The Hindu : New Delhi News : ‘No firing from inside the car’

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Oct 17, 2007
ePaper

New Delhi

New Delhi

‘No firing from inside the car’

Staff Reporter

Court rejects self-defence theory of Delhi Police
“A desperate criminal too has right to life”

NEW DELHI: While convicting dismissed Assistant Commissioner of Police and nine other policemen on Tuesday in the infamous Connaught Place shooting incident 10 years ago, the court relied on two key aspects.

The court came to the conclusion that the policemen had decided to kill Mohammad Yaseen, an alleged gangster, irrespective of whether he was armed or not.

Also, the court found that the theory forwarded by the defence claiming that the police opened fire after they were shot at by the occupant of the car sitting on the driver’s side was completely wrong.

Key evidence

A key evidence in this regard was provided by two press photographers, Sayed and Shahnawaj, who reached the spot immediately after the shooting and took pictures. The pictures showed that the window on the driver’s side was intact, while all the other three windows as well as the front windshield had been broken under the impact of indiscriminate firing.

However, during their testimonies most of the policemen associated with the incident had told the court that all the four window panes had been broken.

The defence had taken the plea that first the driver had opened fire at the policemen without rolling down the window after which the police had opened fire. The counsel even told the court that it should go by what most of the witnesses had claimed – that all the four window panes had been broken.

Only one witness, Rajiv Gupta, deputy manager in the firm owned by the other deceased Pradeep Goel, had told the court that the window on the driver’s side was intact.

While arriving at the conclusion that Yaseen would have also been killed if he was there in the car, the court rejected several theories forwarded by the defence. The court rejected the self-defence theory saying it was amply proved that there was no firing from inside.

The defence had also contended that they were operating in the times when terrorism was at its peak in Punjab and Delhi and, hence, it was a battle of nerves between the police and the terrorists. “The one who fires first survives” was the general belief, they had contended.

Rejecting this theory too, the court pointed out that the police had information about a desperate criminal – and not a terrorist. It also asked why a police officer, expecting somebody who can open fire without provocation, tapped on the window of a car from such close quarters. The defence had claimed that the firing started from inside the car when the officer tapped on the driver’s window.

The court further said Yaseen may have been a desperate criminal but he had a right to life.

Also, the court noted the fact that while the occupants of the car had been shot at from the front and side, all the tyres of the vehicle were intact. It established that the intention was to kill and not immobilise a fleeing desperate criminal.

Not under Section 304

Using the same argument, the court said the act of the accused does not fall under Section 304 (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) of the Indian Penal Code, although it was proved that police had mistaken the two occupants of the car to be Yaseen and his associate.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail