The Bombay High Court has raised serious concerns regarding the integrity of the investigation into the 11/7 train blasts case, specifically questioning the Anti-Terrorism Squad's (ATS) handling and subsequent destruction of call data records (CDRs). The court stated that the prosecution's reluctance to present the CDRs and their eventual destruction raises significant doubts about the fairness of the trial and creates an adverse inference against the prosecution.
The High Court bench, consisting of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak, emphasized the critical importance of CDRs in establishing the movements and locations of the accused during the period when the alleged conspiracy meetings occurred. The prosecution's case hinged on the claim that these meetings took place at a planter's residence in Bandra, attended by several accused individuals. Furthermore, the prosecution presented an eyewitness account of a meeting near a mosque in Mira Road, where instructions were allegedly given to one of the accused. The court noted that the CDRs could have easily corroborated the witness's statement and established the accused's presence at the relevant locations and times.
The bench highlighted a specific instance where the prosecution's case could have been strengthened by the CDRs. According to confessions from two accused, one of them handed over his mobile phone to another near Lucky Hotel in Bandra around 4:15 pm. The High Court noted that the CDRs could have been used to verify this claim and establish the connection between the two individuals.
The court also pointed out that the initial arrest in the 11/7 case was based on a mobile number allegedly belonging to Kamal Ansari, who has since died in prison after conviction. A religious SMS sent from this number aroused the suspicion of the ATS. The High Court questioned why the prosecution did not conduct a thorough investigation to corroborate the witness's claim of meeting near the mosque or at the accused's house by producing the CDRs of either the witness or the accused. The absence of such corroboration casts doubt on the witness's statement.
The High Court's observations underscore the importance of digital evidence in modern criminal investigations. CDRs can provide a verifiable record of communication patterns, movements, and associations, which can be crucial in establishing the truth. The destruction of such evidence, especially when it could potentially support the defense's case or challenge the prosecution's narrative, raises serious questions about the impartiality and thoroughness of the investigation. The court emphasized that this act constitutes a grave violation of the right to a fair trial.
The High Court's remarks serve as a reminder of the need for law enforcement agencies to preserve and present all relevant evidence, including digital records, in criminal trials. Transparency and accountability in the handling of evidence are essential to ensure that justice is served and that the rights of the accused are protected. The destruction of CDRs in the 11/7 case raises concerns about whether these principles were upheld, potentially undermining the integrity of the entire investigation.
