Mumbai: A special Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) court on Monday set June 16 as the date for pronouncing its final judgement on the involvement of seven accused in the 1993 Mumbai blasts case. The accused include gangsters Abu Salem and Mustafa Dossa, Karimullah Sheikh, Tahir Merchant alias Tahir Taklya, Abdul Qayyum, Firoz Abdul Rashid Khan and Riyaz Siddiqui.
On March 12, 1993, 12 bombs went off at several locations in the city, killing 257 people, injuring 713 and destroying property worth ₹27 crore. A single charge sheet was filed against 129 people, of which 100 were convicted. In September 2006, 20 were awarded life sentences, while 12 were sentenced to death. In 2013, 10 of the 12 on death row had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment.
Abu Salem, who was extradited from Portugal, is accused of transporting and distributing arms and ammunitions. Dossa, extradited from the UAE, is charged with supplying arms and explosives, conspiracy and sending individuals to Pakistan for terror training.
Tahir Merchant is charged with arranging travel to Pakistan for the other convicts while Abdul Qayyum is charged with delivering weapons to actor Sanjay Dutt. Riyaz Siddiqui is accused of transporting explosives in a Maruti van, which were later used in the blasts. Firoz Abdul Rashid Khan is charged with being present when arms were transported to Mumbai, while Karimullah Sheikh is accused of smuggling arms into the country through the Shekhadi coast in Raigad district in February 1993.
The prosecution’s challenge was to prove the case after Dossa challenged the admissibility of evidence, which was recorded by a previous court against him and fellow accused. The TADA court, which was hearing the case initially, had separated the trial of absconding accused with the ruling that witnesses’ evidence recorded during the trial can be used against the absconding accused.
Dossa, however, moved an application claiming he was never declared an absconder, but was arrested at a later stage. He contended that since he was not declared an absconder, evidence provided by witnesses in a previous trial cannot be used. Similarly, when it came to the confession statement, the accused had contended that the confession statement of co-accused who were part of the first trial cannot be used against them as they are not being tried together.
The prosecution had said the accused, both current and absconding, should not be allowed to take advantage of legal loopholes. The court is expected to address the issue in its final order.
