The Hindu : Dec. 13 attack case: trial prejudiced, says accused

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Feb 19, 2003

National

National

Dec. 13 attack case: trial prejudiced, says accused

By Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI FEB. 18. Mohammed Afzal, one of the three men sentenced to death in the December 13 Parliament attack case, today added additional grounds to his appeal in the Delhi High Court against his conviction.

He has said that his trial was prejudiced from the start as he had been compelled by the police to appear before the media even before the trial had commenced and had been forced to admit his guilt. The result of this, the affidavit said, was that the trial court was biased against Afzal from the start.

The supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of Mohammed Afzal, states that he was not given the opportunity to have adequate legal representation from the time of his arrest. Through

out his interrogation he was not told about his right to legal counsel. The trial court also did not consider it essential to pursue the possibility of legal aid for him. Although there was a lawyer, named by Afzal, who was willing to represent him in court he was not even asked if he would be willing to do so. The affidavit states that the lawyer appointed by the court to appear for him failed to consult him and took away the charge sheet and the accompanying documents that were to be given to him. He was not given the record of the day-to-day proceedings as a result of which he could not instruct counsel.

The affidavit states that Afzal's section 313 statement (the final opportunity offered to an accused to record a statement after the recording of evidence and arguments) was not recorded in full "as the learned judge seemed to feel it was not important''. Only "bits and pieces'' were taken down and there was no legal counsel to put on record the fact that there had been an improper and incomplete recording of his statement.

The substance of his statement, which was not recorded, relates to his brief time in the JKLF, the fact that he did not receive arms training and the reasons why he quit. His attempt was to live a normal life, and his work with the BSF was to motivate other militants to surrender.

The trial court also failed to record his statement about physical torture that he was subject to by Major Ram Mohan Roy of the Rashtriya Rifles and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vinay Gupta and Darinder Singh at the Humhama STF camp and the Rs. 1 lakh he had to pay them.

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, Justices Usha Mehra and Pradeep Nandrajog, directed that the fresh application by the appellant be listed for hearing with the rest of the appeals in the case.

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

National