Journalism of Courage
The defence of Shahzad Ahmed,convicted of opening fire during the Batla House encounter that left inspector M C Sharma dead and two policemen injured on September 19,2008,has hinged around the question whether he was on the spot at all,and whether he could possibly have escaped in the middle of the operation,firearm in hand,as the prosecution says he did.
Additional sessions judge Rajender Kumar Shastri last week sentenced Shahzad to life imprisonment. The defence is preparing to move higher court.
According to the Delhi police special cells version,inspector Sharma had got information that some Indian Mujahideen operatives were living in flat No. 108 on the top floor of L-18,Batla House. When a team of 20 raided the room,its occupants allegedly opened fire,killing Sharma,while Atif Ameen and Mohd Sajid were killed in police firing. Two militants managed to escape while firing at the police. Mohd Saif surrendered. The names of the escaped militants were revealed by Saif as Junaid and Pappu (Shahzad), according to the police version. The UP anti-terrorism squad arrested Shahzad on February 1,2010.
His presence
Other than members of the police team,the prosecution cited only one other eyewitness,Saif,to assert Shahzad had been there. The prosecution didnt examine the witness; when the defence did,Saif said Shahzad alias Pappu was not in the flat.
The prosecutions explanation for not taking an independent witness along was,The majority of residents of the area are followers of the [same religion as the suspects. If the police had tried to involve any local resident,it would have created unrest in that area. The judgment observes,No religion professes crime as its tradition; why did the police foster a belief that it will stir communal violence if they invited local residents? It adds,It is equally true that having witnessed clashes between different religions… the fear of police being targeted cannot be abnegated… If the police could not involve any public person,the same is not fatal to the case of the prosecution.
Defence lawyer Satish Tamta insists there was no evidence. The police didnt get independent witnesses because things did not happen the way they are saying, he said. Except for the police themselves,there is no one to corroborate their claim about what happened in a residential area.
The escape
There was no scope of escape. Only one staircase led to the flat,which was heavily guarded, the defence said. The court recorded assistant sub-inspector Anil Tyagis statement that total nakabandi was done of the gali,and he did not see any public person going in or coming out. He was at the main gate ofL-18,and ACP Sanjeev Yadavs that no occupants of the flat met him while climbing the stairs.
The judgment concludes,L-18 is a four-storey building,two flats on each floor. Inspector Rahul Kumar stated to have checked flat No. 107. Even if it is presumed Shahzad did not take shelter in that flat,there remained six other flats where shelter could be taken… As per the case of the prosecution,the two offenders [escaped using the stairs,posing as local residents. The police had said the two had fled while firing.
The evidence
The evidence cited to establish Shahzads presence includes an alleged conversation with his father from the flat through a phone registered in Atifs name,an expired passport,and the reservation of a railway ticket to Azamgarh (his home) for September 24,2008.
This would mean Atif,alleged to be an IM member involved in the Delhi blasts of September 13,2008,was using a phone registered in his real name. The prosecution says it found out about the calls from a September 2008 interrogation of Shahzad who it has said was missing between his escape and 2010 arrest. As per Bhisham Singh,additional DCP,crime branch,in September 2008 after interrogation of Shahzad and from analysing call details,it was revealed that Shahzad was using a mobile,number 9811004309,to speak to his mother and father while staying at Batla House,and the phone was in the name of Atif. The prosecution says the investigating officer took voice samples of Shahzad to match these with the voice obtained during monitoring of the mobile. The results of this match were not produced in court.
About the passport,the judgment says,ACP Yadav seized a passport belonging to Shahzad on the direction of Saif from the flat. Saif has denied the contents of his disclosure in police custody.
IM Membership
The judgment doesnt establish the two killed or Shahzad were IM members,a claim at the centre of the police case. True,there is no evidence on record to establish that… For the purpose of a decision,it hardly matters whether they was affiliated to Indian Mujahideen or not, it says.
