Latest news with #MCOCA
The Print
37 minutes ago
- The Print
2008 Malegaon blast case: Pragya Thakur, 6 others acquitted as court gives them ‘benefit of doubt'
Terrorism has no religion but conviction cannot be based on moral grounds, special judge said, while acquiting all the seven accused in the case. Apart from Thakur and Purohit, the other accused were Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retd.), Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni. Mumbai: Nearly 17 years after a blast ripped through a chowk in the otherwise quiet town in Maharashtra's Nashik, Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt Colonel Prasad Purohit and five other accused in the Malegaon blast case were acquitted by a special NIA court on Thursday. 'Prosecution proved that a blast occurred in Malegaon, but failed to prove that bomb was placed in that motorcycle,' the judge said. Six people were killed and more than 100 injured when an explosive went off on the night of 29 September, 2008 during the holy month of Ramzan and the eve of Navratri, in Malegaon. From the arrest of saffron-clad Pragya Singh Thakur to turf wars between government agencies, the case saw more than its fair share of twists and turns. With the special NIA court finally pronuncing its verdict, ThePrint looks at the case and how it unfolded over the decades. In the aftermath of the blast, the initial probe was carried out by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and its chief, the late Hemant Karkare. He traced the motorcycle used in the blast to Surat, and later to Pragya Singh Thakur, a former Madhya Pradesh Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) activist. She was arrested in October 2008. It was under Karkare that raids in Pune, Nashik, Indore and Bhopal led investigators to an alleged Hindu extremist based in Indore. The trail then took them to an Army officer, Lieutenant Colonel Purohit, and Major Upadhyay (retired), who were arrested on 4-5 November 2008. However, Karkare was killed in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack. During the investigation, ATS found alleged links between the accused and a Hindu fundamentalist group, Abhinav Bharat, as well as a self-proclaimed seer, Sudhakar Dwivedi alias Dayanand Pandey. ATS investigators alleged that the accused conducted a demonstration of explosives in a jungle near Pune, although defence lawyers argued that no witness testimony from local villagers was presented to support this claim. Subsequently, on 20 January, 2009, a chargesheet of 4,528 pages was filed under sections of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the Explosive Substances Act. In July 2009, the MCOCA charges were dropped only to be reinstated by the Bombay High Court a year later. In December 2010, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested a self-proclaimed monk, Naba Kumar Sarkar, also known as Aseemanand, in connection with the case. Aseemanand, according to news reports at the time, allegedly confessed before a magistrate that the Malegaon blasts of 2006 and 2008 were carried out by radical Hindu groups as 'revenge against jihadi terrorism'. He said the plan to target Muslims was hatched by a group led by one-time Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) pracharak Sunil Joshi. He also claimed the group was behind the Samjhauta Express, Ajmer Dargah and Mecca Masjid blasts of 2007. But, Aseemanand subsequently retracted his statement and has now been acquitted of all charges. A supplementary chargesheet was filed on 21 April, 2011, before the special MCOCA court in Mumbai, in which the ATS named 14 accused—Thakur, Purohit, Upadhyay, Dwivedi, Shivnarayan Kalsangra, Shyam Sahu, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay alias Raja Rahirkar (treasurer of Abinav Bharat), Rakesh Dhawade, Jagdish Mhatre, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, Pravin Takalki, Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. In April 2011, the Centre transferred the Malegaon (2006 and 2008), Mecca Masjid (2007) and Ajmer Dargah (2007) blast cases to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The agency had been investigating the Samjhauta Express blast case since 2010. Also Read: Sadhvi Pragya's doctor debunks claim of cow urine curing her cancer, says she had surgeries NIA takes over The NIA alleged that the Malegaon blasts were carried out by a Hindu fundamentalist module led by Sunil Joshi and Pragya Singh Thakur. Joshi was murdered on 29 December, 2007, barely a few hundred metres from his rented accommodation in Madhya Pradesh's Dewas. Pragya Singh Thakur was earlier charged in the murder of Joshi along with others but later acquitted in 2017. The agency also alleged that Purohit knew Pragya Singh Thakur and allegedly played a key logistics role in the blasts. The role of Purohit, who was associated with Military Intelligence and Anti-Terrorism/Insurgency activities, in the entire operation is key. During the investigation, NIA said he supposedly bragged to a witness and had shown him explosive RDX, which he is alleged to have obtained from an Army operation in Kashmir. Purohit applied for bail in the high court in 2011, but his request was denied. While denying him bail, the high court document noted that Ajay Rahirkar, Pragya Singh Thakur, Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, also known as Shankaracharya, and one Rakesh Dhawade formed an organisation known as the Abhinav Bharat Trust in Pune in 2006 with headquarters at Ajay Rahirkar's address. It was registered on 9 February, 2007. They allegedly took an oath to strive to turn India into a 'Hindu Rashtra' called 'Aryawart'. But in 2012, the Supreme Court extended its order restraining the NIA from interrogating Purohit and Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi till further directions. The NIA was conducting its investigation when the government at the Centre changed in 2014 and the Narendra Modi-led BJP government came to power for the first time. In 2015, Rohini Salian, special public prosecutor in the case, said she had been under pressure from the NIA to go 'soft' in the case over the past year since 'the new government came to power'. She said she got a call from an NIA officer asking her to come over to speak with her. However, the NIA denied these claims. After nearly five years of investigation, in 2016, NIA filed its chargesheet, but it absolved Pragya Singh Thakur and prosecuted Purohit, with the caveat that the evidence was weak. The NIA even dropped charges under MCOCA against all accused, and described Karkare's investigation as flawed. This was a part of the supplementary chargesheet filed by NIA, listing shortcomings in the ATS investigation, including talk of the use of 'torture' by the ATS to allegedly extract confessional statements from the accused. 'ATS Mumbai invoked MCOCA on the basis of the involvement of accused Rakesh Dhawade in the previous two blast cases i.e. Parbhani and Jalna, in which the concerned courts had taken cognisance. The way and circumstances in which the ATS invoked the provisions of MCOCA in this case becomes questionable,' the NIA chargesheet said. According to the ATS charge sheet filed in 2011, Thakur, who allegedly owned the motorcycle used in the blast, was suspected to be part of most meetings of the accused from 2006 onward, during which plans to target Muslim-majority areas were discussed. ATS claimed meetings about the 2008 Malegaon blast took place from January of that year at various locations including Faridabad, Bhopal, Kolkata, Jabalpur, Indore and Nashik. At one such meeting in Bhopal on April 11, 2008, Thakur was allegedly tasked with finding the men to execute the bombing. These men were Sunil Joshi, Ramchandra Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, the chargesheet said. Initially, Thakur was charged in the case because the motorcycle used in the blast was in her name. However, in the NIA chargesheet, it was claimed that the bike was in Thakur's name, but was being used by another accused, Kalsangra, for two years before the blast. He paid for its repairs and maintenance, the NIA said. Following the chargesheet in which Thakur was given a clean chit, she was granted bail by the NIA special court in April 2017. Purohit was granted bail in August 2017. However, it did not accept Thakur's acquittal by NIA, and in December 2017, ordered that both Purohit and Thakur face trial under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. While framing charges, the special judge acknowledged there was 'no direct evidence regarding discussion of causing bomb blast at Malegaon amongst the accused persons except in the Bhopal meeting'. But the court also noted that witnesses had retracted statements in which they said there was a discussion about carrying out a bomb blast at Malegaon in the Bhopal meeting. However, relying on a top court judgment in a case involving Nalini, who was convicted of being part of the plot to assassinate former Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, the judge said that 'conspiracy generally is hatched in private or in secrecy'. 'It is rarely possible to establish a conspiracy by direct evidence. Usually, both i.e. existence of the conspiracy and its objects have to be inferred from the circumstances and the conduct of the accused. Tone of the discussion shows that they want to create Hindu Rashtra excluding the Muslims and Christians. In the said meeting, view was expressed to create threat against Muslims and Christians by striking them,' the judge said. 'On this background there is involvement of LML Freedom motorcycle belonging to accused No. 1 Pragya Singh Thakur in the bomb blast at Malegaon,' the judge said. 'There are also certain statements made by the accused No. 9 amounting to extra-judicial confession and by accused No. 1 indicating her knowledge about involvement of her motorcycle in the bomb blast.' During the course of the investigation and hearing, more than 300 prosecution witnesses were heard, of whom over 35 turned hostile. For instance, one of the witnesses who had previously, in his statement to the Maharashtra ATS, allegedly said that one absconding accused had met Pragya Singh Thakur on multiple occasions and that he had seen the absconding accused riding a motorcycle, which allegedly belonged to Thakur. But in March 2023, he retracted his statement. Another witness had earlier claimed to have known Thakur but later denied and retracted his statement given to the ATS. The case has been going on since 2018 at a special sessions court where charges were framed against seven people under various sections of the IPC and UAPA. Meanwhile, in 2019, BJP fielded Pragya Singh Thakur from the Bhopal Lok Sabha seat against Digvijaya Singh, and she won. The party decided against fielding her from the seat in 2024. During the trial, since Thakur had been out on bail, she was the one most inconsistent in attending hearings. She was even issued warnings by the court on multiple occasions. The phase involving prosecution witnesses was completed in September 2023. The final hearing of the arguments started in July 2024, with the court hearing arguments from the prosecution and defence on an almost daily basis until 19 April, 2025. (Edited by Sugita Katyal) Also Read: Rubbing salt on our wounds: Malegaon residents on Sadhvi Pragya fighting election
News18
40 minutes ago
- Politics
- News18
Malegaon Blast 2008: A Verdict That Closes One Chapter, But Opens Many Others
The verdict has created a peculiar outcome: there was a blast, there were deaths, and there was a motorcycle with explosives—but the court has no one to hold responsible for it After 16 years of intense investigation, multiple agencies, and a high-profile trial, the special NIA court in Mumbai has acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. The court's reasoning was clear: there was no credible evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. But even as the verdict brings closure to the ordeal of those accused, it leaves behind a haunting vacuum—who, then, was behind the gruesome act of terror that killed six and injured over a hundred in the communally sensitive town of Malegaon? The verdict does more than exonerate individuals. It symbolically pulls the curtain on what was widely termed as 'saffron terror"—a phrase that had triggered political storms, institutional conflict, and media debates for over a decade. However, in its attempt to bring legal finality, the judgment also renews a crucial question: Will the real perpetrators of the Malegaon blast ever be found? The Blast That Changed India's Terror Narrative On the evening of September 29, 2008, a powerful explosion ripped through the Bhikku Chowk area of Malegaon, a town with a history of communal tension. The blast, caused by a bomb planted on a motorcycle, killed six people and injured 101 others. The timing was crucial — it came just days after the Batla House encounter and amidst growing concern about domestic terrorism. But unlike previous attacks, where the blame often fell on Islamist terror groups, this case took a stunning turn. In a historic move, the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) led by then Maharashtra ATS chief Hemant Karkare arrested individuals linked to radical Hindu outfits. Among them were Pragya Singh Thakur (former BJP MP from Bhopal), Lt Col Prasad Purohit, and Swami Dayanand. The arrests were unprecedented—marking the first time the Indian State acknowledged the existence of Hindu extremist terror modules. The phrase 'saffron terror" entered the public discourse, prompting a firestorm of political and ideological debate. The Trial, Politics & Shifting Narrative From the outset, the Malegaon case was a complex interplay of legal, political, and ideological battles. The National Investigation Agency (NIA), which took over the case in 2011, eventually diluted many of the charges. By 2016, under the BJP-led NDA government, the NIA chose not to oppose bail pleas of key accused, including Pragya Thakur and Purohit. The charges under the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) were dropped. Public prosecutors changed, witnesses turned hostile—over 34 out of 323—and the tone of the investigation began to shift. Many observers felt the case was being politically softened. This was evident when Pragya Thakur was given a Lok Sabha ticket by the BJP in 2019 and won from Bhopal. Her victory speech included a controversial reference to Hemant Karkare, the officer who had arrested her and later died in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. That the government made no effort to distance itself from her remarks spoke volumes. The verdict delivered by a Special NIA Court on Thursday acquitted all seven accused citing lack of evidence. The judgment notes that the prosecution failed to prove that the motorcycle belonged to Pragya or that Purohit supplied the explosives. The court added, 'Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof." Legally, it is a clean acquittal. Politically, it's a full stop to the 'saffron terror" narrative. But for victims and civil society, it is a continuation of unanswered pain. What Happens When a Case Ends, But Justice Remains Elusive? The Malegaon verdict has created a peculiar judicial outcome: there was a blast, there were deaths, and there was a motorcycle with explosive material — but the court has no one to hold responsible for it. This presents a dangerous vacuum. When a terror case ends without conviction, it not only denies justice to the victims but also weakens public trust in the legal process. The deeper concern is that the country may have given up on finding the real culprits. It cannot simply be a matter of vindication for ideological purposes. If the state had once arrested innocent people—which the verdict now implies—then someone must be held accountable for falsely implicating them. If the case was botched or manipulated, action must be taken against erring investigators or officials. A judicial inquiry into the investigative lapses may be necessary. The Victims' Voice: Forgotten in the Noise Lost in the political and legal discourse are the voices of the actual victims. The families of those who died in the 2008 blast have been largely invisible from public view. Their wait for justice has spanned 16 years, across three governments, two investigative agencies, and now a courtroom verdict that gives no answers. Some of them have said, 'We have not got justice, we have only got a verdict." That statement reflects the helplessness of many ordinary Indians caught in the crossfire of power politics, communal polarisation, and judicial delays. For these families, it was never about which religion the accused belonged to—it was about finding out who killed their loved ones. Their grief remains, now without even the hope of legal closure. The End of 'Saffron Terror"? The term 'saffron terror" was always controversial — seen by some as a genuine attempt to describe a new wave of extremism, and by others as a politically motivated label. With the Malegaon acquittals, the narrative, for all practical purposes, stands dismantled. But does that mean such threats never existed? Between 2006 and 2008, there were a string of blasts — Malegaon (2006), Ajmer Sharif (2007), Mecca Masjid (2007), and Samjhauta Express (2007). Accused in these cases included individuals with links to radical Hindu groups. The investigations in many of these cases collapsed or ended in acquittals. In the end, whether one calls it 'saffron terror" or not, India's institutions must be honest enough to investigate every ideology of violence with equal seriousness — be it Islamist, Leftist, or Hindutva-inspired. Selective justice weakens democracy. The Verdict Is Out, But Accountability Is Not The Malegaon verdict may legally close one of India's most controversial terror cases, but it opens a more profound and long-lasting challenge — the need for accountability. If those who were blamed are not guilty, then the real attackers are still free. A fair, non-partisan reinvestigation — or at the very least, a judicial commission — could help restore some public trust. Because in the end, a terror case without a culprit is not just a legal failure — it's a national tragedy. About the Author Mayuresh Ganapatye Mayuresh Ganapatye, News Editor at writes on politics and civic issues, as well as human interests stories. He has been covering Maharashtra and Goa for more than a decade. Follow him at @ More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! tags : 2008 Malegaon Blast BJP malegaon blast case news18 specials NIA pragya thakur the maha picture view comments Location : Malegaon, India, India First Published: July 31, 2025, 15:35 IST News india Malegaon Blast 2008: A Verdict That Closes One Chapter, But Opens Many Others 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.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Politics
- Indian Express
2008 Malegaon blast case: NIA to decide on appeal after analysing verdict
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Thursday said it would decide on whether to appeal the verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, in which seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, were acquitted, after analysing the detailed judgment copy. 'So far, we have not received the judgment copy to find out the grounds on which the accused were acquitted. Once we peruse the order copy and analyse the reasons, we will decide on the next course of action,' an NIA official said. The NIA had taken over the investigation of the Malegaon blast, where six people were killed and several others were injured after a bomb placed inside a motorcycle exploded at Bhikhu Chowk on September 29, 2008, from the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in 2011. Imtiaz Jaleel, a former All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen MLA from Maharashtra, said, 'Like the state had earlier this month appealed the acquittal of the 12 accused in the train blasts in Mumbai promptly, they should similarly appeal against this acquittal as well.' Earlier this month, the Maharashtra government had moved the Supreme Court against a Bombay High Court order acquitting 12 accused in the Mumbai train blasts case. After the NIA took over the probe, it dropped the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) sections that had been applied by the ATS, stating that the manner in which it was applied was 'questionable'. The NIA then sought that Thakur be dropped as an accused, as there was no evidence against her and that it was inadmissible as MCOCA was dropped. Certain witness statements against her were also no longer admissible as evidence, the central agency pointed out. The special court, however, had said that prima facie there was enough evidence against her to put her on trial. The NIA had also said that of the 11 individuals arrested by the ATS, evidence existed against only seven, and the two wanted accused, Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange. Following this, the trial proceeded against seven people—Thakur, Purohit, Major (retired) Ramesh Upadhyay, Ajay Rahirkar, Sameer Kulkarni, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sudhakar Dhardwivedi—based on the chargesheet filed by the NIA in May 2016. All seven were acquitted on Thursday.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
Five judges, two agencies and a 17-year wait — the long road to verdict in Malegaon blast case
The trial in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, which stretched over nearly 17 years, witnessed not only a change in investigating agencies but also five different judges presiding over various stages of the proceedings. A special court on Thursday acquitted all seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, noting there was "no reliable and cogent evidence" against them. The investigation was initially conducted by the state Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which had pinned the blame on right-wing extremists who were members of 'Abhinav Bharat' probe was later handed over to the NIA, which gave a clean chit to Thakur. However, the court conducted the trial against her, citing prima facie the initial remand of the accused to the filing of charge sheets, framing of charges, commencement of trial, and finally the verdict, the case passed through the hands of five judges between 2008 and 2025. Both the victims of the blast and the accused cited this frequent change of judges as a significant factor in derailing the trial and contributing to the prolonged Kulkarni, one of the accused who was eventually acquitted, told PTI that this was among the longest-running trials. He blamed both the prosecution and defence for failing to expedite the proceedings. Kulkarni had even filed a petition in the High Court seeking that the trial be Shaheed Nadeem, who represented