A Delhi court on Friday while acquitting Maoist ideologue Kobad Ghandy of terror charges said that he cannot be held guilty under the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) "on the basis of suspicion".
Here are key points of the judgement, by which the court rejected the prosecution's argument to charge Ghandy for setting up a banned terror outfit - - Communist Party of India - Maoist - - in Delhi:
"None of the evidences relied upon by the prosecution have been found to be admissible in evidence by the court.
The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses suffer from infirmities. "
"The recoveries made at the instance of the accused have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. "
"The disclosure statement of Kobad Ghandy cannot be read in evidence. . .
as the same has been made to a police officer. "
"It is true that prosecution has been able to prove that Kobad Ghandy was residing in Delhi in an assumed name and that he had in his possession forged documents.
These circumstances do give rise to grave suspicion that Ghandy wanted to avoid himself from being discovered.
Suspicion, however grave it might be, cannot be equated with proof of the said fact. "
"Ghandy was residing in Delhi in assumed names with fake identities.
However the gap between using fake identities and membership of the said banned organisations (Communist Party of India - Maoist) cannot be filled on the basis of suspicion. "