Malegaon blast case: Key documents went missing, original statements were lost

MUMBAI: In the 2008 Malegaon blast case, a special NIA court that acquitted seven accused, including Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, heavily scrutinized the prosecution's handling of crucial evidence, particularly the mysterious disappearance of key documents. The core of the court's reasoning revolved around the prosecution's failure to present original statements of crucial witnesses, recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the subsequent mishandling of attempts to introduce secondary evidence.

The witnesses, two of whom later turned hostile, claiming coercion by ATS, were connected to conspiracy meetings where conversations purportedly on revenge on Muslims, a separate constitution for a ‘Hindu Rashtra' complete with a distinct ‘Bhagwa Flag' and formation of a Central Hindu Government (‘Aryawart') and the exile govt concept in Israel and Thailand, were held. 39 witnesses in all had turned hostile. The statements recorded before the magistrate are admissible as evidence and have corroborating value and would have aided the prosecution's case against the accused. Statements of 13 witnesses had been recorded by a magistrate during the initial investigation by ATS. The witnesses were related to the accused's participation in the conspiracy meetings.


However, it came to light in April 2016 that these critical documents were found to be missing from the court records. Despite several searches, the documents remained untraceable. In Nov 2016, ATS filed an affidavit with court, stating it had three certified photocopies of some of the missing statements and sought permission to use them as secondary evidence. The accused opposed this move.

On Jan 2, 2017, the special NIA court initially allowed the prosecution to use these copies as secondary evidence. However, this decision was challenged by one of the now-acquitted accused, Sameer Kulkarni, in Bombay high court.

In 2019, HC stayed the special court's order, observing that the copies produced by prosecution had not been compared with originals and there was nothing on record to prove they were prepared from the originals. The HC instructed the prosecution to file a fresh application and conduct an inquiry to verify authenticity of copies. Despite this HC directive, the NIA court said the prosecution failed to file a fresh application or conduct the necessary inquiry. Instead, the prosecution proceeded with the trial, merely asking witnesses during their examination if their statements had been recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. While witnesses answered in the affirmative, the court found this to be insufficient.