2008 Navi Mumbai Panvel Bomb Blast Case Sessions Court Judgement

1 Judgment S.C.660/08

IN THE COURT OF SESSIONS FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY

SESSIONS CASE NO.660 OF 2008

State of Maharashtra. )(At the instance of A.T.S. C.R.No.12/08 )@ 13/08 & 14/08) )....Complainant

Versus

(1) Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari, ) aged 52 years, residing at Room No.204, ) Sanatan Ashram Sakul, Devad, Post : ) ONGS Panvel, Dist. Raigad. )(2) Mangesh Dinkar Nikam, ) aged 35 years, residing at & Post : ) Apashinge, Tal. & Dist. Satara. )(3) Vikram Vinay Bhave, ) aged 26 years, residing at House No.101, ) Shigvan Lane, Post : Varasai, Tal. Pen, ) Dist. Raigad. )(4) Santosh Sitaram Angre, ) aged 26 years, residing at & Post : Lanja,) Angrewadi, Dist. Ratnagiri. )(5) Haribhau Krishna Divekar, ) aged 48 years, residing at Karoti, Post : ) Varsai, Tal. Pen, Dist. Raigad. )(6) Hemant Tukaram Chalke, ) aged 37 years, residing at Sai Sadan, ) Dattawadi, Post : Kherdi, Tal. Chiplun, ) Dist. Ratnagiri. )....Accused.

Coram : H.H.Addl.Sessions Judge, Shri N.V.NHAVKAR.Dated : 23, 25,26,29 & 30/8/2011. (Court Room No.17)

--------Ms. Rohini Salian, Spl. Public Prosecutor, for the State-ATS.Mr. Sanjeev Punalekar, Advocate for the accused.


ORAL JUDGMENT(Dictated in open Court)

1. Accused Nos.1 to 6 are prosecuted on the allegations that

they conspired and carried explosions of bomb by means of improvised

explosive devices at three different places at three different point of

times and days with an intention to strike terror in the section of people,

and Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari facilitated, along with co-accused -

Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave, for procurement of arms and use of mobile

phones obtained by cheating by personation and through forgery of

documents.

2. Briefly, the prosecution story, is narrated as under :-

(i) On 20.2.2008 a bomb blast had taken place at Cineraj

Cinema theatre at Panvel wherein screening of film Jodha Akbar was

going on and Crime No.II-26/08 for the offence u/s 3 of Explosive

Substances Act came to be registered at Panvel Police Station.

(ii) On 31.5.2008 a live bomb was found at Vishnudas Bhave

Auditorium, Vashi and it was detected and defused by the squad and

Crime No.II-88/08 for the offence under Sections 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive

Substances Act came to be registered at Vashi Police Station.

(iii) On 4.6.2008 at 4.10 p.m. a bomb exploded at the four-


wheelers parking lot of Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane, in which 8

persons suffered injuries and Crime No.243/08 for the offence under

Sections 307, 324, 427, 34 of I.P.C. r/w Sec. 3 & 6 of Explosive

Substances Act came to be registered at Naupada Police Station, Thane.

(iv) Investigation of these three cases was handed over to the

Anti Terrorism Squad, Mumbai (ATS) by an order of Director General

of Police, Maharashtra State, and Asstt. Commissioner of Police, Shri

Uttam Chopane was appointed as the Investigating Officer in this case

on 5.6.2008. As per such order, the papers of investigation were handed

over to the ATS on 6.6.2008, and on the same day a crime came to be

registered with the ATS, Mumbai vide Crime Nos.12/08, 13/08 and

14/08 for the incidents of crimes registered at Naupada Police Statio,

Thane, Panvel Police Station and Vashi Police Station, respectively.

(v) The respective police stations had carried out the spot

panchnamas and collected incriminating material found at the

respective spots of the crime. The investigation revealed that detonators

were used in the bomb blast at Panvel and Thane and a live bomb

found at Vashi, which came to be defused, was found containing

electron circuit, timer and battery. It was further found that a battery of

Amco Company was used in the bomb blasts at Panvel and Thane. The


battery used in the Panvel blast was bearing Sr. No.NPJ6-105067 AB

060919, and battery found in Thane blast was bearing Sr.No.NPJ

6-104394 AB 060918. Both these batteries were also having

specification of BP 1.2, 12 volts. It was found that the said batteries

were manufactured by BB Battery Ltd. and marketed by Taffe Source

India Pvt. Ltd., Chennai.

(vi) The Investigating Officer searched for the origination of the

batteries found at the two blast sites and found that those batteries were

sold by Diana Hi Tech to Pitambara Powers, Grant Road, Mumbai and

the statement came to be recorded of the employee of Diana High Tech,

Ms. Pornima Chavan (PW 36). Copies of Invoices and Delivery

Challans were recovered, which are at Exs.142 and 143. Further

investigation proceeded with Pitambara Powers, Grant Road, and

statement of Rakesh Gupta (PW 47) came to be recorded and it was

revealed that the batteries were sold to Gala Electricals. The statements

of the owner and employees of the shop Gala Electricals, Ajit Hiralal

Veera (PW 48), Rajesh Bhguji Chikane (PW 49) and Chandreshekhar

Narhari Phadke (PW 50) and Munnalal Sharma came to be recorded.

(vii) During the investigation, to search for the persons involved

in the three incidents the Investigating Officer proceeded on the basis


of list of vehicles parked at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane and suspected

that one of the vehicles parked on the day of the incident at Gadkari

Rangayatan, Thane, Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing

No.MH-06-AK-5558, is in the name of Gurukripa Pratishtan, Sanatan

Sankul, Devad, Taluka Panvel, Dist. Raigad. It was revealed that one

Ramesh Gadkari working as a Sadhak for the Sanatan Sanstha, staying

along with his family at the Ashram at Devad was called for enquiry,

and according to the investigating officer, he disclosed his involvement

in the crimes.

(viii) Investigating Officer further searched for the residential

premises of accused Ramesh Gadkari and he was arrested on

16.6.2008. During the search of the said premises, the police found two

tickets of Drama 'Aamhi Panchpute' for the show at Gadkari

Rangayatan on 4.6.2008 at 4.30 p.m.

(ix) On 16.6.2008 at 4 a.m. accused Mangesh Dinkar Nikam

was found present at the Ashram of Sanatan Sanstha at Devad and his

mobile found with him came to be seized.

(x) The Vehicles Register of the Parking Lot at Gadkari

Rangayatan came to be seized under panchnama and statements of the

employees of the Gadkari Rangayatan were recorded. Two Vehicle


Registers at Sanatan Sansth's Ashram at Devad were also seized and

statements of the concerned persons at the Sanatan Sanstha were

recorded in respect of the same.

(xi) The investigation further proceeded on the basis of

suspicion that since the Sanatan Sanstha and Hindu Janjagruti Samiti

had opposed the screening of film 'Jodha Akbar' and drama 'Aamhi

Panchpute' since it had distorted historical events and the drama

'Aamhi Panchpute' depicted parody of various characters of

Mahabharat.

(xii) As per the investigation, in the interrogation with Accused

Ramesh Gadkari and Mangesh Nikam, they revealed the names of

Vikram Vinay Bhave and Santosh Sitaram Angre. Therefore they were

arrested on 17.6.2008. It further revealed in the investigation that

accused Santosh Angre had used motorcycle bearing No.MH 04-

AK-9905 to carry out one of the blasts. Therefore the said vehicle came

to be seized.

(xiii) It was further revealed that accused Ramesh Gadkari had

procured mobile handsets and SIM cards by cheating the distributors of

mobile operators, and it was revealed from the mobile recovered from

Shashikant Sakpal, who is friend of accused Santosh Angre. It was


further revealed that accused Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave had

visited the shop Gala Electricals at Lamington Road and had purchased

the electron circuit of the brand name Vega Kits and 12 volts batteries

of Amco Company. Further investigation was carried out on the basis

of the radio frequency sensors found at the blasting sites and also the

timers of Electron Company. It further revealed that the shop situated at

Lohar Chawl in the name of Dhodia Electricals had sold 8 timers of

Electron Company on 14.5.2006 to accused Ramesh Gadkari, who was

accompanied by two others, and it was procured by Ramesh Gadkari in

the name of firm Urmesh Electricals. Investigation further proceeded to

find out the said firm and it was revealed that Ramesh Gadkari was a

partner in the said firm, and was retired from the partnership.

(xiv) On 19.6.2008 accused Vikram Vinay Bhave was interroga-

ted while in custody and at his instance an information revealed that he

procured gelatin and detonators, had conducted test blast at his home

and procured two revolvers from Bihar and shown his willingness to

disclose the same. Therefore the investigating agency proceeded to

village Varsai, Tal. Pen. The police officers accompanying accused

Vikram Bhave to village Varsai found the test blast site and they

collected the soil from such site. The officers further seized one


electric circuit from the cousin of accused Vikram Bhave and further

proceeded to recover gelatin sticks and detonators from river Banganga.

They further found involvement of Haribhau Divekar in disposal of the

blast material and revolvers, and he was arrested at the same moment.

They further recovered revolvers and they returned after such recovery

on 21.6.2008. Thereafter Section 201 of IPC along with Sec.3, 25 of

Arms Act and Sec.6(a)(b) of Explosive Act, 1984 were added. It was

further revealed that the scooter bearing No.MH-06-AE-7151 of

Shekhar Bhave was used at the time of planting the bomb at Vishnudas

Bhave Auditorium, and therefore the said scooter came to be seized.

(xv) On 21.6.2008 involvement of accused Hemant Tukaram

Chalke was further revealed and a mobile phone found came to be

recovered from him. On 23.6.2008 the house search of accused

Hemant Chalke was conducted and further recovered a Tata Indicom

mobile phone.

(xvi) During further investigation it was revealed that accused

Ramesh Gadkari had purchased a hair wig from Vrindavan Beauty

Parlour at Dadar, and the statement of the employee working at the said

beauty parlour, Amar Jaanu Bane (PW 59) came to be recorded.

(xvii) During interrogation with the accused the investigating


officer revealed that Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave had asked

Tukaram Khandu Rane (PW 51) for procuring the gelatin sticks and

detonators, who in turn asked his brother Chandrakant Khandu Rane

(PW 52), who further asked his friend Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53)

to procure the same. It was revealed that said Harischandra Chorge was

knowing one Chand Abdul Nadaf (PW 54), through whom they

procured 20 gelatin sticks and 20 detonators. The statements of these

witnesses came to be recorded before the Magistrate u/s 164 of Cr.P.C.

and it is the case of the prosecution that in the month of April 2008

such procured gelatin sticks and detonators by Chandrakant Rane was

handed over by him to accused Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave.

(xviii) It is the prosecution case that the investigation found a

larger conspiracy to strike terror in the section of the people. Therefore

they had targeted the the section of people who were viewers of the

film Jodha Akbar and drama Aamhi Pachpute, and they had carried out

bomb blasts using explosive substances and improvised explosive

devices, and therefore provisions of Sections 15, 16 & 18 of Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 were applied against the said accused

persons.

(xix) During further investigation by the different teams of


investigating officers, the statements of witnesses from the said three

sites came to be recorded and certain witnesses described the persons

and the investigation proceeded with test identification parades of the

accused persons. Some of the accused were respectively identified by

those witnesses at being present at the blasts. It was revealed by one of

the witnesses, Mayuresh Kanekar, that he had accompanied the accused

to Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi, where-from a live bomb was

found, which came to be defused lateron.

(xx) Further investigation proceeded in search of mobile

subscribers and its details from Tata Indicom Services and it revealed

that accused Ramesh Gadkari had submitted an application for mobile

connection with the photograph wearing hair wig and with the name of

one Srivastava with forged documents, electric bill and driving licence,

when the said documents were further investigated.

(xxi) In the test identification parades conducted, the witnesses

from Gala Electricals and Dhodia Electricals further identified Ramesh

Gadkari, Vikram Bhave, Mangesh Nikam at various point of time being

accompanied for procurement of the electric circuits. RF remote

sensors and Selectron Timers. The articles seized at three blast sites

were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The


Investigating Officer further submitted proposal for sanction to

prosecute these accused persons under the provisions Explosive

Substances Act, and the sanction orders came to be passed by the

District Magistrate, Thane and Raigad, respectively. On 11.9.2008 a

proposal came to be submitted to the State Government for sanction to

prosecute the accused persons for the offence under the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and such sanction order came to be

passed.

3. Having collected the evidence against these six accused

persons, the chargesheet came to be filed against them for the offences

u/s 324, 307, 427, 419,, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC, Sec.3 & 4 of

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, Sec.3, 4, 5 & 6 of

Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act, 1984,

Sec.3 r/w 25(1-a)(b) of Arms Act, u/s 15, 16, 16(1)(b) and 23 of

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, before the Addl. Chief

Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai, who committed it to the

Court of Sessions, Mumbai for trial according to law.

4. During the pendency of the trial, Accd.No.5-Haribhau


Krishna Divekar was released on bail, whereas Accd.Nos.1 to 4 and 6

are in jail custody.

5. The prosecution opened the case with draft charge at Ex.17

and the defence replied and objected for such draft charge as per Ex.17-

A. The charge u/s 307, 419, 468, 471 of IPC, 15, 16, 18 and 23 of

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 was further objected.

Finally, my Ld. Predecessor, after hearing the prosecution and the

defence, framed the charge at Ex.18 on 15.1.2009.

6. Charge came to be framed against Accd.Nos.1 to 6 for the

offences u/s 120-B, 307, 324, 201 of IPC, u/s 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive

Substances Act, 1908 and u/s 9(b) of Explosive Act and u/s 15, 16,

16(1)(b), 18 and 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

7. A distinct charge against Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari came

to be framed for offences u/s 419, 465, 468 & 471 of IPC. A distinct

charge was also framed against Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave for the

offence u/s 3, 25(1)(b)(a) of Arms Act. As against Accd.No.1-Ramesh

Gadkari, Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre a


charge came to be framed, along with other charges, for the offence u/s

3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and

Section 427 of IPC.

8. These charges were explained to Accd. Nos.1 to 6, who

pleaded not guilty to the offences and claimed to be tried as per their

respective pleas recorded at Exs. 19 to 24. The defence of the accused

persons is of total innocence. Accordingly, the prosecution proceeded

to lead evidence in support of its case.

9. The prosecution examined in all 105 witnesses and brought

on record various documents bearing Exs.1 to 403 and further relied on

the articles listed at the chargesheet.

10. My Ld. Predecessor recorded the statements u/s 313 of

Cr.P.C. of Accd.Nos.1 to 6 at Exs.406 to 411 respectively. All the

accused specifically denied the incriminating circumstances against

them from the evidence on record. Their defence appears to be total

innocence.


11. The following points arise for determination, and I have

recorded the findings thereon for the reasons discussed thereafter :-

POINTS

(1) Whether the prosecution proves that on 20.2.2008 at Cineraj

Cenema Hall at Panvel at about 3.15 p.m. Accd. Nos.1 to 6 in

execution of their conspiracy caused explosion of bomb to prevent the

screening of film Jodha Akbar ?

(2) Whether the prosecution proves that on 31.5.2008 at about

18.30 hours at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha, Sector 15A, Vashi, Accd.

Nos.1 to 6 in execution of their conspiracy kept a live bomb, in the

form of improvised explosive device containing gelatin sticks and

detonators, amonium nitrate, electric circuit, timer and remote sensor

with battery, for explosion to prevent performance of the drama Aamhi

Pachpute ?

(3) Whether the prosecution further proves that on 4.6.2008 at

about 4.10 p.m. at the four wheeler parking lot at Gadkari Rangayatan

Natyagriha, Thane, Accd. Nos.1 to 6 in execution of their conspiracy

caused explosion of a bomb resulting into injuries to 8 persons to

prevent performance of the drama Aamhi Pachpute ?

(4) Whether the prosecution further proves that at the aforesaid


places of the three incidents Accd. Nos.1 to 6 in execution of their

conspiracy by explosion of bomb or attempt to explode the bomb

intended to cause death of unknown persons assembled there and the

said accused had knowledge that they would have been guilty of

murder having caused injuries to those unknown persons ?

(5) Whether the prosecution further proves that on 4.6.2008 at

about 4.15 p.m. at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane by causing explosion of

bomb and other explosive substances, Accd. Nos.1 to 6 voluntarily

caused injuries to the persons who appeared to view the drama Aamhi

Panchpute ?

(6) Whether the prosecution further proves that Accd. Nos.1 to

6 in between January 2008 to June 2008 in execution of their

conspiracy while committing explosions of bomb destroyed the

evidence thereof, and aided and abetted one another while destroyng

such evidence, to screen away themselves from legal punishment ?


6 in between January 2008 to June 2008 at Rahaticha Mal, Varsai, Tal.

Pen, Dist. Raigad, at Apashinge, Satara, at Vishnudas Bhave

Auditorium, Vashi, Cineraj Cinema, Panvel, and at Gadkari

Rangayatan, Thane, were found in possession of explosive substances


such as amonium nitrate, petroleum hydrocarbon oil, aluminium and

accessories like R.F. circuits with remote controls, batteries, timer,

plastic containers, nail, etc. to form improvised device and caused its

explosions ?


6 in between January 2008 to June 2008 Accd.No.1 to 6 intended to

strike terror in section of people, possessed the bombs, explosive

substances and then aided and abetted by facilitating commission of

terrorist acts and caused explosion by means of bombs at Cineraj

Cinema Hall at Panvel on 20.2.2008 and at Gadkari Rangayatan at

Thane on 4.6.2008 at 16.10 hours and by planting bomb (Improvised

Explosive Device) at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on

31.5.2008 at about 18.30 hours ?

(9) Whether the prosecution proves that on 4.6.2008 at Gadkari

Rangayatan, Thane Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, Accd. No.3-Vikram

Bhave and Accd. No.4-Santosh Angre committed mischief by planting

explosive devices and causing explosion and thereby caused damage to

the public property valued more than Rs.1000/- ?

(10) Whether the prosecution proves that Accd. No.3-Vikram

Bhave on 19.6.2008 disclosed his conscious possession of two country-


made fire arms and 92 bullets without holding a valid licence and it was

so discovered upon his deposition to the police officer while in

custody ?

