naseeruddin PW-15Mohsin Ahmed Khan PW-16Syed Afsar PW-17Syed Shaheb Ali PW-18Md.Iqbal Ansari PW-19Syed Khalil Ahmed PW-20Osman Bin Mohsin PW-21Mir Mohd. Ali PW-22Mohd.Baban PW-23Sheikh Ahmed PW-24Md.Ibrahim PW-25Sri Syed Mazhar Abbas, PW-26Sri Mohd.Moinuddin PW-27Sri Ch. Chalapathi Rao, PW-28Sri G.Vijay Kumar, PW-29M.A.Majeed PW-30Sri G. Venkateshwarlu, PW-31Hafeez Khan PW-32Mohd. Qutabuddin Saleem PW-33Fathe Alam Khan, PW-34Sri U. Raghuram Sharma, PW-35Dr. K. Janardhan, PW-36Dr.P. Hari Krishna, PW-37Dr. Syed Sirajuddin PW-38Dr. Mazharuddin Ali Khan, PW-39Dr. Abdul Wajid, PW-40Dr. G. Jagadish PW-41Dr. K. Vijay Kumar PW-42Dr. L.S.V Prasad, PW-43Dr. G. Victor Vinod Babu, PW-44T.V.Rama Krishna Murthy, PW-45Dr. Appayamma PW-46Dr. Satyanarayana Reddy PW-47Sachin Bansal PW-48Ashok Lohia PW-49Ajit Prasad PW-50Rohit Aggarwal 123
PW-51Ali Ahmed Murtza Khan PW-52Mohd. Siddi Khadri, PW-53Shaik Gafoor PW-54Mohd. Majid Zahir Khan PW-55Aziz Khan PW-56Shaik Moizuddin PW-57Abdullah PW-58Abdul Aziz PW-59Saddam PW-60Mohd. Maula PW-61Sheikh Irshad PW-62Md.Javed PW-63Abdul Hannan PW-64Master Shaibaz PW-65Abdul Saleem PW-66P.Sudhakar, PW-67Khadir Shareef PW-68M.D. Amzed PW-69T. Suresh, PW-70Naga Sai Venkata Ramana, PW-71Alok Jain PW-72Mohd. Sahid Khan PW-73Vipin Gutgutia PW-74Sushil Kumar Sarawagi PW-75Vijay Aggarwal PW-76Binod Prasad, PW-77Rajesh Prasad, PW-78Feroz Alam, PW-79Mohd. Enam PW-80Vinod Kumar Chowrasia PW-81Amit Pal PW-82Pappu Patel PW-83Raju Prasad Jaswal PW-84Upendra Prasad PW-85Gautam Bhowmik PW-86Tarak Nath Parmanik PW-87Ajay Kumar Shastri, PW-88Sita Ram Kulkarni PW-89Vinay Pandey PW-90Raj Kishore Mondal, PW-91Sanjay Kumar Mandal , PW-92 Randhir Kumar Singh PW-93Suresh Mandal, PW-94Aruna Thakur PW-95Rohit Kumar, PW-96Dr.Ashok Varshney PW-97Ashok Beri PW-98Siddh Nath Singh PW-99Alok Kumar PW-100Rabinder Prasad PW-101Bimal Kumar Shaw, PW-102Parimal Pal PW-103Rajesh Kumar PW-104Maqbool Bin Ali @ Chawaish, PW-105Shaik Abdul Khaleem PW-106Dr. Ram Pratap Singh 124
PW-107Durgesh Goti PW-108Umed Singh Dangi PW-109Jayanti Bhai Purshottam Bhai Kevat PW-110Dr. R.L. Singh PW-111Suresh Carleton PW-112Dahwad Sunilbhai Arjunbhai PW-113Pavan Sule PW-114Alkesh Soliya PW-115Praphul Methi PW-116Swapnil Joshi PW-117Vinod Patidar PW-118B. Subba Rao PW-119Parvez Alam PW-120Babulal Chowdary PW-121Madan Jalvania PW-122Vijaypuri Goswami PW-123Sharada Vasnik PW-124Uday Khanwalker PW-125Neeta Rathore PW-126Vijay Kasker PW-127Chandrajeet Yadav PW-128Vivek Sharma PW-129Vishnu Patidar PW-130Santosh Kumar Patidar PW-131Ravinder Patidar PW-132Govardhan Singh PW-133Hari Narayan Patidar PW-134Bhanu Singh PW-135Rajesh Mishra PW-136Anandraj Kataria PW-137Sudeep Upadhyay PW-138Ranjan Sinha PW-139Ashok Kumar PW-140Neera @ Pappy Singh @ Neera Rani PW-141Sangram Singh PW-142Raj Kumar Chowhan PW-143Bhanu Singh PW-144Shakti Singh PW-145Sukbhir Singh Saini PW-146Banesh Kumar PW-147Mange Ram PW-148Vipin Kumar PW-149Kamlesh PW-150Sunil Dutt Doberiyal PW-151Vadlamani Venkata Ramana Rao PW-152Vijay Kasliwal PW-153Vasudev Parmar PW-154Ramcharan Patel PW-155Ashok Solanki PW-156Mahendra Parmar PW-157Jithendhar Chowdary PW-158Rabindra Murari PW-159J. Ravi Chandra PW-160A.M.Mishra PW-161Md. Moinuddin Hasain Khan PW-162N.B. Vardhan 125
PW-163O.S Ashok PW-164N.S.Bisht PW-165Deepak Dabas PW-166Rajesh Kumar Chorasia PW-167Pooja Ross PW-168Harbeer Singh PW-169Shivam Dhakad PW-170Bharath Singh Lodhi PW-171Dr. Sudhir Jain PW-172Charan Singh PW-173Deepak Kumar PW-174Narayana Rao PW-175B.M.Patel PW-176Hardutt Singh PW-177M. Kistaiah PW-178Satender Singh Ranawat PW-179M.S. Phartyal PW-180Pankaj Bansal PW-181R.K.Jha PW-182M.Ramesh PW-183Naresh Indore PW-184I.R.S.Murthy PW-185Shankar Reddy PW-186T. Kanaka Raju PW-187Ishant Chawla PW-188Devasis Banerji PW-189Ajay Rahirkar PW-190Shyam Sahu PW-191Shivnarayan Gopal Kalsangra PW-192Yovraj Singh PW-193Vikas Kumar Pandey PW-194D. Rama Krishna PW-195S. Madhusudan Gupta PW-196Jaya Lakshmi PW-197Prabhat Kumar PW-198H.S.Sachan PW-199U. Rama Mohan PW-200S.L.Gupta PW-201Mukesh Sharma PW-202A.D. Rupapara PW-203R.K. Pathak PW-204R.P. Meena PW-205Amod Kumar PW-206Satish Kumar Yadav PW-207Md. Tajuddin Ahmed PW-208Maj Ramesh Upadyay PW-209Sukh Dev Dubey @ Bum Shankar Dubey PW-210Vasudev Prasad Yadav PW-211Pradeep Pandey PW-212Y. Madhusudhan Rao PW-213Rajesh Kumar Singh PW-214Sandeep Singh PW-215Samir Sharad Kulkarni PW-216Ashok Kumar Pandey PW-217Krishna Murari PW-218Deep Bhatia 126
PW-219Satyaprakash PW-220Anuj Arya PW-221G.V.Ramana PW-222Lt. Col. Prasadrao Srikant Purohit PW-223Vishal Garg PW-224K.S.Thakur PW-225D.S.Mann PW-226 Rajah Balaji
DOCUMENTS WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION
Ex.P1-Complaint in Crime No. 100 of 2007. Ex.P2-Observation cum seizure panchanama, dated 18-05-2007 Ex.P3-Rough Sketch of Scene of offence Ex.P4 -Seizure report dated 20-5-2007 for the seizure of incriminating material. Ex.P5-Observation cum seizure panchanama Ex.P6-Inquest of dead body of deceased Sajid Ali Khan Ex.P7-Seizure Report Ex.P8-Inquest of dead body of deceased Mohd. Sameer. Ex.P9-Inquest of dead body of deceased Yousuf Khan @ Kalu. Ex.P10-Inquest of dead body of deceased Mohd Riyaz Ex.P11-Seizure Report. Ex.P12-Inquest of dead body of deceased Shafik Ur Rahaman. Ex.P13-Seizure Report Ex.P14 -Inquest of dead body of deceased Shaik Nayeem. Ex.P15-Seizure Report Ex.P16-Inquest Report of Md. Jaffar Ex.P17-Inquest of dead body of deceased Mohd Irfan Shareef Ex.P18 -PME report of deceased Mohd. Azeem, dt. 19-05-2007 Ex.P19-PME report of deceased Sajid Ali, dt. 19-05-2007 Ex.P20-PME report of deceased Yousuf Khan, dt. 19-05-2007 Ex.P21-PME report of deceased Shafik Ur Rahman Ex.P22-PME report of deceased Mohd. Riyaz, dt. 19-05-2007 Ex.P23-PME report of deceased Mohd. Sameer, dt. 19-05-2007 Ex.P24-PME report of deceased Shaik Nayeem Ex.P25-PME report of deceased Mohd. Jaffer Ex.P26-PME report of deceased Irfan Shareef Ex.P27-Wound certificate of CM Officer, Alpha Hospital Ex.P28-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal and Attested by me Ex.P29-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Maqbool Shareef Ex.P30-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Md. Maqbool Ex.P31-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Md. Jaffar Ex.P32-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Md. Iqbal Ex.P33-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Khaja Naseeruddin Ex.P34-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Syed Sahed Ali Ex.P35-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Mohd. Abdul Mujeeb 127
Ex.P36-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Osman Bin Mohsin Ex.P37-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Mohd. Babar Ex.P38-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Sri Shahbaz Khan Ex.P39-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Mohd. Altaf Khan, dt. 18-05-2007 Ex.P40-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Md. Pasha, dt. 18-05-2007 Ex.P41-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Md. Ahmed Ex.P42-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Mohd. Hissamuddin Ex.P43-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Shaik Irshad Ex.P44-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Mohd. Javeed Ex.P45-Attested photocopy of Wound certificate issued by Dr. Fazal name of the Mohd. Yousuf Ex.P46-Wound Certificate of Md. Mohsin, dt. 18-05-2007 Ex.P47-Wound Certificate of Moula, dt. 18-05-2007 Ex.P48-Wound Certificate of M.A. Aziz, dt. 20-05-2007 Ex.P49-Wound Certificate of Shaik Moizuddin, dt. 20-05-2007 Ex.P50-Medical Certificate dt 06-07-2007 with MLC No. 6797 of Master Shaibaz Mohd. Ex.P51-Medical Certificate dt. 06-07-2007 with MLC No. 6794 of Mr. Naseeruddin Mohd. Ex.P52-Medical Certificate dt. 06-07-2007 with MLC No. 6795 of Master Riyazuddin Ex.P53-Medical Certificate dt. 06-07-2007 with MLC No. 6793 of Mr. Azam Mohd. Ex.P54-Medico Legal Record No. 15782 Ex.P55-Medico Legal Record No. 15778 Ex.P56-Injury Certificate issued by Care Hospital, dt. 10-08-2011 Ex.P57-Injury Certificate issued by Care Hospital, dt. 10-08-2011 Ex.P58-MLC No. 37241 of Mohd. Farooq Ali Ex.P59-MLC No. 37249 of Syed Masjid Ex.P60-MLC No. 37263 of Syed Afsar Ex.P61-MLC No. 37262 of Mir Mohd Ali Ex.P62-MLC No. 37242 of Abdul Hannan Ex.P63-ML Record, dt. 18-05-2007 of Shaik Ghouse Ex.P64-ML Record, dt. 18-05-2007 of Salman Ex.P65-ML Record, dt. 18-05-2007 of Syed Kaleem Ahmed Ex.P66-ML Record, dt. 18-05-2007 of Mohd. Ibrahim Ex.P67-ML Record, dt. 18-05-2007 of Mohd. Shaji Ex.P68-ML Record, dt. 18-05-2007 of Yousuf Ali Ex.P69-DNS Distribution (Pvt) Ltd., Invoice dt. 21-04-2007 Ex.P70-Day Book of our shop (One Book) Ex.P71-Relevant entry dt. 24-4-2007 in Ex.P70. Ex.P72-Retail Invoice for purchase of one Nokia 6030 handset. Ex.P73-Retail Invoice for purchase of one Nokia 6030 handset. Ex.P74-Retail invoice for purchase of one Nokia 6030 handset. Ex.P75-Retail Invoice for purchase of one Nokia 6030 handset and other handsets.
128
Ex.P76-Retail Invoice for purchase of one Nokia 6030 handset and another One Handset. Ex.P77-Carbon Copy of Counterfoil of Bill No. 357 dated 14-4-2007 (Relevant Portion in One Book) Ex.P78-Bill Book pertaining to Sale of Cell Phones. Ex.P79-Register for Selling of Sim Card Ex.P80-Invioce of purchase of 15 (Fifteen) Nokia Handsets from Jalan Infosystem Private Limited. Ex.P81-Particular entry in Ex.P79 (1 Book) at Page No.31 Ex.P82-Carbon copy of cash memo of M/s Agarwal Sale for the period from 31-10-2006 to 18-11-2006 containing details of Mobile set sold including details of NOKIA 6070 IMEI No. 3532335013075663, sold to Center Point on 05-11-2006 (Page No. 1023) pages received from 1001 to 1100. Ex.P82A-Relevant entry in Ex. P-82, containing details of mobile of Nokia 6070 IMEI NO. 353235013075663 sold to Center Point on 5-11-2006 at page No. 1023. Ex.P83-Signature on attested photocopy of proceedings dated 21-09-2010. Ex.P84-Attested copy of Inquest panchanama which bears my signature Ex.P85-Original DVCPRO cassette. Ex.P86-Report submitted by me to the ACP Charminar on 22-5- 2007 Ex.P87-Customer Application Form (CAF), dated 04.06.2006. Ex.P88-Customer Application Form along with the endorsement of myself for the shop of Sargam Audio Vision containing in 2 pages. Ex.P89-Corbon copy of bill No. 710 showing Babulal Yadav purchased Nokia 3120 IMIE No. 357088006508513 Ex.P90-Register entries Sl.No. 26, 27, 30 and 31 showing Babulal Yadav name purchasing two SIM cards at page No.6. Ex.P91-Prepaid enrollment form sent report from M/s Sudershan Trading Company date 01-06-2006. Ex.P92-Prepaid enrollment form sent report from M/s Sudershan Trading Company date 25-05-2006. Ex.P93-Carbon copy of challan bearing No. 584, dated 24.05.2006 containing the recharge voucher No. 513778877701 Ex.P94-Carbon copy of challan bearing No. 763, dated 27.05.2006 containing CVR No. 5137424-374321, 3660601303006- 30101. Ex.P95-Airtel Prepaid Enrolment Form No. C. 164174 Ex.P95A-Driving licence of Babulal yadav attached to P-95 Ex.P96-Airtel Prepaid Enrolment Form No. C. 290426 Ex.P96A-Driving licence of Babulal yadav attached to P-96 Ex.P97-Daily panna containing 4 pages dated 1-6-2006, 24-05- 2006. Ex.P98-Invoice dated 11-5-2006 containing 2 pages. Ex.P99-Invoice dated 24-5-2006 containing 3 pages Ex.P100-Carbon copy of Bill No. 39, dated 01-06-2006 Ex.P101-Kaccha Bill prepared by me Ex.P102-Cash memo which bears my signature and it was my handwriting Ex.P103-Reliance Subscriber Enrolment Form No.DGP/A251545,
dated 26.11.2006 belongs to Ramesh Aggarwal
129
Ex.P104-Customer Application Form in the name of one Babulal Yadav along with a copy of driving license. Ex.P105-Invioce of purchasing of 17 Nokia handsets by his shop from Telemart Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd., dated 24.06.2006 vide Bill No. SA-PR-MPR/6672 it bears my signature. Ex.P106-Carbon copy of bill book No. 36 bill No. 2775, the customer purchased one Betel Landline phone and one Nokia-6030 cell phone vide IMEI No. 359351004947432 it bears my signature. Ex.P107-Carbon copy of cash memo dated 1-5-2006 Ex.P108-Carbon copy of cash memo dated 7-10-2006 Ex.P109-Carbon copy of cash memo vide invoice No. 4710,
dated 7-10-2006
Ex.P110-Carbon copy of cash memo vide invoice No. 4711, dated 7-10-2006. Ex.P111-Running copy of sales generated from the computer. Ex.P112-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-88. Ex.P113-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-90. Ex.P114-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-91
Ex.P115-Signature appearing on the photograph identification proceedings conducted on 20-09-2010 Ex.P116-161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-93. Ex.P117-Signature appearing on the statement under Section 164 Cr.PC statement of PW-95. Ex.P118-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-95. Ex.P119-Signature appearing on the TI parade proceedings dated 26-10-2010. Ex.P120-161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-96. Ex.P121-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C, of PW-97. Ex.P122-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-98. Ex.P123-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-99. Ex.P124-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-99, dated 10-09-2010. Ex.P125-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-100. Ex.P126-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-101 Ex.P127-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-102 Ex.P128-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-106. Ex.P129-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-107 Ex.P130-Seizure Panchanama, dated 01.05.2011. Ex.P131-Ration Card in the name of Omkaranand. Ex.P132-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-109 Ex.P133-Attested Photostat copy of OPD ticket dated 15-1-2009 showing that One Ramdas admitted in the hospital. Ex.P134-Attested Photostat copy of case sheet of the patient by name Ramdas containing in 4 pages.
