The Gauhati High Court on Thursday acquitted the convicts in the 2004 Dhemaji bomb blast which had killed 13 persons including 10 children on the spot, while grievously injuring 19 to 20 persons.
The explosion took place in the Dhemaji College Playground in the Dhemaji district of Assam on August 15, 2004, where Independence Day celebrations were going on and later United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA) claimed responsibility for the explosion.
The judgment and order of the Gauhati High Court stated that – “……as the Prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellants in respect of the charges framed against them, they are acquitted of the charges framed against them, by giving them the benefit of doubt. As we find the impugned judgment dated 04.07.2019, passed by the learned Trial Court in Sessions Case No 127(DH)/2011 is not sustainable, the same is accordingly set aside. The State authorities are directed to release the appellants from judicial custody immediately, if not wanted in some other criminal case.”
In 2019, the Dhemaji District and Sessions Court convicted six people, sentencing Lila Gogoi alias Lila Khan, Dipanjali Borgohain alias Lipi, Muhi Handique and Jatin Dowari alias Rangman to life imprisonment, and two others – Prashanta Bhuyan and Hemen Gogoi sentenced to four years of jail.
The convicts had challenged the lower court verdict in the Gauhati High Court.
The Gauhati High Court further said in the judgment that – “…….the prosecution has not been able to conclusively prove the guilt of the appellants, as there is no continuous chain of circumstantial evidence, with regard to the hypothesis that the appellants had hatched a conspiracy and had blasted the bomb on the fateful day in the Dhemaji College Field. We find that the findings of the learned Trial Court have not been supported by the evidence recorded by the prosecution witnesses. The Trial Court cannot make findings on the basis of speculations or suspicion and the same has to be based on evidence. It has been held by the Supreme Court that Courts should be wary of the fact that it is human instinct to react adversely to the commission of an offence and make an effort to see that such instinctive reaction does not prejudice the accused in any way. While the offence committed is a serious one and though conviction may be based solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must provide greater assistance to the Court that its case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In essence, not only has the Prosecution been unable to prove the foundational facts against the appellants, but the learned Trial Court has come to a finding based on suspicion and speculation, not supported by the evidence adduced by the Prosecution witness…… It should also be kept in mind that suspicion over strong evidence cannot take the place of proof. The conviction cannot be based on speculation, conjunctures and a broken chain of circumstantial evidence.”
It also stated that – “……the learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants, without the prosecution being able to prove the charges against them beyond all reasonable doubt. As such, we do not find any alternative, but to interfere with the findings of the learned Trial Court and the conviction of the appellants by the learned Trial Court.”