‘IM member’ Shahzad found guilty in2008 Batla House encounter

Shahzad,who is now around 28 years old and belongs to Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh,was the lone suspect to be arrested in the case. His sentencing is set for Monday. Present in the court room,he was whisked away soon after the conviction.

Additional Sessions Judge Rajender Kumar Shastri held him guilty of crimes committed through common intent,including the killing of Sharma,obstructing public servants in the discharge of duty,assaulting and causing hurt to public servants,attempting to kill two policemen,causing disappearance of evidence,and under provisions of the Arms Act.

But the court was non-committal about Shahzad’s alleged Indian Mujahideen affiliation. “For the purpose of decision of this case,it hardly matters as to whether accused was affiliated to Indian Mujahideen or not,” the judge said.

He accepted the defence plea that there was no evidence on record to suggest that Shahzad was a member of the terrorist organisation. “True,there is no evidence on record to establish that fact. At the same time,this court cannot be expected to endeavour in giving any finding about said fact,” the judge said.

Commenting on the verdict,Finance Minister P Chidambaram,who was the Home Minister at the time of the encounter,said: “I looked into the evidence,spoke to the investigating officer and I was satisfied that it was a genuine encounter.” He said he had shared his assessment with his party and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.

Congress leader Digvijaya Singh,who had raised questions about the encounter,said: “I respect the judgement. It is for the aggrieved party to either accept the verdict or go into appeal… I had asked for a judicial Inquiry into the Batla encounter which I felt was fully justified but it was denied. I reiterate my earlier stand.”

Shahzad was accused of firing at the Delhi Police team which entered Flat No. 108 on the fourth floor of the house at L-18,Batla House,in Jamia Nagar. The prosecution said the police team raided the house on September 19,2008,after a specific tip-off that IM members suspected to be responsible for the serial blasts were hiding there.

The police said the occupants of the flat had opened fire at them when they entered the flat. The police returned fire in self-defence,and Sharma,head constable Balwant Singh and head constable Rajbir received bullet injuries. Sharma succumbed to injuries in hospital.

While Mohd. Atif Ameen and Mohd. Sajid were killed in the shootout,Shahzad and Ariz Khan alias Junaid managed to escape,police said. One of the occupants of the flat,Azamgarh resident Saif,surrendered to the police and was arrested for his alleged involvement in the serial blasts case but not charged in the encounter case as he had not fired at the police team.

Ariz Khan alias Junaid remains a fugitive. Shahzad was arrested in February 2010 from Azamgarh by the Lucknow ATS.

The court order took note of the medico-legal reports of the two injured policemen who said they had sustained “grievous” bullet injuries. Rajbir escaped death as he was wearing a bulletproof jacket,in which two bullets were found embedded.

Shahzad was identified as an occupant of the house after police found his passport in one of its rooms. But Shahzad argued that he had been illegally arrested from his home and was not in the flat on the day of the shootout.

Police said they found Shahzad had booked three train tickets to return to Azamgarh on September 24. They also produced call records which showed that a mobile phone that had been used in or near Batla House,and found inside the house,had been used to contact Shahzad’s father several times. Police claimed it was Atif Ameen’s phone.

In his 46-page judgment,the judge also raised questions about the raid.

Referring to injuries sustained by the policemen,the judge asked why they entered the house of suspected terrorists without proper protective gear. While Sharma did not wear any body-protection,at least two members of the police team did not carry a weapon despite knowing that they may be fired at,the court said.

The court also expressed its discomfort over the reason given by the prosecution for not asking local residents to join the police raid as witnesses.

The prosecutor had told the court that local residents were not asked to accompany the police team as the police feared the residents could attack them.

“No religion professes crimes as its tradition,then why the police fostered a belief that it will stir communal violence if they invited local residents to join a raid,to arrest an offender,who was belonging to their religion” the court asked.

But the judge also held that the lack of public witnesses in the circumstances could not be held against the police.