Mohammad Afzal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mohammad Afzal, also known as Afzal Guru, was convicted of conspiracy in the December 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament and was sentenced to death by the Supreme Court of India in 2004. The sentence was scheduled to be carried out on 20 October 2006. Afzal was given a stay of execution and remains on death row.
Contents |
[edit] The Case
All in all, 80 witnesses were examined for the prosecution and 10 were examined for defense. However, the Supreme Court judement agreed that there was no direct evidence implicating Afzal Guru or any proven liks to LeT or JeM groups. The judgment mentions: The incident, which resulted in heavy casualties, has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will be satisfied if the capital punishment is awarded to the offender. [1]
[edit] The Prosecution's Case
The attack is alleged to have been conducted jointly by the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the Jaish-e-Mohammad (JEM) Kashmiri Militant Separatist groups operating in Pakistan. Seven members of the security forces, including a female constable, were killed, as were the five still incompletely identified men who carried out the attack.
Afzal's cell phone number was found on each of the attackers, written on the backs of their unsealed paper ID's, in an identical hand, according to the Indian government's prosecutors in the case, though the policeman responsible for cataloging evidence on the scene at the time said he could not recall anything written on them. There were also cell phones and SIM cards on the attackers, and it was Afzal's cell phone records, or what the government purported were his cell phone records, that was primary evidence in his conviction.
The police case was based on evidence that the individuals who participated on the terrorist attack on Indian Parliament on 13 December 2001 had been in contact with Afzal in Srinagar just prior to the operation, and on an apparent confession made by the accused. However, 17-day police investigation into such complex issue leaves many questions unanswered [2].
[edit] The Defense
The defense was headed by esteemed Indian criminal lawyer, Advocate Ram Jethmalani. The counsel for defense rested its case heavily on the following points:
- evidence against the accused being circumstantial
- whether Lieutenant Governor is a competent authority for sanctioning Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act
- whether the sanction above revealed non-application of mind
- whether the confession was taken under duress - confession under POTA recorded by a police officer has any procedural safeguards and is the value of such confessions evidentiary or admissible
- proof and admissibility of cellular phone call records as secondary evidence
Implicitly the very constitutionality of POTA was questioned and discussed at length. At the same time it was alleged that the arrest, examination and prosecution made in the context of the case were inadmissible since they had been retracted by the accused.[3]
Ram Jethmalani also had to suffer from attacks at his office from Shiv Sena activists and continued to prevent the defence in carrying out their work for a fair trial. [4]
[edit] The Prejudiced Role of Media
The Media instead of reporting objectively prejudiced the outcome of the trial and made it difficult for lawyers to represent him as they kept being termed as anti-nationals. N. D. Pancholi, the defence lawyer mentions:
Your repeated news bulletins over two days reduced the issue of the hanging of Afzal and his Mercy Petition pending with the President to a very simplistic solution "Show repeatedly the video tape (an unlawful piece of evidence) of the alleged confession of Afzal recorded in police custody as breaking news, convince the viewers that it has brought out the ultimate truth, ask them to send SMS messages to NDTV conveying their opinions about the "—Phansi" (hanging) of Afzal, and then pour out the "—collective opinion" gathered in this manner to pave the way for the prompt hanging of Afzal."What a simple, quick solution of an issue involving the life and death of a citizen!" [5]
[edit] Pressure for Clemency
There is an appeal to issue clemency to Afzal from various human rights groups including political groups in Kashmir, who believe that Afzal Guru did not receive a fair trial and was subject to a frame up of corrupt and inefficient police work. Human rights activists in various parts of India and the world have demanded reprieve as they believe that the trial was flawed. Arundhati Roy and Praful Bidwai castigated the trial and argued that Afzal has been denied natural justice.[6][7] Accusations of human rights violations have been made by many.
Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Ghulam Nabi Azad of the Congress, Communist and local political groups voiced their support of clemency for Afzal. It is alleged many have done so to appease Muslim voters in Kashmir.[8]
Ram Jethmalani holds that it is completely with the President's power to commute the Death sentence and is not a mercy plea. He says, "It’s a misnomer to call it a mercy petition. It leads to total misunderstanding of the constitutional power. The constitutional power is that the President has the power to disagree with the Supreme Court both with its findings of fact and law."[9]
The Jammu and Kashmir People's Democratic Party president and MP, Mehbooba Mufti commented that the Centre should pardon Afzal if Pakistan accepted the clemency appeal for Sarabjit Singh. [1]
Ms. Mufti, said that if clemency appeals were made for Sarabjit citing his Indian nationality, voices should also be raised for Afzal for "he too is an Indian citizen. "Two citizens of India cannot be treated with different yardsticks" she had said.
However, The All India Anti-Terrorist Front Chairman M.S. Bitta has urged the President of India not to accept any clemency pleas on Afzal's behalf. He warned that his organisation would launch agitations if Afzal was pardoned. He also criticised statements of various political leaders and blamed them for "encouraging activities of militants in Jammu and Kashmir".[2]
An India Today poll in late October showed that 78% of Indians supported the death penalty for Afzal[8]
On 12 November 2006, the former Deputy Prime Minister of India, Mr. Lal Krishna Advani criticized the delay in carrying out the death sentence on Guru for the Parliament terror attack, saying, "I fail to understand the delay. They have increased my security. But what needs to be done immediately is to carry out the court's orders".
Noted social activist and Booker Prize winner, Ms. Arundhati Roy criticized Mr. Advani in her article with the following comment.
"What is the hurry? The man is locked up in a high-security cell on death row. He is not allowed out of his cell for even five minutes a day. What harm can he do? Talk? Write, perhaps? Surely, even in Advani's own narrow interpretation of the term, it is in the national interest not to hang Afzal? At least not until there is an inquiry that reveals what the real story is and who actually attacked parliament?" [10]
The BJP has severely criticized Arundhati Roy. BJP spokespoerson Prakash Javadekar said:
"Those who are supporting Afzal by demanding that he should not be hanged are not only acting against public sentiment in the country but are giving a fillip to terrorist morale," [11]
[edit] See also
[edit] References
- ^ http://justiceforafzalguru.org/background/AfzalBooklet-1.pdf
- ^ http://www.tehelka.com/story_main21.asp?filename=Ne102806guilty_of_CS.asp]
- ^ "Appeal (crl.) 373-375 of 2004". Supreme Court of India. 04/08/2005. http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp. Retrieved 2009-03-03.
- ^ http://www.hinduonnet.com/2003/01/05/stories/2003010502270800.htm
- ^ http://justiceforafzalguru.org/background/dishonest.html
- ^ India's shame | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
- ^ Afzal must not hang
- ^ a b (30 October 2006). No Mercy. India Today, [5(43)], [14-15].
- ^ http://www.tehelka.com/story_main21.asp?filename=Ne102806Afzal_was_CS.asp
- ^ The Guardian
- ^ The Hindustani Times
