Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1979026/11 Truth Movement: 26/11 Attack Special Public Prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam Under Scanner

Expand Messages
  • Feroze Mithiborwala
    Aug 3, 2014
    • 0 Attachment
      26/11 Truth Movement:

      Dear All, 

      In the last few days we have witnessed the spectacle whereby Police Commissioner Rakesh Maria (the then Police Commissioner Crime & ex-ATS Chief) has been once again brought under the legal scanner for fudging with the police log records of the incident that led to the death of the ATS Chief Hemant Karkare, Ashok Kamte & Salaskar.

      And now we have Ujwal Nikam the Chief Public Prosecutor who is being accused of undermining the 26/11 investigation.
       
      Please read the above news report carefully.

      The 11,260 page charge-sheet only has a paragraph on the LeT & scant reference on the role of the ISI!! Astounding isn't it??

      Can those who support & stand by the official government narrative on 26/11 please stand up NOW & explain all these major anomalies.

      And if they cant . . . then they stand exposed, for continuously supporting the official story that we always maintained was a fraud on the nation. 

      The chargesheet in the 26/11 Mumbai attack case that ran into over 11,000 pages had just one paragraph on Lashkar-e-Taiba, the terror organization behind the attacks and scant reference to ISI.

      The scrutiny of the statements of Police Inspector Sandeep Khiratkar of RPF (P.W. No. 66/4) and of ballistic expert Mr. Gautam Ghadge (P.W. No. 160/43) clearly indicated that the Senior Public Prosecutor Mr. Ujjwal Nikam had been preventing the witness from telling the truth, and had been trying to hide the facts with a view to shielding the real culprits.

      Ujjwal-Nikam-26-11-Mumbai-Attacks-2008-Diamond-Mafia-Bodhita-News

       

      According to a book set to be published shortly, the 26/11 Mumbai Attack chargesheet thoroughly disappointed many, including Chikako Taya, a former Japanese judge who was on the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Justice Taya studied the Mumbai attack case as part of an effort to see if it can be covered under ‘joint criminal enterprise’ (JCE), to prosecute those in Pakistan who orchestrated the terror strike under an international tribunal.

      As Times of India reported

      “(With its flimsy chargesheet) The prosecution relieved the real criminals behind the actual crime. The name of ISI does not figure in the chargesheet and consequentially the name did not figure in the judgment. As it is said, the LeT is also scantily defined in the chargesheet. The terror organization did not draw much indictment from the court,” the book says.

      According to ‘Fragile Frontiers: The Secret History of Mumbai Terror Attacks’, by Saroj Kumar Rath, when Justice Taya visited the 26/11 attack special public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam in Mumbai, she was surprised to see that the lawyer in India’s most important terrorism case had no clue of JCE, a concept that had been innovatively applied by ICTY recently.

      Fragile Frontiers Bodhita News Mumbai Attacks 2008 26 11 Ujwal Nikam Diamond Mafia

      “Why was the LeT not adequately dealt in the chargesheet, asked Justice Taya? Nikam answered that ‘it has adequately been dealt in the chargesheet’. Justice Taya protested and said only one paragraph in the entire chargesheet was devoted to LeT. Nikam explained that as a criminal lawyer he was well versed in criminal proceeding of the case. As he was out of the investigation team, he did not have much information and the union home ministry might have more information, which would satisfy the quest of his visitor,” the book says.

      The book goes on to raise several questions over the way the investigations into the 26/11 attacks was handled, and the very shallow chargesheet filed in the case. “The entire 11,280-page chargesheet basically dealt with the loss of lives and property in the aftermath of Mumbai attacks. The entire chargesheet is a compilation of the post mortem report of 166 persons, oral testimony of 2,202 persons, detail of loss of property, ballistic evidence of blasts and firing, and details about the materials carried by the terrorist to the attacks sites,” the book says.

      When Justice Taya met Nikam, the book says: “Justice Taya started asking question after question on the role of the ISI, the Pakistan army and the LeT in Mumbai attack. All questions were either deflected or answered in the negative by Nikam.

      11,000-page 26/11 Mumbai attack chargesheet had one para on LeT: Book

      In his book 26/11 Probe Why Judiciary Also Failed, RAW Officer Hemanth Karkare’s friend and Former I.G. Police. Maharashtra S.M. Mushrif has the following to say about Ujjwal Nikam

      Criminal misconduct of Senior Special Prosecutor, Mr. Ujjwal Nikam

      The scrutiny of the statements of Police Inspector Sandeep Khiratkar of RPF (P.W. No. 66/4) and of ballistic expert Mr. Gautam Ghadge (P.W. No. 160/43) clearly indicated that the Senior Public Prosecutor Mr. Ujjwal Nikam had been preventing the witness from telling the truth, and had been trying to hide the facts with a view to shielding the real culprits.

      1. Deposition of P.I. Sandeep Khiratkar of RPF (P/W No. 66/44)
      2. Deposition of ballistic expert Gautam Ghadge (P.W. 160/43)

      26 11 Probe Why Judiciary Failed Mumbai Attack Diamond Mafia Bodhita News Ujjwal Nikam

      The earlier statement of the witness amounted to concluding that the empties found at Hotel Oberoi were fired from the AK47 rifle which was found in the leg-space of the Skoda (in which the so called terrorists had been travelling) at the time of the encounter at Girgaum Chowpatty. As this fact would have created serious doubts about the so-called “encounter” and about the death of ASI Tukaram Ombale in that encounter, Mr. Ujjwal Nikam hurriedly sought deferment and made the witness change his statement overnight. But the revised statement of the witness was so shoddily manipulated that nobody could believe it. In the first place, the earlier deposition of the witness dated 7th October 2009 was so clear and elaborate that there was hardly any scope of ambiguity. Moreover while stating that there was a ‘typing mistake’ in his report he did not point out where exactly was the mistake. If this two statements are compared even a layman would say that his earlier statement was correct and the later one was manipulated. Apparently Mr. Ujjwal Nikam intentionally sought deferment and manipulated the evidence lest the prosecution story of the fake encounter and the real culprits identity was exposed.

      Recent developments on 26/11 Mumbai Attacks :

      India’s largest Diamonds Hawala Scam unearthed in Surat

      26/11 Info panel to probe Maria’s role in manipulating call records

      Another 26/11 waiting to happen ?


      In Solidarity
      --
      Feroze Mithiborwala