Sanjeev Sabhlok – Sanjeev Sabhlok: Promoting liberalism ...



IN THE COURT OF THE 11th METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD

MRS. ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI V/S MR. NARENDRA MODI & OTHERS

PROTEST PETITION

ON THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.6.2006 & AGAINST THE FINAL REPORT OF THE SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM DATED 8.2.2012

(PART I) 1

Vide Judgements (Case Law) 3

Background of the Present Complaint 4

Incidents specified in Complaint± pp. 138 to 140, (para 13) 5

Incidents widespread in 19 of the State‘s districts (coloured maps) 5

A.Failure to Take Steps Statutorily Required under Law to Prevent the Outbreak and Spread of Violence 7

B.Failure to Take Statutorily required Steps to Control Mob Violence 7

PLAINT dated 8.6.2006: Offences alleged 13

Facts of the Protest Petition 19

Narration 27.2.2002 7.55 ± 9 a.m. 19

Between 9-10.30 a.m.27.2.2002. 21

10.30 hours 27.2.2002 22

1300 hours 27.2.2002 23

1330 ± 1530 hours 27.2.2002 Post mortems 26

1530-1645 hours 27.2.2002 Departure 28

16.45 ± 19.45 hours 27.2.2002 28

Decision to Hand Over Dead Bodies to Mr Jaideep Patel A-21 & Transport Dead Bodies to Ahmedabad 29

(PART I)

This application/objections have been filed pursuant to the order dated 12.9.2011 passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as the subsequent order dated 7.2.2013 passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. (Annexure – Compilation includes all the Orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case). The Complainant submits that the Closure Report submitted by the SIT requires to be rejected in too. The said Report concludes that no offence of any nature has been made out against any of the accused. It is our submission that this Hon‘ble Court take cognizance against each of the accused in relation to offences which they have been alleged to have been guilty in the Complaint dated 8.6.2006.

1.That at the outset, it may be pointed out that the complaint filed by the petitioner was sent for investigation to the SIT by an order dated 27.4.2009 passed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. After conducting the investigation, SIT had submitted the reports before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. The said complainant‘s case is, therefore, a separate police case and should, therefore, be treated as such. This case should not be confused/clubbed with the other independent and individual cases based on separate F.I.R.s, filed, prosecuted and even being tried which are related to the separate incidents related to the Gujarat carnage of 2002. This has been conclusively clarified by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court in its Order dated 7.2.2013. The SIT is purposefully trying to confuse the present case, which is independent of other cases and has to be dealt with and tried as such, a separate criminal case.

2.The brief facts leading to the filing of final report by the SIT are that the petitioner/ complainant had filed a complaint before the Police authorities and when no action was taken, she had approached the High Court of Gujarat under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that her complaint should be investigated by the Police/C.B.I. The High Court of Gujarat on 2.11.2007 directed that the complaint can be treated as a private complaint and, therefore, declined the reliefs sought for by the petitioner. This order of the High Court of Gujarat was challenged by the petitioner before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, vide order dated 27.4.2009, directed that the complaint of the petitioner be investigated by the SIT.

3.That thereafter, the SIT conducted investigations which resulted into filing of 4 reports by the SIT which are as follows:

i) 12.5.2010

ii) 17.11.2010

iii) 24.4.2011

iv) 8.2.2012

4.The Hon‘ble Supreme Court finally disposed of the Special Leave Petition on 12.9.2011 by permitting the petitioner to file a protest petition in case a final report finding no accused guilty of committing any crimes is submitted by the SIT.

5.That the SIT not only did not provide, but actively opposed providing the complete documents collected during Investigation including of the SIT reports as mentioned in Para 3 above and, therefore, the petitioner again approached the Hon‘ble Supreme Court for furnishing the above-said 4 reports. Other documents were provided through an Order of the Ld. Magistrate dated 10.4.2012. The SIT that had been clearly directed by the Order of the Hon‘ble Supreme to supply all documents and reports related to the Investigation in effect resisted and delayed matters to such an extent that between 8.2.2012, when its final report was filed, and 7.2.2013, when the Hon‘ble Supreme Court finally directed that all reports should be provided to the Complainant, a year had passed.

6.That by an order dated 7.2.2013, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court directed that all the reports which were submitted by the SIT be supplied to the petitioner to enable her to file an effective Protest Petition/Objections to the final report submitted by the SIT It is in the above background that the Complainant/Petitioner is submitting this Protest Petition.

7.That in deciding the Protest Petition the Hon‘ble Court has to exercise its Independent mind on the Final Report submitted by the Investigating Agency. The Court is not bound by the conclusions drawn by the Investigating Agency. The Court has to look at the material to satisfy itself whether prima facie it is a case for taking cognizance of the offence. The material has to be looked at, not from the angle that it is sufficient for conviction but that the material is sufficient for proceeding with the case. The Court cannot adjudicate on the material to find out whether an offence is made out or not, which is the domain when the trial starts and evidence is led by the parties.

Vide Judgements (Case Law)

8.That before going into the detailed submissions and factual aspects, it is necessary to discuss what jurisdiction this Court has in deciding the protest petition and in accepting or rejecting the final report submitted by the SIT as an investigating agency. It has been held by several judgments of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as the High Courts that at this juncture, the jurisdiction of the learned Court is very limited. The Court can only examine whether prima facie, there is reasonable material to take cognizance of the offence. In case, there is reasonable suspicion, prima facie a case is made out from the material on record; the court has a duty to issue process against the accused. The Court cannot look into and discuss or adjudicate on the material on record to find out whether an offence is made out or not. That is a domain when the trial starts and evidence is led by the parties.

9.That the Petitioner/Complainant submits that this Court, while deciding the protest petition and appreciating the final report submitted by the SIT, has to look into following amongst other issues:

(1) Whether on the basis of material which has been submitted by the SIT, a case of reasonable suspicion/prima facie case is made out against the accused and thus, requiring cognizance to be taken by the Court. It is enough if the Court feels that it is necessary to proceed against the accused and/or whether triable issues are made out.

(2) Whether the SIT, during investigation, has collected all the relevant material which it was required to do in conducting fair investigation.

(3) Whether it was within the jurisdiction of the Investigating agency to adjudicate on the material which came out during the investigation, i.e., to reject the statement of a particular witness or to accept the statement of a particular witness in order to come to the conclusion that no offence is made out, particularly when the statement made under section 161 of Cr.P.C. clearly pointed out to reasonable suspicion/prima facie case of commission of the crime.

(4) Whether a case is made out for directing further investigation under section 173(8) of Cr. P.C. as the SIT has omitted to consider the relevant evidence which connects the accused with the crime.

(5) That in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the investigation done by the SIT was not proper or important facts/documents/links were not looked into, to favour the accused, or otherwise, whether a separate investigating agency will be required for further investigation under section 173 (8) of Cr. P.C. In that eventuality, this Court has also to decide whether the prosecution can be controlled by the SIT which has conducted investigation in such a blatantly biased manner.It is of the utmost importance that the truth of the allegations against them is determined by a competent forum. Such a course would subserve public interest and public morality because the Chief Minister and Ministers, the civil servants, the Magistracy and the Police of a State should not function under a cloud. It is imperative, therefore, that further investigation be conducted in a thoroughly impartial manner. See: Vishwanath Chaturvedi v. Union of India: (2007) 3 SCALE 714 at 724 para 36 (Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution) = (2007) SCC.

Background of the Present Complaint

10.Mrs. Zakia Nasim Ehsan Jafri, widow of late Mr Ehsan Jafri, formerly R/o Gulberg Society, Meghaninagar, Ahmedabad City and now residing at 25, Alvi Row-house, Rander Road, Surat City, Gujarat, submitted a complaint dated 08-06-2006 to Mr. P.C. Pande, Director General of Police, Gujarat State, Police Bhavan, Gandhinagar, for the registration of FlR u/s, 120(B) IPC read with 302, IPC & sec. 193 read with 114 IPC, 186 & 153-A, 186, 187 IPC & u/s 6 of Commission of Inquiry Act, The Gujarat Police Act & The Protection of Human Rights Act, 1951. On 01-03-2007, Mrs. Zakia Nasim Ehsan Jafri and Citizens for Justice & Peace, through its Secretary, Ms. Teesta Setalvad filed an application in the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court bearing Spl. Criminal Application No. 421 of 2007 vs State of Gujarat, DGP, Gujarat and CBI under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India r/w sec.482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to pass an order of Writ of mandamus and or appropriate Writ, directing the DGP to register an FIR and further directing the same to be investigated by an independent agency, i.e., CBI. The Petitioners further prayed that pending admission and or final disposaI of this petition, DGP be directed to register the FIR and directions issued to CBI for investigation in the interest of justice and grant such other and further relief as deemed fit in the interest of justice. The Gujarat High Court rejected the Petition by an Order dated 2.11.2007. Aggrieved by the Order of the Gujarat High Court, the Petitioners through SLP 1088/2008 approached the Hon‘ble Supreme Court for inter alia, registration of an offence and transfer of investigation to an Independent agency. As mentioned in Para 4 above through an Order dated 27.4.2009, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court directed that: ‘Having heard learned Counsel for the parties we direct that complaint dated 08.06.2006 which the petitioners herein claim to have sent to the D G P of Gujarat shall be examined by the Special Investigation Team (in short ‘SlT') constituted pursuant to the orders of this Court. The SIT shall look into the matter and take steps as required in law and give its report to this Court within three months."

11.The Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India, in its order dated 15-5-2009 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 109/2003, reconstituted the SIT by inducting two new Members, namely, Mr. Paramvir Singh, Ex-DGP/Special Director, CBI and Mr. A.K. Malhotra, former DIG, CBI and by relieving Mr. C.B. Satpathy, Ex-DGP, as per his request. The Govt. of Gujarat issued a Notification regarding the reconstituted SIT on 27-05-2009. It is recalled that the SIT was originally constituted vide order dated 26-03-2008 of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India whereby 9 Godhra related cases were ordered to be further investigated by the SIT, which was to consist of Dr. R.K. Raghavan, Ex-Director, CBI (Chairman), Mr. C.B. Satpathy, Ex-DGP, Ms. Geetha Johri, then IGP (now Addl. DGP (Convener), Mr. Shivanand Jha, then IGP (now Addl. DGP) and Mr. Ashish Bhatia, IGP. In their order dated 01-05-2009 in Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 109 of 2003, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had directed that the SIT would continue to function and the Court entrusted to the SIT a larger role in the supervision of trials/prosecutions, witness protection, etc. and to carry out any investigations that were yet to be completed or any further investigation that may arise in the course of the trials.

12.The widespread violence that engulfed Gujarat spreading to 19 of the state‘s 25 districts – 14 very seriously - post the tragic burning to death of 59 persons in the S-6 Coach of the Sabarmati Express is perhaps the worst ever record of reprisal communal violence. Since 2002 when the National Human Rights Commission filed its Interim and Final reports and 2003 and 2004 when the Hon‘ble Supreme Court first pulled up the state government for absence to ‘observe its Raj Dharma’ and accused it of criminal negligence

‘The Neros in Gujarat fiddled as Gujarat burned’ (Zahira Habibullah Shaikh v/s State of Gujarat, April 12 2004 Supreme Court) serious allegations of top level criminal conspiracy in masterminding the violence have been made against the chief functionaries of the government. On 8.6.2006 a Complaint was sought to be filed (Mrs Zakia Ehsan Jafri) and this complaint that is the core of this Protest Petition lays down the basis for the Criminal Conspiracy alleged. The NHRC concluded in its Report dated 31.5. 2002 that ‘there was a comprehensive failure of the State to protect the Constitutional rights of the people of Gujarat’. The NHRC in its order dated 31st May,2002 has also noted that its special representative had ‘ observed in a Report to the Commission dated 24th April 2002 that ‘ almost 90% of those arrested even in heinous offences like murder, arson, etc have managed to get bailed out as soon as they were arrested.’ Reports have also appeared in the media that those who have been released on bail were given warm public welcomes by some political leaders. This is in sharp contrast to the assertion made by the State Government in its Report of 12th April 2002 that ‘bail applications of all accused persons are being ‘strongly defended and rejected.’

Incidents specified in Complaint± pp. 138 to 140, (para 13)

Incidents widespread in 19 of the State‘s districts (coloured maps)

Naroda Patia case: Naroda P.S. Cr.No.I 100/02: 96 Killed, including women and children. Naroda Patiya (where 96 men women & children were massacred and a number of women were raped, killed and burnt.

P. I. Mysorewalla & the SRPF Men present provided no assistance to the victims and instead taunted them & forced them towards the rioting mob & death.

Gulberg Society case: Meghaninagar P.S. Cr.No.I 67/2002: His death not even condoled in a reference in the House (State Assembly). Totally 69 persons killed. From the 28th morning rampaging mobs of those associated with the Bajrang Dal, VHP, BJP attacked Muslim localities, houses and business establishments. Muslim men were killed & beaten and women were raped & killed. Gory murders, rapes and molestations took place at Gulberg Society Chamanpura, Meghaninagar (where 69 persons including Ex MP Jafri were killed & 10 – 12 women were raped in a mob attack which lasted for 7 hours - till 4.30 p.m. Jafri had made numerous calls for help to the Commissioner Mr. PC Pande, to the Home Minister & the Chief Minister. At about 2.30 Jafri was stripped, paraded naked & cut into pieces. Police stood by and did not even try to stop the rioters.

The Chief Minister was also dismissive of Mr Jafri‘s calls for help – and in fact later attributed the violence to firing by Mr Jafri. Minimal Police intervention took place only after 4.30 p.m.

Post March 1 2002 : Panchmahal Dailol where a number of Muslims attempting to flee were killed & women raped.

Mehsana where 14 Muslims were killed in Visnagar & 33 electrocuted in Sardarpur, Sardarpura Village, Mehsana District, Visnagar P.S. Cr.No.I 46/2002: 33 persons killed.

Best Bakery case, Vadodara: 14 persons burnt alive – accused acquitted – many convicted after the re-trial and transfer to Mumbai (2006).

Kidiyad case, Sabarkantha District: 60–65 persons burnt alive.

Odh Village, Anand District: 27 persons burnt alive on March 1. Complainants said only 4 deaths confirmed and bodies of other victims disposed of at unknown location. Two FIRs

Cr.No.23/2002 & Cr.No.27/2002 lodged. JMFC, Umreth rejected remand application. During pendency of remand application, 18 accused released on interim bail for 8 days to celebrate Shivrathri by Order of Court.

Dahod where men were killed & women raped.

Banaskantha where brutal killings took place.

Kheda where massacred were allowed to occur.

Patan, where two boys were shot dead and the FIR names the BJP MLA of Radhanpur and the chief of the BJP‘s Radhanpur Unit & other VHP & BD members.

Vadodara (where 14 people were burnt alive at the Best Bakery).

Vadodara Rural, Bharuch, Kheda, Bhavnagar, Rajkot and many other places.

Police Firing in Ahmedabad. The Police were either absent and/or inactive, or actually supported the rioters by shooting any Muslim offering any resistance. Significantly on Feb 28th in Ahmedabad of the 40 persons shot dead 36 were Muslims – although it was the Muslim community which was being targeted by huge well armed mobs. Repeated calls to the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad & even the Chief Minster resulted in no assistance or response. The murders, mayhem, rape & molestations took place openly and over a number of hours. Details of these heinous crimes have been recorded in the Report of the Citizens Tribunal. The Concerned Citizens Tribunal report has been signed by all members of the panel included Justices (retd) VR Krishna Iyer, PB Sawant and Hosbet Suresh. Additional DG SIB recorded in his Secret Report of 24th April 2002 that as on 23rd April 2002, 636 Muslims were killed in the riots (of these 91 were killed in police firing) as against 181 Hindus killed ( of which 76 were killed in police firing. Nearly 329 Muslims had sustained injuries in arson as against 74 Hindus. The loss of property of Muslims is accounted to be approximately Rs. 600 crores as against Rs. 40 crores of loss of property of Hindus.’

By August 2002 the Government itself had recorded those 185 cases of attacks on women of which 100 were in Ahmedabad city; that there had been 57 attacks on children of which 33 were in Ahmedabad and that 225 women and 65 children killed. The Government had also recorded 11 cases of rape of women: 3 cases from Dahod, 1 from Anand, 4 in the Panchmahals & 3 in Ahmedabad. In fact the rape / molestation of women were far more pervasive. Many of the victims were killed & burnt beyond recognition. Others were too terrified to record complaints.

Then Additional DG Sreekumar also subsequently reported to the Additional Secretary Law and Order and the Chief Election Commission (CEC) in August 2002 that communal incidents had taken place in 993 villages and 151 towns covering 284 police stations out of a total of 464 and were spread over 153 assembly constituencies out of a total of 182. By Aug 2002 (as recorded in the Report of the Women‘s Parliamentary Committee) as many as 132,532 persons had been displaced / forced to leave their houses & were living in 121 riot relief camps of which 58 were in Ahmedabad city.

By 1 st June 2002 (as recorded in the Report of the Women‘s Parliamentary Committee) there had been 4954 cases (2023 urban and 2931 rural) of residential houses having been completely destroyed. There were a further 18,924 cases of partially damaged houses (11,199 urban & 7095 rural) - i.e. more than 23,000 houses had been destroyed or damaged by the rioters. Thereafter a further 5000 urban houses and a 1000 rural houses were destroyed or damaged.

A.Failure to Take Steps Statutorily Required under Law to Prevent the Outbreak and Spread of Violence

Failure to Declare Curfew on Time Failure to Arrest Persons from List of Communal ‘Goondas’ Available with Every Police Station.

Failure to Record Evidence as Per Law.

Failure to Register Crimes with Names of All Accused. Police officials failed to properly register FIRs.

The names of VHP, Bajrang Dal, BJP members & their associates who had been involved in the heinous attacks were not recorded in the Firs. No steps were taken to arrest most of them. Even the few arrested were bailed out very soon without any opposition from the Prosecutors (quite a few of whom were supporters of the VHP/ BD/ BJP) and the police.

The NHRC in its order dated 31 st May 2002 records that it‘s Special Representative had reported on 24th April 2002 that ‘ in respect of most of the sensational cases, the FIRs registered on behalf of the State by the Police Officers concerned, the accused persons were shown as ‘unknown’. His report adds that this is the general pattern seen all over the State. Even when complaints of aggrieved parties have been recorded, it has been alleged that the names of the offenders are not included. In almost all cases, copies of the FIR which the complainant is entitled to has not been given’. There has been widespread public outrage, in particular, in respect of atrocities against women, including acts of rape, in respect of which FIRs were neither promptly nor accurately recorded and the victims harassed and intimidated.’

B.Failure to Take Statutorily required Steps to Control Mob Violence

Declaration of Curfew.

Orders for the Army to Take over from Police on Time.

Preventive Arrests.

Firing etc.

(Police Act, Circulars with Rules on Requirements during Communal Violence, CrPC etc)

13.In some of the criminal cases which reached trial the prosecutor/ prosecution and the police effectively ensured the acquittal of the accused. In the Best Bakery case where a large mob killed 14 persons in Vadodara on 1st March 2002, all the accused were acquitted. The NHRC, the 1st Petitioner, Survivors and NGOs filed Petitions to the Supreme Court.

14.By a judgement & order the Supreme Court [dated 12-04-2004] allowed the Petitions, set aside the acquittal, directed a retrial by a Court under the jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court and also directed the appointment of another public prosecutor after taking into account the suggestions of the victims/ affected persons. The Court observed that it was apparent from what had transpired that the investigation had been done in a manner with the object of helping the accused persons. The Court held ‘The investigation appears to be perfunctory and anything but impartial without any definite object of finding the truth and bringing to book those responsible for the crime. The public prosecutor appears to have acted more as a defence counsel than one whose duty was to present the truth before the Court. The Court in turn appeared to be a silent spectator, mute to the manipulations and preferred to be indifferent to sacrilege being committed to justice. The role of the State Government also leaves much to be desired. .. .. .’ The Court observed: ‘Those who are responsible for protecting life and properties and ensuring that investigation is fair and proper seem to have shown no real anxiety. Large number of people had lost their lives. Whether the accused persons were really assailants or not could have been established by a fair and impartial investigation. The modern day "Neros" were looking elsewhere when Best Bakery and innocent children and helpless women were burning, and were probably deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be saved or protected. Law and Justice become flies in the hands of these "wanton boys". When fences start to swallow the crops, no scope will be left for survival of law and order or truth and justice. Public order as well as public interest become martyrs and monuments. ‘Following the re-trial conviction resulted in Maharashtra (February 24, 2006).

15.Another shameful case of gang rape was transferred out of the state of Gujarat to Mumbai i.e. the Bilkees Rasool case. Significantly the CBI which was entrusted with the investigation has found top police officials and government doctors responsible for destruction of evidence.

16.Survivors and citizen‘s groups approached the Supreme Court for transfer of investigation. Eight other major criminal trials that were tried, some are still ongoing) after further investigation was ordered and in many due to the monitoring by the Supreme Court and witness protection provided large number of convictions have taken place, are being currently monitored by the Hon‘ble Apex Court and investigations and further investigations were ordered.

17.The Hon‘ble Supreme Court had, in 2004, also ordered that a special cell of 7 Range Inspector General‘s should be set up to look into the FIRs and other materials of 2000 cases in which A summary Reports had been filed resulting in closure of the cases, to decide whether further investigation was required and to submit quarterly reports regarding the same to the Court.

18.A-1 Mr Narendra Modi, chief minister of the State at the time of commission of the alleged offences and still so, with continued subversion and denial of justice until today is arraigned as Accused No.1 in the Complaint. The complaint contains specific allegations complicity and involvement of Accused No.1 in the commission of the alleged offences. See the complaint paragraph 43, paras 45 to 52, paras 54 & 55, paras 65 & 66, para 67(5), para 78, para 83, para 88. Following the Investigations even more Crimes are Made out under the IPC –Section 34, 107 read with Section 120B, Sections 35, 36, 27 and 38 as also Section 166, 176, 218 and 217 of the IPC.

19.Likewise, Accused Nos.2 to 12 are persons involved in the conspiracy who were Ministers at the material time (one is since deceased) Among the remaining accused are cabinet ministers, some MLAs the high ranking bureaucrats and police officers who were part of the conspiracy that led to the perpetration of the various offences alleged. The allegations made against them by the complainant/petitioners cast a cloud on their integrity and on their allegiance and oath to the Constitution and to the protection of Constitutional values and human rights.

20.Criminal Intent and Conspiracy Can Be Determined by the Prejudicial Acts of Commission and Omission by theMan at the Helm (Speeches, Disparate Amounts of Relief Granted to Godhra and Post Godhra Victims), Failure to Visit the Minority Refugees in Relief Camps, Inflammatory Speeches to Doordarshan, Zee TV, Other Channels and even at Becharaji in September 2002. Amicus Curiae Shri Raju Ramachandran has recommended Prosecution of the Chief Minister under Sections 166 and 153A and B of the Indian Penal Code Prosecution of Joint Commissioner of Police MK Tandon and PB Gondia has also been recommended under Sections 304rA of the IPC.

21.As the allegations in the complaint dated 08-06-2006 of Mrs. Zakia Nasim Jafri in the matter relating to SLP (Crl.) No. 1088 of 2008 in which the Citizens for Justice and Peace through its Secretary, Teesta Setalvad were co-petitioners, were of an extremely sensitive nature and were against the present Chief Minister of Gujarat, several Ministers and top IPS and IAS officers etc., it was decided that the matter would be dealt with in a highly confidential manner by Mr. A.K. Malhotra, former DIG, CBI and Member, SIT, Mr. Paramvir Singh, former Special Director, CBI and Member, SIT and Dr. R.K. Raghavan, Chairman, SIT. However, Mr. Paramvir Singh, Member, SIT resigned in the last week of February, 2010.

22.Though this inquiry had the mandate of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India, several difficulties/constraints were experienced in the enquiry, some of which are given below. (SIT Reports dated 12.5.2010 and 8.2.2012). Yet the SIT does not interrogate the following lapses or the persons responsible for them.

(i)The police wireless messages for the year 2002 were not made available by the Govt. of Gujarat as the same had been reportedly destroyed. (In late March 2013, Accused Nos-29 then Commissioner of Police Mr. PC Pande suddenly produced CDs with 3,500 pages of scanned documents containing PCR messages related to Ahmedabad).

(ii)No record/documentation/minutes of the crucial law & order meetings held by Govt. during the riots had been kept.

(iii)Some of the public servants, who had retired long back, claimed loss of memory as they did not want to get involved in any controversy.

(iv)The other category of public servants, who have since 2002 retired and given good post-retirement assignments, felt obliged to the State government and the present Chief Minister and therefore their testimony lacks credibility.

(v)The serving public servants, who have been empanelled for the higher posts, did not want to come into conflict with the politicians in power and incur their wrath which affected their frank response.

(vi)Those public servants considered upright by the complainants and cited as a witness in their support, confirmed various controversial incidents/events, yet they did not attribute the same to their transfers/postings to insignificant posts.

23.In the complaint dated 8.6.2006, submitted to the Director General of Police, Gujarat, the Complainant has furnished explicitly further evidence, oral and documentary, regarding the nature and extent of the involvement of the accused named in her complaint. The said further evidence comprises the following:

i)Parole and affidavit evidence as well as documentary evidence led before the Nanavati Shah Commission.

ii)Specific allegations against individuals accused.

iii)Specifics of punitive transfers and disciplinary proceedings against top ranking police officers who were ‘non co-operative’.

iv)Specifics of favours done to collaborating IAS and IPS officers.

v)Subjugation of the IPS officers‘ association.

vi)Collaboration and complicit role of IAS officers functioning as Collectors/District Magistrates.

24.During the course and hearing of SLP 1088/2008 and thereafter, Complainant Mrs. Zakia Ahsan Jafri, the Present Petitioner and Co-Petitioners in SLP 1088/2008, Ms Teesta Setalvad, Secretary Citizens for Justice & Peace have consistently provided more and more information and evidence as and when these have been made available or come to their notice. A compilation of these communications to the Investigating Agency are filed with this Protest petition in a separate compilation.

25.It is well settled that even in cases where a first complaint is registered and investigation initiated, it is possible to file a further complaint by the same complainant based on the material gathered during the course of investigation. Even with regard to a complaint, if it is found on further investigation that there was a larger conspiracy than the one referred to in the previous complaint, then a further investigation under the Code culminating in another complaint is permissible. A fortiori, therefore, this principle applies also to a subsequent complaint by a different complainant. Ram Lal Narang v. State (Delhi Admn.): (1979) 2 SCC 322 at 330 to 338, paras 11 to 22. (2 Judges), affirmed in Upkar Singh v. Ved Prakash: (2004) 13 SCC 292 at 297-299 paras 16 to 23 (3 Judges).

26.The complainant -- Petitioner No.1 -- is a victim of the offences alleged against the persons accused, an eyewitness to the gruesome murder of her husband and a personally and directly aggrieved citizen of India.

27.To recap in brief the serious allegations contained in the Complaint dated 8.6.2006 (Annexure III, File I, SIT Papers):

(i)Mr. Narendra Modi, Chief Minister of the State at the time of commission of the alleged offences and still so, is arraigned as Accused No.1 in the Complaint. The complaint contains specific allegations of masterminding a criminal conspiracy and executing it misusing his position, complicity and involvement of Accused No.1 in the commission of the alleged offences. See the complaint paragraph 43, Paras 45 to 52, Paras 54 & 55 at pp. 174 to 178, Paras 65 & 66, Para 67(5), Para 78, Para 83, Para 88. Likewise, Accused Nos.2 to 12 are persons involved in the conspiracy who were Ministers at the material time or are so now. Among the remaining accused are the high ranking bureaucrats and police officers who were part of the conspiracy that led to the perpetration of the various offences alleged. The allegations made against them by the complainant/ petitioner cast a cloud on their integrity and on their allegiance and oath to the Constitution and to the protection of Constitutional values and human rights.

