1 Judgment S.C.
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY SESSIONS CASE NO.660 OF 2008 State of Maharashtra. (At the instance of A.T.S. C.R.No.12/08 @ 13/08 & 14/08) Versus (1) Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari, ) aged 52 years, residing at Room No.204, ) Sanatan Ashram Sakul, Devad, Post : ) ONGS Panvel, Dist. Raigad. ) (2) Mangesh Dinkar Nikam, ) aged 35 years, residing at & Post : ) Apashinge, Tal. & Dist. Satara. ) (3) Vikram Vinay Bhave, ) aged 26 years, residing at House No.101, ) Shigvan Lane, Post : Varasai, Tal. Pen, ) Dist. Raigad. ) (4) Santosh Sitaram Angre, ) aged 26 years, residing at & Post : Lanja,) Angrewadi, Dist. Ratnagiri. ) (5) Haribhau Krishna Divekar, ) aged 48 years, residing at Karoti, Post : ) Varsai, Tal. Pen, Dist. Raigad. ) (6) Hemant Tukaram Chalke, ) aged 37 years, residing at Sai Sadan, ) Dattawadi, Post : Kherdi, Tal. Chiplun, ) Dist. Ratnagiri. )....Accused. Coram : H.H.Addl.Sessions Judge, Shri N.V.NHAVKAR. Dated : 23, 25,26,29 & 30/8/2011. (Court Room No.17) -------Ms. Rohini Salian, Spl. Public Prosecutor, for the State-ATS. Mr. Sanjeev Punalekar, Advocate for the accused. ) ) )....Complainant
2 Judgment S.C.660/08
ORAL JUDGMENT (Dictated in open Court) 1. Accused Nos.1 to 6 are prosecuted on the allegations that
they conspired and carried explosions of bomb by means of improvised explosive devices at three different places at three different point of times and days with an intention to strike terror in the section of people, and Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari facilitated, along with co-accused Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave, for procurement of arms and use of mobile phones obtained by cheating by personation and through forgery of documents.
Briefly, the prosecution story, is narrated as under :On 20.2.2008 a bomb blast had taken place at Cineraj
Cinema theatre at Panvel wherein screening of film Jodha Akbar was going on and Crime No.II-26/08 for the offence u/s 3 of Explosive Substances Act came to be registered at Panvel Police Station. (ii) On 31.5.2008 a live bomb was found at Vishnudas Bhave
Auditorium, Vashi and it was detected and defused by the squad and Crime No.II-88/08 for the offence under Sections 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act came to be registered at Vashi Police Station. (iii) On 4.6.2008 at 4.10 p.m. a bomb exploded at the four-
3 Judgment S.C.660/08
wheelers parking lot of Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane, in which 8 persons suffered injuries and Crime No.243/08 for the offence under Sections 307, 324, 427, 34 of I.P.C. r/w Sec. 3 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act came to be registered at Naupada Police Station, Thane. (iv) Investigation of these three cases was handed over to the
Anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai (ATS) by an order of Director General of Police, Maharashtra State, and Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Shri Uttam Chopane was appointed as the Investigating Officer in this case on 5.6.2008. As per such order, the papers of investigation were handed over to the ATS on 6.6.2008, and on the same day a crime came to be registered with the ATS, Mumbai vide Crime Nos.12/08, 13/08 and 14/08 for the incidents of crimes registered at Naupada Police Statio, Thane, Panvel Police Station and Vashi Police Station, respectively. (v) The respective police stations had carried out the spot
panchnamas and collected incriminating material found at the respective spots of the crime. The investigation revealed that detonators were used in the bomb blast at Panvel and Thane and a live bomb found at Vashi, which came to be defused, was found containing electron circuit, timer and battery. It was further found that a battery of Amco Company was used in the bomb blasts at Panvel and Thane. The
4 Judgment S.C.660/08
battery used in the Panvel blast was bearing Sr. No.NPJ6-105067 AB 060919, and battery found in Thane blast was bearing Sr.No.NPJ 6-104394 AB 060918. Both these batteries were also having specification of BP 1.2, 12 volts. It was found that the said batteries were manufactured by BB Battery Ltd. and marketed by Taffe Source India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai. (vi) The Investigating Officer searched for the origination of the
batteries found at the two blast sites and found that those batteries were sold by Diana Hi Tech to Pitambara Powers, Grant Road, Mumbai and the statement came to be recorded of the employee of Diana High Tech, Ms. Pornima Chavan (PW 36). Copies of Invoices and Delivery Challans were recovered, which are at Exs.142 and 143. Further investigation proceeded with Pitambara Powers, Grant Road, and statement of Rakesh Gupta (PW 47) came to be recorded and it was revealed that the batteries were sold to Gala Electricals. The statements of the owner and employees of the shop Gala Electricals, Ajit Hiralal Veera (PW 48), Rajesh Bhguji Chikane (PW 49) and Chandreshekhar Narhari Phadke (PW 50) and Munnalal Sharma came to be recorded. (vii) During the investigation, to search for the persons involved
in the three incidents the Investigating Officer proceeded on the basis
5 Judgment S.C.660/08
of list of vehicles parked at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane and suspected that one of the vehicles parked on the day of the incident at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane, Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing No.MH-06-AK-5558, is in the name of Gurukripa Pratishtan, Sanatan Sankul, Devad, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad. It was revealed that one Ramesh Gadkari working as a Sadhak for the Sanatan Sanstha, staying along with his family at the Ashram at Devad was called for enquiry, and according to the investigating officer, he disclosed his involvement in the crimes. (viii) premises Investigating Officer further searched for the residential of accused Ramesh Gadkari and he was arrested on
16.6.2008. During the search of the said premises, the police found two tickets of Drama 'Aamhi Panchpute' for the show at Gadkari Rangayatan on 4.6.2008 at 4.30 p.m. (ix) On 16.6.2008 at 4 a.m. accused Mangesh Dinkar Nikam
was found present at the Ashram of Sanatan Sanstha at Devad and his mobile found with him came to be seized. (x) The Vehicles Register of the Parking Lot at Gadkari
Rangayatan came to be seized under panchnama and statements of the employees of the Gadkari Rangayatan were recorded. Two Vehicle
6 Judgment S.C.660/08
Registers at Sanatan Sansth's Ashram at Devad were also seized and statements of the concerned persons at the Sanatan Sanstha were recorded in respect of the same. (xi) The investigation further proceeded on the basis of
suspicion that since the Sanatan Sanstha and Hindu Janjagruti Samiti had opposed the screening of film 'Jodha Akbar' and drama 'Aamhi Panchpute' since it had distorted historical events and the drama 'Aamhi Panchpute' depicted parody of various characters of Mahabharat. (xii) As per the investigation, in the interrogation with Accused
Ramesh Gadkari and Mangesh Nikam, they revealed the names of Vikram Vinay Bhave and Santosh Sitaram Angre. Therefore they were arrested on 17.6.2008. It further revealed in the investigation that accused Santosh Angre had used motorcycle bearing No.MH 04AK-9905 to carry out one of the blasts. Therefore the said vehicle came to be seized. (xiii) It was further revealed that accused Ramesh Gadkari had
procured mobile handsets and SIM cards by cheating the distributors of mobile operators, and it was revealed from the mobile recovered from Shashikant Sakpal, who is friend of accused Santosh Angre. It was
7 Judgment S.C.660/08
further revealed that accused Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave had visited the shop Gala Electricals at Lamington Road and had purchased the electron circuit of the brand name Vega Kits and 12 volts batteries of Amco Company. Further investigation was carried out on the basis of the radio frequency sensors found at the blasting sites and also the timers of Electron Company. It further revealed that the shop situated at Lohar Chawl in the name of Dhodia Electricals had sold 8 timers of Electron Company on 14.5.2006 to accused Ramesh Gadkari, who was accompanied by two others, and it was procured by Ramesh Gadkari in the name of firm Urmesh Electricals. Investigation further proceeded to find out the said firm and it was revealed that Ramesh Gadkari was a partner in the said firm, and was retired from the partnership. (xiv) On 19.6.2008 accused Vikram Vinay Bhave was interroga-
ted while in custody and at his instance an information revealed that he procured gelatin and detonators, had conducted test blast at his home and procured two revolvers from Bihar and shown his willingness to disclose the same. Therefore the investigating agency proceeded to village Varsai, Tal. Pen. The police officers accompanying accused Vikram Bhave to village Varsai found the test blast site and they collected the soil from such site. The officers further seized one
8 Judgment S.C.660/08
electric circuit from the cousin of accused Vikram Bhave and further proceeded to recover gelatin sticks and detonators from river Banganga. They further found involvement of Haribhau Divekar in disposal of the blast material and revolvers, and he was arrested at the same moment. They further recovered revolvers and they returned after such recovery on 21.6.2008. Thereafter Section 201 of IPC along with Sec.3, 25 of Arms Act and Sec.6(a)(b) of Explosive Act, 1984 were added. It was further revealed that the scooter bearing No.MH-06-AE-7151 of Shekhar Bhave was used at the time of planting the bomb at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, and therefore the said scooter came to be seized. (xv) On 21.6.2008 involvement of accused Hemant Tukaram
Chalke was further revealed and a mobile phone found came to be recovered from him. On 23.6.2008 the house search of accused
Hemant Chalke was conducted and further recovered a Tata Indicom mobile phone. (xvi) During further investigation it was revealed that accused
Ramesh Gadkari had purchased a hair wig from Vrindavan Beauty Parlour at Dadar, and the statement of the employee working at the said beauty parlour, Amar Jaanu Bane (PW 59) came to be recorded. (xvii) During interrogation with the accused the investigating
9 Judgment S.C.660/08
officer revealed that Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave had asked Tukaram Khandu Rane (PW 51) for procuring the gelatin sticks and detonators, who in turn asked his brother Chandrakant Khandu Rane (PW 52), who further asked his friend Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) to procure the same. It was revealed that said Harischandra Chorge was knowing one Chand Abdul Nadaf (PW 54), through whom they procured 20 gelatin sticks and 20 detonators. The statements of these witnesses came to be recorded before the Magistrate u/s 164 of Cr.P.C. and it is the case of the prosecution that in the month of April 2008 such procured gelatin sticks and detonators by Chandrakant Rane was handed over by him to accused Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave. (xviii) It is the prosecution case that the investigation found a
larger conspiracy to strike terror in the section of the people. Therefore they had targeted the the section of people who were viewers of the film Jodha Akbar and drama Aamhi Pachpute, and they had carried out bomb blasts using explosive substances and improvised explosive devices, and therefore provisions of Sections 15, 16 & 18 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were applied against the said accused persons. (xix) During further investigation by the different teams of
10 Judgment S.C.660/08
investigating officers, the statements of witnesses from the said three sites came to be recorded and certain witnesses described the persons and the investigation proceeded with test identification parades of the accused persons. Some of the accused were respectively identified by those witnesses at being present at the blasts. It was revealed by one of the witnesses, Mayuresh Kanekar, that he had accompanied the accused to Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi, where-from a live bomb was found, which came to be defused lateron. (xx) Further investigation proceeded in search of mobile
subscribers and its details from Tata Indicom Services and it revealed that accused Ramesh Gadkari had submitted an application for mobile connection with the photograph wearing hair wig and with the name of one Srivastava with forged documents, electric bill and driving licence, when the said documents were further investigated. (xxi) In the test identification parades conducted, the witnesses
from Gala Electricals and Dhodia Electricals further identified Ramesh Gadkari, Vikram Bhave, Mangesh Nikam at various point of time being accompanied for procurement of the electric circuits. RF remote sensors and Selectron Timers. The articles seized at three blast sites were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The
11 Judgment S.C.660/08
Investigating Officer further submitted proposal for sanction to prosecute these accused persons under the provisions Explosive Substances Act, and the sanction orders came to be passed by the District Magistrate, Thane and Raigad, respectively. On 11.9.2008 a proposal came to be submitted to the State Government for sanction to prosecute the accused persons for the offence under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and such sanction order came to be passed.
Having collected the evidence against these six accused
persons, the chargesheet came to be filed against them for the offences u/s 324, 307, 427, 419,, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Sec.3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act, 1984, Sec.3 r/w 25(1-a)(b) of Arms Act, u/s 15, 16, 16(1)(b) and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, before the Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai, who committed it to the Court of Sessions, Mumbai for trial according to law.
During the pendency of the trial, Accd.No.5-Haribhau
12 Judgment S.C.660/08
Krishna Divekar was released on bail, whereas Accd.Nos.1 to 4 and 6 are in jail custody.
The prosecution opened the case with draft charge at Ex.17
and the defence replied and objected for such draft charge as per Ex.17A. The charge u/s 307, 419, 468, 471 of IPC, 15, 16, 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was further objected.
Finally, my Ld. Predecessor, after hearing the prosecution and the defence, framed the charge at Ex.18 on 15.1.2009.
Charge came to be framed against Accd.Nos.1 to 6 for the
offences u/s 120-B, 307, 324, 201 of IPC, u/s 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and u/s 9(b) of Explosive Act and u/s 15, 16, 16(1)(b), 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A distinct charge against Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari came
to be framed for offences u/s 419, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC. A distinct charge was also framed against Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave for the offence u/s 3, 25(1)(b)(a) of Arms Act. As against Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre a
13 Judgment S.C.660/08
charge came to be framed, along with other charges, for the offence u/s 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Section 427 of IPC.
These charges were explained to Accd. Nos.1 to 6, who
pleaded not guilty to the offences and claimed to be tried as per their respective pleas recorded at Exs. 19 to 24. The defence of the accused persons is of total innocence. Accordingly, the prosecution proceeded to lead evidence in support of its case.
The prosecution examined in all 105 witnesses and brought
on record various documents bearing Exs.1 to 403 and further relied on the articles listed at the chargesheet.
My Ld. Predecessor recorded the statements u/s 313 of
Cr.P.C. of Accd.Nos.1 to 6 at Exs.406 to 411 respectively. All the accused specifically denied the incriminating circumstances against them from the evidence on record. Their defence appears to be total innocence.
14 Judgment S.C.660/08
The following points arise for determination, and I have
recorded the findings thereon for the reasons discussed thereafter :POINTS (1) Whether the prosecution proves that on 20.2.2008 at Cineraj
Cenema Hall at Panvel at about 3.15 p.m. Accd. Nos.1 to 6 in execution of their conspiracy caused explosion of bomb to prevent the screening of film Jodha Akbar ? (2) Whether the prosecution proves that on 31.5.2008 at about
18.30 hours at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha, Sector 15A, Vashi, Accd. Nos.1 to 6 in execution of their conspiracy kept a live bomb, in the form of improvised explosive device containing gelatin sticks and detonators, amonium nitrate, electric circuit, timer and remote sensor with battery, for explosion to prevent performance of the drama Aamhi Pachpute ? (3) Whether the prosecution further proves that on 4.6.2008 at
about 4.10 p.m. at the four wheeler parking lot at Gadkari Rangayatan Natyagriha, Thane, Accd. Nos.1 to 6 in execution of their conspiracy caused explosion of a bomb resulting into injuries to 8 persons to prevent performance of the drama Aamhi Pachpute ? (4) Whether the prosecution further proves that at the aforesaid
15 Judgment S.C.660/08
places of the three incidents Accd. Nos.1 to 6 in execution of their conspiracy by explosion of bomb or attempt to explode the bomb intended to cause death of unknown persons assembled there and the said accused had knowledge that they would have been guilty of murder having caused injuries to those unknown persons ? (5) Whether the prosecution further proves that on 4.6.2008 at
about 4.15 p.m. at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane by causing explosion of bomb and other explosive substances, Accd. Nos.1 to 6 voluntarily caused injuries to the persons who appeared to view the drama Aamhi Panchpute ? (6) Whether the prosecution further proves that Accd. Nos.1 to
6 in between January 2008 to June 2008 in execution of their conspiracy while committing explosions of bomb destroyed the evidence thereof, and aided and abetted one another while destroyng such evidence, to screen away themselves from legal punishment ? (7) Whether the prosecution further proves that Accd. Nos.1 to
6 in between January 2008 to June 2008 at Rahaticha Mal, Varsai, Tal. Pen, Dist. Raigad, at Apashinge, Satara, at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, Vashi, Cineraj Cinema, Panvel, and at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane, were found in possession of explosive substances
16 Judgment S.C.660/08
such as amonium nitrate, petroleum hydrocarbon oil, aluminium and accessories like R.F. circuits with remote controls, batteries, timer, plastic containers, nail, etc. to form improvised device and caused its explosions ? (8) Whether the prosecution further proves that Accd. Nos.1 to
6 in between January 2008 to June 2008 Accd.No.1 to 6 intended to strike terror in section of people, possessed the bombs, explosive substances and then aided and abetted by facilitating commission of terrorist acts and caused explosion by means of bombs at Cineraj Cinema Hall at Panvel on 20.2.2008 and at Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane on 4.6.2008 at 16.10 hours and by planting bomb (Improvised Explosive Device) at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on 31.5.2008 at about 18.30 hours ? (9) Whether the prosecution proves that on 4.6.2008 at Gadkari
Rangayatan, Thane Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave and Accd. No.4-Santosh Angre committed mischief by planting explosive devices and causing explosion and thereby caused damage to the public property valued more than Rs.1000/- ? (10) Whether the prosecution proves that Accd. No.3-Vikram
Bhave on 19.6.2008 disclosed his conscious possession of two country-
17 Judgment S.C.660/08
made fire arms and 92 bullets without holding a valid licence and it was so discovered upon his deposition to the police officer while in custody ? (11) Whether the prosecution proves that on 26.5.2008 at a
mobile shop at Panvel Accd. No.1 Ramesh Gadkari cheated by personation to Smt. Darshan Kaur pretending himself as Ramnarayan Govind Shrivastav, residing at A-1, 503/Naresh/Mahesh Apartgment, Dhantoli Raod, Nagpur and fraudulently and dishonestly induced her to deliver four Tata Indicom SIM cards ? (12) Park, Whether the prosecution proves that on 26.5.2008 at Sakshi Building No.2, Room No.202, C-Wing, Malewadi Stop,
Matheran Road, Panvel, Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari forged a motor driving licence and electricity bill for producing it for purchase of 4 Tata Indicom SIM cards, 1 Reliance SIM card and 2 mobile handsets ? (13) Whether the prosecution proves that on 26.5.2008 at the
Mobile shop at Panvel Dist. Raigad, Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari used the aforesaid forged documents such as motor driving licence and electricity bill for the purpose of cheating, intending that it shall be used as a genuine, which he knew at the time when used it to be forged documents ?
18 Judgment S.C.660/08
Whether the prosecution proves that sanction to prosecute
Accd. Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under the Explosive Act and Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is legal and valid ? (15) Whether the prosecution proves that sanction to prosecute
Accd. Nos.1 to 6 for offence punishable under the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967 is legal and valid ? (16) What order ?
The findings on the aforesaid points are as under :(1) No. (2) Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6. (3) Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6. (4) (5) No. Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6. (6) Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6. (7) Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6.
19 Judgment S.C.660/08
No. Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.No.4 .
(10) No. (11) No. (12) No. (13) No. (14) Yes. (15) No. (16) As per final order. REASONS 12. The prosecution examined Bharat Sashi Nikalje (PW 1) at
Ex.27A, who is Asstt. Manager at Cineraj Cinema Hall at New Panvel for about 7 to 8 months prior to the incident, narrated the incident occurred on 20.2.2008 at about 3.15 p.m. He identified the FIR (Ex.28.) lodged by him at New Panvel Police Station.
Viaykumar Manoharlal Agarwal (PW 2) is examined at Ex.
30. He is Manager at Cineraj Cinema Hall at New Panvel since the year 2001. He narrated the information received by him on 20.2.2008 of the
20 Judgment S.C.660/08
incident of explosion of bomb.
Ajit Gopal Parab (PW 3) is examined at Ex.31. He is
employee of the owner of Cineraj Cinema Hall named Sanjay Gupta. He reached the Cineraj Theatre after receiving information of explosion of bomb. He stood as a panch to the spot panchnama at Ex.32. He identified his signature on the labels of the panchnamas at Exs.33 to 41 and identified Art.Nos.1 to 9.
Bhaurao Shridhar Birajdar (PW 4), who was PSI attached to
Panvel City Police Station, is examined at Ex.42. On 20.2.2008 he was on duty at the police station. After he received information of explosion of bomb at the Cineraj theatre, he went there and recorded the complaint of Bharat Nikalje (PW 1) as per his narration, which is at Ex. 28 and its FIR format at Ex.28A.
Manoj Chandradev Yadav (PW 5) is examined at Ex.43. He
is Projector operator in Cineraj Theatre. He was on duty on 20.2.2008 and had started screening of film Jodha Akbar at 1 p.m., had taken interval at 3.05 p.m. and re-started the film with trailor of film Race at
21 Judgment S.C.660/08
3.15 p.m. and at such time Bharat Nikalje (PW 1) approached him and asked to stop the screening of the film. Accordingly he stopped the screening of the film.
Sudhakar Manaji Parab (PW 6) is examined at Ex.44. He
was attached to Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad at Thane. He was called on duty on 20.2.2008 at Cineraj Cinema, Panvel in respect bomb explosion, and went to the spot along with the staff, Explosive Vapour Detector, Sniffer Dog, Deep Search Metal Detector, Surveillance Optical Cell, X-Ray Machine. They reached the spot at 6.40 p.m., carried out process of detection of explosive substances and articles at the spot and prepared report as per Ex.45.
Sunil Bhagwandas Talreja (PW 7) examined at Ex.46 was
called for panchnama for taking swabs at the spot of explosion at Cineraj Cinema at Panvel, and the panchnama of taking swabs for chemical analysis was prepared as per Ex.47, and he identified the labels containing his signatures at Exs.48 to 50. He identified Art. Nos. 10 to 12.
22 Judgment S.C.660/08
Dattatray Dharma Dhangat (PW 8) examined at Ex.51 is the
Muddemal Clerk at Panvel Police Station. He carried the muddemal articles in Crime No.26/08 to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina along with covering letters at Exs.52 and 53, bearing endorsements of the laboratory of having received the articles for chemical analysis and the chemical analysis report is Ex.55.
Suryakant Dattatray Ghadge (PW 9) examined at Ex.64 was
attached to Panvel City Police Station as Sr. Police Inspector, was on duty on 20.2.2008, received information of the explosion at Cineraj Cinema, reached to the spot, called Bomb Detection & Dispoal Squad, carried out panchnama as per Ex.32, obtained report from BDDS as per Ex.45, collected Art. Nos.1 to 9, collected swabs at the spot of explosion for chemical analysis as per Ex.47, forwarded these Art. Nos. 1 to 12 for chemical analysis and obtained reports as per Exs.55 to 57.
Bhau Vithoba Narawade (PW 10) examined at Ex.58 was
attached to Vashi Police Station as Administrative Police Inspector, was present on duty at the police station on 31.5.2008, proceeded to discharge his patrolling duty in a mobile van and at 6.30 p.m. received
23 Judgment S.C.660/08
information from Sr.PI Chaugule that at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium one unattended bag is found. Therefore he proceeded to the said place. He along with staff met Manager Girish Chaware, who had taken them to the bag lying in the auditorium. He inspected the bag and found electronic instrument showing red colour light raising suspicious that it might be a bomb. Therefore he summoned BDDS and continued to prepare the spot as per Ex.59. He further recorded the complaint as per Ex.60, collected the articles from the place of incident as per Arts.13 to 18, each of them sealed with labels bearing signatures of the panchas as per Exs.61 to 66.
Shridhar Digambar Silavane (PW 11) examined at Ex.70
had gone to Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on 31.5.2008 to watch the drama, obtained pass and entered the auditorium as the drama had already started and occupied the seat between Seat Nos.10 to 13 in Row 'C' and sat with the children. During interval he noticed one bag under front seat and called the door keeper and asked him to see as to whose bag is. The door keeper expected it to be of a customer, who might have gone outside in the interval, and the playing of the drama Aamhi Panchpute continued. He noticed that the chair under which the
24 Judgment S.C.660/08
plastic bag was noticed remained vacant inspite of the drama being started playing. Then he again called the door keeper, who found it to be a plastic carry bag. The door keeper also found that some light was of blinking colour. The administrator and police arrived.
Ashok Bharma Nauvkudkar (PW 12) examined at Ex.71,
was attached to BDDS at Thane, was called on duty at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium on 31.5.2008 upon message from Police Control Room. Upon receiving the message at 18.45 hours he reached to the theatre at 20.15 hours along with Sniffer Dog, X-ray machine, Cortex, Exploder Dynama, Electric, Non-electric detonators, bomb blanket, bomb circle, safety fuse, hand held metal detector, etc. The sniffer dog was taken near the bag, who gave signal of having explosives in it and they confirmed that the bag containing explosive like detonators linked with electric circuit, battery cells, pencil cells to keep at a safe distance beneath the sand bags circle, defused it by utilizing Cortex method and prepared the report of entire incident as per Ex.72. He opinion that if the explosion would have burst, everything would have been destroyed and some one must have been died or injured coming within the periphery of 30 meters of the plastic bag.
25 Judgment S.C.660/08
Sharad Shankar Thokal (PW 13) examined at Ex.73 is the
Police Constable attached to Vashi Police Station. He carried six muddemal packets to Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina, Santacruz as per covering letter at Ex.74.
Devappa Haribhau Gura (PW 14) examined at Ex.75 was
called by the Vashi Police Station at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha on 31.5.2008 to act as a panch for panchnama of the plastic bag found unattended and the further process taken up by BDDS to defuse the bomb as per panchnama Ex.59. He identified Art.Nos.13 to 18 found at the spot and his signature on the labels at Exs.61 to 66.
Girish Shyamkant Chaware (PW 15) examined at Ex.78 was
the Asstt. Manager at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha. He narrated the incident occurred on 31.5.2008 at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha.
Ramesh Vithal Surve (PW 16) examined at Ex.79 was the
Door Keeper at Vishnudas Bhave, who attended the call given by Shridhar Silvane (PW 11). The witness narrated the incident occurred a at the spot.
26 Judgment S.C.660/08
Gulab Krishna Kardile (PW 17) examined at Ex.80 was PSI
at Vashi Police Station on 31.5.2008 and was discharging his duty as PSI from 9 p.m. onward. He registered Crime II-88/08 u/s 4, 5 & 6 of Indian Explosives Act pas per complaint of Narawade (PW 10) at Ex. 60 and its FIR format at Ex.60A.
Sudhir Ramchandra Chowgule (PW 18) examined at Ex.81
was Sr. Police Inspector at Vashi Police Station on 31.5.2008. He narrated the initial investigation and identified the covering letter at Ex. 74 sent to Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina, Mumai and report of chemical analysis at Ex.77.
Swapnil Manohar Dalvi (PW 19) examined at Ex.83 was
working as Booking Clerk at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane, attended his duty on 4.6.2008 at 12 O'clock to 10.30 p.m.. On that day the drama Aamhi Pachpute was scheduled to be played in the theatre at 4.30 p.m. He sold tickets between 12 O'clock to 4 p.m. to the customers and thereafter went to the canteen to take tea, which is located at ground floor. While returning, Watchman Sakpal had shown him one suspicious article in the parking lot and he went towards it along Sakpal
27 Judgment S.C.660/08
and found one black coloured plastic bag lying there. The bag was open. Then he went to the office and met his superios, Hanif, Dilip Gaikwad, Kishor Surve and Vivek Mhatre, and told them about the article lying in the parking lot. When he returned along with them towards the parking lot while at a distance of 10 to 12 feet away from the bag he experienced explosion and sustained injuries on different parts of his person due to the substances in the article blasted. He was scared and stopped hearing due to big noise. Vivek Mhatre also sustained injuries along with others and those were taken to a nearby hospital where police recorded his complaint as per Ex.84.
Kishor Arjun Surve (PW 20) examined at Ex.85 is the
Wireman working at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was on duty on 4.6.2008 at 4 p.m. He narrated the incident of explosion at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane.
Ramesh Sakharam Dhuri (PW 21) is examined at Ex.86 is
the Police Sub Inspector attached to Bomb Detection & Disposal Squad. On 4.6.2008 he received message from Control Room at about 16.20 hours that there is a bomb blast at Gadkari Rangayatan theatre.
28 Judgment S.C.660/08
Therefore he proceeded with instruments and Sniffer Dog. He along with other staff was shown the spot and explosion wherein one bicycle and wooden roof was damaged. He inspected the entire theatre premises and at the spot of blast noticed pieces of detonators, battery, circuit, iron nails and black powder and the Sniffer Dog having smelt the said articles, signaled it being explosives. He prepared report of examination as per Ex.87, and the articles recovered from the spot, according to him, were normally improvised explosive device and only are being used in the bomb with a view to cause injuries to the persons nearby to the explosion.
Mahadev Bhagwantrao Bhosale (PW 22) examined at Ex.89
is the Door Keeper at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was on duty on 4.6.2008 and he was panch witness to the collection of the articles at the spot of explosion as per panchnama at Ex.90. He identified the Article Nos.19 to 35 containing labels Exs. 91 to 107. He identified the bicycle Art.36 seized from the spot of explosion.
Madhukar Motiram Gaikwad (PW 23) examined at Ex.109
is the Security Guard working at Shivaji Hospital at Kalwa on 4.6.2008.
29 Judgment S.C.660/08
He was called by the police on 6.6.2008 to act as a panch for collection of pieces of nails recovered from the body of the injured persons as per panchnama at Ex.110 and articles being Art.Nos.37 and 38.
Rajesh Mahadev Salvi (PW 24) examined at Ex.111. He had
gone to watch the drama Aamhi Pachpute at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre on 4.6.2008 and at 4.05 p.m. he had sat on the bench at the side of the parking lot. While facing towards the gate, he saw four persons coming briskly from office side and came towards the parking lot, meanwhile explosion occurred and he ran away and lateron raised sensation of injury on his waist. These injuries were treated at Shivaji hospital at Kalwa.
Vivek Pandurang Mhatre (PW 25) examined at Ex.112 is
the Carpenter working with Thane Municipal Corporatin. He was on duty at Gadkari Rangayatan on 4.6.2008 and at about 4.10 p.m. Dalvi, Sakpal and another employee of the Corporation came towards the cabin and told that there is one bag lying unattended in the parking lot and it looked suspicious. He narrated the further incident occurred.
30 Judgment S.C.660/08
Dilip Mahadev Gaikwad (PW 26) examined at Ex.113 is the
employee of Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was called in the office of the Manager on 16.6.2008 for panchnama of recovery of Vehicle Register. The panchnama is at Ex.114 and the vehicle parking register is at Ex.115. During cross-examination he further identified the signatures of other employees, Kadam and Bhagwat at Ex.116 and Ex. 117, and signature of Rajderkar at Ex.118.
Hanif Ahmed Mahapure (PW 27) examined at Ex.119 is the
employee of Thane Municipal Corporation, working at Gadkari Rangayatan on 4.6.2008. He narrated the incident of having received information of one bag lying in the parking lot and he heard the noise of the blast, and further incident e xperienced by him at the spot.
Vilas Sahdev Kadam (PW 28) examined at Ex.120 is the
Security Guard at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was on duty on 4.6.2008 between 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. He attended the stand at the Gate, entered the numbers of the vehicles entered in the premises in the Vehicle Register maintained. He narrated that entry dated 4.6.2008 in the first shift are in the handwriting of Bhagwat and the entries in the
31 Judgment S.C.660/08
second shift of the same date are in his handwriting.
Mahaesh Shriram Rajderkar (PW 29) examined at Ex.121
was having additional charge of Manager of Gadkari Rangayatan. He narrated the incident of handing over Vehicle Register at Ex.115 to the police.
Anil Dhondu Pawar (PW 30) examined at Ex.124 acted as a
panch witness on5.6.2008 for the panchnama of seizure of clothes of the injured as per Ex.125. He identified those clothes at Art.39 colly. And the labels with his signature placed affixed on these articles at Exs. 126 & 127.
Sachin Tanaji Adhalge (PW 31) examined at Ex.128 acted
as a panch witness to the panchnama of collection of nails by the police as per Ex.129. He identified the phial containing the nails at Art.40.
Shridhar Raghunath Sakpal (PW 32) examined at Ex.130 is
the Security Guard at Gadkari Rangayatan. He was on duty on 4.6.2008 between 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.. When he was taking round in the theatre at
32 Judgment S.C.660/08
4.05 or 4.10 p.m. he noticed one unattended bag in the four wheeler parking lot on the side of the wall. He went near the bag and noticed two boxes in the bag. He raised suspicion in the mind and called other employees. When they were at a distance of 7 to 8 feet, there was a blast and he had sustained injuries.
Vilas Vasudev Acharekar (PW 33) examined at Ex.132 is
sthe panch witness for the house search of Accd. No.1 Ramesh Gadkari. He narrated the process of house search and the panchnama as per Ex.133. He identified the articles seized as per Art.40 colly. And the label bearing his signature as per Ex.134.
Sunny Lahu Ekade (PW 34) examined at Ex.135 is the
panch witness to the seiszure of Hero Honda Splendor two wheeler bearing No.MH 06 AK 5558 as per panchnama at Ex.136.
Kishore Dattaram Dawale (PW 35) examined at Ex.137 is
the panch witness for defusion process of 27 detonators and 15 gelatin sticks as per panchnama at Ex.138. He identified the paper bags and the bottles containing remnants of the defusion process at Arts.41 & 42 and
33 Judgment S.C.660/08
also labels bearing his signatures as panch at Exs.139 and 140.
Purnima Mohanbhai Chavan (PW 36) examined at Ex.141 is
working in Sales Department of the office of Diana High Tech Power System Ltd. as Sales Coordinator, and she told that they purchased battery from Tafe Source India Limited, Chennai. She identified the 10 invoices at Ex.142 for the sale of 47 batteries along with delivery challen at Ex.143 and the dispatch instruction as per Ex.144.
Santosh Bharat Kanekar (PW 37) examined at Ex.145 is
running a production house named Atharva Theatres and the drama Aamhi Pachpute was produced by him. On 24.5.2008 the first show of the said drama was held in Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane and he narrated the incident of having received letters from Hindu Janjagruti Samiti on 5th or 6th May 2008 raising objection that there is some sort of mockery of Mahabharata in the said drama. He identified the said letter at Ex.146 and further narrated his talk with Dr. Udai Dhuri after the letter. He further identified another letter at Ex.147.
Deepak Digambar Thombare (PW 38) examined at Ex.148
34 Judgment S.C.660/08
is the panch witness to the panchnama of recovery of nails from the person of the injured at Thane Civil Hospital as per panchnama at Ex. 149. He identified the pieces of nail at Art.43.
Vijay Prabhakar Bhor (PW 39) examined at Ex.150 is an
employee of Dainik Sanatan Prabhat and working as a journalist since the year 2000. He had handed over his vehicle Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.MH 04 AQ 9905 for canvassing to Sanatan Sanstha as per the writing given to the Sanstha as per Ex.151.
Vinayak Narayan Sakdev (PW 40) examined at Ex.152 is
another panch to the seizure of vehicle No. MH 04 AQ 9905 as per panchnama Ex.153.
Chirag Vichal Rambiya (PW 41) examined at Ex.154 is the
photographer by profession. He was called by the police at Vikhroli ATS office on 19.2.2009 and he had taken photographs of the articles shown by the police by his digital camera and then reached to the Khadi at Kanjurmarg. He has taken photographs of the defusion process of the explosive articles. He identified those photographs at
35 Judgment S.C.660/08
Exs.156 to 183, and also identified his C.D. of the photographs at Art. 44 colly.
Pralhad Pandurang Kanse (PW 42) examined at Ex.184 is
the Police Naik attached to Naupada Police Station. He had carried the muddemal articles in Crime No.243/08 to Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina along with covering letter at Ex.185 and the endorsement of the laboratory is as per Ex.186.
Gajanan Dhondiba Kuchik (PW 43) examined at Ex.187 is
the Police Naik attached to Naupada Police Station. He carried the muddemal articles to F.S.L. at Kalina along with forwarding letter at Ex.188, and the endorsement of the laboratory is as per Ex.189.
Vijay Krishna Chowdhary (PW 44) examined at Ex.190 is
the Police Constable attached to Naupada police Station. He carried the muddemal articles to the F.S.L. at Kalina as per covering letter at Ex. 191 colly., and the endorsement of the laboratory is as per Ex.192.
Mahendra Nagesh Waghmare (PW 45) examined at Ex.193
36 Judgment S.C.660/08
was called by the ATS Police on 30.6.2008 for the panchnama of the samples of gelatin sticks and detonators for being exploded at Girgaum Chowpaty as per panchnama at Ex.194, and he identified the residues of the blast collected in the bottle at Art.45, and also identified the gelatin kept in the at Art.46.
Vijay Prabhakar Shirodkar (PW 46) examined at Ex.196 is
doing business in the name of Urmesh Electricals at Kalyan since 16.6.2003. It is a partnership firm previously owned by Ramesh Gadkari and then his father purchased the same in the year 2003. According to him, the firm was in existence since the year 1980 and Ramesh Gadkari was the owner. He identified the Deed of Partnership at Ex.197 and the Deed of Retirement at Ex.198. According to him, he has not purchased any articles as per the Invoice at Ex.199.
Rakesh Bihari Gupta (PW 47) examined at Ex.199 is
running a shop in the name of Pitambara Babar. He sells all varieties of batteries, hobby kits and toys, and he is running the shop since the year 2003. According to him, the ATS police came to him on 9.6.2008, enquired about 12 volts, 1.2 Amco battery. He stated that they used to
37 Judgment S.C.660/08
purchase such type of batteries from Dyna Power, Andheri, and had purchased 47 such batteries from Dyna Power on 17.10.2007 and had sold 25 out of these batteries to Gala Electronics on 1.11.2007, and 4 were sold to Rakshak System on 29.10.07. He identified the Invoice of Dyna Power is at Ex.142, and the delivery challan at Ex.143 bears his signature. He further clarified that the second page of Ex.143, which is list of battery numbers, does not bear his signature, and heis not in possession of the originals of this list, and he was not shown this list.
Ajit Hiralal Vira (PW 48) examined at Ex.200 is the
Manager of Gala Electronics situated at Lamington Road since 14 years. They sell articles required in educational projects, robot kits and allied articles required for manufactures of educational projects and robot kits. According to him, Rajesh Chikne is the Salesman, and Chandrashekhar Phadke and Munnalal Sharma work in their workshop. They are selling the articles in name of Vega Kit. They have registration trade mark as per Ex.201. In the month of June 2008, ATS police had come to his shop, shown him photograph and asked him whether the articles shown in the photographs are available in his shop. The photograph was that of remote control circuit known as R.F.
38 Judgment S.C.660/08
Circuit, and he stated to the police that it is available in the shop and the said photograph is at Ex.202. He narrated the incident of November 2007 when he had sold R.F. Circuit and battery to two persons, and those two persons later on came to the shop and asked to change the circuit and battery since it was not operating properly. He refused to exchange the articles. Those two persons had again purchased R.F. circuit and batter from his shop in the month of November or December 2007. Again in the month of December 2007, the said two persons came to his shop with two R.F. circuits and two batteries that were sold by him. The said persons had also brought two remotes which were sold to them with R.F. circuits and batteries. Then asked him that they want to use only one remote for working out one R.F. circuits and one battery and they do not want that both the remotes will work out are made applicable to activate both R.F. remotes and circuits. The said persons asked him to make such arrangement in the remote. He described one person being old at the age of 50 to 53 years having height of 5'.5" and the second person around 25 to 30 years of age having height about 5'.5" to 5'.8". The police recorded his statement on 10.3.2008. The police again came to him on 2..7.2008 and called him to Bhoiwada Police Station. They asked him to go to Arthur Road Jail for
39 Judgment S.C.660/08
identification of the person who purchased the batteries and circuits form his shop. He along with Rajesh Chikne and Shandrakant Phadke and Munnalal Sharma went to Arthur Road Jail. Then he was shifted in one separate room. He found there 12 to 13 persons standing in one row. There was SEO sitting on chair. The SEO asked him to look at the 13 persons standing and to identify the persons amongst the 13 persons standing who had come to his shop for purchasing the articles. He walked along the standing persons and put fingers on their hands and went towards the SEO, and told him that these two persons had visited his shop for purchasing the articles. While deposing before the Court the witness identified Mangesh Dinkar Nikam and Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari as those two persons.
Rajesh Babuji Chikne (PW 49) examined at Ex.204 is the
Salesman in Gala Electronics. He narrated the incident of visit of the police to their shop on 9.6.2008. He further narrated the incident of the two persons visiting the shop in the month of December 2008 and they had purchased one kit containing R.F. Receiver, Transmitter (Remote). These two persons again came after 4 to 5 days and wanted the same kit but in smaller
40 Judgment S.C.660/08
size. Accordingly, a smaller kit was sold. Again these two persons had come to the shop on third occasion, and asked whether coding can be done from transmitter to one receiver only. He consulted the two persons from the workshop named Sharma and Phadke. The police recorded his statement on 10.6.2008. On 2nd July 2008 he was called at Bhoiwada Police Station and was taken to Arthur Road Jail for identification parade. He pointed out two persons in the identification parade as Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave who had come to his shop. The witness also identified those two persons in the Court with the same names.
Chandrashekhar Narayan Phadke (PW 50) examined at Ex.
205 is working in the workshop of Gala Electronics alogn with Munnalal Sharma. He narrated the incident of two persons visiting the workshop in November 2007 to enquire whether from one receiver to one transmitter should work and second receiver should not interfere and whether he will be able to code it in such fashion. He had opened one of the Vega kit and instructed them how to do it by soldering the kit at two spots. They had taken 15 to 20 minutes to understand the whole system, and then those two persons departed from the workshop.
41 Judgment S.C.660/08
The police recorded his statement in June 2008 and again called him at Bhoiwada Police Station and was taken to Arthur Road Jail where he identified Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave as being the said two persons who had come to their workshop.
Tukaram Khandu Rane (PW 51) examined at Ex.206 has
testified that his brother Chandrakant looks after agriculture. The witness is acquainted with accused Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave as he used to attend Satsang being held by Sanatan Sanstha, and those accused used to come to his village. In the month of April 2008 the accused came to his house and enquired about the material of blasting which they required for sinking (digging) well in the premises of Santan Ashram at Panvel. Then he called his brother Chandrakant in the present of Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave. The asked his brother Chandrakant about blasting material required by the accused. Chandrakant told that he will make enquiry with his friend Harishchandra Ghorge and will tell about this within a week. On this accused Gadkari asked the witness to keep advance of Rs.1000/towards the price of material and further told that he will come in next week. The witness handed over Rs.1000/- given by Gadkari to
42 Judgment S.C.660/08
Chandrakant. His brother Chandrakant then availed the blasting material. Then in the next week accused Gadkari and Bhave came to their house and he handed over the material of blasting, which contained 20 detonators and 20 gelatin sticks. His statement was recorded by a Court at Dadar on 2.8.2008 as per Ex.207, which bears his signature.
Chandrakant Khandu Rane (PW 52) examined at Ex.208
narrated the incident further that he went to village Nedi and met Chorge (PW 53) and made enquiry about explosive material required by Sanatan Ashram for sinking (digging) well. then he made phone call to his friend Chandbhai, who asked Chorge to come ot village Kolad. Then they met Chandbhai at Kolad with whom Chorge made inquiry of explosive materials. Chandbhai then asked them that they will stand near on the side of road where one Rajasthani person used to come with whom they shall make inquiry about explosive materials. They waited on the road.Then they noticed one jeep which halted on the road. Then one person got down from the jeep. Then Chandbhai went towards that person. Chandbhai had come with material and told its price Rs.900/-. He paid Rs.900/- to that person as per instructions of Chandbhai. Then
43 Judgment S.C.660/08
he took custody of the material. The material was packed in paper and was put in a plastic bag. Then he returned back to his brother at village Vakan, retained the material with him and gave it to Accd. Nos.1 and 3 when them came to him in third week of April 2008.
Harishchandra Maruti Chorge (PW 53) examined at Ex.210
is from village Nedi. He was approached by Chadrakant Rane (PW 52). He told that Sanatan Ashram required explosive material for sinking (digging) well. He made a phone call to Chandbhai in the presence of Chandrakant Rane and enquired about the same. He along with Chandrakant went to Kolad in the night, met Chandbhai, then Chandbhai told that one Rajasthani person comes there and they shall try if he had got material with him. Then they both went near one hill as per instructions of Chandbhai. Then Chandbhai also joined them at the hill. They were standing there. Then one passenger jeep came there and one person got down frwom the jeep and then Chandbhai went near that person and made inquiry. Then that person handed over the articles to Chandrakant. Those were gelatin sticks and detonators. Chandrakant Rane paid Rs.900/- to that person, and then they went to their respective houses.
44 Judgment S.C.660/08
Chand Abdul Nadaf (PW 54) examined at Ex.212 is
working as Supervisor with one Imtiyaz Bhai, who is doing business of crushing stones. He came in contact with Chorge (PW 53). In April 2008 Chorge told him on phone that his persons require explosive substance for sinking (digging) well. Chorge with one person came to him in the night and they three proceeded towards the hill where the work of Rajasthani person was in progress. They waited there when one passenger jeep in the meanwhile came. One person got down from the jeep, who was looking as Rajasthani, and Chandbhai asked him if blasting material for digging well can be availed. He told in the affirmative. Therefore he sent Chorge and the person with him towards the Rajasthani person. Then he, Rajasthani person, Chorge and other person went towards the site where work of Rajasthani person was in progress. Then the Rajasthani person taken out and handed over 20 gelatins and 20 detonators to Chorge (PW 53) and his companion paid Rs.900/- to the Rajasthani person. Then they all dispersed from that place to their respective destinations.
Hitesh Chimanlal Dodia (PW 55) examined at Ex.214 is
running a shop at Lohar Chawl in the name of Dodia Electricals. They
45 Judgment S.C.660/08
sell switch gear and automation articles. He along with his brother Ketan works in the said shop. On 8.6.2008 police had come to his shop and made enquiry about timer. They had brought number of timer i.e. '800M', 12 Volts D.C. and another number '0803B03-188'. The police asked him whether timer of these numbers had been sold from his shop. He told the police that he used to sell such timers from his shop. The police verified invoices from his shop. One of the invoices dated 14.5.2008 was in the name of Urmesh Electricals, Panvel. As per that invoice, they had sold 8 timers of above numbers. On 14.5.2008 one person had come to his shop and made inquiry whether 800 M 12 Volts D.C. Timer is available in his shop in eight quantity. The timer was available in the shop. He requested for for discount and when the witness refused, the said person left the shop and again on the same day at 7.30 p.m. came to the shop along with two persons, requested for discount on the purchase of such articles.. He purchased 8 items with discount and invoice was prepared and signed by his brother.
Shekhar Vijay Bhave (PW 56) examined at Ex.217 is the
cousin of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave. According to him, Vikram Bhave studied upto 10th Standard and his father was dealing in preparation of
46 Judgment S.C.660/08
Ayurvedic medicines and for some time Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave was looking after the said business. Since prior to 5 to 6 years Accd.No.3Vikram Bhave started working in temples and for some time was working in Sanatan Ashram, Panvel. The witness possessed a scooter bearing No.MH-06-AE-7153 and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave used to avail the vehicle for his work. In the month of June 2008 Accd.No.3Vikram Bhave came to him with circuit and handed over the same to him and told that he has brought it for the purpose of water pump in the house which is installed on a common well. The police came to his house on 19.6.2008 with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. The police told that they have noticed the involvement of of his vehicle in the incident occurred at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre, Thane, and he handed over the keys of the scooter No.MH-06-AE-7153, and the police attempted to start the vehicle with the key, however, the vehicle could not start and therefore the police again handed over the key to him, and he had taken the vehicle to Bhoiwada Police Station on 21.6.2008 and handed over to the police. His statement came to be recorded as per Ex.218.
Jaikumar Ramlochan Pandey (PW 57) examined at Ex.219
is the native of Bihar. He came to Mumbai and worked with firm
47 Judgment S.C.660/08
Urmesh Electricals with Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari until September 2000 and left the job with Ramesh Gadkari, and in the month of December 2007 Ramesh Gadkari called him on phone and asked if he will get a fire arm. He replied that he do not know anything about this and he should not talk with him in this connection.
Mayuresh Atmaram Konekar (PW 58) examined at Ex.221
is commercial artist and works as Visualizer in Pitambari Products Pvt. Ltd., Thane. He has done design work for Sanatan Sanstha, Panvel. He was acquainted with Accd. No.1 Ramesh Gadkari, who used to meet him in Sanatan Ashram, Panvel. He is also knowing Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave. He narrated the incident of 30.5.2008, that he had received a phone call from Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, who asked him to come to Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi. He had taken a half day leave from the office and went to Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha at Vashi. Vikram Bhave again called on phone and asked him to purchase ticket and watch the drama "Aamhi Pachpute". He watched the dram until recess and again received a phone call from Vikram Bhave at the interval, who called him out of the theatre, he came out of the theatre and saw Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and
48 Judgment S.C.660/08
Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam out side the theatre. Vikram introduced him with another person Chalke, who was there, and all of them went to Vashi Railway Station and then to Belapur by train. Then in one Indica Car they went to the house of Ramesh Gadkari and after taking tea, Chalke went away and four of them came to the S.T. Stand, Panvel and from there went to Varsai to the house of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. It was 1.30 a.m. in the night. Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari told him that at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha the drama "Aamhi Pachpute" is going to be played on the day following and they have to give their slogans and asked him whether he can give slogans. They went to sleep and got up in the morning on 31.5.2008. They all had decided and agreed to give slogans in front of Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium because there was mockery against the Hindu Devtas. The slogans were to the effect "ihMdU Qamaa-caa ivajaya Asaao, ,Qama- dao*yaaMcaa inaYaoQa". At about 12.20 p.m. Accd.No.1 Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.no.2-Mangesh NIkadm
proceeded on scooter and he along with Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave stayed at the house. Then half an hour lateron he and Accd. No.3Vikram Bhave proceeded in a rickshaw to Pen S.T. Stand and therefrom went to Panvel by S.T. Outside S.T. Stand at Panvel, they noticed Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam
49 Judgment S.C.660/08
having two bikes. He sat on the rear seat of the scooter which was in the hand of Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave sat on the another bike in the hand of Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam. Then they all went to Gavdevi Temple at Vashi. There they did chanting, and then all four again went to Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha. Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) further narrated that Mangesh Nikam entered the theatre followed by him and he sat on Seat No.41 at the back side. Mangesh Nikam sat in the front side. After 10 minutes lights inside the theatre went off the drama started. Within 5 to 10 minutes he received a phone call of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave and asked him to come out of the theatre. Then he went out side the theatre and saw Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. He asked Ramesh Gadkari as to why he was called out. Ramesh Gadkari told that he has to go and then both of them went to Vashi Railway Station, and he went to Thane by train from there onwards to his house at Ghatkopar. On the next day he read in the newspaper that one live bomb was found inside the Vishunudas Bhave Auditorium. Then he made phone call to Accd. No. 3-Vikram Bhave and asked about this. Vikram Bhave told him that it was fortunate that he had come outside the theatre. The statement of the witness Mayuresh Konekar was recorded as per Ex.222.
50 Judgment S.C.660/08
Amar Janu Rane (PW 59) examined at Ex.223 is doing
business of preparing hair wigs and having shop in the name Vrindavan Beauty Parlour at Shivaji Mandir, Dadar. On 25.6.2008 police had come to his shop with one person under veil. The police took out the veil and informed that the said person is Ramesh Gadkari. The witness narrated that after recollecting memory, he was of the impression that he had seen the said person Ramesh Gadkari prior to 3 to 4 months when he had been to his shop for purchasing artificial mustaches and beard and had purchased one set of it. According to him, Gadkari wanted to purchase the articles after setting, and such articles were handed over to Gadkari after setting for Rs.1800/-.
Manish Dattaram Surve (PW 60) examined at Ex.224
narrated about his flat being rented out to one Sudesh Dalvi in the year 2007 vide agreement of license as per Ex.226.
Smt. Darshan Majorsingh Kaur Randhawa (PW 61)
examined at Ex.227 stated that she works in one of the shops at Old Panvel of Tata Tele Services Maharashtra Ltd. In that shop they sell all types pf mobile phones along with SIM cards. On 21.6.2008 police
51 Judgment S.C.660/08
visited the shop and asked about the 4 SIM Cards purchased in the name of Ramnarayan Srivastav. The Manager Ajaysingh Rajput referred them to her. She went through the record and noticed the record having 4 xerox copies of application form for purchasing SIM Cards. All these applications were in the name of Ramnarayan Srivastav signed by the said person. She further stated that the original applications were forwarded to Andheri Office for onward processing and she had given 4 SIM cards to that person immediately. She further stated that the applications were not supplied by the person who had come along with photographs and the person presenting the applications was different from the photographs. She had asked the person why he is purchasing 4 SIM cards at a time and he told that he had to give it in gifts. When police had come to her shop for enquiry, they were accompanied by one person whose face was covered with veil. The police removed the veil from the face of the said person and asked her whether he is the same who has purchased the SIM cards and she answered in the affirmative. She identified Ramesh Gadkari in the Court and further stated that the original applications are the same which were handed over by accused Ramesh Gadkari for purchasing the SIM cards and those applications are at Exs.228, 229, 230 & 231.
52 Judgment S.C.660/08
Babruwahan Ramrao Kadam (PW 62) examined at Ex.232
working as Deputy Engineer with MSEB stated that in June 2008 police made enquiry in respect of electricity bill of Manish D. Surve and another electricity bill in the name of Ramnarayan Srivastav, which are at Exs.233 and 234. According to him, the consumer number shown in the xerox copy of the bill in the name of Ramnarayan Srivastav has not been allotted by their office and the meter number mentioned therein was also not allotted by them and he had given the report of verification as per Ex.235.
Darshansingh Bhagwansingh Randhawa (PW 63) examined
at Ex.236 is the Nodal Officer with Tata Tele Services Maharashtra Ltd. He had received a letter from Addl. Commissioner of POlice on 26.6..2008 at Ex.238. He replied the same as per Ex.239. He supplied the call details as per Ex.240. Again he received a letter dated 2.8.2008 from the Addl. Commissioner of Police as per Ex.241, by which letter they wanted the original documents given by the customer. He supplied the same along with letter at Ex.242 and those 4 documents are at Exs. 228 to 231.
53 Judgment S.C.660/08
Vilas Raghunath Godambe (PW 64) examined at Ex.243 is
working as Cashier at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. On 4.6.2008 he was on duty between 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. He attended the duty at 2 p.m. in the canteen. Before 4 p.m. one person had entered in the canteen and demanded water. He has further stated that he pointed out the place where the water was available in the canteen. The said person after drinking water returned back and asked him whether he saw the drama Aamhi Panchpute and he answered in the negative. Meanwhile another person came there to whom the person with glass of water asked as to whether his vehicle is parked and about the bag, and the said persons replied that it is in the dickey of the vehicle. Thereafter within 10 to 15 minutes there was blast with loud noise and there was smoke every where. The witness further stated that he went outside the canteen and stood on the lawn. The police then came to him, made inquiry and recorded his statement on 20.7.2008. He further states that on 18.8.2008 he was called at Vikhroli ATS office and was taken to Arthur Road Jail for identification parade. He identified two persons in Arthur Road Jail from amongst the dummies. He identified the person as the one who had come in the canteen and demanded water as Accd.No.1Ramesh Gadkari and another who had dialogue with the first one as
54 Judgment S.C.660/08
Sharad Prabhakar Bali (PW 65) examined at Ex.244 is
running a Vadapav Stall in front of S.T. stand at Panvel. He narrated the incident of 20.2.2008 when he had gone to Cineraj Cinema Hall to see a movie Jodha Akbar. Before entering the hall after getting ticket, he was wandering around the theatre and he had noticed two persons who came on a bike. One person got down from the bike and went to avail a ticket, and the person on the motorcycle went out side with the bike. Then again the said bike rider came to the theatre with another person. The witness further states that he went inside the theatre and those three persons who had come there on the bike also entered the theatre. In the interval he came out of the theatre and again went inside and heard noise of bursting like crackers. The witness further narrated the incident that in the month of August 2008 he was called in Arthur Road Jail where he identified those three persons to whom he had watched in the theatre while coming on the bike and according to him those are Ramesh Gadkari, Mangesh Nika and Vikram Bhave.
Suresh Rajaram Shinde (PW 66) examined at Ex.247 has
55 Judgment S.C.660/08
not supported the prosecution case and nothing substantial came out of his cross-examination conducted by the prosecution.
Prabhakar Takarji Yeshwante (PW 67) examined at Ex.248
is the Special Executive Officer. He received a letter from Mr. Rathod attached to ATS and he was asked to come at Bhoiwada ATS Police Station for holding identification parade as per the letter at Ex.250. He had gone to the police station on 2.7.2008 at 10 a.m. and Mr. Rathod gave him idea and particulars of identification of the accused by witnesses. According to him, in the first identification parade Hitesh Dodia and Ketan Dodia identified Ramesh Gadkari, and in the second identification parade Hitesh Dodia and Ketan Dodia identified Mangesh Nikam and Hemant Chalke. According to Prabhakar Yashwante (PW 67), in the second identification parade the witnesses named Ajit, Munnilal Sharma, Rajesh Chikne and Chandrashekar Phadke did not identify anybody. Then he prepared identification parade report as per Ex.251.
Dattaram Jairam Kambli (PW 68) examined at Ex.252 is the
Special Executive Officer. He was requested by ACP Mr. Chopane
56 Judgment S.C.660/08
attached to ATS on 18.8.2008 to conduct identification parades. According to him, there were five accused persons to whom the witnesses named Sharad Bali and Vilas Godambe were to identify. He held the identification parade in three sets i.e. in two sets there were two accused each and in the third set there was one accused. According to him, in the first set, the witness Sharad Bali identified accused Vikram Bhave and Santosh Angre and the witness Vilas Godambe identified accused Santosh Angre, and in the second set none of the witnesses identified accused Mangesh Nikam and Chalke, and in the third set Ramesh Gadkari was identified in both the sets. The witness prepared the identification parade report in his handwriting as per Ex. 253.
Nurulla Hajmatulla Shaikh (PW 69) examined at Ex.254
was called by Vikhroli Police Station on 16.6.2008 to act as a panch and the police told him that they have to take search of the apprehended persons. There was one accused with the police, whose name was referred as Mangesh. The police taken his search and one black coloured mobile of Nokia Company was found in the left pocket of his pant. The police prepared the arrest and seizure panchnama and written
57 Judgment S.C.660/08
down the mobile number and SIM card number, and he identified the panchnama at Ex.255. It bears his signature, and further identified the mobile and SIM card at Art,47 colly. He further identified the label affixed to the packet of those articles bearing his signature at Ex.256. The witness further states that on 17.6.2008 he was again called by the police at the police station, where two accused were present. He referred one of them as Vikram Bhave and he does not remember name of the other accused person. The police had taken search of these persons in his presence, and a mobile of Sony Ericson company was found. The police had taken out the SIM card and nothing was found on the person of other person. The police prepared arrest and seizure panchnama as per Ex.257.It bears his signature and he further identified the mobile and SIM card at Art.48 colly.
Rakesh Shrikrishna Dawade (PW 70) examined at Ex.259 is
the panch witness to the seizure of the mobile phone from Sandip Sakpal as per panchnama at Ex.260, and he identified the said mobile, SIM card and battery which are at Ex.49 colly., and he further identified the packet and label bearing his signature affixed on the article as per Ex.261.
58 Judgment S.C.660/08
Gajanan Mansingh Rathod (PW 71) examined at Ex.263 is
the Clerk from R.T.O., Nagpur. Their office received a letter calling particulars about the motor vehicle licence relating to MDL No.MH-31-10573/98. According to him, the record was searched, and it was found that the said number was entered in the Manual Register in the name of Wajidali Sayyedali, resident of Taj Baug, Ayyat Colony, Nagpur. He identified the letter as per Ex.264 giving such number and also produced the relevant extract of the register at page 73, a copy of which is brought on record at Ex.265. He further stated that after 11.8.1998 they started preparing computerized record and the computer copy regarding alleged MDL number is at Ex.266.
Sandip Shashikant Sakpal (PW 72) examined at Ex.267 is
working in Parle Products as Excise Assistance since 2008. I was working as Accountant with Sanatan Ashram and with Saptahik Sanatan Prabhat. He knew Santosh Angre., who was residing in Sanatan Ashram. On 15.6.2008 he had occasion to go to Sanatan Ashram for Seva, and while returning he asked Angre for his mobile to hear Bhajans. Therefore Angre handed over the said mobile. He heard Bhajans from the mobile at his house upto 11 p.m. and on the next day
59 Judgment S.C.660/08
he went to his office in the morning. He received phone call from his wife that police had taken Santoshi Angre in custody, and he was called at ATS police station at Bhoiwada with mobile of Angre. His statement was recorded before a Magistrate, which is at Ex.268.
Dr. Uday Bhivaji Dhuri (PW 73) examined at Ex.272 is
running an organization in the name Hindu Jana Jagruti Samiti formulated in the year 2002 having office at Naupada, Thane. He is inviter of the said Samiti for the area of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai, and the aim of the Samiti is to prevent the mockery of Hindu gods being done in the theaters, dramas, in advertisement, in paintings, etc. The witness further states that they used to protest such activities by demonstration with silence and by writing to Censor Board. They had a dialogue with drama producers to stop such type of mockery of Hindu Gods. They had also submitted representations to the Chief Minister and other administrative authorities for stopping such nuisance. The witness further clarified that he had carried out silent protest against performance of the drams “Bighadle Swargache Dwar”, “Yada Kadachit”, Deva Adi Koknat Yeva” and “Dev Karil Love” . According to him, such protests were launched by them at the theatres in Dadar,
60 Judgment S.C.660/08
Vile Parle, Kalidas Theatre, Mulund, Vishnudas Bhave Theatre, Vashi and Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. The witness further explained that he knows Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave. He further explained that they had raised objection against performance of the Drama Amhi Pachpute and had discussed with Santosh Pawar and Santosh Kanekar relating to the mockery of Hindu Idols in their drama Aamhi Pachpute. The witness further stated that he addressed letters to themfor removing objectionable portion which are affecting Hindu sentiments and he identified those letters being at Exs.146 and 147.
Narayan Ramkrishna Mulye (PW 74) examined at Ex.273 is
working at Sanatan Sanstha at Panvel. He identified accused Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave and further stated that police enquired about two-wheeler vehicles of the Ashram, and that the police had taken two wheeler vehicle in their custody.
Abhay V ijay Vartak (PW 75) examined at Ex.278 has
stated that he works in Sanatan Ashram at Panvel in construction section and also renders other services for the last 10 years. According to him, the Ashram is having 10 two-wheelers and 7 to 8 four-wheelers.
61 Judgment S.C.660/08
The police had visited the Ashram for enquiry about vehicle No.MH-06-5558, which is a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle. He further stated that one Vehicle Register is maintained at the respective centre of the Ashram for the use of the vehicles at the Ashram, and he identified the two registers at Arts.50 and 51, and further identified the entries in respect of vehicle No.MH-06-AK-5558.
Ashok Jagannath Nimkar (PW 76) examined at Ex.279 is
working in Account department of Panvel Sanatan Sanstha Ashram. He identified the List of Honorarium of the Ashram at Ex.280 bearing signatures of the persons to whom the honorarium is paid.
Dnyaneshwar Dhondiba Kumbhar (PW 77) examined at Ex.
283 is the panch witness, residing at Borgaon, Dist. Satara. He was called by the police at village Apshinge and he identified the panchnama at Ex.284 drawn at the house of accused Mangesh Nikam and further identified the Art.53 colly. to 61 seized at the house of accused Mangesh Nikam at village Apshinge.
Augustian Excel Dias (PW 78) examined at Ex.293 is the
62 Judgment S.C.660/08
panch witness to the seizure of the registers at Arts.50 and 51 and the diary at Art.62 as per panchnama at Ex.294.
Pawar Venkata Ananta (PW 79) examined at Ex.296 is an
Agent of State Bank of India at Pen. He appeared on behalf of the Bank, identified the letter at ex.297 sent by ATS, Mumbai and submitted the particulars of the account in the name of Vikram Bhave and those account details are at Ex.298 to 300.
Preetam Pradeep Mhatre (PW 80) examined at Ex.301 is the
panch witness. He stated that on 19.6.2008 after the police officer asked at the Campus of Bhoiwada Police Station, he had shown his readiness to act as a panch. They further stated that one person named Vikram Bhave has made a statement before the police that “he used to prepare bombs and has stored some articles in his house and will point out the place”. The witness further stated that a memorandum statement of accused Vikram Bhave bearing his signature is at Ex. 302. It is further stated that he along with police officers and accused Vikram sat in one vehicle and another panch and other police staff sat in another vehicle and proceeded as per the instructions of the accused to Pen city
63 Judgment S.C.660/08
and first went to the Pen Police Station. He further narrated that one officer and constable was taken from Pen Police Station and Vikram Bhave taken them to his house. It is further stated that accused Vikram Bhave called his brother from adjoining house and asked him to take out prepared bombs and articles required for preparing bombs that were handed over to him. The brother of the accused brought a box from his house, and the police opened the box and they found it containing a remove control and electronic items and the police recovered those articles as per panchnama at Ex.303. He further identified the Art.62 colly. and the labels affixed to it as per Ex.304. Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) further narrated the incident of Vikram Bhave taking them to one hill and by digging recovered two revolvers, which are at Art. 63 colly. which are having labels affixed to it with his signature which are at Exs.305 and 306. He further stated that bullets were also found in the ditch and those are at Art.64 colly. and electronic detonators were also found in the said ditch. It is further stated that Vikram Bhave had taken them towards a river and he had taken out one bag from the river water and they were 19 gelatin sticks with one wire bundle in the bag and those are at Art.65 colly. He further narrated that thereafter they halted in the Pen city in the night
64 Judgment S.C.660/08
and on the second day Vikram Bhave took them to the house of Haribhau Divekar, who pointed out the place of the river where articles were thrown, and his memorandum of statement is at Ex.307, and one gunny bag was recovered from the river water, the bag was opened and the articles therein were seized as per panchnama at Ex.308.
Anil Vishwas Tarte (PW 81) examined at Ex.310 is the
Police Naik attached to Fingerprint Bureau of the Crime Branch. He stated that on 20.2.2008 as per the message received from Navi Mumbai Control Room about the blast taken place at Cineraj Cinema Theatre, he along with other staff went to the spot of the incident. He snapped photographs of the spot of incident, and those 31 photographs identified by him at Ex.311 colly.
Nitin Baliram Bhosale (PW 82) examined at Ex.312 is the
constable from Vashi Police Station, who had snapped 12 photographs at Ex.313 at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha on 31.5.2008.
Vilas Harishchandra Jadhav (PW 83) examined at Ex.314 is
the Police Sub Inspector in Crime Branch of Thane City. He narrated
65 Judgment S.C.660/08
part of investigation carried out by him in Crime No.12/08 of ATS.
Mukund Vasudev Gorhe (PW 84) examined at Ex.316 is the
Asstt. Police Inspector attached to Naupda Police Station on 4.6.2008. He narrated the part of investigation carried out by him in respect of the blast at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane.
Tukaram Dwarkanath Gaud (PW 85) examined at Ex.317 is
the Police Inspector attached to Crime Branch, Thane was part of the investigation team. He narrated the investigation in respect of vehicle No.MH-06-AK-5559 as per Register at Ex.115 and the entry marked as Ex.118/A.
Mahesh Babaji Bagwe (PW 86) examined at Ex.318 is the
Police Inspector attached to Crime Branch, Thane, who assisted in the investigation.
Mallinkarun Gundappa Kumbhar (PW 87) is examined at
Ex.319 is the Asstt. Police Inspector, who assisted in the investigation.
66 Judgment S.C.660/08
Shantaram Pandurang Jadhav (PW 88) examined atEx.320
is the Asstt. Police Inspector attached to Thane Nagar Police Station. He assisted the investigation in respect of collection of the nails found in the injuries of the injured persons admitted in Civil Hospital, Thane.
Chandrakant Vishwnath Joshi (PW 89) examined at Ex.321
is the Police Inspector attached to Crime Branch, Thane. He assisted the investigation regarding statement of witnesses.
Suresh Pandurang Bhosale (PW 90) examined at Ex.322 is
the Police Inspector at Panvel Police Station, who recorded statement of witness Sharad Prabhakar Balid on 22.7.2008.
Jagannath Abaji More (PW 91) examined at Ex.323 is the
PSI attached to Thane Nagar Police Station, who assisted the investigation of the incident at Gadkari Rangayatan and recorded statements of witnesses.
Hemand Madhusudan Sawant (PW 92) examined at Ex.324
is the Police Inspector attached to Naupada Police Station, Thane, who
67 Judgment S.C.660/08
received the information of the blast at Gadkari Rangayatan and visited to the spot thereafter and completed preparation of spot panchnama at Ex.90 and collection of articles along with BDDS.
