Friday, May 02, 2003
Friday, May 02, 2003 |
| National | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Science & Tech |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | National
By Our Special Correspondent
The Special Prosecutor, Gopal Subramanium, had told the court, quoting Delhi police's Investigating Officer, Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma, that the telephones of S.A.R. Geelani and Afsan Guru/Navjot Sandhu, had been tapped on December 13. Calls recorded on December 14 — between Geelani and his brother at 12.12 p.m. and between Afsan and her husband at 8 p.m. — pointed to their connection with the attack and suggested that Shaukat Hussain and one other person were in Srinagar. Geelani's house was put under surveillance on December 13 and December 14. He was arrested at around 10 a.m. on December 15 and Afsan Guru at 10.45 a.m. Information received from Afsan Guru about the registration number of the truck in which her husband was travelling was sent to Srinagar. On the basis of this, the truck was located at 8 a.m. on December 15 and Shaukat Hussain and Mohammed Afzal were arrested by 11.45 a.m. The Srinagar police officer, who made the arrests, stated in evidence that he received information about the truck's registration number at 5.30 a.m. on December 15. The defence has maintained that Geelani was arrested on December 14 at around 1 p.m. and Afsan between 6 and 6.30 p.m. Justice Usha Mehra asked Mr. Subramanium to explain the discrepancy in the evidence of the Delhi police (that the arrests were made after 10 a.m. on December 15 and information sent to Srinagar) and of the Srinagar police (that it acted on information received at 5.30 a.m.). ``If you go only by the clock, then the prosecution is not telling the truth'', Mr Subramanium said. The question related to the credibility of the witnesses. ``Your Lordships would have to be assisted to see which witness is believable''. Justice Mehra suggested that ``a lesser explanation'', such as the one offered by the defence that Geelani and Afsan were arrested on December 14, better suited even the prosecutions version of the arrests. She told Mr. Subramanium that if the court were to believe his witness, Mohan Chand Sharma, it would have to disbelieve the story of the arrests in Kashmir. Justice Mehra also pointed to other gaps in the Prosecutions story. Why did the police, which apparently acted with speed to ascertain phone details, intercept calls and mount surveillance on Geelani on December 13, not go to the evening college where he taught, even if only to get his description to help in his arrest? Given that the identity cards on the dead militants suggested a Kashmiri connection, why had the police, when intercepting calls, not considered that these might be in Kashmiri and engage a Kashmiri interpreter? How did the investigating officer who did not know Kashmiri and had admitted that the translation of the call involving Geelani was done after it was recorded, decide that it was the ``relevant'' one?
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Science & Tech |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
