State of Maharashtra Vs. Mohd. Ahmed Mansoor
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2011
Petitioner: State of Maharashtra
Respondent: Mohd. Ahmed Mansoor
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2011
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(3), 15 – Appeal against acquittal – General charge of conspiracy and charge under Section 3(3), TADA – Acquittal by Designated Court – Allegation that respondent facilitated stay of co-accused at Dubai and their transit to Pakistan, where they were trained in arms and ammunition – Respondent also facilitated their transit and stay on their return from Pakistan – Confessional statement of A92, A115, A108 stating about such facilitation of stay and transit – A92 (PW2) referring to accused by his first name and not mentioning his full name – Noticing failure by prosecution to establish the correct identity of accused, respondent acquitted. Held, acquittal calls for no interference.
99. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2007, passed by the Special Judge of the Designated Court under the TADA in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1 of 1993. The respondent has been acquitted of all the charges.
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Sections 3(3), 15 – Appeal against acquittal – General charge of conspiracy and charge under Section 3(3), TADA – Acquittal by Designated Court – Allegation that respondent facilitated stay of co-accused at Dubai and their transit to Pakistan, where they were trained in arms and ammunition – Respondent also facilitated their transit and stay on their return from Pakistan – Confessional statement of A92, A115, A108 stating about such facilitation of stay and transit – A92 (PW2) referring to accused by his first name and not mentioning his full name – Noticing failure by prosecution to establish the correct identity of accused, respondent acquitted. Held, acquittal calls for no interference.
99. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.8.2007, passed by the Special Judge of the Designated Court under the TADA in the Bombay Blast Case No. 1 of 1993. The respondent has been acquitted of all the charges.
JUDGEMENT:
100. In addition to the general charge of conspiracy, the respondent was charged under Section 3(3) TADA.
101. After conclusion of the trial, the Designated Court acquitted the respondent of all the charges.
Hence, this appeal.
102. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State argued that the respondent received the co-accused at Dubai and facilitated their stay at Dubai and further facilitated their transit to Pakistan where they took training for handling of arms and ammunition etc. When co-accused came back from Pakistan through Dubai, their transit and stay was again facilitated by him. Therefore, his acquittal of all the charges deserves reversal.
103. Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is no iota of evidence showing involvement of the respondent in any overt act or conspiracy. The well reasoned judgment of the Designated Court does not warrant interference by this court.
104. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The respondent did not make any confessional statement.
Evidence against the respondent :
Confessional statement of Mohd. Hanif Mohd Usman Shaikh (A- 92):
105. The accused (A-92) revealed that he got a passport in the year 1987 and visited Dubai and other gulf countries several times prior to Bombay Blast. During the riots in Bombay in December, 1992 and January, 1993, he was working as the driver of Salim Kurla. Salim Kurla asked A-92 to go to Dubai. A-92 agreed and he was paid Rs. 1000/- in cash and Salim Kurla agreed to arrange his ticket etc. Ticket of A-92 to Dubai was arranged by Salim Kurla as was done by him for Sayeed, Usman and Ibrahim. All of them reached Dubai. There two persons named Ahmed and Farooq were waiting for them outside the airport. From there, A-92 and other accused were taken to Delhi Darbar Hotel in two cars. On the next day, Ahmed and Farooq came to the hotel and told them that they would go to Pakistan for work. They were also given some money. After 4 days, Salim, Ahmed and Farooq came to the hotel. Salim told them that their air tickets for going to Pakistan were ready. Thereafter, Salim and Ahmed called them and stated that great injustice had been done to the Muslim community in Bombay riots in December 1992 and January 1993. Thus, in order to ensure that it was not repeated, they should be given training of handling of arms/guns and ammunition. They should be ready to go to Pakistan the next day. Salim, Ahmed and Farooq left the hotel. Next day Ahmed and Farooq came to the hotel and delivered their tickets and passports. After some time, Salim also came. The accused (A-92) went with Usman, Ahmed and alongwith others to Dubai airport. On the way, Ahmed gave one yellow coloured cap to Usman (PW.2) and told him to wear the same after reaching Pakistan so that the person who was coming to receive them, would be able to identify them. In Pakistan, they were received at the airport by one Altaf and taken to the training camp in a jungle. During their training, a person named Ahmed came there and enquired about training. After completion of the training, two pathans took them to unknown bungalow in a jeep. Thereafter, they came to Karachi and then Dubai and stayed in Delhi Darbar Hotel.
Confessional Statement of Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Hussain Shaink (A- 108):
106. He revealed that he was well acquainted with one Ismail and after the riots in Bombay in December 1992 and January 1993, he suffered a loss in business and used to stay at home. On 16.1.1993, Ismail came to his house and asked him if he had a passport and whether he was willing to go to Dubai. Accused (A-108) told Ismail that he had no money. Ismail told him not to worry about money, he would make the necessary payments. So, he got ready to go to Dubai. A- 108 left for Dubai alongwith co-accused and reached Dubai where two persons named Ahmed and Farooq (whose names were disclosed by Salim) were waiting outside the airport. Ahmed told them next day that they had to go to Pakistan for work and Ahmed gave them each 200 Dinars for their expenses. Ahmed and Farooq had been meeting them and facilitated their stay and subsequent transit to Pakistan. Ahmed gave one yellow coloured cap to Usman (PW.2) and told him to wear it in Pakistan so that they would be identified by the person who would come to receive them at the airport. After reaching Pakistan, Usman (PW.2) wore Yellow coloured cap. One person came to receive them, Usman (PW.2) told him that Ahmed and Farooq had sent them from Dubai. They were taken outside the airport and taken to training camp in a jungle. He (A-108) got injured during the training so he was taken to hospital at Islamabad for treatment. He stayed in the hospital for six days. He was brought to Karachi airport from Islamabad by air by one Yusuf and one unknown person and then he reached Dubai. Yusuf took him to the house of Anees Bhai. Ahmed was also present there. The next day the servant of Ahmed took him to Delhi Darbar Hotel where he met other persons. From there, they came back to Bombay.
Confessional statement of Usman Man khan Shaikh (A-115):
107. He revealed like other co-accused that he had also gone to Dubai and two persons named Ahmed and Farooq were already waiting for them outside the airport. They had facilitated their stay in Dubai and transit to Pakistan. All arrangements were made by them. When the accused came back after having training in Pakistan Ahmed had given him 200 Dinars for expenses. A-115 revealed that the said accused persons got training in Pakistan. During their training, Ahmed came and enquired about their training. After completion of their training, they came back to Dubai and went to Delhi Darbar Hotel and then on 15.2.1993, Ahmed and Yusuf took them to Dubai Airport and then arrived at Bombay.
108. In his statement, Usman Ahmed Jan Khan (PW-2) made reference to Ahmed without giving his full name and address or any other particular, which may be a decisive factor to determine as to whether the respondent was the real person to whom the witness had been talking about.
109. The Special Judge has given benefit of doubt to the respondent (A-132) reaching the conclusion that the prosecution failed to disclose the correct identity of the accused. None of the witness/accused had referred to his full name or address even once. In such a fact-situation, the Special Judge has rightly given him the benefit of doubt.
110. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the prosecution failed to fix the identity of the accused who had gone to Pakistan for training, we are of the opinion that the respondent has rightly been given the benefit of doubt.
111. The parameters laid down by this Court in entertaining the appeal against the order of acquittal have to be applied.
112. The appeal lacks merit, and the judgment and order of acquittal does not deserve interference. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
***************
101. After conclusion of the trial, the Designated Court acquitted the respondent of all the charges.
Hence, this appeal.
102. Shri Mukul Gupta, learned senior counsel appearing for the State argued that the respondent received the co-accused at Dubai and facilitated their stay at Dubai and further facilitated their transit to Pakistan where they took training for handling of arms and ammunition etc. When co-accused came back from Pakistan through Dubai, their transit and stay was again facilitated by him. Therefore, his acquittal of all the charges deserves reversal.
103. Ms. Farhana Shah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that there is no iota of evidence showing involvement of the respondent in any overt act or conspiracy. The well reasoned judgment of the Designated Court does not warrant interference by this court.
104. We have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The respondent did not make any confessional statement.
Evidence against the respondent :
Confessional statement of Mohd. Hanif Mohd Usman Shaikh (A- 92):
105. The accused (A-92) revealed that he got a passport in the year 1987 and visited Dubai and other gulf countries several times prior to Bombay Blast. During the riots in Bombay in December, 1992 and January, 1993, he was working as the driver of Salim Kurla. Salim Kurla asked A-92 to go to Dubai. A-92 agreed and he was paid Rs. 1000/- in cash and Salim Kurla agreed to arrange his ticket etc. Ticket of A-92 to Dubai was arranged by Salim Kurla as was done by him for Sayeed, Usman and Ibrahim. All of them reached Dubai. There two persons named Ahmed and Farooq were waiting for them outside the airport. From there, A-92 and other accused were taken to Delhi Darbar Hotel in two cars. On the next day, Ahmed and Farooq came to the hotel and told them that they would go to Pakistan for work. They were also given some money. After 4 days, Salim, Ahmed and Farooq came to the hotel. Salim told them that their air tickets for going to Pakistan were ready. Thereafter, Salim and Ahmed called them and stated that great injustice had been done to the Muslim community in Bombay riots in December 1992 and January 1993. Thus, in order to ensure that it was not repeated, they should be given training of handling of arms/guns and ammunition. They should be ready to go to Pakistan the next day. Salim, Ahmed and Farooq left the hotel. Next day Ahmed and Farooq came to the hotel and delivered their tickets and passports. After some time, Salim also came. The accused (A-92) went with Usman, Ahmed and alongwith others to Dubai airport. On the way, Ahmed gave one yellow coloured cap to Usman (PW.2) and told him to wear the same after reaching Pakistan so that the person who was coming to receive them, would be able to identify them. In Pakistan, they were received at the airport by one Altaf and taken to the training camp in a jungle. During their training, a person named Ahmed came there and enquired about training. After completion of the training, two pathans took them to unknown bungalow in a jeep. Thereafter, they came to Karachi and then Dubai and stayed in Delhi Darbar Hotel.
Confessional Statement of Shaikh Ibrahim Shaikh Hussain Shaink (A- 108):
106. He revealed that he was well acquainted with one Ismail and after the riots in Bombay in December 1992 and January 1993, he suffered a loss in business and used to stay at home. On 16.1.1993, Ismail came to his house and asked him if he had a passport and whether he was willing to go to Dubai. Accused (A-108) told Ismail that he had no money. Ismail told him not to worry about money, he would make the necessary payments. So, he got ready to go to Dubai. A- 108 left for Dubai alongwith co-accused and reached Dubai where two persons named Ahmed and Farooq (whose names were disclosed by Salim) were waiting outside the airport. Ahmed told them next day that they had to go to Pakistan for work and Ahmed gave them each 200 Dinars for their expenses. Ahmed and Farooq had been meeting them and facilitated their stay and subsequent transit to Pakistan. Ahmed gave one yellow coloured cap to Usman (PW.2) and told him to wear it in Pakistan so that they would be identified by the person who would come to receive them at the airport. After reaching Pakistan, Usman (PW.2) wore Yellow coloured cap. One person came to receive them, Usman (PW.2) told him that Ahmed and Farooq had sent them from Dubai. They were taken outside the airport and taken to training camp in a jungle. He (A-108) got injured during the training so he was taken to hospital at Islamabad for treatment. He stayed in the hospital for six days. He was brought to Karachi airport from Islamabad by air by one Yusuf and one unknown person and then he reached Dubai. Yusuf took him to the house of Anees Bhai. Ahmed was also present there. The next day the servant of Ahmed took him to Delhi Darbar Hotel where he met other persons. From there, they came back to Bombay.
Confessional statement of Usman Man khan Shaikh (A-115):
107. He revealed like other co-accused that he had also gone to Dubai and two persons named Ahmed and Farooq were already waiting for them outside the airport. They had facilitated their stay in Dubai and transit to Pakistan. All arrangements were made by them. When the accused came back after having training in Pakistan Ahmed had given him 200 Dinars for expenses. A-115 revealed that the said accused persons got training in Pakistan. During their training, Ahmed came and enquired about their training. After completion of their training, they came back to Dubai and went to Delhi Darbar Hotel and then on 15.2.1993, Ahmed and Yusuf took them to Dubai Airport and then arrived at Bombay.
108. In his statement, Usman Ahmed Jan Khan (PW-2) made reference to Ahmed without giving his full name and address or any other particular, which may be a decisive factor to determine as to whether the respondent was the real person to whom the witness had been talking about.
109. The Special Judge has given benefit of doubt to the respondent (A-132) reaching the conclusion that the prosecution failed to disclose the correct identity of the accused. None of the witness/accused had referred to his full name or address even once. In such a fact-situation, the Special Judge has rightly given him the benefit of doubt.
110. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the prosecution failed to fix the identity of the accused who had gone to Pakistan for training, we are of the opinion that the respondent has rightly been given the benefit of doubt.
111. The parameters laid down by this Court in entertaining the appeal against the order of acquittal have to be applied.
112. The appeal lacks merit, and the judgment and order of acquittal does not deserve interference. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
***************
