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

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Soldier's death by fellow soldier qualifies as ‘battle casualty', rules Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld an Armed Forces Tribunal (AFT) order granting liberalised family pension to Rukmani Devi, the mother of a soldier who died over three decades ago during Operation Rakshak in Jammu and Kashmir. The court dismissed a writ petition by the Union of India challenging the AFT's February 22, 2022, ruling, holding that the soldier's death from friendly fire during an operational deployment qualifies as a 'battle casualty' under the Ministry of Defence's guidelines. Delivering the order on July 16, a division bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda said: 'It is manifest that a soldier deployed in a military operation, being shot by a fellow soldier, cannot be in any manner denied the benefits, which would be applicable to those soldiers who are killed in action.' The case arose from the death of Rukmani Devi's son, an Indian Army jawan, who was on duty with Operation Rakshak in Jammu and Kashmir when he suffered a fatal gunshot injury on October 21, 1991, fired by another soldier. Army Air Defence Records, through Part-II Order No. 01/BC/05/002 dated August 27, 1992, had categorised his death as a 'battle casualty.' However, the claim for liberalised family pension remained unresolved for decades. In 2018, Rukmani Devi approached the AFT seeking relief. The tribunal directed the government to consider her claim, relying on its own 2017 decision in the case of Harvinder Kaur vs Union of India, where a similar claim was allowed for a widow whose husband had died during Operation Parakram. The Union government appealed, arguing that the cases were not comparable, as Harvinder Kaur's husband had died while the operation was ongoing, whereas Devi's son was killed in 1991. The Centre also objected to the long delay of over 25 years in approaching the tribunal. However, the High Court rejected both arguments. Citing instructions issued by the Ministry of Defence in January 2001, the bench said the benefit of liberalised family pension extends to all armed forces personnel deployed in notified military operations, including those killed by 'acts of violence/attack by extremists, anti-social elements etc' or in other war-like situations. The court reproduced the government's pension categories, noting that the soldier's death fell squarely within Category E of Paragraph 4.1, which covers operational casualties. On the issue of delay, the bench relied on the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in M.L. Patil vs State of Goa, which held that pension entitlements constitute a 'continuous cause of action.' 'There is no justification at all for denying the arrears of pension…,' the Supreme Court had ruled, and the High Court applied the principle to Devi's case. The bench pointed out that the AFT's 2017 ruling in Harvinder Kaur's case has attained finality, strengthening the claim of similarly placed families. The High Court concluded: 'We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. The petition stands dismissed accordingly.' With the dismissal of the Union government's petition, the AFT's order stands, ensuring that Rukmani Devi receives the liberalised family pension due to her for her son's death in service.


India Today
4 hours ago
- India Today
Calling spouse dark not abetment: Court frees man 30 years after wife's suicide
Nearly three decades after being convicted for abetting his wife's suicide, a man has been acquitted by the Bombay High Court, which ruled that domestic quarrels, including remarks about complexion and threats of a second marriage, do not constitute criminal harassment under the judgment was delivered by Justice S M Modak, who was hearing an appeal filed in 1998 by a then 23-year-old shepherd from Satara district. advertisementThe man had been sentenced to five years in prison by a Sessions Court in Satara for offences under Sections 498A (cruelty to a married woman) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code. The case dated back to January 1995, when the man's wife died by suicide after jumping into a well. Prior to her death, she had reportedly told her parents that she was being harassed by her husband and to the prosecution, the husband had taunted the woman over her dark complexion, said he did not like her, and threatened to marry another woman, while her father-in-law criticised her cooking and expressed dissatisfaction with the food she the High Court found that these incidents amounted to domestic discord, not criminal conduct."They can be said to be quarrels arising out of matrimonial life. They are domestic quarrels. It cannot be said to be of such a high degree so as to compel the woman to commit suicide. So, an offence under Section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is not made out," said the Court said that while there was evidence of tension and disagreements within the household, they did not meet the legal threshold required to prove cruelty or abetment of suicide.'The legislature contemplates that every dispute, quarrel or altercation arising from matrimonial life are not criminal offences. It will take colour of criminal law only when there are no alternatives for the wife but to put an end to her life because of the harassment," the bench bench further said, 'There was harassment, but it was not of that kind of harassment due to which criminal law can be set in motion.'Noting that the prosecution had failed to establish a direct link between the alleged harassment and the woman's act of suicide, the court held that the trial court had overlooked fundamental legal principles. 'The Judge has forgotten the basic principles and ingredients of the Sections,' the High Court said, setting aside the conviction and ordering the appellant's release.- EndsMust Watch


Hans India
4 hours ago
- Hans India
Polls to local bodies: State govt in a dilemma as HC deadline on quota ends
Hyderabad: With the one-month time set by the Telangana High Court for submission of the list of wards reserved for SCs, STs and BCs ending on Thursday, and with the draft ordinance providing 42 per cent quota for BCs being referred to the Union Ministry of Home affairs by the Governor, the State government is clueless on how to proceed with the conduct of elections to local bodies. As a way out, the state government is likely to file a counter on the High Court's direction citing valid reasons for the delay in the conduct of elections, considering the approval of the ordinance on 42 per cent BC quota is pending. On June 25, the High Court directed the government i.e. the State Election Commission (SEC) to conduct panchayat polls within three months. Justice T. Madhavi Devi, pronouncing verdict in a batch of writ petitions filed by former sarpanches of six different village panchayats of the State, instructed the government to prepare the lists of voters and reservations for different categories like women and Backward Classes within a month from the date of receiving the judgement copy. The judge also directed the State Election Commission (SEC) to convene the polls to local bodies within two months of receiving all the details pertaining to voters list and reservations. The court mandated that the state government and the State Election Commission (SEC) complete the elections by September 30, rejecting claims that additional time was needed to initiate the election process. The judge emphasized the necessity of completing the division of wards within 30 days and ensuring the election process is finalized by the stipulated date. The Court also directed the state government to provide the list of voters to the SEC along with the particulars of modified wards in line with the delimitation exercise within a month. Top officials said that government was waiting for a reply from the Governor's office on the pending approval of the ordinance, after the President had put the state's request to give her assent to two acts regarding the enhancement of BC quota in cold storage. The government was in dilemma as the deadline set by the court was over. 'The state government is not ready to go for elections to local bodies without the enhancement of the BC quota. The only option is to seek the Court's intervention and direct the constitutional functionaries mainly the President and Governor to take a call on the pending approval of bills and ordinance', sources said. So, legal experts have been requested to explore options to resolve the BC quota issue with the intervention of the judiciary to help hold the panchayat elections by September end. Sources said that the State Advocate General will apprise the High Court of the status of the bills and seek some more time for the conduct of elections to local bodies. The issue will be discussed in the upcoming Cabinet meeting. The Cabinet will take a call on whether the government should concur with the SEC to hold the elections without enhancing BC quota or launch a fight against the Centre for its delaying tactics in the approval of ordinance providing 42 per cent quota for BCs.