Bombay HC Upholds Acquittal Of 6 Accused In Goa Blast Case, But Sets Aside Trial Judge's Remarks [Read Judgment]

Division bench of Justice MS Sonak and MS Jawalkar were hearing National Investigation Agency's appeal against acquittal of these accused by the trial court on December 31, 2013. Although the acquittal was upheld, Court set aside the remarks made by the trial judge in the case questioning the veracity of the FIR, expressing disapproval of the same.

All accused are said to have links with Sanatan Sanstha and the trial judge had noted that the prosecution has targeted the so-called non-profit Spiritual organization. However, the bench observed that there was evidence to show that the Sanatan Sanstha had been opposing holding of any Narkasur effigy competition and the explosion took place at a distance of hardly 400 metres from the venue of the Narkasur effigy competition on the night preceding Diwali, when effigies of Narkasur are burnt all over Goa.

Case Background

According to the prosecution, on October 16, 2009, at about 21:30 hours, the improvised explosive device (IED) carried by Accused 1 and Accused 2 in the dickey of an Eterno scooter exploded near Reliance Trade Centre, Margao Goa. On account of such an explosion, both the accused sustained injuries and later passed away.

A case was registered at the Margao Police Station under Sections 120B, 121A, 122, 123, 427 IPC read with Sections 16, 17, 18 and 23 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention ) Act, 1967 and Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

Further, on the same date at about 22:30 hours, on receipt of information, the PSI of Verna Police Station rushed to the spot near Shantadurga Temple, Sancaole and noticed a bag lying suspiciously on the ground adjacent to the road. PSI summoned the services of Bomb Detection Disposal Squad (BDDS). The squad found and diffused an explosive device consisting of four gelatin sticks, 4 electronic detonators with wires, a box containing electric circuits with two 9 volt batteries and a clock.

Thereafter, another case was registered under Sections 121A, 122, 123, 120B, 427 read with Sections 16, 17, 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 6 and 9(B)(2) of the Explosives Act, 1884.

The above two cases were investigated by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) for some time. However, in order dated December 9, 2009, Govt. of India directed the NIA to take up the investigations in the above two cases. Accordingly, the NIA re-registered the cases and carried out the investigation therein.

Submissions

Additional Public Prosecutor P Faldessai submitted that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is quite perverse and therefore, warrants interference. There is overwhelming evidence on record that the incident of October 16, 2009 did take place, in which two of the accused persons died of explosion injuries, APP Faldessai said.

He pointed out that the explosion took place hardly 400 metres away from the stage from which the Narkasur effigy contest was being held and monitored. He also pointed out that the explosion took place when the accused persons were in the process of carrying the IED at or near the stage. The spot was fully crowded, if the accused persons were to have succeeded in doing this, then, a tragedy of most unfortunate proportions would have taken place killing or injuring hundreds of innocent victims. Despite there being overwhelming evidence on record, the learned Special Judge has chosen to seriously doubt "veracity of FIR" itself and this constitutes perversity, APP Faldessai said.

He asserted that the prosecution has produced overwhelming evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the links between Sanatan Sanstha and the accused persons. In fact, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons are the members and sadhaks of the Sanatan Sanstha.

Moreover, Faldessai pointed out that the prosecution has also established beyond reasonable doubt that from 2001 or thereabouts, the Sanatan Sanstha of which the accused persons were members/sadhaks was opposing holding of any Narkasur effigy competition.

On the other hand, Advocates Sanjeev Punalekar and Nagesh Joshi appeared on behalf of the accused. They submitted that in this case, there is absolutely no evidence on record to convict the accused persons and the view taken by the learned Special Judge is not only a plausible view but in fact, it was only the view that could have been taken in this matter. They contended that the sanction under Section 7 of the provisions of Explosive Substances Act is required to be taken from the District Magistrate, such sanction was admittedly not taken in this matter. Therefore, the prosecution under Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was totally incompetent and the learned Special Judge has therefore very correctly acquitted the accused persons, Advocates Punalekar and Joshi submitted.

Judgment

At the outset, after examining the facts of the case and submissions made on behalf of the prosecution as well as the accused, the bench observed that this is a case where there can be no dispute whatsoever that on 16th October, 2009, which was the night preceding Diwali and on which night, effigies of Narkasur are burnt all over Goa, an explosion took place at a distance of hardly 400 metres from the venue of the Narkasur effigy competition.

There is evidence on record that the accused persons had close links with the Sanatan Sanstha and there is evidence on record that this Sanstha for the period between 2001 and 2009 was protesting the holding of any Narkasur effigy competition in the State of Goa. In these circumstances, to suggest that there were any malafides in the launching of the prosecution against the accused persons or to suggest that there was a doubt on the veracity of the FIR, is not proper, the bench said.

Court also said that the prosecution in this case has succeeded in establishing that all the accused persons had very close links and nexus with the institution Sanatan Sanstha. The prosecution has also been able to establish that this Sanstha for about 7 to 8 years prior to the date of the incident was quite vocal in its protest against holding of Narkasur effigy competitions in the State of Goa. There are letters, which constitute documentary evidence which have been placed on record by the prosecution, in which this Sanstha has lodged its protest against holding of such Narkasur effigy competitions, the bench noted.

However, Court said-

"As regards the conspiracy, there is hardly any evidence on record to establish the same. Merely because the accused persons may have links with Sanatan Sanstha and Sanatan Sanstha was opposing to holding of Narkasur effigy competitions, is by no means sufficient to establish the accused persons had conspired to make explosion at such competition on the fateful night of 16th October, 2009.

The prosecution may have established that there was an explosion at Margao. However, that by itself is not sufficient to hold that such an explosion was a result of conspiracy hatched by the accused persons. There is no independent evidence on record to establish the conspiracy or meeting of minds amongst the accused persons. The evidence regarding the conspiracy is quite sketchy."

Finally, Court observed-

"At the highest, some sort of suspicion can be said to have been raised particularly since the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the incident of 16th October, 2009 did take place and the prosecution has also succeeded in proving some of the circumstances concerning the same. The proved circumstances however are not at all sufficient to convict the accused persons. Suspicion, howsoever grave, can never take place of proof which is required in such matters."

Thus, the remarks questioning veracity of FIR were set aside and the special court's decision acquitting all accused was upheld.

Click Here To Download Judgment

[Read Judgment]