Malegaon blast: Victims’ lawyer approaches NIA to examine magistrates

Lawyer representing victims of the 2008 Malegaon blast has asked the NIA to examine magistrates who recorded witness and accused statements that allegedly went missing in 2016. The lawyer has requested the agency to lead evidence to support the missing statements and accused the NIA of not initiating perjury proceedings against hostile witnesses.

Mumbai: The lawyer representing the victims of the 2008 Malegaon blast has approached the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to examine the magistrates who recorded the statements of the witnesses and the accused in the case as it allegedly went missing from the court records in 2016.

HT Image

In 2016, statements of two accused, Sudhakar Dwivedi also known as Dayanand Pandey alias Swami Amrutanand Devtirth and Rakesh Dhawde, and 11 witnesses – allegedly connected to the conspiracy meetings held between the accused – were recorded before the magistrate.

While hearing the case, the special court had allowed the prosecution to submit photocopies of missing witnesses’ statements and confessions of the accused on record and lead evidence in support of the same, as none of the missing files have been traced.

The victim’s lawyer Shahid Nadeem, has now asked the agency to lead the evidence to support the statements. “Now the trial is at an end, only a few witnesses are left to be examined. It is requested in the interest of justice to make a strategy to get evidence of the magistrate on record since important witnesses of alleged conspiracy meetings have resiled from their earlier statement,” stated his letter.

Besides, he said in the letter that in none of the cases where witnesses have turned hostile, NIA has initiated perjury proceedings against any of them. Nadeem said that after the statements went missing, the accused had admitted to having received photocopies of these statements and the prosecution was allowed to lead secondary evidence but was asked to approach the NIA court once again for that. Nadeem alleged that to date no such application has been filed even when the trial is nearing completion.

“We can understand that the NIA is not responsible for the loss of primary evidence but certainly it is responsible for leading secondary evidence because the NIA is the prosecuting agency. We appreciate that NIA has called maximum available and relevant witnesses but leaving out these witnesses will only benefit the accused persons,” stated his letter.