AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D. Murugesan, J.—Originally nine accused namely, A1 to A9 were chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 120(B) & 302 IPC and
under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act as well u/s 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. Pending trial, one Abdhagir @ Abudhagir (A6)
died. Hence the learned trial Judge re-arrayed the remaining eight accused as A1 to A8 and tried them in S.C. No. 4 of 1999 on the file of the
Court of Sessions for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee. After a full-fledged trial, the learned Judge convicted and
sentenced A1, A3 & A4 for the offences as detailed below and acquitted A2 & A5 to A8 of all the charges.
The appellants in Crl.A. No. 374 of 2001 were tried as A3 and A4 in S.C. No. 4 of 1999 and by the judgment dated 9.4.2001, the learned
trial Judge found them guilty of the offence u/s 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120B IPC and u/s 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120B IPC as well as u/s 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120B IPC and
sentenced the first appellant/A3 to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo three
months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120B IPC and to undergo five years rigorous
imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 5 of the Explosive
Substances Act read with Section 120B IPC. Likewise the second appellant/A4 was sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and
also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 4 of the Explosive Substances Act
read with Section 120B IPC and to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo three
months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120B IPC, which have been ordered to run
concurrently. However, the learned Sessions Judge did not impose any separate sentence on A3 and A4 u/s 120B IPC and u/s 6 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908.
Pending disposal of Crl.A. No. 374 of 2001, as it was represented by Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned Counsel that the second appellant/A4 had
already undergone the sentence of five years imposed on him, this Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed in respect of the second appellant/A4
by order dated 14.2.2008.
The appellant in Crl.A. No. 394 of 2001 was tried as A1 in the same sessions case and was found guilty of the offence u/s 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120B IPC and u/s 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120B IPC and u/s 6 of the
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read with Section 120B IPC as well as u/s 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act read with Section 3 of the Arms Act and
sentenced him to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple
imprisonment for the offence u/s 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with 120B IPC; to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also to
pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with
120B IPC and to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple
imprisonment for the offence u/s 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act read with Section 3 of the Arms Act, which have been ordered to run concurrently.
However, the learned trial Judge did not impose any separate sentence on A1 u/s 120B IPC and u/s 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
The appellants/A3 & A1 have questioned their conviction and sentence in the above appeals.
Crl.A. No. 810 of 2001 has been preferred by the State questioning the acquittal of A2, A5, A6, A7 & A8 and as well questioning the lesser
sentence imposed on the other accused. Pending disposal of Crl.A. No. 810 of 2001, as it was represented by Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the second respondent/A2 by name Abdul Hameed expired, this Court dismissed the appeal as abated
in respect of the second respondent/A2 by order dated 14.2.2008.
As the issues raised in all the appeals are one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by this judgment. For convenience, the
accused will be referred to as ""A1 to A8"" as arrayed by the learned trial Judge and the other accused-Abdhagir @ Abudhagir (A6) as the
deceased accused"" in this judgment.
The prosecution case is that on 7.2.98 at about 11.40 p.m., bomb exploded in the Mohamadia Rice Mill, Saliyamangalam village belonging to
A2-Abdul Hameed. The bomb exploded while A1 along with Rafayee @ Rafaydeen and Sheik Ismail were manufacturing the explosives and in
the explosion, four persons namely, Rafayee @ Rafaydeen, Rafeeq @ Nazeerabas, Sheik Ismail as well as Srinivasan, the watchman of the mill,
were killed. P.W. 1, the Village Administrative Officer, on hearing the loud noise due to the explosion, went to the mill along with his Assistant-
Subramanian and one Murugaiyan. He saw first three injured persons, of which one was lying dead and the remaining two were fighting for their
life. Subsequently, the other two injured also died. He also saw one more dead person on the floor of the mill and he came to know that the said
person was Srinivasan, the watchman of the mill. He also saw two more injured persons namely, A1, the son of A2, and Sethuraman-P.W.11,
another watchman of the mill. He made arrangements to send both the injured to the hospital.
Thereafter he proceeded to Ammapettai Police Station and lodged the complaint, Ex. P-1 to P.W. 50, the Head Constable at 1.30 a.m., on
8.2.98, which was registered in Cr. No. 74 of 1998 for the offence u/s 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 304A IPC. The First
Information Report is Ex. P-43. He forwarded the express reports to the Court as well as to the higher police officials.
P.W. 62, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up investigation and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared an Observation
Mahazar, Ex. P-3 and also drew a rough sketch, Ex. P-67 in the presence of P.W. 2 and Murugaiyan. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the
bodies of the deceased between 6.00 a.m., and 9.00 a.m., on 8.2.98 in the presence of panchayatdars and prepared the inquest reports, Exs. P-
68 to P-71. He also seized a sum of Rs. 7200/-, M.O. 3 and also the two bit papers showing addresses from the pocket of Rafaydeen under the
mahazar, Ex. P-4. He also took photographs of the scene place and the photographs and negatives were marked as M.Os. 85 to 97 series. He
sent all the four bodies through the Grade I Constables along with the requisitions, Exs. P-55, P-57, P-59 & P-61 to the doctor for conducting
post-mortem.
In the meanwhile, A1 and P.W. 11 were admitted in the Thanjavur Medical College & Hospital on 8.2.98 at 12.15 a.m., and 12.30 a.m.,
respectively. They were first seen by the doctor, P.W. 31 at 1.00 a.m., and he noted the following injuries on A1:
Injuries right forearm 2 x 1cm 3 punctured wounds.
Right knee 3 punctured wounds 2 x 1 cm.
Multiple abrasions 1 x 2 cm right forehead/right cheek.
2 punctured wound on left forearm 2 x 1 cm.
(nc) right eye.
Likewise, he noted the following injuries on P.W. 11:
Lacerated wound 0.5 x 0.5 x 0.25 cm right arm.
Lacerated injuries right forearm 2 x 1 cm bone deep.
