Multiple-choice posers unheard of: Ishrat’s lawyer

Aditi Tandon

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, February 11

LeT operative David Coleman Headley’s admission that Ishrat Jahan was a Lashkar suicide bomber today triggered a wave of reactions with the deceased’s lawyer terming the development as “shocking”.

“It is shocking that such hearsay evidence by Headley was taken on judicial record. Under the law, you can’t ask leading questions to a witness who is repeatedly saying he does not know anything about the subject. The public prosecutor has extracted statements out of Headley by giving him multiple-choice questions we had last heard on Amitabh Bachchan’s ‘Kaun Banega Crorepati’. This is unheard of in Indian trials. We are shocked,” Supreme Court lawyer Vrinda Grover, representing Ishrat, told The Tribune today.

Grover has long been awaiting the commencement of trial in the cases in Gujarat court after the fake encounter was proved by an SIT monitored by the Gujarat High Court and a subsequent CBI probe also led to filing of a charge sheet against senior police officers and a supplementary charge sheet against IB officers.

“All the investigations have revealed that the fake encounter was carried out at the orders of political executive of Gujarat. Trial in these cases is pending. For reasons best known to it, the CBI is not proceeding with the trial,” Grover said, adding that Headley’s admissions notwithstanding, encounter is cold-blooded murder under the Indian law.

Ishrat’s lawyers plan to retrieve the testimony of Headley to Ujjwal Nikam, Special Public Prosecutor in the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks.

Grover said, “To start with, one is surprised to see that in a case regarding 26/11 where India is seeking to corner Pakistan, Ishrat Jahan suddenly surfaces. The sequence of questions clearly shows Headley had absolutely no knowledge of any female suicide bomber. 

“Even when he refers to a botched-up operation, he does not give particulars or any name. Yet he is asked leading questions and then presented with MCQs in complete violation of our laws. We need to ask why this had to be brought on judicial records so desperately. The purpose is clear--this is meant to serve political interests, not national.”