Bombay High Court Acquits 2006 Mumbai Train Blast Convicts
The Bombay High Court in 2025 overturned the convictions of 12 men accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts. This landmark ruling contradicted the 2015 verdict of the special Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) court. The High Court’s decision was based on a detailed review of nearly 44,000 pages of evidence. It raised serious doubts about confessional statements, eyewitness testimonies, custodial torture, call data records, and procedural lapses.
Confessional Statements and Custodial Torture
The High Court questioned the truthfulness of confessional statements. It found that these statements were extracted under torture. Several parts of the confessions were similar or copied. The accused proved that torture was inflicted to obtain these confessions. In contrast, the special court had accepted all confessions as voluntary and reliable. It dismissed torture claims as baseless and delayed.
Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony
The High Court scrutinised eyewitness evidence in four categories – taxi drivers, witnesses to bomb planting, bomb assembly, and conspiracy. It found the taxi drivers’ testimony unreliable due to delayed reporting and limited opportunity to observe the accused. Eyewitnesses who identified the accused after four years were also disbelieved. The court noted no special reason for their memory recall. Another witness was declared a ‘stock witness’ with a history of involvement in multiple police cases. The special court, however, had accepted all eyewitness accounts as credible.
Call Data Records and Prosecution’s Reluctance
The High Court observed the prosecution’s reluctance to present call data records (CDRs) linking the accused to Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Pakistani mastermind Azam Cheema. The destruction or non-production of CDRs led to adverse inference against the prosecution. The special court, however, considered CDRs as inferential and not conclusive proof of presence at crime scenes.
Test Identification Parade and Procedural Validity
The High Court ruled that the officer who conducted the test identification parade (TIP), Shashikant Barve, was not authorised at the time. His appointment as Special Executive Officer (SEO) had lapsed before the TIP. This invalidated the identification process for several accused. The special court had accepted Barve’s authority without question.
Contrasting Judicial Approaches
The High Court’s judgment exposed conflicts in evidence assessment and procedural scrutiny between the two courts. It emphasised the importance of credible confessions, reliable eyewitnesses, and strict adherence to legal procedures. The ruling brought into light concerns about custodial rights and evidentiary standards in terror cases.
| Related | |
|---|---|
