Terror of omissions
Bombay HC's acquittal of the 12 men convicted (seven on life-term, five on death row) for the 11/7 train blasts is deeply worrying given what judges have revealed about the shoddy investigation and prosecution's negligence. HC said prosecution had 'utterly failed to prove the case' beyond reasonable doubt. That such 'deceptive closure undermines public trust while the true threat remains at large.' Trial court's conviction was junked on several points that included 1) confessions were a product of torture, 2) it was 'very odd' that witnesses identified the accused after four years, 3) witnesses were 'stock witnesses', rolled out frequently, 4) it took three months before one witness claimed to have seen bombs 'assembled', 5) prosecution's evidence was simply 'not safe' to base convictions on.
If this is the state of investigation into one of the worst terror attacks India has suffered, one shudders to think what many routine probes entail. In the July 2006 synchronised blasts on seven suburban trains in Mumbai within minutes during evening rush-hour, over 800 had been hurt, and 187 killed. Anti-terror cops charged the accused under the harsh state law MCOCA and stringent anti-terror law UAPA in Nov 2006. In 2015, a special court convicted all 12. The convicts' appeals have been pending in Bombay HC since 2015; Maharashtra state asked HC to confirm the sentences. HC acquitted all after regular hearings for six months since July 2024.
The last few years have seen a marked uptick in prisoners going from death row to acquittal. Higher courts and Supreme Court are routinely expressing dismay at sloppy investigation, where police and prosecution's sole aim is to 'pretend' a case is solved. The 11/7 case is among the most significant of such cases – there was no application of mind by police, prosecution or the trial court. In Feb 2022, an analysis by The Print showed that in the previous year, six HCs had acquitted 30 convicts sentenced to death by lower courts. In each, HCs had rebuked investigators for false evidence, missing forensic samples, corruption, 'manufactured FIRs', coached witnesses, and pulled up prosecutors for even 'hiding evidence'. Yesterday's acquittals are a loud wake-up call. Cops and trial court judges must give their full and serious attention.
Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email
This piece appeared as an editorial opinion in the print edition of The Times of India.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
22 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Rush Hour: Assam constable's son held as suspected Bangladeshi, blasts acquittal challenged and more
We're building a brand-new studio to bring you bold ground reports, sharp interviews, hard-hitting podcasts, explainers and more. Support Scroll's studio fund today. The Maharashtra government moved the Supreme Court challenging a Bombay High Court order on Monday acquitting all 12 persons accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. The High Court said that the prosecution had 'utterly failed' in establishing the guilt of the 12 men. This came nearly 10 years after a special court had sentenced five of them to death and others to life imprisonment. It remarked that while punishing the perpetrators of a crime is an essential step, creating a 'false appearance of having solved a case' leads to a misleading sense of resolution. The Supreme Court will hear the matter on Thursday. The Supreme Court refused to examine the legality of the directives issued by the Uttar Pradesh and Uttarakhand governments requiring eateries along the Kanwar Yatra pilgrimage route to display quick response codes with their owners' identities. The bench reiterated that the eateries must display their licences and registration certificates as required by law. The petitioners had argued that the governments' orders violated the court's 2024 interim order that prohibited vendors being forced to disclose their identities. The pleas had contended that the directives not only undermine the spirit of the court's stay, but also risks discriminatory profiling, particularly of vendors from minority communities, under the guise of public safety and licencing requirements. Read on. An Assam Police constable has said that his son is among nine Muslims of Bengali origin who have been detained in Gurugram since Sunday on suspicion of being undocumented Bangladeshi immigrants. Sannat Ali, a constable in the Assam Industrial Security Force, told Scroll that his son, 23-year-old Ashraful Islam, is a resident of Barbala village in Barpeta district. He had gone to Haryana on July 11 to work at a construction site, said Ali. Ali said that his son had submitted his voter ID card, school certificates, Aadhaar card and PAN card, which were not accepted by the police. 'They call them illegal Bangladeshis,' Ali alleged. He added: 'We have sent more documents like my service identity card and voter cards. Senior police officials have contacted me this morning. They are working to release him.' An assistant commissioner of police-rank in Gurugram told Scroll that the action was taken as per the Union home ministry's guidelines to verify the credentials of persons suspected to be undocumented migrants from Bangladesh and Myanmar. Read on. A day after Jagdeep Dhankhar resigned as the vice president, Prime Minister Narendra Modi wished him good health and said that the Rajya Sabha chairperson had 'got many opportunities to serve our country in various capacities'. Dhankhar had cited medical reasons for stepping down with immediate effect on Monday, which was the first day of the Monsoon Session of Parliament. Several Opposition leaders raised questions about the timing of Dhankhar's resignation. Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that there were 'far deeper reasons' behind Dhankhar's decision.
News18
28 minutes ago
- News18
Mumbai Blasts To 2G Scam: Challenges That Explain Prosecution Failures In Criminal Cases
The acquittal of all 12 accused in the Mumbai train blasts case is not just a legal outcome—it is a mirror to our broken criminal justice system The acquittal of all 12 convicts in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case by the Bombay High Court on July 21 has stunned the nation. The devastating attacks, which claimed 189 lives and injured over 800, led to a trial court convicting the accused in 2015. But the higher court overturned that verdict, citing the prosecution's failure to present credible evidence. This case reflects a broader trend in India's criminal justice system—prosecutions in high-profile terror cases and other serious crimes often collapse due to weak evidence, procedural delays, and political interference, leaving victims and the public disillusioned. There are legal and political factors behind these failures. Drawing on the Mumbai case, the 2G spectrum scandal, and systemic trends, one can understand why convictions often remain elusive. Robust evidence is the foundation of any successful prosecution, yet criminal cases in the country often stumble here. In the Mumbai train blasts case, the Bombay High Court flagged unreliable witnesses, flawed identification parades, and inadmissible confessions allegedly extracted through torture. The prosecution couldn't even specify what type of bombs were used—an indicator of unpreparedness. This evidentiary fragility is not limited to terror cases. For instance, in the 2017 2G spectrum case, all accused, including A Raja and K Kanimozhi, were acquitted because the CBI failed to produce sufficient documents or reliable witnesses after years of investigation. A 2019 Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy report reinforces this view, citing uncorroborated testimonies and coerced confessions as recurring issues. Courts demand strong, verifiable proof—when agencies rely on shaky foundations, acquittals become inevitable. Another chronic flaw is the lack of a comprehensive witness protection law. Witnesses often retract statements or refuse to testify due to fear of reprisal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged this issue, noting that laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) offer only limited protection. In cases involving organised crime, threats from powerful syndicates further weaken the prosecution. Strengthening evidence collection and ensuring witness safety are thus essential reforms. Procedural delays and systemic inefficiencies The nation's criminal justice system is bogged down by procedural delays and inefficiencies, which undermine even the strongest cases. Investigations often involve multiple agencies, causing coordination failures. The 2002 Akshardham attack case is a clear example—the Supreme Court, in 2014, criticised the investigation's lack of diligence after a series of handovers between agencies. Special courts, meant to fast-track serious crime trials, often share space with regular courts, creating backlogs. The Vidhi report points out that even high-profile cases under UAPA or MCOCA languish for years due to overburdened dockets and limited resources. The Mumbai train blasts case, for instance, took nearly two decades to reach a final verdict—long enough for evidence to degrade and witness recollections to fade. Laws like UAPA permit prolonged pre-charge detention—up to 180 days, compared to 24 hours under the Criminal Procedure Code. Agencies sometimes detain suspects without building strong cases, assuming that the legal process itself serves as punishment. But once cases reach higher courts, judges scrutinise them more rigorously, often leading to acquittals, as seen in the Mumbai case. Better agency coordination and court infrastructure are key to reducing delays and improving outcomes. Judicial scepticism and the misuse of stringent laws The country has stringent laws—like the now-defunct TADA, repealed POTA, UAPA, and Maharashtra's MCOCA—to empower law enforcement against terror and organised crime. But when misapplied, they often lead to prosecution failures. In the Mumbai case, the prosecution leaned heavily on MCOCA, but the High Court found the supporting evidence too weak, resulting in acquittals. The Vidhi report highlights that POTA Review Committees found no prima facie evidence in 1,006 out of 1,529 cases by 2005—indicating misuse. Under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail is denied if courts see any reasonable ground for guilt. This leads to prolonged detentions without trial. However, higher courts remain wary of overreach. For example, in the 2007 Mecca Masjid blast case, all 39 accused were acquitted due to a lack of evidence beyond coerced confessions. Judicial scepticism is widespread, even in financial scam cases, where agencies detain suspects but fail to produce solid evidence. Judges play a key role—no matter how stringent the law, a judge's discretion determines its application. When evidence is weak, courts hesitate to convict, especially in an era where judicial outlooks are influenced by liberal constitutional values. The perception that the legal process is the punishment has become more entrenched. Agencies may use long detentions to pressure suspects, but without credible evidence, courts intervene—leading to collapses like that of the Mumbai case. Thus, the focus must return to meticulous evidence collection and responsible application of law. Political interference and federal tensions Political dynamics often complicate criminal prosecutions. Federalism-based conflicts between the Centre and states delay investigations. Agencies like the National Investigation Agency (NIA) require state cooperation. The controversial National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) proposal failed after 14 states opposed it, citing threats to federal autonomy. Similarly, Gujarat's 2015 GCTOC Bill was delayed due to a lack of Presidential assent, stalling state-level efforts. Political alignments can also shape outcomes. The 2G spectrum case offers a telling example. On December 21, 2017, a special CBI court in New Delhi acquitted all accused—including A Raja and K. Kanimozhi—calling the case baseless. The court noted that despite one and a half years of waiting, the CBI failed to bring in evidence or witnesses. Judge OP Saini expressed frustration, saying the agency 'couldn't care less". This came at a time when the DMK appeared poised for a resurgence after J Jayalalithaa's death, while the BJP, with actor Rajinikanth hesitating to join politics, seemed to seek renewed ties with M Karunanidhi—its one-time ally during the Vajpayee era. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had even been photographed with Karunanidhi's family just months before the verdict. Was the CBI 'nudged" to go soft on DMK leaders? Media trials further complicate matters. In high-profile cases, widespread coverage often convinces the public that an accused is guilty long before a court weighs the evidence. But judges—aware of media excesses—may be repelled by aggressive reportage, affecting their outlook. Public perception, shaped by these narratives, pushes agencies to act fast, sometimes cutting corners. But legal outcomes depend on facts, not headlines. Reducing political interference and improving Centre-state coordination are vital to restoring integrity in prosecutions. Legal representation and the prosecution-defence gap The outcome of trials often hinges on the quality of legal representation. There's a stark imbalance between well-resourced defence lawyers and overburdened or undertrained state prosecutors. To fix this, the nation must invest in the training and independence of public prosecutors. Only then can they counter the skill and strategy of top defence lawyers. Road ahead: Reforming the system The acquittal of all 12 accused in the Mumbai train blasts case is not just a legal outcome—it is a mirror to our broken criminal justice system. Evidentiary lapses, systemic delays, misuse of harsh laws, political meddling, and lopsided legal representation all contribute to failed prosecutions. These failures cut across terror cases, corruption scandals, and violent crimes, leaving victims without closure and eroding public faith in the system. Reforms are urgent. Investigative agencies need better training. Witness protection laws must be enacted. Court infrastructure must expand to reduce backlogs. Political interference must be checked by preserving institutional autonomy. And prosecution teams must be strengthened to ensure fair competition in the courtroom. top videos View all Justice in India cannot remain hostage to inefficiencies and influence. A legal system that upholds fairness, efficiency, and accountability is the only way to deliver justice—and restore faith that those behind mass killings, like the Mumbai train blasts, will face the consequences of their crimes. The author is a senior journalist and writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : Bombay High Court judiciary justice Mumbai train blasts view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 22, 2025, 18:45 IST News opinion Opinion | Mumbai Blasts To 2G Scam: Challenges That Explain Prosecution Failures In Criminal Cases Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
7/11 train bomb blasts case: Acquitted man demands re-investigation through SIT
Abdul Wahid Shaikh, the sole person to be acquitted by the special court in 2015 in the Mumbai train bomb blasts case, on Tuesday (July 22, 2025), demanded the formation of an SIT headed by a High Court (HC) judge to re-investigate the case. Shaikh raised this demand a day after the Bombay High Court acquitted all 12 accused, noting that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove the case. Nine years after he was arrested by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), the special court in 2015 cleared him of all charges related to the serial blasts case. The court had sentenced five of the 12 men to death and seven to life imprisonment. One of the death row convicts died in 2021. On Monday (July 21, 2025), the high court released all 12, noting the prosecution utterly failed to prove the case, and it was 'hard to believe the accused committed the crime' Shaikh, who works as a teacher, has been vocal about the torture inflicted by the ATS on 12 persons. He had penned a book- 'Begunah Qaidi'- while he was behind bars. The special bench of the HC also stated that the accused had been tortured to extort confessional statements. 'The government should re-investigate the case by setting up a Special Investigation Team to be headed by a High Court judge to ensure that the real perpetrators behind the train bomb blasts are arrested,' Shaikh told PTI. His other demands include an apology from the ATS for the botched investigation, ₹19 crore in compensation to the 12 men who spent 19 years behind bars despite being innocent and government jobs and houses for them. 'Though very late, these people finally got justice. The HC verdict exposed the falsehood of ATS', he said. Shaikh expressed sympathy and demanded justice for the family members of the victims killed and maimed in the synchronised blasts that ripped through Mumbai local trains at various locations on the western line on July 11, 2006, killing more than 180 persons and injuring several others. He remembered the late Assistant Commissioner of Police Vinod Bhat, one of the investigating officers in the train bomb blast case. In his book, Shaikh had claimed that Bhat was being forced to fabricate evidence and create false witnesses against the accused persons. 'Today, the soul of ACP Bhat must be happy. He ended his life in August 2006 due to pressure to frame innocent persons on the same railway track where bomb blasts had occurred,' he claimed, adding that his death was recorded as an accidental death at Dadar railway police station.
