SC stays 7/11 HC verdict; all accused to remain out of jail
New Delhi, July 25 -- The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the Bombay High Court's judgment acquitting all 12 men in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, taking note of the Maharashtra government's concern that the ruling could adversely impact several pending trials under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). However, the top court clarified that it was not staying the release of the 12 accused, all of whom have already walked free following their acquittal earlier this week.
A bench of justices MM Sundresh and N Kotiswar Singh also issued notices to all 12 men and sought their replies on the state's appeal.
"We are inclined to hold that the impugned judgment shall not be treated as a precedent. Therefore, there will be a stay of the impugned judgment," the court said in its brief order.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Maharashtra government, urged the court to stay the effect of the high court verdict, not on the ground of opposing the release of the acquitted men, but because the judgment contained certain observations that could cast a shadow over other MCOCA cases currently under trial.
"I am conscious of the matter of liberty. I am not seeking a stay on their release. But we want the judgment to be stayed because there are certain findings by the high court which may affect other pending MCOCA trials. Thus, the impugned judgment needs to be stayed," Mehta submitted.
Accepting the contention, the bench said the high court ruling shall not carry precedential value until further orders.
The development came in the wake of the Maharashtra government's swift appeal against the July 21 judgment of the Bombay High Court, which overturned the convictions of 12 men by a MCOCA special court in 2015. Five of them had been sentenced to death and the rest to life imprisonment.
The high court had held that the prosecution "utterly failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt," describing the investigation as riddled with procedural lapses, unreliable evidence and grave violations of the accused's constitutional rights.
The 2006 blasts were among the deadliest terror attacks in India's history, killing 188 people and injuring 829.
Seven powerful improvised explosive devices, planted in pressure cookers, ripped through first-class compartments of Mumbai's crowded local trains within six minutes during evening rush hour. The carnage left behind mangled steel and shattered lives, and prompted a massive terror investigation led by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS).
Within four months, 13 men were arrested by the ATS, which claimed that the attacks were orchestrated by former members of the banned Students' Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and aided by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
The ATS further alleged that 12 Pakistani nationals had infiltrated India to provide explosives and training to the accused-claims that ultimately failed to stand judicial scrutiny.
In 2015, the MCOCA court convicted 12 of the 13 accused, awarding the death penalty to five and life imprisonment to the others.
One man, Abdul Wahid Shaikh, a schoolteacher who had refused to confess, was acquitted by the trial court. One of the 13 accused died during the lengthy appeals process before the Bombay High Court.
On July 21, the Bombay High Court bench of Justices Anil S Kilor and Shyam Chandak delivered a 400-page verdict that raised fundamental questions about the fairness of the investigation and trial. It described the prosecution's case as a "deceptive closure" that undermined public trust while allowing the true culprits to remain at large.
The high court pointed out that the prosecution's reliance on confessional statements, which formed the bedrock of the ATS's case, was deeply flawed. Most of these statements, recorded between October 4 and 25, 2006, bore tell-tale signs of being "cut-copy-paste" reproductions and raised suspicions of being extracted under coercion. Several accused had retracted their confessions during trial, alleging torture in custody -- a claim HC found credible in light of procedural violations.
HC also noted that the accused were not informed of their right to consult their lawyers before confessing, despite being represented by advocates on record. This, the court ruled, was a violation of their fundamental rights.
Furthermore, HC cast serious doubt on the credibility of eyewitnesses, including two taxi drivers and a few train passengers, who claimed to have seen the accused planting the bombs. Their testimonies, recorded more than 100 days after the incident and then four years later during identification parades, were found to be unreliable. The test identification parades themselves were conducted by officials not authorised under law.
Material evidence, such as recovered RDX, circuit boards, pressure cookers, soldering guns and maps, was also deemed inadmissible. The court found that the chain of custody was broken and that the items were not properly sealed before being sent for forensic testing, casting doubt on their origin and connection to the accused....
To read the full article or to get the complete feed from this publication, please
Contact Us.