HYDERABAD: A ‘fragile piece of evidence’ produced by the prosecution against Mohd Sadiq Israr Ahmed led to his acquittal in the 2007 twin blast cases. Meanwhile, regarding Farooq Sharfuddin Tarkash, the court said there is ‘whisper’ with regard to his role and the prosecution failed to establish that he has any criminal conspiracy or common intention with that of the other accused in the case.
The court had earlier sentenced two for death and one to life after finding them guilty of planting bombs at Lumbini park, Gokul Chat and Dilsukhnagar in February 2007. Meanwhile, deposition by the eye witnesses before the court proved strong evidence against the accused, leading to their conviction and sentencing. The eye witnesses produced by the prosecution in the three cases had identified the three accused who had planted the bombs at Lumbini park, Gokul chat and Dilsukhnagar.
The eyewitnesses also included the father of the flat owner at Habsiguda, which Anique had rented posing as one Satish Gaikwad. The flat owner’s father, who had gifted the flat to his daughter, was also taking care of its maintenance. Other witness es who identified Anique include the staff of a showroom from where he purchased a television set, the man who fixed his cable connection, the staff of the shop from where he purchased bags for carrying bombs, staff at a training centre at Ameerpet.
Interestingly, Anique had entered into an argument with a visitor while walking into one of the seating rows. This person later turned out to present the main evidence against him. The witness told the court how Anique had shouted at him and left the laserium minutes after the show started.
However, ruling out the defence counsel’s contentions that the eye witnesses did not submit the tickets to prove their presence at the laser show, the court said, “Whenever a person enters a park, the ticket will be received by the watchman and torn into two pieces. So, it cannot be expected of the witnesses to retain the tickets and so their presence cannot be doubted at Lumbini park.”
The court, while delivering the sentence, also noted that there might be highly defective investigation in the case, but it is to be examined as to whether there is any lapse by the investigating officer and whether due to such lapse, any benefit should be given to the accused. “The law on this issue is well settled that the defect in the investigation by itself cannot be a ground for acquittal,” the court said.