Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. The interrogation of the arrested accused showed that they were residing at Zamzam Hotel. The statement of the manager of Zamzam hotel was recorded and the hotel register was seized. On 13/01/2006, the accused no.4 was arrested and it was alleged that he was having a Nokia mobile handset with sim card bearing no. 9867827806. The articles were sent for scientific examination. In the months of December 2005 and January 2006, some suspicious phone numbers were kept under surveillance and their conversation was intercepted after following due process. Such intercepted conversations were recorded on audio CDs. These audio CDs were handed over to the Investigation Officer of this case. On 19/01/2006, voice samples of the accused were obtained. The intercepted conversations recorded on the CDs were sent for comparison with the voice samples to the laboratory at Chandigarh. The detonators, switches and timers were sent to the Director, National Bomb Data Centre, NSG, Manesar, Haryana for examination. The examination reports were collected by the investigating agency. Various sanctions for prosecution under the Arms Act, the Explosives Act, the UAPA, were obtained and the charge-sheet was filed. The case was URS 11 of 32 12 APEAL 110-10 @ Others Judgment.doc exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The trial was conducted before the Court of Sessions for Greater Mumbai at Sewree.

20. The prosecution has examined PW 8 who was attached with the ATS from November 2005 to April 2007. In the month of December 2005, they had received information about these 3 suspected mobile phone numbers and therefore, a report was made to Deputy Commissioner of Police which was approved by the Joint Commissioner of Police. Final approval was taken from the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department and the aforementioned 3 phone numbers were kept under surveillance and their conversation was intercepted. The phone number attributed to the accused no.2 was intercepted from 29/12/2005. The phone number attributed to the said Salauddin was intercepted from 01/01/2006 and the phone attributed to the accused no.4 was intercepted from 03/01/2006. The interception was discontinued after 16/01/2016. After the conversations were intercepted, they were recorded on 3 CDs. The CD no.1 was pertaining to the phone number attributed to Salauddin. The CD no.2 was in respect of the phone number attributed to the accused no.2 and the third CD was in respect of the intercepted URS 23 of 32 24 APEAL 110-10 @ Others Judgment.doc conversations in respect of the phone number of the accused no.4. This witness heard the conversations and dictated the transcripts on 17/01/2006. After the transcripts were prepared, the CDs were kept in a separate cover. Significantly, this witness, in the cross- examination, has admitted that he did not remember the date on which these CDs were prepared. He further admitted that the expert technician recorded the conversations in the computer and the communication was directly recorded on the hard disc. The prosecution has not brought any evidence to show as to how the conversations from the hard disc were transferred on CDs and what precautions were taken at that time. This link is an important factor and therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that the CDs were the exact copies of the conversations, intercepted by these officers. In this view of the matter, the further evidence in respect of the voice samples, voice analysis, voice matching, etc. becomes doubtful and therefore, it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved that these conversations could be attributed to any of the accused. Moreover, the evidence of PW 8, and PW 10 who was the pancha when the transcripts were made, does not show that the CDs were kept in sealed condition. Therefore, the possibility of tampering with these URS 24 of 32 25 APEAL 110-10 @ Others Judgment.doc voice recordings cannot be ruled out, as is rightly held by the learned trial Judge in paragraph 103.

24. The prosecution has also examined PW 16, the Special Executive Officer, who had conducted the identification parade. At the parade, PW 3 had identified the accused nos.1 and 3. However, the evidence PW 3 itself being unreliable, the evidence of identification parade in that behalf does not help the prosecution. Another witness from Zamzam Hotel had identified the accused nos.2 and 3. However, we have already discussed this evidence and since they were caught together, this circumstance does not make any difference to the case. PW 22 had given a sim card to the accused no.2 and had identified him in the said parade. However, the evidence in respect of the intercepted conversations of the mobile phone of accused no.2, as already discussed earlier, was not reliable. The accused no.1 was identified by the PW 4 who had exchanged the money but as discussed earlier, the evidence of that witness PW 4 itself being unreliable, is liable to be rejected.