Ansari, Ahmed `framed` by prosecution: Defence lawyers
  • This Section
  • Latest
  • Web Wrap
Last Updated: Tuesday, May 04, 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 04, 2010, 00:25

comments powered by Disqus