7/11 bomb blasts trial: Inconsistencies in prosecution case, argues defence

May 23, 2014 08:21 pm | Updated 08:21 pm IST - Mumbai

As the final arguments in the 7/11 bomb blasts trial continue in a court in Mumbai, the defence counsel argued on Friday that the prosecution arguments indicated inconsistencies at various levels.

The serial train bomb blasts which had rocked the city on July 11, 2006, had killed more than 180 people and injured over 700. The probe was conducted by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which had

arrested 13 persons in the case.

Mumbai Crime Branch arrested 21 persons belonging to the Indian Mujahideen in 2008, who had claimed responsibility of various bomb blasts in the country from 2005 to 2008, including the 7/11 strike.

Recently, the prosecution argued after nearly eight years that the accused had used pressure cookers for the blasts. The ATS had first made this claim soon after arresting the accused after the blasts.

The defence counsel on Friday countered the prosecution’s claim. “If eight pressure cookers were bought in bulk from this shop in Santacruz, why was the shop-keeper not questioned?” Wahab Khan asked. He said he also pointed out other inconsistencies in the prosecution’s claims.

“I said that the CDR record which the ATS relied on, does not prove that the accused were involved in the conspiracy, bomb-making or bomb-planting. The records actually falsified that the accused were present in Govandi in Shivajinagar area on July 8, 9 and 10,” he later said.

He said the ATS had earlier claimed that pressure cookers were used in the blasts, but later backtracked on the theory. It then allegedly claimed that household utensils were used.

He claimed that the ATS suppressed the CDR, a vital evidence, because it favoured the accused.

Recently, the prosecution had, for the first time, claimed that five of the accused had used a public phone as a “common command post” to co-ordinate about the blasts. Special Public Prosecutor Raja Thakare

made this submission during the final argument a few days ago.

While talking about this crucial plea, he told The Hindu , “The accused had said that their CDR showed their innocence. Earlier, the ATS had cursorily looked at the CDR only to check if any of the accused were

near the place of the blasts. The CDRs were voluminous. Later, when the agency looked into it, we deduced that there was one PCO near Fauziya Hoapital in Nagpada, which was used as command post. The place

is close to the residence of accused number 2, Dr Tanvir Ansari. He worked in Saboo Siddiqui hospital then, which too was not far away from there.”

He said four accused – Asif Bashir Khan, Ehtesham Siddiqui, Zameer Shaikh and Mohammad Sajid Ansari – called this PCO from their mobiles.

“The theory is that if missed calls are given on a mobile number, they do not reflect in the CDR. When missed call is given, the accused would call on the designated landline number,” Mr Thakare said.

As the prosecution’s arguments have already concluded, the defence counsel’s arguments will go on before the court can pass an order in the matter.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.