16.6 C
Chandigarh
Saturday, November 27, 2021
HomeIndiaDidn't defend anybody in 2002 post-Godhra riots, left no stone unturned: SIT...

Didn’t defend anybody in 2002 post-Godhra riots, left no stone unturned: SIT to prime courtroom

The Particular Investigation Crew (SIT) arrange by Supreme Court docket to inquire into instances of communal violence throughout 2002 post-Godhra riots on Wednesday instructed the highest courtroom that it had not shielded anybody and rued that “uncharitable” remarks had been being made in opposition to it.

“We were not shielding anybody,” senior advocate Mukul Rohtagi, showing for the SIT, instructed a bench headed by Justice A M Khanwilkar.

Rohatgi was responding to prices by Zakia Jafri, spouse of former Congress MP Ahsan Jafri, who was killed through the riots, accusing the SIT of bias and overlooking proof.

Rohatgi identified that SC, whereas establishing the SIT on March 26, 2008, had mentioned it would report the assertion of any one that needed to offer it, and invited statements by issuing newspaper ads. But, he mentioned, “uncharitable remarks (are being made) against SIT”.

His reference was to allegations by Jafri’s counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, that the SIT had not recorded the testimony of a number of essential witnesses.

“SIT examined 275 witnesses, did not leave any stone unturned,” Rohatgi mentioned, and referred to the arrest and conviction of former Gujarat minister Mayaben Kodnani. “She was arrested and convicted and was in jail for a number of years. If the SIT was partisan, I dare say it would not have arrested a sitting cabinet minister.”

The bench, additionally comprising Justices Dinesh Maheswhwari and C T Ravikumar, is listening to Jafri’s attraction difficult the October 5, 2017 Gujarat Excessive Court docket order upholding the Ahmedabad Metropolitan Justice of the Peace Court docket’s determination to just accept the SIT’s closure report, which gave a clear chit to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi and 63 others in riots-related instances.

Rohatgi additionally denied prices that there was any delay in calling the Military. “She (Jafri) says the Army was delayed. It’s an allegation against the state and Centre. It’s completely baseless. The fax went at 2 pm on February 28, 2002 and the Army was redeployed…. They came at night, were airlifted…”

On Sibal’s argument that SIT had not seized any cellphones throughout its probe, Rohatgi mentioned, “(the contention is that) a mobile phone used in 2002, SIT should take it from them in 2010, 2011, 2012. Phones of that era were nascent — (they had) no WhatsApp, no camera. Who would keep a phone for 10 years?”

He additionally responded to claims that the SIT didn’t seize name information data (CDR) or Police Management Room data: “No company keeps CDR for nine years. Manual requires destruction of PCR records after five years.”

Jafri had contended that our bodies of these killed within the Godhra prepare tragedy had been handed over to a non-public individual, Jaydeep Patel of VHP, and that the SIT didn’t probe this.

Rohatgi mentioned the our bodies recognized had been to be handed over to kinfolk, and people not recognized had been to be despatched to Sola hospital in Ahmedabad. He mentioned Jaydeep Patel was solely to accompany them.


On the allegation that the SIT had not probed why two ministers went into the police management room in Ahmedabad through the riots, Rohatgi mentioned it was investigated. “Based on this, SIT came to the conclusion that only one minister visited and he was sitting in a separate room.” He mentioned it’s a matter of follow {that a} minister goes to the management room and added that “presence of minister will only help morale of police, that he is not hiding in his house”.

Rohatgi identified that Jafri’s petition attracts extensively on statements of former ADGP R B Sreekumar and mentioned, “It appears that he turned against the government after he as superseded.”

“Testimony of Sreekumar is motivated. He clandestinely recorded conversations with the Home Secretary, etc…. He kept all this a closely guarded secret till he was superseded,” he instructed the courtroom. “Why did it surface for the first time in 2005?”

On Sreekumar’s competition that curfew was not imposed on the fateful day to facilitate parading of the our bodies of Godhra victims, Rohatgi mentioned Sreekumar was posted as Extra DGP (Intelligence) “only from April 9, 2002 — two months after (the) riots. Before this, he was Additional DGP (Armed Unit)…. So he had no knowledge…he had nothing to do with the law and order issue.”

“(He was) posted much after the riots, (yet) he says curfew was not imposed to facilitate parading. How does he know,” Rohatgi puzzled.

The senior counsel additionally mentioned that though then Bhavnagar Superintendent of Police Rahul Sharma was named within the unique grievance of Jafri, his title was lacking from the attraction. “I submit that it is a deliberate omission,” he mentioned. “Let me read the accusation. He is an IPS officer. Abetted breakdown of governance. Why is it missing? Because today Mr Sibal argues he is a hero.”

Throughout his arguments, Sibal had mentioned that Sharma in his assertion to the Nanavati fee said that cellphones had been utilized in an enormous approach within the riots and requested, “here is a police officer saying mobile phones were used. Then why did you not seize the mobile phones? The call records were never investigated.”

Sharma, Sibal mentioned, additionally narrated how political leaders approached him for bail of accused and contended that “this shows political interference”.

“Today he (Rahul Sharma) is their hero. They are saying he was targeted in 2011. Now, they are saying that he did the right thing,” Rohatgi mentioned. He added that in line with Jafri, Sharma was transferred as a matter of punishment.

Rohatgi mentioned it’s for the federal government to determine the place a police officer’s companies are wanted. “He was transferred from Bhavnagar to Ahmedabad. Otherwise (if it was by way of punishment), he should have been transferred to some godforsaken place,” Rohatgi submitted.

The arguments remained inconclusive and can proceed Thursday.

Supply hyperlink

RELATED ARTICLES

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisment -

Most Popular