Shashank Ganpatrao Shelke (PW 93) examined at Ex.325 is
the Police Inspector attached to ATS and he assisted the investigation in respect of the Timer found and search for its dealer which led to Dodia Electricals. According to him, the statement at Ex.326 of accused Ramesh Gadkari was voluntarily made before him on 21.6.2008.
Sahebrao Narayan Moule (PW 94) examined at Ex.327 was
the photographer serving at Thane Police Commissioner’s Office, who had snapped 19 photographs at Gadkari Rangayatan Natyagruha at Ex. 328 colly.
Prasad Mahendra Khandekar (PW 95) examined at Ex.329
is the Asstt. Commissioner of Police, ACB, Mumbai, who assisted investigation by Sr. PI Mr. Rathod at the ATS.
68 Judgment S.C.660/08
Sunil Dharam Mane (PW 96) examined at Ex.334 is the
Asstt. Police Inspector at ATS, who assisted investigation in respect of house search of accused Mangesh Nikam and collection of articles from the house as per panchnama at Ex.284.
Giridhar Sitaram Gore (PW 97) examined at Ex.335 is the
API attached to Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai, who assisted the investigation by Sr. PI Rathod in respect of seizure of motorcycle involved in the crime and its registration.
Vivekanand Tukaram Vakhare (PW 98) examined at Ex.343
is the PI attached to ATS, who assisted in the investigation by ACP Mr. Chopane, and recorded statements of witness Manish Surve and Vilas Godambe.
Ramdas Dadaram Phadtare (PW 99) examined at Ex.344
was the Addl. Collector at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad in the year 2008. He stated that the Office of Collector had received a letter from ACP Uttam Chopane, ASTS, Mumbai on 18.8.2008 for permission to accord sanction to prosecute the accused under Arms Act and Explosive
69 Judgment S.C.660/08
Substances Act. He being in additional charge of the Collector on 27.8.2008 perused the letters and case papers, satisfied with the material and accorded sanction to prosecute the accused under the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act.
Arvind Bapu Sawant (PW 100) examined at Ex.346 is the
Police Inspector attached to ATS, who assisted in the investigation by recording statements of witnesses.
Sambhaji Sadashiv Zende (PW 101) examined at Ex.347,
was posted as District Magistrate and Collector of Thane District in the year 2008. He stated that on18.8.2008 he received request letter from ACP of ATS, Mumbai to accord consent for prosecuting the accused under the Explosive Substances Act. According to him, the relevant documents were attached to the letter. He perused the same and on 26.8.2008 accorded the consent to prosecute the accused as per Ex.348.
Ramesh Hanumant More (PW 102) examined at Ex.349 is
the API attached to ATS, who assisted the investigation. According to him, on 16.6.2008 he prepared arrest panchnama of Mangesh Nikam
70 Judgment S.C.660/08
and on 19.6.2008 interrogated accused Vikram Bhave. He stated that accused Vikram Bhave disclosed to him that he is ready to produce the articles and show the place of test of bomb behind his house at Varsai. He further narrated that he recorded disclosures in the presence of panchas and having carried them along with Vikram Bhave to village Varsai, Tal. Pen and seizure of the sample of earth after the place shown by Vikram Bhave. According to him, further articles were recovered at the instance of the accused Vikram Bhave in the form of two revolvers, 80 bullets, one empty bullet and he seized the gelatins and detonators and arrested accused Haribhau Divekar and further carried out panchnamas of recovery of these articles as per Ex.307 and 308.
Bhimdev Bhalchandra Rathod 9PW 103) examined at Ex.
350 is the Sr. Police Inspector attached to ATS, who assisted the investigation by ACP Chopane and narrated the entire method adopted during investigation and its results. He identified chemical analyser’s reports in respect of various articles collected, and also forwarding letters and the medical certificates of the injured in the incident at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane, which are at Exs.356 to 389. He further
71 Judgment S.C.660/08
narrated that letter at Ex.393 was written to the Government of Maharashtra for sanction to prosecute the accused under the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967, and the sanction order dated 11.9.2008 being passed as per ex.394.
Uttam Namdevrao Chopne (PW 104) examined at Ex.395 is
the Investigating Officer. He has narrated the investigation carried out in this case.
Ravindra Vasant Kakade (PW 105) examined at Ex.404 is
the State Examiner of Documents in the office of CID Branch, Pune. He stated that their office received the disputed and specimen handwritings and signatures from the ATS, Mumbai as per Ex.382 colly. and that he compared the specific part of handwriting in the Registers at Arts.50 and 51 with specimen at Ex.398, and identified the opinion given by him at Ex.403, and further submitted the statement of reasons at Ex.403-D colly.
Special Public Prosecutor Ms. Salian, on behalf of the State,
that the investigation is carried out of the acts done by the six accused
72 Judgment S.C.660/08
persons of conspiracy at different dates and the places selected by them and their preparation of making of bombs, causing its explosions and acts done with violence are proved by the evidence brought on record. It is further submitted that the proximity of the incidents, the first dated 20.2.2008 at Panvel, second dated 31.5.2008 at Vashi and the third dated 4.6.2008 at Naupada Thane is in respect of the intent of these accused persons that they were against the screening of the film Jodha Akbar and performance of drama Aamhi Pachpute. It is argued that the intention of these accused at the time when the bombs were planted was primarily to terrorize the people, and the prosecution has made out that it is a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
It is further submitted on behalf of the prosecution on the
basis of investigation and examination of witnesses and documents brought on record that the entire sequence of the preparation and meeting of minds of these accused and their presence at those places is made out in the evidence. It is argued that preparation by way of procuring the R.F. circuits, timers, batteries, gelatins, detonators and various articles recovered from the blast sites when examined at
73 Judgment S.C.660/08
Forensic Science Laboratory has established the involvement of the accused in the crime. It is further argued that the act on behalf of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari is also shown by the witnesses that he along with Accd.No.3- Vikram Bhave procured the material and also procured the SIM cards and mobile phones by impersonating and by cheating by submitting forged documents to the mobile operator. The prosecution relied on various case laws in support of its arguments.
Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Punalekar submitted on behalf of the
accused that there is no eye-witness who had seen planting of I.E.D. or bomb or it is assembled by the accused. It is submitted that the three witnesses examined by the prosecution in respect of presence of the accused at the blasts at the three places respectively are tutored one and they were exposed during their cross-examination. It is further argued that though the prosecution examined so many witnesses, it nowhere makes out a complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused. It is further argued that the motive attributed to all the accused is not at all established and the investigation proceeded in unfair manner. It is further argued that an application made by the prosecution at Ex.15 was rejected by the Court, which is for disposal of the gelatins
74 Judgment S.C.660/08
and detonators. However, in spite of rejection of the said application, the Investigating Agency had destroyed those gelatins and detonators. It is argued that it was for the purpose of destroying the evidence which could have been favourable to the accused. It is further argued that the identification parades were not conducted in faithful manner as per the provisions, and the fact that the photographs of the accused were taken after their arrest prior to their identification parades, itself affects such kind of evidence. It is further argued that the letter seeking sanction to prosecute the accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prev.) Act creates prejudice, firstly, by referring to the numbers of gelatins and detonators, which is not part of the investigation and also attributing statement to one of the witnesses Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) that he had stayed with accused persons and decided to blacken the faces. It is further argued that the prosecution has not examined the witness to prove the sanction order to prosecute the accused under the provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. It is alternatively argued that at the most the act could be termed as a mischief if at all proved. Advocate Punalekar relied on various judgments in support of his arguments.
I have gone through the entire record and evidence of the
75 Judgment S.C.660/08
105 witnesses and the documents at Exs. 1 to 403D. Having heard the arguments from both the sides, it is clear that there is no eye witnesses or no direct evidence stating that any of the Accd. Nos.1 to 6 was found planting the bombs at the three respective places of incidents. It appears that the prosecution tried to establish its case on the basis on the basis of the evidence of the witnesses having last seen the accused persons at the three sites of the incidents, and the circumstantial evidence in respect of preparation allegedly by the accused persons and the articles recovered from the blast sites. It appears that the prosecution is relying on the oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the case against the accused. Firstly, that they belong to the ideology which opposed screening of film Jodha Akbar for exhibiting distorted version of history and it also opposed the performance of drama Aamhi Pachpute for the mockery of Hindu Gods and various characters of Mahabharata. Secondly, that the accused were present at the place of bomb blast at Cineraj Cinema Hall, Panvel, and Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane and Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha, Vashi, where a live bomb was found. Thirdly, that the accused procured the R.F. circuits in the form of Vega kits, and the batteries from Gala Electricals at Lamington Road. Fourthly, that the accused had procured Electron Timers from
76 Judgment S.C.660/08
Dodia Electricals at Lohar Chawl. Fifthly, that the accused had procured gelatins and detonators through four witnesses Tukaram Rane (PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52), Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) and Chand Nadaf (PW 54). Sixthly, the recovery of the articles at the three sites after the blast giving rise to residues of explosion and causing impact on the premises and also causing injuries to the persons at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. Seventhly, the allged recovery of the gelatins, detonators and revolvers at the instance of accused No.3Vikram Bhave and Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam. Eighthly, the discovery of the place where the alleged testing of explosion of bomb was carried out by Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. Ninethly, the vehicles found at the site of Gadkari Rangayatan, and lastly, the identification of all the accused by the respective witnesses.
Having regard to the submissions from the defence, a strict
scrutiny of the entire oral evidence attributing the incriminating material against all the accused is necessary, and while dealing with the circumstantial evidence, on which the prosecution is placing reliance, the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra – 1984(4) SCC 116 are
77 Judgment S.C.660/08
required to be fulfilled. Those conditions which are required to be fulfilled for arriving at an opinion regarding proof of a prosecution case on the basis of circumstantial evidence are as follows :"(1) The circumstance from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should not be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused." 122. (I) (A) (i) Three Incidents - Recovery of Articles : Incident at Panvel dated 20.2.2008 : At Cineraj Cinema Hall at Panvel when the screening
of Film Jodha Akbar was going on, the incident of explosion occurred in the Interval of the film at about 3.15 p.m. Bharat Nikalje (PW 1) narrated the incident, first in point of time, as per complaint Ex.28. Upon his testimony, the same appears to be narrated by him. (ii) Vijaykumar Agarwal (PW 2) was the Manager of
78 Judgment S.C.660/08
Cineraj Cinema Hall. He further repeated the incident experienced at the Cineraj Cinema Hall on 20.2.2008 by him. Manoj Yadav (PW 5), Projector Operator, at the said cinema hall also narrated that the screening of the film was stopped. After explosion at the Panvel, Sudhakar Parab (PW 6), attached to BDDD, had inspected the entire Cinema Hall with the Sniffer Dog, and Seat No.23 at ‘C’ Row in the cinema hall of Cineraj Theatre he noticed a remote control on the ground. He gathered an impression that using of those articles, Improvised Explosive Device with the aid of remote control, the blast was occurred at the place, and he prepared the BDDS report as per Ex. 45. Panchnama at Ex.47 is in respect of articles found at the spot and it speaks about the incident of explosion when it is read along with Chemical Analyser’s Reports at Exs.65 to 67. (B) (i) Incident at Vashi dated 31.5.2008 : On 31.5.2008, Bhau Vithoba Narawade (PW 10) while on
duty at Vashi Police Station and patrolling in a mobile van, received information from Sr. PI Chowgule that one unattended bag was found at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, Vashi. Therefore he went to the spot. He started preparation of panchnama of the place where the bag was found, and meanwhile BDDS and Dog Squad arrived. Further he
79 Judgment S.C.660/08
narrated the incident of a live bomb being found and the instrument being defused by the BDDS squad. The other witnesses examined – Shridhar Silavane (PW 11) and Ashok Nauvkudkar (PW 12) make out the case of a live bomb found in Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, and Ashok Nauvkudkar (PW 12) being from BDDS Squad had further explained the contents of the live bomb, which included 1 kilogram of white granular explosive substance smelling like petrol with three live electric detonators, with three sticks on which letters “Super High Explosive Class-2” were written. He had further opined that if that explosive would have burst everything in the periphery of 30 meters on that plastic bag would have caught fire due to the blast. (ii) Sharad Thokal (PW 13) had carried the articles recovered from the spot at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium as per panchnama Ex.59 to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with covering letter at Ex.74. The Chemical Analyser’s Report are at Exs.374 and 375. These two reports show the result of the analysis of the muddemal articles found at the said spot. The damaged timer device, Electronic Circuit device, white granular substance in three separate plastic bags and the four defused detonators appear to be analysed. The white granular substance was found to be ammonium nitrate, petrol hydro carbon and residual
80 Judgment S.C.660/08
petrol. Electronic is the red frequency receiver electronic unit used in law rang frequency equipment, which act as R.F. decoder which comes from transmitter side i.e. remote control device. This establishes that a live bomb was found at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi. (C) Incident at Thane dated 4.6.2008 : (i) Swapnil Dalvi (PW 19), Kishor Surve (PW 20), Rajesh Salvi
(PW 24), Vivek Mhatre (PW 25), Hanif Mahapure and Vilas Kadam (PW 28) mainly employees at Gadkari Rangayatan Auditorium, Thane. They have narrated the incident experienced by them on 4.6.2008. Swapnil Dalvi (PW 19) was Booking Clerk, and was informed by one watchman, named Sakpal (PW 32) that one suspicious article was found and he went towards the same. He noticed one box kept in the said bag and went to the office and called Ramesh Dhuri (PW 21), Rajeshh Salvi (PW 24), Vivek Mhatre (PWS 25), Dilip Gaikwad (PW 26) and Hanif Mahapure (PW 27) from the office. When he had gone to see the said suspicious bag and while away from the place at a distance of 10 to 12 feet they experienced explosion. Swapnil Dalvi (PW 19), Rajesh Salvi (PW 24), Vivek Mhatre (PW 25), and Hanif Mahapure (PW 27) had suffered injuries, along with four others. The injured were taken for treatment to the nearby Hospital, where they found suffered
81 Judgment S.C.660/08
injuries due to nails, and the same were collecgtfed. Mahadev Bhosale (PW 28) is the panch witness to the panchnama carried out at the spot of explosion at Gadkari Rangayatan, and the panchnama is at Ex.19. When the said panchnama is perused, it makes out that Arts.19 to 35 being recovered at the spot, which included one newspaper in the name of Sanatan Prabhat, which is at Art.34, containing cello tape attached to it. The nails from the injured were recovered by preparing a panchnama. The covering letters at Exs.185 and 186 make out that the articles recovered were sent for Chemical analysis. The C.A.’s report is reflected use of explosive substances, R.F. Circuit, timer and batteries. (ii) Upon perusal of this evidence in respect of explosions at two places and recovery of one live bomb from Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, lead to the clear conclusion that explosive substances were used in the devices which exploded and R.F. circuit with remove control containing batteries were also used. Explosion at Gadkari Rangayatan caused injuries to 8 persons, and injury certificates at Exs. 383 to 390 give the description of such injuries. All such evidence remains uncontroverted, and the accused claim innocence of such incidents.
