Headlines
2008 Malegaon Blast: Special Court Rejects Voice Analysis Report

2008 Malegaon Blast: Special Court Rejects Voice Analysis Report

It’s been 13 years since the Malegaon blast case, when on 29th September 2008, a bomb planted in a motorbike exploded in Malegaon, killing six people and over 100 were injured. The initial investigation was conducted by the Anti-terrorist Squad (ATS), but in 2011, the case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

And now the NIA court has come across the documents regarding voice analysis reports related to the Malegaon blast. The court pulled up the NIA for suppressing the documents and not submitting them till 13 years.

This issue of records came into light when, during the trials a forensic expert was called as an expert witness for the examination by the court, where he revealed that he had submitted the report to the lab in 2009.

He explained that the ATS collected the voice samples from the accused of the 2008 Malegaon blast and were sent for the forensic analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory of Kalina in 2009.

The expert witness said that he prepared the analysis report, when he was working at the lab but he left the job in 2010. However, the analysis report had always been in the Kalina lab, which states that the voice samples matched with those of the three Malegaon blast accused namely- Ramesh Upadhyay, Sudhakar Dwivedi alias Dayanand Pandey and Prasad Purohit. The ATS never submitted the report to the court.

The expert witness pleaded that the analysis report was with the lab and he had only now received the documents. This plea was supported by the NIA but the defense lawyers opposed it. In fact the special court also rejected the plea.

According to special court, the application of the witness does not suggest who was the custodian of those documents since 2010, when the witness left the job. Questions like- from whose custody those documents are brought, the mode and manner of receipt of those documents, why those documents are filed at belated stage, what prevented him to hand over those documents to the investigating officer are also unanswered in the application and no explanation came on these points.

The special court judge said that since the witness had collected the report from the forensic lab recently and filed the document on record after a lapse of 13 years without any explanation or clarification, therefore this infers that the documents were suppressed.

The court also nullified the voice graphs and methodology adopted by the expert witness for the analysis, as all these were part of the documents submitted.

The court refused to take these documents by saying, “If it would have been part and parcel of the report, then it would have been handed over to the investigating machinery during investigation. But, in fact, it was neither filed along with the charge sheet nor as per section 173(8) of CrPC (final report)”. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *