JUDGMENT :

Vinod Chandran, J.

If it is permissible in law to obtain evidence from the accused person by compulsion, why tread the hard path of laborious investigation and prolonged examination of other men, materials and documents? It has been well said that an abolition of this privilege would be an incentive for those in charge of enforcement of law “to sit comfortably in the shade rubbing red pepper into a poor devil’s eyes rather than go about in the sun hunting up evidence”. (Stephen, History of Criminal Law, p. 442).

State of Bombay v. Kathi Kalu Oghad [1962 SCR (3) 10]

Confessions may have an element of truth in it but it fails to persuade the Judges, in travelling the distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true'; the whole of which distance, as has been held in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [1957] 1 SCR 953], must be covered by 'legal, reliable and unimpeachable evidence'.

2. Inexplicable violence as a retaliatory measure against establishments of State, based on religion and community, often questions the secular credentials of a society; particularly of this State which proudly proclaims itself to be the most literate in all of the Country. The reverberations of the two Marad incidents; which remain a blot on the secular fabric of the State, is projected as the motive of the twin blasts which rocked Kozhikode city on the lazy noon of 03.03.2006, a Friday.

3. Accused 1 to 9 were alleged to have conspired, planned and executed the twin blasts, for reason of bail having been denied to the accused in the second Marad incident, in which 136 of the 142 accused remained imprisoned, as under trials, for about four and a half years. A2 and A8 were absconding when the case went for trial, of whom A2 has now been arrested. A6 died and A7 was declared an approver, who gave evidence as PW1. A5 was not charge-sheeted. This left A1, A3, A4 and A9 to face trial in the two crimes registered, which were clubbed together while filing the final report and a consolidated charge levelled on the twin blasts. In the impugned judgment the above four accused are shown as one to four, but we refer to the accused from the array in the final report, since invariably the participation of the various accused are spoken of from that array.

4. On 03.03.2006 there were two bomb blasts in Kozhikode Town, in quick succession between 12.30 p.m and 01.00 p.m, at two locations inside the KSRTC and the Mofussil Bus Stands. Crime No.80 and 81 of 2006 were registered respectively at the Kasba and Nadakkavu Police Stations, which were then taken over by the CBCID and later by the National Investigation Agency [NIA]. PW1 to PW58 were examined, through whom Exts.P1 to P98 were marked. MO1 and MO2 series material objects collected from the scene of occurrence were marked by the prosecution. The defence marked Exts.D1 to D26 and also examined DW1 to DW3.

5. The Special Court for NIA Cases, Kerala, Ernakulam found A1 & A4 guilty of the offences under S.16(1) & 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 [UAPA] and they were convicted and sentenced with imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/-with default sentence of imprisonment for one year, under each of the above provisions. They were also sentenced to three years imprisonment under S.124(A) IPC together with a fine of Rs.10,000/-with default sentence of three months and a further sentence of two years under S.153(A) IPC. A1 was further sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50,000/-, with a default sentence of one year under S.4(b) of Explosive Substances Act, 1884. The first of the above two appeals is by A1 & A4 and the other by the NIA against the acquittal of A3 & A9, which appeals were heard together.

I. The Arguments :

6. Sri.Suresh Babu Thomas, learned Counsel, appeared for A1 and argued that A1 was not identified by any one at the scene of occurrence and not even by the approver (A7), who was examined as PW1. The only evidence before Court was that of the approver and the lack of id