Court rejects 1993 Mumbai blasts accused's pleas against use of past confessions

A special court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) has rejected two applications filed by the accused who sought that statements recorded in the first phase of the 1993 Mumbai serial blasts case should not be considered in the present phase of the trial. The court held that the change of judge did not reopen or re-adjudicate legal issues.

In the 1993 bomb blast case, Mohd Shoeb Qureshi and Mohd Yusuf Ismail Shaikh are among the seven accused who are currently facing trial before the special court in Mumbai, while previously two separate phases of trials have concluded against over 190, including Yakub Memon, Abu Salem, Mustafa Dossa and many others between 1993 and 2017.

Many crucial evidence was given to the court in the first phase. Later, during the second phase of the trial, eight accused, including Abu Salem and Mustafa Dosa were tried. At that time, some accused had filed an application stating that confessions recorded during the first phase should not be relied upon by the prosecution.

The lawyers representing Qureshi and Shaikh argued that under Section 15 of the TADA Act and Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, such confessions could only be used if the accused were charged and tried jointly. Since the applicants were arrested only in 2022 and brought into the case later, they maintained that they were not part of those joint trials.

Special Public Prosecutor Deepak Salvi opposed the plea, arguing that the applicants were "main conspirators" who attended meetings in Dubai with underworld don Dawood Ibrahim and underwent arms training in Pakistan.

Salvi submitted that similar objections had been raised and dismissed in the second phase of the trial by the special court, and the appeals from that time were still pending in the Supreme Court.

Rejecting the applications, Special Judge VD Kedar observed that in the second phase, the court has rejected this very request.

The judge ruled that confessions proved in earlier trials remained admissible, stressing that judicial discipline prohibited re-litigation of the same issues before a coordinate bench.

The court, accordingly, dismissed both applications, holding them devoid of merit.

- Ends

Tune In