Major Ramesh Upadhyay, one of the prime accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, has claimed that the investigating agencies did not follow due protocol to obtain voice samples of the accused. Upadhyay wants the court to discard the evidence of audio-video tapes.
The audio -video tapes are said to be crucial evidence in the case, as the same are proof of the alleged conspiracy meetings held in Bhopal (April 2008), Faridabad (June 2008) and Nashik (September 2008). Apart from this, the agency has also relied on the interceptions and transcripts of the conversations recorded between accused Lt Col Prasad Purohit, Upadhyay and other accused.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA), in its chargesheet, claimed that the voice samples have matched with the conversation recorded. “The intercepted conversation between the other accused and Purohit shows their complicity in the instance case. The FSL report regarding voice samples of the accused person matches with the recorded conversation of the laptop and the lawfully intercepted telephonic conversation which establishes guilt and the participation in the crime. The FSL report was received with regard to data retrieved from the laptop of accused Sudhakar Dwivedi, the voice samples report of FSL with regards to Prasad Purohit, Sudhakar Dwivedi and Ramesh Upadhyay are also available which is positive,” reads the chargehseet filed by NIA in 2016.
Upadhyay, however, alleged that the agencies had not collected the samples following due process of law. He alleged that agency cannot take samples without permission of the accused.
“The collection of voice sample of the accused for the purpose of voice spectrograph test and further action by ATS and FSL are ab-initio illegal and without the sanctity of law. The entire evidence produced by the prosecution on the basis of voice spectrograph analysis reports needs to be declared having no sanctity of law,” reads the handwritten plea filed by Upadhyay last week.
On receipt of the plea, the court has now asked the agency to file its reply on Upadhyay’s allegations.