several victims, acknowledged that the repeated transfer of judges had indeed hampered the trial. He pointed out that the voluminous case records meant each new judge had to start afresh, further delaying the first judge to preside over the case was Special Judge Y.D. Shinde. He handled the initial remand of the accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur, Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit, and others. In a significant ruling, Judge Shinde set aside the invocation of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), observing that none of the accused were part of an organised crime syndicate. He noted that the legal prerequisite for invoking MCOCA-that an accused must have more than one charge sheet filed against them-was not met. However, the Bombay High Court later reinstated the application of MCOCA following an appeal by the state Shinde, special judge S.D. Tekale presided over the case from 2015 to 2018 until his transfer during annual judicial was Judge Tekale who rejected the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) move to grant a clean chit to Pragya Thakur, asserting that there was prima facie evidence warranting her Tekale, special judge V.S. Padalkar took over and, in October 2018, formally framed charges against Thakur, Purohit, and five others. The trial officially began under his tenure with the examination of the first P.R. Sitre succeeded Padalkar after his retirement in 2020. However, the COVID-19 pandemic brought the trial to a temporary standstill. Despite the challenges, Judge Sitre managed to examine 100 witnesses during his tenure of just over a 2022, when Sitre was slated for transfer, victims of the blast wrote to the then Bombay High Court Chief Justice Dipankar Datta, urging that the transfer be stayed to avoid further Sitre's transfer, special judge A.K. Lahoti took over the trial in June 2022. Till April 2025, Judge Lahoti continued the April, when he was slated for transfer to Nashik, the victims again wrote to the then HC Chief Justice seeking a stay on the transfer as the trial was nearing completion. Responding to their plea, Judge Lahoti's tenure as special NIA judge was extended until the end of August 2025, allowing him to complete the trial.
NDTV
2 hours ago
- NDTV
2008 Malegaon Blast Case: A Timeline Of 17-Year Long Trial
The 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case got a closure today, 17 years after a powerful blast hit Malegaon in Maharashtra, killing six people and injuring over 100. All seven accused, including former BJP Member of Parliament Sadhvi Pragya and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, were pronounced not guilty in the case. A K Lahoti of the Special National Investigation Agency Court, Mumbai, pronounced the verdict. Malegaon Blast Case: A Recap September 29, 2008: On the night of September 29, 2008, a low-intensity bomb fitted to a motorcycle went off near Bhikku Chowk in Malegaon, triggering panic and chaos in the communally sensitive town. The explosion occurred during the month of Ramzan and just before the festival of Navratri. October 2008: The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) began investigating the case and their probe led to the arrest of individuals linked to Hindu right-wing groups - giving rise to the controversial political phrase "Hindu terror." The ATS, then led by Hemant Karkare, arrested former BJP MP Sadhvi Pragya Thakur, whose motorcycle was allegedly used in the blast. Investigators claimed that she was actively involved in the planning and had provided the vehicle to the perpetrators. Lt Col Purohit, one of the seven accused, was also arrested under the accusation of being a key ideologue and facilitator. The ATS alleged that Purohit, through his association with the group Abhinav Bharat, arranged meetings, recruited individuals, and procured RDX used in the blast. Both Thakur and Purohit denied involvement and were later granted bail. January 2009: First charge sheet filed by ATS April 2011: The case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2011, which re-registered the offence and conducted further investigations. 2016: Ever since taking over the case, NIA filed multiple chargesheets, a supplementary chargesheet, dropped charges under MCOCA, but retained key terror charges under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and Arms Act intact against key accused like Sadhvi Pragya and Lt Col Purohit. NIA also acquitted several individuals previously named by the ATS, citing a lack of prosecutable evidence. NIA found serious loopholes in the ATS probe and alleged that the accused were tortured to extract confessional statements. 2018: Charges were formally framed against the seven accused, giving way to the trial. The seven individuals were identified as - Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur, former BJP MP from Bhopal; Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, then serving officer in Military Intelligence; Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay; Ajay Rahirkar; Sudhakar Dwivedi; Sudhakar Chaturvedi; Sameer Kulkarni. 2018-2023: Over the course of the trial, the court examined 323 prosecution witnesses and eight defence witnesses. Approximately 40 witnesses turned hostile during the proceedings. A large volume of evidence was submitted, including more than 10,800 exhibits were submitted over the trial. Over 400 articles were also seized during the investigation. April 2025: After over 16 years, final arguments from the prosecution and defence concluded in April 2025. The prosecution submitted detailed written arguments spanning over 1,300 pages, along with legal citations and documentary evidence. The judgment was reserved on April 19.
