Survivor eyewitnesses

There were 33 eyewitnesses (occurrence witnesses) who gave evidence in the case.
We reproduce below excerpts from the conclusions of the judge on the testimonies of some of them

PW 57
Shaikh Mustufamiya Rasulmiya

Shaikh Mustufamiya Rasulmiya, PW 57, has deposed on oath that at the time of incident he was staying in Shaikh Mohalla in Sardarpura. On 01.03.2002 there was a Bharat bandh therefore he was at home. At about 9.30 a.m. he went to the house of Rameshbhai Dahyabhai who told him to water his field and that nothing will happen in their village. He was not willing to go to the field, leaving his family members in Shaikh Mohalla. On the very same day, at about 9.30 p.m., Rameshbhai Dahyabhai was in the mob of Patels that came shouting slogans, with petrol, kerosene and other weapons in their hands, and had broken and burnt cabins. As the police came, they dispersed. Again at about 11.30 p.m. they came shouting slogans “to cut, beat and burn the bandiyas; no one should be left alive”. They had weapons and kerosene in their hands.

His wife and son went towards the house of Mahemudmiya. The mob had burnt the house of Mahemudmiya by pouring petrol and kerosene inside the room and this witness went behind the house of Bachumiya Imammiya. He heard the voices of persons asking for help. He was injured by stones. In the morning the police came and hence he went towards the house of Mahemudmiya. Twenty-eight persons had died. His wife Samimbanu and his son Javed both were dead and they were taken to Mehsana Civil Hospital. Other injured persons were also taken to Mehsana Civil Hospital…

He is an injured witness and had taken treatment at Mehsana Civil Hospital. As per his deposition, at the time of incident he could see but now he is unable to see due to pterygium… [T]he fact is that his wife and son have died in the incident and he himself was injured… Therefore the say of the witness that the mob went towards the house of Mahemudmiya and they poured kerosene and petrol in the house and at that time he had hidden himself by the side of Bachumiya’s house gets more weightage, as his presence in Shaikh Mohalla at the time of incident is natural, as he is a resident of Shaikh Mohalla and the incident occurred during the night. His presence in Shaikh Mohalla at the time of incident cannot be doubted… This fact is supported by other evidence also…

Further, considering the evidence of this witness as a whole, he was very much present in Shaikh Mohalla and he hid himself only after the mob proceeded towards Mahemudmiya’s house. Thus he had sufficient opportunity to see the mob. Therefore the say of this witness that he had seen the mob with weapons, petrol and kerosene, shouting slogans “to cut, beat and burn bandiyas; no one should be left alive”, is acceptable… When we consider the evidence of this witness on this point, after the incident, when his wife and son have died in such a tense atmosphere, if he has not narrated the incident before the doctor/police nor lodged a complaint, it is natural. No one can expect from a person prompt action in this regard under such circumstances.

PW 59
Shaikh Mohmad Sattar Bachumiya

Shaikh Mohmad Sattar Bachumiya, PW 59, has deposed on oath that at the time of incident, he was sitting in Shaikh Mohalla. His family members were also with him. On 28.02.2002 there was a Gujarat bandh therefore he was in his home. On 01.03.2002 there was a Bharat bandh. His father asked him not to go out. On that day, at about 9 to 10 p.m., a mob of Patels came towards Shaikh Mohalla from the Mahadev temple side, shouting slogans “to cut, beat and burn the Muslims” and had burnt three cabins at the entrance of Shaikh Mohalla. The cabins were looted and damaged by the mob. As the police came, the mob dispersed. At about 11.30-12 p.m. again the mob came shouting “to cut, beat and burn the Muslims; no one should be left alive because Muslims have burnt Hindu persons in the Godhra train” and thereafter, they started pelting stones. Persons from Shaikh Mohalla had also started pelting stones just to save themselves.

The mob was setting on fire and damaging the houses of Muslims and due to fear, his father asked him to take his family members to the house of Mahemudmiya, as it was a pukka, constructed house; therefore all the family members went to the house of Mahemudmiya. As the mob came too near, he went inside the house of Akbarmiya Rasulmiya. From the window of the house, he saw that there was one jeep just in front of his house, which was burnt by the mob. The mob burnt houses in Shaikh Mohalla; as the mob went towards the house of Mahemudmiya, the witness went to his house. The voices of people were coming from the house of Mahemudmiya to save them but due to fear, he was inside and when the police came then only they went to the house of Mahemudmiya and a rescue operation was done by the police with their help.

In the incident, his house was damaged and ornaments of his sister and mother and cash worth Rs 70,000 were looted by the mob… As per the deposition of this witness, the light was on… There were a total of 20 accused whom he had seen in the mob. He had seen the accused in the light of the burning jeep. His sister-in-law and niece died due to burns in the house of Mahemudmiya. As per the deposition of the deputy engineer [Gujarat Electricity Board] and other evidences, there was light in the street. Assuming there was no light in Shaikh Mohalla, then also, as per the say of this witness, he had seen the accused with weapons in the light of the burning jeep. To discard this fact, there is no reason and this witness had seen 20 accused…

In this respect, when we consider the evidence given by this witness, as soon as the mob had started pelting stones, his father asked them to shift their family to Mahemudmiya’s house and his elder brother had shifted their family to Mahemudmiya’s house as the mob came near. Due to fear, this witness went inside the house of Akbarmiya Rasulmiya and from the window, he had seen that their jeep was burnt and in the light of the flames he had seen the mob. Therefore firstly, till the mob came near, he had an opportunity to see the mob and on seeing the mob, he went inside the house of Akbarmiya and from the window of that house, he witnessed further incidents. Thus he had sufficient opportunity to see three cabins ransacked and set on fire… It is true that he has not specifically mentioned which of the accused ransacked or set on fire three cabins. But this omission cannot discard the fact that the mob had set on fire three cabins at the entrance of Shaikh Mohalla.

In his statement dated 02.03.2002, it is stated by the witness that the same mob came a second time. In his deposition also he has stated that the same mob came a second time… He had seen the jeep from the window, which was set on fire by the mob. As per the deposition of this witness, he has seen the persons in the mob in the light of the burning jeep… Once this evidence has come out in cross-examination, omission of this fact in his affidavit, and the statement dated 19.05.2008 becomes insignificant… His house was set on fire. He was trying to hide himself safely. The houses of Shaikh Mohalla are so close to each other that they are like row houses. Therefore in the circumstances, the discrepancies as narrated by the accused in this regard are natural and are bound to be. The witness is a labouring-class person, unaware of the legal provisions… Further, looking to the situation of houses in Shaikh Mohalla, these discrepancies are bound to be.

In the absence of these discrepancies, the evidence of the witness can be doubted or can be treated as tutored. Thus these contradictions, omissions, discrepancies, are natural ones. And the fact remains as it is that the witness was very much present in Shaikh Mohalla either in his house or Akbarmiya’s house or nearby to those houses and we cannot calculate the evidence in a mathematical manner.

PW 73
Shaikh Faridabibi Aashikhusen

Shaikh Faridabibi Aashikhusen, PW 73, has deposed on oath that on the third day after the Godhra train incident, at about 9.30 p.m., Patels of their village came from the Mahadev temple side shouting slogans, to burn their cabins at the entrance of Shaikh Mohalla. As the police came, the mob dispersed. Again, after some time, at about 11.30 to 12.00 p.m. the same mob came shouting “to cut, beat and burn the bandiyas”. They had burnt three houses in Shaikh Mohalla and thereafter… they proceeded further. At that time her father-in-law told them that their house is a row house and hence they should go to Mahemudmiya’s house, as it is a pukka, constructed house; therefore she along with her sisters-in-law Firozabanu Bachumiya Shaikh, Farzanabibi Bachumiya Shaikh and daughter Ashiyanabanu Shaikh and son Aftab went towards the house of Mahemudmiya. Other persons were there. She saw the pouring of kerosene and they sought help but no one turned. They requested the Patel people to leave them alone but they said that they wanted to burn them. After the police came, they were taken out of the room and were sent to Mehsana Civil Hospital…

On the contrary, in her statement dated 02.03.2002, she has stated that her father-in-law, husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law along with other family members were in their own house. Thus there is a material contradiction on this point as to whether she was inside the house of Mahemudmiya or in her own house. As per the deposition of this witness, at about 11.30 p.m. the same mob came again but she has not stated these facts in her statements before the police or the SIT. Further, this witness has not stated that she along with her sisters-in-law Firozabanu and Farzanabanu and her daughter Ashiyanabanu and son Aftab went to the house of Mahemudmiya. Her mother-in-law was not with her in Mahemudmiya’s house and on this point, Aashikhusen, the husband of this witness, has deposed that he dropped his family members to the house of Mahemudmiya. In her statement dated 02.03.2002, she has stated that her mother-in-law and three sisters-in-law took shelter in the house of Mahemudmiya.

Thus on this point, she has changed her version… [T]here is a contradictory version of both these witnesses on this point. As per the deposition of this witness, Ashiyana and Aftab were with her in the house of Mahemudmiya but she does not say anything about her daughter Sainabanu while Aashikhusen says that he dropped his wife, children and other family members at the house of Mahemudmiya. Neither Aashikhusen nor this witness is claiming specifically about their daughter Sainabanu.

As per the deposition of this witness, she, her son and daughter received burn injuries… As per the deposition of this witness, her sisters-in-law Firozabanu and Farzanabanu were inside the house of Mahemudmiya along with this witness. They have received no burns or other injuries… In her deposition, she has stated that she… saw persons pouring petrol, kerosene, and throwing burning rags but no one had helped her. They had requested the Patels to let them go but they were burnt…

On perusing the deposition of this witness as well as considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, it transpires that this witness is an injured eyewitness… She had 15 per cent burns. As per her say, she sustained burn injuries on the hands and legs; she is an illiterate lady; her daughter had died on the way to Civil Hospital, Mehsana, her daughter died due to burn injuries.

It is not the case of the prosecution that this witness was inside her house and there she sustained burn injuries… It seems to be an improvement in her version and this part of her version is required to be discarded but the improvement is not such which may disprove the other part of the evidence, which is proved by the prosecution from cogent and reliable evidence. Her version regarding the fact that she had seen the persons of her village pouring kerosene, petrol, is an improvement in her version on this point. Thus her say that she along with family members was in Mahemudmiya’s house and had sustained burn injuries is much supported by cogent and reliable evidence.

Ashiyanabanu, who was with her, who also sustained burn injuries, died subsequently on the way to Civil Hospital, Mehsana. All this evidence supports the say of this witness that she was inside Mahemudmiya’s house. But the evidence regarding seeing the mob of Patels of their village pouring kerosene, petrol, setting fire, is to be considered as an improvement. No reliance can be placed on this evidence but on the strength of this part of her version, the other testimony which is otherwise proved and established by the prosecution cannot be discarded on that count. The presence of this witness at the time of incident in Shaikh Mohalla is natural and considering the fact that this witness is an injured eyewitness, any person who was injured in the incident will not try to implicate false persons in such a grave incident, giving the go-by to the real culprits.

PW 75
Shaikh Firozabanu Bachumiya

Shaikh Firozabanu Bachumiya, PW 75, has deposed on oath that she is a resident of village Sardarpura and at the time of incident she was sitting with her father and mother. On the next day after the Godhra train incident, cabins were burnt in the village and on the third day, at about 9.30 p.m., cabins in the corner of Shaikh Mohalla were burnt by the Patels of their village. As soon as the police came, the mob dispersed and thereafter, at about 11.30 p.m., again the mob of Hindus came. There were 1,000 to 1,500 persons; first they burnt the houses, then started causing damage to the properties and then pelted stones. Her father had told them to go to the house of Mahemudmiya. Therefore all the ladies went to that house. She along with Farzana, Farida, Ashiyana and Saina and Aftab went to the house of Mahemudmiya. They were inside the room and the mob of Hindus broke the iron rod in the window and poured kerosene and petrol from that window and burnt them… Thereafter, at about 2 a.m., the police came and took them out. Twenty-eight persons were dead and others were injured and a rescue operation had taken place and they were sent to Mehsana Civil Hospital.

It is submitted by Shri Dhruv that this witness [stated that she] was inside the house of Mahemudmiya for about one and a half hours. She has not taken any treatment nor has she sustained injuries. Considering the position of Mahemudmiya’s house and all the circumstances on record and evidence brought on record, the presence of this witness in the house of Mahemudmiya is doubtful…

Further, though this witness was 10 to 15 feet away from the jeep which was set on fire and which was witnessed by her, not a single person from the mob had tried to assault her. The house of this witness was just adjacent to the jeep. On seeing the jeep being set on fire, instead of going inside the house, she went towards the house of Mahemudmiya. She is claiming that she had seen certain persons when the jeep was set on fire but she is not saying who set on fire the jeep. As per the say of the complainant, when the jeep was set on fire, the mob was spread up to the house of Mahemudmiya and when the mob was spread up to the house of Mahemudmiya, no one would dare to go to the house of Mahemudmiya; thus it is the say of Shri Dhruv that the witness has not seen the incident and the say of this witness that she was inside the house of Mahemudmiya is also doubtful…

Further, this witness is claiming that she had seen that cabins and houses were set on fire, houses were ransacked, stones were pelted and the jeep was set on fire but which accused played what role in those incidents is not stated by her. If she had witnessed the incidents, she would have certainly stated about the overt acts committed by the accused…

As for these arguments, when we consider the evidence of this witness on record, it transpires that at the time of incident she was staying in Sardarpura. At the say of her father, she along with her sister-in-law Faridabanu and her two daughters, namely Ashiyanabanu and Sainabanu, and son Aftab went to the house of Mahemudmiya. When she was going to Mahemudmiya’s house, at that time she saw the mob. Considering the situation of Ibrahimmiya Rasulmiya Shaikh and Mahemudmiya’s house, it is quite possible for a person going from Ibrahimmiya Rasulmiya’s house to Mahemudmiya’s house, to see the persons in Shaikh Mohalla. If this witness is saying that while going to Mahemudmiya’s house, she saw the mob, that is quite possible. She has specifically stated that when she came out of her house, she saw the setting on fire of the jeep. For this purpose, when we peruse the situation of Ibrahimmiya Rasulmiya’s house as shown in the map, it is shown inside Shaikh Mohalla… while the jeep is shown standing in the opposite row, just in front of Bachumiya Imammiya’s house. If a person comes out from the house of Ibrahimmiya Rasulmiya, he can easily see the jeep. In the circumstances, if this witness is saying that when she came out of her house, she saw the setting on fire of the jeep, that is quite probable and it is also supported by other cogent and reliable evidence that the jeep of Bachumiya Imammiya was set on fire. Simply because this witness sustained no injury, we cannot discard the evidence of this witness on that count.

Electric current

So far as the contradictions regarding electric current are concerned, it is argued by Shri Dhruv that as per the deposition of PW 46, Pathan Sabirmiya Akumiya, the DSP [SP, Gehlot] received an electric shock when he went towards the window of Mahemudmiya’s house and that a wire was connected from the pole near the house of Natvarbhai Prabhabhai and a rod was thrown from the window. While PW 48, Sabirhusen Kadarmiya Shaikh [stated that] there was one iron rod, to which the current was joined, placed in the room, and even the DSP received an electric shock… DSP Gehlot is not deposing that he received an electric shock. As per the DSP, in the mohalla, the wires were scattered, by the persons residing in the area who have obtained electrical connections, and by burning of the house, it might be scattered. While this witness is claiming that she was inside the room, she did not receive any electric shock; at the same time she is claiming that two to three persons received electric shocks. As per the panchnama, there was an electric fan in the house, which was charred. Electric wires in PVC pipes were also burnt and hanging from the ceiling. No police officer is saying that he had broken a wire with a rifle. In the panchnama also, it is not stated that a wire was coming from the house of Natubhai Pavar or from any other house. No police officer [has said anything] about electric shocks. While this witness has stated that as soon as the police touched the door, there was an electric current in it and the police had broken the wire with a rifle and the wire was coming from the house of Natubhai Pavar, this fact is not stated by her in her statement dated 22.05.2008…

But there was an electrical connection, either legal or illegal, and medical evidence suggests that Abedabanu Manubhai Shaikh sustained an electric current injury. The medical papers, the medical certificate… supports this fact.

No doubt there are some discrepancies about the electrical connection or live wires in Shaikh Mohalla but the fact that there was an electrical connection in the room and the wire was live and due to that live wire, the injured received injury, whether the said live wire was taken from Natubhai Pavar’s house or from somewhere else, the fact that the electrical connection was taken is established by the prosecution. So far as breaking of the door with a rifle is concerned, as per the say of this witness, the police had broken the wire with a rifle while the other witnesses state that the door was broken from outside. There are different versions about breaking of the door. From the police officers’ depositions, the door was opened by using force from the outside. The FSL report also suggests that force was used for opening the door of the house. Thus the theory of an electrical connection is not totally false.

During the inspection visit by the court it was found that it is quite possible to have an electrical connection from the house of Natubhai Pavar to Mahemudmiya’s house, or from the pole just adjacent to the house of Natubhai Prabhabhai, one can take an electrical connection… to the house of Mahemudmiya and it is quite possible, as there is an open space surrounded by the compound wall and gate. There is no building in between the pole and Mahemudmiya’s house. Thus the possibility of taking the wire from that pole to Mahemudmiya’s house cannot be ruled out. Therefore the say of this witness that when the police came and opened the door, there was an electric shock in the door and the wire was coming from the house of Natubhai Prabhabhai gets support from the evidence and simply because there is a contradiction in her statement dated 02.03.2002, we cannot infer that this is a false story created by the witness. As the fact regarding the electric current is proved from other reliable cogent evidence [that] much supported the version of this witness on this point, therefore this version is trustworthy and reliable. Simply an omission in her statement does not amount [to a reason to] discard her say on the issue. Therefore the say of Shri Dhruv, that the story of a current is a material improvement by this witness stated for the first time in the year 2008, is not sufficient to create doubt about the version of this witness on this point…

[W]hen we peruse the evidence of this witness that when she came out of her house, at that time she saw the jeep set on fire by the mob… Looking to the situation of the house of this witness, if a person comes out of her house, he can easily see the jeep. Therefore the say of this witness that she saw the jeep set on fire is quite possible, and thereafter that she went to Mahemudmiya’s house.

No doubt the complainant has deposed that the mob was spread over the mohalla but the house of Mahemudmiya was a pukka, constructed house and it was safe therefore if the witness along with other persons went to the house of Mahemudmiya by avoiding the mob and no injuries were caused to her while going to Mahemudmiya’s house, we cannot infer that this fact is false and a created one and she did not have an opportunity to see the mob. Before going inside Mahemudmiya’s house, she had sufficient opportunity to see the mob and therefore the say of this witness that she saw the jeep set on fire is trustworthy and reliable.

PW 78 
Shaikh Basirabibi Bachumiya

Shaikh Basirabibi Bachumiya, PW 78, has deposed on oath that at about 9.30 p.m. a mob of Patels came from the Mahadev temple side shouting slogans “to cut, beat and burn the bandiyas; no one should be left alive”. Three cabins at the entrance of Shaikh Mohalla were burnt. Thereafter, the police came and the mob dispersed. After some time, again the same mob came and started pelting stones, burning houses and also looted houses. First the house of Manubhai painter was burnt, then the house of Akbarmiya Bachubhai was burnt and third, the house of Iqbalmiya Rasulmiya, and by burning the houses, they came [into the mohalla] and pelted stones. In order to save their lives, they went to the house of Mahemudmiya. The mob surrounded the house of Mahemudmiya. A window was broken and from that window, kerosene and petrol were poured and then the house was set on fire. Persons who were inside the house were requesting the mob to leave them alone but the mob had not left them.

It is argued by Shri Shah that her nearest relatives have died in the incident, she is a resident of Shaikh Mohalla, Sardarpura, she was very much present in the mohalla at the time of incident. She is an injured witness. In her [medical] history, she has stated that she sustained 20 per cent burns during the attack. Her statements were recorded late, on 27.04.2002, as she was in iddat [mourning] due to the death of her husband. Thus it is the say of Shri Shah that she is a natural witness, there is no exaggeration in her deposition, everything stated by her is [genuine]…

It is submitted by Shri Dhruv that… in her deposition, she has stated that she requested the mob to let them go. In spite of that, the mob did what they wanted to do; and this fact is an improvement and the same is not stated in her statement. Looking to the deposition of Akbarmiya Rasulmiya Shaikh and considering the number of omissions by this witness, it becomes clear that from the door of the house adjoining Shaikh Mohalla, Mangalbhai, Mathurbhai and Natubhai Kacharabhai and other Patels have thrown bricks which hit Bachumiya Nathumiya on the head. It suggests she was with her husband even at the time of incident. As per the say of this witness, while going to the house of Mahemudmiya, she was with her own children and has seen the mob. This fact is not stated in her statement. Further, as per the say of this witness, a rear window of Mahemudmiya’s house was broken by the mob. Photographs and evidence of the FSL make it clear that no rear window of Mahemudmiya’s house was broken.

