Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, May 03, 2003

About Us
Contact Us
National
News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

National Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Dec. 13 attack: prosecution replies to queries

By Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI MAY 2. The prosecution today responded to the questions raised by the court yesterday about the timing of arrests in the Parliament attack case.

The different versions of the arrests, Special Prosecutor, Gopal Subramanium, told the Delhi High Court bench, did not alter the sequence of arrests. S.A.R. Geelani was arrested first, followed by Afsan Guru/Navjot Sandhu and then Shaukat Hussain and Mohammed Afzal. Geelani led the police to Navjot Sandhu.

The Judge, Justice Usha Mehra, asked Mr. Subramanium if a `pointing out memo' had been prepared when Geelani led them to Navjot Sandhu.

The Special Prosecutor said that ``time was of the essence'' and police were keen on moving quickly on the information he had given them.

Justice Mehra also wanted to know whether police had searched Geelani's house at the time of his arrest. Mr. Subramanium replied in the negative, but said this needed to be viewed in the light of the fact that police were in pursuit of other persons who might be involved.

Justice Mehra pointed out that police had never gone back to search Geelani's house, although he was the primary accused at that point.

Mr. Subramanium then dealt with the evidence of Assistant Commissioner of Police, Rajbir Singh, ``the architect of success'', who took over the investigation on December 19, once the accused had been charged under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA).

He took the court through Mr. Singh's cross-examination under oath, during which he denied being present at a media interview with Mohammed Afzal, conducted while in police custody, when he told TV reporters that S.A.R. Geelani was not involved in the attack.

Mr. Subramanium said that the televised interview was not admissible as evidence. He, however, also dealt with the evidence of the TV reporter, Shams Tahir Khan, whose interview on video had been played in the trial court.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

National

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |


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