(11) Whether the prosecution proves that on 26.5.2008 at a

mobile shop at Panvel Accd. No.1 Ramesh Gadkari cheated by

personation to Smt. Darshan Kaur pretending himself as Ramnarayan

Govind Shrivastav, residing at A-1, 503/Naresh/Mahesh Apartgment,

Dhantoli Raod, Nagpur and fraudulently and dishonestly induced her to

deliver four Tata Indicom SIM cards ?

(12) Whether the prosecution proves that on 26.5.2008 at Sakshi

Park, Building No.2, Room No.202, C-Wing, Malewadi Stop,

Matheran Road, Panvel, Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari forged a motor

driving licence and electricity bill for producing it for purchase of 4

Tata Indicom SIM cards, 1 Reliance SIM card and 2 mobile handsets ?

(13) Whether the prosecution proves that on 26.5.2008 at the

Mobile shop at Panvel Dist. Raigad, Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari used

the aforesaid forged documents such as motor driving licence and

electricity bill for the purpose of cheating, intending that it shall be used

as a genuine, which he knew at the time when used it to be forged

documents ?


(14) Whether the prosecution proves that sanction to prosecute

Accd. Nos.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under the Explosive Act

and Explosive Substances Act, 1908 is legal and valid ?

(15) Whether the prosecution proves that sanction to prosecute

Accd. Nos.1 to 6 for offence punishable under the Unlawful Activities

Act, 1967 is legal and valid ?

(16) What order ?

The findings on the aforesaid points are as under :-

(1) No.

(2) Yes, as regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari & Accd.No.3-

Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.Nos.2 & 4 to 6.



(4) No.








(8) No.


Vikram Bhave. No, as regards Accd.No.4 .

(10) No.

(11) No.

(12) No.

(13) No.

(14) Yes.

(15) No.

(16) As per final order.

REASONS

12. The prosecution examined Bharat Sashi Nikalje (PW 1) at

Ex.27A, who is Asstt. Manager at Cineraj Cinema Hall at New Panvel

for about 7 to 8 months prior to the incident, narrated the incident

occurred on 20.2.2008 at about 3.15 p.m. He identified the FIR (Ex.28.)

lodged by him at New Panvel Police Station.

13. Viaykumar Manoharlal Agarwal (PW 2) is examined at Ex.

30. He is Manager at Cineraj Cinema Hall at New Panvel since the year

2001. He narrated the information received by him on 20.2.2008 of the


incident of explosion of bomb.

14. Ajit Gopal Parab (PW 3) is examined at Ex.31. He is

employee of the owner of Cineraj Cinema Hall named Sanjay Gupta.

He reached the Cineraj Theatre after receiving information of explosion

of bomb. He stood as a panch to the spot panchnama at Ex.32. He

identified his signature on the labels of the panchnamas at Exs.33 to 41

and identified Art.Nos.1 to 9.

15. Bhaurao Shridhar Birajdar (PW 4), who was PSI attached to

Panvel City Police Station, is examined at Ex.42. On 20.2.2008 he was

on duty at the police station. After he received information of explosion

of bomb at the Cineraj theatre, he went there and recorded the

complaint of Bharat Nikalje (PW 1) as per his narration, which is at Ex.

28 and its FIR format at Ex.28A.

16. Manoj Chandradev Yadav (PW 5) is examined at Ex.43. He

is Projector operator in Cineraj Theatre. He was on duty on 20.2.2008

and had started screening of film Jodha Akbar at 1 p.m., had taken

interval at 3.05 p.m. and re-started the film with trailor of film Race at


3.15 p.m. and at such time Bharat Nikalje (PW 1) approached him and

asked to stop the screening of the film. Accordingly he stopped the

screening of the film.

17. Sudhakar Manaji Parab (PW 6) is examined at Ex.44. He

was attached to Bomb Detection and Disposal Squad at Thane. He was

called on duty on 20.2.2008 at Cineraj Cinema, Panvel in respect bomb

explosion, and went to the spot along with the staff, Explosive Vapour

Detector, Sniffer Dog, Deep Search Metal Detector, Surveillance

Optical Cell, X-Ray Machine. They reached the spot at 6.40 p.m.,

carried out process of detection of explosive substances and articles at

the spot and prepared report as per Ex.45.

18. Sunil Bhagwandas Talreja (PW 7) examined at Ex.46 was

called for panchnama for taking swabs at the spot of explosion at

Cineraj Cinema at Panvel, and the panchnama of taking swabs for

chemical analysis was prepared as per Ex.47, and he identified the

labels containing his signatures at Exs.48 to 50. He identified Art. Nos.

10 to 12.


19. Dattatray Dharma Dhangat (PW 8) examined at Ex.51 is the

Muddemal Clerk at Panvel Police Station. He carried the muddemal

articles in Crime No.26/08 to the Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina

along with covering letters at Exs.52 and 53, bearing endorsements of

the laboratory of having received the articles for chemical analysis and

the chemical analysis report is Ex.55.

20. Suryakant Dattatray Ghadge (PW 9) examined at Ex.64 was

attached to Panvel City Police Station as Sr. Police Inspector, was on

duty on 20.2.2008, received information of the explosion at Cineraj

Cinema, reached to the spot, called Bomb Detection & Dispoal Squad,

carried out panchnama as per Ex.32, obtained report from BDDS as per

Ex.45, collected Art. Nos.1 to 9, collected swabs at the spot of

explosion for chemical analysis as per Ex.47, forwarded these Art. Nos.

1 to 12 for chemical analysis and obtained reports as per Exs.55 to 57.

21. Bhau Vithoba Narawade (PW 10) examined at Ex.58 was

attached to Vashi Police Station as Administrative Police Inspector,

was present on duty at the police station on 31.5.2008, proceeded to

discharge his patrolling duty in a mobile van and at 6.30 p.m. received


information from Sr.PI Chaugule that at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium

one unattended bag is found. Therefore he proceeded to the said place.

He along with staff met Manager Girish Chaware, who had taken them

to the bag lying in the auditorium. He inspected the bag and found

electronic instrument showing red colour light raising suspicious that it

might be a bomb. Therefore he summoned BDDS and continued to

prepare the spot as per Ex.59. He further recorded the complaint as per

Ex.60, collected the articles from the place of incident as per Arts.13 to

18, each of them sealed with labels bearing signatures of the panchas as

per Exs.61 to 66.

22. Shridhar Digambar Silavane (PW 11) examined at Ex.70

had gone to Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on 31.5.2008 to

watch the drama, obtained pass and entered the auditorium as the drama

had already started and occupied the seat between Seat Nos.10 to 13 in

Row 'C' and sat with the children. During interval he noticed one bag

under front seat and called the door keeper and asked him to see as to

whose bag is. The door keeper expected it to be of a customer, who

might have gone outside in the interval, and the playing of the drama

Aamhi Panchpute continued. He noticed that the chair under which the


plastic bag was noticed remained vacant inspite of the drama being

started playing. Then he again called the door keeper, who found it to

be a plastic carry bag. The door keeper also found that some light was

of blinking colour. The administrator and police arrived.

23. Ashok Bharma Nauvkudkar (PW 12) examined at Ex.71,

was attached to BDDS at Thane, was called on duty at Vishnudas

Bhave Auditorium on 31.5.2008 upon message from Police Control

Room. Upon receiving the message at 18.45 hours he reached to the

theatre at 20.15 hours along with Sniffer Dog, X-ray machine, Cortex,

Exploder Dynama, Electric, Non-electric detonators, bomb blanket,

bomb circle, safety fuse, hand held metal detector, etc. The sniffer dog

was taken near the bag, who gave signal of having explosives in it and

they confirmed that the bag containing explosive like detonators linked

with electric circuit, battery cells, pencil cells to keep at a safe distance

beneath the sand bags circle, defused it by utilizing Cortex method and

prepared the report of entire incident as per Ex.72. He opinion that if

the explosion would have burst, everything would have been destroyed

and some one must have been died or injured coming within the

periphery of 30 meters of the plastic bag.


24. Sharad Shankar Thokal (PW 13) examined at Ex.73 is the

Police Constable attached to Vashi Police Station. He carried six

muddemal packets to Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina, Santacruz

as per covering letter at Ex.74.

25. Devappa Haribhau Gura (PW 14) examined at Ex.75 was

called by the Vashi Police Station at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha on

31.5.2008 to act as a panch for panchnama of the plastic bag found

unattended and the further process taken up by BDDS to defuse the

bomb as per panchnama Ex.59. He identified Art.Nos.13 to 18 found at

the spot and his signature on the labels at Exs.61 to 66.

26. Girish Shyamkant Chaware (PW 15) examined at Ex.78 was

the Asstt. Manager at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha. He narrated the

incident occurred on 31.5.2008 at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha.

27. Ramesh Vithal Surve (PW 16) examined at Ex.79 was the

Door Keeper at Vishnudas Bhave, who attended the call given by

Shridhar Silvane (PW 11). The witness narrated the incident occurred a

at the spot.


28. Gulab Krishna Kardile (PW 17) examined at Ex.80 was PSI

at Vashi Police Station on 31.5.2008 and was discharging his duty as

PSI from 9 p.m. onward. He registered Crime II-88/08 u/s 4, 5 & 6 of

Indian Explosives Act pas per complaint of Narawade (PW 10) at Ex.

60 and its FIR format at Ex.60A.

29. Sudhir Ramchandra Chowgule (PW 18) examined at Ex.81

was Sr. Police Inspector at Vashi Police Station on 31.5.2008. He

narrated the initial investigation and identified the covering letter at Ex.

74 sent to Forensic Science Laboratory at Kalina, Mumai and report of

chemical analysis at Ex.77.

30. Swapnil Manohar Dalvi (PW 19) examined at Ex.83 was

working as Booking Clerk at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane, attended his

duty on 4.6.2008 at 12 O'clock to 10.30 p.m.. On that day the drama

Aamhi Pachpute was scheduled to be played in the theatre at 4.30 p.m.

He sold tickets between 12 O'clock to 4 p.m. to the customers and

thereafter went to the canteen to take tea, which is located at ground

floor. While returning, Watchman Sakpal had shown him one

suspicious article in the parking lot and he went towards it along Sakpal


and found one black coloured plastic bag lying there. The bag was

open. Then he went to the office and met his superios, Hanif, Dilip

Gaikwad, Kishor Surve and Vivek Mhatre, and told them about the

article lying in the parking lot. When he returned along with them

towards the parking lot while at a distance of 10 to 12 feet away from

the bag he experienced explosion and sustained injuries on different

parts of his person due to the substances in the article blasted. He was

scared and stopped hearing due to big noise. Vivek Mhatre also

sustained injuries along with others and those were taken to a nearby

hospital where police recorded his complaint as per Ex.84.

31. Kishor Arjun Surve (PW 20) examined at Ex.85 is the

Wireman working at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was on duty on

4.6.2008 at 4 p.m. He narrated the incident of explosion at Gadkari

Rangayatan, Thane.

32. Ramesh Sakharam Dhuri (PW 21) is examined at Ex.86 is

the Police Sub Inspector attached to Bomb Detection & Disposal

Squad. On 4.6.2008 he received message from Control Room at about

16.20 hours that there is a bomb blast at Gadkari Rangayatan theatre.


Therefore he proceeded with instruments and Sniffer Dog. He along

with other staff was shown the spot and explosion wherein one bicycle

and wooden roof was damaged. He inspected the entire theatre

premises and at the spot of blast noticed pieces of detonators, battery,

circuit, iron nails and black powder and the Sniffer Dog having smelt

the said articles, signaled it being explosives. He prepared report of

examination as per Ex.87, and the articles recovered from the spot,

according to him, were normally improvised explosive device and only

are being used in the bomb with a view to cause injuries to the persons

nearby to the explosion.

33. Mahadev Bhagwantrao Bhosale (PW 22) examined at Ex.89

is the Door Keeper at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was on duty on

4.6.2008 and he was panch witness to the collection of the articles at

the spot of explosion as per panchnama at Ex.90. He identified the

Article Nos.19 to 35 containing labels Exs. 91 to 107. He identified the

bicycle Art.36 seized from the spot of explosion.

34. Madhukar Motiram Gaikwad (PW 23) examined at Ex.109

is the Security Guard working at Shivaji Hospital at Kalwa on 4.6.2008.


He was called by the police on 6.6.2008 to act as a panch for collection

of pieces of nails recovered from the body of the injured persons as per

panchnama at Ex.110 and articles being Art.Nos.37 and 38.

35. Rajesh Mahadev Salvi (PW 24) examined at Ex.111. He had

gone to watch the drama Aamhi Pachpute at Gadkari Rangayatan

Theatre on 4.6.2008 and at 4.05 p.m. he had sat on the bench at the side

of the parking lot. While facing towards the gate, he saw four persons

coming briskly from office side and came towards the parking lot,

meanwhile explosion occurred and he ran away and lateron raised

sensation of injury on his waist. These injuries were treated at Shivaji

hospital at Kalwa.

36. Vivek Pandurang Mhatre (PW 25) examined at Ex.112 is

the Carpenter working with Thane Municipal Corporatin. He was on

duty at Gadkari Rangayatan on 4.6.2008 and at about 4.10 p.m. Dalvi,

Sakpal and another employee of the Corporation came towards the

cabin and told that there is one bag lying unattended in the parking lot

and it looked suspicious. He narrated the further incident occurred.


37. Dilip Mahadev Gaikwad (PW 26) examined at Ex.113 is the

employee of Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was called in the office

of the Manager on 16.6.2008 for panchnama of recovery of Vehicle

Register. The panchnama is at Ex.114 and the vehicle parking register

is at Ex.115. During cross-examination he further identified the

signatures of other employees, Kadam and Bhagwat at Ex.116 and Ex.

117, and signature of Rajderkar at Ex.118.

38. Hanif Ahmed Mahapure (PW 27) examined at Ex.119 is the

employee of Thane Municipal Corporation, working at Gadkari

Rangayatan on 4.6.2008. He narrated the incident of having received

information of one bag lying in the parking lot and he heard the noise

of the blast, and further incident e xperienced by him at the spot.

39. Vilas Sahdev Kadam (PW 28) examined at Ex.120 is the

Security Guard at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. He was on duty on

4.6.2008 between 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. He attended the stand at the Gate,

entered the numbers of the vehicles entered in the premises in the

Vehicle Register maintained. He narrated that entry dated 4.6.2008 in

the first shift are in the handwriting of Bhagwat and the entries in the


second shift of the same date are in his handwriting.

40. Mahaesh Shriram Rajderkar (PW 29) examined at Ex.121

was having additional charge of Manager of Gadkari Rangayatan. He

narrated the incident of handing over Vehicle Register at Ex.115 to the

police.

41. Anil Dhondu Pawar (PW 30) examined at Ex.124 acted as a

panch witness on5.6.2008 for the panchnama of seizure of clothes of

the injured as per Ex.125. He identified those clothes at Art.39 colly.

And the labels with his signature placed affixed on these articles at Exs.

126 & 127.

42. Sachin Tanaji Adhalge (PW 31) examined at Ex.128 acted

as a panch witness to the panchnama of collection of nails by the police

as per Ex.129. He identified the phial containing the nails at Art.40.

43. Shridhar Raghunath Sakpal (PW 32) examined at Ex.130 is

the Security Guard at Gadkari Rangayatan. He was on duty on 4.6.2008

between 3 p.m. to 11 p.m.. When he was taking round in the theatre at


4.05 or 4.10 p.m. he noticed one unattended bag in the four wheeler

parking lot on the side of the wall. He went near the bag and noticed

two boxes in the bag. He raised suspicion in the mind and called other

employees. When they were at a distance of 7 to 8 feet, there was a

blast and he had sustained injuries.

44. Vilas Vasudev Acharekar (PW 33) examined at Ex.132 is

sthe panch witness for the house search of Accd. No.1 Ramesh

Gadkari. He narrated the process of house search and the panchnama as

per Ex.133. He identified the articles seized as per Art.40 colly. And

the label bearing his signature as per Ex.134.

45. Sunny Lahu Ekade (PW 34) examined at Ex.135 is the

panch witness to the seiszure of Hero Honda Splendor two wheeler

bearing No.MH 06 AK 5558 as per panchnama at Ex.136.

46. Kishore Dattaram Dawale (PW 35) examined at Ex.137 is

the panch witness for defusion process of 27 detonators and 15 gelatin

sticks as per panchnama at Ex.138. He identified the paper bags and the

bottles containing remnants of the defusion process at Arts.41 & 42 and


also labels bearing his signatures as panch at Exs.139 and 140.

47. Purnima Mohanbhai Chavan (PW 36) examined at Ex.141 is

working in Sales Department of the office of Diana High Tech Power

System Ltd. as Sales Coordinator, and she told that they purchased

battery from Tafe Source India Limited, Chennai. She identified the 10

invoices at Ex.142 for the sale of 47 batteries along with delivery

challen at Ex.143 and the dispatch instruction as per Ex.144.

48. Santosh Bharat Kanekar (PW 37) examined at Ex.145 is

running a production house named Atharva Theatres and the drama

Aamhi Pachpute was produced by him. On 24.5.2008 the first show of

the said drama was held in Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane and he

narrated the incident of having received letters from Hindu Janjagruti

Samiti on 5th or 6th May 2008 raising objection that there is some sort of

mockery of Mahabharata in the said drama. He identified the said letter

at Ex.146 and further narrated his talk with Dr. Udai Dhuri after the

letter. He further identified another letter at Ex.147.

49. Deepak Digambar Thombare (PW 38) examined at Ex.148


is the panch witness to the panchnama of recovery of nails from the

person of the injured at Thane Civil Hospital as per panchnama at Ex.

149. He identified the pieces of nail at Art.43.

50. Vijay Prabhakar Bhor (PW 39) examined at Ex.150 is an

employee of Dainik Sanatan Prabhat and working as a journalist since

the year 2000. He had handed over his vehicle Hero Honda Splendor

bearing No.MH 04 AQ 9905 for canvassing to Sanatan Sanstha as per

the writing given to the Sanstha as per Ex.151.

51. Vinayak Narayan Sakdev (PW 40) examined at Ex.152 is

another panch to the seizure of vehicle No. MH 04 AQ 9905 as per

panchnama Ex.153.

52. Chirag Vichal Rambiya (PW 41) examined at Ex.154 is the

photographer by profession. He was called by the police at Vikhroli

ATS office on 19.2.2009 and he had taken photographs of the articles

shown by the police by his digital camera and then reached to the

Khadi at Kanjurmarg. He has taken photographs of the defusion

process of the explosive articles. He identified those photographs at


Exs.156 to 183, and also identified his C.D. of the photographs at Art.

44 colly.

53. Pralhad Pandurang Kanse (PW 42) examined at Ex.184 is

the Police Naik attached to Naupada Police Station. He had carried the

muddemal articles in Crime No.243/08 to Forensic Science Laboratory

at Kalina along with covering letter at Ex.185 and the endorsement of

the laboratory is as per Ex.186.

54. Gajanan Dhondiba Kuchik (PW 43) examined at Ex.187 is

the Police Naik attached to Naupada Police Station. He carried the

muddemal articles to F.S.L. at Kalina along with forwarding letter at

Ex.188, and the endorsement of the laboratory is as per Ex.189.

55. Vijay Krishna Chowdhary (PW 44) examined at Ex.190 is

the Police Constable attached to Naupada police Station. He carried the

muddemal articles to the F.S.L. at Kalina as per covering letter at Ex.

191 colly., and the endorsement of the laboratory is as per Ex.192.

56. Mahendra Nagesh Waghmare (PW 45) examined at Ex.193


was called by the ATS Police on 30.6.2008 for the panchnama of the

samples of gelatin sticks and detonators for being exploded at Girgaum

Chowpaty as per panchnama at Ex.194, and he identified the residues

of the blast collected in the bottle at Art.45, and also identified the

gelatin kept in the at Art.46.

57. Vijay Prabhakar Shirodkar (PW 46) examined at Ex.196 is

doing business in the name of Urmesh Electricals at Kalyan since

16.6.2003. It is a partnership firm previously owned by Ramesh

Gadkari and then his father purchased the same in the year 2003.

According to him, the firm was in existence since the year 1980 and

Ramesh Gadkari was the owner. He identified the Deed of Partnership

at Ex.197 and the Deed of Retirement at Ex.198. According to him, he

has not purchased any articles as per the Invoice at Ex.199.

58. Rakesh Bihari Gupta (PW 47) examined at Ex.199 is

running a shop in the name of Pitambara Babar. He sells all varieties of

batteries, hobby kits and toys, and he is running the shop since the year

2003. According to him, the ATS police came to him on 9.6.2008,

enquired about 12 volts, 1.2 Amco battery. He stated that they used to


purchase such type of batteries from Dyna Power, Andheri, and had

purchased 47 such batteries from Dyna Power on 17.10.2007 and had

sold 25 out of these batteries to Gala Electronics on 1.11.2007, and 4

were sold to Rakshak System on 29.10.07. He identified the Invoice of

Dyna Power is at Ex.142, and the delivery challan at Ex.143 bears his

signature. He further clarified that the second page of Ex.143, which is

list of battery numbers, does not bear his signature, and heis not in

possession of the originals of this list, and he was not shown this list.

59. Ajit Hiralal Vira (PW 48) examined at Ex.200 is the

Manager of Gala Electronics situated at Lamington Road since 14

years. They sell articles required in educational projects, robot kits and

allied articles required for manufactures of educational projects and

robot kits. According to him, Rajesh Chikne is the Salesman, and

Chandrashekhar Phadke and Munnalal Sharma work in their workshop.

They are selling the articles in name of Vega Kit. They have

registration trade mark as per Ex.201. In the month of June 2008, ATS

police had come to his shop, shown him photograph and asked him

whether the articles shown in the photographs are available in his shop.

The photograph was that of remote control circuit known as R.F.


Circuit, and he stated to the police that it is available in the shop and the

said photograph is at Ex.202. He narrated the incident of November

2007 when he had sold R.F. Circuit and battery to two persons, and

those two persons later on came to the shop and asked to change the

circuit and battery since it was not operating properly. He refused to

exchange the articles. Those two persons had again purchased R.F.

circuit and batter from his shop in the month of November or December

2007. Again in the month of December 2007, the said two persons

came to his shop with two R.F. circuits and two batteries that were sold

by him. The said persons had also brought two remotes which were

sold to them with R.F. circuits and batteries. Then asked him that they

want to use only one remote for working out one R.F. circuits and one

battery and they do not want that both the remotes will work out are

made applicable to activate both R.F. remotes and circuits. The said

persons asked him to make such arrangement in the remote. He

described one person being old at the age of 50 to 53 years having

height of 5'.5" and the second person around 25 to 30 years of age

having height about 5'.5" to 5'.8". The police recorded his statement on

10.3.2008. The police again came to him on 2..7.2008 and called him to

Bhoiwada Police Station. They asked him to go to Arthur Road Jail for


identification of the person who purchased the batteries and circuits

form his shop. He along with Rajesh Chikne and Shandrakant Phadke

and Munnalal Sharma went to Arthur Road Jail. Then he was shifted in

one separate room. He found there 12 to 13 persons standing in one

row. There was SEO sitting on chair. The SEO asked him to look at the

13 persons standing and to identify the persons amongst the 13 persons

standing who had come to his shop for purchasing the articles. He

walked along the standing persons and put fingers on their hands and

went towards the SEO, and told him that these two persons had visited

his shop for purchasing the articles. While deposing before the Court

the witness identified Mangesh Dinkar Nikam and Ramesh Hanumant

Gadkari as those two persons.

60. Rajesh Babuji Chikne (PW 49) examined at Ex.204 is the

Salesman in Gala Electronics. He narrated the incident of visit of the

police to their shop on 9.6.2008.

He further narrated the incident of the two persons visiting

the shop in the month of December 2008 and they had purchased one

kit containing R.F. Receiver, Transmitter (Remote). These two persons

again came after 4 to 5 days and wanted the same kit but in smaller


size. Accordingly, a smaller kit was sold. Again these two persons had

come to the shop on third occasion, and asked whether coding can be

done from transmitter to one receiver only. He consulted the two

persons from the workshop named Sharma and Phadke. The police

recorded his statement on 10.6.2008. On 2nd July 2008 he was called at

Bhoiwada Police Station and was taken to Arthur Road Jail for

identification parade. He pointed out two persons in the identification

parade as Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave who had come to his

shop. The witness also identified those two persons in the Court with

the same names.

61. Chandrashekhar Narayan Phadke (PW 50) examined at Ex.

205 is working in the workshop of Gala Electronics alogn with

Munnalal Sharma. He narrated the incident of two persons visiting the

workshop in November 2007 to enquire whether from one receiver to

one transmitter should work and second receiver should not interfere

and whether he will be able to code it in such fashion. He had opened

one of the Vega kit and instructed them how to do it by soldering the

kit at two spots. They had taken 15 to 20 minutes to understand the

whole system, and then those two persons departed from the workshop.


The police recorded his statement in June 2008 and again called him at

Bhoiwada Police Station and was taken to Arthur Road Jail where he

identified Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave as being the said two

persons who had come to their workshop.

62. Tukaram Khandu Rane (PW 51) examined at Ex.206 has

testified that his brother Chandrakant looks after agriculture. The

witness is acquainted with accused Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave

as he used to attend Satsang being held by Sanatan Sanstha, and those

accused used to come to his village. In the month of April 2008 the

accused came to his house and enquired about the material of blasting

which they required for sinking (digging) well in the premises of

Santan Ashram at Panvel. Then he called his brother Chandrakant in

the present of Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave. The asked his

brother Chandrakant about blasting material required by the accused.

Chandrakant told that he will make enquiry with his friend

Harishchandra Ghorge and will tell about this within a week. On this

accused Gadkari asked the witness to keep advance of Rs.1000/-

towards the price of material and further told that he will come in next

week. The witness handed over Rs.1000/- given by Gadkari to


Chandrakant. His brother Chandrakant then availed the blasting

material. Then in the next week accused Gadkari and Bhave came to

their house and he handed over the material of blasting, which

contained 20 detonators and 20 gelatin sticks. His statement was

recorded by a Court at Dadar on 2.8.2008 as per Ex.207, which bears

his signature.

63. Chandrakant Khandu Rane (PW 52) examined at Ex.208

narrated the incident further that he went to village Nedi and met

Chorge (PW 53) and made enquiry about explosive material required

by Sanatan Ashram for sinking (digging) well. then he made phone call

to his friend Chandbhai, who asked Chorge to come ot village Kolad.

Then they met Chandbhai at Kolad with whom Chorge made inquiry of

explosive materials. Chandbhai then asked them that they will stand

near on the side of road where one Rajasthani person used to come with

whom they shall make inquiry about explosive materials. They waited

on the road.Then they noticed one jeep which halted on the road. Then

one person got down from the jeep. Then Chandbhai went towards that

person. Chandbhai had come with material and told its price Rs.900/-.

He paid Rs.900/- to that person as per instructions of Chandbhai. Then


he took custody of the material. The material was packed in paper and

was put in a plastic bag. Then he returned back to his brother at village

Vakan, retained the material with him and gave it to Accd. Nos.1 and 3

when them came to him in third week of April 2008.

64. Harishchandra Maruti Chorge (PW 53) examined at Ex.210

is from village Nedi. He was approached by Chadrakant Rane (PW 52).

He told that Sanatan Ashram required explosive material for sinking

(digging) well. He made a phone call to Chandbhai in the presence of

Chandrakant Rane and enquired about the same. He along with

Chandrakant went to Kolad in the night, met Chandbhai, then

Chandbhai told that one Rajasthani person comes there and they shall

try if he had got material with him. Then they both went near one hill

as per instructions of Chandbhai. Then Chandbhai also joined them at

the hill. They were standing there. Then one passenger jeep came there

and one person got down frwom the jeep and then Chandbhai went

near that person and made inquiry. Then that person handed over the

articles to Chandrakant. Those were gelatin sticks and detonators.

Chandrakant Rane paid Rs.900/- to that person, and then they went to

their respective houses.


65. Chand Abdul Nadaf (PW 54) examined at Ex.212 is

working as Supervisor with one Imtiyaz Bhai, who is doing business of

crushing stones. He came in contact with Chorge (PW 53). In April

2008 Chorge told him on phone that his persons require explosive

substance for sinking (digging) well. Chorge with one person came to

him in the night and they three proceeded towards the hill where the

work of Rajasthani person was in progress. They waited there when

one passenger jeep in the meanwhile came. One person got down from

the jeep, who was looking as Rajasthani, and Chandbhai asked him if

blasting material for digging well can be availed. He told in the

affirmative. Therefore he sent Chorge and the person with him towards

the Rajasthani person. Then he, Rajasthani person, Chorge and other

person went towards the site where work of Rajasthani person was in

progress. Then the Rajasthani person taken out and handed over 20

gelatins and 20 detonators to Chorge (PW 53) and his companion paid

Rs.900/- to the Rajasthani person. Then they all dispersed from that

place to their respective destinations.

66. Hitesh Chimanlal Dodia (PW 55) examined at Ex.214 is

running a shop at Lohar Chawl in the name of Dodia Electricals. They


sell switch gear and automation articles. He along with his brother

Ketan works in the said shop. On 8.6.2008 police had come to his shop

and made enquiry about timer. They had brought number of timer i.e.

'800M', 12 Volts D.C. and another number '0803B03-188'. The police

asked him whether timer of these numbers had been sold from his shop.

He told the police that he used to sell such timers from his shop. The

police verified invoices from his shop. One of the invoices dated

14.5.2008 was in the name of Urmesh Electricals, Panvel. As per that

invoice, they had sold 8 timers of above numbers. On 14.5.2008 one

person had come to his shop and made inquiry whether 800 M 12 Volts

D.C. Timer is available in his shop in eight quantity. The timer was

available in the shop. He requested for for discount and when the

witness refused, the said person left the shop and again on the same day

at 7.30 p.m. came to the shop along with two persons, requested for

discount on the purchase of such articles.. He purchased 8 items with

discount and invoice was prepared and signed by his brother.

67. Shekhar Vijay Bhave (PW 56) examined at Ex.217 is the

cousin of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave. According to him, Vikram Bhave

studied upto 10th Standard and his father was dealing in preparation of


Ayurvedic medicines and for some time Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave was

looking after the said business. Since prior to 5 to 6 years Accd.No.3-

Vikram Bhave started working in temples and for some time was

working in Sanatan Ashram, Panvel. The witness possessed a scooter

bearing No.MH-06-AE-7153 and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave used to

avail the vehicle for his work. In the month of June 2008 Accd.No.3-

Vikram Bhave came to him with circuit and handed over the same to

him and told that he has brought it for the purpose of water pump in the

house which is installed on a common well. The police came to his

house on 19.6.2008 with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. The police told

that they have noticed the involvement of of his vehicle in the incident

occurred at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre, Thane, and he handed over

the keys of the scooter No.MH-06-AE-7153, and the police attempted

to start the vehicle with the key, however, the vehicle could not start

and therefore the police again handed over the key to him, and he had

taken the vehicle to Bhoiwada Police Station on 21.6.2008 and handed

over to the police. His statement came to be recorded as per Ex.218.

68. Jaikumar Ramlochan Pandey (PW 57) examined at Ex.219

is the native of Bihar. He came to Mumbai and worked with firm


Urmesh Electricals with Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari until September

2000 and left the job with Ramesh Gadkari, and in the month of

December 2007 Ramesh Gadkari called him on phone and asked if he

will get a fire arm. He replied that he do not know anything about this

and he should not talk with him in this connection.

69. Mayuresh Atmaram Konekar (PW 58) examined at Ex.221

is commercial artist and works as Visualizer in Pitambari Products Pvt.

Ltd., Thane. He has done design work for Sanatan Sanstha, Panvel. He

was acquainted with Accd. No.1 Ramesh Gadkari, who used to meet

him in Sanatan Ashram, Panvel. He is also knowing Accd.No.3-Vikram

Bhave. He narrated the incident of 30.5.2008, that he had received a

phone call from Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, who asked him to come to

Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi. He had taken a half day leave

from the office and went to Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha at Vashi.

Vikram Bhave again called on phone and asked him to purchase ticket

and watch the drama "Aamhi Pachpute". He watched the dram until

recess and again received a phone call from Vikram Bhave at the

interval, who called him out of the theatre, he came out of the theatre

and saw Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and


Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam out side the theatre. Vikram introduced

him with another person Chalke, who was there, and all of them went

to Vashi Railway Station and then to Belapur by train. Then in one

Indica Car they went to the house of Ramesh Gadkari and after taking

tea, Chalke went away and four of them came to the S.T. Stand, Panvel

and from there went to Varsai to the house of Accd. No.3-Vikram

Bhave. It was 1.30 a.m. in the night. Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari told

him that at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha the drama "Aamhi Pachpute"

is going to be played on the day following and they have to give their

slogans and asked him whether he can give slogans. They went to sleep

and got up in the morning on 31.5.2008. They all had decided and

agreed to give slogans in front of Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium because

there was mockery against the Hindu Devtas. The slogans were to the

effect "ihMdU Qamaa-caa ivajaya Asaao,,,,, ,Qama- dao*yaaMcaa inaYaoQa". At about 12.20 p.m.

Accd.No.1 Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.no.2-Mangesh NIkadm

proceeded on scooter and he along with Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave

stayed at the house. Then half an hour lateron he and Accd. No.3-

Vikram Bhave proceeded in a rickshaw to Pen S.T. Stand and

therefrom went to Panvel by S.T. Outside S.T. Stand at Panvel, they

noticed Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam


having two bikes. He sat on the rear seat of the scooter which was in

the hand of Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave sat on the another bike

in the hand of Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam. Then they all went to

Gavdevi Temple at Vashi. There they did chanting, and then all four

again went to Vishnudas Bhave Natyagriha.

Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) further narrated that Mangesh

Nikam entered the theatre followed by him and he sat on Seat No.41 at

the back side. Mangesh Nikam sat in the front side. After 10 minutes

lights inside the theatre went off the drama started. Within 5 to 10

minutes he received a phone call of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave and

asked him to come out of the theatre. Then he went out side the theatre

and saw Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. He asked Ramesh Gadkari as to

why he was called out. Ramesh Gadkari told that he has to go and then

both of them went to Vashi Railway Station, and he went to Thane by

train from there onwards to his house at Ghatkopar. On the next day he

read in the newspaper that one live bomb was found inside the

Vishunudas Bhave Auditorium. Then he made phone call to Accd. No.

3-Vikram Bhave and asked about this. Vikram Bhave told him that it

was fortunate that he had come outside the theatre. The statement of

the witness Mayuresh Konekar was recorded as per Ex.222.


70. Amar Janu Rane (PW 59) examined at Ex.223 is doing

business of preparing hair wigs and having shop in the name Vrindavan

Beauty Parlour at Shivaji Mandir, Dadar. On 25.6.2008 police had

come to his shop with one person under veil. The police took out the

veil and informed that the said person is Ramesh Gadkari. The witness

narrated that after recollecting memory, he was of the impression that

he had seen the said person Ramesh Gadkari prior to 3 to 4 months

when he had been to his shop for purchasing artificial mustaches and

beard and had purchased one set of it. According to him, Gadkari

wanted to purchase the articles after setting, and such articles were

handed over to Gadkari after setting for Rs.1800/-.

71. Manish Dattaram Surve (PW 60) examined at Ex.224

narrated about his flat being rented out to one Sudesh Dalvi in the year

2007 vide agreement of license as per Ex.226.

72. Smt. Darshan Majorsingh Kaur Randhawa (PW 61)

examined at Ex.227 stated that she works in one of the shops at Old

Panvel of Tata Tele Services Maharashtra Ltd. In that shop they sell all

types pf mobile phones along with SIM cards. On 21.6.2008 police


visited the shop and asked about the 4 SIM Cards purchased in the

name of Ramnarayan Srivastav. The Manager Ajaysingh Rajput

referred them to her. She went through the record and noticed the

record having 4 xerox copies of application form for purchasing SIM

Cards. All these applications were in the name of Ramnarayan

Srivastav signed by the said person. She further stated that the original

applications were forwarded to Andheri Office for onward processing

and she had given 4 SIM cards to that person immediately. She further

stated that the applications were not supplied by the person who had

come along with photographs and the person presenting the

applications was different from the photographs. She had asked the

person why he is purchasing 4 SIM cards at a time and he told that he

had to give it in gifts. When police had come to her shop for enquiry,

they were accompanied by one person whose face was covered with

veil. The police removed the veil from the face of the said person and

asked her whether he is the same who has purchased the SIM cards and

she answered in the affirmative. She identified Ramesh Gadkari in the

Court and further stated that the original applications are the same

which were handed over by accused Ramesh Gadkari for purchasing

the SIM cards and those applications are at Exs.228, 229, 230 & 231.


73. Babruwahan Ramrao Kadam (PW 62) examined at Ex.232

working as Deputy Engineer with MSEB stated that in June 2008 police

made enquiry in respect of electricity bill of Manish D. Surve and

another electricity bill in the name of Ramnarayan Srivastav, which are

at Exs.233 and 234. According to him, the consumer number shown in

the xerox copy of the bill in the name of Ramnarayan Srivastav has not

been allotted by their office and the meter number mentioned therein

was also not allotted by them and he had given the report of verification

as per Ex.235.

74. Darshansingh Bhagwansingh Randhawa (PW 63) examined

at Ex.236 is the Nodal Officer with Tata Tele Services Maharashtra

Ltd. He had received a letter from Addl. Commissioner of POlice on

26.6..2008 at Ex.238. He replied the same as per Ex.239. He supplied

the call details as per Ex.240. Again he received a letter dated 2.8.2008

from the Addl. Commissioner of Police as per Ex.241, by which letter

they wanted the original documents given by the customer. He supplied

the same along with letter at Ex.242 and those 4 documents are at Exs.

228 to 231.


75. Vilas Raghunath Godambe (PW 64) examined at Ex.243 is

working as Cashier at Gadkari Rangayatan Theatre. On 4.6.2008 he

was on duty between 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. He attended the duty at 2 p.m.

in the canteen. Before 4 p.m. one person had entered in the canteen and

demanded water. He has further stated that he pointed out the place

where the water was available in the canteen. The said person after

drinking water returned back and asked him whether he saw the drama

Aamhi Panchpute and he answered in the negative. Meanwhile another

person came there to whom the person with glass of water asked as to

whether his vehicle is parked and about the bag, and the said persons

replied that it is in the dickey of the vehicle. Thereafter within 10 to 15

minutes there was blast with loud noise and there was smoke every

where. The witness further stated that he went outside the canteen and

stood on the lawn. The police then came to him, made inquiry and

recorded his statement on 20.7.2008. He further states that on

18.8.2008 he was called at Vikhroli ATS office and was taken to Arthur

Road Jail for identification parade. He identified two persons in Arthur

Road Jail from amongst the dummies. He identified the person as the

one who had come in the canteen and demanded water as Accd.No.1-

Ramesh Gadkari and another who had dialogue with the first one as


Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre.

76. Sharad Prabhakar Bali (PW 65) examined at Ex.244 is

running a Vadapav Stall in front of S.T. stand at Panvel. He narrated

the incident of 20.2.2008 when he had gone to Cineraj Cinema Hall to

see a movie Jodha Akbar. Before entering the hall after getting ticket,

he was wandering around the theatre and he had noticed two persons

who came on a bike. One person got down from the bike and went to

avail a ticket, and the person on the motorcycle went out side with the

bike. Then again the said bike rider came to the theatre with another

person. The witness further states that he went inside the theatre and

those three persons who had come there on the bike also entered the

theatre. In the interval he came out of the theatre and again went inside

and heard noise of bursting like crackers. The witness further narrated

the incident that in the month of August 2008 he was called in Arthur

Road Jail where he identified those three persons to whom he had

watched in the theatre while coming on the bike and according to him

those are Ramesh Gadkari, Mangesh Nika and Vikram Bhave.

77. Suresh Rajaram Shinde (PW 66) examined at Ex.247 has


not supported the prosecution case and nothing substantial came out of

his cross-examination conducted by the prosecution.

78. Prabhakar Takarji Yeshwante (PW 67) examined at Ex.248

is the Special Executive Officer. He received a letter from Mr. Rathod

attached to ATS and he was asked to come at Bhoiwada ATS Police

Station for holding identification parade as per the letter at Ex.250. He

had gone to the police station on 2.7.2008 at 10 a.m. and Mr. Rathod

gave him idea and particulars of identification of the accused by

witnesses. According to him, in the first identification parade Hitesh

Dodia and Ketan Dodia identified Ramesh Gadkari, and in the second

identification parade Hitesh Dodia and Ketan Dodia identified Mangesh

Nikam and Hemant Chalke.

According to Prabhakar Yashwante (PW 67), in the second

identification parade the witnesses named Ajit, Munnilal Sharma,

Rajesh Chikne and Chandrashekar Phadke did not identify anybody.

Then he prepared identification parade report as per Ex.251.

79. Dattaram Jairam Kambli (PW 68) examined at Ex.252 is the

Special Executive Officer. He was requested by ACP Mr. Chopane


attached to ATS on 18.8.2008 to conduct identification parades.

According to him, there were five accused persons to whom the

witnesses named Sharad Bali and Vilas Godambe were to identify. He

held the identification parade in three sets i.e. in two sets there were

two accused each and in the third set there was one accused. According

to him, in the first set, the witness Sharad Bali identified accused

Vikram Bhave and Santosh Angre and the witness Vilas Godambe

identified accused Santosh Angre, and in the second set none of the

witnesses identified accused Mangesh Nikam and Chalke, and in the

third set Ramesh Gadkari was identified in both the sets. The witness

prepared the identification parade report in his handwriting as per Ex.

253.

80. Nurulla Hajmatulla Shaikh (PW 69) examined at Ex.254

was called by Vikhroli Police Station on 16.6.2008 to act as a panch

and the police told him that they have to take search of the apprehended

persons. There was one accused with the police, whose name was

referred as Mangesh. The police taken his search and one black

coloured mobile of Nokia Company was found in the left pocket of his

pant. The police prepared the arrest and seizure panchnama and written


down the mobile number and SIM card number, and he identified the

panchnama at Ex.255. It bears his signature, and further identified the

mobile and SIM card at Art,47 colly. He further identified the label

affixed to the packet of those articles bearing his signature at Ex.256.

The witness further states that on 17.6.2008 he was again called by the

police at the police station, where two accused were present. He

referred one of them as Vikram Bhave and he does not remember name

of the other accused person. The police had taken search of these

persons in his presence, and a mobile of Sony Ericson company was

found. The police had taken out the SIM card and nothing was found

on the person of other person. The police prepared arrest and seizure

panchnama as per Ex.257.It bears his signature and he further identified

the mobile and SIM card at Art.48 colly.

81. Rakesh Shrikrishna Dawade (PW 70) examined at Ex.259 is

the panch witness to the seizure of the mobile phone from Sandip

Sakpal as per panchnama at Ex.260, and he identified the said mobile,

SIM card and battery which are at Ex.49 colly., and he further

identified the packet and label bearing his signature affixed on the

article as per Ex.261.


82. Gajanan Mansingh Rathod (PW 71) examined at Ex.263 is

the Clerk from R.T.O., Nagpur. Their office received a letter calling

particulars about the motor vehicle licence relating to MDL

No.MH-31-10573/98. According to him, the record was searched, and

it was found that the said number was entered in the Manual Register in

the name of Wajidali Sayyedali, resident of Taj Baug, Ayyat Colony,

Nagpur. He identified the letter as per Ex.264 giving such number and

also produced the relevant extract of the register at page 73, a copy of

which is brought on record at Ex.265. He further stated that after

11.8.1998 they started preparing computerized record and the computer

copy regarding alleged MDL number is at Ex.266.

83. Sandip Shashikant Sakpal (PW 72) examined at Ex.267 is

working in Parle Products as Excise Assistance since 2008. I was

working as Accountant with Sanatan Ashram and with Saptahik

Sanatan Prabhat. He knew Santosh Angre., who was residing in

Sanatan Ashram. On 15.6.2008 he had occasion to go to Sanatan

Ashram for Seva, and while returning he asked Angre for his mobile to

hear Bhajans. Therefore Angre handed over the said mobile. He heard

Bhajans from the mobile at his house upto 11 p.m. and on the next day


he went to his office in the morning. He received phone call from his

wife that police had taken Santoshi Angre in custody, and he was called

at ATS police station at Bhoiwada with mobile of Angre. His statement

was recorded before a Magistrate, which is at Ex.268.

84. Dr. Uday Bhivaji Dhuri (PW 73) examined at Ex.272 is

running an organization in the name Hindu Jana Jagruti Samiti

formulated in the year 2002 having office at Naupada, Thane. He is

inviter of the said Samiti for the area of Mumbai and Navi Mumbai,

and the aim of the Samiti is to prevent the mockery of Hindu gods

being done in the theaters, dramas, in advertisement, in paintings, etc.

The witness further states that they used to protest such activities by

demonstration with silence and by writing to Censor Board. They had a

dialogue with drama producers to stop such type of mockery of Hindu

Gods. They had also submitted representations to the Chief Minister

and other administrative authorities for stopping such nuisance. The

witness further clarified that he had carried out silent protest against

performance of the drams “Bighadle Swargache Dwar”, “Yada

Kadachit”, Deva Adi Koknat Yeva” and “Dev Karil Love” . According

to him, such protests were launched by them at the theatres in Dadar,


Vile Parle, Kalidas Theatre, Mulund, Vishnudas Bhave Theatre, Vashi

and Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. The witness further explained that he

knows Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave. He further explained that

they had raised objection against performance of the Drama Amhi

Pachpute and had discussed with Santosh Pawar and Santosh Kanekar

relating to the mockery of Hindu Idols in their drama Aamhi Pachpute.

The witness further stated that he addressed letters to themfor removing

objectionable portion which are affecting Hindu sentiments and he

identified those letters being at Exs.146 and 147.

85. Narayan Ramkrishna Mulye (PW 74) examined at Ex.273 is

working at Sanatan Sanstha at Panvel. He identified accused Ramesh

Gadkari and Vikram Bhave and further stated that police enquired

about two-wheeler vehicles of the Ashram, and that the police had

taken two wheeler vehicle in their custody.

86. Abhay V ijay Vartak (PW 75) examined at Ex.278 has

stated that he works in Sanatan Ashram at Panvel in construction

section and also renders other services for the last 10 years. According

to him, the Ashram is having 10 two-wheelers and 7 to 8 four-wheelers.


The police had visited the Ashram for enquiry about vehicle

No.MH-06-5558, which is a Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle. He

further stated that one Vehicle Register is maintained at the respective

centre of the Ashram for the use of the vehicles at the Ashram, and he

identified the two registers at Arts.50 and 51, and further identified the

entries in respect of vehicle No.MH-06-AK-5558.

87. Ashok Jagannath Nimkar (PW 76) examined at Ex.279 is

working in Account department of Panvel Sanatan Sanstha Ashram. He

identified the List of Honorarium of the Ashram at Ex.280 bearing

signatures of the persons to whom the honorarium is paid.

88. Dnyaneshwar Dhondiba Kumbhar (PW 77) examined at Ex.

283 is the panch witness, residing at Borgaon, Dist. Satara. He was

called by the police at village Apshinge and he identified the

panchnama at Ex.284 drawn at the house of accused Mangesh Nikam

and further identified the Art.53 colly. to 61 seized at the house of

accused Mangesh Nikam at village Apshinge.

89. Augustian Excel Dias (PW 78) examined at Ex.293 is the


panch witness to the seizure of the registers at Arts.50 and 51 and the

diary at Art.62 as per panchnama at Ex.294.

90. Pawar Venkata Ananta (PW 79) examined at Ex.296 is an

Agent of State Bank of India at Pen. He appeared on behalf of the

Bank, identified the letter at ex.297 sent by ATS, Mumbai and

submitted the particulars of the account in the name of Vikram Bhave

and those account details are at Ex.298 to 300.

91. Preetam Pradeep Mhatre (PW 80) examined at Ex.301 is the

panch witness. He stated that on 19.6.2008 after the police officer

asked at the Campus of Bhoiwada Police Station, he had shown his

readiness to act as a panch. They further stated that one person named

Vikram Bhave has made a statement before the police that “he used to

prepare bombs and has stored some articles in his house and will point

out the place”. The witness further stated that a memorandum statement

of accused Vikram Bhave bearing his signature is at Ex. 302. It is

further stated that he along with police officers and accused Vikram sat

in one vehicle and another panch and other police staff sat in another

vehicle and proceeded as per the instructions of the accused to Pen city


and first went to the Pen Police Station. He further narrated that one

officer and constable was taken from Pen Police Station and Vikram

Bhave taken them to his house. It is further stated that accused Vikram

Bhave called his brother from adjoining house and asked him to take

out prepared bombs and articles required for preparing bombs that were

handed over to him. The brother of the accused brought a box from his

house, and the police opened the box and they found it containing a

remove control and electronic items and the police recovered those

articles as per panchnama at Ex.303. He further identified the Art.62

colly. and the labels affixed to it as per Ex.304.

Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) further narrated the incident of

Vikram Bhave taking them to one hill and by digging recovered two

revolvers, which are at Art. 63 colly. which are having labels affixed to

it with his signature which are at Exs.305 and 306. He further stated

that bullets were also found in the ditch and those are at Art.64 colly.

and electronic detonators were also found in the said ditch. It is further

stated that Vikram Bhave had taken them towards a river and he had

taken out one bag from the river water and they were 19 gelatin sticks

with one wire bundle in the bag and those are at Art.65 colly. He

further narrated that thereafter they halted in the Pen city in the night


and on the second day Vikram Bhave took them to the house of

Haribhau Divekar, who pointed out the place of the river where articles

were thrown, and his memorandum of statement is at Ex.307, and one

gunny bag was recovered from the river water, the bag was opened and

the articles therein were seized as per panchnama at Ex.308.

92. Anil Vishwas Tarte (PW 81) examined at Ex.310 is the

Police Naik attached to Fingerprint Bureau of the Crime Branch. He

stated that on 20.2.2008 as per the message received from Navi

Mumbai Control Room about the blast taken place at Cineraj Cinema

Theatre, he along with other staff went to the spot of the incident. He

snapped photographs of the spot of incident, and those 31 photographs

identified by him at Ex.311 colly.

93. Nitin Baliram Bhosale (PW 82) examined at Ex.312 is the

constable from Vashi Police Station, who had snapped 12 photographs

at Ex.313 at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha on 31.5.2008.

94. Vilas Harishchandra Jadhav (PW 83) examined at Ex.314 is

the Police Sub Inspector in Crime Branch of Thane City. He narrated


part of investigation carried out by him in Crime No.12/08 of ATS.

95. Mukund Vasudev Gorhe (PW 84) examined at Ex.316 is the

Asstt. Police Inspector attached to Naupda Police Station on 4.6.2008.

He narrated the part of investigation carried out by him in respect of the

blast at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane.

96. Tukaram Dwarkanath Gaud (PW 85) examined at Ex.317 is

the Police Inspector attached to Crime Branch, Thane was part of the

investigation team. He narrated the investigation in respect of vehicle

No.MH-06-AK-5559 as per Register at Ex.115 and the entry marked as

Ex.118/A.

97. Mahesh Babaji Bagwe (PW 86) examined at Ex.318 is the

Police Inspector attached to Crime Branch, Thane, who assisted in the

investigation.

98. Mallinkarun Gundappa Kumbhar (PW 87) is examined at

Ex.319 is the Asstt. Police Inspector, who assisted in the investigation.


99. Shantaram Pandurang Jadhav (PW 88) examined atEx.320

is the Asstt. Police Inspector attached to Thane Nagar Police Station.

He assisted the investigation in respect of collection of the nails found

in the injuries of the injured persons admitted in Civil Hospital, Thane.

100. Chandrakant Vishwnath Joshi (PW 89) examined at Ex.321

is the Police Inspector attached to Crime Branch, Thane. He assisted

the investigation regarding statement of witnesses.

101. Suresh Pandurang Bhosale (PW 90) examined at Ex.322 is

the Police Inspector at Panvel Police Station, who recorded statement

of witness Sharad Prabhakar Balid on 22.7.2008.

102. Jagannath Abaji More (PW 91) examined at Ex.323 is the

PSI attached to Thane Nagar Police Station, who assisted the

investigation of the incident at Gadkari Rangayatan and recorded

statements of witnesses.

103. Hemand Madhusudan Sawant (PW 92) examined at Ex.324

is the Police Inspector attached to Naupada Police Station, Thane, who


received the information of the blast at Gadkari Rangayatan and visited

to the spot thereafter and completed preparation of spot panchnama at

Ex.90 and collection of articles along with BDDS.

104. Shashank Ganpatrao Shelke (PW 93) examined at Ex.325 is

the Police Inspector attached to ATS and he assisted the investigation

in respect of the Timer found and search for its dealer which led to

Dodia Electricals. According to him, the statement at Ex.326 of

accused Ramesh Gadkari was voluntarily made before him on

21.6.2008.

105. Sahebrao Narayan Moule (PW 94) examined at Ex.327 was

the photographer serving at Thane Police Commissioner’s Office, who

had snapped 19 photographs at Gadkari Rangayatan Natyagruha at Ex.

328 colly.

106. Prasad Mahendra Khandekar (PW 95) examined at Ex.329

is the Asstt. Commissioner of Police, ACB, Mumbai, who assisted

investigation by Sr. PI Mr. Rathod at the ATS.


107. Sunil Dharam Mane (PW 96) examined at Ex.334 is the

Asstt. Police Inspector at ATS, who assisted investigation in respect of

house search of accused Mangesh Nikam and collection of articles from

the house as per panchnama at Ex.284.

108. Giridhar Sitaram Gore (PW 97) examined at Ex.335 is the

API attached to Crime Branch, Navi Mumbai, who assisted the

investigation by Sr. PI Rathod in respect of seizure of motorcycle

involved in the crime and its registration.

109. Vivekanand Tukaram Vakhare (PW 98) examined at Ex.343

is the PI attached to ATS, who assisted in the investigation by ACP Mr.

Chopane, and recorded statements of witness Manish Surve and Vilas

Godambe.

110. Ramdas Dadaram Phadtare (PW 99) examined at Ex.344

was the Addl. Collector at Alibaug, Dist. Raigad in the year 2008. He

stated that the Office of Collector had received a letter from ACP

Uttam Chopane, ASTS, Mumbai on 18.8.2008 for permission to accord

sanction to prosecute the accused under Arms Act and Explosive


Substances Act. He being in additional charge of the Collector on

27.8.2008 perused the letters and case papers, satisfied with the

material and accorded sanction to prosecute the accused under the

Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act.

