From the Court Records

Statement of Mohammad Afzal to the Court
under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code

Statement of accused Mohd. Afzal son of late Habibullah r/o village Seerjagir, Distt. Baramullah, J&K, under Section 313 Cr. P.C. without oath.

Q. It is in evidence against you that on 13^th Dec. 2001 at about 11.40-11.45 a.m. a terrorist attack was done by the terrorist at Parliament House when Parliament was in session and Vice President of India, Ministers, M.Ps, V.I.Ps and V.V.I.Ps were in the Parliament. In this attack five Pakistani trained militants got killed at the hands of the security staff. 9 persons from security staff and other agencies also got killed. 15 persons were injured. In the attack explosive substances, hand grenades, AK 47 Rifles and pistol were by the terrorist. What you have to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is in evidence against you that on the checking of 5 slain terrorists, fake identity card of Websity Xansa Computer education were recovered which are Ext. PW 4/2, PW 4/4, PW 3/3, PW 2/3, PW 2/4 and PW 2/5 and on these I. Cards photographs of the terrorist with fake name and phone No. 98114 89429 was found written. What you have to say?

Ans. I do not know.

Q. It is in evidence against you that on the persons of 5 slain terrorists 5 mobile phone and slips containing certain mobile phone numbers were recovered. Slips are Ext. PW 2/16, PW 4/6, PW 4/7. What you have to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is in evidence against you that cell phone number 98114 89429 was cell number of your mobile phone which was being used by you. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you were arrested by the police at Srinagar, along with your co-accused Shaukat Hussain Guru in truck No. HR 38E 6733 and in possession of both of you one laptop along with accessories and cash amounting to Rs. 10 Lakhs was recovered. What you have to say?

Ans. I was arrested alone from Srinagar & nothing was recovered from me.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you were brought to Delhi by Delhi Police and arrested in this case and your disclosure statement Ext. PW 64/1 was recorded on 16-12-2001. What you have to say?

Ans. I was brought to Delhi, but police recorded stt. itself after torturing me.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you desire to make confessional statement before D.C.P. voluntarily. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that on 21.12.01 at about 7.10 p.m. you were produced before Shri Ashok Chand, DCP Spl. Cell by IO of this case ACP Rajbir Singh, for the purpose of recording your confessional statement and you were explained by DCP Ashok Chand that you were not bound to make any confessional statement but you expressed your willingness to do so by recording your willingness Ex. PW 60/7 in your own hand. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that warning given to you by DCP Ashok Chand was drawn in proceedings as Ex. PW 60/8 and thereafter your disclosure statement Ex. PW 60/9 was recorded by the said DCP. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong. I only signed blank papers. I made no stt.

Q. It is further evidence that that you had signed your confessional statement at point C and thereafter, it was sealed in an envelope Ex. PW 60/10 and carbon copy of the same was supplied to IO ACP Rajbir Singh on application moved by him in this regard. What have you to say?

Ans. I made no stt. so I don’t know.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you recorded in your disclosure statement Ex. PW 60/7 that in the year 1989-90, on the motivation of Yasin Malik & Hamid Shah of Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front you joined this militant outfit for the purpose of Jehad and you along with several JKLF militants crossed over to Muzaffarabad in Pak Occupied Kashmir. What have you to say?

Ans. It is correct.

Q. It is further in evidence that you were given basic training for about 21/2 months, in handling arms and ammunition and insurgent activities by one Zainuluddin, a retired Pak army officer. What have you to say?

Ans. I was not given proper training. The place was full of militants. I was told few things. After going there I found different atmosphere.

Q. It is further in evidence that after completing your training, you along with 80 trained militants crossed back to India through Trigam sector in Kupwara and you had brought one AK 47 with three loaded magazines and Rs. 10000/- in Indian currency paid to you by the militant outfit. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong. I was not having ammunition, others were having ammunition who had crossed along with me. There were militants of different terrorist org. who crossed border with me.

Q. It is further in evidence that on reaching India, you were tasked to destroy communication network, educational institutions and important bridges on J&K. What have you to say?

Ans. It is correct.

Q. It is in further evidence that soon after your return to India, security forces were tipped off and in order to escape security forces, you came to Delhi along with your cousin brother Shaukat Hussain. What have you to say?

Ans. After coming from Muzfrabad, I stayed at my house for 25 days & then came to Delhi to my cousin Shokat.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that you started doing odd jobs in Delhi and also completed your graduation from Delhi University in 1993-94. What have you to say?

Ans. It is correct.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that during summer of 1993-94, you had come to Srinagar and surrendered before BSF and had also handed over the arms and ammunitions brought by you from Pakistan. What have you to say?

Ans. It is correct that I surrendered before BSF. Two more boys has surrendered with me & they also gave their arm & ammunition. I did not give arm & ammunition.

Q. It is further in evidence that you had further disclosed that about eight months ago from 12.01, when you had gone to deliver surgical goods at a shop in Lal Chowk, Srinagar, you came across one Tariq who introduced himself as a doctor residing in Anantnag and you discussed with him about the current affairs and militancy in Kashmir. What have you to say?

Ans. In summer of yr 2000, I was picked up by STF & confined for 21 days. I met Tariq during confinement. Tariq was in medicine business. At that time I had no discussion with him. I had to daily attend STF camp.

Q. It is further in evidence that you, thereafter, met Tariq on two more occasions and two months after the first meeting, when you had gone to offer Namaz at Batmallo Masjid, Tariq met you and disclosed that he was an active militant of Jaish-e-Mohammad outfit and you were motivated by Tariq to join Jehad for liberation of Kashmir and for the cause of Muslim community. What have you to say?

Ans. Tariq was not a militant, however we used to talk about militancy. Tariq did not motivate me for Jehad. He used to ask me about my Delhi business.

Q. It is further in evidence that Tariq had assured of financial support and you agreed to work for Jaish-e-Mohd. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that you disclosed in Ex. PW 60/7 that Tariq further introduced you to one Ghazi Baba, the Supreme Commander of Jaish-e-Mohd. in Kashmir. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that you further disclosed that Gazi Baba’s Company in Kashmir consisted of about 60 heavily armed militants of Jaish-e-Mohd. (JeM) and Ghazi Baba was also equipped with wireless sets, satellite phones and other means of communication. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that Ghazi Baba further motivated you and also gave you audio cassette and literature containing provocative preachings of Maulana Masood Azhar and you were directed to contact Tariq abut 6 weeks at the appointed time. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that you met Gazi Baba as directed, who again took you to Ghazi baba at his training camp, who instructed you that he had been told by Maulana Masood Azhar that they should carry out action on important institutions of Indian nation like Indian Parliament and US & UK embassies, as their action in Kashmir had not led to the desired results. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that you had further disclosed as per Ex. PW 60/7 that Ghazi Baba had told you that action in Delhi would be a joint action of JeM and Lashkar-e-Tyabba (LeT) and you were tasked to provide a safe hideout for the Fidayeens, in Delhi and you were also introduced by Ghazi Baba to Mohammad and Haider, Pak nationals and militants of JeM. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that in the month of October, 01, you rang up co-accused Shaukat for arranging a rented accommodation for yourself and Mohammad in Delhi. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that in the 1^st week of November, you brought Mohammad to Delhi, who brought along with him a laptop and Rs. 50000/- and on reaching Delhi, you both went to the house of Shaukat, who then took you and Mohammad to the pre-arranged accommodation in Christian Colony, Room No. 5 of Boy’s hostel. What have you to say?

Ans. I was to come to Delhi, Tariq told me that Mohammad has to go to Delhi, I should take him to Delhi. He would stay in Delhi for some days & he has to go abroad. So Mohd. came with me, he himself arranged accommodation.

Q. It is further in evidence that you introduced Mohammad to Shaukat as a resident of Doda, Kashmir and when Shaukat was not convinced, you told him that Mohammad was a Pak national and militant of JeM and had come to Delhi to carry out a fidayeen attack. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that after about a week thereafter, you arranged another hideout at A-97, Gandhi Vihar, Timarpur. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that Mohammad through Hawala collected Rs. 20 lakhs and gave Rs. 5 lakhs to you for giving it to Tariq in Srinagar, you went to Srinagar and gave the said money to Tariq. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that at the asking of Tariq, you brought two militants of JeM, namely Raja and Haider, both Pak nationals to Delhi from Srinagar and took them to the hide-out in Gandhi Vihar. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that you also disclosed as per Ex. PW 60/7 that in order to complete the assignment given by Gazi Baba, you along with Mohammad went to Khari Baoli, Delhi, from where Mohammad purchased 60 Kgs. of Ammonium Nitrate, 10 Kgs. Aluminium powder and 5 Kgs. of sulphur. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that Mohammad told you that these chemicals when mixed in the ratio of 7:2:1, would make a high explosive. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that after about a week, Mohammad again gave you Rs. 5 lakhs and you went with that money to Srinagar and handed over the same to Tariq. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that in the first week of December, 01, you again met Tariq and at his instructions, brought two Pak nationals and militants of JeM, namely Rana and Hamja to Delhi. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that you also disclosed before the DCP in Ex. PW 60/7 that said Rana and Hamja were carrying AK rifles, 12 loaded magazines, 1 grenade launcher, 3 pistols with spare magazines, 15 hand grenades, 15 grenade shells, two packs of electronic detonators, two transreceivers and explosives etc. What have you to say?

Ans. I do not know.

Q. It is further in evidence that you along with above-named persons had come from Srinagar to Jammu by bus and from Jammu to Delhi by train. On reaching Delhi you took them to hideout in Gandhi Vihar. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that at Delhi, you had arranged another accommodation at 281, Indira Vihar, Mukherji Nagar area. What have you to say?

Ans. I had rented this accommodation for myself as I was to come to Delhi after Eid.

Q. It is in evidence against you that your co-accused Mohammad (slain) terrorist had purchased mobile phone and sim cards from Gaffar Market and Palika Bazar in your company and had received directions from Ghazi Baba on the cell phone from satellite phone. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that during your visit to Delhi you used to meet Shaukat Hussain Guru and S.A.R. Geelani and motivate them in Jehad in Kashmir. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that accused Shaukat Hussain Guru provided his motor cycle to you and slain terrorist for taking recee? What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that meeting of slain terrorists also used to be held in the house of Shaukat Hussain Guru for discussing further course of action and in this meeting accused SAR Geelani, accused Shaukat Hussain Guru and his wife Afsan Guru also used to be present. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that in these meetings of terrorists, you and other co-accused target to be chosen terrorist attack were discussed as Delhi Assembly, U.K and U.S.A. Embassy, Parliament House and Airport. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that one more motor cycle was purchased by you from Karol Bagh which was also to be used for taking recee. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that after taking recee of all aforesaid targets, slain terrorist Mohammad informed Ghazi Baba and Ghazi Baba told you that they must strike at Parliament. What you have to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is in evidence against you that final meeting was held at the house of Shaukat Hussain Guru in which all of you (all accused persons and slain terrorists) were present and plans for attacking of Parliament was finalised. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that as per plan on 11-12-2001 you along with slain terrorist Mohammad went to Karol Bagh for purchasing a second hand Ambassador car for a sum of Rs. 1,08,000/- was purchased from Lucky Motors. What you have to say?

