August 4, 2025 • 31 mins
Last Thursday, a special court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. The court said that the prosecution had failed to present cogent and reliable evidence, and had not been able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And it also noted that there was a “strong suspicion” about the accused and their role in the blast, but that suspicion cannot be a substitute for “legal proof.”
Today on the show, The Indian Express’ Sadaf Modak and Apurva Vishwanath join us to break down the verdict, the procedural lapses, and what this case reveals about the handling of long-running terror trials in India.
Hosted and produced by Shashank Bhargava
Edited and mixed by Suresh Pawar
Today on the show, The Indian Express’ Sadaf Modak and Apurva Vishwanath join us to break down the verdict, the procedural lapses, and what this case reveals about the handling of long-running terror trials in India.
Hosted and produced by Shashank Bhargava
Edited and mixed by Suresh Pawar
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hi amschashang bade and you listened to three things, the
Indian Express New show. Last Thursday, a special court in
Mumbai acquitted all seven individuals accused in the two thousand
and eight male Gam blast case, including the former BJPMP
Praguessing Takur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Puru Hit. The blast,
(00:27):
which occurred around one hundred kilometers northeast of Nashik, had
claimed six lives and injured about one hundred others. This
case has been one of the country's longest running terror
trials and its accused were first arrested by the Maharashtra
Anti Terrorism Squad for ATS within weeks of the bombing,
almost seventeen years ago. One of the accused, apuone based businessman,
(00:51):
was granted bail in twenty eleven, while the other six
remained in prison for eight more years until they were
released on bail in two thousand and seventeen. Now, in
its verdict, the COOTE said that the prosecution had failed
to present cogent and reliable evidence and had not been
able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it
(01:12):
also noted that there was a strong suspicion about the
accused and their role in the blast, but that suspicion
cannot be a substitute for legal proof, and so we
are dedicating today's episode to take a closer look at
the case, the quote's verdict, and the procedural concerns it
has raised. And for this we begin by speaking to
(01:32):
the Indian Expresses Sadav Modak, who's been reporting on the
case for the paper. Sadev, can you recall for us
exactly what happened on September twenty nine, two thousand and eight.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Yes, So, on September twenty ninth, two thousand and eight,
there was an explosion at Bikuchok in Malaga town, which
is about one hundred kilometers from Nashik, and the blast
took six lives and nearly one hundred were injured. Most
of these were people who had assembled because it was
the night of Ramzan, the holy month of fasting for
(02:05):
the Muslims, and it was also the eve of Navarathri.
So the investigator said that the main reason for the
conspirators to have chosen this date was to cause internal
strife and communal disharmony because it was the month of
Ramzan and the eve of Navaratri and six people lost
their lives and around near one hundred were injured in
the blast.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
And talk about who began investigating this matter back then
and who all did they initially arrest right so.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
After the local police, you know, realized that this was
a terror attack, the case was immediately transferred to the
Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad, which at that time was being
led by IPS Officer heymanth Kerk. And the probe went
on for a while and the first arrest was made
nearly a month later on twenty third of November two
thousand and eight, and the first arrest was that of
(02:54):
Praguessing Taco and the investigators the ATS at that time
said that the explosion was to an improvised explosive device
which was placed on a golden colored Elemil Freedom which
was found at this spot, and they said that they
went about trying to figure out who the motorcycle belonged
to and that it led them to Takur and that's
(03:15):
how she was arrested.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
She was the first arrest in the case.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Following that, they went about investigating her contacts and who
she was in touch with, and they claimed that they
found a link to the other.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Accused and just for the benefit of our listeners, Pragassing
Takur was an activist of the Hindu right wing student
organization ABVP and later in twenty nineteen, while she was
still facing terror allegations, she was chosen by the BGP
as its candidate for the parliament. She was then elected
to the Lobe Sabah from Bopal and during her term
(03:48):
in parliament, she created controversy when she described Mahatma Gandhi's
killer as a dejbak. This had caused a lot of outrage.
Later in twenty twenty four, however, she was not given
a ticket by the BGP. Now when we talk about her,
tell us how was the ATS linking her to the blast?
Why did they think it was her motorcycle which was
(04:10):
used for it.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
So they were saying that the Elemental Freedom, which was
parked at the spot, the number plate was false, but
that they said that there was the engine number and
the chassis number, which is like a unique identification number
of every vehicle. The forensic experts had actually found the
erased number and they had gone to the dealers who
sold these motorcycles and from there they had found that
(04:32):
it was registered in the name of praguessing Tako. That
was the investigation that the ATS claimed had led them
to Taker.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
And once they arrest Taker, who else do they find
is connected to the case.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Right, So then they had arrested a few more people
who were eventually discharged. But they also claimed that their
probe showed them that there was an organization named Abinov Barrack,
and they went about arresting some of its members and
office bearers, whose members and whose office bearers were under suspicion.
And what they did was they claimed that they had
taken permission from authorities to intercept phone calls of these
(05:06):
suspected persons. For example, they claimed that, you know, they
had intercepted phone calls between one retired major Ameishu pat
There and a serving army officer left in, Colonel Prasadrohit.
And they claimed that Tako was already arrested by then,
and there was an intercepted phone call between these two
individuals where one is telling the other that the cat
is out of the bag and U sing is singing
(05:27):
quite a song. And they claim that these were conversations
which were after there was news already published in the
newspapers about Taco's arrest, and they claimed that this conversation
sort of showed the complicity of these two persons in
the crime because they were discussing what the ATS alleged
were conversations pertaining to Taco's arrest and her interrogation.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
And you know, even initially, like you said, ATS was
thinking that this blast was done to cause a communal
rift and endanger internal security. So after arresting Tako and
intercepting these what do they find out about the motive? Right?
Speaker 2 (06:03):
So what they also did was they found out that
there were conspiracy meetings which had taken place from two
thousand and seven till the execution of the blast in
various places in the country, one in faridabadu Jain and Nashik.
And what they claimed is that in these meetings, some
of the accused had spoken about the need to sort
of take revenge from Muslims and planning a blast, particularly
(06:25):
in a Muslim populated area, as sort of like a
revenge attack. And they also claimed that this group was
speaking about like creating a separate Hindu ushtu with a
separate constitution, a separate flag. These were the things that
the Atias claimed came from statements of witnesses who had
participated or were privy to these conspiracy meetings that the
accused had allegedly attended and participated in. So the conclusion
(06:48):
that the ATIS drew was that the accused had these
motives and therefore they had planned the blast, particularly choosing
Malaga as a Muslim populated area to execute the plan.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Understand that after the ATS started investigating this case, they
had invoked MACOCA, the Maharastra Control of Organized Crime Act,
which like UAPA, is an alternate criminal law system and
under MACOCA, confessional statements to the police are admissible in court.
So talk about what the police found out through such
(07:22):
statements and how key were they for the ATS.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
So MCUs actually is this special act which is in
Marashtra but also is now in some of the other states.
It's not necessarily invoked in cases of terror. But what
it actually means is it's for targeting organized crime syndicates,
so for example, organizations which work in an organized manner
to commit crime and to gain a lot of pecunity
benefits out of it. Even though UAP, which is the
(07:48):
anti terror law, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was invoked
in the case. The ATS went ahead and also invoked
the MCOCA, which is the Marstra Control of Organized Crime Act.
Under the act, confessions given to the DCA are permitted,
and the ATIS went about saying that there were three
accused who had given confessions and claimed that in their
confessions again was similar to what the conspiracy meeting witnesses
(08:11):
had allegedly told the ATS. They claimed that you know,
the accused had spoken about their roles in the blast
and spoken about the roles of co accused in the blast,
including Pragasing, Taco, Leutronannkernel and what they had discussed and how,
for example, Takur had offered to provide men for the
execution of the blasts, and that Purohith had said that
you know RDX will be provided through him through his
posting in Jamu and Kashmira. So all these allegations, they
(08:34):
claimed were proved through the confessions of the three accused.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
OK. The ATIS began investigating this case in two thousand
and eight, and we understand that later the case was
transferred to the National Investigation Agency n IA. When when
did that happen?
Speaker 2 (08:50):
So in the aftermath of the twenty six eleven the
Mumba terror attacks. In two thousand and eight, the NIA
was formed and around twenty eleven the case was transferred
to the which went on to probe the case, taking
forward whatever the ATS had investigated by then, and till
twenty eleven, the ATS had filed one charge shead and
another supplementary charge shack naming around eleven persons who were
(09:13):
responsible for the blast, including Tacour pro Hit and a
few others.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
And so before we talk about what the nia's investigation revealed,
tell us what were these accused claiming them?
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Right?
Speaker 2 (09:25):
So, the accused have since the beginning claimed that the
whole case was Boger's. They claimed that the investigating officers
were sort of carrying out the probe in a biased manner.
They claimed that they were tortured. They claimed that, you know,
the confessions were forcefully taken. And they also went on
to immediately challenge the invocation of the MCUSA, which went
up to the Supreme Court and eventually in twenty fifteen,
(09:46):
the Supreme Court said that there is no prime official
proof enough to know invoke MCUCA.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
And here's ad talk about the difference between what the
ATS was claiming and what the NIA was claiming when
it was investing the metal.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
So they went on to challenge it till the Supreme Court,
and after the Supreme Court in twenty fifteen said that
there is probably no proof to invoke MCOCA, a few
months later in April twenty sixteen, then NI filed a
charge and they sort of agreed with the ATS on
some bits of their investigation, but also disagreed with them
on some other So for example, they said that the
(10:22):
MCUCA was invoked without following procedure. So in MCOCA you
usually require at least one of the accused to have
at least two prior charge sheets spending against them, so
that you can say that it is an organized crime syndicate.
In this case, what the NI claimed the ATS had
done is that they filed two cases against one of
the accused racations Nowaday, who was eventually discharged from terror
(10:44):
charges without following procedure. Like his arrests were shown in
the previous other cases were shown after he was arrested
in the Malaga case. So that's why the NI, in
his church she had said that there was a goal
process of invoking MCUC was dubious, and the court accepted
that eventually the Special Court and m CUCA was dropped.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
From the case. The main difference between.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
The eighties and Nichich if one has to speak about,
because the MCUCA was dropped and all the confessions there
were three confessions of the accused, they were rendered inadmissible,
so whatever the ATIS had claimed was evidence that came
through these confessions was could not be used anymore. And
the ATS investigation also happed on Tako's link to the blast,
(11:23):
claiming that it was in her ownership that the vehicle
was handed over to absconding accused Ramjikal and Sangra, who
had then allegedly planted the ied on the vehicle and
then parked it at the spot. What the NI claimed
was that Tako was not involved, She was not using
the vehicle for at least two years before the blast,
and there was no evidence to show that she had
(11:46):
participated in any conspiracy meetings or that she had said
that she would provide men. And then I recommended that
Tako should be dropped as an accused, along with a
few other accused as well. Although in twenty sixteen, the
Special Court, which was you know, the trial court of
the case, said that the NAE contention that there is
no evidence against Tarker cannot be accepted. It said that
Tako should face trial because you know, the link of
(12:09):
the vehicle to her was something that was prima facing
evidence and she could face the trial and then you
prove that she was not linked to the case. But
at that stage it said that there was enough evidence
to put her to trial. So eventually seven of the accused,
six of them that the and I also said there
was evidence against, including pro Hith went on to trial
along with Taker, who the court, despite a n i's
(12:31):
recommendation that she could not be right, said that there
was enough evidence and put her to trial as well.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
And you know, this has been one of the longest
running terrorcases in the country. Could you talk about what
we saw take place during the trial? Right?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
So the trial began around twenty eighteen, and then there
was a special court assigned which was only sort of
notified to conduct the trial of the mauling out two
thousand and eight case. Hearings happening daily and the witness
is being examined daily. Of course, during the pandemic years
again there was the pace of the trial slowed down,
but between twenty eighteen and twenty twenty five, there were
(13:07):
some three twenty three witnesses who were examined by the prosecution,
which was the NI and with the ATS in chart
sheet also to be considered by the court. The trial
went on with evidence from both the ATIS and the
NI chart sheets, and during the trial, however, around thirty
nine witnesses turned hostile. If you remember, had said that
one of the main evidence that the ATS relied on
(13:29):
was witnesses were party to the conspiracy meetings who had
participated in them. Those witnesses eventually told the court that
their statements were taken under threat, that the ATS had
caused them into giving false statements. Some of them said
that they had been put on gunpoint, illegally detained and
therefore a lot of it regarding conspiracy meetings, a lot
of evidence that the ATS had claimed was available regarding
(13:51):
the conspiracy meetings kind of came under a cloud because
of these statements by the misses later on in court.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
And we also understand that they were over thirty witnesses
who were cited in the chart sheet but who passed
away before they could depose before the court.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah. Yeah, because of the time lapse, some of the
witnesses who were crucial to the case they had passed
away pending trial. And also the NI itself, when it
filed its chart sheet in twenty sixteen, also blamed time
labs for not really being able to, you know, gather
any evidence from the spot or gather any other fresh
evidence from witnesses, given how long it had taken. So
(14:28):
the NI chart sheet in that sense did not have
any new forensic evidence or any new witnesses. It went
about just re recording, in fact, some of the statements
of the witnesses which were part of the ATS chart sheet,
claiming that there were discrepancies in it. So, I mean,
one of the reasons that the NI has given for
not getting fresh investigation is time lapse. And the time
(14:48):
lag also did result in, you know, affecting the trial
because of some of the witnesses passing away or you know,
some not remembering what exactly had taken place. So yeah,
that did happen.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
And now this special court you know, ended up acquitting
all the seven accused, including Pragiata cour and Lieutenant Colonel
Prasad pro Hit, who had been a serving army officer.
Talk about the main reasons it did that right.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
So one of the main contentions of the accused was
that the blast never took place. One of the accused
had claimed that the blast never took place and it
was another kind of explosion, and therefore the court had
to summon all the injured witnesses, which usually doesn't happen
in a trial, and it also had to summon like
kin of people who had died. What the court eventually found.
