logo
‘To whom should I go for justice now?': Pain, anger among Mumbai train blasts victims' families

‘To whom should I go for justice now?': Pain, anger among Mumbai train blasts victims' families

Indian Express4 days ago
On the evening of July 11, 2006, Mahendra Pitale was travelling home from work. Like most days, he stood at the door of an overcrowded North-bound local train. Around 6 pm, as the train approached Jogeshwari station, a powerful blast tore through the coach, throwing him out. He woke up the next day in hospital to find his left arm amputated.
Nineteen years later, with the High Court on Monday acquitting all 12 accused in the 7/11 Mumbai train bomb blasts, Pitale says, 'This one day is more unjust than the 19 years of suffering we have gone through. My only expectation now is that if these were not the perpetrators, then find the real culprits. I am convinced that the investigation fell short.'
The court also set aside a special court verdict that had awarded the death sentence to five convicts, and refused the Maharashtra government's plea seeking confirmation of their sentences.
On July 11, 2006, a series of bombs had ripped through seven local trains in Mumbai, killing 187 people and injuring 824.
Following Monday's verdict by a special High Court bench of Justices Anil S Kilor and Shyam C Chandak, the victims of the blast and their families expressed their disappointment.
Ramesh Naik, who lost his 27-year-old daughter Nandini when a bomb went off on a train at Borivali, says, 'We waited for 19 long years for justice, but was it delivered? After 19 years, we are being told that the accused are not guilty. To whom should I go for justice now? Who should I hold responsible – the judiciary or the government? Nandini had just graduated from college and was about to start her career.'
Months before the blast, Naik had lost his younger daughter Rachana to an illness. The two consecutive tragedies left the family shattered.
Anuj Kilawala, who worked as a development officer with a private firm, was among the dead. His wife Chandika Kilawala says, 'The government always fails to provide speedy justice to the victims. If it had not been for my daughter, who took over the family business, we would have struggled.'
In another part of the city, Chirag Chauhan calls the verdict a 'failure of the judiciary'. In 2006, Chirag, then a CA student, was returning from his articleship when a blast went off on a train near Jogeshwari. While Chauhan survived the blast, an injury to his spinal cord left him paralysed waist down.
'The judgment is shocking. This is not just about me; there are hundreds of others who were victims of this attack. I am yet to go through the whole judgment but I don't understand why this has happened. We are hoping to appeal the verdict in the higher court,' he says.
Hansraj Kanojia, 55, walks on crutches since he injured his legs in the blast. That day, he was returning from his workplace to his home in Goregaon, when the bomb went off on the train. 'The incident may have happened 19 years ago but the wounds are still fresh. I remember the blasts vividly – everyday. The incident altered my life and I think about it every moment I walk. Like me, all the victims would have hoped to get some sense of justice from the administration. But today's judgment today is a complete failure of the administration. How is it that they haven't been able to find those responsible for these attacks?'
Usha Sharad Bobhate's husband Sharad Bobhate, a manager at the Punjab National Bank in Sion, was on a train in Matunga when the blasts hit. Usha says that on July 11, 2006, she didn't get the usual evening call from Sharad. 'He would always call me while leaving office to ask if he needed to pick anything from the market. However, that day, I got no calls from him and I kept getting restless. How was I to know that he would never come back home that day?' she says. 'I simply cannot believe that the court let the accused get away. Isn't the court meant to deliver justice?'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Debt by cash transactions of over Rs 20,000 not legally enforceable: Kerala HC
Debt by cash transactions of over Rs 20,000 not legally enforceable: Kerala HC

Economic Times

time4 hours ago

  • Economic Times

Debt by cash transactions of over Rs 20,000 not legally enforceable: Kerala HC

Synopsis The Kerala High Court made a significant ruling. It involves cash transactions exceeding Rs 20,000. Such debts are not legally enforceable without proper justification. This decision came during a cheque dishonor case appeal. The court acquitted the accused, emphasizing the need to discourage large cash transactions. This aligns with India's digital economy goals. The Kerala High Court on Friday declared that a debt created by a cash transaction of above Rs 20,000 in violation of the Income Tax Act is not a "legally enforceable debt" unless there is a valid explanation for the same. ADVERTISEMENT Justice P V Kunhikrishnan made the declaration while allowing a plea for setting aside the conviction and sentence of a man accused in a cheque dishonor case. The accused was sentenced to one year and imposed with a fine of Rs 9 lakh by a sessions court for the offence of dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds in the account under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. In his appeal in the High Court against the sessions court decision, the accused claimed that as the amount of Rs 9 lakh given to him by the complainant was in cash, it was an illegal transaction according to the Income Tax laws. "Therefore, a debt created by an illegal transaction cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt," the accused had claimed. Agreeing with the accused's contention, Justice Kunhikrishnan said that if a criminal court "indirectly legalises such illegal transactions in violation of the IT Act" by treating them as a legally enforceable debt, it will be against the aim of the country to discourage cash transactions above Rs 20,000. ADVERTISEMENT The High Court said that discouraging cash transactions above Rs 20,000 was also "a part of the 'digital India' dream of our country, which is propounded by our Prime Minister to save our economy and to curb a parallel economy in our country". "If the debt arises through an illegal transaction, that debt cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt. If the court regularises such transactions, that will encourage illegal transactions by the citizens. Even black money will be converted into white money through the criminal courts," the High Court said. ADVERTISEMENT It further said that in such cases the accused should challenge such transactions in evidence and has to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act that "the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of a debt or other liability". In the instant case, the accused had rebutted the presumption by claiming that the complainant does not have the source to loan out Rs 9 lakh and therefore, the debt alleged to be due to him cannot be treated as a legally enforceable one, the HC said. ADVERTISEMENT It allowed the accused's revision petition and acquitted him by setting aside his conviction and sentence by the lower court. The High Court said if anybody pays an amount in excess of Rs 20,000 to another person by cash in violation of the IT Act and thereafter receives a cheque for that debt, he should take responsibility to get back the amount, unless there is a valid explanation for such cash transactions. ADVERTISEMENT "If there is no valid explanation in tune with provisions of the IT Act, the doors of the criminal court will be closed for such illegal transactions," the HC said. It also made it clear that its findings would be prospective in nature. (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2025 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.) Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online. NEXT STORY

Debt by cash transactions of over Rs 20,000 not legally enforceable: Kerala HC
Debt by cash transactions of over Rs 20,000 not legally enforceable: Kerala HC

Time of India

time6 hours ago

  • Time of India

Debt by cash transactions of over Rs 20,000 not legally enforceable: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court on Friday declared that a debt created by a cash transaction of above Rs 20,000 in violation of the Income Tax Act is not a " legally enforceable debt " unless there is a valid explanation for the same. Justice P V Kunhikrishnan made the declaration while allowing a plea for setting aside the conviction and sentence of a man accused in a cheque dishonor case . Explore courses from Top Institutes in Please select course: Select a Course Category Others Management Technology CXO Data Analytics Product Management Digital Marketing Leadership Artificial Intelligence Data Science healthcare Public Policy Operations Management Cybersecurity MBA Degree MCA others Finance Data Science Project Management PGDM Skills you'll gain: Duration: 28 Weeks MICA CERT-MICA SBMPR Async India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 7 Months S P Jain Institute of Management and Research CERT-SPJIMR Exec Cert Prog in AI for Biz India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 16 Weeks Indian School of Business CERT-ISB Transforming HR with Analytics & AI India Starts on undefined Get Details Skills you'll gain: Duration: 9 months IIM Lucknow SEPO - IIML CHRO India Starts on undefined Get Details The accused was sentenced to one year and imposed with a fine of Rs 9 lakh by a sessions court for the offence of dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds in the account under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Animal Advocate Begs: Never Do This With A Senior Dog ExpertsInPetHealth Learn More Undo In his appeal in the High Court against the sessions court decision, the accused claimed that as the amount of Rs 9 lakh given to him by the complainant was in cash, it was an illegal transaction according to the Income Tax laws. "Therefore, a debt created by an illegal transaction cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt," the accused had claimed. Live Events Agreeing with the accused's contention, Justice Kunhikrishnan said that if a criminal court "indirectly legalises such illegal transactions in violation of the IT Act" by treating them as a legally enforceable debt, it will be against the aim of the country to discourage cash transactions above Rs 20,000. The High Court said that discouraging cash transactions above Rs 20,000 was also "a part of the 'digital India' dream of our country, which is propounded by our Prime Minister to save our economy and to curb a parallel economy in our country". "If the debt arises through an illegal transaction, that debt cannot be treated as a legally enforceable debt. If the court regularises such transactions, that will encourage illegal transactions by the citizens. Even black money will be converted into white money through the criminal courts," the High Court said. It further said that in such cases the accused should challenge such transactions in evidence and has to rebut the presumption under section 139 of the NI Act that "the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of a debt or other liability". In the instant case, the accused had rebutted the presumption by claiming that the complainant does not have the source to loan out Rs 9 lakh and therefore, the debt alleged to be due to him cannot be treated as a legally enforceable one, the HC said. It allowed the accused's revision petition and acquitted him by setting aside his conviction and sentence by the lower court. The High Court said if anybody pays an amount in excess of Rs 20,000 to another person by cash in violation of the IT Act and thereafter receives a cheque for that debt, he should take responsibility to get back the amount, unless there is a valid explanation for such cash transactions. "If there is no valid explanation in tune with provisions of the IT Act, the doors of the criminal court will be closed for such illegal transactions," the HC said. It also made it clear that its findings would be prospective in nature.

SC displeased over stay on trials in 1984 Anti-Sikh Riot cases, urges Allahabad HC to expedite
SC displeased over stay on trials in 1984 Anti-Sikh Riot cases, urges Allahabad HC to expedite

United News of India

time7 hours ago

  • United News of India

SC displeased over stay on trials in 1984 Anti-Sikh Riot cases, urges Allahabad HC to expedite

New Delhi, July 25 (UNI) The Supreme Court today expressed dismay over the Allahabad High Court staying trial proceedings in three out of eleven cases related to the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots, where trials had commenced after re-investigation and filing of chargesheets by a Special Investigation Team (SIT). A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi observed, 'What really bothers is that in 11 cases where trials commenced pursuant to chargesheets filed by SIT, such trials have been stayed by High Court in three cases. "While we do not wish to impact the right of a suspect or accused to avail his/her remedy, including quashing of chargesheet, all that we request the High Court is to take up these matters out of turn and expeditiously for their adjudication in accordance with law.' The Court highlighted that the conclusion of these trials would take reasonable time, and availability of witnesses becomes increasingly difficult with the passage of time. 'It is only with repeated efforts made by this Court that the investigations were revived, SIT was constituted, and chargesheets have now been filed… judicial notice of the fact that conclusion of trial will take some reasonable time… most importantly, availability of witnesses, with passage of time, becomes a difficult task,' the Bench noted. During the hearing, the Court went through a compliance report filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh, which revealed that the contents of one FIR dated November 9, 1984, could not be recovered even by the CFSL. The CFSL report stated that, except for some sections, the rest of the FIR was fragmented. Considering its previous orders and the CFSL findings, the Court said no further action could be taken at this stage, but added that if any duplicate copy or related document is recovered, it should be brought to the Court's notice. Regarding four appeals filed before the High Court challenging acquittals in riot cases, the Court noted from the status report that these appeals were being actively pursued for hearings on the merits. The Bench impressed upon the UP Advocate General to deploy the 'best of the state law officers' having requisite expertise to handle these sensitive matters. In April as well, the Court had directed the State to appear in cases where trial proceedings were stayed and to take all necessary steps for their early disposal. Reiterating its stand today, the Court stated it had no reason to doubt that the High Court would conduct the cases expeditiously and take them up out of turn. Advocate Jagjit Singh Chabra appeared for the petitioners, while Advocate Ruchira Goel represented the State of Uttar Pradesh.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store