Struggle for Justice
Various issues
related to the state sponsored genocide in Gujarat in 2002 require urgent
attention: the guilty must be punished and the state must provide fair and
immediate reparation
BY Teesta Setalvad
T he
struggle for justice to the victims of the mass carnage in Gujarat 2002
has taken many twists and turns. The inordinate media attention on the
famed Best Bakery case, which in a sense overtook all others, was
justified given the prompt hearing and disposal of the issue by the apex
court in its historic judgement dated April 12, 2004.
What somehow escapes public attention is the extraordinary
scale and extent of state complicity in the carnage of citizens in 2002
and therefore the unrelenting efforts to shield its perpetrators. Various
writ petitions, trials and civil suits have attempted to bring this out.
Apart from the issue of punishing the guilty in the major massacres, the
issue of fair reparation by the state is also pending before the Gujarat
High Court (Citizens for Justice and Peace, CJP, are the
petitioners).
Besides this, all the victim survivors of the Gulberg
Society massacre have filed civil suits of compensation against Gujarat
Chief Minister Narendra Modi, the BJP and the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP).
Zakia Jaffri, widow of the late former parliamentarian, Ahsan Jaffri, has
filed an FIR (First Information Report) under Section 154 of the CrPC
against Modi and 67 others (including present and former ministers and IPS
and IAS officials) alleging criminal conspiracy at the highest level.
Over the next few issues of Communalism Combat we
will refresh our readers’ memory on the various issues related to the
state sponsored genocide that are pending decision before our courts. To
begin with, in this issue we document the brazen attitude of the state of
Gujarat in the mass carnage cases. (Apart from the Best Bakery case in
which Additional Sessions Judge Abhay Thipsay of the Mazgaon court, Mumbai
delivered his verdict in February this year.)
On September 1, 2003 when the National Human Rights
Commission (NHRC) approached the Supreme Court demanding retrial and
transfer in the Best Bakery case, the statutory body also filed a transfer
petition asking for reinvestigation and transfer of major carnage cases,
including the Godhra train torching case, the Gulberg Society and the
Naroda Patiya incidents. NHRC’s transfer petition was a logical corollary
to its own fact-finding report on the Gujarat killings (May-July 2002).
The report had strongly recommended transfer of investigation and setting
up of special courts for the trial of the mass carnage cases.
CJP intervened in the case and filed over 65 affidavits
for victim survivors of these massacres. It pleaded that the Naroda Gaon,
Ode and Sardarpura massacres also needed to be reinvestigated and
transferred for trial as they too had figured in the NHRC’s 2002 report.
Following CJP’s arguments, on November 21, 2003 the Supreme Court stayed
the Godhra, Gulberg, Naroda Gaon, Patiya, Ode and Sardarpura trials. Since
then, detailed hearings have taken place during which CJP placed
voluminous details on record.
After an inordinate delay – due largely to the turnaround
of witness Zahira Sheikh in November 2004 — the Supreme Court, on July 11,
2006, resumed hearing the matter. It ordered the services of Judge Mehta,
additional sessions judge, Delhi to guide the court on the issues raised.
Now, on September 27 and 28, 2006, the issues of reinvestigation and
transfer (as in the Best Bakery case) are to be heard by the apex court.
CC brings to its readers details of the failure of
proper investigation and continued subversion of the justice process by
the state of Gujarat, which CJP has already brought to the Supreme Court’s
notice. The current issue of CC deals with the Gulberg Society,
Naroda Gaon, Naroda Patiya, Ode and Sardarpura massacres. In our next
issue, we will publish details on the Godhra trial.
Complicity at the highest level in the appointment of
public prosecutors (PPs) by the state of Gujarat was thoroughly exposed in
the Best Bakery case. Lawyers who had appeared for the accused were
appointed as public prosecutors, exposing a transparent conflict of
interest. Worse, many who were appointed were clearly linked,
ideologically and organisationally, with the VHP, BJP and Bajrang Dal, the
very outfits that had proudly claimed credit for the post-Godhra violence.
Instead of learning lessons from the scathing comments of
the apex court in the Best Bakery case, the Gujarat government has shown
little inclination to correct its misdemeanours. A shocking piece of
information has recently come to light related to the Godhra train arson
and some of the major post-Godhra carnages. CJP has brought this to the
notice of the apex court. Following the decision of the Supreme Court on
July 11 to get the matter of the pleas for reinvestigation and transfer
examined by a sitting judge (additional sessions) from Delhi, the Gujarat
government announced that it was appointing two special public prosecutors
to plead their case. Shockingly, Vinod D. Gajjar, one of the
lawyers chosen by the state of Gujarat, holds the brief and has appeared
for 23 accused in the Gulberg Society (Meghaninagar) massacre.
Even after November 21, 2003 when the Supreme Court stayed
the trials, the Gujarat government has persisted with its double standards
evident in the way it has pursued investigations in the Godhra train fire
incident and in the post-Godhra massacres. In the former case, the Gujarat
administration and police have aggressively persisted with their faulty
and mala fide investigations. In sharp contrast, despite numerous and
repeated complaints by victim survivors, the police doggedly refused to
take any corrective action as regards investigation in the Gulberg,
Sardarpura, Ode, Naroda Gaon and Patiya massacres. All this is now on
record before the Supreme Court.
Despite three rigorous years in court, the Modi government
is completely silent on why it did not undertake any further investigation
following applications for reinvestigation made by witnesses. It is
similarly silent on arresting those actually named as accused. They are,
in effect, allowing those accused named to go scot-free without even a
minimum investigation.
On protection of witnesses, too, misleading information
continues to be provided to the Supreme Court. The government’s own table
supplied to the court tells a different story. There is not a word on the
clubbing of FIRs, deliberate omission of names of accused, incomplete list
of dead and missing persons, absence of dying declarations and injured
persons’ statements, appointments of PPs or reinvestigation.
In the post-Godhra massacres there has been no attempt to
de-club FIRs (dealt with later) and no attempt to address the complaints
of eyewitnesses challenging the facts recorded by the police pertaining to
things such as the sequence of events and the names of the accused. Fresh
statements of witnesses were not recorded and no reinvestigations have
been conducted despite the fact that there was no bar on this.
As petitioners, CJP has demanded that all police control
room records of the relevant time from the carnage-affected parts of
Gujarat be scrutinised and placed before the court. This would bring to
light the numerous distress calls that were made and which were ignored by
top echelons of the government and police. But the Gujarat state has
maintained a studied silence on the issue.
The blatantly discriminatory attitude towards the
perpetrators of the post-Godhra violence is also evident in the obvious
duplicity in granting of bail by the courts in Gujarat. Whereas a large
number of the Godhra accused remain in jail four years after the incident,
those responsible for heinous mass crimes were promptly granted
anticipatory bail by the Gujarat High Court in cases where the lower
courts denied the same. The result is that the perpetrators freely roam in
the violence-rocked areas under political tutelage and continue to
intimidate witnesses.
The Gujarat government has shown no qualms in misleading
even the apex court. In 2004 it deliberately supplied a partial
list of bail orders to convey the impression that bail had been refused to
quite a few accused. When CJP, the interveners, pointed out this lapse to
the court’s amicus curiae, Harish Salve, he had the bail orders translated
which exposed the attempt at deliberate concealment: in cases where a
lower court refused bail, the Gujarat High Court had invariably granted
it. The Gujarat government chose to conceal such rulings of the high
court. Such undue concern and interest in shielding the accused suggests
complicity at the very highest levels.
As far as rehabilitation is concerned, the fact is that
survivors and eyewitnesses of the Sardarpura massacre cannot return to
Shaikh Mohalla in their native village and are still living as refugees at
Satnagar in a neighbouring district. Survivors of the Gulberg massacre
cannot return to their middle class housing colony. Survivors of the Ode
massacre cannot return to their village. Well over four years after the
carnage, only a few victim survivors of Naroda Gaon and Patiya have
returned to their locality. Even after Supreme Court orders have been
issued, the security provided to witnesses is inadequate and threats
continue.
And while the property of those accused in the Godhra
massacre has been attached by the authorities, the property of those
granted anticipatory bail in the post-Godhra carnages has not been
attached.
Gulberg massacre
In the ghastly massacre that took place at Gulberg Society
between 7.30 am and 6 p.m. on February 28, 2002, over 70 persons were
killed in broad daylight. An FIR was registered on the same date. Three
charge sheets have been filed. Significantly, the witnesses made three
applications for proper investigation between 2002 and 2003 but none of
these have been adequately responded to by the state of Gujarat. A
complaint addressed to Gujarat’s home secretary dated July 18, 2003
pointed out that Chetan Shah, the public prosecutor appointed by the
government, had in fact appeared for accused.
Repeated applications for further investigation (the first
was dated November 25, 2002) lodged by 11 of the witnesses with the
Meghaninagar police station and the commissioner of police, Ahmedabad have
been ignored. It was when these shocking facts pointing to gross
negligence of duty were placed before the Supreme Court that it ordered a
stay of the trial. Despite this, the Modi government continues to maintain
a deafening silence on the issues raised and has failed to respond to the
contentions raised by the witness survivors.
Survivor witnesses have filed affidavits before the apex
court pointing out that their repeated complaints to the Gujarat police to
do an honest investigator’s job have been ignored. For example, in his
detailed application before the court, witness survivor Salimbhai Sandhi
states that in his statements to the police recorded on March 6, 11 and
13, 2002 he had named Krishna, Naran Channelwalla, Atul Vaidya, Meghsingh
Chaudhary (Vakil), Manish Prabhudas Jain, Rajesh Dayaram Jinger, Pradeep
Parmar, Bharat Talodia, Bipin Patel and Arun Bhat as the accused. However,
the investigating agency had deleted their names.
In his complaint to the police in November 2002, witness
Ashraf Sikandarbhai pointed out that while he had named Girish Prabhudas
Jain in his statement to the police on March 3, 2002, there is no mention
of Jain in the statement recorded by the police. Another survivor witness,
Imtyaz Saudkhan, had also demanded further investigation in November 2002,
complaining that Jain’s name was missing from the police record of his
statement of March 5, 2002 even though he had specifically named him.
Survivor witness Salimbhai Noormohammed’s affidavit in the
Supreme Court complains that his police statement dated February 28, 2002
was falsely recorded and that his November 2002 application to the police
in this connection has been ignored. Along with naming the accused he had
also detailed the weapons each of them had wielded: Krishna (petrol
carboys), Naran Channelwalla (with pipe and gupti), Atul Vaidya
(sword), Meghsingh Chaudhary (petrol carboys), Manish Prabhudas Jain
(sword and petrol carboys), Rajesh Dayaram Jinger (petrol carboys), Bharat
Talodia (sword), Bipin Patel (sword).
Similarly, complaints lodged by victim survivors Sayrabhen
Sandhi, Ashraf Sikandarbhai, Mohd Ali Shahjadali Saiyyed, Fakir Mohammad
Saiyyad, Mohd Rafik Bukhara, with specific contentions, were also ignored
by the Gujarat police. Fresh applications to the police made by witnesses
in April and yet again in September 2003 also remain unanswered.
The second application filed by witnesses on April 16,
2003 contains shocking details about the PP. The first public prosecutor
appointed by the state of Gujarat, respondents in the Gulberg trial, was
Chetan Shah who had appeared for the accused in this very case. In
September 2003 – after the Supreme Court took cognisance of the utter
mockery of justice by the Gujarat government in the acquittals in the Best
Bakery case – the plea of an eyewitness in the Gulberg massacre,
Firoz Gulzar Mohammed Pathan, asking for a removal of Chetan Shah was
acceded to. The PP appointed in Shah’s place was PP Atre. The application
filed by witnesses before the trial court dated November 4, 2003 states
that PP Atre (appointed after Chetan Shah’s removal) had argued against
the witnesses’ plea for reinvestigation and had supported the affidavit of
the police inspector denying allegations against the police about faulty
investigation.
In a note filed before Judge Mehta, the Gujarat government
admits that Chetan Shah was appointed PP in this case but was not assigned
the case. No reasons are given here and none of the serious contentions,
raised against a state which is the prosecuting agency and which is proven
to have appointed lawyers who had already appeared for those accused of
mass crimes, are addressed. The attitude of the state of Gujarat, despite
judicial rebuke, remains one of smug complacency.
All the applications made by witnesses for corrections in
the course of investigation were made in 2002 and 2003 and yet again after
charge sheets were filed. However, there was no evidence of any desire at
any stage by the Gujarat government to make amends.
Detailed affidavits filed by witnesses and victim
survivors in the Supreme Court contain shocking details and raise
important points to be considered on the following issues:
Coercion by investigating officer
The affidavit of Rupa Modi dated October 5, 2003 states
how the original police inspector, PI KG Erda, tried to coerce her into
changing her stand.
No protection to witnesses
Saiyyad Sajjad Ali’s affidavit mentions fear for life and
lack of protection; Said Khan Pathan speaks of witnesses being surrounded
and threatened on the premises of the Nanavaty-Shah Commission itself in
August 2004. Similarly, the affidavits of Zakia Ahsan Jaffri and Tanvir
Jaffri talk of being threatened by some of the accused who the police
claim are absconding.
Clubbing of FIRs
In response to serious charges, the Modi government has
provided extremely frivolous reasons for clubbing the FIRs. The clubbing
of serious offences into a single FIR is motivated by a desire to subvert
the process of justice. The Gulberg massacre was the first recorded
incident after the Godhra arson. It began at 7.30 a.m. on February 28,
2002 and continued until at least 6 p.m. The criminal offences in the
brutal massacre included mob attack, police complicity, gang rape, arson
and killing. Is the filing of one FIR justified? The reasoning advanced by
the state of Gujarat – that simply because the place and offence is the
same, they have all been clubbed – is woefully inadequate.
While over 70 persons were brutally massacred, there were
at least 10-12 cases of brute sexual violence and gang rapes. Clubbing all
the crimes committed in this fashion in fact does several things:
(a) reduces the magnitude of the mob attack,
(b) minimises the detailing of individual and collective
crimes,
(c) makes difficult the punishment of the guilty thus
subverting the criminal justice process itself. It obfuscates the role of
each of the accused. Had separate complaints been registered, the degree
of involvement of all the accused, in terms of leadership and incitement,
committing of criminal acts (burning victims to death, quartering,
parading and then killing), role in the gang rapes etc. would have been
clearly specified. There is an obvious desire on the part of the
investigating agency to violate both the letter and spirit of criminal
procedure in giving the go-by to the recording of details of the mass
crimes and mob violence. All this amounts to shielding the accused. There
is also no desire to fix role and responsibility for the utter and
complete breakdown of the rule of law and constitutional governance in the
state of Gujarat.
Ahsan Jaffri surrendered himself to the attacking mob at
around 2.30 p.m. on the fateful day, once he realised that all his
efforts, including 200 telephone calls for help to, among others, then
chief minister of the state (Narendra Modi) and Union home minister (LK
Advani), had not lessened the fury of the attack. The attack lasted for 10
long hours at the minimum. After Jaffri had surrendered to the mob he was
stripped, his body parts were chopped off and he was paraded, half-alive,
around the society to terrify the others before he was burnt alive. Do
these gruesome incidents and the criminals involved in this specific crime
not deserve the registration of a separate FIR?
The state of Gujarat’s response is an attempt to cover up
the extent of state connivance and complicity. KG Erda, the inspector of
Meghaninagar police station, stood by as the mob attacked. Then
commissioner of police, PC Pandey (who has since been rewarded and is now
director general of police, Gujarat), visited Gulberg Society around
10.30-10.45 a.m. Phone calls were made seeking help for over seven
desperate hours before the mass killings began at 2.30 p.m. Gulberg
Society is not that far from Gandhinagar or Shahibaug, the police
headquarters in the city. None of this is reflected in the police records
of the ghastly incident.
There is no explanation offered by the Gujarat police as
to why many of those named by witness survivors as perpetrators of the
violence – Dr Atul Vaidya, Pradeep Parmar, Bipin Patel, Arun Patel, Jitu
Pratapbhai, Pappu Pratapbhai, Manish Prabhudas Jain, Dinesh Prabhudas
Sharma, Dharmesh, Kapil Munnabhai and Bharat Rajput – are missing from the
police record of their statements. Similarly, there is no explanation as
to why many other accused named in the FIRs – Girish Prabhudas Sharma,
Ramesh Pande alias Choti, Ashish Pande – are claimed to be absconding even
though it is public knowledge that they roam freely in the Meghaninagar
area and for fear of whom the victims dare not return to Meghaninagar.
Naroda Gaon and Patiya massacre
Clubbing of FIRs
The clubbing of FIRs has been the biggest scandal related
to investigations into the post-Godhra carnages. Naroda Gaon and Patiya
occupy a large geographical area on the outskirts of Ahmedabad city, an
area that witnessed several incidents of appalling brutality during the
Gujarat carnage. A total of 106 FIRs were registered at the Naroda police
station on February 28, 2002. These 106 FIRs have subsequently been
shockingly merged into two bulk FIRs relating to the two incidents.
Following this entirely illegal and unlawful clubbing, we
are left with just FIR No. 97/2002 and 98/2002 relating to the offences at
Naroda Gaon. Similarly, 28 independent FIRs in the killings at Naroda
Patiya have been merged into a single FIR No. 100/2002.
The story behind crime report, CR 197/2002 of
Naroda police station (Naroda Gaon) is particularly scandalous because
the names of elected representatives as well as mastermind Dr Jaideep
Patel (general secretary, Gujarat VHP) were mentioned when these FIRs were
first recorded. But in the clubbing process, they have been
dropped. Thus while Jaideep Patel was named by each
of the witnesses and BJP MLAs Ashok and Maya Kotdani by several of them,
none of their names figure in the clubbed FIR. The Modi government has
maintained a deafening silence on these issues and has simply not
responded to repeated complaints, backed by facts, of gross lapses in
investigations.
Faulty/Mixed up charge sheets
Two FIRs of the main incident that occurred at Naroda
Patiya (100/2002) and Naroda Gaon (98/2002) are registered at the Naroda
police station. There is almost a deliberate mixing up of records related
to the two charge sheets.
Ø
Madinaben Arifbhai Malek’s injury certificate has been wrongly included in
the charge sheet related to the Naroda Patiya incident though she is a
resident of Naroda Gaon and her case should figure in the other charge
sheet.
Ø
Sugrabi Shaikh was killed at Naroda Gaon (CR No. 98/2002). However, in a
gross discrepancy in investigations, without any application of mind, her
post-mortem report is wrongly produced in CR No. 100/2002 while the
statements in this regard are produced in CR No. 98/2002 and not in CR No.
100/2002.
Ø
Twenty injury certificates issued by the doctor who treated the injured
have been attached to the Naroda Patiya case. Of these 20 injured, nine
are eyewitnesses. Yet, to date, the police have not recorded their
statements in connection with the event.
Ø
Witness Mohammed Maruf Rauf Khan Pathan’s statement recorded by the police
on March 17, 2002 does not contain the names of the accused. Thereafter,
another statement of his was recorded, on May 23, 2002, by the crime
branch. This, the second statement, does contain the names of the accused
but was not produced in the charge sheet.
Ø
Sufiyabano Abdul Majid Shaikh, aged 17, residing at Jawannagar,
Naroda Patiya was admitted to hospital on February 28, 2002 with severe
burn injuries. Her father, Abdul Majid stated in his police statement
dated April 15, 2002 that he met his daughter Sufiyabano in the hospital
on March 4, 2002 when she told him she had been raped by Bhawani Chara and
his son who is a vakil (lawyer). This fact is recorded in
her father's police statement dated April 22, 2002. However, it was only
after Sufiya's death on March 7, 2002 and her post-mortem report as well
as her dying declaration and police statement dated March 3, 2002 were
handed over to her father that it became evident that these records have
no mention of rape.
Ø
The police have not produced any evidence in any charge sheet related to
Naroda Gaon or Patiya regarding the identification of most of the bodies.
For example, deceased Kauser Bano whose abdomen was slit open by sword and
her foetus thrown into the fire. No evidence has been produced regarding
identification of her body.
Ø
There are also gross discrepancies in the names and status of the accused
between the charge sheet and other documents.
Ø
The charge sheet related to the Naroda Patiya incident shows a total of 97
dead bodies. However, in a scandalous lapse of investigation, post-mortem
investigation has only been conducted on 59 dead bodies. As for the
remaining 38 dead bodies, no post-mortem report is attached nor has
any reason for this lapse been offered so far.
Threats and intimidation of witnesses
Witnesses of these incidents were repeatedly threatened
and coerced, especially by Accused No. 1 Babu Bajrangi (local unit chief
of the Bajrang Dal, who is out on bail) on the premises of the Nanavaty-Shah
Commission in August 2004. It was only after CJP’s intervention in the
Supreme Court that they were given protection, by way of round the clock
protection by the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF).
Mohammed Sharif Rahim Miyan Malek has stated in his
affidavit that when he tried to return to his place of residence, an RSS
worker, Pradeep Patel alias Padumal, threatened him. (Patel’s father is
named as an accused in the massacre.) He also said, "How much more do you
wish to go through before you leave? Next time you will be killed!"
Through the affidavits of Nanubhai Rasool Miya Malek it is
clear that this witness who had deposed before the Nanavaty-Shah
Commission was booked in a false case of murder of one Ghanshyam Patel and
released on bail 10 months later. Similarly, 11 other key witnesses in the
Naroda Gaon and Patiya massacres who have named specific persons as
accused have been falsely implicated in bogus cases. For example,
Bismillah Khan, who gave shelter to many victims and who escaped the mobs
that day, has also been in jail on false charges of murder.
None of these serious issues raised by CJP, with facts
supporting the contentions and allegations, have been adequately responded
to by the state of Gujarat.
Countering the state of Gujarat’s inability to contest
bare facts, this writer has pointed out that substantive allegations in
affidavits by eyewitnesses are not answered, including those related to
state complicity and the fact that names of influential persons were
deliberately left out by the police. Allegations of sexual violence and
rape crimes have, according to eyewitnesses, been deliberately obscured by
the police.
In sum, the entire role of the state of Gujarat in the
four years since the genocide of 2002 has been geared to reducing the
magnitude of the evidence, reducing the magnitude of the mob attacks,
negating the gruesome description of individual and collective crimes and
concealing the names of the politically and financially powerful who
masterminded and led the attacks. All this with a view to prevent action
against the guilty thus subverting the criminal justice system itself.
Sardarpura massacre
The Sardarpura massacre that occurred in Mehsana district
on March 1-2, 2002 took place at the Shaikh Mohalla. Witness survivors
photographed this spot in June 2006 and the photographs reveal the pitiful
condition of houses still in a broken down state. Burnt clothes of victims
are in the same condition that they were in March 2002. A Patel from the
village has even taken over a shop/booth belonging to a victim and has now
set up business there.
Thirty-three persons, mostly women and children, were
burnt alive in a small room in Sardarpura village. In all, there are 54
accused and they have all been released on bail through four
different applications filed before the additional sessions judge, Mehsana,
DR Shah. Between June and October 2002 four applications were filed for
cancellation of bail of the accused (including a writ petition alleging
mala fide investigations) by Hashim Qureshi, the advocate appearing on
behalf of the victims’ families. The PP, surprisingly, did not object to
the cancellation of bail. The high court has issued notices in all four of
these matters.
The PP in the district court at the time, Dilip Trivedi,
is also general secretary of the VHP in Mehsana district. (Trivedi also
made an extremely provocative statement to the daily, Sandesh, in
the wake of the Godhra train arson on February 28.) It was only after
vociferous protests that Trivedi was removed from his post as PP. The
state government is completely silent on this.
The four applications for rejection of bail were made on
the grounds that even after being released on bail the accused had
attacked a mosque in the same Sardarpura area on May 13, 2002. Charge
sheets have been filed and charges framed on the basis of faulty FIRs and
worse, mala fide and sketchy investigations.
Though FIRs were registered, charges were not framed.
Shockingly, one of the cases related to this massacre has been closed as
‘A’ summary. The police have made no efforts to arrest those supposedly
absconding. The state government continues to proffer inadequate and
erroneous information suggesting utter contempt of the proceedings in
which it has been held prima facie guilty of gross unconstitutional
conduct.
The first incident at Sardarpura village took place on the
night of February 28, 2002 when cabins and hawking pushcarts belonging to
the Muslim community were burnt. Though victims sought to register a
complaint with PSI Parmar, the police sub-inspector who was on
bandobast at the time, he refused to register the complaint.
Between 9.30 and 11.30 p.m. on the night of March 1, 2002,
a mob of about 1,000-1,500 persons attacked, looted and burnt down shops,
cabins and homes belonging to the Muslim community situated in the
Sardarpura bazaar. Some of these details are contained in a complaint that
was lodged by PSI Rathod. No names of accused have been mentioned in this
complaint though Rathod was present there on bandobast duty.
Witness survivors contend that Rathod knew the persons leading the mob by
name but due to political pressure on him he deliberately concealed the
names of the accused in the complaint.
As far as the massacre of March 1-2, 2002 is concerned,
the registration of the complaint and the subsequent investigation into
the mass massacre that took place at Shaikh Mohalla have been effected in
a partisan manner with a view to underplay the gravity of the crime and to
protect the role of rich and politically influential people who
participated in it. As a result, the main accused have been acquitted.
There are defects in the police statements and therefore also the charge
sheets.
The defects in the charge sheet pointed out to the Supreme
Court are as follows:
Ø During the violence
of March 1, 2002 that engulfed Sardarpura village and surrounding areas of
the district, PSI Parmar had brought Muslims from Sundar village to
Sardarpura village. Though a large number of people were witness to this,
none of their statements were recorded.
Ø Pathan Mohalla lies adjacent
to Shaikh Mohalla (where the massacre took place). On the night of March
1, 2002 there were about 200 persons present in Pathan Mohalla, who by
their very presence and proximity to the place of tragedy were
eyewitnesses who had seen the organised attack, those responsible, the
timing and the ferocity etc. However, the police did not record any
statements from any of those present in Pathan Mohalla.
Ø A series of incidents took
place in the presence of PSIs Parmar and Rathod. However, no witness
statement from PSI Parmar has been recorded. No departmental inquiry has
been conducted against either or both of them.
Ø The panchas whose
signatures were taken on the panchnama are in fact relatives of
Accused Nos. 10, 23 and 31. They appear to have been chosen as
panchas by the police with a view to withdraw support to the
prosecution (and support the accused) at the time of trial.
Ø On the night of the incident
recorded in CR 46/2002 i.e. the night of March 1 and 2, 2002, at about
2.30 a.m. deputy superintendent of police, DSP Gehlot came to Sardarpura
village and accompanied by persons from Pathan Mohalla went to Shaikh
Mohalla from where he transported the dead to the civil hospital and,
using two large police vehicles, moved out those Muslim victims who had
survived. These facts do not figure in the police investigations and the
statements of the persons concerned were not recorded. DSP Gehlot, in
fact, revealed details of these events in a statement to the media
published in the northern Gujarat edition of
Gujarat Samachar dated March 7, 2002.
Ø In the charge sheet filed by
the police, no statements from the members of the Harijan community who
gave Muslims shelter have been recorded.
Ø The Muslim homes are located
adjacent to the scene of the mass murder at Shaikh Mohalla. Adjacent to
these are the homes of the accused. The Muslim homes are lower in height
than the higher constructions belonging to the accused. The accused threw
burning cloth torches from their higher buildings to torch the lives and
homes of Muslims of Shaikh Mohalla. These detailed facts about the attack
are all missing from the police investigations.
Ø When they sought bail
following their arrests, the accused received full support from the state.
The sessions court granted them bail subject to the condition that the
accused would not enter Sardarpura village. Yet not only do the accused
conveniently reside in Sardarpura village in full view of the police and
administration but victim survivors and witnesses cannot enter and live in
Sardarpura themselves. Though the accused have violated the
conditions of bail, the police have not and are not taking any action
against them. The state government has taken no steps to ensure that the
Muslim victims and eyewitnesses of Sardarpura village are rehabilitated.
Ø In the police statements the
accused have not been named, the statements themselves being shoddily
recorded. Investigation has been deliberately shoddy so as to shield the
accused. There are several contradictions evident in the FIRs, the police
statements and the charge sheet.
In its reply before Judge Mehta, the state of Gujarat was
silent on the fact that the PP did not oppose bail. Bail was granted on
the condition that the accused could not enter Sardarpura village. In
fact, the opposite is happening. It is the victim survivors who have been
ostracised from their hometown.
Ode massacre
The Ode massacre took place at Ode village, Khambolaj
police station/Anand police station, in Anand district. A total of 27
persons were killed on two separate dates, March 1, 2002 and March 2,
2002.
The first FIR 23/2002 and the second FIR 27/2002 relate to
the incidents of the first day. To date no FIR has been lodged in the
offence of torching alive Ghulam Rasool Miya on March 2, 2002 despite
repeated complaints to the police and the trial court.
Both complainants, of FIR 23/2002 (Rafik Khalifa) and FIR
27/2002 (Rehanabehn Vora), have filed affidavits before the Supreme Court.
The complainants have said that only four deaths have been confirmed while
the bodies of the other victims were disposed of at some unknown location.
The FIRs were lodged at the Khambolaj police station and 22 accused were
arrested in the two cases.
Bail was granted with unholy haste in this case of carnage
as well. Many of the accused listed as absconding are wealthy non-resident
Indian Patels who enter and leave the country freely despite having been
accused of such a heinous crime. Their passports have not been impounded.
Meanwhile, eyewitnesses live outdoors in their fields and dare not return
to live in Ode town — a heavy price to pay for their decision to fight for
justice.
Shockingly, the judicial magistrate, first class, Umreth,
rejected the remand application for the accused even though the crime has
been classified as not just grave but heinous. A revision for remand was
made by the police before the sessions court, Anand, in both cases. The
presiding judge was NM Thakore. During the pendency of the remand revision
application, 18 accused were released on interim bail for eight days in
2002 to enable them to celebrate the Shivratri festival! Finally, 16
accused who were members of the unlawful assembly that committed this
heinous crime – burning alive 26 persons – were released on regular bail
by the sessions court, Anand. This action of the lower judiciary has
generated a sense of injustice and outrage. This writer visited Ode in
June 2006. Victim survivors cannot live in their ancestral homes. One
accused approached us threateningly as we toured the area.
By the state of Gujarat’s own admission, a total of 39
accused were arrested by the police and released on bail. Yet the number
of absconding accused shown is as high as 57. Of the 39 accused who were
released on bail, five have returned to America.
The state’s latest response before the apex court raises
more questions than it answers. The points that need investigation are:
Why were no firefighters able to reach Ode until virtually
24 hours after the attack began?
The state of Gujarat remains dishonest in its claims of
having rehabilitated victim survivors. It has been denying the ground
reality that none of the victim survivors or eyewitnesses of the Ode
massacre can return to their mohalla in Ode. Any
rehabilitative measures implemented, such as the rehabilitation of some
victims in houses at Anand, have been carried out by private NGOS, not the
state. Most victims live in fields outside Ode.
No proper protection has been given to witnesses in Ode
(much as in the Sardarpura case) despite Supreme Court orders in this
regard. Only cluster protection has been provided by the State Reserve
Police under the supervision of the CISF. This is far from satisfactory
and there have been numerous complaints lodged with the CISF about
intimidation. Even today victim survivors and eyewitnesses live under
threat from the rich and politically powerful accused who enjoy the
patronage of a local MLA and minister of the ruling party.
|