The only thing about regarding the prosecution case that the
(15:36):
court did find evidence on is that a blast did
take place. It said that it was an explosive, but
there was no evidence to show that it was fitted
into the pike the element freedom, or that it was
fitted beneath the boot of the bike.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Yeah, which is something that the forensic expert had claimed, right.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Right, right, right, So the court said that this claim
was based on guesswork. Is what the forensic expert told
the court that his observation, and it was not based
on any kind of a scientific test that he had conducted.
So the court said that therefore there was no evidence
to show that the explosive was fitted into the vehicle
and said that it could have been just kept somewhere
on the motorcycle, or it could have just been like,
(16:14):
you know, hung from the motorcycle and nobody had seen
anyone sort of come to the bike park the bike there,
or you know, nobody had seen the bike being driven
from a particular place to the spot. So that was
one reason why the court did not agree with the
ATS's contention that the explosive was fitted into the motorcycle.
That was one of the things that the court did
not agree with. On the point of other evidence, since
(16:36):
the conspiracy meetings were not proved because of the hostile witnesses,
the court discarded that evidence as well. The intercepted calls
were one of the main evidences, but the court said
that you know, proper authorization needs to be taken when
you are intercepting calls, and it was not done. Therefore
that could not be relied on. Similarly, one of the
things that the ATS had claimed was crucial evidence was
so one of the accused of Dakar Dharwadi, the ATIS
(16:59):
had alleged that he's for some reason, used to record
these conspiracy meetings, and the recordings the audio video files
were found on his laptop, which was seized at the
time of his arrest. It had gone about matching voice
samples of the people heard in the audio video recordings
along with the accused and claimed that they also matched.
But the defense claimed that, you know, the whole process
(17:21):
of the arrest of this person and this way the
ATIS had gone about seizing the laptop was not proper.
The court agreed that, you know, the laptop was sealed
about twenty four hours after it was seized from the accused,
and this was not proper procedure. It could have been
tampered within that twenty four hour period when it was
(17:41):
not sent to the FSL but was with the investigating
officer unsealed. So that was one reason why the court
discarded that evidence as well.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Okay, so just to recap When it comes to the
bomb and its connection to the motorcycle, the court said
that we have no proof that the bomb was fitted in.
The bomb, you know, could have been near bike, were
placed on the bike. When it comes to the alleged
meetings that happened in Faridaba, the nojen in that witnesses
(18:09):
turned hostile. When it comes to calls which were intercepted,
the courte said that proper procedure was not followed for
you to have intercepted those calls, and proper procedure was
also not followed when it came to the police accessing
audio video recordings from the laptop of the accused. Correct,
But what about the allegations that were leveled against Tako
(18:31):
and her connection to the motorcycle. What did the COOTE
say about that?
Speaker 2 (18:36):
So it said that the identification of the bike itself
was not properly done. For instance, it said that experts
had deposed that, you know, the serial number and the
chasis number were not properly recovered and without this serial
number they could not have printed down to this particular
dealership and pruguessing Tako. Basically, the numbers in the series
that the ats claimed led them to Prugia were not
(18:58):
complete and one of the forensics also did say that,
you know, while he was trying to get the number
which was wiped off, he used a solution which could
have led to the whole number getting raised. So the
court said, in that case, how is it that they
went to the exact dealer who said that it was
progressing Tako's bike when the serial number was not complete?
Speaker 1 (19:18):
And also what about the allegations against Lieutenant Colonel Purohit.
What did the Special Court say regarding that?
Speaker 2 (19:25):
So, the main allegation against him was that he had
founded this organization called Abinov Baath and that funds were
received by the organization and it was used for terror activities.
They remember, the ates also claimed that it was this
organization which was the organized crime syndicate. The court said
that there was no proof to show that Abina Baath
was involved in any terrorist activity and that you know,
(19:48):
the allegations that he had procured RDX from his posting
in Jamun, Kashmir, the court said, there was absolutely no
evidence to show that he had, in fact, you know,
brought any RDX from anywhere or stored it in his
or used it in the blast. So on that front,
the court said there was no evidence against him. One
of the things that he had also argued as his
defense was that he had joined Ubin Avarath as a
(20:09):
military intelligence officer to collect intelligence. And the court said
that you know that there was no proof of him
being assigned by his seniors to join the organization or
to collect funds from the organization as an officer on duty.
So the court said that although there was no evidence
regarding Abina Barath indulging in any terrorist activity. There was
(20:30):
also no proof of him having joined the organization, you know,
as an assignment or as something that the army had
asked him to do, so that the court said there
was no proof of that defense that had taken either.
The court also said that there was strong suspicion against
these accused, but that there was no legal proof to
convict them. So that was one sort of major observation
(20:50):
of the court that there was strong suspicion against them,
but it could not take the place of legal proof.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
And soether of the other thing is that, you know,
there were these thirteen statements that were post of the
evidence in the case and which actually went missing from
the court records in twenty sixteen, and they remained missing
till the end of the trial. Did the Coote say
anything about that? Did the court acknowledge that.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Right, So in around twenty sixteen it came to light
when the trial hadn't started that you know, there were
some thirteen statements. Most of them were statements recorded before
magistrates which the ats had recorded, which had sort of
been untraced. And while there were lots of efforts made
by court staff investigating officers to trace those statements. They
were never found. They've not been found till date. And
(21:37):
those statements, the court said, were crucial in the sense
that from what we know, some of those statements were
of people who have eventually gone hostile. So the court
said that they could have been, you know, asked about
those statements, they could have been confronted with their earlier
statements that the ats had recorded, but it could not
be done in the absence of the original statements. Actually,
law does provide for secondary evidence when something like this happens,
(22:00):
in which case what is done is the defense and
the prosecution can agree that the original statements are not available,
and photocopies can be agreed upon to be like, you know,
admissible evidence. In this case, the court said that the
prosecution could not show any proof that these were indeed
the photocopies of the original and the defense also had
claimed that they had not received or either at that time.
(22:22):
Since there were a different set of lawyers in two
thousand and eight two thousand and nine when those statements
were taken, they do not have a copy either. So
because of that, the court said that that aspect of
the secondary evidence could not really be considered because there
was no proof that the photocopies available were those of
the original.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
Now, so far in this episode we have looked at
the timeline of the case and the reason why the
court decided to equate the seven accused. But now we
look at what the verdict's broader implications are and the
lessons it holds for investigative agencies and the state. For
this we are joined by the Indian Expresses Legal Affairs editor.
(23:04):
You look at this case and the trial and the verdict,
where does the problem lie? You think? So?
Speaker 4 (23:11):
You know, you look at the thousand page verdict of
the trial court and there are a lot of inconsistencies
in the investigation that the court flags.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
Right.
Speaker 4 (23:21):
These are omissions in how the procedure has to be conducted,
both actually with the investigation and then subsequent the prosecution
as well. Right, which means the lawyers would arguing the
case and court there are glaring lapses, inconsistencies and contradictions.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
So there is a clear case made out for why
the acquital happens.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
In fact, you know, one way to put it is,
this is a conviction of the prosecution and the case.
