Malegaon Blast Verdict: 17 Years Later, Why All Accused Walked Free

It’s a story that has spanned nearly two decades, filled with dramatic twists, high-profile accusations, and immense tragedy. After almost 17 years, a special court in Mumbai has delivered its final verdict in the 2008 Malegaon blast case, and the outcome is nothing short of stunning: all seven accused, including controversial former MP Pragya Singh Thakur and former army officer Lt Col Prasad Shrikant Purohit, have been acquitted. The blast on September 29, 2008, tore through the town during the holy month of Ramzan, killing six and injuring more than a hundred people, leaving a deep scar on the community.

Key Highlights

• ✓ All seven accused, including former BJP MP Pragya Singh Thakur and Lt Col Prasad Purohit, have been acquitted in the 2008 Malegaon blast case after nearly 17 years.
• ✓ The blast, which occurred on September 29, 2008, tragically killed six people and left over 100 injured in the communally sensitive town of Malegaon.
• ✓ The Special NIA court cited a complete failure by the prosecution to prove its allegations, noting a lack of evidence linking the accused to the motorcycle or the explosives.
• ✓ The trial was a monumental effort, involving 323 prosecution witnesses (of whom nearly 40 turned hostile), over 10,800 documents, and five different judges.
• ✓ Judge AK Lahoti made a powerful statement, saying "mere suspicion cannot take the case forward" and that "terrorism has no religion."

"Suspicion Is Not Enough": The Verdict's Core Reasoning

So, how did a case that once dominated headlines and introduced the term "saffron terror" into public discourse completely fall apart? According to Special Judge AK Lahoti, it all boiled down to a fundamental principle of justice: the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The court stated that while a "grave incident against society" had occurred, it couldn't convict anyone on "moral grounds" alone.

The entire case against Pragya Thakur hinged on a motorcycle—an LML Freedom bike—that was found at the blast site and allegedly used to carry the explosive device. The prosecution, initially led by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), claimed she owned the vehicle. However, the court found the evidence to be incredibly flimsy. The chassis number had been wiped out, the engine number was unclear, and there was no "cogent or reliable evidence" to prove she ever owned it. The judge also noted that she had become a sanyasi (a renunciant) two years before the blast, distancing herself from worldly possessions.

Similarly, the allegations against Lt Col Purohit were explosive—that he had procured RDX from Kashmir, stored it at his residence, and assembled the bomb. Yet again, the court found "no evidence" to back up these claims. While the prosecution successfully proved that a blast did happen, it crucially failed to establish that the bomb was planted on that specific motorcycle recovered from the scene. The chain of evidence was simply broken.

💡 What's Interesting: The court made a point to state, "Terrorism has no religion, but conviction cannot be based on moral grounds." This powerful remark underscores the court's focus on hard evidence over the narrative that had built up around the case over the years.

A Tale of Two Agencies: The Investigation's Twists

To understand this verdict, you have to look at the investigation's convoluted journey. It started with the Maharashtra ATS, headed at the time by the celebrated officer Hemant Karkare, who was later tragically killed in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. The ATS made its first arrests in October 2008 and alleged a conspiracy by a little-known radical group called Abhinav Bharat. This was the first time the involvement of so-called "saffron extremists" was alleged in a terror case, creating a massive political storm.

Things took a dramatic turn in April 2011 when the UPA-led central government transferred the case to the National Investigation Agency (NIA). Here's where it gets even more complex. In 2015, the special public prosecutor, Rohini Salian, publicly alleged that an NIA officer had told her to "go soft" on the accused. A year later, in its supplementary chargesheet, the NIA gave a clean chit to Pragya Thakur, citing insufficient evidence, and even accused the ATS of planting RDX traces to frame Purohit.

Despite the NIA's new stance, the special court in 2017 decided there was enough material to proceed with a trial against seven of the accused, including Thakur and Purohit. The court dropped the stringent Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) charges but kept the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), setting the stage for the long trial that has just concluded.

Inside the Courtroom: A Trial of Epic Proportions

The trial, which formally began in October 2018, was a marathon by any measure. The sheer numbers are staggering. The prosecution called 323 witnesses to the stand, but their case was severely weakened when nearly 40 of them turned hostile, meaning they went back on their earlier statements. The evidence presented included over 10,800 documents, and the final written arguments from both sides filled three volumes, totaling more than 1,300 pages.

This wasn't a quick process. The case was heard by five different judges over its seven-year trial period. The court even had to observe that the blast site itself was not properly barricaded after the incident, leading to the contamination of the crime scene. There were also moments of high drama. In June 2019, Pragya Thakur, who by then had been elected as a Member of Parliament, caused a stir when she complained in court about the "dirty and small" chair she was given and the "dusty" courtroom.

The accused faced grave charges, including committing a terrorist act, conspiracy to commit murder, and promoting enmity between religious groups. But one by one, the court found the pillars of the prosecution's case crumbling under the weight of scrutiny and a lack of solid, verifiable proof. Even the number of injured was contested, with the court finding evidence for 95 injured people, not the 101 originally claimed.

Conclusion

After a 17-year legal odyssey, the Malegaon blast case ends not with a bang, but with an acquittal based on the oldest rule in the book: you are innocent until proven guilty. The court's verdict is a stark reminder that in the eyes of the law, suspicion, public narrative, and even moral conviction are no substitute for cold, hard evidence. For the seven accused, this marks the end of a long and arduous chapter. For the victims and their families, who were awarded some compensation, the verdict may leave more questions than answers, as the quest for definitive justice in one of India's most complex terror cases remains unfulfilled.