What did the court say about key evidence presented in the case?

Conspiracy meetings

The ATS had claimed that the accused held conspiracy meetings in Faridabad, Nashik and Bhopal between 2007 and 2008.

The ATS mainly relied on the statements of witnesses, registers of halls where these meetings were held or registers of places where the accused stayed to prove their presence in these meetings.

Two key accused who the ATS claimed were part of the meetings in Faridabad and Bhopal, had recorded statements before the magistrate under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code for higher evidentiary value.

The NIA, however, said that there were inconsistencies in the statements, and re-recorded the same before a magistrate again.

One of the witnesses said that he had not attended any meeting in Bhopal and had never visited the town till the ATS took him there in 2009.

The same witness, who the ATS claimed had heard discussions on the need for a revenge attack, had said that he was only serving water and meals to the participants and did not hear any discussion.

During the trial, among the witnesses who turned hostile, most of them were on the point of conspiracy meetings.

In 2016, a theft of documents from the Malegaon 2008 blast case was reported, which included witness statements of 13 persons.

Most of the 13 persons turned hostile in the case and the prosecution was unable to confront them with their statements as they are missing.

About the conspiracy meetings, the court said that statements of main witnesses had not supported the prosecution and the testimonies of others were not reliable or acceptable.

“The witnesses have retracted from their earlier statements given to the ATS. Therefore, neither conspiracy is proved nor the meetings are proved,” special judge A K Lahoti said.

Recordings on accused’s laptop

One of the crucial pieces of evidence that the ATS and the NIA relied on was audio and video recordings on the laptop of accused Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi.

The ATS had seized the laptop from him at the time of his arrest and found recordings of meetings between the accused, towards planning of the conspiracy.

The ATS also recorded voice samples and said that forensic laboratory reports show that the samples match with the accused, showing that they had participated in the meetings.

The accused in their final submissions before the court claimed that these recordings cannot be relied on.

It was claimed that there were multiple procedural irregularities like the laptop not being immediately sealed or the hash value not being recorded, which gives scope for the possibility of tampering, they submitted.

The court observed that there were procedural flaws in the arrest and the seizure of articles from the accused.

About the laptop, the court said that it was not sealed on the spot and remained open in the custody of the investigating officers for more than 24 hours, hence its contents cannot be relied on due to the possibility of tampering.

Intercepted calls

Another crucial link between the accused, the ATS and NIA relied on, were the intercepted conversations between the accused. It was claimed that after the first arrest in the case was made of accused Pragya Singh Thakur on October 23, 2008, there were calls between the co-accused which show their complicity in the crime.

The court said that the procedure adopted for voice samples of accused was “not free from doubt” and was not authorised. “The permission from the competent authority was obtained after passing of several days and not within the time frame,” it said.

LML motorcycle

The ATS had claimed that the motorcycle was the key evidence linking the accused to the blast.

Its first arrest in the case was that of Pragya Singh Thakur and it said that she was the owner of the motorcycle and was linked to the execution of the blast.

It said that the motorcycle was found at the spot and evidence including the forensic analysis of the recoveries made from the spot pointed towards use of explosive, RDX, fitted on the motorcycle.

The court said that while it was proved that a blast had taken place, it was not proved that the explosive was planted inside the motorcycle and could have been placed on it  “from the outside”.

It also said that there was no proper identification done of the motorcycle, as the chassis number, a unique identification number of a vehicle, was never restored and the serial number found was incomplete to conclude that Thakur was the owner of the motorcycle.

The court also said that there was a large mob of 15,000 people which had assembled at the spot after the blast, which pelted stones and vandalised vehicles, and caused damage to a police outpost, and the police had used force like lathi charge, preventive firing.

It said due to this the spot was not barricaded immediately and there was contamination of the articles sent for forensic analysis. “Hence, the result (of the forensic analysis) cannot be 100 per cent accurate,” the court said.  It also said that the ATS had not collected any fingerprints or DNA samples from the site despite the presence of an expert.

RDX & assembling of bomb

The ATS had alleged that the explosive used in the bomb was RDX and claimed that it was procured by Lt Col Prasad Purohit from his posting in the Army at Jammu & Kashmir.

The court said that there is no evidence on the point of the source of the explosive, or any proof on how it was procured, transported.

“Though it was alleged that RDX was brought by Purohit after completion of his posting at Kashmir, there is no evidence on the point of storage of RDX at the house of Prasad Purohit,” the court said.

It added that there is also no evidence on the point of who had parked the vehicle at the spot and when, since the area was cordoned off for Ramzan.

The court also said that the evidence of two Army officials who had claimed to have seen then assistant police inspector Shekhar Bagde at the house of accused Sudhakar Chaturvedi, in a suspicious manner, shows that there could be a possibility of “planting” of evidence.

Abhinav Bharat

The ATS and NIA had claimed that the organisation Abhinav Bharat founded by Prasad Purohit was linked to the conspiracy of the blast and that funds given to the organisation was used by the accused.

“It came on record that there were financial transactions, collection of donations, distribution of amounts by (accused) Ajay Rahirkar to Prasad Purohit… It also came on record that Prasad Purohit had utilised that amount for his personal work, house construction and LIC policies. But, there was no evidence that the said amount was used for terrorist activities,” the court said.

Medical certificates

The court said that while it was proven that the six deaths were due to the blast, of the 101 persons claimed to have been injured, some medical certificates were issued by “unauthorised medical practitioners at the instance of ATS officers”.

“In some medical certificates, this court found that there is manipulation. Those are also kept out of consideration,” the court said, concluding that there were 95 persons who were injured in the blast and not 101.

Confessions and MCOCA

The ATS which probed the blast rested its investigation mainly on the aspect that the accused had participated in conspiracy meetings, for the planning and execution of the blast.

Its main evidence was the confessions of some of the accused recorded under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act.

The confessions were rendered inadmissible after the MCOCA was dropped from the case in 2016, as the NIA which took over the probe from the ATS, said that there were shortcomings in how the Act was invoked.

The court said that the provisions of MCOCA were dropped in 2017 and therefore the confessions were not considered.

The court said that the two sanctions taken under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act were also not valid and were “defective” as they were not granted by applying judicious mind.