NEW DELHI: The special NIA court in Panchkula, which acquitted Swami Aseemanand and three others in the Samjhauta blast case, has flagged “gaping holes” in prosecution saying the NIA failed to submit “valuable” evidence that could have nailed the accused.
Special Judge Jagdeep Singh lambasted NIA for not providing credible evidence to support the case it had built in the 2007 Samjhauta blast that claimed 68 lives.
In the 160-page judgment, released on Thursday, the judge observed “valuable piece of evidence remained untapped”.
The judge pointed out that according to NIA, the accused had carried out tests of the bombs they were planning to use in Samjhauta Express in jungles in Madhya Pradesh but the agency failed to collect samples from the jungles on time.
Interestingly, an accused Kamal Chauhan told the NIA that he can identify the places at Indore and Bagli forest area where preparation of bomb and demonstration of blast of bomb was given.
“No sample of sand/earth was collected at that time and samples of sand/earth are stated to have been collected on 26.12.2012 i.e. after about 10 months after he first pointed out the spot... Collection of sand/earth sample from a place which has already come to the notice of investigating agency almost 10 months ago, is nothing but apparently seems to be procured evidence, more-so when forest area is an open place accessible to all and is an open area which is subjected to all kinds of wear and tear of weather,” the judge said.
What further raised a question mark on the collection of sand samples was that there was hardly any evidence to show that these samples duly sealed, it noted. “There is no credible evidence to make out that the sand samples remained intact till the same were sent to the concerned expert,” it said.
NIA had also alleged the accused had done a recce of the Delhi railway station, from where the Samjhauta train originates, before planting bombs on the train and stayed at the railway station dormitory. But the court said CCTV footage and entries made by the accused were not collected and verified from experts.
Fingerprints ignored
NIA did not compare crucial finger prints that were collected from bottles filled with some liquid that were found near the blast site