'Biased Investigation, Innocent People Arrested': Dr S Muralidhar Argues For 7/11 Mumbai Train Serial Blast Convicts Before Bombay HC

While appearing on behalf of two life convicts challenging their convictions in the Mumbai 7/11 train blasts case, former Chief Justice of Orissa High Court and now Senior Advocate Dr S Muralidhar told the Bombay High Court on Monday (January 13) that the investigation in the case had been biased.

The submission was made before a special bench of Justice Anil Kilor and Justice Shyam Chandak, which has been hearing the convicts' appeals for more than five months now.

On Monday, Muralidhar, who argued for over five hours, highlighted the lapses in investigation and also the trial, the lapses on part of the investigating officers in obtaining confessional statements of the accused in the case and also about the media trial and conduct of the courts in such terrorism or high profile cases. 

According to Muralidhar, there has been a "biased investigation" in this case.

"Innocent people are sent to jail and then years later when they are released from jail there is no possibility for reconstruction of their lives. From last 17 years these accused are in jail. They haven't stepped out even for a day. The majority of their prime life is gone. In such cases where there is a public outcry, the approach by police is always to first assume guilt and then go from there. Police officers take press conferences in such cases, and the way the media covers the case, it kind of decides the guilt of a person. In many such terror cases, investigating agencies have failed us miserably," Muralidhar submitted. 

Contending that the 12 men are behind the bars for the last 18 years without any proper evidence, Muralidhar argued that so many lives have been already lost in those blasts, which ripped through Mumbai's Western Railway's Local Line, and then these "innocents were arrested."

"And then after years, the accused are acquitted and then no one gets closure. We have a history of failures in probes in terror cases. But it is not too late now. The court can set it right," the senior counsel submitted.

Some of the investigating officers in this case, the former judge, pointed out are the same ones, who probed the Malegaon blast case.

"There is evidence and statements of witnesses and accused that they were compelled to testify in a particular way. The family and relatives of the accused were beaten and tortured physically just like the accused persons. For instance, the evidence in entire Panchnama was false. There is an allegation that these persons used RDX to make bombs, but no evidence on who brought the RDX, who helped them to make bombs. The prosecution has claimed that one of my clients went to Iran to gain terrorist training. There is no evidence about his intention to visit Iran for gaining such training. These are just assumptions. There is no evidence on this at all," Muralidhar told the judges. 

Commenting on the manner in which the confessional statements of the convicts were 'obtained' by the police officers, Muralidhar read from the evidence of the then DCP, who was part of the investigating team and had stated that he had no idea as to before which officer, the accused expressed their desire to give confessional statements. The senior counsel further pointed out that the rules to record confessional statements were thrown to the winds, in the instant case. 

"Under MCOCA, these confessional statements aren't admissible as evidence since the officer has failed to identify the persons, whose confessional statements, he recorded. This is a very serious legal flaw of the trial court. Thus, this Court should now discard these statements. As per the law, when recording such confessional statements, there should be no one present in the room except the accused and the officer who is recording the same. This is to ensure there is no influence or pressure on the accused. In this case, a senior officer recorded the statement but failed to adhere to the rules," Muralidhar said. 

The so-called confessional statements, the senior counsel argued, have absence of 'voluntariness' which is a requisite mandate. 

"Without any evidence these innocent persons were arrested and MCOCA was invoked only to get the confessional statements extracted from them. Some of the officers have testified that till MCOCA was invoked there was no material to charge the accused persons with the stringent charge. Suddenly after MCOCA was invoked, everyone of the accused agreed to give their confessional statements, but prior to that none came ahead with any kind of confession. The Trial Court should have questioned this issue but nothing was done," he said.  

Muralidhar, while concluding his arguments for the day, urged the judges to consider the 'stigma' factor that not only hits the accused but also his family and relatives. "It is not just the accused but even his children, parents, relatives get tainted. And once tainted, Milords, this society is too cruel to them. No one will treat them properly. Please consider this factor too," he submitted. 

Background

The special bench is hearing appeals of 12 convicts, five of which are on a death row while the seven are serving life terms. They were convicted in September 2015 for conspiring and executing 7 deadly bomb blasts on July 11, 2006 in various local trains of Mumbai's wester railways. A total of 180 citizens lost their lives and innumerable innocents sustained severe injuries. 

Muralidhar was appearing for Muzzamil Ataur Rahman Shaikh, a resident of Bangalore and Zameer Ahmed Latifur Rehman Shaikh, a resident of Worli, Mumbai. Both the convicts are serving life terms.