Received on : 10­12­2010      Registered on: 10­12­2010      Decided on : 18­04­2013      Duration :02Ys 04Ms 08Days.        Exh No            IN THE SESSIONS COURT, AT PUNE.    (Presided over by N.P.Dhote,Additional Sessions Judge )      SESSIONS CASE NO 771/2010      State of Maharashtra      Through A.C.P.,      Anti Terrorists Squad,      (in C.R No.06/2010).                ..........  Prosecution Vs.     1]     Mirza Himayat Baig @      Ahmed Baig Inayat Mirza @     Hasan.     Age: 32 years.        R/o. Kamwada Galli,Junna     Bazar, Tal.Beed, Dist. Beed.       .......... Accused         Absconding Accused     1]     Ahmed Siddibappa Zarar @     Yasin Bhatkal.     2]     Mohsin Choudhary.     3]     Riyaz Ismail Shabadri @     Riyaz Bhatkal.     4]     Iqbal Ismail Shabadri @     Iqbal Bhatkal.     5]     Fayyaz Kagzi @ Zulfikar             Fayyaz Ahmed.     6]     Sayyad Zabiuddin Sayyad             Zakiuddin @ Zabi Ansari.


APPEARANCES Ld. Special P.P Shri Raja Thakare for Prosecution. Ld. Advocate S/s. A Rehman and Kaynat Shaikh for the  Accused.                   JUDGMENT       (Pronounced on 15 & 18 April, 2013)  1]   Pune, which is situated near the Sahyadri hill 
th th

ranges,   and   is   the   cultural   and   educational   capital   of  Maharashtra   State   and   considered   to   be   a   peaceful   city.  Earlier, it was also called as pensioners paradise. Now, it  has also become the hub of I.T Industries,Pune never knew  that it would be the target of Terror attack. It got shattered  on 13th February, 2010 due to the powerful explosion at the  German   Bakery,   situated   on   the     North   Main   Road,  Koregaon Park area. In the said explosion 17 persons lost  their   lives   and   58   persons   sustained   severe   to   minor  injuries. The German Bakery got completely destroyed and  the adjacent shops were also affected. The investigation by  the police revealed that it was the bomb explosion and a  designed   terrorist   act.     After   investigation   the   Police  machinery   submitted   the   Charge   Sheet   naming   the  aforementioned persons as Accused under various sections  of Indian Penal Code, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,  1967 and Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 2]  The Prosecution's case unfolded from the Police 


report is as under: The  German   Bakery  is   situated   on   the   main   North  Road of Koregaon Park area in Pune. Nearby there is   the  Osho Ashram, where number of foreigners come and they  stay there or in the nearby areas. The   German Bakery  is  frequented by number of locals and foreigners.  On  13­02­2010,   at   about   18.50   hrs.   (6.50p.m.)   powerful  explosion  took   place   in   the  German   Bakery.   Due   to   the  said   explosion   17   persons   including   some   foreigners   lost  their  lives and    several others sustained serious injuries.  The Police reached on the spot of incident   and with the  help of public removed the victims to various hospitals for  treatment. The site came to be cordoned. The Manager of  German   Bakery  lodged   the   report   with   the   Bandgarden  Police station and vide C.R. No. 83/2010 the offence came  to be registered under various Sections of I.P.C,  Explosive  Substances Act,1908 and   Unlawful Activities (Prevention)  Act,1967   by   the   officer   of   Bandgarden   Police   station.  Considering   the   nature   of   offence   and   it's   gravity,   the  Director   General   of   Police   Maharashtra,   transferred     the  investigation to the Anti Terrorist Squad and Mr. Satav, the  Assistant   Commissioner   of   Police,  Anti   Terrorist   Squad,  Pune, took over the investigation and further registered the  C.R No.6/2010 with the Anti Terrorist Squad Police station, 


Kala Chowky, Mumbai. The  Spot panchnama   was drawn.  The experts from the forensic science laboratory, C.B.I, New  Delhi and  Pune visited the site of explosion and  collected  the   material/articles   for   testing.   The   statements   of  witnesses   were   recorded.   The   splinters   which   were  removed   by   the   Doctors   from   the  bodies   of   victims,   were  also   sent   to   the     forensic science  laboratory.  The  reports  from   the   forensic   science   laboratory   opined   that   the  articles collected from the explosion site showed the  traces  of cyclonite RDX, a high explosive, ammonium nitrate and  nitrate   ions   alongwith   petroleum   hydrocarbon   oil.  The  CCTV   footage   were   collected   from   the   System   of   the  German   Bakery  and   hotel   'O',   situated   next   to   it,   and  viewed by the Police officers and one suspect was seen in  the   said   CCTV   footage   entering   the  German   Bakery,  standing on the counter of German Bakery and leaving the  German   Bakery.   From   the   said   CCTV   footage,   it   was  noticed   that   while   entering   the  German   Bakery  the   said  suspect was having two haversack bags on his person, one  in front and another at the back and he was wearing cap  and while he was seen going out of the German Bakery he  was having only one haversack bag. The time displayed in  the said CCTV footage showed that the said suspect had  come to the  German Bakery  shortly before the  explosion. 


Police   Inspector  Mr.   Kadam   who   had   worked   in   the  Anti  Terrorist   Squad  and   Crime   Branch   at   Mumbai     and   was  having experience in the investigation of such   cases   was  shown the said CCTV footage and on viewing the same, he  confirmed that the suspect was absconding Accused No.1  Yasin   Bhatkal.    The   investigation   revealed   that   the   said  explosion was the planned attack to terrorize the public in  general, cause damage to life and property and to harm the  sovereignty of Nation and so, the investigation was focused  in   that   direction.   It   was   revealed   that   the   absconding  Accused   No.5   Fayyaz   Kagzi,   absconding   Accused   No.6  Jabiuddin   Ansari   and   the   Accused   Himayat   Baig  (hereinafter referred  as the Accused), were old friends and  were   residing   in   Udgir.   On   09­05­2006   and   thereafter   a  huge cache of arms and ammunitions, including 16 AK47  riffles,   3,200   live   cartridges,   43   KG   RDX   and   50   live  grenades   alongwith   other   articles   were   seized   from  Aurangabad and the case was registered in that regard with  the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  Police   station,   Kala   Chowky,  Mumbai vide LAC­3/2006 and 21 Accused persons   were  arrested   and  Charge   Sheeted   in   that   connection.   The  absconding   Accused   No.5   Fayaz   Kagzi   and   absconding  Accused   No.6   Jabbiuddin   Ansari   are   also   the   wanted  Accused in the said arms haul Case. The Accused also left 


Beed   since   then.   It   was   revealed   that   the   arrested   and  wanted   Accused   of   the   said   arms   haul   case   were   the  members of  Banned Organization simi and Pakistan based  terrorist   organization   Lashkar­E­Taiba.   In   the   year   2008,  the   members   of   Banned   Organization   Indian   Mujahiddin  were arrested from Pune, Mumbai and from other locations  across  the country, in connection with the explosion cases  happened in Surat,Ahemadabad, Banglore,Hyderabad, New  Delhi   etc.   and   absconding   Accused     No.1   Yasin   Bhatkal,  absconding   Accused   No.2  Mohsin  Choudhari,  absconding  Accused No.3 Riyaz Bhatkal and absconding Accused No.4  Iqbal   Bhatkal   are   also   the   absconding   Accused   in   those  cases.   It   was   revealed   that   the   Accused   was   in   close  association   with   the   arrested and  absconding  Accused  of  the Indian Mujahiddin module before they fled from Pune.  Investigation   revealed   that   the     Accused   and   the   wanted  Accused conspired in 2008 and thereafter, both within and  outside   India,   to   cause   the    explosion  for   terrorizing   the  people, promote enmity between different groups of religion  prejudicial   to   the   maintenance   of     peace   and   harmony,  cause   harm   to   the   economy   of     country   and   exploit   the  communal   sentiments   and   for   achieving   the   said   object,  received   financial   help   from   the  inimical   elements   across  the   border.   In   March   2008,   the  Accused   visited  Colombo 


and   met   absconding   Accused   No.5   Fayyaz   Kagzi   and  absconding   Accused   No.6   Jabbiuddin   Ansari,   where   the  design to cause further terrorist activities was finalized and  pursuant to the said conspiracy, the Accused got training  from   the   absconding   Accused   No.5   Fayaz   Kagzi   and  absconding Accused No.6 Jabbiuddin Ansari, to assemble  explosive   device   and   cause   the   explosion.   The   Accused  received   financial   assistance   to   purchase   the   explosive  devices   and   for   carrying   out   the   activities   to   achieve   the  objective.   In   pursuance   to   the   conspiracy,   the   Accused  concealed his identity and stayed at Udgir which is remote  and   nondescript   place   in   the  State   of   Maharashtra  with  assumed   names as Yusuf and Hasan and also used the  Bank   Account   of   his   friend   Rehan   for   the   purpose   of  financial   transactions.   For   the   purpose   of   concealing   his  identity   the   Accused   also   forged   the   documents   such   as  election   card,   card   meant   for     physically   handicapped  person etc. The Accused started an Internet Cafe at Udgir  under the name and style 'Global Internet Cafe'. Pursuant  to the conspiracy to cause the terrorist act at the German  Bakery, Koregaon Park, Pune, the absconding Accused No.1  Yasin   Bhatkal,   absconding   Accused   No.2   Mohsin  Choudhari, on instructions from absconding Accused No.3  Riyaz Bhatkal and absconding Accused No.4 Iqbal Bhatkal, 


came   to   Udgir   and   met   the   Accused   in   the   last   week   of  January, 2010 to discuss and finalize the plan of causing  the explosion. On 31stJanuary, 2010 the Accused conducted  the  reconnaissance   (recce)  of the targeted site and tested  the timing of planting the explosive device. In the first week  of February, 2010 the wanted Accused  No.1 Yasin Bhatkal  and   the   absconding   Accused     No.2   Mohsin   Choudhari  again came to Udgir and met the Accused and gave final  touch   to   the   plan   of   executing   the  explosion  at  German  Bakery, Pune. To execute the  explosion, the Accused went  to Mumbai and purchased one Nokia 1100 Mobile phone for  using it as a triggering device. To mislead his presence the  Accused kept his mobile phones in Mumbai with one of his  friend.   With   the   help   of   explosive   substance   and   other  devices,   the   bomb   came   to   be   assembled   at   the  Global  Internet Cafe, Udgir by the absconding Accused No.1 Yasin  Bhatkal, absconding Accused No.2 Mohsin Choudhari and  Accused. The Accused again went to Mumbai and collected  his mobile phones  which were kept with one of his friend  and   further,   to   mislead   his   presence,   traveled   to  Aurangabad and kept his mobile phones with  his friend at  Aurangabad   and   traveled   back   at   Udgir.   Pursuant   to   the  conspiracy   of   causing   the     explosion   on   13­02­2010,   the  absconding   Accused   No.1   Yasin   Bhatkal   and   Accused 


carried the explosive device and reached Pune at Pool Gate  stand  and from there they came to Pune Railway station  and   from   there   went   to   the   Central   Mall   in   the   auto  rickshaw   and   from   there   the   absconding   Accused   Yasin  Bhatkal   proceeded   towards   the   German   Bakery   at  approximately about 17.00 hrs (5.00p.m.) and planted the  bomb which was kept in the haversack bag. The said bomb  exploded   at   18.50   hrs   (6.50p.m.)   by   triggering,   with   the  help of mobile alarm. 3] During   the   investigation,   information   was 

received   that  the   Accused  was  coming  to  Pune  on  07­09­2010 at Poolgate bus stop and the trap was laid. To  identify him, the team was having his photograph. At about  3.15 p.m. the Accused was seen at the said bus stop and he  was apprehended and brought to the Anti Terrorist Squad  office, Pune and after making inquiry with him he came to  be   arrested.   His   personal   search   was   conducted   in  presence   of   the   panchas,   in   which   two   mobile   handsets,  out of which one was having sim card, pocket book of Urdu  language, election I card, pouch, small piece of paper, three  passport size coloured photographs, cover and piece of ATM  card,   some   currency   notes   and   one   spectacle   was   found  which   came   to   be   seized   under   the   arrest­cum­seizure  panchnama. During the interrogation, the Accused  stated 


that he will show the remaining explosive substance. His  memorandum   statement   came   to   be   recorded   U/s.   27   of  Evidence Act, in presence of panchas and he led the team  comprising   police   and   panchas   to   a   house   at   Udgir   and  removed   the   explosive   substance   (RDX),   soldering   gun,  soldering wire and wire cutter kept inside the Diwan (cot).  The   sniffer   dog   from   the   bomb   detection   team   gave  indication that the said substance was explosive. The said  articles   were   seized   and   sealed   under   the   seizure  panchnama.   The   friend   of     Accused   made   available   two  bags, belonging to the Accused to the police which came to  be seized under the panchnama. From the said bags, some  clothes,   passport   of   Accused,  sim  card  and  several   other  documents   were   found   and   they   came   to   be   seized.   The  passport of   Accused was having the stamp showing that  he had traveled from Chennai to Colombo and vice­a­versa.  The phone call details of the sim cards found in possession  of   the   Accused   were   sought   from   the   concerned   service  providers. During the course of investigation the Accused  pointed the shop from where the Nokia 1100 mobile phone  was purchased by him and also the place from where the  haversack   bag   was   purchased   from   Mumbai   and   the  memorandum   panchnama  in   that   regard   was   prepared.  The   statement   of   various   witnesses   were   recorded.   The 


register   of   Priyanka   Travels   by   whose   bus,   the   Accused  traveled   to   Mumbai   and   the   register   of   Al­noor     Guest  house, where  the Accused  had stay put in Mumbai  were  seized under the panchnamas  in presence of the panchas.  The   bank   account   statement   pertaining   to   the   account  used   by   the   Accused   was   collected   from   the   concerned  Bank. The CCTV footage of the ATM centers from where the  transactions   were   made   by   the   Accused       from   the   said  account   were   also   collected   from   the   concerned   Banks.  Some of the documents seized from the bag of the  Accused  were   sent   to   the   concerned   offices   for   verification   and   it  was   revealed   that   they   were   forged     documents   and   not  issued by the concerned offices. The specimen handwriting  of the Accused   was obtained in presence of panchas and  the bank vouchers and the register of Al­noor Guest House  were sent to the handwriting expert for verification and it  was   opined   that   the   handwriting   was   identical.   The  samples   removed   from   the   explosive   substance   seized   at  the instance of Accused, was sent to the forensic science  laboratory,   Pune   and  the  C.A   report   confirmed   that     the  said   substance   was   cyclonite   (RDX),   petroleum  hydrocarbon   oil   and   charcoal   and   RDX   was   the   high  explosive.  4]  As the Investigating officer found that  sufficient 


material was available which connects the Accused persons  with   the  explosion   at   German   Bakery,   he   obtained   the  Sanctions   under   the   Provisions   of   Unlawful   Activities  (Prevention)   Act   and   Explosive   Substances   Act   and  submitted the Charge Sheet against the Accused  on 04­12­ 2010   for   the   offences   Punishable   U/s.   120(B),   302,   307,  326, 325,324,427, 153A, 467,468,471, 474, 109, 34 of I.P.C.  and   U/s10,   13,   16,   18,   20   and   21   of   Unlawful   Activities  (Prevention)   Act,   1967   and   U/s   3,4,   and   5   of   Explosive  Substances Act, 1908. As most of the Sections under which  the Charge Sheet  was filed, were exclusively triable by the  Court   of   Sessions,   the   Ld.   J.M.F.C   (A.C.Court,   Pune)  committed   the   case   to   this   Court   by   order   dated   06­12­ 2010.   It  would   not  be   out  of place to mention  that since  beginning the Accused   is represented by the experienced  Lawyer of his choice and he was duly served with the copy  of   Charge   Sheet.  The   Ld.Spl.P.P   Shri   Raja   Thakre  (hereinafter   referred   to   Ld.Spl.P.P),   appeared   for   the  prosecution and the Ld. Advocate Shri A. Rehman assisted  by Ld. Advocate Shri Kaynat Shaikh (hereinafter referred as  defence Advocate) appeared for the Accused. Both of them  were heard on the point of Charge and by detail order dated  02­07­2011 it was held that primafacie case existed against  the Accused to proceed and accordingly, the Charge for the 


offences   Punishable   U/s.  120(B),   302,   307,   435,   153(A),  465, 467, 468, 474, of the I.P.C, for the offences Punishable  U/s.   10(a)&(b),   13(1)&   13(2),   16(1)(a),   18   and   20   of   the  Unlawful   Activities   (Prevention)   Act,   1967   and   for   the  offences punishable U/s. 3, 4(a)&(b) and 5 of the Explosive  Substances Act, 1908 came to be framed   on 16­07­2011,  vide Exh.17. The Charge was read over and explained to the  Accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be  tried. 5] After   framing   of   the   Charge,   the   prosecution 

submitted the Application at Exh. 20 praying for exhibiting  43   reports   from   the   government   scientific   experts   as   per  the   provisions   of   Section   293   of  Cr.P.C.     The   Ld.   defence  Advocate submitted the Say vide Exh.21 to this Application  stating that the reports from the forensic science laboratory  mentioned in the Application from Sr. Nos. 4 to 43 may be  exhibited under Section 293 of  Cr.P.C. However, the defence  did   not   admit   the   reports   of   forensic   science   laboratory  mentioned   at  Sr.   Nos.   1,2 and  3  in   the  said  Application.  Under the provisions of Section 293 of  Cr.P.C, the document  purporting  to  be   a   report  under  the hand of  government  scientific expert, to whom the section applies, may be used  as   evidence   in   any   inquiry,   trial,   or   every   proceedings  under the Code. As per sub section 4 of the said section 


any   Chemical   Examiner   or   Asst.   Chemical   Examiner   to  government   is   covered   U/s.   293   of  Cr.P.C.   By   using   the  provisions of said Section, all the reports from the forensic  science   laboratory   were   admitted   in   evidence   and   given  exhibit   Nos.   22   to   65   with   the   liberty   to   the   defence   to  make   appropriate   Application   under   sub   section   2   of  Section 293 of  Cr.P.C,   if they so desire for examining any  such   witness,   by   order   dated   30­07­2010.   However,   the  prosecution   itself   had   examined   the   forensic   Experts   as  P.W.75   and   P.W.78   who   had   prepared   the   C.A.   reports  including the C.A. reports, which are not admitted by the  defence. 6] The   prosecution   submitted   the   Application     at 

Exh.66 U/s. 294 of Cr.P.C calling upon the defence to either  admit or deny certain documents such as spot panchnama,  photographs   and   videography   of   the   scene   of   offence,  panchnamas   in   respect   of   seizure   of   hard   disk   of   the  computer   of   hotel   'O'   and   the   video   cassettes   from   the  German Bakery, sketch of the spot prepared by the survey  officer,   Inquest     and   papers   regarding   cause   of   death   of  victims, panchnama about seizure of clothes of deceased,  panchanamas   in   respect   of   seizure   of   splinters   from   the  bodies   of   injured,   certificates   of   injured   persons   and   the  forwarding   letters   sent   to   the   forensic  science   laboratory, 


filed by them   in support of the case. The say of defence  was called on this Application and defence submitted their  say vide Exh.67 stating that the Inquest mentioned at Sr.  Nos.9 to 25 and forwarding letters addressed to the forensic  science   laboratory   mentioned   at   Sr.   Nos.89,90,96   to   129  mentioned in the said Application are not denied and they  may be exhibited. Thus, the Inquest panchnamas and the  papers regarding cause of death of the victims came to be  admitted in evidence and marked as Exh.69  to  85 and the  forwarding   letters   addressed   to   the   forensic   science  laboratory Pune were admitted in  evidence and marked as  Exh.87   to   104.   Later   on,   on   20­03­2012   the   Ld.   defence  Advocate   admitted   the   certificates   of   the   injured   persons  which   are   mentioned   from   Sr.   Nos.   34   to   85   in   the  Application at Exh.66. Thus, the certificates of the injured  persons mentioned in the said Application at Exh.66 from  Sr.   No.   36   to   38,   43   to   50   and   57   to   82   and   85   were  admitted in evidence and marked as Exh.200 to  234. The  Injury   certificates   mentioned   in   Exh.66   at   Sr.   Nos.  34,35,39   to   42,44,45,48,49   51   to   56,60,83   and   84   were  exhibited   prior   to   20­03­2012,   in   the   evidence   of   the  Doctors   who   are   examined as P.W.45 to P.W.50 and they  are marked as Exh.168, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 183,  184, 189, 192, 193, 194, 197 and 199.  Thereafter on 


02­06­2012   the   Ld.   defence   Advocate   admitted   the  panchnamas   pertaining   to   seizure   of   splinters   removed  from the bodies of injured persons mentioned from Sr. No.  28   to   33   in   the   Application   at   Exh.66.   Thus,   the   said  panchnamas in respect of removal of splinters  from bodies  of injured persons were admitted in evidence and marked  as Exh.315 to 320. The panchnamas in respect of removal  of splinters from the injured which is mentioned at Sr. No.  27   in   Exh.66   is   exhibited   in   the   evidence   of   P.W.72   and  given   Exh.314.     On   20­08­2011  the   Ld.   defence   Advocate  have admitted the panchnama in respect of the seizure of  clothes of the deceased which are mentioned  at Sr. No. 26  in   the   Application   at   Exh.66   and   so   it   was   admitted   in  evidence and marked as Exh.86. 7] On   20­03­2012   the   prosecution   submitted 

another Application U/s. 294 of  Cr.P.C  at Exh.66A calling  upon the defence to either admit or deny the genuineness  of the injury certificates and  it was contended  on behalf of  the   prosecution   that   the  injury  certificates   of  six   injured  were   not  mentioned   in   the earlier  Application  U/s.294  of 
Cr.P.C  at   Exh.66   due   to   inadvertence   and   therefore,   this 

additional   Application   was   submitted.   The   defence   gave  their   say   on   this   additional   Application   stating   that   the  same may be exhibited and thus, the injury certificates of 


six injured mentioned in the Application at Exh.66A were  admitted in evidence and marked as Exh.235 to 240.  8] The   prosecution   submitted   the   Application   at 

Exh.68 praying for tendering the evidence of the witnesses  who had received the dead bodies, the injured persons who  were present on the spot of incident and sustained injuries,  by   way   of   Affidavit   pursuant   to   the   provisions  of   Section  296   of  Cr.P.C.  Reply   was   given   by   the   defence   on   this  Application vide Exh.105, stating that no names of formal  witnesses   was   given   by   the   prosecution,   whose   evidence  they intend to tender by way of affidavit. It was stated that  under   sub   section   2   of   section   296,   any   witness   whose  Affidavits are submitted, can be summoned for examination  if the Application is made by the defence.  The prosecution  submitted   the   names   of   the   formal   witnesses   whose  Affidavits   they   were   intending   to   file   as   the   formal  witnesses,   vide   Exh.111.   The   Application   filed   by   the  prosecution   to   file   the   Affidavits   of   the   formal   witnesses  was allowed by order dated 03­09­2011. 9]   In   the   Charge   Sheet   six   more   Accused   are 

named,   and   they   are   shown   as   absconding.   The  prosecution   submitted   the   Application   at   Exh.106   for  permission   to   record   the   evidence   in   absence   of   the  absconding  Accused  under  the  provisions  of   Section 


299   of  Cr.P.C. The   reply   was   filed   by   the   defence   vide  Exh.110   opposing   the   Application   of   the   prosecution   for  recording the evidence U/s. 299 of  Cr.P.C. According to the  defence, the Magistrate be directed to lead the evidence as  provided under the said section. Undoubtedly, some of the  sections under which the Charge Sheet  has been filed are  triable by the Court of Sessions.   The provisions of section  299 of Cr.P.C enables the Court competent to try the offence  complained of,  in the  absence of wanted Accused, if it is  established that the Accused   are wanted and there is no  immediate prospect of arresting them and the provisions of  said   section   also   makes   it   clear   that   the   deposition   of  witnesses recorded in the absence of  wanted Accused can  be used in evidence against him/them for the offence with  which   he/they   are   charged,   if   the   deponent   is   dead   or  incapable   of   giving   evidence   or   cannot   be   found   or   his  presence cannot be procured without an amount of delay,  expenses or inconvenience. It is the matter of record that  the   Ld.   Magistrate,   before   whom   the   Charge   sheet   was  submitted,   had   issued   Proclamation   against   the  absconding Accused persons U/s. 82 of   Cr.P.C  and issued  the   warrants against them. Alongwith the Application at  Exh.106,   the   Investigating   officer   submitted   his   Affidavit  stating   that   the   Proclamation   Orders   were  given  effect   in 


accordance   with   the   relevant   provisions.   In   such  circumstances, the said Application was allowed by order  dtd. 15­10­2011 by observing that the evidence recorded in  the   matter   would   be   U/s.   299   of  Cr.P.C  as   against   the  absconding Accused persons. 10] To   establish   the   Charge,   the   prosecution  tendered   the   evidence   of   103   witnesses   out   of   which   the  evidence of prosecution witness Nos.1 to 41 is tendered by  submitting   the   affidavits,   pursuant   to   the   provisions   of  Section   296   of  Cr.P.C.,   being   the   formal   witnesses.   The  defence   was   given   opportunity   to   cross   examine   the  prosecution   witnesses.   From   the   formal   witnesses   the  defence chose to cross examine only 11 witnesses. In the  evidence, number of documents are brought on record by  the prosecution including the electronic record.   11]   During   the   course   of   trial,   the   prosecution  submitted   the   Application  U/s.   294   of   Cr.P.C  at   Exh.385,  calling   upon   the   defence   either   to   admit   or   deny   the  Sanction orders. The say of defence was called on the said  Application and  on submission of  the Ld. Spl.P.P that the  recitals in the Sanction orders will not be construed as the  admission on the part of   Accused, the defence gave their  say on the Application itself stating that the same may be  exhibited. Thus, the three Sanction orders are admitted in 


evidence and marked as Exhs.391,392 and 393. Alongwith  the   Charge   Sheet,   the   prosecution   have   submitted   the  map/sketch   of   the   spot   of   incident.   On   the   said  map/sketch itself the defence had given endorsement that  the   same   may   be   exhibited   and   therefore,   the   same   is  admitted in evidence and marked as Exh.260. 12]   After the prosecution closed it's evidence by filing  the evidence closure pursis at Exh.427, the incriminating  circumstances were  put to the Accused and his statement  came to be recorded under the provisions of Section 313 of 
Cr.P.C. The defence did not examine any witness. The matter 

was posted for oral arguments of the parties. 13]     Ld.   Special   P.P   and   Ld.   Advocate   for   the  Accused   made   their   respective   oral   submissions.   Their  contentions   will   be   considered   at   the   appropriate   stages.  The   sum  and  substance of the submissions advanced by  the   Ld.   Spl.P.P   is   that   the   prosecution   have   successfully  proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt   the   involvement   of  Accused  in the crime and the Accused  failed to rebut the  mandatory   presumption   under   the   Unlawful   Activities  (Prevention) Act, 1967.  On the other hand, it is submitted  by the Ld. Advocate for the  Accused that the Charges are  not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Both the sides cited  the rulings in support of their submissions, which will be


considered and discussed at proper stage. After hearing the  oral submissions I had gone through the material available  on record and  following points arise for my determination. POINTS 1]  Whether the prosecution  proved that the explosion had taken place at the German  Bakery, Koregaon Park, Pune, on 13­02­2010 in between 18.50 hrs. to 19.00 hrs., due to the use of explosive substance and 17 persons got killed and 58 persons sustained injuries due to the said explosion? 2] Whether the prosecution proved  that the said explosion was a terrorist act?  3] Whether the death of 17 persons mentioned in the  chart is homicidal? FINDINGS




4] Whether  there is valid Sanction                   for the prosecution under the  provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967 and Explosive Substances Act,1908 ? Yes. 5] Whether the prosecution  proved  that the Accused Himayat Baig  is one of the co­conspirator in the said terrorist act and have thereby        


committed the offence Punishable U/s. 120(B) of I.P.C.? 6] Whether the prosecution proved that the Accused Himayat Baig is one of the person responsible for  the homicidal  death of 17  persons and for causing the injuries to 58 persons due to the  said explosion andhave thereby committed the offences Punishable  U/s. 302 and 307 of I.P.C.       



7]  Whether the prosecution proved     that the Accused Himayat Baig aided/abetted/assisted the operation of unlawful association and the  unlawful activity, conspired the same, was member of terrorist gang and  committed the terrorist act and have  thereby committed the offences  Punishable U/s.10 (a)&(b), 13(1)&(2),  16(1)(a),18 and 20 of the Unlawful  Activities(Prevention) Act, 1967?                      Yes. 8] Whether the prosecution proved        that the Accused Himayat Baig  unlawfully and maliciously possessed  the explosive substance and conspired  to cause and did cause the  above  referred explosion by the use of  explosive substance and have thereby  committed the offences Punishable  U/s. 3,4 and 5of the Explosive  Substances Act,1908 ?                                             Yes.


9]  Whether the prosecution proved that the Accused Himayat Baig  committed forgery  of valuable security for the purpose of cheating and have thereby committed the  offences Punishable U/s. 465,467 and 468 of I.P.C.? 10]  Whether the prosecution proved that the Accused Himayat Baig  possessed the forged documents intending to use as genuine and have thereby committed the offence Punishable U/s. 474 of I.P.C? 11] Whether the prosecution proved that the Accused Himayat Baig  committed mischief by explosive  substance with intent to cause damage and have thereby committed the  offence Punishable U/s. 435 of I.P.C.?





12]  Whether the prosecution proved     that the Accused Himayat Baig by spoken words promoted enmity between different groups on the  ground of religion and did the act  prejudicial to maintenance of harmony  and thereby committed the  offence Punishable U/s.153(A) of I.P.C?       Yes. 13] What order?     The Accused is convicted            as per final order.


        R E A S O N S

14]   Before adverting to the points, the admissibility  of the electronic record and that of the news item published  in the news paper  is considered so as to avoid repetition.
Evidence   in   the   form   of   Electronic   Record   and   it's   admissibility.

15]      Since   some   of   the   evidence   is   in   the   form   of  electronic record and the reference of which will be coming  at   different   stages,   it's   authenticity   and   admissibility   is  considered   before   adverting   to   another   point.   The  prosecution has filed on record the phone call details of two  sim cards and the recording made by the CCTV cameras at  the German Bakery and hotel 'O' which is situated next to  it and at the ATM Centers in respect of operating the Bank  account   by   the   Accused.   The   evidence   in   the   form   of  electronic record is admissible under section 65(B) of the  Evidence   Act.   It   will   have   to   be   seen   as   to   whether   the  evidence   in   the   form   of   electronic   record   satisfies   the  ingredients of the aforesaid provision of Evidence Act.
Electronic   record   of   C.C.T.V.   footage   of   hotel   'O'   and   German   Bakery 

16] P.W.43   Sayyad   Khwaja   Hamja   is   the   witness 


examined by the prosecution in respect of CCTV footage of  hotel 'O' which is situated next to the  German Bakery. In  his evidence he deposed that he had done various courses  in   Computer   and   was   completely   conversant   with   the  computer system and was working as I T Manager in hotel  'O'.   His   duty   consist   of   handling   software,   hardware,  networking and surveillance aspects. He deposed that there  are three cameras installed at the hotel 'O' and the camera  which is installed outside can capture the whole area till  the  German   Bakery   and   the   system   is   installed   in   the  security office in which the data gets automatically stored  till 9 days and he being the IT manager was the incharge of  the same and without his permission no one can go inside  the system. He further deposed that the   police had come  to the hotel 'O' in the night of 13­02­2010 and  had seized  the hard disk and the clone of hard disk of the system after  viewing the CCTV footage. It has come in his evidence that  it is possible to know as to which picture was captured and  stored on which day and at what time. He further deposed  that  as asked by the police, he prepared the copies of the  particular   footage   in   the   CD/DVD   and   gave   them   to   the  police.   He   further   stated   that   he   gave   the  authentication  report   generated   through   the   system,   to   the   police.   He  identified   the   panchnama  at   Exh.163   as   the   same 


panchnama   under which the hard disk, CD/DVD of the  relevant footage and  the authentication report  were seized  by the Police. He also identified Exh.164 (collectively) as the  same system generated   report. He identified the article 3  and 3A as the same hard disk and it's clone respectively  and   article   4   CD   handed   over   by   him   to   the   police.   He  deposed   that   the   said   CD/DVD   was   generated   from   the  system of hotel 'O' and the system was working in perfect  manner and the certificate in that regard is the part and  parcel of Exh.164 (collectively). His evidence shows that the  CD­article 4 was played and shown to him on the laptop  and he identified the same. It has   come in his evidence  that   it   was   highly   impossible   to   tamper   with   the   system  and whatever recording made therein is stored in encrypted  format. This witness was cross examined by the defence. In  cross  it is  brought  that he had not placed on record the  document to show that he was working as the IT Manager  in hotel 'O'.   To this, he volunteered that he had given the  copy   of   visiting   card   to   the   police.   However,   there   is   no  suggestion that he was not working in hotel 'O'. Further in  the  cross examination  itself it is brought that since last 3  years he was working in hotel 'O' and it was his 4 th  year.  Therefore,   non   submitting   the   documents   about   his  working  in  hotel  'O'   is   not  at  all fatal. The authenticated 


record   of   the   system   is   brought   on   record.   This   witness  denied the suggestion that the hard disk were not that of  hotel 'O' and stated that on the backside of the hard disk it  is mentioned that it was of hotel 'O'. It is further brought by  the defence that the CCTV cameras were not seized. There  is   no   requirement   under   the   Law   that   the   cameras   are  required to be seized for proving the electronic record. What  is relevant is the stored data/recording, of the system.  Non  seizure of the CCTV cameras by no stretch of imagination  will   render   the   electronic   record   inadmissible.   The  cross  examination   is not of that nature which would   damage  the evidence of this witness given for the prosecution. Non  recording of the statement of the owner of hotel 'O' is of no  consequences and will not render the authentication of the  electronic record of hotel 'O' invalid. This witness No.43 is  the   responsible   person   of   hotel   'O'   and   in   charge   of   the  surveillance system of that hotel. The necessary ingredients  required   to   prove   the   electronic   record   are   established  through   this   witness   and   therefore,   the   electronic   record  seized under the aforesaid panchnama pertaining to hotel  'O' is admissible in evidence.   17]  Another electronic record is in respect of seizure  of VCR of Panasonic Company(article­9), one video cassette  of Panasonic Company (article­10) and one remote control 


of Panasonic company(article­11) from the  German Bakery  on 14­02­2012 i.e next day of the explosion.   The notes of  evidence   shows   that   the   seizure   panchnama  at   Exh.242  under which the said articles were seized, is admitted by  the defence. Perusal of the said panchnama shows that the  said   articles   were   seized   from   the   premises   of  German  Bakery.   The   notes   of   evidence   show   that   since   the   said  panchnama   was   admitted   by   the   defence,   the  panch  witness of the said panchnama  was not examined. In his  evidence   P.W.103   who   is   the    Investigating   officer    have  deposed in para 12 that, separate clip came to be prepared  of   the   relevant   footage   and   article   61   CD   was   the   same  having the relevant clippings. As the said articles are not  disputed   by   the   defence,   no   formal   proof   is   laid   by   the  prosecution   to   establish   it's   authenticity.   Thus,   the  contents   of   the   said   electronic   articles   are   admissible   in  evidence. 18]    There is more electronic record seized from the  German Bakery   in the form of  seven video cassettes and  V.C.R.   P.W.58   Soorajsingh   Bisht   in   his   evidence   have  deposed that on 23­02­2010 he was called by the police at  the German Bakery, where Mr. Gopal Gargi, the Manager of  German Bakery and  Police officer Mr. Joshi were present  and in his presence the seven video cassettes which are at 


article 33(collectively)  and one VCR which is at article 34  came to be seized from the 3 rd floor of the German Bakery  under   the   panchnama   at   Exh.269.   He   stated   that   the  Manager of German Bakery told the police that in the said  articles the  recording of the CCTV camera installed at the  counter   of  German   Bakery  was   being   done.   From   his  evidence it is seen that the recording at the  counter of the  earlier   period   was   recorded   in   the   said   seven   video  cassettes. It is clear from para 2 of the deposition of this  witness that the articles were brought in sealed condition  and the labels were having the signature of this witness as  the panch. In the  cross examination  it is affirmed that in  the   said   cassettes   the   recording   from   the   counter   was  recorded.   Nothing   is   suggested   in   the  cross   examination  that   the   system   was   tampered   or   the   recording   was   not  done   on   regular   basis.   This   witness   identified   the   said  articles   while   giving   evidence.  As   can   be   seen   from   the  cross   examination  this witness  was  working   in   the  office  situated in the premises of German Bakery in the capacity  of   Manager   and   therefore,   his   presence   for   the   said  panchnama is natural. From this evidence it is established  by the prosecution that the aforesaid articles were seized  from the German Bakery.  


   Electronic Record in respect of Phone call details  

19]     P.W.79   Jeevak   Shiradkar   is  the     Nodal   officer  working   in   Vodafone   company   since   March   2010.   In   his  evidence he deposed that he is the  single point of contact  between the Government agencies and Vodafone company  for Maharashtra and Goa. He deposed that all the systems  of their company are computerized and he was having the  control   and   access   to   the   system   of   their   company   and  without the pass word the tampering with the system is not  possible.   He   deposed   that   whenever   any   Government  agency asks for the information, they provide the same by  getting  the  print outs  from the system and providing the  information from the system is the part of his day to day  official work. He further deposed that he received the letter  from Mumbai  Anti Terrorist Squad   which is at Exh.346,  asking   for   the   information   in   respect   of   mobile   number  9637597877  and   accordingly he supplied the information  by   his   letter   at   Exh.347,   alongwith   the   customer  Application form and the enclosure of the form which are at  Exh.348(collectively).   He   further   deposed   that   the   phone  call details alongwith the certificate at Exh.349 (collectively)  of the said mobile number were supplied by him to the Anti  Terrorist Squad. This witness was cross examined by the  defence. Nothing is brought by the defence that the system 


was not working properly or there was any tampering with  the system or record. The cross is in general terms such as,  dealer   of   the   phone   company   verifies   the   information  provided   in   the   customer  application   form  and thereafter  gives   the   sim   card,   the   customer   is   required   to   sign   the  Application   form   before   the   dealer.   The   authority   of   this  witness and the authenticity of the information supplied by  him is not challenged. Through the evidence of this witness  the phone call details of the said mobile number are duly  proved by the prosecution. 20]    P.W.81 Baby John is the Nodal officer with the  Tata   Tele   Services,   Mumbai  since   2005.   He  deposed  that  his nature of duty is to provide subscriber's details to the  Law   enforcing   agencies   as   per   licensing   agreement   of  Government   of   India   and   he   being   the   Nodal   officer,   is  authorized to access the system for providing subscriber's  detail   including   the   call   details   whenever   asked.   He  deposed that no person can access the system without his  authority and for access it is necessary to know the user I D No. and the password of the system. He deposed that  the information is stored in the system on day to day basis  in regular course of action and it is provided by him after  taking the printout from the system.   He further deposed  that   in   October,   2010,   vide   letter   at   Exh.354   the  Anti 


Terrorist Squad had asked the information in respect of one  sim  card and the required information was provided vide  letter   dated 19­10­2010 alongwith the phone call details,  the certificate and the customer Application form alongwith  it's Annexures, which are at Exh. 355(collectively).  In cross  examination   it has come that the said information was in  respect   of   the   mobile   No.8149308626.   If   the  cross  examination  is   seen,   the   said   call   details   are   referred   to  this   witness   by   the   defence   in   respect   of   some   call   I   D  addressed   and   nothing   is   brought   to   challenge   the  information provided by this witness to the  Anti Terrorist  Squad. The authenticity of the phone call details and the  information   provided   by   the   letter   at   Exh.355   is   not  challenged. Through the evidence of this witness the phone  call details of the mobile No. 8149308626 are duly proved  by the prosecution. 21]    Both the aforesaid witnesses examined by the  prosecution   in   respect   of   the   phone   call   details   are   the  responsible   persons   from   the   respective   service   provider  companies. The   Phone call details are in such continuity  that no slightest doubt arises about it's authenticity. The  essential   requirement   to   prove   the   electronic   record,   are  fulfilled by the prosecution and thus, the aforesaid phone  call details are admissible in evidence. 


Electronic Record in respect of CCTV footage of the ATM Centers

22] P.W.54   Radheshyam   Chiraniya,   is   the   Branch  Manager,   State   Bank   of   India,   Mehekar   and   he   deposed  that the State Bank of Hyderabad, State Bank of Bikaner  and Jaipur, State Bank Mysore, State Bank of Travencore  and State Bank of Patiyala etc. are the subsidiary banks of  State Bank of India. In his evidence he deposed that in the  year   2010   he   was   working   at   Aurangabad   as   the   ATM  Manager and was the in­charge of all the ATM centers of  Aurangabad   Zone.   He   deposed   that   in   every   ATM   Center  the ATM Machine is kept in which the CCTV cameras are  installed and whenever the amount is withdrawn from the  ATM center the entry with regard to the account number,  ATM   card   number   and   the   amount   withdrawn   gets  collected   in   the   EJ   log   and   the   time   and   the   date   of  withdrawal   also   gets   registered.   He   further   deposed   that  the person entering the ATM machine gets captured in the  CCTV cameras installed in the ATM center and the control  of   the   CCTV   hard   disk   is   with   the   respective   Branch  Manager   and   with   ATM   Manager   and   since   there   is  password protection, the hard disk cannot be tampered by  anyone. He further deposed that pursuant to the letter at  Exh.255 sent by the Anti Terrorist Squad, the CCTV footage 


and   the   transactions   from   EJ   log   of   the   ATM   centers   at  Parbhani and Udgir which were under his jurisdiction, were  supplied vide letter at Exh.256. He deposed that the CCTV  footage is taken from the hard disk which is used in day to  day business in the normal course and were taken out by  the authorized officer. In cross examination the omission to  the effect that the procedure of ATM center deposed by him  in the evidence was not mentioned in his police statement  is brought on record. However, the said omission will not  affect   the   evidence   given   by   this   witness   about   the  authenticity   of   the   electronic   record   of   the   ATM   Centers  which were seized by the  Anti Terrorist Squad. The other  cross   examination  also   do   not   affect   the   evidence   of  this  witness given in the examination­in­chief. It is only brought  in   the   cross   examination   that  it   is  not  the  offence   if  the  ATM   card   holder   allows   the   use   of   his   ATM   card   to   his  friend or other person. 23]   P.W.55   Santosh   Jadhav   is   the   ATM   Channel  Manager   of   State   Bank   of   Hyderabad,   Aurangabad   Zone  since   the   year   2011   and   the   in­charge   of   all   the   ATM  Centers in the said Zone. He also deposed that the  CCTV  cameras are installed at ATM centers and the transaction  done through the ATM machines gets registered in the hard  disk of the computer installed in the ATM machine and the 


person entering the ATM center gets captured in the CCTV  camera and the images also gets stored in the hard disk.  He deposed that the only authorized person is the Branch  Manager and the ATM officer have access to the hard disk  and   the   transactions   get   stored   in   the   hard   disk   in   the  routine   course   of   manner   and   since   it   is   password  protected   it   cannot   be   tampered.   His   evidence   further  shows that in October 2010, he supplied the CCTV footage  from the ATM center at Udgir which were copied on the C.D  from   the   hard   disk.   He   identified   the   letter   at   Exh.259  through which the said footage were supplied to the  Anti  Terrorist   Squad.   His   evidence   shows   that   he   was   the  superior officer to the concerned authorized Manager, who  had   taken   out   the   CCTV   footage   from   the   hard   disk.   In  cross examination it has come that the C.D of the CCTV  footage was given by the concerned Branch Manager in a  sealed   condition.   It   is   again   brought   in   the  cross  examination  of   this   witness   that   the   ATM   card   of   a  particular person can be used with the permission of ATM  card   holder.   Except   this,   there   is   nothing     in   the  cross  examination. 24]  As can be seen from the  aforesaid two witnesses  from   the   Banks,   they   are   the   senior   and   responsible  officers  of   the  respective banks and their evidence is not 


affected by the cross examination done by defence. Through  the   evidence   of   these   witnesses   the   authenticity   of  electronic record supplied by them in respect of the ATM  centers   is   proved   and   thus   the   said   electronic   record   is  admissible in evidence. 25]    From the evidence discussed in respect of the  electronic   record,   the   prosecution   have   proved   the  authenticity of the CCTV footage seized from the hotel 'O'  and the  German Bakery, of the phone call details and of  the     CCTV   footage   seized   from   the   concerned   Banks   in  respect of ATM Centers, as per the provisions of Law and  thus, the said evidence in the form of electronic record is  admissible in evidence.
About   admissibility   of   news   item   published   in   the   newspaper.

26]      One more aspect which falls for consideration  is the evidenciary  value of the news item published in the  newspaper,   because   the   news   item   pertaining   to   the  German Bakery  explosion  published in the news paper is  sought to be relied by the defence Advocate. The said news  item appears to have been reported in newspaper dtd 25­ 05­2010   and   was   initially   marked   as   article   31   in   the  evidence   of   P.W.93   (auto   rickshaw   driver)   and   thereafter 


subject   to   admissibility,   it   was   given   Exh.399   in   the  evidence   of   P.W.102   since   the   same   was   referred   to   the  witness by the prosecution. On the point of admissibility of  the  news item published in the  newspaper, the Ld.Spl.P.P  cited the Judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the  case   of  Laxmiraj   Shetty   and   another   V/s.   State   of  
Tamilnadu   reported   in   AIR   1988   S.C.   1274  in   which   the 

aspect  of admissibility of the news item published in the  newspaper   is   considered.   The   relevant   para   no.   26   is  reproduced here. “Para 26: It is now well settled that a statement of fact   contained in a newspaper is merely hearsay and therefore   inadmissible in evidence in the absence of the maker of the   statement   appearing   in   Court   and   deposing   to   have   perceived   the   fact   reported.   The    Accused    should   have   therefore,   produced   the   persons   in   whose   presence   the   seizure of the stolen money from appellant No. 2's house at   Mangalore   was   effected   or   examined   the   press   correspondents   in   proof   of   the   truth  of   the   contents   of   the   news   item.   The   question     as   to   the   admissibility   of   newspaper   reports   has     been   dealt   with   by   this   Court   in   Samant N. Balakrishna V/s George Fernandez, 1969 3 SCR   603.   (AIR   1969  Sessions   Court  1201).   There   the   question   arose   whether   Shri   George   Fernandez,   the   successful   candidate   returned   to   Parliament   from   the   Bombay   South   Parliament  Constituency had delivered a speech at  Shivaji   Park attributed to him as reported in the Maratha, a widely   circulated Marathi newspaper in Bombay, and it was said “A   Newspaper   report   without   any   further   proof   of   what   had   actually happened through witnesses is of no value. It is at   best   a   second­hand   secondary   evidence.   It   is   well   known  


that reporters collect information and pass it on to the editor   who   edits   the   news   item   and   then   publishes   it.   In   this   process the truth might get perverted or garbled. Such news   items cannot be said to prove themselves although they may   be   taken   into   account   with   other   evidence   if   the   other   evidence is forcible.”           27]     In   the   case   in   hand,   none   of   the   party   have  examined the Editor of the   newspaper in which the said  news item was published. The contents of the newspaper  item are not proved. In view of the above citation the said  news   item   is   the   hearsay   evidence   and   therefore,   not  admissible and thus the said news item at article 62/ Exh.  399 is kept out of consideration.

AS TO POINT NO.1 28]  It would be proper to have a clear picture about  the spot of incident. At Exh. 260 there  is the map/sketch  of the spot of incident. There is a main road running East­ West and passing from the Koregaon Park area of Pune. On  the   Northern   side   of   the   road   the  German   Bakery  is  situated.   Adjacent   to   the  German   Bakery    towards   East  side is hotel 'O'.   The road which passes between  German  Bakery  and hotel 'O' is called as 'A'­lane. Adjacent to the  German   Bakery  towards   West   side   is   the   wine   shop,  thereafter there is a outlet of Cafe Coffee Day and thereafter 


is   the   Niranjan   Jwellers.   The   main   entry   to   the  German  Bakery is from the  Main road and there is one more gate to  the  German Bakery  from the 'A'­lane. The map/sketch of  the   spot   is   reproduced   below   from   Exh.   260   for   better  understanding.

This spot is   also   described   by   the  Spot   Panch   P.W.44  Jagdish Nimbalkar  in his evidence.  It is needless to state  that the spot of incident is not in dispute.  29]   As   already mentioned, the evidence of P.W.1 to  P.W.41 is given by the prosecution by filing their Affidavits,  under   the   provisions   of   Section   296   of   Cr.P.C.,   being   the  formal   witnesses.   Only   11   witnesses,   out   of   these   formal  witnesses,   were   cross   examined   by   the   defence     and  therefore their evidence is discussed in somewhat detail.   30] P.W.4 to P.W.19, P.W.21, P.W.22, P.W.26, P.W.27, 


P.W.29,  P.W.34,  to P.W.41 are the witnesses to whom the  defense chose not to cross examine. So, only gist of their  evidence   is   taken   here.   All   of   them     were   present   in   the  vicinity of German Bakery at the time of explosion. In their  evidence Affidavits they have stated about the explosion at  the German Bakery on 13­02­2010 in between 6.50p.m. to  7.00p.m.  Most of these witnesses are the persons who have  sustained injuries due to the explosion as they had come to  the German Bakery as the customers. They stated in their  Affidavits   about   sustaining   injuries   and   about   their  admissions   to   the   different   hospitals   for   treatment.   As  these   witnesses   were   not   called   by   the   defence   for   cross  examination, their evidence went unchallenged. 31]   P.W.1 Smita Kharose, is the owner of   German  Bakery. In her evidence Affidavit she has stated that on 13­ 02­2010   at   about   7.15   p.m   she   was   informed   by   the  Manager   of  German   Bakery  about  the explosion  and she  reached   the   spot   around   8.45   p.m.   and   noticed   that   the  German   Bakery  was   virtually   destroyed   and   the   injured  and   deceased   were   removed   to   the   hospitals.   She   stated  that the estimated damage was around Rs. 15 Lakhs. She  was   cross   examined   by   the   defence.   In   the  cross  examination it has come that in the German Bakery  there  was self service facility for the customers and CCTV camera 


was installed at the counter of German Bakery. It has also  come that the CCTV Camera was installed at the adjacent  hotel 'O'. The timing of functioning of the  German Bakery  is stated to be from 8.00 a.m. to 11.00p.m. Being the owner  of the  German Bakery, it is but natural that she reached  the spot after learning  about the explosion. 32]   P.W.2 Dr. Manasi Jadhav is the Doctor having  her Dental Clinic on the first floor of   German Bakery. In  her evidence Affidavit she has stated that in the evening of  13­02­2010 at around 7.00 p.m. while she was present in  her  Clinic,   she   heard  loud explosion on the ground floor  and   noticed   that   the  German   Bakery  was   completely  destroyed   and   the   customers   were   severely   injured.   She  stated that she tried to provide help to the victims and soon  the police, ambulance and fire brigade arrived and removed  the injured to different hospitals. In the cross examination  it has come that the timings of Clinic was from 9.00a.m. to  7.00p.m.  She   denied   the   suggestion   that   she   was   not  present   on   the   spot.   Since   this  witness  was  running   the  Dental   Clinic   in   the   same   premises   her   presence   on   the  spot is natural and there is no room to doubt her evidence.  32]   P.W.3 Shankar Kharose is having his business  by   name   K.P.   Forex   Pvt.   Limited,   in   the   same   building  where the German Bakery is situated and his office timings 


are   stated   to   be   10.00a.m.   to   8.00p.m.   In   his   evidence  Affidavit   he   has   stated   that   on   13­02­2010   while   he   was  present   in   his   office,   he   heard   a   loud   explosion   around  7.00p.m   and   due   to   the   impact   of   explosion   the   window  pane adjoining to the entrance door as well as glass on his  office counter were shattered. He stated that after he came  out of the office he noticed lot of commotion and there were  several   injured   persons  shouting  for help  and the  plastic  tin shed outside the German Bakery, the counter inside the  German   Bakery  and   other   articles   were   completely  destroyed.   He   further   stated   that   the   people   helped   the  victims to go to the   hospital and the police, fire brigade  and ambulance had also reached and removed the injured  to the hospital. This witness was not called by the defence  for   the  cross   examination.   However,   his   business  establishment   being   adjacent   to   the   explosion   site,   his  evidence is discussed in little detail. 33]    P.W.20 Koustubh Mhatre, is one of the person  who sustained the injuries in the said explosion at German  Bakery.   In   his   evidence   Affidavit   he   has   stated   that   at  about   6.45p.m.   on   13­02­2010,   he   went   to   the   German  Bakery with his colleagues,  to have some snacks and the  explosion   took   place   in   which,   he   himself   and   his  colleagues suffered injuries and they were admitted in the 


hospital. He has further stated that on 08­09­2010 he  read  in   the   news   that   Himayat   Baig   (arrested   Accused)   was  arrested   in   this   case.   In   his  cross   examination  it   is   re­ iterated   that   the   explosion   had   taken   place   within   the  premises of German Bakery in the open space. He deposed  that   he   do   not   remember   whether   he   had   seen   the  photographs of the suspect in the paper. He denied that he  signed on the ready made Affidavit prepared by the Police  and   also   denied   that   he  was   not   present   at   the  German  Bakery  at   the   time   of   explosion.   The   Injury  certificate  of  this witness is admitted by the defence and the same is at  Exh.232.   As   regards   his   evidence   that   he   read   the   news  about arrest of Accused in this case is concerned, the same  would be hearsay in nature. As regards his presence at the  German Bakery, happening of the explosion and his getting  injured is concerned, it is established. 34]   P.W.23   Ramesh   Panta     is   the   watchman   of  German Bakery. In his evidence Affidavit it is stated that  he stays alongwith the other workers in the same building  where  German Bakery  is situated   and   in the evening of  13­02­2010 at about 7.15p.m. while he was getting ready for  reporting   to   duty   he   heard   a   loud   explosion   and   noticed  that the  entire tin shed of the German Bakery  had broken  and   several   persons   were   lying   in   injured   condition.   He 


stated   that   the   gas   cylinders   were   intact.   In   his   cross  examination it has come that the belongings of the persons  who   entered   the  German   Bakery  were   not   checked   and  since many of the customers were the students they used  to carry the bags and there was no occasion to check the  bags. He stated that the police and fire brigade had come to  the spot and fire brigade had put some   water. Being the  watchman   of  German   Bakery  his   presence   at   the   site   is  natural. 35]   P.W.24   Shrikrishna   Thapa   is   the   witness   who  was working in the German Bakery   as the Cashier at the  relevant time. In his evidence Affidavit he has stated that  on 13­02­2010 at about 6.50p.m while he was leaving the  German   Bakery  after   giving   the  Accounts   of  the day,   big  explosion and flames had occurred at the German Bakery  and   he   sustained   injury   to   his   person   and   he   was  hospitalized   for   treatment.   He   further   stated   that   the  customers were lying in pool of blood and shouting for help  and   they   were   removed   to   the   hospital.   In   the  cross  examination it is confirmed that there was CCTV camera at  the counter of  German Bakery and the persons who come  at   the   counter   were   captured   in   the   same.   The   Injury  certificate   of   this   witness   is   not   disputed   by   the   defence  and   the   same   is   at   Exh.171.   In   addition   to   this,   the 


prosecution   have   also   examined   the   Doctor   who   treated  this witness and the said medical certificate was exhibited  in the evidence of Doctor.  36]   P.W.25   Ramgopal   Karki   was   working   as   the  Manager at the German Bakery at the relevant time. In his  evidence Affidavit he has stated that on 13­02­2010 when  he   was   at   his   sister's  house,  he  received  the information  approximately   between   6.45p.m.   to   7.00p.m.   about   the  explosion at German Bakery and so in 20 to 25 minutes he  reached the  German Bakery   and noticed that the Bakery  had completely blown away and the blood and human flesh  was lying on the floor and the police were present. He has  further stated that on inspection, it was seen that the LPG  Cylinders were intact. It has come that one of the employer  of the German Bakery by name Gokul Bardeva died due to  the   injuries   sustained   by   the   explosion.   In  cross  examination  done   by   the   defence,   he   denied   that   the  compound wall of the German Bakery was 6ft. He admitted  that   due   to   compound   wall   of   3.5fts   and   metal   sheet  erection of 4fts. on the compound wall, it was not possible  to see from outside, the inside part of Bakery. He denied  that   the   watchman   used   to   check   the   belongings   of   the  customers.   It   is   further   confirmed   that   there   was   CCTV  camera on the counter of  German Bakery. He stated that 


large number of customers used to visit every day in the  German Bakery. His reaching at the spot is quite probable,  being the Manager. 37]   P.W.28 Kedar Gibire is the employee of  German  Bakery. In his evidence Affidavit he has stated that in the  evening of 13­02­2010 at about 7.00p.m. to 7.15p.m there  was explosion in  German Bakery  and all the articles were  destroyed   and   several   persons   were   injured.   In   his   cross  examination he denied that he was not present on the spot  at the relevant time. As the employee of German Bakery his  presence on the spot is obvious. 38]   P.W.30 Hanumant Kute, P.W.31 Kailash Mallav  and P.W. 32 Sameer Shaikh are the auto rickshaw drivers.  In their evidence affidavits they have stated that they park  their   auto   rickshaw   at   the   rickshaw   stand   next   to   the  German Bakery  and in the evening at about 7.00p.m. on  13­02­2010 there was big explosion at the German Bakery  in which several persons were severely injured and some of  them died. They stated that the hood of their auto rickshaw  got   damaged   due   to   the   explosion.   These   witnesses   were  cross examined by the defence. The aspect that they were  the rickshaw drivers and used to park their auto rickshaws  next to German Bakery is affirmed in cross examination. It  is   denied   that  the   distance  between  German  Bakery  and 


hotel   'O'   was   100fts.   Though   both   these   witnesses   have  stated that it did not occurred to them that they should go  to the Police station, it is not at all fatal for the prosecution.  In  the  evidence   of   other  witnesses it  has  come  that    the  Police had reached on the spot of incident. Their evidence is  worthy of acceptance.  39]     P.W.33   Umesh   Pongadwale   is   the   salesman  working in the shop by name Quality General Stores which  is situated next to the German Bakery and in his evidence  Affidavit   he   has   stated   that  the  shop  remains  open   from  8.00 a.m. till 11.00 p.m  and  further  stated  that  on  13­02­2010 at about 7.00p.m when he was present in the  shop,   he   heard   noise   of   big   explosion   at   the   German  Bakery  and   he   saw   that   the  German   Bakery  was  completely damaged and the customers and employees of  German   Bakery  were   lying   seriously   injured.   He   further  stated   that   the   injured   were   removed   to   hospitals   in   the  ambulance. In  cross examination  it is confirmed that the  shop   Quality   General   Stores   was   next   to   the  German  Bakery  and since there was no fire there was no occasion  for fire brigade to spray the water. He denied that he was  not present in the shop when the incident had occurred.  His presence at the site is quite natural being working in  the shop situated next to German Bakery.


40]    On evaluation of the evidence of the aforesaid  formal witnesses, their presence in the vicinity of the spot  of incident  cannot be doubted. Though suggestion is given  by   the   defence   that   they   were   not   present,   it   is   denied.  Even if, the cross examination of the aforesaid witnesses is  accepted as it is, the evidence given by them  is not affected  adversely in any manner. Many of the formal witnesses are  the customers who had visited the German Bakery. Though  in cross examination of these formal witnesses it has come  that their statements were recorded after 2 to 4 days from  the   incident,   that   is   not  fatal  for  the  prosecution   for   the  reason that the incident is such that the first priority of the  Police machinery is to remove the victims to the hospitals  for providing medical aid and   to make secure the spot of  incident     for   proper   investigation.   When   there   are   large  number   of   witnesses,   it   is   humanly   impossible   to   record  their statements immediately and on the same day. If the  tenor   of  cross   examination  of   the   aforesaid   formal  witnesses is seen, it becomes clear that the happening of  incident,   damage   to   the  property,   injuries   to   victims   and  death   of   some   persons   is   not   disputed   by   the   defence.  P.W.3, P.W.23 and P.W.25 have categorically stated in their  evidence Affidavit that the LPG cylinders of German Bakery  were found to be intact. There is no challenge to this aspect 


from the side of  defence and so, it is completely ruled out  that the said explosion was not the result of explosion of  LPG gas cylinders. In his evidence the Investigating officer  who is P.W.103 has also deposed that the gas cylinders of  the German Bakery were found to be intact. 41]   P.W.42 Kishor Sinha Pardeshi is the  policeman  working in the Crime Branch as the photographer since the  year 2002. It has come in his evidence that   his job is to  take the photographs of the spot of crime, dead bodies and  the   Accused   persons   and   for   that   purpose   the   Police  Commissionerate   has   provided   the   cameras   and   the  photography   equipments   and   the   cameras   having   the  digital   memory   card   are   used   by   them.   He   stated   that  Vishal Mhetre and Anil Mali were the constables to assist  him   and   in   the   night   of   13­02­2010,   after     receiving   the  information about the explosion at the German Bakery, he  went there and noticed that his colleagues by name Vishal  Mhetre   and   Borawke   had   already   reached   the   spot   of  incident and they had snapped the photographs and done  the  video  shooting  of  the spot. He further  stated that he  had gone at the hospitals where he took the photographs of  dead bodies. It has further come in his evidence that the  photographs and the video shooting pertaining to the said  explosion   at   German   Bakery   were   uploaded   in   the 


computer   of   their   office   which   was   working   in   proper  condition and the C.Ds. of the said photographs and video  shooting were  prepared and they were at article 1, 1A,  2  and 2A. His evidence shows that the said C.Ds were played  on the laptop at the time of his evidence and he identified  the  photographs  and  video shooting contained therein as  that of German Bakery  explosion. He was cross examined  by the defence. Though it has come that he was not having  any   degree   in   photography   it   has   come   that     he   had  completed   the   course   in   photography.   Experience   shows  that photography is the matter of practice and no formal  education is required to operate the cameras and the video  shooting camera and even a lay man can operate the same  with   little   practice.   Merely   because   the   memory   cards   of  cameras   and   the   cameras   were   not   produced   before   the  Court,   the   same   cannot   be   the   reason   to   discard   his  evidence. His not meeting the owner of  German Bakery  is  not   of   any   consequence.   There   is   no   suggestion   that   the  photographs   and   the   shooting   recorded   in   the  aforementioned   CDs   were   not   in   connection   with   the  German   Bakery  explosion.     From   the   evidence   of   this  witness it becomes clear that after the explosion the  site of  explosion and the  victims were captured in the camera and  video.


42]    P.W.99 Suhas Nadgauda is the Sr.P.I who was  attached   to   the   Bandgarden   Police   station,   Pune   at   the  relevant time.  In his evidence he has stated that on  13­02­2010  at  about 7.00p.m. when he was on patrolling  duty, he received the information about the big explosion at  the  German   Bakery,   Koregaon   Park,   Pune   and   so   he  immediately reached on the spot with his staff and noticed  that there was tremendous chaos and the dead bodies and  injured were lying and the  German Bakery  was destroyed.  He deposed that the victims were sent to different hospitals  and when the cashier of  German Bakery by name Pravin  Pant came to him and started telling the details, he realized  that he was the witness to the incident and he was asked  to   immediately   reach     Bandgarden   Police   station   and   he  also   reached   at   the   Bandgarden   Police   station   and  recorded his statement and it was clear that serious offence  was   committed   and   so   he   submitted   the   report   to   the  Station   House   officer  for   registering   the   crime   and  accordingly  C.R No. 83/2010 was registered under various  sections and the entry was made in the station diary.  43]     The   evidence   of   this   witness   shows   that   the  Complaint cum FIR was pointed to him and he identified  his   signature   on   the   same   and   the   signature   of  Station  House   officer  and   the   complaint   and   FIR   are   marked   as 


Exh.390 (collectively). From the evidence it is seen that the  defence had objected to exhibit the entire document as the  Complainant   was not available and by keeping open the  objection for argument at the time of final hearing it was  exhibited. Admittedly, Pravin Pant  who gave the FIR,  is not  examined   by   the   prosecution   as   he   is   not   available.  However, this P.W.99 is the officer who had signed the FIR.  In my considered view non examination of the Complainant  by   no   means   is   fatal   for   the   prosecution   because   it   is  settled   position   under   the   law,   that   the     purpose   of  report/FIR   is   to   set   the   criminal   law   in   motion   and   to  contradict   the   Complainant.   Ultimately,   the   case   would  depend   upon   the   evidence   led   by   the   prosecution.   Thus  non examination of the Complainant  is not fatal. 44]     It   has   further   come   in   the   evidence   of   this  witness P.W.99 that he again went to the spot of incident  and   formed   different   teams   for   the   purpose   of   recording  statements of injured for   preparing Inquest panchnamas  and for other purposes and he was also the part of team.  His evidence shows that on 14­02­2010 the investigation of  the case was transferred to the  Anti Terrorist Squad  and  thereafter also he was the part of the investigation team.  His evidence shows that he recorded the statement of P.W.1  who   is   the   owner   of   the  German   Bakery  and   seized   the 


clothes of Nine deceased persons under the panchnama at  Exh.86.   He   has   further   stated   that   the   experts   from   the  forensic   science   laboratory   had   come   on   the   spot   of  incident and collected the articles for examination. It has  also come in his evidence that   the blood samples of the  injured and the deceased, splinters found in their bodies  and   skins   were   collected   and   sent   to   the  Chemical  Laboratory   for examination.   He   was cross examined by  the defence. Nothing material is brought by the defence to  discard the evidence. The suggestions that no articles were  collected from the spot of incident, no blood samples and  splinters   were   collected   and   not   carrying   out   the  investigation are denied. It has come that the statement of  this witness was recorded after Nine months.  This witness  have explained the delay  by stating that as he was the part  of investigation his statement was recorded after he did his  investigation.  He stated that fire brigade had not sprinkled  water on the spot of incident. The evidence of this witness  clearly go to establish that immediately after the explosion  he reached the spot of incident and arranged for sending  the   victims   to   the   different   hospitals,   cordoned   the   spot  and recorded the FIR.    45]      The    prosecution has brought on record the  medical   evidence   to   prove   the   injuries   suffered   by   the 


victims in the said explosion. As already mentioned, all the  injury certificates are admitted by the defence. Since some  of   the   injury   certificates   were   not   admitted   at   the     first  instance, the prosecution had examined five Doctors who  treated the injured persons. Though the injury certificates  are admitted by the defence, it would not be out of place to  discuss the medical evidence available on record. 46]    P.W.45 Dr. Lohokare, is the consultant General  Surgeon   attached   to   the   Inlac   and   Budhrani   Hospital,  Koregaon Park, Pune. In his evidence it has come that on  13­02­2010   about   13   to   14   patients,   injured   due   to  explosion  at   the  German   Bakery  were   brought   for  treatment in the said hospital. According to this witness he  examined patient Vikas Shigwan who was brought at about  23.11   hrs.   on   13­02­2010   and   he   gave   the   history   of  explosion injury at the  German Bakery. He described the  injuries present on the person of said patient and stated  that   the   injury   was   caused   due   to   Bomb   explosion  and  endangering to life. The injury certificate of the said patient  at   Exh.169   is   identified   by   this   witness.   In  cross  examination   it is stated that the injury of the said patient  was not dangerous for his life and there is no procedure to  know   that   the   particular   injury   is   caused   only   by  Bomb  explosion.


47]     P.W.46   Dr.   Saxena   is   the   Consultant   plastic  Surgeon attached to the Inlac Budhrani Hospital, Koregaon  Park,   Pune.   He   stated   that   certain   patients   who   were  injured   in   the  Bomb   explosion  at  German   Bakery  were  brought to the hospital and he had occasion to examine the  patients   by   name   Krishna   Thapa,   Santosh   Chandwani,  Sumeet Singh, Amrapali Chavan, Vineeta Pathak, and Mrs.  Waltrawo   K.   He   deposed   that   the   said   patients   were  brought in the hospital   on 13­02­2010 in the evening at  different   times   and   they   were   given   treatment.   In   his  evidence   he   described   the   injuries   found   on   the   said  patients   and     stated   that     the  injuries were  possible    by  Bomb   explosion.   He   identified     the   injury   certificates   at  Exh.171 to 176  as of those patients.  In cross examination  he has stated that all the details are not mentioned in the  injury   certificates   and   volunteered   that   the   nature   of  injuries   is   very   much   given   in   the   certificates.   In   the   re  examination this witness stated that the injury certificates  give only the gist of the injuries and  the details about the  same are given in the medical papers. 48]     P.W.47 Dr. Shinde is the Surgeon and founder  Director   of   Surya   Hospital,   Pune.   In   his   evidence   he  deposed   that   two   patients   by   name   Uplaksh   Tiwari   and  Saqr Albadani, who were injured  in the Bomb explosion at 


German Bakery  Koregaon Park, Pune were brought to the  hospital on 13­02­2010 at about to 9.00p.m. and 8.30p.m.  respectively and they were examined and given treatment.  In his evidence he described the injuries suffered   by the  said   patients   and   stated   that   they   were   possible   due   to  Bomb explosion   and were of serious nature. He identified  the injury certificate at Exh.181 and medical papers at Exh.  181A and 181B as that of the said patients.   In the  cross  examination  he stated that though the certificate was not  signed by him, it was issued as per his instructions and  the required details are given. 49]    P.W.88 Dr. Balkrishna Agrawal, is the Surgeon  attached to Amit Hospital, Yerwada, Pune. In his evidence  he stated that patient  by name Miss. Hiteshi Kamboj and  Kiran Jadhav were brought on 13­02­2010 at 8.00p.m and  7.30p.m.   respectively   to   the   hospital   for   multiple   injuries  suffered   due   to  Bomb   explosion  at  German   Bakery.   He  described   the   injuries   suffered   by   them   and   treatment  given to them. He deposed that the injury suffered by Miss.  Kamboj was  grievous in nature and the injury suffered by  Kiran   Jadhav   was   simple   in   nature   and   possible   due   to  Bomb explosion.   He identified the   medical certificates at  Exh.183   and   184   and   the   medical   papers   at     Exhs.183A  and 184A as that of the said patients. In cross examination 


he stated that there is no rule to determine that the injury  is caused due to Bomb explosion. 50]     P.W.49   Dr.   Chetan   Puram,   is   the   Orthopedic  Surgeon   attached   to   Sancheti   Hospital,   Pune.   In   his  evidence he stated that on 13­02­2010 between 9.30p.m. to  10.00p.m. persons by name Mushtaq Ahemad and Kanaji  Sherkhane   were   brought   to   the   hospital   for   injuries  suffered due to the Bomb explosion at German Bakery. He  stated about the treatment given to them   and described  the   injuries   found   on   their   persons   and   stated   that   the  injuries were possible due to Bomb explosion. He identified  the injury certificates at Exh.186 and 187 and the medical  papers at Exh.187A as that of the said patients. In  cross  examination   he stated that the injury to the Tibia Fibula  may cause due to fall. 51]   P.W.50   Dr.   Pravin   Survase,   is   the     Surgery  resident of Sassoon General hospital, Pune. In his evidence  he   stated   that   on   13­02­2010     in   between   7.50p.m.   to  10.13p.m.   the   patients  by name  Bharat  Agrawal, Kantilal  Zala,   Paras   Reemal,   Rushabh   Agrawal,   Sunanda   Naik,  Vidya   Nayak,   Uday   Karemvadi   and   Nagrajan   Reddi   were  brought to the hospital for injuries sustained in the  Bomb  explosion  at   the  German   Bakery.   He   deposed   about   the  treatment   given   to   the   said   patients   and   described   the 


injuries present on their persons. He further deposed that  the injuries were consistent with the explosion injuries. He  identified the Injury certificates at Exh.189 to 198 as that  of the said patients. In cross examination he deposed that  the opinion given by him was not mentioned in the medical  certificates   and   the   medical   papers.   He   denied   the  suggestion   that   none   of   the   patient   have   suffered   the  explosion injuries. 52]  Though the aforesaid five Doctor witnesses were  cross examined by the Ld. defence Advocate, the evidence  given by them in respect of sustaining the injuries by the  said patients due to explosion and giving the treatment to  them  and   issuing   the   medical  certificates is not  affected.  The   evidence   of   these   Doctors   show   that   while   giving  evidence they had brought the original medical papers of  their respective   hospitals. It is needless to state that the  treatment given to the patients is not to be reproduced in  the   injury   certificate   and   only   the   injuries   are   to   be  mentioned   nor   there   is   any   such   requirement   under   the  Law. The medical evidence shows that the injuries to the  victims   were   caused   due   to   the  foreign  bodies/projectiles  which got blown due to the explosion.   It is crystal clear  from   the   evidence   of   these   Doctors   that   all   the     said  patients   were   admitted   in   the   evening   of 13­02­2010 


after the time when the explosion had taken place and the  history given was that of   injuries due to  Bomb explosion  and therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be said  that the injuries were not caused due to the explosion. The  injuries on some of the patients are simple and the injuries  on some of the patients are grievous. Though it is brought  on   record   in   the  cross   examination  of   the   Doctors   that  there is no rule to determine the injury as the Bomb blast  injury   all   the   patients   were   brought   from   the  German  Bakery where the explosion had taken place.  Though these  Doctor witnesses were cross examined by the Ld. defence  Advocate   the   injury   certificates   of   said   patients   were  admitted   subsequently   by   the   defence.   So,   ultimately   no  dispute   remains   about   the   same.   The   name   of   injured,  cause   of   injury   and   the   exhibit   numbers   of   the   Injury  certificate   are     given   below   in   tabular   form.   Some   of   the  injured   persons     are   the   witnesses   who   had   given   their  evidence Affidavits.
Sr  No 1 2 3 4 5 6 Vikas Shigwan (P.W.22)  Krishna Thapa (P.W.24) SantoshChandwani  (P.W.12) Sumit Singh (P.W.40) Ms. Amrapali Chavan (P.W.21) Miss.Vineeta Pathak (P.W.39) Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast 169 &169A  71& 171A 172 & 172A 173 & 173A 174 & 174A 175,   175A   &           Name of  injured Cause of injury   Exh. Nos.

60 240 7 8 Mrs. Waltrawo K (P.W.41) Saqr Albadani (P.W.35) Uplakshya Tiwari (P.W.38) Miss. Hiteshi Kamboj Kiran Jadhav (P.W.6) Mushtaq Ahemad (P.W.29) Tanaji Sherkhane (P.W.7) Bharat Agrawal (P.W.34) Kantilal Zala Paras Reemal Rushabh Agrawal Sunanda Naik (P.W.8) Vidya Nayak (P.W.9) Uday Karanwade Nagrajan Reddi Ash Erig Ejrali Faraz Zalnani Chek Wang Bharat Turkia Uday Kedambadi (P.W.14) Razavi Alireza Lazarus Ashley (P.W.15) Vikas Gaurav Deepak Bajaj Reeta Anap Borna Kananiya Chinmay Jokhla (P.W.18) Snehal Dudhabade (P.W.17) Smruti Batta (P.W.19) Ekta Lulla (P.W.11) Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast           ­ Blast Blast Blast Blast    ­ Blast         ­ Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast 176 & 176A 181 & 181B 181 & 181A 183 & 183A 184 & 184A 186 187 & 187A 189 190 & 202 191 & 203 192 193 194 195 196 & 204 197 198 199 & 205 200 201 205A 206 207 208 210 & 211 212 & 213 214 215 216 217

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36

61 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 Neeraj Lulla (P.W.10) Kunal Bhalla Rehmani Jaffar Ramesh Satyamurthy Shivangi Tyagi Natrajan Balsubramanyam (P.W.4) Aditya Anilkumar Arinjay Jain (P.W.13) Aftab Hussain Arun Maddy Ajaysingh Thakur (P.W.37) Silvester Cordorio (P.W.5) Hemant Kapoor Jay Budhdha Dev (P.W.16) Kaustubh Mhatre (P.W.20) Shashank Nagar Anap Ganpat Anas Sluman Vikas Tulsiyani Aditya Mehta Raju Agrawal Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast     ­     ­     ­ Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast Blast    ­ Blast Blast Blast Blast 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239

Miss.Pratyusha Sarkar(P.W.26) Blast

With the   material on record, the prosecution have clearly  established   that   the   persons   mentioned   in   the   aforesaid  chart   were   injured   in   the   explosion   which   occurred   at  German Bakery, Koregaon Park Pune, on 13­02­2010.  53]   The   prosecution   submitted   the   Inquest,  Postmortem reports and other related papers in respect of 


the   persons   died   due   to   said  explosion.   As   already  mentioned,  the   defence admitted the genuineness of the  said   documents   and   therefore,   they   were   admitted   in  evidence and exhibited.  It is needless to state that the facts  admitted   need   not   be   proved.   Perusal   of    the   said  documents   clearly   go   to  show  that   the  victims   named   in  these   documents   died   due   to   injuries   suffered   in   the  explosion  occurred  at  the German  Bakery. These are the  documents   prepared   at   the   relevant   time   in   ordinary  course   of   nature.   The   cause   of   death   of   the   victims  mentioned in these documents is stated below in tabular  form which gives the name of deceased,cause of death and  Exhibit numbers of relevant papers.
Sr No Name of the deceased        Cause of death 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Ankit Kamlendudhar Kum.Shilpa Goyanka Kum.Vinita Gadani Kum. Sinduli Piduri Kum.Anandi Dhar Shankar Pansare Vikas Tulsiyani Anas Suliman (Foreigner) Kum. Aditi Jindal Exhs

Hemorrhage   &   Shock   due   to  69 explosion Injury Explosion injury Explosion injury

70 71

Hemorrhage and Shock due to  72 explosion Injury Hemorrhage and Shock due to  73 explosion Injury Hemorrhage and Shock due to  74 punctured Injury over chest Complication  following explosion injuries.


Septicemia   due   to   explosion  76 injuries Complications  following explosion injuries


63 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Atul Anap Amjad Elgo Ahmed (Foreigner) Aditya Mehta Abhishek Saxena Gokul Nepali Ms. Nadia Macerini Sayeed Abdol Khani (Foreigner) Raju Agarwal
Complications  following explosion injuries.


Multiple   burn   injuries   due   to  79 explosion Complications  following   explosion  injuries. Complications  following explosion injuries. Explosion injuries. Explosion injuries.

80 81 82 83

Hemorrhage and Shock due to  84 explosion Injury Complications  following explosion injuries


From   the   above   material   on   record   it   is   unerringly  established by the prosecution that 17 persons died  due to  the injuries suffered from the explosion at German Bakery. 54]     P.W.72 Santosh Bhore is the panch witness  for  the   panchnama   in   respect   of   seizure   of   the   splinters  removed from the  body of injured persons. In his evidence  he   stated   that   on   14­02­2010   at   about   3.30p.m.   he   was  called   by   the   police   at   the   Sancheti   Hospital,   Pune   in  respect of the panchnama for splinters and the Doctor from  the  hospital   shown   one bottle on which  the name  of the  patient was written and it was having eight splinters and it  was seized by the police under the panchnama  at Exh.314.  This   witness   identified   his   signature   on   the   said  panchnama and also identified the bottle at article 45 as 


the same. In  cross examination   it has come that  he was  present   in  the  Sancheti Hospital  with  his relative patient  and the name of the Doctor was   Tembhurne. This shows  that he is the natural witness. He stated that he had not  seen removing the splinters from the body of patients.  It is  common experience that no stranger or outsider is allowed  by the Doctors while doing the procedures on the patient  and   therefore,   his   not   seeing   the   act   of   removing   the  splinters   from   the   body   of   patients   will   not   discard   his  testimony. The other panchnamas in respect of seizure of  splinters are admitted by the defence and they are at Exh.  315 to 320. The articles Nos. 46 to 51 are the articles which  were seized under the admitted panchnamas. The evidence  of seizure of splinters from the injured is also corroborated  by the evidence of P.W.99 who is the police officer of the  Bandgarden Police station where the offence was registered  as   can   be   seen   from   Para   6   of   his   evidence.   Thus,   the  evidence   on   record   establishes   that   the     splinters   were  removed   from   the   patient's   body   and   they   were   taken  charge of  by the police.  55]    P.W.44   Jagdish   Nimbalkar   is   the   witness   in  whose presence the Spot panchnama was drawn.  He is the  Government officer working as Tahsildar. In his evidence he  has stated that he was called by the police at the German 


Bakery, Koregaon Park, Pune in the morning at 8.00a.m.  on   14­02­2010   for   the   purpose   of   preparing   the  Spot  panchnama  and   another   panch   Suhas   Soma   was   also  present there. In his evidence this P.W.44 have described  the spot of incident in great detail which gives the actual  scenario at the spot after the explosion.  He stated that the  counter,   the   shed   had   fallen   down   and   broken,   the  furniture in the premises of  German Bakery  was broken,  pieces   of   human   bodies   and   flesh   were   scattered,   the  compound   wall   was   cracked,   there   was   one   hole   on   the  East side wall and there was big pit adjacent to the said  wall of German Bakery, the leather boutique was in broken  condition, the articles of nearby shops were damaged, the  sign board of hotel 'O' was half broken and the glass on the  second floor of the hotel 'O' was cracked.  He also deposed  that the  persons from the forensic science laboratory had  collected the samples from the spot. The  Spot panchnama  at Exh.166 is identified by this witness as the same which  was   drawn   in   his   presence.   In   his   evidence   he   also  identified the articles which are at number 6(collectively), 7(collectively) and 8(collectively), which consist of tin pieces,  pieces of mobile phones, chargers, batteries, pieces of tiles,  metallic parts, pieces of burned clothes, watches, C.Ds etc.  as   the   same   articles   which   were   collected   from   the   spot 


under the aforesaid spot panchnama  in his presence. His  evidence further go to show that the article 1 and 2 which  are   the   CDs   having   the   pictures   of   the   spot   of   incident,  which   are   brought   on   record   in   the   evidence   of   P.W.42  (police photographer), were played on the laptop and shown  to him and he deposed that the pictures and video shooting  was that of the spot of incident. He has categorically stated  that the spot of incident   was protected by cordoning the  area. Cross examination of this witness shows that major  part   of   the  cross   examination  is   in   the   nature   of  suggestions   which   are   denied by  him.  He  denied  that   he  acted   as   the   panch   on   several   occasions.   This   witness  being the Tahsildar, by no means can be said  to be under  the influence of police machinery. Nothing is brought in the  cross   examination  to   doubt   the   evidence   of   this   witness.  The evidence of this witness corroborates the prosecution  case that explosion had taken place at German Bakery   in  which there was destruction of property and loss of human  life. 56]   P.W.103   Vinod   Satav   is   the   witness   who   was  working   as   the  Asst.   Commissioner   of   Police  in   the  Anti  Terrorist   Squad,   Pune   and  who   investigated  this  case.  In  his evidence he deposed that after receiving the information  about the explosion at the German Bakery, Koregaon Park, 


Pune on 13­02­2010 he rushed to the spot of incident  with  the staff and P.W.99 was already present with the staff. He  stated  that the injured and the dead were sent to different  hospitals.   He   deposed about  the condition  of the spot.  It  has   come   in   his   evidence   that   on   the   directions   of   the  Director   General   of   Police   the   investigation   was   handed  over  to  the  Anti  Terrorist  Squad  by  the  order  dated  13­02­2010   which   is   at   Exh.408.   He   identified   the  endorsement and signature on the said order in respect of  receiving   the   same.   He   further   deposed   that   after   taking  over the investigation he registered the offence with the Anti  Terrorist Squad, Kala Chowky office, Mumbai and sent the  copy of complaint to the Special Court and identified the  report   at   Exh.409   as   the   same   by   which   the   copy   of  complaint was sent. He further deposed about conducting  the  Spot panchnama, coming of experts from the forensic  science laboratory and collecting the articles from the spot  for examination, taking in custody the CDs at article 1 and  1A in respect of the photographs and shooting of the spot.  He also deposed that the samples collected from the spot of  incident   were sent to the forensic science laboratory   for  examination.   In   his   evidence   he   has   stated   that   the   fire  brigade department have submitted the report at Exh.424  stating that no fire had taken place on the spot of incident. 


In  cross   examination  there   is   nothing   to   discard   the  evidence of P.W.103 that  explosion had taken place at the  German Bakery  and he had  gone on the spot of incident.  He denied that the fire brigade sprinkled the water on the  spot   before   he   reached.   The  cross   examination  of   this  witness   done   in   connection   with   other   aspects   would   be  dealt with at relevant stages.  57]   If the cross examination done by the defence of  the formal witnesses and the aforementioned witnesses is  seen,     it   appears   that   they   wanted  to   show   that   the  fire  brigade   had   sprinkled   the   water   on   the   spot   of   incident.  Coming of the fire brigade on the spot where such incident  happens is not unnatural because it is one of the essential  services.   The   report   of   the   fire   brigade   department   is  prepared  in the regular course of it's duty and it nowhere  shows that the water was sprinkled  within the premises of  German   Bakery  where   the   actual   explosion   had   taken  place.   It shows that water was used only for cleaning the  road.   Even   the   witnesses   have   denied   that   water   was  sprinkled   in   the  German   Bakery  premises.   Only   in   the  evidence  of   P.W.23   it  has come that fire brigade had put  some water. If that statement of P.W.23 is read in the light  of   the   aforesaid   report   of   fire   brigade,   the   only   inference  which comes out is that the water was put on the road only 


and not in the premises of German Bakery. In any case, it  will not affect the prosecution case in any manner. 58]   P.W.91 Balasaheb Barguje is the Police Naik of  the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad    who   carried   the     seven   sealed  packets   to   Delhi   for   giving   it   to   the   forensic   science  laboratory.   In   his   evidence   he   identified   Exh.374   as   the  written   directions   given   to  him   by  P.W.103,     Investigating  officer   in   that   regard.   His   evidence   shows   that   after  submitting the packets he gave the report at Exh.375 and  thereafter   on   07­04­2010   he   had   again   gone   to   Delhi   to  collect the report from the forensic science laboratory and  submitted the compliance report at Exh.329. This evidence  is not challenged by the defence. 59]    There is forensic evidence brought on record by  the prosecution to show that the explosives were used to  cause the explosion. P.W.75 N.B. Bardhan is the Principal  Scientific officer at the Central forensic science laboratory,  C.B.I, New Delhi and P.W.78 Ravindra Kulkarni is the Asst.  Chemical   Analyzer   in   forensic   science   laboratory,   Pune.  Their   evidence   goes   to   show   that   they   had     received   the  articles/samples   in   connection   with   the  German   Bakery  Bomb   explosion   in   Sealed   condition   and   they    examined  the said articles/samples and prepared the reports in that  regard.