The court actually says that the evidence on record creates
a grave suspicion against the accused, but there can't be.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
A conviction on mere suspicion. Right.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
That means there is evidence, but the evidence is not
brought up the procedural standards that are required for the court,
or they're not corroborated enough for the court to actually
convict the accused based on that.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
And could you elaborate on this point a bit, because
you know, the Coote said that there was a strong suspicion,
but there was no legal proof. So what responsibility lies
with the prosecution to bring that proof forward? To make
that clear in a case like this.
Speaker 4 (24:25):
So you know, for example, we'll start with a simple thing,
right that the initial chart sheet by the ATS was
based on the idea that there was a conspiracy by
this organization called Abinamhaat to sort of plan these attacks
in various cities. And you essentially have to prove that
there was a conspiracy, and that's how all the conspirators,
(24:48):
people who are attached in these meetings or who are
part of.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
This will get convicted.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
Right.
Speaker 4 (24:53):
So that's essentially the case that the ATS sought to
sort of bring about, and the first conspiracy which.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
Was allegedly hatched. The CHARGEE that was filed had.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
Basically the evidence was, you know, they were phone taps,
witness statements basically people who were present in those meetings
and said this is what was being spoken about and
all that, and there were phone taps between alleged conspirators
when they're talking about this. And they found the laptops
which were seized of one of the accused, and in
that laptop they were video recordings of some of the
(25:24):
meetings which also show this conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
And in both these cases, you know ceiling of the
laptop and even you know, the calls being intercepted. The
court said that you did not follow the right procedure, right, So.
Speaker 4 (25:37):
When this is the evidence, right, so what do you
need for a phone tap? That it was an authorized
phone tap, That means you had legal sanction to tap
someone's phone.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
So now what happens here.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
Is that there are transcripts prepared from these intercepted conversations.
But these interceptions are not authorized in that specific period.
Permissions were obtained belatedly, so basically that renders this intercept
data unusable as evidence. Right, So if it doesn't follow
due process, it has to be lawfully obtained. That's like
one example. The second example is you know, when you
(26:09):
have a video recording from a laptop. There is something
called the Section sixty five B certificate in the Indian
Evidence Act, which is basically, any kind of this digital
evidence that you have, you have to get a forensic
certificate to prove its authenticity that this has not been altered, doctored,
you know, placed in it or whatever. So that was
not obtained for a lot of these digital evidences that
(26:30):
they had. So these are the things that the court
flags and says, look, if it's not the proper procedure,
then it is not evidence admissible by a quarter flaw.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
So all of that goes out of the window.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
So then how you prove that conspiracy That becomes really
difficult and the court says, okay, I can't accept that
there is a conspiracy here.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
And also when compared to the ATS, there have been
allegations that the NIA essentially watered down the case and
the allegations against the accused trying that to be the case.
Speaker 4 (27:01):
So this case, when it began, the probe began in
two thousand and eight, ATS was going in a particular direction.
In fact, the first arrest that they made was Praghataku,
who is now a member of Parliament. But incidentally, only
like days after the first arrest, the ATS chief Human
Culchary was killed in the Moon by terror attack incident.
So after that, you know, the case sort of is
(27:23):
taken over by other people. But two years, three years later,
it's handed over to the NIA, which in the aftermath
of that Targe attack, a lot of these satir cases
were handled by the NIA. The NIA, when it comes in,
it takes a completely different direction. So they take over
the case in twenty and eleven. But it's not as
if any new witnesses were added, or you know, it's
(27:43):
not as if the investigation took a different direction. The
NIA in fact just said that we don't have enough.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Evidence against the QS number one.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
So the ATS arrested somebody with lack of evidence, is
what the NI said. But it's not as of the
NIA brought in more evidence to the only witnesses who
were already examined by ATS. They were re examined, their
statements were recorded again. So you know, but if an
incident happens in two thousand and eight and you're recording
their statement again after a few years, there are bound
(28:13):
to be lapses in memory, inconsistencies in these statements. You know,
all of those again form part of why the court
acquitted the accused.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Right.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
So, in fact, the NIS at one point moved seeking
a discharge of accused number one, which is Byghetta Core, and.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
The court did not allow it.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
The court said that there is enough evidence to at
least bring her to trial whether that evidence is accepted,
because that depends on you know, the larger trial, right,
like you have to look at evidence as a whole
to be able to convict someone. But the court said
there is enough evidence to at least first bring her
to trial and then we'll see where that goes. So
the NIA wanted to discharge her and but eventually had
(28:50):
to kind of build a case against her and argue
against that in court. So all of this sort of
is reflected in why the acquittal happens. It's not one reason,
but the politics of this case sort of takes over
and when it changes hands between these two agencies, there
are clearing lapses which are very hard to miss for
the court as well.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
And are there any lessons one can take from this case,
especially ones that agencies like ATIS and I you can take.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Look.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
I think the first thing is that protecting its citizens
from terror is one of the basic responsibilities of the state, right,
so when that kind of gets taken over by politics
on the shade of terror, whether this is Hindu terror
or Saffron terror, and all of these conversations, then ultimately
the trial did get impacted the way evidence was collected gathered.
(29:40):
In cases like this, of course, there is tremendous pressure, right,
not just in this Malagaw blast case, but any kind
of terror case, there is tremendous pressure.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
On the agencies.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
You have to bring somebody to the four and say
this is the perpetrator and we arrested him.
Speaker 3 (29:53):
To give this sense of security to the people as well.
Speaker 4 (29:56):
But that cannot be an excuse to have watched investment
because what happens is decades later when you look back,
all of them are equitted and there is no credible
case that is built. So if there is a lesson,
it is to ensure that, especially cases of such sensitivities,
which are so crucial to the safety and security of
the country, right, it has to have a higher standard
(30:18):
for the agencies, for the prosecution team and also in
a way we have to find ways to ensure that
there are no inordinate delays like in this case, the
trial really started only a decade after the incident happened,
and now what we have as a trial court verdict
and if it goes an appeal then there is two
rounds of appeal and that might take another decade. So
plugging all of this that's I think, because just ten
(30:40):
days ago you had the seven to eleven acquittal as well,
and that's also a case where after two decades you
see that there is no closure for the victims who
died in these bomb blasts. So the larger lesson is
for how we investigate and how we carry these cases
to trial.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
You were listening to Three Things by the Indian Express.
Today's show was written and produced by me Shashan Bhargav
and was edited and mixed by Seshawar. If you like
the show, then do subscribe to us wherever you get
your podcasts. You can also recommend the show to someone
you think we'll like it, share it with a friend
or someone in your family. It's the best way for
people to get to know about us. You can tweet
us at Express podcasts and write to us at podcasts
(31:20):
at indian express dot com.
Hi amschashang bade and you listened to three things, the
Indian Express New show. Last Thursday, a special court in
Mumbai acquitted all seven individuals accused in the two thousand
and eight male Gam blast case, including the former BJPMP
Praguessing Takur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Puru Hit. The blast,
(00:27):
which occurred around one hundred kilometers northeast of Nashik, had
claimed six lives and injured about one hundred others. This
case has been one of the country's longest running terror
trials and its accused were first arrested by the Maharashtra
Anti Terrorism Squad for ATS within weeks of the bombing,
almost seventeen years ago. One of the accused, apuone based businessman,
(00:51):
was granted bail in twenty eleven, while the other six
remained in prison for eight more years until they were
released on bail in two thousand and seventeen. Now, in
its verdict, the COOTE said that the prosecution had failed
to present cogent and reliable evidence and had not been
able to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and it
(01:12):
also noted that there was a strong suspicion about the
accused and their role in the blast, but that suspicion
cannot be a substitute for legal proof, and so we
are dedicating today's episode to take a closer look at
the case, the quote's verdict, and the procedural concerns it
has raised. And for this we begin by speaking to
(01:32):
the Indian Expresses Sadav Modak, who's been reporting on the
case for the paper. Sadev, can you recall for us
exactly what happened on September twenty nine, two thousand and eight.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
Yes, So, on September twenty ninth, two thousand and eight,
there was an explosion at Bikuchok in Malaga town, which
is about one hundred kilometers from Nashik, and the blast
took six lives and nearly one hundred were injured. Most
of these were people who had assembled because it was
the night of Ramzan, the holy month of fasting for
(02:05):
the Muslims, and it was also the eve of Navarathri.
So the investigator said that the main reason for the
conspirators to have chosen this date was to cause internal
strife and communal disharmony because it was the month of
Ramzan and the eve of Navaratri and six people lost
their lives and around near one hundred were injured in
the blast.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
And talk about who began investigating this matter back then
and who all did they initially arrest right so.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
After the local police, you know, realized that this was
a terror attack, the case was immediately transferred to the
Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad, which at that time was being
led by IPS Officer heymanth Kerk. And the probe went
on for a while and the first arrest was made
nearly a month later on twenty third of November two
thousand and eight, and the first arrest was that of
(02:54):
Praguessing Taco and the investigators the ATS at that time
said that the explosion was to an improvised explosive device
which was placed on a golden colored Elemil Freedom which
was found at this spot, and they said that they
went about trying to figure out who the motorcycle belonged
to and that it led them to Takur and that's
(03:15):
how she was arrested.
Speaker 3 (03:16):
She was the first arrest in the case.
Speaker 2 (03:18):
Following that, they went about investigating her contacts and who
she was in touch with, and they claimed that they
found a link to the other.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Accused and just for the benefit of our listeners, Pragassing
Takur was an activist of the Hindu right wing student
organization ABVP and later in twenty nineteen, while she was
still facing terror allegations, she was chosen by the BGP
as its candidate for the parliament. She was then elected
to the Lobe Sabah from Bopal and during her term
(03:48):
in parliament, she created controversy when she described Mahatma Gandhi's
killer as a dejbak. This had caused a lot of outrage.
Later in twenty twenty four, however, she was not given
a ticket by the BGP. Now when we talk about her,
tell us how was the ATS linking her to the blast?
Why did they think it was her motorcycle which was
(04:10):
used for it.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
So they were saying that the Elemental Freedom, which was
parked at the spot, the number plate was false, but
that they said that there was the engine number and
the chassis number, which is like a unique identification number
of every vehicle. The forensic experts had actually found the
erased number and they had gone to the dealers who
sold these motorcycles and from there they had found that
(04:32):
it was registered in the name of praguessing Tako. That
was the investigation that the ATS claimed had led them
to Taker.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
And once they arrest Taker, who else do they find
is connected to the case.
Speaker 2 (04:44):
Right, So then they had arrested a few more people
who were eventually discharged. But they also claimed that their
probe showed them that there was an organization named Abinov Barrack,
and they went about arresting some of its members and
office bearers, whose members and whose office bearers were under suspicion.
And what they did was they claimed that they had
taken permission from authorities to intercept phone calls of these
(05:06):
suspected persons. For example, they claimed that, you know, they
had intercepted phone calls between one retired major Ameishu pat
There and a serving army officer left in, Colonel Prasadrohit.
And they claimed that Tako was already arrested by then,
and there was an intercepted phone call between these two
individuals where one is telling the other that the cat
is out of the bag and U sing is singing
(05:27):
quite a song. And they claim that these were conversations
which were after there was news already published in the
newspapers about Taco's arrest, and they claimed that this conversation
sort of showed the complicity of these two persons in
the crime because they were discussing what the ATS alleged
were conversations pertaining to Taco's arrest and her interrogation.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
And you know, even initially, like you said, ATS was
thinking that this blast was done to cause a communal
rift and endanger internal security. So after arresting Tako and
intercepting these what do they find out about the motive? Right?
Speaker 2 (06:03):
So what they also did was they found out that
there were conspiracy meetings which had taken place from two
thousand and seven till the execution of the blast in
various places in the country, one in faridabadu Jain and Nashik.
And what they claimed is that in these meetings, some
of the accused had spoken about the need to sort
of take revenge from Muslims and planning a blast, particularly
(06:25):
in a Muslim populated area, as sort of like a
revenge attack. And they also claimed that this group was
speaking about like creating a separate Hindu ushtu with a
separate constitution, a separate flag. These were the things that
the Atias claimed came from statements of witnesses who had
participated or were privy to these conspiracy meetings that the
accused had allegedly attended and participated in. So the conclusion
(06:48):
that the ATIS drew was that the accused had these
motives and therefore they had planned the blast, particularly choosing
Malaga as a Muslim populated area to execute the plan.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
Understand that after the ATS started investigating this case, they
had invoked MACOCA, the Maharastra Control of Organized Crime Act,
which like UAPA, is an alternate criminal law system and
under MACOCA, confessional statements to the police are admissible in court.
So talk about what the police found out through such
(07:22):
statements and how key were they for the ATS.
Speaker 2 (07:26):
So MCUs actually is this special act which is in
Marashtra but also is now in some of the other states.
It's not necessarily invoked in cases of terror. But what
it actually means is it's for targeting organized crime syndicates,
so for example, organizations which work in an organized manner
to commit crime and to gain a lot of pecunity
benefits out of it. Even though UAP, which is the
(07:48):
anti terror law, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was invoked
in the case. The ATS went ahead and also invoked
the MCOCA, which is the Marstra Control of Organized Crime Act.
Under the act, confessions given to the DCA are permitted,
and the ATIS went about saying that there were three
accused who had given confessions and claimed that in their
confessions again was similar to what the conspiracy meeting witnesses
(08:11):
had allegedly told the ATS. They claimed that you know,
the accused had spoken about their roles in the blast
and spoken about the roles of co accused in the blast,
including Pragasing, Taco, Leutronannkernel and what they had discussed and how,
for example, Takur had offered to provide men for the
execution of the blasts, and that Purohith had said that
you know RDX will be provided through him through his
posting in Jamu and Kashmira. So all these allegations, they
(08:34):
claimed were proved through the confessions of the three accused.