82 Judgment S.C.660/08
(II) Presence of the accused at the place of incidents :(A) At Panvel incident : The prosecution examined three witnesses to show presence of
the accused persons at three explosion places. Sharad Bali (PW 65) took five months to go to the police and describe the three suspicious persons he had seen at Cineraj Theatre, Panvel on 20.2.2008. Advocate for the accused called this witness as a tutored one based upon the contradictions in the identification of the accused, the delay in narrating the incident to the police and on the basis of explanation given by him during his cross-examination. When the crossexamination of this witness is perused, he appears to have been put question as to why he took five months to go to the police station for informing about the incident. It is answered by him that he was out of station to Nagar for 15 days. The prosecution has conducted identification parade in the presence of Special Executive Officer Dattaram Kambli (PW 68) as per the report at Ex.253 wherein this witness Sharad Bali (PW 65) had identified the three accused named, Vikram Bhave, Santosh Angre and Ramesh Gadkari. However, while deposing before the Court he has not identified Santosh Angre and instead identified Mangesh Nikam. It is
83 Judgment S.C.660/08
pertinent to note that the incident occurred on 20.2.2008 is narrated by this witness to the police in June 2008 attributing presence of Ramesh Gadkari, Vikram Bhave and Santosh Angre in Cineraj Theatre. The identification parade was carried in August 2008. His credibility is exposed during cross-examination. There appears no reason as to why he should notice three persons coming on a motorcycle and reaching to the theatre and then recall the same after five months. There is a mystery as to why he was stimulated to identify the three persons after gap of five months. Panchnama at Ex.253 describes him as a Hindu, and during cross-examination this witness explains that he is a Christian. In these circumstances, the evidence given by witness Sharad Bali (PW 65) is not trustworthy. Therefore I disbelieve his testimony in respect of the presence of the accused Ramesh Gadkari, Vikram Bhave and Mangesh Nikam at the place of the incident occurred on 20.2.2008 at Cineraj Theatre at Panvel. (B) At Vashi incident : In respect of the incident of live bomb found at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha, Vashi on 31.5.2008, the prosecution is relying on the testimony of Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58). He has narrates the fact of he having visited to Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on
84 Judgment S.C.660/08
30.5.2008 as per the phone call of Vikram Bhave. It is stated by him that Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave asked him to watch the Drama “Me Marathi” being played in the said theatre and he watched it till recess. He received phone of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave at the interval and he was called out of the theatre. He went out of the theatre and saw Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and Accd. No.2Mangesh Nikam out side the theatre. He further narrated the incident that he joined them and four of them had gone to the house of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave at night. Accd. No.3-Ramesh Gadkari told them that in Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha the drama “Aamhi Pachpute” is to be played on the next day and they have to give their slogans and he was asked whether he can give slogans. He further narrated the incident occurred on 31.5.2008 when he along with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave proceeded from village Varsai to Pen by a rickshaw and from there took S.T. bus to Panvel. Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.2Mangesh Nikam had started on a bike from village Varsai and both of them were found waiting at S.T. Stand of Panvel by Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58). He further narrated that he sat on the rear seat of the bike driven by Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave on the rear side of the bike driven by Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam. He further narrated that he
85 Judgment S.C.660/08
had gone to visit Gavdevi temple at Vashi and thereafter they went to Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha. According to him, Mangesh Nikam first entered the theatre followed by him and as the drama started within 5 to 10 minutes, he received phone of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave and he was asked to come out of the theatre. He went outside the theatre and saw Accd. No.1 Ramesh Gadkari and at his instance they proceeded to Vashi Railway Station. Then the witness went to Ghatkopar by train via Thane. Cross-examination of this witness is only in respect of his acquaintance with Accd.No.6-Hemant Chalke, and the credibility of this witness is established due to his acquaintance with accused persons. He was knowing Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3Vikram Bhave and having met to them at Sanatan Ashram, Panvel. Therefore it is established fact that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam were present at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha on 31.5.2008 when the drama Aamhi Pachpute was being played. It is argued by the Advocate for the accused that there can be only one incident that they had gone to join the demonstration but returned since there were no demonstration. (C) At Thane incident :
86 Judgment S.C.660/08
To establish the presence of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and other accused persons at Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane on 4.6.2008, the prosecution is relying on the testimony of Vilas Godambe (PW 64), the two tickets at Art.40 colly. of the drama Aamhi Pachpute allegedly found from the house of Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari for the drama dated 4.6.2008 at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. The prosecution is seeking relying on the Vehicle Register at Ex.115 maintained at Gadkari Rangayatan wherein there appears entry of the vehicle Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.MH-06-AK-5558. The prosecution further relied on the testimony of Abhay Vartak (PW 75) who produced the vehicle register maintained at Sanatan Sanstha at Devad at Arts.50 & 51, wherein the entries regarding use of Vehicle No.MH-06-AK-5558 are mentioned. Vilas Godambe (PW 64) is working as Cashier at Gadkari Rangayatan narrated the incident at 4 p.m. on 4.6.2008 at Gadkari Rangayatan that while he was at canteen one person asked for glass of water, who was approached by another person, and the first person asked him about the bag and the other person replied that it is in the dickey of the vehicle. The police recorded statement of this witness on 20.6.2008 and on 18.8.2008 and conducted identification parade and
87 Judgment S.C.660/08
this witness identified Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.4Santosh Angre being those two persons who were seen at Gadkari Rangayatan on that day at about 4 p.m. Advocate for the accused argued that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence since the witness had not raised suspicion in his mind on that day of the blast. He has further argued that the police arrived at the spot and recorded his name and he had read the news about arrest of the accused on 17.6.2008 and thereafter when the police came on 20.6.2008 he decided to tell it. It is further argued that in spite of this, his statement was recorded on 20.8.2008 after gap of one month and thereafter further gap of one month the identification parade was conducted. It is argued that there is no justification to record the statement belatedly. The defence is seeking to treat this witness as a tutored one on the basis of such explanation of the witness during cross-examination. It is further argued that this witness is fantasized probably about she scooter-bomb blast in the infamous Malegaon case. Therefore this witness has falsely deposed in extra enthusiasm. Testimony of Vilas Godambe (PW 64) is perused and his presence at the spot appears to be natural. He appears to have recalled the incident of two persons and conversation heard by him of the vehicle and bag. It appears that the incident narrated by him
88 Judgment S.C.660/08
starts with the entry of one person in the canteen and that he demanded water from him. He further narrated that the said person was pointed out the place where the water was available in the canteen. The person after drinking water, returned back to him at the counter with glass of water and he asked him as to whether he saw the drama Amhi Pachpute, and the witness replied in the negative to that person. At that time another person entered and had conversation with the first person regarding the vehicle and bag. There appears no reason to doubt the incident experienced by the witness when he is narrating the same in such manner. Though there appears delay in mentioning the same to the police, that itself cannot discredit his testimony. The time period available to the witness to memorize the personality of the persons met to him indicates that he is narrating the presence of the persons experienced by him in the natural manner and his testimony is trustworthy and therefore the arguments of the defence to discredit his testimony are not acceptable. The prosecution examined witness Vilas Acharekar (PW 33), who acted as a panch for the panchnama of house search of Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. He is resident of Vikhroli, Mumbai and he was called by the police at ATS office at Vikhroli on 16.6.2008. He was
89 Judgment S.C.660/08
asked whether he was willing to stand as panch for the search of accused Ramesh Gadkari. Accused was also present in the police station. He further narrated of having accompanied the police along with accused Ramesh Gadkari to village Devad, Tal. Panvel, and they reached Room No.204 of Sanatan Ashram at Devad on the second floor. He further narrated the house search taken in his presence and the panchnama being carried out as per Ex.133 and that two tickets (Art.40 colly.) of play Aamhi Pachpute scheduled to be played at 4.30 p.m. on 4.6.2008 at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. During cross-examination this witness further explained that the panchnama was halfly (partly) written at Devad and half (partly) at ATS police station. He further narrated that accused Gadkari was in their vehicle and not in the vehicle where he was sitting. About testimony of this witness, it is argued that witness Vartak was also present at the Ashram and why this panch witness was taken from such a long distance and why local panch was not availed. It is argued that the panchnama was prepared halfly at ATS police station and the panchnama cannot be believed nor the seizure of the two tickets. When the panchnama at Ex.133 is peruse, it makes out a case that the house search was proposed while the accused Ramesh Gadkari was in ATS police station and therefore the pancha was called. It
90 Judgment S.C.660/08
appears to be a reason to accompany the accused to his place and carry out the said panchnama. The argument regarding local panch may not be acceptable because there was requirement of the panch to accompany the accused from ATS police station. The witness has directed the entire deposition in a natural manner and it appears that initial part of the panchnama is possibly written at ATS police station. This panch is wholly reliable to consider the panchnama as per Ex.133 and recovery of the two tickets at Art.40 colly. Vehicle Register at Ex.115 is seized by the police. Vilas Kadam (PW 28) is the witness who had made the entries of the vehicles in the said register while working as Security Guard at Gadkari Rangayatan on 4.6.2008. An argument is advanced in respect of the fact that as to why the register came to be seized on 16.6.2008 when witness Vilas Kadam (PW 28) narrates that the same was handed over by him to the police after the blast on the same day. Upon perusal of the testimony of Vilas Kadam (PW 28), it clearly reveals that he narrated the incident of making entries in the vehicle numbers in the register in natural manner and it is further substantiated by examination of Mahesh Rajderkar (PW 29). The fact that the register was with the police also appears to be admitted as it was handed over to the police on day of the
91 Judgment S.C.660/08
blast itself. However, it is pertinent to note that the handwritten entries are continuously entered and from the point of the time of the blast onwards there are no entries in the register. On perusal of the entire register it appears to be maintained day to day till the time of the show of the drama at Gadkari Rangayatan and it reflects the entry of vehicle No.MH-06-5558. The argument of possibility of this entry being made later on is not acceptable. It is argued by the advocate for the accused that the vehicle registers seized at Arts.50 & 51 cannot be read in evidence since the entries therein are not proved. It is pertinent that from perusal of the testimony of Abhay Vartak (PW 75), it appears that these registers at Art.50 & 51 are possibly maintained day to day and the entries therein can certainly be read in evidence. It indicates that vehicle No.MH-06-5558 was at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane when the blast had taken place. Therefore the aforesaid discussion indicates presence of Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari with others in the vicinity of Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, Vashi and Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane at the time period of seizure of live bomb and explosion of bomb at the respective places. However, the presence of any of the accused person at Cineraj
92 Judgment S.C.660/08
Theatre on the respective date is not proved.
(III) Purchase of Veg kit and batteries : Ajit Vira (PW 48) is the Manager of Gala Electronics at
Lamington Road. The said firm is selling the articles in the name of Vega kits as per trademark registration as per Ex.201. The police approached him with the photograph of RF Circuit, which is at Ex.202, which was found at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha as an explosive device. The witness narrated that it is from his shop, and he had sold R.F. Circuit and Battery to two persons in the month of November 2007. He narrated the incident occurred in the month of November or December 2007 that two persons had come to his shop for enquiry and purchased such R.F. Circuit and two batteries. He further narrated that those persons again came for exchange of those articles, which he refused. Thereafter those two persons again came with enquiry if one remote can be used for working of one R.F. circuit. Those persons were intending to use special method of working of remote called as coding and decoding. The witnesses Rajesh Chikne (PW 49) and
Chandrashekhar Phadke (PW 50), both the employees of Gala Electronics, also narrated the presence of those two persons and they
93 Judgment S.C.660/08
have identified Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave as those persons who had purchased the R.F. Circuit and batteries. It is argued that cross-examination of Ajit Vira (PW 48) makes out that these items are used for various activities and those are not prohibited or licenced items and the fact is exclusive relevant in respect of the accused persons. It is argued that the witness had sold 100 items and had not paid nay import duty. These witnesses Ajit Vira (PW 48), Rajesh Chikne (PW 49) and Chandrashekhar Phadke (PW 50) were searched by the police on the basis of R.F. Circuit, photograph of which is at Ex.202. It is pertinent that when the statements of these witnesses were recorded on 10.6.2008 and i.e. prior to the arrest of the accused on 16.6.2008 onwards. The part of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, who had purchased the R.F. circuit and batteries, appears to be the only reason for these witnesses to recall their personality. Therefore they described the same to the police. Though the question of relevance and in respect of the acts attributed to the accused persons has to be decided independently, the fact remains that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkary and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave visited the shop of Gala Electronics for purchase of R.F. circuit as shown in the photograph at Ex.202 and the batteries from the said shop.
94 Judgment S.C.660/08
The police had found Amco batteries at the spot of the blasts, and on the basis of the same proceeded to investigate the case. The testimony of Purnima Chavan (PW 36), who is employee of Dyna Hi Tech Power System Ltd., distributors of kind of batteries found at the blast sites. The said firm had sold 47 batteries to Pitambara Power and it is accepted by Rakesh Gupta (PW 47) of Pitambara Power. It appears that Pitambara Power had further sold these batteries to Gala Electronics. It is pertinent to note that the invoice of Dyna Electricals at Ex.142 and Delivery Challan at Ex.143 are accepted and admitted by Rakesh Gupta (PW 47). However, one paper is attached to Ex.143 bearing the battery numbers. During cross-examination Purnima Chavan (PW 36) explained that such description was separately given with delivery challan as there was no ample space in the said delivery challan. However, she further stated that generally they include and mention about the purchased articles in the delivery challan and invoice. She denied suggestion that it was prepared under influence of ATS police. It is pertinent to note that Rakesh Gupta (PW 47) clearly showed ignorance about the paper sleep containing batter numbers. Therefore it appears to be an insertion on the part of the investigating agency, and the said paper containing battery numbers cannot be
95 Judgment S.C.660/08
believed to that extent only. However, the fact is established that the kind of batteries found at the blast sites were sold by Dyna Hi Tech to Pitambara Power and then to Gala Electronics.
(IV) Purchase of Selectron Timers : The investigating agency found electron timers at the blast
sites, and the investigating agency proceeded to search as to whether such electron timers are available in the market. It appears from the testimony of Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) that such Selectron timers, 8 in number, were sold by his firm Dodia Electricals at Lohar Chawl to Urmesh Electricals, Panvel. Advocate for the accused argued that the term 'Timer' is now used in the said invoice and the prosecution played mystery around 'electron timer' and it is completely a futile exercise. It is argued that in the cross-examination Dr. Uday Dhuri (PW 73) has stated that he had seen Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari on 14.5.2008 in Dharma Sabha held at Thane from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and if this alibi is available to Ramesh Gadkari, there is no question of Ramesh Gadkari purchasing electron timers on 14.5.2008. The testimony of Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) clearly indicates the reason as to why he identified Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. According to this witness, on 14.5.2008
96 Judgment S.C.660/08
one person had come to his shop and made enquiry whether 800M 12 volts D.C. Timer was available in the shop. When it was made available the said person requested for discount and when refused to pay discount that person left the shop. Again on the same day at 7.30 p.m. the said person again came along with two other persons and insisted for purchase of this timer with discount. The invoice is at Ex.216. The witness further explained and identified Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari that he came to the shop on 14.5.2008 on two occasions at 4.30 p.m. and again at 7.30 p.m. He has further identified Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam and Accd.No.6-Santosh Chalke, being the two other persons accompanied Accd.No.1Ramesh Gadkari on the second occasion. During cross-examination Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) further explained that the customer had demanded 800M 12 volts D.C. Therefore the said description is given in the invoice. According to him, there may not be any other items other than the timer, which was sold with description of 800M 12 volts D.C. It is pertinent here to note that the police had recorded statement of this witness on 8.8.2008. Investigating machinery had led to this witness as they found that the timers of the same description were being sold by this witness which were found at the blast sites. There appears no reason but to state the truth about the
97 Judgment S.C.660/08
incident experienced by this witness. Though Uday Dhuri (PW 73) explains in his cross-examination that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari was present at the Dharma Sabha at Thane on 14.5.2008, which went on between 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., on this count exclude the testimony of Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) that Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari had visited his shop on two occasions. The existence of both the events may be possible and both can co-exist at the same time unless it is shown that this accused was continuously present on 14.5.2008 at Thane only. Therefore I believe the testimony of Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) that Accd. No.1Ramesh Gadkari visited his shop on 14.5.2008. Vijay Shirodkar (PW 46) brought on record the partnership deed of Urmesh Electricals, Panvel at Ex.197, and the endorsement at Ex.198 clearly indicates that Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari was a partner in Urmesh Electricals and was retired in the year 2000. This is relevant fact which indicates and substantiates the testimony of Hitesh Dodia (PW 55).
(V) Procurement of gelatins & detonators & revolvers:The prosecution is relying on the testimony of Tukaram
Rane (PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52), Harischandra Chorge (PW
98 Judgment S.C.660/08
53) and Chand Nadaf (PW 54) to establish the fact that Accd.No.1Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave allegedly purchased 20 gelatin sticks and 20 detonators through these witnesses. It is the case of the prosecution that Tukaram Rane (PW 51) was approached by Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkar and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave with a request to get gelatins and detonators for sinking (digging) well at Sanatan Ashram. Tukaram Rane (PW 51) informed his brother Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) about the same. At such time Accd. No.1Ramesh Gadkari allegedly handed over Rs.1000/- to Tukaram Rane, who in turn gave it to Chandrakant Rane. As per Chandrakant Rane (PW 52), he had asked about the same to Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53), who took him to Chand Nadaf (Pw 54). It is pertinent that the statements of these witnesses were recorded before a Magistrate. Advocate for the accused argued in respect of testimonies of these witnesses on the ground that discrepancies and the manner in which these witnesses are giving the story of having procured 20 gelatin sticks and 20 detonators from one Rajasthani person at Kolhad, creates full of contradictions and inconsistencies, and cannot be believed. I have perused the testimonies of these four witnesses and also read their statements at Exs.207, 209, 211 and 213 respectively to verify such
99 Judgment S.C.660/08
inconsistencies and contradictions and as to why these witnesses are deposing in such manner. When Tukaram Rane (PW 51) is the person to whom Accd.No.Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had contacted, there appears no reason as to why they contacted Tukaram Rane only, when he clarified in his cross-examination of having no knowledge of the gelatins and detonators. It is further pertinent that Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) also clarified that he had never seen detonator and gelatin, which itself raises a question as to whether Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) contacted him for the gelatins and detonators. The story narrated by Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) and Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) leads both of them to the place at Kolhad as per the direction of Chand Nadaf (PW 54). It is in the testimony of Chand Nadaf (PW 54) that he had not met a Rajasthani person any time before the alleged day and he does not know the exact dates of meeting Chorge (PW 53) and the Rajasthani. The testimonies of the three witnesses stating about occurrence of one incident, are require to be scrutinized in respect of inconsistencies and variety in their testimonies. The testimony of these three witnesses nowhere matches with each other in the crux of the incident of they approaching to the Rajasthani person at such place at Kolhad for procuring
100 Judgment S.C.660/08
detonators and gelatins on payment of amount. Most pertinent fact is that no one of these three witnesses remember the date as to when such incident occurred. It is possible for one witness that he is unable to recall the date of the incident experienced by him. For the persons like Tukaram Rane (PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) and Harischandra Chorge (PW 53), this appears to be an unusual event, which must have stimulated them to memorize the incident with its different. However, all of them are unanimous n one thing that this incident was of second week of April 2008. It is pertinent to note here that Chanddrakant Rane (PW 52) in his statement before the magistrate narrates that Vikram handed over an amount of Rs.1000/- and before the Court he deposes that Ramesh Gadkari had handed over the said amount. This clearly indicates that the names are being interchanged with the amount that they were specifically required to depose in a particular manner to include the names of two persons Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave. There is no other reason to Chandrakant Rane (Pw 52) to state different names for the same event of handing over of the amount. It is further pertinent that Chandrakant Rane (PW 52), Harishchandra Rane (PW 52) and Chand Nadaf (PW 54) gave different version of the incident at Kolhad. According to Chand Nadaf (PW 54),
101 Judgment S.C.660/08
he along with Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) and Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) went toward the site where the work of Rajasthani person was in progress when the Rajasthani taken out and handed over 20 gelatins and 20 detonators to Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53). As against this testimony, Harishchandra Chorge (PW 52) states that one person got down from the jeep and then Chandbhai went to that person and made enquiry, then that person handed over the articles to Chandrakant Rane. This is another incident of interchanging the person and more probably their involvement to tell only the story of handing over the gelatins and detonators. If the work of Rajasthani was going on at the site of that particular place, it was necessarily another incident, which requires further investigation. Investigating Officer Ramesh More (PW 102) explained in his cross-examination that he tried to trace out the said Rajasthani but he could not be traced. When asked about further efforts taken by him, he did not remember whether he had made any correspondence with Varsai or Pen Police Station in respect of the said Rajasthani person. He did not enquire about the authorized seller of gelatins and detonators. It is pertinent here to note that though the gelatins and detonators are used as blasting material, it is necessarily a controlled items and it has to be dealt with as per the law, and it an
102 Judgment S.C.660/08
open end to the entire story which kept open by the investigating officer as to who was that Rajasthani. This more probably has come in the picture since 19 gelatins and 27 detonators allegedly seized at the instance of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave were containing the name of the manufacturer at Rajasthan. The whole story put up by Tukaram Rane (PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52), Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) and Chand Nadaf (PW 54) is not plausible for the reasons stated aforesaid. The investigation in respect of alleged involvement of the revolvers in incident is tried to be brought in the form of testimony of Jaikumar Pandey (PW 57). Pandey (PW 57) was working with an electrical contractor, as per his testimony, and there appears no reason as to why he was asked by Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari if he can get revolver for him. I disbelieve this witness for the reason that for a gap of long years there appears no acquaintance between this witness and Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. Destruction of Gelatins & Detonators : The prosecution by an application at Ex.15 sought to destroy the gelatin sticks and detonators. The said application was rejected by this Court. In spite of the said order, the Investigating Officer destroyed
103 Judgment S.C.660/08
the said gelatin sticks and detonators. The Advocate for the accused had objected the destruction by giving a detail say. And after taking into consideration the say, this Court rejected the said application. Advocate for accused had argued that suspicion is raised by the Investigating Officer about existence of evidence. The I.O. Bhimrao Rathod (PW 103) answered in cross-examination that permission to destroy is not necessary. SPP Ms. Salian tried to clarify. However, such an attitude on the part of I.O. seriously raises doubt. The articles seized had specific mark of the manufacturer in Rajasthan as per pacnhnama at Ex.303. Another incident brought to notice by Advocate for accused is that discrepancies in the numbers of gelatin sticks seized, mentioned in the report while seeking sanction to prosecute. The alleged seizure vide panchnama at Exh.303 makes out 19 gelatin sticks and 27 detonators. Alleged purchase is of 20 gelatins and 20 detonators. The mention in the report seeking sanction to prosecute is of 35 gelatins and 35 detonators. All these inconsistencies relates to unfairness in the investigation. It raises doubt and in such view the evidence of alleged purchase of gelatin sticks and detonators stands discarded.
104 Judgment S.C.660/08
(VI) Recovery of Gelatins, Detonators & Revolvers : On 19.6.2008 the police officers allegedly recovered
gelatins, detonators and revolvers. As per the alleged disclosure statement of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. Pritam Mhatre (PW 80) is the panch witness, who appeared at Bhoiwada Police Station on 19.6.2008 along with another panch Irphan and upon his readiness, he acted as a panch. The first objection to this witness by the advocate for the accused is for the reason that the witness is from Dadar, Mumbai, who was taken to Varsai, Tal. Pen for the alleged recovery of gelatins and detonators and no local panch was involved. This argument is not acceptable since the alleged disclosure statement appears to be made by Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave before the police officer in the police station at Bhoiwada. It is possible that the witness continued to be accompanied for the further proceedings. Upon perusal of this witness, it appears that he has given the description of the incidents in the natural manner. Therefore his act as a panch to the entire episode has to be accepted. However, the scrutiny of the alleged disclosure statement is necessary. While asking for discarding his evidence, Advocate for the accused relied on the judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurnam Singh - AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1799, wherein it is
105 Judgment S.C.660/08
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that uncorroborated evidence pertaining to alleged recovery of weapon entitle to benefit of reasonable doubt. In the case of Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab - AIR 1998 Supreme Court 1660, it is observed in para 10 as follows :"10. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution evidence itself shows that the pistol and the cartridges alleged to have been recovered from the appellant did not have any number or some distinctive mark on them and after their seizure by the police they were not sealed. Thus the identity of the weapon and the cartridges seized and the weapon and cartridges produced before the court was not established by the prosecution. Having gone through the evidence, we find that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is correct and, therefore, deserves to be accepted. The pistol and the cartridges did not have any mark or any number on them and after seizing the same police had not through it fit to wrap them and apply a seal over them. No explanation in that behalf was given by the prosecution witnesses. This aspect was not considered by the trial court. As the identity of the the incriminating articles has not been established by the prosecution, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant both under Section 5 of the TADA Act and 25 of the Arms Act and acquit him of all the charges levelled against him." In the case of Kartar Singh vs. State of Pubjab - AIR 1993 Supreme Court 341 it is observed that the material infirmity and discrepancy in the prosecution evidence in respect of recovery of arms
106 Judgment S.C.660/08
and delay in sending arms to mechanical test affects the credibility of the prosecution case. Judgment in the case of Salim Akhtar @ Mota vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - AIR 2003 SC 4076 is also relied on by the defence.
Having gone through all these judgments, the ratio laid
down in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor - AIR 1947 P.C. 67 are most relevant while scrutinizing the evidence in respect of discovery of fact u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act. It was held in the said judgment as under :" It is fallacious to treat the fact discovered within the section as equivalent to the object produced. The fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given, must relate dstinctly to the fact. Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered." The foremost requirement is as to what is disclosed by the accused before the police while in custody during interrogation. In the present case, the panch witness Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) has stated in categorical terms that Vikram Bhave made statement before the police that "he used to prepare bombs and has stored some articles in his house and will point out the place". From such statement the only
107 Judgment S.C.660/08
information admissible in evidence is that the accused wanted to point out the place in his house where he has stored and prepared some articles. It nowhere makes out that he was going to disclose the objects such as gelatins, detonators and revolvers. The testimony of the independent witness Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) requires to be given weightage since the alleged disclosure to the police is in his presence. As against such disclosure, the statement of the Police Officer Ramesh More (PW 102) further adds that the accused Vikram Bhave stated that the articles of bomb were thrown in the Banganga River. Such portion of disclosure is not admissible in evidence as it refers to the object and not about the conscious possession. It is pertinent to note here that the entire process of alleged recovery of gelatins and detonators and revolvers had taken place in the open area as the river from the gelatins and detonators were taken out and the ground where Accd.No.3Vikram Bhave had allegedly dug and took out two revolvers. The recovery of the gelatins, detonators and revolvers is not discovered fact within the meaning of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore the same is not admissible in evidence. The panch witness PW No.77-Dnyaneshwar Kumbar who was present at the house search of accused Mangesh Nikam stated that
108 Judgment S.C.660/08
the house was locked and he has not shown any knowledge as to how it came to be opened . Therefore the alleged recovery of detonators from the house of Mangesh Nikam is disbelieved. The alleged recovery of gelatins, detonators and revolvers, bullets from the various sites away from the house of the accused No.3Vikram Bhave is disbelieved for the reason that the disclosure statement of accused No.3 does not reflect those specific places from where gelatins, detonators, revolvers and bullets were recovered.
(VII) Discovery of test blast site :Accused No.3-Vikram Bhave had taken the police officer
along with the panchas to his house at Varsai, Tal. Pen. He pointed out the place where the alleged test explosion was carried out. As per the panchnama Ex.303, the earth was collected from the said site. It was sent for chemical analysis as per letter at Ex.379 and the report of the analysis is at Ex.379(1) show that Nitrite (Post explosive residue) was detected in the sample of earth analysed, and also Ammonium, Nitrate & Nitrite radicals were detected in the metallic container. Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had made a disclosure that he would point out the place in respect of preparation of the bomb and the
109 Judgment S.C.660/08
said place was shown by him. The earth was collected from the said place, and upon its chemical analysis it is discovered that the test explosion was carried out by him at such place, and it is further corroborated by the recovery of the metallic container which also contained post explosive residue. Therefore from the testimonies of panch Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) and Police Officer Ramesh More (PW 102) in respect of discovery of the facts allegedly at the instance of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave, the only fact establishes is that there was test explosion of bomb at the place shown by Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. I believe the panch witness No.80, panchnama at Ex.303 and Police Officer PW 102 to only extent of the test blast site. The specific disclosure is connected to the test blast site due to the report of forensic lab. Therefore from the testimony of these two witnesses, PW 80 and PW 102, read with panchnama at Ex.303, the only admissible evidence is of discovery of test blast site at the instance of accused No. 3-Vikram Bhave at his house..
(VIII) Motive of crime :The prosecution is relying on the testimony of witness Dr.
110 Judgment S.C.660/08
Uday Dhuri (PW 73) and the letters at Exs.146 and 147. Admittedly, these letters were written by the said witness to the producer of drama Aamhi Pachpute. He had objected to certain performances in the said drama in respect of the characters from Mahabharata. This is relevant in respect of the conduct of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari that he wanted to give slogans at the theatre where the drama Aamhi Pachpute was being performed as disclosed by him to Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58). This appears to be the only part where the motive can be found and it is allegedly participated by Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and others. There is no evidence brought on record against the accused that they were against screening of the film Jodha Akbar for distortion of historical facts. Therefore no motive is proved in respect of alleged incident dated 20.2.2008 at Cineraj Theatre, Panvel. However, the preparation to raise slogans at the Drama Aamhi Pachpute, the presence at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha, Vashi on 30.5.2008 for a limited period about its preparation and further presence at the same spot on 31.05.2008 without further explanation as to what happened establishes the motive of Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari to commit such acts of keeping bomb and its explosion. It was shared by Accd.no.3-Vikram Bhave by his conduct.
111 Judgment S.C.660/08
(IX) Identification parades :The investigating agency conducted test identification
parades of the accused persons and the witnesses Prabhakar Yeshwante (PW 67) and Dattaram Kambli (PW 68), both Special Executive Officers, who had conducted the identification parades. While objecting to the process of identification parades, Advocate for the accused, relied on the judgment in the case of Vilas Vasantrao Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra - 1996 CRI.L.J. 1854, wherein it is observed as under :"7. Reverting back to the evidence brought on record the following facts emerge :(i) The independent respectable persons who were allegedly associated with the identification parade were not examined at the trial. (ii) P.W.5 did not ensure that when the accused were being brought from the lock-up, the identifying witnesses did not have an opportunity of seeing them. (iii) The parade was not arranged in a room or place which was such that the identifying witnesses as well as the persons connected with the police were not able to look into. (iv) P.W.5 did not arrange for different sets of dummies for the purpose of identification of two sets of accused persons. (v) P.W. 5 admitted that after the accused were taken out from the lock-up, they were taken towards the temple and from there to the corner of the canteen and then towards the parade room. He did not say that he had ensured that when the accused were being brought in the parade room, the identifying witnesses had no opportunity of seeing them. P.W.5 also admitted that constables accompanied the accused when they were brought from the lock-up up to the outside door of the parade room,
112 Judgment S.C.660/08
meaning thereby that constables were present near the parade room or at least they were close by and had access to the parade room. (vi) ..... (vii) ...... " It is well settled that the evidence in respect of identification parade can also be relied upon if all the chances of suspects being shown to the witnesses prior to their identification parade are eliminated. It is pertinent here to note that evidence of witness Sharad Bali (PW 65) in respect of identification parade of the accused cannot be considered since his testimony itself is not trustworthy. As far as evidence of witnesses Ajit Vira (PW 48), Rajesh Chikne (PW 49), Chandrashekhar Phadke (PW 50) and Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) is concerned, these witnesses had enough opportunity to observe the persons of Accd.No.1Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave. Therefore the incidents deposed by them itself suggest that the identification of these accused persons by them is in natural manner and corroboration to identification of these accused persons is not required. There is no reason as to why these witnesses should speak against these accused persons. Therefore the only suspicion that some photographs had been taken by the police and there is possibility of such photographs being shown to the witnesses before identification parades, is not acceptable.
113 Judgment S.C.660/08
However, the oral evidence of the respective witnesses who identified these accused persons at the respective incidents is accepted for the reasons discussed separately. 132. (X) Terrorist act & sanction to prosecute under Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 1967 :Special P.P. Ms.Salian, for the State, argued that the accused wanted to strike terror in the minds of the people in respect of the alleged distortion of historical facts and mockery of Hindu Gods in the drama Aamhi Pachpute. Therefore the bomb blasts attracts the provisions of Section 15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Advocate Mr.Punalekar, for the Accused, resisted this argument of the prosecution on the ground that the entire evidence is unfair and such provisions are attracted only to harass the accused and for the reason that they should be kept behind bars without bail. It is further argued that the prosecution has not examined the witness to prove the sanction order to prosecute the accused persons under the provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. While replying to such objection, the Spl.P.P., for the State, relied on the judgment in the case of State (N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru - AIR 2005 SC 3820. It is argued that validity of the sanction order cannot be tested on
114 Judgment S.C.660/08
the principles applied to quasi-judicial orders. When the testimony of witness Bhimdev Rathod (PW 103) is perused, it makes out a case that the proposal was sent to the Government and sanction to prosecute the accused under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was obtained as per Ex.394. It is argued by the defence that the facts are falsely placed that the witness Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) had stated about the agitation to blacken the faces at the drama. It is argued that such statement attributed to the witness is not found in his statement before the Magistrate. Advocate for the accused further relied on the ruling of the Privy Council in the case of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab 1958 Cri.L.J. 265, wherein it is observed in respect of the principles governing sanction of prosecution that the test to be applied is whether relevant material that formed the basis of allegations constituting the offence was placed before the sanctioning authority and the same was perused before granting sanction. After considering these observations, it clearly indicates the necessity of test of application of mind, and for such reason it is was necessary to examine the witness on behalf of the State to prove the sanction order at Ex.394. Section 45 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
115 Judgment S.C.660/08
reads as under :"45. Cognizance of offences. -[(1)] no court shall take cognizance of any offence -(i) under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorized by the Central Government in this behind; (ii) under Chapters IV and VI without the previous sanction of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, and where such offence is committed against the Government of a foreign country without the previous sanction of the Central Government. [(2)] Sanction for prosecution under sub-section (1) shall be given within such time as may be prescribed only after considering the report of such authority appointed by the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government which shall make an independent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation and make a recommendation within such time as may be prescribed to the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Govrnment.]" When sub-section 2 provides for independent review of evidence collected in the course of investigation, it was necessary on the part of prosecution to examine the witness to establish that sanction order at Ex.394 was validly passed after independent review. It was necessary in view of the contest raised by defence side of unfairness in investigation with allegations of political motivation. In the judgment in the case of State vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru cited by the Spl.P.P., the witness PW 11 examined who
116 Judgment S.C.660/08
had brought the original sanction file and it was seen from the judgment of the trial court that the Learned Trial Judge had gone through the file apart from making it available to the defence counsel. It is further observed that the oral evidence led in by the prosecution by examining PW 11 dispel in doubt as to consideration of the matter by sanctioning authority before according the sanction. In the present case the witness itself is not examined to prove the sanction order and the test of application of mind is itself not established by the prosecution as per the observations of the Privy Council. Therefore the evidence in respect of the same needs to be discarded. In support of its case, the prosecution further relied on the judgments in the following cases :(i) Devender Pal Singh v. State N.C.T. Delhi & Anr. 2002(2) Crimes 133 (SC). (ii) Jayawant Dattatray Suryarao v. State of Maharashtra (2002 CRI.L.J. 226). (iii) Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & ors. etc.etc. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1994 SC 2623). (iv) State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996 I AD S.C.(CR) 405). I have gone through all these judgments. In view of the witness not being examined to establish independent review of collected evidence while passing sanction order, the observations in the aforesaid judgment may not be made applicable to the present case.
117 Judgment S.C.660/08
It is required to be seen whether the alleged acts can be termed as 'terrorist acts' within the meaning of Section 15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which reads as follows :Prior to its substitution, S.15 read as under :"15. Terrorist act. - Whoever, with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, does any act by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature, in such a manner as to cause, or likely to cause, death of, or injuries to any person or persons or loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country or causes damage or destruction of any property or equipment used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order to compel the Government of India or the Government of a foreign country or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act." It is nowhere in the case of the prosecution that the accused by their acts intended to threaten or likely to threaten unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India. The words 'strike terror' signifies the meaning "hit hard to create extreme fear". The alleged motive of crime is objection to the performance of the drama Aamhi Pachpute based on
118 Judgment S.C.660/08
alleged mockery of Hindu Gods. It appears to be only against the producer of the said drama. The producer of the said drama cannot be termed as 'section of people'. Therefore Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is not applicable and sanction to prosecute the accused under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is not proved that it was passed after independent review of the evidence collected.
(X) Circumstantial Evidence proved and fulfillment of Conditions :The circumstances which are proved by the prosecution are,
firstly, that the test explosion of bomb was carried out at the house of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, secondly, that Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari along with others had visited Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha on 30.5.2008 and 31.5.2008, thirdly, that against the mockery of Hindu Gods in drama Aamhi Pachpute slogans were to be raised as disclosed by Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, fourthly, that articles found at the blast sites and a live bomb, made of explosives substance along with R.F. Circuit, Timers, Batteries, found in Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, fifthly, Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had purchased the R.F.Circuits, batteries and
119 Judgment S.C.660/08
timers from Gala Electronics and Dodia Electricals, and lastly, the presence of the accused at Gadkari Rangayatan on 4.6.2008 based on the oral evidence of the witnesses and vehicle found at the blast site at Thane. It is required to be seen whether these circumstances fulfill the conditions to be admissible in evidence to convict the accused. Advocate for the accused relied on the judgment in the case of Mousam Singha Roy & ors. vs. State of West Bengal - (2003) 12 SCC 377, wherein it is observed that the rules specially applicable to the circumstantial evidence must be borne in mind, and in such cases there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. Based on the observations in the said judgment, Advocate for the accused further argued that the more serious offence requires stricter degree of proof and higher degree of assurance to convict the accused. In the case of Murlidhar Ishwar Suryawanshi & anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the judgment dated 3.5.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.158 of 1998 observed in paragraphs 32 and 33 as follows :"32. It is well settled that before a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances in question must be satisfactorily established and they should form a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. It must be shown
120 Judgment S.C.660/08
that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 33. In the present, the learned Judge is seen to have added links to the proved circumstances, which links however, are not proved but which are very material. The circumstances which have been proved cannot create a complete chain to hold the accused guilty." In the case of Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar etc.etc. vs. State of Maharashtra - AIR 1995 SC 1930, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph 12 as follows :"12. The very fact that the police officers joined PW 2 and PW 5 in the raid creates a doubt about the fairness of the investigation. Coupled with this is the manner in which the confessional statement of A1 and A2 was recorded by Hemant Karkare PW 3, which has been rightly discarded by the Designated Court itself. Even if we were to ignore the tell tale discrepancy in the number of the room i.e. 3323 or 3334, from where the appellants were arrested, accepting the explanation of of the prosecution that it was as a result of typographical error, it looks to us rather strange that the discrepacy should have come to the notice of the investigating officer only when he filed his affidavit in the Supreme Court in the special leave petition filed by the abscondin accused, yet in the totality of the circumstances of the case and after a careful analysis of the evidence on the record we find it rather unsafe to rely upon PW 1, PW 4 and PW 6 only without there being any independent corroboration of their testimony, to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants. We cannot loose sight of the fact that since the mere possession of an arm, as specified in the schedule, without a licence, in a notified area, attracts the provisions of Section 5 of TADA with stringent punishment, the quality of evidence on which the conviction can be
121 Judgment S.C.660/08
based has to be of a much higher order than the one we find available in the present case. Our independent appraisal of the evidence on the record has created an impression on our minds that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge to the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt." In the case of Sau. Gita Ashok Kharkate & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.99 of 2003 in the judgment dated 4.2.2011 followed the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra. The conditions as observed in the Sharad Sarda case for relying on the circumstantial evidence are considered for application to the circumstantial proof in the present case. The first circumstance is that the place of test explosion was discovered at the instance of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave at his house and the earth collected from the said spot contained explosive residues as per the report of chemical analysis. This circumstance is fully established from which conclusion of guilt of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave can be drawn that he had carried out such test explosion. This fact is consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and it is not explainable in any other manner. It is also conclusive and exclude no other possibility. Secondly, Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari had disclosed about their intention to raise
122 Judgment S.C.660/08
slogans against the drama Aamhi Pachpute. Therefore he visited the place where the drama was to be performed. It shows motive coupled with other facts brought on record that he procured the R.F. circuit, selectron timers and batteries, and he, along with Accd.No.3-Vikrama Bhave, wanted that these articles are worked in a specific manner of coding and decoding, and it appears to have worked at the place, more particularly, at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium and Gadkari Rangayatan, which resulted in finding of a live bomb and explosion of bomb respectively. The intention of the accused appears to be against the producer of the drama in the performance of which there is mockery of Hindu Gods, and this was disliked firstly by Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and his association with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave is made out by the witness PW 58-Mayuresh Konekar through his companion to procure them relevant articles, and argument that electron timer and batteries are not incriminating articles cannot be acceptable in these circumstances. Thus the articles are used in the manner to explode bomb and it strong indication of truth that Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave had carried out the intention to explode the bomb. Therefore they purchased those articles and further carried out test explosion at the house of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave.
123 Judgment S.C.660/08
The cumulative effect of all the circumstances proved as aforesaid coupled with the proved motive of crime makes me to believe that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had major role and involvement in the two incidents dated 31.5.2008 at Vashi and dated 04.06.2008 at Thane.
(XII) Conspiracy :Spl. P.P. relied on the judgment in the case of Arun Gulab
Gavali vs. State of Maharashtra - 2007 Cri. L.J. 3622 to prove the conspiracy between Accd. Nos.1 to 6. It is pertinent to note here that one witness Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) had accompanied the accused as per the telephonic conversation with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. It specifically appears that he had no knowledge as to what Accd. No.3Vikram Bhave had intended, and this is clear from his testimony. In the circumstances, the presence of Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam, Accd. No. 4-Santosh Angre, Accd.No.5-Haribhau Divekar and Accd.No.6Hemant Chalke at various places can be inferred with the fact that they had also no knowledge about what was intended by Accd. No.1Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. Therefore the agreement by Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam, Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre,
124 Judgment S.C.660/08
Accd.No.5-Haribhau Divekar and Accd. No.6-Hemant Chalke cannot be inferred from the evidence brought on record. The alleged recovery at the instance of Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam and Accd.No.5Haribhau Divekar is not proved as discussed above. Therefore there is no direct material against them to involve them in the agreement, nor there is any other evidence to prove conspiracy against them. Two views possible : The role attributed to Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam is his presence at the spot of incident dated 31.05.2008. The role attributed to Accd. No.4-Santosh Angre is his presence at the spot of incident dated 06.06.2008. The role attributed to Accd. No.6-Hemant Chalke is his presence along with Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari to procure Selectron Timers. The prosecution evidence merely suggests presence of these three accused with Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. When Mayuresh (PW 58) was present with Accd.No.1Ramesh Gadkari and he had no knowledge, two views arise in respect of role of Accd.No.2, 4 & 6, either they had knowledge or they did not have knowledge. In absence of any corroboration, the view favourable to Accd.Nos.2, 4 & 6 is required to be accepted and it is held that involvement of Accd.Nos.2, 4, 5 & 6 in conspiracy is not proved.
125 Judgment S.C.660/08
(XIII) Purchase of SIM cards and Mobiles :The prosecution examined Smt. Darshan Kaur Randhawa
(PW 61), Babruwahan Kadam (PW 62), Darshansingh Randhawa (PW 63) and Ravindra Kakade (PW 105) to establish that the applications at Exs.228 to 231 were submitted by Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari to Smt. Darshan Kaur Randhawa (PW 61) to purchase 4 Tata Indicom mobile SIM cards and handsets. It is pertinent here to note that the alleged recovery of hair wig is not believed and the person - Amar Janu Bane (PW 59), who allegedly sold hair wig to Ramesh Gadkari nowhere speaks about selling hair wig to Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. He has testified only as regards selling of artificial mustaches and beard to Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. There is no matching of the photograph of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and the photograph appearing on the applications Exs.228 to 231. The testimony of Ravindra Kakade (PW 105) clearly suggests that no admitted handwriting of Accd.No.1Ramesh Gadkari was made available to him for comparison. Moreover, the offence of cheating requires dishonest or fraudulent intention. There also appears no wrongful gain attributed to the accused or wrongful loss to any of the witnesses. The only inference that can be drawn is that the person getting mobile in such manner wants to conceal his identity.
126 Judgment S.C.660/08
However, there is no reported incident against Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari that he had concealed his identity by making phone calls through such SIM cards. Therefore for want of fulfillment of ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 419, 465, 468, 471 of I.P.C., the evidence led by the prosecution in respect of the same is discarded.
As per the above discussion, Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari
and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave are found involved in the planting of live bomb at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on 31.5.2008 and carrying out explosion at Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane on 4.6.2008. Considering the nature of explosion and the injuries caused due to same to the persons at Gadkari Rangayatan and the intent of Accd. Nos.1Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave was only to create fear in the mind of the producer of the said drama, there appears no threat of death of any unknown person. Therefore the offence u/s 307 of IPC is not attracted as against them. The injured had suffered injuries of the nature explained and described in the certificates at Exs.382 to 390. The injuries were caused by the acts of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave in which explosive substance was used. Therefore the offence
127 Judgment S.C.660/08
u/s 324 of IPC is proved against them.
The offence u/s 201 of IPC is proved against Accd. No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave firstly on the basis of test explosion site found at the instance of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and there was destruction of evidence by disposing of the material. Therefore offence u/s 201 of IPC is proved against them.
For the above discussion, the offences u/s 419, 465, 468 &
471 of IPC are not proved as against Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari.
The spot panchnama at Ex.19 at Gadkari Rangayatan and
the damage caused to the public place is evident from the photographs. This also attracts the provision u/s 427 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and these offences are proved against Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and No.3-Vikram Bhave.
The alleged recovery at the instance of Accd.No.3-Vikram
Bhave of two revolvers and 92 rounds of cartridges is not proved by the prosecution.
128 Judgment S.C.660/08
The incident of planting the bomb and causing explosion is
found indication of possession of explosive substances of Accd.No.1Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave. It endangered life and these accused had malice in their mind. Therefore offences punishable u/s 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act is proved against Accd.No. 1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave.
The act of crime proved as against Accd.No.1-Ramesh
Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave cannot be termed as terrorist act within the meaning of 15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 nor the sanction obtained by the prosecution to prosecute the accused under the said provisions is legal and valid. In such circumstances, the said allegation is not proved as against Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave The strong indication of possession of explosive is established since the test blast is established and involvement of Accd.Nos.1 & 3 in alleged incident is proved. Therefore santion to prosecute under Explosive Substances Act is valid.
For the above stated reasons, there is no direct evidence
129 Judgment S.C.660/08
against Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam, Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre, Accd. No.5-Haribhau Divekar and Accd.No.6-Hemant Chalke about their involvement in the alleged crime, nor are there any circumstances to suggest their agreement in participation, along with Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, and therefore Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6 are liable to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. For the entire discussion of evidence as above, the points for determination are answered accordingly.
Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave
are held guilty for the offences punishable u/s 324, 201, 427 r/w Sec. 120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 3(a), 4(b)(i) & 5(a) r/w Sec..6 of Explosive Substances Act and Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act. Therefore they were called upon to make submissions on the point of quantum of sentence. The prosecution was also called upon to make submissions on the point of quantum of sentence.
For the reasons stated above, Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam, Angre, Accd. No.5-Haribhau Divekar and
130 Judgment S.C.660/08
Accd.No.6-Hemant Chalke are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other case as per final order hereinbelow.
Heard Advocate Mr.Punalekar, for Accd. Nos.1 & 3, on the
point of sentence. He submitted that Accd.Nos.1 & 3 have no criminal antecedents. Both are from middle class families and their reform may be kept in mind while imposing the quantum of sentence. He further argued for exclusion of offence under Explosive Substances Act with a view to reform these two accused. He further prayed for applying the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and further relied on the judgment in the case Shrishail Bhmsha Ghale & ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.852 of 1990 dated 27.8.2007.
Special P.P. Ms. Salian, for the State, submitted that
nowadays bomb blasts are occurring causing hurt to the innocent people and for the protection of the citizen a deterrent punishment be imposed to create deterrence in the mind of the criminals doing such acts.
131 Judgment S.C.660/08
Having considered the arguments from both the sides, the
mitigating factors are, the background of the accused that they have no criminal antecedents and both are from middle class families. Aggravating factor is that the blast at Thane was caused with a result to injuries to 8 persons. To recapitulate that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave are held responsible only for two incidents, one for keeping a live bomb in Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha at Vashi on 31.5.2008 and second for explosion of bomb at Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane on 4.6.2008. They are held guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence in the form of preparation, presence and conduct in the relevant period experienced by the witnesses, and inferred from the circumstances out of their own conduct. Therefore for the purpose of reform of these accused, it cannot be considered on the basis of the scope given by each of the sections for which they are held guilty. Both are held guilty for the offences under Sections 324, 201, 427 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 3(a), 4(b)(i) & 5(a) r/w Sec..6 of Explosive Substances Act and Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act. The offence u/s 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 provides for punishment with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment
132 Judgment S.C.660/08
which shall not less than 10 years and shall also be liable to be fined. Section 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act provides higher punishment. Therefore separate sentence u/s 4(b)(i), 5(a), 6 of the said Act need not be pronounced. Considering the family background of both the accused, they are entitled to the lesser punishment under this section. While imposing such sentence it should create deterrence in the mind of the criminals doing such acts. The aforesaid Judgment cited by the Advocate for the accused is perused, and it appears that the same is in respect of conviction in a sessions case for the offence u/s 498-A, 304B, 201 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C., and the Hon'ble High Court had considered the advanced age of the accused persons and therefore of the opinion that they deserve to be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It was also held that the bar u/s 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 does not operate in their case. These specific circumstances were arising out of the facts of the said case. In the present case, the offences for which Accd.Nos.1 and 3 are being held guilty affected the society at large. Therefore the observations in the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case.
For the aforesaid reasons,I proceed to pass the following order.
133 Judgment S.C.660/08
ORDER (1) Accd.No.2-Mangesh Dinkar Nikam, Accd.No.4-Santosh Sitaram
Angre, Accd.No.5-Haribhau Krishna Divekar and Accd.No.6-Hemant Tukaram Chalke are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 120-B, 307, 324, 201 of I.P.C., Sec. 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 9(B) of Explosive Act, 1984 and Sec.15, 16, 16(1)(b), 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Accd. No.4-Santosh Angre is also acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 r/w 427 of I.P.C. They be set at liberty forthwith if not required any other offence. (2) Bail bond of Accd.No.5-Haribhau Divekar stands cancelled. (N.V.NHAVKAR) Addl.Sessions Judge,Gr.Bombay
29/8/2011. FURTHER ORDER : (Dated 30/8/2011) (1)
Accd.No.1-Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram
Vinay Bhave are convicted under Section 235 of Cr. P.C. for the offences punishable u/s 324, 201, 427 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Sections 3(a) r/w 4(b)(i), 5(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances Act and Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act. They are sentenced to suffer punishments as
134 Judgment S.C.660/08
under :As regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari : (i) For offence u/s 324 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months. (ii) For offence u/s 201 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months. (iii) For offence u/s 427 r/w Sec.120-B he is sentenced to suffer S.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months. (iv) For offence u/s 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act he is sentenced to suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months. (v) For offence u/s 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months. (vi) For offence u/s 3(a) r/w 4(b)(i), 5(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances Act he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months on each count.
135 Judgment S.C.660/08
For offence u/s 9(b) of Explosive Act 1984 he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 1 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months. As regards Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave : (i) For offence u/s 324 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months. (ii) For offence u/s 201 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months. (iii) For offence u/s 427 r/w Sec.120-B he is sentenced to suffer S.I. for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months. (iv) For offence u/s 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act he is sentenced to suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months. (v) For offence u/s 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months. (vi) For offence u/s 3(a) r/w 4(b)(i), 5(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances
136 Judgment S.C.660/08
Act he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months on each count. (vii) For offence u/s 9(b) of Explosive Act 1984 he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 1 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months. (2) All substantives sentences in respect of both the accused
shall run concurrently. (3) Both the accused shall get set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C. for the
period of imprisonment already undergone by them. (4) Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave
are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 307 and Sec/15. 16, 16(a) (b), 18 & 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Accd.No.1Ramesh Gadkari is also acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 419, 465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave is also acquitted of offence punishable u/s 3 r/w Sec.25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act. (4) Nokia make mobile Phone with SIM card & battery (Art.47
colly.), Sony Ericson make mobile phone with SIM card & battery (Art. 48 colly.) and Nokia make mobile Phone with SIM card & battery (Art. 49 colly.) be returned to the rightful claimant if prayed by him after the appeal period is over or else the same be confiscated to the State.
137 Judgment S.C.660/08
Two Log Books (Arts.50 & 51) and one Diary (Art.52) be
returned to the Sanatan Ashram after the appeal period is over. (6) Two revolvers (Art.63 colly.) and Cartridges (Art.64 colly.)
be sent to the District Magistrate for disposal as per law after the appeal period is over. (7) Bicycle (Art.36) be confiscated to the State after the appeal
period is over. (8) Three gelatin sticks (Art.16 colly.) , white granules with
powder in damaged plastic container (Art.17 colly.) and four defused detonators with wire (Art.18 colly.) be sent to the Controller of Explosives for disposal according to law after the appeal period is over. (9) Rest of the articles, being worthless, be destroyed after the
appeal period is over. (10) The Bonds furnished in respect of the two motorcycles
bearing Nos.MH-06-AK-5558 and MH-04-AK-9905, X Tech company make Computer C.P.U. and cash of Rs.83,560/- shall stand cancelled and the said property shall be retained by those persons from whom the same were seized. 30/8/2011. Sd/(N.V.NHAVKAR) Addl.Sessions Judge, Gr.Bombay
138 Judgment S.C.660/08
Judgment dictated on : 23,25,26,29 & 30/8/2011. Judgment transcribed on : 7/9/2011. Judgment signed on : 9/9/2011. Judgment sent to C.C. Section on :