Mumbai: A witness declared hostile by the prosecution in the Nanded arms haul case in which three persons were sentenced in June by a special court to ten years imprisonment and two acquitted, has stood by his testimony before the court earlier.
The case relates to the youth being members of banned organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and conspiring to attack right-wing leaders.
The witness, a member of a political party, has said in his written submissions filed before the special court on Tuesday that he could not freely depose before the magistrate before whom his statement was recorded under Sec 164 of the CrPC before the trial. He further alleged that the investigating officer had submitted a typed statement to the magistrate and that he had never personally or orally given the statement before the magistrate.
His written submissions filed through Adv Mateen Shaikh also said that he had already been summoned by the investigating officer multiple times and was “under immense pressure and threat”. He also pointed out that seven of the ten witnesses the prosecution produced to show the radical mindset of the accused, had also not supported the prosecution case.
As per his statements given earlier to the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) as well as before the magistrate, he knew accused Mohd Akram and had seen him instigating young boys for Jihad and showing them videos of atrocities on Muslims. He had also allegedly stated that in front of him Akram had asked other accused to commit Jihad and that they had consented to him. During trial he had denied these statements.
The court had noted in its judgment that as his deposition shows, his financial condition is not good and as Akram would help him, under obligation he deposed false in his favour. It discarded the contention he made during the cross examination that the magistrate had not recorded his statements as per his say.
Special judge DE Kothalikar had said further in his order that the court has reached a conclusion that the witness has made a deliberate and conscious effort to misguide the court and interfere in the administration of justice. It added that it would be expedient in the interest of justice that he be tried summarily for giving false evidence. It had then issued him a show cause notice why he should not be punished for the same.