60]  P.W.75 identified the C.A report at Exh.23 as the  same   which   was   prepared   by   him   in   respect   of   the  articles/samples   which   were   collected   from   the   spot   of  incident   and   deposed   that   the   physio,   chemical   and  instrumental examination confirmed the presence of RDX,  ammonium nitrate and oil in the articles/samples. The C.A  report   at   Exh.23   corroborates   his   evidence.   He   identified  the   letter   at   Exh.330   as   the   letter   by   which   the   articles  /samples   were   received   by   the   laboratory.   Perusal   of   the  letter at Exh.330 and the C.A report at Exh.23 shows  that  they were the same  articles/samples which were collected  from   the   spot   of   incident   and   examined.   P.W.103   Vinod  Satav   also   deposed   in   his   evidence   that   Exh.330   is   the  same   letter   through   which   he   sent   the   7   samples   for  examination  to forensic  science laboratory, Delhi and the  C.A report at Exh.23 was received from the said laboratory  in that respect. 61]    P.W.78 identified the C.A report at Exh.22 as  the   same   which   was   prepared   by   him   in   respect   of   the  articles/samples   which   were   collected   from   the   spot   of  incident    and   deposed   that   the   traces   of   cyclonite   (RDX)  ammonium nitrate, nitrate ions alongwith hydrocarbon oil  was   detected   in   the   articles/samples.   The   C.A   report   at  Exh.22 corroborates his evidence. He identified the letter at 


Exh.343 as the letter by which the articles/samples were  received by the laboratory. Perusal of the letter at Exh.343  and   the  C.A  report  at Exh.22 shows   that they were the  same  articles/samples which were collected from the spot  of   incident   and   examined.   P.W.103   Vinod   Satav   also  deposed   in   his   evidence   that   Exh.343   is   the   same   letter  through   which  he   sent  the 7 samples for examination to  forensic   science   laboratory,   Pune   and   the   C.A.report   at  Exh.22   was   received   from   the   said   laboratory   in   that  respect. The other C.A. reports prepared by this witness or  at the Pune forensic science laboratory, which are at Exhs.  25 to 65, are in respect of the blood, skin, hair samples of  the victims and they are not disputed by the defence since  they do not show  the residue of explosives.  62]    P.W.75   further  deposed that RDX is the high  explosive material used for exploding the Bomb and it may  cause   severe   destruction   to   the   surrounding   objects   and  they at their laboratory have the instruments by which they  can   detect   the   high   explosive   even   if   it   is   present   in  nanogram level (very very minimum quantity). He further  deposed   that   after   the   explosion   by   use   of   RDX,   the  explosive   contents   turns   into   gaseous   form,   emanating   a  large volume of gas and produce a high level temperature  and it is defused in the surroundings in the form of smoke 


and the smoke which emanates due to the blast get stuck  to   the   surrounding   object   in   the   form   of   smoke   residue  and   from   the   analysis   of   that   residue,   the   nature   of  explosive used can be determined. He further stated that  addition   of   ammonium   nitrate   and   oil   to   the   explosive  substance   increases   it's   effectiveness   of   destruction  through   explosion   effect   and   inflammable   effect.     His  evidence shows that the C.A. report at Exh.22 prepared by  P.W.78 was shown to him and he stated that the result of  analysis mentioned is RDX, ammonium nitrate and nitrate  ion alongwith petroleum hydrocarbon oil were detected in  the exhibits received by the said laboratory.  63]    P.W.78 further deposed that their laboratory at  Pune is equipped with latest and sophisticated equipments  which can detect the explosives such as RDX at different  concentrations and GCION scan chromatogram can detect  RDX upto the level of Pictogram (very very small quantity),  which   is   not   visible   to   naked   eye.   He   also   deposed   that  RDX is the  high explosive and ammonium nitrate can also  be   used   as   an   explosive   and   if   RDX   is   mixed   with  ammonium   nitrate,   charcoal,   petroleum   hydrocarbon   oil,  the effectiveness of the explosion is enhanced. He deposed  that   whenever   the   explosion   occurs,   heat   gets   generated  and   pressure   gets   developed   and   material   nearby   in   the 


vicinity   is   blown   off   and   they   may   get   stuck   to   the  surrounding surfaces in a very small amount.  64]   Both these witnesses from the  forensic science  laboratory   were   cross   examined   by   the   Ld.   defence  Advocate.   It   has   come   that   RDX   means   Research  Development   Explosive.   P.W.75   stated   that   the   opinion  given   by   him   in   his   evidence   about   the   RDX   was   not  mentioned in his report. It is needless to state that in the  C.A report only the result of analysis of articles/samples is  to be given and therefore, not mentioning the opinion about  the RDX in the C.A report will not make any difference or  will   not   render   the   C.A.   report   useless.   In   cross     this  witness stated as to how the Bomb can   be exploded. The  cross   examination  could   not   affect   the   evidence   given   by  this   witness   for   the   prosecution.   P.W.78   in   his  cross  examination  stated   that   it   is   not   necessary   to   have  petroleum   hydrocarbon   oil   in   RDX.   Nothing   material   is  brought in the cross examination of this witness to dent his  evidence given for the prosecution. 65]    From the evidence of these two witnesses from  the forensic science laboratory it is clearly established by  the prosecution that the  explosion occurred at the German  Bakery, Koregaon Park, Pune in the evening of 13­02­2010  was   due   to   the   explosive   substances   as   stated   above.   In 


their  cross   examination    it  is  confirmed  that   RDX  is  not  available   in   open   market   and   so,   it   is   clear   that   the  explosion   was   made   to   cause.   From   all   the   evidence  discussed above it is clear that the   explosion had caused  at  German   Bakery  on   the   said   date   and   time   and   it  resulted in severe destruction to the property and  claimed  the life of 17 persons and caused injuries to 58 persons.        Hence, Point No.1 is answered accordingly. AS TO POINT NO.2   66]         Once it is established   that the    explosion at  the   German   Bakery  was   caused   due   to   use   of   explosive  substances,   it   is   to   be   seen   as   to   whether   it   was   the  Terrorist   activity.   The   term   terrorist   Act   is   defined  Under  Section 15 of  Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,1967. The  relevant part of the said provision  is reproduced here. threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity,security, or   sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to   strike terror in the people   or any section of  the people in   India or in any foreign country:­ a]   by   using   bombs,dynamite   or   other   explosive   substances or inflammable substances or fire arms or other   lethal   weapons   or   poisonous   or   noxious   gases   or   other   chemicals   or   by   any   other   substances   (whether   biological   radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or   by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to   cause­
Terrorist   Act­  Whoever   does   any   act   with   intent   to  


i] death of, or injuries to any person or persons or ii] loss of, or damage to, any person or persons or iii]................. iv]............... b]............... c]................ It would not be out of place to mention some of the  meanings of the word Terrorism as shown in  para 47 of the  case  Mohammad Khalid V/s State of West Bengal reported  
in 2002(7) SCC 334.

Terrorism is the use of threatened use of force designed   to bring about political change­ Brian Jenkins. Terrorism   constitutes   the   illegitimate   use   of   force   to   achieve   a   political   objective   when   innocent   people   are   targeted­Walter Lacquer. Terrorism   is   the   premeditated,   deliberate,   systematic   murder, mayhem, and threatening of the innocent  to create   fear and intimidation in order to gain a political or   tactical   advantage,   usually   to   influence   an   audience­   James   M   Poland. Terrorism   is   the   unlawful   use   of   threat   of   violence   against   persons   or   property   to   further   political   or   social   objectives. It is usually intended to intimidate or coerce   a   government,   individuals   or   groups,   or   to   modify   their   behavior or politics­ Vice President's Task Force 1986. Terrorism   is   the   unlawful   use   of   force   or   violence   against   persons   or   property   to   intimidate   or   coerce   a   government, the civilian population,or any segment thereof,   in furtherance of political or social objectives­ FBI Definition.


67]    On this point the relevant evidence is that of the  Police   officers   and   the   report   from   the   National   Security  guard.   The     Investigating   officer   of   this   case,   is   P.W.103  Vinod Satav. There is no dispute on the aspect that he was  holding the post of Asst. Commissioner of Police in the Anti  Terrorist   Squad  at   the   relevant   time   and   was   competent  officer to investigate the offence under Unlawful Activities  (Prevention) Act,1967. His evidence shows that pursuant to  the orders of Director General of Police the investigation of  this case was handed over to the Anti Terrorist Squad and  the   order   in   that   regard  is at   Exh.408  and  thereafter   he  took over the investigation and registered the offence at the  Kala Chowky office of Anti Terrorist Squad, Mumbai and by  report at Exh. 409 he forwarded the copy of complaint to  the Special court, Anti Terrorist Squad. His evidence shows  that  PI  Hasabnis, PI Joshi and PI Gaikwad were given the  work   of   viewing   the   CCTV   footage   of   the   vicinity   and  separate clip of the relevant footage was copied in the C.D  at   article   61.   If   the  cross   examination  of   this   witness   is  seen, there is no challenge on these aspects.  68]   It is further deposed by P.W.103 that by night it  was confirmed that the  Bomb explosion  was the terrorist  act and after considering the preliminary information and  over   all   situation   and   because   of   use   of   RDX,   in   the 


explosion, it was suspected that the  Bomb explosion  may  have   been   executed   by   the   Banned   organization   like  Lashkar­E­Toyba   and   Indian   Mujahiddin   and   the  investigation was focused in that direction. In the evidence  of this witness the prosecution have brought on record the  Gazette   issued by the Government of India dated 12­08­ 2010,   06­05­2008   and   30­12­2004   at   Exh.   421  (collectively), banning the organizations by name simI and  Lashkar­ E­ Toyba. Being the Government Gazette the same  is admissible in evidence. As regards the said Notification is  concerned, the same is not disputed by the defence.  It is  needless to state that in the Schedule given in the Unlawful  Activities   (Prevention)   Act,1967,   the   names   of   Terrorist  organizations   are   given   which   includes   the   said  organizations. Not remembering the date by this witness on  which the Organization Indian Mujahiddin was banned is  of no consequence as he is not the authority to issue the  orders of ban. It is   brought on record that at the time of  incident   the   said   Organization     Indian   Mujahiddin   was  banned   Organization.   In   cross   it   is   confirmed   that   the  Organization   Lashkar­E­Toyba   is   Pakistan   based  Organization. This witness stated that the members of the  said Organization also operates in India and he cannot tell  as to who is the President or Secretary of the same. In the 


cross examination it is brought that RDX is not available in  the   open   market.   He   stated   that   he   cannot   say   that   the  RDX is only in the exclusive possession of the Army.   The  cross   examination  could   not   affect   the   evidence   given   by  P.W.103 in respect of the Banned Organization and use of  RDX in the explosion at German Bakery. 69]   Further, in the evidence of P.W.103 it has come  that Colonel Man from the National Security Guard and Mr.  Gopinath from the Delhi forensic science laboratory   had  visited   the   site   on   18­02­2010   and   they   collected   certain  articles from the spot of incident  and the said Colonel Man  submitted  his  report  in that regard which is at Exh.425.  The said report is in respect of the said explosion occurred  at  German Bakery  and the findings of the same are that  the   mobile   phone   is   the   likely   device   used   as   the  mechanism to explode the bomb. There is no challenge to  the said report.  70]    P.W.101 is the Senior  Police Inspector  and was  posted in the Control Room, Pune as the  Police Inspector  (Administration) at the time of incident and was one of the  member in the investigating team. This witness alongwith  Police Inspectors  Mr. Joshi and Mr. Barge were given the  work of verifying the CCTV footage seized from the  hotel 'O'  and   the  German   Bakery,   to   establish   the   link   of   the 


persons who were present at the relevant time. He deposed  that   they   synchronized   the   timings   mentioned   in   the  footage and the persons seen in the footage and  on 05­03­2010,   noticed   one suspect wearing cap and having  two sack bags on his person, out of which one was on his  back and other was at the front side was standing on the  counter of German Bakery and in the CCTV footage of hotel  'O' the said person was seen crossing the road and coming  towards the  German Bakery  and after some time he was  seen leaving the German Bakery  with only one sack bag on  his   person.   He   informed   the   Sr.   officers     about   the   said  footage. While recording the evidence of this witness, article  61   CD   having   the   relevant   recording   from   the   footage   of  hotel 'O' and the  German Bakery  was   played and showed  to   him   and   he   identified   the     said   footage   in   which   the  timing of standing of that suspect at the  German Bakery  counter was  from 16.46.11 to 16.51 and the timing of  that  suspect leaving the German Bakery  was 17.29.30. He also  recorded the statement of the witnesses who were present  at   the  German   Bakery  soon   before   the   explosion.   Cross  examination shows that he visited the spot of incident   4­5  times and there was no CCTV camera at the entrance of  German Bakery  and at the side gate which is opposite to  hotel 'O'. However, there is no dispute that CCTV camera 


was installed at the counter of German Bakery. It has come  that   the   CCTV   footage   which   were   seized,   were   seen   by  them   number   of   times.   He   denied   that   the   distance  between  German   Bakery  and   hotel   'O'   is   about   100   fts.  According   to   this   witness   the   distance   between  German  Bakery  and   hotel   'O'   may   be   between   30   to   35   fts.   The  omission   in   the   statement   given   to   the   Police   is   only   in  respect of the position of bags on the said person wearing  cap and   having only one bag while going out.   The said  omissions are of  no consequences because the statement  is based on the  recording which was already stored in the  CCTV. There is nothing in the  cross examination  to caste  doubt on his evidence. 71]   The prosecution have also examined  one officer  from  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  by   name   Dinesh   Kadam   as  P.W.102 to establish this point. It is the contention of  Ld.  defence   Advocate  that   this   witness   is   not   of   the   rank   of  Asst. Commissioner of Police   and so not competent under  the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)Act, 1967  to investigate.  It   is   submitted   by   Ld.Spl.P.P   that   even   if   the   said  contention   of   defence   is   accepted   for   a   moment,   the  evidence of this witness in respect of the investigation done  by him in the other cases can always be considered since it  would not be the investigation in this case. I find merit in 


the submission of Ld. Spl.P.P. Presently the only aspect is  whether the explosion was the terrorists act or not and so,  to determine this aspect the evidence of the said witness  can be considered and there is no bar for the same under  the Law. As regards the aspect of investigation done by this  witness in the present case, if any, would be considered at  the appropriate stage.  72]   P.W.102   is   the   Police   Inspector   from   the  Anti  Terrorist Squad Mumbai, since May 2010 and prior to that  from   the   year   2007   he   worked   with   the   Crime   Branch  Mumbai   and   prior   to   that   he   was   in   the  Anti   Terrorist  Squad. His evidence shows that   while working so, in the  department,   his   duty   was   to   investigate   the   information  received   from   the   Central   Intelligence   Agencies   and   to  investigate   in   respect   of   the   terrorists   and   the   important  Accused persons. His evidence shows that  he had assisted  in the investigation of the  C.R No. 3/2006 registered with  the  Anti Terrorist Squad  in connection with the seizure of  large   quantity   of   AK­47   riffles,   RDX,   hand   grenades,   live  cartridges from Aurangabad and in the said case persons  by name Fayyaz Kagzi and Jabbiuddin Ansari   who are the  resident of Beed were the  wanted Accused and their search  was   done   in   Beed.   He   deposed   that   recently   Jabbiuddin  Ansari  was   arrested.   His   evidence   further   shows   that   he 


had assisted in the investigation of C.R No.152/2008 which  was registered in connection with the E­Mails sent to the  various Government offices and the media by the Terrorists  Organizations by name Indian Mujahiddin and in the said  C.R they had arrested in all 21 Accused persons  who were  connected with the said Organization and the statements of  the   said   Accused   persons   were   recorded   under   the  provisions of Section 18(2) of M.C.O.C.A   and the  Charge  Sheet    was   filed   against   them   and   against   the   wanted  persons. He further deposed that it was revealed that the  members of the said organization by name Riyaz Bhatkal,  Iqbal Bhatkal and Yasin Bhatkal were involved in the said  Crime and they searched for the said Accused persons at  various places by obtaining their photographs. He further  deposed that after he joined the   Anti Terrorist Squad  in  May   2010,   considering   his   experience   he   was   asked   to  assist   in   the   investigation  pertaining  to  this case  and he  was   shown   the   CCTV   footage   which   were   seized   during  investigation.   He   deposed   that   after   viewing   the   CCTV  footage, he noticed that the person who was carrying two  bags while entering the German Bakery   and carrying one  bag   while   going   out   at   the  German   Bakery  was   Yasin  Bhatkal (absconding Accused No.1). He deposed that since  the photograph of Yasin Bhatkal  was obtained in the year 


2008 he was able to identify him on the basis of the  said  photograph.  It has come in his evidence that on the basis  of   information   received   from   the   Central   Intelligence  Agency, they keep the photographs of the terrorists, collect  the   information   about   the   manner   of   their   working,   the  places of their functioning and their associates and on the  basis   of   information   received   from   his   sources   and   the  photographs, he was sure that the said person seen in the  CCTV footage was none but  Yasin Bhatkal. Para 20 of his  evidence   shows   that   he  had  brought   with   him   the  photo  album and the information of the various Accused persons  available   with   them.   While   giving   evidence   article   61   CD  pertaining to the relevant CCTV footage of German Bakery  and hotel 'O' was shown to him and he deposed that the  person wearing the cap and having two sack bag standing  at the counter of German Bakery and having only one sack  bag   while   going   out   of   the  German   Bakery  was   Yasin  Bhatkal.   In  cross   examination  he   deposed   that   Yasin  Bhatkal is the wanted Accused  in the Ahemadabad Bomb  explosion  case and also in the present case and is wanted  since 2008. He denied that the person seen in the CCTV  footage   was   Abdul   Samad   and   not  Yasin   Bhatkal.   It   is  suggested   by  the   defence that  Yasin Bhatkal  was wanted  since 2006. He denied that Abdul Samad was arrested in 


the present case.   His not taking action against the news  paper agency in which the name Abdul Samad is printed  below the photograph of Yasin Bhatkal, in connection with  the   present   case,   cannot   be   the   reason   to   discard   the  evidence of this witness about his identifying the planter of  Bomb as Yasin Bhatkal. The admissibility of the news item  in evidence in already considered at the beginning of this  point. Non recording of the statement of this witness will be  of no benefit to the defence firstly because he identified the  suspect after viewing the CCTV footage, secondly it is the  settled position under the Law that the evidence of witness  cannot be ignored or rejected merely on the ground that his  statement was not recorded by the investigating machinery.  From the evidence of this witness it is established by the  prosecution that   the person seen in the CCTV footage of  the German Bakery and hotel 'O'  wearing cap and having  the   sack   bag   on   his   person   is  Yasin   Bhatkal    who   is  wanted Accused   in this case. The evidence of this witness  shows   that   he   has   sufficient   experience   in   the  investigations   in   respect   of   terrorist   organization   and   the  persons   concerned   with   the   said   organization.   Though  cross   examined,   the   evidence   of   this   witness     identifying  Yasin   Bhatkal  in   the   CCTV   footage   has   remained  unaffected. Merely because this witness is a police officer, 


his evidence cannot be discarded.  The authenticity and the  admissibility   of   the   CCTV   footage   is   already   considered  prior to starting discussion on this point.  73]    From   the   evidence   of   the   aforesaid   three  witnesses it becomes clear that just before the  explosion at  German Bakery,   absconding  Accused No.1 Yasin Bhatkal  entered the German Bakery with two sack bags and he left  German Bakery  with only one bag. It is unlikely that one  will forget one bag out of the two when both of them are  carried by himself. It is already seen in the evidence of the  watchman   examined   while   considering   the   Point   No.1  (Witness No. 23), that since many customers who used to  visit the German Bakery where the students carrying bags,  there was no occasion for the watchmen to check the bags.  So, it is clear that the bags were not checked while entering  the  German   Bakery.   There   is   no   material   to   show   that  absconding Accused  No.1 Yasin Bhatkal had again come to  the  German   Bakery  and   took   the   second   bag   with   him.  This shows that out of two bags one bag was deliberately  left back. No one would do this. It is against the normal  human conduct. Taking place of explosion shortly  after the  absconding Accused  Yasin Bhatkal left the German Bakery  with   only   one   bag,   becomes   more   relevant.     Evidence   in  this   regard   is   trustworthy   and   accepted.   It   is   already 


established   by   the   prosecution   that   the   explosion   at   the  German Bakery was due to use of RDX. This clearly goes to  show   that   the   explosives   were   planted   to   cause   the  explosion.   It   is   already   established   that   due   to   the   said  explosion 17 people died and 58 got injured. The evidence  of   P.W.1  that  the  German  Bakery  was virtually  destroyed  and damaged to the extent of Rs.15 Lakhs was caused is  already considered in Point No.1. Such act  are caused only  with the intention to threaten the unity, integrity, security  or sovereignty of nation or with intent to strike terror in the  minds   of   citizens.   From   the   evidence   available   on   record  discussed   up   till   now,   it   is   clearly   established   by   the  prosecution that  the said  explosion was a Terrorists Act. 

AS TO POINT NO.3 74]   While   discussing   the   Point   No.1   the   Chart  showing the names of the deceased and the  cause of their  death is reproduced. As regards the cause of death of the  said 17 persons due to explosion is concerned, there is no  dispute.  It is already discussed that the said explosion was  due   to   use   of   explosive   and   the   terrorist   act.   Thus,   the  death of said 17 persons is proved to be  homicidal death.  Thus Point No.3 is answered accordingly.


AS TO POINT NO. 4 75]   As the Charge Sheet is also filed for the offences  punishable   under   the   provisions   of   Unlawful   Activities  (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Explosive Substances Act,1908  the obtaining of Sanction under the said Acts, is necessary.  There are three Sanction orders on record at Exh. 391,392  and 393. All the Sanction orders are admitted by defence.  However, at the time of final argument, it is submitted by  Ld.   Advocate   for   defence   that   the   Sanction   under   the  Unlawful   Activities   (Prevention)   Act,   1967   is   given   by  authority   after   the   prescribed   period   of   seven   days  mentioned in Rule 4 of the Rules framed under the said Act  and therefore the Sanction is bad. He cited the Judgment  in the case of  Ashraf Khan @ Babu V/s. State of Gujrath,  
2013 ALL S.C.R 198  and the case of  Ravi Sharma @ Arjun   V/s. State of Zharkhand and others, in W.P (Cri) No. 91/2012. 

To this, it is submitted by Ld.Spl.P.P that admittedly, the  Charge   Sheet   is   submitted   after   receiving   the   Sanction  orders and even if there is delay by the competent authority  to  issue  the Sanction order within the prescribed period,  that would not affect the trial or will not make the Sanction  bad.   He   cited   the   Judgment   of   the  Honourable   Bombay  
High Court passed in Criminal Application No.1256 of 2011,   dtd.   19thDecember,2012  between  Mohammed   Bilal   V/s.   The  


State of Maharashtra and ors. 

76]     Before   dealing   with   the   contentions   and   the  rulings   of   the   parties,   it   would   be   proper   to   see   the  provisions   in   respect   of   Sanction   in   Unlawful   Activities  (Prevention)  Act,   1967  and the Explosive Substances Act,  1908. 
  1967    .­  Cognizance   of   offence:  1]   No   Court   shall   take   Section   45   of   Unlawful   Activities   (   Prevention)   Act,  

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 behalf. 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   Sub­section(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   Government.  The   relevant   rules   under   the   Unlawful   Activities  (Prevention)   (Recommendation   and   Sanction   of   the  prosecution) Rules, 2008 are as follows:
Rule 3: Time limit for making a recommendation by 


the Authority­  The Authority shall, under sub section (2) of  

Section   45   of   the   Act,   make   it's   report   containing   the   recommendation to the Central Government or, as the case   may be, the State Government within seven working days of   the   receipt   of   the   evidence   gathered   by   the     Investigating   officer  under the Code. Rule   4:   Time   Limit   for   sanction   of   prosecution­  The   Central   Government   or,   as   the   case   may   be,   the   State   Government shall, under Sub Section (2) of section 45 of the   Act, take a decision regarding sanction for prosecution within   Seven working days after receipt of the recommendation of   the Authority.” 77]   From the above provisions it is clear that before  taking cognizance of any offence under Unlawful Activities  (Prevention)   Act,   1967  the   proper   Sanction   is   necessary.  Perusal   of   the   first   authority   cited   by   the   Ld.   defence  Advocate shows that the case was under the Terrorist and  Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. In that case, one of  the aspect was that the FIR under the provisions of TADA  was   registered   without   approval   of   the   District   Supdt.   of  Police   as   contemplated   U/s.20­A(1)   of   TADA.   Admittedly,  the   present   case   is   not   for   the   offence   under   TADA.  Secondly, the Ld. defence Advocate failed to show that there  is similar provision in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,  1967   mandating   the   prior   approval   before   registering   the  offence.  However,  in the evidence of P.W.103 Vinod Satav,  who is the   Investigating officer   it has come that on the 


Orders of the   Director General of Police, which is at Exh.  408, the investigation was handed over to the Anti Terrorist  Squad.   78] Perusal of the citation relied upon by the Ld. Spl.  P.P   shows   that     the   issue   involved   in   that   case   was   the  same which is raised by the defence in the present case i.e  the prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)  Act,1967 was questioned on the ground that the mandatory  provisions and rules were not followed. From para­8 of the  ruling   cited   by   prosecution   it   is   clear   that     in   that   case  there   was   delay   in   recommendation   and   sanction   as  required   under   Rules   3   and   4.   After   considering   the  observations in the case of Maharashtra V/s. Jagan Nepali   and another, reported in 2011(5) Mah L.J. 386,  it is observed  in para 13 as follows: “Section   45(2)   is   introduced   as   a   resolution   of   2008   amendment, the time limit and sanction from the authority   and   review   are     checks   and   Legislature   desired   to   avoid   false   prosecution.   The   measures   of   the   checks   are   the   administrative   exigencies,   procedural   supervision   meant   to   speed   up   the   administrative   process   after   investigation   on   the basis of which the prosecution has to be launched. Any   fall out in adhering the time schedule does not made out a   case for breach of either of the compliance of section 45(2). It   has to be shown that the delay has led to the denial of right,   conferred upon the accused. There is no such situation as   the State desired prosecution and it was placed before the   authority for review and then needs to be recommended. The   defect or irregularity in official compliance has no adverse  


bearing on the competence of the sanction in terms of Section   45(2) of the said Act.” Further, the  reported citation relied upon by the  Ld.   defence   Advocate   is   considered   in   para   16   of   the  Judgment relied upon by the Ld. Spl.P.P. The issue involved  in the said case before the Honourable Bombay High Court  was identical which is raised in this case by the Ld. defence  Advocate and pertain to the same Act. Thus, the Judgment  relied upon by the Ld. Spl.P.P is squarely applicable to the  case in hand. It is nowhere the case that any prejudice is  caused   to  the  arrested Accused due to grant  of Sanction  beyond  the period prescribed under the Rules.   In the Second Judgment relied upon by the defence,  the   Sanction   order   were   passed   by   the   concerned  authorities much after the cognizance of the offence under  the Act was taken by the Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate and  was issued at the fag end of the Trial and therefore it was  held in that case that the cognizance was not sustainable  in the eye of Law.  However, it is not the same in the case in  hand. 79]   In   the   present   case   the   Sanction   under   the  Unlawful   Activities   (Prevention)   Act,   1967   is   at   Exh.391.  Perusal of the same shows that   it is issued by the Home  Department (Special), Mantralaya, Mumbai and signed by 


Additional Chief Secretary, (Home) and Secretary In­Charge  of   Home   Department,   Government   of   Maharashtra.   It   is  clear from sub­section 1(i) of the Section 45 quoted above,  that   the   Central   Government   can   delegate   the   powers   of  granting sanction. Perusal of para 4 of the Sanction order  clearly   go   to   show   that   the   Central   Government   vide   it's  Order   No.   I/17014/14/07–IS   VII,   dtd.   08­08­2007  (Notification No. S.O. 1004(E), dated 21st  June, 2007) has  authorized   the   Secretary   of   the   State   Government   in­ Charge of Home Department, Government of Maharashtra  to exercise powers to accord Sanction for taking cognizance  of   the   offence   under   Unlawful   Activities   (Prevention)   Act,  1967.   However,   on   this   aspect   there   is   no   dispute.   For  issuing   Sanction   the   only   requirement   is   primafacie  satisfaction   of   the   Sanctioning   authority   on   the   basis   of  material placed before him. Perusal of the Sanction order  shows that it is issued after fully examining the material  placed   before   the   Sanctioning   Authority   and   considering  the facts and getting satisfied that there is primafacie  case  against the  Accused. It is clear that the Sanction accorded  under   Unlawful   Activities   (Prevention)   Act,1967   is   proper  and valid. 80]   Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908­ Restriction on Trial of offences­No Court shall proceed  with   the Trial of any person for an offence against this Act except  


with the consent of District Magistrate. The   Sanction   orders   under   the   Explosive  Substances   Act,   1908     are   at   Exh.392   and   393.   The  Sanction at Exh.392 is issued by the Collector and District  Magistrate, Latur, dated 20­11­2010 and the Sanction order  at   Exh.393   is   issued   by   the   Collector   and   District  Magistrate,   Pune   dated   02­12­2010.   As   regards   the  competency   about   the   issuing   authority,   there   is   no  dispute. Perusal of both the said Sanction order shows that  they are duly issued. However, as far as these two sanction  orders under the Explosives Substances Act are concerned,  no grievance is raised by the defence. 81]   One   of   the   submission   made   by   Ld.   defence  Advocate   is   that   the   cognizance   is   taken   before   the  Sanction   because   the   Accused     was   produced   before   the  Ld.   Magistrate   prior   to   grant   of   sanction.   Replying   this  submission Ld. Spl. P.P submitted that the Sanction orders  were filed with the Charge Sheet   and only thereafter the  cognizance   is   taken.   The   Sanction   order   at   Exh.391   and  393 is dated 02­12­2010 and the Sanction order at Exh.392  is dated  20­11­2010.  It is not in dispute that the Charge  Sheet is filed on 04­12­2010 alongwith the Sanction orders.  Therefore, it is crystal clear that the  Sanction orders were  issued prior to filing of Charge Sheet. As regards the term 


taking   cognizance   is   concerned,   useful   reference   can   be  made to the  Judgment of Honourable Bombay High Court  reported   in  2005   (1)   Bom.   C.R.   (Cri)   337  in   which     the  meaning   of   word   'take   cognizance'   is   dealt   with   and  relevant authorities on that point are quoted therein. Under  the well settled position in Law, taking cognizance is taking  notice of an offence or  application of mind to the case with  the intention of initiating Judicial proceedings against the  offender or taking steps to see whether there is any basis  for   initiating   Judicial   proceedings   or   the   point   when   a  Magistrate   or   a   Judge   first   takes   Judicial   notice   of   an  offence. Mere production of the Accused  for the purpose of  Remand  before Magistrate and passing orders on Remand  Application   do   not   come   within   the   term   'taking  cognizance'. At the remand stage the only aspect before the  Magistrate is whether to give Police custody remand or to  send  the  Accused     in the Judicial custody. Production of  the Accused  for the purpose of remand, before filing of the  Charge Sheet is the stage at the time of investigation and at  that point of time there is no question of Court taking the  cognizance   of   the   case.   Cognizance   is   not   taken   of   the  Accused but of the offence, which can be done only after  filing the Charge Sheet. Further, the Charge is framed by  this Court  after hearing the parties and perusing the case 


papers and admittedly the Sanction orders were on record.  From this, it is more than clear that the  cognizance of the  case was taken only after the Sanction orders were issued.  The   cognizance   is   lawful     in   all   respects.   Hence   the  contention   of   the   Ld.   defence   Advocate   is   liable   to   be  rejected.  82]  For the second time, the contention is raised by  Ld.   defence   Advocate   that  no  prior permission  of  Central  Government   is   sought   by   the   prosecution   under   Section  188 of Cr.P.C before filing the Charge Sheet as allegedly the  conspiracy was held at Colombo. In respect of jurisdiction  the  Ld.  defence  Advocate have cited the Judgment of the  Honourable   Apex   Court   in   the   case   of   Dipankar   Dutt  
V/s.State of Bihar   2007  Cr.L.J. 4360.  In the said case the 

issue was to decide the territorial jurisdiction  on the basis  of allegations made in the complaint and it was held that  as   per   the   averments   in   the   agreement   between   the  Accused     and   some   others for  criminal  conspiracy, could  not  have   taken  place  at Patna and if such  an agreement  took place, it can be inferred to have taken place only at  Calcutta. The facts of the said case are completely different.  83]   The   said   section   pertains   to   the   offence  committed   outside   India   and   for   trying   such   offence   the  previous sanction of the Central Government is mandatory. 


This very aspect was raised by the defence Advocate at the  time of framing the Charge and the same has   been dealt  with     and   considering   the  Judgment   in   the  case  of   Ajay  
Agrawal   V/s.   Union   of   India   1993   (3)   SCC   609,  in   which 

identical issue in respect of Sanction U/s. 188 of   Cr.P.C  is  considered, it was rejected The relevant observations made  in   the   said   Judgment   is   reproduced.   It   is   observed   that  “conspiracy   is   the   continuing   office     and   so   long   as   it's   performance   continues,   it   is   a   continuing   offence   till   it   is   executed   or   rescinded   or   frustrated   by   choice   or   necessity   and   being   a   continuing   offence,   if   any   acts   or   omission   which constitutes an offence are done in India or outside it's   territory   the   conspirators   continuing   to   be   parties   to   the   conspiracy and  since  part   of  the  acts  were  done  in  India,   they would obviate the need to obtain sanction of the Central   Government   U/s.   188   of  Cr.P.C.  However,   if   the   Charge   of  conspiracy   framed   in   this   case   is   seen,   it   is   not   only   in  respect   of   conspiracy   at   Colombo   but     also   in   respect   of  conspiracy at other places. However, admittedly, the act of  causing explosion pursuant to the conspiracy is executed  in   India,   at   Pune.   Hence   the   contention   is   liable   to   be  rejected.   Thus, Point No. 4 is answered accordingly.


AS TO POINT NOS. 5 TO 12 84]          Since   all the points are interlinked they  are  taken   for   discussion   together.   Before   embarking   on   the  circumstances   brought   on   record   by   the   prosecution   to  prove   the   charges,   there   are   some   aspects   which   require  consideration prior to discussing the circumstances so as  to avoid repetition.   
Evidence     showing   the  basis     on  which    the  Investigating  officer  suspected  the involvement of Accused.

85]   P.W.103 has  deposed that he verified the cases  which  were  registered  in connection with the activities of  the   terrorists.   He   deposed   that   he   had   done   the  supplementary   investigation   of   the   case   which   was  registered   in   connection   with   seizure   of   16   AK­47   riffles,  3,200 live cartridges, 43 Kg. RDX, 50 hand grenades etc.  from Aurangabad in May, 2006 and   the persons by name  Samad   Khan   was   the   Accused   in   that   case   and   he   had  given the confession statement under the M.C.O.C. Act in  which there was reference of the present  Accused Himayat.  In his evidence, the certified copy of the said Confessional  statement   is   brought   on   record   at   Exh.412.   While  advancing  argument  it was submitted by the  Ld. defence  Advocate that the Confessional statement is a weak piece of  evidence  and  therefore, the same may not be relied. It is 


well   settled   position   under   Law   that   the   confessional  statement   is   the   weak   piece   of   evidence   and   can   be  considered   only   for   corroboration.   The   said   confessional  statement by no means can be taken into consideration to  establish   the   involvement   of  the  Accused    in   the  present  case.  He further deposed that the Accused was the wanted  Accused  in C.R No.17/2008 which was registered with the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  under   the   provisions   of  Unlawful  Activities (Prevention)Act. As can be seen from the  evidence  of this witness on the basis of said circumstance he started  the   investigation   in   respect   of   Accused.   If   the  cross  examination is seen, this aspect is not at all disputed  but  the same is further affirmed.
Arrest of the Accused

86]   This aspect is taken for consideration because  the Accused disputed his arrest by the Anti Terrorist Squad  on 07­09­2010. In his statement recorded U/s. 313 of  Cr.P.C it is stated by the Accused  that he was arrested  on 19­08­ 2010   or   prior   to   that,   when   he   had   gone   to   Latur   for  making   inquiry   about   the   CET   Examination   and   after  making   the   inquiry   in   the  evening   he  came   to   the   Latur  Bus   stop   for   returning   to   Beed   and   at   that   time   5   to   6  persons caught hold of him from the backside on the gun  point and made him to sit in one Sumo Jeep and he was 


brought   to   Pune,   where   he   was   kept   for   two   days   and  tortured   and   thereafter   on   21­08­2010   he   was   taken   to  Mumbai   at   Kala   Chowky   and   tortured   in   different   ways  including giving currents on the private part  and after two  days he was again brought to Pune by Mr. Kadam (P.W.102),  Mr. Sabnis and Mr. Patkar who are from the Anti Terrorist  Squad  and he was taken to the  German Bakery  and was  told that   this was the spot of incident. He further stated  that   he   was   again   taken   to   Mumbai   and   tortured   in  different   ways   and   was   made   to   sign   on   different   blank  papers  at the bottom of page and he did not signed on any  written   paper.   He   further   stated   that   he   was   threatened  that   his   friends,   brother   in   law   and   brothers   would   be  implicated and was told that his brother in law and brother  were sitting in the other room and they are being beaten  and   his   brother   in   law   was   going   to   give   divorce   to   his  sister. He further stated that 2 to 3 times he was taken  to  some   secluded   place   by   covering   his   eyes   with   the   cloth  and   was   told   that   he   will   be   encountered   like   Khwaja  Yunus   and   since   he   got  frightened  and  scared  about   his  life, he did whatever he was told to do and after 15 to 20  days   he   was   again   brought   to   Pune     and   was   produced  before the court and at that time he came to know as to in  which   case   he   was   implicated.   He   further   stated   that   he 


was again taken back to Mumbai and threatened not to tell  anything either in the hospital or in the court. He further  stated     that     during   his   custody   the  police   had  kept   his  mobile phones in switch on mode.  87]  Perusal of record shows that  no such complaint  was made by   Accused before the Ld. Magistrate when he  was produced for remand. There are three remand reports  on   record which are dated 08­09­2010, 20­09­2010   and  28­09­2010, which shows that on that dates the Accused  was   produced   for   remand   and  the  Ld.   Magistrate  passed  orders on those remand reports. Perusal of the said orders  show   that   no   complaint   of   ill­treatment   at   the   hands   of  police was made by the Accused  to the Ld.  remand Court.  Record   also   shows   that   the   Ld.   Advocate   who   is  representing  the  Accused in the Trial, had also appeared  for   the   Accused     before   the   remand   Court.   However,   no  such grievance was made at any point of time before the  Learned   Remand   Court.   Had   really   the   Accused     would  have been lifted abruptly on 19­08­2010 and was kept   in  illegal custody without being inform to his family members,  in all probabilities his family members would have lodged  missing complaint with the police or taken some steps to  search for him. However, nothing of that sort is done.   88]     In   his   evidence   P.W.103   Vinod   Satav   who   is 


Investigating officer has deposed that on 07­09­2010 when  he was present in his office, he received information from  the D.I.G that Accused   was coming to the Pool Gate bus  stop at Pune and accordingly he immediately reached there  with the staff and to identify him, they had the photograph  of   Accused.   It   has   further   come   in   his   evidence   that   at  14.00 hrs. they saw the Accused   on platform No.3 and he  was apprehended and brought to the  Anti Terrorist Squad  office and in the preliminary inquiry made with him, it was  revealed that he was involved in the present case and so  the  Accused    was  arrested on 07­09­2010 and the arrest  cum search panchnama  at Exh.252 was prepared and his  arrest was informed to his brother. It has also come in his  evidence that the report at Exh.413 was submitted to the  Bardgarden Police station in respect of his arrest. Perusal  of   the   said   report   shows   that   on   07­09­2010   itself   the  information about the arrest of the Accused   was given by  this   witness   to   the   Bandgarden   Police   station   where   the  offence   was   initially   registered.   He   denied   the   suggestion  that the Accused  was taken in custody at Latur on  19­08­2010 by  Anti Terrorist Squad,  Aurangabad unit and  was given in his custody on 20­08­2010.  89] The Panch witness Tushar Pandit is examined as  P.W.53.   In   his   evidence   he   stated  that   on   07­02­2010   he 


was   called   at   the   office   of  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  where  P.W.103 and  the Accused   Himayat were present  and the  personal search of Accused  was taken in his presence and  the following articles were found in his  personal search. article No. 13­ article No. 14­ Nokia Company Mobile Handset. G­5 Company Mobile Handset with  sim card of Tata Docomo. article No. 15­ One spectacle. article No. 16­   Pocket book of Urdu language. article No. 17­         I card of Election commission of India. article No. 18­         Brown colour pouch. article No. 19­ Small piece of Newspaper. article No. 20­ 3 Passport size colour photographs. article No. 21­ Piece of ATM card and cover of ATM Card. article No. 22­ Cash of Rs. 3,020/­ in the nature of Six Currency notes. This panch witness identified the panchnama at Exh.252  as the same arrest­cum­personal search panchnama which  was prepared at that time and identified his signature at  Sr.No.2   as   the   Panch.   He   and   P.W.103   identified   the  aforesaid articles as the same which were seized from the  personal search of the Accused.   He further deposed that  clothes   of   the   Accused     were   removed   and   his   body   was  examined   and   no   injury   was   found   on   his   person.   This  panch   witness    P.W.53   was   cross   examined   by   the   Ld.  defence Advocate. He denied that he was the regular panch  of the Police and the said articles were not seized from the 


possession of the Accused .  Non signing on the articles by  the  panch   witness  will   not   discredit   his   evidence  particularly   when   it   is   corroborated   by   the   panchnama .   The panchnama at Exh.252 fully corroborates the evidence  of this panch witness. The panchnama also shows that the  brother   of   Accused     by   name   Shahajad   Inayat   Baig   was  informed about the arrest of Accused on his mobile phone  No.9763031186.Though cross examined, there is absolutely  nothing which would create doubt about the testimony of  this panch witness P.W.53. In the Charge Sheet there is the  arrest form duly filled­in which shows that Accused   was  arrested   on   07­09­2010.   This   evidence   of   P.W.103   and  P.W.53   corroborated   by   contemporary   documen ts  establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused was  arrested   on   07­09­2010   and   the   aforesaid   articles   were  seized from his possession. 90]   It is submitted by Ld. defence Advocate that   if  at all the Accused was arrested at the Poolgate Bus stop,  the Police could have called the two panchas from the Bus  stand   or   else   the   Accused   could   have   been   taken   to   the  nearby   Sholapur   Bazar   police   chowky   for   his   personal  search,   but instead of doing so, he was directly taken to  the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  office,   Pune.   Replying   to   this  contention   it   is   submitted   by   Ld.   Spl.P.P   that     since   the 


investigation was of the sensitive case involving dangerous  persons,   taking   the   search   on   the   spot   would   have  attracted   lot   of   members   of   the   public   and   may   have  resulted into panic situation and if he was to be searched  in any event at some other place in Law, it would not have  made any difference had he been searched at the nearby  Police station or the Anti Terrorist Squad  Unit office which  is   also   in   Pune   itself.   He   further   submitted   that   nothing  has   been   said   to   be   planted   on   the   Accused   during   his  personal   search   and   therefore,   the   said   submission   is  purely   academic.   On   this   point   P.W.103   who   is   the  Investigating officer   have stated  in the cross examination  that   since   the     Accused     was  one   of   the   suspect   in   this  case,   he   was   taken   to   the   office   of  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  where the inquiry was made with him and thereafter the  panchas were called and the panchnama was done. I find  merit in the submissions of Ld. Spl.P.P  and  it is clear from  the   evidence   of   the     Investigating   officer     that   only   after  inquiry with the Accused   the search was conducted and  nothing wrong is seen  in  doing that. 91]    In his statement U/s.313 of   Cr.P.C the Accused  though disputed his arrest on 07­09­2010, have stated that  he was using two mobile phones and only one sim card of  Tata   Docomo   was   seized   from   him.   As   seen   from   the 


evidence of P.W.53  panch witness    in whose presence the  personal   search   and   arrest   of   Accused   was   done,   it   is  categorically   stated   by   him   that   one   mobile   phone  (article14) seized from the possession of the Accused was  having   the   sim   card   of   Tata   Docomo   company.  Exh.252  search­cum­arrest   panchnama   also   shows   that   the   sim  card found in article 14 was that of Tata Docomo company  having the  mobile number 8149308626. The  Investigating  officer, P.W.103 have also stated that mobile phone having  sim card of Tata Docomo was found in the mobile which  was seized from the possession of   Accused when he was  apprehended   and   the   phone   call   details   were   called.   The  evidence   of   Nodal   officer   who   supplied   the   phone   call  details   of   the   said   Mobile   number   is   already   discussed  while considering the authenticity of the phone call details.  The  phone call details of the aforesaid mobile number are  at Exh.355 (collectively). Perusal of the same do  not   show  the   tower   location  of  Mumbai   from 19­08­2010 till his  date of arrest. If   the statement given by Accused   Under  Section 313 is to be believed that during his custody the  police had kept his mobile phones in switch on mode, then  the tower location of Mumbai would definitely come in the  said phone call details  for that period between 19­08­2010  till 07­09­2010, had really he was taken in custody prior to 


07­09­2010.   From   this,   it   becomes   clear   that   the  contentions of the Accused   that he was taken in custody  on 19­08­2010 is afterthought.   There is one more aspect  which shows that the arrest of the Accused  was done  on  07­09­2010 and it is that, the said phone call details are  only till 06­09­2010. One of the contention of Ld. defence  Advocate   is   that   from   the   phone   call   details   at   Exh.355  (collectively) it is seen that the tower location of the mobile  phone   on   06­09­2010   was   Bhavani   Peth   Pune   and  therefore,   this   shows   that   he   was   in   police   custody.   In  absence of any evidence/material to show that in the tower  location   of   Bhavani   Peth   only   the   office   of  Anti   Terrorist  Squad  Pune is covered, the said contention has no legs to  stand.   It   is   needless   to   state   that   the   tower   location   of  mobile   phone   cover   a   considerably   large   area.   That   only  shows that on that date also the Accused was in Pune and  therefore, it gives further assurance that he was arrested  on 07­09­2010 and not before that. 92]     Further,   the   Ld.   Spl.P.P   pointed   to     Exh.   15  which is the Say given by the defence to the Application at  Exh.14 which was filed by the prosecution for permission to  file Additional documents and stated that in this Say itself  the defence have admitted that the Accused   was arrested  on 07­09­2010. Perusal the said say at Exh. 15 shows the 


following sentence of defence. “1] It is pertinent to note that the Accused  

was   arrested   on   07­09­2010   by   the   Police   from   Mahatma   Gandhi Bus stop,  Pune .................................” 93]    From the above evidence available on record it  is crystal clear that the  Accused    was arrested on 07­09­ 2010 and not prior to that as contended by the  Accused.  Thus, the claim of  Accused    that the date of his arrest is  not 07­09­2010, is  unacceptable.
Taking  of  specimen  handwriting/signature  of the  Accused   and P.W.94 Rehan.  

94]  The evidence on record shows that the specimen  handwriting  of the  Accused and his friend Rehan(P.W.94)  was taken by the  Investigating officer. P.W.51 Gokul Shelar  have   deposed   that   on   20­09­2010   he   was   called   at   the  Police   head   quarters,   Shivajinagar,   Pune   by   the  Anti  Terrorist   Squad,   where   Mr.   Satav,   (P.W.103),   two   to   four  other persons including Accused    were present and in his  presence the specimen handwriting of the  Accused, which  included writing of numbers, writing of the matter which  was dictated by P.W.103 by reading the slips of State Bank  of Hyderabad, signatures and name was taken under the  panchnama at Exh.247. He identified the panchnama and 


Exh.246 (collectively) as the same specimen handwriting  of  Accused.   He   also   identified   the   Accused   as   the   same  person   whose   specimen   handwriting   was   taken   in   his  presence.   In cross it has come that on that date he had  come to the shop for giving the delivery of stationary and  he was called by the police. There is nothing to show that  he was regular panch of the police. Though the questions  pertaining to the Bank slips are asked to this witness by  the  Ld. defence Advocate, this witness had no reason   to  know the contents of the Bank pay­in­slips. His evidence is  limited only in respect of taking the specimen handwriting  of the Accused. His testimony is not affected by any means  and through this witness the prosecution have established  that the specimen handwriting of the Accused  were taken. 95]   P.W.52   Yogesh   Naik   is   the  panch   witness    in  respect   of   taking   the   specimen   handwriting   of   Rehan  (P.W.94).   He   deposed   that   on   20­10­2010   while   he   was  proceeding from the Modern College, he was called by the  Police in the  Anti Terrorist Squad  office where the person  by   name   Rehan   Shaikh   was   present   and   the   specimen  handwriting   of   that   person   was   taken   in   his   presence  under  the  panchnama at Exh.250. He identified Exh.249  (collectively)  as  the  same specimen  handwriting of Rehan  Shaikh. In cross examination  there is nothing to doubt the 


evidence of this witness. He is not the regular Panch of the  police.   The   evidence   of   this   witness   finds   corroboration  from the evidence of P.W.94 Rehan Shaikh where he states  that he was called at the  Anti Terrorist Squad  office,Pune  where his specimen handwritings were taken. 96]       P.W.103,  Investigating officer   also stated that  the   specimen   handwriting   of   Accused   and   P.W.94   were  taken   and   identified   the   panchnama   and   specimen  handwriting in that respect. Further, in the Remand report  dtd. 28­09­2010 there is reference about taking specimen  handwriting   of   the  Accused.  From   the  aforesaid  evidence  available on record, the prosecution have established that  during   the   course   of   investigation   the   specimen  handwriting of the Accused  and P.W.94 was taken.

Evidence of Handwriting Expert

97]   Since   the   reference   of   the   documents   and  opinion will come at different places, the   evidence of the  Handwriting   expert   is   taken   up   for   discussion     to   avoid  repetition.   The   evidence   on   record   shows   that   the  documents   seized   by   the   investigating   machinery   during  the   investigation   were   sent   for   examination   to   the  handwriting   expert   alongwith   the   specimen   handwriting  and signature of the Accused and P.W.94 Rehan and the 


Expert gave his opinion and report in that regard. P.W.103  Investigating officer  have deposed to that effect.  98]   P.W.76 Dilip Ahiwale is the Handwriting expert.  His   evidence   shows   that     he   was   appointed   as   the   Asst.  Examiner of Documents in C.I.D., Maharashtra State, Pune  in   the   year   1980   and   after   appointment   he   was   placed  under Training for one to one and half year for the subject  of science of handwriting. His evidence shows that  he was  having   the   experience   of   examining   approximately   more  than 3Lakh documents and he retired as the Chief State  Examiner of Documents, CID, State of Maharashtra, Pune.  His  evidence  shows   that vide letters at Exh.332 and 333  from   the    Anti   Terrorist   Squad,   Pune   he   received   the  following documents for examination and opinion. 1] Seven Bank pay­in­slips as questioned  documents.(Exh­ 296,300,304,305 and 309  (collectively)  One Guest House Register as questioned  document.(article­ 35) 102 specimen writing sheets.(Exhs.­ 246 and  249. One Pocket diary containing admitted writings. (article­12) One letter dated 11­07­2008 containing admitted   writings. ( article­53).

2] 3] 4] 5]

His evidence shows that he examined the documents under  various lighting magnifications and under various lighting 


conditions   and   marked   the   Questioned   writings   and  signatures by referring Alphabet 'Q,' marked the Specimen  writings   and   signatures   by   referring   Alphabet   'A'   and   'B'  and marked the admitted writings by referring Alphabet 'N'.  In his evidence his report at Exh.334 and the reasons for  his   opinion   at   Exh.336   are   brought   on   record   and   he  identified   the   same   as   given   by   him.   He   was   cross  examined by the defence   on the aspects of variations in  the Alphabets written in the documents and he stated that  the variations were natural.   It has come in his evidence  that dissimilarities and natural variations are two different  things   which   can   be   distinguished   by   the   experienced  person and the reason given by him were illustrative and  not  exhaustive.   He   denied  that   he  had   given   the  opinion  under the influence of Police machinery.  There is nothing  in the  cross examination  which would damage the   report  and   the   opinion   given   by   this   witness   on   the   aforesaid  documents   examined   by   him.   His   evidence   remained  unshattered.   Evidence   of   this   witness   shows   that     he   is  having vast experience in examination of the   documents  and he is the expert in science of handwriting.  There is no  reason to discard the report and opinion given by him on  the documents sent by the investigating machinery to him  for examination.


99]   It is submitted by Ld. defence Advocate that the  opinion evidence is a weak piece of evidence and cited the  Judgment reported in  2005 (1) All M.R. 593 in the case of  
Abdul   V/s.   Smt.   Khubai  wherein     it   is   observed   that,   the 

expert's evidence as to handwriting is opinion evidence and  it   can   rarely   take   the   place   of   substantive   evidence   and  before  acting   on   such   evidence,   it  is usual   to  see  if  it   is  corroborated   either   by   clear   direct   evidence   or   by  circumstantial evidence.  The said position is well settled in  Law.  100]      It is submitted by Ld. defence Advocate that  when   the   case   is   based   on   circumstantial   evidence,   the  chain of circumstances is required to be established by the  prosecution and in the case in hand there are missing links  to   connect   the   Accused     with   the   crime.   He   cited   the  following   Judgments   on   the   point   of   circumstantial  evidence.   A.I.R. 1994 S.C 2585.­Tasneen V/s The Delhi    Administration.   A.I.R 2002 S.C. 3206 Ashish V/s. State of M.P.  

  Perusal   of   these   Judgments   show   that   in   the  aforementioned   Judgments   the   principles   about   the  circumstantial evidence are given as  i]  The circumstances  from   which   conclusion   of   guilt   is   to   be   drawn   has   to   be 


fully   established.  ii]  All   the   facts   so   established   are  consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the Appellant  and  they  do  not  exclude any other hypothesis except the  one sought to be proved.   iii]  The circumstances on which  reliance has been placed are conclusive in nature.  It is also  observed   that   there   is     motive   behind   every   criminal   act  and that is why investigating agency as well as the court,  while   examining   the   complicity   of   an  Accused    try   to  ascertain   as   to   what   was   the   motive   on   the   part   of   the  Accused  to   commit   the   crime   in   question.   The   said  principles are well settled. Circumstances brought by the prosecution to prove the   involvement of the Accused.
1] Residing at Udgir by assumed/false names

To   establish   this   circumstance   the   prosecution   is 

relying   on   the   evidence   of   P.W.73   Abdul   Samad   Indori,  P.W.92     Shaikh   Gaus,   P.W.94   Shaikh   Rehan   and   P.W.95  Shakil Ahemad Laik. 101]   P.W.73   is   the     Cloth   Merchant   having   his  business at Udgir under the name and style “Indore Cotton  Shop”. He deposed that in December, 2009 as he was in  need   of   Rs.   One   Lakh for his business, he contacted his  friend from Udgir   Khurshid Alam who agreed to help him  and   called   him   at   the   Qureshi   Masjid,   Chaubara   Road, 


Udgir   where   he   introduced   him   with   Yusuf   Sir   as   the  person   who   was   having   the   internet   center   by   the   name  Global   Internet   Cafe   in   the   premises   of   Udgir   Nagar  Parishad. He deposed that Yusuf Sir told him that he will  give the money to   Khurshid Alam and accordingly in the  next day morning Khurshid Alam called him and gave Rs.  40,000/­ in cash and after two days gave Rs. 60,000/­ cash  and with that amount he went to Mumbai for purchasing  goods. He further deposed that  he paid Rs. 1,20,000/­  in  the installments of three months to Yusuf Sir by going to  his   internet   cafe   and   became   more   friendly   with   him.He  identified Accused as the same person by name Yusuf Sir.  In cross examination it is not disputed that this witness is  doing   business   at   Udgir.   It   has   come   in   the   cross  examination   that   he   did   not   see   Khurshid   Alam   taking  money from the Accused. However, this aspect gets diluted  in view of the specific suggestion  given to this witness that  he paid Rs. 1,07,000/­ to the Accused at one time. Further  suggestion   is   given   that   he   had   given   the   cheque   of   Rs.  13,000/­ drawn on Jan Kalyan Bank, Udgir to the Accused.  This   indicates   that   this   witness   and   the   Accused   were  knowing   each   other   well.   It   has   come   that   he   was   not  knowing   as   to   who   was   the   owner   of   the   internet   cafe.  However, the evidence in respect of knowing the Accused by 


name Yusuf Sir   and going to the Global Internet Cafe for  giving   money   to   the   Accused,   are   not   affected   in   any  manner in the cross examination.   It is not the universal  formula that good business man do not take loan. There is  no reason for this witness to depose false. 102]       P.W.92   is   the   resident   of   Udgir   and   was  running the classes for the students of 5th to 7th std. under  the name and style “Alsaba Classes” in the White Building,  Azad Nagar, Jalcot Road, Udgir which was taken by him on  rent. In his evidence he  deposed that to run his classes he  was having teachers by name Shaikh Ayyaz, Abdul Rahim,  Jalkote Madam, Kadri Madam and Hasan Sir. He identified  the   Accused     as   the   said   Hasan   Sir.     According   to   this  witness   he   got   acquainted   with   the   Accused   at   the  Chaubara, through Sayyed Inam who was working in the  M.S.E.B   and   since   the   Accused     told   him   that   he   had  acquired   the   qualification   as   D.Ed   and   was   having   the  knowledge   of   computer   and   wanted   the   place   to   stay,   he  asked the Accused to teach in his classes and reside there.  He further deposed that in March, 2010 the Accused  kept  his two bags in the class rooms and from the end of May,  2010   the   Accused   started   teaching   in   the   classes   in  between   8.00p.m.   to  9.00p.m.  He deposed  that  since  the  Accused  did not paid the rent towards staying in the class 


and used to not attend the classes, he told the Accused  to  leave the room and the Accused   told him that he will go  after Ramzan.  He  further  deposed that for so  many days  the   Accused     had   not   come   and   so,   his   two   bags   were  brought by him at his house. He further deposed that on  08­09­2010   the   policemen   had   come   to   his   house   for  inquiry and the two bags of the Accused  were handed over  by him to the police under the panchnama at Exh.264 and  he signed on the same as the token of it's receipt. In cross  examination it is suggested that he had no licence to run  the classes to which he replied that there is no need to take  the licence for conducting the classes of 5 th to 7th std. It has  come that there was no agreement for taking the building  on   rent.   It   has   come   that   the   register   of   students   is  maintained   by   him.   Admittedly,   there   is   no   documentary  evidence   to   show   that   the   Accused     was   teaching   in   the  said   classes.   However,   it   is   well   known   that   the  unregistered   private   tutorials   seldom   issue   the  appointment letter to their staff. In his statement recorded  U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C the Accused have stated that he acquired  the   educational   qualification   of   B.Ed.   from   Pune   by   the  year 2006 and for searching the job he had gone to Latur,  Udgir   and   Aurangabad.   Looking   to   the     educational  qualification of the Accused   it becomes clear that he can 


be provided  the job as a teacher and so, even if there is no  documentary   evidence   about   his   teaching   in   the   said  classes, there is no reason to discard the evidence of this  witness. Further, the evidence of this witness in respect of  seizure   of   two   bags   by   the   police   is   corroborated   by   the  evidence   of   P.W.56   Umakant   Chatnale   who   is   the   panch  witness for the said seizure. It would be appropriate to also  consider the evidence of P.W.56 at this juncture. 103]   P.W.56 in his evidence have deposed that on 08­ 09­2010   while   he   was   passing   in   front   from   the   Police  station at Udgir, he was called by the policemen and the  person   by   name   Gaus(P.W.92)   was   present   in   the   Police  station   with   one   black   colour   brief   case   and   one   khaki  colour shoulder bag. He deposed that  the khaki colour bag  contain the clothes (article 25) comprising one full sleeves  shirt of yellow colour having checks, one black colour full  sleeves   shirt,   two   light   brown   colour   full   pants   one   Ash  colour   half   sleeve   T   shirt,   one   cream   colour   half   sleeves  sweater,   one   small   pink   colour   plastic   polythene,   three  handkerchief,one light blue colour napkin, one toothbrush,  one small  Pepsodent tooth paste, one Green colour soap,  soap wrapper having the name Sesa and 1/­ Re. coin. He  further  deposed  that  in the black colour brief case there  were several documents and they were separately packed in 


six different envelopes.  He identified  articles 24 and 26 as  the same bags. He deposed that the panchnama of the said  process was prepared which was read over by him and he  signed it. He also deposed that the labels of his signature  and that of other panch were put on them. He identified  the panchnama at Exh.264 (alongwith Japtipatrak) as the  same   panchnama   and   also   identified   signature   of   Mr.  Gaus(P.W.92) on the same in token of receiving the copy. He  identified   the   documents   at   articles   27(collectively),  article28(collectively),article29(collectively),article30(collecti vely),  article 31(collectively) and article 32 (collectively) as  the same documents which were  found in the black colour  brief case and seized under the said panchnama.  From the  cross examination of this panch witness  it is seen that he  is the resident of Udgir and works in one Grocery shop and  educated upto 10th std. Non mentioning in the said seizure  panchnama at Exh.264 about this witness passing in front  from   the   Police   station   is   of   no   consequence.   There   is  nothing   to   suggest   that   he   is   the   regular   panch   of   the  police.  Though   there  was no lock on both the said bags,  there is nothing which would suggest that the said articles  were not seized from the said two bags. The evidence of this  panch   witness     is   cogent   and   reliable.   The   passport   at  Exh.422 which is found in the black colour brief case and 


referred in the said panchnama, is accepted by the Accused  as that of his. Evidence of this panch witness  corroborates  the evidence of P.W.92 about seizure of two bags and the  articles   found   therein   belonging   to   the   Accused,   by   the  police. From the evidence of this witness the prosecution  have   established   that   several   documents   which   are  specifically mentioned in detail in the said panchnama, are  seized from one of the bags of the Accused.    104]      According to Ld. defence Advocate   there was  no need for P.W.92 to take the bags of Accused to his house  and   give   it   to   the   police.   For   this,   the   answer   is   already  present in the evidence of P.W.92, wherein he deposed that  since the Accused  had not come for so many days he took  his   two   bags   to   his   home.   He   did   what   a   prudent   man  would do.  As the police asked for the said bags, he had no  option but to handover the same to the police. Perusal of  the panchnama at Exh.264 mentions in detail the article  which   were   seized   from   the  said   bag.   The   panchnama   is  also   identified   by   P.W.92   as   the   same   by   which   the  aforesaid articles were seized by the police from him.  105]     P.W.94   is   the   witness who    hails from  Beed  which   is   the   native   place   of   Accused   and   they   both   are  friends.   He   got   acquainted   with   the   Accused   in   the   year  2006. His evidence shows that the Accused was residing in 


Udgir and running the Internet cafe. He deposed that   he  was   working   at   Pune   in   Consultancy  by  name   'Job  One,  India' and once he went to Beed, which is his native place,  without   informing   his   working   place   and   so,   he   was  removed from job  and it has further come in his evidence  that,   he   was   searching   for   job   in   Pune   and   contacted  Accused, who called him to Udgir and it was the year 2008.  He   further   deposed   that   he   started   residing   with   the  Accused   in   the   Jama   Masjid   at   Chaubara   and   started  working in the Global Internet Cafe,  which was started by  the Accused   in the premises of Nagar Parishad Udgir in  February,2009   on   payment   of   Rs.1,500/­p.m.   He   further  deposed that for 2 to 4 days the Accused  used to go out of  station. He further deposed that Accused  used to chat on  the computer alone and whenever there was a phone call,  he used to go at some distance and talk. This part of his  evidence finds no challenge in the cross examination. He  being well acquainted with the Accused, it is not unnatural  that he was with the Accused at Udgir. 106]    P.W.95 is the person who got acquainted with  the   Accused     in   June/July,   2007   in   the   Dars   (religious  discourse)   arranged   at   Parbhani.   He   knows   the   Accused  by the name Yusuf. He again met the Accused in the year  2008 at Aurangabad in the hostel situated in Usmanpura 


area. His evidence shows that he was also in contact with  the   Accused     telephonically.   In   his   evidence   he   deposed  that in the year 2009 Accused called him to Udgir at the  Global Internet Cafe where the Accused     introduced him  with Sabeer Patel, Alif, Khurshid Alam and Rehan (P.W.94)  by   the   name   Salman.   His   evidence   further   shows   that  Rehan (P.W.94) was confronted to him at the time of giving  evidence   and   he   identified   him   as   the   same   person   as  Rehan. He further deposed that Accused  used to come and  meet him at Aurangabad. Perusal of the cross examination  of   this   witness   shows   that   the   above   aspects   are   not  challenged.  107]     From   the   evidence   of   the   above   referred  witnesses it is abundantly established by the prosecution  that   the   Accused     resided   at   Udgir   for   some   time   in   the  Masjid   and   for   some   time   in   the   white   building   by   the  assumed   names   Yusuf   and   Hasan.   Though   the   said  witnesses   were   cross   examined   by   the   defence,   their  testimony remained unshaken.  The seizure of two bags in  which one of the document is the Passport of the Accused  Himayat, gives further assurance that   the said bags and  the articles belonged to the Accused  and they were kept in  the white building, where he was teaching and residing. In  his statement U/s. 313 of Cr.P.C it is stated by the Accused 


that the said two bags were seized from Beed, which is his  native place. However, there is nothing to support the said  contention.        Thus,   this   circumstance   is   established   by   the  prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
2]   Seizure   of     Explosive     substance   at   the   instance   of    Accused of the same composition which is used in causing  explosion in German Bakery.

      This   is   the   highly   incriminating   circumstance 

brought by the prosecution against the   Accused. It is the  prosecution's case that the explosive material is seized on  the   statement   made   by   the   Accused.   On   this   point   the  prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.77 Shrikant  Shetti   (panch   witness),P.W.80   Laxman   Kumare   (the  member   of   Bomb   detection   and   Bomb   disposal   squad),  P.W.103   Vinod   Satav   (Investigating   officer),   P.W.75  N.B.Bardhan   (Forensic   expert)   and   P.W.78   Ravindra  Kulkarni (Forensic expert).    108]     Before evaluating the evidence of the aforesaid  witnesses in respect of  discovery and seizure panchnama,  it   would   be   pertinent   to   take   note   of   the   provisions   of  Section 27 of the Evidence Act which reads thus:­ 
How   much   of   information   received   from   accused   may   be   proved­  Provided   that,   when   any   fact   is   deposed   to   as  

discovered   in   consequence   of   information   received   from   a  


person   accused   of   any   offence   in   the   custody   of   a   police   officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a   confession   or   not,   as   relates   distinctly   to   the   fact   thereby   discovered, may be proved.  The Law on this aspect is well  settled   from   the   Judgment   of  Pulukuri   Kotayya   V/s.  
Emporer (A.I.R.1947   P.C 67).  There are catena of decisions 

of   the   Honourable   Higher   Courts   that   'fact   discovered'  includes not only the physical object produced but also the  place from where it is produced and the knowledge of the  Accused  as to it's existence.  109]     According to P.W.77, he was called by the Anti  Terrorist Squad on 07­09­2010 at about 4.30p.m. while he  had   come   to   take   the   appointment   at   the   Clinic   of   Dr.  Sharangpani   situated   near   the   Modern   College,   Pune   for  panchnama   U/s.   27   of   the   Evidence   Act   of   the  Accused  arrested in the  German Bakery  Bomb explosion  case and  he agreed to act as a panch. He deposed that the  Accused  whose   face   was   veiled,   P.W.103   Vinod   Satav   and   another  panch   by   name   Koshe   were   present  in   the  Anti   Terrorist  Squad office and after lifting the veil the Accused  gave his  name as above and when P.W.103 asked the Accused  as to  whether   there   was   any   pressure   over   him,   the  Accused  said   No.   His   evidence   shows   that   the  Accused  gave  statement that   he will show the place where the material 


used in preparing the Bomb and the material which was  left was kept and the said  statement was recorded and was  read over to the Accused and thereafter it was read by him  (panchas)   and   thereafter   the  Accused    put   his   signature  and  the panchas  and the  Investigating officer also signed  the   memorandum.   He   identified   Exh.341   as   the   same  memorandum.   He   further   deposed   that   after   the   said  memorandum he came to know that they were required to  go to Udgir  and  P.W.103 communicated for arranging the  Bomb Detection Squad and he himself and the other panch  were asked to take the personal search of the police staff  and   accordingly   they   took   the   search   of   police   staff   and  only normal articles were with the staff. He further deposed  that  Accused was asked to take search of the Panchas and  accordingly     Accused   took   search   of   him   and   the   other  panch. It has further come that the Government vehicle in  which they had gone was also searched before leaving.  He  further   deposed   that   in   the   Government   vehicle   the  weighing   machine,   stationary   comprising   papers,   carbon  papers, the envelopes of small and big size, lac, stag   etc.  were   taken   and   in   the   Government   vehicle   he   himself,  Accused,   P.W.103,   the   driver,  another   panch   and  another  policeman traveled  and the face of the Accused  was veiled  having   holes   at   the   place   of   eyes,   nose   and   mouth.   He 


further deposed that the vehicle was taken at the instance  of   Accused to Latur via Hadapsar and thereafter to Udgir  where they reached around 1.30a.m and at the instance of  the  Accused    the   vehicle   was   taken   to   Jalkot   road     and  stopped     and   after     alighting   from   the   vehicle   they   all  followed the  Accused  who showed one house. He deposed  that in the meanwhile P.W.103 made phone call and called  the back up required by him.  He further deposed that the  compound of the said house was having one iron gate and  the Accused  sounded the latch of gate and gave the call by  saying 'Abdul' and at that time the Bomb Squad and the  sniffer dog was with them. He further deposed that on the  call   given   by   the  Accused    the  lights  of   the  house   were  switched on and one person came outside the house and  the  Accused    lifted   his   veil   and   when   P.W.103   asked   the  name of that person he gave his name as Abdul Sayyad and  he   opened   the   gate.   He   further   deposed   that   the   said  person Abdul was asked by P.W.103 to take their personal  search  but  he  declined to take the search  and thereafter  they followed the Accused and entered the house and the  Accused  had taken them on first floor of that house from  the stair case which were on the right side of the hall and  there   was   one   room   on   the   first   floor   and   the  Accused  opened the latch of the door.  He further deposed that there 


was one wooden double bed and the Accused  lifted the ply  of the said double bed and removed one nylon bag which  was kept in one carton of pressure cooker and from that  removed   the   white   colour   plastic   bag   inside   which   there  was one more carry bag of yellow colour and the  Accused  told   that   the   said   material  was  the  same  material  which  was left in connection with the German Bakery and it was  'Barood.' He further deposed that P.W.103 called the main  persons   from   Bomb   Squad   who   came   alongwith   the   dog  and the dog was made to sniff the material and it wagged  it's tale and barked and it was stated by the members of  Bomb squad that the material was explosive. It has come  that one solder gun, one solder wire, one solder wire cutter  and five pieces of black colour material were found in the  said bag. He further deposed that the said five pieces  were  weighed and it was found to be of 1200 grams and from  that  P.W. 103 removed 100 grams piece and all the articles  were separately packed in plastic and thereafter in brown  paper (envelopes) and thereafter wrapped and the labels of  their signatures were put on each article and the contents  of   the   information   was   also   written     in   the   labels.   He  deposed that the opening of each envelope was sealed by  lac and the detail panchnama was prepared and was given  to the panchas for reading and after they read and found 


the   contents   to   be   true   and   correct,   they   both   panchas  signed the panchnama and P.W.103 had also signed on the  panchnama and the labels. He deposed that at the instance  of   P.W.103,   they   alongwith   the   police   staff   checked   the  house. He identified the panchnama at Exh.341A (second  part   of   memorandum)   as   the   same   panchnama   and  identified the signatures appearing on it. He also identified  the articles 54 (collectively)­ hard piece of black colour kept  in  yellow  colour  plastic bag  and white colour  bag, article  55­small   portion   of   the   black   hard   material,   article  56(collectively)­  portion  of  black material  in  yellow  colour  plastic   bag,   article   57­solder   gun,   article   58­solder   wire,  article 59­wire cutter and article 60­Nylon bag as the same  articles which were seized under the said panchnama. He  identified   Accused   as   the   same   person   who   gave   the  statement U/s.27of the Evidence Act and at whose instance  the aforesaid articles were discovered.  110]    This panch witness was cross examined by the  defence Advocate. In cross examination it has come that in  the   memorandum   at   Exh.341   it   is   not   stated   that   the  Accused  was   brought   in   veil   and   the   memorandum   was  read over to the Accused. It has also come that the Accused  had not given his house Number and plot number in the  statement.   To   the   suggestion   that   in   the  voluntary 


statement  it is not mentioned that the  Accused    will show  the solder gun, solder wire,and solder cutter, it is answered  that the  Accused    stated that he will show the remaining  articles and explosives.   It has further come that it is not  mentioned   in   the   memorandum     that   the   panchas   had  taken the search of the policemen and the  Accused    was  told to take the search of the panchas and accordingly the  Accused    had   taken   their   search.     He   deposed   that   he  cannot tell the colour of the said house. He stated that the  house was one plus one having total seven rooms and two  toilets and there was only one person in the house by name  Abdul Sayyed. It has come that the room at the first floor  was not locked and there is no mention in the second part  of memorandum at Exh.341A that there was the carton of  the pressure cooker. He stated that the panchas had not  signed on the writings which the persons from the Bomb  Squad had given to P.W.103. It has come that the signature  of the Abdul Sayyad who was present in the said house and  the signatures of the persons from the Bomb Squad  were  not taken on the panchnama at Exh.341A. He stated that  he was  unable  to tell  as to whether the copy of the said  panchnama was given to the said person who was present  in the house. It has come that the solder gun, solder wire  and   solder   cutter   were   the   articles   related   to     electrical 


equipments.   He  denied that he was the regular panch of  the   police     and   he   had   never   gone   to   Udgir   and   the  aforesaid   articles   were   not   seized   in   his   presence.   He  denied that the   aforesaid   memorandum and panchnama  were signed in the office of Anti Terrorist Squad. He denied  that   since   he   was   in   the   catering   business   he   was   well  acquainted with the police and he has given false evidence  at the instance of police.  111]      P.W.103 have also deposed about recording of  the     statement   of   Accused     and   going   to   Udgir   with   the  Accused, panchas and the staff in the Government vehicle.  He also deposed about seeking the help of Bomb Detection  and   Disposal   Squad   and   pointing   of   the   house     by   the  Accused.   He also deposed about opening the gate of the  said   house   by   the   person   named  Abdul   Sayyed   after   the  Accused    gave   call.   He   also   deposed   about   climbing   the  staircase   after   entering  the said house and removing  the  explosive material by the  Accused  from the storage box of  the   bed   after   opening   the   panel.   He   also   deposed   about  sniffing the explosive   material by the dog of Bomb Squad  and giving positive signal. He also deposed about removing  100   grams   sample   from   the   explosive   material   which  weighed 1200 grams.  He also deposed  that the plastic bag  containing   the   explosive   material   were   having   articles 


solder gun, solder wire, and wire cutter. He deposed about  separately packing of all the said articles and sealing them  with the lac seal and putting the labels on them having the  signature   of  panch   witnesses.   He   also   deposed   about  preparing the panchnama in that regard. He identified the  Memorandum at Exh.341 and seizure panchnama at  Exh.341A and also identified the articles 54 to 60 as the  same   which   were   seized   under   the   said   seizure  panchanama. He also deposed about taking search of the  said house. He also deposed about making the entry in the  station diary    before leaving the office and after reaching  the office at the time of aforesaid panchnamas at Exh.341  and   341A   and   identified   Exh.414   and   415   as   the   said  relevant   entries.   He   also   deposed   that   the   entries   were  made in the log book of the Government vehicle which was  used at the time of aforesaid panchnamas at Exh.341 and  341A   and   identified   as   Exh.416   as   the   same   relevant  entries   from   the   log   book.  He   further   deposed   about   the  report given in that regard to the Udgir Police station  and  station diary entry made in the Udgir Police station  in that  regard. He identified Exh. 418 and 419 as the same. 112]     In  cross   examination  he   denied   that   the  Accused  never   made   the   statement   and   the   said  memorandum   is  the  false document. He stated that the 


house   number,   address   and   the   area   of   place   where   the  house   was   situated   was   not   mentioned   in   the  memorandum  and volunteered that since the Accused  did  not stated about the same, it was not mentioned therein. It  has come that the statement of the owner of the said house  was   not   recorded.   He   also   stated   that   the     plastic   bags  which   were   seized   were   not   sent   for   finger   print  examination.   He   denied   that   the   aforesaid   memorandum  and   the   seizure   panchnamas   were   prepared   in   the  Anti  Terrorist Squad  office. He denied the suggestion   that no  dog squad was called. It has come that though the names  of   the   panchas   were   not   mentioned   in   the  station   diary  entry  at   Exh.414,   there   is   reference   of   presence   of   two  panchas.   He   denied   that   the  station   diary   and   log   book  entries were subsequently prepared and submitted at the  time of recording evidence.     113]      From cross examination of P.W.77 it is seen  that   certain   aspects   stated   by   him   in   his   evidence   are  missing from the memorandum at Exh.341. Let us consider  a   hypothetical   situation   that   there   is   no   written  memorandum.   If   that   be   so,   there   would   be   no   question  that   certain   things   stated   by   the   witness   are  not   finding  place   in   the   written   memorandum.  In   a   Full   Bench  Judgment the Honourable Guvahati High Court, in the 


case of  Raju Phukan V/s. State of Assam reported in 2010  
Cr.L.J.338, after considering various rulings on the point of 

Section 27 of the Evidence Act have held that  a Disclosure   statement to be admissible U/s. 27 is not statutorily required   to be reduced into writing, though prudence demands that   such an information should be required into writing in order   to unable the court to know exactly as to what the Accused   is   alleged   to   have   stated   and   the   extent   to   which   the   information   given   by   him   is   admissible.    However,   in   the  present  case, to corroborate the evidence of P.W.77 panch  witness  and   P.W.103  Investigating   officer,   there   is  contemporary   written  Memorandum  at   Exh.341.   What   is  material   or   relevant   is   the   admissible   part   of   statement  made by the  Accused  in custody, relating distinctly to the  fact discovered and nothing more. As regards the statement  made by  Accused, the witness have stated in his evidence  and it is consistent with the evidence of the    Investigating  officer  and the Memorandum  at Exh.341. Non mentioning  of     the   aspects   such   as   the   Accused   was   veiled,   reading  over   of   the  Memorandum  to   the  Accused,   search   of   the  policemen by Panchas and asking the accused to take their  search in the memorandum at Exh.341 will not affect the  evidenciary   value   of   the   same.   These   aspects   cannot   be 


labeled   as   the   omissions   or   contradictions   because   the  memorandum  at Exh.341is not the previous statement of  P.W.77.There   is   complete   consistency   in   the   evidence   in  respect of the statement made by the Accused. Except the  said aspects there is nothing in the  cross examination  of  both   the   aforesaid   witnesses   which   would   affect   their  testimony in respect of the statement made by the Accused  admissible   U/s.27   of   the   Evidence   Act.Though   it   is   not  required   under   the   Law   that   it   should   be   signed   by   the  Accused   making   the   statement,the   Memorandum   at  Exh.341is   signed   by   the   Accused.   Perusal   of   the  Memorandum   at   Exh.   341   and   second   part/seizure  panchnama   at   Exh.341A   shows   that   it   is   in   such   a  continuity that it is in such a continuity that it rules out  the possibility of any insertion in the same. 114]   There   is   further   corroboration   to   the 

prosecution's   case   in   respect   of   discovery   of   explosive  material at the instance of Accused. P.W.80  is the witness  working in the Latur Squad of Bomb Detection and Bomb  Disposal   whose   duty   consists   of   detecting   suspicious  material   like   RDX   by   naked   eyes   and   with   the   help   of  sniffer   dog   and   equipments.   He   deposed   that   the  Anti  Terrorist Squad  Pune, had sought the help of their squad  on   07­09­2010   and   accordingly   they   reached   Udgir   along 


with   their   sniffer   dog   and   along   with   the  Anti   Terrorist  Squad went to one house where on the first floor their dog  was made to smell the black sticky substance which was in  the yellow colour carry bag kept in the nylon bag and the  dog gave positive signal. He deposed that the report in that  regard was given by the head of their team Mr. Attar, to the  Anti Terrorist Squad team and Exh.351 is the same report.  In cross examination it is brought that the said report was  not   signed   by   this   witness   and   his   statement   was   not  recorded and he had not signed on any paper on that date.  This witness was not the head of BDDS team but one of the  member of that team and the report is given by the head of  their   BDDS   team.  As   can   be   seen   from  his   evidence   the  head   of   their   team   Mr.   Attar   is   retired   from   services.   As  they both were working together,   it is natural for him to  identify the signature of Mr. Attar. Since this witness was  the   part   of   BDDS   team,   his   testimony   becomes   relevant.  P.W.103  Investigating officer, in his evidence have deposed  about the said report at Exh.351. Perusal of the said report  shows that it fully corroborates the evidence of this witness  from Bomb Squad. The cross examination  could not affect  the testimony given by him. There is nothing to show that  the BDDS is under the control and supervision of the Anti  Terrorist Squad  and so there is no reason for them to give 


false   report   at   the   instance   of  Anti   Terrorist   Squad.   The  evidence of this witness corroborates the evidence of P.W.77  and   P.W.103   in   respect   of   seizure   of   explosive   from   the  house pointed out by the Accused. From this report at Exh.  351 it is again clear that the explosives were seized from  the   building   by   name   White   building   where   the  Accused  was residing and teaching and naturally he had access to  that place. 115]      One submission of  Ld. defence Advocate that  the   address   of   the   house   is   not   mentioned   in   the  Memorandum statement and to this submission, the reply  is   already   finding   place   in   the   evidence   of     Investigating  officer  P.W.103   where   he  deposed  that   since  the  Accused  have not told the house numbers and other details of the  house,   it is  not mentioned therein. Other submission of  Ld. defence Advocate  is that the  Accused    have not stated  specifically   about   the   wire   cutter,   soldering   wire   and  soldering gun in his Memorandum statement but, still they  are seized.   Perusal of  Exh.341 clearly shows that though  the said three articles are not specifically mentioned, but  there   is   clear   reference   about   pointing   the   other  miscellaneous articles with the explosives. Thus, the said  contention is of no consequence.  116]     As regards the seizure of articles No. 54 to 60 


is concerned, there is complete consistency in the evidence  of  P.W.77   and   P.W.103  and it  is also  corroborated by the  seizure   panchnama   at   Exh.341A.   It   has   come   in   the  evidence   that   the   articles   were   sealed   by   the   lac   seal  separately and labels of their signatures were put on them.  The seizure panchnama is identified by them and they also  identified the article Nos. 54 to 60. On the aspect of seizure  also, the cross examination  could not dent the prosecution  evidence   brought   on   record.  There  is suggestion  that  the  statement   of   house   owner   is   not   recorded   and   the   said  person   Abdul   is   not   examined.   Non   examination   of   the  house   owner   from   where   the   discovery   is   made   at   the  instance of Accused  is not the requirement under the Law.  However,  in the  cross examination  P.W.103,    Investigating  officer have deposed that the said house was taken on rent  by Shaikh Gaus who is P.W.92.  Further, non examination  of the said person Abdul who had opened the gate of the  house is not fatal for the prosecution, because what counts  is   the   quality   of   evidence   and   not   the   quantity.   It   is   the  prosecution's   choice   as   to   which   witness   they   should  examine. To go one step further, under the position in law,  the recovery/discovery can also be established through the  evidence   of   the    Investigating  officer  alone if the  same is  found to be cogent and trustworthy.


117]    One submission of the Ld. defence Advocate is  that no panchnama is drawn for the search of the vehicle in  which   they   had   traveled   and   for   the     search   of   the  Policemen taken by the Panch. In his evidence P.W.77 has  categorically deposed that the Government vehicle in which  they  had  gone  was searched and they panchas also took  the search of the police staff and the Accused  also took the  search of the panch witnesses. His evidence is trustworthy  and no corroboration is required.  118]   By   giving   the   suggestion   to   P.W.103 

Investigating officer about the destruction of RDX seized at  Aurangabad   in   the   year   2006,   the   defence   wanted   to  suggest that the explosives are planted on the Accused. It  is deposed by P.W.103 that to his information the 43 Kg.  RDX   which   was   seized   in   May   2006,   in   the   city   of  Aurangabad was destroyed under the orders of concerned  Court and in re­examination the prosecution has placed on  record   the   copy   of   Court's   order   and   the   copy   of  panchnama to show that the said RDX has been destroyed.  Since   the   said   copy   is   not   the   certified   copy   it   is   only  marked as article 24. In the re­cross examination taken by  the Ld. defence Advocate there is no suggestion that article  24 was not in respect of destruction of the said RDX.  119]     One   of   the   submission   of   the   Ld.   defence 


Advocate is that the building owner was not called at the  time  of  seizure of  articles at the instance of the  Accused  and   so   the    Investigating   officer  failed   in   his   duty.   As  referred   earlier   P.W.103,   in   his   evidence   have   stated   that  said house was taken on  rent by Shaikh Gaus who is P.W.  92.   As seen earlier, in his evidence P.W.92 Shaikh Gaus  have stated that he had taken on rent the house by name  White   building.     In   the   report   at   Exh.351   given   by   the  BDDS to the  Investigating officer and in the report at Exh.  418  given  by the P.I  Milind Gaikwad of the  Anti Terrorist  Squad to the  Sr. P.I of Udgir Police station for the purpose  of making the station diary entry, there is reference of the  White   building   as   the   place   from   where   the   aforesaid  articles are seized. In his evidence P.W.103 have identified  the said reports. In these circumstances, not calling of the  owner of the building or  not examining him as a witness is  immaterial. What is material or relevant is the knowledge of  the  Accused    about the articles and the place where they  are kept.  120]    One submission of Ld. defence Advocate is that  P.W.77   have   given   contradictory   statement   which   create  doubt   about   his   going   with   the   police   party.   The   said  submission   is   without   any   basis   and   only   made   for   the  sake of argument.  Since there is no previous statement of 


this witness,there is no question of giving any contradictory  statement. He is the  panch witness  for memorandum and  seizure   panchnama.   The   evidence   of   P.W.77  is  consistent  and   do  not create  slightest doubt. There is absolutely no  material to show that he is the regular panch of the police.  121]     One   of   the   submission   of   the  Ld.   defence  Advocate  is  that  the  RDX  may  have  been  planted on  the  Accused    Himayat. None of the material or circumstances  give   rise   to   such   an   assumption.  The  evidence  on  record  have clearly established that the Accused  was arrested on  07­09­2010   in   the   afternoon   at   Pune.   The   memorandum  statement is of the same day after his arrest and pursuant  to that the discovery of articles 54 to 60 is effected in the  intervening night of 7th and 8th September,2010. This clearly  shows that the discovery at the instance of the Accused  is  immediate   after   his   arrest   pursuant   to   his  disclosure.   In  the   evidence   of   P.W.103   he   has   clearly   deposed   that   the  RDX   seized   at   Aurangabad   is   destroyed   and   that   part   of  evidence   went   unchallenged.   It   is   the   own   contention   of  defence that the RDX is not available in the open market  but   only   with   the   Military.   Admittedly,   the  Anti   Terrorist  Squad  is in no way concerned with the Military or also is  not   in   such   a   position   so   that   they   can   influence   the  Military   and   procure   the   RDX.   There     are   contemporary 


documents   brought   on   record   by   P.W.103   in   the   form   of  station diary entries made before leaving the office at the  time of Memorandum statement  and after coming back to  the office after the seizure. Non mentioning of the panchas  name, the house number and about the BDDS team in the  station diary entry is no reason to presume that the station  diary entries are subsequently made. It is needless to state  that    only   in  brief   the   gist  of  the duty  performed by  the  policemen is to be written in the station diary entry.  There  is also the entries made in the log book of the Government  vehicle which was used in the travel, which is brought on  record. Further, in the evidence of P.W.103, the report given  to   the   Udgir   Police   station   and   the   entry   made   in   the  station diary of the Udgir Police station  in connection with  the seizure of the aforesaid articles 54 to 60, are brought  on record vide Exh.418 and 419 respectively. Perusal of all  these documents clearly go to show that they are prepared  in   the   normal   course   of   official   work.   The   first   Remand  report   dtd.   08­09­2010   filed   by   P.W.103   before   the   Ld.  Magistrate also speaks of seizure of the said articles at the  instance of the Accused.   Further, it is already seen in the  evidence   of   P.W.92   Shaikh   Gaus   that   the   Accused   was  teaching   computer   and   residing   in   the   White   building  which he (P.W.92) had taken on rent. Therefore, it is clear 


that   the  Accused  was   having   access   to   the   said   white  building.  As seen    from the evidence available on record,  particularly Exh.418 , 419 and 351, the seizure of article 54  to 60 are made from this White building at the instance of  the Accused.  122]    One of the submission of Ld. defence Advocate  is that the carton in which the said plastic bags containing  article 54 to 60 were kept is not seized and the nylon bag  was   not   sent   for   the   finger   print   expert.   To   this   it   is  submitted by the  Ld.  Spl P.P that the finger prints can be  lifted only from the glossy objects and not from the Nylon  bag. The  plastic bags in which the said articles were kept  are admittedly seized. Non seizure of the carton in which  they   are   kept   would   not   affect   the   seizure   because   if  everything   is   required  to  be  seized  then  the    wooden  cot  (Diwan) from which the said articles were removed by the  Accused  will also be required to be seized. What is material  is the explosive articles. Further, in view of  the oral as well  as documentary evidence available on record, not sending  the nylon bag to the finger­print  expert  is immaterial and  not fatal for the prosecution;'. 123]    Further, in his evidence P.W.103 have deposed  that   the   explosive   substance   which   was   seized   at   the  instance   of   arrested   Accused  from  Udgir  was  sent   to   the 


forensic   science   laboratory   vide   report   at   Exh.344,   for  examination   and   the   C.A.   report   in   that   respect   was  received   and   Exh.24   was   the   same   report,   wherein   it   is  mentioned   that   the   explosive   substance   was   RDX,  petroleum hydrocarbon oil and charcoal. He further stated  that the material collected from the spot of incident   was  already referred to the forensic science laboratory Pune and  Delhi  and   their     C.A   reports were  at  Exh.22  and  23.  He  further deposed that   as per the said C.A reports at Exh.  22, 23 and 24 the contents of explosive were the same. On  this   point   there   is   no  cross   examination  by   the   defence.  Perusal of the said report at Exh.344 shows that 50 grams  material/explosive   which   was   seized   at   the   instance   of  Accused  was sent to the forensic science laboratory, Pune  by P.W.103. 124]    P.W.78  is the forensic expert. Some part of his  evidence is considered while discussing the point relating  to   happening   of   the   incident.   He   is  working   as  the   Asst.  Chemical   Analyzer   since   last   26   years   and   deposed   that  the   samples   are   received   by   their   Laboratory   in   sealed  conditions   alongwith   forwarding   letter   and   they   are  accepted   only   after     verifying   the   seals.   He   deposed   that  after the samples are examined they sent the same to the  concerned Police station under the seal of their laboratory. 


He   identified   article   56   as   the   same   material   which   he  examined and also identified the wrapper in which it was  sent to the laboratory and identified the case No. as MP­ 363/2010.   He   deposed   that   the   sample   was   received     in  sealed   condition   and   the   seal   was   intact   as   per   the  specimen. His evidence shows that the C.A. report at Exh.  24   was   in   respect   of    article 56.   He confirmed    that  the  contents of C.A. report as true and correct. Perusal of the  C.A.   report   at   Exh.   24   shows   that   the   letter   number   of  Exh.344 is mentioned therein. Further, his evidence shows  that  the C.A report at Exh. 24 pertaining to  seizure of the  explosive at the instance of Accused  and the C.A report at  Exh.22 pertaining to the articles   seized from the spot of  incident, were confronted to him and he deposed that both  the reports show that similar type of explosive was detected  in both the samples. Perusal of the  cross examination   of  this witness   shows that there is virtually nothing on this  aspect.   It   would   not   be   an   exaggeration   to   say   that   the  evidence of this forensic expert went unchallenged in this  respect. 125]    P.W.75 is also the forensic expert. His evidence  to some extent is also considered while discussing the point  in   respect   of   happening   of   the   incident.   His   evidence  further shows that the report at Exh.22 pertaining to the 


articles  seized from the spot of incident, was confronted to  him and he stated that the result of analysis mentioned is  RDX,   ammonium   nitrate   and   nitrate   ion   alongwith  petroleum   hydrocarbon/oil   were   detected   in   the   exhibits  received   by   the   said   laboratory.   Evidence   of   this   witness  becomes   relevant,   being   the   expert   and   he   confirms   the  findings recorded by P.W.78 who is also the forensic expert  in C.A report at Exh.22 and Exh.24 prepared by him. In  the  cross examination   there is nothing which would dent  or  affect  the  evidence   of this witness,  as it  is on  general  terms. 125]   The   aforesaid   scientific/forensic   evidence  corroborates   the   evidence   of   P.W77,   P.W.80   and   P.W.103  that the explosive substance was seized at the instance of  Accused. From the evidence of these expert witnesses it is  established  that  RDX    is the high explosive and if mixed  with ammonium nitrate, charcoal, petroleum hydrocarbon  oil,   the   effectiveness   of   explosion   gets   enhanced.   Their  evidence   further   establishes   that   the     explosives   used   in  causing the explosion at the German Bakery, Pune and the  explosives   seized   at   the   instance   of  Accused    is   similar.  Their   evidence   remained   unshaken   in   the  cross 

examination.  Evidence   on   record   also   shows   that   the  explosive seized at the instance of Accused  was sealed with 


lac   seal     on   the   spot   of   seizure   and   the   seal   was   found  intact when it reached the laboratory and so the possibility  of   tampering   is   also   ruled   out   completely.   Further,   the  evidence   on   record   also   firmly   establishes   that   the   place  from where article 56 to 60 were seized, was accessible to  the Accused. 126]    Another aspect which falls for consideration is  whether it can be said that the explosive substance  was in  possession  of  Accused.     It   would   not   be   out   of   place   to  examine   the   meaning   of   word   “possession”.   The   Three  Judge Bench of the Honourable Apex Court  in the case  of 
Superintendent   V/s.   Anil   Kumar,   reported   in   1979(4)   S.C.C.274,  had   the   occasion   to   interpret   the   word 

possession.   The   relevant     Para  13,14,15   and   16   from   the  said Judgment reproduced here. may   have   different   meanings   in   different   contexts.   It   is   impossible   to   work   out   a   completely   logical   and   precise   definition   of   'possession'   uniformly   applicable   to   all   situations in the contexts of all statutes. Dias and Hughes in   their book on Jurisprudence say that if a topic ever suffered   too much from origin it is that of 'possession'. Much of this   difficulty   and   confusion   is   (as   pointed   out   in   Salmond's   Jurisprudence.   12th  Edition,   1966)   caused   by   the   fact   that   possession is not purely a legal concept. 'Possession' implies   a right and a fact; the right to enjoy annexed to the right of   property and the fact of the real intention. It involves power   of control and intent to control. (See Dias and Hughes,ibid).
Para   13­  'Possession'   is   a   polymorphous   term   which  


Para   14­  According   to   Pollock   and   Wright   “when   a  

person is in such a relation to a thing that, so far as regard   the thing he can assume, exercise or resume manual control   of it at pleasure, and so far as regards other persons, the   thing is under the protection of his personal presence, or in   or on a house or land occupied by him or in any receptacle   belonging   to   him   and   under   his   control,   he   is   in   physical   possession of the thing.”  Para   15­  While   recognizing   that   'possession'   is   not   a   purely legal concept but also a matter of fact; Salmond (12 th  Edition,   page   52)   describes   'possession   in   fact'   as   a   relationship between a person and a thing. According to the   learned author the test for determining 'whether a person is   in possession of anything is whether he is in general control   of it'.  Para 16­  In Gunwantlal (ibid), this Court, while noting   that  the concept of possession is not easy to comprehend,   held that, in the context of Section 25 (a) of the Arms Act,   1959,   the   possession   if   a   fire­arm   must   have,   firstly,   the   element of consciousness or knowledge of that possession in   the person charged with such offence, and secondly, he has   either   the   actual   physical   possession   of   the   fire­arm,   or   where   he   has   not   such   physical   possession,   he   has   nonetheless   a   power   or   control   over   that   weapon.   It   was   further recognized that  whether or not the accused had such   control or dominion to constitute his possession of the fire­ arm,   is   a   question   of   fact   depending   on   the   facts   of   each   case. In that connection, it was observed:  “In any disputed   question of possession, specific facts admitted or proved will     alone   establish   the   existence   of   the   de­  facto       relation     of    control or the dominion of the person over it   necessary to  determine whether that person was or was not in possession   of the thing in question.”  128]   The Ld. defence Advocate cited four Judgments  on the Point of discovery U/s. 27 of the Evidence Act. The 


First Judgment is   of Honourable Kerla High Court in the  case   of  Abu   V/s   State   of   Kerala   reported   in   2010  Cr.L.J  
2324.  Perusal   of   the   same   shows   that   in   that   case   the 

seizure of explosive was not pursuant to the memorandum  statement given by the Accused  therein but the same was  on the basis of reliable information which was received by  the   police   that   the   explosives   were   unlawfully   stocked.  Secondly, the  Trial Court had recorded the finding that the  prosecution failed to establish   that the  Accused    therein  kept explosive substance for any unlawful object. Thirdly,  there   was   discrepancy   in   the   number   of   the   articles  mentioned   in   the   search   list   and   number   of   articles  received by the laboratory. Fourthly, the quantity of sample  dispatched   to   C.A   was   not   mentioned   in   the   certificate.  Fifthly, it was held that there was no link evidence to show  that the sample tested by the Chemical Analyzer was the  sample taken out under the search list. Sixthly, no question  U/s.   313   was   put   to   the  Accused      therein   that   any  explosive substance was seized from his possession. In this  Judgment  in respect of word 'possession' it is observed,   “The     word   'possession'   no   doubt   has   different   shades   of   meaning and it is quite elastic in it's connotation. Possession   and   ownership   need   not   always   go   together   but   the   minimum   requisite   element   which   has   to   be   satisfied   is   custody or control over  the goods.” 


The   Second   Judgment   is   in   the   case   of  Aslam   V/s.  
Government   of   N.C.T   reported   in   A.I.R.   2003   S.C.   3547. 

Perusal of the same shows that  the raid was conducted by  the   police   team   on   the   workshop   where   arms   and  ammunitions were found. All the panchas in that case did  not supported the prosecution. The evidence of policeman  was   found   to   be   highly   artificial   and   improbable.   The  Accused  therein was seen entering the workshop at 10.00  a.m. and the raid was conducted at 11.00 a.m. It was held  that though the police were in uniform, the Accused  would  become   apprehensive   but,   nothing   that   sort   happened.  One of the Accused  in that case was convicted for seizure  of   revolver   pursuant   to  Memorandum   statement    by   the  Trial Court  and  it  was  observed by the Honourable Apex  Court that the recovery had been after 8 months and that  too from the open space and not from a closed or concealed  place.   The third Judgment   is in the case of     Bahadul V/s.  
State of Orissa reported in A.I.R. 1979 S.C. 1262. Perusal of 

the same shows that in the case therein the only evidence  against   the  Accused    was   the   confession   and   removal   of  Tangia   from   beneath   the     cot   without   there   being   any  statement U/s. 27 of Evidence Act.  The forth Judgment  is in the case of   Raju V/s. State  


of Maharashtra reported in 2008 All M.R (Cri) 2632.  Perusal 

of the same shows that the prosecution case was accepted  and   it   was   observed   that   in   a   case   which   is   based   on  circumstantial evidence, the Court would also have to be  mindful of the fundamental principle of law that it is for the  prosecution   to   establish   all   the   links   in   the   case   which  connect   the  Accused    to   the   offence   beyond   reasonable  doubt,   more   over   in   a   case   founded   on   circumstantial  evidence, all the circumstances must be consistent with the  guilt of the Accused. 129]     The   legal   position   given   in   the   aforesaid  Judgments   is   well   settled.   However,   the   facts   and  circumstances   of   the   aforesaid   cases   are   vastly   different  from the facts and circumstances of this case. In the case  in   hand,   there   is   Memorandum   in   respect   of   statement  given by the Accused  which is written down in presence of  panchas and pursuant to the said  statement the Accused  led   to   one   house   at   Udgir   and   removed   the   explosive  material and other articles kept in the plastic bags, from  inside the box of the cot/Diwan by lifting the ply and this  itself shows that the articles 54 to 60 were in a concealed  position   and   not   open/visible/accessible   to   any   one.  Though the said room where the cot/Diwan was kept was  not locked but, the same does not assume any importance 


because the articles were not openly kept in the room but  were hidden inside the cot/Diwan. It is already seen from  the evidence of P.W.92   that the Accused     had the access  in the said house as he was teaching and residing in that  house.   Pointing   the   explosive   articles   from   such   a  concealed   place   shows   the   exclusive   knowledge   of   the  Accused  about the same. One keeps the articles in such a  concealed  place  only to have control and possession over  the same. From this, the only irresistible conclusion   gets  culled out is that the Accused  was in conscious possession  of the explosive material.   The circumstance in respect of  Memorandum   statements   and   seizure   of   the   explosive  material pursuant to the Memorandum statement was put  to the Accused in the statement U/s.313 of   Cr.P.C. Except  denial there is no explanation given by him in that regard.  It is submitted by Ld. defence Advocate that it was  for the  prosecution   to   establish   as   to   from   where   the  Accused  procured   the   said   explosive material  and  from  where the  Accused  got training to assemble the bomb and therefore,  the   Accused     cannot   be   linked   with   the   incident.  This  submission do not impress me for the reason that it would  be the exclusive knowledge of the Accused as to from where  the explosive material is procured and from where he learnt  to assemble the Bomb. Under the provisions of Section 106 


of the Evidence Act when any fact is especially within the  knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is  upon him.   From the evidence on record, the prosecution  have   proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt   that   the   explosive  substance was in conscious possession of the Accused  and  the  same  was seized  at his instance. There is nothing to  show   that   the   Accused   was   having   any   licence   or  authorization   to   possess   the   explosive   substance.   Thus,  this circumstance is  fully established against the Accused.  From the evidence of P.W.92 Shaikh Gaus it is clear that  one   of   the   teacher   was by  name  Abdul   Rahim  in  his Al­ Saba  Classes   and  therefore,  coming  out  and opening the  gate   of   the   house   by   the   person   named   Abdul   is   quite  natural.   Further   in   the   seizure   panchnama   at   Exh.341A  the   name   of   the   person   who   opened   the   gate   is   also  mentioned at Abdul Rahim. Thus, this circumstance is proved by the prosecution  beyond reasonable doubt.

3]   Using/operating the Bank Account       of another person   

  To prove this circumstance the prosecution is relying  on   the   evidence   of     P.W.94   Shaikh   Abdul   Rehan,   P.W.68  Govind   Somani,   P.W.69   Suresh   Deshmukh,   P.W.70  Dattatraya   Kalaskar   P.W.71   Martand   Patil   and   the 


documentary evidence brought   on record in the evidence  of the said witnesses. 130]      P.W.94  is  the same witness who   hails from  Beed which is the native place of the Accused   and  is his  friend.     According   to   him,     when   he   was   working   in   the  Consultancy by name Job One India in the year 2008, he  was having the Bank Account in the Bank of Hyderabad,  Mondha, Beed and was having ATM card of the said Bank  Account. He deposed that the Accused  asked his ATM card  and so he gave it to him   and the said Bank account and  the ATM card was used by Accused and all the transactions  in   the   said   account   were   done   by   the   Accused.   In  cross  examination it has come that he used to go to the house of  Accused in Beed and in the year 2008 his friendship with  the   Accused   became   strong   and   since   the   Accused  demanded the ATM card, he gave it to him. It has further  come in the  cross examination  that his said account and  the ATM card  was used by the Accused and he (himself)  was not depositing any amount in the said Account.  131]    P.W.68 is the Branch Manager of State Bank of  Hyderabad   Parbhani   Branch   and   in   his   evidence   he  deposed   that   pursuant   to   the   letter   at   Exh.294   received  from   the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad   he   supplied   the   original  credit voucher of the Account vide letter at Exh.295. The 


original voucher  at Exh.296 is identified by this witness as  the   same.   Perusal   of   the   said   document   show   that     it  pertains to Account No. 62058905660. In cross the   said  exhibits   are   not   challenged   and   it   is   affirmed   that   the  account mentioned in the said voucher was of Beed Bank.  The only aspect which is brought in cross examination   is  that  there is no signature in the said voucher of the person  depositing the amount.  132]       P.W.69   is   the     Account's   Manager   of     State  Bank of Hyderabad, Shahaganj Branch, Aurangabad and in  his evidence he deposed that pursuant to the letter at Exh.  298 received from the Anti Terrorist Squad he supplied the  original pay in slip of the Account vide letter at Exh. 299.  The   original   pay­in­slip     at   Exh.300   is   identified   by   this  witness as the same. Perusal of the said document show  that it pertains to Account No. 62058905660. In cross the  said   exhibit   is   not   challenged.   The   only   aspect   which   is  brought   in   cross   examination   is   that     any   person   can  deposit the amount in the account of another person and  he   will   not   be   able   to   tell   as   to   who   had   deposited   the  amount in the said account through the said pay­in­slip. 133]     P.W.70   is   the     Manager   of     State   Bank   of  Hyderabad,   Old   Jalna   Branch   and   in   his   evidence   he  deposed that pursuant to the letter at Exh. 302   received 


from   the   Anti   Terrorist   Squad,   his   branch   supplied   the  original pay in slips of the Account vide letter at Exh.303.  The   two   original   pay­in­slip     at   Exh.304   (collectively)   are  identified by this witness as the same. Perusal of the said  documents   show   that   it   pertains   to   Account   No.  62058905660.   In   cross   the   said   exhibits   are   not  challenged.   The   only   aspect   which   is   brought   in   cross  examination  is that  any person can deposit the amount in  the account of another person and the amount cannot be  withdrawn from the account except the  account holder. It  is further stated by him that the signature on both the pay­  in­slips were different. In re­examination he deposed that  amount can be withdrawn from the account by the person  in whose name the  debit card is issued or the person who  possesses the debit card and also the pin number. 134]     P.W.71   is   the     Manager   of     State   Bank   of  Hyderabad, Mondha Branch, Beed and in his evidence he  deposed that pursuant to the letters at Exh. 306  and 307  received from the Anti Terrorist Squad his branch supplied  the three pay­in­slips, the statement of Account and   the  Account   opening   form   alongwith   it's   enclosures   i.e  Electricity   Bill   and   certificate   of   the   Maharashtra   State  Technical Board   vide letter at Exh.308. The three original  pay­in­slip   at   Exh.309   (collectively),   the   Bank   Account 


statement   at   Exh.310   and   the   Account   opening   form   at  Exh.311 and the Enclosures of the said form at article 44  collectively   are   identified   by   this   witness   as   the   same  documents   supplied   by   the   Branch   to   the   Anti   Terrorist  Squad. Perusal of the said documents show that it pertains  to Account No. 62058905660. In cross the said exhibits are  not challenged. The only aspect which is brought in cross  examination  is that the name of Account holder mentioned  in   the   three   pay­in­slips   at   Exh.309   (collectively)  is  mentioned as Shaikh Abdul Rehan (P.W.94). It has further  come in the  cross examination  that it is not mentioned in  the   Bank   account's   statement   at   Exh.310   as   to   who   has  withdrawn the amount and he cannot tell   as to who had  deposited the amount in the account through the said pay­ in­slips.   In   re­examination   it   is   brought   that   all   the  transactions   mentioned   in   the   statement   of   Account   at  Exh.310   are   done   by   using   the   ATM.   In   re­cross  examination   it   is   brought   that   no   complaint   regarding  misuse of the said account was received.  135]    P.W.94 is the friend of Accused and so have no  reason  to  state  falsely  against  him.  Cross  examination  of  this witness have further confirmed about using his Bank  account by the Accused. Through the witnesses from the  Bank the prosecution have brought in evidence the various 


vouchers/pay­in­slips,   the   Bank   account   statement   and  the   original   account   opening   Application   form   of   Bank  Account   No.  62058905660.   The   aforesaid   witnesses   from  the   Banks   are   the   high   ranking   and   responsible   officers  and they have no reason to give  false information. In cross  examination  their   evidence   in   respect   of   the   said  documents has remained unchallenged. Perusal of the said  documents clearly go to show that they were used in the  regular course of Bank transaction.   The Account number  on   all   the   said   bank   documents   is   one   and   the   same.  Exh.311 shows that the said account was in the name of  Rehan (P.W.94). The bank account statement at Exh.310 is  also   of   the   same   account.   The   opinion   given   by   the  Handwriting expert show that the handwriting on the Bank  pay­in­slips and the specimen handwriting of the Accused  match   with   each   other.   So,   the   evidence   of  Handwriting  expert  corroborates the evidence of   P.W.94 Rehan Shaikh  that the  Accused  used his Bank account. There is further  corroboration to establish this circumstance and that is in  the nature of the CCTV footage of various ATMs  situated at  Udgir and Parbhani, which were seized from the respective  Banks. The admissibility of the same is already considered.  The evidence of P.W.103 show that the footage of the ATM  Center   seized   under   the   panchnama   at   Exh.253   and 


preserved in article 23A and 23B CDs were shown to him  while recording his evidence and he identified the Accused  in   the   footage.   It   is   further   deposed   by   P.W.103   that   the  entries   in   the   Bank   Account   statement   at   Exh.310   are  corresponding with the dates on which the  Accused    had  withdrawn   the   money   from   the   ATM   Centers.     There   is  sufficient   and   cogent   evidence   on   record   to   prove   this  circumstance. To add to this in the statement U/s.313 of 
Cr.P.C  while answering the Question Nos.378 and 505, the 

Accused  have admitted that he got acquainted with Rehan  in the year 2009 and as he was in need, for some period he  used   the   ATM   card   of   Rehan   with   his   permission.  According to the Ld. defence Advocate, it is not the crime to  use   anybody's   Account   with   his   permission.   There   is   no  doubt  about  it. The fact in issue is whether the Accused  used the Bank account of Rehan or not and not whether it  is   crime.   Thus   this   circumstance   is   proved   beyond  reasonable doubt. 
4]     Visit to Colombo and thereafter deposit of substantial   amount in the Bank account operated by Accused.

It   is   the   prosecution's   case   that   the   Accused     had  visited Colombo as the part of conspiracy and he got the  funding   to   execute   the   conspiracy.   To   establish   this  circumstance,the prosecution is relying on the evidence of 


P.W. 103   Investigating officer, the passport and the bank  documents.  136]  It   is   already   seen   while   discussing   the  circumstance   of   Accused   residing   in   Udgir   with   the  assumed/false   names,   that   two   bags     of   the   Accused  having several documents were seized by the police under  the panchnama at Exh.264. One of the article found in the  black   colour   brief   case   is   the   Passport   (Exh.422).   In   the  said panchnama there are details at Sr. No. 45 in respect of  the passport. As can be seen from the  cross examination it  is not disputed by the defence that the said Passport is that  of   the   Accused.   The   Passport   at   Exh.422   shows   that  Accused   had   gone   to   Colombo   from   Chennai   on   07­03­ 2008 and returned on 24­03­2008. In his evidence P.W.103  Investigating   officer   have   deposed   that   the   Accused   had  gone to Colombo and after his return from Colombo there  were deposits of Rs.73,000/, Rs.18,500/­ and Rs.30,000/­  on   29­06­2008,   20­12­2008  and  20­01­2010  in   the Bank  Account   which   was   used   by   the   Accused.   The   Bank  Account   statement   at   Exh.310,   corroborate   the   evidence  that   there   are   deposits   of   the   aforesaid   amount   in   the  Account used by Accused. It is already established that the  said   account   is   in   the   name   of   Rehan   (P.W.94),   but   was  used by the Accused. From the cross examination it is clear 


that  the visit of the Accused  to Colombo is not disputed.  Even, in his statement  U/s.313 of  Cr.P.C, the Accused  have  admitted   that   he   had   visited   Colombo.   Though   P.W.103  admitted of not going to Colombo for investigation, in his  cross examination  the copy of letter sent to the Interpol is  brought on record at Exh.423.Perusal of the same shows  that the information was sought about the stay of Accused  alongwith   absconding   Accused    Fayyaz  Kagzi  in   Colombo  and   about   the     arrival   and   departure   of   the   said  absconding Accused from/to Pakistan. The letter is having  outward number and shows that it is issued by the Deputy  Commissioner   of   Police,   Anti   Terrorist   Squad,   Mumbai.  This   shows   that   P.W.103   had   taken   steps   to   investigate  about the Colombo visit of the Accused. When the Accused  was put the question (Q­264) in the statement U/s.313 of 
Cr.P.C   about his visit to Colombo, he stated that he had 

gone there for doing job but due to language problem he  could   not   get   the   job.   Further,   while   replying   to   the   last  question (Q­526) in the statement, he stated that he had  gone   to   Colombo     for   selling   the   clothes   and   perfumes  which he had purchased from Mumbai and to do job in the  Mall or in big shop. Two different answers are given by the  Accused     in   respect   of   his   visit   to   Colombo.   The   said  explanation by no means appear probable. 


Generally,   Colombo   is   not   the   preferred   destination   for  business or jobs. However, from the evidence available on  record   it   is   established   that   the   Accused     had   gone   to  Colombo and after his return there was substantial deposit  in the bank account used by him. Since the Accused  was  operating the said Account he only can give the explanation  in that regard. Except denial there is no explanation.   Thus, this circumstance is proved beyond reasonable  doubt. 
5]     Association with the absconding Accused persons and  the mind set of Accused influenced by the ideology of  terrorism   and   having   perverted   notions   about   religion.    

To   establish   this   circumstance   the   prosecution   is  relying   on   the   evidence   of   P.W.73   Abdul   Samad   Indori,  P.W.87 Aspak Khan, P.W.94 Rehan Shaikh, P.W.95 Shaikh  Laik and P.W.97 Mohammad Ansari.   137]       P.W.73 is the same witness who is the cloth  merchant    from Udgir  and knows the Accused   by name  Yusuf Sir. It has come in his evidence that when once he  had gone to the Internet Cafe of the Accused to return the  money, the Accused   introduced him to one person as his  friend from Pune but, the name of the said friend was not  told and  after the Bomb explosion at the German Bakery 


the   news   was   being   shown   over   the   television     in   which  apart   from   name   of   Accused,   another   person   by   name  Mohsin Chaudhari was shown as one of the suspect and he  was the same person to whom the Accused had introduced  him  in   the   Global   Internet   Cafe.  On   this point   the  cross  examination is in para 11. Though the witness could not  give  the  date and  month on which he had seen  the said  news   on   the   television,   he   stated   that   it   was   after   the  month   of   Ramzan.   Not   remembering   the  date  of  German  Bakery Bomb explosion by this witness cannot be said to  be fatal for the prosecution. He admitted that he was not  acquainted   with   Mohsin   Choudhari.   He   denied   the  suggestion   that   he   had   not   seen   Accused   with   Mohsin  Choudhri   in   the   Global   Internet  Cafe  and  further   denied  the   suggestion   that   he   was   deposing   at   the   instance   of  police.   Except   this,   there   is   nothing   in   the   cross  examination which would make his testimony unreliable. 138]   P.W.87 is the witness who had taken education  of B.Ed from the Azam Campus Pune, where the Accused  had   also   taken   the   education.   He   deposed   that   in   the  college, Accused was his senior and residing in the hostel.  He identified the Accused. He deposed that Accused  used  to talk of 'Jehad' and  provocative in connection with Gujrat  riots   and   taking   such   steps which   would  take  revenge of 


the same and about killing the people belonging to other  religion   who   have   killed   the   Muslims   and   to   cause   the  Bomb   explosion.   He   further   deposed   that   even   after  completing the studies, the Accused   used to contact him  over   the   phone.   In   cross   it   is   admitted   that   he   did   not  tendered   any   documentary   evidence   to   show   that   he  studied   in   the   Azam   Campus   and   was   residing   in   the  hostel.   There   appears   to   be   omission   in   his   police  statement   which   is   not  proved through  the    Investigating  officer, about his stay in the hostel. However, it has come in  the   cross   examination   that   he   was   doing   B.Ed   in   Azam  Campus   in   the   academic   year   2004­2005.   His   not  complaining to the Principal about the provocative talk by  the Accused  is not sufficient to doubt his testimony for the  reason that normally such things are not reported by the  friends or known persons, unless it becomes necessary. He  denied the suggestion that the Accused  was not talking in  the said manner.   The Accused   in the statement U/s.313  stated that this witness was his junior in the college. It is  submitted   by   Ld.   defence   Advocate   that   this   witness  admitted   that   he   do   not   know   the   meaning   of   Jehad.  Though   he   admitted   the   same,   he   categorically   deposed  about   the   manner     in   which   the   Accused     used   to   talk.  Being in the same college, Accused talking with him in that 


manner is not improbable.  Evidence of this witness is not  affected by the cross examination. 139]     P.W.94   is   the   same   witness   whose   bank  account   and   ATM   card   is   used   by   the   Accused.   In   his  evidence it has come that Mudatsir, Jabiuddin Ansari and  Dr. Sohail are the friends of Accused   and the person by  name Abu Jindal who is arrested by the Delhi police is the  same   person   by   name   Jabiuddin   Ansari.   He   further  deposed   that   he   saw   the   Accused   together   with   the   said  persons. It has come in his evidence that in the year 2006,  when   the   arms   and   ammunitions   were   seized   from   the  Aurangabad city, at that point of time his cousin brother  Ezaz   Abdul   and   Jabbiuddin   Ansari   had   absconded   and  Jabbiuddin Ansari was arrested in the said seizure of arms  and ammunitions. It has further come in his evidence that  when   he   attended   the   Durs   (Religious   discourse)   held   in  the year 2007 in Beed at the house of Burhan, that time  Accused,   Zakir,   Dr.   Atik,   Hafiz   and   other   persons   were  present and there was discussion about the atrocity on the  Muslims and about the incident of Babri Masjid and Gujrat  Riots and it was discussed that all should come together  and fight against the atrocity and the instructions in that  regard   were   given   by   Accused   and   others.   He   further  deposed that while he was residing with the Accused  they 


used   to   talk   about   atrocities   on   Muslims   and   on   the  aforementioned topic. It has further come in his evidence  that   when   he   and   the   Accused   were   returning   from  Hyderabad in March 2010, the Accused showed one video  clip from his mobile phone in which the people were seen  taking the training in Afghanistan and Accused said that  they   should   also   take   such   type   of   training.   In   cross  examination   he   deposed   that   Jehad   means   to   control  oneself and also means to fight back against the atrocities  on   religion.   It   is   suggested   that   since   this   witness   was  aware   about   the   incident   of   demolition   of   Babri   Masjid,  there   was   no   question   of   Accused     discussing   about   the  same.  It has come that Jabiuddin was the resident of Beed  and used to do electric work. It is submitted by Ld. defence  Advocate that in the evidence   of this witness it has come  that   he   along   with   the   Accused   went   to   Hyderabad   in  December   2009   and   they   came   back   to   Udgir   from  Hyderabad in March 2010 and so there is no question for  Accused   being in Pune in February 2010. Perusal of the  evidence of the witness do not show that from December  2009   till   March   2010   Accused   was   altogether   with   this  witness   in   Hyderabad.   In   the   cross   examination     of   this  witness   the   picture   gets   clear   wherein   the   witness   have  deposed that he do not remember the exact date on which 


the   Accused     had   come   to   Hyderabad   and   it   was   in   the  month   of   March.     This   goes   to   show   that   after   going   to  Hyderabad   in   December   2009,   Accused   came   back   and  again   went   to   Hyderabad   in   March   2010.  It   is   clearly  brought  in  the  cross  examination  that since this witness  had   no   place   of   his   own   at   Udgir   he   stayed   with   the  Accused. Being the person   staying with the Accused   for  considerable period  it is not unnatural that the said kind  of   talk   was   done   by   the   Accused.   It   is   submitted   by   Ld.  defence Advocate that merely because the Accused  knows  the persons named by this witness, do not make him as a  Accused. However, the evidence of these witnesses clearly  show     the   association   of   Accused   with   the   absconding  Accused   persons.   Further,   from   the   evidence   of   these  witnesses   it   becomes   clear   as   to   what   sort   of   talk   the  Accused   used to do repeatedly.    It is only brought by the  defence   that   Zaki,   Dr.   Sohail   and   Burhan   are   the  respectable   persons.   One   of   the   submission   of   the   Ld.  defence   Advocate   is   that   when   the   Accused     Jabbiuddin  Ansari,   Fayaz   Kagzi   and   Yasin   Bhatkal   are   wanted   since  long, how come they will be in touch with the Accused. It is  clear   from   the   evidence   of     Investigating   officer   that   the  aforesaid   Accused   persons   are   wanted.   To   be   absconding  means remaining away from the clutches of   police. That 


does not mean that the absconding Accused persons also  stop   meeting   each   other   or   their   activities.   The   cross  examination  do not create any  dent to the evidence of this  witness. 140]    P.W.95 is the witness  who knows the Accused  by name Yusuf. He deposed that he met the Accused   in  June or July 2007 at the Dars in Parbhani and thereafter  had the occasion to meet the Accused  in the year 2008 at  Aurangabad and  at that time the Accused   said that the  atrocities are being committed on Muslims and they should  do   Jehad   and   take   revenge   and   the   students   should   be  gathered   and   it   was   his   responsibility   to   give   training   to  them and in case the arms and ammunitions are required,  he can arrange for the same. He further deposed that on  telephone also Accused  used to talk of Jehad. It has come  in   his   evidence   that   since   the   Accused     used   to   talk   of  Jehad he started avoiding him. His evidence further show  that   when   in   the   year   2009   he   had   gone   to   the   Global  Internet  Cafe  at  Udgir,  the Accused   had introduced him  with the persons by name Sabir Patel, Rehan (P.W.94), Alif  and   Khurshid   Alam,   by   the   name   Salman   and   when   he  asked Accused the reason of introducing him by the name  Salman, Accused  told him that he was working for L.E.T in  which   the   real   name   is   not   to   be   disclosed.   He   further 


deposed that later on he learnt that L.E.T means Lashkar­ E­Taiba.   In   cross   examination   suggestion   is   given   that  when   he   was   introduced   to   others   by   the   Accused     as  Salman,   he   had   not   objected   and   to   this   suggestion   the  witness have stated that since the Accused  was known to  him,   he   kept   silent.   The   aspect   of   Accused     telling   him  about his working with L.E.T is the omission in his police  statement   which   is   not   proved   through   the   Investigating  officer   Not reporting  by this witness about the talk of the  Accused   to the police cannot be termed as unnatural as  normally   people   do   not   complain   against   the   known  persons about such talks. 141]    P.W.97 Mohammad Ansari is the native of Beed  which is also the native place of Accused. He deposed that  he   has   many   friends   in   Beed  including   the  Accused  and  once   Accused   introduced   him   with   his   friends   by   name  Fayaz   Kagzi   and   Jabbiuddin   Ansari.   He   deposed   that   in  May 2006, some boys from Beed were taken in custody in  connection   with   seizure   of   RDX   and   fire   arms   found   at  Aurangabad, and at that point of time, the Accused, Fayaz  Kagzi and Jabbiuddin Ansari were absconding from Beed.  He further deposed that Accused used to always talk about  Godhra   incident   of   Gujrath,   demolition   of   Babri   Masjid,  atrocities   on   Muslims   and   Jehad.   He   deposed   that 


according   to   Accused   the   word   Jehad   means   to   take  revenge.   In cross examination   it is reaffirmed that he is  native of Beed and the persons by name Fayyaj Kagzi and  Jabbiuddin Ansari are also the resident of Beed. He denied  the suggestion that no talk as aforesaid was being done by  the Accused   with him. Not knowing the   mobile numbers  of Accused  Himayat will not render his testimony doubtful. 142]     From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses it  is seen that they were all known to Accused by one way or  the other. From the evidence of all the aforesaid witnesses,  it is clear that the Accused  used to talk  provocative with  them. Nothing is brought by the defence as to why the said  witnesses will state false against Accused. According to Ld.  defence Advocate   Jehad is a religious word so using it by  the Accused is not wrong. How one interpret the meaning  of   word   is   upto   that   person.   Evidence   of   the   aforesaid  witness   show   that   the   word   Jehad   was   used   by   the  Accused in the sense of taking revenge. What is established  from the evidence of these witnesses is that the Accused is  having the extreme or dangerous opinion about the religion  and   revengeful   mindset   and   was   in   association   of   the  absconding Accused persons having criminal antecedents.   Thus,   this   circumstances   is   proved   by   the  prosecution  beyond reasonable doubt.



Going   to   Mumbai   on   the   ticket   booked   in   another's   name   and   residing   at   the   lodge   in   assumed   name   shortly before the incident.

  On   this   point   the   prosecution   is   relying   on   the  evidence   of   P.W.73   Abdul   Samad   Indori,   P.W.64   Gopal  Chamkure, P.W.67 Maniyar Ezaz Mehmood Jahami, P.W.60  Amit Veera and P.W.63 Mohammad Ali Gotekar.  143]       P.W.73   is   the   same   witness   doing   cloth  business   at   Udgir   and  who   knows   Accused   by   the  name  Yusuf Sir. For his cloth business he purchase the clothes  from Mumbai and travel to Mumbai by the bus of Priyanka  Travels from Latur which belong to his friend Ezaz Maniyar  (P.W.67). In his evidence he deposed that on 6 th  February,  2010 he had gone to Mumbai by the Priyanka Travels and  reached Mumbai in the morning on 7th February,2010 and  went   to   the   Al­noor   lodge   situated   at   Mohamadali   Road,  Crawford Market, Mumbai, where he stay put whenever he  go to Mumbai and after making the relevant entry in the  register   he   was   allotted   the   bed.   He   deposed   that   he  received the phone from the  Accused in between 11.00a.m.  to 12.00 noon asking him to book one ticket for Mumbai  and so he phoned Ezaz Maniyar (P.W.67) and asked him to  book   one   ticket   in  his name and told that  Accused   was  going  to  travel  on that ticket and he gave the number  of 


Accused  to said Ezaz Maniyar.  He further deposed that in  the   morning   of   8th  February,2010   he   went   to   receive   the  Accused     and   they   both   came   to   Al­noor   lodge   and     the  Accused   wrote   his   name   in   the   register.   The   witness  identified the entry at Exh.322 from the  register at article  35, as the entry in his name and identified the signature  at Exh.281  from the register at article 35, as that of the  Accused. In cross examination it has come that whenever  he   go   to   Mumbai   the   Munim   of   his   shop   manage   the  business. His going to Mumbai by Priyanka Travels is not  challenged. Not remembering  the amount paid for the bus  ticket by the witness is no reason to hold that  he had not  traveled as deposed. The witness had volunteered that, the  bus fare keep on fluctuating and no one keep the ticket for  so many days. It is confirmed that the tickets dated 6 th and  7th  February,   2010   were   booked   in   his   name.   He  volunteered that for the ticket dated 7th  February,2010 he  had given the number of Accused. It is brought that  about  12 hour's time is required for travel by the Bus from Latur  to   Mumbai   and   vice­a­versa.   Though   the   entry   in   the  register of Al­noor lodge is not in the handwriting of this  witness, the signature is made by him, as seen from the  cross examination.  He denied the suggestion that no ticket  was booked by him for the Accused and the Accused did 


not traveled on the ticket dtd. 07­02­2010.   144] P.W.64     is   the   panch   witness     in   whose 

presence the register at article 39 of the Priyanka Travels,  Latur   is   seized   under   the   panchnama.     This   witness   is  having the Pan stall in front of the  Priyanka Travels, Latur  and he was called by the Anti Terrorist Squad Police on  16­09­2010 at the said Priyanka Travels at about 8.30p.m.  and in his presence the Green colour register at article 39  was seized and kept in the packet upon which the label of  their (panchas) signature was put, under the panchnama  at   Exh.283.   He   identified   the   said   register   and   the  panchnama. It has come in his evidence that Ezaz Maniyar  (P.W.67)   was   present   at   that   time.  He   denied   that   the  panchnama   was   already   written   and   he   signed   at   the  instance of  police.  There is virtually nothing in the  cross  examination to doubt his testimony.  145]     P.W.67   is   the   owner   of   the   Priyanka   Travels  having it's office at Ashok hotel, Main Road, Latur. In his  evidence   he   deposed   that   from  his  said   Travel   office,   the  booking   for   journey   from   Latur   to   Bombay   and   Latur   to  Pune   is   done,   either   telephonically  or  personally  and  the  travel   bus   goes   to   Mumbai   from   Latur   every   night   at  10.00p.m.   and   it   takes   time   of   12   to   13  hours   to   reach  Mumbai.   He   further   deposed   that   the   same   bus   leaves 


Mumbai at 8.00 p.m. for Latur. It has come in his evidence  that Samad Indori (P.W.73) is his regular client. He deposed  that   on   16­09­2010   the   officer   from   the  Anti   Terrorist  Squad  had   come   for   inquiry   with   two   panchas  and   after  verifying the entries in the article 39   register, the officers  seized   the   register   under   the   panchnama.   He   identified  article 39 as the same register and deposed that the entry  dated 6th February, 2010 (article 39/1) and the entry dated  7th  February,   2010   (article   39/2)   were   in   the   name   of  Samad   Indori   (P.W.   73).   He   specifically   deposed   that  another person had traveled in place of Samad Indori (P.W.  73) on 7th February, 2010 because it  was not possible for a  person  to come back at Latur and again go to Mumbai on  7th  February, 2010. As regards the correction in the entry  dated 7th  February, 2010 he deposed that earlier the said  entry was in the name of another person and thereafter on  telephonic   instructions   from   Samad   Indori   (P.W.   73)   the  entry was made in his name. In cross examination it is not  disputed   that   he   is   running   the   Travel   business   and  deposed   that     the   identity   proof   of   the   traveler   is   not  verified   in   his   office.   Since   the     register   at   article   39   is  seized,   non   seizure   of   the   carbon   copy   of   ticket   is   not  material.   It   is   confirmed   that   Samad   Indori   (P.W.73)  traveled in his bus on many occasions and therefore, the 


omission   in   the   police   statement   that   P.W.   73   was   the  regular   customer   is   not   material.   This   shows   the  acquaintance of this witness with P.W.73. It is re­iterated  that P.W.73 had phoned from Mumbai on 7th February,2010  and booked the ticket for his friend.   It is confirmed that  P.W. 73 did not traveled by his travel bus on 7 th  February,  2010. He denied the suggestion that no tickets were booked  by   P.W.73   on   6th  and   7th  February,   2010   and   he   was  deposing   falsely.   The   evidence   of   this   witness   remained  unshattered in cross examination.  145]      P.W.60 is the panch witness for seizure of the  register   from   the   Al­noor   Guest   house,Crawford   Market,  Mumbai.   He   deposed   that   on   13­09­2010   in   between  4.15p.m. to 4.30p.m. when he was going from the Crawford  Market,   he   was   called   by   the   policemen   of  Anti   Terrorist  Squad for acting as a panch and accordingly  he went with  them to the Al­noor Guest house situated at the distance of  2­3   minutes   and   the   police   seized   the   register   from   the  Manager of the said Guest house. He identified the article  35 as the same register and the panchnama Exh.274 under  which it was seized. In cross examination he deposed that  he cannot say as to how many floors the said Guest house  was. Since this witness is only in respect of  seizure of the  register, it is not expected from him to know the floors of 


the Guest house unless he surveys the same and there is  nothing  to show  that  he had the occasion to go on each  floor of the Guest house. He also stated the name of the  Guest house Manager. There is nothing to show that he is  the   regular   panch   of   the   police.   From   his   evidence   the  seizure   of   register   from   the   Al­noor   Guest   house   is  established. 147]      P.W.63 is the Manager of said Al­noor Guest  house   and since he is residing in the Guest house he is  always available in the Guest house. He deposed that on  the   ground   floor   of   the   said   Guest   house,   there   is   a  dormitory,   having   30   beds   and   from   the   1 st  floor   till   3rd  floor, there are 24 rooms. He further deposed that after the  customer   comes   to   the   Guest   house,   his   complete  information   such   as   name,   address,   Phone   number,   ID  Card No., the place from where he had come and the place  where   he   is   supposed   to   go,   timing   of   his   arrival   and  signature   is   taken.   He   identified     article   35  as  the  same  register of the Al­noor Guest house which were seized by  the   police.   He   identified   Accused     as  the   same   customer  who had signed against the  Entry No. 1129 dtd.  08­02­2010 at Exh.281 appearing in the article 35 register.  In cross examination it is clearly stated by this witness that  initially   they   used   to   not   take   the   copy   of   I   Card   of   the 


customers. Therefore, it is obvious that the I Card number  is not mentioned against the entry at Exh.281. He admitted  that  number   of   customers  come  to  the Guest  house and  there is no reason to keep in mind the customers. However,  he volunteered that the mobile number is mentioned in the  entry.   He   clarified  that  if the customer  is not having the  proof of his identity, he is asked to bring the person who  knows him and in the present matter there was reference of  the customer from Latur by name Samad Indori (P.W.73).  Though he had not given the description of the customer in  his statement and he had no reason to keep in mind the  customer and that the  entry at Exh.281 was in the name  of   Mohammad   Yusuf   Mohammad   Issaq,   it   is   established  from the evidence of this witness that the said article 35  was the  register of the said Guest house maintained in the  regular course of business.  148]    Further, there is the evidence of  Handwriting  expert who is examined as P.W.76 to whom the documents  seized  in this  case  were sent for opinion. His evidence is  already   considered   and accepted.  His evidence show that  one of the document was the register at article 35 which is  of   the   said   Al­noor   Guest   house   and   the   signature   at  Exh.281 was marked as Q­20 and the  specimen signature  of the Accused was marked as A­13 to A­18 by him and  he 


gave the opinion vide report at Exh. 344   and  reasons  at  Exh.336     that,     they     are   written  by one and the same  person.   Further,   in   the   entry   at   Exh.   281   in   Article   35  which   is   the   register   of   Al­noor   Guest   house   and   in   the  entry marked as Article 39/2 in the Article 39 which is the  register   of   Priyanka   Travels,   the   same   mobile  number   i.e  8149308626, is mentioned which was found in possession  of the  Accused    at the time of arrest. From the   evidence  brought on record, the prosecution have clearly established  beyond reasonable doubt that  Accused     came to Mumbai  on 08­02­2010 on the  ticket booked by P.W.73 and checked  in  the Al­noor Guest House situated at Crawford Market,  Mumbai,   in   the   assumed   name   as   Yusuf.   The   Defence  remained unsuccessful in  making dent in the prosecution  evidence.  Thus, this circumstance is proved by the prosecution  beyond reasonable doubt.


Purchasing unaccounted mobile handset from    Mumbai,     shortly before the incident.  

        On   this   point   the   prosecution   is   relying   on   the 

evidence of  P.W.88 Mohommad Ilias Mansoori and P.W.102  Dinesh Kadam. 149]    P.W.88   is the owner of mobile phone shop. In  his evidence he deposed that he is in the business of selling 


new   and   old   mobile   phones   under   the   name   and   style  Goodluck   situated   at   Shop   No.35,   Manish   Market   M.R.A  Marg, Mumbai and his shop timings are from 12.00 noon  to 9.00p.m. It has come in his evidence that on 16­09­2010,  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  Police   had   come   for   inquiry   to   his  shop   in   respect   of   purchase   of   one   mobile   phone.   He  deposed   that   Accused   had   come   to   his   shop   at   about  2.00p.m. in the month of February,2010 and asked for old  Nokia mobile phone of 1100 model and as the said models  were   available   in   his   shop,   he   had   shown   them   to   the  Accused    and   after   checking   the   alarms   of   the   mobile  phones, he purchased one mobile phone for Rs. 750/­ and  left. He deposed that the police made inquiry with him in  that   regard   and   he   had   given   the   description   of   that  person. There is no dispute that   Accused  was not known  to this witness and therefore, the question of identifying the  Accused  assumes importance. His evidence shows that  he  was called to Yerawada Jail, Pune on 03­10­2010 for  Test  Identification   Parade  in   which   he   identified   Accused  amongst the nine persons who were standing in the queue.  He further deposed that after the Test Identification Parade  his   statement   was   recorded.   He   identified   the   letter   at  Exh.367,as the same which was given to him for coming to  the Test Identification Parade.Further, while giving evidence 


he   identified   the  Accused  as   the   same   person   who  purchased   the   aforesaid   model   of   mobile   phone   from   his  shop.   In  cross   examination    it   has   come   that   he   do   not  have the licence for his business and since last 10 years he  was   doing   the   business   in   Mumbai.   He   categorically  deposed   that   his   said   business   was   conducted  unauthorizedly. It has come in the cross that there is no  reason to keep in mind the description of each and every  customer   and   further   stated   that   if   the   customer   is   of  typical type or behavior, it is possible that his appearance  is captured in mind. He clarified that the dealership is for  the   new   phones   and   not   for   the   old   phones   and   so,   not  having dealership will not render his testimony unreliable  because it has come in his evidence that the  old models of  mobile phone were shown to the  Accused. Non issuing of  the receipt   or any document   is not sufficient to discard  his evidence because his evidence is found to be reliable.  The Accused  choosing the Manish Market to purchase the  mobile phone to see that the purchase transaction remains  unaccounted, is quite possible. In the cross examination it  has   come   that   it   was   8th  February   2010   when   the   said  mobile phone was sold by him. Since this date is brought  on record by the defence in cross, it cannot be said to be  the omission from his statement. It is already established 


by the prosecution that on 8th February 2010 Accused   was  in Mumbai. He denied that the Accused  was shown to him  in   the   office   of  Anti   Terrorist   Squad.   He   also   gave   the  position on which the Accused   was standing in queue at  the time of Test Identification Parade. Not remembering the  colour of clothes which the  Accused    was wearing cannot  be said to be fatal. 150]     The Test Identification Parade memorandum is  at   Exh.369.   It   is   admitted   in   evidence   pursuant   to   the  provisions of Sec.291A of  Cr.P.C  and  the defence had also  gave no objection for exhibiting the same. The  Ld. defence  Advocate cited the Judgment reported in  2012 All M.R.(Cri)  
3238 in which the Test Identification Parade was conducted 

in   breach   of   guidelines   and   no   weight   was   given   to   the  substantive evidence and the entire evidence of prosecution  in respect of identification of Accused  and identification of  stolen articles was found to be highly doubtful in nature. It  is   not   so   in   the   present   case.   Perusal   of   the  Test  Identification   Parade  memorandum   shows   that   it   was  conducted by the Tahsildar, Pune City in presence of two  panchas   and    the   same  is   held   as   per   the   prescribed  procedure.   It   is   needless   to   state   that   the   object   of  Test  Identification   Parade  is   to   lend   corroboration   to   the  identification of the Accused   by the witness in the court.


151]      This witness had given the description of the  Accused    to the police. It has come in his evidence that if  the customer is of typical type or behavior it is possible to  capture   his   appearance.   Though  cross   examined   by   the  defence,   his   testimony   remained   unshaken.   Nothing   is  shown that he had the reason to depose false. His evidence  shows that the phone was purchased in the afternoon and  the  Accused    sorted three mobile phones and checked the  alarms.   Therefore,   it   is   clear   that   the  Accused    must   be  present in the shop for sufficient time. It is not that this  witness had only a fleeting glance of the Accused. In such  circumstances,   this   witness   had  sufficient   opportunity   to  keep in mind the appearance of the  Accused.   Therefore,  the   identification   of   the   Accused   by   this   witness   do   not  create any doubt in mind  and is found to be trustworthy.  From the evidence of this witness, it is clearly established  by   the   prosecution   that   the   Accused     purchased   the  unaccounted   mobile   of   Nokia   1100   from   Manish   Market  Mumbai,   on   8th  February,2010   i.e   five   days   prior   to   the  incident. 152]     P.W.102     is   the  Police   Inspector    in   the  Anti  Terrorist   Squad  Mumbai.   He   is   the   officer   who   identified  wanted Accused  Yasin Bhatkal in the CCTV footage. In his  evidence   he   deposed   that   after   he   joined  Anti   Terrorist 


Squad  in   May   2010,   the   investigation   of  German   Bakery  was going on and considering his experience he was asked  to assist in the investigation. His evidence shows that the  Accused pointed the said shop of P.W.88 in Manish Market,  Mumbai as the place from where he purchased the mobile  phone and the shop in Sabu Siddiqui lane from where he  purchased   the   haversack   bag.   In   his   evidence,   the  Memorandum   panchnama   in   that   regard   is   brought   on  record   at   Exh.400.   Further,   the   copies   of  station   diary  entry    and   log   book   entry   in   connection   with   the   said  discovery are brought on record at Exh.401 and 402.  Only  after pointing out the shop by the Accused the statement of  P.W.88   was   recorded   and   so   it   is   not   that,   Police   were  knowing the shop of P.W.88 in advance. It is submitted by  Ld. defence Advocate that, this witness had no authority to  do the investigation in this case as he was not of the rank  of   Dy.S.P./A.C.P,   as   mandated   under   the   provisions   of  Unlawful Activities (Prevention)Act,1967. There is no dispute  about   the   said   provision.   However,   admittedly,   the   Chief  Investigation officer is P.W.103 who is the officer of the rank  which the Law mandates. This very aspect is deposed by  P.W.102   in  cross   examination.   There   is   nothing   to   show  that any prejudice is caused to the  Accused  in respect of  P.W.102 accompanying him at the time of pointing out the 


mobile   shop   from   where   he   had   purchased   the   mobile  phone   and   the   shop   from   where   he   had   purchased   the  haversack bag. In the crime of such a wide magnitude, the  Chief    Investigating officer  is bound to take the assistance  of  the other officers working under him. However, even if  this   part   of   investigation   in   respect   of   memorandum  panchnama     at   Exh.400   done   by   P.W.102   is   ignored   or  discarded,   the   evidence   of   P.W.88   is   quite   cogent   and  reliable   and   sufficient   to   establish   this   circumstance  against the Accused.  This   circumstance   is   proved   by   the   prosecution  beyond   reasonable   doubt.   This   circumstance   assumes  importance  and becomes  relevant   because mobile phone  is used as the triggering device to explode the Bomb at the  German Bakery.
8]  Use   of   mobile   phone   as   the   triggering   device   to   cause the  explosion at German Bakery 

To establish this circumstance the relevant evidence is  that   of   forensic   expert,  Investigating   officer,   report   from  National   Security   Guards,   P.W.98   Gopal   Atkare   and  P.W.100 Suhas Padwalkar.   153]       The   evidence   of   P.W.75,   who   is   the   Ballistic  Expert with robust experience in the field of Ballistic and  who   examined   several   cases   of   explosion   and   whose 


evidence is considered at the time of discussing Point No.1,  have answered the question put to him by the defence as to  how the Bomb can be exploded. He deposed that the Bomb  can be exploded only when it is stimulated by the external  energy   like   electrical   energy,   flame,   heat   or   friction.   He  stated that not necessarily heat can be caused by electrical  instrument and it depends on the type of Bomb supposed  to be initiated. In re­examination he deposed that in most  of the explosion cases, timer device has been used for the  purpose of explosion of improvised explosive device and in  number   of   cases   remote   control   device   is   also   used   for  initiation of improvised explosive device. 154]     P.W.98   Gopal   Atkare   is   another   witness   in  whose   presence   the   samples/articles   were   collected   from  the spot of incident  on 18­02­2010. He stated that he was  called   by   the   police   at  German   Bakery    Koregaon   Park,  Pune and   Colonel Man, P.W.99­Nadgauda, T Suresh and  Mr. Gopinath were present  and they lifted the articles from  the spot of incident and they were packed in plastic bags  and the seals of Panchas signatures were put on them. He  stated of drawing panchnama in that regard and identified  Exh.388 as the same panchnama. He identified the articles  63  (collectively)  which   consists   the   broken   piece   of   sim  card,   sim   metal   cover,   camera   view   cover,   mother   board 


chip,   mother   board   clip   ring,   metal   chips,   memory   card,  parts of circuit board, aluminum container part, back side  of   cell   phone,   piece   of   bag   chains,   mother   board   of   cell  phone,   cell   phone   connected   socket   wire,   metal   pieces,  piece of bag, 9 volt battery piece, 9 volt battery head pin,  container pieces, small  pieces of bag and pieces of canvass  as the same articles which were collected from the spot of  incident.     In   cross   examination   there   is   nothing   to   show  that  he was the regular panch of the Police or he was not  present   on   the   spot.   He   denied   the   suggestion   that   the  panchnama was written in the Bandgarden Police station.  The   evidence   of   this   witness   clearly   establishes   that   the  experts had visited the spot of incident and collected the  aforesaid   articles   for   examination.   The   evidence   of   this  panch witness    is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.99  Nadgauda   who   was   the   Sr.  Police   Inspector  of   the  Bandgarden Police station, as seen from para No.8 of his  evidence   and   the   evidence   of   P.W.103   who   is   the  Investigating   officer,   as   can   be   seen   from   para   10   of   his  evidence. 155]      It is submitted by Ld. defence Advocate that  two spot panchnamas are prepared in the present case and  twice the articles were collected from the spot as there was  no   need   to   do   so.   This   submission   is   misconceived.   The 


spot  panchnama    is   only  which  is  drawn  on 14­02­2010.  The   incident   is   such   that   everything   was   damaged   and  scattered   due   to   explosion.   In   such   a   situation   it   is   not  possible or easy to collect the samples from the spot in one  go. The samples required for the forensic examination are  normally collected by the experts and it is clear from the  evidence  of  the  panch  witness   and  the  officers that on 18­02­2010 the experts from outside Pune had come and  they   collected   the   samples.   Nothing   is   shown   by   the  defence that any prejudice was caused to the Accused   by  collecting the articles from the spot of incident  for second  time on 18­02­2010. Therefore, the said contention is liable  to be rejected. 156]     P.W.103,   the    Investigating   officer,   in   his  evidence   have  deposed that  on  18­02­2010, Colonel Man,  from the National Security Guards and Mr. Gopinath, from  the Hyderabad forensic science laboratory  visited the spot  of   incident   and   removed/collected   certain   articles   under  the panchnama at Exh.388 and they told that to cause the  Bomb   explosion  mobile   phone   is   used   as   a   triggering  instrument   and   9   volt   battery   is   also   used   and   in   the  articles which were collected by them were indication of the  same.   In   the  cross   examination  it   is   brought   that   the  statements   of     Colonel   Man   and   Mr.   Gopinath   were   not 


recorded.   They   being   not   the   witnesses   and   being   the  experts, recording of their statement is not at all necessary.  The suggestion that no mobile phone is used as a triggering  device  to cause the Bomb explosion is denied. Except this,  there   is   nothing   in   the  cross   examination  on   this   point.  Further,  the report issued by Colonel Man is brought on  record by the prosecution at Exh.425. Perusal of the same  shows that it is the official communication duly issued and  it is in respect of the  German Bakery  explosion. It bears  the   outward   number   and   the   date   of   issue   and   also   the  endorsement about it's receipt by the office of D.I.G,  Anti  Terrorist Squad, Pune. There is no slightest doubt about it's  authenticity. It is also not challenged by the defence. The  relevant   part   from   the   said   report   mentioned   under   the  caption   'Technical   assessment'   and   sub­caption  'Mechanism'  is reproduced below:­    f]       Mechanism­     Likely remote controlled (likely a   mobile phone) as only parts of the mobile phone have been   recovered   and   no   parts   of   any   other   initiating   mechanism   has   been   recovered.   Also   recovery   of   these   parts   from  the   crater clearly indicate that these parts belonged to the circuit   of   initiating   mechanism   which   on   detonation   has   pushed   these parts deep into the crater. Parts of the mobile phone   belonging   to   the   guests   cannot   be   pushed   into   the   crater,   hence   the   investigation   leads   to   the   possibility   of   use   of   mobile phone as initiating mechanism. 157]     P.W.100 Suraj Padvalkar is the witness having 


mobile   repairing   shop   in   the   Sagar   Archade,   Good   Luck  Square, Deccan, Pune. He is having the experience of 12  years in the work of repairing mobiles. His certificate about  completing the mobile repairing course successfully in first  class is placed on record at Exh.395. He deposed that he  was   having   knowledge   about   different   components   of  mobile   phones   and   as   requested   by   the  Anti   Terrorist  Squad  for identifying the component of mobile, he went to  the forensic science laboratory Pune where the half burnt  mobile   parts   were   kept   on   table   and   he   identified   one  plastic back cover of mobile phone of Nokia 1100 Model and  accordingly   informed   P.W.103   Mr.   Satav.   He   identified  article 63A which is the back cover of mobile phone as the  same back cover of Nokia 1100 model identified by him  at  that   time.   According   to   him,   the   Nokia   1100   model   was  having  torch   light,   battery  back up,  loud alarm  and  ring  tones.   It   would   not   be   out   of   place   to   mention   that   this  article 63A is from the article 63 which were collected from  the spot of incident on 18­02­2010.  In cross examination it  has come that the phone parts of different companies were  kept on the table in forensic science laboratory and it was  not written on article 63A that it was of Nokia 1100 model  nor there was any mark to show that it belonged to Nokia  company. Evidence  of this witness shows that by pointing 


the notches   of article 63A, this witness demonstrated by  showing the fresh piece/ back cover of fresh Nokia Mobile  and stated that it is identical to that of article 63A. In cross  examination it has been stated by this witness that on the  basis  of   notches   at  article 63A,  he is saying  that  it  is  of  Nokia 1100 model. From the cross examination it is seen  that there is no challenge to the experience of this witness  in the field of handling and repairing mobile phones. It is  not unnatural for any person to identify a particular object  on   the   basis   of   his   experience.   There   is   no   challenge   or  suggestion  in  the  cross  examination   that  the notches of  back   cover   of   all   the   mobile   phones,   irrespective   of   the  company  are identical. It is quite possible that on the basis  of   considerable   experience   at   his   command,   this   witness  identified article 63A as that of Nokia 1100 Model. There is  nothing to show that this witness was under the influence  of police or puppet in the hands of police. The evidence of  this   witness   is   very   natural   and   nothing   is   there   to  disbelieve   him.   His   evidence   that   the   backside   of   mobile  phone   at   article   63A   is   that   of   Nokia   1100   model,   is  accepted.  Thus,   this   circumstance   is   proved   by   prosecution  beyond reasonable doubt. 158]       From   the   above   evidence   and   material   on 


record,   it   becomes   crystal   clear   that   the   explosion   at  German Bakery  is caused by using the mobile phone as a  triggering device. In this fact situation or circumstance, the  purchase   of   mobile   phone   of   Nokia   1100   by   the   Accused  from   Mumbai   by   unaccounted   transaction   assumes  importance and become relevant. 
9] Keeping   the   Mobile   phones   with   others   in   Mumbai    and        Aurangabad, prior to the incident of explosion   at      German Bakery, to mislead the presence.

  It   is   already   seen   that   the  Accused    had   come   to 

Mumbai on 08­02­2010 on the travel ticket issued in the  name   of     Samad   Indori   (P.W.92)   and   checked­in   the     Al­ noor   Guest   House,Crawford   Market,   Mumbai   and  purchased   the   unaccounted   mobile   phone   from   Manish  Market,   Mumbai.   To   prove   that   the  Accused    kept   his  mobile phone in the custody of his friends the prosecution  is relying on the evidence of P.W.97 Mohammad Ansari and  P.W.95 Shakil Ahemad. 159]    P.W.97 is the same witness whose some part of  evidence   is   considered   in   the   circumstance     about   the  association of the  Accused  and the mind set. He is   from  Beed and resides in Mumbai. In his evidence he deposed  that   on   08­02­2010   Accused   gave   a   missed   call   on   his  mobile   phone   and   so,   he   called   him   back   and  Accused 


asked   him   to   come   at   hotel   Gulshan   Irani   situated   near  Manish Market, on M.R.A Marg, Mumbai and so, he went  there at 9.00p.m and the Accused  came to him in hurried  manner and gave two mobile phones to him and told him  that he had taken loan and people were troubling him for  the same and therefore, he was keeping his mobile phone  with him and told that he will take back the mobile phones  after  2­3 days. He further deposed that Accused   told him  to keep the mobile phones in operation mode. He further  deposed that thereafter on 11­02­2010 Accused came to his  room   and   took   back   his  mobile  phones  and  told  that  he  was going to Aurangabad and when asked him to stop as  the next day was holiday, the Accused told him that he was  having some urgent work and he was going to Aurangabad  and   so   he   accompanied   the  Accused  till   the   Bus   and  Accused     left   by   one   private   Luxury   Bus.   In   the  cross  examination    it  is  not   disputed that  this witness  is from  Beed and studied with the Accused  in same school. Since  the mobile phones were merely handed over by Accused   to  this witness, there is no reason for the witness to know or  keep in mind the mobile numbers of the Accused. It is not  expected   that   this   witness   should   know   as   to   where   the  Accused    had   stay   put   in   Mumbai   between   8th  and   11th  February, 2010 as his meeting with the Accused  was very 


brief just to hand over and take  back the mobile phones. It  is pertinent to note that the   entry   at   Exh.281 in   the  article   35   register   of   the Al­noor   Guest   house   shows  that     in     the     evening     of   08­02­2010   the  Accused    had  checked­out from the guest house. This go to show that the  Accused  left Mumbai in the night of 8 th February,2010. In  the   cross   it   is   brought   that   this   witness   accompanied  Accused  at Dadar to see him off, from where the Accused  had gone to Aurangabad and reached there in the morning  of   next   day   i.e   12­10­2010.   This   shows   that   the  Accused  had   again   come   to   Mumbai   and   collected   his   mobile  phones. The cross examination   have in fact given force or  backingto   the   prosecution's   case   that   on   11th  February,  2010 Accused left Mumbai by bus for Aurangabad. 160]    P.W.95 is the witness who got acquainted with  the  Accused    in the Dars (religious discourse) at Parbhani  in June/July 2007 and knows the Accused by name Yusuf.  Some part of his evidence is considered while dealing with  the   circumstance   of   the  Accused    residing   in   Udgir   by  assumed name. In his evidence it has come that he was in  contact with the Accused telephonically whenever Accused  used to come at Aurangabad. He deposed further that on  12­02­2010  Accused    came   to   Aurangabad   and   met   him  and told that he was required to return the money to some 


persons   and   the   said   persons   were   troubling   him   by  making phone calls and therefore, he wanted to keep his  two mobile phones with him and further asked him to keep  the mobile phones functioning and also told that in case  anyone   calls   on   the   mobile   phones,   he   should   tell   them  that he had gone out. He further deposed that the Accused  further   told   him   that   in   case   the   mobile   phone   received  missed call, he should call back on the said number and  tell that he had gone out and thereafter the Accused left. In  the cross examination it is brought on record that since the  Accused    came   to him  and requested to keep the mobile  phones he kept with him. Again, not knowing the mobile  number of Accused by this witness is quite natural because  the   mobile   phones   were     only   given   to   keep   with   this  witness.   Due   to   the   saving   of   mobile   numbers   in   mobile  phones people are not in the habit of keeping in mind the  mobile numbers of all the persons they know. In the cross  examination the aspect of the Accused  keeping his mobile  phones with this witness  is not seriously challenged. From  the evidence of this witness it is established that on 12­02­ 2010   the  Accused    had   come   to   him  at   Aurangabad  and  handed over his mobile phones to him and left. 161]      From the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses,  the prosecution have established that in Mumbai  Accused 


had   kept   his   mobile   phones   with   his   friend   P.W.97   and  from   there   he   came   to   Aurangabad   and   again   kept   his  mobile phones with his friend P.W.95, prior to the incident.  Thus,  this circumstance is proved by the prosecution  beyond  reasonable doubt.
10] Seen with the planter of Bomb in Pune shortly before    the explosion.      

         To prove   this circumstance the prosecution is relying  on the evidence of P.W.90 Ranjit More and P.W.93 Shivaji  Gaware. The crucial evidence is  that of P.W.93. 162]       P.W.90 is the witness who was present in the  German   Bakery    just   before   the    explosion,   with   his  girlfriend.   He   proved   to   be   lucky.   After   the  explosion  the  messages were flashed on the mobile phones and so this  witness went to the office of  Crime Branch  where he was  shown   the   CCTV   footage   of  German   Bakery  in   which   he  identified   himself,   his   girlfriend   and   the   person   carrying  two bags on his person and wearing a cap. It has come in  his evidence that  for placing the order he had gone to the  counter   of   the  German   Bakery    and  by   taking   the   order  came to the Bakda (Bench). He deposed that he remember  that   there   was   one   boy   standing   behind   him   near   the  counter and he was having two bags. To the question put to  him by the Ld. Spl.P.P as to how could he was able to keep 


the said person in mind, he deposed that before going to  the counter for placing order, he kept his bag on the Bakda  and he was wondering as to how that person had come to  place the  order along with two bags. While recording the  evidence this witness was shown the article 61 C D having  the relevant clippings of German Bakery  and hotel 'O' and  he   identified   himself   standing   alongwith   his   girlfriend   at  the counter   and behind him the boy wearing cap having  two bags on his person and identified the said boy going  outside the  German  Bakery   with only one bag. In  cross  examination  it   has   come   that   he   was   present   at   the  German   Bakery  for   30   to   35   minutes   and   the  Bomb  explosion  had   occurred   after   he   left.   This   much   time   is  sufficient to keep in mind the circumstance. The colour of  the cap which the said boy was wearing and the colour of  bags   which   the   said   boy   was   having   on   his   person   is  brought on record by the defence as light green cap, light  green bag and black bag. It is brought that in his statement  before the police he had not stated that after the boy left  German   Bakery,   he   was   having   only   one   bag.   The   same  cannot be termed as omission as the said aspect was told  by him only after viewing the CCTV footage and nowhere  claimed that he saw the said boy personally while leaving  with   one   bag.   There   is   absolutely   nothing   in   the  cross 


examination  to caste doubt on his credibility. His evidence  is corroborated by the CCTV footage which are recorded in  the regular course of functioning. 163]    P.W.93 is the Auto rickshaw driver who ply his  auto rickshaw in Pune city in the areas of Koregaon Park  where the German Bakery is situated, Pune Station, Camp  and Yerwada. In his evidence   he deposed that on 13­02­ 2010 at around 4.00p.m. when he was present in his auto  rickshaw   opposite   hotel   Sagar   near   the   Pune   Railway  station,   two   boys   out   of   which   one   was   tall   with   fair  complexion     and   wearing   cap   and   was   having   two   bags  hanging on his person, one in the front and the other on  the   back   side   and   the   other   boy   was   of   average   height  having normal complexion, had come to him and hired his  auto rickshaw for going to the Rajneesh Ashram in the area  of   Koregaon   Park   and   so,   he   carried   them   in   the   auto  rickshaw and after traveling at some distance the said two  boys asked him to stop the rickshaw near the Central Mall  and when he told that Koregaon Park was ahead they said  that   they   wanted   to   get   down   at   that   place   and   so   he  stopped his auto rickshaw and both of them  got down from  the Auto rickshaw and paid him the tariff. He identified the  Accused as the same person   who was accompanying the  person   wearing   cap   and   having   two   bags   on   his   person, 


who   traveled   in   his   auto   rickshaw   on13­02­2010.   While  recording   his   evidence   CD   at   article   61   having   relevant  CCTV footage from the  German Bakery  and hotel 'O'   was  shown   to   him   and   from   the   recording,   he   identified   the  person wearing cap and having  sack bags on his person as  the   same   person   to   whom   he   had   dropped   in   his   auto  rickshaw   with   Accused.   His   evidence   show   that   after  looking   to   the   news   item   having     the   photograph   of   one  suspect in the German Bakery Bomb explosion which was  published   in   the   newspaper   dated   25­05­2010,   he  remembered that the   person seen in the photograph was  the same to whom he had dropped in his auto rickshaw on  the day of explosion and so he went to the Police station on 27­05­2010   and   gave   the   information   and   the   police  recorded   his   statement.   His   evidence   further   show   that  pursuant to the letter at Exh.379 he was called at Yerwada  Central Prison for the purpose of Test Identification Parade  on 03­10­2010 and accordingly he went there and amongst  the   nine   persons   standing   in   one   line,   he   identified  Accused   as the same person to whom he had dropped in  his auto rickshaw  alongwith the person wearing cap and  carrying sack bags. In cross examination it is not disputed  that he is the rickshaw driver. It has come that during one  day he ferry  30 to 40 passengers in his auto rickshaw. It is 


true that normally   there   can be no reason for the auto  rickshawalas   to   keep   in   mind   the   identification   of   the  passengers.   However,   in  cross   examination  this   witness  deposed that in case any special thing happens, the face of  passenger   remains   in   memory.   It   has   also   come   in   the  cross examination that  the police had made the Appeal to  the   public   for   giving   information   in   connection   with   the  Bomb explosion. Therefore, his going to the Police station  after   seeing   the   photograph   of   the   suspect   in  German  Bakery  Blast  case,   printed in  newspaper  is quite natural  and probable. It has come in the cross that there is no auto  rickshaw stand in front of hotel Sagar which is situated in  front   of   Pune   Railway   station.   However   the   witness   have  deposed that the auto rickshaw do stand there for a minute  or   two.   It   is   common   knowledge   that   in   the   cities   and  particularly in big cities like Pune, the auto rickshaws halt  even at the places where there is no earmarked   rickshaw  stands. It is tried to be brought that there are more than  one   way   from   Pune   Railway   station   for   going   to   Rajnish  Ashram (Koregaon Park) and the  witness was asked as to  why he had taken the said two persons from another route.  To   this,   the   witness   deposed   that   there   is   no   much  difference   in   the   route   suggested   by   the   defence   and   the  root   by   which   he   had   taken   them.   It   is     usual   that   the 


autorickshawalas or taxiwalas  take the passengers to their  destination by the longer route to fetch more fare.  It is also  usual   and   normal   that   the   autorickshaw   walas   read   the  newspapers in the autorickshaws while at halt, therefore, it  is   quite   natural   that   this   witness   came   across   the   news  item   published   in   the   the   paper.   Non   seizure   of   the  newspaper which this witness read on 25­05­2010, by no  means is fatal for the prosecution as in any case, it would  not be admissible in evidence. This witness not going to the  Bandgarden Police station but, going to the   Anti Terrorist  Squad  office   is   also   not   strange   because   in   the  cross  examination itself it has come that the Appeal was made by  the police  to the public to give the information regarding  the  Bomb   explosion.   When   such   appeal   is   made   to   the  public   in   general   by   the   police   machinery,   the   contact  address   and   the   phone  numbers are also  published.     As  regards   going   to   the   police   station   after   two   days   after  seeing the  photograph in the newspaper,  the explanation  has   come   in   the   examination   in   chief   itself   where   he  deposed that since he could not gather the courage to go to  the police immediately on 25­05­2010, he went to the Police  on   27­05­2010   after   thinking.   He   denied   that   the  photograph of the Accused   was shown to him prior to the  Test Identification Parade. He denied that since he ply the 


auto   rickshaw   and   having   good   relations   with   police,   he  deposed at the instance of police. 164]        According to the defence, this P.W. 93 is the  got   up   witness.   Admittedly,   the   news   item   in   respect   of  German Bakery  explosion case with the photograph of the  suspect was published in the newspaper dated 25­05­2010.  The appearance given by this witness  in respect of  one of  the passengers amongst two, was wearing cap and having  two sack bags on his person which makes the appearance  remarkable and different from the  appearance of people we  generally see around  us. The said two passengers engaged  his rickshaw for going to Osho Ashram but, asked him to  drop them   before their destination and they got down at  Central   Mall.   The   time   at   which   he   dropped   the   said  passengers was the day time. While talking to them at the  time   of   hiring   the   auto   rickshaw   and   thereafter     taking  money   after   they   got   down   from   the   auto   rickshaw,   this  witness had the opportunity   to see   the facial features of  those passengers. All this clearly go to show that there was  no   fleeting  glance   of   the said passengers  by this witness  but he had the opportunity to see them properly. In these  Circumstances, his identification of the Accused creates no  doubt. His identification in the court is corroborated by the  previous identification in the Test Identification Parade. The 


Test   Identification   Parade  memorandum   is   already   on  record   at   Exh.369   and   while   considering   the   evidence   of  P.W.88 from whose shop the mobile phone is purchased by  Accused, it is observed that the  Test Identification Parade  was   held   in   accordance   with   the     guidelines.   Though  entitled   to   call   the   officer   who   had   conducted   the  Test  Identification Parade  for the purpose of  cross examination  under the provisions of Section 291A of  Cr.P.C, the same is  not   done   by   the   defence   and   so,  the  Test   Identification  Parade  memorandum remains unchallenged. Not showing  the   clippings   to   this   witness   at   the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  office when he had gone there after reading the newspaper  is not fatal because this witness had gone there only after  seeing   the   photograph   of   the   suspect   published   in   the  newspaper.   The   aspect   that   this   witness   ply   the   auto  rickshaw in the areas told by him in the examination­in­ chief  has   also   remained   unchallenged.   Further,   the  Accused    is arrested  much after   the date on which this  witness   had   gone   to   the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  office   and  gave   the   information   and   his   statement   was   recorded.  Therefore, the submission that P.W.93 is the got up witness  has no force. There is no reason for this witness to depose  false. Though cross examined by the defence, the evidence  of this witness has remained unshaken. The evidence   of 


this witness is accepted. 165]    P.W.103 Vinod Satav, who is the   Investigating  officer  of this case have also deposed that on 27­05­2010  P.W.93 had come to his office after the  news was published  in the newspaper dated 25­05­2010. While considering the  Point No.2, his evidence to the effect  that  separate clips of  the   CCTV   footage   of   hotel   'O'   and  German   Bakery    were  prepared and the relevant clippings were in article 61 CD is  already considered. The defence wanted to suggest as can  be seen from the  cross examination  of the witnesses that  since   there   was   the   wall   at   the   compound   of  German  Bakery  it   was   not   possible  that  the  persons  on  the road  would get captured in the CCTV Cameras of hotel 'O'. For  this, the evidence of P.W. 43 who was the I T Manager of  hotel 'O' (which is considered under the head authenticity  of the electronic record), is relevant. In his evidence it has  clearly come  that the  CCTV cameras installed at hotel 'O'  are having the capacity   to capture the image situated at  the distance of 100 fts and they are the Zoom in  cameras  and the said CCTV cameras cover the complete view of the  road and it covers one side of  German Bakery which has  the   rickshaw   stand.   Thus,the   said   submission   of   the  defence  melts down to insignificance.     166]      P.W.96 Shaikh Nazir is the witness from Udgir 


who know the Accused by name Hasan and got acquainted  with him  in October 2009. In his evidence he deposed that  at the instance of Accused   he had come to Pune on 31 st  January,   2010   to   attend   the   program     of   the   launch   of  party   by   name   Popular   Front   of   India   and     the   Accused  had left for some time and came back in the evening. The  evidence   of   this   witness   except   showing   that   he   was  knowing the Accused  by name Hasan, do not appear to be  material in  establishing the case of prosecution. In cross  examination he deposed that on 13­02­2010 he had gone to  Aurangabad   for   giving   the   examination   of   the   lab  technician which was to be held on 14­02­2010 and further  deposed that the Accused  met him in between 8.30p.m. to  9.30p.m. He further deposed that in between 5.00p.m. to  6.00p.m he  phoned the Accused   and Accused   told him  that he was in reception. He further deposed that the said  reception   was   at   Aurangabad   but   he   had   not   gone   there  and   further   deposed   that   he   had   gone   to   the   place   of  reception   but   the   reception   was   over.   From   this   cross  examination  it is submitted by Ld. defence Advocate that  on the day of explosion the Accused  was at Aurangabad in  reception and so, it is not possible that the Accused   had  come to Pune with the  absconding Accused  just before the  explosion.   If   the   cross   examination   of   this   witness   is 


considered, he does not appear to be reliable witness. The  phone   call   details   of   the   mobile   phones   used   by   the  Accused     are   on   record   at   Exh.355(collectively)   and  349(collectively).   Perusal   of   the   phone   call   details   at  Exh.355 do not show that there was any incoming call on  the phone in between 5.00p.m. to 6.00 p.m. on 13­02­2010.  Perusal of phone call details at Exh. 349(collectively) do not  show   any   call   either   outgoing   or   incoming   between  5.00p.m. to 6.00p.m on 13­02­2010. Therefore, had really  this witness phoned and talked to the Accused,there would  have   been   the   entry   of   incoming   call   in   the   phone   call  details. Absence of  such entry   in the phone call details,  falsifies the evidence of this witness. In such circumstances  the entire evidence of this witness should be discarded and  is discarded.  167]     From   the   evidence   of   P.W.102,   it   has   already  been   established   by   the   prosecution   that   the   person  wearing cap  seen entering the  German Bakery   with two  bags,  seen  at  the  counter  of  German Bakery  and leaving  German Bakery  with only one bag in the CCTV footage is  none   other   but,   absconding  Accused  Yasin   Bhatkal.  Through   the   evidence   of   P.W.90   and   P.W.101   it   is  established by the prosecution that the said relevant CCTV  footage in which Accused Yasin Bhatkal  is seen, is that of 


13­02­2010  and just prior to the    explosion. Through the  evidence of P.W.93 the prosecution have further established  that   the  Accused    was   seen   with   absconding  Accused  Yasin Bhatkal  in Pune shortly before the explosion.  Thus, this circumstance is proved by the prosecution  beyond reasonable doubt. 168]      It is submitted by  Ld. defence Advocate  that  there is no reason to cause the  explosion  at the  German  Bakery and if at all the Accused wanted to cause  explosion  they would have done it at the Central Mall where they got  down from the auto rickshaw. For this the answer lies in  the evidence of P.W.103 who is the   Investigating officer. It  has come in his evidence that the German Bakery  is in the  area of Koregaon Park, Pune and nearby there is a place for  offering   prayers   for   the   Jews   which   is   called   as   Chabad  House   and   nearby   there   is   a   Osho   Ashram   and   at   both  these places the foreigners come in large number who also  come to German Bakery. It is well known that in the malls,  no entry is given without security check and the  bags are  not permitted inside and therefore, such place would never  be selected by any one to commit such crime for the reason  that   they   would   be   caught   even   before   entering   the  premises. Admittedly German Bakery   is not the place like  mall   and   it   has   clearly   come   in   the   evidence   of   security 


guard who is examined as a witness, that they do not check  the belongings of the customers. For all these reasons it is  obvious that the German Bakery is selected as the target.  169]    It is further contended by Ld. defence Advocate  that   judicial   note   be   taken   of   the   aspect   that   the   DIG,  A.T.S, Pune Region had given the statement to the media  that the Accused had not come to Pune on 13­02­2010. In  cross examination   P.W.103 have deposed that he was not  aware that such statement was made by the then D.I.G Mr.  Ravindra   Kadam   to   Media.   He   denied   that   due   to   such  statement, he was transferred to Gadchiroli. The contention  of the Ld. defence Advocate is liable to be rejected firstly for  the reason that it is not such a aspect of which   judicial  notice   can   be   taken   and   secondly,   whether   the  Accused  had come to Pune on the said date is to be decided only on  the   basis   of   evidence   on   record   and   not   on   the   basis   of  media reporting.
11]  Accused looking tired in the night of 13­02­2010.

The   Prosecution's   further   case   is   that   after   the  explosion   the   Accused    had   collected   his   both   mobile  phones from his friend from Aurangabad and at that time  he was looking exhausted.  It is already discussed that the  Accused   had kept his mobile phones with P.W.95 Shakil  Ahemad   at   Aurangabad   on   12­02­2010   and   told   him   to 


keep his mobile phones in functioning mode and he should  call back in case the phone receives the miss call and also  to receive the phone calls and tell that he had gone out.   170]    Further, in his evidence P.W.95 deposed that in  between 10.00p.m. to 10.30p.m. Accused  came to him and  took   both   his   mobile   phones   and   at   that   time   he   was  appearing to be tired and when he asked the Accused  as to  why he was looking tired, Accused   told him that he had  come   traveling   on   the   bike   from   long   distance.   In   cross  examination he deposed that by the  S.T. bus the distance  between Pune and Aurangabad may be covered in 5 to 6  hour's   time   and   by   'Volvo'   the   time   of   4   hours   may  consume.   He   deposed   that since he had not traveled the  said distance by motorcycle, he cannot tell as to how much  time would be consumed in traveling between the said two  cities on bike. In cross it is brought on record that in the  police statement  he stated that the Accused  had come to  him   on   13­02­2010   at   about   10.00p.m.   From   this   cross  examination  it is firmly established that the  Accused  had  come to this witness for collecting his mobile phones in the  night   of   13­02­2010   between   10.00p.m.   to   10.30p.m.   He  denied the suggestion that the  Accused    had not come to  him for collecting the mobile phones.  171]     It is further submitted by Ld. defence Advocate 


that  the evidence of P.W.81 who is the Nodal officer of Tata  Docomo, shows that   in the evening of  13­02­2010, phone  call   was   made   from   the   mobile   used   by   the  Accused  (8149308626) and the phone call details show the location  as   the   Aurangabad   switch   and   so,   the   prosecution   case  gets demolished that the Accused  was in Pune on  13­02­2010.   In  cross   examination  of   P.W.81   it   is   brought  that from mobile No.8149308626, phone call was made on  mobile   No.9028131619   at   17.54.49   hrs.   from   the  Aurangabad switch. The said evidence of P.W.81 is based on  the  phone   call   details  at   Exh.355(collectively).   When   the  prosecution by examining P.W.95 have established that  the  Accused  had kept both his mobile phones with him on  12­02­2010 and they were taken back in between 10.00p.m.  to   10.30p.m.   on  13­02­2010,   the   record   of   phone   call  details is not sufficient to disprove the case of prosecution  that the  Accused    was not in Pune on 13­02­2010. It has  categorically   come   in   the   evidence   of   P.W.95   that   the  Accused  told him to receive the calls and also to call back  if   missed   calls   are   received   on   his   mobile   phones.     It   is  quite   possible   that     P.W.95     may   have   followed   the   said  instructions   given   by   the  Accused.   It   is  already  observed  above   that   the   evidence   of   P.W.95   remained   unaffected  though cross examined by the defence.


