‘Eyewitnesses recalled faces after 100 days, how,' ask judges

Time of India

6 days ago

Mumbai: The Bombay HC ripped apart the trustworthiness of the prosecution's witnesses in the blasts case and held that the special executive officer (SEO) who conducted the test identification parade—a primary step following the arrest of an accused—lacked the authority to do so.
HC pointed out that two cabbies who claimed to have taken two accused, both alleged planters, to Churchgate station; and four eyewitnesses who claimed to see the accused planting bombs in the trains were silent for over 100 days, which, the court said, was "very abnormal." The court said that with minimum interaction, it was doubtful the the cabbies could identify the accused duo after 100 days, reports Swati Deshpande.
The identification parade of various accused in the 11/7 train blasts case was conducted by two special special executive officers or SEOs, one of whom ceased to hold the post in 2005. The Bombay high court said in its judgment that the prosecution failed to bring any evidence on record to show that he continued to be the SEO when the test identification parade was conducted by him on Nov 7, 2006. Hence, the identification of three accused—all alleged planters—stands vitiated and is discarded, it stated.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
American Investor Warren Buffett Recommends: 5 Books For Turning Your Life Around
Blinkist: Warren Buffett's Reading List
Undo
You Can Also Check:
Mumbai AQI
|
Weather in Mumbai
|
Bank Holidays in Mumbai
|
Public Holidays in Mumbai
However, prosecution witnesses can identify accused in court during the trial, but the high court found such identification lacked the credibility it needed.
The HC said the first of six categories of eyewitnesses produced by the prosecution against the accused were two taxi drivers who took two accused, both alleged planters, to Churchgate station; they identified the accused. A total of eight witnesses identified the accused in test identification parades and also in court.
Apart from the two taxi drivers, four claimed to have seen the accused planting the bombs in the trains.
The seventh one claimed that he saw the accused preparing bombs, and the eighth said he saw the hatching of the conspiracy and identified the accused in court. One witness claimed to have seen the suspects after they alighted from the train. His statement helped in creating two sketches, but he was not asked to identify the accused in court, the HC noted.
The HC underscored the part of the brain that helps with face recognition. It said Mumbai cabbies operate in a "manner distinct" from others in India. A passenger states where he wishes to go, and a taxi driver either agrees or disagrees. There is hardly any chance for any taxi driver to have a long interaction with any passenger and to have sufficient and ample opportunity to notice and observe the passengers and their faces, and to store the same in memory for a long period, unless there is some special reason (to do so).
The court said neither cabbie went to the police for over 100 days. The defence said they are "got up witnesses." The high court said that with minimum interaction, it was doubtful they could identify the accused duo after 100 days.
Accounts of the other four eyewitnesses who claimed to see the accused planting bombs in the trains were discarded by the high court, as three of them were in the test identification parade conducted by the SEO who lacked power. Also, for over 100 days, they too were silent, a fact that the high court said was "very abnormal," and they identified the accused in court after over four years. The high court found no special reason for their ability to recollect the faces after "such a long period.
"