<p>The acquittal by the Bombay High Court of 12 persons convicted for the 2006 Mumbai train bombings that killed 189 people raises serious questions about the investigation and prosecution in the case. The bombings were among the biggest terror attacks in the country. Five of the acquitted were on the death row, and seven were serving a life term. </p>.<p>On Thursday, the Supreme Court stayed the acquittal, holding that the impugned judgement “shall not be treated as a precedent” and clarified that the released convicts need not surrender. The HC’s acquittals were both on substantial and procedural grounds. The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) of the Maharashtra Police had claimed to have solved the case in three months. </p>.<p>The cases were registered under stringent anti-terror laws, including the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. In 2015, the accused were found guilty by a trial court.</p>.<p>The court noted that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused on each count, and that such deceptive closure undermines public trust, while the true threat remains at large. It pointed out a series of lapses in the investigation, such as picking and choosing eyewitnesses, reliance on maps allegedly recovered from the accused, and confessional statements which were, in effect, manufactured. </p>.<p>The court also noted that there was evidence of custodial torture of the accused. The nature of the bombs used, a fundamental detail, was not established. There was also no adequate reason or material evidence to grant sanction to prosecute the accused under the MCOCA. The court considered the refusal of the police to share call detail records with the accused as suppression of material evidence.</p>.<p>Such a shoddy investigation in a case of this magnitude, conducted by investigators considered highly skilled and experienced, reveals the larger inefficiency in our investigative systems and practices. The 12 convicted persons have lost about 20 years of their lives, and five of them lived in the shadow of the gallows for 10 years. How could they be compensated? If they are not guilty, who triggered the explosions? The families of people who lost their lives and the nation are still awaiting justice. </p>.<p>The charge sheet had said that Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba masterminded the attacks and provided arms and training to the bombers. The acquittals and the questions raised about the credibility of the ATS may now be used by Pakistan to challenge India’s contentions about its involvement in terrorist activities in the country.</p>
<p>The acquittal by the Bombay High Court of 12 persons convicted for the 2006 Mumbai train bombings that killed 189 people raises serious questions about the investigation and prosecution in the case. The bombings were among the biggest terror attacks in the country. Five of the acquitted were on the death row, and seven were serving a life term. </p>.<p>On Thursday, the Supreme Court stayed the acquittal, holding that the impugned judgement “shall not be treated as a precedent” and clarified that the released convicts need not surrender. The HC’s acquittals were both on substantial and procedural grounds. The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) of the Maharashtra Police had claimed to have solved the case in three months. </p>.<p>The cases were registered under stringent anti-terror laws, including the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. In 2015, the accused were found guilty by a trial court.</p>.<p>The court noted that the prosecution had utterly failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt against the accused on each count, and that such deceptive closure undermines public trust, while the true threat remains at large. It pointed out a series of lapses in the investigation, such as picking and choosing eyewitnesses, reliance on maps allegedly recovered from the accused, and confessional statements which were, in effect, manufactured. </p>.<p>The court also noted that there was evidence of custodial torture of the accused. The nature of the bombs used, a fundamental detail, was not established. There was also no adequate reason or material evidence to grant sanction to prosecute the accused under the MCOCA. The court considered the refusal of the police to share call detail records with the accused as suppression of material evidence.</p>.<p>Such a shoddy investigation in a case of this magnitude, conducted by investigators considered highly skilled and experienced, reveals the larger inefficiency in our investigative systems and practices. The 12 convicted persons have lost about 20 years of their lives, and five of them lived in the shadow of the gallows for 10 years. How could they be compensated? If they are not guilty, who triggered the explosions? The families of people who lost their lives and the nation are still awaiting justice. </p>.<p>The charge sheet had said that Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba masterminded the attacks and provided arms and training to the bombers. The acquittals and the questions raised about the credibility of the ATS may now be used by Pakistan to challenge India’s contentions about its involvement in terrorist activities in the country.</p>
