Bangalore District Court
Therefore vs Had Kept Or Had Under His Control ... on 11 October, 2021
KABC010132012017
IN THE OF COURT OF XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, [SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA CASES],
(CCH-50) BENGALURU
DATED : 08th October, 2021
PRESENT:
Dr. Kasanappa Naik, M.A., LL.M., Ph.D.,
XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
[Special Court for trial of NIA Cases],
Bengaluru.
SPL.C.C.No.223/2017
The State of Karnataka
By Vyalikaval Police Station,
(CCB), Bengaluru. ... Complainant
(By : Learned Spl. Public Prosecutor)
V/s.
1. Mr. Nainar Abbas Ali @ Appas Ali ... Accused No.1
@ Library Abbas,
S/o Mr. Nainar Mohammed,
Aged about 30 years,
R/at H.No.11/23, 4th Street,
Ismailpuram, Munisalai,
Nelpettai, Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
2. Mr. M. Samsun Karim Raja @ Karim ... Accused No.2
@ Abdul Karim,
S/o Mr. Jainulabddin,
Aged about 25 years,
Present address : No.44, 1st Street,
Manmalaimedu, K. Pudur,
Madurai, Tamilnadu.
Permanent address : No.17,
RamaKothanur Compound,
Vishwanatha Nagar, K. Pudur,
Madurai, Tamilnadu.
2
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
3. Mr. Mohammed Ayub @ Minto Ayub, ... Accused No.3
S/o Mr. Mohamed Dhaslim,
Aged about 25 years, Not charge-sheeted
R/at No.8, Karapaga Vinayagar Koil and dropped
1st, Island Nagar, 2nd Cross Street,
K-Pudur, Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
4. Mr. S. Shamsudeen @ Karuva, ... Accused No.4
S/o Mr. S. Manickam @ Sikander,
Aged about 25 years, (Investigation is
R/at No.13-C, Keelavazhaveethi, pending against him
Opposite to Water Tank, under Section 173(8) of
B1 Vilakuthoon PS, Nelapattai, Cr.P.C.)
Madurai, Tamil Nadu.
5. Mr. S. Dawood Sulaiman, ... Accused No.5
S/o Mr. Dawood Sait Mohammed
Abdulah,
Aged about 26 years,
Present address : No.4-295,
Radio Colony, Palavakkam,
Chennai, Tamilnadu.
Permanent address : No.23,
Karim Raja(A.2), Shah Masjid,
1st Street, Vilakkuthoon PS,
Nellpettai, Madurai, Tamilnadu.
(By : Sri Junaid Ahamad, Advocate
for Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5)
1. Nature of Offence : 120-B of the IPC, Sections
465, 468 and 471 r/w
Section 120-B of the IPC,
Sections 16(1) (b), 18, 18-B,
20 and 23 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967, Sections 3, 4, and 5 of
the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908 r/w Section 120-B
of the IPC and Section 4 of
the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984.
2. Date of Commission of : 01.08.2016
Offence
3
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
3. Date of F.I.R. 1. First FIR in Crime
No.63/2016registered by
Lakshimpuram Police
Station, Mysuru on
01.08.2016.
2. Second FIR in RC
03/2016/NIA/HYD
registered by NIA on
20.09.2016
4. Date of Arrest of the : A1 28.11.2016
Accused A2 28.11.2016
A5 28.11.2016
5. Name of the complainant : Sri Krishna
6. Date of Commencement :
of Evidence 16.02.2018
7. Date of Closure of Evidence 08.07.2021
8. Date of Pronouncement of : 08.10.2021
Judgment
Order on sentence :
pronounced 11.10.2021
9. Result of the Case : Acting under Section 235 (2)
of Cr.P.C., the accused Nos.1,
2 and 5 are convicted
(Dr. KASANAPPA NAIK),
XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
(Special Court for trial of NIA Cases),
(CCH-50) Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
The Superintendent of Police and the Chief Investigation Officer, National Investigation Agency (hereinafter referred as 'NIA' for short), Hyderabad, Ms. Pratibha Ambedkar, IPS (PW.28) has filed 4 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 the charge-sheet against accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B r/w 465, 468 and 471 of the IPC, Sections 16, 18, 18-B, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to, in short, as 'UAPA'), Sections 3, 4, 4(b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w Section 23 of the UAPA and Section 120-B of the IPC r/w Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under :-
01.08.2016 is a terrific day for the people of the city of Mysuru, which is considered as the 'cultural capital of Karnataka'.
On that day, at about 4:10 pm., an explosion was caused by unknown persons by exploding a bomb at the Public Toilet Room situated in the Court Premises at Mysuru and in this regard, in pursuance to the complaint at Ex.P1 filed by P.W.1 - Sri Krishna, son of Mahadeva, the SHO of Lakshmipuram Police Station, Mysuru, Sri P.M. Siddaraju/ PW.2, registered a case in Crime No.63/2016 under Sections 120-B, 121 and 121-A of the IPC, Sections 3, 10, 13, 15, 18 and 20 of UAPA, Sections 3 and 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and issued FIR at Ex.P3.
It is further seen that, considering the gravity of the offences and as per the order passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, 5 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Government of India, dated 15.09.2016 (Ex.P.40), the investigation of this case was taken up by the NIA which re-registered the case in R.C.No.03/2016/NIA/HYD, dated 20.09.2016 and issued FIR at Ex.P41.
The case of the prosecution further reveals that, these accused persons have come together as a part of the outfit called 'base movement', which was founded by Abbas Ali/accused No.1 and Dawood Sulaiman/accused No.5 and was joined by the other three accused persons later. The said outfit was named as 'base movement' after 'Al-Qaeda', which means 'base.' The said outfit used the photograph of Osama Bin Laden on all its letters and videos with 'Al-Qaeda' written in Arabic and English. The aim and objective of the said outfit was to send messages to the Government or to warn them against the atrocities being perpetrated against Muslims, by different organs of the Government. Further, it is relevant to mention that, the accused are immensely aggrieved by the hanging of one 'Yakub Abdul Razzaq Memon' (an Indian gangster and terrorist who was convicted over his involvement in the 1993 Bombay bombings by Special TADA Court on 27th July, 2007) by the Government of India. In order to take revenge for the same, they aimed to cause an explosion at Mysuru Court Complex, as a part of their terrorist acts and anti-national activities. There is an allegation that, all the 6 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 accused persons together conspired to conduct terrorist activities by exploding bombs at various places in the Country and targeted the judiciary. In furtherance of the said conspiracy, they had conspired to plant Improvised Explosive Device/IED on many occasions and had placed them at different premises with an intention to terrorize the people. Mysuru Court explosion incident, dated 01.08.2016 is one among them. The accused had carried out blasts at five different Court premises in South India. Thus, there is a specific allegation against these accused persons that, being the members of the terror outfit 'base movement,' they have carried out the bomb blast at Mysuru Court premises on 01.08.2016, as a part of their terrorist activities.
It is the further case of the prosecution that, IED was prepared by accused No.1 Abbas Ali, who is the Ameer of the outfit and he, being the main conspirator, had learnt the procedure of preparing bombs from his earlier associates namely Abu Bakar Siddique. The raw materials to prepare bombs were purchased by accused No.2 - M. Samsun Karim Raja @ Karim and accused No.5 Dawood Sulaiman. Accused No.2 had purchased crackers and pressure cooker, whereas, the accused No.5 had purchased the timer for the preparation of IED. Both of them had assisted accused No.1 in segregating explosive powder from the crackers 7 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 and handing over the same to him for preparation of bombs. The decision to plant the bomb at Mysuru Court premises was taken by accused No.1 and he had assigned the task of reconnaissance to accused No.2 to conduct a recce of Mysuru Court Complex almost two weeks before the blast. The accused No.2, after recce, showed the video to accused No.1, who then assigned the task of planting the bomb at Mysuru Court premises to accused No.5. The accused No.1 also asked accused No.3 to send messages from Malappuram in Kerala. The accused No.5 accordingly, went to Mysuru Court Complex and planted bomb in public lavatory and the same exploded. It is contended that all the accused were arrested and the statement of accused No.3 under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C., was recorded by the of 18th ACMM, Bengaluru, on 23.02.2016, wherein, the accused No.3 has confessed his acquaintance with other co- accused and all further details of the crime. There is allegation that these accused persons are also involved in the bomb blasts caused at Chittoor Court, Kollam Court, Nellore Court and Malappuram Court on various dates. A detail investigation was conducted by the I.O., who collected relevant oral and documentary evidence and had filed the charge-sheet for the offences as mentioned above.
3. The prosecution has filed the charge-sheet against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5. Whereas, against accused No.3 - Mohammed Ayub, though there is allegation of his contribution in 8 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 criminal act, considering the fact that accused No.3 expressed his willingness to become an approver and since he had already given his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., making a full disclosure of the facts related to this crime, and since his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., has considerably strengthened the evidence available against other co-accused persons, he was chosen not to be prosecuted at this stage and he was entitled to be examined as a witness in support of the case of the prosecution and accordingly, he has been examined as PW.27 in this case. The accused No.4 - S. Shamsudeen @ Karuva were chosen to be not charge-sheeted and stating that the investigation against him is pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. The order sheet dated 15.07.2017 discloses that the Court has ordered that the case against this accused No.3 - Mohammed Ayub @ Minto Ayub and accused No.4 - S. Shamsudeen @ Karuva be dropped for want of their names in the charge-sheet and has further ordered that they shall not be produced in future and that they are set at liberty. Thereafter, it is seen that the case against accused Nos.3 and 4 is not proceeded with and as already narrated, the learned Special Public Prosecutor himself, during his arguments, has stated that they have dropped the prosecution against accused No.3 as he has turned approver and strengthened the case of the prosecution.
9
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
4. The presence of the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 is secured through Judicial custody. The prosecution papers are duly served on the accused as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Thereafter, following charges are framed :-
1) That, you accused No.1 Nainar Abbas Ali @ Abbas Ali @ Library Abbas having worked for AI Muthaqueem Force (AMF) an outfit/Terrorist Gang during 2011-14 and having got attracted to the activities of the said AMF, the 1 st of you had decided to do something to warn the Government and its departments and therefore the 1 st of you had formed an outfit called Base Movement on 26.01.2015 at Madurai with an intention to send messages of threats and messages of warnings to the Government and its departments particularly the department of Prison and in continuation of such formation of Base Movement the 1st of you had chosen S.Dawood Sulaiman the accused No.5 of you, the then Engineering student for the said Base Movement and further, the accused No.1 of you had also Recruited Samsun Karim Raja the accused No.2 of you, Mohammed Ayub and Shamsuddin Kuruva by administering Oath to them and thereby the accused No.1 of you have committed an offence of Recruiting any person or persons for Terrorist act punishable U/Sec.18B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and within the cognizance of this Court ;
2) That, the accused No.2 & 5 of you along with Mohammed Ayub and Shamsuddin Kuruva, who were made as accused persons in FIR, having full knowledge that the Organization Base Movement found by accused No.1 of you, had the intention of preparation for and commission of Terrorist Activities, deliberately joined the said Base Movement and thereby the accused No.2 & 5 of you have committed offence of Being Member of Terrorist Gang and Organization, punishable U/Sec.20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and within the cognizance of this Court ; 10
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
3) That, having formed Base Movement, the Terrorist Organization and after becoming the Members of the same, the accused No.1, 2 & 5 of you along with Mohammed Ayub and Shamsuddin Kuruva, have conspired
(a) to send messages of warning and messages of threatening to the Governments and its departments, particularly the department of Prison, in retaliation of arrest of Muslim accused persons in the cases related to Attack on the BJP leader Mr.L.K. Advani and other important National Security cases,
(b) to oppose the visit of French President, Francois Hollande to India on the occasion of Republic Day,
(c) to oppose the publishing of Cartoon by Charlie Hebdo in Dinamalar Newspaper and
(d) to carry out blasts at different Complexes in Southern India;
and thereby accused No.1, 2 and 5 of you along with the above said Mohammed Ayub and Shamsuddin Kuruva, have committed offence of Criminal Conspiracy punishable U/Sec.120B of Indian Penal Code r/w offence of Conspiracy punishable U/Sec.18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 and within the cognizance of this Court;
4) That, having conspired so as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, the 1st accused of you with a knowledge of accused No.2 & 5 of you and of others forged the Voter ID issued in the name of Andony Raj with address 3/12, 6, Avanu, Kalapakkam, on different occasions by changing the photographs, name and address by using Computer Technology and thereafter, all of you in furtherance of your Criminal Conspiracy and by using such forged voters ID's, you have purchased 6 different Mobile SIM cards i.e., -
7358312474, 7358483823, 8015784159, 7397465869, 9003591722, 9962910866 - and 11 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 you had been using the said SIMS with 3 different Mobile sets having International Mobile Equipment Identities (IMEI's) -
860205026390630, 860205026390620, 911459502082790 - and by using the above said SIMS and Mobile phones, you have created Facebook accounts -base.base.34 and Mohammed Mohammed and having done all these things, you had used the above said SIMS, Mobile phones and Facebook accounts for sending messages of threats, messages of warning to the Heads of different Department of Governments and thereby all of you have committed offence of forgery and also offence of using the forged document as genuine document punishable U/Sec.465, 468 and 471 r/w Sec.120B of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court ;
5) That, all of you in furtherance of your Conspiracy as aforementioned, had caused two Bomb blasts at different parts of Southern India on different dates prior to 01.08.2016. That, thereafter in order to avenge the Hanging of Yakub Memon, the 1st accused of you have decided to cause 3 rd IED blast at Mysore Court Premises, the first accused and accused No.5 of you had purchased materials for preparation of IED, and the accused No.1 of you having had the knowledge of preparation of IED, you had prepared an IED at the house of Mohammed Ayub and possessed the said prepared IED and thereby all of you have committed an offence of Making or keeping explosives with intended to endanger of life or property punishable U/Sec.4 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908 and within the cognizance of this Court ;
6) That the accused No.2 of you, basing upon the instructions of accused No.1 of you, had examined and conducted survey of the Court premises at Mysore on a day 2 weeks prior to 01.08.2016 and accused No.2 of you took videos and photos of the premises of the parking area, besides identifying the location of CCTV cameras, the entries to and exists from the premises. 12
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 That, in furtherance of your said common intention and Criminal Conspiracy, the accused No.1 of you having had prepared the IED, had handed over the same to accused No.5 of you on a day prior to 01.08.2016, the day on which Mysore blast had occurred. That the accused No.5 of you having received the IED, left Aryapalayam for Mysore by bus and accordingly you reached premises of Mysore City, between 2 to 2.15 pm on 01.08.2016 and on the same day, by taking all precautions to avoid your identification, you went into the public toilet, situated near the small gate of complex, same day, time and you placed the IED in one of the toilets. The said IED exploded on 01.08.2016 itself and caused damage to the public property. Therefore, all of you have committed offence of 'Terrorist act' punishable U/Sec.16(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 r/w Sec.3, 4 & 5 the Explosive Substances Act r/w Sec.120B of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court ;
7) That, all of you being the members of the above said Base Movement, the Terrorist Organization/Association, have aided each other in preparing IED at the house of Mohammed Ayub @ Minto Ayub and in possessing the same besides raw materials to prepare IED at the said house and thereby all of you have violated the provisions of the Explosives Substances Act and hence all of you have committed offence punishable U/Sec.23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 r/w Sec.120B of Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of this Court;
8) That, all of you in the manners mentioned in the preceding paragraphs, caused the bomb blast on 01.08.2016 at Mysore Court Premises which in turn caused damage to the public property.
Therefore, all of you have committed an offence punishable U/Sec.4 of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and within the cognizance of this Court.
13
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
5. The above said charges were read over and explained to the accused. The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined in all 28 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.28, got marked Ex.P1 to P272 and MO.1 to MO.74 for prosecution. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has given up CW.3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 to 15, 17, 20 to 27, 31 to 33, 36 to 38, 41, 42, 45 to 49, 51, 52, 57 to 84, 87 to 97, 99 to 110, 112 to 118, 123 to 127, 130 to 139 and CW.141 to 185. After the evidence of prosecution was closed, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., was recorded through video conference. The accused have denied every incriminating circumstance appearing against them. The accused have submitted their common written statement through their counsel. They have neither chosen to lead any evidence in their defence nor have they produced any documents. Total denial of the case of prosecution and their false implication is the defence of the accused.
7. Having heard the arguments of the learned Special Public Prosecutor and counsel for the accused, I have carefully perused the written arguments filed by the counsel for the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 and entire materials on record.
8. It is seen that, the learned counsel for the accused has not chosen to address the oral arguments and submitted that the 14 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 matter be taken as heard and to pass suitable orders. Thus, I have no benefit of hearing the final arguments of the counsel for the accused.
