Madras High Court
Bakkiaraj vs State on 8 June, 2020
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 26.11.2019
Pronounced on : 08.06.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
CRL.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008
1.Bakkiaraj
2.Manivannan
3.Arul ... Appellants in C.A.No.655 of 2007
4.Arjunan ... Appellant in C.A.No.334 of 2008
Vs.
State, represented by,
Inspector of Police,
Q.Branch, CID,
Villupuram,
Villupuram District. ... Respondents in both appeals
PRAYER in C.A.No.655 of 2007: Criminal Appeal filed under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to setaside the conviction and
sentence imposed in S.C.No.2 of 2004 on the file of the Court of
Sessions, Exclusive Trial of Bomblast Cases, dated 18.07.2007, Chennai
at Poonamallee.
PRAYER in C.A.No.334 of 2008: Criminal Appeal filed under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment
dated 18.07.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge for Exclusive
Trial of Bomb blast cases, Chennai @ Poonamallee, Chennai in S.C.No.2
of 2004 and acquit the appellant.
1/27
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008
For Appellants
in C.A.No.655 of 2007 : Mr.K.Gandhikumar
For Appellant
in C.A.No.334 of 2008 : Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy
For Respondent
in both cases : Mrs.M.Prabhavathy, APP
*****
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellants in C.A.No.655 of 2007 are A1 to A3 and the appellant in C.A.No.334 of 2008 is A4. Both Appeals arise out of Conviction and Sentence rendered by the Special Judge, Exclusive trial for Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee in S.C.No.2 of 2004 dated 18.07.2007.
2.On conclusion of trial, the trial Court found the appellants guilty and convicted them as follows:-
(i)The appellant/A1 was convicted for offence under Section 120-
B IPC r/w Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; for offence 2/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 under Section 447 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; for offence under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; for offence under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(ii)The appellant/A2 was convicted for offence under Section 120- B IPC r/w Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; for offence under Section 447 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; for offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years; for offence under Section 4 r/w Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years; for offence under Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous 3/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 imprisonment for five years; for offence under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(iii)The appellant/A3 was convicted for offence under Section 120-B IPC r/w Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; for offence under Section 447 IPC, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; for offence under Section 4 r/w Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years; for offence under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years; for offence under Section 3 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months; for offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss, 1992, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous 4/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 imprisonment for six months.
(iv)The appellant/A4 was convicted for offence under Section 120- B IPC r/w Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years; for offence under Section 4 r/w Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years; for offence under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of Damage and Loss Act, 1992, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. All the sentences of the appellants were ordered to run concurrently.
3.The brief facts of the case is as follows:-
(i)On 19.11.2002 at about 07.00 p.m. when PW2, a resident of Oliyampalayam Village was returning home, he heard a loud bang near Thoppayangulam. Some of the village people rushed to the road side and enquired PW2. PW2 who was in dismay asked the village people to enquire about the persons who followed his two wheeler in a Yamaha 5/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 motor cycle. The three persons came slowly as if they were going to stop, but moved away fastly and the same was witnessed by PW3/Sivakumar, PW4/Sivachandran and PW5/Ilaya Perumal. Thereafter, PW2 along with villagers rushed to PW1/Village Administration Officer, Senthanadu and conveyed the incident. Then, PW1 rushed to the scene of occurrence along with his Assistant and villagers and found extensive damage to the H.T.Tower and severe damage to the legs of the tower. In the scene of occurrence, PW1 found electric wire, hand bills, cardboard box etc., and suspected that somebody has mischievously caused damage to the electric tower. After leaving his Assistant at the place of occurrence, PW1 rushed to PW58/Kalimullashah, the Inspector of Police, Thirunavalur Police Station, gave a complaint/Ex.P1. On receipt of the same, FIR/Ex.P64 in Crime No.455 of 2002 was registered and PW58 informed the higher officials. At about 10.30 p.m., PW58 reached the scene of occurrence with his team and prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P2 and rough sketch/Ex.P65 in the presence of PW6/Deivasigamani and Devenathan and collected MO1/wire, MO2 to MO3/hand written bills and MO7/paper box. The service of photographer was pressed into, who took photos/MO20 to MO37 6/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 depicting the actual damage done to the tower.
(ii)PW39/Forensic Expert along with his officials visited the scene and collected the materials objects/MO8 to MO19. Thereafter, PW58 enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 20.11.2002 PW3 to PW5, PW7 and other witnesses were also examined. PW58 sent the collected material objects to the Forensic Science Laboratory on 22.11.2002 through PW36 as per the order of the Court. Thereafter the case was transferred to the file of the PW64/the Inspector of Police 'Q' Branch C.I.D, Villupuram. He took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence and examined the witnesses PW1 to PW7, PW10 and other witnesses. On 06.01.2003 at about 08.00 p.m., one Rajarajan/the Inspector, Special Task Force produced Balamurugan, Bakkiyaraj/A1, Raja @ Alexandar and gave a report to PW56/Manirathnam who was then the Inspector of Police, Sathyamangalam Police Station that those were the persons concerned in Crime No.26 of 2002. They were examined in the presence of PW44/Singaram and Anbuthambi. The confessions of the above said persons were recorded and the confession of Bakkiyaraj/A1 was marked as Ex.P43. Thereafter, Bakkiyaraj/A1 7/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 along with the police personnel went to Sathyamangalam-Bannari Highway and shown MO80/Mecker Box under a bridge which was kept in two gunny bags along with other explosive items and the same was seized under Ex.P44/Mahazar.
(iii)The confession/Ex.P43 of Bakkiaraj/A1 revealed that the blast of H.T.Tower in Thoppayangulam was done by him with Arul/A3, Manivannan/A2 under the instructions of Ilavarasan/A5 and the same was conveyed to PW64/the Inspector of Police 'Q' Branch C.I.D, Villupuram. On receipt of information on 08.01.2003, PW64 rushed to Sathyamangalam Police Station and collected particulars from PW56/Manirathnam. On the basis of confession of A1 and mahazar/Ex.P44 in respect of Crime Nos.26 & 25 of 2003, PW64 arrested A1/Bakkiaraj and examined the witnesses who attested the confession of A1 and recorded their statement. Thereafter, on 09.01.2003 at about 01.15 p.m., at Pullur Junction, Trichy-Chennai Highway near Ulundurpet, PW64 found Manivannan/A2 and Arul/A3 were riding a Yamaha motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 32 4 0271 and arrested them in the presence of PW12/Manickam and one Duraiswamy Konar 8/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 and recorded their confessions/Exs.P4 & P5 and seized the Yamaha Motor Cycle/MO61 in Ex.P11/Mahazar.
(iv)Pursuant to Ex.P4, MO62/Hero Honda Motor Cycle, MO63/Cell Phone, MO58 and MO59/two sketch pens were seized by Ex.P6/seizure mahazar from the house of A3. Likewise, pursuant to Ex.P5/confession of Arul/A3, two gelatin sticks, 12 electric detonators, MO60 Card Board Box, Exs.P7 & P8 the blood test report of Bakkiyaraj and Ex.P9 a Kumudam Reporter issue were seized by Ex.P10/mahazar. Thereafter, PW64 enquired PW11, a licensee of the explosives and got some clarifications. Pursuant to hand written bills/MO2 & MO3 collected from the scene of occurrence, PW64 collected the specimen handwritings of A2 in MO38 to MO47 and the specimen handwriting of A3 in MO48 to MO57 in the presence of PW9 and PW23. After getting consent/Ex.P83 of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet, two gelatin sticks and 12 electric detonators were ordered to be kept at the licensed explosive godown belonging to PW15. On 24.01.2003, PW52 was deputed to Chennai commando Force with the letter of the Court and obtained an order of defusal. With the help of B.D.D.S (Bomb Detection 9/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 and Disposal Squad) Inspector Muthukrishnan and two others, the gelatin sticks and electric detonators, were defused 200 meters away from the godown. The residue after explosion, were collected by PW52 and handed over to the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ulundurpet for further analysis by the Forensic Expert. The defusal made was photographed by PW16/Photographer and the photographs were marked as MO64 to MO72 and its negatives marked as MO73.
(v)PW64 examined the Inspector of Police, BDDS Muthukrishnan, PW16/Photographer and one Karthik Ganesh and recorded their statements. On 20.01.2003, A1/Bakkiaraj was taken in custody by PW64 for the purpose of investigation and A1 was examined in the presence of PW26 Sundararajan and one Kumaresan. When A1/Bakkiyaraj was examined at the office of the 'Q' Branch, Villupuram his specimen signature/Exs.P36 to P30 and red colour sketch pens were obtained as witnessed by PW26. Pursuant to the confession/Ex.P31 of A1, PW64 along with A1 went to Srikalathur and A1 produced a PVC pipe/MO74 and the same was seized under Ex.P32/Mahazar. PW64 visited Perambalur to ascertain ownership of TN 46 0271 Yamaha Motor Cycle 10/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 and examined PW17 Ponnammal and obtained R.C.Book of the vehicle Ex.P12, further obtained a report in this regard from the R.T.O office as found in Ex.P36 from PW33 Athmananthan. It was found that the Motor Cycle stood in the name of PW17 from whom PW18, the brother of PW17 had obtained for some purpose and from whom PW19 got it for some purpose and thereafter, it was taken away by A3/Arul.
(vi) On 04.03.2003 at about 11.00 a.m., A4 was arrested at Cuddalore in the presence of Mohomad Ghouse and PW20/Rajendran, his confession/Ex.P13 was recorded. Pursuant to Ex.P13, PW64 along with his officials went to the house of A4 at Pachankuppam, seized xerox copy of R.C.Book pertaining to Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN 46 Y 9832/Ex.P15. The said vehicle was seized in the presence of the witnesses in Ex.P14/Mahazar. Thereafter, the police team went to Thittakudi, where A4 Arjunan identified a shop from where he purchased PVC pipes for preparation of bombs. In this regard, PW64 enquired PW22, the shop owner at Thittakudi and recorded his statement. On 04.03.2003, PW64 obtained specimen signatures of A4/Ex.P16 to Ex.P20 in red sketch pen written on five pieces of paper in the presence 11/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 of PW21/Kannan.
(vii)Further, PW64 took steps to find out the owner of the SIM Card found in the cell phone MO63. PW35/Sivaraman, the Assistant Manager of Aircel, gave his report in Ex.P38 to the effect that MO75 SIM Card found in MO63 cell phone did not belong to his company. From the report obtained from PW34 Krishnamurthy, P.A to R.T.O in Ex.P37, it was found that the numberless Hero Honda Motor Cycle/MO62 was originally registered as TN 45 Y 9832. PW29/the General Power Grid Corporation was examined by PW64 and the report regarding the estimate details of expenditure incurred for restoration work/Ex.P35 was obtained. PW31 and PW32 had spoken about the uninterrupted power supply to street lights on that particular day. Further PW64 examined PW21, PW38, PW48, PW49 and PW50 and recorded their statements. The materials objects collected during investigation were sent to the forensic laboratory through requisition letters in Exs.P73, P75, P77 and P79 with covering letters/Exs.P74, P76, P78 and P80. Reports from hand writing expert PW60, regarding MO2 to MO6 on the basis of Ex.P67/a letter of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, 12/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 Ulundurpet to Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Laboratory was received in Ex.P68. PW61 & PW62 had analysed and gave opinion in Exs.P69 to P71/explosive reports.
(viii)Further, PW54/Selvakumar, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee on 17.03.2003, 26.03.2003 and 04.04.2003 recorded 164 Cr.P.C statement of A4 in Ex.P49. The statements of PW10, PW13, PW17, PW18, Subramani, PW19, PW24, PW48, PW49 PW50, PW25, PW40 and PW41 were marked as Exs.P52 to P61. PW51/the learned Judicial Magistrate also recorded the confession statement of A1 Bakkiaraj on 09.01.2003. PW55 conducted a test identification parade at Central Prison, Cuddalore on 23.01.2003 and gave his report Ex.P62. PW64 examined PW27/Lab Technician and PW28/the Proprietor of Medical Lab and recorded their statements regarding Ex.P7 and Ex.P8 and also examined the blood test report of Bakkiaraj found in the house of A3. Further, PW64 examined PW36, PW37/Head Constables who took samples to the Forensic Lab and came with reports. He also examined PW52 who helped in defusing the gelatin sticks and electric detonators, PW46, who took the sketch pen boxes to forensic lab, PW45 who took 13/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 letter to Judicial Magistrate, PW 44 who witnessed the confession of A1.
(ix)Since the investigation revealed about one Ilavarasan behind the entire episode, search was made for the arrest of the said person. On 20.06.2004, when PW59 Srinivasan, D.S.P. Metur Sub Division was in Office, the Inspector Ramarajan, Tamil Nadu Special Task Force produced the accused Ilavarasan and one Sagadevan before the Judicial Magistrate, Mettur. The two persons were taken into police custody by the DSP PW59 on 28.05.2004 and they were examined. Ilavarasan gave a confession statement before DSP which was recorded in the presence of Revenue Inspector Shanmugam and Village Administrative Officer Rathnavelu. In the confession, Ilavarasan admitted his involvement in the crime and PW64 recorded the same and prepared final report. Since the occurrence came under explosive substances Act, the Investigating officer through Superintendent of police approached PW57, Mohamed Aslam the District Collector of Cuddalore District, obtained sanction to prosecute as found in Ex.P63.
14/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008
4.Before trial Court, prosecution examined 64 witnesses and marked 92 exhibits and seized 80 materials objects. On the side of the defence , one witness was examined and no exhibits were marked.
5.On questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C the appellants denied the charges. On appreciation of evidence, oral and documentary, the trial Court under Judgment dated 18.07.2007 convicted the appellants.
6.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this case PW2 to PW7 were the villagers who reached the scene of occurrence on hearing the sound of blast. On 19.11.2002 while PW2 was riding TVS 50 moped, he was stopped by the villagers who assembled there, enquired about the blast. PW2 asked the villagers to enquire the three persons who were coming behind him in Yamaha Bike from the direction of the blast. The villagers attempted to stop the Yamaha Bike. The persons slowed down the bike as though they were going to stop but suddenly picked up speed and escaped from them. The villagers had not mentioned description or identity of the accused. 15/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008
7.He further contended that PW2 along with PW4 reported the incident to PW1/VAO, who came to the scene of occurrence and thereafter went to Thirunavalur Police Station, lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 to PW58. Thereafter, PW58 along with photographer/PW8, Forensic Expert reached the scene of occurrence at about 10.30 p.m, prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch, seized articles from the scene, enquired the witnesses present there and the enquiry was going on throughout the night. During this period, the entire villagers had assembled and were deliberating about the incident. None of the witnesses stated anything with regard to the appellants. He further contended that the case is based on the circumstantial evidence. It is a well settled principle in proving a case of circumstantial evidence is that the evidence and materials must undergo the double test and each chain of link must be so interlinked, well connected leading to irresistible conclusion that the appellants alone has committed the offence.
8.It was further contended that during the relevant period tension was prevailing against the State of Karnataka and the Central Government for not taking any steps in releasing the cauvery water for 16/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 the starving farmers. The appellants were branded as radicals of a banned organization viz., “Tamil Nadu Vidhuthalai Eyakam”. On 19.11.2002, a huge blast had taken place causing damage to the legs of the High Tension Electric Tower belonging to Power Grid Corporation of India which was transmitting electricity from Neyveli Lignite Corporation to State of Karnataka. Further from the scene of occurrence five hand written bills “Cavery Meetpu Padai” were seized. The witness who implicate the appellants is PW10 who is the estranged cousin brother of A3. The evidence of PW10 is highly doubtful. This witness has stated that A1 to A3 were staying in his house. PW10 admitted that he was not staying in his house and was with his sister elsewhere. He was informed by PW13, another cousin about A1 and A2 staying with A3. This part of evidence of PW10 is hearsay, since PW13 has not said so and not supported the case of the prosecution.
