Justice Anil S. Kilor, Justice Shyam C. Chandak, Bombay High Court
Evidence Of Travel To Pakistan Not Sufficient: Bombay High Court While Acquitting 12 Accused In 7/11 Mumbai Train Blasts Case
|The Bombay High Court remarked that considering the fact that the accused were SIMI Activists and knowing each other, such evidence does not have much relevance.
The Bombay High Court has acquitted twelve (12) men who were accused of being involved in train blasts case that happened on July 11, 2006 in Mumbai city.
The Court was hearing a batch of Criminal Appeals preferred by the 13 accused persons, out of whom one died during the pendency of the case.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil S. Kilor and Justice Shyam C. Chandak held, “Similarly, it was argued by the prosecution that A.1, A.2, A.3, A.6, A.9, A.10 and A.11 went to Pakistan through Iran or some other route and it was tried to be proved by way of Passport and other evidence produced on record. However, even if the said evidence is held to be sufficient to establish the accused’s visit to Pakistan, the same, in itself, is not sufficient to indicate or suggest or to establish the fact of commission of bomb blasts by these accused. Since the prosecution failed to establish the offence on all the grounds, the fact whether the accused visited Pakistan to obtain training or not would become irrelevant.”
The Bench remarked that considering the fact that the accused were SIMI (Students Islamic Movement of India) Activists and knowing each other, such evidence does not have much relevance.
“Punishing the actual perpetrator of a crime is a concrete and essential step toward curbing criminal activities, upholding the rule of law, and ensuring the safety and security of citizens. But creating a false appearance of having solved a case by presenting that the accused have been brought to justice gives a misleading sense of resolution. This deceptive closure undermines public trust and falsely reassures society, while in reality, the true threat remains at large”, also remarked the Court.
Factual Background
On July 11, 2006, seven bomb blasts had taken place in the first-class compartments of seven local trains, in Mumbai, between 18.23 hrs to 18.29 hrs. In the said blasts, 187 people had died and around 824 people got injured. Thereupon, the seven crimes in different police stations were registered, and later on, all were clubbed together and investigated by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). The ATS revealed that the thirteen accused, who were tried along with fifteen wanted accused and two deceased accused, were involved in the crime. Accordingly, the chargesheet was filed and a trial was conducted by the Special Court No. 1 of the Special judge under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) and the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act), at Mumbai.
The accused persons were convicted in the year 2015. One of the accused persons (A.8) was granted acquittal by the Special Court. Along with accused no. 1, A.3, 4, 12, and 13 were sentenced to death for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), Section 3b of Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and under Section 3(1)(i) of MCOCA. Hence, the Special Court referred the proceeding (confirmation case) in terms of Section 366(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC). Except Accused no. 1 who died, all other accused persons filed respective Appeals before the High Court.
Court’s Observations
The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, observed, “… even if it is accepted that the mobile numbers were not in the name of the accused, the prosecution had knowledge about the mobile number which the accused were using, and such number are the part of the record. However, even the CDRs of such numbers are not produced on record, or relied upon by the prosecution.”
The Court took note of the fact that it was only after the defence produced the CDRs (Call Detain Records) on record that the prosecution altered its stance, contending that the CDR of all accused show that accused were in constant-contact with each other to hatch the conspiracy.
“In view of the prosecution story that they all are SIMI Activists and most of them were knowing each other, by referring to a landline number on which according to the prosecution, these accused used to make phone calls, is not sufficient to establish the offence. This evidence does not show more than a fact that they were in contact”, it added.
The Court further reiterated that the presumption of adverse inference can be drawn if other larger evidence is shown to the contrary.
“… as we have seen that there is not a single evidence brought by the prosecution on record, we are of the opinion that, in the present case, the reluctance of prosecution to bring the CDRs on record and destruction of the same raises an adverse inference against the prosecution”, it said.
The Court was of the view that the recovery of the other articles like books, maps, CPUs, etc. are also not sufficient even if the recoveries are held to be proved, to establish the crime against the accused.
“The last plank of the evidence on which the prosecution has placed heavy reliance was the confessional statements. However, on all the tests relating to voluntariness and truthfulness of the confessional statements, the prosecution failed”, it also remarked.
Conclusion
The Court said that it is unsafe to reach the satisfaction that the Appellants-accused have committed the offences for which they have been convicted and sentenced.
“Therefore, the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence is liable to be quashed and set aside. In the result, the aforesaid Confirmation Case is liable to be answered in the negative, and all the Appeals deserve to be allowed”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeals, refuse to confirm the death sentence imposed by the Trial Court, and acquitted all the accused persons.
Cause Title- Mohammad Sajid Margub Ansari v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:30060-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: Senior Advocates Nitya Ramakrishnan, S. Nagamuthu, S. Murlidhar, Advocates Yug Mohit Chaudhari, Payoshi Roy, Hasan Nizami, Anush Shetty, Siddharth Sharma, Dashrath Gaikwad, Stuti Rai, Ansar Tamboli, Payoshi Roy, Siddhartha Sharma, Ninni Susan Thomas, Maitreya Subramaniam, Gaurav Bhawnani, Hetali Sheth, Khan Ishrat Azar Ali, and Aditya Mehta.
Respondent: Senior Advocate Raja Thakare, SPP A.M. Chimalkar, APPs Siddharth Jagushte, Akash Kavade, Aishwarya Sharma, Drushti Gala, Tushar C. Nirbhavane, M.M. Deshmukh, G.P. Mulekar, R.S. Tendulkar, A.D. Kamkhedkar, P.H. Gaikwad, and A.R. Metkari.