1993 blasts case: Confessions recorded previously can be used in current trial, says court

Shoeb Qureshi and Mohammed Yusuf, among the seven facing trial now, recently filed pleas to not permit the use of those confessions against them. At least 34 confessions were recorded in the first stage of the trial.

There have been two separate trials in the blasts case. The trial in the first chargesheet filed against the accused including Yakub Memon concluded in 2007. The second trial against accused including Abu Salem, Mustafa Dossa and others concluded in 2017. The case relates to 12 bomb explosions that rocked Mumbai on March 12 in 1993, killing 257 and leaving 713 injured.

Special Judge V D Kedar said that the previous judge had already allowed the use of the confessions against the second set of accused and change in the judge alone does not amount to change in circumstances or law.

“…my learned predecessor in court in second part of the trial has already dealt with the same issues and ruled that confessions of co-accused recorded in first part of the trial would be used against co-accused in subsequent part of the trial and as the issues are sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in appeals preferred by accused in second part of the trial, I do not find merits in the prayers made by accused Nos.150 and 151 vide these two separate applications,” the court said on Wednesday.

Accused from the previous trial have challenged the pleas before the Supreme Court and it is yet to be decided.
The two current accused, arrested in 2022, in their recent plea through their lawyers Ayush Pasbola and Rohin Chauhan had raised the issue that since the accused whose confessions were recorded under the now repealed Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) were part of a different trial, the confessions cannot be considered as evidence against them.

The CBI through special public prosecutor Deepak Salvi opposed the plea stating that the special court had already decided on the use of confessions in the previous trial. The court had then said that the accused were absconding and cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong. “The accused facing the trial before me, after committing the wrong, by avoiding respecting the process of the court, want and expect this court to give them clean chit by eschewing the admissible evidence in the form of the confessions from consideration against them,” the court had said in the earlier trial.