Bangalore District Court
Pulakeshi Nagara P.S vs Syed Ismail Afaaq on 24 December, 2024
KABC010165872015
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE [SPECIAL COURT FOR THE TRIAL OF
NIA CASES], (CCH-50) BENGALURU
DATED : 16th day of December, 2024
PRESENT:
SRI GANGADHARA C.M.,
B.Com., LL.B.,
XLIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge,
[Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases],
(CCH-50) Bengaluru.
Spl.C.No.330/2015
Complainant The State of Karnataka by Pulikeshi Nagar
Police Station, CCB (Special Enquiry),
Bengaluru.
(By : Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor)
V/s.
Accused No.1 Mr. Syed Ismail Afaaque, S/o Syed Alim
Lankha, Aged about 36 years, R/at No.B-413,
Vineyard Residency, Heera Chand Road, Cox
Town, Bengaluru.
Permanent Address: Fathima Cottage, Azad
Nagar, 4th Cross, Jolly Road, Bhatkal.
Accused No.2 Mr. Abdul Saboor, S/o Mahamed Hussain,
Aged about 24 years, R/at No.392, Darool Kair,
Jamiabad Road, Bhatkal.
Accused No.3 Mr. Saddam Husen, S/o Fairoz Khan, Aged
about 25 years, R/at 8th Cross, Jolly Road,
Azad Nagar, Bhatkal.
Accused No.4 Mr. Riyaz Ahamed Sayyadi, S/o Khaja
Mohinuddeen Sayyadi, Aged about 32 years,
R/at Fajeela Manjil, No.42/2, Shaheen Street,
Mughadam Colony, Bhatkal.
2
Spl.C.No.330/2015
Accused No.5 Mr. Riyaz Bhatkal, R/at House No.314,
Tenginagundi Road, Madeena Colony,
Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada District.
(Split-up)
Accused No.6 Mr. Ikbal Bhatkal, R/at House No.314,
Tenginagundi Road, Madeena Colony,
Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada District.
(Split-up)
Accused No.7 Mr. Afeef S/o Hasan Bapa, R/at House No.566,
Bandar Road, Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada District.
(Split-up)
Accused No.8 Mr. Jainullabuddin S/o Abdul Razaq Sheik,
Aged about 29 years, R/a 252 9 (Old No.53),
Siddiq Street, Bhatkal, Uttara Kannada.
(Split-up)
Accused No.9 Mr. Sameer (Split-up)
(A.1 to 4 : By Sri S. Balakrishnan, Advocate)
1. Nature of Offence U/Secs.120B, 121, 121A, 511
read with Sec.149 of the IPC,
Secs.4 to 6 of The Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 and
Secs.10, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23
and 38 of The Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967.
2. Date of Commission of From 2004 till their arrest
Offence
3. Date of F.I.R. 08.01.2015
4. Date of Arrest of the A.1 to 3 were arrested on
Accused 08.01.2015.
A.4 was arrested on
10.01.2015.
5. Name of the complainant Sri K.P. Ravikumar
6. Date of Commencement 21.10.2017
of Evidence
3
Spl.C.No.330/2015
7. Date of Closure of 09.06.2023
Evidence
8. Date of Pronouncement 16.12.2024
of Judgment
Order on sentence 24.12.2024
pronounced
9. Result of the Case Accused No. 1 is not found
guilty of the offence punishable
under Section 16 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, and Section 6 of the
Explosive Substances Act.
Hence, acting under Section
235(1) of the Cr.P.C., Accused
No. 1 is acquitted of the
offence punishable under
Section 16 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967, and Section 6 of the
Explosive Substances Act.
Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are not
found guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 16,
20, and 38 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967, and Section 6 of the
Explosive Substances Act.
Hence, acting under Section
235(1) of the Cr.P.C., Accused
Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted of
the offences punishable under
Sections 16, 20, and 38 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, and Section 6 of the
Explosive Substances Act.
4
Spl.C.No.330/2015
Accused No. 4 is not found
guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections
120B and 121A of the IPC,
Sections 13, 16, 20, 23, and 38
of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, and
Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the
Explosive Substances Act.
Hence, acting under Section
235(1) of the Cr.P.C., Accused
No. 4 is acquitted.
Accused No. 1, Sri Syed
Ismail Afaaque, is found guilty
of the offences punishable
under Sections 120B and 121A
of the IPC, Sections 13, 20, 23,
and 38 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967, and Sections 4 and 5 of
the Explosive Substances Act.
Hence, acting under Section
235(2) of the Cr.P.C., Accused
No. 1 is convicted for the
offences punishable under
Sections 120B and 121A of the
IPC, Sections 13, 20, 23, and
38 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, and
Sections 4 and 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act.
Accused No. 2, Sri Abdul
Saboor, and Accused No. 3,
Sri Saddam Husen, are found
guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections
5
Spl.C.No.330/2015
120B and 121A of the IPC,
Sections 13 and 23 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, and Sections 4 and
5 of the Explosive Substances
Act. Hence, acting under
Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C.,
Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are
convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections
120B and 121A of the IPC,
Sections 13 and 23 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act, 1967, and Sections 4 and
5 of the Explosive Substances
Act.
(GANGADHARA C.M.),
XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases),
(CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Investigating Officer, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch (hereinafter referred to as 'CCB'), Bengaluru City, has submitted the charge-sheet against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121A, 511 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC'), Sections 4 to 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 10, 13, 16, 18, 20, 23, and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.A.(P) Act').
6Spl.C.No.330/2015
2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows:
a) On 06.01.2015, based on credible intelligence regarding suspects involved in Crime No. 309/2014 of Cubbon Park Police Station, the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime) Bengaluru City issued a directive to a team of officers, including PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, ACPs Sri A.B. Rajendra Kumar and Sri H. Siddappa, PIs Sri K. Ramrao, Sri Balegowda, Sri Anand Kaburi, Sri K. Prakash, Sri Hanumantharaya, and Sri Srinivasa, to travel to Bhatkal to trace the suspects. Upon arrival in Bhatkal, the team gathered information indicating that the suspects had left for Bengaluru by train. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, relayed this information to his superior officers and PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar. In response, PW.1 coordinated a team of officers, including Sri Veerendra Prasad, Sri Sreedhar Poojar, Sri Rangappa, Sri Dayanand, and others, to proceed to the Bengaluru City Railway Station for further action.
(b) PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar, secured panch witnesses, Sri Mahesh S. and Sri Manjunath N., and observed the suspects deboarding a train at Bengaluru City Railway Station. The suspects then continued their journey by private taxi and the team followed them. The suspects arrived at Vineyard Residency, Cocks Town, and proceeded to the 4th floor of the building. Upon confronting accused Nos. 1 and 2, they revealed that explosive substances were stored in the house of accused No. 2, with accused No. 3 tasked with guarding the property in Bhatkal. PW.1 informed PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, of this disclosure. In the presence of the panch witnesses, PW.1 7 Spl.C.No.330/2015 recovered a laptop, a mobile phone, and a passport from accused No. 1, and a mobile phone from accused No. 2, under a mahajar. PW.1 then proceeded to Pulikeshi Nagar Police Station, where he handed over the accused, along with the seized articles and the mahajar, to PW.45, Sri H.J. Thippeswamy, and lodged the first information statement. Based on the written first information statement provided by PW.1, PW.45 registered a case under Crime No. 11/2015, for offences punishable under Sections 3, 10, 13, and 18 of the U.A.(P) Act, Sections 120B and 121 of the IPC, and Sections 4, 5, and 6 of The Explosive Substances Act.
(c) Based on the information provided by PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar, PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, enlisted the assistance of the local police to conduct a search at the house of accused No. 2. He secured panch witnesses, PW.9, Sri Ramesh Era, and PW.10, Sri Eshwar, and conducted a raid, seizing 28 articles from accused No.2's house under a mahajar. After sealing the house with a new lock, PW.74 handed the key to PW.62, Sri Prashanth Nayak, and submitted the seized items to the Station House Officer (SHO) of Bhatkal Rural Police Station. The SHO subsequently reported the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate and obtained court permission to transport the articles to Bengaluru. In addition, PW.74 apprehended accused No.3 in Bhatkal.
(d) On 08.01.2015, the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crime), Bengaluru City, issued a memo directing PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, to take over the investigation of Crime No. 11/2015 at Pulikeshi Nagar Police Station. Following the 8 Spl.C.No.330/2015 directive, PW.66 assumed responsibility for the case on the same day. He then recorded the statements of PW.4, Sri Mahesh, CW.16, Sri Manjunath, CW.87, Sri Rangappa, Inspector Sri Veerendra Prasad, and Inspector Sri Sreedhar Poonja.
(e) On 09.01.2015, PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, presented accused No.3, along with 28 seized articles, the mahajar, P.F., and his report to PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah.
PW.66 arrested accused No.3, completed the formalities, and produced all three accused before the Court, obtained them in police custody until 21.01.2015. PW.66 recorded the statements of panch witnesses CW.117 and CW.118, as well as those of ACPs Sri Rajendra Kumar and Sri Siddappa, and Police Inspectors Sri Balegowda, Sri Anand Kaburi, Sri K. Prakash, Sri Hanumantharaya, and Sri Srinivasa.
(f) PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, apprehended accused No. 4 at Mangaluru Airport at 2:00 p.m. on 11.01.2015. PW.66 brought him to Bengaluru and produced him before the Court. Accused No. 4 was then remanded to police custody until 21.01.2015. PW.66 recorded the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 to 4, in which they disclosed the locations where they had committed acts related to the case. Based on this information, PW.66 formed an investigative team consisting of ACPs Sri Siddappa and Sri M.K. Thammaiah, six Police Inspectors, and other police personnel. The team then proceeded to Murudeshwara for further investigation and stayed at the RNS Lodge.
9Spl.C.No.330/2015
(g) On 19.01.2015, PW.66 approached the learned JMFC, Bhatkal, seeking search warrants for four locations and obtained the warrants to search those places. He requested the Inspector of Police, Bhatkal, to provide panch witnesses for the investigation. Accordingly, the Police Inspector of Bhatkal produced eight panch witnesses before him. PW.66 entrusted accused No. 4, two panch witnesses, and five police personnel to PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah; entrusted accused Nos. 2 and 3, two panch witnesses, and six police personnel to ACP Sri Siddappa; and retained accused No. 1, four panch witnesses, and four police personnel with him to prepare pointing-out mahajars at the locations shown by the accused.
(h) Accused No.1 took PW.66 and his team to Fathima Cottage, located at 4th Cross, Azad Nagar, Bhatkal, where they proceeded to a room on the ground floor. He then produced a bag containing PVC pipes with detonators, a bundle of detonators, and mobile chargers. These items were seized in the presence of the panchas under a mahazar. Subsequently, accused No. 1 led PW.66 and his team to Nastaar Beach, also situated in Bhatkal. At this location, he pointed to a spot on the beach and revealed that he had conducted a test blast there using circuit boards and detonators. A mahazar was then prepared by PW.66 at the spot. Next, accused No.1 took PW.66 and his team to a house belonging to accused No.7, located at No.566, Bundar Road, Bhatkal. He disclosed that this was where they had held conspiracy meetings for jihadi activities. PW.66 accordingly prepared a mahazar at the house. Finally, accused No.1 took PW.66 and his team to another house, located at 10 Spl.C.No.330/2015 No.314, Madeena Colony, Tenginagundi Road, Bhatkal, which belonged to accused Nos. 5 and 6. He revealed that this house was also used for holding conspiracy meetings. A mahazar was again prepared by PW.66 at this location.
(i) Accused Nos. 2 and 3 took Sri H. Siddappa, ACP, and his team of officers to a location in front of the Mohideen Cement Brick Factory Gate on Jali Road, where they disclosed that accused No. 3 had handed over explosive substances to accused No. 2 at this place. A mahazar was then prepared at the spot. Accused No. 2 subsequently took Sri H. Siddappa and his team to a house at No. 392, Darul Khair, Jamiyabad, Tenginagundi Road, Bhatkal, and disclosed that he had hidden the explosive materials in the bathroom of the house. Sri H. Siddappa prepared a mahazar at this location as well. Later, Sri H. Siddappa produced accused Nos. 2 and 3 before PW.66, along with the mahazar.
(j) Accused No. 1 took PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, and his team to the shop of PW.23, the owner of Swiss Time in Bhatkal, and disclosed that he had purchased some clocks from the shop. Subsequently, accused No. 1 took the team to Destination Air Travels in Bhatkal, owned by Sri Syed Jakir, and disclosed that he had collected hawala money from the shop.
(k) Accused No. 4 took PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, and his team to a house belonging to one Zubair, where he disclosed that he had stored explosive substances on the shelf in December 2009. Afterward, accused No. 4 led them to a 11 Spl.C.No.330/2015 shipping port via Tenginagundi Road, approximately nine kilometers from the house. He then took them to the confluence of the Venkatapura River and the Arabian Sea, where he showed the spot where he had thrown 300 gelatin sticks in December 2009. PW.74 prepared a mahazar in relation to these events and, along with accused No. 4, returned to Bhatkal, where he submitted a detailed report to PW.66. On 21.01.2015, PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, returned the search warrants to the learned JMFC, Bhatkal, and obtained permission to transport the properties seized in this case to Bengaluru.
(l) Accused No. 3 took PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, and his team to a shop in Siddapura, where he revealed that he had purchased explosives from the said shop. Subsequently, PW.66 sent accused No. 1 to Kodachadri Hill along with PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, and his team, as accused No. 1 stated that he could show the location where he had undergone training to operate a parachute. PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, recorded the statements of CW.123, Sri Abdul Subhan, CW.124, Sri Mohammed Shafi, PW.25, Sri Abdul Shabandri, PW.26, Sri Umesh, and CW.136, Smt. Saraswathi. PW.66 produced PW.23 to PW.26 and CW.136 before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, to record their statements under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
(m) Accused No. 1 took PW.66 and his team to a shop named Mercury Electronics at Kodichikkanahalli, Bengaluru, where he revealed that he had purchased PCBs from the said shop. In this regard, PW.66 recorded the statements of PW.19, 12 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Sri K.B. Muniswamy, and PW.25. PW.25 then led PW.66 and his team to Kamath Travels, located at Lalbagh West Gate, Bengaluru, where he disclosed that he had sent PCB parcels from Bengaluru to Bhatkal through the said travel agency. Additionally, accused No. 1 took PW.66 and his team to Kothari Electronics, situated on S.P. Road, Bengaluru, and disclosed that he had purchased electronic components from the shop to prepare circuit boards.
(n) PW.66 and his team, along with accused Nos. 1 to 4, went to Mangaluru once again for the investigation. Accused No. 1 took PW.66 and his team, along with the panchas, CW.127, Sri Rahul, and PW.12, Sri Sampath, to a spot near A.J. Hospital, where he disclosed that he had handed over a bag containing explosives to a person named by accused No. 5, Riyaz Bhatkal. Accused No. 1 then took PW.66 and his team, along with the panchas, to Unity Hospital, Mangaluru, and disclosed that he had handed over a bag containing explosives to a person named by accused No. 5, Riyaz Bhatkal, in 2013.
(o) Accused No. 2 took PW.66 and his team, along with the panchas, PW.14, Sri Charan, and CW.130, Sri Raghav, to a location near a gate behind Milagres Church, where he disclosed that, at the instance of accused No. 1 in 2013, he had handed over a bag containing explosives to unknown persons. Accused No. 2 then led PW.66 and his team to Bunts Hostel, located at Kodialbail, Mangaluru, and revealed that he had collected a cotton box containing explosives from an office in a now- demolished four-story commercial building, where Manjunatha 13 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Courier Service had been operating in 2010. Following this, PW.66 returned to Bengaluru and produced accused Nos. 1 to 4 before the Court.
(p) PW.66 again took accused Nos. 1 and 2 into police custody for further interrogation. During this time, PW.66 recorded a further voluntary statement of accused No. 1, in which he disclosed that he would show the logo of Indian Mujahideen, of which he is a member. As a result, PW.66 secured CW.131, Sri Narasimha, and CW.132, Sri Raju, as panch witnesses. Accused No. 1 then took PW.66 and the panchas to his residence at Vineyard Residency, Cocks Town, Heerachand Road, Bengaluru, where he produced five posters related to Indian Mujahideen and an item resembling a walkie- talkie. PW.66 seized these items under a mahazar. PW.66 also recorded the statement of CW.17, Sri Mohammed Danesh Siddiq, and got his statement recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by the learned MMTC-II, Bengaluru. PW.66 then produced accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the Court, and they were remanded to judicial custody. PW.66 sent the seized articles to the FSL, Bengaluru, for examination and handed over further investigation of the case to PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah.
(q) PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, took over the further investigation of this case from PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, in accordance with the memo issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru. PW.74 issued notices to Idea Cellular Ltd., M/s. Tata Tele Services, Bharti Airtel, and Vodafone, requesting the CAF documents, Call Detail Records (CDRs), and cell ID 14 Spl.C.No.330/2015 addresses for the mobile numbers 9036112335, 9886004526, 8867874841, 9535727127, 9886625202, and others. He collected these details from the respective service providers, along with certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. PW.74 then conducted a mobile call analysis and prepared detailed reports regarding the call records and cell ID addresses associated with the mobile numbers of the accused.
(r) PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, issued a memo to PW.63, Sri K. Rama Rao, to gather information regarding the conspiracy meetings held by the accused persons. In response, PW.63 traveled to Bhatkal and recorded the statements of CW.110, Sri Tulasidas, CW.101, Sri Venkatesh, CW.102, Sri Datha, and CW.103, Sri Raghavan. After completing the investigation, PW.63 returned to Bengaluru and submitted the recorded statements of these witnesses to PW.74.
(s) PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, along with panch witnesses, PW.17, Sri Chandrashekhar R.N., and CW.34, Sri Mallikarjun K.E., visited Mercury Electronics in Bilekallahalli. The manager of the shop, Sri Muniswamy, produced a register containing entries related to the sale of printed circuit boards to the accused. PW.74 seized the register in the presence of the panch witnesses under a mahazar. Following this, PW.74 and the panch witnesses visited Shop No. 75, Kothari Electronics, on S.P. Road, Bengaluru, where Sri Suresh Kumar produced a bill book with an entry concerning the sale of electronic items to accused No. 1. PW.74 seized the bill book under a mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses. Additionally, PW.74 15 Spl.C.No.330/2015 recorded the statements of PW.19, Sri Muniswamy, CW.16, Sri Suresh Kumar Kothari, and CW.135, Sri Neelakanta Aradhya.
(t) PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, submitted a requisition to the Court seeking permission to defuse the explosive substances before sending them to the FSL for examination, and obtained the Court's approval. He then secured panch witnesses Sri A. Kumar and Sri K.G. Rangappa, along with official photographers, and proceeded to the Bomb Disposal Squad office in Shanthinagar. PW.74 handed over the seized articles such as Article Nos. 4, 5, 6, 29, 30, and 31, to the Bomb Disposal Squad. The squad transported the explosives to the Internal Security Division at Kudlu, where they destroyed the explosives one by one. Samples of the destroyed explosives and the surrounding soil were collected in the presence of the panch witnesses. The entire process was documented through photographs and videography. A mahazar was drawn at the spot in the presence of the panch witnesses. PW.74 later collected the report from the Bomb Disposal Squad. The remnants of the destroyed explosives and soil samples were submitted to the FSL for examination. Additionally, PW.74 received photographs and a DVD from the videography section of the office of the Commissioner of Police.
(u) PW.74 deputed Sri K. Rama Rao to proceed to Bhatkal and gather information regarding the passport of the wife of accused No. 1 to investigate the details of accused No. 8. PW.74 subsequently received passport details and information regarding the nationality of the wife of accused No. 1 from the 16 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Superintendent of Police, Karwar. Additionally, PW.74 obtained foreign travel details of accused Nos. 1 and 4 from the Assistant Director of the Central Foreigners' Bureau (CFB), Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, as well as from Jet Airways, Air Arabia, and other airlines. Based on these travel details, PW.74 prepared a detailed analysis report. Furthermore, PW.74 recorded the statement of Sri Afzan Ahmed and collected a document pertaining to accused No. 4's foreign travel.
(v) PW.74 sent notices to SBI and ICICI banks and collected the account statements of accused No. 1. He also received the employment details of accused No. 1 from Dr. SMRK Sagar, on behalf of Positive Homeopathy.
(w) PW.74 received the travel details of accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the Divisional Commercial Engineer of South Western Railway, as well as from Uber Travels. He recorded the statements of Sri Mohammed Yasin Lanka and Sri Sameer B. Bosle, the landlord of accused No. 1. Sri Mohammed Yasin Lanka produced a trip printout by logging into his Uber account, while Sri Sameer B. Bosle provided the rental agreement and an account statement from HDFC Bank. Additionally, PW.74 recorded the statements of witnesses Sri Sathish and Sri Kalimuddin. PW.74 also recorded the statement of accused No. 1's brother, Sri Imran Lanka, who issued a clarification letter. PW.74 received a sketch of house No. 392, Darul Khair, which was submitted to PW.66. Furthermore, PW.74 downloaded internet details regarding the visit of U.S. President, Hon'ble Sri 17 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Barack Obama to India and received reports from the FSL, Bengaluru.
(x) PW.74 prepared and submitted reports to the Government of Karnataka seeking sanction to prosecute the accused persons through the proper channel. He also submitted a request to the District Magistrate for permission to prosecute the accused under the Explosive Substances Act, along with his detailed investigation report. PW.74 received the sanction order from the Commissioner of Police to prosecute accused Nos. 1 to 9 under the Explosive Substances Act, and subsequently received the sanction order from the Government of Karnataka to prosecute them under the U.A. (P) Act.
(y) The brother of accused No. 1, Sri Yasin Lanka, appeared before PW.74 and produced two para-gliders that had been kept in his house by accused No. 1. PW.74 then called Sri K. Basavanna and Smt. G.S. Hemamalini as panch witnesses and seized the para-gliders in their presence under a mahazar. PW.74 filed an application to take accused No. 1 into police custody. He also recorded the further voluntary statement of accused No. 1. PW.74 called Sri Bharath Hegde and Sri Puttaramu as panch witnesses, during which accused No. 1 voluntarily showed videos uploaded to a YouTube channel. These videos were downloaded and copied into three DVDs in the presence of the panchas under a mahazar.
(z) PW.74 recorded the statements of Sri Sathish Raj and Sri Kalamuddin and collected the intelligence report from the office of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru. Upon 18 Spl.C.No.330/2015 concluding the investigation, PW.74 submitted the charge-sheet before this Court and continued the further investigation with the Court's permission. Subsequently, PW.74 received the TIP report for accused Nos. 1 and 3 from the Executive Magistrate, Bengaluru South. He also received a report from the Deputy Commissioner of Uttara Kannada District providing details regarding the license of Smt. Saraswathi, the aunt of PW.15, Sri Vinayak Hulekal. Additionally, PW.74 received a report from PI Sri Rama Rao and recorded his statement. PW.74 also received the CAF documents and CDR for mobile No. 9980427551 from Vodafone. On 29.05.2016, PW.74 submitted a supplementary charge-sheet before this Court.
3. Upon receipt of the charge-sheet, this Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121A read with Section 511 of the IPC, Sections 4 to 6 of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Sections 13, 16, 18, 20, and 38 of the U.A.(P) Act on 21.07.2015 and registered a case against the accused persons. Copies of the charge-sheet and its enclosures were furnished to accused Nos. 1 to 4 in compliance with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.').
4. This Court provided sufficient opportunity to accused Nos. 1 to 4 to submit their arguments on framing charges. The learned counsel for the accused submitted that charges may be framed, as there was sufficient materials in the charge-sheet submitted by the investigating officer to proceed against accused Nos. 1 to 4. Accordingly, charges and additional charges were 19 Spl.C.No.330/2015 framed, read over, and explained to accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the language known to them. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The case was then posted for the prosecution's evidence.
5. In order to prove the allegations made against accused Nos. 1 to 4, the prosecution examined 74 witnesses (PW.1 to PW.74), marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.201, and identified M.Os 1 to 40, thereby closing its evidence. After the conclusion of the evidence, the incriminating circumstances that appeared in the prosecution's evidence were read over and explained to accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the language known to them, as required under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The explanations offered by accused Nos. 1 to 4 were recorded on 07.10.2022 and 15.10.2022. Further, the statement of accused No. 2 was recorded on 14.06.2023. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 chose not to adduce any defence evidence.
6. This Court heard at length the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4. Both parties also submitted written arguments, and the case was posted for judgment. When the case was posted for judgment, this Court altered the charges, and the altered charges were read over and explained to accused Nos. 1 to 4 in the language known to them. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted to the Court that he had no further evidence regarding the altered charges. Although the learned counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 20 Spl.C.No.330/2015 initially stated that he had no cross-examination on the altered charges, he later recalled PW.1, PW.46, PW.66, and PW.74, and cross-examined them on the altered charges.
8. This Court then heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 once again. The learned counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 also submitted additional written arguments.
9. The points that arise for the Court's consideration are as follows:
1) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that from 2004 to 2008, accused Nos. 1 to 4 and absconding accused Nos. 5 to 8 forming an association 'Indian Mujahideen' held conspiracy meetings in the house of absconding accused Nos. 5 and 6 bearing No. 314, Tenginagundi Road, Madina Colony and in the house of accused No. 7 bearing No. 566, Bandar Road, Bhatkal, Uttar Kannada District, the accused No.1 held conspiracy meeting with the absconding accused Nos. 5 to 7 in Pakistan and accused No.1 held conspiracy meeting with accused Nos. 4 to 7 in Dubai in 2009 with intention to commit terrorist activities in the name of Jihad in India and thereby committed the offence of 'criminal conspiracy' punishable under Sec.120B of IPC ?
2) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that during the aforesaid period and places, accused Nos. 1 to 4 and absconding accused Nos. 5 to 8 being members of 'Indian Mujahideen' held conspiracy meetings with intention to cause bomb blasts across India and during the visit of US President, Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama on 26.01.2015 and conspired to overawe, by means of criminal force, 21 Spl.C.No.330/2015 the Central Government and thereby committed the offence of 'conspiracy to commit offence of waging war against the Government of India' punishable under Sec.121A of IPC ?
3) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that during the aforesaid period and places, accused Nos. 1 to 4 and absconding accused Nos. 5 to 8 being members of 'Indian Mujahideen' held conspiracy meetings and in furtherance of your criminal conspiracy, took part in the activities which cause or intended to cause disaffection against India and which disclaims, questions and disrupts the sovereignty and integrity of India and thereby committed the offence of 'unlawful activities' punishable under Sec.13 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ?
4) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that during the aforesaid period and places, accused Nos. 1 to 4 and absconding accused Nos. 5 to 8 being members of 'Indian Mujahideen' held conspiracy meetings and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, accused Nos. 1 to 4 with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of India and with intent to strike terror in the people supplied explosives at the instructions of absconded accused Nos. 5 to 7 to cause blasts in Bengaluru which caused the death of two persons, Ahmedabad serial explosions which caused the death of 56 persons, Delhi blast which caused the death of 30 persons, Pune German Bakery blast which caused the death of 17 persons, Mumbai triple blasts which caused the death of 27 persons and planned to cause bomb blast on 26.01.2015 during the visit of US President, Sri Barack Obama and thereby committed 22 Spl.C.No.330/2015 the offence of 'terrorist act' punishable under Sec.16 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ?
5) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that during the aforesaid period and places, accused Nos. 1 to 4 and absconding accused Nos. 5 to 8 being members of 'Indian Mujahideen' held conspiracy meetings with intention to commit terrorist activities in the name of Jihad in India and procured explosive substances to commit terrorist act as an act preparatory to commission of a terrorist act during the visit of US President, Sri Barack Obama on 26.01.2015 and thereby committed the offence of 'conspiracy' punishable under Sec.18 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ?
6) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 1 to 4 are the members of a banned terrorist organisation 'Indian Mujahideen' which is declared as terrorist organisation at Serial No.35 of the First Schedule of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 which is involved in terrorist act and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.20 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ?
7) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 1 to 4 themselves associated with a banned terrorist organisation 'Indian Mujahideen' which is declared as terrorist organisation at Serial No.35 of the First Schedule of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 with intention to further its activities to cause bomb blast across India by procuring and supplying explosives and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.38 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ?23
Spl.C.No.330/2015
8) Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos. 1 to 4 being the members of banned terrorist organisation 'Indian Mujahideen' were found in possession of huge cache of explosive substances like Fuse (black cord) wire containing potassium nitrate, sulfur and charcoal calcium carbonate sulfur, sulfide, sodium sulphate, gelatin sticks and detonator compositions like PETN and Remote control devices causing explosion, a special category explosive substance, stored in the house namely Fatima Cottage, Azad Nagar, 4th Cross, Jali Road, Bhatkal and the house bearing No.392, Darool Kair, Jamiyabad Road, Bhatkal, in contravention of the rules made under Explosives Act, 1884 and Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.23 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ?
9) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that during the aforesaid period and places, accused Nos. 1 to 4 and absconding accused Nos. 5 to 8 being members of 'Indian Mujahideen' held conspiracy meetings and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, accused Nos. 1 to 4 procured explosive substances such as detonators, ammonium nitrate, gelatin sticks, printed circuit boards etc., and accused Nos. 1 to 4 were found in possession and control of the said explosive substances and special category explosive substances with intent to endanger life or property or cause serious injury to property and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 ?
10) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that during the aforesaid period and places, accused Nos. 1 to 4 and absconding accused Nos. 5 to 8 being members of 'Indian Mujahideen' held 24 Spl.C.No.330/2015 conspiracy meetings and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, accused Nos. 1 to 4 were found in possession and control of the explosive substances and special category explosive substances for preparation of IED under suspicious circumstances and not for a lawful object with intention to cause blast across India and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 ?
11) Whether the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that during the aforesaid period and places, accused Nos. 1 to 4 and absconding accused Nos. 5 to 8 being members of 'Indian Mujahideen' held conspiracy meetings and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, accused Nos. 1 to 4 supplied explosive substances at the instance of absconding accused Nos. 5 to 7 with intention to cause bomb blasts across India and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec.6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 ?
12) What order?
10. The findings of this Court on the above points are as follows:
Point No.1 : Partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative Point No.2 : Partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative Point No.3 : Partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative Point No.4 : In the negative Point No.5 : Partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative 25 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Point No.6 : Partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative Point No.7 : Partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative Point No.8 : Partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative Point No.9 : Partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative Point No.10 : Partly in the affirmative and partly in the negative Point No.11 : In the negative Point No.12 : As per final order, for the following :-
REASONS
11. Before examining whether the prosecution has proved that the accused committed the alleged offences, it is important to first outline the material facts and the chronological events necessary to support the allegations.
I. REGARDING THE MOBILE NUMBERS OF THE ACCUSED PERSONS I(A) MOBILE NUMBERS OF ACCUSED NO. 1
12. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 07.04.2015, he submitted a request to Idea Cellular Limited for the CDR and CAF documents of mobile number 9036112335. He further testified that on 30.04.2015, he received the requested CDR and CAF documents for the mobile number from Idea Cellular Limited, accompanied by a covering letter.
13. PW.40, Sri Rajesh K., testified that the CCB Police issued a notice requesting the CDR and CAF for mobile number 26 Spl.C.No.330/2015 9036112335, which he duly provided. He further stated that accused No. 1, Syed Ismail, submitted a copy of his Aadhar card as ID proof when purchasing the SIM card for the mobile number 9036112335. Additionally, he confirmed that he was asked to provide the latitude and longitude of the Cell IDs for the aforementioned mobile number, which he subsequently provided to the investigating officer.
14. The CAF for mobile number 9036112335 is marked as Ex.P.150, and the copy of accused No. 1's Aadhar card is marked as Ex.P.150(a). The CDR for the said number is marked as Ex.P.74, and the covering letter sent by PW.41 is marked as Ex.P.73. The certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for the issuance of the CAF and CDR is marked as Ex.P.75. Additionally, the latitude and longitude of the Cell IDs are marked as Ex.P.77, the covering letter related to this information is marked as Ex.P.76, and the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act for providing the latitude and longitude of the Cell IDs is marked as Ex.P.78.
15. Ex.P.150 shows that accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, is the subscriber of mobile number 9036112335 and used his Aadhar card as proof of address to subscribe to the number.
16. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that mobile number 9036112335 was initially registered with Idea mobile service provider, and that accused No. 1 ported it to TATA starting from 11.09.2014. He submitted a request to TATA for the call records of the number from 11.09.2014 onwards. On 27 Spl.C.No.330/2015 17.06.2015, he received the CDR for the period from 11.09.2014 to 08.01.2015 from M/s. Tata Docomo, along with a covering letter.
17. PW.34, Sri Ravi Noronha, Nodal Head of Tata Tele Services, Bengaluru, testified that on 15.06.2015, ACP Sri M.K. Thammaiah made a written request for the CDR, CAF, proof of identity, and proof of address for mobile number 9036112335. In response, he provided the requested details, including GPRS data. He also confirmed that the subscriber of the mobile number 9036112335 is accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque.
18. The requisition sent by PW.74 is marked as Ex.P.55, the covering letter issued by PW.34 as Ex.P.56, the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.P.57, and the CDR and GPRS data as Ex.P.58 by the prosecution.
19. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 07.04.2015, he sent a notice to M/s. Tata Tele Services requesting the CDR and CAF details for mobile number 9886004526. He further testified that he received the CDR for the period from 01.01.2014 to 11.09.2014, along with a copy of the subscriber's CAF, the driving license of accused No. 1, and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act from M/s. Tata Tele Services, accompanied by a covering letter.
20. PW.34, Sri Ravi Noronha, testified that on 07.04.2015, he received a notice from PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, requesting the CAF documents and CDR for mobile number 9886004526. In response, he provided the CDR, CAF 28 Spl.C.No.330/2015 documents, and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He also confirmed that accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, is the subscriber of the mobile number.
21. The notice issued by PW.74 is marked as Ex.P.60, the subscriber's CAF as Ex.P.151, the copy of Accused No. 1's driving license as Ex.P.152, the CDR for the mobile number as Ex.P.62, and the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.P.63 by the prosecution.
22. A perusal of the aforementioned evidence shows that PW.74 issued notices to PW.34 and PW.40 requesting the CAF documents, CDRs, Cell IDs, and the longitude and latitude for mobile numbers 9036112335 and 9886004526, which they subsequently provided. During the cross-examination of PW.74, PW.34, and PW.40, accused No. 1 did not elicit anything contrary to their testimony. All three witnesses testified that accused No. 1 is the subscriber of both mobile numbers. Ex.P.150 confirms that accused No. 1 is the subscriber of mobile number 9036112335, having used his Aadhar card to subscribe. Additionally, Ex.P.151 shows that accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, is the subscriber of mobile number 9886004526, with his driving license provided as proof of identity and address.
23. Upon perusal of the cross-examination of PW.74, PW.34, and PW.40, accused No. 1 has not raised any specific defense. Although the Customer Application Forms are in his name, he failed to provide any explanation during his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., instead responding with 'I do not know' and 'false.' Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve 29 Spl.C.No.330/2015 the prosecution's evidence. The prosecution has provided sufficient material to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that accused No. 1 was using mobile numbers 9036112335 and 9886004526, supported by cogent and convincing evidence.
I(B) MOBILE NUMBERS OF ACCUSED NO.2 I(B)(i) REGARDING MOBILE NUMBER 9901305984
24. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 25.06.2015, he sent a notice to Vodafone requesting the CDR for mobile number 9901305984. He further testified that on 29.06.2015, he received the requested CDR for the period from 01.01.2014 to 15.12.2014, along with other relevant documents, from M/s. Vodafone, accompanied by a covering letter and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
25. PW.39, Sri Abhiram Belavadi, testified that, based on the requisition from the Investigating Officer, he provided the CAF, proof of identity, proof of address submitted by the subscriber, the migration form, CDR for mobile number 9901305984 from 01.11.2014 to 08.01.2015, and GPRS data for the same number. He further testified that the Investigating Officer requested a pan-India circles map with the cell site address for the mobile number. In response, he supplied the requested documents as outlined in the letter. He also confirmed that the documents were downloaded from the centralized server after receiving the requisition and that he issued a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
30Spl.C.No.330/2015
26. The covering letter sent by PW.39 is marked as Ex.P.188. The CAF for the subscriber of mobile number 9901305984 is marked as Ex.P.188(c), the proof of identity of the subscriber as Ex.P.188(d), the migration form as Ex.P.188(e), the CDR for mobile number 9901305984 as Ex.P.188(f), the GPRS data as Ex.P.188(g), and the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.P.188(h) by the prosecution.
27. Upon reviewing the aforementioned evidence, PW.74 issued a notice to PW.39 requesting the CAF, CDR, cell site address, and other documents related to mobile number 9901305984, which PW.39 subsequently provided. The CAF shows that accused No. 2, Abdul Saboor, is the subscriber of mobile number 9901305984. Ex.P.188(d) reveals that accused No. 2 submitted a copy of his election ID card as proof of identity to subscribe to the mobile number.
28. During the cross-examination of PW.74 and PW.39, accused No. 2 failed to present any specific defense on this matter. Furthermore, he did not elicit any evidence contrary to their testimony. Although the CAF is in the name of accused No. 2, Abdul Saboor, he did not provide any explanation when his statement was recorded, as required under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. His responses were vague, such as 'I do not know.' Therefore, there is no evidence on record to doubt the case presented by the prosecution. The prosecution has provided cogent and convincing evidence to prove that accused No. 2 31 Spl.C.No.330/2015 was using mobile number 9901305984, establishing this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
I(B)(ii) REGARDING MOBILE NUMBER 9535727127
29. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 07.04.2015, he sent a notice to Bharati Airtel requesting the CDR, the CAF, and other details for mobile number 9535727127. He further testified that on 10.05.2015, he received the CDR for mobile number 9535727127 for the period from 10.03.2014 to 08.01.2015, Internet CDR from 16.11.2014 to 04.01.2015, the CAF, and the subscriber's address proof from M/s. Bharti Airtel. Sri Syed Imran Lanka is the subscriber of mobile number 9535727127. Additionally, he testified that on 30.06.2015, he received the Cell ID addresses from M/s. Airtel under a covering letter.
30. PW.33, Sri Stanley, testified that on 07.04.2015, a requisition was sent by the ACP, CCB, seeking CDR, GPRS CDR, and PAN India CDR for mobile number 9535727127 for the period from 01.01.2014 to 08.01.2015, as well as the CAF and identity proof. He was also asked to map the cell ID addresses for the mobile number. He further deposed that he provided the requested details on 08.05.2015 under a covering letter and issued a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
31. He further testified that on 20.06.2015, the ACP of CCB sent another requisition with 649 cell IDs, requesting the details of latitudes and longitudes, as well as the site addresses 32 Spl.C.No.330/2015 for those cell IDs. He provided the requested details under a covering letter and issued a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He also stated that he personally retrieved the CDR, extracted the details from the server, and then took printouts.
32. The notice issued by PW.74 is marked as Ex.P.44, the covering letter issued by PW.33 is marked as Ex.P.45, and the CDR for mobile number 9535727127, including the Internet CDR, the CAF, and the address proof of the subscriber, are collectively marked as Ex.P.43. The certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P.46 by the prosecution.
