NIA Court While Acquitting All Accused In 2008 Malegaon Blast Case

Special Judge A.K. Lahoti observed, “I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to adduce cogent, reliable, and legally acceptable evidence. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions. Such discrepancies undermine the credibility of the prosecution’s case and fall short of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”

The Court added, “I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration, and trauma caused to society at large and, more particularly, to the families of the victims by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. No doubt, the terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter.”

Advocate J. P. Mishra appeared for the Accused, while Special Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The case pertains to a bomb blast that took place on September 29, 2008, near Bhikku Chowk in Malegaon, Maharashtra, resulting in the death of six persons and injuries to over one hundred others. An improvised explosive device (IED) was allegedly planted on a two-wheeler, which exploded in a densely populated Muslim locality. The motorcycle used in the blast was registered in the name of one of the accused, who was later elected to public office.

The investigation was initially carried out by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which arrested several individuals, including a serving Army officer and persons said to be affiliated with Hindu right-wing organisations. In 2011, the probe was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The prosecution alleged that the accused were part of a larger conspiracy to promote the idea of a “Hindu Rashtra” through targeted acts of violence against the Muslim community.

According to the chargesheet, meetings to plan the attack were allegedly held in Bhopal and Faridabad, where the use of the motorcycle for the blast was purportedly finalised. Charges were framed under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 302, 307, 326, 427, 153A, and 120B; under Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act; Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; and Sections 3 and 25 of the Arms Act. Although the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) was initially invoked, the Special NIA Court subsequently dropped MCOCA charges against some of the accused.

Reasoning of the Court

The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish any conspiracy. It observed, “There is no evidence worth the name to prove that any of the accused conspired with each other to commit the crime. The witnesses examined to prove the meetings have contradicted themselves on basic aspects like time, date and location, and their versions are not supported by independent corroborative evidence.”

The Court noted that key witnesses were unreliable and inconsistent. “The testimony of PW 112, who was examined as a witness to the Bhopal meeting, is full of contradictions and exaggerations. His presence at the alleged meeting is not supported by independent evidence. His version appears to be an afterthought,” the Court recorded.

As regards the motorcycle used in the blast, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that A7 knowingly allowed its use or retained possession of it. The Court held, “The seizure of the said motorcycle and its connection to the blast is not proved in accordance with law. There is no evidence to show that A-7 was in possession of said vehicle after registration. There is no iota of evidence that she had parked said vehicle at the house of A-5 or that she was having control over it.”

The Court found no material to indicate she was involved in delivering the motorcycle to any of the other accused.

On the issue of forensic and electronic evidence, the Court stated, “No reliance can be placed on the said CDRs as the same are not proved as per law. The prosecution failed to bring the relevant witnesses to certify the authenticity of the call records and location data. Further, the CDRs are not supported by any other independent evidence and hence cannot establish the presence or movement of the accused at the relevant time.” The Court found that no complete forensic chain or location evidence was produced to place the accused at the scene or to link them to the bomb components.

The confessional statements under MCOCA were rejected. The Court noted, “The alleged confessional statements are not proved in accordance with the procedure prescribed under MCOCA. They are not corroborated by any independent material. A conviction cannot rest solely on confessional statements unless tested for reliability and supported by other evidence.”

The Court made strong remarks on the nature of the investigation conducted by the ATS and later by the NIA. “The investigation appears to have been guided by a pre-conceived theory and not directed towards discovering the actual perpetrators of the crime. This defeats the very object of criminal justice,” the Court stated. It further observed, “Crucial witnesses were not examined, chain of custody was broken, and delay in forensic submissions undermines the evidentiary value of the exhibits. These serious deficiencies render the investigation doubtful and incomplete.”

The Court held, “In my considered opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against all accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, all accused A-1 to A-7 are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.”

The Court directed that the bail bonds stand cancelled and sureties discharged, and that the seized articles be disposed of as per law after expiry of the appeal period.

Case No: NIA Spl. Case No.01/2016