Gauhati High Court acquits five men accused in 2004 Independence Day bomb blast

The Gauhati High Court Thursday acquitted five convicts in a 2004 bomb blast case in which 13 persons including 10 children were killed during the independence day celebrations at Dhemaji College Play Ground. [Smt. Dipanjali Borgohain and 2 ors. v. The State of Assam].The United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), a banned militant outfit, had been held responsible for the blast..The High Court division bench of Justices Michael Zothankhuma and Mridul Kumar Kalita allowed the appeals filed by five convicts – four of whom were sentenced to life imprisonment by the trial court in 2019.The bench found that the trial court had convicted the accused without the prosecution being able to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt. “The lack of evidence to bring home the guilt of the appellants is clear from the testimony of some of the witnesses and the statements given by them under Section 164 CrPC. It is the duty of the Court to ensure that the evidence is legally admissible and on considering the evidence adduced by the witnesses, we do not find any link to forge the chain of circumstantial evidence together,” said the Court.It further opined that there was no continuous chain of circumstantial evidence to implicate the appellants of having hatched a conspiracy and set off the bomb on the fateful day.“We find that the findings of the learned Trial Court have not been supported by the evidence recorded by the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court cannot make findings on the basis of speculations or suspicion and the same has to be based on evidence,” the Court said..The Court further noted that it cannot be said that the statements made under Section 164 (confessions or statements) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in the case were voluntarily made. In this regard, the Court said there was no brief statement of reasons given by the magistrate (in the form used by the judicial officer for recording the statements) to believe that these statements were made voluntarily.“In this case, the circumstantial evidence do not form an unbroken chain that leads to the only possible inference that the appellants are guilty of the crime. In fact, there is no evidence at all, except the statements made under Section 164 Cr.PC, which are not supported/corroborated by evidence. Further, the Judicial Officer recording the same, has not given reasons for believing the same were made voluntary, as required in law,” the Court added..Advocate AK Das, DK Bhattacharyya, and A Khanikar represented the convicts.Additional Public Prosecutor S Jahan represented the State.[Read Judgment]