Bombay High Court Overturns 2015 MCOCA Verdict in 11/7 Mumbai Train Blasts Case

IN NEWS: Bombay High Court Overturns 2015 MCOCA Verdict in 11/7 Mumbai Train Blasts Case

Analysis

1. Background of the Case:
   • The 11 July 2006 Mumbai train bombings killed 187 people and injured 829.
   • The case was investigated under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999.
   • In 2015, a special MCOCA court had convicted 12 accused, sentencing five to death and seven to life imprisonment.
2. 2015 Special Court Verdict:
   • Delivered by Special Judge Yatin D. Shinde (now deceased).
   • Rejected the defence claim that the Indian Mujahideen (IM) carried out the blasts.
   • Concluded that the accused, linked to the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI), formed an independent organised crime syndicate.
   • Found the confessional statements admissible, rejecting allegations of torture by the ATS.
   • Observed that the modus operandi of IM—sending emails before attacks—was not present in this case.
3. Defence and Confession Controversy:
   • Defence relied on the testimony of Sadiq Shaikh, an alleged IM member arrested in 2008, who claimed IM’s involvement.
   • The 2015 court dismissed this as a “deliberate strategy to mislead investigators”, citing inconsistencies in Shaikh’s statements.
   • Eleven confessions were later ruled inadmissible by the Bombay High Court (2025), raising questions on procedural compliance under Section 18 of MCOCA and Article 20(3) (protection against self-incrimination).
4. Judicial Observations (2015):
   • The 12 accused were described as not mere foot soldiers but active planners.
   • The five sentenced to death — Ehtesham Siddiqui, Asif Khan, Faisal Shaikh, Naved Khan, and Kamal Ansari — were held directly responsible for planting bombs.
   • Judge emphasized the “mindless, cold-blooded and wanton killing of innocent, defenceless persons,” terming the act “massacre of human beings.”
5. High Court’s Overturning (2025):
   • The Bombay High Court has now set aside the 2015 MCOCA verdict, primarily due to procedural lapses and evidentiary inconsistencies.
   • The High Court noted that confession-based evidence failed the admissibility test and that investigative bias and procedural irregularities undermined the conviction’s legitimacy.
   • The judgment reopens debate over terror investigations, due process under special laws, and balance between national security and individual rights.

Static & Legal Context

• MCOCA, 1999:
  • Enacted to curb organized crime and terrorism in Maharashtra.
  • Allows confessions made before police officers of Superintendent rank admissible in court (a deviation from the general law).
  • However, such confessions remain controversial under Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution.
• Indian Mujahideen (IM):
  • Banned under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in 2010.
  • Known for claiming responsibility through emails before attacks — absent in this case, as noted by the trial court.
• Judicial Precedents Relevant:
  • Kartongen Chemical v. State of Maharashtra (2004) – limits of confessional admissibility under MCOCA.
  • PUCL v. Union of India (1997) – procedural fairness as part of Article 21.

Updated – 22 July  2025 ; 6:45 PM | Times of India