Claiming that he had been framed,the accused in the 2008 Batla House encounter on Tuesday filed an application seeking that the judge visit the South Delhi house where the incident took place.
Shahzad Ahmad,arrested in 2010 by the Delhi Police Special Cell for his alleged role in the 2008 serial blasts and the encounter in which Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma and two alleged Indian Mujahideen operatives were shot dead,claimed he was not in the flat at the time it was raided by police. He said he had been wrongly arrested from Lucknow.
The geography of the place is such that there are roads in the front and back of the house,and single-storey houses on both sides. How could someone vanish from the fourth floor of the building, Shahzads advocate Satish Tamta said during arguments in the court of Additional Sessions Judge Rajender Kumar Shastri.
The court,however,rejected the application,saying that the layout of the building had not been disputed by the prosecution.
Every fact that you want to prove is already admitted by the prosecution. What difference would it make if the presiding officer visits the place? ASJ Shastri said.
According to the police,Shahzad and four other IM operatives were present in the flat on September 19,2008 and opened fire at the police team which came looking for those behind the serial blasts in Delhi six days ago. Police said Shahzad fled from Batla House and was arrested from Lucknow in February 2010.
On Tuesday,the prosecution concluded its final arguments in the case.
Narrating the sequence of events and available evidence,Additional Public Prosecutor Satwinder Kaur said that the evidence clearly showed that accused Shahzad Ahmad was involved in the shootout.
Seven police officers had entered the house to arrest suspected members of banned terror outfit Indian Mujahideen. Of these,six had identified Shahzad as the person who had shot at the police party,and then fled from the scene, she said.
The prosecutor told the court that Shahzads passport had been recovered from the flat,and call records showed that a cellphone which belonged to Atif Ameen,who died in the encounter,had been in regular contact with a mobile phone that belonged to Shahzads father.
A call was made to his fathers number early in the morning on the day of the encounter. The circumstantial evidence shows the connection of the accused or his father to Atif, Satwinder Kaur said.