The Nanded blasts of 2006 and 2008 have been contentious due to their implications on communal dynamics, investigation processes, and judicial outcomes. The juxtaposition of the fact-finding report by a group of Citizens consisting of Justice BG Kolse Patil (former judge) and Teesta Setalvad, journalist and human rights defender back in February 2007and the recent judgment, which termed the explosions as “accidents,” raises questions about evidence interpretation, investigative integrity, and judicial reasoning. This report deconstructs the case using the available documents: the detailed fact-finding report and the Nanded court judgment pronounced on January 4, 2025

Members of the Concerned Citizens Inquiry: Justice (Retd) BG Kolse Patil, Pune (Chairperson) Teesta Setalvad, Mumbai (Convener) and Arvind Deshmukh, Nagpur (Member) Local Support: Vijay Gabhane, Altaf Ahmed, Riyaz Siddiqui, Pradeep Nagarpurkar, Suryakant Wani, Feroz Khan, PD Joshi Patodekar, PG Dasturkar, Chandrakant Gavane. Technical Experts: Medico-Legal and Forensic Experts, Pune (requested anonymity).

Interviews Conducted by CCI Team:  SP Fatehsingh Patil of the district, in the presence of DYSP (Home) Mohsin Khan, PI Ramesh Bhurewar, Assistant SP Sabde. On the spot interviews at the site with neighbours, many of whom chose confidentiality.

Interviews with the owner of the site, Shankarrao Shivram Mangalikar, and his son. Interview with the Civil Surgeon, Dr DL Gaikwad. Interview with the Fire Brigade Officer, Shri V. Jogdand.

Visit to the Itwara Police Station, Rangargalli, Nanded. Meeting with IG Dr Suryaprakash Gupta along with SP Fatehsingh Patil, DYSP Abdul Razzak and DYSP (Rural) Sunita Salunke.

Context and background

The blasts occurred on April 6, 2006, in the house of Laxman Rajkondwar, an RSS-affiliated individual, situated in Nanded, Maharashtra. The explosion resulted in the immediate death of two individuals, identified as Himanshu Panse and Naresh Rajkondwar, and left four others severely injured. Initial police reports attributed the incident to an accidental ignition of firecrackers, allegedly stored in the premises for business purposes. However, further investigations by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and subsequently by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pointed towards a deliberate attempt to manufacture explosives, purportedly with the intent to carry out attacks on religious sites belonging to the Muslim community. Evidence recovered from the site included improvised explosive devices (IEDs), live cartridges, and documents associated with Hindu-extremist organizations like the RSS and Bajrang Dal. The focus of the case, however, gradually shifted due to procedural delays, inconsistencies in the investigative process, and varying judicial interpretations, raising questions about the impartiality and rigor of the investigative and judicial proceedings.

Observations from the citizen’s fact-finding report

Allegations of bias: The initial First Information Report (FIR) filed by the local police labelled the incident as an accidental firecracker explosion (referenced on page 4 of the fact-finding report), ignoring significant evidence at the scene. This characterisation reveals a potential overlooking of primary evidence, as it failed to account for preliminary findings that pointed to bomb-making activities, including the discovery of pipe bombs and splinters embedded in the victims’ bodies (detailed on page 6). The police’s approach raised concerns about a preconceived narrative aimed at protecting certain groups with a powerful presence in society while prematurely ruling out the possibility of deliberate acts of terror.

• Evidence found:
  • Bomb materials: The discovery of pipe bombs, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and 10 live cartridges (as highlighted on pages 4-6 of the fact-finding report) clearly indicated deliberate preparation of explosives. These materials, found in various stages of assembly, underscored the existence of an operational bomb-making site, where explosives were being prepared with apparent intent for large-scale communal violence.
  • Organisational links: Documents recovered from the site included maps, blueprints, and literature associated with extremist Hindu organizations, including the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bajrang Dal (as detailed on pages 5-7 of the fact-finding report). These documents pointed to a coordinated effort to create communal discord, highlighting a systematic approach toward inciting violence and disrupting social harmony.
  • Training records: Several of the accused were revealed to have undergone structured training in bomb-making, arms handling, and guerrilla tactics (as detailed on pages 6-8 of the fact-finding report). Training sessions reportedly occurred at institutions like the Bhonsala Military School in Nagpur, which has been linked to extremist activities in the past. These sessions included live demonstrations on manufacturing explosive devices and handling IEDs, underscoring the organized and premeditated nature of the activities.
  • Camouflaging tactics: The accused employed deliberate tactics to mislead investigators and the public, (as highlighted on pages 7-8 of the fact-finding report). Recovered items included artificial beards, moustaches, and other disguises, which were intended to impersonate Muslim individuals. These materials, coupled with plans and written strategies, revealed a concerted effort to frame Muslim groups for the planned attacks. The recovered evidence also suggested attempts to simulate typical markers of Muslim attire and behaviour, furthering the narrative of extremist involvement from the Muslim community. This orchestrated plan underscored the accused’s intent to sow communal discord while shielding their own affiliations. 

• Intent and targeting:
  • Evidence pointed to a clear intent to target Muslim places of worship, particularly mosques, as part of a broader strategy to foment communal violence. This assertion is supported by detailed maps and reconnaissance reports found during the investigation, as noted on pages 9-11 of the fact-finding report. These materials revealed meticulous planning, including sketches of mosque layouts and identified weak spots for maximizing explosive impact, indicating an intent to cause severe disruption and communal tension.
• Criticism of investigative agencies:
  • ATS and CBI conduct: Both the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) were criticised for failing to rigorously follow up on leads. Despite early indications of a well-coordinated extremist network, the investigation seemed to deliberately avoid exploring deeper institutional links and sources of funding.
  • Dilution of charges: Public outrage followed the decision to dilute charges against several principal accused individuals, casting doubt on the impartiality of the investigative process.
  • Institutional gaps: The investigating agencies failed to examine key elements such as the role of training centres, ideological indoctrination, and the logistical support behind the conspiracy. The report flagged these omissions as deliberate efforts to downplay the organized nature of the activities.
• Public reactions: The fact-finding report noted widespread criticism from secular organisations and civil society groups, who accused the agencies of systemic bias and shielding perpetrators affiliated with Hindu extremist organisations. This eroded public trust and highlighted the need for accountability and transparency in handling such sensitive cases.

These findings emphasise the critical importance of impartial investigations, robust evidence-gathering processes, and institutional accountability to ensure justice in cases involving communal violence and terrorism.

The report may read here:

4. Key findings from the judgment

• Prosecution’s case:
  • The accused were charged under IPC Sections 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder), 338 (causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety), 286 (negligent conduct with respect to explosive substances), and 120B (criminal conspiracy); UAPA Sections 18 and 23 (punishments for conspiracy and aiding unlawful activities); and Explosive Substances Act Sections 4(b) and 5 (making or possessing explosives under suspicious circumstances).
  • The prosecution argued that the accused conspired to manufacture bombs with the intent to commit acts of terrorism and disrupt communal harmony. Evidence of bomb-making materials, extremist literature, and records of targeted reconnaissance were presented to substantiate the charges.

• Court’s observations:
  • The court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide a direct and reliable nexus between the accused and the intent to commit terrorist acts. While materials such as explosives and extremist documents were recovered, the evidence presented was insufficient to demonstrate their connection to specific individuals or a larger conspiracy. The judgment underscored that possession alone, without corroborative intent or action, could not lead to conviction.
  • Forensic evidence deficiencies: Forensic reports failed to conclusively link the recovered materials to the alleged plans for mosque bombings. Splinters and explosive residues recovered at the site could not be attributed to the accused without doubt. Furthermore, mishandling of evidence by investigators was documented, further reducing its reliability.

There is no forensic report about the said articles and there is nothing on record to connect the above articles recovered by this witness with the alleged offences. Para 42 of the judgment

• Witness testimonies and inconsistencies: Key testimonies from investigating officers, forensic experts, and local witnesses were inconsistent. Some witnesses contradicted earlier statements regarding the discovery and handling of explosive devices. The absence of independent corroboration weakened the prosecution’s narrative.

In regard to the rival contentions noted above, it shall be profitable to mention observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Inder Singh Vs. State [1978 (4) SCC 161] which read as underground –‘if a case has some flaws, the same has to be considered too inevitable because human beings are prone to err, proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes, contradictions and omissions are bound to occur in any case for trial but those cannot disturb or shake or challenge the basic fabric or the core of the case. From the above established position of law, minor aberrations and contradictions cannot harm otherwise believable prosecution case so long as the same does not occasion failure of justice by striking at the root of the case’. Para 67 of the judgment

• Procedural lapses: The court noted significant investigative flaws that compromised the case. Unprotected crime scenes allowed for potential contamination of evidence, raising doubts about the reliability of materials presented during the trial. The chain of custody for key evidence, such as recovered explosive devices and documents, was improperly maintained, with gaps in documentation and unexplained delays. Furthermore, critical forensic samples were either not preserved adequately or lacked proper analysis, diminishing their evidentiary value. Delays in recording witness statements further weakened the prosecution’s case, as memories faded and inconsistencies arose. These procedural deficiencies were highlighted as major contributors to the inability to establish a strong and credible case against the accused.

Rejection of witness intervention:

The application filed by Yeshwant Shinde, a former RSS pracharak, to testify as a witness was dismissed by the court. Shinde’s claims, which included receiving arms training and knowledge of extremist activities linked to the present accused, were deemed inadmissible on procedural grounds. The court ruled that his testimony lacked direct relevance to the charges under scrutiny, thereby excluding potentially crucial evidence from consideration.

To make the record clear, it is mentioned that the matter was stayed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order in Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 57/2012. However the said revision application came to be disposed off and the stay was vacated. Thereafter, on 29.08.2022 one person namely Yahswant Shinde filed an application (Exh.431) to array him as witness in the matter. The said application came to be dismissed on 17.01.2023 Paragraph 3 of the judgment

The judgment may be read here.

5. Comparative analysis

The Citizen’s fact-finding report) highlighted the presence of critical evidence such as pipe bombs, cartridges, and extremist literature. However, the judgment noted significant gaps in linking these materials conclusively to the accused. For example, forensic reports on explosive residues and splinters failed to connect them directly to the alleged plans for communal violence

This report also emphasised the discovery of documents suggesting organisational affiliations and planned targeting of religious sites. In contrast, the court dismissed these as insufficient, citing the lack of evidence to prove intent or actionable steps taken by the accused.

The judgment adhered to strict procedural and legal standards for evaluating evidence, emphasising the need for conclusive forensic proof and direct witness testimonies. This contrasts with the fact-finding report’s broader focus on circumstantial and contextual evidence. The court dismissed materials such as maps and organizational links as speculative in the absence of demonstrable intent or action by the accused.

The initial investigative findings by ATS pointed toward a deliberate attempt at bomb-making with religious targets. However, the subsequent dilution of charges by the CBI and reliance on procedural gaps in court altered the narrative, reducing the focus on organisational links and intent highlighted in the Citizen’s fact-finding report.

This comparative analysis underscores the differing priorities of the fact-finding report and the judicial process. While the report sought to establish a broader socio-political context and intent, the court adhered to stricter evidentiary and procedural standards, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

(The legal research team of the organisation consists of lawyers and interns; this primer has been worked on by Shailendar Karthikeyan)

Related:

ARCHIVES: Hindutva Terror – The terror trail from Nanded to Malegaon and beyond

Nanded accused indict themselves

2007 – Nanded, Maharashtra: Preliminary Report Bomb Explosions

The post Judicial acquittal vs. Citizen’s Fact-finding: A critical look appeared first on SabrangIndia.