Ramesh Naik, who tragically lost his daughter in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts, has voiced his anguish and questioned the purpose of the 19-year legal battle following the Bombay High Court's decision to acquit 12 individuals accused in the incident.
The Bombay High Court overturned a 2015 verdict by a special court under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act (MCOCA) that had awarded death sentences to five men and life terms to seven others. The High Court cited the prosecution's "miserable failure" to prove its case, deeming the presented evidence unreliable. The court particularly questioned witness statements made months after the incident and identifications that occurred years later. A key finding was that confessions from the accused were extracted under torture.
Naik, along with other families of the victims, expressed shock and disbelief at the verdict. "19 years for what purpose?" he questioned, highlighting the prolonged wait for justice and the emotional toll it has taken. He further questioned the government, asking why it took 19 years to resolve the case. He drew a comparison to the quick resolution of the case against Kasab, who was involved in the 2008 Mumbai attacks, questioning why the alleged terrorists in the 2006 blasts case were kept in jail for 19 years.
The 2006 Mumbai train bombings were a series of coordinated bomb blasts that ripped through commuter trains in Mumbai on July 11, 2006, killing at least 187 people and injuring over 800. The bombs were detonated on crowded trains during the evening rush hour, causing widespread chaos and panic. The incident shook the city and the nation, leading to a prolonged investigation and legal proceedings.
Victims' families feel betrayed by the justice system. Some feel that the government and the court are playing games with the poor and those who died. There is a sense that justice has not been served, and the souls of those who perished will not find peace until the perpetrators are brought to justice.
The father of a victim said that the court's verdict felt like a joke. He expressed his disappointment, stating that the court's decision seemed immature, especially considering the court's stature and the expectation that it would deliver true justice. He stressed the importance of a fair trial and punishment for those responsible for the deaths of so many people.
The acquittal has sparked outrage and reignited debates about the effectiveness of the legal system in handling terror-related cases. Questions are being raised about the quality of the investigation, the reliability of the evidence, and the reasons for the long delays in the judicial process. The High Court's decision has not only left the victims' families without closure but has also raised concerns about the message it sends regarding accountability for acts of terror.
One of the accused, Wahid Shaikh, who was acquitted by the trial court in 2015 after spending nine years in jail, has maintained that the case was fabricated and that innocent people were wrongly arrested and tortured into confessing. He has continued to advocate for justice, asserting that justice will not be served to the victims until the real perpetrators are apprehended.