111. Arvind Bapu Sawant (PW 100) examined at Ex.346 is the

Police Inspector attached to ATS, who assisted in the investigation by

recording statements of witnesses.

112. Sambhaji Sadashiv Zende (PW 101) examined at Ex.347,

was posted as District Magistrate and Collector of Thane District in the

year 2008. He stated that on18.8.2008 he received request letter from

ACP of ATS, Mumbai to accord consent for prosecuting the accused

under the Explosive Substances Act. According to him, the relevant

documents were attached to the letter. He perused the same and on

26.8.2008 accorded the consent to prosecute the accused as per Ex.348.

113. Ramesh Hanumant More (PW 102) examined at Ex.349 is

the API attached to ATS, who assisted the investigation. According to

him, on 16.6.2008 he prepared arrest panchnama of Mangesh Nikam


and on 19.6.2008 interrogated accused Vikram Bhave. He stated that

accused Vikram Bhave disclosed to him that he is ready to produce the

articles and show the place of test of bomb behind his house at Varsai.

He further narrated that he recorded disclosures in the presence of

panchas and having carried them along with Vikram Bhave to village

Varsai, Tal. Pen and seizure of the sample of earth after the place

shown by Vikram Bhave. According to him, further articles were

recovered at the instance of the accused Vikram Bhave in the form of

two revolvers, 80 bullets, one empty bullet and he seized the gelatins

and detonators and arrested accused Haribhau Divekar and further

carried out panchnamas of recovery of these articles as per Ex.307 and

308.

114. Bhimdev Bhalchandra Rathod 9PW 103) examined at Ex.

350 is the Sr. Police Inspector attached to ATS, who assisted the

investigation by ACP Chopane and narrated the entire method adopted

during investigation and its results. He identified chemical analyser’s

reports in respect of various articles collected, and also forwarding

letters and the medical certificates of the injured in the incident at

Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane, which are at Exs.356 to 389. He further


narrated that letter at Ex.393 was written to the Government of

Maharashtra for sanction to prosecute the accused under the Unlawful

Activities Act, 1967, and the sanction order dated 11.9.2008 being

passed as per ex.394.

115. Uttam Namdevrao Chopne (PW 104) examined at Ex.395 is

the Investigating Officer. He has narrated the investigation carried out

in this case.

116. Ravindra Vasant Kakade (PW 105) examined at Ex.404 is

the State Examiner of Documents in the office of CID Branch, Pune.

He stated that their office received the disputed and specimen

handwritings and signatures from the ATS, Mumbai as per Ex.382

colly. and that he compared the specific part of handwriting in the

Registers at Arts.50 and 51 with specimen at Ex.398, and identified the

opinion given by him at Ex.403, and further submitted the statement of

reasons at Ex.403-D colly.

117. Special Public Prosecutor Ms. Salian, on behalf of the State,

that the investigation is carried out of the acts done by the six accused


persons of conspiracy at different dates and the places selected by them

and their preparation of making of bombs, causing its explosions and

acts done with violence are proved by the evidence brought on record.

It is further submitted that the proximity of the incidents, the first dated

20.2.2008 at Panvel, second dated 31.5.2008 at Vashi and the third

dated 4.6.2008 at Naupada Thane is in respect of the intent of these

accused persons that they were against the screening of the film Jodha

Akbar and performance of drama Aamhi Pachpute. It is argued that the

intention of these accused at the time when the bombs were planted

was primarily to terrorize the people, and the prosecution has made out

that it is a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 16 of the

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act.

118. It is further submitted on behalf of the prosecution on the

basis of investigation and examination of witnesses and documents

brought on record that the entire sequence of the preparation and

meeting of minds of these accused and their presence at those places is

made out in the evidence. It is argued that preparation by way of

procuring the R.F. circuits, timers, batteries, gelatins, detonators and

various articles recovered from the blast sites when examined at


Forensic Science Laboratory has established the involvement of the

accused in the crime. It is further argued that the act on behalf of

Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari is also shown by the witnesses that he

along with Accd.No.3- Vikram Bhave procured the material and also

procured the SIM cards and mobile phones by impersonating and by

cheating by submitting forged documents to the mobile operator. The

prosecution relied on various case laws in support of its arguments.

119. Advocate Mr. Sanjeev Punalekar submitted on behalf of the

accused that there is no eye-witness who had seen planting of I.E.D. or

bomb or it is assembled by the accused. It is submitted that the three

witnesses examined by the prosecution in respect of presence of the

accused at the blasts at the three places respectively are tutored one and

they were exposed during their cross-examination. It is further argued

that though the prosecution examined so many witnesses, it nowhere

makes out a complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the

accused. It is further argued that the motive attributed to all the accused

is not at all established and the investigation proceeded in unfair

manner. It is further argued that an application made by the prosecution

at Ex.15 was rejected by the Court, which is for disposal of the gelatins


and detonators. However, in spite of rejection of the said application,

the Investigating Agency had destroyed those gelatins and detonators.

It is argued that it was for the purpose of destroying the evidence which

could have been favourable to the accused. It is further argued that the

identification parades were not conducted in faithful manner as per the

provisions, and the fact that the photographs of the accused were taken

after their arrest prior to their identification parades, itself affects such

kind of evidence. It is further argued that the letter seeking sanction to

prosecute the accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prev.) Act creates

prejudice, firstly, by referring to the numbers of gelatins and detonators,

which is not part of the investigation and also attributing statement to

one of the witnesses Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) that he had stayed

with accused persons and decided to blacken the faces. It is further

argued that the prosecution has not examined the witness to prove the

sanction order to prosecute the accused under the provisions of

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. It is alternatively argued that at the

most the act could be termed as a mischief if at all proved. Advocate

Punalekar relied on various judgments in support of his arguments.

120. I have gone through the entire record and evidence of the


105 witnesses and the documents at Exs. 1 to 403D. Having heard the

arguments from both the sides, it is clear that there is no eye witnesses

or no direct evidence stating that any of the Accd. Nos.1 to 6 was found

planting the bombs at the three respective places of incidents. It appears

that the prosecution tried to establish its case on the basis on the basis

of the evidence of the witnesses having last seen the accused persons at

the three sites of the incidents, and the circumstantial evidence in

respect of preparation allegedly by the accused persons and the articles

recovered from the blast sites. It appears that the prosecution is relying

on the oral as well as documentary evidence to prove the case against

the accused. Firstly, that they belong to the ideology which opposed

screening of film Jodha Akbar for exhibiting distorted version of

history and it also opposed the performance of drama Aamhi Pachpute

for the mockery of Hindu Gods and various characters of

Mahabharata. Secondly, that the accused were present at the place of

bomb blast at Cineraj Cinema Hall, Panvel, and Gadkari Rangayatan,

Thane and Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha, Vashi, where a live bomb

was found. Thirdly, that the accused procured the R.F. circuits in the

form of Vega kits, and the batteries from Gala Electricals at Lamington

Road. Fourthly, that the accused had procured Electron Timers from


Dodia Electricals at Lohar Chawl. Fifthly, that the accused had

procured gelatins and detonators through four witnesses Tukaram Rane

(PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52), Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53)

and Chand Nadaf (PW 54). Sixthly, the recovery of the articles at the

three sites after the blast giving rise to residues of explosion and

causing impact on the premises and also causing injuries to the persons

at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. Seventhly, the allged recovery of the

gelatins, detonators and revolvers at the instance of accused No.3-

Vikram Bhave and Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam. Eighthly, the

discovery of the place where the alleged testing of explosion of bomb

was carried out by Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. Ninethly, the vehicles

found at the site of Gadkari Rangayatan, and lastly, the identification of

all the accused by the respective witnesses.

121. Having regard to the submissions from the defence, a strict

scrutiny of the entire oral evidence attributing the incriminating

material against all the accused is necessary, and while dealing with the

circumstantial evidence, on which the prosecution is placing reliance,

the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sharad

Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra – 1984(4) SCC 116 are


required to be fulfilled. Those conditions which are required to be

fulfilled for arriving at an opinion regarding proof of a prosecution case

on the basis of circumstantial evidence are as follows :-

"(1) The circumstance from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) The circumstances should not be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human proba- bility the act must have been done by the accused."

122. (I) Three Incidents - Recovery of Articles :

(A) Incident at Panvel dated 20.2.2008 :

(i) At Cineraj Cinema Hall at Panvel when the screening

of Film Jodha Akbar was going on, the incident of explosion occurred

in the Interval of the film at about 3.15 p.m. Bharat Nikalje (PW 1)

narrated the incident, first in point of time, as per complaint Ex.28.

Upon his testimony, the same appears to be narrated by him.

(ii) Vijaykumar Agarwal (PW 2) was the Manager of


Cineraj Cinema Hall. He further repeated the incident experienced at

the Cineraj Cinema Hall on 20.2.2008 by him. Manoj Yadav (PW 5),

Projector Operator, at the said cinema hall also narrated that the

screening of the film was stopped. After explosion at the Panvel,

Sudhakar Parab (PW 6), attached to BDDD, had inspected the entire

Cinema Hall with the Sniffer Dog, and Seat No.23 at ‘C’ Row in the

cinema hall of Cineraj Theatre he noticed a remote control on the

ground. He gathered an impression that using of those articles,

Improvised Explosive Device with the aid of remote control, the blast

was occurred at the place, and he prepared the BDDS report as per Ex.

45. Panchnama at Ex.47 is in respect of articles found at the spot and it

speaks about the incident of explosion when it is read along with

Chemical Analyser’s Reports at Exs.65 to 67.

(B) Incident at Vashi dated 31.5.2008 :

(i) On 31.5.2008, Bhau Vithoba Narawade (PW 10) while on

duty at Vashi Police Station and patrolling in a mobile van, received

information from Sr. PI Chowgule that one unattended bag was found

at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, Vashi. Therefore he went to the spot.

He started preparation of panchnama of the place where the bag was

found, and meanwhile BDDS and Dog Squad arrived. Further he


narrated the incident of a live bomb being found and the instrument

being defused by the BDDS squad. The other witnesses examined –

Shridhar Silavane (PW 11) and Ashok Nauvkudkar (PW 12) make out

the case of a live bomb found in Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, and

Ashok Nauvkudkar (PW 12) being from BDDS Squad had further

explained the contents of the live bomb, which included 1 kilogram of

white granular explosive substance smelling like petrol with three live

electric detonators, with three sticks on which letters “Super High

Explosive Class-2” were written. He had further opined that if that

explosive would have burst everything in the periphery of 30 meters on

that plastic bag would have caught fire due to the blast.

(ii) Sharad Thokal (PW 13) had carried the articles recovered

from the spot at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium as per panchnama Ex.59

to the Forensic Science Laboratory along with covering letter at Ex.74.

The Chemical Analyser’s Report are at Exs.374 and 375. These two

reports show the result of the analysis of the muddemal articles found

at the said spot. The damaged timer device, Electronic Circuit device,

white granular substance in three separate plastic bags and the four

defused detonators appear to be analysed. The white granular substance

was found to be ammonium nitrate, petrol hydro carbon and residual


petrol. Electronic is the red frequency receiver electronic unit used in

law rang frequency equipment, which act as R.F. decoder which comes

from transmitter side i.e. remote control device. This establishes that a

live bomb was found at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi.

(C) Incident at Thane dated 4.6.2008 :

(i) Swapnil Dalvi (PW 19), Kishor Surve (PW 20), Rajesh Salvi

(PW 24), Vivek Mhatre (PW 25), Hanif Mahapure and Vilas Kadam

(PW 28) mainly employees at Gadkari Rangayatan Auditorium, Thane.

They have narrated the incident experienced by them on 4.6.2008.

Swapnil Dalvi (PW 19) was Booking Clerk, and was informed by one

watchman, named Sakpal (PW 32) that one suspicious article was

found and he went towards the same. He noticed one box kept in the

said bag and went to the office and called Ramesh Dhuri (PW 21),

Rajeshh Salvi (PW 24), Vivek Mhatre (PWS 25), Dilip Gaikwad (PW

26) and Hanif Mahapure (PW 27) from the office. When he had gone to

see the said suspicious bag and while away from the place at a distance

of 10 to 12 feet they experienced explosion. Swapnil Dalvi (PW 19),

Rajesh Salvi (PW 24), Vivek Mhatre (PW 25), and Hanif Mahapure

(PW 27) had suffered injuries, along with four others. The injured were

taken for treatment to the nearby Hospital, where they found suffered


injuries due to nails, and the same were collecgtfed. Mahadev Bhosale

(PW 28) is the panch witness to the panchnama carried out at the spot

of explosion at Gadkari Rangayatan, and the panchnama is at Ex.19.

When the said panchnama is perused, it makes out that Arts.19 to 35

being recovered at the spot, which included one newspaper in the name

of Sanatan Prabhat, which is at Art.34, containing cello tape attached to

it. The nails from the injured were recovered by preparing a

panchnama. The covering letters at Exs.185 and 186 make out that the

articles recovered were sent for Chemical analysis. The C.A.’s report is

reflected use of explosive substances, R.F. Circuit, timer and batteries.

(ii) Upon perusal of this evidence in respect of explosions at two

places and recovery of one live bomb from Vishnudas Bhave

Auditorium, lead to the clear conclusion that explosive substances were

used in the devices which exploded and R.F. circuit with remove

control containing batteries were also used. Explosion at Gadkari

Rangayatan caused injuries to 8 persons, and injury certificates at Exs.

383 to 390 give the description of such injuries. All such evidence

remains uncontroverted, and the accused claim innocence of such

incidents.


123. (II) Presence of the accused at the place of incidents :-

(A) At Panvel incident :

The prosecution examined three witnesses to show presence of

the accused persons at three explosion places. Sharad Bali (PW 65)

took five months to go to the police and describe the three suspicious

persons he had seen at Cineraj Theatre, Panvel on 20.2.2008. Advocate

for the accused called this witness as a tutored one based upon the

contradictions in the identification of the accused, the delay in

narrating the incident to the police and on the basis of explanation

given by him during his cross-examination. When the cross-

examination of this witness is perused, he appears to have been put

question as to why he took five months to go to the police station for

informing about the incident. It is answered by him that he was out of

station to Nagar for 15 days.

The prosecution has conducted identification parade in the

presence of Special Executive Officer Dattaram Kambli (PW 68) as per

the report at Ex.253 wherein this witness Sharad Bali (PW 65) had

identified the three accused named, Vikram Bhave, Santosh Angre and

Ramesh Gadkari. However, while deposing before the Court he has not

identified Santosh Angre and instead identified Mangesh Nikam. It is


pertinent to note that the incident occurred on 20.2.2008 is narrated by

this witness to the police in June 2008 attributing presence of Ramesh

Gadkari, Vikram Bhave and Santosh Angre in Cineraj Theatre. The

identification parade was carried in August 2008. His credibility is

exposed during cross-examination. There appears no reason as to why

he should notice three persons coming on a motorcycle and reaching to

the theatre and then recall the same after five months. There is a

mystery as to why he was stimulated to identify the three persons after

gap of five months. Panchnama at Ex.253 describes him as a Hindu,

and during cross-examination this witness explains that he is a

Christian. In these circumstances, the evidence given by witness

Sharad Bali (PW 65) is not trustworthy. Therefore I disbelieve his

testimony in respect of the presence of the accused Ramesh Gadkari,

Vikram Bhave and Mangesh Nikam at the place of the incident

occurred on 20.2.2008 at Cineraj Theatre at Panvel.

(B) At Vashi incident :

In respect of the incident of live bomb found at Vishnudas

Bhave Natyagruha, Vashi on 31.5.2008, the prosecution is relying on

the testimony of Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58). He has narrates the fact

of he having visited to Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on


30.5.2008 as per the phone call of Vikram Bhave. It is stated by him

that Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave asked him to watch the Drama “Me

Marathi” being played in the said theatre and he watched it till recess.

He received phone of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave at the interval and he

was called out of the theatre. He went out of the theatre and saw Accd.

No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and Accd. No.2-

Mangesh Nikam out side the theatre. He further narrated the incident

that he joined them and four of them had gone to the house of Accd.

No.3-Vikram Bhave at night. Accd. No.3-Ramesh Gadkari told them

that in Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha the drama “Aamhi Pachpute” is to

be played on the next day and they have to give their slogans and he

was asked whether he can give slogans. He further narrated the incident

occurred on 31.5.2008 when he along with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave

proceeded from village Varsai to Pen by a rickshaw and from there

took S.T. bus to Panvel. Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.2-

Mangesh Nikam had started on a bike from village Varsai and both of

them were found waiting at S.T. Stand of Panvel by Mayuresh Konekar

(PW 58). He further narrated that he sat on the rear seat of the bike

driven by Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave on the rear side of the

bike driven by Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam. He further narrated that he


had gone to visit Gavdevi temple at Vashi and thereafter they went to

Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha. According to him, Mangesh Nikam first

entered the theatre followed by him and as the drama started within 5 to

10 minutes, he received phone of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave and he

was asked to come out of the theatre. He went outside the theatre and

saw Accd. No.1 Ramesh Gadkari and at his instance they proceeded to

Vashi Railway Station. Then the witness went to Ghatkopar by train via

Thane.

Cross-examination of this witness is only in respect of his

acquaintance with Accd.No.6-Hemant Chalke, and the credibility of

this witness is established due to his acquaintance with accused

persons. He was knowing Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-

Vikram Bhave and having met to them at Sanatan Ashram, Panvel.

Therefore it is established fact that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari,

Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam were

present at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha on 31.5.2008 when the drama

Aamhi Pachpute was being played. It is argued by the Advocate for the

accused that there can be only one incident that they had gone to join

the demonstration but returned since there were no demonstration.

(C) At Thane incident :


To establish the presence of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and

other accused persons at Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane on 4.6.2008, the

prosecution is relying on the testimony of Vilas Godambe (PW 64), the

two tickets at Art.40 colly. of the drama Aamhi Pachpute allegedly

found from the house of Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari for the drama

dated 4.6.2008 at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. The prosecution is

seeking relying on the Vehicle Register at Ex.115 maintained at

Gadkari Rangayatan wherein there appears entry of the vehicle Hero

Honda Splendor bearing No.MH-06-AK-5558. The prosecution further

relied on the testimony of Abhay Vartak (PW 75) who produced the

vehicle register maintained at Sanatan Sanstha at Devad at Arts.50 &

51, wherein the entries regarding use of Vehicle No.MH-06-AK-5558

are mentioned.

Vilas Godambe (PW 64) is working as Cashier at Gadkari

Rangayatan narrated the incident at 4 p.m. on 4.6.2008 at Gadkari

Rangayatan that while he was at canteen one person asked for glass of

water, who was approached by another person, and the first person

asked him about the bag and the other person replied that it is in the

dickey of the vehicle. The police recorded statement of this witness on

20.6.2008 and on 18.8.2008 and conducted identification parade and


this witness identified Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.4-

Santosh Angre being those two persons who were seen at Gadkari

Rangayatan on that day at about 4 p.m. Advocate for the accused

argued that there are serious discrepancies in the evidence since the

witness had not raised suspicion in his mind on that day of the blast. He

has further argued that the police arrived at the spot and recorded his

name and he had read the news about arrest of the accused on

17.6.2008 and thereafter when the police came on 20.6.2008 he decided

to tell it. It is further argued that in spite of this, his statement was

recorded on 20.8.2008 after gap of one month and thereafter further gap

of one month the identification parade was conducted. It is argued that

there is no justification to record the statement belatedly. The defence is

seeking to treat this witness as a tutored one on the basis of such

explanation of the witness during cross-examination. It is further

argued that this witness is fantasized probably about she scooter-bomb

blast in the infamous Malegaon case. Therefore this witness has falsely

deposed in extra enthusiasm. Testimony of Vilas Godambe (PW 64) is

perused and his presence at the spot appears to be natural. He appears

to have recalled the incident of two persons and conversation heard by

him of the vehicle and bag. It appears that the incident narrated by him


starts with the entry of one person in the canteen and that he demanded

water from him. He further narrated that the said person was pointed

out the place where the water was available in the canteen. The person

after drinking water, returned back to him at the counter with glass of

water and he asked him as to whether he saw the drama Amhi

Pachpute, and the witness replied in the negative to that person. At that

time another person entered and had conversation with the first person

regarding the vehicle and bag. There appears no reason to doubt the

incident experienced by the witness when he is narrating the same in

such manner. Though there appears delay in mentioning the same to the

police, that itself cannot discredit his testimony. The time period

available to the witness to memorize the personality of the persons met

to him indicates that he is narrating the presence of the persons

experienced by him in the natural manner and his testimony is

trustworthy and therefore the arguments of the defence to discredit his

testimony are not acceptable.

The prosecution examined witness Vilas Acharekar (PW

33), who acted as a panch for the panchnama of house search of Accd.

No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. He is resident of Vikhroli, Mumbai and he was

called by the police at ATS office at Vikhroli on 16.6.2008. He was


asked whether he was willing to stand as panch for the search of

accused Ramesh Gadkari. Accused was also present in the police

station. He further narrated of having accompanied the police along

with accused Ramesh Gadkari to village Devad, Tal. Panvel, and they

reached Room No.204 of Sanatan Ashram at Devad on the second

floor. He further narrated the house search taken in his presence and the

panchnama being carried out as per Ex.133 and that two tickets (Art.40

colly.) of play Aamhi Pachpute scheduled to be played at 4.30 p.m. on

4.6.2008 at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. During cross-examination this

witness further explained that the panchnama was halfly (partly) written

at Devad and half (partly) at ATS police station. He further narrated

that accused Gadkari was in their vehicle and not in the vehicle where

he was sitting. About testimony of this witness, it is argued that witness

Vartak was also present at the Ashram and why this panch witness was

taken from such a long distance and why local panch was not availed. It

is argued that the panchnama was prepared halfly at ATS police station

and the panchnama cannot be believed nor the seizure of the two

tickets. When the panchnama at Ex.133 is peruse, it makes out a case

that the house search was proposed while the accused Ramesh Gadkari

was in ATS police station and therefore the pancha was called. It


appears to be a reason to accompany the accused to his place and carry

out the said panchnama. The argument regarding local panch may not

be acceptable because there was requirement of the panch to

accompany the accused from ATS police station. The witness has

directed the entire deposition in a natural manner and it appears that

initial part of the panchnama is possibly written at ATS police station.

This panch is wholly reliable to consider the panchnama as per Ex.133

and recovery of the two tickets at Art.40 colly.

Vehicle Register at Ex.115 is seized by the police. Vilas

Kadam (PW 28) is the witness who had made the entries of the vehicles

in the said register while working as Security Guard at Gadkari

Rangayatan on 4.6.2008. An argument is advanced in respect of the fact

that as to why the register came to be seized on 16.6.2008 when witness

Vilas Kadam (PW 28) narrates that the same was handed over by him

to the police after the blast on the same day. Upon perusal of the

testimony of Vilas Kadam (PW 28), it clearly reveals that he narrated

the incident of making entries in the vehicle numbers in the register in

natural manner and it is further substantiated by examination of Mahesh

Rajderkar (PW 29). The fact that the register was with the police also

appears to be admitted as it was handed over to the police on day of the


blast itself. However, it is pertinent to note that the handwritten entries

are continuously entered and from the point of the time of the blast

onwards there are no entries in the register. On perusal of the entire

register it appears to be maintained day to day till the time of the show

of the drama at Gadkari Rangayatan and it reflects the entry of vehicle

No.MH-06-5558. The argument of possibility of this entry being made

later on is not acceptable.

It is argued by the advocate for the accused that the vehicle

registers seized at Arts.50 & 51 cannot be read in evidence since the

entries therein are not proved. It is pertinent that from perusal of the

testimony of Abhay Vartak (PW 75), it appears that these registers at

Art.50 & 51 are possibly maintained day to day and the entries therein

can certainly be read in evidence. It indicates that vehicle

No.MH-06-5558 was at Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane when the blast had

taken place.

Therefore the aforesaid discussion indicates presence of

Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari with others in the vicinity of Vishnudas

Bhave Auditorium, Vashi and Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane at the time

period of seizure of live bomb and explosion of bomb at the respective

places. However, the presence of any of the accused person at Cineraj


Theatre on the respective date is not proved.

124. (III) Purchase of Veg kit and batteries :

Ajit Vira (PW 48) is the Manager of Gala Electronics at

Lamington Road. The said firm is selling the articles in the name of

Vega kits as per trademark registration as per Ex.201. The police

approached him with the photograph of RF Circuit, which is at Ex.202,

which was found at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha as an explosive

device. The witness narrated that it is from his shop, and he had sold

R.F. Circuit and Battery to two persons in the month of November

2007. He narrated the incident occurred in the month of November or

December 2007 that two persons had come to his shop for enquiry and

purchased such R.F. Circuit and two batteries. He further narrated that

those persons again came for exchange of those articles, which he

refused. Thereafter those two persons again came with enquiry if one

remote can be used for working of one R.F. circuit. Those persons were

intending to use special method of working of remote called as coding

and decoding. The witnesses Rajesh Chikne (PW 49) and

Chandrashekhar Phadke (PW 50), both the employees of Gala

Electronics, also narrated the presence of those two persons and they


have identified Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.3-Vikram

Bhave as those persons who had purchased the R.F. Circuit and

batteries. It is argued that cross-examination of Ajit Vira (PW 48)

makes out that these items are used for various activities and those are

not prohibited or licenced items and the fact is exclusive relevant in

respect of the accused persons. It is argued that the witness had sold

100 items and had not paid nay import duty. These witnesses Ajit Vira

(PW 48), Rajesh Chikne (PW 49) and Chandrashekhar Phadke (PW 50)

were searched by the police on the basis of R.F. Circuit, photograph of

which is at Ex.202. It is pertinent that when the statements of these

witnesses were recorded on 10.6.2008 and i.e. prior to the arrest of the

accused on 16.6.2008 onwards. The part of Accd.No.1-Ramesh

Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, who had purchased the R.F.

circuit and batteries, appears to be the only reason for these witnesses to

recall their personality. Therefore they described the same to the police.

Though the question of relevance and in respect of the acts attributed to

the accused persons has to be decided independently, the fact remains

that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkary and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave

visited the shop of Gala Electronics for purchase of R.F. circuit as

shown in the photograph at Ex.202 and the batteries from the said shop.


The police had found Amco batteries at the spot of the

blasts, and on the basis of the same proceeded to investigate the case.

The testimony of Purnima Chavan (PW 36), who is employee of Dyna

Hi Tech Power System Ltd., distributors of kind of batteries found at

the blast sites. The said firm had sold 47 batteries to Pitambara Power

and it is accepted by Rakesh Gupta (PW 47) of Pitambara Power. It

appears that Pitambara Power had further sold these batteries to Gala

Electronics. It is pertinent to note that the invoice of Dyna Electricals at

Ex.142 and Delivery Challan at Ex.143 are accepted and admitted by

Rakesh Gupta (PW 47). However, one paper is attached to Ex.143

bearing the battery numbers. During cross-examination Purnima

Chavan (PW 36) explained that such description was separately given

with delivery challan as there was no ample space in the said delivery

challan. However, she further stated that generally they include and

mention about the purchased articles in the delivery challan and

invoice. She denied suggestion that it was prepared under influence of

ATS police. It is pertinent to note that Rakesh Gupta (PW 47) clearly

showed ignorance about the paper sleep containing batter numbers.

Therefore it appears to be an insertion on the part of the investigating

agency, and the said paper containing battery numbers cannot be


believed to that extent only. However, the fact is established that the

kind of batteries found at the blast sites were sold by Dyna Hi Tech to

Pitambara Power and then to Gala Electronics.

125. (IV) Purchase of Selectron Timers :

The investigating agency found electron timers at the blast

sites, and the investigating agency proceeded to search as to whether

such electron timers are available in the market. It appears from the

testimony of Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) that such Selectron timers, 8 in

number, were sold by his firm Dodia Electricals at Lohar Chawl to

Urmesh Electricals, Panvel. Advocate for the accused argued that the

term 'Timer' is now used in the said invoice and the prosecution played

mystery around 'electron timer' and it is completely a futile exercise. It

is argued that in the cross-examination Dr. Uday Dhuri (PW 73) has

stated that he had seen Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari on 14.5.2008 in

Dharma Sabha held at Thane from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and if this alibi is

available to Ramesh Gadkari, there is no question of Ramesh Gadkari

purchasing electron timers on 14.5.2008. The testimony of Hitesh

Dodia (PW 55) clearly indicates the reason as to why he identified

Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. According to this witness, on 14.5.2008


one person had come to his shop and made enquiry whether 800M 12

volts D.C. Timer was available in the shop. When it was made available

the said person requested for discount and when refused to pay discount

that person left the shop. Again on the same day at 7.30 p.m. the said

person again came along with two other persons and insisted for

purchase of this timer with discount. The invoice is at Ex.216. The

witness further explained and identified Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari

that he came to the shop on 14.5.2008 on two occasions at 4.30 p.m.

and again at 7.30 p.m. He has further identified Accd.No.2-Mangesh

Nikam and Accd.No.6-Santosh Chalke, being the two other persons

accompanied Accd.No.1Ramesh Gadkari on the second occasion.

During cross-examination Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) further explained that

the customer had demanded 800M 12 volts D.C. Therefore the said

description is given in the invoice. According to him, there may not be

any other items other than the timer, which was sold with description of

800M 12 volts D.C. It is pertinent here to note that the police had

recorded statement of this witness on 8.8.2008. Investigating machinery

had led to this witness as they found that the timers of the same

description were being sold by this witness which were found at the

blast sites. There appears no reason but to state the truth about the


incident experienced by this witness. Though Uday Dhuri (PW 73)

explains in his cross-examination that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari was

present at the Dharma Sabha at Thane on 14.5.2008, which went on

between 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., on this count exclude the testimony of Hitesh

Dodia (PW 55) that Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari had visited his shop

on two occasions. The existence of both the events may be possible and

both can co-exist at the same time unless it is shown that this accused

was continuously present on 14.5.2008 at Thane only. Therefore I

believe the testimony of Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) that Accd. No.1-

Ramesh Gadkari visited his shop on 14.5.2008.

Vijay Shirodkar (PW 46) brought on record the partnership

deed of Urmesh Electricals, Panvel at Ex.197, and the endorsement at

Ex.198 clearly indicates that Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari was a partner

in Urmesh Electricals and was retired in the year 2000. This is relevant

fact which indicates and substantiates the testimony of Hitesh Dodia

(PW 55).

126. (V) Procurement of gelatins & detonators & revolvers:-

The prosecution is relying on the testimony of Tukaram

Rane (PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52), Harischandra Chorge (PW


53) and Chand Nadaf (PW 54) to establish the fact that Accd.No.1-

Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave allegedly purchased 20

gelatin sticks and 20 detonators through these witnesses. It is the case

of the prosecution that Tukaram Rane (PW 51) was approached by

Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkar and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave with a

request to get gelatins and detonators for sinking (digging) well at

Sanatan Ashram. Tukaram Rane (PW 51) informed his brother

Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) about the same. At such time Accd. No.1-

Ramesh Gadkari allegedly handed over Rs.1000/- to Tukaram Rane,

who in turn gave it to Chandrakant Rane. As per Chandrakant Rane

(PW 52), he had asked about the same to Harishchandra Chorge (PW

53), who took him to Chand Nadaf (Pw 54). It is pertinent that the

statements of these witnesses were recorded before a Magistrate.

Advocate for the accused argued in respect of testimonies of these

witnesses on the ground that discrepancies and the manner in which

these witnesses are giving the story of having procured 20 gelatin sticks

and 20 detonators from one Rajasthani person at Kolhad, creates full of

contradictions and inconsistencies, and cannot be believed. I have

perused the testimonies of these four witnesses and also read their

statements at Exs.207, 209, 211 and 213 respectively to verify such


inconsistencies and contradictions and as to why these witnesses are

deposing in such manner. When Tukaram Rane (PW 51) is the person

to whom Accd.No.Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had

contacted, there appears no reason as to why they contacted Tukaram

Rane only, when he clarified in his cross-examination of having no

knowledge of the gelatins and detonators. It is further pertinent that

Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) also clarified that he had never seen

detonator and gelatin, which itself raises a question as to whether

Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) contacted him for the gelatins and

detonators. The story narrated by Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) and

Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) leads both of them to the place at

Kolhad as per the direction of Chand Nadaf (PW 54). It is in the

testimony of Chand Nadaf (PW 54) that he had not met a Rajasthani

person any time before the alleged day and he does not know the exact

dates of meeting Chorge (PW 53) and the Rajasthani. The testimonies

of the three witnesses stating about occurrence of one incident, are

require to be scrutinized in respect of inconsistencies and variety in

their testimonies. The testimony of these three witnesses nowhere

matches with each other in the crux of the incident of they approaching

to the Rajasthani person at such place at Kolhad for procuring


detonators and gelatins on payment of amount. Most pertinent fact is

that no one of these three witnesses remember the date as to when such

incident occurred. It is possible for one witness that he is unable to

recall the date of the incident experienced by him. For the persons like

Tukaram Rane (PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52) and Harischandra

Chorge (PW 53), this appears to be an unusual event, which must have

stimulated them to memorize the incident with its different. However,

all of them are unanimous n one thing that this incident was of second

week of April 2008. It is pertinent to note here that Chanddrakant Rane

(PW 52) in his statement before the magistrate narrates that Vikram

handed over an amount of Rs.1000/- and before the Court he deposes

that Ramesh Gadkari had handed over the said amount. This clearly

indicates that the names are being interchanged with the amount that

they were specifically required to depose in a particular manner to

include the names of two persons Ramesh Gadkari and Vikram Bhave.

There is no other reason to Chandrakant Rane (Pw 52) to state different

names for the same event of handing over of the amount.

It is further pertinent that Chandrakant Rane (PW 52),

Harishchandra Rane (PW 52) and Chand Nadaf (PW 54) gave different

version of the incident at Kolhad. According to Chand Nadaf (PW 54),


he along with Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53) and Chandrakant Rane

(PW 52) went toward the site where the work of Rajasthani person was

in progress when the Rajasthani taken out and handed over 20 gelatins

and 20 detonators to Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53). As against this

testimony, Harishchandra Chorge (PW 52) states that one person got

down from the jeep and then Chandbhai went to that person and made

enquiry, then that person handed over the articles to Chandrakant Rane.

This is another incident of interchanging the person and more probably

their involvement to tell only the story of handing over the gelatins and

detonators. If the work of Rajasthani was going on at the site of that

particular place, it was necessarily another incident, which requires

further investigation. Investigating Officer Ramesh More (PW 102)

explained in his cross-examination that he tried to trace out the said

Rajasthani but he could not be traced. When asked about further efforts

taken by him, he did not remember whether he had made any

correspondence with Varsai or Pen Police Station in respect of the said

Rajasthani person. He did not enquire about the authorized seller of

gelatins and detonators. It is pertinent here to note that though the

gelatins and detonators are used as blasting material, it is necessarily a

controlled items and it has to be dealt with as per the law, and it an


open end to the entire story which kept open by the investigating officer

as to who was that Rajasthani. This more probably has come in the

picture since 19 gelatins and 27 detonators allegedly seized at the

instance of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave were containing the name of the

manufacturer at Rajasthan. The whole story put up by Tukaram Rane

(PW 51), Chandrakant Rane (PW 52), Harishchandra Chorge (PW 53)

and Chand Nadaf (PW 54) is not plausible for the reasons stated

aforesaid.

The investigation in respect of alleged involvement of the

revolvers in incident is tried to be brought in the form of testimony of

Jaikumar Pandey (PW 57). Pandey (PW 57) was working with an

electrical contractor, as per his testimony, and there appears no reason

as to why he was asked by Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari if he can get

revolver for him. I disbelieve this witness for the reason that for a gap

of long years there appears no acquaintance between this witness and

Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari.

Destruction of Gelatins & Detonators :

The prosecution by an application at Ex.15 sought to destroy

the gelatin sticks and detonators. The said application was rejected by

this Court. In spite of the said order, the Investigating Officer destroyed


the said gelatin sticks and detonators. The Advocate for the accused had

objected the destruction by giving a detail say. And after taking into

consideration the say, this Court rejected the said application. Advocate

for accused had argued that suspicion is raised by the Investigating

Officer about existence of evidence. The I.O. Bhimrao Rathod (PW

103) answered in cross-examination that permission to destroy is not

necessary. SPP Ms. Salian tried to clarify. However, such an attitude on

the part of I.O. seriously raises doubt. The articles seized had specific

mark of the manufacturer in Rajasthan as per pacnhnama at Ex.303.

