The Mazagaon magistrate court on Wednesday convicted and sentenced Afzal Usmani, a suspected key member of Indian Mujahideen to five years of imprisonment for escaping from sessions court premises in September 2013. The court has also convicted and sentenced Usmani’s nephew Javed Khan for harbouring him after his escape from judicial custody.
Special public prosecutor Vaibhav Bagade also confirmed the news and said Usmani and Javed have been convicted and sentenced to five years.
Apart from escaping from judicial custody, the accused were also charged for forgery. The defence had earlier made an application saying this court does not have territorial jurisdiction to conduct the trial because as per prosecution the offence of forgery took place in Uttar Pradesh and hence this trial should be conducted in UP. However, this application was supposed to be decided with the final judgment and the court convicted the accused for forgery also.
According to advocate Bagade, Usmani was convicted for offences of escaping from the custody and forgery, while his nephew Javed was convicted for harboring Usmani.
Usmani had fled the court on September 20, 2013 and was arrested by the ATS on October 28, 2013 from near Indo-Nepal border.
He had fled during his production before the court in the trial for sending terror mails by IM.
The prosecution examined 12 witnesses during a trial that went on for more than six months and the defence examined three witnesses, including Usmani to prove innocence.
According to defence lawyer Jamal Khan, both the accused have been falsely implicated in the case. The defence had claimed that Usmani did not escape but in fact ATS officials had kidnapped him in order to pressurise him to become an approver in the main Indian Mujahideen case where a group of youngsters has been charged for sending e-mails to media houses about bomb blasts in various parts of India. Though the blasts that were mentioned in the mail did not take place in Mumbai, the mails were sent from the city and hence this case is being tried in Mumbai.
With respect to the forgery case, the prosecution’s case is that Usmani was trying to procure a driving license using forged documents. Advocate Jamal argued before the court that the photograph found on the ‘forged’ documents, was the same available in ATS record though Usmani had grown a beard after his disappearance from the court. He alleged this shows documents were forged at the instance of ATS.
However, the court held the prosecution had proved case beyond reasonable doubts and convicted both the accused.
