Bombay High Court Discharges Four Accused in 2006 Malegaon Blasts Case
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has discharged four individuals accused in the September 8, 2006, Malegaon bomb blasts case, citing profound contradictions between investigations conducted by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The court emphasized that a criminal trial must not resemble a fairy tale, where imagination and fantasy take precedence over factual evidence.
Case Background and Blast Details
The tragic blasts occurred at four locations in Malegaon, a loom town in Nashik district, resulting in the deaths of 31 individuals and injuries to over 312 others. Bombs were planted on two cycles, which detonated, causing widespread devastation. Initially, the State Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) led the investigation, arresting nine alleged members of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI).
Subsequently, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) took over in 2007, corroborating the ATS's detailed account of each accused's role. In 2011, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) assumed control, filing a supplementary chargesheet against four new accused, which the High Court described as "quite surprising."
Court's Critique of NIA's Evidence
The High Court, comprising Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice S C Chandak, delivered a 25-page judgment that highlighted the NIA's reliance on hearsay evidence and inadmissible confessions. The court noted that the NIA's case rested on Aseemanand's confession, deemed inadmissible in another case, and seven retracted statements from the original ATS accused, who were discharged a decade ago.
Additionally, the court pointed out that a test identification parade conducted six years after the blasts held no probative value. The NIA's evidence, including disclosure statements leading to the discovery of incriminating articles from publicly accessible places, was found insufficient and inadmissible.
Contradictions Between ATS and NIA Narratives
The High Court observed that the ATS and NIA presented "diagonally opposite stories" that could not be reconciled. While the ATS, supported by the CBI, implicated specific accused with eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence, the NIA introduced a new narrative involving a criminal conspiracy and training in Bagli, Madhya Pradesh.
Key contradictions included discrepancies in cycle purchases and the location of accused individuals at the time of the blasts. The court stressed that the NIA ignored the ATS chargesheet and forensic reports, creating an untenable prosecution case.
Legal Principles and Discharge Rationale
The High Court underscored that framing charges requires sufficient material to proceed, especially for serious crimes like murder. It criticized the Special NIA trial court for failing to apply its mind to inherent contradictions and intrinsic improbabilities in the NIA's story.
The court affirmed that accused persons should not endure trial rigors if the evidence does not involve them in the crime. It also highlighted legal principles under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which restrict the admissibility of confessions made to police officers.
Outcome and Implications
The four accused—Manohar Narwaria, Rajendra Chaudhary, Dhan Singh, and Lokesh Sharma—successfully appealed the trial court's charge framing order, leading to their discharge. The High Court's decision underscores the importance of robust evidence and procedural integrity in criminal trials, particularly in high-profile terrorism cases.
This ruling marks a pivotal moment in the long-standing Malegaon blasts case, emphasizing judicial scrutiny over investigative agencies' methodologies and the need for coherent, admissible evidence to secure convictions.
