BATLA HOUSE INCOUNTER

“Hathyaar talashi mein baraamad hue to police par goliyaan kaise chaleen?”

One of the basic rules of jurisprudence says, “Hearsay evidence is no evidence ". This rule is religiously followed by our courts to arrive at justice. It contains the innate spirit of the law of evidence. For instance, 'A' says, “I murdered 'B' at the instance of 'C'. Now, although this statement attaches a more serious criminal liability to 'C' yet, as per the basic principles of the law of evidence, 'C' cannot be made liable unless and until the statement of 'A' is not corroborated by some independent circumstances or evidence. This rule of 'corroboration' is so strictly followed that even a self-confessed criminal cannot be condemned and punished until his confession is independently corroborated. In a landmark judgment our Supreme Court has laid down that the power to arrest and justification to arrest are two different positions and should be meticulously understood and followed. To wit, if a murderer points a finger at you and ' this is the man who gave me the murder weapon', the police have the power to arrest you but should not because a mere accusing finger is no justification for your arrest. In this situation, it shall be the bounden duty of the police that they should proceed to investigate along the lines of the allegation, make efforts to collect evidence in support of the allegation and arrest you only if they find at least some logical prima facie evidence in its support.
Let us look at the Batla House encounter in this legal perspective:
According to Delhi police, Gujarat police informed them that as per 'disclosure' made by Abul Bashar some of his accomplices are living in L-18 Batla House. Now on the point of 'disclosure' the law of evidence followed by our courts says that a disclosure per se is not admissible in evidence unless, as a result of that disclosure some recovery is affected, or some evidence to prove the disclosure is unearthed. All disclosures which merely throw an empty allegation can at best be used by the police for investigative purposes. However, immediately after learning of Abul Bashar's disclosure, Delhi police raided L-18, killed two of the inmates (one of whom was even declared to be the ‘mastermind’) arrested a third and made quite a song and dance about the whole sordid affair. And they did all this without any preliminary investigations. It is on record that before the raid at L-18, Delhi police did not know about the identity of any of the inmates. Till date they have not been able to conclusively say who were the two persons who escaped on the fateful day. Here is an excerpt from a news item carried on page 2 of The Times of India dated 21.09.08.
" The police said while the room carried a casual look, in which students and bachelors could have been living, a thorough search by ACP Sanjeev Yadav led to the discovery of an AK-47 along with two .30 pistols and six mobile phones ".
The obvious question is that if these weapons were 'discovered' (sic) after a 'thorough search', where are the weapons from which the alleged terrorists fired casing the death of Inspector Sharma. The scenario that emerges from this report and the police claims is this:”
FIVE TERRORISTS ARE HOLDING COUNCIL INSIDE L-18. THEY SPOT THE POLICE COMING UP THE STAIRS AND TWO OF THEM FLEE. THE REMAINING THREE OPEN FIRE ON THE POLICE AND IMMEDIATELY CONCEAL THE WEAPONS. THEN THE POLICE ENTER THE FLAT. THEY SHOOT TWO OF THEM DEAD AND ARREST THE THIRD. LASTLY THE POLICE CONDUCT A THOROUGH SEARCH OF THE FLAT AND RECOVER THE WEAPONS USED BY THE TERRORISTS.
Nothing wrong with this scenario. Only difficulty is that it does not in any manner accommodate the alleged 'encounter'.
Terrorism is not only a crime against humanity, it poses a serious threat to the very social fabric of any civilized society and can only be effectively tackled through meticulously planned well concerted efforts. It is quite unfortunate, though, that throughout the country, the police forces and other security agencies are showing a very casual approach and what's going on is somewhat like this; some suspects are arrested in Maharashtra one of whom is promptly given the title of 'mastermind'. On the basis of disclosures made by one or more of them some others are arrested in Gujarat and Gujarat police claim that the actual mastermind is one of their arrestees. It then comes to light that the UP police conducted a successful investigation and arrested some terrorists including a mastermind. It is now the turn of Karnataka police who claim to have worked out the cases of such and such bomb blasts and the mastermind is in their custody. At this juncture Delhi police eliminates two alleged terrorists and declares one of the deceased as the mastermind. The next day they go to the extent of claiming that material for the Delhi blasts was procured from Udupi which claim is bitterly refuted by the Udupi police. As the latest development, Mumbai police declaims that they have 'laid bare' the terrorist network throughout the country and have even arrested the 'master' of the mastermind. In this whole claims, the most unpalatably poignant is the Mumbai police claim that the July 11, 2006 Mumbai blasts were executed by Atif and his two accomplices Bada Sajid and Shahnawaz, although the said Mumbai blasts were probed by the Anti Terrorist Squad of Mumbai police who had filed a charge sheet in the concerned court after the conclusion of their investigation. In that charge sheet it was claimed that the July 11, 2006 Mumbai blasts were orchestrated by a group affiliated to SIMI and a squad sent by Lashkar-e-Toiba.
We shall explain the departmental, political and other compulsions under which the police is obliged to take such foolish stands only after we have thoroughly analyzed all the terrorists strikes in the country from 2006 to date, the investigations carried out as well as the court verdicts, if any, on them, because we have set out not only to save the innocent from false implication but also to bring the really guilty to book.
In this context, a word about the role of the media, especially the electronic media, seems rather necessary. Fair and honest journalism seeks to keep the public well informed and not to distort public opinion by misinformation or sensationalism. Journalistic exercise reaches its zenith when all acts of the state and social developments are objectively analyzed so as to make them comprehensible by the masses. Not all claims and reports made by the police should be taken on their face value ( they are not admissible in evidence in a court of law, anyway ) unless the same are corroborated by independent circumstances. It has been noticed that in all matters pertaining to terrorism in the country (especially when they are imputed to Indian Muslims) the media assumes the role of the mouthpiece of the police and the govt. and every claim and allegation is sensationalized to the hilt and bandied about as the Gospel truth. So much so that a when a dozen persons belonging to a district having a population of millions (Azam Garh) are arrested for alleged terrorist activities, the entire district is brought under a cloud and promptly given the sobriquet 'Atank Garh'. In our country, from Bodos, Naxalites, Ulfa, Lashkar-e-Toiba and Bajrang Dal in the North to LTT and its splinter groups in the South, there are dozens of terrorist groups having hundreds of thousands of supporters and operatives. Going by the logic floated by a section of the electronic media, should India be declared to be 'terrorist state'?
As things stand, media is printing in block letters with banner headlines, without commenting or analyzing properly, and without even pointing out that the truth could be quite the reverse, whatever claims the police are making from day to day. In this melee and furor created by the police and the media, the truth is trying feebly to raise its voice. However, law has laid down ways and means in the form of rules of procedure, which can lead one to that supreme goal: JUSTICE! But the responsibility to achieve that goal lies not only with us. It lies with you as well.