A court in India has acquitted 12 men previously convicted in the 2006 Mumbai train bombings that killed 187 people and injured over 800.
Judges had in 2015 sentenced five of the accused to death and the remaining seven to life imprisonment.
On Monday, a two-judge bench of the Bombay High Court overturned the earlier order, ruling that the prosecution had "utterly failed" to establish that the accused had committed the offences for which they had been convicted.
The prosecution can appeal against the order in a higher court.
On 11 July 2006, seven blasts ripped through the busy commuter trains during the evening rush hour in one of India's deadliest terror attacks.
The bombs, packed into seven pressure cookers and put in bags, detonated within six minutes of each other.
The blasts took place in the areas of Matunga, Khar, Mahim, Jogeshwari, Borivali and Mira Road, with most on moving trains and two at stations.
The bombs appeared to have targeted first-class compartments, as commuters were returning home from the city's financial district.
Indian security agencies blamed the attack on Islamic militants backed by Pakistan, an allegation the country denied.
The accused, who were arrested shortly after the blasts, have been in jail since then. One of them, Kamal Ansari, who had been sentenced to death, died of Covid in 2021.
In 2015, a special court convicted the men of murder, conspiracy and waging war against the country. The prosecution appealed to confirm the death sentences, while the defence sought acquittal.
In July 2024, the Bombay High Court formed the two-judge bench to expedite the hearings.
Reports say that over the next six months, the court conducted more than 75 sittings and examined 92 prosecution witnesses and over 50 defence witnesses.
In the 667-page order on Monday, the court noted that the defence had questioned the credibility of the witnesses produced by the prosecution, as well as the confessional statements made by the accused.
It also acknowledged the defence's contention that the recovered evidence was not maintained in a "sealed condition throughout".
