The post-conviction proceedings on sentencing in the 7/11 case took an unusual turn on Tuesday with the defence fielding an accused in the 2011 Mumbai triple blasts case to depose for a convict in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings.

A special MCOCA court, which convicted 12 of the 13 accused in the serial train blasts cases last week, is yet to pass an order on their sentence. The court has allowed the defence to call witnesses to lead evidence on mitigating circumstances, an aspect which is to be considered when charges attract the maximum punishment of death.

Nadeem Akhtar, accused in the Zaveri Bazar blast — part of the July 13 triple blasts that rocked south and central Mumbai in 2011 — and who is lodged in the high-security ‘anda cell’ of Mumbai’s Arthur Road jail, testified in favour of convict Ehtesham Siddiqui’s good conduct and helpful nature.

Nadeem told the court that he met Ehtesham in jail and was surprised by his helpful nature.

“He [Ehtesham] used to give good suggestions and moral support. He had polite manners. He studied himself and inspired 25-30 inmates to pursue education and guided them about the syllabi and RTI applications. He would speak of Mahatma Gandhi. He used to give guidance to the jail staff on RTI and other matters. He was helpful to members from all communities,” Nadeem said.

He described the condition of the ‘anda cell’ as the defence felt the “hardship in jail is a mitigating circumstance”.

Nadeem told the court that the cell had no air, light, sound, ventilation or greenery. There were four barracks at the jail and each of them had several cells.

“The jail had a capacity of 800 to 850 people, but there are about 3,000 inmates. Sanitation and toilet facilities are poor and not enough water is available. The jail staff does not talk to the inmates of the ‘anda cell’,” he said.

Three more witnesses, brothers of Asif Bashir Khan and Tanvir Ansari and wife of Mohammad Shafi, deposed before the court. The family members vouched for the good character and innocence of the convicted, but the court expressed doubts over whether these can be considered as mitigating circumstances. Judge Y.D. Shinde said only strong circumstantial evidence of poverty in the family, depravity and medical condition could be taken into account.