Multiple fractures ribs right.
Abrasion over costal margin.
Contusion 5 x 5 forearm right.
He issued the wound certificates, Exs. P-19 & P-20 with his opinion that the injuries sustained by them were grievous.
P.W. 58, Police Surgeon & Reader and Head, Dept. of Forensic Medicine, Thanjavur Medical College, conducted post-mortem between
11.10 a.m., and 1.40 p.m., on 10.2.98 and he noted the following:
First body:
Multiple small areas dermo epidermal burns seen all over the body.
Multiple areas of punctured laceration with abrasions of variable sizes from pinhead to 12 x 6 cms muscle deep seen over the whole of body
surface, over face, chest, both upper limbs both loins and gluteal regions, right thigh and both legs including heels. Soles are free from injury.
Multiple abrasions of variable sizes with black discolouration scattered over the above said areas.
Foreign materials like wooden material, porcelin like pieces and paddy seen in the punctured areas.
Minimal injuries of abrasions and contusions seen on the back of chest and abdomen when compared to anterior aspect.
Singering of scalp hair seen in the frontal margin and anterior half of bend.
Second body:
Multiple areas of dermo epidermal burns seen all over the body.
Multiple contusion of variable sizes with abrasions, lacerations, punctured laceration from skin deep to bone deep present over the whole of
face, chest upper limbs and both lower limbs.
Irregular lacerations of shattering type seen over the lumbo sacral region on the back measuring 25 x 15 cms x bone deep 12 x 7 cms bone
deep on the right infra scapular area along with multiple irregular laceration over the whole of back and both gluteal regions.
Laceration of left great toe planter aspect 4x2 cms bone deep noticed.
Laceration 7 x 5 cms x bone deep over the back of left elbow with fracture dissection of left homerus lower end.
Lower jaw found broken with dissection of lower central incisors.
Third body:
Multiple areas of dermo epidermal burns seen all over the body.
Singeling of whole of scalp hair, eyebrows eyelashes and mustache seen.
Areas of charred skin tages with blackish discolouration.
Traumatic amputation 2nd, 3rd toes of left leg along with laceration of variable sizes over the ankle outer aspect and outer aspect of left leg
seen.
Shattered laceration 28x23 cms bone deep on the middle of back of left thigh exposing the nerves, torn muscles, tendons seen. A metal was
recovered from the floor of the wound.
Fourth body:
Contused abrasion over the right size of nose, lower orbital margin, right cheek prominance, right supra orbital region along with laceration of
right medial canthus vertically placed bone deep nasal bones found fractured.
Maxilla found broken at its middle.
Contused laceration with diffuse swelling on the midfrontal region.
Contusion of left cheek, left temporal region and left supra orbital region with subconjunctival haemorrhage on the left side.
Laceration 3x1 cms bone deep over the left posterior parietal eminence area.
Laceration 12x2cms bone deep over the right parietal temporal region at the posterior aspect along with a laceration 12x2cms bone deep over
the occipital area 3 cms below the left posterior parietal eminence.
Contused abrasion 6x4cms on the middle of back of left hand fingers.
Multiple abrasions over the front of lower 3rd of left leg.
Multiple small abrasions on the front of right knee.
Abrasion over the posterior aspect of right loin and across the middle of thoraco lumbar region 9 x 1 cms.
He issued the post-mortem certificates, Exs. P-56, P-58, P-60 & P-62 with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock
and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries caused by bomb blast and of multiple injuries and traumatic asphyxia respectively.
P.W. 62, continuing with his investigation, seized the M.Os. 7 to 14 & 109 namely, two country made guns, cartridges, explosive materials,
glycerol, nitric acid, plastic boxes, hacksaw blade, acid bottle, ajantha quartz clock under the mahazar, Ex. P-6 on 8.2.98 in the presence of P.W.
2 and Murugaiyan. Between 10.30 a.m., and 11.30 a.m., on the same day, he seized the M.Os. 1, 2, 16 series, 110, 33, 24, 21, 22, 19, 17, 20,
18, 40, 23, 27, 29 series, 26, 39, 32 series, 34, 28, 37, 35, 25, 36, 38, 30, 41 namely, broken suitcase, aluminium handle, chappals, gum,
bloodstained tukker, screw driver, hacksaw blade, bucket, eversilver mug, battery, Rs. 30,060/- etc., under the mahazar, Ex. P-8 in the presence
of the same witnesses. Between 11.30 a.m., and 1.30 p.m., he searched the house of A1 situate at Gandhi Road, Saliyamangalam village and
seized the various journals and books under M.O. 111 series, date calendar, M.O. 43, invitation, M.O. 112, notices, M.O. 45 series, diary, M.O.
113, notebook, M.O. 115, audio cassette, M.O. 116, postal cover, M.O. 117, letter, M.O. 118 under the mahazar, Ex. P-9 in the presence of
P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 12 and recorded their statements. Between 5.30 p.m., and 6.30 p.m., he searched the other house of A1 situate at
VOC Nagar, Thanjavur and seized cardboards, M.Os. 119 & 83, journals, M.O. 69 series, audio cassettes, M.Os. 120 & 42 series, rice mill
agreement, M.O. 79 and state bank accounts, M.O. 82 under the mahazar, Ex. P-11 in the presence of P.Ws. 12 & 14. He altered the offence to
one under Sections 3 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and sent the altered report to the Court.
On 9.2.98, P.W. 62 arrested A2, the owner of the rice mill. He arrested A1 at the Thanjavur Medical College & Hospital on 10.2.98 at 3.00
p.m., while he was taking treatment. He altered the offence to one under Sections 5, 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and u/s 302 IPC as well
u/s 25(1) of the Arms Act and sent the altered report to the Court. He handed over the bodies of the deceased to the relatives. As the case was
transferred to CBCID, Tiruchirapalli, he handed over the further investigation to P.W. 63.
P.W. 63, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tiruchirappalli took up further investigation on 13.2.98 and proceeded to the scene of
occurrence at 7.00 a.m., and he seized the iron rail, M.O. 48, gloves, M.O. 52, welding rod, M.O. 49, iron plates, M.O. 50 series, acid bottle,
M.O. 56, plastic bottle, M.O. 57, plastic box, M.O. 57, plastic box, M.O. 63, brush, M.O. 121, eversilver mug, M.O. 53, plate, M.O. 123, U
shaped plates, M.Os. 124 to 126 series, quartz clock box, M.O. 127, electric appliance, M.O. 128, plastic box, M.O. 51, iron sheets, M.Os. 54
& 129 series, pant, M.O. 60, full slack shirt, M.O. 62, banian, M.O. 131, T shirt, M.O. 132, lungi, M.O. 65, calendars, M.O. 58 series,
Christian calendars, M.O. 59 series, motorcycle box, M.O. 46, eversilver tumblers, M.O. 47 series, eversilver box, M.O. 55 under the mahazar,
Ex. P-10. On 14.2.98, he defused the unexploded bomb with the help of bomb disposal expert, P.W. 55. He examined P.Ws. 6, 7, 11 & 55 and
recorded their statements. On 15.2.98, he examined P.Ws. 1, 16, 14, 7, 6, 10 & 3 and recorded their statements. On 17.2.98, he examined P.W.
17 and recorded his statement. On 20.2.98 around 3.00 p.m., he recorded the confessional statement of A1 in the hospital in the presence of
P.W. 20 and the doctor, P.W. 30 and Ex. P-18 is the certificate given by the doctor. In pursuance of the admissible portion of his confession, he
went to Villapatty (Sattur), Madurai District and arrested A3. He conducted search in the house of A3 and seized the 14 feet wire, 22 feet fuse
wire, detonators, gelatine sticks etc., under the mahazar, Ex. P-13 in the presence of P.W. 21. On 21.2.98, he arrested A4 at Peraiyur and
searched his house. He seized 200 gms of sulphur & took 1 kg sample of ammonium nitrate, M.O. 14 under the mahazar, Ex. P-14. He remanded
them to judicial custody. On 25.2.98, he arrested A5 at Peraiyur and no substance was seized from the house of A5. He remanded A5 to judicial
custody. As the deceased accused surrendered at the office of CBCID, Tiruchirapalli, he arrested and remanded him to judicial custody on
27.2.98. He examined P.Ws. 1 & 24 and recorded their statements. He seized the welding machine, M.O. 1 and the mug, M.O. 2 under the
mahazar, Ex. P-2. On 28.2.98, he examined P.Ws. 25 & 26, taxi drivers and seized the bill book, M.O. 15 from P.W. 25. On 3.3.98, he
examined the post-mortem doctor, P.W. 58 and recorded his statement. On 5.3.98 he filed a report before the Court for the offence u/s 120B
IPC. Between 8.3.98 and 27.4.98, he examined P.Ws. 60, 23, 38, 31, 28, 27, 59 & 29 and recorded their statements. On 27.4.98 he filed a
petition before the Court for obtaining P.T. warrant against A6 and A7 and accordingly took police custody of A6 and A7 on 29.4.98. After
getting consent order under Ex. P-44 from the District Collector on 7.5.98, he filed the final report against A1 to A8 and the deceased accused for
the offence under Sections 120B, 302 IPC and Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Explosive Substances Act as well u/s 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. He filed
a further petition u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C., for further investigation and examined the witnesses. He came to Chennai, examined the other witnesses and
recorded their statements. On 16.6.98 he filed a petition before the Court for obtaining P.T. warrant against A-8. In the meantime, he was
transferred.
P.W. 64, Deputy Superintendent of Police took up further investigation on 10.7.2000 and he filed a petition u/s 174(8) Cr.P.C., before the
Court for further investigation. Between 19.7.2000 and 23.7.2000, he went to Coimbatore and examined the persons who contacted A8 through
his cellphone. Thereafter, as no clue was obtained, he returned to Chennai on 26.7.2000. He examined P.W. 35 and recorded his statement on
27.7.2000. He examined P.Ws. 37 & 39, Police Constables on 28.7.2000 and recorded their statements. On 2.8.2000, he examined the District
Supply Officer, P.W. 42 and recorded his statement. He also obtained the licence of the mill, Ex. P-26 and the renewal application, Ex. P-27
submitted by A2 for investigation. On 3.8.2000, he examined the Village Administrative Officer, P.W. 41 and obtained the Athatchi, Ex. P-25
from him. He also obtained the electricity cards, Exs. P-23 & P-24 from P.W. 40 in respect of the rice mill. He examined P.Ws. 36 & 38 and
recorded their statements. After completing investigation on 9.8.2000, he laid the final report against A1 to A8 and the deceased accused for the
offence under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 120B and 302 IPC as well u/s 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act before
the Court.
In order to bring home the charges against A1 to A8 and the deceased accused, the prosecution examined 64 witnesses, marked 72 exhibits
and produced 132 material objects.
When A1 to A8 and the deceased accused were questioned u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code as to the incriminating materials
appearing against each of them, they denied each and every incriminating material as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, A2
examined himself as D.W. 1 and marked one document-Ex.D-1 namely, the lease deed. As the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced A1,
A3 and A4 and acquitted the other accused, the present appeals have been filed by A1, A3 & A4 and the State.
Heard Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants/A1 & A3 in Crl.A. Nos. 374 & 394 of 2001 and for the respondents
1,3,4,6 & 7 in Crl.A. No. 810 of 2001, Mr. E.J. Ayyappan, Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. Swamidoss Manoharan,
Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent No. 8 in Crl.A. No. 810 of 2001 and Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State.
Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned Counsel for the appellants/accused has submitted that the prosecution case rests only on the circumstantial
evidence as to the conspiracy and the manufacturing of explosives. He would submit that though the prosecution had examined 64 witnesses, none
of the witnesses have spoken about the conspiracy. The only evidence available to connect A1 with A3 & A4 is the evidence of the taxi driver,
P.W. 25. Even P.W. 25, except speaking about A1, A3 & A4 having travelled in his taxi on 10.12.97 to Anaikaraipatti, Usilampatti, Vithalapatti
and thereafter came back to Saliyamangalam village, he has not spoken anything about the conspiracy between the above accused in procuring the
materials, transporting the same to the mill for the purpose of manufacturing explosives. The conviction for the offence of conspiracy on the basis of
the sole testimony of P.W. 25 is totally erroneous. He would further submit that none of the witnesses have spoken about the manufacturing of
explosives by any of the accused. He would also submit that no test identification parade had been conducted and the accused were identified only
in the Court. He would extensively take us through the entire evidence in support of the contention and submit that no witness has spoken about
the conspiracy among the accused for the commission of the offence. He would also submit that the District Magistrate/District Collector is not the
authority to give consent for prosecution u/s 7 of the Explosive Substances Act. In support of the said submission, the learned Counsel would rely
upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Singh 2000 (1) Supreme 104. He would also refer to the consent order, Ex.
P-44 passed by the District Magistrate/District Collector, P.W. 56 and submit that even assuming that the District Magistrate had the authority to
give consent, he has not adduced any reason and in the absence of valid reason for the consent, the consent order cannot be held to be valid. In
support of the said submission, he would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Jaswant Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, and the judgment of
the Patna High Court in Baidyanath Mahto v. State of Bihar 2005 (2) Acquittal 398. He would also submit that though the prosecution has come
forward with a case that the accused are fundamentalists and have indulged in the manufacturing of explosives to be used against Hindu community
people, there is absolutely no evidence to the said effect. On the other hand, some of the witnesses have spoken of having seen a calendar with the
photograph of the deity Lord Muruga and yet another picture of Lord Krishna. The learned Counsel therefore submitted that the prosecution has
not established its case beyond reasonable doubt and each circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused is not established. Hence the learned
Counsel submitted that the appellants are entitled to acquittal and consequently their appeals should be allowed and for the same reason, the
appeal preferred by the State should be dismissed.
Mr. E.J. Ayyappan and Mr. Swamidoss Manoharan, Amicus Curiae appearing for the respondent nos.5 & 8 in the State appeal have also
submitted on the same lines as argued by Mr. S. Doraisamy. In addition, Mr. E.J. Ayyappan has also submitted that the fifth respondent/A5 was
not present in the scene of occurrence and he was identified in the Court only after three years and such identification lacks credibility for
conviction. Mr.Swamidoss Manoharan has submitted that except the eighth respondent/A8 having been found in possession of a cell phone
bearing No. 9840056896, there is no other evidence to connect him in the offence. He would also submit that the evidence of P.Ws. 37 & 38 to
speak about A6 giving the cell phone to A8 cannot be the basis for holding that A8 also had conspired to commit the offence.
Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, would submit that the occurrence had taken place inside
the mill owned by A2. The evidence of P.W. 11, one of the injured at the time of occurrence, speaks of the explosion of bomb in the mill. He had
taken us through the entire evidence once again and submitted that if the evidence let in on behalf of the prosecution is considered in its entirety, it
must be held that the prosecution has proved all the circumstances to implicate the guilt of all the accused. Therefore the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submitted that the prosecution has established all the charges against all the accused and prayed that A1, A3 & A4 should be given the
maximum punishment and equally the other accused as well.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions in detail. As the respective learned Counsel appearing for the accused as well as the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor have taken us through the evidence in detail, we have not referred to their submissions on each of the witnesses in
detail, as we propose to discuss the evidence in detail to find out as to whether the prosecution has proved its case through circumstantial evidence
beyond reasonable doubt.
Explosion of bomb in the mill: P.W. 1 is the Village Administrative Officer of Saliyamangalam village within whose jurisdiction the Mohamadia
Rice Mill is situate. According to him, while he was sleeping in his office situate nearby the mill, he heard a loud noise from the mill at about 11.40
p.m., on 7.2.98. When he came out, he was informed by his Assistant Subramanian-P.W. 2 and one Murugaiyan that a bomb had exploded in the
mill and the building got damaged. Therefore he visited the place of occurrence and found four persons were killed and two injured including A1,
the son of A2/owner of the mill, and Sethuraman, P.W. 11. P.W. 2, Assistant to P.W. 1, heard a loud noise from the mill and he informed the
same to P.W. 1. He also went to the mill along with P.W. 1 and found four persons were killed and two injured. He has also spoken about the
police coming to the scene of occurrence on the early morning of 8.2.98. He has also spoken about the various recoveries namely, two country
made guns, M.Os. 4 & 5, five cartridges, M.O. 6 series, acid bottle, M.O. 7 series, hacksaw blade, M.O. 8, sony empty plastic box, M.O. 9,
empty plastic boxes, M.O. 10 series, plastic box, M.O. 11, calling bell model boxes, M.O. 12 series and plastic box, M.O. 13, ajantha quartz
clock, M.O. 14, wall posters, M.O. 15 series, which were seized under the cover of mahazar, Ex. P-6. He has also spoken about the recovery of
broken suitcase, M.O. 16, screw driver, M.O. 17, hacksaw blade, M.O. 18, cutter, M.O. 19, blade, M.O. 20, welding machine part, M.O. 21,
drilling rod, M.O. 22, aluminium can, M.O. 23, chappals, M.O. 24 series, Jeans pant, M.O. 25 series, eversilver utensil, M.O. 26, metal can lid,
M.O. 27, Rs. 30,060/-, M.O. 28 series, damaged sheets, M.O. 29 series, drawing, M.O. 30, banian, M.O. 31, battery, M.O. 32, chappals,
M.O. 33 series, battery, M.O. 34, red shirt, M.O. 35, violet shirt, M.O. 36, checked shirt, M.O. 37, brown shirt, M.O. 38, eversilver box, M.O.
