SC OKs death for Dec 13

The sheen over Geelani’s acquittal was, however, lost in the court’s rather caustic observations on his conduct before and after the incident, which it said gave rise to suspicions about his role in the attack.

While the order is a setback to the Delhi Police Special Cell, which had been steadfast on its charges against all the accused, the comments about Geelani puts a question mark over the public perception of his innocence.

On Afzal, a surrendered militant who could not resist the call of terror, the bench of Justice P P Naolekar and Justice P V Reddi said though there was no direct evidence of conspiracy, the circumstances cumulatively pointed to his collusion. His actions, said the Court, were definitely not innocuous but consistent with his involvement in the conspiracy. Afzal must have had a nexus with the terrorists, who were killed by the brave policemen during the attack, theCourt said, adding that the attack on the citadel of democracy did not have any parallel in the history of the Indian republic. His actions made him a menace to society and the death sentence was the most appropriate for him.

The case against Shaukat, also an alleged JeM militant and Afzal’s cousin, however failed to stand the Court’s test and it absolved him of all the charges levelled by the Special Cell. Though the HC upheld the death sentence imposed on him by the trial court, the SC found that there were ‘‘several gaps’’ in the evidence. One of these, it said, was the lack of evidence to show that he was in touch with the slain terrorists. On his conversation with Afzal, the Court said these could best be termed as some talk between cousins.

However, his actions show that he was aware of the conspiracy to attack Parliament. The ‘‘illegal omission’’ of not informing the police should fetch him 10 years RI and a fine of Rs 25,000. Most interesting were the observations against Geelani in today’s judgment.

The soft-spoken lecturer, it said, had not hidden his joy over the attack. The Court doubted Geelani’s version about his links with Afzal and Shaukat and said his ‘‘conduct was not above board’’.

Though all these raised suspicion , suspicion alone was not enough to convict a person unless it was backed by legal evidence, the bench added.

When asked about the observations, Geelani chose the easy way out, saying he could comment only after seeing the order. If there was anything like that, Geelani said, he would seek legal remedy. Geelani also used the opportunity to harp on the struggle for ‘‘liberating’’ Kashmir, which he said was under ‘‘occupation’’.

Briefing reporters after the verdict, he said all problems would cease once the Kashmir issue was resolved. However, he would not relate the Parliament attack to this struggle and said the ‘‘politicians of India’’ had linked the two.

On December 18, 2002, designated POTA Judge S N Dhingra had awarded the death penalty to Shaukat, Afzal and Geelani while sentencing Afsan to five years of imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court had upheld the sentence imposed on Afzal and Shaukat, but acquitted Geelani and Afsaan.