Its failure in proving the role of the so-called right-wing groups in terror cases notwithstanding, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Wednesday said the probe in all such cases will continue.
In response to questions on the progress made in such cases, Director General of NIA Sharad Kumar said, “Investigation is on in these cases.” Kumar was addressing his first Press conference on Wednesday ever since he took charge as NIA chief in July last year.Cases handed over by the UPA II Government to the NIA to prove the suspected role of right-wing groups include Samjhauta Express train blasts in which 65 persons were killed in February 2007.
Other cases being probed by the agency are 2006 and 2008 Malegaon blasts, Mecca Masjid blast in Hyderabad (2007), Ajmer blast in 2007 and murder of alleged Hindu extremist leader Sunil Joshi.The UPA I and UPA II Governments’ decision to handover the cases to NIA was seen as a political one as the probe by other agencies in these cases had alleged the role of Islamists.
NIA has filed charge sheets in these cases, based on the materials gathered from confessional statements of the accused persons, and so far could not unravel any new evidence. As per the legal provisions, confessional statements cannot be used to nail the accused person who has given the statements unless corroborated by other material evidence.
Swami Aseemanand has been made the key conspirator in blasts at Modasa, Malegaon I and II, Ajmer, Samjhauta Express and Mecca Masjid but the charge sheets lack corroborative evidence and is likely to fall flat during trial.More than six years since investigations started, the agencies — CBI, NIA and State police — are still clueless about many of those named by Aseemanand. The chargesheets in these cases have been filed based on Aseemanand’s confessional statement but which he has subsequently denied. Sources said the chargesheets were filed simply to prevent Aseemanand getting bail.
The key conspirator and the alleged conspiracy is there but the co-conspirators of these cases are still at large and the confessional statement under Section 164 of the CrPC does not hold any value unless corroborated with material evidence, an investigator said adding, provisions also state that a confessional statement cannot be used in a court of law against the person who has confessed before a magistrate.
Sources said Aseemanand’s confessional statements do not have evidentiary value per se as he has subsequently denied them and claimed that the same were extracted under duress.