39, drilling machine part, M.O. 40, paper sheets, M.O. 41 series, which were seized under the mahazars, Exs. P-7 & P-8 from the scene place.
P.W. 3 is a Clerk in the Government High School, Saliyamangalam village. He has deposed that on the date of occurrence, he was working in
the said school. He heard a loud noise of bomb explosion in Mohamadia Rice Mill on 7.2.98 at about 11.30 p.m. He also went to the place where
the bomb exploded. In fact he has deposed that due to the explosion of the bomb, the wall of his house got damaged and he spent a sum of Rs.
6,000/- towards repairs. P.W. 4 is a retired teacher residing in Saliyamangalam village and his house is situate 30 to 40 feet away from the rice
mill. He also heard a loud noise of bomb explosion around 11.30 p.m., and 11.40 p.m. He also visited the place of occurrence. The evidence of
the above witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3 & 4 are also corroborated by the other evidence of P.Ws. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 & 24. P.W. 11 is
an injured witness working as a Watchman in the mill. He has also spoken that while he was sleeping on the night of the date of occurrence, he
heard a loud noise of bomb explosion in the mill and due to the explosion he sustained injuries on his body and was taken to the hospital where he
was treated as in-patient for over a period of 33 days. His evidence is highly reliable and supports the case of the prosecution as to the explosion
of bomb in the mill, as he is an injured witness. P.W. 14 is the brother-in-law of A1. He also speaks of the explosion of bomb in the mill on the
night of 7.2.98 and the injury sustained by A1 due to the explosion. P.W. 24 is another independent witness speaking about the explosion of bomb
in the mill. He is a welder working in Bharath Industries situate near the mill. He has deposed that on the night of 7.2.98, he heard about the bomb
explosion in the mill and he also went to the place of occurrence and saw A1 with injuries. From the above evidence let in on behalf of the
prosecution, it is clear that on 7.2.98 at about 11.30 p.m., bomb had exploded in the mill owned by A2.
Presence of A1 in the mill: Again P.W. 1, the Village Administrative Officer, in his evidence, has stated that while four persons were killed and
two persons were injured, on enquiry he came to know that one of the injured was A1 and he is the son of A2. He has also spoken about the
arrangements made by him for admitting A1 in the hospital along with P.W. 11. P.W. 2 has also spoken about the presence of A1 and the injuries
sustained by him. The presence of A1 at the time when the bomb exploded is also spoken to by the very same witnesses namely, P.Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 & 24. All the above witnesses are categorical that when they visited the place of occurrence after hearing a loud noise of
bomb explosion, they saw A1 also with injuries on his person. From the evidence of P.W. 31, the doctor who first saw A1 at 12.15 a.m., on
8.2.98, it is seen that A1 was brought to the hospital with four injuries, all grievous in nature. In Ex. P-19, wound certificate, it has been stated that
those injuries were due to the explosion at 12.30 a.m., on 8.2.98. At the same time, P.W. 11 was also admitted and in fact in his evidence he has
stated that he was admitted for a period of 33 days as in-patient and he sustained injuries including two fractures on the bone. From the above
evidence, it is clear that A1 was present in the scene of occurrence at the time when the bomb had exploded.
Conspiracy: So far as the conspiracy is concerned, as it was made in secrecy, even if there is no direct evidence, it can be gathered from the
circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has proved the conspiracy of the accused, made in secrecy, through the evidence of P.W. 25. P.W. 25 is
a taxi driver, who was hired by A1 to go to Anaikaraipatti near Madurai and to return to Saliyamangalam. From his evidence, it is seen that on
29.10.97, A1 and four women travelled in the car to VOC nagar, Thanjavur and thereafter came back to Nanjikottai, Thanjavur. Again on
10.12.97, A1 came to him to hire the car to go to Anaikaraipatti, Madurai. Accordingly, he took A1, A3, A4 & A5 in the car and they went to
Usilampatti and thereafter to Vithalapatti and at that village, they had loaded some materials packed in gunny bag. At that time, one Iqbal was also
present along with them, who in fact had loaded the materials in the dickey of the car and thereafter the said Iqbal, A3, A4 & A5 sat on the back
seat and A1 sat on the front seat of the car and they returned to Saliyamangalam village, where the materials were unloaded in the mill. The
evidence of P.W. 25 for having taken A1 along with A3, A4 & A5 is amply corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 26, another taxi driver. In his
deposition, he has stated that he knew both A1 & A2 and A1 had already hired the taxi from him for a marriage function and he had gone there as
driver. He has also taken the wife of A2 to the hospital whenever needed. He has further deposed that at 5.00 p.m., on 10.12.97 when A1 came
to him for hiring the vehicle, he was not present and therefore P.W. 25 was engaged as a driver. Therefore the prosecution has established the fact
that P.W. 25 drove the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN-09-Z-5559 and the said vehicle was hired only by A1. The presence of A3, A4 & A5 along
with A1 is also established. The trip sheet, Ex. P-15 also shows the trip undertaken by P.W. 25 as deposed in his evidence, which corroborates
his version of A1 hiring the vehicle and for travelling to Madurai and returning to Saliyamangalam with certain materials loaded in the taxi. P.W. 37,
the Security Guard of A8, has also spoken about the presence of A5 along with Rafeeq, who also died in the occurrence. The evidence of P.W.
25 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 37 as to the presence of A5 along with A1, A3, A4 as well the deceased Mohammed Iqbal. Mr. S.
