NIA doubts proof gathered by ATS
In 2016, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) filed a supplementary chargesheet dropping charges against several accused, including Sadhvi Pragya, citing insufficient evidence to prosecute them under stringent anti-terror laws.
“There are several inherent legal lacunas/complications in the ATS chargesheet. Some evidence have not been relied upon and hence given up. During re-examination, many witnesses retracted their earlier statements. Hence, the prosecution does not rely on statements earlier recorded,” read the NIA's chargesheet.
MCOCA confusion
The Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) had invoked the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), while relying on the confession statements. However, on July 31, 2009, the special court decided to drop MCOCA charges and remanded the case back to Nashik. The verdict was challenged in the Supreme Court.
The ATS had invoked MCOCA, citing that Pune-based arms expert and co-accused Rakesh Dhawde was named in two blasts at mosques, which took place in Parbhani and Jalna, in 2003 and 2004, respectively. While dropping MCOCA charges, it was observed that there was no evidence linking the other accused to Dhawde or the blasts – the basis for invoking MCOCA.
The higher courts, however, had left it to the NIA to decide on the MCOCA's applicability. The agency reiterated that there was no link between the accused and both the blasts. The special court also decided to drop MCOCA charges, noting that Abhinav Bharat – the outfit said to be behind the Malegaon blast – did not exist in 2003-2004 when explosions took place in Parbhani and Jalna. Hence, the confession statements recorded by the ATS were rendered unreliable.
NIA again dumps ATS' theory
As per the ATS, accused Shivnarayan is the brother of fugitive Ramchandra Kalsangra, who is friend of another accused Shaym Sahu. The ATS had claimed that two electric-timer circuits were given to Shivnarayan by Ramchandra, which were later recovered. Besides, it was alleged that the SIM cards used by Ramchandra in the crime were provided by Sahu.
However, the NIA had asserted that there is no involvement of these accused and exonerated them. Discharging Shivnarayan and Sahu earlier, the court had noted that the two panch witnesses for the seizure of the electric circuits were the local police, who did not support the ATS’ claim when they were re-examined by the NIA.
Pragya's involvement
Though the ATS claimed that Thakur was the key accused, the NIA recommended exonerating her as “no prosecutable evidence was found against her”.
The ATS had claimed that the bike, on which the explosives were strapped, was given to fugitive Ramchandra Kalsangra by Thakur. She had even taken the responsibility to carry out the blast during meetings with other co-accused, the ATS had said.
Despite the NIA's rebuttal, the court had said that it was difficult to accept Thakur’s claim that she has no connection with the crime. Considering the statements of witnesses, the court had said that she was aware of her motorcycle’s involvement in the blast and had expressed dissatisfaction over the low number of casualties.
RDX traced by ATS false evidence: NIA
The ATS had claimed that on November 11, 2008, Sudhakar Chaturvedi's house was searched in presence of panch witnesses. According to the prosecution and recitals in the panchanama, traces of RDX and two gunny bags were found in Chaturvedi's house. As per the forensic analysis, these traces of RDX were similar to that found on the blast site.
However, the NIA argued that the ATS officer created this false evidence to implicate the accused. In its chargesheet, the NIA alleged that after Chaturvedi's arrest, a senior ATS officer had visited his house before the 'incriminating' search.
The NIA further asserted that the probe revealed that the Army had conducted a court of inquiry against Prasad Purohit and it had emerged that Army officers, appearing before the court of inquiry, had suspiciously found ATS officer Bagde in Chaturvedi’s house.
“This casts doubt on the recovery of RDX traces as well as the evidentiary value of the forensic report,” the NIA had said.
