questions about criminal justice system https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/in-mumbai-train-blast-case-acquittal-19-years-later-raises-questions-about-criminal-justice-system-10140964/ by Meeran Chadha Borwankar The High Court acquitting all of them after 10 years shows that something is terribly amiss in the criminal justice system. If they were innocent, how do we justify their incarceration for nearly 19 years? And if they were part of the terror gang responsible for the mass killing, why are they allowed to go scot-free? Comment: Every recording/confession must be date and time stamped. And a comprehensive list of all interviews and interaction in police custody must be provided to the defense. And we as public have to be shown the process, rather than get byte to assuage public outcry..
A Remarkable Judgement Mumbai Mirror MIHIR DESAI 
(courtesy: Mumbai Mirror - awaiting a link of the above)
SSen - on Whats app 22-7-25: The gaps in this sort of path breaking judgement:
-- No compensation ordered either on the ground of torture or ruination of lives.
-- No fixing of accountability of the concerned officials of the investigating agency which took the easy and cruel path of showing up a rabbit as a tiger in order to claim solving the case and botched up the investigation.
The real culprits of the heinous crime, hence, have gone scott free and, most likely, are roaming free.
Freny M on Whatsapp Am quite shocked with this lazy regurgitation of the police versions. At the very least the reporter could have tried to speak to families to get more info.. The role of the media when covering such important cases also needs to come under scrutiny...
Do they exhibit healthy skepticism or then just toe in with police narrative which is so much easier.
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/mumbai/who-12-men-acquitted-7-11-mumbai-train-blasts-case-10139460/ Written by Zeeshan Shaikh
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-editorials/terror-of-omissions/ judges have revealed about the shoddy investigation and prosecution’s negligence. HC said prosecution had “utterly failed to prove the case” beyond reasonable doubt. That such “deceptive closure undermines public trust while the true threat remains at large.” Trial court’s conviction was junked on several points that included 1) confessions were a product of torture, 2) it was ‘very odd’ that witnesses identified the accused after four years, 3) witnesses were ‘stock witnesses’, rolled out frequently, 4) it took three months before one witness claimed to have seen bombs ‘assembled’, 5) prosecution’s evidence was simply ‘not safe’ to base convictions on.