STATE Vs. MOHAMMED HANIFA @ TENKASI HANIFA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Dindigul, in Session Case No.131 of 2014 dtd. 20/12/2018 acquitting the respondent/accused namely, Mohammed Hanifa @ Tenkasi Hanifa.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the then Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Special Investigation Team, Madurai, who is also the investigating officer in Crime No.237/2011 on the file of Tirumangalam Taluk, registered a case concerning an attempt on the life of the then Home Minister, Mr.L.K.Advani, through a planted bomb. Non-bailable warrant issued by the competent court against the respondent/M.Mohammed Hanifa Tenkasi Hanifa was pending. Based on the intelligence sources, it was discovered that M.Mohammed Hanifa was hiding at Batlagundu, Dindigul District. On 8/7/2013, at about 10.00 a.m., while executing the warrant, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, along with the police personnel and the revenue personnel (VAO and Village Assistant), attempted to apprehend the said Mohammed Hanifa. Sensing that he was about to be apprehended, the respondent/accused, attempted to murder the Deputy Superintendent of Police Mr.Karthikeyan by attacking him with a long knife. The DSP escaped from the said attack without sustaining injuries. The police personnel accompanying the DSP witnessed the attack and overpowered the accused, seizing the deadly weapon (long knife) to thwart the attempt on the DSP's life. Thereafter, the accused voluntarily confessed in the presence of the VAO and Village Assistant which led to discovery of two knives, two gel bags, two detonators, a copy of Daily Thanthi dtd. 5/7/2013 carrying an article by Mr.Baskaran of Dindigul, a piece of white paper with a hit list of prominent Hindu leaders and a small bag. All those material objects were seized under Mahazars. Furthermore, the accused identified a location where he had hidden explosive materials in a closed pit, from which 18 electronic detonators and 18 gel bags were seized under the cover of a Mahazar before the witnesses.

(3.) The DSP subsequently lodged a complaint at Batlagundu Police Station, where a case was registered in Crime No. 240/2013 against the respondent/accused along with two other co- accused. After completing the investigation, a final report was filed against the accused for the offences under Ss. 353, 307, and 153(A) of the IPC, Sec. 16(1)(b) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Ss. 4(a)(i) and 4(b)(ii) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the same was taken on file in PRC.No.19/2014. After completing the formalities, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session, since the offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Session. The Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, took the case on file in S.C.No.131/2014 and framed the charges for the commission of offences under Ss. 353, 307, 153(A) of IPC, 16(1)(b) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Ss. 4(b)(i) and 4(b)(ii) of Explosive Substances (Amendment) Act, 2001. In order to substantiate the case during trial, on the side of the prosecution, totally 21 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW21 and 31 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to Ex.P31, besides 7 material objects were exhibited as MO1 to MO7. No oral and documentary evidence were let in on the side of the respondent/accused. After completion of the evidence of the prosecution side witnesses, the respondent/accused was questioned under Sec. 313(1)(b) CrPC with regard to incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence rendered by the prosecution witnesses and he denied it as false. On conclusion of the trial and hearing of the arguments on either side, the trial Court by impugned judgment dtd. 20/12/2018, acquitted the respondent/accused of all the charges. Aggrieved over the acquittal, the prosecution has filed the present appeal before this Court.