The Mumbai court recently rejected the plea filed by Ehtesham Siddiqui, the convict in the 2006 Mumbai serial train blasts, seeking to action against three prosecution witnesses.
Therefore, he claimed that the witnesses falsely testified in the case leading to his conviction.
Ehtesham Siddiqui, an alleged SIMI member, was sentenced to death in October 2015, along with 4 others, for their involvement in the 2006 serial bomb blasts that killed 188 people.
Presently, Siddiqui is lodged in Nagpur Central Jail and filed the application under Section 340 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) along with certain documents.
There he contended that after delivery of judgment, if documents establishing the falsity of evidence of a witness are brought to the notice of the court, then only the Court is competent to proceed under section 340 of CrPC.
Claiming that Siddiqui got evidence about certain witnesses on the basis of whose statements he and others were sentenced to death by the court.
Therefore, he claimed that the documents submitted along with this application would prove the falsity of the deposition of those witnesses.
The prosecution then opposed Siddiqui’s application, stating that the trial in the case lasted for 7 years and 192 witnesses were examined by them, while the defense examined 51 people. During this entire exercise, Siddiqui got ample opportunity, but nothing was brought on record to discredit the evidentiary value of the prosecution witnesses, the prosecution said, adding that the application was filed at a “belated stage”.
The special judge AM Patil, noted after hearing both sides that the court passed the judgment appreciating the evidence on record.
The judge said that, “Now, after seven years, Siddiqui filed this application and prayed to initiate action against the respondents number 1 to 3 (prosecution witnesses) under section 340 of CrPc. There is no explanation as to the delay in filing this application.”
There, the judge looked through each of the evidence put forth by Siddiqui regarding each of the witnesses and noted that the issues were being pointed out now, thus, have been addressed during the trial.
Further, the judge added that “In such circumstances, it is seen that the present application is devoid of any merit and thus it needs to be rejected.”