Further, this witness is saying that from the window, she saw the mob pouring kerosene and petrol but from which window the mob poured the kerosene is not specified by this witness. Ayubmiya Rasulmiya in his cross-examination has admitted that doors and windows of the house of Mahemudmiya were closed from inside; Firozabanu Bachumiya Shaikh had closed the window and doors from inside. PW 56, Ayubmiya Rasulmiya Shaikh, and Firozabanu Bachumiya were inside the house of Mahemudmiya. When they are saying that the doors and windows were closed by them, then there is no possibility of either pouring or throwing of petrol and kerosene inside the house from a window.

Further, as per the say of this witness, she had seen the persons in the mob. She has also named the persons and also deposed that the window of the house was broken. It is the say of the witness that kerosene and petrol were poured and burning rags were thrown, still she is not saying who played what kind of role, which is most material, and which suggests that she has not witnessed the incident. Further, she is claiming that she went inside the house of Mahemudmiya and the mob had surrounded the house of Mahemudmiya from four sides. If she was inside the house then how can she say the mob had covered the house from all four sides? Since the doors and windows were closed from inside and on the other two sides there are walls, no one [could have seen] what was happening outside the house. Therefore her claim that the house was cornered from all sides is not acceptable.

Further, it is submitted that she does not remember what household goods were there in Mahemudmiya’s house. She does not know about the electric wires inside the house. As per her say, there was a kerosene lamp and electricity was not there in the house. The doors and windows of the house were open. What part of the window was broken, she does not remember. Considering the cross-examination and chief examination of this witness, it comes out that the witness was not inside the house when the window was opened. There was no question of breaking it. Even looking to the evidence brought on record, the window is not damaged. There was electricity in the house; electric wires were also there in the house. This witness is not stating the correct position on this point, which suggests that she was not inside the house.

Considering the submissions of both sides and on perusing the evidence of this witness, it transpires that she is a resident of village Sardarpura. At the time of occurrence she was present in Shaikh Mohalla. She is an injured eyewitness… She sustained 20 per cent burns and in her history before the doctor, she has stated that she sustained burns during the riots. She was conscious at the relevant time… Her husband was also inside the house of Mahemudmiya, who has died due to burn injuries. The post-mortem report of her husband, Bachumiya Nathumiya Shaikh, is produced on record… His post-mortem was performed by Dr Vijaykumar Vitthalbhai Oza who has been examined… and supports the say of this witness that her husband died due to burn injuries. The medical certificate of this witness was produced during the deposition of Dr Dhirajkumar Jivanlal Soni, which also supports the say of this witness that she sustained burn injuries. She sustained injuries on both legs and on her face and she was treated at Mehsana Civil Hospital. Simply because this witness survives, we cannot conclude that because she survives, it creates doubts about her claim to be inside the house of Mahemudmiya. If her two sons had not sustained injuries, that is also quite possible and on that count also, we cannot say that she was not inside the house…

[So far as] the submission that persons from other houses of Shaikh Mohalla were also brought out from the burnt houses is concerned, no doubt DSP Gehlot supports this fact… [But] the arguments advanced by Shri Dhruv that this witness might have seen the setting on fire of the house of Nazirmahmad and not Mahemudmiya’s house, which was set on fire from the backside of the house and that too by a mob of persons from village Sundarpura, is not acceptable. In her deposition, this witness has specifically stated that they went inside the house of Mahemudmiya; prior to that, the mob came from the entrance of Shaikh Mohalla by burning the houses of Shaikh Mohalla. When the mob was coming inside Shaikh Mohalla, she herself has seen the mob and due to fear, she along with family members went inside the house of Mahemudmiya. Therefore the say of Shri Dhruv in this regard, that she might have seen the setting on fire of the house of Nazirmahmad, is not acceptable. From her deposition and from other cogent and reliable evidence on record, it is established by the prosecution that this witness was inside Mahemudmiya’s house and she sustained burn injuries and therefore the say of Shri Dhruv, that she might have received injuries in Nazirmahmad’s house or at another place but not in the house of Mahemudmiya, is not acceptable.

Further, when at midnight the police came and this witness was brought out, she came to know about the death of her husband, brother, sisters-in-law and niece. If this witness along with her family members was inside Mahemudmiya’s house and she only came to know about the death of her relatives after coming out of the house, that is possible. There were more than 50 to 55 persons inside the room and in the circumstances, she may not have knowledge about her relatives though they were inside the room. On that count, it cannot be said that she and her family members were not inside Mahemudmiya’s house…

Overall, the depositions of all the witnesses suggest that the door of Mahemudmiya’s house was opened from the outside. Further, simply because this witness is saying that she came out of Mahemudmiya’s house and the evidence on record is that all the injured were brought out from Mahemudmiya’s house, is not of much importance. She might have been brought out from the house while she is stating that she came out. This discrepancy is not such which can create doubt about her having been inside the room. As per her say, her younger son Iliyas sustained burn injuries on the left ear and leg but there is no injury certificate. There is no evidence on record showing that her son Iliyas was treated and therefore much reliance cannot be placed on that fact. But the fact that this witness sustained burn injuries and she was treated at Civil Hospital, Mehsana, cannot be discarded on that strength.

So far as her silence for one and a half months is concerned, this witness was observing iddat; prior to that she was brought to the hospital and thereafter, she was sent to Ilol. Considering the fact that her relatives, including her husband, died in the incident and she had no roof for shelter, in the circumstances, if she was silent for one and a half months and after the iddat period, her statement was recorded and she has narrated all the facts, we cannot infer from her silence to discard her say… At the time of incident her husband Bachumiya Nathumiya was hit by a brick; she was with him. Further, considering the situation of her house and Mahemudmiya’s house, when she along with her husband and children went to Mahemudmiya’s house, she had an opportunity to see the mob. It is only when she went inside Mahemudmiya’s house, thereafter she could not see what was happening outside the house. Simply because she has not stated in her statement that while going to Mahemudmiya’s house, she has seen the mob, we cannot infer that she did not have an opportunity to see the mob. A person while going from Bachumiya Nathumiya’s house to Mahemudmiya’s house can see what is happening at the entrance of Shaikh Mohalla up to the place of happening.

The FSL report suggests that no rear door or window of Mahemudmiya’s house was broken. Photographs are also silent about it and in the circumstances, if this witness is saying that a rear window of Mahemudmiya’s house was broken by the mob, it is not supported by a corroborative piece of evidence. In the circumstances, if this witness was inside the room then how could she see the mob pouring kerosene and petrol? It is not specified by this witness and from this evidence we can infer that it was not possible for the witness to see from inside the house the pouring of kerosene and petrol by the mob. Therefore this part of her deposition can be considered as exaggeration and improvement. Further, Firozabanu Bachumiya Shaikh and Ayubmiya Rasulmiya Shaikh were inside the house of Mahemudmiya; as per their say, they have closed the doors and windows and in the circumstances, there were no possibilities for this witness to see from inside who poured kerosene and petrol and therefore also her version on this part is not reliable.

Further, as per the say of this witness, the house of Mahemudmiya was surrounded by the mob when she was inside the house and doors and windows were closed and considering the situation of the room, windows and doors, it is highly impossible for a person to see from that room what is happening outside. Therefore her claim that she had seen the mob surround the house of Mahemudmiya from four sides is an exaggeration and we cannot accept it as evidence against the accused.

So far as her ignorance about electricity in the house is concerned, it has come out on record that there was electricity in the house, electric wires were hanging in the room; while this witness is showing ignorance about this fact, the possibility of this witness not knowing about the electric wires in the room cannot be ruled out, as at the relevant time electric supply may not be on. On the strength of this evidence, the accused have tried to argue that this witness was not inside the house of Mahemudmiya, which cannot be accepted, as it is otherwise proved by the prosecution from cogent and reliable evidence that this witness was inside the house of Mahemudmiya; and the fact that before going to the house of Mahemudmiya, this witness had seen the mob, cannot be discarded.