Malegaon Blasts : Special Court Rejects Argument That ATS Wanted To Implicate RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat

The special NIA court in Mumbai while acquitting all the seven accused including Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit from the 2008 Malegaon Blasts case cited the differing theories of the Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the weak testimonies of witnesses forcibly 'obtained' by the ATS sleuths and the failure of the prosecution to bring on record cogent and 'confidence-inspiring' evidence. In his detailed judgment running into 1036 pages, Special Judge AK Lahoti said, "The statements of key witnesses relating to the alleged conspiracy, meetings, or other incriminating circumstances have not sufficiently supported the case of the prosecuting agency. While there may be strong suspicion against the accused, mere suspicion cannot take the place of legal proof. 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."Rejects Arguments That ATS Wanted To Implicate RSS Chief Mohan BhagwatThe special court also rejected the claim by Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi alias Swami Amrutanand Devtirth that the ATS wanted to implicate Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat. Notably, Dwivedi had relied on the statements of a former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar, who had testified in his statements recorded under section 313 of the CrPC before a court in Solapur, that his superiors had sent him to arrest RSS head Mohan Bhagwat. However, he refused to obey the said directive on the ground that he did not find any role of Bhagwat in the blasts case. He further claimed that he was therefore, implicated in a false case by the senior ATS officers in Solapur. Refusing to accept the said contention, special NIA judge said that the statement recorded u/s 313 of CrPC cannot be construed as a evidence on the count that the statement is not recorded before the special court and in support of those documents, he is not examined as a witness before the special court. "So mere placing some documents are not sufficient. It must be proved through the cogent and reliable testimony of concerned witness. Moreover, those documents show that, it was his defense before the particular court and not before this court. Therefore, I did not find any force in the contention raised by the Advocate for Dwivedi," the judge said.SIMI Involvement Not ProbedThe special judge noted from the statements of a police inspector that one of the witnesses - Abdulla Jamaluddin Ansari stated in his testimony that he was the owner of Shakeel Goods Transport and that on the first floor of this Goods Transport, was the office of Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) - a terrorist organisation banned in India since 2006. "ACP Mohan Kulkarni (of ATS) has admitted in cross- examination that, on second floor of Shakeel Goods Transport office there was an office of SIMI. It was banned organization. He knew that, how to get the information about banned organization, its activists and as to whether they were present at the same locality or not at the relevant time, but he did not investigate as to whether SIMI office was operative or not at the relevant time," the judge said. Admittedly, the special judge said, the ATS team had not investigated from this angle to rule out the possibility that, there was no involvement of SIMI. "It is also necessary to mention that, in what directions the matter to be investigated it is the sole prerogative of the Investigating Officer. It is also necessary to mention that, when the certain facts came to their knowledge or transpired during the course of investigation, then those angle are also required to be considered and investigated," the judge said. The special court, however, said there was nothing on record to show that SIMI executed the blasts. "Although, it is the contention of learned Advocate for Pragya Thakur that the SIMI activists might have exploded the bomb but there is nothing on record to show that, any activists of SIMI was involved or seen near the spot of incident. Except the bare admission that there was the office located on the second floor of Shakeel Goods Transport and it is banned organization, it is not enough to draw the conclusion in the absence of any investigation and evidence on record to show that, SIMI Activist were involved in the commission of offence and exploded the bomb. Hence, I am not inclined to accept the contention of Advocates for accused," the judge held. UAPA Sanction InvalidThe judge after going through the statements of various witnesses and the material on record concluded that the prosecution did not proved through the cogent, reliable and acceptable evidence to that, the alleged act was done by the accused with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity or security or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike the terror or...

Malegaon Blasts : Special Court Rejects Argument That ATS Wanted To Implicate RSS Chief Mohan Bhagwat

Narsi Benwal

Tags