desk
Share
News Topical, Digital Desk : In the verdict of Malegaon blast case delivered on Thursday, special NIA court judge A.K. Lahoti has expressed concern over the torture of witnesses by Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), the first investigating agency of this case, for collecting evidence.
Both agencies conducted independent investigations
In the full copy of the judgment which was released on Friday, Judge A.K. Lahoti writes that it is important to point out that two main investigation agencies were involved in this case. These agencies were ATS and NIA.
Both agencies conducted independent investigations, and filed independent charge sheets. But the allegations of misbehavior, torture and illegal detention leveled against ATS officers were not leveled against NIA officers. Therefore, the way ATS officers treated witnesses is enough to cast doubt on the credibility of the evidence collected by them.
I have seen all the evidence- Judge Lahoti
Judge Lahoti further writes that I have seen all the evidence. I have studied all the cases. But it is also necessary to say that just recording or presenting the reference is not enough. Unless the case of the prosecution matches the facts. Therefore, I would like to say with respect that the details given in the reference list are different from the actual facts.
He further said that in such circumstances the judicial precedents presented by the prosecution are of no use to them. Let us tell you that Judge Lahoti made these harsh comments while acquitting seven accused in the Malegaon blast case.
The court has also expressed displeasure over the absence of testimony of important witnesses. It has said that the lawyers of the accused and accused number five (presented himself) have said that the prosecution did not present many important witnesses in the court. If the prosecution fails to explain why important witnesses were not presented, then the judge has to draw an adverse inference.
Some witnesses were deliberately not produced
The court says that in cases of murder and other serious crimes, it is primarily the responsibility of the prosecutor to present such witnesses who can bring out the truth of the whole case and who can help the court in reaching the right decision.
If during the trial it comes to light that certain witnesses were deliberately not produced or were left out, the court may draw an adverse inference against the prosecution.
There is credible and legally admissible evidence
Therefore after comprehensively evaluating all the evidence I have come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove that it has legal, reliable and legally admissible evidence.
The guilt of the accused is beyond all doubt
Such inconsistencies weaken the prosecution's case, and are unable to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all doubt.
Read More: ED caught scam in MBBS admission, students used fake NRI documents, read the full case
--Advertisement--
