BY SHANKAR ANAND
Operative Part of the Batla House Encounter case verdict by a Delhi Court:
Apart from the aforesaid fact, it agitates my mind that the incident in question was not a sudden confrontation between police and the assailants. The police had already an information, receiving which, a raiding party was formed well In advance. Despite all this, Inspector MC Sharma did not wear any body protection device i.e. Bullet proof jacket. Moreover, at least two members of raiding party were having no weapon with them, despite knowing the fact that they may face firing.
It is not clear whether it was merely a misadventure or lack of professionalism in Delhi Police or scarcity of weapons with Delhi Police.
Whatsoever it may be, it did not give any licence to be occupants of a flat to fire at police persons who came there to investigate a case, merely because they were unarmed or not wearing any bullet proof jacket. They were expected to assist the police and not to attack them.
Accused is thus convicted for offence punishable u/s 186, 353, 307, 302, 34 IPC.
From the statements of same witnesses as mentioned above earlier it is proved on record that accused Shahzad was having fire arm in his hand when he fled away from flat no. 108 mentioned above.
Though he is alleged to have disclosed to the police he threw that weapon in Gang Nehar, but same could not be recovered, the accused is thus convicted for offence punishable u/s 27/54/59 Arms Act and again for destruction of evidence punishable u/4 201 IPC.
Accused Shahzad Ahmad was also charged for the offence of not appearing before the police/court despite having proclamation issued in that regard. Prosecution failed to prove that any such proclamation was ever issued. Accused is this acquitted for offence punishable u/4 174 IPC.
Read the Delhi Police chargesheet regarding the case below:
Batla House: Delhi Police chargesheet against Shahzad Ahmad by The Canary Trap
Also Read:
