Parvez Nazir Ahmed Shaikh (A-12) Vs. The State of Maharashtra Thr. CBI-STF, Mumbai
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 897 of 2008
Petitioner: Parvez Nazir Ahmed Shaikh (A-12)
Respondent: The State of Maharashtra Thr. CBI-STF, Mumbai
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 897 of 2008
Judges: P. Sathasivam & Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 21, 2013
Head Note:
Criminal Laws
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Sections 3,5,6,15 TADA Rules, 1987, Rule 15(2), 15(3) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120A, 120B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436 Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 9B Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 Conspiracy Charge of Proof – Evidence Bombay blast case Confessional statement of accused PN (A12) Accused introduced to Tiger Memon Took active part in meeting and in landing smuggled items Witnessed loading of contrabands in cavities of jeeps and in lorry and also loading of RDX in jeeps and assisted Took RDX laden scooter and parked in Katha Bazar Planted suitcase at Hotel Sea Rock Confession truthful and voluntary Recorded with all safe guards. Held that accused was a party to conspiracy and his confession is admissible in evidence. Charge of conspiracy proved. (Para 384 390)
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Sections 3,5,6,15 TADA Rules, 1987, Rule 15(2), 15(3) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120A, 120B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436 Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 9B Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 Conspiracy Charge of Proof – Evidence Bombay blast case Confessional statement of accused PN (A12) Accused introduced to Tiger Memon Took active part in meeting and in landing smuggled items Witnessed loading of contrabands in cavities of jeeps and in lorry and also loading of RDX in jeeps and assisted Took RDX laden scooter and parked in Katha Bazar Planted suitcase at Hotel Sea Rock Confession truthful and voluntary Recorded with all safe guards. Held that accused was a party to conspiracy and his confession is admissible in evidence. Charge of conspiracy proved. (Para 384 390)
Sections 3, 5, 6, 15, Sections 3,5,6,15 TADA Rules, 1987, Rule 15(2), 15(3) Penal Code, 1860, Sections 120A, 120B, 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436 Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 9B Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 3, 4, 5, 6 Evidence Act, 1872, Section 3 Conspiracy Bombay blast case Evidence Blast at Katha Bazar PW seeing accused (A12) parking scooter in Bazar Identified him in court Also identified him in TIP conducted by SEM Another witness saw him parking scooter as he objected parking near car of his employer, which was completely burnt Connected evidence of officer who recorded confession and SEMs who conducted TIP Seizure of left article at blast site including number plate of scooter Said scooter purchased by PW at behest of co-accused in fake name Depositions of various witnesses regarding death and injuries in blast at said site Further evidence regarding blast at Hotel Sea Rock Specific evidence of Hotel staff that accused came with suitcase and bag and left after 10-15 minutes without luggage Accused identified by staff in TIP Room booked in fake name Several witnesses to injuries and death Several police officers examined regarding site inspection and seizures Recovery of revolver and bullets at behest of accused in presence of witnesses. Held that charge as leveled against accused stands established.
Held:
On perusal of the depositions of PWs-8 and 9, it is clearly established that on 12.03.1993, the appellant parked the scooter at Katha Bazaar, opposite to Matruchhaya Building which later exploded. The appellant was duly identified by PWs 8 & 9 before the Court and also during the identification parade conducted by the Special Executive Magistrate. The above depositions also sufficiently corroborate the confessional statement made by the appellant that he parked a scooter laden with explosives at Katha Bazaar. (Para 392)
PW-386, purchased the scooter at the behest of A-26 from Ratlam, MP in the fake name of P.B. Mali and A-26 paid the money for the said purchase. PW-386 also sent the registration papers to him which were subsequently recovered from his shop vide disclosure statement made by A-26. (Para 392.9)
The scooter was booked in the fake name is also established from the deposition of PW-75. (Para 392.11)
Witnesses have proved the damage caused to the public property on account of explosion at Katha Bazar. (Para 393.5)
PW-23 was working as an attendant in the House Keeping Department of the said Hotel. He deposed as under:
i) A guest (A-12), carrying a biscuit coloured suitcase and a black shoulder bag checked in Room No. 1840 at about 12:15 hrs.
ii) The guest (A-12) was finding difficulty in opening the lock of the room so he assisted him in opening the door.
iii) The appellant asked him not to disturb as he was exhausted and wanted to sleep.
iv) Around 3 p.m., he heard a loud explosion due to which the said room was completely damaged and the lift also stopped working.
v) PW-23 identified the appellant before the Court in the dock.
vi) He also identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade conducted by Vasant Kamble (PW-462) on 21.03.1993. (Para 394)
The evidence establishes the fact that the appellant (A-12) entered into the Room No. 1840 along with the luggage and after leaving the same in the said room, he went out of the hotel. Thereafter, a big explosion took place in the said room. Both PWs-23 and 28 have identified the appellant (A-12). (Para 394.4)
Room No. 1840 was booked in a fictitious name. (Para 394.9)
Sufficient evidence is available on record to substantiate the fact that the appellant (A-12) participated in filling RDX in vehicles in the night intervening 11th/12th March, 1993. (Para 396)
PW-8 saw a person parking the said scooter at Katha Bazaar from the window of his office which is at a distance of about 15-20 meters from the road. The scooter of PW-8s employer was parked close to the scooter parked by the appellant (A-12). It is normal human behaviour to look out for ones own vehicle or employers vehicle and accordingly, PW-8 was attentive and had a clear sight of the scooter. Thus, there was no difficulty in seeing the appellant parking the scooter which later exploded. (Para 397)
It is contended on behalf of the appellant (A-12) that PW-530 had not obtained the signatures of panch witnesses upon the licence and/or that he had not recorded the Registration number of the vehicle in the Station Diary and that the panch witness was not a local panch witness and was from a place more than 100 kms. away. This submission is also liable to be rejected since PW-530 clearly explained the circumstances in which he had taken the said panch for the panchnama, i.e., the persons who were fetched by staff from Crawford Market. PW-530 in his deposition stated that the driving licence being a plastic card, he could not obtain the signatures on the same and the details of the driving licence having already been mentioned in the panchnama, he had not pasted the label of the signature of panch witness upon the same and that he had mentioned in the Station Diary the purpose of his visit and the persons accompanying him. (Para 398)
PW-28 had correctly identified the appellant (A-12) during the test identification parade dated 07.05.1993 and he failed to identify him before the Court possibly because his testimony was recorded after about 2 years and 9 months, i.e. on 21.12.1995. (Para 399)
In view of the above said confessional statement of the appellant (A-12), the confessional statements of other co-accused persons, as also the eye-witnesses along with other witnesses duly examined by the prosecution and recoveries made, the charges framed against the appellant have been duly proved. (Para 400)
JUDGEMENT:
Judgement
379. Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel appeared for the appellant (A-12) and Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel and Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent.
380. The instant appeal is directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.09.2006 and 18.07.2007 respectively, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blasts Case, Greater Bombay, BBC Case No. 1/1993.
Charges:
381. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co- conspirators including the appellant (A-12). The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder:-
During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (UA.E.) Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate Sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, handgrenades and other explosives substances like RDX or inflammable substances or fire- arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of, damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunitions, detonators, handgrenades and high explosives like RDX into India and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/co-conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea Rock at Bandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and property worth about Rs. 27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), 3(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1A), (1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 9B(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and within my cognizance.
381.1 In addition to the abovesaid principal charge of conspiracy, the appellant was also charged on the following counts:
At head secondly; He abetted and knowingly and intentionally facilitated the commission of terrorist acts and acts preparatory to terrorist acts by doing the following overt acts:
i) He along with co-conspirators participated in the landing and transportation of arms, ammunition and explosives at Shekhadi on 3rd and 7th February, 1993;
ii) He participated in training in handling and use of arms, ammunition and handgrenades on the outskirts of village Sandheri and Borghat;
iii) He along with co-conspirators participated in preparation of vehicle bombs in the night of 11th/12th March, 1993 at Al-Hussaini Building;
iv) He participated in the transportation of arms, ammunition, handgrenades and electric detonators from Jogeshwari to Musafirkhana with co-accused Ashrafur Rehman Azimulla Sheikh @ Lalloo and Smt. Ruksana Mohammed Shafi Zariwala and thereby having committed an offence punishable under Section 3(3) of the TADA.
At head thirdly; He drove scooter bearing registration no. MP-14-B-5349, laden with RDX explosives and fitted with time device detonator and parked the said vehicle at Katha Bazaar, opposite Maturchhaya Building, PS Pydhonie, Bombay which exploded resulting in death of 4 persons, injuring 21 others and causing loss of properties worth Rs. 37 lakhs and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(2)(i) and (ii) of TADA.
At head fourthly; For the aforesaid act mentioned in charge thirdly, the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
At head fifthly; For the aforesaid act mentioned in charge thirdly, the appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC by injuring 21 persons.
At head sixthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion, which resulted in grievous hurt to 10 persons, committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
At head seventhly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion and voluntarily causing hurt to 11 persons, committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
At head eighthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion, caused damage to properties worth Rs. 37 lakhs, committed an offence punishable under Section 435 IPC.
At head ninthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion, caused damage to the property used as dwelling house and as places for custody of property committed an offence punishable under Section 436 IPC.
At head tenthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion, committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
At head eleventhly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion, committed an offence punishable under Section 4 (a)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
At head twelfthly; The appellant (A-12), by possessing RDX without licence which was filled in the above mentioned scooter, which was used for causing the aforesaid explosion, committed an offence punishable under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884.
At head thirteenthly; The appellant (A-12), planted an explosive laden suitcase in Room No. 1840 of Hotel Sea Rock on 12th March, 1993, which exploded causing damage to the property to the tune of Rs. 9 crores and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(ii) of TADA.
At head fourteenthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
At head fifteenthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion in Hotel Sea Rock by using explosives committed an offence punishable under Section 436 IPC.
At head sixteenthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion in Hotel Sea Rock which resulted in damage to the properties worth Rs. 9 crores, committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
At head seventeenthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion in Hotel Sea Rock committed an offence punishable under Section 4 (a)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
At head eighteenthly; The appellant (A-12), by possessing explosives without licence, committed an offence punishable under Section 9B (1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884.
382. The Designated Judge found the appellant guilty on all the aforesaid charges. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the above said charges as follows:
Conviction and Sentence:
(i) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death under Section 3(3) of TADA and Section 120-B of IPC read with the offences mentioned in the said charge. In addition, the appellant was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 25, 000/-. (charge firstly)
(ii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA for commission of such acts as found proved from clauses a and c from charge at head secondly framed against him and on said count the appellant (A-12) was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 12 years and is ordered to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 1 year. (charge secondly)
(iii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head thirdly framed against him and on said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer punishment of death, subject to confirmation of the same by this Court, and is also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. (charge thirdly)
(iv) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head fourthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer punishment of death, subject to confirmation of the same by this Court, and is also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. (charge fourthly)
(v) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head fifthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for life and is ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. (charge fifthly)
(vi) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head seventhly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years. (charge seventhly)
(vii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 435 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head eighthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. (charge eighthly)
(viii) The appellant (A-12) was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at heady ninthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for a period of 6 months. (charge ninthly)
(ix) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head tenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of six months. (charge tenthly)
(x) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head eleventhly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and is ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. (charge eleventhly)
(xi) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head twelfthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for two years. (charge twelfthly)
(xii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(ii) of TADA for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head thirteenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for life and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 3 years. (charge thirteenthly)
(xiii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head fourteenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 3 years. (charge fourteenthly)
(xiv) The appellant (A-12) was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head fifteenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 3 years. (charge fifteenthly)
(xv) The appellant (A-12) was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head sixteenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. (charge sixteenthly)
(xvi) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head seventeenthly framed against him and on the said count, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. (charge seventeenthly)
(xvii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head eighteenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for two years. (charge eighteenthly)
Evidence:
383. The evidence against the appellant (A-12) is in the form of:-
(i) his own confession;
(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-accused);
(iii) testimonies of prosecution witnesses including eye witnesses; and
(iv) documentary evidence.
Conspiracy:
384. As mentioned above, a common charge of conspiracy has been framed against all the accused persons and in order to bring home the charge, the 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 circumstance. Since we have elaborately discussed the issue relating to conspiracy in the earlier part of our judgment, there is no need to refer the same once again.
Confessional Statement of Parvez Nazir Ahmed Shaikh (A-12)
385. Confessional statement of A-12 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 18.04.1993 (14:00 hrs.) and 21.04.1993 (06:50 hrs.), by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. The facts emerge from his confessional statement are as under:
i) The appellant (A-12) was introduced to Tiger by Abdul Gani Ismail Turk (A-11).
ii) The appellant (A-12) was told by A-11 that his (A-12) job was to bring and deliver the Hawala money. Tiger Memon told the appellant to work with honesty.
iii) In Tigers office, the appellant (A-12) came across Asgar Yusuf Mukadam (A-10), Shafi (AA), Rafiq Madi (A-46), Anwar Theba (AA), Imtiyaz Yunusmiyan Ghavate (A-15), Salim Rahim Shaikh (A-52), Mohd. Hussian, Mohammed Mushtaq Moosa Tarani (A-44) and Haneef (A-40) and also came to know that Tiger was a smuggler of silver.
iv) In the last week of January, 1993, the appellant (A-12) accompanied A-15 to the Tigers residence from where they, along with Tiger and other associates, left for Shekhadi for landing of smuggled items.
v) The landing took place after three days. Meanwhile, the appellant (A-12) and others stayed at Vesava Hotel at Mahad and also at Hotel Big Splash, Alibaug.
vi) On the 4th day, landing took place at Shekhadi. The appellant and some other boys were asked to wait for A-11 at the Tower. Thereafter, Tiger Memon came there along with a motor lorry which was loaded with goods. All the boxes in the lorry were unloaded at the Tower. The appellant and others opened the boxes and found that they were containing hand grenades, bullets, revolvers and wire bundles. Thereafter, some goods were loaded in the cavities of the Jeeps and the remaining goods were loaded in the lorry.
vii) The appellant (A-12) along with Nasir Abdul Kader Kewal @ Nasir Dhakla (A-64), drove a Jeep and stayed at Khandala as instructed by Tiger. A-64 left for Bombay as his daughter was sick. Tiger instructed the appellant (A-12) to stay there and told him that Suleman Mohammed Kasam Ghavate (A-18) will come in the morning. Accordingly, A-18 and A-15 came to Khandala and all of them left for Bombay.
viii) At the time of opening of goods at the Tower, Tiger showed a pencil like item to all of them and told that it was worth Rs.25,000/- and he could blow one Hotel Oberoi with it.
ix) In the second week of February, 1993, the appellant again went with Tiger Memon and other accused persons to Shekhadi coast and was present there at the time when the goods were unloaded and re- loaded in the tempo. Thereafter, he went to the Tower along with other accused persons.
x) On 15th/16th February, 1993, the appellant along with A-10 went to the Tigers residence at Al-Hussaini Building where Shafi distributed Rs.10,000/- to everyone present there.
xi) On 11th March, on the instructions of Tiger, the appellant along with A-10, carried two suitcases, two hand bags and one big suitcase to Room No. 17 of Musafirkhana where he found that one bag was containing AK-56 rifles and another bag was having hand grenades in it. Thereafter, they went to the house of Shafi.
xii) The appellant (A-12) and Shafi then went to Shafis sister-in-laws house at Jogeshwari in a jeep where wife of Shafi (Rukhsana) (A-103) was also present. Shafi kept 2 AK-56 rifles and some hand grenades in one bag and pistols in another bag.
xiii) The appellant (A-12) and others carried both the bags and left in a Jeep and Shafi dropped them at Mahim and asked them to go to his house. Thereafter, they went to the house of Shafi and left both the bags there.
xiv) The appellant (A-12) drove Shafis scooter and reached Al-Hussaini Building.
xv) At Al-Hussaini Building, the appellant saw that the accused persons were filling the black coloured chemical into the cars, scooters and Jeeps which was smuggled on 03.02.1993 at Shekhadi,.
xvi) The appellant also assisted the co-accused persons in filling RDX in vehicles.
xvii) The appellant, A-10 and Shoaib were asked by Anwar Theba (AA) to dispose off 5/6 plastic bags containing the empty cardboard boxes in which black soap was packed.
xviii) On return to Tigers residence, the appellant along with Asgar and Shoaib picked up three suitcases which were kept in the garage and reached Anwars residence in a red coloured Van where they met Anwar Theba (AA) and Mushtaq (A-44). A-15 also joined them later.
xix) Anwar Theba (AA) and Mushtaq (A-44) sat in the Van and left towards Link Road. On the way, Anwar Theba (AA) opened the bags and inserted the pencil like articles into the chemical filled therein and then closed the same.
xx) After reaching Link Road, Anwar Theba (AA) instructed A-12 to take one bag and keep it in Room No. 1840 of Hotel Sea Rock.
xxi) Accordingly, the appellant kept the said explosive-laden bag in the said room and reached the Al-Hussaini Building and handed over the keys of the said room to Anwar.
xxii) Thereafter, Anwar handed over an old blue coloured Bajaj Scooter to the appellant and asked him to park it in Katha Bazaar. Before leaving, Anwar Theba (AA) further inserted the said pencil into the black chemical which was filled in the scooter. The appellant parked the scooter at Katha Bazaar and took away the keys of the scooter with himself.
xxiii) On 12.03.1993, When Asgar and Shoaib came to the house of the appellant (A-12), he then handed over the keys of the scooter which he had parked at Katha Bazaar to Asgar.
xxiv) He knew that the explosions were for taking revenge for demolition of Babri Masjid against Hindus. He knew that the explosion would cause huge loss to human lives and properties and he intentionally committed this mistake.
386. On perusal of the aforesaid confessional statement, the followings facts emerge:
i) The appellant (A-12) was a trusted confidant of Tiger Memon since he was assisting him in crime
relating to Hawala transaction and was well acquainted with other co-conspirators;
ii) He participated in the landing of arms and ammunitions and explosives and was fully aware of the nature and capacity of such material which is clear from the demonstration given by Tiger and as stated by the appellant (A-12) that a pencil like thing was good enough to blow the Oberoi Hotel;
iii) He participated in the transportation and storage of such material;
iv) He participated in filling of RDX in the vehicles parked in the garage of Al-Hussaini building;
v) He planted the suitcase in Hotel Sea Rock knowing that it contains RDX and is fitted with time pencil detonator; and
vi) He parked the scooter laden with black chemical and fitted with time pencil detonator at Katha Bazaar.
Retraction Statement:
387. It was contended on behalf of the appellant (A-12) that since he subsequently retracted from his own confession dated 11.01.1994, the same cannot be relied upon. Since we have elaborately discussed the admissibility or otherwise of the retraction statements in the earlier part of our judgment, there is no need to refer the same once again. The said conclusion will be applicable to this appeal also.
Confessional Statements of co-accused:
388. Apart from his own confession, the involvement of the appellant has also been disclosed in the confessional statements of the following co- accused. The legality and acceptability of the confessions of the co- accused has been considered by us in the earlier part of our discussion. The said confessions insofar as they refer to the appellant are summarized hereinbelow:
Confessional Statement of Mohammed Soaib Mohammed Kasam Ghansar (A-9)
388.1 Confessional statement of A-9 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 19.04.1993 (13:10 hrs.) and 22.04.1993 (00:30 hrs.), by Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. A-9 with reference to A-12 has stated as under:
i) The appellant (A-12) was working for Tiger Memon and he used to visit his shop occasionally.
ii) The appellant (A-12) along with other accused persons was working in the garage at Al-Hussaini.
iii) A-12 and A-10, on the instructions of Anwar Theba (AA), threw away six big plastic bags in the wastage van of BMC.
iv) In the morning of 12.03.1993, A-12 and A-10 brought out three VIP bags from the garage at Al-Hussaini Building and put them in the Van and left for the residence of Anwar.
v) Anwar Theba (AA) inserted pencil of steel into the blackish chemical inside the bags and then the appellant was dropped near a taxi and was asked to go to Hotel Sea Rock with a bag.
vi) The appellant came back to the Al-Hussaini building.
(vii) After the blast, A-10 and A-9 went to the house of the appellant on 13.03.1993.
Confessional Statement of Asgar Yusuf Mukadam (A-10)
388.2 Confessional statement of A-10 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 23.04.1994 (18:00 hrs.), by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone III, Bombay. A-10 with reference to the appellant has stated as under:
i) The appellant was dealing with Hawala money.
ii) The appellant was present at Tigers residence.
iii) A-10 and A-12 took Rs. 5 lakhs from Choksi (A-97) and gave it to Sharif Abdul Gafoor Parkar @ Dadabhai (A-17).
iv) The appellant assisted him in collecting Rs. 1 crore from Choksi (A-97) for Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1).
v) The appellant accompanied him to the Tigers residence and shifted two VIP bags, one hand bag and one briefcase from Tigers residence to Room No.17 of the Haj Committee House, near Crawford Market.
vi) The appellant accompanied him (A-10) to the house of Shafi and took a new scooter from his residence.
vii) The appellant (A-12) along with other co-accused persons was present at the Al-Hussaini building in the night intervening between 11/12th March and was loading black chemical in the vehicles.
viii) A-10 and A-12 disposed off the plastic bags in which the empty boxes of chemicals were kept.
ix) The appellant was present along with him when Anwar Theba (AA) inserted aluminum like pencils into the chemical filled in the suitcases.
x) The appellant was dropped by the accused (A-10) on the instructions of Anwar Theba (AA) with one of the said VIP bag.
