2006 Mumbai Blasts: High Court Overturns Convictions, Citing Prosecution Failure
This landmark judgment comes 19 years after a series of seven coordinated bomb blasts ripped through Mumbai's bustling Western Line local trains, claiming over 200 lives and injuring more than 700. On that fateful day, July 11, 2006, between 6:24 PM and 6:35 PM, the city's lifeline was brutally targeted during the peak evening rush hour. Rigged pressure cooker bombs, designed to amplify damage, were strategically placed in first-class compartments of trains originating from Churchgate. The explosions occurred near or at the stations of Matunga Road, Mahim Junction, Bandra, Khar Road, Jogeshwari, Bhayandar, and Borivali, leaving a trail of devastation and chaos.
The high-profile judgment follows a lengthy legal battle during which 12 individuals were convicted by a Special MCOCA court. Five of these had been sentenced to death, and seven to life imprisonment. Of the original 12, 11 have now been acquitted by the High Court, with one accused having passed away during the pendency of the appeals.
The final hearing in the High Court for this intricate case concluded in January this year, with the court reserving its order since then. The accused had participated in the court proceedings via video conferencing from various correctional facilities including Yerwada, Nashik, Amravati, and Nagpur jails.
The High Court's decision underscores the arguments presented by the defence, particularly those of senior counsel S. Muralidhar, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, who represented two of the convicts sentenced to life imprisonment. Mr. Muralidhar had vehemently argued for their acquittal, highlighting the 18 years the accused had spent incarcerated despite their alleged innocence.
During the hearings, Mr. Muralidhar contended that the investigation was plagued by bias and that innocent individuals were wrongfully imprisoned, leading to irreversible damage to their lives. He asserted that in cases of public outcry, investigating agencies often make assumptions of guilt, resulting in flawed probes. "In many such terror-related cases, investigating agencies have failed us miserably," he had argued, adding, "First of all, we have lost so many lives and then innocents are arrested. And after years, the accused are acquitted, and no one gets closure."
Furthermore, Mr. Muralidhar had leveled serious allegations against the investigating agency, the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), claiming that confessional statements were extracted under duress, involving physical and mental torture of the accused and their families. He drew parallels to the Malegaon blast case, where some of the same investigating officers were involved. He had also questioned the prosecution's failure to identify who manufactured, procured, and planted the RDX bombs, despite their claim that such explosives were used.
The senior counsel also shed light on the societal stigma faced by the accused and their families, emphasizing that "It is not just the accused but even his children, parents and relatives who get tainted." He highlighted the challenges an accused faces in complaining about custodial torture, especially when produced before a magistrate with police presence.
The acquittal marks a significant moment in the legal history of the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, raising pertinent questions about the initial investigation and the justice delivery system.
