Prosecution tried to frame 2006 Nanded blast accused, failed to prove alleged right-wing link: Court

Mumbai: Mere recovery of literature and communications relating to some right-wing groups cannot be construed as a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, a Maharashtra court noted while acquitting nine persons, accused of having RSS and VHP links, in the Nanded blast case.

Nanded district and additional sessions judge CV Marathe also observed that the prosecution's claim of recovery of live bombs from the blast site was the "creation of a story" to implicate the accused which miserably failed to prove the offence.

The defence had contended that the matter was "a classic case of false implication to portray Hindu terrorism".

Altogether 13 accused were charge-sheeted in the case. While two of them died at the blast site, one of them was discharged by the Bombay High Court. Another accused died during the course of the trial.

An explosion occurred on the intervening night of April 4 and 5, 2006, at the house of one Laxman Rajkondwar, who was allegedly a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh worker, in Nanded city.

Rajkondwar's son Naresh Rajkondwar and Vishva Hindu Parishad activist Himanshu Panse were killed, allegedly while assembling the explosive device, the investigators claimed.

A reasoned order of the January 4 ruling became available on Wednesday.

The judge stated the charge sheet alleged that the accused persons were connected with Hindu organisations like the RSS, VHP or Bajrang Dal.

"But there is absolutely no document tendered by the prosecution to establish that any of the said organisations were notified as 'terrorist organisations' by the Central government.

"Therefore, mere recovery of the literature, diaries, and communications relating to such organisations cannot be construed as part of a conspiracy or aiding the terrorist organisation by the accused persons," the court observed.

The accused were charged under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Explosives Substances Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The investigation was carried out by three agencies - local police station (Bhagyanagar), Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) and later the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).

The charge sheet stated that the accused persons had hatched a conspiracy to assemble bombs to carry out explosions at various religious places with the intention of creating a rift among religious groups.

The accused created hatred against the Muslim community. They were trained in preparing pipe bombs in Pune by an absconding accused, as per the charge sheet.

The prosecution had submitted that since it established the blast conspiracy through the investigation, the accused are liable to be punished.

The defence, however, contended that the matter was "a classic case of false implication to portray Hindu terrorism".

The court stated that the evidence given by the first police officer (attached to Bhagyanagar police station) who had visited the spot suggested that he initially suspected that negligent storage of firecrackers in the house triggered the blast.

It is interesting to note that in the FIR, the witness clearly stated that the firecrackers were kept under the couch negligently, the court said.

"It means that before lodging the case he had searched the house and found only firecrackers under the couch. This belies the prosecution's claim that a live bomb was kept under the couch at the time of the explosion," the judge stated.

The court also stressed that no objectionable object was found by sniffer dogs during the initial search.

Another witness deposed that soon after the explosion, the fire brigade was called, and the blaze was doused with water. The witness stated that the rooms and floors in the house were wet.

Citing the witness' statement, the judge noted that even though the entire house was wet due to the pouring of water by the fire brigade, a rexine bag allegedly containing a live pipe bomb was not drenched.

Considering the magnitude of the explosion, there was no indication of the burning of the rexine bag when it was recovered, the court said, adding that it is virtually impossible and that both aspects go against the prosecution story.

"These circumstances point out towards the creation of a story to show the active role of the accused persons in the alleged offences.

"Moreover there was the recovery of boxes of firecrackers from the spot and the FIR also depicted the explosion due to negligent storage of crackers. All these aspects are unfavourable to the prosecution version about bomb explosion and recovery of live bombs from the spot," the court observed.

On the invocation of UAPA charges against the accused, the court held that "the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in that regard is totally untrustworthy".

After considering all the material and evidence on record, the court ruled that "the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any offence against the above-accused persons".