The Hindu : Tamil Nadu / Coimbatore News : Prosecution suppressing facts on serial blasts, says defence counsel

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Sep 01, 2006

Tamil Nadu

Tamil Nadu - Coimbatore

Prosecution suppressing facts on serial blasts, says defence counsel

V.S. Palaniappan

Coimbatore: Accusing the prosecuting agency of suppressing facts relating to the Coimbatore serial blasts case by withholding material documents, Defence counsel Bhavani B Mohan on Thursday told Special Court Judge K. Uthirapathy that the court should take adverse inference.

Mr.Mohan said a copy of the Government Order banning the Al-Umma soon after the blasts had not been marked to the court. Similarly a copy of the bandobust scheme for BJP leader L.K Advani's visit had also not been marked. As many as 57 persons were killed and 252 injured in the serial blasts on February 14, 1998 when Mr.Advani was to visit Coimbatore for electioneering. The prosecution chargesheeted 166 Al-Umma activists in this case.

As per provision 114 (g) of the Indian Evidence Act, Mr.Mohan said, the court, in the wake of suppression of records, should presume that such facts were in existence and withheld by the prosecution since it would be unfavourable to them.

Referring to Mr.Advani's public meeting, Mr.Mohan said there was no permission for it. There was no photograph to prove that a stage had been erected. He wanted the prosecution to explain whether anybody was delivering a speech when the blasts took place and how Mr.Advani's flight got delayed. How could a VVIP provided with `Z plus' category security address a meeting organised at a four-road junction, he asked.

Investigations into the serial blasts case were a classic example of the accused being fixed first and investigation proceeding on preconceived and predetermined lines for collecting evidences.

He also sought summary rejection of one of the witnesses who had deposed on the crucial conspiracy meeting held on February 13, 1998 evening at Bilal Estate. The witness, who was residing at a BJP office, was a "chance and stock" witness and not an independent, natural one. The prosecution had failed to let in any corroborating or link witness to prove the presence of the witness at the venue where the conspiracy meeting was held.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Tamil Nadu