Islamic Terrorism in India

Most Muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims

Jamia Encounter affidavit: Cops submit detailed account to court

Posted by jagoindia on October 19, 2008


Cops to court: men we killed were militants
Krishnadas Rajagopal,  Oct 16, 2008

New Delhi, October 15 : Chief of Special Cell Karnal Singh gives court a detailed account of the Sept encounter
Delhi Police’s first sworn affidavit on the September 19 encounter — a minute-by-minute account of that morning which will provide grist to the official chargesheet later — was submitted before the High Court on Wednesday.

The affidavit by Joint Commissioner Karnal Singh said the story of L-18, Batla House, started with a knock on the front door of flat 108. It was six days after the serial blasts in Delhi. At the door was Special Cell Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma and his team.

They were there to conduct a raid — an operation that germinated from a specific tip-off on September 19 that one Atif alias Bashir, resident of Azamgarh in Uttar Pradesh was “presently residing at Batla House, Jamia Nagar, Delhi”. He was “involved in the serial blasts”, the affidavit said.

“The team knocked at the main door of the flat and disclosed its identity but the occupants did not respond,” Karnal Singh mentioned in his statement. The team found the door bolted from inside. “Thereafter the team tried the other door of the flat and found it unbolted. The team members entered the flat through the side door to apprehend the suspects,” narrated Singh in his statement before a Bench of Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar.
At this juncture, Singh specified the team had only meant to “apprehend” the “occupants of the flat”. But “the occupants opened fire to evade arrest. The team members also fired in self-defence… “ Singh said.

Singh added that Sharma and Head Constable Balwant Singh were injured in the “cross-firing”. The affidavit then goes on to address the “occupants/inmates” of the flat as “militants”.

“Two other militants — Junaid alias Ariz and Shahzad Ahmed alias Pappu — escaped from the flat by firing on the police,” Singh said. By then, Atif alias Bashir, had “sustained bullet injuries” and was removed along with another, Sajid, to a hospital.

Mohammed Saif from Azamgarh and the only one apprehended that day spilled out the names of his friends to the police, the affidavit stated. Singh records the recovery of an AK-series rifle with two magazines containing 30 live rounds each “from the far end right side room of the flat”. Two pistols of .30 calibre were “found lying near the injured militants”.

Affidavit on Jamia encounter
Express News Service,  Posted: Oct 16, 2008

The FIR accuses the “militants” of offences under Sections 186 (obstructing the duty of a public servant), 307 (attempt to murder), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter a public servant from his duty), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from his duty) and Section 34 (common intention) of the IPC. The suspected terrorists have also been accused under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. While Section 186 attracts a punishment of imprisonment up to three months or a maximum fine of Rs 500, Sections 332, 353 attract three and two years of imprisonment, respectively. Section 307 serves the maximum deterrent of imprisonment of 10 years to life. If found guilty under all the Sections, the accused would face punishment under all the Sections concurrently.

Calls operation a ‘raid’
According to the affidavit, the Special Cell team had come to L-18 in search of Atif alias Bashir. Intelligence inputs, informers and technical surveillance/ analysis had earlier “revealed” his involvement in the serial blasts. The affidavit says the intention of the police was to “raid” the flat, matters turned ugly when the “occupants” fired at them, forcing them to reciprocate in “self-defence”.

Inspector Sharma’s role
Contrary to earlier reports, the affidavit does not mention a recce. Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma and his team were right at the main door of flat number 108, L-18, Batla House, from the start of the “raid”. The rest were covering from the ground floor. When a knock and a push on the front door, bolted from inside, did not elicit any response, the team gained entry through an “unbolted side door”. The firing started immediately. While Sharma and Balwant Singh were caught in the “cross-fire”, two of the “militants” escaped “by firing at the police party”. There is no mention in the affidavit about the duo’s exit route and the waiting posse on the ground floor.

‘Occupants’ or ‘militants’?
Paragraph three of the affidavit uses several terms to identify the men inside L-18. At the point when the police knock on the flat door, the men are described as “occupants of the flat”. The next sentence catapults their identity to “suspects” who shot at the police to “evade arrest”. In the following sentence, the men are back to being “inmates of the flat”. From the sentence that describes the wounds of Sharma, the affidavit remains firm on the description of the “occupants” as “militants”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: