SC refuses to Prejudice Reasoning by examining confessions in Malegaon Blast Case

Sponsored links

The Supreme Court of India officially made its stand clear on the proceedings of the 2008 Malegaon blast case by stating that it would not prejudice its reasoning by examining the confessions made by the alleged accused.

A bench comprising Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Justice F M I Kalifulla asked the counsel representing the National Investigation Agency not to refer to the confessional statements allegedly made by the Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit. Instead, the apex court argued that the NIA should fight the case on the basis of other documents.

“We don’t want to prejudice our mind. You don’t have to read out the confessional statements since it is not necessary to be argued at this moment at all. We should not pay heed to confessions allegedly made by the accused,” the bench told the counsel representing the NIA.

Apparently, as soon as NIA’s counsel started reading out the confessional statements to the SC bench, the counsel representing the accused protested saying that those statements had already been rejected by his clients as false and involuntary,

“These statements don’t require to be relied upon. We have already said these statements are false. Moreover, these statements would become relevant only after the NIA and the Maharashtra government succeed in convincing the court that MCOCA is applicable in this case. If MCOCA is not applicable, there is no value of such alleged confessions and the court should not be prejudiced by these disputed statements,” said the counsel.

The NIA claims that Purohit, Pragya and nine others were part of an organized crime syndicate in addition to being active participant in the 2008 Malegaon blast. The accused, however, have denied any involvement in terror or criminal activities.

About the Author