New Delhi: The Delhi court that convicted Indian Mujahideen (IM) member Ariz Khan for killing a police officer during the 2008 Batla House encounter rejected the defence team’s theory that inspector Mohan Chand Sharma died as a result of “accidental firing” by his colleagues.
Additional sessions judge Sandeep Yadav also rejected the allegation that the evidence against Khan — including school and university mark sheets — were planted at the flat where the encounter took place.
Yadav passed a 105-page judgment convicting Khan on 8 March and sentenced him to death Monday, saying the case falls in the “rarest-of-the-rare” category.
He is the second person to be convicted in connection with the encounter, which took place on 19 September 2008 as a team from the Delhi Police Special Cell, led by Sharma, looked for the perpetrators of five bomb blasts that had killed 36 people and injured 159 people in Delhi six days earlier.
The attacks targeted Connaught Place, Karol Bagh, and Greater Kailash, and live bombs were later recovered from India Gate, among other places.
Minutes after the blasts occurred, terror outfit Indian Mujahideen (IM) took responsibility for it through emails sent out to print and electronic media. Police filed five FIRs in the case and a team of the Special Cell began its investigation.
Six days later, on 19 September 2008, the Delhi Police Special Cell team arrived at L-18 Batla House in Delhi’s Jamia Nagar in their hunt for the perpetrators. Two of the accused, Shahzad Ahmed and Ariz Khan, escaped, while two others, Atif Amin and Mohammed Sajid, were killed in the ensuing shootout. A fifth, Mohd Saif, surrendered. Inspector Sharma lost his life in the gun fight and two other police personnel were injured.
Shahzad was arrested in January 2010. In July 2013, a Delhi court convicted him of firing at police officers, killing Sharma and obstructing public servants. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Khan was arrested in 2018 from Uttarakhand’s Banbasa, bordering Nepal. According to police, Khan had acquired a Nepali citizenship card and passport under the assumed identity of ‘Mohammad Salim’.
Also Read: Batla House, an encounter in the heart of Delhi that became a national sensation & a film
‘Open-and-shut case’
In its verdict convicting Khan, the Delhi court rejected the theory that “Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma and Head Constable Balwant (one of the injured policemen) received bullet injuries due to accidental firing by police officials”.
The court said that all police personnel who were a part of the raiding team had submitted that Sharma was the first to enter the flat in question, and that it was then that the accused resorted to firing.
“As per postmortem report, Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma received two injuries, one on the shoulder and another in abdomen. None of these injuries could have been caused by police officials who were behind Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma as these injuries were found on front portion of body of Inspector Mohan Chand Sharma and they were caused by militants occupying the flat,” it added.
According to the judgment, during the investigation, Khan told police “how he got radicalised and agreed to participate in terrorist activities leading to his association with Indian Mujahideen”.
All the members of the police team who had deposed in court had “fully and completely corroborated each other in material particulars and, therefore, it is an open-and-shut case”, the court noted.
“The evidence adduced on record by prosecution including ocular evidence, documentary evidence and scientific evidence leaves no manner of doubt that prosecution in the instance case has successfully proved the charges framed against the accused beyond any reasonable doubt,” the court ruled.
It then held him guilty under several provisions, including sections 186 (obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions), 333 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty), 353 (assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharging his duty), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder) and 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code, along with Section 27 (punishment for using arms) of the Arms Act.
Khan had alleged ‘planted evidence’
The court began its judgment by discussing the depositions of the members of the police team, saying they are the “most relevant witnesses”.
Khan was identified by sub-inspectors Dharmendra and Rahul Kumar, and then head constable Balwant in court. All of them were present at the Batla House flat during the encounter. Then Assistant Commissioner of Police in the Special Cell, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, said he had recovered a wallet with two passport size photographs of Khan, as well as his school and university marksheets, from the flat.
Police personnel also told the court that they got to know the names of the accused when they were revealed by Md Saif.
On 28 February 2018, the verdict said, Khan also took police to the spot where he had thrown his revolver. However, it noted that the revolver “could not be recovered despite best efforts”.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 100 witnesses to substantiate the charges against Khan.
Khan, however, claimed that he had been falsely accused, and examined only one witness — Dr Mirza Azam Beg, who claimed Khan is his nephew and was at his house till 10am on 19 September 2008.
Khan’s lawyer alleged that the photographs and other documents related to the accused were not available with police till 5 January 2009, and therefore, were never published or circulated to establish the identity of the accused.
Before January 2009, he said, the photographs and documents were not mentioned by police authorities. On this basis, the lawyer claimed the evidence had been planted later.
Also Read: Hizbul chief Salahuddin, Indian Mujahideen’s Bhatkal among 18 designated as terrorists
‘He was a trained criminal’
The court, however, rejected the contention that the documents and photographs were planted in the flat, saying, “If these articles were falsely planted, accused has to tell where from police got those articles.”
The court also rejected Beg’s testimony, observing, “In any case, DW1 (Defence Witness 1, Beg) is not a reliable witness as he has not explained as to where accused was for 10 years.” This 10-year period is the time between the encounter and Khan’s arrest.
The court said one of the witnesses who identified Khan in court was Balwant, who was injured himself during the shootout. It then observed that an “injured witness in that matter who was present at the spot at the time of firing will not wrongly identify the accused knowing fully well that by doing so he being responsible police official will be protecting real culprits”.
Khan’s lawyer had also submitted that Khan could not have escaped the building as there was only one entry and exit in the building. However, the court rejected this contention, noting that Khan was “not an ordinary person” and that “he was a trained criminal and he could have easily managed anyone whom he might have encountered in the staircase”.
The court also had intercepted call records as evidence, placing Khan at Batla House.
Sentencing
As for the sentencing, Khan’s lawyer had demanded parity with Shahzad, noting that he was awarded life imprisonment. He told the court that since the role attributed to both of them is identical, Khan should be awarded life imprisonment too.
However, the court said the judgment with respect to Shahzad has been challenged in the high court and, therefore, Khan could not seek parity with him.
The court observed that the accused had fired at the police team “without provocation”, and, hence, he “is not only a threat to the society but is also an enemy of the State”.
Sentencing Khan to death, the judge said he had, “on account of his despicable act… forfeited his right to live”. By law, the death penalty will have to be confirmed by the Delhi High Court.
The court also noted that Sharma is survived by his wife, two children and parents. Out of the Rs 11 lakh fine imposed on Khan, it said, Rs 10 lakh should be given as compensation to Sharma’s widow.
This report has been updated with additional information
Also Read: ‘No matter of doubt’: IM’s Ariz Khan convicted for killing inspector MC Sharma at Batla House
This judgement must have caused great heartburn amongst the liberal/secular cabal.
Jamia Millia Islamia and the areas in its vicinity such as Jamia Nagar are hotbeds of Islamic radicalization. The report does not mention JMI even once though many of the accused were its “students”.
What does Congress party and Shri Digvijay Singh have to say about this?