New Delhi: On the evening of 11 July, 2006, seven bomb blasts tore through the first class compartments of seven local trains in Mumbai, Maharashtra, leading to the death of 187 persons, while 824 were injured.
After investigation, the police tracked down the accused, most of whom were convicted in 2015 by a special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA),1999, and the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
While one of the accused, Wahid Sheikh, was acquitted by the district court after nine years in prison in 2015, one died of COVID-19 infection in 2021 in a Nagpur prison.
Finally, the 12 convicts, five of whom were sentenced to death and seven given life terms, made their way to the Bombay High Court, challenging their conviction in the case.
After 18 years in prison, the 12 men—accused of murder, causing grievous hurt, voluntarily causing hurt, criminal conspiracy, raging war against the nation, sedition, promoting insurgency, abetting war against the nation, making and transferring explosives, among other offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, Explosives Act, 1884 and Explosive Substances Act, among others—were acquitted by the high court Monday.
The prosecution had argued that Mumbai’s local trains are the “lifeline” of the city, which is also home to the Bombay Stock Exchange and the Reserve Bank of India, and the blasts crippled the economy, public infrastructure and public transport. Reportedly, over Rs 80 lakh worth of damage was estimated to have occurred.
Saying that “deceptive closure” undermines public trust and falsely reassures society while the true threat remains looming at large, a bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak, after hearing the appeals for six months, delivered a 671-page judgment.
The bench ruled: “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.”
Speaking to ThePrint, senior advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, pointed to the larger significance of the judgment, and said, “Naturally, I am happy since I appeared for the accused in this case, but the judgment has a far greater significance. Beyond appearances, the ruling straightaway points out the complete lack of accountability of the investigation in this case.”
Calling the judgment an “unerring understanding of the fundamentally flawed and misdirected investigation”, Ramakrishnan added that the investigation in the blasts case was one “without a conscience”, and a lack of proper application of mind, as is warranted by the stupendous investigation powers.
“The court has, with an unerring eye, found in its judgment that every piece of evidence in this case is lacking in integrity. For the court to see through this restores faith among the people in the judicial process,” the lawyer said.
The judgment cuts away the chaff, and goes straight to the truth, in an extremely restrained language, she remarked. “It’s a good example of restoring greater investigative accountability for the agencies, and hence, has a far-reaching significance.”
‘Lack of proper evidence, credible witnesses’
“I had argued this case from the start of July until November, and none of the leads from the crime scene pointed to the guilt of the accused, the court found. In fact, until the date of evidence, the investigative agencies said there were no details available of how the bombs were planted,” Ramakrishnan further told ThePrint. “Until the date MCOCA was invoked, and confessions under the law were recorded, they (the agencies) had no idea of how the crime was even committed.”
Underlining that MCOCA was invoked against the accused without so much of a scrap of evidence, the senior advocate said, “19 years of their lives were lost. Police officers who were present in the train compartments were never brought in as witnesses, without any solid reason. If they were brought in time, they could have identified the real offenders.”
Torture in police custody
In its ruling, the court rejected several confessional statements, noting that one of the accused was also inflicted with torture in police custody. “The accused succeeded in establishing the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements,” the court ruled.
It also rejected certain other confessional statements that were “not found to be truthful and complete on various grounds”. Some portions of these confessions were found to be similar and copied, the court noted.
The accused (A7) was tortured beyond words, it was observed. “The skin on his bottom had peeled, and when the court was informed, the DCP denied it altogether,” Ramakrishnan told ThePrint.
Repeated witnesses
The court noted that one of the witnesses was also a witness in the 2002 Ghatkopar blast case, and rejected his testimony, saying, “Since the defence succeeded in shattering his oral evidence in cross-examination, we have not considered his evidence worth relying on.”
Ramakrishnan also said, “The court found that only one witness was known from July itself, but he was compromised. Thus, there was a lack of credibility among the witnesses.”
Emphasising that testimonies were changed, and that there were material contradictions in the case, Ramakrishnan explained how one of the witnesses had earlier said that he was at the scene of the crime, while he was riding a motorbike. “At a different instance, however, he claimed to not have a bike.”
Other reasons given by HC
In its ruling, the high court also noted that injured witnesses, who saw the suspects after they boarded the train, were not even called for the Test Identification Parade—a process by which the identity of persons, things or animals involved in an offence under investigation or trial is established.
Setting aside the conviction of the accused by the lower court, the bench noted that there was a lack of evidence in this case. “In these circumstances, having held that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the offence beyond the reasonable doubt against the accused on each count, it is unsafe to reach the satisfaction that the appellants/accused have committed the offences for which they have been convicted and sentenced,” the court ruled.
It also pointed out how none of the passengers present in the seven trains could identify the accused persons. After analysing whatever evidence was presented, the court noted, “It is abundantly clear that, at the crucial stage of recording confession, the accused were not made aware of their right to have services of lawyer,” adding that the accused’s valuable right to have the services of lawyer was denied. Taking note of the discrepancies in the confessions, the court said that certain confessions lacked trustworthiness and completeness.
(Edited by Mannat Chugh)
Also Read: Fiancé murder: In rare relief to life convict, SC takes note of ‘error of judgment, a voice muffled’