(xi) The appellant (A-12) came back to Al-Hussaini building, thereafter, as per the instructions of Anwar, he drove one scooter loaded with RDX to park it at the designated place.
Confessional Statement of Abdul Gani Ismail Turk (A-11)
388.3 Confessional statement of A-11 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 15.04.1993 (22:35 hrs.) and 18.04.1993, by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. A-11 with reference to the appellant has stated that:
i) The appellant (A-12) was present at the residence of Tiger Memon on or about 27/28th January along with co-accused Shafi, Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1), Rahim Yakub Memon, Rafiq Madi (A-46) and Imtiyaz Yunusmiyan Ghavate (A-15), whereafter, all of them (except Yakub and his wife) left for Mhasla/Shekhadi.
ii) The appellant (A-12) was present at Al-Hussaini on 11.03.1993 and was filling chemical @ black soap in the vehicles along with the co-accused.
Confessional Statement of Dawood @ Dawood Taklya Mohammed Phanse @ Phanasmiyan (A-14)
388.4 Confessional statement of A-14 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 17.04.1993, by Shri P.K. Jain, the then DCP, Zone III, Bombay. A-14 with reference to the appellant stated that the appellant along with Tiger Memon and others came to Shekhadi for landing of arms. Confessional Statement of Imtiaz Yunusmiyan Ghavate (A-15)
388.5 Confessional statement of A-15 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 07.05.1993 (12:30 hrs.) and 09.05.1993 (13:30 hrs.), by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone III, Bombay. A-15 with reference to the appellant stated the following:
i) The appellant worked in the office of Tiger Memon.
ii) The appellant participated in the landing at Shekhadi.
iii) The appellant arrived at Anwars house in the morning of 12.03.1993 along with A-10.
iv) Thereafter, the appellant reached Al-Hussaini building.
v) The appellant drove a scooter filled with black coloured soap like chemical at the instance of Anwar Theba (AA).
389. On perusal of the aforesaid confessions of the co-accused, it is clearly discernible that the appellant knowingly participated in doing the following overt acts:
i) The appellant was a trusted confident of Tiger Memon since he was assisting him in crime relating to Hawala transactions and was well acquainted with other co-conspirators.
ii) The appellant participated in the landing of arms and ammunitions and explosives and was fully aware of the nature and capacity of such material.
iii) The appellant participated in transportation and storage of such material.
iv) The appellant was involved in filling of RDX in the vehicles parked in the garage of the Al-Hussaini building.
v) The appellant planted suitcase in Hotel Sea Rock knowing that it contains RDX and is fitted with time pencil detonator.
vi) The appellant parked the scooter laden with black chemical on the instructions of Anwar.
390. It is also clear that the confessions made by the appellants are truthful and voluntary and were made without any coercion. All safeguards enumerated under Section 15 of TADA and the rules framed thereunder have been duly complied with while recording the confessions of the appellants.
Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:
Blast at Katha Bazaar
Deposition of Laxman Dhondu Posture (PW-8)
391. PW-8 was working as a peon in the office of Chemical Corporation, Katha Bazaar. He is an eyewitness to the incident and has deposed as under:
i) The appellant parked the scooter on the road in front of the Matruchayya Building at Katha Bazaar. It was this scooter in which the bomb exploded.
ii) PW-8 identified the appellant before the court in the dock as the person who parked the said scooter.
iii) PW-8 identified the appellant in the identification parade conducted by Moreshwar Thakur (PW-469), Special Executive Magistrate, on 13.05.1993, in Sitaram Building.
iv) PW-8 further deposed that his employers scooter was also parked next to the scooter parked by the appellant which was blown into pieces.
Deposition of Abdulla Ibrahim Shaikh (PW-9)
391. PW-9 was a driver working with one Mr. Mehra, whose office was on the third floor of AGH Chambers which is opposite to Matruchayya building:
i) PW-9 deposed that on 12.03.1993, a boy was trying to park a scooter adjacent to his employers car.
ii) PW-9 told the driver of the scooter not to park it there since it would be difficult for him to take out his car.
iii) PW-9 further deposed that on this the driver of the scooter told him that he will leave in a while and parked his scooter there itself.
iv) While parking the scooter, the appellant even lost his balance and was about to fall on the car then he helped the driver of the scooter to park it.
v) PW-9 stated that after sometime he heard the sound of a big explosion and saw that his car was completely burnt.
vi) PW-9 identified the appellant (A-12) before the Court as the boy who parked the said scooter which exploded.
vii) PW-9 also identified the appellant in the identification parade conducted on 21.03.1993 at 4.30 p.m. by PW-462 at Sacred Heart School.
392. On perusal of the depositions of PWs-8 and 9, it is clearly established that on 12.03.1993, the appellant parked the scooter at Katha Bazaar, opposite to Matruchhaya Building which later exploded. The appellant was duly identified by PWs 8 & 9 before the Court and also during the identification parade conducted by the Special Executive Magistrate. The above depositions also sufficiently corroborate the confessional statement made by the appellant that he parked a scooter laden with explosives at Katha Bazaar.
Deposition of Vasant Ganpat Kamble (PW-462)
392.1 At the relevant time, PW-462 was the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) who conducted the Test Identification Parade for the identification of the appellant. He deposed as under:
i) He conducted the Test Identification Parade on 21.03.1993 for PW-9.
ii) He further deposed that PW-9 duly identified the appellant (A-12).
iii) The witness proved the panchnama of the parade which was prepared by him and is marked as Exh. 1478.
Deposition of Moreshwar Thakur (PW-469)
392.1 At the relevant time, PW-469 was the Special Executive Magistrate who conducted the Test Identification Parade for the identification of the appellant-A-12. He deposed as under:
i) PW-469 conducted the Test Identification Parade on 13.05.1993 at Sitaram Building in the presence of two panchas and also prepared a panchnama for the said parade.
ii) PWs-8 and 9 identified the appellant as the person who parked the scooter at Katha Bazaar.
iii) PW-469 in his deposition proved the panchnama.
Deposition of Suresh Satappa Walishetty (PW-680)
392.3 PW-680 was the Investigating Officer at the relevant time in the case pertaining to blast at Katha Bazaar:
i) He deposed that the appellant made a statement before him that he was willing to make a voluntary disclosure which was reduced into writing by him.
ii) The appellant (A-12) led the police party to Room No. 63 on the ground floor of Railway Quarters from where he took out a white shirt from a trunk and handed over the same to the police. On inspection by the police, it was found that it contained black stains on both the sleeves.
iii) He deposed that he drew a recovery panchnama of the entire event.
iv) He deposed that on 31.05.1993, the appellant made another disclosure statement and led the police party and got his driving licence bearing No. MH-01-93-5023 issued on 17.02.1993 recovered from the house of his friend Mohd. Taufiq Naulakhiya resident of Hussain Rattan Chawl. The panchnamas for the entire event were also prepared.
v) Vide covering letter dated 28.06.1993, PW-680 sent the said shirt to the Chemical Analyzer.
vi) The report of the Chemical Analyser dated 16.07.1993 was received by him.
vii) He also deposed that one Raju Kodi (A-26) made a voluntary confession and led the police party to his shop and he took out a packet from a cupboard and handed over the same to the police party who opened it and found that it contained a registration certificate of Bajaj Scooter bearing No. MP-14-B-5349, Chassis No. MO-5-178695.
viii) He deposed that he prepared two panchnamas of the entire event.
392.4 The report of the Chemical Analyzer confirms the presence of the highly explosive RDX (Cyclonite) on the shirt recovered by the police party at the instance of the appellant (A-12). Thus it can safely be inferred that the appellant was present at the time of filling RDX in the vehicles and during the said process he had soiled his shirt.
Deposition of Sanjay Laxman Kadam (PW-530)
392.5 PW-530 was the API and had assisted PW-680 in the interrogation of the appellant on 31.05.1993. PW-530 confirms and corroborates the fact of the appellant (A-12) making a voluntary statement and, thereafter, leading the police party to the house of his friend Mohd. Taufiq from where his driving licence was recovered.
Deposition of Abdul Rauf (PW-525)
392.6 PW-525 was a police officer at Pydhonie, Police Station at the relevant time. He deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence in the presence of panch witnesses. He further deposed as under:
i) He seized chassis of a scooter and a part of the scooter which had burnt on the spot. The chassis bore the No. MO-5-178695.
ii) He seized the number plate of the scooter bearing No. MP 1B 5349.
iii) He also seized glass splinters and ashes from the spot.
iv) He deposed that he seized pieces of cloth and earth soaked with oil lying on the spot.
v) He also drew a spot panchnama which was proved by him.
Deposition of Ramesh G. Thakur (PW-64)
392.7 PW-64, an electrician working in Andheri, has deposed as a witness. The following facts have been established from his statement:
i) He is a panch witness.
ii) In his presence, A-26 made a voluntary statement.
iii) A-26 led the police party and the panch witness to his shop.
iv) In his presence, the police party pursuant to disclosure recovered the registration papers of Bajaj scooter.
Deposition of Shantilal Gandhi (PW-386)
392.8 PW-386 was involved in the preparation of ornaments of gold and owned a stall in Zaveri Bazaar. He deposed to the following effect:
i) He is a resident of Ratlam and after staying there he came to Bombay and worked at Zaveri Bazaar.
ii) He knows A-26 since 1983.
iii) Between 15-20th April, 1992 he went to Ratlam by train and before leaving, he met A-26.
iv) A-26 told him that since Kumbhmela was going on in M.P., he would get 50% off on purchase of scooters.
v) A-26 gave him Rs.20,000/- to purchase a scooter from Ratlam, M.P. in the name of P.B. Mali.
vi) He purchased the scooter for Rs.19,000/- from Ratlam in the name of P.B. Mali and gave his residential address as 53, Hatiram Darwaja.
vii) The Registration No. of the scooter was MP-14-B-5349.
viii) He then booked the scooter by train to A-26 from Ratlam.
392.9 Upon perusal of the evidence of PW-386, it is clearly established that he purchased the scooter at the behest of A-26 from Ratlam, MP in the fake name of P.B. Mali and A-26 paid the money for the said purchase. PW-386 also sent the registration papers to him which were subsequently recovered from his shop vide disclosure statement made by A-26.
Deposition of Pratapram Buraji Mali (PW-75)
392.10 He had his own business of making gold and silver ornaments and so also in the Share Market. He deposed as under:
i) He knew Raju Kodi (A-26) for the last ten years.
ii) He had seen Raju Kodi driving a blue coloured scooter of Bajaj Company.
iii) He had not booked any scooter in his name.
392.11 On perusal of the aforesaid deposition, it is clearly discernible that the scooter was booked in the fake name which fact is also established from the deposition of PW-75.
Other Witnesses:
Depositions of Dharmendra Ratilal Parekh (PW-423) and Sadashiv Ganpat Ranmale (PW-429)
393. The above witnesses deposed about taking claim of the dead body of their brothers who succumbed to the injuries sustained during the blast at Katha Bazaar.
Deposition of Dr. Madhavrao Lalasaheb Lankeshwar (PW-478)
393. 1 PW-478 deposed about the fact that Hiten Ratilal Parikh, brother of PW- 423 died on account of burn injuries sustained by him. PW-478 also issued Medical Certificate explaining the cause of the death.
Deposition of Vijay Harishchandra Kelvekar (PW-479)
393.2 PW-479 deposed about the fact that Baburao Ganpat Ranmale, brother of PW-429, died on account of burn injuries sustained by him. He also issued Medical Certificate explaining the cause of the death.
Deposition of Faizan Khan (PW-372)
393.3 PW-372 deposed that Gulabi House owned by his company was damaged. He deposed that the damage estimated to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
Deposition of Dinanath Ramchand Ramani (PW-373)
393.4 PW-373 deposed that he has an office at Vyapar Bhavan and due to the explosion at Katha Bazaar the glass panes of the windows in the bathroom and balcony were damaged.
Depositions of Suresh Shamrao Jathar (PW-617), Maheshwar Diwakar Datt Sharma (PW-616) and Anil Baburao Gorakshakar (PW-618)
393.5 All the abovesaid witnesses have proved the damage caused to the public property on account of explosion at Katha Bazar.
Deposition of Namdeo Yashwant Gole (PW-430)
393.6. PW-430 deposed that he sustained injuries on his leg and forehead due to which he became unconscious and was admitted in GT Hospital.
Explosion at Hotel Sea Rock:
Deposition of Premchand Pandhari Nath Garud (PW-23)
394. PW-23 was working as an attendant in the House Keeping Department of the said Hotel. He deposed as under:
i) A guest (A-12), carrying a biscuit coloured suitcase and a black shoulder bag checked in Room No. 1840 at about 12:15 hrs.
ii) The guest (A-12) was finding difficulty in opening the lock of the room so he assisted him in opening the door.
iii) The appellant asked him not to disturb as he was exhausted and wanted to sleep.
iv) Around 3 p.m., he heard a loud explosion due to which the said room was completely damaged and the lift also stopped working.
v) PW-23 identified the appellant before the Court in the dock.
vi) He also identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade conducted by Vasant Kamble (PW-462) on 21.03.1993.
394.1 Deposition of Vasant Kamble (PW-462)
i) He is the SEM who conducted the TIP on 21.03.1993 for the identification of A-12 at Sacred Hearts School.
ii) A Panchnama of the parade was also prepared by him which is marked as Exh. 1478 and he also proved the same.
Deposition of Suresh K. Singh (PW-28)
394.2 At the relevant time, PW-28 was working as a bell boy in the said hotel.
i) On 12.03.1993, he offered help to the appellant (A-12) to carry his biscuit coloured suitcase and black coloured bag but he refused to take any help.
ii) After 10/15 minutes, he saw the appellant leaving the hotel without luggage.
(iii) He identified the appellant (A-12) in the Identification Parade dated 07.05.1993 conducted by Almedia, Special Executive Magistrate at Bandra Police Station in the presence of panch witness.
394.3 Deposition of Suresh Kumar Champalal Bhandari (PW-467)
i) He was the panch witness of the parade conducted by the SEM.
ii) He deposed that PWs-28 and 23 duly identified the appellant (A-12) in the Identification Parade conducted by SEM
iii) He deposed that a panchnama was prepared for the parade.
394.4 The above said evidence establishes the fact that the appellant (A-12) entered into the Room No. 1840 along with the luggage and after leaving the same in the said room, he went out of the hotel. Thereafter, a big explosion took place in the said room. Both PWs-23 and 28 have identified the appellant (A-12).
Deposition of Ms. Darive Nicholas Henriques (PW-279)
394.5 PW-279 was the Front Office Receptionist at Hotel Sea Rock at the relevant time and deposed that a person by name Domnic DSouza came to the hotel along with one more person to make an advance payment for Mr. Advanis reservation on 08.03.1993.
Deposition of Johnwin George Manavalan (PW-280)
394.6 PW-280 was working as a Cashier at Hotel Sea Rock and deposed of having accepted Rs.7,000/- on 08.03.1993 towards advance payment for reservation of the said room commencing from 11.03.1993, in the name of Mr. Advani. He further deposed that he issued receipt for the same.
Deposition of Valery DSouza (PW-620)
394.7 PW-620 was a Reservation Assistant at Hotel Sea Rock at the relevant time and deposed that on 08.03.1993, a person had come to confirm the check in of one Mr. Advani on 11.03.1993. She deposed that the said person deposited Rs.7,000/- with the cashier and completed the reservation formalities.
Deposition of Lorraine Gonsalves (PW-495)
394.8 A receptionist at Hotel Sea Rock testified as follows:
i) One person came to the desk and told that he has a booking in the name of Mr. Advani for Gorakhpur Metal Company.
ii) He gave the booking number.
iii) He also produced the receipt for advance payment.
iv) He was given a registration card in which he filled 108, Napean Sea Road, as his address.
v) After completing all the formalities, she allotted Room No. 1840 and handed over the keys of the said room to him.
Deposition of Dr. Manoj Jagatraj Virani (PW-107)
394.9 He was a doctor and residing at 100 AA, Sea View Bungalow. He deposed that no person by name Dominic DSouza or Advani stayed at 108 Napean Sea Road.
On perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it is established that Room No. 1840 was booked in a fictitious name.
Deposition of Dominic Anthony Martis (PW-333)
394.10 At the relevant time, PW-333 was working as a Security Assistant at Hotel Sea Rock and deposed about the explosion and damage caused due to it. He proved his complaint which culminated into a first information report about the said incident.
Deposition of Rajan Mayandy Natarajan (PW-437)
394.11 He was also a Security Officer at Hotel Sea Rock and he deposed about the scene after the blast. He further deposed about the inspection of the site conducted by PSI Bhagwan and proved the panchnama drawn by him.
Dastagir Mohamad Gavandi (PW-552)
394.12 PW-552 was a police officer and he deposed as under:
i) He inspected the site.
ii) PSI Bhagwan collected 7 to 8 samples from the room by drawing panchnama in the presence of panch witnesses.
iii) On 14.03.1993, he along with PW-531 again went to the Hotel with FSL experts who took some samples and handed over them to PW-531 vide panchnama Exh. 1826.
iv) On 19.03.1993, he sent three sealed packets vide covering letter to Chemical Analyzer through PW-531.
v) The chemical analyser report was received on 29.03.1993.
394.13 The report of the Chemical Analyser in this regard is clear that the samples sent for examination contained traces of high explosive RDX (Cyclonite) and nitrite.
Deposition of Bhaurao Takekar (PW-531)
394.14 PW-531 was a police officer and deposed that on 14.04.1993 he went to the Hotel along with Mandlik and Karnik, FSL experts and inspected the said room. The FSL experts collected samples and handed over to him. He deposed that he drew a panchnama and handed over the seized articles to PW-
552. He further deposed that he handed over three sealed packets to FSL for opinion vide covering letter Exh. 1897.
Deposition of Ashok Hotchand Motwani (PW-419)
394.15 PW-419 was a Project Manager at Hotel Sea Rock and deposed about the monetary loss/damage caused to the hotel building owing to the explosion.
Other Recoveries at the behest of the appellant:
Deposition of Padmakar Bhosale (PW-43)
395. PW-43 is a hawker near Gandhi Market. He deposed that:
i) The appellant made a voluntary statement that he was in possession of the licence and the revolver of the Tiger Memon which he has kept in a black coloured pouch in a house.
ii) The appellant led the police party and the panchas to Railway Quarters, Andheri.
iii) The appellant took them behind his house and took out a black coloured pouch from the cavity of a fallen tree which contained a revolver loaded with six rounds and five loose rounds were also found, out of which, three were similar in number and two had different numbers inscribed on it.
iv) The police party seized the same and a panchnama was drawn by PW-506.
Deposition of Anil Prabhakar Mahabole (PW-506)
395.1 PW-506 was posted at Matunga Police Station as API. He deposed as under:
i) The appellant expressed his willingness to make a voluntary statement.
ii) He called for two panchas.
iii) He recorded the statement of the appellant (A-12) by drawing the panchnama.
iv) The appellant (A-12) led the police party and the panchas to Railway quarters.
v) The appellant (A-12) then took the police party behind his house and from the cavity of a fallen tree pulled out a pouch.
vi) The said pouch contained one old cobra brand loaded revolver and five loose live cartridges.
396. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant (A-12) that there is no eye-witness to the incident of filling of RDX and as such the said incident has not been proved by the prosecution. It is clear from the confession of the appellant (A-12) and the confessions of other co-accused that the work of filling of RDX in vehicles and suitcases was carried out in the garage of the Al-Hussaini Building. We are also satisfied that sufficient evidence is available on record to substantiate the fact that the appellant (A-12) participated in filling RDX in vehicles in the night intervening 11th/12th March, 1993.
397. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that PW-8 saw a person parking the said scooter at Katha Bazaar from the window of his office which is at a distance of about 15-20 meters from the road and therefore, his statement should not be relied upon. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant (A-12) that the doctor who treated PW-8 of the injuries sustained by him in the blast has not been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PW-8. The said contentions are also liable to be rejected since the scooter of PW-8s employer was parked close to the scooter parked by the appellant (A-12). It is normal human behaviour to look out for ones own vehicle or employers vehicle and accordingly, PW-8 was attentive and had a clear sight of the scooter. Thus, there was no difficulty in seeing the appellant parking the scooter which later exploded. Further, PW-8 has correctly identified the appellant (A-12) before the Court during the dock proceedings and also in the Test Identification Parade. In addition to the same, it is relevant to mention that PW-8 has been extensively cross-examined by the defence on the point that he was injured and he took treatment at Dr. Shahs Clinic and he withstood the cross-examination without being shaken. Therefore, the credibility of the evidence of PW-8 is not affected whatsoever.
