 "A forensic officer at the site of a damaged railway train compartment hit by the serial bomb blast in Mumbai in July 12, 2006. Seven bombs went off in the country's financial hub vital commuter rail network killing hundreds. Now, 19 years later, the 12 accused have been acquitted. File image/Reuters")
The Bombay High Court has flagged investigations conducted by the Anti-Terrorism Squad on the 11/7 Mumbai train blasts and questioned the agency over deletion of call data records (CDRs).
The court raised serious questions over the “integrity” of the ATS probes, adding, “reluctance of the prosecution to bring CDRs on record and their destruction raises an adverse inference against the prosecution”.
The High Court noted that, according to the prosecution, conspiracy meetings took place at the residence of a planter in Bandra, attended by four other accused. In May, a prosecution witness met the planter and others near Shams Masjid in Mira Road, where the planter allegedly instructed the witness to summon another accused to the location.
Additionally, the judgment mentioned that confessions from two of the accused revealed one had handed over his mobile phone to the other near Lucky Hotel in Bandra at around 4:15 PM.
The special bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak said that the prosecution’s claim of one eyewitness witnessing an alleged blast conspiracy meeting “could have easily established location and movement of accused at the relevant places and times through CDRs. Instead, the CDR was destroyed. This act raises serious doubts over the integrity of the investigation and amounts to a grave violation of right to a fair trial”.
The court noted that the CDR would have played an important role since the first arrest in the 11/7 train attack case was made based on a mobile number allegedly linked to accused Kamal Ansari. The number was used to send a religious SMS that ticked off the ATS.
Impact Shorts
More Shorts“Prosecution could have produced the CDR of either the witness or the accused to establish their location. In the absence of direct evidence of conspiracy, a chain of events has to be completed from which a conclusion of guilt of the accused can be drawn,” the High Court said.