130
Ex.P135-Attested Photostat copy of pre MLC record belongs to one unknown male person brought to Bharath Singh, Head Constables Railway Police, Vidisha. Ex.P136-Attested Photostat copy of the register showing the entires of discharge of Ramdas on 21.01.2009 Ex.P137-Attested Photostat copy of the extract of the register showing that one unknown person was admitted on 15.01.2009. Ex.P138 -Attested Photostat copies of blood report of investigation of one Ramdas. Ex.P139-Attested Photostat copies of blood report of investigation of one Ramdas. Ex.P140-Attested Photostat copy of the admission, discharge and treatment record of the patient namely Ramdas. Ex.P141-Signature on the statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C of PW-112 Ex.P142-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-112 Ex.P143-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 164 Cr.P.C of PW-112 Ex.P144-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-113 Ex.P145-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-114 Ex.P146-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-115 Ex.P147-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-116 Ex.P148-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-117 Ex.P149-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-120 Ex.P150-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-121 Ex.P151-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-122 Ex.P152-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-123 Ex.P153-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-124 Ex.P154-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-126 Ex.P155-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-128 Ex.P156-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-129 (Hindi) Ex.P157-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-129 (English) Ex.P158-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-132 Ex.P.159-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-133 Ex.P160-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-134 Ex.P161-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-135 131
Ex.P162-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-136 Ex.P163-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-137 Ex.P164-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-138 Ex.P165-Details have been given in the Letter, dated 18.07.2007 Ex.P166-Letter addressed by me to the Chief Election Officer, Bihar, dated 19.07.2007. Ex.P167-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-140 Ex.P168-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-141 Ex.P169-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-142 Ex.P170-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-143 Ex.P171-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-144 Ex.P172-Notice issued under section 91 Cr.P.C to PW-145 Ex.P173-Register containing some pages Ex.P173A-Relevant entry at serial No. 835 where in the name of Swamy Omkaranand Ration card No. 284494 unit 1 have been reflected in the said register . Ex.P174-Photostat certified copy of ration card issued on 18-8-2010 by PW-146 in the name of Omkaranand. Ex.P175-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-148 Ex.P176-Application received by me which bears my signature of voter ID. Ex.P177-Parivardhan suchi in this S.No. 918 shows Omkaranand name. Ex.P178-Form No. 7 of Electoral authority issued by me Ex.P179-Vilopan – Suchi prepared by me Ex.P180-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-151 Ex.P181-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-152 Ex.P182-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-153 Ex.P183-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-154 Ex.P184-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-157 Ex.P185-Letter dt. 8-10-2010 along with the CAF voter ID Card and bank pass book containing 5 pages. Ex.P186-Letter dt. 24-11-2011 addressed by Addl. General Manager, BSNL, Hyderabad to Shri. Mahesh Chandra Ladda containing 9 pages Ex.P187-Call data (pages 1 to 217) date from 04.02.008 to 22.11.2008 Ex.P188-AP FSL report which contains two pages dated 19.07.2007 Ex.P189-Report/opinion of APFSL Ex.P190-Report in file No. CHE/245/2007 send on 19.07.2007 and dispatched on 24.07.2007 Ex.P191-FSL Report containing 4 pages 132
Ex.P192-Sanctioned order, dated 20.06.2012 Ex.P193-Sanctioned order, dated 27-08-2013 which bears my signature. Ex.P194-Proceedings dated 16-12-2010 conducted by PW-165 containing eleven pages. Ex.P195-Proceedings dated 18-12-2010 conducted by PW-165 containing thirteen pages. Ex.P196-Confessional statement of accused Naba Kumar Sarkar @ Swamy Asimanand recorded by PW-165 in Hindi language containing in thirty nine pages. Ex.P197-Certificate appended to the proceedings of recording of confessional statement of the accused (A6) and issued by PW-165. Ex.P198-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-169 Ex.P199-GD entry transcription of PS GRP, Vidisha containing in two pages dated 15-1-2009 and 16-1-2009. ( in Hindi) (PW-170) Ex.P200-English translation of Ex. P-199. Ex.P201-Authorization letter . Ex.P202-Call data pertaining to Mobile No. 9931310202, 9932997562, 9933415166 for one day dated 27-11-2006 containing 1 page. Ex.P203-Call data pertaining to Mobile No. 9931310168 from 24-5-2006 to 31-5-2006. Ex.P204-Call data pertaining to Mobile No. 9932997652 from 6-5-2006 to 27-11-2006 along with attested copy of customer application form in the name of Babulal Yadav with ID proof Ex.P205-Call data pertaining to Mobile No. 9933415166 from 6-6-2006 to 27-11-2006 Ex.P206-Authorization letter. Ex.P207-Coverring letter dated 13-10-2011 of Asst General Manager (Admn) of GMTD Valsad. Gujarat State. Ex.P208-Customer Application Form pertaining to mobile No. 9428382751 in the name of Sunbai Bhai Arjun Bhai attested by SDE (CMTS), Valsad. Ex.P209-Copy of the Election Voter ID Card of Sunil Bhai Arjun Bhai Ex.P210-Covering letter dated 15-10-2011 pertaining to CAF of 9426116781 and 9427112439. Ex.P211-Attested copy of CAF attested by SDM (CMTS) Valsad, Gujarat State in respect of mobile No. 9426116781 in the name of Jayanthi Bai Purushotham Bai Ex.P212-Attesteed attested copy of CAF attested by SDE (CMTS) Valsad, Gujarat State in respect of mobile No. 9427112439 in the name of Sunil Bhai Arjun Bhai Ex.P213-Covering letter dated 15-10-2011 which bears my signature Ex.P214-Attested copy of CAF in the name of Swami Aseemananda for mobile No. 9429184088. Ex.P215-Printout of the portrait of suspect (A2) Ex.P216-FIR No. 100 of 2007 for the offences U/s 302, 307, 120B IPC and Sec, 3 & 5 of ES Act. Ex.P217-Letter placed by T. Suresh (PW69) before me on 23.05.2007 under his handwriting and signature.
133
Ex.P218-FIR No. 107 of 2007 for the offences U/s 120 B IPC Sec. 4 and 5 of ES Act Sec. 10, 12, 13 of unlawful activities (prevention) act 1967 r/w 511 IPC . Ex.P219-Rough sketch map of scene of offence panchanama dated 23-5-2007. Ex.P220-Attested copy of CAF in the name of Babulal Yadav with driving license. For SIM. No. 405511000222634. Ex.P221-Attested copy of CAF in the name of Ramesh Agarwal with driving license. For SIM. No. 405511001356728. Ex.P222-Attested copy of seizure memo dated 19-10-2009. Ex.P223-Attested copy of seizure memo dated 19-10-2009 Ex.P224-Attested copy of seizure memo dated 19-10-2009 Ex.P225-Attested copy of order dated 26-08-2009 granted by Government of India according permission on intercept the mobile phones 9754703073, 9826121316, 9098640872, 9009596045 and IMEI Nos 359396000373330, 358849003705420, 357088006508510 and 358815003298500 for a period of 60 days from 26-08-2009. Ex.P226-Attested copy of order dated 23-10-2009 granted by Government of India according permission on intercept the mobile phones 9754703073, 9826121316, 9098640872, 9009596045 and IMEI Nos 359396000373330, 358849003705420, 357088006508510 and 358815003298500 for a period of 60 days from 23-10-2009 Ex.P227 -Attested copy of order dated 15-01-2010 granted by Governbment of India according permission on intercept the mobile phones 9826121316, 9754703073, for a period of 60 days from 15-01-2010 Ex.P228-Attested copy of interception record dated 16-02-2010. Ex.P229-Attested copy of interception record dated 19-10-2009. Ex.P230-Attested copy of interception record dated 19-10-2009. Ex.P231-Attested copy of interception record dated 19-10-2009. Ex.P232-Carbon copy of bill book from bill No. 3101 to 3200. Ex.P233-Notice U/s 91 Cr.P.C. issued to Sri. Harbeer Sing, (PW-168) to submit the documents, by PW-184. Ex.P234-Sanction order, dated 10.05.2011 to prosecute the A-6 Ex.P235-Requisition given by me to the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise Department, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad,
dated 14-3-2013.
Ex.P236-Letter addressed to me sending the mediators, dated 14-3-2013. ExP237-Rough sketch map of pointing out memo of Nampally railway station. Ex.P238-Rough sketch map of pointing out memo of Sulab Complex opposite Nampally railway station. Ex.P239-Rough sketch map of pointing out memo of Macca Masjid. Ex.P240-Rough sketch map of pointing out memo of MGBS Ex.P241-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-187 Ex.P242-Portrait sketch of suspected person by PW-188 Ex.P243-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-189 Ex.P244-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW-190 134
Ex.P245-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-191 Ex.P246-CAF of BSNL Mobile No. 942406007, signature of PW-192. Ex.P247-Photostat copy of driving licence which bears my signature. Ex.P248-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C of PW-192. Ex.P249-Test Identification parade proceedings along with annexures I to IV containing 7 sheets. Ex.P-250-Authorization letter Ex.P251-Covering letter dated 18-09-2008 being addressed by Mr. Raj Kumar to the CBI Ex.P252-Subscriber verification form of Ramesh Aggarwal received by our company at Delhi. Ex.P253-Authorization letter Ex.P254-Covering letter dated 23.09.2008 being addressed by Subir Kumar Deb. By sending the original customer application form. Ex.P255-Relevant portion of the statement U/s 161 Cr.P.C. of PW197 Ex.P256.-Invoice book of shop Khem-ka Benkal Telecom from Invoice No. 1201 to 1250. Ex.P257-Invoice book of shop Khem-ka Benkal Telecom from Invoice No. 4701 to 4750. Ex.P258-Office copy of invoice receipt baring number 4749
dt. 11-10-2006
Ex.P259-Seizure memo dated 16-10-2008 from PW 49. Ex.P260-Seizure memo dated 17-10-2008 in respect of the seizure of the record from PW-84. Ex.P261-Seizure memo dated 22-10-2008 in respect of the documents seized from PW-72. Ex.P262-Seizure memo dated 25-4-2008 Ex.P263-Letter dated 23-9-2008 from the circle Nodal officer, Bharati Airtel Ltd., Bihar Circle. Ex.P264-Scan copy of CAF in the name of Babulal Yadav in respect of mobile No. 9931304642. Ex.P265-Seizure Memo dated 15-10-2008 showing the seizure of Ex.P82 from PW50 Ex.P266-Bill book of Sangram Audio vision from the Bill No. 703 to 797 Ex.P267-Seizure Memo dated 13-10-2008 showing the seizure of Ex. P-266. Ex.P268-Rough pad containing 18 pages (handwriting) Ex.P269-Notebook containing details of mobile sets sold, SIM Recharge cards and SIM cards sold to customers running from pages S.No. 1 to 90. Ex.P269A-Relevant entry is at page No. 43 corresponding to sale of mobile set to the Babulal Yadav. Ex.P269B-Signature of Vijay Agarwal (PW-75) (Ex. P-269-A and B are relevant entry in Ex. P-269 Book) Ex.P270-Seizure memo dated 12-10-2008. Ex.P271-Challan book of M/s Sudershan Trading company running from bill No. 501 to 600. Ex.P272-Challan book running from pages 701 to 800. Ex.P273-Seizure memo dated 17-10-2008 135
Ex.P274-Carbon copy of bill book running from the bill no. 1 to 104. Ex.P275-Seizure memo dated 12-10-2008 showing the seizure of the Ex. P-98 and 99 from PW-74. Ex.P276-Bill book of Center Point for the period 8-10-2006 to 7-3-2007. Ex.P276A-Relevant entry corresponding to the details of Nokia 6070 IMEI No. 353235013075663. Ex.P277-Daily panna from 1-11-2006 to 29-11- 2006 maintained by PW-76 containing 26 pages. Ex.P277A-Relevant entry in P-277 dt. 4-11-06 Ex.P277B-Relevant entry in P-277 dt. 5-11-06 (Ex. P-277-A & B are relevant entry in Ex. P-277 Book) Ex.P278-Seizure memo dated 14-10-2008 Ex.P279-Seizure memo dated 16-10-2008 Ex.P280-Certificate dated 6-3-2012 along with the call data details containing 27 pages. Ex.P281-Certificate dated 25-04-2012 Ex.P281A-Call data details of mobile No. 9425322821 Ex.P281B-Call data details of mobile No. 9425706625 Ex.P281C-Call data details of mobile No. 9425911745 Ex.P281D-Call data details of mobile No. 9425911724 Ex.P282-Requisition dated 14-3-2012 given to the Asst General Manager BSNL, Indore by SP, NIA. Ex.P283-Order dated 4-4-2011 issued by MOHA,l Government of India vide No. 1-11034/18/2011-IS-IV. Ex.P284-FIR in crime No. 02 of 2011. Ex.P285-Photostat copy of seizure memo. Ex.P286-Photostat copy of shooter / camp register. Ex.P286A-Signature of PW-218 in Ex. P-286 register. Ex.P287-Photostat copy of daily arms register. Ex.P288-Photstat copy of entry of the main gate register Ex.P289-Photostat copy of cash receipt issued in the name of Deep Bhatia (PW 218) Ex.P290-Letter addressed to CBI by SDE (Security) dated 12-10-2010. Ex.P291-Letter dated 8-10-2010 addressed by AGM, BSNL to the GM, BSNL cum Nodal Officer. Ex.P292-Letter dated 11-10-2010 addressed by AGM Network to SDE (Security). Ex.P293-Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-92, dated 14.08.2010 Ex.P294-Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-92, dated 21.09.2010. Ex.P295-Signature on test Identification proceedings dated 20.09.2010. Ex.P296-Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-208 Ex.P297-Signature on test Identification proceedings Ex.P298-Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-193,
dated 10.02.2010.