Ans. Mohd. had expressed desire to purchase a car & he requested me to accompany him. I went along with him to Karol Bagh & he purchased a second hand car.

Q. It is in evidence against you that on 11.12.2001 you along with Mohammad went to Kashmiri Gate and purchased a Magnetic VIP Red Light to facilitate entry of car into Parliament House. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that slain terrorist Mohammad got prepared sticker of M.H.A. and fake I. Cards through laptop. What you have to say.

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is in evidence against you that Mohammad along with other militants prepared IEDs for grinding and mixing of chemical and put them in container brought from Chandni Chowk. What you have to say.

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is in evidence against you that I.E.D. was fitted in the car for causing explosion. What you have to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is in evidence against you that on the night of 12-12-2001 you along with accused Shokat and S.A.R. Geelani went to hideout at Gandhi Vihar Timarpur where all the five Pak militant were present. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong. I had not met Gilani six months prior to 13.12.01.

Q. It is in evidence against you that Mohammad (slain terrorist) gave you laptop and Rs. 10 Lakhs and he told you to take laptop to Ghazi Baba and told that Rs. 10 Lakhs was for you and your friend Shaukat Hussain Guru and for S.A.R. Geelani. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that Mohammad (slain terrorist) told you that they were going to attack and fidayeen attack on Parliament House on 13.12.2001. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you & your co-accused Shaukat Hussain Guru and S.A.R. Geelani left Gandhi Vihar hideout and continued in touch with each other on mobile phone. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that on 13.12.2001 at about 10.40 a.m. you received a call on your mobile phone 98114 89429 from Mohammad from his mobile phone 98110693456 and he asked you to watch TV and tell him about presence of various V.V.I.Ps inside the Parliament House and they told you that they were near the Parliament House and awaiting your reply. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that at that time you were in Azadpur Mandi. There was no electricity there and you could not watch T.V. After about 25 minutes you again received a call from Mohammad regarding the presence of VVIPs in the Parliament House and you informed him that due to electricity being not there, you could not watch the T.V. and you asked him to give you some more time. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that thereafter you contacted Shaukat Hussain Guru at his mobile phone no. 98115 73505 and asked him to watch him and informed him (Mohammad). What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that after you had talked to Shaukat Hussain Guru, they again called you and told you that they were going ahead with the attack on Parliament House.

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you then again called Shaukat and told him that mission has started. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that Shaukat Hussain Guru thereafter came and met you at Azadpur Mandi and both of you went to S.A.R. Geelani house and gave him Rs. 2 lakhs as his share but Geelani told you that you should take his money and gave it at his house in Kashmir. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that after this you and Shaukat Hussain Guru left for Sri Nagar in truck No. HR 38E 6733 which belonged to Shaukat Hussain Guru and you reached Sri Nagar on this truck. You and Shaukat Hussain Guru were apprehended by the police in Sri Nagar. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong. I went to Srinagar by bus.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you made supplementary disclosure statement to ACP Rajbir Singh on 20-12-2001. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that your disclosure statement was recorded in pursuance of your disclosure statement you and your co-accused Shokat led police party to a hideout of slain terrorists at A-97 Gandhi Vihar at second floor and got recovered from there three electronic detonators with yellow wire, two silver powder packs, ½ bucket of prepared explosive, two packs of sulphur, TCL, 2 cartons containing 20 sealed packs of aluminium nitrate purified, one carton containing 20 empty packs of aluminium nitrate and one empty pack of sulphur. All these articles were seized vide seizure memo Ext. PW 34/1 and the articles are Ext. P 60/1, 2,3 and P 61 to P 71. Samples were taken out from the explosive substances and chemical and separately sealed with the seal of HSG and form C.F.S.L. was filled. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong & false.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you and co-accused Shaukat Hussain Guru had led police party to premises No. A-97 Gandhi Vihar, P.S. Timarpur and from you both got recovered police uniform shirts in Khaki colour 3 in number, police uniform pant in Khaki colour four in number, police uniform card black three in number, police berret cap 2 in number, electronic time piece 6 in number (two attached with wire), transistor make Kehibo one in number, volta meter with leads black one in number, 9 volt battery with wire one in number, battery cell (small) 12 in number, black starter one in number, battery caps with wire 3 in number, screw driver one in number, ear phone with leads two in number, wire pieces black 3 in number, Sujata mixer grinder with three jars used for mixing explosives. All these articles were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ext. PW 34/4 and Sujata mixer and its jar were sealed with the seal of HSG. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you led police to A-97 Gandhi Vihar, New Delhi second floor and from you got recovered one piece of paper having specimen stamp of "Cyber Tech Computer education Software Managing Director", one piece of paper bearing map of Chanakya puri, one blank I. Card, two Airtel magic cards, some photographs and some other papers and one map of Delhi which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ext. PW 34/3. The seized papers/documents are collectively marked as Ext. P79. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you also got recovered along with your co-accused Shaukat Hussain one motor cycle No. HR 51E 5768 standing near the house No. A97 Gandhi Vihar, Delhi which was seized by the police vide seizure memo Ext. PW 34/2. Motor cycle is Ext. P76. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you and your co-accused Shaukat Hussain led police to 281 Indira Vihar second floor and this premises was found locked and after breaking the lock police entered it and recovered three electronic detonators attached with yellow colour wire, six pressure detonators, 2 silver powder packets each of one kg., two boxes of sulphur for TCL, one carton of Ammonium Nitrate containing 25 packs of Ammonium Nitrate and other house hold articles which were seized vide seizure memo Ext. PW 32/1 and articles are Ext. P 47 to P 57. What you have to say?

Ans. The house was taken on rent by me for my family. The key was given by me to landlady. Nothing was recovered from this house except house hold articles.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you and your co-accused Shaukat Hussain Guru also got recovered one motor cycle bearing number DL-1S-K3122 near the gate of house No. 281 Indira Vihar Delhi. What you have to say?

Ans. The M/Cycle belongs to Shaukat & was at house of Shaukat. Police has wrongly shown it recovered from 281 Indira Vihar. Police picked up bike from Shaukats house.

Q. It is in evidence against you, you in custody of police went to mortuary and identified deceased terrorists from whom fake I. Card of Rohail Sharma and Ashiq Hussain were recovered, who was Mohammad r/o Punjab Pakistan. Identification memo is Ext. PW 76/1 and photographs of deceased terrorist Mohammad is Ext. PW 29/5. What you have to say?

Ans. I had not identified any terrorist. Police told me the names of terrorists & forced me to identify them.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you led police party to shop No. 990 Gali Lothian Tilak Bazar Kashmiri Gate where from you and your associate Hamza (deceased terrorist) had purchased 50 kg Amonium Nitrate. The pointing out memo of the shop and identification of the person from whom this Amonium Nitrate was purchased is Ext. PW 40/1. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is also in evidence against you that you led police party to shop No. 1/2628 Hamilton Road, Kashmiri Gate, New Delhi and point out the shop froom where you and your associate Mohammad had purchased VIP red light for using on Ambassador car DL-3C-J- 1527. You identified Vijat Anand as shop owner from whom light was purchased. Identification and pointing out memo is Ext. PW 26/5. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you led police party to the shop No. 343 Joshi Road Karol Bagh and identified Harpal Singh where from you had purchased along with your co-accused Mohammad Ambassador car No. DL-3C-J- 1527 for a sum of Rs. 1,08000/-. The pointing out and identification memo is Ext. PW 20/9. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you led police to shop No. 657 Sawan Dry Fruit and Kirana Store Fatehpuri, and pointed out the shop and owner where from you along with your co-accused Mohammad (deceased terrorist) had purchased dry fruits. The pointing out memo is Ext. PW 41/1. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you took police to shop No. 151 Tilak Bazar, Kashmiri Gate, Delhi and identified the shop owner from whom you and your co-accused Mohammad had purchased silver powder for preparing IED. The pointing out and identification memo is Ext. PW 42/1. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you led the police to shop No. 6504 R.D. Store, Fatehpuri, Delhi and identified the owner wherefrom you, along with your co-accused Mohammad, had purchased Sujata Mixer Grinder for mixing the chemical to prepare IED. The pointing out and identification memo is Ext. PW 76/2. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you led police party to shop No. 1731/56 Nalwala Karol Bagh and pointed out the shop where from motor cycle No. HR-51E-5768 was purchased for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 560/- was given as commission. Memo in this respect is Ext. PW 29/1. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you led the police party to shop No. 26 Gaffar Market, Karol Bagh, New Delhi, and told from this shop you had purchased mobile phone handset (Sony) and pre paid coupon from this shop. The memo in this respect is Ext. PW 44/1. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you led the police party to shop No. B 10 Model Town II and pointed out the shop wherefrom you in company of Shaukat Hussain Guru has purchased one mobile phone handset Motorola from this shop with Sim card. The pointing out memo in this respect is Ext. PW 49/1. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that police seized bill book containing entry of speed card of mobile phone No. 98114 89429 vide seizure memo Ext. PW 49/2. The bill book is Ext. P 82. What you have to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is in evidence against you that the laptop recovered from you was got examined from Orion Convergence Limited by Special Cell Delhi Police and report of the observation of the laptop is Ext. PW 72/1. As per this observation the laptop was using Pakistan based ISP named micro-net-PK, The internet and scanner was accessed on 5^th Dec. 2001 ID Card file were edited on 12^th Dec. 2001 Laptop contained file showing Zee News T.V. channel nes item of 3 alleged Pakistani terrorist killed in Lucknow and news clipping showing interview of Mr. George Fernandes in front of Parliament House. News clipping showing proceeding of Parliament. News clipping showing Arun Jaitly, Minister on the gate of Parliament building, Mulayam Singh Jadav, Ex. Defence Minister entering the gate of Parliament building and news clipping of Arun Jaitley addressing the press and entering the gate of Parliament and news clipping of some minister of India entering bthe gate of Parliament and some minister standing near the gate of Parliament. News clipping of interview of Mr. Vijay Kumar Malhotra in front of Parliament House. News clipping of some people who are coming out of the gate of Parliament and another nes clipping showing the long shot of building which look like Parliament of India and Supreme Court of India. What you have to say?

Ans. I do not know.

Q. It is in evidence against you that PW 29 Susheel Kumar identified you as a person who had come to purchase motor cycle No. HR 51-E-5768 along with other three persons from his shop on 8-12-01. In the morning and stated that motor cycle was sold to you for Rs. 20,000/- in the evening of 8-12-01. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that PW 29 also stated that you had filled the portion A to A and B to B of delivery receipt Ext. PW 29/2 and signed it at the time of taking delivery of the motor cycle. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you got house No. 281 Indira Vihar second floor on rent of Rs. 4000/- p.m. on 9.12.01 through property dealer Balraj (PW 31) and he identified you and you paid him Rs. 1000/- as advance. What you have to say?

Ans. It is correct.

Q. It is in evidence against you that owner of house No. 281 Indira Vihar, namely Jagdish Lal, PW 32, identified you as the person who had taken the house on rent and you had paid him balance advance of Rs. 7000/- on 10-12-01 and taken possession of the floor. He put a condition that you can live in the house with your family. You told him that you will bring your family later on. What you have to say?

Ans. It is correct.

Q. It is in evidence against you that on 11-12-01 you along with 5-6 persons were seen going upstairs by PW 32 and he came to second floor and told you that he had given the flat for living with your family and you had brought those persons with you. You then told him that those persons were your friends and they would leave. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that on 12-12-01 you left the premises with some bags and locked it and told PW 32 that you would bring your family and children after Id. What you have to say?

Ans. It is correct.

Q. It is in evidence against you that on 16-12-01 you and your co-accused Shaukat Hussain Guru in police custody came to house No. 281 Indira Vihar and went to the premises under your possession and police broke the lock and police found some incriminating articles lying in the house which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ext. PW 32/1 and they were sealed with the seal of HSG. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong. The lock was opened by landlady. It was not broken.

Q. It is in evidence against you that police showed photographs of the terrorists at the time attack on Parliament and PW 32 identified them as those persons who were sitting with you in the premises on 11-12-01. The photographs of the terrorists identified by PW 32 are Ext. PW 1/20 too PW 1/24. What you have to say?

Ans. I was alone in the house. Landlord has wrongly stated so at instance of police.

Q. It is in evidence against you that police also seized one motor cycle DL-1S-K3122 Yamaha make from the above premises vide seizure memo Ext. PW 32/2. PW 32 had told the police that motor cycle belonged to you people and was standing down stairs. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that Davinder Pal Kapoor (PW 33) has identified as a person you had gone to him in Nov. 2001 and wanted some house on rent. He got second floor of the house of Subhash Malhotra A 97 Gandhi Vihar, Delhi and rented out to you at Rs. 1200/- per month. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you introduced yourself to Subhas Malhotra as Masood and told him that you were student of Kirori Mal College at the time of taking the house No. A 97 Gandhi Vihar, Delhi on rent. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that accused Shaukat Hussain Guru and 3-4 more boys visited you in the premises. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that you and your co-accused Shaukat Hussain Guru led the police to this house on 16-12-01 and police told your name as Mohd. Afzal to PW 34 who had known you as Masood, and police went to the second floor of the premises which was in your tenancy and broke open the lock and recovered several incriminating articles which were seized by the police vide seizure memo Ext. PW 34/1. The articles were sealed with the seal of HSG. The articles included one Sujata Mixer and other chemicals and explosive mixture in a plastic bucket. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that police also seized one motor cycle No. HR 51 E 5678 vide seizure memo Ext. PW 34/2. They also seized certain papers from the room via seizure memo Ext. PW/3 and seized some house hold articles vide seizure memo Ext. PW 34/4 in the presence of this witness. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that PW 34 had seen you, Shaukat Hussain Guru and 4 more persons leaving the premises around 10. A.m. on 13.12.01 in a ambassador car. All of you were carrying bags and car was standing near temple outside the gali. After the car left you came back to the premises and then left the premises after some time. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that PW 34 identified the photographs of one of the terrorist Ext. PW 1/20 as one who had lived with you for few days in this premises. He identified the articles seized from the room as P 60 to P 79. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that Ext. PW 35/1 is the certificate issued by Capt. R.K. Guharay security Manager of AIRTEL. It gives the details of calls of mobile phone No. 98105 11085, 98106 93456, 98105 65284, 98105 10816, 98103 02438, 98104 46375. The computerised details are Ext. PW 35/2 to PW 35/7. He also gave computerised call details of cell No. 98100 81228 of SAR Gelani in nine pages as Ext. PW 35/A. Whay you have to say?

Ans. I don’t want to say anything.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that call details in respect of cell No. 98115 73506 from 1.12.01 to 13.12.01 are Ext. PW 36/1 and from 1.12.01 to 18.12.01 are Ext. PW 36/2, call details of mobile No. 9198114 89429 from 1.11.01 to 18.12.01 are Ext. PW 36/3, of mobile No.98115 44860 are Ext. PW 36/4 and of cell No. 9198114 89429 are Ext. PW 36/5, as produced in evidence by Major A.R. Satish, Executive of Sterling Cellular Ltd. And supplied to him by Lt. Col. Rajiv Pandey, Genl. Manager of this Co. vide his letters Ext. PW 36/6 to Ext. Pw 36/8. What have you to say?

Ans. I don’t want to say anything.

Q. It is further in evidence that on 6.11.01, you along with accused Shaukat Hussain Guru had approached PW 37 Sh. Prem Chand, through Rajneesh STD Booth for letting-out a room to you in his hostel, which he was running in the name of Yamuna Hostel at B-41, Christian Colony having 32 rooms therein. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that PW 37 Prem Chand let-out room No.5 in Yamuna Hostel, on the ground floor to both of you at a monthly rent of Rs.1500/- and both of you came to that room on 7^th or 8^th November, 01 and after putting your luggage there, you both went away. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that on 26.11.01, PW 37 Prem Chand went to said hostel for checking the rooms and in room no. 5, which was let-out to you, he found one Kashmiri boy, who told him his name was Rohail Ali Shah and further told him that he was doing diploma in computer from Aptech, Kamla Nagar and he also showed his identity card Ext. PW 4/4. What have you to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is further in evidence that on 6^th or 8^th December, 01, PW 37 Prem Chand saw Rohail Ali Shah going out of above said room and when Prem Chand asked for his particulars for the purpose of police verification, he told Prem Chand that he would give him the same after coming back but on 8.12.01, when Prem Chand again went to room no.5, he found the room lying vacant. What have you to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is further in evidence that on 19.12.01 PW Prem Chand was called at the Special Cell through a constable, where you, Shaukat and 4-5 other persons were present and PW Prem Chand identified you and Shaukat as the persons, who had come to him for hiring a room and then he came to know about your involvement in terrorist activities and PW 37 also identified the photograph Ext. PW 29/5 as that of Rohail Ali Shah in court. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that that PW 38 Rajneesh Kumar was approached by you and Shaukat for the purpose of hiring a room and he had taken both of you to the house of PW 37 Prem Chand at B-41. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that your co-accused SAR Gilani used to live with his family in the rented house belonging to PW 39 Naresh Gulati, bearing No. 535, Mukherji Nagar, Delhi, on its second floor and you and co-accused Shaukat used visit SAR gilani and PW 39 had been seeing both of you going up and down the stairs of that house. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong. I had never gone to his house. I knew that he was living at above address.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that on 6-12-01, you had gone to the shop of PW.40 Anil Kumar at 990, Gali Telian, Tilak Bazar, Delhi and placed an order for 50 kgs. of amonia nitrate and paid him Rs. 800/- in advance and told him that delivery would be taken by you the next day. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that on the next day, i.e., 7-12-01, you along with one more person, who has been identified as the slain terrorist vide photograph Ex. PW.40/2 by PW.40, went to his shop at 3.00 p.m. and by paying balance amount of Rs.4000/- took delivery of amonia nitrate, which was in the packing of 500 gms. In powdry material, in plastic jars, which have been identified by this witness as Ex.P.54/1 to 24 and the memo prepared, for pointing-out you by this witness is Ex.PW.40/1. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that on 11.12.01, you had purchased 15 kgs. of silver powder for Rs.240/- per kg. From PW.42 Ramesh Advani at his shop M/s. Tola Ram & Sons, 141, Tilak Bazar, Delhi and on 17.12.01, police had taken you to the said shop and PW.42 identified you as the person having purchased the silver powder Ex.P.51 from his shop. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that PW. 44 vide pointing-out memo Ex. PW. 44/1 verified to police about your having purchased one mobile phone J.70 model Sony and cash card of Rs. 500 from his shop at 26, Gaffar Mkt. and said mobile phone is Ex .P.37. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that at the time you were apprehended by J&K police along with your co-accused Shaukat Hussain Guru in truck No. HR-38E 6733, the amount of Rs. 10 lacs was recovered in 23 bundles and other articles recovered including laptop, audio video camera, CDs adaptor, digital audio and video recorder, memory stick etc. were seized by Jammu and Kashmir police there vide memos Ex. PW 61/4. The laptop along with all accessories etc. as Ex. P-83 and the cash of Rs. 10 lacs is Rx. P-85. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong. I alone was arrested from Sri Nagar, Batmalu bus stop. Nothing was recovered from me.

Q. It is in evidence against you that your personal search memo were prepared at the place of your apprehension in J&K by Jammu and Kashmir police and the same is Ex. PW 61/1. What you have to say?

Ans. It is correct.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that the truck on which you and Shaukat had travelled from Delhi to Jammu & Kashmir after the attack on Parliament House was seized by J & K police and was handed over to SI Hriday Bhusan. The truck was brought to Delhi by SI Sharad Kohli and was deposited in Malkhana vide memo Ex. PW. 65/1. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that you made a disclosure statement to J & K police which was recorded and is Ex. PW 61/3. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that one mobile phone apart from cash of Rs. 10 lacs and computer was also recovered from you in J & K by Jammu and Kashmir police. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that you were produced before the court of Sh. V. K. Maheswari, ACMM, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi on 22.12.2001 for the confirmation from you about your confessional statement recorded by DCP Ashok Chand. What you have to say?

Ans. I was not produced, but was kept outside in police van in Patiala House Court.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that ACMM Sh. V. K. Maheswari drew proceedings about your production before him for confirmation and the same are Ex. PW. 63/2. What you have to say?

Ans. The proceedings are false.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that you were called in the Chamber of ACMM and all others were sent outside and the chamber was closed and only you, peon of the judge and ACMM Sh. V. K. Maheshwari were in the chamber when you were explained that you were not bound to make any confessional statement before him. You were also explained that in case you make any confessional statement, the same can be used in evidence against you. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that the ACMM inquired from you about the making of confessional statement before DCP Ashok Chand and you stated to the ACMM that you had made the statement voluntarily before DCP. You made no complaint against police personnel. You also told that you were not tortured for making this statement. Your this statement was recorded by ACMM and read over to you and explained to you. Your statement made before ACMM is Ex. PW 63/5. The statement in your own hand about the outstanding of statement is Ex. PW. 63/6. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that the laptop which was in use of the slain terrorist and which was recovered from you and accused Shaukat Hussain was sent for expert examination and the report of expert is Ex. PW. 73/1. The annexure to this report are Ex. PW 73/2, Ex. PW 73/3, Ex. PW 73/4, Ex. PW 73/5, Ex. PW 73/6, Ex. PW 73/7. What you have to say?

Ans. I was not having laptop. So I don’t want to say anything.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that the report of the expert shows that the files contained in the laptop contain the scanned image of Indian Army stickers, image of Ministry of Home Affairs stickers, the images of fake I-Cards which were recovered from deceased terrorist. What you have to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that your specimen signatures and writings were obtained by the police for comparison with the documents recovered from the witnesses. Your specimen signatures are Ex. S-1 to Ex. S-19 and your specimen handwriting of alphabets is Ex. S-20 and S-21. What you have to say?

Ans. Police had obtained my specimen signatures on several sheets. On the sheets where ‘Mohamamd’ is written I have doubt as I spell ‘Mohammad’ in this manner.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that after the terrorist attack on Parliament House, after watching the T.V. news, PW Harpal Singh came to the SHO G.L. Meena and produced some documents relating to car to him. He stated that he had delivered this car in favour of Ashiq Hussain Khan. The delivery receipt produced by him is Ex. PW 1/6. What you have to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that Harpal Singh appeared as PW 20 and identified you as the person who has come along with so-called Ashiq Hussain for purchase of the car. What you have to say?

Ans. I had not accompanied Ashiq Hussain. A sardarji had come to Spl. Cell & identified me then he & police persons beat me.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that on 11.12.01, you along with one more person had gone to the shop of Mr. S.K. Mehta, namely Sawan Dry Fruits and Kiryana shop at Fateh Puri and had purchased dry fruit from that shop from its salesman Ajay Kumar. Ex. PW 41/2 to 4 are some of the boxes of dry fruit purchased by you and your associate and Ex. PW 45/1 is the photograph of your that associate who had gone with you. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that sample voice cassettes of your co-accused persons were examined by PW 48, who gave his report in this regard as Ex. PW 48/1. What have you to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is in evidence against you that just before the attack on Parliament call was made by deceased terrorist Mohammad on your telephone. What you have to say?

Ans. It is false.

Q. It is in evidence against you that just before the attack on Parliament you had given telephone call on cell phone of Shaukat, as per the record of the cell phone. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that the cell phone record shows that on 13^th Dec. 2001 on around that time your telephone instrument was used by the terrorist by using a different sim card. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is in evidence against you that on 13-12-2001 and around that you, accused Shaukat accused S.A.R. Geelani had been contacting each other on cell phone. What you have to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. What else you have to say?

Ans. I live in Sopre J & K. and in the year 2000 when I was there Army used to harrass me almost daily, then said once in a week. One Raj Mohan Rai used to tell me that I should give information to him about militants. I was a surrendered militants and all militants have to mark attendance at Army camp every Sunday. I was not being physically tortured by me. He only used to just threatened me. I use to give him small information which I used to gather from newspaper, in order to save myself. In June/ July 2000 I migrated from my village and went to town Baramullah. I was having a shop of distribution of Surgical instruments which I was running on commission basis. One day when I was going on my scooter S.T.F. (State Task Force) people came and pick me up and they continuously tortured me for five days. Some body had given information to S.T.F. that I was again indulging in militant activities. That person was confronted with me and was released in my presence. Then I was kept by them in custody for about 25 days and I got myself released by paying Rs. 1 lakh. Special Cell people had confirmed this incident. Thereafter I was given a certificate by S.T.F. and they made me a Special Police Officer for six months. They were knowing that I will not work for them. Tariq had met me in Palhalan S.T.F. camp where I was in custody of S.T.F. Tariq met me later on in Sri Nagar and told me he was basically working for S.T.F. I also told him that I was also working for S.T.F. Mohammad who was killed in attack on Parliament was alongwith Tariq. Tariq told me that he was from Keran sector of Kashmir and he told me that I should take Mohammad to Delhi as Mohammad has to go out of country after some time from Delhi. I do not know why I was caught by the police of Sri Nagar on 15-12-2001. I was boarding bus at Sr Nagar bus stop, for going to my home when police caught me. Witness Akbar who had deposed in the court that he had apprehended Shaukat and me in Sri Nagar had conducted a raid at my shop about a year prior to Dec. 2001, and told me that I was selling fake surgical instruments and he took Rs. 5000/- from me. I was tortured at Special Cell and one Bhoop Singh had even compelled me to take urine and I saw family of S.A.R. Geelani also there, Geelani was in miserable condition. He was not in a position to stand. We were taken to Doctor for examination but instructions used to be issued that we have to tell Doctor that every thing was already with a threat that if we do not do so we be again tortured.

Q. Why this case against you?

Ans. It is a false case.

Q. Why the witnesses have deposed against you?

Ans. All the witnesses are false witnesses.

Q. Will you lead defence evidence?

Ans. No.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that your co-accused Shaukat Hussain Guru in his confessional statement made before DCP Ashok Chand (PW. 60) Ex. PW 60/5 that in the 1^st week of November you and your associate militant Mohammad had come to Delhi and met Shaukat in his house No. 1021, Mukherji Nagar and told him that Mohammad was a Pak national and member of JeM and had come to Delhi for carrying out fidayeen attack in Delhi. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that Shaukat had further disclosed that in the meanwhile, you went to Sri Nagar to deliver money collected in Delhi by you through hawala to Ghazi Baba of JeM in Kashmir and you brought from Kashmir to Delhi more pak nationals and members of JeM namely Raja, Rana, Hyder @ Tufail and Hamza, along with arms & ammunitions and explosives etc. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that accused Shaukat further discloses that he had been talking from his cell No. 98104 46375 to you and Ghazi Baba and militant Mohammad and you and Mohammad also used his Yamaha motorcycle to conduct recee of the targets to be attacked in Delhi. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that it has come in Ex. PW 66/1 (discl. Stt. Of Shaukat) that as per the plan made in meetings, you and slain militant Mohammad bought a white ambassador car No. DL SCJ 1527 and prior to purchase of the car, you had taken another rented accommodation in Indira Vihar, whereon 12.12.01 night, you Shaukat and Gilani met Mohammad, who had then given you Rs. 10 lakhs and laptop directing that Rs. 10 lakhs were for you, Gilani and Shaukat and laptop was to be delivered to Gazi Baba in Kashmir by you all. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that Shaukat further disclosed in Ex. PW 66/1 that thereafter you, Shaukat and Gilani left Indira Vihar hideout at about 11.20 a.m. on 13.12.01. You called Shaukat from your cell No. 98114 89429 asking him to watch TV and confirm about latest position of VVIPs. In Parliament. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that immediately thereafter you again called Shaukat from your cell telling him that the mission was on and on the same day, you met Shaukat at Azadpur Mandi and you both went to Gilani’s house for delivering him Rs. 2 lakhs as his share which he asked you to give at his house in Kashmir and then you and Shaukat left for Srinagar in the truck along with the laptop and Rs. 10 lakhs. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that on 4.5.02 Lt. Governor of Delhi had granted sanction for prosecution of you and your co-accused persons u/s 50 POTA, which was communicated vide letter/order Ex. PW 11/1 of PW 11 Dy. Secretary (Home). What have you to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that L.G. also granted sanction on 4.5.02 u/s 196 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance against you and your co-accused persons u/s 121/ 212-A/ 122/ 124 r/w Sec. 120B IPC and it was communicated vide his order Ex. PW 11/2. What have you to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that Commissioner of Police granted sanction u/s 7 of Explosives Substances Act for prosecuting you and your co-accused persons u/s 3.5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act and it was accordingly communicated by PW-12 DCP HQs. Vide his letter Ex. PW 12/1. What have you to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Accused Mohd. Afzal wants to say something more. His statement be recorded.

Mohammad, the slain terrorist of Parliament attack had come alongwith me from Kashmir. The person who handed him over to me is Tariq. Tariq is working with Security Force and S.T.F. JK Police. Tariq had told me that if I face any problem due to Mohammad he will help me as he knew security forces and STF very well. Tariq had also told me that Mohammad had stayed in Sri Nagar with STF people and had come from Keran in the security forces vehicle. Tariq had told me that I have just to drop Mohammad at Delhi and I have not to do anything else. And if I would not take Mohammad with me to Delhi then I would be implicated in some other case. I under these circumstances, brought Mohammad to Delhi under a compulsion without knowing that he was a terrorist.

Sd/- Sd/-

RO&AC Designated Judge

New Delhi 21-09-02

Q. It is in evidence against you that the instrument of your cell No. 98114 89429 was very frequently used by terrorists Mohammad and others using different sim cards.

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that terrorists had received call from GSM-cum-Satellite phone No. 882165115059 and they had also called at Dubai and Pakistan and calls were received by him from satellite phone at your cell No. 98114-89429. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that you and other terrorists had been frequently talking to each other for about one week prior to 13.12.01 on cell phones.

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that print-out of your mobile No. 98114 89429 is Ex. PW 36/3 and last call made to your this mobile was from mobile No. 9810693456 at 11.25 a.m., which was found on the person of a slain militant. What have you to say?

Ans. It is wrong.

Q. It is further in evidence that call details pertaining to calls made from your above-numbered cell, by the militants to Pakistan and Dubai were collected by PW 66 and same is Ex. PW 35/4. What have you to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is further in evidence that as per Ex. PW 35/4, Pakistan No. is at point P and that of Dubai is at point D and according to PW 35/4, cell No. 98114 89429 which belonged to you was found to have been in constant touch with the phones found on the persons of slain terrorists. What have you to say?

Ans. I don’t know.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that explosives, arms and ammunitions recovered by police at your and your co-accused’s pointing-out from different hideouts, were sent to CFSL for examination and analysis vide entry made in this regard as Ex. PW 9/1, 9/2, and 9/3. What have you to say?

Ans. It is false.

Q. It is further in evidence against you that reports of CFSL sent in this regard are Ex. PW 22/1 and 22/2 and 24/1 and 24/2. What have you to say?

Ans. I don’t know.