'Strong suspicion, no proof': How the Malegaon blast case fell apart

In its verdict, the court concluded that none of the alleged conspiracy meetings could be conclusively proven due to the lack of admissible evidence and the reversal of witness testimonies.

In a dramatic conclusion to the 2008 Malegaon blast case, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused, including BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit.

The court had reportedly cited insufficient legal evidence despite “strong suspicion,” sharply criticising the prosecution’s handling of crucial witness statements that mysteriously vanished from court records.

Thirteen pivotal statements, recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before a magistrate, went missing from the case files in 2016, it has been learnt from an Indian Express report. These documents were central to the prosecution's narrative, allegedly tying the accused to conspiracy meetings where plans for revenge attacks on Muslims and the establishment of a "Hindu Rashtra" with its own constitution and saffron flag were discussed. The discussions also reportedly included the idea of a Central Hindu Government called 'Aryawart' and an exile government in Israel and Thailand.

However, despite extensive searches, the original statements could not be located.

The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which initially investigated the case, submitted an affidavit later that year stating it had certified photocopies of some of the missing documents. The prosecution sought to submit these as secondary evidence. This move was, however, fiercely contested by the defense.

Although a special NIA court allowed the use of the photocopies in 2017, the order was challenged by accused Sameer Kulkarni in the Bombay High Court. Two years later, in 2019, the High Court stayed the order, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the authenticity of the copies, as there was no verification that they were made from the original documents. The court instructed the prosecution to conduct an inquiry and file a fresh application to validate the photocopies.

The prosecution, nevertheless, did not follow through.

No fresh application was filed, nor was an inquiry conducted, states the report. Instead, the prosecution relied on oral testimony, asking witnesses if their statements had been recorded under Section 164.

The bench found this approach insufficient, particularly since the magistrates who recorded the statements were not examined.

Not just this.

Further weakening the prosecution's case, 39 witnesses had turned hostile during the trial.

Two of them were linked to the now-missing statements and reportedly told the magistrate they had overheard the accused discussing the need for violent retaliation and establishing a Hindu theocratic state. Nonetheless, in court, these witnesses claimed they were coerced into making such statements by the ATS, casting doubt on the integrity of the initial investigation.

Another claim put forth by the defense was that the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) might have been behind the blast, given that one of their offices was located near the site of the explosion at Bhiku Chowk in Malegaon, which killed six people and injured nearly 100.

However, the court dismissed this theory, noting there was no evidence that SIMI activists were involved or present at the scene. The ATS officer also admitted under cross-examination that the SIMI angle was never investigated.

In its verdict, the court concluded that none of the alleged conspiracy meetings could be conclusively proven due to the lack of admissible evidence and the reversal of witness testimonies. It also underscored that the prosecution had failed to sufficiently handle critical documentation and follow up on High Court directives that could have helped substantiate their claims.