The Bombay High Court acquitted 12 people in the Mumbai train blast case on 11 July 2006, acquitting them and said that the prosecution had failed to prove the case against them. Let us tell you that this decision has come 19 years after the terrorist attack that shook the Western Railway Network of Mumbai. The local train of Mumbai at various places on the western line led to seven blasts on July 11, 2006, killing more than 180 people and many others were injured. Bomb blasts took place in train coaches at crowded areas of Mumbai-Bandra, Mahim, Meera Road, Bhayander, Jogeshwari, Borivali and other places.
More than 180 people lost their lives in this attack and many others were injured. A special bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Shyam Chandak said that the decision cannot be taken to convict the accused on the basis of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court said, “The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused. It is difficult to believe that the accused have committed this crime, so their conviction is canceled. ”
Also read this: Speak in Marathi or in Hindi? PM Modi asked the senior lawyer of Maharashtra on the phone, gave a big message amid language dispute
The bench said that she refuses to confirm and acquit the sentence of life imprisonment to five people and the remaining seven. The court said that if the accused are not wanted in any other case, then they should be released immediately from jail. Let us remind you that 12 people were convicted by a special court in 2015 in this case, out of which five were sentenced to death and the remaining seven were sentenced to life imprisonment.
This decision of the court is also being seen as a lesson in Indian criminal justice system and terrorism cases. The matter not only involved in the biggest terrorist attacks in the history of Mumbai, but the conclusion that reached after the legal battle lasted for 18 years has also raised serious questions on the prosecution and police investigation.
The arguments given in the decision of the High Court are worth noting. The court said that the prosecution failed to prove what kind of explosives were used in the blast. In addition, the confessions of the accused were taken through torture and pressure, so they were legally rejected by the court. At the same time, the court admitted that the identity parade of the accused was not valid, nor was its process appropriate. In addition, the statements of the witnesses did not live up to the court standards. At the same time, the court admitted that the appropriate process was not adopted with the accused.
Let us remind you that the five accused hanged by the special MCOCA court in 2015 were Kamal Ansari (death from Kovid in Bihar, Jail), Mohammad Faisal Sheikh (Mumbai), Ehtesham Siddiqui (Thane), Naved Hussain Khan (Secunderabad) and Asif Khan (Jalgaon). Apart from this, others were given life imprisonment.
If we look at the pleas of the prosecution and defense, then let us tell you that the prosecution (Raja Thackeray, Special Public Prosecutor) claimed that the accused are ‘death merchants’ and the punishment was absolutely appropriate against them on the basis of confessions and circumstantial evidence. He said that the blasts were carried out in collaboration with Pakistani and local terrorists. At the same time, the defense (Yuga Chaudhary, Nitya Ramakrishnan, S. Nagmuthu and senior advocates) insisted that the confessions of the accused were invalid, torture, false and against the process of law. It was alleged that the ATS created false evidence and implicated innocent people. Many accused themselves said in the court that they were unaware of these blasts and would unnecessarily pay the sentence in prison for 18-19 years.
This was followed by a special comment from the High Court that “no one can be hanged only on the basis of confession, when the rest of the evidence is unavailable or weak.” The court admitted that the process of inquiries made by the police and gathering evidence was not reliable.
If seen, this decision underlines the importance of judicial review in cases related to terrorism in India. When a case is decided on the basis of evidence, not in emotions or massbav, the credibility and credibility of the judiciary increases. Therefore, defense lawyers said that this decision will strengthen the public’s confidence in the judiciary. At the same time, the prosecution also appreciated the process and hearing of the court.
However, the decision in sensitive matters like 7/11 blasts gave two messages – no one can be hanged or given life imprisonment in the name of terrorism. And the judiciary will work according to the law in every situation, no matter how sensitive the matter is.
If we look at the main lesson of this episode, it is clear that the quality of the evidence is paramount. The confession taken from torture is unacceptable. Media trials and massbavas should not affect judicial decisions and justice can be done even after a long imprisonment of 18 years, even though it is late. Let us also tell you that the accused presented in the court through video conference from various jails across the state thanked their lawyers after the High Court’s verdict.