Source: The Indian Express 

Introduction 

After 19 years of legal proceedings, the Bombay High Court on 21st July, 2025, acquitted all 12 persons convicted in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. The court overturned the trial court's verdict that had sentenced five accused to death and seven others to life imprisonment. This landmark judgment raises critical questions about the quality of investigation and prosecution in terror cases, highlighting the need for foolproof evidence in cases where lives hang in the balance. 

What Were the 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts? 

• On 11th July, 2006, seven bombs exploded in Mumbai's Western Railway local trains during peak evening hours.  
• The coordinated terror attack killed 189 innocent people and injured over 820 others.  
• The blasts occurred in first-class compartments of trains traveling between Churchgate and Virar, targeting the city's lifeline - the local train network that millions depend on daily. 
• The Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) investigated the case and arrested 13 persons.  
• In 2015, a special MCOCA (Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act) court convicted 12 of them - five received death sentences for allegedly planting the bombs, while seven got life imprisonment.  
• All were charged with participating in a terrorist conspiracy that shook Mumbai and the entire nation. 
• One accused, Wahid Shaikh, was acquitted after spending nine years in jail. 

What Did the Bombay High Court Observe? 

The special bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak made several critical observations that led to the acquittals: 

• Prosecution's Failure: The court found that the prosecution "utterly failed" to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against any of the accused. This is the highest standard of proof required in criminal cases, especially those involving capital punishment. 
• Unreliable Evidence: The judges questioned the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses and the Test Identification Parade (TIP) conducted to identify the accused. Witness testimony forms the backbone of any criminal case, and when courts find it unreliable, convictions cannot stand. 
• Flawed Investigation: Senior counsel  representing some accused, highlighted serious lapses in the investigation. He argued there was "biased investigation" where police assumed guilt first and then built the case, rather than following evidence to reach conclusions. 
• Coerced Confessions: The defence successfully argued that confessions were obtained through torture, making them inadmissible in court. Confessions extracted under duress have no legal value and cannot form the basis of convictions. 
• Media Trial Impact: The court also considered arguments about how media coverage and public outcry can influence investigations and trials, potentially compromising the principle of presumption of innocence. 

What is Test Identification Parade (TIP) ? 

• Test Identification Parade (TIP) is a legal procedure used to establish the identity of accused persons in criminal cases, governed under Section 9 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (now Section 7 of BSA (Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023)). 
• The primary purpose of TIP is to test whether a witness can accurately identify an unknown person (whom they saw during the commission of a crime) from among several people in a controlled setting. 
• TIP must be conducted by a Judicial Magistrate, preferably at jail premises, where the accused is placed among other persons of similar appearance while police officers are kept away from the actual identification process. 
• During the parade, all statements made by the identifying witness are recorded in detail, including any mistakes or failures to identify, and a certificate is issued by the conducting Magistrate. 
• TIP is not considered substantive evidence in law but serves only as corroborative evidence to support or contradict the witness's testimony given in court. 
• While TIP strengthens the prosecution's case, the Supreme Court has held that absence of TIP does not make the witness's court identification inadmissible, provided there is sufficient corroboration of the witness's testimony. 

Which Confession is Admissible and Not Admissible under BSA ? 

Not Admissible: 

• Under Section 23 of BSA, any confession made to a police officer is completely inadmissible in court, and no confession made while in police custody is admissible unless made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. 
• Under Section 22 of BSA, confessions obtained through inducement, threat, coercion, or promise by any person in authority are irrelevant and inadmissible if they give the accused reasonable grounds to believe they would gain advantage or avoid punishment. 

Admissible: 

• Under Section 22 (First Proviso) of BSA, a confession becomes admissible if made after the court is satisfied that the impression caused by any inducement, threat, coercion or promise has been fully removed from the accused's mind. 
• Under Section 22 (Second Proviso) of BSA, confessions remain admissible even if made under promise of secrecy, through deception, while drunk, in response to questions the accused need not answer, or without warning about self-incrimination rights. 
• Under Section 24 of BSA, in joint trials, a confession made by one accused person that affects both himself and co-accused can be considered as evidence against all the persons mentioned in that confession, and under Section 23(2) Proviso, information leading to discovery of facts can be proved even from police custody confessions. 

Why Did the Case Take So Long to Conclude? 

The massive delay of nearly 10 years between the trial court verdict (2015) and the High Court judgment (2025) resulted from several factors: 

• Mandatory Death Sentence Review: Under law, all death sentences must be confirmed by the High Court before execution. This automatic review process was initiated in 2015. 
• Procedural Delays: Fresh notices had to be served to convicts in 2019 because the original intimation about their right to appeal was inadequate. 
• Administrative Issues: Multiple judges recused themselves or were transferred, causing repeated adjournments. The state government's delay in appointing a Special Public Prosecutor also stalled proceedings. 
• Case Complexity: The case involved 92 prosecution witnesses, over 50 defense witnesses, evidence spanning 169 volumes, and a trial court judgment of nearly 2,000 pages. The High Court conducted over 75 hearings across six months in 2024-25. 
• Systemic Overburdening: Courts cited being "overburdened with work," reflecting the broader challenge of case pendency in India's judicial system. 

Court's Final Direction 

• The Bombay High Court ordered the immediate release of all surviving accused (11 persons, as one had died) if they are not required in any other case.  
• Each must execute a personal bond of Rs. 25,000. 
• The state government and victims' families can now approach the Supreme Court if they wish to challenge this acquittal. 

Conclusion 

This judgment serves as a stark reminder that in the pursuit of justice for heinous crimes, the legal system cannot compromise on the quality of evidence and investigation. While the acquittals may bring relief to the accused and their families who spent nearly two decades behind bars, they also leave the victims' families without closure. The case provides the critical need for professional, unbiased investigations in terror cases and raises important questions about our criminal justice system's handling of high-profile cases where public emotions run high.