Ex.P299-Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of PW-193,
dated 21.01.2010
Ex.P300-Signature on test Identification proceedings dated 20.09.2010 Ex.P301-Relevant portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW 209 Ex.P302-Relevant portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW 209 136
Ex.P303-Signature appearing on the photographs of the test identification parade, dated 20.09.2010 conducted by the Executive Magistrate. Ex.P304-Relevant portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement dt.4-6-2010 of PW-210 Ex.P305-Relevant portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement dt.21-9-2010 of PW-210 Ex.P306-Signature appearing on the alleged photographs of test identification proceedings, dated 20.09.2010 Ex.P307-Relevant portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement
dt. 24-8-2010 of PW-211
Ex.P308-Relevant portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement
dt. 21-9-2010 of PW-211
Ex.P309-Production cum receipt memo acknowledged by K.S. Thakur after receipt of the above said articles. Ex.P310-Copy of Screen shot of my email showing the request made by the NIA. Ex.P311-Scanned copy of CAF along with driving license and pan card containing 5 sheets. Ex.P312-Relevant portion of the 161 Statement of PW-214 Ex.P313-Relevant portion of the 161 Statement of PW-215 Ex.P314-Signature appearing on the Photocopy test identification proceedings, dated 20.09.2010 Ex.P315A-Relevant portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-217 Ex.P315B-Relevant portion of the 161 Cr.P.C. statement
dt. 21-9-2010 of PW-217
Ex.P316-Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-218 Ex.P317-Attested Photostat copy of the requisition dated 20-9-2010 Ex.P318-Attested Photostat copy of the photograph test identification proceedings Ex.P319-Attested Photostat copy of requisition dated 21-09-2010 Ex.P320-Attested Photostat copy of the proceedings of photograph test identification with the photographs of non – suspects and with the photograph of suspects by name A3 to A5 with the witness PW50 containing in three sheets. Ex.P321-Attested Photostat copy of the letter dated 21-09-2010 Ex.P322-Attested copy of postal receipt and acknowledgment. Ex.P323-Attested Photostat copies of the photographs numbering into 19. Ex.P324-E-mail correspondence containing in eight pages with the Nokia Company Ex.P325-Letter dated 17-09-2007 addressed to SP, CBI, SCR III, New Delhi. Ex.P326-Letter from Joint Secretary , Government of West Bengal dt.29-5-2012. Ex.P327-Letter dated 22-12-2012, from Vishal Garg PW 223 Ex.P328-Rough sketch map of Door no. 52 Sarvasampanna Nagar, Manavatha Nagar, Indore. Ex.P329-Rough sketch map of Baghlee Hills and forest area of Dewas District. Ex.P330-Certified copy of of the seizure of vehicle No. M.P.No. 09 V 5629. Ex.P331-Rough Sketch Map of Bhopal Railway Station. Ex.P332-Relevant port of 161 Cr.P.C. statement of PW-222 Ex.P333-Certified copy of Hindi Transcript 137
Ex.P334-Notarized through English Translation of Ex.P.333 Ex.P335-Admissible portion of the statemen of A8 leading to house No. 52, near BSNL tower, Manavata Nagar, Indore. Ex.P336-Photographs of unexploded IED box found in Mecca Masjid. Ex.P337-Photograph of unexploded IED box found in Ajmir Shareef Dargah. Ex.P338-Certified copy of test identification proceedings conducted in A8 in RC 3 of 2011 that is Malegoan Blast case Ex.P339-Covering letter dated 17-08-2007 Ex.P340-Copy of the report dated 3-7-2007 bearing file No. SER/535/2007. Ex.P341-Scanned copy of CAF form of mobile number 9932997652 in the name of Babulal Yadav. Ex.P341A-Scan copy of driving license in the name of Babulal Yadav Ex.P342-Scanned copy of CAF form of mobile number 9933415166 in the name of Babulal Yadav Ex.P342A-Scan copy of driving license in the name of Babulal Yadav Ex.P343-Seizure memo dated 14-10-2008 Ex.P344-Letter dated 07-10-2008 showing the collection of Ex.202 to 205. Ex.P345-FIR in RC 5/S/207/SCR-III, dated 9-6-2007 Ex.P346-FIR in RC 6/S/207/SCR-III, dated 6-10-2007 Ex.P347-Notification transferring Crime No. 107/2007. Ex.P348-Gazette Notification No. 228/32/2007-AVD-II issued by the Govt. of India pertaining to the Crime No. 107 of 2007. Ex.P349-Notification dated 2-6-2007 vide G.O.Ms. No. 115 issued by Govt. of A.P., transferring Crime No. 100/2007 of PS Hussainialam to the CBI. Ex.P350-Gazette Notification No. 228/32/2007-AVD-II dated 8-6-2007 issued by the Govt. of India pertaining to the Crime No. 100 of 2007. Ex.P351-Printout copy of CDR of mobile Number 9732110207. Ex.P352-CDR of mobile No. 9931310202 containing 2 pages Ex.P353-CDR of mobile No. 9732110289 containing 2 pages Ex.P354-CDR of mobile No. 9832912555 containing 1 page Ex.P355-CDR of mobile No. 9932330048 containing 1 page Ex.P356-CDR of mobile No. 9931304642 containing 1 page Ex.P357-CDR of mobile No. 9931310168 containing 1 page Ex.P358-CDR of mobile No. 9732014822 containing 1 page Ex.P359-CDR of mobile No. 9932510019 containing 1 page Ex.P360-CDR of mobile NO. 9424060007 containing 38 pages Ex.P361-Photocopy of pocket dairy of Sunil Joshi which was seized by local police from his house containing 42 pages Ex.P362-FIR No. 661 of 2007, dated 29-12-2007 from PS Industrial Area, Dewas, MP containing 2 pages. Ex.P363-164 Cr.P.C. statement of Rohit Jha recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate-03 (W) New Delhi. Ex.P364-164 Cr.P.C. statement of Ranjan Kumar (PW138) recorded by Metropolitan Magistrate-03(W) New Delhi. Ex.P365-Arrest memo of A6. Ex.P366-Arrest cum personal Search of A6. Ex.P367-Personal search memo of A6 Ex.P368-Personal inspection memo of A6 Ex.P369-List of items found in the possession of A-6.
138
Ex.P370-Indian Passport bearing No. F-5973917 with photograph of A6. Ex.P371-Ration card with photograph bearing No. 284494 issued by Gram Panchyat, Development officer village Bongla, Haridwar on 8-8-2010 in the name of Swamy Omkaranand. Ex.P372-Voter Identity Card bearing No. IF10081307 in the name of Swamy Omkaranand. Ex.P373-Call data records of mobile number 9334371425 for the period 01.02.2007 to 07.12.2007 containing 124 pages Ex.P374-Sanction order to prosecute A-1 and A-2 Ex.P375-Sanction order dated 8-12-2010 vide proceedings No. C2/2786/2007 issued by the District Collector, Hyderabad District Ex.P376-Sanction order to prosecute A3, A4 and A6 for the offences U/s 3,5 and 6 of ES Act in the month of July 2012. Ex.P377-Covering letter dt. 12-10-2010. Ex.P378-CAF of mobile No. 9334371425 along with Driving licence and voter ID card. Ex.P379-Email in three pages. Ex.P380-Scanned copy of CAF in the name of Bharat Bai Mohanlal Rateshwar (A7) of mobile Number 9825352827. Ex.P381-One loose sheet of paper containing some travel itinary in some handwriting Ex.P382-E-Ticket bearing PNR No. 8404988299 in the name of A6 Ex.P383-Admissible portion of the disclosure memo dated 14-12-2010. Ex.P384-Spot (place) between Karan Jada and Zarzol villages under the discovery memo . Ex.P385-Rough Sketch map of place as shown in the discovery memo. Ex. P386-Letter dated 3-6-2010 Ex. P387-Fee payment receipt for driving license in the name of D. Gupta dated 30-9-2005. Ex P388-Learners license number 6944 dated 08-7-2005 in the name of Devender Gupta (A1) containing in three (3) pages Ex. P389-Transfer certificate in the name of Devender Gupta issued by Heerapur Manikchand Thakur Institution, Burdwan who studied 8th class. Ex. P390-Fee receipt for learner license in the name of Devender Gupta dated 07-07-2005. Ex. P391-Photostat copy of ration card bearing No. 15225505 in the name of Devender Gupta. Ex. P392-Fee receipt in the name of M. Kumar dated 30-9-2005. Ex P393-Learners license bearing No. 6945 in the name of Manoj Kumar dated 08-7-2005 containing in (4) pages Ex P394-Fee receipt dated 07-07-2005 for learners license in the name of M.Kumar. Ex. P395-Photostat copy of ration card in the name of Manoj Kumar Ex. P396-Photostat copy of transfer certificate in the name of Manoj Kumar issued by Heerapur Manikchand Thakur Institution.
139
DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR DEFENCE/ACCUSED
Ex.D-1Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-2 Ex.D-2Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW-7 Ex.D-3Copy of petition dated 14.12.2007 moved by me in the court of XIV ACMM seeking permission to examine 26 muslim militants Ex.D-4 Certified copy of deposition, dated 02.06.2016 of PW-226 given at Jaipur Court in Case No. 2 of 2011. Ex.D-5English Translation of deposition of PW-226 given at Jaipur Court in Case No. 2 of 2011.
DOCUMENTS MARKED THROUGH WITNESSES
EX-X1Certified copy of Register pertaining to Dharmashala from 8-7-2005 to 26-11-2005. EX-X2Relevant page No. 95 and the corresponding entry at 7954 of Ex. X-1 EX-X3Receipt No. 16331, dated 3-11-2005.
NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO1Shattered pieces of metal painted black marked as ‘A’ MO2Shattered pieces of metal with thread and painted black marked as ‘B’ MO3Shattered pieces of metal marked as ‘C’ MO4Shattered pieces of wire marked as ‘D’ MO5Shattered pieces of saffron colour Rexene bag marked as ‘E’ MO6Shattered pieces of Jeans Pant marked as ‘F’ MO7Shattered pieces of shirts marked as ‘G’ MO8Shattered pieces of white cloth marked as ‘H’ MO9Shattered pieces of electronic gadget cap head marking as Nokia marked as ‘I’ MO10Sample earth collected at the crater of seal of explosion marked as ‘J’ MO11Blood collected using cotton swab at pool of blood marked as ‘K’ MO12Blood collected using cotton Swab at several places of blood stains separately marked as ‘L MO13A pocket calendar marked DYFI having blood stains marked as ‘M’. MO14One Jaanimaaz. MO15Electric Circuit with red color bulb, red color switch and copper wire. MO16Electric Circuit having battery fixing wire. MO17Magnet piece MO18Broken plastic piece. MO19Monitor mirror piece. MO20Blue Color bag, MO21Black Box (Alumininum Metal). MO22Wire (circuit wire) MO23Nokia cell phone MO24Sim that was fond in MO 23. MO25White cloth.
140
MO26Round pieces of Telugu Daily News paper. MO27Two Metal shells with threaded lids. MO28One small wet battery. MO29Voda phone 136 mobile phone bearing IMEI No.352786038823819 S/N329493463490 with reliance SIM No. 8991221810000630175 and public No. 9027877712. MO30Cash of Rs. 79,350/- under the FDR.
Sd/- K. Ravinder Reddy
IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
CUM SPECIAL JUDGE FOR THE TRIAL OF N.I.A.CASES
HYDERABAD
1
SC. No.198/2014
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF FAST
TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-II CUM
XI ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri. K. Ravinder Reddy ,
IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, FAC Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-II cum XI Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 02nd day of January, 2018
SESSIONS CASE NO. 198 of 2014
(PRC No. 43 Of 20113 on the file of VI Addl.Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate , Hyderabad.)
Between:-
The state through Inspector of Police, Langer House Police Station, Hyderabad.….Complainant.
And
Emanuel Prakash S/o Samuel Jai Prakash Age 29 years, Occ: Pvt. Job, R/o. Room No.1 R.T.C. collny, office Building R.T.C. Colony, Hayathnagar R.R. District. … Accused.
This case is coming on today for the final hearing before me in the
presence of APP for the state and of Sri B. Bala Mallesh, Advocate for the
accused person and having stood over the matter for consideration till this
day, the Court delivered the following:-
-: JUDGMENT:-
1 The Inspector of Police, Police Station, Langer House, Hyderabad laid charge sheet in Crime No.401 of 2011 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 344 IPC, 376 IPC and 506 IPC.
2The brief facts of the charge sheet are that PW2 is the victim girl in this case. PW1 and PW3 are the father and mother of PW2. They are residing at House No.13-6-815/1,
Ambedkar Nagar, Langer House, Hyderabad. In the year 2011, while PW2 was studying
B.Pharmacy at Vivekananda Group of Institutions, Bata Singaram, the accused developed friendship with her stating that he was a businessman and proposed to marry her. She informed him that her parents rejected their marriage proposal and asked him to get about the same. However, the accused induced her to come out of the house to marry, otherwise he would commit suicide. On 4.12.2011 at 9.30 AM the accused took her to Bank colony, 2
SC. No.198/2014
Vanasthalipuram and confined her in a room till 8.8.2012. During the said period, the accused obtained her signature on a Christian Marriage Certificate and had sexually assaulted her many times. On 8.8.2012 when he brought her outside, she escaped from the clutches of the accused and reached her parents house.
Initially basing on the complaint lodged by PW1, PW6 Sub Inspector of Police registered the crime under the head 'girl missing'. On 8.8.2012, PW1 brought the victim girl to the police station. PW12 Sub Inspector of Police recorded the statements of PW1 and the victim girl. Basing on their statements, he filed a memo before the court altering the
Sections of law to 344 IPC, 376 IPC and 506 IPC. PW13 Inspector of Police visited the scene of offence situated at Plot.No.29, Bank colony, Vanasthalipuram and conducted scene of offence panchnama in the presence of PW9 and LW7 Laxman and drew rough sketch map of the scene. PW11 Dr.D.Anitha Kumari examined the victim girl, collected samples and basing on the FSL report she issued report.
On 13.8.2012, PW13 apprehended the accused when he came to the house of
PW1, brought to the police station and recorded his statement in the presence of PW4 and
PW5. PW10 Dr.K.Janardhan conducted the potency test on the accused and issued report.
After collecting the reports and after completion of investigation, PW13 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 344 IPC, 376 IPC and 506 IPC.
Hence the charge sheet.
3The learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 344 IPC, 376 IPC and 506 IPC against the accused. On securing the presence of the accused and after furnishing copies of documents and after hearing both sides, the case was committed to the Hon'ble
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. Initially the case was made over to the court of V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and thereafter to this court. Before this court accused was on bail.
4After hearing both sides, charges under Sections 344 IPC, 376 IPC and 506 IPC have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him. He denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.
