Supreme Court of India
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE AND ANR.versusTHE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBL/SCB/CHENNAI, TAMIL NADU
- Citation
- 2010 INSC 852
- Decided
- 6 December 2010
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- B SUDERSHAN REDDY
Holding
The convictions were set aside because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were involved in the procurement of ROX/PETN or the execution of the bomb blast.
Summary
The appellants Abubucker Siddique and others were convicted for a bomb blast that destroyed the RSS headquarters, based largely on confessional statements and the allegation that they procured gelatin sticks and detonators. The prosecution claimed the bomb was made of ROX and PETN, but forensic analysis showed no trace of gelatin and only ROX/PETN residues, while the accused had only purchased gelatin. The Supreme Court held that the trial court had no direct or reliable circumstantial evidence linking the appellants to the procurement of ROX/PETN or to the actual explosion, and that the trial court’s interpretation of "other materials" as other explosives was unfounded. Consequently, the convictions under the IPC, Explosives Act, Explosives Substances Act and TADA were set aside. The Court emphasized that suspicion cannot replace legal proof and that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of causation.
Issues considered
- The adequacy of confessional statements and circumstantial evidence to sustain convictions under IPC, Explosives Act, Explosives Substances Act and TADA.
- Whether the prosecution proved that the accused procured and used ROX and PETN, given that only gelatin sticks were found to be purchased.
- Whether the trial court erred in interpreting "other materials" in the charge sheet to include other explosives.
- Whether the lack of forensic trace of gelatin and presence of ROX/PETN breaks the evidential link between the accused and the bomb.
- The admissibility and reliability of confessions recorded under Section 15 of the TADA Act.
Legislation cited
- Explosives Act, 1884s. 9(B)(1)(b)
- Explosives Substances Act, 1908s. 3, s. 4, s. 5, s. 6
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120-B, s. 153A, s. 201, s. 302, s. 324, s. 326, s. 419, s. 436
- Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987s. 15, s. 3(2)(i), s. 3(2)(ii), s. 3(3)
Subjects
confessioncircumstantial evidenceforensic analysisTADAIPCexplosivesbomb blastconviction overturnedcriminal conspiracylack of direct evidence
Judgment
(2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 891
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE AND ANR. A
v.
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CBl/SCB/CHENNAI,
TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1374 of 2007) B
DECEMBER 06, 2010
[B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH
NIJJAR, JJ.]
c
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 120-B rlw ss. 153A, 201, 302, 326,
324, 419, 436 - Explosives Acy 1884 - s. 9(B)(1)(b) -
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 - ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 - Terrorist
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - ss. 3(2)(i)
and (ii), s. 3(3) - Conspiracy allegedly hatched amongst D
appellants and others, subsequent to Babri Masjid demolition
- Alleged procurement of gelatin sticks and other materials
and bomb manufactured using explosive,substances - Bomb
used to destroy Headquarters of a Hindu organization .,..
Destruction of the building, death of eleven persons and E
injuries to seven - Trial court convicting the appellants on
basis of confessional statement as also the evidence that
explosion was caused only by ROX and PETN and gelatin
sticks were not used - Conviction uls. 120-B rlw ss. 153A, 201,
302, 326, 324, 419, 436, s. 9(8)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, F
ss. 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosives Substances Act and s.
3(2)(i) and (ii) ands. 3(3) of the TADA Act with sentence of
life imprisonment - On appeal, held: No evidence to link the
appellants with the explosion - Except for the confessional
statements, no other independent evidence with regard to the G
participation of the accused in the conspiracy and the
particular role played by them - Bomb was made of ROX and
PETN but no trace of gelatin was found from the scene of
crime - Prosecution could only prove that the appellants had
891 H
892 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A procured gelatin sticks and detonators from place 'G' but traces
of said explosives could not be found from the scene of
occurrence - Thus, order of conviction and sentence set
aside - Evidence.
According to the prosecution, after the demolition of
8
the Babri Masjid, the appellants alongwith the other
accused entered into a conspiracy for committing
terrorist acts at various places against Hindus. In order
to strike terror they decided to cause explosions with the
C intent to cause destruction to the property belonging to
the Hindu community and the people present there. In
pursuance thereof, the appellants and their accomplices
went to place 'G' and procured 13 kgs of gelatin and other
materials. Two explosive bombs were assembled. The
first and the second attempt to explode the b.omb failed.
D The conspirators succeeded in the third attempt which
resulted in death of many and destruction of the
Headquarters of a Hindu Organization. AS and A14 stood
outside the building, the office of a Hindu Organization.
A15 and A17 carried the bombs in the building and left
E the place. The trial court on basis of the confessional
statements made by the accused as also the evidence
that explosion was caused only by ROX and PETN and
that the gelatin sticks were not used, convicted the
appellants under Section 120-8 IPC rlw Sections 153A,
F 201, 302, 326, 324, 419, 436 IPC, Section 9(B)(1)(b) of the
Explosives Act, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosives
Substances Act and Section 3(2)(i), (ii) and Section 3(3)
of the TADA Act and sentenced them to life
imprisonment. The other accused were held liable only
G for the acts of either promoting enmity among the
religious groups or harbouring the accused before and
after the blast. Four accused were acquitted. Therefore,
the instant cross appeals were filed.
Allowing the appeals filed by the accused and
H
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY i)Y. 893
SUPDT. OF POLICE
dismissing the appeal filed by the State, the Court A
HELD: 1. In the instant case, there is no direct
evidence of the crime. The prosecution case hinges on
circumstantial evidence. Even in cases where no direct
evidence is available in the shape of eye-witnesses etc.,
8
a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence
alone. [Para 11] [907 -F]
Hanumant Govind Nargundkar vs. State of M. P. 1952
SCR 1091; Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Admn. (1974) 3 SCC
668 - referred to. C
2.1 The contents of the confessional statements if
true, would indicate that all the accused and the
appellants, in particular, had entered into a conspiracy for
committing the violent and terrorist acts against a 0
particular Hindu organization and Hindu places of
religious worships, religious institutions and places
frequented by Hindus in general. In order to strike terror
in the minds of the Hindus, they had decided to cause
explosions and commit crimes of violence, such as E
murder. They were also intending to cause destruction
to the property belonging to the Hindu community. In
furtherance of the aim, the participants in the conspiracy,
the appellants in particular, and their accomplices had
been charged with the task of procuring high explosives. F
For that purpose, they went to place 'G'; and procured
13 kgs of gelatin. From the explosive material collected
by the conspirators, two dangerously explosive bombs
had been assembled. The first attempt to explode such
a bomb did not fructify as the intended target had already
left the premises in which the bomb was to be.exploded. G
The bomb was dismantled and kept in the house of A18
(absconding). The second attempt for exploding these
bombs also failed as the detonator was short circuited.
It was the third attempt in which the conspirators
succeeded, when A15 and A17 carried the two bombs H
894 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A into the building. They deposited the bombs in the
building and exited from there. They waited outside for
half an hour till the bomb exploded, resulting in the
destruction of the Headquarters of the Hindu
Organization. [Para 14] [910-8-G]
B
2.2 Except for the confessional statements, there was
no other independent evidence with regard to the_
participation of the accused in the conspiracy and the
particular role played by them. According to these
confessions, A15 and A17 had carried the two suitcases
C inside the building. Therefore, it is apparent that even
according to the prosecution version, they could have
only carried bombs made from gelatin. Upon
investigation and according to the evidence, which was
recorded in the trial court itself, it was established that the
D bomb which caused the damage consisted only of ROX
and PETN. This is also the conclusion In the report
submitted by the Director, CFSL. [Paras 16 and 17] [911-
C-F]
E 2.3 The trial court, without any cogent evidence,
accepted the submission of the prosecution that only
two persons-A15 and A18 (absconding accused), knew
about the procurement of ROX and PETN. Thereafter, the
trial co1,1rt quite erroneously observed that AS in his
F confessional statement had indicated that gelatin sticks,
detonators and "other explosives" were procured. Having
said so, the trial court without any basis accepted the
contention of the prosecution that other explosives could
have been ROX, PETN and merely because the source
G could not be proved it cannot be said that such
explosives were not used. This conclusion was reached
by the trial court inspite of the evidence of PW-223, the
investigating' officer. [Para 20] [916-D-F]
2.4 The conclusion by the trial court does not explain
H as to what happened to 13 Kgs of Gelatin, which was
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 895
SUPDT. OF POLICE
procured ,from place 'G'. It also does not explain as to A
why only traces of ROX were found in dead bodies,
clothes and parts of the building. Not a trace of Gelatin
was found in the building. In none of the confessional
statements, it has been stated about any other explosives
being procured, yet the trial court concluded that other B
explosive material has also been procured. The
conclusion is clearly without any factual basis nor
supported by any evidence. [Para 22) [917-G-H]
2.5 On a conjoint reading of the entire evidence, the C~
trial court clearly recorded the conclusion that only ROX
and PETN and not Gelatin sticks as claimed by the
prosecution were used for the explosion. It is also noticed
that the confessional statements reveals that what was
purchased were only Gelatin sticks from the place 'G' and
not ROX and PETN. Such evidence would clearly destroy D
the very· foundation of the prosecution case, which
proceeds on the basis that the gelatin and the detonators
were procured in place 'G' was the material from which
the bombs were manufactured, which were responsible
for the explosion. Even according to the trial court, the E
exploding bomb consisted of ROX and PETN. Having
recorded the said conclusion that trial court without any
justification concluded that such evidence would only
affect the evidentiary value and truthfulness of the
confessional statements. The trial court having correctly F~
recorded the conclusion in the earlier part of the
paragraph, unnecessarily and without any basis diluted
the same and restricted it only to the reliability of the
confessional statement. The trial court correctly observed
that the prosecution ought to have investigated the case G
in the angle of the usage of the ROX, PETN etc. Even
after making such an observation, the trial court
erroneously went on to convict the, appellants who hacf
procured only Gelatin ahd Detonators from place 'G'.
[Paras 23 and 24) [918-C-E; 919-C-D] H
896 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL) S.C.R
A 2.6 The submission that the appellants not being
scientists, referring to the explosive substance as gelatin
as opposed to ROX would not be fatal, cannot be
accepted. The confessional statements should be read
from the point of view of a layman. [Para 25] [919•E]
B
2.7 The observations of the trial court that 'other
materials' could have been ROX and PETN is perverse.
The other items in addition to gun powder were the iron
box, suit case, battery box, quartz timer, switch etc. The
confessional statement of A5 reveals that they had gone
C to place 'V' to purchase "gun powder" for the preparation
of the bomb. Then they went to place 'G' and procured 8
kgs of gelatine. Later they had procured 5 kgs of
"gunpowder". The confessional statement of A5 only
reveals that they had procured gelatine, gunpowder and
D certain other accessories required for blasting a bomb
viz. detonators, switch, battery box, pen torch cells,
quartz timer etc. It is not mentioned in the confessional
statement as to how and when the appellants had
procurnd ROX and PETN-the materials with which the
E bomb made for blasting the building situated at 'N' Street
was made. [Para 26] (920-E-H; 921-A]
2.8 The most important portion of the charge levied
was "procurement explosives and other materials". It is
F not in dispute that explosives were procured from place
'G'. The confessional statement of A 1 and A5 are
unequivocal that only gelatin sticks and detonators were
bought from place "G' from a licensed shop owner PW
112 (declared hostile). The prosecution has not been able
G to ascertain as to how the appellants had access to ROX.
The trial court had accepted that as only two persons
namely A 15 (died) and absconding accused 'MA' knew
about the source from where ROX was procured, the
other three accused-A 5, A 14 and A 17 who were closely
associated with them also knew about it. The observation
H
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 897
SUPDT. OF POLICE
-of'the trial court is merely conjectural. The conclusion of A
the trial court that the "other materials" as mentioned in
the charge sheet brings in its sweep other explosives like
RDX and PETN is wholly without any basis. The evidence
on the record clearly militates against such a conclusion.
Thus, even if the charges are read along with the
8
confessional statement, it would not; in any manner,
improve the intrinsic value of the evidence led by the
prosecution. Suspicion no matter how strong cannot
take the place of legal proof. [Para 27) [921-E-H; 922-A·
BJ c
2.9 It is true that the prosecution case was that
explosive substances were used to make bombs. It is not
in. dispute that the instant case was registered against
the 18 persons for blasting the RSS building situated at
'N' Street. The bomb was made of ROX and PETN but no D
trace of gelatin was found from the scene of crime. The
prosecution could only prove that the appellant had
procured gelatin sticks and detonators from place 'G' but
the traces of said explosives could not be found from the
scene of occurrence. Thus, there is clearly no evidence E
to link the appellants with the explosion. [Para 28) [921-
D]
2.10 The prosecution story as put forward does not
inspire confidence on the basis of the material placed on
record. The conviction and sentence passed against the F
appellants are set aside. [Para 29) (922-F]
Chhittar vs. State of Rajasthan 1995 Supp (4) SCC 519;
Ag/moo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar (1966) 1 SCR 134; Devku
Bhikha vs. State of Gujarat (1996) 11 SCC 641 • referred to. G
Case Law Reference:
1995 Supp (4) SCC 519 Referred to Para 8
(1966) 1 SCR 134 Referred to Para 8
H
898 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A (1996) 11 sec 641 Referred to Para 8
I
1952 SCR 1091 Referred to Para 11
(1974) 3 sec 668 Referred to Para 11
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
B No. 1374 of 2007.
From the Judgment & Order dated 21.06.2007 of the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activites (Prevention) Act, 1987,
Chennai in Calender Case No. 4 of 1994 in R.C. 16 (S)/93/
C CBl/SCBiMAS.
WITH
Crl. A. Nos. 552 of 2008 & 1271 of 2009.
D P.P. Malhotra, ASG, N. Natarajan, Abdul Kalam Bahadur
Shah, A. Venayagan Balan, G. Balaji, Mahalakshmi Pavani,
Abdul Kalam Bahadur Shah (for Mahalakshmi Balaji & Co.),
P.K. Dey, Dr. Shailendra Sharma, Padmalakshmi Nigam,
Madhurima Mridul, Arvind Kumar Sharma for the appearing
E parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. These appeals have
been filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist and Disruptive
F Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter. referred to as
'TADA Act') against the final judgment and order dated 21st
June, 2007 passed by the designated Court No. II TADA Act,
16(S)/93/CBl/SCB/MAS, whereby the learned Judge convicted
the appellants under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections
G 153A, 201, 302, 326, 324, 419, 436 IPC, Section 9(8)(1)(b)
of the Explosives Act, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosives
Substances Act and Section 3(2)(i) and (ii) and Section 3(3)
of the TADA Act and they were sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life.
H
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 899
SUPDT. OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
I I
2. The prosefoutioh tase in brief was as follows: A ·.
After the demolition of the Babri Masjid in the month of
December 1992, there were numerous violent incidents in
various parts of the country attributed to Muslim fanatics against
Hindu organizations, places of religious worship and other
institutions. During the period from December 1992 to October B
1993, the appellants entered into a criminal conspiracy at
Madras, Vaniyam Padi Melapalayam, Madurai, Bangalore,
Tumkur, Anchal and other places to commit illegal acts by
inciting Muslim youths to commit acts of violence and terrorism.
Such acts included manufacturing of bombs, exploding them C
in various Hindu organizations, places of worship and other
religious institutions, committing murder of persons likely to be
present in the offices of such organizations and places of
worship, to cause hurt to the inmates therein, to escape after
the commission of such acts, to provide accommodation and D
shelter to the conspirators to carry out the object of the
conspiracy, to go into hideouts, to harbour the offenders
involved in such violent acts and to screen the offenders from
the clutches of law. Ahmad Ali (A9) addressed public meetings
and incited Muslim youths to fight against Hindu Munnani and E
RSS leaders and also to indulge in acts of violence to promote
enmity between Hindu and Muslims.
3. On 8th July, 1993, A14 Hyder Ali (posing himself to be
Ravi) and A 15 Imam Ali (posing himself to be Sivakumar)
visited Vadacherry (located in the outskirts of Vaniyambadi- F
Vellore District, Tamil Nadu) with the intention of causing bomb
blasts at a public meeting addressed by one of the Hindu
Munnani leaders Sridhar (PW 118). However they could not
execute their plan since the meeting was over by the time they
reached Vadacherry and the bomb remained unused. However G
they met Sridhar and after introducing themselves as Ravi and
Sivakumar, expressed their desire to meet him at C.hennai. The
unused bomb was dismantled and kept .in the house of A 18
Mushtaq Ahmed at Jaffarbad in Vaniyarribadi which is nearer
H
900 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A to Vadacherry. Afterwards the duo returned to Chennai. On
29th July, 1993, A5 Abubucker Siddique, A14 Hyder Ali, A15
Imam Ali and A 17 Kaja Nizamuddin went to a house in Porur
and ordered a remote control device. Thereafter they went to
the house of A 18 Mushtaq Ahmed (absconding accused) at
Jaffarabad. Together all the aforesaid accused went to
8
Gudiyatham and purchased gelatin and detonators and brought
it to the house of A18 Mushtaq Ahmed. It is further the case of
the prosecution that A'. fl Imam Ali conducted a trial blast at the
house of A 18 Mushtaq Ahmed and thereafter left for Chennai
C on the following day. They collected the remote control ordered
earlier from the Porur house and checked the same. They then
purchased pen torch cells, one battery box, quartz timer, switch
and some other items required for blasting suitcase bomb. On
30th July, 1993A15 Imam Ali and A 17 Kaja Nizamuddin along
with AS Abubucker Siddique and A14 Hyder Ali went to the
D RSS office Chennai for surveying the place. While A 15 Imam 1
Ali and A 17 Kaja Nizamuddin were inside the RSS office A5 '
Abubucker Siddique and A14 Hyder Ali remained outside. A15
and A 17 could not meet Sridhar as he was out of office.
However they met other office bearers and informed him that
E they were running a cassette recording company in Alandur,
Chennai and made an official entry of an incorrecU non-existent
address in the register kept as a record of visitors to the RSS
office. On 6th August, 1993 all the above four accused went to
RSS office, Chennai with suitcases containing bombs. On the
F way, A 15 and A 17 got down near a temple, applied Vibhooti
(white ash) and kum (tilak) on their forehead, stuck photos of
Lord Krishna on their suitcases. Again A 15 and A 17 went
inside the RSS office carrying the suitcases containing bombs
and A5 and A14 remained outside. A5 and A17 enquired about
G Sridhar from Shanmugam, a RSS worker. A15 and A17 had
also talked to Jawahar, another RSS worker and handed over
a letter addressed to Sridhar. Thereafter they came out of the
office leaving behind the suitcase bombs and waited for about
half an hour at a tea shop. However the bombs did not explode.
H
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 901
SUPDT. OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
A 1S and A 17 went inside and brought the suitcase bombs · A
outside and took it back to the godown of A 1 Rafiq Ahmed.
On 7th August, 1993, they purchased new battery cells, cells
for torch light and plastic covers which do not conduct electricity.
These were brought for rectification and then the bombs were
again kept ready in both the suitcases. On 8th August, 1993 . e
at about 11-12 am all the above four accused went again with
the two suit cases containing the bombs. Again AS and A 14
remained outside, A 1S and A 17 went inside the RSS office
carrying the suitcases the bombs. Inside the RSS office they
met PW1 Srinivasan and asked about Sridhar. After that they c
came out of the building leaving behind the suitcase bombs.
At about 1:4S pm there was loud explosions which resulted in
the death of 11 persons, injuries to 7 others and also complete
demolition of the building.
4: Instant case was registered by Mr. A. Rajaram. D
Inspector, Chetput, F-S, Police Station, Chennai in crime No.
1137 of 1993 under Section 120-B, 302 326, 153 A IPC,
Section 98(1)(b) of The Indian Explosive Act, 1884 and
Sections 3 And 4 of The Explosive Substances Act, 1908
against unknown persons. Initially the investigation was started E.
by CBCID, Metro, Chennai. Later on, the investigation was
transferred to CBI on 26th August. 1993 and registered in R.C
No. 16 (S) 93- CBl/SCB/Chennai and investigated by Mr. M.S.
Sundarajan DSp, CBl/SCB/Madras. After the completion of the
investigation, charge sheet dated 8th June, 1994 was filed F
against 18 accused under Sections 120-B IPC read with
Sections 153-A,201,302,326,324,419,436 IPC, Section
9(8)(1)(b) of the Explosives Act, Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the
Explosives Substances Act and Section 3 of the TADA Act.
G
5. The Designated Court No. II TADA Act, 1987
(hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court) by order dated 21st
June, 2007 convicted A 1 Rafiq Ahmed under Section 153A
read with Section 109 IPC, A2 Shahabudeen under Section
201 IPC, A4 Abdul Rahim under Section 3(4) TADA Act, AS H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010) 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A Abubucker Siddique under Section 1208 read with Sections
153 A, 201, 302, 326, 324, 419, 436 IPC, Section 9(8)(1)(b)
of Explosive Act, Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosives
Substances Act, Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of TADA Act, A7
Ahmed Gnaiyar under Section 3(4) TADA Act, A10 Md. Moosa
8 Mohideen under Section 3(4) TADA Act, A 11 Syed Md 8uhari
under Section 3(4) TADA Act, A12 S.K. Md.Ali under Section
3(4) TADA Act, A14 Hyder Ali under Section 1208 read with
Sections 153A,201,302,326,324,419,436 IPC, Section 9
(8)(1)(b) of Explosive Act, Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosives
c Substances Act, Sec 3(2), 3(3) of TADA Act, A15 Imam Ali
(dead), A17 Kaja Nijarnmudin under Section 1208 read with
Sections 153 A,201,302,326,324,419,436 IPC, Section 9
(8)(1)(b) of Explosive Act, Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosives
Substances Act, Sections 3(2), 3(3) of TADA Act. The following
persons were acquitted namely A3 Mukhtar Ahmed, A6
D S.A.Basha, A8 Ameenuddin Sheriff and A13 Abdul Aslam.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, AS Abubucker Siddique and
A14 Hyder Ali filed Criminal Appeal No. 1374 of 2007. A17
Kaja Nizamuddin filed Criminal Appeal No. 552 of 2008 and
the State filed Criminal Appeal No. 1271 of 2009.
E
6. We have heard Mr. Natrajan, learned Senior Advocate
for the appellants Mr. P. P. Malhotra on behalf of the respondent
State.
F 7. Mr. Natarajan has submitted that the trial court has
committed a grave error in convicting the appellants. According
to the learned counsel, there was no legal evidence on the
record to indicate that the appellants were involved in the
explosion which was the subject matter of the charge sheet of
8th August, 1993. The entire body of evidence, according to
G Mr. Natarajan, relied upon by the prosecution, consists of
various confessional statements recorded by the authorities
under Section 15 of TADA Act. According to him, these
confessions would show that :-
H (i) Ali the accused had entered into a conspiracy as
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 903
SUPOT. OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
aUeged in the charge sheet. A
(ii) In pursuance of this conspiracy, Abubucker
Siddique A5, Imam Ali (A 15) Hyder Ali (A 14) and
one Mushtaq Ahmed were engaged with the task
of procuring explosives and its accessories,
B
making bombs with them.
(iii) They went to Vaniyampadi in North Arcot District.
There, they associated Mustaq Ahmed who helped
them in procuring the explosive substance namely
gelatin sticks and detonators. They, thereafter, c
travelled to Gudiyatham and contacted a licenced
dealer Kamalnathan, PW.112, through a cycle shop
owner Jayasekhar, PW.111 and illegally purchased
the aforesaid explosives. According to the learned
counsel, five of the accused persons have given a 0
confession on this point. In all, they purchased 8 kgs.
of gelatin on 30th July, 1993 and 5 kgs. on 1st
August, 1993. The 13 kgs. of gelatin alongwith the
detonators were required for manufacturing the two
bombs. E
(iv) On 6th August, 1993, the effort to blow up the RSS
Office did not succeed as the bomb did not
detonate. In that attempt, A5, Abubucker Siddique
and A14, Hyder Ali stood outside the RSS Office.
A15, Imam Ali and A17, Kaja Nizamuddin went F
inside the RSS Office. On 7th August, 1993, both
the bombs were brought to the godown of Rafeeq
Ahamed, A 1. There, the two bombs were repaired.
On 8th August, 1993, the same two bombs were
again taken to the RSS Headquarters for causing G
the explosion as narrated above.
8. According to Mr.Natarajan, the entire foundation of the
prosecution, as narrated above, is destroyed by the results of
examination of the bomb site, by the committee of experts H
904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A headed by the committee of experts headed by the Director of
Central Forensic Laboratory (CFSL) and the evidence of
Investigating officer, M.S. Sundarrajan PW 223 and K.
Sundarrajan PW 189. He submits that :-
(1) After the explosion, the bomb site was examined by
B
the experts of the prosecution. The evidence of these
experts, consisting of five volumes of exhibits is on the
record. The expert report (Ex.P316) has clearly concluded
that the Improvised Explosive Device (IED) used was
prepared from high explosives. The explosive devices did
c not contain gelatin but was/were made of RDX and PETN.
(2) Investigating Officer M.S. Sundarrajan (PW 223) and
K. Sundarrajan (PW 189) have also stated that at the site
only the presence of ROX and PETN was detected in the
bomb used on 8th August. 1993 and gelatin was not used.
(3) Mr Natarajan then submitted that since the
conspirators had only procured gelatin, it was for the
prosecution to establish the source from where ROX was
brought. It was also for the prosecution to establish as to
E
what lias happened to gelatin, which was allegedly
procured by the conspirators
(4) Since the prosecution is unable to answer either of the
two questions, the very substratum of the prosecution case
F is destroyed. Apart from the building, even from the
remains of the dead bodies and the clothes, only traces
of ROX and PETN were found.
(5) In the confessional statements, there is no mention of
G any other explosive being procured by the conspirators.
The expression used was other materials. This expression
referred only to the other materials which were required to
assemble the bombs.
(6) The trial court erred in law in reading "other materials"
H to mean "other explosives". In support of his submission,
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. . -SOS --
SUPOT. OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
he relied on the evidence of Mr. M.S. Sundarrajan, the A
investigating officer, PW.223. According to Mr. Natarajan,
this witness has admitted in the cross examination that
during the investigation, he was unable to find out the
origin of RDX and PETN. He also pointed out to the cross-
examination of Mr. K. Sundarrajan, PW.189, who stated B
that PETN and ROX are different explosives. This witness
also stated that in gelatin sticks RDX will not be found.
(7) Even the trial court had noticed that the evidence of
experts shows that the explosion was caused only by ROX C
and PETN and not by gelatin sticks.
(8) The trial court also accepts that even the confessional
statements revealed that what was purchased at
Gudiyatham was only gelatin and not ROX or PETN. Mr.
Natarajan submitted that the conclusion, therefore, reached o
by the trial court is without any legal basis.
(9) The trial court has misconcluded the legal position while
excluding from consideration the exculpatory part of the
confession. In support of this, the learned counsel relied E
on Chhittar Vs. State of Rajasthan [1995 Supp (4) SCC
519]; Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar [(1966) 1 SCR
134] and Devku Bhikha Vs. State of Gujarat [(1996) 11
· sec 641J. ·
(10) So far as A17 is concerned, Mr. Natarajan submitted F
that he was not identified. His confession was not
recorded. A memo was filed in Court on 17th June, 1998
stating that he had died. Therefore, charge against him
had abated.
G
9. Mr.P.P.Malhotra, learned senior counsel on the other
hand submitted that the terms used by the defence are scientific
terms. The accused had merely said that they have purchased
explosives. They were not scientists and therefore even if they
call the explosives as gelatin instead of ROX would not be fatal H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A to the case of the prosecution. He further submitted that the
confessions have to be read from the point of view of a layman.
It was also submitted that merely because the prosecution has
not been able to prove the source of the bomb making material
does not mean bombs were not used or that they were not
B planted by them. Thus the case of the prosecution as roughly
summarized by the learned senior counsel was that there was
a conspiracy hatched; bombs were manufactured using
explosive substances. These bombs were used to destroy the
RSS headquarters. It was further submitted that the prosecution
c had established that explosives were used, the planting of the
bombs were also proved and it was for that reason that the
·prosecution was not required to prove what kind of explosives
were used. It was further submitted that the prosecution case
is that the explosive chemicals were used for causing the bomb
blast. The confession of A5 and others clearly indicate that
0
explosive substances were procured. Recovery of high
explosive chemical PETN was also made from the godown of·
A 1, from the well located. in the house of A2 as well as from
the grey colour pant of A 17 as per recovery mahazars. It is not
the prosecution case that only gelatin and detonators were used
E but the prosecution case is that explosive chemicals were
used. On the basis of the confessional statement of A5 some
of the sources of explosives and other materials were traced.
It was further submitted that PETN which was found from the
debris of the bomb blast site was also recovered from the dust
F sweep collected from the godown of A 1 where the bomb was
prepared, from the well in the house of A2 as well as from the
grey colour pant of A17. As per the expert opinion of Sh. K
Sundararajan PW 189, PETN itself is a highly explosive
substance and not simply a booster as claimed. It was further
G submitted that the meeting between Sridhar and A14 & A15
at Vadacherry was confirmed by A 15's own letter left at the
office of RSS office on 6th August, 1993 and hand writing
expert opinion. The visiting card given by Sridhar to A15 on 8th
July, 1993 at Vadachery recovered from the residence of A3
H Mukhtar Ahmed at Bangalore confirms the connection between
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 907
SUPDT. OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
A15 and A3. The visit of A15 Imam Ali posing himself as A
Sivakumar in the RSS office on 30th July, 1993 and the entry
made in the register giving false non existing address found to
be of his own hand writing corroborates the fact that he visited
the RSS office on 30th July, 1993. It was further submitted the
accused persons had made an attempt to blast a bomb on 8th B
July, 1993 at Vadachery but in vain. AS in his confession,.· ·
statement had indicated that explosives were procured in
addition to gelatin and detonators and the same could be ROX/
PETN. Merely because the source was not proved it cannot be
hel.d that the same were not used considering the fact that traces c
of RDX/PETN were found in the bodies at the scene of crime.
It was further submitted that the contention of the defence i,yas
totally fallacious that ROX can· be found· only in the Indian Military..
. During the 'Bombay Bomb Blast' about SO kgs of ROX were
smuggled to India. Further ROX is also used for selective
indu$trial applications like demolition of structures etc. ROX ~
exists ill-the form of plasticine· putty and it may not leave any
trace or residue like a liquid or powder substances as in the
case of PETN. According to Mr. Malhotra, the conclusions
· recorded by the Trial Court are based on the correct analysis E \
of the entire evidence. The conviction recorded against the
appellants does not call for any interference.
10. We have considered the submissions of the learned
counsel
F
· 11. Undoubtedly, in this case there is no direct evidence
of the crime. The prosecution case hinges on circumstantial
evidence. It is an accepted proposition of law that even in cases
where no direct evidence is available in the shape of eye-
witnesses etc. a conviction can be based on circumstantial G
evidence alone. The hypothesis which can form the basis for
conviction purely on circumstantial evidence was stated by this
Court in the case of Hanumant Govind Nargundkar Vs. State
of M.P.,[1952 SCR 1091]. In the aforesaid judgment, Mahajan,
J. speaking for the Court stated the principle which reads thus:-
908 ~UPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A "It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence
is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which
the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first
instance be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
B of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should
be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
c reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused."
The aforesaid proposition of law was restated in the case of
0 Naseem Ahmed v. Delhi Admn., (1974) 3 SCC 668 by
Chandrachud J. as follows:
"This is a case of circumstantial evidence and it is therefore
necessary to find whether the circumstances on which
E prosecution relies are capable of supporting the sole
inference that the appellant is guilty of the crime of which
he is charged. The circumstances, in the first place, have
to be established by the prosecution by clear and cogent
evidence and those circumstances must not be consistent
F with the innocence of the accused. For determining whether
the circumstances established on the evidence raise but
one inference consistent with the guilt of the accused,
regard must be had to the totality of the circumstances.
Individual circumstances considered in isolation and
divorced from the context of the over-all picture emerging
G
from a consideration of the diverse circumstances and their
conjoint effect may by themselves appear innocuous. It is
only when the various circumstances are considered
conjointly that it becomes possible to understand and
appreciate their true effect."
H
I
ABUBtlCKER SIPQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 909
SUPDT. OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
. 12. The trial c9urt accepts that:- A
(i) · The entire case \of the prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence and confessions recorded
under Section 15 of TADA Act.
.. )
. /( II · The confessional statements voluntarily made under B
Section 15 of· TADA Act are admissible in
evidence.
(iii) Having held the confessional statements to be
admissible yet the trial court discards part of the C
confessional statement on the ground that they are
not truthful to some extent in respect of the
conspiracy aspect of all the accused and
involvement of all the accused.
(iv) After analyzing the entire evidence, the trial court D
concludes that the evidence indicates that the ·
explosion was caused only by ROX and PETN.
(v) It is also concluded that gelatin sticks were not
used. E
(vi) It is also accepted that in Gudiyatham only gelatin
sticks were purchased and not ROX or PETN.
(vii) The trial court accepted that the aforesaid will have
a serious bearing on acceptability of the F
confessional statement of the accused and their
involvement of all accused in the conspiracy.
(viii) lnspite of the aforesaid, it is concluded that there
is sufficient evidence to show that the appellants G
committed the overt act of causing the explosion as
claimed by the prosecution. The discrepancy
between the material found at the bomb site and
the material purchased by the conspirators is held
to be not of much importance. H
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 13. On the basis of the aforesaid, the trial court concluded
that the A5, A 14, A 15andA17 were liable for the charges with
which they were charged. All the other accused were liable only
for their act of either promoting enmity among the religious
groups or harbouring the accused before or after the blast.
B
14. In our opinion, the contents of the confessional
statements if true, would indicate that all the accused mentioned
above and· the appellants, in particular, had entered into a
conspiracy for committing the violent and terrorist acts against
a J')articular Hindu organization and Hindu places of religious
C worships, religious institutions and places frequented by Hindus
in general. In order to strike terror in the minds of the Hindus,
they had decided to cause explosions and commit crimes of
violence, such as murder. They were also intent to cause
destruction to the property belonging to the Hindu community.
D In furtherance of this aim, the participants in the conspiracy, the
appellants in particular, and their accomplices had been
charged with the task of procuring high explosives. For that
purpose, they went to Gudiyatham and procured 13 kgs of
gelatin as narrated herein above. From the explosive material
E collected by the conspirators, two dangerously explosive
bombs had been assembled. The first attempt to explode such
a bomb did not fructify as the intended target had already left
the premises in which the bomb was to be exploded. The bomb
was dismantled and kept in the house of A 18 Mushtaq Ahmed
F (absconding). The second attempt for exploding these bombs
also failed as the detonator was short circuited. It was the third
attempt in which the conspirators succeeded. This attempt took
place on 8th August, 1993 when A15 Imam Ali and A17 Kaja
Nizamuddin carried the two bombs into the building. They
G deposited the bombs in the building and exited there from. They
waited outside for half an hour till the bomb exploded. This is
the sum total of the sequence of events leading upto the
explosion that destroyed the RSS, Headquarters on 8th August,
1993.
H 15. Quite some time after the explosion, upon investigation,
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE Ri=P. BY D~. 911
SUPDT. OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
certain arrests were made. A5 Abubucker Siddique was A
arrested on 24th October, 1993. A14 Hyder Ali was arrested
in ·some other case but was produced before the Trial Court
on PT warrant on 16th August, 1995. A 15 has died. A 17 Kaja
Nizamuddin was arrested in some other case and produced "
before the Trial Court on 13th March, 2000 on PT warrant. We B
may notice here that A 14 Hyder Ali and A 17 Kaja Nizamuddin "- r
were also arrested in some other case and that too after two ·
years and 7 years respectively. On interrogation, they made
confessional statements.
16. Ex~epting for the confessional statements, admittedly, C
there is no other independent evidence with regard to the
participation of the accused in the conspiracy and the particular
role played by them. According to these confessions, A15 Imam
Ali and A17 Kaja Nizamuddin had carried the two.suitcases
inside the building. Therefore, it is apparent that even according D
to the prosecution version, they could have or.ly carried bombs
made from gelatin. The lid on the prosecution case is blown
away by the report of forensic experts and the traces of the
explosive material collected at the Bomb site. "
E
·17. Upon investigation and according to the evidence,
which has been recorded in the trial court itself, it has been
established that the bomb which caused the damage consisted
only of RDX and PETN. This is also the conclusion in the
'Report on the Investigation of the Bomb blast which occurred F
at Chetput, Madras on August 8th, 1993' submitted by T.R.
Baggi, Director, CFSL, Hyderabad. Relevant extracts of the
aforesaid report are as under:-
"The State Head quarters of R.S.S. is located at No. 2,
M.V. Naidu Street, Chetput, Madras - 8. On Sunday, the G
8th August, 1993 at about 1345 hours, the three storied
building was damaged by a loud blast killing 11 persons
and injuring 5. On Monday, the 9th August, 1993, Shri J.N.
Saksena, IPS, Director General, Bureau of Police
Research & Development (BPR&D), New Delhi alerted Dr. H
912 .· SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A T.R. Baggi, Director, Central Forensic Science Laboratory
(CFSL), Hyderabad and permitted the CFSL team to visit
Madras to help the Tamil Nadu Police in the investigation
if a request is received from them. Later Shri B.
Perumalswamy, IPS, Additional Director General of Police
B (Crime), Madras contacted the Director, CFSL, Hyderabad
and requested him to visit Madras and help the Tamil Nadu
Government in the investigation of the Bomb blast at R.S.S.
Head quarters building at M.V. Naidu Street, Chetput,
Madras.
c Accordingly, a team consisting of Dr. T.R. Baggi, Shri
Nagraj Shankpal, Shri V Suresh and Shri M Vara Prasad
of CFSL, Hyderabad reached Madras on the morning of
10th August, 1993 to provide the necessary help in the
investigation.
D
This report presents the details of the extent of damage
to the structure, human life, property, neighbourhood due
to the explosion while discussing the structural failure
pattern. The report also presents the details of the post-
E explosion laboratory investigations particularly fixing the
seat of explosion in the building and the chemical nature
of Improvised Explosive Device (IED) used in the blast."
"(B) LABORATORY ANALYSIS FOR THE EXPLOSION
RESIDUES:
F
It was reported that the police officers collected several
material objects (exhibits) immediately after the blast as
clue materials to be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory
for analysis. Later the Forensic Science Laboratory
G personnel also collected several exhibits for analysis. The
material recovered from the dead bodies, which consisted
of debris material, which had entered the bodies like metal
pieces, stone pieces, glass pieces, plastic material,
wooden pieces etc., were also sent for analysis. Portions 1
H of the burnt skin of the deceased and the clothings of the
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 913
SUPDT. OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
deceased persons were also sent for analysis. The debris A
Which was removed by the bulldozer to extricate the dead
b,odies was piled up in the open space in front of the
building. As most of the crucial clues must be lying in this
debris, it was suggested to the senior officers of the Tamil
Nadu Police to transport the entire debris. after removing e
big boulders and stones, etc., to the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL) premises, so that the debris could be
served for parts of any IED initiating devices and explosion
residues. Accordingly, about 30 lorry loads of debris was
transported to FSL premises and sieving process was c
undertaken.
Preliminary spot tests and Thin Layer Chromatographic .
~TLC) tests carried out on the select exhibits cited above
gave positive tests for Penta Erythritol Tetra Nitrate (PETN)
i\litially and no positive response was obtained for other D
propellants, low and high explosives. Based on these
findings, it was suggested by FSD/Police Officers of
Madras that PETN alone could have been used in the IED.
However, the CFSL, Hyderabad did not agree with this
view and conveyed that the literature indicates that only in · E
few cases PETN alone is used for causing small
explosions like safe-cracking or blasting an automobile
etc. Therefore, it was suggested that as PETN was always
used as an initiator/booster for other high explosives such
as Cyclotrimethylene trinitramine (RDX), Trinitro toluene F
(TNT), 2,4,6 - trinitrophenylmethyl nitramine (Tetryl),
Nitroglycerine (NG), Cyclotetramethylene tetramine (HMX)
etc. An analytical search could be carried out
systematically for one of these high explosives.
Accordingly, some more screening tests were conducted G
on large number of exhibits sent by the police/medical
officers and the debris received in FSL by using larger
quantities and clean-up procedures. In this screening
procedure positive response was obtained for both PETN
and RDX in some of the exhibits. It was also noted that H
..
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 15 (AOOL.) S.C.R.
A few exhibits gave positive tests only for PETN, some
exhibits gave positive tests only for ROX and some exhibits
gave positive tests for both PETN and ROX. However,
many exhibits did not give positive tests for any of the
explosives."
B
"It can be seen that the retention times of ROX and PETN
in various exhibits analysed are tallying with the retention
limes of the standard runs on ROX and PETN, confirming
the presence o. ~OX/PETN in the respective exhibits.
c As a further confirmation, two representative exhibit
extracts were injected into the column, later, the same
exhibits were spiked with ROX and PETN and
chromatographed. Corresponding increase in peak
heights was noted in each case confirming that the peaks
0 were essentially of ROX and PETN.
Further the analysis was carried out at two different wave
lengths namely 210nm and 230nm to get better sensitives
for individual components. It was noted that the
chromatograms at both these wave lengths gave positive
E
respdnse for the presence of ROX/PETN correspondingly.
