Maharashtra moves Supreme Court challenging acquittal of 2006 Mumbai blasts accused
The Supreme Court has listed the petition for hearing on Thursday.
On Monday, the High Court acquitted the 12 men accused in the case, holding that the prosecution had 'utterly failed' in establishing their guilt. This came nearly 10 years after a special court had sentenced five of them to death and others to life imprisonment.
The case pertains to the serial blasts that took place on July 11, 2006, in which seven bombs exploded in suburban trains on Mumbai's Western Railway line, killing 189 persons and injuring 824.
Following a trial under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, a special court had in October 2015 convicted the 12 persons.
The five persons who had been sentenced to death by the trial court are Kamal Ansari, Mohammad Faisal Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui, Naveed Hussain Khan and Asif Khan. All had been held guilty of planting the bombs.
Kamal Ansari died in 2021 due to Covid-19 while in the Nagpur Central Jail.
The seven others who had been sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court are Tanveer Ahmed Ansari, Mohammed Majid Shafi, Shaikh Mohammed Ali Alam, Mohammed Sajid Margub Ansari, Muzzammil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, Suhail Mehmood Shaikh and Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh.
On Monday, a special High Court bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandar overturned the convictions stating that the prosecution had failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. It ordered the accused men to be released from jail if they were not required in any other case.
Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis had described the verdict as 'shocking' and said that the state government would challenge it in the Supreme Court, the Hindustan Times reported.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
36 minutes ago
- India Today
Plea in Supreme Court seeks sacking of BJP minister over Col Qureshi remarks
A plea has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking the removal of Madhya Pradesh minister Vijay Shah for his remarks against Indian Army officer Col Sofiya petition filed by Congress leader Jaya Thakur said Shah's statement sparks separatist feelings and threatens country's unity."The statement of the minister that Col. Sofia Quraishi is the sister of the terrorist who carried out the attack at Pahalgam encourages feelings of separatist activities by imputing separatist feelings to anyone who is Muslim, which thereby endangers the sovereignty or unity and integrity of India. That speech directly violated the oath prescribed under schedule 3 of the Constitution of India," the plea The apex court on May 28 ordered closure of proceedings before the Madhya Pradesh High Court against Shah for his remarks, saying it would look into the asked for a status report from the special investigation team (SIT) constituted by the Madhya Pradesh government in compliance with the top court's earlier May 19, the top court chided Shah and constituted a three-member SIT to probe the FIR lodged against came under fire after a video, which was circulated widely, showed him allegedly making objectionable remarks against Col Qureshi, who gained nationwide prominence along with another woman officer, Wing Commander Vyomika Singh, during the media briefings on Operation Madhya Pradesh High Court rebuked Shah for passing "scurrilous" remarks and using "language of the gutters" against Col Qureshi, and ordered police to file an FIR against him on the charge of promoting enmity and drawing severe condemnation, Shah expressed regret and said that he respects Col Qureshi more than his sister.- EndsTune InMust Watch
The Hindu
36 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Secretly recorded conversations may be evidence, but erode spousal trust
In a landmark judgment in a divorce case (Vibhor Garg vs Neha), the Supreme Court has accepted the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations between a married couple as reliable evidence. Vibhor Garg had filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in a family court at Bathinda in Punjab on the grounds of mental cruelty by his wife, Neha. The petitioner adduced conversations between him and his wife recorded by him over a period of time without her consent and knowledge to buttress his allegations of mental cruelty. The evidence was admitted by the family court. However, on appeal against its decision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court took an opposing view, holding the secretly recorded calls violative of the fundamental right to privacy as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Justice Lisa Gill held that the conversations were in clear breach of the privacy rights, and set aside the decision of the family court. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which on July 14 ruled in favour of the husband by accepting the recorded conversations, though they were made without the consent and knowledge of the spouse. Complete lack of trust The Supreme Court Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, used the recorded conversations to conclude that the marriage in question had reached a point of a broken relationship, where one spouse was actively snooping on the other, denoting a complete lack of trust between them, the very bedrock of a marriage. In essence, the Supreme Court admitted the recorded conversations to decide on the broken marriage rather than as an absolute question of privacy laws. The court also relied on the exception provided in Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, which permits the disclosure of recorded marital communications in suits between married persons or proceedings in which one married person is prosecuted for any crime committed against the other. The Bench observed: 'We do not think there is any breach of privacy in this case. Section 122 of the Evidence Act does not recognise any such right. On the other hand, it carves out an exception to the right to privacy between spouses and therefore cannot be applied horizontally at all.' The Family Courts Act, 1984 grants a family court discretion to admit evidence, including reports, statements, documents, information, or other matters, that, in its opinion, will assist in effectively handling a dispute, even if that evidence might not meet the admissibility benchmark under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This provision allows the family courts to consider a broader range of evidence, including recorded conversations, in deciding matrimonial disputes. The court recognised that instances of mental suffering were very private and recorded conversations assisted the family court in deciding the matter appropriately. It reaffirmed its commitment to a fair trial, an inalienable right provided by Article 21 of the Constitution. Important form of evidence Call recordings have become an important form of evidence in legal proceedings. The Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 are the primary laws related to electronic records and the admissibility of these records. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts has been a matter of debate and controversy for several years. The K.S. Puttaswamy judgment (2017) established privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the Supreme Court, in this case, has interpreted the right to privacy in the specific context of matrimonial discord, the exception provided in the Evidence Act, and the admissibility of relevant evidence in a family court proceeding to decide a case. The judgment reaffirms the admissibility of secretly recorded conversations, based on the precedent set in R.M. Malkani vs State of Maharashtra. The admissibility of recorded electronic evidence was also examined in S. Pratap Singh vs State of Punjab, in which the Supreme Court accepted an unauthorisedly obtained tape-recorded conversation between two parties. The court evaluated the evidentiary value of the tape-recorded conversation and accepted it as evidence only because it was essential to resolving the case. Some believe the judgment will promote spousal surveillance and abuse of privacy laws to be used against an unsuspecting partner in future. Research established that women are generally at the receiving end in a family or a live-in relationship. The male counterpart enjoys greater coercive control. Admission of recorded conversations between spouses will create a greater atmosphere of suspicion, a trust deficit, and an abuse of privacy laws. The admissibility of call recordings in Indian courts depends on several factors, including the authenticity, accuracy, and reliability of the recordings, the relevance and probative value of the recordings to the issue at hand, and the circumstances under which the recordings were made. As technology continues to evolve, the admissibility of electronic evidence, including call recordings, will likely remain a subject of judicial scrutiny and interpretation. The admissibility of electronic evidence, such as recorded telephone or mobile conversations and video clips, often raises concerns regarding the right to privacy. While electronic evidence is accepted in a court of law, it is not generally legal for individuals to record conversations without authorisation due to the violation of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. However, in Vibhor Garg vs Neha, the Supreme Court has emphasised that the use of recorded conversations as evidence is admissible only in cases involving matrimonial or family discord. Only time will tell if the courts in India will be liberal in accepting such evidence in other cases also. (The writer is a former Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh; view are personal)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
19-year-old gets life imprisonment till last breath for gangrape of minor
Surat: A 19-year-old man was sentenced to life imprisonment till last breath for the gangrape of a 15-year-old girl by a special court for the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in Dharampur of Valsad. The convict and and a 15-year-old boy had raped the minor in the bathroom of a school . The cases against the minor accused are being heard by the Juvenile Justice Board. Special POCSO court Judge M A Mirza found him guilty of gangrape, wrongful restraint, kdnapping, and POCSO Act sections of penetrative sexual assault, gang penetrative sexual assault on a child), aggravated penetrative sexual assault and others. On Aug 24 last year, the accused and his friend kidnapped the minor on a motorcycle when she was returning from a grocery shop near her home in a village of Dharampur taluka. They took her to a nearby Ashram Shala school building and raped her in the bathroom. The school was closed due to a holiday. Meanwhile, a boy from the village came to the survivor's home and informed her father about kidnapping. The father went in that direction and found the two boys coming out of the school and running towards a hill. The minor was found in the bathroom with severe injuries. Her parents found a motorcycle and a mobile phone of the accused at the spot. The two were arrested after a few days. The court ordered Rs 6 lakh compensation to the survivor under the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme. At the same time, the ordered action against the medical officer of Valsad GMERS hospital, Dr Tanmay Patel, who submitted in court that the bleeding from the private part of the survivor was due to the menstrual cycle. "The court questioned Dr Patel to explain the characteristics of menstrual blood if the bleeding of the survivor matched. The survivor was not wearing a sanitary pad as well," said Anil Tripathi, district government pleader, Valsad. "It transpires from the records that Dr Tanmay was negligent in performing his duty. Despite the survivor describing the history of the crime to him, he claimed the bleeding from the private part of the minor was of the menstrual cycle without any verification or investigation using scientific methods. It is found to be opposite to the other evidence of the medical officer," the court observed. The Supreme Court and the law have mentioned the required sensitivity and diligence in such cases from medical officers. Despite that, Dr Tanmay submitted opposite evidence to the facts of the crime in the court. "The court takes serious note of the behaviour of Dr Tanmay Patel. The court directs that he should be given training, actions should be taken against him, and his clarification should be asked so that such a thing is not repeated, the court stated in the order.
