Recent verdicts in two high-profile terror attacks, the 2008 Malegaon blast and the 2006 Mumbai train blasts, have brought to light critical issues concerning evidence, investigation procedures, and the legal framework in terror-related cases. Both verdicts resulted in the acquittal of all accused, albeit for distinct reasons, prompting a closer examination of the judicial process and its implications.
Malegaon Blast Case Verdict
The 2008 Malegaon blast, which occurred on September 29, 2008, near a mosque in Malegaon, Maharashtra, resulted in six deaths and over a hundred injuries. The case saw a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai acquit all seven accused, including BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, nearly 17 years after the incident. The court’s decision was primarily based on the prosecution’s failure to present “reliable and cogent” evidence.
Indian Express
The NIA court, presided over by Special Judge AK Lahoti, highlighted several critical shortcomings in the prosecution’s case. A central tenet of the verdict was the assertion that “mere suspicion cannot take the place of real proof”. The court emphasized that “terrorism has no religion, but the court cannot convict on mere perception,” underscoring the necessity for concrete evidence over speculative accusations.
Key reasons for the acquittal included:
Lack of Reliable and Cogent Evidence: The prosecution failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Inapplicability of UAPA Provisions: The court held that the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were not applicable in this specific case.
Unproven Links to the Crime: The prosecution could not firmly establish that the motorcycle used in the blast was registered under Pragya Thakur’s name, nor was it definitively proven that the explosion was caused by a bomb allegedly planted on that bike.
Hostile Witnesses: A significant number of prosecution witnesses, 37 out of 323, turned hostile during the trial, further weakening the prosecution’s narrative.
Defective Sanction Orders and Investigative Lapses: Reports also indicated issues with defective sanction orders and general lapses in the investigation process, contributing to the prosecution’s inability to build a strong case.
The verdict underscored the judiciary’s insistence on stringent evidentiary standards, even in cases of grave national security implications. The court’s observations pointed towards a flawed investigative process that failed to gather and present evidence capable of withstanding judicial scrutiny.
Comparison with the 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts Case
While the Malegaon blast verdict focused on the lack of cogent evidence, the acquittal in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, which occurred nearly two weeks prior, presented a different set of challenges related to investigative integrity. The 2006 Mumbai serial train blasts, which occurred on July 11, 2006, involved a series of seven bomb explosions in local trains, resulting in 187 deaths and over 800 injuries. The Bombay High Court recently acquitted all 12 accused in this case, overturning a 2015 verdict by a special MCOCA court that had previously convicted them.
The Bombay High Court delivered a strong indictment of the investigation conducted by the Mumbai Police’s Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS). The court’s primary reasons for acquittal revolved around severe procedural irregularities and a lack of credible evidence. The court remarked that the ATS had created “a false appearance of having solved a case”.
Key reasons for the acquittal included:
Tortured and fabricated evidence: The High Court found that the ATS’s case heavily relied on confessions extracted through torture and unreliable witness testimonies.
Lack of Evidence: The court concluded that the police had no substantive evidence to link the accused to the crime, leading to the dismissal of all sixteen charge sheets.
Miscarriage of Justice: The verdict highlighted a significant miscarriage of justice, with 11 of the accused having spent 19 years in incarceration despite the absence of concrete proof against them.
The Bombay High Court’s ruling underscored concerns about police accountability and the integrity of investigative processes in high-profile terror cases. The court’s observations pointed to a systemic failure in upholding due process and ensuring fair trial standards.
In both cases, the prosecution ultimately failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. This highlights a recurring challenge in securing convictions in complex terror cases in India. The verdicts pointed to significant flaws in the investigative processes. In Malegaon, it was about defective sanction orders and general lapses, while in Mumbai, it was more severe, involving torture and fabrication of evidence.
The judiciary in both instances demonstrated a commitment to upholding legal standards and evidentiary requirements, refusing to convict based on suspicion or flawed investigations and the accused in both cases spent a considerable amount of time in jail (17 and 19 years respectively) before their eventual acquittal, raising questions about the speed and efficiency of the justice system.
The acquittals in the 2008 Malegaon blast and 2006 Mumbai train blasts cases serve as crucial reminders of the importance of robust investigative practices, adherence to due process, and stringent evidentiary standards in the pursuit of justice. These verdicts necessitate a critical re-evaluation of investigative methodologies and accountability mechanisms within India’s law enforcement agencies to prevent future miscarriages of justice and uphold the integrity of the legal system.
Current Conviction Rates in India
According to data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), India’s court conviction rate was reported at 54.200 per cent in 2022, a slight decrease from 57.000 per cent in 2021. Over the years, the conviction rate has shown variability, averaging 42.500 per cent from December 2000 to 2022, with a high of 59.200 per centin 2020 and a low of 38.500 per cent in 2012. These figures represent the overall conviction rate for Indian Penal Code (IPC) crimes.
It is important to note that conviction rates can vary significantly across different types of crimes. For instance, conviction rates for serious offenses like rape have historically been lower, ranging between 27-28 per cent from 2018-2022, as per NCRB data. This disparity highlights specific challenges in prosecuting certain categories of crimes.
The reasons behind India’s often-cited low conviction rates are multifaceted, stemming from systemic issues within the criminal justice system. Several key factors, according to judicial experts, that contribute to this challenge include:
Inept and Unscientific Investigation: A primary cause identified is the quality of police investigation. Investigations are often criticized for being inept, unscientific, and lacking proper coordination between the police and the prosecution machinery. This can lead to insufficient evidence, procedural lapses, and a weak foundation for the prosecution’s case.
Understaffed and Untrained Police and Prosecutors: Police stations are frequently understaffed, and personnel may be inadequately trained. Similarly, there is a reported lack of trained and efficient prosecutors, which can hamper the effective presentation of cases in court. The sheer volume of cases coupled with a shortage of skilled personnel can overwhelm the system.
Inordinate Delay in Disposal of Cases: The Indian judicial system is notorious for its delays. Inordinate delays in the disposal of cases by courts can have a detrimental impact on conviction rates. Over time, witnesses may become unavailable, their memories may fade, or they may even change their testimonies, weakening the prosecution’s ability to secure a conviction.
Fabricated Evidence: In some instances, the adducing of fabricated evidence has been cited as a cause for low conviction rates. When evidence is found to be fabricated, it not only undermines the specific case but also erodes public trust in the investigative agencies and the justice system as a whole.
High Burden of Proof: In the Indian legal system, the burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. While this is a cornerstone of fair justice, it can become a hurdle when investigative agencies fail to collect and present irrefutable evidence. This is particularly evident in cases like rape, where the burden of proof can be challenging to meet given the sensitive nature of the crime and potential lack of corroborating evidence.
Witness Hostility and Protection: The issue of witnesses turning hostile is a significant concern. Witnesses may be intimidated, coerced, or influenced to change their statements, leading to the collapse of strong cases. The absence of robust witness protection programs can exacerbate this problem.
Corruption: Corruption within various levels of the criminal justice system can also contribute to poor conviction rates, by compromising investigations, influencing testimonies, or manipulating judicial processes.
These factors collectively create a complex environment where securing convictions becomes an uphill battle, even in cases where there might be strong suspicion of guilt.
References
India Court Conviction Rate | Economic Indicators | CEIC.
India struggles with high rape cases, low conviction rates | Reuters.
The principal causes of low rate of conviction are | Expeditious Investigation and Trial of Criminal Cases against Influential Public Personalities | Law Commission of India Reports | Law Library | AdvocateKhoj.
Understanding the Poor Conviction Rates in Rape Cases in India. LinkedIn.
