Malegaon blast: Here is why Mumbai court acquitted all seven accused

A Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court in Mumbai recently acquitted all seven accused individuals in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to substantiate the charges against the accused, which included conspiracy, involvement in terrorist activities, and the possession and use of explosives.

Special Judge AK Lahoti acquitted all the accused of charges under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 302,307, 326, 324, 427 IPC and sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. 

”Upon comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidence available on record, I am of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to adduce cogent, reliable, and legally acceptable evidence. The testimony of prosecution witnesses is riddled with material inconsistencies and contradictions. Such discrepancies undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case and fall short of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt," the Court said.

The September 29, 2008 bomb blast in Maharashtra's Malegaon, claimed six lives and injured over 100 people.

In its judgment, the Court highlighted serious flaws in evidence collection, unreliable witness testimonies and procedural lapses during the investigation, which ultimately resulted in the acquittal of all accused.

Below are the details of the accused persons, the charges against them and the Court’s final conclusions.

Pragya Singh Thakur, also known as Swami Purna Chentnanad Giri, a former BJP MP was accused of being a key figure in the conspiracy that ultimately resulted in the blast. 

She was accused of providing the LML Freedom motorcycle that was allegedly used in the bombing. 

The prosecution claimed that the motorcycle, registered in her name, was used to transport the bomb.

Allegations against Thakur

- Alleged possession and handing over of the motorcycle for use in the bomb blast.

- Involvement in conspiracy meetings held on behalf of organisation Abhinav Bharat at places such as the Circuit House in Indore and Ujjain, where the plan was supposedly hatched.

Court's findings

The court noted that there was no proof that the motorcycle either belonged to Thakur or she had exclusive possession or control over the motorcycle found at the blast site. 

The experts were only able to recover the vehicle’s chassis and engine number partially and had failed to explore other probabilities. 

Moreover, even if it was the same vehicle, the Court concluded that Thakur was not in conscious possession of the vehicle for two years prior to the incident and there was no evidence of its use with her knowledge or consent. 

“Moreover, ongoing through the charge-sheets coupled with the testimony of aforesaid witnesses, it clearly shows that A-1 was not in possession of the said vehicle after taking the Sanyas. It was in the exclusive possession of AA-1 (Ramji Kalsangra). Thus, AT'S and NIA themselves claimed that the vehicle was in possession of absconding accused AA-1 (Ramji Kalsangra) since the beginning. A-1 had renounced the material world prior to some years of the alleged bomb-blast, which clearly shows that she was not in possession of the said motorcycle,” the Court said.

Further, the Court noted that the assertion that the bomb was strapped onto the motorcycle was mere ‘guess work’ and not a scientific observation. 

The Court ruled that based on the damage to the vehicle, it was more likey that the bomb was placed or hung outside the motorcycle rather than being strapped to it. 

“Mere, blast on the site and damaged condition of motorcycle, is not a conclusive proof of fitting explosive inside the dikki i.e. beneath the seat of said motorcycle. The damages caused  to the motorcycle is also possible, if explosives are placed or hanged or kept on the motorcycle from outside or in close proximity to it. At the cost of repetition, considering the entire evidence coupled with admission given by PW-261 (Dr. Suhas Bakre), the possibility cannot be ruled out of hanging or placing the explosive materials from outside to the vehicle," the judgment stated.

The Court found that no evidence that supported Thakur’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy meetings in Indore and Ujjain. 

Witnesses related to these meetings either retracted their statements or claimed they had been coerced into testifying against her.

The NIA had also exonerated Thakur in its supplementary charge sheet, concluding that there was no case against her, the Court noted.

Major (Retd.) Ramesh Shivji Upadhyaya was accused of participating in several conspiracy and possessing digital evidence, such as a laptop that allegedly contained incriminating data.

Allegations against Upadhyaya

- Involvement in the conspiracy meetings held at Faridabad, Bhonsala Military School and Bhopal. 

- Possession of a laptop, which was allegedly seized during his arrest, containing evidence related to the plot.

Court’s findings

The Court found that the seizure of Upadhyaya’s laptop was not handled correctly. There were discrepancies in the procedure, including the failure to open the laptop in the presence of witnesses and improper sealing of the device.

The voice sample analysis, meant to link Upadhyaya to incriminating phone conversations, was also deemed unreliable. 

The expert did not conclusively identify his voice and the required Section 65B certificate for electronic evidence was missing, rendering it inadmissible.

Evidence from mobile phone interceptions and call detail records (CDRs) was also problematic, the Court said.

The documents were not properly certified, and the key officer responsible for their compilation was not examined in Court, the judge noted.

Sameer Sharad Kulkarni, also known as Chanakya Sameer, was accused of booking a hall for meetings related to the conspiracy and sending an incriminating mobile message.

The prosecution claimed he was involved in organizing the logistics for the bomb blast.

Allegations Against Kulkarni

- Alleged participation in meetings held at various locations, including Bhopal, Indore and Ujjain where plans for the attack were made.

- Booking the Ram Mandir Hall in Bhopal for one of the conspiracy meetings.

- Sending an incriminating message on his mobile phone, which allegedly connected him to the blast.

Court’s findings

The prosecution could not prove that Kulkarni had booked the hall in Bhopal. The manager of Shri Ram Mandir, where the hall was allegedly booked, did not identify Kulkarni in court and no identification parade was conducted.

Further, there were inconsistencies in the handwriting on the booking letter and it was not sent for expert analysis.

Discrepancies were also found in the testimony regarding the alleged incriminating mobile message. 

The arrest panchanama and witness statements were inconsistent and the electronic expert admitted that the message could have been altered.

Alleged financial transactions linked to Kulkarni were also unsubstantiated, as the prosecution failed to provide credible evidence, and there were doubts about the authenticity of bank records.

Ajay Rahirkar was accused of attending conspiracy meetings and receiving funds through an Angadiya service to finance the terrorist activities.

Allegations against Rahirkar

- Alleged participation in conspiracy meetings in locations like Indore and Ujjain.

- Receiving funds through Angadiya service for the bombing plot.

Court's Findings

The Court found issues with the arrest and seizure procedures. Articles from Rahirkar’s residence were not sealed properly, leaving room for potential tampering.

The handwriting specimen allegedly linked to Rahirkar was also unreliable, with discrepancies in the collection process. Additionally, expert opinions on the handwriting were based on inadequate data.

The claim that Rahirkar received funds through an Angadiya service was not substantiated, as key witnesses contradicted the prosecution's narrative, and their statements were deemed unreliable due to claims of police coercion.

Prasad Shrikant Purohit, a serving army officer, was accused of procuring and storing RDX for the Malegaon blast. He was also alleged to have participated in several conspiracy meetings.

Allegations against Purohit

- Procurement and storage of RDX in his house.

- Participation in meetings held in locations such as Pachmarhi, Ujjain, Indore and Nashik Farm House, where plans for the bombing were discussed.

Court’s findings

The Court found no evidence to support the claim that Purohit stored or transported RDX. Chemical analysis of his residence also showed no trace of the explosive material.

“As per prosecution, the A-9 had brought the RDX from Kashmir and stored in his house and with the help of co-accused they had prepared the IED in the house of A-11 which was fitted in the LML Freedom Motor-cycle. As discussed earlier, there is absolutely no evidence on the point of source, transportation, storage, fitting, recci and parking of alleged motor-cycle fitted with RDX except the bare allegations. The prosecution could not prove the meetings held at alleged places among the accused were with the object to commit alleged illegal activities which are against the interest and / or security of the nation," the Court said. 

Moreover, it noted that the investigating agencies even failed to show any evidence to prove that Purohit was posted in Kashmir prior to the incident. 

“The Investigating Agencies had not inquired or collected or filed any documentary evidence on record to show that A-9 was posted at Kashmir during the particular period. Admittedly, for transportation of RDX, several formalities are required to be completed along-with several permissions. Transportation of RDX cannot be done like other articles. There are several checks and restrictions for transportation of RDX. Not a single witness has deposed that, anyone had seen A-9 during his posting at Kashmir at a specific place or for a particular period or he has procured the RDX or he has brought the RDX. Thus, in the absence of any positive evidence, I am not inclined to accept that A-9 has brought any RDX from Kashmir as alleged," the Court added.

Allegations that Purohit attended conspiracy meetings were also not proven. Prosecution witnesses either denied Purohit attending the meetings or turned hostile during testimony.

Further, regarding the money received by Purohit from Kulkarni, the court concluded that the money was received for ‘private purposes’ such as construction of Purohit’s house and not for any illegal activities in the commission of crime.

The seizure of Purohit’s laptop and digital records was also found to be flawed making the evidence inadmissible.

Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, also known as Swami Amrutanand Devtirth, was accused of attending conspiracy meetings and receiving a laptop containing evidence related to the bombing plot.

Allegations against Dwivedi

- Alleged participation in meetings held in places such as Bhopal and Indore, where the conspiracy was hatched.

- Receiving a laptop at a meeting in Faridabad, which allegedly contained incriminating evidence.

Court’s findings

The Court found inconsistencies in witness testimony regarding the Faridabad meeting. 

Some witnesses denied the meeting took place, while others claimed their statements were made under duress.

Issues with the seizure of Dwivedi’s laptop and the analysis of his voice samples were also highlighted. 

The laptop’s seizure was not properly documented, and the voice sample analysis lacked necessary certifications, rendering it inadmissible.

Sudhakar Chaturvedi was accused of assembling the bomb in his rented house and of possessing RDX used in the blast.

Allegations Against Chaturvedi

- Alleged assembly of the bomb at his house, with traces of RDX found at the location.

- Involvement in the conspiracy and aiding the attack by preparing explosives.

Court's findings

The Court found that Chaturvedi’s house was not in his exclusive possession and there was no conclusive evidence linking him to the assembly of the bomb. 

The RDX traces found at the scene were described as “very minute” and the lock on the house was never seized.

The prosecution’s sanction for the charges under the Explosive Substances Act was found to be problematic, with the sanctioning authority granting approval in a “mechanical” manner without due consideration of the facts.

Issues with the house search and arrest procedures further weakened the case against Chaturvedi. 

[Read Judgment]