9. The points that arise for my consideration are as follows:-
POINTS
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons together formed a terrorist gang and were involved in terrorist activities by hatching conspiracy to commit terrorist activities and committed terrorist act as defined under S.15 of the UAPA and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.18, 18B and S. 20 of UAPA?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused No.1 to 5 hatched a conspiracy to plant IED at the premises of Mysuru Court to aid their terrorist activities being a terrorist gang and thereby committed the offence punishable under S.120B of the IPC and S. 16(1)(b) and S. 23 of the UAPA r/w S.120B of the IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused are responsible for causing damage to the public properties, both movable and immovable with explosive substances and thus committed the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984?
4. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 committed forgery and purchased 6 different mobile SIMs and used the same in 3 different mobile sets and created Facebook accounts Base.base.334 and Mohammed mohammed and 15 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 thereby issued threatening messages to different government agencies and used the said SIMs as genuine and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, 471 r/w S.120B of the IPC?
5. Whether the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 hatched a criminal conspiracy in order to cause an explosion at the Mysuru Court Complex by using explosives though knowing the such explosion may endanger the human life or property and kept such explosives at a public toilet within the Mysuru Court Complex after making such explosives and possessing the same and thereby committed the offence punishable under section 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908?
10. My findings on the above points are as under:-
Point No.1 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.2 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.3 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.4 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.5 : In the Affirmative;
Point No.6 : As per the final order,
for the following:-
REASONS
11. Point Nos.1 to 5 :- As these points are interlinked to each other, I have taken them together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts and evidence on record.
12. The learned Special Public Prosecutor has contended that, the prosecution is successful in establishing the guilt of the accused persons for the offences charged against them with the 16 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 help of oral as well as documentary evidence. It is argued that the accused No.1 formed a terrorist outfit namely Base movement which is a terrorist gang as per the provisions of S.2(l) of the UAPA and the same was operating clandestinely and it was proved by the prosecution with the help of oral and documentary evidence that accused No.1 to 5 together formed such terrorist gang. It is argued that, the extraction proceedings from the laptop and mobile phones of the accused persons have amply proved that the accused persons were a terrorist gang and sent various messages to various persons including public authorities, warning them of attack to take revenge against the death of various terrorists including Burhan Wani encountered by the Jammu and Kashmir Police. Accused No.1 instigated accused No.5 to plant bomb at Mysuru Court premises and as per his directions, accused No.2 conducted a recce of Mysuru by visiting Mysuru Court Premises and thus, the accused persons have hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence involved in this case. It also argued that the offences committed by the accused persons clearly constitute a terrorist act as defined under S.15 of the UAPA and punishable under S.16(b) of UAPA. The conspiracy hatched by the accused persons to commit terrorist act has also been established with the help of the communications between the accused persons through their mobile phones and in this regard there is evidence for the PW.27, the approver, who is 17 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 accused No.3 in this case. Therefore, the prosecution has established the offence under S.18 of the UAPA. Further, it is argued that accused No.1 recruited accused No.2 to 5 for the purpose of carrying out recce and so also planting bomb. There is evidence to show that accused No.2 prepared the bomb as per the instructions of accused No.1 and thus, even the prosecution is able to establish the offence under 18-B of UAPA. It is argued that accused Nos.1 to 5, being the members of a terrorist gang as defined under S.2(l) are liable to be punished. It is argued that, accused No.2 and accused No.5 having knowledge of base movement formed by accused No.1 joined such movement. Thus, the documents Ex.P.94, 116, 142, 144, 162, 163, 179, 180, and 192 clearly establish the charge under S.20, UAPA.
13. Finally, it is argued that accused No.1 forged the voter ID in the name of Andony Raj by changing photograph, name and address, which is amply proved by the evidence of PW.19 and with the help of documents Ex.P15 and 16. Further, there is evidence of PW.28 through whom CAF of various mobile numbers as shown in Ex.P81, 82, 85 and Ex.P86 and it is amply proved that by producing fake IDs, those SIM cards were procured. In this regard, there is evidence of PW.26, that with the help of 3 mobile phones containing 6 mobile numbers, accused No.1 used to send threatening messages. Thus, the Facebook details obtained by PW.28 amply 18 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 establish that accused No.1 forged the documents and obtained SIM cards and used them as genuine documents with a conspiracy to commit terrorist acts and thus the prosecution established offences under 465, 468, 471 r/w S.120-B of the IPC. Further, it is argued that the act of accused No.2 conducting survey of premises of Mysuru Court, taking photos and videos and thereafter, planting bomb at the public toilet situated within the premises of Mysuru Court Complex, is an offence under Ss.3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act. The prosecution has proved by producing documents Ex.P-94, 162 and 163. the pointing out mahazar witnesses PW.22, 23, 24 and PW.25 with the help of mahazars Ex.P29, 30 and Ex.P31 further establish carrying out of terrorist acts. Apart from the above, PW.1 and 5 have identified accused No.5 for having visited the public toilet situated at the premises of Mysuru Court both in the Court hall and whereas PW.5 in Test Identification Parade (TIP) held at Central Prison, Bengaluru has identified accused No.5. PW.13, the auto driver who has dropped accused No.5 to Mysuru Court from picking him at Chamarajapura Railway Station amply prove the visit of accused No.5 to Mysuru Court on the date of incident which clearly establish his visit to the spot with IED and planted bomb which exploded on the very date of incident. It is further argued that, the accused persons aided each other in conducting survey of Mysuru Court Premises and 19 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 thereafter, planted bomb with the help of each other and thus, the offence under S.23 of the UAPA is also established. PW.27, the approver, has deposed that, his house was used by accused No.1 to prepare bomb and even the swabs lifted from the house of accused No.1 and chicken shop of accused No.2 indicate that the accused were in the habit of preparing bombs and that these accused persons are responsible for the bomb blasts that took place at Nellore Court, Malappuram Court, Chittoor Court, Kollam Court and finally at Mysuru Court. The planting and blast of IED being established with the help of oral and forensic reports the offences under Sectins 3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act is established. Extensive damage has been caused to the lavatory of the Court premises, Mysuru and further, the passers by of the road situated near the lavatory have sustained injuries. Thus, the provisions of S.4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act is made out and in this regard there is satisfactory evidence by PW.1 and documentary evidence Ex.P1, 5 and 8. Hence, it is contended that the accused have committed a terrorist act and since they have chosen law Courts to carry out terrorist activities which amounts to an assault on the judiciary, this Court shall not take a lenient view in awarding sentence and thus it was prayed that the accused persons be punished with maximum imprisonment provided for the offences with which the accused are charged and to impose 20 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 maximum fine. Thus, the prosecution prayed for the conviction of the accused persons.
14. It is also argued that the accused persons in this case had filed individual applications for pleading guilty for the offences alleged against them and they had even filed their respective affidavits for pleading guilty. Such being the case, this is also one of the circumstances to hold the accused guilty for the alleged offences.
15. While concluding the arguments the learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted that the investigation agency no more treats accused No.3 as accused in this case since he has disclosed all the information known to him as an approver and that he is dropped.
16. Thus, the entire perusal of oral evidence as well as documentary evidence makes it clear that the prosecution has documentary evidence in support of its case and there is no serious lacuna.
17. Before entering into discussion of the merits of the case, it is worth to discuss about the sanction accorded to prosecute the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 for the offences provided under chapter 4 and 6 of the UAPA as well as the offences under Explosive Substances Act, 1908 as it is a condition precedent to 21 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 obtain sanction to prosecute some offences punishable under the provisions of both the above said Acts.
18. In this case, apart from other charges, there is a specific charge against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. As per Section 7 of the said Act, no Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the District Magistrate. In this case, the prosecution has produced Ex.P228 in the evidence of PW.28 which indicates that the District Magistrate of Madurai, Tamil Nadu, has issued sanction for prosecution on 16.03.2018 under S.7 of the said Act, giving consent to prosecute these Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 to prosecute them for the offences under Ss.4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. Thus, the prosecution has complied with the requirements of S.7 of the Act. Further, apart from the above, the prosecution has also produced consent letter dated 08.12.2017 as per Ex.P188 which discloses that the permission to prosecute these accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 has been given by the Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Mysuru for the offences punishable under S.3, 4 and 5 of Explosive Substances Act. Further, the prosecution produced Ex.P187, dated 23.05.2018, whereunder, permission to prosecute the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 was sought under S.7 of the Explosive Substances Act, as required under S.7 of the Explosive Substances 22 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Act. Ex.P188 is supported by a detailed order of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru. Thus, the oral evidence of P.W.28 coupled with the documentary evidence of Ex.P187, 188 and Ex.P228 make it abundantly clear that the prosecution has obtained valid sanction against these accused persons under section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, to prosecute them for the offences under Ss.3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. PW.1 was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused but it is seen that there is no cross-examination on the aspect of sanction and the validity of Ex.P-187, 188 and 228 has not been disputed. Absolutely, there is no challenge about the sanction issued. Therefore, it is to be held that the prosecution has established that they have obtained a valid sanction.
19. Further, in this case, there is a charge against these accused persons for the offences under Sections 18, 18-B, 20, 16(1)
(b) and 23 of UAPA. In order to prosecute the accused persons for the aforesaid offences, the prosecution is required to produce a valid sanction under Section 45(1)(ii) of the UAPA as the offence under S.16, 18, 18-B, 20, 16(1)(b) are in Chapter 4 of the UAPA. The prosecution is required to obtain sanction from the State or the Central Government as per the provisions of S.45(1)(ii) of UAPA. Here in this case, the prosecution produced Ex.P186 - the sanction order issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs 23 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 (Internal Security-I Division), dated 22.05.2017, whereunder, sanction to prosecute accused No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 16, 18, 18-B, 20 and 23 of the UAPA and accused No.2 and 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 16, 18, 20 and 23 of the UAPA, has been granted by the Under Secretary to the Government of India. Therefore, the prosecution has obtained valid sanction from the Government of India, to prosecute the accused persons under the concerned provisions of the UAPA. Even in the cross-examination of P.W.28, through whom this document is produced, the learned counsel for the accused has not disputed about the prosecution obtaining valid sanction. Therefore, there being no dispute about the availment of sanction from the competent authorities, it is to be held that the prosecution has complied with the provisions of Section 45(1)
(ii) of the UAPA. Since there is no dispute about the availment of sanction under S.45(1)(ii) of UAPA, the question of considering further compliance of S.45(2) of UAPA does not arise.
20. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, accused No.1 formed a terrorist outfit namely 'base movement' and to achieve its objectives, recruited accused No.2 and accused No.5 and thereby, administered oath to them in order to be loyal to him for causing terrorist activities. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that the accused No.1 was running a library wherein, 24 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 there were books which create communal hatred and also instigate the readers to commit 'Jihadi' activities. It is alleged that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit unlawful activities and are responsible for carrying out bomb blasts at various s including at the public toilet, situated in the premises of Mysuru Court Complex. So far as criminal conspiracy is concerned, there being charge under Section 18 of the UAPA, the same reads as under :-
"18. Punishment for conspiracy, etc.--Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites 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."
21. Thus, in order to establish an offence under Section 18 of the UAPA, the prosecution has to establish conspiracy and so also, advises, facilitation of commission of the terrorist act or any act preparatory to commit the terrorist act. The term 'terrorist act' has been defined under Section 15 of the UAPA. The terrorist act, as defined, includes the acts which threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of people in India etc. Using of bombs and other explosive substances to carryout such acts, would amount to terrorist act, if they are likely to cause death 25 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 or injury to any person, loss or damage to property etc. In this case, to establish the terrorist activities of the accused, the prosecution has examined 28 witnesses and produced voluminous documents. The prosecution has produced oral evidence of following witnesses, whose evidence is appreciated as under :-
22. PW.1 - Sri Krishna, the material witness of the prosecution has given evidence that on 01.08.2016, during the lunch hour, to have lunch, he had visited his mother who was then working at the public toilet situated within the Court Complex of Mysuru city. At that time, his father was present. At about 03:30 PM, his father and himself returned to the said toilet and his parents told him to remain at toilet to attend the visitors and they went to home. He deposed that, at about 04:10 PM, his younger brother and himself heard a sound of blast from the inside the public toilet. Hearing the sound, advocates and the public came to the spot and he was restrained from entering into toilet. Thereafter, the local Police visited the spot and conducted an enquiry and also gathered information from him. He narrated the incident and the same was type written by the Police which is the complaint marked as Ex.P.1. He has identified his signature on the complaint.
23. He also deposed that, the Police again visited the spot of incident and during this time, they seized glass pieces, iron 26 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 pieces, brick pieces, mud samples, clothes, window frames, footwear etc. from the spot. Regarding the seizure, he deposed that the Police prepared a mahazar marked as Ex.P.2. The said articles were seized and sealed which are shown to him in the open Court and he identified the said articles which are marked as MO-1 to 7. MO-1 is a pant cloth, MO-2 is a white colour towel cloth, MO-3 are footwear, MO-4 is asbestos sheets, MO-5 are brick pieces, glass pieces are MO-6 and window iron frame is marked as MO-7. The sealed articles were bearing slips and his signature.
24. The witness was subjected to a lengthly cross- examination by learned counsel for the accused, but the witness has given accurate answers to all the questions and has also provided all the particulars asked by learned counsel for the accused. Virtually, it has been elicited that there is nothing to doubt his evidence. There is a suggestion that, the intensity of the blast was so high that if any person were to be inside the toilet such person would have died and P.W.1 has admitted the said suggestion. By this suggestion, the defence admits that, there was an explosion at the public toilet and that its intensity was very high. On being called upon by the learned counsel for the accused to point out whether any one of the accused was present at the toilet at the time of the blast, the witness successfully identified accused No.5 who was produced on video conference along with two other 27 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 accused persons. He has denied that without knowing any facts and nature of blasts, he is giving false evidence before the Court at the instance of the Police. However, a careful perusal of his evidence indicates that, his evidence inspires confidence and his credit has not been shaken anywhere. No reason has been elicited for this witness to falsely implicate A-5 in the crime. The evidence at hand indicates that, the blast which took place at Mysuru Court premises is proved by number of relevant evidence and his evidence cannot be doubted. Thus, by the evidence of this witness, the prosecution has established that this witness is an eye witness to the incident and has given complaint as PW.1 and also established that Mahazar- Ex.P.2 was conducted in his presence and MO-1 to MO-7 were seized in his presence.
25. PW.2 - Sri P.M. Siddaraju was the Police Inspector of Laxmipuram Police Station in Mysuru at the relevant point of time. He was also the then SHO of the said Police Station. He has given evidence that, on 01.08.2016 at 05:30 PM, P.W.1 was present in the Police Station and his oral version was reduced into type writing and FIR was registered in crime No.63/2016 which is marked as Ex.P.3. The witness, thereafter proceeded to conduct investigation, summoned Panchas viz. Maheshwara/CW-3 and Manjunatha/CW-4 and also PW.1 and that on the spot, he conducted Mahazar - Ex.P.2 between 06:30 PM., and 08:00 PM., and that he seized the material 28 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 objects under Ex.P.2 and reported seizure under PF No. 24 of 2016 which is marked as Ex.P.4. Thereafter, as per the directions of his superior officers he handed over the investigation to Sri C. Mallik/ CW-109, who was the ACP of K.R. Sub-division, Mysuru.
26. Even this witness was subjected to a thorough cross- examination by the learned counsel for the accused but nothing was elicited which makes his evidence doubtful. He has deposed about the time when he received the information, when he visited the spot, how he secured Panchas etc. His evidence is clear, cogent and inspires confidence. The receipt of first information, its registration, issue of FIR, conduct of Mahazar and recovery of material objects is amply proved and therefore, considering the limited role played by this witness, there is no need of much discussion to appreciate the evidence of this witness. The evidence of PW.2 corroborates the evidence of PW.1. Though this witness was cross-examined at a great length, nothing could be elicited to doubt the veracity of his evidence.
27. P.W.3 - Mrs. Suma R, is the employee of Credit Co- operative society of employees and particularly, she is the Secretary of the said society. The society is situated within the premises of Mysuru Court Complex. The witness has deposed categorically that on 01.08.2016, at abut 04:00 PM, she heard a 29 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 huge sound when she was working in the said society. Thereafter, she came to know that, a bomb blast occurred at the toilet situated behind the office of her co-operative society. She deposed that, on 02.08.2016, when she came to office, the Police restrained her from entering the office on the ground that they were conducting an investigation. She also stated that, the police collected remnants of the blast namely, pieces of cooker, batteries, pieces of cardboard and other things and that she is the witness to seizure mahazar Ex.P.5 which bears her signature. The witness also identified the material objects seized in her presence which are marked as M.O. No. 08 to 13. MO-8 are the pieces of cooker, MO-9 is the left overs of the batteries, MO-10 are the five battery swabs, MO-11 are the left overs of card board pieces, MO-12 are the wires and MO-13 are the different pieces of wires.
28. The witness has further identified circuits and relay parts which are MO-14 and MO-15 respectively. The remnants of cooker are marked as MO-16, remnants of carton box is marked as MO-17, bunch of remnants of another carton box is marked as MO-
18. The paper pieces are marked as MO-19. Two used papers are marked as MO-20.
29. Even this witness was subjected to a detailed cross- examination by learned counsel for the accused but nothing has 30 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 been elicited to doubt the credibility of her evidence. Though she has deposed that nobody from her office visited the spot along with her, on that ground alone her evidence cannot be doubted. Therefore, the evidence of this witness inspires confidence and there is no reason to disbelieve her evidence.
30. PW.10 - Sri Prashant was also one of the employees of co-operative society which is situated within the Court Complex at Mysuru. He is the colleague of P.W.3 Suma and also co-witness to the Mahazar Ex.P-5. He has given similar evidence as given by P.W.3 being a witness to seizure mahazar Ex.P.5. He has even identified the material objects seized from the spot as per MO No.8 to 20. Thereafter, this witness was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, wherein he has denied all the suggestions which affect his credibility. There is no reason for this witness to give false evidence against the accused and his evidence is favourable to the investigation agency. He has withstood a lengthy cross-examination, but his credit could not be shaken. He has denied that, he and P.W-3, Suma have signed in the office of officer Mallik at the instance of their President. Ultimately, he has denied that he has given false evidence against the accused.
31. PW.4 - Sri Shivanna B, is an Advocate practicing at Court of Law at Mysuru and this witness has also deposed about the 31 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 blast that took place at Mysuru Court premises on 01.08.2016. He had parked his car near the Punjab National Bank and he has deposed about the spot position when he visited the spot of occurrence. Being a practicing lawyer in the Court of Law at Mysuru, his presence at the spot of occurrence is natural and the same cannot be doubted. This witness has spoken about the blast that took place at the public toilet near Nyayanga Bhavana. Though this witness was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, nothing was elicited to doubt the truthfulness of his evidence. There is no specific denial about his visit and presence on the spot after the explosion and about his observation of the spot of occurrence.
32. PW.5, is a protected witness who is shown as witness 'A' in the charge sheet. He is the brother of PW.1. He has claimed that he was present at the spot during the incident. He has deposed categorically about the arrival of his parents and his brother PW.1 to the toilet as he was collecting user fee at the public toilet. The witness has identified accused No. 5 in the open Court when called upon by the learned Special Public Prosecutor stating that accused No.5 had visited the toilet on the relevant date. This witness has given special reasons for identifying the accused. He claims that he had not noticed the accused entering the toilet but has seen accused No.5 leaving the toilet. He further says that when A-5 gave 32 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 him a currency note of Rs.10/-, he did not insist for change though he was ready to return the change and that the accused left the spot in a hurry. He has further deposed that, soon after accused No.5 left the spot, his elder brother/PW.1 came and this witness left for tea shop which is in front of the subject public toilet. The witness has stated that when he was near the tea shop, he heard a huge sound from the toilet and he found his brother running towards the tea shop. Thereafter, the witness has given specific evidence about the arrival of lawyers to the spot and deposed that accused No. 5 was shown to him in Jail, when he went there in pursuance to a letter issued to him. The witness has spoken about the conduct of Test Identification Parade/TIP, wherein he has claimed to have identified Accused No.5 and the said TIP mahazar is marked as Ex.P6. The details of participants of T.I.P is marked as Ex.P7.
33. This witness was subjected to a lengthy cross- examination, but his evidence is natural and there is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. He has denied having seen the accused persons outside the Court hall in the morning. He also deposed that he reached the Court hall at 10.00 AM., and that he was sitting on the bench which was placed abutting the Court hall between 10:00 AM., and 11:30 AM. He has deposed as to the timings at which he left Mysuru and reached Bengaluru and so also the taking part in 33 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 the test identification proceedings. Nothing is elicited which indicates that he was tutored by the Police or anyone else. Thus, the evidence of this witness clearly establishes that he has seen accused No. 5 soon before the incident at the spot and so also identified the accused in the Court and thus, his evidence establishes beyond doubt that, this accused was the person who was present on the spot soon before the incident and that he has planted bomb at the toilet situated in the premises of Mysuru Court Complex.
34. PW.6 - Sri Nagaraj is also said to be working in M/s Abhi corner which is situated behind the compound at Mysuru Court and he was the cashier of the said corner. He also deposes that, he heard the sound of the explosion near the complex on 01.08.2016. He claims to have visited the spot along with a cook of his hotel and another boy. He has stated that, there was a school van near the spot at the relevant point of time and a rider of two wheeler had sustained ear injuries. He has also deposed that, on the next day Police enquired him.
35. This witness was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, wherein, he answered all the questions and finally denied the suggestion that he has not visited the spot and that no such incident has taken place at the spot. 34
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Except denying the evidence of this witness, nothing is elicited which disproves his statements.
36. PW.7 - Sri Venkatesh is also a witness who was passing by the spot on his two wheeler when the bomb exploded. He was a distributor of English evening daily in Mysuru called "Star of Mysore" and "City Today". He has deposed about hearing of loud sound from the compound wall of the Court. He sustained injuries to his ear due to the explosion and a person who was coming behind him informed him about the blood oozing out of his ears. He called his friend Nagendra and thereafter, he was shifted to Hospital and he has deposed that Laxmipuram Police enquired him and recorded his statements. He also deposed that a child who was in a Maruti van also sustained injuries.
37. The counsel for accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 has cross- examined this witness, but the credibility of his evidence cannot be doubted. Neither his presence at the spot during the explosion nor the fact that he sustained injuries due to impact of the blast has been denied by the defence.
38. PW.8 - Mrs Sonal, was a student and she sustained injuries while traveling in a school van which was passing by the spot of occurrence. She has deposed about having heard a loud sound and that soon after, her school van driver stopped the van. 35
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 She has also deposed about the smoke billowing from the public toilet. The lawyers advised that she should be moved to a nearby hospital since she was crying. Somebody informed her parents over the phone and she reached home. Subsequently, she was taken to hospital and took treatment. She has also deposed that the police enquired her and that she has narrated the incident to the Police.
39. In the cross-examination by the learned counsel for accused, she has answered all the questions and has denied that her father has helped her in giving evidence before the Court and so also her statement before the police. Her evidence is clear, cogent and inspires confidence and there is no compelling reason to disbelieve her evidence.
40. PW.9 - Sri Murthy K.M., was a Police Inspector/ Reserve Police at C.A.R. Police. He received a wireless message at 04:15 PM on 01.08.2016 regarding bomb blast near the Court premises and as per the call he, along with nine personnel, went to spot with a dog "Seema" with her handler and they have thoroughly checked the spot between 04:30 and 07:15 AM. He also deposed about the presence of various articles at the spot and that he has prepared a report Ex.P.8 and has submitted it to the Police Inspector who was present on the spot.
36
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
41. This witness was subjected to a lengthy cross- examination by learned counsel for the accused but, as he is a public servant, there is no reason to doubt his evidence. Though some overwriting in document is pointed out as exhibit D-123 were marked through this witness, considering the nature of his evidence, there is no reason to doubt his evidence. Ultimately his evidence remained unshaken and he has denied that he has not prepared Ex.P.8 on the spot.
42. PW.11 - Sri G Manju was the employee of dog squad at C.A.R, Mysuru and he is the handler of the dog 'Seema'. He has visited the spot along with other staff soon after the blast and has taken part in the investigation that took place on the spot. He has also identified the material objects seized from the spot.
43. In the cross-examination, he has denied all the material suggestions and nothing has been elicited to disbelieve or doubt his evidence.
44. P.W.12 is another protected witness shown as 'G' in charge sheet and he is said to have sold recharge coupon to accused No.5 on the material date. This witness has a shop under the name and style 'Mahamaya collections' at Ballal circle, Mysuru and they sell recharge coupons of M/s Airtel. He deposed that one 37 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Prasad and Deepak are his distributors of easy recharge coupon and that they distributed Airtel coupons till the end of August 2016.
45. In cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused, he admitted that he has not produced the trade license of his business before the Court, wherein his evidence has not been denied.
46. PW.13 is one more protected witness and this witness is a driver of auto bearing No. KA-09-A-0958 which is owned by one Puttaswamy. He has deposed that, in the month of December, 2016, he was asked by his earlier owner to visit Laxmipuram Police Station. Accordingly, he visited the said police station where he was interrogated about the bomb blast dated 01.08.2016. He has stated before the police on enquiry that he was driving said auto on 01.08.2016 and he admitted to a query that he had taken a passenger to the Court on that day between 02:00 to 02:45 PM., and the said passenger had taken ticket from 'R' gate circle to Chamarajpuram Railway Station from prepaid counter. He deposed that he dropped the said passenger at Chamarajapuram Railway Station gate. As per him, the actual fare was Rs.56/- but that passenger gave him Rs.60/- and strangely, did not even receive the change. The said passenger was wearing spectacles and possessed a bag. He was in a hurry to proceed towards Railway Station and 38 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 when this witness took 'U' turn, ensuring himself for passengers if any, he saw him entering a small gate situated near toilet. As per him, the said passenger appeared to be 23 to 25 years old and was a tall personality. He has deposed that, after lapse of one to one and half hours, there was a talk among the public about the bomb blast at the Court premises. He has deposed that he can identify the said passenger.
47. He has further deposed that, in December, 2016, he was called upon to identify the said passenger at Parappana Agrahara Central Prison, Bengaluru and he was given a letter in this regard. Thereafter, he reached the said prison at about 1:00 to 2:00 PM. On being asked by the Tahasildar, whether he could identify the said person, he answered in the affirmative and accordingly, he was shown thirty persons and this witness has identified accused No.5 among them, in the prison. The Test Identification Parade proceedings are marked as Ex.P.9 and Ex.P.10 which bears his signature.
48. Though this witness was put through a lengthy cross- examination, the truthfulness of his evidence has not been shaken and the defence has not elicited any aspect to disbelieve his evidence. Evidence given by him is natural and there is no reason 39 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 to disbelieve or doubt his evidence. Finally, he has denied having identified the accused persons at the instance of NIA Police.
49. The Court witness - Mr. Dhanraj was the attender of this Court at the relevant point of time. He has assisted the Court to record the evidence of PW.14, 16 & 17 by translating the same from Tamil language.
50. PW.14 - Sri Saleem Mallik is a resident of Madurai and is said to have worked with M/s Senthil Murugan Jewellers at South Avani Mulaveedhi, Madurai. He has deposed that, he knows the accused - Abbas/accused No.1 and that both of them used to attend Quran classes and library at Nallipet, Madurai for three years. He has stated that, while attending such classes, they used to discuss about Quran and that the said library was run by accused No.1 in a rented house. Accused No.1 on certain occasions asked him to hand over rent to the owner of the building and he has paid the rent twice. He also deposed that he had two SIM cards in his mobile. One is 9688039594 and the other number is not familiar to him. But he used the said number regularly and the mobile number of accused No.1 is 8973373323. He has deposed that, though he has saved this number of accused No.1 in his device, he has never spoken to him. He has deposed that he had given similar statement before the NIA personnel at Chennai.
40
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
51. The witness was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused but he has furnished all the details asked by learned counsel and no aspect has been elicited which could impeach his credibility. He has denied that he has given false evidence against the accused at the instance of NIA. He has also denied that, in the month of December 2016 he was detained by NIA Police and during the said detention he was tortured and threatened and therefore he consented to be a witness against the accused person. It is seen that, in support of the said suggestion, the defence has not produced any evidence. Therefore, the said suggestion has no factual basis.
52. PW.15 - Sri Mohammed Ali Jinna is another witness from Madurai and he has claimed that he knows accused No.1 and accused No.5 and that they used to meet at a Mosque namely 'Kareem Sab' Mosque, Nelpettai, Madurai, once in four days. He deposed that accused No.5 is his schoolmate and accused No.1 and himself hailed from the same residential area. They used to meet outside the Mosque as well.
53. This witness also stated that accused No.1 - Abbas was running a library pertaining to Islamic religion and that he used to visit the said library often. He might have borrowed some books from the library. He has deposed that his mobile number is 41 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 9500860627 and he doesn't remember the mobile number of accused No.1 exactly but as per him, the mobile number of accused No.1 consist of 733733 digits. He had saved the said mobile number in his mobile handset. He doesn't remember the mobile number of Dawood Suleiman/ A.2, but he claimed that he had saved even the mobile number of accused No.5 which ends with the number 4269 something. He also claimed that he knows a person named Shamsuddin. He claimed that Chennai Police have enquired him and that he has given a statement before them mentioning the above facts.
54. In the cross-examination of the witness, though he was thoroughly questioned, nothing has been elicited to indicate that this witness is stranger to accused No.1 and accused No.5 and that he does not know both the accused. Nothing has been elicited to indicate an ill-will or animosity between this witness and accused No.1 and accused No.5. No reason has been elicited to indicate that this witness has given false evidence against accused No.1 and accused No.5. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve or doubt the truthfulness of the evidence given by this witness.
55. PW.16 - Sri K. Dawood is yet another witness from Madurai. He has claimed that he knows all the three accused persons who were present in the Court hall on the particular date. 42
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 He has deposed that he and all the three accused persons used to attend Masjid every day which is situated near his house. He also named the Masjid as "Kareem Sab Masjid". He knows the accused persons since 2015. Even accused No. 1 used to come to the house of this witness and that accused No.1 and his father have painted the house of this witness.
56. He was the Assistant Secretary of the Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham. His mobile number is 9842105030 and the mobile number of accused No.1 Abbas is 8973373323 and he has claimed to have saved the said mobile number in his mobile phone. He also stated that he has narrated above said facts before the NIA personnel at Chennai.
57. Even this witness has faced a detailed cross- examination by the learned counsel for accused but nothing has been elicited which indicates that there is no acquaintance between this witness and accused No.1, A-2 and accused No.5. Nothing has been elicited to indicate that this witness is giving false evidence against the accused persons. There is no reason for this witness to falsely implicate the accused persons in the crime involved in this case. Ultimately, he has denied that he has deposed false evidence at the instance of NIA.
43
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
58. PW.17 - Sri Sirajuddin is also another witness from Madurai and he has claimed to be acquainted with all the accused persons in this case, more particularly with accused No.1. He has spoken about his cell number and also the cell number of accused No.1. The cross-examination of this witness by learned counsel for the accused has the same fate as that of the other witness. Nothing has been elicited from the mouth of this witness to indicate that he has any reason to give false evidence against the accused persons. Ultimately, even this witness has denied the suggestions that he is giving false evidence at the instance of NIA Police.
59. PW.18 - Sri Parmesh, the Assistant Superintendent of District Prison, Mangalore has given the evidence that he has assisted Sri Mahesh/ NIA Inspector in collecting the sample handwriting of the accused- Samsun Karim Raja/ A-2 and Mohammed Ayub/ A-3. Further, as per the direction of their Chief Superintendent, he and Jailor- Mohan Kumar visited the chamber at about 02:30 PM and they were made known the order of the Court and accordingly, as directed, the accused have written their sample handwriting in 36 different pages. The said handwriting sample is marked as Ex.P.12 which bears signature of accused No.2. The handwriting of accused Mohammed Ayub/ accused No.3 is at 44 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Ex.P.13. Further, the proceedings of collection of handwriting is marked as Ex.P.14.
60. This witness was also cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused, wherein, except denying his evidence nothing has been elicited which makes his evidence doubtful.
61. PW.19 - Sri Murganadam of Chennai claims to have worked as Sales Manager in M/s Tata Tele Services Ltd., at Chennai. He has further deposed that he was in-charge of two areas i.e Triplicane and Mylapore and claimed that, in the month of April 2014, he was approached by NIA officials and sought information with respect to particulars of mobile number belonging to a person named Selva Kumar. This witness is claimed to have furnished the particulars which is marked as Ex.P.-15. He has also furnished print- out of the documents and also certificate under section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act which are marked as Ex.P16 and P17.
62. The witness has confronted a lengthy cross- examination by learned counsel for the accused. But, nothing has been elicited which raises doubts about his evidence.
63. PW.20 - Sri S. Madhavan, was working as Revenue Inspector in the Taluk office of Guindy Taluk of Chennai District. He has deposed that, on 28.11.2016, at about 01:30 PM, he and his 45 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 colleague, namely Vijaya Bharthi were summoned to NIA office at Chennai through their Tahasildar. Accordingly, they visited said office and there, they met NIA officer Sri Senthil Kumar, the Inspector Sethu Raman and L.P.S Kumar, SP of NIA and that, they were asked to be witnesses with respect to arrest and search of Dawood Sulaiman/ A-5 stating that he is involved in Mysuru bomb blast case. Accordingly, on 28.11.2016, at 06:00 PM, the said S.P. and officers took these persons to M/s TCS office situated at Ramanajum I.T. park, Tharamani, Chennai, where the said accused Dawood Sulaiman/ A-5 was employed. These officials requested the administrative officers of the said company and on being pointed out by them, Dawood Sulaiman/ A-5 was arrested and an enquiry was conducted. He has deposed that, in the presence of administrative officer of the said company and also in the presence of these witnesses, the hard disk of the said system was removed and seized under a mahazar Ex.P.18. The said hard disk is marked as M.O. No.21.
64. He has further deposed that, at about 07:30 PM, they left the company for the office of NIA. Meanwhile, Dawood Sulaiman/ A-5 was brought to the office of NIA in a separate vehicle and there, the said accused was arrested and a mahazar was 46 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 conducted under Ex.P.19. The arrest memo prepared on the spot is marked as Ex.P.20.
65. The witness has also given evidence that the police also seized the documents from the house of the Accused under another mahazar which is marked as Ex.P.21. The identity card seized is marked as Ex.P.22, Voter ID card is marked as M.O-23, two SIM cards are together marked as M.O-24, six railway tickets are marked as M.O No. 25 (A) to (F), cash of Rs. 630/- are marked as M.O-26, cash purse is marked as M.O-27, PAN card is marked as M.O-28. He identified one mobile phone out of three mobile phones seized through Ex.P-21 which is marked as M.O. No. 29. He has further deposed that thereafter, at about 09:30 PM they all went to the house of accused Dawood Sulaiman/ A-5 at Palavakkam and there at 10:30 PM, the accused pointed out the building in which he was residing and there, the NIA officials conducted search and during the search, they found a laptop, three mobiles and four-five SIM cards. They also found many books kept in a rack and out of them some 4-5 books have been seized. A pamphlet was seized including some other articles. A mahazar was conducted under Ex.P.22. The accused identified white colour mobile, which is marked as M.O No.30. In the same way, he identified a Nokia mobile marked as M.O No.31, a Lenovo mobile marked as M.O No.32, one laptop under M.O-33, four SIM cards marked as M.O 47 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 No.34, two 4G Airtel SIM cards which are together marked as M.O. No.35, one Vodafone SIM which is marked as M.O. No.36, the Pamphlet which is at M.O. No.37 and three books which are together marked as M.O. No.38 to 40.
66. This witness was subjected to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused. But, except a formal denial, nothing has been elicited which raises doubts as to the truthfulness of his evidence. The defence could not shake the credit of this witness as he was firm in his evidence.
67. PW.21 - Sri Veerachelian, who was a Revenue Inspector, is also from Madurai. He has deposed that, on 28.11.2016, he was summoned by the Tahasildar around 4-00 P.M., and was asked to visit ITBP camp within the jurisdiction of Edayapatti in connection with some enquiry. Accordingly, he reached the said office, where NIA officers, including a lady officer was present and that accused Abbas Ali/ accused No.1 was arrested in his presence and an arrest memo and a search memo were prepared, which are marked as Ex.P.23 and 24 respectively.
68. On the same day, at about 05:45 PM, another accused - Samsun Karim Raja/ accused No.2 was arrested in his presence and a cell phone with two SIM cards and a memory card was seized. The arrest memo and search memo with respect to the said 48 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 accused are marked as Ex.P.25 and 26. The witness has identified the mobile phone marked as M.O-41. As per him, one SIM card was of Airtel company. He has stated that, in the personal search memo, they had written about an idea SIM card, Airtel SIM card, a memory card and IMEI No. of all the cells searched. They also mentioned about the company and number of SIM cards. It is seen that this witness was examined-in-chief on 15.12.2018 and his further examination-in-chief was deferred on that day, since it was 4:25 pm. A perusal of the order sheet reveals that, the prosecution neither made any efforts to record the further examination-in-chief, nor has it sought summons against this witness to procure his attendance. Thus, since the examination-in-chief of this witness itself has not been concluded, his evidence cannot be considered and acted upon. Therefore, this witness is deemed to have been given up by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and accordingly, his evidence has not been considered by this Court. However, the leading of incomplete evidence of PW.21 has not affected the case of the prosecution, as the prosecution has examined CIO/ PW.28, who has prepared arrest memo and personal search memo with respect to A-1 marked as Ex.P.23 and P24. Similarly, the arrest memo and personal search memo with respect to A-2/ Samsum Karim Raja are prepared by PW.28 as can be seen from the documents.
49
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
69. P.W.22 - Sri Abhishek Singh was the Inspector of Central Excise department, Bengaluru and has deposed that, as per the direction of his Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, he and his colleague P. Surendra had visited the office of NIA at Bengaluru at 6:00 PM on 30.11.2016. He has deposed that, in the office, the SP/NIA apprised them about the investigation and informed that they would extract data of Facebook as well Gmail accounts pertaining to some arrested accused persons. Accordingly, he deposed that the accused Dawood Sulaiman/ A-5 and Samsun Karim Raja/ A-2 were brought before him. Both were asked by the S.P. to reveal the details. Consequently, the accused Samsun Karim Raja/ A-2 disclosed that, he was a co-conspirator in respect of bomb blasts which occurred at the premises of Mysuru Court and that, he was a part of the base movement. Further, he disclosed that if Internet connection is provided, he would Login to his Facebook and gmail accounts. He has also disclosed that, he had been operating a Facebook ID by an user name- Mohammed Mohammed and that he could not remember the Facebook ID and login password. Further, he has deposed that his Gmail ID was [email protected] and that, his Facebook account was being operated through a mobile phone, the number of which he could not remember. He has deposed that, a scientific consultant, named Partha was present and with his assistance, the said Karim 50 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Raja/ A-2 gave his mobile number and password. They logged in and browsed various tabs of his Facebook account and data was downloaded which was in compressed form and that, the hash value of the same was duly noted and recorded on the DVD and thereafter, the password of the said Facebook account was changed. He has further deposed about the opening of Gmail account of the said accused Karim Raja/ A-2 using the password provided by him. They also downloaded the data and recorded the same on the DVD and the password of his Gmail account was changed. He has further deposed that, a mahazar was conducted which is marked as Ex.P.27.
70. The witness identified the accused No.2 Samsun Karim Raja in the open Court. The DVD containing Facebook and Gmail account of accused No.2 was marked as M.O.42. He further deposed that in the same way and in the same stretch, Gmail account and Facebook ID of accused Dawood Sulaiman/ A-5 was also downloaded. Dawood Sulaiman/ A-5 is said to have revealed two of his Gmail IDs namely- [email protected] and another is [email protected]. The accused is said to have disclosed that he used [email protected] as login Facebook ID. The proceedings were taken up on the system possessed by the said Partha. The Facebook account contents of 51 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 the accused were downloaded and stored in a DVD and thereafter, his Facebook account password was changed.
71. In the same stretch, Dawood Sulaiman/ A-5 furnished password of his another Gmail account-
[email protected] and contents of the same were downloaded and the same was stored in a DVD and they have changed the password. He also clarified that, he also tried to login to his other Gmail account i.e., [email protected] as per the password given by accused Dawood Sulaiman/ A-5 but they could not succeed. Again, one more mahazar was drawn as Ex.P.28 and the DVD is marked as M.O. No.43. The photos downloaded are marked as Ex.P.28C to P28F. The witness identified accused No.2 in the open Court. This witness was not cross- examined by the learned counsel for accused stating that he would cross-examine this witness along with another witness after filing the necessary application in his behalf. However, no such application was filed and hence, this witness has not been subjected to cross-examination.
72. PW.23 - Sri Sunil Kumar is an Inspector attached with the Department of Central Excise and has given evidence that, as per the directions of his Superintendent, he and his colleague- Ashuthosh Bramh/ C.W. 54 visited the office of NIA on 01.12.2016 52 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 at 10:45 AM., and that, in their presence, a disclosure mahazar was conducted with respect to accused Sulaiman/ A-5 and Abbas/ A-1. The counsel for the accused raised objections regarding his evidence. But the evidence was recorded subject to objections. He has further deposed that, the accused person disclosed how they brought explosives to the place of incident and how the same was planted. Accused Sulaiman/ A-5 replied that he received explosive from Abbas Ali/ A-5 at Madurai and that accused No.5 said that he had kept the explosives in a bag and reached Mysuru via. Salem by state government bus. Accused No.5 disclosed how he reached Court premises, his visit to the toilet, payment of user fee of Rs. 10/- and also disclosed that he would show the above said places. In this regard, the above said accused persons have disclosed and the mahazar was conducted in this regard as per Ex.P.29 and they have signed mahazar. This witness was thoroughly cross-examined by the counsel for the accused. But, nothing has been elicited to discredit his reliability. He has denied having given false evidence or assisting NIA since he is a Central Government employee. He also denied having been sufficiently trained in the office of Special Public Prosecutor. Lastly, He has denied a suggestion to the effect that, he has never participated in the enquiry conducted on 01.12.2016, that nothing transpired before him and that, he has not signed any documents in the office of the NIA. 53
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
73. PW.24 - Sri M.H. Ravi Shankar is an official of BEO office, Mysuru and he and his colleague T.K. Suresh/ C.W. 55 were the witnesses to pointing out mahazar which was conducted in the month of December 2016 at Mysuru by the CIO. This witness has deposed that, they came with an accused person who brought them to 'R' gate and informed that he alighted from the bus and reached the prepaid auto stand and that, from there, he reached the Court premises and further entered Court premises through the south gate. He has further revealed his visit to the public toilet, the pointing out of the second room in the toilet and also the place where the people in-charge of the toilet would sit. Thereafter, a mahazar under Ex.P-30 was conducted which has been signed by this witness and his colleague. This witness has identified accused No. 5 out of accused No. 1, 2 and 5 in the Court hall.
74. This witness was also cross-examined in detail. However, nothing infirm has been elicited to cast doubt as to his veracity. He has answered all the material questions and has finally denied the suggestion to the effect that he has not visited any place and that he is giving false evidence on the persuasion of the NIA officials.
75. PW.25 - Sri M. Manjesh is an official of survey department at Mysuru. He has stated that, he and one P. 54 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Shivaswamy/ C.W. 85 of his office had visited the office of Additional Commissioner, Mysuru on 07.12.2016 and they reached the office of ACP at Krishnarajendra where the CIO of this case informed this witness that the accused person, in connection with the 2016 Mysuru Court Complex bomb blast case, is in their custody and since he would reveal certain facts, this person was requested to be a witness to the same.
76. He has further deposed that, the accused revealed certain aspects regarding his reaching Mysuru by bus, alighting at KSRTC bus stand, reaching the Court by auto, entering the Court complex through the small gate and carrying out photography and videography of certain places such as the public toilet and parking place at the instance of Abbas Ali/accused No.1. He disclosed his purchase of recharge coupon for Rs. 20/- from M/s. Mahamaya Collections, situated near Ballal Circle, Balakrishna Rao Road and that he would show such places. Accordingly, these witnesses and CIO visited those places as indicated by the accused and ultimately, the witness identified accused No.2 in the open Court. He has also deposed about the preparation of mahazar as per Ex.P.31.
77. This witness was put to cross-examination by the learned counsel for the accused in detail. He withstood all the questions and finally, denied having signed the mahazar without 55 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 visiting any place at the instance of ACP - Mallika. He has also denied having given false evidence at the instance of NIA.
78. PW.26 - Sri P Naveen is from Guddur, Nellore District of Andhra Pradesh and he has claimed that he owns a firm, viz. M/s X- press C mobile shopee at Guddur. He has claimed that he is operating a business of sale of mobile instruments and accessories. On 02.04.2017, he had received a notice from NIA which sought information about the sale of a mobile phone. Accordingly, the said mobile was V-5 Intex. On the next day, this witness has shown the details of sale transactions available in his laptop and has also furnished the details in a pen drive to the NIA Officials. Thereafter, his statement was recorded and a mahazar Ex.P32 was drawn. The documents submitted by him are marked as Ex.P.32 to 37.
79. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused, but except denying his evidence nothing significant has been elicited which creates a doubt about the credibility of his evidence. Lastly, he has denied the suggestion that he had no IMEI No. and that he has never purchased or sold the mobile in question.
80. PW.27 - Sri Mohammed Ayub was arraigned as Accused No. 3 in the case and he was permitted to become an approver as per the orders passed by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Crl. A. 56 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 No. 454/2018 dated 07-12-2018. Further, this accused was released on bail as per the order of this Court dated 16-02-2020. The Special Public Prosecutor submitted during the arguments that, he is dropped and he is no more an accused in this case. This accused, having turned approver, has given his evidence in detail about his meeting and association with Accused No. 1 and also the criminal intentions and terrorist activities of accused No.1. He has deposed that, due to a life threat given to him and his family, he was constrained to obey accused No.1 and engage in certain illegal activities. He has revealed that, he has sent WhatsApp messages to some persons on being persuaded by accused No.1 and thereafter, his arrest by police officials, recovery of his mobile and also about his giving a statement before the Magistrate. The letter of undertaking given by him to accused No.1 is Ex.P.38. His statement, recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 of Cr.P.C., is marked as Ex.P.39. The mobile phone given by accused No.1 to this witness is marked as M.O.44.
81. Even this witness was subjected to a meticulous cross- examination by learned counsel for accused. But his credibility is not shaken and nothing has been elicited to indicate that the statement under section 164 of Cr.P.C., was recorded by coercion or that he has any strong reason to give false evidence against 57 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 accused No. 1. Therefore, his evidence inspires confidence. The counsel for the accused could not pinpoint any evidence to prove that this witness holds any grudge against accused No.1 or that there is any enmity between them. There is no reason for this witness to give false evidence against the accused. Finally, the witness has denied a suggestion to the effect that, only to save his skin, he has become approver as urged by the NIA officials.
82. Finally, the prosecution examined PW.28 - Ms. Pratibha Ambedkar, the then SP/CIO of this case. This witness has given a detailed evidence of the investigation conducted by her. She has stated that, she took up the investigation of this case as per the order of MHA, Government of India. As per her, the investigation witnessed a breakthrough, when there was an incident of bomb blast at Malappuram Court in Kerala on 01.11.2016. As per her, near the place of the bomb blast, the local police collected a pen drive and some pamphlets and she has asserted that the pen drive contained videos pertaining to all the blasts till then including the one at the Mysuru Court. The data in the pen drive was found to be shared through WhatsApp with the Cochin City Commissionerate call center mobile number 7559899100 by using mobile number 7358312474. She has deposed that, in the pamphlets there was a photograph of Osama Bin Laden, the founder of Al-Qaeda. Another 58 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Facebook ID mohammedmohammed was also shared for further information. A pamphlet was also posted on the Facebook ID base.base.334. She has deposed the details of mobile numbers revealed as well as IMEI numbers of those mobiles. She has deposed that, on 02.08.2016, one IMEI number showed up Madurai as its location and thereafter, accused no.3, Mohammed Ayub, was summoned to the office for examination and during interrogation, he revealed the name of Samsun Karim Raja, A-2 and disclosed all the facts. Further, while interrogating A-2 and accused No.3, the names of accused No.1, 4 and 5 surfaced and they revealed the facts in its entirety. Thereafter, recovery proceedings were prepared and various pointing out proceedings were conducted and thus, this witness has given a detailed account of the facts of this case and so also documents Ex.P.40 to Ex.P.272 are marked in her evidence. M.O.'s from 45 to 74 are also marked.
83. This witness was cross-examined by the learned counsel for accused in part but could not elicit anything so as to disbelieve her evidence. She has denied the suggestion that, whatever was posted on the Facebook profile is not connected to Mysuru Court bomb blast. There is also a suggestion by the learned counsel for the accused that during Nellore Court blast incident, the culprits had left some clue of the incident. This itself indicates that key clues of the incident were available and the main case of 59 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 the prosecution that some pen drive and pamphlets were left during Nellore Court blast is admitted by that suggestion. This witness was further cross-examined in part on 09.03.2021 and further some cross-examination was done on 07.04.2021. On that day also, the cross examination was partly conducted. Owing to the COVID-19 pandemic, Courts were not functioning regularly due to which the witness was examined by video conference through Zoom meeting scheduled on 01.07.2021. On that day, except denying entire investigation, nothing more was asked. The witness denied having filed a false charge sheet against the accused, though no case was made out against them.
84. The evidence of PW.28 and so also the evidence of approver - PW.27, clearly establishes that accused Nos.1 to 5 hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit various illegal activities including planting bomb at public toilet, situated at Mysuru Court Complex. There is convincing evidence to show that accused No.1 directed accused No.5 to go to Mysuru and plant bomb at the said public toilet and further, there is ample evidence to show that, at the instigation of accused No.1, accused No.2 conducted survey of Mysuru Court Complex, by visiting the said Court. Pointing out and seizure mahazars conducted at the instance of accused Nos.2 and 5 inspires confidence of the Court about the genuineness of the 60 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 investigation. It is well settled that, the evidence of approver is admissible in evidence and can be relied upon to record conviction. Section 133 of the Indian Evidence Act, clearly provides the same. The prosecution produced threatening letters issued by the accused persons to various departments which are produced under Ex.P99 to Ex.P115, Ex.P224 and Ex.P225, which shows that the accused had the intention to strike terror in the minds of the people. The digital evidence produced confirms the formation of terrorist outfit 'base movement' by accused No.1. The prosecution has produced Bay'ah and the statement of P.W.27 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The said documents are marked as Ex.P38 and Ex.P39. The statement of one Mujibur Rehaman under Ex.P-171 also establishes the role of accused No.1 in establishing the terrorist outfit 'base movement' and also the committing of terrorist activities.
85. It is seen that, soon after arrest of accused Nos.1 and 5, they were remanded to police custody and during the custodial interrogation they have given voluntary statements and further, disclosure and pointing out proceedings have been conducted. The laptop seized from accused No.2 establishes the contents of pictures and posters of 'base movement', the Indian Map and the picture of Osama Bin Laden of Al-Qaeda. Such disclosure and pointing out mahazars are marked as Ex.P-94, 116, 162, 163, 192, 61 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 and Ex.P193. Though the witnesses to the said mahazars were cross-examined by the learned counsel for the accused, nothing has been elicited to doubt the credibility of their evidence. There is ample evidence on record to show that, these accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are the members of terrorist gang as defined under Section 2(l) of the UAPA. Thus, based on the entire evidence on record, I have come to the conclusion that, the investigation agency is successful in establishing the charges under Sections 18, 18-B, and 20 of the UAPA and therefore, I have answered Point No.1 in the affirmative.
86. It is the further allegation of the prosecution that, all the above said accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 together hatched a criminal conspiracy to plant a bomb at the Mysuru Court Complex and in pursuance of the same, have committed the terrorist activities as defined under Section 15 of the UAPA. While holding the discussion above, based on the oral and documentary evidence I have come to the conclusion that, the acts of the accused persons clearly fall under the definition of terrorist act, as provided under Section 15 of the UAPA and there is ample evidence on record to show that due to the explosion caused at Mysuru Court Complex, the witnesses sustained injuries and that, their motor-cycle was damaged and even the building of public toilet sustained severe damages. The prosecution has examined the eye witnesses to the incident and so 62 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 also, the witnesses who heard the sound of explosion. The mahazars in this regard establish the damage caused to the public property. The evidence of P.W.28 in this regard clearly establishes these facts. Thus, the prosecution has established the offence under Section 16(1)(b) of the UAPA with the help of oral and documentary evidence. Therefore, I have answered Point No.2 in the affirmative.
87. It is the specific case of the prosecution that accused Nos.1 to 5 hatched a conspiracy to plant a bomb at Mysuru Court Complex and in that course, it is established that accused No.1 directed accused No.5 to go to Mysuru Court complex to plant bomb and there is also ample evidence on record to establish that as per the direction of accused No.1, accused No.2 came to Mysuru and conducted survey of the Court Premises, took photographs and videos and handed over the same to accused No.1 at Madurai. Further, it is the case of the prosecution that, the accused No.5 in execution of the conspiracy and to carryout the advice of the accused No.1 came to Mysuru, on 01.08.2016 and planted bomb in one of the toilet rooms of the public toilet, situated within the premises of Mysuru Court and the said bomb exploded at the scheduled time and consequently, there was huge loss and damage to the public property. Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to 63 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Public Property Act, 1984 provides that, whoever commits an offence under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 3 by fire or explosive substances shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to 10 years and with fine. It is also provided that, the Court may for reasons to be recorded in its judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than one year. This section is governed by Section 3 of the said Act, which provides that, whoever commits mischief by doing any act, in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. However, in this case, the charge framed against accused persons is only under Section 4. There is evidence of complainant/ P.W.1 as well as protected witness P.W.5, who are the caretakers of the subject public toilet, have deposed categorically about the explosion caused at the toilet, which is a public property and the spot mahazar/ Ex.P-2 in this regard establishes that, extensive damage has been caused to the said property. The accused no. 2, who carried out the survey of the Court premises and accused No.5, who planted the IED at the instigation and direction of accused No.1 are liable for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PDPP Act. As I have already demonstrated, the prosecution has 64 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 produced oral and documentary evidence to establish this offence punishable under Section 4 of the said Act. P.W. 1- Krishna, P.W. 2 - P.M. Siddaraju, the Police Inspector of Laksmipuram Police Station, P.W. 3 - Suma R., who is a witness to the Mahazar marked as Ex.P. 5, P.W. 4 - Shivanna B., who is an Advocate and P.W.11 - G. Manju, the Police Constable attached to Central Armed Reserve, Mysuru as a Dog Squad have also spoken about the extent of damage caused to the subject public toilet at the spot. Further, there is also the evidence of P.W. 5, the protected witness (brother of P.W. 1) who has spoken about the damage caused to the public toilet. P.W. 6 Nagaraj, an employee of M/s. Abhi Corner, who reached the spot after the blast, has also spoken about the damage caused to the public toilet. The co-panch witness to Ex.P.5 - Prashanth/ P.W. 10, who is the colleague of P.W.3, has also deposed in detail about the damage caused to the toilet. He has also spoken specifically about the recovery of material objects M.O. 8 - 20 from the spot. The documents Ex.P1/ the complaint, Ex.P. 5/ the seizure Mahazar dated 02-08-2016 and Ex.P.8/ the report of the Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad official and recovery of MO.1 to MO.20 establish beyond doubt that the offence punishable under Section 4 of the PDPP Act have been committed. Therefore, there being abundant amount of satisfactory evidence to establish the offence under Section 4 of the PDPP Act, I have come to the conclusion that, the 65 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 prosecution is successful in establishing the charge under Section 4 of the PDPP Act. Hence, I have answered Point No.3 in the affirmative.
88. It is the specific case of the prosecution that, the accused Nos.1 to 5 have purchased six different SIM cards by forging voter ID cards in the name of Andony Raj, a fictitious person, obtained the said six SIM cards, and the same were used in three mobile phones using which they created Facebook accounts - 'basebase334 and Mohammed Mohammed' and used the same to send threatening messages to different government agencies. They have used the said SIM cards as genuine and thus, have committed the offence punishable under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC. In order to establish the offence under Section 465 of the IPC, the prosecution is required to establish the forgery as defined under Section 463 of the IPC, which reads as under :-
"463. Forgery.-- [Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery."
Further, Section 468 of the IPC reads as under :-
"468. Forgery for purpose of cheating.--Whoever commits forgery, intending that the [document or electronic record forged] shall be used for the purpose 66 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine."
Further, Section 471 of the IPC reads as under :-
"471. Using as genuine a forged [document or electronic record].--Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any [document or electronic record] which he knows or has reason to believe to be a forged [document or electronic record], shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such [document or electronic record]."
89. Further, in the case of R. Venkatakrishnan vs. Central Bureau of Investigation - (2009) 11 Supreme Court Cases 737, it is held as under :-
"Criminal Conspiracy is an independent offence. It is punishable separately. Prosecution, therefore, must prove the same by applying legal principles which are applicable for the purpose of proving a criminal misconduct on the part of an accused. A criminal conspiracy must be put to action and so long a crime is merely generated in the mind of criminal, it does not become punishable. Thoughts, even criminal in character, often involuntary, are not crimes but when they take concrete shape of an agreement to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal but by illegal means, then even if nothing further is done the agreement would give rise to a criminal conspiracy. Condition precedent for holding accused persons guilty of a charge of criminal conspiracy must, therefore, be considered on the anvil of a fact which must be established by prosecution viz., meeting point of two or more persons for doing or causing to be done an illegal act or an act by illegal means."
Further, in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Shiv Charan Bansal and Ors. [(2020) 2 SCC 290], it is held as under :- 67
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 "A criminal conspiracy is generally hatched in secrecy, and it is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain direct evidence - Each conspirator plays his separate part in one integrated and united effort to achieve the common purpose - Each one is aware that he has a part to play in the general conspiracy, to accomplish the common object - Conspiracy is mostly proved by circumstances indicating the guilt of the accused, rather than adopting an approach by isolating the role played by each of the accused - The acts or conduct of the parties must be conscious and clear enough to infer their concurrence as to the common design and its execution."
Further, in the case of K. Hashim vs. State of T.N. [(2005) 1 SCC 237], it is held as under :-
"Section 133 of the Evidence Act has to be read along with Section 114 Illustration (b). The statute permits the conviction of ab accused on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice under Section 133 but the rule of prudence embodied in Section 114 Illustration (b) of the Evidence Act strikes a note of warning cautioning the Court that an accomplice does not generally deserve to be believed unless corroborated in material particulars.
Although Section 114 Illustration (b) provides that the Court may presume that the evidence of an accomplice is unworthy of credit unless corroborated, 'may' is not 'must' and no decision of Court can make it 'must'. The Court is not obliged to hold that he is unworthy of credit. It ultimately depends upon the Court's view as to the credibility of evidence tendered by an accomplice. The rule is that the necessity of corroboration is a matter of prudence except when it is safe to dispense with such corroboration, which must be clearly present in the mind of the judge. Therefore, if the evidence of the accomplice is found credible and cogent, the Court can record a conviction even on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice."68
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
90. In order to establish the charge under Section 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of P.W.19 and documents Ex.P15 and Ex.P16. There is evidence of PW.28 through whom, CAF of the said mobile numbers have been produced, among which Ex.P-81 pertains to mobile No.9003591722, Ex.P-82 pertains to mobile No.7358483823, Ex.P-85 pertains to mobile No.7397465869 and Ex.P-86 is in connection with mobile No.9962910866. It is demonstrated that, all the four SIM cards have been obtained by using a common Voter ID card and morphing the photo on the said ID card. Thus, it is established that, all the SIM cards are obtained by forging the document and also by using the said documents as genuine. There is ample evidence on record, to show that, the accused had knowledge about the said SIM cards being obtained by forgery and that, false documents are being used as genuine documents. In this regard, P.W.26 has deposed categorically about the mobiles purchased by accused persons which was used to send threatening messages and also to stay in contact with each other. In this regard, the documents Ex.P32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and Ex.P37 clearly establish these offences. Apart from the above said offences, the CIO - PW.28 has also deposed categorically about the forgery committed by the accused persons hatching a conspiracy to commit unlawful activities. Through the witness, the document Ex.P81 to Ex.P86 are marked. 69
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 P.W.28 has also deposed about obtaining MLAT issued by MHA, GOI to USA and Facebook seeking details of users 'basebase.334' and also received response in this regard from the Facebook as per Ex.P230 and Ex.P231. There is no challenge to such evidence of P.W.28, which is based on the documents. Thus, with the aid of appropriate oral and documentary evidence, the prosecution has established that the accused persons have committed forgery in obtaining the six SIM cards by forging voter ID cards and thus, there is extensive and adequate evidence on record to establish that the offence punishable under Section 465 of the IPC has been committed. In the same way, it is established that, the voter ID card and CAF were forged to obtain SIM cards and thus, ingredients of Section 468 of the IPC have also been established. Further, there is ample oral and documentary evidence to establish that the accused persons used the forged documents such as CAF and voter ID cards as genuine documents in the name of a fictitious person and the same was used to commit the offences involved in this case. Thus, the offence punishable under Section 471 of the IPC has also been established. The evidences on record are sufficient to hold that the accused persons committed these offences in order to execute the objective of a criminal conspiracy between each other, and thus, on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, I have come to the conclusion that, the prosecution is successful in 70 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 establishing the charges under Sections 465, 468, and 471 of the IPC r/w Section 120-B of the IPC and therefore, I have answered Point No.4 in the affirmative.
91. It is the further case of the prosecution that, the accused persons, in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy and in execution of their terrorist act, have conspired to plant an IED at Court Complex, Mysuru and for this purpose, there is evidence of P.W.27 /approver that, the accused No.1 directed accused No.5 to gather explosives and further, the evidence of PW.27 makes it clear that the accused No.1 threatened accused No.3, came to his house once and after confining him in a room when the parents of accused No.3 were away from the home, prepared a bomb. P.W.27 has precisely deposed that, accused No.1 has prepared bomb in one room of his house. To establish this offence, the prosecution has produced oral and documentary evidence. It is seen that, accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 have also been charged under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The said sections are reproduced hereunder for reference :-
"3. Punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property. - Any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by-- (a) any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment of either 71 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 description which shall not be less than ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(b) any special category explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be punished with death, or rigorous imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
4. Punishment for attempt to cause explosion, or for making or keeping explosive with intent to endanger life or property.--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 to 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.
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 72 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 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,--
(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."
92. Further, in the case of Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1062, it is held as under:
"The accused must not only knowingly have in his possession the substance but must know that it is an explosive substance. The knowledge whether a particular substance is an explosive substance depends on different circumstances and varies from person to person. A person of experience may know that the substance is explosive. In the present case the appellants had been dealing with the substances in question for a long time and thus knew or at least could be presumed to have known the nature and purpose of the substances. Moreover, the substances seized were not minute or small but in large quantity. In the circumstances of the case and on the evidence it can be held that the appellants were in conscious possession of the substance seized. They had no licence or authority to make or possess the explosive substances as required by Notification dated April 1, 1996. The licnece possessed by them was not in pursuance and in conformity with the said notification. The possession of the explosive substances by the appellants, therefore, was without any authority."73
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Further, in the case of Mehboob Usmanbhai vs. State of Gujarat - 1973 Cri.L.J. 80, it was held that, "the very fact that the accused had kept or had under his control explosive substances in such a large quantity, shows that, he had kept them in his possession or under his control with the intention of endangering life or to cause serous injury to person or property as contemplated by Section 4(b) of the Act."
93. Further, in the case of Gamdoor Singh vs. State of Punjab - 1981 Cri.L.J. 1912 (P&H), it is held that "Malice, in the legal acceptance of the word is not confined to personal spite against individuals, but consists in a conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another. It is a wrongful act done intentionally without just cause or excuse. It is in that legal sense that the word 'maliciously' is used in Section 3 of the Act."
94. In order to establish the offences under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW.25 who is a panch witness regarding the pointing out mahazar in which accused No.2 has shown the premises of the Court at Mysuru, revealing that, he has conducted survey of the Court Premises prior to the explosion. Further, P.W.28 /CIO has spoken about the objects recovered from the possession of the accused, the extraction of data from the electronic device of 74 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 accused No.2 which establishes that, he visited Mysuru Court Premises two weeks prior to the date of incident and took videos and photos of the parking area of the Court premises and so also, the entry and exit points for the same. The prosecution has relied upon the documentary evidences- Ex.P94/ Report dated 09.05.2017 given by CDAC in respect of usage of mobile numbers by the accused persons with enclosures (D-216 containing 203 pages), Ex.P. 162/ Report of CDAC dated 22.12.2016 containing the opinion about Data recovered from material objects from various mobile phones and SIM cards, and Ex.P.163/ Another report from CDAC dated 25.1.2017 regarding data recovered from material objects from various mobile phones and SIM cards. The evidence of P.W.23/ Sri Sunil Kumar, the Inspector of Department of Central Excise, who is a witness to the disclosure Mahzar Ex.P. 29, dated 01-12-2016, conducted by P.W.28, P.W.24/ Sri M.H. Ravi Shankar, official of BEO office, Mysuru, who is the witness to pointing out Mahazar, Ex.P.30, dated 02-12-2016 along with T.K. Suresh/ CW.55, conducted by PW.28 under which accused no. 5 has pointed out various places in Mysuru, including the toilet situated at the Mysuru Court complex, where he planted the IED and PW.25, Sri M. Manjesh, an official of survey department at Mysuru, who is a panch witness along with P. Shivaswamy/ C.W. 85 to the disclosure/pointing out Mahazar Ex.P31 dated 07-12-2016, whereunder, accused No.2 volunteered to 75 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 disclose the details of survey conducted by him at Mysuru Court as per the instructions of accused No.1, in order to plant an IED and further, under which accused No.2 has taken photographs and videographs of the Court complex, establishes the fact that, accused No.1 handed over IED to accused No.5 and that he left Aryapalyam for Mysuru by bus and reached the Court premises between 2:00 and 2:15 pm., and placed IED at the public toilet which resulted in an explosion. The mahazars - Ex.P.29, 30 and Ex.P31 mentioned above establish the pointing out proceedings and further, PW.13/ protected witness has clearly deposed that he was working as an auto driver and on 01.08.2016, he picked accused No.5 from Chamarajapura Railway Station and dropped him near the Court premises at Mysuru. Regarding this, there is evidence that PW.5, who has identified accused No.5 in the Court during the recording of evidence and even during the TIP proceedings conducted by the Tahasildar, Bengaluru North Taluk/ not cited as witness and also PW.13 and so also PW.5 have successfully identified accused No.5 during the proceedings. In this regard, the documents Ex.P6 and 7/ the TI proceedings dated 21.02.2016, conducted by the Tahasildar, Bengaluru North Taluk in the premises of Central Prison Bengaluru with respect to accused no.5, Ex.P. 9 and Ex.P10/ the TI proceedings dated 21.02.2016, conducted by the Tahasildar, Bengaluru North Taluk in the premises 76 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 of Central Prison Bengaluru with respect to accused No.5 produced through PW.5 and also, evidence of PW.9/ Murthy K.M., the Police Inspector, CAR, Mysuru who issued Ex.P.8 and PW.13/ the owner of Mahamaya collections at Ballal Circle, Mysuru from where accused No.2 is said to have purchased recharge coupon, manifestly establish that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are responsible for the preparation of IED and also for planting the same at the premises at Mysuru Court. Moreover, when the mahazar was being drawn at the house of accused No.1 at Madurai, in the house of accused No.2 at Madurai and so also, in the chicken shop of accused No.2 at Madurai, it has been established that they are accustomed with the preparation of IEDs. The earth swab taken and its FSL Report amply establishes that, such IED is prepared in the house of accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused No.5.
95. Thus, there is clear and clinching evidence of PW.27, and the pointing out and seizure proceedings, the material objects and the digital evidence which undeniably establish that accused No.5 has caused the explosion at the public toilet, situated at the Premises of Mysuru Court, as per the direction of accused No.1 in furtherance of their conspiracy and accused No.2 is equally responsible for conducting survey of the Court premises. The prosecution has also conducted demonstration mahazar, wherein, 77 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 accused No.5, in the presence of witnesses, has demonstrated how to prepare the IED. Hence, there is ample evidence on record to show that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 have committed the offence punishable under Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act. The evidence indicates that, since explosives were not available, accused No.1 directed accused No.2 and 5 to gather crackers and collect powder in order to carry out the explosion. There is abundant evidence on record to establish that accused No.1 has prepared the bomb and possessed the bomb with an intention to endanger life or cause serious injury to the property at Mysuru Court Premises. Thus, even the offence under Section 4(a), 4(b) and 4(b)(i) of the Explosive Substances Act is established. Apart from the above, the prosecution has established that the accused persons carried out two bomb blasts at Chittoor and Kollam Courts prior to 01.08.2016 and there is an admission by way of suggestion in the evidence of P.W.28 about leaving a clue at Malappuram Court bomb blast. PW.28 has deposed categorically about the collection of documents such as FIR, charge-sheet, wound certificate and other documents regarding the blast carried out on 07.04.2016 at Chittoor Court Premises and on 15.06.2016 at Kollam Court Premises. Those documents are produced as per Ex.P108, 112, 119, 120 to 127, 130 and Ex.P131. PW.27 - the approver has given categorical evidence that accused No.1 prepared an IED at his 78 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 house, and this evidence is established by the documentary evidence Ex.P38 and Ex.P39. As I have already pointed out, there is evidence of P.W.28 regarding demonstration of dummy IED by accused No.1 on 23.12.2016 as per the mahazar - Ex.P167, which establishes that the accused No.1 had the knowledge of making of IEDs. The process of preparation is videographed which is marked as M.O.46 and MO.47. There is evidence to indicate that the accused had purchased materials required for the preparation of bomb. Above all, in the evidence of P.W.28, the prosecution has marked the reports of analysis of materials recovered from the scene of crime, along with cotton swabs of the dust particles obtained from the chicken shop of accused No.2 and from the houses of accused No.1 and 5 indicating that the contents of the articles seized are of the same nature as that of remnants of the scene of crime. This has been established by the documentary evidences - Ex.P177 to Ex.P180. Ex.P177 is the report issued by FSL, Bangalore, dated 22.05.2017, wherein, the articles seized under mahazar Ex.P.5 were examined and the presence of potassium, chloride, sulphate, traces of nitrate, sodium ions and elemental sulphur were detected in article no. 1 to 6, 8, 9, 12 and
13. It was further opined that, the decomposition products as detected in the articles stated therein might have originated from an explosive mixture consisting of potassium chlorate and sulphur. 79
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Further, the presence of explosive residues was not detected in article no. 7, 10 and 11. It was further opined that, mixture of potassium chlorate and sulphur could cause damage to human life and property on explosion. Even the FSL report Ex. P.179 issued by FSL, Madiwala dated 22-05-2017, indicates that, the cotton swabs collected from the walls of chicken shop of accused No.2, ground floor of the chicken shop, the cupboard of steel table and three other cotton swabs including other articles were subjected to forensic examination and confirmed the presence of traces of potassium, chloride, sulphate, traces of nitrate and sodium ions in article No.224 and along with ammonium ions in article No.6. Ex.P.180 is the FSL report issued FSL, Madiwala dated 22-05-2017, whereunder, the articles seized under Mahazar from the house of A-5 were subjected to forensic examination, an opinion has been given about the presence of potassium, nitrate, sodium, chloride ions and elemental sulphur along with charcoal in article Nos.13 and 14 mentioned therein. Further, the presence of potassium, chlorate, nitrate, sodium, chloride ions and elemental sulphur, aluminium and charcoal were detected in article Nos.2 to 9. The presence of explosive residues was not detected in article Nos.1, 10, 11 and fertilizer of article No.12. The accused persons, during their response to the 313 statement, have stated that the said evidence collected through cotton swab is not believable and 80 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 hence, they have prayed that the same should be rejected. But, since that evidence has been corroborated by oral and documentary evidence, it cannot be lightly overlooked. Further, the evidence at hand establishes that, accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 were shown to have been making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances. Thus, the offence under Section 5(a) of Explosive Substances Act is established. Hence, based on the evidence referred to above, I am of the clear opinion that, the prosecution has been successful in establishing the guilt of the accused under Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act r/w Section 120-B of the IPC. Therefore, I have answered point No.5 in the affirmative.
96. In this case, the accused persons had filed their individual applications for pleading guilty and this Court, by an order dated 13.08.2021 has rejected the said applications. It is well settled that, when once the applications of accused persons for pleading guilty have been rejected, the Court shall not be influenced by such applications filed by the accused persons for pleading guilty and shall come to a conclusion based on the oral and documentary evidence after independently examining and appreciating the evidence available.
81
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
97. Point No.6 :- In view of my findings on the above said points, the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are liable to be convicted. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER Acting under Section 235(2) of the Cr.P.C., the accused No.1 - Mr. Nainar Abbas Ali @ Appas Ali @ Library Abbas, accused No.2 - Mr. M. Samsun Karim Raja @ Karim @ Abdul Karim and accused No.5 - Mr. S. Dawood Sulaiman are held guilty and convicted.
Further, the accused No.1 is convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B of the IPC, Sections 465, 468 and 471 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC, Sections 16(1)(b), 18, 18-B, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Further, the accused No.2 is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC, Sections 16(1)(b), 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 4(b) and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
Further, the accused No.5 is convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120-B of the IPC, Sections 465, 468 and 471 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC, Sections 16(1)(b), 18, 20 and 23 of the Unlawful 82 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC and Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984.
The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are to be heard on sentence.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, directly typed by him on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me, in open Court on 08th October, 2021) (Dr. KASANAPPA NAIK), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Court for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) Bengaluru.
ORDER ON SENTENCE Heard the learned counsel for the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5, the learned Special Public Prosecutor and also the accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5, who were produced before the Court physically.
2. The learned counsel for the accused has submitted that, the accused persons are all young and that, in the alleged incident, nobody has sustained injuries and the gravity of the offence is also not much. It is further submitted that the accused persons are in judicial custody since more than five years and they are also first offenders and thus, prayed to take lenient view in awarding the sentence. The learned counsel for the accused 83 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 further submitted that accused No.5 is an engineering student, and accused No.5 assured that he is ready to reform himself.
3. The accused No.1, in person, has submitted that he is a young person hailing from a poor family and has upon himself the responsibility to take care of his parents and that, he is the only son to his parents and has two sisters to look after. He has also submitted that the Court may take a lenient view while awarding sentence.
4. The accused No.2 has submitted that his father expired around two years back, that he is young and the only son to his parents. He has also submitted that, he is the only bread earner in his family. Since there is no one to look after his mother, he has also submitted that he is ready to reform himself and requested the Court to take lenient view while awarding sentence.
5. All the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 submitted that, in case of imposing fine, minimum fine may kindly be imposed.
6. On the other hand, the learned Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that the offences involved in this case are serious in nature and that the manner in which the offence has been committed indicates that, the accused had an intention to cause bomb blast at Mysuru Court Complex premises. The accused 84 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 persons are not first time offenders, they are also responsible for causing bomb blasts at four other different Courts, viz., Chittoor, Kollam, Nellore and Malappuram and hence, the accused persons do not deserve any mercy or sympathy. The offences committed by the accused persons is not a stray incident, but it is a well-
planned and a cold-blooded crime. The accused persons formed a terrorist outfit namely 'base movement' on 21.06.2015 and targeted the Indian Judiciary. The accused persons conspired together and carried out the offences. The accused persons prepared for nine months to cause the bomb blasts. It is further submitted that, the accused persons have committed forgery and on the basis of the forged documents, obtained six SIM cards, used the same in three mobile phones and sent threatening messages to various Government Departments. It is also further argued that, the accused No.2 visited Mysuru Court premises to conduct a survey and that, all the accused have conspired together and committed the offences. Finally, it is argued that since the offences involved are serious in nature, the maximum sentence provided for the offences is to be imposed and no leniency must be shown. It is submitted that, the awarded sentence should be a lesson to other such misguided youngsters from committing such offences in future. Therefore, it is prayed that, a sentence of life imprisonment must be awarded for the offences concerned and at all costs, not 85 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 less than 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and maximum fine must be awarded. Thus, it is prayed that a suitable order on sentence be passed.
7. After hearing the learned Special Public Prosecutor, the learned counsel for the accused persons and so also the accused, I have carefully perused the materials on record. It is seen that, the offences involved in this case is, causing explosion of an IED at the public toilet which is a part of the Court premises at Mysuru. There is evidence about the said public toilet being situated within the compound of the Court premises. The prosecution has established the severeness and impact of the explosion by producing 44 photographs of the public toilet, which are together marked as Ex.P.47. Some photographs also depict the remnants of the bomb blast. Thus, the prosecution is able to establish that IED was used to cause the explosion in a public place, which confirms the commission of a terrorist act. Thus, the offence involved in this case is serious in nature and being an offence against the nation, the same is to be dealt with iron hands. However, during hearing on sentence, all the accused persons were pleading for lenience in awarding of sentence and they expressed that, they are ready to reform themselves. I have further observed that, the accused persons are all young as could be seen from the charge-sheet that 86 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 as on the date of filing of the charge-sheet, the accused No.1 was aged about 28 years, accused Nos.2 and 5 were aged about 23 years respectively, and they seem to be truly repenting for the crime committed by them and they are sincere in their resolution to reform themselves. Further, they have planted explosives of low intensity, in such locations so as to cause no casualty. Their main aim was to spread fear and warn the Government of the alleged violation of human rights of Muslims in the Country. Accused No.1 was first radicalized and it was he who misled the other accused persons. Therefore, in my considered opinion, some lenience is to be shown towards the accused persons in awarding sentence. Instead of awarding maximum sentence provided for the offences, minimum sentence of imprisonment and fine can be imposed. It is further seen that, some offences under which the accused persons are convicted carry minimum sentence and it is well settled that, while awarding sentence under such offences, the Court has no discretion, but to award not less than the minimum sentence which is provided under the law. Lastly, the systematic and efficient investigation of the National Investigation Agency which is a premier Investigation Agency of this Country is commendable, who have not only been successful in nabbing the culprits, but also have provided relevant legal and scientific evidence such as FSL reports 87 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 and etc. On the basis of the above, I proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER The accused No.1 - Mr. Nainar Abbas Ali @ Appas Ali @ Library Abbas, accused No.2 - Mr. M. Samsun Karim Raja @ Karim @ Abdul Karim and accused No.5- Mr. S. Dawood Sulaiman are sentenced to under go simple imprisonment for a period of five years each and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 120-B of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
The accused Nos.1 and 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years each and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 465 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
The accused Nos.1 and 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years each and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 468 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.88
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 The accused Nos.1 and 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years each and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 471 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years each and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 16(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
The accused No.1 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Sections 18-B of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months.
The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years each and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of fine, they shall 89 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years each and shall also be liable to a pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each for the offence punishable under Sections 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years each and shall also be liable to a pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
The accused Nos.1 and 5 are sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of ten years each (rigorous imprisonment for seven years + simple imprisonment for three years) and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.
The accused Nos.1 and 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five 90 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 years each and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
The accused No.2 is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years and shall be liable to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of five years each and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 r/w Section 120-B of the IPC. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of one month each.
The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year each and shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. In default of payment of fine, they shall undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of two months each.91
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Substantial sentences in respect of all the above offences shall run concurrently.
The accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 are entitled for the benefit of set-off of imprisonment undergone by them during the enquiry and trial of this case, under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
The office is directed to preserve the records of this case and case properties since the investigation against accused No.4 - S. Shamsudeen @ Karuva is pending under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C.
Further, the office is hereby directed to furnish free copy of this judgment to the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 forthwith.
Further, the office is hereby directed to issue warrant of conviction against accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, directly typed by him on computer, corrected and then pronounced by me, in open Court on 11th October, 2021) (Dr. KASANAPPA NAIK), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Court for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) Bengaluru.
ANNEXURES List of witnesses examined on behalf of prosecution :-
PW1 Krishna
PW2 P.M. Siddaraju
92
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
PW3 Suma.R
PW4 Shivanna B
PW5 Protected Witness - A
PW6 Nagaraj
PW7 R. Venkatesh
PW8 Sonal
PW9 Murthy. K.M.
PW10 Prashant
PW11 G. Manju
PW12 Protected Witness - G
PW13 Details are avoided - Sec.44
PW14 Sailm Malik
PW15 Mohammed Ali Jinna
PW16 K. Dawood
PW17 Sirajdeen
PW18 Paramesh
PW19 Muruganandam
PW20 S.Madhavan
PW21 Veerachelian
PW22 Abhishek Singh
PW23 Sunil Kumar
PW24 M.H. Ravishankar
PW25 M. Manjesh
PW26 P. Naveen
PW27 Mohammed Ayub @ Minto
PW28 Miss. Prathiba Ambedkar
List of documents marked on behalf of prosecution :-
Ex.P.1 Complaint of PW1
Ex.P.1(a) Signature of PW1
Ex.P.2 Spot mahazar (List of Articles collected by the
police)
93
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
Ex.P.3 FIR in Cr.No.63/2016
Ex.P.3(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.4 Report of seizure vide PF.No.24/2016
Ex.P.4(a) Signature of PW2
Ex.P.5 Seizure Mahazar drawn
Ex.P.5(a) Signature of PW3
Ex.P.5(b) Signature of PW10 in the last page of Ex.P.5
Ex.P.6 Details of purposes
Ex.P.6(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.7 Details of Inmates who were present while
conducting IP
Ex.P.7(a) Signature of PW5
Ex.P.8 Report prepared in respect of examination and
submitted to the PI of Laxmipuram P.S.
Ex.P.8(a) Signature of PW9
Ex.P.9 Document of details of witness and purpose
Ex.P.9(a) Signature of PW13
Ex.P.10 Document of TA parade
Ex.P.10(a) Signature of PW13
Ex.P.11 Requisition submitted by NIA Inspector
Ex.P.12 36 pages handwriting of accused Samsun Karim
Raja.
Ex.P.12(a) Signature and seal of PW18 in the page No.36
Ex.P.12(b) to Signatures of Jailor, Accused Samsun Karim Raja
Ex.P.12(d) and
NIA Inspector Mahesh in page No.36 of Ex.P.12. Ex.P.13 36 pages handwriting of accused Mohammed Ayub Ex.P.13(a) Signature and seal of PW18 in page No.36 of Ex.P.13.
Ex.P.13(b) to (d) Signatures of Jailor, Accused Mohammed Ayub and NIA Inspector Mahesh in page No.36 of Ex.P.13.
Ex.P.14 Proceedings drawn by Mahesh, NIA Inspector Ex.P.14(a) & (b) Signatures and seal of PW18 and the then Jailor 94 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Ex.P.15 Production cum seizure memo Ex.P.15(a) Signature of PW19 Ex.P.16 Documents collected from M/s Kishor Agency and handed over to NIA (printouts) Ex.P.17 65B Certificate Ex.P.18 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.18(a) to (c) Signatures of PW20, Vijayabharathi and Admin Officer in the last page of Ex.P.18 Ex.P.19 Document of conversation between Dawood Sulaiman and NIA Officers Ex.P.19(a) & (b) Signatures of PW20 and Vijaya Bharathi Ex.P.20 Arrest Memo Ex.P.20(a) & (b) Signatures of PW20 and Vijaya Bharathi Ex.P.21 Seizure mahazar Ex.P.21(a) & (b) Signatures of PW20 and Vijaya Bharathi Ex.P.22 Separate seizure mahazar drawn at the house of accused Dawood Sulaiman Ex.P.22(a) & (b) Signatures of PW20 and Vijaya Bharathi Ex.P.23 & 24 Arrest Memo and Search Memo of Abbas Ali Ex.P.23(a) & (b) Signatures of PW21 and Village Assistant by name Palani Yandi Ex.P.24(a) & (b) Signatures of PW21 and Village Assistant by name Palani Yandi Ex.P.25 & 26 Arrest Memo and Search Memo of Samsum Karium Raja Ex.P.25(a) & (b) Signatures of PW21 and Village Assistant by name Palani Yandi Ex.P.26(a) & (b) Signatures of PW21 and Village Assistant by name Palani Yandi Ex.P.27 Mahazar (consisting 37 pages) Ex.P.27(a) & (b) Signature of PW22 and his colleague officer in the last page of Ex.P.27 Ex.P.28 Mahazar pertaining to proceedings of Dawood Sulaiman (consisting of 43 pages) Ex.P.28(a) & (b) Signature of PW22 and his colleague officer in the last page of Ex.P.28 95 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Ex.P.28(c) to (f) The photographs at pages, 27, 28 & 29 Ex.P.29 Mahazar document Ex.P.29(a) & (b) Signatures of PW23 and his colleague officer Ex.P.30 The document prepared at Office of ACP, K.R. Puram Mysore Ex.P.30(a) & (b) Signatures of PW24 and his colleague in the last page of Ex.P.30 Ex.P.31 Statements of Proprietor of M/s Mahamaya Collections Ex.P.31(a) & (b) Signatures of PW25 and Shivaswamy in the last page of Ex.P.31 Ex.P.32 Mahazar Ex.P.32(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.33 Purchase Bill Copy Ex.P.34 Sale bill copy Ex.P.35 Voter ID Copy Ex.P.36 VAT Certificate Ex.P.37 Certificate of Ex.P.33 to 36 Ex.P.37(a) Signature of PW26 Ex.P.38 Letter of undertaking of PW27 Ex.P.39 Statement u/S 164 of Cr.P.C. kept in sealed cover addressed to this Court by HHC (7 pages) Ex.P.39(a) Signature of PW27 in the last page of Ex.P.39 Ex.P.40 Order dated 15.09.2018 of MHA Government of India Ex.P.40(a) Covering letter Ex.P.41 FIR in RC.No.3/2016 registered by NIA Ex.P.42 Covering letter dt.14.11.2016 of ACP, Krishnaraja Sub Division, Mysore directing Lakshimipuram PS to transfer the case papers in Cr.No.63/2016 to NIA Ex.P.43 Intimation dt.15.11.2016 given by JMFC Court to ACP, Krishnaraja Sub Division regarding transfer of entire records to NIA Ex.P.44 Order dt.14.11.2016 of Commissioner of Police, Mysore City directing ACP Krishnaraja Sub 96 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Division to hand over case papers to NIA Ex.P.45 Letter dated 28.09.2016 of DG and IGP State Govt. directing Police Commissioner, Mysore City to provide all the documents and information to NIA Ex.P.46 Report dated 02.08.2016 submitted by PI, Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad State Intelligence, Bengaluru to ACP, K.R.Division, Mysore City about bomb blast taken place on 1.8.2016 with rough hand sketch of spot Ex.P.47 Colour photographs of the spot and photographs of MO's seized by BDDS (totally 44 in number) Ex.P.48 Hand sketch map Ex.P.49 X/c of requisition dt.17.08.2016 submitted by ACP, K.R. Sub Division, Mysore to Director, FSL, Bengaluru for chemical examination of seizure articles with list of articles Ex.P.50 Acknowledgment given by FSL, Bengaluru dated 20.8.2016 Ex.P.51 One more requisition dt.23.08.2016 submitted by ACP, K.R.Sub Division, Mysore to the Director, FSL, Bengaluru along with list of articles sent for chemical examination received by PW28 Ex.P.52 Relevant acknowledgment given by FSL, Bengaluru Ex.P.53 PF.No.32/2016 dated 27.09.2016 Ex.P.54 PF No.25A/2016 dated 12.08.2016 Ex.P.55 Property seizure memo dt.01.08.2016 Ex.P.56 Request letter dt.28.02.2017 Ex.P.57 Copy of FIR Ex.P.58 Copy of connected papers to FIR Ex.P.59 Copy of requisition submitted by Dy.S.P., Narcotics Cell Malappuram dt.8.11.2016 to Dist.
Court to forward material objects to FSL for examination with list of articles Ex.P.60 Acknowledgment given by Director, FSL, Tiruvanathapuram with Cyber Forensic Analysis report 97 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Ex.P.61 Copy of CAF pertaining to person by name Anthony Raj along copy of voter ID card Ex.P.62 Call details pertaining to Mob.No.7358312474 Ex.P.63 Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.64 Cyber Forensic Analysis Report given by FSL, Tiruvanthapuram Ex.P.65 Letter written to Commissioner of Police Kochi City on 28.02.2017 Ex.P.66 Copy of FIR in Cr.No.2506/2016 of Ernakulam City Ex.P.67 Copy of mahazar dated 2.11.2016 Ex.P.68 PF Memo Ex.P.69 Copy of Forwarding Note submitted by ACP, Ernakulam to Dist. Court, Ernakulam Ex.P.70 Copy of letter dt.27.02.2017 addressed to IG, NIA, New Delhi along with 5 copies of MLAT with a request to forward them to USA seeking Assistant regarding facebook accounts of accused in RC.3/2016 Ex.P.71 Copy of letter dated 27.02.2017 addressed to IG, NIA, New Delhi along with 5 copies of MLAT with a request to forward them to USA seeking assistant regarding gmail accounts of accused in RC.3/2016 Ex.P.72 Copy of letter dt.20.7.2017 addressed to IG, NIA, New Delhi along with 5 copies of MLAT with a request to forward them to USA seeking assistant regarding whatsapp account of accused in RC.3/2016 Ex.P.73 Reply dated 09.08.2017 given by SP, NIA, Head Quarter, New Delhi along with reply he received from MHA and US Department of Justice (Document No.235 from page No.3981 to 3984) Ex.P.74 CDR Sent by Bharathi Airtel Ltd. Pertaining to Mob.IMEI No.911459502082790 as referred by PW28 Ex.P.75 Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act of service provider 98 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Ex.P.76 Covering letter sent along with CDR's sent by TATA Tele Services Ltd.
Ex.P.77 CDR sent by TATA Tele Services Ltd. in respect of Mob.IMEI No. 911459502082790 for different period Ex.P.78 Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.79 CDR pertaining to Mob.No.9003591722 referred to PW28 Ex.P.80 Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.81 Customer application form in the name of Selva Kumar along with address proof Ex.P.82 Copy of CAF in the name of Raj Kumar along with document in address proof Ex.P.83 Copy of call detail record of Mob.No.7358483823 from 1.5.2016 to 31.07.2016 provided by Bharathi Airtel Ltd.
Ex.P.84 Copy of Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.85 Customer application form in the name of Andony Raj submitted to Vodafone mobile service Ltd.
Ex.P.86 Copy of CAF in the name of Andony Raj with address proof Ex.P.87 Covering Letter of the service provider Ex.P.88 CDR in respect of Mob.No.9962910866 Ex.P.89 Copy of customer application form in the name of Samsudeen submitted to Bharathi Airtel Ltd. along with address proof and feed back form Ex.P.90 Copy of CAF in the name of Md. Ayub Md.
Thaslim with address proof documents Ex.P.91 Copy of covering letter Ex.P.92 Call detail records pertaining to Mob.
No.8148642874 CDR Ex.P.93 Certificate u/S.65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.94 Report dated 09.05.2017 given by CDAC in respect of usage of mobile numbers by the 99 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 accused persons with enclosures (D-216 containing 203 pages) Ex.P.95 Copy of arrest memo in respect of A3 along with copy of personal search memo (D19) Ex.P.96 Copy of arrest memo in respect of A2 along with copy of personal search memo (D18) Ex.P.97 Copy of arrest memo in respect of A1 along with copy of personal search memo (D17) Ex.P.98 Copy of arrest memo in respect of A5 along with copy of personal search memo (D21) Ex.P.99 Office copy of letter dt.03.01.2017 written by PW28 to SP, Puzhal, Central Jail, Chennai requesting to provide original letter addressed to him by the base movement.
Ex.P.100 Copy of letter dt.3.1.2017 addressed to Editor Dinamalar Office, White Road, Chennai requesting to provide original letter addressed to him by the base movement.
Ex.P.101 Office copy of letter dt.03.01.2017 addressed to Prl. Secretary-II to CM, Tamil Nadu requesting to furnish original letter addressed to him by base movement Ex.P.102 Copy of letter dt.03.01.2017 addressed to Superintendent of Prisons, Palayam Kottai, Central Prison, Thirunalveli requesting to furnish original letter addressed to him by base movement Ex.P.103 Copy of letter dt.03.01.2017 addressed to Superintendent of Prisons, Tiruchanapalli, Central Prison, Pudur, Tiruchanapalli, Tamil Nadu requesting to furnish original letter addressed to him by base movement Ex.P.104 Copy of letter dt.03.01.2017 addressed to Superintendent of Prisons, Cuddalore Central Prison, Tamil Nadu requesting to furnish original letter addressed to him by base movement Ex.P.105 Copy of letter dt.03.01.2017 addressed to Diretor General of Prisons, Prisons Head Quarters, New Delhi requesting to furnish original letter addressed to him by base 100 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 movement Ex.P.106 Copy of letter dt.03.01.2017 addressed to Superintendent of Prisons, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai, Tamil Nadu requesting to furnish original letter addressed to him by base movement Ex.P.107 Copy of letter dt. 3.1.2017 addressed to Superintendent of Prisons, Coimbatore, Central Prison, Coimbatore,TN requesting to furnish original letter addressed to him by base movement Ex.P.108 Copy of letter dt.03.01.2017 addressed to Deputy Commissioner (CT)(FAC), Chittor requesting to furnish original letter addressed to him by base movement Ex.P.109 Correspondence made with Commissioner of Police, Chennai dt.27.4.2017 requesting him to provide the c/c of relevant documents for the purpose of investigation (D-205) along with copy of letter threatening Charlie Hebdo Type attack along with news report Ex.P.110 Letter dt.07.01.2017 of Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Palayam Kottai to letter of PW28 along with annexures (D-60) Ex.P.111 Reply given by Superintendent of Delhi Prisons with annexures dt.10.1.2017 (D-70) Ex.P.111(a) Initial of PW28 for having received the letter Ex.P.112 Reply dt.12.01.2017 by the Deputy Commissioner (CT), Chittoor Division with annexure (D-71) Ex.P.113 Reply dt. 28.1.2017 sent by Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Koimbator along with annexures (D-77) Ex.P.114 Reply given by Prl. Secretary to Government. TN (Home Department) dt. 21.3.2017 (D107) along with annexures Ex.P.115 Correspondence made by PW28 with Prl.
Secretary - II to CM, Tamil Nadu dt.29.3.2017 to 101 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 provide original letter addressed to him by base movement with one annexure (D-108) Ex.P.116 Production cum seizure memo dt. 6.12.2016 regarding seizure of internal hard disk Seagate 500 GB (MO21) Ex.P.116(a) Signature of PW28 on 2nd page Ex.P.117 E-mail dt.13.01.2016 sent of Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru to Addl. Commissioner of Police along with attachments viz. Copy of FIR, charge sheet (D-72).
Ex.P.118 Cyber Forensic Analysis Report submitted by CDAC dt. 9.5.2017 along with annexures (1293 pages (D-217).
Ex.P.119 Office copy of letter dt.28.2.2017 addressed by PW28 to SP, Chittor Dist. (AP) with a request to provide certified copy of documents pertaining to Chittor Court blast (D-86) Ex.P.120 Document sent by SP pursuant to Ex.P.119 viz.
FIR in Cr.No.48/2016
Ex.P.121 Copy of panchanama
Ex.P.122 Copy of FSL Report (D87 to 89)
Ex.P.123 Copy of covering letter dt. 28.2.2017 addressed
to Commissioner of Police, Kollam City, Kerala to provide certified documents viz. FIR, panchanama, FSL Report etc. regarding Kollam blast (D95) Ex.P.124 Reply dt. 2.3.2017 of ACP, Kollam along with required documents (D96) Ex.P.125 Copy of FIR registered in Kollam West PS No.1172/2016 (D96) Ex.P.126 Copy of spot mahazar dt. 15.06.2016 (D-97) Ex.P.127 Copy of wound certificate of one Sabu dt.
15.6.2016 (D-98) Ex.P.128 Copy of correspondence made by Director, FSL, Tiruvananthapuram with JMFC, Kollam dt.
23.9.2016 (D-99) Ex.P.129 Copy of correspondence between JMFC, Kollam and Asst. Director, FSL, Tiruvananthapuram dt. 102
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 23.9.2016 (D-100) Ex.P.130 One more letter addressed by ACP, Kollam to PW28 dt. 8.3.2017 with annexures (D-100).
Ex.P.131 Copy of letter dated 28.8.2017 addressed by PW28 to the SP, Nellore District, Andhra Pradesh to furnish documents pertaining to Nellore Court blast (D-82) Ex.P.132 to 134 Copy of FIR, spot mahazar and FSL report sent by SP, Nellore Dist (D-83 to 85) Ex.P.135 Letter dt.25.4.2017 written by Service Provider Vodafone mobile services Ltd. Along with call details records pertaining to Mob. IMEI No.911511500749820 (D-175) Ex.P.136 Certificate given by the service provider as required under Section 65B of Evidence Act (D-
176) Ex.P.137 Call detail records pertaining to Mob.
No.7397465869 from 1.6.2016 to 31.8.2016 (D-
126) Ex.P.138 Letter written by TATA Tele Services Ltd. dt.
17.4.2017 along with details like CAF, CDR, GPRS, Data etc (D-120) Ex.P.139 Certificate under Section 65B of Evidence Act (D-
130)
Ex.P.140 Office copy of letter dt. 8.12.2016 addressed to
Director, CDAC, Tiruvananthapuram for
examination of seized electronic gadgets
connected to Mysore Court blast (D-49)
Ex.P.141 Acknowledgement dt. 9.12.2016 sent by CDAC
with list of 49 articles received for examination (D-50) Ex.P.142 Original panchanama dt. 3.12.2016 along with search list (D-37) Ex.P.143 Search list dt. 3.12.2016 (D-38) Ex.P.144 One more search list dt. 3.12.2016 (D-39) Ex.P.145 Panchanama dt. 3.12.2016 conducted at house No.23, 1st Street, Madurai.
Ex.P.146 Original mahazar dt. 4.12.2016 conducted at 103 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 House No.13C, Nelpattai, Madurai Ex.P.147 Search list dt.4.12.2016 (D-42) Ex.P.148 Search list dt. 4.12.2016 with reference to house of A3 Ex.P.149 Disclosure memo dt. 30.11.2016 (D-29) Ex.P.150 Extraction proceedings of email account of A5 (D-31) from Page. No.167 to 209) Ex.P.151 Disclosure memo dt. 1.12.2016 (D-32) Ex.P.152 Requisition given to DCP (Traffic and Crime, Mysore City) to provide the required Data related to prepaid auto with Certificate u/S 65B(D-35) Ex.P.152(a) Signature of PW28 Ex.P.153 Letter of Police Inspector, Siddarthanagar Traffic City, Mysore dt. 1.2.2014 furnishing the required details (D-36) (Page No. 227 to 236) Ex.P.154 Section 65B Certificate Ex.P.155 Response sent by face book ink in response to the request made as per mutual legal assistance treaty (D-154) Ex.P.156 Relevant CD forwarded along with Ex.P.73 (D-
235) Ex.P.156(a) Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act given by Facebook Inc in respect of Ex.P.73 and Ex.P.156 Ex.P.157 The registration document and Jihadi reading material recovered from the library as per search list (D-43a) Ex.P.158 Letter dt. 17.5.2017 written to Director, FSL, Chennai to furnish opinion on hand writing samples of the accused persons (D-218) Ex.P.158(a) Signature of PW28 on the last page Ex.P.159 Letter dt. 19.5.2017 of Deputy Director, FSL, Chennai written to NIA with annexures (D-218) Ex.P.160 PF.No.2/2017 dt. 19.5.2017 containing the list of property sent to Magistrate (D-219) Ex.P.161 Expert opinion given by FSL, Chennai with covering letter dt. 14.6.2017 (D-236) Ex.P.162 Report of CDAC dt. 22.12.2016 containing the 104 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 opinion about Data recover from material objects (D-181) Ex.P.163 Another report from same agency 25.1.2017 (D182) Ex.P.164 & Letter dt. 9.12.2016 sent by TATA Consultancy 164(a) services regarding submission of DVD containing mail box and leave records of A5 Dawood Suleiman along with annexures and CD (D-183) Ex.P.165 Production cum seizure memo dt. 11.4.2017 Ex.P.166 Relevant Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act Ex.P.167 Relevant seizure mahazar dt. 23.12.2016 (D-55) Ex.P.167(a) Signature of PW28 on the last page of Ex.P.167 Ex.P.168 Production cum seizure memo dt. 22.12.2016 (D106) Ex.P.169 Another production cum seizure memo dt.
22.12.2016 (D193)
Ex.P.170 Sales Register
Ex.P.171 Certified copy of 164 statement of Mujibur
Rehaman recorded on 13.1.2017 (D74)
Ex.P.172 & 173 Disclosure cum pointing out proceedings
conducted in the presence of independent
witnesses (D44 and 45)
Ex.P.174 & 175 Correspondence made with Airtel dt. 24.12.2017
and reply given by Airtel
Ex.P.176 Extract of Commercial Data along with
Certificate u/S 65B issued by Airtel (D160) Ex.P.177 to 180 FSL reports regarding analysis of articles seized from searches conducted at House of A1 and others (D221 to 224) Ex.P.181 to 183 Production cum seizure memo dt.22.3.2017 and production cum seizure memos dt.3.4.2017 (D206 to 208) Ex.P.184 Covering letter dt.4.5.2017 of Police Inspector, Wireless City Control Room, Mysore with log extract (D215) Ex.P.185 Report dt. 27.3.2017 with annexures (from P.No.2257 to 2261) 105 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Ex.P.186 Sanction order to prosecute A1, A2, A5 by Ministry of Home Affairs vide order No.11011/25/2016-IS-IV dt. 22.5.2017 (D231) Ex.P.187 Letter dt. 23.5.2017 to District Magistrate, Mysore seeking consent u/S 7 of Explosive Substance Act to prosecute Accused (D229) Ex.P.187(a) Signature of PW28 on the last page of Ex.P.187 Ex.P.188 Letter of Mysore DC according consent vide letter dt. 8.12.2017 and proceedings held by DC, Mysore (D238) From Page No.4063 to 4067) Ex.P.189 Requisition dt.3.8.2016 submitted by ACP, Krishnaraja Sub Division, Mysore to EE, PWD to prepare and furnish sketch of scene of occurrence (D33) Ex.P.190 Sketch map with covering letter submitted by EE, PWD (Page No.213 and 214) Ex.P.191 Covering letter dt. 24.12.2016 (D58) of Tahasildar, Bengaluru North District to this Court for having conducted TI pared of accused with annexures Ex.P.192 Requisition dt.1.12.2016 sent to Director, CDAC, Tiruvananthapuram, Kerala for examination of electronic gadgets and to furnish report (D34) Ex.P.193 Report dated 5.12.2016 and 6.12.2016 submitted by CDAC, Tiruvananthapuram (D34) Ex.P.194 Requisition dated 17.1.2017 intimating authorizing Sri.Venkataiah, PC to deposit the articles (D75) Ex.P.195 Acknowledgement dt.19.1.2017 given by the Director CDAC for having received the articles Ex.P.196 Requisition dt.9.2.2017 given to Director FSL, Bengaluru for examination of Swabs and Explosive materials with the list of property and acknowledgment given by Director, FSL (D79) Ex.P.197 Requisition dt.23.2.2017 given to Director FSL, Bengaluru for examination of Swabs and Explosive materials with the list of property and acknowledgment given by Director, FSL (D80) Ex.P.198 Requisition dt.23.2.2017 given to Director FSL, Bengaluru for comparison of explosive material 106 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 with the articles seized during investigation along with acknowledgment and list of articles (D 81) Ex.P.199 Certificate issued u/S 65B of Evidence Act dt.
30.11.2016 along with disclosure memo dt.
30.11.2016 (D27) Ex.P.200 Disclosure cum pointing out proceeding dt.
6.12.2016 (D47)
Ex.P.200(a) Signature of PW28
Ex.P.201 Disclosure cum point out memo dt.4.12.2016
with sample seal (D41)
Ex.P.202 to 204 Letter dt. 27.4.2017 along with CDR of Aircel Ltd.
And Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act (D131, 132 and 133) Ex.P.205 and Copy of CAF along with address proof in the 206 name of Md.Ayub with Mob.7418589688 with call detail records (D163 and 164) Ex.P.207 Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act given by Service Provider dt. 17.4.2017 (D165) Ex.P.208 Copy of CAF with address proof document used by A1 Abbas Ali (D166) Ex.P.209 & 210 CDR pertaining to Mob. No.918012212725 from 01.01.2015 to 17.4.2017 with covering letter of service provider and Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act (D167 & 168) Ex.P.211 Copy of CAF with address proof document used by A1 (D172) Ex.P.212 and Call detail records pertaining to Mob. 213 No.918973373323 from 1.1.2015 to 17.4.2017 with covering letter of service provider and Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act (D173) Ex.P.214 Call details of IMEI No.351869062589150 from 1.9.2016 to 22.11.2016 along with Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act given by Bharathi Airtel Ltd. (D178) Ex.P.215 Letter dt. 8.5.2017 written by Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. Giving details of recharge of Mob.No. 9962910866 (D180) 107 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Ex.P.216 Letter of Directo (FSL), Tiruvananthapuram dt.
18.4.2017 addressed to Hon'ble Prl. Dist. And Sessions Judge, Ernakulam along with Cyber Forensic analysis report (D184) Ex.P.217 Copy of proceedings of opening the seized objects dt.22.2.2017 (D192) Ex.P.218 Production cum seizure memo dt. 11.4.2017 (D210) Ex.P.219 Translated script from Tamil to English along with covering letter of translator dt.28.4.2017 (D213) Ex.P.219(a) Report on analysis of Tamil documents dt.8.1.2017 (D76) Ex.P.220 Letter dt. 16.12.2017 along with Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act sent by Aircel Ltd.
Regarding mentioning of addresses of Cell ID/tower code (D242) Ex.P.221 Letter dt. 26.12.2017 written by Bharathi Airtel Ltd. furnishing information regarding physical side address for Cell ID's of AP, TN, Maharashtra and Kerala along with Certificate u/S 65 of Evidence Act and annexure-I (D243) Ex.P.222 Certificate of authenticity dt. 20.06.2017 issued by Google Ink with attachment and Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act (D245) Ex.P.223 Seizure memo dt. 4.4.2017 (D114) Ex.P.224 Copy of letter dt.15.12.2017 addressed to Superintendent of Prisons, Madurai Central Jail to provide letter written by Base Movement (D252) Ex.P.225 Letter dt.26.12.2017 of Superintendent of Prison, Madurai along with original letter written by Base Movement (D253) Ex.P.226 Letter dated 22.02.2018 addressed to Director, FSL, Madiwala regarding forwarding of MOs for comparison and examination of select timer along with acknowledgment given by Director (D256) Ex.P.227 Report submitted by FSL, Bengaluru dt.9.3.2018 along with sample seal and annexures (D257). Ex.P.228 Proceedings of District Collector, Madurai Dist.
dt. 16.3.2018 according permission to prosecute 108 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 the accused under the Explosive Substances Act (D258) Ex.P.229 Report given by CDAC on 10.4.2018 along with CD (D260) Ex.P.229(a) CD Ex.P.230 Certificate u/S 65B of Evidence Act issued by face book ink dt.23.1.2018 (D259) Ex.P.231 Letter dt.1.8.2018 of IG, Ministry of Home Affairs, GOI addressed to DIG, NIA regarding forwarding of results regarding Base Movement, which contain annexures and CD (D261) Ex.P.231(a) CD Ex.P.232 Receipt No.1189 dt. 4.4.2017 issued by Friends Mobile Ex.P.233 Copy of VAT registration certificate of the above firm Ex.P.234 Closed cover containing Vodafone prepaid customer application form recovered from house of A3 Ex.P.235 Closed cover containing printout issued by Kishore Agency regarding activation of mobile number Ex.P.236 Closed cover containing a Tamil Magazine book with a print captioned "Israel Secret Intelligence service" recovered from the house of A1 Ex.P.237 Sealed cover containing printouts of tracing consignment seized from house of Ferose Khan, Chennai Ex.P.238 Sealed cover containing one cash bill receipt of friends mobile bearing No.1486 dt. 16.6.2016 with IMEI No.911511500749829 Ex.P.239 Closed cover containing printout of the screen shot of different mobiles Ex.P.240 Closed cover containing diary of the year 2015 with writings seized from a house in Madurai of A2 Ex.P.241 Aadhar card in the name of A1 Abbas Ali (Article No.26) 109 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Ex.P.242 Letterhead of Darul ILM Trust (Article No.27) Ex.P.243 Copy of Dl of A1 Abbas Ali in small plastic card with date of issue 31.10.2013 (Article No.28) Ex.P.244 Copy of DL of A1 Abbas Ali in small plastic card with date of issue 31.10.2013 (Article No.29) Ex.P.245 Sealed cover containing 5 CDs bearing photographs of Dr. Jakir Nayak (Article No.9) Ex.P.246 Poster in white and green colour with a imprint in Tamil language in red and blue colour with English caption Darul IIM Trust Ex.P.247 Tamil magazine book with English print of 9/11 on the front cover (Article No.16) Ex.P.248 Birth Certificate issued on 19.11.2015 showing the date of birth as 10.6.1989 (Article No.24) Ex.P.249 Photo copy of PAN Card in the name of A1 (Article No.25) Ex.P.250 Tamil book seized from house of A1 (Article No.19 of PF No.10/2016) Ex.P.251 Tamil language book seized from the library of A1 on 4.12.2016 (454 pages) Ex.P.252 Tamil language book seized during the search of Library of A1 in Madurai on 4.12.2016 (Article No.55 of PF.NO.10/2016 having 78 pages) Ex.P.253 Tamil language book seized during the search of Library of A1 in Madurai on 4.12.2016 (Article No.59 of PF.No.10/2016 having 156 pages) Ex.P.254 Tamil language book seized during the search of Library of A1 in Madurai on 4.12.2016 (Article No.59 of PF.No.10/2016 having 143 pages) Ex.P.255 Tamil magazine seized during the search of house of A1 in Madurai on 3.12.2016 with English print of ISIS on front cover showing volume No.4 containing the name of Vaigarai Velichn Tamil Magazine (Article No.13 of PF.No.10/2016) Ex.P.256 The receipt book printed in Tamil language at Article No.69 Ex.P.257 The receipt book printed in Tamil language at 110 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Article No.70 Ex.P.258 Letter paid with writings as Darul IIM Trust (Article No.52 of PF No.10/2016) seized on 4.12.2016 from the library of A1 at Madurai Ex.P.259 Paper sheet with writings in Tamil seized on 4.12.2016 (Article No.45) Ex.P.260 Long note book (article No.42 of PF No.10/2016) seized on 4.12.2016 from the library of A1 Ex.P.261 Long note book (article No.67 of PF No.2016) seized on 4.12.2016 from the library of A1 Ex.P.262 Recharge coupon of Airtel for Rs.20 (Article No.19) seized on 4.12.2016 from the chicken shop of A2 Ex.P.263 Tamil book seized on 03.12.2016 from the house of A2 (article No.12 of PF. NO.7/2016 ) Ex.P.264 English book tile Do and See You can become a scientist written by V.Vaithanna seized on 3.12.2016 from the hosue of A2 (Article No.13 of PF.NO.7/2016) Ex.P.265 Tamil Book title 'Ulaga Bayangara Varthathin Ootrukkn Mossad' written by Nagore Meeran seized on 4.12.2016 from the house of A2 (Article No.22 of PF.No.7/2016) Ex.P.266 Tamil book written by Ahkiha publishers seized on 3.12.2016 from the house of A2 (Article No.14 of PF.No.7/2016) Ex.P.267 Airtel log book showing the sale and dispatch details of Airtel SIM bearing No.9003591722 seized on 18.4.2017 from a mobile shop (Article 21 of PF.2/2017) Ex.P.267(a) Relevant page in Ex.P.267 Ex.P.268 Register extract of retail activation/CAF Tracker register issued by Vodafone pertaining to mobile numbers seized on 3.4.2017 from a firm called Aroghya Das Chennai (Article No.13 and 14 of PF.No.17) Ex.P.269 Copy of Airtel Tracker book/Register of Deepak Communications seized on 22.3.2017 (Article No.12 of PF.No.2/2017) 111 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 Ex.P.270 & 271 Letter addressed to District & Sessions Judge, Mysore in Kannada and another anonymous letter written to Commissioner of Police, Mysore City in English with covers Ex.P.272 Anonymous letter dated 3.8.2016 addressed to the Prl. Dist. and Sessions Judge, Mysore and to Home Minister of State Government.
List of MOs. Marked on behalf of the prosecution :-
M.O.1 The half pant cloth
M.O.2 White colour towel cloth
M.O.3 One pair of hawai slippers
M.O.4 Piece of absestar sheet
M.O.5 Brick pieces
M.O.6 Pieces of Glass
M.O.7 Window Iron frame
M.O.8 Pieces of cooker seized during mahazar
M.O.9 Leftovers of Battery
M.O.10 Battery snabs 5 Nos.
M.O.11 Leftovers of Cardboard wires
M.O.12 Wires
M.O.13 Different pieces of wires and other articles
M.O.14 Relay part seized in the presence of PW3
M.O.15 Item of Circuit
M.O.16 Remnants of Cooker
M.O.17 Remnants of Cartoon box
M.O.18 Another bunch of Remnants of Cartoon box
M.O.19 Paper pieces
M.O.20 Two used papers
M.O.21 Hard disc bearing bar code number mentioned in
Ex.P.18
M.O.22 Identity card
M.O.23 Voter ID Card
112
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
M.O.24 Two SIM cards
M.O.25 6 Railway tickets
(a) to (f)
M.O.26 Cash (Rs.100X6+Rs.10x3)
M.O.27 Cash purse (valet)
M.O.28 PAN Card
M.O.29 Mobile phone seized as per Ex.P.21
M.O.30 White colour mobile of Samsung made
M.O.31 Silver colour Nokia mobile
M.O.32 Silver colour Lenovo Mobile
M.O.33 Laptop seized as per Ex.P.22
M.O.34 One Jio SIM
M.O.35 2 4G Airtel SIMS
M.O.36 One Vodafone SIM
M.O.37 Pamphlet
M.O.38 3 Books (one in English and two in Tamil)
to M.O.40
M.O.41 Mobile Phone
M.O.42 DVD with contents of Facebook and Gmail account of
Samsun Karim Raja
M.O.43 DVD with contents of Dawood Sulaiman's Gmail
account
M.O.44 Mobile instrument given to PW27 by Abbas Ali
M.O.45 Relevant laptop
M.O.46 Pressure cooker, circuit etc. article No.192
M.O.47 SDHC card identified by witness (Article 193)
M.O.48 Intex mobile handset recovered under a seizure
mahazar
M.O.49 Sealed cover containing wire recovered from the house
of A1 Abbas Ali
M.O.50 Sealed cover containing timer
M.O.51 Sealed cover containing cotton swab seized from the
house of A1 on 3.12.2016
M.O.52 Sealed cover containing a piece of banniyan cloth with
113
Spl.C.C.No.223/2017
stains of colour recovered from house of A1 M.O.53 Closed cover containing SIM Card with mobile No.9710716631 M.O.54 Sealed cover containing 3 cotton swab samples collected from the house of A1 M.O.55 Sealed cover containing dust sample collected from the house of A1 M.O.56 Sealed cover containing a black velvet cloth with grey colour shining dust particles collected from the house of A1 M.O.57 Closed cover containing blue colour Nokia mobile Phone with IMEI No.359971057818378 recovered from the residence of A5 M.O.58 Sealed cover containing two cotton swab recovered from the house of A1 M.O.59 Sealed cover containing dust sample collected from the house of A1 M.O.60 Sealed cover containing swab samples seized from house of A5 M.O.61 Sealed cover containing swab samples seized from house of A5 M.O.62 Sealed cover containing swab samples seized from house of A1 M.O.63 Sealed cover containing metal wire measuring 6.5 meter approximately recovered from the house of A1 M.O.64 Sealed cover containing Ash colour lungi with colour stains recovered from A1 M.O.65 500 gms plastic bag with name of Micronol Rose Mix-
Multimicro nutrient fertilizer in soil application kept in a plastic sealed packet M.O.66 Swab collected in cotton from the house of A3 on the basis of confession made by A1 kept in sealed cover M.O.67 Three Pen drives M.O.68 Screw driver with violet colour handle and yellow colour insulator measuring 35 cms (Article No.20) M.O.69 Screw driver (star tip) with transparent handle having metal portion with green colour insulator (Article 21) M.O.70 Cotton swab taken from the chicken shop of A2 114 Spl.C.C.No.223/2017 (Article No.16 of PF.No.7/2016) M.O.71 Two cotton swab taken from the chicken shop of A2 (Article No.15 of PF.NO.7/2016) M.O.72 Cotton swab taken from the chicken shop of A2 (Item NO.4 No.15 of Article No.15 of PF.NO.7/2016) M.O.73 Chips and fuse seized from the house of A2 (Item No.8 of PF NO.7/2016) M.O.74 SIM Card of Idea Make and SIM Card of Airtel received from C-DAC.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Court :-
Court Witness Dhanaraj (translator) List of witnesses examined on behalf of the defence :-
NIL List of documents and MOs. Marked on behalf of the defence :-
NIL (Dr. KASANAPPA NAIK), XLIX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, (Special Court for trial of NIA Cases), (CCH-50) Bengaluru.Digitally signed by KASANAPPA NAIK DN: cn=KASANAPPA NAIK,ou=HIGH COURT OF
KASANAPPA KARNATAKA,o=GOVERN
NAIK MENT OF
KARNATAKA,st=Karnataka
,c=IN
Date: 2021.10.11 17:22:27
*HRN/-
IST