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