Victims Move Bombay HC Against Acquittal of Pragya Thakur, 6 Others

Appeal claimed that some defects in the wrong investigation or investigation could not be the ground for the acquisition of the accused. He also claimed that a conspiracy came out of the egg in secrecy and therefore could not be a direct proof.

The petitions claimed that the order given by the Special NIA Court on July 31 was that seven defendants were wrong and bad and therefore deserved the deterioration.

On Monday, the appeal opened by Nisar Ahmed Sayyed Bilal and five other people through Mateen Shaikh, defender Mateen Shaikh, called HC to suppress the special court decision.

According to the HC website, the appeal will start hearing before a section bank under the chairmanship of justice on September 15th.

A explosive device connected to the motorcycle, on September 29, 2008, came out near a mosque in the town of Malegaon, which was about 200 km away from Mumbai in the Nashik region of Maharashtra, killed six people and injured 101 people.

The claim said that the court judge should not act as a “postman or silent audience in a criminal case. If the prosecution cannot reveal the facts, the court may ask and/or witness.

“The court acted as a post office unfortunately and allowed the defendants to benefit the defendants.” He said.

He also claimed that the previous private public prosecutor Rohini Salian had a slow pressure from NIA against the defendant, where a new prosecutor was appointed.

The appeal also expressed concerns about the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to make investigations and trials in the case and to be convicted of the defendants.

The appeal, arrest seven people, the Anti -Terrorist team (ATS) has created a major conspiracy and since then there was no explosion in areas filled by the minority community.

NIA claimed that he had diluted allegations against the defendants after he seized the case.

The appeal also claimed that the motorcycle used in the explosion did not belong to Thakur and that the RDX used was not provided by Purohit.

There was sufficient evidence that the defendants had removed the conspiracy from the egg to realize the explosion and that the private court claimed that there was only a strong doubt against the defendants, but that there was not enough evidence to condemn them.

The appeal said that a conspiracy came out of the egg in secrecy and therefore cannot be a direct proof of it.

In his decision, the Special Court said that only suspicion could not replace the actual evidence and that there was no cogent or reliable evidence to guarantee conviction.

Private Judge Ak Lahoti, who chaired the NIA Court, said that there was no “reliable and conent evidence” that proved the case against the defendants beyond reasonable suspicion.

The prosecution case was realized by the right -wing supporters of the explosion with the intention of terrorizing the Muslim community in the socially sensitive Malgaon town.

The NIA court had marked several gaps in the case of prosecution and conducted an investigation and said the defendants deserve the benefit of suspicion.

In addition to Thakur and Purohit, Major Ramesh Upadhyay (retired), Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Samer Kulkarni were among the defendants.