Mumbai: Though Lt Col Prasad Purohit has been acquitted in 2008 Malegaon blast case, the special court has refused to accept the defence of Lt Col Prasad Purohit that whatever he did was part of his duty to infiltrate into the 'right wing' organisation to gather intel.
The special judge AK Lahoti, by negating his defence said, “Becoming a member of a selective organisation without express permission is nothing but an act done out of the purview of discharge of duty.” The court refused to accept that Purohit had informed his superiors about several aspects of the activities of Abhinav Bharat, which is alleged to have been founded by him.
Besides, the special court has also refused to rely on the findings of the court of inquiry held against Purohit by the Army. The court said, “The court of inquiry is different from the criminal trial. Whatever stated in court of inquiry or documents relied upon are neither binding nor admissible in criminal trial, unless and until it passes the test of admissibility as per Evidence Act.”
Besides, the court said, “As per the army rules, the statement or evidence of witnesses cannot be used in any other court except the court of inquiry. Moreover, court of inquiry papers cannot be construed as evidence before the court.”
Prosecution Alleges Personal and Illegal Use of Funds
According to the prosecution, Purohit, while serving in Military Intelligence, collected large sums of money for himself and for Abhinav Bharat. He allegedly used some of these funds for personal gain and illegal activities. He was present at all Abhinav Bharat meetings but never informed his superiors about the meetings, the collection of funds, or other illegal activities.
Purohit, however, in his defence had claimed that it was the part of his duty/job being a military intelligence officer. He had been informing his superiors about an infiltrated extremist group.
No Documentary Proof of Military Intelligence Role
The special judge, however, rejected his defence and said, stated, “There is no documentary evidence on record to show that his superior authority had granted him express permission to him to join the said trust as a member/trustee and to collect the funds or utilise the funds.”
“He had no documents to show the record of his military intelligence. The officers examined as defense witnesses or those who were working in the Southern Command Liaison Unit (SCLU) at the relevant time had not shown any interest to save Purohit,” the court said.
Army Officers’ Silence Questioned by Court
The court questioned the conduct of these army officials who Purohit referred in support of his case. “They had kept mum for several years. Their own inaction shows that they might have noticed the action taken by ATS was proper, as their senior officers had also not shown any interest to protect their own officer considering the allegations and charges levelled. It shows that they had accepted the fact of arrest at the hands of ATS was proper at the relevant time,” the court said.
