Madras High Court Reverses Acquittal Of Man Who Planned Bomb Attack On LK Advani During His Madurai Rath Yatra In 2011

The bench of Justice P Velmurugan and Justice L Victoria Gowri noted that though the trial court had pointed out certain contradictions for acquitting the accused, the contradictions were not material to go to the root of the prosecution case. The court noted that the contradictions were only minor.

“In this case also, though the learned counsel for the respondent and also the trial Court pointed out certain contradictions and discrepancies, on a careful perusal of the entire records, oral and documentary evidence more so the antecedents of the respondent, this Court finds that the contradictions as pointed by the learned counsel for the respondent are not material contradictions go to the root of the prosecution case. The contradictions pointed out are not only minor contradictions, but also immaterial contradictions which will not go to the root of the case of the prosecution,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal by the Special Investigation Division, CB-CID wing, against the order of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, acquitting the accused. The prosecution's case was that while the case against the accused was pending for attempting to attack former Home Minister LK Advani through a planted bomb, the accused absconded at the preliminary stage. Following this, a non-bailable warrant was issued.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Special Investigation Team, who was the investigating officer of the case, came to know that the accused was hiding in Batlagundu and went to the area along with a team of officers to execute the non-bailable warrant. When the officer tried to execute the warrant, the accused attempted to murder the officer, who escaped without injuries. The team of officers then surrounded the accused and seized the knife from him.

Based on the complaint of the officer, a case was registered and charge sheet was taken on file. Charges were framed for offences under Sections 353, 307, 153(A) of IPC, 16(1)(b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(ii) of Explosive Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001.

After the trial, the court acquitted the accused, noting that there were some procedural irregularities. The trial court noted that the CD file had not been produced, toll records were not produced/summoned, the person from whom the accused may have obtained the explosive materials had not been examined, the bills/vouchers of the private tempo in which the officers travelled was not produced, photographs were not produced, and intimation was not sent to the Chief Controller or Controller of Explosives.

On appeal, the high court noted that the officers could not have been expected to give prior intimation to the local police since they were on an official duty to arrest an accused who had absconded. The court noted that it was natural that the police maintain secrecy in such matters, as the accused would have escaped if he knew about the movement of the police.

The court also noted that one of the reasons given by the trial court was the lack of independent witnesses. The court noted that in cases of this nature, one could not expect total independent witnesses. The court added that merely because the witnesses were officials from the police and revenue department, the court could not throw the evidence unless it was shown that it was unreliable.

“The appellant/CBCID police officials are indisputably competent witnesses. Though Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code says that any statement recorded by the police officials are not admissible in evidence, but however in the cases of this nature, the police officials themselves have been shown as witnesses to the occurrence. If their evidence inspires the confidence of the Court and the defence has not established that their evidences have to be discarded, the Court can rely on the evidence of the police officials,” the court noted.

With respect to the other defects, the court noted that the defects were minor and would not be fatal to the prosecution's case. Thus, the court was inclined to allow CB-CID's appeal and set aside the order acquitting the accused.

The court is yet to sentence the accused. Hearing on sentence is scheduled on October 28.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. T. Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. S. M. A. Jinnah

Case Title: The State v. Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 372

Case No: Crl.A (MD)No.475 of 2019