Despair and disbelief overcome victims of Mumbai train blasts as high court verdict brings case back to square one
Decades of fruitlessness have sealed the lips of Priti Sawant, whose husband, Parag (36), became the face of the tragedy.
Parag died in 2015 after a long spell in coma. Priti is currently employed with Western Railway at Bhayander station but declined comment to TOI, saying she did not wish to relive the trauma. She was an expectant mother in 2006, and her daughter was born after Parag's injury.
Harshal Bhalerao (23) of Vasai was killed in the blast. His mother Saguna said Monday, "No verdict will bring my son back. But the guilty must be punished."
Harshal's father, Yashwant, said, "Not a single victim's family will like this judgement. We have named our bungalow 'Harshal 7/11' after him. He was our only boy, now our daughter takes care of us." Harshal was on his first day of work in Andheri when he fell victim to the blast at Borivli.
You Can Also Check:
Mumbai AQI
|
Weather in Mumbai
|
Bank Holidays in Mumbai
|
Public Holidays in Mumbai
Artist Mahendra Pitale lost an arm to the bombing. He said, "The order is a massive shock. We believed the guilty would hang. If these men were not the perpetrators, then who carried out the bomb blasts? Why were they not apprehended? Nineteen years have passed and there is no justice. Is it going to take the law enforcement agencies another 19 years to find the real perpetrators?"
Pitale too was given a job by the railways.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Gold Is Surging in 2025 — Smart Traders Are Already In
IC Markets
Learn More
Undo
"My prosthetic limb is very expensive and I have to find sponsors or depend on trusts to be able to afford it," said Pitale, who has changed prosthetic limbs seven times in the past two decades.
"No one killed 200 people & injured 700...," tweeted chartered accountant Chirag Chauhan, who had suffered a spinal injury that left his legs and lower body paralysed. "Personally, I may have forgiven the terrorists and moved on with my life.
But the law of the land has failed to deliver justice today to the people who were left dead or disabled... Today is a very sad day for everyone. Justice got killed..."
Vishakha Seksaria, sister of Vrindesh, who was killed, said, "I am unable to digest this news. The accused had been convicted in 2015... how can they be acquitted now? My brother, Vrindesh, was like a pillar of support to us. After losing my parents during the pandemic, I'm now all alone.
The court order feels like a blow. I would like to discuss with the other (victims') families and petition the court to reconsider."
Subhash Saboo said, "I can never forget that day as my father (Nathmal) was on the train towards Malad and he never made it home. I have been trying to erase the memory for the last two decades but today the sorrow is searing through me and seeing the acquittal order has left me speechless."
Rishi Bobra (38), a gritty survivor who spent a month in the ICU, said he had nothing to say on the verdict and had moved ahead.
"I work for a securities firm. I drive or take the train to my workplace. l don't want to dwell on the past," he said. In 2016, Bobra had said that he felt the delay not just in this case, but in all cases is a reflection of the Indian legal system.
Garden landscaper Harish Pawar was injured when a train rod pierced his chest. He bubbled over in anger Monday. "It appears as if we the commuters are to blame for stepping out for work to support our families. Why was the evidence that was deemed acceptable by the lower courts for conviction, entirely negated by the high court?"
Vasai resident Raniya D'Souza lost her father, Manuel (36), when she was just six and a half.
Manuel, a chemical engineer and the sole breadwinner, was killed in the Matunga blast. "Our family struggled emotionally and financially, and the void left by my father has not been filled even after all these years," she said. Raniya is grateful to Western Railway for having granted her a job after graduation. Her younger brother, who was only two and a half at the time, does not have any memories of their father.
Calling the judgment unjust, Hansraj Kanojia, who lost a leg, demanded reinvestigation.
"If they are being set free today and go on to commit the same crime again, who will take responsibility? The case should be taken to the Supreme Court."
On Monday BJP leader Kirit Somaiya along with Kanojia and Pitale met additional chief security (home) I S Chahal at Mantralaya. They expressed unhappiness over the judgement and requested the state to challenge the decision in the SC.
(Inputs by Nitasha Natu, V Narayan, Somit Sen, Vishal Rajemahadik, Swati Deshpande, Vijay V Singh, Pushkraj Vernekar and Bella Jaisinghani)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
44 minutes ago
- Time of India
Haryana: Vikas Barala dropped from law officer post after not joining
Vikas Barala CHANDIGARH: In a significant turnaround by the Nayab Singh Saini-led BJP govt, the office of the Advocate General has dropped the name of Vikas Barala as a law officer as he did not report for joining, an official spokesperson of the state govt confirmed on Monday. The official categorically confirmed that except for Vikas Barala, the rest of the law officers appointed had joined and assumed charge. Consequent to the joining report compiled by the concerned authorities, Vikas Barala's name was dropped, the official remarked. Notably, the development came within a week after the Haryana govt notified the list of appointments of law officers in the office of the Advocate General Haryana to defend the state in the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Supreme Court of India. On July 18, the Haryana govt notified the appointment of 92 law officers, including Vikas Barala, to the office of the Advocate General Haryana. Barala, who happens to be the son of Rajya Sabha MP Subash Barala, is facing trial as an accused in the stalking and attempted abduction of the daughter of a senior Haryana bureaucrat (now retired). His name figured as Assistant Advocate General (AAG) for defending cases of Haryana in New Delhi, including the Supreme Court of India. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Learn More - How Watching Videos Can Boost Your Income TheDaddest Undo This triggered controversy and put a question mark on the criteria adopted and the rules followed for the selection of names by the screening committee, which was constituted by the AG office. Opposition parties and leaders criticised the Saini-led govt on this appointment. As to why Vikas chose not to join remains a mystery. However, sources indicate that it was a decision of the party high command as well as the govt after he did not report for joining. The screening committee, which comprised two retired judges of the high court, ignored the serious charges against him. The members of the Advocate General Haryana-headed screening committee that recommended Vikas's appointment were Mani Ram Sharma (IAS), special secretary, home department as the nominee of the additional chief secretary (home), Ritu Garg, legal remembrancer, and two retired judges, Justice Darshan Singh and Justice H S Bhalla, who were members (eminent legal professionals). Normally, those having affiliation with the ruling party are appointed as law officers, and their tenure is co-terminus with the party in power. On August 5, 2017, Vikas Barala and his friend Ashish allegedly followed the bureaucrat's daughter and tried to stop the car of a senior Haryana bureaucrat. The girl called the Chandigarh police, who apprehended the boys. At the time of the incident, they were under the influence of liquor. Both were booked under section 354 D (stalking) of the IPC and under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. Later, police added two more sections for attempted kidnapping, and they were arrested. Vikas's father, Subhash Barala, was then serving as the state president of Haryana BJP. The trial of the case is currently pending before the district court in Chandigarh and is slated for hearing on August 2. The trial is at the stage of recording prosecution evidence.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
TIP-ping Point: 7/11 Blasts And Judicial Lottery
The 7/11 case has yet again raised disturbing questions about the moral compass of Indian criminal jurisprudence. The conscience of the nation stands enraged. Both possibilities speak volumes of systemic failure. Either the then coalition Government in Maharashtra in 2006 oversaw a catastrophic collapse in investigation and prosecution, letting terrorists walk free. Or we incarcerated innocent men for the last 19 years. Both scenarios paint a profoundly disturbing picture of our justice system. The 11 dark minutes of July 11, 2006, when seven coordinated bomb blasts ripped through Mumbai's suburban railway network, scarred the city forever. The carnage claimed 209 lives and injured over 700. Swift arrests followed; 13 men were accused, 12 were convicted – five sentenced to death, the rest to life imprisonment. But on July 21, 2025, the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 convicted men. The Court found the prosecution to have faltered at the most fundamental level. The judgment exposes a central tension: a conflict between state capacity and judicial threshold. Crimes of this nature are intrinsically difficult to investigate and prosecute. Probes must navigate intricate webs of terror planning and execution, all while racing against time. Every passing moment results in evidentiary decay. Yet, when this challenge of capacity meets the rigorous standards of 'innocent until proven guilty', verdicts like the one in this case become inevitable. This case has yet again raised disturbing questions about the moral compass of Indian criminal jurisprudence. A recurring affliction in our criminal system is the doctrine of 'uncertain-fatality', an interpretive fragility that leaves outcomes to the temperaments of individual judges. The United States follows a clear standard- the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, where any illegally procured evidence is automatically inadmissible. India has adopted a different course. Indian courts are notably more liberal in admitting evidence, even if tainted by illegality, choosing instead to assign it probative value after scrutiny. Our courts separate the wheat from the chaff, i.e., they painstakingly distinguish believable evidence from the rest. Yet this process of legal surgery varies by the skill and subjectivity of the surgeon. Similar cases with similar flaws have passed the muster before other courts. But the Bombay High Court, in this case, deemed the lapses to be fatal. The real fatality, it seems, is even-handed justice. Your ability to secure relief as a kin of the deceased now hinges disproportionately on the courtroom lottery. In this case, the Bombay High Court took a sword to the scalpel, with one blow, it declared the prosecution's case to have 'utterly failed.' The concern lies not in the judges having taken a particular view, but in the inconsistency and subjectivity with which criminal justice is dispensed. The Bombay High Court, while acquitting all convicts, based its reasoning primarily on the flawed Test Identification Parade (TIP). Put simply, in a TIP, the accused is made to stand in a lineup with others of similar physique and features, and the eyewitness is invited to pick out the suspect. The very act of correctly identifying the accused lends strength and credibility to the witness's courtroom testimony. Under Section 7 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, TIP serves a dual purpose: first, it helps the investigating agency confirm if they are on the right track; second, it offers corroboration for in-court identification. It becomes a critical evidentiary tool, helping place the accused at the relevant location and time. The procedure, however, is stringent. TIPs must be conducted by a Magistrate, not the police, and preferably within jail premises to minimise external influence. Witnesses must be called individually, barred from communication with each other, and asked to describe what they saw. Every reaction must be recorded in detail. In this case, the Bombay High Court excluded the identification evidence entirely. It held that TIPs were conducted by Shri Barve, a Special Executive Officer, who had no legal authority to carry them out. This procedural violation- TIPs must be supervised by a Magistrate, was not a mere technical lapse. According to the Court, it rendered the identification process void and left it open to manipulation. Consequently, the identifications made by witnesses were deemed inadmissible. The prosecution, which had heavily relied on these TIPs, now found itself without the very foundation of its case. What remained was dock identification, witnesses identifying the accused in court nearly four years later. But that raised a pivotal legal question: can someone credibly identify an individual they only saw momentarily, years ago, without memory aids or prior interaction? The High Court concluded they could not. No distinguishing features. No extended observation. No credibility. Thus, even the courtroom identifications were stripped of their evidentiary weight. The very eyewitness testimony on which the prosecution had built its case crumbled, ironically, not due to falsehood, but due to the prosecution's own procedural lapses. This would be an acceptable outcome, had other courts taken such a strict approach. But that is not the case. Courts across India continue to admit TIP evidence despite glaring procedural irregularities. That inconsistency needs urgent review by the Supreme Court of India. Another major blow to the prosecution was its reliance on stock witnesses- individuals who appear as panch or eyewitnesses in multiple unrelated cases. For instance, Vishal Parmar claimed to have seen Accused No. 4 board the train with a black rexine bag and disembark without it. The Court flagged him as unreliable, as he had served as a panch witness in multiple prior cases, including those involving officers from this very trial. His employer, Mukesh Rabadiya, was similarly discredited as a stock witness. Yet in Nana Keshav Lagad v. State of Maharashtra (2013), the Supreme Court clarified that merely appearing as a witness in multiple cases does not invalidate testimony by itself. This raises legitimate questions about the Bombay High Court's choice to outright dismiss such testimony here. The trouble is, this was bound to happen. When judicial discretion is left unbounded by consistent thresholds, some courts interpret lapses as fatal, others see them as fixable. This divergence undermines the rule of law. And the stakes are extraordinarily high in cases involving such enormous human tragedy. Just as troubling is the message this sends to the investigative machinery: that mistakes may or may not matter, depending on the bench. Impunity thrives in uncertainty. We urgently need clear, consistent, and constitutionally sound standards, replacing what has become a wild west of discretion in criminal procedure. Criminal justice must be precise. We must know what is acceptable and what is not. top videos View all The Supreme Court has issued notice in the criminal appeal. The legal questions answered by the Bombay High Court now await constitutional scrutiny. The author is a Senior Supreme Court Advocate and former Additional Solicitor General of India. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts Mumbai train blasts view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 28, 2025, 15:57 IST News opinion Opinion | TIP-ping Point: 7/11 Blasts And Judicial Lottery Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Scuffle at funeral in Ballia between Ex-MLA and former MP's son
VARANASI: High voltage drama unfolded in the Bairia area of Ballia district on Sunday evening when former MLA Surendra Singh and former MP Virendra Singh Mast's son, Vipulendra Pratap Singh, came face to face, and their supporters clashed. The incident occurred when they went to take part in a funeral at the cremation ground along the river Ganga in the Hukum Chhapra area. Ballia's Additional Superintendent of Police (Southern), Kripa Shankar, on Monday said that police were investigating the matter after lodging FIRs on the complaints of both groups. During the initial investigation, he said it came to light that the former MLA and Vipulendra, along with their supporters, went to take part in the funeral of Shyamu Upadhyay's wife when a dispute occurred, leading to a scuffle between them. FIRs were lodged after both parties filed their complaints with the Bairia police on Sunday late at night. After registering cases, necessary legal actions are being initiated, he added. Surendra Singh, who contested the 2022 assembly election as a rebel after BJP denied retaining a ticket to him due to his controversial statements after winning the 2017 assembly election from Bairia, and Vipulendra, whose father was also denied a ticket by BJP in the 2024 Lok Sabha election, went to the cremation ground near Hukum Chhapra in the Bairia area on Sunday evening. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Remember Him? Take A Deep Breath Before You See Him Now The Noodle Box Undo During their stay at the cremation ground, some arguments started between the duo, leading to a physical altercation between Vipulendra's supporters and the former MLA. After the intervention of other people and dignitaries present there, both parties left the scene. However, upon reaching Devraj Brahm Baba turning, both groups confronted each other again. On being alerted by locals, Bairia police station in-charge Rakesh Kumar Singh reached there and also alerted senior officials after calling heavy forces from five neighbouring police stations. Before ASP CO Faheem Qureshi could reach the spot, the former MLA reached the Bairia police station to file a complaint against Vipulendra and his supporters for assault. In his complaint, the former MLA alleged that he was attacked by Vipulendra and his supporters, who attempted to kill him, and demanded action against them. Since the incident occurred in the Haldi police station area, the in-charge from Haldi was also called to Bairia by officials. Later, Vipulendra and his supporters, who stayed at the Sonbarsa cold storage until late in the evening, also lodged a complaint alleging that the former MLA's son and their supporters attacked Vipulendra.