172]   From the evidence of P.W.95 it is established by  the   prosecution   that   the   Accused     had   come   to   him  between 10.00p.m. to 10.30p.m. on 13­02­2010 and at that  time he was looking tired and told him that he had come  from long distance on the motorcycle. When the distance  between Pune to Aurangabad  can be covered in 4 hours by  the Volvo bus, the said distance in all probability can be  covered in less than four hour's time by motorcycle. It has  already come while discussing point No.1 that the explosion  had occurred at the German Bakery in between 6.50p.m. to  7.00p.m   and   the  Accused  was   seen   with   the   wanted   co­ accused Yasin Bhatkal by autorickshawala (P.W.93) around  4.00p.m. Looking to these timings, evidence of this witness  further gets fortified. Thus,   the   prosecution   have   established   this  circumstance beyond reasonable doubt.
12]  Using sim cards issued in the name of other persons 

In   his   evidence   P.W.103,  Investigating   officer  have 

deposed that it was revealed that Accused used the identity  cards of different persons and obtained phone sim cards.  To establish this  circumstance, the prosecution is relying  on   the     evidence   of   P.W.86   Ajmat   Khan,   the   phone   call  details at Exhs.355 (collectively)  and  349 (collectively), the  panchnama  in respect of seizure of articles at the time of 


arrest of the Accused, the panchnama in respect of seizure  of     two   bags   belonging   to   the  Accused,   having   various  articles, P.W.82 Vanmala Avrale, P.W.83 Ramrao Nautakke,  P.W.84   Sanjay   Biradar,   P.W.85   Mukund   Kulkarni   and  P.W.89 Vilas Garibe. 173]    P.W.86 is the resident of Udgir having his shop  under   the   name   and   style   'Mobile   Campus'   in   the   Udgir  Nagar Parishad. According to him at the time of Christmas  festival in the year 2009, there was offer for   getting sim  card   of   Tata   Docomo   company   and   the   person   by   name  Sabir   Mamu   who   is   known   to   him   had   come   with   the  Accused to his shop and he was told  that Accused   was in  need of the sim card and so he gave one sim card alongwith  the form to them  and after half an hour, they brought the  form after filling it. This witness deposed that when he saw  the form, the information was filled in and the photograph  which was pasted on the form was not of  Accused and  so  he told Sabir Mamu about the same. He further deposed  that by keeping faith on Sabir Mamu, he accepted the form.  This   witness   identified   Accused   as   the  same   person   who  accompanied Sabir Mamu to his shop and submitted the  sim   card   application   form   having   photograph   of   different  person. He further deposed that on 10­09­2010 the police  had come for inquiry in respect of the  sim card alongwith 


the Xerox copy of the Application form, meant for getting  the   sim   card   and   the   said   form   was   of   Tata   Docomo  company   having   the   stamp   of   his   shop.   In  cross  examination  it   is   not   disputed   that  he   was   doing   the  business   of   sim   card.   It   is   well   known   that   the   service  providers  introduce the schemes for selling the sim card of  their   company   to   the   public   through   the     regular   shop  keepers/ traders.  Since the Application form submitted by  the   customer   contains   the   required   information   and   also  the photograph,  it is  not unnatural that this witness did  not maintained the register in respect of giving sim cards to  the customers. It has come that he was not knowing the  Accused but since Sabir Mamu was with the  Accused, he  gave the sim card and accepted the form. Many a times by  keeping faith on the known persons, the transactions are  done with the persons who are not known. In cross it has  clearly come that since last many years this witness was  knowing Sabir Mamu. It has also come in the evidence of  this  witness that he had seen the Accused in the  Global  Internet Cafe. The cross examination  done by the defence  could not affect the evidence of this witness given for the  prosecution.   From   this   witness   the   prosecution   have  established that he had given the sim card of Tata Docomo  company   to   the   Accused     by   accepting   the   Customer 


Application   form   having   photograph   and   information   of  different person. It is pertinent to note that at the time of  arrest of Accused  and his personal search, the sim card of  Tata Docomo company is seized and the phone call details  of the same are at Exh.355(collectively), which shows that  the said sim card was registered in the name of Mukund B  Kulkarni (P.W.85). 174]           The   said   Mukund   B   Kulkarni   is   also  examined  by the prosecution as P.W.85. He deposed that  on 29­10­2010 the Police had come to him for inquiry in  respect   of   sim   card   issued   in   his   name   but,   used   by  another   person   and   the   police   pointed   the   copy   of  Application form  having his name and information, meant  for sim card of Tata Docomo company and Xerox copy of his  election   card.     He   deposed   that   he   never   filled   the  Application form for getting the sim card of Tata Docomo  company and never gave his photograph and xerox copy of  election card to any person. He deposed that he was not  aware as to how the same had come in possession of police.  In  cross   examination  it   has   come   that   in   his   statement  before police he had stated that he had given his election  card to his brother Mahesh for getting the xerox copy. His  evidence that he never filled the customer Application form  for getting the sim card of Tata Docomo company remained 


undisturbed. 175]     P.W.82 is the resident of Udgir and in the year  2010 as she wanted to purchase the mobile phone for her  father, she had gone to the  shop by name 'Mobile Campus'  situated   in   the   Nagar   Parishad,  Udgir  and submitted the  election I card and photo of her father. She deposed that  the   sim   card   which   was   provided   to   her   did   not   started  functioning and so, she had gone to the said shop where  she was told that it will start working in 2­3 days and when  thereafter she went to the shop because the sim card did  not started working, she was told that there was theft in  the shop and   she did not received the election I card and  photo of her father. Her evidence shows that on 26­09­2010  the Anti Terrorist Squad officer went to her for inquiry and  pointed the Xerox copy of her father's election I card. She  identified     article   31/3   as   the   same   Xerox   copy   of   her  election I card. In the panchnama at Exh.264 in respect of  seizure   of   various   documents   from   the   bag   belonging   to  Accused, at Sr. No.49 there is a reference about seizure of  this article 31/3. Her evidence further shows that she was  confronted with P.W.86 Ajmat Khan and she identified him  as the shop keeper from where she got the sim card. Thus,  her   evidence   becomes   relevant.   Cross  examination   shows  that   she did not reported to the police against the shop 


keeper.     It   appears   that     for   the   first   time   she   deposed  about the theft in the said shop.  Her evidence about going  to the mobile shop and submitting the  election I card and  photo of her father for getting the sim card is not  affected  by the  cross examination. Not reporting the matter to the  police against the shop keeper can be no reason to discard  her evidence.  176]      P.W.83  is the agricultural Supervisor  and in  connection with his work he was required to go at Udgir.  His Pan card was lost  and since he came to know that Pan  card   was   made   available   at   the   'Global   Internet',   Udyog  Bhavan Nagar Parishad, Udgir he went there and paid Rs.250/­, and submitted the passport size photo and xerox  of election I card for the purpose of getting Pan card issued  in his name. It has come that he was told by the person  called Najeeb who was present there to come after 10 to 12  days and when he had gone to collect his Pan card, he was  told that   it would be ready in 4 to 5 days and when he  again went there to collect the same, the said person was  not there. He deposed that on 26­09­2010 the Anti Terrorist  Squad Police came to him for inquiry and showed the xerox  copy of his I Card and he identified the same. He deposed  that article 31/4 was the same xerox copy of his election I  card. In the panchnama at Exh.264 in respect of seizure of 


various documents from the bag belonging to  Accused, at  Sr.No.52  there  is a reference about seizure of this article  31/4.Thus,   evidence   of   this  witness  becomes  relevant.   In  cross   examination   he   stated   that   he   did   not   lodge   the  complaint with the police in respect of missing of the Pan  card.  The  only omission in his statement is in respect of  the name Global. It has come that no receipt was issued to  him for payment of Rs. 250/­ at the Global Internet. Not  lodging the complaint for not getting the Pan card from the  internet   cafe   is   not   strange   or   unnatural   because   the  amount paid by him was very small.  177]   P.W.84 is the Library Asst. residing at Udgir. In  September,   2009   he   decided   to   get   the  Pan   card   and   for  that purpose visited the  Global Internet  situated in Nagar  Parishad,   Udgir   since   he   came   across   the   advertisement  published in that regard. There he paid Rs. 200/­ and gave  the  xerox  copy  of   election  I  card and  one  photograph  for  getting the Pan card. However, he did not receive the Pan  card.   He   identified   the  Accused    as   one   of   the   person  present in the said Internet cafe. He deposed that on  26­09­2010   the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  police   had   come   to  him for inquiry and showed the Xerox copy of his election I  card and he identified the same which he had submitted in  the   said   Internet   Cafe.   He   identified   article   31/5   as   the 


copy of his election I card. In the panchnama at Exh.264 in  respect   of   seizure   of   various   documents   from   the   bag  belonging   to  Accused,   at   Sr.   No.51   there   is   a   reference  about   seizure   of   this   article   31/5.He   deposed   that   his  photograph and xerox copy of his election I card which he  had submitted in the said  Global Internet Cafe  may have  been misused. Thus, the evidence of this witness becomes  relevant. In cross he deposed that no receipt was taken by  him towards the payment of Rs. 200/­ made at the Internet  Cafe.   Since the amount paid by him was not much, not  lodging   the   complaint   against   the   internet   cafe   is   not  unnatural.   He   admitted   that   he   had   no   transaction   with  Accused. Not remembering the date on which he had given  money, xerox copy of election I card and photograph in the  internet cafe, is natural.  178]     From   the   above   evidence   it   is   clearly 

established by the prosecution that the documents which  the aforesaid witnesses had submitted for getting the sim  card or Pan card were found from the bag belonging to the  Accused   which   were   seized   by   the   police   under   the  panchnama at Exh.264. This cannot be a co incident that  the documents of the all  said witnesses were found in the  bag belonging to the Accused.  It has already  come in the  circumstance No.1 that Accused   was having the Internet 


Cafe at Udgir by the name 'Global Internet Cafe'   Evidence  of all the aforesaid witnesses becomes relevant. There is no  explanation   by   the  Accused    in   this   regard.   The   only  irresistible   conclusion   which  comes  out  is that  the xerox  copy of documents of the said witnesses were retained by  the Accused  for obtaining various sim cards. This   circumstance   is   proved   by   the   prosecution  beyond reasonable doubt.

12]    Having in possession the forged documents. 

Further,   it   is   deposed   by  P.W.103,   the    Investigating  officer  that the documents such as certificate of handicap  person, caste certificate, ration card, certificate of residence  and  driving   licence   which   were   found   in   one   of   the   bag  belonging to the Accused   were sent for verification to the  concerned agencies and the said documents were found to  be forged. The panchnama in respect of seizure of various  documents from the bags belonging to the  Accused    is at  Exh.264 and  perusal of the same shows that the aforesaid  documents were found in one of the bag belonging to the  Accused,   seized   from   P.W.   92   Shaikh   Gaus,   in   whose  tutorials   the  Accused    was   teaching.There   is   evidence   of  two   panch   witnesses   P.W.   57   Abhijit   Dalvi   and   P.W.   59  Mobin   Shaikh   to   show   that   the   documents   which   were 


seized from one of the bag belonging to the  Accused    and  kept   separately   in   envelopes,   were   opened   in   presence   of  these  panch   witnesses.   The   evidence   P.W.57   shows   that  four   packets   were   opened   in   his   presence   under   the  Panchnama at Exh.266 and the evidence of P.W.59 shows  that   one   packet   was   opened   in   his   presence   under   the  Panchnama   at   Exh.277.   Both   the   said  panch   witnesses  identified the Panchnamas and the documents. If the cross  examination  of these  panch witnesses is seen, nothing is  there   to  show   that   they  were the  regular   panchas  of  the  police.   Prosecution   evidence   cannot   be   discarded   merely  because all the packets were not opened at the same time. To   establish   this   circumstance,   the     prosecution   is  relying   on   the   evidence   of   P.W.61   Renukadas   Dhanorkar,  P.W.62   Mahesh  Deshmukh, P.W.65 Prabhoday Mulay and  P.W.66 Vyankati Nilawad. 179]       P.W.61   is the Superintendent, Social Welfare  Department, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. From his department  the  I Card is issued  for physically handicap persons and  the register in that regard is maintained in regular course  of   business   in   their   office.   The   article   31/1   blue   colour  Identity card  was  sent to him for verification by the  Anti  Terrorist   Squad  vide   letter   at   article   37   and   after  verification he submitted the letter at Exh.276 to the  Anti 


Terrorist Squad  stating that the said article 31/1 was not  issued by their office and the stamp and the signatures on  the same did not   match with the record of their office. In  the panchnama at Exh.264 in respect of seizure of various  documents from the bag belonging to Accused, at Sr. No.46  there   is   reference   about   seizure   of   this   article   31/1.Non  seizure   of   the   register   from   their   office   is   of   no  consequence. Cross examination of this witness could not  affect his evidence.   180]   P.W.62   is the Inspector of Motor vehicle, RTO  Ambejogai   and   the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad    made   inquiry  about   the   Blank   Forms   meant   for   issuing   the   driving  licence having the stamp of Deputy RTO, Ambejogai. This  witness verified the stamps on the said Blank forms which  are article 31/2 and found that the stamps did not match  with the stamps of their office and accordingly he informed  the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  by   a   letter   at   Exh.279.     In   the  panchnama   at   Exh.264   in   respect   of   seizure   of   various  documents from the bag belonging to Accused, at Sr. No.55  there is a reference about seizure of this article 31/2. In  cross he denied that the printed forms for getting licence  are   supplied   by   putting   the   stamp   of   their   office.   He  admitted that Blank form is of no use. Though this witness  have   not   taken   the   training   for   making   the   stamps   he 


stated that by working daily in the office he can make out  the difference between the stamp of their office and other  stamps. From the evidence of this witness it is established  that the stamps on the blank forms of RTO at article 31/2  are not genuine. 181]    P.W.65  is the Tahsildar of Beed since  24­09­2010. In December 2010 he received two letters from  the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  Pune   inquiring   about   the   caste  certificate   of  Accused  and   about   the   Xerox   copy   of   one  Ration card.  This  witness verified the genuineness of the  said documents from his office record and found that both  the said documents were not issued by their office as there  was  no  entry  in  their office record in respect of the said  documents.   He   informed   the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  accordingly   by   letters   at   Exh.285   and   286.   The   caste  certificate is at article 28/1 and the xerox copy of Ration  card is at article 28/2 which are referred in the panchnama  at Exh.264 in respect of seizure of various documents from  the bag belonging to Accused. At Sr. No.1 and 26 there is a  reference   about   seizure of  these  two articles.  In cross he  stated that no complaint of misuse of said caste certificate  was received by their office. From  cross examination  it is  seen that on the said ration card the ration was taken from  the ration shop No.26, situated at Juna Bazar, Beed. Non 


seizure   of   the   stamp   of   the   office   of   this   witness,   is   not  necessary as the verification of the documents was to be  done on the basis of office record. He denied that the ration  card was genuine. From the evidence of this witness it is  established that the caste certificate issued in the name of  Accused     and the ration card issued in the name   of his  family   are not issued by their office. Merely because the  ration   is   taken   on   the   false   document,   the   same   do   not  become genuine. 182]   P.W.66 is the Chief officer of Municipal Council,  Beed. The Domicile certificate is issued from his office. The  Anti   Terrorist   Squad  inquired   from   his   office   about   the  Domicile certificate at article 28/3 and after verifying the  office   record,   he   informed   by   letter   at   Exh.290,   that   the  said Domicile certificate was not issued by the Municipal  Council Beed.  In the panchnama at Exh.264 in respect of  seizure   of   various   documents   from   the   bag   belonging   to  Accused, at Sr. No.25 there is a reference about seizure of  this   article.   In  cross   examination  he   stated   that   no  complaint   was   received   by   their   office   in   respect   of   said  Domicile   certificate.   Non   seizure   of   register   of   his   office  would not affect his evidence since he informed in writing  about the genuineness of the said Domicile certificate and  being the Government officer, there is no reason for him to 


state   false.   From   the   evidence   of   this   witness   it   is  established   that   the   Domicile   certificate   at   article   28/3  found in the bag of Accused  was the false document. 183]      It is submitted by  Ld. defence Advocate  that  there   is   no   evidence   that   the   forged   documents   were  prepared   by   the  Accused    within   the   jurisdiction   of   this  court and therefore, in view of provisions of Section 177 of 
Cr.P.C  he cannot be tried for the offence of forgery. As per 

the said Section,  every offence shall ordinarily be inquired   into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it   was   committed.  This   contention   was   also   raised   by   the  defence at the time of framing Charge and the same was  considered in the light of decision of the Honourable Apex  Court   in   the   case   of  Purushottamdas   V/s.   State   of   West   Bengal, reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1589,  though  the   said   observations   pertains   to   the   old   Cr.P.C  (1898),  wherein it is observed that,  the Court having jurisdiction to   try the offence of conspiracy has also jurisdiction to try an   offence constituted by the overt acts which are committed in   pursuance   of   the   conspiracy   beyond   it's   jurisdiction.   It   is   further observed that Section 177 simply says that ordinarily   every   offence   would   be   tried   by   a   Court   within   the   local   limits of whose jurisdiction it was committed. It does not say   that   it   would   be   tried   by   such   Court   except   in   the   cases  


mentioned   in   Sections   179   to   185   and   188   or   in   cases   specially provided by any other provisions of Law. It leaves   the place of trial open. Its provisions are not peremptory. 184]     Admittedly,   the false documents are  found in  the bag belonging to the Accused.  simply because the date  on the said false documents  is prior to the date of offence  it cannot be  conclusively said that they were forged on that  date   only   and   at   the   place  mentioned  in  the  documents.  Document   can   be   forged   today   by   putting   previous   date.  The evidence on record have established that  the Accused  had   kept   with   himself   the   false   documents.   Hence   the  submission is rejected.  185]   From the evidence of all the aforesaid witnesses  it is   crystal clear that the  Accused    was having the false  documents in his possession and he had kept them in his  bag   which   was   seized   by the  police  from  P.W.  92 Shaikh  Gaus   under   the   panchnama   at   Exh.264.   Except   denial  there   is   no   explanation   from  the  Accused    as  to   how   he  came   in   possession   of   the   said   false   documents.   It   is  submitted by Ld. defence Advocate that the prosecution did  not send the said documents to the handwriting expert.  In  view   of   the   evidence   given   by   the   various   government  officers in respect of the said documents, not sending the  documents to handwriting expert is immaterial. 


  Thus, this circumstance is proved by the prosecution  beyond reasonable doubt.  186]       The   prosecution,   by   laying   cogent   evidence,  have   established   that   the   Accused   stayed   in   Udgir   in  assumed   names,   explosive   substance   was   found   in  possession of the Accused, the Accused  operated the bank  account   of   another   person,   the   Accused   visited   Colombo  and thereafter substantial amount came to be deposited in  the   bank   account   operated   by   him,   the   Accused   was   in  association   with   the   absconding   Accused   and   he   was  influenced by the ideology of terrorism, the Accused  went  to Mumbai on the bus ticket booked in another's name and  resided in the lodge at Mumbai in assumed name shortly  before   the   incident,   the   Accused   purchased   unaccounted  mobile  handset from Mumbai shortly before the incident,  the use of mobile phone as the triggering device in causing  the explosion at the German Bakery, the Accused  keeping  his mobile phones with others in Mumbai and Aurangabad  shortly   before   the   explosion   at   the  German   Bakery  to  mislead   his   presence,   the   Accused   seen   with   the  absconding  Accused   No.1  Yasin   Bhatkal   who   planted   the  explosive   in   the  German   Bakery   shortly   before   the  explosion, the tired appearance of the Accused  in the night  of   13­02­2010,   i.e   the   date   on   which   the   explosion   took 


place at German Bakery, the Accused  used the mobile sim  cards issued in the name of other persons and the Accused  possessing the forged documents. All the circumstances are  proved beyond reasonable doubt. Though the defence had  cross examined the witnesses, nothing material is brought  on   record   to   discard   the   above   circumstances.   Taken  together,   all   the   circumstances   becomes   relevant   to  establish the involvement of Accused  in the crime.


187]    One of the primary Charge against the Accused  is   that   of   Conspiracy.   Section   120(B)   of   I.P.C   is   the  provision   which   provides   for   punishment   for   Criminal  conspiracy.   Definition   of   Criminal   Conspiracy   is   given   in  Section 120(A) of I.P.C which reads thus: When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be   done 1]  an illegal act, or 2] an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an   agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. Provided   that   no   agreement   except   an   agreement   to   commit   an   offence   shall   amount   to   a   criminal   conspiracy   unless some act  besides the agreement  is done  by one or   more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. The   Law   in   respect   of   the   evidence   required   to  establish the offence of conspiracy is well settled.  It would  be   proper   to   refer   some   of   the   Judgments   of   the 


Honourable Apex Court in that regard.         Mohammad Khalid V/s. State of Bengal, (2002)7   S.C.C 334.  In para 17 it is observed thus:  ................   Law   making   conspiracy   a   crime,   is   design   to   curb   immoderate   power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the   means.   The   encouragement   and   support   which   co­ conspirator   gives   to   one   another   rendering   enterprises   possible which, if left to individual efforts would have been   impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and   abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held to   be continued and renewed as to all it's members where ever   and   whenever   any   member   of   the   conspiracy   acts   in   furtherance of the common design. For an offence punishable   under   section   120   (B),   prosecution   need   not   necessarily   prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or caused   to   be   done   illegal   act,   the   agreement   may   be   proved   by   necessary implication...............  In para 18 it is observed thus: “  No doubt in case of conspiracy there cannot be any   direct   evidence.   The   ingredients   of   offence   are   that   there   should be an agreement between persons who have alleged   to conspire and the said agreements should be for doing an   illegal act or for doing illegal means an act which itself may   not be illegal, therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is   an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can   be   proved   either   by   direct   evidence   or   by   circumstantial   evidence or by both and it is a  matter of common experience   that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely availalble,   therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after   the   occurrence   have   to   be   considered   to   decide   about   the     complicity of the   Accused.    
In para 21 it is observed thus:

Privacy   and   secrecy   are   more   characteristics   of   a   conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place   open to public view, Direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy   is seldom available, offence of conspiracy can be proved by  


either   direct   or   circumstantial   evidence.   It   is   not   always   possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the   formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons who   took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object,   with   the   objectors   set   before   themselves   as   the   object   of   conspiracy,   and   about   the   manner   in   which   the   object   of   conspiracy   is   to   be   carried   out,   all   this   is   necessarily   a   matter of inference.” In   the     case   of   State  N.C.T.   of   Delhi   V/s.   Navjyot  
Sandhu,  reported   in  2005   (11)   S.C.C.   600  the   Law   on  conspiracy   is   considered.   The   relevant   paragraphs   are  reproduced below. 

In Yashpal Mittal V/s. State of Punjab ( 1977 (4) SCC   540).   Goswami   J   speaking   for   a   three­Judges   Bench   analysed the legal position relating to criminal conspiracy. At   pages 610­611, the Learned Judge observed that  “ the very   agreement,   the   concert   of   league   is   the   ingredient   of   the   offence”   and   that   “it   is   not   necessary   that   all   the   conspirators   must   know   each   and   every   detail   of   the   conspiracy”. It was then observed that  “ there must be unity   of   object   or   purpose   but   there   may   be   plurality  of   means,   sometimes   even   unknown   to   one   another   amongst   the   conspirators”.   Dr.  Sri   Hari   Singh   Gour   in   his   well   known   'Commentary on Penal Law of India' (Vol. 2, 11th  Edn. Page   1138) summed up the legal position in the following words: “In order to constitute a single general conspiracy there   must   be   a   common   design.   Each   conspirator   plays   his   separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve   the common purpose. Each one is aware that he has a part   to play in a general conspiracy though he may not know all   it's secrets or the means by which the common purpose is to   be   accomplished.   The   evil   scheme   may   be   promoted   by   a  


few, some may drop out and some may join at a later stage,   but,   the   conspiracy   continues   until   it   is   broken   up.   The   conspiracy may develop in successive stages. There may be   general   plan   to   accomplish     the   common   design   by   such   means as may from time to time be found expedient.  Mostly,   the   conspiracies   are   proved   by   the   circumstantial evidence, as the conspiracy is seldom an open   affair. Usually both the existence of the conspiracy and it's   objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the   conduct   of   the   accused   (Per   Wadhwa   J   in   Nalini's   case   (supra)   at   page   516).  The   well   known   rule   governing   circumstantial evidence is that each and every incriminating   circumstance   must   be   clearly   established   by   reliable   evidence and “the circumstances proved must form a chain   of events from which the only irresistible conclusion about   the guilt of the accused can be safely drawn and no other   hypothesis   against   the   guilt   is   possible.”   G.N.Roy   J.   in   Tanibeeri Pankaj Kumar (1997 (7) SCC 665), observed that   this Court should not allow the suspicion to take the place of   legal proof. As pointed out by Fazal Ali J in V.C Shukla V/s   State (1980 (2) SCC 665) “ in most cases it will be difficult to   get direct evidence of the agreement, but a conspiracy can be   inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive   or   irresistible   inference   of   an   agreement     between   two   or   more   persons   to   commit   an   offence”.   In   this   context,   the   observations in the case Noor Mohammad Yusuf Momin V/s.   State of Maharashtra ( AIR 1971 SC 885) are worth nothing. “In most cases proof of conspiracy is largely inferential   though   the   inference   must   be   founded   on   solid   facts.   Surrounding circumstances and antecedent and subsequent   conduct, among other factors constitute relevant material.” A   few   bits   here   and   a   few   bits   there   on   which   the   prosecution   relies   cannot   be   held   to   be   adequate   for   connecting the accused in the offence of criminal conspiracy.  


The   circumstances   before,   during   and   after   the   occurrence   can be proved to decide about the complicity of the accused. (vide Esher Singh V/s State of A.P.2004(1) SCC 585) One   more   principle   which   deserves   notice   is   that   cumulative   effect   of   the   proved   circumstances   should   be   taken into   account in determining the guilt of the accused   rather   than   adopting   an   isolated   approach   to   each   of   the   circumstances.   Of   course,   each     one   of   the   circumstances   should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Lastly, in regard   to   the   appreciation   of   evidence   relating   to   conspiracy,   the   Court must take care to see that the acts or conduct of  the   parties   must   be   conscious   and   clear   enough   to   infer   their   concurrence as to the common design and its execution.” 188]     The  Ld.  defence Advocate  cited the   following  rulings   on   the   point   of   circumstantial   evidence   and  conspiracy.  State   of   U.P.   V/s.   Sukhbasi,   A.I.R   1985   S.C.  
1224. In that case it is observed that, 

“there   was   no   iota   of   evidence   to   establish   that   the   three   Accused    prior   to   the   commission   of   the   offences   had   conspired together with the  Accused    Ashokkumar and got   forged from him the ruqqa in the name of  Kripalsing Munim   to secure an entry into the house of the deceased. There was   nothing  to show that  the  Accused    Ashokkumar had  been   associating with the other  Accused.  Further, it is observed  that,  in   a   case   which   the     evidence   is   of   circumstantial   nature, the facts and circumstances   from which conclusion   of guilt is sought  to be drawn by the prosecution must be   fully established beyond all  reasonable doubt and the facts   and   circumstances   so   established,   should   not   only   be   consistent   with   the   guilt   of   the   accused   but   they   must   be   entirely incompatible with the innocence of the Accused and   must   exclude   every   reasonable   hypothesis   consistent   with  


his innocence.”    Topandas   V/s.   State   of   Bombay,   1956   Criminal   L.J.   138.  In that case it   is observed that   by the terms of the   definition itself, there ought to be two or more persons who   must be parties to such an agreement and it is trite to say   that one persons alone can never be held guilty of criminal   conspiracy   for   the   simple   reason   that   one   cannot   conspire   with   oneself.   If   therefore,   four   named   individuals   were   charged     with   having   committed   the   offence   U/s.   120(B)   Penal Code and three out of these four were acquitted of the   Charge, the remaining  Accused,  who was  Accused    No.1 in   the case before us, could never be held guilty of the offence   of criminal conspiracy. 
Sanjeevkumar V/s. State of H.P. A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 782.  

In that case it was held that “ there was no iota of material   to   establish   the   alleged   agreement   between   the  Accused   Sanjeevkumar   and  Accused    Kamlesh.   In   the   absence   of   such   evidence,   the   mere   fact   that   Sanjeevkumar   was   the   nephew of Kamlesh cannot be held to be sufficient to lead to   an inference of conspiracy........ .
John Pandiyan V/s. State, 2010 (13)  Scale 13.  In this 

case   several   Judgments   on   the   aspect   of   conspiracy   are  considered.   The   relevant   para   is   reproduced   thus:   Other   celebrated   decisions   on   the   question   of   conspiracy   are   Yashpal Mittal V. State of Punjab 1977 (4) SCC 540) as  also   the State of Himachal Pradesh V. Krishan Lal Pradhan and   Ors. 1987 (2) SCC 17). It has been held in Mohd Khalid V.   State of West Bengal 2002 (7) SCC 334) and in Mohammed   Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar V.State of Maharashtra 1981   (2) SCC 443) that  the agreement  amongst the conspirators   can   be   inferred   by   necessary   implication.   All   these   cases   together  came to be considered  in State of NCT of Delhi V.   Navjot   Sandhu   @   Afsan   Guru   2005   (11)   SCC   600]   where  


even the celebrated Judgments of V.C. Shukla V. State 1980   (2)   SCC   665]   came     to   be   considered   wherein   it   was   observed by Fazal Ali J: “In most cases it will be difficult to   get direct evidence of the agreement, but a conspiracy can be   inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a conclusive   or irresistible inference of an agreement between two or more   persons to commit an offence”.
C.B.I   V/s.   V.   C.Shukla,   A.I.R.   1998  S.C.   1406.  In  this 

case the prosecution was not able to prove that  one of the   two Accused  was party to conspiracy and it was held that   the   Charge   of   conspiracy   cannot   stand   against   other   Accused   as in a conspiracy there must be two parties. 

In this case it was observed that   overall evidence given by   prosecution would only show that some agitation had been   going   on   against   management   of   the   Industries   and   deceased was spearheading many of these agitations and   this   by   itself   would   not     prove   prosecution's   case   of   conspiracy.   Further,   it   was   observed   that   no   bills   proving   purchase   of   foreign   made   weapons   from   Nepal   were   recovered   from   any   of   the   Accused   persons       and   visit   to   Nepal by the Accused persons  and recovery of a Bill do not   advance   prosecution   case   to   prove   criminal   conspiracy   alleged against them.

State of M.P. V/s. Paltan Mallah, A.I.R. 2005 S.C.  733.  

189]      From the aforesaid rulings   following position  emerges in respect of conspiracy.  i] Gist of the conspiracy is in the agreement. ii]  Conspiracy can be proved from inference found on   solid facts established by reliable evidence. iii] Direct evidence may not be available always. iv]  It  is not necessary that  all the conspirators must  


know each other and every  detail of conspiracy. v]   It is not necessary that all the conspirator should   participate from beginning to the end of conspiracy. vi] Conspiracy is a continuing offence and continues to  be committed so long as the combination persists. 190]      Coming to the case in hand, it is proved that  the explosion at the  German Bakery  was the terrorist act,  the   association   of   the   Accused   with   the   absconding  Accused, the Accused seen with absconding Accused  No.1  Yasin   Bhatkal   who   planted   the   explosive   in   the  German  Bakery,   shortly   before   the   explosion   and   the  Accused  possessing explosive substance  of the like nature which is  used to cause the explosion at the German Bakery goes to  the root in establishing the involvement of the  Accused in  the crime. These circumstances furnishes cogent evidence  pointing   the   involvement   of   Accused   in   the   crime.  His  purchasing   unaccounted   mobile   phone   from   Mumbai,  though mobile phone is easily available anywhere assumes  significance   because   the   explosion   is   caused   by   use   of  mobile phone as the triggering device. The Accused did so  many   things   to   mislead   his   identity.   His   keeping     the  mobile phones used by him with his friends, his using the  bank account standing in the name of another person, his  possessing the false documents and using the mobile sim  cards issued in the name of others becomes relevant U/s.8 


of Evidence Act. All the above conduct of the Accused  are  most unnatural  and has close nexus with the relevant fact  in   issue.   It   is   established   that   all   the   said   acts   were  conscious act of the Accused.  All the said  conduct of the  Accused  shows his culpable mind. His subsequent state of  body/mind,   after   the   explosion   also   becomes   relevant  U/s.14 of the Evidence Act. He has the revengeful attitude  and dangerous ideas about the religion. The circumstances  cannot be viewed separately and by no standard of common  sense/understanding   be   termed   as   innocent   acts.   The  conduct of  Accused    point to his guilt and involvement in  the conspiracy. All the circumstances taken together forms  a   complete   chain   which   links   him   with   the   incident   of  explosion   at  German   Bakery. The only  defence is  that of  false implication being a Muslim. The evidence available on  record   is   such   that   by   no   stretch   of   imagination   it   is  possible to hold that  the evidence is fabricated to implicate  him   falsely.   Many   of   the   witnesses   are   the   persons   who  know the  Accused,  though in assumed name and there is  nothing to show that even a single witness have any grudge  or   enmity     with   the  Accused   or   they   had   any   motive   to  depose   falsely   against   the   Accused.   Absence   of   any  plausible   explanation   from   the  Accused  in   respect   of   the  circumstances   brought   by   the   prosecution   against   him 


becomes one more circumstance against the Accused. One  of the contention of the Ld. defence Advocate is that he had  no   motive   to   commit   the   crime   or   to   be   the   part   of   the  conspiracy. In this regard it would not be out of place to  refer the observations of the Honourable Apex Court made  in para 17 in the case of    1992 A.I.R 1175 Mulakhraj V/s.   Satish   Kumar  ..........  “In   cases   of   circumstantial   evidence   motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up   in the mind of the accused and some time it is difficult to   unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure   to discover the motive of an offence does not signify it's non   existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter   of   law.   Proof   of   motive   is   never   an   indispensable   for   conviction.   When   facts   are   clear   it   is   immaterial     that   no   motive   has   been   proved.   Therefore,   absence   of   proof   of   motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances   connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against   the prosecution case.”  In the present case,  from the proved  circumstances it is clear that the motive was  to undermine  the   faith   of   public   in   good   governance   and   create   the  atmosphere of fear and insecurity in the minds of citizens  of this country and disturb the fine fabric of  society and it  is done by causing the   explosion at the  German Bakery.  The   circumstances   brought   on   record  by  the  prosecution 


shows   that   the  Accused  did   everything   to   carry   out   the  object   of   conspiracy   of   causing   the  terrorist   act   by  explosion  at  German   Bakery.   The   circumstances   taken  together or considered cumulatively, unerringly point to the  involvement of the Accused in the crime and are consistent  with his involvement in the conspiracy.  191]     Even if the contention of Ld. Defence Advocate  is accepted that it is not proved that the mobile phone used  to trigger the explosion at  German Bakery  is one and the  same   which   is   purchased   by   the   Accused,   all   the   other  circumstances are so impeccable that they are consistent  with   the   hypothesis   of   guilt   of   the   Accused.   No   other  hypothesis   is   possible.   Viewed   from   any   angle,   the   only  presumption   or   inference   which   comes   out   is   that   the  Accused   had a close nexus with the absconding Accused  persons and they all hatched the conspiracy to cause terror  attack by killing innocent people by use of explosive. The  act of the Accused  is nothing less than furthering the act  of   terrorism.   The   circumstances   against   the   Accused  clearly show that the acts of the Accused     are consistent  with   the   functioning   of   the   members   of   banned  organization as deposed by P.W.103 in his evidence where  he   says   that   while   studying   the   functioning   of   banned  organizations such as SIMI, Indian Mujahiddin, Lashkar­E­


Toyba,   it   was   revealed   that   their   members   function   by  hiding their personality, they make the use of pseudonym,  prepare   false   documents,   do   the   financial   transactions  clandestinely, create false evidence and function in such a  way that they appear to be at one place where they actually  are   not   present.  The   cumulative   effect   of   the   proved  circumstances   have   unerringly   established   that   the  Accused   was  the  member  to the conspiracy  to cause the  terrorist   act     pursuant   to   which,   the   explosion   at   the  German   Bakery,   Pune   is   caused   which   killed   17   persons  and   injured   58   persons.  The   circumstantial   evidence  brought   on   record   by   the   prosecution   is   cogent   and  sufficient     to   prove     that   the   Accused     is   one   of   the   co­ conspirator in the conspiracy to cause the terrorist act and  kill innocent people and caused damage to the property of  others. The  punishment for the offence of conspiracy is the  same, as if he had abetted such offence.
Other Offences Under the Indian Penal Code.

191]      One   of   the   Charge   is   under   Section   302   of  I.P.C.   The   offence   of   murder  is  defined  in  Section   300  of  I.P.C. It reads thus: Except in the cases hereinafter excepted   culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is   done with the intention of causing death or­ Secondly­   if   it   is   done   with   the   intention   of   causing   such   bodily   injury   as   the   offender   knows   to   be   likely   to  


cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused   or­ Thirdly­ If it is done with the intention of causing such   bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to   be inflicted is sufficient   in the ordinary course of nature to   cause death or­
Fourthly­ If the person committing the act knows that it  

is  so  imminently dangerous   that   it   must,  in all  probability   cause   death,   or   such   bodily   injury   as   is   likely   to   cause   death, and commits such act without any bodily injury as is   likely   to   cause   death,   and   commits   such   act   without   any   excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury   as aforesaid.    It would not be out of place to refer the observations  of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of  State (N.C.T of  
Delhi)   V/s.   Navjyot   Sandhu,   (Parliament   attack   case) 

reported   in   2005   (11)   SCC   600  made   in   reference   to   the  offence of murder and conspiracy.  It is held thus:­ The conspiracy to commit the offence of murder in the   course of execution of conspiracy is well within the scope of   conspiracy   to   which   the   Accused    Afzal   was     a   party.   Therefore,   he   is   liable   to  be   punished   under   Section  120B   read  with  Section 302  I.P.C.  The  punishment  applicable is   the   one   prescribed   under   Section   109I.P.C.   In   view   of   the   phraseology   of   Section   120B   “be   punished   in   the   same   manner as if he had abetted such offence”. Section 109 I.P.C   lays   down   that   “if   the   act   abetted   is   committed   in   consequence   of   the   abetment,   and   no   express   provision   is   made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, a   person     abetting   the   offence   shall   be   punished   with   the   punishment provided for the offence”. Thus the conspirator ,  


even though he may not have indulged in the actual criminal   operations to execute the conspiracy, becomes liable for the   punishment prescribed under Section 302 I.P.C. The   evidence   on   record   clearly   establishes   that   the  explosion  at   the  German   Bakery  was   the   result   of  conspiracy. It is already seen  that 17 people died homicidal  death due to the explosion injuries. The aspect of homicidal  death   is not at all disputed. The conspiracy to cause the  explosion  and   kill   the   innocent   people   in   the   course   of  execution   of   conspiracy   comes   within   the   scope   of  conspiracy to which the Accused  was a party. Causing the  explosion  at   the   public   place   i.e  German   Bakery,   clearly  shows   the   intention   to   cause   death   or   to   cause   bodily  injury   as   would   in   all   probability   cause   death.   If   the  illustration 'D'   to Section 300 of I.P.C. is seen, it is clear  that   even if there is no particular person as the target to  kill,   the   offence   is   made  out.  Thus,  the  Accused    is also  liable for  punishment  for the offence of Murder. 192]      One   of   the   Charge   is   under   Section   307   of  I.P.C.  It reads thus: Whoever   does   any   act   with   such   intention   or   knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that   act   caused   death,   he   would   be   guilty   of   murder,   shall   be   punished with imprisonment of either description for a term   which may extend to Ten years and shall also be liable to   fine  and   if   hurt  is  caused   to any  person by  such act, the   offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life or to  


such punishment as is herein before mentioned. Causing   explosion   with   the   use   of   explosive   in   the  public place  by any angle, attribute the knowledge that by  the said act the people will die. While considering the Point  No.1 it is seen that  58 people sustained injuries due to the  explosion.   However,  they survived luckily. Merely  because  they survived do not mean that they were not likely to die  due  to the  explosion.  It is needless to state that causing  injury is not   necessary to attract the offence punishable  under   this   section.   Causing   explosion   by   using   the  explosives   clearly   shows   the   intention   to   kill   and   also  attributes the knowledge that by such act, death is likely to  be   caused.   The   analogy   applicable   for   the   offence   of  murder would also be applicable for this offence Punishable  U/s.   307   of   I.P.C.   Thus,   the  essential   ingredients   of   this  section are established and the Charge for  the said Section  is   proved   against   the   Accused   beyond   the   reasonable  doubt. 193]      One   of   the   Charge   is   under   Section   435   of  I.P.C. The section reads thus: Whoever   commits   mischief   by   fire   or   any   explosive   substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that   he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount   of one hundred rupees or onwards for (where the property is   agricultural   produce   ten   rupees   or   upwards)   shall   be  


punished with imprisonment of either description for a term   which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to   fine. The term mischief is defined in Section 425 of I.P.C .   which read thus: “Whoever, with intent to cause or knowing  that  he is   likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to   any   person   cause   the   destruction   of   any   property,   or   any   such change in any property or in the situation thereof as   destroys   or   diminishes   its   value   or   utility,   or   affects     it   injuriously, commits mischief.” While   considering   Point   No.1   it   is   seen   that   P.W.   1  have stated that she incurred the damages of Rs. 15 Lakhs  due to the explosion at the  German Bakery. The evidence  on record clearly established that there was destruction of  the   property   and   obviously,   there   is   wrongful   loss.   The  explosion is due to use of explosive substance. Causing of  explosion at the public place clearly attributes knowledge  that wrongful loss or damage to the public or property will  be caused. Being one of the member of conspiracy to cause  terrorist act such knowledge is attributable to the Accused.  Thus,   the   essential   ingredients   of   this   section   are  established and the Charge for   the said Section is proved  against the Accused beyond the reasonable doubt. 194]     One of the Charge is under Section 153A (b) of  I.P.C.   The   Section   reads   thus:   Promoting   enmity   between   different  groups  on  grounds  of  religion,  race,place of  birth,   residence,   language   etc.   and   doing   acts   prejudicial   to  


maintenance of harmony­ i] Whoever – a] by words, either   spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations   or otherwise, promotes or attempts to promote, on ground of   religion,   race,   place   of   birth,   residence,   language,   caste   or   community or any other ground whatsoever, disharmony, or   feelings   of   enmity,   hay   trade   or   ill   will   between   different   religions,   ratials,   language   or   regional   groups   or   castes   or   communities or   b] commits any act which is prejudicial to the maintenance   of harmony between different religious, racial, language or   regional   groups   or   castes   or   communities   and   which   disturbes or likely to disturb the public tranquility or   c]   .................   shall   be   punished   with   imprisonment   which   may extend to three years or with fine or with both. While considering the circumstance  of mind set of the  Accused  it has come in so many words from the witnesses  that the Accused    used to talk of taking revenge of Babri  Masjid, Gujrat riots and used to talk of coming together for  taking   revenge   against   the   people   belonging   to   other  religion. Such type of open talk is nothing but promoting  enmity   between   different   religion.   The   said   act   of   the  Accused    squarely   falls   under   this   Section.   Thus,   the  essential ingredients of this section are established and the  Charge for  the said Section is proved against the Accused  beyond the reasonable doubt. 195]    There are Charges under Sections 465,467,468  and   474   of   I.P.C.   These   are   the   offences   relating   to   the  documents.   Section   465   is   the   punishment   for   forgery. 


