Doubts over Navy's version of shootout

By Atul Aneja

NEW DELHI, DEC. 1. The Navy's claim that the shooting incident in the premises of the Chief of Naval staff's residence this morning was the result of an armed clash between an intruder and the security staff of Admiral Sushil Kumar has raised several questions here.

According to the Navy, the intruder, who entered the compound around 5 a.m, was spotted by a marine commando who chased him. In response, the intruder fired at the commando and injured him in the leg. The commando also fired several rounds but missed the intruder, who fled under the cover of darkness.

Sources in the security establishment outside the Navy are, however, sceptical of this view.

Their suspicions have been aroused by the fact that while the empty shells of the nine mm. MP-5 revolver fired by the commando have been recovered, the shell of the bullet supposedly fired by the intruder has not been found. According to them, identifying the weapon used by the alleged intruder is central to establishing whether the intrusion, as claimed by the Navy, did indeed take place.

The intrusion theory, they say, will acquire greater currency, if it can be established that the weapon used by the intruder was of a make different from the commando's specially procured 9 mm. MP- 5 revolver. The weapon can be identified either by an analysis of the empty shell or by the bullet itself. But, intriguingly, neither the empty shell nor the bullet fired at the commando has been recovered. According to naval sources, the wound suffered by the commando was ``clean'' and the bullet, which pierced and exited from his leg, could not be recovered.

The question, therefore being raising is whether the incident was indeed the result of a clash with an intruder or otherwise. Could it, for instance, be a consequence of a tiff between members of the security staff who were armed with similar weapons?.

Sources also pointed out that police, inexplicably, were not allowed to enter the residence for nearly 90 minutes after the incident. On entry, no footprints indicating the presence of an intruder were found.

Police recovered 15 meters of electric wire pushed inside a cloth bag in the rear of the compound. No additional device such as a detonator was recovered. Was the presence of this wire a deliberate post-facto attempt to mislead and give the impression that the intruder planned to plant a remote-controlled explosive device in the compound? Or, on the contrary, was the incident indeed an indication of a ruthless conspiracy to plant explosives on the eve of Navy Day on Monday, when almost the entire top leadership of the country would be present at the naval chief's residence to celebrate the occasion? A Board of Inquiry set up by the navy has been formed to probe the incident.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Smalltown girl conquers world
Next     : Banu says she has no LTTE links