33. The notice issued by PW.74 to furnish the Cell ID addresses is marked as Ex.P.51, the covering letter issued by PW.33 is marked as Ex.P.52, the Cell ID addresses are marked as Ex.P.53, and the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P.54 by the prosecution.
34. Upon reviewing the CAF issued by PW.33, it is evident that accused No. 2 is not the subscriber of mobile number 9535727127; rather, Sri Syed Imran Lanka is the subscriber. Therefore, the court will examine the other evidence presented by the prosecution to prove that accused No. 2 was using the aforementioned mobile number.
35. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 22.06.2015, he submitted a request to the Joint Commissioner of Police seeking permission to summon the brother of accused 33 Spl.C.No.330/2015 No. 1, Sri Syed Imran Lanka. He received the necessary permission from the Joint Commissioner on 23.06.2015 to summon the aforementioned witness. Accordingly, he issued a notice to the witness. He further testified that on 30.06.2015, the brother of accused No. 1, Sri Imran Lanka, appeared before him, and he recorded the statement of the witness. The witness clarified in writing that he had given the SIM card bearing mobile number 9535727127 to accused No. 2, who is his cousin.
36. PW.61, Sri Syed Imran Lanka, testified that accused No. 2 is his cousin. The CCB Police, Bengaluru, issued a notice for him to appear at their office for inquiry, which was served on his brother, Sri Yaseen Lanka, on 23.10.2015. He further testified that the CCB Police provided a questionnaire, marked as Ex.P.113, which inquired about his present address, mobile numbers, and to whom those mobile numbers belonged, to which he responded in his own handwriting. After verifying his mobile, he informed the investigating officer that mobile number 9535727127 belongs to accused No. 2.
37. The notice issued by PW.74 is marked as Ex.P.112, and the questionnaire answered by PW.61 is marked as Ex.P.113. It is pertinent to note that PW.61 was not cross- examined by accused No. 2, and his testimony remains unchallenged. Hence, accused No. 2 has unequivocally admitted that he was using mobile number 9535727127.
38. In addition to the aforementioned evidence, PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar, testified that on 08.01.2015, he recovered a 34 Spl.C.No.330/2015 mobile phone from accused No. 2 in the presence of witnesses Sri Mahesh and Sri Manjunath under a mahajar at Flat No. 413, 4th floor, Vineyard Residency, Heerachand Road, Cocks Town, Bengaluru.
39. PW.4, Sri Mahesh, deposed that the police recovered mobile phones from accused No. 2 under a mahajar on 08.01.2015 at Flat No. 413, 4th floor, Vineyard Residency, Heerachand Road, Cocks Town, Bengaluru. The evidence of PW.1 and PW.4 will be discussed in detail in subsequent paragraphs, but their testimony is included here for the limited purpose of establishing the mobile number of accused No. 2.
40. The mahajar is marked as Ex.P.1, and the mobile phone seized from accused No. 2 is marked as MO.3. Upon reviewing Ex.P.1, PW.1 seized a Nokia mobile phone bearing IMEI No. 35193703835338, which contained an Airtel SIM card. According to Ex.P.43, the CDR, the mobile number associated with the phone bearing IMEI No. 35193703835338 was seized from the possession of accused No. 2. Therefore, the prosecution has presented cogent and convincing evidence that accused No. 2 was using mobile number 9535727127, establishing this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
I(C) MOBILE NUMBER OF ACCUSED NO.3
41. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he submitted a request letter to M/s. Tata Tele Services for the CDR, CAF, and other details for mobile number 8867874841. He further testified that he received the CDR for mobile number 35 Spl.C.No.330/2015 8867874841 for the period from 03.04.2014 to 08.01.2015, along with a copy of the CAF, a copy of accused No. 3's driving license, and a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act from M/s. Tata Tele Services Ltd. under a covering letter.
42. PW.34, Sri Ravi Noronha, testified that he received a requisition dated 07.04.2015 requesting the CAF, CDR, and other details for mobile number 8867874841. In response, he provided the requested CDR, CAF, and the driving license of the subscriber, along with a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He further confirmed that Saddam Husen is the subscriber of mobile number 8867874841.
43. The notice issued by PW.74 is marked as Ex.P.59, the covering letter from PW.34 is marked as Ex.P.60, the CDR for mobile number 8867874841 is marked as Ex.P.61, the CAF is marked as Ex.P.153, the copy of accused No. 3's driving license is marked as Ex.P.154, and the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P.63 by the prosecution.
44. Upon reviewing the evidence, PW.74 sent a request to PW.34 for the CAF, CDR, and other details of mobile number 8867874841, which PW.34 duly provided. A review of Ex.P.153 confirms that accused No. 3, Saddam Husen, is the subscriber of mobile number 8867874841, and that he provided his driving license at the time of subscribing to this number.
36Spl.C.No.330/2015
45. In cross-examination of PW.74 and PW.34, accused No. 3 has not taken any specific defense. He failed to elicit any contradictions or discrepancies in their testimony. Although the CAF is in the name of accused No. 3, Saddam Husen, he has not offered any explanation during the recording of his statement, as required under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., responding only with "I do not know." Therefore, the prosecution has provided cogent and convincing evidence that accused No. 3 was using mobile number 8867874841, establishing this fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
I(D) MOBILE NUMBER OF ACCUSED NO.4
46. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 16.06.2015, he issued a notice to Bharti Airtel under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. requesting the CDR for mobile number 9880298463. He further deposed that on 18.06.2015, he received the CAF and CDR for mobile number 9880298463 from Airtel under a covering letter. This mobile number is registered in the name of the father of accused No. 4.
47. PW.33, Sri Stanley, testified that on 16.06.2015, he received a notice requesting the CAF and CDR for mobile number 9880298463. He complied by furnishing the requested details under a covering letter and issued a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
48. The notice issued by PW.74 is marked as Ex.P.47, the covering letter from PW.33 is marked as Ex.P.48, the CAF and CDR for mobile number 9880298463 are marked as Ex.P.49, 37 Spl.C.No.330/2015 and the certificate issued under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is marked as Ex.P.50 by the prosecution.
49. Upon perusal of Ex.P.49, the CAF, it is noted that Sri Quaza Mohiddin Sayidi is the subscriber of mobile number 9880298463. According to the prosecution, Sri Quaza Mohiddin Sayyadi is the father of accused No. 4, Riyaz Ahamed Sayyadi.
50. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, also testified that he issued a notice to Sri Afzan Ahmed under Section 43F of the U.A.(P) Act. He further deposed that on 12.06.2015, Sri Afzan Ahmed produced a document related to accused No. 4, and he recorded his statement. The document contained mobile number 9880298463. The prosecution marked the notice issued by PW.74 as Ex.P.171 and the document produced by Sri Afzan Ahmed as Ex.P.177.
51. Upon reviewing the evidence presented by the prosecution, PW.74 sent a notice to PW.33 to provide the CAF and other details of mobile number 9880298463, which PW.33 subsequently furnished to PW.74. Additionally, PW.74 collected Ex.P.177 from Sri Afzan Ahmed to demonstrate that accused No. 4 himself declared his mobile number as 9880298463.
52. It is important to note that the father of accused No. 4 has not been examined in court to prove that accused No. 4 was using mobile number 9880298463, despite being the subscriber of the said number. Furthermore, Sri Afzan Ahmed has not been examined to prove the authenticity of Ex.P.177, which was marked through PW.74. It is a well-settled principle of law that 38 Spl.C.No.330/2015 mere marking of a document as an exhibit by a party does not prove document's contents. The contents of the document must be proved in accordance with the law. In this case, the prosecution chose not to examine Sri Afzan Ahmed to substantiate the contents of Ex.P.177 and has failed to provide any justification for this omission. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the contents of Ex.P.177 as required by law. In the absence of such evidence, this court cannot conclude that accused No. 4 was the user of mobile number 9880298463. The prosecution has, thus, failed to establish this fact with cogent and convincing evidence.
II. REGARDING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ACCUSED NO. 1AT STATE BANK OF INDIA
53. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 06.06.2015, he sent a notice to the Manager of the State Bank of India (SBI) requesting the account statement of accused No. 1. PW.56, Sri Ashraf P.M., testified that he served the notice dated 06.06.2016 on the General Manager of SBI's Head Office in Bengaluru.
54. PW.47, Sri Ravindra D. Savakar, testified that in June 2015, the investigating officer requested information about the account details of two individuals. However, he only provided the information for one account, which he collected from the SBI Bhatkal Branch.
55. PW.74 testified that on 18.06.2015, he received the bank account statement of accused No. 1 for SBI account No. 39 Spl.C.No.330/2015 10742607198, covering the period from 07.04.2009 to 06.06.2015, along with a covering letter.
56. The notice sent by PW.74 is marked as Ex.P.103, the covering letter issued by PW.47 is marked as Ex.P.91, and the account statement of Dr. Syed Ismail Afaaque Lanka is marked as Ex.P.92 by the prosecution.
57. A review of the evidence presented by the prosecution indicates that PW.74 sent a notice requesting the account statement of accused No. 1, and PW.47 subsequently provided the statement to PW.74. Upon examining Ex.P.92, it is clear that accused No. 1 holds the bank account with account number 10742607198 at the SBI Bhatkal Branch.
58. Although PW.47 was cross-examined, accused No. 1 has not elicited any contradictory evidence to his testimony. Furthermore, during the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused No. 1 failed to offer any explanation, despite the account being in his name, and simply responded, "I do not know." Therefore, the prosecution has presented cogent and convincing evidence, establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that accused No. 1 is the holder of account No. 10742607198.
III. REGARDING THE BANK ACCOUNT OF ACCUSED NO.1 AT ICICI BANK
59. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 06.06.2015, he sent a notice to the Manager of ICICI Bank requesting the account statement of accused No. 1. PW.56, Sri 40 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Ashraf P.M., testified that he served the notice on the General Manager at the Head Office of ICICI Bank. Further, PW.74 testified that he received the account statement of accused No. 1 from ICICI Bank, covering the period from 01.08.2014 to 05.05.2015, along with a covering letter.
60. PW.48, Smt. Shilpa V., testified that on 06.06.2015, ICICI Bank on M.G. Road received a notice from the ACP, CCB, requesting the account statement. The relevant information was obtained from the Central Team and subsequently forwarded to the ACP, CCB, under a covering letter.
61. The prosecution has marked the notice sent by PW.74 as Ex.P.102, the covering letter issued by PW.48 as Ex.P.93, and the statement of account of Dr. Syed Ismail Afaaque Lanka as Ex.P.94.
62. A perusal of the evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that PW.74 sent a notice requesting the account statement for accused No. 1, and PW.48 provided the statement to PW.74. According to Ex.P.94, Accused No. 1 holds account No. 233701501021. Although PW.48 was cross-examined, accused No. 1 has not elicited anything contrary to her testimony. Moreover, during the recording of his statement, as required under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., he did not offer any explanation, despite the account being in his name at ICICI Bank, and simply responded, "I do not know." Therefore, the prosecution has presented cogent and convincing evidence, 41 Spl.C.No.330/2015 establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that accused No. 1 is the holder of account No. 233701501021.
IV. REGARDING THE ARREST OF ACCUSED NOS. 1 AND 2, THE SEIZURE OF ARTICLES FROM THEIR POSSESSION AND THE REGISTRATION OF THE FIR.
63. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he was part of the investigation team for Crime No. 309/2014, registered at the Cubbon Park Police Station in Bengaluru, as per the order issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru. On 05.01.2015, he received a memo from the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Bengaluru, instructing him to proceed to Bhatkal to verify and trace the suspects, conduct inquiries, and report back. Other officers, including Sri A.B. Rajendra Kumar, ACP of Chikkapete Sub-Division; Sri H. Siddappa, ACP of K.R. Puram Sub-Division; Sri K. Ramrao, PI of CCB; Sri Balegowda, PI of Kamakshipalya Police Station; Sri Anand Kaburi, PI of CCB; and additional officers, were also deputed to assist him in tracing the suspects. Consequently, he proceeded to Bhatkal on 05.01.2015, along with the officers assigned by the Commissioner of Police, and arrived in Bhatkal on the morning of 06.01.2015.
64. He further testified that they continued their efforts to trace the suspects on 06.01.2015 and 07.01.2015. On the late evening of 07.01.2015, he received information that the suspects had boarded the Kannuru-Karwar Express train from Karwar to Bengaluru and were seated in seats Nos. 67 and 70 of the S8 compartment. He relayed this information to his superiors and to PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar.
42Spl.C.No.330/2015
65. PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar, testified that on 07.01.2015, the investigation team, consisting of ACPs Sri M.K. Thammaiah, Sri Siddappa, Sri Rajendrakumar, and others, visited Bhatkal in connection with Crime No. 309/2014, registered at the Cubbon Park Police Station in Bengaluru. The ACPs relayed a message to him at around 04:30 to 05:00 a.m. on 08.01.2015, informing him that two suspected persons were traveling in seats Nos. 67 and 70 of the S8 compartment on the Kannuru-Karwar Express train. Following this message, he proceeded to Bengaluru City Railway Station along with Police Inspectors Sri Veerendra Prasad, Sri Sreedhar Poojary, Sri Rangappa, PSI Sri Dayananda, and others, reaching the station by 07:15 a.m. He further testified that he secured PW.4, Sri Mahesh S., and Sri Manjunath as panch witnesses and explained the information received from Sri M.K. Thammaiah to them.
66. He further testified that they were waiting for the Kannuru-Karwar Express train, which arrived at around 08:00 to 08:10 a.m. They noticed two persons alighting from compartment No. S8, who had been seated in seats Nos. 67 and
70. The individuals exited the railway station, and they followed them.
67. He further testified that the two individuals hired a private taxi from Bengaluru City Railway Station and began their journey via Ananda Rao Circle. They followed the taxi, which stopped near Vineyard Residency in Cocks Town. The suspects alighted from the taxi and went to the fourth floor of the apartment building, where they checked into Flat No. 413.
43Spl.C.No.330/2015 During questioning, they introduced themselves as Dr. Syed Ismail Afaaque and Abdul Saboor. He also testified that he recovered a laptop, a mobile phone, and a passport from the possession of accused No. 1, and a mobile phone from accused No. 2, under a mahazar.
68. He further testified that he apprehended accused Nos. 1 and 2 and visited the Pulikeshi Nagar Police Station at around 01:30 p.m. on the same day, along with the accused persons and the seized articles. He lodged the first information statement and presented the accused persons, along with the seized articles, to PW.45, Sri H.J. Thippeswamy, the SHO of Pulikeshi Nagar Police Station.
69. PW.4, Sri Mahesh, testified that when he and his friend Sri Manjunath were at the City Railway Station in Bengaluru, intending to go to Mysuru, they were approached by the police, who informed them that some terrorists were coming to Bengaluru by train and requested them to act as witnesses. He further testified that the police took them to Platform No.5, where a train arrived from Bhatkal at around 08:30 a.m. When the suspects disembarked from the train, the police informed them about the suspects and pointed them out. He also testified that the individuals exited the railway station and hired a taxi. The police, who arrived in a jeep, followed the taxi and instructed them to follow in their own two-wheeler, which they had parked at the railway station. Accordingly, they followed both the police vehicle and the taxi. The individuals stopped their taxi near a hotel in Shivajinagar, where they stayed for half an hour. They 44 Spl.C.No.330/2015 then continued their journey to an apartment in Cocks Town, where the police followed them. The suspects arrived at a flat on the 4th floor of the apartment, where they were arrested. He further testified that the police recovered a laptop, two mobile phones, and a passport from the suspects under a mahazar, to which he affixed his signature.
70. PW.3, Sri Kalamuddin, who was the security guard of Vineyard Residency, Cox Town, Bengaluru, testified that he knew accused No. 1, as he was a resident of Flat No. 413, and that the police had visited the said flat.
71. PW.45, Sri H.J. Thippeswamy, testified that on 08.01.2015, at around 01:30 p.m., PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar, presented a report, a mahazar, and the two accused persons to him. Based on this report, he registered a case in Crime No. 11/2015, submitted the FIR to the court and his superiors, and subjected the seized articles to P.F. No. 5/2015 for forensic examination.
72. The prosecution has marked the first information statement as Ex.P.3, the seizure mahazar as Ex.P.1, and the FIR as Ex.P.89. Additionally, the prosecution has exhibited the laptop as M.O.1, two mobile phones as M.O.2 and M.O.3, and the passport of accused No. 1 as Ex.P.2.
73. In addition to the above evidence, PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he submitted a request letter to the Divisional Commercial Manager of South Western Railway, Mysuru Division, to provide the travel details of accused Nos. 1 45 Spl.C.No.330/2015 and 2 for 07.01.2015. This request letter is marked as Ex.P.148. He received the travel details from the Divisional Commercial Engineer, South Western Railway, which included the travel details for train No. 16524 on 07.01.2015. This document is marked as Ex.P.70.
74. PW.74 also testified that he submitted a letter to M/s Uber requesting the travel details of accused Nos. 1 and 2 for 08.01.2015. The prosecution has marked this notice as Ex.P.32. On 21.05.2015, he received the travel details of the accused from Uber.
75. PW.28, Sri Bhavik Rathod, testified that he received a notice from the CCB in 2015 seeking details of a trip dated 08.01.2015, concerning the vehicle with registration No. KA-05- AE-6195. He provided the details to the CCB, and the prosecution has marked the document submitted by this witness as Ex.P.34. PW.28 further testified that, according to the records, the trip was booked by the rider Sri Yasin Lanka through a mobile number ending in 25202. The trip was booked in the early morning, and Sri Deepu H.D. was the driver. According to the records, the trip was booked from Bengaluru Railway Station to Cox Town.
76. PW.8, Sri H.D. Deepu, testified that he was called by the CCB police to Adugodi. He was shown a photograph and asked whether he could identify the person depicted in it. He further testified that, after receiving an Uber rider message, he picked up the person in the photograph at around 8:00 to 8:30 46 Spl.C.No.330/2015 a.m. from Majestic Railway Station and dropped him off at Cox Town.
77. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he secured Sri Mohammad Yasin Lanka, the brother of accused No. 1, on 26.05.2015, and recorded his statement. Sri Mohammad Yasin Lanka provided the trip printouts by logging into his Uber account.
78. PW.29, Sri Mohammad Yasin, testified that in the first week of January 2015, he booked a cab using his mobile number (9886625202) from the railway station to Cox Town. He submitted the customer agreement form, driving license, and customer information form to PW.74, which have been marked as Ex.P.35 to Ex.P.37, respectively.
79. Upon reviewing the evidence, it is clear that PW.74 received information that the suspects in Crime No. 309/2014, registered at the Cubbon Park Police Station, had boarded the Kannuru-Karwar Express train to Bengaluru and were seated in seats Nos. 67 and 70 in the S8 compartment. He passed this information on to PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar. Following this lead, PW.1 and his team proceeded to Bengaluru City Railway Station, where they secured the panch witnesses. Upon the suspects' arrival, they alighted from the train, exited the station, hired a Uber taxi, and traveled to an apartment in Cocks Town, where they checked into Flat No. 413. PW.1 and his team followed the suspects, apprehended them, and seized the laptop, two mobile phones, and the passport of accused No. 1 47 Spl.C.No.330/2015 from their possession. PW.1 then presented the accused and the seized articles to PW.45, who registered a case.
80. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, knew the seat number, coach number, and train number in which accused Nos. 1 and 2 were traveling. He was in Mangaluru when he received the information and had the necessary resources and personnel at his disposal. The learned counsel contended that PW.74 could have approached the local police for assistance and arrested the accused either in Mangaluru or at any other railway station along the route to Bengaluru. However, PW.74 did not approach the local police or make any attempt to arrest the accused until they reached Bengaluru Railway Station. The learned counsel further argued that neither PW.1 nor PW.74 took any action for 12 hours after receiving the information about the accused. PW.74 admitted that he did not ascertain the names or identities of the passengers traveling in S8 compartment, seats Nos. 67 and 70, from the station master overnight. This admission, according to the defense, casts doubt on the travel of accused Nos. 1 and 2 during the night of 07.01.2015 and 08.01.2015. PW.74, however, explained that there was a risk of information being leaked, which the defense counsel argued was not a reasonable explanation.
81. It is important to note that PW.74 and his team had gone to Bhatkal to trace the suspects in Crime No. 309/2014, registered at the Cubbon Park Police Station. During the course of their investigation, they received information about the 48 Spl.C.No.330/2015 suspects, as testified by PW.74. At that point, they did not have conclusive information that the individuals were the same suspects involved in the aforementioned crime. The mere fact that PW.74 did not attempt to arrest the suspects until they reached Bengaluru does not undermine the credibility of his and PW.1's testimony. PW.74 has provided a reasonable explanation for his actions, stating that involving the local police could have led to the leakage of critical information. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused and does not have any reason to doubt the testimonies of PW.74 and PW.1 on this issue.
82. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the investigating officer failed to collect any document from the railway department to establish that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had booked tickets. PW.38 admitted that the reservations were made online, but PW.74 did not collect the identity cards provided by accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of booking the tickets. The learned counsel further argued that the tickets themselves were not seized from the possession of the accused.
83. It is important to note that the prosecution examined PW.38, a Ticket Examiner, in this case. During the cross- examination of this witness, the learned counsel for the accused elicited that the tickets were booked online. However, the counsel did not clarify whether the production of an identity card is mandatory when booking an online railway ticket. In fact, it is not a requirement for customers to provide photo identification details when booking railway tickets online. Therefore, the issue 49 Spl.C.No.330/2015 of collecting identity cards provided by accused Nos. 1 and 2 to the railway department at the time of booking the online tickets does not arise. Moreover, in support of PW.38's testimony, the investigating officer has obtained the account statement of accused No. 1, which is marked as Ex.P.92, clearly indicating that accused No. 1 booked railway tickets online. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused.
84. Regarding the collection of railway tickets, it is common practice that when a train arrives at a station, passengers' tickets are checked at the station's main gate. At this point, passengers are typically not asked to surrender their tickets to the examiner. Additionally, there is a possibility that passengers may not retain their tickets after the journey and may dispose of them, such as by throwing them away. Therefore, the mere fact that the tickets were not collected from accused Nos. 1 and 2 at the time of their arrest does not provide a valid reason to discredit the prosecution's evidence.
85. The learned counsel for the accused argued that Bengaluru Railway Station is fully under CCTV surveillance, and the witnesses admitted this fact during cross-examination. CCTV footage would be crucial evidence to confirm that accused Nos. 1 and 2 arrived at Bengaluru Railway Station on 08.01.2015. The investigating officer, however, did not collect the relevant CCTV footage from the station. It is alleged that the prosecution deliberately suppressed this vital evidence, and due to the suppression of this material fact, an adverse inference should be 50 Spl.C.No.330/2015 drawn that the prosecution's narrative regarding the arrival of the train at 08:00 to 08:15 a.m. is fabricated. The learned counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tomaso Bruno and another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 7 SCC 178 in support of his arguments.
86. This Court has carefully gone through the aforementioned decision. It is important to note that the incident in the cited case occurred in a hotel during the intervening night of 03.02.2010 and 04.02.2010. The accused offered an explanation under Section 106 of the Cr.P.C., claiming that in the early hours of 04.02.2010, they had gone to witness the "Subah- e-Banaras" and returned to the hotel at 8:00 a.m. and found the condition of Francesco Montis in a serious condition, after which they promptly informed PW.1 and sought assistance from hotel staff to take Montis to the hospital. The hotel manager confirmed the presence of CCTV cameras in various parts of the hotel. The investigating officer also reviewed the full CCTV footage from that night but did not record it in the case diary, as it revealed no substantial evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the CCTV footage would have been vital in determining whether the accused remained in the hotel or were involved in the crime. However, the facts of the present case are distinguishable.
87. In this case, the arrival of accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Bengaluru Railway Station is not the sole factor establishing their involvement in the crime. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, has collected the CDRs and other relevant details for the mobile numbers of the accused. As outlined above, mobile numbers 51 Spl.C.No.330/2015 9036112335 and 9886004526 belong to accused No. 1, while mobile number 9535727127 belongs to accused No. 2. The CDR for mobile number 9036112335 shows the tower location in Mangaluru from 03.01.2015 to 07.01.2015, with locations in Mysuru and Bengaluru on 08.01.2015. Specifically, it shows a tower location within Mangaluru until 22:14:06 hours on 07.01.2015, in Mysuru from 01:42:13 to 01:42:43 hours on 08.01.2015, and in Bengaluru from 07:56:22 hours onward on 08.01.2015. The CDR for mobile number 9886004526 shows the location in Mangaluru at 18:25:56 hours on 07.01.2015, and in Bengaluru at 10:00:30 hours onward on 08.01.2015. The CDR for mobile number 9535727127 shows the locations in Bhatkal, Kundapur, Udupi, Mangaluru, Bantwal, Puttur, and Sulya on 07.01.2015, and in Cox Town, Bengaluru, on 08.01.2015. Notably, the train travels through Kundapur, Udupi, Mangaluru, Bantwal, Puttur, Sulya, Mysuru, K.R. Nagara, Mandya, Channapatna, and Ramanagara to reach Bengaluru from Bhatkal. The changing tower locations of the mobile phones as the train moves from Bhatkal to Bengaluru corroborate that accused Nos. 1 and 2 traveled on the Kannuru-Karwar train on 07.01.2015 and reached Bengaluru on 08.01.2015. In addition to this, PW.74 has collected other supporting evidence.
88. Therefore, with due respect to the Hon'ble Apex Court, the law as laid down in the Tomaso Bruno case is not directly applicable to the facts of this case. This Court does not find merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused regarding the alleged suppression of CCTV footage.
52Spl.C.No.330/2015
89. The learned counsel for the accused argued that Berth Nos. 67 and 70 were reserved under the names of "Syed" and "Abdul," respectively, according to the reservation chart. It is claimed that full names and addresses must be provided at the time of booking tickets, and since the names of accused Nos. 1 and 2 are not "Syed" and "Abdul," the reservations for Berth Nos. 67 and 70 cannot belong to them. Furthermore, the prosecution allegedly suppressed the identity proof of the passengers who occupied these berths, and the investigating officer failed to examine the co-passengers or conduct a mahazar at the railway station. It is contended that the investigating officer fabricated a false story to implicate accused Nos. 1 and 2 in this case.
90. As discussed earlier, passengers are not required to provide identity proof when booking tickets online. Therefore, the claim of suppression of ID proof for the passengers in Berth Nos. 67 and 70 is unfounded. It is also important to note that the full name of accused No. 1 is Syed Afaaque Lanka, and the full name of accused No. 2 is Abdul Saboor. The reservation chart shows that passengers named "Syed" and "Abdul" traveled on Train No. 16524 on 07.01.2015, and the first names of accused Nos. 1 and 2 match those listed in the reservation chart. As discussed previously, there is substantial evidence indicating that accused Nos. 1 and 2 traveled on this train from Bhatkal to Bengaluru on 07.01.2015. Therefore, it cannot be concluded, as the learned counsel for the accused suggests, that the names on the reservation chart refer to different individuals.
53Spl.C.No.330/2015
91. The learned counsel for the accused contended that PW.8's testimony should be discredited, citing his admission that his name is not registered on the Uber network, that he is not the registered owner of the vehicle, and that there was no necessity for Uber's management to provide his name and address. The learned counsel argued that this could lead to the conclusion that PW.8 is a "make-believe" witness. However, it is important to note that PW.8 clarified during cross-examination that his brother-in-law, Sri Mohan, is the registered owner of the car bearing registration number KA-05-AE6195, and that PW.8 was working as the driver of that vehicle. The accused did not elicit any testimony from PW.8 during cross-examination to suggest that he was not the driver of the car on 08.01.2015, nor did they challenge his role as the driver on that date. Given this, the accused cannot now claim that PW.8 is a fabricated witness. Therefore, the court finds no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused. There is no valid reason to doubt or disbelieve the testimony of PW.8, simply because his name was not registered in the Uber network or because he is not the registered owner of the vehicle.
92. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.8 testified that five persons traveled in his vehicle. PW.8 admitted that one of the passengers was a lady, thereby establishing that five people traveled. However, PW.4 testified that only two passengers traveled in the taxi. The learned counsel further argued that accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not book the taxi; instead, it was booked by Sri Yasin Lanka. The investigating officer failed to investigate who made the payment for the taxi, and thus, the 54 Spl.C.No.330/2015 prosecution has allegedly suppressed material facts. As a result, the learned counsel contends that an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution.
93. Upon perusal of the testimony of PW.29, it is clear that he booked a cab from Bengaluru railway station to Cox Town in the first week of January 2015 using his mobile phone. PW.29 is the brother of accused No. 1, and these facts have not been disputed by the defense. During cross-examination, it was elicited that the cab was booked for his parents and sister. However, during the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused No. 1 did not provide any explanation that his parents and sister had traveled from Bhatkal to Bengaluru and that his brother had therefore booked the cab. Additionally, accused No. 1 failed to produce any railway tickets or booking details showing that his parents and sister traveled from Bhatkal to Bengaluru or any payment details related to the Uber booking.
94. While it is true that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW.4 and PW.8 regarding the number of persons who traveled in the Uber cab, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, these discrepancies are minor in nature and do not affect the core of the prosecution's case. The Court has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Krishna Master and others, (2010) 12 SCC 323, which supports the view that such discrepancies do not go to the root of the case. In this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paragraphs 16 and 17 as follows:
55Spl.C.No.330/2015 "16. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and unless the reasons are weighty and formidable, it would not be proper for the appellate court to reject the evidence on the ground of variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details.
Minor omissions in the police statements are never considered to be fatal. The statements given by the witnesses before the Police are meant to be brief statements and could not take place of evidence in the court. Small/trivial omissions would not justify a finding by court that the witnesses concerned are liars. The prosecution evidence may suffer from inconsistencies here and discrepancies there, but that is a short-coming from which no criminal case is free. The main thing to be seen is whether those inconsistencies go to the root of the matter or pertain to insignificant aspects thereof. In the former case, the defence may be justified in seeking advantage of incongruities obtaining in the evidence. In the latter, however, no such benefit may be available to it.
17. In the deposition of witnesses, there are always normal discrepancies, howsoever, honest and truthful they may be. These discrepancies are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition, shock and horror at the time of occurrence and threat to the life. It is not unoften that improvements in earlier version are made at the trial in order to give a boost to the prosecution case albeit foolishly. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to separate falsehood from the truth. In sifting the evidence, the Court has to attempt to separate the chaff from the grains in every case and this attempt cannot be abandoned on the ground that the case is baffling unless the evidence is really so confusing or conflicting that the process cannot reasonably be carried out. In the light of these principles, this Court will have to determine whether the evidence of eye-witnesses examined in this case proves the prosecution case.
(emphasis supplied)
95. Applying the principles laid down in the aforementioned decision to the facts and circumstances of this case, the primary issue before the Court is whether accused Nos. 1 and 2 traveled from Bhatkal to Bengaluru by train and subsequently traveled from Bengaluru railway station to Cox Town on 08.01.2015. The 56 Spl.C.No.330/2015 issue of how many persons traveled in the Uber taxi is not relevant to the matter at hand. The prosecution has presented abundant evidence establishing that accused Nos. 1 and 2 indeed traveled from Bhatkal to Bengaluru by train and arrived in Bengaluru on 08.01.2015, as discussed above.
96. Furthermore, the prosecution has adduced materials showing that accused No. 1 had a residence in Cox Town. Evidence has been placed before the Court demonstrating that accused No. 1 paid rent to his landlord via bank transactions. Additionally, the prosecution has produced evidence confirming that an Uber cab was booked by the brother of accused No. 1 from Bengaluru railway station to Cox Town, and that both accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present in Cox Town on 08.01.2015. Therefore, the discrepancy or inconsistency pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused regarding the number of passengers traveled in the Uber taxi does not affect the fundamental aspects of the prosecution's case.
97. During cross-examination, accused Nos. 1 and 2 asserted that they were not arrested on 08.01.2015 but were already in the custody of PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar, from 01.01.2015. They claimed to have been kept at the Madiwala Interrogation Center from 01.01.2015, subjected to physical torture, made to consume each other's urine, placed alongside a pig to provoke their religious sentiments, and had rats poured on their bodies. The learned counsel for the accused reiterated these allegations during his arguments.
57Spl.C.No.330/2015
98. However, as previously discussed, Ex.P.70, the reservation chart for Sleeper Class, Coach S8, Train No.16524, clearly shows that accused Nos. 1 and 2 traveled from Bhatkal to Bengaluru on 07.01.2015. This evidence directly contradicts the claim that they were in PW.1's custody from 01.01.2015, as they have alleged.
99. Furthermore, a review of the CDRs for the mobile numbers associated with the accused provides further evidence. The CDR for mobile number 9036112335 shows tower locations in Bengaluru on 01.01.2015 and 02.01.2015, Mangaluru from 03.01.2015 to 07.01.2015, and Mysuru and Bengaluru on 08.01.2015. Similarly, the CDR for mobile number 9886004526 shows tower locations in Bengaluru on 01.01.2015 and 02.01.2015, Mangaluru from 03.01.2015 to 07.01.2015, and Bengaluru on 08.01.2015.
100. The CDR for mobile number 9535727127 reveals that accused No. 2's mobile locations were in Bhatkal from 01.01.2015 to 07.01.2015, with tower locations in Kundapur, Udupi, Mangaluru, Bantwal, Puttur, and Sulya on 07.01.2015, and finally in Cox Town, Bengaluru, on 08.01.2015. This data clearly disproves the assertion that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were in PW.1's custody from 01.01.2015.
101. Additionally, the route of the train from Bhatkal to Bengaluru passes through Udupi, Mangaluru, Mysuru, Mandya, and Ramanagara Districts. The mobile tower locations for both accused change as the train moves from Bhatkal to Bengaluru, 58 Spl.C.No.330/2015 further corroborating their travel on the Kannuru-Karwar train on 07.01.2015 and their arrival in Bengaluru on 08.01.2015.
102. Moreover, PW.74 collected bank statements for accused No.1 from SBI and ICICI Bank. Ex.P.92 shows that accused No.1 made payments for booking railway tickets on 04.01.2015 and 05.01.2015, and withdrew Rs.50,000/- on 05.01.2015. Ex.P.94 further shows a withdrawal of Rs.49,000/- on 06.01.2015. These transactions demonstrate that accused No.1 was not in the custody of PW.1 from 01.01.2015, as alleged. The bank records also confirm that accused No.1 booked two railway tickets online, further substantiating that they traveled on the Kannuru-Karwar train on 07.01.2015, arriving in Bengaluru on 08.01.2015.
103. Furthermore, the order sheet reveals that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were produced before the court on 08.01.2015. They did not raise any allegations of torture or ill-treatment during their appearance before the court on that day, nor on any subsequent occasions. The absence of any such complaints at the time of their production suggests that their claims of torture, made after two years and nine months, are inconsistent with natural human conduct. This strongly implies that the defense raised by the accused is false, and the allegations against the police officers are fabricated.
104. A thorough review of the evidence reveals that the Investigating Officer has gathered compelling proof establishing that accused Nos. 1 and 2 traveled from Bhatkal to Bengaluru on 59 Spl.C.No.330/2015 07.01.2015 aboard Train No. 16524, arriving at Bengaluru City Railway Station on 08.01.2015. PW.74 further obtained evidence showing that accused No. 1's brother, Sri Mohammad Yasin, booked an Uber cab from the railway station to Cox Town. The Uber manager provided records confirming the booking, and PW.29 corroborated the booking details. Additionally, PW.8 testified to picking up accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the station and dropping them off at Cox Town. Subsequently, PW.1 apprehended accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Flat No. 413, Vineyard Residency, where he seized their mobile phones, laptop, and accused No. 1's passport. He then lodged the First Information Statement and handed over the accused and seized items to PW.45, Sri H.J. Thippeswamy, the SHO of Pulikeshi Nagar Police Station, who registered the case based on PW.1's information. The prosecution has established these facts with clear and convincing evidence, proving them beyond a reasonable doubt.
V. REGARDING ARREST OF ACCUSED NO.3 - SADDAM HUSEN
105. PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar, testified that based on the information provided by PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, he apprehended accused Nos. 1 and 2 at Flat No. 413, on the 4th floor of Vineyard Residency, Cox Town, Bengaluru. During questioning, accused No. 1 disclosed that he had stored explosive materials at the residence of accused No. 2, Abdul Saboor, in Bhatkal, and that accused No. 3, Saddam Hussain, was in charge of the house in Bhatkal. PW.1 then relayed this information to PW.74, who was in Bhatkal at the time.
60Spl.C.No.330/2015
106. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that PW.1 instructed him to locate and apprehend accused No. 3, Saddam Husen, and interrogate him. PW.74 further stated that he, along with his team, located the house of accused No. 3 and arrested him at about 1:00 p.m. He then brought accused No. 3 to Bengaluru and produced him before PW.66 on 09.01.2015, along with his report.
107. PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, testified that on 09.01.2015, PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, brought accused No. 3, Saddam Hussain, along with a mahajar, a PF, 28 sealed articles, and his report, which was marked as Ex.P.116. PW.66 arrested accused No. 3 and followed the necessary arrest procedure. He further testified that accused No. 3 was then produced before the court.
108. During the cross-examination of PW.1, PW.74, and PW.66, accused No. 3 did not challenge their testimonies. However, he claimed that he had been detained at the Madiwala Interrogation Center from 01.01.2015. Accused No. 3 provided no evidence to support this claim, apart from suggesting it during cross-examination. In contrast, the CDR of accused No. 3's mobile number (Ex.P.61) clearly shows that he was in Bhatkal until 08.01.2015. Thus, accused No. 3's defense during cross- examination is false. Furthermore, the order sheet indicates that PW.66 produced accused No. 3 before the court on 09.01.2015, and at that time, accused No. 3 did not complain about ill- treatment or harassment by the police, nor did he report any illegal detention at the Madiwala Interrogation Center from 61 Spl.C.No.330/2015 01.01.2015. Therefore, the prosecution has established this fact with cogent and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
VI. REGARDING ARREST OF ACCUSED NO. 4 - RIAZ AHAMED SAYYADI
109. PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, testified that on 10.01.2015, he received credible information that one Riyaz Ahamed was preparing to travel to Dubai from Mangaluru Airport. Based on this information, he went to Mangaluru Airport and apprehended accused No.4, Riyaz Ahamed, at 02:00 a.m. on 11.01.2015. On the same day, he brought accused No.4 to Bengaluru and produced Riyaz Ahamed before the court on 12.01.2015.
110. During cross-examination, accused No.4 did not present any evidence contrary to PW.66's testimony. Accused No.4 admitted, during the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., that he was brought to Bengaluru from Mumbai and produced before the court on 12.01.2015, where he was taken into police custody. Therefore, there is no significant dispute regarding the arrest of accused No.4. The prosecution has proved these facts with cogent and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
VII. REGARDING RECOVERY OF ARTICLES FROM THE HOUSE OF ACCUSED NO.2 - ABDUL SABOOR
111. As discussed above, PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar, received information from PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, that the 62 Spl.C.No.330/2015 suspects in Crime No.309/2014 of Cubbon Park Police Station were traveling from Bhatkal to Bengaluru. In response, PW.1 visited the Bengaluru City Railway Station, secured panch witnesses, followed the suspects - accused Nos.1 and 2 - and apprehended them at Flat No.413, on the 4th floor of Vineyard Residency, Cocks Town, Bengaluru. From their possession, PW.1 recovered a laptop, two mobile phones, and a passport under a mahajar. During the inquiry, accused No.1 disclosed that he had stored explosive materials in the house of accused No.2, located in Bhatkal, and that accused No.3, Saddam Husen, was in charge of the house. PW.1 informed these facts to PW.74, who was in Bhatkal at the time.
112. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 08.01.2015, at about 11:00 a.m., PW.1 informed him that two suspects had been apprehended and instructed him to secure accused No.3, Saddam Husen, for interrogation. He, along with his team, located accused No.3's residence and apprehended him at around 01:00 p.m.
113. He further testified that at 01:40 p.m., PW.1 informed him that the suspects he had secured in Bengaluru had been interrogated, articles had been seized, and the First Information Statement (FIS) had been filed. PW.1 also informed him that, based on this information, a case was registered under Crime No.11/2015 at Pulikeshi Nagar Police Station, for offenses under Sections 3, 10, 13, 18 of the U.A.(P) Act, Sections 120B, 121A of the IPC, and Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. He was also informed by PW.1 that 63 Spl.C.No.330/2015 accused Abdul Saboor had disclosed that explosive substances were stored in House No.392, 'Darul Khair', Jamiabad, Tenginagundi Road, Abale village, Bhatkal, and that immediate action was needed as the apprehension of accused Nos.1 to 3 had been communicated to their associates, leaving no time to obtain a search warrant from the jurisdictional court.
114. PW.74 further testified that he approached the local police for assistance, and secured the presence of PW.9, Sri Ramesh, and PW.10, Sri Eshwar, as panch witnesses. He also testified that accused No.3, Saddam Husen, who was in his custody, confirmed the information provided by PW.1. He, along with his team, panchas, and local police, proceeded to the suspected house and conducted a search, ensuring that no incriminating material was carried in by them. The front door of the house was locked with a padlock, and as there was no response, they broke open the lock and entered the house.
115. PW.74 further testified that during the search, they found a large green floral bag on the bathroom shelf. Upon opening the bag, they found one Nokia mobile phone (IMEI number 352004043846805) with a foreign SIM card (ETISALAT, IMSI No. 89971 12207 66471 5168), marked as M.O.5; one packet containing 25 gelatin sticks of Ideal Power-90 brand explosives (class 2, 125g x 25mm, manufactured by Ideal Industrial Explosives Ltd., Chityal, A.P.), marked as M.O.6; another packet of similar explosives, marked as M.O.7; one PVC pipe containing 485 grams of ammonium nitrate gel (M.O.12); another PVC pipe containing 490 grams of ammonium nitrate gel 64 Spl.C.No.330/2015 (M.O.13); a carton box with 95 detonators (M.O.14); a 24-foot length of blue safety fuse wire (M.O.8); old explosive gel wrapped in newspaper (1 kg, M.O.19); yellow ammonium nitrate- like material (260 grams, M.O.20); black gunpowder (405 grams, M.O.21); black gunpowder (160 grams, M.O.22); urea- like material (1.9 kg, M.O.23); an Orpat Quartz timepiece (M.O.9); an electrical soldering gun (M.O.10); adhesive and binding tapes (M.O.25); 70 resistors (M.O.26); 11 circuits (M.O.27); 98 printed circuit boards (M.O.28); 4 diodes (M.O.29); 7 assembled printed circuit boards (M.O.30); 7 integrated circuits (M.O.31); 8 PCB connector pins (M.O.32); 15 electrolytic capacitors (M.O.33); 10 transistors (M.O.34); 4 regulators (M.O.35); 36 ceramic capacitors (M.O.36); 150 printed circuit boards (M.O.37); and 15 LEDs (M.O.38). These articles were placed in separate plastic containers, packed in white cotton bags, stitched, and sealed with the letters 'MN,' marked as article Nos. 1 to 28, respectively. He further testified that a detailed mahajar (Ex.P.10) was prepared in the presence of the panchas. The search began at 2:30 p.m. and concluded at 7:30 p.m. The door of the house was then relocked, and the key was handed over to Sri Prashanth Naik, the Circle Inspector of Bhatkal Police Station.
116. PW.74 further testified that he proceeded to Bhatkal Police Station, handed over the seized articles and the mahajar, and requested the SHO to forward them to the jurisdictional court for further action. After obtaining permission from the court, the seized items were handed over to him. He then took them to 65 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Bengaluru and presented them to the Investigating Officer of Pulikeshi Nagar Police Station.
117. PW.62, Sri Prashanth Nayak, testified that on 08.01.2015, PW.74 requested his assistance with the investigation related to Crime No.11/2015 from Frazer Town, Bengaluru. PW.74 asked him to arrange witnesses for the mahajar proceedings. Accordingly, he secured his staff, Sri Sanjay Revankar, Sri Rajesh Prabhu and Smt. Bhavani Nayak, and panch witnesses Sri Eshwar Nayak and Sri Ramesh Nayak, and they went to the house of accused No.2, Darul Khair, bearing No.92, where the search was conducted in the presence of PW.74.
118. PW.62 further testified that when they arrived at the house, the door was locked, and after knocking without a response, the door was broken open. He and his staff stood guard outside, and later assisted in the search of the house. During the search, a green bag containing explosives and other materials was found, and the items were seized and sealed with white cloth, with the seal impression "MN." The mahajar was completed from 02:30 p.m. to 07:30 p.m., and the articles were subsequently secured at the Bhatkal Rural Police Station.
119. PW.60, Sri Naveen Parashuram Borkar, testified that on 08.01.2015, he received the original seizure mahajar and the 28 seized articles from PW.74, along with a requisition to prepare a property form and submit the items to the jurisdictional 66 Spl.C.No.330/2015 court. He prepared PF No.02/2015, which was forwarded to the court on 09.01.2015.
120. PW.9, Sri Ramesh Era, testified that he was called as a panch witness by the Bengaluru CCB personnel for the search at a house in Tenginagundi Cross. He arrived at Tenginagundi Cross Road between 3:30 and 4:00 p.m., where both local police and police from Bengaluru were present. The police took him to a nearby house, which was locked. The lock was broken open, and the police searched a room in the house. They found a blue- colored bag, and the items inside the bag were shown to him. These items included two PVC pipes containing explosives, a timer, caps used for blasting rocks, bathis typically used with caps, and other materials. The police seized a total of 28 explosive items from the bag, sealed them with white cloth, and affixed the seal impression 'MN.' He further testified that the police obtained his signature on the sealed bags. The items were seized under a mahajar, marked as Ex.P.10.
121. PW.10, Sri Eshwar, testified that he was not called to the search location but had his signature taken on the mahajar at the Bhatkal Town Police Station. He denied signing Ex.P.10 with full knowledge of its contents at house No. 392.
122. PW.63, Sri K. Rama Rao, testified that on 06.01.2015, he, being a member of the investigating team led by PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, had gone to Bhatkal in connection with Cr. No. 309/2014 of Cubbon Park Police Station. He further testified that during the interrogation of accused No. 2, it was revealed that accused No. 2 had stored explosive materials at 67 Spl.C.No.330/2015 his house in Bhatkal, and that accused No. 3, Sadam Hussain, was still in Bhatkal. This information was passed on to PW.74, who was also in Bhatkal at the time.
123. PW.63 continued his testimony, stating that, based on the information provided by accused No. 2, they proceeded to the house of accused No. 2, located on Jamiyabad Road near Abu Bakar Masjid in Bhatkal. Acting on the instructions of PW.74, they raided accused No. 2's house in the presence of panch witnesses and discovered a green-colored bag placed on the shelf of the bathroom. Upon opening the bag, they found explosives, electronic detonators, and other items, totaling 28 in number. PW.74 then seized these articles by drawing a mahazar, which is documented as Ex.P10, between 2:30 p.m. and 7:30 p.m.
124. PW.66 testified that on 09.01.2015, PW.74 presented a report, mahajar, and PF No.2/2015, which were forwarded to the jurisdictional court.
125. Upon careful perusal of the evidence, it is clear that PW.1 informed PW.74 that accused No. 1 had disclosed the location of explosives at accused No. 2's house and that accused No.3 was in charge. Acting on this information, PW.74 coordinated with PW.62 to conduct a search at accused No. 2's house, where 28 explosive items were seized under Ex.P.10. The search was conducted in the presence of witnesses, and the seized articles were later delivered to PW.66 in Bengaluru. The evidence presented by the witnesses corroborates the 68 Spl.C.No.330/2015 prosecution's case, while PW.10's testimony stands in contrast to the prosecution's version.
126. The learned counsel for the accused has relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka regarding Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which are as follows:
(a) Rahul vs. The State of Delhi, Ministry of Home Affairs and another, (2023) 1 SCC 83.
(b) Indra Dalal vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 31
(c) Madhu vs. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No.522/2006, decided on 13.01.2012.
(d) Ashish Jain vs. Makarand Singh and others, Criminal Appeal No.1980-1981/2008, decided on 14.01.2019.
(e) Himachal Administration vs. Sri Om Prakash, 1972 AIR 975.
(f) Aghnoo Nagasia vs. State of Bihar, 1966 AIR 119.
(g) Musheer Khan @ Badshah Khan and another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal Nos.1181/2005, 1204/2005, and 1205/2005, decided on 28.01.2010,
(h) Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2004) 10 SCC
657.
(i) State of Rajasthan, through its Public Prosecutor vs. Saifur @ Saifur Rehman in D.B. Criminal Death Reference No.2/2020 C/W D.B. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.216/2022, 217/2022 and 252/2022, decided on 29.03.2023.
(j) Sukhvinder Singh and others vs. State of Punjab, Appeal (Crl.) 1/1994, decided on 12.05.1994.
69Spl.C.No.330/2015
(k) Sangappa Basalingappa Rabashetty and others vs. State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. 37/1982, decided on 18.11.1982.
127. This Court has carefully considered the principles laid down in these decisions. The judgments confirm that confessions made to the police are inadmissible and irrelevant as evidence under Sections 24, 25, and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Specifically, a confession made by an accused to a police officer during police custody cannot be used against him. The rationale behind Sections 25 and 26 is that the police might extract a confession through coercion or threats. Section 27, however, serves as a proviso to Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. In this context, information given by the accused that distinctly relates to facts leading to a discovery is admissible under Section 27. This provision is based on the view that the discovery of a fact as a result of such information provides a guarantee of its truth, thus allowing it to be safely admitted in evidence. However, if the information provided under Section 27 is not voluntary, it becomes inadmissible and would be in violation of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. There is no dispute regarding the ratio laid down in these decisions, and they are equally applicable to the case at hand. In light of these principles, this Court proceeds to evaluate the evidence presented by the prosecution.
128. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the voluntary statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not documented and that nothing was recovered based on these statements. He further asserted that both accused were in 70 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Bengaluru at the time of the preparation of Ex.P10, and therefore, there is no link between them and MOs 5 to 40. Additionally, he contended that the information provided by them was not recorded in any case diary.
129. The learned Special Public Prosecutor countered that Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act prohibit the proof of confessional statements made before police officers, unless they are made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. However, he pointed out that if any discovery is made as a result of such a statement, that part of the statement is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, as far as the discovery is concerned. The learned Prosecutor further argued that Section 27 does not require the statement to be recorded in writing. In support of this argument, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, (2011) 13 SCC 621. It is relevant to extract para 168 and 169 which read as follows:
"168. Firstly speaking about the formal arrest for the accused being in custody of the investigating agency he need not have been formally arrested. It is enough if he was in custody of the investigating agency meaning thereby his movements were under the control of the investigating agency. A formal arrest is not necessary and the fact that the accused was in effective custody of the investigating agency is enough. It has been amply proved that the accused was apprehended, searched and taken into custody. In that search the investigating agency recovered a pistol from him along with live cartridges, which articles were taken in possession of the investigating agency. This itself signifies that immediately after he was apprehended, the accused was in effective custody of the investigating agency.
169. Now coming to the second argument of failure to record the information, it must be held that it is not always necessary. What is really important is the credibility of the evidence of the investigating 71 Spl.C.No.330/2015 agency about getting information/statement regarding the information from the accused. If the evidence of the investigating officer is found to be credible then even in the absence of a recorded statement, the evidence can be accepted and it could be held that it was the accused who provided the information on the basis of which a subsequent discovery was made. The question is that of credibility and not the formality of recording the statement. The essence of the proof of a discovery under Section 27, Evidence Act is only that it should be credibly proved that the discovery made was a relevant and material discovery which proceeded in pursuance of the information supplied by the accused in the custody. How the prosecution proved it, is to be judged by the Court but if the Court finds the fact of such information having been given by the accused in custody is credible and acceptable even in the absence of the recorded statement and in pursuance of that information some material discovery has been effected then the aspect of discovery will not suffer from any vice and can be acted upon."
(emphasis supplied)
130. Upon perusal of the above paragraphs, the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly held that a formal arrest of the accused is not necessary, and that it is sufficient if the accused is in the effective custody of the investigating agency. The Court further held that if the evidence of the investigating officer is found to be credible, then even in the absence of a recorded statement, the evidence can be accepted, and it can be concluded that the accused provided the information on the basis of which a subsequent discovery was made.
131. In light of this decision, it is not mandatory for the investigating officer to record the voluntary statement of the accused regarding the recovery made based on their disclosure. In this case, it is pertinent to note that accused Nos. 1 and 2 were suspects in Crime No. 309/2014, which was registered at Cubbon Park Police Station, as per the information gathered by 72 Spl.C.No.330/2015 the investigating agency. Accordingly, they were taken into the custody of PW.1, Sri Ravikumar, at Flat No. 413, 4th floor, Vineyard Residency, Heerachand Road, Cox Town, Bengaluru.
132. As they were suspects in the said crime, PW.1 questioned them, and accused No. 1 disclosed that he had stored explosive materials in the house of accused No. 2, Abdul Saboor. Accused No. 2 endorsed the same statement. This information was relayed to PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, stationed at Bhatkal. Based on this information, PW.74 seized 28 articles from the house of accused No. 2. Notably, seven assembled printed circuit boards were recovered from accused No. 2's house. Therefore, this Court cannot disregard the evidence presented by the prosecution merely because the statements of accused Nos. 1 and 2 were not recorded in writing. This Court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
133. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that the investigating officer violated Section 165 of the Cr.P.C. by failing to obtain a search warrant from the jurisdictional Magistrate before conducting a search at the house of accused No. 2. Additionally, he did not prepare any document to demonstrate the urgency of the search, as required under Section 165 of the Cr.P.C.
134. The learned Special Public Prosecutor, in response, argued that PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, received information from PW.1, Sri Ravikumar, indicating that accused Nos. 1 and 2 73 Spl.C.No.330/2015 had stored explosive substances in the house of accused No. 2 in Bhatkal. Acting on this information, PW.74 immediately conducted the search at accused No. 2's house. He explained the absence of a search warrant from the jurisdictional Magistrate in the mahazar itself. After seizing the articles, PW.74 promptly approached the local police and presented the seized items to the SHO of the local police station, requesting the submission of a P.F. to the court. Following this, the local police submitted the P.F. to the court and obtained permission to transport the articles to Bengaluru.
135. The Special Public Prosecutor further argued that any deviation from the prescribed procedure in conducting the mahazar does not automatically invalidate the testimony of the investigating officer. In support of this contention, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Yakub Abdul Razak Memon and Ors. Vs. State of Maharastra through CBI, Bombay, MANU/SC/0268/2013 = (2013) 13 SCC 1, where the Hon'ble Apex Court held, at paragraphs 221 to 224, as follows:
"221) Section 100 of the Code was incorporated in order to build confidence and a feeling of safety and security among the public.
Section 100 clauses (4) to (8) stipulate the procedure with regard to search in the presence of two or more respectable and independent persons preferably from the same locality. The following mandatory conditions can be culled out from section 100 of the code for a valid Panchnama:
a) All the necessary steps for personal search of officer (Inspecting officer) and panch witnesses should be taken to create confidence in the mind of court as nothing is implanted and true search has been made and things seized were found real.
b) Search proceedings should be recorded by the I.O. or some other person under the supervision of the panch witnesses.74
Spl.C.No.330/2015
c) All the proceedings of the search should be recorded very clearly stating the identity of the place to be searched, all the spaces which are searched and descriptions of all the articles seized, and also, if any sample has been drawn for analysis purpose that should also be stated clearly in the Panchanama.
d) The I.O. can take the assistance of his subordinates for search of places. If any superior officers are present, they should also sign the Panchanama after the signature of the main I.O.
e) Place, Name of the police station, Officer rank (I.O), full particulars of panch witnesses and the time of commencing and ending must be mentioned in the Panchnama.
f) The panchnama should be attested by the panch witnesses as well as by the concerned IO.
g) Any overwriting, corrections, and errors in the Panchnama should be attested by the witnesses.
h) If a search is conducted without warrant of court u/s 165 of the Code, the I.O. must record reasons and a search memo should be issued.
222) Section 174 of the Code enumerates the list of instances where the police officers are empowered to hold inquests, the proviso to this section mandates the inquest to be conducted in the presence of two or more respectable inhabitants of the neighborhood. Circumstances when the Panchnama is inadmissible:
223) The Panchnama will be inadmissible in the court of law in the following circumstances:
i) The Panchnama recorded by the I.O. under his supervision should not be hit by Sec.162 of the Code. The procedure requires the I.O. to record the search proceedings as if they were written by the panch witnesses himself and the same should not be recorded in the form of examining witnesses as laid down u/s 161 of the Code.
ii) The Panchnama must be attested by the panch witnesses for it to be valid in the eyes of law. In case of a literate panch witness, he must declare that he has gone through the contents of Panchnama and it is in tune with what he has seen in the places searched, whereas for illiterate panch witness, the contents should be read over to him for his understanding and then the signature should be appended. If the above said declaration is not recorded, then the panchnama document will be hit by Sec.162 of the Code.75
Spl.C.No.330/2015
224) On any deviation from the procedure, the entire panchanama cannot be discarded and the proceedings are not vitiated. If any deviation from the procedure occurs due to a practical impossibility then that should be recorded by the I.O. in his file so as to enable him to answer during the time of his examination as a witness in the court of law. Where there is no availability of panch witnesses, the I.O will conduct a search and seize the articles without panchas and draw a report of the entire such proceedings which is called as a 'Special Report'."
(emphasis supplied)
136. In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has summarized the procedure prescribed under Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. and has clearly held that any deviation from the summarized procedure does not warrant the discarding of the entire panchanama or vitiate the proceedings. In the present case, as argued by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, PW.74 acted promptly after receiving information from PW.1 to conduct a search at the residence of accused No. 2. He secured the panch witnesses and conducted the search in their presence. He also provided justifications in the mahajar for not obtaining a search warrant from the jurisdictional court. Immediately after the seizure, he produced the seized articles to PW.60, Sri Naveen Parashuram Borkar, with a request to submit the P.F. to the court. PW.60 subsequently submitted the PF to the jurisdictional court, which granted permission to carry the seized articles to Bengaluru to be produced before the investigating officer.
137. It is pertinent to note that the mahajar was conducted on 08.01.2015, from 2:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. and the PF was submitted to the jurisdictional court in the early hours of 09.01.2015, i.e., 00.40 hours. These facts clearly demonstrate 76 Spl.C.No.330/2015 that PW.74 took all necessary precautions while conducting the search and transporting the seized articles to Bengaluru. Therefore, the testimony of PW.74 cannot be dismissed merely for failing to comply with Section 165 of the Cr.P.C., as outlined in the aforementioned decision. This Court has rejected the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the accused.
138. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that PW.74 violated Sections 43(a) and (b) of the U.A.(P) Act during the search proceedings. However, a plain reading of Section 43(a) and (b) reveals that these provisions are not applicable to the investigating officer. Rather, they pertain specifically to the Designated Authority appointed under the U.A. (P) Act. These sections primarily govern the actions of the Designated Authority in relation to the preventive detention and other specific measures outlined under the Act. As such, these provisions are unrelated to the search proceedings conducted by the investigating officer in the present case. Given this, this Court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused regarding the alleged violation of Sections 43(a) and (b) of the U.A.(P) Act.
139. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.74 testified that PW.1 informed him about the oral disclosure of accused No. 2 at 1.45 p.m. regarding the explosive items stored in his house. Per contra, PW.1 testified that PW.74 informed regarding the explosive items stored in the house of accused No. 2 at 11.20 a.m. on 08.01.2015. He further argued that movement register is not produced to show that PW.1 77 Spl.C.No.330/2015 received information at 11.30 a.m. This contradiction indicates that none of the accused disclosed before the police officials regarding storing of explosive substances. He further argued that PW.1 did not testify that he enquired accused No. 2, but PW.74 speaks about the same. Accused No. 2 never disclosed before PW.74 anything. PW.1 did not testify about this. It clearly indicates that the story of disclosure is fabricated or manufactured.
140. Per contra, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that there is no contradiction in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.74, but it is only a discrepancy in the evidence of these witnesses. He further argued that PW.1 is the first informant in this case who set the criminal law in motion and he was not accessed to case diary at the time of giving evidence before this court. The discrepancies in a case is natural in a genuine case.
141. It is true that there are discrepancies in the evidence of PW.1 and PW.74 regarding who disclosed information about the storage of explosives in the house of accused No. 2 and the timings of relaying such information. However, these discrepancies cannot be regarded as contradictions, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused.
142. It is important to note that accused Nos. 1 and 2 arrived at Bengaluru City Railway Station around 8:00 to 8:10 a.m. and were apprehended at Flat No. 413, Vineyard Residency, Cox Town, Bengaluru, as discussed earlier. According to the cross-examination of PW.1, accused Nos. 1 78 Spl.C.No.330/2015 and 2 were interrogated between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. PW.74 testified that he received information from PW.1 at 11:00 a.m. to apprehend accused No. 3. The accused also elicited from PW.1 that he had been in contact with PW.74 since 4:30 a.m. on the day the case was registered. This indicates a continuous exchange of information from 4:30 a.m. up until the registration of the case.
143. Furthermore, the case was registered on 08.01.2015, and PW.1 was examined on 21.10.2017. As pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, at the time of his testimony, PW.1 had no access to the case diary. Therefore, the discrepancies in the testimonies of PW.1 and PW.74 are not unusual and can be considered normal under these circumstances.
144. Furthermore, as established in Krishna Master's case, discrepancies in witness depositions are a normal occurrence, even in the most honest and truthful testimonies. These discrepancies may arise due to factors such as lapses in memory, errors of observation, mental shock, or even threats to one's life during the course of the incident. Therefore, it is the duty of the court to discern the truth amidst these discrepancies. The process of evaluating evidence should not be abandoned simply because the case appears complex. Only when the evidence is so contradictory or confusing that a reasonable evaluation becomes impossible, should the process be reconsidered.
79Spl.C.No.330/2015
145. In this case, as discussed earlier, PW.74 seized a large quantity of explosive materials, including assembled printed circuit boards, from the house of accused No. 2 based on the information provided by accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, the discrepancies and inconsistencies raised by the defense are relatively minor and do not undermine the core of the prosecution's case. The court, therefore, finds that these discrepancies should not be given undue weight, as they do not detract from the overall credibility of the prosecution's evidence.
146. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.74 failed to record the statements of the family members of accused No. 2 and did not issue notices to them. In contrast, the learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that the family members of accused No. 2 did not cooperate with the investigation, compelling the investigating officer to break open the lock. He also argued that if notices had been issued and the family members had been examined, they would not have supported the prosecution's case. Therefore, the non- examination of the family members does not go to the core of the case.
147. It appears from the records that the family members were not present at the time of breaking open the lock of the house to serve a notice on them. Therefore, PW.74 had no opportunity to issue notices to the family member of accused No.
2. As pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the family members of accused No. 2 would not support the case of the prosecution regarding storing explosive substances in their 80 Spl.C.No.330/2015 house if the notices were issued. Furthermore, accused No. 2 had an opportunity to examine his family members and could have examined them before the court to substantiate that no explosive materials were recovered from his house as defence witnesses. In support of this conclusion, this court has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Aslam vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/2255/2000 = (2001) 9 SCC 362. In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed at paragraph 7 as follows:
"7. Regarding A-1 - Mohmed Aslam (@ Sheru Mohd. Hasan), the only evidence for possession of the forbidden lethal weapon is the testimony of PW-34 (Nagesh Shivdas Lohar, Asstt. Commissioner of Police, CID Intelligence, Mumbai). Learned Counsel contended that two Panch witnesses who were cited to support the recovery turned hostile and therefore, the evidence of PW-34 became unsupported. We cannot agree with the said contention. If Panch witnesses turned hostile, which happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of the person who effected the recovery would not stand vitiated. Nor do we agree with the contention that his testimony is unsupported or uncorroborated. The very fact that PW-34 produced in the court lethal weapons recovered is a very formidable circumstance to support his evidence. Learned Counsel made an attempt to show that the recovery in fact was not effected from the said flat in which A-1 - Mohmed Aslam (@ Sheru Mohd. Hasan) was residing. It is admitted that A-1's wife and children were residing in that flat. If no such recovery was made from such flat why nobody was examined on the defence side at least to suggest that no police officer effected any recovery from there. As the trial court has chosen to believe the testimony of PW-34 and on a further scrutiny we too have no reason to reject the same, we are emboldened to accept the testimony of that witness."
(emphasis supplied)
148. In the cited decision, the learned counsel for the appellant urged the same contention before the Hon'ble Apex Court that accused No. 1's wife and children were residing in the flat and no recovery was effected from the flat. The Hon'ble Apex 81 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Court has declined to accept the said contention and observed that if no such recovery was made from such flat why nobody was examined on the defence side at least to suggest that no police officer effected any recovery from there. In this case also, the learned counsel for the accused has raised the similar contention and nothing was prevented the accused to examine his family members on their behalf to suggest that PW.74 did not effect any recovery from accused No. 2's house. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, non examination of the family members of accused No. 2 by the prosecution is not fatal to its case and this court finds no merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused.
149. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the key to Accused No. 2's house, which was used to lock the house, has not been produced before this court. He contended that this omission is fatal to the prosecution's case. In support of his argument, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gopal Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr., AIR 1972 SC 1557, decided on 22.02.1972 and the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Jaivir Singh vs. State (Delhi Administration) , 1995 (2) Crimes 18, decided on 06.01.1995.
150. This court has carefully gone through these decisions. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied on the decision in Gopal Singh with respect to the recovery of a key. In Gopal Singh, the appellants were arrested in the afternoon of the 10th, and the police recovered an iron key with an iron ring. The police 82 Spl.C.No.330/2015 subsequently searched the appellants' room, located close to the police station, on the following day at 2:00 p.m., where a shirt and bushshirt were recovered under a document. The Hon'ble Apex Court expressed doubt about the recovery of the shirt and bushshirt, noting that the key had been recovered during the personal search of Gopal Singh, yet the police and the panch witness, Madanlal, claimed that Gopal Singh produced the key at 2:00 p.m. on the following day to open the door of the house.
151. In the present case, however, no key was recovered either from accused No. 2 or from anyone else involved in the recovery of the explosive materials from accused No. 2's house. Furthermore, PW.74 clearly testified that after seizing the explosives from the house, he locked the house and handed over the key to the local police inspector with instructions to return the key to the owner of the house. To date, no one has come forward to claim that the police sealed the house without handing over the key, nor has anyone requested that the key be submitted to this court. This strongly suggests that the owner of the house collected the key from the local police. Therefore, the failure to produce the key in this case cannot be considered fatal to the prosecution's case, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused.
152. In the opinion of the court, the facts in this case are distinguishable from those in the cited decisions. With due respect to the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the principles in the aforementioned cases are not directly applicable here.
83Spl.C.No.330/2015
153. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.9 and PW.10 are witnesses to Ex.P.10. However, PW.10 turned hostile to the prosecution's case and testified that his signature was obtained at the Bhatkal police station. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the recovery beyond a reasonable doubt.
154. In response, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that although PW.10 turned hostile, he admitted to signing the mahazar and acknowledged that he never signs any document without reading it. The accused did not challenge this testimony. The learned prosecutor further contended that PW.10's failure to support the prosecution was likely due to threats from influential individuals associated with the accused. He emphasized that the prosecution's case should not be dismissed merely because PW.10 turned hostile, as other reliable evidence has been presented to prove the recovery of explosive materials from the house of accused No. 2. To support this argument, the learned prosecutor cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Aslam vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/2255/2000 = (2001) 9 SCC 362, where the court held:
"7. Regarding A-1 - Mohmed Aslam (@ Sheru Mohd. Hasan), the only evidence for possession of the forbidden lethal weapon is the testimony of PW-34 (Nagesh Shivdas Lohar, Asstt. Commissioner of Police, CID Intelligence, Mumbai). Learned Counsel contended that two Panch witnesses who were cited to support the recovery turned hostile and therefore, the evidence of PW-34 became unsupported. We cannot agree with the said contention. If Panch witnesses turned hostile, which happens very often in criminal cases, the evidence of the person who effected the recovery would not stand vitiated. Nor do we agree with the contention that his testimony is unsupported or 84 Spl.C.No.330/2015 uncorroborated. The very fact that PW-34 produced in the court lethal weapons recovered is a very formidable circumstance to support his evidence. Learned Counsel made an attempt to show that the recovery in fact was not effected from the said flat in which A-1 - Mohmed Aslam (@ Sheru Mohd. Hasan) was residing. It is admitted that A-1's wife and children were residing in that flat. If no such recovery was made from such flat why nobody was examined on the defence side at least to suggest that no police officer effected any recovery from there. As the trial court has chosen to believe the testimony of PW-34 and on a further scrutiny we too have no reason to reject the same, we are emboldened to accept the testimony of that witness."
(emphasis supplied)
155. The learned prosecutor also cited the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in State of Gujarath Vs. Sathish @ Kalu @ Hathoda Bhikabhai Patel others, Criminal Appeal No. 1176/2005, where the court held:
"32. It is well settled that merely because the panch witnesses do not support the case of the prosecution, the case of the prosecution need not be thrown over-board as unreliable. It must be realized that the phenomenon of panch witnesses turning hostile to the prosecution is not unknown and is ever on the increase. It needs hardly to be emphasised that the decision of a case does not depend solely on the question whether the panch witnesses support the prosecution or turn their back on it. If the decision of the case were to depend solely on the testimony of panch witnesses regardless of the evidence of police officers, in theory, it would be giving a right to veto to the panchas so far as that question of culpability of an accused is concerned, which is not permissible in criminal jurisprudence. It is well settled that without good ground being pointed out, testimony of police officer, if otherwise found to be true and dependable, cannot be discarded by Court on the ground that he is a police officer. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court finds that testimony of P.W.31, Rameshchandra Shankerrav Jagtap, Senior Police Inspector, Vatva Police Station, who made panchnama of the scene of offence and whose evidence is recorded at Ex.98, which is at page 109 of the compilation, is not only inspiring confidence, but, gets corroboration from the other evidence on record and from his evidence the panchnama is proved and it is given Exhibit No. 99. Therefore, according to us, the said panchnama can be relied upon. Besides this also the contents of the panchnama of the scene of offence is hardly a 85 Spl.C.No.330/2015 relevant factor to decide the complicity of the accused in committing murder. According to this court, when there are consistent evidence in the form of extra judicial confession made by the accused on telephone to P.W.1, Avinash Rajguru, and also other six circumstances pitted against him by the prosecution which we have discussed in this judgment, the inference of guilt of the accused is cogently and clearly established which unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused and the circumstances taken cumulatively form a chain so as to complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and, therefore, the contention raised by Mr. Majumdar, pales into insignificance and meets with the logic end of rejection."
(emphasis supplied)
156. Both the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat have made it clear that even if panch witnesses turn hostile, the prosecution's case need not be dismissed as unreliable. The testimony of the person who effected the recovery remains valid if credible. In Mohd. Aslam, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that hostile panch witnesses do not vitiate the recovery evidence. Similarly, in the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court decision, it was emphasized that the testimony of police officers should not be discarded without good reason.
157. Applying these principles to the present case, while PW.10 turned hostile, PW.9, PW.63, and PW.63 supported the testimony of PW.74, who produced the explosive materials in court. The evidence from PW.74, along with the corroboration from PW.9, PW.62, and PW.63, strengthens the prosecution's case. Therefore, the court cannot disregard the other materials presented by the prosecution simply because PW.10 turned hostile. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused, and the 86 Spl.C.No.330/2015 prosecution's case remains intact despite the hostile testimony of PW.10.
158. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.9 admitted during his cross-examination that he is a member of the Hindu Jagarana Vedike and that he was involved in creating hatred against the minority community. He further claimed that a "goonda sheet" was opened against him. Based on this, the learned counsel argued that the testimony of PW.9 cannot be relied upon.
159. In response, the learned Special Public Prosecutor contended that although PW.9 did not fully support the prosecution's case, he could have concealed his association with the Hindu Jagarana Vedike or the cases registered against him. However, he chose to admit these facts candidly. This demonstrates that PW.9 is a natural and truthful witness, and his testimony should not be dismissed. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further argued that a witness's testimony cannot be discarded solely because he has partially turned hostile. In support of his argument, he has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Arjun and others vs. State of Chhattisgarh, MANU/SC/0153/2017 = (2017) 3 SCC 247. In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down at para 15 as follows:
"15. Though the eye witnesses PWs 1, 2, 7 and 8 were treated as hostile by the prosecution, their testimony insofar as the place of occurrence and presence of accused in the place of the incident and their questioning as to the cutting of the trees and two accused surrounding the deceased with weapons is not disputed. The trial court as well as the High Court rightly relied upon the evidence of 87 Spl.C.No.330/2015 PWs 1, 2, 7 and 8 to the above said extent of corroborating the evidence of PW-6 Shivprasad. Merely because the witnesses have turned hostile in part their evidence cannot be rejected in toto. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable and the court shall examine more cautiously to find out as to what extent he has supported the case of the prosecution."
(emphasis supplied)
160. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Harijan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2012) 5 SCC 777. In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down at para 23 and 24 as follows:
"23. It is a settled legal proposition that the evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross examine him.
6. .... The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced or washed off the record altogether but the same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable on a careful scrutiny thereof. (Vide: Bhagwan Singh v. The State of Haryana, Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa; Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka; and Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
24. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra (SCC P. 363, para 7) this Court held that evidence of a hostile witness would not be totally rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Balu Sonba Shinde v. State of Maharashtra: Gagan Kanojia & Anr. v. State of Punjab; Radha Mohan Singh @ Lal Saheb & Ors. v. State of U.P.; Sarvesh Narain Shukla v. Daroga Singh & Ors., and Subbu Singh v. State.
83. Thus, the law can be summarised to the effect that the evidence of a hostile witness cannot be discarded as a whole, and relevant parts thereof which are admissible in law, can be used by the prosecution or the defence. [See also: C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. (SCC P.596, para 83) and Himanshu v. State (NCT of Delhi)]"
(emphasis supplied) 88 Spl.C.No.330/2015
161. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0770/2000 = (2001) 2 SCC 205. In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down at para 11 as follows:
"11. There appears to be misconception regarding the effect on the testimony of a witness declared hostile. It is a misconceived notion that merely because a witness is declared hostile his entire evidence should be excluded or rendered unworthy of consideration. This Court in Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana MANU/SC/0093/1975: 1976 Cri.L.J. 203 held that merely because the Court gave permission to the Public Prosecutor to cross-examine his own witness describing him as hostile witness does not completely efface his evidence. The evidence remains admissible in the trial and there is no legal bar to base conviction upon the testimony of such witness. In Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa MANU/SC/0176/1976 : 1977 Cri.L.J. 173 it was observed that by giving permission to cross-examine nothing adverse to the credit of the witness is decided and the witness does not become unreliable only by his declaration as hostile. Merely on this ground his whole testimony cannot be excluded from consideration. In a criminal trial where a prosecution witness is cross- examined and contradicted with the leave of the Court by the party calling him for evidence cannot, as a matter of general rule, be treated as washed off the record altogether. It is for the court of fact to consider in each case whether as a result of such cross-examination and contradiction the witness stands discredited or can still be believed in regard to any part of his testimony. In appropriate cases the court can rely upon the part of testimony of such witness if that part of the deposition is found to be creditworthy."
(emphasis supplied)
162. Applying these principles to the present case, while PW.9 did not fully support the prosecution's case and partially turned hostile, he did not retract his testimony about the CCB police breaking open the lock of a house on Tenginagundi Road, searching the house, and seizing 28 articles in his presence. He denied that he signed the mahajar at Bhatkal Rural Police Station, despite suggestions made by the accused. The accused 89 Spl.C.No.330/2015 suggested at page No. 18, question No. 67 that the Bhatkal police instructed him over the phone to visit the Bhatkal police station to affix his signature, and at page No.21, question No. 87 that the Bhatkal police introduced him to the CCB police as an activist of the Hindu Jagarana Vedike. PW.9 denied both these suggestions, which indicates that the CCB police were indeed present in Bhatkal on the date of the seizure, and they secured his presence during the operation.
163. Importantly, PW.9 could have denied his membership in the Hindu Jagarana Vedike or the cases registered against him during cross-examination, but he honestly admitted these facts. Therefore, PW.9 is a natural and reliable witness whose testimony inspires confidence in this court. The accused did not dispute, during cross-examination, that a house was searched or that articles were recovered in PW.9's presence.
164. Thus, the evidence of PW.9 cannot be disregarded simply because of his affiliation with the Hindu Jagarana Vedike or the existence of cases against him. The accused have failed to present any compelling reasons to disbelieve PW.9's testimony, other than his membership in the Hindu Jagarana Vedike and the cases against him. Accordingly, this court finds no merit in the contentions raised by the defence.
165. The learned counsel for the accused argued that under Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C., it is mandatory to secure local witnesses during mahajar proceedings. He pointed out that many houses were located in the vicinity of the place where the 90 Spl.C.No.330/2015 explosive materials were seized, and questioned why the investigating officer selected PW.9 and PW.10 as witnesses in this case. Furthermore, no notice under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. was served on these witnesses. The investigating officer attempted to justify this by claiming that the local residents did not support him for the mahajar. Even PW.62 admitted that local witnesses were not secured. These facts, the learned counsel argued, create reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case.
166. In response, the learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that there is a significant difference between a search conducted under Section 100 of the Cr.P.C. and a recovery made under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. He asserted that the absence of local witnesses during a recovery does not automatically undermine the credibility of the recovery. In support of his arguments, he relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Sunil and others, MANU/SC/0735/2000 = (2001) 1 SCC 652. In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down at para 20 as follows:
"20. In this context we may point out that there is no requirement either under Section 27 of the Evidence Act or under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to obtain signature of independent witnesses on the record in which statement of an accused is written. The legal obligation to call independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality to attend and witness the exercise made by the police is cast on the police officer when searches are made under Chapter VII of the Code. Section 105(5) of the Code requires that such search shall be made in their presence and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found, shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses. It must be remembered that search is made to find out a thing or document which the searching officer has no prior idea 91 Spl.C.No.330/2015 where the thing or document is kept. He prowls for it either on reasonable suspicion or on some guess work that it could possibly be ferreted out in such prowling. It is a stark reality that during searches the team which conducts search would have to meddle with lots of other articles and documents also and in such process many such articles or documents are likely to be displaced or even strewn helter- skelter. The legislative idea in insisting on such searches to be made in the presence of two independent inhabitants of the locality is to ensure the safety of all such articles meddled with and to protect the rights of the persons entitled thereto. But recovery of an object pursuant to the information supplied by an accused in custody is different from the searching endeavour envisaged in Chapter VII of the Code.
This Court has indicated the difference between the two processes in the Transport Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad & Anr. vs. S. Sardar Ali & Ors. MANU/SC/0389/1983: [1983]3SCR 729. Following observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J. can be used to support the said legal proposition:
Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code to which reference was made by the counsel deals with searches and not seizures. In the very nature of things when property is seized and not recovered during a search, it is not possible to comply with the provisions of sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 100 of the Criminal Procedure Code. In the case of a seizure [under the Motor Vehicles Act], there is no provision for preparing a list of the things seized in the course of the seizure for the obvious reason that all those things are seized not separately but as part of the vehicle itself."
(emphasis supplied)
167. This court has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rony Alias Ronald James Alwaris and others vs. State of Maharashtra, (1998) 3 SCC 625. In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held at para Nos.26 to 28 as follows:-
"26. It will be useful to read both sub-section (4) and (5) of Section 100 here:
100. (4) Before making a search under this Chapter, the officer or other person about to make it shall call upon two or more independent and respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate or of any other locality if no such inhabitant of the said locality is available or is willing to be a 92 Spl.C.No.330/2015 witness to the search, to attend and witness the search and may issue an order in writing to them or any or them so to do.
(5) The search shall be made in their presence, and a list of all things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which they are respectively found shall be prepared by such officer or other person and signed by such witnesses; but no person witnessing a search under this section shall be required to attend the Court as a witness of the search unless specially summoned by it".
27. These provisions require the officer making the search under Chapter VII to call two or more respectable inhabitants of the locality in which the place to be searched is situate and if no such inhabitant of that locality is willing to be a witness to the search, then to call persons of any other locality to attend and witness the search and for that purpose, the officer making the search is empowered to issue an order in writing to them or any of them so to do. The search has to be made in their presence and a list of things seized in the course of such search and of the places in which the things are found, is required to be prepared by the said officer and signed by such witnesses. It further provides that unless specially summoned by the court, such persons/witness in the search need not attend the court.
28. In State of Maharashtra vs. P.K. Pathak the witnesses of the search were the custom officials themselves. The High Court held that as no independent witness of the locality was taken by the custom authorities to witness the search, no reliance could be placed on the searches or the recovery of the smuggled articles. The High Court also rejected the evidence of lone non-official witness on the ground that he was not a witness of the locality and on the ground that he has assented to accompany the police and custom officials to witness the various recoveries wherever he was taken by the police. Disapproving the view of the High Court of Bombay, this Court held that the fact that they were custom officials would be no ground to distrust their evidence; so also the fact that the non-official witness was approached by the police and the custom authorities to accompany them to witness the search would not by itself show that he was an unreliable or interested witness. Observing that his evidence was corroborated by the police officer of the rank of Sub-Inspector, this Court held that his evidence ought to be believed. It may be noted that the evidence of the witness of search was accepted notwithstanding the fact that he was not of the locality where the search took place and notwithstanding the fact he was brought by the police along with them for the purposes of search. The evidence, however, can be 93 Spl.C.No.330/2015 rejected if it suffers from any serious infirmities or if there is any inherent inconsistency in the testimony. It there is intrinsic merit in the evidence of the witness of search the same cannot be rejected solely on the ground that witness is not from the locality of search or that he was brought by the police with it. We are not persuaded to accept the contention that the evidence of Nandu Ambadas Jadhav (PW-6) cannot be accepted for the reasons that he was not a witness of the locality and that he was brought from Pune by the investigating officer to witness the search. He was one of the drivers of the cars in which the investigating team came to Bombay from Pune. For the sake of convenience, he was taken as a witness for search. We do not find any material in the cross-examination to discredit his testimony. The only ground of attack on the evidence of PW-6 that he was not from the locality as contemplated under sub-section (4) of Section 100 Cr.P.C. fails because in our view a witness of search other than the one from the locality even if he has been brought by the investigating agencies along with them cannot be disbelieved only on that ground and we do not find anything in his evidence to discredit his testimony."
(emphasis supplied)
168. From the above rulings, it is clear that the requirements under Section 100 Cr.P.C. pertain to searches, not recoveries made under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The Hon'ble Apex Court has also held that the evidence of a witness brought from outside the locality for a search is not inherently unreliable and should not be rejected unless it suffers from significant inconsistencies or lacks intrinsic merit.
169. Applying these principles to the present case, while it is admitted that PW.9 is not from the locality of the house where the recovery was made, and was arranged by PW.62, the learned counsel for the accused did not point out any serious inconsistencies or flaws in PW.9's testimony. The mere fact that PW.9 was not a local witness and is a member of the Hindu Jagarana Vedike does not, by itself, undermine his credibility.
94Spl.C.No.330/2015 The accused failed to present any substantial reason to disbelieve PW.9's testimony. Therefore, the legal principles established in the aforementioned decisions apply squarely to this case, and this Court finds no merit in the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the accused.
170. The learned counsel for the accused has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shishpal @ Shishu vs. The State (NCT of Delhi), (2022) 9 SCC 782, regarding the issue of stock witnesses. In this case, the accused did not elicit from PW.9 during cross-examination that he was a witness in multiple cases. In the absence of such material, this decision is of no assistance to the defense of the accused.
171. The learned counsel for the accused argued that Crime No. 11/2015 was registered at 1:30 p.m. and that PW.62 confirmed this fact during cross-examination. However, PW.62 also testified that he secured the presence of witnesses around 12:00 noon and did not secure local witnesses. The defence contended that this discrepancy indicates that no search was conducted at accused No. 2's house and that the investigating officer may have planted the explosive substances to falsely implicate the accused.
172. While it is true that PW.62 admitted during cross- examination that Crime No. 11/2015 was registered at 1:30 p.m. and that he secured the witnesses at 12:00 noon, it is crucial to consider the overall context of the case. According to the prosecution, the seizure proceedings took place between 2:30 95 Spl.C.No.330/2015 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. Both PW.74 and PW.63 confirmed this timeline, testifying that the seizure occurred within this period. Neither of them stated that witnesses were secured at 12:00 noon. Moreover, PW.9 testified that he visited the scene of the search between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. These testimonies corroborate the prosecution's version of events.
173. Although PW.62 did testify that he secured the witnesses at 12:00 noon, it is important to note that his testimony was given five years after the incident, and he was not allowed to refer to the case records, as he was not the investigating officer. Therefore, the minor discrepancy in his testimony, regarding the time of securing the witnesses, does not undermine the core of the prosecution's case. It does not create any reasonable doubt regarding the legitimacy of the search or the seizure.
174. As established in previous case law, minor inconsistencies in a witness's testimony are not sufficient to discard the entire case. In this case, the discrepancy in PW.62's statement is of a trivial nature and does not go to the root of the prosecution's case. Therefore, the prosecution's case cannot be dismissed based solely on these minor inconsistencies. This Court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
175. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the investigating officer failed to collect any documentation to establish the ownership of the house, No. 392, Darul Khair, or to 96 Spl.C.No.330/2015 identify the owner. It was contended that neither accused No. 1 nor accused No. 2 were the owners or tenants of the house, and the investigating officer did not investigate the relationship between the accused and the property. Furthermore, the prosecution has not identified or questioned the owner of the house. The accused provided an explanation regarding these issues during the recording of their statements. The prosecution, according to the defence, has failed to present any evidence to clarify the connection between the house's owner and the accused, suggesting that the seized articles may have been planted to implicate them in the case.
176. While it is true that the prosecution has not produced a specific document establishing the ownership of the house at No. 392, Darul Khair, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, the prosecution has presented other significant evidence. Notably, the CAF of accused No. 2's mobile number was introduced. This document shows that accused No. 2, Abdul Saboor, himself declared his address as #92, Darul Khair, Jamiabad Road, Bhatkal at the time of the relevant events. Furthermore, this Court has already come to the conclusion that accused No. 2 was both the subscriber and user of mobile number 9901305984, and he used his Election ID card to subscribe to the said number. This provides a direct link between accused No. 2 and the house 'Darul Khair' where the explosive materials were seized.
177. Additionally, it is relevant to note that accused No. 2 filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka 97 Spl.C.No.330/2015 (Crl.A. No. 1232/2021 and Crl.A. No. 885/2021) challenging the order passed by this Court. In these appeals, accused No. 2 mentioned the same address, #392, Darul Khair, Jamiabad Road, Bhatkal, as recorded in Ex.P.10 and the charge sheet. Accused No. 2 himself admitted in the appeal filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka that he was the resident of Darul Khair. This consistent reference to the address in official documents strongly substantiates that accused No. 2, Abdul Saboor, was indeed a resident of the address listed in Ex.P.10.
178. During the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., accused No. 2 stated that he resided at house No. 108, Hebbar House, Sulthan Street, Bhatkal. However, he did not provide any document to substantiate this claim. If accused No. 2 were indeed a resident of Hebbar House, he would have produced a document to verify his address. The failure to provide such evidence further strengthens the prosecution's case, linking accused No. 2 to the location where the explosive materials were found. Based on the above, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish that accused No. 2, Abdul Saboor, was a resident of Darul Khair. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
179. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the address mentioned in Ex.P.10 does not appear in either Ex.P.3 (First Information Statement) or Ex.P.89 (FIR). The addresses in these documents are entirely different, suggesting that accused 98 Spl.C.No.330/2015 No. 2 cannot be connected to the house or the seizure of the articles.
180. While it is true that there are some minor discrepancies in the addresses across these documents, the house number and name in Ex.P.10 are consistent with those mentioned in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.89. It is significant to note that accused No. 2 has not produced any documents to establish that the house referred to in Ex.P.10 is a completely different house from the one mentioned in Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.89. As previously discussed, accused No. 2 has not provided any explanation regarding his place of residence in Bhatkal.
181. Furthermore, it is important to consider that these documents were prepared by three different individuals - PW.1 prepared Ex.P.3, PW.45 prepared Ex.P.89, and PW.74 prepared Ex.P.10. None of these individuals were familiar with the exact address and, therefore, minor discrepancies in the documentation are natural. There is no reason to place undue emphasis on these discrepancies, as they do not affect the core facts of the case.
182. Moreover, during the recording of witness testimonies, this Court noted the address mentioned in Ex.P.10. However, discrepancies in spelling and wording arose because the Court was unfamiliar with the specific terms and spellings used in these documents. It would be unreasonable to conclude that the address in Ex.P.10 and the address recorded in the witness depositions refer to two entirely different locations based 99 Spl.C.No.330/2015 solely on these minor differences. Therefore, this Court rejects the argument raised by the learned counsel for the accused, as the discrepancies are insignificant and do not undermine the prosecution's case.
183. The learned counsel for the accused argued that, at the time of the seizure of articles from a house, a list of the seized items must be provided to the owner of the house. In this case, it is alleged that 28 articles were seized from the house of accused No. 2, but no list of these items was provided to the owner. This, according to the defense, creates doubt about the prosecution's case.
184. However, in the opinion of the Court, there is no merit in this argument. The reason being that, as discussed earlier, the house was found locked and no one was present at the time of the search. The lock was forcibly broken open to conduct the search. Therefore, the question of providing a list of the seized items to the owner of the house does not arise in this case. In light of this, this Court rejects the argument of the learned counsel for the accused.
185. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the owner of the shop, Smt. Saraswathi, was not examined as a witness. Therefore, the defense contends that an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution for failing to examine her. However, a careful review of the records reveals that Smt. Saraswathi held a valid license to deal with arms and ammunition at Siddapura. PW.15 testified that, although the 100 Spl.C.No.330/2015 license was issued in her name, his uncle was actually in charge of the shop, with PW.15 working alongside him.
186. Importantly, according to the prosecution's case, the gelatin sticks were purchased from Smt. Saraswathi's shop, but she was not present at the time of the transaction. PW.15 testified that he sold the gelatin sticks to accused No. 3, Saddam Husen. This testimony clearly indicates that Smt. Saraswathi was not present during the sale of the gelatin sticks. Therefore, the prosecution was not required to examine her as a witness in this case. In light of this, the failure to examine Smt. Saraswathi does not affect the prosecution's case, and no adverse inference can be drawn as suggested by the learned counsel for the accused.
187. The learned counsel for the accused argued that accused Nos. 1, 2, and 4 were not taken to the alleged seller of the explosive substances, which were purportedly seized under Ex.P.5 and Ex.P.10. PW.66 admitted that accused No. 1 was not taken to Siddapura for the purpose of identifying the shop from where the alleged materials were purchased. However, it is important to note that, according to the prosecution's case, accused No. 1 did not purchase the gelatin sticks from Siddapura. Therefore, there was no reason for accused No. 1 to take the investigating officer to Siddapura to identify the shop. The learned counsel for the accused failed to explain how this fact undermines the prosecution's case or why it was necessary for accused No. 1 to take the investigating officer to the shop for 101 Spl.C.No.330/2015 identification purposes. In light of this, the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the accused are without merit.
188. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.15 admitted that their business concern had not purchased gelatin sticks from any manufacturer, and that the business was not authorized to deal in gelatin sticks. It was also pointed out that Ex.P.17 is not a document that grants authority to own, possess, or sell explosive substances. Ex.P.17 merely indicates that the licensee can possess guns and gunpowder. The possession and sale of explosives without a proper license is an offence. The investigating officer allegedly made unsuccessful attempts to fabricate evidence through PW.15. Moreover, an effort should have been made to investigate the source of the explosives or explosive substances seized from the house.
189. It is a well-settled principle of law that the testimony of a witness must be read as a whole, and the court cannot selectively pick and choose sentences to appreciate the witness's testimony. A careful review of PW.15's testimony reveals that the defense suggested that between 2012 and 2014, their business concern did not purchase gelatin sticks from any manufacturer as per law, to which PW.15 responded affirmatively. However, it is crucial to note that PW.15 also clearly testified that accused No. 3, Saddam Husen, visited his shop on three occasions in December 2014 and purchased gelatin sticks. Furthermore, during cross-examination, PW.15 confirmed at page No. 6, Q.No.23 that some individuals did purchase gelatin sticks on a retail basis. A close examination of 102 Spl.C.No.330/2015 the entire cross-examination reveals that the accused never denied that accused No. 3 purchased gelatin sticks from PW.15's shop.
190. In addition to PW.15's testimony, accused No. 3 took PW.66 to PW.15's shop and disclosed that he had purchased the gelatin sticks there. PW.66 testified that he recorded the voluntary statement of accused No. 3, in which the accused admitted to purchasing explosives from a shop in Siddapura. This statement was marked as Ex.P.119. PW.66 further testified that, on 18.01.2015, with the assistance of the Police Inspector from Bhatkal, he secured the presence of witnesses. Accused No. 3 took him and his team to a shop in Siddapura and pointed out that he had purchased the explosives from there. PW.15, Sri Vinayak, was present in the shop at that time. The testimony of PW.66 corroborates PW.15's account. As established in Himachal Pradesh Administration v. Shri Om Prakash (1972 SCR (2) 765), the conduct of the accused in taking PW.66 and the witnesses to the shop of PW.15, where he pointed it out, is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as it relates to the conduct of the accused. As noted earlier, Smt. Saraswathi, the shop owner, held a valid license to deal with arms and ammunition. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
191. Furthermore, for the sake of argument, it is assumed, for a moment, that Smt. Saraswathi did not have the license to purchase or sell gelatin sticks. According to the prosecution's case, accused No. 3 purchased only gelatin sticks from Smt. 103 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Saraswathi's shop. As discussed earlier, PW.66 and PW.77 not only recovered gelatin sticks but also other explosive materials from the houses of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, even if the evidence of PW.15 is excluded from consideration, it does not undermine the prosecution's case.
192. The learned counsel for the accused argued that, during the defusal of explosives, the process was documented with photographs and videography. The counsel questioned why the investigating officer did not adopt the same procedure at the time of seizure of items from the house of accused No. 2, suggesting this raises doubt about the authenticity of the seizure.
193. Upon reviewing the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is evident that PW.74 arranged for a photographer and videographer to be present during the defusal of the explosive substances seized in this case. However, this procedure was not followed during the seizure of items from the house of accused No. 2, as pointed out by the learned counsel.
194. It is crucial to note that PW.74 was in Bhatkal when he received information about explosive materials being stored at the house of accused No. 2. Given the urgency of the situation and the need to recover the materials before the news of the arrest of accused Nos. 1 and 2 spread, PW.74 did not have the time to secure a photographer and videographer at the spot. However, he did ensure the presence of a photographer and videographer when the explosives were destroyed.
104Spl.C.No.330/2015
195. Additionally, PW.9, PW.62, and PW.63 all testified that the explosive materials and other items were seized from the house of accused No. 2. Under these circumstances, their testimony cannot be dismissed solely on the grounds that no photographs or videography were taken during the seizure. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
196. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.74 admitted during cross-examination that fingerprints could have been lifted at the time of seizure, but no attempt was made to lift any fingerprints, and the presence of a fingerprint expert was not secured. The learned counsel contended that this failure is a crucial omission, as fingerprint evidence could potentially link the accused to the crime, and that the investigating officer suppressed this material evidence.
197. However, it is important to consider the context of the case. The prosecution's case is that PW.1 apprehended accused Nos. 1 and 2 at House No. 413, Vineyard Residency, Heerachand Road, Cox Town, Bengaluru, and during questioning, accused Nos. 1 and 2 disclosed the storage of explosive materials at accused No. 2's house in Bhatkal. PW.1 then relayed this information to PW.74, who subsequently seized the explosive materials from accused No. 2's house.
198. It is also noteworthy that the seizure was based on the information provided by accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were already known to the investigating officer. Therefore, there was 105 Spl.C.No.330/2015 no immediate need for the investigating officer to secure the presence of a fingerprint expert at the scene, as the identification of the accused was already established through their own disclosures. In light of this, the absence of fingerprint evidence does not undermine the prosecution's case. The failure to secure a fingerprint expert cannot be considered a ground to suspect the validity of the seizure or the connection of the accused to the crime. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
199. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the investigating officer seized dangerous articles in this case, but failed to secure the presence of a BDDS (Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad) team during the seizure. The learned counsel further contended that, at the very least, the area should have been cordoned off after locating the articles, which was not done, making the situation appear unreasonable and unnatural.
200. However, it is important to note that PW.74 did not find any live bombs in the house of accused No. 2. Instead, he discovered explosive substances, which were kept in a safe condition. PW.74 further testified during cross-examination that he had received training in handling explosive materials and, based on his expertise and experience, he was able to safely handle the substances without the immediate involvement of a BDDS team. In light of this, the court finds that there was no necessity for PW.74 to secure the presence of the BDDS team during the seizure. The articles were not live bombs, and the substances were handled appropriately in a safe manner.
106Spl.C.No.330/2015 Therefore, the court rejects the argument of the learned counsel for the accused, as there is no merit in the suggestion that the absence of a BDDS team during the seizure undermines the case.
201. The learned counsel for the accused argued that a mobile phone was found in the house, but no investigation was conducted regarding its ownership. While it is true that the investigating officer did not collect evidence concerning the ownership of the mobile phone seized from the house of accused No. 2, the learned counsel has not explained how this omission affects the case, particularly the recovery of the explosive substances from the house. In fact, the absence of an investigation into the ownership of the mobile phone does not undermine or affect the seizure of the explosive materials from accused No. 2's house in any way.
202. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.74 admitted that the police went to Bhatkal in search of Muslim suspects in connection with the case registered at Cubbon Park Police Station. The learned counsel further claimed that the police had predetermined and targeted Muslims to implicate them in the crime for political reasons, suggesting that this was driven by Islamophobia.
203. In the opinion of the court, there is no merit in this argument. Firstly, it is important to note that several Muslim individuals who are friends of the accused have been called as witnesses in this case and have testified against the accused 107 Spl.C.No.330/2015 persons. Secondly, a substantial quantity of explosive materials was seized from the accused. Given these facts, the argument of religious or political bias lacks any foundation. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
204. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the mode of transportation of the seized articles is not clear on the record. It was suggested that all the articles were planted in Bengaluru and that PW.15 and Ex.P.17 were fabricated to criminalize the accused persons. In response to the argument regarding the transportation of the seized articles, PW.74 testified that, after the seizure, he reported the same to the jurisdictional Magistrate through the jurisdictional police and obtained permission from the court to transport the articles to Bengaluru. He clarified during cross-examination that he personally transported the articles from Bhatkal to Bengaluru in his jeep.
205. Regarding the allegation of planting the articles, the accused suggested to PW.62, Sri Prashanth Nayak, during cross-examination that he had secured all 28 articles from PW.9 and PW.10, and from stone quarries, at the instance of PW.74, and that these articles were planted in the case. However, PW.62 denied this suggestion. During cross-examination, PW.9 confirmed that he had not purchased substances like MO.6 and MO.7 for his quarry business. No relevant material was elicited from PW.10 regarding the procurement of explosive materials from him to plant in this case. Similarly, during the cross-
108Spl.C.No.330/2015 examination of PW.63, Sri K. Rama Rao, the accused suggested that he and PW.74 had brought all 28 articles from Bhatkal market to plant in this case, but the witness denied this suggestion. Furthermore, during the cross-examination of PW.60, Sri Naveen Parashuram Borkar, the accused suggested that the articles were seized at the police station and reported to the learned Magistrate. This suggestion at least implies that the 28 articles were not planted in Bengaluru, as argued by the learned counsel for the accused, and that they were, in fact, seized in Bhatkal. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused lack merit.
206. The learned counsel for the accused further argued that, according to PW.74, he traveled from Bengaluru to Bhatkal in his jeep, and that there should be a logbook and a statement from the driver, neither of which were produced. Additionally, there was no movement register or other documentation to confirm that PW.74 visited Bhatkal, which he claimed was a lacuna in the investigation. However, it is important to note that the prosecution produced a memo issued by the Joint Commissioner of Police (Crimes), Bengaluru, directing PW.74 and his team to visit Bhatkal to verify suspects in Crime No. 309/2014 registered at Cubbon Park Police Station and to report their findings. Both PW.60 and PW.62 testified that PW.74 and his team visited Bhatkal for investigation. Moreover, the panch witnesses also confirmed that PW.74 and his team went to Bhatkal. As noted earlier, even the accused admitted during cross-examination that PW.74 visited Bhatkal. Therefore, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused 109 Spl.C.No.330/2015 regarding the lack of evidence to show that PW.74 visited Bhatkal are without merit.
207. In conclusion, the prosecution has successfully proved beyond a reasonable doubt that PW.74 seized 28 articles from the house of accused No. 2 in the presence of panch witnesses, supported by credible and convincing evidence.
VIII. REGARDING RECOVERY OF ARTICLES FROM THE HOUSE OF ACCUSED NO.1, SYED ISMAIL AFAAQUE
208. PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, testified that on 09.01.2015, he produced accused Nos. 1 to 3 before the court and took them into police custody until 21.01.2015. On 17.01.2015, he interrogated accused No. 1 and recorded his voluntary statement. In this statement, accused No. 1 disclosed that he would show the location where he had hidden explosive substances, contingent upon being taken there. This disclosure was marked as Ex.P.121(g).
209. PW.66 further testified that based on the voluntary statements of accused No. 1 and accused Nos. 2 to 4, he, along with his team (including ACP Siddappa, ACP Thammaiah, six Police Inspectors, and other police staff), traveled to Bhatkal with accused Nos. 1 to 4 on 18.01.2015. They stayed at the RNS Lodge in Murudeshwara. On 19.01.2015, PW.66 approached the JMFC Court in Bhatkal and applied for search warrants, which were granted and marked as Ex.P122, Ex.P123, Ex.P124, and Ex.P125. These warrants authorized searches at four locations. Later that day, PW.66 issued a requisition to the Police Inspector 110 Spl.C.No.330/2015 of Bhatkal, requesting eight panch witnesses and their cooperation in the investigation. The Police Inspector produced the witnesses, and PW.66 issued notices to them, requesting their participation. The eight panch witnesses included: Sri Fayaz Ahamed, Sri Chandrashekar, Sri Mahesh Nayak, Sri Siddu Biradar, Sri Mahesh M. Kali, Sri Nataraju, Sri Lingappa Nayak, and Sri Mahesh Nayak. PW.66 retained four of these panchas for the search, accompanied by four staff members and accused No. 1.
210. PW.66 testified that on the same day, accused No. 1 led him, the panchas, and staff to Fathima Cottage, located at 4th Cross, Azad Nagar, Bhatkal, in accordance with his voluntary statement. At the time, the house was locked, and accused No. 1's wife was present but she locked the front gate. PW.66 personally broke the lock, and they entered the house. Accused No. 1 then led them to a room on the ground floor, where he produced a bag containing PVC pipes with detonators, a bundle of detonators, and a mobile charger (marked as MO.4). He seized these items in the presence of the panchas, and prepared a mahajar. He subsequently reported the seizure to the jurisdictional Magistrate through Bhatkal Police, as per PF.No.2/2015.
211. PW.62, Sri Prashanth Nayak, testified that on 19.01.2015, PW.66 arrived in Bhatkal and requested his assistance in the investigation providing eight witnesses and requested him to visit the RNS Hotel. Accordingly, he traveled to the RNS Highway Hotel in Murudeshwara along with police 111 Spl.C.No.330/2015 personnel and eight witnesses. PW.66 divided them into three teams, and he was assigned to the team led by PW.66 to assist with the investigation. At that time, accused No. 1 was in police custody.
212. PW.62 further testified that accused No. 1 led them to his house in Azad Nagar, known as Fathima Cottage. Upon arrival, the house was locked, and there was no one to open the lock. Consequently, PW.66 broke open the lock, and they entered the house. Accused No. 1 retrieved a rexine bag from a room, which contained two PVC pipes filled with ammonium nitrate, each with detonators. One pipe weighed approximately 1 kg, and the other, 1.23 kg, both measuring about 14 inches in length. The bag also contained six bundles of detonators: one bundle with 27 detonators, another with 17, and four others with 25 detonators each. Additionally, five mobile chargers were found, four of which had already been opened, each with a capacity of 4000 to 5000 mAH. PW.66 seized these items, conducting a mahajar at the scene, marked as Ex.P5, between 02:30 and 04:30 PM.
213. PW.5, the protected witness, testified that at around 2:00 PM on 19.01.2015, he received a call from the local police requesting his presence at M/s RNS Residence Hotel on NH 17. Along with two Panchayat Development Officers and the Assistant Executive Engineer from the Zilla Panchayath of Uttar Kannada District, he met with PW.66 and other police officers at the hotel. Accused No. 1, Syed Afaaque Lanka, was in police custody at the time. He was then asked to assist as a witness for 112 Spl.C.No.330/2015 the recovery of incriminating materials at the instance of accused No. 1. Following this request, they traveled to Fathima Cottage in Azad Nagar, arriving at 03:00 PM. The house was locked, and accused No. 1 attempted to contact his wife to collect the key. As the phone calls went unanswered, the police broke open the lock. Inside, accused No. 1 led them to a room where he retrieved a rexine bag from the wardrobe, which contained two PVC pipes with sealed ends, seven bunches of detonators, and five mobile power banks (collectively marked as MO.4). These items were seized under a mahajar as per Ex.P5.
214. PW.6, another protected witness, testified that on 19.01.2015, he was called by the Bhatkal police to RNS Hotel. Upon arrival, he met with local police, CCB personnel, Sri Omkaraiah, and other government officials. At that time, accused No. 1, Afaaque, was in police custody. PW.6 further testified that the team proceeded to a house in Azad Nagar, where, based on accused No. 1's statement, the police recovered two PVC pipes, detonator bundles, and five mobile power banks. These items were seized under a mahajar as per Ex.P5.
215. A review of the aforementioned evidence shows that PW.66 recorded the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, in which accused No. 1 revealed the location where he had hidden explosive materials. In accordance with this disclosure, PW.66, along with his team, traveled to Bhatkal, where he secured the cooperation of witnesses, including the protected witnesses PW.5 and PW.6. Accused No. 1 then led the team to his residence in Azad Nagar, where he produced a bag containing 113 Spl.C.No.330/2015 PVC pipes with detonators, bundles of detonators, and mobile chargers. PW.66 seized these items and subsequently reported the seizure to the jurisdictional court through the local police.
216. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.66 did not comply with Section 165 of the Cr.P.C. before entering the house of accused No. 1 to conduct the search. However, it is important to note that accused No. 1 himself led PW.66 and his team to his house, acting on his voluntary statement. Furthermore, PW.66 had obtained a search warrant from the jurisdictional court to search the house. Therefore, there was no requirement to comply with Section 165 of the Cr.P.C. before entering the house of accused No. 1, as suggested by the defense. The argument put forward by the learned counsel for the accused is therefore without merit.
217. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the assistance of the BDDS team was not sought for the detection, defusing, recovery, and disposal of the explosives, and that the bomb disposal guidelines were not followed. However, as discussed above, no assembled IED was found in the house of accused No. 1 that would have necessitated the presence of the BDDS team for defusing or disposal. Therefore, there was no requirement to involve the BDDS team, as suggested by the defense. This court finds no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused.
218. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the address of accused No. 1 is listed as Cox Town in the FIR, and 114 Spl.C.No.330/2015 that it is unclear who owns Fathima Cottage or how it is connected to accused No. 1, and that this connection was not investigated. However, the recovery was made based on the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, who personally led PW.66 to the house and produced the seized items. Furthermore, accused No. 1 himself declared, both to his banker when opening his account (as shown in the statement of account, Ex.P.92) and to the service provider when subscribing to a mobile number (as evidenced by the Customer Application Form, Ex.P.150, and his Aadhar card, Ex.P.150(a)), that he was residing at Fathima Cottage in Bhatkal. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
219. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the wife of accused No. 1 was in conscious possession of the explosive substances and should have been charged as an accused in this case. He further contended that no notice was served on her, suggesting that the investigation was tainted. While it is possible that she may have been in conscious possession of the explosives seized from the house of accused No. 1, this does not provide grounds to acquit accused No. 1. It is important to note that accused No. 1 himself led PW.66 and his team to his house, where the items were produced and seized. Therefore, there was no necessity to issue a notice to the wife of accused No. 1. This court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
115Spl.C.No.330/2015
220. The learned counsel for the accused argued that once the investigating officer became aware that accused No. 1 had stored explosives in his house, the officer should have cordoned off the area. However, since the explosives were concealed within accused No. 1's private residence and not in an open or public space, there was no necessity to cordon off the house. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the accused.
221. The learned counsel for the accused argued that no notice was issued to the wife of accused No. 1 and that she was not made a witness in this case. However, as noted earlier, accused No. 1 himself led PW.66 and his team to his house and produced the seized items. Given that accused No. 1 voluntarily guided the police to the location and identified the items, there was no necessity to serve a notice on his wife or to make her a witness in this case. Furthermore, accused No. 1, being a competent person, is fully capable of explaining the events that occurred in his presence. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the accused.
222. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.66 admitted that Azad Nagar is a public area and that the panch witnesses were not residents of the vicinity of Fathima Cottage. While it is true that a citizen is expected to cooperate with the investigation, and that the investigating officer has the authority to take action against anyone failing to do so, the defense claims that the witnesses were "planted" in this case. As 116 Spl.C.No.330/2015 a result, it is argued that Section 100(4) of the Cr.P.C. was not complied with during the search.
223. However, as discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs, this court has already opined that the failure to secure local witnesses during the mahazar does not undermine the credibility of the prosecution's evidence. The panch witnesses, who firmly testified that explosive materials and mobile chargers were seized from the house of accused No. 1, further substantiate the recovery. Therefore, there is no need to revisit these points, and this court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
224. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.6 identified only a mobile charger, and that the other items seized from the house of accused No. 1 were neither identified by any witnesses nor marked before this court. Apart from the charger, the PVC pipes were not identified by any witnesses. It is important to note, however, that the electrical detonators were stored inside the PVC pipes, which were seized from the house of accused No. 1. PW.74, with the assistance of the BDDS team and with the permission of this court, destroyed the detonators. This process was videographed, and the videos have been presented before this court. A review of the videos shows that the BDDS team destroyed the electrical detonators along with the PVC pipes. Therefore, the absence of witness identification of the PVC pipes does not affect the case. In light of this, this court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
117Spl.C.No.330/2015
225. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the items seized from the houses of accused Nos. 1 and 2 are industrially manufactured, and that there was no investigation into the manufacturer of the explosives, the parties to whom they were sold, the wholesalers, the retailers, or the batch numbers. Specifically, the gelatin sticks were produced at a factory in Nalgonda, but no one from Andhra Pradesh has been questioned in connection with this case. Additionally, it was argued that TNT gelatin sticks are typically a military supply, and no investigation has been conducted to determine whether these items were stolen. The defense further pointed out that explosives must be stored in a magazine, yet no such magazine was seized in this case. Several key facts were allegedly suppressed, and important evidence was not brought to light. The defense also argued that there is no clear connection between these explosives and the accused, leading to the conclusion that the investigating officer may have planted the explosives, and that the case is pre-planned with the intent to target a particular community. The failure to investigate the source of the explosives was described not only as a flaw in the investigation but also as going to the very root of the prosecution's case.
226. It is true, as the learned counsel for the accused pointed out, that the Investigation Officer did not investigate the source of the explosives seized from the houses of accused Nos. 1 and 2. However, it is important to note that the explosive materials were seized from the houses of accused Nos. 1 and 2 based on information provided by them; they were not recovered 118 Spl.C.No.330/2015 from unknown places. Therefore, accused Nos. 1 and 2 are required to explain how they came into possession of a large quantity of explosive materials and who stored them in their houses. Generally, a person planning to commit a crime does not procure items, especially explosive materials, through legal means but seeks illicit routes. Thus, the failure of the Investigation Officer to investigate the source of the explosive materials is not fatal to the prosecution's case.
227. Furthermore, even assuming for the sake of argument that the Investigation Officer should have investigated the source of the explosive materials, this does not provide grounds to reject the prosecution's case. Such a failure is merely a defect in the investigation, and the entire prosecution case cannot be dismissed solely on the basis of this defect. In support of this position, this court refers to paragraph 41 of the decision in State of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammad Omar and others, AIR 2000 SC 2988, which reads as follows:
"41. Learned Judges of the Division Bench did not make any reference to any particular omission or lacuna in the investigation. Castigation of investigation unfortunately seems to be a regular practice when the trial courts acquit accused in criminal cases. In our perception it is almost impossible to come across a single case wherein the investigation was conducted completely flawless or absolutely foolproof. The function of the criminal courts should not be wasted in picking out the lapses in investigation and by expressing unsavoury criticism against investigating officers. If offenders are acquitted only on account of flaws or defects in investigation, the cause of criminal justice becomes the victim. Effort should be made by courts to see that criminal justice is salvaged despite such defects in investigation. Courts should bear in mind the time constraints of the police officers in the present system, the ill-equipped machinery they have to cope with, and the traditional apathy of respectable persons to come forward for giving evidence in criminal cases which are realities the police force have to confront with while conducting investigation in almost every case. Before an investigating officer is imputed with castigating remarks the courts should not overlook the fact that usually 119 Spl.C.No.330/2015 such an officer is not heard in respect of such remarks made against them. In our view the court need make such deprecatory remarks only when it is absolutely necessary in a particular case, and that too by keeping in mind the broad realities indicated above."
(emphasis supplied)
228. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly stated that it is nearly impossible to find a case where the investigation is conducted without any flaws or is completely foolproof. The function of criminal courts should not be to focus on the lapses in investigation. If offenders are acquitted solely due to defects in investigation, the cause of criminal justice itself becomes the victim. In the present case, the investigating officer has not committed any significant error by failing to investigate the source of the seized explosive materials, and there is no defect in this regard. Even if, for the sake of discussion, it is assumed that there is a defect in the investigation, such a defect is not grounds for acquittal of the accused persons, in accordance with the law laid down in the aforementioned decision. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the accused are devoid of merit.
229. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the chain of custody of the explosives is unclear from 08.01.2015 until 23.05.2015. However, PW.74 testified that he seized 28 articles from the house of accused No. 2, sealed them with the seal impression 'MN', and then handed them over to PW.66. PW.66 seized the articles from the house of accused No. 1 and sealed them with the seal impression 'HS'. PW.66 retained possession of these articles until the investigation was 120 Spl.C.No.330/2015 transferred to PW.74. Subsequently, PW.74 took possession of all the articles.
230. PW.30, Sri Praveen Alva, testified that he received 6 articles for defusal. Three of these articles were sealed with the seal impression 'MN', and the other three were sealed with 'HS'. He further testified that he drew samples from these articles and collected the remnants after defusal, sealing the samples and remnants with the seal impression 'BG'. PW.46, Dr. Vani M.N., testified that 15 articles were sent for forensic examination. Of these, 8 articles were sealed with the 'MN' seal, and the remaining articles were sealed with the 'BG' seal.
231. PW.67, Smt. Srividya, testified that 18 sealed articles were received in their office for examination, and the seals were found to be intact and matched the sample seal provided by the investigation officer. No evidence was presented to suggest that the seals were tampered with or that the seized articles were replaced. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused regarding the chain of custody.
232. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the assistance of a photographer and videographer was sought only during the destruction of the explosive materials, but not at the time of their recovery. However, PW.74, who defused the explosive materials, and PW.66, who recovered them from the house of accused No. 1 based on his voluntary statement, both testified in detail. It is important to note that the recovery took 121 Spl.C.No.330/2015 place in the presence of accused No. 1, according to the prosecution. As the competent person to explain the events that occurred during his police custody, accused No. 1 was asked about this matter during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., to which he replied "false," but he failed to offer any further explanation.
233. Furthermore, PW.66 obtained a search warrant from the court to search the house. Therefore, the prosecution's evidence cannot be dismissed simply because PW.66 did not enlist the assistance of a photographer or videographer during the seizure of the articles at the house of accused No. 1. In light of this, this court finds no merit in the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the accused.
234. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the detonators were not produced before the court. However, during the investigation, PW.74 sent the detonators to the BDDS team for defusal, with the explicit permission of the court. Following the defusal, the detonators were disposed of in accordance with court orders. Therefore, the absence of the detonators in court does not undermine the prosecution's case.
235. In conclusion, the prosecution has established, beyond a reasonable doubt, that PW.74 seized two PVC pipes containing detonators, a bundle of detonators, and mobile chargers from the house of accused No. 1. This seizure was made based on accused No. 1's voluntary statement, in the presence of panch witnesses, and is supported by cogent and convincing evidence.
