Bombay HC Flags 'Copy-Paste' Confessions In 2006 Mumbai Train Blasts Case, Acquits All 12 Accused

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has once again raised serious concerns over the growing trend of “copy-paste” confessional and witness statements in chargesheets, calling it a dangerous culture that compromises the credibility of criminal investigations.

On Monday, a special bench of Justices Anil Kilor and Shyam Chandak, while acquitting all 12 accused in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case, pointed to “identical” portions in the confessional statements, which it said were “incomplete and not truthful”.

The judges noted that these parts appeared to have been “copied”, adding that this undermined the authenticity of the statements.

The 671-page judgment included a comparative chart of the confessions of several accused. “Even if it is presumed that the questions are similar, it cannot be ignored that the answers are identical verbatim, which is highly improbable,” the court said.

“Two people can answer the same way, but not using the exact same words and in the same sequence. They could share the same narrative but will express it differently.”

Court demands action from Maharashtra govt to address investigation flaws

The High Court’s observation comes amid similar findings in other recent cases. In May and June, it had flagged the same issue in separate criminal cases and had directed the Maharashtra government to issue guidelines to tackle this growing “menace”.

In the blasts case, the court referred to confessions by accused A-3, A-5 and A-10, all recorded by three different Deputy Commissioners of Police (DCPs) at different locations and times, but found to be strikingly similar.

Judges highlight identical responses recorded by different DCPs

“Though three different DCPs recorded it at three different places, dates and time, they are identical. Even if, for a moment, it is presumed that a format of questions was used by them for convenience, it cannot be ignored that the answers... are identical verbatim, which is highly improbable, if not copied,” the bench noted.

The court further said, “From the evidence of (Prosecution Witness) PW-93 DCP Phadtare, PW-117 DCP Singh, and PW-118 DCP Dumbre, it is clear they did not use any questionnaire. PW-93 framed the questions based on guidance from senior officers and legal advisors, while PW-117 and PW-118 prepared their own.”

It also pointed out that “the portion which precedes the questions” in the confessions of the accused is “exactly the same with only the name of the officer and the accused changed.” The questions and answers were often identical, even when questions weren’t asked.

“Though the question about age was not asked, the answers in both show the accused stated his age... Though the question about fluency in a language was not asked, the accused have given that answer.”

“This is possible only if some format is provided to all,” the court said, but noted that all the officers had denied using any standardised format.

In contrast, the trial court in 2015 had upheld the confessional statements, discarding allegations of fabrication, torture, or dictation by ATS officers. It had ruled that “merely on the basis of such commonality, it would be preposterous to draw the conclusion that the confessional statements themselves are fabricated”.

2006 Mumbai Train Blasts Case: Maharashtra Govt Challenges Bombay HC Acquittal; Supreme Court Hearing Set For July 24

High Court rejects trial court’s acceptance of confessions as voluntary

The High Court, however, said the similarities in the statements “speak volumes about the credibility, reliability, and truthfulness” of the confessions and supported the defence claim that the statements were not voluntary.

“These charts strengthen the case of the defence that the accused have not given the confessional statements but their signatures were obtained forcefully,” the court said.