Doraisamy, learned Counsel had disputed the fact that one of the persons namely, Iqbal had died due to the explosion of bomb and there is no
evidence for the same. However, P.W. 25, the taxi driver in his evidence has categorically identified the said Iqbal as one of the persons who
accompanied A1, A3, A4 & A5 and he has also spoken about the fact that he was one among the dead due to the explosion. Hence the
contention that Iqbal who was seen along with the other accused was not present in the scene of occurrence at the time when the bomb had
exploded cannot be accepted. P.W. 17, owner of a hardware shop, has deposed that around 12.00 noon on 29.1.98 i.e., before the date of
occurrence, two persons came and purchased steel plates. He identified A1 in the Court. P.W. 18, employee of P.W. 17, has also deposed that
A1 came along with one person and purchased the steel plates. He also identified A1 and he also identified the other person as the deceased-
Rafayee. P.W. 16, a rickshaw puller, has deposed that he transported the material, M.O. 54 from the shop of P.W. 17 to the rice mill at
Saliyamangalam and collected a charge of Rs. 15/- from A1. The above evidence shows that A1 had purchased the steel plates for manufacturing
the explosives and for that purpose, he had conspired with A3, A4 & A5. P.W. 23, a nephew of A1, has stated that A3 is a quarry contractor and
he used to quarry the stones with explosives. Two years prior to the deposition, Rafayee, the deceased in the occurrence, came and asked him for
explosives and in turn he asked him to contact A3.
Arrest of A1 and the consequential recovery effected from him: P.W. 62, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, arrested A1 on 10.2.98 at
3.00 p.m., in the Thanjavur Medical College & Hospital where he was taking treatment for the injuries sustained by him due to the bomb
explosion. After sending advance intimation to the Magistrate, he searched the house of A1 in his presence between 11.30 a.m., and 1.30 p.m., on
8.2.98 at No. 2/131, Gandhi Road, Saliyamangalam village and seized the various journals and books under M.O. 111 series, date calendar,
M.O. 43, invitation, M.O. 112, notices, M.O. 45 series, diary, M.O. 113, notebook, M.O. 115, audio cassette, M.O. 116, postal cover, M.O.
117, letter, M.O. 118 under the mahazar, Ex. P-9 in the presence of P.W. 1 and Murugaiyan and the other witnesses namely, P.Ws. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9 & 12. Between 5.30 p.m., and 6.30 p.m., he searched the other house of A1 situate at No. 16, VOC Nagar, Thanjavur and seized the
cardboards, M.Os. 119 & 83, journals, M.O. 69 series, audio cassettes, M.Os. 120 & 42 series, rice mill agreement, M.O. 79, visiting cards,
and state bank accounts, M.O. 82 under the mahazar, Ex. P-11 in the presence of P.Ws. 12 & 14.
Arrest of A3 and the consequential recovery effected from him: In pursuance of the admissible portion of the confession given by A1, P.W.
63, the Deputy Superintendent of Police proceeded to Vittalapatti (Sattur), Madurai and arrested A3 on 20.2.98 and he seized the 14 feet wire,
22 feet fuse wire, detonators, gelatine sticks etc., under the mahazar, Ex. P-13 in the presence of P.W. 21 at 6.30 p.m., on 21.2.98.
Arrest of A4 and the consequential recovery effected from him: On 21.2.98, P.W. 63 arrested A4 at Peraiyur and seized the 200 gms of
sulphur and 1 kg sample of ammonium nitrate, M.O. 14 under the mahazar, Ex. P-14.
The arrest and recovery of A1, A3 & A4 have also been proved through the witnesses namely, P.Ws. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14 & 21.
From the evidence of arrest and recovery coupled with the fact that A1, A3 & A4 have conspired together in secrecy to prepare the explosive
substances, it is seen that the explosive substances were manufactured only for the purpose of using them against the Hindu community people.
Test Identification Parade: A1, A3, A4 & A5 have been identified by P.W. 25 in the Court.
From our above discussions, the following conclusion emerges. A1, the son of A2, conspired along with A3, A4 & A5 and procured the
materials for manufacturing the explosives unauthorisedly. The manufacturing of unauthorised explosives by themselves would speak that they are
intended to be used against the public. On overall consideration of the materials placed before us including the defence taken, we are unable to see
any reason as to why these materials were procured, transported, unloaded in the rice mill when the rice mill itself was not functioning for a few
months earlier to the date of occurrence. The only presumption would be that the materials were procured for the purpose of manufacturing the
explosives by A1. The prosecution has also established the explosion of bomb in the rice mill in question as already discussed by us. Equally the
prosecution has established that in the occurrence four deaths had occurred and two persons got injured namely, A1 and P.W. 11.
As far as the conspiracy is concerned, the fact that A1 was present in the place of occurrence when the bomb exploded and that too in the rice
mill belonging to his father and he also sustained injuries and he was also found going to a village near Madurai to procure the materials for
transporting them to the rice mill has been established. The prosecution has also established the procurement of steel plates by A1 and the
transportation of the same to the mill. It is argued by Mr. S. Doraisamy, learned Counsel that the prosecution has not established beyond
reasonable doubt as to the conspiracy between A1, A3, A4 & A5. So far as the conspiracy is concerned, while dealing with the question as to
how the proof in regard to the conspiracy is to be dealt with in a case of circumstantial evidence, the Apex Court in the judgment in E.K.
Chandrasenan Vs. State of Kerala, , has observed that there can be no direct evidence on the conspiracy as conspiracies are secretly planned and
are not hatched in open and therefore lack of direct evidence is not significant. As we have found A3 & A4 in the company of A1 and the
deceased-Rafayee had made enquiry with P.W. 23 for explosives and he was referred to A3, the conspiracy among them to procure the materials
for manufacturing the explosives can be safely presumed. However, the criminal liability as to the conspiracy to co-conspirators namely, A3 & A4
can be extended as they were not only found together as spoken to by P.W. 25, but also the explosive materials have been recovered from them.
However, so far as A5 is concerned, though he was found in the company of A1, A3 & A4, except the evidence of P.W. 25, there is no other
evidence to implicate him that he also acted in furtherance of the common design in the conspiracy. That apart, as against the other accused
namely, A3 & A4, no recovery has been made from A5.