Forgery is defined under Section 463 of I.P.C. which   says  that forgery means to make any false document with intent  to cause damage or injury to the public or to any person or  to support  any claim  or to cause any person to part with  property or to enter into any express or implied contract or  with   intent   to   commit   fraud   or   that   fraud   may   be  committed.  Section 467 is in respect of forgery of valuable  security, Will etc.   Section 468 is in respect of forgery for  purpose   of   cheating.   The  evidence  available  on  record do  not   show   that   the   Accused   himself   had   forged   the  documents   which   were   found   in   his   bag.   It   is   fairly  submitted by Ld.  Special P.P that there is no evidence to  show that the Accused  himself had forged the documents  and   used   them.   He   submitted   that   only   Section   474   is  made   out   against   the  Accused.   Admittedly,   the   only  evidence in respect of forgery is that the forged documents  such   as   caste   certificate,   handicap   certificate,   domicile  certificate and copy of ration card were found in one of the  bag   belonging   to   the  Accused.   Through   the   evidence   of  various government officers it is established that the said  documents   are   not   genuine   and   are   false.   The   said  documents are of such a nature which are purported to be  made by the public servant in his official capacity. Section  474 makes possession of the forged document with intent 


that the same shall be used fraudulently or dishonestly as  genuine as offence. There is no explanation by the Accused  as   to   for   what   purpose   he   was   possessing   the   aforesaid  forged documents. From the circumstances proved by the  prosecution   it   is   clear   that     with   intent   to   use   them   as  genuine the  Accused    had kept the forged document with  him.   Thus,   the   essential   ingredients   of   section   474   are  proved  against the Accused and the charge for said section  is   proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt.   The   essential  ingredients for the offence Under Section 465, 467,468 are  not proved by the prosecution against the Accused. 


Offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention)  Act, 1967. 

 196]    As some of the words have come in most of the 

sections, their definition given in the Act is necessary to be  seen.  The term Terrorist gang is defined U/s. 2 (l) of the Act  which   reads   thus:Terrorist   gang   means   any   association,   other   than   terrorist   organization,   whether   systematic   or   otherwise, which is concerned with , or involved in terrorist   act. The term 'Terrorist organization' is defined U/s 2(m) of  the Act which reads thus: Terrorist  organization means an   organization   listed   in   the   Schedule   or   an   organization   operating under the same name as an organization so listed.
Terrorists Organization. Terrorist Gang


Unlawful association

The term 'Unlawful Association' is defined U/s 2(p) of   the Act which reads thus: i]   which   has   for   its   object   any   unlawful   activity,   or   which   encourages   or   aids   persons   to   undertake any unlawful activity, or of which the members   undertake such activity or   ii] which has for its object any   activity which is punishable under section 153­A or section   153­B   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code   (   45   of   1860)   or   which   encourages or aids persons to undertake any such activity,   or of which the members undertake any such activity.
197]    One of the Charge is  under Section 10 (a) & (b) 

of the Unlawful Activities ( Prevention) Act, 1967.  The said  Section read thus:   
Penalty for being member of an unlawful association,   etc:­  Where   an   association   is   declared   unlawful   by   a  

notification   issued   under   section   3   which   has   become   effective under sub Section (3) of that section­­ a]    A person who­  i]  is and continued to be a member of such association   or ii] takes part in meeting of such association or,         iii] contributes to, or receives or solicits any contribution  for the purpose of such association or, iv] in any way assists the operation of such association   shall   be   punishable   with   imprisonment   for   a   term   which may extend to two years and shall also be liable   to fine and, b]   A person, who is or continues to be a member of   such association or voluntarily does an act aiding or   promoting   in   any   manner   the   objects   of   such   association and in other case is in possession of any   unlicensed   fire   arms,ammunition,explosive   or   other   instrument   or   substance   capable   of   causing   mass   destruction and commits any act resulting in loss of   


human life or grievous injury to any person or causes   significant  damage to any property­ i]       and if such act has resulted in the death of any   person,   shall   be   punishable   with   death,   or   imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine; ii]     in   any   other   case,   shall   be   punishable   with   imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than   five years but which may extend to imprisonment for   life, and shall also be liable to fine.         It is submitted by  Ld. defence Advocate that there is  no evidence to show that the  Accused    is the member of  unlawful association. If the contents of above Section are  seen,   even   assisting   or   aiding   or   promoting   the   object   of  such   association   is   an   offence.   While   considering   Point  No.2 as  to  whether the explosion is the terrorist act, the  evidence   of   police   officers   is   considered   wherein   it   is  established that the planter of the explosive in the German  Bakery  is  the  absconding Accused Yasin  Bhatkal, who  is  the   member   of   banned   organization.   The   organizations  which are banned are mentioned in the Schedule given at  the  end  of   the  Act  and P.W.103, the    Investigating officer  also deposed about the same.  The evidence on record have  clearly   established   that   the   explosive   capable   of   causing  mass   destruction   was   found   in   possession   of  Accused.  Further,   the   evidence   on   record   goes   to   show   that   the  Accused     was   seen   with   the   planter   of   explosive,   shortly 


before   the   explosion   in  which   17  persons  lost   their  lives.  The   circumstances   clearly   establishes   that   the  Accused  assisted   and   voluntarily   aided   the   operation   of   unlawful  association. Thus, the essential ingredients of this section  are   established   and   the   Charge   for   the   said   Section   is  proved against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. 198]    One of the Charge is  under Section 13(1)& (2)  of   Unlawful   Activities   (Prevention)   Act,   1967.  The   said  Section reads thus:   a]   Take part in or commits, or          b]   advocates abets, advices or incites the commission   of any unlawful activity, shall be punishable for a term     which may extend to Seven years, and shall also be    liable to fine. 2] Whoever,   in   any   way,   assists   any   unlawful   activity   of   any   association   declared   unlawful   under   section 3, after the notification by which it has been so  declared has become effective under sub­section (3) of  that section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for   a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or  with both.        The term 'unlawful activity' is defined in Section 2 (O)  of he Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. which reads  thus: 'Unlawful   Activity'     in   relation   to   an   individual   or   association,   means   any   action   taken   by   such   individual or association (whether by committing an act   or by words either spoken or written or by signs or by 
 Punishment for Unlawful activities­ 1] Whoever­


visible representation or otherwise.) i]    which is intended or supports any claim, to bring   about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part  of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the  territory of India from the Union, or which incites any   individual or group of individuals to bring about such  cession or secession or, ii]    which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended  to   disrupt   the   sovereignty   and   territorial   integrity   of   India or iii]    which causes or is intended to cause disaffection  against India.   While considering the point No.2 it is seen that the  explosion  is   the   activity   of   banned   organization.   In  cross  examination  of   P.W.103   the     Investigating   officer,   it   has  come   that   LET   is   the   Pakistan   based   Organization.   The  evidence of P.W.103 further shows as to how the members  of   banned   organization   function.   Further,   the  circumstances   established   against   the   Accused   are  consistent with the functioning of the banned organization.  The   evidence   on   record   have   clearly   established     that  Accused   not   only   advocated   abetted   and   incited   the  commission of the unlawful activities but also took active  part in giving effect to the unlawful activity of causing the  explosion at the German Bakery, the object of which can be  nothing   but   to   cause   disaffection   against   India.   The  notification imposing ban on the organizations is brought 


on   record.   Further,   the   banned   organizations   are  mentioned in the Schedule of the Act.  Thus, the essential  ingredients of this section are established and the Charge  for  the said Section is proved against the Accused beyond  reasonable doubt. 199]   One of the Charge is  under Section 16 (1)(a) of  the   Unlawful   Activities   (Prevention)   Act,   1967.     The   said  Section read thus:    Punishment   for   terrorist   act­   (1)   Whoever   commits   a   terrorist act shall­          a] If such act has resulted in the death of any person   be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall   also be liable to fine.          It is submitted by Ld. Spl.P.P that under Section 43  (E) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, if the Arms  or explosives  are recovered from the possession of Accused  and there is reason to believe that such arms or explosives  were used in the commission of such offence, presumption  is required to be drawn that the  Accused    has committed  such   offence.  Ld.   defence   Advocate  submitted  that   under  the   Criminal   Law,   no   presumption   can   be   raised   against  the  Accused    and   cited   the   Judgment   in   the   case   of 
Harendra  V/s.   State   of   Assam   reported   in   AIR   2008   S.C.   2467.  Perusal   of   the   said   Judgment   shows   that   it   is 

pertaining to the   offence of murder and the presumption 


referred therein was under Section 114 of Evidence Act and  it   was   observed   that   “the   Court   may   or   may   not   raise   a   presumption that an official act having been done was not in   due   course   of   business,   but,   in   a   criminal   case,   no   presumption   should   be   raised   which   does   not   have   any   origin in any statute but would cause great prejudice to the   Accused.   It   is   further   observed   that   wherever   Parliament   intended to lay a different standard of proof in relation to the   certain offences or certain pattern of crime, it did so and in   such a case subject to establishing some primary fact, the   burden   of   proof   has   been   caste   on   the  Respondent  s   and   there are a large number of statutes where the doctrine of   'reverse   burden'   has   been   applied.   Save   and   accept   those   cases where the Parliamentary statutes apply the doctrine of   reverse   burden,   the   Courts   should   not   employ   the   same   which per se would only be violative of universal declaration   of   human   rights   but   also   the   fundamental   rights   of   an   accused   as   envisaged   under   article   21   of   Constitution   of   India. The said legal position is well settled. 200]    Section   43   (E)   of   the  Unlawful   Activities  (   Prevention)   Act,   1967   shows   that   the   presumption   is  having the origin in the   statute itself. The Section reads  thus: 43­E­ Presumption as to offences under Section 15 ­ In   a prosecution  for an offence under section 15, if it is  proved­


      a]  that the arms or explosives or any other substances   specified   in   the   said   section   were   recovered   from   the   possession of the accused and there is reason to believe that   such   arms   or   explosives   or   other   substances   of   a   similar   nature were used in the commission of such offence, or b] that by the evidence of the expert the finger­prints   of the accused or any   other definitive evidence suggesting   the involvement of the accused in the offence were found at   the   site   of   the   offence   or   on   anything   including   arms   and   vehicles   used   in   connection   with   the   commission   of   such   offence­  the Court shall presume, unless the contrary is shown,   that the accused has committed such offence.   Perusal   of   the  said provision  shows  that   once  the  aspect of possession of explosives is established, and it is  shown   that     similar   nature   of   substance   is   used     in  commission of offence, the mandatory presumption comes  into play.  The Ld. Spl.P.P  cited the Judgment in the case  of M. Narsingha Rao V/s. State of A.P reported in A.I.R 2001  
S.C.   318    on   the   point   of   discretionary   presumption   and 

mandatory presumption. In para 13 of this Judgment it is  observed   that  the   expression   'may   presume'   and   'shall   presume' are defined in Section 4 of the Evidence Act and   the   presumption   falling   under   the   formal   category   are   compendiously   known   as   'factual   presumptions'   or   'discretionary   presumptions'   and   those   falling   under   the   latter as 'legal presumptions' or 'compulsory presumptions'. 


As can be seen from the  aforesaid provisions of Section 43  (E)   of   Unlawful   Activities   (Prevention)   Act,   1967,   the  presumption   is   the   compulsory   presumption  as  the  word  used   is   'shall   presume'.   It   is   cogently   established   by   the  prosecution that the Explosive (RDX) is found in possession  of   Accused.   Except   denial  there is no   explanation   by  the  Accused   on   the   aspect   of   possessing   the   explosive  substance. There is reason to believe that the said explosive  is used  in  the explosion caused at  German Bakery  Pune  because   the   forensic   evidence   brought   on   record   by   the  prosecution have  established that the explosive substance  used in causing the  explosion  at  German Bakery  and the  explosive substance seized at the instance of Accused  is of  similar   nature.   Therefore,   the     presumption   U/s.   43   of  Unlawful   Activities   (Prevention)   Act,   1967   gets   attracted  against the Accused. Thus, the essential ingredients of this  section  are  established  and the Charge for the offence of  terrorist   act     is   proved   against   the   Accused   beyond  reasonable doubt. 201]     One of the Charge is  under Section 18  of the  Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.  The said Section  read thus: 
  Punishment for conspiracy etc­  Whoever conspires or  

attempts   to   commit,   or   advocates,abets,   advises   or   [incites,directs or knowingly facilitates] the commission of, a  


terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a   terrorist   act,   shall   be   punishable   with   imprisonment   for   a   term which shall not be less than five years but which may   extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to   fine. The   aspect   of   conspiracy   is   already   discussed   while  dealing   with   the   charge   U/s.   120B   of   I.P.C.   The  circumstances against the Accused  clearly establishes that  he is one of the co­conspirator to cause the  Terrorist Act.  There is no difference in the word conspiracy appearing in  Section 120(B) of I.P.C and appearing in this Section. Thus,  the essential ingredients of this section are established and  the   Charge   for     the   said   Section   is   proved   against   the  Accused beyond reasonable doubt.  202]    One of the Charge is  under Section 20 of the  Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The said Section  read thus: 
Punishment   for   being   member   of   terrorist   gang   or   organization­

Any person who is a member of a terrorist gang, or a   terrorist organization, which is involved in terrorist act, shall   be   punishable   with   imprisonment   for   a   term   which   may   extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to   fine. The   definition   of   Terrorist   gang   is already   quoted.  It  means   any   association   concerned   with   or   involved   in  Terrorist act. It is proved that the Accused  associated with  the   absconding   accused   who   planted   the   explosives.   The 


association of the Accused with the  absconding Accused is  nothing   but   the   gang.   Thus,   the   essential   ingredients   of  this section are established and the Charge for   the said  Section   is   proved   against  the Accused  beyond reasonable  doubt.

Offences under the Explosive Substances Act,1908 

203]      One of the Charge is   under Section 3 of the  Explosive Substances Act,1908  The said Section read thus: 
Section 3: Punishment for causing explosion likely to   endanger life or property –  Any person who unlawfully and  

maliciously causes by­ a]   any explosive substance an explosion of a nature   likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property   shall,   whether   any   injury   to   person   or   property   has   been   actually caused or not, be punished with imprisonment for   life or with rigorous imprisonment of either description which   shall not be less than Ten years and shall also be liable to   fine. b]     any   special   category   explosive   substance   an   explosion   of   a   nature   likely   to   endanger   life   or   to   cause   serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person   or  property  has  been   actually  caused  or  not, be   punished   with death, or rigorous imprisonment for life, and shall also   be liable to fine.  It is established by the prosecution that the explosion  at   the  German   Bakery  was   caused   by   using   research  development explosives (RDX). Further, the similar kind of  explosive   is   seized   from   the   possession   of   the   Accused. 


Under the definition 2(b) of Explosive Substances Act,1908  RDX comes in “special category explosive substance”. It is  already established that the Accused  is one of the member  of the conspiracy to cause the terrorist act which was given  effect   by   causing   explosion   at   the   German   Bakery.   From  the   circumstances   proved   by   the   prosecution,   the  participation of the Accused in causing the said explosion  which   resulted   in   loss   of   lives   is   proved.   The   act   of   the  accused falls within the ambit of sub section (b) of Section  3 of the Explosive Substance Act and this Charge is proved  against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. 204]     One of the Charge is  under Section 4(a) & (b)  of   the   Explosive   Substances   Act,1908     The   said   Section  read thus: 
  Punishment   for   attempt   to   cause   explosion,   or   for   making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or   property­ Any person who unlawfully and maliciously­

a]  does any act with intent to cause by an explosive   substance   or   special   category   explosive   substance,   or   conspires   to   cause   by   an   explosive   substance   or     special   category explosive substance, an explosion of a nature likely   to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property or b]  makes or has in his possession or under his control   any   explosive   substance   or   special   category   explosive   substance   with   intent   by   means   thereof   to   endager   ife,   or   cause   serious   injury   to   property,   or   to   enable   any   other   person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious   injury to property in India shall, whether any explosion does   or does not take place and whether any injury to person or  


property has been actually caused or not, be punished­­ i]     in   the   case   of   any   explosive   substance,   with   imprisonment   for   life,   or   with   imprisonment   of   either   description for a term which may extend to ten years, and   shall also be liable to fine ii]       in   the   case   of   any   special   category   explosive   substance,   with   rigorous   imprisonment   for   life,   or   with   rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten   years, and shall also be liable to fine. The    seizure  of  Special category explosive substance  from the possession of Accused   is established. The   said  possession is admittedly unlawful as the Accused   had no  licence to keep it and the composition is the same as used  in causing the explosion at  German Bakery.   The quantity  of explosive found in possession of the Accused is such that  it is clear that it was kept maliciously with the intention to  endanger   the   life.   Thus,   the   essential   ingredients   of   this  section are established and the Charge for the said section  is proved against the Accused beyond reasonable doubt. 205]    One of the Charge is   under Section 5 of the  Explosive Substances Act,1908  The said Section read thus:
    Punishment  for making or possessing explosives   under suspicious circumstances­ Any person  who makes or  

knowingly has in his possession or under his control any   explosive substance or special category explosive substance   under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable   suspicion that he is not making iot or does not have it in his   possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall,   unless he can show that he made it or had it in his  


possession or under his control for a lawful object, be   punished­ a]         in   the   case   of   any   explosive   substance,   with   imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and   shall also be liable to fine.         b]   in   the   case   of   any   special   category   explosive   substance,   with   rigorous   imprisonment   for   life,   or   with   rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten   years, and shall also be liable to fine.   The  seizure  of  special explosive substance weighing  1200 grams from the possession of the Accused  has been  established   beyond   reasonable   doubt   and   there   is  absolutely no explanation for possessing the same. By no  stretch of imagination it can be said to have been possessed  for   a   lawful   object.     There   is   no   authorization   or   licence  with   the   Accused   to   possess   the   explosive.   The   forensic  evidence have established the use of same kind of special  explosive   substance   in   causing   the   explosion   at  German  Bakery. All this give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the  special   category   explosive   was   not   possessed   by   the  Accused   for   any   lawful   object.   Thus,   the   essential  ingredients of this section are established and the Charge  for   the said section is proved against the Accused beyond  reasonable doubt. 206]    From the evidence adduced by the prosecution,  the   charges   punishable   under   sections   120(B),302,307, 


435,153(A),474 of Indian Penal Code 1860, under sections  10(a) & (b), 13(1)&(2), 16(1)(a), 18, 20 of Unlawful Activities  (Prevention) Act, 1967 and   under sections 3,4(a)&(b),5 of  Explosive   Substances   Act,   1908   are   proved   beyond  reasonable   doubt,   the   Accused   is   convicted   for   all   the  aforementioned offences. The Accused is acquitted for the  offences under sections 465, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal  Code.   As   the     offences   which   are   proved   against   the  Accused, invite severe punishment, it is necessary to hear  the   Accused   on   the   point   of   sentence.   The   Accused   is  informed     about   this   and   some   time   is   given   to   him   for  making   submissions   on   the   quantum   of   sentence.   The  matter  is  adjourned  to 18­04­2013 for hearing the parties  on the point of sentence.

Date: 15­04­2013

 ( N.P. Dhote) Addl. Sessions Judge,Pune.

207]      Heard  Ld. Spl.P.P   Shri Raja Thakre and Ld.  Advocate for Defence Mr. A Rehman and the Accused   Mirza  Himayat   Baig   @     Ahmed   Baig   Inayat   Mirza   @   Hasan   @  Yusuf on the point of sentence. It is to be noted that there  are five offences for which the Accused  may be visited with  the   death   sentence.   The   offence   U/s.   16     and   10   of  Unlawful   Activities   (Prevention)   Act,   1967,   offences   U/s. 


302,   120(B)   of   the   I.P.C   and   Section   3   of   the   Explosive  Substances   Act   1908   are   punishable   with   death   or  imprisonment for life. 208]     The   Accused   stated   that   he   belongs   to   poor  family and a teacher by profession and he had no intention  to   kill   anyone   and   was   never   absconding.   He   submitted  that   he   believe   in   Allah   and   the   judicial   system   of   this  country.   He   submitted   that   he   has   no   concern   with   the  crime in hand and has been falsely  implicated in this case  by   the  Anti   Terrorist   Squad.   He   has   given   two   pages   in  writing   in   which   he   has   stated   the   aforementioned  submissions and also commented on the merit of the case.  According to him, the circumstances are not proved against  him. 209]        It is submitted by  Ld. Defence Advocate  that  as   per   the   settled   position   in   law   the   mitigating  circumstances   and   aggravating   circumstances   are   to   be  weighed   and thereafter the quantum of punishment is to  be   decided.   He   submitted   that   the  Accused   neither   had  gone to the German Bakery, nor had planted the Bomb. It  is further submitted that the Accused  had no motive and  intention   to   commit   the   crime   and   there   is   no   direct  evidence that the  Accused    manufactured the bomb. It is  further   submitted   that   the  Accused    is   of   young   age, 


qualified as B.A. D.Ed. and a teacher and belong to poor  family having old parents, two brothers and two sisters. It  is further submitted that there is no previous conviction on  the Accused  and  he is not responsible for the incident. It  is   submitted   that   leniency   be   shown   to   the  Accused.   He  cited following seven rulings  i] A.I.R. 1983 S.C. 957(1),      ii] 2010 Cr.L.J 905 (S.C),       iii] 2009(6) S.C.C. 498,           iv] 1999 (3) S.C.C.19,           v] 2011 Cr.L.J 1639(S.C),      vi]  2003(7) S.C.C.141,        vii] 1996 Cr..L.J 4308.

210]       On   the   other   hand   it   is   submitted   by   Ld.  Spl.P.P   that   the   case   in   hand     is   of   terrorist   activity  committed   by   conspiracy   and   using   the   special   category  substance (RDX) due to which 17 persons including  some  foreign   nationals   are   killed   and     the  Accused    is   found  guilty   for   the   various   sections.   He   submitted   that   the  explosive   substance   was   seized   from   the   possession   of  Accused. He submitted that in the facts and circumstances  of the case, the age, profession and the family background  of   the  Accused  cannot   become   the   mitigating 

circumstances.   He   submitted   that   the  Accused    is  preaching   and   advocating   the   objects   of   banned  organizations.   He   submitted   that   case   falls   under   the 


category of rarest of rare case and only capital punishment  is appropriate punishment for the  Accused.     He cited the  following rulings. i]    1994 (2) SCC 220.      ii] unreported case of the 

Honourable Apex Court in Devendrapal singh Bhullar V/s.  State of N.C.T., Delhi, delivered on 12­04­2013.

211]       It   is   needless   to   state   that   the   extreme  punishment   of   death   sentence   can   only   be   awarded   in  rarest of rare case, as per the provisions of section 354(3) of 
Cr.P.C,1973,   when   the   conviction   is   for   the   offence 

punishable   with   death   or   in   the   alternative   with  imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years,  the Judgment shall state the reasons for sentence awarded  and in the case of sentence of death, the special reasons for  such   sentence.   The   landmark   Judgments   in   the   field   of  sentencing are of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of  Bacchansing V/s. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1980, S.C 898   and in the case of Machchising V/s. State of  Punjab,   A.I.R   1983   S.C.   957.  Even   the   submissions   of   both   the  sides revolved around the said two landmark Judgments. It  would be proper to consider the relevant observations made  in the aforesaid two Judgments. 212]      In  Bachchansing's  case   following guidelines 


are laid down­ (a) The extreme penalty of death may be   inflicted  in   gravest   cases   of   extreme   culpability; (b) While   imposing   death   sentence   the   circumstances   of   the   offender   are   also   require  to   be   taken   into   consideration   alongwith the  circumstances of the crime; (c)   Death sentence be imposed only when   life  imprisonment   appears   to   be   an   altogether inadequate   punishment   having   regard to the  relevant   circumstances   of   the crime; and (d) Extreme penalty can be imposed after   striking  the balance between aggravating   and  mitigating   circumstances   found   in   the   case. Aggravating circumstances include: (a) If the murder has been committed after  previous planing and involves extreme  brutality; or                (b)      If the murder involves exceptional         depravity, Mitigating circumstances include: (a) That the offence was committed under   the  influence   of   extreme   mental   or   emotional  disturbance; (b) The age of the accused. If the accused   is young  or old, he shall not be sentenced   to death; (c) The probability that the accused would  


not  commit   criminal   acts   of   violence   as   would   constitute   a   continuing   threat   to   society; (d) The probability that the accused can be   reformed   and   rehabilitated.   The   State   shall   by  evidence   prove   that   the   accused   does   not  satisfy the conditions (c) and (d) above; (e) That in the facts and circumstances of   the case  the accused believed that he was   more  justified  in committing the offence; (f) That   the   accused   acted   under   the   duress or  domination of another person; and   (g) That   the     condition   of   the   accused   showed that  he   was   mentally   defective   and that the said  defect   impaired   his   capacity to appreciate the  criminality   of   his   conduct. 213]   In  Machchising's  case   following   additional  guidelines are laid down. (1) When the murder is committed in  extremely  brutal,  grotesque,  diabolical,   revolting  or dastardly manner so as to  arouse intense and extreme indignation of   the community.  (2) When the murder is committed for a  motive which evinces total depravity and  meanness; e. g. murder by hired assassin   for money or reward; or cold­blooded murder   for gains of a person vis­a­vis  whom the  murderer is in a dominating position or  in a position of trust; or  murder is  


committed in  the  course for betrayal of the motherland.  (3) When  murder  of a  member  of  Scheduled Caste or minority community etc.,   is committed  not  for  personal  reason but  in circumstances which arouse social wrath;   or in cases  of “bride burning” or “dowry  deaths”or when  murder  is  committed in    order  to remarry for the sake of extracting   dowry once again or to marry another  woman on account of infatuation. (4) When the crime is enormous in  proportion. For instance when multiple  murders, say of all or almost  all the  members of a family or large number of         persons  of  a  particular caste, community,         or locality, are committed.  (5) When  the  victim  of murder is an  innocent child or  a  helpless woman or old  or infirm person   or  a  person   vis­a­vis    whom  the murderer  is in  a dominating  position, or a public figure generally loved  and respected by the community”.

214]    Further in the case of Dhananjay Chaterjee @  Dhana   V/s   State   of   West   Bengal,   1994(2)   S.C.C   626  following   are   the   observations   made   by   Honourable   Apex  Court in para 15.         “In our opinion, the measure of punishment in a given case must depend upon the atrocity of the crime, the conduct of the criminal and the defenceless and unprotected stated of the victim. Imposition of 


appropriate punishment is the manner in which the  courts respond  to the society's cry for justice against the criminals Justice demands that courts should  impose punishment fitting to the crime so that the  courts reflect public abhorrence of the crime. The  courts must not  only keep in view the rights of the criminal  but also the rights of the victim of crime and the society at large while considering imposition of appropriate punishment.”

215]      Further, it would not be out of place to take  note   of   the   observations   made   by   the   Honourable   Apex  Court in the case of  Devendrapalsing Bhullar V/s State   of   N.C.T   of   Delhi   in   W.P.   (Cri)   D.   No.   16039/2011   delivered on 12th April, 2013. Though, the said case was  for commuting the death sentence to life imprisonment due  to   the   long   delay   in   executing   the   death   sentence,   the  observations are in respect of terrorism and therefore, are  relevant. 8]     Even after the judgments in Bachan Singh’s case   and Machhi Singh’s case, Jurists and human rights activists   have persisted with their demand for the abolition of death   penalty and several attempts have been made to persuade   the Central Government to take concrete steps in this regard.   It is a different story that they have not succeeded because   in recent years the crime scenario has changed all over the   world. While there is no abatement in the crimes committed  


due   to   personal   animosity   and   property   disputes,   people   across the world have suffered on account of new forms of   crimes. The monster of terrorism has spread its tentacles in   most   of   the   countries.   India  is   one   of   the   worst   victims   of   internal and external terrorism. In the last three decades,  hundreds of innocent lives have been lost on account of the   activities of terrorists, who have mercilessly killed people by   using   bullets,   bombs   and   other   modern   weapons.   While   upholding   the   constitutional   validity   of   the   Terrorist   and   Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) in Kartar  Singh v. State of Punjab (1994) 3 SCC 569, this Court took   cognizance of the spread of terrorism in the world in general   and in India in particular, in the following words:          “   From   the   recent   past,   in   many   parts   of   the   world,   terrorism and disruption are spearheading for one reason or   another   and   resultantly   great   leaders   have   been   assassinated   by   suicide   bombers   and   many   dastardly   murders have been committed. Deplorably, determined youth   lured   by   hard­core   criminals   and   underground   extremists   and attracted by the ideology of terrorism are indulging in   committing serious crimes against the humanity. In spite of   the drastic actions taken and intense vigilance activated, the   terrorists   and   militants   do   not   desist   from   triggering   lawlessness   if   it   suits   their   purpose.   In   short,   they   are  


waging   a   domestic   war   against   the   sovereignty   of   their   respective nations or against a race or community in order to   create an embryonic imbalance and nervous disorder in the   society   either   on   being   stimulated   or   instigated   by   the   national,   transnational   or   international   hard­core   criminals   or secessionists etc. Resultantly, the security and integrity of   the countries concerned are at peril and the law and order in   many countries is disrupted. To say differently, the logic of   the cult of the bullet is hovering the globe completely robbing   off   the   reasons   and   rhymes.   Therefore,   every   country   has   now felt the need to strengthen vigilance against the spurt in   the   illegal   and   criminal   activities   of   the   militants   and   terrorists so that the danger to its sovereignty is averted and   the community is protected.  Thus,   terrorism   and   disruptive   activities   are   a   worldwide   phenomenon   and   India   is   not   an   exception.   Unfortunately in the recent past this country has fallen in the   firm   grip   of   spiralling   terrorists'   violence   and   is   caught   between the deadly pangs of disruptive activities. As seen   from   the   Objects   and   Reasons   of   the   Act   31   of   1985,   “Terrorists   had   been   indulging   in   wanton   killings,   arson,   looting   of   properties   and   other   heinous   crimes   mostly   in   Punjab   and   Chandigarh”   and   then   slowly   they   expanded   their   activities   to   other   parts   of   the   country   i.e.   Delhi,  


Haryana,   U.P.   and   Rajasthan.   At   present   they   have   outstretched their activities by spreading their wings far and   wide almost bringing the major part of the country under the   extreme   violence   and   terrorism   by   letting   loose   unprecedented   and   unprovoked   repression   and   disrup   tion unmindful of the security of the nation, personal liberty   and right, inclusive of the right to live with human dignity of   the   innocent   citizens   of   this   country   and   destroying   the   image of many glitzy cities like Chandigarh, Srinagar, Delhi   and Bombay by strangulating the normal life of the citizens.   Apart from many skirmishes in various parts of the country,   there   were   countless   serious   and   horrendous   events   engulfing   many   cities   with   blood­bath,   firing,   looting,   mad   killing   even   without   sparing   women   and   children   and   reducing   those   areas   into   a   graveyard,   which   brutal   atrocities   have   rocked   and   shocked   the   whole   nation.   Everyday,   there   are   jarring   pieces   of   information   through   electronic and print media that many innocent, defenceless   people particularly poor, politicians, statesmen, government   officials,   police   officials,   army   personnel   inclusive   of   the   jawans   belonging   to   Border   Security   Force   have   been   mercilessly gunned down. No one can deny these stark facts   and   naked   truth   by   adopting   an   ostrich   like   attitude   completely ignoring the impending danger. Whatever may be  


the reasons, indeed there is none to deny that.”  39]........           Time   and   again,   (Machhi   Singh’s   case,   Ediga   Anamma’s case, Sher Singh’s case and Triveniben’s case), it   has been held that while imposing punishment for murder  and similar type of offences, the Court is not only entitled,   but is duty bound to take into consideration the nature of the   crime, the motive for commission of the crime, the magnitude   of   the   crime   and   its   impact   on   the   society,   the   nature   of   weapon used for commission of the crime, etc.. If the murder   is   committed   in   an   extremely   brutal   or   dastardly   manner,   which gives rise to intense and extreme indignation in the   community, the Court may be fully justified in awarding the   death   penalty.   If   the   murder   is   committed   by   burning   the   bride for the sake of money or satisfaction of other kinds of   greed,   there   will   be   ample   justification   for   awarding   the   death   penalty.   If   the   enormity   of   the   crime   is   such  that   a   large number of innocent people are killed without rhyme or   reason, then too, award of extreme penalty of death will be   justified. ........................         40]    We are also of the view that the rule enunciated in   Sher   Singh’s   case,   Triveniben’s   case   and   some   other   judgments   that   long   delay  may   be   one   of   the   grounds   for   commutation of the sentence of death into life imprisonment   cannot be invoked in cases where a person is convicted for  


offence under TADA or similar statutes.  Such cases stand   on   an   altogether   different   plane   and   cannot   be   compared   with   murders   committed   due   to   personal   animosity or over property and personal disputes. The   seriousness of the crimes committed by the terrorists   can   be   gauged   from   the   fact   that   many   hundred   innocent civilians and men in uniform have lost their   lives.   At   times,   their   objective   is   to   annihilate   their   rivals   including   the   political   opponents.   They   use   bullets, bombs and other weapons of mass killing for   achieving their perverted political and other goals or   wage war against the State. While doing so, they do   not show  any  respect for human lives. Before killing   the victims, they do not think even for a second about   the parents, wives, children and other near and dear   ones of the victims. The families of those killed suffer   the   agony   for   their   entire   life,   apart   from   financial   and other losses.  216]    Now, let me examine whether the case in hand  falls   under   the   category   of   rarest   of   rare   case   on   the  aforesaid   principles   and   after   considering   the   mitigating  and aggravating circumstances.


Mitigating Circumstances. 1] 2] 3] 4] 33 years of age. Teacher by profession. No previous conviction. Poor family background.

Aggravating circumstances. In the present case all aggravating circumstances are  present and they are summarized as follows: 1]      Proved circumstances show that the terrorist act  is done after planning or hatching the conspiracy. 2] The terrorist act is committed by using explosive  substance. 3]       Proved   circumstances   show  that   the  Accused    possessed the special explosive substance (RDX). This  shows that the Accused  acted as the custodian of the  explosive. 4]   Proved circumstances show that the  Accused    actively participated in causing the terrorist act which  resulted in the death of 17 persons and causing injury  to 58 persons. 5]  Proved circumstances show that all the acts of  the   Accused   were   hidden   or   clandestine   and   calculated.   This   shows   that   he   is   fully   trained   in   giving effect to such dastardly act by misleading his   presence.  6] The crime of which the Accused  is the part and  parcel is of utmost gravity.


7] The  Accused    did not show any remorse at any   point of time. 8] The choice of  locality/place i.e German Bakery,  Koregaon Park, which is the crowded place and the   time to cause the terrorist act is such that when there  are more prospects of the public gathering and it is   such   a   place   where   the   foreigners   came   in   large   numbers   since   they   come   to   stay   in   nearby   Osho   Ashram. This shows that such place is chosen for the  explosion which would ensure maximum loss of the   life including that of foreigners and property. 9] The motive behind the crime is to strike terror in  the people of this country and to threaten the security  of the country. 10] The persons who got killed and got injured were  not  even  known  to  the  Accused    and they  all were   innocent people. None of them were having any enmity  with him. 11] The   proved   circumstances   shows   that   the     manner of terrorist act was diabolic in nature. 12] Crime   of   terrorism   is   in   itself   an   aggravating   circumstance   as   observed   by   the   Honourable   Apex   Court   in   para   503(4)   in   the   case   of   Yakub   Memon  V/s.   State   of   Maharashtra   in   Criminal   Appeal   No.   1728/2007. 13] The   crime   is   such,   which   has   shaken   the   collective conscious of the society.   



If the above referred aggravating and mitigating 

circumstances are considered against each other, it is clear  that the aggravating circumstances are far more weighty as  compared to the mitigating circumstances. The mitigating  circumstances gets completely shadowed by the aggravating  circumstances. The  crime in question is not arising out of  any personal enmity or from the property dispute or of like  nature.   The   balance   of   aggravating   and   mitigating  circumstances do not tilt in favour of the Accused. Perusal  of the authorities cited by the Ld. Defence Advocate  show  that  they are the cases  for the offence of murder and were  held not to come under the category of rarest of rare cases.  It is rightly submitted by Ld. Spl.P.P that none of the case  cited   by   the   Ld.   Defence   Advocate   is   pertaining   to   the  offence     of   Terrorist   Act.   The   said   cases   pertains   to   the  offence of murder committed out of family feud, out of love  affair,    out of   kidnapping and murder  for ransom, out of  dispute   over   small   house,   out   of   money   invested   in  lottery/money circulation scheme, out of rivalry and  out of  outcasting   from   participation   in   the   affairs   of   the  community. The facts and circumstances of the said cases  are totally different. What is to be looked is the aggravating  and mitigating circumstances while awarding the sentence.    218]     The submissions made by the Accused are on 


the   merits   and   demerits   of   the   case   and   so,   have   no  bearing   at   this   stage   of   the   case.   The   court   has   already  come to the conclusion that the Accused  was  the part of  the   same   conspiracy   which   was   executed   by   way   of  explosion at the German Bakery. There is nothing to show  that the Accused  was under the honest and bonafide belief  that  he  was    morally justified in committing  terrorist act  which killed 17 persons and injured 58 persons.There is no  material to show that the Accused   was under any duress  or domination to commit the crime.  Proved circumstances  show that the  Accused   voluntarily indulged in conspiracy  and   the   terrorist   act.   The evidence on  record shows that  the  Accused  is   greatly   influenced   by   the   ideology   of  terrorism and he is held guilty for the conspiracy. There are  no   chances   of   his   reformation.   From   the   proved  circumstances   it   is   established   that   the   Accused     also  participated   in   the   heinous   terrorist   act   of   causing   the  Bomb   Blast   leaving   several   innocent   Indians   and   foreign  nationals dead and injured leaving the injured victim to live  miserable   remaining   life   and   also   miserable   lives   of   the  families   of   the   victims   who   were  killed.   Undoubtedly,   the  present crime is grave and also against the humanity  and  committed     to   undermine   the   image   and   security   of   the  country. As the Accused  is citizen of this country there is 


betrayal of motherland due to his involvement in the crime.  The crime is committed by the use of explosive which, by  all means attributes the knowledge about the destruction it  would cause.  As seen from the proved circumstances the  Accused  did everything in a calculated manner and  he is  also   the   threat   for   the   society.   From   the   proved  circumstances,   the   offence   falls   under   the   category   of  rarest   of   rare     case.   In   view   of   the   proved   facts     and  circumstances   of   the   case   and   taking   into   consideration  the  observations   made by the  Honourable Apex  Court  in  the   aforementioned   Judgments,   the   only   punishment  which   the   Accused     deserves   is   that   of   death   penalty.  Hence,   by   answering   the   points,   I   proceed   to   pass   the  following order. 



The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig 

Inayat Mirza @  Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable under section 16(1)(a) of the Unlawful Activities  (Prevention) Act, 1967 and sentenced to death and to pay  fine of Rs. 500/­ (Five hundred only), in default to pay fine,  to undergo imprisonment for one month. The Accused   be 


hanged by the neck till he is dead.  2] The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig 

Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable   under   section   10(b)   of   the   Unlawful   Activities  (Prevention) Act, 1967 and sentenced to death and to pay  fine of Rs. 500/­ (Five hundred only), in default to pay fine,  to undergo imprisonment for one month. The Accused   be  hanged by the neck till he is dead.  3]  The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig 

Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable   under   section   10(a)   of   the   Unlawful   Activities  (Prevention)   Act,   1967   and   sentenced   to   suffer  Imprisonment for two years and to pay   fine of Rs. 500/­  (Five   hundred   only),   in   default   to   pay   fine,   to   undergo  imprisonment for one month. 4]  The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig 

Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable   under   section   18   of   the   Unlawful   Activities  (Prevention)   Act,   1967   and   sentenced   to   suffer  imprisonment   for   life   and to  pay    fine of  Rs.   500/­  (Five  hundred   only),   in   default   to   pay   fine,   to   undergo  imprisonment for one month. 5]  The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig 

Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence 


punishable   under   section   20   of   the   Unlawful   Activities  (Prevention)   Act,   1967   and   sentenced   to   suffer  imprisonment   for   life  and  to pay     fine  of  Rs.  500/­   (Five  hundred   only),   in   default   to   pay   fine,   to   undergo  imprisonment for one month. 6]  The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig 

Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable under section 13(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities  (Prevention)   Act,   1967   and   sentenced   to   suffer  imprisonment for Seven years and to pay  fine of Rs. 500/­  (Five   hundred   only),   in   default   to   pay   fine,   to   undergo  imprisonment for one month. 7] The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig 

Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable   under   section   13(2)   of   the   Unlawful   Activities  (Prevention)   Act,   1967   and   sentenced   to   suffer  imprisonment for Five years. 8] The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig 

Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable under section 120B of Indian Penal Code and  sentenced   to   death   and   to   pay   fine   of   Rs.   500/­   (Five  hundred   only),   in   default   to   pay   fine,   to   undergo  imprisonment for one month. The Accused   be hanged by  the neck till he is dead. 



 The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig 

Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable  under  section   302 read with 120B of Indian  Penal Code and sentenced to death and to pay fine of Rs.  500/­   (Five   hundred   only),   in   default   to   pay   fine,   to  undergo   imprisonment   for   one   month.   The   Accused     be  hanged by the neck till he is dead. 10]  The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig  Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable   under   section   307   read   with   120B   of   Indian  Penal Code  and sentenced to suffer  imprisonment for life  and to pay  fine of Rs. 500/­ (Five hundred only), in default  to pay fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month. 11]  The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig  Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable   under   section   435   read   with   120B   of   Indian  Penal   Code     and   sentenced   to   suffer     imprisonment   for  Seven   years   and   to  pay    fine of  Rs.  500/­ (Five hundred  only), in default to pay fine, to undergo imprisonment for  one month. 12]  The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig  Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable under section 153A of Indian Penal Code   and  sentenced to suffer  imprisonment for Three years. 


13]  The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig  Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable   under   section 474 of  Indian  Penal  Code   and  sentenced to suffer   imprisonment for Seven years and to  pay  fine of Rs. 500/­ (Five hundred only), in default to pay  fine, to undergo imprisonment for one month. 14]  The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig  Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is acquitted for the offences  punishable under sections 465, 467 and 468 of the Indian  Penal Code. 15] The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig  Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable   under   section   3(b)   of   Explosive   Substances  Act,1908 read with section120B of Indian Penal Code and  sentenced   to   death   and   to   pay   fine   of   Rs.   500/­   (Five  hundred   only),   in   default   to   pay   fine,   to   undergo  imprisonment for one month. The Accused   be hanged by  the neck till he is dead. 16] The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig  Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable under section 4(a)&(b) of Explosive Substances  Act,1908 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for  life   and   to   pay   fine   of   Rs.   500/­   (Five   hundred   only),   in  default   to   pay   fine,   to   undergo   imprisonment   for   one 


month. 17]  The Accused Mirza Himayat Baig @  Ahmed Baig  Inayat Mirza @ Hasan @ Yusuf is convicted for the offence  punishable   under   section   5   of   Explosive   Substances  Act,1908 and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for  life   and   to   pay   fine   of   Rs.   500/­   (Five   hundred   only),   in  default   to   pay   fine,   to   undergo   imprisonment   for   one  month. 18] All these sentences shall run concurrently. 19] The   Record   &   Proceeding   and   the   Muddemal  property     be   preserved   for   the   trial   of   the   absconding  Accused. 20] The   Proceedings   shall   be   submitted   to   the  Honourable High Court  and sentence of death shall not be  executed,   until   it   is   confirmed   by   the   Honourable   High  Court.

Pune. Date:18­04­2013

   ( N.P.Dhote) Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune.

I affirm that the contents of this P.D.F file Judgment are  the same word for word as per the original Judgment. Name of the Stenographer : Sou. S.U.Duraphe     Stenographer H.G. Judgment signed by P.O.on 22­04­2013 Judgment uploaded on: 29­04­2013



Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful