In a latest flip flop, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) that has not challenged the discharge of high-powered politicians and some policemen in the much known Sohrabuddin encounter case, today challenged the discharge of senior police officer of the Gujarat cadre, Narendra K. Amin from the case. The application was submitted before the Bombay High Court today.
A Sessions Court in Mumbai had discharged the officer in August 2016. Days after his discharge, the Gujarat government in September had extended the tenure of Amin, Superintendent of Police (SP) of Mahisagar district, by one year after his superannuation. Amin is currently on bail in the Ishrat Jahan encounter case.
While the Sessions court had discharged the police officer for lack of evidence, in its petition in the HC, the CBI has contended that there was enough evidence against Amin to ascertain that he played an “active” role in the alleged fake encounter. “Amin was present in Ilol — the native place of prime accused DG Vanzara — where Sohrabuddin’s wife Kausar Bi was killed and her body set on fire. Amin was present there for over six hours. He was involved in the transportation and disposal of the body. To prove this, we had attached the statement of a policeman who was part of the team that aided and abetted the disposal of Kausar Bi’s body. The trial court didn’t appreciate the evidence, saying that the witness lacks corroboration. We have contested this by citing Supreme Court judgements that state evidence given by a single eyewitness doesn’t require corroboration,” an official who did not wish to be named said.
The statement of the policeman is the strongest evidence that the central agency has against Amin.
The agency also contested that since the conspiracy was hatched in complete secrecy without an “overt act” of participation, the testimony of the lone eyewitness should be considered by the court. “It is not necessary that an accused does an overt act to participate in a conspiracy that is hatched in complete secrecy. In the said case too, while Amin participated in the conspiracy, there is not much conspicuous evidence of his participation,” the official added.
Interestingly, a public interest litigation (PIL) is currently pending in the Gujarat High Court that challenges the re-instatement of Tarun Barot and NK Amon by the Gujarat government. Filed in mid October, it came up for hearing recently when the Gujarat High Court posted it for hearing on November 23. It has been filed by cop-turned-lawyer Rahul Sharma.
A Sohrabudding Case File can be read here
Earlier in October, Gujarat government reappointed police officer Tarun Barot almost two years after his retirement and granted one-year extension on contractual basis to IPS officer N K Amin following his superannuation last year, according to news reports. Both the officers have been chargesheeted by CBI before.
The PIL has challenged the validity of these appointments by Gujarat government, arguing that only officers who have impeccable and outstanding merit can be given such benefits.
While Amin have spent almost eight years in jail in connection with the encounter of Sohrabuddin Sheikh, his wife Kauserbi and Tulsiram Prajapati, Barot is currently on bail in Ishrat Jahan and Sadiq Jamal Mehtar encounter cases. Barot retired in 2014 while he was still behind bars at the Nadiad sub-jail. On October 13, the home department issued a notification, stating that Barot, who retired as deputy superintendent of police (DySP), was appointed as DySP, headquarters, Western Railway, Vadodara on a one-year contract, as per an Indian Express report.
It also said that Amin, on the other hand, was due to retire on August 31 this year when the state government awarded him a year extension on contractual basis on the same post as Superintendent of Police of Mahisagar district, a first for an IPS officer.
Sharma has challenged this, raising questions about legality of the reinstatements and violation of rules. Amin is a co-accused in Ishrat Jahan encounter case . He was discharged in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case by the special CBI court in Mumbai.
Sharma is known for his confronatations with the Gujarat government after he testified before the Nanavati Commission that inquired into the 2002 riots. He was posted as SP of Bhavnagar in 2002.
Today, media reports suggested that the agency(CBI) is also likely to contest the applications for discharge filed by the other three accused in the case, including former IPS officer DG Vanzara and the then senior Rajasthan police officer M N Dinesh. “Since the trial court has discharged 12 accused, the three officers have sought discharge under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( CrPC) citing parity as their ground. However, we have ample evidence against them and we will also contest their discharge,” the official added.
A discharge by the court means that the accused will not stand trial. However, it can be challenged in higher courts.
Alleged gangster Sohrabuddin Sheikh was gunned down in November 2005. The Gujarat Police had claimed that he had links with Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba.
In 2010, the Supreme Court had asked the CBI to investigate the case. The probe by the agency had revealed that Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausar Bi were allegedly abducted by Gujarat ATS from Hyderabad on their way to Sangli in Maharashtra and killed. Tulsiram Prajapati, an eyewitness in the case, was allegedly killed by the Gujarat police in December 2006.
Sabrangindia has beenr egulargly tracking these cases in the courts.
In December 2015, the CBI by failing to challenge the discharge of Amit Shah, BJP president for his alleged involvement in these encounters, actually went against its own charge sheet.
In its charge sheet, the CBI had claimed that Amit Shah presided over an extortion racket and that it was under his pressure and at his behest that the Gujarat police tried to cover up his involvement in the killings. Phone records of the police officials at the time of killings of Sohrabuddin, Kauser Bi and Tulsi Prajapati were used to show that these police officers were in constant touch with Amit Shah. The trial was transferred to Mumbai.
Subsequently, Amit Shah filed a Discharge Application in the Sessions Court at Mumbai. The evidence that the prosecution had (CBI) was damning. G.C Raigar, Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Home Guard, Gujarat who had the Additional Charge of ADGP CID Crime, and was in charge of the investigation into the case, had stated that Amit Shah personally told him not to involve high level police officials in the crime. Obviously if high level police officials were not involved, the link to Mr. Shah could not be established. The Patel brothers of Popular Builders, whose statements were also recorded, have stated that Amit Shah personally told them to give a false statement against Sohrabuddin and that they paid a large amount of money to a senior police officer for being paid to Mr. Shah so as to ensure that they are not falsely implicated in a crime.
There were also the call records between Amit Shah and the officers involved in the murder, during the killings. There were certain other allegations too against Amit Shah.