Victims of 2008 Malegaon Blast Challenge Acquittal in Bombay High Court
Mumbai: Even as the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has shown no signs of filing an appeal in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, the families of the victims of the terror blast have moved the Bombay high court against the trial court’s acquittal.
On July 31, the special NIA court acquitted all seven persons, including Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Pragya Singh Thakur and serving army officer Colonel Prasad Purohit, accused of participating in the terror blast that killed six persons and injured hundreds.
Special NIA court judge A.K. Lahoti, while acquitting the accused, noted that there was “grave suspicion” against them. However, he observed that while a “grave degree of suspicion is established,” it is insufficient to convict the accused. In his judgment, he wrote, “There can be strong suspicion, but mere suspicion is not enough to punish them.”
The criminal appeal was filed by Nisar Ahmed Sayyed Bilal, father of 19-year-old Sayyed Azhar, along with the families of the five others who lost their lives in the high-intensity blast in the communally sensitive town. The petition is filed through their lawyer, Mateen Shaikh.
The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), which handled the investigation before the NIA took over, claimed that the improvised explosive device (IED) was planted on an LML Freedom motorcycle in the already communally sensitive town.
Before moving the high court, Nisar Ahmed had intervened in the trial. The other family members have now joined him in seeking justice.
Just a day before the verdict, Union home minister Amit Shah claimed on the floor of Parliament that he was “proud” that “Hindus can never be terrorists.”
The NIA functions under the Home Ministry, headed by Shah. Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis also lauded the judgment, reiterating Shah’s statement. The NIA, which has not filed an appeal in the case even 40 days after the judgment, has stated that it is seeking legal opinion on whether to file an appeal.
The appellants, relatives of the victims killed in the blast, argue that the trial court’s judgment is flawed on multiple legal and factual grounds. In their appeal, the victims claim that the judgment “contravenes established legal principles regarding evidence appreciation, rendering it liable to be quashed.”
They accuse the trial court of inadequately evaluating the prosecution’s evidence. The trial judge relied heavily on “minor inconsistencies and omissions, which are natural given the passage of years between the investigation and the trial,” they argue in the appeal. The case took 17 years before it was finally disposed of at the end of July this year.
Victims term acquittal 'perverse', say judgment disregards substantial evidence against accused
Calling the acquittal “perverse,” the victims argue that the judgment disregards substantial evidence directly pointing to the guilt of the accused. Judge Lahoti repeatedly stated in his judgment that the accused were not acquitted because they were innocent but because the NIA failed to provide supporting evidence to prove their guilt.
During the trial, several accused, particularly Purohit, challenged the applicability of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). After the NIA took over, the MCOCA charges were dropped, and the trial proceeded under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kavitha Lankesh v. State of Karnataka (2022), filed in journalist Gauri Lankesh’s murder case, the appellants argue that MCOCA was applicable because two chargesheets had been filed against one of the accused.
The prosecution’s decision to drop MCOCA charges after a decade, without judicial adjudication, “vitiated the trial,” they contend in their appeal.
The trial court rejected the forensic expert’s report for lacking a Section 65-B certificate under the Indian Evidence Act. Forensic expert Dr. Suhas Bakre was crucial to the investigation. He found that the number plate of the LML motorcycle, allegedly belonging to Thakur and used in the blast, had been changed, but he managed to recover three probable engine numbers.
One was traced to a motorcycle sold by Thakur to a co-accused, who is absconding. The appellants challenge the trial court’s decision to reject Bakre’s testimony.
As many as 39 witnesses turned hostile in the case, including crucial witnesses who had given statements before a magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC. The appellants argue that these statements, recorded before a magistrate, are admissible and should have been considered.
In the appeal, the victims challenge the trial court’s finding that the sanction under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was illegal and its decision to reject intercepted communications as evidence due to a “delayed authorization order.”
The order was received on October 24, 2008, days after the blast. The ATS, in its investigation, cited intercepted communications, including SMS exchanges between the accused, as corroborative evidence of the conspiracy.
The ATS’s case was that Purohit, founder of the radical right-wing group Abhinav Bharat, attended conspiracy meetings and actively participated in the terror blast. The court, however, failed to appreciate this evidence, the victims argue in their petition.
This article went live on September tenth, two thousand twenty five, at fifty-eight minutes past nine in the morning.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
