Premium
This is an archive article published on May 22, 1998

Cops firm on Sayama8217;s identity

MUMBAI, May 21: Counsel for the Mumbai police Shrikant Bhat today maintained that the encounter killing of peanut vendor Abu Sayama alias Ja...

.

MUMBAI, May 21: Counsel for the Mumbai police Shrikant Bhat today maintained that the encounter killing of peanut vendor Abu Sayama alias Javed Fawda was neither a case of mistaken identity nor was it fake.

Bhat said the person who was killed in an encounter at Ballard Pier on August 26, 1997, is the same person against whom a case of attempt to murder was registered at Shivaji Park in 1996 and the person whose sister Rubina lodged a missing complaint with the Bandra police on August 28, 1997. Bhat said the accused8217;s fingerprints in the Shivaji Park case and that of the person killed in the encounter tally with each other.

Bhat also said Abu Sayama and Javed Talib Shaikh alias Javed Fawda were different persons. He said the papers of the Shivaji Park station show Abu Sayama as the brother of Javed Talib Shaikh , who was also arrested in the case. He also pointed to conflicting figures in Fawda8217;s age: while Fawda8217;s family ration card, issued in 1993, mentioned his age as 20, Rubina gave his age in themissing complaint as 18. Bhat said Fawda was picked up from the Antop Hill residence of one Maharaja Pillai, accused in connection with the Shivaji Park case, along with Pillai. If the deceased was innocent, he would have remained at his residence at Bandra, Bhat claimed.

He said there was no admissible evidence that the deceased was picked up by the police after offering prayers at a Bandra mosque two days prior to his death. The evidence recorded in this connection was based on hearsay accounts and not on an eye-witness account.

Bhat argued that the names of Fawda, along with Wasim, Rauf Raja and Rashid, were disclosed by Javed Kaliya, an accused in the Gulshan Kumar murder case. This information was issued in a memo to officers of the Criminal Intelligence Unit by Assistant Commissioner of Police L R Rao.

Although API Vasant Dhoble had admitted that he knew some of the accused named in the memo, and had also visited their residences to make enquires, counsel for petitioners had failed to elaboratehow he knew them, stated Bhat. He added that if the memo issued by Rao could not be disputed, the encounter could also not be disputed.

 

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement