The Bombay High Court verdict in the 2006 Mumbai train bomb blasts case, as unprecedented as it is in terms of the complete reversal of punishment, even negates wholly the credibility of confessional statements of convicts as validated by the trial court's guilty verdict.
While acquitting all the 12 accused convicted in 2015, the HC on Monday trashed the prosecution's reliance on confessional statements and noted certain portions in each of the statements are "identical and appear to have been copied" -- in complete contrast with the trial court judgment.
Commenting on the "shocking finding", a special bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak noted, "Upon examining the relevant portion related to bomb blasts of each of the confessional statements, we were surprised to find that certain portions of these statements are identical and appear to have been copied." One of the significant grounds for the confessional statements to be inadmissible was because they were found "not to be truthful and complete on various grounds, including some portions of the same were found to be similar and copied".
In 2015, however, the trial court upheld the authenticity of the confessions and discarded factors such as torture, recording of statements before a police officer instead of a magistrate, and other common oddities in the statements, as pointed out by the defence.
On the argument of the presence of common mistakes in the confessional statements, the trial court then observed, "Only on the basis of such commonality, it would be preposterous to draw the conclusion that the confessional statements themselves are fabricated and were dictated or prepared by a single authority." The HC's July 21 verdict referred to a chart demonstrating the commonality in the confessional statements and said it spoke "volume about the credibility, reliability, and truthfulness of each of the confessional statements".
"These charts strengthen the case of the defence that the accused have not given the confessional statements, but their signatures were obtained forcefully. The accused persons also, in their complaint before the Sessions Judge as well as in their deposition, claimed they have not given any confessional statements, and that their signatures were taken on some papers forcefully by ATS officers," the HC said.
The case was probed by Maharashtra's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS).
In 2015, the defence had argued confessions were not only extracted under duress, but also fabricated, pointing out all accused complained of third-degree torture, threat and forced signatures at the hands of DCPs and ATS officers on November 9, 2006.
The trial court, however, called the assertion "nothing but casting aspersions on the magistrates or the special judge" and junked the claims.
"This is nothing but casting aspersions on the magistrates or special judge. All judicial officers invariably ask each and every accused when they are produced during police custody as to whether they have any complaint of ill- treatment at the hands of the police. Such type of allegations on the background of the factual position of the accused being represented by advocates throughout their periods of police custody remand are baseless and just made for the sake of making it," the trial court verdict observed.
Seven DCPs had recorded the confessional statements of the accused. However, the accused later retracted their statements before the trial court.
But the trial court, after considering the "extent, the nature of the alleged torture" that led to signing of statements or on blank papers, noted it was not probable that the accused persons would have "remained quiet till they submitted their retraction applications after over two months".
The trial court judge went on to conclude that he was "satisfied that the confessional statements were retracted because of an afterthought or legal advice".
The 2015 verdict, therefore, held, "Retractions do not carry any weight and do not affect the voluntary nature of the confessional statements. Due credence will have to be given to the confessional statements as the accused did not claim before the CMM (Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) that their confessional statements were fabricated or that they have been tortured or that they have been made to sign on blank papers." The HC, on the other hand, referred to one of the accused person's accounts to say his narration was "difficult to read and imagine the barbarity of police" and in case it was accepted as genuine, "it surely depicts inhuman, barbaric and drastic methods applied by police to extort confession".
The defence argued the fact that medical evidence of torture was available only for some and not all accused, but this will not undermine its case that all confessions were obtained under torture as the threat of torture would loom large for all accused, and be sufficient to vitiate their confession under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The section dealt with inadmissibility of confessions if "caused by inducement, threat or promise".
After corroborating the statements of the convicts with their medical records, the HC held, "The accused succeeded in establishing the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements, etc." The witness statements and alleged recoveries made from the accused have no evidentiary value and hence cannot be held as conclusive for conviction, the HC said.
Seven blasts ripped through Mumbai local trains at various locations on the western line on July 11, 2006, killing over 180 persons.
While acquitting all the 12 accused convicted in 2015, the HC on Monday trashed the prosecution's reliance on confessional statements and noted certain portions in each of the statements are "identical and appear to have been copied" -- in complete contrast with the trial court judgment.
