JTSA rebutts Delhi Police response to Framed, Damned, Acquitted
The civil rights group says that the Special Cell is trying to spread the canard that its track record in securing convictions in terrorism cases is very high
Hardnews Bureau Delhi
(Pic: Mukul Dube)
Jamia Teachers Solidarity Association has come up with a detailed rebuttal of the Delhi Police version which said that the report ‘Framed, Damned, Acquitted’ was incorrect and the Police had a fairly good record when it came to conviction in cases of terror. The police version had appeared in the newspapers. Here is one of the links of the police version which appeared in The Hindu. (http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/article3917057.ece)
Did you think that the Special Cell or the Delhi Police would introspect on its ways after the publication of Framed, Damned, Acquitted? How wrong you were. It is now attempting desperately to defend the indefensible by hiding behind a maze of statistics, ignoring the real questions that the report has raised: namely the brazen and systematic violation of all established legal norms and due process.
The Special Cell claims helplessness in not being able to enlist members of the public as independent witnesses as the public fears to depose before the court for reprisals. If only it were so simple.
In State versus Irshad Ahmad Malik, the court noticed that any effort to enlist independent witnesses “was omitted by the police deliberately”.
In State versus Mukhtar Ahmed, the court noted “the distance between the Special Cell office and the Azadpur Mandi [from where the accused was allegedly apprehended] is 20 kms and is dotted with numerous government offices. In the four and a half hours [the time between the receipt of secret information and arrest] they had, on the long stretch to Azadpur, the Special Cell could have enlisted some credible independent witnesses.”
In many of these cases, arrests were made at railway stations and metro stations, why did the Special Cell not attach any official of the railways or Metro in their operation?
In other cases, accused were alleged to have been arrested from lodges, guest houses and rented accommodations. Why were the managers/ staff of the guest houses or landlords not made public witnesses in the arrests and raids?
These are questions that the Courts have asked.
And what is the excuse for sending samples of allegedly recovered material to CSFL after days of delay? And for keeping the seal of the parcels of recovered material with the Investigating Officer of the case? Why the use of private vehicles which does not allow the courts to verify the police vehicle log books and hence the veracity of the operation being claimed by the police?