2006 Mumbai train blasts case: CM Fadnavis calls Bombay high court verdict acquitting all 12 'very shocking'; vows to challenge in Supreme Court
Devendra Fadnavis
on Monday condemned the Bombay high court verdict acquitting all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings, calling it 'very shocking' and stating the state government would challenge it in the Supreme Court.
'The verdict of the Bombay high court is very shocking and we will challenge it in the Supreme Court,' Fadnavis told reporters.
Earlier in the day, a special bench of the Bombay high court set aside the 2015 judgment of a special MCOCA court that had convicted the 12 accused, including five who were given the death penalty. The high court said the prosecution 'utterly failed' to prove its case.
Also read: 2006 Mumbai train blasts: Bombay HC acquits all 12 accused; says prosecution utterly failed to prove case against them
Shiv Sena (UBT) MP Priyanka Chaturvedi reacted to the verdict by saying, 'This is very sad, instead of giving them the death penalty, they have been acquitted.
This shows that the case we presented was not foolproof, it had loopholes; I believe this is the fault of the state government. The state government did not take it seriously and present a serious argument, which is why this decision has come... I hope that Maharashtra's Home Minister Devendra Fadnavis, who is also the Chief Minister, will challenge this Court verdict.
..'
BJP leader Kirit Somaiya also expressed concern over the acquittals.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Learn How To Write Faster for Work (Find Out Now)
Grammarly
Learn More
Undo
'In these 19 years, several members of their families died, they migrated, they forgot about it. But this is a huge jolt that after 19 years, it is being said that nothing had happened. An incident did take place, it was expected of the judiciary to pronounce a punishment. But they were pronounced innocent. Does this mean that there was fraudulence in the lower court or was there issues in the 2006 investigation? But topmost legal experts will do a presentation before the Supreme Court and there will be justice,' he said.
The high court, in its 671-page judgment, observed that the prosecution failed to establish the type of explosive used and found the confessional statements inadmissible due to allegations of torture. It also noted irregularities in the identification parade and found several prosecution witnesses unreliable.
The High Court began its 671-page judgment by stating, 'Punishing the actual perpetrator of a crime is a concrete and essential step toward curbing criminal activities, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring the safety and security of citizens.
But creating a false appearance of having solved a case — by presenting that the accused have been brought to justice — gives a misleading sense of resolution. This deceptive closure undermines public trust and falsely reassures society, while in reality, the true threat remains at large.Essentially, this is what the case at hand conveys.
'
The case involved seven blasts on Mumbai suburban trains during peak evening hours on July 11, 2006, which killed 189 and injured over 800 people.
The trial court had relied heavily on confessions recorded under MCOCA provisions. The High Court found these lacked credibility and raised serious doubts about the investigation and trial process.
Meanwhile, defence advocate Tahera Qureshi who represented one of the accused, says, "We are very happy with today's decision because we had been waiting for this for 19 years, especially after the sentence was imposed and 4-5 people received death sentences. I represent Zamir Sheikh, one of the accused. He was sentenced to life imprisonment, believing that he knew the incident was going to happen. Then he allegedly went abroad for training and afterwards returned to India, where he participated in inspection.
.. When my client was arrested, he was 25-26 years old and came from a middle-class family. He was falsely implicated in this case..."
'Prosecution failed to establish type of bomb used'
Here's what court observed:
Very abnormal that witnesses could identify accused after four years
Prosecution evidence not safe to base conviction
Some witnesses were stock witness
Witness who 'saw' bombs being assembled remained silent for 100 days, originally a suspect. Changed statement.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
Alleged cash discovery: Why did you wait, Supreme Court asks Justice Varma
Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel The Supreme Court on Monday asked Allahabad High Court Judge Yashwant Varma why he appeared before a committee constituted to probe an alleged cash discovery at his official residence in New Delhi if he felt that it had no legal power to investigate the matter."Why did you not challenge when the committee was appointed? Why did you wait? Why did you appear before the committee? Why did you not approach the Supreme Court immediately? Did you take a chance of a favourable order there first," a division bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta verbally asked Varma's counsel."Judges have abstained from attending these proceedings in the past," the bench said. Varma's counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal , responded saying that this cannot be held against Justice Varma "I (Varma) appeared because I thought the (inquiry) committee would find out who the cash belongs to," Sibal of burnt banknotes had allegedly been recovered from an outhouse of Justice Varma's residence in Delhi after a fire incident in March. Justice Varma, a judge at the Delhi High Court at the time, had claimed ignorance about the cash. Neither has Justice Varma disputed the fire incident nor the recovery of cash, Justice Datta said, adding: "Neither can the fire incident be disbelieved, nor can the recovery of cash." Justice Datta told the counsel that if Varma was challenging the procedure, then he would have to satisfy the court that the procedure adopted was against the development took place during the hearing of a plea filed by Justice Varma challenging the Supreme Court-appointed in-house committee report indicting him over the recovery of the cash. In his plea, Justice Varma has also sought a declaration that the recommendation made by former Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for his removal as a high court judge be declared unconstitutional and ultra bench on Monday pointed out shortcomings in the plea filed by Justice Varma. "This petition should not have been filed like this. Please see the party is registrar general here and not secretary general. The first party is the supreme court as your grievance is against the process mentioned."The bench also objected to the Union of India being made a respondent. "This petition should not have been filed so casually, maybe it missed your notice also. There are three respondents, your main grievance is against the Supreme Court. Union of India not required. Supreme Court, through the Registrar, confidential, not required. Main is, Respondent No. 2, through whom the Supreme Court is to be represented, Secretary General," Justice Datta bench posted the matter for resumed hearing on Wednesday.
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
Close Trump's mouth or close McDonald's: Congress MP Deepender Hooda attacks Modi govt over India-Pakistan ceasefire claims
Congress MP Deepender Hooda on Monday called on the central government to take a stronger position against former US President Donald Trump 's repeated assertion that he mediated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. Speaking during the Lok Sabha debate on Operation Sindoor and the Pahalgam attack, Hooda said the government needed to send a clear signal. 'It is unfortunate that the US president said 28 times (about the claim on the India-Pakistan ceasefire)… Donald (Trump) ko chup karao, Donald ka muh band karao ya phir Hindustan mein, mein McDonald's ko band karao (Either shut Donald's mouth or close down McDonald's in India),' he said. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Marketing's Secret AI Tool [Learn More] VELORUM LEADS Try Free Undo — ANI (@ANI) His remarks were a direct criticism of what he called the Modi government's indecisive foreign policy. 'You can't decide whether to shake hands with the US or stare it down. During UPA's time, we had the courage to do both, show strength when needed and friendship when possible,' Hooda added. Live Events Jaishankar dismisses claims, cites timeline Responding to the Opposition's concerns, External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar addressed the House without naming Trump. He laid out a sequence of events around the May ceasefire with Pakistan. 'On May 9, US Vice President JD Vance called the Prime Minister, warning of a massive Pakistani attack in the next two hours. The PM, in his response, made it very clear that if such an attack happens, it would meet an appropriate response from our side. That attack took place and was foiled by our armed forces on May 9–10. Our response was delivered,' Jaishankar said. He added that India received calls on 10 May suggesting Pakistan's willingness to halt hostilities. 'Our position was that if Pakistan was ready, we needed to get this request from the Pakistani side through the DGMO channels. At no stage, in any conversation with the United States, was there any linkage with trade and what was going on,' he said. Jaishankar also clarified that no phone call took place between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Donald Trump between 22 April and 17 June. Priyanka Gandhi: 'He did not categorically deny US role' Congress General Secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra raised doubts about the government's version, pointing to what she described as ambiguity in Jaishankar's speech. 'There are certain things that he has not categorically said. He has made some statements, but has not categorically said that the US was not involved in the ceasefire. He said that PM Modi did not speak to US President Trump for a certain period, but did not categorically say that the US was not involved. That is interesting,' she said. TMC's Kalyan Banerjee asks: 'Why did we stop the fight?' TMC MP Kalyan Banerjee also questioned the government's decision to agree to a ceasefire, especially when, according to him, India had the upper hand. '…We thought that we would win the war and teach a lesson to Pakistan. Why did we declare a ceasefire? Have we ever seen that innings be declared when the player is about to score a century? They did the same,' he said. Banerjee also referred to Trump's online post claiming credit for the ceasefire. 'US President Donald Trump, in a post on social media, said that the ceasefire was agreed upon after his intervention. If it is incorrect, why didn't PM Modi post and say that this is incorrect? Why did we declare a ceasefire under the pressure of the American President?' 'India must not be compared with Pakistan' Hooda argued that India, as a global power, must not be treated on the same level as Pakistan in the eyes of world powers. 'India is a major global power. The US must choose what kind of relationship it wants with us,' he said. He recalled the post-26/11 period, when former US President Barack Obama took a clear stand against terrorism emanating from Pakistan. That, Hooda suggested, stood in contrast with Trump's self-promotional claims and the current Indian government's restrained posture. He closed with a sharp suggestion — if Trump continues to make such statements unchecked, India should not rule out economic measures. 'If Trump keeps making such claims, the Indian government should take action, either by publicly countering the statements or by removing US brands like McDonald's to send a stronger message,' he said. The discussion took place against the backdrop of Operation Sindoor, a military engagement triggered by intelligence of a large Pakistani offensive on 9 May. Indian forces responded swiftly, and satellite images later showed damage at Pakistani airbases. On 10 May, communications from multiple international channels indicated Pakistan's intent to de-escalate. The ceasefire that followed marked the end of a brief but tense standoff. However, Trump's public statements claiming credit for this outcome sparked outrage among several Indian political leaders. So far, the government has not issued any public rebuttal to Trump's repeated remarks.
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
Focus on 'en masse inclusion, not exclusion' in voter list update, Supreme Court tells ECI
The Supreme Court on Monday asked the Election Commission of India (ECI) to focus on "en masse inclusion" instead of "en masse exclusion" in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar. The top court again asked the poll body to reconsider including Aadhaar and Election Photo Identity Card (EPIC) as admissible documents in the list of acceptable documents to prove identity of voters in the revision of electoral rolls. A division bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, however, refused to stop the ECI from publishing the draft electoral rolls for Bihar on August 1 as per the schedule notified for SIR. Speaking for the bench, Justice Kant verbally remarked that "it is only a draft exercise". He added "it does not take away our power" to quash the entire roll if found erroneous in future. "Trust us... as soon as we know anything is wrong, we will quash everything," Justice Kant added, saying that the "interpretation" needs to be decided. Speaking on the exclusion of Aadhaar and EPIC, the senior SC judge orally observed that "any document on this earth can be forged. Tomorrow, you may see that not only Aadhaar but out of eleven (list of acceptable documents), other documents can also be forged. That is a separate issue. We will deal with it on a case to case basis." Urging the ECI to include the two cards in the list of acceptable documents, Justice Kant added: "Aadhaar and EPIC have a presumption of correctness." Questioning the counsel for ECI on exclusion of Aadhaar and voter cards, Justice Bagchi weighed in, saying, "You say none of the documents are conclusive as per SIR notification... suppose someone uploads the form with Aadhaar, why will you not include it in the draft?" The counsel for ECI contended that there are large scale issues with ration cards. He also said that EPICs also cannot be conclusive. The bench, however, questioned the poll body's stand. Live Events The SC adjourned the matter on account of paucity of time. The top court asked the counsels for the petitioners and ECI to give a timeline of their submissions following which the court will post the matter for final adjudication. At the last hearing earlier this month, the SC had refused to stay the SIR of electoral rolls being undertaken in Bihar. Referring to the ECI, the top court had said it "cannot stop a constitutional body" from conducting a "democratic process" and that it "will not second guess" the ECI.
