MALEGAON BLASTS: SPECIAL COURT DISMISSES CLAIM OF ATS CONSPIRACY TO FRAME RSS CHIEF MOHAN BHAGWAT:

The special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused, including Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, in the 2008 Malegaon Blasts case. In a 1036-page verdict, the court noted that the case was riddled with inconsistencies and lacked credible evidence. One of the major issues highlighted by the court was the contradictory investigative approaches taken by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the NIA. The prosecution’s evidence, particularly the witness testimonies, failed to establish the alleged conspiracy or the accused's involvement beyond reasonable doubt. The court stated that although there may have been suspicion, suspicion alone does not amount to legal proof. The statements of key witnesses were marred by inconsistencies and contradictions, thereby undermining the prosecution's case.

The court also dismissed claims made by accused Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi alias Swami Amrutanand Devtirth, who had alleged that the ATS was attempting to implicate Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat. Dwivedi had relied on the statements of former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar, who allegedly refused to arrest Bhagwat due to lack of evidence and claimed he was framed by his superiors for defying orders. The court rejected this contention, stating that Mujawar’s statements were not recorded before the special court, and he was not examined as a witness in this trial. Merely placing documents on record was insufficient; the claims had to be supported by reliable testimony, which was lacking in this case.

The judgment also touched upon the alleged involvement of the banned organization Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI). A witness had testified that the SIMI office was located on the floor above his business premises. An ATS officer confirmed in cross-examination that the banned organization operated from the same building but admitted that the angle was never investigated. The court emphasized that while it is within the discretion of the investigating officer to decide the scope of investigation, once relevant facts come to light, they must be explored. However, the court concluded that there was no concrete evidence linking SIMI activists to the incident.

In assessing the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the court found that the prosecution had failed to establish that the accused intended to threaten India’s unity, security, or sovereignty through acts of terrorism. Despite examining 323 witnesses, the evidence presented did not support the charges, and the sanction for prosecution under UAPA was found to be legally invalid. As such, the statutory presumptions under the UAPA were inapplicable.

The judgment also found that no accused was seen at the blast site either before or after the incident. The charge sheets and witness testimonies failed to establish their presence. On the day of the blast, police had deployed personnel due to Ramadan, with barricades restricting access to the area, further undermining the theory of the accused being present.

Additionally, the court noted that the ATS had allegedly coerced witnesses, while the NIA found legal flaws in the ATS’s investigation. The judgment referred to the testimony of Milind Joshirao, who claimed ATS officers detained and pressured him to name RSS leaders, including Yogi Adityanath. He refused, and said he was threatened. The court viewed such statements as involuntary and lacking in evidentiary value.