398. It is contended on behalf of the appellant (A-12) that PW-530 had not obtained the signatures of panch witnesses upon the licence and/or that he had not recorded the Registration number of the vehicle in the Station Diary and that the panch witness was not a local panch witness and was from a place more than 100 kms. away. This submission is also liable to be rejected since PW-530 clearly explained the circumstances in which he had taken the said panch for the panchnama, i.e., the persons who were fetched by staff from Crawford Market. PW-530 in his deposition stated that the driving licence being a plastic card, he could not obtain the signatures on the same and the details of the driving licence having already been mentioned in the panchnama, he had not pasted the label of the signature of panch witness upon the same and that he had mentioned in the Station Diary the purpose of his visit and the persons accompanying him.
399. Finally, it is contended on behalf of the appellant (A-12) that the testimony of PW-28 should be disregarded since he failed to identify the appellant (A-12) before the Court. This contention of learned counsel is also liable to be rejected since PW-28 had correctly identified the appellant (A-12) during the test identification parade dated 07.05.1993 and he failed to identify him before the Court possibly because his testimony was recorded after about 2 years and 9 months, i.e. on 21.12.1995.
400. In view of the above said confessional statement of the appellant (A-12), the confessional statements of other co-accused persons, as also the eye-witnesses along with other witnesses duly examined by the prosecution and recoveries made, the charges framed against the appellant have been duly proved.
379. Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel appeared for the appellant (A-12) and Mr. Gopal Subramanium, learned senior counsel, duly assisted by Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel and Mr. Satyakam, learned counsel for the respondent.
380. The instant appeal is directed against the final judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 21.09.2006 and 18.07.2007 respectively, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death by the Designated Court under TADA for the Bombay Bomb Blasts Case, Greater Bombay, BBC Case No. 1/1993.
Charges:
381. A common charge of conspiracy was framed against all the co- conspirators including the appellant (A-12). The relevant portion of the said charge is reproduced hereunder:-
During the period from December, 1992 to April, 1993 at various places in Bombay, District Raigad and District Thane in India and outside India in Dubai (UA.E.) Pakistan, entered into a criminal conspiracy and/or were members of the said criminal conspiracy whose object was to commit terrorist acts in India and that you all agreed to commit following illegal acts, namely, to commit terrorist acts with an intent to overawe the Government as by law established, to strike terror in the people, to alienate Sections of the people and to adversely affect the harmony amongst different sections of the people, i.e. Hindus and Muslims by using bombs, dynamites, handgrenades and other explosives substances like RDX or inflammable substances or fire- arms like AK-56 rifles, carbines, pistols and other lethal weapons, in such a manner as to cause or as likely to cause death of or injuries to any person or persons, loss of, damage to and disruption of supplies of services essential to the life of the community, and to achieve the objectives of the conspiracy, you all agreed to smuggle fire-arms, ammunitions, detonators, handgrenades and high explosives like RDX into India and to distribute the same amongst yourselves and your men of confidence for the purpose of committing terrorist acts and for the said purpose to conceal and store all these arms, ammunitions and explosives at such safe places and amongst yourselves and with your men of confidence till its use for committing terrorist acts and achieving the objects of criminal conspiracy and to dispose off the same as need arises. To organize training camps in Pakistan and in India to import and undergo weapons training in handling of arms, ammunitions and explosives to commit terrorist acts. To harbour and conceal terrorists/co-conspirators, and also to aid, abet and knowingly facilitate the terrorist acts and/or any act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts and to render any assistance financial or otherwise for accomplishing the object of the conspiracy to commit terrorist acts, to do and commit any other illegal acts as were necessary for achieving the aforesaid objectives of the criminal conspiracy and that on 12.03.1993 were successful in causing bomb explosions at Stock Exchange Building, Air India Building, Hotel Sea Rock at Bandra, Hotel Centaur at Juhu, Hotel Centaur at Santacruz, Zaveri Bazaar, Katha Bazaar, Century Bazaar at Worli, Petrol Pump adjoining Shiv Sena Bhavan, Plaza Theatre and in lobbing handgrenades at Macchimar Hindu Colony, Mahim and at Bay-52, Sahar International Airport which left more than 257 persons dead, 713 injured and property worth about Rs. 27 crores destroyed, and attempted to cause bomb explosions at Naigaum Cross Road and Dhanji Street, all in the city of Bombay and its suburbs i.e. within Greater Bombay and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and Section 120(B) of Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3(2)(i)(ii), 3(3), 3(4), 5 and 6 of TADA (P) Act, 1987 and read with Sections 302, 307, 326, 324, 427, 435, 436, 201 and 212 of Indian Penal Code and offences under Sections 3 and 7 read with Sections 25 (1A), (1B)(a) of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 9B(1)(a)(b)(c) of the Explosives Act, 1884, Sections 3, 4(a)(b), 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and within my cognizance.
381.1 In addition to the abovesaid principal charge of conspiracy, the appellant was also charged on the following counts:
At head secondly; He abetted and knowingly and intentionally facilitated the commission of terrorist acts and acts preparatory to terrorist acts by doing the following overt acts:
i) He along with co-conspirators participated in the landing and transportation of arms, ammunition and explosives at Shekhadi on 3rd and 7th February, 1993;
ii) He participated in training in handling and use of arms, ammunition and handgrenades on the outskirts of village Sandheri and Borghat;
iii) He along with co-conspirators participated in preparation of vehicle bombs in the night of 11th/12th March, 1993 at Al-Hussaini Building;
iv) He participated in the transportation of arms, ammunition, handgrenades and electric detonators from Jogeshwari to Musafirkhana with co-accused Ashrafur Rehman Azimulla Sheikh @ Lalloo and Smt. Ruksana Mohammed Shafi Zariwala and thereby having committed an offence punishable under Section 3(3) of the TADA.
At head thirdly; He drove scooter bearing registration no. MP-14-B-5349, laden with RDX explosives and fitted with time device detonator and parked the said vehicle at Katha Bazaar, opposite Maturchhaya Building, PS Pydhonie, Bombay which exploded resulting in death of 4 persons, injuring 21 others and causing loss of properties worth Rs. 37 lakhs and thereby committed offences punishable under Section 3(2)(i) and (ii) of TADA.
At head fourthly; For the aforesaid act mentioned in charge thirdly, the appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
At head fifthly; For the aforesaid act mentioned in charge thirdly, the appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC by injuring 21 persons.
At head sixthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion, which resulted in grievous hurt to 10 persons, committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC.
At head seventhly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion and voluntarily causing hurt to 11 persons, committed an offence punishable under Section 324 IPC.
At head eighthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion, caused damage to properties worth Rs. 37 lakhs, committed an offence punishable under Section 435 IPC.
At head ninthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion, caused damage to the property used as dwelling house and as places for custody of property committed an offence punishable under Section 436 IPC.
At head tenthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion, committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
At head eleventhly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion, committed an offence punishable under Section 4 (a)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
At head twelfthly; The appellant (A-12), by possessing RDX without licence which was filled in the above mentioned scooter, which was used for causing the aforesaid explosion, committed an offence punishable under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884.
At head thirteenthly; The appellant (A-12), planted an explosive laden suitcase in Room No. 1840 of Hotel Sea Rock on 12th March, 1993, which exploded causing damage to the property to the tune of Rs. 9 crores and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 3(2)(ii) of TADA.
At head fourteenthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion committed an offence punishable under Section 307 IPC.
At head fifteenthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion in Hotel Sea Rock by using explosives committed an offence punishable under Section 436 IPC.
At head sixteenthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion in Hotel Sea Rock which resulted in damage to the properties worth Rs. 9 crores, committed an offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
At head seventeenthly; The appellant (A-12), by causing the aforesaid explosion in Hotel Sea Rock committed an offence punishable under Section 4 (a)(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
At head eighteenthly; The appellant (A-12), by possessing explosives without licence, committed an offence punishable under Section 9B (1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884.
382. The Designated Judge found the appellant guilty on all the aforesaid charges. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the above said charges as follows:
Conviction and Sentence:
(i) The appellant has been convicted and sentenced to death under Section 3(3) of TADA and Section 120-B of IPC read with the offences mentioned in the said charge. In addition, the appellant was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 25, 000/-. (charge firstly)
(ii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(3) of TADA for commission of such acts as found proved from clauses a and c from charge at head secondly framed against him and on said count the appellant (A-12) was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 12 years and is ordered to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 1 year. (charge secondly)
(iii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(i) of TADA for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head thirdly framed against him and on said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer punishment of death, subject to confirmation of the same by this Court, and is also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. (charge thirdly)
(iv) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head fourthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer punishment of death, subject to confirmation of the same by this Court, and is also ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-. (charge fourthly)
(v) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head fifthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for life and is ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. (charge fifthly)
(vi) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head seventhly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years. (charge seventhly)
(vii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 435 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head eighthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. (charge eighthly)
(viii) The appellant (A-12) was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at heady ninthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 5 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-, in default, to further undergo RI for a period of 6 months. (charge ninthly)
(ix) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head tenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of six months. (charge tenthly)
(x) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head eleventhly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and is ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. (charge eleventhly)
(xi) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head twelfthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for two years. (charge twelfthly)
(xii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(ii) of TADA for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head thirteenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for life and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 3 years. (charge thirteenthly)
(xiii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head fourteenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 3 years. (charge fourteenthly)
(xiv) The appellant (A-12) was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 436 IPC for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head fifteenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 10 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 3 years. (charge fifteenthly)
(xv) The appellant (A-12) was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head sixteenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. (charge sixteenthly)
(xvi) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head seventeenthly framed against him and on the said count, he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for 7 years and was ordered to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, was ordered to suffer further RI for a period of 6 months. (charge seventeenthly)
(xvii) The appellant was further found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 9B(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, 1884 for commission of such acts as found proved from charge at head eighteenthly framed against him and on the said count he was convicted and sentenced to suffer RI for two years. (charge eighteenthly)
Evidence:
383. The evidence against the appellant (A-12) is in the form of:-
(i) his own confession;
(ii) confessions made by other co-conspirators; (co-accused);
(iii) testimonies of prosecution witnesses including eye witnesses; and
(iv) documentary evidence.
Conspiracy:
384. As mentioned above, a common charge of conspiracy has been framed against all the accused persons and in order to bring home the charge, the 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 circumstance. Since we have elaborately discussed the issue relating to conspiracy in the earlier part of our judgment, there is no need to refer the same once again.
Confessional Statement of Parvez Nazir Ahmed Shaikh (A-12)
385. Confessional statement of A-12 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 18.04.1993 (14:00 hrs.) and 21.04.1993 (06:50 hrs.), by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. The facts emerge from his confessional statement are as under:
i) The appellant (A-12) was introduced to Tiger by Abdul Gani Ismail Turk (A-11).
ii) The appellant (A-12) was told by A-11 that his (A-12) job was to bring and deliver the Hawala money. Tiger Memon told the appellant to work with honesty.
iii) In Tigers office, the appellant (A-12) came across Asgar Yusuf Mukadam (A-10), Shafi (AA), Rafiq Madi (A-46), Anwar Theba (AA), Imtiyaz Yunusmiyan Ghavate (A-15), Salim Rahim Shaikh (A-52), Mohd. Hussian, Mohammed Mushtaq Moosa Tarani (A-44) and Haneef (A-40) and also came to know that Tiger was a smuggler of silver.
iv) In the last week of January, 1993, the appellant (A-12) accompanied A-15 to the Tigers residence from where they, along with Tiger and other associates, left for Shekhadi for landing of smuggled items.
v) The landing took place after three days. Meanwhile, the appellant (A-12) and others stayed at Vesava Hotel at Mahad and also at Hotel Big Splash, Alibaug.
vi) On the 4th day, landing took place at Shekhadi. The appellant and some other boys were asked to wait for A-11 at the Tower. Thereafter, Tiger Memon came there along with a motor lorry which was loaded with goods. All the boxes in the lorry were unloaded at the Tower. The appellant and others opened the boxes and found that they were containing hand grenades, bullets, revolvers and wire bundles. Thereafter, some goods were loaded in the cavities of the Jeeps and the remaining goods were loaded in the lorry.
vii) The appellant (A-12) along with Nasir Abdul Kader Kewal @ Nasir Dhakla (A-64), drove a Jeep and stayed at Khandala as instructed by Tiger. A-64 left for Bombay as his daughter was sick. Tiger instructed the appellant (A-12) to stay there and told him that Suleman Mohammed Kasam Ghavate (A-18) will come in the morning. Accordingly, A-18 and A-15 came to Khandala and all of them left for Bombay.
viii) At the time of opening of goods at the Tower, Tiger showed a pencil like item to all of them and told that it was worth Rs.25,000/- and he could blow one Hotel Oberoi with it.
ix) In the second week of February, 1993, the appellant again went with Tiger Memon and other accused persons to Shekhadi coast and was present there at the time when the goods were unloaded and re- loaded in the tempo. Thereafter, he went to the Tower along with other accused persons.
x) On 15th/16th February, 1993, the appellant along with A-10 went to the Tigers residence at Al-Hussaini Building where Shafi distributed Rs.10,000/- to everyone present there.
xi) On 11th March, on the instructions of Tiger, the appellant along with A-10, carried two suitcases, two hand bags and one big suitcase to Room No. 17 of Musafirkhana where he found that one bag was containing AK-56 rifles and another bag was having hand grenades in it. Thereafter, they went to the house of Shafi.
xii) The appellant (A-12) and Shafi then went to Shafis sister-in-laws house at Jogeshwari in a jeep where wife of Shafi (Rukhsana) (A-103) was also present. Shafi kept 2 AK-56 rifles and some hand grenades in one bag and pistols in another bag.
xiii) The appellant (A-12) and others carried both the bags and left in a Jeep and Shafi dropped them at Mahim and asked them to go to his house. Thereafter, they went to the house of Shafi and left both the bags there.
xiv) The appellant (A-12) drove Shafis scooter and reached Al-Hussaini Building.
xv) At Al-Hussaini Building, the appellant saw that the accused persons were filling the black coloured chemical into the cars, scooters and Jeeps which was smuggled on 03.02.1993 at Shekhadi,.
xvi) The appellant also assisted the co-accused persons in filling RDX in vehicles.
xvii) The appellant, A-10 and Shoaib were asked by Anwar Theba (AA) to dispose off 5/6 plastic bags containing the empty cardboard boxes in which black soap was packed.
xviii) On return to Tigers residence, the appellant along with Asgar and Shoaib picked up three suitcases which were kept in the garage and reached Anwars residence in a red coloured Van where they met Anwar Theba (AA) and Mushtaq (A-44). A-15 also joined them later.
xix) Anwar Theba (AA) and Mushtaq (A-44) sat in the Van and left towards Link Road. On the way, Anwar Theba (AA) opened the bags and inserted the pencil like articles into the chemical filled therein and then closed the same.
xx) After reaching Link Road, Anwar Theba (AA) instructed A-12 to take one bag and keep it in Room No. 1840 of Hotel Sea Rock.
xxi) Accordingly, the appellant kept the said explosive-laden bag in the said room and reached the Al-Hussaini Building and handed over the keys of the said room to Anwar.
xxii) Thereafter, Anwar handed over an old blue coloured Bajaj Scooter to the appellant and asked him to park it in Katha Bazaar. Before leaving, Anwar Theba (AA) further inserted the said pencil into the black chemical which was filled in the scooter. The appellant parked the scooter at Katha Bazaar and took away the keys of the scooter with himself.
xxiii) On 12.03.1993, When Asgar and Shoaib came to the house of the appellant (A-12), he then handed over the keys of the scooter which he had parked at Katha Bazaar to Asgar.
xxiv) He knew that the explosions were for taking revenge for demolition of Babri Masjid against Hindus. He knew that the explosion would cause huge loss to human lives and properties and he intentionally committed this mistake.
386. On perusal of the aforesaid confessional statement, the followings facts emerge:
i) The appellant (A-12) was a trusted confidant of Tiger Memon since he was assisting him in crime
relating to Hawala transaction and was well acquainted with other co-conspirators;
ii) He participated in the landing of arms and ammunitions and explosives and was fully aware of the nature and capacity of such material which is clear from the demonstration given by Tiger and as stated by the appellant (A-12) that a pencil like thing was good enough to blow the Oberoi Hotel;
iii) He participated in the transportation and storage of such material;
iv) He participated in filling of RDX in the vehicles parked in the garage of Al-Hussaini building;
v) He planted the suitcase in Hotel Sea Rock knowing that it contains RDX and is fitted with time pencil detonator; and
vi) He parked the scooter laden with black chemical and fitted with time pencil detonator at Katha Bazaar.
Retraction Statement:
387. It was contended on behalf of the appellant (A-12) that since he subsequently retracted from his own confession dated 11.01.1994, the same cannot be relied upon. Since we have elaborately discussed the admissibility or otherwise of the retraction statements in the earlier part of our judgment, there is no need to refer the same once again. The said conclusion will be applicable to this appeal also.
Confessional Statements of co-accused:
388. Apart from his own confession, the involvement of the appellant has also been disclosed in the confessional statements of the following co- accused. The legality and acceptability of the confessions of the co- accused has been considered by us in the earlier part of our discussion. The said confessions insofar as they refer to the appellant are summarized hereinbelow:
Confessional Statement of Mohammed Soaib Mohammed Kasam Ghansar (A-9)
388.1 Confessional statement of A-9 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 19.04.1993 (13:10 hrs.) and 22.04.1993 (00:30 hrs.), by Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. A-9 with reference to A-12 has stated as under:
i) The appellant (A-12) was working for Tiger Memon and he used to visit his shop occasionally.
ii) The appellant (A-12) along with other accused persons was working in the garage at Al-Hussaini.
iii) A-12 and A-10, on the instructions of Anwar Theba (AA), threw away six big plastic bags in the wastage van of BMC.
iv) In the morning of 12.03.1993, A-12 and A-10 brought out three VIP bags from the garage at Al-Hussaini Building and put them in the Van and left for the residence of Anwar.
v) Anwar Theba (AA) inserted pencil of steel into the blackish chemical inside the bags and then the appellant was dropped near a taxi and was asked to go to Hotel Sea Rock with a bag.
vi) The appellant came back to the Al-Hussaini building.
(vii) After the blast, A-10 and A-9 went to the house of the appellant on 13.03.1993.
Confessional Statement of Asgar Yusuf Mukadam (A-10)
388.2 Confessional statement of A-10 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 23.04.1994 (18:00 hrs.), by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone III, Bombay. A-10 with reference to the appellant has stated as under:
i) The appellant was dealing with Hawala money.
ii) The appellant was present at Tigers residence.
iii) A-10 and A-12 took Rs. 5 lakhs from Choksi (A-97) and gave it to Sharif Abdul Gafoor Parkar @ Dadabhai (A-17).
iv) The appellant assisted him in collecting Rs. 1 crore from Choksi (A-97) for Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1).
v) The appellant accompanied him to the Tigers residence and shifted two VIP bags, one hand bag and one briefcase from Tigers residence to Room No.17 of the Haj Committee House, near Crawford Market.
vi) The appellant accompanied him (A-10) to the house of Shafi and took a new scooter from his residence.
vii) The appellant (A-12) along with other co-accused persons was present at the Al-Hussaini building in the night intervening between 11/12th March and was loading black chemical in the vehicles.
viii) A-10 and A-12 disposed off the plastic bags in which the empty boxes of chemicals were kept.
ix) The appellant was present along with him when Anwar Theba (AA) inserted aluminum like pencils into the chemical filled in the suitcases.
x) The appellant was dropped by the accused (A-10) on the instructions of Anwar Theba (AA) with one of the said VIP bag.
(xi) The appellant (A-12) came back to Al-Hussaini building, thereafter, as per the instructions of Anwar, he drove one scooter loaded with RDX to park it at the designated place.
Confessional Statement of Abdul Gani Ismail Turk (A-11)
388.3 Confessional statement of A-11 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 15.04.1993 (22:35 hrs.) and 18.04.1993, by Shri Prem Krishna Jain (PW-189), the then DCP, Zone X, Bombay. A-11 with reference to the appellant has stated that:
i) The appellant (A-12) was present at the residence of Tiger Memon on or about 27/28th January along with co-accused Shafi, Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (A-1), Rahim Yakub Memon, Rafiq Madi (A-46) and Imtiyaz Yunusmiyan Ghavate (A-15), whereafter, all of them (except Yakub and his wife) left for Mhasla/Shekhadi.
ii) The appellant (A-12) was present at Al-Hussaini on 11.03.1993 and was filling chemical @ black soap in the vehicles along with the co-accused.
Confessional Statement of Dawood @ Dawood Taklya Mohammed Phanse @ Phanasmiyan (A-14)
388.4 Confessional statement of A-14 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 17.04.1993, by Shri P.K. Jain, the then DCP, Zone III, Bombay. A-14 with reference to the appellant stated that the appellant along with Tiger Memon and others came to Shekhadi for landing of arms. Confessional Statement of Imtiaz Yunusmiyan Ghavate (A-15)
388.5 Confessional statement of A-15 under Section 15 of TADA has been recorded on 07.05.1993 (12:30 hrs.) and 09.05.1993 (13:30 hrs.), by Shri Krishan Lal Bishnoi (PW-193), the then DCP, Zone III, Bombay. A-15 with reference to the appellant stated the following:
i) The appellant worked in the office of Tiger Memon.
ii) The appellant participated in the landing at Shekhadi.
iii) The appellant arrived at Anwars house in the morning of 12.03.1993 along with A-10.
iv) Thereafter, the appellant reached Al-Hussaini building.
v) The appellant drove a scooter filled with black coloured soap like chemical at the instance of Anwar Theba (AA).
389. On perusal of the aforesaid confessions of the co-accused, it is clearly discernible that the appellant knowingly participated in doing the following overt acts:
i) The appellant was a trusted confident of Tiger Memon since he was assisting him in crime relating to Hawala transactions and was well acquainted with other co-conspirators.
ii) The appellant participated in the landing of arms and ammunitions and explosives and was fully aware of the nature and capacity of such material.
iii) The appellant participated in transportation and storage of such material.
iv) The appellant was involved in filling of RDX in the vehicles parked in the garage of the Al-Hussaini building.
v) The appellant planted suitcase in Hotel Sea Rock knowing that it contains RDX and is fitted with time pencil detonator.
vi) The appellant parked the scooter laden with black chemical on the instructions of Anwar.
390. It is also clear that the confessions made by the appellants are truthful and voluntary and were made without any coercion. All safeguards enumerated under Section 15 of TADA and the rules framed thereunder have been duly complied with while recording the confessions of the appellants.
Deposition of Prosecution Witnesses:
Blast at Katha Bazaar
Deposition of Laxman Dhondu Posture (PW-8)
391. PW-8 was working as a peon in the office of Chemical Corporation, Katha Bazaar. He is an eyewitness to the incident and has deposed as under:
i) The appellant parked the scooter on the road in front of the Matruchayya Building at Katha Bazaar. It was this scooter in which the bomb exploded.
ii) PW-8 identified the appellant before the court in the dock as the person who parked the said scooter.
iii) PW-8 identified the appellant in the identification parade conducted by Moreshwar Thakur (PW-469), Special Executive Magistrate, on 13.05.1993, in Sitaram Building.
iv) PW-8 further deposed that his employers scooter was also parked next to the scooter parked by the appellant which was blown into pieces.
Deposition of Abdulla Ibrahim Shaikh (PW-9)
391. PW-9 was a driver working with one Mr. Mehra, whose office was on the third floor of AGH Chambers which is opposite to Matruchayya building:
i) PW-9 deposed that on 12.03.1993, a boy was trying to park a scooter adjacent to his employers car.
ii) PW-9 told the driver of the scooter not to park it there since it would be difficult for him to take out his car.
iii) PW-9 further deposed that on this the driver of the scooter told him that he will leave in a while and parked his scooter there itself.
iv) While parking the scooter, the appellant even lost his balance and was about to fall on the car then he helped the driver of the scooter to park it.
v) PW-9 stated that after sometime he heard the sound of a big explosion and saw that his car was completely burnt.
vi) PW-9 identified the appellant (A-12) before the Court as the boy who parked the said scooter which exploded.
vii) PW-9 also identified the appellant in the identification parade conducted on 21.03.1993 at 4.30 p.m. by PW-462 at Sacred Heart School.
392. On perusal of the depositions of PWs-8 and 9, it is clearly established that on 12.03.1993, the appellant parked the scooter at Katha Bazaar, opposite to Matruchhaya Building which later exploded. The appellant was duly identified by PWs 8 & 9 before the Court and also during the identification parade conducted by the Special Executive Magistrate. The above depositions also sufficiently corroborate the confessional statement made by the appellant that he parked a scooter laden with explosives at Katha Bazaar.
Deposition of Vasant Ganpat Kamble (PW-462)
392.1 At the relevant time, PW-462 was the Special Executive Magistrate (SEM) who conducted the Test Identification Parade for the identification of the appellant. He deposed as under:
i) He conducted the Test Identification Parade on 21.03.1993 for PW-9.
ii) He further deposed that PW-9 duly identified the appellant (A-12).
iii) The witness proved the panchnama of the parade which was prepared by him and is marked as Exh. 1478.
Deposition of Moreshwar Thakur (PW-469)
392.1 At the relevant time, PW-469 was the Special Executive Magistrate who conducted the Test Identification Parade for the identification of the appellant-A-12. He deposed as under:
i) PW-469 conducted the Test Identification Parade on 13.05.1993 at Sitaram Building in the presence of two panchas and also prepared a panchnama for the said parade.
ii) PWs-8 and 9 identified the appellant as the person who parked the scooter at Katha Bazaar.
iii) PW-469 in his deposition proved the panchnama.
Deposition of Suresh Satappa Walishetty (PW-680)
392.3 PW-680 was the Investigating Officer at the relevant time in the case pertaining to blast at Katha Bazaar:
i) He deposed that the appellant made a statement before him that he was willing to make a voluntary disclosure which was reduced into writing by him.
ii) The appellant (A-12) led the police party to Room No. 63 on the ground floor of Railway Quarters from where he took out a white shirt from a trunk and handed over the same to the police. On inspection by the police, it was found that it contained black stains on both the sleeves.
iii) He deposed that he drew a recovery panchnama of the entire event.
iv) He deposed that on 31.05.1993, the appellant made another disclosure statement and led the police party and got his driving licence bearing No. MH-01-93-5023 issued on 17.02.1993 recovered from the house of his friend Mohd. Taufiq Naulakhiya resident of Hussain Rattan Chawl. The panchnamas for the entire event were also prepared.
v) Vide covering letter dated 28.06.1993, PW-680 sent the said shirt to the Chemical Analyzer.
vi) The report of the Chemical Analyser dated 16.07.1993 was received by him.
vii) He also deposed that one Raju Kodi (A-26) made a voluntary confession and led the police party to his shop and he took out a packet from a cupboard and handed over the same to the police party who opened it and found that it contained a registration certificate of Bajaj Scooter bearing No. MP-14-B-5349, Chassis No. MO-5-178695.
viii) He deposed that he prepared two panchnamas of the entire event.
392.4 The report of the Chemical Analyzer confirms the presence of the highly explosive RDX (Cyclonite) on the shirt recovered by the police party at the instance of the appellant (A-12). Thus it can safely be inferred that the appellant was present at the time of filling RDX in the vehicles and during the said process he had soiled his shirt.
Deposition of Sanjay Laxman Kadam (PW-530)
392.5 PW-530 was the API and had assisted PW-680 in the interrogation of the appellant on 31.05.1993. PW-530 confirms and corroborates the fact of the appellant (A-12) making a voluntary statement and, thereafter, leading the police party to the house of his friend Mohd. Taufiq from where his driving licence was recovered.
Deposition of Abdul Rauf (PW-525)
392.6 PW-525 was a police officer at Pydhonie, Police Station at the relevant time. He deposed that he inspected the place of occurrence in the presence of panch witnesses. He further deposed as under:
i) He seized chassis of a scooter and a part of the scooter which had burnt on the spot. The chassis bore the No. MO-5-178695.
ii) He seized the number plate of the scooter bearing No. MP 1B 5349.
iii) He also seized glass splinters and ashes from the spot.
iv) He deposed that he seized pieces of cloth and earth soaked with oil lying on the spot.
v) He also drew a spot panchnama which was proved by him.
Deposition of Ramesh G. Thakur (PW-64)
392.7 PW-64, an electrician working in Andheri, has deposed as a witness. The following facts have been established from his statement:
i) He is a panch witness.
ii) In his presence, A-26 made a voluntary statement.
iii) A-26 led the police party and the panch witness to his shop.
iv) In his presence, the police party pursuant to disclosure recovered the registration papers of Bajaj scooter.
Deposition of Shantilal Gandhi (PW-386)
392.8 PW-386 was involved in the preparation of ornaments of gold and owned a stall in Zaveri Bazaar. He deposed to the following effect:
i) He is a resident of Ratlam and after staying there he came to Bombay and worked at Zaveri Bazaar.
ii) He knows A-26 since 1983.
iii) Between 15-20th April, 1992 he went to Ratlam by train and before leaving, he met A-26.
iv) A-26 told him that since Kumbhmela was going on in M.P., he would get 50% off on purchase of scooters.
v) A-26 gave him Rs.20,000/- to purchase a scooter from Ratlam, M.P. in the name of P.B. Mali.
vi) He purchased the scooter for Rs.19,000/- from Ratlam in the name of P.B. Mali and gave his residential address as 53, Hatiram Darwaja.
vii) The Registration No. of the scooter was MP-14-B-5349.
viii) He then booked the scooter by train to A-26 from Ratlam.
392.9 Upon perusal of the evidence of PW-386, it is clearly established that he purchased the scooter at the behest of A-26 from Ratlam, MP in the fake name of P.B. Mali and A-26 paid the money for the said purchase. PW-386 also sent the registration papers to him which were subsequently recovered from his shop vide disclosure statement made by A-26.
Deposition of Pratapram Buraji Mali (PW-75)
392.10 He had his own business of making gold and silver ornaments and so also in the Share Market. He deposed as under:
i) He knew Raju Kodi (A-26) for the last ten years.
ii) He had seen Raju Kodi driving a blue coloured scooter of Bajaj Company.
iii) He had not booked any scooter in his name.
392.11 On perusal of the aforesaid deposition, it is clearly discernible that the scooter was booked in the fake name which fact is also established from the deposition of PW-75.
Other Witnesses:
Depositions of Dharmendra Ratilal Parekh (PW-423) and Sadashiv Ganpat Ranmale (PW-429)
393. The above witnesses deposed about taking claim of the dead body of their brothers who succumbed to the injuries sustained during the blast at Katha Bazaar.
Deposition of Dr. Madhavrao Lalasaheb Lankeshwar (PW-478)
393. 1 PW-478 deposed about the fact that Hiten Ratilal Parikh, brother of PW- 423 died on account of burn injuries sustained by him. PW-478 also issued Medical Certificate explaining the cause of the death.
Deposition of Vijay Harishchandra Kelvekar (PW-479)
393.2 PW-479 deposed about the fact that Baburao Ganpat Ranmale, brother of PW-429, died on account of burn injuries sustained by him. He also issued Medical Certificate explaining the cause of the death.
Deposition of Faizan Khan (PW-372)
393.3 PW-372 deposed that Gulabi House owned by his company was damaged. He deposed that the damage estimated to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
Deposition of Dinanath Ramchand Ramani (PW-373)
393.4 PW-373 deposed that he has an office at Vyapar Bhavan and due to the explosion at Katha Bazaar the glass panes of the windows in the bathroom and balcony were damaged.
Depositions of Suresh Shamrao Jathar (PW-617), Maheshwar Diwakar Datt Sharma (PW-616) and Anil Baburao Gorakshakar (PW-618)
393.5 All the abovesaid witnesses have proved the damage caused to the public property on account of explosion at Katha Bazar.
Deposition of Namdeo Yashwant Gole (PW-430)
393.6. PW-430 deposed that he sustained injuries on his leg and forehead due to which he became unconscious and was admitted in GT Hospital.
Explosion at Hotel Sea Rock:
Deposition of Premchand Pandhari Nath Garud (PW-23)
394. PW-23 was working as an attendant in the House Keeping Department of the said Hotel. He deposed as under:
i) A guest (A-12), carrying a biscuit coloured suitcase and a black shoulder bag checked in Room No. 1840 at about 12:15 hrs.
ii) The guest (A-12) was finding difficulty in opening the lock of the room so he assisted him in opening the door.
iii) The appellant asked him not to disturb as he was exhausted and wanted to sleep.
iv) Around 3 p.m., he heard a loud explosion due to which the said room was completely damaged and the lift also stopped working.
v) PW-23 identified the appellant before the Court in the dock.
vi) He also identified the appellant in the Test Identification Parade conducted by Vasant Kamble (PW-462) on 21.03.1993.
394.1 Deposition of Vasant Kamble (PW-462)
i) He is the SEM who conducted the TIP on 21.03.1993 for the identification of A-12 at Sacred Hearts School.
ii) A Panchnama of the parade was also prepared by him which is marked as Exh. 1478 and he also proved the same.
Deposition of Suresh K. Singh (PW-28)
394.2 At the relevant time, PW-28 was working as a bell boy in the said hotel.
i) On 12.03.1993, he offered help to the appellant (A-12) to carry his biscuit coloured suitcase and black coloured bag but he refused to take any help.
ii) After 10/15 minutes, he saw the appellant leaving the hotel without luggage.
(iii) He identified the appellant (A-12) in the Identification Parade dated 07.05.1993 conducted by Almedia, Special Executive Magistrate at Bandra Police Station in the presence of panch witness.
394.3 Deposition of Suresh Kumar Champalal Bhandari (PW-467)
i) He was the panch witness of the parade conducted by the SEM.
ii) He deposed that PWs-28 and 23 duly identified the appellant (A-12) in the Identification Parade conducted by SEM
iii) He deposed that a panchnama was prepared for the parade.
394.4 The above said evidence establishes the fact that the appellant (A-12) entered into the Room No. 1840 along with the luggage and after leaving the same in the said room, he went out of the hotel. Thereafter, a big explosion took place in the said room. Both PWs-23 and 28 have identified the appellant (A-12).
Deposition of Ms. Darive Nicholas Henriques (PW-279)
394.5 PW-279 was the Front Office Receptionist at Hotel Sea Rock at the relevant time and deposed that a person by name Domnic DSouza came to the hotel along with one more person to make an advance payment for Mr. Advanis reservation on 08.03.1993.
Deposition of Johnwin George Manavalan (PW-280)
394.6 PW-280 was working as a Cashier at Hotel Sea Rock and deposed of having accepted Rs.7,000/- on 08.03.1993 towards advance payment for reservation of the said room commencing from 11.03.1993, in the name of Mr. Advani. He further deposed that he issued receipt for the same.
Deposition of Valery DSouza (PW-620)
394.7 PW-620 was a Reservation Assistant at Hotel Sea Rock at the relevant time and deposed that on 08.03.1993, a person had come to confirm the check in of one Mr. Advani on 11.03.1993. She deposed that the said person deposited Rs.7,000/- with the cashier and completed the reservation formalities.
Deposition of Lorraine Gonsalves (PW-495)
394.8 A receptionist at Hotel Sea Rock testified as follows:
i) One person came to the desk and told that he has a booking in the name of Mr. Advani for Gorakhpur Metal Company.
ii) He gave the booking number.
iii) He also produced the receipt for advance payment.
iv) He was given a registration card in which he filled 108, Napean Sea Road, as his address.
v) After completing all the formalities, she allotted Room No. 1840 and handed over the keys of the said room to him.
Deposition of Dr. Manoj Jagatraj Virani (PW-107)
394.9 He was a doctor and residing at 100 AA, Sea View Bungalow. He deposed that no person by name Dominic DSouza or Advani stayed at 108 Napean Sea Road.
On perusal of the aforesaid evidence, it is established that Room No. 1840 was booked in a fictitious name.
Deposition of Dominic Anthony Martis (PW-333)
394.10 At the relevant time, PW-333 was working as a Security Assistant at Hotel Sea Rock and deposed about the explosion and damage caused due to it. He proved his complaint which culminated into a first information report about the said incident.
Deposition of Rajan Mayandy Natarajan (PW-437)
394.11 He was also a Security Officer at Hotel Sea Rock and he deposed about the scene after the blast. He further deposed about the inspection of the site conducted by PSI Bhagwan and proved the panchnama drawn by him.
Dastagir Mohamad Gavandi (PW-552)
394.12 PW-552 was a police officer and he deposed as under:
i) He inspected the site.
ii) PSI Bhagwan collected 7 to 8 samples from the room by drawing panchnama in the presence of panch witnesses.
iii) On 14.03.1993, he along with PW-531 again went to the Hotel with FSL experts who took some samples and handed over them to PW-531 vide panchnama Exh. 1826.
iv) On 19.03.1993, he sent three sealed packets vide covering letter to Chemical Analyzer through PW-531.
v) The chemical analyser report was received on 29.03.1993.
394.13 The report of the Chemical Analyser in this regard is clear that the samples sent for examination contained traces of high explosive RDX (Cyclonite) and nitrite.
Deposition of Bhaurao Takekar (PW-531)
394.14 PW-531 was a police officer and deposed that on 14.04.1993 he went to the Hotel along with Mandlik and Karnik, FSL experts and inspected the said room. The FSL experts collected samples and handed over to him. He deposed that he drew a panchnama and handed over the seized articles to PW-
552. He further deposed that he handed over three sealed packets to FSL for opinion vide covering letter Exh. 1897.
Deposition of Ashok Hotchand Motwani (PW-419)
394.15 PW-419 was a Project Manager at Hotel Sea Rock and deposed about the monetary loss/damage caused to the hotel building owing to the explosion.
Other Recoveries at the behest of the appellant:
Deposition of Padmakar Bhosale (PW-43)
395. PW-43 is a hawker near Gandhi Market. He deposed that:
i) The appellant made a voluntary statement that he was in possession of the licence and the revolver of the Tiger Memon which he has kept in a black coloured pouch in a house.
ii) The appellant led the police party and the panchas to Railway Quarters, Andheri.
iii) The appellant took them behind his house and took out a black coloured pouch from the cavity of a fallen tree which contained a revolver loaded with six rounds and five loose rounds were also found, out of which, three were similar in number and two had different numbers inscribed on it.
iv) The police party seized the same and a panchnama was drawn by PW-506.
Deposition of Anil Prabhakar Mahabole (PW-506)
395.1 PW-506 was posted at Matunga Police Station as API. He deposed as under:
i) The appellant expressed his willingness to make a voluntary statement.
ii) He called for two panchas.
iii) He recorded the statement of the appellant (A-12) by drawing the panchnama.
iv) The appellant (A-12) led the police party and the panchas to Railway quarters.
v) The appellant (A-12) then took the police party behind his house and from the cavity of a fallen tree pulled out a pouch.
vi) The said pouch contained one old cobra brand loaded revolver and five loose live cartridges.
396. It is contended by the counsel for the appellant (A-12) that there is no eye-witness to the incident of filling of RDX and as such the said incident has not been proved by the prosecution. It is clear from the confession of the appellant (A-12) and the confessions of other co-accused that the work of filling of RDX in vehicles and suitcases was carried out in the garage of the Al-Hussaini Building. We are also satisfied that sufficient evidence is available on record to substantiate the fact that the appellant (A-12) participated in filling RDX in vehicles in the night intervening 11th/12th March, 1993.
397. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that PW-8 saw a person parking the said scooter at Katha Bazaar from the window of his office which is at a distance of about 15-20 meters from the road and therefore, his statement should not be relied upon. It is further contended on behalf of the appellant (A-12) that the doctor who treated PW-8 of the injuries sustained by him in the blast has not been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the evidence of PW-8. The said contentions are also liable to be rejected since the scooter of PW-8s employer was parked close to the scooter parked by the appellant (A-12). It is normal human behaviour to look out for ones own vehicle or employers vehicle and accordingly, PW-8 was attentive and had a clear sight of the scooter. Thus, there was no difficulty in seeing the appellant parking the scooter which later exploded. Further, PW-8 has correctly identified the appellant (A-12) before the Court during the dock proceedings and also in the Test Identification Parade. In addition to the same, it is relevant to mention that PW-8 has been extensively cross-examined by the defence on the point that he was injured and he took treatment at Dr. Shahs Clinic and he withstood the cross-examination without being shaken. Therefore, the credibility of the evidence of PW-8 is not affected whatsoever.
398. It is contended on behalf of the appellant (A-12) that PW-530 had not obtained the signatures of panch witnesses upon the licence and/or that he had not recorded the Registration number of the vehicle in the Station Diary and that the panch witness was not a local panch witness and was from a place more than 100 kms. away. This submission is also liable to be rejected since PW-530 clearly explained the circumstances in which he had taken the said panch for the panchnama, i.e., the persons who were fetched by staff from Crawford Market. PW-530 in his deposition stated that the driving licence being a plastic card, he could not obtain the signatures on the same and the details of the driving licence having already been mentioned in the panchnama, he had not pasted the label of the signature of panch witness upon the same and that he had mentioned in the Station Diary the purpose of his visit and the persons accompanying him.
399. Finally, it is contended on behalf of the appellant (A-12) that the testimony of PW-28 should be disregarded since he failed to identify the appellant (A-12) before the Court. This contention of learned counsel is also liable to be rejected since PW-28 had correctly identified the appellant (A-12) during the test identification parade dated 07.05.1993 and he failed to identify him before the Court possibly because his testimony was recorded after about 2 years and 9 months, i.e. on 21.12.1995.
400. In view of the above said confessional statement of the appellant (A-12), the confessional statements of other co-accused persons, as also the eye-witnesses along with other witnesses duly examined by the prosecution and recoveries made, the charges framed against the appellant have been duly proved.