3
SC. No.198/2014
5To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 13 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P10.
6 The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material appearing against him. He denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence. However, Exs.D1 to D3 were marked on behalf of the accused.
7Heard both sides.
8Now the point for determination is :-“Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 344 IPC, 376 IPC and 506 IPC?” 9POINT :-
The case of the prosecution is that on 4.12.2011 at about 9.30 AM the accused took the victim girl ie., PW2 to the Bank colony, Vanasthalipuram and confined her in a room till 8.8.2013 and he obtained her signatures on a Christian Marriage Certificate and sexually assaulted her many times.
To prove its case, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of PW1 to PW3,
PW5 to PW13 and the documents in Exs.P1 to P10.
The PW1 and PW3 are the parents of the victim girl ie., PW2. PW4 and PW5 said to be the mediators for the confessional statement of accused. PW6 is one of the
Investigating officers. PW7 and PW8 are said to be the circumstantial witnesses. PW9 is the mediator for scene of offence observation panchnama. PW10 is the doctor who conducted the potency test on the accused. PW11 is also the doctor who examined the
PW2 and issued the opinion. PW12 and PW13 are also the Investigating officers.
The PW1 testified that he is an RTC driver and his daughter ie. PW2 was born in the year 1991. Further he has spoken to that on 4.12.2011 he had been to attend his duties in the morning hours at about 5.00 AM and he returned to his house at about 2.30 PM.
Further his evidence reveals that his wife ie., PW3 told him that their daughter left the house at 9.30 AM but she did not return. Then he searched to trace out the PW2 for two days, but it was of no avail. He went to the Police Station and lodged a report in Ex.P1.
According to him, the PW2 returned to their house on 8.8.2012. Then she told them that 4
SC. No.198/2014
the accused was calling her on mobile phone and threatened her that he would kill her parents if she failed to marry him and that she left the house and went along with him.
Further he has spoken to in his evidence that she told that the accused took her to a nearby place at Saroornagar and confined her and also participated in the sexual intercourse. Added to it, on 8.8.2012 when she and accused had been to some place, then she escaped from his clutches. During the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he has not stated to the police that his daughter ie., PW2 returned to their house on 8.8.2012 and told about the alleged incident as narrated in the chief examination. It is an omission. It is elicited in the cross-examination that PW2 was unmarried and she was pursuing her degree course in Bachelor of Pharmacy and she was aged more than18 years as on the date of alleged incident. He denied a suggestion that the PW2 went along with the company of accused voluntarily without any coercion. He also denied that the accused never threatened her or anybody at any point of time. It is elicited in the cross- examination that his wife ie., PW3 told that the PW2 called her on mobile phone three or four times during the above said period. Further it is elicited that the PW3 told that the PW2 informed that she was happy with the accused and married him. Further he stated in the cross-examination that at about 12.00 Noon on 8.8.2012 the PW2 came to their house on the even of Rakhi festival and at about 1.00 PM the accused entered into their house.
Further he stated that they put the accused in a room under the lock and key and called the police and handed over him. He admitted in the cross-examination that the police did not examine and record his statement on 8.8.2012. He denied a suggestion that he and his wife are not interested in the accused to be the husband of PW2, thereby they compelled her to give a statement before the police.
The PW2 is the victim girl. She has spoken to in her evidence that the accused came into contact with her when he made a phone call and conversed with him on some day in the month of 2011. According to her, in that year she was studying first year
Bachelor of Pharmacy at Vivekananda Group of Institutions, Bata Singaram, RR district.
Further she stated that herself and accused were calling each other for a period of one month on their mobile phones and the latter proposed for her marriage with him. Her evidence reveals that she told him that her mother wont agree for such marriage and 5
SC. No.198/2014
refused that proposal. Even though the accused was calling her and harassing her stating that he would marry. She has spoken to in her evidence that she told about the harassment being caused by the accused to her mother. Then she told her to pursue the studies without giving importance to such harassment and threatenings made by the accused. Again the accused was calling her by using some other mobile phones and he threatened her that he would kill her parents. She further stated that on 4.12.2011 the accused called her to come out from their house otherwise he would come to their house and kill them. Then she came outside and identified the accused when he informed about his place of presence. Further she has spoken to that he took her to a distant place to their house and kept her in a single room and participated in sexual intercourse with her under the threat and coercion by showing a broken bottle as he would kill her with it. Further she has spoken to that she was kept in the said room for a period of 6 or 7 months under confinement and whenever she asked him to take her to her parents house he was threatening her that he would commit murder by pouring kerosene. Further she has spoken to that on 8.8.2012 she along with the accused came outside of the said room and the latter went to a distant place to answer the calls of nature, then she found it was convenient for her to escape and did the same. According to her, she told about the incident to her parents. After one or two hours of her reaching to her parents house, the accused had been to that place and entered into that place. She has spoken to that she and accused were chitchatting, then her parents called the police and handed over the accused. She has also spoken to that the accused also taken her signature on a small paper purporting to be a receipt showing that it was a Christian Marriage Certificate. During the course of cross-examination it is elicited that she saw the accused for the first time on 4.12.2011. She denied a suggestion that she has not stated before the police that she fell in love with the accused and he made marriage proposals and asked to talk with her parents regarding the proposal as in Ex.D1. She denied a suggestion that she personally met the accused number of times prior to 4.12.2011. She admitted in the cross- examination that the accused took her to Vanasthalipuram and first four or five days they used to move in the surrounding areas and in the night times taking shelter in a shop. She admitted in the cross-examination that she stated to police that after some time she came 6
SC. No.198/2014
to know the name of accused, he is a vagabond and also came to know that he is already married. It is also elicited in the cross-examination that she found some residential houses from the room where she was allegedly confined. She denied a suggestion that she has voluntarily called her parents on cell phones and told them that they married and living happily. She denied a suggestion that on 8.8.2012 that being the day of Rakhi festival, both she and accused came to her parents house to tie Rakhi to her brothers. She also denied a suggestion that her parents were against her marriage with the accused, therefore, they forced her to give a statement before the police. She admitted in the cross- examination that being a major, aged more than18 years, she was knowing what is wrong and what is right. She denied a suggestion that on 4.12.2011 she herself went along with the accused voluntarily and also married him. She admitted in the cross-examination that the accused took her on a motorcycle and he was taking her on a different motorcycles for a period of four or five days. She denied a suggestion that though she was having sufficient opportunity and accessibility, but she did not complain against the accused at any point of time. She also denied a suggestion that the father of the accused took a room on rent and kept them stating that she married the accused. She also denied a suggestion that she was preparing food and living happily with the accused when she was with him. She denied a suggestion that the accused gave a mobile phone two months prior to 4.12.2011 and SIM card in the name of his father. She also denied that the accused was earning person and was not a vagabond. She denied a suggestion that she made all the allegations against the accused at the instance of her parents. She also denied a suggestion that the accused married her as per the rites and customs of the Christian religion. She also denied a suggestion that the accused never assaulted her sexually without her consent.
The PW3 is the mother of PW2 and wife of PW1. She has spoken to in her evidence that at about five or six years back, her daughter told her that one boy was harassing her and he intended to marry her. Further she has spoken to in her evidence that she told her daughter not to attend the phone calls of that boy and avoid him, but her daughter was maintaining silence, and that she asked her then she told her that the accused was harassing her. She stated that on one day, which was falling on Sunday in the month of
December, 2011, her daughter left their house in the morning hours and did not return till 7
SC. No.198/2014
2.30 or 3.30 PM. The PW1 returned to their house after attending the duties, then she told about missing of her daughter. They searched to trace out her, but they could not. The
PW1 lodged a report on the next date of incident. She has spoken to in her evidence that after two months her daughter called her on a phone and told that she was living happily and married a person. Likewise, she called her on phone about ten times on different dates and conversed with her. Further she has spoken to that the PW2 came to their house at about 11.00 AM after six or seven months of her missing and the accused also came to their house in the midnight on the same day after the arrival of the PW2. Further she has spoken to that the PW2 told that the accused took away her by threatening her that he would kill them and also confined her in a room. Further she has spoken to that her daughter told that the accused had sexual intercourse with her number of times under threat and coercion. During the course of cross-examination she admitted that the PW2 was calling on her on phone prior to 8.8.2012 and she was stating that she was living happily with the accused as he married her. She denied a suggestion that her daughter told as she fell in love with the accused and put a marriage proposal and asked her opinion as in Ex.D2. She denied a suggestion that she has not stated to police while they were on search on one day her daughter called over phone and informed that she married the accused, then they returned to home as in Ex.D3. She denied a suggestion that herself and PW1 were against to marriage of their daughter with the accused, then they made her to give a false statement.
The PW4 is said to be one of the mediators for confessional statement of accused.
He did not support the case of prosecution.
The PW5 is also one of the mediators for confessional statement of accused.
Though he has spoken that the accused confessed to have committed the offence, but nothing is recovered in pursuant to his statement, as such, the evidence of PW5 is not admissible in evidence.
The PW6 is an Investigating Officer who received a report from the PW1 on 5.12.2011 and registered a case in Crime No.411/2011 and he issued FIR in Ex.P3. During the course of cross-examination, he stated that the Ex.P1 reflects the suspected mobile phone number and he received the report in writing.
8
SC. No.198/2014
The PW7 is the circumstantial witness. His evidence reveals that he is a resident of
NGO's colony, Vanasthalipuram and in the year 2012 himself and along his family members had been residing in NGO's colony, Vanathalipuram. According to him, the accused was also residing in their colony. Further he has spoken to that he provided the accommodation to the accused and a girl in a room and they were residing in the said room. Further he has spoken to that the accused told her daughter-in-law that the said girl was his wife and he married her. He stated that the accused along with the girl lived in the said house for a period of two or three months. During the course of cross-examination, it is elicited that the girl was talking with him but she did not say anything. Further it is elicited that the accused and the girl did not prepare food and both of them were going and coming to that room.
The PW8 is also a circumstantial witness. Her evidence reveals that she is residing in the NGO's colony, Vanasthalipuram. The PW7 is her maternal uncle. According to her, in the year 2011 she was residing in the house at Vanasthalipuram and she provided a room to the accused and a girl besides her house. She also stated that the accused lived with that girl for a period of two or three months and thereafter he left when she objected.
During the course of cross-examination she admitted that she kept the house open.
The PW9 is the mediator for the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P4 is the scene of offence panchanama and Ex.P5 is the rough sketch of the scene.
The PW10 is a doctor. He has spoken to that on 13.8.2012 he examined the accused to know about his status of potency and found that there is nothing to suggest that the individual examined is not capable of performing the act of sexual intercourse. Ex.P6 is the certificate.
The PW11 is also a doctor. Her evidence reveals that she examined the victim girl ie., PW2 on 8.8.2012 and found no external injuries on her, hymen was not in tact, vagina admitting two fingers, uterus was bulky. Further she has spoken to that the semen and spermatozoa was not found. She stated that the sexual assault can not be ruled out.
Exs.P7 and P8 are the reports.
9
SC. No.198/2014
The PW12 is also one of the Investigating officers who recorded the statement of
PW2. During the course of cross-examination, he admitted that the PW2 stated before him as in Ex.D1. Further he admitted that the PW2 was aged about 19 years as on that date.
The PW13 is also one of the Investigating officers. During the course of cross- examination he admitted that the PW2 stated before him as in Ex.D1. Further he admitted that the accused and PW1 resided in the house of scene of offence as tenants, but he can not say who is the owner of that house. He admitted in the cross-examination that he has not examined the owner of the said house. Further it is elicited that the said house is not at all situated at a remote place, but the said colony was a developing stage. He admitted that the PW3 stated before him as in Exs.D2 and D3. He has spoken to in his cross- examination that the parents of PW2 did not inform about the marriage of PW2 with the accused.
10Adverting to the above said evidence, the victim girl ie., PW2 was aged more than 18 years as on the date of incident. It is an admitted fact. She was also pursuing her
Bachelor of Pharmacy in Vivekananda Group of Institutions at Batasingaram, RR district.
She admitted in the cross-examination that, being a major she knows as to what is good and what is bad. Her evidence reveals that she went along with the accused on 4.12.2011 when he threatened that he would kill them. She denied a suggestion that she has stated to the police that she fell in love with the accused and he made marriage proposals and asked to talk with her parents regarding the proposal as in Ex.D1. The said statement under Ex.D1 was confronted with the PW13 who recorded her statement. The above said contradiction under Ex.D1 is material one which goes to the root of the case indicating that she fell in love with the accused. The PW3 is the mother of PW2. She has spoken to in her evidence that after two months of the incident her daughter ie., PW2 called her on phone and told that she was living happily and married a person (the accused). She has also spoken to that the PW2 called her on phone about ten times on different dates and conversed with her. The above said evidence goes to show that the PW2 did not make any adverse remarks against the accused. More over, it shows that she had been with the accused voluntarily. During the course of cross-examination, the PW3 denied a suggestion that her daughter i.e., PW2 told her as she fell in love with the accused and then he put a 10
SC. No.198/2014
marriage proposal and asked her opinion as in Ex.D2. She also denied a suggestion that she stated before the police while they were on search on one day her daughter called over phone and informed that she married the accused and they will return home as in
Ex.D3. The statements under Exs.D2 and D3 have been confronted with the PW13 who recorded her statement. Then he admitted that the PW3 stated as in Exs.D2 and D3.
Those are also material contradictions which go to the root of the case of prosecution.
Even after receiving the information as her daughter married a person, they did not report the same to the police concerned.
The statements under Exs.D2 and D3 would show that the PW2 fell in love with the accused and she also married him. Had the accused threatened the PW2, confined her in a room, definitely the PW2 would have stated to the PW3 about the same. In the absence of any complaint against the accused by the PW2 during her conversation with PW3, it adversely affect her testimony as the accused confined her in a room and threatened her, as such, she participated with him in sexual intercourse. The evidence of PW7 goes to show that the accused and the PW2 lived in a room for a period of two or three months. He has also spoken to in the cross-examination that the PW2 was talking with him and she did not say anything. If the above said evidence is taken into consideration, then it would reflect that the PW2 was not under confinement or under threat. The evidence of PW8 goes to show that the PW2 and accused lived together in a room for a period of two or three months without any complaint.
11It is held supra that the PW2 was a major and aged more than 18 years as on the date of alleged incident. Further the material contradiction under Ex.D1 indicates that the
PW2 had been fallen in love with the accused. At the same time, the contradictions under
Exs.D2 and D3 being stated by the PW3 would also indicate that the PW2 had fallen in love with the accused and she also married him. The statements under Exs.D1 toD3 would also entertain a reasonable doubt as to whether the PW2 had been in the company of accused voluntarily with her consent or not. The PW2 and the accused lived together from 4.12.2011 to 8.8.2012. It is not a short duration. There was sufficient opportunity and accessibility to the PW2 to make a complaint against the accused, but she did not do so.
Therefore, one can arrive at a conclusion that the PW2 had been in the company of 11
SC. No.198/2014
accused without any coercion. As the PW2 is aged more than 18 years and if any sexual act had taken place between her and the accused, it would amount to such act which was taken place with her consent. Further, had the accused threatened and confined the PW2, he would not have been to her house on 8.8.2012 when she allegedly escaped from his clutches.
12Having regard to the above said reasons and discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 344 IPC, 376 IPC and 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.
13 In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under
Sections 344 IPC, 376 IPC and 506 IPC. Therefore, in terms of Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, he is acquitted. He is set at liberty forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open
court this the 2 nd day of January, 2018.
FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
FOR FAST TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO
ATTROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-II CUM XI ADDL.
METROPOLITAN SESSINS JUDGE, HYDERABAD
:: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION
P.W.1 : Sri.A. Ramulu
P.W.2 : Victim Girl
P.W.3 : Smt.A.Meena
P.W.4 : Sri. N. Darshan
P.W.5 : Sri. G.Krishna
P.W.6 : Sri. K. Jaichand
P.W.7 : Sri. G. Bikshapathi
P.W.8 : Smt. B. Balamani
P.W.9 : Sri. Jalarama Laxman
P.W.10 : Dr.K. Janardhan
P.W.11 : Smt. D. Amitha Kumari
P.W.12 : Sri. N. Rambabu
P.W.13 : N.V. Ratnam 12
SC. No.198/2014
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NIL
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION :
Ex.P.1 : Complaint given by PW-1
Ex.P.2 : Signature of Complainant
Ex.P.3 : F.I.R. Copy
Ex.P.4 : Panchanama
Ex.P.5 : Rough Sketch
Ex.P.6 : Certificate of Sexual
Ex.P.7 : First Examination reported
Ex.P.8 : Medical Certificate
Ex.P.9 : Section alteration Memo
Ex.P10 : FSL Report
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE :
Ex.D.1 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW2
Ex.D.2 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3
Ex.D.3 : Relevant portion of 161 Cr.P.C., statement of PW3
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : NIL
FAC. SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE,
FOR FAST TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO
ATTROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-II CUM XI ADDL.
METROPOLITAN SESSINS JUDGE, HYDERABAD
1
IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING
THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN - I :
HYDERABAD
Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2018
Present : K. RAVINDER REDDY
IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
FAC. SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST
TRACKING THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES
AGAINST WOMEN - I : HYDERABAD
SESSIONS CASE NO. 485 of 2011
(PRC No. 64 of 2011)
BETWEEN:
The State through Inspector of Police
PS Madannapet, Hyderabad....Complainant
V/s
1)Mukta Narsinga Rao @ Marwadi Narsinga Rao S/o. Late Pentaiah (ABATED)
2)Damerla Sreesailam @ Kummari Sreesailam S/o. Damerla Venkataiah, Aged about 23 years, Occ: Car Driver, N/o. Ervin Village, Madugula Mandal of Mahaboob Nagar District, R/o. Near Saraswathy School Karmanghat, Hyderabad.
3)Nampally Yadaih @ Chekali Yadaiah, S/o. Kotaioah Aged about 25 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Near Water Tank, Madannapet, Hyderabad N/o. Gatla Mallepally Village, Nampally Mandal, Nalgonda District.
...Accused Nos. 1 to 3
This case is coming before me finally and upon hearing the arguments of the Additional Public prosecutor for the State and Sri M. Damodar Reddy, Counsel for the Accused No. 2 and Sri Ch. Vishwara Rao, Counsel for Accused No.3 and upon hearing the arguments of both sides this court made the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1 The Inspector of Police, Police Station, Madannapet, Hyderabad laid charge sheet in Crime No.118 of 2010 against the first accused to third accused for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
The case against first accused is abated as he died. The present case is tried against second and third accused.
2The brief facts of the charge sheet are that 2
PW1 is the victim and complainant in this case. PW2 and PW3 are the mother and father of the PW1. About 10 years back, the PW1 was engaged as maid servant in the house of first accused at House No.17-2-1165, Rein
Bazar, Hyderabad. At about one-and-a-half year prior to lodging of complaint, the first accused started construction of a new house at Premises No.17-2- 773, Opposite to Water Tank, Madannapet, Hyderabad. The first accused directed the PW1 to attend the miscellaneous work at the newly construction house. In the month of June, 2009 taking advantage of the loneliness of the
PW1, the first accused committed rape on her at the newly constructed house under threat. On coming to know about the same, the second accused and third accused who were working under the first accused also committed rape on her separately at the said newly constructed house. The PW1 became pregnant and about one-and-a-half before lodging the report, she gave birth to a male child.
Basing on the report lodged by PW1, PW8 registered the above crime and took up investigation. He examined and recorded the statements of PW1 to PW3, sent the PW1 to Government Maternity Hospital, Nayapool,
Hyderabad for medical examination, where her vaginal samples were collected by the doctor for FSL examination. He has also visited the scene of offence situated at Madannapet, Hyderabad, conducted scene of offence observation panchanama in the presence of LW10 Syed Fakruddin and LW11
Y.Pradeep Kumar and drew rough sketch map of the scene of offence. PW8 visited the Padma Nursing Home, Sagar Road, Champapet where the PW1 gave birth to the male child and collected the medical record. LW18 Judicial
Officer recorded the 164 CrPC statement of the victim, PW1.
On 26.7.2010 PW8 apprehended the first accused, second accused and third accused, recorded their confessional panchanamas separately. The
PW7 Doctor conducted potency test over the first to third accused and issued 3 certificates. LW17 Dr.S.Gautami conducted DNA test over the PW1, her male child and the first accused to third accused and issued DNA report wherein she opined that the second accused is the biological father of the male child of the PW1. After collecting the reports and after completion of investigation,
PW9 filed the charge sheet.
3The learned VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the case for the offence under Section 376 IPC against the first accused to third accused. On securing the presence of the first accused to third accused and after furnishing copies of documents and after hearing both sides, the case was committed to the Hon'ble Metropolitan
Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. Initially the case
was made over to the court of V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad and thereafter to this court. Before this court the second and third accused were on bail.
4After hearing both sides, charge under Section 376 IPC has been framed against the first accused to third accused, read over and explained to them. They denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.
5To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P20.
At this stage, the case against first accused is abated as he died. The present case is tried against second and third accused.
6 The second and third accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them. They denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence.
7Heard both sides.
8Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the second accused and third accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 376 IPC?” 4 9POINT The case of the prosecution is that the first accused (died) is a Pawn broker by profession and at about 10 years back he engaged the victim girl ie., PW1 as a maid servant in his house. He started renovation of his ancestral house situated near Water Tank, Madannapet, Hyderabad and he was sending the PW1 to the said house for attending miscellaneous work.
While the things stood so, in the month of June, 2009 the first accused by taking advantage of loneliness and poverty of the PW1, he committed rape on her twice in the said house by way of inducement and threatening. Further the case of the prosecution is that the second accused is a driver under the first accused till December, 2009. He has also committed sexual intercourse with the PW1 at the renovating house by way of threatening. The third accused who used to work as a labourer in the under construction building of the first accused also committed rape on the PW1 taking advantage of her age and innocence. The PW1 became pregnant and she blessed with a male boy on 14.6.2010. Further the case of the prosecution is that the PW1 was aged about 17 years as on the date of lodging the report. More over, the
PW1, her male child and first accused to third accused were subjected to
DNA test wherein the second accused found to be biological father of the male child born to the PW1.
The PW1 is the victim girl. The PW2 and PW3 are her parents. The
PW1 has spoken to in her evidence that she is a native of Samalpalli village of Nampally Mandal of Nalgonda district and her parents are agricultural labourers. Further her evidence reveals that when she was nine years old, her parents kept her as a maid servant in the house of first accused situated at Madannapet. The LW7 one Ramulu was the mediator to keep her as a maid servant in the house of first accused and he she was receiving
Rs.5000/- per annum towards her salary. Further she deposed that she was living in the house of first accused. According to her, in the year 2010 the first accused was giving a salary of Rs.10,000/- per year and at that time she was 5 13 years old and attained puberty. She worked at the house of first accused till she was aged about 17 years. The first accused was holding a house at
Madannapet, opposite to water tank and she was sent to work at that place.
Further she has spoken to in her evidence that one-and-a-half year prior to lodging of complaint, the first accused committed rape on her twice on different dates in the house situated at Madannapet, opposite to Water tank and he threatened her with dire consequences if she reveals the same to anybody, as such she did not reveal the said incident to anybody including her parents.
It is evident from her version that the second accused was working as a driver under the first accused at that time and the third accused was working in the house of first accused. Further her evidence reveals that the second and third accused came to know that first accused having illicit intimacy with her and knowing about the same they also committed rape on her forcibly without her consent under threat. They committed rape on her one-and-a-half year prior to lodging of the complaint and she became pregnant.
The first accused informed about her pregnancy to her parents. Then, her parents came to the house of first accused and then he gave Rs.20,000/- to her parents and asked to abort her pregnancy. She has also spoken to that the first accused kept the Pattadar passbook and title deeds of their land with him as security while giving the above said amount of Rs.20,000/-. Her parents and LW7 Ramulu took her to a Nursing Home at Champapet and the doctor advised her not to abort the pregnancy stating that her life would be in danger.
The doctors conducted Cesarian operation for the delivery of the child and she blessed with a male child. Further she has spoken to in her evidence that her parents and other cast elders did not agree for settlement with the first accused and thereafter she lodged a report in Ex.P1. Further she stated 6 that she was subjected to DNA test along with first accused to third accused to know who is the biological father of the male child. Then she came to know that the second accused is the biological father of her child.
On 3.11.2017 the second accused was present, but his advocate was called absent and the cross-examination was recorded as nil on his behalf.
On the same day, the third accused was called absent, but his advocate filed a petition to dispense with attendance of third accused and he did not turn up to cross-examine the above said witness.
The above said witness was re-called on 11.12.2017 and she was cross- examined. Her cross-examination reveals that she can not say the dates of commission of rape by first accused on her and she was aged about more than 18 years as on the date of alleged incident. Further she admitted that the second and third accused never committed rape on her at any point of time. It is elicited in her cross-examination that she fell in love with the second accused and she was interested to marry him, but her parents did not agree for the same. Further she stated in the cross-examination that she parted with the company of second accused with her consent when she was aged about more than 18 years. She has also stated that the second accused is not responsible for any sexual assault. Further she admitted that at the instance of her parents she lodged a report.
The PW2 and PW3 are the parents of PW1. The evidence of PW2 reveals that at about seven years back the PW1 told that she fell in love with the second accused who is a different caste person, then she did not agree for the same. The PW3 who is father of PW1 has spoken to in his evidence that about seven years back the PW1 told that she fell in love with the second accused who is a different caste person and he did not agree for the same.
Both the witnesses turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.
The PW4 is a doctor. She has spoken to in her evidence that she was 7 visiting Doctor to the Padma Nursing Home, Green Park colony, Sagar Road,
Champapet and she was attending the PW1 when she was pregnant and
PW1 delivered a boy child on 14.6.2010 and Ex.P4 is the patient case sheet.
The PW5 is also a doctor who is the Managing Partner of the Padma
Nursing Home. He has spoken to in his evidence that as per the requisition given by the Inspector of Police he handed over the Ex.P4 to him under a letter dated 26.7.2010 which is marked as Ex.P5.
The PW6 is a doctor who examined the PW1 on the requisition of police in respect of sexual assault on her. She has spoken to in her evidence that the PW1 delivered a child one-and-a-half months prior to her examination and there was breast enlargement, a transverse scar on her lower abdomen and the uterus was involutuing. Further her evidence reveals that the PW1 was post natal lactating mother and she advised DNA analysis of child to know the paternity. She gave final opinion under Ex.P6.
The PW7 is also a doctor who examined the victim girl PW1 for the age determination test. His evidence reveals that on general, dental and radiological examination he was of the opinion that the PW1 was aged about 17 years. Ex.P7 is the age determination certificate issued by him. He has also examined all the accused and he gave potency certificates in respect of first accused, second accused and third accused under Exs.P8 to P10.
The PW8 and PW9 are the Investigating officers. Ex.P20 is the DNA report.
10Before switching over to the appreciation of evidence, it is appropriate to refer the Penal provision of Section 375 IPC, which reads as under:
“S.375 Rape: A man is said to commit 'rape' if he:
(a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
(b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or 8
(c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person;or
(d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra or a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions: First – Against her will. Secondly – Without her consent. Thirdly – With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly – With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly – With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly – With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age. Seventhly – When she is unable to communicate consent.”
If a person commits rape on a girl with or without her consent when she is under 18 years of age, it falls under the Sixth description of the above said provision.
As per the case of the prosecution as on the date of examination of
PW1 by the PW7, she was aged about 17 years and one-and-a-half year prior to it she was aged about 15-1/2 years. The contention of the accused is that she was more than 18 years as she admitted in her cross-examination.
The PW1 has spoken to in her evidence that she was in the house of first accused till she attained 17 years. The PW7 who is a doctor and examined the PW1 on 26.7.2010 and issued the age determination certificate in Ex.P7.
According to him, the PW1 is aged about 17 years as on that date. Ex.P7 is age determination certificate dated 26.7.2010 issued by PW7. The said doctor conducted examination on the victim girl which is general, dental and 9 radiological and he gave opinion as she was aged about 17 years. The evidence of the doctor coupled with evidence of PW2 manifestly proves a fact that PW1 was aged about 17 years as on 26.7.2010. The incident occurred one-and-a-half years prior to the lodging of complaint in Ex.P1. Therefore, she would have been aged about 15-1/2 years as on the date of offence. The
PW1 has spoken to in her cross-examination that she was aged about 18 years as on the date of alleged incident. The above said witness has spoken to in her chief examination on 3.11.2017 that she was aged about 17 years when she worked at the house of first accused. But she resiled from her earlier statement and admitted in the cross-examination that she was aged about 18 years as on the date of alleged incident. The said statement was given by the victim girl on 11.12.2017 during the course of her cross-examination. Therefore, this court holds that the above said witness has been won over by the accused during the period from the date of chief examination and cross-examination. As such, her evidence in chief examination is taken into consideration.
The PW1 has spoken to in her chief evidence that the second and third accused committed rape on her. As a minor aged about 17 years and the incident took place when she was aged about 15-1/2 years, thus her evidence may not be discarded though there is a delay of one-and-a-half year in lodging the report. Further, admittedly all the accused, PW1 and her male child were subjected to DNA test. During the course of examination of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C. both the second and third accused stated that they were subjected to DNA test along with PW1 and her male child. The DNA report is Ex.P20. The conclusion in Ex.P20 reads that “The
Autosomal STR analysis conclusively proves that Damerla Sreesailam (source of item No.4) is the biological father of the male child of Alishetty
Parvathi (source of item No.2) whose biological mother is Alishetty Parvathi (source of item No.1). Thus, Ex.P20 proves a fact that the second accused is the biological father of the male child of the PW1. No fault is committed by 10 male child born of PW1 but he has become an Semi orphan.
It is held supra that the PW1 has been won over by the accused.
Therefore, her cross-examination does not have any evidenciary value.
Hence, this court holds that the second accused committed rape on the PW1, otherwise he would not have been held as biological father of the male child of PW1 as per the DNA report/opinion in Ex.P20.
The Pw1 has also spoken to in her evidence that the third accused has also committed rape on her. Her evidence cannot be discarded as she does not have any previous enmity or grievance with the third accused. There is no denial on the part of the third accused that he never worked under the first accused. It appears that both the accused committed rape on the victim girl taking the advantage of her age and innocence. More particularly, when they came to know about the intimacy of PW1 with the first accused. The evidence of PW4 and PW5 proves a fact that the PW1 had been to Padma Nursing
Home for delivery and she delivered a male child on 14.6.2010. The evidence of PW6 proves a fact that the PW1 delivered a male child. The PW8 and PW9 are the Investigating Officers.
Having regard to the above said reasons and discussion, the prosecution proved the guilt of the second accused and third accused for the offence punishable under section 376 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt. This point is answered accordingly.
11In the result, this court found the second accused and third accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in
the open court this the 3rd day of April, 2018.
Sd/- K. Ravinder Reddy
IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING
THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST
WOMEN-I: HYDERABAD 11 12Heard the second accused and third accused on the quantum of sentence to be imposed, for which the second accused submitted that he is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the above said offence. The third accused submitted that he is an innocent and he is nothing to do with the above said offence. Considering the above, this court feels that if the second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and fine of Rs.2000/-, and if the third accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.2000/-, will meet the ends of justice.
13Hence, the second accused and third accused are convicted under
Section 235(2) CrPC for the charge under Section 376 IPC and the second accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two months and the third accused is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of
Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two months.
The remand period undergone by the second accused (ie., from 26.07.2010 to 05.10.2010) and the remand period period undergone by the third accused (ie., from 26.07.2010 to 25.09.2010) shall be given set off under Section 428
CrPC.
The Exs.P14 and P15 shall be returned to the PW2 after expiry of appeal time.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in
the open court this the 3rd day of April, 2018.
Sd/- K. Ravinder Reddy
IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING
THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST
WOMEN-I: HYDERABAD
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
12
PROSECUTION DEFENCE
PW1 – Victim PW2 - Smt. Alishetty Laxmamma- Mother of the LW1 PW-3 - Sri Muttaiah- Father of LW1 PW4 - Dr. Y. Jayasudha- Attend the delivery case of the LW-1 PW5 - Sri Dr. Singaraiah- Furnish the delivery records of the LW-1 PW6 - Dr. K. Aruna Kumari- Examined the victim girl collected vaginal swabs and issued the final opinion. PW7 - Dr. K. Janardhan- Examined the LW-1 and issued age certificate and also examined the accused No.1 to 3 and issue potency certificate PW8 - Sri N C H Ranga Swamy- Issued FIR & first IO PW9 - Sri K.V. Surya Prakash Rao – 2nd IO & filed charge sheet
DEFENCE WITNESSES:-Nil
NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED
Ex.P1 – Report Ex.P2 - 161 Statement of PW2 Ex.P3 - 161 Statement of PW3 Ex.P4 - Inpatient case sheet pertaining to the PW1 borne by my handwriting Ex.P5 - Letter Ex.P6 - Medical Certificate Ex.P7 - Age determination certificate Ex.P8 - Potency Certificate in respect of A1 Ex.P9 - Potency Certificate in respect of A2 Ex.P10 - Potency Certificate in respect of A3 Ex.P11 - First Information Report (FIR) Ex.P12 - Scene of Offence Panchanama Ex.P13 - Rough sketch map Ex.P14 - Pattadar Pass Book Ex.P15 - Pattadar Title Deed Ex.P16 - Adangal issued in the name of PW2 from his house under a separate seizure report. Ex.P17 - Admissible portion of the statement of A1 Ex.P18 - Seizure report Ex.P19 - Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Ex.P20 - DNA report of FSL
NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED DEFENCE Nil
NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKEDNil
IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING
THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST
WOMEN-I: HYDERABAD 13 // T.C.F.B.O //
IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST TRACKING
THE CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST
WOMEN-I: HYDERABAD 14 17 15
Dt.3.4.2018:
The second accused and third accused are called present.
Thejudgmentis
pronounced (vide separate
one)
In the result, this court found the second accused and third accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC.
Heard the second accused and third accused with regard to quantum of sentence to be imposed.
Hence, the second accused and third accused areconvictedunder Section 235(2) CrPC for the charge under Section 376 IPC and the second accused is sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two months and the third accused is sentenced to undergorigorous imprisonment for a period of seven (7) years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- in default of payment of fine simple imprisonment for two months. The remand period undergone by the second accused (ie., from 26.07.2010 to 05.10.2010) and the remand period period undergone by the third accused (ie., from 26.07.2010 to 25.09.2010) shall be given set off under Section 428 CrPC.
16
The Exs.P14 and P15 shall be returned to the PW2 after expiry of appeal time.
IV AMSJ/Hyd.
17
In the result, I find A1 to A3 are found not guilty for the charge under section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Therefore in terms of Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, they are acquitted and bail bonds of A1 and A2 shall stand canceled and A3 is set at liberty forthwith if his presence is not required in any other case.
M.O.1 to M.O.3 are ordered be destroyed after appeal time is over and the same is ordered to be sent to committal court for its disposal.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the
open court this the 21st day of February, 2018.
FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR FAST
TRACING THE
CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST
WOMEN I
HYDERABAD.
18
Dt. 24.10.2017
The accused is called present.
Judgment is pronounced (vide separate)
In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. Therefore, in terms of Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, he is acquitted and his bail bonds shall stand canceled.
IV ADDL.MSJ/HYD.
FAC-SPL.SESSIONS JUDGE
WOMEN-II COURT : HYD 19
Dt. 20.1.2016
A1 to A5 are called
Judgment is pronounced (vide separate)
In the result, I find A1 is not guilty for the charges under sections 302 IPC and A2 to A5 for the charge under 109 read with Section 302 IPC . Therefore in terms of Section 235(1) Cr.P.C, they are acquitted and their bail bonds shall stand canceled.
Property order:
M.O.1 knife shall be destroyed after appeal time is over.
FAC IV AMSJ/Hyd.
1
IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE
AT HYDERABAD.
Dated this the 10th day of April, 2018
PRESENT : K.RAVINDER REDDY,
IV ADDL. METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
SESSIONS CASE NO. 535 of 2017
(PRC No. 02 of 2017)
BETWEEN:
The State through Deputy Superintendent of Police
PS WPC, CID, TS, Hyderabad....Complainant
V/s
A-1Rekha Gupta, W/o. Binod Gupta, Aged about 45 years, Occ: Supplier of Home maid servants R/o. IPP Rail Siding, Ghoshapada Road, Basanth Budi Road, Hajinagar, Naihathi North 24 parganas, Kolkata, West Bengal.
A-2Satish Kumar Gupta, S/o. Inder Mao Gupta, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Business, R/o. Villa No. 32, Palm Meadows, Kompally, Hyderabad. ….Accused Nos. 1 and 2
This case is coming before me finally and upon hearing the arguments of the Additional Public prosecutor for the State and Sri G. Jithender Reddy , Counsel for the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 and upon hearing the arguments of both sides this court made the following:
:: J U D G M E N T ::
1 The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Women Protection Cell, C.I.D.,
Telangana, Hyderabad laid charge sheet against the first accused and second accused in Crime No.23 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 340 IPC, 370 IPC and Section 26 of the Juvenile Justice Act.
2The brief facts of the charge sheet are that
The first accused is a resident of Haji Nagar, Naihathi, North 24
Paraganas, Kolkata, West Bengal. The second accused is a resident of Villa
No.32, Palm Meadows, Kompally, Hyderabad. It is alleged that the first accused 2 supplied PW4 and PW8, who are girl children, to the second accused for working as domestic maids. The second accused engaged PW4 and PW8 as servant maids and harassing them physically and mentally.
On 07.11.2015 basing on the complaint lodged by PW1, LW14
M.Usharee, Senior Executive Officer, C.I.D., Telangana, Hyderabad registered the above crime and took up investigation. Then, PW9 Deputy Superintendent of Police, WPC, CID and PW10 Inspector of Police, WPS, CID along with other staff raided Villa No.32, Palm Meadows, Kompally, rescued PW4 and PW8 victim girls and recorded their statements. He sent the PW4 and PW8 to the
Rescue Home. On 8.11.2016, PW9 visited the Palm Meadows, Kompally, examined PW1 to PW3, PW5 and LW4 Vijay Raghavan. LW13 learned
Magistrate recorded the 164 CrPC statement of the victim girls PW4 and PW8.
PW7 the doctor examined the PW4 and PW8 and issued age determination certificates.
On 28.8.2016, PW9 along with his team had been to Kolkata, apprehended the first accused, secured the presence of LW10 G.Shankar and
LW11 Pramod Kumar and interrogated her and seized MO1 Nokia cell phone,
Voter ID card and PAN card. He effected arrest of first accused and produced
before the court for remand. On 26.11.2015 the second accused obtained
anticipatory bail and surrendered before the PW9, who effected his arrest and released on bail. After collecting the documents and after completion of investigation, PW9 filed the charge sheet.
3The learned VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 370 IPC, 342 IPC
Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act against the first and second accused. On securing the presence of the first and second accused and after furnishing copies of documents and after hearing both sides, the case was committed to 3 the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in terms of Section 209
Cr.P.C.. Thereafter, the case was made over to this court. Before this court, the first and second accused are on bail.
4After hearing both sides, charges under Section 370 IPC against the first accused and charges under Sections 342 IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection) Act against second accused have been framed against them, read over and explained to them. They denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.
5To substantiate its case, the prosecution adduced the evidence of PW1 to PW10 and exhibited documents and material objects in Exs.P1 to P9 and
MO1. No oral evidence is adduced on behalf of accused, but exhibited Exs.D1 to D3.
6 The first and second accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material appearing against them. They denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence.
7Heard both sides.
8Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the first accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charge under Section 370 IPC, and the guilt of second accused for the charges under Sections 342 IPC and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection)Act”?
9POINT
The case of the prosecution is that the first accused trafficked the PW4 and PW8 who are aged below 14 years and they were kept as domestic servants in the house of the second accused and it is alleged that on 7.11.2015 in the night hours and prior to it, the second accused alleged to have assaulted them.
4
To prove its case, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of PW1 to PW10 and Exs.P1 to P9 and MO1. On the other hand, the accused relied upon Exs.D1 to D3.
It is evident from the version of PW1 that on 7.11.2015 around 9.00 AM or 11.00 AM she watched her WhatsApp and found that inhabitant of the house bearing No.32 of Palm Meadows was harassing the maid servant, then she contacted the PW2 who is a resident of Villa No.31 of Palm Meadows regarding the above said matter. Further her evidence reveals that she was told about the harassment who witnessed the same. After confirming the same, she lodged a complaint through one Deepa Narayana by making a phone call. The CID police came to Palm Meadows along with two victim girls and she enquired with them. One of the victims found to have mentally retarded. She went to the CID police office and lodged a report in Ex.P1. During the course of cross- examination, it is elicited that Ex.P1 got typed in the CID office, but she does not know name of the person who typed it. It is also elicited that she was examined by the police and her statement was recorded one month after lodging of the Ex.P1. She admitted that Ex.P1 does not contain with reference to WhatsApp group and also finding of the said harassment and enquiring with the PW2, so also in her statement made before the police. She admitted in the cross-examination that she has not stated before the police that the two victims were brought to her and she found one of them was mentally retarded, so also the same was not mentioned in the Ex.P1.
The PW2 is also a resident of Palm Meadows ie., Villa No.31 which is adjacent to the Villa No.32. She has spoken to in her evidence that she knows both the accused who are residents of Villa No.32 and they occupied the same in August, 2015. Further she has spoken to that she used to hear cries and weepings of one girl coming from Villa No.32, then they enquired with the maid servant namely Vijaya, then she told that one mentally retarded girl was there 5 and she used to do the same. Further she has spoken to that she witnessed through a window of their house into the Villa No.32 of the accused in the after noon hours and found another maid servant and another woman of that villa were bearing the mentally retarded girl. Her son LW4 Vijaya Raghavan asked about the said incident which she found. The LW4 Vijaya Raghavan, in turn, informed the same to her husband. Then her husband posted the said matter in the WhatsApp group of the Palm Meadows. Then, the PW1 got enquired with her. During the course of cross-examination, it is elicited that she has not found the first accused in the Villa No.32. She admitted that the first accused is no- way concerned with the Villa No.32 and her statement to that effect is incorrect.
It is also elicited that she was examined by the police on 7.11.2015 at about 7.00 PM and she never went to the CID office. She admitted that she omitted to say to the police about enquiring with her maid servant Vijaya and she was telling about one mentally retarded girl used to cry. She admitted in the cross- examination that her statement does not contain that she found another woman was also beating the mentally retarded girl. She denied a suggestion that she stated before the police as in Ex.D1. She admitted in the cross-examination that she has not stated before the police that her son reported the matter to his father, then he posted the matter in the WhatsApp group of Palm Meadows.
She admitted that she has not made any complaint to the Welfare Association.
She denied a suggestion that she has stated as in Ex.D2.
The PW3 is also one of the residents of Palm Meadows. His evidence reveals that in the year 2015 he found two girls working in the house of the second accused. He heard hues and cries coming from the house of second accused. He came to know the committee of Palm Meadows lodged a report.
During the course of cross-examination, it is elicited that there is a road separating his village and the village of second accused. He categorically admitted that his statement recorded by the police does not contain that he 6 found two girls and also hearing of hues and cries coming from the house of second accused.
The PW4 is one of the victim girls. She has spoken to in her evidence that her father deserted them long back and her mother has been begging for survival of the family. Further she has spoken to that she does not know both the accused and she never worked in the house of second accused. She did not support the case of prosecution.
The PW5 is one of the residents of Palm Meadows. She has spoken to in her evidence that she was hearing hues and cries of a girl coming from the house of second accused. Further she has spoken to that she has seen two girls working in the house of second accused. During the course of cross- examination, it is elicited that she has not visited the house of second accused till now and she never gave any complaint about beating of the hearing of hues and cries coming from the house of second accused.
The PW6 is the mother of the PW4. She has spoken to in her evidence that about some years back she has sent PW4 to work as servant in the house of one unknown person at Hyderabad and she was receiving the amount every month. She came to know the police rescued her daughter from the house and kept in a rescue home. She did not support the case of the prosecution.
The PW7 is a doctor who examined the PW4 and PW8 for age determination. According to her, the PW4 was aged about 14 to 15 years and
PW8 is aged about 18 to 19 years. Exs.P5 and P4 are their age certificates respectively.
The PW8 is said to be one of the victims. She has spoken to in her evidence long back she worked in the house of second accused. The PW4 was also working along with her in the house of second accused and she was 7 quarreling with her. She used to beat her. Further she has spoken to that the second accused was looking after her very well except PW4.
The PW9 is the Investigating Officer. During the course of cross- examination, he admitted that the PW2 stated before him as in Exs.D1 and D2, so also PW3 in Ex.D3. He denied a suggestion that the first accused did not confess anything before him in the presence of the witnesses.
The PW10 is one of the Investigating officers who recorded the statements of PW4 and PW8.
10Adverting to the above said evidence, the PW1 lodged the report before the police on 7.11.2015. The contents of Ex.P1 reveals that they have been continuously observing the owners of the Villa No.32 beating and vulgarly abusing the victims, PW4 and PW8. The Ex.P1 is silent about rescuing of the victim girls on the same day ie. on 7.11.2015. It is also silent about receipt of the WhatsApp message said to have sent by the husband of the PW2.
Statement of PW1 reveals that she received WhatsApp message from one
Srinivasan ie., husband of PW2 on 2.11.2015, but she lodged report on 7.11.2015. There is a delay of six days in lodging the report. Admittedly, she has not stated before the police that two victims were brought to her and she found one of them was mentally retarded.
The PW2 is said to be one of the eye witnesses to the incident wherein the victim girls were subjected to harassment in the house of second accused.
She deposed that she is a resident of Villa No.31 of Palm Meadows, Kompally.
She has spoken to that she knew both the accused who are residents of Villa
No.32. During the course of cross-examination she has spoken to that she has not found the first accused in the Villa No.32 and she is no-way concerned with the said house. Her version is vacillating in respect of acquaintance with both the accused. Her evidence reveals that she witnessed through a window of their 8 house to Villa No.32 ie. in the afternoon hours and found another maid servant and another woman of that Villa were beating the mentally retarded girl. During the course of cross-examination, she categorically admitted that her statement does not contain that she found another woman was also beating the mentally retarded girl. This is also a discrepancy in her evidence which goes to the root of the case. The Exs.D1 and D2 are contradictions which have been confronted with the PW9 who has stated that the PW2 stated before him as in Exs.D1 and
D2. Ex.D1 reveals that except the incident of younger maid servant beating the elder maid servant, she never seen any of the family members of Gupta beating the maid servants. Ex.D2 reveals that she saw that one younger maid servant was beating the elder maid servant and the elder maid servant was crying and shouting against her with abusive language. As seen from the above said contradictions, she did not witness as another woman of the second accused
Villa was beating the mentally retarded girl. The above said contradictions probabilize a story that she has not witnessed anything as stated in her evidence before this court.
The PW3 is also one of the circumstantial witnesses. He has spoken to in his evidence that he found two girls working in the house of second accused and he heard the hues and cries coming from that house. During the course of cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that he has not stated before the police as in Ex.D3. Coming to the statement under Ex.D3, it reveals that he never witnessed any of the alleged incidents personally. Therefore, his evidence is nothing but a hear-say one. He has not stated before this court as to what is the source of such information. Hence, his evidence is inadmissible.
The PW4 who is said to be one of the victim girls did not support the case of prosecution. The PW6 is mother of PW4 and she did not support the case of the prosecution.
9
The PW5 is also one of the circumstantial witnesses. She has spoken to that she never visited the house of second accused. Then, how come she knew that two girls were working in the house of second accused is not known. The same entertains a reasonable doubt as to whether he witnessed the same or not.
The PW7 is a doctor who examined and issued age certificates under
Exs.P4 and P5. According to her, Ex.P4 is the age certificate of PW8 and Ex.P5 is the age certificate of PW4. As the PW4 did not support the case of prosecution, then the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW5 may probabilize a story whether the PW4 was working in the house of the second accused or not.
The PW8 is said to be one of the maid servants, who was aged about 18 or 19 years was per the age determination certificate under Ex.P4. She has spoken to that one of the friends of second accused brought her from her native plac and arranged her to work in that house. According to her, the PW4 was also working with her in the said house and she was quarreling with her and she was quarreling with her and she used to beat her. Further she has spoken to that her grievance was against PW4 only. Added to that, she has spoken to that the second accused was looking after her very well. As seen from the above said testimony, the second accused was looking after the PW8 very well.
Even assuming that the PW4 was also working in the house of second accused, then she was quarreling with the above said witness and her grievance against that person only.
The evidence of PW9 reveals that on the basis of statements of PW4 and
PW8, he came to know about the involvement of the first accused. Then, he apprehended her and he recorded her confessional statement and seized MO1.
The confessional statement has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt as the panch witnesses for the confessional statement of first accused have not 10 been examined. More over, the MO1 is not at all concerned with the alleged crime. Therefore, no evidence is on record to show that the first accused arranged the PW4 and PW8 as maid servants in the house of second accused.
More over, there is no evidence that the second accused wrongful confined the PW4 and PW8 in his house as the PW4 did not support the case of prosecution and as the PW8 stated that she has grievance against PW4 only. Added to it, there is no evidence on record to show that the second accused assaulted the PW4 as she did not support the case of the prosecution.
Having regard to the above said reasons and discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of both the accused beyond reasonable doubt that for the charges punishable under Section 370 IPC against the first accused and charges punishable under sections 342 IPC and section 75 of the Juvenile
Justice (Care and Protection) Act. The point is answered accordingly.
10In the result, the first accused is found not guilty for the offence punishable under section 370 IPC and the second accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under section 342 IPC and Section 75 of the
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Therefore, in terms of Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The first accused and second accused are acquitted and their bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Property order:
MO1 shall be returned to the first accused after expiry of appeal time and the same is ordered to be sent to committal court for its disposal.
Dictated to Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in
the open court this the 10th day of April, 2018.
Sri K. Ravinder Reddy
IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
11
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
NO. OF WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF
PROSECUTION DEFENCE
PW1 – Smt. Lakshmi Ramakrishna PW2 - Smt. Meenakshi Srinivasan PW3 - Sri Manish Gupta PW4 - Kum. Meera Mandal @ RashniKhatoon PW5 - Smt. Anitha Vinod PW6 - Smt. Sonia Bibi PW7 - Dr. R. Sudha PW8 - Kum Saritha Kumari PW9 - Sri L. Anand Bhaskar PW10 - Miss P. Renuka
DEFENCE WITNESSES:-Nil
NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED
Ex.P1 – Report Ex.P2 – 161 Statement of PW4 Ex.P3- Marked Portion of 161 Statement of PW6 Ex.P4- Age Certificate of Saritha Kumari Ex.P5- Age Certificate of Meera Mandal Ex.P6- FIR (First Information Report) Ex.P7- Voter ID of First accused Ex.P8- PAN Card of First accused Ex.P9- Admissible portion and confessional statement of A1
NO. OF EXHIBITS MARKED DEFENCE
Ex.D1-Marked portion of 161 Statement of PW2 Ex.D2-Marked portion of 161 Statement of PW2 Ex.D3-Marked portion of 161 Statement of PW3
NO. OF MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED
MO1-Nokia Cell Phone.
Sri K. Ravinder Reddy
IV ADDITIONAL METROPOLITAN SESSIONS JUDGE,
HYDERABAD.
1 S.C.No. 8/2014
IN THE COURT OF THE SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE FOR TRIAL OF FAST TRACKING THE
CASES RELATING TO ATROCITIES AGAINST WOMEN-I CUM X ADDL. METROPOLITAN
SESSIONS JUDGE, HYDERABAD.
Present: Sri. Sri K. Ravinder Reddy , IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, FAC Special Sessions Judge for Fast Tracking the Cases Relating to Atrocities Against Women-I cum X Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad.
Dated this the 12th day of March, 2018
SESSIONS CASE NO.8 of 2014
(PRC No. 21 Of 2013 on the fie of XI Addi. Chief Metropoiitan Magistrate ,
Hyderabad.)
Between:
The state through Inspector of Police, Begumpet Police Station, Hyderabad. ….Complainant.
And
A. Ashok Kumar, S/o. A. Yellaiah Age 31 years, Occ: Pvt. employee. R/o. Balamrai, Begumpet, Secunderabad. … Accused.
This case is coming on today for the fnal hearing before me in the presence of APP G. Narayana for the state and of Sri. A. Ravindran, Advocate for the accused and having stood over the matter for consideration till this day, the Court delivered the following:- -: JUDGMENT:- 1 The Inspector of Police, Police Station, Begumpet, Secunderabad laid charge sheet in
Crime No.335 of 2012 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366 IPC, 344 IPC, 346 IPC and 376 IPC.
2The brief facts of the charge sheet are that
The PW3 is the victim. She was aged about 16 years in the year 2012. The PW1 is the mother of PW3. They are residents of House No.1-37-1248/C, Anna Nagar, Balamrai,
Begumpet, Secunderabad. The accused is also a resident of the same locality. He is married and having a daughter. The accused used to visit the house of PW1 and PW3 and developed friendship with PW3. On 8.8.2012 the accused kidnapped PW3 and wrongfully confined her in secluded place ie., at Plot.No.52, Second floor, Seetharampuram, Bowenpally, Hyderabad for a period of 10 days. During the said period he also committed rape on her.
Initially basing on the report lodged by PW1, the PW7 Inspector of Police registered the crime and took up investigation. He recorded the statement of PW1.
2 S.C.No. 8/2014
On 6.9.2012 LW10 Ramakrishna, Police Constable and LW11 Karuna Bai, Woman Police
Constable of Police Station, Begumpet, rescued the PW3 and brought to the police station. The
PW7 recorded the statement of PW3. Basing on the statement of PW3, PW5 filed alteration memo altering the section of law from 'girl missing' to Sections 366 IPC, 344 IPC, 346 IPC and 376 IPC. PW5 examined the PW1 and recorded her detailed statement. He visited the scene of offence situated at Seetharampuram, Old Bowenpally, Secunderabad and conducted scene of offence panchnama in the presence of PW4 and LW5 K.Venu and also drew rough sketch map of the scene. PW6 Dr. G.Aruna Reddy examined the victim PW3 and collected her vaginal swabs. Basing on the same, LW7 Smt.K.Aruna Jyothi, Asst. Director of FSL examined the samples and furnished her opinion. The PW5 also examined and recorded statements of PW2.
On 6.9.2012 at 2.00 PM LW10 Ramakrishna, Police Constable along with other staff apprehended the accused at Balamrai and produced before the police station. The PW5 interrogated him, effected his arrest and produced before the committal court for remand. LW9
Dr. S.Mahaboob conducted potency test over the accused. After collecting the documents and after completion of investigation, PW5 filed charge sheet.
3The learned XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad took cognizance of the case for the offences under Sections 366 IPC, 344 IPC, 346 IPC and 376 IPC against the accused. On securing the presence of the accused and after furnishing copies of documents and after hearing both sides, the case was committed to the Hon'ble Metropolitan Sessions Judge,
Hyderabad in terms of Section 209 Cr.P.C. Initially the case was made over to the court of V
Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and thereafter to this court. Before this court accused was on bail.
4After hearing both sides, charges under Sections 366 IPC, 344 IPC, 346 IPC and 376(2)
(i) IPC have been framed against the accused, read over and explained to him. He denied the allegations and pleaded not guilty.
5To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined PWs.1 to 7 and got marked
Exs.P1 to P8.
6 The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating material appearing against him. He denied the allegations and reported no defence evidence.
7Heard both sides.
8Now the point for determination is :- “Whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the 3 S.C.No. 8/2014 accused beyond all reasonable doubt for the charges under Sections 366 IPC, 344 IPC, 346 IPC and 376(2)(i) IPC?” 9POINT:-
The case of the prosecution is that on 8.8.2012 the accused kidnapped the victim (PW3), wrongfully confined her at Plot.No.52, Second Floor, Sitharampuram, Bowenpally,
Secunderabad for a period of 10 days and during that period he committed rape on her.
To prove its case, the prosecution relied upon the oral testimony of PW1 toPW7 and exhibited documents in Exs.P1 to P8.
The PW1 is the mother of the victim girl. It is evident from her version that about five years back on one day her husband admonished their daughter stating that to help in domestic work and she got annoyed and left their house without any information and knowledge. Further she deposed that they searched for her but could not trace. Then she went to the police station and lodged a report which is Ex.P1. Further her evidence reveals that five days after reporting of the incident to the police, they called them and shown their daughter stating that the accused took her and kept her in a room. During the course of cross-examination it is suggested to the
PW1 that her husband subscribed private chits with the accused in the year 2005 or 2006 and took the amount by bidding the same and he did not pay the said amount to him. The said suggestion is denied by the PW1. She also denied that the accused never took her daughter and never kept her in a room.
The PW2 is said to be owner of the house situated in Plot.No.52, Seetharampuram colony, Old Bowenpally. According to his evidence, the accused was tenant of his house at
Bowenpally. He did not support the case of prosecution.
The PW3 is the victim girl. She has spoken to in her evidence that she knows the accused since a long time and that he was coming to their shop. It is evident from her version that on 6.8.2012 her father scolded stating that she is not rendering any help to her mother in domestic work, then she felt very bad and left the house on 7.8.2012 and went to the Jubilee bus-stand, Secunderabad. Further her evidence reveals that she was at the bus-stand for about four hours and the accused called her on cell phone and asked her about her place of presence, then she disclosed the same. Then the accused came to there and she wept and told him that she won't go to her parents house though he asked her to go to her parents house. Further she has spoken to in her evidence that as she was reluctant to go to her parents house, it was about 4 S.C.No. 8/2014 6 PM on tha day, then he took her to a house at Bowenpally to keep her safely. Further she has spoken to that on the next day morning, he came and furnished tiffin and food, etc. to her and continued for a period of 15 days. Further she has spoken to that she has rang up her mother twice. Then for the first time, she scolded her and on the next time she responded. Further she has spoken to that the accused committed rape on her once. After one week her parents came to that place along with police where she resided and they took her to the police station. She admitted in the cross-examination that she has not stated to the police that the accused committed rape on her, but she told about the same to her parents. It is elicited in the cross- examination that the accused was doing finance and private chits business. She does not know whether her father subscribed a chit with the accused in the year 2005 of 2006. She denied a suggestion that the accused provided financial help to her mother to set up a shop. She denied a suggestion that the accused came to the Jubilee bus-stand, Secunderabad and took her to a house at Bowenpally and kept at that place and arranged food and other things. She denied a suggestion that he has not committed rape on her. It is elicited in the cross-examination that there were six or seven family portions in that building where she resided at Bowenpally and she was also talking with the inhabitants of the portions. It is elicited in the cross-examination that the accused dropping her on his motorcycle to attend singing classes. She denied a suggestion that she was not aged about 16 years in the year 2011. It is elicited in the cross-examination that she has not stated about the commission of rape on her by the accused to the inmates of the said building.
The PW4 is said to be one of the mediators to the scene of offence observation panchanama and rough sketch map. Ex.P3 is the scene of offence panchanama. Ex.P4 is the rough sketch map of the scene.
The PW5 is one of the Investigating officers who investigated into the matter. During the course of cross-examination, he admitted that he has not collected any Date of Birth certificate of the victim girl to show her age as on the date of incident and he has not referred the victim girl for the test to determine her age. He denied a suggestion that the victim girl was aged more than 18 years as on the date of incident and she left her house voluntarily.
The PW6 is a doctor who examined the victim girl. Her evidence reveals that she opined that there was evidence of intercourse. During the course of cross-examination, she denied a suggestion that she has not examined the victim and issued the certificate Ex.P7 at the instance of police.
5 S.C.No. 8/2014
The PW7 is also one of the Investigating officers. Adverting to the above said evidence, as the victim herself reluctant to go to her parents house, then the accused took her to a house at Bowenpally to keep her safely. Thus, the above evidence goes to prove a fact that she was not kidnapped by the accused. It is also evident from the version of the victim girl, (PW3), the accused was arranged tiffin and food for a period of 15 days and she also rang up to her mother twice. It is elicited in the cross-examination that there were six or seven family portions in the building where she resided and she was also talking with the inhabitants of the said portions. As seen from the above said evidence, one could not have any access with others if she is wrongfully confined. More over, the place where the PW1 was kept is not a secluded place.
The next question remains to be answered is whether the prosecution proved that the
PW3 was aged less than 18 years or not as on the date of alleged incident. The PW1 has spoken to in her evidence that the PW3 was studied upto 10th class at that time. The PW3 has spoken to in her evidence that she studied upto 10th in the year 2011. She denied a suggestion that she was not aged about 15 years in the year 2011. As per the contention of the accused, she is more than 18 years in the year 2011. But the PW5 Investigating Officer has not produced any date of birth certificate of the victim girl nor even he referred her to age determination test.
Having regard to the above and in absence of any evidence in the shape of date of birth certificate or age determination certificate of the victim girl, one can not assume and presume that she was aged less than 18 years in the year 2011. Always the benefit of doubt would be extended to the accused. Therefore, this court holds that the victimgirl was aged more than 18 years as on the date of incident.
As the victim (PW3) has spoken to that one day the accused committed rape on her once. Therefore, the question remains to be answered is whether such rape was committed or not, if it was committed that was with or without consent. It is held supra that the victim was aged more than 18 years as on the date of incident. Then, she was not a minor who does not have any consent.
The contention of the accused is that he did not commit any rape on PW3. Had he committed any rape on her, she would have revealed the same to the inhabitants of the building where she allegedly kept. The evidence of PW3 reveals that one day the accused committed rape on her and after one week her parents came to that place along with police. During the course of her cross-examination, it is revealed that there were six or seven family portions in the building where she resided at Bowenpally and she was also talking with the inhabitants of the 6 S.C.No. 8/2014 portions. Further she deposed that the accused was also dropping her on his motorcycle to attend singing classes. Even assuming that the accused confined or kept in a rented portion of the said house, then she was having sufficient opportunity and accessibility to reveal the same to any of the inhabitants. More over, she was also having accessibility with her mother.
Admittedly she rang her twice. All the above said circumstances entertains a reasonable doubt, whether any rape was committed by the accused on PW3 or not. Added to it, it also entertains a reasonable doubt as to such rape assumed to be committed, whether it was by her consent.
Thus, the presumption under section 376 IPC as to absence of consent does not attract in the said circumstances. Thus, the benefit of doubt is extended in favour of the accused.
Having regard to the above said reasons and discussion, the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 366 IPC, 344 IPC, 346 IPC and 376(2)(i) IPC beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the point is answered against the prosecution.
10 In the result, the accused is found not guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 366 IPC, 344 IPC, 346 IPC and 376(2)(i) IPC. Therefore, in terms of Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. he is acquitted and the bail bonds of the accused shall stand cancelled.
Dictated to Stenographer of IV AMSJ Court, transcribed by him, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court this the 12th day of March, 2018.
FAC SPECIAL SESSIONS JUDGE
: APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE ::
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR PROSECUTION
P.W.1 : Smt. Renuka P.W.2 : B. Mahesh P.W.3 : Victim girl PW.4 : D. Karunakar PW.5 : Y. Narasimha Reddy PW.6 : Dr. G. Aruna Reddy PW.7 : Md. Sharfuddin 7 S.C.No. 8/2014
WITNESS EXAMINED FOR DEFENCE : NIL EXHIBITS MARKED FOR PROSECUTION : Ex.P.1 : Report lodged by PW1 Ex.P.2 : 161 Statement of PW2. Ex.P.3 : S.O.P. Ex.P.4 : Rough Sketch Ex.P.5 : Alteration of Section. Ex.P.6 : FSL Report Ex.P.7 : MLC Opinion Ex.P.8 : F.I.r. EXHIBITS MARKED FOR DEFENCE : NIL
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED : NIL.
FAC. SPECIAL JUDGE,
Order Record 328 total
| Case No. | Parties | Date | Type | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CRLRP/500350/2017 | Bellamkonda Sreelatha vs Kotak Mahindra Bank R P Rd. Br. Somajiguda, Hyd | 18 May 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/500499/2017 | PS Afzalgunj vs A1 - Balamani | 24 Apr 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/500500/2017 | PS Afzalgunj vs Balamani | 24 Apr 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/500003/2013 | NIA PS vs Devender Gupta | 16 Apr 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/500535/2017 | Dy. Supdt. of Police, WPC, CID, TS, vs Rekha gupta | 10 Apr 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/433/2015 | P.S.Moghalpura vs A1 - Shah Ghulam Khadeer | 06 Apr 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| CRLRP/500286/2017 | Shree Samarth Kamadhenu Gowshala by its sevak Purushotham Gupta vs Through State of PS Malakpet SHO | 04 Apr 2018 | Judgment | — |
| DVC/500700/2017 | A.Annapurna vs G Sharadha | 04 Apr 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1600485/2011 | PS Madannapet vs Mukta Narsinga Rao @ Marwadi Narsinga Rao | 03 Apr 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| CRLA/137/2016 | Md.Sajid alias Md. Ayub vs P.S., WPS, CCS, | 27 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/501/2015 | The State of Telangana vs M.Shashidhara Chary | 27 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/381/2016 | P.S.Golconda vs A1 - Mohd.Rahamat Pasha | 27 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/645/2015 | M.A.Hameed vs G.Prabhakar Reddy | 23 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| DVC/928/2016 | Anusha C Pawar vs Shivaji Rathod | 22 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/520/2015 | A.Chennakesava Rao vs P.S.Kanchanbagh | 21 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/233/2014 | Shaik Hussain Saheb vs The state if A.P. | 20 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/1015/2012 | Gollu Krishna vs K.B.Nagar Raj | 19 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CC/500001/2014 | P.S.Mangalhat vs Syed Ainullah Hussaini | 16 Mar 2018 | Order | — |
| CRLA/754/2015 | Kuber Trade Links vs Ms.Sri Vijayalaxmi Textiles India pvt. ltd., | 16 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/755/2015 | Ms.Kuber Trade Links vs Ms.SriVijayalaxmi textiles india pvt. lt., | 16 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/601/2013 | Mangalhat PS vs Shaik Salman | 16 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/392/2015 | Mohd. Riyazuddin alias Roshan vs P.S. Chaderghat | 15 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/545/2015 | MOhd. Haji Pasha vs PS Saifabad | 14 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/139/2016 | P.S. Rein Bazar vs A1 - Md.Abdul Qadeer | 14 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/173/2016 | P.S., Banjara Hills, Sub-inpsector of Police, vs G.Narayana | 13 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1600008/2014 | PS Begumpet vs A. Ashok Kumar | 12 Mar 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/1700179/2015 | PS. KACHIGUDA, vs Chintapalli Srinivas @ Srinu | 12 Mar 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| CRLA/877/2015 | D.Santosh Reddy vs V.Ramesh babu | 12 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1600660/2013 | PS.reion bazar vs Vsshaik zubair | 09 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/879/2015 | Uday Laxmi Narayana Prabhu vs P.S. O.U., | 09 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/387/2015 | P.S.Banjara Hills vs Boddu Prabhakar | 09 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/98/2015 | Andapalli Narsimha vs Buchigalla Balaiah | 08 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/285/2015 | Pakeru Ramanjaneyulu vs Ms.Makhteshim - Agan India Pvtr. Ltd., | 07 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/1000/2015 | Anjaneni Anjaneyulu vs T.Krishna Murthy | 06 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/500352/2017 | PS Langer House vs Syed Shareef | 06 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/642/2015 | T.Satyanarayana vs Ch.Bhaskar varma | 05 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/695/2015 | T.Sathyanarayana vs M.Prem Chander | 05 Mar 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLRP/56/2016 | P.S., S.R. Nagar vs V.Bhikshapathi | 05 Mar 2018 | Order | — |
| DVC/880/2016 | C.K.Rajesh vs C.Lakshmi alias B.Laxmi | 27 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| DVC/881/2016 | Sri.C.K.Rajesh vs C.Laxmi alias B.Laxmi | 27 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| DVC/500645/2017 | S.Bhasker Rao vs S.Shilpa | 26 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1700167/2015 | P.S.Sultanbazar vs Mohammed Javed Ahmed Siddoqui | 23 Feb 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| CRLRP/256/2016 | P.Nageshwari vs Y.Chandra Shekar | 23 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/1038/2015 | M.Rama Devi vs N.Sharada | 22 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1600246/2012 | PS Amberpet vs Bondalil Chandra Mohan | 21 Feb 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| SC/500417/2017 | PS Banjara Hills vs A1 - Shaik Hasham @ Hashim | 21 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/392/2015 | P.S.Mangalhat vs Shanker Singh | 20 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1700419/2016 | PS.Gandhinagar vs J.Kishore Aka S.Kishore | 19 Feb 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| DVC/766/2015 | Sri.A.Vijay Kumar vs A.Sukanya | 19 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/248/2012 | Mangalhat PS vs E.Ramesh | 19 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| DVC/500709/2017 | T.Ramlal vs T.Anitha Singh | 09 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| DVC/500895/2017 | K Narsing Rao vs K Geetha | 08 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/223/2015 | Sub Inspector of Police vs Md. Noushad | 08 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1700343/2015 | PS.Narayanguda vs Mohamed Abdul Majeed @ Pappu | 07 Feb 2018 | Order | — |
| SC/1700544/2014 | PS. Santosh Nagar, vs Mohd. Ikram | 05 Feb 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| CRLA/894/2015 | Md.Sarfaraj vs P.S.Chaderghat | 05 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/500360/2017 | PS Tappachabutra vs B.Gopal | 05 Feb 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/323/2014 | The state rep. thru The Asst. Commissioner of Poli vs Devarakonda Radha Krishna | 31 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/1012/2015 | G.Srinu vs P.S. Chaderghat | 30 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/415/2013 | BHAVANI NAGAR PS. vs Abu Khaled | 29 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| DVC/929/2015 | Sohali Ahmed vs Afifa Nazneen | 24 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| DVC/500882/2015 | Afifa Nazneen vs Suhail Ahmed | 24 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/831/2015 | Mir Osman Ali vs Mohammed Arshad Khan | 10 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/832/2015 | Mir Osman Ali vs Mr.Mohd.Arshad Khan | 10 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/833/2015 | Mr.Mir Osman Ali vs Mohammad Arshad Khan | 10 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/222/2015 | Inspector of police vs Mohd Esa Khan | 10 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/668/2016 | Bhageria Financial and capital services litd., vs Pramod Goud | 09 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/116/2014 | The state of A.P. vs Shaik Shareef bin hasan qureshi alias Shareef | 08 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/293/2015 | P.S.Kanchanbagh vs Khaja Riyazuddin alias Junglee Riyaz alias Mental | 05 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLRP/104/2016 | Arunjyoti Enterprises Limited vs Mr. K. Niranjan Reddy | 04 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLRP/105/2016 | Ms. Arun Jyoti Enterprises Limited vs Mr. K. Niranjan Reddy | 04 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLRP/106/2016 | Ms. Arun Jyoti Enterprises Limited vs Mr. K. Niranjan Reddy | 04 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLRP/107/2016 | Ms. Arun Jyoti Enterprises Limited vs Mr. K. Niranjan Reddy | 04 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLRP/108/2016 | Ms. Arun Jyoti Enterprises Limited vs Mr. K. Niranjan Reddy | 04 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/709/2014 | Mohd.Javeed vs P.S.Saifabad | 03 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/715/2014 | Shafi vs P.S.Saifabad | 03 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| CRLRP/288/2016 | Ameet Zaveri vs I.Seshagiri Rao | 03 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1700198/2014 | PS.Langher House vs Emanuel Prakash | 02 Jan 2018 | Judgment | Acquitted |
| DVC/500524/2017 | Bandari Anitha vs B.Sridhar goud | 02 Jan 2018 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1600641/2013 | PS.santoshnagar vs Vsmohd haroon | 22 Dec 2017 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1700197/2015 | PS.Mangalghat vs Chaukat Nandu Kumar @ Nandu | 22 Dec 2017 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1700489/2016 | PS Asifnagar vs Nawaz Shareef | 20 Dec 2017 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/448/2013 | Srinivasa Sahu-Sahu vs WCO Team-I, CCS.DD. | 19 Dec 2017 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1700196/2014 | PS.OU Sity vs Gantala Krishna | 11 Dec 2017 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1700011/2016 | P.S.Kamatipura vs Jeedimatala Dasharath | 07 Dec 2017 | Judgment | — |
| SC/1600305/2013 | PS Gopalapuram vs Jai Bhagwan | 01 Dec 2017 | Judgment | — |
| SC/75/2016 | P.S., Chatrinaka vs Mohd.Anwaruddin alias Anwar | 01 Dec 2017 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/361/2016 | Madagalla Urmila vs Radha Bandari | 22 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| CRLRP/500304/2017 | Chandra Gupta Talreja vs Begumbazar, | 21 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/853/2016 | Akbar Khan vs Muzaffar Khan | 16 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/1166/2014 | Akbar khan vs Aslam Bin Jameel | 16 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/1167/2014 | Akbar khan vs Khaleel Bin Jameel Bajubair | 16 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/995/2014 | M.Poornachander vs Mohan Gupta | 15 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| DVC/500556/2017 | Syeda Rasheeda Begum vs Shaik habeeb | 15 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| DVC/500558/2017 | Shaik Habeeb vs Mrs.Syeda Rasheeda Begum | 15 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| CRLA/206/2015 | Narender vs Aleyamma Sebastain | 14 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| SC/500283/2017 | PS Chaderghat vs A1 - Gousuddin | 14 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| SC/304/2015 | PS Chatrinaka vs Syed Riyasath alias Moosa | 09 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| SC/446/2013 | P.S.Mangalhat vs Suresh Uttamrao Barge Alias Suresh | 08 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
| SC/18/2014 | P.S.Mangalhat vs M.Santosh Kumar | 07 Nov 2017 | Judgment | — |
Monthly Orders (Last 12 Months)
| May 2018 | 1 | |
| Apr 2018 | 8 | |
| Mar 2018 | 29 | |
| Feb 2018 | 19 | |
| Jan 2018 | 22 | |
| Dec 2017 | 8 | |
| Nov 2017 | 13 | |
| Oct 2017 | 17 | |
| Sep 2017 | 14 | |
| Aug 2017 | 22 | |
| Jul 2017 | 18 | |
| Jun 2017 | 12 |
Log in for full trend data.
Frequently Asked Questions
How many cases has Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy handled?
Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy has handled 334 court orders since 2015 at HYD, Criminal Court Complex. The average disposal rate is 10 orders per month.
What types of cases does Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy hear?
Based on available records, Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy primarily handles Criminal matters (Sessions Cases, Criminal Appeals) and Motor Accident matters (Motor Accident Claims) at HYD, Criminal Court Complex.
Where is Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy currently posted?
Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy is posted as IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge at HYD, Criminal Court Complex, Hyderabad, Telangana.
Are judgments by Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy available online?
Yes. 17 judgments by Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy are available on Legistro with full text, outcome, and sections cited.
How fast does Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy dispose cases?
Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy disposes approximately 10 cases per month, based on 334 orders handled over their tenure at HYD, Criminal Court Complex.
Since when is Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy serving?
Sri.K.Ravinder Reddy has been serving at HYD, Criminal Court Complex since 2015.
Case Types
Posting History
-
Apr 2018 — May 2018IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge · 3 orders
-
Dec 2017 — Dec 2017VII Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge
-
Jun 2017 — Jul 2017Special Judge for Trial of Economic Offences Cases Hyderabad
-
Jun 2017 — Jun 2017IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge
-
Jun 2017 — Jul 2017V Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge · 1 orders
-
Mar 2017 — Apr 2018Spl.Sessions Judge FTC forAttr against Women1 Hyd · 12 orders
-
Mar 2016 — Apr 2018Spl.Sessions Judge FTC for Attr against Women2 Hyd · 16 orders
-
Oct 2015 — Apr 2018IV Addl. Metropolitan Sessions Judge · 302 orders
Outcomes on Record
Other Judges at this Court