Rss

  • stumble
  • youtube
  • linkedin

Archives for : Ishrat Jahan

Why the CBI Director Ranjit Sinha must be dismissed

By- Adv Vrinda Grover

In response to the HT Artcile Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case – CBI chief partied with former IB boss he charged  and my FB post this morning, demanding dismissal of CBI Director Ranjit Sinha for compromising the integrity and impartiality of CBI by socialising with accused IB Officer Rajinder Kumar, who has been chargesheeted by the CBI for murder and criminal conspiracy in the Ishrat Jahan killings, my friend Bhupendra Chaubey, Political Editor CNN-IBN, asked me on fb, “But how is it a crime if he met him socially. Plus Rajendra was ultimately chargesheeted.”

My reply to Bhupee is pasted here. We need to go back to first principles. No this subversion of justice will not casue any news anchor on TV, to express outrage, get furious, or ask any sharp or even plain anagry questions!

“Accused IB officer, Rajinder Kumar is yet to be prosecuted by the same CBI that is headed by Ranjit Sinha. While Ranjit Sinha fulfills his social obligations, does he care a damn about his professional duties and code of conduct that binds him and all police officers. He is no less than the Director CBI. This si a very grave breach by Ranjit Sinha, but clearly we have to come to such a pass that it has to be spelt out.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly said “Justice must not only be done , but must also seen to be done.” In this case for no legal reason, Rajinder Kumar, was never arrested by CBI, only the supplememtary chargesheet was filed. That too after a gap of 6 months since the filing of the first chargesheet.

And 2 months before the general election, which any reasonable persopn knew would lead to a change of govt at the Centre. Was such courtesy shown to a IB officer becaue he suppled arms and conspired to kill people in cold blood or because he is their friend and associate? What confidence can Shamima Kauser repose in the CBI after this? You do know that CBI is also the Prosecuting agency in this case and the trial is yet to begin in Ahmedabad Court. Rajinder Kumar has been cahrgesheeted for murders, not a road accident. This case is even otehrwise quite politically fraught. GL Singhal and 3 otehr cops who were chargesheeted for the murder of Ishrat Jahan, have been reinstated in Gujarat police. They gave statements and evidence to the CBI that establishes this conspiracy. Did the CBI even squeal at this brazen interference with the administartion of justice. The CBI has in its custody an audio clip that establishes that the Advocate General of Gujarat, along with accused cop GL Singhal, senior bureaucrats of Gujarat, including the PS to the then Chief Minister N Modi, lawyer for the accsued cops, strategised a at a meeting, how to block the probe and pronouncement of the killing of Ishrat and others as a fake encounter. A clearer case of interference in the adminsitration of justice cannot be made out.

The Chief Minister N Modi did not remove Advocate General, Mr. Trivedi from the constitutional post and the CBI never investigated and chargesheeted all the senior Law Officer, govt officials, police officers and lawyers, involved in this crime. Institutions are being subverted, high offices of public trust compronised. The crime is not limited to one case, the legal system and the judiciary is the last refuge of the citizen. It is being dismantled before your eyes.”

Related posts

Ishrat Jahan Fake Encounter Case – MHA likely to deny sanction to CBI to prosecute 4 IB officers

Wednesday, 2 July 2014 – 5:54pm IST |

The Home Ministry is likely to deny sanction to CBI to prosecute four Intelligence Bureau officials, including its former Special Director Rajinder Kumar, in the Ishrat Jahan fake encounter killing case.

A final decision on CBI’s request for sanction will be taken after a thorough examination of the documents provided by the investigating agency, a Home Ministry official said. The agency has sought sanction from Home Ministry to prosecute Kumar and three other officers — P Mittal, MK Sinha and Rajiv Wankhede — in connection with the case of the fake encounter killing of college student Ishrat, in which the charge sheet has been filed after completion of investigation.

CBI has handed over to Home Ministry the documents sought by it to take a decision regarding the granting of sanction to the agency to prosecute the four Intelligence Bureau officials. Home Ministry had asked for the ‘case diary’ and the Superintendent of Police’s final report before deciding whether to give the sanction to prosecute the IB officers.

Home Ministry sources had said the ministry sought certain documents from CBI after stating that no sanction would be accorded without proper application of mind, for which the material available on record was required. Home Ministry and CBI were at loggerheads over the issue of sanction to prosecute the four IB officials with the former demanding the case diary before giving its nod even as the probe agency decided to seek legal opinion on the demand.

According to the law, a case diary which is maintained by the Investigating Officer can be shared only with the court.

Under the provision of Section 172 CrPC, every police officer conducting an investigation maintains a record in a prescribed format of the probe done on each day in a case diary. These diaries are important records of inquiry carried out by an Investigating Officer. Any court may send for the case diary of a case under inquiry or trial in such court and may use such diaries, not as evidence in the case, but to aid it in such inquiry or trial.

While IB, which comes under MHA, believes that the encounter — in which 19-year-old Ishrat Jahan was killed along with three others by Gujarat crime branch in Ahmedabad in June 2004 — was a genuine counter-terror operation, the CBI believes otherwise.

 

Read more here – http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-mha-likely-to-deny-sanction-to-cbi-to-prosecute-4-ib-officers-in-ishrat-jahan-fake-encounter-killing-case-1999112

Related posts

Will Ishrat Jahan Case will be the first casualty of Modi Regime ?

 

ishrat1

CBI refuses to share ‘case dairy’ in Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case with home ministry

,TNN | Jun 13, 2014, 04.54 AM IST

CBI refuses to share 'case dairy' in Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case with home ministry
Top CBI sources said they will not give its “case diary” to home ministry at any cost and will abide by the procedures of CrPC, which allows them to only share it with the court.
NEW DELHI: With CBI unwilling to share its investigation document – ‘case dairy’ — with the home ministry, the prosecution sanction for former Intelligence Bureau special director Rajinder Kumar and three other officers in the Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case is likely to get stuck.

Top CBI sources said they will not give its “case diary” to home ministry at any cost and will abide by the procedures of CrPC, which allows them to only share it with the court.

READ ALSO: CBI clean chit for Amit Shah in Ishrat Jahan encounter case

CBI is also wary of sharing its ‘investigation details’ with the home ministry in the Ishrat case because it has faced the music in Supreme Court earlier, where a report meant for the court was shared with a minister. In the coal scam last year, CBI had shared its status report with former law minister Ashwani Kumar for which it was slammed by the apex court. Kumar lost his job because of the blunder.

Case diary is the record of investigation done on each day in a prescribed format, which is maintained by the investigating officer.

CBI also feels giving case dairy to the government (a ministry) would set a bad precedent as the Gujarat encounter cases are being monitored by courts. To consider prosecution sanction for IB officers Rajinder Kumar, P Mittal, M K Sinha and Rajiv Wankhede, home ministry has asked CBI to provide the “case dairy”.

It is believed that home ministry may now refuse to give prosecution sanction to CBI against the IB officers. CBI has already filed two charge-sheets in the case but trial is pending in the absence of prosecution sanction.

(​File photo: Ishrat Jahan’s mother Shamima Kauser (left) and sister Nusrat at a press conference in Mumbai on July 11, 2013. )

READ ALSO: Gujarat govt reinstates IPS officer GL Singhal, accused in Ishrat Jahan encounter case

CBI had last month, as first reported by TOI, had sought prosecution sanction from home ministry to prosecute four IB officers in connection with the fake encounter killing of college student Ishrat, in which the charge sheet was filed in February. For seeking sanction, agency had sent its SP (Superintendent of Police) report to the home ministry, a practice usually followed for sanctions. Home ministry last week wrote to agency back that it also wanted the case dairy of Ishrat case.

According to the law, a case diary which is maintained by the Investigating officer can be shared only with the court. Under section 173 of the CrPC, 1973 the investigating officer, after concluding its probe in a given matter, files it final report, including case diary before the competent magistrate only.

In the cases where sanction for prosecution of an official is sought from the government, CBI provides them with details of the case, evidence against the official and other details to help the authority come to a view. Case diaries can not be shared with any authorities other than competent courts.

While IB, which comes under MHA, believes Ishrat Jahan encounter, in which the 19-year old student along with three others were killed by Gujarat crime branch in Ahmedabad in June 2004, was a genuine counter-terror operation, CBI believes otherwise.

Read more here – http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/CBI-refuses-to-share-case-dairy-in-Ishrat-Jahan-fake-encounter-case-with-home-ministry/articleshow/36456243.cms

Related posts

Delhi too muting CBI probe in Ishrat Jahan case?

ishrat1

Mumbai Mirror | Jun 21, 2013, 01.11 AM IST
Mumbai Mirror Bureau

Someone is interested in stalling the CBI probe into the Ishrat Jahan fake encounter case, and it is not just the BJP.

It is not just the BJP that, for obvious reasons, wants to soft-pedal investigations into the extra-judicial killings in the Ishrat Jahan case. Astonishingly, the New Delhi dispensation too, has been dawdling on the matter. Some of its actions are taking the edge off the ongoing CBI investigations.

In late April, additional DGP and senior Gujarat IPS officer P P Pandey, an accused in the case, was interrogated at his residence for two-and-a-half hours after which he broke down, fearing arrest.

“And there was no reason for us not to do so (arrest him),” said an officer associated with the investigation. But a message from the capital insisted that Pandey should not be arrested; that he should be interrogated some other day, and that the interrogation just done would be considered “off the record and not official.”

By the time the CBI sought out Pandey in the second week of May, the officer had disappeared. What the logic was being deferring Pandey’s arrest is puzzling, said a senior officer associated with the investigations.

Pandey was also reportedly spotted in New Delhi with a Congress minister at least twice, even after the CBI had issued an arrest warrant and pleaded that he be declared an absconder. The minister even requested another senior colleague to help out Pandey. Pandey was declared an absconder in the case by a special CBI court.

In the case of Intelligence Bureau super cop Rajinder Kumar, the CBI says it has adequate evidence to immediately arrest him. Kumar allegedly provided false intelligence inputs to Gujarat police and facilitated the killings. But RK, as he is known, is not being arrested; the CBI says the “green signal is yet to come.”

Kumar of course has someone to defend him within his own organisation. IB Director Asif Ibrahim has accused the CBI of gunning for Kumar.

A Tehelka expose says the CBI will testify before a trial judge in Ahmedabad that one of the accused officers has, in a sworn testimony, identified Rajendra Kumar as a mastermind of the encounter killing of Ishrat Jahan and three others in June 2004.

The agency, on directions from the Gujarat High Court, is expected to file its chargesheet before the trial court on July 4.

The report also says another officer has testified that Kumar met the 19-year old Ishrat while she was in illegal police custody. And that yet another testimony with the CBI implicates Amit Shah, who was a junior home minister in Gujarat at the time of the killings.

It was the claim of the accused that they had intelligence inputs that the four who were killed were terrorists setting out to kill Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

Why is Kumar being sheltered, and why are officers who are pursuing the Ishrat case diligently being side-lined or described as over zealous? There are several unanswered questions in the dark Ishrat Jahan case.

Independent sources confirmed to Mirror that the CBI is deliberately going slow on Kumar. And this, it seems, is at the behest of a powerful Congress lobby whose intentions are unclear.

Sources claim that Kumar has been shooting veiled threats at Congressmen. He has warned “to expose over a dozen senior Congressmen and obligations he has discharged for the UPA government” if he is “touched” by the CBI.

No Congress leader was willing to come on record to discuss the issue. Those spoken to dismissed allegations that they were shielding Kumar as baseless and “planted by the BJP”.

Read mor ehere– http://www.mumbaimirror.com/mumbai/crime/Delhi-too-muting-CBI-probe-in-Ishrat-Jahan-case/articleshow/20690413.cms

Related posts

Rihai Manch Press Note on Aseemanand and Ishrat Jahan issue

RIHAI MANCH
Forum for the Release of Innocent Muslims imprisoned in the name of Terrorism
_______________________________________________________________
संघ प्रमुख भागवत को बचाने में लगी हैं जांच एजेंसियां- मो0 शुऐब
असीमानंद के खुलासे पर मायावती की सीबीआई जांच की मांग चुनावी नौटंकी
इशरत जहां हत्याकांड में सीबीआई को राजनैतिक उद्देश्य नहीं दिखना उसकी
कार्यशैली पर सवालिया निशान
शाहिद आजमी की शहादत दिवस पर 11 फरवरी को साम्प्रदायिकता और आतंकवाद की
राजनीति पर सम्मेलन करेगा रिहाई मंच
13 फरवरी को आतंकवाद के फर्जी आरोप में कैद सीतापुर के बशीर हसन और शकील
के गांव में होगा रिहाई के सवाल पर सम्मेलन

लखनऊ 7 फरवरी 2014। रिहाई मंच के अध्यक्ष मुहम्मद शुएब ने असीमानंद के
खुलासे कि मुस्लिम इलाकों में किए गए बम विस्फोटों के षडयंत्र में आरएसएस
प्रमुख, मोहन भागवत भी शामिल थे के बाद भी एनआईए द्वारा संघ प्रमुख से
पूछताछ न करना एक बार फिर साबित करता है कि जांच एजेंसियां संघ परिवार की
आतंकी गतिविधियों पर पर्दा डालने में लगी हैं। मुहम्मद शुएब ने बयान जारी
कर कहा कि आईबी और जांच एजेंसियां इससे कम मजबूत साक्ष्यों के आधार पर
सैंकड़ों की तादाद में मुसलिम युवकों को सिर्फ संदेह के आधार पर आतंकवाद
के फर्जी आरोपों में जेलों में सड़ा रही हैं जबकि असीमानंद इससे पहले भी
मीडिया को दिए साक्षात्कारों में संघ परिवार के नेता इंद्रेश कुमार और
गोरखपुर से भाजपा सांसद योगी आदित्यनाथ की आंतकी घटनाओं में भूमिका का
खुलासा कर चुका है। बावजूद इसके न तो एनआईए ने और न ही सीबीआई ने उन्हें
पकड़ने की जरूरत समझी। यहां तक की मालेगांव बम धमाकों के आरोप में जेल
में बंद आरोपी साध्वी प्रज्ञा सिंह ठाकुर के साथ भाजपा अध्यक्ष, राजनाथ
सिंह के साथ गोपनीय बैठक की तस्वीर भी मीडिया में आ चुकी है लेकिन बावजूद
इसके आजतक जांच व सुरक्षा एजेंसियों ने उनसे पूछताछ करना भी जरूरी नहीं
समझा। इससे साबित होता है कि आईबी और एनआईए आतंकवाद से लड़ने के बजाय
उसके सबसे बड़़े कारखाने को बचाने में ही दिलचस्पी रखती हंै। जिससे इन
जांच एजेंसियों व हिन्दुत्ववादी आतंकी गिरोहों की मिलीभगत भी सामने आ
जाती है जिससे देश के सामने आंतरिक सुरक्षा का खतरा बढ़ गया है।

रिहाई मंच आजमगढ़ के प्रभारी मसीहुद्दीन संजरी ने उत्तर प्रदेश की पूर्व
मुख्यमंत्री, मायावती द्वारा असीमानंद के खुलासों पर सीबीआई जांच कराने
की मांग को चुनावी नौटंकी करार देते हुए कहा कि बसपा सरकार में अगस्त
2008 में कानपुर में बजरंग दल के दो कार्यकर्ता बम बनाते हुए विस्फोट में
उड़ गए थे जिनके पास से भारी मात्रा में विस्फोटकों और शहर के मानचित्र
के अलावा उनके मोबाइल फोन में संघ परिवार के कई पदाधिकारियों के नम्बर भी
मिले थे, लेकिन न ही संघ के पदाधिकारियों से कोई पूछताछ हुई और न ही जांच
को आगे बढ़ाया गया। इसी तरह लखनऊ और फैजाबाद की कचहरियों में 2007 में
हुए सिलसिलेवार बम धमाकों के बाद तत्कालीन एडीजी लाॅ एंड आॅर्डर, ब्रजलाल
ने बयान देकर कहा था कि कचहरी धमाके, मालेगांव व मक्का मस्जिद धमाके एक
ही आतंकी संगठन ने अंजाम दिए हैं। इसके अलावा कचहरी धमाकों के जांच
अधिकरी, राजेश कुमार श्रीवास्तव ने भी लखनऊ, फैजाबाद और बाराबंकी की
अदालतों में हलफनामा देकर कहा है कि मालेगांव और मक्का मस्जिद धमाकों की
तरह ही कचहरी धमाकों को भी आंतकी संगठन हूजी ने अंजाम दिया है। लेकिन
मक्का मस्जिद और मालेगांव बम धमाकों में हिन्दुत्ववादी संगठनों की भूमिका
के खुलासे के बावजूद भी तत्कालीन मुख्यमंत्री मायावती ने कचहरी धमाकों की
सीबीआई जांच कराने की आवाम की मांग को नकार दिया था। मसीहुद्दीन संजरी ने
कहा कि इसी तरह 23 दिसम्बर 2007 को मायावती की पुलिस ने नरेंद्र मोदी की
तर्ज पर शाल बेचने आए दो बेगुनाह कश्मीरी नौजावानों को चिनहट में यह कहकर
फर्जी एनकाउंटर में मार दिया कि ये दोनों आतंकवादी थे और मायावती को
मारने आए थे। जिस पर सवाल उठनेे के बावजूद मायावती सरकार ने किसी भी
प्रकार की कोई जांच नहीं करवाई। ऐसे में असीमानंद के खुलासे पर मायावती
की सीबीआई जांच की मांग को सिवाय चुनावी नाटक के और कुछ नही कहा जा सकता
है।

रिहाई मंच के प्रवक्ता, राजीव यादव व शाहनवाज आलम ने कहा कि जिस तरह इशरत
जहां फर्जी मुठभेड़ कांड की चार्जशीट में भाजपा नेता अमित शाह का नाम न
शामिल करने के पीछे सीबीआई ने यह दलील दी है कि उसे इस हत्याकांड में कोई
राजनीतिक उद्देश्य नहीं मिला, इससे जांच एजेंसियों का संघी तत्वों के
प्रति सहानुभूति पूर्ण रवैया फिर उजागर हो गया है। जबकि इशरत जहां फर्जी
मुठभेड़ मामले में सेवानिवृत्त डिप्टी एसपी देवेंद्रगिरि हिम्मतगिरि ने
एडिश्नल चीफ मेट्रोपोलिटिन मजिस्ट्रेट, मुम्बई के समक्ष अपने बयान में कई
अन्य गवाहों की तरह साफ-साफ कहा था कि आईबी अधिकारी, राजेंद्र कुमार ने
उनके सामने डीजी बंजारा से कहा था कि एनकाउंटर के लिए वह मुख्यमंत्री से
बात कर लें। जिस पर बंजारा ने जवाब दिया था कि उनकी बात सफेद दाढ़ी और
काली दाढ़ी से हो गई है। प्रवक्ताओं ने कहा कि अगर देश की सर्वोच्च जांच
एजेंसी अपराधियों के बीच होने वाली ऐसी साफ सांकेतिक भाषा का भी विश्लेषण
नहीं कर पाती है जिसे पूरा देश समझता है कि वो बात किसके लिए कही गई है
तब फिर सीबीआई की पूरी कार्यशैली और उसके अस्तित्व पर ही सवालिया निशान
लग जाता है।

रिहाई मंच के प्रवक्ताओं ने कहा कि आगामी 11 फरवरी 2014 को शहीद एडवोकेट
शाहिद आजमी, जिन्हें चार साल पहले मुम्बई RIHAI MANCH
Forum for the Release of Innocent Muslims imprisoned in the name of Terrorism
_______________________________________________________________
संघ प्रमुख भागवत को बचाने में लगी हैं जांच एजेंसियां- मो0 शुऐब
असीमानंद के खुलासे पर मायावती की सीबीआई जांच की मांग चुनावी नौटंकी
इशरत जहां हत्याकांड में सीबीआई को राजनैतिक उद्देश्य नहीं दिखना उसकी
कार्यशैली पर सवालिया निशान
शाहिद आजमी की शहादत दिवस पर 11 फरवरी को साम्प्रदायिकता और आतंकवाद की
राजनीति पर सम्मेलन करेगा रिहाई मंच
13 फरवरी को आतंकवाद के फर्जी आरोप में कैद सीतापुर के बशीर हसन और शकील
के गांव में होगा रिहाई के सवाल पर सम्मेलन

लखनऊ 7 फरवरी 2014। रिहाई मंच के अध्यक्ष मुहम्मद शुएब ने असीमानंद के
खुलासे कि मुस्लिम इलाकों में किए गए बम विस्फोटों के षडयंत्र में आरएसएस
प्रमुख, मोहन भागवत भी शामिल थे के बाद भी एनआईए द्वारा संघ प्रमुख से
पूछताछ न करना एक बार फिर साबित करता है कि जांच एजेंसियां संघ परिवार की
आतंकी गतिविधियों पर पर्दा डालने में लगी हैं। मुहम्मद शुएब ने बयान जारी
कर कहा कि आईबी और जांच एजेंसियां इससे कम मजबूत साक्ष्यों के आधार पर
सैंकड़ों की तादाद में मुसलिम युवकों को सिर्फ संदेह के आधार पर आतंकवाद
के फर्जी आरोपों में जेलों में सड़ा रही हैं जबकि असीमानंद इससे पहले भी
मीडिया को दिए साक्षात्कारों में संघ परिवार के नेता इंद्रेश कुमार और
गोरखपुर से भाजपा सांसद योगी आदित्यनाथ की आंतकी घटनाओं में भूमिका का
खुलासा कर चुका है। बावजूद इसके न तो एनआईए ने और न ही सीबीआई ने उन्हें
पकड़ने की जरूरत समझी। यहां तक की मालेगांव बम धमाकों के आरोप में जेल
में बंद आरोपी साध्वी प्रज्ञा सिंह ठाकुर के साथ भाजपा अध्यक्ष, राजनाथ
सिंह के साथ गोपनीय बैठक की तस्वीर भी मीडिया में आ चुकी है लेकिन बावजूद
इसके आजतक जांच व सुरक्षा एजेंसियों ने उनसे पूछताछ करना भी जरूरी नहीं
समझा। इससे साबित होता है कि आईबी और एनआईए आतंकवाद से लड़ने के बजाय
उसके सबसे बड़़े कारखाने को बचाने में ही दिलचस्पी रखती हंै। जिससे इन
जांच एजेंसियों व हिन्दुत्ववादी आतंकी गिरोहों की मिलीभगत भी सामने आ
जाती है जिससे देश के सामने आंतरिक सुरक्षा का खतरा बढ़ गया है।

रिहाई मंच आजमगढ़ के प्रभारी मसीहुद्दीन संजरी ने उत्तर प्रदेश की पूर्व
मुख्यमंत्री, मायावती द्वारा असीमानंद के खुलासों पर सीबीआई जांच कराने
की मांग को चुनावी नौटंकी करार देते हुए कहा कि बसपा सरकार में अगस्त
2008 में कानपुर में बजरंग दल के दो कार्यकर्ता बम बनाते हुए विस्फोट में
उड़ गए थे जिनके पास से भारी मात्रा में विस्फोटकों और शहर के मानचित्र
के अलावा उनके मोबाइल फोन में संघ परिवार के कई पदाधिकारियों के नम्बर भी
मिले थे, लेकिन न ही संघ के पदाधिकारियों से कोई पूछताछ हुई और न ही जांच
को आगे बढ़ाया गया। इसी तरह लखनऊ और फैजाबाद की कचहरियों में 2007 में
हुए सिलसिलेवार बम धमाकों के बाद तत्कालीन एडीजी लाॅ एंड आॅर्डर, ब्रजलाल
ने बयान देकर कहा था कि कचहरी धमाके, मालेगांव व मक्का मस्जिद धमाके एक
ही आतंकी संगठन ने अंजाम दिए हैं। इसके अलावा कचहरी धमाकों के जांच
अधिकरी, राजेश कुमार श्रीवास्तव ने भी लखनऊ, फैजाबाद और बाराबंकी की
अदालतों में हलफनामा देकर कहा है कि मालेगांव और मक्का मस्जिद धमाकों की
तरह ही कचहरी धमाकों को भी आंतकी संगठन हूजी ने अंजाम दिया है। लेकिन
मक्का मस्जिद और मालेगांव बम धमाकों में हिन्दुत्ववादी संगठनों की भूमिका
के खुलासे के बावजूद भी तत्कालीन मुख्यमंत्री मायावती ने कचहरी धमाकों की
सीबीआई जांच कराने की आवाम की मांग को नकार दिया था। मसीहुद्दीन संजरी ने
कहा कि इसी तरह 23 दिसम्बर 2007 को मायावती की पुलिस ने नरेंद्र मोदी की
तर्ज पर शाल बेचने आए दो बेगुनाह कश्मीरी नौजावानों को चिनहट में यह कहकर
फर्जी एनकाउंटर में मार दिया कि ये दोनों आतंकवादी थे और मायावती को
मारने आए थे। जिस पर सवाल उठनेे के बावजूद मायावती सरकार ने किसी भी
प्रकार की कोई जांच नहीं करवाई। ऐसे में असीमानंद के खुलासे पर मायावती
की सीबीआई जांच की मांग को सिवाय चुनावी नाटक के और कुछ नही कहा जा सकता
है।

रिहाई मंच के प्रवक्ता, राजीव यादव व शाहनवाज आलम ने कहा कि जिस तरह इशरत
जहां फर्जी मुठभेड़ कांड की चार्जशीट में भाजपा नेता अमित शाह का नाम न
शामिल करने के पीछे सीबीआई ने यह दलील दी है कि उसे इस हत्याकांड में कोई
राजनीतिक उद्देश्य नहीं मिला, इससे जांच एजेंसियों का संघी तत्वों के
प्रति सहानुभूति पूर्ण रवैया फिर उजागर हो गया है। जबकि इशरत जहां फर्जी
मुठभेड़ मामले में सेवानिवृत्त डिप्टी एसपी देवेंद्रगिरि हिम्मतगिरि ने
एडिश्नल चीफ मेट्रोपोलिटिन मजिस्ट्रेट, मुम्बई के समक्ष अपने बयान में कई
अन्य गवाहों की तरह साफ-साफ कहा था कि आईबी अधिकारी, राजेंद्र कुमार ने
उनके सामने डीजी बंजारा से कहा था कि एनकाउंटर के लिए वह मुख्यमंत्री से
बात कर लें। जिस पर बंजारा ने जवाब दिया था कि उनकी बात सफेद दाढ़ी और
काली दाढ़ी से हो गई है। प्रवक्ताओं ने कहा कि अगर देश की सर्वोच्च जांच
एजेंसी अपराधियों के बीच होने वाली ऐसी साफ सांकेतिक भाषा का भी विश्लेषण
नहीं कर पाती है जिसे पूरा देश समझता है कि वो बात किसके लिए कही गई है
तब फिर सीबीआई की पूरी कार्यशैली और उसके अस्तित्व पर ही सवालिया निशान
लग जाता है।

रिहाई मंच के प्रवक्ताओं ने कहा कि आगामी 11 फरवरी 2014 को शहीद एडवोकेट
शाहिद आजमी, जिन्हें चार साल पहले मुम्बई में आईबी और साम्प्रदायिक
शक्तियों के गठजोड़ ने कत्ल कर दिया था, की चैथी शहादत दिवस पर यूपी
प्रेस क्लब लखनऊ में 11 बजे से ‘‘साम्प्रदायिक हिंसा और आतंकवाद का
हौव्वा, संदर्भ – गुजरात के बाद अब मुजफ्फरनगर’’ पर सम्मेलन आयोजित किया
जाएगा। वहीं सीतापुर से आतंकवाद के नाम पर पकड़े गए बेगुनाह बशीर हसन और
मोहम्मद शकील के भाई मोहम्मद इसहाक ने कहा कि 13 फरवरी को बिसवां
विधानसभा क्षेत्र स्थित गांव कुतुबपुर में आतंकवाद के नाम पर कैद
बेगुनाहों की रिहाई के सवाल पर सम्मेलन आयोजित किया जाएगा।

द्वारा जारी-
शाहनवाज आलम, राजीव यादव
प्रवक्ता रिहाई मंच
09415254919, 09452800752में आईबी और साम्प्रदायिक
शक्तियों के गठजोड़ ने कत्ल कर दिया था, की चैथी शहादत दिवस पर यूपी
प्रेस क्लब लखनऊ में 11 बजे से ‘‘साम्प्रदायिक हिंसा और आतंकवाद का
हौव्वा, संदर्भ – गुजरात के बाद अब मुजफ्फरनगर’’ पर सम्मेलन आयोजित किया
जाएगा। वहीं सीतापुर से आतंकवाद के नाम पर पकड़े गए बेगुनाह बशीर हसन और
मोहम्मद शकील के भाई मोहम्मद इसहाक ने कहा कि 13 फरवरी को बिसवां
विधानसभा क्षेत्र स्थित गांव कुतुबपुर में आतंकवाद के नाम पर कैद
बेगुनाहों की रिहाई के सवाल पर सम्मेलन आयोजित किया जाएगा।

द्वारा जारी-
शाहनवाज आलम, राजीव यादव
प्रवक्ता रिहाई मंच
09415254919, 09452800752

Related posts

Press Release – Concluding Arguments Zakia Jafri Protest Petition #ishratjahan #Narendramodi

ishrat1

Part A

 

The Petitioner in the Protest petition has already apprised this court of the orders dated 12.09.2011 and 0702.2013 (Crl Appeal No. 1765/2011) by the Supreme Court and legal parameters for deciding the questions which fall for determination. A note (during the hearings on June 24, 25 & 26, 2013) was given by the petitioner, along with relevant judgements, pointing out the scope and jurisdiction of the proceedings, namely, that at this stage a prima facie assessment has to be made by this Hon’ble Court to find out whether offence was committed by the accused in order to take cognisance and issue process. For this exercise, this Hon’ble Court is neither bound by the ‘label’ given to the report on investigation (u/s 173, 173(8) CrPC) or the conclusions drawn by the SIT. This Hon’ble Court alone has jurisdiction to decide whether material produced by the SIT and by the Petitioner is sufficient for either taking cognisance against the accused or to direct further investigation u/s 156(3) for filing supplementary charge sheet u/s 173 (8) or proceed to take further statement by itself. While assessing the material, this Hon’ble Court has to keep in mind that it is examining the material before it only prima facie and not applying the parameters which are applicable when statements are recorded during trial. A reasonable suspicion is enough to register a crime, not actual proof of its commission which has to be established during the trial.

 

Following parameters have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in decidng the question of ‘Conspiracy’ u/s 120-A /120-B IPC:

  • Conspiracy is a substantive offence introduced by Criminal Law Amendment, 1913. Conspiracy to commit an offence itself is an offence.
  • Conspiracy is hatched in secrecy; it is difficult to adduce direct evidence; prosecution can only rely on different acts of various parties to infer what they have done pursuant to their common plan.
  • Mostly circumstantial evidence.
  • Actual meeting of two persons not necessary.
  • Actual words of conspiracy not necessary to be proved.
  • A tacit understanding between the conspirators is enough.
  • If several offences are committed pursuant to the conspiracy, all conspirators irrespective of whether they actively participated in the commission of offence, will be liable.
  • Very fact of conspiracy constitutes an offence, not necessary that anything was done in pursuance thereof.
  • For establishing Conspiracy-mere agreement is enough, it can be proved by necessary implications.
  • From the acts and conduct of the parties, conspiracy can be inferred. One performing one part of the act, the other performing other part of the act.
  • Conspiracy can be proved by surrounding circumstances and the conduct of the accused both before and after the alleged commission of crime.

 

[ Vide:   (i)  Bimbadhar vs State of Orissa AIR 1956 SC 469 ( Para 13 & 14);

      1.  Leo Roy Frey vs The Supdtt. District Jail AIR 1958 SC 119  (Para 4);
      2. Major E.G. Barsey vs State of Bombay AIR 1962 SC 1762 (Para 31);
      3. Bhagwan Swaruplal Bishan Lal and ors Vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 682 (Para 8);
      4.  Lennart Schussler & Anr vs The Director of enforcement and ors 1970 (1) SCC 152 (Para 9 & Para 10) ;
      5. Yash Pal Mitthal vs State of Punjab 1977(4) SCC 540 (Para 9);
      6. VC Shukla vs State 1988(3) SCC 665 (Para 8) ;
      7. Keher Singh vs State 1988(3) SCC 609
        (Para 271 to 280) ;
      8. State of Tamil Nadu vs Nalini and ors 1999(5) SCC 253 (Para 656 & 662) ;
      9.  Ferozuddin Bashiruddin vs State of Kerela 2001 (7) SCC 569 (Para 23, 24, 25, 28) ;
      10. Mohd. Khalid vs State of WB 2002 (7) SCC 334
        (Para 17-19) ;
      11. State vs Navjot Sandhu 2005 (11) SCC 600 (Para 89).]

 

 

 

The petitioner however, submits that it in prima facie satisfaction of the offence of conspiracy that is enough at this stage. Larger conpiracy and breakdown of law and order had taken place is clear from the obsertvations already made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

      1. Zahira Habibullah & Ors vs State of Gujarat 200 (4) SCC 158 Paras 64-69;
      2. NHRC vs State of Gujarat 2009 (6) SCC 767. Further Investigation was directed as the investigating machinery had failed to carry out Fair Investigation.
      3. For prima facie establishing Conspiracy, enough material is available. In Conspiracy direct evidence is usually not available; it is inferred and proved by circumstantial evidence.

 

The Petitioner further submits that for construing the offence of ‘abetment’ under section 107-120 under Chapter V of the IPC, the following ingredients, amongst others, are sufficient.

      • Bare agreement to commit an offence is covered by Section 120A. But for abetment there should be some act or illegal omission in pursuance of that conspiracy. Commission of actual crime is not necessary.
      • In abetment by illegal omission, it is to be shown that accused intentionally aided the commission of crime by his non-interference.
      • Omission invokes breach of legal obligation.
      • Non- interference when there is duty to interfere amounts to abetment.
      • A person abets by aiding, when by any act done either prior to, or at the time of the commission of an act, he intends to facilitate, and does in fact facilitates, the commission thereof.
      • Rendering any kind assistance constitutes abetment.
      • Person himself may not act but he may instigate another to put in execution his criminal intentions.
      • Instigation includes- stimulating, suggesting by language or expression or hints or encouragement, advice to act.
      • Words amounting to permission may fall under instigation.

 

[ Vide  (i)  Jamuna Simngh v/s State of Bihar AIR 1967 SC 553
Para  567;

      1.  Sri Ram VS State of UP, 1975 (3) SCC 495, Para 6;
      2. Kartar Singh vs State of Punjab, 1994, (3) SCC, 569, Paras 102-109;
      3. Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chhatisgarh, 2001 (9) SCC 618, Para 20;
      4.  Chittrash kumar vs State 2009 (16) SCC, 605, Paras 11-20 & 26;
      5. Pramath Nath VS Saroj ranjan, AIR 1962 SC 876, Para 16 @ 886
      6. Ranganayaki VS State throiugh Inspector of Police 2004 (12) SCC 521, Para 11]

 

For proving abetment, enough material exists. Prima facie the ingredients of abetment exist before the Hon’ble Court to take cognisance.

 

The Petitioner has already given notes on both ‘Conspiracy’ and ‘Abetment’ along with copies of the cases cited.

 

In view of the above legal position and relying upon the deailed notes on legal and factual aspects submitted in the course of the hearings from June 24 – August 27, 2013, including the Protest Petition and in SIT Reports, the Petitioner craves leave to refer to the material which prima facie establishes the commission of crime of conspiracy and abetment besides other independent offences under the IPC and other statutory enactments.

 

Part B

Accused No. 1, Narendra Modi was Pracharak of RSS for nearly two decades. During the chief ministership of Keshubhai Patel, the RSS head had pushed the name of Modi as the chief minister of Gujarat around September 2001. He actually became CM on 7.10.2001. Thereafter, he fought an MLA bye-election from Rajkot and was declared as elected from the said constituency on 22.2.2002. Five days after his being declared as the elected MLA from Rajkot, the tragic Godhra incident took place on 27.2.2002. Narendra Modi was brought into Gujarat politics to vehemently push the aggressive supremacist Hindutva ideology. He was keen to establish himself within the BJP as a hardline supporter of Hindutva. He came into Gujarat politics with a pre-determined mindset. Therefore, when VHP/RSS/ Bajrang Dal and DurgaVahini wanted to have the ‘Mahayagna’ at Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh to commemorate the anniversary of the demolition of the Babri Masjid (which had taken place on 6.12.1992), inspite of repeated messages from the State Intelligence Bureau (PB Upadhyaya and Sanjiv Bhatt) from 7.2.2002 to 25.2.2002, warning the Government about this Mahayagna and its repercussions and also that 2,800 karsevaks had left Ahmedabad on 22.2.2002 and another batch of 1900 had left on 24.2.2002, no precautionary measures were taken by the government and its home department headed by A-1 Modi. The A-1, therefore, supported the ‘Mahayagna’ as it was in commemoration of the act of the demolition of the Babri Masjid, which also he had supported. The A-28 ACS (Home), Ashok Narayan in his statement before the SIT dated 12.12.2009 has admitted these State Intelligence messages.

 

In the ordinary course whenever there is a message by the State Intelligence, necessary instructions are issued by the Home Department/DGP to the concerned officers. But no such instructions were issued as this build-up of communal mobilization was allowed. In fact no actions were initiated though the State Government was also informed of the return of karsevaks from Faizabad and the apprehension of the breach of law and order.

 

The Sabaramti Express which had left Faizabad (UP) on 26.2.2002 carrying a group of karsevaks had witnessed a violent incident at two railway stations, including Rudauli, (Uttar Pradesh). Admittedly, when the Sabaramti Express reached Godhra (at about 7.15 am on 27.2.2002—it was five hours late), the kar sevaks were shouting provocative, anti-Muslim slogans.

 

Thereafter the said incident took place resulting in burning of two coaches, of which S-6 was badly burnt. To complete the narration, the train reached Vadodara after leaving Godhra at 1-1.30 p.m. where karsevaks had assaulted three persons, one of them being Abdul Rashid who died. From Vadodara the train reached Anand around 2.20 p.m. where again violence took place and karsevaks indulged in violence, killing of one person and causing injury to two persons.—they were all Muslims. From Anand the train finally reached Ahmedabad railway station around 3 p.m. where the karsevaks were shouting bloodthirsty sloganx (“Khoon ka badla Khoon”) threatening revenge against all Muslims. At Ahmedabad railway station, stabbing, stone pelting incidents etc. also took place.

 

The Fax message of the incident was sent by DM Smt. Jayanti Ravi to the CMO, Home Department and Revenue Department, which was received at 9 a.m. of 27.2.2002. In the said message, it was clearly mentioned that the karsevaks were shouting provocative, anti-Muslim slogans. In addition, Sanjiv Bhatt, State Intelligence had also sent a message to the CS, HS,CM, MOS Home and DGP Gandhinagar confirming the fact that kar sevaks were shouting provocative slogans (Both messages are available in the SIT Records).

 

That the A-1 already having a mindset, indulged in act of Conspiracy and Abetment with other accused and other accused inter se which will be clear from the following:-

 

    1. After receiving the fax message from Jayanti Ravi, Collector/DM, two telephone calls were made by A-1 to Jaideep Patel (A-21), General Secretary of the VHP from the Mobile:09825037439 belonging to the PA of A-1 Modi, AP Patel. The PA’s (A.P. Patel) statement is the only one that the SIT has conspicuously avoided recording though statements of five other officials from the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) have been recorded. A-1 issued instructions to Jaideep Patel, (A-21) who was at that time at Naroda, and who, therafter, left for Godhra reaching there around 12 noon. The first manifestation of the Criminal Act of Conspiracy took place between A-1 and A-21 when A-1 as the Chief Minister and head of the Government, instead of instructing the police and bureaucratic machinery about the fall out and repercussions of the incident and directing precautionary and preventive steps, called the VHP General Secretary and plotted revenge. An agreement to indulge in acts of criminal nature was arrived at between them. What was done by A-21 after reaching Godhra is clear i.e. he mobilized the VHP cadres at Godhra, institgating them against ordinary Muslims. The Conspiracy, was, therefore clear, between A-1 and A-21, which was to instigate andmobilise the VHP cadres against ordinary Muslims. This was done by A-1 because of his pre-determined mindset of aggressive Hindutva and anti-Muslim prejudice/bias.

 

    1. In furtherance of this Conspiracy, A-1 called a meeting at his residence at Gandhinagar at 10.30 a.m. The persons who participated in the said meeting and became party to theconspiracy were Minister of State for Home, Gordhan Zadaphiya (A-5), Ashok Narayan, ACS Home, (A-28),K Chakaravarthi DGP, Gujarat (A-25) PC Pande, CP Ahmedabad (A-29),and K. Nityanandam, Home Secretary, (A-34) and other members of the Chief Minister’s Secretariat. With the consent of all, it was decided to suppress the fact that the State Intelligence was constantly warning about the mobilisations by the VHP, BD and Durga Vahini in relation to ‘Mahayagna’ at Faizabad-Ayodhya and its repercussions. It was also decided to suppress the message received from Collector Godhra, Smt. Jayanti Ravi that karsevaks were shouting provocative, anti-Muslim slogans when the train reached Godhra.This Note (for the State Assembly) was prepared at the meeting to suppress the fact that anti-Muslim slogan shouting by kar sevaks was a provocation which led to the incident.

 

This was deliberately done because A-1 had already mobilized the VHP cadres at Godhra by immeditaley sending Jaideep Patel (A-21) there. It may be noted that even the State Legislature/VidhanSabha was not informed about the fax message of the Collector and only the note prepared in the meeting at the residence of A-1 was read out in the Vidhan Sabha at 1 p.m. by Gordhan Zadaphiya (A-5).

 

    1. In furtherance of the Conspiracy, A-1 also involved Ashok Bhatt (A-2) Minister of Health, who left Gandhinagar for Godhra on the instructions of A-1 and reached Godhra at 1 p.m. It is clear from the record of the telephonic conversations available with the SIT that, before A-2 reached Godhra, he had several telephonic  conversations with A-1. That Ashok Bhatt wassent to Godhra as part of the Conspiracy is clear from the series of acts which took place at Godhra including the manner in which the post mortems were deliberately conducted. This will be dealt with a little later. But it is clear that A-1 Modi with his deeply entrenched anti-Muslim mindset was constantly subverting the state’s responsibility of upholding law and order and was allowing his political ideology to override it.

 

    1. Further, the fact that, the VHP declared a bandh for 28.2.2002 –a fact that was known by 12 p.m. on 27.2.2002 (according to a Message of the SIB) which was supported by the ruling BJP, is sufficient evidence to prove that the mobilization of VHP cadre at Godhra was in furtherance of Conspiracy and A-1 Modi had completely caste aside his role as head of Government responsible for upholding law and order. The SIB Message that was sent out before 1 p.m. on 27.2.2002 warned of likely violent repercussions on the occasion of the bandh as well as communal mobilisation by the VHP, and therefore advises bandobast and other strict precautionary measures. The warning of SIB aside, this kind of aggressivemobilization at the site of the Burnt Railway Coach, out in the open, was allowed by A-1 and his Collaborators in violation of the Curfew Orders promulgated by 10.15-10.30 a.m. in Godhra city on 27.2.2002. A-1 by supporting the Bandh violated the law laid down against Bandhs by the Supreme Court (Communist Party(M) of India vs Bharat Kumar & Ors,Supreme Court, 1998 (1) SCC 201) and thus obstructed the lawful functioning of the state machinery. Rajendrasinh Rana (BJP) (A-18) has accepted the responsibility for giving the Bandh call. Nalin Bhatt (A-17 also was party to the decision as also Kaushik Mehta, VHP (A-19).

 

    1. At 1 p.m. on 27.2.2002, as mentioned above, the correct facts were not put before the State Assembly. Mayabehn Kodnani, (A-16), MLA from Naroda Patiya became a part of the Conspiracy by not informing the Assembly of the correct facts and Gordhan Zadaphiya (A-5) who had already become part of the Conspiracy, read out the Note that was prepared at the residence of A-1, suppressing the fact of provocative slogan shouting by the kar sevaks.

 

    1. A very important fact that emerged in the investigation, is a direct statement under section 161 CrPC, given by Sureshbhai Mehta, then Minister for Industries (dated 15.8.2009). Mr Mehta categorically said to the SIT, “I was sitting by the side of Narendra Modi, chief minister who remarked that Hindus should wake up now.” This direct statement of Mr Suresh Mehta completely supports the fact that A-1 had a pre-disposed mind-set which was biased against Muslims and he had acted in pursuance of the said mindset in hatching the Conspiracy that resulted in a Carnage of Muslims from 28.2.2002 until April/May 2002.
    2. There were four phone calls between A-1 Modi and A-2 Bhatt at 13:53:44 hours, 14:50:44 hours, 15:05:09 and 15:38:10 hours all before A-1 Modi left for Godhra (Page 42, Protest Petition, Vol I). The Co-Conspirators, namely, Ashok Bhatt, Minister for Health (A-2) and Jaideep Patel, VHP, (A-21) and Gordhan Zadaphiya, Minister of State for Home (A-5) who reached Godhra around 4 p.m., in furtherance of what A-1 Modi had directed, decided to hold en masse post mortems of 58 dead bodies near the burnt Coach out in the open to further provoke the aggressive crowd of RSS-VHP workers present there. Before carrying out the post mortem, no identification of dead bodies was done, relatives were not called orwere present which was in violation of existing laws and procedures. The decision to conduct the post mortem in violation of law was a part of Conspiracy of which A-1 was the Chief Architect. By allowing the post mortem in the open, at the Railway Yard, as also allowing photographs to be taken and circulated widely, the RSS-VHP with these Conspirators had a clear design to escalate anti-Muslim feelings and provoke violence against Muslims. They became successful in their design which is clear from the brutal violence that started thesame day and intensified from 28.2.2002, continuing for several  months. In the Godhra Sessions Court Judgement (Sessions Case Nos 69/2009/ 86/2006. 204/2009 @ Page 105),the Special Judge PR Patel has pointed out the illegalities that were committed, in particular, that the autopsy was carried out illegally, post mortem was not carried out by panel of two doctors, no attempt was made by the Medical Officer to collect Blood Tissue Samples from dead bodies for being sent to FSL for examination and that no attempt was made toascertain the presence of any inflammable liquid, petrol, diesel, kerosene acid etc on the dead bodies. Page 100 of the Sessions Court Judgement has a photograph showing the dead bodies lying out in the open at the Railway Yard Godhra.

 

    1. A-1 with Anil Mukhim, Additional Principal Secretary and OP

Singh left for Ahmedabad airport from Gandhinagar on the afternoon of 27.2.2002. But instead of going directly, they deliberately took a detour and passed through Meghaninagar and Naroda areas. The fact that they were at Meghaninagar and Naroda is clear from the locational analysis of Anil Mukhim’s Mobile Phone which showed that at 15:33:40 on 27.2.2002  he was there accompanied by A-1 and OP Singh. From Ahmedabad airport they left for Vadodara by plane and from Vadodara by helicopter to Godhra.  They reached Godhra at about 1645 hours as per a SIB message. At the helipad they were received by Ashok Bhatt (A-2) and DM Jayanti Ravi.  When they reached the spot at the railway yard where the burnt coaches were kept, a large crowd of RSS-VHP persons had already assembled and the post mortems were going on. In violation of the curfew, a large mob, consisting mostly of RSS and VHP cadres was allowed to assemble.

9.   A-1 entered inside the Burnt Coach (S-6), came out and spoke

to the Media as well as VHP and RSS supporters. Statements of VHP-
RSS persons who were present  at the time were recorded in a Sting
Operation by Tehelka (Operation Kalank). All of them spoke about what
was stated by A-1 NarendtraModi at the spot.

 

 

 

 

“Tehelka Transcripts about Modi

RAJENDRA VYAS. VHP’s Ahmedabad city president. He was the one who was in-charge of the Sabarmati Express train.

T: mujhejaanatha…narendrabhaikakya…unkekyashabd they? Kyabola unhone?
T: I wanted to know about NarendraModi …what were his words…what did he say?

R: bola to sahimaine…kipahleyussnebatayakibhai hum badlalenge…mainejokhudkhuleaam bola…aurmaine us samaykhanabhinahikhayatha…paanibhinahipiyatha…aur main itnaakrosh me tha…kiitne log mare they to meriaakh se aasunikalte they…magar main dadagirikartatha…galiyaboltatha…to wohh (Modi) bolterajendrabhaishaantraho sab ho jaayega …matlab ho jaayegakamatlabkyahai…josamajhne wale samajhsaktehai…
R: I told you…first he said that we will take revenge…whatever I said publicly at that time…I hadn’t even eaten anything then…Didn’t even have a drop of water…and I was so furious…that so many people had died and hence tears were flowing in from my eyes…but when I started using my strength…started abusing… he asked me to keep silent, everything will be taken care of…What did he mean when he said that everything will be taken care of…the ones who had to understand, understood…

 

DHIMANT BHATT :
He is chief account officer of the MS University

D: After Godhra, there was this reaction and a climate was created in which the parivar, the top leaders, meaning the RSS, the VHP, the Bajrang Dal, the BJP and the DurgaVahini… and in that we had NarendraModi’s support.. – let people say what they are saying – support in the sense that if Hindus are going to be burnt like this… if conspiracies are going to be hatched to burn Hindus… they wanted to burn the whole train (Sabarmati Express)… and now if we don’t do anything, if we don’t give an adequate reaction, another train will be set on fire…. This was the idea, the thought process that came from him (Modi)… I was present in the meeting…

T: Where, sir…

D: It was held in Baroda only… at a secret place…

T: After Godhra …

D: Immediately. The same day as Godhra… there were two meetings, one at Ahmedabad and one at Baroda…to what action we have to take…to issme sab log nahi they…some of the very few members were there…BJP RSS Parishad … it was decided that for how long are we going to take this… if we have the guts, we should give a reaction … so everyone felt, unanimously, that we don’t want to be defensive so we should start tonight…

 

ANIL PATEL

This is the transcript of the meeting with Anil Patel. He is Vibhag Pramukh of Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

No, in Sabarkantha. Entire Sabarkantha. As for setting villages ablaze, even the smallest one was not spared

T: nahibachhaji..

Not spared

A:  Not even one Muslim home was spared in the entire district. At nine in the morning on Feb 27 I got to know that the train had been burnt but when I saw it on TV, I realized it was a big incident and that there would be a big reaction… then a message came from the state office that the next day a bandh would be observed… Then I met a friend who asked me how we would respond

T: musalmanhai?

Was he a Muslim?

 

ARVIND PANDYA
Special Public Prosecutor

Pandya: nahiaisanahihai…Modi to pahley se apni line kehai… wobaatchodo…lekinwohh post pebaithehai to limitations jyadahai …unkepaasbhikaafi….it is he who gave all signals in favor of hindus…agar ruler hard hota to thodakuchahota…lekinapne log kyahai main aapkobatao…Hindus don’t know how to work with…jaisay Muslims hotehai ..

 

SURESH RICHARD
Accused in the Naroda Patiya massacre

SR: at about this time… at around seven thirty in the evening, apnaModibhai came…. Right here outside the house our sister garlanded him with roses

T: narendrabhaimodi…

SR: Narendra Modi… He came with black commandos and came out of the ambassador car and walked up here …. Our sisters all garlanded him… a big man stays a big man

T: He came out on the road?

 

SR: Then he took a round… bola dhanyahaiaapkijaatko bole …apki ma kodhanyahai…

T: He came at about five o clock or at seven?

SR: Around seven, seven thirty….  At that time there was no electricity… no power…. Everything had been burnt to ashes in the riots…

 

The Operation Kalank (Sting Operation by tehelka)  telecast in October 2007 is part of the SIT Investigation Papers. TheTehelka transcripts have been relied upon by Naroda Patiya Special Court Sessions on 29.8.2012 as strong corroborative evidence.

 

10.  This evidence proves that  A-1 after reaching Godhra showed the

same mindset and added to the provocation against ordinary Muslims in front of a large aggressive RSS-VHP crowd which had illegally gathered at the spot. All other co-conspiorators namely A-1, A-2, A-5,  A-4 and A-13   were present at the time and, therefore, supported the stands taken by the A-1.

 

 

 

11. Thereafter, A-1 went to Collectorate to meet press and the

public. At the Collectorate besides Zadaphiya (A-5), Prabhatsingh Chauhan (A-4), Min for Civil aviation and Pilgrimage as well as local MLA (A-13) joined the Conspiracy. Besides them, Jaideep Pate A-21 was also present at the Collectorate according to DM Jayanti Ravi. A-1, A-4, A-5, A-21, and A-13 entered into a Conspiracy by taking a unanimous decision that unidentified bodies shall be sent to Ahmedabad (Sola Civil Hospital) and that dead bodies will be handed over to Jaideep Patel (A-21). Superintendant of Police, Raju Bhargava (A-46) agreed with the decision and in collusion with with Conspirators allowed the subversion and violation of the law. Carrying dead bodies outside the territorial jurisdiction of a place where offence has been committed was totally illegal as the dead bodies of the Godhra victims were subject matter of the Railway police investigation.  Further there was no question of handing over these dead bodies to Jaideep Patel (A-21), General Secretary VHP. There was gross interference in the investigational process which is the exclusive domain of the Police Authorities. The A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5, A-21 and A-46 thus acted against the law and subverted the legal process of investigation. These offences were committed as part of larger criminal conspiracy to take the Godhra tragedy, to the rest of Gujarat and exploit the aggressive communal feelings of the Hindus. Instead of containing the fallout of the Godhra tragedy, the conspiracy was hatched to ensure outbreak of widespread violence. It is on record that the dead bodies were brought and kept at Sola Civil Hospital Ahmedabad for facilitating the parading of dead bodies and funeral processions the next day which further triggered the aggressive communal feelings, resulting in the carnage.

 

12.   Yet another material document that provides a link in the chain

of conspiracy is the statement given by retired IAS officer Shankar Menon to the SIT on 12.12.2010 which reveals the mindset of Narendra Modi A-1 continuing to give effect to the conspiracy. In the statement, Shankar Menon has said that A-1 also addressed another meeting of political workers at Godhra where he assured aggressive RSS-VHP cadres that the police would not interfere in their thirst for revenge against innocent Muslims. ( Annexure I Volume II, SrNos 179 in SIT Record).

 

13. After ensuring escalation of violence from Godhra to other parts of Gujarat and and taking decisions contrary to law, A-1 Modi left Godhra by road for Vadodara accompanied by Anil Mukhim, his Principal Secretary. From there he returned by airplane and reached Ahmedabad airport at 2153 hours. By this time in Ahmedabad city, several violent incidents had occurred, 19  FIRs had been lodged and yet only two Preventive Arrests were made, who belonged to the Muslim Community. This dereliction of duty took place in the jurisdiction where PC Pande (A-29) was Commissioner of Police. While returning to Gandhinagar again, they (A-1 plus others) took a diversion towards Naroda and Meghaninagar which were out of the way. Mukhim’s Mobile phone location shows that at 22:01:18 hours they were in the vicinity of Meghaninagar.

 

It may be noted that of the major incidents that exploded in 14 districts of the State of Gujarat, among the worst was Naroda Patiya where 196 persons were massacred in broad daylight the next day; four were killed in Naroda Gaam and 69 at Meghaninagar on 28.2.2002. It is can be safely inferred from these facts that A-1 in order to give effect to the Conspiracy, visited these areas to and fro on his visit to Godhra with a clear mind to instigate RSS-VHP workers to indulge in mass violence against Muslims. The fact that Babu Bajrangi, Maya Kodnani, Kishan Korani, Bipin Panchal, Ashok Sindhi, Atul Vaidya, Bharat Telli, Mangilal Jain, Bipin Patel, Jaideep Patel among other active members of the RSS-VHP-Bajrang Dal   are accused in these three incidents prove that A-1 Modi, during his visit to these places, had instigated these persons from the VHP-RSS which resulted in violence the next day. In addition, it is critical to mention that Jaideep Patel (A-21) co-conspirator of A-1 is also an accused in Naroda Gaam. The said trial is still going on before the Special Court. Jaideep Patel A-21 belongs to Naroda and he reached back to Ahmedabad from Godhra to give effect to the Conspiracy that was hatched to indulge in mass violence against Muslims.

 

14. After reaching Ahmedabad, A-1 called an urgent meeting at his

residence at Gandhinagar around 10.30-1045 p.m. This meeting was attended by Ministers in the Cabinet, DGP Chakravarti, ACS Home Ashok Narayan, Commissioner of Police, PC Pande, K Nityanandan, Home Secretary, PK Mishra, Principal secretary, CM, Swarnakantha Verma(deputing for chief secretary Subha Rao) and Anil Mukhim from the CMO. The SIT has questioned the presence of Sanjiv Bhatt, who’s statement is on record under 161 CrPC as also an Affidavit on oath before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, stating that he was present at this meeting, representing the SIB. In this meeting A-1 made the following statement: “that so far in communal riots police takes action on one to one basis and that this will not do now. Allow Hindus to give vent to their anger.”

The fact that A-1 made his statement is proved by the

following:-

 

    1. Haren Pandya, sitting Minister in the A-1 Narendra Modi’s

government voluntarily appeared before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal on 13.5.2002 and gave information about the provocative instructions given by Accused No.1 Modi at this meeting.  He was mysteriously killed on 26.11.2003. The Tribunal Report states that

“  1.4.  Modi played an active role along with at least three Cabinet colleagues, to instruct senior police personnel and civil administrators that a “Hindu reaction was to be expected and this must not be curtailed or controlled.”Internal Page 76 of Volume II of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal Report @ Annexure III, File, I, D-2, D-3, D-4 of the SIT Record/Papers“…  1.7.The Tribunal received direct information through a testimony from a highly placed source of a meeting where the chief minister, two or three senior cabinet colleagues, the CP of Ahmedabad, and an IG police of the state were present. This meeting took place on the late evening of February 27. The meeting had a singular purpose: the senior-most police officials were told that they should expect a “Hindu reaction” after Godhra. They were also told that they should not do anything to contain this reaction.

Internal Page 82 Volume II of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal Report in section on State Complicity @ Annexure III, File, I, D-2, D-3, D-4 of the SIT Record/Papers.Report of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal was released on 21-22.11.2002.

 

SIT is dismissive of this evidence. (12.5.2010, Malhotra Report, Page 19) :“In the light of the aforesaid discussions, it can be concluded that a. Law & Order review meeting was in fact held by Narendra Modi, Chief Minister at his residence late in the evening of 27-02-2002. However, the allegation that the Chief Minister instructed the Chief Secretary, DGP and other senior officials to allow the Hindu community to give vent to their anger on the minority Muslims in the wake of Godhra incident is not established.”

 

How the SIT could enter into the area of appreciation of evidence, is beyond common understanding of the law.

 

(ii) On 27.10.2005, in the Fourth Affidavit, R.B. Sreekumar before the Nanavati Commission dated 27.10.2005 stated that K. Chakravarthi, DGP Gujarat (A-25) had given information of the same words being uttered by A-1 Modi at the meeting on 27.2.2002 and again on 28.2.2002 (Annexure III File III , D-24 of the SIT Papers)

 

(iii) On 30.10.2004  Mr. Rahul Sharma stated in his deposition on oath before the Nanavati Commission that when he spoke to his superior officer DGP, Gujarat, A-25 Chakravathi on 1.3.2002 at about 10:22 p.m. to request to make more force available for him at Bhavnagar, the DGP told him that he would be given one SRP company by the next morning and if possible he would make some Boarder Wing Home Guard and army columns available whenever they become available to him. Mr. Rahul Sharma states on oath that DGP Mr. K Chakravarti also told him that“the bureaucracy had become completely neutralised”.Mr. Rahul Sharma states on oath that he could not state what the DGP meant by stating that bureaucracy was completely neutralised.

