An unravelling, Pg 10.

Key Highlights:

• 2008 Malegaon blast during Ramzan killed 6, injured 95; initially blamed on Hindutva extremists.
• Maharashtra ATS cited circumstantial evidence and a confession by Aseemanand to support its case.
• NIA later took over, filed a supplementary charge sheet; prosecution's case weakened over time.
• Special Court ruled in 2018 for a full trial; in 2025, all accused were acquitted due to lack of credible evidence.
• Key witnesses turned hostile; electronic evidence was dismissed for not meeting legal standards.
• Acquitted include Lt. Col. Prasad Purohit and BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur.
• Judgment critiques prosecution's methods but does not deny presence of ideological extremism.

Detailed Insights:

• ATS’s early investigation was lauded for being religion-neutral, especially after wrongful arrests in the 2006 Malegaon blast.
• With the rise of Hindutva political power, the investigation allegedly softened, drawing criticism of selective prosecution and institutional compromise.
• The Special Court acquittal focused on procedural lapses, including unreliable witness testimonies and inadmissible digital evidence.
• The confession of Aseemanand and alleged links to extremist groups failed to meet the evidentiary threshold in court.
• Lt. Col. Purohit’s defense of being an intelligence agent was rejected, but acquittal was granted due to lack of conclusive proof.
• Pragya Thakur’s political rise, despite being accused in a terror case, reflects the mainstreaming of radical ideologies.
• The case exposes gaps in the criminal justice system, where delayed trials, hostile witnesses, and politicisation can derail justice.
• Reinforces the article's central message: terrorism must not be viewed through a religious lens, and justice must be impartial and robust.

Concepts Involved:

• Electronic evidence admissibility: Under the Indian Evidence Act, Section 65B mandates a certificate for digital evidence to be valid in court.
• Hostile witness: A witness who contradicts earlier statements or aligns with the defense, often weakening the prosecution’s case.