Mumbai, September 10, 2011
Court discards charges against the two convicts; Panvel blasts case unsolved
A Sessions Court here discarded charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act brought against the two persons sentenced to 10 years over the 2008 theatre blasts, observing that as the target was a drama producer, the offence was not a “terrorist act” intended to threaten the country's sovereignty.
Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari and Vikram Vinay Bhave were sentenced to imprisonment last month for carrying out a blast at a drama theatre in Thane and planting an explosive at another in Vashi in 2008. Four other accused in the case were acquitted by the court. The case was investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS).
“It is nowhere in the case of the prosecution that the accused, by their acts, intended to threaten or were likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India. The words ‘strike terror' [in section 15 of UAPA] signify the meaning ‘hit hard to created extreme fear'. The alleged motive of the crime was objection to the performance of the drama Aamhi Pachpute , based on an alleged mockery of Hindu Gods. It appears to be the only against the producer of the said drama. The producer cannot be termed as ‘section of the people.' Therefore, section 15 is not applicable,” the court ruled in its order, a copy of which was given to the accused on Thursday. The prosecution's failure to obtain a foolproof sanction for prosecution under the UAPA also went in favour of the accused.
“The witness [who brought the original sanction file] itself is not examined to prove the sanction order and the test of the application of mind is itself not established by the prosecution. Therefore, the evidence in this respect needs to be discarded,” the court said.
The court convicted Gadkari and Bhave based on circumstantial evidence. That Bhave had carried out a test explosion identified at the spot and subsequent explosive residue found “fully established” his guilt. Gadkari wanted to raise slogans against the play; he procured a circuit, timers and batteries.
The court relied on a witness statement as proof of association between Gadkari and Bhave. “The cumulative effect of all circumstances proved… coupled with the proved motive of crime makes me believe that Gadkari and Bhave had a major role and involvement in the two incidents at Vashi and Thane.”
The court “disbelieved” the prosecution's evidence on the recovery of gelatines, detonators and revolvers from the various sites “for the reason that that disclosure statement of accused three [Bhave] does not reflect those specific places.”
It raised doubts about the “attitude” of the investigation officer based on the manner in which gelatine sticks and detonators were destroyed by the investigating agency despite a court order against it. Furthermore, while the ATS alleged purchases of 20 gelatines and 20 detonators, its report seeking sanction to prosecute mentions 35 gelatines and 35 detonators. These “inconsistencies relate to unfairness in the investigation,” the court said.
The court discarded completely the prosecution's case against the accused for exploding a bomb at a cinema theatre in Panvel for lack of evidence to prove motive. The theatre was screening the Hindi movie Jodhaa Akbar . As a result, the Panvel case remains unsolved.
“There is no evidence brought on record against the accused that they were against screening of the film Jodhaa Akbar for distortion of historical facts. Therefore, no motive is proved in respect of the alleged incident at Panvel,” the judgment states.” One of the important reasons that led to the court to discard the Panvel case was the evidence of witness Sharad Bali. He was deemed “not trustworthy,” for it took him five months to inform the police that he had seen the accused.
“There is a mystery as to why he was stimulated to identify the three persons [Gadkari, Bhave and another accused Santosh Angre] after a gap of five months,” the order states. Secondly, while the ‘panchanama' described him as a Hindu, in the cross-examination Mr. Bali said he was a Christian. The court, therefore, disbelieved his testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment