India’s collective conscience may have been satisfied by hanging Afzal Guru but it has only reinvigorated Kashmir’s Resistance. Here are 7 Facts that prove, Justice exists on paper only for Kashmiris.
1.The Supreme Court did not award Afzal the death penalty because he was the mastermind or because he was involved in killing any of the security personnel or even of actually planting any bombs. The charge sheet did not have his name. The five accused who had carried out the attack were all Pakistanis, though no proof of their identity was produced. Therefore, it is clear than even the prosecution did not accuse Afzal of being involved in the actual attack, killing or planting. Infact, there was no evidence at all that Afzal belonged to any banned or illegal organization. He was acquitted of charges of belonging to any terrorist organization.”
But he was hanged till death with the logic given by the Supreme Court that:
“The incident, which has resulted in heavy causalities, has shaken the entire nation and the collective conscience of the society will be satisfied if capital punishment is awarded to the offender”.
2. Throughout the judgment, the judges have placed the utmost faith in the police, despite conceding instances of police violation of rules, for instance in the illegality of arrests. Further, despite exonerating Gilani and Afsan Guru, the judges have not questioned the police role in framing two innocent people
3. Mohammed (who was killed in the Parliament attack) and Tariq (whom the state claims has vanished) — were first introduced to him at the STF camp. A question that was never asked that how was it that the security forces did not know of Afzal’s movements, associations and plans, given that they kept close tabs on him, picking him and holding him in custody whenever they chose.
4. If call data record is critical to establish the link between the accused, why did the investigators not insist on certified copies based on the Operating Systems records when they had both the authority as well as the time to have done so? Inspector of special cell claimed that in presence of ACP Rajbir Singh, he switched off the mobile recovered from dead militant, removed the SIM card and noted its number. He insists that he did not remove SIM No. 9810693456 (which was allegedly used to contact Afzal).To prop up its version of the story, the prosecution relies heavily on one particular mobile phone number—9811489429. The police say it was Afzal’s number — The only evidence the police have that 9811489429 was indeed Afzal’s number is Afzal’s confession, which as we have seen is no evidence at all. The SIM card has never been found. The police produced a prosecution witness, Kamal Kishore, who identified Afzal and said that he had sold him a Motorola phone and a SIM card on December 4, 2001. However, the call records the prosecution relied on show that that particular SIM card was already in use on the November 6, a whole month before Afzal is supposed to have bought it! So either the witness is lying, or the call records are false.
5. The day after this ‘media’ confession, Afzal’s ‘official’ confession was extracted from him. In this confession, Afzal, now weaves a masterful tale that connected Ghazi Baba, Maulana Masood Azhar, a man called Tariq, and the five dead terrorists; their equipment, arms and ammunition, home ministry passes, a laptop, and fake ID cards; detailed lists of exactly how many kilos of what chemical he bought from where, the exact ratio in which they were mixed to make explosives; and the exact times at which he made and received calls on which mobile number. (For some reason, by then Afzal had also changed his mind about Geelani and implicated him completely in the conspiracy.He had denied the same a day before, in front of the Media). Each point of the ‘confession’ corresponded perfectly with the evidence that the police had already gathered. In other words, Afzal’s confessional statement slipped perfectly into the version that the police had already offered the press days ago.
6. The Delhi Police said that Afzal and Shaukat were arrested in Srinagar based on information given to them by Geelani following his arrest. The court records show that the message to look out for Shaukat and Afzal was flashed to the Srinagar police on December 15 at 5.45 am. But according to the Delhi Police’s records Geelani was only arrested in Delhi on December 15 at 10 am—four hours after they had started looking for Afzal and Shaukat in Srinagar. They haven’t been able to explain this discrepancy. The high court judgement puts it on record that the police version contains a ‘material contradiction’ and cannot be true.
7. A series of prosecution witnesses, most of them shopkeepers, identified Afzal as the man to whom they had sold various things: ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder, sulphur, a Sujata mixer-grinder, packets of dry fruit and so on. Normal procedure would require these shopkeepers to pick Afzal out from a number of people in a test identification parade. This didn’t happen. Instead Afzal was identified by them when he ‘led’ the police to these shops while he was in police custody and introduced to the witnesses as an Accused in the Parliament Attack. (It can be that the police led him to the shops? After all he was still in their custody and vulnerable to torture. If his confession under these circumstances is legally suspected, then why not all of this?)
Never forget, Never forgive.
From the blog: lost Kashmir History.