In Mohd. Khalid v. State of West Bengal 2002 SCC (Crl.) 1734, the Apex Court, after elaborately discussing the basis for extending criminal
liability to co-conspirators, has held as follows:
The provisions, in such a situation, do not require that each and every person who is a party to the conspiracy must do some overt act towards the
fulfillment of the object of conspiracy, the essential ingredient being an agreement between the conspirators to commit the crime and if these
requirements and ingredients are established, the act would fall within the trappings of the provisions contained in Section 120B IPC.
In the very same judgment, the Apex Court has also held as follows:
The offence of conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence. However, conspiracies are not hatched in the open, by their
nature, they are secretly planned. Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud discussion in an elevated place open
to public view. Direct evidence in proof of a conspiracy is therefore seldom available. It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about
the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in the formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which
the objectors set before themselves as the object of conspiracy, and about the manner in which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, all this
is necessarily a matter of inference. Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the occurrence have to be considered to decide
about the complicity of the accused. Where trustworthy evidence establishing all links of circumstantial evidence is available the confession of a co-
accused as to conspiracy even without corroborative evidence can be taken into consideration. It can in some cases be inferred from the acts and
conduct of the parties.
The prosecution has also proved the recoveries as we have discussed in the earlier portion of the order. In fact even before A1 was arrested,
his house was searched by the Investigating Officer, P.W. 62 and he has seized, among other materials, journals and books, notices, diary, audio
cassettes, letter, rice mill agreement. Even after the arrest and pursuant to his confessional statement, the recovery of explosives was made from
A1.
The next circumstance relating to the recovery effected on the basis of the admissible portion of the confessional statements of A3 and A4 is
also established.
So far as the test identification parade is concerned, A1, A3, A4 & A5 have been identified by P.W. 25 in the Court. It is argued by the
learned Counsel for the appellants that in the absence of any test identification parade, a mere identification in the Court cannot be considered to
be sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused. Law on the said issue is now well settled in the judgment in Visveswaran v. State rep. by S.D.M.
2003 (2) SCC (Crl.) 1270 as well as in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab 2003 (1) SCC (Crl.) 282, wherein the Apex Court had authoritatively
held that even in case where the test identification parade had not been conducted, if the prosecution is able to prove the involvement of the
accused in the occurrence through the other overwhelming evidence and the accused are identified by the witnesses in the Court, such identification
would be sufficient to hold the accused guilty of the offence. Hence the contention of the learned Counsel in this regard is liable to be rejected.
So far as the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants that the District Magistrate/District Collector is not the competent authority
to grant consent is concerned, it is seen that prior to the amendment of Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act by Act 54 of 2001, the Central
Government was competent to accord consent for prosecution. After the amendment, the power to give consent was conferred on the District
Magistrate with effect from 1.2.2002.
Mr. S. Doraisamy, the learned Counsel, in support of his submission in challenging the competency of the District Magistrate/District Collector
to accord consent, would rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in State of M.P. v. Bhupendra Singh 2000 (1) Sup 104. In that case, the
Central Government vested with the power to accord consent had delegated the said power to the District Magistrate/District Collector in exercise
of the power u/s 29. However, the State Government had in turn delegated the power to the Additional District Magistrate u/s 7 of the Explosive
Substances Act. While considering the said delegation, the Apex Court held that the further delegation of the power to accord consent to the
Additional District Magistrate is invalid.
A careful reading of the said judgment shows that Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, as stood before the Amendment Act 54 of
2001, which came into force with effect from 1.2.2002, empowers the Central Government to give consent for prosecution. The said Section read
that no Court shall proceed to the trial of any person for an offence against this Act except with the consent of the Central Government.
However, by the Amendment Act 54 of 2001, in the place of ""Central Government"", the words ""District Magistrate"" were substituted. Hence
on and with effect from 1.2.2002, the District Magistrates were also empowered to give consent in terms of the said Section. It is the argument of
the learned Counsel for appellants/accused that the date of occurrence was on 7.2.98 when the power to accord consent vested only in the
Central Government and therefore the consent order of the District Magistrate in respect of the offence committed prior to 1.2.2002 is invalid. Our
attention was drawn by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that even prior to the said Amendment Act 54 of 2001, a notification was issued
by the Central Government delegating its power to the District Magistrate and therefore the order of consent given by the District Magistrate is
valid. In this context, it is seen that a notification in S.O. 3583 dated 21.2.78 was issued in the name of the President of India by the Ministry of
Home Affairs, New Delhi entrusting all the District Magistrates in the State with the function of the Central Government u/s 7 of the Explosive
Substances Act. The said notification was issued pursuant to the power vested with the President under Article 258(1) of the Constitution of India,
which provides that the President may with the consent of the Government of a State entrust either conditionally or unconditionally to the
Government or its officers the functions in relation to any matter to which the executive power of the Union extends. It is also seen that the said
notification has been extended to the State of Tamil Nadu as well. Further, the said notification was published in the Tamil Nadu Government
Gazette in G.O.Ms. No. 1188 Home Department dated 28.5.1981. In fact the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has brought to our notice a
judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in Md. Masood Akhtar and Vs. State of Bihar, , wherein the said notification has been
referred to sustain the consent order given by the District Magistrate prior to the Amendment Act. It appears that the Central Government in order
to vest the power by the Act itself had subsequently substituted the words ""District Magistrate"" in the place of Central Government in Section 7 of
the Explosive Substances Act by Act 54 of 2001. Hence the contention of the learned Counsel for appellants that the District Magistrate/District
Collector was not competent to issue the consent order cannot be accepted.
The other submission is that the District Magistrate had not given any reason while according his consent. Here again in the consent order, Ex.
P-44, the District Magistrate has considered the implication of all the accused in Cr. No. 74 of 1998 with reference to the report of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, CBCID, Tiruchirappalli and only after careful examination of the request of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the
case files and the opinion of the Assistant Director of Prosecution, Tiruchirappalli dated 3.5.98, the consent was accorded. The consent order
need not necessarily be a detailed one and if the order discloses the fact that the District Collector has applied his mind to the report of the
Investigating Officer, the opinion of the Assistant Director of Prosecution and after perusal of the entire records, would be sufficient compliance to
prove the application of mind. That apart, a mere failure to give reasons by the District Magistrate cannot be a ground to throw away the
prosecution case, when the prosecution is able to prove the involvement of the accused in the offence. What is primary consideration for the
commission of the offence is the evidence implicating the accused for the offence and a mere irregularity in the accord of consent cannot absolve
the accused of the offence and consequently to escape from the punishment. For the said reason, the contention in this regard is also liable to be
rejected and accordingly it is rejected.
For all the above reasons, we are of the considered view that so far as the accusation against A1, A3 & A4, the prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt.
Coming to the appeal preferred by the State against the acquittal of A5 to A8 is concerned, from the evidence of the prosecution, it is seen that
though A5 had accompanied A1 along with A3 & A4 as spoken to by P.W. 25, there is no corroborative material to implicate him in the act of
manufacturing explosives. As against the recovery of incriminating materials from A1, A3 & A4, nothing has been recovered from A5. That apart,
there was no test identification parade conducted to identify A5 and except the identification of A5 in the Court by P.W. 25, who speaks of having
seen A5 along with A1, A3 & A4, there are no other additional material to link A5 either to the conspiracy or to the offence u/s 302 IPC. Hence,
the learned trial Judge had rightly held that A5 is not guilty of the offence. So far as A6 is concerned, except that he purchased a cell phone bearing
No. 9840056896 as spoken to by P.Ws. 27 & 28, the Assistant Manager and General Manager of Sky Cell Communication Pvt. Ltd., there is no
other material to implicate him in the conspiracy with A1 or A3 or A4. Similarly, as far as A7 is concerned, except the evidence of the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, P.W. 63 as to his arrest on P.T. warrant on 29.4.98, there is no other evidence. In the absence of any evidence not only
as to the conspiracy but also to the manufacturing of explosives, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned trial Judge in acquitting A5
to A7.
So far as A8 is concerned, the prosecution has heavily relied upon the evidence of P.Ws. 37 & 38. P.Ws. 37 & 38 are the Security Guards of
A8. They have only spoken about the visiting of A5 & A6 to the house of A8. Of course, the prosecution has also let in evidence that the cell
phone purchased by A6 was given to A8. The prosecution has also examined P.W. 36 to speak about the demand of a sum of Rs. 3 lakhs by A8
and he has paid a sum of Rs. 25,000/- and A8 also contacted through the above cell phone. By the above evidence, we cannot come to a definite
conclusion as to the involvement of A8 in the conspiracy along with A3 & A4 for the commission of the offence. One more circumstance relied
upon by the prosecution to implicate A8 in the offence is the evidence of P.W. 29, an official attached to BSNL Telephones, Thanjavur. He has
stated that phone calls have been made from the landline 39441 to various numbers including the cell phone which was purchased by A6 and
handed over to A8. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the said landline was connected in the mill and therefore there is every
presumption that A8 also had conspired in the occurrence. We are not in agreement with the said submission. A8 has been charged for the offence
under Sections 120B & 302 IPC and under Sections 3, 4, 5 & 6 of the Explosive Substances Act as well u/s 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act. To
sustain a conviction for those charges, a mere fact that phone calls were made from the landline connected in the mill to the cell phone owned by
A8 cannot be a conclusive proof for the commission of the offence. Further, P.Ws. 37 & 38 are the security guards of A8. They were examined
only after the evidence of 32 witnesses were taken and that too, with the permission of the Court. It is highly doubtful that being the security guards
of A8, whether they would know the details of the calls received by A8 in the cellphone and that too from a particular landline. In addition to the
above, there is absolutely no other material to connect A8 for the conspiracy to either manufacture the explosives or to use the same against the
Hindu community people. Hence the prosecution has not established the chain of circumstances to implicate A5 to A8 except the evidence of
P.W. 25 as to A5 having been found along with A1, A3 & A4, against A6 for having purchased the cell phone and against A8 for possessing the
said cell phone which was handed over by A6. Hence we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned
trial Judge against A5 to A8.
So far as the State appeal as to the sentence imposed on A1, A3 & A4 is concerned, the learned trial Judge, having regard to the part played
by A1 in not only conspiring with A3 & A4 but also for using the premises of his father for manufacturing the explosives, had sentenced him to
undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the
offence u/s 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with 120B IPC; to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.
50,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 5 of the Explosive Substances Act read with 120B IPC and to
undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the
offence u/s 25(1)(b) of the Arms Act read with Section 3 of the Arms Act, which have been ordered to run concurrently.
So far as A3 & A4 are concerned, the learned trial Judge, having found that they were party to the conspiracy only for the commission of the
offence, had sentenced each of them to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo
three months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 4 of the Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120B IPC and to undergo five years
rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence u/s 5 of the
Explosive Substances Act read with Section 120B IPC, which have been ordered to run concurrently. We find that A1, A3 & A4 have been
awarded appropriate sentence and in our considered view, there is nothing to indicate that they have been awarded lesser sentence.
As we have found A1, A3 & A4 guilty of the offences, the conviction and sentence imposed on them by the learned trial Judge are confirmed.
Similarly, we do not find any infirmity in the acquittal of A5 to A8 also of all the charges and accordingly, the judgment of acquittal passed by the
learned trial Judge is also confirmed. In fine, Crl.A.Nos.374, 394 & 810 of 2001 are dismissed confirming the judgment dated 9.4.2001 made in
S.C. No. 4 of 1999 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Court of Sessions for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee. It
is seen from the records that the appellants/A1 & A3 are on bail. The learned Sessions Judge, Court of Sessions for Exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast
Cases, Chennai at Poonamallee shall take steps to secure their presence and commit them to prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence.