Guess what Headley said about Jundal in 26/11 case
Absolutely nothing, says prosecution. And Headley had been brought in to nail Jundal.
David Coleman Headley – an accused in the Mumbai 26/11 terror attack trial -- hasn’t deposed a single word against Abu Jundal, the accused facing trial over here, so says the prosecution in reply to one of the applications filed by Jundal.
Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, in a reply dated February 25, 2016 filed before the Sessions Judge G A Sanap, has said: “PW1 (Headley) has not deposed a single word against the accused (Jundal) and therefore defence contention that he will require to take spontaneous instructions from the accused during the cross examination has no legal bearing at all.”
This “admission” by prosecution, however, gives rise to a question about the necessity to make Headley an approver in this case and grant him a possible pardon for deposing in favour of the prosecution.
When asked about the development, well known criminal lawyer Yug Chaudhry said, “The granting of pardon to Headley, and his examination as an approver make absolutely no sense in the light of Mr Nikam's admission that Headley has given no evidence whatsoever against the accused. The only reason for granting pardon to this self-confessed terrorist was to get evidence, which was not otherwise available, against the accused in the dock. If Headley had nothing to offer by way of evidence against Zabiudin, then he has duped our judicial system into obtaining a free pardon and giving us nothing in return.”
Chaudhry further elaborates on the legal provision with regards to Headley’s deposition, “His evidence can be used against an accused only if he/she is a part of the same trial, which means that his entire deposition cannot be used against any accused in the future, if we get anyone. More so, his deposition cannot be used against any accused standing trial in Pakistan for this very case till he deposes before the trial court in Pakistan and says those very things which he has said before the court in Mumbai.”
Abu Jundal alias Zabiuddin Ansari, was deported from Saudi Arabia on May 27, 2013 followed by his arrest in the 26/11 case. The prosecution filed an application before the court seeking to make Headley an accused in the case in October 8, 2015. On the very first day of his deposition through video conferencing from an undisclosed location in the United States of America on December 10, 2015, was made an approver. His deposition then went on for five days starting at 7am India time from February 8, 2016.
Special public prosecutor Nikam’s reply to Jundal seeking physical presence says that he can always pass on necessary information to his lawyer in a meeting in the prison and that he is not being physically produced in court due to security reasons, which has been accepted even by the Bombay High Court in a challenge filed by Jundal.
Nikam insists that the sentence in his reply about Headley not saying anything about Jundal doesn’t affect the case at all and it cannot be called a futile exercise. “Jundal has given a confession giving details of the conspiracy which has now been corroborated by Headley’s deposition. What else will Headley say about Jundal when we didn’t ask him any questions about him?”
Most of the applications filed by Jundal during the course of Headley’s examination have been rejected by the court. Jundal had asked for the transcript of video conferencing recording from the USA, however Nikam, in his reply to this application said that there was no video recording of the proceedings on the US side.
He had also sought the all of Headley’s judicial records from the USA which was also rejected. During Headley’s examination in chief when Nikam specifically asked him to refer to a certain paragraph, Wahab said that the document Headley was continuously referring to should be disclosed. That is when he was told that all the documents being referred to were a part of contemporaneous records and the entire list of documents had already been provided to the court as well as the defence.
David Coleman Headley – an accused in the Mumbai 26/11 terror attack trial -- hasn’t deposed a single word against Abu Jundal, the accused facing trial over here, so says the prosecution in reply to one of the applications filed by Jundal.
Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam, in a reply dated February 25, 2016 filed before the Sessions Judge G A Sanap, has said: “PW1 (Headley) has not deposed a single word against the accused (Jundal) and therefore defence contention that he will require to take spontaneous instructions from the accused during the cross examination has no legal bearing at all.”
This was in reply to an application filed by Jundal seeking to be physically present in the court during Headley’s cross-examination which goes underway early morning today, saying that he may have to pass on instructions i.e. consult his lawyer Abdul Wahab Khan while he is cross-examining Headley.
This “admission” by prosecution, however, gives rise to a question about the necessity to make Headley an approver in this case and grant him a possible pardon for deposing in favour of the prosecution.
When asked about the development, well known criminal lawyer Yug Chaudhry said, “The granting of pardon to Headley, and his examination as an approver make absolutely no sense in the light of Mr Nikam's admission that Headley has given no evidence whatsoever against the accused. The only reason for granting pardon to this self-confessed terrorist was to get evidence, which was not otherwise available, against the accused in the dock. If Headley had nothing to offer by way of evidence against Zabiudin, then he has duped our judicial system into obtaining a free pardon and giving us nothing in return.”
Chaudhry further elaborates on the legal provision with regards to Headley’s deposition, “His evidence can be used against an accused only if he/she is a part of the same trial, which means that his entire deposition cannot be used against any accused in the future, if we get anyone. More so, his deposition cannot be used against any accused standing trial in Pakistan for this very case till he deposes before the trial court in Pakistan and says those very things which he has said before the court in Mumbai.”
Abu Jundal alias Zabiuddin Ansari, was deported from Saudi Arabia on May 27, 2013 followed by his arrest in the 26/11 case. The prosecution filed an application before the court seeking to make Headley an accused in the case in October 8, 2015. On the very first day of his deposition through video conferencing from an undisclosed location in the United States of America on December 10, 2015, was made an approver. His deposition then went on for five days starting at 7am India time from February 8, 2016.
Special public prosecutor Nikam’s reply to Jundal seeking physical presence says that he can always pass on necessary information to his lawyer in a meeting in the prison and that he is not being physically produced in court due to security reasons, which has been accepted even by the Bombay High Court in a challenge filed by Jundal.
Nikam insists that the sentence in his reply about Headley not saying anything about Jundal doesn’t affect the case at all and it cannot be called a futile exercise. “Jundal has given a confession giving details of the conspiracy which has now been corroborated by Headley’s deposition. What else will Headley say about Jundal when we didn’t ask him any questions about him?”
Most of the applications filed by Jundal during the course of Headley’s examination have been rejected by the court. Jundal had asked for the transcript of video conferencing recording from the USA, however Nikam, in his reply to this application said that there was no video recording of the proceedings on the US side.
He had also sought the all of Headley’s judicial records from the USA which was also rejected. During Headley’s examination in chief when Nikam specifically asked him to refer to a certain paragraph, Wahab said that the document Headley was continuously referring to should be disclosed. That is when he was told that all the documents being referred to were a part of contemporaneous records and the entire list of documents had already been provided to the court as well as the defence.
