Three Cases, Endless Causes: Untangling the 7/11 Bomb Blast Confusion
(By: M.A. Mujeeb Sr. Advocate Telangana High Court)
When, news came pouring men on street tried to find out what was the 7/11 Mumbai bomb blast Case was all about. As we tend to have Poor memory and new headlines overtake old incidents how aghast may be.
More shocking was how all the 12 convicts who were found guilty of 7/11 bomb blast turned out to be innocent. In 2015 special MCOCA Court had sentenced 5 to death and 7 were awarded life.
Following the MCOCA Court’s verdict, the nation moved on, believing justice had been served — that the perpetrators of the 7/11 Mumbai bomb blasts had been held accountable and the victims’ families had found closure.
However, recent developments have cast serious doubt on the integrity of the investigation. In its 671-page judgment, the Bombay High Court identified glaring inconsistencies in the evidence presented, criticizing both the recovery process and the confessions obtained.
The court openly stated that innocent individuals had been wrongfully implicated, raising profound concerns about the credibility of the links between the accused and the alleged evidence.
A pressing question continues to haunt us—who was truly responsible for the deaths of the 187 commuters who perished in the Mumbai local train blasts on that tragic day? In stark contrast, just a week later, another shocking development unfolded: the verdict in the Malegaon bomb blast case.
All seven accused were acquitted, with the Hon’ble Court observing that while there was strong suspicion, there was no conclusive proof.
Similarly, in the Mumbai blasts case, the High Court found no evidence implicating the accused. This raises a profound dilemma—who investigates the investigators? After all, investigators too are human, and to err is human.
In Mumbai blast case the investigators are accused of targeting a particular community and on the other hand in Malegaon Blast case the narrative which was built was Hindutva forces are responsible for the heinous crime.
When religion is made a standard base for investigations into a crime mistakes do happen. Investigation should follow the footprints of a criminal mind when criminal is identified by virtue of religion result will be untrustworthy.
As before evidence accused will be identified the result will become a formality. In both the bomb blast cases investigation is marred by technology. The forensic jurisprudence is given a miss.
In the recent case involving Prajwal Revanna, forensic science jurisprudence proved to be a pivotal force. Notably, medical jurisprudence contributed significantly to securing a conviction, even in the absence of independent eyewitnesses. While such cases reach verdicts, the underlying causes and complexities remain persistent and unresolved.
