Mumbai: All seven defendants, comprising former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and ex-Army officer Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, have been cleared of charges by a special NIA court in the 2008 Malegaon blast incident, which resulted in six fatalities and numerous injuries. The Special NIA court stated that the prosecution did not establish the case; the accused are entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
They have been cleared of all accusations related to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), Arms Act, and additional charges. The explosion occurred on September 29, 2008, in Malegaon, a town in Maharashtra known for communal tensions. The blast happened in the month of Ramzan, right before the Navratri festival.
Who Were The Accused and Charges On Them?
The accused in the blast case include Pragya Singh Thakur, a former BJP MP, who allegedly provided the bomb's motorcycle, and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, accused of supplying explosives and planning the attack. Major (Retd) Ramesh Upadhyay is linked to the right-wing group Abhinav Bharat, accused of participating in planning meetings.
Ajay Rahirkar, the group's treasurer, is accused of financing the conspiracy. Sudhakar Dwivedi (Dayanand Pandey), a self-styled religious leader, allegedly provided ideological support. Sudhakar Chaturvedi is accused of storing explosives, and Sameer Kulkarni participated in planning meetings. They face charges under UAPA and various IPC sections, including conspiracy and murder.
7 Major Points NIA Court Highlighted In The Verdict
The prosecution established that an explosion took place in Malegaon but failed in demonstrating that a bomb was planted in that motorcycle.
The number of injured is not 101, but 95. Even medical certificates were falsified. Inquiry to be imposed on Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS) for false injury certificates and planting evidence.
The key witnesses' statements do not support the prosecution's case, and while there may be suspicion, the evidence is insufficient. It is unsafe to rely on their testimonies, leading to giving benefit of doubt to all accused.
While RDX was claimed to be purchased and utilised, there is no proof of RDX being stored at Lt Colonel Purohit's residence, nor any evidence indicating that he assembled it.
Purohit misused Abhinav Bharat funds for personal construction and LIC payments; no proof linked the funds to terrorism.
The motorcycle frame number has been erased, and the engine number is questionable. There is no proof indicating that Pragya Thakur owns or had possession of the bike.
UAPA will not be applied in this situation since the sanction was not carried out according to regulations. The sanction orders of the UAPA in this case are flawed.
