A special court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, including BJP MP Pragya Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit. The court found them not guilty of charges such as murder and criminal conspiracy. It also dropped all charges under the Indian Penal Code and the anti-terror law UAPA. The judgment, delivered 17 years after the deadly blast that killed six and injured over 100 people, cleared the accused of all allegations.
Also Read:Actor Prakash Raj Faces ED Inquiry Over Online Betting Links
Malegaon:Background and Changing Investigative Agencies
Special Judge A K Lahoti ruled that suspicion alone cannot justify a conviction. He emphasized that terrorism has no religion and that violence goes against religious values. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused planted the bomb or conspired in the attack. Citing a lack of strong and credible evidence, the judge stated that the case did not meet the legal burden of proof. As a result, the court gave all accused the benefit of the doubt and ordered compensation for the victims’ families and injured survivors.
The court criticized the investigation team for failing to conclusively link the bomb to the motorcycle used in the blast. While it acknowledged that the explosion occurred, it found no clear proof about the bomb’s origin or a conspiracy behind it. Judge Lahoti noted that the alleged meetings and planning attributed to the accused lacked evidentiary support. He also ruled that the phone interception was unauthorized and that the sanction orders under the UAPA were legally flawed, making it impossible to apply anti-terror charges. Witness testimonies failed to support claims of an organized conspiracy or a revenge motive, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
Also Read:BJP Dismisses Speculation of Nitish Kumar as Next Vice President
Legal Outcome and Broader Implications
The judge stressed that doubt, no matter how grave, can’t replace legally sound evidence in court. Without valid surveillance or credible technical proof, the prosecution couldn’t establish guilt beyond doubt. The defense successfully challenged the reliability of confessions and statements collected earlier. With such gaps, the case lacked a firm foundation, leading to the full acquittal of all seven accused.Special Judge Lahoti gave a verdict that raises questions about the handling of sensitive terror cases.
He emphasized that law requires clear, reliable evidence to punish someone, not just suspicions or assumptions. The court also noted issues with legal sanction orders and the misuse of phone intercepts without permission. Because of these flaws, anti-terror laws like UAPA could not be applied effectively in this case. All accused walked free, clearing their names from charges that lasted over a decade and a half. The court ordered the government to compensate victims’ families with ₹2 lakh and injured with ₹50,000 each. This decision marks the end of a long and complex trial marred by delays and controversy. Legal experts say the judgment may influence how future terror cases are investigated and prosecuted. It underscores the importance of due process and evidence over speculation. The verdict also reopens debate on ATS and NIA functioning.
Also Read:India, Britain Sign Landmark Free Trade Pact During Modi’s UK Tour