Speaker 1 (08:38):
OK. The ATIS began investigating this case in two thousand
and eight, and we understand that later the case was
transferred to the National Investigation Agency n IA. When when
did that happen?
Speaker 2 (08:50):
So in the aftermath of the twenty six eleven the
Mumba terror attacks. In two thousand and eight, the NIA
was formed and around twenty eleven the case was transferred
to the which went on to probe the case, taking
forward whatever the ATS had investigated by then, and till
twenty eleven, the ATS had filed one charge shead and
another supplementary charge shack naming around eleven persons who were
(09:13):
responsible for the blast, including Tacour pro Hit and a
few others.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
And so before we talk about what the nia's investigation revealed,
tell us what were these accused claiming them?
Speaker 3 (09:25):
Right?
Speaker 2 (09:25):
So, the accused have since the beginning claimed that the
whole case was Boger's. They claimed that the investigating officers
were sort of carrying out the probe in a biased manner.
They claimed that they were tortured. They claimed that, you know,
the confessions were forcefully taken. And they also went on
to immediately challenge the invocation of the MCUSA, which went
up to the Supreme Court and eventually in twenty fifteen,
(09:46):
the Supreme Court said that there is no prime official
proof enough to know invoke MCUCA.
Speaker 1 (09:52):
And here's ad talk about the difference between what the
ATS was claiming and what the NIA was claiming when
it was investing the metal.
Speaker 2 (10:01):
So they went on to challenge it till the Supreme Court,
and after the Supreme Court in twenty fifteen said that
there is probably no proof to invoke MCOCA, a few
months later in April twenty sixteen, then NI filed a
charge and they sort of agreed with the ATS on
some bits of their investigation, but also disagreed with them
on some other So for example, they said that the
(10:22):
MCUCA was invoked without following procedure. So in MCOCA you
usually require at least one of the accused to have
at least two prior charge sheets spending against them, so
that you can say that it is an organized crime syndicate.
In this case, what the NI claimed the ATS had
done is that they filed two cases against one of
the accused racations Nowaday, who was eventually discharged from terror
(10:44):
charges without following procedure. Like his arrests were shown in
the previous other cases were shown after he was arrested
in the Malaga case. So that's why the NI, in
his church she had said that there was a goal
process of invoking MCUC was dubious, and the court accepted
that eventually the Special Court and m CUCA was dropped.
Speaker 3 (11:01):
From the case. The main difference between.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
The eighties and Nichich if one has to speak about,
because the MCUCA was dropped and all the confessions there
were three confessions of the accused, they were rendered inadmissible,
so whatever the ATIS had claimed was evidence that came
through these confessions was could not be used anymore. And
the ATS investigation also happed on Tako's link to the blast,
(11:23):
claiming that it was in her ownership that the vehicle
was handed over to absconding accused Ramjikal and Sangra, who
had then allegedly planted the ied on the vehicle and
then parked it at the spot. What the NI claimed
was that Tako was not involved, She was not using
the vehicle for at least two years before the blast,
and there was no evidence to show that she had
(11:46):
participated in any conspiracy meetings or that she had said
that she would provide men. And then I recommended that
Tako should be dropped as an accused, along with a
few other accused as well. Although in twenty sixteen, the
Special Court, which was you know, the trial court of
the case, said that the NAE contention that there is
no evidence against Tarker cannot be accepted. It said that
Tako should face trial because you know, the link of
(12:09):
the vehicle to her was something that was prima facing
evidence and she could face the trial and then you
prove that she was not linked to the case. But
at that stage it said that there was enough evidence
to put her to trial. So eventually seven of the accused,
six of them that the and I also said there
was evidence against, including pro Hith went on to trial
along with Taker, who the court, despite a n i's
(12:31):
recommendation that she could not be right, said that there
was enough evidence and put her to trial as well.
Speaker 1 (12:37):
And you know, this has been one of the longest
running terrorcases in the country. Could you talk about what
we saw take place during the trial? Right?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
So the trial began around twenty eighteen, and then there
was a special court assigned which was only sort of
notified to conduct the trial of the mauling out two
thousand and eight case. Hearings happening daily and the witness
is being examined daily. Of course, during the pandemic years
again there was the pace of the trial slowed down,
but between twenty eighteen and twenty twenty five, there were
(13:07):
some three twenty three witnesses who were examined by the prosecution,
which was the NI and with the ATS in chart
sheet also to be considered by the court. The trial
went on with evidence from both the ATIS and the
NI chart sheets, and during the trial, however, around thirty
nine witnesses turned hostile. If you remember, had said that
one of the main evidence that the ATS relied on
(13:29):
was witnesses were party to the conspiracy meetings who had
participated in them. Those witnesses eventually told the court that
their statements were taken under threat, that the ATS had
caused them into giving false statements. Some of them said
that they had been put on gunpoint, illegally detained and
therefore a lot of it regarding conspiracy meetings, a lot
of evidence that the ATS had claimed was available regarding
(13:51):
the conspiracy meetings kind of came under a cloud because
of these statements by the misses later on in court.
Speaker 1 (13:57):
And we also understand that they were over thirty witnesses
who were cited in the chart sheet but who passed
away before they could depose before the court.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Yeah. Yeah, because of the time lapse, some of the
witnesses who were crucial to the case they had passed
away pending trial. And also the NI itself, when it
filed its chart sheet in twenty sixteen, also blamed time
labs for not really being able to, you know, gather
any evidence from the spot or gather any other fresh
evidence from witnesses, given how long it had taken. So
(14:28):
the NI chart sheet in that sense did not have
any new forensic evidence or any new witnesses. It went
about just re recording, in fact, some of the statements
of the witnesses which were part of the ATS chart sheet,
claiming that there were discrepancies in it. So, I mean,
one of the reasons that the NI has given for
not getting fresh investigation is time lapse. And the time
(14:48):
lag also did result in, you know, affecting the trial
because of some of the witnesses passing away or you know,
some not remembering what exactly had taken place. So yeah,
that did happen.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
And now this special court you know, ended up acquitting
all the seven accused, including Pragiata cour and Lieutenant Colonel
Prasad pro Hit, who had been a serving army officer.
Talk about the main reasons it did that right.
Speaker 2 (15:14):
So one of the main contentions of the accused was
that the blast never took place. One of the accused
had claimed that the blast never took place and it
was another kind of explosion, and therefore the court had
to summon all the injured witnesses, which usually doesn't happen
in a trial, and it also had to summon like
kin of people who had died. What the court eventually found.
The only thing about regarding the prosecution case that the
(15:36):
court did find evidence on is that a blast did
take place. It said that it was an explosive, but
there was no evidence to show that it was fitted
into the pike the element freedom, or that it was
fitted beneath the boot of the bike.
Speaker 1 (15:49):
Yeah, which is something that the forensic expert had claimed, right.
Speaker 2 (15:53):
Right, right, right, So the court said that this claim
was based on guesswork. Is what the forensic expert told
the court that his observation, and it was not based
on any kind of a scientific test that he had conducted.
So the court said that therefore there was no evidence
to show that the explosive was fitted into the vehicle
and said that it could have been just kept somewhere
on the motorcycle, or it could have just been like,
(16:14):
you know, hung from the motorcycle and nobody had seen
anyone sort of come to the bike park the bike there,
or you know, nobody had seen the bike being driven
from a particular place to the spot. So that was
one reason why the court did not agree with the
ATS's contention that the explosive was fitted into the motorcycle.
That was one of the things that the court did
not agree with. On the point of other evidence, since
(16:36):
the conspiracy meetings were not proved because of the hostile witnesses,
the court discarded that evidence as well. The intercepted calls
were one of the main evidences, but the court said
that you know, proper authorization needs to be taken when
you are intercepting calls, and it was not done. Therefore
that could not be relied on. Similarly, one of the
things that the ATS had claimed was crucial evidence was
so one of the accused of Dakar Dharwadi, the ATIS
(16:59):
had alleged that he's for some reason, used to record
these conspiracy meetings, and the recordings the audio video files
were found on his laptop, which was seized at the
time of his arrest. It had gone about matching voice
samples of the people heard in the audio video recordings
along with the accused and claimed that they also matched.
But the defense claimed that, you know, the whole process
(17:21):
of the arrest of this person and this way the
ATIS had gone about seizing the laptop was not proper.
The court agreed that, you know, the laptop was sealed
about twenty four hours after it was seized from the accused,
and this was not proper procedure. It could have been
tampered within that twenty four hour period when it was
(17:41):
not sent to the FSL but was with the investigating
officer unsealed. So that was one reason why the court
discarded that evidence as well.
Speaker 1 (17:49):
Okay, so just to recap When it comes to the
bomb and its connection to the motorcycle, the court said
that we have no proof that the bomb was fitted in.
The bomb, you know, could have been near bike, were
placed on the bike. When it comes to the alleged
meetings that happened in Faridaba, the nojen in that witnesses
(18:09):
turned hostile. When it comes to calls which were intercepted,
the courte said that proper procedure was not followed for
you to have intercepted those calls, and proper procedure was
also not followed when it came to the police accessing
audio video recordings from the laptop of the accused. Correct,
But what about the allegations that were leveled against Tako
(18:31):
and her connection to the motorcycle. What did the COOTE
say about that?
Speaker 2 (18:36):
So it said that the identification of the bike itself
was not properly done. For instance, it said that experts
had deposed that, you know, the serial number and the
chasis number were not properly recovered and without this serial
number they could not have printed down to this particular
dealership and pruguessing Tako. Basically, the numbers in the series
that the ats claimed led them to Prugia were not
(18:58):
complete and one of the forensics also did say that,
you know, while he was trying to get the number
which was wiped off, he used a solution which could
have led to the whole number getting raised. So the
court said, in that case, how is it that they
went to the exact dealer who said that it was
progressing Tako's bike when the serial number was not complete?
Speaker 1 (19:18):
And also what about the allegations against Lieutenant Colonel Purohit.
What did the Special Court say regarding that?
Speaker 2 (19:25):
So, the main allegation against him was that he had
founded this organization called Abinov Baath and that funds were
received by the organization and it was used for terror activities.
They remember, the ates also claimed that it was this
organization which was the organized crime syndicate. The court said
that there was no proof to show that Abina Baath
was involved in any terrorist activity and that you know,
(19:48):
the allegations that he had procured RDX from his posting
in Jamun, Kashmir, the court said, there was absolutely no
evidence to show that he had, in fact, you know,
brought any RDX from anywhere or stored it in his
or used it in the blast. So on that front,
the court said there was no evidence against him. One
of the things that he had also argued as his
defense was that he had joined Ubin Avarath as a
(20:09):
military intelligence officer to collect intelligence. And the court said
that you know that there was no proof of him
being assigned by his seniors to join the organization or
to collect funds from the organization as an officer on duty.
So the court said that although there was no evidence
regarding Abina Barath indulging in any terrorist activity. There was
(20:30):
also no proof of him having joined the organization, you know,
as an assignment or as something that the army had
asked him to do, so that the court said there
was no proof of that defense that had taken either.
The court also said that there was strong suspicion against
these accused, but that there was no legal proof to
convict them. So that was one sort of major observation
(20:50):
of the court that there was strong suspicion against them,
but it could not take the place of legal proof.
Speaker 1 (20:55):
And soether of the other thing is that, you know,
there were these thirteen statements that were post of the
evidence in the case and which actually went missing from
the court records in twenty sixteen, and they remained missing
till the end of the trial. Did the Coote say
anything about that? Did the court acknowledge that.
Speaker 2 (21:16):
Right, So in around twenty sixteen it came to light
when the trial hadn't started that you know, there were
some thirteen statements. Most of them were statements recorded before
magistrates which the ats had recorded, which had sort of
been untraced. And while there were lots of efforts made
by court staff investigating officers to trace those statements. They
were never found. They've not been found till date. And
(21:37):
those statements, the court said, were crucial in the sense
that from what we know, some of those statements were
of people who have eventually gone hostile. So the court
said that they could have been, you know, asked about
those statements, they could have been confronted with their earlier
statements that the ats had recorded, but it could not
be done in the absence of the original statements. Actually,
law does provide for secondary evidence when something like this happens,
(22:00):
in which case what is done is the defense and
the prosecution can agree that the original statements are not available,
and photocopies can be agreed upon to be like, you know,
admissible evidence. In this case, the court said that the
prosecution could not show any proof that these were indeed
the photocopies of the original and the defense also had
claimed that they had not received or either at that time.
(22:22):
Since there were a different set of lawyers in two
thousand and eight two thousand and nine when those statements
were taken, they do not have a copy either. So
because of that, the court said that that aspect of
the secondary evidence could not really be considered because there
was no proof that the photocopies available were those of
the original.
Speaker 1 (22:42):
Now, so far in this episode we have looked at
the timeline of the case and the reason why the
court decided to equate the seven accused. But now we
look at what the verdict's broader implications are and the
lessons it holds for investigative agencies and the state. For
this we are joined by the Indian Expresses Legal Affairs editor.
(23:04):
You look at this case and the trial and the verdict,
where does the problem lie? You think? So?
Speaker 4 (23:11):
You know, you look at the thousand page verdict of
the trial court and there are a lot of inconsistencies
in the investigation that the court flags.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
Right.
Speaker 4 (23:21):
These are omissions in how the procedure has to be conducted,
both actually with the investigation and then subsequent the prosecution
as well. Right, which means the lawyers would arguing the
case and court there are glaring lapses, inconsistencies and contradictions.
Speaker 3 (23:37):
So there is a clear case made out for why
the acquital happens.
Speaker 4 (23:42):
In fact, you know, one way to put it is,
this is a conviction of the prosecution and the case.
The court actually says that the evidence on record creates
a grave suspicion against the accused, but there can't be.
Speaker 3 (23:54):
A conviction on mere suspicion. Right.
Speaker 4 (23:56):
That means there is evidence, but the evidence is not
brought up the procedural standards that are required for the court,
or they're not corroborated enough for the court to actually
convict the accused based on that.
Speaker 1 (24:08):
And could you elaborate on this point a bit, because
you know, the Coote said that there was a strong suspicion,
but there was no legal proof. So what responsibility lies
with the prosecution to bring that proof forward? To make
that clear in a case like this.
Speaker 4 (24:25):
So you know, for example, we'll start with a simple thing,
right that the initial chart sheet by the ATS was
based on the idea that there was a conspiracy by
this organization called Abinamhaat to sort of plan these attacks
in various cities. And you essentially have to prove that
there was a conspiracy, and that's how all the conspirators,
(24:48):
people who are attached in these meetings or who are
part of.
Speaker 3 (24:51):
This will get convicted.
Speaker 1 (24:52):
Right.
Speaker 4 (24:53):
So that's essentially the case that the ATS sought to
sort of bring about, and the first conspiracy which.
Speaker 3 (25:00):
Was allegedly hatched. The CHARGEE that was filed had.
Speaker 4 (25:03):
Basically the evidence was, you know, they were phone taps,
witness statements basically people who were present in those meetings
and said this is what was being spoken about and
all that, and there were phone taps between alleged conspirators
when they're talking about this. And they found the laptops
which were seized of one of the accused, and in
that laptop they were video recordings of some of the
(25:24):
meetings which also show this conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (25:27):
And in both these cases, you know ceiling of the
laptop and even you know, the calls being intercepted. The
court said that you did not follow the right procedure, right, So.
Speaker 4 (25:37):
When this is the evidence, right, so what do you
need for a phone tap? That it was an authorized
phone tap, That means you had legal sanction to tap
someone's phone.
Speaker 3 (25:46):
So now what happens here.
Speaker 4 (25:47):
Is that there are transcripts prepared from these intercepted conversations.
But these interceptions are not authorized in that specific period.
Permissions were obtained belatedly, so basically that renders this intercept
data unusable as evidence. Right, So if it doesn't follow
due process, it has to be lawfully obtained. That's like
one example. The second example is you know, when you
(26:09):
have a video recording from a laptop. There is something
called the Section sixty five B certificate in the Indian
Evidence Act, which is basically, any kind of this digital
evidence that you have, you have to get a forensic
certificate to prove its authenticity that this has not been altered, doctored,
you know, placed in it or whatever. So that was
not obtained for a lot of these digital evidences that
(26:30):
they had. So these are the things that the court
flags and says, look, if it's not the proper procedure,
then it is not evidence admissible by a quarter flaw.
Speaker 3 (26:40):
So all of that goes out of the window.
Speaker 4 (26:42):
So then how you prove that conspiracy That becomes really
difficult and the court says, okay, I can't accept that
there is a conspiracy here.
Speaker 1 (26:50):
And also when compared to the ATS, there have been
allegations that the NIA essentially watered down the case and
the allegations against the accused trying that to be the case.
Speaker 4 (27:01):
So this case, when it began, the probe began in
two thousand and eight, ATS was going in a particular direction.
In fact, the first arrest that they made was Praghataku,
who is now a member of Parliament. But incidentally, only
like days after the first arrest, the ATS chief Human
Culchary was killed in the Moon by terror attack incident.
So after that, you know, the case sort of is
(27:23):
taken over by other people. But two years, three years later,
it's handed over to the NIA, which in the aftermath
of that Targe attack, a lot of these satir cases
were handled by the NIA. The NIA, when it comes in,
it takes a completely different direction. So they take over
the case in twenty and eleven. But it's not as
if any new witnesses were added, or you know, it's
(27:43):
not as if the investigation took a different direction. The
NIA in fact just said that we don't have enough.
Speaker 3 (27:49):
Evidence against the QS number one.
Speaker 4 (27:51):
So the ATS arrested somebody with lack of evidence, is
what the NI said. But it's not as of the
NIA brought in more evidence to the only witnesses who
were already examined by ATS. They were re examined, their
statements were recorded again. So you know, but if an
incident happens in two thousand and eight and you're recording
their statement again after a few years, there are bound
(28:13):
to be lapses in memory, inconsistencies in these statements. You know,
all of those again form part of why the court
acquitted the accused.
Speaker 3 (28:21):
Right.
Speaker 4 (28:21):
So, in fact, the NIS at one point moved seeking
a discharge of accused number one, which is Byghetta Core, and.
Speaker 3 (28:28):
The court did not allow it.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
The court said that there is enough evidence to at
least bring her to trial whether that evidence is accepted,
because that depends on you know, the larger trial, right,
like you have to look at evidence as a whole
to be able to convict someone. But the court said
there is enough evidence to at least first bring her
to trial and then we'll see where that goes. So
the NIA wanted to discharge her and but eventually had
(28:50):
to kind of build a case against her and argue
against that in court. So all of this sort of
is reflected in why the acquittal happens. It's not one reason,
but the politics of this case sort of takes over
and when it changes hands between these two agencies, there
are clearing lapses which are very hard to miss for
the court as well.
Speaker 1 (29:10):
And are there any lessons one can take from this case,
especially ones that agencies like ATIS and I you can take.
Speaker 3 (29:18):
Look.
Speaker 4 (29:18):
I think the first thing is that protecting its citizens
from terror is one of the basic responsibilities of the state, right,
so when that kind of gets taken over by politics
on the shade of terror, whether this is Hindu terror
or Saffron terror, and all of these conversations, then ultimately
the trial did get impacted the way evidence was collected gathered.
(29:40):
In cases like this, of course, there is tremendous pressure, right,
not just in this Malagaw blast case, but any kind
of terror case, there is tremendous pressure.
Speaker 3 (29:48):
On the agencies.
Speaker 4 (29:49):
You have to bring somebody to the four and say
this is the perpetrator and we arrested him.
Speaker 3 (29:53):
To give this sense of security to the people as well.
Speaker 4 (29:56):
But that cannot be an excuse to have watched investment
because what happens is decades later when you look back,
all of them are equitted and there is no credible
case that is built. So if there is a lesson,
it is to ensure that, especially cases of such sensitivities,
which are so crucial to the safety and security of
the country, right, it has to have a higher standard
(30:18):
for the agencies, for the prosecution team and also in
a way we have to find ways to ensure that
there are no inordinate delays like in this case, the
trial really started only a decade after the incident happened,
and now what we have as a trial court verdict
and if it goes an appeal then there is two
rounds of appeal and that might take another decade. So
plugging all of this that's I think, because just ten
(30:40):
days ago you had the seven to eleven acquittal as well,
and that's also a case where after two decades you
see that there is no closure for the victims who
died in these bomb blasts. So the larger lesson is
for how we investigate and how we carry these cases
to trial.
Speaker 1 (30:57):
You were listening to Three Things by the Indian Express.
Today's show was written and produced by me Shashan Bhargav
and was edited and mixed by Seshawar. If you like
the show, then do subscribe to us wherever you get
your podcasts. You can also recommend the show to someone
you think we'll like it, share it with a friend
or someone in your family. It's the best way for
people to get to know about us. You can tweet
us at Express podcasts and write to us at podcasts
(31:20):
at indian express dot com.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!