(Para 773 at Page 344 of the Protest Petition)

 

(iv) On11.07.09 Statement of Shri R.B. Sreekumar,

Formerly Addl.DG (Int.), Gujarat  to the SIT (Annex I, Vol I Sr.

No.5, SIT Papers/Record) where he confirmed what the K

Chakravarti (A-25) had told him on the morning of 28.2.2002

about the provocative words uttered by A-1, the night before.

 

(v) On 12.08.2009,Statement of Shri Vitthalbhai Pandya, Father of Late HarenPandya, R/o, Paldi, Ahmedabad  (Annex I, Vol I Sr. No.12, SIT Papers/Record) where he stated that his son Haren Pandya had told him about attending the meeting at the residence of A-1 on 27.2.2002 in the late evening as also of the provocative instructions given by A-1.

 

(vi) On 28.8. 2009, Justices P.B. Sawant and Justice Hosbet Suresh gave two separate statements. Both eminent Judges, retired Supreme Court and High Court respectively, also stated that three serving IPS officers, Sami Ullah Ansari, Himanshu Bhatt and Vinod Mall also deposed before them in person requesting anonyimity but confirming that such illegal instructions were issued.(Annexure I Volume I Sr.Nos 16 & 17 of the SIT Record/Papers). SIT does not record the statements of these officers in this regard.

 

(vii) SIT does not record the statements of these officers except that of Vinod Mall on 9.12.2009. No question is put to Mall about his knowledge of illegal instructions being issued. (Reference: Annexure I Volume I, Serial Nos 59 Pages 222-223 of the SIT Record/ Papers).Justice Sawant has stated that three other officers had met the Tribunal and stated that Instructions from Above ‘not to act’ had been given by A-1.

 

(viii) On 25/26.11.2009 the Statement of Sanjiv Bhatt before SIT (Annexure I Volume I, Sr.No.51 and 52 of the SIT Record/Papers)  was recorded. Bhatt states that following a call from the control room that chief minister had called a situation review meeting at his residence and since his senior ADGP (Int) was on leave, the DGP had instructed him to attend the meeting to contribute with the IB’s assessment of the situation. Bhatt mentioned that Ashok Narayan, ACS Home, K.Chakraborthy, DGP, P.C. Pandey, CP and Anil Mukhim PS to the Chief Minister were present.  Bhatt who stated that he had attended the meeting also stated that none of the cabinet ministers were present. He also stated that he had attended this meeting in his capacity as an Intelligence Officer representing the State IB and had put forward the State IB’s assessment of the situation. He also stated that it may not be professionally appropriate on his part to divulge the exact nature of the discussions that took place but he would be duty bound to disclose the same to the best of his ability when he would be required to do so under a legal obligation.

 

(ix) On 14.04.2011 – Affidavit of Sanjiv Bhatt filed directly before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. (Annexure IV File X Serial No. 302 of the SIT/Report apers) in which it was stated that A-1, Chief Minister Narendra Modi, uttered the following controversial words: “that so far in communal riots police takes action on one to one basis and that this will not do now. Allow Hindus to give vent to their anger.” (Para 406 at Page 167 of the Protest Petition)

 

15.    The SIT ignores the fact that none present at the meeting could

have said that such a statement was made since it would

amount to participating in offences above mentioned.

Besides, SIT also ignores the fact that those who supported

A- 1 were favoured by the A-1 by granting plum posts and promotions.

Worst of all, SIT concludes at page 241 of its closure report that even if
A-1 had made such a statement it does not amount to an offence though such a statement, if uttered, is a clear offence under Sections 107.120b, 153a, 153b and 166 of IPC, abetting the Conspiracy hatched with others to allow mass killings of Muslims to satisfy the thirst for revenge.

PC Pande (A-29) has stated in his statement before the SIT that this meeting lasted past 1 a.m. Anil Mukhim and Swanakantha Verma who were both present, mention the presence of cabinet ministers at the meeting,

 

SIT completely ignores the fact that in the law and order meeting presence of intelligence officers was absolutely essential. Besides, Mr. Bhatt was, on the given day, in charge of Intelligence (Communal) and therefore it was natural that he was called for the meeting.

 

NOTE BY THE AMICUS CURIAE

“…..7. Though SIT has concluded that there is no material to indicate that Shri Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister had issued any instructions to the officers on 27.02.2002 to permit the Hindus to give vent to the anger of the majority community, there are a number of circumstances which prima-facie indicate that the matter requires a detailed investigation to examine the role of Shr Modi immediately after the Godhra incident to find out if there is any culpability to the extent that a message was conveyed that the State machinery would not step in to prevent the communal riots. Some of the circumstances which justify a more detailed investigation into this aspect have been separately enumerated in Chart-A enclosed herewith.

 

From CHART-A (INTERIM REPORT DATED 20.1.2011)

3. It may not be correct to rule out the presence of Sanjiv Bhat, IPS, D.C. [Intelligence] since ADGP [Intelligence] Shri G.C. Raigar was not available. There is no reason for him to make a wrong statement. He was willing to make a statement if he was protected from legal repercussions of disclosing what transpired in the meeting.

 

4. It is difficult to believe that when the C.M. came back after the Godhra trip, no Minister was present at his residence. Hence, it may not be totally unbelievable that Shri Haren Pandya was present. Shri Haren Pandya is unfortunately dead, but the statements made by Late Shri Haren Pandya to Justice P.B. Sawant [Retd]  and Justice H. Suresh [Retd] can be used, even if his statement is not been formally reproduced in the writing by the Citizen’s Tribunal.

 

5. It has also been brought out that an enquiry was made from CM’s office as to the identity of the Minister who had deposed before the Citizen’s Tribunal and that the State Intelligence Bureau had verified the identity as that of Shri Haren Pandya. This also gives some corroboration to the fact that the CM’s office was uncomfortable with the disclosure made by an unidentified Minister to the Citizen’s Tribunal.

 

6. The statement of Shri R.B. Sreekumar cannot be discarded as hearsay, in the light of Section 6 of the Evidence Act.

 

    1. Another aspect is the fact that VHP General Secretary Jaydeep Patel and Shri Modi were at Godhra on 27.02.2002. The statement of Jaydeep Patel that he did not meet ShriNarendra Modi at Godhra does not inspite confidence. This has to be examined as the Mamlatdar would not have handed over the dead bodies to a non-government person i.e. Jaydeep Patel until and unless somebody very high told him to do so.

(Raju Ramachandran Sr. Advocate with Gaurav Agrawal Advocate, 20.01.2011 New Delhi (Annexure IV File X Serial No.306 of the SIT Record/Papers).

 

The Final Report of the Amicus Curaie also clearly states that there is material to prosecute A-1 Narendra Modi and some others and put the evidence, including Bhatt’s evidence, to Judicial scrutiny “.Paras 23-28 of theFinal Report are relevant:-

“Para  23. In my opinion,despite the aforesaid background, it does not appear very likely that a serving police officer would make such a serious allegation against ShriModi, the Chief Minister of the State, without some basis. There is no documentary material of any nature whatsoever which can establish that Shri Bhatt was not present in the meeting on 27.02.2002. In the absence of the minutes of the meeting, there is again no documentary material available as to the participants in the meeting and what transpired at the said meeting. Therefore, it is the word of Shri Bhatt against the word of other officers, senior to him. The SIT has chosen to believe the word of the senior officers, i.e. senior bureaucrats and police officers. However, I find that the SIT itself, in its PreliminaryReport, has observed as follows [at p.13]:-

 

“(3) Some of the public servants, who had retired long back, claimed loss of memory as they did not want to get involved in any controversy.

(4) The other category of public servants, who have recently retired and provided with good post-retirement assignments, felt obliged to the State Government and the present Chief Minister and therefore their testimony lacks credibility.

(5) The serving public servants, who have been empanelled for the higher posts, did not want to come into conflict with the politicians in power and incurred their wrath which affected their frank response.”

 

24. I also find it difficult to accept the conclusion of the SIT that Shri Bhatt’s statement is motivated, because he has an axe to grind with the State Government over issues concerning his career. Further, in my opinion, it may not be proper to disbelieve Shri Bhatt at this stage, only because the other officers have not supported his statement. Similarly, the delay in making the statement cannot be the sole ground to disbelieve the statement at this stage, especially in view of his explanation that as an Intelligence Officer who was privy to a lot of sensitive information, he would make a statement only when he was under a legal obligation to do so.

 

25. It may be recalled that, in the aftermath of the Godhra carnage, the law and order meeting in question was called by the Chief Minister at about 11:00 P.M. It seems quite natural for an officer from the Intelligence to be called: The Chief Minister would, after all, have to be made aware of the intelligence gathered by the police till then. It is also an admitted position that Shri G.C. Raiger, the then ADGP (Intelligence) was on leave on that day. The DGP,ShriChakravarthi does not state that he had gathered intelligence from the office of ShriRaiger. It is also on record that Shri P.C. Upadhyay, the DC (Political and Communal) was also on leave on 27.02.2002 and Shri Bhatt was looking after the work of DC (Political and Communal). ShriRaiger states in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. that Shri Bhatt had accompanied him, in the past, to meetings called by the Chief Minister, though he says he used to wait outside with files or information. Thus, it is quite possible that Shri Bhatt was directed to attend the meeting on 27.02.2002 at the residence of the Chief Minister. The phone call records do not contradict the statement given by Shri Bhatt to the SIT. Considering the important and emergent nature of the meeting, the relative “juniority” of Shri Bhatt need not have come in the way of his attending the meeting, especially since the ADGP (Intelligence), ShriRaiger was not available. It is anybody’s guess as to why, in the absence of ShriRaiger, Shri O.P. Mathur [IGP (Security & Administration)], who was next in seniority, was not called for the meeting. This aspect, in my view, is of little significance in the context of an emergency meeting called at short notice in response to an escalating situation. Similarly, discrepancies about the exact language used or the time of the meeting at the Chief Minister’s residence at Gandhinagar on 28.02.2002 (because he was at Ahmedabad at 10:57 A.M.) are inevitable, considering the lapse of time. (Significantly, there is no material to suggest that Shri Bhatt was either at Ahmedabad or some place other than Gandhinagar at any time after 10:57 A.M. on 28.02.2002.) There could be a discrepancy about the time of the meeting on 28.02.2002. Hence, I disagree with the conclusion of the SIT that Shri Bhatt should be disbelieved at this stage itself. On the other hand, I am of the view that Shri Bhatt needs to be put through the test of cross-examination, as do the others who deny his presence.

 

26. Though the SIT, as the investigating agency, has taken a view, the question whether Shri Bhatt was present at the meeting on 27.02.2002 and whether ShriModi had indeed made such a statement (as spoken to by Shri Bhatt) can only be decided by a court of law. It would not be correct to disbelieve the version of Shri Bhatt, at this prima facie stage, on the various grounds set out by the SIT or because other participants in the meeting have denied (either categorically, or to the best of their memory) his presence and the alleged statement made by ShriModi. If Shri Bhatt stands the test of cross-examination, then regardless of the fact that other witnesses have not supported his statement, a court of law may return a finding that Shri Bhatt indeed was present at the meeting on 27.02.2002, and that ShriModi did make a statement as is being alleged by Shri Bhatt.

 

27. Under the Cr.P.C., if there is some material which supports the allegation being made by the Complainant, a case for proceeding further is made out against the accused. Section 204 Cr.P.C. uses the expression “sufficient ground for proceeding”. This Hon’ble Court has held that the learned Magistrate can proceed further, if there is aprima facie case against the accused. [See Dy. Chief Controller of Import & Export vs. RoshanlalAgrawal, (2003) 4 SCC 139, M.N. Damani vs. S.K. Sinha, (2001) 5 SCC 156]

 

28. The stage for believing or disbelieving a witness arises after trial i.e. once the entire evidence is placed before the court for its consideration. It would not be correct to conclude, at this stage, that Shri Bhatt should be completely disbelieved unless there is clinching material available to the contrary, for example, if there is indisputable material which proves that he was not present at the meeting, but somewhere else. No such material has been found. Hence, it cannot be said, at this stage, that Shri Bhatt should be disbelieved and no further proceedings should be taken against ShriModi.

 

Specifically Ramachandran recommends in his final report that “

“ Point.41. Hence, the question to be examined is whether the making of the statement by the Chief Minister in the meeting on 27.02.2002, by itself, is an offence under law. In my opinion, the offences which can be made out against Shri Modi, at this primafacie stage, are offences inter alia under Sections 153A (1) (a) & (b), 153B (1) (c), 166 and 505 (2) of the IPC. (For convenience of reference, these statutory provisions are set out in a Schedule annexed hereto.) However, it would be for the Court of competent jurisdiction to decide whether Shri Modi has to be summoned for any or all of these offences, or for any other offence(s).” (Raju Ramachandran Final Report dated 25.07.2011 also in the SIT Record)

 

16. Out of the persons present at the meeting, Ashok Narayan (A-28), Chakravarti and Nityanadan (A-34) were already part of the Conspiracy as they had attended the meeting at 10.30 convened by A-1 at his residence. The instructions given by A-1 as head of the government to DGP Chakravarti, A-25, Ashok Narayan A-   PC pande A-29, PK Mishra (A- 31) to subvert the rule of law in execution of the Conspiracy and Abetment, were carried out by these people as they failed to discharge their legal and mandaitory duties. They in fact accepted the said instruction of A-1 and thus became a part of the Conspiracy and Abetment of crimes that took place from 28.2.2002 onwards. It is clear that though they were aware of incidents happening all over the State on 27.2.2002 itself with heavy communal mobilisations by RSS-VHP, no preventive arrests were made and no decision was taken to control the law and order problems as they has succumbed to and had accepted the command of the head of Government, who had allowed the VHP/RSS/Bajrang Dal to take over the State by neutralizing the law and order machinery. The Accused Nos Ashok Narayan (A-28, K Chakaravarti (A-25), K Nityanandam (A-34), PC pande (A-29), PK Mishra (A-31) by not doing their duties mandated by law, abetted and conspired in the crimes with A-1 and other co-Conspirators.

 

17.    As already designed in the Conspiracy, the Motor Cavalcade carrying 54 dead bodies under the control of Jaideep Patel (A-21) along with the police force started from Godhra at about 10 p.m. and passed through Sevalia, Ambav, Thasra, Dakor, Umreth, Lingda, Allindra, Nadiad, Salun, Vanthwadi, New Maninagar, Ghodasar, Ishanpur, Juhapura, Thaltej, Gujarat High Court and finally reached Sola Civil Hospital at 3.34 hours (PCR Message, SIT Records). To cover a distance of 153 kms from Godhra the Cavalcade took six hours. It can be inferred that the cavalcade of which Jaideep Patel and other leaders like Hasmukh Patel were a part were stopping on the way and instigating violence. Gordhan Zadaphiya (A-5) and Ashok Bhatt (A-2) as per their own statements before the SIT, also reached Ahmedabad around the same time from which it can be further inferred that they were accompanying the cavalcade. At Sola Civil Hospital the dead bodies were handed over to the Civil Surgeon, Dr Pushpa Belani by Jaideep Patel (A-21). Nadiad and Ghodasar apart from Sevalia recorded brute violence in the days that followed. (Page 49-50, Protest Petition, Vol. I)

 

18. The fact that the dead bodies were handed over to Jaideep Patel A-21 at Godhra and he handed over the dead bodies to Dr Belani at Sola Civil Hospital has also been mentioned in the SIT Report but yet it failed to draw any adverse inference from this important fact that totally contrary to law the dead bodies were transferred from the jurisdiction where offence was committed and were handed over to a private person when the dead bodies being part of the investigation cannot be so tinkered with. It is shocking that such a gross illegality has been brushed aside by SIT. The facts are clear: that the dead bodies were handed over to Jaideep Patel, (A-21) VHP General Secretary as part of Conspiracy on the instructions of A-1 Modi who was holding the highest position of Chief Minister.

As mentioned above the Amicus Curaie’s Specific observations in Chart A Sub-Para 7 of the Interim Report dated 20.1.2011 is critical:

“…7,  Another aspect is the fact that VHP General Secretary Jaydeep Patel and Shri Modi were at Godhra on 27.02.2002. The statement of Jaydeep Patel that he did not meet Shri Narendra Modi at Godhra does not inspite confidence. This has to be examined as the Mamlatdar would not have handed over the dead bodies to a non-government person i.e. Jaydeep Patel until and unless somebody very high told him to do so.”

 

19.  Within less than half an hour of the dead bodies reaching Sola Civil Hospital, 3,000 persons (according to PCR these were RSS workers) gathered at Sola Civil Hospital. This obviously shows that information had already reached them about the arrival of the Dead Bodies in the Motor Cavalcade. It is shocking that instead of the police being present on the spot and not permitting the public to  assemble, 3,000 RSS workers were allowed to assemble, which happened because of conspiracy hatched by A-1 along with the other accused i.e. Ministers and Senior Police Officers and Bureaucrats. The Police did not reach despite the fact that a PCR message at 1:59 hours was sent by the Control asking for SRP deployment. There is no answer why in spite of prior information, 3,000 RSS workers were allowed to gather and sufficient bandobast was not provided. Not only was sufficient bandobast not given inspite of intimation that violence may erupt at any time, after 7 a.m. more crowds were allowed to gather, the traffic was blocked and the crowds started attacking the doctors and other medical staff and vandalizing the hospital property.

 

20.  To show that the Government under A-1 as its head, abandoned its legal and Constitutional duties, is the glaring fact that in this tense situation Giriraj Kishore, Vice President of VHP  arrived at the Ahmedabad airport and a message was given to provide police escort. The government headed by A-1 allowed Acharya Giriraj Kishore of VHP to come to the Sola Civil Hospital by providing him special escort knowing fully well that it will further inflame the atmosphere and result in violence. A-1 allowed this to happen as it facilitated the Conspiracy which he had hatched. Acharya Giriraj Kishore in fact came to Sola Civil Hospital before 11 a.m. where he spoke to media persons and was present there for 10-15 minutes. (Pg 248 Protest Petition, Vol I). In the statement he made the following provocative statement,

“ I appeal to Muslim brethren to condemn the attack and asked them not to put Hindus patience to test. Hindus are maintaining restraint, but if such incidents do not stop there can be a counter reaction which may be uncontrollable;” (www.rediff.com).

 

He further elaborated that “Do I have to say that for every action there is a reaction? It would be very difficult for the Hindus to maintain patience at such a heavy price.” (Annexure Volume II, Protest Petition).

 

21.  To further add to mob violence against Muslims, the Funeral

Processions were taken to Gota Crematoirum which is at a distance of three kilometres from Sola Civil Hospital and also Hatkeshwar Crematorium which is 18-20 kimolteres away. These processions were taken through the city with aggressive crowds accompanying them shouting provocative slogans. In fact the procession that began at 10.30 hours concluded only at 1830 hours (Malhotra Report). It is also on record that Acharya Giriraj Kishore also accompanied the funeral procession upto Gota crematorium. The fact that A-1 as head of the government allowed the unidentified bodies to come to Ahmedabad for cremation, allowed RSS-VHP persons to gather at the hospital, allowed Acharya Giriraj Kishore to address the crowd and media and allowing the funeral processions to take place, speaks volumes about the conspiracy and abetment resulting in the daylight incidents of murder, rape and arson which took place throughout Ahmedabad and other parts of Gujarat. Shivanad Jha (A-38) Additional Commissioner of Police, K Srinivas Collector, Ahmedabad (A-30) and MK Tandon, Joint CP Ahmedabad (A-33), all became the active participants in the conspiracy and abetment at the Sola Civil Hospital and the subsequent violence that erupted thereafter.

 

22.  Absence of Adequate Preventive Measures: Arrests, Curfew Orders, Free Abuse of Curfew Restrictions  by the RSS-VHP; Delay in giving powers to the Army and non-deployment in districts like Mehsana, Sabarkantha, Banaskantha, Anand and Kheda. Army was sent very late to Godhra and Bhavnagar. Senior ecehelons of the political, police and administrative hierarchy who have been named as Accused are responsible.

 

23.  Intelligence reports were ignored. State IB Messages before Godhra were deliberately ignored; worse after the outbreak of violence post Godhra, IB Reports submitted by ADGP Sreekumar were deliberately ignored by A-1 since they suggested strong corrective measures to enable a return to normalcy.IB  Reports dated 24.4.2002, 15.6.2002, 20.8.2002 and 28.8.2002.

 

24.    In another illegal instruction issued by A-1, A-2 and A-3, two ministers of the state cabinet were positioned in the City (Shahibaug, Ahmedabad) Control Rooms. They were positioned there to directly interfere with the functioning of the police and prevent the police from carryiong out its statutory functions. Ministers in Control Room on 28.2.2002 were :- Ashok Bhatt Minister for Health (A-2) & IK Jadeja, Minister for Urban Development (A-3). The fallout of violence in 14 of Gujarat’s districts systematically and in a similar pattern as has been argued at length during the regular arguments provides evidence of the fallout of this move.

 

25.  Attempts to foment violence from the higher echelons were resisted in some districts by upright police officers and administrators. This has been argued at length with the details of such districts, especially Mehsana and Bhavnagar being given to the Court. In terms of intensity of violence, Ahmedabad city with maximum police force and Army was ironically the worst with officially 326 persons admittedly killed; the second was Panchmahals with 93 deaths minus the 59 persons who died in the train; Mehsana District with 61 deaths; Vadodara City with 36 dealths, Ahmedabad Rural with 33 deaths and Sabarkantha with 32 lives being lost; Kheda 31 dead; dahod 24 dead and Banaskantha 20 persons being killed; Anand 28 among others.

Other and Continuing incidents of Violence in Ahmedabad includinbg forcible closure of Relief Camps include-

Accused Culpable: Amit Shah (A-10), Nalin Bhatt (A-17). Kaushik Mehta (A-19), Kaushik Patel (A-7) ACP MT Rana (A-57), DCP Jebaliya (A-43) KK Mysorewala (A -56 ), KG Erda (A-55). The Violence in Mehsana (3rd worst affected district) was exacererated by the actions of  Niteen Patel, Minister for Finance (A-9) and Naran Laloo Patel, MLA and Minister for Transport (A-12) aided and abeted by Amrutlal Patel, Collector Mehsana (A-51) and AK Sharma, SP Mehsana (Subversion) (A-36).

 

The Violence in Anand district that recorded over35 deaths    for which Dilip Mani Patel MLA (A-14) and CD Patel, MOS Tourism and MLA, Petlad, Anand (A-8) were responsible. The violence in Kheda (Ghodasar and many other incidents) directly implicate Kuldeep Sharma (A-32) whereas Violence in Vadodara implicates DD Tuteja, then CP Vadodara, (A-48), Bhagyesh Jha, Collector, Vadodara (A-49). The continuing subversion including intimidating witnesses to turn hostile implicate  Madhu Srivastava, MLA (A-15), a fact admitted in the SIT report. Sudhir Sinha, former CP Vadodara (A-41), Rakesh Ashthana, IG Vadodara (A-34), Deepak Swaroop, IG Vadodara (A-14)

S. Kumaraswami, IGP (A-42) are also directly implicated in the subversion of justice process.

Violence in Bharuch/Forcible Closure of Relief Camps

Anju Sharma, Collector (A-47)

Violence in Sabarkantha

Ranjitsin Chavda, Minister for Cottage Industries (A-6)

Nitraj Solanki, SP Sabarkantha (A-50)

Rajkot

PN Patel, Collector (A-53);  Upendra Singh, SP (A-52)

(Pages 232-233 of the Protest Petition, Volume I)

26. The conspiracy committed by the A1 as head of the Home department included victimizing and punishing those officers and bureaucrats who had functioned legally and reqarding those who actively participated in the criminal act of conspiracy, abetment and other criminal offences. A detailed list of these has been provided to the Court.

 

27.  Deliberately misleading Statutory Bodies like the NHRC, the Chief Election Commission (CEC) and even Orders of the Supreme Court was and is a continual chain in the crime of conspiracy that continues until today.

 

28.  Doctoring FIRs, allowing powerful accused to go scot  free. The very fact that SIT had to be appointed for further investigation is proof of the unreliability of the state’s commitment to honestly prosecute heinous offences.

 

Subversion of Justice Accused Implicated:

Subha Rao, former Chief Secretary (A-27); AK Bhargava, DGP, Gujarat (A-26); GC Raigar, ADGP Int (A-60); VM Parghi, former DCP Ahmedabad (A-54); Tarun Barot, Crime Branch (A-58); KR Kaushik, former CP (A-61)Narendra Amin, DCP (A-59);Amitabh Pathak. Former IG (NOW DECEASED)

 

29.  Partisan prosecutors with ideological bent towards the RSS/VHP were deliberately appointed to enable easy bail to those accused involved in the post-Godhra killings and to ensure that the guilty are not punished.

30. Allowing hate speech unchecked :- Allowing hate speech unchecked and unprosecuted was also part of the Conspiracy hatched by A-1. He issued congratulatory letters to those newspapers that had published manipulated reports not based on fact. ADGP Sreekumar had on 16.4.2002 itself recommended the prosecution of hate filled Pamphlets being widely distributed by the Viswa Hindu Parishad (VHP) all over Gujarat that bore their official address and details of publication. Other police officers including SP Bhavnagar Rahul Sharma had strongly recommended the prosecution of Hate Speech. A-1 himself in February, 2002 and right up to September,2002 himself indulged in hate speech. A transcript of the Hate Speech of A-1 made at Becharaji on 9.9.2002 was summoned by the National Commission of Minorities (NCM). ADGP-Int  RB Sreekumar functioning legally had provided a transcript for which he was victimized; first transferred, denied promotion and also charge sheeted. Charkaravarti (A-25) had made an illegal and committed a subversive act by noting directing that a transcript should not be provided. This is clearly an  illegal and subversive act. Substantive arguments on the deleterious impact of hate speech and hate writing at the time of heightened communal tension have been made in the context of mainstream Gujarati newspapers, television and the VHP’s published pamphlets. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had clearly recommended prosecution of offenders. The power to prosecute lies with the Home Department under A-1. The Editor’s Guild report also concurred with the NHRC recommendations.

 

31.  Illegal Instructions directly issued  by A-1 to senior Officers from April-September 2002. RB Sreekumar’s register maintained to record illegal instructions provides invaluable evidence of the con tinuing criminal mindset of A-1 and his determination to subvert a lawful and constitutional position for illegal ends. Illegal instructions include directions to eliminate persons, tap phones of rivals especially Haren Pandya who had deposed before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal.

Widespread Incidents at Ahmedabad and Violence Continuing until May-June 2002. Ministers of the state cabinet like Bharat Barot were extorting persons in Ahmedabad right until April 2002, PC Pande (A-29) wrote a letter  to Chakravarti (A-25) and the Home department (A-1) and Ashok Narayan (A-28) that politically powerful persons continued to commit criminal and illegal acts the Muslims extorting money and intimidating them. A-1 is questioned in a completely perfunctory manner on this issue by the SIT.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

Ishrat Jahan case: Gujarat policeman PP Pandey surrenders in court

CNN-IBN | Updated Aug 13, 2013

New Delhi: Gujarat Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) PP Pandey on Tuesday surrendered in a CBI court in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case. This comes a day after the Supreme Court rejected his anticipatory bail plea, saying his conduct in remaining absconding dis-entitled him for the relief.

“Your conduct itself makes you dis-entitled for this plea (bail),” a bench headed by Justice BS Chauhan said while referring to Pandey’s behaviour of not submitting to the jurisdiction of the trial court which had issued a non-bailable warrant against him.

Additional DGP Pandey, a 1982-batch IPS officer, has been named as an accused in the 2004 fake encounter case of Ishrat Jahan and three others. The apex court had on August 8 refused to grant interim protection from arrest to Pandey till August 12.

 <iframe width=”420″ height=”315″ src=”//www.youtube.com/embed/qUr6o3lToRY” frameborder=”0″ allowfullscreen></iframe>

The trial court had on August 7 rejected his plea for exemption from personal appearance and issued a non-bailable warrant against him after he failed to appear before it. Pandey, who was declared absconder, had appeared before the special CBI court in Ahmedabad on July 29 on the direction of the apex court.

Pandey, as the Joint Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, was heading the Crime Branch when Ishrat, Javed Shaikh alias Pranesh Pillai, Amjadali Akbarali Rana and Zeeshan Johar were killed in an encounter allegedly with Gujarat Police on the city outskirts on June 15, 2004.

(With additional information from PTI)

  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ishrat-case-gujarat-senior-cop-on-the-run/article5007625.ece" target="_blank">Ishrat case: Gujarat senior cop on the run
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/07/03/malicious-reporting-on-ishrat-jahan-case-ht/" target="_blank">Malicious Reporting on Ishrat Jahan Case #HT
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.kractivist.org/2013/07/09/india-cbi-charge-sheet-in-ishrat-jahan-murder-case-vaw/" target="_blank"> #India – CBI Charge Sheet in Ishrat Jahan Murder case #Vaw
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.kractivist.org/tehelka-tapeexposes-desperation-and-acceptance-of-the-crimes-by-gujarat-govt-lawyers/" target="_blank">Tehelka tape,exposes desperation and acceptance of the crimes by Gujarat Govt Lawyers

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

Tehelka tape,exposes desperation and acceptance of the crimes by Gujarat Govt Lawyers

Listen carefully how the team of lawyers representing Gujarat Government are talking about their failures they can be heard accepting that  “they are caught, now no one can avoid charge sheet… on the timeline 8:41 they are also talking about Zakia Jafri case, saying Supreme Court has allowed the court to file charge sheet, even if there is no FIR filed against Modi in Gulberg case…
in the end of the recorded conversation they are accepting that they have lost the case and they are in deep trouble.

Transcript of audio at 8:42 timeline…

If the court is very much adamant, “What is there, we are not supposed to be giving to you, then perhaps the court will try to follow the same formula which was you know followed in Sohrabuddin’s case, that let this report, you know, be treated as a report under 173(2) and for that purpose…

Rohit VermaVoice 2: (Interrupting) Gulberg case

Kamal: Haan? Gulberg case, haan, sorry.  And let, let

: Metropolitan Magistrate

Kamal: Haan Metropolitan Magistrate with some observation that you know, say that prima facie this appears to be a so and so and so and so and therefore the matter is being sent to the Magistrate and before that let Mr. Verma prepare you know,a consolidated report which may be treated as a report under 173(2) and the matter ends there.  and therefore at that time we should argue, we should not show that judgment, we should perhaps try to argue in a very funny way which perhaps will not affect your logic, but regardless of that, (aree aa toh (this is) preliminary investigation che), this is not an inquiry contemplated, investigation contemplated under the Code, so ultimately let it be given to the Magistrate concerned, let the Magistrate concerned apply his mind. Ultimately Magistrate is empowered to do whatever is said under Section-191. He may accept it, he may not accept it, he may direct further investigation by the police under 156(3). em karine aa vastu (This way this thing)without any observations from the Court. We should challenge, Sir you can’t, you know, cast any exposure as to what should Magistrate do. What should Magistrate do is written in so many words, in black and white in the Code, let magistrate do it.

 

AUDIO TRANSCRIPT of all the tapes:

(chaos in the background)

Voice 1: Badhane bulao… khursi lao (Call everyone, get chairs)

Voice 1: Tame toh party chone aama already ek wakhat applicant thaya cho, Nirupambhai.. (You are a party you were already an applicant earlier, Nirupambhai)

Faint voice: E toh amara virudh ma hata, Bhupat bhai accused hata (He was against us, Bhupatbhai was the accused.)

Voice 1Etle tamara viruddh ma hata (So was he against you?)

Kamal Trivedi: Matter is over etle navaj karva pade have badhi charcha..kalako thi karya kariye chiye..(We will have to file a new one, we have been discussing this for the last couple of hours) Have 21 mi e je report aave (So now, whatever report comes on the 21st) Assuming for a moment ke e report apna viruddh ma che… (That the report is against us), first of all you know, we need to be represented by lawyers, every time the government will not be able to speak. This is the time where of course government will be there, but you shall have to speak at the top of your voice.

ek suchan evu che ke apde 3 vakilo rakhwa, Nirupambhai to chej, tarun bhai ne surya prakash raju represent kare, evi waat kari hashe atyare, bija vati, Nayak ne rakhwo. Have first reaction apdu evu hovu joie te vakahte, ke (One of the suggestions is that, we appoint 3 lawyers, Nirupambhai is already there, Tarunbhai will be represented by Surya Prakash Raju, I think that has been discussed, and for the rest Nayak will be representing, now our first reaction has at that time should be) that you are able to communicate with these 3 people and “I also talk (part)”.

Suppose the report is out and the Court declares that as per this report, prima facie it appears that the encounter was fake. The moment that word comes, at that time there should be an objection that perhaps, you know, we would like to be apprised of this report because you know this is a very shocking thing, and for that purpose we need some time.  Let a copy of the report be given to us, so that at least today a pointer is raised against us, we would like to at least, you know, go through and,and, and whatever  input we have would like to submit and ultimately its for the court discretion what to do.. (em karine athwadiyu ke 10 divas jaay eva prayatna karvanu)(in this manner we should be able to plead for at least a week or 10 days).

If the court is very much adamant, “What is there, we are not supposed to be giving to you, then perhaps the court will try to follow the same formula which was you know followed in Sohrabuddin’s case, that let this report, you know, be treated as a report under 173(2) and for that purpose…

Rohit VermaVoice 2: (Interrupting) Gulberg case

Kamal: Haan? Gulberg case, haan, sorry.  And let, let

: Metropolitan Magistrate

Kamal: Haan Metropolitan Magistrate with some observation that you know, say that prima facie this appears to be a so and so and so and so and therefore the matter is being sent to the Magistrate and before that let Mr. Verma prepare you know,a consolidated report which may be treated as a report under 173(2) and the matter ends there.  and therefore at that time we should argue, we should not show that judgment, we should perhaps try to argue in a very funny way which perhaps will not affect your logic, but regardless of that, (aree aa toh (this is) preliminary investigation che), this is not an inquiry contemplated, investigation contemplated under the Code, so ultimately let it be given to the Magistrate concerned, let the Magistrate concerned apply his mind. Ultimately Magistrate is empowered to do whatever is said under Section-191. He may accept it, he may not accept it, he may direct further investigation by the police under 156(3). em karine aa vastu (This way this thing)without any observations from the Court. We should challenge, Sir you can’t, you know, cast any exposure as to what should Magistrate do. What should Magistrate do is written in so many words, in black and white in the Code, let magistrate do it.

Rohit Verma: With due respect, we are also in the process of taking some sense.

Hmm..

Rohit: And one of the lawyers whom you Sir referred to, we did take his sense today.

Hmm..

Rohit: His case is, since he has been associated with him for last two years. His gut feeling is that probably the SIT is to seek for registration of an FIR. And what we have been advised is, essentially we has been legally advised is,that this is not the forum where you should ventilate your grievance in any terms, go to the Supreme Court and then see whatever happens.

Many voices: We are also thinking

Rohit: Because his apprehension is, that a Judge who should have allowed your application in April, threw you out saying that you areproposed accused, he has no locus.  He may not write certain things which will adversely affect you before the Supreme Court. That despite the fact that you were not aparty…

Kamal: Let him do whatever he wants to do.

Rohit: Yes, and infact this is the very general

Kamal: I got it, I got it.

(Many voices)

Nirupambhai/Murmu: aa tooption rakhenge (we will keep this as an opition)scenario can enhance, I have pitched that  Scenario…… ke aame report aapo nai aape toh pachi aa inquiry j  kem (that if you don’t give us the report then why should there be an inquiry) because they have not done…… so then let it go to the court, (e jo na kare to amne time aapo). (If the court does not do it, then give us time)

Kamal: Let him commit blunder, because…

Rohit: What Nirupambhai  is saying, and saying very correctly, is that the victim may not have a right or remedy available during the course of investigation, except that a victim may say that this is impartial investigation. But an accused, if at all the SIT says that yes they are all accused, has so many legal remedy, in as much as, he can go for anticipatory bail, he can challenge the order, he can go further, he may surrender himself, he may applyfor regular bail, he gets a chance toget himself discharged,so, the scope is very wide:

Kamal: The idea is that we must allow the Judge to commit as much blunder as he can.

Voice 2: pan aane  investigation ganay legal term ma? (Can this be considered as investigation in legal terms, whatever?)

Kamal & Rohit: Yes, Yes,this is an investigation

Slow voice: High court jyare…(when the High Court).

Kamal: We are trying to give,a you know, a clause to this. What follows is 173(2), as simple as that.

Rohit: The only knowledge that Mr Verma possess, (first verma ni waat nathi second verma) (I am talking about the second Verma)

Kamal: Chairman

Voice: nai. NO

Slow voice: Satish Verma …

Rohit: Given the, whatever I could gather from his writings, affidavit, this that, he has to press for a separate FIR. This is my legal understanding and I may be wrong.

Kamal: (Atyare) (now) we have the scope for the second FIR?

Rohit: Yes, Yes

Voice 3: (pan kaydeshar thae sake legal term ma Pachi kaun kare?)(Can it be done legally, and who can do it?)

Rohit: SIT karene (SIT will do it)

Voice 3: Pan pacha ke pache e loko kari sake ane investigation e loko nai kari sake(can they do it again and also conduct the investigation?)

(Many voices)

Rohit: 8/04 is a version of Crime Branch, woh yeh paksh kehta hai (they take this stand that),further investigation 8/04 mai hua who dusra paksh reveal karta hai, ki crime branch ka kehna sahi nahi hai, (what happened there reveals another side that what the Crime Branch is saying is not correct) Whatever we have gathered is.

Voice 3: Second FIR toh kab ka exists karta hai.. (exists since a long time)

Rohit:Woh isi liye, that FIR was against the four who got killed, so primarily there has to be an FIR against the police officers, be it in respect of custodial death, jo bhi unko lena ho,302 karna ho, jo karna ho. likhna ho jo karna ho job hi karna ho.. (whatever they want to write whatever they want to do)

Kamal: To my understanding, why can’t that logic apply tothis Gulbarg case? Gulbarg case what was registered initially

Sir

Kamal: was not against the 67 or 68 people

Sir

Rohit: But Gulberg case the complaint has been treated as a FIR. It is a very unique judgment

Kamal: Which complaint? Which complaint?

Rohit: The complaint of Zakia,… it goes without saying that when they say, when they say, when they say, that you have to file a report under S.173(2), that necessarily does not mean that it has to be a final report, it necessarily does not mean that it has to be a chargesheet. But when they say that, it means is that the law is set into motion. Now the law set into motion

that a report has to be filed under sec 173(2) that itself does not necessarily mean that there has to be a final report, that it necessarily does not mean that there has to be a chargesheet , it has to say that law has been set into motion, now the law has been set into motion

Kamal: without there being an FIR?

Rohit: without there being an FIR under 154, that the Supreme Court very smartly treated the complaint as an FIR that is why Zakia gets an audience, Otherwise if they treat 67/2002…Yes, yes yes, that is the law, otherwise

Kamal: That is the law, but it has to be treated as a FIR, Supreme Court should say.

Rohit: The Supreme Court will never say, because the Supreme Court very uniquely, the Supreme Court without there being an FIR. Now we are in a very peculiar situation that they are heading towards a report, it may be a Final Report, it may be a chargesheet, under 173(2) both situations are possible.

