Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/198 vs The Central Bureau Of ... on 27 September, 2022
Page No.# 1/198
GAHC010062362019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./195/2019
RANJAN DAIMARI @ D.R. NABLA @ LASDUM @ LOUDUM AND 9 ORS
S/O- LATE STEPHEN DAIMARI, R/O- VILL.- ADALA KAHIBARI, P.S.
HARISINGA, DIST.- UDALGURI, ASSAM, PIN- 784510.
2: GEORGE BORO @ JOHN @ JWANKHANG
S/O- SHRI JOGENDRA NATH BORO
R/O- MISSION ROAD
DOWN TOWN
P.S. BARPETA ROAD
DIST.- BARPETA
ASSAM
PIN- 781301.
3: AJAY BASUMATARY @ B. AOGAI
S/O- LATE SWAUN BASUMATARY
R/O- VILL.- DILAGIMITHIFANG
P.S. DIPHU
DIST.- KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM
PIN- 782460.
4: KHGARGESWAR BASUMATARY @ RAHUL BRAHMA @ KHARAMSWAR
S/O- SRI KHAGEN BASUMATARY
R/O- VILL.- PUB NAOKATA (KHAIRAJHAR)
P.S. GORESWAR
DIST.- BAKSA
ASSAM
PIN- 781366.
5: RAJENDRA GOYARI @ RAJEN @ RIFIKHANG
S/O- SRI KANTESWAR GOYARI
R/O- VILL.- KHAGRABARI
P.S. GOBARDHANA
DIST.- BAKSA
Page No.# 2/198
ASSAM
PIN- 781315.
6: ONSAI BORO @ AJIT BORO
S/O- SRI GANGADHAR BORO
R/O- VILL.- SHANTIPUR
SALBARI
P.S. SALBARI
DIST.- BAKSA
ASSAM
PIN- 781372.
7: INDRA BRAHMA
S/O- LATE SAILENDRA BRAHMA
R/O- VILL.- PADMAPUR
P.S. SIDLI
DIST.- CHIRANG
ASSAM
PIN- 783373.
8: BAISAGI BASUMATARY @ B. BITHURAI
D/O- LATE GAOJAO BASUMATARY
R/O- VILL.- SONSALI
P.S. BARBORI
DIST.- BAKSA
ASSAM
PIN- 781318.
9: LOKHRA BASUMATARY @ LOBO
S/O- SRI MAGUR BASUMATARY
R/O- VILL.- KAMARPARA
P.S. KACHUGAON
DIST.- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783350.
10: RAJU SARKAR
S/O- LATE SUNIL SARKAR
R/O- VILL.- TANGLA
PASCHIM NALBARI
P.S. TANGLA
DIST.- UDALGURI
ASSAM
PIN- 784521
VERSUS
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Page No.# 3/198
REP. BY THE STATNDING COUNSEL, CBI.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K BHATTACHARYYA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CBI
Linked Case : Crl.A./154/2019
MATHU RAM BRAHMA @ MUDAI AND 3 ORS.
S/O- SRI RASAMA BRAHMA
R/O- VILL.- BIGSHIJORA
P.S. BOGRIBARI
DIST.- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
2: PRABHAT BORO @ TEPA
S/O- LATE GANGADHAR BORO
R/O- VILL.- PASCHIM KHARUA
P.S. BARAMA
DIST.- BAKSA
ASSAM
PIN- 781346.
3: JAYANTI BRAHMA JUGAMI
D/O- SHRI HOLIRAM BRAHMA
R/O- VILL.- CHANGBANDHA
P.S. BOGRIBARI
DIST.- KOKRAJHAR
ASSAM
PIN- 783370.
4: NILIM DAIMARY @ D. NIZWMSA
S/O- POWAL CHANDRA DAIMARY
R/O- VILL.- KALIBARI
P.O. ROWTA CHARIALI
DIST.- UDALGURI
Page No.# 4/198
ASSAM
PIN- 784509.
VERSUS
THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
REP. BY THE STANDING COUNSEL
CBI.
------------
Advocate for : MR. M SARANIA
Advocate for : SC
CBI appearing for THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Date : 27-09-2022
(Suman Shyam, J)
Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 28.01.2019
passed by the learned Special Judge in connection with Sessions Case No.59(K) of
2011, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati. Criminal Appeal No.195/2019 has been preferred
by 10 appellants viz., 1) Ranjan Daimari @ D. R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, 2)
George Boro @ John @ Jwankhang, 3) Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogai, 4) Khargeswar
Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @ Kharamswar, 5) Rajendra Goyari @ Rajen @ Rifikhang,
6) Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro, 7) Indra Brahma, 8) Baisagi Basumatary @ B. Bithurai, 9)
Lokhra Basumatary @ Lobo and 10) Raju Sarkar whereas, Criminal Appeal
No.154/2019 has been preferred by the four appellants viz. 1) Mathu Ram Brhama @
Mudai, 2) Prabaht Boro @ Tepa, 3) Jayanti Brahma @ Jugami and 4) Nilim Daimari @
D. Nizwmsa.
Page No.# 5/198
2. By the impugned judgment dated 28.01.2019 the appellants have been
convicted under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 302, 324, 326, 307, 427 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908 and Sections 10, 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 and sentenced in the manner indicated herein below:-
1) For the offences punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 IPC,
Section 3(b) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10(b)(i)
and 16(1)(a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 the
accused/appellants Ranjan Daimari @ D. R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum,
George Boro @ John @ B. Jwankhang, Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogi,
Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @ Khararmswar, Rajendra
Gayari @ Rajen @ Rifikhang and Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro were sentenced
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-
each, on each count, with default stipulations.
2) For the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC the accused/
appellants Ranjan Daimari @ D. R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, George
Boro @ John @ B. Jwankhang, Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogi, Khargeswar
Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @ Khararmswar, Rajendra Gayari @ Rajen @
Rifikhang and Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for seven years each and fine with default stipulation.
3) For the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC the accused/
appellants Ranjan Daimari @ D. R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, George
Page No.# 6/198
Boro @ John @ B. Jwankhang, Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogi, Khargeswar
Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @ Khararmswar, Rajendra Gayari @ Rajen @
Rifikhang and Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year each and fine with default stipulation.
4) For the offence punishable under Section 4(a)(b)(ii) of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 the accused/ appellants Ranjan Daimari @ D. R.
Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, George Boro @ John @ B. Jwankhang, Ajay
Basumatary @ B. Aogi, Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @
Khararmswar, Rajendra Gayari @ Rajen @ Rifikhang and Onsai Boro @ Ajit
Boro were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
each and fine with default stipulation.
5) For the offence punishable under Sections 13 and 20 of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 the accused/ appellants Ranjan Daimari
@ D. R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, George Boro @ John @ B.
Jwankhang, Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogi, Khargeswar Basumatary @
Rahul Brahma @ Kharmeswar, Rajendra Gayari @ Rajen @ Rifikhang and
Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for three years each and fine with default stipulation.
6) For the offence punishable under Sections 10, 13, 16 and 20 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 the accused/ appellant
Jayanta Brahma @ Jugmai, Mathu Ram Brahma @ Mudai and Prabhat
Boro @ Tepa were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five
Page No.# 7/198
years each and fine with default stipulation.
7) For the offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 435 IPC,
Sections 3(b) and 4(a)(b)(ii) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 10,
13, 16 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 the
accused/appellants Lokhra Basumatary @ Lobo, Indra Brahma, Baishagi
Basumatary @ B. Bithurai were sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for different terms with fine under the aforesaid sections
including the sentence to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to
pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, under Section 3(b) of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908, with default stipulations.
8) For the offence punishable under Section 3(b) of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 the accused/appellant Raju Sarkar was sentenced
inter-alia, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
3. We have heard Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
M. Sarania and Mr. D. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants in both the appeals. We have also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Special
Public Prosecutor, CBI, appearing for the respondent.
4. The facts and circumstances of the case are briefly narrated hereunder. On
30.10.2008, as many as 9 powerful bombs exploded in various parts of Assam viz.,
Kamrup (Metro), Barpeta, Bongaigaon and Kokrajhar in between 11:20 a.m. to 11:30
a.m. The bombs exploded in the following locations :-
Page No.# 8/198
(i) Under the Flyover at Ganeshguri, Dispur, Guwahati.
(ii) CJM Court Complex, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati.
(iii) Baptist Church Complex, Panbazar, Guwahati.
(iv) Vegetable Market, Kokrajhar Town, Kokrajhar.
(v) Railway Crossing, Kokrajhar Town, Kokrajhar.
(vi) Fish Market, Kokrajhar Town, Kokrajhar.
(vii) Choudhury Shopping Complex, Barpeta Road.
(viii) Wholesale Vegetable Market, Barpeta Road.
(ix) Old Paglasthan Bus Stand, Bongaigaon.
5. In the bomb blasts carried out in aforesaid nine different places, as many as
88 (Eighty Eight) persons had lost their lives and around 540 ( Five Hundred and Forty )
persons were critically injured. The blasts had also caused extensive damages to
movable and immovable properties.
6. In the wake of the serial bomb blasts, many F.I.Rs. were lodged on 30.10.2008
in the different Police Stations in Assam. Based on such FIRs, cases were registered
involving sections 120B/121/121-A/122/ 123/302/326/307/427 of the IPC read with
Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10 & 13 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. On the basis of the FIRs lodged at the Dispur
Police Station, Dispur P.S Case No 1825/2008 and Dispur P.S. Case No.1419/2008 were
registered. The two FIRs lodged at the Panbazar Police Station lead to registration of
Panbazar P.S. Case No 398/2008 and 399/2008, under Sections 121/121-
A/302/326/427 of the IPC read with Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908
and Sections 10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. In the Kokrajhar
Page No.# 9/198
Police Station, 3 F.I.Rs. bearing Nos.371/08, 372/08 and 373/08 were registered under
Sections 120-B/121/121-A/302/323/324/326/307/427 of the IPC read with Section 3 of
the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. F.I.R. Nos.261/08 and 262/08 were lodged at
Barpeta Road Police Station based on which Barpeta Road P.S. Case Nos. 261/2008
and 262/2008 were registered under Sections 120-B/121-A/126/153(A)(2)/153-
B/302/326 of the IPC read with Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908. F.I.R.
No.451/08 of Bongaigaon Police Station was registered under Sections 120-B/121/121-
A/324/326/307 of the IPC read with Section 3 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908
and Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 based on
which Barpeta Road P.S. Cases Nos. 261/2008 and 262/ 2008 were registered.
7. Initially, the responsibility of carrying out investigation in all these cases were
taken up by the CID, Assam Police. However, subsequently, with the consent of the
Government of Assam, the Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi had
issued Notification No.228/100/2008-AVD.II dated 18.12.2008 transferring the
investigation of all the nine cases to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Consequently, the Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi Special Police Establishment,
Special Task Force, had re-registered the nine cases being RC/DST/2008/S/S0003 to
S0011. The investigation in connection with all the nine cases was thereafter carried
out by the CBI.
8. Records reveal that a number of Officers of the CBI had taken part in the
investigation of the nine serial blast cases. They have also been examined as
witnesses. Amongst those officers were Sri. N.S. Yadav (PW-464), Sri N.S. Kharayat (PW-
Page No.# 10/198
641), Sri N.K. Pathak (PW-642) Sri A.S. Tariyal (PW-624), Sri D. Ghosh (PW-631), Sri H.C.
Sharma (PW-647) and Sri Sunil Singh Rawat (PW-625). It appears from the materials
available on record that investigation conducted in the aforementioned cases had
revealed that all the nine bomb explosions were carried out by the members of the
proscribed terrorist organization i.e. National Democratic Front of Bodoland (in short
"NDFB") which was formed on 03.12.1986 under the chairmanship of its supreme
leader Ranjan Daimari.
9. During investigation it was found that the aforesaid nine bomb blasts were the
outcome of a conspiracy hatched and carried out by the members of the banned
NDFB. In the investigation carried out spread over a number of years the investigating
agency could record the statements of various witnesses and collect materials
including documentary evidence and material exhibits in support of the charges
brought against the accused persons. On the basis of such materials collected by the
CBI, a consolidated charge-sheet, covering all the nine F.I.Rs, was submitted against
the accused persons viz., 1. Ranjan Daimari @ D.R. Nabla @ Lasdum @ Loudum, 2.
Arun Borgoyary @ Dinthilang @ Kaobn Borgoyary, 3. Nilim Daimari @ D. Nizwmsa, 4.
George Boro @ John @ B. Jwangkhang, 5. Miss Jayanti Brahma @ Jugmai, 6. Ajoy
Basumatary @ B. Aogai, 7. Jitu Daimari, 8. Tarun Swargiary, 9. Khargeswar Basumatary
@ Rahul Brahma @ Kharamswar, 10. Tensu Narzary @ Thungri Boro @ Thungri Narzary @
Thulunga, 11. Dinesh Boro @ Bholaram Boro, 12. Prabhat Boro @ Tepa, 13. Raju Sarkar,
14. Uttam Swargiary @ S. Ulafat, 15. Rajen Goyari @ Rifikhang. 16. Miss B. Thorai @
Bwisagi, 17. Bishnu Goyari @ Bidai @ Haranga, 18. Mudai and 19. Mridul Goyari for
commission of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 302,
Page No.# 11/198
324, 326, 307, 427 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 3 & 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10, 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Assam, Guwahati.
10. It further appears from the materials available on record that the necessary
sanctions under Section 196 Cr.P.C. was obtained from the competent authority for
prosecuting the accused persons under Sections 121, 121-A, 122 and 123 of the IPC.
Likewise, sanction under Section 45 of the U.A.(P) Act of 1967 was also obtained for
prosecuting the accused persons for committing the offences under the Act of 1967.
Consent to prosecute the accused persons for committing offences under Sections 3
& 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 was also obtained under Section 7 of the
Act from the concerned authority.
11. Initially, 15 out of the 19 charge-sheeted accused persons were found to be
absconding by the investigating agency. However, the Investigating Officers had
eventually succeeded in arresting accused persons Ranjan Daimari on 16.052010.
Accused Onsai Boro, Indra Bramha and Kahrgeswar Basumatary were arrested on
27.05.2010. Khargeswar Basumatary was arrested on 29.05.2010. Ajay Basumatary was
arrested on 26.12.2008 and Raju Sarkar on 28.02.2009. Accused Mathuram Brahma
was arrested on 25.02.2011. However, some of the accused persons including Ulafat
@Uttam Swargiary were found to be absconding.
12. Based on the statement of accused Ranjan Daimari recorded during his
custodial interrogation, the I.O. was able to access his e-mail account and download
materials therefrom in presence of independent witnesses. The e-mails downloaded
Page No.# 12/198
from the account of accused/appellant Ranjan Daimari had projected him as the
President of the NDFB and there were photographs available in the e-mail account of
Ranjan Daimari along with some of the armed cadres of the NDFB, who were
wielding sophisticated weapons. The interrogation of the arrested accused person
further revealed that logistic arrangements leading to the explosions were made
under the supervision of accused Arun Borgoyary @ Dinthilang, the army chief of the
NDFB with the help of other cadres and the decision to carry out the blasts was also
taken in a meeting held in the residence of Dinthilang. Investigation further revealed
that accused Rifikhang and John had gone to Bangladesh in the month of
November/ December, 2008 and apprised Ranjan Daimari about the details
pertaining to the execution of the bomb blasts. Apart from the above, the I.O. could
also gather other evidence including the statement of accused Rahul Brahma which
revealed that he had planted the bomb at Panbazar, Guwahati. Accused Rahul
Brahma had apparently stated that the blasts were caused as per the direction of
accused Ranjan Daimari.
13. In view of the above disclosures the I.O. had submitted a supplementary
charge-sheet for committing offences under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A, 122, 123, 302,
324, 326, 307, 427 of the I.P.C. read with Sections 3 /4 of the Explosive Substances Act,
1908 and Sections 10, 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967 against the accused George Boro @ John @ B. Jwankhang, Mathuram Brahma
@ Mudai and others. George Boro was arrested on 08.01.2011.
14. After the arrest of accused Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro, Lokhra Basumatary @ Lobo
Page No.# 13/198
and Indra Brahma on 27.05.2010, their statements were recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. From the statement of Sun Wary and Dashrath Basumatary it could be found
that motorcycle bearing Registration No.AS-25-G-7034 was used in the Bongaigaon
Blast and the same was purchased with the help of accused Lokhra Basumatary and
Indra Brahma for an amount of Rs.15,000/- around the 3 rd/ last week of October,
2008.
15. It further appears from the materials on record that the two accused viz.,
Hemraj Mushahary and Dasarath Basumatary had admitted their involvement in the
case before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon and made a prayer to permit
them to adduce evidence in support of the prosecution case thereby agreeing to
become approvers. Accordingly, the Investigating Officer had made a prayer under
Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. for declaring those two accused persons as approvers.
Taking note of such a prayer, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon had
recorded the statements of Hemraj Mushahary and Dasharath Basumatary treating
them as approvers. It also appears from the materials available on record that
accused Anup Kumar Boro @ Nala was also made an approver vide order dated
22.11.2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barpeta.
16. Based on the charge-sheet submitted by the Investigating Agency, charges
were framed against the accused persons under Sections 120-B/121/121-
A/122/123/302/326/307/324/427 IPC read with Sections 3 /4 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10/13/16/18/20 of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, the same were read over and explained to the accused
Page No.# 14/198
persons but they had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, the matter
went up for trial. During trial the absconding accused Baishagi Basumatary @ B.
Bithurai was also arrested by the I.O. and produced before the learned Sessions
Judge, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati. Accordingly, charge was framed against the said
accused person by order dated 06.10.2015. This accused had also pleaded not guilty
and claimed to be tried.
17. There were altogether 871 witnesses whose statements were recorded during
investigation. The trial initially commenced in the Court of learned Sessions Judge,
Kamrup(M), Guwahati but subsequently, the same was transferred to the Special
Court constituted for the purpose of speedy disposal of the case.
18. During trial, the prosecution side had examined as many as 650 witnesses. The
remaining witnesses could not be examined as some of them had, in the meantime,
expired or went traceless. Upon recording of evidence of the prosecution side, the
statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein,
they had denied the incriminating materials brought against them by the
prosecution. The defense side however, did not adduce any evidence.
19. On conclusion of trial and after analyzing the evidence available on record,
the learned Special Judge had passed the impugned order dated 28.01.2019 in
connection with Sessions Case No.59(K) of 2011, Kamrup(Metro), Guwahati
convicting the accused/ appellants Ranjan Daimari, George Boro, Ajay Basumatari,
Khargeswar Basumatari, Rajendra Gayari and Onsai Boro under Sections 120-
B/302/326/324/435/436 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Sections 3(b) and
Page No.# 15/198
4(a)(b)(ii) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10(b)(i)/13/16(1)(a)/20
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Accused/appellants Lakhara
Basumatari, Indra Brahma and Bhaisagi Basumatari were convicted under Sections
326, 324, 345 IPC read with Sections 3(b) and 4(a)(b)(ii) of the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908 read with Sections 10, 13, 16, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
1967. Accused/appellant Raju Sarkar was convicted under Sections 302, 326, 324, 435
and 436 of the IPC read with Sections 3(b) and 4(a)(b)(ii) of the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908. Accused/appellants Jayanti Brahma @ Jugami, Mathuram Brahma @
Mudai and Prabhat Boro @ Tepa have been convicted under Sections 10, 13, 16, 20
of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Accused Nilim Daimari @ D. Nizwmsa
was convicted under Sections 10(a) and 13(1)(a)(b) of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967. Accused Mridul Gayari was, however, acquitted by the
learned trial Court by giving him the benefit of doubt.
20. By referring to the materials available on record, Mr. A. K. Bhattacharyya,
learned senior counsel, leading the arguments on behalf of the appellants, has
submitted that there is no evidence available on record to prove that the serial bomb
blasts were the outcome of a conspiracy involving his clients. According to the
learned senior counsel, the prosecution has failed to lead evidence so as to connect
the appellants with the occurrence.
21. Mr. Bhattacharyya has also argued that in the present case, charges were
framed against the accused persons on as many as three occasions and the
accused persons were made to face trial without giving them a proper opportunity
Page No.# 16/198
to know as to what exactly was the nature of charge brought against them. Since the
framing of charge in this case, according to Mr. Bhattacharyya, was not in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 221, 222 and 223 of the Cr.P.C., this is a
clear case of denial of fair trial to the accused persons.
22. By referring to the materials available on record Mr. Bhattacharyya has further
argued that the Gazette notifications dated 23.11.2006 (Ext-656) and 23.11.2008 (Ext-
314) were not proved by the prosecution as per the requirement of the Evidence Act,
1872 in as much as copies of the notifications were exhibited by PW- 457 and PW-464
who were not competent to prove those documents. As such, submits Mr.
Bhattacharyya, there is no evidence to prove that the National Democratic Front of
Bodoland (NDFB) was a banned organization within the meaning of Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
23. In so far as the evidence relied upon by the prosecution to establish the
conspiracy theory is concerned, Mr. Bhattacharyya has argued that the basic
document relied upon by the prosecution is Ext-42, which is a letter allegedly written
to the accused/appellant Ranjan Daimari addressing as "To Respected Sir".
However, the original of Ext-42 is not available on record. The translated version of the
said document was exhibited by PW-29 (Dr. Upen Narzary), who had merely
translated the Ext-42 from Bodo language to English. Although he has been
examined as a witness, yet his testimony, submits Mr. Bhattacharyya, could at best
relate to the work of translation carried out by him but the same cannot, according
to learned senior counsel, substitute the original document, which was never
Page No.# 17/198
produced before the learned trial court by the prosecution side. Contending that the
learned trial court had illegally relied upon Ext-42 as the foundation of the conspiracy
theory and convicted the appellants on the basis of a non-existent material, Mr.
Bhattacharyya submits that the impugned judgment of the trial court holding the
appellants/accused persons guilty of hatching a conspiracy is liable to be set aside
on such count alone. Contending that the original of Ext-42 was never seized by the
prosecution in connection with the present proceeding, Mr. Bhattacharyya has
further argued that the so called letter dated 04.09.2008 was seized in connection
with another case being Tura P.S. Case No.156(G)/08 registered under Section 121 of
the IPC read with Sections 6 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and
therefore, a copy of the said document cannot be treated as evidence against the
appellants/accused persons in the present case.
24. In so far as the statements of the approvers is concerned, the learned senior
counsel has argued that the conditions laid down in Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. has
not been fulfilled while turning an accused into an approver in this case. Continuing
his submissions in the above line Mr. Bhattacharyya has further argued that although
Dasarath Basumatari (PW-488) and Sri Anup Kumar Boro (PW-615) were shown as
approvers, yet, no pardon had been granted to them nor did they make any
application before the learned trial court for considering them as approvers.
According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, PWs-488 and 615 were not approvers within the
meaning of Section 306 of the Cr.P.C. Notwithstanding the same, the aforesaid
accused persons have been arbitrarily released and they are moving around as free
citizens although no proper procedure for their release as prescribed by the Cr.P.C.
Page No.# 18/198
has been followed in this case. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has
further argued that even while recording the statement of the accused persons
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C proper procedure has not been followed as a result
of which, the trial stood vitiated. To sum up his arguments Mr. Bhattacharyya has
taken us through the materials available on record to contend that there was unusual
delay in completing the investigation and the trial in this case leading to serious
prejudice to the interest of his clients. He has also argued that sufficient time was not
given to the defense counsel to argue the case and that the judgments and citations
relied upon by the defense side before the learned trial court was neither discussed
nor considered in the proper perspective before rendering the impugned judgment.
25. Referring to the alleged confessions of Sri Ajay Basumatari (Ext-379), Sri Anup
Kumar Boro (approver) (Ext-461) and Sri. Onsai Boro (Ext-489) relied upon by the
prosecution, Mr. Bhattacharyya has argued that none of those confessions were
recorded by following the due procedure laid down in Section 164 of the Cr.P.C.
Moreover, the alleged confessions, according to Mr. Bhattacharyya, do not in any
way advance the prosecution case and therefore, reliance placed on those
confessions were uncalled for. In support of his above argument, Mr. Bhattacharyya
has relied upon and referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Rabindra Kumar Dey Vs. State of Orissa reported in (1976) 4 SCC 233, to submit that
the burden to prove the case is entirely upon the prosecution and once there is
reasonable and plausible explanation from the accused, it must be held that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case. According to Mr. Bhattacahrjee, the
explanation furnished by the accused is liable to be accepted. Mr. Bhattacharyya
Page No.# 19/198
further submits that the fouler the crime, stricter is the proof and, therefore, unless the
prosecution succeeds in proving the charge beyond reasonable doubt, the accused
persons are liable to be acquitted. In support of the above argument the learned
counsel has relied upon Lakshmi Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in (1976) 4 SCC 394.
26. By referring to the decision in the case of Vadivelu Thewar Vs. State of Madras
reported in AIR 1957 SC 614 as well as in the case of Harbans Singh Bhan Vs. The State
of Punjab reported in AIR 1957 SC 637 and Nachhhattar Singh and others Vs. State of
Punjab reported in (1976) 1 SCC 750, the learned senior counsel for the appellants has
argued that the prosecution case must be proved and it cannot be "may be true or
probably true", if the witnesses relied upon by the prosecution is found to be
unreliable, wholly unreliable or neither wholly reliable nor unreliable for prosecuting
the accused persons. By referring to the decision of Devi Lal and another Vs. State of
Rajasthan and others reported in (1971) 3 SCC 471 as well as Mohinder Singh Vs. State
reported in AIR 1953 SC 415, Mr. Bhattacharyya has argued that the prosecution must
have a definite and positive case and the same must be proved in terms of the
allegations brought against the accused. He submits that it is the cardinal principle of
criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution not only has a definite and positive case
but it succeeds in proving the entire case. By relying upon the decision of Ganga
Sahai and others Vs. State of U.P. reported in (1974) 4 SCC 186, the learned senior
counsel has further argued that in a criminal case, the fate of the proceedings
cannot be left at the hands of the parties alone.
27. Contending that holding a witness "implicitly reliable" leads to denial of justice
Page No.# 20/198
leading to infirmities in the prosecution case, Mr. Bhattacharyya has also referred to
the decision in the case of Hallu and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and
others reported in (1974) 4 SCC 300 as well as Kailash Gour and others Vs. State of
Assam reported in (2012) 2 SCC 34, to submit that charge brought against the
accused in a criminal case must be established by leading evidence that is
acceptable by the standards of criminal jurisprudence.
28. In so far the e-mails of the accused appellant Ranjan Daimari is concerned,
Mr. Bhattacharyya has argued that the e-mails exhibited by PW-499 and PW-502
numbering 64 in total as Exts-417(i) to Exts-417(xxiii) and Ext-427 were inadmissible in
evidence since those were not accompanied by a certificate issued under Section
65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Moreover, submits Mr. Bhattacharyya, such
electronic evidences have also not been put to the accused persons while recording
their statements under Sections 313 Cr.P.C. In support of his above argument, Mr.
Bhattacharyya has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473.
29. By referring to the decision in the case of Kali Ram Vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh reported in (1973) 2 SCC 808, Chandigarh Administration Vs. Dharma Singh
reported in (1985) Suppl. SCC 266, Anil Kumar Singh Vs. State of Bihar reported in
(2003) 9 SCC 67 and State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Wasif Haider reported in (2019) 2 SCC
303, the learned senior counsel has further submitted that on the basis of evidence
available on record, if two views are possible, than the one favourable to the
accused persons is required to be adopted by the court and the accused persons
Page No.# 21/198
must be acquitted by giving them the benefit of doubt. In a criminal case, submits Mr.
Bhattacharyya, mere suspicion or moral conviction cannot take the place of proof.
30. By referring to the impugned judgement passed by the learned Special Judge,
Mr. Bhattacharyya has argued that the learned Court below has failed to correctly
appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution in holding that the charge of
criminal conspiracy under Section 120B of the IPC read with Section 18 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has been proved by failing to consider that there
is no evidence to connect the accused with the alleged conspiracy theory. In
support of his above argument, Mr. Bhattacharyya has relied upon and referred to
the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Tapan Das Vs. State of
Bombay, reported in AIR 1956 SC 33 and Jetsur Surangabhai Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in (1984) Suppl SCC 207 as well as Paramhans Yadav and another Vs. State
of Bihar and others reported in (1987) 2 SCC 197 and B.H. Narasimha Rao vs.
Government of A.P. reported in (1995) Suppl. 4 SCC 704.
31. Contending that the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 164 of
the Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence and, therefore, the trial Court could
not have relied upon the same so as to convict the accused persons, Mr.
Bhattacharyya has vociferously argued that the conviction of the accused persons is
substantially based on the statement of the witnesses recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. In order to drive home the above arguments, the learned senior counsel for
the appellants has relied upon the law laid down in the following decisions:-
(i) Mamand and others Vs. The Emperor reported in Air 1946 SC 45.
Page No.# 22/198
(ii) Ram Kishan Singh Vs. Harmit Kaur reported in (1972( 3 SCC 280.
(iii) Utpal Das Vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2010) 6 SCC 493.
(iv) Baij Nath Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2010) 6 SCC 736.
(v) R. Shaji Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2013) 14 SCC 266.
(vi) Bisheswar Baori Vs. State of Assam reported in 2002 (2) GLT 395.
32. In so far as the confessional statement of the accused persons relied upon in
this case is concerned, Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that proper procedure was not
followed while recording their confession and at-least 24 hours time for reflection was
not given to the accused persons before recording their statements. Contending that
confession of co-accused is a weak piece of evidence and, therefore, cannot be
wholly relied upon for conviction of the accused, Mr. Bhattacharyya has referred to
the law laid down in the case of Sarwan Singh Rattan Singh Vs. State of Punjab
reported in AIR 1957 SC 637 and Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR
1964 SC 1184. He submits that when confession is the whole basis of conviction, the
truthfulness or otherwise of the confession must be ascertained by an independent
investigation and based on cogent evidence. In support of the above argument, Mr.
Bhattacharyya has relied upon the decision in the case of Padmeshwar Phukan Vs.
State of Assam reported in 1971 Cri. L.J. 1595.
33. By relying upon the decision in the case of Kalawati and another Vs. State of
H.P. reported in AIR 1953 SC 131 as well as Aloke Nath Dutta and another Vs. State of
Page No.# 23/198
West Bengal reported in (2007) 12 SCC 230, Ram Chandra and another Vs. State of
U.P. reported in AIR 1957 SC 381, Dhanajaya Reddy Vs. State of Karnataka reported in
(2001) 4 SCC 9 and Kehar Singh & others Vs. State [Delhi Administration] reported in
(1988) 3 SCC 609, the learned senior counsel for the appellant has argued that any
confession in order to be relied upon by the trial Court, ought to be voluntary and
truthful. Such confession must also be recorded by following the due procedure laid
down in Section 164/281 of the Cr.P.C. unless the aforesaid process is followed, the
confession of the accused persons cannot be relied upon for conviction. Mr.
Bhattacharyya has added that in any event, a retracted confession cannot form the
basis of conviction.
34. Referring to the discovery statements relied upon by the prosecution, Mr.
Bhattacharyya has argued that the statement of the accused must lead to discovery
of facts and not vice-versa. Mr. Bhattacharyya has argued that none of the
disclosure statements relied upon by the prosecution side meets the requirement of
Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Even the pointing out memos relied upon by the
prosecution, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, are of no
evidentiary value in this case since the alleged discoveries made by the I.O. on the
basis of such disclosure statement and pointing out memos were made subsequently
i.e. after the prosecution became aware of the existence of such facts from some
other sources. Contending that statements of the witnesses recorded under Section
164 Cr.P.C. cannot be used as substantive evidence for conviction of accused, Mr.
Bhattacharyya has argued that those statements could at best, have been used for
corroboration and contradiction of the witnesses but not as substantive evidence.
Page No.# 24/198
35. In support of the above argument, Mr. Bhattacharyya has relied upon the
decisions rendered in the case of Mohd. Inayatullah Vs. State of Maharastra reported
in (1976) 1 SCC 828, Wakkar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 3 SCC 306
and Vijay Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 3 SCC 412.
36. Assailing the findings of the learned trial Court to the effect that the accused
appellant Ranjan Daimari has himself admitted in an application filed before this
Court that he was the Chairman of NDFB and, therefore, the said fact stood
established by the own showing of the appellant, Mr. Bhattacharyya submits that
pleadings made on behalf of the accused would not be binding upon him and the
prosecution would be obliged to prove each and every fact by leading proper
evidence.
37. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the appellant has also referred
to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pratap Mishra Vs. State
of Orissa reported in (1977) 3 SCC 739 to contend that the learned trial Court has
committed manifest illegality in relying upon the pleadings contained in the
Interlocutory Application (IA) filed by the accused to hold that the appellant Ranjan
Daimari would be bound by the said pleadings. It is also the contention of Mr.
Bhattacharyya that refusal to answer any question posed to the accused while
recording the statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. would not amount to
admission of guilt. Mr. Bhattacharyya has referred to the decision in the case of
Nagaraj Vs. State reported in (2015) 4 SCC 739 to contend that merely because the
accused appellant Ranjan Daimari had given an unsatisfactory answer to the queries
Page No.# 25/198
put to him during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the same would not
justify the Court to return a finding of guilt against him.
38. Mr. Bhattacharyya has further argued that there was no valid prosecution
sanction obtained in this case as per the requirement of Section 45 of the UA(P) Act
as well as Section 120B of the IPC, inasmuch as, there was complete non-application
of mind to the facts of this case by the sanctioning authority. Moreover, no proper
satisfaction of facts was recorded before granting such sanction. By relying upon the
decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed Vs. State
of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1979) 4 SCC 172, Mr. Bhattacharyya has argued that it
is incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted
by the competent authority on reaching a satisfaction that a case for granting
sanction has been made out constituting the offence alleged.
39. To sum up his arguments, Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellants has argued that although the occurrence of the serial
bomb blasts in various parts of Assam on 30/10/2008 is not in dispute, yet, the
prosecution has completely failed to prove the charges brought against the
appellants by adducing proper evidence. It is also the submission of Mr.
Bhattacharyya that the conspiracy theory does not find any material support from
the evidence brought on record.
40. In response to the above arguments, Mr. Keyal learned Special Public
Page No.# 26/198
Prosecutor appearing for the CBI submits that charge was framed against as many as
16 accused persons out of which one accused, viz. Mridul Goyari has been acquitted
by the learned trial court but with regard to the other fifteen accused persons, the
trial court has found sufficient evidence to convict them. It is the submission of Mr.
Keyal that the prosecution has adduced evidence of a large number of witnesses
which includes relatives and friends of the deceased persons, injured victims, relatives
friends and associates of injured persons and those whose properties were destroyed
in the blasts. Besides the above, a number of medical officers who had rendered
treatment to the injured, Investigating Officers (I/O) as well as official witness were
examined by the prosecution so as to establish the charge brought against the
accused persons. By referring to the statement of the approvers Mr. Keyal has argued
that Anup Kr. Boro (PW-615) was made an approver on the basis of order passed by
the Magistrate (PW-513), based on an application filed by Inspector of Police Abdul
Hamid (PW-486) with a request to make the said accused an approver. The accused
persons who made disclosure statements were all examined as witnesses and the
pointing out memos were also duly exhibited during trial. The confessional statement
of Ajay Basumatary (Exhibit- 379) and Onsai Boro (Exhibit- 489), according to Mr.
Keyal, has been recorded by following the due process of law and the same clearly
brings into light the conspiracy theory. Contending that the prosecution has
examined seizure witnesses, vehicle owners, CBI officials, Ballistic Experts, CFSL experts,
prosecution sanctioning authority and judicial officers, apart from other witness
numbering 650 in total, Mr. keyal submits that the evidence adduced by the
prosecution was sufficient to establish the charge brought against the accused
Page No.# 27/198
persons beyond reasonable doubt.
41. Insofar as the arguments advanced by the appellants' counsel regarding non-
furnishing of certificates under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, Mr. Keyal has
submitted that the e-mails were downloaded in presence of accused/ appellant
Ranjan Daimari and independent witnesses after the password was furnished by the
accused Ranjan Daimari himself. He has argued that the disclosure statement of
Ranjan Daimari would clearly go to show that there is no dispute about the fact that
the emails were downloaded from his account. Since those emails clearly depicted
that the accused/ appellant Ranjan Daimari was connected with the NDFB and was
in fact the chief of the said organization, submits Mr. Keyal, the learned trial court has
rightly convicted him as the kingpin of the conspiracy.
42. Mr. Keyal has also submitted that the conviction of the accused is based on
the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses but not the statements of the
witnesses recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. as has been alleged. Those statements,
however, had been referred to only to corroborate the testimony of the witnesses.
43. In the above context, Mr. Keyal further submits that the fact that the accused
No. 1 Ranjan Daimari was the Chairman of a banned organization was not only
established from the testimony of PW-646 but also from the application filed by him
before the High Court praying for grant of bail wherein, it has been clearly projected
that he is the chairman of the NDFB. Mr. Keyal further submits that the notification
dated 23-11-2006 issued by the Govt. of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Exhibit- 656) as
well as the schedule of UAP Act, 1967 would leave no room for doubt that the NDFB is
Page No.# 28/198
a terrorist organization and the accused No. 1 Ranjan Daimari was its chairman. The
said fact, according to Mr. Keyal, also finds due support from the evidence of PW-302
Manjit Basumatary wherein, there was no cross-examination in respect of the
evidence adduced by the said witnesses on the above aspect. Mr. Keyal has also
argued that although specific questions, in the form of question Nos. 1, 6, 7 and 8 was
put to the accused No. 1 Ranjan Daimari while recording his statement under Section
313 Cr.P.C., he has not denied the suggestions made to the effect that he was the
chairman of the NDFB. Under the circumstances, submits Mr. Keyal there is no scope
for this Court to interfere with the conclusion drawn by the learned Special Judge to
the effect that accused No. 1 Ranjan Daimari was in fact the chairman of the
banned outfit NDFB on the date on which the incident had occurred.
44. In support of his above arguments Mr. Keyal has relied upon and referred to
the following decisions:-
Dhal Singh Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2016 (16) SCC 701
paragraph 24, Ramnaresh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in 2012 (4) SCC
257 paragraphs 21, 49, 50, 51, 52, Rafiq Ahmed Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2011
(8) SCC 300, State of U.P. Vs. Lakshmi reported in 1998 (4) SCC 336, paragraphs
8, 9, 10, 11, Joseph S/o Kooveli Poulo reported in 2000 (5) SCC 197 paragraph
14, Shankaria Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1978 SC 1248, paragraphs
37, 42, 49, 51, 52, Rameshbhai Mohanbhai Koli & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat
reported in 2011 (11) SCC 111, paragraphs 16, 17, 18; Attar Singh Vs. State of
Maharashtra reported in 2013 (11) SCC 719, paragraphs 14 - 17; State of
Page No.# 29/198
Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jeet Singh reported in 1999 (4) SCC 370 paragraphs 25,
26, 27, 28; Jaffar Hussain Dastagir Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1969 (2)
SCC 872 paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8; Balbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR
1957 SC 216 paragraph 15; Pyarelal Bhargava Vs. The State of Rajasthan
reported in AIR 1963 SC 1094 paragraph 7, Pakkirsamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu
reported in 1997 (8) SCC 158 paragraph 12; Haricharan Kurmi Vs. State of Bihar
reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184 paragraph 11; Yash Pal Mittal Vs. State of Punjab
reported in 1977 (4) SCC 540 paragraphs 8, 9; State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Suresh
Rajan reported in 2014 (11) SCC 709 paragraph 32; Earabhadrappa @
Krishnappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1983 (2) SCC 330 paragraphs 7,
8; Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh & Anr. State of Vindh-P reported in AIR 1954 SC 322
paragraph 25, Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of West Bengal reported in 2012 (7)
SCC 646 paragraph 45 (Hostile Witness), paragraphs 50, 57 (Delay in
examination of witnesses), paragraph 58 (Defective or illegal confession),
paragraphs 60, 61, 65 (Absconding), paragraphs 66 - 71 (Omission),
paragraphs 84 - 88 (circumstantial evidence) and State of H.P. Vs. Lekh Raj &
Anr. reported in 2000 (1) SCC 247 paragraph 10.
45. We have bestowed our anxious considerations to the rival submissions made at
the Bar and have also carefully gone through the materials available on record. We
now propose to deal with the contentious issues raised in these appeals as here-
under.
Page No.# 30/198
A) Objections raised by the appellants' counsel on the ground of multiple
framing of charge against the accused persons :-
46. In order to examine the above plea raised by the learned senior counsel for
the appellants, we have examined the Lower Court Record (LCR) and find that the
matter was committed for trial to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup
(Metro) by order dated 28/02/2011 passed by the learned Special Judicial
Magistrate, Assam. On 14/03/2011, the matter was fixed for consideration of charge
but it appears that on that day, charge could not be framed by the learned Judge.
On 29/08/2011, charge was framed against 14 accused persons, viz. (1) Sri Ranjan
Daimari @ D.R. Nabala @Lasdum @ Loudum, (2) Sri Nilim Daimari @ D. Nizwmsa, (3) Sri
George Boro @ John @ B. Jwangkhang, (4) Smt. Jayanti Brahma @ Jugami, (5) Sri Ajoy
Basumatary @ B. Aogai, (6) Sri Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @
Kharamswar, (7) Sri Prabhat Bora @ Tepa, (8) Sri Raju Sarkar, (9) Sri Rajendra Gayari @
Rajen @ Rifikhang, (10) Sri Mudai, (11) Sri Mridul Gayari, (12) Sri Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro,
(13) Sri Lokra Basumatary @ Lobo and (14) Sri Indra Brahma. As many as 17 distinct
and different charges were framed against these 14 accused persons. Thereafter, on
06/10/2015, charge was framed against the 15 th accused person, viz. Ms. Baishagi
Basumatary @ B. Bithurai. On the basis of these 17 charges framed by the learned trial
Court, the 15 accused person were made to face trial.
47. We also find from the record that the Additional Sessions Judge, Kamrup,
Guwahati Ms. M. Rongpi had earlier prepared a draft of the 17 charges proposed
against the accused persons but the same does not bear the seal and signature of
the learned Judge. Therefore, it cannot be said that charge was framed against the
Page No.# 31/198
accused persons on that occasion. It also appears from the record that the trial
against the accused persons was conducted based on the 17 charges framed
against the 15 accused persons by order dated 29/08/2011 and 06/10/2015
respectively. The lower court records do not contain charge framed against the
above noted fifteen accused persons on any other date.
48. We also find from the materials available on record that at no point of time the
appellants had made any complaint before the learned trial Court with regard to
multiple framing of charge against them nor had the appellants pointed out as to in
what manner prejudice has been caused to them due to the orders dated
29/08/2011 and 06/10/2015 passed by the learned trial Court framing charge against
the accused persons. Mr. Bhattacharyya has also submitted that such a plea is being
raised on behalf of the appellants for the first time before the appellate Court.
Situated thus and having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,
we do not find any good ground to hold that the accused persons had suffered any
prejudice due to multiple framing of charge against them. The learned senior counsel
for the appellants has also submitted in his usual fairness that even if the said
contention of the appellants is accepted by this Court, it would not be possible nor
practicable to go for re-trial.
B) Objection as to delay in investigation and conclusion of trial :-
49. As noticed above, the prosecution case is that the accused persons being
members of the banned organization had carried out the serial bomb blasts in nine
different locations in the State of Assam pursuant to a conspiracy. Initially,
Page No.# 32/198
investigation in the connected cases were taken up by the Assam Police but later on,
fresh cases were registered by the CBI and thereafter, CBI took over the investigation.
During the course of investigation, the CBI had to follow multiple leads, visit a number
of places, record the statements of 871 witnesses beside collecting voluminous
documentary and material evidence including the opinions of FSL experts on the
various seized articles. From the materials available on record, it is discernable that in
their effort to conduct investigation for collecting evidence pertaining to crimes of
this nature the CBI had to undertake a gigantic exercise which would undoubtedly
be a time consuming affair. Being conscious of the delay that had already taken
place in the matter, all the cases were clubbed together for trial and transferred to
the court of learned Special Judge for expediting the trial. Although it is desirable that
trial in such cases be concluded as expeditiously as possible, yet, in a criminal trial
involving such large number of witnesses, some amount of delay was inevitable. We
agree with Mr. Bhattacharyya that the prosecution has needlessly examined a large
number of witnesses more particularly those witnesses who have suffered losses due
to damage of their properties as well as in some other categories but what has to be
borne in mind that it is always a matter of discretion of the prosecuting agency to
decide on the quality and quantity of evidence it choses to adduce in a particular
case so as to establish the charge brought against the accused. Even assuming that
examination of some of the witnesses was avoidable, yet, those would be views in
hindsight and hence, cannot afford a justifiable ground for to the court to presume
that a number of witnesses were examined only to delay the trial.
50. It also appears from the impugned judgment and order passed by the
Page No.# 33/198
learned Special Judge that during trial, as many as 5 Public Prosecutors were
engaged by the CBI but due to language problem, some of the Public Prosecutors
had to be changed, which had also contributed to the delay in concluding the trial.
From the above, it is evident that some delay has been caused in concluding the trial
but the same was on account of factors that were apparently beyond the control of
the prosecution. Our attention has not been invited to any instance of deliberate
delay during investigation or trial which can be specifically said to have caused
prejudice to the appellants/ accused persons. Therefore, having regard to the
peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the said aspect
of the matter need not detain this court.
C) Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving that NDFB was banned
organization and an unlawful association :-
51. Coming to the arguments advanced by the appellants counsel that the
prosecution has not been able to prove that NDFB was a terrorist organisation and an
unlawful association we deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the
statute dealing with the aforesaid aspects.
52. Section 2(m) of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short "Act of
1967") defines terrorist organization which reads as follows :-
"Section 2(m) - "terrorist organisation" means an organisation listed in the
Schedule or an organisation operating under the same name as an
organisation so listed;"
53. An "Unlawful association" has been defined in Section 2(p) which is
Page No.# 34/198
reproduced herein below :-
"Section 2 (p) - "unlawful association" means any association,--
(i) which has for its object any unlawful activity, or which
encourages or aids persons to undertake any unlawful activity, or of
which the members undertake such activity; or
(ii) which has for its object any activity which is punishable under
Section 153A or section 153B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
which encourages or aids persons to undertake any such activity, or of
which the members undertake any such activity: Provided that nothing
contained in sub-clause (ii) shall apply to the State of Jammu and
Kashmir;"
54. According to Mr. Bhattacharyya, although there is a gazette notification issued
by the Central Government on 23/11/2006 declaring that the NDFB is a banned
organisation under the provisions of sub-section 3 of section 3 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, yet, the said notification has not been adduced in evidence
by the prosecution in accordance with the requirement of section 81 of the evidence
Act. In order to appreciate the said argument, it would be necessary for us to refer to
the provisions of section 81 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which is reproduced herein
below :-
81. Presumption as to Gazettes, newspapers, private Acts of Parliament
and other documents.--The Court shall presume the genuineness of
every document purporting to be the London Gazette, or any Official
Gazette, or the Government Gazette of any colony, dependency of
possession of the British Crown, or to be a newspaper or journal, or to be
a copy of a private Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom printed by
Page No.# 35/198
the Queen's Printer, and of every document purporting to be a
document directed by any law to be kept by any person, if such
document is kept substantially in the form required by law and is
produced from proper custody.
55. There is no doubt or dispute about the fact that by issuing the gazette
notification (Ext- 314) dated 23/11/2008, the Central Government had extended the
ban imposed on the NDFB . The said document has been brought on record by the
prosecution witness. We find from the record that Ext- 314 was brought on record by
Sri Supriyo Kumar Roy (PW- 457) who was serving as the Joint Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Home Department. The Gazette Notification dated
23.11.2006 (Ext-656) has been exhibited by the I.O. Sri N. S. Yadav i.e. PW-646.
56. A perusal of the notification dated 23.11.2006 goes to show that the Bodo
Security Force, which was rechristened as National Democratic Front of Bodoland
(NDFB), had its professed aim of liberation of Bodoland through the process of
secession of the aforesaid areas from India. The notification further takes note of the
fact that the NDFB has been working in alliance with other armed secessionist
organizations of the North East region so as to carry on with the struggle for national
liberation of the Indo- Burma region in alliance with likeminded organizations of that
region. In view of the above activities of NDFB the Central Government was of the
opinion that the NDFB, having agreed to abjure violence, has continued to indulge in
illegal and violent activities intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity
of India and also to align itself with other unlawful associations like United Liberation
Front of Assam etc. In the notification dated 23.11.2006 the nature of activities
Page No.# 36/198
indulged in by the NDFB have been laid down which are reproduced herein below
for ready reference :-
"AND WHEREAS, the Central Government is of the opinion that the NDFB
having agreed to adjure violence has continued to -
(i) Indulge in illegal and violent activities intended to disrupt or which
disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India in furtherance of its
objective of achieving a separate Bodoland;
(ii) aligned itself with other unlawful associations like the United
Liberation Front of Asom and outfits like the National Socialist Council of
Nagaland (Isac-Muivah) to create a separate Bodoland;
(iii) in pursuance of its aims and objective, engaged in unlawful and
violent activities thereby undermining the authority of the Government
and spreading terror and panic among the people;
(iv) indulge in extortions of money from businessmen, Government
officials and other civilians in addition to acts of kidnapping for ransom
with a view to finance and execute plans for creation of a separate
Bodoland;
(v) embark on a systematic drive for recruitment of fresh cadres with a
view to continuing its terrorist and insurgency activities;
(vi) create carnage and ethnic violence resulting in killings, destruction
of property and exodus of thousands of non-Bodos inhabiting in Bodo
Page No.# 37/198
dominated areas in Assam with a view to spread panic and insecurity
among non-Bodos and forcing them to migrate from Bodo areas;
(vii) establish camps and hideouts across the Country's border to carry out
its secessionist activities;
(viii) obtain assistance from, anti-India forces in other countries to procure
arms and other assistance in their struggle for creation of a separate
Bodoland;
And Whereas the Central Government is further of the opinion that the
violent activities include -
(i) 58 violent incidents in 2004, killing 60 persons including one
personnel of security forces;
(ii) 21 violent activities in 2005, killing 4 persons;
(iii) 15 violent incidents in 2006 (upto 31st August, 2006), killing 9
persons including 5 personnel of security forces."
57. Taking note of the activities indulged in by the NDFB, the Government of India,
in exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967) had declared the National Democratic
Front of Bodoland as an unlawful association.
58. It would be pertinent to note herein that Section 35 of the Act of 1967 lays
down the provision for amendment of the schedule, etc of the Act. According to
Section 35(1), the Central Government may by notification in official gazette, add an
Page No.# 38/198
organization in the 1st schedule or the name of an individual in the 4 th schedule. A
perusal of the 1st schedule of the Act of 1967 (as amended), clearly goes to show
that the name of NDFB has been included in the list of terrorist organization in entry
no. 12. From the First Schedule of the Act of 1967, it is clear that NDFB has been
declared to be a terrorist organization and the said declaration was not only made
by a gazette notification but it has also been incorporated in the schedule of the Act
by a statutory amendment of the First Schedule of the Act of 1967. Therefore, it is not
a case where the prosecution has merely relied upon a gazette notification to prove
that the NDFB was a terrorist organization and an unlawful association but the said
stand is based on statutory provision as well.
59. The basic objection of the appellants is on account of the fact that those two
gazette notifications, even though admissible in evidence, have not been proved in
accordance with law. In other words, the objection is to the mode of proof of those
documents. However, Ext-314 was produced by PW-457 who was a responsible
official from the Home Department of the Government of Assam. There is nothing to
establish that the said document was not produced from proper custody. Moreover,
it also appears that the defense counsel did not raise any objection when Exts 314
and 656 were being exhibited by the prosecution witnesses nor have the witnesses
been cross-examined on the above points. Therefore, the question that would arise
for consideration of this court is as to whether, objection as to the mode of proof of
those documents would be maintainable at this point of time.
60. Dealing with an issue of similar nature the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
Page No.# 39/198
expounded the law in the case of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder vs. Arulmigu
Viswesarswami & V.P. Temple and another reported in (2003) 8 SCC 752. The
observations made in paragraph 20 would be relevant and therefore, are being
reproduced herein below :-
"20. The learned counsel for the defendant-respondent has relied on The
Roman Catholic Mission Vs. The State of Madras & Anr. AIR 1966 SC 1457 in
support of his submission that a document not admissible in evidence, though
brought on record, has to be excluded from consideration. We do not have
any dispute with the proposition of law so laid down in the above-said case.
However, the present one is a case which calls for the correct position of law
being made precise. Ordinarily an objection to the admissibility of evidence
should be taken when it is tendered and not subsequently. The objections as to
admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into two classes:- (i)
an objection that the document which is sought to be proved is itself
inadmissible in evidence; and (ii) where the objection does not dispute the
admissibility of the document in evidence but is directed towards the mode of
proof alleging the same to be irregular or insufficient. In the first case, merely
because a document has been marked as 'an exhibit', an objection as to its
admissibility is not excluded and is available to be raised even at a later stage
or even in appeal or revision. In the latter case, the objection should be taken
before the evidence is tendered and once the document has been admitted
in evidence and marked as an exhibit, the objection that it should not have
been admitted in evidence or that the mode adopted for proving the
document is irregular cannot be allowed to be raised at any stage subsequent
to the marking of the document as an exhibit. The later proposition is a rule of
fair play. The crucial test is whether an objection, if taken at the appropriate
point of time, would have enabled the party tendering the evidence to cure
the defect and resort to such mode of proof as would be regular. The omission
to object becomes fatal because by his failure the party entitled to object
Page No.# 40/198
allows the party tendering the evidence to act on an assumption that the
opposite party is not serious about the mode of proof. On the other hand, a
prompt objection does not prejudice the party tendering the evidence, for two
reasons: firstly, it enables the Court to apply its mind and pronounce its decision
on the question of admissibility then and there; and secondly, in the event of
finding of the Court on the mode of proof sought to be adopted going against
the party tendering the evidence, the opportunity of seeking indulgence of the
Court for permitting a regular mode or method of proof and thereby removing
the objection raised by the opposite party, is available to the party leading the
evidence. Such practice and procedure is fair to both the parties. Out of the
two types of objections, referred to hereinabove, in the later case, failure to
raise a prompt and timely objection amounts to waiver of the necessity for
insisting on formal proof of a document, the document itself which is sought to
be proved being admissible in evidence. In the first case, acquiescence would
be no bar to raising the objection in superior Court ."
61. Again in the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) through L.R.s v
Muddasani Saroja reported in (2016) 12 SCC 288, the apex court has observed that
the rule of putting ones version during cross-examination is not merely a technical
one but is one of essential justice. In case of failure of a party to put his case during
cross-examination, the court would presume that the witness account has been
accepted.
62. Applying the law laid down in the cases of R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder
(supra) and Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) through L.R.s(supra), this court is of
the opinion that the objection raised by the appellants as regards the mode of proof
of the two gazette notifications viz. Exts 314 and 656 cannot be entertained at this
stage.
Page No.# 41/198
63. In the above context it would be worth noting here that section 57 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 enjoins a duty upon the court to take judicial notice of all
laws in force in the territory of India as well as all public Acts passed by the
Parliament. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that there were
cogent materials available on record including statutory provision for the learned trial
court to arrive at a conclusion that at the time of the occurrence, NDFB was a
banned terrorist organization and an unlawful association within the meaning of the
Act of 1967.
D) Objection as to the procedure followed in declaration of Approvers :-
64. According to the case projected by the prosecution, accused persons Anup
Kumar Boro, Hemraj Mushahary and Dasharath Basumatary were declared as
approvers and accordingly, their statements were recorded by the learned
Magistrate. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has argued that none of
those accused persons were granted pardon by the court and therefore, they could
not have been treated as approvers. Notwithstanding the same these accused
persons had been un-conditionally released.
65. We find from the perusal of the impugned judgement of the learned trial court
that by order dated 22-11-2008 passed by the learned Chief Judicial magistrate,
Barpeta, accused Anup Kumar Boro @ Nala was made an approver. Likewise, it
appears that the learned Chief Judicial magistrate, Bongaigaon had recorded the
statements of accused Hemraj Mushahary and Dasharath Basumatary on being
Page No.# 42/198
produced by the Investigating Officer with a request to make them as approver on
the ground that those accused persons have confessed before him that they were
involved in the bomb blast case. However, the orders passed by the learned Chief
Judicial Magistrates, Barpeta and Bongaigaon, as referred to above, are not
available in the records. Be that as it may, there is no dispute between the parties
about the fact that none of those accused persons were tendered pardon by the
court. It appears that accused Hemraraj Mushahary had died in an accident during
trial. However, evidence of accused Anup Kumar Boro (PW-615) and Dasharath
Basumatary (PW-488) have been recorded.
66. Section 306 CrPC provides that the court may tender pardon to accomplice
on condition of making full and true disclosure of the whole circumstances within his
knowledge related to the offence. However, as noted above, none of those
accused persons had been tendered pardon by the court. Rather, it appears that
the Investigating Officer had made a prayer before the court to make them
approver merely because they had made confession before the I.O. In other words,
although the expression approver has been used by the prosecution, yet, in reality, it
appears the statement of these accused persons were recorded presuming those to
be their confession. We,therefore, find ourselves in agreement with Mr.
Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the appellants that there is no approver in
this case. The said position has also been fairly accepted by Mr. Keyal.
E) Evidence adduced by the prosecution not sufficient to prove the charge brought
against the accused persons :-
Page No.# 43/198
67. The prosecution has examined a number of witnesses to prove and establish
that the bombs had exploded in nine different location on 30-10-2008 in between
11:20 am to 11:30 am. These witnesses can be broadly categories into four groups 1)
Witnesses who had seen the dead bodies and lost their near relatives, acquaintances
in the blasts, 2) Injured victims 3) witnesses whose properties had been destroyed
and 4) the Medical Officers. Since the occurrence of the bomb blasts on 30-10-2008
at nine different places in Assam as well as the large scale destruction caused to
human lives and properties is not in dispute, hence, we do not consider it necessary
to burden this judgment by discussing the testimonies of all the witnesses of these four
categories. However, evidence of some of the witnesses of these categories,
considered by the learned court below, is being referred to here-in-below for the
purpose of projecting the intensity of the blasts and the damages caused
thereunder.
F) Witnesses who have seen the dead bodies and lost their near relatives and
acquaintances -
68. PW-3 Makibul Haque has stated in his deposition that he is a practicing lawyer
and has deposed that on 30.10.2008, at around 10:00 A.M., he had reached the
C.J.M. court, Guwahati and parked his motorcycle in the parking place inside the
court campus. While he was sitting in the office of the Bar Association, at around
11:10 A.M., he had heard a loud sound and the intensity of the sound shook the Bar
Association building. The articles on the table fell down and the windows also broke.
Then he went out and saw that a huge fire had broken out. The fire had burned the
Page No.# 44/198
vehicles parked in the parking area. He shifted his motor cycle to a safe place and
went towards the nearby Forest Department's Office. For a few minutes, he could not
hear anything and when he became normal, he had enquired with his colleagues.
He saw some persons lying injured and there were some dead bodies lying scattered.
Later on, he came to know that the blast had killed one lady advocate, namely
Dipamoni Saikia, an Advocate's clerk and some other persons.
69. PW- 12, Sri Dipak Kr. Das has stated in his deposition that at the relevant time,
he was the General Secretary of Lawyers' Association, Guwahati. On, 30.10.2008, at
around 11:20 A.M., while he was present in the Lawyers' Association office, he had
heard a loud sound coming from the courtyard of the C.J.M. court complex. The blast
shook the Lawyers Association building and broke the window panes. Immediately,
he went to the courtyard of the C.J.M. court complex and saw black smoke in the
sky. He also saw that four-wheeler and two wheelers were burning and some dead
bodies were lying on the ground. Limbs of human were lying scattered. This witness
has further deposed that Shri Aswini Mahanta, an employee of the Lawyers'
Association and several advocates had sustained injuries. He and the other Bar
Association members had sent the injured victims to the MMC and GMC hospitals for
treatment. The blast had killed three Advocates namely, Dipamoni Saikia, Bipul Nath
and Anup Kumar Bhuyan and one employee of Lawyers' Association Mahesh Saud.
The blast also killed an advocate's clerk namely, Rana @ Abdul Kalam. Many litigants
had also sustained injuries. The blast had caused damage to 24 four-wheelers and 52
two-wheelers. The blast had also damaged the Lawyers' Association's building and
the C.J.M. court building. One Judicial Magistrate namely, Mr. Darak Ullah, had also
Page No.# 45/198
sustained injuries. On 06.11.2008, he lodged an FIR reporting the incident to the
Panbazar police Station.
70. PW-32 Dr. Hiteswar Dev Sarma has deposed that late Sunanda Talukdar was
his brother-in-law and late Pranita Devi Talukdar was the wife of late Sunanda
Talukdar. On 30.10.2008, at around 11:00 A.M., they had been to Ganeshguri for
marketing. After parking their Maruti van bearing registration No. AS-01-F-6971 under
the Ganeshguri Flyover, they went for marketing and when they returned to the
parking place, a bomb had exploded under the Ganeshguri flyover. Sunanda
Talukdar died on the spot and Pranita Devi Talukdar sustained grievous injuries. Their
vehicle was also totally damaged. Pranita Devi Talukdar was shifted to the Gauhati
Medical College and Hospital (GMCH), Guwahati for treatment. But, as her condition
was serious, she was shifted to the GNRC Hospital, Guwahati. From there, she was
shifted to the Apollo Hospital, New Delhi but, she had succumbed to her injuries on
13.10.2008.
71. PW-108 Pranjit Kumar Bhuyan has deposed that late Anup Kumar Bhuyan was
his elder brother. Anup Kumar Bhuyan was an Advocate. On 30- 10-2008, at around
11:30 AM, while his elder brother Anup Kumar Bhuyan was present in the court
complex of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, a bomb had exploded
and he died on the spot. The State Government paid them compensation of Rs.
3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakh) only, for the death of his elder brother Anup Kumar
Bhuyan. Later on, he came to know from the electronic and print media that the
NDFB had caused the bomb blast. He had read in the news paper that the accused
Page No.# 46/198
Ranjan Daimari had confessed about the same.
72. PW-201 Islamuddin has deposed that about eight / ten years ago, his cousin
brother Hussain Ali died in a bomb blast that had occurred at Barpeta Road
wholesale vegetable market. The dead body of Hussain Ali was taken to the Barpeta
Civil Hospital for postmortem examination. He had identified the dead body before
the doctor.
73. PW-212 Hasmat Ali has deposed that in the year 2008, on a Thursday, while his
father Abdul Rahman had been to the Barpeta Road wholesale vegetable market, a
bomb had exploded in the market and his father died in that blast. Having learnt
about the death of his father, he went to the Barpeta Road police station and found
the dead body of his father. He and his elder brother Hussain Ali had identified the
dead body.
74. PW-213 Sahjahan Ali has deposed that late Saiful Islam was his younger
brother. About nine / ten years ago, one day, Saiful Islam had been to Barpeta Road
and while he was returning from the market, a bomb exploded at Choudhury Market,
Barpeta Road and Saiful Islam died in the blast. Having learnt about the blast, he
went to the Barpeta Road police station and the police told him that they had sent
Saiful Islam to the Barpeta Civil Hospital. He then went to the Barpeta Civil Hospital
and found the dead body of Saiful Islam there.
75. The other witnesses of this category whose evidence is available on record
are - P.W.-87 Kabin Chandra Kalita, PW-93 Shri Deba Kumar Saloi, PW-96 Shri Shantanu
Bhattacharya, PW-98 Shri Gupi Kanta Medhi, PW-102 Mrs. Minoti Saikia, PW-107 Shri
Page No.# 47/198
Mobaraque Hussain, PW-113 Shri Dipjyoti Medhi, PW-116 Shri Dipjyoti Deka, PW-120 Shri
Ajmal Haque, PW-126 Shri Purandar Talukdar, PW-135 Smt. Jonaki Kalita Pathak, PW-
139 Shri Sanjitb Kumar Das, PW-146 Shri Arup Hazarika, PW-150 Shri Jagat Kalita, PW-
154 Smt. Pompa Chakravarty, PW-156 Shri Himangshu Das, PW-157 Shri Niipul Das, PW-
159 Shri Mohan Chandra Das, PW-167 Shri Arup Deka, PW-169 Shri Niren Barman, PW-
170 Shri Kamleswar Teron, PW-177 Smt. Padmini Kumari, PW-180 Shri Kailash Das, PW-
186 Shri Minar Ali, PW-188 Shri Ajahar Ali, PW-190 Smt. Roushanara Khatun, PW-221 Shri
Nurul Islam, PW-230 Shri Sujoy Das, PW-373 Shri Aswini Mahanta, PW-363 Smt. Sewlali
Deka, PW-381 Ramesh Deb Sharma, PW-382 Shri Ashim Boro, PW-392 Shri Rama Kanta
Das, PW-393 Smt. Labanya Das, PW-395 Shri Tapan Das, PW-396, PW-403 Shri Ajit
Baishya, PW-410 Shri Narayan Nath, PW-411 Shri Alimuddin Ahmed , PW-412 Shri Biren
Haloi, PW-415, Smt. Arati Aich, PW-417 Shri Jiten Kalita, PW-429 Shri Mirzan Ali, PW-433
Shri Neel Kamal Das, PW-434 Smt. Jinnatun Nessa, PW-444 Shri Sorhab Ali, PW-461 Shri
Debesh Chandra Deka, PW-463 Shri Hemen Chandra Kalita, PW-464 Shri Kandarpa
Das,PW-517 Shri M. Talimoa, PW-521 Shri Dilip Mandal, PW-539 Shri Nayanmoni Bharali
and PW-542 Shri Nabin Chandra Nath.
G) Injured victims -
76. PW-5 Riajul Hussain Ahmed has stated in his deposition that he is a practicing
advocate and has deposed that on 30.10.2008, at around 10:00 A.M., he had
reached the C.J.M. Court and after parking his motorcycle in the parking place, went
to the Lawyers' Association office. After some time, while he was climbing the stairs to
go to the first floor of the C.J.M. court building, he heard a loud sound of explosion
Page No.# 48/198
and saw that the windows of the court building were broken. Some broken pieces of
glass had hit him and he had sustained cut injury on the left side of his face. The
people shouted that a bomb had exploded. He then went out and saw that two-
wheelers and other vehicles parked in the parking area were burning. Thereafter,
along with the injured advocate Mantu Das, he went to the MMC Hospital, Panbazar
and availed medical treatment.
77. PW-332 Narayan Saha has deposed that he used to work at the Angashree
Clothes Store at Choudhury Shopping Complex, Barpeta Road. On 30.10.2008, at
around 11:20 AM, when he was present in the said shop, he had heard a loud sound
and fell down and sustained injuries on his right leg. He was shifted to the Barpeta
Road Civil Hospital for treatment. From there, he was shifted to the Barpeta Civil
Hospital.
78. PW-226 Hridoijit Barman has deposed that on 30.10.2008, he was posted as the
Additional Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) at Bongaigaon. On that day, at
around 08:15 AM, he had received information from S.I. Rustom Brahma that a
motorcycle was lying abandoned in front of the petrol pump near the Mayapuri
flyover, Bongaigaon and there was an ammunition box in the tool box of the
motorcycle. Suspecting the ammunition box to be a bomb, they brought a crane
and shifted the motorcycle to a field below the flyover. Thereafter, he brought a non
linear junction detector from the Police Reserve and checked the ammunition box.
During checking, a red light blinked from which, they could know that there was a
circuit. Then they brought a bomb blanket from the Police Reserve and covered the
Page No.# 49/198
ammunition box with the bomb blanket. They had also dispersed the crowd that had
gathered there. Thereafter, they informed the bomb defusal squad of the Army
stationed at Panbari. But, while they were leaving that area, the bomb exploded and
he and a captain of the Army present there, namely Barun Rai, were thrown away.
Splinters of the bomb hit his leg and chest wall and he and the Army captain Barun
Rai were shifted to the Lower Assam Hospital, Bongaigaon.
79. PW-260, Smti. Arati Sarkar has deposed that she was a vegetable vendor. On
the day of the occurrence, while she was selling vegetables at the Kokrajhar
vegetable Market, a bomb had exploded in the market and splinters of the bomb hit
on her head, right hand and other parts of the body and she became unconscious.
She was shifted to the Kokrajhar Civil Hospital for treatment. She has not yet fully
recovered from the injuries sustained in the blast.
80. PW-266, Lawjeng Basumatary has deposed that on 30.10.2008, at around 11:30
AM, while he had been to the Barabazar, Kokrajhar, a bomb had exploded in the
market and splinters of the bomb hit his right leg and left hand. He was shifted to the
Kokrajhar Civil Hospital for treatment.
81. PW-298, Vijay Kumar Pal has deposed that he had a temporary cosmetics
shop at Barabazar, Kokrajhar. On 30.10.2008, at around 11:30 AM, while he was
present in his said shop, a bomb exploded near the Kali Mandir and splinters of the
bomb hit his forehead. He was shifted to the Kokrajhar Civil Hospital for treatment.
82. PW-203, Gopal Saha has deposed that in the year 2008, he had a Sweet stall
at the Barpeta Road wholesale vegetable market. On 30-10- 2008, at around 11:20
Page No.# 50/198
am, while he was proceeding to a nearby tea stall, a bomb exploded and he had
sustained severe injuries on the left hand and became unconscious. He was shifted to
the Barpeta Road Hospital.
83. PW-421 Abdul Kuddus has deposed that he was a vegetable vendor. On 30-
10-2008, he had been to the Kokrajhar Vegetable market for purchasing vegetables.
At around 11:30 AM, while he was purchasing vegetables, a bomb exploded near
him and splinters of the bomb hit his right leg, as a result of which, he had sustained
grievous injuries. He was shifted to the Kokrajhar Civil Hospital for treatment and was
admitted therein. He was discharged after six/seven days.
84. Other witnesses of this category whose evidence is available on record are -
PW-88 Shri Lohit Kumar, PW-107 Shri Mobaraque Hussain, PW-114 Shri Jame Das,
PW115 Shri Bishwa Das, PW-118 Shri Debabrata Goswami, PW-119 Shri Tailendra Nath
Das, PW-120 Shri Ajmal Haque, PW-127 Shri Jiten Haloi, 135 Smt. JonakiKalita Pathak,
PW-137 Mrs. JonaliTamuli, PW-138 Ms. Chandamita Das, PW-147 Shri Anil Jaiswal, PW-
149 Shri Har Kumar Sharma, PW-150 Shri Jagat Kalita, PW151 Shri Ranjit Kalita, PW-153
Shri Sahidul Islam,PW-163 Shri Kishore Baishya, PW-164 Shri Pradip Deka, PW-165 Shri
Hiteshar Kalita, PW-166 Shri Shankar Bezbaruah, , PW-174 Shri Dinesh Choudhury, PW
178 Shri Montu Deka, PW-186, Shri Minar Ali, PW-187, Shri Jaynal Abedin, PW-189, Shri
Dilip Basak, PW-191- Shri Rajab Ali, PW-192- Shri Abdul Majid, PW-193- Shri Hatem Ali,
PW 194- Shri Mohammad Ali, PW -195 Shri Anowar Ali, PW- 196 Shri Arup Choudhury,
PW-197, Shri Shiv Shankar Saha, PW- 198, Shri Abdul Kalam Azad, PW- 199, Shri Taleb
Ali, PW-202, Shri Taser Ali Ahmed, PW-204- Shri Amir Hussain, PW-205, Shri Jyoti Kumar
Page No.# 51/198
Das, PW-206, Shri Maibul Islam, PW-207, Shri Rakibul Hussain, PW-208, Shri Abdus Salam,
PW-209, Sahjamal Mia, PW-210, Shri Prakash Mandal, PW-211, Shri Harunal, PW - 230,
Shri Sujoy Das, PW-231, Md. Sumad Ali Akand, PW-232, Md. Mumtaj Paramanik, PW-
233, Shri Manser Ali, PW-234, Shri Kartik Saha, PW- 236, Shri Ram Niwas Prasad Gupta,
PW - 237, Shri Tapan Pal, PW-238, Shri Badal Barman, PW-239, Smt. Jironi Basumatary,
PW- 240, Shri Shankar Das, PW-241, Shri Bijoy Kumar Dutta,PW-242, Shri Anil Dutta, PW-
243, Shri Mamo Narzary, PW-244, Smt. Gesao Basumatary, PW - 245, Smt. Rahima Bibi,
PW-246, Smt. Hasiton Bibi, PW-300, Shri Swapan Kumar Saha, PW-303, Smt. Momi
Biswas, PW-304, Smt. Sangita Roy PW- 305, Shri Biswadeep Barman, PW306, Shri Nazir
Qureshi, PW-307, Shri Suman Sarkar, PW-308, Shri Arjun Shah, PW- 309, Shri Fazar Ali,
PW-310, Shri Santosh Roy, PW - 311, Shri Shanti Ranjan Dutta, PW-312, Shri Bipul Dutta,
PW-313, Shri AnsulaDaimari, PW- 314, Shri Dev Chand Chauhan, PW-315, Shri Arun
Debnath, PW-317, Shri Mamindra Das, PW-318, Shri Bikramjit Pal, PW- 319, Shri Samir
Das, PW-320, Shri Ramananda Pathak, PW-321, Smt. Ranjana Pathak, PW-322, Shri
Jugal Pathak, PW- 323 Shri Tapas Kumar Saha,PW-324, Shri Pradeep Pal, PW - 325, Shri
Ashish Sarkar, PW -326, Shri Biplob Kumar Saha, PW-327, Shri Dhiren Das, PW 328 Shri
Santosh Barman, PW 330 Shri Bipul Saha, PW 337 Amalesh Saha, PW 339 Shri Sanjiv
Kumar Roy, PW 340 Shri Biswajit Chakravarty, PW 341 Shri Pradeep Chandra Gope, PW
342 Shri Chandi Arya, PW 343 Shri Gopal Karmakar, PW - 344, Shri Fanindra Barman,
PW-346, Shri Dipankar Sutradhar, PW - 353 Shri Pradeep Saha, PW- 362 Shri Uttam
Kakati, PW- 273 (373) Shri Aswini Mahanta, PW- 384 Shri Lal Mohan Boro, PW- 394 Shri
Jayanta Das, PW- 395 Shri Tapan Das, PW- 403 Shri Ajit Baishya, PW- 406 Shri Samsul
Hoque, PW - 407 Shri Dhrubajyoti Dutta,PW- 416, Shri Vicky Saha, PW- 417 Shri
Page No.# 52/198
JitenKalita, PW- 421 Abdul Kuddus, PW- 422 Shri Ajay Kumar Moulik, PW- 425 Shri
Ramjan Ali, PW- 426 Shri Maniruddin, PW- 427 Shri Abdul Barek , PW- 428 Shri Mannan
Sarkar, PW- 430 Shri Kurban Ali, PW- 431 Shri Abdul Salam, PW- 432 Shri Abdul Mannaf,
PW- 435 Shri Amir Ali, PW- 436 Shri Bulbul Hussain, PW- 437 Shri Anisur Rahman, PW- 438
Shri Dilowar Hussain, PW- 439 Shri Sadhan Mahanta, PW- 441 Shri Tafizuddin, PW- 447
Shri Binod Sharma, PW- 448 Shri BishnupadaSaha, PW- 460 Shri Satyajit Bora , PW- 464
Shri Kandarpa Das, PW- 507, Shri Akkash Ali, PW- 509 Shri Prasanta Dutta, PW- 543 Smt.
Rohini Musahary, PW- 544 Smt. Basimoni Karketa, PW- 538 Abul Kalam Azad, PW- 549
Md. Sayed Ahmed, PW- 550 Shri Bipul Dey, PW- 563 Shri Biswajit Saha, PW- 566 Shri
Satyaranjan Mitra. PW-86 Miss Sara Francis, PW- 100 Dr. Anjan Jyoti Bhuyan, PW-106
Shri Montu Kumar das, PW-107 Shri Mobaraque Hussain, PW-112 Shri Dilip Medhi, PW-
121 Shri Aftab Ali, PW-122 Md. Ashan Ali, PW-124 Smt. GolapiTumung, PW-126 Shri
Purandar Talukdar, PW-131 Shri Ram Deb Shah, PW-140 Shri Manbir Sinha, PW-142 Shri
Prabhunath Prasad, PW-145 Shri Keke Bania, PW-155 Shri Chandan Kumar
Bhowmik,PW-234, Shri Kartik Saha, PW-297, Shri Abhijit Sikder, PW 329 Shri Prabin Ch.
Das, PW 338 Gopal Acharjee, PW-345 Shri Makbul Hussain, PW- 392 Shri Rama Kanta
Das, PW- 394 Shri Jayanta Das, PW- 395 Shri Tapan Das, PW- 408 Shri Hiranya Kumar
Laskar, PW- 521 Shri Dilip Mandal.
H) Witnesses whose properties were destroyed in the blasts:
85. PW-81 Smti. Jeoti Kalita Barman has deposed that on 30.10.2008, at around
11:30/ 11:45 A.M., while she was entering into the CJM Court building after parking
her Wagon R vehicle bearing registration No. As-01-B9285 inside the CJM court
Page No.# 53/198
complex, a bomb exploded outside the court building and black smoke covered the
entire area. They then fled. After sometime, when she came back to the place of
occurrence, she saw that her Wagonr car was completely gutted in fire. Other
vehicles parked there were also damaged. The blast killed Advocates Dipamoni
Saikia, Anup Bhuyan and Bipul Nath. Advocate's clerk Rana and security-guard
Mahesh Saud had also died in the explosion. Later on, she had lodged a claim with
the insurer of her car and received compensation of Rs. 1,90,000/-.
86. PW-123 Sri Simanta Deka has stated in his deposition that he is a practicing
advocate and has deposed that on 30-10-2008, at around 11:20 AM, while he was
sitting in the Bar room, he had heard a loud sound and saw that a Maruti car was
blown away about 30 feet above the ground. The vibration of the fire and sound
destroyed four / five nearby trees and caused damage to the court premises. The
blast also caused damage to the Bar building and the office building of the Deputy
Commissioner, Kamrup (M) Guwahati. The blast occurred in front of his Maruti Wagon
R car bearing registration No. AS-01-AB-6138 and his said car was burned in the fire.
When he went near his car, he saw limbs of human beings lying scattered. The blast
had killed three advocates, namely Dipamoni Saikia, Bipul Nath and Anup Bhuyan.
The blast also killed an advocates' clerk, namely Rana and an employee of the Bar
Association, namely Mahesh Saud. The blast also killed some other persons but, their
identities could not be confirmed as their bodies were burned beyond recognition.
The blast had also burned about ten/ twelve vehicles, partially damaged about
twenty vehicles and destroyed about sixty / seventy motorcycles. As his vehicle was
insured, the insurance company had indemnified his loss.
Page No.# 54/198
87. PW-394 Sri Jayanta Das has deposed that on 30-10-2008, accompanied by his
mother Smt. Labanya Das, eldest sister Smt. Padmini Kumar, youngest sister Smt.
Mamoni Saloi and youngest brother Shri Tapan Das, he had gone to Panbazar,
Guwahati for purchasing clothes for his marriage. At Panbazar, he parked his Alto car
bearing registration No. AS - 01-AB-0983 near the Church and entered into a clothe
store. At around 11:30 AM, when they came out from the clothe store, a bomb
exploded in front of the shop. The blast killed his youngest sister Mamoni Saloi and
seriously injured his elder sister Smt. Padmini Kumar and mother Smt. Labanya Das. He
and his brother Shri Tapan Das had sustained injuries. He saw many dead bodies near
the blast site. His Alto car was badly damaged.
88. PW-28 Prahlad Kundu has deposed that he had a clothes store, under the
name and style "Hangsha Bahini", at Ganeshguri. On 30.10.2008, a bomb exploded
under the Ganeshguri flyover, near his said shop. The impact of the blast destroyed
the front glasses of his shop. His employee Arup Talukdar sustained injuries in the blast
and somebody shifted him to the GNRC Hospital. Next day, they found the dead
body of Arup Talukdar in the GNRC Hospital. Arup Talukdar died due to the injuries
sustained in the blast.
89. PW-112, Dilip Medhi has deposed that he has a grocery shop at the Bee Kay
Tower, Ganeshguri. About nine years ago, one day, at around 11:00 AM, while he
was present in his shop, suddenly he heard a loud sound. The impact of the sound
threw away the articles of his shop. He then went out and saw that nearby
shopkeeper, namely Mr. Das, was lying unconscious and another shopkeeper,
Page No.# 55/198
namely Pabitra Deka was hit by a piece of tin. They shifted them to the GNRC
Hospital, Guwahati. Many persons died in the blast. He sustained minor injuries. Many
vehicles were burnt by the fire of the explosion.
90. PW-141 Mukunda Thakuria has deposed that he had a vegetable stall at
Ganeshguri. On 30-10-2008, at around 11:00 am, while he was present in his
vegetable stall, a bomb exploded under the Ganeshguri flyover. The blast killed some
persons and destroyed the nearby shops. The blast also caused damage to his
vegetable stall. The splinter of the bomb hit the vegetable vendor Pabitra Deka and
he sustained injury on the chest. They shifted him to the Gauhati Medical College and
Hospital and from there, to the GNRC Hospital. But, after two days, he succumbed to
the injuries.
91. PW-168 Sundar Deka has deposed that he has a hotel at Ganeshguri. On 30-
10-2008, at around 11:20 am, while he was proceeding towards his hotel, a bomb
exploded under the Ganeshguri flyover, in front of his hotel. The bomb was planted in
a Maruti car type vehicle and the blast burned the said vehicle. The blast killed many
persons and injured many others. The dead bodies and the injured persons were lying
at the blast site and they sent the injured persons to the hospitals. The blast had also
damaged the hotel building.
92. The other witnesses of this category whose evidence is available on record are
- PW-86 Miss Sara Francis, PW-87 Kabin Chandra Kalita,PW-95 Shri Sushanta Rudra, PW-
96 Shri Shantanu Bhattacharya, PW-97 Shri Pradip Kumar Konwar, PW-98 Shri Gupi
Kanta Medhi, PW-101 Shri Prasanna Deorah, PW-102 Mrs. Minoti Saikia, PW-103 Shri
Page No.# 56/198
Manas Garodia, PW-104 Smti. Ranjita Phukan, PW- 105 Mrs. Mintu Kalita, PW 109 Shri
Kamal Barman, PW-112 Shri Dilip Medhi, PW-116 Shri Dipjyoti Deka, PW-118 Shri
Debabrata Goswami, PW-121 Shri Aftab Ali, PW-125 Shri Gunajyoti Boro, PW-126 Shri
Purandar Talukdar, PW-131 Shri Ram Deb Shah, PW- 132 Shri Ram Ghulam Shah, PW-
134 Shri Dulu Kumar Khaund, PW-136 Shri Mahendra Nath Deka, PW-140 Shri Manbir
Sinha, PW-141 Shri Mukunda Thakuria, PW-142 Shri Prabhunath Prasad, PW-148- Shri
Himangshu Sharma, PW-149 Shri Har Kumar Sharma, PW-150 Shri Jagat Kalita, PW-152
Shri Umesh Barman, PW-155 Shri Chandan Kumar Bhowmik, PW-156 Shri Himangshu
Das, PW-157 Shri Niipul Das, PW-159 Shri Mohan Chandra Das, PW-161 Shri Mon
Chandra Das, PW-162 Shri Shankar Baishya, PW-166 Shri Shankar Bezbaruah, PW-167
Shri Arup Deka, PW-172 Shri Manendra Deka, PW-173 Shri Kartik Paul, PW-174 Shri
Dinesh Choudhury, PW-175 Shri Subhash Sharma, PW 179 Shri Pawan Kumar Agarwal,
PW 180 Shri Kailash Das, PW 181 Shri Moinul Ali, PW- 196 Shri Arup Choudhury, PW- 200
Shri Rupam Prasad Barua, PW - 311, Shri Shanti Ranjan Dutta, PW-318, Shri Bikramjit Pal,
PW-348, Shri Radha Kanta Roy, PW- 361 Shri Kamal Barua, PW- 391 Smt. Erra Hazarika,
PW- 392 Shri Rama Kanta Das, PW- 404 Shri Debajyoti Dutta, PW- 405 Shri Nitai Boro,
PW-407 Shri Dhrubajyoti Dutta, PW- 461 Shri Debesh Chandra Deka, PW- 467 Shri
Maneswar Das, PW--476, Shri Shantanu Dey, PW- 501 Shri Thaneshwar Sharma, PW-
525 Shri Dhruba Jyoti Bora, PW- 537 Shri Nila Pankaj Baishya, PW-564 Shri Lal Babu Sah,
PW- 565 Shri Shrabin Sah, PW- 581 Shri Atul Boro.
I) Medical Officers:
93. PW-33, Dr. Pradip Thakuria has stated in his deposition that he is Assistant
Page No.# 57/198
Professor, Forensic Medicine, Gauhati Medical College and Hospital, Guwahati. He
has deposed that on 31.10.2008, he had conducted postmortem examinations on
the dead bodies of, (1) Yedukondalu (2) Sujit Acharjee and (3) Rohit Das in
connection with the Dispur P.S. Case No. 1825/2008. In his opinion, the deceased died
due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of the injuries sustained. All the injuries were
anti-mortem in nature and consistent with the bomb blast incident.
94. PW-34 Dr. R. Chaliha has stated in his deposition that he is Professor & Head of
the Department of Forensic Medicine, Gauhati Medical College & Hospital,
Guwahati, who had conducted postmortem examinations on the dead bodies of the
following blast victims, namely Yazul Haque, Nekib Ali, Hari Prasad Sarkar and Musaraf
Ali. He has deposed that, in his opinion, the deceased died as a result of the injuries
described in the postmortem reports. All the injuries were anti-mortem in nature and
were caused by blunt force impact and consistent with the blasting effect of
explosive substances. This witness has also proved the postmortem examination
reports prepared by some other doctors of the Department of Forensic Medicine,
Gauhati Medical College & Hospital and has deposed that the said doctors have
also opined that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained in the aforesaid
bomb blast. PW 34 has proved that all the deceased died due to the injuries
sustained in the aforesaid bomb blast.
95. PW-144 Dr. Kaustav Kumar Das has deposed that on 04.08.2008, Nilim Daimari
was admitted in the Dispur Polyclinic and Nursing Home and was discharged on
07.08.2008. Ext. 173 (v) and Ext. 173 (xxi) are prescriptions relating to the treatment of
Page No.# 58/198
Nilim Daimari written by him.
96. PW-89 Dr. Dipak Kumar Das had conducted postmortem examinations on the
dead bodies of the deceased victims, viz. 1. Mahesh Chandra Saud, 2. Noor Hussain,
3. Ajit Nath, 4. Pitalu T-Yeptho, 5. Dometrvst, 6. Syntem, 7. Rajesh Choudhury and 8.
Swadhin Das. This witness has deposed that in his opinion, all the deceased had died
due to the injuries caused by blunt force impact, which were consistent with the
bomb blasts incident.
97. PW-100 Dr. Anjan Jyoti Bhuyan has deposed that on 30.10.2008, he was
working at the Dispur Polyclinic as a consultant ENT Surgeon. On that day, he had
examined one Manoj Sharma who had suffered multiple lacerated injuries over face,
neck and anterior chest wall. The injuries were caused by splinters of bomb blast. The
injuries were grievous in nature. Ext. 177 is the injury report prepared by his assistant
doctor, namely Dr. Bhupen Basumatary. Ext. 177 (1) is the signature of Dr. Bhupen
Basumatary which he can identify. He has further deposed that on the same day, he
had examined one Mrs. Nabalakhshmi Tahbildar, who had sustained injuries on the
medial cantus of the right eye and eye-ball, multiple lacerated injuries over right and
left upper arms, multiple abrasions over anterior chest wall and abdominal wall,
injuries in the face, neck and anterior chest wall. The injuries were caused by splinters
of bomb blast. The injuries were grievous in nature. Ext. 178 is the injury report
prepared by his assistant doctor, namely Dr. Bhupen Basumatary. Ext. 178 (1) is the
signature of Dr. Bhupen Basumatary, which he can identify.
98. The evidence of other witnesses of this category available on record are - PW-
Page No.# 59/198
99, Dr. Walliul Islam, PW-117 Dr. Santanu Sharma, PW-128 Dr. Dhiraj Purkasthya, PW-
129 Dr. Atanu Borthakur, PW-130 Dr. Gunajit Talukdar, PW-133 Dr. Ramananda Das,
PW-143 Shri Nipanka Goswami, PW-214, Dr. Paresh Kalita, PW-216 Dr. Gunajit
Patowary, PW- 227 Dr. Ilias Ali, PW-235 Dr. Kaushik Das, PW-354, Dr. Mantu Kumar Das,
PW-355, Dr. Binay Kumar Das, PW-380 Dr. Kanak Chandra Das, PW-449 Dr. Shalini
Bhasin Baruah, PW-450 Dr. Dewan Matiwur Rahman, PW-462 Dr. Himangshu Das, PW-
472 Shri Siddharth Phukan, PW-480 Dr. Parbati Kumar Doley, PW-481 Dr. Bimal Chandra
Medhi, PW-482 Dr. Nihar Ranjan Biswas, PW- 519 Dr. Phaltanga Kungur Brahma, PW-
541 Smt. Reecha Pandey, PW- 546 Dr. Putul Mahanta, PW- 569 Dr. Madhurja
Bhattacharyya, PW- 573 Dr. Bhaskar Borkotoky, PW-574 Dr. Asiruddin Ahmed, PW-576
Dr. Nitu Kumar Gogoi, PW-580 Dr. Iran Bharali, PW-603 Dr. Rishav Kumar Baruah.
99. Over and above the witnesses belonging to the four categories as mentioned
above, the evidence of following Government Officials would have an important
bearing in this appeal and therefore, are being discussed here-in-below.
J) Evidence of Officials :
100. PW-629, Khagen Chandra Das has deposed that on 30.10.2008, he was posted
at the Dispur Police Station as an attached officer. On that day, at around 11:30 AM,
a bomb exploded under the Ganeshguri flyover. The Officer-in-Charge of the Dispur
Police Station lodged an FIR of the incident, registered the same as FIR No. 1419/08
and entrusted him to investigate the case. Accordingly, he had investigated the
case. During the course of investigation, he found one completely damaged Maruti
800 car at the blast site and came to know that the bomb was planted in the said
Page No.# 60/198
Maruti 800 car. He had verified the engine number of the said Maruti 800 car with the
office of the District Transport Officer, Guwahati and the District Transport Officer, had
informed him that the registration number of the said Maruti 800 car was AS-01-F-7747.
The engine of the said car was sent to the FSL, Kahilipara, Guwahati for examination.
101. PW-222 Rajiv Kumar Bora, Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Assam,
Home & Political Department has deposed that on 25.05.2009, he had granted
sanction to prosecute the accused Nilim Daimari and nineteen others for commission
of offenses punishable under sections 10, 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities
Prevention Act. The Ext. 216 is the order and Ext. 216 (i) is his signature in the last page.
Ext. 216 (ii) to (vi) are his initials in the first six pages of the order. This witness has
deposed that he had also granted sanction to prosecute the accused Nilim Daimari
and nineteen others for commission of offenses punishable under Sections 121, 121A,
122 and 123 IPC. Ext. 217 is the order and Ext. 216 (i) is his signature in the last page
and Ext. 217 (ii) to (vi) are his initials in the first six pages of the order.
102. PW-223, Prateek Hajela has deposed that on 20.05.2009, he had granted
sanction to prosecute the accused Nilim Daimari and nineteen others for commission
of offenses punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
Ext. 218 is the said sanction order and Ext. 218 (i) is his signature in the last page of the
sanction order.
103. PW-225, Carol Narzary, Sanctioning Authority has deposed that after perusing
the documents placed before them and applying their mind, they granted sanction
to prosecute the accused persons.
Page No.# 61/198
104. PW-612, Jishnu Barua, Sanctioning Authority has deposed that after perusing
the documents placed before them and applying their mind, they had granted
sanction to prosecute the accused persons.
105. PW-648, Utpalananda Sarma, Sanctioning Authority has deposed that after
perusing the documents placed before them and applying their mind, they had
granted sanction to prosecute the accused persons.
106. PW-635, Madhusudhan Thapa, the Second Officer-in-Charge of the Tura Police
Station, West Garo Hills, Meghalaya has deposed that in the early morning of
04.09.2008, they had received secret information that some NDFB cadres were trying
to cross over to Bangladesh and their intelligence team found that one suspected
NDFB cadre was trying to go to Bangladesh from Akhongri bus station to Nokchi. He
then went to Akhongri bus station and found that the accused Nilim Daimari @ D.
Nizwamsa was the said suspected NDFB cadre. He then interrogated the accused
Nilim Daimari @ D. Nizwamsa but, he could not give proper answers to his queries.
Thereafter, he searched the accused Nilim Daimari @ D. Nizwamsa and recovered
one pen drive, one mobile handset having Bangladeshi SIM card and one hand
written letter in Bodo language addressed to "Hon'ble Sir" by one B. Jwngkhang,
dated 02.09.2008. He then took the accused Nilim Daimari @ D. Nizwamsa to the Tura
police station and registered Tura Police Station Case No. 156(9)/2008, under Section
121 IPC, r/w Section 6 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
arrested Nilim Daimari on 04.09.2008 and got him remanded to judicial custody
through the learned ADM, Tura Court. Ext. 313 is the seizure memo and Ext. 313 (2) is
Page No.# 62/198
his signature therein. Ext. 616 is a certified true copy of the arrest memo and Ext. 616
(1) is his signature therein. Ext. 617 is a certified extract copy of the case diary. Ext. 617
(1) is his signature therein. Later on, Inspector Rathore of CBI approached the Tura
court and filed a petition seeking possession of the seized articles. The petition was
allowed.
107. In connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case No.451 / 08, he had examined 65
grams soil marked as Ext.-A, one torn piece of cloth marked as Ext.-B and five pieces
of iron marked as Ext.-C. After conducting proper chemical and analytical
examination of the exhibits, he had arrived at the following conclusions: - Ext.-A, Ext.-
B and Ext.-C contained TNT (Tri Nitro Toluene) which is a high explosive. He could
not ,however, ascertain whether the Ext.-C was part of an exploded bomb or not. Ext.
491 is the report prepared by him and Ext. 491 (i) is his signature therein.
108. In connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No.262 / 2008, he had examined 20
grams of debris marked as Ext.-A and 3 broken pieces of iron marked as Ex- B. After
conducting proper chemical and analytical examination of the exhibits, he had
arrived at the conclusions that Ext.-A and Ext.-B contained traces of high explosive
(RDX). Ext. 492 is the report prepared by him and Ext. 492 (i) is his signature therein.
109. In connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No.261 / 2008, he had examined 18
grams debris marked by them as Ext.- A and 3 pieces of iron marked by them as Ext.-
B. After conducting proper chemical and analytical examination of the exhibits, he
had arrived at the following conclusions: 1. Ext.-A and Ext.-B contained traces of RDX,
which is a high explosive. 2. Nature of timing device used could not be determined
Page No.# 63/198
from the Ext.-A and Ext.-B. Ext. 493 is the report prepared by him and Ext. 493 (i) is his
signature therein.
110. In connection with Dispur P.S. Case No.1419 / 08, he had examined one
damaged part of an engine marked as Ext.- A and 256 grams of debris, mixed with
soil, marked as Ext.-B. After conducting proper chemical and analytical examination
of the exhibits, he had arrived at the conclusions that Ext.-A was the damaged
engine of a Maruti-800 car (Engine No. F8B IN 3043461). The engine was damaged
due to an explosion taking place inside the car. Ext.-B contained Ammonium Nitrate
and RDX. The serial No. of the front tyres attached were: (i) JK TYRE- ULTIMA XP- JK 7
B017401 DEC. 02 (Left hand side), (ii) MRF ZIGMA-VT-60005417277 (Right hand side).
Ext. 494 is the report prepared by him and Ext. 494 (i) is his signature therein.
111. In connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No.398/08, he had examined one
damaged part of an engine marked as Ex- A and 520 grams of soil marked as Ext.-B.
After conducting chemical and analytical examination of the exhibits, he had arrived
at the conclusions that Ext.-A was the part of a damaged engine of a Maruti-800 car
(Engine No. F8DN 1074626). Ext.-A was damaged due to explosion taking place inside
the car. Ext-B contained Ammonium Nitrate and RDX. Ext. 495 is the report prepared
by him and Ext. 495 (i) is his signature therein.
112. In connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No.399 / 08, he had examined one part
of a damaged engine marked as Ext.- A and 490 grams of soil marked as Ex-B. After
conducting proper chemical and analytical examination of the exhibits, he had
arrived at the conclusions that Ext.-A was a damaged part of a Maruti car (Engine
Page No.# 64/198
No. F8B IN 303447). Ammonium Nitrate and RDX had been found in Ext.-B. The serial
No. of the tyre attached to the engine was : (i) MRF-ZIGMA CC- RADIAL- 70-
60375376469. Ext. 496 is the report prepared by him and Ext. 496 (i) is his signature
therein. Material Ext. XI is the Engine No. F8B-IN 3043461 of the above mentioned
Maruti-800 car. Material Ext. XII is the Engine No. F8DN-1074626 of the above
mentioned Maruti-800 car. Material Ext. XIII is the Engine No. F8B-IN-303447 of the
above mentioned Maruti-800 car.
113. PW-606 Ravi Kumar Srivastava, Principal Scientific Officer, CFSL, New Delhi had
examined the Pen Drive seized from the possession of the accused Nilim Daimari. He
has deposed that the Pen Drive was of Transcend make, 512 MB capacity,
Black/Orange color having black cap. He has computed the Hash value of the pen
drive in write protection mode, using Encase software (v.4) and the Hash value was
C05DBC91EB8F631A04F8CE027D4AD227. No errors were reported during the hashing
process. The Pen Drive appeared to be undamaged with no loose parts or objects.
He had retrieved all live as well as deleted data from the Pen Drive marked as "P1".
He had also determined the information relating to the memory capacity and
memory utilized in respect of the Pen Drive. After examination, he found that the Pen
Drive was fully functional and undamaged. Ext. 526 (three sheets) is his report and
Exts. 526 (i), 526 (ii) and 526 (iii) are his signatures therein. Material Ext. VI is the sealed
cloth parcel bearing details of the case No. and the Exhibit bearing his initial with
date. He had retrieved all the live as well as deleted data from the pen drive and
prepared a copy in one CD. PW-606 has exhibited the parcel containing the articles
seized from the possession of the accused Nilim Daimari by the PW-635 Madhusudhan
Page No.# 65/198
Thapa vide Ext. 313 seizure list as Material Ext. VI. The Material Ext. VII is the office copy
of the CD. He had prepared the copies of CDs on 16.04.2009 and fully burnt the same
so that no data could be added later in the CDs at any stage. The Pen Drive seized
from the possession of the accused Nilim Daimari contains articles regarding
manufacturing of explosive devices, writings about NDFB, writings regarding how to
establish as a self-sustainable Boro nation, etc.
114. PW-649 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Shukla has deposed that from 01.07.2009 to
31.01.2013, he was working as the Director, C.F.S.L., Chandigarh. In the year 2010, his
Deputy Director namely, D. K. Kaushik had conducted examination of the exhibits
received in connection with the cases. He had forwarded the reports prepared by D.
K. Kaushik. Ext. 658 to Ext. 666 (nine reports) are the reports prepared D. K. Kaushik. He
had forwarded the said reports to the concerned officials. Ext. 667, Ext. 668, Ext. 669,
Ext. 670, Ext. 671, Ext. 672, Ext. 673, Ext. 674 and Ext. 675 are forwarding letters of the
reports and Ext. 667(1), Ext. 668(1), Ext. 669(1), Ext. 670(1), Ext. 671(1), Ext. 672(1), Ext.
673(1), Ext. 674(1) and Ext. 675(1) are his signatures therein. D. K. Kaushik expired in the
year 2013. This witness has deposed that he could identify the signatures of D. K.
Kaushik. As per Exts. 658 to 666, the reports were prepared by D. K. Kaushik and he
found Tri Nitrotoluene (TNT), Cyclotrimethylene Tri Nitramine (RDX) and Ammonium
Nitrate in the exhibits that he had examined. Those are high explosives.
K) Evidence of Relatives of accused persons:-
115. PW-388, Babul Chandra Daimari has deposed that the accused Nilim Daimari is
his younger brother. About ten years ago, the accused Nilim Daimari left home and
Page No.# 66/198
thereafter, he never returned. The accused Nilim Daimari told the members of his
family that he will go to Delhi for working in a company. But, later on, they came to
know from newspaper reports that while trying to cross the Indo-Bangla border in
Meghalaya, he was arrested by the police. Later on, he came to know that the
accused Nilim Daimari was staying in Guwahati along with his friends Jinku and Raju.
116. PW-389, Powal Chandra Daimari has stated that he is the father of the accused
Nilim Daimari. He has deposed that Nilim Daimari was staying in Ganeshguri and was
studying computer technology. He has further deposed that the accused Nilim
Daimari went missing and later on they came to know from the newspaper reports
that while trying to cross the Indo-Bangla border in Meghalaya, he was arrested by
the police.
117. We now turn to the evidence adduced by the prosecution side so as to
establish the charge framed against each of the accused persons :-
L) Evidence against accused No.1/Ranjan Daimari
118. Sri Manjit Basumatary who is a registered contractor under the Government
Department was examined as PW-302. This witness has deposed before the Court
that since last 20 years he has been executing constructions works. He knows about
the organization called National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB). PW-302 has
also stated that he is involved in the ongoing peace process between the NDFB and
the Government of India and the Government of Assam. NDFB had entered into a
cease-fire agreement with the Government and Sri Ranjan Daimari was its Chairman.
This witness has further stated that Sri Govinda Basumatary was the Joint Secretary
Page No.# 67/198
and Sri Dhiren Boro, the Vice President of NDFB. In the year 2009, Sri Dhiren Boro was
the Chairman of NDFB. Ulafat was a member of the NDFB cadre. He has already
expired. Sri Dhilthilang was the Army Chief of NDFB. He did not know the mobile
numbers of Ulafat and Dhilthilang. During cross-examination PW-302 has maintained
that he knew Ranjan Daimari, Govinda Basumatary, Dhiren Boro, Ulafat and
Dhilthilang since he was involved in the ongoing peace process.
119. Sri Ismail Ali was examined as PW-499. This witness has deposed that in the year
2008 he was posted at the Dispur Branch of the State Bank of India as the Relationship
Manager, Personal Banking. On 22.05.2010 he was directed by the Bank to go to the
office of Special Branch of Assam Police at Kahilipara and report to Sri N. S. Yadav,
Additional S.P., CBI. Accordingly, he went there and met Sri N. S. Yadav. Sri Ranjan
Daimari, Sri Diganta Barman, Technical Director, NIC and 2/3 other persons were
present there at that time. Sri Yadav took him to a computer room and asked him to
sit there. Thereafter, N. S. Yadav had directed Ranjan Daimari to open his e-mail
account and accordingly, he did so as has been mentioned in the disclosure
statement Ext-415. This witness had identified his signature in Ext-415. He further
deposed that thereafter, N. S. Yadav took computer printouts of the e-mails from the
account of Ranjan Daimari. Ext-416 was the memo of the proceedings of opening of
the e-mail accounts and Ext-416(i) was his signature. PW-499 has further deposed that
Ext-417(i) to 417(xxiii) (23 sheets) were the printouts taken from the inbox of the e-mail
account of Ranjan Daimari taken in his presence. This witness has further deposed
that Exts-417(xxiv) to Ext-417(xlvi) were his initials therein. PW-499 has further stated that
N. S. Yadav, Additional S.P., CBI took out computer printouts of the sent items of e-
Page No.# 68/198
mails from the e-mail account of Ranjan Daimari. Ext-418(i) to 418(xxiii) were the 33
printouts of "sent mails" from the e-mail account of Ranjan Daimari which was taken
in his presence. Exts-418 (xxxiv) to 418 (LXvi) are his signatures therein. The witness has
further stated that Ranjan Daimari had also opened two other e-mail accounts and
Sri N. S. Yadav took out computer printouts of 8 e-mails from the said e-mail accounts
of Ranjan Daimari. Ext-419 is the disclosure statement of Ranjan Daimari. Ext-419(i) was
his signature therein. Exts-420, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426 and 427 were the computer
printouts of the said 8 e-mails. Ext-420(i) to (v), Ext-421(i) to (iv), Ext-422, Ext-423(i) to (iii),
Ext-424(i) to (ii), Ext-425(i) to (iii), Ext-426(i) and Ext-427(i) were his signatures in those
documents. According to this witness, Sri N. S. Yadav had asked them to change the
passwords of the e-mail account of Ranjan Daimari and he and the Technical
Director, NIC Sri Diganta Barman had changed the passwords and created a new
password. This witness has also stated that he had typed one-half of the password
whereas Sri Diganta Barman (PW-502) had typed the other half of the password. Then
they handed over the password to Sri N. S. Yadav, Addl. SP, CBI in a sealed cover. Sri
N. S. Yadav also took specimen handwritings of Ranjan Daimari in their presence. Exts-
428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436, 437 and 438 were those specimen
handwritings of Ranjan Daimari and Ext-428(i) , Ext-429(i), Ext-430(i), Ext-431(i), Ext-
432(i), Ext-433(i), Ext-434(i), Ext-435(i), Ext-436(i), Ext-437(i) and Ext-438(i) were his
signatures therein. In his cross-examination PW-499 has stated that he is not a
computer expert and he did not know Ranjan Daimari from before. He has read the
disclosure statement and put his signature as a witness. This witness has denied the
suggestion that he was not directed by the Bank to be a witness in the above
Page No.# 69/198
procedure.
120. PW-502, Sri Diganta Barman is an Officer serving under the National Informatics
Center (NIC). This witness has deposed that he was posted as the Technical Director,
NIC, Assam in the year 2010. On 22.05.2010 he was instructed by the State Informatics
Officer Sri Dipak Goswami to go to the office of the Special Branch of Assam Police
Department, Kahilipara and report to the CBI Officer. Accordingly, he went to the
Special Branch of Assam Police, Kahilipara and met CBI Officer Sri N. S. Yadav. PW-
502 has also stated that he had met Sri Ismail Ali (PW-499) of the State Bank of India
and then he and Sri Ali were taken together to a computer room where they had
seen Ranjan Daimari. They were introduced to Sri Ranjan Daimari. The CBI Officer had
then requested Sri Ranjan Daimari to open his e-mail account and accordingly, he
had opened the same. The CBI officer present there had taken some printouts and
he and Ismail Ali had signed therein. This witness had stated that Sri Ranjan Daimari
had also put his signature in those documents. Thereafter, the CBI Officer had asked
him and Ismail Ali (PW-499) to change the password of the e-mail account of Sri
Ranjan Daimari. Accordingly, he and Ismail Ali (PW-499) had changed the password.
This witness had stated that he had put four characters and Ismail Ali had put four
characters. They had also changed the security question and answer of the same.
They had reduced the passwords and security questions into writing; put the same in
an envelope, sealed it and handed over the same to the CBI Officer. Ext-415 is the
disclosure statement of Ranjan Daimari and Ext-415 (ii) was his signature on the said
document. Ext-416 is the memo of proceeding of opening of the e-mail account of
Ranjan Daimari and Ext-416(ii) was his signature put therein. Ext-417(i) to 417(xxiii) (23
Page No.# 70/198
sheets) are the printouts of the e-mails of Ranjan Daimari taken in his presence. Ext-
417 (xlvii) to Ext-417(lxix) (in all 23 sheets) were his signatures put in those documents.
The witness has further stated that the CBI Officer took out computer printouts of
some more e-mails from the account of Sri Ranjan Daimari. Ext-418(i) to 418(xxxiii) (33
sheets) were the said printouts taken in his presence. Ext-418 (67) to 418(99) (in all 33
sheets) were his signatures therein. On 23.05.2010, the CBI officer again asked him to
go to the office of the Special Branch of Assam Police at Kahilipara and accordingly,
he went there. On that day, Sri Ranjan Daimari had opened two other e-mail
accounts and few e-mails were downloaded therefrom by the CBI Officer. He and
Ismail Ali (PW-499) had signed those documents and photographs. Sri Ranjan Daimari
had also signed the said documents. Thereafter, the CBI Officer had asked him and
Ismail Ali to change the password of the e-mail account of Sri Ranjan Daimari and
accordingly they had changed the password. This witness has further deposed that
he had put four characters and Ismail Ali (PW-499) had put four characters. They had
also changed the security question and answer of the same. Thereafter, they had
reduced the passwords and security questions into writing and put the same in an
envelope, sealed it and handed over the same to the CBI Officer. Ext-419 was the
disclosure statement of Sri Ranjan Daimari and Ext-419(ii) was his signature put therein.
121. Ext-420 (5 sheets) and Ext-421 (4 sheets), Ext-422, Ext-423 (3 sheets), Ext-429 (2
sheets), Ext-425 (3 sheets), Ext-426 and Ext-427 are the computer printouts. Ext-420 (vi)
to (x), Ext-421 (v to viii), Ext-422(i), Ext-423 (iv) to (vii), Ext-424 (iii) to (iv), Ext-425 (iv) to
(vi), Ext-426(ii) and Ext-427 (ii) were his signatures put therein. This witness has also
Page No.# 71/198
stated that the CBI Officer took his specimen signature and handwritings of Sri Ranjan
Daimari in their presence. Ext-428, Ext-429, Ext-430, Ext-431, Ext-432, Ext-433, Ext-434,
Ext-435, Ext-436, Ext-437 and Ext-438 were the signatures and handwritings of Sri
Ranjan Daimari. Ext-428(ii), Ext-429(ii), Ext-430(ii), Ext-431(ii), Ext-432(ii), Ext-433(ii),
Ext-434(ii), Ext-435(ii), Ext-436(ii), Ext-437(ii) and Ext-438(ii) were his signatures therein.
122. During his cross-examination PW-502 has stated that he had not read the
disclosure statements before putting his signature nor does he remember whether the
CBI Officer had told Ranjan Daimari that he was not bound to make the disclosure
statements. He has also replied that the CBI personnel did not seize the computer
from which the aforesaid printouts were taken. This witness has stated that on that
day he had met Ranjan Daimari physically for the first time and has denied the
suggestion made to the effect that the person shown as Ranjan Daimari was actually
not Ranjan Daimari. This witness further stated that along with them there were two
other persons present in the computer room on that day. At that time neither any
member of the family of Sri Ranjan Daimari nor his friend or Advocate was present
there. Sri Ranjan Daimari had opened the abovementioned e-mail accounts at the
instruction of the CBI Officer.
123. Sri Ujjal Goswami was posted as the Assistant Jailor in the Special Jail at
Nagaon in the year 2010. He was examined as PW-503. This witness has deposed that
at that point of time Smt. Bina Rajkhowa was posted as the Jailor. At that time,
accused Ranjan Daimari was lodged in the Special Jail at Nagaon. On 25.08.2010, a
CBI Officer came to the Jail with an order of the Court to collect specimen signature
Page No.# 72/198
of accused Ranjan Daimari. The Jailor then called accused Ranjan Daimari to her
office and then specimen signature of accused Ranjan Daimari was collected by the
CBI Officer in his presence. Ext-439(i) to 439(x) were the specimen signatures of
accused Ranjan Daimari. Ext-439(xi) to 439(xx) were his signatures therein. In his cross-
examination this witness has stated that he had not seen the court order allowing the
CBI Officer to collect the specimen signature of accused Ranjan Daimari in the Court
that day.
124. The Jailor posed at the Special Jail Nagaon in the year 2010 i.e. Smt. Bina
Rajkhowa was examined as PW-504. She has corroborated the version of PW-503 by
stating that on 25.08.2010 a CBI Officer came to the Jail with an order from the court
to collect specimen signatures of accused Ranjan Daimari. She then called accused
Ranjan Daimari to her office. The CBI Officer then collected the specimen signatures
of accused Ranjan Daimari in her presence. Exts-439(i) to 439(x) were the specimen
signatures of accused Ranjan Daimari. Ext-439(xi) to 439(xii) were her signatures put
therein.
125. Smt. Banya Gogoi (PW-506) was posted in the office of S.B. Headquarters,
Kahilipara as Superintendent of Police during the year 2009. She has deposed that on
04.02.2009 the CBI had asked for providing some information regarding the National
Democratic Front of Bodoland organization. Accordingly, she had provided them
with the information vide Ext-440 (two sheets) along with certified true copies of the
constitution of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (ten sheets), two sets of
agreed ground rules for suspension of operations (SoO) between the Government of
Page No.# 73/198
India, Government of Assam and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB)
(four sheets), the photocopies in respect of which were exhibited as Ext-440 (under
objection). Ext-440(i) was her signature therein. PW-506 has also stated that she had
provided to the CBI, particulars regarding NDFB cadres as sought for. Ext-441 was the
forwarding letter of the same along with an Annexure (3 sheets) of the particulars of
the NDFB cadres. Ext-441(i) was her signature therein. This witness has further deposed
that she had also provided the CBI with an enquiry report regarding four NDFB
Activists and Ext-442 was the said enquiry report. Ext-442(i) was her signature therein.
The witness has, however, clarified that she had not signed in the Annexure (three
sheets) containing the particulars of the NDFB cadres as enclosed to the letter (Ext-
441).
126. Sri Padmadhar Chetia (PW-529) was posted as the Officer-in-Charge of the
Goalpara Police Station in the year 2009. He has deposed that Inspector S. Mukherjee
of the CBI had sought for the seizure-lists of Goalpara Police Station Case No.366/08
and accordingly, he gave the certified copies of four seizure-lists of the case. Ext-480
is the seizure memo and Exts-481, 482, 483 and 484 were the certified copies of the
seizure-lists. This witness has also stated that Exts-480(i) and 480(ii) were his signatures
put therein. Exts-481(i), 482(i), 483(i) and 484(i) are his signatures in the seizure-lists.
127. PW-536, Sri Arabinda Kalita is an IPS Officer and was posted as Superintendent
of Police, Kokrajhar during the period from 2008 till the month of March, 2009. He has
deposed that on 05.02.2009 he gave copy of 1) the manifesto of National
Democratic Front of Bodoland (18 sheets), 2) the ceasefire agreement entered into
Page No.# 74/198
between the Government of India and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (3
sheets), 3) Information that 532 cadres of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland
were staying in the designated camp at Kumguri under Serfanguri P.S. of Kokrajhar
District and 10 cadres of National Democratic Front of Bodoland were staying in the
Liasioning office at Habrubari in Kokrajhar Town, 4) A list of office bearers of the
Cease-fire team of NDFB along with their available phone numbers to Sri N. S. Yadav,
CBI, Special Task Force, New Delhi, Camp (Circuit House). Ext-486 (23 sheets) was the
forwarding letter along with the aforesaid documents and Ext-486(i) was his signature
in the forwarding letter. PW-536 has further deposed that after the Government of
Assam had handed over the bomb blast case to the CBI, the CBI personnel had
visited the blast site at Vivekananda Road, near Railway Crossing in Kokrajhar Town
and collected and seized some samples in his presence. Ext-487 is the seizure memo
in respect thereof which bears his signature as a witness. The CBI personnel had also
visited the blast site at the Fish Market, Kokrajhar and thereafter, collected and seized
some more samples from the debris collected from the blast site and stored them at
the Municipal godown in his presence. Ext-488 was the seizure-memo and Ext-488(i)
was his signature. During his cross-examination PW-536 had stated that he had
handed over photostat copies of the manifesto of National Democratic Front of
Bodoland and the copy of the Ceasefire agreement entered in between the
Government of India and the National Democratic Front of Bodoland. He had not
seen the materials seized vide Ext-487 and Ext-488.
128. PW-590, Sri Gopal Rabha has stated that he knows accused Nilim Daimari. One
day he had come to his house and told that accused Ranjan Daimari had sent him
Page No.# 75/198
to his house so as to help them by providing financial assistance as he had been
suffering from some ailments. At that, he told him that he did not have much money
and gave Rs.5000/- for his treatment.
129. We also find from the materials available on record that the accused Ranjan
Daimari had filed application before the learned trial Court seeking bail. In the said
application he had projected himself as the Chairman of the NDFB. The Bail order
dated 11.04.2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M) in connection
with the above proceedings has also taken note of the fact that accused Ranjan
Daimari, who was one of the accused persons charge-sheeted in the proceeding
was the Chairman of the NDFB faction which was led by him and currently discussions
were going on between him and the Government of India through Sri P. C. Haldar,
former Home Secretary to the Government of India, who was appointed as an
Interlocutor by the Central Government with a view to amicably resolve the issue
relating to Bodo people. The accused Ranjan Daimari was also granted bail by the
trial court on executing a bond of Rs.3 lakhs with two sureties of like amount. Although
the learned senior counsel for the appellants by placing reliance on the decision of
the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pratap Mishra (Supra) has argued that
the pleadings in the application filed by the accused would not be binding upon
him, yet the question here is not as regards the pleading but the order passed by this
Court which clearly reflects the fact that accused Ranjan Daimari was the Chairman
of the NDFB. The aforesaid factual position has not been challenged by the appellant
at any stage, not even during the examination of the accused Ranjan Daimari under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. If that be so, there cannot be any doubt about the fact
Page No.# 76/198
that the aforesaid material available on record would have an important bearing in
deciding the question as to whether accused Ranjan Daimari was, in fact, a member
of the NDFB.
130. During his examination under section 313 CrPC the notifications dated 23-11-
2006 (Ext-656) and 23-11-2008 (Ext-314) along with evidence adduced on record by
the prosecution indicating that he was the Chairman of the NDFB since inception till
now and the organization had been declared as an unlawfull association by the
Government of India was put to the accused Ranjan Daimari but he had refused to
make any comment on the same.
131. Mr. Bhattacharyya is no doubt correct in urging that the accused has a right to
remain silent during trial and such silence of the accused cannot be considered as
admission of any fact. However, what would be note worthy here-in is that whether
the accused Ranjan Daimari was the Chairman of the NDFB and if so, whether the
organization has been declared as unlawful association by the Government of India
are matters that would be within the special knowledge of the accused. Ranjan
Daimari had also remained silent when the Order dated 11-04-2013 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Kamrup(M), Guwahati allowing the accused to go on bail was put to
him. The order dated 11-04-2013 clearly mentioned that accused Ranjan Daimari had
sought bail as Chairman of the NDFB to participate in the discussions to be held with
the Government of India through Sri. P.C Haldar, former Home Secretary, who was
appointed as an interlocutor. The order dated 11-04-2013 also mentions about the
fact that in view of the dialogue initiated by the Government of India and the State
Page No.# 77/198
Government, the NDFB had declared unilateral ceasefire. The fact that the bail order
dated 11-04-2013 was passed by the learned Sessions Judge on an application filed
by accused Ranjan Daimari is not in dispute. Therefore, the correctness of the
statements made in the bail application were within the special knowledge of the
accused. Once the prosecution had adduced cogent materials on record to prima
facie establish the fact that NDFB was a banned organization and accused Ranjan
Daimari was the Chairman of the said organization, it was incumbent on the accused
to disclose the facts that were within his special knowledge which he had evidently
failed to do. Failure on the part of the accused Ranjan Daimari to disclose facts within
his special knowledge, in the opinion of this court, would be liable to be treated as an
additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against the accused. Although
Mr. Bhattacharyya has argued that the accused was not bound by the pleadings
and therefore, did not have any duty to disclose, we are unable to agree with such
submission of the learned senior counsel for the following reasons. Firstly, it was not the
pleading but the order of the court which was put to the accused during his
examination under section 313 CrPC. Secondly, regardless of the pleadings, the
accused was under a duty to disclose special facts with in his knowledge. It is not in
dispute that Ranjan Daimari had in fact applied for bail. Therefore, he ought to have
disclosed or atleast clarified, the facts leading to the filing of the bail application. In
view of the provision of section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872, the question of
exercise of right of silence would not extend to the accused in such a situation.
132. Mr. Bhattacharyya has also argued that the electronic evidence allegedly
downloaded by the Investigating Officer from the e-mail account of the accused
Page No.# 78/198
was not properly put to the accused during his examination under section 313 CrPC
but such materials have been relied upon by the learned trial court for conviction of
the accused person. However, from a perusal of the statements of the accused
recorded under section 313 CrPC, we find that the evidence adduced by PWs 499
and 502 deposing that the accused had given the password of his e-mail account
based on which the e-mail was opened and print-outs were taken thereform; that
Ext-418-V was one such printout; that he had sent e-mail as D.R. Nabala, President
NDFB as well as the Press Release dated 18-11-09, were all put to the accused while
recording his statement under section 313 of CrPC but he had refused to comment
on any of those incriminating evidence adduced on record by the prosecution side.
What would be noteworthy here-in is the fact that the accused Ranjan Daimari has
not denied his involvement in the matter but has merely refused to comment. Under
the circumstances it cannot be said that any prejudice had been caused to the
accused due to failure to put all the incriminating materials to him during his
examination under section313 CrPC.
M) Objection as to non-compliance of section 65-B of the Evidence Act :-
133. It is clear from a plain reading of section 65-B of the Evidence Act that any
information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored,
recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by the computer shall
be deemed to also be a document if the conditions mentioned in the section are
satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question and shall be
admissible in a proceeding without further proof or production of the original, as
Page No.# 79/198
evidence of any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein with direct
evidence would be admissible. However, when secondary evidence of such
electronic record is sought to be adduced, the same would have to mandatorily be
accompanied by a certificate as specified in Section 65-B(4). The aforesaid aspect of
the matter was elaborately dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anvar P. V. vs.
P. K. Basheer and others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 473 (supra) wherein the following
observations have been made in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 :-
"14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under
the Evidence Act, in view of Sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in
accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 65B. Section 65B
deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these
provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a
computer. It may be noted that the Section starts with a non obstante clause.
Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information
contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored,
recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer
shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under
sub- Section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original.
The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called
as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions
under Section 65B(2). Following are the specified conditions under Section
65B(2) of the Evidence Act:
(i) The electronic record containing the information should have been
produced by the computer during the period over which the same was
regularly used to store or process information for the purpose of any
activity regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful
control over the use of that computer;
Page No.# 80/198
(ii) The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the
kind from which the information is derived was regularly fed into the
computer in the ordinary course of the said activity;
(iii) During the material part of the said period, the computer was
operating properly and that even if it was not operating properly for
some time, the break or breaks had not affected either the record or the
accuracy of its contents; and
(iv) The information contained in the record should be a reproduction or
derivation from the information fed into the computer in the ordinary
course of the said activity.
15. Under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement
in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided
the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record
containing the statement;
(b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic
record was produced;
(c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in
the production of that record;
(d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned
under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and
(e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible
official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.
16. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that
the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a
certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout,
Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to
which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is
Page No.# 81/198
produced in evidence. All these safeguards are taken to ensure the source
and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record
sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to
tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the
whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice ."
134. What would be significant to note herein is that PW-502, Diganta Barman, who
was an Officer serving under the National Informatics Center (NIC) is an expert in the
field of computers. In his deposition, this witness has not only elaborately stated about
the print outs taken from the e-mail account of accused Ranjan Daimari but has also
exhibited the documents, the printout of which were produced before the court. This
witness has also identified his signature in those documents viz., Exts- 415, 416, 417,
418, 419, 420, 421, 322, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436
and 437. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that there has been substantive
compliance of the requirement of Section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act in this case.
Moreover, the oral evidence of PWs-502 finds due corroboration from the evidence of
PW-499 which categorically goes to show that the I.O. had not only got access to the
e-mail account of accused Ranjan Daimari, the password of which was provided by
the accused himself, but on accessing the account all those documents were
downloaded from the e-mail account of the accused in presence of independent
witnesses including PWs-495 and 502. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion
that the conditions laid down in the case of Anvar P. V.(supra) has been squarely met
in this case. As such, we are of the opinion that the Exts- 415, 416, 417, 418, 419, 420,
421, 322, 423, 424, 425, 426, 427, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 436 and 437 were not
hit by section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act but were admissible in evidence.
Page No.# 82/198
N) Evidence against Accused No.2, George Boro :
135. PW-15, Dr. Tarun Talukdar was a private practitioner. This witness has deposed
that he had a two storied building in Lakhimi Nagar, Hatigaon, Guwahati. On
26.10.2007 he had rented out the 3 rd part of the ground floor of the house to accused
George Boro. George Boro was staying there with a girl and a man named Jitu.
George Boro told him that he was an MA in English from Pune and was searching for
a job in Guwahati. Occasionally, Boro youths used to come to meet George Boro
and sometimes Ajay Basumatary also came to meet him. He has identified the
accused Ajay Basumatary as the person who used to meet George Boro in his house.
He has deposed that Mat. Ext-9 is the photograph of Jitu Boro, who used to drive the
Indica Car bearing Registration No.AS-01AE-3826 and was staying with accused
George Boro. In the morning of the day of Bomb blast, while he was sitting in the
balcony of his house, he saw accused George Boro and 4/5 boys going out in a
vehicle like Tata Sumo. While he was getting ready to go to his chamber, just before
11:00 a.m. he saw that the said vehicle had returned and he saw George Boro and
few boys entering into the rented house. Thereafter, he proceeded towards his
chamber at Bhangagarh and later learnt about the bomb explosions. When he
returned to his house in the evening, he saw that the room that he had let out to
George Boro was under lock and key and that, Boro did not return for months
together. He further stated that one day, his wife received a call from George Boro
who told his wife that he will come after some time as at that time Boro boys were
being arrested. After 15/20 days, George Boro again called his wife over phone and
Page No.# 83/198
told her that he will send the key of the room and the rent through someone and also
requested her to keep his belongings in some other place and to let out the room to
other persons but George Boro never came back. PW-15 deposed that when he
came to know from TV news and newspaper that George Boro was involved in the
Bomb blast, he informed the Dispur Police Station about George Boro staying in his
house. Later, police came and broke the lock of the room and took away the
accused George Boro's belongings. Thereafter, he had again rented out the room
after informing the police. He has further deposed that the accused George Boro
rang his wife from No.9957067127 and that he rang from the said number twice.
136. In his cross-examination, PW-15 has stated that occasionally some friends of
George Boro used to visit him and he was in talking terms with them. He has further
stated that he had identified the person, who used to visit George Boro, in the dock.
He did not know his name when he pointed at the person in the dock and came to
know his name when it was asked by the court. He stated that he did not enter into
any rent agreement with George Boro and never issued any receipt after receiving
rent. He has also denied the suggestion that George Boro never stayed in his house.
137. PW-16, Golap Medhi has stated that he was residing in the house of Dr. Tarun
Talukdar (PW-15) since 2001 and was working as a Security Guard. This witness has
deposed that 10 days prior to 26.10.2007 George Boro, driver Jitu and one lady came
to the house of Dr. Tarun Talukdar searching for a room. They selected the room and
as Dr. Talukdar was not present, he told them to come after a few days. Accordingly,
they came on 26.10.2007 and took the room on rent. He has identified the accused
Page No.# 84/198
George Boro who had taken the room on rent. This witness has deposed that on the
day of the Bomb blast i.e. 30.10.2008, George Boro had called him in between 12:00
noon to 1:00 p.m. from his mobile number 9957067127 and enquired whether, any
bomb blast had taken place in Guwahati. He told George Boro that there were some
bomb blasts and George Boro told him that he was in Barpeta. George Boro again
called him after 15/20 days from a different number and told him that he was going
out and will return to Guwahati after some time. George Boro also told him that his
belongings may be taken out from the room and the room may be given to others.
He then told George Boro to call Dr. Tarun Talukdar and inform about the same. PW-
16 has identified that Mat. Ext-9 is the photograph of the person who was working as
a driver of an Indica car used by George Boro and his team and that the name of
the driver was Jitu. In his cross-examination he has stated that he was working in AIR
CELL tower as a guard and also used to do marketing for Dr. Tarun Talukdar. He has
denied the defence suggestion that the Mat. Ext-9 photograph is not the photograph
of Jitu Daimari. He also denied the suggestion that on the day of the incident,
Geroge Boro did not ring him to enquire about bomb the blast in Guwahati. He has
also denied the suggestion that he never met Geroge Boro earlier.
138. PW-17, Sri Jatandra Nath Pathak has stated that he had been in Guwahati
since 15.12.2010 as EAC. On 13.01.2011 while he was working in the said capacity in
Guwahati, he went to S.B. Headquarter where accused Geroge Boro was produced
before him. On that day, accused Geroge Boro was interrogated before him by the
CBI officials and Geroge Boro made his statement where, he had admitted his
involvement in the Bomb blast case of 30.10.2008. Ext-26 is the disclosure statement of
Page No.# 85/198
Geroge Boro made before him and Ext-26(1) is the relevant part. Ext-26(2) was the
signature of PW-17. He further deposed that after making the disclosure accused
Geroge Boro volunteered to take them to the places where he brought the bomb in
a Maruti vehicle and after that, how he parked the vehicle under the Ganeshguri
Flyover on 30.10.2008 and after parking the vehicle, how he and accused Aogai and
Jeetu Daimari drove away in a parked Tata Sumo vehicle. Ext-27 is the pointing out
memo prepared on the basis of statement and disclosure made by the accused
Geroge Boro and Ext-27(1) and 27(2) were his signatures. This witness has stated that
he has prepared a rough sketch of road and places from where accused Geroge
Boro started and took out the bomb laden car and parked it under Ganeshguri
Flyover. Ext-28 is the said sketch map and Ext-28(1) was his signature. PW-17 has
stated that in Exts-26, 27 and 28 accused Geroge Boro had put his signature in his
presence and that Ext-26(3), Ext-27(3) and Ext-28(4) and 28(2) were the signatures of
Geroge Boro which were put in his presence.
139. He has further deposed that on 28.02.2011 accused Mathuram Brahma @
Mudoi made a disclosure statement before him where he had disclosed that he
brought 50 kg of TNT Explosives from the house of Arun Gorguary along with Jeetu
Daimari in an Indica car and kept the same near the house of Rifikha. PW-17 has
further stated that accused Mathuram Brahma @ Mudoi had stated that he filled the
empty gas cylinder used in Ganeshguri Flyover blast with the above TNT explosives
and also filled up two pressure cooker used in Barpeta Road/Choudhury Complex
and Sabji Market bomb blasts. Ext-29 was the said disclosure statement of Mathuram
Brahma @ Mudoi and Ext-29(1) was his signature and Ext-29(2) was the signature of
Page No.# 86/198
accused Mathuram Brahma put in his presence.
140. PW-29, Dr. Bhupen Narzary was an Associate Professor, Department of Bodo of
Gauhati University. He stated that he was an MA in Assamese and had done PH.D in
MIL Department (Modern Indian Language). He had joined service on 30.03.1988 as
Lecturer of Modern Indian Language on Bodo language, which was upgraded to
Bodo Independent Department. This witness has deposed that by letter dated
09.03.2009, DSP, CBI, STF, New Delhi had requested him to translate a letter which was
in Bodo language containing two pages. Ext-41 (sic) was the said letter. He stated
that on receipt of the said letter (Ext-42), he had translated the same into English, Ext-
43 was the translated version and Ext-43(1) was his signature. In his cross-examination,
this witness has stated that he had no certificate regarding expertise in Bodo
Language as there was Bodo education system during his studies. As per his
knowledge, Ext-43 was the exact translation of Ext-42. He has denied the suggestion
that he had not correctly translated Ext-42 to Ext-43.
141. PW-30, Nikunja Borah has deposed that he resided at Lakhimi Nagar, Guwahati
and had a shop where he used to sell mobile recharge cards. This witness had
identified accused John @ George Boro in the dock and further stated that the
accused used to visit his shop for purchasing cold drinks and re-charge cards. He
knew that the accused George Boro resided in that area but he did not know the
house where he was residing. The accused John used to visit his shop as a customer
for around 6 months in the year 2008. This witness has stated that accused John had a
AIRCEL mobile connection and on 30.10.2008, he had rang him and asked him to
Page No.# 87/198
recharge his Aircel mobile for Rs.75/-. Accordingly, he did so but he did not receive
the Rs.75/- from the accused John as thereafter, he never came to his shop. In his
cross-examination, PW-30 has stated that he knew accused John only as a customer
by face and that he did not know his address.
142. PW-49, Sri Nirod Barman has deposed that in the year 2008 he was doing
business having one PCO under the name and style of M/S N. B. Magazine Center
and PCO situated near the Ganeshguri Flyover. This witness has stated that he had
two landline connections in the PCO and the said numbers were 2611548 and
2611644. He has stated that on 10.10.2009 the CBI officials seized the bills and CDR
from him. Ext-103 is the seizure memo by which the CDR along with bills were seized
by the CBI. Ext-103(1) and 103(2) were his signatures. Ext-104 was the computer
generated bill along with the CDR totaling 11 pages and Ext-104(1) to 104(11) were
the signatures on the back side of the pages. Ext-105 was another computer
generated bill along with CDR totaling 13 pages and 105(1) to 105(13) were the
signatures on the back side of the pages. This witness has stated that he was shown
page No.8 of the Ext-105 wherein on 13.10.2008 at around 12:45 p.m., a call was
made from his PCO No.2611644 to 9957067127 for about 38 minutes and Ext-105(14)
was the said entry. This witness has stated that he was also interrogated by the CBI. In
his cross-examination, PW-49 has stated that CDR of PCO phone bearing No.2611644
and 2611548 was for the month of October, 2008 commencing from 10.10./2008 to
15.10.2008 and another CDR of Phone No.2611644 commencing from 10.10.2008 to
15.10.2008. He further stated that at the request of CBI, he had procured the CDR of
his two phone numbers commencing from 10.10.2008 to 15.10.2008. He has further
Page No.# 88/198
stated that he could not identify as to who made the call from the relevant number
and to whom.
143. PW-50, Sri Rajib Talukdar has deposed that in the year 2008 he was working
with his cousin brother Sri Nirod Barman (PW-49) in the PCO namely N. B. Magazine
Center and PCO at Ganeshguri. This witness has stated that the CBI enquired from
them and asked for the CDR and accordingly, they collected bills with CDR. He
stated that his brother Nirod Barman (PW-49) had handed over the bills and the CDR
to the CBI. Ext-104 and 105 were the computer generated bills along with the CDRs.
Ext-104 is in 11 sheets and 105 is in 13 sheets. He stated that on 13.10.2008 he was in
the PCO. This witness has stated that he was shown the CDR Ext-105 on the date of his
deposition wherein it was mentioned that from the PCO No.2611644 one call was
made to phone no.9957167127 at around 12:45 p.m. for duration of 38 minutes. Ext-
105(14) was the said entry of the call. He was also interrogated by the CBI.
144. PW-367, Sri Bhargab Brahma has deposed that he knows one Jimi Boro who
studied with him in the St. Mary's High School, Barpeta Road and was one year junior
to him. He stated that a few years ago Jimi Boro had asked him to obtain a Mobile
SIM Card for him and then he applied for a mobile connection from the AIRTEL
Company. He stated that he collected the SIM Card and gave it to Jimi Boro but he
had forgotten the number of the SIM card. He further deposed that he knew
accused George Boro and that he was the elder brother of Jimi Boro. He stated that
the accused George Boro studied in Pune and he heard that George Boro had
joined NDFB organization. In his cross-examination he stated that he was interrogated
Page No.# 89/198
by the CBI. He stated that he had heard that George Boro had joined the NDFB
organization, but he had no personal knowledge about the same. He further stated
that he did not know whether the said SIM card was activated or not.
145. PW-371, Smt. Haina Basumatary has stated that in the year 2009 she was
studying at B. H. College, Howly and at that time she was staying in the house of her
aunty viz. Nilima Boro, situated at Borpeta Road. This witness has stated that her
aunty Nilima Boro had two sons, namely, Jimy Boro and George Boro and one
daughter, namely, Hema Basumatary. PW-371 has stated that during her stay in the
house of her aunty Nilima Boro, her son George Boro was not staying with her and
that he never visited the house. She also stated that she did not know where George
Boro was staying or what he was doing at that time.
146. PW-512, Sri Songthu Songneijir Aimol has deposed that from December, 2008 to
2013 he was working as the Circle Nodal Officer in the Bharti Airtel Ltd., Guwahati. He
has stated that in connection with this case the CBI personnel had examined him and
he had furnished to the CBI, scanned copies of Airtel Pre-paid Enrolment Form
pertaining to the Mobile Nos.9954986477 and 9954961800. Ext-449 was the forwarding
letter of the same and Ext-449(i) was his signature. Ext-450 (three sheets) were the
certified true copies of the Airtel Prepaid Enrollment Form pertaining to the Mobile No.
9954961800 and Ext-450(i) was his signature therein. Ext-451 (two sheets) were the
certified true copies of the Airtel Prepaid Enrolment Form pertaining to the Mobile
No.9954986477 and Ext-451(i) was his signature therein. On 02.01.2009 vide Ext-452
seizure memo, the CBI officials seized five Airtel Prepaid Enrollment Forms from him
Page No.# 90/198
and Ext-452(i) was his signature therein. Ext-453 (three sheets), Ext-454 (two sheets),
Ext-455 (three sheets), Ext-456 (two sheets) and Ext-457 (four sheets) were the said
seized five Airtel Prepaid Enrollment Forms. This witness has stated that he had
provided the Call Details (8 sheets) vide Ext-458 letter of Mobile No.9957067127 of Sri
Bhargav Barma to the CBI and Ext-451(i) was his signature therein. Ext-459 (i) to Ext-
459(viii) were the said call details (8 sheets) and Ext-459 (ix) to Ext-459 (xvi) were his
signatures therein. He further stated that vide Ext-460 letter, he had provided the C.D.
containing the Call Details of 8 mobile numbers to the CBI. Ext-460(i) was his signature
therein and Mat. Ext-II was the said C.D. where he had written the mobile numbers in
his own handwriting. He had also provided one C.D. of CELL ID (Tower Details) of
Airtel to the CBI and Mat. Ext-III was the said C.D. where he had written the words
"CELL ID" in his own handwriting. This witness has deposed that vide Ext-460 letter, he
had also provided call details of mobile No.9954986477 (four sheets). Ext-460(ii) to Ext-
460(v) were the said call details and Ext-460(vi) to Ext-460(ix) were his signatures
therein. This witness has stated that as per Ext-460(ii) call details sheets, on 30.10.2008
at 8:09 a.m. the location of the mobile number 9954986477 was at Tower No.13083,
Station Road, Bongaigaon and Ext-460(iii)(i) was the said entry. He stated that on
30.10.2008, at 6:07 a.m. the first call was made from the mobile No.9954986477, from
Bengtal. Ext-460(iii)(ii) was the said entry. On 30.10.2008 at 9:11 p.m., the last call was
made from the mobile No.9954986477, from Serfanguri and Ext-460(iv)(i) was the said
entry. In cross-examination, this witness has stated that he had issued Ext-449 letter at
the request of the CBI and have mentioned the same in the letter as the Subject. This
witness has stated that as per Ext-460(iii) call details sheets, on 30.10.2008 at 8:09 a.m.
Page No.# 91/198
the location of the mobile number 9954986477 was at Tower No.13083, Station Road,
Bongaigaon but, the Bongaigaon was not mentioned in the exhibited document.
147. PW-578, Ms. Janifreza Basumatary has deposed that in the year 2006 she was
working as a part-time Anchor at the Guwahati Doordarshan Kenddra. Thereafter, in
the year 2008, she joined DY-365 TV Channel as a Programme Producer and at that
time she was staying at Survey, Ajanta path, Guwahati in a rented house along with
her brother Jefri John Basumatary and sisters Jaya Melody Basumatary and
Bardwisona Basumatary. This witness has stated that in the year 2007 she met the
accused George Basumatary in the memorial service of her maternal grandmother
at village Odlakhasibari, Harisinga and thereafter, they became friends. On
30.10.2008 she was present in the office of the DY 365 and that she did not meet the
accused George Basumatary after the bomb blast of 30.10.2008. The cross-
examination of this witness was declined.
148. PW-579, Sri Jefril John Basumatary has stated that in the year 2008 he was
staying in a rented house at Hatigaon, Guwahati with his sisters Jaya Melody
Basumatary and Bardwisona Basumatary. He stated that he did not remember where
his other elder sister Janifreza Basumatary was staying at that time and that in the
year 2008 his elder sister Janifreza Basumatary was working with the DY365. This
witness has further deposed that he knew the accused George Basumatary who was
present in the court on that day. The cross-examination of this witness was declined.
149. Sri Purna Chandra Baruah was a retired police officer. He was examined as PW-
610. This witness has deposed that on 28.10.2008 he was posted at the Barpeta Road
Page No.# 92/198
Police Station as the Officer-in-Charge. He stated that in the night of that day around
8:00 pm, accompanied by some police personnel, he went to Govardhana area
under his Police Station for patrolling duty. While he was checking vehicles on the
Barpeta-Basbari Road, he saw Maruti car coming from Barpeta side and proceeding
towards Basbari side. He stopped the Maruti car and found two persons inside the
vehicle and on asking their name the person who was sitting on the rear seat told
that his name was George Boro and the driver told that his name was Tarun. This
witness has further stated George Boro also told him that he was a member of the
Ceasefire group of the NDFB. His driver Saikia also knew the driver Tarun of the Maruti
car. When he asked them, they told him that they were going to Khagrabari to meet
their leaders. The Registration number of the car was something with 7747 and that he
did not find any illegal things inside their car and allowed them to go. This witness
further stated that on 30.10.2008 at around 10:00/10:30 a.m. while he was present at
the Barpeta Road Police Station, he heard two sounds of blasts and then
accompanied by his staff, he went to the blast site at Choudhury Complex and sent
the injured victims to the Barpeta Road Civil Hospital. Later on, he also sent the
deceased victims to hospital for post-mortem examination. Thereafter, he went to the
next blast site, i.e. vegetable market and there also he sent the injured victims to the
Barpeta Road Civil Hospital and the deceased victims to the hospital for post-mortem
examination. This witness has stated that thereafter, he returned to the Barpeta Road
Police Station and lodged two separate First Information Report of the aforesaid two
blasts. Ext-527 is the FIR of the blast of vegetable market and Ext-527(1) was his
signature therein. He registered the said FIR as No.262/0-8 for offices under Sections
Page No.# 93/198
120B/121-A/126/153B/302/326 IPC read with Section 3 of the E.S. Act. Ext-528 was the
FIR of the blast of the Choudhury Complex and Ext-528(1) was his signature therein.
He had registered the said FIR as No.261/08 for offences
120B/121A/126/153B/153A(2)/302/326 IPC read with Section 3 of the E.S. Act. He
further deposed that after 6/7 days, he came to know from wireless message that the
vehicle bearing registration No.7747, in which George Boro and Tarun were travelling
on the night of 28.10.2008, was the vehicle used in the bomb blast at Ganeshguri
Flyover and that he searched George Boro and Tarun but did not find them. In his
cross-examination he stated that he did not record in his note book about
intercepting the Maruti car bearing registration No.7747 with George Boro and Tarun
in the night of 28.10.2008 at Govardhana. This witness has denied that he did not
intercept the Maruti car bearing registration No.7747 with George Boro and Tarun in
the night of 28.10.2008 at Govardhana.
150. PW-616, Sri Jimi Boro has deposed that accused George Boro is his elder
brother. He also stated that he knew Bhargav Brahma and that he was his classmate.
His statement was recorded by the Magistrate and Ext-533 was his statement and Ext-
533(1), (2), (3) and (4) were his signatures therein. This witness has deposed that he
told the Magistrate that in the year 2005 his elder brother George Boro had joined the
NDFB. He also told the Magistrate that his elder brother George Boro rarely came to
their house and in the year 2006, he had met him at the Barpeta Road vegetable
market. At that time, his elder brother George Boro requested him to procure a
mobile phone SIM card for him and as he did not have a driving licence, he
requested his classmate Bhargav Brahma to procure a mobile phone SIM card. He
Page No.# 94/198
has stated that Bhargav Brahma then procured an Airtel mobile phone SIM card in his
name and gave the same to him. PW-616 has further stated that he delivered the
said Airtel Mobile phone SIM card to his mother Nilima Boro and thereafter, he went
to Guwahati for his studies. Later on, he came to know that his elder brother George
Boro had collected the said Mobile phone SIM card from his mother. This witness has
further stated that he told the Magistrate that he could identify the handwritings of his
elder brother George Boro. The CBI personnel showed him the Ext-41 and Ext-42 letters
and he told the CBI personnel that the said letters were written by his elder brother
George Boro. He told the Magistrate that the CBI personnel seized one notebook and
some documents belonging to his elder brother George Boro from him. In his cross-
examination he has stated that the police had visited his house many times searching
for him and the police directed his mother to produce him before them. He stated
that from the month of February, 2008 to 2011 he was studying at Alpine College,
Shillong, Meghalaya and that he never met his elder brother George Boro in the year
2008. He stated that CBI Inspector Mr. Yadav had called him to the Barpeta Circuit
House and he met him there many times and also met him at Guwahati as per his
direction. The witness has stated that the CBI Inspector convinced him to give
statement before the Magistrate and hence, he gave the aforesaid statement. He,
however, stated that the aforesaid statement was made under the pressure of the
police as they threatened him that otherwise, they would make him an accused in
the case.
O) Evidence against Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma @ Kharmswar:
Page No.# 95/198
151. PW-22, Sri Chinmoy Prakash Phukan has deposed that in the year 2010 till July,
2010 he was posted as EAC under the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro). On
04.06.2010 the then District Magistrate had directed him to proceed to Panbazar
Police Station to assist the CBI team. Accordingly, he met the CBI team at Agriculture
Guest House where the CBI had its camp. At that time they had in their custody,
accused Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma. The CBI team wanted to have
the accused's disclosure statement in his presence and accordingly, he identified
himself to Khargeswar Basumatary as Executive Magistrate and requested him to give
his statement without any fear. Khargeswar Basumatary gave his statement and
disclosed in his statement that on 29.10.2008, at around 3:00 p.m. he had gone near
the ABSU office located at Bathupuri near Gorchuk and according to him, he had
come from Rangia by a private bus. The accused had further stated that Raju Sarkar
and Prabhat Boro alias Tepak had already arrived at Guwahati in a Maruti car
bearing registration No.AS-01-E/9226. Prabhat Boro @ Tepak had waited to meet him
near the said ABSU office along with the said car and that another person namely,
Thungly Narzary and he (Khargeswar Basumatary) had loaded one LPG cylinder filled
with explosives and fitted with timer in the said vehicle. According to the accused, he
and Prabhat Boro @ Tepak had driven the said Maruti car towards Nohagaon
adjacent to Ahomgaon of Gorchuk. The accused further informed that on that day
another person Raju Sarkar was picked up in the said vehicle and it was also
disclosed by him that the said Maruti car was parked on the foot hill of Nohagaon
adjacent to Ahomgaon of Gorchuk and they had discovered the residence of Sri
Ranjit Boro located at the nearby hill top. The accused further disclosed that he had
Page No.# 96/198
directed Prabhat Boro @ Tepak and Raju Sarkar to spend the night i.e. on 29.10.2008
in the said Maruti car and he spent the night in the residence of Sri Ranjit Boro. On
30.10.2008 at around 7:00 a.m. the accused along with Prabhat Boro @ Tepak and
Raju Sarkar had left the said location in the Maruti car. According to his statement
they came to main Gorchuk Chariali and from there he sat in a Maruti Alto driven by
one Sri Babul Boro which was hired by him and then they moved towards Jalukbari
and asked Prabhat Boro @ Tepak and Raju Sarkar to follow him. From Jalukbari they
moved towards Panbazar, crossing the Panbazar Water Tank, they moved towards
Fancy Bazar via MMC Hospital and Panbazar P.S. Prabhat Boro @ Tepak and Raju
Sarkar followed the accused in the said Maruti car loaded with explosives. The
accused stated that on entering Fancy Bazar area, he had seen police checking
and immediately informed Prabhat Boro @ Tepa about the same and asked him to
park the vehicle immediately near the Baptist Church at Panbazar. Thereafter, he
along with Babul Boro went to Bharalumukh in the Maruti Alto car and waited for
Prabhat Boro and Raju Sarkar. The accused finally disclosed that he could identify the
places where the said vehicle was parked on 29.10.2008 and 30.10.2008 and could
also identify the route taken by the vehicle on 29.10.2008 and 30.10.2008. PW-22 has
further deposed that the disclosure statement was taken in his presence and Ext-33 is
the said disclosure statement and Ext-33(1) and Ext-33(2) were his signatures. Ext-33(3)
and Ext-33(4) were the signatures of Khargeswar Basumatary. The witness has further
stated that the accused Khargeswar Basumatary was present in the Court and he
could identify him. PW-22 has deposed that after the disclosure statement of
Khargeswar Basumatary was recorded, a sketch map of the route was prepared on
Page No.# 97/198
being pointed out by the accused. Ext-34 was the "Pointing out memo" prepared on
the spot after identification made by Khargeswar Basumatary. Ext-34(1) and 34(2)
were his signatures and Ext-34(3) and Ext-34(4) were the signature of Khargeswar
Basumatary. Exts-35 and 36 were the rough sketch maps showing the routes and Ext-
35(1), Ext-36(1) were his signatures. Ext-35(2) and Ext-36(2) were the signatures of
Khargeswar Basumatary.
152. This witness (PW-22) has further deposed that on 27.01.2009 he was directed by
the then District Magistrate to go to Panbazar P.S. to meet the CBI team and
accordingly, he went there. At that time, CBI had in their custody accused Prabhat
Boro @ Tepak. The CBI wanted to have the disclosure statement of accused Prabhat
Boro @ Tepak in his presence and accordingly, he identified himself to Prabhat Boro
as Executive Magistrate and requested him to give the statement without any fear
and pressure. In his statement, the accused Prabhat Boro @ Tepak disclosed how the
Maruti car bearing registration No.AS-01E-9226 was loaded with explosives on
29.10.2008 and how the said vehicle was parked near the Baptist Church near
Panbazar on 30.10.2008. Ext-37 was the disclosure statement of Prabhat Boro @
Tepak. Ext-37(1) was the signature of PW-22 and Ext-37(2) was the signature of
Prabhat Boro. In the disclosure statement, the accused had stated that he could
identify the locations as stated by him in his disclosure statement and accordingly a
"pointing out memo" was drawn up pointing out the different places. Ext-38 was the
said pointing out memo and Ext-38(1) was his signature and Ext-38(2) was the
signature of Prabhat Boro. This witness has also stated that accused Prabhat Boro was
present in the court and he could identify him.
Page No.# 98/198
153. This witness (PW-22) has further stated that on 09.03.2009 he was directed by
the then District Magistrate to go to Panbazar P.S. to meet the CBI team and
accordingly he went there and met them. The accused Raju Sarkar was in the
custody of the CBI team at that time and the CBI team wanted to have his statement
in his presence. Accordingly he identified himself to Raju Sarkar and requested him to
give his statement without any fear and pressure. Raju Sarkar in his disclosure
statement disclosed that he knew Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma since
2005 and he also informed that on 24.08.2008, an old Maruti 800 car was purchased in
his name. Then the accused Raju Sarkar narrated the sequences of events that took
place on 29.10.2008 and 30.10.2008, right from loading of explosives in the said Maruti
car till parking of the vehicle near the Baptist Church, Panbazar on 30.10.2008. The
accused further stated that he could identify the locations as mentioned in his
disclosure statement and accordingly one "pointing out memo" was drawn up. Ext-39
was the said disclosure statement of Raju Sarkar, Ext-39(1) was the signature of PW-22
and Ext-39(2) and Ext-39(3) were the signatures of Raju Sarkar. Ext-40 was the pointing
out memo, Ext-40(1) was the signature of PW-22 and Ext-40(2) and Ext-40(3) were the
signatures of Raju Sarkar. This witness has further stated that the statements were
prepared in his presence and the accused persons had put their signatures in his
presence. He has also stated that accused Raju Sarkar was not present in the court
but he could identify him.
154. In his cross-examination, PW-22 has further stated that he was verbally
instructed by the District Magistrate to proceed to Panbazar P.S. to assist the CBI on
04.06.2010 and accordingly, he met the person who was supposed to make the
Page No.# 99/198
disclosure statement in the CBI custody in the Panbazar P.S. He stated that he was
not sure whether the accused person was handcuffed or not and that the CBI
personnel identified the accused person as Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma.
He stated that he had not put any question to him except the question of his identity
and his name. Ext-33 was the exact statement made by the accused Khargeswar
Basumatary in his disclosure and he denied that Ext-33 was recorded on 04.06.2008.
He has stated that it was recorded on 04.06.2010 and that he had put his signature on
it on 04.06.2010. He further stated that it took about an hour to record the disclosure
statement of the accused Khargeswar Basumatary and during that period, the
accused also made one pointing out memo. Ext-9 was the said memo. The accused
made the disclosure statement and pointing out memo mostly in Assamese
language. He further stated that though there were two CBI officials, he did not know
exactly who wrote the documents (Ext-33 and 34) and that in the footnote of Ext-33
and 34, there was signature of N. S. Yadav, Addl. S.P., CBI. PW-22 has denied the
suggestion that the disclosure statement and the pointing out memos were not given
by the accused Khargeswar Basumatary and that he had assaulted accused
Khargeswar Basumatary at Panbazar Police Station as well as at Agriculture Guest
House. He has further denied the suggestion that after assaulting Rahul Brahma, he
had threatened him to make the statement recorded in Exts-33 and 34 and forced
him to put his signature on the disclosure statement and the pointing out memos. PW-
22 has, however, admitted that in Exts-33 and 34, there is no statement to show that
the statements were read over to the accused.
155. In his further cross-examination by the defence on 14.09.2012, PW-22 has
Page No.# 100/198
stated that the disclosure statement Ext-37 of Prabhat Boro was written by N. K.
Pathak in English language. He denied the suggestion that Ext-37 was not the
voluntary statement of accused Prabhat Boro and that they had obtained Ext-12 by
threatening and assaulting the accused Prabhat Boro. He has further denied the
suggestion that they had not read out the Ext-37 to the accused Prabhat Boro. PW-22
denied the suggestion that the pointing out memo was not prepared on the spot and
that they had prepared the pointing out memo by sitting somewhere else and
obtained the signature of the accused thereon forcefully. He denied the suggestion
that they had visited the places on their own and at the behest of the local police
but not as shown by the accused. This witness has stated that there was no mention
of the names of the public in the pointing out memo as witnesses as a proof of their
visit to the points. He further stated that at the time of visiting the points and at the
time of giving the voluntary statement, there was no family member of the accused
present.
156. In the cross-examination of this witness by accused Raju Sarkar, PW-22 has
stated that on 09.03.2009, he was directed by the then District Magistrate to proceed
to Panbazar Police Station to meet the CBI team who wanted to obtain the
disclosure statement of accused Raju Sarkar. At that time, Raju Sarkar was in the CBI
custody. He could not remember whether the accused was handcuffed or not and
he had not seen any relative of the accused inside the room. This witness has stated
that the conversation between the CBI and the accused was mostly in Assamese and
Hindi language. He denied the suggestion that Ext-39 was not the disclosure
statement of the accused Raju Sarkar and that they had not read out the disclosure
Page No.# 101/198
statement (Ext-39) to the accused in his language. He has further stated that in Ext-40
(pointing out memo) there was no signature of any local person as witnesses,
although local people were present on the spots. This witness has, however, denied
the suggestion that they had not visited any place as mentioned in Ext-15 and that
accused Raju Sarkar had not led them to any place.
157. PW-58, Sri Bhubaneswar Bora has deposed that in the year 2008 he was working
as Principal of Pandu College, Guwahati. On 17.11.2008, he had received a letter
from S.I. Suresh Ch. Das of Panbazar Police Station seeking the detail particulars of
one Khargeswar Basumatary, a student of their college, in connection with Panbazar
P.S. Case No.398/2008. Ext-108 was the said letter and Ext-108(1) was his signature with
office seal acknowledging the receipt of the same. This witness has stated that he
had verified the Admission Forms containing the photograph and other details of the
student concerned and provided the photocopy to Panbazar P.S. Ext-109 is the said
photocopy of the admission form. In his cross-examination, this witness has stated that
the College authority maintained the admission forms of the students permanently
and that there was no rule regarding destruction of the forms. On the date of
admission of the student Khargeswar Basumatary i.e. on 29.07.2004, he was working in
the capacity of a Professor of the said College and that he was promoted to the post
of Principal in the year 2007. This witness has, however, admitted that he did not
certify the photocopy of the form to the effect that it was compared with the original
by him. He denied the suggestion that the copy of the admission form which he
furnished to the authority as per requisition was not the admission form duly filled by
the said student.
Page No.# 102/198
158. PW-59, Sri Kumud Chandra Boro has deposed that he was working as an
employee of N.F. Railways, Maligaon, Guwahati and posted as Chief Office
Superintendent in the office of CCM (FM). He has stated that his father-in-law was
Late Hari Charan Sargyary, who had four sons and two daughters. This witness has
deposed that he knew Khargeswar Sargyary, a resident of village Naokata, Baksa,
who was present in the dock. PW-59 has stated that he had heard that his sister-in-law
Lina Sargyary got married to Khargeswar Basumatary but he had no contact with the
accused Khargeswar Basumatary. The cross-examination of this witness was declined.
159. PW-64, Sri Dilip Kr. Agarwal has deposed that he had been dealing with an
Automobile Spare Parts shop in the name style "Car Concern", situated at Adabari,
Guwahati. He used to receive orders for making number plates of cars and delivered
the same to the customers. That he used to maintain a "customer order book" at his
shop. Ext-108 was the customer order book and Ext-108(1) and Ext-108(2) were the
relevant pages of the order book covering the year 2008. He has stated that on
20.10.2008, he had received two orders for making number plates as AS-12-B-8335
and AS-12-N-1025 from the customers and delivered the same accordingly. PW-64,
however, stated that he could not remember the customers concerned. One Dhan
was shown to him during investigation whom he identified as most likely to resemble
one of the customers of the aforesaid cars. Ext-109 was the said photograph and Ext-
109(1) was his handwriting with signature. Ext-110 was the seizure-list wherein Ext-
110(1) was his signature. His statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., Ext-
111 was his statement given before the Magistrate wherein Ext-111(1) was his
signature. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that his signature was not there in
Page No.# 103/198
the order book Ext-108 and that in Ext-108 order book, there was no provision for
recording the particulars of a customer. He has further stated that in Ext-108(1) and
Ext-108(2) there was no mention of customer's name and there was no signature of
the customer and that there was no mention of the delivery date therein. This witness
has also stated that he could not remember whether he had recorded any
statement before the Magistrate as per the instruction of the Police Officer. He has
further stated that he gave his statement before the Magistrate as per his own
version.
160. PW-67, Sri Bipin Ch. Rajbongshi has deposed that he was working as an
Assistant Teacher in Govt. school since 1993. He had purchased one Maruti Car
bearing registration No.AS-01-E-9226 from Ikhtaruddin Talukdar. He had sold the said
car to one Raju Sarkar. One Kartik Mondal, mechanic used to service his car and he
had arranged the purchaser Raju Sarkar. Ext-114 was the copy of the sale and
purchase document in non-judicial stamp paper wherein Ext-114(1) and Ext-114(2)
were his signatures and Ext-114(3) was the signature of Kartik Mondal. He had issued
one receipt, Ext-115 was the said receipt wherein Ext-115(1) was his signature. Ext-116
was the copy of the transfer form and Ext-116(1) and Ext-116(2) were his signatures
therein. Ext-116(3) was the signature of Kartik Mondal. This witness has further stated
that he had handed over the documents to the CBI which were seized vide Ext-117,
Ext-117(1) and Ext-117(2) were his signatures. Ext-118 is the photo identification memo
of Rahul Brahma and Ext-118(1) was his signature and Ext-118(2) was the signature of
Kartik Mondal. This witness has further stated that accused Raju Sarkar and Rahul
Brahma were present in the dock. In his cross-examination this witness has stated that
Page No.# 104/198
the registration of the vehicle is not mentioned in Ext-116. He has, however, denied
the suggestion that Ext-116 is a doctored document.
161. PW-68, Kartik Mandal has deposed that he was working as car mechanic. He
knew Bipin Ch. Rajbongshi, who own a Maruti 800 car and he used to service that
car. He has further stated that he knew accused Raju Sarkar, who used to visit his
garage for some repairing works. This witness has stated that Bipin Rajbangshi wanted
to sell his vehicle bering registration No.AS-01-E-9226 and asked him to arrange for a
purchaser. Accordingly, he had arranged Raju Sarkar and Bipin Rajbongshi sold his
car to Raju Sarkar by executing certain documents; he had put his signatures in Ext-
114 and Ext-116. Exts-114(3) and 116(3) were his signatures therein. PW-68 has further
stated that during the transfer and taking over the said vehicle, one person was
present and on being shown him the photograph of the said person, he had
identified the photograph vide photocopy identification memo Ext-118 wherein Ext-
118(2) was his signature. He has stated that the accused Raju Sarkar was present in
the dock and another accused whose photograph was attached with Ext-118 was
also present in the dock. He has stated that he did not remember the phone number,
but he remembered last three digit number were "593". During his cross-examination,
this witness has denied the suggestion that there was business rivalry between himself
and Raju Sarkar; that both of them had a garage and that he had deposed falsely.
162. PW-553, Sri Krishna Kanta Swargiary has deposed before the court that he knew
the accused Khargeswar Basumatary, who was present in the court. He has stated
that the accused Khargeswar Basumatary is the grandson of the elder sister of his
Page No.# 105/198
father. The accused Khargeswar Basumatary studied from their house at village
Naokata and completed his graduation and thereafter, he had married his sister
Rameshwari Swargiary. This witness has further stated that later on, he came to know
that the accused Khargeswar Basumatary had connection with the National
Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB). The Goreswar police came to his house and
recorded his statement. At that time, his sister Rameshwari Swargiary was present in
their house and the police interrogated her as well. He has stated that he did not
remember the mobile numbers of the accused Khargeswar Basumatary. In his cross-
examination he stated that the CBI officials did not interrogate him.
163. PW-587, Sri Rabindra Boro has deposed that he had been working as an
Assistant Teacher at the Goreswar Higher Secondary School. He has stated that
during the serial bomb blasts that occurred in the year 2008 in Assam, he was present
in the school. This witness has stated that he knew Sri Ganesh Basumatary who was his
father-in-law but he did not know Babul Boro. The CBI officials called his father-in-law
Sri Ganesh Basumatary to the Panbazar Police Station and he accompanied him. The
CBI officials had interrogated him as well as his father-in-law by asking them if they
knew anything about the bomb blasts. He has deposed that he did not see the
accused Raju Sarkar and the accused Khargeswar Basumatary at the Panbazar
Police Station. The accused Khargeswar Basumatary was present in the dock. He has
stated that he did not know the accused Raju Sarkar. At this stage, this witness was
declared hostile. During his cross-examination by the prosecution, PW-587 has denied
that he told the Investigating Officer of the case that the accused Raju Sarkar had
told him that the accused Khargeswar Basumatary had directed him (Raju Sarkar) to
Page No.# 106/198
park the car with the bomb in the Panbazar area and he complied with the said
direction on 30.10.2008. This witness has further denied having told the I.O. of the case
that on 29.10.2008, he had been to the house of one Smt. Basanti with the accused
Khargeswar Basumatary in a vehicle driven by the accused Prabhat Boro alias Tepa
and stayed for the night there and that he told the I.O. of the case that the accused
Khargeswar Basumatary had directed the accused Raju Sarkar and Prabhat Boro
alias Tepa to spend the night in the car. He has further denied that he told the I.O.
that he knew accused Raju Sarkar and that he used to work as a mechanic at the
M/S B. D. Motors, Murara, Rangia. This witness has also denied having told the I.O. that
in the month of August, 2008 the accused Khargeswar Basumatary had purchased a
car in the name of accused Raju Sarkar. He has stated that the house of the accused
Khargeswar Basumatary was situated at a distance of about seven kilometers away
from his house. In his cross-examination by the defence, PW-587 has stated that he
did not see how the CBI officials had written his statement as they did not show him
the same.
164. PW-617 Syed Zarir Hussain has deposed that in the year 2010 he was working as
the Managing Editor of the Newslive T.V. Channel, Guwahati. This witness has stated
that in the year 2010 they had telecast a news item regarding October, 30, 2008 serial
Bomb Blasts case of Assam relating to the accused Rahul Brahma. The CBI had
arrested the accused Rahul Brhma from Arunachal Pradesh and had brought him to
Lakhimpur, Assam. He has stated that their Reporter Jitu Moni Neog (PW-618) had
managed to talk to the accused Rahul Brahma on camera and recorded his
interview. They had telecast the interview of the accused Rahul Brahma as the first
Page No.# 107/198
confessional statement of the accused of the October 30, 2008 serial bomb blast
case. Three blasts were carried out in Guwahati and the accused Rahul Brahma told
Jitu Moni Neog that he was travelling in the Maruti car driven by one Raju Sarkar with
an LPG cylinder filled with TNT explosives and parked the car at Panbazar and left the
scene. This witness has further stated that the accused Rahul Brahma told Jitu Moni
Neog that when they reached Bharalumukh, the blast took place at Panbazar and
that after the blast, he first went to Rangia and from there, to Chimen Chapori or
Shimalu Chapori of District Dhemaji. PW-617 has stated that in the interview, their
reporter Jitu Moni Neog had twice asked the accused Rahul Brahma as to under
whose direction they carried out the blasts and the accused had replied that they
had carried out the blasts as per the order of Ranjan Daimari. This witness has further
deposed that when their reporter Jitu Moni Neog had asked the accused Rahul
Brahma as to who had planted the bombs in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Kamrup (Metro) and at Ganeshguri, the accused replied that Thungri Narzary had
planted the bombs at the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M) and at
Ganeshguri some Jhankhang had done so. After the telecast of the interview, the CBI
personnel met him and asked for the telecast interview and also the translated
version of the same. Since the accused Rahul Brahma gave the interview in
Assamese language therefore, he translated the same into English language and
delivered the same to the CBI personnel. Ext-534 is the forwarding letter written by him
to the CBI and Ext-534(1) was his signature. Ext-535 was the translated version of the
interview and Ext-535(1) was his signature. This witness has further stated that he had
also delivered the CD of the telecast (interview) to the CBI personnel. Mat. Ext-VIII was
Page No.# 108/198
the copy of the CD of the telecast interview. In his cross-examination this witness has
stated that they had received the interview of the accused Rahul Brahma from
Lakhimpur via their Digital Satellite News Gathering Van stationed at Lakhimpur. He
had denied the suggestion that Mat. Ext-VIII office copy of the CD was not a genuine
copy and was manufactured for this case.
165. PW-618, Sri Jitu Moni Neog has deposed that he was a journalist and since 2008
he had been working as the Lakhimpur Bureau Chief of the Newslive T.V. Channel,
Guwahati. He has stated that on 29.05.2010, he had interviewed one Rahul Brahma
at Lakhimpur Police Reserve and that Rahul Brahma had told him that he had carried
out the blast at Panbazar, Guwahati. This witness has stated that when he asked the
accused Rahul Brahma as to how he had carried out the blasts, he told him that they
had carried an LPG cylinder filled with TNT explosives in a Maruti car driven by Raju
Sarkar and parked the car at Panbazar and left the scene. The accused Rahul
Brahma further told him that when they reached Bharalumukh, the blast took place
at Panbazar and that after the blast he went to Rangia and from there, to Chimen
Chapori, Dhemaji. PW-618 has further stated that the accused Rahul Brahma had
also told him that one B. Jangkhai and another some Narzary had planted the bombs
in the court premises of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati and at
Ganeshguri. He has further stated that he had interviewed Rahul Brahma about eight
years ago and hence, would not be able to recognize him. In his cross-examination
this witness has denied that he had recorded the interview as per the direction of the
police and that Rahul Brahma gave the interview as per the direction of the police.
He also denied the suggestion that he did not interview Rahul Brahma and that he
Page No.# 109/198
had deposed falsely.
P) Evidence against accused Raju Sarkar :-
166. PW-61, Sri Divyajyoti Choudhury has deposed that in the year 1993 he was
working in Mohanbari Tea Estate at Baihata Chariali. This witness has stated that Sri
Om Prakash Borak @ Raja Babu, supplier of the Tea Estate had requested him to
arrange for one second hand car from Delhi and accordingly, after 3/4 months of the
same year, he had arranged one Maruti 800 car, bearing registration No.DBG-5540
belonging to one Multan of Delhi. He has stated that he purchased the vehicle at a
price of Rs.1,10,000/- and accordingly Raja Babu transferred the registration of the
said car in his name through the office of the DTO, Nalbari. He has further stated that
in the year 1996, he had sold his car to Sayada Kaiser, a resident of Bhangagarh,
Guwahati at a price of Rs.1,00,000/- and transferred the registration in her name. In his
cross-examination this witness has stated that he had just sold the car and nothing
beyond that.
167. PW-62, Sayed Mustafa Kaisher (Haider) has deposed that in the year 1996 he
had purchased one second-hand Maruti 800 car from one Divyajyoti Choudhury (PW-
61) of Guwahati in the name of his wife Sayeda Sabita Kaisher and registered the car
accordingly. The registration no. of the said car was DVG-540 and the car was
registered in the office of the DTO, Kamrup, Guwahati and it was re-numbered as
No.AS-01-E-9226. He has further stated that after some days of purchase of the car, it
was sold to one Pradip Hazarika, of Bhangagarh, Guwahati in the year 1997. In his
cross-examination this witness has stated that he had not seen the registration
Page No.# 110/198
certificate of the said Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.AS-01-E-9226.
168. PW-182, Smt. Basanti Boro, was a resident of Gorchuk, Noagaon, Guwahati. This
witness has deposed that one day, the police came to her house and asked her as to
whether some persons had come to her house or not. She told the police that three
persons came to her house on the previous night and one of them spent the night in
their house and the other two stayed in a different house. She has stated that the
police apprehended one of the other two persons, brought him to her house and
asked her whether he was one of the said persons to which she replied in the
affirmative. She has further stated that the said person was present in the court and
she had identified the accused Raju Sarkar as the said person and also stated that he
came to her house in a vehicle. In her cross-examination this witness has stated that
except Assamese language she did not understand any other language. She has
further stated that she did not know the accused Raju Sarkar before the said incident.
169. PW-387, Sri Om Prakash Borar has deposed that Sri Multan Chand Jain was his
brother-in-law, who resides in New Delhi and had a white coloured Maruti 800 car,
the registration no. of the car being DBG-5540. He has further stated that he had
purchased the said car from Multan Chand Jain and brought the car to his residence
at Monabari Tea Estate. This witness has stated that after driving the car for about two
years, he had sold the car to Sri Dibyajyoti Choudhury (PW-61), the then Manager of
the Adabari Tea Estate, Balipara, Sonitpur.
170. PW-398, Sri Harendra Kalita has deposed that the CBI officer interrogated him
and asked him whether he knew Raju Sarkar or not. He told the CBI officer that Raju
Page No.# 111/198
Sarkar was working as a mechanic under the dealer of Yamaha at Murara Chowk,
Rangia. The witness had indicated towards accused Raju Sarkar who was present in
the court. PW-398 has further stated that accused Raju Sarkar had purchased a
Maruti 800 car from Bipin Rajbongshi of Mdhukuchi, Rangia on 24.08.2008 vide Ext-114
sale letter in his presence and he had signed the Ext-114 as a witness. Ext-114(iv) was
his signature therein and that the original copy the Ext-114 sale letter was with the
accused Raju Sarkar. He has stated that the registration number of the said Maruti
800 car was AS-01-E-9226. In his cross-examination he has stated that he did not know
Bipin Rajbongshi and that he had signed in the Ext-114 sale letter at the request of
accused Raju Sarkar as he was his friend. He has further stated that Raju Sarkar had
purchased the said car at Rs.47,000/-.
171. PW-399, Sri Rajiv Lahary has deposed that the CBI personnel had once called
him to the Panbazar Police Station and asked him whether he knew Raju Sarkar. He
told the CBI personnel that his brother-in-law Jayanta Boro used to work under Raju
Sarkar as a motorcycle mechanic and because of that he knew Raju Sarkar. This
witness has stated that along with his brother-in-law Jayanta Boro and one Nabin
Boro, he went to the Panbazar Police Station and indentified Raju Sarkar. Cross-
examination of this witness was declined.
172. PW-400, Sri Nabin Boro has deposed that once Jayanta Boro and Rajiv Lahary
were called to the Panbazar Police Station and he accompanied them. He has
stated that when they reached Panbazar P.S., the police took Jayanta Boro and Rajiv
Lahary to a room. He was also taken along with them. This witness has stated that one
Page No.# 112/198
Bengali boy was present in the room and the police asked Jayanta Boro and Rajiv
Lahary whether they knew the boy to which they replied in the affirmative. The police
had asked him as to what he does and he replied that he was a school teacher and
accompanied Jayanta Boro and Rajiv Lahary at their request. Cross-examination of
this witness was declined.
173. PW-466, Sri Chandra Deep Sharma has deposed that in the year 2009 he was
posted in the Vigilance Department of the Maruti Suzuki India Limited, Gurgaon,
Haryana, as a senior Executive. On 04.02.2009, the CBI officer had approached him
seeking some information regarding a Maruti car and accordingly, he had checked
the official records and furnished the information to the CBI officer. The information
sought for was regarding Maruti 800 car bearing Chassis No.223480 and Engine
No.303447. The said car was dispatched to M/s Ganga Automobiles Ltd., Green Park,
New Delhi. Ext-334 was the said information that he had furnished to the CBI officer
and Ext-334(i) was his signature therein with the office seal.
174. PW-475, Sri Shankar Deka has deposed that he was a sub-dealer of the
Yamaha Motorcycle and had a showroom at Murara Chowck, Rangia. He stated
that he knew accused Raju Sarkar and that when he started his showroom, the
accused Raju Sarkar was working as the only mechanic. The accused Raju Sarkar
had worked for about 3/4 years in his show room and thereafter, he had opened a
motorcycle repairing shop near his showroom. He has further stated that after some
time, the accused Raju Sarkar wanted to again work under him, but he did not
reappoint him. PW-475 has further stated that in the year 2008, the accused Raju
Page No.# 113/198
Sarkar had purchased a Maruti car from one Bipin Rajbongshi of village Madhukuchi.
He has also stated that the accused Raju Sarkar was present in the court. During his
cross-examination, this witness has stated that he could not say as to when Raju
Sarkar had purchased the said Maruti car and that later on, he came to know that
the accused Raju Sarkar had purchased the Maruti car from Bipin Rajbongshi of
village Madhukuchi. He has further stated that personally he did not know Bipin
Rajbongshi.
175. PW-489, Sri Pancham Lal has deposed before the Court that he was a retired
Head Clerk of the General Administration Department, Government of NCT, New
Delhi. In the year 2009 he was posted as an Upper Division Clerk in the office of the
R.T.O., South-West Division, Sheikh Sharai, New Delhi. On 03.02.2009, he was verbally
directed by the Motor Vehicle Licencing Officer to hand over the record of the
Maruti 800 car bearing registration No.DBG-5540 to the CBI officials and accordingly,
he had handed over the same to the CBI officials. The CBI officials had seized the said
file vide Ext-410 seizure memo. Ext-410(i) was his signature therein. Ext-411 (18 sheets)
was the seized file containing registration records of the Maruti 800 car No.DBG-5540.
He has further stated that as per Ext-411, the original registered owner of the Maruti
800 car No.DBG-5540 was M/S Swastik Enterprises and later on, the ownership was
transferred to Sri Multan Chand Jain. The cross-examination of this witness was
declined.
176. PW-547, Sri Upen Bora has deposed that on 01.12.2008 he was posted as the
Deputy Director, Explosive Division, F.S.L., Assam, Guwahati. In connection with
Page No.# 114/198
Kokrajhar P.S. Case No.371/2008, the then Director, FSL, Assam, Guwahati gave him
one cartoon box, which was properly sealed and covered with clothes and asked
him to examine the articles inside the box. Accordingly, he had opened the box and
found 1) some broken pieces of bicycle marked as Ex-A, 2) one torn piece of a
plastic bag marked as Ex-B and 3) 2.4 kg. soil marked as Ex-C. This witness has stated
that after conducting proper chemical and analytical examination of the exhibits he
had found the following :-
"1. Ex-A damaged due to an explosion, using high explosives. The name of
the manufacturing company of the damaged bicycle could not be
recovered, however, the serial No. of the bicycle was 0297322.
2. Ex-A, Ex-B and Ex-C contained TNT (Tri Nitro Toluene) which is a high
explosive.
Ex-B and Ex-C were destroyed during examination."
This witness has further stated that they returned the Ext-A to the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Kokrajhar. Ext-490 was the report prepared by him and Ext-
490(i) was his signature therein. Mat. Ext-IV was the portion of the damaged bicycle
which he had examined. The serial number of the bicycle was 0297322.
177. PW-547 has further deposed that in connection with Bongaigaon P.S. Case
No.451/08 as instructed by the Director, FSL, Assam, Guwahati he had examined the
following articles: 1. 65 grams soil marked as Ex-A, 2. One torn piece of cloth marked
as Ext-B and 3. Five pieces of irons marked as Ex-C. After conducting proper chemical
and analytical examination of the exhibits he had arrived at the following conclusions
Page No.# 115/198
:-
"1. Ex-A, Ex-B and Ex-C contained TNT (Tri Nitro Toluene) which is a high
explosive.
2. I could not ascertain whether the Ex-C were parts of an exploded bomb
or not.
All the exhibits were destroyed during examination."
Ext-491 was the report prepared by him and Ext-491(i) was his signature therein.
PW-547 has further deposed that as instructed by the Director, FSL, Assam, Guwahati
he had examined the following articles in connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case
No.262/2008:- 1) 20 grams debris marked as Ex-A, 2) 3 broken pieces of irons marked
as Ex-B. After conducting proper chemical and analytical examination of the exhibits
he had arrived at the following conclusions :-
"1. Ex-A and Ex-B contained traces of high explosive (RDX)"
This witness stated that all these exhibits were destroyed during examination. Ext-492
was the report prepared by him and Ext-492(i) was his signature therein.
178. In connection with Barpeta Road P.S. Case No.261/08, PW-547 had examined
the following articles: 1) 18 grams debris marked as Ex-A, 2) 3 pieces of iron marked
as Ex-B. After conducting proper chemical and analytical examination of the exhibits
he had arrived at the following conclusions :-
"1. Ex-A and Ex-B contained traces of RDX which is a high explosive.
2. Nature of timing device used could not be determined from the Ex-A
and Ex-B."
Page No.# 116/198
Ex-A and Ex-B were destroyed during examination. Ext-493 was the report prepared
by him and Ext-493(i) was his signature therein.
179. PW-547 has further stated that in connection with Dispur P.S. Case No.1419/08,
he had examined the following articles: 1) One part of a damaged engine of a
vehicle marked as Ex-A, 2) 256 grams of debris mixed with soil marked as Ex-B. After
conducting proper chemical and analytical examination of the exhibits he had
arrived at the following conclusions :-
"1. Ex-A was a damaged engine of a Maruti 800 car (Engine No.F8B IN
3043461). The engine was damaged due to an explosion taking place
inside the car.
2. Ex-B contained Ammonium Nitrate and RDX.
3. The serial No. of the front tyres found attached to the damaged engine
were : (i) JK TYRE ULTIMA XP- JK 7 B017401 DEC. 02 (Left hand side), (ii) MRF
ZIGMA-VT-60005417277 (Right hand side)."
Ext-B was destroyed during examination. Ext-494 was the report prepared by him and
Ext-494(i) was his signature therein.
180. PW-547 has further stated that in connection with Panbazar P.S. Case
No.398/08, he had examined the following articles: 1) One part of a damaged
engine of a vehicle marked as Ex-A, 2) 520 grams of soil marked as Ex-B. After
conducting proper chemical and analytical examination of the exhibits he had
arrived at the following conclusions :-
Page No.# 117/198
"1. Ex-A was a damaged part of an engine of a Maruti 800 car (Engine
No.F8DN 1074626). Ex-A was damaged due to an explosion taking place inside
the car.
2. Ex-B contained Ammonium Nitrate and RDX."
Ex-B was destroyed during examination. Ext-495 was the report prepared by him and
Ext-495(i) was his signature therein.
181. In connection with Panbazar P.S. Case No.399/08, PW-547 had examined the
following articles: 1) one damaged part of an engine of a vehicle marked as Ex-A, 2)
490 grams of soil marked as Ex-B. After conducting proper chemical and analytical
examination of the exhibits he had arrived at the following conclusions :-
"1. Ex-A was a damaged part of Maruti car (Engine No.F8B IN 303447).
2. Ammonium Nitrate and RDX has been found in Ex-B.
3. The serial No. of the tyre attached to the engine was (i) MRF- ZIGMA CC-
RADIAL - 70- 60375376469."
Ext-B was destroyed during examination. Ext-496 was the report prepared by him and
Ext-496(i) was his signature therein.
182. PW-547 was further examined by the learned trial court on 15.11.2018. In course
of his further examination, PW-547 has stated that Material Ext-XI was the Engine
No.F8B-IN 3043461 of the above mentioned Maruti-800 car, Material Ext-XII was the
Engine No.F8DN-1074626 of the above mentioned Maruti-800 car and Material Ext-XIII
was the Engine No.F8B-IN-303447 of the above mentioned Maruti 800 car.
Page No.# 118/198
183. In his cross-examination, PW-547 has stated that on the day of the incident
itself, they went to the place of occurrence and suspecting that the above
mentioned material exhibits/engines were used in the blast, they marked the said
engines, which were later on sent to their laboratory and found the aforesaid
numbers therein. He has, however, admitted that he did not take the photographs of
the engine numbers. He has denied the suggestion that the engines he had
examined were not the engines produced in the Court and that he did not find any
evidence of explosive substance in the aforesaid engines.
184. PW-582, Sri Kushal Chandra Talukdar has stated that he was working as an LICI
Agent and that he knew Sri Bipin Chandra Rajbongshi who was his client. This witness
has further stated that Bipin Chandra Rajbongshi had a Maruti 800 car and he sold
the car to the accused Raju Sarkar, who was present in the dock. Cross-examination
of this witness was declined.
185. PW-584, Sri Ganesh Basumatary has deposed that he worked in the Irrigation
Department and was posted as the Accountant in the office of the Irrigation
Department at Tangla, Udalguri. He has stated that he knew accused Ajay Boro, who
was his neighbour. He also knew Sri Babul Boro, who was a professional driver and
used to drive a Maruti Alto car. This witness has stated that once he had hired the
vehicle of Sri Babul Boro. The said vehicle belonged to ex-serviceman Ghanakanta
Rabha and he did not know where he resides. This witness has stated that he knew
accused Raju Sarkar and that he was a motorcycle mechanic but he did not know
Khargeswar Basumatary. Cross-examination of this witness was declined.
Page No.# 119/198
186. PW-585, Sri Jayanta Boro has deposed that he was working as an employee of
the Indian Railways. Before joining the Railways, he was working in an auto rickshaw
garage as a mechanic. He knows accused Raju Sarkar. At that time, Raju Sarkar was
working under a motorcycle dealer as a mechanic and he was also learning the work
of mechanic under him. This witness has stated that accused Raju Sarkar had
purchased a Maruti car. However, after the bomb blasts that occurred in various
places in the State of Assam, he did not meet Raju Sarkar nor does he remember the
mobile number of Raju Sarkar. Cross-examination of this witness was declined.
187. PW-586, Sri Ranjit Boro has deposed that he knows accused Raju Sarkar. He
had met accused Raju Sarkar at the Panbazar Police Station. Since his uncle Ganesh
Basumatary was also taken to the Panbazar Police Station, he went to the Panbazar
Police Station to meet him and then he found Raju Sarkar and he told him that they
had committed a mistake. This witness has, however, stated that he did not
remember what else Raju Sarkar told him. During his cross-examination PW-586 had
stated that he saw Raju Sarkar inside the lock up at Panbazar Police Station and there
were many police personnel near the lock up. He had seen accused Raju Sarkar from
a distance of about 50 ft. He was not allowed to talk to accused Raju. As there were
many people around, he could not clearly hear what accused Raju Sarkar had said.
He has further deposed that the Bodo people of the locality did not like Raju Sarkar
as he had married a Boro girl while he was having another wife who was alive.
188. PW-587, Rabindra Boro was working as an Assistant Teacher at the Goreswar
Higher Secondary School. He has deposed that on the day on which the bomb blasts
Page No.# 120/198
had occurred, he was present in his school. He knows Sri Ganesh Basumatary, who
was his father-in-law. CBI officials had called his father-in-law Ganesh Basumatary to
Panbazar Police Station and he had accompanied him. The CBI officials interrogated
his father-in-law and he was accompanying them. The CBI had also asked him
whether he knew anything about the bomb blasts. This witness has, however, stated
that he did not see accused Raju Sarkar and Khargeswar Basumatary at the
Panbazar Police Station. PW-587 has also stated that accused Raju Sarkar did not tell
him that accused Khargeswar Basumatary had directed him to park the car with
bomb in Panbazar area and he complied with the said direction on 30.10.2008. At this
stage, this witness was declared as a hostile witness. During his cross-examination by
the prosecution side PW-587 had denied having stated before the I.O. of the case
that accused Raju Sarkar had told him that accused Khargeswar Basumatary had
directed him to park the car with bomb in Panbazar area and he complied with the
said direction on 30.10.2008. He has also denied of having said before the I.O.that on
29.10.2008, he had been to the house of Smti. Basanti alongwith accused Khargeswar
Basumatary in a vehicle driven by the accused Prabhat Boro alias Tepa and stayed
there overnight. As a matter of fact, this witness has denied having stated before the
I.O. as regards the involvement of accused Raju Sarkar as well as Khargeswar
Basumatary relating to purchase of a car in the name of accused Raju Sarkar.
189. PW-621, Suresh Chandra Das was serving as an Officer under the Assam Police.
This witness has deposed that he was posted at the Panbazar Police Station as a Sub-
Inspector in the month of October, 2008. On 30.10.20098, at around 11:30 a.m. while
he was present in the Panbazar Police Station, he heard a loud sound outside the
Page No.# 121/198
police station. Immediately, he and other police personnel from the Panbazar Police
Station came out and saw that black smoke had engulfed the entire area near the
Panbazar Baptist Church and the people around were running away from the place.
He had heard that a bomb had exploded and found many injured persons lying on
the ground. Immediately he had shifted the injured persons to the MMC Hospital,
Panbazar. PW-621 has further stated that he had also found some dead bodies lying
at the blast site and shifted them to the MMC Hospital, Panbazar. The then Officer-in-
Charge of Panbazar Police Station, viz., Sri Sisir Kumar Boro had lodged an F.I.R.
reporting the blast based on which a police case was registered and he was asked
to investigate the matter. During the course of investigation, he had visited the blast
site, examined some witnesses, seized damaged parts of cars and motorcycles from
the blast site. He had also seized the damaged goods of the shops situated near the
blast site. This witness has deposed that he had seized one number plate of a vehicle
bearing No.AS-12-D-8335 and an Engine of a Maruti vehicle bearing No.F8F IN 303447
from the blast site. He had also seized about 1100 grams of soil and 16 damaged
vehicles from the blast site. Ext-538 is the said seizure memo and Ext-538(1) was his
signature therein. He had seized the damaged goods of 7 shops situated near the
blast site. Ext-539 to Ext-545 were the seizure-lists and Exts-539(1), Ext-540(1), Ext-541(1),
Ext-542(1), Ext-543(1), Ext-544(1) and Ext-545(1) were his signatures in those seizure lists.
190. PW-621 has further deposed that during investigation he had found that seized
number plate bearing registration No.AS-12-D-8335 was that of a motorcycle and the
owner of the motorcycle was a resident of village Odali under Lanka Police Station.
He had called the owner to Panbazar Police Station and interrogated him. After
Page No.# 122/198
carrying out investigation, he had found that the motor-cycle bearing registration
No.AS-12-D-8335 was not used in the aforesaid blast and hence, he had released the
owner of the motorcycle. He has also found that Maruti car bearing engine No.58B IN
303447 seized from the blast site was used in the blast with a fake number plate. On
the same day i.e. on 30.10.2008, another bomb had exploded in the compound of
the court complex of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup(M), Guwahati. The
Investigating Officer of the said blast case had also seized a number plate bearing
No.AS-12-N-1025. On the basis of the investigation they came to the conclusion that
the blasts were carried out with the help of used Maruti vehicles having fake number
plates. After enquiry, they came to know that the miscreants had procured the
aforesaid fake number plates from a shop situated at Adabari Bus stand, Guwahati.
The name of the shop was "Car Concern" and the name of the owner was Dilip
Kumar Agarwal. He had seized the Order Book of the shop in which somebody had
ordered for preparing the aforesaid fake number plates vide Ext-110 seizure list. He
had also recorded the statement of the owner Dilip Kumar Agarwal and got his
statement recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He then sent the
seized soil of the blast site to the FSL, Kahilipara, Guwahati for examination. During
investigation, he had searched the house of Sri Khargeswar Basumatary and seized
one mobile phone and one diary with the photographs of Khargeswar Basumatary
vide seizure memo Ext-521. This witness has further deposed that while conducting
investigation he also came to know that the banned terrorist organization NDFB was
involved in the bomb blasts. From secret sources, he came to know that one driver by
the name Babul Boro of village Bangaon, Rangia knew about the persons involved in
Page No.# 123/198
the blasts. Then he called Babul Boro to the Panbazar Police Station and interrogated
him. Babul Boro told him that on 30.10.2008, at around 6:30 a.m. he had brought
three Bodo youths by his Alto car to Guwahati. He interrogated many other persons
but could not find out the NDFB cadres who had caused the aforesaid blasts. In the
meantime, the case was transferred to the CBI for investigation and he had handed
over the Case Diary to the Officer-in-Charge of the Panbazar Police Station for
handing over the same to the CBI.
191. During cross-examination, PW-621 has replied that he had seized the engine of
the Maruti car from the blast site. The engine number was there in the engine which
was not damaged in the blast. He did not find other parts of the vehicle along with
the engine as those were lying scattered. He has denied the suggestion that he did
not receive any information from any secret source that the banned terrorist
organization NDFB was involved in the serial bomb blasts.
Q) Evidence against accused Prabhat Boro @ Tepa :
192. PW-46, Smt. Nirmali Sarma has stated in her evidence that she had purchased
one Indica car bearing registration No.AS-01W-6864 in the year 2007 and had
engaged a driver on salary. Initially, the car was driven by one Munna and thereafter,
she had engaged one Prabhat Boro alias Tepa in the year 2007. Prabhat Boro was
irregular and finally his services were terminated in the month of October, 2008. CBI
had interrogated her and showed her the photograph of Prabhat Boro (Mat. Ext-9)
which she identified. In her cross-examination this witness has stated that Prabhat was
working as a driver in her house for the period from November, 2007 to October, 2008
Page No.# 124/198
but thereafter, she did not maintain any contact with Prabhat.
193. Sri Nirpad Choudhury was examined as PW-47. This witness has stated that on
being summoned by the CBI in connection with the investigation carried out on the
incident of Guwahati Bomb blasts he went to the Circuit House along with Rabiram
Boro who had identified the photograph (Mat. Ext-9) of his nephew Tepa alias
Prabhat by putting his signature in the photograph.
194. Rabiram Boro, while deposing as PW-51, has confirmed that Prabhat Boro alias
Tepa was his nephew and that he was working as a driver of private vehicles during
the year 2007-2008. On 30.10.2008, Tepa rang him up at about 10/11 a.m. and
informed him that he was going to his native place at Barama. Since 30.10.2008 Tepa
has not contacted him. Mat. Ext-9 is the photograph of his nephew Tepa alias
Prabhat Boro. During his cross-examination, PW-51 has deposed that Tepa is his
nephew and also his neighbour.
195. PW-57, Nakul Boro is also a professional driver and he used to reside in a rented
house situated at Sarumotoria under Dispur Police Station, in the year 2008. This
witness has confirmed that Prabhat Boro alias Tepa and two others were residing with
him in the same rented house and Prabhat was also driving vehicles. He has deposed
that he used to have frequent telephonic conversations with Tepa but since the
bomb blasts that took place at Ganeshguri, he had lost contact with accused
Prabhat Boro. Cross-examination of this witness was declined.
196. PW-176, Sri Anowar Hussain is the son of the owner of a pharmacy located in
the Guwahati Medical College and Hospital complex at Bhangagarh in the name
Page No.# 125/198
and style "Rumi Medical". This witness has deposed that Sri Pranab Boro used to work
in his pharmacy as a salesman. In the year 2009, the CBI personnel came to his shop
and asked if Pranab Boro works in his pharmacy and he had answered them in the
affirmative. Rabiram Boro was accompanying the CBI personnel. When he answered
that he knew Pranab Boro, the CBI personnel showed him some photographs of
Pranab Boro and obtained his signatures. The CBI personnel also asked Rabiram Boro
whether he knew Prabhat Boro and he replied that Prabhat Boro was his nephew.
During his cross-examination this witness has deposed that Rabiram Boro used to work
in a pharmacy near his pharmacy.
197. PW-382, Sri Ashim Boro is another professional driver who was driving a Bolero
vehicle during the year 2008. He has deposed that he was staying in a rented house
near Sarumotoria along with Tepa and one Nakul Boro. On the day of the bomb
blasts i.e. 30.10.2008 Tepa was not present in the rented house. He had identified
Tepa before the CBI by pointing out at the accused Prabhat Boro present in the
court.
198. PW-386, Sri Pranab Boro is the elder brother of accused Prabhat Boro and he
has confirmed that his youngest brother Prabhat was a professional driver and that he
used to reside with his friends near Ganeshguri.
199. PW-638, Pranab Das was working with the CBI since the year 2003. He has
deposed that in the month of January, 2009 while he was working as a Sub-Inspector
in the CBI, ACB, Kolkata, West Bengal, he was directed to assist the IOs of the Assam
Bomb Blasts case. Accordingly, he had assisted the Investigating Officers viz., Sri N. S.
Page No.# 126/198
Kharayat and Sri N. K. Pathak. This witness has deposed that during the course of
investigation he had seized two subscriber enrollment forms vide Ext-620, seizure
memo. He was present at the time of recording the disclosure statement and
preparing the pointing out memo of the accused Prabhat Boro by the Investigating
Officer Sri N. K. Pathak. Ext-12 was the disclosure statement of accused Prabhat Boro
and Ext-12(3) was his signature. During his cross-examination this witness has stated
that Prabhat Boro communicated with them in Hindi and Assamese language. The
contents of Ext-12 disclosure statement and Ext-13 pointing out memo were read over
and explained to the accused Prabhat Boro by himself and the Investigating Officer
Sri N. K. Pathak.
R) Evidence against accused Mathuram Brahma -
200. PW-17 Sri Jatindra Nath Pathak was serving as Extra Assistant Commissioner
(EAC) posted at Guwahati since 15-12-2010. He has deposed that on 13-01-2011,
while he was working in his capacity as EAC, he went to S.B. Headquarter and met
accused George Boro who was produced before him. On that day, George Boro
was interrogated before him by the CBI officials and he made his statement wherein
he had admitted his involvement in the bomb blast that took place on 30-10-2008.
Exhibit- 26 is the disclosure statement of George Boro made before him. Exhibit- 26(2)
was his signature. This witness has stated that after making the disclosure statement,
the accused George Boro volunteered to take them to the places where he had
brought the bomb in a maruti vehicle and how he had parked the vehicle under the
Ganeshguri flyover on 30-10-2008. After parking the vehicle how he and accused
Page No.# 127/198
Aogai and Jeetu Daimari drove away in a parked TATA Sumo vehicle. Exhibit- 27 was
the pointing out memo prepared on the basis of statements and disclosures made by
accused George Boro, which bears his signature. PW-17 has further stated that based
on the statement of accused George Boro, rough sketches of the roads and places
from where the accused had started with the bomb laden car were drawn up.
Exhibit- 28 is the said sketch map which bears his signature. Exhibits- 26, 27 and 28
were signed by George Boro in his presence. Exhibits- 26(3), 27(3) and 28(4) as well as
28(2) are the signatures of George Boro which were put in his presence. On 28-02-
2011 the accused Mathuram Brahma @ Mudoi had made a disclosure statement
before him wherein he had stated that he bought 50 kgs. of TNT explosive from the
house of Arun Borgoyari along with Jeetu Daimari in an Indica car and kept the same
near the house of Rifikha. He had also stated that he filled up empty gas cylinder
used in the Ganeshguri flyover blast with the above TNT explosives and had also filled
up 2(two) pressure cookers used in Barpeta Road/ Choudhury Complex and Sabzi
market, Barpeta Road bomb blast. Exhibit- 29 is the disclosure statement of Mathuram
Brahma which bears his signature. This witness has further stated that the accused
had voluntarily disclosed the above facts without there being any force or coercion
on him.
201. PW-20 Bipul Saikia was posted as Circle Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate,
Kokrajhar during the year 2011. This witness has deposed before the court that he
recognises accused Mathuram Brahma who is on the dock. On 28-02-2011, the CBI
personnel along with Mathuram Brahma, went to Jaraguri to show the house of Arun
Borgoyari @ Tinthilong from where, accused Mathuram Brahma had received the TNT
Page No.# 128/198
explosive. He was also present there along with CBI personnel. According to the
pointing out memo prepared, the accused had shown the place and taken the
team there. Exhibit- 30 is the pointing out memo which bears his signature as Exhibit-
30(1). This witness has also stated that accused Mathuram Brahma had also put his
signature (Exhibit- 5) which he could identify.
202. PW-21 Debeswar Bora was another Circle Officer-cum-Executive Magistrate
who was posted at Boranagar Revenue Circle during the year 2011. This witness has
deposed that on 01-03-2011 the District Magistrate, Barpeta had directed him to
accompany the CBI official and accused Mathuram Brahma to the places where he
took him. Mathuram was present in the court on that day. PW-21 has further stated
that he came to the Barpeta Road Police Station at around 01:30 p.m. and from
there, went to Khoygrabari to the house of one Rifikham on his own vehicle. The
accused Mathuram also went there with the CBI officials. There, accused Mathuram
Brahma had shown as to how he had kept the TNT explosive in gas cylinders and
pressure cookers and how he had kept them in bamboo bushes concealing the
same from others. He also took them to the bamboo bushes where he (accused) had
concealed those cylinders and pressure cookers. From there, he had taken the
explosives to Barpeta Road Sabzi market and Choudhury complex. PW-21 has further
stated that the accused had made a statement in his presence which was written
down by CBI officials. Exhibit- 31 was the said statement of Mathuram Brahma which
bears his signature. Exhibit- 31(2) is the signature of Mathuram Brahma. The witness has
further stated that Exhibit- 32 is another statement made by Mathuram Brahma in his
presence by which he had pointed out that he had carried the bomb to Choudhury
Page No.# 129/198
complex and kept the same in a motorcycle on 30-10-2008. Exhibit-32(1) was his
signature and Exhibit- 32(2) was the signature of Mathuram Brahma. During his cross-
examination, this witness has stated that on reaching Khoygrabari, when he had
asked an old man as to whose house is this, he had told him that it was the house of
Rifikhang. He has further stated that pointing out statement was made in his presence
and he had put his signature therein. PW-21 has further stated that they had reached
the Choudhury complex at about 04:30 p.m. and saw that there was a gathering
over there but he could not identify any person. This witness has stated that he had
put his signature with date and designation as 1/2/11 on Exhibit- 31 by mistake which
he had discovered later on and informed the CBI officials telephonically but no letter
was sent by him for rectification of the defect.
203. PW-646 Narayan Singh Yadav was one of the Investigating Officers. He has
deposed before the court that from 2004 to 2008 he was posted as the Dy.
Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force (STF), CBI, New Delhi. On 19-12-2008 and
20-12-2008 nine bomb blast cases were handed over which were registered by the
CBI and he was entrusted to carry out investigation in respect of three blast cases of
Kokrajhar district by the Superintendent of Police, Special Task Force (STF), CBI.
Accordingly, he had investigated the case. PW-646 had stated that during the course
of investigation, on 04-01-2009, he had arrested the accused Jayanti Brahma @
Jugami. He took her into custody and on the same day the accused Ajay
Basumatary @ B. Aogi was arrested by Superintendent of Police, CBI, STF Sri N.S.
Kherayat. Thereafter, they went back to Kokrajhar along with accused Jayanti
Basumatary and interrogated her. Accused Ajay Basumatary was interrogated by I/O
Page No.# 130/198
in connection with one of the blast cases, viz. N.K. Pathak. Accused Jayanti Brahma
@ Jugami had disclosed that in the month of August, 2008, she had brought some
packets of detonators from Bangladesh. When he discussed the matter with the S.P.,
CBI, STF Sri N.S. Kharayat, he told him that the accused Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogi
had disclosed about all the nine blast cases on 30-10-2008. This witness has also stated
that during investigation, he had found that NDFB had started armed rebellion
against the Armed Forces and the civilian and had killed innocent people by forming
their own army. As the NDFB were indulging in extremist activities, the Govt. of India
had called them for talks and a tripartite ceasefire agreement was signed in the year
2005. However, accused Ranjan Daimari was not happy with the tripartite ceasefire
agreement as he felt that Govt. of India was not coming forward for negotiation for
settlement of their demand. Therefore, the NDFB continued its extremist activities. This
witness has further deposed that earlier, in pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, in
the month of August, 2008, the NDFB cadre Nilim Daimari was sent to Assam from
Bangladesh to arrange explosives to carry out the blasts with the help of the NDFB
cadres working in Assam. Mr. Nilim Daimari contacted the NDFB cadres Mr. John, Mr.
Rifikhang, Mr. Rahul Brahma, Mr. Guthal and others for arranging the explosives as per
the direction of Mr. Ranjan Daimari @ D.R. Nabla @ Lasdum, Chairman of the NDFB.
At that time, Mr. Ranjan Daimari @ D.R. Nabla @ Lasdum, was running the NDFB from
Dhaka, Bangladesh. After meeting the above mentioned NDFB cadres, while Mr.
Nilim Daimari was going back to Dhaka via Tura, Meghalaya, he was arrested by the
Tura police on 04.09.2008. A letter written by the accused John in Bodo language
and one pen drive was recovered from his possession. He has stated that our officer
Page No.# 131/198
had collected the letter along with the pen drive from the Tura police and got the
letter translated into English. The letter was preface to the conspiracy to cause the
aforesaid nine blasts.
204. Thereafter, on 13.10.2008, the accused Ajay Basumatary came from
Bangladesh to Guwahati and went to the residence of the accused John, situated at
123 Lakhiminagar, Hatigaon, Guwahati and they decided to hold a meeting with Mr.
Dinthilang, an absconding accused of this case and the self-styled army chief of the
NDFB. At that time, the absconding accused Mr. Dinthilang was staying at village
Jharaguri, Kokrajhar. The accused namely, Ajay Basumatary, John, Rahul Brahma,
Rifikhang and Ulafat had assembled in the residence of the absconding accused Mr.
Dinthilang on 19.10.2008 and participated in the meeting.
205. In the meantime, the accused Onsai Boro was sent to Bangladesh by the
accused Ulafat and Dinthilang to contact the accused Ranjan Daimari, the
chairman of the NDFB and gave him Rs. 30,000/- for his expenses. Accordingly, in the
month of August, 2008, the accused Onsai Boro went to Bangladesh and met the
accused Ranjan Daimari at his residence in Dhaka. The accused Ranjan Daimari told
him that the government was not listening to their demands and their people were
killed even though they were in the peace process. Therefore, he told the accused
Onsai Boro that they cannot remain idle. The accused Ranjan Daimari further told the
accused Onsai Boro that he has given instructions to the accused Dinthilang and he
should go back and meet the accused Dinthilang and follow his orders. Thereafter,
the accused Onsai Boro returned to Assam after some time as he fell sick. After
Page No.# 132/198
reaching Assam, the accused Onsai Boro contacted the accused Dinthilang and
Ulafat. They told him to attend the meeting of 19.10.2008 but, he refused. The
accused Dinthilang and Ulafat then told him, if he cannot attend the meeting, he
should arrange for a motorcycle for the Bongaigaon blast. Accordingly, the accused
Onsai Boro arranged a red-coloured Pulsar motorcycle, the number being AS-25-G-
7034, through the accused Indra Brahma and Lokra Basumatary and paid Rs. 15,000/-
to them which he had saved from the aforesaid Rs. 30,000/-. The said motorcycle was
used in the Bongaigaon blast. The meeting on 19.10.2008 was held in presence of the
accused NDFB cadres namely, Ajay Basumatary, John, Rahul Brahma, Rifikhang,
Dinthilang and Ulafat. The meeting was chaired by the accused Dinthilang. The
accused Dinthilang told that the accused Ranjan Daimari has given instruction to
carry out nine bomb blasts on 30.10.2008 in Assam to pressurize the governments to
succumb to their demands. It was decided in the said meeting that the accused
Ulafat will arrange man and material for carrying out three blasts in Kokrajhar and
one in Bongaigaon, the accused Rifikhang will arrange man and material for carrying
out two blasts in Barpeta Road, the accused Ajay Basumatary, John will arrange man
and material for carrying out the blast at Ganeshguri flyover, Guwahati , the accused
Rahul Brahma will arrange man and material for carrying out the blast in the Chief
Judicial Magistrate court complex, Guwahati and Panbazar, Guwahati. The time of
the blast was decided to be at 11:30 am. The accused Dinthilang told that the blasts
are being carried out as per the instruction and command of the accused Ranjan
Daimari. The meeting ended with the above decisions and all the accused went to
their respective places for carrying out the blasts. In pursuance of the said
Page No.# 133/198
conspiracy, the aforesaid nine blasts were caused.
206. He has further deposed that in the blasts of Ganeshguri flyover, Chief Judicial
Magistrate court complex, Kamrup, Guwahati and Panbazar, Guwahati fifty three
people had died. RDX and Ammonium nitrate was used as explosives in the said
blasts. In the blasts at Choudhury Complex, Barpeta Road, seven people died
and at vegetable market, Barpeta Road eight people died. RDX was used as
explosives in the said blasts. In the blasts at Kokrajhar vegetable market, ten people
died, at Railway crossing, Kokrajhar two people died and at Kokrajhar fish market
eight people died. TNT was used as explosive in the said blasts. In the blast at
Bongaigaon, eleven persons were injured. TNT was used as explosive in the said blast.
Altogether, 88 (Eighty eight) people died and 540 (Five hundred forty) people were
injured in the aforesaid nine bomb blasts. The blast had also damaged vehicles and
business establishments worth Rs. 29,000,000/- (Two crore ninety lakh). The
Government of Assam paid about Rupess five crore as compensation to the relatives
of the deceased and injured victims of the bomb blasts. The blast at Ganeshguri was
caused by the accused John, Ajay Basumatary, Jitu Daimari and Tarun Boro. The
explosive laden cylinder for the blast was arranged by the accused Baishagi
Basumatary @ B. Bithurai and given to the accused in the aforesaid residence of the
accused John on 29.10.2008. The Maruti car No. AS-01-E-7747 used in the Ganeshguri
flyover blast was arranged by the absconding accused Jitu Daimari and Tarun
Swargiary @ Boro. This witness has stated that accused Ajay Basumatary was an
expert in handling explosive devices with timer and he fixed the time device in the
explosive-laden cylinder, along with the detonators, in the residence of the accused
Page No.# 134/198
John at Hatigaon in the morning of 30.10.2008. The accused Jitu Daimari kept the
explosive-laden cylinder in the dickey of the above car and along with the accused
John and Ajay Basumatary, parked the car under the Ganeshguri flyover, towards
Dispur side, at around 09:00 am of 30.10.2008. After parking the explosive-laden car,
they walked about hundred meters and went to Dhubri by the Tata Sumo vehicle
driven by the accused Tarun Swargiary @ Boro and from there, they went to different
places. The blast in the Chief Judicial Magistrate court complex and at Panbazar,
Guwahati were arranged by the accused Rahul Brahma with the help of the
accused Prabhat Boro and Raju Sarkar. The car No. AS-01-E-9226 used in the
Panbazar blast was purchased by the accused Rahul Brahma, in the name of the
accused Raju Sarkar, from one Bipin Rajbangshi. The said car was driven by the
accused Prabhat Boro and the accused Raju Sarkar was accompanying him. The car
No. AS-01-M-0327 used in the blast in the Chief Judicial Magistrate court complex in
Guwahati was purchased by the accused Dinesh Boro from one Kunal Bhuyan in the
month of August, 2008. The said car, along with the cylinder-bomb, was driven by the
accused Dinesh Boro and the accused Thungri Boro was accompanying him. After
parking the car in the Chief Judicial Magistrate court complex, the accused Dinesh
Boro, Thungri Boro and Prabhat Boro @ Tepa went to Phukan park where the accused
Rahul Brahma was waiting for them in the Maruti car No. AS-01-AE-9726 driven by one
Babul Boro and went to Rangia. The accused Raju Sarkar went by bus to his native
place Udalguri. At Choudhury Complex, Barpeta Road, the bomb was kept in the TVS
motorcycle bearing No. AS-15-A-6007. At the vegetable market, Barpeta Road, the
bomb was kept in a Hero brand lady bicycle. The bombs used in the said blasts were
Page No.# 135/198
arranged in the house of the accused Rifikhang by the accused Mathuram
Basumatary @ Mwdai. At Bongaigaon, the bomb was kept in the red-coloured Pulsar
motorcycle No. AS-25-G-7034 by the accused Indra Brahma and Lokra Basumatary.
The motorcycle was arranged by the Onsai Boro.
207. PW-646 has further deposed that the red-coloured Pulsar motorcycle was
arranged by the accused Onsai Boro, through the accused Indra Brahma and Lokra
Basumatary. The accused Indra Brahma and Lokra Basumatary gave the said
motorcycle to one Uma Raza as per the instruction of the accused Onsai Boro.
Thereafter, Uma Raza expired. The said motorcycle was used in the Bongaigaon
blast. He has also deposed that the letter recovered from the accused Nilim Daimari
was addressed to the chairman of the NDFB namely, Ranjan Daimari @ D.R. Nabla @
Lasdum for necessary action. After recording the statements of the witnesses and
obtaining the expert's opinion and collecting the records, he had filed the initial
charge-sheet on 25-05-2009 against nineteen accused persons named therein. Five
of the charge-sheeted accused namely, Ajay Basumatary, Nilim Daimari, Jayanti
Brahma, Prabhat Boro @ Tepa and Raju Sarkar were in judicial custody. The other
charge-sheeted accused were absconding and hence, they were shown as
absconders in the charge-sheet. Thereafter, on 27.05.2010, he had arrested the
accused Onsai Boro, Indra Brahma and Lokra Basumatary and interrogated them.
The disclosure statement of the accused Onsai Boro was recorded by the S.P., CBI,
STF, Shri N.S. Kharayat and later on, his confessional statement was recorded by the
Judicial Magistrate. He had recorded the disclosure statements of the accused Indra
Brahma and Lokra Basumatary. He had also prepared the pointing out memos of the
Page No.# 136/198
places where they had purchased the motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-25-G-
7034 and from where, they had started on 30.10.2008 for parking the bomb-laden
motorcycle at AOC Road, Bongaigaon. The disclosure statements and pointing out
memos were prepared in presence of witnesses. This witness has stated that Ext. 676
is the disclosure statement of the accused Indra Brahma and Ext. 676(1) is his
signature therein. Ext. 676(2) is the signature of the witness. Ext. 676(3) is the signature
of the accused Indra Brahma. Ext. 677, Ext. 678 and Ext. 679 are the pointing out
memos of the places shown by the accused Indra Brahma. Ext. 677(1), Ext. 678(1) and
Ext. 679(1) are his signatures therein. Ext. 677(2), Ext. 678(2) and Ext. 679(2) are the
signatures of the witnesses. Ext. 677(3), Ext. 678(3) and Ext. 679(3) are the signatures of
the accused Indra Brahma. Ext. 680 is the disclosure statement of the accused Lokra
Basumatary, Ext. 680(1) is his signatures therein. Ext. 680(2) is the signature of witness.
Ext. 680(3) is the signature of the accused Lokra Basumatary. Ext. 681, Ext. 682 and Ext.
683 are the pointing out memos of the places shown by the accused Lokra
Basumatary. Ext. 681(1), Ext. 682(1) and Ext. 683(1) are his signatures therein. Ext.
681(2), Ext. 682(2) and Ext. 683(2) are the signatures of the witness. Ext. 681(3), Ext.
682(3) and Ext. 683(3) are the signatures of the accused Lokra Basumatary. He has
also deposed that the accused Rahul Brahma was arrested from the District-Ziro,
Arunachal Pradesh by the CBI Inspector Mr. Tariyal and was brought to Guwahati.
During his journey from Zero to Guwahati, he gave his statement to the News Live TV
channel and a CD of his statement was prepared. In his statement, Rahul Brahma has
admitted that he had arranged the car and cylinder-bomb and kept the bomb at
Panbazar, near Baptist Church through Prabhat Boro and Raju Sarkar, in the morning
Page No.# 137/198
of 30.10.2008. Material Ext. XIV is the said CD prepared by the News Live TV channel
containing the confessional statement of the accused Rahul Brahma. This witness has
further stated that in Guwahati, he had recorded the disclosure statement of the
accused Rahul Brahma in presence of witnesses. He had also prepared a pointing
out memo regarding the places from where they had started in the morning of
30.10.2008 for parking the bomb-laden car at Panbazar, near the Baptist Church,
Guwahati with the assistance of Prabhat Boro and Raju Sarkar. He has further stated
that the after parking the bomb-laden car at Panbazar, near the Baptist Church,
Guwahati and another car at Chief Judicial Magistrate court by Thungri Boro and
Dinesh Boro, they went to Rangia in the car of Babul Boro. Ext. 8 is the disclosure
statement of the accused Khargeswar Basumatary @ Rahul Brahma. Ext. 8(5) and 8(6)
are his signature therein. Ext. 9 is the pointing out memos of the places shown by the
accused Rahul Brahma about how they had started their activities in the night of
29.10.2008 and in the morning of 30.10.2008. Ext. 9(5) and Ext. 9(6) are his signatures
therein. The witness has further stated that he had also prepared rough sketches
regarding movement of the accused Rahul Brahma in the night of 29.10.2008 and in
the morning of 30.10.2008. Ext. 10 and Ext. 11 are the said rough sketches and Ext.
10(3) and Ext. 11(3) are his signatures therein. Thereafter, he had filed a
supplementary charge-sheet on 20.11.2010 against the accused Onsai Boro, Indra
Brahma and Lokra Basumatary. During examination of PW-646 Shri Narayan Singh
Yadav, recorded on 27.11.2018 he has deposed that he had arrested the accused
Mathuram Brahma @ Mudai on 25.02.2011. He had also arrested the accused Mridul
Gayari on 06.11.2009. He had arrested the accused Rifikhang on 04.06.2011 and the
Page No.# 138/198
accused George Boro @ John on 08.01.2011. The accused Ranjan Daimari was
arrested on 16.05.2010. During interrogation of the accused Mathuram Brahma
@ Mudai, his disclosure statement was recorded in presence of witnesses. Pointing out
memorandums regarding the places he had visited for arrangement of logistic
support for the bomb blast on 30.10.2008 were also prepared in presence of
witnesses. Ext. 4 is the disclosure statement (under objection) of the accused
Mathuram Brahma @ Mudai, Ext. 4(3) is his signature therein. Exts. 5, 6, 7 are the
pointing out memorandums (under objection) of the places pointed out by the
accused Mathuram Brahma @ Mudai. Exts. 5(3), 6(3) and 7(3) are his signatures
therein. Disclosure statement (under objection) of the accused George Boro @ John
was also recorded in presence of witnesses. A pointing out memorandum (under
objection) along with rough sketch of the places he had visited in the morning of
30.10.2008 was also prepared. Ext. 1 is the disclosure statement (under objection) of
the accused George Boro @ John. Ext. 1(4) is his signature therein. Ext, 2 is the pointing
out memo (under objection) of the places pointed out by the accused George Boro
@ John. Ext. 2(5) is his signature therein. Ext. 3 is the rough sketch of the places (under
objection) shown by the accused George Boro @ John. Ext. 3(3) is his signature
therein. Ext. 684 (four sheets) is the report of the Government Examiner of Questioned
Document, Kolkata, along with the envelope recovered from the accused Nilim
Daimari on 04.09.2008 by the Tura police. Ext. 685 is the said envelope. Ext. 686 is
the note book (under objection) of the accused George Boro @ John containing his
admitted handwritings. This witness has also deposed that during interrogation, the
accused Ranjan Daimari had disclosed that all the above mentioned nine serial
Page No.# 139/198
blasts were carried out as per his direction (under objection). After recording
statements of the witnesses, collecting the relevant documents and expert opinion,
he had submitted another supplementary charge-sheet on 25.03.2011.
208. During his cross-examination PW-646 has stated that he had directly joined the
CBI as a sub-inspector of police in the year 1980. He has produced the relevant
documents collected by the Assam Police during initial investigation of the nine blast
cases. Initially, he had investigated the Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon blast cases. The
two bomb blast cases of Barpeta Road were investigated by Mr. A.S. Tariyal. The
Ganesguri flyover bomb blast case was initially investigated by Mr. D.C. Ghose, the
Chief Judicial Magistrate Court blast case was investigated by Mr. H.C. Sharma and
the Panbazar blast case was investigated by Mr. N.K. Pathak, under the supervision of
Mr. N.S. Kharayat, the then S.P., CBI, STF, New Delhi. He took the help of the Assam
Police whenever necessary. Except Mr. Tariyal, the other investigating officers were
Deputy Superintendent of Police. He did not remember based on what document he
has stated about the contents of the four and five paragraph of his deposition. During
investigation, he came to know that even after the tripartite cease fire agreement,
the NDFB was resorting to terrorist activities. During investigation, he also came to
know that the NDFB cadres were arranging explosives at the instance of the accused
Ranjan Daimari @ D.R. Nabla, who was running the NDFB from Dhaka, Bangladesh.
But he did not remember whether any witnesses had told him the same. The case
diaries contained printed page numbers but sometimes, the page numbers are not
continuous as different investigating officers were assisting him and they were using
CD booklet for writing their supplementary case diaries. Further, they were
Page No.# 140/198
investigating the cases from the camp office and hence, were not having the exact
bundles of hundred sheets of case diary. The other investigating officers returned the
supplementary case diaries to him. But he had not amalgamated the supplementary
case diaries with his case diary as the same were in different files. He has stated that
they follow the CBI manual for investigation and also follow the State Police manual if
required. This witness has also stated that he had read the English translation of the
letter written in Bodo language which was recovered from the possession of the
accused Nilim Daimari. The seizure list and the letter written in Bodo language are
part of his case diary. He had collected oral and documentary evidence regarding
his following statement, "In the meantime, the accused Onsai Boro was sent to
Bangladesh by the accused Ulafat and Dinthilang to contact the accused Ranjan
Daimari, the chairman of the NDFB and gave him Rs. 30,000/- for his expenses.
Accordingly, in the month of August, 2008, the accused Onsai Boro went to
Bangladesh and met the accused Ranjan Daimari at his residence at Dhaka. The
accused Ranjan Daimari told him that the government was not listening to their
demands and their people were killed even though they were in the peace process.
Therefore, he told the accused Onsai Boro that they cannot remain idle. The accused
Ranjan Daimari further told the accused Onsai Boro that he has given instructions to
the accused Dinthilang and he should go back and meet the accused Dinthilang
and follow his orders. Thereafter, the accused Onsai Boro returned to Assam after
some time as he fell sick. After reaching Assam, the accused Onsai Boro contacted
the accused Dinthilang and Ulafat. They told him to attend the meeting of 19.10.2008
but, he refused. The accused Dinthilang and Ulafat then told him if he cannot attend
Page No.# 141/198
the meeting, he should arrange a motorcycle for the Bongaigaon blast. Accordingly,
the accused Onsai Boro arranged a red-coloured Pulsar motorcycle, the number
being AS-25-G-7034, through the accused Indra Brahma and Lokra Basumatary and
paid Rs. 15,000/- to them which he had saved from the aforesaid Rs. 30,000/-. The said
motorcycle was used in the Bongaigaon blast. The meeting on 19.10.2008 was held in
presence of the accused NDFB cadres namely, Ajay Basumatary, John, Rahul
Brahma, Rifikhang, Dinthilang and Ulafat. The meeting was chaired by the accused
Dinthilang. The accused Dinthilang told that the accused Ranjan Daimari has given
instruction to carry out nine bomb blasts on 30.10.2008 in Assam to pressurize the
governments to succumb to their demands. It was decided in the said meeting that
the accused Ulafat will arrange man and material for carrying out three blasts in
Kokrajhar and one in Bongaigaon, the accused Rifikhang will arrange man and
material for carrying out two blasts in Barpeta Road, the accused Ajay Basumatary,
John will arrange man and material for carrying out the blast at Ganeshguri flyover,
Guwahati , the accused Rahul Brahma will arrange man and material for carrying out
the blast in the Chief Judicial Magistrate court complex, Guwahati and Panbazar,
Guwahati. The time of the blast was decided to be at 11:30 am. The accused
Dinthilang told that the blasts are being carried out as per the instruction and
command of the accused Ranjan Daimari. The meeting ended with the above
decisions and all the accused went to their respective places for carrying out the
blasts. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, the aforesaid nine blasts were caused.
From the confessional statement of the accused Onsai Boro he has deposed that
"The accused Dinthilang told that the accused Ranjan Daimari has given instruction
Page No.# 142/198
to carry out nine bomb blasts on 30.10.2008 in Assam to pressurize the government to
succumb to their demands." Later on, this witness had said that he came to know
the same from the confessional statement of the accused Ajay Basumatary. The
concerned investigating officers have mentioned in the case diaries about recording
the confessional statement of the accused Ajay Basumatary and Onsai Boro. Ext. 313
is a certified Photostat copy of the seizure list by means of which one pen drive, one
mobile phone and one hand-written letter in Bodo language was seized from the
possession of the accused Nilim Daimari @ D. Nizwsmsa. But he did not produce the
Ext. 313 seizure list before the court.
209. During further cross-examination of PW-646 recorded on 06/12/2018, he has
stated that accused Ajay Basumatary told in his statement that the accused
Dinthilang told him that the accused Ranjan Daimari had given instructions to carry
out the serial blasts. The said statement was the confessional statement of the
accused Ajay Basumatary. He had investigated about the said meeting examining
different witnesses. The accused told him about the said meeting. He did not
remember the name of any other independent witness. He had recorded the
disclosure statements of the accused Mathuram Brahma @ Mudwai, George Boro @
John, Rahul Brahma, Lokra Basumatary and Indra Brahma. They talked to him in
mixed English, Hindi and Assamese. This witness has also stated that investigating
officers having knowledge of Assamese language were assisting him. Inspector
Pranab Das was one such investigating officer but he did not remember the names of
the other investigating officers having knowledge of Assamese language. PW-646
has also stated that in Ext-1 disclosure statement, Executive Magistrate was present as
Page No.# 143/198
an independent witness. There was no other independent witness. He had recorded
Ext. 1 disclosure statement in the Guwahati camp office but he has not mentioned
the same in the Ext. 1. Ext-1 was a typed copy and he had read over the statement
to the accused and he accepted the same to be correct but he had not written it in
the Ext-1. He had prepared the Ext. 3 rough sketch of the places pointed out by
the accused George Boro regarding his movements on 30.10.2008. But he has not
mentioned about the preparing of the rough sketch in the case diary. He showed the
sketch map to the accused George Boro and took his signature therein but has not
mentioned about the same in the case diary or in the Ext. 3 that he showed the
sketch map to the accused George Boro. This witness has, however, confirmed that
Exts. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 106 and 107 do not show that they were read out and
admitted to be correct by the accused persons. Other than the Executive Magistrate
and police officers, no independent witness was present at the time of preparing the
Exts. 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 106 and 107.
210. PW-646 has also admitted that he could not collect any document regarding
the meeting held on 19.10.2008. The accused Ajay Basumatary had confessed about
holding the meeting on 19.10.2008 and decided about causing the serial blasts. After
conclusion of investigation, he found that pursuant to the conspiracy hatched on
19.10.2008, the serial blasts were carried out. RDX, Ammonium Nitrate and TNT were
used in the aforesaid blasts were confirmed by the Forensic experts. At Choudhury
Shopping Complex, Barpeta Road, use of RDX was confirmed by the Forensic experts.
At Kokrajhar vegetable market, use of TNT was confirmed by the Forensic experts.
Except for experts evidence, he did not have any other evidence to prove that RDX
Page No.# 144/198
Ammonium Nitrate and TNT were used in the aforesaid blasts. This witness has further
stated that from the confessional statement of the accused Ajay Basumatary and
disclosure statement of the accused John, he came to know that in the blast at
Ganeshguri, the explosive-laden cylinder was arranged by the accused Baishagi
Basumatary and given to the accused John. From the confessional statement of
the accused Ajay Basumatary, he came to know that he was expert in handling
explosive devices with timer and he fixed the time device in the explosive-laden
cylinder along with the detonators in the residence of the accused John at Hatigaon
in the morning of 30.10.2008. From the confessional statement of the accused Ajay
Basumatary and disclosure statement of accused George Boro @ John, he came to
know that, "the accused Jitu Daimari kept the explosive-laden cylinder in the dickey
of the above car under Ganeshguri flyover, towards Dispur side, at around 09:00 am
of 30.10.2008. After parking the explosive-laden car, they walked about hundred
meters and went to Dhubri by the Tata Sumo vehicle driven by the accused Tarun
Swargiary @ Boro and from there, they went to different places. The accused Ajay
Basumatary was an expert in handling explosive devices with timer and he fixed the
time device in the explosive-laden cylinder, along with the detonators, in the
aforesaid residence of the accused John at Hatigaon in the morning of 30.10.2008.
The accused Jitu Daimari kept the explosive-laden cylinder in the dickey of the
above care and along with the accused John and Ajay Basumatary, parked the car
under Ganeshguri flyover, towards Dispur side, at around 09:00 am of 30.10.2008. After
parking the explosive-laden car, they walked about hundred meters and went to
Dhubri by the Tata Sumo vehicle driven by the accused Tarun Swargiary @ Boro and
Page No.# 145/198
from there, they went to different places. The blast in the Chief Judicial Magistrate
court complex and at Panbazar, Guwahati were arranged by the accused Rahul
Brahma with the help of the accused Prabhat Boro and Raju Sarkar. The car No. AS-
01-E-9226 used in the Panbazar blast was purchased by the accused Rahul Brahma,
in the name of the accused Raju Sarkar, from one Bipin Rajbangshi. The said car was
driven by the accused Prabhat Boro and the accused Raju Sarkar was
accompanying him. The car No. AS-01-M-0327 used in the blast in the Chief Judicial
Magistrate court complex in Guwahati was purchased by the accused Dinesh Boro
from one Kunal Bhuyan in the month of August, 2008. The said car, along with the
cylinder-bomb, was driven by the accused Dinesh Boro and the accused Thungri
Boro was accompanying him. After parking the car in the Chief Judicial Magistrate
court complex, the accused Dinesh Boro, Thungri Boro and Prabhat Boro @ Tepa
went to Phukan park where the accused Rahul Brahma was waiting for them in the
Maruti car No. AS-01-AE-9726 driven by one Babul Boro and went to Rangia. The
accused Raju Sarkar went by bus to his native place Udalguri. At Choudhury
complex, Barpeta Road, the bomb was kept in the TVS motorcycle No. AS-15-A-6007.
At vegetable market, Barpeta Road, the bomb was kept in a Hero brand lady
bicycle. The bombs used in the said blasts were arranged in the house of the
accused Rifikhang by the accused Mathuram Basumatary @ Mwdai. At Bongaigaon,
the bomb was kept in the red-coloured Pulsar motorcycle No. AS-25-G-7034 by the
accused Indra Brahma and Lokra Basumatary. The motorcycle was arranged by the
Onsai Boro. This witness has stated that he tried to confirm the disclosure
statements and confessional statements but did not find any other independent
Page No.# 146/198
witness to prove the same. He had submitted the charge-sheet relying on the
confessional statements, disclosure statements, pointing out memos, sketch map and
expert evidence etc. PW-646 has denied the suggestion put to him that he did not
investigate the case in accordance with the law.
211. PW-641 Sri Narendra Singh Kharayat has deposed that on 30/10/2008, nine
serial blasts took place in four districts of Assam, viz. Kokrajhar, Bongaigaon, Barpeta
and Kamrup. The blasts had killed many and injured many others. By the notification
dated 16/12/2008 issued by the Government of India, investigation in connection with
the 9(nine) serial bomb blast cases were entrusted to the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI). During the course of investigation, he had arrested accused Ajoy
Basumatary and Jayanti Brahma from Goalpara and took them to Police custody for
12 days. Later on, accused Ajoy Basumatary had confessed his guilt. The confessional
statement of Ajoy Basumatary was recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164
Cr.P.C. This witness has also stated that accused Ajoy Basumatary was produced
from judicial custody for recording his confessional statement on the basis of an
application filed by him with a prayer to record the confessional statement of the
accused.
212. PW-624 Sri Ashok Singh Tariyal has deposed that in the year 2008, he was
posted as the Inspector, CBI, STF, New Delhi. The SP, CBI, Mr. N.S. Kharayat had
entrusted him to investigate the case pertaining to the Barpeta Road bomb blast. Sri
N.P. Mishra, Inspector, CBI had assisted him in the investigation. He had conducted
investigation pertaining to the Choudhury complex bomb blast and Vegetable
Page No.# 147/198
Market bomb blast, which had taken place at Barpeta Road. This witness has also
deposed that accused Anup Boro was in judicial custody and he had got the
custody extended. He had also filed application before the Court for adding sections
10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. Since, cases coming under
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 are required to be investigated by Officers
not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. SP), the case was handed
over to Sri Nalini Kanta Pathak, Dy.SP.
213. PW-642 Sri Nalini Kanta Pathak has deposed that in the year 2008, he was
working as the Dy. SP, CBI, MDMA, New Delhi attached to the CBI, STF, New Delhi. In
the month of December, 2008, he was sent to Assam to assist the investigation in the
serial bomb blast case conducted by Sri N.S. Kharayat (PW-641). During the course of
investigation, he had arrested accused Prabhat Boro @ Tepa on 22/01/2009 and
accused Raju Sarkar on 28/02/2009 in connection with the Panbazar blast case. He
had recorded the disclosure statement of accused Prabhat Boro @ Tepa given on
27/01/2009. Ext. 12 is the said Disclosure Statement which bears his signature.
Thereafter, accused Prabhat Boro @ Tepa had led them to Panbazar and showed
the place where he had parked the Maruti Car along with the Bomb. Thereafter,
accused Prabhat Boro @ Tepa led them to Phukan Park, Bharalumukh, where
accused Rahul Brahma was waiting for them in a blue coloured Maruti Alto Car. The
accused Prabhat Boro @ Tepa told that from that place he had gone to Amingaon
Tiniali along with Rahul Brahma in a blue coloured Maruti Alto Car. Thereafter, the
accused Prabhat Boro @ Tepa had led them to Gorchuk Chariali and told them that
in the early morning of 30-10-2008 along with the accused Raju Sarkar and Rahul
Page No.# 148/198
Brahma, he went to Gorchuk Chariali and there the accused Rahul Brahma got
down from his car and boarded the Maruti Alto Car. Prabhat Boro had also told them
that accused Rahul Brahma and Raju Sarkar took dinner in the house of the sister of
Rahul Brahma and thereafter, Rahul Brahma had spent the night in the house of his
sister. Prabhat Boro had also told that in the morning of 30-10-2008, he along with
accused Rahul Brahma and Raju Sarkar went to Gorchuk Chariali. There they had
changed the vehicle. The accused Prabhat Boro told him that at Gorchuk Chariali,
the accused Rahul Brahma had told that he would travel in a Maruti Alto Car and
directed them to follow him. On the way, accused Rahul Brahma had told them to
park the bomb laden car at Panbazar. This witness has further deposed that he had
prepared a Pointing Out Memo of the places shown by Prabhat Boro @ Tepa and Ext.
13 is the said Pointing Out Memo, which bears his signature.
214. PW-642 has further deposed that he had also recorded the disclosure
statement of accused Raju Sarkar and Ext. 14 is the said statement which bears his
signature. He has also prepared a Pointing Out Memo of the places pointed out by
accused Raju Sarkar and Ext. 15 is the said Pointing Out Memo, which bears his
signature. PW-642 has further stated that he had succeeded in tracing out the
original registration number of the Maruti Car used in the Panbazar blast from the
Office of the District Transport Officer, Betkuchi, Kamrup. He had collected the driving
license of accused Prabhat Boro. During investigation, he had seized one Nokia
Mobile Handset Model 1200 belonging to accused Prabhat Boro from his elder
brother Pranab Boro vide seizure list Ext. 642. He had also seized one complaint dated
29/01/2009 lodged by one Sanjay Chakravarty with the Jalukbari Police Station
Page No.# 149/198
regarding theft of Mobile SIM card by one Sachindra Boro.
215. Sri Debashish Ghosh (PW-631) was working on deputation in the CBI, ACB,
Kolkata as Dy.SP in the year 2009, had also joined the investigating team. He has
deposed that during the course of investigation, he had visited about 25 places and
recorded the statement of injured victims and family members of the deceased
persons. During the course of investigation, he could also get hold of a letter written in
Bodo language connected with the blasts. The letter was translated into English by
Head of Department of Bodo Language, Gauhati University, viz. Dr. Bhupen Narzary.
He had recorded the statement of Dr. Bhupen Narzary.
216. Sri Sunil Singh Rawat (PW-625) was posted at Inspector, CBI, STF, New Delhi in
the year 2008. He has deposed that after the transfer of the cases pertaining to the
series of bomb explosions which took place on 30/10/2008, the CBI took over the
investigation in connection with these cases. The investigation of the 3 blast cases of
Kokrajhar was carried out by Sri N. S. Yadav, Dy. SP, CBI, who was the Chief
Investigating Officer and he was entrusted with the job of assisting him in the
investigation. Accordingly, he had assisted PW-646. This witness has deposed that
during investigation, he had examined Duke-Bon Basumatary and Binisha Brahma
with regard to one Mobile Phone No. 9435483441. The aforesaid number was issued
by the BSNL in the name of Duke-Bon Basumatary but the same was reportedly being
used by the accused Arun Borgayari @ Dinthilang. This witness has further deposed
that he along with the Chief Investigating Officer Sri N.S. Yadav had arrested accused
Jayanti Brahma. During investigation, Jayanti Brahma had disclosed that when he
Page No.# 150/198
came from Bangladesh to India before 30-10-2008, she had brought a packet
containing timers etc. and handed over the same to accused Uttam Swargiary @
Ulafat at Sherfanguri. Her disclosure statement was recorded and a Pointing Out
Memo was also prepared. Ext-584 is the Disclosure Statement and Ext. 585 is the
Pointing Out Memo, which bears his signature. During cross examination, this witness
has confirmed that Sri N.S. Yadav had arrested the accused Jayanti Brahma in
connection with Kokrajhar blasts case. Disclosure Statement of Jayanti Brahma was
recorded in the Kokrajhar Circuit House.
217. Sri Harish Chandra Sharma, another Dy.SP, CBI posted at ACB, Shillong, who
had also joined the investigation was examined as PW-647. This witness has deposed
that on being directed by his DIG to join the Investigating team of the CBI in
connection with the 9(nine) bomb blast cases of Assam, he had reported to Sri N.S.
Kharayat and took part in the investigation. During investigation, he could trace out
the Maruti Car sold by one Kunal Bhuyan to Sri Dinesh Boro, which car was used in
explosion. Sri Thungri Boro had signed as a witness in the sale deed and the transfer
documents of the Maruti car bearing Registration No. AS-01-M-0327.
R) Evidence against accused Indra Brahma :
218. PW-488, Dashrath Basumatary has deposed that he is a student of H.S. 2 nd year
in U. N. Brahma Junior College, Kajolgaon, Chirang. He knows Hemraj Mushahary.
Hemraj Mushahary hails from his village. According to PW-488, Hemraj Mushahary was
dealing in stolen motorcycles. This witness has further stated that he knows Ranjit
Mushahary. Sunwary Boro was his friend. Accused Indra Brahma was also his friend. In
Page No.# 151/198
the month of October, 2008, one day, Hemraj Mushahary had requested him to sell a
red coloured Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle. Raja Boro, whom he knows, had given the said
motorcycle to Hemraj Mushahary, who had kept the same in his house for one day.
The registration number of the said motorcycle was AS-25G-7034. Sunwary Boro came
to his house and they talked with Hemraj Mushahary who told them that they should
pay him 10/12 thousand rupees and sell the motorcycle. Sunwary Boro then told that
he will enquire and accordingly called Indra Brahma and told him about the
motorcycle. Indra Brahma replied that he will inform the latter. After sometime,
Sunwary Boro had told him that someone will purchase the motorcycle. He and
Sunwary Boro then went to Bengtal with the motorcycle and met Indra Brahma. After
some time, a healthy person came there and took away the motorcycle by paying
Rs.10 or 12 thousand. Later on, he came to know that the motorcycle was used in the
bomb blast that took place at Paglasthan, Bongaigaon. Ext-409 was his statement
recorded by the Magistrate which bears his signature.
219. Sunwary Boro was examined as PW-493. He has deposed before the Court to
the effect that he had two brothers, viz., Anupam Wary @ Bogla Wary and Mikhim
Wary and had also three sisters. His brother Anupam Wary was a member of the
National Democratic Front of Bodoland. He knows Indra Brahma. He was the
classmate of Dasrath Basumatary of their village and used to come to their village
frequently. He also knew Hemraj Mushahary who was his relative. Hemraj died in a
motorcycle accident. Dashrath Brahma and Hemraj Mushahary used to sell
motorcycle. Hemraj once asked him to look for a customer for selling one Bajaj Pulsar
motorcycle. He spoke to Indra Brahma over phone enquiring as to whether anybody
Page No.# 152/198
would purchase the said motorcycle and after 20 minutes Indra Brahma told that a
person was there to purchase the motorcycle. Then he and Dashrath took the
motorcycle to Bengtal. After sometime, Indra Brahma arrived there and thereafter an
aged but stout person arrived there, paid the price of the motorcycle and took away
the same. Later on, he saw in the T.V. news that there were bomb blasts. Police
arrested him and Dasharath. During interrogation police had shown him the aforesaid
motorcycle. 5 photographs (Ext-221) of the motorcycle was shown. This witness had
stated that they had received Rs.12,000/- for selling the motor cycle and he had
earned Rs.1000/- as commission and Dasarath earned Rs.1000/- as commission.
However, he did not tell the CBI that Indra Brahma was a member of the NDFB. This
witness was later declared as a hostile witness.
220. PW-495, Rhindao Basumatary has merely deposed before the court that he
knew accused Indra Brahma who used to call him in his mobile phone bearing
No.9954664787 belonging to his father. Later on, he came to know that Indra Brahma
had joined the National Democratic Front of Bodoland.
S) Evidence against accused Lokhra Basumatary @ Lobo :
221. It is to be noted herein that PW-493, Sunwary Boro, who was declared as a
hostile witness has denied during his cross-examination by the prosecution side that it
is not a fact that accused Lokhra used to come to his house or that he had told the
CBI that Lokhra had purchased the said motorcycle and paid the price. We do not
find any other evidence against accused Lokhra Basumatary.
T) Evidence against accused Rajendra Goyari @ [email protected] Rifikang :
Page No.# 153/198
222. In his confessional statement accused Ajay Basumatary has clearly implicated
this accused by ascribing specific role to him in the bomb blast episode. PW-615,
Anup Kumar Boro has also stated that Rajendra Goyari, was a member of the
ceasefire faction of the NDFB.
U) Confessional Statements of accused Ajay Basumatary and Onsai Boro :-
223. The Confessional statements of two accused persons, viz. Ajay Basumatary and
Onsai Boro was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The confessional statement of
Ajay Basumatary was recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class, Guwahati,
Kamrup, viz., Sri A.M. Md. Mahir Uddin. The confessional statement of Ajay Basumatary
along with the statements put to the accused before recording his statement is
reproduced herein below for ready reference :-
"The accused, namely Ajay Basumatary is brought before me on (date)
03/02/09 by Jail Authority at (place) Guwahati at about (time) 2.00 p.m. to
have his confessional statement recorded. I have ascertained that the alleged
offence punishable under Section 121/121(A)/122/123/302/306/307/427 IPC r/w
Section 3/4 E.S. Act and Sec. 10/13 UA(P) Act was committed at (place)
Ganeshguri on (date) 30/10/08 at about (time) 11.30 A.M.
I have asked the accused in detail relating to his detention after arrest
and he stated that he was arrested at (place) Solmari, Goalpara at about
(time) 6.45 p.m. and detained at (Place of detention) Goalpara P.S., District Jail
at Goalpara and Guwahati for about .xxx from 26/12/08 to 03/02/09 before
being brought to Court.
The accused should be asked whether he has got any injury or mark of
violence on his body. If the Magistrate notices or is reported about the injury(s)
on the person of the accused, a brief, but clear description of the nature and
gravity of the injury(s) be mentioned here.
No injury mark is shown by the accused.
In case, injuries are noticed, the accused be enquired as to how he has
Page No.# 154/198
sustained the above injury(s) and whether any medical treatment is required:
No injury mark is being noticed.
To normalise the accused and find out the truth I have inquired the
following:-
A. What is your age?
Ans:- I am 24 years old.
B. Whether you are married and have got children?
Ans:- I am not married.
C. What is your occupation and what is your monthly income?
Ans:- I am a cultivator. I do not earn month wise.
D. Whether your monthly income is sufficient to maintain your family?
Ans:- It is insufficient.
E. For how many hours you were with the police and whether police
threatened or applied force upon you.
Ans: I was with police from 26/12/08 to 04/01/09. Police did not assault
me.
I have explained to the accused the gist of the provisions of
Section 164 Cr.P.C. coupled with Section 281 Cr.P.C. and Sections 24 to
30 of the Indian Evidence Act in details, particularly the following :-
i. Do you know that I am not an officer of police but a
Magistrate?
Ans:- I know.
ii. Whether any influence, promise, force or threatening was made
to you by police or any other person for making the confession?
Ans:- Police did not assault, threaten or coax me.
Page No.# 155/198
iii. Do you know that you are not bound to make confession?
Ans:- Yes, I know that.
iv. Do you know that if you confess the accusation, it may be used as
evidence against you?
Ans:- Yes, I know.
v. Why you want to confess?
Ans:- I am repentant of my misdeed and I think that it was my mistake
to join the organisation. Therefore I would like to confess.
vi. Do you know that you should say nothing which is untrue and that
you should not say anything because others have told you to say it but is
at liberty to say whatever really you desire to say?
Ans:- Yes, I shall state whatever I know with complete truthfulness.
vii. Do you know that there is no Police Officer associated with the
investigation in the vicinity and you are completely under the supervision
of the Court and you need not be afraid of the Police?
Ans:- Yes, I know that and I am not afraid.
viii. Whether the police promised or assured you that you will be
made an approver?
Ans:- Police didn't say anything like that to me.
ix. Do you know that you be may be convicted on your own
confession?
Ans:- Yes, I know.
x. I assure you that you will not be remanded/send back to the
police even if you do not confess. Are you clear about it?
Ans:- Yes, I know.
I have placed the accused under the supervision of my office
Page No.# 156/198
peon Baharul Islam Bora for reflection from 2.00 p.m. to3.00 p.m. which is
equal to or more than the period for which he was in police custody
and ascertained that the investigating agency did not have any touch
with the accused during this period.
The accused is again brought before me on (date) 03/02/09 at
about (time) 3.00 p.m. at (place) Guwahati and once again, he has
been explained the particulars of Section 164 Cr.P.C., particularly those
mentioned above, and on being satisfied that he is in a fit state of mind
and prepared to make the confessional statement voluntarily his
statement is recorded which is as follows :-
Statement
Name of the accused : Ajay Basumatary, aged about 24 years.
Father's name - Lt. Swaun Basumatary,
Resident of - Dilaji Mithi Faug, Vill. Diphu.
P.S. - Diphu.
District - Karbi Anglong.
By Caste - S T. By profession - Cultivator.
(No oath of affirmation shall be administered)
(THE BACKSIDE OF THE PAGE MAY BE USED FOR RECORDING STATEMENT)
I joined NDFB in the month of August, 2005. Gaukhreep, the
Commander of Karbi Anglong, enrolled me in the group. One person by
the name Jhon took me from our camp at Karbi Anglong to our camp
located at Khagrachari district of Bangladesh,. When I arrived there, only
4/5 persons were there in the camp. There, one instructor by the name
Suglai, trained me for about 2 ½ months. I was given different trainings on
arms. When I was there, in the month of April/May, 2006, the army of
Bangladesh attacked us and about 10 of our members including the
Page No.# 157/198
instructor had died then. After that, assuming the role of instructor, I
imparted training to different members. In the year 2007, I trained about
25/30 members. Later, in 2007, one instructor by the name Borsha
imparted me training on time device setting. In the year 2008, one
training session was conducted in which I acted as instructor.
At noon on 13/10/2008, I entered Guwahati from Bangladesh via
Shillong. Arriving at Guwahati, I met John again at Ganeshguri. From
there, we went to the rented house of John at Hatigaon. I spent three
days and three nights there. From there, on 17/10/08, I went to the house
of our NDFB member Rifikhang located at Barpeta Road. Having stayed
there one night, I went to the house of our NDFB Army Chief Giuthilaug
located Jharaguri, Kokrajhar. I stayed one night in his house. On the
following day a meeting was held there. John, Rifikhang, Kharaw Sir,
Ulafat, Army Chief and I were present in that meeting.
In that meeting we are told that the Army Chief was ordered by
the higher authority to carry out bomb blast at Guwahati and at
different places of Assam and we should take responsibility to do that.
There we fixed the date as 30-10-08 and the time as 11.30 a.m. The
responsibilities to plant bombs and to explode the same were divided -
John and I at Ganeshguri, Kharau Sir at Panbazar and at Court, Rifikhang
at Barpeta Road and Ulafat at Bongaigaon and Kokrajhar. After the
meeting was over, I spent the night there and thereafter, left for Dhubri.
On 24-10-08, I returned from Dhurbi to Hatigaon.
On 27/10/08, one female member of NDFB by the name Bithora
brought a L.P.G. cylinder for us to John's room. One boy by the name
Jitu was with her as driver. The cylinder was filled with some gunpowder
like substance from before. I saw Detonator, 9V battery and one alarm
clock in the house of John, which I had kept there earlier. On 28-10-08, I
inserted the detonator in the cylinder. On 29-10-08, we remained idle.
Page No.# 158/198
John had selected the spot from before.
Around 9.30 a.m. on 30-10-08, I connected the time device with
the cylinder. Around 9.30 a.m. , John along with a boy by the name Jitu
brought a Maruti -800 car. I forgot the number of the vehicle. Around 6
a.m. on that day itself, two boys by the names Jitu and Tarun had
brought a Tata Sumo Vehicle. Taking our bags and cloths, Tarun was
waiting for us in the Tata Sumo near the Ganesh Mandir. John, Jitu and I
loaded the cylinder in the Maruti car and brought it to Ganeshguri. Jitu
was driving the car. Thereafter, parking the Maruti car under the
Ganeshguri Flyover towards Dispur, we got down from the vehicle,
locked it and went towards Ganesh Mandir. We boarded the Tata Sumo
vehicle parked there and around 10.10 a.m. we left for Dhubri via
Hatigaon.
Later, at 11.30 a.m., we received information regarding bomb
blasts at Ganeshguri and at different parts of Assam.
In last November, I accompanied Rifikhang to Dhaka and returned
in December. After returning in the month of December, I was in Dhubri.
From there, I came to Goalpara on 26-12-08. Goalpara police
apprehended me there itself.
224. The confessional statement of accused Onsai Boro, recorded by Magistrate Sri.
Neel Kamal Das, JMFC, Kamrup, Guwahati along with the questions put to the
accused before recording his statement, are reproduced herein below for ready
reference :-
"The accused, namely Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro was brought before me on
(date) 31/05/2010 by CBI personal at (place) my Court at Guwahati at about
(time) 4.15 p.m. to have his confessional statement recorded. I have
Page No.# 159/198
ascertained that the alleged offence punishable under Section 120B, 121,
121(A), 122, 123, 302, 324, 326, 307, 427 IPC r/w Section 3/4 Explosive
Substances Act and U/S. 10, 13, 16, 18 & 20 of the UA(P) Act was committed at
(place) Bongaigaon on (date) 30/10/08 at about (time) 11.30 A.M.
I have asked the accused in detail relating to his detention after arrest
and he/she stated that he/she was arrested at (place) Guwahati at about
(time) 8/8.30 p.m. and detained at (Place of detention) Panbazar Police
Station for about 92 hours from 8.00 p.m., 27/10/2010 to 4.p.m. 31/05/2010
before being brought to Court.
The accused should be asked whether he/she has got any injury or mark
of violence on his/her body. If the Magistrate notices or is reported about the
injury(s) on the person of the accused, a brief, but clear description of the
nature and gravity of the injury(s) be mentioned here.
On being asked he stated that he has no injury on his peson. Injury is also
not noticed anywhere in the body (exposed part) of the accused.
In case, injuries are noticed, the accused be enquired as to how he has
sustained the above injury(s) and whether any medical treatment is required:
To normalise the accused and find out the truth I have inquired the
following:-
A. What is your age?
Ans:- I am 30 years.
B. Whether you are married and have got children?
Ans:- Married/ No children.
C. What is your occupation and what is your monthly income?
Ans:- Nil.
D. Whether your monthly income is sufficient to maintain your family?
Ans:- My wife is a teacher. Family is surviving somehow.
Page No.# 160/198
E. For how many hours you were with the police and whether police
threatened or applied force upon you.
Ans: I was with police since 8 p.m. of 27-5-2010 (Thursday). Police did
not apply force on me.
I have explained to the accused the gist of the provisions of
Section 164 Cr.P.C. coupled with Section 281 Cr.P.C. and Sections 24 to
30 of the Indian Evidence Act in details, particularly the following :-
ii. Do you know that I am not an officer of police but a
Magistrate?
Ans:- Yes Sir, I know.
ii. Whether any influence, promise, force or threatening was made
to you by police or any other person for making the confession?
Ans:- Nobody said anything to me, threatened or coerced me. Nobody
tried to influence me or coax me to confess by promising to return the
favour.
iii. Do you know that you are not bound to make confession?
Ans:- Yes Sir, I know. I have come here of my own volition.
iv. Do you know that if you confess the accusation, it may be used as
evidence against you?
Ans:- I know.
v. Why you want to confess?
Ans:- Sir, I am not involved in this case. I have come here to confess the
fact of purchasing the bike only.
vi. Do you know that you should say nothing which is untrue and that
you should not say anything because others have told you to say it but is
at liberty to say whatever really you desire to say?
Page No.# 161/198
Ans:- Yes Sir, I know..
vii. Do you know that there is no Police Officer associated with the
investigation in the vicinity and you are completely under the supervision
of the Court and you need not be afraid of the Police?
Ans:- Yes Sir, I know.
viii. Whether the police promised or assured you that you will be
made an approver?
Ans:- Police didn't say anything like that to me.
ix. Do you know that you be may be convicted on your own
confession?
Ans:- Yes Sir..
x. I assure you that you will not be remanded/send back to the
police even if you do not confess. Are you clear about it?
Ans:- Sir, I shall only speak what I did. Sir, I shall speak how I was being
used by someone else.
I have placed the accused under supervision of officer-in-charge,
Central Jail, Kamrup at Guwahati for reflection from 31/05/2010 to 01/06/2010
which is not equal to or more than the period for which he was in police
custody and ascertained that the investigating agency did not have any
touch with the accused during this period.
The accused is again brought before me on (date) 01/06/2010 at about
(time) 4.00 p.m. at (place) My Court at Guwahati and once again, he has
been explained the particulars of Section 164 Cr.P.C., particularly those
mentioned above, and on being satisfied that he is in a fit state of mind and
Page No.# 162/198
prepared to make the confessional statement voluntarily his statement is
recorded which is as follows :-
Statement
Name of the accused : Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro, aged about 30 years.
Father's name - Sri Gangadhar Boro,
Resident of - Vill. Shantipur.
P.S. - Salbari.
District - Baksa.
By Caste - Tribal. By profession - Nil.
(No oath of affirmation shall be administered)
(THE BACKSIDE OF THE PAGE MAY BE USED FOR RECORDING STATEMENT)
I joined NDFB in 1998. After that, from April 1998 to August 1998, I took
training at Namlang in Bhutan. From the time after my training till the time of
Ceasefire in 2004, I was either visiting Assam from Bhutan or Bhutan from Assam
on and off. After the Ceasefire in 2004, I started to stay either in the designated
camp or in a rented house with my wife. In July 2008, Dinthilang and Ulafat
called me and told me that Ranjan Daimari had called me and therefore I was
required to go to Bangladesh. Dinthilang and Ulafat gave Rs. 30,000/- (Thirty
thousand) to me.
Q. What you did you do after that ?
Ans : Dinthilang and Ulafat gave me the (contact) number of a boy of Garo
community and after contacting him, I directly went to Dhaka. Arriving at
Dhaka, I spent one night in the flat of Dan Sirang. On the following day, Ranjan
Page No.# 163/198
Daimari came to talk with me. Ranjan Daimari asked my identity and when I
gave my identity, he asked about the situation. After that Ranjan Daimari told
me that command had already been given to Dinthilang and asked me to
follow the commands from Dinthilang. Ranjan Daimari further told me that we
should not sit idle. In spite of being in ceasefire, they killed our boys and our
memorandum had failed.
Q. What Memorandum?
Ans : The memorandum submitted to the government by NDFB.
Q. What happened after that ?
Ans: After explaining to me for about 10 minutes, Ranjan Daimari left. After
that, as I suffered from Diarrhoea, I stayed there for a week and returned to
Assam thereafter. After returning, I informed Dinthilang and Ulafat and asked
them as to why they had sent me to Bangladesh without any reason. I picked
up a sort of quarrel with Ulafat. Thereafter, on 18 th October (later says 19th
Octobe), Ulafat and others convened a secret meeting and called me. Then
Ulafat told me, "If you are not coming, purchase us a bike". Thereafer, I asked
Indra and Lokhra to search a bike. They brought a bike. I gave Lokhra Rs.
15000/- (Fifteen Thousand) out of the total money of Rs. 30000/- (Thirty
Thousand Rupees) which had been given to me earlier. Thereafter Ulafat told
me to give the bike to Uma Raja. Then I gave the bike to Lokhra to hand over it
to Uma Raja.
Q. What was that bike?
Ans: Red Pulsar.
Q. Do you remember the number ?
Ans: No, sir.
Page No.# 164/198
Q. Will you say anything else?
Ans: I do not know what Uma Raja did after that. I have to say this much
only."
225. PW-478 Abdul Mojid Md. Mohi Uddin had recorded the confessional statement
of accused Ajay Basumatary. This witness has deposed that on 03.02.2009 accused
Ajay Basumatary was produced before him for recording his confessional statement.
After giving him sufficient caution as required under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and giving
him couple of hours for reflection, the confessional statement of accused Ajay
Basumatary was recorded after ascertaining that the same was being given
voluntarily. After recording the confessional statement accused Ajay Basumatary was
sent back to judicial custody. The confessional statement of Ajay Basumatary was
marked as Ext-379 which bears his signature. During cross-examination PW-478 has,
however, admitted that he did not mention as to who had identified accused Ajay
Basumatary before him and except the signature of the accused there is nothing else
available on record to connect the accused Ajay Basumatary with the confession.
Although Mr. Bhattacharyya has argued that this accused was not properly identified
before recording his confessional statement, yet, we find from the record that PW-
641, who had taken this accused for recording his confessional statement, had
clearly identified him. Moreover, complete particulars of this accused has been
recorded by the learned Magistrate before recording his statement and correctness
of such entries made in respect of this accused persons has also not been disputed
before us.
Page No.# 165/198
226. Sri Neel Kamal Das (PW-545) was the Judicial Magistrate who had recorded the
confessional statement of accused Onsai Boro. PW-545 has deposed that on
31.05.2010 when he was posted as Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kamrup(M) at
Guwahati, on that day accused Onsai Boro alias Ajit Boro was produced before him
by the CBI personnel for recording his confessional statement. After giving the
mandatory warnings to the accused, he was sent back to judicial custody for one
day with a direction to the Jail authority that the accused should not be allowed to
mingle with the other detainees. The next day the accused was produced before
him. On such production he had once again warned the accused regarding his
confessional statement and on being satisfied about the voluntariness of the accused
to record his confession he went on to record the confessional statement of the
accused. PW-545 has deposed that Ext-489 (6 sheets) was the confessional statement
of accused Onsai Boro alias Ajit Boro which bears his signature. During the cross-
examination of WP-545, nothing could be brought out to suggest that the
confessional statement of accused Onsai Boro was not recorded by following proper
procedure and after observing the mandatory requirement prescribed by law.
227. We also find from the record that confessional statement of accused Anup
Kumar Boro was recorded under section 164 Cr.P.C. by Sri Rajnish Bora, Judicial
Magistrate, 1st Class, Barpeta. Sri Rajneesh Bora was examined as PW-513. In his
deposition, this witness has stated that he was posted as Judicial Magistrate First Class
at Barpeta on the day on which accused Anup Kumar Boro was produced before
him for recording his confessional statement. During cross-examination, PW-513 has
Page No.# 166/198
admitted that after recording the confessional statement of Anup Kumar Boro he had
remanded the accused back to the police custody.
228. According to the prosecution, Anup Kumar Boro was made an approver.
However, as has been observed here-in above, there is no material on record to hold
that Anup Kumar Boro was an approver in this case. His confessional statement was
also recorded by treating him as an accused. However, the accused was sent back
to police custody after recording his confessional statement. After careful scrutiny of
the records, a serious doubt arises as to the procedure followed and the
circumstances under which the statement of this accused was recorded. As such, we
are of the opinion that the statement of Anup Kumar Boro recorded under section
164 CrPC cannot be relied upon as his confessional statement and therefore, we
refrain from referring to his statement.
229. In so far as the confessional statement of accused Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro and
Ajay Basumatary is concerned the learned senior counsel for the appellants has
argued that conviction of the accused persons based on such retracted confession
would not be permissible in law. From a careful reading of the statement of accused
Onsai Boro, we find that in his statement recorded under section 313 of the CrPC this
accused has stated that he had not made any confessional statement. From an
analysis of his statement we find that his statement recorded under section 164 CrPC
is exculpatory in nature. He had not confessed about his involvement in the
conspiracy or in the commission of any crime. Although this accused has admitted to
have met Ranjan Daimari at Bangaladesh but he has also stated that he had picked
Page No.# 167/198
up a quarrel with Dinthilang for calling him to Bangladesh without any reason. He has
admitted his role in the purchase of a motorbike but in his statement, there is nothing
to indicate that he had any knowledge about the fact that the motor cycle was
meant to be used in bomb blasts. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the learned
trial court that accused Onsai Boro had made any confession. The same is, however,
not true for accused Ajay Basumatary.
230. In his confessional statement, accused Ajay Basumatary has categorically
admitted that he was an active member of the NDFB and the fact that he had
undergone arms training at Bangladesh. He has confessed about his role in the bomb
blasts by narrating in details, the manner in which the blasts were executed.
Therefore, the confessional statement of this accused is inculpatory in nature.
Accused Ajay Basumatary has clearly implicated accused Ranjan Daimari @ D.R.
Nabala, [email protected] George Boro, [email protected] Goyari, [email protected],
Ulafat, [email protected] Baisagi Basumatary. Although this accused had retracted his
confession on 12.12.2018 during his examination under section 313 CrPC by stating
that he had not made any confession, yet, the confessional statement of this
accused person has been duly proved by the prosecution. From the evidence of
PW-641 it is apparent that this accused was produced from judicial custody for
recording his confessional statement and the same was also recorded after giving
the accused, time for reflection, which in the facts and circumstances of the case,
appears to be sufficient.
231. In the case of Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh (supra) the Supreme Court has
Page No.# 168/198
laid down certain principles to be followed while recording the statement of the
accused under section 164 CrPC. It has been inter-alia held that the maker should be
granted sufficient time for reflection. In the case of Swaran Singh Rattan Singh (supra)
it has been held that although it would be prudent to allow the accused at least 24
hours time for reflection, yet, it would be difficult to lay down any hard and fast rule as
to the time which should be allowed to the accused for reflection. From the above, it
is apparent that permitting 24 hours time for reflection, though desirable, failure to do
so will not render the confession liable to be discarded if the same appears to have
been recorded by following due procedure prescribed under the law.
232. On the question of probative value of a retracted confession, it has been held
in the case of Puran Singh vs State of Punjab reported in AIR 1953 SC 459, in case of
retracted confession, corroboration in material particulars would be necessary.
Therefore, merely because this accused had retracted his confession several years
after making it, the same cannot by itself be a ground to discard his confession if
there are other evidence available on record to lend assurance to the truthfulness of
his confession.
233. The confessional statement of this accused person appears to be truthful and
voluntary. It also appears that the procedure prescribed under section 164 CrPC has
also been properly followed by the Magistrate while recording the confessional
statement of this accused. The confession of accused Ajay Basumatary not only
appears to have a logical sequence but we find that the same was also
spontaneous. The confession of this accused also finds due corroboration from the
Page No.# 169/198
other evidence available on record and there is no non-corroborative factor on
record. Therefore, we are of the opinion that there is no valid ground to discard the
confessional statement of accused Ajay Basumatary merely because he had
subsequently retracted his confession.
234. It is also to be noted here-in that accused Ajay Basumatary @ B. Aogai was a
co-accused who was tried along with the other accused persons for the same
offences. This accused was also charged as a co-conspirator. Therefore, as per
section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the statement of co-accused Ajay
Basumatary will be relevant fact. Since the prosecution has proved the confession of
accused Ajay Basumatary as per section 30 of the Evidence Act, his confession can
be relied upon by the court for conviction of the co-conspirators.
235. In the case of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Jaspal Singh reported in (2003)10 SCC
586 the Supreme Court has held that law is well settled that confession of a co-
accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence to convict, other than the
maker of it, on the evidentiary value of it alone. But it has often been reiterated that if
on the basis of the consideration of other evidence on record the Court is inclined to
accept the other evidence, but not prepared to act on such evidence alone, the
confession of a co-accused can be pressed into service to fortify its belief on it also.
236. While interpreting Sections 10 and 30 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in the context
of evidentiary value of confession of a co-accused recorded under Section 164
Cr.P.C. the Supreme Court has observed, in the case of Mohd. Jamiluddin Nasir vs.
State of West Bengal reported in (2014)7 SCC 443, that although confession of a co-
Page No.# 170/198
accused is not substantive evidence, yet, the same could be relied upon for
conviction of other accused if the same is found to be voluntary, properly recorded
with no non-corroborative factors and the confession is sufficiently supported by the
prosecution case.
V) Objection as regards non-availability of original of Ext-42 :
237. As noticed herein before, Ext-42 was the letter written in Bodo language
addressed to "Honourable Sir". According to the prosecution, seizure of the aforesaid
letter Ext-42 was one of the key events during investigation in the serial bomb blasts
case which had depicted the conspiracy angle involving the members of the NDFB
headed by accused/appellant Ranjan Daimari and its active members. The learned
trial court had also referred to Ext-42 but during hearing of these appeals, original of
Ext-42 letter could not be traced out in the Lower Court record. Considering the
significance of the document this Court had passed order dated 13.05.2022 directing
the Registrar Vigilance to conduct an enquiry so as to trace out the original of Ext-42
and submit a report. Accordingly, the aforesaid exercise was carried out whereafter,
the Registry had submitted a report stating that the original of Ext-42 which was
exhibited before the learned trial court was not available in record. In other words,
the document marked as Ext-42 with the original signature of the Presiding Officer
could not be traced out in the Lower Court record. However, photocopy of Ext-42,
which was available on record was available and hence, flagged with the report.
The Registry has also confirmed that Ext-42 was translated from Bodo language to
English by PW-29 and was exhibited before the learned trial court as Ext-43. Therefore,
Page No.# 171/198
it is evident that original of Ext-42, for whatever be the reason, is not available on
record but the translated version of Ext-42 is available as Ext-43 which has also been
duly proved by its translator PW-29. Further, PW-631 has deposed that PW-29, Dr.
Bhupen Narzary had translated the letter written in Bodo language (Ext-42) to English.
He was Head of the Department of Bodo Language of Gauhati University. During the
cross-examination of PW-631, this witness could not be shaken.
238. As noted above, in his deposition PW-635 Sri Madhusudan Thapa has narrated
in details the circumstances under which the handwritten letter in Bodo language
(Ext-42), addressed to "Honourable Sir", was seized from accused Nilim Daimari along
with one Pendrive, one Mobile Handset having Bangladeshi SIM card on 02.09.2008.
The accused was arrested by the PW-635 and taken to Tura Police Station whereafter,
Tura Police Station Case No.156(9)/2008 was registered under Section 121 IPC r/w
Sections 6 and 20 of the Act of 1967. This witness has also exhibited the seizure memo
Ext-313 as well as the true copy of arrest memo of Nilim Daimari Ext-616 besides
exhibiting certified extract copy of the Case Diary Ext-617. The witness has also
categorically deposed that accused Nilim Daimari was the suspected NDFB cadre
whom he had arrested. During the cross-examination of PW-635 this witness could not
be shaken.
239. The seizure of Ext-42 from an NDFB cadre and the use of the expression
"Hounourable Sir" in that letter, according to the prosecution had clearly indicated
that the letter was addressed to the Chief of NDFB. This letter was therefore, treated
as the basis of the conspiracy theory. Having regard to the facts and circumstances
Page No.# 172/198
of the case and the bulk of other evidence available on record, we are of the
considered opinion that Ext-42 having been seized from an NDFB cadre and in view
of the contents of that letter, it was apparent that there was a conspiracy involving
the Chief of the NDFB or atleast some higher level functionary of that organisation.
Therefore, merely because the original copy of Ext-42 is not available on record that
by itself, will not cause any dent in the prosecution case in so far as the conspiracy
theory is concerned, more so in view of the evidence of PW-29, who had remained
unshaken during his cross-examination.
W) Objection as regards failure to accord proper prosecution sanction :-
240. We have already observed herein above that PW-222, who was serving as the
Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Home and Political
Department, had accorded sanction for prosecution of the accused persons under
the provisions of Sections 10, 13, 16, 18 and 20 of the Act of 1967. This witness has also
exhibited the relevant orders granting such sanction. Likewise, PW-223 had accorded
sanction to prosecute the accused persons under Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 and exhibited the sanction orders bearing his signature. PWs-
225 and 226 were the other sanctioning authorities who have deposed before the
Court confirming that prosecution sanction was granted against all the accused
persons. During their cross-examination, nothing could be brought out so as to raise a
doubt in the mind of this Court that proper prosecution sanction had not been
accorded in this case. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the submission of Mr.
Bhattacharyya that there is any defect in according prosecution sanction against the
Page No.# 173/198
accused persons in this case.
X) Objection as regards admissibility of disclosure statements and pointing out
memos under Section 27 of the Evidence Act :
241. It is the established principle of law that statements made by the accused
persons including the information given to police while in police custody cannot be
proved against the accused due to the bar created by Sections 25 and 26 of the
Evidence Act. However, Section 27 of Evidence Act is an exception to the above
rule which provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence
of information received from a person accused of any offence in the custody of
police officer, so much of such information, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby
discovered, may be proved. In order to examine the submission of the learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellants that all facts allegedly discovered by the I.O.
based on disclosure statements of the accused persons were already known to them,
we have meticulously gone through the record and find that as per deposition of PW-
646, Ext-676 is the disclosure statement of accused/appellant Indra Brahma and Exts-
677, 678 and 679 are the pointing out memos. Accused/appellant Indra Brahma had
apparently furnished information in his disclosure which had led to discovery of some
facts which have been elaborately discussed in the evidence adduced by PW-646.
Likewise, Ext-680 i.e. the disclosure statement of accused/appellant Lokhra
Basumatary and Exts-681, 682 and 683 being the pointing out memos also led to
discovery of new facts which were in the knowledge of that accused. The evidence
of PW-646 further goes to show that the discovery statement of accused/appellant
Page No.# 174/198
Khargeswar Basumatary alias Rahul Brahma (Ext-8) and the pointing out memo Ext-9,
the discovery statement of accused/appellant Mathuram Brahma alias Mudai (Ext-4)
and the pointing out memos (Exts-5, 6 and 7), the discovery statement of
accused/appellant George Boro (Ext-1) and the pointing out memo (Ext-2) have all
led to discovery of new facts which were within the exclusive knowledge of the
accused persons. It is no doubt correct that soon after the blasts took place, the
locations of the bomb blast, the fact that cars and motorbikes were used to carry out
those blast became known to all. However, there is nothing on record to show that
the specific information derived by the investigating agency from the disclosure
statement of the accused persons, referred to above, were already within the
knowledge of the CBI. The information derived from the disclosure statement of
accused/appellant George Boro (Ext-26) and the pointing out memo (Ext-27) as well
as the disclosure statement of accused/appellant Mathuram Brahma (Ext-29) as
appearing from the evidence of PW-17 do not appear to be facts already within the
knowledge of the CBI. We also find similar disclosure statements from the evidence of
PWs-20, 21 and 22 which are also to similar effect. In that view of the matter, we are
unable to agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel for the appellants
that the disclosure statements of the accused persons relied upon by the prosecution
were inadmissible in evidence.
242. In the back drop of the evidence brought on record, as discussed above, this
court is called upon to consider as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in
proving the charges brought against all the accused persons beyond reasonable
doubt.
Page No.# 175/198
243. Section 10 of the Act of 1967 makes it a penal offence for any person to be a
member of an unlawful assembly.
244. Section 15 of the Act of 1967 defines terrorist act which reads as follows:-
"Section 15 - Terrorist act. --Whoever does any act with intent to
threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of
India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or
any section of the people in India or in any foreign country,--
(a) by using bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or
inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or
poisonous or noxious gases or other chemicals or by any other
substances (whether biological radioactive, nuclear or otherwise) of a
hazardous nature or by any other means of whatever nature to cause
or likely to cause-
(i) death of, or injuries to, any person or persons; or
(ii) loss of, or damage to, or destruction of, property; or
(iii) disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life
of the community in India or in any foreign country; or
(iv) damage or destruction of any property in India or in a
foreign country used or intended to be used for the defence of
India or in connection with any other purposes of the Government
of India, any State Government or any of their agencies; or
(b) overawes by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force
or attempts to do so or causes death of any public functionary or
attempts to cause death of any public functionary; or
Page No.# 176/198
(c) detains, kidnaps or abducts any person and threatens to kill or
injure such person or does any other act in order to compel the
Government of India, any State Government or the Government of a
foreign country or any other person to do or abstain from doing any
act, commits a terrorist act."
245. As per section 16 of the Act of 1967, whoever commits a terrorist act if such act
has resulted in the death of any person, shall be punished with death or imprisonment
for life and shall also be liable for fine.
246. Section 18 of the Act of 1967 prescribed the punishment or conspiracy which is
reproduced herein below :-
"Section 18 - Punishment for conspiracy, etc.--Whoever conspires or
attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites or knowingly
facilitates the commission of, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the
commission of a terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a
term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."
247. Sections 3 and 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 read as follows :-
"3. Punishment for causing explosion likely to endanger life or property.--
Any person who unlawfully and maliciously causes by--
(a) any explosive substance an explosion of a nature likely to
endanger life or to cause serious injury to property shall, whether
any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not,
be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous
imprisonment of either description which shall not be less than (ten
Page No.# 177/198
years, and shall also be liable to fine;
(b) any special category explosive substance an explosion of a
nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious injury to property
shall, whether any injury to person or property has been actually
caused or not, be punished with death, or rigorous imprisonment
for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
4. Punishment for attempt to cause explosion, or for making or keeping
explosive with intent to endanger life or property.--Any person who
unlawfully and maliciously--
(a) does any act with intent to cause by an explosive substance or
special category explosive substance, or conspires lo cause by an
explosive substance or special category explosive substance, an
explosion of a nature likely to endanger life or to cause serious
injury to property; or
(b) makes or has in his possession or under his control any explosive
substance or special category explosive substance with intent by
means thereof to endanger life, or cause serious injury to property,
or to enable any other person by means thereof to endanger life
or cause serious injury to property in India,
shall, whether any explosion does or does not take place and whether
any injury to person or property has been actually caused or not, be
punished,--
(i) in the case of any explosive substance, with imprisonment
for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine;
(ii) in the case of any special category explosive substance,
with rigorous imprisonment for life, or with rigorous
Page No.# 178/198
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine."
248. As noticed above, the prosecution case is to the effect that the accused
persons had conspired to execute the serial bomb blasts in Assam, which was
executed in a pre-planned manner. In order to prove the charges brought against
the accused persons the prosecution has relied upon the evidence brought on
record besides the confessional statements of the accused persons. In Mohd. Khalid
vs. State of West Bengal reported in (2002) 7 SCC 334,it has been observed that in a
case of criminal conspiracy, where trust worthy evidence establishing all links of
circumstantial evidence is available, the confession of a co-accused as to
conspiracy, even without corroborative evidence, can be taken into consideration.
In some cases it can be inferred from the acts and conduct of the parties. .
249. In the case of Firozuddin Basheeruddin &Others vs State of Kerala reported in
(2001) 7 SCC 596 the Supreme Court has held that in case of conspiracy trial,
loosened standard regarding admissibility of evidence will prevail. In case of
conspiracy prosecution any declaration by one conspirator made in furtherance of a
conspiracy and during its pendency would be admissible against each conspirator.
Despite the un-reliability of hearsay evidence, it is admissible in conspiracy
prosecution. Conspirators are liable on an agency theory for statement of co-
conspirator, just as there are for the overt acts and crimes committed by their
confreres.
250. In the case of Yakub Abdul Rezak Memon vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2013)13 SCC 1 the Hon'ble Supreme Court had the occasion to further expound the
Page No.# 179/198
law pertaining to theory of agency and conspiracy. After taking note of several
previous decision of the apex on the issue, it has been held that all the conspirators
are liable for the act of each other in respect of crime or crimes which have been
committed as a result of conspiracy. Each conspirator can be attributed with the
other's action in a conspiracy so as to bring home the charge of conspiracy within
the ambit of Section 120-B IPC. It would be necessary to establish that there was an
agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful act. However, it is difficult to
establish conspiracy by direct evidence since conspiracy is hatched in secrecy. In the
above context, the observations made in paragraphs 136 to 144 would be relevant
and therefore, the same are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
"136) For an offence under Section 120-B IPC, the prosecution need not
necessarily prove that the conspirators expressly agreed to do or cause
to be done the illegal act, the agreement may be proved by necessary
implication. It is not necessary that each member of the conspiracy must
know all the details of the conspiracy. The offence can be proved
largely from the inferences drawn from the acts or illegal omission
committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design. Being
a continuing offence, if any acts or omissions which constitute an
offence are done in India or outside its territory, the conspirators
continuing to be the parties to the conspiracy and since part of the acts
were done in India, they would obviate the need to obtain the sanction
of the Central Government. All of them need not be present in India nor
continue to remain in India. The entire agreement must be viewed as a
whole and it has to be ascertained as to what in fact the conspirators
intended to do or the object they wanted to achieve. (Vide: R.K. Dalmia
vs. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821; Lennart Schussler & Anr. vs.
Director of Enforcement & Anr., (1970) 1 SCC 152; Shivanarayan
Page No.# 180/198
Laxminarayan Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, (1980) 2 SCC 465 and
Mohammad Usman Mohammad Hussain Maniyar and Another vs. State
of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 1062)
137) In Yogesh @ Sachin Jagdish Joshi vs. State of Maharashtra, (2008)
10 SCC 394, this Court held:
"25. Thus, it is manifest that the meeting of minds of two or more
persons for doing an illegal act or an act by illegal means is sine
qua non of the criminal conspiracy but it may not be possible to
prove the agreement between them by direct proof. Nevertheless,
existence of the conspiracy and its objective can be inferred from
the surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused.
But the incriminating circumstances must form a chain of events
from which a conclusion about the guilt of the accused could be
drawn. It is well settled that an offence of conspiracy is a
substantive offence and renders the mere agreement to commit
an offence punishable, even if an offence does not take place
pursuant to the illegal agreement."
138) In Nirmal Singh Kahlon vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2009 SC 984, this
Court following Ram Lal Narang vs. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1979 SC
1791, held that a conspiracy may be a general one and a separate one,
meaning thereby, a larger conspiracy and a smaller one which may
develop in successive stages.
139) In K.R. Purushothaman vs. State of Kerala, (2005) 12 SCC 631, this
Court held:
"11. Section 120-A IPC defines 'criminal conspiracy'. According to
this section when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be
done (i) an illegal act, or (ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal
means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.
....
Page No.# 181/198
13. ......The existence of conspiracy and its objects are usually
deduced from the circumstances of the case and the conduct of
the accused involved in the conspiracy."
140) In State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744, this
Court held :
"24. ......to establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge
about indulgence in either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal
means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being
made of the goods or services in question may be inferred from
the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has not to
establish that a particular unlawful use was intended......The
ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it would not be
necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the
charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had the
knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is
known that the collaborator would put the goods or service to an
unlawful use."
141) In State through Superintendent of Police, CBI/SIT vs. Nalini & Ors.,
(1999) 5 SCC 253, this Court held:
"583......(1) ....... Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception to
the general law where intent alone does not constitute crime. It is
intention to commit crime and joining hands with persons having
the same intention. Not only the intention but there has to be
agreement to carry out the object of the intention, which is an
offence. The question for consideration in a case is did all the
accused have the intention and did they agree that the crime be
committed. It would not be enough for the offence of conspiracy
when some of the accused merely entertained a wish, howsoever
horrendous it may be, that offence be committed.
Page No.# 182/198
... ...... .....
(6) It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the
common purpose at the same time. They may join with other
conspirators at any time before the consummation of the intended
objective, and all are equally responsible.....
(7) .... Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show
that each of the accused has knowledge of the object of
conspiracy but also of the agreement. In the charge of conspiracy
the court has to guard itself against the danger of unfairness to the
accused......There has to be cogent and convincing evidence
against each one of the accused charged with the offence of
conspiracy.......
(8) ...... it is the unlawful agreement and not its
accomplishment, which is the gist or essence of the crime of
conspiracy. Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even
though there is no agreement as to the means by which the
purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement which
is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful
agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or
express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the
circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the
conspirators. The agreement need not be entered into by all the
parties to it at the same time, but may be reached by successive
actions evidencing their joining of the conspiracy.
* * *
663. The agreement, sine qua non of conspiracy, may be
proved either by direct evidence which is rarely available in such
cases or it may be inferred from utterances, writings, acts,
omissions and conduct of the parties to the conspiracy which is
Page No.# 183/198
usually done. In view of Section 10 of the Evidence Act anything
said, done or written by those who enlist their support to the object
of conspiracy and those who join later or make their exit before
completion of the object in furtherance of their common intention
will be relevant facts to prove that each one of them can
justifiably be treated as a conspirator."
(See Also: Kehar Singh & Ors. vs. State (Delhi Admn.), AIR 1988 SC 1883)
142) In Firozuddin Basheeruddin & Ors. vs. State of Kerala, (2001) 7 SCC
596, this Court held:
"23. Like most crimes, conspiracy requires an act (actus reus) and
an accompanying mental state (mens rea). The agreement
constitutes the act, and the intention to achieve the unlawful
objective of that agreement constitutes the required mental
state.....The law punishes conduct that threatens to produce the
harm, as well as conduct that has actually produced it. Contrary
to the usual rule that an attempt to commit a crime merges with
the completed offence, conspirators may be tried and punished
for both the conspiracy and the completed crime. The rationale of
conspiracy is that the required objective manifestation of
disposition to criminality is provided by the act of agreement.
Conspiracy is a clandestine activity. Persons generally do not form
illegal covenants openly. In the interests of security, a person may
carry out his part of a conspiracy without even being informed of
the identity of his co-conspirators.
25. Conspiracy is not only a substantive crime, it also serves as a
basis for holding one person liable for the crimes of others in cases
where application of the usual doctrines of complicity would not
render that person liable. Thus, one who enters into a conspiratorial
Page No.# 184/198
relationship is liable for every reasonably foreseeable crime
committed by every other member of the conspiracy in
furtherance of its objectives, whether or not he knew of the crimes
or aided in their commission. The rationale is that criminal acts
done in furtherance of a conspiracy may be sufficiently
dependent upon the encouragement and support of the group as
a whole to warrant treating each member as a causal agent to
each act. Under this view, which of the conspirators committed
the substantive offence would be less significant in determining the
defendant's liability than the fact that the crime was performed as
a part of a larger division of labour to which the accused had also
contributed his efforts.
26. Regarding admissibility of evidence, loosened standards
prevail in a conspiracy trial. Contrary to the usual rule, in
conspiracy prosecutions, any declaration by one conspirator,
made in furtherance of a conspiracy and during its pendency, is
admissible against each co- conspirator. Despite the unreliability of
hearsay evidence, it is admissible in conspiracy prosecutions.........
27. Thus conspirators are liable on an agency theory for
statements of co-conspirators, just as they are for the overt acts
and crimes committed by their confreres."
(See also: State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11
scc 600)
143) In Ram Narayan Popli vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2003) 3
SCC 641, this Court held:
"342.........The elements of a criminal conspiracy have been stated
to be: (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme
embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement
or understanding between two or more of the accused persons
Page No.# 185/198
whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate for the
accomplishment of the object by the means embodied in the
agreement, or by any effectual means, and (d) in the jurisdiction
where the statute required an overt act. The essence of a criminal
conspiracy is the unlawful combination and ordinarily the offence
is complete when the combination is framed. From this, it
necessarily follows that unless the statute so requires, no overt act
need be done in furtherance of the conspiracy, and that the
object of the combination need not be accomplished, in order to
constitute an indictable offence. Law making conspiracy a crime
is designed to curb immoderate power to do mischief which is
gained by a combination of the means. The encouragement and
support which co-conspirators give to one another rendering
enterprises possible which, if left to individual effort, would have
been impossible, furnish the ground for visiting conspirators and
abettors with condign punishment. The conspiracy is held to be
continued and renewed as to all its members wherever and
whenever any member of the conspiracy acts in furtherance of
the common design."
144) In Mohd. Khalid vs. State of West Bengal, (2002) 7 SCC 334, this
Court held:
"27. Where trustworthy evidence establishing all links of
circumstantial evidence is available the confession of a co-
accused as to conspiracy even without corroborative evidence
can be taken into consideration."
251. Yakub Abdul Razak Memon (supra) relates to the Bombay blasts of 1993. The
charges in that case was framed against the main accused persons under the TADA
Page No.# 186/198
read with sections 120-B, 302, 307, 326 324, 427 435, 436, 201 of the IPC read with
section 3 and 4 of the Explosive substances Act,1908 read with section 3,7 25 (1-A)
and 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act 1959 r/w section 16(a)/17 to 20 and 23 of the UAPA
r/w section 4,5 and 6 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 r/w
section 10 and 30 of the Indian Evidence Act.
252. From a careful analysis of the evidence available on record, we find that the
fact that the NDFB was a banned organization and an unlawful association has been
cogently established from the testimonies of PWs-457 and 646 as well as the Exts-314
and 656. Moreover, the first schedule of the Act of 1967 also lends support to the said
position. The fact that NDFB was indulging in terrorist activities also stands established
from the above evidence adduced by the prosecution.
253. PW-302 has deposed that he knew Ranjan Daimari who was the Chairman of
NDFB. His testimony on the above count has remained un-rebutted.
254. PWs 499 and 502 have deposed as the regards the manner in which the e-
mails of Ranjan Daimari was opened and materials showing his links to NDFB and the
active armed rebellion, were retrieved therefrom. PW-502 has exhibited the print outs
from the e-mail account of Ranjan Daimari. The testimonies of PWs 499 and 502 have
also remained un-impeached.
255. As noted above, the occurrence of the bomb blasts on 30.10.2008 is not in
Page No.# 187/198
dispute. The fact that all the nine bomb blasts took place in a short span of about
ten minutes time causing large scale devastation to human lives and properties has
been cogently established from the evidence of the relatives of the victims, injured
witnesses, persons who had suffered losses and from the evidence of the medical
officers. From the evidence of ballistic experts PWs-547 and 620, the nature of the
blasts have been established. The manner in which the serial blasts took off at
different places in the State of Assam leaves no room for doubt that the same was
the handiwork of the some person(s) or organization. Unless there was a concerted
effort on the part of a number of persons, blasts of this intensity, in multiple locations
would not be possible. As such, the fact that the bomb blasts were the outcome of a
criminal conspiracy is self evident and the prosecution has also adduced sufficient
evidence to establish the said fact. From the materials available on record, there can
be no element of doubt about the fact that the sole purpose behind the blasts was
to cause terror and thereby challenge the sovereignty, unity and integrity of the
country.
256. From the testimony of the FSL experts more particularly PWs- 547, 567, 606, 649
and 650 it has been established that deadly explosive substances such as Tri
Notrotoluene (TNT), Cyclotrimethelyn Tri Nitramine (RDX) and Ammonium Nitrate were
used in the blasts. These explosive substances are not available openly and only the
members of a banned terrorist organization such as the NDFB could have procured
those explosive substances with foreign help.
Page No.# 188/198
257. It has come out from the evidence of PW-646 that the blasts were orchestrated
by accused Ranjan Daimari and the explosives were obtained from Bangladesh.
Instructions to carry out the blasts was sent by Ranjan Daimari. A cadre of NDFB Nilim
Daimari was arrested by the Tura Police from Meghalaya along with a letter written
by John in Bodo language along with a pen drive. PW-635 had arrested Nilim Daimari
along with the letter and a pen drive. The said letter was later translated from Bodo
language to English by PW-29 wherefrom it transpired that the same was addressed
to a high functionary in the NDFB. Going by the language employed in the letter, it is
believed that the same was addressed to Ranjan Daimari. In any event, terrorist
activities of such scale and intensity could not have been given effect to in a pre-
planned manner by the members of the NDFB without the active support and
connivance of the Chief of the organization. PW-606 had examined the pen drive
seized from Nilim Daimari. He has deposed that the pen drive contained materials
regarding manufacture of explosive devices, writings about NDFB and how to
establish a self sustainable Bodo Nation.
258. PW-646 has deposed that investigation had revealed that a meeting of NDFB
cadres was held on 19.10.2008 in presence of Ajay Basumatary, John, Rahul Brahma,
Rifikhang, Dinthilang and Ulafat wherein it was told that accused Ranjan Daimari had
given instruction to carry out nine bomb blast on 30.10.2008. The above testimony of
PW-646 finds due corroboration from the confessional statement of accused Ajay
Basumatary. PW-646 has also deposed in details about the manner in which the
Page No.# 189/198
explosions were executed with the help of the active NDFB cadres.
259. The prosecution has also examined the vehicle owners, more particularly PWs-
61, 62, 67 and 387 to prove that a number of vehicles were used in the blasts. The
evidence of these witnesses, read with the testimonies of PWs- 82, 94, 357, 358, 468,
473, 474, 483, 486 throw sufficient light on the conspiracy theory involving the NDFB
cadres.
260. The evidence of the other prosecution witnesses read in conjunction with the
testimonies of the CBI Officials viz., PWs 624,641,642,631, along with the testimonies of
PWs-302, 499, 502, 503, 504, 506, 536, 590 and 646 have clearly established the fact
that the nine bomb blasts were executed on 30.08.2008 by the NDFB cadres under
the instructions of its Chairman Ranjan Daimari.
261. The evidence adduced by PWs-15, 16, 17, 29, 30, 49, 50, 367, 371, 512, 578, 579,
610 and 616 have also implicated accused/appellant George Boro. A careful
analysis of the evidence adduced by these witnesses leave no room for doubt that
he was an active member of the NDFB and one of the key facilitators of the bomb
blasts that took place on 30.10.2008. It has also been established beyond doubt from
the evidence brought on record that accused George Boro had a decisive role in
the execution of the blasts. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the charges brought
against the accused/appellant George Boro have also been established by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
262. In so far as the accused/appellant Khargeswar Basumatary alias Rahul Brahma
is concerned, we find that PWs-22, 58, 59, 64, 67, 68, 533, 587, 617 and 618 have
Page No.# 190/198
implicated this accused by ascribing specific role to him. Likewise, PWs-61,62, 67, 68,
182, 387, 398, 399, 400, 466, 475, 489, 547, 582, 584, 585, 586, 587 and 621 have
implicated accused/appellant Raju Sarkar. From an analysis of the evidence brought
on record, it is clearly established that appellant Raju Sarkar was working as a
mechanic in a garage and he had purchased the Maruti Suzuki car from PW-67 Bipin
Chandra Rajbongshi on 24.08.2008 i.e. just a few days before the blast. The Maruti
Suzuki car was used in the bomb blast with a fake number plate. From the evidence
available on record, it is established beyond doubt that the accused /appellant
Khargeswar Basumatary alias Rahul Brahma and Raju Sarkar had played an active
role in facilitating the bomb blasts with full knowledge and understanding that the
acts undertaken by them were unlawful. Therefore, we are of the opinion that
charges brought against these accused persons had been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
263. In so far as accused/appellant Prabhat Boro alias Tepa is concerned, the
evidence adduced by PWs-46, 47, 51, 57, 176, 382, 386 and 683, as discussed herein
above, read with the other evidence brought on record have clearly established the
charges brought against this accused person beyond reasonable doubt. Likewise,
the charge brought against accused/appellant Mathuram Brahma has also been
established from the evidence of PWs-17, 20, 21 and 646. We are also of the opinion
that the charge brought against accused/appellant Rajendra Goyari alias Rifikhang
and accused/appellant Ajay Basumatary has been not only been established by the
evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses but the confessional statement of
these accused Ajay Basumatary also lends assurance to such evidence brought on
Page No.# 191/198
record by the prosecution. We, therefore, hold that the confessional statement of
Ajay Basumatary is duly corroborated by the other evidence brought on record. Ajay
Basumatary being a co-accused and a co-conspirator, his statement had been
rightly relied upon by the learned trial court.
264. In his confessional statement, Ajay Basumatary has stated that on 27.10.2008,
Baisagi Basumatary @ Bithurai, a female member of the NDFB had brought a L.P.G
cylinder to John's room. The cylinder was filled with some gunpowder like substance.
The evidence available on record goes to show that the L.P.G cylinder was used in
the blast. From the above, it is apparent that appellant Baisagi was an active
member of the NDFB and was a part of the conspiracy. On the basis of his
investigation, PW-646 has also deposed that the explosive laden cylinder used for
carrying out the blast was given to John on 29.10.2008 by Baisagi Basumatary @
Bithurai. In view of the law laid down in the case of Mohd. Khalid vs State (supra), on
the face of the bulk of trustworthy evidence brought on record by the prosecution to
establish the conspiracy theory leading to the serial bomb blasts, we are of the view
that the confessional statement of Ajay Basumatary would be sufficient to convict
Baisagi Basumatary even without any other corroborative evidence.
265. Having regard to the bulk of evidence brought on record, we are of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing each link in
the chain of circumstances to prove that the nine bomb blast that took place on
30.10.2008 was the outcome of the conspiracy hatched by the appellants Ranjan
Daimari, George Boro @ Jhon, Ajay Basumatary, Rahul Brahma, Rajendra Goyari,
Page No.# 192/198
Raju Sarkar, Mathuram Brahma, Baisagi Basumatary, Prabhat Boro and Nilim Daimari.
We find that there is cogent evidence available on record to show that above
named appellant/accused persons were in a conspiratorial relationship and have
acted in a concerted manner to execute the nine bomb blasts leading to the
carnage. There is trustworthy evidence available on record to establish all the links in
the chain of circumstances to prove the charge brought against each of those
appellant/ accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, by applying the
ratio laid down in the case Yakub Abdul Rezak Memon(supra), we are of the opinion
that the conviction and sentences awarded by the learned trial court to the above
named appellants/ accused persons do not call for any interference from this court.
However, in so far as the accused/appellants Onsai Boro @ Ajit Boro, Lokhra
Basumatary @ Lobo, Indra Bhramha and Jayanti Brahma @ Jugami are concerned,
after scanning the evidence, we find that evidence on record is insufficient to
conclude that the charges brought against them have also been proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
266. In so far as accused Onsai Boro alias Ajit Boro is concerned, we have already
held that his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. cannot be held to be a
confessional statement in as much as accused Onsai Boro has merely admitted to
have met Ranjan Daimari and thereafter, asked Indra Brahma and Lokhra
Basumatary to search for a bike. From his statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it is
evident that after the ceasefire in the year 2004, Onsai Basumatary had started to live
in the designated camp or in rented house with his wife thereby signifying that he was
no longer an active member of the NDFB. This accused has also stated that he was
Page No.# 193/198
unhappy with the fact that he was called to Dhaka. From the statement of Onsai
Boro recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C (Ext- 489 ) we do not find anything to
indicate that he was aware of the design of the NDFB to execute the bomb blast with
the help of the motor cycle. There is no other evidence available on record to
establish that Onsai Boro was a part of the conspiracy.
267. From a reading of the impugned judgment of the trial court, we find that the
learned court below has taken note of confessional statement of Onsai Boro as well
as the evidence of Dashrath Basumatary (PW-488), Sunwary Boro (PW-493) and
Kamal Kumar Banthia (PW-645) to hold that the charge brought against the accused
Onsai Boro alias Ajit Boro has been established beyond reasonable doubt. However,
on a careful reading of the testimonies of PWs-488, 493 and 645 we do not find any
incriminating materials so as to establish that Onsai Boro had committed an offence
punishable under Sections 120-B and 302 of the IPC, Section 3(b) of the Explosive
Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10(b)(i) and 16(1)(a) of the Act of 1967.
268. Likewise, we find that except the statement of accused Onsai Boro recorded
under section 164 CrPC, there is nothing to implicate the appellant Lokhra
Basumartary alias Lobo. Accused Onsai Boro had merely referred to Lokhra
Basumatary as one of the persons whom he had asked for help in the purchase of a
motorcycle. Finding a motor cycle, by itself, would not amount to any unlawful
activity. There is nothing on record to show that appellant Lokhra Basumatary had, in
the process of purchase of the motor cycle, agreed to facilitate the bomb blasts or
indulged in any unlawful activity. There is no evidence to prove the knowledge and
Page No.# 194/198
intent on the part of this appellant to commit an offence punishable under the law.
The learned trial court has convicted accused Lokhra Basumatary merely by taking
note of the fact that this accused went absconding after the bomb blasts. However,
there is no substantive evidence available on record permitting the court to come to
a conclusion that Lokhra Basumatary was guilty of any of the offences alleged to
have been committed by him. Merely because the accused was absconding after
the bomb blasts, the same, in our, opinion, cannot be a valid ground to convict this
accused for the charges brought against him. We are, therefore, of the opinion that
the evidence on record is insufficient to prove the charge brought against this
appellant of having committed offences punishable under Sections 326, 324, 435 IPC,
Sections 3(b) and 4(a)(b)(ii) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 10, 13, 16 and
20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
269. In so far as accused/appellant Indra Brahma is concerned, here also we find
that the conviction of the appellant is based on testimonies of PWs-488, 493, 495 and
645. However, as noted above, from the testimony of PW-488 we find that Sunwary
Boro (PW-493) had merely asked accused/ appellant Indra Brahma to look for a
customer to purchase the motorcycle and accordingly this accused had informed
Sunwary Boro that a person will purchase the motor cycle. After some time, a healthy
person arrived there and took way the motorcycle by paying some money. Sunwary
Boro (PW-493) has also corroborated the said fact by deposing that he had asked
accused Indra Brahma over mobile phone as to whether anybody would purchase
the motorcycle. He has also deposed that Indra Brahma had arranged for a
customer who took away the motorcycle. . The evidence of PWs-495 and 645 does
Page No.# 195/198
not in any way implicate accused/appellant Indra Brahma in commission of an
offence punishable under the law. The identity of the 'healthy person' has not been
established. If that be so, merely on the basis of testimonies of PWs-488 and 493, this
accused cannot be convicted for facilitating the serial bomb blasts. We are,
therefore, of the view that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove the charge
brought against this appellant of having committed offences punishable under
Sections 326, 324, 435 IPC, Sections 3(b) and 4(a)(b)(ii) of the Explosive Substances
Act, 1908 and 10, 13, 16 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
270. After examining the evidence brought on record we find that the prosecution
has failed to establish the conspiratorial relationship between the accused/ appellant
Onsai Boro, Lokhra Basumatary and Indra Brahma either amongst themselves or
between any of them and the co-conspirators or even the fact that they were active
members of the NDFB at the relevant point of time. These appellants had evidently
played a role in the sale/purchase of the motor cycle used in the blast, and to that
extent, their disclosure statements pertaining the manner in which the transaction was
carried out may be relevant. However, in the absence of any evidence to establish
the role of these persons in the conspiracy leading to the serial bomb blasts, they
cannot be convicted merely on the basis of disclosure statements and pointing out
memos even if it is held that they had a role to play in the purchase/ sale of a motor
cycle which was used in the blast. On the contrary, there is reasonable doubt as to
their involvement in the conspiracy.
271. In so far as accused Jayanti Brahma alias Jugami is concerned, here also we
Page No.# 196/198
find that she was convicted by the learned trial court merely on the ground that she
was absconding after the bomb blasts and later arrested during the course of
investigation. The learned trial court has also taken note of the fact that the name of
Jugami was mentioned in the letter written by George Boro "Ext-42" wherein, it was
reflected that she was staying with "Ulafat Sir". Save and except the above, there is
no other material available on record to prove that accused Jyanti Brahma alias
Jugami was guilty of the offences with which she had been charged. Ajay
Basumatary or Onsai Boro have also not mentioned about her in their statements.
Under the circumstances, even assuming that the name of Jayanti Brahma alias
Jugami finds mention in the letter "Ext-42" even then, in the absence of any other
evidence available on record to indicate that this appellant was an active member
of the NDFB at the relevant point of time and that she did play the role of a facilitator
in execution of the bomb blasts, her conviction for committing such serious offence,
merely because she went absconding after the bomb blast , in our view, would not
be sustainable in the eye of law.
272. We are conscious of the fact that the prosecution has alleged conspiracy on
the part of the chief of NDFB Ranjan Daimary and its active members in execution of
the blasts and to that extent, it may not be possible to find direct evidence to
establish the charge brought under section 120-B of the IPC. However, it is the salutary
principle of law that in a criminal trial, the prosecution must succeed in establishing
the charge brought against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt by
leading cogent evidence.
Page No.# 197/198
273. Mr. Bhattacharyya, learned senior counsel for the appellants, has relied upon
several decisions of the Supreme Court, as noticed above, in support of his argument
that there is no evidence brought on record to prove the charges against any of the
appellants; that proper procedure was not followed while recording the confessional
statement of the accused persons; that the accused is not bound by its pleadings;
that the disclosure statement and the pointing out memos exhibited by the
prosecution do not have any evidentiary value, that the conviction is based on
statement of the witnesses recorded under section 164 CrPC, yet, for the reasons
mentioned herein above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of this
case, we are unable to agree with such submission of Mr. Bhattacharyya. As such,
we are of the considered opinion that the decisions relied upon by the learned
senior counsel for the appellants in support of his above arguments would not have
any bearing in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
274. In the result, the Criminal Appeal Nos.195/2019 and 154/2019 are allowed in
part. The conviction of accused/appellant Onsai Boro, accused/appellant Lokhra
Basumatary, accused/appellant Indra Brahma and accused/appellant Jayanti
Brahma as well as the sentences awarded to them by the learned trial court are
hereby set aside by giving them the benefit of doubt. We, however, uphold and
confirm the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trail court to the
remaining appellants/ accused persons.
275. Since appellants Raju Sarkar and Baisagi Basumatary are out on bail, they are
directed to surrender before the learned trial court within 10 (ten) days from today. In
Page No.# 198/198
so far as appellants Onsai Boro, Indra Brahma and Lokhra Basumatary are
concerned, their bail bonds would stand discharged.
273. Appellant Jayanti [email protected] Jugami is in jail, therefore, she be forthwith
released if her custodial detention is not deemed to be necessary in connection with
any other proceeding.
Registry to send back the LCR.
JUDGE JUDGE
T U Choudhury/ Sr. PS
Comparing Assistant
