Today, On 17th July, The Bombay High Court has adjourned the hearing of the appeal against the acquittal in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, stating that the chart submitted in the case is incomplete, delaying further proceedings in the sensitive matter.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court postponed the hearing on an appeal against the acquittal of seven individuals in the 2008 Malegaon blast case due to incomplete information provided about the families of the victims. Among those acquitted are former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit.
Earlier, the court stated it was “not an open gate for everyone” to file appeals against acquittals in this case, requesting clarification on whether any family members of the victims had been called as witnesses during the trial.
The appellants’ attorney presented a chart with details; however, Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad found it lacking.
The lawyer for the family members noted that the first appellant, Nisar Ahmed, whose son perished in the blast, was not a witness in the trial. Nonetheless, Ahmed had been permitted by the special court to participate and assist the prosecution throughout the trial.
The attorney further indicated that only two out of the six appellants were examined as prosecution witnesses.
The High Court remarked,
“The chart is confusing. You need to verify it properly. Whether these persons were examined or not, that is the question. The chart is incomplete,”
And subsequently adjourned the hearing until Thursday.
The appeal was filed by family members of six victims who died in the blast, challenging the special court’s decision to acquit the seven accused, including Thakur and Purohit. On September 29, 2008, a bomb attached to a motorcycle detonated near a mosque in Malegaon, about 200 km from Mumbai, killing six people and injuring 101 others.
The appeal disputes the special NIA court’s ruling from July 31, asserting that flaws in the investigation are insufficient grounds for acquittal. It also argued that the conspiracy behind the blast was conducted in secrecy, making direct evidence unlikely.
The petitioners claimed that the special court’s order was legally flawed and should be overturned. They emphasized that the trial judge should not behave as a “postman or mute spectator” in a criminal trial, suggesting that when the prosecution fails to elicit necessary facts, the court should actively question and summon witnesses.
The appeal criticized the trial court for merely facilitating a deficient prosecution, which ultimately benefitted the accused.
Concerns were raised regarding how the National Investigation Agency (NIA) handled the investigation and trial, with a request for the conviction of the accused. The state Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had arrested the seven individuals, uncovering a significant conspiracy, and since then, there have been no blasts in areas with large minority populations.
The appeal contended that the NIA, upon taking over the case, weakened the charges against the accused.
The special court’s ruling indicated that mere suspicion could not substitute for solid evidence, asserting that there was no reliable evidence to support a conviction.
The prosecution maintained that the blast was executed by right-wing extremists with the intent to intimidate the Muslim community in the sensitive Malegaon area.
The NIA court highlighted various shortcomings in the prosecution’s case and investigation, ultimately granting the accused the benefit of the doubt. In addition to Thakur and Purohit, the other accused included Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi, and Sameer Kulkarni.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Malegaon Blast Case
Click Here to Read Our Reports on BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
