E-Paper
Asaduddin Owaisi's first reaction to 2008 Malegaon blast case verdict by NIA court: ‘Shoddy investigation’
Asaduddin Owaisi questioned whether the Centre and Maharashtra governments would challenge the NIA verdict in Malegaon blast case.
Asaduddin Owaisi of the AIMIM on Thursday expressed disappointment over the acquittal of all accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, calling it a result of a “deliberately shoddy investigation and prosecution”.
“The Malegaon blast case verdict is disappointing. Six namazis were killed in the blast and nearly 100 were injured. They were targeted for their religion. A deliberately shoddy investigation/prosecution is responsible for the acquittal,” the All India Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen chief posted on X.
Asaduddin Owaisi questioned whether the Centre and Maharashtra governments would challenge the verdict. “Seventeen years after the blast, the Court has acquitted all of the accused for lack of evidence. Will the Modi & Fadnavis governments appeal the judgement the way they swiftly demanded stay in the Mumbai train blasts acquittals? Will Maharashtra’s ‘secular’ political parties demand accountability? Who killed the 6 people?”
Also Follow | Malegaon Blast Case Verdict LIVE Updates
Owaisi also recalled former special public prosecutor Rohini Salian's allegation that she was asked to "go soft" on the accused. “Remember, in 2016 the then prosecutor in the case Rohini Salian went on record to say that NIA had asked her to ‘go soft’ on the accused. Remember, in 2017, NIA had tried to get Sadhvi Pragya acquitted. The same person would go on to be a BJP MP in 2019.”
Also Read | What is Malegaon blast case? Verdict today: What we know about 17-year-long probe
He further mentioned slain ATS chief Hemant Karkare, who had initially probed the blast case before being killed in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. “Karkare had uncovered the conspiracy in Malegaon & was unfortunately killed by Pakistani terrorists in the 26/11 attacks. The BJP MP went on record saying that she had cursed him and his death was a consequence of his curse.”
Taking aim at the current government, Owaisi asked, “Will NIA/ATS officers be held accountable for their faulty investigation? I think we know the answer. This is the ‘tough on terror’ Modi government. The world will remember that it made a terror accused a Member of Parliament.”
2008 Malegaon blast case: Court acquits all 7 accused
Nearly 17 years after the Malegaon blast claimed six lives, the special court acquitted all seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, noting there was "no reliable and cogent evidence" against them.
No religion teaches violence, the court said. Terrorism has no religion, but the court cannot convict on mere perception, it added.
Special Judge AK Lahoti, assigned to hear cases of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) here, flagged several loopholes in the prosecution's case and the investigation carried out, and said the accused persons deserved the benefit of doubt.
An explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in the town, located about 200 km from Mumbai, on September 29, 2008 killing six persons and injuring 101 others.
Besides Thakur and Purohit, the accused comprised Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni.
Once the court acquitted the seven accused, they looked relieved with smiles on their faces. They thanked the judge and their lawyers.
The court while reading out the judgment said there was no "reliable and cogent" evidence to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.
"Mere suspicion cannot take the place of real proof," the court said, adding that in the absence of any evidence, the accused persons deserve the benefit of doubt.
"The overall evidence does not inspire confidence in the court to convict the accused. There is no reliable and cogent evidence to warrant conviction," the judge said while reading out the judgment.
The court also said provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were not applicable to the case.
