Raising the bar for cases being tried under POTA, the Delhi High Court today acquitted two accused in the December 13 Parliament attack case while upholding the death penalty against two others. The acquittal of suspended Delhi University lecturer S A R Geelani is the most dramatic as he had also been sentenced to death by the trial court early this year—based entirely on telephone conversations he had with two convicted persons. ACQUITTED Geelani Afsan Guru The other acquitted, Afsan Guru, is the wife of one of the convicted persons, Shaukat Hussain Guru. The high court set aside the five-year sentence she was given by POTA judge S N Dhingra. A bench, comprising Justice Usha Mehra and Justice Pradeep Nandrajog, confirmed the death sentence under POTA on Shaukat Hussain Guru and his cousin Mohammed Afzal, both members of the banned Jaish-e-Mohammed, for causing the death of nine persons during the attack on Parliament by five Pakistan nationals on December 13, 2001. Concurrently, the high court imposed death sentences on Guru and Afzal under Section 121A of the Indian Penal Code for waging war against the country. The trial court had awarded a life sentence to them under this provision. The prosecution’s attempt to link Geelani to the terrorist conspiracy failed because it was based entirely on the intercept of a telephone conversation he had with Guru and Afzal. ‘‘This circumstance, in our opinion, does not even remotely, far less definitely and unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused S A R Geelani,’’ the bench said pointing to the prosecution’s failure to adduce any evidence to corroborate the telephone records. Accepting the prosecution contention that Afzal and Guru were known to Geelani, the bench said ‘‘There is, however, no evidence on record to establish that he remained in touch over the telephone with the terrorists.’’Referring to the prosecution’s charge that the very first call Geelani made from his new mobile was to a co-accused, the bench said, ‘‘When one acquires a mobile phone, it is but natural that one would test it for use. What other number would one connect other than that of known person. By itself, with nothing more, we are afraid that conviction cannot be sustained on this evidence.’’ As regards Afsan, the court rejected the POTA court’s finding that she was guilty of failing to disclose to the police the conspiracy involving her husband. The High Court held that there was no evidence suggesting that she was in the know of things. ‘‘She was admittedly a house-wife and Shaukat was her husband. Merely because some meetings took place, assuming it to be correct, in the house would not be sufficient by itself to impute knowledge,’’ it said, taking note of the fact that the trial court too had absolved her of the charge of conspiracy. The high court ordered forfeiture of Rs 10 lakh recovered by the police from Afzal and Shaukat, when they were arrested in Jammu and Kashmir where they travelled to in a truck immediately after the attack on Parliament. The two admitted to having received the money and a laptop computer from Mohammad, the leader of the five Pakistani terrorists who stormed Parliament. Referring to the gravity of the offence, the high court said ‘‘The attack was on Parliament, when in session. The sovereignty of the country was attacked.’’ The bench also took note of the far-reaching repercussions of this terrorist crime for enhancing the sentence from life to death on the charge of waging war against the Government. ‘‘Indeed, after the unfortunate incident, this country had to station its troops at the border and large-scale mobilisation of armed forces took place. The clouds of war with our neighbour loomed large for a long period of time. The nation suffered not only an economic strain but even the trauma of an imminent war,’’ the bench said. The prosecution is likely to appeal against the acquittal of Geelani and Afsana while Afzal and Guru too have the option of challenging their conviction before the Supreme Court.
