The lawyer defending Pakistani terrorist Ajmal Kasab has alleged that the prosecution had suppressed material evidence about CCTV footages to nail him (Kasab) in the CST attack.
Kasab’s lawyer Amin Solkar told the Bombay High Court that CCTV cameras installed at Chattrapati Shivaji Terminus, one of the sites targeted in the 26/11 attacks, had purportedly captured the movements of two terrorists in terror acts but only one footage was shown to the court and the rest was “suppressed for reasons best known to the prosecution“.
Kasab has taken the defence that he was not present at CST when it was attacked on November 26, 2008.
The High Court is hearing the arguments on confirmation of death penalty awarded to Kasab, 23, by a special court in May this year.
Mr. Solkar on Friday pointed out to a High Court bench a portion of evidence wherein police inspector Sandeep Kiratkar disclosed to the trial court that there were 21 CCTV cameras installed on the main line and 15 others on the local line which had captured the movements of Kasab and Ismael.
Mr. Kiratkar had also told the trial court that he had gone to the control room of CCTV where he met constable Jadhav who said he had captured entire movements of Kasab and his partner on CCTV. On hearing this, Mr. Kiratkar immediately recorded their movements on a CD and sealed it.
Interestingly, Mr. Solkar argued, prosecution deferred the examination of Mr. Kiratkar abruptly and after two days this witness took a U—turn in the trial court by saying that the CCTV cameras were not functioning and were under maintenance.
Footage of only one CCTV camera was shown to the court in which faces of Kasab and Ismael were not visible. “This reflects poorly on the conduct of prosecution and Kiratkar’s evidence should not be believed,” Mr. Solkar told justices Ranjana Desai and R. V. More.
Mr. Solkar further argued that Jadhav was an important witness and should have been examined to corroborate the evidence of Mr. Kiratkar and also to tell the court that he had recorded the entire movements of Kasab and Ismael but prosecution chose not to examine him.
Therefore, Mr. Solkar argued, material evidence had been deliberately suppressed to nail Kasab in the CST terror attack.
Kasab’s lawyer contended that not a single witness had been examined to prove that CCTV cameras were not functioning at the time of terror attacks and that they were under maintenance.