Voice2: E separate issue (che) there will be a report. (That’s a separate issue there will be a report)

Rohit: The problem with this case is

Kamal: No in this case the second FIR will be a matter of course,

Yes, yes

Rohit: Because this is a POTA FIR

Kamal: And we can’t say no to it….

Kamal: You know I don’t think ke tame aane second FIR treat karo pachi aa agency no role to khalas thai jay (If it is treated as a second FIR the role of this agency is over)

In chorous: Aa agency j karse ne.. (No the second FIR will be done by them)

……………………………………………….

Voice 4: (game em kari ne chutkaro male evo koe rasto nikle to kaho.. agency par vat avshe)(Just find a way out of this)

Voice: NIA  or CBI…

Voice 5: Already High Court had one stay

(Many voices)

Voice 4: tamaraa ma option su, su karwanu (What is the option we have)

Rohit: option to sir atiyare to 2.30 wagya ni raah jovani 21 mi e (well, just wait for 2.30 pm on the 21st of )

Kamal: As I read it correctly, perhaps you know we should allow the Judge whatever he is doing let him do.

Rohit: someone has to tell us concretely that what is there in the report..

Kamal: I am saying, I am sayingjust now, assuming for a moment, that this is this is you knowafake encounter and prima facie there are grounds to proceed against each of these people. That is the Report.

Voice 5: Koe e vanchu nathi….aa ek pan vastvikta che, ekey mahiti mali nathi)(no one has read it and that too is a reality, and there is no information.

Many voices: …printout….

Murmu: pan Atyare sudhi koina naam kari nathi. (But nobody has been named)

Kamal: to evu thay k nam nathi to FIR koni same karso (So does that mean, if there are no names, whom will the FIR be filed against?)

Muffled voices: …Sadiq Jamal…

Murmu: Atyare koina naam nathi (Nobody’s names are there yet)

Kamal: That Mukul Sinha has been insisting on FIR from Day 1.

Voice 5: Judge e dias upar thi pan kahyu tu ke ek waar tame report aavado (the Judge the other day said from the dias let the report come)                                                                                                       

Rohit: Main ek bat bolu (Should I say one thing) If you go back to the order dated 5/8/2011 where the High Court directed an inquiry, under the chair, under the leadership of the Chairman saying that,

a)  you shall inquire into this retraction

b) you shall not take assistance of any of these members for this inquiry

c) if you find proximity of anyone in getting theretraction done you shall have all the powersof arrest

d) Even in the course of investigation if you feel that you have enough evidence, to arrest, you may arrest,

And the High Court says this after taking into consideration the statements of all those people who have retracted.Still the prayer of Javed’s father for registration ofa separate FIR gets rejected. Now,

Kamal: Temporarily

Rohit: Temporarily, at this stage.Now it is not incumbent upon the High Court or for that matter this fact should be brought to the notice of the High Court by saying,

Kamal: Which fact?

Rohit: That they refused registration of an FIR

Rohit: Nai sir nai nai main aap ko kya bol raha hoo vo aap suniyie (No sir, please listen to what I have to say) , in the same order dated 5/8/2011, the High Court after noticing these are the witnesses who have given a particular statement but subsequently they have  retracted

Kamal: What are you heading towards?

Rohit: But ontwo occasions the High Court says the genuineness of the encounter is still to be ascertained.

Kamal: Right, now it is ascertained.

Rohit: But what was the material that was filed; the entire material is in their favor?

Kamal: Whose favor?

Rohit: Their favor

(Voices)

Kamal: Your operation is successful, patient is dead. You know, that, that may be in your favor, ultimately whatever proceeding you take up in the future we can take advantage of it. But what can happen on 21st ….if the report is like this, if report is like this then second FIR is a matter of course

tame mane kaho, Aapde boliye chiye kahiye chiye court ne toh su fer pade (Please tell me, we are all discussing here, the court does not really cares)

Rohit: At least court ne evu thai ke (should feel) we don’t know ke SIT e su material aapyu che high court ne (We still don’t know what the SIT has submitted to the High Court)

Kamal: You say we have been advised not to say anything. Now I am putting a question to you?

Sir

Kamal: Whatever I say, if that very thing is conveyed to the Court on 21st, what can happen? Against my assertion you say, you have been advised not to speak. I say supposing we are speaking, whatever we, I say, tamara vakilo kehse, toh su thaay(What happens if your lawyers speak). Are you not supposed to be knowing what is there in the report?

Many voices: This is notcriminal code…

Kamal: This is you know, the High Court has superimposed some agency, which is you know investigating, which is coming out with something, the least which can be done is you know, you apprise your …to what is there. I quite see accused has no right. bolo toh tamne su thaay (What can be done?)

Rohit: With the hostile mood that the court is….

Kamal: The court is already hostile, my dear friend.

Rohit: Nirupam bhai says.. he may not write certain thing…which will affect in the Supreme Court….

Kamal: What will hewrite now?

Rohit: Which will affect him in the Supreme Court

Kamal: If this report were a matter of reality I think the worst has already happened. Haan (aana thi wadhare shu thai shake?)(What can get worst than this)

ChudasmaVoice6: …………….. study karwa amte no samay toh mangij shakay? (We can ask for some time to study can’t we?)

Voice: Magvama kaen khotu nathi… (there is nothing wrong in asking)

Kamal: You are right

Rohit : (vanchvan mate no samay mangi sakay)(Time for reading can be pleaded)

Kamal: If you are an accused, you are not supposed to be doing all these things,

 

Rohit: Court (tamne ramadshe.. ha aapishu) charge sheet 4 (mahina pachi jaao, 4 mahina pachi aavjo hu tamne badha report aapish)(The court will easily play around with you, will say alright come after 4 months we will give you all the reports.)

Kamal: (Atyare kashu nahi)(Nothing at the moment)

Voice7: (Bail leva aave toh kehse investigation chalu che)(If you ask for bail, they will say the investigation is still on)

Nirupam : (Sohrabuddin ma…… kya malya che.. kahli… malya che CID na kagad nathi malya accuse ne, mangya che  ema supreme court e na padi che tame na male, e amare jovanu ke action taken report ma shu hatu tamne loka ne nai male, trial chalse e loka ne raju karvu hase toh karse)(The accused in Sohrabuddin’s case have also not received any papers, not even the ones from CID, even the Supreme Court refused, saying that, its for us to see what has been written in the action taken report, we cannot give it to you, and when the trial goes on they will produce if they wish to)

Kamal: Supposing (aapde kashu nathi karta ne court e order aapyo ke)(We don’t do anything, and the court orders)and they are now, you know allowing registration of the second FIR and this very agency is now proceeding…further to you know….

Murmu: Actually sahib (aama na thay Ek line ma)(That cannot happen. In one line we should protest that Sohrabuddin (ma hazar)(have been present)173(8) (ma j thaya che…aama pan hazar 173(8) ma aa loka na aapi shakta ta, ena ma aa loko e ………….. kary)(under 173(8) they could be given so can we) investigation, now they have to file a chargesheet.

Under the second FIR, entire thing is preliminary enquiry ….. if you are to do (karan ema tame 173 (8) karo toh tame ene preliminary gano pachi)(Because if you do it under 173(8) then you consider it as preliminary)

Rohit : Since last one year SIT is investigating the case

Kamal: FIR (badalva jay che)(going for a change) (laughing)

Vocie: (aama second FIR karva jay to aa preliminary gano pachi )(If you consider a second FIR consider it as preliminary)

Many voices

G.S. Singhal:Hindi speaking: Agar is ko preliminary ginenge to,otherwise what happened (ki )they will think later on stage par ki humko investigation karna hai. Hame toh abhi isko investigation pakad ke hi chalna hai, ki since last 4 years…(if we count this as preliminary, then otherwise what will happen they will think at a later stage, that they have to investigate this. We have to hold on to this as the investigation. Since the last 4 years,

Voices…

GS Singhal Hindi Voice: Then further investigation ka scope nahi rahega unke paas.. (then since last four years(since last 4 years, they will not have any scope for investigation)

Voices: Haan

Murmu: then there is no new FIR, you have already done investigation …..how can you do new FIR, no new FIR (nahi kar sakte new FIR)(Cannot do a new one)

GS SinghaHindi Voice: Jo bhi material available hai tum yahan rakh do, further investugation

Kamal: (tumhari charge sheet ke ander)(In your chargesheet

Rohit: (unclear voices and too much chaos)(let them charge sheet ke anderjo bhi material available hai who rakhdo)(just let them put whatever material is available in the chargesheet) further investigation is not …

Murmu: (new FIR to aap nahi kar sakte)(You cant do a new FIR)

Hindi Voice: (Kya hai charge sheet ke liye)(whats in the charge sheet) because all accused have been…so for accused… charge sheet

Kamal: (navu investigation shu karvana hamna ??) (what will they do with the new investigation

Murmu : (na kari sake, tame ene sabit karo cho..)(They cant do it let them prove it)

Kamal: (na na shu karvana)(No why for what ?)

Murmu: (Tame aane tapas gano cho toh 2nd FIR kevi rite karsho)(If you consider this as an investigation , then where does the question of second FIR arise)then you have to reinvestigate, (hare k witness na jawab leso ena FIR niche athva to …., have to file karo FIR)(you will take the statements of the witnesses etc etc)

Kamal: (aa argu karvani jarur che khari ama)?(Is it necessary to argue this)Final issue,

Murmu: 2nd FIR (na the sake)(2nd FIR cannot be done)

Rohit: talk to me, as such there is no decision, we don’t, wealso have to wait to till 2.30

Kamal : no no 2.30 this have follow

Voice: (apne alternative vicharvanu)(You think of an alternative)

Kamal :Han, We should be ready

Rohit : alternative (to1,2,3,4,.. vicharvanu to vichariye j chiye)(1,2,3,4 what can be the option we are thinking)

Murmu : (aa thay to ne aam karvanu aam karvanu…)(if this happenes this should be done, if that happens this should be done)

Kamal: (Apne emathi options shu nikali sakay ane best options male ene adopt karvu)(Whatever options we can come up with, lets adopt the best one)

AK SHARMA IG GANDHINAGAR Vocie (slow): (manilo ke High Court order kare ke …..to pachi tatkalik sarkari nokri mathi time ni mangni karvi pale)(suppose if the high court orders, we will have to immediately ask for time form government service)  to with prosecution …time ni mangni karvi….to with prosecution ….e loko  apse ke nai(will they giver or no?)

..Sheno sheno???(about what?)

Murmu: oprate karva mate amne time apso ame ……..karvani che(can you give us time to operate)

Kamal: State is a prosecuting agency, yaar, we, I cannot say. They may not like to say. Or if they say, they are not to be heard, they are accused. The matter ends

Rohit: yaar us din hum log is court main Supreme Court main 11 tarikh ko gaye aur supreme court main baithe,sunvai hui, supreme court main un logon ye bola ke kal High court main matter hai, supreme court ne ye bola ke thik hai high court ka application withdraw karke 13 tarikh ko hamare pas aao, 12 ko withdraw nahi karne de rahe the vo.(the other day we were at the Supreme Court on the 11th the  the SC heard us, where we got to know that the matter in the high court, the SC said alright, go to the HC withdraw the High Court application and come on the 13th, and on the 12th we were not allowed to withdraw)

Kamal: Kaun nahi karne de rahe the…(who did not allow?)

Rohit: the judges

Kamal : kaya(which) Judges

Rohit and otherone: Nirupam,  tran panano order kariyo che withdrawal no(Nirupam, a 3 page order of withdrawl was ordered)

Kamal :court wants  their observation

Rohit: per sir (but sir)  you should have conveyed ke kale supreme court ma matter che (that there is a matter in the SC tomorrow) this matter  are not ….

Kamal: Judges wanted to have details, (ane problem Nirupam bhai no junior kaen paper beper laene aao )(if nirupambhai’s junior gets papers)..Judge wanted to see the attested copy…that’s all..for that the matter was delayed….attested copy…that’s why judge became a doubting Thomas, he became suspicious that its something fishy. He was insisting copy lao, copy lao, copy lao (get the copy)

Murmu: (to apne tran (3) manas ne rakhiye)(so we keep three people) I think (try kariye em biju shun, trane janne, kaen jrur nathi..)(lets try and see what happens)

Rohit : tame at least  ek kam karone (you do one thing). We’ll have to settle it  after talking to Nirupam bhai. He has been in in this matter for last 2 years as far as he is  concerned…

Murmu:(ena mate to barabar eto chalu j che, bija… ) other 14(that’s fine with him, and the rest ? how many are there)

Rohit: other 14 (ke liye bhi to vohi) 1 + 14(he will be there for the other 14 as well)

Murmu: Achha (ohh 1 + 14 hai to) then there is no question (…..pachi to vat nahi thai sake, mane lagu ke ekla gaya hata)(Alright its for 1+14 , then we cannot say, I was under the impression he had gone for just one)

Rohit : nai nai CBI mangne to 14 admi gaye the, 15 admi gaye the (CBI had gone for 14 persons-15 persons)

Voice : to pati gayu, have to tame 2nd manaso ne nahi lae sako (So now its been decided we cannot take other men)

Kamal:   mero ko bhi ….

Rohit: that is to even impression hai ke that is to him (2 sal se hamare pas hai to hai)(Its been with us for 2 years)

Kamal :Nai nai idea is not

Murmu: tame last minute ma ene kadhi nai sako ….have to (You cannot tell him at the last minute)

Kamal : hathodi ne maro, tame maro, hun maru em jayne ander ghuse ena jevu che aa (this is like anyone can come and hammer around) idea is not to belittle anybody, idea is to see that ……

Voice: All these people are thinking suppose Niru bhai (ekvar  argukari nakhe)(let him argue once)

Kamal: We weretrying to arrange a meeting at Nirubhai’s place, (ane jo Rajubhai ane bharatbhai bhega thata hoy to tyan bhega kariye ane Nirubhai purepura kahide…….pachi rajubhai batave,, ane pachi bharat bhai batave.). that was the  understanding.(we call Rajubhai, bharatbhai and we discuss all together) That was the understanding, Nirupam is in the drivers seat.

Voice: nirpam sivay nahi, nirupam sivay bakina badha (everyone apart from Nirupam)

Kamal: na na already represent

Voice: already represent apne tyanthi koe …..na thaya hoy to (what is if someone has not been represented)

AK Voice:  pachi apne tyan stay ni mangni karvi joeye tatkalik, opration ma gaya hovathi nahi avi sake (we can ask for a stay, and say that we had gone for a immediate operation and hence could not be presented)

Kamal: mangi j na sako shu mangi sako ha ha ha (You can’t ask)

Voice: Gujarati

Kamal : No, I think let them decide. Perhaps I may not be able to, you know, give any mind of mine because you have to take a call on that. I thought that, you know, we are trying to find out some joint strategy. This is unique case where the government wants to help youout. Atleast, whatever maybe,you are a witness to it.. So far, so far in the court the government has spoken, nobody else has spoken. So, so, so, idea is to see that if we can work out joint strategy, ..something to help you.

Voices: (Interruption)

Kamal: Why should I break my head? As simple as that. I am not supposed to be speaking a single word. On the contrary I should see that you should be you know, immediately second FIR should be registered, you should be arrested. That’s the, that’s the voice of a real prosecutor.

Apde toh vichariye chiye ke aa badha mitron ne taklif na thavi joie, tame jetlu malta haso etlu amne pan  malva ave che aa..ha (the intention is that these friends do not suffer, because they are also troubled and so are we)

Tarun Barot: pan pela panch cha (5-6) encounter kyan ……(what about those 5-6encounter)

AG: Chinta nahin kare

AK Sharma: Actually 2G , .. court represented..

Kamal: I am not supposed to take care of their….

Kamal: No, it gives a pain, something wrong has happened.

Murmu:  Aap kya ….CBI ma ene accused karvu ke na karvu to ene ….…..supreme court ma ena vakil tyan ubha kevi rite karshe…(how can we find lawyers who will argue whether the CBI can accuse them or not)

Voice: supreme court e bahdu chale, badhu seting hoy ne, ke pachi, kaydo to ek hoy ne setting hoy ke nahoy(Well there is a lot of setting in the Supreme Court, then the law is on one side and setting on the other)

Kamal: Jo ana ander tame koh cho aa second FIR gulbarg na case ma mara dhyan ma toh nathi aavi, second FIR vagar magistrate 173 (2) ni ape to kevu kehvay, (I don’t remember that there was a second FIR in the Gulbarg matter, then without an FIR the magistrate gave 173(2)) Something unusual, you are re writing Criminal Procedure Code.

Voice: Question is, question is difficult, (emna mate pan mushkil che..) it is not easy(its difficult for them as well)

Kamal: No but I think, I think, take a call, (nirupambhai jode nakki karine)(decide along with Nirupambhai) whatever best, you know is to happen we should try, that’s all. By not speaking if we are trying to invite a better atmosphere for the future we should not speak, I agree with you. But by speaking something,we are likely to avoid something we should say that. I mean let us not treat this as purely a criminal matter because this has got different facets.(Etle pelo adu avdu lakhi neshu shu lakhi shake..)(what will he (judge) try to manipulate) I can’t think, (atlu lakhi shake, tame mango cho ne atyare)(he can write what you are asking at them moment), charge sheet file (karo pachi avsho atlu lakhi shake).(come after the chargesheet is filed at the most he can write this) Even otherwise that’s a settled law, (ena lakhwa thi kaen bou fair nathi padto)(see, his writing is not going to make a huge difference)

Voice/AK SHARMA: (Pan aa je agency badalwa mate Gujarat Sarkar nahi kai shake)(Can’t the government of Gujarat ask for a change of the agency)

Kamal Voice: agency nai badlay.(No the agency cannot be changed)

Kamal:  How can I say..(shu ke Gujarat sarkar?em ke k aa agency…(what will the Governement of Gujarat say?)

Voice :………Preliminary inquiry should not be conducted

Voice: preliminary …..Investigation same agency should not be conducting the investigation…..

Voice: what…no

Rohit : Meanwhile inquiry main chale gaye to phir kya hota hai…..investigation main fas jayenge fir…again one year, ek saal aur investigation chala. Hamen to effort yeh hi karna hai, yahi kar sakte hain ki since last one year this investigation is carried out. Now investigation has been concluded and investigation has come to the conclusion that this is a fake encounterto………whoever responsible….chargesheet may be filed, no further investigation. Inka intention yehi ha

Kamal: They are right to an certain extent, (ke aane jetlo gotalo karvo hoy etlo karedo)(that let him commit as many blunders as he can)…………Supreme court (ma jayne kahiye k sahib juvokevu gandpan karyun, ek varshe aa investigation chalayu, now em keh che ke second FIR karo ane preliminary inquiry karo)(we go to the SC and say, look sir we have done this foolishness, this investigation went on for a year, and say order to file a second FIR and conduct preliminary inquiry)..let chargesheet follow we are prepared.

AK Sharma Voice: (phir kya hai sir, preliminary inquiry karenge to ek saal aur investigation kar rahi hai)(the investigation has been going on for a year)

Rohit: … people not 1 and 2, (22 toh FIR ma naam che)(there are 22 names in the FIR)

Kamal: I was the only person who has been requesting you people from day 1, (karavdavo tamari committee pase karavdavo…..)(let your committee do it)[1]

Muffled voices…barabar che….like that (that’s right)

Singhal Voice: Worst situation (ma ek tarafthi e kahi shakai ke ek varash thi aa investigation chali rahyu che)(we can say that this investigation is going for year) and they had come to a certain conclusion, so investigation ends here, let it be directed for the chargesheet to be filed.

Chorus: (Je bhi report file thay)(whatever the report be)it is upon the concerned court

Voice: Charge sheet file (tyar pachi arrest karshe)?(will they be arrested?)

Voice :(maru kehvathi kasu fark nahi pale, hun kahish…)charge sheet kari sakay…(nothing will happen if I say anything, I will say, chargesheet can be done)

Kamal: (Haa pan su purava che?)(what is the evidence?)

Rohit: Sohrabuddin is an example.there was a FIR filed against Sohrabuddin, chargesheet was filed by CID there was no FIR …10 FIR (sohrabuddin main bhi hai)(even in Sohrabuddin)

Voice : but (aa kissa ma tapas aa loko pase rahi che)(now the investigation is with them) that is the problem….it will tell k ok…FIR should be continue …….

Kamal: No,(Pachi chargesheet file thaya pachi su arth)(if the chargesheet is filed what is the purpose)..Investigation over…

28minutes

 

Rohit : If they file a report saying (ke 173(8) ma kai kaarvu che)(should there be anything done under 173(8)The only good thing of this one year has been kethe factum of the 4having links with terror organization (e loko aama aavi gaya chiye,) (they have been brought under this, according to Nirupambhai. Nirupambhai says 50% of the matter is won (biji 50 % joishu)(the rest of the 50% will figure out)

Kamal: 50% is won in what way?

Rohit: To say that innocent died, now it isimpossible for even this SIT to write. To say that they were some mischief.. (aam tem je bhi hoy, hearsay je kaen bi hoy)(whatever it is, it could be hearsay)

Kamal: SIT (kashu kehsej nahi, SIT e badha ma jashej nahi .. SIT kehse ke aa aa)(the SIT will not get into all that) itsfake encounter, matter ends.

Rohit: (eme 3 aspect tapaswama lidha che) (They have taken 3 aspect for investigation). First FIR contents of  8/04, is whether they were associated with terrorist outfits or not.

Kamal: (ema shu kahiyu, Etle shu kehse?)(what is said?)

Singhal: (etle 3 aspect tapaswana kidha hata, aa loko e e aspect tapasi lidho 2004 ma je investigation thayu tu)( they were to investigate three aspects which they had already finished in 2004) same has been reiterated in 2011 also. whatever statement  have recorded,

Kamal: that they have links with terrorist organization

Voice: (haa emne eto kehvu padse)(they will have to say that).2nd  aspect(aapyu tu ke tamam e jeobservations aapya che e tame batao, ema ek to) (from the observation point) rigor  mortis,  semi digested food, entry and exit wound mark of injury sustained.. (etle e  je)FSL (no report thi e loko kari aapshe)(that will be done through the FSL report)

Kamal : ……action (khoto tharse)(will be wrong)

Voice: and 3rd whether it is a genuine or fake

Kamal :(ema em kehse)(they will say) read by what it its appears….

Voice: its appears (etleaa 3 aspect par tapas karwani che ane e loko e 3 aspect par j report aapse). (three aspects have to be investigated and a report to be submitted)

Kamal:  I think the best thing is you know, to keep a mum

Murmu Voice : something for communicating ……(tame mane kehso mara kehvathi ke amna kehvathi fark padse ke nahi)(it will make no difference if anyone says anything)

Rohit: Sir basically (fark amne….emne je dar che.. ke je damages thaya che, aa ek varas thi bou)(see the fear is that there has been a lot of damage done in this last one year) and damage control (kari rakhyo che, ek varas ma emne kehvay ke).(past one year a lot of damage control has also been done) .success rate (e loko e 300 statements lidha ane eam thi 2 statements against ma padya,(the success is that, they took 300 statements, and  298 statements consistent)  5 baar bolaya, 8 baar bolaya 10 baar bolaya. Ek aj rahya statement have pachi  kadach manilo ke e loko ne investigation further karvano chance aape, FIR register thay toh thoda manaso rattle thay barabar che, atyar sudhi toh confidence built che e loko no, succeeding  e loko sathejrehse, temperament etloj high che ane kadach enathi vadhelo pan che, pan point of a time kadach change thai shake, toh ek vakhat option jo khullo padi gayo toh pachu aavu tya thi mushkil  che)(they were called 5times, 8 times, 10 times the statements remained the same, if they get a chance for further investigation, and the FIR is registered, people will be rattled, till now the confidence is built, the temperament is very high and it could also increase, but at a given time anything can change, but if the option is opened up the point of return will be tough)

Kamal: As you know, Justice Patel, and he knows better, once he has decided, which he has already decided and we try to stall this registration of FIR. Mukul Sinha every time has said like that, every time  I said that Sir (haju aava toh do)(let it come), I say why, we can’t put, you know, cart before the horse.  (Ene Sambhadya vagar).. (with out listening) We’ll see wait, wait, wait, we have not negated his right. Supposing on Monday the report is like this, then to stall the registration of the FIR…

Murmu: Let me tell you because we said this way….because (kadachaa loko tapas karta karta tapas karva kidhu hase…atiyare to..168 na badha nivedan 173 (8) mujab lai lidha che.. Now conclusion is only chargesheet  karanke…ek ne ne ek ne bija ma use nahi kari sako..nava FIR karo enama nahi thay…)(well if the investigation is ordered, at the moment all the statements under 164 have been taken as per 173(8) so ultimately the conclusion is chargesheet)

Voice: is it 173 (8) investigation

Rohit: This man is now getting after the experts, …haan(ane etli chelli quality na e loko na communication thaya che aras paras, ane aa kadach e loko nej nullify karse  etle pachi)(the communication between them have been of the a very bad quality which could nullify them) ultimately CFSL… (ene todwana prayas etle aa anxiety che.. bhale pachi cho ne charge sheet thatu dekha jayega..)(this is an anxiety, we will see what happens after chargesheet is filed)

Voice :investigation 173 (8) investigation

Murmu: Shouting

Kamal: We should read this judgment

Kamal: (tame aa tapas karine kahi shako ke Gulbarg na case ma second FIR hati)(can you investigate and say that there was a second FIR in the Gulbarg case)

Voice : na..na(no)

Voice: What they have done is that they have admittedthat the complaint

Kamal: I do not find in any of the judgments of Gulbarg case, about the reference of a second FIR , they have come straight away, let High Court follow this.. Can’t we say that? No I am looking forward to you

Murmu: Sohrabuddin is the best example……(ama a loko e charge sheet kari…CBI further karse….kayda jovu palshe …ek ma settled certain provision)(they have filed a charge sheet, CBI will further do it, we will have to look at the law, for some settled certain provisions.)

Voice : fake FIR was running, despite of that 10 investigation is going on is …….(apne kehvu palshe ne)(we will have to say)

Rohit: (ema shu karshe hun aap ne kahun) (I will tell you what he will do) has to reach a lot of conflicting evidence,

Kamal: I know Mr Rohit ..you let me know what line of investigation ………(Kashu bolya vagar je gotala kare karva do)(just let him commit blunders without we saying anything)

Rohit: (Aa lokana perspective thi)(as per these people’s perspective) this is the best option available

Kamal: I also should not speak anything, these are thoughts… and whatever I speak should be in consonance with the sovereign government otherwise…….. will be booked, (evu na thavu joie, mari argument toh kach kachai ne reject kare)(that should not happen, he can reject my argument vehemently)that should not cause damage to us.

Voice: Sir, woh 178 investigation the SIT has come to the conclusion and the report has been filed to the concerned court

Kamal: Then I need to show an authority that without their being a second  FIR investigation..report…

Rohit: you know what justice Patel has written

Kamal: Who said?

Rohit: Justice Patel has himself said

Kamal: no no justice Patel is still about to give the direction of the registration of second FIR, (e toh Mukul sinha keh j che, hun keh  che)(mukul Sinha has been saying this) , anyway, whatever you submit let me know, it should not be a lousy submission, (evu na lagvu joie ke sarkar should be ridiculed)(it (submission)should not appear to be ridiculing the government.

Rohit: (Ek prevention evu thai ke have further investigation nathi thava devu)(one prevention that can be done that there should be no further investigation)

Kamal: Charge sheetkarawamate… (ek varas thai gayu) (it took a year to file a charge sheet)

Rohit: Charge sheet file thaay je thay e POTA court ma  kare thai.(well whatever happens this should go to the POTA court). last time he  had indicated the same thing that ultimately all this will go to the POTA court, we will get an audience there,

Kamal: He doesn’t have the background of criminal law he is beating around the bush. Ultimately second FIR aavse (will come)

Chaos: (ek presumption …ene further investigation nathi thava devu)(doesn’t want a further investigation) government has said this fake encounter….said that…investigation going on ……..file a report…..and show that where is the accused….they have arrested….panch (5) manasone arrested…..pehla je charge sheet kari emna ter (13) manasona te 173 (8) vali je ma)(they have arrested 5 persons and later 13 under the 173(8) inquiry.

Kamal: Forget for a while (aa Gulbarg ni andar kya second FIR aavi, nathi)(there has been no second FIR in the Gulbarg’s case)? (Shruat ni pehli FIR , FIR ma je kai naamo hashe police e je kareli hase e… barabar che)(in the first FIR, the names police has taken they could be the one) then that was taken into a trial, in the mean time this lady was trying you know.. (ke mari a treat kari ne tame)(treat this of mine (this lady Zakia tried to convince that treat mine complaint)(this is interpretation)…this people did not do it….they moved to the court, Justice MB Shah said  no we can’t do it, they went to the Supreme Court. Justice Pasayat entertained them, let see come and  then taufiq came  and recorded the statement, and the last judgment says we have done enough surveillance,we don’t want to do anything further  now let them file a final report under 173(2) before the Magistrate.

Rohit:  Sir this option is more feasible, we get some time

Kamal: My dear friend, I am trying to know from you what should I do, these are two supporting judgments.

Rohit: (aa che ne 2 supporting judgment che)(these are the two supporting judgment)…………. Tell them to file a report there let them do what they want to do, whether they want to file a closure, they want to file a charge sheet, (je emne karvu hoy e POTA court ma karwado),(whatever has to be done let the POTA court decide)In exercise your power, give them right to an audience, investigation (nai thavu joie ane further investigation to thavuj na joie)(there should just be no further investigation) this man can…

Kamal: I, I can’t with, with a lot of intensity say that there should not be further investigation , I think this is the provision of law and perhaps the right thing to do is that let them, let them file a final report.

Rohit:  as it is we are not to get a  We are not to get an audience before the POTA court, Audience will be with the SIT and victims.

Voice: (jo navi FIR che karawano its means irado pakko che hoy toh aapde aaj line upar jaie ane lower court ma report submit kare)(well if they are sure about filing the FIR then we submit a report to the lower court) bijo koi option nathi.(there is no other option)

Patel : Our line

Kamal: (Emne 2 wastu karavi che) (There are two things), see Mukul Sinha is in league with Satish Sharma ,(emu evu che.. ke 2 FIR thaay,  aa loko nu arrest thay investigation further thay ane jetla victims)(well that’s what they want  that the second FIR is filed, these people are arrested there is further investigation)real investigation they.(That there is a real investigation)I have to hang them

Rohit: Ane ena pachi rokawanu nai, charge sheet thya pach  aa barabar thayu nahi etle fari pachi, rokawanu to nathij . Amara mate toh (further investigation has to stop otherwise court no to chaltu rehshe a ate aa te)(they don’t stop there, they will insist on a charge sheet, then if they are not satisfied they will ask for further, well as far as we are concerned the investigation has to stop the court can go on and on )

Hamara…this investigation has to stop otherwise…

POTA… Supreme Court

39.21

Rohit : The moment they file a report in the POTA court, the ball is in our court . Then we have…we have  to somehow push, we have to somehow push this SIT into the POTA court.Aap utna kar dijiye sir, baki toh itne point hai na sir, POTA court na cognizance le paaigi, na kuch kar payegi, aise hi nikelte rahega 2 baras, 4 baras, 5 baras. Itne legal complications hai. Yeh investigation bandh hona chaahiye bas. Cite this example sir, that it has been virtually monitored and if there is a report that they have to file,  file the report before the appropriate court, …(sir you just get this much done, rest there are several points that the POTA court will not be able to take cognizance, and it will go on for 2 years 4 years, sir this investigation has to stop)

Murmu: What is the appropriate Court?

Rohit: POTA court, before thePOTA court.

AK : Appropriate Court is POTA Court.

Voices

Murmu:… Technical point is where the Court has taken cognizance earlier as well

Rohit: Then there will be 1000 complications

Kamal: I have limited role to play

Voices: ….second cognizance….But …complications

Kamal:  But let us not, let us not under estimate Justice Patel, despite my argument having recorded, he has just to reject and say that this is a case of registration of second FIR , I hereby direct that…

Rohit: Then let him do it, let him do it.

AK SHarma: We can go to the Supreme Court and say we have not been represented properly

Kamal: How can you get the audience before Supreme Court when the audience was not available 2 years

Rohit: Leave was granted to us.  In our application for Grant of Leave we will cite our SLP was dismissed, we have not withdrawn it, we got it dismissed, Leave was granted. So we will cite, we will say, we have been granted Leave, grant us Leave once more.

Voice:  We were told you can come back again whenever you have…

Rohit: Yes and this is what they had said

Rohit: Justice Reddy is now not available……but Justice Nijjar had

Kamal: Justice Reddy is not there. You’ve got

Rohit: Nijjar

Kamal: …

Rohit: He presently sits with probably Altamas Kabir .

Kamal: Ranjana Desai…..

Rohit: Nahin  Ranjana Desai to Aftab Alam hai

Voices

Rohit: Altamas Kabir, Cyriac Josep and Justice Nijjar these 3 decide the Bench.

Kamal:Altamas Kabir, Nijjar ane Cyriac Josep

Rohit: Continuation of investigation is a problem, otherwise report they can file

Kamal:  I know, I know, lets see. Ah ah..Government has you know its constraints.

Rohit: Our people have passed the narco analysis test also

Kamal: Sorry. Achha

Rohit: Us se zyada toh ham kya karen..(what more can be done)

AK Sharma They have been thoroughly interrogated

Rohit: Thoroughly interrogated. people are tired now.

Kamal: You, you, you must commend that the government also, has been has been seriously you know helping. tame tya betha ta ne nikdigaya khyal na aayo amne(internal discussion commenting on someone shifting his place) we are discussing all pros and cons..I agree, I agree.

Voices

42:47: Prafull Patel –  shakya etli tamame tamam koshish kari… (i have helped in all possible manner)

in between

Kamal T intervenes… You have a Law minister, Home minister all sitting…

Voices

43:01: (prafull patel speaks) men Tamara satish verma ne mara bungale… jokhame… ene kahyu hatu ke tare lakhavu hoy tho lakhaje… chaar kallak… (supported by Pradipsinh Jadeja) ratre pona be vage mara gher thee mokalyo hato… aa chokarao maate… aa 18 jana mate tu biju knai na kari shake tho knai nahee… police beda man… aa maara vakhat ni ghatna nathee pan hun icchu chuu kea a thay.. ane tara haathe thay… chaar kallak aava manas saathe… rajya nag rah mantra tarike mare eni saathe vaat karavi ne… aam record laine… ane rajya sarkar ni jawabdari no hisso che em samaji ne karyu…  ( I had called up Satish Verma to my house… despite knowing the dangers of it… had spoken to him for more than 4 hours and had told them to help these 18 persons… and if that happens by you… it will be a big thing…)

43:40 Kamal: Amit bhai has been constantly following…

Voices

Phone rings

Someone is dialing the phone

47: 42

(The CONVERSATION after this iswith reference to Mohan Jha, IPS officer a member of the SIT – partisan to Gujarat state. They are discussing Mohan Jha. Kmal T talks of calling Mohan Jha to his chamber in the presence of Murmu and advising him to retire from the SIT.)

Kamal: On what basis they may come, if at all they may come, that it is a fake encounter ? What basis?

Rohit: This could be witness of the member the SIT…(very faint). His case is, ki woh to bolenge hi, to merebolne na bolne se kya matlab padta hai(they will say sowhether I say or don’t say what difference is it going to make) This is the problem.

Voices

Kamal: mai ene kidhu tu(I told him) Waat kari mai(I spoke to him)I advised him to, you know, retire, that’s what Murmu.. hai  ne Murmu ?(right Murmu?)… Besharmi  kehway,If at all demotion Kari nakhe e pehla tamare nikdi javu joie (this is nothing but shamelessness, its better to retire before they demote you)

Voice

Rohit: He very happily took up the assignment …will work in the SIT.. and very happily..

Kamal: I had called in my chamber, I told him resign.. (he said) haan sir mai kar deta hoon.(Yes sir I will do it). This is a humiliation, insult to you

Voice: Humiliation ki kya padi hai. Pahle jab shuruat thi(Right from the beginning)  he could have taken, he being the senior most

Rohit: Uska  aisa kehna hai  post investigation main madad karoonga, mai report lelunga toh mujhe nikal denge, phir madad karne wala kaun.. (He says that if he helps in post investigation, and take the report, they will throw me out, then who will be there to assist you)

Murmu:  Chargesheet pachi su madad karega. Bewakoof samjhe che ( after the charge sheet what will he help for. Thinks we are fools) Hahahaha. Ena pachi kai role nat (there is no role after that)

Rohit: Nahin nahin  Woh toh sooch ke bethe hai ki abhi to aur investigation karenge hum milke teenon. (They are thinking that the three of them will conduct further investigation.)

Voices

49:39

Voice: Number kya?  8527

Kamal : 87

Voice: Haan 87511

Kamal: 875811… aam thi aavaj nathi aavto (there is no sound coming from this)

Voice:  loko tya thi nikdi na gaya hoy airport thi (I hope they have not left from the airport)

Kamal:  Aa mobile che?(is this a mobile)

Voice: Aa Mobile che? (Yes it’s a mobile)

Kamal: Ohhh. No tone?

Voice : ….Modi bhai ne Delhi nikadwana hata..(Was to leave for delhi) Then they will not be contactable

Kamal: He wanted to talk.

Voice: Gujarat Bhavan lagao. Gujarat Bhavan

 

Voices

Phone call:

Kamal speaking on phone: Haan …Haan jaldi jaldi jaldi. Haan…. Nahin nahin

Kamal: Gaikale(Yesterday)

 

Kamal: Emnu kehwanu evu che ke preliminary inquiry kari ne badhu magistrate pase jatu rahe. (He was of the opinion that this should be treated as preliminary inquiry that ultimately goes to the magistrate) The idea was to see that we help the situationThis has to be conveyed to him we don’t want any further investigation.

Voices

Voice: Inquiry karse pachi toh he will do it under 173(8), (If he does the investigation he will do it under 173(8))

Voice: Ena pachi FIR will be filed (FIR will be later filed)

Voices

Kamal: Nevertheless if anything a a a.. meaningful is to be conveyed, let me know by tomorrow.

Voices

Kamal: I must have come across umpteen number of people who know you,  who know me… have as if they have anything against you…

Voice : madad karni chhaiye…

Laughs


[1] Here the AG, Kamal Trivedi is referring to the Monitoring Force set up by the Gujarat govt to look into all the alleged encounters. AG tried very hard to have this case also diverted to that Committee. J.Patel did not agree, This finds mention in the judgment of Gujarat High Court of 1st December 2011.
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.kractivist.org/2013/07/07/india-gujarat-state-of-lawlessness/" target="_blank"> #India #Gujarat State of lawlessness
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.kractivist.org/gujarat-big-scam-with-small-car-nano/" target="_blank">Gujarat – Big Scam With Small Car, Nano
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/06/29/india-the-great-fertilizer-robbery/" target="_blank"> #India – The Great Fertilizer Robbery
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.kractivist.org/modis-claim-of-gujarat-as-a-model-state-is-suppression-of-facts/" target="_blank">Modi’s Claim of Gujarat as a Model State, is Suppression of Facts
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.kractivist.org/ex-dgp-writes-to-the-president-on-the-gujarat-extra-judicial-killings/" target="_blank">Ex DGP writes to the President on the Gujarat Extra judicial killings

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

#India – When law-enforcers tread the unlawful path


It’s a dangerous scenario when those meant to uphold the law choose illegal methods to control crime or punish its perpetrators. At risk are innocent victims who stand no chance against such organised brutality, the argument of serving a national ‘cause’ notwithstanding.
Rohit Choudhary

THE filing of chargesheet by the CBI in the Ishrat case, implicating several police officers, brings to focus the issue of extrajudicial killings by the police. A recent UN report on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions claimed that 109 civilian deaths occurred in India due to police firing in 2011. Most of such deaths occurred when the security forces took up “riot control, anti-extremism and anti-terrorist activities”.

Proxy war

In policing, a serious role conflict always exists — as one between the ideals of crime control versus the ideals of due process. There are many limitations in our criminal justice system which hampers the efficient and effective functioning of the Indian police.

The Ishrat Jahan case has brought back into focus the issue of extrajudicial killings
The Ishrat Jahan case has brought back into focus the issue of extrajudicial killings.

Besides, there prevails an attitude in society, which primarily judges the effectiveness of policing on the achievement of goals, and there is a performance culture judged on its outcomes. To add to the complexity of the situation is the new dimension of “across the border” sponsored terrorism fought with the commitment of jihad, backed by the ISI of Pakistan. This proxy war has to be fought by the security forces in India with their hands tied back, following police rules and criminal procedures meant primarily to deal with general crime.

This gives rise to what is now termed as the “noble cause corruption” in the police. It is defined as corruption committed in the name of good ends to benefit society at large, in order to get the bad guys off the streets. It is the corruption of police power, when officers do bad things because they believe the outcomes will be good.

They rationalise that such behaviour is part of the job description, in a utilitarian sense, to get the criminals off the streets, regardless of the means. Examples of noble cause corruption are extrajudicial killings, planting or fabricating evidence, lying on reports or in court, and generally abusing police authority to make a charge stick. This subcultural value system rationalises constitutional rights violations and often leads the police to resort to extrajudicial methods.

Fragile public support

While the whole concept of justification of the use of extrajudicial methods is based on what is being perceived as good for the largest number, the role and support of public opinion is a very important pillar here. But public support in itself is very elusive and difficult to quantify. It may be there today, but not tomorrow — there is also no explicit contract or demand. Any activity that may have legal implications must not be indulged in, with only public opinion to support. It would not be judicious to tread such a path which may land the practitioners into serious trouble in their career.

The public is also awakening to the fact that the difference between a totalitarian state and a democratic one upholding principles of personal liberty does not lie in the laws, but in the manner in which these are applied. Fake encounters, illegal detentions, fabrication of evidence, planting of false cases and withholding from the suspects the right of the due process of law is bringing considerable criticism to the police from the courts and public alike. For a police officer, an equally important duty (besides ensuring that the guilty are punished) is the duty to see that the persons suspected of the crimes are not deprived of their constitutional rights.

In their enthusiasm to secure the conviction of a suspect, very often police officers forget the importance of their obligations as guardians of personal liberty.

Though their intentions may be bona fide, for a cause like national security, they may find themselves being prosecuted for their acts. As on October 12, 2006, 462 police officers were facing criminal writs, trials and investigations for allegations of acts of omission or commission during terrorism in Punjab. Writs faced by officers included two ADGPs, three IGs, two DIGs and 12 SPs. Court trials were under way in CBI cases against 20 SPs, 21 DSPs, 57 Inspectors, 52 Sub-Inspectors, 53 ASIs, 42 Head Constables and 51 constables for this period.

Back to barracks

There is great danger in allowing policemen to decide what are the situations where they would resort to the use of illegal methods. The police force that has taken to the path of extrajudicial methods of functioning would find it difficult to confine the use of such methods in only justifiable and limited cases. The control of the superior supervisory officers becomes weak when they start overlooking the transgressions. The ill-effects of police brutality and use of other illegal methods in policing do not remain limited. The Mollen Commission, set up to investigate corruption in New York in the 1990s, argues that the use of excessive force may be a rite of passage into the police subculture and the beginning of “the slippery slope” that leads toward other forms of police misconduct. Once the line is crossed without consequences, it is easier to abuse their authority in other ways, including corruption. This happened with some officers of the Mumbai police, who were hailed as “encounter specialists”, but were later arrested and suspended from service for being in cahoots with the underworld they had pledged to eliminate, and for amassing huge wealth.

Miscarriage of justice

Policemen may form a premature opinion in a case and investigation carried out with a predetermined mind is likely to ignore many evidences that may prove the innocence of the accused. And when there is little evidence to conclusively prove the guilt, other set of consequential illegal actions follow, such as the use of torture to get confession, planting of evidence and illegal confinement. Many times, miscarriage of justice has resulted in these kind of investigations. In September 2000, the CBI filled a chargesheet in the Pathribal “fake” encounter case against five Army officers, including a Brigadier and a Colonel. They were accused of acts punishable under Sections 120(b), 364, 307, 302 and 201, IPC, after the slain were conclusively proved innocent civilians.

Getting to the truth

The drafting committee of the National Criminal Justice System Policy, headed by Prof NR Madhavanan, has recommended various measures for effective management of not only the traditional forensic science requirements, but also to overhaul science and technology needs of the criminal justice system to raise the levels of capability and sophistication.

Narco analysis during the past was only used by psychiatrists to find out psychological truth. The revelations made during the analysis were found to be very useful in cracking sensational cases like the Mumbai train blasts, and blasts in Delhi and Malegoan.

The narco analysis technique has thus not only revolutionised the causes of crime investigation, but also has led various courts to redefine the very scope of the constitutional provisions vest under clause 3 of Article 20 (3)10 to 16 and Article 21.

Brain-mapping technology scientifically detects the record of crime stored in the brain and the test represents a new paradigm in law enforcement. Increased understanding of neurosciences will contribute significantly towards piecing together the crime pattern stored in the brain. The recent amendments [2005] made to Section 53 of the CrPC, apart from others, is positive and proactive towards the recognition of the importance of scientific tests, including narco analysis amd brain mapping.

The stakeholders

While in cases of extreme crime like terrorism, extrajudicial killings may appear to be an effective deterrent — especially considering the instances of retaliatory kidnappings and hijacking to secure the release of arrested terrorists, and in majority of cases where terrorists escape conviction due to lack of evidence and no witnesses — resorting to extrajudicial methods as a means to control crime has its pitfalls as it takes away the checks and balances in the system and also does not account for plausible mistakes. The system also becomes extremely vulnerable to unscrupulous elements within the law enforcement community, who can bring about untold damage to society.

Moreover, even in terrorist crimes, the use of extrajudicial methods delays the operation of appropriate channels and the debate to evolve new methods due to such ad hoc reactions providing temporary respite. In the end, in place of getting a legislation to tackle the problem at hand, more often it has been the enactment of restrictive legislation — at times, arrests of some committed, indiscreet and overzealous officers and the development of adverse public opinion for police. Therefore, no police action can be justified in the use of extrajudicial methods.

The real remedy lies in the amendment to laws, rules and procedures to bring them in sync with the times, as strongly recommended by the National Police Commission; and a dynamic national counter-terrorism policy framework to meet the challenge posed by terrorist strikes.

‘Noble’ corruption

In police circles, it is defined as corruption committed in the name of good ends to benefit society at large and get the bad guys off the streets.

It is the corruption of police power, when officers do bad things because they believe the outcomes will be good. They rationalise that such behaviour is part of the job description, in a utilitarian sense, to ensure criminals don’t escape the system, regardless of the means.

Examples of ‘noble cause corruption’ are extrajudicial killings, planting or fabricating evidence, lying on reports or in court, and abusing police authority to make a charge stick.

The pitfalls

This subcultural value system rationalises constitutional rights violations and often leads the police to resort to extrajudicial methods.

— The writer is an IG in Punjab. The article appeared in The Tribune

  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://www.kractivist.org/2013/07/08/india-the-dirty-dozen-police-officers-of-narendra-modis-gujarat-encounters/" target="_blank"> #India- The Dirty Dozen Police Officers of Narendra Modi’s Gujarat #Encounters
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/expose-ishrat-jahan-encounter-cbi-probe-nails-ib-officers-role/" target="_blank">[Exposé] Ishrat Jahan Encounter: CBI Probe Nails IB Officer’s Role
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/narendra-modi-cant-get-away-with-murder-ishratjahan/" target="_blank">Narendra Modi- Can’t get away with murder #ishratjahan
  • #999; padding: 2px; display: block; border-radius: 2px; text-decoration: none;" href="http://kractivist.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/india-who-killed-my-daughter-ishrat-jehan-vaw/" target="_blank"> #India – ‘Who Killed my daughter Ishrat Jehan ? #Vaw
Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts

Ex DGP writes to the President on the Gujarat Extra judicial killings

IMPORTANT / MOST URGENT

R.B. SREEKUMAR, IPS (Retd.)
Former DGP, Gujarat
RB Sreekumar rtd DGP
“Sreelekshmideepam”
Plot No. 193, Sector-8,
Gandhinagar – 382008
Gujarat
Email : [email protected]
Tel (R.) 079-23247876
Mobile – 09428016117
Noida T. No. 0120-4284799

Letter No. 3. RBS/Encounter/3/2013 dated 15-07-2013

Sub:- An appeal to remedy elitist lobbyism against the Rule of Law.

Respected Rashtrapatiji,

I am a former DGP of Gujarat State and I retired form service on
28-02-2007. I have submitted a lot of evidence (9 Affidavits – 663
pages and other documents) to judicial bodies probing into 2002
anti-minority riots, on the genesis, course and aftermath of communal
violence in Gujarat, subversion of Criminal Justice System (CJS) to
deny, delay and derail justice delivery to riot victim survivors and
fake encounters by Gujarat Police. Now I am engaged in assisting the
riot affected and NGOs, as an Advocate, fighting for justice.

2/- Recent investigation by CBI into extra judicial killings of Ishrat
Jahan and 3 others, had reportedly brought out substantial evidence on
the culpable guilt of a few Central IB officials, in planning and
execution of this fake encounter, by teaming up with Gujarat police.
The Sangh Parivar, Modi Government, self-appointed supporters and
resource persons of IB have, of late, launched a vigorous campaign to
get the accused IB officials immunized from arrest and prosecution.
Media reported various grounds advanced by these saviors of IB to
pressurize and cajole the Union Executive – The Prime Minister and MHA
– for restraining CBI from performing its duty of investigating Ishrat
Jahan case, as per the stipulations of the Criminal Procedure Code
(CRPC), without fear or favor. Reports also indicate that MHA
officials had summoned the CBI Director and asked him to take care of
sensibilities of IB in this matter.

3/- A few former Directors of CBI, IB and Governor of Andhra Pradesh,
Shri ESL Narasimhan (former IB Director) had argued that arrest of IB
officials, irrespective of availability of sufficient evidence against
them, could jeopardize IB operations for internal security, besides
affecting morale of IB personnel. They emphatically asserted that “the
Government should have filed an Affidavit in the Apex Court stating
that IB should not have been dragged into the matter”. The thrust of
this argument is against the foundational principals of the
Constitution of India, the canons of the Rule of Law and inviolable
universal human rights and does amount to insulate IB functionaries
from the discipline of legality, even though IB functions without any
legal empowerment through enacted law.

4/- In the legal perspective, if any functionary from political and
administrative bureaucracy of the Union Executive – The Prime Minister
to Union Home Secretary – being pressurized by protagonists of IB,
does influence or instruct the CBI to take a particular direction in
Ishrat Jahan case investigation, bypassing the truth and substantial
evidence emerging in the investigation, they would be liable for an
offence under section 186 IPC “Obstructing public servant in discharge
of public functions”. The Central Government, being part of the
Executive has only administrative authority over CBI and investigation
of cases by CBI is done on behalf and under the direction of relevant
judicial authorities. As per section 36 of CRPC, only hierarchically
superior police officers of the Investigating Officer (IO), viz. SHO
has authority to supervise investigations.

5/- Let us hope that nobody from the Central Govt. will venture to do
the misadventure of intervening and meddling with the CBI
investigation in Ishrat Jahan encounter case. Moreover, on the basis
of evidence or reasonable suspicion or reliable information, or on a
petition u/s 319 CRPC, if Court brings IB officials under the clutches
of law, the authorities who influenced CBI investigation would be put
in an indefensible situation.

6/- The argument that arrest of IB officials would demoralize IB
personnel and damage IB operations sounds like tail (IB) wagging the
head (Government) and IB leadership indulging in soft blackmailing of
its bosses. IB’s charter is for collection of information, through
human and material resources, on threat to internal security of India
and any operation with this objective is acceptable and laudatory. In
the case of the premeditated murder of Ishrat Jahan and four others
and Sadik Jamal, in a different encounter, a few IB officials,
particularly a Joint Director, in-charge of Gujarat State (posted in
Ahmedabad from 2001 – 2005) and his staff, had gone beyond their call
of duty and became abettors and collaborators, with a mafia of Gujarat
police officers, for carrying out the hidden agenda of Modi Govt. to
eliminate Muslim youth for enhancing the image of the CM Narendra
Modi.

7/- These extra judicial killings were carried out by a selected group
of Gujarat police officers (most of them are in jail since 2007 – four
IPS officers – for their guilt in multiple fake encounters), who had
direct extra hierarchical constant accessibility to the CM Narendra
Modi and Minister Amit Shah, (arrested for the murder of Sohrabuddin
Sheikh and released on bail). It is relevant to note that Joint
Director IB, Ahmedabad who succeeded the controversial Joint Director,
Rajendra Kumar, is not facing any allegation for involvement in any
such crimes, though the “encounter specialists” of Gujarat police
continued to eliminate the so called “Muslim militants, planning to
assassinate Narendra Modi” till their arrest in February 2007.
Strangely Jihadi groups DID NOT send anybody to attack Narendra Modi
and other Hindu leaders after the imprisonment of policemen accused of
fake encounters!!!

8/- Evidence before Justice Nanavati Commission (JNC) available in the
public domain, revealed the professional lapses of IB unit of
Ahmedabad in failing to provide real time actionable, specific, pin
pointed preventive advance intelligence about 1) the timing of return
of Gujarat contingent of Kar Sevaks from Ayodhya on 27-02-2002 (this
would have facilitated Gujarat police to keep special bandobast in
Godhra Railway station), 2) the actual causes and course of Godhra
train fire incident killing 59 Hindus – though IB agents reportedly
traveled with Gujarat Kar Sevaks on their onward and return journey
from Ayodhya, 3) location of extensive planned attack on Muslim
settlements after Godhra incident by armed Hindu mobs 4) subversion of
CJS by Modi Govt. against the riot victims and witnesses resulting in
the Apex Court ordering a) constitution of Special Investigation Team
(SIT) to probe into 9 major carnage cases, b) transfer of trial of
cases to Maharashtra, c) reinvestigation of 2000 odd riot cases closed
by Gujarat police, d) forming a special task force under Justice Bedi
to probe into 17 encounter cases, e) investigation of a major mass
rape case and encounter cases by CBI, observing that Gujarat police
acted like modern Neros during riots and so on. Besides, Joint
Director Rajendra Kumar persuaded DGP K. Chakravarti on 27-02-2002
forenoon to investigate Godhra train fire incident as an outcome of
international conspiracy, without any valid evidence (to mobilise
Hindu ire against Muslim community for political advantage and
electoral dividends for BJP). The conspirators have been acquitted by
the Court in this case, invalidating the conspiracy theory. Further,
this IB officer had also advised Gujarat State Intelligence branch to
fabricate false reports against a political party.

9/- It is widely felt that a set of officers close to CM Narendra Modi
in Gujarat police had carried out many fake encounters with the
objective to 1) Enhance the image of Narendra Modi, the
self-proclaimed Hindu Hridaya Samrat, as a person constantly targeted
by the Jihadi groups, 2) Generate a sympathy wave among Hindus for
Narendra Modi, 3) Silence critics of Modi in BJP and Sangh Parivar, 4)
Project Gujarat police as an extra vigilant force successful in
pre-empting any threat to VIP security and eliminating the cause of it
in time, and 5) Generate a fear psychosis among the minorities.

10/- All these facts would establish that IB officials interrogated by
CBI for Ishrat Jahan case had certainly not confined themselves to
their ambit of duties and prescribed code of conduct. They had
absolutely no authority under law to arrest or detain any person, on
the pretext of interrogation also even if they were activists of
Lashkar-e-Toiba. Even if the people killed in encounters were
condemned prisoners by the court, Gujarat police and IB had no legal
powers to eliminate them in cold blooded murders. After all, success
of Maharashtra police to arrest and secure Ajmal Kasab of 9/11 attacks
on Mumbai, only had helped India to conclusively prove Pakistan’s
involvement in this devilish assault on our country.

11/- Everybody knows that only armed forces are exempted from arrest
and prosecution for their operations in areas where special laws are
enforced i.e. Jammu and Kashmir and North Eastern states. Therefore,
the deviant acts of IB officials in joining Gujarat police in planning
and execution of fake encounters should be viewed seriously and any
laxity would be exploited by enemies of India, propagating that
minorities are not getting proper justice. This would help
internationally organized Islamic Jihadis to get recruits for
anti-Indian nefarious activities. Should we create a favorable
ambience for such elements, within and outside India, for the mirage
of IB personnel’s morale? Is the morale of IB functionaries more
meritorious and valuable than the lives of Indian citizens?

12/- The Governor of Andhra Pradesh, as a former Director of IB is an
interested party in this matter and so he should not have intervened
with a letter to the Prime Minister, aiming at neutralization of any
action by lawful authority of CBI against IB officials. The Governor
had violated the constitutional constraints and legal framework within
which he had to function and particularly the letter and spirit of
Article 51(A) of the Constitution of India. In fact anybody including
Director IB endeavoring to protect the accused IB officials, allegedly
involved in extra judicial killings, should approach relevant judicial
bodies instead of exerting pressure on Union Government – an Executive
Authority having no powers over CBI under law, to guide and influence
the course of any investigation. If CBI buckles down under such
pressure tactics and de-professionalize the investigation for helping
the accused, this agency would be committing an offence under section
217 IPC – “Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to
save person from punishment”.

13/- Repeated electoral victories had arrogated and energized BJP and
Narendra Modi to continue with blatant violation of structured scheme
of Law and its due process. The latest instance is the case of an IPS
officer – ADGP Crime, P. P. Pandey, declared by the Court as a
proclaimed offender, in Ishrat Jahan case, remaining untraced since
5th May, 2013, and not being suspended by Modi Government, as per the
legal requirements of Gujarat Police Manual and All India Service
Rules.

14/- The IB’s guilty role in fake encounters in Gujarat is, perhaps,
the only instance, in 125 years long history of this organization, of
its misuse by a State Government, presumably with the consent of NDA
Government in the years 2002 – 2004. This is a dangerous trend,
injurious to federalism, unity and integrity of India. The role of IB
headquarters and MHA in this unholy affair should be probed deeper and
remedial measures ought to be streamlined.

15/- The President of India is the senior-most servant, soldier,
protector and Dharma Yodha of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I,
humbly appeal to you to initiate appropriate steps to prevent and
neutralize any move from Government or non-governmental groups or
persons, from impeding CBI investigation in Ishrat Jahan encounter
case and other fake encounter cases in Gujarat. Any action to anoint
IB officials, accused of collaboration in fake encounters, with the
oil of innocence, violating the procedure established by law and
through illegal extraneous pressure, would result in IB degenerating
into India’s Inter Services Intelligence (ISI).

The pivotal scripture of Hinduism – The Bhagwat Gita – emphasizes the
primacy of law (Shastras) in Chapter 16, Sloka 24:-

“Law alone determines what is to be done or not and so one should
become aware of what is prescribed in law and perform duties
accordingly.”

Tasmac chastram pramanam te karyakarya-vyavasthitam |
Jnatva sastra-vidhanoktam karma kartum iharhasi ||

With profound regards,

Yours faithfully

R. B. Sreekumar

To,

Shri Pranab Mukherjee,
Hon. President of India
Rashtrapati Bhawan
New Delhi – 110004

Copy with compliments to:

Shri. Manmohan Singh,
Hon’ Prime Minister of India
152, South Block,
New Delhi – 110011

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

Related posts