scorecardresearch
Friday, March 29, 2024
Support Our Journalism
HomeIndia‘Not an iota of evidence’ — Samjhauta judge says NIA failed miserably...

‘Not an iota of evidence’ — Samjhauta judge says NIA failed miserably to prove case

NIA special judge Jagdeep Singh says a ‘malaise’ has set in the investigating agencies, which brand criminal acts as those of a particular religion or caste.

Follow Us :
Text Size:

New Delhi: National Investigation Agency (NIA) special judge Jagdeep Singh has come down heavily on the prosecution for having “miserably failed to connect the accused with the crime in question” in the Samjhauta Express blast case.

The judge also expressed concern over the “malaise” that “has set in the investigating agencies which coin various terms like Muslim terrorism, Hindu fundamentalism, etc, or brand an act of criminal(s) as act(s) of particular religion, caste or community”.

While the judge acquitted Swami Aseemanand, Lokesh Sharma, Kamal Chauhan and Rajinder Chaudhary due to absence of clinching evidence, he kept the case alive against Ramchandra Kalasangra, Amit and Sandeep Dange — all declared proclaimed offenders — in case they are ever apprehended and can be tried.

In his 20 March judgment, made public Thursday, acquitting Aseemanand and others, the judge wrote: “I have to conclude this judgment with deep pain and anguish as a dastardly act of violence remained unpunished for want of credible and admissible evidence. There are gaping holes in the prosecution evidence and an act of terrorism has remained unsolved.

“Terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. A court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perception or the political discourse of the day and ultimately it has to appreciate the evidence on record and arrive at final conclusion on the basis of relevant statutory provisions and settled law applicable thereto.

“Since findings of a court of law are based on admissible evidence as per law, the pain becomes more acute when perpetrators of heinous crime remain unidentified and unpunished.”


Also read: What Samjhauta blast acquittals mean for ‘saffron terror bogey’ in election season


‘Malaise in investigating agencies’

Continuing on the issue of branding the accused in terror cases on the basis of their religious identity, the judge wrote: “It is generally noticed that a malaise has set in the investigating agencies which coin various terms like Muslim terrorism, Hindu fundamentalism etc or brand an act of criminal(s) as act(s) of particular religion, caste or community.

“A criminal element, belonging to a particular religion, community or caste, cannot be projected as representative of such particular religion, community or caste and branding the entire community, caste or religion in the name of such criminal element(s) would be totally unjustified and it would be in the best interests of human kind to nip such tendencies in the bud lest we should be heading towards intense civil war or caught in a whirlpool of fratricide.”

Here are some other excerpts from the judgment:

On prosecution’s failure

“It is further trite to say that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof, and it is cardinal principal of criminal jurisprudence that charge against an accused can only be established by adducing evidence beyond reasonable doubt. A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies cannot be held to be adequate or connecting the accused with the crime in question.

“In criminal cases, conviction cannot be based upon morality and there must be admissible and credible evidence to base conviction and moreover it is well settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that ‘fouler the crime higher the proof’ and mandate of law is that the prosecution has to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt.

“Prosecution is under obligation to place and prove all necessary circumstances constituting complete chain without there being any missing link and also pointing to the hypothesis that except the accused none else had committed the crime.”

On the lack of evidence

“In the present case, there is no evidence regarding any agreement to commit the crime amongst the accused persons. There is no evidence regarding any meeting of minds between the accused to commit the crime. No concrete oral, documentary or scientific evidence has been brought on record to connect the accused, facing the trial, with the crime in question.

“There is not an iota of evidence to make out any motive on the part of the accused to indulge in the crime. There is no evidence on record to show as to how and from where raw materials for making/preparation of bombs were procured; as to who collected the material to prepare the explosives; as to who had prepared/assembled the bomb/explosives; as to how and from where technical know-how was arranged/obtained with regard to preparation of bomb/explosives; as to who planted the bombs in Samjhauta Express train etc. and the entire prosecution case is found to have been built on inadmissible evidence in the shape of disclosure statements of the accused, without there being any discovery of new fact/recovery of material/object.

“Further, there is no credible and admissible evidence on record pertaining to any association, preparation, planning, execution etc. of/by the accused with regard to carrying out explosion/blasts in Samjhauta Express train and further there is no credible evidence with regard to previous and/or subsequent conduct of accused persons so far as the present crime is concerned.”

On hostile witnesses and witness protection

“Even though the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the accused with the crime in question, however it may also be noticed here that large number of witnesses have turned hostile in the present matter and have not supported the prosecution case.

“The Hon’ble Supreme Court, time and again, have expressed concerns about safety and protection of witnesses and therefore it is again high time we put in place some sound and workable witness protection scheme at the earliest so that every criminal trial be taken to its logical conclusion.”


Also read: Samjhauta blast acquittals have turned India’s accusing finger at Pakistan inwards


 

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube, Telegram & WhatsApp

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Most Popular