Yes he was a terrorist but a repatriated one. India had a policy of bringing youth who have gone the terrorism way, served their sentence et be brought back into the folds of civil political society. Afzal Guru was such a case. Also as mentioned by police high ups who oversaw his case he was a pushover (actual words used "bhondu"). This all turned very convenient for the administration that was under pressure to show progress on the investigation.
The circumstantial evidence found on him related to the parliament attack are of such nature that could easily have been planted by the police (specific example, a scarp of paper with the terrorist handlers phone number found on his person).
Planting of evidence is quite common and rote in India. Judges with a spine discount those. In this case the justice bench didn't -- because the theatre was too important compared to a pushover reformed erstwhile terrorist.
Yes he was a terrorist but a repatriated one. India had a policy of bringing youth who have gone the terrorism way, served their sentence et be brought back into the folds of civil political society. Afzal Guru was such a case. Also as mentioned by police high ups who oversaw his case he was a pushover (actual words used "bhondu"). This all turned very convenient for the administration that was under pressure to show progress on the investigation.
The circumstantial evidence found on him related to the parliament attack are of such nature that could easily have been planted by the police (specific example, a scarp of paper with the terrorist handlers phone number found on his person).
Planting of evidence is quite common and rote in India. Judges with a spine discount those. In this case the justice bench didn't -- because the theatre was too important compared to a pushover reformed erstwhile terrorist.