The Bombay High Court on Tuesday said it was “not an open gate for everyone” to file an appeal against acquittal in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, and sought details if family members of the victims were examined as witnesses in the trial, reported news agency PTI.

A bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad was hearing an appeal filed by the family members of the six persons who lost their lives in the blast against the acquittal judgment, reported PTI.

The appeal challenged a special court judgment acquitting the seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit.

The HC bench on Tuesday sought to know if the family members were examined as witnesses in the trial.

The family members` advocate told the bench that the first appellant, Nisar Ahmed, whose son died in the blast, was not a witness in the trial, but said he would submit the details on Wednesday.

The bench then said if the appellant`s son died in the blast, then he (Nisar Ahmed) should have been a witness.

“You (appellants) have to indicate whether they were witnesses or not. Give us details. This is not an open gate for everyone,” HC said, reported PTI.

The court posted the matter for further hearing on Wednesday.

The appeal filed last week claimed a faulty investigation or some defects in the probe cannot be the ground for acquitting the accused. It also contended that the conspiracy (of the blast) was hatched in secrecy and hence, there cannot be direct evidence of it.

The petitioners claimed the order passed by the special NIA court on July 31, acquitting the seven accused, was wrong and bad in law and hence deserved to be quashed.

On September 29, 2008, an explosive device strapped to a motorcycle went off near a mosque in Malegaon town, located about 200 km from Mumbai in Maharashtra`s Nashik district, killing six persons and injuring 101 others.

The appeal said the trial court judge should not act as a “postman or mute spectator” in a criminal trial. When the prosecution failed to elicit facts, the trial court can ask questions and/or summon witnesses, it added, reported PTI.

“The trial court has unfortunately acted as a mere post office and allowed a deficient prosecution to benefit the accused,” the appeal said, reported PTI.

It also raised concerns over the manner in which the National Investigation Agency (NIA) conducted the probe and trial in the 2008 Malegaon blast case and sought for the accused to be convicted.

The state Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), by arresting the seven persons, unearthed a large conspiracy and since then, there has been no blast in areas populated by the minority community, the appeal said.

It claimed the NIA, after taking over the 2008 Malegaon blast case, diluted the allegations against the accused persons.

The special court had, in its judgment, said mere suspicion cannot replace real proof and there was no cogent or reliable evidence to warrant a conviction.

Special judge A K Lahoti, presiding over the NIA court, had said there was no “reliable and cogent evidence” against the accused that proved the 2008 Malegaon blast case beyond a reasonable doubt, reported PTI.

The prosecution`s case was that the blast was carried out by right-wing extremists with the intention to terrorise the Muslim community in the communally sensitive Malegaon town.

The NIA court, in its judgment, had flagged several loopholes in the prosecution`s case and the investigation carried out, and said the accused persons deserved the benefit of doubt, reported PTI.

Besides Thakur and Purohit, the accused included Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sameer Kulkarni.

(With inputs from PTI)

Source