Thread by @LawBeatInd

The Kerala High Court has allowed the appeals of 2 accused persons against their conviction in the Marad twin blasts which rocked Kozhikode city on the lazy noon of Mar 3, 2006.

It has also rejected the appeal by NIA against the acquittal of 2 other accused persons in the matter, stating that, it finds "no reason to upset the finding of acquittal."

"Inexplicable violence as a retaliatory measure against establishments of State, based on religion and community, often questions the secular credentials of a society; particularly of this State which proudly proclaims itself to be the most literate in all of the Country."

It also noted that, "The reverberations of the two Marad incidents; which remain a blot on the secular fabric of the State, is projected as the motive of the twin blasts which rocked Kozhikode city on the lazy noon of 03.03.2006, a Friday."

The brief facts: On 03.03.2006 there were two bomb blasts in Kozhikode Town, in quick succession between 12.30 p.m and 01.00 p.m, at two locations inside the KSRTC and the
Mofussil Bus Stands.

Crime No. 80 and 81 of 2006 were registered respectively at the Kasba and Nadakkavu Police Stations, which were then taken over by the CBCID and later by the National Investigation Agency [NIA].

The Court accepted that the blast occurred in the two bus stands on Mar 3, 2006 at noon as common knowledge, as spoken of by the witnesses who were onlookers.

It further accepted that, "The remnants of the material objects collected from the two sites where the blasts occurred contained explosive substances...inevitably so since the bomb blasts did occur."

It accepted that the "bomb was placed in a black plastic cover in the Mofussil Bus Stand" according to the onlookers. However, refused to accept that that could be projected as a corroboration of a witness' "testimony of having seen two black covers at the Markaz Masjid."

It said, "The police knew beforehand that the bomb at the Mofussil Bus Stand was in a black plastic cover which was seen by the onlookers and the policemen who arrived at the scene, especially, the Sub-Inspector PW38 who came to the scene of occurrence before the blast occurred."

It reasoned, "This could have been conveyed to PW1, who was in police custody, for him to make such a statement."

Importantly, the Court also said, "A1,... had pointed out the Markaz Masjid, the location in which the bombs were placed in the two bus stands, the room in which the bomb was made in KL Arcade and Cannanore Plastic House from which a plastic pot was purchased by him."

Yet, it said, "There is no recovery of any object leading to discovery of a fact from these places which would incriminate A1."

Wrt disclosures by A1, A3, A4 and A7 (PW1), the Court said that they "did not lead to any tangible object and there is no discovery of fact, which was not known to the police."

It said that they "are all in the nature of having converged at the Markaz Masjid before the explosion, then the actual planting of bombs and later converging at Pattalam Mosque after the explosion."

However, it held that "the reference to the bombs and explosion are eschewed, the information supplied is only the converging of the accused at the Markaz Masjid and then at the Pattalam Mosque, which by itself is not an incriminating circumstance."

It further went on to say that "There is no reliable evidence on the preparation or commission of the crime that would incriminate the accused beyond reasonable doubt."

And held that, "The approvers evidence fails miserably in the twin tests; that of inherent reliability and credibility as also on the aspect of corroboration; the latter of which we find to be absent even in a single material particular."

It added that it understands "the inherent difficulty of an investigation, in a case taken over by the NIA, almost four years after the incident."

However, it said the "investigators... did not make a concerted effort to 'go out in the sun' to collect independent evidence of whatever version the accused told them."

It concluded, "In their anxiety to wrap up the case; we say anxiety since we do not think the Officers of the NIA would be ignorant of the law on the subject, they even recorded the confessions made by the accused, clearly inadmissible under Section 25 & 26 of the Evidence Act."