Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Looking at the record of the case including the testimony of witnesses and the documents produced, we find sufficient general corroboration of the confessional statements made by A5 and A6. It is proved that they were associates of Dawood Ibrahim and Abu Salem (A9) and were continuously in touch with them on telephone for the purposes of getting directions and receiving remuneration. They were seen at and near the place of occurrence on 7.3.1995. They had brought weapons of offence and distributed to other accused. Recoveries of the weapons were made from them which were seized in the presence of witnesses as is evident from the Panchanamas. They were identified by the witnesses at the test identification parade. Their other associates in crime have either been killed or absconding. The cause which provoked Abu Salem (A9) to kill Pradeep Jain stands corroborated by the testimony of Jyoti Pradeep Jain (PW23), widow of the deceased. What more corroboration was required in such a case has not been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for A5 and A6.

To weaken the case of the prosecution, learned counsel appearing for A5 and A6 relied upon the finding of the trial court holding that the recoveries made from the aforesaid accused persons were not proved. In reply to question No.7 A5 had stated that he had produced two .38 revolver, one 9 mm pistol and one AK 56 assault rifle and the cartridges which he had kept in his house and handed over to the police. The trial court found that as the weapons were seized from the person of the accused when they were on the road, there existed contradiction, making the recoveries doubtful. Another circumstance which weighed with the trial court to disbelieve the factum of recovery was the Press Conference held by the police wherein the weapons seized from the accused are stated to have been shown. Referring to those two circumstances, the trial court held:

119. The statement of A6 relating to the recovery of weapons from the house of A5 could not have been made a basis for holding that there existed contradiction which persuaded the court not to believe the recoveries as a piece of corroborative evidence. Much has been made out from the display of seized weapons at the Press Conference held by the police after the arrest of the accused. Such an information is based upon the press reports published in the newspapers. The Joint Commissioner of Police who held the press conference stated that if any good work is done with a good detection relating to crime, occurrence of which had been earlier reported in the press or the accused of serious offence or the shooters in the case as may be arrested then to enhance the image of the police in the public, a wide publicity is usually given for which press conferences are held. He presided over the press conference on 3.7.1995 and as he had got information from the DCP about the seizure of weapons. He stated that he directed those officers to produce one AK 56 assault rifle and smaller weapons which were to be displayed in the press conference. According to him such weapons were available with the Special Operation Squad Branch. According to him similar weapons like the weapons seized from the accused were displayed in the press conference. When a question was put to him as to whether there was any hitch in displaying the seized articles and showing the same to the press persons, he replied that normally there was no hitch and in that particular case because of the lack of time to the DCP he might not have been able to bring the seized weapons. The seized weapons were shown in the office of CID Crime in the same building where the office of the Joint Commissioner of Police is also located. There was no cause or occasion for the court to disbelieve the testimony of the Joint Commissioner of Police. Holding that the only seized weapons were shown to the press, the trial court committed a mistake and it has unnecessarily tried to make a mountain out of mole on such a frivolous ground.