2006 Mumbai blasts: How a clutch of ellipses weakened police case before HC
HC flagged blind use of ellipsis in police letters regarding recording of accused confession; concluded DCPs, meant to be witnesses to confessions, merely copied them from one format
A series of similar-looking ellipses in correspondence between Maharashtra police officers about the recording of confessional statements of accused in the probe into the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case is what prompted the Bombay High Court to suspect the veracity of the documents prepared by Mumbai Police, and order the acquittal of all the 12 accused on July 21.
The Supreme Court, however, on Wednesday (July 24) stayed the high court’s verdict, citing the Maharashtra government’s concern that it could adversely impact several pending trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA).
The high court, in its July 21 verdict, had set aside the September 2015 judgment of a special MCOCA court wherein five accused persons were awarded death sentence and seven others were sentenced to life imprisonment.
Also read: SC stays Bombay HC's acquittal of 2006 Mumbai train blasts accused
A total of 189 people had lost their lives and over 800 others sustained injuries in seven synchronised blasts in Mumbai local trains on July 11, 2006. Kamal Ansari, the Accused Number 1 in the case, died during the hearing of the appeal due to COVID complications while in jail.
DCPs as witnesses
Unlike other criminal cases, in MCOCA matters, confessional statements recorded before a police officer are also considered as evidence during trial, and hence, the courts put them under strict judicial scrutiny to ensure whether all the procedures were followed while recording them. The courts also weigh whether there was an element of coercion in recording statements. And it happened in the 7/11 train blasts case, too.
According to MCOCA provisions, confessional statements can be recorded only before an officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP), who is typically an Indian Police Service officer. Under the Commissionerate system, where the police force is headed by a commissioner of police (as seen in Mumbai or Delhi), an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP) is equivalent to the rank of SP. All these officers act as prosecution witnesses in MCOCA cases and confirm, in person, before the trial court, that they have followed all due procedures in recording the confessional statements of the accused without any pressure or coercion from the police.
Ellipses that weakened case
The judgement shows, among other deficiencies in the police case against the accused, that it was the use of ellipsis that eclipsed the case of the Maharashtra Police as well.
While acquitting all 12 accused persons, the high court bench of Justices Anil S Kilor and Shyam C Chandak grammatically explained in its judgement: “Whenever three dots are used in any sentence like ‘...’, it is called an ‘ellipsis’, which signifies that the sentence was originally longer, and the omitted portion is not part of the quoted text. In informal writing, it can represent a pause, hesitation, or an incomplete thought.”
Also read: 2006 Mumbai blasts: How acquitted Wahid Shaikh continued to fight for justice
The court reproduced magnified images of six prosecution exhibits (numbers 1224, 1244, 1245, 1225, 1116, 1077), which were part of the correspondence between police officers, to bring the point home on the mysterious “dots”.
Statements prepared by ATS: Defence
The defence counsels had argued in the trial court that while recording confessional statements, all the seven DCPs committed common mistakes, did common changes and additions and “by this the only inference can be drawn is that all the confessional statements were prepared by the ATS (Anti-Terrorist Squad) officers (who investigated the case) in the ATS office and were supplied to the DCPs only for signing”.
The defence counsels alleged that the accused were taken to the DCPs only to get their signatures and make a record in the police station that they were brought to the DCPs for recording of the confessional statement.
Trial court dismissed ‘loopholes’
But the trial court termed these as a “minor thing”.
The trial court said: “The letters sent by the DCPs are on their letter pads bearing the logo of Brihanmumbai Police, and the possibility of soft copy of format of letters being provided cannot be ruled out. However, only on the basis of such commonality, it would be preposterous to draw the conclusion that the confessional statements themselves are fabricated and were dictated or prepared by a single authority.”
Also read: 7/11 Mumbai train blasts: HC acquits all 12 accused; says prosecution 'utterly failed'
DCPs wrote similar letters: HC
But the high court differed on the issue.
“…Learned Special Court not only ignored and discarded the doubt about the genuineness in following the procedure by the DCPs in recording Part-I and Part-II (of the confessional statements) but held contrary to a well settled law.”
The high court pointed out that one of the letters (Exhibit number 1244) written by then DCP Ashutosh Dumbre (who recorded one of the confessional statements) to the chief investigation officer (ACP Sadashiv Patil) of the case, directing him to produce Accused Number 10, Suhail Sheikh, in the case for recording his confessional statement, was almost same as another letter (Exhibit number 1224). In Exhibit number 1224, the then DCP Brijesh Singh (who also recorded a confessional statement) had directed the chief investigating officer to produce Accused Number 12, Naveed Khan, for recording his confession.
The high court noted that Exhibit number 1244, a letter by then DCP Ashutosh Dumbre to chief investigation officer (ACP Sadashiv Patil), directing him to produce Accused Number 10 for recording his confessional statement, was almost the same as Exhibit number 1224, including the use of ellipsis. Photo: The Federal
'DCP Dumbre couldn't explain ellipsis'
The high court noted in its order that in his deposition in the trial court, Dumbre admitted that the contents of the letters were similar, except the particulars of the accused, the inward number, and the outward number, reference. The format of the letters is similar.
The high court said Dumbre could not explain why there were some dots after the word 'statement' in the subject column in Exhibit 1244. Similar dots were there in Exhibit 1224, although the number of dots was different.
“Similar dots are there in Ext.1245 (Letter from Prosecution witness or PW-186 Chief I.O. to PW-118 (Dumbre) to take custody of accused (number) 10). He agrees that several dots are not necessary after the word 'statement'. PW-118 admits that similar dots are there after the word 'statement' in Exh.1225 (Letter from PW-186 Chief I.O. to PW-117 DCP (Brijesh) Singh to take custody of Accused (number) 12), which are unnecessary. He denies that the ACP (Assistant Commissioner of Police), ATS provided him with the letters that he says he prepared in his office,” the court said.
‘Officers didn’t apply mind, copied format’
The high court also noted that in Exhibits 1224 and 1177 (letter from PW-113, the then DCP VK Choubey to the chief investigating officer, directing him to produce Accused Number 1, Kamal Ansari, for confession), there were five dots, whereas, in Exhibits 1244, 1245, 1225, and 1016 (letter from PW-102, the then DCP Sanjay Mohite to the chief investigating officer, directing him to produce Accused Number 2, Tanveer Ansari for confession), there were four dots.
Also read: Coimbatore serial blasts mastermind dead, police deployed for funeral
The justices said it was clear from the text that it had no relevance given the described usage of such dots (ellipsis).
“Thus, it only depicts the non-application of mind of the DCPs while possibly copying the text and the dots in it without examining whether such dots have any relevance at the place where they are used. This further brings these documents and other documents under the shadow of doubt whether it is prepared by someone else than the concerned DCPs,” the court ruled.
