A court in Halol, of Gujarat’s Panchmahal district has acquitted 14 accused for murder and rioting, during the Gujarat pogrom of 2002, owing to prosecution’s failure to prove the case. The Additional Sessions Judge Harsh Balkrishna Trivedi held that in absence of ‘corpus delicti’ or concrete evidence such as a corpse, the accused were being acquitted. Out of the 22 accused, 8 had died during pendency of trial. They were accused of murdering 17 Muslims including 2 children. The accused had been out on bail anyway since 2004, after Gujarat high Court granted them bail. They were arrested in 2004 itself.

The FIR in the case was lodged in December 2003, pointing towards the questionable approach of Gujarat police. Over 100 witnesses were examined and many of them had turned hostile.

The court noted that it is a “general rule not to convict anybody unless Corpus delicti can be established.” The forensic report of January 7, 2004 had stated that DNA profiling could not be done of completely charred bone pieces which were alleged to belong to the missing persons. The court held that in such a situation, the rule of corpus delicti is to be considered automatically.

The basis of the acquittal being, that the prosecution was unable to prove the place of the crime. Further, the bodily remains were also not recovered for the alleged place of crime. The court also noted the prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt the presence of the accused at the site of the offence or their specific role in the crime, failed to recover the alleged weapons used for the crime from the accused, and that there was no inflammable substance found at the suspected site of crime, reported Indian Express.

The case related to a relief camp in Kalol where many Muslim had sought refuge after fleeing from Delol village. They alleged that several of their family members were missing. Another person from the relief camp said that 18 Muslims from his village were also missing. During investigation charred bones were found and there were many witnesses who identified about 20 accused and testified that they saw the accused murdering their family members with swords and axes. The weapons were never recovered. The chargesheet was filed in 2004.

The accused include: Mukesh Bharvad, Killol Jani, Ashokbhai Patel, Niravkumar Patel, Yogeshkumar Patel, Dilipsinh Gohil, Dilipkumar Bhatt, Nasibdar Rathod, Alkeshkumar Vyas, Narendrakumar Kachhiya, Jinabhai Rathod, Akshaykumar Shah, Kiritbhai Joshi and Sureshbhai Patel.

This incident allegedly took place on March 1, 2002 whereby 17 were killed by a mob and their bodies were burnt in order to destroy evidence. In this case it clearly served the purpose.

Related:

Bilkis Bano’s plea against remission to convicts could not be heard in SC

Provocative poster in Delhi’s Brahmpuri calls on Hindu landlords to not sell to Muslim buyers

Review of 2022: A year of discrimination & violence experienced by India’s religious minorities

The post 21 years later, 14 acquitted for murder in one of the many 2002 Gujarat riots cases appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The decision to grant remission of sentence to eleven men convicted in the Bilkis Bano case is now being challenged before the Supreme Court. LiveLaw reports that on Tuesday morning Advocate Aparna Bhat mentioned the matter before Chief Justice NV Ramana and sought an urgent listing for tomorrow.

CJI Ramana then reportedly enquired if the remission was granted by virtue of a Supreme Court order, to which senior advocate Kapil Sibal clarified, “The Supreme Court gave a discretion to the government to consider it. The bench was of Justice Ajay Rastogi. We are challenging the remission, not the order of the SC.”

Readers would recall that on August 15, eleven people convicted in the Bilkis Bano case were freed from Godhra sub jail after a state government panel approved their application for remission of sentence. The men had been convicted for gang raping Bano and murdering 14 people including Bano’s two and a half-year-old daughter Saleha.

The convicts who have been freed are: Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Radhyesham Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Mitesh Bhatt and Ramesh Chandana. All these men were known to Bano and her family, some were her neighbours, some did business with her family.

Later in the day Trinamool Congress Member of Parliament Mahua Moitra also moved SC through advocate Shadan Farast. LiveLaw quoted an excerpt from her petition: “The release completely fails to bolster either social or human justice and does not constitute a valid exercise of the guided discretionary power of the State under Sections 432-435 Cr.P.C.”

The petition argues that the Gujarat government was not the right authority to issue the order for remission of sentence as the case was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). Moreover, the convicts were granted reliefs in a “wholesale” manner instead of individually deliberating on the merits of each case.

Brief background of the case

Bilkis Bano and her family had been attacked in Randhikpur village near Ahmedabad on March 3, 2002. In the particularly brutal attack, 14 members of her family were killed including Bano’s two-and-a-half-year-old daughter whose head was smashed on a rock! Bano, who was over five months pregnant, was gang raped.

After Bano approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Supreme Court ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The accused were arrested in 2004 and the trial originally began in Ahmedabad. However, Bano expressed concerns about witness intimidation and evidence tampering, and the case was transferred to Mumbai in August 2004.

In January 2008, a special CBI court convicted 11 people in the case and sentenced them to life imprisonment. But seven people including policemen and doctors were acquitted. In 2017, the High Court upheld the conviction of the 11 people. The court also raised important questions about the role of five policemen and two doctors accused of not performing their duty and tampering with evidence, and set aside their acquittal.

Reason for release

One of the convicts Radheshyam Shah had approached the Gujarat High Court seeking remission of sentence, but the court dismissed his plea stating the appropriate government to consider his plea under sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was Maharashtra and not Gujarat.

Readers would recall that though the trail had originally started in Ahmedabad, it had been moved to Mumbai after Bano expressed concerns about witness intimidation and evidence tampering.

After the Gujarat HC dismissed his remission application, Shah moved SC, and the apex court ruled in May that Gujarat was the appropriate state to examine his plea.

A news agency reported that a few months ago, a committee had been formed to look into the possibility of setting the men free. Panchmahals collector Sujal Mayatra was quoted as saying, “A committee formed a few months back took a unanimous decision in favour of remission of all the 11 convicts in the case. The recommendation was sent to the state government, and yesterday we received the orders for their release.”

Gujarat Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Raj Kumar had at that time explained, “Among the parameters considered are age, nature of the crime, behaviour in prison and so on…The convicts in this particular case were also considered eligible after considering all the factors since they had competed for 14 years of their life term.”

Reactions to the release

Initially stunned by the release, Bano herself broke her silence and in a statement released through her lawyer Advocate Shobha, said, “When I heard that the 11 convicted men, who devastated my family and my life, and took from me my three-year-old daughter, had walked free. I was bereft of words. I am still numb.” Her shock and trauma evident, Bano had asked, “Today, I can only say this — how can justice for any woman end like this?”

Legal luminaries and civil society have pointed out how under provisions of remission policies, rape and murder convicts were ineligible. Justice UD Salvi, the judge who had convicted the eleven men, told Bar and Bench, “A very bad precedent has been set. This is wrong, I would say. Now, convicts in other gang rape cases would seek similar reliefs.” He further explained, “There is no clarity if the State has made amendments to Section 376(2)g of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and its definition. Has the State changed the definition of gravity of this offence of gangrape? If there is a modification in its definition, then the 1992 policy would be applicable. But if the definition and gravity of gangrape continues to be the same without amendment, then the policy of 2014 would be applicable, which would mean they shouldn’t be given remission.”

A statement signed by over 6,000 citizens, including grassroot workers and women and human rights activists says, “The guidelines issued by the Centre to states on a prisoner release policy to coincide with Azadi ka Amrit Mahotsav, clearly states that among the categories of prisoners NOT to be granted special remission are ‘those convicted of rape’. And the remission of these sentences is not only immoral and unconscionable, it violates Gujarat’s existing remission policy.” Signatories include Syeda Hameed, Zafarul-Islam Khan, Roop Rekha Verma, Devaki Jain, Uma Chakravarti, Subhashini Ali, Kavita Krishnan, Maimoona Mollah, Hasina Khan, Rachana Mudraboyina, Shabnam Hashmi, as well as civil rights groups including Saheli Women’s Resource Centre, Gamana Mahila Samuha, Bebaak Collective, All India Progressive Women’s Association, Uttarakhand Mahila Manch, Forum Against Oppression of Women, Pragatisheel Mahila Manch, Parcham Collective, Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sangathan, Amoomat Society, WomComMatters, Centre for Struggling Women and Sahiyar. They have urged the Supreme Court to revoke the remission of sentences for the eleven convicts.

The decision has also attracted international condemnation. United States Commission of International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) Commissioner Stephen Schneck called the early release of the convicts a “travesty of justice”, and said, “The failure to hold accountable perpetrators of the 2002 Gujarat Riots who committed physical & sexual violence is a travesty of justice. It’s part of a pattern of impunity in India for those engaged in violence against religious minorities.”

Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) said, “The release of the 11 convicts, even as many others accused of less serious offences remain in jail is an arbitrary exercise of power, having dangerous political overtones. It mocks the idea of a democracy based on rule of law when those accused of serious offences including rape and murder are arbitrarily released even as those who are falsely accused of crimes, continue to languish in jail.” 

It further said, “The release of the accused sends out the chilling message that the most heinous crimes including rape and murder, when committed against the minority community, are not crimes. This has fatal repercussions for the future of Indian democracy.”

Previously, Bebaak Collective, a women’s rights group had also issued a statement condemning “the application of the remission policy of the Gujarat government”. The Collective said, “Bilkis Bano, a fearless and brave survivor of the attempted genocide of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 has had a tough 20-year journey trying to ensure justice is served against the men who wronged her,” and hailed her for carrying on “despite systemic adversities” and now giving into pressure. They asked, “Can sexual assault survivors trust the system anymore?”

Related:

Bilkis Bano case: NHRC to discuss release of convicts?

A very bad precedent has been set: Judge who convicted 11 men in Bilkis Bano case

Over 6,000 Citizens Urge SC to Revoke Remission of Convicts in Bilkis Bano Case

Bereft of words, still numb: Bilkis Bano

Bilkis Bano case: Eleven people convicted of gang rape and murder freed

The post Bilkis Bano case: Remission of convicts’ sentences challenged before SC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

New Delhi: Over 6,000 citizens, including grassroot workers and women and human rights activists, have urged the Supreme Court to revoke the remission of sentences for 11 men convicted of rape and murder in the 2002 Bilkis Bano case.

“The remission of sentences for the 11 men convicted of gang-rape and mass murder will have a chilling effect on every rape victim who is told to ‘trust the system’, ‘seek justice’, and ‘have faith’,” they said in a joint statement.

The statement was given by activists Syeda Hameed, Zafarul-Islam Khan, Roop Rekha, Devaki Jain, Uma Chakravarti, Subhashini Ali, Kavita Krishnan, Maimoona Mollah, Hasina Khan, Rachana Mudraboyina, Shabnam Hashmi, among others.    

The civil rights groups include Saheli Women’s Resource Centre, Gamana Mahila Samuha, Bebaak Collective, All India Progressive Women’s Association, Uttarakhand Mahila Manch, Forum Against Oppression of Women, Pragatisheel Mahila Manch, Parcham Collective, Jagrit Adivasi Dalit Sangathan, Amoomat Society, WomComMatters, Centre for Struggling Women and Sahiyar.

Demanding that the remission must be revoked, the citizens noted that the early release of these murderers and rapists only strengthens the impunity of all men who commit rape and other acts of violence against women.

“We demand that women’s faith in justice be restored. We demand the remission of sentences for these 11 convicts be immediately revoked and they be sent back to prison to serve the remainder of their life terms,” the statement said.

Eleven convicts, sentenced to life imprisonment, walked out of the Godhra sub-jail on August 15 after the Gujarat government allowed their release under its remission policy. They had completed more than 15 years in jail.

A special Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court in Mumbai on January 21, 2008 had sentenced the 11 to life imprisonment on charges of gang-rape and murder of seven members of Bilkis Bano’s family. Their conviction was later upheld by the Bombay High Court.

Bilkis Bano was 21-years-old and five months pregnant when she was gang-raped while fleeing the violence that broke out after the Godhra train burning. Among those killed were her 3-year-old daughter.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Over 6,000 Citizens Urge SC to Revoke Remission of Convicts in Bilkis Bano Case appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Tuesday evening, Bilkis Bano finally expressed her anguish at the release of 11 men convicted for gang raping her, and killing 14 members of her family including her two-and-a-half-year-old daughter Saleha, during the 2002 Gujarat pogrom.

Her lawyer, advocate Shobha, released a statement on Bano’s behalf. “Two days ago, on August 15, 2022, the trauma of the past 20 years washed over me again. When I heard that the 11 convicted men, who devastated my family and my life, and took from me my three-year-old daughter, had walked free. I was bereft of words. I am still numb,” says Bano, her shock and trauma evident. She asks, “Today, I can only say this — how can justice for any woman end like this?”

She goes on to say, “I trusted the highest courts in our land. I trusted the system and I was slowly learning to live with my trauma. The release of these convicts has taken from me my peace and shaken my faith in justice.”

Bano also sheds light on the complete lack of empathy in the decision, saying, “My sorrow and my wavering faith is not for myself alone but for every woman, who is struggling for justice in the courts. No one enquired about my safety and well-being before taking such a big and unjust decision.” She wants the decision to be reversed, “I appeal to the Gujarat government, please undo this harm. Give me back my right to live without fear and in peace. Please ensure that my family and I are kept safe.”

Readers would recall that on August 15, eleven people convicted in the Bilkis Bano case were freed from Godhra sub jail after a state government panel approved their application for remission of sentence. The convicts who have been freed are: Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Radhyesham Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Mitesh Bhatt and Ramesh Chandana. All these men were known to Bano and her family, some were her neighbours, some did business with her family.

Words of support for Bilkis Bano

In wake of the shocking release of the convicts, several individuals and rights groups have come forward to demand justice for Bano. Bebaak Collective, a women’s rights group issued a statement condemning “the application of the remission policy of the Gujarat government”.

The Collective said, “Bilkis Bano, a fearless and brave survivor of the attempted genocide of Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 has had a tough 20-year journey trying to ensure justice is served against the men who wronged her,” and hailed her for carrying on “despite systemic adversities” and now giving into pressure. They asked, “Can sexual assault survivors trust the system anymore?”

Highlighting other examples of injustice, especially to women, they said, “Human rights defender, Teesta Setalvad is in jail for supporting the survivors of Gujarat genocide, including Zakia Jafri, in her fight for justice, while Bilkis Bano’s rapists have walked free!”

“We stand with Bilkis Bano. We stand with Zakia Jafri. We stand with Teesta Setalvad. And we stand with all the survivors of violence and discrimination,” they demanded that “the authorities to cancel the release orders of the rapists and ensure that Bilkis’ life and freedoms are safe from further threats by the rapists and their enablers in the political system.”

Similarly, the All India Working Women Forum (AIWWF), a part of the All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) also released a statement saying, “The release that was recommended by the committee under the Gujarat remission policy is in violation of the Union Government’s guidelines for remission. These guidelines exclude those who are convicted for rape and murder for the benefit of remission. They, in any yardstick, do not deserve consideration for early release. AIWWF – AITUC, while condemning the release, very strongly urges upon the Union government to intervene to withdraw the release of these convicts – rapists and murderers.”

They further said, “The premature release of the rapists brings more outrage now than the wretched pain and desolate anguish of the blood curdling act of gang rape of Bilkis Bano, a pregnant woman and the brutal killing of her family including her three year old daughter. This release is an affront against the doctrine of justice and a slur on the constitutional commitment to protect women. All India Working Women Forum of AITUC terms the release of the rapists and murders as shameful, outrageous and condemnable and demands immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the release and reincarceration of the criminals.”

Related:

Bilkis Bano case: Eleven people convicted of gang rape and murder freed

Bilkis Bano case: Is the Government trying to hoodwink the SC on compensation?

Bilkis Bano case: SC directs Guj gov’t to pay compensation in 2 weeks

Bilkis Bano case accused allegedly threaten witness!

Will Use the Compensation for Battles of Other Sisters: Bilkis Bano

Exclusive: Interview with Bilkis Bano’s lawyer, Ms Shobha

The post Bereft of words, still numb: Bilkis Bano appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In a shocking turn of events, eleven people convicted in the Bilkis Bano case have been freed from Godhra sub jail after a state government panel approved their application for remission of sentence. The men had been convicted for gang raping Bano and murdering 14 people including Bano’s two and a half-year-old daughter Saleha.

The convicts who have been freed are: Jaswant Nai, Govind Nai, Shailesh Bhatt, Radhyesham Shah, Bipin Chandra Joshi, Kesarbhai Vohania, Pradeep Mordhiya, Bakabhai Vohania, Rajubhai Soni, Mitesh Bhatt and Ramesh Chandana.

Bilkis Bano’s husband Yakub told Deccan Herald, “We are shocked. We have no idea about this order. We don’t know what kind of justice system this is.”

The Indian Express quoted Gujarat Additional Chief Secretary (Home) Raj Kumar as saying, “The 11 convicts have served a 14-year sentence in total. According to law, a life term means a minimum period of 14 years after which the convict can apply for remission. It is then the decision of the government to consider the application. Based on eligibility, prisoners are granted remission after the recommendation of the prison advisory committee as well as district legal authorities.”

Further explaining why men were freed, he said, “Among the parameters considered are age, nature of the crime, behaviour in prison and so on…The convicts in this particular case were also considered eligible after considering all the factors since they had competed for 14 years of their life term.”

The fact that the nature of crime was taken into account and yet the convicts were freed, is shocking to say the least, and has sparked outrage on social media.

Read the story of Bilkis Bano who is victim of Gujarat Genocide 2002.

Her 14 relatives were killed including her 3.5-year-old daughter and 1 day old niece.

She was pregnant but she was raped by those people who were KNOWN to her.

Killers were her neighbors.

1/2 pic.twitter.com/2S7unAAwfe

— Gabbar (@Gabbar0099) August 15, 2022

It was lost on no one that the release came on Independence Day, and that too after the Prime Minister made an appeal to people to people to respect women.

हाथी के दांत खाने के और दिखाने के और #BilkisBanoCase https://t.co/xsFwd2D2iA

— Gursharan Sandhu (ਕਿਸਾਨ ਤੇ ਮਜਦੂਰ) (@gurshar28231201) August 16, 2022

Shortly after their release, videos of the men being facilitated outside the prison by people who were probably members of the family began circulating on social media.

2002 बिलकिस बानो गैंगरेप मामले में आजीवन कारावास कि सज़ा काट रहे सभी 11 दोषियों को आज गोधरा उप जेल से रिहा कर दिया गया… pic.twitter.com/U7uZJ5tuPs

— Ashraf Hussain (@AshrafFem) August 15, 2022

How did this happen?

One of the convicts Radheshyam Shah had approached the Gujarat High Court seeking remission of sentence, but the court dismissed his plea stating the appropriate government to consider his plea under sections 432 and 433 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was Maharashtra and not Gujarat.

Readers would recall that though the trail had originally started in Ahmedabad, it had been moved to Mumbai after Bano expressed concerns about witness intimidation and evidence tampering.

After the Gujarat HC dismissed his remission application, Shah moved SC, and the apex court ruled in May that Gujarat was the appropriate state to examine his plea.

A news agency reported that a few months ago, a committee had been formed to look into the possibility of setting the men free. Panchmahals collector Sujal Mayatra was quoted as saying, “A committee formed a few months back took a unanimous decision in favour of remission of all the 11 convicts in the case. The recommendation was sent to the state government, and yesterday we received the orders for their release.”

Brief background of the case

Bilkis Bano and her family had been attacked in Randhikpur village near Ahmedabad on March 3, 2002. In the particularly brutal attack, 14 members of her family were killed including Bano’s two-and-a-half-year-old daughter whose head was smashed on a rock! Bano, who was over five months pregnant, was gang raped.

After Bano approached the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), the Supreme Court ordered a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The accused were arrested in 2004 and the trial originally began in Ahmedabad. However, Bano expressed concerns about witness intimidation and evidence tampering and the case was transferred to Mumbai in August 2004.

In January 2008, a special CBI court convicted 11 people in the case and sentenced them to life imprisonment. But seven people including policemen and doctors were acquitted. In 2017, the High Court upheld the conviction of the 11 people. The court also raised important questions about the role of five policemen and two doctors accused of not performing their duty and tampering with evidence, and set aside their acquittal.

Injustice upon injustice

On April 23, 2019, the State was ordered to pay Bano not only compensation worth Rs 50 lakh, but also give her a job and accommodation. But despite multiple reminders and orders to provide Bano what is owed to her, the government allegedly failed to fulfil its obligations until pressured to do so by the apex court. It may be recalled that it was only after an order by the Supreme Court on September 30, 2019, to pay Bano compensation within two weeks, that the amount was released to her.

But then it appeared that the government was trying to shortchange her for the rest. Instead of accommodation, Bano has been allotted a 50 sq meter plot in an area earmarked as a garden zone. Instead of a regular government job, she has been offered a contract-based peon’s job on a particular project with the Irrigation Department!

This is why, in October 2020, Bano moved an interlocutory application before the Supreme Court stating she was not satisfied with the manner in which the State had complied with the court’s order. A bench comprising Chief Justice SA Bobde, and Justices AS Bopanna and Ramasubramanian, then directed Bano to approach authorities and seek what is due to her. Bano thus withdrew her application with liberty to make a representation.

Before that, in July 2020, some of the accused who were out on parole, allegedly assaulted and attempted to intimidate a witness in the case. This after the witness tried to prevent them from assaulting two women in a separate matter.

Related:

Bilkis Bano case: Is the Government trying to hoodwink the SC on compensation?

Bilkis Bano case: SC directs Guj gov’t to pay compensation in 2 weeks

Bilkis Bano case accused allegedly threaten witness!

Will Use the Compensation for Battles of Other Sisters: Bilkis Bano

Exclusive: Interview with Bilkis Bano’s lawyer, Ms Shobha

Reparation for Violence: 50 lakhs awarded to 2002 Rape Survivor Bilkis Bano by SC

The post Bilkis Bano case: Eleven people convicted of gang rape and murder freed appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 2002 Gujarat Genocide may not have been as “spontaneous” as some would have us believe. The Hindutva machinery had been hard at work creating discord and spreading hate for weeks, months, even years before the actual Gujarat violence of February 2002. Communalism Combat had been tracking these developments. Here are a few select instances documented by the magazine.

 Communal build-up in Gujarat in 1998

In the October 1998 edition, CC published the findings of a fact-finding mission undertaken by independent journalists and street-theatre activists from Delhi, who toured the region — from Zankhvav to Bardoli to Vadodara to Ahmedabad to Saurashtra — from August 23 to 29, 1998.

They began their journey from Surat where Muslim autorikshaw drivers plying autos at night had been targeted, robbed and physically assaulted. The team also came across posters saying “Vishwa Hindu Parishad welcomes you to Hindu Rashtra’s village” in villages along the way.

In the three preceding months incidents of communal violence sparked by interfaith marriages had been coming in regularly from Bardoli. On June 20, about 300 copies of the New Testament were burnt by a crowd of over 150 persons, inside the I.P. Girls Senior Secondary School — a 103–year–old Christian Missionary institution in Rajkot.

The team also reported another chilling incident that occurred just a few days before their visit, “In Sanjeli, we found that on August 15 – Independence Day– more than 35 shops of Muslims were looted. Their houses were destroyed and stoned. A Father from the town church tried to stop the attack. His intervention earned him the wrath of the culprits. They also destroyed a statue of Mother Mary in the church.” In all the places the team visited, they found an active circulation of literature announcing, “When Hindus Rise, Christians run away”. They gathered several leaflets and hand–outs saying, “Jai Shri Ram. We all are Hindus. Let us unite and stop the bloody tendencies of the Christians”. There is no dearth of such literature against Muslims, too. The entire report as published originally may be read here.

Trishul distribution in Rajasthan in 2001

The November 2001 edition of CC documented the various Trishul Diksha Samarohs (Trident distribution ceremonies) that took place in Rajasthan. But the Trishuls were actually carefully disguised Rampuri knives!

“Of immediate concern is the systematic distribution of a few hundred thousand ‘trishuls’ — cleverly disguised Rampuri knives, six–eight inches long and sharp enough to kill —, delivering the lethal instrument to ‘every Hindu household’ in villages where the Trishul Diksha Samaroh is conducted. As we go to press, over seven districts in Rajasthan have had active ‘trishul’ distribution programmes. Raipur, Kotda, Jaipur and Asind are only some of the places around which the campaign was being carried out. Most others have also been covered in this brazen attempt to militarise society in the garb of a religious programme,” CC had reported at the time. At the time of publishing that piece, over 40 lakh such weapons may have been distributed nationwide.

It further explained, “The trishul, like the kirpan, is exempt from the provisions of Indian law on the ground that it is a religious symbol,” asking, “But when a weapon, specifically because of it’s religious symbolism, is used to arm persons already charged with hatred against other sections of society and is likely to be used as a terror tool, is such an exemption justified? Is this not tantamount to violating tenets of the Indian Constitution and the Indian Arms Act that are based on principles of a non–violent and non–armed civil society?”

The entire original piece may be read here.

Imposition of Hindu deities on Adivasis in Maharashtra

The December 2001 edition of CC carried a special report about how Hindutva groups were strengthening their foothold in Jowhar, Mukhoda and Vikramgarh talukas by attempting to conflate the Adivasi identity with Vanvasi or forest-dwellers, thereby subtly bringing them within the Hindutva fold.

“A Rath yatra was taken through Adivasi villages in Nandurbar district last year (2000), proclaiming that Jagadamba (a Hindu goddess) was Deo Mogra, the Bitta Bhill Adivasi goddess. It has also published and distributed, free of cost, a booklet entitled, ‘Adivasi Hinduch Ahe’ (‘Adivasis are Hindus’) in large numbers,” reported CC.

It is well known that a vast section of Adivasis do not identify as Hindu and have been practicing their own religions. But given how many of these religions have some common elements with Hinduism, for example ancestor worship, animist, nature worship etc., the Hindutva groups have been trying to peddle the narrative that Adivasis are Hindu, with the broader objective of not only erasing their own unique identity, but also do away with the need for reservations for Scheduled Tribes (ST).

The Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram (VKA) was at the forefront of this Hindutva campaign. “The Nasik centre of the VKA has distributed in thousands a portrait in colour of ‘Birsa wearing a sacred thread’ along with a short biography portraying him as a militant defender of Hinduism who fought against the church and missionaries. It has also distributed a fabricated biographical booklet on Birsa among Adivasis with the same intent,” reported CC. The entire piece as published originally in CC may be read here.

Communal build-up before the carnage

In the weeks preceding the carnage, several right-wing leaders had made a series of communally chared statements. Here are a few examples culled from media reports at that time and that were published in the March-April 2002 edition of CC:

February 7: “The speedy construction of the Ram temple is the only befitting reply to Islamic terrorism which has shaken the pillars of even the Indian Parliament,” he said. Togadia said it was high time the government banned the madrassas in the country as they had been converted into factories manufacturing Islamic militants.”
— Pravin Togadia, VHP international general secretary, in The Times of India

February 7: “I told you, we have had an overdose of these pseudos whom you so fondly call secularists. These self-appointed secularists can no longer fool the Hindus who are aware of the elaborate plan to damage our religion and religious beliefs. Take it from me that our level of tolerance can be stretched no more. And those who come in our way will be pulverised.”
— Acharya Giriraj Kishore, VHP senior vice-president, in an interview to rediff.com

February 7: “We wouldn’t want to sacrifice the present BJP-led Centre that is sympathetic to our cause. But if it has to go at some stage in the cause of Ram temple construction, we can’t help it.”
— Ashok Singhal, VHP international president,The Indian Express.

February 7: “It will either have to be Pakistan or the mandir. The mosque constructed by Babur at Ayodhya 450 years ago by destroying the Ram temple and the September 11 attack on the World Trade Centre are symbols of Islamic jihad. It is necessary for India, Jews and the Western world to come together and fight Islamic militants.”
— Pravin Togadia, VHP, at a press conference in Mumbai, The Asian Age.

February 7: “If our government is ready to finish Pakistan, we are ready to wait. However, our two demands are, take over Pakistan and allow the temple construction. If one is not happening, the other will. Therefore, we have given time to the government till March 12.”
— Pravin Togadia, VHP, at a press conference in Mumbai, The Times of India.

February 11: “Solution to the Kashmir problem lies through Ayodhya…. The jehadi mindset has to be defeated at all costs.”
— Pravin Togadia, VHP, at a news conference in Bhubaneshwar, PTI.

February 11:“Besides contesting the legal action, VHP can go to the people and say that matters of faith cannot be decided by court. They can cite a precedent. The Muslims did not accept the Supreme Court verdict in Shah Bano case and at that time, Congress had brought in a legislation to change that verdict.”
— Jana Krishnamurthy, BJP president, in an interview in the latest issue of the RSS mouthpiece Panchajanya, quoted in The Times of India.

February 11: “We are ready to face anything and even to face the bullets when it’s a question of faith.”
— Acharya Giriraj Kishore, VHP, at a press conference in Coimbatore, PTI.

February 12: “We are everything. BJP, VHP, RSS. So where is the question of a fight?”
— Ambika Nishad, a BJP member of the nagar panchayat, Ayodhya, in The Times of India.

February 14:“We cannot wait for the judiciary to decide the faith of a particular community.”
— Pravin Togadia, VHP, at a press conference in Vijaywada, Newstime.

February 14: “Today a situation has come when no railway station or bus station is safe from the threat of attack from Islamic terrorists. The only option left before the country is to declare a full-fledged war against Islamic militants and defeat it, roundly and squarely.”
— Pravin Togadia, VHP, at a press conference in Vijaywada, Deccan Herald.

February 17:“The statements of sants and sadhus never hurt me.”
— Atal Behari Vajpayee, on the VHP castigating his government’s stand on Ayodhya, at a poll campaign press conference in Lucknow, in The Times of India.

February 19: “The jehadi mentality that led Babar to destroy the Ram temple at Ayodhya more than 400 years ago was the same mentality that led to partition of the country in 1947, attack on the World Trade Center at New York on September 11 last year and attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001.”
— Pravin Togadia, at a press conference in Bhopal, PTI.

February 19:“No court in the world has the right, moral or legal, to adjudicate on a matter of faith. The birthplace of Lord Ram is a matter of faith just as Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus Christ was of great significance to the Christians. There is no question of shifting the location of the temple, no matter who had ownership rights to the land.”
— Pravin Togadia, at a press conference in Bhopal, The Times of India.

February 21: NEW DELHI: The Vishwa Hindu Parishad today warned of a “Hindu backlash” against those daring to oppose the construction of a Ram temple in Ayodhya on March 15, even as it made it clear that nothing would now delay the project even for a day. Several VHP leaders spoke simultaneously from different parts of the country — Ashok Singhal and Acharya Giriraj Kishore here, Pravin Togadia from Jaipur and Sadanand Kakade from Kochi – as if to hammer home the point that they are determined to start gathering the crowds of kar sevaks (voluntary workers) at Ayodhya from this weekend to get a 10 lakh strong crowd by March 15 when construction would begin at the pravesh dwar (entrance of the temple), where shilanyas was performed in the late Eighties.
— Ashok Singhal, VHP,inThe Hindu.

February 21:“If a masjid has to be constructed, it should be done outside the 84 acre area and at a distance which would not lead to any confrontation.”
— Ashok Singhal, poohpoohing an RSS suggestion that a mosque be constructed on the Saryu river banks in Ayodhya, in an interview to a private TV channel, quoted in The Times of India.

February 21: “When we say clearly there was a temple and it is the birth place of Ram, the Muslims refuse to discuss the matter.”
— Ashok Singhal, VHP, responding to the suggestion of a negotiated settlement over Ayodhya, The Times of India.

February 22: The sant who has been the spearhead of the Ram Janmabhoomi movement and a major Hindutva protagonist has given a call for arming all Hindus “if India was to be saved from disintegration.” Ramchandra Paramhans, who heads the powerful Digamabar Akhara in Ayodhya, feels it was high time India discarded the ‘Soft State’ tag.

In an exclusive interview to The Pioneer, Paramhans argued that the Ram Janmabhoomi movement was also aimed at elimination of terror and in these disquiet times, all Hindus should be given arms. He asserted, “Even we are ready to suspend the temple movement and engage ourselves in the protection of our borders.”
— Ramchandra Paramhans, chairman, Digamabar Akhara in Ayodhya, The Pioneer.

February 22: “BJP does not need Muslims to form government in UP.”
— Atal Behari Vajpayee, PM, at an election rally in Varanasi, The Asian Age.

February 23: (Bajrang Dal national convenor) SK Jain said 20 lakh Dal activists carrying the “trishul” would march to Ayodhya, adding, “they are ready to face any situation.” The Dal leader said: “If any Muslim organisation makes an attempt to rebuild the Babri masjid at Ayodhya, the Bajrang Dal would chant Hanuman Chalisa at Delhi’s Jama Masjid.”

The Dal had drawn up a list of 3,000 mosques across the country that were built after demolishing temples, Jain said. If Muslims did not respect the sentiments of millions of Hindus, the Dal would not be able to stop a “massive upsurge” against these mosques, he said at the VHP office.
— SK Jain, Bajrang Dal national convenor, The Telegraph.

February 23:VADODARA: An altercation between people and VHP supporters in Tankaria village, Bharuch, over an alleged incident of cow slaughter turned violent when a man died in police firing. Trouble started when some VHP men, led by Vadodara-based advocate Jatin Vyas, went to Tankaria around 12 noon to record on camera what he said was large-scale cow slaughter. ‘‘Last year, too, our men with the help of the police seized some cow-laden trucks near the village. Along with some VHP men, I went to the village to film the slaughter,’’ Vyas said. He sought police intervention to stop the alleged slaughter.
— Jatin Vyas, VHP leader.

February 26:NEW DELHI: A defiant VHP on Tuesday night said it was determined to go ahead with the construction of the Ram temple in Ayodhya from March 15 “at all costs”… “We will go ahead with the process of construction from March 15 as announced earlier. We are ready to face bullets or go to jail.”
— Acharya Giriraj Kishore, VHP, PTI.

The following morning, i.e on February 27, 2002, the Godhra train burning incident took place and in its aftermath, targeted communal violence broke out across Gujarat, the flames of which were later found to have been fanned by groups closely associated with the ideological parent organisation of the political party in power, the state administration itself often complicit via a possibility deliberate failure to control the situation.

Related:

Welcome to Hindu Rashtra
Rajasthan: Attempting a replication
Adivasis against Hindutva
Build-up

The post Prelude to the Gujarat 2002 Carnage appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Bano said, “I want to give the money I have received from the Supreme Court to help in the battles of other sisters like me who have been victims and for the education of their children.” Adding further, she said that she will name the fund after Saleha, her three-year-old daughter who was killed by the mob which gangraped her and killed six other members of her family on March 3, 2002 in Randhikpur village.

While expressing grief about her lost daughter, Bano acknowledged the Supreme Court’s decision and said, “We never got back Saleha’s body, we couldn’t even bury her and perform her final rites, and for that I am filled with sorrow till this day. Her spirit is still wandering and I want for her to be at peace. Perhaps this judgment will help bring some kind of peace. The court has accepted the sadness that I have had to bear, and the suffering that I’ve gone through. That this has been recognised is a big thing for me… I have had a very long struggle of 17 years but I have always believed that I would get justice. I had belief in the Constitution and the legal system.”

Recollecting the agonizing incident when she was brutally raped while she was 5 months pregnant, Bano said that her now 15-year old daughter Hazra wishes to become a lawyer. “She had decided a few years back that she wants to be a lawyer. I want her to be educated and become a lawyer, so that she can help other women at the Supreme Court,” said Bano.  

Bilkis had earlier declined to accept the Rs 5-lakh compensation awarded by the state and had sought its enhancement. Later, a special leave petition was filed in the SC by Bano’s advocate Ms. Shobha Gupta seeking compensation for “damages to her Constitutional right to life; right to bodily integrity; right to be protected by the State; and right to seek justice for wrongs suffered by her.”

Bano’s struggle for justice started after the state police dismissed her case citing lack of evidence. In December 2003, the case was handed over to the CBI who then arrested all the accused named by Bano. In May 2017, the Bombay HC upheld the conviction and life imprisonment of 11 people, while setting aside the acquittal of seven people, including the policemen and doctors. In March, the SC directed the Gujarat government to initiate disciplinary action against police officials charged with investigating the case, whom the Bombay HC had found guilty of destroying evidence, overturning the special court order. The state then stopped the pension benefits of two officials, and demoted IPS officer RS Bhagora by two ranks.

Gujarat witnessed the worst form of communal violence in 2002 which killed thousands of Muslims and hundreds of Hindus after a coach of Sabarmati Express was burnt down, causing demise of 59 ‘karsevaks’ returning from Ayodhya.
Such judgements restore the faith in the judiciary!
 
Related Articles:
1.Reparation for Violence: 50 lakhs awarded to 2002 Rape Survivor Bilkis Bano by SC
2.Supreme Court asks Gujarat government to take action against cops convicted in Bilkis Bano rape case
3.From Destruction of Wombs to Liberators of Muslim Women: Politics of Hindutva
 
 

The post “Will Use the Compensation for Battles of Other Sisters”: Bilkis Bano appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Press Release

We argue in the present SLP, how, the order of the Gujarat HC records that the Magistrate has considered the Closure Report of the SIT and found no substance in the complaint of the Petitioner dated 8.6.20106. Thereafter the Court erroneously goes on to say that the Magistrate provided detailed grounds for not accepting the Protest Petition of Ms Jafri. This, in our submission, is factually incorrect.

It is our case that the Magistrate wrongly held that it was beyond the scope of his powers to direct further investigation. Besides, key and vital issues placed before the Magistrate, detailing our case and making out a sound and substantiated case of criminal conspiracy and abetment, we argue,  have been not duly considered by the Magistrate or the High Court.

The SIT filed a Closure Report in 2012, without giving an audience to Ms Jafri as is her legal right. Thereafter she had to petition the SC again in a fresh SLP (Nos 8989/2012) to acquire the full and complete Investigation records, reports and documents. These we obtained by order of the Supreme Court on 7.2.2013 after which we were given two months to file the protest petition.

It is only after that order of the SC in February 2013,  that the CJP legal team analysed close to 23,000 pages of documents that became the basis of the detailed construct and narrative of the Protest Petition. It is through this Protest Petition that the Petitioner has drawn out the lacunae in SIT’ s Investigation and constructed a more comprehensive and prima facie case for large conspiracy, abetment, dereliction of duty by First responders and Hate Speech, which in the Petitioner’s opinion, is squarely made from the documents on record.

In the present case before the SC we argue that it will be abundantly clear from a close perusal of the Protest Petition that the Ms Jafri has substantiated further acts of a larger Conspiracy by detailing evidence about the Prelude and Build Up of a volatile atmosphere prior to 27.2.2002, the post mortems being conducted in the wide open in violation of statutory provisions, no Preventive Arrests and Delayed Implementation of Curfew in Ahmedabad Despite Widespread Violence from 27.2.2002 Onwards among other issues.

Besides, we argue that, an analysis of Police Control Room (PCR Records) Shows Dereliction of Duty by First Responders. The conspiracy, as constructed in the Protest Petition also provides proof of the also Reporting and Misleading Constitutional and Statutory Authorities and the  Destruction of Records Relating to Minutes of Meetings, Police Logbooks, Wireless Messages  by those at the helm of power in 2002.

The Gujarat High Court notes in its Order dated 5.10.2017 that,
 

Undoubtedly, the Complaint given in writing to the DGP of the State of Gujarat by Ms Zakia Jafri on 08.6.2006 was for the period between February 27, 2002 to May 2002 where it is alleged that the larger conspiracy of officers and bureaucrats (63 in numbers) for committing the offence under section 302 read with 120(b) of te IPC has resulted into the loss of thousands of lives. Such acts, according to the said complaint, allegedly indicate larger conspiracy for the entire State which has not been restricted to particular case or incident of riot.”

 
However, despite recognizing that the Complaint dated 8.6.2006 and the Protest Petition dated 15.4.2013 dealt with events between February 27 and May 2002, we argue that she however leaves us remedy-less on the vital aspect of no adequate Investigation into the larger conspiracy and disregarding of the same by the Magistrate.

It is on these issues as also on the conscious and erroneous clubbing of the Zakia Jafri complaint with the single incident at Gulberg society (that took place on 28.2.2002 and according to us is just one of 300 incidents and one link In the wider conspiracy) that the lower courts have erred and we seek correction and remedy.

CJP Trustees
 

Related Legal Resources:

Zakia Jafri Protest Petition

Zakia Jafri Protest Petition Part 1
Zakia Jafri Protest Petition Part 2

SIT Preliminary Report

SIT Preliminary Report May 12 2010 (in SLP 1088/2008, Zakia Jafri & CJP versus State of Gujarat)

Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran’s Interim and Final Reports

Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran’s Interim Report
Amicus Curiae Raju Ramachandran’s Final Report

SIT Closure Report dated 8.2.2012

Volume 1

SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 1 to 100
SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 101 to 200
SIT Closure Report Volume 1 Page 201-270

Volume 2

SIT Volume 2 Page 271-370
SIT Volume 2 Page 371-458
SIT Volume 2 Page 459-541
The following India Today piece was on the basis of EXCLUSIVE INVESTIGATION by our team (CJP) for the Zakia Jafri Protest Petition. The probe uncovered the messages from the police control room and the state intelligence bureau reports showing that the cops had received various inputs about crowds being mobilised and warnings of the possibility of major riots breaking out.
Probe reveals Gujarat Riots were not spontaneous and sudden

Related Videos:

Adv Mihir Desai explains Genesis of the Zakia Jafri Case
Advocate Mihir Desai explains how the SC dealt with the Zakia Jafri Case
Adv Mihir Desai talks about the Evidence Unearthed in the Zakia Jafri Case
Adv Mihir Desai explains the Legal Technicalities in the Zakia Jafri Case

Related Reports (NHRC, CEC, Editors’ Guild 2002)

NHRC Reports (March – July 2002)

NHRC Report July 2002
NHRC INterim Report April 1- 2002

CEC Report (August 2002)

CEC Report on Gujarat Violence
Election Commission August 16 2002 Order Postpones Elections

Editor’s Guild Report 2002

Excerpts from Editors Guild Report 2002
Judgement Primer on ZAHIRA HABIBULLAH SHAIKH V/S STATE OF GUJARAT 2004
The 2004 Best Bakery Judgement and its Significance
 

The post Zakia Jafri Case back in the Spotlight appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Through all of you, friends in the media, I wish to say to all my fellow Indian citizens, my fellow Gujaratis, my fellow Muslims, and to women everywhere – I am grateful that this verdict delivered by the Honorable Judges, has, yet again, vindicated my truth, and upheld my faith in the judiciary.

My rights, as a human being, as a citizen, woman, and mother were violated in the most brutal manner, but I have trusted in the democratic institutions of our country. Now, my family and I feel we can begin to lead our lives again, free of fear.

I am happy that the State and its officials who emboldened, encouraged, and protected the criminals who destroyed the life of an entire community, are no longer unblemished, but today stand charged with tampering of evidence. For officers of the state, whose sworn duty it is to protect citizens and enable justice, this should be their great moral shame, to bear forever.

To fellow Indians, I appeal to all of you, at a time when we hear news everyday of people being attacked and killed because of their religion or community – please help affirm their faith in the secular values of our country and support their struggles for justice, equality, and dignity. For this verdict does not mean the end of hatred but it does mean that somewhere, somehow justice can prevail. This has been an long, seemingly never ending struggle for me, but when you are on the side of truth, you will be heard, and justice will be yours in the end.

The close friends, who have stood with me through it all, know how much me, my husband Yakub and my family owe to them for their instinting support and love throughout this battle. For journeys like mine cannot be made alone. I am deeply grateful both to the CBI and to my lawyer who represented me during this appeal process in the Honorable Bombay High Court."
 

The post Verdict has Vindicated my Truth, Upheld my Faith in Judiciary: Bilkees Bano appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
 
The Zakia Jafri case is an attempt to establish criminal and administrative responsibility for the mass and targeted crimes that took place in Gujarat in 2002 (from February until August 2002).It is the case of the complainant that the failures by the political and administrative machinery were not just departmental lapses but were criminal offences in respect of which each of  the accused needs to be criminally prosecuted. The complainant an her legal aid team has galvanised 7122 pages of direct evidence from the investigation papers and garnered these to make a strong argument to issue process (charge sheet) the powerful accused. The complaint seeks to lay out evidence to prove that the approximately 300 incidents that broke out all over the state of Gujarat and continued for over six months in 2002 (till at least the visit of the CEC Lyndoh who did not allow early elections) took place as the result of this wider conspiracy.

Arguments for the complainant, Zakia Jafri began in the Gujarat High Court on August 4 2015. It had taken over two years for translations to take place in the High Court. Thereafter there have been about eight hearings in all of two days each and today is the last batch of hearings before the judge closes the case and delivers her judgement. Justice Sonia Gokhani is hearing the matter in the High Court. Twenty four volumes of annexures compiling this direct evidence that runs into 7122 pages have been filed by the petitioner in the High Court. The actual criminal revision is itself 540 pages long.
 
Senior counsel Mihir Desai, MM Tirmizi, Mihir Joshi appeared for the complainant Smt Jafri assisted by the civil rights group Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). Tomorrow will be the day for the Special Investigation Team, formerly head by ex-CBI head RK Raghavan to respond. Smt Jafri filed a criminal revision application in the Gujarat High Court (205/2014) on March 15, 2014 after Magistrate Ganatra rejected the Protest Petition filed by her on April 15, 2013. The magistrate had rejected the petition after rigorous hearings over 25 days conducted before him from April to September 2013. He delivered his judgement on December 26, 2013.

 
Detailed Background of the Case
Zakia Jafri filed a Complaint dated June 8, 2006 concerning various aspects of the events which took place in 2002 in Gujarat. The Complaint was made to various agencies which did not take note of the same and hence a Petition was filed in Gujarat High Court which was dismissed on November 2, 2007 against which an SLP was filed. Supreme Court asked a Special Investigative Team to investigate and an amicus was appointed. Finally SIT stated that the investigation was complete and therefore on September 12, 2011 the Supreme Court stopped monitoring the matter and asked SIT to file its Final Report before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad. SIT filed final report before the Magistrate on February 8, 2012 being a closure report and the Petitioner filed a Protest Petition that was over 1,000 pages on April 15, 2013. (The Judgment of the Magistrate accepting the Closure Report was given on December 26, .2013. This Judgment is under Revision).
 
The complaint of Zakia Jafri runs into about 119 pages making allegations against 62 persons (political functionaries, bureaucrats, police and private individuals). The allegations pertain to conspiracy, abetment, negligence, failure to perform duties by public servants and hate speech. Three Reports were filed by the SIT before the Supreme Court. The first  Report was filed by by AK. Malhotra dated May 12, 2010; the second report by Himanshu Shukla (Crime Branch, Ahmedabad) dated November 17, 2010 and the report styled as report u/s 173 (8) (after further investigation was ordered by the Supreme Court on March 15, 2011) was dated April 24, 2011. During this historic process Raju Ramchandran, Senior Advocate Supreme Court, ho had been appointed Amicus Curiae in the case filed two reports- the first was  dated January 20, 2011 and and the second one dated July 25, 2011. The Supreme Court was faced with a piquant situation when the investigation team appointed by it (SIT) came to the conclusion that there was no material to prosecute the powerful accused whereas the amicus appointed by it opined to the contrary. The first accused in the complaint is the then chief minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. The final judgment of the Supreme Court came to be passed on September 12, 2011 and the Closure Report was filed on February 8, 2012.
 
The complainant Zakia Jafri was not even called by the investigating agency as is the norm or requirement under law, despite her repeated communications to the SIT between September 2011 and February 2012. All the investigation papers were handed over to the petitioner only after a further order of Supreme Court dated February 7, 2013. Before that senior counsel had to make several arguments before the Magistrate before getting access to 23,000 pages of the investigation papers in April 2012. After this, on 15.4.2013 the Protest Petition was filed.
 
The SIT in its Closure Report has treated the Complaint as having made 32 allegations which have been separately dealt with and negated. Magistrate has in his Judgment upheld the findings of the SIT in respect of each of the 32 allegations.
 
In the course of the arguments today, the petitioners have argued that apart from the 32 allegations crystallised by SIT there are certain other allegations which have been totally ignored by SIT and also by the magistrate in his Judgment which is under challenge.
 
Senior Counsel from Mumbai Mihir Desai making arguments today argued that the issue before the Court is whether the events after the Godhra carnage were
(a) spontaneous outpouring of people;
(b) which could not have been anticipated, prevented or controlled
or  it is likely that
(a) they were part of a conspiracy which was hatched by certain people in power politically and administratively to create an environment whereby targeted violence was allowed to be unleashed on the minority community where hate speeches and hate writing were continually deployed;  and
(b) in carrying out this conspiracy or otherwise certain public servants including Ministers, police, bureaucracy or other individuals aided and abetted the events.
 
He strongly argued that it was the petitioners case that those named in the Complaint are guilty of the following offences:

1. Conspiracy (Sections 120A, 120B, 34, 149 of IPC and Section 10 of Evidence Act)
2. Abetment (Sections 107 to 120 of IPC)
3. Failure to perform duties by Public Servants (Sections 166, 167, 217, 218, 221 of IPC)
4. Criminal Negligence (Section 304A of IPC)
5. Hate Speech (Sections 153A, 153B, 504 and 505 of IPC)

1. Conspiracy

It is not the case of the Petitioner that the train burning was a result of conspiracy by the accused. The conspiracy was to ensure that what happened in Godhra was not confined to Godhra but taken to other parts of Gujarat which allowed violence to take place. The conspiracy was to ensure that if an incident of communal violence (such as Godhra) takes place there is sufficient hatred generated that violence will explode all over the State.
 
The counsel further argued that the conspiracy was at four levels:
 

1. To generate and allow to be generated and deepen feeling of hatred towards a particular community prior to the train incident:

The evidence for this include (1) IB Messages and (2) Statements made in Sting operation (3) Hate Writing through VHP Pamphlets and Hate Speeches of the BJP and VHP Leaders on television and in the media
 

2. The second component of the conspiracy involved the actions from the time of train burning in the morning of 27.2.2002 till the mass violence started on 28.2.2002.

This involves the following components:

1. Telephonic conversation by A.1 with VHP leader
2. Statement issued in the Assembly
3. Statement of A.1 while in Assembly
4. Post Mortems conducted in the open;
5. Handing over the dead bodies in Godhra to a private individual
6. Parading of the bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad
7. Violence in Sabarmati express between Godhra and Ahmedabad
8. Meeting held at the residence of the Chief Minister on the night of 27.2.2002 where effectively the police were asked to go slow on riots which start as a response to the train incident
9.  Mobs Gathered at the Sola Civil Hospital who took out Funeral Processions in Ahmedabad and Districts Parading the Dead Bodies of the Godhra Train Victims

 
Besides the counsel argued that
No Action for Preventing Violence

1.   Bandh call supported
2. No preventive arrests
3. No curfew imposed till very late
4. No Army deployed till very late

3. The third component played out  DURING VIOLENCE

1. Police abdicating duty as evident from

• Firing episodes
• Not responding to calls
• Not imposing curfew
• Widespread demolition of mosques, etc.
• Fire brigade access (non response of the Police to Frantic Calls received by the Fire Brigade Messages)

2. Army was called in late and deployed even later
3. Ministers placed in control room

 
The fourth component was Subversion of Law after Violence

1. Non filing of FIRs and false FIRs filed
2. No relief camps set up/ Hardly any provisions given for relief camps  and no rehabilitation of victims
3. Public Prosecutors of certain ideological bent appointed to sabotage the cases
4. Illegal instructions given by the politicians to the police and bureaucrats
5. The police who acted against the rioters punished while those who allowed the carnage favoured
6. False reporting to Constitutional Authorities
7. Destruction of and Tampering with evidence
8. Misleading the NHRC, Election Commission, etc. And even the Government of India (on scale and extent of violence)
    

4 Types of Conspirators

1. Section of political estalbishment
2. Section of the Bueracracy
3. Section of the Police
4. Some private organisations/ individuals

 
8. Abetment at Two Levels

1. (a) Those who were part of conspiracy

(b) Those who were not part of the conspiracy

2. (a) Those who abated by actions

(b) Those who abated by omissions
 
9. Public Servants Liable at the Following Levels

1. Violating the law
2. Failure to perform duty
3. Criminal Negligence
4. Command Responsibility

 
10. Hate Speech

1. Those who are directly involved in hate speech
2. No action by police or political establishment whose consent and action was required
3. Attempt to thwart investigation into hate speech

 
11. Evidence

1. Statements of R.B. Sreekumar
2. Statement of Rahul Sharma
3. Statement of Sanjiv Bhatt
4. Statements of Justice Sawant and Justice Suresh
5. Statements of former chief minister Gujarat Suresh Mehta and Vithalbhai Pandya, father of Haren Pandya
6. IB Messages (SIB Messages-State Intelligence Bureau Messages)
7. Phone records
8. Diary (Confidential Contemporary Register)of Sreekumar
9. Sting Operation by Tehelka
10. Reports of Constitutional Authorities
11. Hate speeches (Texts and Videos)
12. Judgments of various courts concerning riots

 
 
The Criminal Revision Application (CRA 205/2014) deals with the complete failure of the Supreme Court appointed SIT to adequately probe the evidence on the above lines despite there being substantial primary evidence that points to the need for a prosecution.
 
The overall context also cannot be lost sight of:

1. 2 trials i.e. of Bilquis Bano and Best Bakery transferred out of Gujarat by the order of Supreme Court and in both cases the Mumbai Courts have convicted offenders. For the first time NHRC itself decides to approach the Supreme Court
2. NHRC Reports dated 1.4.2002 and July, 2002 (Annexure L)
3. Election Commission Report (Annexure L)
4. Editors guild  Report (Annexure N)
5. 8 trials stayed by Supreme Court at the instance of NHRC and subsequently SIT appointed by Supreme Court with directions to appoint special judges and special public prosecutors for these cases.
6. 2000 Cases ordered to be reopened by the Supreme Court
7. Demolished religious places directed to be rebuilt by the Gujarat High Court (Annexure L)
8. For the first time Chief Secretary  and DGP (Chakravarthi) are  personally summoned and examined by the Supreme Court in open Court on 19 September, 2003 (p.566 Ann B)
9. A Tribunal headed by 2 retired Supreme Court judges finds that there was conspiracy, abetment and hate speech.

 
Substantive judicial precedents were garnered by the legal team in the course of arguments. In the Supreme court between 2008-2010 senior advocate, Sanjay Parikh and Kamini Jaiswal assisted by Aparna Bhat and Ramesh Pukhrambam had appeared for Zakia Jafri and the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP).
 
Within eight days of the rejection of the protest petition the crime branch of the Ahmedabad police registered an FIR against Tanvir Jafri, Salim Sandhi, Firoz Gulzar Pathan, Javed Anand and Teesta Setalvad alleging misappropriation of funds. This FIR and subsequent intimidation in refusing to grant anticipatory bail to the office bearers of CJP (Setalvad and Anand) have been seen as brazen attempts by the state to prevent the appeal against the rejection of the protest petition.
 
 
Related Articles:

1. The Importance of the Zakia Jafri Petition Hearings to Resume on April 6-7, 2016
2. The End of Impunity: Gujarat 2002

The post Arguments in Zakia Jafri case implicating top netas, cops and babus in 2002 carnage to conclude tomorrow in Gujarat HC appeared first on SabrangIndia.