This ad will auto close in 10 seconds

Ansari, Ahmed `framed` by prosecution: Defence lawyers

Last Updated: Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 00:25

Mumbai: It was a battle against all odds for
the two lawyers defending Sabauddin Ahmed and Faheem Ansari,
arrested in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks case.

And today they were all smiles when the special court
here acquitted the duo of all charges. The defence lawyers
claimed that the duo were "framed" by the prosecution.

"Ahmed was framed...the maps were made by prosecution
itself...he had never been to Nepal so the question of
submitting the maps to LeT operatives does not arise. Crime
Branch has lied," Ejaz Naqvi, Ahmed`s lawyer, said.

Ahmed and Ansari who were accused of carrying recce of
targets which were attacked during the audacious terror
strikes carried out by a groups of Pakistani terrorists on
November 26, 2008, were acquitted by the trial court today.

"Sabauddin has not conducted any was David
Headley (US terror suspect) who conducted the recce ...
according to the Crime Branch, recce was done before the
attack and Headley in his confession has revealed that he had
done recce of important places in Mumbai. Taking into
consideration all these facts it is clear that Rana and
Headley were involved," he said.

Faheem`s Lawyer R B Mokashi echoed similar views saying
there was no connection between Faheem and Kasab and the 26/11
terror attacks.

"It is the happiest moment for Faheem and his wife...
Faheem was charged with serious offences and I am happy that I
could give justice to somebody," Mokashi said.

Faheem`s wife Yaseen Ansari said, "We had faith in Allah
and knew that Faheem would come out clean."

Public prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam said he would recommend to
the Government to appeal against the order acquitting Faheem
and Sabauddin in the high court.

"I regret the acquittal of Faheem Ansari and Sabauddin
Ahmed. The court has given them benefit of doubt. We will
challenge their acquittal," he said.

Both were "passive actors" in the conspiracy and "we
had placed enough circumstantial evidence which the court
should have considered," Nikam said.


First Published: Tuesday, May 4, 2010 - 00:25
comments powered by Disqus