Case Note & Summary
The appeal before the Bombay High Court arose from an order passed by the Special Court under the Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act), refusing to permit the accused to examine four defence witnesses. The accused, thirteen in number, were facing trial in MCOC Special Case No.21 of 2006 for their alleged involvement in the serial bomb blasts that occurred on 11 July 2006 in Mumbai's local trains, resulting in 187 deaths. The prosecution case was that the accused were members of Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and had conspired to plant bombs. After the prosecution closed its evidence, the accused filed an application to summon 79 defence witnesses. The Special Court initially directed issuance of summons to some of these witnesses, including Smt. Chitkala Zutshi (sanctioning authority under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act), and three Deputy Commissioners of Police: Vishwas Nangre Patil, Milind Bharambe, and Dilip Sawant (who had recorded confessions of accused in another MCOC case, Special Case No.4 of 2009). The accused contended that these confessions, made by members of the Indian Mujahideen, admitted responsibility for the same train blasts, thereby showing the innocence of the present accused. However, the prosecution raised an objection, arguing that confessions recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act in another case are not admissible in the present trial. The Special Court, after earlier allowing the summonses, ultimately rejected the prayer for these four witnesses by its order dated 1 August 2012. The accused preferred the present appeal under Section 12 of the MCOC Act, contending that the refusal denied them a fair opportunity to defend themselves, especially given the gravity of the charges and the potential death penalty. The State, represented by the Advocate General, supported the trial court's order, asserting that Section 18 of the MCOC Act constitutes a complete code regarding the use of such confessions. The High Court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 23 October 2012, but the text of the judgment provided does not include the final decision.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to issue summons to defence witnesses whose testimony, based on confessions of other accused in a separate MCOC case, was claimed to be relevant to show that a different organization was responsible for the 2006 Mumbai local train blasts, thereby exonerating the present accused
Law Points
- Right of accused to lead defence evidence
- Relevancy of confessions recorded in another case
- Admissibility of confessions under Section 18 of MCOC Act
- Fair trial
- Provisions of MCOC Act regarding appeals
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (11) 60
Criminal Appeal No. 972 of 2012
Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary with Ms. Naima Shaikh for Appellants; Mr. D.J. Khambatta, Advocate General with Mrs. Revati Mohite-Dere, PP with Ms. U.V. Kejriwal, APP for the State
Kamal Ahmed Mohammed Vakil Ansari and 12 Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against an interlocutory order of the Special Court under the MCOC Act refusing to permit the accused to examine defence witnesses.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought to set aside the order dated 1 August 2012 passed by the Special Judge, MCOC Special Case No.21 of 2006, refusing to issue witness summonses to four witnesses (Smt. Chitkala Zutshi, Dy.C.P. Vishwas Nangre Patil, Dy.C.P. Milind Bharambe, and Dy.C.P. Dilip Sawant) and to allow them to examine these witnesses as part of their defence.
Filing Reason
The trial court initially allowed the summoning of these witnesses but later, upon fresh objection by the Special Public Prosecutor, reversed its decision, holding that the evidence sought to be adduced (confessions of other accused in another case) was not admissible or relevant. The appellants contended that this evidence was crucial to establish that other persons had confessed to the same crimes, which would cast reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case and was therefore necessary for a fair trial.
Previous Decisions
The Special Judge, MCOC Special Case No.21 of 2006, passed an order on 1 August 2012 declining to issue summons to the four witnesses after having earlier directed their issuance. This order is the subject of the present appeal.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred in law and in facts by refusing to summon the four defence witnesses, given their alleged relevance to the defence of the accused.
Whether the confessions of accused persons recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act in a separate trial can be brought on record as defence evidence in the present trial to show that other persons had claimed responsibility for the same acts.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the proposed witnesses' evidence was essential to demonstrate that other accused in MCOC Special Case No.4 of 2009 had confessed to carrying out the 11 July 2006 train blasts, which would establish the appellants' innocence. They emphasized that the charges being of the gravest nature with a possible death penalty, a full opportunity to defend themselves must be granted. They also contended that the Special Court's initial order allowing the summonses was improperly reversed at the instance of the prosecutor.
The State contended that the confessions recorded under Section 18 of the MCOC Act in another case are inadmissible in the present proceedings because Section 18 is a complete code governing the use of such confessions. They argued that the trial court's order refusing to summon the witnesses was legal and justified.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellants contended that the allegation against them was that they were the members of the SIMI, and that it is pursuant to a conspiracy hatched by them, that the offences of blasting the bombs in the Mumbai local trains had taken place on 11 July 2006.
According to him, the confession had been recorded under section 18 of the MCOC Act, which forms a complete Code in respect of such confessions, and that they can be used only in the manner stipulated by the said section.
Procedural History
On 11 July 2006, serial bomb blasts occurred in local trains of Western Railway, Mumbai, causing 187 deaths. Six different crimes were initially registered and later taken over by the Anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai. Provisions of the MCOC Act were subsequently applied. MCOC Special Case No.21 of 2006 was instituted against the appellants. Charge was framed on 6 August 2007. Recording of prosecution evidence commenced on 8 December 2007 and closed on 4 April 2012. The accused then filed an application (Exhibit 2891) seeking to summon 79 defence witnesses. The Special Court initially directed issuance of summons to some of the witnesses, including the four at Serial Nos. 63 to 66. After two defence witnesses were examined, the Special Public Prosecutor raised an objection regarding the witnesses at Serial Nos. 63 to 66, and the court called for specification of the purpose of summoning. Upon hearing objections, the Special Court passed the impugned order on 1 August 2012, declining to issue summonses to those four witnesses. The accused appealed to the High Court under Section 12 of the MCOC Act. The appeal was admitted, and with consent of parties, heard finally. Arguments were heard, and judgment was reserved on 23 October 2012 and pronounced on 26 November 2012 (the text of the final decision is not provided).
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Control of Organized Crime Act, 1999 (MCOC Act): 3(1)(i), 3(2), 3(4), 12, 18
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302, 307, 326, 436, 427, 120B, 120A, 123, 124, 34
- Indian Explosives Act, 1884:
- Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984:
- Indian Railways Act, 1989:
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967:
