Malegaon blast trial against Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur revolved around ownership of motorcycle | Mumbai News

MUMBAI: The trial in the Malegaon blast of September 29, 2008, for Sadhvi Pragya Singh Thakur revolved around a motorcycle that the prosecution alleged was used in the blast and was registered in her name with the number plate changed. Her defence from the start was that she sold the ‘so-called motorcycle’ alleged to be hers two years earlier. When granting her bail in April 2017, the Bombay High Court recorded that there was no prima facie case against her in the blast case and that she was not in possession of the alleged motorcycle for a while, and that it was one Ramji Kalsangra—who is absconding.In her Section 313 statement—a process during trial where an accused can make a statement in court, usually to questions posed by the trial judge, to present their say—which is not evidence, she said she sold her motorcycle and one of the witnesses for the prosecution backed her claim. But Special Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) that took over the case and probe in 2011 maintained that since the two-wheeler used in the blast was ‘registered’ in her name, she was rightly charged for the terror crime. Her defence counsel J P Mishra argued and cited witnesses—seven men who allegedly bought and sold the motorcycle whose number plate was mentioned as MH-15-P-4572—to show that people do not transfer the ownership name if they want to sell the vehicle soon after buying it.Mishra said from the prosecution case it was “crystal clear’’ that her implication in the 2008 Malegaon blast and all its 13 charges against her was only because she was allegedly shown as the ‘registered owner’ of the motorcycle. The prosecution case against her was that the accused conspired through Abhinav Bharat between January and October 2008 to create disharmony by using RDX—a sophisticated explosive in an LML motorcycle registered in her name that killed six.Mishra sought to pick holes in the prosecution case by arguing how the probe agency never questioned three other possible selling agencies but homed in only on one to claim she bought the two-wheeler there. The prosecution case was the registration No. MH-15-P-4572 (found on LML Freedom Motorcycle allegedly used for the blast) was a fake number. Its chassis number was C-10-P1937 while the engine number was erased. The bike was sent to the DFSL (Divisional Forensic Science Lab) at Nasik to restore the erased engine number, the prosecution said.Mishra said despite prosecution witness testimonies, there was no evidence to prove that the vehicle alleged to have been used in the blast was the vehicle registered in Sadhvi’s name, as the prosecution could not prove that its chassis and engine number were a match. Every motorcycle is identified by chassis and engine numbers unique to the vehicle and the manufacturer. Mishra also cited a lack of any proof that she purchased the motorcycle, registered it, or that she provided the mandatory KYC documents for any such registration. From witnesses who deposed, he said the prosecution made out no case that Sadhvi was ever using the two-wheeler or that it was used by someone else with her consent or knowledge.The prosecution case was since the motorcycle was found ‘registered in her name’ and the engine number—partially restored—was “similar’’ to the number of “LML Ltd Company,’’ she was suspected and arrested. Such arrest is unsustainable, Mishra argued, citing a lack of any credible or cogent evidence to prove she was the bike’s owner.