Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Jul 16, 2003

About Us
Contact Us
National
News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

National Printer Friendly Page   Send this Article to a Friend

Hearing begins on appeal against acquittal of Afsan Guru

By Our Special Correspondent

NEW DELHI JULY15. Hearing on the appeal against the acquittal of Afsan Guru/Navjot Sandhu on the charge of conspiracy in the December 13 Parliament attack case began at the Delhi High Court today. The trial court had cleared Afsan Guru of the charge (under POTA) of conspiring to commit a terrorist attack but had convicted her on the charge of concealing the knowledge of a conspiracy under Section 123 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Centre had appealed against her acquittal and sought enhancement of the five-year sentence awarded to her to the maximum 10 years.

Her counsel, Nitya Ramakrishnan, told the court that even if taken at face value, the 13 circumstances listed by the prosecution against Afsan Guru did not prove the charge of conspiracy. At most they suggested knowledge of a conspiracy. This was insufficient to prove the charge of conspiracy which required `agreement' and not `mere knowledge'. At least five of the 13 circumstances listed by the prosecution had not been put to her client during the trial, Ms. Ramakrishnan said. While this lapse may not vitiate the trial, "judgments were uniform in their view that such circumstances could not be relied upon", she said.

Counsel said several circumstances listed against her client which relied on the confessional statements of her husband, Shaukat Hussain Guru, and the main accused, Mohammed Afzal, were not admissible. Both, in their confessional statements to the police, are alleged to have said that Afsan Guru was present at meetings where the attack was planned. She said that for an offence under Section 123 IPC to be proved on the basis of the confessional statements of a co-accused, both the accused had to be jointly tried for the same offence. While Ms. Guru was tried for an offence under Section 123 neither her husband nor Mohammed Afzal was tried for the same offence. The hearing will continue tomorrow.

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

National

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Miscellaneous |
Advts:
Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |


The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription
Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu