The 2008 Malegaon blast case, which has been at the center of legal, political, and ideological debates in India, has been significantly weakened by a high number of witnesses turning hostile. In a recent verdict, a special NIA court in Mumbai acquitted all seven accused, including Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit. The judge, A K Lahoti, stated that the prosecution's witness testimonies were riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, undermining the credibility of the prosecution's case.
During the trial, a staggering 39 witnesses retracted their earlier statements, casting doubt on crucial elements of the prosecution's case. These witnesses, who had initially testified about conspiracy meetings and other key events, alleged coercion or fabrication by investigating agencies, particularly the ATS. Their retractions significantly hampered the prosecution's ability to prove the alleged conspiracy and the involvement of the accused.
The prosecution presented 323 witnesses during the trial, but the high number of hostile witnesses severely impacted their case. Many of these witnesses were crucial to establishing the alleged conspiracy meetings that took place across the country. The court noted that the testimonies of material witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and it did not find the testimony of other witnesses reliable or acceptable.
Several witnesses, including former army officers, claimed that the ATS forced them to implicate Purohit. Some witnesses stated they were tortured by the ATS and their statements were extracted under duress. An angadia staffer even denied knowledge of financial dealings involving accused Ajay Rahirkar. A two-wheeler agent, who was key to linking the bomb-laden bike to the accused, became uncertain during cross-examination, further weakening the prosecution's case.
The defense highlighted these inconsistencies and argued that the investigation lacked consistency and key procedural lapses, including forced confessions, undermined the prosecution's case. They also pointed out that the NIA itself dropped serious charges, including MCOCA, which weakened the theory of an organized crime conspiracy. The defense further accused successive governments of politicizing the case and claimed the accused were being targeted for their ideological background.
The court also addressed the issue of intercepted calls, a crucial link between the accused according to the ATS and NIA. The court stated that the procedure adopted for obtaining voice samples of the accused was "not free from doubt" and was not authorized. Furthermore, the court noted the lack of evidence regarding who parked the vehicle at the blast site and when. The court also raised concerns about the possibility of "planting" evidence, referring to the testimony of two Army officials who claimed to have seen an assistant police inspector at the house of an accused in a suspicious manner.
In light of these factors, the special NIA court acquitted all seven accused in the Malegaon blast case. The court observed that the prosecution failed to bring any "cogent evidence" and, therefore, the accused deserved the benefit of doubt. The large number of witnesses turning hostile, the inconsistencies in their testimonies, and the concerns raised about the investigation process all contributed to the weakening of the prosecution's case and the eventual acquittal of the accused.
