Court Throws Out Hyderabad Police And AIMIM Contentions In Its Verdict
Hyderabad: The Nampally Criminal court has not given any credence to the prosecution and AIMIM’s contention that recovery of government land and political rivalry respectively were the causes that led to the brutal stabbing of Akbaruddin Owaisi, MLA and AIMIM party leader in the Telangana State Legislative Assembly. Akbaruddin had miraculously survived this attack on him in the Barkas area of the Old City of Hyderabad in 2011.
The court observed that the prosecution had failed to prove that political rivalry or the MLA’s role in recovery of government land were what triggered the attack. The Seventh Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge had acquitted Mohammad Pahelwan and nine others, while convicting four in the case. The Sessions Judge’s made this observation as one of the 13 points he made in the verdict.
“Based on the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both sides, this court came to a conclusion (that) the prosecution failed to establish a conspiracy between Pahelwan and other accused to kill Akbaruddin Owaisi due to political rivalry or his role in the recovery of government land allegedly grabbed by accused,” the judge said.
Besides, the judge said that the prosecution was able to only establish that the four accused, who were convicted for 10 years, had unlawfully assembled on April 30, 2011, before the local AIMIM party office in Barkas with an intention to kill Akbaruddin.
The victim in the case, Akbaruddin Owaisi, who had earlier deposed in the court, said that Pahelwan had joined Majlis Bachao Tehreek (MBT) in 2009, developed enmity, and threatened to kill him. Akbar alleged that since he tried to stop the grabbing of government land and subsequent illegal constructions by Pahelwan and another Mohammed Bahadur, they decided to murder him.
Discussing the conspiracy charge, the judge said, “I do not think fragile pieces of evidence are sufficient to prove the conspiracy charge against the accused. Since the prosecution had failed to establish beyond doubt the guilt of Pahelwan and other accused, benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.”