A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court on Thursday acquitted two alleged extremists of all charges in connection with the twin blast cases that shook Kozhikode city on 3rd March 2006. Judges Vinod K Chandran and AA Ziyad Rehman quashed the life sentences slapped on Thadiyantevida Nazeer and Shafaz by the NIA special court and set them free.
The twin blast cases which was investigated by the Kerala Police was transferred to the National Investigating Agency in 2009 which arrested Nazeer and Shafaz along with other accused persons.
The prosecution charge was that the accused resorted to the twin blasts following the denial of bail to the persons who were arrested for the 2003 Maradu massacre in which eight Hindu fishermen were slaughtered by a group of persons.
While allowing the appeal filed by Nazeer and Shafaz questioning the trial court verdict, the High Court came down heavily on the NIA for its lopsided investigation. “The case has been set up by the prosecution merely on surmises and conjectures, which the Trial Court swallowed without further ado and throwing to the winds the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence. It is pointed out that the charge under the Explosive Substances Act could not have been levelled, since the Act provides a consent of the District Magistrate, from the year 2001 onwards, which has not been obtained,” said the judges.
The NIA came under scathing attack by the Division Bench. “The investigating agency has carried out no investigation and has put words into the mouth of the accused, recorded them as disclosure statements, which is the only basis of the conviction. The conduct of the Court below is seriously assailed for having not considered the objections raised by the defence, in the course of chief-examination regarding the admissibility of the confessions; which are quite a few in number,” they said.
The Division Bench also pointed out that the seventh accused turned approver and the NIA’s allegations were based on his statement. “The only evidence before Court was that of the approver and the lack of identification demolishes the prosecution case.
There were four persons in the dock and each should have been identified separately by pointing them out from the dock by their position, dress or stand-out features,” said the judges.