Particulars

1

FACTUAL MATRIX

2.

EYEWITNESSES

(i) Authority of Shri. Barve as SEO to conduct T.I. Parade

(ii) Taxi Drivers who took A.3 and A.13 to Churchgate Station on 11/07/2006 (PW-63 and PW-77)

(iii) The witnesses who saw the accused planting bomb in the trains (PW-57, PW-60, PW-62 and PW-74)

(iv) Witness to Assembling of Bombs (PW-75)

(v) Witness to Conspiracy (PW-59)

(vi) The injured witness who saw the suspects after they deboarded the train, but was not called for T.I. Parade, though with his help two sketches of suspects were prepared. Further, though he was examined, he was not asked to identify the accused in the Court (PW-85)

(vii) The witnesses who saw the suspects, and gave their statements u/s 161 of Cr.PC within short span of incident with detailed description but neither called for T.I. Parade nor examined as witnesses (Total 6 witnesses)

3.

II. RECOVERIES

(1) Recovery of RDX, Granules and Detonators

4.

III. CONFESSION

A) PRIOR APPROVAL / INVOCATION OF MCOCA

(1) Whether Shri. Jaiswal, who granted prior approval, had jurisdiction to grant prior approval to invoke MCOCA?

(2) Whether relevant documents and material were available before the sanctioning authority to reach a subjective satisfaction?

(3) Whether the authority has applied its mind while granting prior approval?9

(4)Whether the fact that Shri. Jaiswal did not enter into the witness box, invalidate the prior approval on the ground that the same is not proved?

(5) PW-174 identified the signature of Shri. Jaiswal, whether such identification of the signature will be sufficient to prove the contents of prior approval?

(6) Whether a presumption under section 114 illustration (e) of Indian Evidence Act that the official acts performed by the public servants have been regularly performed will be applicable to the prior approval in question?

(7) Whether the two chargesheets against A.13, which have been relied upon for grant of prior approval, satisfy the pre-requisites to constitute ‘continuing unlawful activity’?

B) CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS 332

(1) Identical Part-I and Part-II of the confessional statements

(2) Variations in mentioning the names of accused A.4 and A.9 in correspondence made by DCPs and Part-I and Part-II of the confessional statements

(3) Absence of certificates under Sub-rule 6 of Rule 3 of MCOC Rules at the bottom of the confessional statements of A.1, A.3 and A.10

(4) Though certificates are appended at the bottom of the confessional statements of A.2, A.4, A.5, A.6, A.7, A.9, A.11, & A.12, they do not serve the purpose as contemplated under Subrule 6 of Rule 3 of MCOC Rules

(5) Not making the accused aware about the right to have legal/lawyer’s services

(6) No enquiry made by the DCPs of the reason why the accused wanted to confess,

(7) Sufficient cooling off period was not given to the accused

(8) The concerned DCPs did not look into the medical reports of accused before recording confessional statements

C) CONFESSIONAL STATEMENTS

(1) The Confessional Statements Suffer From Trustworthiness And Completeness

(2) The Confessional Statements Vitiate Because Of The Torture Inflicted On Accused To Extort The Same

D) ROLE OF CMMs IN THE CONFESSIONAL