122Spl.C.No.330/2015 IX. REGARDING PROCUREMENT OF PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARDS AND ELECTRONIC COMPONENTS
236. PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, testified that on 22.01.2015, accused No. 1, Afaaque, took him to a shop named Mercury Electronics which belonged to PW.19, Sri K.B. Muniswamy, stating that he had purchased PCBs from that shop. At the shop, PW.19 identified the accused, confirming that he had sold PCBs to accused No. 1. He recorded the statement of PW.19, Sri K.B. Muniswamy, in this regard.
237. PW.66 further testified that on 25.01.2015, accused No. 1, Afaaque, led them to Kothari Electronics, located at S.P. Road, Bengaluru, where PW.21, Sri Suresh Kothari, identified the accused, stating that accused No. 1 had purchased electronic components to prepare circuit boards from their shop.
238. PW.66 also testified that PW.25, Sri Abdul Shabandri took them to Kamath Travels, situated at Lalbagh West Gate, Bengaluru, where PW.25 identified PW.26, Sri Umesh, who was present in the office and confirmed that Kamath Travels had sent PCB parcels from Bengaluru to Bhatkal.
239. PW.19 testified that he worked as the Manager for M/s. Mercury Electronics, which is owned by Sri Neelakanta Aradhya. The firm deals with the manufacturing of printed circuit boards (PCBs). In May 2015, the police visited their firm with a person who had placed orders for PCBs in the name of "Wasi". At that time, he identified the person who had come with the 123 Spl.C.No.330/2015 police, confirming that the same individual had placed the orders. The orders were placed in October 2011.
240. He further testified that the police asked him to produce documents regarding the transaction, and he stated that he would provide them after conducting a search. Subsequently, the police contacted him 3-4 times for the documents. After retrieving the documents, he handed them over to the police. A Mahajar was prepared at the time of handing over the book, which is marked as Ex.P.20 and the Mahajar itself is marked as Ex.P.21. He explained that two varieties of PCBs were ordered:
191 PCBs of one type and 318 of another. He also clarified that the paper print for the PCBs was given on 15.10.2011, but the orders were entered in the register after 21.10.2011 due to the time required to process the film for PCB preparation.
241. PW.20, the protected witness, testified that he is the proprietor of M/s. Mercury Electronics, and PW.19 works as the Manager. The ledger book Ex.P.20 reflects the nature of items manufactured as per customer orders. He confirmed that in 2015, the police visited their firm and seized the ledger book Ex.P.20 under a Mahajar Ex.P.21. A Xerox copy of the VAT registration certificate was also handed over to the police.
242. PW.25, the protected witness, testified that accused No.1, Afaaque, was his college friend and had been running a clinic in Bhatkal. In 2011, he was jobless and came to Bengaluru searching for work. During his stay in Bengaluru, accused No. 1 asked him to search for a shop that manufactured PCBs. He 124 Spl.C.No.330/2015 found Mercury Technology at Bilekallahalli, next to BTM Layout. Accused No. 1 gave him two printed A4-size copies of circuit prints and asked him to get the PCBs printed there. Accused No. 1 paid him approximately Rs. 8,000 to 10,000 in cash for the job. He then ordered 200 PCBs of one print and 300 PCBs of another, which he later collected from the manufacturing unit. He sent the collected items to accused No.1 via Kamath Tours and Travels and informed him of the parcel number.
243. PW.26, Sri Umesh, testified that he worked for M/s. Kamath Tours and Travels. The police visited their office and godown with a person who had sent parcels through their travel agency to Bhatkal. The police asked him to provide duplicate receipts for the parcels, but as the receipts were unavailable, he could not provide them.
244. PW.21, the protected witness, testified that M/s. Kothari Electronics has been in business since 1990, selling electronic components. In 2015, the police visited their shop along with accused No. 1. He confirmed that accused No. 1 had purchased electronic components from their shop on two or three occasions in 2011. The police seized their bill book Ex.P.22 under a Mahajar Ex.P.23, showing that accused No. 1 purchased resistors, diodes, LEDs, capacitors, and transistors, among other items, for a total of Rs. 78/-.
245. PW.22, the Protected Witness, testified that he was the proprietor of M/s. Kotari Electronic House, which was 125 Spl.C.No.330/2015 managed by his brother, PW.21. He handed over a Xerox copy of the VAT certificate to the police.
246. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 01.05.2015, witnesses PW.19, Sri Muniswamy, and PW.21, Sri Suresh Kumar, informed him that they had located the bill books relating to articles sold to the accused. On 08.05.2015, he secured the presence of PW.17, Sri Chandrashekar R.N., and CW.134, Sri Mallikarjun K.E., as panch witnesses, and served notices to them. He, along with the panchas and his team of officers, visited Mercury Electronics, Bilekallahalli, and met Sri Muniswamy. Sri Muniswamy informed them that he had found the order book detailing the supply of printed circuit boards (PCBs) to the accused. Accordingly, Sri Muniswamy produced the register, which was marked as Ex.P.20, where the relevant entries were made. The register was seized under a mahajar, marked as Ex.P.21, in the presence of the panch witnesses.
247. He further testified that on the same day, he, along with his team of officers and panchas, proceeded to Kotari Electronics, S.P. Road, where they met Sri Suresh Kumar, the owner. After explaining the facts of the case and the reason for their visit, Sri Suresh Kumar produced the bill book, marked as Ex.P.22, which contained cash bill No.3730, dated 24.12.2011. The bill indicated the purchase of capacitors, resistors, LEDs, diodes, and transistors made by accused No.1. Ex.P.22 was seized under a mahajar, marked as Ex.P.23.
248. PW.63, Sri K. Rama Rao, testified that on 08.05.2015, he visited Mercury Electronics, where accused No.1 126 Spl.C.No.330/2015 had placed orders for PCBs, along with PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, and the panchas. The owner of the shop, Sri Muniswamy, produced a register, which was seized under a mahajar.
249. He further testified that from Mercury Electronics, they proceeded to Kotari Electronics, SP Road, Bengaluru, where accused No.1 had purchased electronic items. They asked the owner to produce the cash book to show the purchases made by accused No.1. The owner produced the cash book, marked as Ex.P.22, and it was seized under a mahajar, marked as Ex.P.23.
250. PW.17, Sri Chandrashekar R.N., testified that the CCB police called him and his colleague, CW.134, to their office at Adugodi, Bengaluru, in May 2015. They arrived at 11:00 a.m. on the same day. From the CCB office, they proceeded to Mercury Electronics, Bilekallahalli. The manager of the unit, Sri Muniswamy, was present at the time. Sri Muniswamy produced a register and informed them that a person named Wasi had placed orders for PCBs, which could be found on page 33 of the register. A mahajar was prepared on the spot, as per Ex.P.21.
251. He further testified that they were then taken to Kotari Electronics, SP Road, at 2:00 p.m., where they met the manager, Sri Suresh Kumar. Sri Suresh Kumar produced the invoice book (Ex.P.22) and pointed out the relevant copy of invoice No.3730, which was raised in the name of accused No.1, 127 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Syed Ismail Afaaque. A mahajar was prepared at the shop (Ex.P.22).
252. Upon careful analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, PW.25 testified that he placed orders for PCBs at Mercury Electronics as requested by accused No.1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, and that accused No.1 paid him an amount between Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 10,000. PW.19 further testified that two varieties of PCBs were ordered in the name of "Wasi," and he produced the register in this regard. PW.25 also stated that he sent the PCBs to accused No.1 via Kamath Tours and Travels. Additionally, PW.21 testified that accused No.1 purchased electronic components from their shop and produced the bill book in support of this claim. PW.74, PW.63, and PW.17 all testified that a register was seized at Mercury Electronics, and a bill book was seized from Kotari Electronics. The register clearly shows that PCBs were ordered in the name of "Wasi,"
while the bill book reflects that accused No.1 purchased electronic components from Kotari Electronics.
253. The learned counsel for the accused argued that one Wasi placed orders for PCBs at Mercury Electronics. It was further argued that Wasi is not an accused in this case, and that he purchased the PCBs in 2011, while the accused was arrested in 2015. Therefore, there is no connection between accused No. 1 and the PCBs. The learned counsel also pointed out that PW.19 testified he had only affixed his signature at the police station. Although PW.19 acknowledged maintaining an address book at his shop, he did not produce it to the police. Additionally, 128 Spl.C.No.330/2015 the recovery of the register and bill book is not based on the voluntary statement of accused No. 1, and Ex.P.22 was allegedly created at the police's instance. The learned counsel argued that such records should have been entered into a day book or ledger, and that the purchased items were not shown to the witness. There were no connecting bills, and accused No. 1 had been shown to PW.19 before the Test Identification Parade (TIP). Furthermore, no PCBs were shown to PW.25 during his examination. The learned counsel questioned the relevance of this evidence to the amount of Rs. 8,000/-, and argued that no person from Mercury Electronics had identified this witness. In their view, the evidence was fabricated, and PW.25 was a planted witness, orchestrated by the investigating officer.
254. However, it is important to note that PW.25 clearly testified that he is a friend of accused No. 1 and that he placed orders for PCBs on the instructions of accused No. 1, under the name of Wasi. He also testified that he sent the PCB parcels to accused No. 1 via Kamath Tours and Travels. During cross- examination, the accused did not dispute PW.25's claim of placing orders for PCBs in the name of Wasi, and PW.25's testimony remained unchallenged. The PCBs were later seized from the house of accused No. 2 during the investigation.
255. Furthermore, PW.19 testified that the police brought the person who had placed the orders for the PCBs, and he identified this person. PW.21 also identified accused No. 1, stating that he had purchased electronic components from his shop two or three times, and that the police did not introduce 129 Spl.C.No.330/2015 accused No. 1 to him during the visit to the shop. PW.74 and PW.63 testified that the register and bill book were seized from the shops of PW.19 and PW.21, respectively, and mahajars were prepared at the shops themselves. These registers and bill books were maintained as part of their business records and contained entries regarding the purchase of items from the respective shops. These entries corroborate the testimonies of the witnesses. The discrepancies pointed out by the defense counsel are minor and do not undermine the core of the case. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the arguments presented by the defense.
X. REGARDING DEFUSAL OF EXPLOSIVES
256. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 06.04.2015, he submitted a requisition to the Court seeking permission to defuse the explosive substances seized in this case before sending them to the Forensic Lab. He also testified that on 07.05.2015, he submitted a request to the Additional Director General of Police, State Intelligence, for the services of the Bomb Disposal Squad to defuse the seized explosives.
257. He further testified that on 21.05.2015, he received oral communication from the Bomb Disposal Squad, informing him that the explosives would be destroyed on 23.05.2015. Consequently, he issued a notice (Ex.P.104) to the Joint Commissioner of the Commercial Tax Office, requesting two witnesses to be present on 23.05.2015 at the Bomb Disposal Squad office, BMTC Building, 1st Floor, Shanthinagar. On 22.05.2015, he submitted a request to the DCP (Crime), 130 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Bengaluru, for the services of an official photographer and videographer for the explosives' destruction on 23.05.2015.
258. PW.74 testified that on 23.05.2015, witnesses Sri A. Kumar and Sri K.G. Srirangappa appeared at the Bomb Disposal Squad office in Shanthinagar. He served them with notices to act as witnesses. He, along with the witnesses and the Bomb Disposal Squad officials, proceeded to the Technical Centre in Adugodi, where the seized explosive substances (Articles Nos. 4, 5, 6, 29, 30, and 31) were collected and handed over to the Bomb Disposal Squad. The group then traveled to the Internal Security Division (ISD) premises at Kudlu, where the explosives were destroyed one by one. A detailed mahazar (Ex.P.24) was drawn, with the signatures of the panchas and Bomb Disposal Squad officials.
259. PW.74 further testified that during the destruction, samples of the destroyed explosives and sample soil (M.O.12 to M.O.18) were collected in the presence of the panch witnesses. These samples were packed, sealed, and signed by the panchas and Bomb Disposal Squad officials. The entire process was photographed and videographed.
260. PW.30, Sri Praveen Alva, testified that, following the directions of the ADGP of State Intelligence, he, along with Head Constables Sri Sukumar, Sri Venkateshappa, Police Constables Sri Naresh and Sri Narayanaswamy, ACP Sri Thammaiah, and the panchas, Sri Kumar and Sri Rangappa, traveled to the Technical Centre, Adugodi, and arrived at 1:00 p.m. There, ACP 131 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Thammaiah handed over six sealed white bags related to Cr.No.11/2015 of the Pulikeshi Nagar Police Station for defusal. They departed for the Centre for Counter Terrorism (CCT) grounds at Kudlu in three separate vehicles, arriving at 3:00 p.m., carrying the explosives in safety blankets. At the CCT grounds, the bags were opened, and the items inside were photographed and videographed.
261. PW.30 further testified that, of the six bags, three were sealed with the mark "MN" and assigned Article Nos. 4 to 6, respectively. The other three were sealed with the mark "HS" and assigned Article Nos. 29, 30, and 31, respectively.
262. PW.30 testified that Article No. 4 contained a PVC pipe with both ends closed by plastic caps. The PVC pipe was 13.5 inches long with a circumference of 1.5 inches. One of the caps was removed, revealing a saffron-colored gel inside the pipe. A testing instrument confirmed that the gel was explosive. A sample of the gel, marked as M.O.12, was separated and sealed for chemical examination with the seal "BG." The remaining gel was destroyed.
263. PW.30 further testified that Article No. 5 contained a PVC pipe with both ends closed by caps. The PVC pipe was 12.5 inches long with a circumference of 1.5 inches. One of the caps was removed, revealing a saffron-colored gel inside the pipe. A testing instrument confirmed that the gel was explosive. A sample of the gel, marked as M.O.13, was separated and 132 Spl.C.No.330/2015 sealed for chemical examination with the seal "BG." The remaining gel was destroyed.
264. PW.30 testified that Article No. 6 contained a small carton box labeled "Special Ordinary Detonator (SOD)." The box was marked "No. 8, dangerous explosive, Gulf Oil Corporation Ltd., ISO certified, 9001." Inside the box, they found 95 non- electrical detonators. No sample was collected from these detonators due to their dangerous nature. The detonators were taken to an isolated location, where they were detonated using one electrical detonator and a blasting machine. After the explosion, the remnants were collected and marked as M.O.14, which was sealed with the seal "BG."
265. PW.30 testified that Article No. 29 contained a PVC pipe with both ends sealed. The pipe was 14.4 inches long with a circumference of 3 inches. One of the caps was removed, revealing electrical detonators. No sample was taken from these detonators due to their dangerous nature. The detonators were taken to an isolated location and detonated using a blasting machine. After the explosion, the remnants were collected and marked as M.O.15, which was sealed with the seal "BG."
266. PW.30 further testified that Article No. 30 contained a PVC pipe with both ends sealed. The pipe was 14.4 inches long with a circumference of 3 inches. One of the caps was removed, revealing electrical detonators. No sample was taken from these detonators due to their dangerous nature. The detonators were taken to an isolated location and detonated 133 Spl.C.No.330/2015 using a blasting machine. After the explosion, the remnants were collected and marked as M.O.16, which was sealed with the seal "BG."
267. He testified that Article No. 31 contained six bundles wrapped in brown paper. The wrappers were labeled "AP Pvt. Ltd., HF Resistance, 2.1 to 2.4 ohms," with additional markings indicating "Electrical Detonators not used in Coal Mine, Andhra Pradesh Pvt. Ltd." Each of the six bundles was opened, revealing 27 electrical detonators in one bundle, 17 in another, and 25 in each of the remaining four bundles. No sample was collected from these detonators due to their dangerous nature. The detonators were taken to an isolated location and detonated using a blasting machine. After the explosion, the remnants were collected and marked as M.O.17, which was sealed with the seal "BG." Additionally, a sample of mud, marked as M.O.18, was collected from a distance of 100 meters from the blast site. The sample was placed in a plastic container with the seal "BG."
268. PW.30 further testified that the entire process was photographed and videographed from a safe distance. All seven sealed samples were handed over to the investigating officer in the presence of the panch witnesses. Sri M.K. Thammaiah conducted a detailed panchanama at the site, as per Ex.P.24, and submitted a report to the investigating officer as per Ex.P.38.
269. PW.32, Sri K.V. Sundaramurthy, testified that on 23.05.2015, he was called by ACP Sri M.K. Thammaiah to the Technical Support Centre, Adugodi. He and Head Constable Sri 134 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Channegowda arrived at the Centre, and at 2:00 p.m., they left for the ISD Training Centre near Kudlu, reaching at 3:00 p.m. He was instructed to take photographs of the entire explosives disposal process, while Head Constable Sri Channegowda videographed the proceedings. The photographs were later saved and DVDs were prepared, and the photographs were issued.
270. PW.32 further testified that, at the outset, all the items were placed on a mat. The items to be disposed of were kept in six different sealed covers. Three of the sealed covers were affixed with the seal 'MN,' and the other three were affixed with the seal 'HS.' He also testified that the explosives to be disposed of were taken out from the sealed covers and then destroyed. Samples of the remnants were collected and placed in sealed covers. He photographed the entire disposal process, which took place between 03:15 p.m. and 05:45 p.m. on 23.05.2015. The items involved pertain to Cr.No.11/2015 of the Pulikeshi Nagar Police Station. The entire disposal process was documented using a laptop, and a printout was taken, which he signed.
271. PW.63, Sri K. Rama Rao, testified that on 23.05.2015, he witnessed the defusal of around six explosives at Kudlu by the Bomb Disposal Squad and participated in drawing the mahazar (Ex.P.24). Sample mud was collected during the mahajar.
135Spl.C.No.330/2015
272. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 25.05.2015, he received a detailed report (Ex.P.38) from the Bomb Disposal Squad regarding the destruction process.
273. PW.74 further testified that on 03.06.2015, he received the photographs (Ex.P.40) and DVDs (Ex.P.42), along with a certificate (Ex.P.41) under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act.
274. In conclusion, PW.74 obtained court permission for the destruction of the explosives, handed over six sealed items to PW.30 for defusal, and ensured that all necessary procedure, such as securing panch witnesses and official photographers/videographers, were followed. The entire process was recorded and substantiated with corroborating evidence.
275. During cross-examination, the defense failed to elicit anything contrary to the witnesses' testimony, apart from claiming that PW.30 lacked knowledge of detonator components and suggesting that PW.32 had edited the photographs and video. PW.30 denied the former, and PW.32 refuted the latter suggestion. Based on this evidence, the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the explosives were legally and safely defused and destroyed as per the court's order.
XI. REGARDING ANALYSIS OF ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS AND OPINION OF THE EXPERT
276. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 02.05.2015, he prepared a request letter and invoice, marked as 136 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Ex.P.155, to FSL Bengaluru for the examination of the seized electronic items.
277. PW.67, Smt. Srividya, testified that a request letter was received in her office from the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Special Enquiries, CCB, Bengaluru City, on 04.05.2015, through Srinivas Rao J.K., P.C.9175. She further testified that the seals on the articles were intact and matched the specimen seal sent by the investigating officer. The articles were described as follows:
ORPAT quartz clock - M.O.9 Soldering iron gun - M.O.10 Two rolls of adhesive tape - M.O.25 Seventy resistors of different resistances - M.O.26 Eleven circuit boards - M.O.27 Ninety-eight printed circuit board assemblies - M.O.28 Four silicon rectifier diodes - M.O.29 Seven assembled printed circuit boards - M.O.30 Seven integrated circuits - M.O.31 Eight pin headers - M.O.32 Fifteen polarized capacitors - M.O.33 Ten silicon transistors - M.O.34 Four sensitive Gali silicon-controlled rectifiers - M.O.35 Thirty-six ceramic capacitors - M.O.36 One hundred and fifty printed circuit board assemblies - M.O.37 Fifteen light-emitting diodes - M.O.38 Five portable mobile power bank chargers - M.O.4 One Radio Shack handheld trunking scanner - M.O.11
278. She further testified that the received articles were physically and scientifically examined, and the methods adopted 137 Spl.C.No.330/2015 for the examination are mentioned in her report, Ex.P.134. After examination, the following opinions were provided:
The analog alarm clock (M.O.9) was in working condition. The soldering iron gun (M.O.10) was not in working condition.
The resistors found in M.O.30 were similar to those in M.O.26 with respect to resistance value, except for one resistor (RED RED Yellow, 220 kΩ), which was not found in M.O.26.
The rectifier diodes in M.O.30 were similar to the ones in M.O.29 in shape, size, and printings.
The integrated circuits in M.O.30 were similar to those in M.O.31 in terms of pin count and printings.
The polarized capacitors in M.O.30 were similar to those in M.O.33 in terms of capacitance value.
The silicon transistors in M.O.30 were similar to those in M.O.34.
The ceramic capacitors in M.O.30 were similar to those in M.O.36 in terms of capacitance value.
The light-emitting diodes in M.O.30 were similar to those in M.O.38 in terms of color display.
The male pin headers in M.O.30 were similar to those in M.O.32 in terms of the number of pins per row.
The pin headers in M.O.32 could be used in the printed circuit board assemblies M.O.28 and M.O.37.
The silicon-controlled rectifiers (M.O.35) were similar to those in M.O.30 in terms of shape, size, three terminals, and printings. However, their function is to rectify the input signal and not regulate input voltage.138
Spl.C.No.330/2015 The adhesive tapes (M.O.25) were not used in the circuit boards (M.O.27).
The electronic components (M.O.26 to M.O.38) could be used to build a timer circuit.
The device (M.O.11) is a 1000-channel handheld trunking scanner that automatically transmits calls and responses on different frequencies. Its frequency coverage is from 29 MHz to 1300 MHz.
279. She further deposed that after the examination, the articles were sealed with the laboratory seal, and the specimen seal was marked as Ex.P.134(b), which was sent along with her report.
280. During cross-examination of PW.74 and PW.67, the defense did not elicit anything contrary to their testimonies. The defense also did not dispute that the articles were sent to the FSL, nor did they dispute the examination of the articles. Therefore, there is no significant dispute regarding the examination of M.O.4, M.O.9 to M.O.11, and M.O.25 to M.O.38.
XII. REGARDING EXAMINATION OF EXPLOSIVES AND OPINION OF THE EXPERT
281. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 25.05.2015, he prepared a request letter (Ex.P.163) to send the samples collected by the Bomb Disposal Squad to FSL for forensic examination. These samples were sent to FSL, Bengaluru, through P.C.3377. The said P.C. handed over the samples to FSL and brought back an acknowledgment (Ex.P.164), and submitted the report (Ex.P.165). On 18.06.2015, 139 Spl.C.No.330/2015 he received the FSL report (Ex.P.82) regarding the explosives sent for examination.
282. PW.46, Dr. Vani N., testified that on 25.05.2015, she received 15 sealed articles pertaining to Cr.No. 11/2015 of Pulikeshi Nagar Police Station, through P.C.3377, along with case records. She stated that articles bearing Sl. Nos. 2, 3, and 7 to 12 were impressed with the seal "MN", and the other articles had the seal "BG". These seals were found to match the specimen seal sent by the investigating officer.
283. She further testified that upon opening the articles, she found the following:
25 gel explosive cartridges with pink pasty material labeled "Ideal Power 90" (Article No. 2).
25 gel explosive cartridges with pink pasty material labeled "Ideal Power 90" (Article No. 3).
25 grams of cream-colored pasty material (Article No. 4A).
25 grams of cream-colored pasty material (Article No. 5A).
Grey-brown soil with small stones and aluminum pieces (Article No. 6A).
24 feet long blue-painted safety fuse wire (Article No. 7).
Grey-colored hard clay paste with newspaper (Article No. 8).
260 grams of yellow crystal and powder with the smell of sulfur (Article No. 9).
405 grams of black shining powder (Article No. 10). 160 grams of black shining powder (Article No. 11). 1.9 kg of white crystalline powder (Article No. 12).140
Spl.C.No.330/2015 Burnt and fragmented crimp portion of an electrical detonator attached with leg wire and the letters "APE" (Article No. 29A).
Burnt and fragmented crimp portion of an electrical detonator attached with leg wire and the letters "RECL" (Article No. 30A).
Burnt and fragmented crimp portion of an electrical detonator attached with leg wire and the letters "APEL" (Article No. 31A).
Brown-colored soil with small stones (Article No. 34).
284. She testified that after conducting chemical analysis on each article, she concluded the following:
Articles No. 2, 3, 4A, and 5A contained ammonium nitrate- based gel explosive.
Presence of detonator composition (like PETN) was detected in Articles No. 6A, 29A, 30A, and 31A.
Article No. 7 contained fuse (black cord) wire with potassium nitrate, sulfur, and charcoal, which could be used to detonate non-electrical detonators.
Article No. 8 contained calcium carbonate. Article No. 9 contained sulfur.
Articles No. 10 and 11 contained lead sulfide. Article No. 12 contained sodium sulfate.
Explosive residues were not detected in Article No. 34.
Articles No. 8, 10, 11, and 12 were not explosive substances.
285. The explosives detected in Articles No. 2, 3, 4A, 5A, 6A, 29A, 30A, and 31A could cause damage to human life and property upon explosion. She submitted a report (Ex.P.82) 141 Spl.C.No.330/2015 based on her analysis. After the analysis, she repacked the articles in their original containers, sealed them with the office seal, and returned them to the investigating officer along with a sample seal (Ex.P.90) and her report. The articles subjected to analysis were marked as M.Os. 6 to 8, M.O. 12 to M.O. 18, and M.O. 19 to M.O. 23.
286. During the cross-examination of PW.74 and PW.46, the defense did not elicit anything contrary to their testimonies. They did not dispute that the articles were sent to FSL, nor did they dispute the analysis conducted by PW.46. Therefore, there is no significant dispute regarding the examination of M.O.6 to M.O.8 and M.O.12 to M.O.23.
XIII. REGARDING EXAMINATION OF DIGITAL DEVICES
287. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 22.04.2015, he prepared an invoice and a request letter, marked as Ex.P.149, to submit the seized laptops and electronic devices to the FSL. He issued an instruction letter to the FSL, marked as Ex.P.95. He further testified that on 02.07.2015, he received a report from the FSL, marked as Ex.P.96, along with annexure, marked as Ex.P.97, and an external hard disk. The external hard disk, marked as M.O.24, contains the soft copies of the FSL's analysis report.
288. PW.74 further testified that the Director and Chemical Examiner of the FSL provided Annexure A1a and A1b in support of Opinion No.1 regarding mobile handset No. 352004043826805 and Etisalat SIM card No. 142 Spl.C.No.330/2015 424020410134316. Opinions No. 2 to 14 pertain to the details of data extracted from the laptop of accused No.1. According to Opinion No. 3, accused No.1 used chat software for chatting purposes. Opinions Nos. 7 and 8 disclose the email IDs and chat usernames of accused No.1, and 41 chat items were extracted. Opinion No. 10 lists all the applications installed on the laptop's hard disk by accused No.1. According to Opinions Nos. 11 and 12, IP masking software was used. Opinion No. 13 reveals that hard disk cleaning or erasing software was employed. He took printouts of Opinions Nos. 7, 8, 9, 15, and 16, as per Ex.P.192, which were produced along with a 65B certificate. Items 1 to 10 in Ex.P.192 are videos related to terrorist activities/propaganda. Items 11 to 40 relate to parachute training videos. Items 41 to 52 concern videos featuring Bin Laden, the Al-Qaida leader, and another commander, Kattab, communal riots in Assam, speeches on jihad, videos on Gujarat riots, and instructional videos on weaponry.
289. PW.49, Dr. Kumuda Rani, testified that on 27.04.2015, she received four sealed articles related to Cr. No. 11/2015 of the Pulakeshi Nagar Police Station from the FSL registration counter for examination. Upon personally verifying the articles, she confirmed that the seals were intact and matched the specimen seal sent by the police. The police had requested responses to 19 questions.
290. She further testified that she began the examination on 04.06.2015. Upon opening the articles, she found: 1) A Nokia mobile phone, model No. 1203-2, IMEI No. 352004043826805, 143 Spl.C.No.330/2015 with an Etisalat SIM card, marked as D1a and D1b respectively;
2) A laptop, model No. PAV80, Serial No. LUBPQ08004037622FF1601, with a 320 GB hard disk (Serial No. WX81A70J4678), marked as D2a; 3) Another mobile phone, a Sony Ericsson Xperia, model No. MT15i, Serial No. BX902H22ZS, with a TATA Docomo SIM card (No. 89910341110359216792) and an 8GB Micro SD card (No. E408G1405TP6N002647248), marked as D3a to D3c; and 4) A Nokia mobile phone, model No. 1203-2, IMEI No. 35193703835338, with an Airtel SIM card (No. 89914500030240182608), marked as D4a and D4b.
291. Dr. Kumuda Rani further testified that the articles were subjected to forensic acquisition using Cellbrite, FTK (Forensic Tool Kit), and the digital data were analyzed with UFED Software and Encase Software. The examination focused on installed software, chat messengers, applications, emails, chat texts, audio/video files, images, document files, internet files, and other related files. The details were enclosed in soft copy annexure on the hard disk.
292. She explained that Article No. 1 (D1a and D1b), being a basic handset, contained no internet or browser-related files, but the available data, such as call logs, contacts, and SMS details, were enclosed as Annexure A1a and A1b. Article No. 2 contained internet browsers (Internet Explorer and Google Chrome), chat messengers (Skype, Yahoo Messenger, Windows Live Messenger), and social media accounts (Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Weibo, Flickr). It also contained a VOIP software (Skype 144 Spl.C.No.330/2015 6.21), but no usage was found. Email activities were linked to the IDs: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected]. The chat texts "mhatroshamhar" and "suzanek50" were also found. The annexure (A2) also included details of audio, video, image, PDF, Excel, PowerPoint, RAR, rich text, and Word files retrieved from the laptop. A list of all installed applications on the laptop's hard disk is given in Annexure A2a. VPN software like Krypto VPN, Ultra VPN, and Security Kiss were downloaded but not installed. IP masking software such as Hide IP Platinum 1.75, Hide My IP 2009.exe, and Tor Browser were also found downloaded but not installed, marked as Annexure A2b. The laptop also had CCleaner, MiniTool Partition Wizard, and Flashtool installed (Annexure A2a). The Twitter account was not configured, but the homepage was accessed, as detailed in Annexure A2c.
293. She further testified that the complete details of the mobile phone, SIM card, and memory card (D3a to D3c) are enclosed in Annexure A3.
294. She testified that the fourth article, being a basic handset, contained no internet or browser-related files. However, call logs, contacts, and SMS details were found and enclosed in soft copy Annexure A4. A detailed report was submitted as Ex.P.96, and the annexure were marked as Ex.P.97. Upon submitting the report to the investigating officer, she returned the articles with the specimen seal, marked as Ex.P.98. The hard disk containing the annexure A1 to A4 was also sent to the 145 Spl.C.No.330/2015 investigating officer, sealed. The hard disk is marked as M.O.24, and the articles examined are marked as M.O.1, M.O.3, and M.O.5.
295. During cross-examination of PW.74 and PW.49, the defense (accused No. 1 and 2) did not challenge their testimony nor dispute that the articles were sent to the FSL or that data was retrieved from these articles. Therefore, there is no significant dispute regarding the recovery of data from M.O.1 to M.O.3, and M.O.5.
XIV. REGARDING COLLECTION OF FOREIGN TRAVEL DETAILS OF ACCUSED NO.1
296. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 05.05.2015, he sent a notice (Ex.P.157) to the Immigration Officer (FRRO), requesting foreign travel details for accused No.1, Lanka Syed Ismail, based on his passport No. G-4348972, and for his wife, Smt. Arsala Abeer, based on her Pakistani passport No. AA 1020822. He further testified that on 21.05.2015, he received the foreign travel details of accused No.1 from Bengaluru International Airport, which indicated that he traveled on Flight No. EK567 from Bengaluru to Dubai on 23.07.2009 and returned on Flight No. G9-497 to Bengaluru on 14.05.2009, as per the letter Ex.P.39.
297. PW.31, Sri Nagalingaiah, the Assistant Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, testified that the CCB Police had requested him to provide the travel details of accused No.1, Lanka Syed Ismail. Accordingly, he provided the details as per 146 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Ex.P.39. The records showed that accused No.1, Lanka Syed Ismail Afaaque, and Abdul Aleem traveled from Bengaluru to Dubai on 23.07.2009 and returned to Bengaluru City from Dubai on 14.05.2009.
298. PW.74 further testified that since he needed additional information regarding accused No.1's travel between 2008 and 2015 from all ports and outposts, he sent a request to the Assistant Director, CFB, Intelligence Bureau (MHA), Government of India, R.K. Puram, New Delhi. This request was submitted via Fax (No. 011-26192468) and E-mail (Ex.P.160).
299. He further testified that on 05.06.2015, he received a letter (Ex.P.168) containing the foreign travel details of accused No.1 from 2009 onwards, sent by the Assistant Director, CFB, Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi. Based on these details, he prepared a detailed analysis report (Ex.P.169). According to Ex.P.169, between 19.03.2009 and 13.04.2009, accused No.1 visited Pakistan via the Wagah Rail Checkpost, returned through the Attari Rail Checkpost, and stayed in Pakistan for 25 days. Between 14.04.2009 and 14.05.2009, accused No.1 visited Sharjah, UAE, and stayed for 30 days. He departed from Delhi Airport and returned via Bengaluru Airport, traveling with Air Arabia. On 23.07.2009, accused No.1 flew from Bengaluru to Dubai, returning on 28.07.2009 via Mumbai Airport, traveling with Emirates Airline and staying abroad for 5 days. On 20.08.2010, he traveled to Saudi Arabia from Mumbai Airport and returned on 20.09.2010, staying abroad for 31 days. On 28.04.2011, he traveled by train to Karachi, Pakistan, and 147 Spl.C.No.330/2015 returned to India on 26.05.2011, staying abroad for 28 days. Accused No.1's explanation for these travels is noted in the final column of the analysis report.
300. PW.74 further testified that on 06.06.2015, he sent notices to Air Arabia and Emirates Airlines to provide details of tickets purchased by accused No.1 for his foreign travels. He served a notice Ex.P.171 to Sri Afzan Ahmed under Section 43F of the U.A.(P) Act.
301. He testified that on 15.06.2015, he received a letter from Air Arabia regarding the travel details of accused No.1, who flew from Delhi to Sharjah on 14.04.2009. The letter included a covering document (Ex.P.100). According to the documents submitted by Air Arabia, the ticket was booked on 08.04.2009 (PRN.No.17424825, Flight No.G9460), and the journey took place on 14.04.2009, from Delhi to Sharjah, in the name of accused No.1, Syed Ismail Afaaque Lanka. The provided contact number was 91-8385-226526, and the ticket fare was 420.24 AED (Arab Emirates Dinar). The IP address associated with the booking was 221.120.225.96.
302. During cross-examination, the accused did not dispute the travel details to foreign countries, and no contradictions were elicited in the testimony of the witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the travel details of accused No.1 beyond a reasonable doubt, supported by cogent and convincing evidence.
148Spl.C.No.330/2015 XV. REGARDING COLLECTION OF TRAVEL DETAILS OF ACCUSED NO.4
303. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 30.05.2015, he issued a notice to the Manager of Jet Airways, dated 10.01.2015, requesting travel details of accused No.4. He further testified that on 10.06.2015, he received the travel details of accused No.4 from Jet Airways, as per Ex.P.79 and Ex.P.80, along with a covering letter marked as Ex.P.81.
304. PW.74 further testified that on the same day, he submitted a request (Ex.P.176) to the Assistant Director, CFB, Intelligence Bureau, MHA, Government of India, New Delhi, seeking the travel details of accused No.4 for the period from 2008 to 2015. He also testified that on the same day, he received a report (Ex.P.180) from the Assistant Director, CFB, Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi, regarding the travel details of accused No. 4 for the years 2008 to 2015, accompanied by a covering letter (Ex.P.179).
305. During cross-examination, the accused did not dispute the travel details provided for foreign trips, and no contradictions were brought out in the testimony of PW.74. Therefore, the prosecution has established the travel details of accused No.4 beyond a reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence.
XVI. REGARDING EMPLOYMENT DETAILS OF ACCUSED NO. 1 - SYED ISMAIL AFAAQUE
306. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 17.06.2015, he received employment records of accused No.1 149 Spl.C.No.330/2015 from Dr. S.M.R.K. Sagar, along with a covering letter (Ex.P.101). The records were provided on behalf of Positive Homeopathy and included accused No.1's Graduation Certificate, an acknowledgment of receipt of documents, the appointment letter, and the attendance certificate. He further testified that accused No. 1 had passed the BHMS degree exam and joined Positive Homeopathy Clinic, Bengaluru, on 12.06.2014. According to the attendance certificate, accused No.1 ceased working at the clinic on 01.10.2014.
307. PW.55, Dr. S.M.R.K. Sagar, testified that in response to a request from the CCB Police, he provided the employment details of accused No. 1, confirming that he had worked at the Indira Nagar branch from July 2014 to October 2014.
308. During cross-examination, the accused did not dispute his employment details, and no evidence contrary to the testimony of the witnesses was elicited. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the employment details of accused No. 1 beyond a reasonable doubt, with clear and convincing evidence.
XVII. REGARDING RECOVERY OF LOGOS AND WALKIE TALKIES
309. PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, testified that on 05.02.2015, he issued a notice to CW.131, Sri Narasimha, and PW.16, Sri Raju, requesting them to act as panchas for the panchanama proceedings. Subsequently, the first accused took them to a flat on the fourth floor of Vineyard Residency, situated on Heerachand Road, Cocks Town, Bengaluru, where he 150 Spl.C.No.330/2015 produced four posters (Ex.P18(1), Ex.P18(2), Ex.P18(3), and Ex.P18(4)) related to Indian Mujahideen, along with a device resembling a walkie-talkie (M.O.11). He prepared a mahazar as per Ex.P.19 and seized all five articles, sealing them with the 'SKM' seal impression. He then returned to the Pulakeshi Nagar Police Station and subjected these articles to PF No. 21/2015.
310. PW.16, Sri Raju, testified that he and his friend, Sri Narasimha, were called by the police to Madiwala. Upon their arrival at an office near the Madiwala Police Station, they found the police officers and accused No.1 present. Accused No. 1 then took them to his residence on the fourth floor of an apartment in Cox Town. Accused No.1 opened a cupboard and handed over four papers (Ex.P18(1) to Ex.P18(4)) and a walkie- talkie instrument (M.O.11). The police then prepared a mahazar on the spot, as per Ex.P.19.
311. Upon reviewing the evidence, it is clear that accused No.1 took PW.66 and the panch witnesses to his flat on the fourth floor of Vineyard Residency in Cox Town, Bengaluru, where he produced Ex.P18(1) to Ex.P18(4) and M.O.11. PW.66 seized these items in the presence of PW.16 and CW.131 under the mahazar.
312. The learned defense counsel argued that PW.16 admitted during cross-examination that he affixed his signature on Exs.P18(1) to P18(4) and Ex.P19 at the police station. He further pointed out that PW.66 acknowledged that Exs.P18(1) to P18(4) were downloaded from the internet. According to the 151 Spl.C.No.330/2015 defense, these admissions suggest that the investigating officer planted the documents to falsely implicate the accused.
313. However, as discussed earlier, it is a well- established principle of law that the evidence must be considered as a whole. The court cannot selectively rely on parts of a witness's testimony. PW.16 clearly testified that accused No.1 took the investigating team to his house in Cox Town and produced Exs.P18(1) to P18(4). He also confirmed that he affixed his signature in the house of accused No.1. In re- examination, PW.16 reaffirmed that he signed the mahazar and documents at the accused's residence. Furthermore, PW.66 did not admit to downloading Exs.P18(1) to P18(4) from the internet; he only suggested that the documents could have been downloaded from the internet. Therefore, this court finds no merit in the defense's arguments.
314. Furthermore, the prosecution alleges that Ex.P.18(1) to Ex.P.81(4) were produced by accused No. 1 at his house in Cox Town, Bengaluru, to PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah. This incriminating evidence was put to accused No. 1 during the recording of his statement, as required under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., to which he responded 'false' and 'I do not know.' However, he has not offered any explanation in this regard. He could have provided a reasonable explanation to discredit the testimonies of the witnesses, as he is the competent person to explain the circumstances. He chose not to do so. In the absence of any reasonable explanation from accused No. 1, this court cannot reject the testimonies of PW.66 and PW.16. The 152 Spl.C.No.330/2015 prosecution has presented clear, consistent, and convincing evidence that Exs.P.18(1) to P.18(4) and M.O.11 were seized from the house of accused No. 1, as he had disclosed, beyond a reasonable doubt.
XVIII. REGARDING VISIT OF SRI BARACK OBAMA TO INDIA
315. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 27.06.2015, he conducted an internet search to determine when news of the visit of the President of the United States, Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama, to India was first reported. He printed the relevant details he found, which are marked as Ex.P.183. In connection with this, he issued a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is marked as Ex.P.184. He further testified that Ex.P.183 reveals that the visit of President Obama to India was announced on 21.11.2014. Newspapers reported that President Sri Obama had warned Pakistan not to carry out any terrorist attacks in India during his visit. President Sri Obama visited India on 26.01.2015 as the Chief Guest for the Republic Day celebrations. During cross-examination, the accused did not dispute these facts, and therefore, no further discussion is necessary on these matters.
XIX. REGARDING SEIZURE OF PARA-GLIDERS
316. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 02.07.2015, the brother of accused No. 1, Sri Yasin Lanka, appeared before him at his office and produced two para-gliders. Sri Yasin Lanka informed him that accused No. 1 had kept these para-gliders at his house without providing any explanation. He 153 Spl.C.No.330/2015 further testified that he summoned Sri K. Basavanna and Smt. G.S. Hemamalini as panchas for the seizure of the para-gliders and served notices on them. Thereafter, he conducted a mahajar as per Ex.P.135 and seized the two para-gliders (marked as MO.39(a) and MO.39(b)) in the presence of the panchas. Sri Yasin Lanka also submitted a letter (Ex.P.136) at the time of producing the para-gliders. These para-gliders were subjected to P.F. No.15/2015.
317. PW.74 further testified that the para-gliders were seized in connection with intelligence inputs indicating that terrorists were planning to carry out a terrorist act using para- gliders after undergoing training. As part of the investigation, they were probing the purchase of para-gliders and identifying individuals who had undergone related training. In this context, he interrogated the family members of accused Nos. 1 to 4. It was then that Sri Yasin Lanka produced the para-gliders at his office.
318. PW.68, Sri Basavanna K., testified that on 02.07.2015, he and CW.125, Smt. G.S. Hemamalini, were summoned to the CCB office at Adugodi. Upon arriving at the office, he saw Sri Yasin Lanka, who produced a box (marked as MO.39). He was informed that the box had been found at Yasin Lanka's house. The box was opened in his presence, revealing one blue and one yellow para-glider (MO.39(a) and MO.39(b)). The police then conducted the mahajar (Ex.P.135) in his presence. Sri Basavanna also testified that he was informed that Sri Yasin Lanka is the brother of accused No.1. Additionally, Sri 154 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Yasin Lanka submitted a letter (Ex.P.136) to the police, confirming that he was producing the box and the items contained within it.
319. During cross-examination, the accused did not elicit any contradictions or discrepancies in the testimonies of the witnesses. Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, with cogent and convincing evidence, that the brother of accused No.1, Sri Yasin Lanka, produced two para- gliders, which were seized by PW.74 in the presence of witnesses.
XIX. REGARDING PARAGLIDING TRAINING
320. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that on 03.07.2015, he submitted a request to the court seeking police custody of accused No.1 to inquire about the chats retrieved by the FSL from his laptop, as well as the para-gliders recovered from his brother, Yasin Lanka. He further testified that on 06.07.2015, the court granted police custody of accused No. 1 for a day. He took the custody of accused No. 1 and recorded his voluntary statement.
321. PW.74 further testified that he summoned Sri. Bharath Hegde and Sri. Puttaramu as panchas and served notices upon them. Accused No. 1 informed them that he had uploaded parachute training videos on the internet. He voluntarily demonstrated this by typing the keyword 'afaaque lanka' on the YouTube search bar, which displayed 19 videos. These videos were downloaded and copied onto 3 DVDs in the presence of the panchas. A detailed Mahazar was drawn as per 155 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Ex.P.137 in the presence of the panchas. The DVDs were then packed and sealed in the presence of the panchas, who signed the DVDs, marked as Ex.P.138, and also signed the sealed covers.
322. PW.69, Sri M.T. Puttaramu, testified that on 07.07.2015, the CCB police summoned him and PW.70, Sri Bharath Kumar Hegde, to the Adugodi Police Station. At the CCB office, the police conducted a Mahazar. During the Mahazar, the video uploaded by accused No. 1 on YouTube was downloaded in their presence. The video content was related to the act of photographing a glider in flight. The police then downloaded the video content onto a computer.
323. PW.70, Sri Bharath Kumar Hegde, testified that on 07.07.2015, he and PW.69, Sri M.T. Puttaramu, were summoned by the ACP, Special Enquiry, CCB, to the Technical Support Centre at CAR Ground, Adugodi, Bengaluru, to conduct a Mahazar. Accordingly, he went to the said Centre. He further testified that accused No. 1 was present at the centre. Accused No. 1 was provided with a computer system at the centre. He typed "Afaaque Lanka" and similar keywords using Google search, which resulted in numerous YouTube videos appearing, showing accused No. 1 being trained to use a para-glider on a beach. The videos were downloaded onto 3 hard drives in his presence, and the Mahazar was conducted as per Ex.P.137. After downloading the videos onto CDs, they were sealed in his presence.
156Spl.C.No.330/2015
324. PW.71, Sri Narendra, testified that he began paragliding coaching in 2000 and took it up professionally in 2010. He knew accused No. 1, who contacted him via email to learn paragliding. In November 2012, accused No. 1 traveled to Goa, where he underwent a four-day basic paragliding training course.
325. The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution attempts to link the accused to the alleged offenses via electronic devices such as laptops, mobiles, and other gadgets. PW.74 admitted during cross-examination that he did not know the host of the YouTube website, the hash value of the hard disk and DVDs was not generated, he did not investigate whether the videos were downloaded or shared, and the DVDs and hard drives were not sent to the FSL for analysis. He also did not investigate the time of creation, upload time, or last edited time of the 19 videos in Ex.P.137. PW.74 further admitted that uploading or downloading paragliding videos on YouTube and learning paragliding are not offenses. Additionally, PW.74 acknowledged that there is no button on YouTube for uploading or downloading. Pointing out these admissions, the defense argued that PW.74 fabricated and planted the DVDs with the sole intention of implicating the accused. It was further argued that when digital evidence is presented, it is incumbent upon PW.74 to comply with Section 45A of the Indian Evidence Act and Section 79A of the Information Technology Act. In this case, PW.74 failed to seek forensic support. Although the prosecution examined PW.49, Dr. Kumuda Rani, she did not testify that her 157 Spl.C.No.330/2015 analysis found any images that directly connected the accused to the YouTube DVD.
326. While it is true, as the learned counsel for the accused argued, that uploading and downloading paragliding training videos on YouTube and learning paragliding are not offenses, it is important to note that PW.74 retrieved these videos because the intelligence department had warned that terrorists might attempt an attack using paragliders during the visit of Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama to India on 26.01.2015. As mentioned earlier, PW.46 had retrieved data from accused No. 1's laptop, which contained paragliding training videos. Furthermore, PW.71 testified that accused No. 1 had undergone basic paragliding training, a fact that was not disputed. PW.74 also seized two para-gliders, which were produced by the brother of accused No. 1 in the presence of witnesses. Therefore, while the admissions of PW.74 during cross-examination and his failure to subject the DVDs and hard drives to forensic analysis may raise questions, they do not undermine the prosecution's case. The videos downloaded from YouTube serve as corroborative evidence. Even if these videos were excluded from consideration, it would not affect the overall case against the accused.
XX. REGARDING NATIONALITY OF THE WIFE OF ACCUSED NO. 1 SMT. ASRALA ABEER
327. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he sent a notice to the Circle Inspector of Bhatkal requesting details of the wife of accused No. 1, who is a Pakistani national. On 04.06.2015, he submitted a requisition (Ex.P.167) to the 158 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Superintendent of Police, Uttara Kannada District, seeking certified copies of the passport details of the wife of accused No. 1, named Arsala Abeer. On 08.06.2015, he received information (Ex.P.84 to Ex.P.87) from the Superintendent of Police, Karwar, regarding the passport details and nationality of accused No. 1's wife, under covering letter Ex.P.83. According to these documents, the name of accused No. 1's wife is Arsala Abeer, holding Pakistani Passport No. AA-1020822. Her permanent address in Pakistan is listed as No. 29, Kokan Society, Union Road, No. 8, Karachi, and her current address in India is Fathima Cottage, Azad Nagar, Karnataka. The marriage certificate of accused No. 1 and Arsala Abeer shows her father's name as Mohammed Maroof Basha from Karachi, Pakistan.
328. From the testimony of PW.74 and the documents provided by the Superintendent of Police, Karwar, it is clear that Arsala Abeer, the wife of accused No. 1, is a Pakistani national. This fact has not been disputed by the accused during cross- examination. Therefore, no further discussion is needed on this point. The prosecution has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the wife of accused No. 1 is a Pakistani national, based on clear and convincing evidence.
XXI. REGARDING CONSPIRACY MEETINGS IN THE HOUSE OF ACCUSED NOS. 5 TO 7
329. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he issued a memo, marked as Ex.P.156, to Police Inspector Sri Rama Rao to proceed to Bhatkal and gather information regarding the conspiracy meetings held by the accused persons. On 159 Spl.C.No.330/2015 10.06.2015, he received a report, marked as Ex.P.197, from P.I. Sri Rama Rao, along with the statements of witnesses recorded by him.
330. PW.63, Sri K. Rama Rao, testified that on 02.05.2015, Sri M.K. Thammaiah directed him to visit Bhatkal to collect evidence regarding the conspiracy made by the accused persons to commit the offences. Accordingly, on 07.06.2015, he visited Bhatkal and recorded the statements of one Tulasi Das and Venkatesh (CW100 and CW101). On 08.06.2015, he recorded the statements of CW.102, Datha, and CW.103, Raghavan, and then returned to Bengaluru and produced the statements of the witnesses to PW.74.
331. PW.51, the Protected Witness, testified that the house of accused No.7 is situated in front of a bike garage on Bandar Road in Bhatkal. Accused No.5, Riyaz, accused No.6, Iqbal, and 7-8 other persons used to visit the house of accused No.7 before 2008 and hold meetings regularly. He came to know that accused Nos. 5, 6, 7, and others used to conduct jihad activities in the said meetings and celebrated December 6th of every year as a black day. After 2008, these accused disappeared from Bhatkal city. The above-mentioned accused were part of an association called PFI.
332. PW.52, the Protected Witness, testified that in 2007- 2008, he used to go to a place called Madina Colony in Bhatkal Town for his work. The house of accused No.5, Riyaz Bhatkal, is located in Madina Colony. He saw some people gathering at the 160 Spl.C.No.330/2015 house of accused No.5, where they used to conduct secret meetings. They would shout "Jihad." He further testified that accused No.1, accused No.6 (Iqbal), and others used to visit the house of accused No.5 during that period.
333. PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, testified that on 17.01.2015, he recorded the voluntary statement of accused No.1, and in his statement, accused No.1 said that he would show the houses where he conducted jihad classes, as per Ex.P121. He further testified that on 18.01.2015, based on the voluntary statements of accused No.1 and other accused, he and his team, consisting of ACP Sri Siddappa, ACP Sri Thammaiah, six Police Inspectors, and police staff, went to Bhatkal along with the accused and stayed at the RNS Lodge in Murudeshwara. On 19.01.2015, he issued a requisition to the Police Inspector of Bhatkal, as per Ex.P.126, to provide eight panch witnesses and requested their cooperation in the investigation. Accordingly, the CPI of Bhatkal produced eight panch witnesses before him. He issued notices to all eight panchas - Fayaz Ahamed, Chandrashekar, Mahesh Nayak, Siddu Biradar, Mahesh M. Kali, Nataraju, Lingappa Nayak, and Mahesh Nayak (CW19 to CW26) - requesting them to act as panchas in this case and cooperate in the investigation. He retained four panchas by issuing notices as per Ex.P.127 to Ex.P.130, along with four staff members and accused No.1.
334. PW.66 further testified that on the same day, accused No.1 took him, the panchas, and staff to the house of accused No.7, bearing door No.566, Bandar Road, Bhatkal, and 161 Spl.C.No.330/2015 disclosed that he and other accused persons had hatched the conspiracy regarding jihad activities in that house. There, he conducted the mahajar between 6:30 p.m. and 7:15 p.m. in the presence of the panch witnesses, as per Ex.P7.
335. PW.66 further testified that accused No.1 then took them to the house of accused Nos.5 and 6, bearing No.314, Madeena Colony, Tenginagundi Road, Bhatkal, and disclosed that he used to conduct conspiracy meetings regarding jihad activities in that house. There, he conducted a mahajar between 7:30 p.m. and 8:15 p.m. in the presence of the panchas, as per Ex.P8.
336. PW.62, Sri Prashanth Nayak, testified that on 19.01.2015, PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, came to Bhatkal and issued a request letter for men and material, along with witnesses for panchanama. PW.66 requested him to come to Murudeshwara, RNS Highway Hotel. Accordingly, he, along with his staff and eight other persons, went to the RNS Hotel.
337. PW.62 further testified that PW.66 formed three teams. He was included in the team headed by PW.66 to assist him. At that time, PW.66 brought accused No.1 for the investigation. Accused No.1 led them to the house of one Affif, bearing No.566 on Bandar Road, and disclosed that he had held conspiracy meetings with others to commit the offences. PW.66 enquired with Affif's father, Sri Hussain Baba, about his son's whereabouts. The father of Affif replied that his son had not been seen since 2008. In this regard, PW.66 conducted a Mahajar, 162 Spl.C.No.330/2015 marked as Ex.P.7, in the presence of witnesses from 6:30 p.m. to 7:15 p.m.
338. He further testified that accused No.1 then led them to the house of accused No.5, Riyaz Bhatkal, situated at Tenginagundi Cross, Bhatkal. When the investigating officer entered the house, he found one Smt. Sayida, the mother of Riyaz Bhatkal. Accused No.1 informed them that he and other accused used to plan and discuss the offences there. PW.66 conducted a mahajar, marked as Ex.P.8, in the house from 7:45 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.
339. PW.6, the Protected Witness, testified that on 19.01.2015, he was summoned by the Bhatkal Police to the RNS Hotel. When he reached the hotel, the local police, CCB personnel, an officer named Sri Omkaraiah, and other government officials were present. Accused No.1 was in the custody of the police at that time.
340. PW.6 further testified that accused No.1 led them to Bandar Road in Bhatkal and showed the house of Affif. When they reached the house, Affif was not there. Accused No.1 disclosed that he and other accused would conduct meetings at Affif's house. Affif's father was present and informed them that Affif had gone to Dubai. A Mahajar was drawn at the said house on Bandar Road, as per Ex.P.7.
341. PW.6 further testified that accused No.1 then took them to the house of Riyaz Bhatkal in Tenginagundi and disclosed that he had held meetings and discussions there with 163 Spl.C.No.330/2015 the other accused. A lady, said to be the mother of Riyaz Bhatkal, was present in the house and informed them that Riyaz Bhatkal had gone to Dubai. The police conducted a mahajar as per Ex.P.8.
342. Upon a careful analysis of the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is evident that PW.74 tasked PW.63 with collecting evidence regarding the conspiracy meetings held by the accused. Accordingly, PW.63 traveled to Bhatkal, gathered relevant evidence, and submitted the findings to PW.74. PW.51 testified that the house of accused No. 7 is located opposite a bike garage on Bandar Road in Bhatkal, and that accused No. 5, Riyaz Bhatkal, along with 7-8 other individuals, used to visit accused No. 7's house before 2008 to hold meetings. These individuals celebrated December 6th as a "black day". PW.52 corroborated this, stating that the house of accused No. 5, Riyaz Bhatkal, is in Madeena Colony, Bhatkal, where accused No. 1, Iqbal, and others used to hold secret meetings. During cross- examination, the defense failed to elicit any contradictions or discrepancies in the testimony of PW.51 and PW.52. Furthermore, the defense did not dispute the locations of the houses of accused Nos. 5 to 7, nor did they challenge the claim that meetings were held at these houses or that accused No. 1 attended these meetings.
343. PW.66, PW.62, and PW.6 all testified that accused No. 1 led them to the houses of accused Nos. 5 to 7 and revealed that these locations were used for conspiracy meetings related to criminal activities. PW.66 prepared mahajars 164 Spl.C.No.330/2015 documenting these admissions. During cross-examination, the defense did not successfully challenge the credibility of these witnesses. PW.6 specifically testified that accused No. 1 led them to Riyaz Bhatkal's house, where the meetings were held, and that he had visited the house in the company of PW.66 and other witnesses.
344. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.51 admitted during cross-examination that he has no particular feelings towards Muslims. However, even if the testimonies of PW.51 and PW.52 are considered, and despite them not being challenged during cross-examination, there is no basis to infer that the accused persons were involved in any jihadi activities or that they conspired to commit any of the alleged offenses.
345. As discussed above, the accused have not disputed the location of the houses of accused Nos. 5 to 7 or the participation of a few members in the meetings held in those houses. PW.52 clearly testified that accused No. 1 used to visit the house of accused No. 5, Riyaz Bhatkal. In support of the testimonies of PW.51 and PW.52, accused No. 1 pointed out the houses of accused Nos. 5 to 7 and disclosed that he used to attend conspiracy meetings in those houses. However, none of the witnesses testified that accused Nos. 2 to 4 attended the conspiracy meetings, nor were they identified before the court. Hence, there is nothing on record to suggest that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were part of the conspiracy meetings held in the houses of 165 Spl.C.No.330/2015 accused Nos. 5 to 7. Therefore, the arguments of the learned counsel for the accused are partly accepted and partly rejected.
346. In conclusion, the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that accused No. 1 was part of the conspiracy meetings held in the houses of accused Nos. 5 to 7 with cogent and convincing evidence. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the participation of accused Nos. 2 to 4 in the conspiracy meetings held in the houses of accused Nos. 5 to 7.
XXII. REGARDING COLLECTION OF HAWALA AMOUNT BY ACCUSED NO. 1
347. PW.24, the Protected Witness, testified that he and accused No. 1 were classmates and had a close relationship. He further testified that he was employed by Destination Air Travels, which belonged to Sri Syed Jakir. In 2015, he was summoned to Hotel Murudeshwara by the Bengaluru Police. Upon his arrival, he saw accused No. 1 along with the police. He further testified that in 2010, accused No. 1 instructed him over the phone to collect Rs. 50,000 from a person known to accused No. 1, with the understanding that accused No. 1 would later collect the money from him. The following evening, a person came to his office and handed over Rs. 50,000 in cash, which accused No. 1 later collected. This sequence of events occurred 4 to 5 times. Additionally, PW.24 testified that in 2015, the police officers took him to a Magistrate, where he gave a statement, marked as Ex.P.28.
166Spl.C.No.330/2015
348. PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, testified that accused No. 1 took him and the panch witnesses to 'Destination Travels' in Bhatkal, where PW.24 was present. PW.24 informed him that accused No. 1 had collected Hawala money from him. Accordingly, a notice was issued to PW.24 under Section 43(f) of the U.A.(P) Act.
349. In addition to the above evidence, PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he obtained the bank account statement of accused No. 1, which is marked as Ex.P.92. He further testified that the statements showed various deposits into accused No. 1's account, including: Rs. 49,000 on 24.10.2009, Rs. 54,500 on 12.11.2009, Rs. 5,000 on 13.11.2009, Rs. 1,000 on 10.12.2009, Rs. 5,028 on 18.12.2009, Rs. 4,305 on 04.01.2010, Rs. 2,000 on 12.01.2010, Rs. 2,300 on 22.01.2010, Rs. 15,000 on 03.03.2010, Rs. 9,000 on 18.03.2010, Rs. 10,000 on 27.04.2010, Rs. 20,000 on 19.05.2010, Rs. 5,000 on 11.08.2010, Rs. 5,000 on 21.10.2010, Rs. 20,000 on 25.11.2010, Rs. 3,500 on 27.12.2010, Rs. 11,000 on 14.02.2011, Rs. 4,500 on 25.02.2011, Rs. 8,000 on 16.03.2011, Rs. 3,500 on 01.06.2012, Rs. 10,000 on 13.08.2012, Rs. 25,000 on 22.10.2012, another Rs. 25,000 on 22.10.2012, Rs. 3,000 on 13.12.2012, Rs. 12,000 on 08.01.2013, Rs. 8,050 on 31.01.2013, Rs. 35,000 on 20.08.2013, Rs. 20,000 on 04.06.2014, Rs. 40,000 on 12.09.2014, Rs. 40,000 on 13.09.2014, Rs. 49,000 on 10.11.2014, and Rs. 40,000 on 08.12.2014. Additionally, significant sums were credited to accused No. 1's account from unknown sources on several occasions, as reflected in Ex.P.92, as testified by PW.74.
167Spl.C.No.330/2015
350. During cross-examination, accused No. 1 claimed that the brother of PW.24 had borrowed a loan from him and had failed to repay it. He also asserted that PW.24 and Sri Neelanvar Faiz had defrauded many Hajj pilgrims. However, PW.24 specifically denied that he had never received Rs. 50,000 from anyone or handing it over to accused No. 1. Accused No. 1 did not challenge PW.24's testimony further. Similarly, during cross- examination of PW.74, accused No. 1 did not elicit any contradictory testimony. The incriminating circumstances related to these facts were put to accused No. 1 during the recording of his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., to which he responded with a blanket denial, stating that the accusations were 'false' and offering no reasonable explanation.
351. The learned counsel for the accused argued that PW.24 admitted during cross-examination that he was interrogated at the R.T. Nagar police station and later at the Madiwala Interrogation Center in Bengaluru, with prior interrogation having taken place at a hotel in Murudeshwara. The learned counsel contended that PW.24's testimony regarding the Rs.50,000 was unsupported by further investigation or additional evidence, suggesting that it was a fabricated story devised by the Investigating Officer. However, as discussed earlier, PW.24 confirmed during cross-examination that he had received Rs. 50,000 from an unknown person as instructed by accused No. 1 and handed it over to him on 4 to 5 occasions. The bank statement, Ex.P.92, reflects numerous deposits from unknown sources into accused No. 1's account, and accused No. 1 failed to offer any explanation for these 168 Spl.C.No.330/2015 transactions during his statement recording. There is no evidence on record that casts doubt on the prosecution's case. This court finds no merit in the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the accused.
352. In conclusion, the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that accused No. 1 received Hawala money both in cash and through his account, supported by cogent and convincing evidence.
XXIII. REGARDING COLLECTION OF CLOCKS BY ACCUSED NO. 1
353. PW.23, the Protected Witness, testified that he was a watch mechanic by profession and owned a shop in Bhatkal under the name "Swiss Time." He had been in this occupation for the last 20 years. He further testified that he was summoned to the Murudeshwara Hotel by the Bengaluru Police, where they showed him accused No. 1. PW.23 stated that accused No. 1 visited his shop and collected 4 to 5 wall clock movements from him. As accused No. 1 was a homeopathy practitioner, PW.23 also visited his clinic in Bhatkal to receive treatment for his ailments. Additionally, he testified that he was taken to a Magistrate by the police, where he gave a statement, marked as Ex.P.27.
354. PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, testified that on 19.01.2015, accused No. 1 took him and his team to PW.23's shop, "Swiss Time," and disclosed that he had purchased some 169 Spl.C.No.330/2015 clocks from the shop. As a result, a notice was issued to PW.23 under Section 43(f) of the U.A.(P) Act.
355. During cross-examination, PW.23 confirmed that accused No. 1 had purchased 4-5 wall clock movements from him. He denied that his testimony was false or that he was coerced or tutored by the police. Accused No. 1 did not elicit any contradictory testimony to discredit PW.23's statement.
356. In conclusion, the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt, through cogent and convincing evidence, that accused No. 1 purchased 4-5 wall clock movements from PW.23.
XXIV. REGARDING THE OTHER EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY THE PROSECUTION
357. The prosecution has presented evidence to suggest that accused No. 1 took PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah and the panch witnesses to Nastar Beach in Bhatkal and disclosed that he had conducted a test blast at the beach. In this regard, a mahajar was drawn as per Ex.P.6.
358. The prosecution has presented evidence to show that accused Nos. 2 and 3 led the Assistant Investigating Officer, ACP Sri Siddappa, and the panch witnesses to a place near brick factory gate situated at Jali Road in Bhatkal. They disclosed that accused No. 2 gave Rs. 10,000 to accused No. 3 in exchange for explosive items. Accused No. 2 then took them to his house, located at No. 392, Darul Khair, Jamiabad Road, Bhatkal, and disclosed that he had kept explosive items on the 170 Spl.C.No.330/2015 shelf of the bathroom. In this regard, a mahajar was drawn as per Ex.P.9.
359. The prosecution has presented evidence to show that accused No. 4 led PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, and the panch witnesses to a house of his relative situated on Shaukath Ali Road in old Bhatkal, where he disclosed that he had kept some explosive items. Accused No. 4 then took them to the sea, particularly to the confluence of the Venkatapura River and the Arabian Sea, near the fishing yard of Tenginagundi, and disclosed that it was the place where he had thrown the explosive items. In this regard, PW.74 prepared a mahajar as per Ex.P.12.
360. The prosecution has presented evidence to suggest that accused No. 1 took PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, and the panch witnesses to a vacant place in front of the Canara Bank ATM, located in front of the gate of AJ Hospital, and disclosed that it was the place where he handed over a bag containing explosives to a person sent by Riyaz Bhatkal. In this regard, PW.66 prepared a mahajar as per Ex.P.13.
361. The prosecution has presented evidence to suggest that accused No. 1 took PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, and the panch witnesses to a location near a fruit shop situated near the front gate of Unity Hospital, Mangaluru, and disclosed that it was the place where he handed over explosives to a person sent by Riyaz Bhatkal in 2013. In this regard, PW.66 prepared a mahajar as per Ex.P.14.
171Spl.C.No.330/2015
362. The prosecution has presented evidence to show that 4ccused No. 4 took PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, and the panch witnesses to a building located on Bunt's Hostel Road, Kudiyal Bail, Mangaluru, and disclosed that he had collected a parcel from that place on an earlier occasion. In this regard, PW.66 prepared a mahajar at the spot as per Ex.P.15.
363. The prosecution has presented evidence to show that accused No. 2 took PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, and the panch witnesses to the back gate of Milagres Church, situated on Railway Station Road, Mangaluru, and disclosed that it was the place where he handed over a parcel to an unknown person. In this regard, PW.66 prepared the mahajar at the spot as per Ex.P.16.
XXV. THE SUMMARY OF THE PROVED FACTS
364. This court has summarized the facts proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. They are as follows:
i) Accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, was the user of mobile numbers 9036112335 and 9886004526.
ii) Accused No. 2, Abdul Saboor, was the user of mobile numbers 9901305984 and 9535727127.
iii) Accused No. 3, Saddam Hussen, was the user of mobile number 8867874841.
iv) Accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, is the holder of SB account No. 10742607198 at SBI Bank.
v) Accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, is the holder of SB account No. 233701501021 at ICICI Bank.172
Spl.C.No.330/2015
vi) Accused Nos. 1 and 2, Syed Ismail Afaaque and Abdul Saboor, were arrested on 08.01.2015 at Flat No. 413, Vineyard Residency, Cox Town, Bengaluru, and a laptop, two mobile phones, and the passport of accused No. 1 were seized. On the same day, a case was registered at the Pulakeshi Nagar police station.
vii) Accused No. 3, Saddam Hussen, was apprehended by PW.74 on 08.01.2015 in Bhatkal and was produced before PW.66. PW.66 arrested accused No. 3 on 09.01.2015.
viii) Accused No. 4, Riaz Ahamed Sayyadi, was arrested on 11.01.2015 at the Mumbai Airport.
ix) Accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, participated in conspiracy meetings held in the houses of Accused Nos. 5 to 7.
x) PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah seized 28 articles, including explosive materials and electronic components, from the house of accused No. 2, Abdul Saboor based on their information.
xi) PW.66 seized a large quantity of detonators and mobile charges from the house of accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque on his information.
xii) Accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, purchased printed circuit boards from Mercury Electronics through PW.25 and electronic components from Kothari Electronics.
xiii) PW.67, Smt. Srividya, examined the electronic components seized in this case.
xiv) PW.46, Dr. Vani, examined the explosives seized in this case.
xv) PW.49, Dr. Kumuda Rani, examined the digital devices seized in this case.
173Spl.C.No.330/2015 xvi) Accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, visited Pakistan and stayed there for 25 days from 19.03.2009 to 13.04.2009. He visited Sharjah, UAE, and stayed there for 30 days from 14.04.2009 to 14.05.2009. He visited Dubai and stayed there for 5 days from 23.07.2009 to 28.07.2009. He visited Saudi Arabia and stayed there for 31 days from 20.08.2010 to 20.09.2010. He visited Pakistan again and stayed there for 28 days from 28.04.2011 to 26.05.2011.
xvii) Accused No. 4, Riaz Ahmed Sayyadi, resides abroad. Xviii) Accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, worked for Positive Homeopathy, Indira Nagar branch, from July 2014 to October 2014.
xix) PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, seized logos of 'Indian Mujahideen' and a walkie-talkie at the instance of Accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque.
xx) PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, collected information regarding the visit of US President Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama to India on 26.01.2015.
xxi) PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, collected information from the intelligence department that terrorists were planning an attack using para-gliders during the visit of Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama to India on 26.01.2015.
xxii) PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, seized two para-gliders produced by the brother of accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque.
xxiii) Accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, underwent a four-
day basic paragliding training course.
xxiv) The wife of accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, is a Pakistani national.
xxv) Accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, used to collect Hawala money in cash and through his account.
174Spl.C.No.330/2015 xxvi) Accused No. 1, Syed Ismail Afaaque, collected wall clock movements from "Swiss Time."
Keeping in mind these proved facts, this court now proceeds to examine whether the accused have committed the offenses alleged against them.
365. Point Nos. 1, 2 and 5 :- Since these points are interlinked and interrelated with each other and require common discussion, this court has taken these points together for discussion to avoid repetition of facts.
366. It is the case of the prosecution that accused Nos. 1 to 4 along with absconding accused Nos. 5 to 9 held conspiracy meetings in the houses of accused Nos. 5 to 7 and accused No. 1 held conspiracy meetings with absconding accused Nos. 5 to 7 in Pakistan, with accused Nos. 4 to 7 in Dubai, with the intention to commit terrorist activities and also conspired to cause bomb blast across India during the visit of the President of USA, Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama on 26.01.2015 and conspired to overawe the Central Government using criminal force, and also procured explosive substances to commit terrorist act as an act preparatory to commission of a terrorist act. Therefore, the accused have committed the offences under sections 120B, 121A of the IPC and Section 18 of the U.A.(P) Act. Before proceeding directly to appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is proper to take note of Sections 120A, 121A of the IPC and Section 18 of the U.A.(P) Act. Section 120A reads as follows:
"120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy - When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done:175
Spl.C.No.330/2015
1. an illegal act, or
2. an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy;
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof."
24. A plain reading of this section, in order to attract criminal conspiracy, there must be two or more persons, there must be an agreement between those persons, such agreement is to do or cause to be done an illegal act, or such agreement is to do a legal act by illegal means. The prosecution has to prove these ingredients before the court beyond a reasonable doubt with cogent and convincing evidence to punish the accused under Section 120B of the IPC.
367. Section 121A reads as follows:
"121A. Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section 121.-- Whoever within or without India conspires to commit any of the offences punishable by section 121, or conspires to overawe, by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, the Central Government or any State Government, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.--To constitute a conspiracy under this section, it is not necessary that any act or illegal omission shall take place in pursuance thereof."
368. A plain reading of this section, whoever, conspires to wage war, or conspires to attempt wage war, or abetted the waging of war against the Government of India, or conspired to overawe, by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force, the Central or State Government is said to commit the offence under this Section. In order to punish the accused 176 Spl.C.No.330/2015 persons under this Section, the prosecution has to prove any one of these ingredients beyond a reasonable doubt.
369. Section 18 of U.A(P) Act, reads as follows :-
"18. Punishment for conspiracy, etc.--Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites, directly or knowingly facilitates the commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
370. A bare reading of this section, whoever conspires or attempts to commit or advocates, abets, advises or incites or knowingly facilitated the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act is said to commit the offence under this Section. The prosecution has to prove any one of these ingredients to punish the accused under this Section beyond a reasonable doubt.
371. It is well settled legal position of law that in the case of conspiracy, there cannot be any direct evidence. The essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused. In this regard, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohd. Khalid Vs. State of West Bengal, Appeal (Crl.) 1114/2001, (2002) 7 SCC 334. In this decision, the 177 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down at paras 17, 18 and 23 as follows;
"17. It would be appropriate to deal with the question of conspiracy. Section 120B of IPC is the provision which provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy. Definition of 'criminal conspiracy' given in Section 120A reads as follows:
"120A-When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,- (1) all illegal act, or (2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy;
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.' The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated to be: (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to co-operate for the accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by any effectual means, (d) in the jurisdiction where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence is complete when the combination is framed. From this, it necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, no overt act need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to constitute an indictable offence. Law making conspiracy a crime, is designed to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is gained by a combination of the means. The encouragement and support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held to be continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of the common design. (See: American Jurisprudence Vol. II Sec. 23, p. 559). For an offence punishable under section 120-B, prosecution need not necessarily prove that the perpetrators expressly agree to do or cause to be done illegal act; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication. Offence of criminal conspiracy has its foundation in an agreement to commit an offence. A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in 178 Spl.C.No.330/2015 intention only, it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and an act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contra actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or for use of criminal means.
18. No doubt in the case of conspiracy there cannot be any direct evidence. The ingredients of offence are that there should be an agreement between persons who are alleged to conspire and the said agreement should be for doing an illegal act or for doing illegal means an act which itself may not be illegal, Therefore, the essence of criminal conspiracy is an agreement to do an illegal act and such an agreement can be proved either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence or by both, and it is a matter of common experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the accused.
* * * * *
23. As noted above, the essential ingredient of the offence of criminal conspiracy is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by itself constitutes an offence, then in that event no overt act is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in such a situation, criminal conspiracy is established by proving such an agreement. Where the conspiracy alleged is with regard to commission of a serious crime of the nature as contemplated in Section 120 B read with the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120 A, then in that event mere proof of an agreement between the accused for commission of such a crime alone is enough to bring about a conviction under Section 120 B and the proof of any overt act by the accused or by any one of them would not be necessary. The provisions, in such a situation, do not require that each and every person who is party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the fulfilment of the object of conspiracy, to commit the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within the trapping of the provisions contained in section 120 B [See: S.C. Bahri v. State of Bihar, AIR (1994) SC 2420."
372. Keeping in mind the statutory provisions and the principles laid down in the aforementioned decisions, this court proceeds to examine the evidence presented by the prosecution.
179Spl.C.No.330/2015
373. As discussed supra, PW.51 and PW.52 testified that meetings were held in the house of accused Nos. 5 and 7 before 2008 and PW.52 identified accused No. 1 as he saw him in the house of accused No. 5. Accused No. 1 took PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah to the houses of accused Nos. 5 to 7 and disclosed that he had participated in the conspiracy meetings held in these houses. However, the prosecution failed to present any evidence to suggest that accused Nos. 2 to 4 attended these meetings.
374. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he collected the documents related to nationality of the wife of accused No. 1. According to these documents, the wife of accused No. 1 is a Pakistani National. Further, PW.74 collected the foreign travel details of accused No. 1 from the concerned authorities and produced these documents before this court. These documents clearly indicate that accused No. 1 visited Pakistan two times, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Dubai. It is noteworthy to mention here that accused Nos. 5 and 7 were the residents of Bhatkal and they were residing in Bhatkal until 2008 as per the evidence of PW.51 and PW.52. At present, they reside abroad. Therefore, the visit of accused No. 1 to Pakistan, UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Dubai assumes importance to prove the conspiracy between the accused.
375. PW.24, the protected witness, who is none other than the friend of accused No. 1, testified that he collected money of Rs.50,000/- from an unknown person as instructed by accused No. 1 for 4-5 times and he later handed over the money to accused No. 1. PW.74 testified that he collected statements of 180 Spl.C.No.330/2015 bank accounts of accused No. 1 and the statements reflect that accused No. 1 received money from unknown sources from 2009 to 2014.
376. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that explosive materials were recovered from accused No. 2's house in Bhatkal based on information provided by accused Nos. 1 and 2. PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, testified that explosive materials were seized from the house of accused No. 1. Especially, assembled printed circuit boards were seized from the house of accused No. 2. This assumes importance related to visit of accused No. 1 to foreign countries and his stay abroad up to one month.
377. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he collected the documents to show that accused No. 1 purchased the printed circuit boards from Mercury Electronics through PW.25 and accused No. 1 personally purchased electrical components from Kothari Electronics.
378. PW.1, Sri K.P. Ravikumar, testified that he seized a mobile phone and a laptop from the possession of accused No.
1. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he sent the laptop and mobile phone to the FSL for forensic examination. PW.49, Dr. Kumuda Rani, testified that she retrieved the data from the laptop of accused No. 1. Accused No.1 used chat software in his laptop. The videos related to terrorist activities, Al-Quida leader Binladan, speeches of jihad, Gujarat riots, use of fire weapons were found in the data retrieved from the laptop of accused No.1. Further, incriminating messages were found in the data 181 Spl.C.No.330/2015 retrieved from the laptop of accused No. 1 in Navaythi language and the same were given to accused No. 1 for translation. Accused No. 1 translated the messages and there was discussion that "26th is approaching" and other secret communication with code words. It is important to note that 26 th was the day on which US President Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama was going to visit India.
379. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he collected intelligence report from the intelligence department that the terrorists were going to attack using para-gliders during the visit of Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama. In this regard, PW.71, Sri Narendra, testified that he knew accused No. 1 and he underwent a four-day basic paragliding training course in November, 2012, in Goa. PW.74 testified that he seized two para-gliders produced by the bother of accused No.1. He further testified that he downloaded the paragliding training videos from YouTube at the instance of accused No. 1. Para-gliding training videos are found in the data retrieved from the laptop seized from accused No. 1.
380. PW.74, Sri M.K. Thammaiah, testified that he collected the CAFs, CDRs and other related documents related to mobile numbers 9036112335, 9886004526, 9901305984, 9535727127, 8867874841 and other mobile numbers. A perusal of these documents, accused No. 1 was the user of mobile numbers 9036112335 and 9886004526, accused No. 2 was the user of mobile numbers 9901305984 and 9535727127, and accused No. 3 was the user of mobile number 8867874841. A 182 Spl.C.No.330/2015 perusal of the CDRs, accused Nos. 1 to 3 were in contact each other in December 2014. It is important to note that accused No. 3 was not in contact with accused Nos. 1 and 2 until December 2014. However, he contacted accused Nos. 1 and 2 frequently in December 2014. It is also important to note that accused No. 2 stopped using mobile number 9901305984 subscribed in his name from 07.11.2014 and began using mobile number 9535727127 which stands in the name of the brother of accused No. 1 with intent to avoid catching by the police.
381. PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, testified that accused No.3 took him to Siddapura and pointed out the shop of PW.15 and disclosed that he had purchased gelatin Sticks from that shop and handed them over to accused No. 2. He also pointed out the place where he handed over the gelatin sticks to accused No. 2.
382. A perusal of the aforesaid evidence, the prosecution has not only adduced direct evidence to connect the accused to the conspiracy but also substantiated the allegations proving several circumstances. The evidence adduced by the prosecution clearly establishes that conspiracy meetings were held in the houses of accused Nos. 5 and 7 and accused No.1 participated in the meetings. Accused No. 1 visited foreign countries to meet the absconding accused. Accused No. 1 collected Hawala amount from unknown sources, he had undergone para-gliding training, accused Nos. 1 to 3 procured large amount of explosive materials to cause blast during the visit of Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama, and he stopped working from 183 Spl.C.No.330/2015 November 2014 to prepare for his activities. They were in constant touch with each other to accomplish the object of criminal conspiracy. These circumstances clearly indicate that accused Nos. 1 to 3 conspired with each other to commit criminal acts, committed the acts preparatory to commit terrorist activities, and cause blast during the visit of Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama with intent to overawe, the Central Government using criminal force.
383. The learned counsel for the accused has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Subhash @ Dhillu Vs. State of Haryana, (2015) 12 SCC 444 and argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the agreement between the accused to commit the offences. There is no dispute in the ratio laid down in the cited decision. However, in the cited decision, the prosecution failed to prove the existence of some agreement between the accused persons and there is no specific evidence as to where and when the conspiracy was hatched and what was the specific purpose of such conspiracy. In the present case in hand, the prosecution has presented abundant materials to prove the conspiracy between accused Nos. 1 to 3 as discussed in the above paragraphs in detail. With due respect to the Hon'ble Apex Court, the cited decision is not aptly applicable to the facts of this case.
384. Although the prosecution alleges that accused No.4 was also involved in all these activities, it has not adduced any evidence to connect him to the alleged crime. The prosecution has relied on the mobile number to connect him to the alleged 184 Spl.C.No.330/2015 crime, but the prosecution failed to prove that accused No. 4 was using mobile number 9880298463. The prosecution has not placed any materials to show that accused No. 4 attended meeting in the houses of accused No. 5 and 7, he contacted other accused for the purpose of commission of any acts in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of accused No. 4 in these activities with cogent and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, this court answers Point Nos. 1, 2 and 5 partly in the affirmative with respect to accused Nos. 1 to 3 and partly in the negative with respect to accused No. 4.
385. Point No. 3 :- It is the prosecution's allegation that the accused participated in activities intended to cause or cause disaffection against India, actions that question, disclaim, or disrupt the sovereignty and integrity of the country, thereby committing an offense punishable under Section 13 of the U.A. (P) Act. For a clearer understanding of the facts, it is essential to refer to Section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act, which states:
"13. Punishment for unlawful activities.--
(1) Whoever--
(a) takes part in or commits, or
(b) advocates, abets, advises or incites the commission of, any unlawful activity, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Whoever, in any way, assists any unlawful activity of any association declared unlawful under section 3, after the notification by which it has been so declared has become effective under sub-
section (3) of that section, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to any treaty, agreement or convention entered into between the Government of India and the 185 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Government of any other country or to any negotiations therefor carried on by any person authorised in this behalf by the Government of India"
386. A plain reading of this section indicates that anyone who takes part in, commits, advocates, abets, advises, or incites the commission of any unlawful activity, or assists in any way the unlawful activity of an association declared unlawful under Section 3 of the U.A.(P) Act, is guilty of an offense under this Section. The prosecution must prove at least one of these elements to convict the accused under this Section. To understand the meaning of "unlawful activity," we should refer to Section 2(o) of the U.A.(P) Act, which reads:
"2(o) "unlawful activity", in relation to an individual or association, means any action taken by such individual or association (whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise),--
(i) which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about, on any ground whatsoever, the cession of a part of the territory of India or the secession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group of individuals to bring about such cession or secession; or
(ii) which disclaims, questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or
(iii) which causes or is intended to cause disaffection against India"
387. A person or an association commits an unlawful activity if their actions are intended to support or promote claims for the cession or secession of any part of India's territory, or if they incite others to bring about such actions; or if they aim to disclaim, question, or disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India; or if they cause or intend to cause disaffection against India.
186Spl.C.No.330/2015
388. As discussed earlier, the accused conspired with each other to commit terrorist activities in India, including planning blasts across the country during the visit of U.S. President Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama. In furtherance of this conspiracy, they actively collected explosive materials with the intention to disrupt the sovereignty of India and to incite disaffection against the nation. These overt actions clearly fall within the scope of Section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act. The prosecution has successfully proved the elements of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the involvement of accused No. 4 in these activities. Accordingly, this Court answers point No. 3 partly in the affirmative with respect to accused Nos. 1 to 3 and partly in the negative with respect to accused No. 4.
389. Point No. 4 :- The prosecution alleges that accused Nos. 1 to 4, along with accused Nos. 5 to 9, committed acts to threaten the unity, integrity, and security of India, and with the intent to strike terror in the people of India. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are further alleged to have supplied explosives, at the instructions of the absconding accused Nos. 5 to 7, to carry out blasts in Bengaluru, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Pune, and Mumbai. These actions are said to constitute an offense punishable under Section 15 of the U.A.(P) Act, which is punishable under Section 16 of the same Act. To better understand the evidence, it is useful to refer to Section 15 of the U.A.(P) Act, which reads as follows:
"15 Terrorist act. --Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or 187 Spl.C.No.330/2015 with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,--
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause or likely to cause--
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country; or
(iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence of India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government of India, any State Government or any of their agencies; or
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts to do so or causes death of any public functionary or attempts to cause death of any public functionary; or
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to kill or injure such person or does any other act in order to compel the Government of India, any State Government or the Government of a foreign country or any other person to do or abstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act.
Explanation. --For the purpose of this section, public functionary means the constitutional authorities and any other functionary notified in the Official Gazette by the Central Government as a public functionary."
390. A plain reading of this section makes it clear that the person must commit an act with the intent to threaten or likely strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India, using explosives or other dangerous substances to cause death, injury, property damage, or disruption to essential services. Only then it can be considered a terrorist act.
391. In this case, the prosecution has presented evidence indicating that accused Nos. 1 and 2 handed over explosives to individuals named by accused No. 5 in Bhatkal and Mangaluru.
188Spl.C.No.330/2015 However, there is no evidence to show that the explosive materials supplied by accused Nos. 1 and 2 were used in the blasts in Bengaluru, Ahmedabad, Delhi, Pune, and Mumbai. Furthermore, there is no indication that these accused persons are involved in those incidents. Even the Investigation Officers PW.66 and PW.74 admitted during cross-examination that no terrorist act was committed in this case. The records suggest that accused Nos. 1 to 3 conspired to acquire explosive materials for terrorist activities, but they did not commit any act with the intent to threaten or strike terror in the people of India, or to disrupt the unity, integrity, or sovereignty of the nation. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove any of the elements required under Section 15 of the U.A.(P) Act. In the absence of any evidence proving that the accused persons committed a terrorist act, this Court cannot convict accused Nos. 1 to 4 under Section 16 of the U.A.(P) Act. Accordingly, this Court answers Point No. 4 in the negative.
392. Point Nos. 6 and 7 :- Since these points are interlinked and interrelated, and require a common discussion, this Court has considered them together to avoid repetition of facts.
393. The prosecution alleges that accused Nos. 1 to 4 are members of the banned organisation "Indian Mujahideen", which is listed in the schedule of the U.A.(P) Act. The prosecution claims that with the intention to further the activities of this organisation, the accused procured explosive materials to cause blasts across India, thereby committing offences punishable 189 Spl.C.No.330/2015 under Sections 20 and 38 of the U.A.(P) Act. Before addressing the facts, it is necessary to first understand the scope and ambit of Sections 20 and 38 of the U.A.(P) Act. Section 20 reads as follows:
"20. Punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organisation
--Any person who is a member of a terrorist gang or a terrorist organisation, which is involved in terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
394. A plain reading of this section reveals that a person must be a member of a terrorist gang or organisation in order to be punished under this provision. The prosecution must prove that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were members of such an organisation in order to convict them under this section.
395. Section 38 of the U.A.(P) Act, reads as follows :-
"38. Offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation.--
(1) A person, who associates himself, or professes to be associated, with a terrorist organisation with intention to further its activities, commits an offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where the person charged is able to prove--
(a) that the organisation was not declared as a terrorist organisation at the time when he became a member or began to profess to be a member; and
(b) that he has not taken part in the activities of the organisation at any time during its inclusion in the Schedule as a terrorist organisation. (2) A person, who commits the offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation under sub-section (1), shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or with fine, or with both.
396. A plain reading of this section indicates that a person who associates himself, or professes to be associated, with a terrorist organisation with the intention of furthering its activities, 190 Spl.C.No.330/2015 commits an offence under this provision. The prosecution must prove that accused Nos. 1 to 4 associated with the "Indian Mujahideen" organisation with the intention of furthering its activities, in order to convict them under this section. Keeping these statutory provisions in mind, this Court now addresses the facts of the case.
397. In this case, accused No. 1 took PW.66, Sri H.M. Omkaraiah, to his house at Vineyard Residency, where he produced logos of the "Indian Mujahideen" organisation, which is listed as a terrorist organisation in the schedule of the U.A.(P) Act. Additionally, as discussed earlier, terrorist-related materials were found, including videos of Bin Laden, jihad speeches, and other videos related to the Afghan Mujahideen, Anti-Christ speeches, and terrorist activities such as Afghan Mujahideen's Martial Arts, the Anti-Christ Speech, Message from Leader of Afghanistan Mujahideen Sheikh Khalid Husainan to President Obama, Speech about who are the real Terrorists, Muslim prepare yourself for 3rd world war, War in Syria, Jihad Lecture Part-1, Jihad Lecture Part-2, Rise of Syrian Mujahideen, Pakistani Taliban speech by Dr. Israr Ahmed, Parachute Training, Parachute training video from experts, Bin Laden, Agenda Grinding America, Assam dange, Speech Jihad, Biography Commander Khattab, Biography Commander Khattab, Massacre-Banglad/Speech, Islam video, Speech, Terror video, Video Gujarat incident, and firing video. These materials were found on the laptop of accused No. 1. This evidence strongly indicates that accused No. 1 was a member of the "Indian Mujahideen" terrorist organisation.
191Spl.C.No.330/2015
398. Furthermore, accused No. 1 held conspiracy meetings with the other accused to commit terrorist activities. To further the objectives of the conspiracy, he procured explosive substances with the assistance of the other accused and planned to cause blasts across India during the visit of the U.S. President, Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama, in order to further the activities of the "Indian Mujahideen" organisation. Therefore, the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that accused No. 1 was a member of the "Indian Mujahideen" and that he associated with the organisation with the intention to further its activities.
399. However, the prosecution has failed to adduce any evidence to show that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were members of the "Indian Mujahideen" or that they associated with this organisation with the intention to further its activities. Therefore, this Court answers Point Nos. 6 and 7 partly in the affirmative with respect to accused No. 1 and partly in the negative with respect to accused Nos. 2 to 4.
400. Point Nos. 8 to 11 :- Since these points are interlinked and interrelated, and require common discussion, this court has considered these points together to avoid repetition of facts.
401. The prosecution alleges that accused Nos. 1 to 4 were in possession of explosive substances in violation of rules under the Explosives Act, 1884, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and thus committed an offence punishable under Section 23 of the U.A.(P) Act. Before discussing the facts, it is important 192 Spl.C.No.330/2015 to understand the scope and applicability of Section 23 of the U.A.(P) Act, which reads as follows:
"23 Enhanced penalties. --
(1) If any person with intent to aid any terrorist or a terrorist organisation or a terrorist gang contravenes any provision of, or any rule made under the Explosives Act, 1884 (4 of 1884) or the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (6 of 1908) or the Inflammable Substances Act, 1952 (20 of 1952) or the Arms Act, 1959 (54 of 1959), or is in unauthorised possession of any bomb, dynamite or hazardous explosive substance or other lethal weapon or substance capable of mass destruction or biological or chemical substance of warfare, he shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any of the aforesaid Acts or the rules made thereunder, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. (2) Any person who with the intent to aid any terrorist, or a terrorist organisation or a terrorist gang attempts to contravene or abets, or does any act preparatory to contravention of any provision of any law or rule specified in sub-section (1), shall be deemed to have contravened that provision under sub-section (1) and the provisions of that sub-section in relation to such person, have effect subject to the modification that the reference to "imprisonment for life" therein shall be construed as a reference to "imprisonment for ten years".
402. A plain reading of this section reveals that any person who, with intent to aid a terrorist, terrorist organization, or terrorist gang, contravenes the relevant laws or rules under the Explosives Act, 1884, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, or the Inflammable Substances Act, 1952, or is in unauthorized possession of explosives or related substances, is liable for punishment under this section.
403. Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, reads as follows :-
"4. Punishment for attempt to cause explosion, or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property.193
Spl.C.No.330/2015 Any person who unlawfully and maliciously--
(a) does any act with intent to cause by an explosive substance or special category explosive substance, or conspires lo cause by an explosive substance or special category explosive substance, an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property; or
(b) makes or has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive substance with intent by means thereof to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property, or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life or cause serious injury to property in India, shall, whether any explosion does or does not take place and whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished,--
(i) in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(ii) in the case of any special category explosive substance, with rigorous imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
404. A plain reading of this section indicates that any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes, attempts, or conspires to cause an explosion that endangers life or property, or possesses explosives for such purposes, is punishable under this section.
405. Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, reads as follows :-
"5. Punishment for making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances.
Any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance or special category explosive substance, under such circumstances as to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he is not making it or does not have it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, shall, unless he can show that he made it or had it in his possession or under his control for a lawful object, be punished,--194
Spl.C.No.330/2015
(a) in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(b) in the case of any special category explosive substance, with rigorous imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
406. A plain reading of this section reveals that any person found to possess explosive substances under suspicious circumstances is liable for punishment, unless they can prove lawful intent.
407. Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, reads as follows :-
"6. Punishment of abettors.
Any person who by the supply or solicitation for money, the providing of premises, the supply of materials, or in any manner whatsoever, procures, counsels, aids, abets, or is accessory to, the commission of any offence under this Act shall be punished with the punishment provided for the offence."
408. A plain reading of this section indicates that anyone who aids, abets, or is accessory to the commission of an offence under the Act is equally liable for punishment.
409. In this case, as discussed earlier, the prosecution has presented evidence showing that accused Nos. 1 to 3 conspired to commit terrorist activities in India, including plans to cause blasts during the visit of the US President, Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama. To achieve this, the accused unlawfully gathered explosive substances such as detonators, gelatin sticks, ammonium nitrate, and other items. These explosives were recovered from the houses of accused Nos. 1 and 2, with 195 Spl.C.No.330/2015 accused No. 3 controlling the substances under the instructions of accused No. 1.
410. PW.46, Dr. Vani, testified that she examined various explosive substances, including gel explosive cartridges, ammonium nitrate-based gel explosives, detonator compositions, fuse wires, and other materials capable of causing explosions. Her expert opinion confirmed that the items seized from accused Nos. 1 and 2 could cause significant damage to life and property upon explosion.
411. PW.67, Smt. Srividya, testified that she examined various electronic components, including circuit boards, transistors, capacitors, and other items, which could be used to build a timer circuit for triggering an explosion. These items, when combined with the explosive substances, could facilitate a bomb detonation.
412. The learned Special Public Prosecution has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 8 SCC 340 wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held at paragraphs 64 to 67 as follows:
"64. The next aspect that is to be adverted to is that ammonium nitrate not being an explosive substance, mere possession cannot bring the accused Chandra Prakash within the ambit of any offence. In this regard, we may refer to Section 4(d) of the 1884 Act. It reads as follows:
"4 (d) "explosive" means gunpowder, nitroglycerine, nitroglycol, guncotton, di-nitro-toluene, tri-nitro-toluene, picric acid, di- nitro- phenol, tri-nitro-resorcinol (styphnic acid), cyclo- trimethylene-tri- nitramine, penta-erythritol-tetranitrate, tetryl, nitro-guanidine, lead azide, lead styphynate, fulminate of mercury or any other metal, diazo-di-nitro-phenol, coloured fires or any other substance 196 Spl.C.No.330/2015 whether a single chemical compound or a mixture of substances, whether solid or liquid or gaseous used or manufactured with a view to produce a practical effect by explosion or pyrotechnic effect; and includes fog-signals, fireworks, fuses, rockets, percussion-caps, detonators, cartridges, ammunition of all descriptions and every adaptation or preparation of an explosive as defined in this clause;"
65. Section 2 of the 1908 Act, which deals with definitions, reads as follows: -
"2. Definitions. - In this Act--
(a) the expression "explosive substance" shall be deemed to include any materials for making any explosive substance; also any apparatus, machine, implement or material used, or intended to be used, or adapted for causing, or aiding in causing, any explosion in or with any explosive substance; also any part of any such apparatus, machine or implement;
(b) the expression "special category explosive substance" shall be deemed to include research development explosive (RDX), penta erythritol tetra nitrate (PETN), high melting explosive (HMX), tri nitro toluene (TNT), low temperature plastic explosive (LTPE), composition exploding (CE) (2, 4, 6 phenyl methyl nitramine or tetryl), OCTOL (mixlure of high melting explosive and tri nitro toluene), plastic explosive kirkee-1 (PEK-1) and RDX/TNT compounds and other similar type of explosives and a combination thereof and remote control devices causing explosion and any other substance and a combination thereof which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify tor the purposes of this Act."
66. Keeping in view the broad definitions of both the Acts, we are required to see what has been seized from the accused Chandra Prakash. What is evincible from the seizure report, Ext. P-42, apart from ammonium nitrate, fuse wire and empty boxes were also seized. That apart, 17 packs containing blue coloured fuse wire kept in plastic (polythene) bags and four boxes containing blue coloured fuse wire, "Sun brand safety fuse" numbered as 40208, 40158, 39937, 40203 respectively, one carton of explosives detonating fuse measuring 1500 meters in length and 38 kg in weight, containing four wooden logs of red colour, 375 meter wire in each Gattha and black coloured cap fitted on the tip of the wire, three cartons of explosive Belgelative 90 (Gulla Dynamite) net weight of each being 25 Kg. with "Division I Class II 197 Spl.C.No.330/2015 safety distance category ZZ Bharat Explosive Ltd. 9 KM Lalitpur (U.P.) Date of manufacturing 4.6.97 batch No. 2" written on each box, four packets of O.D. Detonator containing 1600 detonators, a substance of light yellow colour kept inside a carton of paer in a plastic bag weighing nearly 5 kg and 16 empty cartons, one of gulla and 15 of fuse wire, were seized.
67. Section 2 of the 1908 Act has a deeming provision which states that explosive substance would include any materials for making any explosive substance. Similarly, Section 4(d) of the 1884 Act has a broader spectrum which includes coloured fires or any other substances, whether single chemical compound or a mixture of substances. That apart, as we find, apart from ammonium nitrate other articles had been seized. The combination of the same, as per the evidence of the expert witness, was sufficient to prepare a bomb for the purpose of explosion. In addition to the same, huge quantity of ammonium nitrate was seized and it was seized along with other items. The cumulative effect is that the possession of these articles in such a large quantity by the accused gives credence to the prosecution version that the possession was conscious and it was intended to be used for the purpose of the blast."
(emphasis supplied)
413. Applying these principles to the current case, the large quantities of explosive substances recovered from accused Nos. 1 and 2, along with the expert testimony, show that these substances were possessed with the intent to cause an explosion. The possession was deliberate and aimed at facilitating terrorist activity. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 have not provided any lawful explanation for their possession of these explosives. Hence, the prosecution has proved the ingredients of the offences under Section 23 of the U.A.(P) Act, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. However, the prosecution has failed to prove the elements of Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.
198Spl.C.No.330/2015
414. The prosecution has presented evidence suggesting that accused No. 4 led the investigating officer to a location where explosives were supposedly kept and a location where explosives were supposedly disposed of, but no explosives were recovered from his possession. His voluntary statement and pointing to the disposal site are insufficient to convict him under Sections 4 to 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. Therefore, this court answers point Nos. 8 to 10 partly in the affirmative with respect to accused Nos. 1 to 3 and partly in the negative with respect to accused No. 4. Point No. 11 is answered in the negative.
415. Point No. 12 :- The learned counsel for the accused argued that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution has failed to do so, and as such, the accused are entitled to acquittal. In support of his argument, the learned counsel cited the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Digambar Vaishnav and another vs. The State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal Nos. 428-430/2019, decided on 05.03.2019) and Anjan Kumar Sarma and others vs. State of Assam (Criminal Appeal No. 560/2014, decided on 23.05.2017). It is not disputed that the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt as held in these decisions.
416. The learned counsel for the accused has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Sharad Birdhi Chand Sardar vs. State of Maharashtra (1984 AIR 1622) and argued that when two plausible views arise from the set of facts, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused. It is a 199 Spl.C.No.330/2015 well-settled principle of law that where, based on the evidence, two possibilities exist - one favoring the prosecution and the other favoring the accused - the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. There is no dispute regarding this legal principle.
417. However, in this case, as discussed earlier, a large quantity of explosive substances was seized from the houses of accused Nos. 1 and 2. Additionally, incriminating data was retrieved from the laptop of accused No. 1, witnesses testified regarding the procurement of explosive substances, and the prosecution has presented other reliable and credible evidence to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The circumstances of the case also point toward the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 3. There is no possibility of drawing two conflicting conclusions from the evidence before the Court. The evidence presented by the prosecution firmly suggests that accused Nos. 1 to 3 committed the alleged offense. Thus, there is no basis for taking two possible views based on the evidence placed before the Court.
418. Furthermore, accused Nos. 1 to 3 have put forth a false plea, claiming that they were arrested on 01.01.2015 and kept at the Madiwala Interrogation Center from 01.01.2015 until their production before the Court on 09.01.2015, during which they were allegedly subjected to physical torture, made to consume each other's urine, placed next to a pig to provoke their religious sentiments, and had rats poured on their bodies. However, the evidence presented by the prosecution contradicts this claim, indicating that they were not in the custody of PW.1, 200 Spl.C.No.330/2015 as previously discussed. This inconsistency in their defense serves as an additional circumstance pointing to the guilt of accused Nos. 1 to 3, as outlined in the Digambar Vaishnav case supra. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
419. The learned counsel for the accused argued that during cross-examination, PW.65 admitted that the contents of the report from the independent authority were not included in Ex.P.115, and there was no indication that he had reviewed the report before issuing the sanction orders. However, a perusal of PW.65's testimony reveals that he clearly stated that after receiving the requisition along with the report from the DG and IGP of Karnataka State, he forwarded the documents to the independent authority appointed under Section 45 of the U.A.(P) Act. He then received the report from the authority on 29.06.2015. Therefore, the mere fact that the contents of the report from the independent authority are not reflected in Ex.P.115, and that it does not explicitly state that PW.65 reviewed such a report, does not invalidate the sanction issued by him. Furthermore, the prosecution examined a member of the independent authority before this court and marked the recommendation report issued by the authority as Ex.P.142. In light of this, this court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
420. The learned counsel for the accused also argued that PW.65 failed to invoke Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. while according sanction for the offence punishable under Section 201 Spl.C.No.330/2015 121A of the IPC. It is important to note that Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. confers power on the Government to grant sanction. PW.65 issued the sanction in exercise of the powers conferred under this section. There is no requirement to mention the specific section in the sanction order. It is clearly stated in the sanction that it was granted for the IPC offences as well. Therefore, this court cannot reject the sanction merely because Section 196 is not mentioned in the sanction order.
421. The learned counsel further argued that PW.65 did not testify as to why he accorded sanction for the IPC offences. He contended that PW.65 cannot issue a sanction based solely on the review of the independent committee, as the committee constituted under Section 45 of the U.A.(P) Act does not have the power to review charge-sheet papers for the purpose of granting sanction under Section 196 of the Cr.P.C. Ex.P.115 indicates that, in exercise of powers vested with the Government under Section 45 of the U.A.(P) Act, PW.65 granted sanction.
422. It is important to note that the allegations made against the accused under the IPC and the U.A.(P) Act are overlapping. Therefore, merely because the independent authority discussed the allegations under the IPC provisions while recommending sanction, this court cannot invalidate the sanction. Consequently, the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the accused are without merit.
423. The learned counsel also argued that PW.73 found a prima facie case against the accused under Section 120B, 121A read with Section 511 of the IPC, which he deemed an abuse of 202 Spl.C.No.330/2015 the process of law. PW.73 testified that, as per Ex.P.141, he was the chairman of the independent authority appointed under Section 45(2) of the U.A.(P) Act. PW.73's testimony indicates that he had no authority or power to review and forward any IPC- related matters to the sanctioning authority. This suggests that PW.73 did not apply his mind when forwarding the report. However, as discussed earlier, the allegations against the accused under both the IPC and the U.A.(P) Act overlap. Moreover, PW.73 provided a detailed report, marked as Ex.P.142, which addressed both the offences under the U.A.(P) Act and the IPC. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that PW.73 did not apply his mind merely because he mentioned the IPC provisions in his recommendation. Thus, this court finds no merit in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused.
424. On these issues, the learned Special Prosecutor has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru (2005) 11 SCC 600. In this decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in paragraphs 13 to 15 as follows:
"13. Touching on the validity of sanction, the next point urged by Mr. Ram Jethmalani was that there was no proper application of mind by the authority granting the sanction. There was no sanction for the offences under POTA whereas sanction was given for inapplicable offences under the Indian Penal Code. The facts constituting the offence have not been stated in the sanction order and no evidence has been adduced to show that the competent authority addressed himself to the relevant facts and material.
14. The careless and inept drafting of the sanction order has given scope for some of these comments. Surprisingly, in the first para of the order containing recital as to the prima facie satisfaction of the Lt. Governor the POTA offences are not specifically mentioned. They are 203 Spl.C.No.330/2015 however embraced within the residuary terminology "along with other offences". Instead of mentioning the POTA offences specifically and conspicuously in the order passed under Section 50 of the POTA, the drafter reversed that process by mentioning the POTA offences under the residuary expression "apart from other offences". However, in our view, this careless drafting cannot deal a fatal blow to the sanction order. Looking at the substance and reading the entirety of the order, we come to the irresistible conclusion that the sanction was duly given for the prosecution of the accused for the offences under POTA after the competent authority (Lt. Governor) had reached the satisfaction prima facie in regard to the commission of the POTA offences as well. A specific reference to the POTA offences mentioned in FIR is contained in the opening part of the order. The order then contains the recital that the Lt. Governor was satisfied that the four accused persons "have prima facie committed offences punishable under Sections 121, 121A, 122, 124 and 120B of the IPC being involved in criminal conspiracy to commit the said offences with intention of waging war against the Government of India along with other offences." In the context in which the expression 'along with other offences' occurs, it must be reasonably construed so as to be referable to POTA offences mentioned in the opening clause. The operative part of the order is more explicit inasmuch as the Lt. Governor granted sanction for the prosecution of the four accused in a competent Court "for committing the said offences punishable under Sections 3, 4, 5, 20 & 21 of the POTA". It is pertinent to notice that in the sanction order under Section 196 Cr.P.C. the POTA offences do not find specific mention at all. Thus, a distinction was maintained between the sanction under POTA and the sanction under Cr.P.C.
15. The other submission that the addition of the offence under Section 120B which does not require sanction, reveals total non- application of mind, does not appeal to us. Though the conspiracy to commit the offences punishable by Section 121 is covered by Section 121A, probably Section 120B was also referred to by way of abundant caution though the prosecution for the said offence does not require sanction. At any rate, the insertion of a seemingly overlapping provision does not and cannot affect the validity of the sanction order. Nor can it be said that the addition of Section 124 which has really no application to the present case by itself vitiates the sanction order. From the insertion of one inapplicable provision, a reasonable inference cannot be drawn that there was no application of mind by the competent authority. A meticulous and legalistic examination as to the offences applicable and not applicable is not 204 Spl.C.No.330/2015 what is expected at the stage of granting sanction. It was observed by the Privy Council in Gokulchand Dwarkadas Vs. The King [AIR 1948 Privy Council 82], (para 10) "The charge need not follow the exact terms of the sanction, though it must not relate to an offence essentially different from that to which the sanction relates".
In any case we do not think that the mention of an inapplicable Section goes to the root of the matter or otherwise makes it vulnerable to attack.
(emphasis supplied)
425. The similar contentions raised in this case were addressed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and were negated. Therefore, this decision is directly applicable to the present case.
426. The learned counsel for the accused has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohammad Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (1979) AIR 677, with respect to sanction. This court has thoroughly examined this decision, which holds that a case instituted without proper sanction must fail, as such a defect renders the entire proceedings void ab initio. While there is no dispute regarding the ratio laid down in that case, the prosecution in this case has produced a valid sanction issued by the competent authority, which was based on the authority's application of its mind. Therefore, the decision in Mohammad Iqbal Ahmed does not support the accused's case.
427. The learned counsel for the accused has also cited the decision in Adamhbhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri and others vs. The State of Gujarat (2014) 7 SCC 716, with respect to sanction. In that case, the prosecution examined only PW.88 to prove the 205 Spl.C.No.330/2015 sanction, and the sanction was issued solely based on the approval of the Home Minister. PW.88 admitted during cross- examination that he had not verified whether any investigation papers regarding the involvement of accused No. 6 were included, nor had he ensured compliance with Section 52 of POTA. In contrast, in the present case, the prosecution has not only examined the sanctioning authority but also a member of the independent authority. Furthermore, the accused have not identified any contradictions or discrepancies in the testimonies of these witnesses. As such, the facts in Adamhbhai Sulemanbhai Ajmeri differ significantly from those in this case. With due respect to the Hon'ble Apex Court, that decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
428. A careful review of the evidence presented by the prosecution establishes that accused No. 1 was a member of the banned terrorist organization 'Indian Mujahideen.' In furtherance of its activities, he procured explosive substances with the assistance of accused Nos. 2 and 3. Together, they conspired to carry out terrorist attacks and cause blasts across India during the visit of US President Hon'ble Sri Barack Obama, with the aim of overawes the Central Government. They were found in possession of explosive substances, in violation of the rules under the Explosive Substances Act. However, the prosecution has failed to prove that accused Nos. 2 to 4 were members of the terrorist organization 'Indian Mujahideen' or that they were involved in furthering its activities. Furthermore, the prosecution has not established that accused No. 4 participated in any criminal activities related to this case, nor has it proved that 206 Spl.C.No.330/2015 accused Nos. 1 to 4 engaged in terrorist activities together. In light of the foregoing, this court proceeds to pass the following order:
ORDER Accused No. 1 is not found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. Hence, acting under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., Accused No. 1 is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.
Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 16, 20, and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.
Hence, acting under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 16, 20, and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.
Accused No. 4 is not found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 121A of the IPC, Sections 13, 16, 18, 20, 23, and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sections 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act. Hence, acting under Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C., Accused No. 4 is acquitted.
Further, Accused No. 1, Sri Syed Ismail Afaaque, is found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 121A of the IPC, Sections 13, 18, 20, 23, and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Hence, acting under 207 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C., Accused No. 1 is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 121A of the IPC, Sections 13, 18, 20, 23, and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
Accused No. 2, Sri Abdul Saboor, and Accused No. 3, Sri Saddam Husen, are found guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 121A of the IPC, Sections 13 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Hence, acting under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C., Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120B and 121A of the IPC, Sections 13, 18, and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
(Partly dictated to the Senior Sheristedar, transcription thereof computerized by him, partly typed by me in my laptop, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court on 16th day of December, 2024) (GANGADHARA C.M.), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
208Spl.C.No.330/2015 ORDER ON SENTENCE The offenders, Syed Ismail Afaaque, Abdul Saboor, and Saddam Hussen, have been produced via video conferencing from Central Prison, Bengaluru.
2. This Court has heard the offenders, their counsel, and the learned Special Public Prosecutor regarding the imposition of the sentence.
3. The offender, Syed Ismail Afaaque, submitted that he is a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record. He has a family, including three young children, and requested the Court to consider a lenient view while imposing the sentence.
4. The offender, Abdul Saboor, also submitted that he is a law-abiding citizen with no prior criminal record. He was a student at the time of his arrest and is the only son to his aged parents, with his father suffering from vision problems. He is the sole earning member of his family. He therefore requested the Court to consider a lenient view while imposing the sentence.
5. The offender, Saddam Hussen, submitted that he is a family man and has responsibilities to care for his family. He has no prior criminal record and requested a lenient view in sentencing.
6. The learned counsel for the offenders submitted that the offences under Sections 13 and 23 of the U.A.(P) Act carry a minimum punishment of five years. This Court can impose a sentence of up to 10 years for the offence under Section 121A of 209 Spl.C.No.330/2015 the IPC and the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. For the offence under Section 20 of the U.A.(P) Act, this Court may impose a sentence up to life imprisonment. He further submitted that PW.15 lacked the necessary license to purchase or sell gelatin sticks, which is an offence in itself. There is no evidence to indicate that the gelatin sticks were handed over to the offender, Saddam Hussen. The counsel also pointed out that no witness testified regarding the alleged visit of the US President to India on 26.01.2015, as it was only a fictional claim. Furthermore, the counsel emphasized that the offenders have no past criminal history and are from respectable, educated families. They have small children and did not target any individuals or the State. There are no aggravating circumstances warranting the maximum punishment. The counsel cited the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Bilal Ahmad Mir Vs. National Investigating Agency, New Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3744 in support of his argument for leniency.
7. The learned Special Public Prosecutor argued that a large quantity of explosives, including assembled printed circuit boards, was seized from the offenders. They had meticulously planned a blast during the visit of the US President to India. The offender, Syed Ismail Afaaque, had received training in assembling PCBs abroad. If the investigation had not intervened, the consequences could have been disastrous, resulting in mass destruction and loss of lives. The intent and possession of explosives should not be taken lightly. The offenders had planned attacks on a day of national importance, during the visit 210 Spl.C.No.330/2015 of US President Barack Obama. The Prosecutor argued that leniency should not be granted, as it could encourage others to engage in similar activities. He urged the Court to impose the maximum punishment to deter such acts in the future.
8. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the offenders, their counsel, and the learned Special Public Prosecutor. The Court has also reviewed the decision cited by the offenders.
9. It is a settled principle of law that, while determining the quantum of punishment, the Court must strike a balance between aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The punishment must be proportional to the crime committed. Therefore, it is the Court's duty to impose an adequate sentence that is proportionate to the crime.
10. As per Sections 3 and 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, if an accused is below 21 years of age and has no prior convictions, the Court is required to release the offender on probation, unless there are specific reasons to impose a sentence of imprisonment. However, in the present case, the offenders were not below 21 years of age at the time of the offence, and the minimum punishment is prescribed for the offences committed. Therefore, the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act are not applicable.
11. It is evident from the records that while no prior convictions have been shown, the offenders were not below 21 years of age when the offences were committed. Moreover, the 211 Spl.C.No.330/2015 law prescribes a minimum punishment for these offences, rendering the Probation of Offenders Act and Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. inapplicable in this case.
12. The offender, Syed Ismail Afaaque, is a doctor by profession. He held conspiracy meetings with absconding accused persons to commit jihad and terrorist activities in India. These absconding accused fled the country after 2008 and remain at large. Afaaque married a Pakistani national and visited Pakistan, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, and Sharjah, where he met the absconding accused. In furtherance of the conspiracy, he procured a large quantity of explosive materials, with the assistance of Abdul Saboor and Saddam Hussen, and collected printed circuit boards and electronic components for the planned attacks. Large quantities of explosives, including gelatin sticks, detonators, and ammonium nitrate, were seized from the offenders' residences. Afaaque also collected large sums of Hawala money between 2009 and 2014. His contacts with foreign countries, as revealed by his mobile phone records, are indicative of his international links. Incriminating videos, messages, and files relating to terrorist activities were retrieved from his laptop. These included discussions about the US President's visit to India and plans to carry out attacks on the day of national significance.
13. Upon reviewing the facts and evidence, it is clear that the offenders committed an offence against the nation. Afaaque was the mastermind, while Abdul Saboor and Saddam Hussen 212 Spl.C.No.330/2015 played more limited roles in procuring the explosives. Nonetheless, all offenders were complicit in the crime.
14. The offenders failed to provide any substantial mitigating circumstances, apart from family responsibilities. The learned counsel for the offenders pointed out that they had no prior criminal records, but as the Court has noted, the offenders' antecedents were misrepresented to gain leniency.
15. Records reveal that the offenders have been involved in other serious criminal cases, including Crime No. 28/2011, registered at Antophill, ATS Mumbai, and Crime No. 66/2010, registered at CBI Delhi, indicating that they have misrepresented their past to seek mercy.
16. The learned counsel cited the decision in Bilal Ahmad Mir Vs. National Investigating Agency (2024 SCC OnLine Del 3744), but this Court finds the case inapplicable as the appellants there had pleaded guilty, unlike in the present case.
17. In this regard, this court has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 590, in the case of Mohammad Irfan vs. State of Karnataka, it is held in paragraph 43 as follows :-
"43. The last submission was that there was no occasion for the High Court to enhance the quantum of punishment from seven years which was awarded by the Trial Court to that of life imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 121-A of the IPC.
We have given serious consideration to this submission. The conspiracy as disclosed in the instant matter, if it had been carried out, would have resulted in great damage and prejudice to the life and well-being of the members of the general public as well as loss to the public property. Such conspiracies to cause danger to public property 213 Spl.C.No.330/2015 or to the safety of the members of the general public ought to be dealt with strictly. Considering the acquisition of substantial quantity of arms and explosives as well as the intent disclosed by diary Exh. P- 92, and other materials on record, the High Court was right in enhancing the sentence after accepting the appeal preferred by the State in that behalf."
18. In this decision, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that conspiracies involving arms and explosives, if carried out, would have resulted in significant harm. The Court emphasized that such conspiracies should be dealt with severely to prevent public harm.
19. Applying this principle, the offenders planned to cause blasts during the US President's visit. The consequences of such an attack could have resulted in significant loss of life, destruction, and international fallout, undermining India's global image.
20. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, the Court determines that the offenders should be punished according to the gravity of their crimes.
21. This court can impose a sentence of up to life imprisonment for the offences under Sections 120B and 121A of the IPC, rigorous imprisonment for the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 18, 20, and 23 of the U.A.(P) Act. Additionally, imprisonment of 10 years may be imposed for the offence under Section 38 of the U.A.(P) Act, and seven years for the offence punishable under Section 13 of the U.A.(P) Act. As discussed above, the punishment must be proportionate to the crime committed by the accused. The 214 Spl.C.No.330/2015 sentence should neither be excessively harsh nor unduly lenient, but rather appropriate to the gravity of the offence.
22. This court believes that the ends of justice would be served by imposing the maximum punishment and a fine of Rs. 25,000/- on the offender Syed Ismail Afaaque for the offences under Sections 121A of the IPC and Section 20 of the U.A.(P) Act. For the offenders Abdul Saboor and Saddam Hussen, imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence under Section 121A of the IPC would be proportionate to the crime they committed.
23. Rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- should be imposed on all offenders for the offences under Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, as this punishment is proportionate to the gravity of the crimes they committed.
24. Imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- is appropriate for all offenders for the offences under Section 18 of the U.A.(P) Act, as this punishment is proportionate to the crime committed.
25. Imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- is appropriate for all offenders for the offences under Sections 13 and 23 of the U.A.(P) Act, as this punishment is proportionate to the crime committed.
26. Imprisonment of 3 years and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- should be imposed on all offenders for the offences under 215 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Section 120B of the IPC, as this sentence is proportionate to the crime committed.
27. Finally, imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/- should be imposed on the offender Syed Ismail Afaaque for the offence under Section 38 of the U.A.(P) Act, as this punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. Accordingly, this court proceeds to pass the following:
ORDER The offender, Sri Syed Ismail Afaaque, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Syed Ismail Afaaque, is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 121A of the IPC. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Syed Ismail Afaaque, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years and is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Syed Ismail Afaaque, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under 216 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Syed Ismail Afaaque, is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Syed Ismail Afaaque, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years and is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Syed Ismail Afaaque, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Syed Ismail Afaaque, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.217
Spl.C.No.330/2015 The offender, Sri Syed Ismail Afaaque, is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. In default of payment of the fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Abdul Saboor, and the offender, Sri Saddam Husen, are each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three (03) years and are liable to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC. In default of payment of the fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Abdul Saboor, and the offender, Sri Saddam Husen, are each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and are liable to pay a fine of Rs.
20,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 121A of the IPC. In default of payment of the fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Abdul Saboor, and the offender, Sri Saddam Husen, are each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years and are liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of the fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Abdul Saboor, and the offender, Sri Saddam Husen, are each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 218 Spl.C.No.330/2015 seven (07) years and are liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of the fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Abdul Saboor, and the offender, Sri Saddam Husen, are each sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of seven (07) years and are liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of the fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Abdul Saboor, and the offender, Sri Saddam Husen, are each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and are liable to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. In default of payment of the fine, they shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
The offender, Sri Abdul Saboor, and the offender, Sri Saddam Husen, are each sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten (10) years and are liable to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. In default of payment of the fine, offender shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.
Substantial sentences for all the above offences shall run concurrently.
219Spl.C.No.330/2015 The period of detention undergone by the offenders in judicial custody shall be set off against the term of imprisonment imposed on them, as provided under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.
It is ordered that the documents and M.Os. / properties be preserved until the conclusion of the trial against the other absconding accused persons.
The entire fine recovered is to be applied towards defraying the expenses incurred in the prosecution.
The office is directed to supply a free copy of this judgment to the offenders forthwith through email and send a hard copies of the judgment through post, since the presence of the offenders is secured through Video Conferencing.
Further, the office is hereby directed to issue warrants of conviction against the offenders accordingly.
(Typed by me in my Laptop, corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court on 24th day of December, 2024) (GANGADHARA C.M.), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution :-
PW1 / CW1 Sri K. P. Ravi Kumar PW2 / CW12 Sri Satish Raj 220 Spl.C.No.330/2015 PW3 / CW13 Sri Kalamuddin PW.4 / CW15 Sri Mahesh PW.5 / CW20 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.6 / CW21 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.7 / CW25 Sri Lingappa N Nayaka PW.8 / CW14 Sri H.D.Deepu PW.9 / CW18 Sri Ramesh Era PW.10 / CW17 Sri Eshwar PW.11 / CW24 Sri Siddu Biradar PW.12 / CW28 Sri Sampath PW.13 / CW9 Sri Ameen Sheetal PW.14 / CW29 Sri Charan PW.15 / CW10 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.16 / CW32 Sri Raju PW.17 / CW33 Sri Chandrashekar.R.N PW.18 / CW38 Sri A. Kumar PW.19 / CW5 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.20 / CW35 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.21 / CW6 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.22 / CW37 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.23 / CW2 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.24 / CW3 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.25 / CW4 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.26 / CW8 Sri Umesh PW.27 / CW11 Sri Thomas PW.28 / CW40 Sri Bhavik Rathod PW.29 / CW 52 Sri Mohammed Yasin PW.30 / CW42 Sri Praveen Alva PW.31 / CW53 Sri Nagalingaiah PW.32 / CW45 Sri K. V. Sundaramurthy PW.33 / CW50 Sri Stanley 221 Spl.C.No.330/2015 PW.34 / CW49 Sri Ravi Noronha PW.35 / CW57 Sri Suresh Babu S. S PW.36 / CW55 Sri Sheshashayana M PW.37 / CW82 Sri Chandrashekar PW.38 (Additional Sri K.B.Shashikanth Witness) PW.39 / CW51 Sri Abhiram Belavadi PW.40 / CW48 Sri Rajesh K PW.41 / CW78 Sri Anand Kumar J PW.42 / CW90 Sri Tabrez Ahmed PW.43 / CW105 Sri V.G.Nayak PW.44 / CW96 Sri R. Dilip PW.45 / CW99 Sri H.J. Thippeswamy PW.46 /CW104 Dr. Vani. N PW.47 / CW113 Sri Ravindra D Savakar PW.48 / CW112 Sri Shilpa V PW.49 / CW106 Dr. Kumuda Rani PW.50 / CW118 Sri Johnson D Souza PW.51 / CW100 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.52 / CW101 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.53 / CW102 Not mentioned as per Sec.44 of UAPA PW.54 / CW107 Sri Dilip Kuraikse PW.55 / CW108 Dr.M.S.R.K. Sagar PW.56 / CW115 Sri Ashraf P.M PW.57 / CW116 Sri Purushotama M PW.58 / CW117 Sri Ranganath PW.59 / CW114 Sri Samer Bhonsle PW.60 / CW119 Sri Naveen Parusharam Borkar PW.61 / CW109 Sri Syed Imran Lankha PW.62 / CW97 Sri Prashanth Nayak PW.63 / CW69 Sri K Rama Rao 222 Spl.C.No.330/2015 PW.64 / CW120 Sri M.N.Reddy PW.65 / CW121 Sri K.V. Gagan Deep PW.66 / CW122 Sri H.M. Omkaraiah PW.67 / CW124 Smt. Srividhya PW.68 / CW126 Sri Basavanna.K PW.69 / CW127 Sri M.T. Puttaramu PW.70 / CW128 Sri Bharath Kumar Hegde PW.71 / CW131 Sri Narendra PW.72 / CW.1130 Sri C.N.Suresh Babu PW.73 (Additional Sri K. Ramanna Witness PW.74 / CW.1123 Sri M.K. Thammaiah
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P.1 mahajar
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PWw.1
Ex.P.1(b) Signature of PW.4
Ex.P.1(c) Signature of PW.4's friend Manjunatha
Ex.P.1(d) Endorsement of receipt of PW-45
Ex.P.2 Passport of A1 seized by Pw1
Ex.P.3 Statement of first information made by PW.1
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P3(b) Endorsement and signature of PW-45
Notice given to witnesses Manjunatha &
Ex.P.4
Mahesh
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW.1
Ex.P.5 mahajar
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW.5 on last page of Ex.P.5
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of AEE
Ex.P.5(c) & Signature of two PDO's in the last page of
Ex.P.5(d) Ex.P.5.
223
Spl.C.No.330/2015
Ex.P.5(e) Signature of PW-62
Ex.P.5(f) Signature of PW-66
Ex.P.6 mahajar
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.6(b) Signature of PDO
Ex.P.6(c) Signature of PW-62
Ex.P.6(d) Signature of PW-66
Ex.P.7 mahajar conducted at the house of Affif
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.7(b) Signature of PDO official
Ex.P.7(c) Signature of PW-62
Ex.P.7(d) Signature of PW-66
mahajar conducted at the house of Riyaz
Ex.P.8
Bhatkal
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW.6
Ex.P.8(b) Signature of PDO official
Ex.P.8(c) Signature of PW-62
Ex.P.8(d) Signature of PW-66
Document containing the signatures of PW.6 Ex.P.9 and Natraj Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW.6 Ex.P.9(b) Signature of Natraj Ex.P.9(c) Signature of PW-37 Ex.P.9(d) Signature of ACP Siddappa Ex.P.9(e) Signature of PW-66 (mahajar) Document containing the signature of Ex.P.10 PW-9 Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW-9 Ex.P.10(b) Signature of PW-10 Ex.P.10(c) Signature of PW-62 Ex.P.10(d) Signature of PW-63 224 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Ex.P.10(e) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.11 mahajar conducted by CCB Police at a hotel Ex.P.11(a) Signature of PW-11 mahajar in printed version bearing signatures of Ex.P.12 PW-11 and Mahesh M Kali Ex.P.12(a) Signature of PW-11 Ex.P.12(b) Signature of Mahesh M Kali Ex.P.12(c) Signature of PW-41 Ex.P.12(d) Signature of PW-66 Ex.P.12(e) Signature of PW-74 Printed copy of mahajar conducted by CCB Ex.P.13 Police Ex.P.13(a) Signature of PW-13 Ex.P.13(b) Signature of Rahul Ex.P.13(c) Signature of PW-66 Ex.P.14 mahajar drawn at fruit shop near Unity Hospital Ex.P.14(a) Signature of Rahul Ex.P.14(b) Signature of PW-12 Ex.P.14(c) Signature of PW-66 Panchanama document prepared by Thomas, Ex.P.15 CCB Police Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW-13 Ex.P.15(b) Signature of PW-14 Ex.P.15(c) Signature of PW-66 Ex.P.16 Document prepared at Melagras Church Ex.P.16(a) Signature of PW-14 Ex.P.16(b) Signature of Raghava Ex.P.16(c) Signature of PW-66 Copy of license pertaining to Smt.Saraswathi Ex.P.17 Vasudev Ulekal.
Ex.P.18(1) to Four papers handed over by accused (4) 225 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Ex.P.18(1)(a) to Ex.P.18(4) Signature of PW-16 on Ex.P.18(1) to (4)
(d) Ex.P.18(1)(e) to Ex.P.18(4) Signature of PW-16's friend by name Narasimha
(h) mahajar drawn at a house of an apartment at Ex.P.19 Cox Town Ex.P.19(a) Signature of PW-16 Ex.P.19(b) Signature of PW-16's friend- Narashimha Ex.P.19(c) Signature of PW-45 Ex.P.19(d) Signature of PW-66 Book handed over by the Manager of Mercury Ex.P.20 Electronics to the police Ex.P.20(a) Relevant portion at page No.33 of Ex.P.20 Ex.P.20(b) Signature of PW-17 at page No.33 of Ex.P20 Ex.P.20(c) Signature of PW-17's colleague Officer mahajar prepared at Unit called Mercury Ex.P.21 Electronics Ex.P.21(a) Signature of PW-17 at last page of Ex.P.21 Ex.P.21(b) Signature of PW-17's colleague at last page Ex.P.21(b) Signature of PW-63 Ex.P.21(c) Signature of PW-19 Ex.P.21(e) Signature of PW-74 Book of invoices produced by the Manager of Ex.P.22 Kothari Electronics House to the police Relevant portion bearing invoice No.3730 in the Ex.P.22(a) name of Syed Ismail Ex.P.22(b) Signature of PW-17 at the relevant portion Signature of PW-17's colleague at the relevant Ex.P.22(c) portion.
Ex.P.22(d) Signature of PW-21
Ex.P.23 mahajar prepared at Kothari Electronics House
226
Spl.C.No.330/2015
Ex.P.23(a) Signature of PW-17
Ex.P.23(b) Signature of PW-17's colleague.
Ex.P.23(c) Signature of PW-21
Ex.P.23(d) Signature of PW-63
Ex.P.23(e) Signature of PW-74
Ex.P.24 mahajar dated 23.05.2015
Ex.P.24(a) Signature of PW-18
Ex.P.24(b) Signature of CTO
Ex.P.24(c) Signature of PW-30
Ex.P.24(d) Signature of PW-32 in the last page of Ex.P.24
Signature of HC-3674 in the last page of
Ex.P.24(e)
Ex.P.24
Ex.P.24(f) Signature of PW-63
Ex.P.24(g) Signature of PW-74
Ex.P25 Notice of the proceedings of defuse
Ex.P.25(a) Signature of PW-18
Ex.P.26 TIP proceedings
Ex.P.26(a) Signature of PW-21
Ex.P.26(A) The letter of the Tahsildar and TIP report.
Ex.P.27 Statement recorded u/s.164 before IV MMTC
Ex.P.27(a) Signature of PW-23
Ex.P.28 Statement recorded u/s.164 before IV MMTC
Ex.P.28(a) Signature of PW-24
Ex.P.29 Statement recorded before Magistrate
Ex.P.29(a) &
Signature of PW-25
(b)
Relevant statement given by PW-26 in Kannada Ex.P.30 form Ex.P.31 Statement given by PW-27 Ex.P.32 Notice received from CCB Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW-28 227 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Ex.P.32(b) Signature of PW-56 Ex.P.32(c) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.33 Covering letter furnished by Uber Company Ex.P.33(a) Signature of PW-28 Ex.P.33(b) Signature of PW-74 Letter sent by Law Enforcement Response Ex.P.34 Team of Uber Ex.P.34(a) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.35 Customer Agreement Form Ex.P.36 Driving License Ex.P.37 Customer Information Form Ex.P.38 Report submitted by PW-30 to the IO Ex.P.38(a) Signature of PW-30 Ex.P.38(b) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.39 Reply letter given by PW-31 Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW-31 Ex.P.39(b) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.40 45 Hard copies of photographs Ex.P.41 Sec.65B Certificate issued by PW-32 Ex.P.41(a) Signature of PW-32 Ex.P.42 DVD containing videography done by HC-3674 Details mentioned in page No.449 to 501 at Ex.P.43 Volume 3B of charge sheet Ex.P.43(a) Signature of PW-33 at last page of Ex.P43 Requisition letter sent by ACP, CCB being at Ex.P.44 page No.447 in Volume 3B of charge sheet Covering letter pertaining to Ex.P43 at page Ex.P.45 No.448 in Volume 3B of charge sheet Ex.P.45(a) Signature of PW-33 Relevant certificate issued by PW-33, being at Ex.P.46 page No.502 in volume 3B of charge sheet Ex.P.46(a) Signature of PW-33 228 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Requisition dated 16.06.2015 being at page Ex.P.47 No.503 in volume 3B of charge sheet Covering letter being at page No.504 in volume Ex.P.48 3B of charge sheet Ex.P.48(a) Signature of PW-33 Ex.P.48(b) Signature of PW-74 Details supplied by PW-33 being at page Ex.P.49 No.505 to 527 Ex.P.49(a) Signature of PW-33 Relevant certificate issued by PW-33, being at Ex.P.50 page No.528 in volume 3B of charge sheet Ex.P.50(a) Signature of PW-33 Requisition letter dated 20.06.2015 at page Ex.P.51 No.997 in volume 3B of charge sheet Covering letter being at page No.1013 in volume Ex.P.52 3B of charge sheet Ex.P.52(a) Signature of PW-33 Ex.P.52(b) Signature of PW-74 Relevant details of Ex.P.51 being at page Ex.P.53 No.1014 to 1027 Ex.P.53(a) Signature of PW-33 Ex.P.54 Relevant certificate issued by PW-33 Ex.P.54(a) Signature of PW-33 Ex.P.55 Request letter sent by ACP Thammaiah Ex.P.56 Covering letter addressed to Officer Thammaiah Ex.P.56(a) Signature of PW-34 Ex.P.56(b) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.57 Certificate as per S.65B issued by PW-34 Ex.P.57(a) Signature of PW-34 Call details and GPRS data being at page Ex.P.58 No.120 to 243 in volume 3A of charge sheet Ex.P.59 Requisition letter dated 07.04.2015 229 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Reply letter at page No.246 in volume 3A of Ex.P.60 charge sheet Ex.P.60(a) Signature of PW-34 Ex.P.61 Call details, GPRS data and cell ID details being at page No.333 to 445 in volume 3A of charge sheet Ex.P.62 Call details, GPRS data and cell ID details being at page No.249 to 330 in volume 3A of charge sheet Certificate as per S.65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.63 with respect to Ex.P.61 and 62 issued by PW-34 Ex.P.63(a) Signature of PW-34 Request letter being at page No.560 in volume Ex.P.64 3B of charge sheet Ex.P.64(a) Signature of PW-74 Relevant cell ID details at page No.666 to 900 in Ex.P.65 volume 3B of charge sheet Ex.P.66 Certificate issued u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act, being at page No.665 in volume 3B of charge sheet.
Ex.P.66(a) Signature of PW-34 Ex.P.66(b) Signature of PW-74
Letter dated 08.01.2015 addressed to AEE, Ex.P.67 Bhatkala Ex.P.67(a) Signature of PW-36 Ex.P.68 Sketch of house No.392 prepared by PW-36 Ex.P.68(a) Signature of PW-36 Ex.P.69 Covering letter dated 30.01.2015 Ex.P.69(a) Signature of the then AEE Reservation Chart at page No.264 in Volume-I Ex.P.70 of charge sheet Ex.P.70(a) Signature of PW-38 in Ex.P70 Ex.P.70(b) & Relevant entries in Ex.P.70 berth number 67 &
(c) 70.
230Spl.C.No.330/2015 Document of information at page No.1030 in Ex.P.71 volume 3B of charge sheet Ex.P.71(a) Signature of PW-39 Ex.P.71(b) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.72 Certificate as per Sec.65B issued by PW-39 Ex.P.72(a) Signature of PW-39 Ex.P.72(b) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.73 Covering letter being at page No.2 in volume 3A Ex.P.73(a) Signature of PW-40 Information of CDR from pages No.5 to 114 in Ex.P.74 volume 3A Ex.P.74(a) Signature of PW-40 at last page of Ex.P.74 Certificate as per Sec.65B issued by PW-40, Ex.P.75 being at page No.115 in volume 3A Ex.P.75(a) Signature of PW-40 Covering letter being at page No.938 in volume Ex.P.76 3B Ex.P.76(a) Signature of PW-40 Ex.P.76(b) Signature of PW-74 Information provided by PW-40 at page No.939 Ex.P.77 to 996 in volume 3B Ex.P.77(a) Signature of PW-40 Ex.P.78 Certificate as per Sec.65B issued by PW-40 Ex.P.78(a) Signature of PW-40 Document of Ticket booking history (at pages Ex.P.79 No.290 and 291 in volume-I of charge sheet) Document of Ticket booking history (at pages Ex.P.80 No.292 in volume-I of charge sheet) Document of Covering letter (at pages No.289 in Ex.P.81 volume-I of charge sheet) Ex.P.82 FSL report submitted by Smt.Vani Ex.P.82(a) Signature of PW-46 Ex.P.82(b) Signature of PW-74 231 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Covering letter addressed by PW-44 with Ex.P.83 attested copies of documents Ex.P.83(a) Signature of PW-44 Ex.P.83(b) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.84 Residential details of Smt.Arsala Abeer and her passport details being at page No.222 in volume-I of charge sheet Ex.P.85 Passport validity extension pertaining to Smt.Arsala Abeer being at page No.223 in volume-I of charge sheet Ex.P.86 Attested copy of VISA pertaining to Smt. Arsala Abeer being at page No.224 in volume-I of charge sheet Ex.P.87 Marriage Certificate of Smt. Arsala Abeer and Syed Ismail Afaq being at page No.225 in volume-I of charge sheet Ex.P.88 Attested copy of Residential permit pertaining to Smt.Arsala Abeer being at page No.226 to 229 in volume-I of charge sheet Ex.P.89 Document of FIR Ex.P.89(a) Signature of PW-45 Ex.P.90 Document of sample seal Ex.P.90(a) Signature of PW-46 Covering letter addressed to IO, being at page Ex.P.91 No.334 in volume-I of charge sheet Ex.P.91(a) Signature of PW-47 in Ex.P91 Ex.P.91(b) Signature of PW-74 Statement being at page No.335 to 392 on Ex.P.92 volume-I of charge sheet Covering letter addressed to ACP, CCB, being Ex.P.93 at page No.327 in volume-I of charge sheet Ex.P.93(a) Signature of PW-48 Ex.P.93(b) Signature of PW-74 Details of statement being at page NO.328 to Ex.P.94 331 in volume-I of charge sheet 232 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Requisition letter being at page No.169 to 171 in Ex.P.95 volume-I of charge sheet Ex.P.95(a) Signature of PW-74 Report being at page No.516 to 520 in volume-I Ex.P.96 of charge sheet Ex.P.96(a) Signature of PW-49 Ex.P.96(b) Signature of PW-74 Annexures being at page No.521 to 556 in Ex.P.97 volume-I of charge sheet Ex.P.98 Specimen seal of PW-49's office Ex.P.99 Written requisition Ex.P.99(a) Receipt endorsement of PW-50 Flight details of Air Arabia with covering letter Ex.P.100 dated 15.06.2015 Ex.P.100(a) Signature of PW-54 Covering letter along with information regarding Ex.P.101 A1. Dr. Syed Ismail Signature of PW-55 at page No.281 to 286 in Ex.P.101(a) volume-I of charge sheet Ex.P.101(b) Signature of PW-74 Notice served on GM, HO, ICICI Bank, Ex.P.102 Bengaluru.
Ex.P.102(a) Signature of PW-56 Notice served on GM, SBI, HO, Bengaluru Ex.P.103 dated 06.06.2016 Ex.P.103(a) Signature of PW-56 Notice served on Joint Commissioner, Ex.P.104 Commercial Tax Office, Bengaluru Ex.P.104(a) Signature of PW-57 on back page Notice served on Joint Commissioner, Ex.P.105 Commercial Tax Office, Koramangala Ex.P.105(a) Signature of PW-57 on back page Ex.P.105(a) Signature of PW-74 233 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Rent deed dated 09.05.2014 being at page Ex.P.106 No.422 to 427 Ex.P.106(a) Signature of PW-59 on last page Ex.P.106(b) Signature of Abdul Azeej Lanka Ex.P.106(d) Signature of PW-74 Extract of PW-59's account with HDFC Bank, Ex.P.107 being at page No.428 to 432 Ex.P.107(a) Signature of PW-74 Notice dated 31.10.2016, being at page No.437 Ex.P.108 to 439 Ex.P.108(a) Signature of PW-59 on last page Document pertaining to PW-59 moving his Ex.P.109 furnitures from Bengaluru to Kollapur, being in page No.433 to 436 Ex.P.110 Request letter given by Cw-123 Ex.P.110(a) Signature of PW-60 Certified copy of PF.No.2/2015 with list of Ex.P.111 articles (from page No.28 to 32) Notice served to PW-61's brother, Yaseen Ex.P.112 Lankha on 23.10.2015 by CCB, Bengaluru Signature of PW-61's brother, Yaseen Lankha Ex.P.112(a) on notice Questionnaire submitted to PW-61 by CCB Ex.P.113 Police on 30.06.2015 Ex.P.113(a) Signature of PW-61 Ex.P.113(b) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.114 Sanction Order dated 01.07.2015 Ex.P.114(a) Signature of PW-64 Ex.P.114(b) Signature of PW-74 Sanction Order under Unlawful Activities Ex.P.115 (Prevention) Act, u/S.120B, 121A & section 511 of IPC, dated 02.07.2015.
Ex.P.115(a) Signature of PW-65 on back page Ex.P.115(b) Signature of PW-74 234 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Report dated 09.01.2015, produced by M.K. Ex.P.116 Thammaiah Ex.P.116(a) Signature of PW-66 at page No.5 of Ex.P.116 Ex.P.116(b) Signature of PW-74 Requisition submitted to the court seeking Ex.P.117 permission to add Riyaz Ahmed Sayeedi as A4 in FIR Ex.P.118 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A4 Ex.P.118(a) Signature of A4 Ex.P.118(b) Signature of PW-66 Ex.P.119 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A3 Ex.P.119(a) Signature of A3 Ex.P.119(b) Signature of PW-66 Ex.P.120 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A2 Ex.P.120(a) Signature of A2 Ex.P.120(b) Signature of PW-66 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A1 at Ex.P.121 page No.395 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A1 at Ex.P.121(a) page No.397 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A1 at Ex.P.121(b) page No.398 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A1 at Ex.P.121(c) page No.401 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A1 at Ex.P.121(d) page No.401 at para No.23 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A1 at Ex.P.121(e) page No.401 at para No.24 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A1 at Ex.P.121(f) page No.402 at para No.25 Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A1 at Ex.P.121(g) page No.403 at para No.29 Ex.P.121(h) Signature of A1 Ex.P.121(i) Signature of PW-66 235 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Ex.P.122 to Four Copies of application for search warrant of Ex.P.125 four places Ex.P.122(a) to Signatures of PW-66 Ex.P.125(a) Ex.P.126 Requisition issued to the PI, Bhatkal Ex.P.126(a) Signature of PW-66 Ex.P.127 to Notice issued by PW-66 to four panch witnesses Ex.P.130 Ex.P.127(a) to Signatures of PW-66 Ex.P.130(a) Ex.P.131 Report given by ACP Thammaiah Ex.P.131(a) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.132 Report given by ACP Siddappa Ex.P.132(a) Signature of ACP Siddappa Relevant portion of voluntary statement of A1 Ex.P.133 recorded by PW-66 Ex.P.133(a) Signature of PW-66 The report prepared by PW-67 which is in two Ex.P.134 sheets Ex.P.134(a) One Signature of PW-67 in Ex.P.134 The specimen seal sent by PW-67 along with Ex.P.134(b) Ex.P.134 Ex.P.134(c) Signature of PW-67 in specimen seal The mahajar dated 02.07.2015 which was Ex.P.135 conducted in the CCB office.
Ex.P.135(a) Signature of PW-68 Ex.P.135(b) Signature of PW-74
The letter submitted by Yasin Lanka before the Ex.P.136 police for having produced the cordon box and articles therein.
Ex.P.136(a) Signature of PW-74
Ex.P.137 The mahajar bearing the printouts of video.
Ex.P.137(a) Signature of PW-69
236
Spl.C.No.330/2015
Ex.P.137(b) Signature of PW-70
Ex.P.137(c) Signature of PW-74
The certificate issued u/S.65B of Indian
Ex.P.137A
Evidence Act
Ex.P.137A(a) Signature of PW-74
Ex.P.138 &
Two CDs
Ex.P.138(a)
Ex.P.l38(b) &
Signatures of PW-70 on two CDs
Ex.P.138(c)
The notice issued by ACP Sri. Thammaiah to
Ex.P.139
PW-72.
The documents supplied by PW-72 to ACP Sri. Thammaiah through E-mail (the documents from Ex.P.140 page No.137 to 141 of volume-4 of charge sheet) Ex.P.141 The copy of notification dated 20.05.2013 Ex.P.142 The certified copy of the recommendation report The memo issued by the Joint Commissioner of Ex.P.143 Police (crimes), Bengaluru.
The notice served on PW-9 and PW-10 to act as Ex.P.144 panchas.
Ex.P.144(a) Signature of PW-74
Ex.P.144(b) Signature of PW-9
Ex.P.144(c) Signature of PW-10
The search warrant issued by learned JMFC
Ex.P.145 court, Bhatkal to search the house of Fazila
Mansil at Bhatkal
Ex.P.146 The memo received on 19.01.2015.
The memo received from the Commissioner of Ex.P.147 Police to take up further investigation of this case.
Ex.P.147(a) Signature of PW-74 The request letter to the Divisional Commercial Ex.P.148 Manager, South Western Railway.
237
Spl.C.No.330/2015
Ex.P.148(a) Signature of PW-74
The invoice, along with request letter to FSL, Madiwala, confirmation letter, invoice, list of Ex.P.149 documents, passport, FSL acknowledgment and report of concerned PC (from page No.167, 168, 172 to 178) Ex.P.149(a) Signature of PW-74 in the request letter The copy of CAF of A.1 issued by M/s. Idea Ex.P.150 Cellular with respect to mobile No.9036112335.
Ex.P.150(a) The copy of Aadhar card of A.1
The copy of CAF of A.1 issued by M/s. Tata
Ex.P.151 Tele Services with respect to mobile
No.9886004526.
Ex.P.152 The copy of driving license of A.1
The copy of CAF of A.3 issued by M/s. Tata
Ex.P.153 Tele Services with respect to mobile
No.8867874841 (page No.331)
The copy of driving license of A.3 at page
Ex.P.154
No.332
The request letter along with instructions, confirmation certificate, invoice, copies of Ex.P.155 sample seals, passport, acknowledgment and report of PC from page No.179 to 195.
Ex.P.155(a) Signature of PW-74 on the request letter Ex.P.156 The memo issued to P.I., Sri. Ramrao Ex.P.156(a) Signature of PW-74
The request letter to the Immigration Officer Ex.P.157 (FRRO).
Ex.P.157(a) Signature of PW-74
Ex.P.158 &
The notices issued to CW.133 and CW.134
Ex.P.159
Ex.P.158(a) &
Signatures of CW.133 and CW.134 respectively Ex.P.159(a) The request sent to CFB, Intelligence Bureau Ex.P.160 (MHA), Government of India, its fax confirmation letter and the E-mail copy (page No.233 to 235) 238 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Ex.P.160(a) Signature of PW-74 The request letter sent to the Nodal Officer, Ex.P.161 Vodafone Ltd., The covering letter submitted by Vodafone Ex.P.162 company with respect to mobile No.9886625202.
Ex.P.162(a) Signature of PW-74 The request letter and other related documents Ex.P.163 sent to FSL, Bengaluru (from page No.196 to
208) Ex.P.163(a) Signature of PW-74 The acknowledgment issued by FSL, Ex.P.164 Bengaluru.
Ex.P.164(a) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.165 The report given by the P.C.3377 Ex.P.165(a) Signature of PW-74 The covering letter issued by the Office of the Ex.P.166 Commissioner of Police, Crime Record Bureau. Ex.P.166(a) Signature of PW-74 The request letter to the Superintendent of Ex.P.167 Police, Uttara Kannada District.
Ex.P.167(a) Signature of PW-74 The covering letter and its enclosures sent by Ex.P.168 CFB, Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi (page No.236 to 238) Ex.P.168(a) Signature of PW-74 The detailed report prepared by PW-74 based Ex.P.169 on the travel details of A.1 Ex.P.169(a) Signature of PW-74 The notice sent to Air Arabia and Arab Emirates Ex.P.170 Airlines The notice served on Sri. Afzan Ahmed u/S.43F Ex.P.171 of UA(P) Act Ex.P.171(a) Signature of PW-74 239 Spl.C.No.330/2015 The request letters sent to Yahoo India Pvt. Ltd., Ex.P.172 through E-mail Ex.P.173 The reply letter received from Yahoo.in Ex.P.173(a) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.174 & The E-mail letters sent to Google.inc and Ex.P.175 Google.inc rediff.com India Ltd., The request letter sent to CFB, Intelligence Bureau, MHA, New Delhi regarding traveling Ex.P.176 details of accused No.4 along with fax confirmation letters and its enclosures (page No.240 to 242) Ex.P.176(a) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.177 The statement of Sri. Afzan Ahmed Ex.P.177(a) Signature of PW-74 The certificate issued u/S.65 of Indian Evidence Ex.P.178 Act by PW-74 in respect of Ex.P.100.
Ex.P.178(a) Signature of PW-74 The report under covering letter received from CFB, Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi along with Ex.P.179 enclosures regarding travel details of A4 (from page 243 to 248) Ex.P.179(a) Signature of PW-74 The report prepared by PW-74 based on Ex.P.180 Ex.P.179.
Ex.P.180(a) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.181 The printout of trip booked in Uber account. Ex.P.181(a) Signature of PW-74 The notice sent to Vodafone Company on Ex.P.182 25.06.2015 Ex.P.182(a) Signature of PW-74 The printouts available at page No.470 to 486 of Ex.P.183 the charge sheet (regarding visit of Barack Obama to India) The certificate issued u/S.65 of Indian Evidence Ex.P.184 Act in respect of Ex.P.183 240 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Ex.P.184(a) Signature of PW-74 The notice sent to Vodafone Company on Ex.P.185 27.06.2015 Ex.P.185(a) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.186 The notice Ex.P.186(a) Signature of PW-74 The covering letter and its enclosures received Ex.P.187 from SBI (from page No.490 to 511) Ex.P.187(a) Signature of PW-74 The covering letter and its enclosures (CAF, Voter ID of the subscriber, number migration form, CDR, Data CDR and 65Bcertificate) Ex.P.188 received from M/s. Vodafone Company with respect to mobile No.9901305984 (from page 530 to 548) Ex.P.188(a) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.188(b) Signature of PW-39 Ex.P.188(c) CAF of subscriber Sri. Abdus Sabur Jukaku. Ex.P.188(c)(a) Signature of PW-39 Ex.P.188(d) Identity proof of the subscriber Ex.P.188(d)(a) Signature of PW-39 Ex.P.188(e) Migration form submitted by the subscriber Ex.P.188(e)(a) Signature of PW-39 CDR of mobile number 9901305984 from Ex.P.188(f) 01.11.2014 to 08.01.2015.
Ex.P.188(f)(a) Signature of PW-39 Ex.P.188(g) GPRS report of mobile number 9901305984 Ex.P.188(g)(a) Signature of PW-39 Ex.P.188(h) The certificate issued u/S.65B of Evidence Act. Ex.p.188(h)(a) Signature of PW-39 The report prepared by PW-74 consisting of 39 Ex.P.189 pages (from page No.1042 to 1079 of volume-
3B of the charge sheet) 241 Spl.C.No.330/2015 Ex.P.189(a) Signature of PW-74 The printouts obtained from the website Ex.P.190 "international numbering plans" (page No.1032 to 1040 of volume-3B of the charge sheet) The certificate issued by PW-74 u/Sec. 65B of Ex.P.191 Indian Evidence Act, in respect of Ex.P.190 Ex.P.191(a) Signature of PW-74 The printouts of opinion No.7, 8, 9, 15 and 16 Ex.P.192 and certificate issued u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act.
Ex.P.192(a) Signature of PW-74 The translated copy of 8602 chat conversations Ex.P.193 retrieved from the laptop of A.1 (page No.174 to
264) Ex.P.193(a) Signature of PW-74 The Intelligence report from the Office of Police Ex.P.194 Commissioner, Bengaluru (page No.446 to 449) The printouts of opinion No.7, 8, 9, 15 and 16 of Ex.P.195 Ex.P.96 and the certificate issued u/S.65B of Indian Evidence Act (page No.14 to 99) Ex.P.195(a) Signature of PW-74 The report and enclosures received from the Ex.P.196 Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada District Ex.P.196(a) Signature of PW-74 Ex.P.197 The report received from the P.I., Sri. Ramrao. Ex.P.197(a) Signature of PW-74 The covering letter issued by Vodafone Ex.P.198 company with respect to mobile No.9980427551 The CAF of mobile No.9980427551, identity Ex.P.199 card of the subscriber and mobile number port-
in application.
The CDR of mobile No.9980427551 from
Ex.P.200 10.12.2014 to 17.12.2014 and the certificate
u/S.65B of Evidence Act
242
Spl.C.No.330/2015
The analysis report - Annexure-1A and
Ex.P.201
Annexure-12
Ex.P.201(a) Signature of PW-74
* Ex.P.21(b) marked two times.
* Ex.P.21(d) is missing.
* Ex.P.105(a) marked two times.
* Ex.P.106(c) is missing.
List of Material Objects (M.O.) marked on behalf of prosecution:
M.O.1 Laptop
M.O.2 Mobile phone of A1
M.O.3 Mobile phone of A2
M.O.4 Five mobile power banks (Out of 5 mobile
power banks, 4 are intact and one is
opened)
M.O.5 Mobile phone
M.O.6 Plastic container consisting of substances
used for blasting purposes
M.O.7 Plastic container consisting of same items
which were in the previous box shown.
M.O.8 Sealed cover and bathis
M.O.9 Timer
M.O.10 Soldering gun
M.O.11 Instrument of Walky-Talky
M.O.12 Remnants pertaining to Box No.4 and
assigned with article No.4A
M.O.13 Remnants pertaining to Box No.5 and
assigned with article No.5A
M.O.14 Remnants pertaining to Box No.6 and
assigned with article No.6A
M.O.15 Remnants pertaining to Box No.29 and
assigned with article No.29A
243
Spl.C.No.330/2015
M.O.16 Remnants pertaining to Box No.30 and
assigned with article No.30A
M.O.17 Remnants pertaining to Box No.31 and
assigned with article No.31A
M.O.18 Sample of Control Sand bearing article
No.34
M.O.19 to M.O.23 Article Nos.8 to 12 bearing the report No.CS 432/15 M.O.24 Hard disk of black colour affixed with slip bearing the signature of PW-49 M.O.24(a) Signature of PW-49 M.O.25 Two roles of adhesive tapes (Article No.15) M.O.26 Seventy resistors of different resistances (Article No.16) M.O.27 Eleven circuit boards (Article No.17) M.O.28 Ninety eight printed circuit board assembly (Article No.18) M.O.29 Four silicon rectifier diodes (Article No.19) M.O.30 Seven assembled printed circuit boards (Article No.20) M.O.31 Seven integrated circuits (Article No.21) M.O.32 Eight pin headers (Article No.22) M.O.33 Fifteen polarized capacitors (Article No.23) M.O.34 Ten silicon transistors (Article No.24) M.O.35 Four sensitive Gali Silicon controlled Rectifiers (Article No.25) M.O.36 Thirty six ceramic capacitors (Article No.26) M.O.37 One hundred and fifty printed circuit board assembly (Article No.27) M.O.38 Fifteen Light Emitting Diode (Article No.28) M.O.39 One box produced by Yasin Lanka in the CCB Office (The said box is a carton box and packed by sellotape) 244 Spl.C.No.330/2015 M.O.39(a) Blue colour para-glider which was kept in the said box M.O.39(b) Yellow colour para-glider which was kept in the said box M.O.40 The bag in which articles were kept List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence :-
NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the defence :-
NIL List of Material Objects (MOs) marked on behalf of the defence:-
NIL (GANGADHARA C.M.), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Judge for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) - Bengaluru.
*HRN/-