Another incident brought to notice by Advocate for accused

is that discrepancies in the numbers of gelatin sticks seized, mentioned

in the report while seeking sanction to prosecute. The alleged seizure

vide panchnama at Exh.303 makes out 19 gelatin sticks and 27

detonators. Alleged purchase is of 20 gelatins and 20 detonators. The

mention in the report seeking sanction to prosecute is of 35 gelatins and

35 detonators.

All these inconsistencies relates to unfairness in the

investigation. It raises doubt and in such view the evidence of alleged

purchase of gelatin sticks and detonators stands discarded.


127. (VI) Recovery of Gelatins, Detonators & Revolvers :

On 19.6.2008 the police officers allegedly recovered

gelatins, detonators and revolvers. As per the alleged disclosure

statement of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. Pritam Mhatre (PW 80) is the

panch witness, who appeared at Bhoiwada Police Station on 19.6.2008

along with another panch Irphan and upon his readiness, he acted as a

panch. The first objection to this witness by the advocate for the

accused is for the reason that the witness is from Dadar, Mumbai, who

was taken to Varsai, Tal. Pen for the alleged recovery of gelatins and

detonators and no local panch was involved. This argument is not

acceptable since the alleged disclosure statement appears to be made by

Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave before the police officer in the police station

at Bhoiwada. It is possible that the witness continued to be

accompanied for the further proceedings. Upon perusal of this witness,

it appears that he has given the description of the incidents in the

natural manner. Therefore his act as a panch to the entire episode has to

be accepted. However, the scrutiny of the alleged disclosure statement

is necessary. While asking for discarding his evidence, Advocate for the

accused relied on the judgment in the case of State of Punjab vs.

Gurnam Singh - AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1799, wherein it is


observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that uncorroborated evidence

pertaining to alleged recovery of weapon entitle to benefit of reasonable

doubt. In the case of Jasbir Singh vs. State of Punjab - AIR 1998

Supreme Court 1660, it is observed in para 10 as follows :-

"10. What is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution evidence itselfshows that the pistol and the cartridges alleged tohave been recovered from the appellant did nothave any number or some distinctive mark on them and after their seizure by the police they were notsealed. Thus the identity of the weapon and the cartridges seized and the weapon and cartridges produced before the court was not established bythe prosecution. Having gone through the evidence,we find that the contention raised on behalf of the appellant is correct and, therefore, deserves to be accepted. The pistol and the cartridges did not have any mark or any number on them and after seizing the same police had not through it fit to wrap them and apply a seal over them. No explanation in thatbehalf was given by the prosecution witnesses. This aspect was not considered by the trial court.As the identity of the the incriminating articles has not been established by the prosecution, we allow this appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant both under Section 5 of the TADA Act and 25 of theArms Act and acquit him of all the charges levelledagainst him."

In the case of Kartar Singh vs. State of Pubjab - AIR

1993 Supreme Court 341 it is observed that the material infirmity and

discrepancy in the prosecution evidence in respect of recovery of arms


and delay in sending arms to mechanical test affects the credibility of

the prosecution case.

Judgment in the case of Salim Akhtar @ Mota vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh - AIR 2003 SC 4076 is also relied on by the defence.

128. Having gone through all these judgments, the ratio laid

down in the case of Pulukuri Kottaya vs. Emperor - AIR 1947 P.C.

67 are most relevant while scrutinizing the evidence in respect of

discovery of fact u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act. It was held in the said

judgment as under :-

" It is fallacious to treat the fact discovered withinthe section as equivalent to the object produced. The fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accusedas to this, and the information given, must relate dst-inctly to the fact. Information as to past user, or the past history of the object produced is not related to itsdiscovery in the setting in which it is discovered."

The foremost requirement is as to what is disclosed by the

accused before the police while in custody during interrogation. In the

present case, the panch witness Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) has stated in

categorical terms that Vikram Bhave made statement before the police

that "he used to prepare bombs and has stored some articles in his

house and will point out the place". From such statement the only


information admissible in evidence is that the accused wanted to point

out the place in his house where he has stored and prepared some

articles. It nowhere makes out that he was going to disclose the objects

such as gelatins, detonators and revolvers. The testimony of the

independent witness Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) requires to be given

weightage since the alleged disclosure to the police is in his presence.

As against such disclosure, the statement of the Police Officer Ramesh

More (PW 102) further adds that the accused Vikram Bhave stated that

the articles of bomb were thrown in the Banganga River. Such portion

of disclosure is not admissible in evidence as it refers to the object and

not about the conscious possession. It is pertinent to note here that the

entire process of alleged recovery of gelatins and detonators and

revolvers had taken place in the open area as the river from the gelatins

and detonators were taken out and the ground where Accd.No.3-

Vikram Bhave had allegedly dug and took out two revolvers. The

recovery of the gelatins, detonators and revolvers is not discovered fact

within the meaning of Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore the

same is not admissible in evidence.

The panch witness PW No.77-Dnyaneshwar Kumbar who

was present at the house search of accused Mangesh Nikam stated that


the house was locked and he has not shown any knowledge as to how it

came to be opened . Therefore the alleged recovery of detonators from

the house of Mangesh Nikam is disbelieved.

The alleged recovery of gelatins, detonators and revolvers,

bullets from the various sites away from the house of the accused No.3-

Vikram Bhave is disbelieved for the reason that the disclosure

statement of accused No.3 does not reflect those specific places from

where gelatins, detonators, revolvers and bullets were recovered.

129. (VII) Discovery of test blast site :-

Accused No.3-Vikram Bhave had taken the police officer

along with the panchas to his house at Varsai, Tal. Pen. He pointed out

the place where the alleged test explosion was carried out. As per the

panchnama Ex.303, the earth was collected from the said site. It was

sent for chemical analysis as per letter at Ex.379 and the report of the

analysis is at Ex.379(1) show that Nitrite (Post explosive residue) was

detected in the sample of earth analysed, and also Ammonium, Nitrate

& Nitrite radicals were detected in the metallic container.

Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had made a disclosure that he

would point out the place in respect of preparation of the bomb and the


said place was shown by him. The earth was collected from the said

place, and upon its chemical analysis it is discovered that the test

explosion was carried out by him at such place, and it is further

corroborated by the recovery of the metallic container which also

contained post explosive residue. Therefore from the testimonies of

panch Preetam Mhatre (PW 80) and Police Officer Ramesh More (PW

102) in respect of discovery of the facts allegedly at the instance of

Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave, the only fact establishes is that there was

test explosion of bomb at the place shown by Accd. No.3-Vikram

Bhave.

I believe the panch witness No.80, panchnama at Ex.303

and Police Officer PW 102 to only extent of the test blast site. The

specific disclosure is connected to the test blast site due to the report of

forensic lab. Therefore from the testimony of these two witnesses, PW

80 and PW 102, read with panchnama at Ex.303, the only admissible

evidence is of discovery of test blast site at the instance of accused No.

3-Vikram Bhave at his house..

130. (VIII) Motive of crime :-

The prosecution is relying on the testimony of witness Dr.


Uday Dhuri (PW 73) and the letters at Exs.146 and 147. Admittedly,

these letters were written by the said witness to the producer of drama

Aamhi Pachpute. He had objected to certain performances in the said

drama in respect of the characters from Mahabharata. This is relevant

in respect of the conduct of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari that he wanted

to give slogans at the theatre where the drama Aamhi Pachpute was

being performed as disclosed by him to Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58).

This appears to be the only part where the motive can be found and it is

allegedly participated by Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and others.

There is no evidence brought on record against the accused

that they were against screening of the film Jodha Akbar for distortion

of historical facts. Therefore no motive is proved in respect of alleged

incident dated 20.2.2008 at Cineraj Theatre, Panvel.

However, the preparation to raise slogans at the Drama

Aamhi Pachpute, the presence at Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha, Vashi

on 30.5.2008 for a limited period about its preparation and further

presence at the same spot on 31.05.2008 without further explanation as

to what happened establishes the motive of Accd. No.1-Ramesh

Gadkari to commit such acts of keeping bomb and its explosion. It was

shared by Accd.no.3-Vikram Bhave by his conduct.


131. (IX) Identification parades :-

The investigating agency conducted test identification

parades of the accused persons and the witnesses Prabhakar Yeshwante

(PW 67) and Dattaram Kambli (PW 68), both Special Executive

Officers, who had conducted the identification parades. While objecting

to the process of identification parades, Advocate for the accused, relied

on the judgment in the case of Vilas Vasantrao Patil vs. The State of

Maharashtra - 1996 CRI.L.J. 1854, wherein it is observed as under :-

"7. Reverting back to the evidence brought on recordthe following facts emerge :-(i) The independent respectable persons who were allegedly associated with the identification parade werenot examined at the trial.(ii) P.W.5 did not ensure that when the accused werebeing brought from the lock-up, the identifying witnessesdid not have an opportunity of seeing them.(iii) The parade was not arranged in a room or placewhich was such that the identifying witnesses as well asthe persons connected with the police were not able tolook into.(iv) P.W.5 did not arrange for different sets of dummiesfor the purpose of identification of two sets of accusedpersons.(v) P.W. 5 admitted that after the accused were taken out from the lock-up, they were taken towards the templeand from there to the corner of the canteen and then towards the parade room. He did not say that he had ensured that when the accused were being brought in the parade room, the identifying witnesses had no opportunityof seeing them. P.W.5 also admitted that constablesaccompanied the accused when they were brought fromthe lock-up up to the outside door of the parade room,


meaning thereby that constables were present near the parade room or at least they were close by and had accessto the parade room.(vi) ..... (vii) ...... "

It is well settled that the evidence in respect of identification parade can

also be relied upon if all the chances of suspects being shown to the

witnesses prior to their identification parade are eliminated. It is

pertinent here to note that evidence of witness Sharad Bali (PW 65) in

respect of identification parade of the accused cannot be considered

since his testimony itself is not trustworthy. As far as evidence of

witnesses Ajit Vira (PW 48), Rajesh Chikne (PW 49), Chandrashekhar

Phadke (PW 50) and Hitesh Dodia (PW 55) is concerned, these

witnesses had enough opportunity to observe the persons of Accd.No.1-

Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave. Therefore the

incidents deposed by them itself suggest that the identification of these

accused persons by them is in natural manner and corroboration to

identification of these accused persons is not required. There is no

reason as to why these witnesses should speak against these accused

persons. Therefore the only suspicion that some photographs had been

taken by the police and there is possibility of such photographs being

shown to the witnesses before identification parades, is not acceptable.


However, the oral evidence of the respective witnesses who identified

these accused persons at the respective incidents is accepted for the

reasons discussed separately.

132. (X) Terrorist act & sanction to prosecute under Unlawful Activities (P) Act, 1967 :-

Special P.P. Ms.Salian, for the State, argued that the

accused wanted to strike terror in the minds of the people in respect of

the alleged distortion of historical facts and mockery of Hindu Gods in

the drama Aamhi Pachpute. Therefore the bomb blasts attracts the

provisions of Section 15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Advocate Mr.Punalekar, for the Accused, resisted this argument of the

prosecution on the ground that the entire evidence is unfair and such

provisions are attracted only to harass the accused and for the reason

that they should be kept behind bars without bail. It is further argued

that the prosecution has not examined the witness to prove the sanction

order to prosecute the accused persons under the provisions of

Unlawful Activities Prevention Act. While replying to such objection,

the Spl.P.P., for the State, relied on the judgment in the case of State

(N.C.T. of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru - AIR 2005 SC

3820. It is argued that validity of the sanction order cannot be tested on


the principles applied to quasi-judicial orders.

When the testimony of witness Bhimdev Rathod (PW 103)

is perused, it makes out a case that the proposal was sent to the

Government and sanction to prosecute the accused under Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act was obtained as per Ex.394.

It is argued by the defence that the facts are falsely placed

that the witness Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) had stated about the

agitation to blacken the faces at the drama. It is argued that such

statement attributed to the witness is not found in his statement before

the Magistrate. Advocate for the accused further relied on the ruling of

the Privy Council in the case of Jaswant Singh vs. State of Punjab -

1958 Cri.L.J. 265, wherein it is observed in respect of the principles

governing sanction of prosecution that the test to be applied is whether

relevant material that formed the basis of allegations constituting the

offence was placed before the sanctioning authority and the same was

perused before granting sanction. After considering these observations,

it clearly indicates the necessity of test of application of mind, and for

such reason it is was necessary to examine the witness on behalf of the

State to prove the sanction order at Ex.394.

Section 45 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967


reads as under :-

"45. Cognizance of offences. -[(1)] no court shall take cognizance of any offence --

(i) under Chapter III without the previous sanction of the Central Government or any officer authorized by the Central Government in this behind; (ii) under Chapters IV and VI without the previous sanction of the Central Government or, as the case may be, the State Government, and where such offence is committed against the Govern- ment of a foreign country without the previous sanction of the Central Government.[(2)] Sanction for prosecution under sub-section (1)shall be given within such time as may be prescribedonly after considering the report of such authorityappointed by the Central Government or, as the casemay be, the State Government which shall make anindependent review of the evidence gathered in the course of investigation and make a recommendation within such time as may be prescribed to the CentralGovernment or, as the case may be, the State Govrn-ment.]"

When sub-section 2 provides for independent review of

evidence collected in the course of investigation, it was necessary on

the part of prosecution to examine the witness to establish that sanction

order at Ex.394 was validly passed after independent review. It was

necessary in view of the contest raised by defence side of unfairness in

investigation with allegations of political motivation.

In the judgment in the case of State vs. Navjot Sandhu @

Afsan Guru cited by the Spl.P.P., the witness PW 11 examined who


had brought the original sanction file and it was seen from the judgment

of the trial court that the Learned Trial Judge had gone through the file

apart from making it available to the defence counsel. It is further

observed that the oral evidence led in by the prosecution by examining

PW 11 dispel in doubt as to consideration of the matter by sanctioning

authority before according the sanction. In the present case the witness

itself is not examined to prove the sanction order and the test of

application of mind is itself not established by the prosecution as per

the observations of the Privy Council. Therefore the evidence in respect

of the same needs to be discarded.

In support of its case, the prosecution further relied on the

judgments in the following cases :-

(i) Devender Pal Singh v. State N.C.T. Delhi & Anr. 2002(2) Crimes 133 (SC).

(ii) Jayawant Dattatray Suryarao v. State of Maharashtra (2002 CRI.L.J. 226).

(iii) Hitendra Vishnu Thakur & ors. etc.etc. v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1994 SC 2623).

(iv) State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa (1996 I AD S.C.(CR) 405).

I have gone through all these judgments. In view of the

witness not being examined to establish independent review of

collected evidence while passing sanction order, the observations in the

aforesaid judgment may not be made applicable to the present case.


It is required to be seen whether the alleged acts can be

termed as 'terrorist acts' within the meaning of Section 15 of Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which reads as follows :-

Prior to its substitution, S.15 read as under :-"15. Terrorist act. - Whoever, with intent to threatenthe unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of Indiaor to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, does anyact by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms orother lethal weapons or poisons or noxious gases orother chemicals or by any other substances (whetherbiological or otherwise) of a hazardous nature, insuch a manner as to cause, or likely to cause, death of, or injuries to any person or persons or loss of, ordamage to, or destruction of, property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community in India or in any foreign country orcauses damage or destruction of any property orequipment used or intended to be used for the defenceof India or in connection with any other purposes ofthe Government of India, any State Government orany of their agencies, or detains any person and threatens to kill or injure such person in order tocompel the Government of India or the Governmentof a foreign country or any other person to do orabstain from doing any act, commits a terrorist act."

It is nowhere in the case of the prosecution that the accused by their

acts intended to threaten or likely to threaten unity, integrity, security or

sovereignty of India. The words 'strike terror' signifies the meaning

"hit hard to create extreme fear". The alleged motive of crime is

objection to the performance of the drama Aamhi Pachpute based on


alleged mockery of Hindu Gods. It appears to be only against the

producer of the said drama. The producer of the said drama cannot be

termed as 'section of people'. Therefore Section 15 of the Unlawful

Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is not applicable and sanction to

prosecute the accused under the provisions of Unlawful Activities

(Prevention) Act, 1967 is not proved that it was passed after

independent review of the evidence collected.

133. (X) Circumstantial Evidence proved and fulfillment of Conditions :-

The circumstances which are proved by the prosecution are,

firstly, that the test explosion of bomb was carried out at the house of

Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, secondly, that Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave

and Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari along with others had visited

Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha on 30.5.2008 and 31.5.2008, thirdly, that

against the mockery of Hindu Gods in drama Aamhi Pachpute slogans

were to be raised as disclosed by Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari, fourthly,

that articles found at the blast sites and a live bomb, made of explosives

substance along with R.F. Circuit, Timers, Batteries, found in

Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, fifthly, Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and

Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had purchased the R.F.Circuits, batteries and


timers from Gala Electronics and Dodia Electricals, and lastly, the

presence of the accused at Gadkari Rangayatan on 4.6.2008 based on

the oral evidence of the witnesses and vehicle found at the blast site at

Thane. It is required to be seen whether these circumstances fulfill the

conditions to be admissible in evidence to convict the accused.

Advocate for the accused relied on the judgment in the case of

Mousam Singha Roy & ors. vs. State of West Bengal - (2003) 12

SCC 377, wherein it is observed that the rules specially applicable to

the circumstantial evidence must be borne in mind, and in such cases

there is always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the

place of legal proof. Based on the observations in the said judgment,

Advocate for the accused further argued that the more serious offence

requires stricter degree of proof and higher degree of assurance to

convict the accused. In the case of Murlidhar Ishwar Suryawanshi &

anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in

the judgment dated 3.5.2011 in Criminal Appeal No.158 of 1998

observed in paragraphs 32 and 33 as follows :-

"32. It is well settled that before a conviction can be based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstancesin question must be satisfactorily established and they should form a chain of evidence so complete as not toleave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consist-ent with the innocence of the accused. It must be shown


that in all human probabilities the act must have beendone by the accused.

33. In the present, the learned Judge is seen to haveadded links to the proved circumstances, which linkshowever, are not proved but which are very material.The circumstances which have been proved cannotcreate a complete chain to hold the accused guilty."

In the case of Pradeep Narayan Madgaonkar etc.etc. vs.

State of Maharashtra - AIR 1995 SC 1930, the Hon'ble Supreme Court

has observed in paragraph 12 as follows :-

"12. The very fact that the police officers joined PW 2and PW 5 in the raid creates a doubt about the fairnessof the investigation. Coupled with this is the manner in which the confessional statement of A1 and A2 wasrecorded by Hemant Karkare PW 3, which has beenrightly discarded by the Designated Court itself. Evenif we were to ignore the tell tale discrepancy in the number of the room i.e. 3323 or 3334, from where the appellants were arrested, accepting the explanation ofof the prosecution that it was as a result of typographi-cal error, it looks to us rather strange that the discrepa-cy should have come to the notice of the investigating officer only when he filed his affidavit in the SupremeCourt in the special leave petition filed by the abscond-in accused, yet in the totality of the circumstances of the case and after a careful analysis of the evidence onthe record we find it rather unsafe to rely upon PW 1,PW 4 and PW 6 only without there being any indepen-dent corroboration of their testimony, to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellants. We cannotloose sight of the fact that since the mere possessionof an arm, as specified in the schedule, without alicence, in a notified area, attracts the provisions ofSection 5 of TADA with stringent punishment, the quality of evidence on which the conviction can be


based has to be of a much higher order than the onewe find available in the present case. Our independentappraisal of the evidence on the record has created animpression on our minds that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge to the appellants beyonda reasonable doubt."

In the case of Sau. Gita Ashok Kharkate & ors. vs. The

State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Criminal

Appeal No.99 of 2003 in the judgment dated 4.2.2011 followed the

observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad

Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra.

The conditions as observed in the Sharad Sarda case for

relying on the circumstantial evidence are considered for application to

the circumstantial proof in the present case. The first circumstance is

that the place of test explosion was discovered at the instance of Accd.

No.3-Vikram Bhave at his house and the earth collected from the said

spot contained explosive residues as per the report of chemical analysis.

This circumstance is fully established from which conclusion of guilt of

Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave can be drawn that he had carried out such

test explosion. This fact is consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of

Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave and it is not explainable in any other manner.

It is also conclusive and exclude no other possibility. Secondly, Accd.

No.1-Ramesh Gadkari had disclosed about their intention to raise


slogans against the drama Aamhi Pachpute. Therefore he visited the

place where the drama was to be performed. It shows motive coupled

with other facts brought on record that he procured the R.F. circuit,

selectron timers and batteries, and he, along with Accd.No.3-Vikrama

Bhave, wanted that these articles are worked in a specific manner of

coding and decoding, and it appears to have worked at the place, more

particularly, at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium and Gadkari Rangayatan,

which resulted in finding of a live bomb and explosion of bomb

respectively. The intention of the accused appears to be against the

producer of the drama in the performance of which there is mockery of

Hindu Gods, and this was disliked firstly by Accd. No.1-Ramesh

Gadkari and his association with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave is made

out by the witness PW 58-Mayuresh Konekar through his companion

to procure them relevant articles, and argument that electron timer and

batteries are not incriminating articles cannot be acceptable in these

circumstances. Thus the articles are used in the manner to explode

bomb and it strong indication of truth that Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari

and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave had carried out the intention to explode

the bomb. Therefore they purchased those articles and further carried

out test explosion at the house of Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave.


The cumulative effect of all the circumstances proved as

aforesaid coupled with the proved motive of crime makes me to believe

that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave had

major role and involvement in the two incidents dated 31.5.2008 at

Vashi and dated 04.06.2008 at Thane.

134. (XII) Conspiracy :-

Spl. P.P. relied on the judgment in the case of Arun Gulab

Gavali vs. State of Maharashtra - 2007 Cri. L.J. 3622 to prove the

conspiracy between Accd. Nos.1 to 6. It is pertinent to note here that

one witness Mayuresh Konekar (PW 58) had accompanied the accused

as per the telephonic conversation with Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. It

specifically appears that he had no knowledge as to what Accd. No.3-

Vikram Bhave had intended, and this is clear from his testimony. In the

circumstances, the presence of Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam, Accd. No.

4-Santosh Angre, Accd.No.5-Haribhau Divekar and Accd.No.6-

Hemant Chalke at various places can be inferred with the fact that they

had also no knowledge about what was intended by Accd. No.1-

Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave. Therefore the

agreement by Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam, Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre,


Accd.No.5-Haribhau Divekar and Accd. No.6-Hemant Chalke cannot

be inferred from the evidence brought on record. The alleged recovery

at the instance of Accd. No.2-Mangesh Nikam and Accd.No.5-

Haribhau Divekar is not proved as discussed above. Therefore there is

no direct material against them to involve them in the agreement, nor

there is any other evidence to prove conspiracy against them.

Two views possible :

The role attributed to Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam is his

presence at the spot of incident dated 31.05.2008. The role attributed to

Accd. No.4-Santosh Angre is his presence at the spot of incident dated

06.06.2008. The role attributed to Accd. No.6-Hemant Chalke is his

presence along with Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari to procure Selectron

Timers. The prosecution evidence merely suggests presence of these

three accused with Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari.

When Mayuresh (PW 58) was present with Accd.No.1-

Ramesh Gadkari and he had no knowledge, two views arise in respect

of role of Accd.No.2, 4 & 6, either they had knowledge or they did not

have knowledge. In absence of any corroboration, the view favourable

to Accd.Nos.2, 4 & 6 is required to be accepted and it is held that

involvement of Accd.Nos.2, 4, 5 & 6 in conspiracy is not proved.


135. (XIII) Purchase of SIM cards and Mobiles :-

The prosecution examined Smt. Darshan Kaur Randhawa

(PW 61), Babruwahan Kadam (PW 62), Darshansingh Randhawa (PW

63) and Ravindra Kakade (PW 105) to establish that the applications at

Exs.228 to 231 were submitted by Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari to Smt.

Darshan Kaur Randhawa (PW 61) to purchase 4 Tata Indicom mobile

SIM cards and handsets. It is pertinent here to note that the alleged

recovery of hair wig is not believed and the person - Amar Janu Bane

(PW 59), who allegedly sold hair wig to Ramesh Gadkari nowhere

speaks about selling hair wig to Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. He has

testified only as regards selling of artificial mustaches and beard to

Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari. There is no matching of the photograph of

Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and the photograph appearing on the

applications Exs.228 to 231. The testimony of Ravindra Kakade (PW

105) clearly suggests that no admitted handwriting of Accd.No.1-

Ramesh Gadkari was made available to him for comparison. Moreover,

the offence of cheating requires dishonest or fraudulent intention. There

also appears no wrongful gain attributed to the accused or wrongful loss

to any of the witnesses. The only inference that can be drawn is that the

person getting mobile in such manner wants to conceal his identity.


However, there is no reported incident against Accd. No.1-Ramesh

Gadkari that he had concealed his identity by making phone calls

through such SIM cards. Therefore for want of fulfillment of

ingredients of the offence punishable u/s 419, 465, 468, 471 of I.P.C.,

the evidence led by the prosecution in respect of the same is discarded.

136. As per the above discussion, Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari

and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave are found involved in the planting of

live bomb at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium at Vashi on 31.5.2008 and

carrying out explosion at Gadkari Rangayatan at Thane on 4.6.2008.

Considering the nature of explosion and the injuries caused due to same

to the persons at Gadkari Rangayatan and the intent of Accd. Nos.1-

Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave was only to create fear

in the mind of the producer of the said drama, there appears no threat of

death of any unknown person. Therefore the offence u/s 307 of IPC is

not attracted as against them.

The injured had suffered injuries of the nature explained and

described in the certificates at Exs.382 to 390. The injuries were caused

by the acts of Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram

Bhave in which explosive substance was used. Therefore the offence


u/s 324 of IPC is proved against them.

137. The offence u/s 201 of IPC is proved against Accd. No.1-

Ramesh Gadkari and Accd. No.3-Vikram Bhave firstly on the basis of

test explosion site found at the instance of Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave

and there was destruction of evidence by disposing of the material.

Therefore offence u/s 201 of IPC is proved against them.

138. For the above discussion, the offences u/s 419, 465, 468 &

471 of IPC are not proved as against Accd. No.1-Ramesh Gadkari.

139. The spot panchnama at Ex.19 at Gadkari Rangayatan and

the damage caused to the public place is evident from the photographs.

This also attracts the provision u/s 427 of IPC and Sections 3 & 4 of

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, and these offences are

proved against Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and No.3-Vikram Bhave.

140. The alleged recovery at the instance of Accd.No.3-Vikram

Bhave of two revolvers and 92 rounds of cartridges is not proved by the

prosecution.


141. The incident of planting the bomb and causing explosion is

found indication of possession of explosive substances of Accd.No.1-

Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave. It endangered life and

these accused had malice in their mind. Therefore offences punishable

u/s 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act is proved against Accd.No.

1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave.

142. The act of crime proved as against Accd.No.1-Ramesh

Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave cannot be termed as terrorist act

within the meaning of 15 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

nor the sanction obtained by the prosecution to prosecute the accused

under the said provisions is legal and valid. In such circumstances, the

said allegation is not proved as against Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and

Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave

The strong indication of possession of explosive is

established since the test blast is established and involvement of

Accd.Nos.1 & 3 in alleged incident is proved. Therefore santion to

prosecute under Explosive Substances Act is valid.

143. For the above stated reasons, there is no direct evidence


against Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam, Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre, Accd.

No.5-Haribhau Divekar and Accd.No.6-Hemant Chalke about their

involvement in the alleged crime, nor are there any circumstances to

suggest their agreement in participation, along with Accd.No.1-Ramesh

Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave, and therefore Accd.Nos.2 & 4

to 6 are liable to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.

For the entire discussion of evidence as above, the points for

determination are answered accordingly.

144. Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave

are held guilty for the offences punishable u/s 324, 201, 427 r/w Sec.

120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public

Property Act, 1984 and Sections 3(a), 4(b)(i) & 5(a) r/w Sec..6 of

Explosive Substances Act and Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act. Therefore

they were called upon to make submissions on the point of quantum of

sentence. The prosecution was also called upon to make submissions on

the point of quantum of sentence.

145. For the reasons stated above, Accd.No.2-Mangesh Nikam,

Accd.No.4-Santosh Angre, Accd. No.5-Haribhau Divekar and


Accd.No.6-Hemant Chalke are ordered to be set at liberty forthwith if

not required in any other case as per final order hereinbelow.

146. Heard Advocate Mr.Punalekar, for Accd. Nos.1 & 3, on the

point of sentence. He submitted that Accd.Nos.1 & 3 have no criminal

antecedents. Both are from middle class families and their reform may

be kept in mind while imposing the quantum of sentence. He further

argued for exclusion of offence under Explosive Substances Act with a

view to reform these two accused. He further prayed for applying the

provisions of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 and further relied on the

judgment in the case Shrishail Bhmsha Ghale & ors. vs. The State of

Maharashtra of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal

No.852 of 1990 dated 27.8.2007.

147. Special P.P. Ms. Salian, for the State, submitted that

nowadays bomb blasts are occurring causing hurt to the innocent

people and for the protection of the citizen a deterrent punishment be

imposed to create deterrence in the mind of the criminals doing such

acts.


148. Having considered the arguments from both the sides, the

mitigating factors are, the background of the accused that they have no

criminal antecedents and both are from middle class families.

Aggravating factor is that the blast at Thane was caused with a result to

injuries to 8 persons. To recapitulate that Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari

and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave are held responsible only for two

incidents, one for keeping a live bomb in Vishnudas Bhave Natyagruha

at Vashi on 31.5.2008 and second for explosion of bomb at Gadkari

Rangayatan at Thane on 4.6.2008. They are held guilty on the basis of

circumstantial evidence in the form of preparation, presence and

conduct in the relevant period experienced by the witnesses, and

inferred from the circumstances out of their own conduct. Therefore for

the purpose of reform of these accused, it cannot be considered on the

basis of the scope given by each of the sections for which they are held

guilty. Both are held guilty for the offences under Sections 324, 201,

427 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. and Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of

Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 and Sections 3(a), 4(b)(i) & 5(a)

r/w Sec..6 of Explosive Substances Act and Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act.

The offence u/s 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 provides for

punishment with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment


which shall not less than 10 years and shall also be liable to be fined.

Section 3(a) of Explosive Substances Act provides higher punishment.

Therefore separate sentence u/s 4(b)(i), 5(a), 6 of the said Act need not

be pronounced. Considering the family background of both the accused,

they are entitled to the lesser punishment under this section. While

imposing such sentence it should create deterrence in the mind of the

criminals doing such acts. The aforesaid Judgment cited by the

Advocate for the accused is perused, and it appears that the same is in

respect of conviction in a sessions case for the offence u/s 498-A, 304-

B, 201 r/w Sec.34 of I.P.C., and the Hon'ble High Court had considered

the advanced age of the accused persons and therefore of the opinion

that they deserve to be given the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958. It was also held that the bar u/s 4 of Probation of

Offenders Act, 1958 does not operate in their case. These specific

circumstances were arising out of the facts of the said case. In the

present case, the offences for which Accd.Nos.1 and 3 are being held

guilty affected the society at large. Therefore the observations in the

said judgment cannot be made applicable to the present case.

149. For the aforesaid reasons,I proceed to pass the following order.


ORDER

(1) Accd.No.2-Mangesh Dinkar Nikam, Accd.No.4-Santosh Sitaram

Angre, Accd.No.5-Haribhau Krishna Divekar and Accd.No.6-Hemant

Tukaram Chalke are acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 120-B,

307, 324, 201 of I.P.C., Sec. 3, 4, 5 & 6 of Explosive Substances Act,

1908 and 9(B) of Explosive Act, 1984 and Sec.15, 16, 16(1)(b), 18 and

23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Accd. No.4-Santosh

Angre is also acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 3 and 4 of

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 r/w 427 of I.P.C.

They be set at liberty forthwith if not required any other offence.

(2) Bail bond of Accd.No.5-Haribhau Divekar stands cancelled.

29/8/2011. (N.V.NHAVKAR) Addl.Sessions Judge,Gr.Bombay

FURTHER ORDER :(Dated 30/8/2011)

(1) Accd.No.1-Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram

Vinay Bhave are convicted under Section 235 of Cr. P.C. for the

offences punishable u/s 324, 201, 427 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. and

Sections 3 & 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984,

Sections 3(a) r/w 4(b)(i), 5(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances Act and

Sec.9(b) of Explosive Act. They are sentenced to suffer punishments as


under :-

As regards Accd.No.1-Ramesh Hanumant Gadkari :

(i) For offence u/s 324 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to

suffer S.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further

S.I. for 3 months.

(ii) For offence u/s 201 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to

suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d to suffer further

S.I. for 3 months.

(iii) For offence u/s 427 r/w Sec.120-B he is sentenced to suffer S.I.

for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3

months.

(iv) For offence u/s 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act

he is sentenced to suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-

i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months.

(v) For offence u/s 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act

he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-

i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months.

(vi) For offence u/s 3(a) r/w 4(b)(i), 5(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances

Act he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.

1000/- i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months on each count.


(vii) For offence u/s 9(b) of Explosive Act 1984 he is sentenced to


S.I. for 3 months.

As regards Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave :

(i) For offence u/s 324 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to


S.I. for 3 months.

(ii) For offence u/s 201 r/w Sec.120-B of I.P.C. he is sentenced to

suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d to suffer further

S.I. for 3 months.

(iii) For offence u/s 427 r/w Sec.120-B he is sentenced to suffer S.I.

for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3

months.

(iv) For offence u/s 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act

he is sentenced to suffer S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-

i/d to suffer further S.I. for 3 months.

(v) For offence u/s 4 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act

he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-

i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months.

(vi) For offence u/s 3(a) r/w 4(b)(i), 5(a) & 6 of Explosive Substances


Act he is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.

1000/- i/d to suffer further R.I. for 3 months on each count.

(vii) For offence u/s 9(b) of Explosive Act 1984 he is sentenced to


S.I. for 3 months.

(2) All substantives sentences in respect of both the accused

shall run concurrently.

(3) Both the accused shall get set off u/s 428 of Cr.P.C. for the

period of imprisonment already undergone by them.

(4) Accd.No.1-Ramesh Gadkari and Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave

are acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 307 and Sec/15. 16, 16(a)

(b), 18 & 23 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. Accd.No.1-

Ramesh Gadkari is also acquitted of the offences punishable u/s 419,

465, 468 and 471 of I.P.C. Accd.No.3-Vikram Bhave is also acquitted

of offence punishable u/s 3 r/w Sec.25(1-B)(a) of Arms Act.

(4) Nokia make mobile Phone with SIM card & battery (Art.47

colly.), Sony Ericson make mobile phone with SIM card & battery (Art.

48 colly.) and Nokia make mobile Phone with SIM card & battery (Art.

49 colly.) be returned to the rightful claimant if prayed by him after the

appeal period is over or else the same be confiscated to the State.


(5) Two Log Books (Arts.50 & 51) and one Diary (Art.52) be

returned to the Sanatan Ashram after the appeal period is over.

(6) Two revolvers (Art.63 colly.) and Cartridges (Art.64 colly.)

be sent to the District Magistrate for disposal as per law after the appeal

period is over.

(7) Bicycle (Art.36) be confiscated to the State after the appeal

period is over.

(8) Three gelatin sticks (Art.16 colly.) , white granules with

powder in damaged plastic container (Art.17 colly.) and four defused

detonators with wire (Art.18 colly.) be sent to the Controller of

Explosives for disposal according to law after the appeal period is over.

(9) Rest of the articles, being worthless, be destroyed after the

appeal period is over.

(10) The Bonds furnished in respect of the two motorcycles

bearing Nos.MH-06-AK-5558 and MH-04-AK-9905, X Tech company

make Computer C.P.U. and cash of Rs.83,560/- shall stand cancelled

and the said property shall be retained by those persons from whom the

same were seized.

Sd/-30/8/2011. (N.V.NHAVKAR)

Addl.Sessions Judge, Gr.Bombay


Judgment dictated on : 23,25,26,29 & 30/8/2011.Judgment transcribed on : 7/9/2011.Judgment signed on : 9/9/2011.Judgment sent to C.C. Section on :