[Reader-list] PUDR Report on Red Fort Case - Link and an Excerpt

[Shuddhabrata Sengupta]

Dear Shivam, dear all,

Many thanks, Shivam, for pointing us to these two excellent links about 
the murky workings of what I have earlier called (following a Turkish 
usage) the 'Deep State' in India in your recent posting -  [Reader-list 
:"The questioning of the arrested persons is on now" he said.]

Today is another really sad day as once again the judiciary seems to be 
intent on handing out a death sentence (in the Red Fort attack case) 
without having gone through the minimum procedural requirements of 
attending to a thorough investigation of the matter.

The sad and tragic fate of one of the accused in the Red Fort Case, a 
man named Ashfaq, is a Kafkaesque story with some really bizarre turns. 
While the High Court today, confirmed the death sentence passed on him 
by the trial court , we might do well to examine some of the things that 
Ashfaq said in the course of his trial under section 313. Once again, we 
will be forced to ask whether or not, like in the 13 December case, the 
real protagonists of this attack are enjoying the distinction of 
continuing to remain in the shadows, while the pawns in the game are 
being sentenced to death. I urge you all to pay special attention to 
those parts of Ashfaq's testimony that attest to his relationship with 
an individual named Nain Singh (see below)

I enclose below, an excerpt from an excellently researched document 'An 
Unfair Verdict' authored by an investigative team from the Peoples Union 
for Democratic Rights (PUDR) on the Red Fort Case, which was released on 
December 12, 2006

The entire report is available as a pdf file at - (scroll down to the 
third report on this webpage)

http://www.pudr.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=55&Itemid=63

regards,

Shuddha
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The story of Ashfaq : A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery inside an Enigma
  (Excerpted from the PUDR Report - 'An Unfair Verdict' on the Red Fort 
Case)

While Ashfaq’s Pakistani citizenship is admitted, other information is 
not as clear. Why did he come to India, at whose behest and what was he 
doing in Delhi? Ashfaq provides answers to some of these questions. 
While the Court has ignored most of these answers completely, they do 
appear to be corroborated by other evidence.

In the statement of the accused (u/s 313, CrPC) in the court, when asked 
if he had anything to say (Q. no. 392), Ashfaq stated -

“I used to work for ‘X’ branch, RAW [Research and Analysis Wing of the 
Cabinet Secretariat] since 1997. In the last days of June 2000, I had 
come to Kathmandu to give some documents to Sanjeev Gupta and I had 
reached there from Pakistan by a PIA flight on my passport no. 634417. 
In Pakistan, there is political party by the name of Pakhtoon milli 
party and RAW is supporting that party for the last 30-35 years. Sh 
Sagri Khan was member of that party and he was arrested by the police of 
Pakistan along with my younger brother. I received this news in 
Kathmandu and I spoke to Sh Sanjeev Gupta in this regard. My cousin had 
also advised me not to return to Pakistan for time being.

Thereafter, Sh Sanjeev Gupta advised me to go to India and accompanied 
me upto Rauxol and from there I came to India by train. He gave me the 
address of Nain Singh and telephoned Nain Singh on 6834454 for 
accommodating me. Thereafter Nain Singh gave me a room in his house for 
my stay. He advised me not to tell my real name and address to anyone 
and to disclose myself as a resident of Jammu. Nain Singh used to do the 
business of money lending and I used to help in maintaining his 
accounts. After about one and a half month, I asked Nain Singh to get me 
some job as my money had already run out.

Thereafter he got me opened the computer centre. Thereafter Nain Singh 
got sent some money through Sanjeev Gupta and the amount was around 
seven lacs, but Nain Singh did not disclose about receiving this huge 
amount… Thereafter I contacted my family and they asked to speak to 
Sanjeev Gupta who told me about sending Rs six lacs fifty thousand/seven 
lacs to Nain Singh. Thereafter on the asking of Sanjeev Gupta, Nain 
Singh got my bank account opened in HDFC bank… One Chaman Lal in Chandni 
Chowk and one Sardarji in Karol Bagh are also engaged in the business of 
money lending and I used to collect money from them on behalf of Nain 
Singh. On the birthday party of his son, Nain Singh got me introduced to 
Ins RS Bhasin and Ins Ved Prakash… On 25.12.2000 Nain Singh called me 
from computer centre to his house. Thereafter, those two persons who 
were in plainclothes and had come to my house in a white Maruti Zen car 
took me to a flat in Lodhi Colony, where both the inspectors along with 
one Sikh officer (were) present… I was interrogated by them about my 
entire background. Thereafter I was dropped at the house of Nain Singh… 
Nain Singh was not present at his house but his wife informed me about 
the telephonic call received from my in-laws at Ghazipur regarding 
dinner in the evening. I tried to make a call to my in-laws but could 
not get through. Thereafter I took a bus and reached the house of my 
in-laws. I asked my in-laws whether they had made a call to which they 
replied in negatives. I had reached there at about 8 to 8.30 pm and had 
finished our dinner at 10.00 pm when the police party raided the house…”

The RAW angle is further substantiated when in his testimony in Court, 
Nain Singh (PW 20) states that he is working as Senior Field Assistant 
in the Cabinet Secretariat. While he denies working as an Intelligence 
man in the Cabinet Secretariat, he states, “I cannot disclose whether I 
am working for RAW”. Despite being asked specifically, Nain Singh states 
that he can not disclose his official address or those of the offices 
visited by him and adds, “I can not say whether I am not disclosing 
these addresses as my identity in the public would be disclosed.” 
Curiously he also claims that he cannot produce his identity card in 
open court and the testimony records that the I-Card was shown only to 
the Judge. No formal exemption appears to have been pleaded and 
accepted. The findings of the Judge on the identity card too are unknown 
as none of the above is referred to in the Judgement of the court 
despite being present in the records of the cross examination in the Court.

The fact that an alleged LeT militant was living in the house of a RAW 
agent leads to many questions. These have not bothered the learned 
Judge. In fact the only reference made to Ashfaq’s alleged RAW 
background was a sarcastic reference at Page 306 when the Judge observes 
that Ashfaq is obviously educated as he has claimed to a RAW agent. The 
Court does not give any importance to the above statement of Ashfaq made 
in the Court despite the fact that it explains various incriminating 
circumstances against Ashfaq.

Not only that but the statement also answers another vital question, one 
that the Prosecution does not. What was Ashfaq’s place of residence in 
the last few months? The prosecution leads no evidence to show where he 
was staying but states blandly that Ashfaq resided with Rehmana. In 
response to question no. 55, Ashfaq categorically states -

  “I stayed in the house of Mr Nain Singh from June/July 2000 till the 
date of my arrest on the recommendation of Mr Sanjeev Gupta, but not on 
rent.”

The exact relationship between Ashfaq and Nain Singh is murky, at best. 
The investigation has clearly not looked into such aspects of the case, 
despite this providing a reasonable hypothesis for the various facts. 
There is much in the account of well known prisoners who escaped 
concocted cases mounted against them such as Iftekhar Geelani and SAR 
Geelani as well as their account of fellow prisoners in Tihar jail which 
suggests that it is possible to falsely implicate a person, manufacture 
and plant evidence. Such instances do not allow us the comfort of 
rejecting them outright.

The implications of a Pakistani citizen alleged to be a LeT militant, 
living in the house of a RAW agent who also assists him with money and a 
job, are perhaps too vast for this report. Yet the manner in which the 
Court has completely overlooked these questions, even where the 
Prosecution has no better evidence to support its claims, raises serious 
doubts about the fairness of the trial and the conviction being a 
foregone conclusion – once his Pakistani identity is admitted and he is 
charged of being a terrorist.