|
CRIME: NADEEM EXTRADITION
Messing It Up
Lax preparation results in a big embarrassment for
India in the London trial
 |
|
WINNING SCORE: Nadeem plans to sue for
damages
|
When music director
Nadeem Saifee won his case in the extradition proceedings filed by the
Indian Government, he became richer by £920,080 (Rs 6 crore). Though
the British Government paid the amount as costs, it was the Indian prosecution
that was the poorer. The London High Court's judgement was an indictment
of the Indian judicial procedure. The House of Lords turned down the Indian
Government's appeal against the ruling, saying it was satisfied it would
not be fair to return Nadeem to India because "the misbehaviour by
the police pursuing their inquiries has so tainted the evidence as to
render a fair trial impossible".
Whether Nadeem, 47, would get a fair trial in
Mumbai, where he is still listed as the prime accused in the murder of
music mogul Gulshan Kumar, is an open question. But the Indian judiciary
certainly did not get a fair hearing in London. The prosecutors managed
to prove their case for extradition of Nadeem and Ramesh S. Taurani, chairman
of TIPS Cassettes-who allegedly paid Rs 25 lakh to gangster Abu Salem
for killing Gulshan Kumar-to the Bow Street magistrate, whose verdict
was that Nadeem should return to India to face trial.
|
THE PROCEEDINGS
|
|
|
» Bow
Street magistrate allows extradition on the basis of approver Ali
Shaikh's statement.
»
High
court overrules the ruling after Shaikh alleges that the deposition
was forcibly extracted.
»
The
House of Lords upholds the high court judgement and disallows extradition.
|
|
But this was the only win for the Indian authorities.
Nadeem challenged the order in the high court, which ruled in his favour.
What turned the tide was approver Mohammad Ali Shaikh's deposition statement-a
document which the Mumbai Police claimed was written by Shaikh. Experts
testified that it was actually written in a fluent hand by an educated
person. Shaikh is an illiterate, able only to sign his name in Urdu and
English.
Unfortunately for the prosecutors, Shaikh turned
hostile and retracted his confession, the sole ground for the magistrate's
ruling. But Shaikh's turnaround cannot explain the laxity in preparing
the case. Not only did the police fail to back up their claim with other
substantive evidence, they failed to ensure that their lone offering was
above board. The high court points out that "the signature adds nothing
to the character of the deposition. Shaikh couldn't adopt the deposition
as record of his evidence because he did not know what the English record
set out".
To compound their poor record, the prosecutors
decided to appeal against the high court ruling in the House of Lords
mainly on the legal question of admissibility of evidence in extradition
proceedings. Their contention was that the high court had erred in finding
the English language confessions of approver Shaikh recorded by the Mumbai
magistrate inadmissible. This, not surprisingly, was turned down. Says
public prosecutor Ujawal Nikam: "We missed out on a technical ground
but we don't have to pay anything as per the extradition laws." The
court awarded the costs to Nadeem and the British Government, being the
first party, had to pick up the tab.
But these costs are only part of the story.
Nadeem is now preparing to file a suit in a London court for damages that
may run into another million pounds. "I am indebted to England,"
an ecstatic Nadeem told India Today. "No compensation can ever make
up for my family's sufferings in the past four years."
In fact, the fugitive describes his fight to
clear his name as a one-man crusade against evil in the Indian police
and judicial system. It began in 1997 after he was named in the case.
"When one of my close friends called me up and gave me the news,
I totally broke down." A few days later, when his father called him
from Mumbai to say that some officers wanted to speak to him, Nadeem "was
ready to talk to anyone and was willing to fly to Mumbai but my friends
in London advised me against it". That advice led to a series of
suits, in which Nadeem seems to have the upper hand. He plans to return
to India within two months, but is yet to receive his travel documents.
But the final battle still remains. He has to
face trial in the murder case in Mumbai. And Nikam is confident: "The
UK verdict will not affect the trial in any way." Maybe justice will
have a fair hearing this time round.
— Sheela
Raval in Mumbai and Ishara Bhasi in London
|
METRO TODAY
Web
Exclusives