The comparison of TLC results and HPLC results also
indic<11tes that in some of the exhibits only PETN is present,
in sorne of the exhibits only ROX is present and in some
F of the exhibits both PETN and ROX are present.
"Based on the site visits, discussions with Chief Engineer,
PWO, visiting team of llT Structural Engineers, the medial
offic¢rs, the police officers and chemical analysis, the
G following conclusions are drawn:-
(a) The origin of the blast is in the ground floor.
(b) The seat of the blast is slightly to the north of the
centre of the entry hall/reading room-library.
H
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 915
SUPDT. OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
(c) The seat of explosion is located at a place above A
<~ =the ground level.
(d) The primary damage from the blast is the failure of
the four walls, roof of the entry hall followed by the
failure of the roof of the prayer hall, east and west
8
walls of the prayer hall and the two storied porch.
(e) The secondary failures consisted of severe
cracking of walls, shattering of door/window frames
and glass panes.
c
(f) The IED used was prepared from high explosives.
(g) The IED contained cyclotrimethylene trimitramine
(ROX) as high explosive and Penta Erythritol Tetra
Nitrate (PETN) as initiator/bo6ster.
D
(h) Seeing the damage, the ROX charge in the IED
used could be roughly assessed to the order of
about one (1) kg." I
18. Mr. Natarajan, in our opinion, correctly formulated the E
two vital questions, viz., (i) where did the RDX come from? and
(ii) what happened to the Gelatin? Since the evidence of the
prosecution itself clearly indicates that the explosive material
used in the bomb explosion was ROX and PETN, it was
necessary for the prosecution to satisfactorily answer the F
aforesaid two questions.
19. The Trial Court was well aware of the legal position
which is evident from the following observations:
"With regard to the contention of the defence in respect G
of ROX, PETN etc., it is true that when it is the specific
case of the prosecution that the expR>sives and other
materials were procured from Gudiyatham, Chennai and
other places, it is the duty cast upon the prosecution to
prove the specific allegation beyond doubt in a very cogent H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (AOOL.) S.C.R.
A manner without missing any link in the chain of .
circumstances. The prosecution says that gelatin sticks
were procured from Gudiyatham at Vellore District, but the
relevant witnesses were treated as hostile witnesses.
However, Ex.P.298 and Ex.P.316 and the conclusions
B reac:hed therein by the team of experts shows the usage
of RDX in blasting the building in question.
Presence of high exr 'nsives namely RDX, PETN and other
lethal and Hazardour, substances were detected from the
dead bodies and other materials recovered from the
c debris and also seized from the accused when subjected
for chemical examination."
20. Having recorded the aforesaid conclusion, the trial
court, without any cogent evidence, accepted the submission
D of the prosecution that only two persons knew about the
procurement of ROX, PETN etc, namely A15 Imam Ali and A18
Mushtaq Ahmed (absconding accused). Thereafter, the trial
court quite erroneously observed that AS Abubucker Siddique
in his confessional statement had indicated that gelatin sticks,
E detonators and "other explosives" were procured. Having said
so, the trial court without any basis goes on to accept the
contention of the prosecution that other explosives could have
been ROX, PETN and merely because the source could not
be proved it cannot be said that such explosives were not
F used. This conclusion is reached by the trial court inspite of the
evidence of the investigating officer Mr. M.S. Sundarrajan, PW-
223. His statement was as under:-
•...... .During the course of my investigation, I could not findi
out the origin from where ROX or PETN was obtained by
G the accused for causing blast of RSS Office building in this
case because the main accused Imam Ali and Hyder Ali
were not available to me for my investigation at the relevant
point of time to throw light about this. From the examinatior1
of other accused persons, I could not get details about the
H particulars of RDX or PETN."
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 917
SUPDT. OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
So also during the cross-examination of PW 189 Mr.K. A
Sundarrjan has stated as under:-
" ....... PETN and ROX are different articles. In Gelatin
sticks ROX will not be found ..... "
21. Upon noticing the aforesaid evidence the trial court B
quite rightly concludes that
"a conjoint reading of the above shows that ROX and
PETN are different materials in composition, differing from
that of gelatin. In Gelatin sticks RDX or PETN will not be c
found. Therefore, the prosecution ought to have
investigated the case in the angle of the usage of the ROX,
PETN etc., in the instant bomb blast."
But having recorded the aforesaid conclusion, the trial court
0
again proceeds to record a conclusion which would be wholly
without any basis. This conclusion is as under:-
"However, it will not affect the merits of the case as high
explosives were also stated to have been procured and
used in addition to Gelatin sticks. But the source from E·
where these materials were purchased is said to have
been within the exclusive knowledge of Mustaq Ahamed
(absconding accused) and A15 Imam Ali (since dead), it
will have some bear(ng on the reliability and acceptability
of the confession statements of the accused to some F
extent as aforesaid."
22. The aforesaid conclusion does not explain as to what
happened to 13 Kgs of Gelatin, which was procured from
Gudiyatham. It also does not explain as to why only traces of G
ROX were found in dead bodies, clothes and parts of the
building. Not a trace of Gelatin was found in the building. It is
worth noticing here that in none of the confessional statements,
has it been stated about any other explosives being procured,
yet the trial court concludes that other explosive material has
also been procured. The conclusion is clearly without any factual H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R
A basis nor supported by any evidence .
. 23. We may reiterate here that it is admitted by Mr.
Sundarrajan that the origin from where the ROX or PETN was
obtained by the accused were not discovered. He also
emphatically stated that PETN and ROX are different articles.
8
It is also stated in his cross-examination that in Gelatin sticks,
ROX will not be found. On a conjoint reading of the entire
evidence, the trial court clearly recorded the conclusion that only
ROX and PETN and not Gelatin sticks as claimed by the
C prosecution were used for the explosion. It is also noticed that
the confessional statements reveals that what was purchased
were only Gelatin sticks from Gudiyatham and not ROX and
PETN. Such evidence would clearly destroy the very foundation
of the prosec;;ution case, which proceeds on the basis that the
gelatin and ~he detonators were procured in Gudiyatham was
0 the material from which the bombs were manufactured, which
were responsible for the explosion on 8th August, 1993. Even
according to the trial court, the exploding bomb consisted of .
ROX and PETN. Having recorded the aforesaid conclusion that
trial court without any justification concludes such evidence
E would only affect the evidentiary value and truthfulness of the
confessional statements. We may notice here the conclusion
as recorded by the trial court as follows:-
"Now a conjoint reading of the confessional statements of
the accused already said above, searches made and
F
recoveries effected from the respective places of the
accused, material seized from the scene of crime, recovery
seizure and observation mahazers therefore and
consequential chemical examination and its result and the
evidence of the experts therefore shows that what was used
G for the explosion was only ROX and PETN and not gelatin
sticks as claimed by the prosecution. The confessional
statements reveals that what was purchased was only
gelatin sticks from Gudiyatham and not ROX or PETN
which has got a serious bearing on the acceptability of the
H confessional statements of the accused and their
i ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 919
SUPDT.
I
OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
involvement of all the accused in the conspiracy. According A
to the learned Special Public Prosecutor only two persons
namely A 1S Imam Ali (died) and absconding accused
Mustaq Ahamed knew about it. It follows that the other three
accused namely AS Abubucker Siddique, A14 Hyder Ali
and A 17 Kaja Nizamuddin who were closely associated B
with them also knew about it. It goes without saying that
they only conspired together and did everything for bomb
blast." ' '
24. In our opinion, the trial court having correctly recorded
the conclusion in the earlier part of the paragraph, C
unnecessarily and without any basis diluted the same and
restricted it only to the reliability of the confessional statement.
We are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court correctly
observed that "the prosecution ought to have investigated the
:-case in the angle of the usage of the RDX, PETN etc." Even D
after making such an observation, the Trial Court erroneously
goes onto convict the appellants who had procured only Gelatin
and Detonators from Gudiyatham.
/ · 2S. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. P.P. E
Malhotra that the appellants not being scientists, referring to the
explosive substance as gelatin as opposed to ROX would not
• be fatal. According to him, the confessional statements should
be read from the point of view of a layman. We may refer to
certain extracts from the confessional statement of AS F .
" Abubucker Siddique, which is as follows:-
"Afterwards, we four went to see Mustaq of Vaniyampadi
to purchase gun powder for the preparation of bomb. They
went to Gudiyatham and bought 8 Kgs. of Gelatin and
some detonators. Imam Ali and Mustaq went outside and G
bought an iron box to be suitable for fitting in a two wheeler.
At the house of Mustaq, Imam Ali conducted a Trial of
blasting the gun powders by setting a timer. On the same
day, we all of us along with Mustaq and his friend Shakil
went to a theatre at Vaniyambadi and saw an English Film H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A called "Armou·r for the action". While going to the cinema,
Mustaq and Shakil kept the gun powder and other items
in a house near the Theatre and after seeing the cinema,
we took the items from that house and left for Chennai in
the night and reached Chennai in the next day morning i.e.,
B 30.07.93."
"On the next day after our return from Vaniyambadi, we
went to Riche Street and bought the following items: some
pen torch cells, one battery box, quartx timer, switch and
some items which a·re required for blasting the bomb from
c a box/ suitcase."
"On 1.8.93, Imam Ali sent me to purchase 5 kgs of gun
powder, a box made of iron for the purpose of making the
second bomb and also told me to meet Mustaq at
D Jafrabad. He gave me Rs.275 for this purpose. He also
told me to bring the gun powder from Mustaq's house
which was bought form Mustaq's house which was bought
for planting bombs at Hindu Munnani meeting at
Vadacherry."
E 26. We are of the considered opinion that the observations
of the trial court that 'other materials' could have been RDX and
PETN is perverse. In our opinion, Mr. Natarajan had correctly
submitted that the other items in addition to gun powder were
the iron box, suit case, battery box, quartz timer, switch etc. The
F confessional statement of AS Abubucker Siddique reveals that
they had gone to Vaniyampadi to purchase "gun powder" for
the preparation of the bomb. Then they went to Gudiyatham and
procured 8 kgs of gelatine on 29. 7.93. Later they had procured
5 kgs of "gunpowder" on 1.8.93. We are of the considered
G opinion that the confessional statement of A5 Abubucker
Siddique only reveals that they had procured gelatine,
gunpowder and certain other accessories required for blasting
a bomb viz. detonators, switch, battery box, pen torch cells,
quartz timer etc. It is not mentioned in the confessional
H statement as to how and when the appellants -had procured
ABUBUCKER SIQQIQUE v. STATE REP. BY DY. 921
SUPDT. OF POLICE [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
ROX and PETN i.e. the materials with which the bomb made A
for blasting the RSS building situated at No. 1 M.V. Naidu
Street was made.
27. It was vehemently argued before us by Mr. Malhotra
that the charge has to be read along with the confessional 8
statements. We may notice an extrad of the charge relied upon
by him. ltreads as follows:
''Fifthly: that you A-1, A-2, A-S, A-S and A-8 in pursuance
of tHe said criminal conspiracy during the said period and
· · in the course of the same transaction and in the furtherance C
of the common intention of you A-1, A-2, A-S and A-8 and
the absconding accused Imam Ali, Hyder Ali and Kaja
Nizamuddin to commit murders and cause injuries to RSS
and Hindu Munnani leaders and others who were likely to
be present on 8.8.93 at about 1.4S pm at the RSS D
Headquarters building procured explosives and other
materials requirea for preparing the two suitcase-bombs
at godown no 21, Subaiah Street, Periamet, MaCJras
belonging to A 1.................. "
E
We are of the considered opinion that the most important
portion of the aforesaid charge is "procured explosives and
other materials". We have considered the confessional
statements in extenso. It is not in dispute that explosives were
procured from Gudiyatham. The confessional statement of A1
Rafiq Ahmed and AS Abubucker Siddique are unequivocal that F
only gelatin sticks and detonators were bought from
Gudiyatham form a licensed shop owner PW 112 Kamalnathan
(declared hostile). The prosecution has not been able to
ascertain as to how the appellants had access to ROX. The
Trial Court had accepted that as only two persons namely A 1S G
Imam Ali (died) and absconding accused Mustaq Ahamed
knew about the source from where ROX was procured, the
other three accused namely AS Abu bucker Siddique, A 14
Hyder Ali and A 17 Kaja Nizamuddin who were closely
associated with them also knew about it. The observation of H
922 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A the Trial Court is merely conjectural. In our opinion, the
conclusion of the Trial Court that the "other materials" as
mentioned in the charge sheet brings in its sweep other
explosives like ROX and PETN is wholly without any basis. The
evidence on the record clearly militates against such a
B conclusion. Thus even if the charges are read along with the
confessional statement, it would not, in any manner, improve
the intrinsic value of the evidence led by the prosecution.
Suspicion no matter how strong cannot take the place of legal
proof.
c 28. As submitted by Mr. Malhotra, it is true that the
prosecution case was that explosive substances were used to
make bombs. It is not in dispute that the present case. was
registered against the 18 persons for blasting the RSS building
situated at No. 1 M.V. Naidu Street. As noticed hereinabove •
0 the bomb was made of ROX and PETN but no trace of gelatin
was found form the scene of crime. The prosecution could only
prove that the appellant had procured gelatin sticks and
detonators form Gudiyatham but the traces of said explosives
could not be found from the scene of occurrence. Thus there is
E clearly no evidence to link the appellants with the explosion.
29. In the result the prosecution story as put forward does
not inspire confidence on the basis of the material placed on
record. Criminal Appeal No.1374 of 2007 and Criminal Appeal
F No.552 of 2008 filed by the accused appellants are, therefore,
allowed and the conviction and sentence passed against the
appellants are set aside. They shall be set free forthwith unless
wanted in any other case.
CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.1271 OF 2009
G
1. In view of the judgment passed in the aforesaid two
appeals, this appeal stands dismissed.
N.J. Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "confession"Sign in to search