2006 Mumbai Train Blast Bombay Hc Acquits All Accused

In a significant ruling related to the 2006 Mumbai train blasts, in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kamal Ahmed Mohd. Vakil Ansari,  the Bombay High Court has set aside the previous order of the Special Court where accused were convicted and sentenced to death. 

The recent judgment passed by Justices Anil S. Kilor and Shyam C. Chandak, is based on the fact that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, hence leading to the release of all accused.

The 2006 Train Blasts-Background

• Dated 11th July, 2006, there were seven synchronised bomb blasts in the local trains of Mumbai during rush hour, which resulted in the death of 187 people and injury to around 800. 
• First-class compartments were targeted to maximise casualties. 
• At the initial stage different FIRs were filed at 7 police stations, which were later consolidated as the investigation was taken over by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS).
• During the investigation, thirteen accused were charged under numerous laws including the IPC, UAPA, MCOCA, as well as the Explosive Acts.
• Five accused were sentenced to death by a Special Court in the year 2015.
• The State later filed a confirmation petition under Section 366(1) CrPC, which resulted in the present review by the state High Court.

Evidences Provided:-

• Test Identification Parades (TIPs)

1. TIPs were conducted on November 7, 2006- the High Court declared them as inadmissible as the officer conducting them lacked legal authority. Although dock identification was conducted later, it was found to be unreliable by the Court due to the extended time gap.

• Witness Testimonies

Four kinds witnesses were analysed:

1. Taxi Drivers (PW-63 & PW-77): due to delayed statements and lack of earlier identification resulted their witness as unreliable.
2. Train Passengers (PW-57, 60, 62, 74): due to prolonged silence before having their statements recorded, as well as delayed TIPs resulted in non-credibility of the witnesses. 
3. Witness to Bomb Assembly (PW-75): The witness changed statement under the cross-examination and prior involvement in other cases also raised questions on the credibility.
4. Conspiracy Witness (PW-59): Vague recollection of events of the blast as well as people made the testimony as untrustworthy.
5. Also, other eyewitnesses who could have provided help with the case were not included for the TIPs or were examined either, further weakening the case.

• Recoveries

1. Materials including the RDX, detonators as well as cookers were also  recovered. 

2. The prosecution, however were not able to prove proper custody and sealing of the above mentioned items. Also, the investigation could not establish the kind of the bomb which was used conclusively, further weakening the probative value of the recoveries.

• Confessional Statements

It was ruled by the Court that all confessions are inadmissible, explaining-

1. No proper legal approval for MCOCA.

2. No proper compliance with the procedural safeguards as established by the law
3. Signs of custodial torture were found
4. Inadequate "cooling-off" period before confessions were made
5. Absence of legal counsel could be found
6. All accused retracted their confessions

It was observed by the Court that the confessions lacked credibility, were found to be partially copied, and also signs of coercion could be seen.

• Alternative Hypothesis

Mentioning the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Court explained that all other possible hypotheses shall be excluded to convict.

Final Verdict

The High Court decided that the prosecution had failed at every turn into proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was emphasised in the judgement that convicting wrong individuals without proper evidence in the name of justice would defeat the purpose of rule of law as well as  public trust.

All convictions and death sentences passed by the Special Court were quashed. The Court ordered that the  accused were to be released on a PR bond of ₹25,000 each as provided under Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

For further information on the subject, or to follow similar legal news, you may follow our blog under Sharks of Law or on instagram and youtube. If you are involved in a civil or criminal case and wish to talk to a lawyer online or seek free legal counsel, you may contact us through the following information.   

Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com

Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993