26/11 case: Headley claims he told NIA about Ishrat Jahan

Tells court 'a female member of LeT who had died in an encounter in India was Ishrat'

Pakistani-American terrorist David Coleman Headley today told a special court trying the 26/11 attack case that Laskhar-e-Taiba (LeT) commander Zaki-ur-Rehman Lakhvi had told him about the Ishrat Jehan “operation” and wondered why NIA chose not to mention it in its statement.

During cross-examination by defence lawyer Wahab Khan on behalf of key accused Abu Jundal, Headley claimed he had told NIA that a “female member of LeT who had died in an encounter in India was Ishrat Jahan” but could not say why that was ignored by NIA.

Headley said LeT chief and 26/11 mastermind Hafiz Saeed had told him prior to the Mumbai terror attacks that Shiv Sena Chief late Balasaheb Thackeray “needed to be taught a lesson”.
 

The Lashkar terrorist had told Saeed that this would be done and might take six months to accomplish.

The cross-examination via video link of the 55-year-old Headley, serving a 35-year prison term in the US, concluded today after four days of intense grilling.

Asked whether he had videographed the residence of India’s Vice President during the surveillance done by him, he said only the outer walls of the building were videographed and it was en route from Sena Bhavan (Indian Army HQs) to National Defence College, New Delhi.

In another development, the judge G A Sanap rejected the plea of defence lawyer to defer the cross-examination as he had to meet the accused Abu Jundal in Mumbai Central Jail to seek instructions for further cross-examination of Headley.

The court said Headley's deposition cannot be deferred on this ground.

The judge then directed the jail authorities to allow the lawyer to meet the accused for two hours in prison or communicate with him through video link in the court but as the lawyer did not accept this, the court rejected the plea.

Headley was discharged from cross-examination and soon thereafter, prosecutor Ujjwal Nikam moved an application for re-examination which was allowed by the court.

During re-examination by Nikam, Headley said he had referred to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai while deposing earlier about his visit to a nuclear power plant to conduct surveillance for potential targets.

“I visited BARC on the recommendation of Major Iqbal (of Pakistan)”, said Headley to Nikam.

Earlier, Headley told the defence lawyer that it was not correct to say that LeT wanted to assassinate former Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf.

To a question, Headley denied that he had disclosed to NIA that he had hatched a plan to kill Musharaff along with his friends in LeT.

However, Headley claimed this had been incorrectly recorded in his statement given to NIA in July 2010.

Headley had said during examination by prosecution last month that there was a women’s wing of LeT. However, during cross-examination, he stated that “defence is pre-supposing this.”

Explaining this, Headley said, “I had no knowledge of women’s wing that was for combat but there is a women’s wing that takes care of women’s issues and other social things.

To a query by the defence lawyer on the “social issues” taken up by the women’s wing, Headley replied it takes care of religious education, widows and other such things.

Before the conclusion of deposition, Headley told the defence lawyer “Kaha suna maaf” (please excuse me for being upright).

Earlier, Headley went back on a part of his statement to NIA, saying that he did not tell the probe agency about Lakhvi informing him that “Ishrat Jahan module” was a “botched-up operation” and added that “these were my thoughts”.

He also admitted that he had “no personal knowledge about Ishrat Jahan”.

“When Lakhvi introduced Muzammil Bhat to me, he told me that he (Bhat) is one of the top LeT commanders and has done some operations like Akshardham temple, Ishrat Jahan et cetera... the rest were my thoughts... I came to know about Ishrat Jahan from media. These are my thoughts as to why Ishrat Jahan operation resulted in failure,” Headley said.

“No, I did not say this to NIA and cannot assign any reason why it has been so recorded,” he told Judge G A Sanap here.

Headley, who has turned approver in the 26/11 case, was answering questions put to him by the defence lawyer via the video-link.

On whether NIA read out the statement to him, Headley said, “No” and added that the agency just took down the notes.

To a question, the Lashkar operative, who has been convicted in the US for his role in the 26/11 attacks, said neither he had requested the NIA for a copy of the statement nor did they provide it to him.

He said that this is for the first time that he was being shown his statement in the court.