2008 navi mumbai panvel bomb blast case sessions court judgement
Post on 14-Apr-2015
256 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
1 Judgment S.C.660/08
IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
SESSIONS CASE NO.660 OF 2008
State of Maharashtra. )(At the instance of A.T.S. C.R.No.12/08 )@ 13/08 & 14/08) )....Complainant
Versus
(1) Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari, ) aged 52 years, residing at Room No.204, ) Sanatan Ashram Sakul, Devad, Post : ) ONGS Panvel, Dist. Raigad. )(2) Mangesh Dinkar Nikam, ) aged 35 years, residing at & Post : ) Apashinge, Tal. & Dist. Satara. )(3) Vikram Vinay Bhave, ) aged 26 years, residing at House No.101, ) Shigvan Lane, Post : Varasai, Tal. Pen, ) Dist. Raigad. )(4) Santosh Sitaram Angre, ) aged 26 years, residing at & Post : Lanja,) Angrewadi, Dist. Ratnagiri. )(5) Haribhau Krishna Divekar, ) aged 48 years, residing at Karoti, Post : ) Varsai, Tal. Pen, Dist. Raigad. )(6) Hemant Tukaram Chalke, ) aged 37 years, residing at Sai Sadan, ) Dattawadi, Post : Kherdi, Tal. Chiplun, ) Dist. Ratnagiri. )....Accused.
Coram : H.H.Addl.Sessions Judge, Shri N.V.NHAVKAR.Dated : 23, 25,26,29 & 30/8/2011. (Court Room No.17)
--------Ms. Rohini Salian, Spl. Public Prosecutor, for the State-ATS.Mr. Sanjeev Punalekar, Advocate for the accused.
2 Judgment S.C.660/08
ORAL JUDGMENT(Dictated in open Court)
1. Accused Nos.1 to 6 are prosecuted on the allegations that
they conspired and carried explosions of bomb by means of improvised
explosive devices at three different places at three different point of
times and days with an intention to strike terror in the section of people,
and Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari facilitated, along with co-accused -
Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave, for procurement of arms and use of mobile
phones obtained by cheating by personation and through forgery of
documents.
2. Briefly, the prosecution story, is narrated as under :-
(i) On 20.2.2008 a bomb blast had taken place at Cineraj
Cinema theatre at Panvel wherein screening of film Jodha Akbar was
going on and Crime No.II-26/08 for the offence u/s 3 of Explosive
Substances Act came to be registered at Panvel Police Station.
(ii) On 31.5.2008 a live bomb was found at Vishnudas Bhave
Auditorium, Vashi and it was detected and defused by the squad and
Crime No.II-88/08 for the offence under Sections 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive
Substances Act came to be registered at Vashi Police Station.
(iii) On 4.6.2008 at 4.10 p.m. a bomb exploded at the four-
3 Judgment S.C.660/08
wheelers parking lot of Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane, in which 8
persons suffered injuries and Crime No.243/08 for the offence under
Sections 307, 324, 427, 34 of I.P.C. r/w Sec. 3 & 6 of Explosive
Substances Act came to be registered at Naupada Police Station, Thane.
(iv) Investigation of these three cases was handed over to the
Anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai (ATS) by an order of Director General
of Police, Maharashtra State, and Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Shri
Uttam Chopane was appointed as the Investigating Officer in this case
on 5.6.2008. As per such order, the papers of investigation were handed
over to the ATS on 6.6.2008, and on the same day a crime came to be
registered with the ATS, Mumbai vide Crime Nos.12/08, 13/08 and
14/08 for the incidents of crimes registered at Naupada Police Statio,
Thane, Panvel Police Station and Vashi Police Station, respectively.
(v) The respective police stations had carried out the spot
panchnamas and collected incriminating material found at the
respective spots of the crime. The investigation revealed that detonators
were used in the bomb blast at Panvel and Thane and a live bomb
found at Vashi, which came to be defused, was found containing
electron circuit, timer and battery. It was further found that a battery of
Amco Company was used in the bomb blasts at Panvel and Thane. The
4 Judgment S.C.660/08
battery used in the Panvel blast was bearing Sr. No.NPJ6-105067 AB
060919, and battery found in Thane blast was bearing Sr.No.NPJ
6-104394 AB 060918. Both these batteries were also having
specification of BP 1.2, 12 volts. It was found that the said batteries
were manufactured by BB Battery Ltd. and marketed by Taffe Source
India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai.
(vi) The Investigating Officer searched for the origination of the
batteries found at the two blast sites and found that those batteries were
sold by Diana Hi Tech to Pitambara Powers, Grant Road, Mumbai and
the statement came to be recorded of the employee of Diana High Tech,
Ms. Pornima Chavan (PW 36). Copies of Invoices and Delivery
Challans were recovered, which are at Exs.142 and 143. Further
investigation proceeded with Pitambara Powers, Grant Road, and
statement of Rakesh Gupta (PW 47) came to be recorded and it was
revealed that the batteries were sold to Gala Electricals. The statements
of the owner and employees of the shop Gala Electricals, Ajit Hiralal
Veera (PW 48), Rajesh Bhguji Chikane (PW 49) and Chandreshekhar
Narhari Phadke (PW 50) and Munnalal Sharma came to be recorded.
(vii) During the investigation, to search for the persons involved
in the three incidents the Investigating Officer proceeded on the basis
5 Judgment S.C.660/08
of list of vehicles parked at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane and suspected
that one of the vehicles parked on the day of the incident at Gadkari
Rangayatan, Thane, Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing
No.MH-06-AK-5558, is in the name of Gurukripa Pratishtan, Sanatan
Sankul, Devad, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad. It was revealed that one
Ramesh Gadkari working as a Sadhak for the Sanatan Sanstha, staying
along with his family at the Ashram at Devad was called for enquiry,
and according to the investigating officer, he disclosed his involvement
in the crimes.
(viii) Investigating Officer further searched for the residential
premises of accused Ramesh Gadkari and he was arrested on
16.6.2008. During the search of the said premises, the police found two
tickets of Drama 'Aamhi Panchpute' for the show at Gadkari
Rangayatan on 4.6.2008 at 4.30 p.m.
(ix) On 16.6.2008 at 4 a.m. accused Mangesh Dinkar Nikam
was found present at the Ashram of Sanatan Sanstha at Devad and his
mobile found with him came to be seized.
(x) The Vehicles Register of the Parking Lot at Gadkari
Rangayatan came to be seized under panchnama and statements of the
employees of the Gadkari Rangayatan were recorded. Two Vehicle
6 Judgment S.C.660/08
Registers at Sanatan Sansth's Ashram at Devad were also seized and
statements of the concerned persons at the Sanatan Sanstha were
recorded in respect of the same.
(xi) The investigation further proceeded on the basis of
suspicion that since the Sanatan Sanstha and Hindu Janjagruti Samiti
had opposed the screening of film 'Jodha Akbar' and drama 'Aamhi
Panchpute' since it had distorted historical events and the drama
'Aamhi Panchpute' depicted parody of various characters of
Mahabharat.
(xii) As per the investigation, in the interrogation with Accused
Ramesh Gadkari and Mangesh Nikam, they revealed the names of
Vikram Vinay Bhave and Santosh Sitaram Angre. Therefore they were
arrested on 17.6.2008. It further revealed in the investigation that
accused Santosh Angre had used motorcycle bearing No.MH 04-
AK-9905 to carry out one of the blasts. Therefore the said vehicle came
to be seized.
(xiii) It was further revealed that accused Ramesh Gadkari had
procured mobile handsets and SIM cards by cheating the distributors of
mobile operators, and it was revealed from the mobile recovered from
Shashikant Sakpal, who is friend of accused Santosh Angre. It was
7 Judgment S.C.660/08
further revealed that accused Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave had
visited the shop Gala Electricals at Lamington Road and had purchased
the electron circuit of the brand name Vega Kits and 12 volts batteries
of Amco Company. Further investigation was carried out on the basis
of the radio frequency sensors found at the blasting sites and also the
timers of Electron Company. It further revealed that the shop situated at
Lohar Chawl in the name of Dhodia Electricals had sold 8 timers of
Electron Company on 14.5.2006 to accused Ramesh Gadkari, who was
accompanied by two others, and it was procured by Ramesh Gadkari in
the name of firm Urmesh Electricals. Investigation further proceeded to
find out the said firm and it was revealed that Ramesh Gadkari was a
partner in the said firm, and was retired from the partnership.
(xiv) On 19.6.2008 accused Vikram Vinay Bhave was interroga-
ted while in custody and at his instance an information revealed that he
procured gelatin and detonators, had conducted test blast at his home
and procured two revolvers from Bihar and shown his willingness to
disclose the same. Therefore the investigating agency proceeded to
village Varsai, Tal. Pen. The police officers accompanying accused
Vikram Bhave to village Varsai found the test blast site and they
collected the soil from such site. The officers further seized one
8 Judgment S.C.660/08
electric circuit from the cousin of accused Vikram Bhave and further
proceeded to recover gelatin sticks and detonators from river Banganga.
They further found involvement of Haribhau Divekar in disposal of the
blast material and revolvers, and he was arrested at the same moment.
They further recovered revolvers and they returned after such recovery
on 21.6.2008. Thereafter Section 201 of IPC along with Sec.3, 25 of
Arms Act and Sec.6(a)(b) of Explosive Act, 1984 were added. It was
further revealed that the scooter bearing No.MH-06-AE-7151 of
Shekhar Bhave was used at the time of planting the bomb at Vishnudas
Bhave Auditorium, and therefore the said scooter came to be seized.
(xv) On 21.6.2008 involvement of accused Hemant Tukaram
Chalke was further revealed and a mobile phone found came to be
recovered from him. On 23.6.2008 the house search of accused
Hemant Chalke was conducted and further recovered a Tata Indicom
mobile phone.
(xvi) During further investigation it was revealed that accused
Ramesh Gadkari had purchased a hair wig from Vrindavan Beauty
Parlour at Dadar, and the statement of the employee working at the said
beauty parlour, Amar Jaanu Bane (PW 59) came to be recorded.
(xvii) During interrogation with the accused the investigating
9 Judgment S.C.660/08
officer revealed that Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave had asked
Tukaram Khandu Rane (PW 51) for procuring the gelatin sticks and
detonators, who in turn asked his brother Chandrakant Khandu Rane
(PW 52), who further asked his friend Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53)
to procure the same. It was revealed that said Harischandra Chorge was
knowing one Chand Abdul Nadaf (PW 54), through whom they
procured 20 gelatin sticks and 20 detonators. The statements of these
witnesses came to be recorded before the Magistrate u/s 164 of Cr.P.C.
and it is the case of the prosecution that in the month of April 2008
such procured gelatin sticks and detonators by Chandrakant Rane was
handed over by him to accused Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave.
(xviii) It is the prosecution case that the investigation found a
larger conspiracy to strike terror in the section of the people. Therefore
they had targeted the the section of people who were viewers of the
film Jodha Akbar and drama Aamhi Pachpute, and they had carried out
bomb blasts using explosive substances and improvised explosive
devices, and therefore provisions of Sections 15, 16 & 18 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were applied against the said accused
persons.
(xix) During further investigation by the different teams of
10 Judgment S.C.660/08
investigating officers, the statements of witnesses from the said three
sites came to be recorded and certain witnesses described the persons
and the investigation proceeded with test identification parades of the
accused persons. Some of the accused were respectively identified by
those witnesses at being present at the blasts. It was revealed by one of
the witnesses, Mayuresh Kanekar, that he had accompanied the accused
to Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi, where-from a live bomb was
found, which came to be defused lateron.
(xx) Further investigation proceeded in search of mobile
subscribers and its details from Tata Indicom Services and it revealed
that accused Ramesh Gadkari had submitted an application for mobile
connection with the photograph wearing hair wig and with the name of
one Srivastava with forged documents, electric bill and driving licence,
when the said documents were further investigated.
(xxi) In the test identification parades conducted, the witnesses
from Gala Electricals and Dhodia Electricals further identified Ramesh
Gadkari, Vikram Bhave, Mangesh Nikam at various point of time being
accompanied for procurement of the electric circuits. RF remote
sensors and Selectron Timers. The articles seized at three blast sites
were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The
11 Judgment S.C.660/08
Investigating Officer further submitted proposal for sanction to
prosecute these accused persons under the provisions Explosive
Substances Act, and the sanction orders came to be passed by the
District Magistrate, Thane and Raigad, respectively. On 11.9.2008 a
proposal came to be submitted to the State Government for sanction to
prosecute the accused persons for the offence under the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and such sanction order came to be
passed.
3. Having collected the evidence against these six accused
persons, the chargesheet came to be filed against them for the offences
u/s 324, 307, 427, 419,, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Sec.3, 4, 5 & 6 of
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act, 1984,
Sec.3 r/w 25(1-a)(b) of Arms Act, u/s 15, 16, 16(1)(b) and 23 of
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, before the Addl. Chief
Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai, who committed it to the
Court of Sessions, Mumbai for trial according to law.
4. During the pendency of the trial, Accd.No.5-Haribhau
12 Judgment S.C.660/08
Krishna Divekar was released on bail, whereas Accd.Nos.1 to 4 and 6
are in jail custody.
5. The prosecution opened the case with draft charge at Ex.17
and the defence replied and objected for such draft charge as per Ex.17-
A. The charge u/s 307, 419, 468, 471 of IPC, 15, 16, 18 and 23 of
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was further objected.
Finally, my Ld. Predecessor, after hearing the prosecution and the
defence, framed the charge at Ex.18 on 15.1.2009.
6. Charge came to be framed against Accd.Nos.1 to 6 for the
offences u/s 120-B, 307, 324, 201 of IPC, u/s 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 and u/s 9(b) of Explosive Act and u/s 15, 16,
16(1)(b), 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
7. A distinct charge against Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari came
to be framed for offences u/s 419, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC. A distinct
charge was also framed against Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave for the
offence u/s 3, 25(1)(b)(a) of Arms Act. As against Accd.No.1-Ramesh
Gadkari, Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre a
13 Judgment S.C.660/08
charge came to be framed, along with other charges, for the offence u/s
3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and
Section 427 of IPC.
8. These charges were explained to Accd. Nos.1 to 6, who
pleaded not guilty to the offences and claimed to be tried as per their
respective pleas recorded at Exs. 19 to 24. The defence of the accused
persons is of total innocence. Accordingly, the prosecution proceeded
to lead evidence in support of its case.
9. The prosecution examined in all 105 witnesses and brought
on record various documents bearing Exs.1 to 403 and further relied on
the articles listed at the chargesheet.
10. My Ld. Predecessor recorded the statements u/s 313 of
Cr.P.C. of Accd.Nos.1 to 6 at Exs.406 to 411 respectively. All the
accused specifically denied the incriminating circumstances against
them from the evidence on record. Their defence appears to be total
innocence.
14 Judgment S.C.660/08
11. The following points arise for determination, and I have
recorded the findings thereon for the reasons discussed thereafter :-
POINTS
(1) Whether the prosecution proves that on 20.2.2008 at Cineraj
Cenema Hall at Panvel at about 3.15 p.m. Accd. Nos.1 to 6 in
execution of their conspiracy caused explosion of bomb to prevent the
screening of film Jodha Akbar ?
(2) Whether the prosecution proves that on 31.5.2008 at about
18.30 hours at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha, Sector 15A, Vashi, Accd.
Nos.1 to 6 in execution of their conspiracy kept a live bomb, in the
form of improvised explosive device containing gelatin sticks and
detonators, amonium nitrate, electric circuit, timer and remote sensor
with battery, for explosion to prevent performance of the drama Aamhi
Pachpute ?
(3) Whether the prosecution further proves that on 4.6.2008 at
about 4.10 p.m. at the four wheeler parking lot at Gadkari Rangayatan
Natyagriha, Thane, Accd. Nos.1 to 6 in execution of their conspiracy
caused explosion of a bomb resulting into injuries to 8 persons to
prevent performance of the drama Aamhi Pachpute ?
(4) Whether the prosecution further proves that at the aforesaid
15 Judgment S.C.660/08
places of the three incidents Accd. Nos.1 to 6 in execution of their
conspiracy by explosion of bomb or attempt to explode the bomb
intended to cause death of unknown persons assembled there and the
said accused had knowledge that they would have been guilty of
murder having caused injuries to those unknown persons ?
(5) Whether the prosecution further proves that on 4.6.2008 at
about 4.15 p.m. at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane by causing explosion of
bomb and other explosive substances, Accd. Nos.1 to 6 voluntarily
caused injuries to the persons who appeared to view the drama Aamhi
Panchpute ?
(6) Whether the prosecution further proves that Accd. Nos.1 to
6 in between January 2008 to June 2008 in execution of their
conspiracy while committing explosions of bomb destroyed the
evidence thereof, and aided and abetted one another while destroyng
such evidence, to screen away themselves from legal punishment ?
(7) Whether the prosecution further proves that Accd. Nos.1 to
6 in between January 2008 to June 2008 at Rahaticha Mal, Varsai, Tal.
Pen, Dist. Raigad, at Apashinge, Satara, at Vishnudas Bhave
Auditorium, Vashi, Cineraj Cinema, Panvel, and at Gadkari
Rangayatan, Thane, were found in possession of explosive substances
16 Judgment S.C.660/08
such as amonium nitrate, petroleum hydrocarbon oil, aluminium and
accessories like R.F. circuits with remote controls, batteries, timer,
plastic containers, nail, etc. to form improvised device and caused its
explosions ?
(8) Whether the prosecution further proves that Accd. Nos.1 to
6 in between January 2008 to June 2008 Accd.No.1 to 6 intended to
strike terror in section of people, possessed the bombs, explosive
substances and then aided and abetted by facilitating commission of
terrorist acts and caused explosion by means of bombs at Cineraj
Cinema Hall at Panvel on 20.2.2008 and at Gadkari Rangayatan at
Thane on 4.6.2008 at 16.10 hours and by planting bomb (Improvised
Explosive Device) at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on
31.5.2008 at about 18.30 hours ?
(9) Whether the prosecution proves that on 4.6.2008 at Gadkari
Rangayatan, Thane Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, Accd. No.3-Vikram
Bhave and Accd. No.4-Santosh Angre committed mischief by planting
explosive devices and causing explosion and thereby caused damage to
the public property valued more than Rs.1000/- ?
(10) Whether the prosecution proves that Accd. No.3-Vikram
Bhave on 19.6.2008 disclosed his conscious possession of two country-
17 Judgment S.C.660/08
made fire arms and 92 bullets without holding a valid licence and it was
so discovered upon his deposition to the police officer while in
custody ?
(11) Whether the prosecution proves that on 26.5.2008 at a
mobile shop at Panvel Accd. No.1 Ramesh Gadkari cheated by
personation to Smt. Darshan Kaur pretending himself as Ramnarayan
Govind Shrivastav, residing at A-1, 503/Naresh/Mahesh Apartgment,
Dhantoli Raod, Nagpur and fraudulently and dishonestly induced her to
deliver four Tata Indicom SIM cards ?
(12) Whether the prosecution proves that on 26.5.2008 at Sakshi
Park, Building No.2, Room No.202, C-Wing, Malewadi Stop,
Matheran Road, Panvel, Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari forged a motor
driving licence and electricity bill for producing it for purchase of 4
Tata Indicom SIM cards, 1 Reliance SIM card and 2 mobile handsets ?
(13) Whether the prosecution proves that on 26.5.2008 at the
Mobile shop at Panvel Dist. Raigad, Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari used
the aforesaid forged documents such as motor driving licence and
electricity bill for the purpose of cheating, intending that it shall be used
as a genuine, which he knew at the time when used it to be forged
documents ?
18 Judgment S.C.660/08
(14) Whether the prosecution proves that sanction to prosecute
Accd. Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under the Explosive Act
and Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is legal and valid ?
(15) Whether the prosecution proves that sanction to prosecute
Accd. Nos.1 to 6 for offence punishable under the Unlawful Activities
Act, 1967 is legal and valid ?
(16) What order ?
The findings on the aforesaid points are as under :-
(1) No.
(2) Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3-
Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6.
(3) Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3-
Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6.
(4) No.
(5) Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3-
Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6.
(6) Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3-
Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6.
(7) Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3-
Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6.
19 Judgment S.C.660/08
(8) No.
(9) Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3-
Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.No.4 .
(10) No.
(11) No.
(12) No.
(13) No.
(14) Yes.
(15) No.
(16) As per final order.
REASONS
12. The prosecution examined Bharat Sashi Nikalje (PW 1) at
Ex.27A, who is Asstt. Manager at Cineraj Cinema Hall at New Panvel
for about 7 to 8 months prior to the incident, narrated the incident
occurred on 20.2.2008 at about 3.15 p.m. He identified the FIR (Ex.28.)
lodged by him at New Panvel Police Station.
13. Viaykumar Manoharlal Agarwal (PW 2) is examined at Ex.
30. He is Manager at Cineraj Cinema Hall at New Panvel since the year
2001. He narrated the information received by him on 20.2.2008 of the
20 Judgment S.C.660/08
incident of explosion of bomb.
14. Ajit Gopal Parab (PW 3) is examined at Ex.31. He is
employee of the owner of Cineraj Cinema Hall named Sanjay Gupta.
He reached the Cineraj Theatre after receiving information of explosion
of bomb. He stood as a panch to the spot panchnama at Ex.32. He
identified his signature on the labels of the panchnamas at Exs.33 to 41
and identified Art.Nos.1 to 9.
15. Bhaurao Shridhar Birajdar (PW 4), who was PSI attached to
Panvel City Police Station, is examined at Ex.42. On 20.2.2008 he was
on duty at the police station. After he received information of explosion
of bomb at the Cineraj theatre, he went there and recorded the
complaint of Bharat Nikalje (PW 1) as per his narration, which is at Ex.
28 and its FIR format at Ex.28A.
16. Manoj Chandradev Yadav (PW 5) is examined at Ex.43. He
is Projector operator in Cineraj Theatre. He was on duty on 20.2.2008
and had started screening of film Jodha Akbar at 1 p.m., had taken
interval at 3.05 p.m. and re-started the film with trailor of film Race at
21 Judgment S.C.660/08
3.15 p.m. and at such time Bharat Nikalje (PW 1) approached him and
asked to stop the screening of the film. Accordingly he stopped the
screening of the film.
17. Sudhakar Manaji Parab (PW 6) is examined at Ex.44. He
was attached to Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad at Thane. He was
called on duty on 20.2.2008 at Cineraj Cinema, Panvel in respect bomb
explosion, and went to the spot along with the staff, Explosive Vapour
Detector, Sniffer Dog, Deep Search Metal Detector, Surveillance
Optical Cell, X-Ray Machine. They reached the spot at 6.40 p.m.,
carried out process of detection of explosive substances and articles at
the spot and prepared report as per Ex.45.
18. Sunil Bhagwandas Talreja (PW 7) examined at Ex.46 was
called for panchnama for taking swabs at the spot of explosion at
Cineraj Cinema at Panvel, and the panchnama of taking swabs for
chemical analysis was prepared as per Ex.47, and he identified the
labels containing his signatures at Exs.48 to 50. He identified Art. Nos.
10 to 12.
22 Judgment S.C.660/08
19. Dattatray Dharma Dhangat (PW 8) examined at Ex.51 is the
Muddemal Clerk at Panvel Police Station. He carried the muddemal
articles in Crime No.26/08 to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina
along with covering letters at Exs.52 and 53, bearing endorsements of
the laboratory of having received the articles for chemical analysis and
the chemical analysis report is Ex.55.
20. Suryakant Dattatray Ghadge (PW 9) examined at Ex.64 was
attached to Panvel City Police Station as Sr. Police Inspector, was on
duty on 20.2.2008, received information of the explosion at Cineraj
Cinema, reached to the spot, called Bomb Detection & Dispoal Squad,
carried out panchnama as per Ex.32, obtained report from BDDS as per
Ex.45, collected Art. Nos.1 to 9, collected swabs at the spot of
explosion for chemical analysis as per Ex.47, forwarded these Art. Nos.
1 to 12 for chemical analysis and obtained reports as per Exs.55 to 57.
21. Bhau Vithoba Narawade (PW 10) examined at Ex.58 was
attached to Vashi Police Station as Administrative Police Inspector,
was present on duty at the police station on 31.5.2008, proceeded to
discharge his patrolling duty in a mobile van and at 6.30 p.m. received
23 Judgment S.C.660/08
information from Sr.PI Chaugule that at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium
one unattended bag is found. Therefore he proceeded to the said place.
He along with staff met Manager Girish Chaware, who had taken them
to the bag lying in the auditorium. He inspected the bag and found
electronic instrument showing red colour light raising suspicious that it
might be a bomb. Therefore he summoned BDDS and continued to
prepare the spot as per Ex.59. He further recorded the complaint as per
Ex.60, collected the articles from the place of incident as per Arts.13 to
18, each of them sealed with labels bearing signatures of the panchas as
per Exs.61 to 66.
22. Shridhar Digambar Silavane (PW 11) examined at Ex.70
had gone to Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on 31.5.2008 to
watch the drama, obtained pass and entered the auditorium as the drama
had already started and occupied the seat between Seat Nos.10 to 13 in
Row 'C' and sat with the children. During interval he noticed one bag
under front seat and called the door keeper and asked him to see as to
whose bag is. The door keeper expected it to be of a customer, who
might have gone outside in the interval, and the playing of the drama
Aamhi Panchpute continued. He noticed that the chair under which the
24 Judgment S.C.660/08
plastic bag was noticed remained vacant inspite of the drama being
started playing. Then he again called the door keeper, who found it to
be a plastic carry bag. The door keeper also found that some light was
of blinking colour. The administrator and police arrived.
23. Ashok Bharma Nauvkudkar (PW 12) examined at Ex.71,
was attached to BDDS at Thane, was called on duty at Vishnudas
Bhave Auditorium on 31.5.2008 upon message from Police Control
Room. Upon receiving the message at 18.45 hours he reached to the
theatre at 20.15 hours along with Sniffer Dog, X-ray machine, Cortex,
Exploder Dynama, Electric, Non-electric detonators, bomb blanket,
bomb circle, safety fuse, hand held metal detector, etc. The sniffer dog
was taken near the bag, who gave signal of having explosives in it and
they confirmed that the bag containing explosive like detonators linked
with electric circuit, battery cells, pencil cells to keep at a safe distance
beneath the sand bags circle, defused it by utilizing Cortex method and
prepared the report of entire incident as per Ex.72. He opinion that if
the explosion would have burst, everything would have been destroyed
and some one must have been died or injured coming within the
periphery of 30 meters of the plastic bag.
25 Judgment S.C.660/08
24. Sharad Shankar Thokal (PW 13) examined at Ex.73 is the
Police Constable attached to Vashi Police Station. He carried six
muddemal packets to Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina, Santacruz
as per covering letter at Ex.74.
25. Devappa Haribhau Gura (PW 14) examined at Ex.75 was
called by the Vashi Police Station at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha on
31.5.2008 to act as a panch for panchnama of the plastic bag found
unattended and the further process taken up by BDDS to defuse the
bomb as per panchnama Ex.59. He identified Art.Nos.13 to 18 found at
the spot and his signature on the labels at Exs.61 to 66.
26. Girish Shyamkant Chaware (PW 15) examined at Ex.78 was
the Asstt. Manager at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha. He narrated the
incident occurred on 31.5.2008 at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha.
27. Ramesh Vithal Surve (PW 16) examined at Ex.79 was the
Door Keeper at Vishnudas Bhave, who attended the call given by
Shridhar Silvane (PW 11). The witness narrated the incident occurred a
at the spot.
26 Judgment S.C.660/08
28. Gulab Krishna Kardile (PW 17) examined at Ex.80 was PSI
at Vashi Police Station on 31.5.2008 and was discharging his duty as
PSI from 9 p.m. onward. He registered Crime II-88/08 u/s 4, 5 & 6 of
Indian Explosives Act pas per complaint of Narawade (PW 10) at Ex.
60 and its FIR format at Ex.60A.
29. Sudhir Ramchandra Chowgule (PW 18) examined at Ex.81
was Sr. Police Inspector at Vashi Police Station on 31.5.2008. He
narrated the initial investigation and identified the covering letter at Ex.
74 sent to Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina, Mumai and report of
chemical analysis at Ex.77.
30. Swapnil Manohar Dalvi (PW 19) examined at Ex.83 was
working as Booking Clerk at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane, attended his
duty on 4.6.2008 at 12 O'clock to 10.30 p.m.. On that day the drama
Aamhi Pachpute was scheduled to be played in the theatre at 4.30 p.m.
He sold tickets between 12 O'clock to 4 p.m. to the customers and
thereafter went to the canteen to take tea, which is located at ground
floor. While returning, Watchman Sakpal had shown him one
suspicious article in the parking lot and he went towards it along Sakpal
27 Judgment S.C.660/08
and found one black coloured plastic bag lying there. The bag was
open. Then he went to the office and met his superios, Hanif, Dilip
Gaikwad, Kishor Surve and Vivek Mhatre, and told them about the
article lying in the parking lot. When he returned along with them
towards the parking lot while at a distance of 10 to 12 feet away from
the bag he experienced explosion and sustained injuries on different
parts of his person due to the substances in the article blasted. He was
scared and stopped hearing due to big noise. Vivek Mhatre also
sustained injuries along with others and those were taken to a nearby
hospital where police recorded his complaint as per Ex.84.
31. Kishor Arjun Surve (PW 20) examined at Ex.85 is the
Wireman working at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was on duty on
4.6.2008 at 4 p.m. He narrated the incident of explosion at Gadkari
Rangayatan, Thane.
32. Ramesh Sakharam Dhuri (PW 21) is examined at Ex.86 is
the Police Sub Inspector attached to Bomb Detection & Disposal
Squad. On 4.6.2008 he received message from Control Room at about
16.20 hours that there is a bomb blast at Gadkari Rangayatan theatre.
28 Judgment S.C.660/08
Therefore he proceeded with instruments and Sniffer Dog. He along
with other staff was shown the spot and explosion wherein one bicycle
and wooden roof was damaged. He inspected the entire theatre
premises and at the spot of blast noticed pieces of detonators, battery,
circuit, iron nails and black powder and the Sniffer Dog having smelt
the said articles, signaled it being explosives. He prepared report of
examination as per Ex.87, and the articles recovered from the spot,
according to him, were normally improvised explosive device and only
are being used in the bomb with a view to cause injuries to the persons
nearby to the explosion.
33. Mahadev Bhagwantrao Bhosale (PW 22) examined at Ex.89
is the Door Keeper at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was on duty on
4.6.2008 and he was panch witness to the collection of the articles at
the spot of explosion as per panchnama at Ex.90. He identified the
Article Nos.19 to 35 containing labels Exs. 91 to 107. He identified the
bicycle Art.36 seized from the spot of explosion.
34. Madhukar Motiram Gaikwad (PW 23) examined at Ex.109
is the Security Guard working at Shivaji Hospital at Kalwa on 4.6.2008.
29 Judgment S.C.660/08
He was called by the police on 6.6.2008 to act as a panch for collection
of pieces of nails recovered from the body of the injured persons as per
panchnama at Ex.110 and articles being Art.Nos.37 and 38.
35. Rajesh Mahadev Salvi (PW 24) examined at Ex.111. He had
gone to watch the drama Aamhi Pachpute at Gadkari Rangayatan
Theatre on 4.6.2008 and at 4.05 p.m. he had sat on the bench at the side
of the parking lot. While facing towards the gate, he saw four persons
coming briskly from office side and came towards the parking lot,
meanwhile explosion occurred and he ran away and lateron raised
sensation of injury on his waist. These injuries were treated at Shivaji
hospital at Kalwa.
36. Vivek Pandurang Mhatre (PW 25) examined at Ex.112 is
the Carpenter working with Thane Municipal Corporatin. He was on
duty at Gadkari Rangayatan on 4.6.2008 and at about 4.10 p.m. Dalvi,
Sakpal and another employee of the Corporation came towards the
cabin and told that there is one bag lying unattended in the parking lot
and it looked suspicious. He narrated the further incident occurred.
30 Judgment S.C.660/08
37. Dilip Mahadev Gaikwad (PW 26) examined at Ex.113 is the
employee of Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was called in the office
of the Manager on 16.6.2008 for panchnama of recovery of Vehicle
Register. The panchnama is at Ex.114 and the vehicle parking register
is at Ex.115. During cross-examination he further identified the
signatures of other employees, Kadam and Bhagwat at Ex.116 and Ex.
117, and signature of Rajderkar at Ex.118.
38. Hanif Ahmed Mahapure (PW 27) examined at Ex.119 is the
employee of Thane Municipal Corporation, working at Gadkari
Rangayatan on 4.6.2008. He narrated the incident of having received
information of one bag lying in the parking lot and he heard the noise
of the blast, and further incident e xperienced by him at the spot.
39. Vilas Sahdev Kadam (PW 28) examined at Ex.120 is the
Security Guard at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was on duty on
4.6.2008 between 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. He attended the stand at the Gate,
entered the numbers of the vehicles entered in the premises in the
Vehicle Register maintained. He narrated that entry dated 4.6.2008 in
the first shift are in the handwriting of Bhagwat and the entries in the
31 Judgment S.C.660/08
second shift of the same date are in his handwriting.
40. Mahaesh Shriram Rajderkar (PW 29) examined at Ex.121
was having additional charge of Manager of Gadkari Rangayatan. He
narrated the incident of handing over Vehicle Register at Ex.115 to the
police.
41. Anil Dhondu Pawar (PW 30) examined at Ex.124 acted as a
panch witness on5.6.2008 for the panchnama of seizure of clothes of
the injured as per Ex.125. He identified those clothes at Art.39 colly.
And the labels with his signature placed affixed on these articles at Exs.
126 & 127.
42. Sachin Tanaji Adhalge (PW 31) examined at Ex.128 acted
as a panch witness to the panchnama of collection of nails by the police
as per Ex.129. He identified the phial containing the nails at Art.40.
43. Shridhar Raghunath Sakpal (PW 32) examined at Ex.130 is
the Security Guard at Gadkari Rangayatan. He was on duty on 4.6.2008
between 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.. When he was taking round in the theatre at
32 Judgment S.C.660/08
4.05 or 4.10 p.m. he noticed one unattended bag in the four wheeler
parking lot on the side of the wall. He went near the bag and noticed
two boxes in the bag. He raised suspicion in the mind and called other
employees. When they were at a distance of 7 to 8 feet, there was a
blast and he had sustained injuries.
44. Vilas Vasudev Acharekar (PW 33) examined at Ex.132 is
sthe panch witness for the house search of Accd. No.1 Ramesh
Gadkari. He narrated the process of house search and the panchnama as
per Ex.133. He identified the articles seized as per Art.40 colly. And
the label bearing his signature as per Ex.134.
45. Sunny Lahu Ekade (PW 34) examined at Ex.135 is the
panch witness to the seiszure of Hero Honda Splendor two wheeler
bearing No.MH 06 AK 5558 as per panchnama at Ex.136.
46. Kishore Dattaram Dawale (PW 35) examined at Ex.137 is
the panch witness for defusion process of 27 detonators and 15 gelatin
sticks as per panchnama at Ex.138. He identified the paper bags and the
bottles containing remnants of the defusion process at Arts.41 & 42 and
33 Judgment S.C.660/08
also labels bearing his signatures as panch at Exs.139 and 140.
47. Purnima Mohanbhai Chavan (PW 36) examined at Ex.141 is
working in Sales Department of the office of Diana High Tech Power
System Ltd. as Sales Coordinator, and she told that they purchased
battery from Tafe Source India Limited, Chennai. She identified the 10
invoices at Ex.142 for the sale of 47 batteries along with delivery
challen at Ex.143 and the dispatch instruction as per Ex.144.
48. Santosh Bharat Kanekar (PW 37) examined at Ex.145 is
running a production house named Atharva Theatres and the drama
Aamhi Pachpute was produced by him. On 24.5.2008 the first show of
the said drama was held in Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane and he
narrated the incident of having received letters from Hindu Janjagruti
Samiti on 5th or 6th May 2008 raising objection that there is some sort of
mockery of Mahabharata in the said drama. He identified the said letter
at Ex.146 and further narrated his talk with Dr. Udai Dhuri after the
letter. He further identified another letter at Ex.147.
49. Deepak Digambar Thombare (PW 38) examined at Ex.148
34 Judgment S.C.660/08
is the panch witness to the panchnama of recovery of nails from the
person of the injured at Thane Civil Hospital as per panchnama at Ex.
149. He identified the pieces of nail at Art.43.
50. Vijay Prabhakar Bhor (PW 39) examined at Ex.150 is an
employee of Dainik Sanatan Prabhat and working as a journalist since
the year 2000. He had handed over his vehicle Hero Honda Splendor
bearing No.MH 04 AQ 9905 for canvassing to Sanatan Sanstha as per
the writing given to the Sanstha as per Ex.151.
51. Vinayak Narayan Sakdev (PW 40) examined at Ex.152 is
another panch to the seizure of vehicle No. MH 04 AQ 9905 as per
panchnama Ex.153.
52. Chirag Vichal Rambiya (PW 41) examined at Ex.154 is the
photographer by profession. He was called by the police at Vikhroli
ATS office on 19.2.2009 and he had taken photographs of the articles
shown by the police by his digital camera and then reached to the
Khadi at Kanjurmarg. He has taken photographs of the defusion
process of the explosive articles. He identified those photographs at
35 Judgment S.C.660/08
Exs.156 to 183, and also identified his C.D. of the photographs at Art.
44 colly.
53. Pralhad Pandurang Kanse (PW 42) examined at Ex.184 is
the Police Naik attached to Naupada Police Station. He had carried the
muddemal articles in Crime No.243/08 to Forensic Science Laboratory
at Kalina along with covering letter at Ex.185 and the endorsement of
the laboratory is as per Ex.186.
54. Gajanan Dhondiba Kuchik (PW 43) examined at Ex.187 is
the Police Naik attached to Naupada Police Station. He carried the
muddemal articles to F.S.L. at Kalina along with forwarding letter at
Ex.188, and the endorsement of the laboratory is as per Ex.189.
55. Vijay Krishna Chowdhary (PW 44) examined at Ex.190 is
the Police Constable attached to Naupada police Station. He carried the
muddemal articles to the F.S.L. at Kalina as per covering letter at Ex.
191 colly., and the endorsement of the laboratory is as per Ex.192.
56. Mahendra Nagesh Waghmare (PW 45) examined at Ex.193
36 Judgment S.C.660/08
was called by the ATS Police on 30.6.2008 for the panchnama of the
samples of gelatin sticks and detonators for being exploded at Girgaum
Chowpaty as per panchnama at Ex.194, and he identified the residues
of the blast collected in the bottle at Art.45, and also identified the
gelatin kept in the at Art.46.
57. Vijay Prabhakar Shirodkar (PW 46) examined at Ex.196 is
doing business in the name of Urmesh Electricals at Kalyan since
16.6.2003. It is a partnership firm previously owned by Ramesh
Gadkari and then his father purchased the same in the year 2003.
According to him, the firm was in existence since the year 1980 and
Ramesh Gadkari was the owner. He identified the Deed of Partnership
at Ex.197 and the Deed of Retirement at Ex.198. According to him, he
has not purchased any articles as per the Invoice at Ex.199.
58. Rakesh Bihari Gupta (PW 47) examined at Ex.199 is
running a shop in the name of Pitambara Babar. He sells all varieties of
batteries, hobby kits and toys, and he is running the shop since the year
2003. According to him, the ATS police came to him on 9.6.2008,
enquired about 12 volts, 1.2 Amco battery. He stated that they used to
37 Judgment S.C.660/08
purchase such type of batteries from Dyna Power, Andheri, and had
purchased 47 such batteries from Dyna Power on 17.10.2007 and had
sold 25 out of these batteries to Gala Electronics on 1.11.2007, and 4
were sold to Rakshak System on 29.10.07. He identified the Invoice of
Dyna Power is at Ex.142, and the delivery challan at Ex.143 bears his
signature. He further clarified that the second page of Ex.143, which is
list of battery numbers, does not bear his signature, and heis not in
possession of the originals of this list, and he was not shown this list.
59. Ajit Hiralal Vira (PW 48) examined at Ex.200 is the
Manager of Gala Electronics situated at Lamington Road since 14
years. They sell articles required in educational projects, robot kits and
allied articles required for manufactures of educational projects and
robot kits. According to him, Rajesh Chikne is the Salesman, and
Chandrashekhar Phadke and Munnalal Sharma work in their workshop.
They are selling the articles in name of Vega Kit. They have
registration trade mark as per Ex.201. In the month of June 2008, ATS
police had come to his shop, shown him photograph and asked him
whether the articles shown in the photographs are available in his shop.
The photograph was that of remote control circuit known as R.F.
38 Judgment S.C.660/08
Circuit, and he stated to the police that it is available in the shop and the
said photograph is at Ex.202. He narrated the incident of November
2007 when he had sold R.F. Circuit and battery to two persons, and
those two persons later on came to the shop and asked to change the
circuit and battery since it was not operating properly. He refused to
exchange the articles. Those two persons had again purchased R.F.
circuit and batter from his shop in the month of November or December
2007. Again in the month of December 2007, the said two persons
came to his shop with two R.F. circuits and two batteries that were sold
by him. The said persons had also brought two remotes which were
sold to them with R.F. circuits and batteries. Then asked him that they
want to use only one remote for working out one R.F. circuits and one
battery and they do not want that both the remotes will work out are
made applicable to activate both R.F. remotes and circuits. The said
persons asked him to make such arrangement in the remote. He
described one person being old at the age of 50 to 53 years having
height of 5'.5" and the second person around 25 to 30 years of age
having height about 5'.5" to 5'.8". The police recorded his statement on
10.3.2008. The police again came to him on 2..7.2008 and called him to
Bhoiwada Police Station. They asked him to go to Arthur Road Jail for
39 Judgment S.C.660/08
identification of the person who purchased the batteries and circuits
form his shop. He along with Rajesh Chikne and Shandrakant Phadke
and Munnalal Sharma went to Arthur Road Jail. Then he was shifted in
one separate room. He found there 12 to 13 persons standing in one
row. There was SEO sitting on chair. The SEO asked him to look at the
13 persons standing and to identify the persons amongst the 13 persons
standing who had come to his shop for purchasing the articles. He
walked along the standing persons and put fingers on their hands and
went towards the SEO, and told him that these two persons had visited
his shop for purchasing the articles. While deposing before the Court
the witness identified Mangesh Dinkar Nikam and Ramesh Hanumant
Gadkari as those two persons.
60. Rajesh Babuji Chikne (PW 49) examined at Ex.204 is the
Salesman in Gala Electronics. He narrated the incident of visit of the
police to their shop on 9.6.2008.
He further narrated the incident of the two persons visiting
the shop in the month of December 2008 and they had purchased one
kit containing R.F. Receiver, Transmitter (Remote). These two persons
again came after 4 to 5 days and wanted the same kit but in smaller
40 Judgment S.C.660/08
size. Accordingly, a smaller kit was sold. Again these two persons had
come to the shop on third occasion, and asked whether coding can be
done from transmitter to one receiver only. He consulted the two
persons from the workshop named Sharma and Phadke. The police
recorded his statement on 10.6.2008. On 2nd July 2008 he was called at
Bhoiwada Police Station and was taken to Arthur Road Jail for
identification parade. He pointed out two persons in the identification
parade as Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave who had come to his
shop. The witness also identified those two persons in the Court with
the same names.
61. Chandrashekhar Narayan Phadke (PW 50) examined at Ex.
205 is working in the workshop of Gala Electronics alogn with
Munnalal Sharma. He narrated the incident of two persons visiting the
workshop in November 2007 to enquire whether from one receiver to
one transmitter should work and second receiver should not interfere
and whether he will be able to code it in such fashion. He had opened
one of the Vega kit and instructed them how to do it by soldering the
kit at two spots. They had taken 15 to 20 minutes to understand the
whole system, and then those two persons departed from the workshop.
41 Judgment S.C.660/08
The police recorded his statement in June 2008 and again called him at
Bhoiwada Police Station and was taken to Arthur Road Jail where he
identified Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave as being the said two
persons who had come to their workshop.
62. Tukaram Khandu Rane (PW 51) examined at Ex.206 has
testified that his brother Chandrakant looks after agriculture. The
witness is acquainted with accused Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave
as he used to attend Satsang being held by Sanatan Sanstha, and those
accused used to come to his village. In the month of April 2008 the
accused came to his house and enquired about the material of blasting
which they required for sinking (digging) well in the premises of
Santan Ashram at Panvel. Then he called his brother Chandrakant in
the present of Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave. The asked his
brother Chandrakant about blasting material required by the accused.
Chandrakant told that he will make enquiry with his friend
Harishchandra Ghorge and will tell about this within a week. On this
accused Gadkari asked the witness to keep advance of Rs.1000/-
towards the price of material and further told that he will come in next
week. The witness handed over Rs.1000/- given by Gadkari to
42 Judgment S.C.660/08
Chandrakant. His brother Chandrakant then availed the blasting
material. Then in the next week accused Gadkari and Bhave came to
their house and he handed over the material of blasting, which
contained 20 detonators and 20 gelatin sticks. His statement was
recorded by a Court at Dadar on 2.8.2008 as per Ex.207, which bears
his signature.
63. Chandrakant Khandu Rane (PW 52) examined at Ex.208
narrated the incident further that he went to village Nedi and met
Chorge (PW 53) and made enquiry about explosive material required
by Sanatan Ashram for sinking (digging) well. then he made phone call
to his friend Chandbhai, who asked Chorge to come ot village Kolad.
Then they met Chandbhai at Kolad with whom Chorge made inquiry of
explosive materials. Chandbhai then asked them that they will stand
near on the side of road where one Rajasthani person used to come with
whom they shall make inquiry about explosive materials. They waited
on the road.Then they noticed one jeep which halted on the road. Then
one person got down from the jeep. Then Chandbhai went towards that
person. Chandbhai had come with material and told its price Rs.900/-.
He paid Rs.900/- to that person as per instructions of Chandbhai. Then
43 Judgment S.C.660/08
he took custody of the material. The material was packed in paper and
was put in a plastic bag. Then he returned back to his brother at village
Vakan, retained the material with him and gave it to Accd. Nos.1 and 3
when them came to him in third week of April 2008.
64. Harishchandra Maruti Chorge (PW 53) examined at Ex.210
is from village Nedi. He was approached by Chadrakant Rane (PW 52).
He told that Sanatan Ashram required explosive material for sinking
(digging) well. He made a phone call to Chandbhai in the presence of
Chandrakant Rane and enquired about the same. He along with
Chandrakant went to Kolad in the night, met Chandbhai, then
Chandbhai told that one Rajasthani person comes there and they shall
try if he had got material with him. Then they both went near one hill
as per instructions of Chandbhai. Then Chandbhai also joined them at
the hill. They were standing there. Then one passenger jeep came there
and one person got down frwom the jeep and then Chandbhai went
near that person and made inquiry. Then that person handed over the
articles to Chandrakant. Those were gelatin sticks and detonators.
Chandrakant Rane paid Rs.900/- to that person, and then they went to
their respective houses.
44 Judgment S.C.660/08
65. Chand Abdul Nadaf (PW 54) examined at Ex.212 is
working as Supervisor with one Imtiyaz Bhai, who is doing business of
crushing stones. He came in contact with Chorge (PW 53). In April
2008 Chorge told him on phone that his persons require explosive
substance for sinking (digging) well. Chorge with one person came to
him in the night and they three proceeded towards the hill where the
work of Rajasthani person was in progress. They waited there when
one passenger jeep in the meanwhile came. One person got down from
the jeep, who was looking as Rajasthani, and Chandbhai asked him if
blasting material for digging well can be availed. He told in the
affirmative. Therefore he sent Chorge and the person with him towards
the Rajasthani person. Then he, Rajasthani person, Chorge and other
person went towards the site where work of Rajasthani person was in
progress. Then the Rajasthani person taken out and handed over 20
gelatins and 20 detonators to Chorge (PW 53) and his companion paid
Rs.900/- to the Rajasthani person. Then they all dispersed from that
place to their respective destinations.
66. Hitesh Chimanlal Dodia (PW 55) examined at Ex.214 is
running a shop at Lohar Chawl in the name of Dodia Electricals. They
45 Judgment S.C.660/08
sell switch gear and automation articles. He along with his brother
Ketan works in the said shop. On 8.6.2008 police had come to his shop
and made enquiry about timer. They had brought number of timer i.e.
'800M', 12 Volts D.C. and another number '0803B03-188'. The police
asked him whether timer of these numbers had been sold from his shop.
He told the police that he used to sell such timers from his shop. The
police verified invoices from his shop. One of the invoices dated
14.5.2008 was in the name of Urmesh Electricals, Panvel. As per that
invoice, they had sold 8 timers of above numbers. On 14.5.2008 one
person had come to his shop and made inquiry whether 800 M 12 Volts
D.C. Timer is available in his shop in eight quantity. The timer was
available in the shop. He requested for for discount and when the
witness refused, the said person left the shop and again on the same day
at 7.30 p.m. came to the shop along with two persons, requested for
discount on the purchase of such articles.. He purchased 8 items with
discount and invoice was prepared and signed by his brother.
67. Shekhar Vijay Bhave (PW 56) examined at Ex.217 is the
cousin of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave. According to him, Vikram Bhave
studied upto 10th Standard and his father was dealing in preparation of
46 Judgment S.C.660/08
Ayurvedic medicines and for some time Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave was
looking after the said business. Since prior to 5 to 6 years Accd.No.3-
Vikram Bhave started working in temples and for some time was
working in Sanatan Ashram, Panvel. The witness possessed a scooter
bearing No.MH-06-AE-7153 and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave used to
avail the vehicle for his work. In the month of June 2008 Accd.No.3-
Vikram Bhave came to him with circuit and handed over the same to
him and told that he has brought it for the purpose of water pump in the
house which is installed on a common well. The police came to his
house on 19.6.2008 with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. The police told
that they have noticed the involvement of of his vehicle in the incident
occurred at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre, Thane, and he handed over
the keys of the scooter No.MH-06-AE-7153, and the police attempted
to start the vehicle with the key, however, the vehicle could not start
and therefore the police again handed over the key to him, and he had
taken the vehicle to Bhoiwada Police Station on 21.6.2008 and handed
over to the police. His statement came to be recorded as per Ex.218.
68. Jaikumar Ramlochan Pandey (PW 57) examined at Ex.219
is the native of Bihar. He came to Mumbai and worked with firm
47 Judgment S.C.660/08
Urmesh Electricals with Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari until September
2000 and left the job with Ramesh Gadkari, and in the month of
December 2007 Ramesh Gadkari called him on phone and asked if he
will get a fire arm. He replied that he do not know anything about this
and he should not talk with him in this connection.
69. Mayuresh Atmaram Konekar (PW 58) examined at Ex.221
is commercial artist and works as Visualizer in Pitambari Products Pvt.
Ltd., Thane. He has done design work for Sanatan Sanstha, Panvel. He
was acquainted with Accd. No.1 Ramesh Gadkari, who used to meet
him in Sanatan Ashram, Panvel. He is also knowing Accd.No.3-Vikram
Bhave. He narrated the incident of 30.5.2008, that he had received a
phone call from Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, who asked him to come to
Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi. He had taken a half day leave
from the office and went to Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha at Vashi.
Vikram Bhave again called on phone and asked him to purchase ticket
and watch the drama "Aamhi Pachpute". He watched the dram until
recess and again received a phone call from Vikram Bhave at the
interval, who called him out of the theatre, he came out of the theatre
and saw Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and
48 Judgment S.C.660/08
Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam out side the theatre. Vikram introduced
him with another person Chalke, who was there, and all of them went
to Vashi Railway Station and then to Belapur by train. Then in one
Indica Car they went to the house of Ramesh Gadkari and after taking
tea, Chalke went away and four of them came to the S.T. Stand, Panvel
and from there went to Varsai to the house of Accd. No.3-Vikram
Bhave. It was 1.30 a.m. in the night. Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari told
him that at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha the drama "Aamhi Pachpute"
is going to be played on the day following and they have to give their
slogans and asked him whether he can give slogans. They went to sleep
and got up in the morning on 31.5.2008. They all had decided and
agreed to give slogans in front of Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium because
there was mockery against the Hindu Devtas. The slogans were to the
effect "ihMdU Qamaa-caa ivajaya Asaao,,,,, ,Qama- dao*yaaMcaa inaYaoQa". At about 12.20 p.m.
Accd.No.1 Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.no.2-Mangesh NIkadm
proceeded on scooter and he along with Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave
stayed at the house. Then half an hour lateron he and Accd. No.3-
Vikram Bhave proceeded in a rickshaw to Pen S.T. Stand and
therefrom went to Panvel by S.T. Outside S.T. Stand at Panvel, they
noticed Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam
49 Judgment S.C.660/08
having two bikes. He sat on the rear seat of the scooter which was in
the hand of Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave sat on the another bike
in the hand of Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam. Then they all went to
Gavdevi Temple at Vashi. There they did chanting, and then all four
again went to Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha.
Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) further narrated that Mangesh
Nikam entered the theatre followed by him and he sat on Seat No.41 at
the back side. Mangesh Nikam sat in the front side. After 10 minutes
lights inside the theatre went off the drama started. Within 5 to 10
minutes he received a phone call of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave and
asked him to come out of the theatre. Then he went out side the theatre
and saw Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. He asked Ramesh Gadkari as to
why he was called out. Ramesh Gadkari told that he has to go and then
both of them went to Vashi Railway Station, and he went to Thane by
train from there onwards to his house at Ghatkopar. On the next day he
read in the newspaper that one live bomb was found inside the
Vishunudas Bhave Auditorium. Then he made phone call to Accd. No.
3-Vikram Bhave and asked about this. Vikram Bhave told him that it
was fortunate that he had come outside the theatre. The statement of
the witness Mayuresh Konekar was recorded as per Ex.222.
50 Judgment S.C.660/08
70. Amar Janu Rane (PW 59) examined at Ex.223 is doing
business of preparing hair wigs and having shop in the name Vrindavan
Beauty Parlour at Shivaji Mandir, Dadar. On 25.6.2008 police had
come to his shop with one person under veil. The police took out the
veil and informed that the said person is Ramesh Gadkari. The witness
narrated that after recollecting memory, he was of the impression that
he had seen the said person Ramesh Gadkari prior to 3 to 4 months
when he had been to his shop for purchasing artificial mustaches and
beard and had purchased one set of it. According to him, Gadkari
wanted to purchase the articles after setting, and such articles were
handed over to Gadkari after setting for Rs.1800/-.
71. Manish Dattaram Surve (PW 60) examined at Ex.224
narrated about his flat being rented out to one Sudesh Dalvi in the year
2007 vide agreement of license as per Ex.226.
72. Smt. Darshan Majorsingh Kaur Randhawa (PW 61)
examined at Ex.227 stated that she works in one of the shops at Old
Panvel of Tata Tele Services Maharashtra Ltd. In that shop they sell all
types pf mobile phones along with SIM cards. On 21.6.2008 police
51 Judgment S.C.660/08
visited the shop and asked about the 4 SIM Cards purchased in the
name of Ramnarayan Srivastav. The Manager Ajaysingh Rajput
referred them to her. She went through the record and noticed the
record having 4 xerox copies of application form for purchasing SIM
Cards. All these applications were in the name of Ramnarayan
Srivastav signed by the said person. She further stated that the original
applications were forwarded to Andheri Office for onward processing
and she had given 4 SIM cards to that person immediately. She further
stated that the applications were not supplied by the person who had
come along with photographs and the person presenting the
applications was different from the photographs. She had asked the
person why he is purchasing 4 SIM cards at a time and he told that he
had to give it in gifts. When police had come to her shop for enquiry,
they were accompanied by one person whose face was covered with
veil. The police removed the veil from the face of the said person and
asked her whether he is the same who has purchased the SIM cards and
she answered in the affirmative. She identified Ramesh Gadkari in the
Court and further stated that the original applications are the same
which were handed over by accused Ramesh Gadkari for purchasing
the SIM cards and those applications are at Exs.228, 229, 230 & 231.
52 Judgment S.C.660/08
73. Babruwahan Ramrao Kadam (PW 62) examined at Ex.232
working as Deputy Engineer with MSEB stated that in June 2008 police
made enquiry in respect of electricity bill of Manish D. Surve and
another electricity bill in the name of Ramnarayan Srivastav, which are
at Exs.233 and 234. According to him, the consumer number shown in
the xerox copy of the bill in the name of Ramnarayan Srivastav has not
been allotted by their office and the meter number mentioned therein
was also not allotted by them and he had given the report of verification
as per Ex.235.
74. Darshansingh Bhagwansingh Randhawa (PW 63) examined
at Ex.236 is the Nodal Officer with Tata Tele Services Maharashtra
Ltd. He had received a letter from Addl. Commissioner of POlice on
26.6..2008 at Ex.238. He replied the same as per Ex.239. He supplied
the call details as per Ex.240. Again he received a letter dated 2.8.2008
from the Addl. Commissioner of Police as per Ex.241, by which letter
they wanted the original documents given by the customer. He supplied
the same along with letter at Ex.242 and those 4 documents are at Exs.
228 to 231.
53 Judgment S.C.660/08
75. Vilas Raghunath Godambe (PW 64) examined at Ex.243 is
working as Cashier at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. On 4.6.2008 he
was on duty between 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. He attended the duty at 2 p.m.
in the canteen. Before 4 p.m. one person had entered in the canteen and
demanded water. He has further stated that he pointed out the place
where the water was available in the canteen. The said person after
drinking water returned back and asked him whether he saw the drama
Aamhi Panchpute and he answered in the negative. Meanwhile another
person came there to whom the person with glass of water asked as to
whether his vehicle is parked and about the bag, and the said persons
replied that it is in the dickey of the vehicle. Thereafter within 10 to 15
minutes there was blast with loud noise and there was smoke every
where. The witness further stated that he went outside the canteen and
stood on the lawn. The police then came to him, made inquiry and
recorded his statement on 20.7.2008. He further states that on
18.8.2008 he was called at Vikhroli ATS office and was taken to Arthur
Road Jail for identification parade. He identified two persons in Arthur
Road Jail from amongst the dummies. He identified the person as the
one who had come in the canteen and demanded water as Accd.No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari and another who had dialogue with the first one as
54 Judgment S.C.660/08
Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre.
76. Sharad Prabhakar Bali (PW 65) examined at Ex.244 is
running a Vadapav Stall in front of S.T. stand at Panvel. He narrated
the incident of 20.2.2008 when he had gone to Cineraj Cinema Hall to
see a movie Jodha Akbar. Before entering the hall after getting ticket,
he was wandering around the theatre and he had noticed two persons
who came on a bike. One person got down from the bike and went to
avail a ticket, and the person on the motorcycle went out side with the
bike. Then again the said bike rider came to the theatre with another
person. The witness further states that he went inside the theatre and
those three persons who had come there on the bike also entered the
theatre. In the interval he came out of the theatre and again went inside
and heard noise of bursting like crackers. The witness further narrated
the incident that in the month of August 2008 he was called in Arthur
Road Jail where he identified those three persons to whom he had
watched in the theatre while coming on the bike and according to him
those are Ramesh Gadkari, Mangesh Nika and Vikram Bhave.
77. Suresh Rajaram Shinde (PW 66) examined at Ex.247 has
55 Judgment S.C.660/08
not supported the prosecution case and nothing substantial came out of
his cross-examination conducted by the prosecution.
78. Prabhakar Takarji Yeshwante (PW 67) examined at Ex.248
is the Special Executive Officer. He received a letter from Mr. Rathod
attached to ATS and he was asked to come at Bhoiwada ATS Police
Station for holding identification parade as per the letter at Ex.250. He
had gone to the police station on 2.7.2008 at 10 a.m. and Mr. Rathod
gave him idea and particulars of identification of the accused by
witnesses. According to him, in the first identification parade Hitesh
Dodia and Ketan Dodia identified Ramesh Gadkari, and in the second
identification parade Hitesh Dodia and Ketan Dodia identified Mangesh
Nikam and Hemant Chalke.
According to Prabhakar Yashwante (PW 67), in the second
identification parade the witnesses named Ajit, Munnilal Sharma,
Rajesh Chikne and Chandrashekar Phadke did not identify anybody.
Then he prepared identification parade report as per Ex.251.
79. Dattaram Jairam Kambli (PW 68) examined at Ex.252 is the
Special Executive Officer. He was requested by ACP Mr. Chopane
56 Judgment S.C.660/08
attached to ATS on 18.8.2008 to conduct identification parades.
According to him, there were five accused persons to whom the
witnesses named Sharad Bali and Vilas Godambe were to identify. He
held the identification parade in three sets i.e. in two sets there were
two accused each and in the third set there was one accused. According
to him, in the first set, the witness Sharad Bali identified accused
Vikram Bhave and Santosh Angre and the witness Vilas Godambe
identified accused Santosh Angre, and in the second set none of the
witnesses identified accused Mangesh Nikam and Chalke, and in the
third set Ramesh Gadkari was identified in both the sets. The witness
prepared the identification parade report in his handwriting as per Ex.
253.
80. Nurulla Hajmatulla Shaikh (PW 69) examined at Ex.254
was called by Vikhroli Police Station on 16.6.2008 to act as a panch
and the police told him that they have to take search of the apprehended
persons. There was one accused with the police, whose name was
referred as Mangesh. The police taken his search and one black
coloured mobile of Nokia Company was found in the left pocket of his
pant. The police prepared the arrest and seizure panchnama and written
57 Judgment S.C.660/08
down the mobile number and SIM card number, and he identified the
panchnama at Ex.255. It bears his signature, and further identified the
mobile and SIM card at Art,47 colly. He further identified the label
affixed to the packet of those articles bearing his signature at Ex.256.
The witness further states that on 17.6.2008 he was again called by the
police at the police station, where two accused were present. He
referred one of them as Vikram Bhave and he does not remember name
of the other accused person. The police had taken search of these
persons in his presence, and a mobile of Sony Ericson company was
found. The police had taken out the SIM card and nothing was found
on the person of other person. The police prepared arrest and seizure
panchnama as per Ex.257.It bears his signature and he further identified
the mobile and SIM card at Art.48 colly.
81. Rakesh Shrikrishna Dawade (PW 70) examined at Ex.259 is
the panch witness to the seizure of the mobile phone from Sandip
Sakpal as per panchnama at Ex.260, and he identified the said mobile,
SIM card and battery which are at Ex.49 colly., and he further
identified the packet and label bearing his signature affixed on the
article as per Ex.261.
58 Judgment S.C.660/08
82. Gajanan Mansingh Rathod (PW 71) examined at Ex.263 is
the Clerk from R.T.O., Nagpur. Their office received a letter calling
particulars about the motor vehicle licence relating to MDL
No.MH-31-10573/98. According to him, the record was searched, and
it was found that the said number was entered in the Manual Register in
the name of Wajidali Sayyedali, resident of Taj Baug, Ayyat Colony,
Nagpur. He identified the letter as per Ex.264 giving such number and
also produced the relevant extract of the register at page 73, a copy of
which is brought on record at Ex.265. He further stated that after
11.8.1998 they started preparing computerized record and the computer
copy regarding alleged MDL number is at Ex.266.
83. Sandip Shashikant Sakpal (PW 72) examined at Ex.267 is
working in Parle Products as Excise Assistance since 2008. I was
working as Accountant with Sanatan Ashram and with Saptahik
Sanatan Prabhat. He knew Santosh Angre., who was residing in
Sanatan Ashram. On 15.6.2008 he had occasion to go to Sanatan
Ashram for Seva, and while returning he asked Angre for his mobile to
hear Bhajans. Therefore Angre handed over the said mobile. He heard
Bhajans from the mobile at his house upto 11 p.m. and on the next day
59 Judgment S.C.660/08
he went to his office in the morning. He received phone call from his
wife that police had taken Santoshi Angre in custody, and he was called
at ATS police station at Bhoiwada with mobile of Angre. His statement
was recorded before a Magistrate, which is at Ex.268.
84. Dr. Uday Bhivaji Dhuri (PW 73) examined at Ex.272 is
running an organization in the name Hindu Jana Jagruti Samiti
formulated in the year 2002 having office at Naupada, Thane. He is
inviter of the said Samiti for the area of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai,
and the aim of the Samiti is to prevent the mockery of Hindu gods
being done in the theaters, dramas, in advertisement, in paintings, etc.
The witness further states that they used to protest such activities by
demonstration with silence and by writing to Censor Board. They had a
dialogue with drama producers to stop such type of mockery of Hindu
Gods. They had also submitted representations to the Chief Minister
and other administrative authorities for stopping such nuisance. The
witness further clarified that he had carried out silent protest against
performance of the drams “Bighadle Swargache Dwar”, “Yada
Kadachit”, Deva Adi Koknat Yeva” and “Dev Karil Love” . According
to him, such protests were launched by them at the theatres in Dadar,
60 Judgment S.C.660/08
Vile Parle, Kalidas Theatre, Mulund, Vishnudas Bhave Theatre, Vashi
and Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. The witness further explained that he
knows Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave. He further explained that
they had raised objection against performance of the Drama Amhi
Pachpute and had discussed with Santosh Pawar and Santosh Kanekar
relating to the mockery of Hindu Idols in their drama Aamhi Pachpute.
The witness further stated that he addressed letters to themfor removing
objectionable portion which are affecting Hindu sentiments and he
identified those letters being at Exs.146 and 147.
85. Narayan Ramkrishna Mulye (PW 74) examined at Ex.273 is
working at Sanatan Sanstha at Panvel. He identified accused Ramesh
Gadkari and Vikram Bhave and further stated that police enquired
about two-wheeler vehicles of the Ashram, and that the police had
taken two wheeler vehicle in their custody.
86. Abhay V ijay Vartak (PW 75) examined at Ex.278 has
stated that he works in Sanatan Ashram at Panvel in construction
section and also renders other services for the last 10 years. According
to him, the Ashram is having 10 two-wheelers and 7 to 8 four-wheelers.
61 Judgment S.C.660/08
The police had visited the Ashram for enquiry about vehicle
No.MH-06-5558, which is a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle. He
further stated that one Vehicle Register is maintained at the respective
centre of the Ashram for the use of the vehicles at the Ashram, and he
identified the two registers at Arts.50 and 51, and further identified the
entries in respect of vehicle No.MH-06-AK-5558.
87. Ashok Jagannath Nimkar (PW 76) examined at Ex.279 is
working in Account department of Panvel Sanatan Sanstha Ashram. He
identified the List of Honorarium of the Ashram at Ex.280 bearing
signatures of the persons to whom the honorarium is paid.
88. Dnyaneshwar Dhondiba Kumbhar (PW 77) examined at Ex.
283 is the panch witness, residing at Borgaon, Dist. Satara. He was
called by the police at village Apshinge and he identified the
panchnama at Ex.284 drawn at the house of accused Mangesh Nikam
and further identified the Art.53 colly. to 61 seized at the house of
accused Mangesh Nikam at village Apshinge.
89. Augustian Excel Dias (PW 78) examined at Ex.293 is the
62 Judgment S.C.660/08
panch witness to the seizure of the registers at Arts.50 and 51 and the
diary at Art.62 as per panchnama at Ex.294.
90. Pawar Venkata Ananta (PW 79) examined at Ex.296 is an
Agent of State Bank of India at Pen. He appeared on behalf of the
Bank, identified the letter at ex.297 sent by ATS, Mumbai and
submitted the particulars of the account in the name of Vikram Bhave
and those account details are at Ex.298 to 300.
91. Preetam Pradeep Mhatre (PW 80) examined at Ex.301 is the
panch witness. He stated that on 19.6.2008 after the police officer
asked at the Campus of Bhoiwada Police Station, he had shown his
readiness to act as a panch. They further stated that one person named
Vikram Bhave has made a statement before the police that “he used to
prepare bombs and has stored some articles in his house and will point
out the place”. The witness further stated that a memorandum statement
of accused Vikram Bhave bearing his signature is at Ex. 302. It is
further stated that he along with police officers and accused Vikram sat
in one vehicle and another panch and other police staff sat in another
vehicle and proceeded as per the instructions of the accused to Pen city
63 Judgment S.C.660/08
and first went to the Pen Police Station. He further narrated that one
officer and constable was taken from Pen Police Station and Vikram
Bhave taken them to his house. It is further stated that accused Vikram
Bhave called his brother from adjoining house and asked him to take
out prepared bombs and articles required for preparing bombs that were
handed over to him. The brother of the accused brought a box from his
house, and the police opened the box and they found it containing a
remove control and electronic items and the police recovered those
articles as per panchnama at Ex.303. He further identified the Art.62
colly. and the labels affixed to it as per Ex.304.
Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) further narrated the incident of
Vikram Bhave taking them to one hill and by digging recovered two
revolvers, which are at Art. 63 colly. which are having labels affixed to
it with his signature which are at Exs.305 and 306. He further stated
that bullets were also found in the ditch and those are at Art.64 colly.
and electronic detonators were also found in the said ditch. It is further
stated that Vikram Bhave had taken them towards a river and he had
taken out one bag from the river water and they were 19 gelatin sticks
with one wire bundle in the bag and those are at Art.65 colly. He
further narrated that thereafter they halted in the Pen city in the night
64 Judgment S.C.660/08
and on the second day Vikram Bhave took them to the house of
Haribhau Divekar, who pointed out the place of the river where articles
were thrown, and his memorandum of statement is at Ex.307, and one
gunny bag was recovered from the river water, the bag was opened and
the articles therein were seized as per panchnama at Ex.308.
92. Anil Vishwas Tarte (PW 81) examined at Ex.310 is the
Police Naik attached to Fingerprint Bureau of the Crime Branch. He
stated that on 20.2.2008 as per the message received from Navi
Mumbai Control Room about the blast taken place at Cineraj Cinema
Theatre, he along with other staff went to the spot of the incident. He
snapped photographs of the spot of incident, and those 31 photographs
identified by him at Ex.311 colly.
93. Nitin Baliram Bhosale (PW 82) examined at Ex.312 is the
constable from Vashi Police Station, who had snapped 12 photographs
at Ex.313 at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha on 31.5.2008.
94. Vilas Harishchandra Jadhav (PW 83) examined at Ex.314 is
the Police Sub Inspector in Crime Branch of Thane City. He narrated
65 Judgment S.C.660/08
part of investigation carried out by him in Crime No.12/08 of ATS.
95. Mukund Vasudev Gorhe (PW 84) examined at Ex.316 is the
Asstt. Police Inspector attached to Naupda Police Station on 4.6.2008.
He narrated the part of investigation carried out by him in respect of the
blast at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane.
96. Tukaram Dwarkanath Gaud (PW 85) examined at Ex.317 is
the Police Inspector attached to Crime Branch, Thane was part of the
investigation team. He narrated the investigation in respect of vehicle
No.MH-06-AK-5559 as per Register at Ex.115 and the entry marked as
Ex.118/A.
97. Mahesh Babaji Bagwe (PW 86) examined at Ex.318 is the
Police Inspector attached to Crime Branch, Thane, who assisted in the
investigation.
98. Mallinkarun Gundappa Kumbhar (PW 87) is examined at
Ex.319 is the Asstt. Police Inspector, who assisted in the investigation.
66 Judgment S.C.660/08
99. Shantaram Pandurang Jadhav (PW 88) examined atEx.320
is the Asstt. Police Inspector attached to Thane Nagar Police Station.
He assisted the investigation in respect of collection of the nails found
in the injuries of the injured persons admitted in Civil Hospital, Thane.
100. Chandrakant Vishwnath Joshi (PW 89) examined at Ex.321
is the Police Inspector attached to Crime Branch, Thane. He assisted
the investigation regarding statement of witnesses.
101. Suresh Pandurang Bhosale (PW 90) examined at Ex.322 is
the Police Inspector at Panvel Police Station, who recorded statement
of witness Sharad Prabhakar Balid on 22.7.2008.
102. Jagannath Abaji More (PW 91) examined at Ex.323 is the
PSI attached to Thane Nagar Police Station, who assisted the
investigation of the incident at Gadkari Rangayatan and recorded
statements of witnesses.
103. Hemand Madhusudan Sawant (PW 92) examined at Ex.324
is the Police Inspector attached to Naupada Police Station, Thane, who
67 Judgment S.C.660/08
received the information of the blast at Gadkari Rangayatan and visited
to the spot thereafter and completed preparation of spot panchnama at
Ex.90 and collection of articles along with BDDS.
104. Shashank Ganpatrao Shelke (PW 93) examined at Ex.325 is
the Police Inspector attached to ATS and he assisted the investigation
in respect of the Timer found and search for its dealer which led to
Dodia Electricals. According to him, the statement at Ex.326 of
accused Ramesh Gadkari was voluntarily made before him on
21.6.2008.
105. Sahebrao Narayan Moule (PW 94) examined at Ex.327 was
the photographer serving at Thane Police Commissioner’s Office, who
had snapped 19 photographs at Gadkari Rangayatan Natyagruha at Ex.
328 colly.
106. Prasad Mahendra Khandekar (PW 95) examined at Ex.329
is the Asstt. Commissioner of Police, ACB, Mumbai, who assisted
investigation by Sr. PI Mr. Rathod at the ATS.
68 Judgment S.C.660/08
107. Sunil Dharam Mane (PW 96) examined at Ex.334 is the
Asstt. Police Inspector at ATS, who assisted investigation in respect of
house search of accused Mangesh Nikam and collection of articles from
the house as per panchnama at Ex.284.
108. Giridhar Sitaram Gore (PW 97) examined at Ex.335 is the
API attached to Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai, who assisted the
investigation by Sr. PI Rathod in respect of seizure of motorcycle
involved in the crime and its registration.
109. Vivekanand Tukaram Vakhare (PW 98) examined at Ex.343
is the PI attached to ATS, who assisted in the investigation by ACP Mr.
Chopane, and recorded statements of witness Manish Surve and Vilas
Godambe.
110. Ramdas Dadaram Phadtare (PW 99) examined at Ex.344
was the Addl. Collector at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad in the year 2008. He
stated that the Office of Collector had received a letter from ACP
Uttam Chopane, ASTS, Mumbai on 18.8.2008 for permission to accord
sanction to prosecute the accused under Arms Act and Explosive
69 Judgment S.C.660/08
Substances Act. He being in additional charge of the Collector on
27.8.2008 perused the letters and case papers, satisfied with the
material and accorded sanction to prosecute the accused under the
Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act.
111. Arvind Bapu Sawant (PW 100) examined at Ex.346 is the
Police Inspector attached to ATS, who assisted in the investigation by
recording statements of witnesses.
112. Sambhaji Sadashiv Zende (PW 101) examined at Ex.347,
was posted as District Magistrate and Collector of Thane District in the
year 2008. He stated that on18.8.2008 he received request letter from
ACP of ATS, Mumbai to accord consent for prosecuting the accused
under the Explosive Substances Act. According to him, the relevant
documents were attached to the letter. He perused the same and on
26.8.2008 accorded the consent to prosecute the accused as per Ex.348.
113. Ramesh Hanumant More (PW 102) examined at Ex.349 is
the API attached to ATS, who assisted the investigation. According to
him, on 16.6.2008 he prepared arrest panchnama of Mangesh Nikam
70 Judgment S.C.660/08
and on 19.6.2008 interrogated accused Vikram Bhave. He stated that
accused Vikram Bhave disclosed to him that he is ready to produce the
articles and show the place of test of bomb behind his house at Varsai.
He further narrated that he recorded disclosures in the presence of
panchas and having carried them along with Vikram Bhave to village
Varsai, Tal. Pen and seizure of the sample of earth after the place
shown by Vikram Bhave. According to him, further articles were
recovered at the instance of the accused Vikram Bhave in the form of
two revolvers, 80 bullets, one empty bullet and he seized the gelatins
and detonators and arrested accused Haribhau Divekar and further
carried out panchnamas of recovery of these articles as per Ex.307 and
308.
114. Bhimdev Bhalchandra Rathod 9PW 103) examined at Ex.
350 is the Sr. Police Inspector attached to ATS, who assisted the
investigation by ACP Chopane and narrated the entire method adopted
during investigation and its results. He identified chemical analyser’s
reports in respect of various articles collected, and also forwarding
letters and the medical certificates of the injured in the incident at
Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane, which are at Exs.356 to 389. He further
71 Judgment S.C.660/08
narrated that letter at Ex.393 was written to the Government of
Maharashtra for sanction to prosecute the accused under the Unlawful
Activities Act, 1967, and the sanction order dated 11.9.2008 being
passed as per ex.394.
115. Uttam Namdevrao Chopne (PW 104) examined at Ex.395 is
the Investigating Officer. He has narrated the investigation carried out
in this case.
116. Ravindra Vasant Kakade (PW 105) examined at Ex.404 is
the State Examiner of Documents in the office of CID Branch, Pune.
He stated that their office received the disputed and specimen
handwritings and signatures from the ATS, Mumbai as per Ex.382
colly. and that he compared the specific part of handwriting in the
Registers at Arts.50 and 51 with specimen at Ex.398, and identified the
opinion given by him at Ex.403, and further submitted the statement of
reasons at Ex.403-D colly.
117. Special Public Prosecutor Ms. Salian, on behalf of the State,
that the investigation is carried out of the acts done by the six accused
72 Judgment S.C.660/08
persons of conspiracy at different dates and the places selected by them
and their preparation of making of bombs, causing its explosions and
acts done with violence are proved by the evidence brought on record.
It is further submitted that the proximity of the incidents, the first dated
20.2.2008 at Panvel, second dated 31.5.2008 at Vashi and the third
dated 4.6.2008 at Naupada Thane is in respect of the intent of these
accused persons that they were against the screening of the film Jodha
Akbar and performance of drama Aamhi Pachpute. It is argued that the
intention of these accused at the time when the bombs were planted
was primarily to terrorize the people, and the prosecution has made out
that it is a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 16 of the
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.
118. It is further submitted on behalf of the prosecution on the
basis of investigation and examination of witnesses and documents
brought on record that the entire sequence of the preparation and
meeting of minds of these accused and their presence at those places is
made out in the evidence. It is argued that preparation by way of
procuring the R.F. circuits, timers, batteries, gelatins, detonators and
various articles recovered from the blast sites when examined at
73 Judgment S.C.660/08
Forensic Science Laboratory has established the involvement of the
accused in the crime. It is further argued that the act on behalf of
Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari is also shown by the witnesses that he
along with Accd.No.3- Vikram Bhave procured the material and also
procured the SIM cards and mobile phones by impersonating and by
cheating by submitting forged documents to the mobile operator. The
prosecution relied on various case laws in support of its arguments.
119. Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Punalekar submitted on behalf of the
accused that there is no eye-witness who had seen planting of I.E.D. or
bomb or it is assembled by the accused. It is submitted that the three
witnesses examined by the prosecution in respect of presence of the
accused at the blasts at the three places respectively are tutored one and
they were exposed during their cross-examination. It is further argued
that though the prosecution examined so many witnesses, it nowhere
makes out a complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the
accused. It is further argued that the motive attributed to all the accused
is not at all established and the investigation proceeded in unfair
manner. It is further argued that an application made by the prosecution
at Ex.15 was rejected by the Court, which is for disposal of the gelatins
74 Judgment S.C.660/08
and detonators. However, in spite of rejection of the said application,
the Investigating Agency had destroyed those gelatins and detonators.
It is argued that it was for the purpose of destroying the evidence which
could have been favourable to the accused. It is further argued that the
identification parades were not conducted in faithful manner as per the
provisions, and the fact that the photographs of the accused were taken
after their arrest prior to their identification parades, itself affects such
kind of evidence. It is further argued that the letter seeking sanction to
prosecute the accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prev.) Act creates
prejudice, firstly, by referring to the numbers of gelatins and detonators,
which is not part of the investigation and also attributing statement to
one of the witnesses Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) that he had stayed
with accused persons and decided to blacken the faces. It is further
argued that the prosecution has not examined the witness to prove the
sanction order to prosecute the accused under the provisions of
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. It is alternatively argued that at the
most the act could be termed as a mischief if at all proved. Advocate
Punalekar relied on various judgments in support of his arguments.
120. I have gone through the entire record and evidence of the
75 Judgment S.C.660/08
105 witnesses and the documents at Exs. 1 to 403D. Having heard the
arguments from both the sides, it is clear that there is no eye witnesses
or no direct evidence stating that any of the Accd. Nos.1 to 6 was found
planting the bombs at the three respective places of incidents. It appears
that the prosecution tried to establish its case on the basis on the basis
of the evidence of the witnesses having last seen the accused persons at
the three sites of the incidents, and the circumstantial evidence in
respect of preparation allegedly by the accused persons and the articles
recovered from the blast sites. It appears that the prosecution is relying
on the oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the case against
the accused. Firstly, that they belong to the ideology which opposed
screening of film Jodha Akbar for exhibiting distorted version of
history and it also opposed the performance of drama Aamhi Pachpute
for the mockery of Hindu Gods and various characters of
Mahabharata. Secondly, that the accused were present at the place of
bomb blast at Cineraj Cinema Hall, Panvel, and Gadkari Rangayatan,
Thane and Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha, Vashi, where a live bomb
was found. Thirdly, that the accused procured the R.F. circuits in the
form of Vega kits, and the batteries from Gala Electricals at Lamington
Road. Fourthly, that the accused had procured Electron Timers from
76 Judgment S.C.660/08
Dodia Electricals at Lohar Chawl. Fifthly, that the accused had
procured gelatins and detonators through four witnesses Tukaram Rane
(PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52), Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53)
and Chand Nadaf (PW 54). Sixthly, the recovery of the articles at the
three sites after the blast giving rise to residues of explosion and
causing impact on the premises and also causing injuries to the persons
at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. Seventhly, the allged recovery of the
gelatins, detonators and revolvers at the instance of accused No.3-
Vikram Bhave and Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam. Eighthly, the
discovery of the place where the alleged testing of explosion of bomb
was carried out by Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. Ninethly, the vehicles
found at the site of Gadkari Rangayatan, and lastly, the identification of
all the accused by the respective witnesses.
121. Having regard to the submissions from the defence, a strict
scrutiny of the entire oral evidence attributing the incriminating
material against all the accused is necessary, and while dealing with the
circumstantial evidence, on which the prosecution is placing reliance,
the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra – 1984(4) SCC 116 are
77 Judgment S.C.660/08
required to be fulfilled. Those conditions which are required to be
fulfilled for arriving at an opinion regarding proof of a prosecution case
on the basis of circumstantial evidence are as follows :-
"(1) The circumstance from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully establi- shed. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should not be of a conclu- sive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human proba- bility the act must have been done by the accused."
122. (I) Three Incidents - Recovery of Articles :
(A) Incident at Panvel dated 20.2.2008 :
(i) At Cineraj Cinema Hall at Panvel when the screening
of Film Jodha Akbar was going on, the incident of explosion occurred
in the Interval of the film at about 3.15 p.m. Bharat Nikalje (PW 1)
narrated the incident, first in point of time, as per complaint Ex.28.
Upon his testimony, the same appears to be narrated by him.
(ii) Vijaykumar Agarwal (PW 2) was the Manager of
78 Judgment S.C.660/08
Cineraj Cinema Hall. He further repeated the incident experienced at
the Cineraj Cinema Hall on 20.2.2008 by him. Manoj Yadav (PW 5),
Projector Operator, at the said cinema hall also narrated that the
screening of the film was stopped. After explosion at the Panvel,
Sudhakar Parab (PW 6), attached to BDDD, had inspected the entire
Cinema Hall with the Sniffer Dog, and Seat No.23 at ‘C’ Row in the
cinema hall of Cineraj Theatre he noticed a remote control on the
ground. He gathered an impression that using of those articles,
Improvised Explosive Device with the aid of remote control, the blast
was occurred at the place, and he prepared the BDDS report as per Ex.
45. Panchnama at Ex.47 is in respect of articles found at the spot and it
speaks about the incident of explosion when it is read along with
Chemical Analyser’s Reports at Exs.65 to 67.
(B) Incident at Vashi dated 31.5.2008 :
(i) On 31.5.2008, Bhau Vithoba Narawade (PW 10) while on
duty at Vashi Police Station and patrolling in a mobile van, received
information from Sr. PI Chowgule that one unattended bag was found
at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, Vashi. Therefore he went to the spot.
He started preparation of panchnama of the place where the bag was
found, and meanwhile BDDS and Dog Squad arrived. Further he
79 Judgment S.C.660/08
narrated the incident of a live bomb being found and the instrument
being defused by the BDDS squad. The other witnesses examined –
Shridhar Silavane (PW 11) and Ashok Nauvkudkar (PW 12) make out
the case of a live bomb found in Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, and
Ashok Nauvkudkar (PW 12) being from BDDS Squad had further
explained the contents of the live bomb, which included 1 kilogram of
white granular explosive substance smelling like petrol with three live
electric detonators, with three sticks on which letters “Super High
Explosive Class-2” were written. He had further opined that if that
explosive would have burst everything in the periphery of 30 meters on
that plastic bag would have caught fire due to the blast.
(ii) Sharad Thokal (PW 13) had carried the articles recovered
from the spot at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium as per panchnama Ex.59
to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with covering letter at Ex.74.
The Chemical Analyser’s Report are at Exs.374 and 375. These two
reports show the result of the analysis of the muddemal articles found
at the said spot. The damaged timer device, Electronic Circuit device,
white granular substance in three separate plastic bags and the four
defused detonators appear to be analysed. The white granular substance
was found to be ammonium nitrate, petrol hydro carbon and residual
80 Judgment S.C.660/08
petrol. Electronic is the red frequency receiver electronic unit used in
law rang frequency equipment, which act as R.F. decoder which comes
from transmitter side i.e. remote control device. This establishes that a
live bomb was found at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi.
(C) Incident at Thane dated 4.6.2008 :
(i) Swapnil Dalvi (PW 19), Kishor Surve (PW 20), Rajesh Salvi
(PW 24), Vivek Mhatre (PW 25), Hanif Mahapure and Vilas Kadam
(PW 28) mainly employees at Gadkari Rangayatan Auditorium, Thane.
They have narrated the incident experienced by them on 4.6.2008.
Swapnil Dalvi (PW 19) was Booking Clerk, and was informed by one
watchman, named Sakpal (PW 32) that one suspicious article was
found and he went towards the same. He noticed one box kept in the
said bag and went to the office and called Ramesh Dhuri (PW 21),
Rajeshh Salvi (PW 24), Vivek Mhatre (PWS 25), Dilip Gaikwad (PW
26) and Hanif Mahapure (PW 27) from the office. When he had gone to
see the said suspicious bag and while away from the place at a distance
of 10 to 12 feet they experienced explosion. Swapnil Dalvi (PW 19),
Rajesh Salvi (PW 24), Vivek Mhatre (PW 25), and Hanif Mahapure
(PW 27) had suffered injuries, along with four others. The injured were
taken for treatment to the nearby Hospital, where they found suffered
81 Judgment S.C.660/08
injuries due to nails, and the same were collecgtfed. Mahadev Bhosale
(PW 28) is the panch witness to the panchnama carried out at the spot
of explosion at Gadkari Rangayatan, and the panchnama is at Ex.19.
When the said panchnama is perused, it makes out that Arts.19 to 35
being recovered at the spot, which included one newspaper in the name
of Sanatan Prabhat, which is at Art.34, containing cello tape attached to
it. The nails from the injured were recovered by preparing a
panchnama. The covering letters at Exs.185 and 186 make out that the
articles recovered were sent for Chemical analysis. The C.A.’s report is
reflected use of explosive substances, R.F. Circuit, timer and batteries.
(ii) Upon perusal of this evidence in respect of explosions at two
places and recovery of one live bomb from Vishnudas Bhave
Auditorium, lead to the clear conclusion that explosive substances were
used in the devices which exploded and R.F. circuit with remove
control containing batteries were also used. Explosion at Gadkari
Rangayatan caused injuries to 8 persons, and injury certificates at Exs.
383 to 390 give the description of such injuries. All such evidence
remains uncontroverted, and the accused claim innocence of such
incidents.
82 Judgment S.C.660/08
123. (II) Presence of the accused at the place of incidents :-
(A) At Panvel incident :
The prosecution examined three witnesses to show presence of
the accused persons at three explosion places. Sharad Bali (PW 65)
took five months to go to the police and describe the three suspicious
persons he had seen at Cineraj Theatre, Panvel on 20.2.2008. Advocate
for the accused called this witness as a tutored one based upon the
contradictions in the identification of the accused, the delay in
narrating the incident to the police and on the basis of explanation
given by him during his cross-examination. When the cross-
examination of this witness is perused, he appears to have been put
question as to why he took five months to go to the police station for
informing about the incident. It is answered by him that he was out of
station to Nagar for 15 days.
The prosecution has conducted identification parade in the
presence of Special Executive Officer Dattaram Kambli (PW 68) as per
the report at Ex.253 wherein this witness Sharad Bali (PW 65) had
identified the three accused named, Vikram Bhave, Santosh Angre and
Ramesh Gadkari. However, while deposing before the Court he has not
identified Santosh Angre and instead identified Mangesh Nikam. It is
83 Judgment S.C.660/08
pertinent to note that the incident occurred on 20.2.2008 is narrated by
this witness to the police in June 2008 attributing presence of Ramesh
Gadkari, Vikram Bhave and Santosh Angre in Cineraj Theatre. The
identification parade was carried in August 2008. His credibility is
exposed during cross-examination. There appears no reason as to why
he should notice three persons coming on a motorcycle and reaching to
the theatre and then recall the same after five months. There is a
mystery as to why he was stimulated to identify the three persons after
gap of five months. Panchnama at Ex.253 describes him as a Hindu,
and during cross-examination this witness explains that he is a
Christian. In these circumstances, the evidence given by witness
Sharad Bali (PW 65) is not trustworthy. Therefore I disbelieve his
testimony in respect of the presence of the accused Ramesh Gadkari,
Vikram Bhave and Mangesh Nikam at the place of the incident
occurred on 20.2.2008 at Cineraj Theatre at Panvel.
(B) At Vashi incident :
In respect of the incident of live bomb found at Vishnudas
Bhave Natyagruha, Vashi on 31.5.2008, the prosecution is relying on
the testimony of Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58). He has narrates the fact
of he having visited to Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on
84 Judgment S.C.660/08
30.5.2008 as per the phone call of Vikram Bhave. It is stated by him
that Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave asked him to watch the Drama “Me
Marathi” being played in the said theatre and he watched it till recess.
He received phone of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave at the interval and he
was called out of the theatre. He went out of the theatre and saw Accd.
No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and Accd. No.2-
Mangesh Nikam out side the theatre. He further narrated the incident
that he joined them and four of them had gone to the house of Accd.
No.3-Vikram Bhave at night. Accd. No.3-Ramesh Gadkari told them
that in Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha the drama “Aamhi Pachpute” is to
be played on the next day and they have to give their slogans and he
was asked whether he can give slogans. He further narrated the incident
occurred on 31.5.2008 when he along with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave
proceeded from village Varsai to Pen by a rickshaw and from there
took S.T. bus to Panvel. Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.2-
Mangesh Nikam had started on a bike from village Varsai and both of
them were found waiting at S.T. Stand of Panvel by Mayuresh Konekar
(PW 58). He further narrated that he sat on the rear seat of the bike
driven by Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave on the rear side of the
bike driven by Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam. He further narrated that he
85 Judgment S.C.660/08
had gone to visit Gavdevi temple at Vashi and thereafter they went to
Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha. According to him, Mangesh Nikam first
entered the theatre followed by him and as the drama started within 5 to
10 minutes, he received phone of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave and he
was asked to come out of the theatre. He went outside the theatre and
saw Accd. No.1 Ramesh Gadkari and at his instance they proceeded to
Vashi Railway Station. Then the witness went to Ghatkopar by train via
Thane.
Cross-examination of this witness is only in respect of his
acquaintance with Accd.No.6-Hemant Chalke, and the credibility of
this witness is established due to his acquaintance with accused
persons. He was knowing Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-
Vikram Bhave and having met to them at Sanatan Ashram, Panvel.
Therefore it is established fact that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari,
Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam were
present at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha on 31.5.2008 when the drama
Aamhi Pachpute was being played. It is argued by the Advocate for the
accused that there can be only one incident that they had gone to join
the demonstration but returned since there were no demonstration.
(C) At Thane incident :
86 Judgment S.C.660/08
To establish the presence of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and
other accused persons at Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane on 4.6.2008, the
prosecution is relying on the testimony of Vilas Godambe (PW 64), the
two tickets at Art.40 colly. of the drama Aamhi Pachpute allegedly
found from the house of Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari for the drama
dated 4.6.2008 at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. The prosecution is
seeking relying on the Vehicle Register at Ex.115 maintained at
Gadkari Rangayatan wherein there appears entry of the vehicle Hero
Honda Splendor bearing No.MH-06-AK-5558. The prosecution further
relied on the testimony of Abhay Vartak (PW 75) who produced the
vehicle register maintained at Sanatan Sanstha at Devad at Arts.50 &
51, wherein the entries regarding use of Vehicle No.MH-06-AK-5558
are mentioned.
Vilas Godambe (PW 64) is working as Cashier at Gadkari
Rangayatan narrated the incident at 4 p.m. on 4.6.2008 at Gadkari
Rangayatan that while he was at canteen one person asked for glass of
water, who was approached by another person, and the first person
asked him about the bag and the other person replied that it is in the
dickey of the vehicle. The police recorded statement of this witness on
20.6.2008 and on 18.8.2008 and conducted identification parade and
87 Judgment S.C.660/08
this witness identified Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.4-
Santosh Angre being those two persons who were seen at Gadkari
Rangayatan on that day at about 4 p.m. Advocate for the accused
argued that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence since the
witness had not raised suspicion in his mind on that day of the blast. He
has further argued that the police arrived at the spot and recorded his
name and he had read the news about arrest of the accused on
17.6.2008 and thereafter when the police came on 20.6.2008 he decided
to tell it. It is further argued that in spite of this, his statement was
recorded on 20.8.2008 after gap of one month and thereafter further gap
of one month the identification parade was conducted. It is argued that
there is no justification to record the statement belatedly. The defence is
seeking to treat this witness as a tutored one on the basis of such
explanation of the witness during cross-examination. It is further
argued that this witness is fantasized probably about she scooter-bomb
blast in the infamous Malegaon case. Therefore this witness has falsely
deposed in extra enthusiasm. Testimony of Vilas Godambe (PW 64) is
perused and his presence at the spot appears to be natural. He appears
to have recalled the incident of two persons and conversation heard by
him of the vehicle and bag. It appears that the incident narrated by him
88 Judgment S.C.660/08
starts with the entry of one person in the canteen and that he demanded
water from him. He further narrated that the said person was pointed
out the place where the water was available in the canteen. The person
after drinking water, returned back to him at the counter with glass of
water and he asked him as to whether he saw the drama Amhi
Pachpute, and the witness replied in the negative to that person. At that
time another person entered and had conversation with the first person
regarding the vehicle and bag. There appears no reason to doubt the
incident experienced by the witness when he is narrating the same in
such manner. Though there appears delay in mentioning the same to the
police, that itself cannot discredit his testimony. The time period
available to the witness to memorize the personality of the persons met
to him indicates that he is narrating the presence of the persons
experienced by him in the natural manner and his testimony is
trustworthy and therefore the arguments of the defence to discredit his
testimony are not acceptable.
The prosecution examined witness Vilas Acharekar (PW
33), who acted as a panch for the panchnama of house search of Accd.
No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. He is resident of Vikhroli, Mumbai and he was
called by the police at ATS office at Vikhroli on 16.6.2008. He was
89 Judgment S.C.660/08
asked whether he was willing to stand as panch for the search of
accused Ramesh Gadkari. Accused was also present in the police
station. He further narrated of having accompanied the police along
with accused Ramesh Gadkari to village Devad, Tal. Panvel, and they
reached Room No.204 of Sanatan Ashram at Devad on the second
floor. He further narrated the house search taken in his presence and the
panchnama being carried out as per Ex.133 and that two tickets (Art.40
colly.) of play Aamhi Pachpute scheduled to be played at 4.30 p.m. on
4.6.2008 at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. During cross-examination this
witness further explained that the panchnama was halfly (partly) written
at Devad and half (partly) at ATS police station. He further narrated
that accused Gadkari was in their vehicle and not in the vehicle where
he was sitting. About testimony of this witness, it is argued that witness
Vartak was also present at the Ashram and why this panch witness was
taken from such a long distance and why local panch was not availed. It
is argued that the panchnama was prepared halfly at ATS police station
and the panchnama cannot be believed nor the seizure of the two
tickets. When the panchnama at Ex.133 is peruse, it makes out a case
that the house search was proposed while the accused Ramesh Gadkari
was in ATS police station and therefore the pancha was called. It
90 Judgment S.C.660/08
appears to be a reason to accompany the accused to his place and carry
out the said panchnama. The argument regarding local panch may not
be acceptable because there was requirement of the panch to
accompany the accused from ATS police station. The witness has
directed the entire deposition in a natural manner and it appears that
initial part of the panchnama is possibly written at ATS police station.
This panch is wholly reliable to consider the panchnama as per Ex.133
and recovery of the two tickets at Art.40 colly.
Vehicle Register at Ex.115 is seized by the police. Vilas
Kadam (PW 28) is the witness who had made the entries of the vehicles
in the said register while working as Security Guard at Gadkari
Rangayatan on 4.6.2008. An argument is advanced in respect of the fact
that as to why the register came to be seized on 16.6.2008 when witness
Vilas Kadam (PW 28) narrates that the same was handed over by him
to the police after the blast on the same day. Upon perusal of the
testimony of Vilas Kadam (PW 28), it clearly reveals that he narrated
the incident of making entries in the vehicle numbers in the register in
natural manner and it is further substantiated by examination of Mahesh
Rajderkar (PW 29). The fact that the register was with the police also
appears to be admitted as it was handed over to the police on day of the
91 Judgment S.C.660/08
blast itself. However, it is pertinent to note that the handwritten entries
are continuously entered and from the point of the time of the blast
onwards there are no entries in the register. On perusal of the entire
register it appears to be maintained day to day till the time of the show
of the drama at Gadkari Rangayatan and it reflects the entry of vehicle
No.MH-06-5558. The argument of possibility of this entry being made
later on is not acceptable.
It is argued by the advocate for the accused that the vehicle
registers seized at Arts.50 & 51 cannot be read in evidence since the
entries therein are not proved. It is pertinent that from perusal of the
testimony of Abhay Vartak (PW 75), it appears that these registers at
Art.50 & 51 are possibly maintained day to day and the entries therein
can certainly be read in evidence. It indicates that vehicle
No.MH-06-5558 was at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane when the blast had
taken place.
Therefore the aforesaid discussion indicates presence of
Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari with others in the vicinity of Vishnudas
Bhave Auditorium, Vashi and Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane at the time
period of seizure of live bomb and explosion of bomb at the respective
places. However, the presence of any of the accused person at Cineraj
92 Judgment S.C.660/08
Theatre on the respective date is not proved.
124. (III) Purchase of Veg kit and batteries :
Ajit Vira (PW 48) is the Manager of Gala Electronics at
Lamington Road. The said firm is selling the articles in the name of
Vega kits as per trademark registration as per Ex.201. The police
approached him with the photograph of RF Circuit, which is at Ex.202,
which was found at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha as an explosive
device. The witness narrated that it is from his shop, and he had sold
R.F. Circuit and Battery to two persons in the month of November
2007. He narrated the incident occurred in the month of November or
December 2007 that two persons had come to his shop for enquiry and
purchased such R.F. Circuit and two batteries. He further narrated that
those persons again came for exchange of those articles, which he
refused. Thereafter those two persons again came with enquiry if one
remote can be used for working of one R.F. circuit. Those persons were
intending to use special method of working of remote called as coding
and decoding. The witnesses Rajesh Chikne (PW 49) and
Chandrashekhar Phadke (PW 50), both the employees of Gala
Electronics, also narrated the presence of those two persons and they
93 Judgment S.C.660/08
have identified Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.3-Vikram
Bhave as those persons who had purchased the R.F. Circuit and
batteries. It is argued that cross-examination of Ajit Vira (PW 48)
makes out that these items are used for various activities and those are
not prohibited or licenced items and the fact is exclusive relevant in
respect of the accused persons. It is argued that the witness had sold
100 items and had not paid nay import duty. These witnesses Ajit Vira
(PW 48), Rajesh Chikne (PW 49) and Chandrashekhar Phadke (PW 50)
were searched by the police on the basis of R.F. Circuit, photograph of
which is at Ex.202. It is pertinent that when the statements of these
witnesses were recorded on 10.6.2008 and i.e. prior to the arrest of the
accused on 16.6.2008 onwards. The part of Accd.No.1-Ramesh
Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, who had purchased the R.F.
circuit and batteries, appears to be the only reason for these witnesses to
recall their personality. Therefore they described the same to the police.
Though the question of relevance and in respect of the acts attributed to
the accused persons has to be decided independently, the fact remains
that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkary and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave
visited the shop of Gala Electronics for purchase of R.F. circuit as
shown in the photograph at Ex.202 and the batteries from the said shop.
94 Judgment S.C.660/08
The police had found Amco batteries at the spot of the
blasts, and on the basis of the same proceeded to investigate the case.
The testimony of Purnima Chavan (PW 36), who is employee of Dyna
Hi Tech Power System Ltd., distributors of kind of batteries found at
the blast sites. The said firm had sold 47 batteries to Pitambara Power
and it is accepted by Rakesh Gupta (PW 47) of Pitambara Power. It
appears that Pitambara Power had further sold these batteries to Gala
Electronics. It is pertinent to note that the invoice of Dyna Electricals at
Ex.142 and Delivery Challan at Ex.143 are accepted and admitted by
Rakesh Gupta (PW 47). However, one paper is attached to Ex.143
bearing the battery numbers. During cross-examination Purnima
Chavan (PW 36) explained that such description was separately given
with delivery challan as there was no ample space in the said delivery
challan. However, she further stated that generally they include and
mention about the purchased articles in the delivery challan and
invoice. She denied suggestion that it was prepared under influence of
ATS police. It is pertinent to note that Rakesh Gupta (PW 47) clearly
showed ignorance about the paper sleep containing batter numbers.
Therefore it appears to be an insertion on the part of the investigating
agency, and the said paper containing battery numbers cannot be
95 Judgment S.C.660/08
believed to that extent only. However, the fact is established that the
kind of batteries found at the blast sites were sold by Dyna Hi Tech to
Pitambara Power and then to Gala Electronics.
125. (IV) Purchase of Selectron Timers :
The investigating agency found electron timers at the blast
sites, and the investigating agency proceeded to search as to whether
such electron timers are available in the market. It appears from the
testimony of Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) that such Selectron timers, 8 in
number, were sold by his firm Dodia Electricals at Lohar Chawl to
Urmesh Electricals, Panvel. Advocate for the accused argued that the
term 'Timer' is now used in the said invoice and the prosecution played
mystery around 'electron timer' and it is completely a futile exercise. It
is argued that in the cross-examination Dr. Uday Dhuri (PW 73) has
stated that he had seen Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari on 14.5.2008 in
Dharma Sabha held at Thane from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and if this alibi is
available to Ramesh Gadkari, there is no question of Ramesh Gadkari
purchasing electron timers on 14.5.2008. The testimony of Hitesh
Dodia (PW 55) clearly indicates the reason as to why he identified
Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. According to this witness, on 14.5.2008
96 Judgment S.C.660/08
one person had come to his shop and made enquiry whether 800M 12
volts D.C. Timer was available in the shop. When it was made available
the said person requested for discount and when refused to pay discount
that person left the shop. Again on the same day at 7.30 p.m. the said
person again came along with two other persons and insisted for
purchase of this timer with discount. The invoice is at Ex.216. The
witness further explained and identified Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari
that he came to the shop on 14.5.2008 on two occasions at 4.30 p.m.
and again at 7.30 p.m. He has further identified Accd.No.2-Mangesh
Nikam and Accd.No.6-Santosh Chalke, being the two other persons
accompanied Accd.No.1Ramesh Gadkari on the second occasion.
During cross-examination Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) further explained that
the customer had demanded 800M 12 volts D.C. Therefore the said
description is given in the invoice. According to him, there may not be
any other items other than the timer, which was sold with description of
800M 12 volts D.C. It is pertinent here to note that the police had
recorded statement of this witness on 8.8.2008. Investigating machinery
had led to this witness as they found that the timers of the same
description were being sold by this witness which were found at the
blast sites. There appears no reason but to state the truth about the
97 Judgment S.C.660/08
incident experienced by this witness. Though Uday Dhuri (PW 73)
explains in his cross-examination that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari was
present at the Dharma Sabha at Thane on 14.5.2008, which went on
between 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., on this count exclude the testimony of Hitesh
Dodia (PW 55) that Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari had visited his shop
on two occasions. The existence of both the events may be possible and
both can co-exist at the same time unless it is shown that this accused
was continuously present on 14.5.2008 at Thane only. Therefore I
believe the testimony of Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) that Accd. No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari visited his shop on 14.5.2008.
Vijay Shirodkar (PW 46) brought on record the partnership
deed of Urmesh Electricals, Panvel at Ex.197, and the endorsement at
Ex.198 clearly indicates that Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari was a partner
in Urmesh Electricals and was retired in the year 2000. This is relevant
fact which indicates and substantiates the testimony of Hitesh Dodia
(PW 55).
126. (V) Procurement of gelatins & detonators & revolvers:-
The prosecution is relying on the testimony of Tukaram
Rane (PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52), Harischandra Chorge (PW
98 Judgment S.C.660/08
53) and Chand Nadaf (PW 54) to establish the fact that Accd.No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave allegedly purchased 20
gelatin sticks and 20 detonators through these witnesses. It is the case
of the prosecution that Tukaram Rane (PW 51) was approached by
Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkar and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave with a
request to get gelatins and detonators for sinking (digging) well at
Sanatan Ashram. Tukaram Rane (PW 51) informed his brother
Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) about the same. At such time Accd. No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari allegedly handed over Rs.1000/- to Tukaram Rane,
who in turn gave it to Chandrakant Rane. As per Chandrakant Rane
(PW 52), he had asked about the same to Harishchandra Chorge (PW
53), who took him to Chand Nadaf (Pw 54). It is pertinent that the
statements of these witnesses were recorded before a Magistrate.
Advocate for the accused argued in respect of testimonies of these
witnesses on the ground that discrepancies and the manner in which
these witnesses are giving the story of having procured 20 gelatin sticks
and 20 detonators from one Rajasthani person at Kolhad, creates full of
contradictions and inconsistencies, and cannot be believed. I have
perused the testimonies of these four witnesses and also read their
statements at Exs.207, 209, 211 and 213 respectively to verify such
99 Judgment S.C.660/08
inconsistencies and contradictions and as to why these witnesses are
deposing in such manner. When Tukaram Rane (PW 51) is the person
to whom Accd.No.Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had
contacted, there appears no reason as to why they contacted Tukaram
Rane only, when he clarified in his cross-examination of having no
knowledge of the gelatins and detonators. It is further pertinent that
Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) also clarified that he had never seen
detonator and gelatin, which itself raises a question as to whether
Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) contacted him for the gelatins and
detonators. The story narrated by Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) and
Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) leads both of them to the place at
Kolhad as per the direction of Chand Nadaf (PW 54). It is in the
testimony of Chand Nadaf (PW 54) that he had not met a Rajasthani
person any time before the alleged day and he does not know the exact
dates of meeting Chorge (PW 53) and the Rajasthani. The testimonies
of the three witnesses stating about occurrence of one incident, are
require to be scrutinized in respect of inconsistencies and variety in
their testimonies. The testimony of these three witnesses nowhere
matches with each other in the crux of the incident of they approaching
to the Rajasthani person at such place at Kolhad for procuring
100 Judgment S.C.660/08
detonators and gelatins on payment of amount. Most pertinent fact is
that no one of these three witnesses remember the date as to when such
incident occurred. It is possible for one witness that he is unable to
recall the date of the incident experienced by him. For the persons like
Tukaram Rane (PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) and Harischandra
Chorge (PW 53), this appears to be an unusual event, which must have
stimulated them to memorize the incident with its different. However,
all of them are unanimous n one thing that this incident was of second
week of April 2008. It is pertinent to note here that Chanddrakant Rane
(PW 52) in his statement before the magistrate narrates that Vikram
handed over an amount of Rs.1000/- and before the Court he deposes
that Ramesh Gadkari had handed over the said amount. This clearly
indicates that the names are being interchanged with the amount that
they were specifically required to depose in a particular manner to
include the names of two persons Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave.
There is no other reason to Chandrakant Rane (Pw 52) to state different
names for the same event of handing over of the amount.
It is further pertinent that Chandrakant Rane (PW 52),
Harishchandra Rane (PW 52) and Chand Nadaf (PW 54) gave different
version of the incident at Kolhad. According to Chand Nadaf (PW 54),
101 Judgment S.C.660/08
he along with Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) and Chandrakant Rane
(PW 52) went toward the site where the work of Rajasthani person was
in progress when the Rajasthani taken out and handed over 20 gelatins
and 20 detonators to Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53). As against this
testimony, Harishchandra Chorge (PW 52) states that one person got
down from the jeep and then Chandbhai went to that person and made
enquiry, then that person handed over the articles to Chandrakant Rane.
This is another incident of interchanging the person and more probably
their involvement to tell only the story of handing over the gelatins and
detonators. If the work of Rajasthani was going on at the site of that
particular place, it was necessarily another incident, which requires
further investigation. Investigating Officer Ramesh More (PW 102)
explained in his cross-examination that he tried to trace out the said
Rajasthani but he could not be traced. When asked about further efforts
taken by him, he did not remember whether he had made any
correspondence with Varsai or Pen Police Station in respect of the said
Rajasthani person. He did not enquire about the authorized seller of
gelatins and detonators. It is pertinent here to note that though the
gelatins and detonators are used as blasting material, it is necessarily a
controlled items and it has to be dealt with as per the law, and it an
102 Judgment S.C.660/08
open end to the entire story which kept open by the investigating officer
as to who was that Rajasthani. This more probably has come in the
picture since 19 gelatins and 27 detonators allegedly seized at the
instance of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave were containing the name of the
manufacturer at Rajasthan. The whole story put up by Tukaram Rane
(PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52), Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53)
and Chand Nadaf (PW 54) is not plausible for the reasons stated
aforesaid.
The investigation in respect of alleged involvement of the
revolvers in incident is tried to be brought in the form of testimony of
Jaikumar Pandey (PW 57). Pandey (PW 57) was working with an
electrical contractor, as per his testimony, and there appears no reason
as to why he was asked by Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari if he can get
revolver for him. I disbelieve this witness for the reason that for a gap
of long years there appears no acquaintance between this witness and
Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari.
Destruction of Gelatins & Detonators :
The prosecution by an application at Ex.15 sought to destroy
the gelatin sticks and detonators. The said application was rejected by
this Court. In spite of the said order, the Investigating Officer destroyed
103 Judgment S.C.660/08
the said gelatin sticks and detonators. The Advocate for the accused had
objected the destruction by giving a detail say. And after taking into
consideration the say, this Court rejected the said application. Advocate
for accused had argued that suspicion is raised by the Investigating
Officer about existence of evidence. The I.O. Bhimrao Rathod (PW
103) answered in cross-examination that permission to destroy is not
necessary. SPP Ms. Salian tried to clarify. However, such an attitude on
the part of I.O. seriously raises doubt. The articles seized had specific
mark of the manufacturer in Rajasthan as per pacnhnama at Ex.303.
Another incident brought to notice by Advocate for accused
is that discrepancies in the numbers of gelatin sticks seized, mentioned
in the report while seeking sanction to prosecute. The alleged seizure
vide panchnama at Exh.303 makes out 19 gelatin sticks and 27
detonators. Alleged purchase is of 20 gelatins and 20 detonators. The
mention in the report seeking sanction to prosecute is of 35 gelatins and
35 detonators.
All these inconsistencies relates to unfairness in the
investigation. It raises doubt and in such view the evidence of alleged
purchase of gelatin sticks and detonators stands discarded.
104 Judgment S.C.660/08
127. (VI) Recovery of Gelatins, Detonators & Revolvers :
On 19.6.2008 the police officers allegedly recovered
gelatins, detonators and revolvers. As per the alleged disclosure
statement of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. Pritam Mhatre (PW 80) is the
panch witness, who appeared at Bhoiwada Police Station on 19.6.2008
along with another panch Irphan and upon his readiness, he acted as a
panch. The first objection to this witness by the advocate for the
accused is for the reason that the witness is from Dadar, Mumbai, who
was taken to Varsai, Tal. Pen for the alleged recovery of gelatins and
detonators and no local panch was involved. This argument is not
acceptable since the alleged disclosure statement appears to be made by
Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave before the police officer in the police station
at Bhoiwada. It is possible that the witness continued to be
accompanied for the further proceedings. Upon perusal of this witness,
it appears that he has given the description of the incidents in the
natural manner. Therefore his act as a panch to the entire episode has to
be accepted. However, the scrutiny of the alleged disclosure statement
is necessary. While asking for discarding his evidence, Advocate for the
accused relied on the judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs.
Gurnam Singh - AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1799, wherein it is
105 Judgment S.C.660/08
observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that uncorroborated evidence
pertaining to alleged recovery of weapon entitle to benefit of reasonable
doubt. In the case of Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab - AIR 1998
Supreme Court 1660, it is observed in para 10 as follows :-
"10. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution evidence itselfshows that the pistol and the cartridges alleged tohave been recovered from the appellant did nothave any number or some distinctive mark on them and after their seizure by the police they were notsealed. Thus the identity of the weapon and the cartridges seized and the weapon and cartridges produced before the court was not established bythe prosecution. Having gone through the evidence,we find that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is correct and, therefore, deserves to be accepted. The pistol and the cartridges did not have any mark or any number on them and after seizing the same police had not through it fit to wrap them and apply a seal over them. No explanation in thatbehalf was given by the prosecution witnesses. This aspect was not considered by the trial court.As the identity of the the incriminating articles has not been established by the prosecution, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant both under Section 5 of the TADA Act and 25 of theArms Act and acquit him of all the charges levelledagainst him."
In the case of Kartar Singh vs. State of Pubjab - AIR
1993 Supreme Court 341 it is observed that the material infirmity and
discrepancy in the prosecution evidence in respect of recovery of arms
106 Judgment S.C.660/08
and delay in sending arms to mechanical test affects the credibility of
the prosecution case.
Judgment in the case of Salim Akhtar @ Mota vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh - AIR 2003 SC 4076 is also relied on by the defence.
128. Having gone through all these judgments, the ratio laid
down in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor - AIR 1947 P.C.
67 are most relevant while scrutinizing the evidence in respect of
discovery of fact u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act. It was held in the said
judgment as under :-
" It is fallacious to treat the fact discovered withinthe section as equivalent to the object produced. The fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accusedas to this, and the information given, must relate dst-inctly to the fact. Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to itsdiscovery in the setting in which it is discovered."
The foremost requirement is as to what is disclosed by the
accused before the police while in custody during interrogation. In the
present case, the panch witness Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) has stated in
categorical terms that Vikram Bhave made statement before the police
that "he used to prepare bombs and has stored some articles in his
house and will point out the place". From such statement the only
107 Judgment S.C.660/08
information admissible in evidence is that the accused wanted to point
out the place in his house where he has stored and prepared some
articles. It nowhere makes out that he was going to disclose the objects
such as gelatins, detonators and revolvers. The testimony of the
independent witness Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) requires to be given
weightage since the alleged disclosure to the police is in his presence.
As against such disclosure, the statement of the Police Officer Ramesh
More (PW 102) further adds that the accused Vikram Bhave stated that
the articles of bomb were thrown in the Banganga River. Such portion
of disclosure is not admissible in evidence as it refers to the object and
not about the conscious possession. It is pertinent to note here that the
entire process of alleged recovery of gelatins and detonators and
revolvers had taken place in the open area as the river from the gelatins
and detonators were taken out and the ground where Accd.No.3-
Vikram Bhave had allegedly dug and took out two revolvers. The
recovery of the gelatins, detonators and revolvers is not discovered fact
within the meaning of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore the
same is not admissible in evidence.
The panch witness PW No.77-Dnyaneshwar Kumbar who
was present at the house search of accused Mangesh Nikam stated that
108 Judgment S.C.660/08
the house was locked and he has not shown any knowledge as to how it
came to be opened . Therefore the alleged recovery of detonators from
the house of Mangesh Nikam is disbelieved.
The alleged recovery of gelatins, detonators and revolvers,
bullets from the various sites away from the house of the accused No.3-
Vikram Bhave is disbelieved for the reason that the disclosure
statement of accused No.3 does not reflect those specific places from
where gelatins, detonators, revolvers and bullets were recovered.
129. (VII) Discovery of test blast site :-
Accused No.3-Vikram Bhave had taken the police officer
along with the panchas to his house at Varsai, Tal. Pen. He pointed out
the place where the alleged test explosion was carried out. As per the
panchnama Ex.303, the earth was collected from the said site. It was
sent for chemical analysis as per letter at Ex.379 and the report of the
analysis is at Ex.379(1) show that Nitrite (Post explosive residue) was
detected in the sample of earth analysed, and also Ammonium, Nitrate
& Nitrite radicals were detected in the metallic container.
Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had made a disclosure that he
would point out the place in respect of preparation of the bomb and the
109 Judgment S.C.660/08
said place was shown by him. The earth was collected from the said
place, and upon its chemical analysis it is discovered that the test
explosion was carried out by him at such place, and it is further
corroborated by the recovery of the metallic container which also
contained post explosive residue. Therefore from the testimonies of
panch Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) and Police Officer Ramesh More (PW
102) in respect of discovery of the facts allegedly at the instance of
Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave, the only fact establishes is that there was
test explosion of bomb at the place shown by Accd. No.3-Vikram
Bhave.
I believe the panch witness No.80, panchnama at Ex.303
and Police Officer PW 102 to only extent of the test blast site. The
specific disclosure is connected to the test blast site due to the report of
forensic lab. Therefore from the testimony of these two witnesses, PW
80 and PW 102, read with panchnama at Ex.303, the only admissible
evidence is of discovery of test blast site at the instance of accused No.
3-Vikram Bhave at his house..
130. (VIII) Motive of crime :-
The prosecution is relying on the testimony of witness Dr.
110 Judgment S.C.660/08
Uday Dhuri (PW 73) and the letters at Exs.146 and 147. Admittedly,
these letters were written by the said witness to the producer of drama
Aamhi Pachpute. He had objected to certain performances in the said
drama in respect of the characters from Mahabharata. This is relevant
in respect of the conduct of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari that he wanted
to give slogans at the theatre where the drama Aamhi Pachpute was
being performed as disclosed by him to Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58).
This appears to be the only part where the motive can be found and it is
allegedly participated by Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and others.
There is no evidence brought on record against the accused
that they were against screening of the film Jodha Akbar for distortion
of historical facts. Therefore no motive is proved in respect of alleged
incident dated 20.2.2008 at Cineraj Theatre, Panvel.
However, the preparation to raise slogans at the Drama
Aamhi Pachpute, the presence at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha, Vashi
on 30.5.2008 for a limited period about its preparation and further
presence at the same spot on 31.05.2008 without further explanation as
to what happened establishes the motive of Accd. No.1-Ramesh
Gadkari to commit such acts of keeping bomb and its explosion. It was
shared by Accd.no.3-Vikram Bhave by his conduct.
111 Judgment S.C.660/08
131. (IX) Identification parades :-
The investigating agency conducted test identification
parades of the accused persons and the witnesses Prabhakar Yeshwante
(PW 67) and Dattaram Kambli (PW 68), both Special Executive
Officers, who had conducted the identification parades. While objecting
to the process of identification parades, Advocate for the accused, relied
on the judgment in the case of Vilas Vasantrao Patil vs. The State of
Maharashtra - 1996 CRI.L.J. 1854, wherein it is observed as under :-
"7. Reverting back to the evidence brought on recordthe following facts emerge :-(i) The independent respectable persons who were allegedly associated with the identification parade werenot examined at the trial.(ii) P.W.5 did not ensure that when the accused werebeing brought from the lock-up, the identifying witnessesdid not have an opportunity of seeing them.(iii) The parade was not arranged in a room or placewhich was such that the identifying witnesses as well asthe persons connected with the police were not able tolook into.(iv) P.W.5 did not arrange for different sets of dummiesfor the purpose of identification of two sets of accusedpersons.(v) P.W. 5 admitted that after the accused were taken out from the lock-up, they were taken towards the templeand from there to the corner of the canteen and then towards the parade room. He did not say that he had ensured that when the accused were being brought in the parade room, the identifying witnesses had no opportunityof seeing them. P.W.5 also admitted that constablesaccompanied the accused when they were brought fromthe lock-up up to the outside door of the parade room,
112 Judgment S.C.660/08
meaning thereby that constables were present near the parade room or at least they were close by and had accessto the parade room.(vi) ..... (vii) ...... "
It is well settled that the evidence in respect of identification parade can
also be relied upon if all the chances of suspects being shown to the
witnesses prior to their identification parade are eliminated. It is
pertinent here to note that evidence of witness Sharad Bali (PW 65) in
respect of identification parade of the accused cannot be considered
since his testimony itself is not trustworthy. As far as evidence of
witnesses Ajit Vira (PW 48), Rajesh Chikne (PW 49), Chandrashekhar
Phadke (PW 50) and Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) is concerned, these
witnesses had enough opportunity to observe the persons of Accd.No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave. Therefore the
incidents deposed by them itself suggest that the identification of these
accused persons by them is in natural manner and corroboration to
identification of these accused persons is not required. There is no
reason as to why these witnesses should speak against these accused
persons. Therefore the only suspicion that some photographs had been
taken by the police and there is possibility of such photographs being
shown to the witnesses before identification parades, is not acceptable.
113 Judgment S.C.660/08
However, the oral evidence of the respective witnesses who identified
these accused persons at the respective incidents is accepted for the
reasons discussed separately.
132. (X) Terrorist act & sanction to prosecute under Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 1967 :-
Special P.P. Ms.Salian, for the State, argued that the
accused wanted to strike terror in the minds of the people in respect of
the alleged distortion of historical facts and mockery of Hindu Gods in
the drama Aamhi Pachpute. Therefore the bomb blasts attracts the
provisions of Section 15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Advocate Mr.Punalekar, for the Accused, resisted this argument of the
prosecution on the ground that the entire evidence is unfair and such
provisions are attracted only to harass the accused and for the reason
that they should be kept behind bars without bail. It is further argued
that the prosecution has not examined the witness to prove the sanction
order to prosecute the accused persons under the provisions of
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. While replying to such objection,
the Spl.P.P., for the State, relied on the judgment in the case of State
(N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru - AIR 2005 SC
3820. It is argued that validity of the sanction order cannot be tested on
114 Judgment S.C.660/08
the principles applied to quasi-judicial orders.
When the testimony of witness Bhimdev Rathod (PW 103)
is perused, it makes out a case that the proposal was sent to the
Government and sanction to prosecute the accused under Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act was obtained as per Ex.394.
It is argued by the defence that the facts are falsely placed
that the witness Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) had stated about the
agitation to blacken the faces at the drama. It is argued that such
statement attributed to the witness is not found in his statement before
the Magistrate. Advocate for the accused further relied on the ruling of
the Privy Council in the case of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab -
1958 Cri.L.J. 265, wherein it is observed in respect of the principles
governing sanction of prosecution that the test to be applied is whether
relevant material that formed the basis of allegations constituting the
offence was placed before the sanctioning authority and the same was
perused before granting sanction. After considering these observations,
it clearly indicates the necessity of test of application of mind, and for
such reason it is was necessary to examine the witness on behalf of the
State to prove the sanction order at Ex.394.
Section 45 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
115 Judgment S.C.660/08
reads as under :-
"45. Cognizance of offences. -[(1)] no court shall take cognizance of any offence --
(i) under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorized by the Central Government in this behind; (ii) under Chapters IV and VI without the previous sanction of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, and where such offence is committed against the Govern- ment of a foreign country without the previous sanction of the Central Government.[(2)] Sanction for prosecution under sub-section (1)shall be given within such time as may be prescribedonly after considering the report of such authorityappointed by the Central Government or, as the casemay be, the State Government which shall make anindependent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation and make a recommendation within such time as may be prescribed to the CentralGovernment or, as the case may be, the State Govrn-ment.]"
When sub-section 2 provides for independent review of
evidence collected in the course of investigation, it was necessary on
the part of prosecution to examine the witness to establish that sanction
order at Ex.394 was validly passed after independent review. It was
necessary in view of the contest raised by defence side of unfairness in
investigation with allegations of political motivation.
In the judgment in the case of State vs. Navjot Sandhu @
Afsan Guru cited by the Spl.P.P., the witness PW 11 examined who
116 Judgment S.C.660/08
had brought the original sanction file and it was seen from the judgment
of the trial court that the Learned Trial Judge had gone through the file
apart from making it available to the defence counsel. It is further
observed that the oral evidence led in by the prosecution by examining
PW 11 dispel in doubt as to consideration of the matter by sanctioning
authority before according the sanction. In the present case the witness
itself is not examined to prove the sanction order and the test of
application of mind is itself not established by the prosecution as per
the observations of the Privy Council. Therefore the evidence in respect
of the same needs to be discarded.
In support of its case, the prosecution further relied on the
judgments in the following cases :-
(i) Devender Pal Singh v. State N.C.T. Delhi & Anr. 2002(2) Crimes 133 (SC).
(ii) Jayawant Dattatray Suryarao v. State of Maharashtra (2002 CRI.L.J. 226).
(iii) Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & ors. etc.etc. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1994 SC 2623).
(iv) State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996 I AD S.C.(CR) 405).
I have gone through all these judgments. In view of the
witness not being examined to establish independent review of
collected evidence while passing sanction order, the observations in the
aforesaid judgment may not be made applicable to the present case.
117 Judgment S.C.660/08
It is required to be seen whether the alleged acts can be
termed as 'terrorist acts' within the meaning of Section 15 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which reads as follows :-
Prior to its substitution, S.15 read as under :-"15. Terrorist act. - Whoever, with intent to threatenthe unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of Indiaor to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, does anyact by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms orother lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases orother chemicals or by any other substances (whetherbiological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature, insuch a manner as to cause, or likely to cause, death of, or injuries to any person or persons or loss of, ordamage to, or destruction of, property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country orcauses damage or destruction of any property orequipment used or intended to be used for the defenceof India or in connection with any other purposes ofthe Government of India, any State Government orany of their agencies, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order tocompel the Government of India or the Governmentof a foreign country or any other person to do orabstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act."
It is nowhere in the case of the prosecution that the accused by their
acts intended to threaten or likely to threaten unity, integrity, security or
sovereignty of India. The words 'strike terror' signifies the meaning
"hit hard to create extreme fear". The alleged motive of crime is
objection to the performance of the drama Aamhi Pachpute based on
118 Judgment S.C.660/08
alleged mockery of Hindu Gods. It appears to be only against the
producer of the said drama. The producer of the said drama cannot be
termed as 'section of people'. Therefore Section 15 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is not applicable and sanction to
prosecute the accused under the provisions of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 is not proved that it was passed after
independent review of the evidence collected.
133. (X) Circumstantial Evidence proved and fulfillment of Conditions :-
The circumstances which are proved by the prosecution are,
firstly, that the test explosion of bomb was carried out at the house of
Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, secondly, that Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave
and Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari along with others had visited
Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha on 30.5.2008 and 31.5.2008, thirdly, that
against the mockery of Hindu Gods in drama Aamhi Pachpute slogans
were to be raised as disclosed by Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, fourthly,
that articles found at the blast sites and a live bomb, made of explosives
substance along with R.F. Circuit, Timers, Batteries, found in
Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, fifthly, Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and
Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had purchased the R.F.Circuits, batteries and
119 Judgment S.C.660/08
timers from Gala Electronics and Dodia Electricals, and lastly, the
presence of the accused at Gadkari Rangayatan on 4.6.2008 based on
the oral evidence of the witnesses and vehicle found at the blast site at
Thane. It is required to be seen whether these circumstances fulfill the
conditions to be admissible in evidence to convict the accused.
Advocate for the accused relied on the judgment in the case of
Mousam Singha Roy & ors. vs. State of West Bengal - (2003) 12
SCC 377, wherein it is observed that the rules specially applicable to
the circumstantial evidence must be borne in mind, and in such cases
there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the
place of legal proof. Based on the observations in the said judgment,
Advocate for the accused further argued that the more serious offence
requires stricter degree of proof and higher degree of assurance to
convict the accused. In the case of Murlidhar Ishwar Suryawanshi &
anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in
the judgment dated 3.5.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.158 of 1998
observed in paragraphs 32 and 33 as follows :-
"32. It is well settled that before a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstancesin question must be satisfactorily established and they should form a chain of evidence so complete as not toleave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consist-ent with the innocence of the accused. It must be shown
120 Judgment S.C.660/08
that in all human probabilities the act must have beendone by the accused.
33. In the present, the learned Judge is seen to haveadded links to the proved circumstances, which linkshowever, are not proved but which are very material.The circumstances which have been proved cannotcreate a complete chain to hold the accused guilty."
In the case of Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar etc.etc. vs.
State of Maharashtra - AIR 1995 SC 1930, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has observed in paragraph 12 as follows :-
"12. The very fact that the police officers joined PW 2and PW 5 in the raid creates a doubt about the fairnessof the investigation. Coupled with this is the manner in which the confessional statement of A1 and A2 wasrecorded by Hemant Karkare PW 3, which has beenrightly discarded by the Designated Court itself. Evenif we were to ignore the tell tale discrepancy in the number of the room i.e. 3323 or 3334, from where the appellants were arrested, accepting the explanation ofof the prosecution that it was as a result of typographi-cal error, it looks to us rather strange that the discrepa-cy should have come to the notice of the investigating officer only when he filed his affidavit in the SupremeCourt in the special leave petition filed by the abscond-in accused, yet in the totality of the circumstances of the case and after a careful analysis of the evidence onthe record we find it rather unsafe to rely upon PW 1,PW 4 and PW 6 only without there being any indepen-dent corroboration of their testimony, to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants. We cannotloose sight of the fact that since the mere possessionof an arm, as specified in the schedule, without alicence, in a notified area, attracts the provisions ofSection 5 of TADA with stringent punishment, the quality of evidence on which the conviction can be
121 Judgment S.C.660/08
based has to be of a much higher order than the onewe find available in the present case. Our independentappraisal of the evidence on the record has created animpression on our minds that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge to the appellants beyonda reasonable doubt."
In the case of Sau. Gita Ashok Kharkate & ors. vs. The
State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Criminal
Appeal No.99 of 2003 in the judgment dated 4.2.2011 followed the
observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra.
The conditions as observed in the Sharad Sarda case for
relying on the circumstantial evidence are considered for application to
the circumstantial proof in the present case. The first circumstance is
that the place of test explosion was discovered at the instance of Accd.
No.3-Vikram Bhave at his house and the earth collected from the said
spot contained explosive residues as per the report of chemical analysis.
This circumstance is fully established from which conclusion of guilt of
Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave can be drawn that he had carried out such
test explosion. This fact is consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of
Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and it is not explainable in any other manner.
It is also conclusive and exclude no other possibility. Secondly, Accd.
No.1-Ramesh Gadkari had disclosed about their intention to raise
122 Judgment S.C.660/08
slogans against the drama Aamhi Pachpute. Therefore he visited the
place where the drama was to be performed. It shows motive coupled
with other facts brought on record that he procured the R.F. circuit,
selectron timers and batteries, and he, along with Accd.No.3-Vikrama
Bhave, wanted that these articles are worked in a specific manner of
coding and decoding, and it appears to have worked at the place, more
particularly, at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium and Gadkari Rangayatan,
which resulted in finding of a live bomb and explosion of bomb
respectively. The intention of the accused appears to be against the
producer of the drama in the performance of which there is mockery of
Hindu Gods, and this was disliked firstly by Accd. No.1-Ramesh
Gadkari and his association with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave is made
out by the witness PW 58-Mayuresh Konekar through his companion
to procure them relevant articles, and argument that electron timer and
batteries are not incriminating articles cannot be acceptable in these
circumstances. Thus the articles are used in the manner to explode
bomb and it strong indication of truth that Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari
and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave had carried out the intention to explode
the bomb. Therefore they purchased those articles and further carried
out test explosion at the house of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave.
123 Judgment S.C.660/08
The cumulative effect of all the circumstances proved as
aforesaid coupled with the proved motive of crime makes me to believe
that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had
major role and involvement in the two incidents dated 31.5.2008 at
Vashi and dated 04.06.2008 at Thane.
134. (XII) Conspiracy :-
Spl. P.P. relied on the judgment in the case of Arun Gulab
Gavali vs. State of Maharashtra - 2007 Cri. L.J. 3622 to prove the
conspiracy between Accd. Nos.1 to 6. It is pertinent to note here that
one witness Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) had accompanied the accused
as per the telephonic conversation with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. It
specifically appears that he had no knowledge as to what Accd. No.3-
Vikram Bhave had intended, and this is clear from his testimony. In the
circumstances, the presence of Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam, Accd. No.
4-Santosh Angre, Accd.No.5-Haribhau Divekar and Accd.No.6-
Hemant Chalke at various places can be inferred with the fact that they
had also no knowledge about what was intended by Accd. No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. Therefore the
agreement by Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam, Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre,
124 Judgment S.C.660/08
Accd.No.5-Haribhau Divekar and Accd. No.6-Hemant Chalke cannot
be inferred from the evidence brought on record. The alleged recovery
at the instance of Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam and Accd.No.5-
Haribhau Divekar is not proved as discussed above. Therefore there is
no direct material against them to involve them in the agreement, nor
there is any other evidence to prove conspiracy against them.
Two views possible :
The role attributed to Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam is his
presence at the spot of incident dated 31.05.2008. The role attributed to
Accd. No.4-Santosh Angre is his presence at the spot of incident dated
06.06.2008. The role attributed to Accd. No.6-Hemant Chalke is his
presence along with Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari to procure Selectron
Timers. The prosecution evidence merely suggests presence of these
three accused with Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari.
When Mayuresh (PW 58) was present with Accd.No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari and he had no knowledge, two views arise in respect
of role of Accd.No.2, 4 & 6, either they had knowledge or they did not
have knowledge. In absence of any corroboration, the view favourable
to Accd.Nos.2, 4 & 6 is required to be accepted and it is held that
involvement of Accd.Nos.2, 4, 5 & 6 in conspiracy is not proved.
125 Judgment S.C.660/08
135. (XIII) Purchase of SIM cards and Mobiles :-
The prosecution examined Smt. Darshan Kaur Randhawa
(PW 61), Babruwahan Kadam (PW 62), Darshansingh Randhawa (PW
63) and Ravindra Kakade (PW 105) to establish that the applications at
Exs.228 to 231 were submitted by Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari to Smt.
Darshan Kaur Randhawa (PW 61) to purchase 4 Tata Indicom mobile
SIM cards and handsets. It is pertinent here to note that the alleged
recovery of hair wig is not believed and the person - Amar Janu Bane
(PW 59), who allegedly sold hair wig to Ramesh Gadkari nowhere
speaks about selling hair wig to Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. He has
testified only as regards selling of artificial mustaches and beard to
Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. There is no matching of the photograph of
Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and the photograph appearing on the
applications Exs.228 to 231. The testimony of Ravindra Kakade (PW
105) clearly suggests that no admitted handwriting of Accd.No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari was made available to him for comparison. Moreover,
the offence of cheating requires dishonest or fraudulent intention. There
also appears no wrongful gain attributed to the accused or wrongful loss
to any of the witnesses. The only inference that can be drawn is that the
person getting mobile in such manner wants to conceal his identity.
126 Judgment S.C.660/08
However, there is no reported incident against Accd. No.1-Ramesh
Gadkari that he had concealed his identity by making phone calls
through such SIM cards. Therefore for want of fulfillment of
ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 419, 465, 468, 471 of I.P.C.,
the evidence led by the prosecution in respect of the same is discarded.
136. As per the above discussion, Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari
and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave are found involved in the planting of
live bomb at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on 31.5.2008 and
carrying out explosion at Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane on 4.6.2008.
Considering the nature of explosion and the injuries caused due to same
to the persons at Gadkari Rangayatan and the intent of Accd. Nos.1-
Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave was only to create fear
in the mind of the producer of the said drama, there appears no threat of
death of any unknown person. Therefore the offence u/s 307 of IPC is
not attracted as against them.
The injured had suffered injuries of the nature explained and
described in the certificates at Exs.382 to 390. The injuries were caused
by the acts of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram
Bhave in which explosive substance was used. Therefore the offence
127 Judgment S.C.660/08
u/s 324 of IPC is proved against them.
137. The offence u/s 201 of IPC is proved against Accd. No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave firstly on the basis of
test explosion site found at the instance of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave
and there was destruction of evidence by disposing of the material.
Therefore offence u/s 201 of IPC is proved against them.
138. For the above discussion, the offences u/s 419, 465, 468 &
471 of IPC are not proved as against Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari.
139. The spot panchnama at Ex.19 at Gadkari Rangayatan and
the damage caused to the public place is evident from the photographs.
This also attracts the provision u/s 427 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and these offences are
proved against Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and No.3-Vikram Bhave.
140. The alleged recovery at the instance of Accd.No.3-Vikram
Bhave of two revolvers and 92 rounds of cartridges is not proved by the
prosecution.
128 Judgment S.C.660/08
141. The incident of planting the bomb and causing explosion is
found indication of possession of explosive substances of Accd.No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave. It endangered life and
these accused had malice in their mind. Therefore offences punishable
u/s 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act is proved against Accd.No.
1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave.
142. The act of crime proved as against Accd.No.1-Ramesh
Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave cannot be termed as terrorist act
within the meaning of 15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
nor the sanction obtained by the prosecution to prosecute the accused
under the said provisions is legal and valid. In such circumstances, the
said allegation is not proved as against Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and
Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave
The strong indication of possession of explosive is
established since the test blast is established and involvement of
Accd.Nos.1 & 3 in alleged incident is proved. Therefore santion to
prosecute under Explosive Substances Act is valid.
143. For the above stated reasons, there is no direct evidence
129 Judgment S.C.660/08
against Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam, Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre, Accd.
No.5-Haribhau Divekar and Accd.No.6-Hemant Chalke about their
involvement in the alleged crime, nor are there any circumstances to
suggest their agreement in participation, along with Accd.No.1-Ramesh
Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, and therefore Accd.Nos.2 & 4
to 6 are liable to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
For the entire discussion of evidence as above, the points for
determination are answered accordingly.
144. Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave
are held guilty for the offences punishable u/s 324, 201, 427 r/w Sec.
120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984 and Sections 3(a), 4(b)(i) & 5(a) r/w Sec..6 of
Explosive Substances Act and Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act. Therefore
they were called upon to make submissions on the point of quantum of
sentence. The prosecution was also called upon to make submissions on
the point of quantum of sentence.
145. For the reasons stated above, Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam,
Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre, Accd. No.5-Haribhau Divekar and
130 Judgment S.C.660/08
Accd.No.6-Hemant Chalke are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if
not required in any other case as per final order hereinbelow.
146. Heard Advocate Mr.Punalekar, for Accd. Nos.1 & 3, on the
point of sentence. He submitted that Accd.Nos.1 & 3 have no criminal
antecedents. Both are from middle class families and their reform may
be kept in mind while imposing the quantum of sentence. He further
argued for exclusion of offence under Explosive Substances Act with a
view to reform these two accused. He further prayed for applying the
provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and further relied on the
judgment in the case Shrishail Bhmsha Ghale & ors. vs. The State of
Maharashtra of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal
No.852 of 1990 dated 27.8.2007.
147. Special P.P. Ms. Salian, for the State, submitted that
nowadays bomb blasts are occurring causing hurt to the innocent
people and for the protection of the citizen a deterrent punishment be
imposed to create deterrence in the mind of the criminals doing such
acts.
131 Judgment S.C.660/08
148. Having considered the arguments from both the sides, the
mitigating factors are, the background of the accused that they have no
criminal antecedents and both are from middle class families.
Aggravating factor is that the blast at Thane was caused with a result to
injuries to 8 persons. To recapitulate that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari
and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave are held responsible only for two
incidents, one for keeping a live bomb in Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha
at Vashi on 31.5.2008 and second for explosion of bomb at Gadkari
Rangayatan at Thane on 4.6.2008. They are held guilty on the basis of
circumstantial evidence in the form of preparation, presence and
conduct in the relevant period experienced by the witnesses, and
inferred from the circumstances out of their own conduct. Therefore for
the purpose of reform of these accused, it cannot be considered on the
basis of the scope given by each of the sections for which they are held
guilty. Both are held guilty for the offences under Sections 324, 201,
427 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of
Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 3(a), 4(b)(i) & 5(a)
r/w Sec..6 of Explosive Substances Act and Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act.
The offence u/s 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 provides for
punishment with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment
132 Judgment S.C.660/08
which shall not less than 10 years and shall also be liable to be fined.
Section 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act provides higher punishment.
Therefore separate sentence u/s 4(b)(i), 5(a), 6 of the said Act need not
be pronounced. Considering the family background of both the accused,
they are entitled to the lesser punishment under this section. While
imposing such sentence it should create deterrence in the mind of the
criminals doing such acts. The aforesaid Judgment cited by the
Advocate for the accused is perused, and it appears that the same is in
respect of conviction in a sessions case for the offence u/s 498-A, 304-
B, 201 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C., and the Hon'ble High Court had considered
the advanced age of the accused persons and therefore of the opinion
that they deserve to be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958. It was also held that the bar u/s 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 does not operate in their case. These specific
circumstances were arising out of the facts of the said case. In the
present case, the offences for which Accd.Nos.1 and 3 are being held
guilty affected the society at large. Therefore the observations in the
said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case.
149. For the aforesaid reasons,I proceed to pass the following order.
133 Judgment S.C.660/08
ORDER
(1) Accd.No.2-Mangesh Dinkar Nikam, Accd.No.4-Santosh Sitaram
Angre, Accd.No.5-Haribhau Krishna Divekar and Accd.No.6-Hemant
Tukaram Chalke are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 120-B,
307, 324, 201 of I.P.C., Sec. 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act,
1908 and 9(B) of Explosive Act, 1984 and Sec.15, 16, 16(1)(b), 18 and
23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Accd. No.4-Santosh
Angre is also acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 3 and 4 of
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 r/w 427 of I.P.C.
They be set at liberty forthwith if not required any other offence.
(2) Bail bond of Accd.No.5-Haribhau Divekar stands cancelled.
29/8/2011. (N.V.NHAVKAR) Addl.Sessions Judge,Gr.Bombay
FURTHER ORDER :(Dated 30/8/2011)
(1) Accd.No.1-Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram
Vinay Bhave are convicted under Section 235 of Cr. P.C. for the
offences punishable u/s 324, 201, 427 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. and
Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984,
Sections 3(a) r/w 4(b)(i), 5(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances Act and
Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act. They are sentenced to suffer punishments as
134 Judgment S.C.660/08
under :-
As regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari :
(i) For offence u/s 324 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further
S.I. for 3 months.
(ii) For offence u/s 201 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d to suffer further
S.I. for 3 months.
(iii) For offence u/s 427 r/w Sec.120-B he is sentenced to suffer S.I.
for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3
months.
(iv) For offence u/s 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act
he is sentenced to suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months.
(v) For offence u/s 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act
he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months.
(vi) For offence u/s 3(a) r/w 4(b)(i), 5(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances
Act he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
1000/- i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months on each count.
135 Judgment S.C.660/08
(vii) For offence u/s 9(b) of Explosive Act 1984 he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 1 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further
S.I. for 3 months.
As regards Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave :
(i) For offence u/s 324 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further
S.I. for 3 months.
(ii) For offence u/s 201 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d to suffer further
S.I. for 3 months.
(iii) For offence u/s 427 r/w Sec.120-B he is sentenced to suffer S.I.
for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3
months.
(iv) For offence u/s 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act
he is sentenced to suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months.
(v) For offence u/s 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act
he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-
i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months.
(vi) For offence u/s 3(a) r/w 4(b)(i), 5(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances
136 Judgment S.C.660/08
Act he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.
1000/- i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months on each count.
(vii) For offence u/s 9(b) of Explosive Act 1984 he is sentenced to
suffer S.I. for 1 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further
S.I. for 3 months.
(2) All substantives sentences in respect of both the accused
shall run concurrently.
(3) Both the accused shall get set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C. for the
period of imprisonment already undergone by them.
(4) Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave
are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 307 and Sec/15. 16, 16(a)
(b), 18 & 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Accd.No.1-
Ramesh Gadkari is also acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 419,
465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave is also acquitted
of offence punishable u/s 3 r/w Sec.25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act.
(4) Nokia make mobile Phone with SIM card & battery (Art.47
colly.), Sony Ericson make mobile phone with SIM card & battery (Art.
48 colly.) and Nokia make mobile Phone with SIM card & battery (Art.
49 colly.) be returned to the rightful claimant if prayed by him after the
appeal period is over or else the same be confiscated to the State.
137 Judgment S.C.660/08
(5) Two Log Books (Arts.50 & 51) and one Diary (Art.52) be
returned to the Sanatan Ashram after the appeal period is over.
(6) Two revolvers (Art.63 colly.) and Cartridges (Art.64 colly.)
be sent to the District Magistrate for disposal as per law after the appeal
period is over.
(7) Bicycle (Art.36) be confiscated to the State after the appeal
period is over.
(8) Three gelatin sticks (Art.16 colly.) , white granules with
powder in damaged plastic container (Art.17 colly.) and four defused
detonators with wire (Art.18 colly.) be sent to the Controller of
Explosives for disposal according to law after the appeal period is over.
(9) Rest of the articles, being worthless, be destroyed after the
appeal period is over.
(10) The Bonds furnished in respect of the two motorcycles
bearing Nos.MH-06-AK-5558 and MH-04-AK-9905, X Tech company
make Computer C.P.U. and cash of Rs.83,560/- shall stand cancelled
and the said property shall be retained by those persons from whom the
same were seized.
Sd/-30/8/2011. (N.V.NHAVKAR)
Addl.Sessions Judge, Gr.Bombay
138 Judgment S.C.660/08
Judgment dictated on : 23,25,26,29 & 30/8/2011.Judgment transcribed on : 7/9/2011.Judgment signed on : 9/9/2011.Judgment sent to C.C. Section on :
top related