Debate Over Controversial Delhi “Encounter” Continues

Altaf Qadri/Associated Press Demonstrators protesting against the judgment in the Batla House encounter case in New Delhi on Saturday.

NEW DELHI - The questions surrounding the controversial Batla House encounter in New Delhi continue to be unresolved. On Tuesday, a local court sentenced Shahzad Ahmad, 24, the only person arrested after the September 19, 2008 gunfight between Delhi police officials and suspected terrorists in Batla House area of south Delhi, to life imprisonment for killing a police officer. But human rights activists contesting the police version say that the legal battles around the half a decade old episode are far from over.

Mohan Chand Sharma, 42, an officer of the Delhi Police, was killed in the September 2008 gun battle. Atif Ameen, 24, and Mohammad Sajid, 17, two alleged operatives of the terrorist group Indian Mujahideen, were also killed. Mr. Ameen was a postgraduate student of human rights at the Jamia Millia Islamia University. Mr. Sajid was an 11th grade student at a school in Azamgarh district of Uttar Pradesh. Mr. Ameen, Mr. Sajid and Mr. Ahmad hailed from Azamgarh.

Mr. Ahmad, 24, the sole person arrested in the case, was charged with the murder of the police inspector, attempt to murder two police officers and prevent public servants from completing their duties. He was arrested in February 2010.

A third man, who the prosecution alleged, escaped with Mr. Ahmad, is still at large.

Satish Tamta, the defense counsel for Mr. Ahmad, argued in court that his client had not been in the apartment at the time of the raid and could not have killed the police inspector.

The police raid on Batla House was conducted six days after a series of blasts rocked the capital, killing at least 30 people.

Delhi Police claimed that the men present in the Batla House apartment were operatives of Indian Mujahideen, the terrorist organization allegedly responsible for the Delhi blasts.

Mr. Tamta insisted that the police lacked sufficient evidence to support their allegation that the accused had been members of the Indian Mujahideen.

In his judgment, Rajender Kumar Shastri, additional sessions judge at the Saket district court in south-east Delhi noted:

“True, there is no evidence on record to establish that fact. At the same time, this court cannot be expected to endeavour in giving any finding about said fact. For the purpose of decision of this case it hardly matters as to whether accused was affiliated to Indian Muzahiddin or not.”

The closely-watched trial has drawn criticism from the Human Rights Watch, which in a 2011 report said, “We do not have sufficient information to determine whether the police’s fatal shootings inside Batla House were legitimate acts of self-defense. However, we believe such incidents should be thoroughly and independently investigated.”

In a press conference on Wednesday, Mr. Tamta, along with members of the advocacy group, Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association, asserted that the court had “conveniently ignored all arguments and evidence favoring the defendant.”

Courtesy of Malavika Vyawahare Advocate Satish Tamta, third from left, along with members of the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association addressing a press conference in New Delhi on Wednesday.

During the trial, the defense had questioned why the police had not included any independent witnesses in the police raiding party, which is standard operating procedure for a police raid, even though the raid was to take place during the day and in a crowded area.

The public prosecutor in turn argued that given “the majority of residents of that area are followers of the religion, as was of those suspects. If the police officers tried to involve any such local resident, it would have created social unrest in that area, causing fear to the life of those police persons even.”

Manisha Sethi, the president of the Jamia Teachers’ Solidarity Association, criticized what she called the acceptance of a “pernicious communal logic, which should not have been entertained at all and rejected out rightly by the court.”

Ms. Sethi also said that the judgment should not be seen as a closure of the Batla House encounter case.

The Delhi Police reacted with caution to the judgment. “We had appealed for a death sentence but the court has settled for a life sentence,” S.N. Srivastava, special commissioner of the Delhi Police Special Cell, said. “We would look into the judgment closely and then take a final call.”

“We all know the Batla House encounter was fake,” Shifa Siraj, Mr. Ahmad’s 22-year-old sister said in a phone interview. “My brother is completely innocent, so are the other boys” who were killed in that encounter.

Ms. Siraj is confident that justice would be delivered by the higher courts and her brother would be acquitted.