The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), which initially investigated the case under slain cop Hemant Karkare, had stated that the bike carried a fake number plate and that its engine number and chassis number were erased in the blast.The court also said that there is no evidence on record that the RDX, the plastic explosive used in the IED, was procured by Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit from Kashmir and stored at his residence. The ATS had stated that RDX was allegedly procured by Purohit during the time he was serving his posting in Jammu and Kashmir.”Sketch of the room not made… Samples were contaminated,” the court observed.The court also noted that the prosecution had not gathered enough evidence to prove that Abhinav Bharat, an organisation founded by Pragya Thakur and Col. Purohit, used its funds for terror activities. The ATS had stated that the blast was part of a conspiracy involving the group.The court also observed that most witnesses, including a few serving army officials, who had earlier testified about their knowledge of the many meetings between the accused, eventually turned hostile in court. Some of these witnesses have been among those who have accused the ATS of torturing them and extracting their earlier statements.The prosecution has not sought perjury charges against any of them.The court also held that the victims of the blast are eligible for compensation.Family members of the six deceased are eligible for a compensation of Rs 2 lakh whereas those injured are eligible for a compensation of Rs 50,000 each, the court said.Maharashtra ATS initially arrested 12 individuals including Thakur and Purohit and filed a chargesheet against all the accused in January 2009.The ATS had stated that Pragya and Purohit, along with other accused, had hatched a conspiracy to take “revenge” and “terrorise” the Muslim community. It also stated that there were several “conspiracy meetings” that took place in Bhopal, Indore and other places.The investigation was taken over by the NIA in 2011, which filed a ‘supplementary chargesheet’ in 2016, dropping all charges against Thakur. The NIA maintained the ATS charges against all the other accused but stated that it could not find any evidence against Thakur. It also accused the ATS of torturing witnesses to record statements against Thakur.Notably, the NIA chargesheet was filed without informing its designated Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Avinash Rasal, according to LiveLaw. Besides, the special public prosecutor prior to Rasal, Rohini Salian, was abruptly dropped after she alleged that the NIA asked her to “go soft” against the Hindutva leaders booked in the case.However, the special court had refused to discharge Pragya Thakur despite the investigative agency giving her a clean chit. In December 2017, the court ordered that seven accused, including Thakur would stand trial under the IPC, UAPA, and the Explosive Substances Act. The trial began in December 2018 and was marked by several controversial events. During the course of the hearing, one of the accused, Sudhakar Dwivedi, contended that no blast had taken place at all. This led the prosecution to call over 100 victims and injured individuals to testify in order to refute the claim. The prosecution had presented as many as 323 witnesses, among whom 34 turned hostile. Additionally, 30 witnesses passed away before the court could examine their testimonies. The judgement in the case was reserved on April 19, 2025, after final arguements concluded in April 2024. (With inputs from Online Desk)
Source link