Commenting on the "shocking finding", a special bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak noted, "Upon examining the relevant portion related to bomb blasts of each of the confessional statements, we were surprised to find that certain portions of these statements are identical and appear to have been copied." One of the significant grounds for the confessional statements to be inadmissible was because they were found "not to be truthful and complete on various grounds, including some portions of the same were found to be similar and copied".
In 2015, however, the trial court upheld the authenticity of the confessions and discarded factors such as torture, recording of statements before a police officer instead of a magistrate, and other common oddities in the statements, as pointed out by the defence.
On the argument of the presence of common mistakes in the confessional statements, the trial court then observed, "Only on the basis of such commonality, it would be preposterous to draw the conclusion that the confessional statements themselves are fabricated and were dictated or prepared by a single authority." The HC's July 21 verdict referred to a chart demonstrating the commonality in the confessional statements and said it spoke "volume about the credibility, reliability, and truthfulness of each of the confessional statements".
"These charts strengthen the case of the defence that the accused have not given the confessional statements, but their signatures were obtained forcefully. The accused persons also, in their complaint before the Sessions Judge as well as in their deposition, claimed they have not given any confessional statements, and that their signatures were taken on some papers forcefully by ATS officers," the HC said.
The case was probed by Maharashtra's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS).
In 2015, the defence had argued confessions were not only extracted under duress, but also fabricated, pointing out all accused complained of third-degree torture, threat and forced signatures at the hands of DCPs and ATS officers on November 9, 2006.
The trial court, however, called the assertion "nothing but casting aspersions on the magistrates or the special judge" and junked the claims.
"This is nothing but casting aspersions on the magistrates or special judge. All judicial officers invariably ask each and every accused when they are produced during police custody as to whether they have any complaint of ill- treatment at the hands of the police. Such type of allegations on the background of the factual position of the accused being represented by advocates throughout their periods of police custody remand are baseless and just made for the sake of making it," the trial court verdict observed.
Seven DCPs had recorded the confessional statements of the accused. However, the accused later retracted their statements before the trial court.
But the trial court, after considering the "extent, the nature of the alleged torture" that led to signing of statements or on blank papers, noted it was not probable that the accused persons would have "remained quiet till they submitted their retraction applications after over two months".
The trial court judge went on to conclude that he was "satisfied that the confessional statements were retracted because of an afterthought or legal advice".
The 2015 verdict, therefore, held, "Retractions do not carry any weight and do not affect the voluntary nature of the confessional statements. Due credence will have to be given to the confessional statements as the accused did not claim before the CMM (Chief Metropolitan Magistrate) that their confessional statements were fabricated or that they have been tortured or that they have been made to sign on blank papers." The HC, on the other hand, referred to one of the accused person's accounts to say his narration was "difficult to read and imagine the barbarity of police" and in case it was accepted as genuine, "it surely depicts inhuman, barbaric and drastic methods applied by police to extort confession".
The defence argued the fact that medical evidence of torture was available only for some and not all accused, but this will not undermine its case that all confessions were obtained under torture as the threat of torture would loom large for all accused, and be sufficient to vitiate their confession under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The section dealt with inadmissibility of confessions if "caused by inducement, threat or promise".
After corroborating the statements of the convicts with their medical records, the HC held, "The accused succeeded in establishing the fact of torture inflicted on them to extort confessional statements, etc." The witness statements and alleged recoveries made from the accused have no evidentiary value and hence cannot be held as conclusive for conviction, the HC said.
Seven blasts ripped through Mumbai local trains at various locations on the western line on July 11, 2006, killing over 180 persons.
You may also like
July 23, 2025 Panchang: Know Today's Auspicious Timings, Rahu Kaal & Vedic Significance
'Weak attempt at distraction': Obama offers rare rebuke on Trump's 'treason' claims; Democrats call it Epstein diversion
Stokes Reignites Over-Rate Row After England Penalty
Kharge sums up oppn mood: It is 'neither happy, nor sad'
Was Justice Varma notice in Rajya Sabha just submitted or was it admitted?
