2008-malegaon-blast:-special-court-pulls-up-nia-for-hiding-documents
632 Malegaon Blast: A special National Investigation Agency (NIA court) judge in Mumbai has recently 17 A vital forensic report has not been submitted to the court for years Has pulled up the NIA for "suppressing" the documents. Voice samples belonging to the accused in the Malegaon blast case of 2009 The analysis came to light recently when the forensic expert who did the analysis was examined by the court. Audio recording of a conspiracy meeting recovered by ATS During investigation an audio recording of a conspiracy meeting was recovered by the ATS, which was sent for analysis to Forensic Sciences Lab, Kalina. The forensic expert, who was recently deposed as a witness in the court, prepared the analysis report when he worked in the lab. The analysis states that the voice samples match those of the accused in the case, Ramesh Upadhyay, Sudhakar Dwivedi alias Dayanand Pandey and Prasad Purohit. However, this analysis was not presented by the ATS in the court. A bomb planted in a motorcycle exploded in Malegaon 13 september, 2008 a bomb planted in a motorcycle exploded in Malegaon. Six people were killed and were injured. The blast was first investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad. Later in April 4216 the case was handed over to NIA for further investigation Gone. Last month, when the forensic expert was called to appear, he pleaded that the documents be taken on record. In his plea, the witness claimed that he had reported prepared and also said that he had quit the job the next year. The petition was supported by the NIA, the defense opposed it He also said that the papers were with Kalina Lab all these years and he had received the papers only now. The petition was supported by the NIA but opposed by the defense lawyers. The Special Court while rejecting the plea for admission of documents observed that, "The application filed by the witness does not state that who was the custodian of those documents when the witness left the employment, or from whose custody these documents were brought, the manner and manner of obtaining those documents, Why the documents were filed late, who prevented him from handing over those documents to the investigating officer. All these questions have not been answered in the application and no clarification has come on these points.” )Malegaon Blast blastPublished Date Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 9: 17 AM IST

You can share this post!

Related News

Comments

Leave a Reply

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

632 Malegaon Blast: A special National Investigation Agency (NIA court) judge in Mumbai has recently 17 A vital forensic report has not been submitted to the court for years Has pulled up the NIA for “suppressing” the documents. Voice samples belonging to the accused in the Malegaon blast case of 2009 The analysis came to light recently when the forensic expert who did the analysis was examined by the court.

Audio recording of a conspiracy meeting recovered by ATS During investigation an audio recording of a conspiracy meeting was recovered by the ATS, which was sent for analysis to Forensic Sciences Lab, Kalina. The forensic expert, who was recently deposed as a witness in the court, prepared the analysis report when he worked in the lab. The analysis states that the voice samples match those of the accused in the case, Ramesh Upadhyay, Sudhakar Dwivedi alias Dayanand Pandey and Prasad Purohit. However, this analysis was not presented by the ATS in the court.

A bomb planted in a motorcycle exploded in Malegaon 13 september, 2008 a bomb planted in a motorcycle exploded in Malegaon. Six people were killed and were injured. The blast was first investigated by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad. Later in April 4216 the case was handed over to NIA for further investigation Gone. Last month, when the forensic expert was called to appear, he pleaded that the documents be taken on record. In his plea, the witness claimed that he had reported prepared and also said that he had quit the job the next year.

The petition was supported by the NIA, the defense opposed it He also said that the papers were with Kalina Lab all these years and he had received the papers only now. The petition was supported by the NIA but opposed by the defense lawyers. The Special Court while rejecting the plea for admission of documents observed that, “The application filed by the witness does not state that who was the custodian of those documents when the witness left the employment, or from whose custody these documents were brought, the manner and manner of obtaining those documents, Why the documents were filed late, who prevented him from handing over those documents to the investigating officer. All these questions have not been answered in the application and no clarification has come on these points.”

)Malegaon Blast blastPublished Date

Thu, Dec 15, 2022, 9: 17 AM IST