CASE NAME :- CBI vs ABU SALEM ANSARI AND ANR.
PETITIONER:- C.B.I.
RESPONDENT:- ABU SALEM ANSARI
ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONER :- Mr. A. Sharan, ASG
Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Adv.
Mr. B. Krishna Prasad,Adv.
ADVOCATES FOR RESPONDENT:- Mr. Sushil Karanjkar, Adv.
Mr. K.N. Rai,Adv.
CASE NUMBER :- CRIMINAL APPEAL :328 OF 2009
Citations: (2011) 4 SCC 426
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Section 299 of the code of criminal procedure
Sub-section (1) of section 299 crpc
Sub- section (2) of section 299 crpc
Sub-section (3) of section 299 crpc
Constitution Of India – Article 226, Constitution Of India – Article 227; Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 [repealed] – Section 19
TADA ACT
CASES REFERRED :-
State of Maharashtra vs. Abu Salem Abdul Kayyum Ansari (02.12.2005 – BOMHC) : MANU/MH/1646/2005
CORAM:- HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM
FACTS:-
- Abu Salem Ansari, along with his associate Mustafa Dossa and others, was accused in the 1993 Bombay bombings case. The bombings took place in Mumbai (formerly Bombay), India, and resulted in numerous casualties and widespread destruction. The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), India’s premier investigative agency, was tasked with investigating the case.
- Abu Salem Ansari was extradited from Portugal to India in 2005. The CBI filed a chargesheet against him and the co-accused, including Mustafa Dossa, for their alleged involvement in the planning and execution of the bombings. The charges included conspiracy, murder, and other related offenses.
- During the trial, it was alleged that Abu Salem had played a significant role in the conspiracy, including procuring weapons and explosives, and sending people for arms training in Pakistan. The prosecution presented evidence and witness testimonies to establish the involvement of Abu Salem and the co-accused in the bombings.
- The case gained significant attention due to its high-profile nature and the magnitude of the bombings. The CBI sought convictions and appropriate sentences for the accused, holding them accountable for their alleged roles in the coordinated terrorist attacks.
ISSUE:-
- Conspiracy: The prosecution sought to establish that Abu Salem Ansari, along with the co-accused, was involved in a conspiracy to carry out the 1993 Bombay bombings. The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to prove their involvement in planning and executing the attacks.
- Role of Abu Salem: The prosecution presented evidence to establish Abu Salem’s role in procuring weapons and explosives, sending individuals for training in Pakistan, and coordinating the logistics of the bombings. The issue was whether the evidence and testimonies were sufficient to establish his active participation in the conspiracy.
- Extradition: Abu Salem Ansari was extradited from Portugal to India to face trial. The issue at hand was whether the extradition process was legally valid and complied with international extradition laws.
- Admissibility of Evidence: There may have been issues related to the admissibility of certain evidence, such as statements given by Abu Salem to law enforcement agencies or confessions made by the co-accused. The defense might have challenged the admissibility of such evidence based on legal grounds.
- Identification of Accused: In cases involving multiple accused, identifying the specific roles and actions of each individual can be a challenge. The issue might have focused on correctly attributing specific acts to Abu Salem and other co-accused.
- Sentence: If the accused were found guilty, the court would have considered the appropriate sentences for their involvement in the bombings. The issue would have revolved around determining the extent of their culpability and the severity of the punishment.
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER
- Lack of Concrete Evidence: Abu Salem may have argued that there was a lack of concrete evidence linking him to the conspiracy and the execution of the 1993 Bombay bombings. He may have claimed that the prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence to establish his direct involvement in the planning or carrying out of the attacks.
- Coerced Confessions: Abu Salem might have contended that any confessions or statements attributed to him were obtained under duress or through coercion by law enforcement agencies. He may have argued that such confessions should be deemed inadmissible as evidence against him.
- Extradition Issues: If there were any concerns or irregularities in the extradition process, Abu Salem might have raised objections regarding the legality and validity of his extradition from Portugal to India. He might have argued that any evidence obtained or statements made during the extradition process should be excluded from the trial.
- Role of Other Accused: Abu Salem could have claimed that he had a lesser role compared to the other co-accused individuals. He might have contended that his involvement in the conspiracy was minimal or peripheral, and thus, the charges against him should be reduced or dropped.
- Witness Credibility: Abu Salem might have questioned the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses, challenging their reliability, motivations, or potential biases. He may have argued that the witnesses’ testimonies were inconsistent or lacked corroboration, undermining their veracity.
- Violation of Legal Rights: Abu Salem might have raised arguments about the violation of his legal rights during the investigation, arrest, or detention process. He may have claimed that his rights to a fair trial, due process, or legal representation were infringed upon, seeking appropriate remedies based on these violations.
CONTENTION OF APPEALENT:-
Conspiracy and Active Participation: The CBI would contend that Abu Salem Ansari was an active participant in the conspiracy to carry out the 1993 Bombay bombings. They would present evidence, witness testimonies, and any intercepted communications to establish his direct involvement in planning and executing the attacks.
Coordinated Activities: The CBI would argue that Abu Salem, along with the co-accused, played a significant role in coordinating various activities related to the bombings. This could include procuring weapons and explosives, arranging finances, and facilitating the transportation and placement of the explosives at the targeted locations.
Confessions and Admissible Evidence: The CBI would assert that any confessions or statements made by Abu Salem or the co-accused were voluntary and admissible as evidence. They would present the circumstances under which the confessions were made and argue that they were not obtained through coercion or duress.
Witness Testimonies: The CBI would rely on the credibility and reliability of their witnesses, presenting their testimonies to establish Abu Salem’s involvement in the conspiracy. They would argue that the witnesses’ accounts are consistent, corroborative, and provide a clear picture of Abu Salem’s active participation in the bombings.
Extradition and Legality: The CBI would counter any objections raised regarding the legality of Abu Salem’s extradition from Portugal to India. They would argue that the extradition process was conducted in accordance with the applicable laws and international extradition treaties.
Strict Liability: The CBI might contend that Abu Salem, as a key conspirator, should be held liable for the actions and consequences of the bombings, regardless of his specific role. They would argue that the doctrine of strict liability applies, holding him responsible for the acts committed by others in furtherance of the conspiracy.
JUDGEMENT:-
In the present case, regarding the first respondent who was absconding and his case has been split up, the evidence adduced in the earlier trial cannot be used against him except as provided in sub-section (1) of Section 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). If the absconding accused appears again, the prosecution witnesses have to be examined afresh. However, if the witness is deceased, incapable of giving evidence, cannot be found, or their presence cannot be procured without delay, expense, or inconvenience, the prosecution would be justified in relying on the evidence already on record from the earlier trial in the absence of the absconding accused.
In this case, sub-section (2) of Section 299 of the Cr.P.C. does not apply. Therefore, it is clarified that the prosecution may rely on the earlier evidence recorded in the previous trial against the first respondent, subject to establishing the existence of any of the conditions precedent as described in the first part of Section 299 of the Cr.P.C.