9.PW14 another cousin has stated that he has seen PW10 when he met PW13. The lower Court placed heavy reliance on the evidence of PW10 and convicted the appellants. PW10 is enimically deposed with A3 who is used by the prosecution to implicate the appellants. DW1 17/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 another cousin a nearby resident has categorically stated the motive of PW10 in implicating the accused and about PW10 uttering falsehood. The other circumstances relied by the lower Court that the appellants were identified during Test Identification Parade is not acceptable. The photographs of the appellants were published and flashed in newspapers and TV channels. Hence Test Identification Parade is of no significance. The other circumstance is that A3 was riding Yamaha Bike bearing registration No.TN 46 0271/MO61 of PW17, the evidence of PW18 and PW19 are not in conformity with PW17. The recovery of Yamaha Bike is doubtful. PW12 the arrest and recovery witness for A2 and A3 is unbelievable and his narration is cinematic. The Scientific Officer from Forensic Department were examined to prove the hand writing of the accused and the presence of explosive substance in the scene of occurrence. Since the articles recovered from the accused were identical, further examination of the explosive dealers PW11, PW15, PW22 is of no consequence. The usage of Hero Honda Motor Bike bearing registration No.TN 45 Y 9832/MO62 by the accused could not be proved despite examination of PW24, PW25, PW34, PW38, PW48, PW49 and PW50. The prosecution produced the evidence in bits and pieces and all 18/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 are in isolation which are not connected with each other. The evidence produced are with inherent improbabilities. In view of the above, the trial Court convicting the appellants on mere presumption and assumption are to be set aside and prayed for acquittal.
10.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent filed objection and submitted that the prosecution had established the charges against the appellants by producing 64 witnesses, marking 96 documents and seizing 8 material objects. In this case the appellants blasted the High Tension Electric Tower using explosives which is proved by PW10 & PW22. The explosives were kept in the godown of PW15 and PW17. PW6 is the witness for the observation mahazar and seizure mahazar which were prepared at the scene of occurrence on the same day of the blast. PW8 is the photographer who took photos of the scene. PW39 is the Scientic Officer from the Forensic Department who reached the scene of occurrence, collected articles. PW1/complainant is the VAO present along with villagers in the scene of occurrence. PW6 is the land owner in whose land the High Tension Tower was blasted. The explosive materials recovered from the scene of 19/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 occurrence were seized and sent to the Court immediately. Thereafter the same was forwarded to the Forensic laboratory. The Scientific Officer from the Forensic Department/PW60 to PW62 confirms the same.
11.PW12 is the witness for confession, arrest and recovery of A2 and A3. PW20 is for A4. PW26, PW44 and PW56 is for A1 and PW59 is for A5. All the appellants on their arrest gave confession which led to recovery of explosives, hand bills and motor bikes used by them in the occurrence. The seized articles then and there were forwarded to the Forensic Department through Court. PW51 and PW54 are the Judicial Magistrates before whom A1 and A4 gave confession statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Subsequent to the statement they retracted, PW51 and PW54 has categorically stated about summoning the accused, enquiring and finding their free state of mind, keeping them away from the police in solitary confinement and thereafter again getting satisfied of their voluntariness recorded the 164 Cr.P.C statement. PW55 is the Judicial Magistrate who conducted the Test Identification Parade. During the parade, A2 and A3 were identified. PW10 has clearly stated about A1 and A2 staying in his house along with A3 and they were 20/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 planning to blast the High Tension tower to disrupt the power supply transmitted from Neyveli Lignite Corporation to State of Karnataka for not releasing cauvery water to the farmers of Tamil Nadu. Further the appellants belong to radical group called “Tamil Nadu Viduthalai Eyakam”, MO2 to MO6 are hand written bills seized from the scene of occurrence, in which it is written as “Cauvery Meetpu Padai”. The writing in MO2 to MO6 confirm the hand writing of the appellant.
12.He further submitted that the appellants are involved in similar cases which are registered by the Sathyamangalam Police Station and Kolathanur Police Station. From the confession of A5, some incriminating materials have been seized. The use of the vehicles viz., Yamaha Motor Bike and Hero Honda in the commission of offence by the appellants are proved by examination of owners of the vehicle and the Transport Department officials. The damages caused due to the blast of high tension tower has been spoken by PW29, the General Manager of Power Grid Corporation of India and the damage is to the tune of Rs.11,65,750/-. In this case 164 Cr.P.C statement of A1 to A4 as well as other witnesses have been recorded, articles including explosive 21/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 substances have been recovered. Close proximity of A1 to A3 and their discussion about the blasting of High Tension tower has been spoken by PW10. The identity of the appellants were not in dispute.
13.It is an admitted fact that PW10 and A3 are Cousin Brothers. A3 was found in company with A1 and A2 and the other witnesses have spoken about the accused moving together. Further immediately after the blast when they were riding the motor bike near the scene of occurrence and when they were asked to stop the vehicle, they slowed down the bike but suddenly sped away which would prove the conduct and culpability of the accused. The nature of offence is of such magnitude which created fear and insecurity among the public causing disturbance to peace and harmony. The trial Court on analyzing the materials and evidence produced, found that each link of circumstance are so well connected leading to irresistible inference that the appellants alone have committed the offence and rightly convicted them. The acquittal of A5 by the Trial court from this case will no way affect the case of the prosecution as regards A1 to A4, who are on a different footing. Hence, the appeals are to be dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court. 22/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008
14.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
15.In Senthanadu on 19.11.2002 at about 08.00 p.m. PW2 had called PW1 and informed about the blast and damage caused to the High Tension tower. PW1 had informed PW7, the land owner in whose land the tower was situated. PW3, PW4, PW5 & PW6 are the Villagers present in and around the scene of occurrence at the same time. They had seen three persons riding Yamaha Motor Bike and they asked them to stop the vehicle for enquiry. The vehicle slowed down and suddenly sped away from them. The conduct of the persons riding the bike is a relevant fact. PW58 who received the complaint, registered FIR, informed his superiors by telephone and other modes, sought the service of photographer, forensic expert and others. PW39 is the Scientific Officer of Forensic Department who reached the scene of occurrence on the same night. PW8 is the Photographer who took the photographs of the scene. In presence of PW6, Observation mahazar was prepared and seizure of articles i.e. explosives substances were made. PW29, the General Manager of Power Grid Corporation gave a report of valuation for the 23/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 damage caused to the tower. PW30, PW31, PW32 the Line Man, Villager and Junior Engineer of Electricity Department of the village have stated about availability of lights and there was no power cut in the village. PW10 the Cousin of A3 identified the accused and also they were staying in his/PW10 house, planning for execution of blast and possession of explosive substances. The purchase of explosives substances is spoken by PW22. The use of Yamaha Bike/MO61 and Hero Honda Bike/MO62 by the Appellants are spoken by the witnesses viz., PW17 to PW19, PW24, PW25, PW34, PW38, PW49 and PW50. The arrest, confession and recovery of the accused are spoken by PW12, PW20, PW26, PW44, PW56 and PW59. PW51, PW54, PW55 are the Judicial Magistrates who had recorded 164 statements of A1, A4 and conducted Test Identification Parade. The hand written bills seized from the scene of occurrence confirms with the hand writing of the accused which is proved by PW60/Hand Writing Expert. PW61 and PW62 are the other Forensic Experts for the explosive substances found in the scene of occurrence as well as seized from the accused. Fleeing of three persons in the Yamaha motor bike had been clearly spoken by PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5 and PW6. Riding of the Yamaha motor bike by A2 and A3 which was also 24/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 intercepted by the police and the vehicle as well as incriminating materials were seized from their possession are spoken by PW12.
16.Further, the accused conspired to explode and blow out the High Tension tower, carrying electricity from Neyveli Lignite Corporation to State of Karnataka. The accused radicals were hatred against the State of Karnataka and Central Government in not providing cauvery water to the people of State of Tamil Nadu. The accused being the members of the radical group were propounding their theory in achieving their goal by violence.
17.Thus, the trial Court had given a detailed judgment on analysing the witnesses, categorizing the case with evidence for damage to the property, fleeing of the three persons in motor bike, fraudulent use of motor bike, evidence of Forensic Expert, arrest, confession and recovery of the appellants. On the evidence and materials produced, the trial Court after detailed discussion had convicted the appellants. On perusal and analysis of the evidence and materials, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the trial Court. 25/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008
18.In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellants to undergo their remaining period of sentence, if they are in outside.
08.06.2020 Speaking order/Non-speaking order Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No vv2 To
1.The Sessions Judge for Exclusive Trial for Bomb Blast Cases, Poonamallee, Chennai.
2.The Inspector of Police, Q.Branch, CID, Villupuram, Villupuram District
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
26/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2 PRE-DELIVERY JUDGEMENT IN Crl.A.Nos.655 of 2007 & 334 of 2008 08.06.2020 27/27 http://www.judis.nic.in