Malegaon blast case rested on shifting sand: Court

Hindustan Times

2 days ago

MUMBAI: A day after a special Mumbai court acquitted all seven accused in the high-profile, 2008 Malegaon blast case, the 1,034-page judgment, made public on Friday, delivered a sweeping rebuke to both the agencies that had investigated the case. The collection of blast-site debris also occurred without forensic oversight, compromising evidentiary value, the judgement noted (HT Photo)
'I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration, and trauma caused to society at large and, more particularly, to the families of the victims by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. No doubt, terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter,' the judgement noted.
Referring to the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA) that had probed the case, Special Judge AK Lahoti ruled that the case was built on 'suspicion, conjecture, and flawed assumptions', adding that 'suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof'.
The acquittal of the seven accused came 17 years after a bomb exploded near a mosque at a crowded intersection in Malegaon, killing six people and injuring 95 others on September 29, 2008. It was alleged to be the result of a right-wing terror plot. Among the accused were former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt Col Prasad Purohit and Major (Retd) Ramesh Shivaji Upadhyay.
In its judgement, the special NIA court highlighted serious irregularities, contradictions and procedural misconduct by the ATS and NIA. The accused had been charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Indian Penal Code, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act. The court found the charges unsustainable due to unreliable witness testimony, inadmissible evidence and irreconcilable differences between the ATS and NIA investigations.
At the centre of the case was the prosecution's claim that a right-wing extremist conspiracy, hatched by members of Abhinav Bharat in 2007-08, had led to the blast. The ATS alleged that Purohit had set up Abhinav Bharat to turn India into a 'Hindu Rashtra', procured RDX from Kashmir, and, along with others, planned the attack as 'revenge against Muslims'. They also claimed the motorcycle used in the blast belonged to Thakur.
The court found these theories legally untenable and procedurally compromised. A number of key witnesses either retracted their statements or contradicted themselves in court. Among them were Lt Col RK Shrivastava, who had implicated Purohit in inflammatory meetings; Major Ramesh Gadge, who described Abhinav Bharat's activities but later watered down his account; and Bhavesh Patel, Rajendra Shende and Rakesh Dhawde – all considered crucial to establishing the alleged conspiracy. Their reversal under oath proved fatal to the case.
'The NIA, despite having ample opportunity, did not take any steps against the hostile witnesses for giving false evidence before the court. This inaction raises serious questions on the commitment to secure justice,' the court said. It further noted that 'key witnesses pertaining to the conspiracy have not supported the prosecution,' leading the court to conclude that the case rested on 'shifting sand'.
The contradictions between the ATS and NIA approaches drew special scrutiny. The ATS had charged the accused under MCOCA, citing continuity with previous blast cases. In contrast, the NIA's 2016 supplementary chargesheet discarded that link, sought discharge for several accused, and altogether withdrew MCOCA.
The court held that this internal inconsistency corroded the credibility of the entire case: 'Two parallel investigations cannot proceed on divergent foundational premises. The contradiction between the ATS and NIA approaches creates serious doubt on the prosecution's reliability and coherence.'
The court also dismantled the material and forensic evidence. Despite the gravity of the crime, the prosecution presented no fingerprints, DNA or dump-data linking the accused to the crime scene. Crucially, the court found 'nothing on record to show that Purohit had brought the RDX from Kashmir', as alleged by the ATS. Even the motorcycle alleged to belong to Thakur failed to connect her to the crime, with the court noting she had renounced material life two years prior and no longer had control over her possessions.
Further procedural lapses were flagged in multiple instances. For accused Sameer Kulkarni, the court noted that his arrest-related paperwork was delayed and falsified: 'Signatures were taken on blank papers and documents were backdated. This is nothing short of manipulation of the criminal justice process'. The collection of blast-site debris also occurred without forensic oversight, compromising evidentiary value, the judgement noted.
The court strongly criticised the prosecution for failing to obtain the required sanction under Section 45 of the UAPA from the competent Central government authority. 'No explanation is offered by the prosecution as to why the requisite sanction under Section 45 of UAPA was not obtained,' the court remarked, adding that the absence rendered the entire chargesheet 'void-ab-initio'. Additionally, the court ruled that the acts alleged did not meet the statutory definition of a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA.