No evidence of RDX possession by Purohit, finds spl NIA court

Time of India

6 days ago

Mumbai: The NIA court held that there was no evidence that Lt Col Prasad Purohit, now aged 53, had any RDX in his possession. The prosecution had alleged that RDX was found in Purohit's possession, and during his remand hearing, the prosecution even said the RDX used for the blast was allegedly military grade.
Purohit, whose wife, son and two nephews were in court on Thursday, still serves as Lt Col in the Indian Army and was posted in Mumbai following his 2017 release on bail. Suspended following his arrest, he was reinstated after he got bail. Purohit on Thursday thanked the judge for what he said was a fair opportunity to clear his name and serve the Indian army.
Purohit's defence lawyer, Viral Babar, had said in written arguments, "It was clear that the investigating officer, without carrying (out) any investigation and cross-verification from the Indian Army, alleged that the RDX used was fraudulently procured."
The prosecution case was that the house of accused No. 11, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, was searched in the presence of a chemical analyser, and one detonator, a gunny bag, and a swab sample taken and sent to a Mumbai FSL showed contents of Cyclonite (RDX). The defence said RDX was planted in A-11's house and the 'planting' fact is corroborated by two public witnesses.
You Can Also Check:
Mumbai AQI
|
Weather in Mumbai
|
Bank Holidays in Mumbai
|
Public Holidays in Mumbai
The prosecution case was riddled with contradictions, argued Purohit's lawyers, first Shrikant Shivade and then Babar.
A Supreme Court bench of Justices Abhay Sapre and R K Agrawal (who authored Purohit's bail order) also flagged existence of 'material contradictions' in the ATS chargesheet when granting bail. The judgment copy of the trial court will be available on Friday.
Purohit consistently refuted allegations of his involvement, saying he had kept his army superiors informed of his intelligence gathering. The SC, too, in its order, said it was relevant to quote a retracted statement of a prosecution witness before the NIA.
The witness said he did not retract it before a magistrate "due to threat and pressure of the ATS." But the witness complained to Maharashtra State Human Rights Commission, Mumbai, on Oct 5, 2009, saying he was forced to give the confessional statement as dictated to him by the ATS Mumbai and the "following lies were dictated to him to depose before the magistrate.
"
The SC also questioned the presence of an ATS officer at the house of Chaturvedi in his absence. SC found contradictions in chargesheets filed by ATS and NIA but said it was for trial court to test them. It said examination of witnesses "creates a doubt" about the ATS claim of recovery of RDX from Chaturvedi's house. SC said even in the NIA chargesheet, "it has been specifically mentioned that the recovery itself becomes suspect.
..the ATS Mumbai may have planted the RDX traces to implicate him (A-11) and the other accused."