(ii)(Para 8 of the Complaint) -- Officers have been directly influenced to depose with falsified facts and thereby commit the criminal act of perjury.

(iii)(Para 10 of the Complaint) -- Top level meetings were held between the Accused No.1 chief minister, some of his cabinet colleagues and top level bureaucrats at which illegal instructions were issued where policemen and bureaucrats were instructed to in fact perform the illegal acts and omissions that constitute the alleged offences. Evidence of this was documented by a Concerned Citizens Tribunal (CCT) constituted and headed by former Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court before which a former Minister testified about the details. He was the late Mr. Haren Pandya. Illegal attempts to influence the police by senior cabinet colleagues of the Chief Minister were reported by the press.

(iv)(Para 12 of the Complaint) -- Statement made by a former cabinet minister of the government of Gujarat that a high level meeting was convened by the chief minister at which the then chief secretary and the then Home Secretary and senior policemen were summoned and to whom clear instructions were given ‘not to deal with the Hindu rioting mobs’.

(v)(Paras 15-56 of the Complaint) -- Allegations against accused based on affidavits filed before the Nanavati Shah Commission.

(vi)(Para 16 of the Complaint) -- Rahul Sharma stated in his cross examination before the Nanavati Commission that the whole attack on the Madrassa at Bhavnagar appeared to be an organized one. Gordhan Zadaphia was complaining about more number of deaths of Hindus compared to Muslims as a result of police firing in Bhavnagar. Mr. Sharma also states in his affidavit before the Commission annexed to the Complaint that then DGP Chakravarti A-25 told him on 1.3.2002 (affidavit dated 2.7.2002) when he desperately asked for additional forces to contain the deliberately provoked and perpetrated violence in Bhavnagar that ‘the bureaucracy had been neutralized.’

(vii) (Para 21 of the Complaint) -- Mr. Khurshid Mysorewala stated in his affidavit that he was not able to stop the heinous crime of murders at Naroda Patiya. (The affidavit filed by the SIT is dated August 2002 ; SIT appears to have consciously not filed his additional affidavit dated 12.1.2004 which the Complainant has applied for and will be filed in a separate compilation).

(viii) (Para 22 of the Complaint) -- Mr. M. T. Rana stated in his affidavit that persons of VHP were seen in the mob at Naroda Patiya. In fact the police failed to save the lives of the people of Naroda Patiya.

(ix)(Para 24 of the Complaint) – Mr. Shivanand Jha in his cross examination before the Nanavati Commission admits that he did not take any special measures to maintain peace on the day of the Bandh, i.e., 28.2.2002; that when he saw a huge and aggressive mob on 28.2.2002 and dispersed it he did not arrest anyone from the RSS-VHP-BJP led mob.

(x)(Para 25 of the Complaint) – Mr. M. K. Tandon stated in his cross-examination that when the incidents of Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society, Meghaninagar occurred, neither he nor the Police Commissioner were present. When the attack on Gulberg Society took place, two Dy.S.P.s, one PI and one CISF police officer were present but strict measures were not taken to disperse the mob.

(xi)(Para 28) -- Mr. Chakravarti, who was the DGP at that time, had not given any special instructions for the preservation of law and order, no strict instructions on how mobs should be dealt with, despite evidence coming in from field offices of the state intelligence bureau that aggressive communal mobilisation had begun post Godhra incident on 27.2.2002 from 11 a.m.–12 noon onwards.

(xii) (Para 38) -- Mr. R. B. Sreekumar stated in para-4 of his affidavit that a few senior police officers approached him and requested him to avoid any deposition before the Commission, to prevent damaging the political interest of the Govt. This amounts to intimidation, preventing and obstructing a public servant from performing his lawful duty and in fact using power and influence of A-1 to ask a public servant under him to commit perjury.

(xiii) (Paras 38,39) -- Mr. Sreekumar stated in his affidavit that he was intimidated and warned by Mr. Murmu and Mr. Arvind Pandya, government pleader to tell lies on oath and to avoid telling the whole truth.

(xiv) (Para 46) -- In para 38 of Mr. Sreekumar‘s affidavit -- "all Govt. officers appearing as witness were tutored by Mr. Murmu, the reluctance of most of the govt. officials viz. Mr. K. Chakravarti, the then DGP, Mr. P. C. Pande, the then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and many other senior officials to tell truth to the Commission may kindly be appreciated in the light of guidance to them by Mr. Murmu.’ (xv)(Para170) -- The Chief Minister had said in the meeting on the night of 27.2.2002 that ‘in communal riots police takes action against Hindus and Muslims on one-to-one basis. This will not to do now (para 84 of Mr. Sreekumar) allow Hindus to give vent to their anger.’

(xv) (Para 59) -- Ahmedabad's Commissioner of Police, Mr. P. C. Pande commented on News Hour (Star News) (1.3.2002) that ‘These people also, they somehow get carried away by the overall general sentiment. That's the whole trouble. The police is equally influenced by the overall general sentiments.’

(xvi) (Para 65) -- The partisan and diabolical role of the Chief Minister and members of the political party that he represents and ideologically affiliated organizations like Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Bajrang Dal (BD) etc.

(xvii) (Para 67) -- Cases of punitive transfers and disciplinary proceedings against top ranking police officers who were ‘non co-operative’.

(xviii) (Para 68) -- Rewards for collaborating with the illegal plans of the CM/BJP during 2002 riots and afterwards.

(xix) (Para 69) Subjugation of IPS Association.

(xx)(Para 70) -- Collaboration by IAS officers & Collectors.

(xxi) (Para 71) -- The govt. officers appearing as witnesses to the commission were tutored by Mr. GC Murmu and Mr. Arvind Pandya.

(xxii) (Paras 71 to 83) -- The State Government vis-à-vis the Nanavati Commission.

(xxiii) (Para 83) -- Sreekumar's third affidavit to Nanavati Commission giving details of illegal instructions given by officers viz. Chief Minister, Chief Secretary, Mr. Chakravarti,

(xxiv) (Paras 84-85) -- Slack review of post-riot cases ordered by Supreme Court in August 2004.

(xxv) (Para 88) -- Allegations against all accused named in the complaint’

PLAINT dated 8.6.2006: Offences alleged

Section 34 r/w 120 B Common Intent and Criminal Conspiracy

•Section 107 Abetment

Section 35, 36, 37 and 38 on Intent and Crimes

Section 302 r/w Sec. 120-B - Murder/Criminal conspiracy. Section 193 – Punishment for false evidence r/w

Section 114 – Abettor present when offence is committed, and r/w Section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

Sections 167, 168,175, 176, 177 (Furnishing False Information ),

217, 218,219, 220, 221, 222, (Chapter XI I— Offences Committed by Public Servants)

Punishment for false evidence (Section 193, IPC r/w Section 6 of the

•Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952).

•Section 166 (Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person)

•Giving false information about an offence committed (Section 203, IPC).

•Sections 338, 503,

•506, 507 (Criminal Intimidation)

•Section 186 – Obstructing public servant in discharge of public functions.

•Section 187 – Omission to assist public servant when bound by law to give assistance.

•Section 199 (False Statement made in Evidence)

•Section 153A, B,C, Section 295, 298 and 505 – Promoting disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial,language or regional groups or castes or communities – disturbing the public tranquillity.

•Section 3, Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act 1984( Mischief causing damage to public property )

•Additional Sections that become applicable after scrutiny of the Voluminous Evidence.

29.Legal Background: The complaint dated 08.06.2006 is clearly ‘information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence’ within the meaning and intent of Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C. The D.G.P., Gujarat therefore was statutorily obliged to direct the Officers in-charge of the concerned Police Stations to register the respective cases as laid in the said complaint and then to proceed

with the investigation. See: Parkash Singh Badal v. State of Punjab: (2007) 1 SCC 1 at 39-41, paras 63 to 68.

A. As the said information relates to cognizable offences under Section 157(1) Cr.P.C. such officers are required to forthwith send a report to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a Police report and to proceed to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender. Section 156(1) which is to be read in conjunction with Section 157(1) requires that the said Officers may, even without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of the Police station concerned would have power to enquire into or try under the provisions of chapter XI I I of the Code. See: Parkash Singh Badal, supra, pp.41 to 42, paras 70-71.

B. The ultimate test is whether the allegations in the complaint/ information have any substance. An investigation on such information cannot be shut out at the threshold or on a plea of mala fides. See: Parkash Singh Badal, supra, p.43, para 74.

C. Petitioner No. 1‘s said complaint/information and the allegations therein against the accused arrayed in the said complaint/information, as to their complicity and conspiracy in the commission of the alleged offences, are not the mere ipse dixit of the complainant/the petitioners. On the contrary, they are based upon and buttressed by the following record, inter alia:-

(a) judicial record and judicial pronouncement of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India: See: Zahira Habibullah Sheikh v. State of Gujarat: (2004) 4 SCC 158.

(b) Investigational records of a statutorily constituted Commission of Inquiry, viz., The Nanavati Shah Commission set up under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952.

(c) The records/report of the National Human Rights Commission, constituted under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.

(d) The records and report of the ‘Concerned Citizens Tribunal – Gujarat, 2002’ constituted of two retired Judges of the Supreme Court; a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, a Senior Advocate, a retired IPS officer and former DGP, two reputed academicians and an equally reputed social activist.

(e) The voluminous records of Investigation collected following the directions of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court on 27.4.2009. These were obtained by the Complainant with great difficulty and the lapse of a year, given the resistance of the SIT to part with them despite the clear Order of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court on 12.9.201.

(f) Last, but not the least, the Complainant‘s own experience as a victim in the Gulberg Society carnage in which her husband was killed.

(g) Despite all this ‘information relating to the commission of several cognizance offences’, which informed and permeated the Petitioner No. 1‘s complaint/information, the D.G.P., Gujarat and the complicit State machinery refrained from registering the FIR and proceeding to investigate the case and the Complainant had to go to onerous and painful lengths to reach the present stage.

30.In the Best Bakery case, the investigation of which forms a part of the subject matter of the present complaint/petition, the Supreme Court has explicitly faulted and indicted the various State organs/agencies and officials concerned, who are also arraigned as accused in the present complaint, for their acts of commission and omission in purported discharge of their constitutional and statutory obligations:See: Zahira Habibullah Sheikh (supra): (2004) 4 SCC 158 at pp. 197-201, paras 68-74.

i. In the same judgment, the Supreme Court has also enunciated the following fundamental legal principles, inter alia.

ii. ‘Discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying existence of courts of justice’;

iii. ‘In a criminal case the fate of the proceedings cannot always be left entirely in the hands of the parties, crimes being public wrongs in breach and violation of public rights and duties, which affect the whole community as a community and are harmful to the society in general. The concept of fair trial entails familiar triangulation of interests of the accused, the victim and the society and it is the community that acts through the State and prosecuting agencies. Interests of society are not to be treated completely with disdain and as persona non grata. Courts have always been considered to have an overriding duty to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice – often referred to as the duty to vindicate and uphold the ‘majesty of the law‘‘.

iv. ‘The principles of rule of law and due process are closely linked with human rights protection. Such rights can be protected effectively when a citizen has recourse to courts of law... It will not be correct to say that it is only the accused who must be fairly dealt with. That would be turning a Nelson‘s eye to the needs of the society at large and the victims or their family members and relatives. Each one has an inbuilt right to be dealt with fairly in a criminal trial. Denial of a fair trial is as much injustice to the accused as is to the victim and society. Fair trial obviously would mean a trial before an impartial judge, a fair prosecutor and atmosphere of judicial calm...’

v. The court ‘has a greater duty and responsibility i.e. to render justice, in a case where the role of the prosecuting agency itself is put in issue and is said to be hand in glove with the accused, parading a mock fight and making a mockery of the criminal justice administration itself... If deficiency in investigation or prosecution is visible or can be perceived by lifting the veil trying to hide the realities or covering the obvious deficiencies, courts have to deal with the same with an iron hand appropriately within the framework of law. It is as much the duty of the prosecutor as of the court to ensure that full and material facts are brought on record so that there might not be miscarriage of justice. (See Shakila Abdul Gafar Khan v. Vasant Raghunath Dhoble: (2003) 7 SCC 749)’.

See: Zahira Habibullah Sheikh supra, pp. 182 to 184, paras 30 to 36, page 192, paras 55&56.

vi. Despite the above declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution with specific reference to the Respondents 1 & 2, in the present Spl. Crl. A. and to the accused and their ilk arraigned in Petitioner No.1‘s complaint/information dated 08.06.2006, in aid of which declaration and law the said Respondents and the said accused were required to act under Article 144 of the Constitution of India, they have brazenly and flagrantly flouted and disobeyed the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and its directives.

vii. The default and failure of the government of Gujarat under Accused No 1 to register the FIR despite the aforesaid information made by the Complainant/ Petitioner No.1, prima facie establishes the complicity of the State Agencies in the commission of the offences alleged and/or their endeavour to shield and protect the offenders, including themselves.

viii. Even today the power and intimidation used by A-1 against the Complainant and those assisting her, including Citizens for Justice and Peace, is tremendous. Further, the Complainant urges that: ‘The accused named in the FIR are very head strong persons and considering their clout in the administration it would be almost impossible for the State‘s police to investigate the offence freely and fairly. Since the local police personnel are prima facie complicit and allegedly involved in the commission of the heinous offences, the larger requirements of justice demand that the investigation be entrusted to an independent agency like the CBI so that all concerned including the Petitioner No.1 and her family may feel assured that an independent agency is looking into the matter and that would lend the final outcome of the investigation credibility. See: R.S. Sodhi v. State of U.P.: (1994) Supp.1 SCC 143 (W.P. (Crl.) filed under Article 32 of the Constitution).

ix. At bottom, considering the complicity and connivance of the political administrative and police organs of the Government of Gujarat in the perpetration of the alleged offences and their equally masterly inactivity in

registering proper FIRs and investigating the cases of the said offences, the question is: Quis custodiet ipsos Custodes? (Who will guard the guardians themselves?) See: Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel: (1985) 3 SCC 398 (CB) at 524, para 176 (per Madon, J. per majority).

31.The Petitioner submits that the Closure Report needs to be rejected and the Protest Petition allowed on the following grounds, which are in addition to the reasons and grounds set out elsewhere in this Petition:

a) The documents and annexures as submitted by the SIT along with the closure report make out a clear case for taking cognizance against all the accused;

b) Without prejudice to the above, the SIT while investigating, has not examined all the necessary witnesses or called for all the necessary documents as set out in the Petition. In view of this the Investigation is defective and incomplete. Further investigation therefore needs to be ordered to arrive at the whole truth;

c) Without prejudice to the above, the SIT‘s analysis of the statements of witnesses and other documents is hopelessly biased, inaccurate, and suffers from total non application of mind.

d) SIT has taken great pains to disbelieve and discredit any witnesses who have spoken against the Accused No.1 or for that matter against any accused. Besides, the witnesses who were favouring Accused were not confroned with relevant documents and statements.

e) SIT was required to ascertain whether there is any substance to proceed against the accused persons and once it comes to the conclusion that such substance exists it should have proceeded to file a Charge Sheet. Such substance exists against all the accused. There are witnesses and documents to cast reasonable doubt against the conduct of all the accused and pointing towards their culpability. For instance, the statements of senior officers like RB Sreekumar, Rahul Sharma, Sanjiv Bhatt as well as the Tehelka tapes (validated by the Sessions Court) are enough to file a charge sheet/ take cognizance. Instead of doing this, the SIT has acted like a super court dissecting every bit of evidence, turning and twisting it, ignoring relevant material and accepting uncorroborated irrelevant material to somehow

whitewash this entire exercise. Worse the SIT has deliberately and manifestly ignored the huge voluminous evidence that is available on record. SIT has acted beyond its jurisdiction as an Investigating Agency. In fact this Hon‘ble Court ought to disregard the SIT Report altogether and look at the gathered evidence independently to arrive at the conclusion that cognizance ought to be taken.

f) Apart from anything it needs to be verified whether the Closure Report is based on a collective application of mind by SIT as a whole or not. Large number of documents/ statements are in Gujarati. Admittedly they have not been translated. Majority of the SIT members cannot read Gujarati. In order to decide the weight to be attributed to each of the statements/ document it was necessary that the SIT, as a collective applied its mind to these documents. In the absence of any translations it is not clear as to how the SIT has come to the conclusions it has arrived at.

g) The Petitioner submits that against each of the accused there is sufficient material to take cognizance of offences of conspiracy and abetment, subversion of public justice, destruction and suppression of evidence, of rioting, theft, robbery, murder, attempt to commit murder, etc. Besides, against many of the accused Charge Sheets should have also been filed for hate speech.

h) SIT should have considered that once a public servant is held to be negligent in performing his duties, and if any criminal offence has taken place, he ought to be automatically charged with abetment. This is so because the definition of abetment includes acts as well as omissions. SIT has come to the conclusion that Accused Nos - 33 then Joint Commissioner of Police MK Tandon and then DCP Zone IV PB Gondia, were negligent in their duties. Having arrived at this conclusion, SIT had no option but to charge them with the criminal offence of abetment at least as the negligence did result in offences being committed or not being prevented.

i) SIT should have held that the statements and the documents which have been gathered make out a clear case of conspiracy against all including Accused No. 1.

j) The Petitioner submits that as has been held by various courts a conspiracy is usually hatched in secrecy and very rarely there is direct evidence of this. The offence can only be proved largely from inference drawn from acts or illegal omissions committed by the conspirators. Even at the time of trial, there need not be proof of express agreement. The agreement can be proved by necessary implication. Besides, it is not necessary that all the conspirators participate in all the offences resulting from the conspiracy though they would be liable for each one of them.

k) In the present case direct evidence exists in terms of Sanjiv Bhatt ‘ s testimony about at least one part of the conspiracy being hatched at the meeting held on 27.2.2002. Once this evidence is available it is for the trial court to decide what weight to attribute to it. It is not for the Investigating Agency to dissect this evidence with a view to discredit the same.

l) In any event, without prejudice to whether Mr. Modi made the statement attributed to him in the meeting on 27.2.2002 the fact that the meeting took place is not disputed. One has to therefore to look at the subsequent and prior events to decide as to what could have transpired at this meeting. It is obvious that as the event reflect a conspiracy was hatched at this meeting to allow the people to vent their anger (justified or otherwise, instigated or otherwise, organized or otherwise) and not to intervene when offences are committed. In addition the forces were encouraged to abet this ire and to assist the people in venting it and at times to participate in it. Anyone who tried to maintain law and order was penalized. The conspiracy was very clear and played out over the next few days.

m) The Petitioner further submits that the offences of conspiracy and abetment along with the responsibilities of public servants have, independently or together introduced the concept of command responsibility under our criminal law. Therefore any public servant shall be criminally responsible for crimes committed by forces or officers under his or her effective authority and control, as a result of his failure to exercise control (preventive or punitive) over these crimes. This would include the Chief Minister/ Home Minister, other Ministers, police and bureaucratic top brass. This is more so since in the present case they knew or owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes. It is further because the said public servants failed to take all necessary and reasonable steps to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authority for investigation or prosecution.

n) The Chief Minister/ Home Minister was directly in charge of law and order in the State. Under his aegis crimes were committed. No steps were taken to curb these crimes. Just to give an example, preventive arrests were essential once the Bandh call was made. These are required for prevent commission of offence. No such arrests were made making the Home Minister downwards all responsible for crimes having been committed for failure to carry out preventive arrests. Besides, if instructions were given to make preventive arrests and they were not carried out then failure to take steps against the officers for not having done preventive arrests itself will amount to failure to discharge duties as a public servant and abetment.

o) SIT has misdirected itself in looking at the allegations and events in a piecemeal manner rather that a holistic manner. What was needed to be done was to look at events prior to 27.2.2002, on 27.2.2002 and subsequent to 27.2.2002 to see if a common thread emerges. If this was done an obvious and apparent link between all these events and conduct of the accused comes out which would be sufficient to charge them with conspiracy and abetment, apart from other offences.

p) We further submit that offences under S.153 A and B have been made out against accused who were charged with the same in our complaint and the SIT ought to have filed Charge Sheets in respect of the same.

Facts of the Protest Petition

Narration 27.2.2002 7.55 ± 9 a.m.

32.The tragic train fire on the S-6 Coach of the Sabarmati Express took place at 7.55 a.m. and was over by 8.13 a.m. at Godhra on 27.2.2002. This information about the Godhra incident was conveyed by the district magistrate Godhra, Mrs. Jayanti Ravi to Mr. Ashok Narayan, ACS Home, at 9 am and at the same time chief minister Mr. Narendra Modi (A-1) and DGP Mr. K. Chakravarti (A-25) were also informed. Therefore, by about 9 a.m. of 27.2.2002 both Mr. Ashok Narayan (A-28) and Mr. K. Nityanandam (A-34), and Mr. Modi (A-1) had information about the said incident. In this information it has been conveyed that it was the provocative sloganeering and behavior of the karsevaks that had caused the mob to gather and start pelting stones at the train. Independently, through sources of the VHP other co-accused, Mr. Ashok Bhatt (A2), Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya (A-5) and Mr Jaideep Patel (A-21) were also informed of the incident.

33.The train arrived at Godhra 7.10 a.m. five hours late, stopped at the station, proceeded again at 7.20 a.m. after which it was stopped again a few minutes later about half a kilometer away from the station. Mr. Narendra Modi (A-1) was informed of the Godhra incident telephonically around 9 am (Malhotra‘s report dated 12.5.2010 filed before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court under Para Allegation IV, Page 12)) from the Godhra district administration. This communication (that appears to be only partial (plain white paper torn apart and placed in the SIT records at Sr Nos 1 File XLI Annex III ) and it details the sequence of events resulting in the burning of bogey No S-6 and killing of 59 persons.

34.The communication states that the train, the Sabarmati Express arrived five hours late on that day reaching Godhra around 7.10 a.m. and also records that when the train left Godhra station at 7.20 hours on 27.2.2002 the karsevaks who were returning from Ayodhya after karseva were shouting provocative slogans. This is contained in a note in the SIT investigation papers. (See Sr Nos 1 File XLI Annex III). This note also mentions that after hearing these provocative slogans, members of the Muslim community residing in the nearby areas gathered and started pelting stones on the bogey occupied by karsevaks. The train was stopped as per this communication, at a place nearly half a kilometer further on the rail track in the direction of Vadodara, Signal Falia area, and there the bogey caught/was set on fire.

35.The Mr P C Pande of ignition leading to the arson of S-6 bogey in Sabarmati Express, as per this first message received by the state admin at the state HQ from the Godhra district authorities, establishes that the shouting of slogans had provoked the Muslim community living around the area and in response they had started pelting stones. This was an instantaneous reaction by a crowd gathered after getting provoked by the slogans and other provocative behavior of the karsevaks. The DM & Collector Godhra, Mrs. Jayanti Ravi also states in her affidavit before the Nanavati Commission dated 7.6.2002 at Annexure III, File X, D-106, that immediately after she was informed by SP Godhra on 27.2.2002 regarding the incident on Sabarmati Express, she had informed the Addl. Chief Secretary (Home), Gujarat Government, Principal Secretary (Revenue) Gandhinagar and the Chief Minister‘s office about the same.

36.This first information that is received from the district administration is fully corroborated by another document at Serial Nos 11, File XL 1 Annexure —III, Copy of fax message from Adl. DG (Int.) to Addl. Chief Secretary, Home vide No.D-2/2/Com/Godhra incident/70/2002 dated 27.02.2002 regarding attack on Sabarmati Express Train at Godhra Railway Station and actions taken by police. This message independently indicates and establishes that the karsevaks were shouting slogans after which the Muslims living nearby the area congregated and pelted stones on the train after which Coach no.S-6 caught/was set on fire. This second document is based on information received by ADGP-Intelligence at Gandhinagar from their branch office at Godhra and sent by DCP Intelligence, Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt. (The SIT Index describes this as a Copy of a Fax Message from ADGP-Int to ACS Home. (Accused Nos 28 Ashok Narayan sent vide nos D-2-2/COM/Godhra Incident/ 70/2002 dated 27.2.2002). This report confirms the first report received by the State headquarter from the Godhra District Administration.

37. The Home Department whose political head is and was in 2002, Accused No 1 Mr. Modi and whose administrative head, is Accused No 34, then Home Secretary Mr. K. Nityanandam, would automatically also receive information from the SPs and DMs of all districts, by fax and personal phone calls. As per the law and procedure as laid down, and as detailed by Accused No 28, Mr. Ashok Narayan in his deposition to the Nanavati Commission annexed at Annexure III, File XV, D-151 in the SIT papers, there is a separate control room in the Home Department where the DGP (Accused No 25 Mr. K. Chakravarti) would forward all critical and important information received by it.

Between 9-10.30 a.m.27.2.2002.

38.At 10.30 a.m. a meeting had taken place at the residence of Accused No 1 at Gandhinagar. In the said meeting Gordhan Zadaphiya, (Accused No. 5), Ashok Narayan (Accused No. 28), K Chakravarti (Accused no 25) and PC Pande (Accused No. 29) and other Zadaphia of the chief minister‘s secretariat were present.

39.Before this official meeting following the Godhra incident could take place, however, Accused No. 1 had in the first instance, already called Mr Jaideep Patel (Accused No. 21) from the mobile of his PA (09825037439). There was another call made by Accused No. 1 to Mr Jaideep Patel on his mobile at Mobile No. 09825023887. Mr Jaideep Patel, who was at that time at Naroda, left that place for Godhra and reached Godhra around 1 p.m. The moment the Chief Minister‘s Office (CMO) and the Gujarat Home Department also headed by Accused No.1 received information of the Godhra incident at Gandhinagar, and this was obviously conveyed to Accused No. 1, he makes a telephone call using the mobile phone of his PA, AP Patel (09825037439) to his collaborator and chief executor of the conspiracy Accused No. 21 Mr Jaideep Patel (09825023887) first at 9:39:38 (77 seconds), then again at 9:41:39 (20 seconds). That is, within minutes of Accused No. 1 receiving official intimation of the Godhra tragedy, he (chief minister) gets in touch with none less than the Secretary of the Gujarat unit of the VHP, Mr Jaideep Patel.

[pic]

40.These phone calls in quick succession soon after he receives knowledge of the Godhra tragedy is significant and evidence of A-1 speaking and conferring with the VHP‘s front man, who in Naroda at the time of the call thereafter left for Godhra. There was, therefore, a direct contact between the Chief Minister‘s Office (CMO) and VHP even before Accused No. 1 Mr Modi met with his officials after receiving news of the Godhra incident, or attended the Vidhan Sabha, or left for Godhra clearly establishing that plans for the conspiracy for the orchestration of the post-Godhra violent reprisals was being carefully hatched. (See Annexure IV, File V in the SIT papers).

41.Only after first speaking to his co-conspirators did the chief minister (Accused No. 1) call a meeting at his residence at about 1030 hrs at which meeting he discussed the matter with Mr. Gordhan Zadaphia (Accused No 5), the then Minister of State (MOS) for Home, Ashok Narayan, the then ACS, Home (Accused No 28), K. Chakravarti, the then DGP (Accused No 25), P.C. Pande, the then CP, Ahmedabad City (Accused No 29) and other Zadaphia of the CM‘s secretariat. Mr. Ashok Narayan stated to the SIT that until then no news had been received about the exact number of casualties and the information was being received piecemeal.

42.On instructions of A-1, Ashok Bhatt (A-2) also leaves Ahmedabad and reaches Godhra around 1 p.m. (Statements to the media officially released by A-21 Mr Jaideep Patel and A-19 Kaushik Mehta also an office bearer of the VHP also provoke and distort facts. This is done with the full knowledge of A-1.) Curfew was declared at about 10 a.m. in the Godhra town.

43.A-21 Mr Jaideep Patel has shown his criminal intent being part of the conspiracy hatched by A-1 Mr Modi and himself. A fax message recorded by the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) (Annexure III, File XVIII-D-160 at 188 dated 27.2.2002 states that A- 21 Mr Jaideep Patel, A- 19 Kaushik Mehta, also senior functionary of the VHP and Dilip Trivedi another general secretary of the VHP had, in a joint statement issued by them declared that ‘hundreds’ of Ram sevaks had been attacked in a preplanned conspiratorial attack, that compartments set on fire and women molested. This message coming from Vadodara are proof that such misinformation and provocative sloganeering had begun and had been allowed at Godhra. The remarks in this message says that though no such incident as alleged has happened (molestation of women) and also says that such propaganda has been ‘recklessly made’. The SIT could have scrutinized such records to ascertain the build up to the conspiracy. This message also suggests that a written statement may have been issued by the VHP. Why has SIT not bothered to look into such material at all?

44.There is absolutely no discussion in the SIT report about what transpired between 9 a.m. to 10.30 p.m. and Accused No. 1‘s role therein. The crucial evidence related to the calls made by A-1 to fellow conspirators and co-accused during that time have been completely omitted/ignored.

10.30 hours 27.2.2002

45.On the decision taken by Accused No. 1, Mr Jaideep Patel and Ashok Bhatt had left for Godhra. It is important that Mr Jaideep Patel who was general secretary of Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) Gujarat which is a sister organisation of the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP), whereas Minister for Health, Ashok Bhatt, was a senior member in the Gujarat cabinet at the time. It is at this meeting that a collective decision was taken to distort the facts sent by the DM regarding the provocative sloganeering and behavior of the karsevaks. On the basis of this collective decision a Note was prepared by the Home Secretariat -- A-28, Mr. Ashok Narayan, and A-34. Mr. Nityandandam, headed by A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya and A-1 Mr. Narendra Modi.

46.In what appears to be a deliberate move, (SrNos 5, D-196, File XLI Annexure III) the message prepared by the Home Department headed by Accused No 1 (Mr. Modi) and Accused No. 34 (Mr. Nityanandam) and Accused No. 28, (Mr. Ashok Narayan) suppressed this critical aspect of the information relating to the provocation of the karsevaks by shouting humiliating anti-Muslim slogans and through this the mens rea behind the crime of pelting of stones by the mob on the S-6 bogey. It was on the basis of the note of the home department, not the first information originally sent by the Godhra district administration, that Accused No. 1 (Mr. Modi) and Accused No. 5 (Mr. Zadaphiya) made their statements before the State Assembly at 1300 hours.

47. This was done with a view to obfuscate the provocative and incendiary behaviour of the karsevaks/rambhaktas. (The Court should ask for examination of the Case Diary of the Godhra Train Fire Investigation from the Registration of FIR onwards to be able to examine what was stated in the FIR in the first instance and alterations made thereafter).

48. This meeting has not been dealt with by the SIT. The note sent by the DM and how it was diluted/manipulated by the Home Secretariat becomes important because it was on that basis that misleading information leaving aside the provocative behavior of the karsevaks was given to the Assembly. At this stage, there are statements collected by SIT that suggest that A-1 spoke to the media. But just like in the case of other speeches made by A-1, SIT has completely avoided looking into this.

49.It appears clear that from the go-ahead signal given by the chief mastermind (Accused No. 1) to chief executor, Mr Jaideep Patel (Accused No. 21) to unleash a communal backlash, that a plethora of phone calls are exchanged between the co-conspirators (see table below). Hence from the afternoon of 27.2.2002 itself, violent attacks on the minority are unleashed. Yet no emergency instructions, alerts or steps are taken by the seniors in the administration to contain or prevent violence. Incidentally, records from the State IB contained in Annexure III File XIX (D-161) at Pages 67-68 of the SIT papers, independently show that ‘one person named Abdul Rashid Kalubhai Mashita Shaikh was assaulted by some karsevaks who came from Baroda train between platforms 2 and 3. Abdul Rashid died and another two persons were injured. The karsevaks were recorded to be shouting slogans. This message of the State IB was sent at 1500 hrs on 27.2.2002, i.e., even while senior cabinet ministers were at Godhra, the Chief Minister had not yet left by air for Vadodara (See Annexure IV, File IX, Serial Nos 250, the daily Itinerary of Accused No. 1 and the flight schedule in SIT Papers), violent incidents in retaliation leading to the deaths had already begun. Moreover, they were provoked by the unruly and aggressive karsevaks who had been aggressively attacking members of the minority community even before the Sabarmati Express train had reached Godhra, five hours late on 27.2.2002. This violence continues and is allowed even as the train proceeds towards and reaches Ahmedabad Railway station in the sensitive Kalupur area on the afternoon of 27.2.2002 while the chief conspirator is on his way to Godhra.

1300 hours 27.2.2002

50.The Assembly proceedings started at 1300 hours. A Motion relating to Godhra incident was moved by Mr. Punjabhai Vansh which came up for discussion at 1300 hours. It was however Accused No. 16, Dr. Maya Kodnani, M.L.A. from Naroda and co-conspirator (now convicted to 28 years life imprisonment for executing the conspiracy at Naroda Patiya by a judgement of the Sessions Court dated 29.8.2012), who spoke on the issue and her speech raised unsubstantiated issues related to the ill-treatment of women by Muslims at Godhra (She states, ‘...Women treated very badly..’). On 27.2.2002, in a planned way such disinformation was spread to ensure and enable that the Godhra incident does not stay localized but is malevolently used to foment widespread violence, which is not spontaneous but fuelled by a rabid organization like the VHP with the full support of A-1 and his administration. A-21 Mr Jaideep Patel has through his organization the VHP also made the same untruthful claims to the media along with A-19 Mr Kaushik Mehta, also of the VHP and Mr Dilip Trivedi, secretary of the VHP in Mehsana the same day. (The same Dilip Trivedi is appointed by the Gujarat government under A-1 to be the special public prosecutor in the Sardarpura and Deepda Darwaza cases, making a mockery of the justice process and substantiating charges in this complaint about the A-1 using the tool of partisan public prosecutors as part of a conspiracy to subvert the deliverance of justice. The SIT has turned a blind eye to these obvious facts and refused to make the obvious connections and draw the necessary conclusions.

51.This statement needs to be seen in the context of the deliberate inflammatory rumours spread by VHP persons accosting DM Ravi when she reached the site of the tragedy in Godhra. Later the Sandesh newspaper also published fabricated reports that effectively provoked mob reactions and despite strong recommendations from three separate sources in the Gujarat police, Accused No. 1 as home minister instead of prosecuting such coverage actually congratulated the newspapers. (see Statement and Deposition) where Mrs Ravi states that these were false reports. (Annexure III, File II, D-6 and Annexure II, File IV, D-50, Vidhan Sabha Proceedings dated 27.2.2002 & 28.2.2002, 14.3.2002, produced by Suresh Mehta former Minister in the Modi cabinet and Gordhan Zadaphiya, then MOS Home (Accused No. 5 in the complaint).

52. Zadaphia read out the statement prepared by Home Department, based on the available information, which as explained above, had omitted crucial bits of information relating to the provocations caused by karsevaks. Suresh Mehta, Minister of Industries, was present in Vidhan Sabha sitting next to Modi when Zadaphiya was reading the Note. ‘I was sitting by the side of Mr. Narendra Modi, CM who remarked that "Hindus should wake up now". (Statement made by Suresh Mehta on 15.8.2009 to the SIT at Annexure I Volume I, Pages 83-84). The Chief Minister Accused No. 1) went to Godhra by helicopter on the same afternoon. Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya, MoS (Home) also left for Godhra by road. The CM returned to Ahmedabad in the night. Subsequently, Suresh Mehta states that he learnt that a review meeting of the situation post-Godhra incident was held by the CM on 27.2.2002 night with the senior officers and this fact related to the review meeting held by the CM with top officers had also been admitted by Zadaphiya in the assembly on 14-3-2002 according to the minutes.

53. The Note prepared by the Home department and the facts relayed by Zadaphiya to the State Assembly make no mention of the motive behind the stone pelting by a crowd that suddenly gathered which was the provocative and incendiary behavior of the karsevaks. Accused No. 1 in his response to the discussion on 27.2.2002 (see Assembly proceedings at Annexure III, File II, D-6 and Annexure II, File IV, D-50, Vidhan Sabha Proceedings dated 27.2.2002 & 28.2.2002, 14.3.2002) already hints at a sinister design, ‘the train came, it stopped, then it left and the time-gap between the same is merely 3 to 5 minutes and suddenly attack of this kind was launched. In such a situation, the issue becomes grave...’ Both A-1 and A-5 clearly state that the incident at Godhra was the result of a long term conspiracy.

54. These statements that go beyond the scope of the knowledge available at the given time would also amount to a breach of privilege of the state assembly (misinforming members) since the district administration had clearly stated that the stone attack and subsequent arson was a result of the outcome of provocative slogan shouted by karsevaks.

55. The SIT only deals with the brief statement made by Mr Gordhan Zadaphiya and does not point out that Maya Kodnani (A-16) also made a speech. The SIT does not even attempt to link the reaction as alleged in the statement of Mr. Suresh Mehta with subsequent conduct of A-1 including ordering hasty and illegal post mortems in the open railway yard, in violation of curfew orders while a violent and aggressive crowd of VHP, RSS and BD members are present. The same statement by A-1, as alleged by Suresh Mehta, in the Assembly was repeated in the infamous alleged instructions given by A-1 at night.

56. As stated by the Concerned Citizens Tribunal headed by Justice Krishna Iyer (retired Supreme Court of India), Justice PB Sawant (retired, Supreme Court of India), Justice Hosbet Suresh (retired, Bombay High Court) Patterns of Violence at Para 5.7: ‘The state bandh on February 28, and the Bharat bandh on March 1 — both called by the VHP/BD and supported by the state BJP and the chief minister himself — helped in the killing, loot and destruction. The fear created by aggressive sloganeering and posturing, the deathly silence and empty streets helped the trained militia to carry out their jobs with ease, unhindered by the state police.’ (Para 5.7, Pages 23-37, Concerned Citizens Tribunal, relevant paras at Page 30, Annexure III, File I of the SIT papers).’Given the widespread reports and allegations of groups of well-organised persons, armed with mobile telephones and addresses, singling out certain homes and properties for death and destruction in certain districts – the further question arises as to what the factors were, and who the players were in the situations that went out of control’. (NHRC Report,2002).

57.The call for Gujarat Bandh by the VHP was seen to be endorsed by the ruling party and neither A-1 Mr Narendra Modi nor A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya responsible for the maintenance of law and order made any appeal for peace and calm. In fact, several messages of the state intelligence bureau from various districts began warning headquarters at Gandhinagar about the implications of the Bandh call and the bloodthirsty sloganeering by the VHP that had already begun by the afternoon of 27.2.2002.

58.The utter and deliberate non-seriousness with which the SIT has investigated an allegation of the knowledge of the Bandh call given by the VHP and open collaboration declared by the ruling party, by none less than the Chief Minister himself, is shocking given the fact that apart from a close reading of the Vidhan Sabha proceedings on 27.2.2002, a message of the State Intelligence Bureau contained in Annexure III File XXI(D-163), which is a message titled ‘Vidhan Sabha/VHP/544/02 dated 27.2.2002’ already records that today, i.e., on 27.2.2002 during zero hour, the Vidhan Sabha had discussions related to the incident at Godhra and the Chief Minister had informed that a high level enquiry would be conducted regarding the incident. It also states that VHP had declared a Gujarat Bandh and today called a meeting at 1600 hours at the VHP office to discuss further steps to be taken regarding the incident’.

59.Not only has the VHP by now declared the Bandh but official and government support to it has been also been given. The consequences of this collusion would unfold in a sinister and macabre display of state sponsored violence in the days to follow. The role of A-1 as chief minister to, instead of appealing for calm and restraint on 27.2.2002, declare open support to the Bandh, that too declared by the VHP, is a clear declaration of his intent in unfolding the conspiracy. The SIT does not deal with this overt or covert support for the Bandh by the government satisfactorily.

60.There are a series of messages of the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB—See Tables in Annexure) which warn of the repercussions of the bandh. One has been sent out as early as 3.10 p.m. on 27.2.2002 (before A-1 leaves for Godhra). It is a message D/2?2 com/takedari/71/2002 and can be read at Annexure IV, File XX, 8394). This message already says that funeral processions are likely wherever the bodies are sent.

1330 ± 1530 hours 27.2.2002 Post mortems

61.After the assembly proceedings, A-5 Zadaphiya leaves for Godhra. Accused No. 1 gets four calls from A-2 Ashok Bhatt on the mobile number of his PA, OP Singh, informing A-1 about the situation in Godhra. A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt (now deceased) had admitted that it was he who had instructed local doctors through the Civil Surgeon at Godhra for the post-mortem. A-2 Mr Ashok Bhatt who was in regular touch with A-1 Mr. Modi left for Godhra at 9.30 a.m. according to his statement to SIT and reached around 12-12.30 p.m. As the inquest was over, a decision is taken by A-2 taking instructions from A-1 to conduct post-mortems in the railway yard itself where the dead bodies are lying. Decision was taken to start hasty post-mortems (Phone call records). SP Raju Bhargava (A-46) is directly responsible along with DM Jayanti Ravi for allowing these post-mortems in public in violation of law. Under the criminal law, it is the inquesting authority who has to decide whether to send the dead bodies for post-mortem or not. But in the present case PM of almost all bodies were over by 18.45 hours, the time when inquest report was signed in the presence of A-1, A-2 and A-5 obviously following their directions. The question is, which the SIT has simply not bothered to ask is, under whose orders, the Post- mortem was being conducted in the Railway Yard Itself without any facility and equipments and also by doctors who were not trained to do Post Mortem? The motive behind this was clear: Bodies could be dispatched through a VHP strongman and co-A- 21 Mr Jaideep Patel to reach Ahmedabad by next morning for the proposed funeral processions and parading Public post-mortem and free use and distribution of photographs of the gory bodies was encouraged by A-1, A-2 an A-5 to inflame the anger of the funeralists, which could be converted into a violent communal reprisal against innocent sections of the minority.

[pic]

62. The calls made by Ashok Bhatt on the Mobile of Mr Om Prakash Singh has again not been discussed by the SIT The call details show that A-1 (chief minister) was in touch with A-21 Mr Jaideep Patel as well as with A-2 Ashok Bhatt. The making of calls by A-2 Ashok Bhatt to Accused No. 1 shows that the Inquest of dead bodies was done after taking instructions from A-1, the chief minister.

63. The A-1 had used the mobile of Om Prakash Singh. In the statement given to the SIT by Singh (Annexure 1 Volume 1, Serial Nos 41 given on 9.11.2009), he accepted that A-1 spoke on his mobile when there was an extreme emergency. He only says that he did not see A-1 talking to anyone on his mobile phone. The SIT‘s conclusions that CM was not in touch with ‘controversial persons Maya Kodnani and Mr Jaideep Patel during riots’ is contrary to the documents on record. A-1 was therefore in touch with both Maya Kodnani (A-16) and Mr Jaideep Patel (A-21).

1530-1645 hours 27.2.2002 Departure

64.The mobile phone call records of Mr. Anil Mukim show that between 15:37:57 hours and 21:58:36 hours his location is not traceable which is in all likelihood during the time he was accompanying Accused No1 to Godhra. However, just before that, at 15:33:40 hrs his location (and then again at 22:01:18 hrs) is shown to be in and around Meghaninagar where the Gulberg Society is located and a major massacre was perpetrated the next day. Does this mean that Accused No. 1 went to the airport via Meghaninagar and if so, why? The SIT has not investigated this despite it being pointed out. Interestingly, the other person from the CMO who accompanied A-1 to Godhra, Mr. J.M. Thakkar PRO to the CM, also shows his location before going to Godhra in the same location, in and around Meghaninagar at 15:34:48 hrs. Mr. Zadaphiya A-5 has reached Godhra by around 1600 hours.

16.45 ± 19.45 hours 27.2.2002

65.It is undisputed by the investigating agency that A-1 Modi arrived at Godhra by helicopter between 1600 to 1700 hours. Fax message at Page no.87 Mes/B/D-4/2/ 15/Com/284/2002 dated 27.2.2002 at 1912 hrs sent by ACP, State IB, Vadodara written to IG, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar states that the Chief Minister visited the place of incident at 1715 hours. (The Air Traffic Controller, Gujarat, of the state Government also suggests that Accused No.1 Modi, using Reliance plane, was at Godhra by 1610 hrs on 27 February 2002). His flight schedule corroborates that he departed from Ahmedabad between 1530-1600 hours on 27.2.2002 and reached the Godhra helipad at 1645 hours. He was accompanied by two persons from the CMO, Anil Mukim and J.Thakkar (Serial Nos 249 at Annexure IV, File IX, SIT papers).

66.After arrival at Godhra helipad, A-1 directly goes to the site, which is the railway yard where the dead bodies after inquest were lying. He enters into the burnt coach and while coming out talks to the media. (See transcripts of speech that are contained in Annexure on Hate Speech) It is during this time that the postmortems on the dead bodies start. A-1 was therefore party to the decision to conduct postmortems (illegally in the open railway yard). When he talks to the press there are several VHP workers present. Mr Jaideep Patel (A-21), Ashok Bhatt (A-2) and Zadaphiya (A-5) were present when A-1 visited the railway yard which is where the mutilated and burnt corpses have been allowed to have been kept in the open.

67.It is at that point of time that a decision was taken to hand over the dead bodies to Mr Jaideep Patel (A-21) of the VHP for being taken by road to Ahmedabad. When A-1 arrives at Godhra, he was received by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi and Mr. Ashok Bhatt and he straightaway drove to the Godhra Railway Station, inspected the spot and thereafter proceed to the Collectorate and meet people and the press. Two ministers from his cabinet, Co-accused No 5, Mr Gordhan Zadaphiya, then MOS Home and Accused No 4, Prabhasinh Chauhan, the then Minister of Civil Aviation & Pilgrimage, were also present. It was the Collector who revealed to the investigating agency (SIT) that Mr Jaideep Patel and VHP Gujarat secretary (A-21) also met chief conspirator and Accused No. 1, at Godhra.

68.Thereafter, A-1 visited the civil hospital accompanied by A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt and A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphia. Thereafter there was a meeting at the Circuit House where the DM was also present. DM had stated before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal that, in the first instance the government desired to transport the dead bodies of the Godhra victims by the same train on to Ahmedabad. But, she had advised against it. Before the SIT, Mrs. Ravi has denied this completely. The train had left Godhra station by detaching the burnt bogeys by 1300 hours. Accused No 2 Ashok Bhatt and A-21 Mr Jaideep Patel were already in Godhra by then and therefore they must have communicated the CM‘s decision on this matter to the DM.

69. SIT admits at Page 60 in its final report dated 8.2.2012 that Mrs Jayanti Ravi has stated that in the meeting held at the Collectorate, A-21 Mr Jaideep Patel, a VHP leader was also present. However, under Allegation No. IV, the SIT still goes on to assert that A-1 Mr. Modi had never met A-21, Mr. Jaideep Patel (SIT Report, 8.2.2012). The SIT has not dealt with this aspect that the postmortems of the dead bodies was taking place in the presence of A1 and was not stopped by him though it was an illegal act. The SIT also does not deal with the presence of a large crowd of VHP workers and the presence of Mr Jaideep Patel general secretary of VHP Gujarat besides the presence of A-2 Mr Ashok Bhatt and A-5 Mr Zadaphiya. Worst of all, the SIT has not bothered to even look at the required legal procedures necessary to be observed in the wake of the Godhra tragedy. There are strict laws against allowing such hasty post-mortems to happen without proper procedures of identification and without family members being present; there is a strict prohibition against allowing photographs of corpses in a gory or mutilated condition from being taken, shot or telecast. (See details of Rules from the Gujarat Police Manual mentioned below). By not even dealing with this grave offence, the SIT has shown its unprofessionalism and distinct bias.

70.SIT has deliberately left un-investigated the whole question of the illegal and hasty post-mortems conducted in the open in the rail yard, with large and aggressive crows of the VHP, RSS and BD present, despite the fact that these facts are made known to them in the statements of then DM Jayanti Ravi and others. SIT has not investigated how gory photographs were allowed to be taken, telecast and broadcast not just by newspapers like the Sandesh but also publications brought out by the VHP. SIT obviously did not consider investigating such serious facts as emerged in the Investigation that too in such a sensitive case.

Decision to Hand Over Dead Bodies to Mr Jaideep Patel A-21 & Transport Dead Bodies to Ahmedabad

71.On the evening of 27.2.2002, at the notorious meeting called by him at his residence, chief conspirator Accused No. 1 Modi had told Chakravarti, ‘It was a government decision to transport the bodies of the victims from Godhra to Ahmedabad by Road’. (Statement of Mr K Chakravarti dated 16-17.12.2009 before the SIT at Annexure I, Volume I, Serial 65, Pages 252-267). Logically the decision to hand over the bodies to the member of a rabid organisation like the VHP, Mr Jaideep Patel was also taken at the highest level, in which DM Ravi and SP Bhargava acquiesced allowing the funeral and processions and parading to become a means of widespread mobilization of induced anger to whip up anger against innocent Muslims. Dead bodies of 54 persons (Hindus) killed in train fire incident were entrusted to private persons namely Jaideep Patel and Hasmukh Patel – both VHP leaders – in violation of existing regulations particularly, Rule 223 (10-b) of Gujarat Police Manual volume-III by Godhra district authorities under pressure from A-1.

1945 ± 2230 hours 27.2.2002

72. A-1 leaves by road up to Vadodara and from there he catches a plane and reaches Gandhinagar by 2230 hours. A-2 Mr. Bhatt, according to his statement before the SIT left Godhra for Gandhinagar past midnight which means that both A-2 and A-5 Mr Zadaphia were in effect accompanying the motor cavalcade galvanized by the VHP with the full support of the government from Godhra to Ahmedabad. The SIT admits in its Report to the Supreme Court that the Mamlatdar of Godhra had issued a letter dated 27.2.2002 that establishes that the dead bodies of the Godhra victims, essentially a property of the police, that could under law be only handed over to the relatives of the individuals, were officially handed over to a strongman of the VHP, Mr Jaideep Patel, who had been in touch with the accused No. 1 (Mr. Modi) since the morning of the accident and moreover who hailed from an organization with rabid anti-minority posturing that had not just declared a Bandh the next day but that this Bandh had been supported by the government (“Para 7, Role Played by Accused Persons, Their Explanation and Our Comments, under A-1 Narendra Modi, CM Gujarat, Annexure). As regards the parading of dead bodies, it has come to light that Mr M.L. Nalvaya, Mamlatdar, Godhra had issued a letter dated 27-02-2002 addressed to Mr Jaideep Patel, in which it was mentioned that 54 dead bodies as per list enclosed were being sent to Ahmedabad through five trucks whose details were given in the said letter. However the SIT in both its Reports exonerates this sinister decision completely, at best trying to blame it on the Mamlatdar. Under Allegation II of Malhotra’s Report Mrs. Jayanti Ravi has also stated that after holding discussions, a unanimous decision was taken that the dead bodies, which had been identified should be handed over to their relatives at Godhra itself and those bodies whose legal heirs or guardians had not come, could be sent to Sola Civil Hospital. Further Malhotra Report states that the remaining 54 dead bodies were to be sent with police escort to Sola Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. Further, Mr. Mr Jaideep Patel of VHP was to accompany them. Under Allegation No. IV, Mr. Himanshu Shukla admits that Accused No. 25, then DGP Mr. K. Chakravarti had told the SIT that it was a government decision to bring the bodies of the Godhra victims to Ahmedabad.

73.Most shocking aspect of this decision was giving the bodies clearly in a mutilated condition to a non-governmental person. Moreover the Gujarat Secretary of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, an organisation well known for its rabid hatred rousing speeches, especially against the religious minority community, was chosen by accused no.1 and his co-conspirators to escort these bodies in a motor cavalcade to Ahmedabad. Clearly this decision was out of the ordinary and controversial. The SIT in its bid to protect the former District Magistrate Jayanti Ravi has tried to put the blame for the decision of the now retired Mamlatdar, M.L. Nalvaya. However, all records of investigation and statement of other persons clearly indicate that such a decision should not have been taken by an officer of the rank of a Mamlatdar. He states clearly before the SIT and on oath in the affidavit before the Nanavati Shah Mehta commission that he was simply carrying out the order given to him by Jayanti Ravi, the District Magistrate. This calculated decision to allow the bodies of the Godhra victims in a tragic and ghastly manner to be paraded not just in Ahmedabad but in other districts, in carrying the funeral procession with sloganeering and hate speech, was also made to ensure the incident was no more confined to Godhra and was to be displayed in all districts of the State.

74. Repeated and several phone calls between A-5 and A-21 continue through the night preparing for the diabolical conspiracy that was hatched.

TypeSecsDate-TimeDialed / Received No NameCell-Name

Out5527th Feb. 20027966313659825049145

20:02:01VHP OfficeZadaphia

Out15827th Feb. 200298250238879825049145

20:03:25Mr Jaideep PatelZadaphia

In4827th Feb. 200298250238879825049145

20:39:36Mr Jaideep PatelZadaphia

In8727th Feb. 200298250491989825049145

21:11:20DCP (ZONE 5)Zadaphia

In20427th Feb. 200298250238879825049145

21:13:11Mr Jaideep PatelZadaphia

In13827th Feb. 200298250491989825049145

21:16:54DCP (ZONE 5)Zadaphia

In18627th Feb. 200298250238879825049145

21:20:19Mr Jaideep PatelZadaphia

In9727th Feb. 200298250008369825049145

22:08:24Omprakash Singh, CMO, (PA to CM)Zadaphia

75.The SIT has deliberately ignored all these phone contacts and their criminal intent. There appears no desire on the part of SIT to conduct an investigation that has probity. In the SIT report it is admitted that the dead bodies which were sent to Ahmedabad, Mr Jaideep Patel of the VHP accompanied them. Not only this, it is clear from the letter of Mr Nalvaya, Mamlatdar, Godhra dated 27.2.2002 which was not addressed to any government official but to Mr Jaideep Patel/ Hasmukh Patel in which it was mentioned that 54 dead bodies were being sent to Ahmedabad in five trucks. Despite the fact that the SIT report mentions that it was A-21 Mr. Mr Jaideep Patel and none other who handed over the dead bodies to Deputy Collector in the presence of Medical Superintendant (Sola Hospital), DCP Zone I and several other police and administrative officials, the SIT is keen to absolve A-21 Mr. Mr Jaideep Patel and through him, A-1 Mr. Modi of this irregular and illegal action. There is no reason why the dead bodies will be given to a VHP general secretary unless there was a clear instruction by chief minister A-1 to do so. Mr Jaideep Patel was carrying these dead bodies under his charge along with VHP workers who were shouting slogans throughout the way stopping at a number of places where subsequently bitter violence broke out.

76. The SIT in its bid to protect the accused has not made any comment on the illegal action of handing over bodies to a front man of VHP (a decision taken by Accused No. 1) but in the portion of its report where it deals with the various allegations contained in the complaint dated 8.6.2006, this decision has been criticized.

77. Fact however remains that dead bodies were handed over to Mr Jaideep Patel/Hasmukh Patel for transporting in a cavalcade with VHP workers to Ahmedabad. With such high level political functionaries present at Godhra when the decision was taken it is extremely improbable and highly unlikely that a Mamlatdar-level officer would take such a decision.

2200 ± 2400 hours 27.2.2002

78. By 2220 hours DM Jayanti Ravi had already sent a fax to her superior Mr Ashok Narayan, ACS Home (A-28), stating that she has already despatched the bodies. There were five truck loads of persons and several vehicles with VHP workers apart from the 54 dead bodies. Basically, for a two and a half to three hour road route it took Mr Jaideep Patel and the motor cavalcade 5 hours to reach from Godhra to Ahmedabad. The route from Godhra to Ahmedabad (see Map) traverses Sevalia, Ambav, Thasara, Dakor, Umreth, Lingda, Alindra, Nadiad, Salun, Vanthvadi, Mahatma Gandhi Expressway, New Maninagar, Ghodasar, Isanpur, Juhapura, Sarkhej-Gandhinagar Highway, Isckon Flyover, Thaltej circle, Gujarat High Court and Sola Civil Hospital.

79.Subsequently there was brutal violence at Nadiad in Kheda district, where 2 persons died in police firing, there was not a single Muslim

49

shop left untouched. 15-20 shops selling TVs, electronic goods, watches, a bakery, a kerosene dealer and a timber mart right next to the police station and the bus stand (which means they were close to the highway) were destroyed on 28.2.2002 itself. The Concerned Citizens Tribunal that records this violence in Vol. 2 states that the RSS, the VHP, the Bajrang Dal, Pankajbhai Vinodbhai Patel of the BJP, sarpanch of Kheda town were responsible. Policemen who did not intervene were also indicted by the tribunal. The trail of violence affected Ghodasar much more significantly where the bodies of 13 persons in a dismembered condition were discovered on 3.3.2002).

80.Within hours of the rowdy and bloodthirsty crowd arriving at Sola Civil hospital at 4 a.m. where a 3,000 strong crowd of RSS workers had gathered and even started attacking the Zadaphia of the hospital (See Narrative below with evidence from PCR messages), a High Court judge of the minority community travelling in his vehicle was attacked.

81. The assertion by A-29 P. C. Pande at Pg 34 of the SIT Report (8.2.2012) stating that there ‘was no parading of dead bodies’ in as much as the bodies arrived between 3-4 a.m. is belied by the records of the PCR Wireless Vans provided by him after 15.3.2011 when the Hon‘ble Supreme Court of India ordered further investigation by the SIT

2230 meeting at the Residence of A-1 27.2.2002 Conspirators Meeting Before and After

82.Until the Conspiratorial Meeting on the night of 27.2.2002 at the chief minister‘s residence, the police bureaucracy appeared to be taking the immediately required precautionary measures. Former DGP Gujarat state, RB Sreekumar in his statement before the SIT on 11.9.2009 states that ‘on 27-2-2002 forenoon, when I was posted as Addl. DG (Armed Units) Mr. K. Chakravarti, the then DGP, Gujarat called me to his office and informed about the incident relating to the burning of a train bogie at Godhra which resulted in the death of 59 persons including some karsevaks. He directed the total mobilisation of SRP personnel for immediate

50

deployment...’

83.But following the so-called Law and Order Meeting called at the

residence of Accused No 1 after he reached Gandhinagar residence at about 10.30 p.m. that clear-cut instructions to intimidate and neutralize the bureaucracy and the administration were given. It is after his return that the above mentioned meeting

took place. Regarding this meeting, the following aspects are important. At the infamous meeting on 27.2.2002 he made a statement is corroborated by Four Sources:

(i) Statement of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt, then DCP (S) Intelligence, who was present in this meeting: ‘The chief minister Mr N arendra Modi said that the bandh call had already been given and the party had decided to support the same, as incidents like the burning of the kar sevaks at G odhra could not be tolerated. He further impressed upon the gathering that for too long the Gujarat police had been following the principle of balancing the action against the Hindus and Muslims while dealing with the communal riots in Gujarat. This time the situation warranted that the Muslims be taught a lesson to ensure that such incidents do not ever recur again. The chief minister Mr Narendra Modi expressed the view that the emotions were running very high amongst the Hindus and it was imperative that they be allowed to vent out their anger’. (Annexure IV, File X, Sr No 302). ‘

(ii)Statement of Mr. K. Chakravarti to Mr. Sreekumar. (Para 84, Fourth Affidavit dated 27.10.2005, Annexure III File III D-24. On February 27, 2002 evening the Chief Minister in the presence of some of his cabinet colleagues held a meeting with ACS Home, Mr. Ashok Narayan, DG of Police Mr Chakravarti and Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad, Mr P C Pande. The Chief Minster stated that ‘in communal riots the police took action against Hindus & Muslims on one to one basis and that this will not do now. He instructed the DG & the CP to ‘allow Hindus to give vent to their anger’. This was

51

communicated by Mr. Chakravarti to Additional DGP SIB Mr. Sreekumar on February 28, 2002. Accused No. 25, then DGP K Chakravarti also told Sreekumar that this posture of the CM was a major obstacle to police officers initiating action against Hindu Communal elements, who by the February 28th 2002, were on a rampage against the minority community. This has been recorded by Mr. Sreekumar in his 4th Affidavit filed before the Nanavati-Shah Commission.

(iii)Statement of Mr Haren Pandya to the Concerned

Citizens Tribunal in May 2002. Pandya stated that he was present in the meeting. He was killed on 26.3.2003. News that he was the Minister who spoke to the Tribunal was first published in the Outlook magazine on June 3, 2002. The Concerned Citizens Tribunal (comprising retired Supreme Court Justices V Krishna Iyer & P.B Sawant retired High Court Justice H Suresh & others have in their Report recorded that they had received direct information through a testimony from a highly placed source of a meeting where the chief minister, two or three of his cabinet colleagues, the CP of Ahmedabad an IG of Police of the state were present. This meeting took place on the late evening of Feb 27th 2002. This meeting had a singular purpose: the senior most police officials were told a ‘Hindu reaction was to be expected and this must not be curtailed or controlled.’ (Para 1,1.14 at Page 56, State Complicity, Volume II, Concerned Citizens Tribunal Report at Annexure III File I )

(iv)Statements of Justice P.B. Sawant and Justice

Hosbet Suresh to SIT dated 28-8-2009 confirming that Haren Pandya had made the above statement regarding his presence in the meeting. Both senior retired Judges, one of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and the other of the Bombay High Court clearly stated: ‘Mr. Haren Pandya further deposed that in the two hour long meeting Mr. Narendra Modi, CM, made it clear that there would be backlash from the Hindus

52

on the next day and that the police should not come in their way. Mr. Modi also instructed the police officers and civil servants that a Hindu reaction was expected and this must not be curtailed or controlled.’ The meeting at Modi‘s residence, according to the SIT, lasted for half-an-hour, i.e., 11.00 p.m. to 11.30 p.m.

84.There are significant discrepancies in the two SIT Reports about

this meeting but what is the piece de resistance by the SIT is its conclusions in the report filed by DCP Crime Branch, Mr Himanshu Shukla stating (SIT at pg 241-242 of its conclusions submitted before this Ld Court dated 8.2.2012): ‘Even if such allegations (against Modi) are believed for the sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offen ce’.

i)There is no dispute from any quarter that such a meeting was called by accused number 1, the chief minister, Mr. Modi at his residence late in the night on February 27. There is also no dispute that no minutes were recorded of a meeting as critical as this one. The reasons for this, according to the 2012 report by the SIT, is at page 13, ‘No record/documentation/ minutes of the crucial law and order meetings held by the government during the riots had been kept’. Maintenance of minutes are statutory functions that police and administrative officers have to fulfil to

required specially when crisis of the kind that must have been looming in Gujarat post-Godhra, happen. The SIT has simply not bothered to probe this lapse.

ii)There is a clear contradiction on who was present at the meeting in the two reports. The SIT Report dated 2010 states that the following were present:

Mrs Swarna Kanta Varma, acting chief secretary.

Mr Ashok Narayan, additional chief secretary (Home).

Mr K. Chakravarti, DGP, Gujarat.

53

Mr P C Pande, police commissioner, Ahmedabad.

Mr K Nityanandam, secretary (Home).

Dr P. K. Mishra, principal secretary to CM. Mr Anil Mukim, secretary to CM.

(ii)During the SIT Investigation, it transpired that DCPIntelligence (Security) Mr Sanjiv Bhatt too could have been present at this meeting since his colleague DCP-Int. (Communal) was on leave and his senior GC Raigar (Accused No 60) was also on leave.

(iii)Two years later, the SIT‘s conclusions on its investigations following the order of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court dated 12.9.2012 there are significant changes. Himanshu Shukla‘s conclusions submitted before this Hon‘ble Court dated 8.2.2012 says that the following were present:

Mrs Swarna Kanta Varma, acting chief secretary.

Mr Ashok Narayan, additional chief secretary (Home).

Mr K. Chakravarti, DGP, Gujarat.

Mr P. C. Pande, police commissioner, Ahmedabad.

Mr K. Nityanandam, secretary (Home).

Mr Dr P. K. Mishra, principal secretary to CM. Mr Anil Mukim, secretary to CM.

Mr Prakash S. Shah, additional secretary (law and order).

(v)Mr Prakash Shah makes a sudden appearance in the

closure report. It is unclear how Mr. Modi and the seven others named in the preliminary report in 2010 ‘forgot’ to mention his presence during the inquiry/investigation conducted by A. K. Malhotra. During the recording of Mr. Modi‘s statement before A. K. Malhotra on 23.3.2010, the accused number 1 had volunteered the ‘information’ during his

54

deposition before SIT that IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at the February 27 meeting, even when the question had not been put to him.

Other Discrepancies/Contradictions in the Depositions of Persons present at the crucial meeting of 27.2.2002 between the two versions of the SIT:-

85. In 2010 the SIT Report states at pages 16-17 that: Mrs Swarna Kanta Varma: ‘She has stated before (SIT) that she does not recollect as to whether CM instructed the police officers that the police should not come in the way of the Hindu backlash... She has pleaded loss of memory due to passage of time.’ (There is no reference to whether Bhatt was present or not).

86. Mr Ashok Narayan: ‘He does not recollect as to whether Nityanandam and Bhatt attended... The chief minister said that the people were outraged by the heinous incident of Godhra and therefore effective steps should be taken to control the communal riots if any. He does not recollect any other words uttered by the CM’.

87.Mr K Chakravarti: (A statement similar to Narayan‘s)... ‘He has denied to have told RB Sreekumar (as claimed in an affidavit before the Nanavati Commission by the then ADGP) that the CM had said in the meeting held on February 27 night that in communal riots police takes action against Hindus and Muslims on one to one basis and this will not do now and allow Hindus to vent their anger. He has also stated that as per his recollection, Bhatt did not attend this meeting’.

88.Mr PC Pande: ‘Has denied that the CM said... (let) Hindus vent their anger...’ (There is no reference to whether Bhatt was present).

89.Dr PK Mishra: ‘Has denied that the CM said... (let) Hindus vent their anger... He does not recollect whether Bhatt attended the meeting...’

90. Mr K Nityanandam: ‘Has denied that the CM said that police should not stop (Hindu retaliation)...’ (There is no reference to whether Bhatt was present).

55

91.Mr Anil Mukim: ‘Denied to have attended this meeting but all other participants have confirmed his presence in the meeting...’

92.The preliminary report‘s general observation: ‘Though Bhatt claims to have attended the meeting, yet none of the participants of the meeting have confirmed this fact’. The preliminary report then concludes: Since none of the officers present at this meeting have confirmed the alleged statement of Modi, Sreekumar‘s statement is hearsay, and since no minister was present at the meeting therefore late Haren Pandya‘s statement before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal is unreliable, the allegation ‘is not established’.

93.In his chairperson‘s comments submitted to the Hon‘ble Supreme Court along with Mr AK Malhotra‘s preliminary report, Raghavan observes: ‘The three officers (PC Pande, PK Mishra and Ashok Narayan) had been accommodated in post-retirement jobs, and are therefore not obliged to speak against the chief minister or the state government’. In other words, even while conceding that these officers were obligated to Mr. Modi because of his largesse, SIT had treated their statements and excuses about lapse of memory as adequate evidence of Mr. Modi‘s innocence.

SIT’s Conclusion in 2010:

94. ‘The statement made by Mr RB Sreekumar is hearsay which has not been confirmed by Mr K Chakravarti. The participation of Bhatt has not been confirmed by any of the participants at the said meeting’.

95.The SIT further goes on to dismiss the statements of retired Supreme Court and High Court judges of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal preferring to accept the versions of the co-accused who are also co-conspirators in the complaint. ‘In view of the version of all the senior officials of the home and police department, the testimony of the late Haren Pandya before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal becomes unreliable. No minutes of the meeting of February 27 were prepared’.

96.’In the light of the above, a law and order meeting was in fact held by Modi at his residence late in the evening of February 27. However, the allegation that chief minister instructed the chief

56

secretary, DGP and other senior officials, to allow the Hindu community to give vent to their anger on the minority Muslims in the wake of Godhra incident is not established.’ (Page 19, SIT Report dated 12.5.2012).

Comments of SIT chairman, Dr Raghavan, 14.5.2012

97.’Bhatt is considered an unreliable witness, especially because no official who is known to have definitely attended the meeting has spoken of his presence there. Also he was considered too junior to have been invited to such a high-level meeting... The three officers (Mr PC Pande, Mr PK Mishra and Mr Ashok Narayan) had been accommodated in post-retirement jobs, and are therefore not obliged to speak against the chief minister or the state

government.’ (Page 4 of Chairman’s comments, 14.5.2012).

98.Dr. Raghavan is forced in his comments on the preliminary report to conclude that the officers thus lucratively promoted would have personal reasons to conceal the truth. Despite reaching this conclusion however SIT is happy to leave the crucial issue of whether those accused who were being asked to corroborate the illegal instructions could be actually believed when they denied what the chief minister said, un-investigated. Their views are taken as gospel truth even though they are seen as motivated by rewards from a culpable establishment.

99.In any case, contrary to the inferences of SIT, as is clear from the reports of the Amicus Curiae who‘s Interim and Final Reports dated 20.1.2011 and 25.7.2011 have been made available to the petitioner ( Annexure IV, File IV, Serial Nos 91 and Annexure IV File X Sr Nos 306), he has arrived at an independent assessment that there is a prima facie case for Modi‘s prosecution, observing that whether Bhatt or the others are telling the truth can only be determined through the examination and cross-examination of each of them during the trial.

100. The lapse of memory by certain officials has according to the opinion/conclusions submitted by the SIT to this Ld Court dated 8.2.2012 changed/shifted to complete remembrance/recall within a gap of two years. It is not insignificant that by now a Gujarat police official, DCP-Crime, over whom Accused No. 1 has serious control

57

(given the fact as Home Minister he assesses his career and CRs). The SIT conclusions dated 8.12.2012 state at pgs 26-28 that:-

(i)Mrs Swarna Kanta Varma: ‘She cannot recollect as to whether any minister was present there... On being shown a photo of Bhatt she has stated that she cannot recollect having met or seen him in this meeting... She has denied that there was any mention by the chief minister (that) Muslims be taught a lesson or Hindus be allowed to vent their anger...’

(ii)Mr Ashok Narayan: ‘Bhatt did not attend the meeting... He has further stated that no minister was present at the meeting... He has denied any utterances by the chief minister (that) Muslims be taught a lesson or Hindus be allowed to vent their anger...’

(iii)Mr K Chakravarti: ‘He has categorically stated that Bhatt did not attend the meeting at CM‘s residence and no such instructions as alleged were given... He has further stated that none of the ministers/politicians had attended the meeting...’

(iv)Mr P. C. Pande: ‘Has out rightly denied the presence of any minister or Bhatt in the meeting... Pande has categorically stated that no instructions to allow any freedom to any law breaker were given by the chief minister...’

(v)Dr P. K. Mishra: ‘Has categorically denied the presence of Bhatt at the meeting. He has also denied the presence of any minister at the meeting... Mishra has stated that it was not true that the chief minister talked in terms (like) let Muslims be taught a lesson and Hindus be allowed to vent their anger...’

(vi) Mr K. Nityanandam: ‘He has denied the presence of any minister or Bhatt at the meeting... He has also denied any such alleged observations made by the chief minister about Muslims being taught a lesson etc and Hindus be allowed to vent their anger’.

58

(vii) Mr Anil Mukim: Has stated that he attended the meeting for some time and then left after taking permission of Mishra... Has out rightly denied any utterances/instructions about Muslims being taught a lesson and the Hindus allowed to vent their anger, in his presence...’

(viii) Mr Prakash Shah: ‘Has confirmed to have attended the meeting. He has denied the presence of any minister or Bhatt in the said meeting...’

SIT Conclusions dated 8.2.2012:

101. ‘The statement made by Mr RB Sreekumar is hearsay which has not been confirmed by Mr K Chakravarti. It can be inferred that Bhatt is facing a lot of problems in service matters and, therefore, his evidence is ill-motivated and cannot be relied upon. In view of the versions of all the senior officials of the home and police department the alleged testimony of late Mr Haren Pandya before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal cannot inspire confidence’.

102. ‘In the light of the aforesaid discussions, it can be concluded that a law and order review meeting was in fact held by Modi at his residence late in the evening of February 27. However, the allegation that the chief minister instructed the chief secretary, DGP and other senior officials to allow the Hindu community to give vent to their anger on the minority Muslims in the wake of Godhra incident is not established’. (Page 58 of SIT Conclusions dated 8.2.2012).

103. While a significant portion of the SIT‘s final conclusions submitted before this Hon'ble Court on 8.2.2012 is concentrated on ensuring that some crucial witnesses are discredited (Pages 408-428) and despite the fact that the SIT has itself earlier (2010) expressed apprehensions that officers like Pande, Narayan, Mishra and Nityanandam had no reason or motivation to speak the truth about the instructions given within the four walls of the chief minister‘s residence, there have been no similar or rigorous efforts made by the SIT to discredit the testimonies of senior police and administrative officials who have actually benefitted from being accomplices with the illegal and anti-Constitutional actions of the Mr Narendra Modi regime.

59

104. To date, no action is recommended against former Commissioner of Police, P. C. Pande who had first concealed and then produced evidence, both acts which are serious criminal offences under the IPC. Senior government official Anil Mukim too escapes any action for first denying (2010) then confirming (2012) his presence at the meeting.

105. The worst conclusion is the one drawn by the SIT at pg 241-242 of its conclusions submitted before this Ld Court dated 8.2.2012: ‘Even if such allegations (against Modi) are believed for the sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence’.

(1) The mindset of A-1 displayed in this meeting became clear from the events that unfolded subsequently.

(2) The claim of Mr RB Sreekumar that Mr Chakravarti had spoken to him on 28.2.2002 about CM uttering these words, Mr Chakravarti denied this conversation. SIT says that it is ‘hearsay evidence’and cannot be considered as evidence for

any action. The duty of SIT was to put the statement of Mr RB Sreekumar and Mr Chakravarti for appreciation before the Ld Court. It is for the Court to decide whether it is hearsay evidence or worthless evidence and not for the Investigating Agency.

(3) The statement made by Mr Haren Pandya before CCT that he was present in the meeting called By A-1 has been refuted by SIT on the ground that Mr Pandya was only a Minister of State for Revenue. His call records show that he was present till 2252 hours within the vicinity of Ahmedabad and could have easily reached Gandhinagar by 2320 hours. The CCT states that the meeting went on for almost two hours. The SIT further says that since there was a strained relationship between A-1 Mr. Modi and Mr. Pandya, he would not/could not have attended the meeting. These conclusions drawn by the SIT are inconclusive and unconvincing. The duration of the meeting can only be established after evidence is led. The itinerary of A-1 shows that he returned to Ahmedabad only at 2230. Mr. Haren Pandya‘s call records do not in any way disprove the possibility that he was at the meeting at Gandhinagar. The last call shown for his

60

mobile number 98240306259 on 27.2.2002 is at 21:11:27 hrs. The duration of the meeting can only be finally determined after detailed deliberations during trial when evidence is led and witnesses are examined and cross examined; it cannot be simply truncated//reduced/prejudged by the SIT. Each time any evidence has come forward to prove the direct involvement of A-1 Mr. Modi, instead of evaluating it objectively, the SIT has simply recorded the statements of co-conspirators to negate the evidence at the threshold. This is over-stepping the bounds and the role of an investigating agency.

(4) The evidence of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt has been rejected on the ground that he is a tainted witness and also on the basis of his background in the police department. This again was not within the domain of any Investigating Agency. Only a Court can/could have called a witness ‘tainted’ one. In any case the SIT should not have commented on his personal service in order to reject his statement. While concluding the SIT says that even if these allegations are believed they are mere statements ‘in the four walls of a room ‘ and therefore do not constitute any offence. Whether the statement under question will constitute an offence or not is for the Court to find out, not for the investigative

agency, at this juncture to adjudicate whether a prima facie case is made out. In any case, evidence of a conspiracy, such as the

sinister one alleged here is rarely direct evidence and a conspiracy is invariably hatched within the four walls of a room and in secrecy. Moreover the statement of the SIT shows once more the shocking and clear-cut bias of the SIT.

106.The unholy and questionable contact between A-1 Mr Modi and

A-21 Mr Jaideep Patel continues right through till 28.2.2002 when the massacres are being masterminded at Naroda Patiya and Gulberg society. At 15:25:06 hours, A-21 Mr Jaideep Patel calls A-1 at his office number (079-32263350) and speaks for 141 seconds. On that day A-1 Mr Modi who is chief minister gets just three calls on this number including this one making a mockery of his claims for prompt action and good governance. On his other official landline numbers, on 28.2.2002, he gets just three calls (0793232611) and on his residence number he gets just two calls (079-3229085). This is while Ahmedabad and Gujarat are burning.The day before on, 27.2.2002 on neither of

61

his office numbers (07932263350 & 0793232611) he has received not a single call and on his residence number

Non examination of the Role of Accused No 1 as Chief Conspirator by the SIT

107.There is a statement recorded of Mr. Shankar Menon, retired I.A.S.,

on 11.5.2010 by IO, SIT, A.K. Malhotra that contains valuable bits of information that have not been investigated further by the SIT This can be read at Sr.no.179 Annexure I, Vol.I in the

investigation paper. Mr. Menon who had volunteered his statement before the SIT states that he used to regularly write articles in the newspapers after his retirement, including in The Asian Age from 1999 till 2004 to 2005. He states that he used to write on matters related to public services and also related to bureaucracy. He states in his statement before Malhotra after the Godhra train burning incident of February 27, 2002, he hired a taxi from Bombay and visited Godhra around end of Mach 2002 or beginning of April 2002 to try and get a first-hand account of the whole episode for his weekly column. He states that he went straight to the office of the Collector and met Mrs. Jayanti Ravi. He states that as per his recollection he had fixed up an appointment with her through one of her relatives placed in Mumbai. He states that being of the same class and a junior colleague (IAS hierarchy) she was extensively forthcoming about the entire incident. Menon states that Mrs. Ravi told him in strictest confidence that the fire that led to the incident appears to have started from within the bogey. After the incident, the accused no.1 visited Godhra and the site of the incident and he had closeted himself in the Circuit House with his close political workers and colleagues. She says that though it was a confidential meeting from which she and other government officers were kept out, a recently transferred Dy. Collector who was not recognised by anyone locally found his way into the meeting. At this meeting, the Deputy Collector said he heard accused no.1 say that for every person killed in the train incident, his workers should avenge the death with at least 3 times the number of Muslims. According to the statement of Mr. Shankar Menon, Mrs. Ravi told him that this Dy. Collector who had observed the meeting closely heard the accused no.1 saying that the law and order force would be suitably kept away until the deaths of the killings have been avenged. Mr. Menon states that Mrs. Ravi did not disclose the name of the Dy. Collector,

62

nor did he ask for the name.It appears clear that the agitation

and discomfort felt by DM & Collector has been neutralised or mellowed over time.

108.Mr. Menon also states that after meeting the Collector he made his

way to Godhra railway station where he made enquiries about the incidents form the vendors and others available not the platform. Accordingly, Mr. Menon states that the information he gained about the incident was as follows – the train arrived at Godhra station at about 5 hours late being very early in the morning the karsevaks got down to the platform for tea and snacks. They aggressively seized tea and snacks and even assaulted a Muslim vendor by pulling his beard. There was a lady waiting with two daughters to board the train. One of the daughters called Sofia aged about 14 years was being dragged into the train by few of the karsevaks but she lunged to get away (the railway police recorded the statement of Sofia and her mother but it appears that SIT has not taken this into consideration). Mr. Menon continues his narration by stating that though the train had started it was stopped by pulling of the chain around Signal Falia. A crowd had gathered there and started pelting stones on the train. Meanwhile an explosion from within the bogey no.S-6 resulted in a fire inside the bogey. Mr. Menon also states that his enquiries at Godhra railway station indicated that no one in the Godhra knew that karsevaks were passing through Godhra. He states that on his return to Bombay he immediately wrote an article with the caption ‘Road to Godhra‘ in the next Friday issue of The Asian Age. He states that some of these facts were published in the said article, but a lot was left out to avoid any legal problems for the publisher. Mr. Menon states in his statement that a copy of this article could be made available from the office of the

Asian Age. He further states that though he knew about the formation of the SIT he had not volunteered to give a statement earlier since it was a detailed investigation being monitored by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and he expected that all facts related to incidents would emerge in the natural course of investigation. However, a few days before the recording of his statement, he saw reports in the electronic media that some of the despatches of the investigation had been leaked to the media and the Chief Minister, accused no.1, had not been held responsible. He therefore felt that it was important that information that had been divulged to him soon after the incident at Godhra by Mrs. Ravi and others collected

63

by him when he visited Godhra railway station should be put on record.

109.It is important to note that the SIT has placed no importance on this

statement even though it further corroborates the conspiratorial role of the accused no.1 in ensuring that the Godhra tragedy results in State sponsored violence and should have made the SIT to go into these aspects further. However, in the final statement of Ravi recorded by the SIT (statement dated 13.12.2010, Annexure I, Volume II), she is asked to answer on some of the details. Her replies are vague stating that ‘She does not recall’ if Accused No. 1 had had a meeting with political workers and neither did she recall if he went to the Circuit house at all. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the SIT should have sought out the Deputy Collectors at the time and at least recorded the statement of Vipul Vijay, ATS chief who had been sent by Accused No. 25 then DGP Chakravarti especially to Godhra given the seriousness of the situation. The SIT has not recorded Mr Vipul Vijay‘s statement at all. These are serious lacunae in the investigation that need to be rectified through a further investigation.

Conclusion:

110. Detailed and meticulous planning of a sinister conspiracy to manipulate and use the tragedy at Godhra was hatched from the early morning of 27.2.2002 soon after news of the train burning reached Gandhinagar when Accused No. 1 Modi established contact with co-conspirators, a hasty post-mortem of the bodies of the victims was ordered at the railway yard itself in violations of law and procedure, with Accused Nos 1, 2 and others taking the decision. After which the Bandh Call called by the VHP was formally backed by the chief minister (Accused No. 1) and the party in power. Hate speech by leaders which provoked violent incidents went unchecked. And finally with the bodies, including unidentified ones, being handed over to co-accused Mr Jaideep Patel of the VHP, a well-oiled plan to allow blood thirsty funeral processions in Ahmedabad, Khedbharma, Mehsana and Anand was furthered. Finally the culmination of the sinister conspiracy that was hatched even earlier by the co-accused who had been in close touch with each other took place at the meeting which was held on 27.2.202 at

10.30-11.00 p.m. at C.M. (Accused No. 1) residence at

64

Gandhinagar, the capital of Gujarat when unlawful instructions were given to intimidate and neutralize the police and administration into criminal inaction. This meeting was attended by Mr K. Chakravarti, DGP Gujarat State (Accused No. 25), Mr Ashok Narayan, Additional Chief Secretary, Home (Accused No. 28), Additional Chief Secretary, Mrs Swarana Kanta Verma, (Mr P.K. Mishra, P.S. to C.M. (Accused No. 31), Mr K. Nityanandam, Secretary, Home (Accused no. 34), Mr Anil Mukim, OSD to the Chief Minister, Mr P.C. Pande, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City (Accused

No. 29), Mr Sanjiv Bhatt, then DCP (Security) deputing for his senior ADGP Intelligence GC Raiger and colleague Mr PB

Upadhyay (DCP-Communal) who were on leave that day. No minutes for this urgent and controversial meeting that has been called a law and order review meeting were maintained precisely because of its criminal intent. The meeting took place after 2230 hours when Accused No. 1 returned from Godhra.

Accused No. 1, Mr. Modi

111. Evidence of Masterminding the Conspiracy through the Tehelka Tapes. A Sting Operation was carried out by the Tehelka magazine in October 2007. Since matters were pending before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and co-petitioners in SLP 1088/2008 were unable

65

to get the tapes validated, the NHRC had in a suo moto move ordered their validation/authentication. Mr. Ashish Khaitan, senior journalist had conducted the Sting Operation and has been made a prosecution witness in three of the trials dealing with reprisal killings post Godhra. (Order dated 5.3. 2008 annexed here too as Annexure ----).

112. The tape recorded conversations of several of the masterminds and executors of the state wide conspiracy that was hatched in Gujarat. The conversations in these tapes have made serious revelations. Seven of these interviews point to the direct role of Accused No 1 (A-1, Mr. Modi) in the masterminding of the conspiracy.

113. Sessions Judge Mrs. Jyotsna Yagnik in her Order dated 29.6.2012 in the Naroda Patia trial has relied on this ‘Sting Operation‘ as corroboratory evidence in that case. Mr. Khaitan recorded his statements before the SIT on 27.8.2009 (Annexure I, Volume I, Serial No. 15,) in this complaint. Besides, Mr. Khaitan has been examined so far in three of the criminal trials that are being supervised by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. While two of these are still ongoing it is relevant here to quote from the judgement of the Sessions Court verdict delivered on 29.8.2012 (Chapter II, Sting Operation, page 750 – 839). The relevant paras from page 769 onwards, where the interview of PW 322 Ashish Khaitan in the Naroda Patiya case, with one of those convicted for rape and murder at Naroda Patiya on 28.2.2002, is discussed. In this entire chapter the Judge finds that the Tehelka tapes and Operation Kalank (the name of the Sting Operation) have been validated and are authentic and while such evidence cannot be the primary evidence against the accused, it certainly can be fortifying, or strong corroboratory evidence.

114. Accused No. 22 in the Naroda Patiya case, Suresh Langda (Richard) Chara, who‘s claim of murder and raping of women in the said Sting Operation related to the Naroda Patiya massacre also stated that Accused No. 1 (Mr. Modi) had visited Naroda Patiya on the evening of 28.2.2002 around 7.00-7.30 p.m. and congratulated him and others who had executed mass murders and rapes. Quote from the Tehelka Sting Operation: ‘He (Mr. Modi) went around to all the places...he said our tribe was blessed...he said our mothers were blessed (for bearing us)...’

66

115. In another section of the Tehelka tapes, Haresh Bhatt, a Bajrang Dal leader in 2002 and thereafter an MLA of the ruling Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP) said, ‘I can‘t give a statement... but what he did, no chief minister has ever 1 done...he had given us three days to do whatever we could. He said he would not give us time after that...he said this openly...after three days he asked us to stop and everything came to a halt... ‘

116. A third person on the Tehelka tapes, Rajendra Vyas who had been travelling on the Sabarmati express train stated in the sting operation, ‘He (Mr. Modi) first said that we would take revenge... the same thing I myself had said publicly...I hadn‘t even eaten anything then... hadn‘t even had a drop of water...I was in such a rage that so many people had died, tears were flowing from my eyes but when I started using my strength...I started abusing...he (Mr. Modi) said, Rajendrabhai, calm yourself, everything will be taken care of ... what did he mean when he said everything would be taken care of? ... all those who were meant to understand,

understood..’

117. In another section of the Tehelka tapes, Arvind Pandya, government counsel before the Nanavati Commission until 2007, when the Sting Operation became public says, ‘Thereafter, the second hero by the name of ...Narendra Modi ... came and he gave oral instructions to the police to remain with the Hindus because the entire kingdom is with the Hindus.’

118. Yet another such confession can be found in the Tehelka tapes through which A-1 (Mr. Modi) gets directly indicted. Ramesh Dave, a VHP member and strongman says, ‘We went to the (VHP) office that night ... the atmosphere was very disturbing... everybody felt that (we had taken it) for so many years ... Narendrabhai gave us great support...in Godhra he gave a very strong statement...he was in a rage... he‘s been with the Sangh from childhood... his anger was such...he didn‘t come out

67

into the open then but the police machinery was turned totally ineffective...’

119. Finally, a former MLA and chief auditor of MS University of Vadodara, Dhimant Bhatt has also stated in the Tehelka tapes, ‘After Godhra, there was this reaction and a certain climate was created in the parivar by the top leaders, meaning the RSS, the VHP, the Bajrang Dal, the BJP and the Durga Vahini ... and in that we had Mr. Narendra Modi‘s support... let people say what they like (we had) support in the sense that if Hindus are going to be burnt like this....if conspiracies are going to be hatched to burn Hindus... they wanted to burn the whole train (the Sabarmati express)... and now if we don‘t do anything, if we don‘t generate an adequate reaction, another train will be set on fire ... this was the idea, the thought that came from him (Mr. Modi)...I was present in the meeting... some 50 people like myself had special permission from the Police Commissioner (A-48, then Commissioner of Police, Mr. DD Tuteja) to move in curfew areas to help...in order to maintain the peace and law and order... that was just an excuse...I am very open... clear (about it)... but how we were to help the Hindus? At that time, there wasn‘t even a stick of wood in Hindu homes. So what were we to do?...we took iron pipes... three feet each ... iron bars, and if there were people from the Bajrang Dal, then trishuls ... the Bajrang Dal people had a plan for putting together the saamaan (weapons) and we went and supplied them to key persons in various localities...it was very necessary...’

SIT Conclusions on the Sting Operation

120. The SIT mandated with this sensitive and critical investigation was expected to probe every aspect of the charges against A-1 (Mr. Modi) thoroughly and objectively. Instead, the manner in which the SIT has dealt with the serious allegations made by a) an Accused (No. 22) in the Naroda Patiya case now convicted by a Judgement of the Sessions Court dated 29.2.2012; b) Haresh Bhatt a former MLA and Bajrang Dal leader; c) Rajendra Vyas, a worker of the RSS and VHP d) Ramesh Dave, Vadodara, a worker of the RSS

68

and VHP and e) Dhimant Bhatt, an accountant with the MS University and f) Arvind Pandya, advocate for the state government in the Nanavati Commission until 2007 (when he was mysteriously removed following the Sting Operation being telecast) exposes the bias of the SIT. The SIT has not even linked Arvind Pandya‘s conduct here as an agent of the A-1 (Mr. Modi) in trying

to intimidate witnesses and whistleblowers like Mr. R. B. Sreekumar from speaking the truth before the Nanavati Commission.

121. A general query is put to A-1 (Mr. Modi) when his statement was recorded on 27-28.3.2010 (Annexure 1, Volume II, Serial No. 113, Page 450-467) about the Sting Operation. Thereafter, this is what the ,SIT concludes: ‘He (Mr. Modi) has further stated that this issue was raised in November 2007, after about six years of incident and that too at the time of elections in December 2007. Further, these issues were again raked up in April 2008 when the SIT was appointed by the Supreme Court. Shri Modi has also stated that this issue was again raised on 22-02-2010, when he was to appear before the SIT for his examination. According to Shri Modi, the whole episode is motivated and stage-managed and that he had no personal knowledge about the authenticity of the said CD.’

122. The SIT gives no importance or credence at all to the CBI authentication following the order of the NHRC on 5.3.2008. The CM‘s itinerary is part of the Investigation Papers at Annexure IV File IX at serial nos 250, pages 3502-3508. This itinerary shows a two and a half hour gap between the press conference at 1800 at Shahibaug Annexe Circuit house and a law and order meeting at the residence of A-1 Mr. Modi at 2030 hours on 28.2.2002. This does not preclude him making a trip to Naroda Patiya at the time mentioned by Mr. Chara, now convicted of rape and murder. Given the fact that the Tehelka tapes have not just been authenticated by the CBI but the Sessions Judge in the Naroda Patiya case has accepted them as evidence, SIT should have been much more thorough and exacting in validating, or rejecting this corroborative evidence against Mr. Modi‘s direct involvement in the conspiracy.

123. Besides, he did go to Godhra immediately on hearing of the tragedy

on 27.2.2002, where the evidence of DM Mrs. Jayanti Ravi and

others given to the SIT states that he among others also met

69

people at the railway yard where he could well have met both Mr. Vyas and Mr. Bhatt.

124. SIT should have co-related the evidence on the ground ± large-scale, planned attacks perpetrated on the minorities while the police in many cases just watched ± and thereafter closely cross-questioned police authorities including A-29 (Mr. PC Pande, then Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad), A-48 (Mr. DD Tuteja, then Commissioner of Vadodara) etc. The SIT ought to have made a thorough and exacting analysis of districts like Bhavnagar, Surat and Kutch where similar attacks were planned and attempted, but exemplary conduct from the men and women in charge, Superintendants of Police and others, prevented this violence from escalating and becoming macabre dances of death as they were allowed to in Ahmedabad, Panchmahals district, Mehsana, Kheda, Vadodara, Sabarkantha, Banaskantha and Patan.

125. The SIT, by not taking the Sting Operation seriously, moreover a sting operation that had generated vital evidence of conspiracy and the involvement of top accused have shown both unprofessionalism and bias. The Sting Operation has now even been validated by a Sessions Court in the Naroda Patiya case, no thanks to the SIT but thanks to an independent suo moto act of the NHRC in ordering the authentication and thereby the preservation of this crucial evidence.

Conspiracy and Its Objectives fulfilled through the Free Abuse of Hate Speech

126. The deliberate inaction of the Gujarat government‘s Home Department under A-1 (Mr. Modi) for the effective control, arresting and stoppage of hate speech and writing was integral to the conspiracy hatched by him. Not only did he abuse his Constitutional position by indulging in speech violative of the law himself (Amicus Curiae Mr. Raju Ramachandran at Annexure IV, File IV, D-91 dated 20.1.2011 and Annexure IV file X, D-306, dated 25.7.2011) has recommended his prosecution, but freely allowed his position as chief minister to spread hatred, lawlessness and an atmosphere that was conducive to the most venal attacks on children, women and men. See also Tables as Annexures-from Annexure III File XIX, D-161 which contains a list of intimations of the State Intelligence Bureau on and before 27.2.2002 warning the

70

headquarters about the deleterious effects of aggressive and incendiary speech and writing.

Hate Speech by Accused No.1, Mr. Modi

The official press release of the Gujarat Government at Serial No. 131.

127. Annexure IV File VII of the SIT Record reflects the unashamedly partisan nature of A-1‘s mindset at a critical juncture when statewide violence has already broken out (from the afternoon of 27.2.2002). ‘An unforgiveable, inhuman heinous act has been committed on the soil of Gujarat. This act is an act which no civilized society can forgive. I wish to assure all citizens of Gujarat that Gujarat will not be able to stomach/tolerate/live with such an act. Not only will the guilty get exemplary punishment but such examples will be set that none will ever venture to commit such acts in future.’ After this clear and veiled intent that can only be judged by what had been conspired to be unleashed from 27.2.2002 onwards, carefully veiled platitudes continue.

128. The SIT has failed to exam

made available and further demonstrate the discriminatory mindset of A -1 Mr Modi.

129. Speech of Mr. Modi on 27-28/02/2002 on Doordarshan‘s Gujarati channel concerning the Godhra incident:

(Mr. Modi steps out from

the coach and sitting in the conference room): Sarkar taraf thi

samuhikhinsa ka trasvadi krutya hua. Itni bhayanakta itni krurata

jiske liye shabd nahi hai. Sarkar ne mrutakon ke parivar ko 2,00,000 rupaye dene ka nirnay kiya hai. Sarkar koi bhi kadam Q

uthanese hichkegi nahin aur gunehgaro ko puri saza milegi. (Tr:

The governmenta collective terrorist act was perpetrated

There are no words for such cruelty, such barbarism. The government has decided on a compensation of Rs 2 lakh for each of those who have lost their lives. The government will not hesitate to take any necessary step and the culprits will be severely punished).

130. The Editor‘s Guild Report of 2002 also mentions the transcript of the March 1, 2002 interview of the Chief Minister on Zee television

71

wherein he openly speaks of the ‘Action-Reaction’ theory, to a substantive extent justifying the post-Godhra Violence. This Report also speaks of congratulatory letters written officially by the Chief Minister‘s Office to newspapers like the Sandesh praising them for

a certain kind of writing. Incidentally, those Gujarati language newspapers that were critical of the state government and had

even reported about distribution of alcohol and arms in areas on the night of February 27, 2002 were ‘not congratulated by the CM or the CMO.’ (Annexure III, File II, D-5 pages 1-251 of the SIT papers)

a. On 1 March 2002, while violence had broken out all over Gujarat, in an interview to Zee News, Mr. Modi made the following remark: ‘Kriya pratikriya ki chain chal rahi hai. Hum chahte hain ki na kriya ho aur na pratikriya (The process of action and reaction is on. I would say if action doesn‘t happen there would be no reaction).’ In the same interview, Mr. Modi also stated that Godhra Muslims had criminal tendencies and they were behind the gruesome Sabarmati train fire incident. He added that the riots in Gujarat were a natural reaction to that. ‘Godhra ke is ilake ke logon ki criminal tendencies rahi hain. In logon ne pahle mahila teachers ka khoon kiya. Aur ab yeh jaghanya apraadh kiya hai jiski pratikriya ho rahi hai’ (Tr: ‘People in this area of Godhra have criminal tendencies. First, these people killed a woman teacher. And now they have committed this heinous crime’).

Hate Speech by A-1 (Star News: News) Sunday, 10. 03. 2002

131. Zakia Naseem Jafri (wife of late Ehsan Jafri): ‘Woh is aas mein hi reh gaye ki police aayegi. Lekin police ko na aana tha, na aayi.’ (Tr: He perished in the hope that the police would arrive. But the police was not going to come and it did not come.

132. A-1 Mr. Modi‘s statement of 01. 03. 2002: ‘Vaise aaj ke akhbaaron ne purani ghatanaon ko quote kiya hai, Gujarati akhbaaron ne, ki pehle bhi kis prakar se vahaan se private firing hue hain. Aur kis prakar se logon par aatank phailane ka prayaas bhootkal mein hua hai, is society se. Iska, jo purani ghatanaaon se Gujarat ke log jaankar hain, woh saara report hua hai. Lekin is bar bhi, jo Gulberg society hai, vahaan par private firing hua, private firing ke baad

72

mamala bigada.’ (Tr: ‘Today‘s papers have quoted previous incidents, Gujarati papers, of how there have been earlier incidents of private firing there too. And how, an effort was made from this

society, in the past, to spread terror among the people. People were familiar with the earlier incidents, all this has been reported. But this time also, there was private firing at the Gulberg Society, after the private firing, things went out of control’).

133. Narendra Mr. Modi: ‘Pehli baat hai yeh jhootha statement hai jo mere munh me dala gaya hai. Maine hamesha yeh kaha hai ke jab main Godhra pahuncha, wahan ka drush dekha aur mujhe laga sthiti bigad sakti hai aur tatkal maine police department ko suchna di, home department ke sabhi logon ko, ki tatkal poore pradesh

mein logon ko arrest kar liya jaye, jo is prakar ki mansikta wale hain, aur 27 tarik raat ko hi 800 se adhik logon ko round up kar liya

gaya. Main kisi bhi - chahe ghatna Godhra ki ho ya Godhra ke baad ki ho- kisibhi sabhya samaj ko yeh ghatna shobha dene wali nahin hai. Aur na hi koi susanskrit manav samaj mein aisi ghatnaon ke liye koi sthan ho sakta hai. .... Mera poora vakya sun lijiye, m aine yeh kaha hai ki gussa kitna hi gehra ho, chot kitni hi gehri ho, lekin lok tantra mein kanoon apne haath mein lene ka adhikar nahin hai. Maine yeh kaha ki democratic way main kisi ko apna gussa jataane ke raaste ham are sam vidhan mein hain...Dekhiye, main koi bhi shabda bolta hoon, agar aapne mujhe crucify karna tai kiya hai to aap case banaa sakte hain. Mujhe aap batayenge ki 24 tarikh ko ghatna kyon nahin ghati, 25 ko kyon nahin ghati? 28 ko kyon ghati? To sidhi baat hai, Godhra ki ghatna thi. To is baat ko bhul kar ke aap stories nahin kar sakte hain. Aur sahi baat yeh hai ke mukhyamantri ke nate mera dayitva banta hai ki logon ko kahna ki kanoon haath mein lene ka adhikar aapko nahin hai. Maine baar baar kaha hai ki kanoon ko mazboot kijiye. Agar kanoon ko

mazboot karenge to gunahgaaron tak pahunchne ki suvidha badegi. ... Aap dekhiye, Gujarat mein 4,000 log arrest hue hain,

4, 000 log. Aur aap ko yeh malum hona chahiye ki jab Gujarat mein communal violence hoti hai to 3-3, 6-6 mahine chalti hai – Gujarat mein communal violence hote hain to (ignores question about how many of the arrested are VHP/BD members) logon ko kitni pareshani uthani padthi hai. Yeh pehli baar communal violence hai, jo 72 hours mein control kiya gaya hai. Aur pehle din 1,000 rounds

fire kiya gaya hai, 15 se adhik logon ko police firing mein mara gaya hai... to 72 hours mein communal riots control kaise hui hain,

73

yeh mujhe samjhaiye. Agar control nahin kiya hota to 72 hours ke andar yeh communal riots control kaise hote?...dekhiya koi figure badh nahi raha hai, yeh pehle, dusre din ki ghatnaaon ki jankari jud rahi hai. Yeh pehla communal riot hai, jo 72 hours main control hua hai. Yeh pehla communal riot hai jis mein police ne firing karke 100 logon ko maara hai, Yeh pehla communal riot hai jis main tear gas se zyaada goliyan chalayi gayi hain. Yeh pehla communal violece hai jiske andar 4, 000 se adhik logon ko round up kar diya gaya hai. Police ka agar action na hota to yeh sab kaise bantaa?’

134. (Tr: ‘For one, these are false words, which have been put in my mouth. I have always said that when I reached Godhra, saw the sight there, I thought that the situation could get out of hand and I immediately informed the police department, all the people at the

Home department that people throughout the state should be arrested, whoever has this kind of mentality, and on the night of 27.2.2002 itself, 800 people were rounded up. Whether it is the incident at Godhra or the incidents post-Godhra, it does not befit

any civilised society. And nor can there be any place for such incidents in a cultured human society... (about understanding the anger) Listen to my complete sentence. I had said that however deep the anger, however deep the hurt, democracy does not give the right to anyone to take law in his hands. I said that there are

ways in our constitution to express our anger in a democratic manner... See, whatever I say, if you have decided to crucify me, then you can build up a case. You tell me, why did this incident not occur on the 24.2.2002, nor on the 25th? Why did it happen only on the 28th? It is simply because of the incident at Godhra. So you cannot ignore this fact and make stories. And the real thing is that as Chief Minister, it is my duty to tell the people that you do not

have the right to take the law in your hands. I have repeatedly asked them to strengthen the law. If you strengthen the law, then it will become easier to reach the criminals... Please note that 4,000

people have been arrested in Gujarat, 4,000 people. And you should be aware that whenever there is communal violence in Gujarat, it lasts for 3-6 months, whenever there is communal violence (ignores a question about how many of those arrested are VHP/BD members) people have to face hardships. This is the first time that the communal violence has been controlled within 72 hours. And on the first day, 1,000 rounds were fired, more than 15 people were killed... So please tell me, how were the communal

74

riots controlled within 72 hours? If we did not control, then how were the communal riots controlled within 72 hours? ... Look here, casualties are not increasing. These are just the information (on the incidents) of first and second day, adding up. This is the first communal riot to be controlled within 72 hours, this is the first communal riot where the police has killed 100 people in firing, this is the first communal riot where more bullets have been fired than tear gas shells, this is the first communal violence where more than 4,000 people have been rounded up. If there had been no police action, then how was all this made possible?’)

135. It is worth reproducing here the contents (English translation) of the speech made by A-1 Mr. Modi at Becharaji on 9.9.2002. (Speech on the occasion of Gaurav Yatra Page 272)

Verbatim of Public Speech delivered by the Chief Minister, Shri Narendra Modi, at Becharaji (Mehsana district of Gujarat State) on 9.9.2002, as part of Gaurav Yatra:

136. ‘The procession of prestige (Gaurav Yatra) has now reached the holy land of Becharaji, from Fagwel, by blowing the bugle of self-respect of Gujarat. This is the holy place of power (Shakti), the power for extermination of Ashuras. We have resolved to destroy and stamp out all forces of evil who are a threat to the self respect of Gujarat. A set of people, who are not concerned about ordinary Gujarati citizens, are keen to impede progress of Gujarat State and its future, are out to defame Gujarat State. In this holy land of Becharaji, let the 5 Crores Gujaratis acquire such power and energy, which will build tomorrow‘s prosperous Gujarat. There is allegation against us that we are Hinduwadis. Oh! brothers, for the development of Becharaji Devi temple, our Govt. has allotted 8 Crore Rupees. Is it a crime done by us? Have we become communal by allotting 8 Crore Rupees for the development of Becharaji? Our Congress friends have come out with another charge. They say, this Narendrabhai has brought Narmada water to Sabarmati river and this man is so much clever that he brought the water in the month of Shravan (a holy month for Hindus). My dear brothers, we built the dam and so water is available. Let me ask a question to my Congress friends, if water is brought during Shravan month, those mothers / ladies residing on the banks of Sabarmati river can take bath in Narmada water and feel holiness and

75

blessedness. Then what is paining them? Since, we (means BJP) are here, we brought water in Sabarmati during the month of Shravan, when you are there, you can bring it in the month of Ramdan (the holy month of Muslims). When, we brought water in the month of Shravan, you feel bad. When we spend money for the development of Becharaji also, you feel bad. What brother, should we run relief camps? (referring to relief camps for riot affected Muslims). Should I start children producing centers there, i.e., relief camps? We want to achieve progress by pursuing the policy of family planning with determination. We are 5 and our 25 !!! (Ame panch, Amara panch, referring to Muslim polygamy). On whose name such a development is pursued? Can‘t Gujarat implement family planning? Whose inhibitions are coming in our way? Which religious sect is coming in the way? Why money is not reaching to the poor? If some people go on producing children, the children will do cycle puncture repair only? ‘If we want to develop Gujarat, every child born in Gujarat should get education, enlightenment,

livelihood and the economic order should be built up accordingly. For this purpose, there is a need for teaching a lesson to those people, who are expanding their population (hinting at Muslims). If we object to the explosion of population, they feel bad. Can somebody tell me, is there any nation like ours? Is China ruled by BJP? Still China had enacted a law to curb population explosion. Here some people say no no, are we religious fundamentalists. Brothers, in this matter, how religion is involved? In Gujarat, Madrasas are coming up in large numbers. The children have right to get primary education. But, Madrassa going child are deprived of primary education. What will such a child do, when he grows up? Suppose, normal education is not available and only religious education is available, will it not be a burden on Gujarat. We are scrutinizing Madrassas from Kutch (district) onwards. Now these people may say that we are communalists. If West Bengal Govt. puts restrictions on Madrassas, it is secular, but when it is done in Gujarat, how do we become communal? Any institution needs regulation. If we want peace in Gujarat, we have to make long term plans. We cannot permit merchants of murder to freely operate in Gujarat. I am sitting in the holy place of Shakti (energy), at the lotus feet of Becharaji Mata. I want to assure you that I may lose the chair tomorrow or today. But, I will not allow those plotting to destroy Gujarat and harm the innocent, to carry out their plans. Gujarat wants happiness, Gujarat wants peace, 5 crore Gujaratis

76

are united and progressing. The days of somebody like Dawoodd Ibrahim sitting in Karachi and playing games of murder and destruction are over. We will not permit it. For what purpose is all this done? My chair may go today or tomorrow. We are not sticking to the chair with fevicol. Brothers, we are sitting at the feet of the Gujaratis. If the people feel that this person (referring to himself) will work, then they will put him as their head. And if the people don‘t feel, then they will kick us out. Brothers, we are a set of people, who are always at your service. The Congress is afraid of going to the people; they do not want the election. Oh brothers, if you do not want the election because you are going to be defeated and so you want to delay the holding of election? Smt. Indira Gandhi was afraid of going to the election. Therefore, she extended the tenure of the Parliament to 6 years. Why don‘t you do the same thing? But you are afraid of doing that. What do you talk? There are disturbances in Gujarat. The people of Gujarat indulge in riots. If you don‘t want to face election you have no right to abuse 5 crore Gujaratis. This is not acceptable to us. If you have courage, brothers, why don‘t you bare your chests and face us in the battle field of election? Why do you run away? If one has to run away, we have to do it. There is propaganda is against me throughout the world. It is done by you (Congress men). We are willing to go to the people and you are running away from the people. Why don‘t you go to Italy? Go, and offer aarti (offering by holy flame) to the Election Commission. You are shouting, stop elections, stop elections! Oh mother! Stop elections! Oh Congress friends! We have put the dust from the feet of 5 crore Gujarati on our head. We are one with them and we are proud of telling that. We are not cheats. If you go to collect the dust from the feet of the people of Gujarat they will kick you. We have no selfishness. This daughter of Italy (Sonia Gandhi) had given us open certificate that we had insulted the land of Mahatma Gandhi and Sardar Patel. We have to demand your answer in this matter. How much did you insult Sardar Patel? The Nehru dynasty of Congress people, develop fever hearing the name of Sardar Patel. You may feel sad, but Sanjay Gandhi was no great man other than being the husband of Maneka Gandhi. But, there is samadhi of Sanjay Gandhi at Rajghat. Oh my Brothers and Sisters of Gujarat! Sardar Patel does not have a samadhi (in Delhi). We feel very sad about it. You Congress people, you are toiling for effacing out the name and image of Sardar Patel, but I warn you. Beware, if you try to wipe out the fame and name of Sardar, we are here to sacrifice

77

our lives for keeping the flag of Sardar at high pedestal. We believe that, if we have to do good of the Nation, we have to adopt the path of Sardar Patel. If you want to save Kashmir, you have to walk in the path of Sardar Patel. If you want to bring unity in Gujarat, you have to adopt the path of Sardar Patel. If you want to contain and check the merchants of murder, we have to follow the path of Sardar Patel. Our motto is to pursue the path of Sardar. There are people bent upon destroying Gujarat. We have come out for awakening the self-respect of Gujarat. If we raise the self-respect and morale of 5 crore Gujaratis, the schemes of Alis, Malis and Jamalis (referring to Muslims) will not be successful to do any harm to us. These 5 crore Gujaratis will decide about their future. The buffoons of Delhi will not decide the future of Gujarat. In Delhi, there is a crowd of Ex. Prime Ministers, who are sitting idle. In the evening, these Ex. Prime Ministers meet. They issue Fatwa (royal proclamation) that in Gujarat the Rathyatra of Jagannathji should not be taken out. We asserted that it will be taken out. In Gujarat, if the Rathyatra of Jagannathji is not taken out, whose Rathyatra should come out? People sitting in Calcutta (referring to the communists) do not want the Rathyatra to come out. It will be better to go out of the Govt. instead of not taking out Jagannath Rathyatra. I don‘t care if I lose political power and authority. We have decided that Jagannath Rathyatra will be taken out. Then, the whole crowd of Congress people rushed to Delhi, to Madam (Sonia Gandhi), appealing. Madam, save us! This Narendra Modi is a mad man, and we cannot compete with him. Save us, solve the problem of Narendra Modi. Madam said, what happened? Stop Jagannath Rathyatra, if the Rathyatra of Jagannathji is taken out Gujarat will burn, Muslims will be massacred, there will be wide spread hue and cry, stop the Rathyatra of Jagannathji, stop the Rathyatra of Jagannathji, stop the Rathyatra of Jagannathji. When

Congressmen told this thing to Madam, finally she asked, brothers, tell me this Jagannathji is belonging to which political party? Is this Jagannath Rathyatra like Advani‘s Rathyatra? (The Congress men replied), Oh Madam, this Jagannath is not worker of any Party.

Jagannath is God (Bhagwan). Does Bhagwan Jagannath belong to any Party? See, such (ignorant) people are set out for serving the Nation !!! Mahatma Gandhi used to say ‘Drive away these white

men’, ‘Oh white men, quit our Country’. But, what did Congress do? Oh white people, please come, be our Congress President, Oh white people, please come, be our Congress President. Congress

78

is like a Dharmashala. They (Congress men) are set out for destroying Gujarat. Therefore, there is a need for awakening the self-respect of Gujarat. In this holy place of Mother Goddess, let us pray to God to bestow us fresh energy, let there be new ideas. By serving Mother India, let us make Gujarat also proud. We should enhance and brighten the image and identity of Gujarat. Hail

Mother India! Hail Mother India! (Bharat Mata Ki Jai!), Vande Matram, Vande Matram, Vande Matram (Salutation to the Mother).

137. Note:- From perusing the above there is a clear cut design behind the deliverance of such a speech by the chief minister, who swears an oath of allegiance to the Indian Constitution. It is clear from a close perusal of the speech that there is a desire to create hatred and ill-will towards the minority. For example:

---We have resolved to destroy and stamp out all forces

of evil, who are a threat to the self respect of Gujarat. (Comment- This is clearly an indirect justification of a policy of carnage against the minorities after the tragic Godhra incident).

---Let me ask a question to my Congress friends, if

water is brought during Shravan month, those mothers / ladies residing on the banks of Sabarmati river can take bath in Narmada water and feel holiness and blessedness. Then what is paining them? Since, we (means BJP) are here, we brought water in Sabarmati during the month of Shravan, when you are there, you can bring it in the month of Ramdan (the holy month of Muslims). (Comment- The Holy Month of Ramzan and observance of Roza are one of the Five Pillars of Islam hallowed in the Holy Koran. The mens rea (motive) behind making this reference in the speech can be clearly deduced.

---What brother, should we run relief camps? (referring

to relief camps for riot affected Muslims). Should I start children producing centers there, i.e., relief camps? We want to achieve progress by pursuing the

79

policy of family planning with

determination. We are 5 and ours are 25!!! (Ame panch, Amara panch, referring to the claim that every Muslim family produces five children).

138. These remarks from the highest elected representative in a state are nothing short of an attempt to ridicule the plight of refugees from the minority community who were dis-housed because of widespread violence that was not contained. Refugees in relief camps included victims of mass massacre, rape and arson. State complicity at the highest level has been judicially held responsible for the sustained spread of the violence. Therefore, ridiculing the camps and thereafter lacing the statement with the

poisoned stereotype of the alleged Muslim aversion to family planning during an election campaign clearly has a motive. This statement also projects the Muslim minority as a stumbling block to progress and patronises an ‘us versus them‘ mindset among the populace that then becomes easy fodder for incitement and the outbreak of communal violence). On the whole, the speech displays a definite communal bias, denigration of the minority community,

ridiculing and belittling of the Holiest Scriptures of the minority community particularly the Five Pillars of Islam, the Holy Month of Ramzan and observance of Roza. These references will certainly germinate a sense of hatred, ill-will and exclusivism towards the Muslim minority in the minds of the majority community. The claim

that nothing happened in the form of riots after the speech is irrelevant, dangerous and untenable because the sense of exclusivism and sectarianism obvious in the tone and tenor of the speech not only goes against the concept of emotional integration

of the Indian people but also engenders an intense feeling of alienation among the Muslims towards the Hindu community.

139. In this perspective the speech of the chief minister is injurious to the Preamble of the Indian Constitution and Particularly Article 51-A that is the Chapter on Fundamental Duties and a Violation of Indian criminal law.

140. Available at Annexure III, File III, D-2, pages 1- 4 of the SIR papers are the critical notings of the State Intelligence Bureau under ADGP, RB Sreekumar showing the correspondence with the National Commission for Minorities (NCM). The field officers of the

80

SIB notings on the speech clearly find it can incite hatred and violence.

141. SIT viewed that there was no criminality in the CM speech. SIT has turned a blind eye to the unethical and objectionable efforts of the state government in suppressing the reporting of this speech to a statutory body like the National Commission for Minorities (NCM). Former ADGP, Mr. RB Sreekumar had sent the copy of the speech and the State IB‘s comments on it to the NCM. This report of the SIB, based on the field officers of the SIB who were present when the speech had been delivered, had commented that the tone and tenor of the CM‘s speech could vitiate the prevailing atmosphere and adversely affect social harmony. Please see the following documents (1) Third Affidavit Page 14-15 para 12 of Mr. RB Sreekumar‘s (2) Annexure F of Third Affidavit (Register) entry against dates 10 to 18 Sep 2002. (3) Fourth affidavit page 50 para 4 entry against date 17/9/2002. (4) Former DGP RB Sreekum ar‘s appeal letter to SIT dated. 30.11.2010 Page 22 para 9 sub para I, V.

142. The copies of message from the National Commission for the Minorities (NCM) containing contradictory orders from A-25 then DGP Mr. K. Chakravarti were also submitted to SIT. However, without professionally assessing the facts narrated by Mr. Sreekumar and giving any reasons, SIT has simply rejected this evidence. The motive of the SIT has clearly been to reject any bit of substantive evidence that validates the serious charges against A-1 Mr. Modi. SIT has gone further and accepted the CM's version and exonerated Mr. Modi from any liability for his speech containing communal prejudice. The conclusions that the SIT arrives at are unconvincing as the speeches are aggressive and full of mal-intent.

143. However, SIT commits another round of prevarication and vacillation when it at one point states that: ‘It is to be stated that Mr. Modi has clearly stated in his Zee TV interview that it was late Ehsan Jafri, ex- MP, who first fired at the violent mob and the provoked mob stormed the society and set it on fire. In this interview he has clearly referred to Jafri‘s firing as ‘action‘ and the massacre that followed as ‘reaction‘... It may thus be seen that in spite of the fact that ghastly violent attacks had taken place on Muslims at Gulberg Society and elsewhere, the reaction of the

81

government was not the type that would have been expected by anyone. The above discussion also shows that the chief minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulberg

Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by saying that every

‘action‘ has an equal and opposite ‘reaction‘ (Mr. Modi‘s remarks)

implied justification of the killings of innocent members of the minority community...( in spite of the fact that ghastly and violent

attacks had taken place on Muslims at Gulberg Society and elsewhere, the reaction of the government was not the type that would have been expected by anyone. The chief minister had tried to water down the seriousness of the situation at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other places by saying that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.’ (Page 69 of Malhotra‘s Report, dated 12.5.2010).

144. ‘M r. Mod i ‘s statement accusing some elements in Godhra and the neighbourhood as possessing a criminal tendency was sweeping and offensive coming as it did from a chief minister, that too at a critical time when Hindu-Muslim tempers were running high.’ (Page 13 of SIT Chairman‘s comments on Malhotra‘s Report, dated 14.5.2012).

145. ‘His (M r. Modi‘s) implied justification of the killings of innocent members of the minority community read together with an absence of a strong condemnation of the violence that followed Godhra suggests a partisan stance at a critical juncture when the state had been badly disturbed by communal violence.’ (Page 153 of Malhotra‘s Report, dated 12.5.2012)

146. While Shri Modi told the SIT his speech did not refer to any community; it was a political speech in which he highlighted the increasing population of India, the SIT had observed that ‘The explanation given by Shri Modi is unconvincing and it definitely hinted at the growing minority population.’ (SIT Malhotra‘s Report, dated 12.5.2012).

147. The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Raju Ramachandran finds the words spoken by the chief minister an offence, an incitement to violence and hatred against a particular section of the Indian people. But in its final report dated 8.2.2012, the SIT finds that no criminal offence

82

has been committed and recommends a closure on these allegations.

148. The SIT does a turnaround in its final report dated 8.2.2012. It is strange and inexplicable that in its Conclusions submitted before the Learned Magistrate dated 8.2.2012, the SIT now states that ‘A s per Mr. Modi‘s version, he had not and would never justify any ‘ action or reaction by a mob against innocents. He had denied all allegations in this regard.’ Zee TV never sent a copy of the interview, says the SIT. Zee TV correspondent, Chaudhary told the SIT the Editors‘ Guild report contained only excerpts and he did not have the original CD. He did recollect Mr. Mod i‘s reply that a mob

‘had reacted on account of private firing done by Jafri’, the SIT ‘ says. Chaudhary told the SIT Mr. Modi was of the view that he wanted neither action nor reaction. Mr. Modi reportedly said,

‘Godhra mein parson... pratikriya ho rahi hai,’ but Chaudhary could not recount the exact sequence. (Pg 482-483, SITConclusions s

submitted before the Learned Magistrate on 8.2.2012).

149.SIT however comes to an objectionable conclusion. ‘A s regards the C

public speech delivered at Becharaji, Mehsana district on

September 9, 2002, as a part of Gaurav Yatra, Mr. Modihas s explained that the speech did not refer to any particularcommunity y or religion. According to Mr. Modi, this was a political speech in

which he has pointed out the increasing population of India andhad dremarked that ‘can‘t Gujarat implement family planning?‘ Mr..Modi i

has claimed that his speech has been distorted by someinterested d elements, who had misinterpreted the same to suit their designs. He has also stated that there were no riots or tension afterhis s election speech. No criminality has come on record in respectof f this aspect of allegation. (Page No. 272 of the SITConclusions s submitted to the Learned Magistrate dated 8.2.2012).

Inaction on Hate Speech as Part of the Conspiracy, Self-Confessions and Hate Speech Un-investigated by SIT

150. In a shocking interview given by him, Accused No. 23 ProfessorKK K Shastri publicly confirmed theVHP‘ss diabolical plan hatched with the full inspiration and masterminding by A-1 Mr. Modi. (See Annexure of Interview that is also available at

83

[]. Conducted by Sheela Bhatt it was an interview with K.K. Shastri, the 96-year-old President of the Gujarat unit of the VHP, on the portal. It makes chilling reading. According to Mr. Shastri, the list of Muslim-owned shops was prepared on the morning of February 28. It was done as ‘we were terribly angry (over Godhra). Lust and anger are blind’. ‘Hindutva was attacked. This is.... a tremendous outburst

that will be difficult to roll back’. Further, ‘we can‘t condemn it because they are our boys’. Shastri added, ‘The VHP has formed a panel of 50 lawyers to help release the arrested people accused of

rioting and looting. None of these lawyers will charge any fees because they believe in the RSS ideology’. (See Annexure III, File II, D-5, Report of the Editor‘s Guild of India).

151. According to this Report, Mr. Shastri is said to have denied making these remarks. The two VHP Joint General Secretaries, Dr. Jaideep Patel and Dr. Kaushik Mehta also contradicted the report, making out that Mr. Shastri was old and hard of hearing. They rejected the theory that Muslim premises were targeted. However, journalist Sheela Bhatt has the tape and the SIT instead of investigating this clear evidence of the conspiracy that was hatched between Mr. Modi, the RSS, VHP, BJP among others simply dismisses these charges with a line ‘Prof. Shastri is now dead.’

152. However the SIT made no effort at all to record Sheela Bhatt‘s statement. The text of the story as reproduced by ‘Mainstream’, Delhi, is at Annexure 3 of the Editor‘s Guild Report, Annexure III, File II. The Editor‘s Guild Report adds that the tenor of the April issue of ‘Vishwa Hindu Samachar’ published by R ashtra C hetna Prakashan and edited by M r. K.K. Shastri lends credence to what he told . A two-page article therein praises ‘Chhote Sardar’ Mr. Modi for his handling of Godhra and its aftermath. Shastri had among other things told Bhatt that, ‘that the list of shops owned by Muslims in Ahmedabad was prepared on the morning of February 28 itself. Mr. Shastri was replying to an allegation that shops in Ahmedabad were looted on the basis of a list prepared by the VHP in advance and that the violence was not a spontaneous outburst against the carnage in Godhra. ‘...A scholar of the Mahabharat and a highly respected literary figure of Gujarat’, Mr. Shastri said in a tape-recorded interview, "In the

84

morning we sat down and prepared the list. We were not prepared in advance."

153. Lacunae in SIT Investigation: SIT ought to have analysed professionally all the statements, interviews delivered by powerful leaders of the above-mentioned organizations at the time, any magazines (including Hotline and Vishwa Hindu Samachar, pamphlets etc used widely by the VHP and RSS and thereafter arrived at a professional conclusion as an investigating agency. Mr. RB Sreekumar had provided a bunch of the most incendiary pamphlets distributed by the VHP at the time. These have not only been deliberately ignored by the SIT but do not find a space in the investigation papers. They are being filed as A nnexure ........ This aspect is also a matter for the further investigation that should be ordered by this Ld Court.

SIT Avoid Exploring the Mens Rea of Mr. Modi (A-1)

154. The non-seriousness of the SIT investigation despite the fact that a uniqueand responsible duty had been put on it by the Hon‘ble

Supreme Court is evident when the investigating agency makes no effort at all to interrogate the mens rea of Accused-1, Mr. Modi. As elaborated above, A-1 Mr. Modi had won from the Rajkot Assembly seat only 35 days before 27.2.2002. Newspaper reports mentioned above and Annexed hereto show that A-1 Mr. Modi won by a slender margin. Among the vigorous campaigners at Rajkot was former CPI leader and Congress MP, Ahsan Jafri who had warned of the ‘evil and Machiavellian character of A-1 Mr. Modi that boded ill for the state.’ Mr. Modi ‘s cold and calculated actions in deliberately not allowing any protection to reach Gulberg Society at Meghaninagar stemmed from the deep seated vendetta sentiment he held because of his narrow electoral victory that could as well have meant a defeat. Moreover, the fact that as reported in the newspapers, it was Rajkot‘s Muslims that ensured a slim margin for a man with a megalomaniac attitude is the mens rea of vindictiveness towards Muslims of Gujarat whom he clearly wanted to teach a lesson. SIT if its probe had been thorough and nonpartisan would have surely explored the mens rea behind the serious crimes A-1 Mr. Modi is accused of. (See attached clipping of Gujarat Today dated 22.2.2002 at ........)

85

Statement of A-1 Mr. Modi recorded on 27/28.3.2010

155. The SIT recorded the statement of A-1 Mr. Modi on 27/28.3.2010. He was not questioned more than once, that too casually about the decision to transfer of bodies of those who died in the train fire in a motor cavalcade to Ahmedabad.

156. SIT does not put any questions to A-1 about his immediate calls to A-21 Jaideep Patel soon after he learned of the Godhra incident. He is not asked or questioned about the illegality and irregularity of the state government and party in power supporting the Bandh called by the VHP on 28.2.2002 and 1.3.2002.

157. No questions are put to him about the hasty decision to hold a postmortem out in the open in the railway yard in full view and in the presence of an aggressive crows of VHP workers; SIT does not pose any questions on the illegality and haste with which the bodies were disposed off in violation of laws and rules simply with a view to enable communal mobilisation and the parading of dead bodies in aggressive and violent funeral processions.

158. No question is asked regarding the first information of the Godhra incident that had clearly indicated provocative slogan shouting of the kar sevaks and why the state home department headed by him had manipulated the version thereafter blanking out any reference to provocation caused;

159. SIT‘s questions on the build-up prior to 27.2.2002 are benign and not probing enough, especially given the indications and evidence of arms distribution etc. even before 27.2.2002; A-1 Mr. Modi was also Home Minister and was therefore bound to have seen all important messages and communications on build-up, provocative behavior of kar sevaks, the VHP etc even before 27.2.2002. In fact, he was legally obliged to know and answer. But to his great convenience SIT simply does not pose these questions to him.

160. DM and Collector Jayanti Ravi has clearly asserted that Jaideep Patel was present at the official meeting at the Collectorate. When SIT asks A-1 of this, he simply states ‘I do not remember‘ and that it was a collectivedecision to take the bodies to Ahm edabad.’ He

is not queried further on the legitimacy he gives the strongman of the VHP, a rabidly communal organization.

86

161. No serious questions about the brutality and daylight killings and rapes at Ahmedabad; the non-responsiveness of highly placed officers, the non-responsiveness of the Fire Brigade; the utter and abject failure of the police department under his charge. SIT poses no questions on the serious allegation that he conspired to intimidate and terrorise the bureaucracy and police.

162. No questions are put to him on the discriminatory mindset displayed by Mr. Modi in deliberately announcing less compensation for the victims of the post-Godhra reprisal killings and more to the Godhra train fire victims. No questions on the sharp criticism that his government had drawn from the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) and the Supreme Court of India.

163. SIT puts no question to him on why until 2004 the scope of Inquiry for the Nanavati Commission was kept limited, excluding any exploration of the ‘role of the chief minister and cabinet.’ It was only after a change of government that an additional term of reference was preemptively issued in response to change of government at the Centre.

164. In a slip that suggests a guilty mind, and certainly a leak in the manner in which the SIT has been functioning with relation to this probe, A-1 Mr. Modi, when asked about the meeting of 27.2.2002 denies that he had issued unlawful instructions but also volunteers without being asked, ‘Sanjiv Bhatt was not there’. SIT does not draw any adverse inference from this. The contradictions on the use of mobile phones are left non- confronted by the SIT as also the absence of any punitive action against IPS, IAS officers and other public servants for failing to perform their duty.

165. During further investigation, post-March 2011, SIT does not go back to A-1, Mr. Modi, to seek further clarifications!! The routine and non -probative nature of all the questions is revealing. No questions are put to A-1 on the vindictive targeting of all the whistleblower officers and rewarding of those who functioned unlawfully – after all, responsibility stopped with him as head of the Home Department who decides all matters related to their confidential records, service records, transfers, pensions etc.

87

166. Strangely, while A-1 Mr. Modi clearly reacts and denies his ‘action – reaction‘ interview to the Times of India (1.3.2002), he claims memory loss at Sudhir Choudhary‘s interview on Zee TV that was very questionable. Choudhary also proves himself to be a useful ally by ‘not recalling‘ the interview.

167. There are no inconvenient questions on transfers of officers who did a good job and the fact that the Ahmedabad transfers especially that of A-29 (then Commissioner of Police PC Pande) was only transferred after KPS Gill was sent to Gujarat by the Mr. Vajpayeeled NDA government in May 2002 simply because the violence was deliberately not controlled by A-1 Mr. Modi and his government. On 15.4.2002, A-29 (M r. Pande) writes a revealing letter to A-28, (M r. Ashok Narayan) and A-25 (then DGP, Mr. K Chakravarti), both co-accused in the present complaint, informing them of the criminal and provocative behavior of a minister in A-1 Mr. Modi‘s cabinet: minister for food and civil supplies Mr. Bharat Barot. No question is put to A-1 Mr. Modi on this, neither are any questions asked about the consistent and widespread rowdy behavior of the RSS, VHP, BJP, BD cadres obviously with his sanction. The explanation of the sickening speech made by A-1 Mr. Modi at Becharaji Mehsana on 9.9.2002 exposes the competence and bias of the SIT. Since April and right until August 2002, the State Intelligence department is pushing the state government to take lasting and corrective measures but A-1 Mr. Modi is adamant. SIT does not probe this satisfactorily nor the charge that he wished to order a spate of extrajudicial killings of sections of the minority post the reprisal violence of early 2002. Subsequent events have shown that such a sequence of events did unfold with a coterie of officers falling in line with the illegal instructions of A-1 Mr. Modi. Ironically some of them, including Mr. OP Mathur, are those the SIT uses to discredit key whistleblower and witness in the complaint, former DGP Gujarat Mr. RB Sreekumar. By June 2002, direct interference in the investigations of key 2002 carnage cases can be seen, the NHRC passes strictures as does the Chief Election Commission (CEC); powerful accused are being openly and brazenly saved but yet the SIT is protective of A-1 Mr. Modi during its much publicised questioning. A-25 (then DGP Mr. K Chakravarti) admits during his statements to the SIT that then ADGP, Mr. RB Sre ekum ar‘s transfer was directly because the State Intelligence Bureau under

88

him had written strong comments on the video speech delivered by A-1 Mr. Modi at Becharaji in 9.9.2002 and the fact that this news got leaked to the media. SIT however sees no reason to draw any conclusions from the motivated actions of the government and home department under A-1 Mr. Modi. The blinkered approach of SIT is all too evident in how it chooses to discredit all those whistleblowers who have given evidence directly implicating A-1 Mr. Modi in serious crimes.

Please refer to the Annexurewith Detailed Records of Hate Speech of

Dr. Praveen Togadia, Accused No. 20 (A-20)

168. ‘Incidents like this (Godhra) show the psyche of a community. What was the reason for the pilgrims who were attacked when they came from Amarnath? What was the reason? That is the psyche, I say ... communal violence can be checked only (when we understand) why this incident happened, who did it, what is the psyche behind it? This should be studied’. Acharya Giriraj Kishore; (Newshour, Star News, 27 February 2002.)

169. (Star News: Newshour) Friday, 01. 03. 2002) Dr. Praveen Togadia (Secretary General, VHP International): ‘In (a) democratic pattern weat the same time we must exercise all our democratic

right to agitate It will be agitation till the completion of the

construction of a Ram temple. It is the question of our faith and faith cannot be challenged by anybody. It is the duty of the political party to respect... and they are surrendering to blackmailing by Muslim

vote-bank! I will quote Mr.. Vir Sanghvi, editor of The Hindustan

Times – ‘We secularists are programmed to see Hindu–Muslim relations in simplistic terms. Hindus provoke, Muslims suffer. It is

clear now that there are Muslim mob-murderers on .......... Hindus...‘ – and we are talking... (SN: How long do these murders carry on?) We must consider that it is jehadi terrorist activity, which is responsible for this violence... (SN: Dr. Togadia, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth would make the entire world go blind and toothless...) I am not asking a tooth for a tooth. It is not tooth. Hindus are unarmed. And you secularist people are always

defenders...’

89

170. (Star News: What‘s on the government‘s mind? That‘s what the country wants to know. Is it to restore peace and then talk to the VHP? What‘s the strategy that the govt. has up its sleeve?)

Co-Conspirators and Accused

171. Acharya Giriraj Kishore (Vice-President, VHP): (Panel Discussion) (Incidents like this (Godhra) show the psyche of a community): ‘What is the reason for the pilgrims, they were attacked when they came from Amarnath? What was the reason? That is the psyche, I say! ‘‘Communal violence can be checked only ... why this incident happened, who did it, what is the psyche behind it? This should be studied.’

(AT: News) Wednesday, 27. 2. 2002)

172. Train burning at Godhra, Violence in Gujarat; VHP, Government in conflict on Ayodhya. Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya (Home Minister, Gujarat): ‘Ye ghathna subha 7.20 ko jo Sabarmati train aati hai Faizabad se, woh Panchmahal zilla ke Godhra head Quarters jo yahan hain capital vahan par aayi. Aur woh jaise hi vahan platform se thoda aage chali – aadha km. bhi nahi hoga – woh train ke uppar patharao hua. Patharao hone ke baad usme aag jani ke sare padarth jaise petrol, diesel, vagerah - Pehle se pre-planned lagta hai – aur immediately pura 5-6 number ka dibba hai woh jalaya gaya. Aur usme aabhi tak, ye jo dead bodies hum ko recover hui hain, yeh 57 hain. Usme 25 mahilayien aur 15 bachche hain aur 17 kariban purush hain in sab ko – yeh dead bodies yahan se recover kiye hain. Aur yahan se hum log Ahmedabad civil hospital ko bhej rahe hain... yeh danga nahi hai, dango mein aamne saamne jo sampradayik daange hote hain, usme retaliation hota hai. Isme to sirf pre -planned, organized aur pehle se hi saari chizen jaise ki tayar hoti hain. Aur ise hi shanonmen ghatna ban na – woh lagta hain ki organize prakar ka ek crime hai. Aur ye bilkul amanviya, aisi ghatna bacche aur mahilayon ke saath aisa drushya jo kiya gaya hai woh bahut gambhir hai.... (On arrest) haan ji, 30 – 40 logon ke kariban shanka ke adhar par hum log ne kiya hai. Aur yahan par aur karavahi chal rahi hai jiski ..... aur jo naam kuch vag erah hain, woh log yahan par karvahi kar rahe hain ... tanavto hain saare rajya mein, lekin ghatna – apriya ghatna jo hai... Godhra mein to bilkul shanti bani hui hai aur rajya mein bhi shanti bani hui hai. 1-2

90

chut -put ghatnaein koi Ahmedabad aur Anand vagerah mein, Baroda mein hui aur uske baad rajya mein vaisi stitithi tanav purna

hote huye bhi abhi tak shant hai.’ [Tr.: This incident took place when at 7:20 in the morning, the Sabarmati Express which arrives from Faizabad to the Panchmahal district Headquarters, Godhra,

which is the capital – it arrived here. And as soon as it left the platform and moved a bit further, about half a kilometre or so, the train was stoned. After the stoning, all the inflammable material like diesel, petrol etc. were thrown in – looks like a pre-planned incident – and immediately the S6 coach was set on fire. And so far, the

dead bodies recovered from there are 57. In that there are 25 women and 15 children and about 17 men. All of them, these dead

bodies have been recovered from here. And from here, we are sending them to the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital... This is not a riot –

in a riot there is a confrontation – in a communal riot, there is retaliation. This is simply pre-planned, organised and as though all

things have been prepared in advance. And for the situation to develop in a matter of minutes – it looks like an organised sort of

crime. And this is absolutely inhuman, to do this to women and children – this is very serious... (on arrests) Yes, we have (rounded up) about 30-40 suspects. And there is further action being taken

here. Those who are suspected and some names – they are working on it... There is tension throughout the state, but Godhra, where this ugly incident took place, is completely peaceful. And the

state is also peaceful. 1-2 minor incidents have happened in Ahmedabad or Anand etc., or in Baroda but by and large, the situation is tense but as yet peaceful.)

(SN: News) Sunday, 10. 03. 2002).

173. Dr.. Jaideep Patel (Joint Secy., Vishwa Hindu Parishad, Gujarat): ‘Woh to swabhavik hai, jo log aaiye hain aur is mein lakhon, 15- 20, 000 log hain. To pakad ke le jaaye police 15-20, 000 logon ko.

Har ek jagah, harek police station mein 10-15, 000, 10-15, 000 logon ko pakad ke le jaaye.’ (Tr.: The people came spontaneously (on the roads) and there were lakhs, 15-20,000 of them. So let the police arrest 15-20,000 people. Everywhere, at every police station, let the police arrest 10-15,000 people each.)

Call to Arms Other examples of Hate Speech on 27.2.2002

91

174. Terming the attack on Sabarmati Express at Godhra in

Panchmahal district of Gujarat as a ‘pre-planned, violent act of

terrorism’, chief minister Mr. Modi said the state government was viewing the incident ‘very seriously’. (PTI, 28 February 28, 1:02:51 a.m.)

175. ‘As soon the train left the platform and moved a bit further, about half-a-kilometre or so, it was stoned. After the stoning, inflammable materials like diesel, petrol etc. were thrown in – looks like a pre-planned incident – and immediately the S6 coach was set on fire... This is not a riot. In a riot there is a confrontation, in a communal riot there is retaliation. This is just pre-planned, organised and as though all things have been prepared in advance. And for the situation to develop in a matter of minutes – it looks like an organised sort of crime...’ Gordhan Zadaphiya, minister of state for home, Gujarat (Aaj Tak, 27 February 2002.)

176. Union home minister L K Advani on March 4, 2002 said the Godhra mayhem was a ‘pre-meditated attack’ and described the arson that followed as ‘nothing but communal violence.’ Mr. Advani told a crowded press conference here that while the Godhra incident was the result of a ‘pre-meditated’ plan, the subsequent killing spree ‘was nothing but communal violence.’ (Daily Pioneer, 4 March 2002.) ‘This has never happened in the history of independent India. Hindu society will avenge the Godhra killings. Muslims should accept the fact that Hindus are not wearing bangles. We will respond vigorously to all such incidents.’ Dr. Praveen Togadia, international general secretary, VHP; in an interview to Hotline in Ayodhya.

177. LUCKNOW: Chairman of the Ram Janmabhoomi Nyas, Mr. Ram Chandra Paramhans has warned of a possible Hindu backlash. ‘These unarmed kar sevaks, who were merely chanting Ram naam, were peacefully going back to their homes,’ Paramhans said, adding that a reaction to this attack by ‘Islamic jihadis’ could not be ruled out. (The Telegraph, 28 February 2002.)

178. ‘The violence during the bandh was a result of natural outpouring of anger and grief over the Godhra massacre.’ VHP vice-president, Acharya Giriraj Kishore, on the morning of 28 February 2002; (in The Times of India.)

92

179. ‘Whoever stays with us will benefit. You can see the results in UP. In this country whoever stays with the Hindu community and Hindutva, will benefit, or they will suffer.’— Dr. Jaideep Patel joint secretary VHP Gujarat and an accused in the Naroda Patiya massacre in Ahmedabad; (Newshour Star News 27 February 2002)

Evidence Ignored by the SIT about A-1, Mr. Modi

180. Vital evidences provided by the Complainant and Co-Petitioners in SLP 1088/2008 were deliberately ignored by the SIT. Phone call records of A-1, whether it was the official mobile that he said he was assigned at the time (and which number he did not remember!!) or even the chief minister‘s official landline and residential numbers were not analysed or provided. They provide a scandalous picture. A-1 Mr. Modi‘s official landline numbers (Residence and Office – see below) show negligible phone calls on the critical days when Gujarat burned. (See attached Graphs). This simply could not have been possible given that 14-19 districts were seriously racked by violence. The only conclusion that this data forces is that it means that the man at the helm was, as part of the conspiracy at the helm masterminded by him, deliberately inaccessible to anyone desperate for help. In actuality, ‘Nero fiddled while Gujarat burned.’ (Supreme Court‘s Justice Arijit Pasayat in the Best Bakery judgment April 2004)

Strange Story behind A-1 Mr Modi’s Call Records (27.2.2002, 28.2.2002

181. A-1 Mr Modi has hardly any calls on ant of his landline numbers. Office or residential. Given the acute emergency that a tragedy like Godhra must have caused and the post Godhra violence this is inexplicable, even suspicious, SIT has simply avoided scrutiny or questioning altogether

182. The day of the Godhra incident A-1 Mr Modi receives precisely one incoming call from PA AP Patel (on 0793229085) but no calls at all on his other residence numbers : 0793232601, 0793232602, 0793232603, 0793232604. On his sixth landline number, 0793232605 there is one call from an unrecognized number. His office tells a similarly surprising story. No calls on numbers, 07932263350 or 0793232611 on 27.2.2002,

93

183. There is no call record available which means that ‘no’ calls were made or received or these records are being deliberately withheld. Or was the phone unavailable? SIT did not even think it worthy to go into this.

184. On the next day, 28.2.2002, as the state burned and the massacres begin there are two calls received on his office nos, one of which is from Accused–21 Dr. Jaideep Patel. A-1 Mr Modi‘s residence number records two incoming calls (0793229085) from his CMO, Tanmay Mehta & A. P. Patel. There are three unrecognized calls on his second residential number, 0793232601 on 28.2.2002, three calls on his third number, 0793232602 again unrecognized, two incoming calls at his fourth residence number, 0793232603 from unrecognized numbers , no call record on 0793232604.The sixth residence number of A-1, 0793232605 has no call record. For the same day, 28.2.2002, when former parliamentarian Mr Ahsan Jafri, husband of the Petitioner is said to have called him several times just to be abused and humiliated before he was hacked to death there are six pristine calls at his office number, 7932263350 and three more incoming calls including from A-1 Jaideep Patel and his CMO Sanjay Bhavsar (twice). There are three incoming unrecognized calls on the office number 0793232611 of A-1.

185. A-21 Jaydeep Patel is a faithful caller to A-21 on the day the massacres are being carried out in Ahmedabad. He is an accused charged with incitement and murder in the ongoing Naroda Gaam trial. A-21 Jaideep Patel calls A-1 Mr Modi from 9825023887 at 15:25:06 when the massacres at Gulberg and Naroda have been largely completed.

186. Establishing a Chain of Command Responsibility In cases of mass violence of this kind, where conspiracy and complicity have taken place, it is necessary to examine closely the failures of the state machinery right from the local area level to the zonal, divisional and state level. It is also imperative that this exercise is followed by the police, administration and the police hierarchy. The SIT has simply not applied these principles treating all incidents as disparate and unconnected.

94

187. From the records submitted to the SIT by co-petitioners related to

analysis of data from phone call records of the Chief Minister‘s coterie that but for the fact that this data had been provided to the SIT, the investigating agency would have ignored it completely.

Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) ® ‘

‘‘‘‘® ‘ D ‘FiFE’’tio’® ‘ ‘ ‘‘‘‘® ‘ NO.® ‘

TanmayOSD To Chief Minister9825000837

Mehta

O. P. SinghOSD To Chief Minister9825000836

SanjayOSD To Chief Minister9825037432 /

Bhavsar0795460888 (R)

Anil MukimAddl. Principal Sec To9825049391 /

CM0796407739 (R)

A. P. PatelPA To Chief Minister9825037439

J.M. ThakkarPRO To Chief Minister9825037429

HarshGeneral Administration9825000620 /

BrahmbhattDepartments0795464988 (R)

Dy. Secretary (Ser)

P. K. MishraPS To The Chief9825095142

Minister

A. K. SharmaSecretary to CM9825037435

DineshPA to CM9825000838

Thakore

‘FFE’’’’iraFE®® ‘ in® ‘ ®’’’h® ‘

188. Detailed phone call record analyses were prepared and supplied to the SIT by the co-complainant (Annexure IV, File V and VI of the SIT paper). It is only after the call records details provided to the SIT by the complainant and other sources that SIT put questions regarding the phone call records and the analysis. Mr. Zadaphiya admits that two calls had been received by him on his mobile phone on 2203 hrs and 2208 hrs from the mobile of Mr. Omprakash Singh,

P.A. to the Chief Minister. He admits that it is possible that the Chief Minister could have spoken to him. Mr. Zadaphiya also

95

admits that his phone call records reveal that he had called and spoken to Dr. Jaideep Patel once on 27.2.2002 night and Jaideep Patel had called him on his mobile three times that night. The SIT

has let the timings of these calls remain vague. Mr. Zadaphiya claims that he left Godhra by car on 28.2.2002 around 3 a.m. which was around when the motor cavalcade carrying the dead bodies was nearing Ahmedabad. He says he reached Gandhinagar around 5 a.m. He says that he recollected that he had attended the State Assembly proceeding from 8.30 a.m. to 8.40 a.m. when homage

was paid to the victims of the Godhra incident. The house was thereafter adjourned to 1.3.2002. After going through the records of

the Vidhan Sabha he clarifies that the assembly did not meet between 1.3.02 and 12.3.202 and he was unable to explain the reason for not holding the Assembly sessions on the critical days after Godhra as per the Standing agenda of the budget session. He

could not answer why the Assembly did not re-convene until 14.3.2002.

189. The phone call records and analysis of MOS Home, accused no 5, Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya clearly shows that he was in close touch with Dr. Jaideep Patel (12 calls were exchanged between them on 28.2.2002), two calls with Dr.. Maya Kodnani and 26 calls with Mr. R.J. Sawani, then DCP, Zone V, and 7 calls with Mr. Bipin Panchal. Mr. Bipin Panchal and Dr. Jaideep Patel have been accused and charged for fomenting rioting. There were also constant phone calls between various co-accused that included accused no.1 and his office (CMO), accused no. 29 (Mr. P.C. Pandey, then C.P., Ahmedabad), accused no. 33 (Mr. M.K. Tandon, then additional C.P.) and many to Mr. Zadaphia.

Discriminatory Mind-Set of Accused No. 1, Mr. Modi

190. It was not only that Accused No. 1 spewed barely veiled venom in his speeches. His actions have been no less discriminatory. He immediately announced Rs 2 lakhs compensation to the relatives of those who had been killed in the fire. From 27.2.2002 itself Accused No. 1 was charged with a discriminatory mindset that was violative of Article 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution when a) he announced disparate amounts of compensation for the victims of the Godhra tragedy and the post-Godhra reprisal killings; b) when his police applied POTA on the Godhra case but determinedly

96

diluted the gravity of the large-scale genocidal killings perpetrated by mobs; c) the terms of reference of the judicial commission of inquiry appointed by the government deliberately excluded from its

examination and purview ‘the role of the chief minister and the state cabinet in the violence’. This was expanded only in July 2002 after a change of government at the Centre.

191. A-1 Mr. Modi self-admittedly visited the hapless victims belonging to the minority community only on 5-6.3.2002 despite Ahmedabad being close to Gandhinagar while he went to Godhra 300 kilometres away the same day. No explanation was sought for him by the SIT.

192. SIT: The Chief Minister showed a discriminatory attitude against one group of the victims of violence. (ii) In the SIT‘s first ,Investigation Report dated 12.5.2012 the SIT says: ‘Narendra Modi, chief minister, has admitted to visiting Godhra on 27 February 2002. He has further admitted to visiting Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and other riot-affected parts of Ahmedabad city only on 5 March 2002 and 6 March 2002 ... This possibly indicates his discriminatory attitude. He went to Godhra, travelling almost 300 km in a day, but failed to go to the local areas, where serious incidents of riots had taken place and a large number of Muslims were killed.’ (Page 67 of Malhotra‘s Report, 12.5.2010).

193. SIT states that ‘Mr. Modi did not cite any specific reasons why he did not visit the affected areas in Ahmedabad city as promptly as he did in the case of the Godhra train carnage.’ (Page 8 of Chairman‘s comments on the Malhotra‘s Report, dated 14.5.2010).

194. When Accused No. 1 is charged with a discriminatory and unconstitutional mindset because he announced only Rs. 1 lakh to be paid to those innocents massacred all over Gujarat postGodhra, he tried to justify the discrimination stating that there is difference between terrorist attacks and communal violence and the attack on Sabarmati express on February 27 fell in category of terrorist attack." (March 7, 2002, The Times of India). (See Annexures.......) As if the state-sponsored violence unleashed on innocents was in any way less an act of terror. The National Human Rights Commission had sharply criticized Accused No. 1 Mr. Modi and the government of Gujarat for this brazen display of a

97

discriminatory mindset. ‘(xii) The Commission has noted the contents of the Report on two matters that raised serious questions of discriminatory treatment and led to most adverse comment both within the country and abroad. The first related to the announcement of Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation to the next-of-kin of those who perished in the attack on the Sabarmati Express, and of Rs. 1 lakh for those who died in the subsequent violence... This decision, in the view of the Commission, should have been taken on the initiative of the Government itself, as the issue raised impinged seriously on the provisions of the Constitution contained in Articles 14 and 15, dealing respectively with equality before the law and equal protection of the laws within the territory of India, and the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.’ (See Annexure, the Report of the National Human Rights Commission, 2002).

195. Mr. Modi showed a hostile and discriminatory mindset when at several junctures between February 2002 (when violence was unleashed) and December 2002 (when elections took place) he tried to forcibly shut down Relief Camps and in a disgraceful episode even calling them ‘Baby Producing factories’ during his election launch speech at Becharaji in Mehsana.

Co-Conspirators

196. There is a mysterious bit of evidence from the phone call records that could have some serious implications. Unfortunately despite being provided with it, the SIT has chosen to ignore it altogether. The phone call record analysis shows the Locations of Powerful Accused at Sites of Violence a Day Prior to their Outbreak:

LOCATIONS OF POWERFUL PERSONS AND ACCUSED AT NARODA

197. Locational details of key persons from the CMO and influential politicians who are found through the Locations of their Mobile Phones to have been located at the Narol, Naroda area on the day of the Godhra train burning while the Chief Minister was at Godhra. In all the depositions before the Nanavati Commission, senior policemen have averred that the reason why Naroda Patia was attacked and burned in broad daylight for several hours was the fact that this was not a traditionally communally sensitive area and

98

therefore was left under-manned. Yet, it transpires that key persons are found located here. Why?

NAROL, NARODA 27.2.2002

198. From about 09:52:53Mr. Ashok Bhatt, cabinet minister for health accused (No. 2) of ordering the carrying out of hasty and illegal post-mortems at Godhra in an open railway yard and who was also sitting in the city control room and preventing policemen from doing their duty on 28-2-2002 was, from the locational records showing on his mobile phone, at Naroda-Narol. At 09:55:24 on 28.2.2002 around the time the massacre began, Mr. Bhatt was at Narol, Naroda. He received three calls there. Another key person from the coterie of the chief minister, Mr. Tanmay Mehta, PA to the Chief Minister who was also there at Naroda at 1602 hrs Mr. OP Singh, PA to the chief minister, was also there at 16:02:25 and the two were in touch with each other. Mr. Ashok Narayan, Additional Home secretary also accused in the Zakia Jafri Complaint (A-28) was also present at Narol, Naroda at 5:41:32, and so was Mr. IK Jadeja, minister (A-3) there at 17:35:25.

Analysis of Location of Key Persons at Meghaninagar 27.2.2002

199. Close members of the chief minister‘s cabinet and coteries were at Meghaninagar on 27.2.2002 where the Gulberg Society that was attacked the next day is located. Why were they there especially when the defense of top level policemen to explain the attacks on Gulberg and Naroda has been that these are not traditionally communally sensitive localities of Ahmedabad? What then were these people doing there?Since some of those here were also at Godhra (!) it appears that their mobiles were given for someone else‘s use. Why has SIT not probed this fact?

200. At 15:48:39 Mr. Ashok Bhatt (919825039877), minister for health was here and around the same time Mr. Anil Mukim, Additional Principal Secretary to the chief minister was also here at 15:33:40. Mr. Mukim was also here at 16:02:02 and then again that night at 22:01:18. Others present there at Meghaninagar which is the jurisdiction area where the Gulberg society is located the day the chief minister was in Godhra was Mr. OP Singh, PA to the chief minister at 15:48:16. Mr. PK Mishra, Personal Secretary to the chief

99

minister is also present at Meghaninagar at 15:48:11 on 27.2.2002

and so also is Mr. Tanmay Mehta, PA to the chief minister (at 15:35:01).

MEGHANINAGAR

201. What were six persons from the CMO, Mr. Anil Mukim, Mr. OP Singh, Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Sanjay Bhavsar, Mr. AP Patel and Mr. JM Thakkar doing in the Meghaninagar area between 1400 to 1700 hours on 27.2.2002 while the CM Mr. Modi was at Godhra? Had they left their mobiles behind? With whom? Interestingly among policemen who are in the same area on 27.2.2002 are Mr. PB Gondia, DCP Zone IV who is there are 00:36:26 that is on the early morning of that day. The SIT has not even bothered to examine why so many of the powerful coterie around A-1 and many co-accused were at two locations where the worst violence happened the next day. At all stages, the defense for the lack of adequate control of marauding mobs in broad daylight when they attacked Naroda Patiya and Gulberg has been that these are traditionally not the communally sensitive parts of the city. Why then were so many persons located there? Why did SIT choose to ignore the leads provided by the petitioners?

28.2.2010

202. Startlingly, on the day of the Gulberg and Naroda Massacres, i.e., 28.2.2002 persons from the CMO, Ministers Mr. Ashok Bhatt, A-2 and Mr. IK Jadeja, ACS Mr. Ashok Narayan, A-28 and even DGP Mr. Chakravarti are shown through an Analysis of the Mobile Phone Records to be Located in these areas of Ahmedabad City.

Early Morning (5.10 a.m.) Ashok Bhatt, Narol, Naroda

Afternoon (3.41 p.m.) Ashok Narayan, Narol, Naroda

Afternoon (3.56 p.m.) Tanmay Mehta (CMO), Narol, Naroda

Afternoon (3.56 p.m.) IK Jadeja , Meghaninagar

Evening (5.10 p.m., 5.14 p.m., 5.57 p.m.) Ashok Bhatt Narol, Naroda

100

Evening (5.40 p.m.) AP Patel (CMO) Meghaninagar

Evening 7.24 p.m. Harsh Brahmbhatt (CMO) Narol Naroda

Evening 7.26 p.m. Harsh Brahmbhatt (CMO) Meghaninagar

(See Tables in Annexure --- --)

Phone Record Contact

203. There are a total of 35 records available for the Mobile Phone No. of A-25, then DGP, Mr. Chakravarti (9825048301) for 27.2.2002. Accused No. 5, MOS Home, Mr. Zadaphiya and he speak thrice (8:54:29 hours, 98 seconds; 9:10:18 hours, 121 seconds; 14:43:27, 106 seconds), with Accused 29, Mr. PC Pande at 0925048303 seven times (11:5:42,131 seconds; 11:38:41, 74 seconds; 12:48:16, 48 seconds; 15:50:55, 65 seconds; 17:28:05, 107 seconds; 21:13:28, 52 seconds); and CMO to accused No. 1 at Anil Mukim, Addl principal secretary to CM at 09825049391 twice (15:33:40, 29 seconds; 15:37:57 seconds, 29 seconds). Mukim had accompanied Accused No. 1 to Godhra and this was the time the two were on their way. K. Nityanandam, Secretary, Home, (A-34) is actually in charge of law and order in the state at the time. Telephone calls made by him are as follows:

Phone Call Records Contact (27.2.2002)

204. Phone call records of Mr. Dinesh Togadia, brother of Accused No. 20 Dr. Praveen Togadia, international general secretary of the VHP show that of the 48 call records available for that day, he is in touch with DCP, RJ Savani (21:31:25 hours, 117 seconds) and also with Accused No. 16 Dr. Maya Kodnani, sitting MLA from Naroda convicted for 28 years to life imprisonment for being part of a conspiracy to distribute weapons, incite violence at Naroda Patiya (13:59:37 hours, 11 seconds, 14:38:49, 26 seconds). This establishes that key persons of the ruling BJP and VHP were in close touch around the time their compatriots were hatching and furthering the conspiracy to bring the bodies to aggressive processions, still at Godhra.

101

205. SIB messages dated 27.2.2002 state that many of those injured kar sevaks who reached Ahmedabad after the Godhra tragedy around 1600 hours by the same Sabarmati Express, were taken for treatment to the Dhanvantri Hospital run by the brother of A-20 Dr Praveen Togadia. Violence also broke out thereafter.

206. Accused No. 5 and co-conspirator, MOS Home, Mr. Zadaphiya had given several statements to the SIT. The first one is dated 24.9.2009, the second one is dated 24.10.2009, the third one is dated 28.10.2009 after which he gives a 33-page statement in writing. There is thereafter a further statement recorded by the SIT of Mr. Zadaphia on 21.2.2012. In his statement to the SIT dated 24.9.2009 he states that he has been a member of the RSS and remains one since 1975 and joined BJP as a district secretary at Bhavnagar in 1990. He states that he was first appointed as Minister of State for Home after Mr. Modi was brought in as chief Minister in 2001. Recounting the incident of 27.2.2002, the accused no 5 states that it was Mr. Ashok Bhai Patel, a VHP activist travelling by the same train who had informed him over the telephone from Godhra at about 7.30 a.m. and told him of the fire in the compartment in which Kar sevaks were killed. He states that he immediately spoke to Mr. Modi and informed him about the incident to which he said that he was already aware of the same. He further says that he did not do anything else. Zadaphiya then claims that he spoke to SP Godhra, Mr. Rajiv Bhargava (Accused No. 46), enquiring about the incident. He claims that Mr. Bhargava informed that the Sabarmati express train has been attacked at which point he told the SP to save Kar Sevaks and other passengers. The SP told him that he had very few policemen and asked for additional forces. Mr. Zadaphiya states that he told Mr. Bhargava that he would speak to the Range IG, Mr. Deepak Swaroop and arrange for additional forces as well as SRP from Godhra itself. He thereafter contacted Mr. Swaroop and directed that additional forces be arranged. Mr. Swaroop (Accused No. 40) told him that he himself had left for Godhra and had already made arrangements for additional forces to reach Godhra. He then left for the Assembly. On being shown a copy of the minutes of the Gujarat assembly on 27.2.2002, Mr. Zadaphia states that on 27.2.2002 a calling attention motion related to Godhra had been moved by Mr. Panjabhai Vansh, MLA which came up for discussions at 1 p.m. However, he was not present and therefore Dr. Maya Kodnani MLA from Naroda was

102

allowed to speak on the issue by the Speaker. Zadaphiya states

that by this time he had received a note which he read in the Assembly. This was the Note prepared by the Home department

(See Annexure III, File XLI, D-196, Sr. No. 5) He says that his statement was based on information available with the Home Department at that point of time. Zadaphiya also says that accused No.1 made a statement that government was considering a

proposal to pay compensation of Rs.2 lakh to families of those killed.

207. Zadaphiya states that after making his statement in the Assembly,

he went to his bungalow to collect his belongings and left for Godhra by road around 2 p.m. He states that his P.A., Mr. Ghanshyam Haripriya accompanied him in the car. He also

requested that Vipul Vijay, then IG, ATS and his team to go to Godhra and he followed him a separate car. (SIT has not recorded the statement of Vipul Vijay). Zadaphiya states that he also requested the DGP to direct the jurisdictional officers all over the State to ensure that no untoward incident took place. Zadaphiya claims that he reached Godhra at 4.30 p.m. by which time Accused No. 1 was due to reach and as per protocol he directly first proceeded to the helipad to receive him. Accused No. 2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt and Mr. Bhupenbhai Ladhawala had already arrived there. After the arrival of the Accused No. 1, they straightaway drove to civil hospital along with other senior officers to see the victims and talked to the doctors as well as the victims about their treatment

etc. It was only after this that Accused No. 1 proceeded to the scene of the incident at the Godhra Railway station. By this time two of the burnt bogies had been decoupled from the Sabarmati Express and were lying in the yard. He says there was a big mob of VHP leaders, relatives of the victims and other private persons who had gathered. The VHP leaders and public were very angry and had started shouting slogans at them. Zadaphiya says he asked them to calm down, some of the bodies had already been removed from the spot. At this point Zadaphia clearly says that he spotted Dr. Jaideep Patel and Mr. Ashwinbhai Patel near the railway track and the group inspected the burnt bogies. After this, according to Mr. Zadaphiya he accompanied Accused No. I to the Collectorate where they had a meeting about the incident with officials around 6 p.m. Members of the press were also present to put some questions to the Chief Minister to which he replied. According to Mr.

103

Zadaphiya while this meeting was on, he came out several times

and instructed the police offices to round up people who were responsible for this incident. Accused No. 1 also impressed upon

the police officers to take stringent action against the accused responsible for the carnage. Mr. Zadaphiya clearly states here in his statement that at this time, the issue related to the transportation of the dead bodies from Godhra to their respective

places was discussed but he says that he does not know who decided to transport the dead bodies to Ahmedabad. He states that the Accused No. 1 (Mr. Modi) left for Gandhinagar around 7.30 p.m. by helicopter while he stayed back at the Godhra circuit house. He states that he held a meeting with ATS officers as well as local police officers. Mr. Zadaphiya admits that he was in close contact with Accused No. 21, Dr. Jaideep Patel, then Jt. Secretary of the VHP who had called him four times on his mobile while at Godhra.

208. As per his recollection, Dr. Jaideep Patel was calling a meeting to arrange for intimation to the relatives of the victims about the incident. Though minister of state for home and close conspirator in the events at the time, Mr. Zadaphiya claims he does not know who decided to transport the dead bodies of the victims to Ahmedabad by road. But he admits that he came to know about this at night and also came to know that Dr. Jaideep Patel had accompanied these dead bodies. He claims loss of memory for reasons why he was in touch with Jaideep Patel of the VHP that day!

Dr. Jaideep Patel, accused No. 21 (A-21)

209. Dr. Jaideep Patel recorded his statement before the SIT on 15.2.2010. In the statement he states that he was an active member of the VHP since 1988 and remained Joint Secretary of Gujarat unit from 2001 to 2007. He states that he received information about the burning of the railway coach at Sabarmati Express at Godhra over the telephone on 27.2.2002 between 8.50 a.m. and 9 a.m. He claims that he received this information on his mobile phone from some of the Kar Sevaks who were travelling by Sabarmati Express and he was informed that the train had been attacked; set on fire and that some of the Kar Sevaks had also died because of burning injuries. He said that on receiving this information, in the office of the VHP at Paldi, Ahmedabad, he discussed the matter with other members and office bearers and it

104

was during this meeting that it was decided that he should go to Godhra to deal with the situation. He says in his statement that he

did not want to go alone and hence he went with Mr. Hasmukh Patel, Secretary of the eastern wing of the VHP of Ahmedabad. Leaving Ahmedabad around 10 a.m. he was joined by Hasmukh Patel according to his statement at 1045 at Sonichawl and they reached Godhra at around 12.30 p.m. They stopped at the Civil Hospital, Godhra. He states that it was here that he met the injured

Kar Sevaks who had sustained burn injuries and adds that Mr. Prahlad Patel in- charge of Bajrang Dal, Mehsana, was also admitted here. In all 17 injured Kar sevaks had been admitted at the civil hospital and among these were Mandakiniben Bhatia and her husband. He states that he spent some time with the injured persons and then proceeded to the site of the incident at Godhra station by which time he claimed that Sabarmati express had left for

Ahmedabad after the compartment which was set on fire was detached and taken to the railway yard.

210. Dr. Patel admits in his statement that it was he along with the VHP workers, and not the policemen or the fire brigade who took out the dead bodies out of the compartment and put them on to the railway platform. He also states that the police prepared the Panchnama of

the dead bodies and the post mortem was carried out by the doctors arranged by the police. He claims loss of memory about meeting any of the co-accused ministers of the Gujarat government — Mr. Ashok Bhatt, Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya, Bhupen Latthawala. He stated that he did not meet the Chief Minister and accused No.1

though he subsequently learnt that he had visited Godhra. He states that one MLA from Godhra whose name he does not recollect was with him in Godhra. He also states that he met some local administrative and police officers whose names he does not remember and he requested them to hand over the dead bodies of Kar Sevaks for transportation to Ahmedabad. He states that it was the district official who acceded to his request to be handed over the bodies and accordingly a letter was prepared by the Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate in his name specifying the details of the dead bodies and the trucks. He states that he has acknowledged

receipt of the dead bodies. He states that he briefed the lady Collector of Godhra around 2300 or 2400 hrs and that a police escort had accompanied them on the way to Ahmedabad. He further states that the convoy reached Sola hospital between 3.30

105

a.m. and 4.00 a.m. on 28.2.2002. At this stage he stated that he handed over the letter that he was carrying to Mr. Prajapati, Dy. Collector and the administrative and the police officers had been busy with the preparation of the panchnama and other papers. At this stage according to Dr. Patel relatives of those who have died in the Godhra carnage were also present. (The third phone message of the police states a large crowd of around 3,000 had gathered and these were members of the RSS). It is very likely therefore that

Dr. Patel and his colleagues had informed people to await the arrival of the bodies in Ahmedabad. 35 of the 54 bodies were identified and handed over to the relatives by 1300 hrs. Dr. Patel now states that Mr. Amit Shah, MLA from Sartej and Dr. Maya Kodnani came to Sola Civil Hospital and the mob according to Dr. Patel thrashed them for failing to protect the lives of Hindu Kar Sevaks. After 1300 hrs, Dr. Patel gives details about how photographs and DNA samples of the remaining 19 dead bodies were taken by hospital authorities. (The SIT does not appear to have collected these photographs or DNA sample reports and

attached with the paper for investigation). This is a matter for further investigation to be ordered by this court. Dr. Patel further states that 19 of the dead bodies were cremated at Gota cremation ground by the district administration and the police officers with the help of the Sarpanch and cremation was over by 1830 hrs. It is clear from the confidence with which Dr. Patel provides all details as if he was in the midst of these arrangements though he belonged to a private organisation. It is also clear that 19 of the unidentified bodies were hastily cremated without due procedure being followed – contacting relatives, issuing notice and allowing the bodies to be properly identified.

211. It is also relevant here to note that the SIT poses no question to Dr. Patel about the contact between him and the Chief Minister‘s office at 9:41:39 hrs on 27.2.2002 (soon after the Godhra carnage) and the call that he received on his mobile from Mr. A. P. Patel, PA to Chief Minister. An analysis of the phone record also shows that Dr. Patel called back Mr. A.P. Patel within 3-4 minutes (9:45:40 hrs). However, the SIT has chosen not to interrogate Dr. Patel about these phone calls between himself and Accused No. 1.

Doctoring of the Records Related to Accused No 1, Mr. Modi

106

212. Annexure III File XIX (copies of fax messages sent by Regional Officer of State IB to ADGP (Int), Gandhinagar for the month of

February 2002).Attached No.87 of this File, fax Mess. IB/D-1- 2/15/com/284/2002 dated 27.2.2002 , ACP, State IB, Vadodara records that the Chief Minister visited the place of the incident between 1715 to 1745 hrs. The message also records that in his presence some persons were shifted from Godhra to Ahmedabad for treatment Note on minutes of 28.2.2002 that has been given to the complainant Smt. Zakia Jafri into separate portion, namely;

(i) Annexure IV, File IX at Sr.No250 ‘Daily programme itinerary of Chief Minister for the period 27.2.2002 to 5.3.2002’.

(ii) Annexure IV File ICX at Sl. No.295 which is daily programme itinerary of Chief Minister for the period 6.3.2002 to 31.3.2002’.

213. It is inescapable that these official documents have been given in two separate parts of the same file. The same file Annexure IV, File IX At Sl.No.236 also contains ‘meeting notes of the meeting of the ministers of government held on 27.2.2002’. This file also had at Sr.No.249 the copy of the log of air traffic controller SGP international airport, Ahmedabad pertaining to visit of Godhra on 27.2.2002. The following needs to be noted about these documents.

Minutes of 28.2.2002.

214. These minutes at Sr.No.236 page 3420 to 3421 clearly appear to be fabricated. The minutes recorded after an incident such as the Godhra incident which was heavily capitalised by the Gujarat state cabinet and regarding which speeches had also been made in the

assembly, the minutes that have been attached as part of the investigation appear to be routine. There is no mention of any discussion on Godhra incident, neither of any discussion of the Chief Minister‘s or any steps taken after the Chief Minister‘s visit to Godhra before and the steps taken. The omission of any reference on 27.2.2002 to Godhra incident in the minutes itself speaks for itself. The minutes ostensibly have been recorded at 10a.m.; this is improbable. Why do we say that there is a fabrication? Feb. 28,

107

2002 was a Thursday and the second sitting of the Assembly begins as per the regulation by 1015 a.m. when private members business is discussed as per law. This decision has to be taken on the previous day.

215. On 28th February 2002 morning Shradhanjali was given for the Godhra victim, then how is it that the minutes of the meeting held by the Chief Minister does not mention it. Thursday is always a day in the session when private members business is discussed. In the morning session at 8 a.m. after the home department‘s intervention Shradhanjali was offered for Godhra. Cabinet meetings moreover area always on Wednesday, so why was this meeting held on Thursday. Another point to be noted is that as the contents of these minutes have been given by the SIT to the to the complainant the Ld. Court should take note of the complete contempt with which the Gujarat government appears to have given papers to this investigation. They are completely illegible. After such a critical incident of Godhra on 27.2.2002 there should have been a circulation of the agenda if the state cabinet was to be called on the next day. There is no communication as to who was to be called to the meeting and when the meeting should have been held. There should have been formal agenda notice which has not been given.

Chief Minister’s official register

216. The Ld. Court should demand the original agenda/notice for the meeting of 28.2.2002 and also demand the original copy of the fax inward register of the Chief Minister‘s office supplied at Sr.No.311 of Annexure IV File X. This item is ‘copy of the fax inward register at the office of Chief Minister, Gujarat for February 2002’. (Page 4114 to 4145). A close look at this register shows how it has clearly been tampered with and therefore it is critical that the court demands the original. Item no..., for example at Sr.No. 2000 has been struck out and Sr. No. 1502 put in its place (i.e. the nos of entries are sought to be seen as reduced.). The manner in which the numbers have been struck off and added clearly suggests a brazen attempt of fabrication. The SIT has of course chosen not to go into these issues even though what is going on is apparent.

217. Worst of all, the SIT has simply not bothered to summon all documents received by fax and other means related to 2002. These

108

could have been memoranda etc from citizens or official communications.

Chief Minister’s ‘ll’’iuuuF

218. 10.30 a.m. – 27.2.2002 We are told the petition to the Chief Minister on Godhra could be now in the assembly. In all other records and ststaments made available by the SIT, this is not the time for petition in the assembly but a meeting of ministers and officials of the home department. Which is correct and which has been falsified?

219. Strangely enough, the itinerary of the Chief Minister which has been given to the complainant by the SIT and is available at Sr. No. 250 as mentioned above, mentioning the Godhra incident and thereafter entry of 12 noon mentioning a declaration of 2 lakhs from the Chief Minster‘s relief fund to those who have died in the tragedy.

220. Strangely, in the Itinerary (that also does not look like the original document) there is no mention of the zero hour discussion on the Godhra incident of 27th February 2002 when M.L.A. of the BJP, Dr. Mayaben Kodnani (Accused No. 16 in complaint dated 8.6.2006) gave her speech in the Vidhan Sabha. It is strange that in the official itinerary of the Chief Minister a reference is made to a press release but no mention is made of the speech given by a ruling party member, that too in the Assembly.

221. Besides, there was a long discussion on the Godhra incident that can also be seen in the proceedings of the Vidhan Sabha. None of these is mentioned in the itinerary of the Chief Minister.

222. In the Assembly proceedings of Vidhan Sabha of Gujarat dated 14.3.2002, a statement is made on the floor of the house by MOS Home, Mr. Gordhan Zadaphia in which he acknowledges the incident and also states that curfew has been declared at Godhra itself. If in fact an official meeting with a proper agenda as is sought to be made out in the illegible documents made available to the complainant at Sr. No. 236 of Annexure IV File IX, surely then 28.2.2002 meeting would also have been referred to by Mr. Zadaphia before the State Assembly (Vidhan Sabha) on 14.3.2002.

109

Through a perusal of the Chief Minister‘s itinerary we are given to understand that after his discussions with the Prime Minister, there is a submission of the budget.

223. On 28.2.2002 the house adjourned and met again only on 14.3.2002. In the entire statement read suo-moto under Rule 44, Zadaphia narrates the incident of 27.2.2002 and describes the situation at the Godhra railway station, bandobast sent, the mobile van sent and thereafter, how the train leaves for Ahmedabad from Godhra at 12.45 p.m.

224. Coming back to the supposed meeting of which notice of meeting has been provided at Sr. No. 236, the moot question is how could a meeting of the Gujarat cabinet have memo of discussion of any matter related to Godhra when several issues were discussed at Gandhinagar. Mr. Modi talks about two minutes, telephonic call sent for RAF and the army. Zadaphia states that the decision to call the army was taken on the afternoon on 28th February. Where is the evidence? He also states on the floor of the house that in different areas redeployment of army took place. He repeats that within 72 hours violence had stopped. It clearly appears that A-1 Mr Modi and other officials of the government as also other powerful accused are suppressing facts and even providing fabricated documents, that too to a SIT appointed by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court.

225. There is also a mention in the Assembly proceeding about Haren Pandya, then Revenue Minister, stating that radio and television would be used to inform family members. Was this done? What were the steps taken to inform relatives of those who had died in Godhra about the incident and giving them the option to collect the dead bodies? Why such a hasty cremation when the first decision appears to have been taken to allow the dead bodies to be taken by relatives? Why were mass funerals organised? The assembly proceedings also mention that photographs of unidentified bodies, finger prints etc. would be collected (Haren Pandya). SIT has not bothered to investigate whether it was done.

226. What is the duty of a Chief Minister when he is informed of an incident like Godhra? The itinerary says that he discussed the issues with the Prime Minister by 12 noon. Should not curfew have

110

been declared immediately by 10.30 a.m. when at 10 a.m. itself he was aware of the seriousness of the Godhra incident as his

itinerary suggests and Assembly proceedings suggest and even the Vidhan Sabha was informed when Dr. Kodnani spoke? Should he not have called a top level meeting of the law and order machinery in the morning itself before he left for Godhra? The itinerary

suggests between 5.00 p.m. and 7.45 p.m. the Chief Minister conducts an official level mini-cabinet meeting at the Collectorate in Godhra.

227. On 28 February 2002, i.e., next day there is no briefing of the cabinet on the Godhra incident. The selective briefing of some key members of the cabinet in Godhra about the unfolding of the conspiracy that is planned and keeping in dark of the rest of the cabinet is very suspicious. This is proved by the meeting notice of Minutes of 28.2.2002 meeting where there is no mention of any meeting on Godhra.

228. In the itinerary of the Chief Minister of 28.2.2002, there is mention of a briefing about the Vidhan Sabha proceedings at 8.a.m. Why was the cabinet kept in the dark about the briefing that the Chief Minister was given and the decisions of the State? On 27.2.2002 the Chief Minister announced a compensation of 2 lakhs and said that he has spoken to the Prime Minister. Why were these briefings not given to the State Cabinet? The itinerary talks about the shoot at sight orders given after Godhra. Again the minutes of 28.2.2002 cabinet meeting is silent on this.

229. Was the Chief Minister grilled by the SIT when he goes to the meeting and takes decision to allow the motor cavalcade of the bodies to Ahmedabad? Was he grilled about this? Why has SIT remained silent on this?

230. According to the itinerary provided by the investigation team, the Chief Minister arrived at the Godhra hospital at 16.45 p.m. By 17.00 p.m. he had visited Coach S-6 and thereafter the civil hospital and entered into discussions with the ministers present who are also co-accused and the District Magistrate and other police officers.

231. A-21 Dr. Jaideep Patel who has been in touch with the Chief Minister from the morning of 27.2.2002 is also allowed to be present at the official meeting of the cabinet. Therefore between

111

1645 and 1945 hrs when as many as six or more of the coconspirators and accused are present at Godhra, major decision relating to the unfolding of conspiracy are taken, and these are also communicated in different ways to the administration. Major aspect of this conspiracy is to aggressively promote the motive behind the Godhra train burning incident as part of an internationally hatched conspiracy, use the ghastly charred remains of the bodies and take them in funeral procession to inflame communal passion. In such

meetings, inflammatory speeches are also made by various accused which are not checked or controlled by the police and finally after the infamous meeting at the CM‘s residence on

27.2.2002, terrorise and paralyse the administration into not performing its lawful primary constitutional duty.

232. When A-1, Mr. Modi is questioned by the SIT, no questions are put to him about the detailed documentary evidence available in the SIT records, about Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt‘s role on 27.2.2002. This evidence was available with the SIT since January 2010 when the DGP made it available (17 files) that is even before the investigation report dated 12.5.2010 was filed before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. Thereafter some vindication comes from the CMP Sanjay Bhavsar himself when among the documents handed over by him is one with Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt‘s signature. Yet SIT ignores this vital documentary evidence completely. It is no wonder that the SIT was resisting tooth and nail against making this documentary evidence available to the Complainant/Petitioner.

Sandesh Newspaper as Collaborator in the Conspiracy

233. The Sandesh daily Gujarati newspaper with widespread circulation played a diabolical role in distorting the Godhra incident to foment violence. The following examples show the extent to which this publication went as a collaborator in the conspiracy hatched by A-1 and the VHP.

Annexure 1 – Sandesh – 28-2-02 page 1 continued page 14 – Screaming headline stating that 60 Hindus burnt alive in Godhra. Provocative language used.

Annexure 2 – False story– 28-2-02 page 1, heading – 10-15 Hindu women dragged away from the

112

railway compartment by fanatic mob. Police denied that any such incident taking place.

Annexure 3 – Sandesh – 28-2-02 page 16, the same bogus story is repeated with the heading – mob dragged away 8-10 young women to the slums.

Annexure 4 – Sandesh – 28-20-02 page 5, news item with heading, "Sabarmati Express arrives at Ahmedabad amidst chants of, ‘Jai Shree Ram!‘... ‘Blood for blood!‘‘

Annexure 5 – Suppression of truth – 28-2-02 page 3. A mob killed a youth in Bapunagar, buses and shops set on fire in Ahmedabad. The victim is a Muslim but the paper deliberately hides his Muslim identity. Other victims were Muslims, their properties were targeted, but ‘Sandesh‘ does not mention this anywhere in the news.

Annexure 6 – Sandesh – 28-2-02 page 2 heading – Sword over his head, train driver hijacked. In fact, there is no such hijack of the Sabarmati Express train driver; no other news paper either in Gujarati or English reported this fabricated news.

Annexure 7 – Sandesh – 1-3-02 page 1, continued on page 14 – headline says 15,000-strong mob commits great destruction – 50 burnt alive in Gulberg Society of Chamanpura (Ahmedabad) – Three died, five injured: mob turns fierce. News about killing of Ex- MP Mr. Ahsan Jafri printed on the front page. The report claims that ex-MP fired at the mob, so the agitated mob killed him. The widow of Ahsan Jafri has denied any firing by her husband. The newspaper justifies the killing and burning of 60 persons by a mob from the majority community. Mr. Jafri has called the police more than 200 times for help. ‘Sandesh‘ does not disclose this fact in its report.

113

Annexure 8 – Sandesh – 1-3-02 page 16 – heading – of the kidnapped young women from Sabarmati Express, dead bodies of two have been recovered with their breasts chopped off. In fact, there is no such incident. Police denial of any such incident finds no mention in the report.

Annexure 10 – Deceptive trick photography and news – Sandesh – 1-3-02. On the top of front page, a big title, ‘98 killed‘ is superimposed on a color picture of funeral biers. The obvious aim is to create an impression that the 98 victims belonged to the majority community.

Annexure 11 – Sandesh – 5-3-02 there is a news item on front page with heading ‘Karsevaks forge ahead, defy prohibitory orders‘. Though this news item, the defiance of prohibitory orders by karsevaks is glorified.

Annexure 12 – Sandesh – On 5-3-02 there is story on page 2 with the title, ‘Anger of people against TV Channels‘. The story says the biased coverage by some TV channels created tension between two communities. Owners of this paper are clearly upset with TV channels which show that Muslims are the actual sufferers. (The same TV channels had earlier telecast images of victims of the Godhra carnage). Till March 31, 2002, Sandesh does not publish a single photo of Muslim victims of the carnage. Almost 90 percent of shops, commercial, industrial, business establishments ranging from a small vendor‘s cabin to factories worth crores which were looted and burnt down are Muslim property. This is a clear attempt at economically crippling the minority community. Yet, neither Sandesh nor any other major Gujarati daily prints a single word about this. Many Muslims women were raped before being killed/burnt alive in Naroda Patiya, Gulberg Society and elsewhere. But except for Gujarat Today, the

114

Gujarati vernacular press does not place this information before its readers.

Annexure 13 — Sandesh 5-3-02 page 11. Its a very communal, highly objectionable, provocative, inflammatory, anti-Muslim article by Manoj Gandhi, some excerpts are as under:Heading — Gory incidents of Godhra — Ahmedabad — dangerous game of Khoon ka badla Khoon! (Blood for blood!).

Big heading:

(1) Gujarat is ablaze because of the conspiracy of fundamentalist Muslim terrorists.

(2) Instigation of tolerant Hindus triggers intense reactions;

Sub-heading in block letters:

(1) After 50 years of Independence, what is the reason of Muslims hatred towards Hindus of Hindustan?

(2) After the communal riots of 1992 and Godhra incident, Muslims should learn that the results of instigation of tolerant Hindus can be dangerous,

(3) If fundamentalist Muslims do not understand this truth, then innocent Muslims will continue to be sacrificed in this glory game.

The text:

(1) No Hindu can pardon someone forever, the brutal and cowardly terror, committed by the wicked Muslims of Godhra, cannot be pardoned by any Hindu forever because a wrongdoing can be pardoned once or twice, but pardon every time is considered as the sign of weakness.

(2) Snake charmers who can catch a poisonous snake and trap it in the basket are never afraid of

115

history. They know better how the snake is to be defanged. This fact should be remembered forever by the traitors and the treacherous of the minority community and all fundamentalists as well as terrorists of not only Godhra or Gujarat but of entire India.

(3) Those who forget this, always suffer losses. It is a fact that their own mistakes lead to a heavy toll

(4) Treating Hindus as their enemies, massacre of Hindus through conspiracy of religious fanatics, fundamentalists and terrorists among the Indian Muslims, will not be tolerated; the hissing snake will be brutally dealt with

(5) There is no way out except adopting the policy of tit-for-tat against Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. Otherwise, Hindus in Hindustan will be reduced to a shameful, sorry plight.

Annexure 14 –Sandesh – 6-3-02 page 1. An 8- column headline ‘Hindus Beware‘, ‘Deadly conspiracy of retaliation after Haj‘. Subheading – Bomb blasts using RDX or plane hijacking feared.

234. On March 18, 2002 Accused No.1 Mr Modi sent an official letter of

congratulation to ‘Sandesh‘ and 13 other Gujarati newspapers expressing his high appreciation for their restrained coverage of events (sic). This was told by A-1 himself to a team of the Editor‘s Guild who visited him on April 2, 2002. The text of the original letter in Gujarati and its English translation is available at Annexure III, File II, D-5 of the SIT papers. Three other Gujarati dailies that had been moderate in their approach and whose representatives the Guild members met were Sambhav (four editions), Prabhat (Ahmedabad and Mehsana) and Gujarat Today. 3UXK~~~~ director, Mr. Ashish Kothari spoke to the Guild of swords and liquor being distributed widely on 27.2.2002. Neither Prabhat nor Gujarat today received the congratulatory letters from A-1 Mr Modi. Mr. Falgun Patel (Sandesh) speaking to the Guild made provocative

116

statements, describing the Godhra incident as ‘unforgettable’ and adding, ‘Can a 20 per cent minority take the majority for a ride? There has to be a limit.’

235. SIT had been repeatedly urged by the Complainants, co-petitioners and witnesses to investigate this collaborative hate crime. But SIT simply did not go into this aspect in its investigation at all.

236. There is ample evidence in the Investigation papers indicating that the SIT deliberately did not investigate the prelude and build-up to the violence unleashed post-Godhra.

237. The anger of the minority community against the publication of communal writing by mainline Gujarati newspaper in 2002 had led to several memorandums being submitted to the authorities. From 27.2.2002 onwards Sandesh newspaper had played the role of assisting the enveloping conspiracy to spread communal violence hatched by accused no.1. The IB message at page 58 of Annex. III File XIX, dated 7.3.2002, 1130 hrs (Mes. IB/Mahiti/383/02 records that Muslims of Tandalge area in Vadodara had boycotted the Gujarati Samachar and Sandesh Newspapers because they have printed inflammatory news that went against public order. This message also records that the anger of the minority went so deep that despite the A-1 chief minister visiting Vadodara no one from the Tandalga met him or even submitted a memorandum.

238. At pages 47 and 48 of annexure III File No.XIX in the SIT papers, the State IB takes note of inflammatory pamphlets distributed by VHP in Vadodara city. This logically should have led to action under the relevant section of the IPC. Both ADGP-Int Mr RB Sreekumar and SP Bhavnagar at the time, Mr Rahul Sharma had strongly recommended prosecution of the Sandesh newspaper. The fax message Mes IB/D-2/com/Info Patrika/ Vadodara/974 and Mes. /SB/Patrika/ 1247/ 02.

Prelude and Build Up to the Violence

239. At Annex IV File XVII (6941to 7368) which is a file of the ‘Print outs from CD submitted by PC pande former CP Ahmedabad containing scanned copy of Wireless Message Book of PCR Ahmd City for 28,2.2002 contains a chilling Message dated dated 27/2/02 sent at

117

21: hours. The message is at page 7126 in the file. It records that police informer Ashokbhai has informed the SIB that ‘Nr. Rakhiyal Char Rasta mentions that at Rakhial Char Rasta a truck full of arms is present and that these arms are liable to be misused misused. The message has been sent from the Rakhial 2 Wireless Van.

240. Incidentally these documents got made available to the Investigating Agency only after 15.3.2011 when former CP PC Pandey suddenly produced 3,500 pages of scanned messages on CDS that in this instance are described as ‘Wireless Message Book of Police Control Room, Ahmedabad City Control Room for date 28/2/2002’. They had been concealed by him earlier.

241. A shocking story on the widespread distribution of swords and trishuls by the RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal right up to the end of March 2002 was reported by The Indian Express, April 9, 2002. ‘Carrying of swords ‘‘capable of being used for carrying out physical violence“ is prohibited under Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act and convictions could lead to jail terms ranging from four months to a year but predictably the Ahmedabad police under A- 29, then Commissioner PC Pande, other co accused A 38 Shivanand Jha and others simply did not act. The story is annexed here and was given to SIT to take into serious consideration given the implications of this aggressive arming by a collaborator organization but SIT has ignored this in its investigation.

These steps should have been taken by the Home Department under A-1 Mr Modi

242. (i) A-1 should have made a visible and repeated appeal for peace, calm and restrain

(ii) Photographic publication of the corpses should not have been allowed.

(iii) Strict and effective implementation of the law

(iv) Preventive Arrests of all persons with a history of participation in communal violence and other criminals

118

(v) Prohibitory Orders since Violence had already broken out in Ahmedabad, Vadodara, Modasa and Khedbharma

(vi) Police stations should have been directed to and monitored about continuous Mobile Petrolling and for arranging bandobast to their sensitive areas.

(vii) Arm, Ammunition and Teargas should have been kept ready Keep anti-riot drill kit

(viii) Appeal to Vishwa Hindu Parishad to maintain calm, to track their leaders and movements

(ix) Warnings against rumour mongering, hate speech and hate writing

Subversion of the Home Department under Directions of A-1 Mr Modi

243. There are messages received by the Home department of the GOG directly headed by A-1 Mr Modi at serial nos. 29 & 30 (Pages 50 & 51) Annexure III. File XL I sent by the Governor of Gujarat to the A28 Ashok Narayan, then ACS Home and A-27 Subha Rao, then Chief Secretary. The first para of the letter states that the Gujarat Home Department should pay attention on ensuring the dependability and credibility of reports sent to Governor of Gujarat. There is further evidence to suggest a doctoring of the ground level situation by the Gujarat Home Department headed by A-1 Mr Modi.

244. A message contained at serial No.34 at pg. 56 at Annexure III. File XL I, page says in its last para that ‘there is a difference in the sets of figures of persons killed and attacked’ between what the State IB was sending New Delhi and what the State Control Room under the Accused mentioned above were doing. There are also instances in both these files that suggest deliberate dilution of the offences against the minorities. Further investigation demands that A- 60 GC Raigar, PS Shah and then Joint Secretary, MHA Haldar are questioned on this.

Build Up as Exposed in the Tehelka Tapes

119

245. On February 22, 2002 the Gujarat intelligence department received a fax message (of the same date) from the UP state intelligence department, informing them of the criminal behaviour of kar sevaks travelling on the Sabarmati Express S-6 special bogie. This is in all likelihood the same bogie that caught fire a few days later. The message from the UP intelligence department states that when some local people tried to enter the bogie at the Rudauli station near Faizabad the kar sevaks attacked them with trishuls and daggers and injured some of them. An FIR was also registered for the crime. Haresh Bhatt, who had gone to Faizabad, was one of the many persons who were caught off guard by Tehelka‘s sting ‘Operation Kalank‘, telecast on October 25, 2007.

246. From reports received, it appears that the train bogie containing those kar sevaks who had misbehaved at Rudauli was the same one that returned on February 27 and was unfortunately burnt. Following revelations that Haresh Bhatt and Prahlad Patel also went to Ayodhya, and were integral parts of the plot to build up an arsenal in Gujarat prior to February 27, it is conceivable that they too were in the bogie that caught fire. Tehelka‘s conversation with Bhatt raises serious questions for the authorities and investigating agencies about the sinister accumulation of arms and ammunition by Bajrang Dal and VHP men all over Gujarat. During the same sting operation Tehelka also spoke to the then VHP district convener from Sabarkantha, Dhawal Patel. He too provides startling details about the stockpiling of ammunition and bombs. Why were sangh parivar members stocking up on ammunition prior to February 27, 2002? As part of its investigation into the wider conspiracy, that the SIT was mandated to undertake it ought to have investigated this. That it did not exposes its bias. This aspect needs to be looked at in further investigation.

247. Arms distribution before the execution of mass crimes From Tehelka‘s ‘Operation Kalank‘: Haresh Bhatt, the then BJP MLA from Godhra, to Tehelka:Bhatt says a well-planned conspiracy was hatched to import large quantities of ammunition from outside Gujarat and also to manufacture weapons within the state. He names one Rohitbhai (VHP treasurer) as being a core member of the planning team. He says the plan to import arms, swords and other ammunition into Gujarat from Punjab and elsewhere was a

120

long-standing one and that he brought swords and countrymade guns into Gujarat and distributed them all over. He says that a large number of bombs, including diesel bombs and pipe bombs,

were manufactured at his factory while rocket launchers were manufactured both at his factory and elsewhere. These rocket launchers, with stands, were made using thick pipes and filled with

gunpowder and then sealed and blast using locally made ‘598 bombs‘. The weapons were then distributed across Gujarat. Haresh Bhatt also said he previously owned a firecracker factory in Ahmedabad, one that was fully operational on February 27, 2002!

248. Questions raised:

a) Who were the conspirators involved?

b) When and where did they meet?

c) Did this meeting take place well before February 27, 2002, when the Godhra arson took place, and if so, what was the real intent, the motive?

d) When did Haresh Bhatt order two truckload consignments (of swords) from Punjab?

e) When did Bhatt order the consignment of desi guns from UP and MP?

f) How long does it take for a loaded truck to travel between Punjab and Gujarat?

g) How long does it take for a loaded truck to travel between UP and Gujarat?

h) Who are the manufacturers and suppliers of swords (in Punjab) and countrymade guns (in UP and MP)?

i) When did they receive the orders for consignment and when did they deliver these? Most importantly, who paid for them?

j) The consignment truck(s) must have passed through many states – Punjab, Haryana, UP, MP and Rajasthan. How was easy passage for the arms arranged?

121

k) When did the consignments actually arrive in Gujarat and where in Gujarat did they arrive?

l) Were these consignments delivered to locations other than Godhra? Did these destinations include Ahmedabad, for instance? (In the post-Godhra violence, Ahmedabad and Panchmahal district were the worst affected in terms of loss of life while Sabarkantha was the worst affected in terms of loss of property.)

m) If the consignments were ordered well before February 27, 2002, will this fact not have some bearing on the much touted Godhra conspiracy theory?

n) If the consignments arrived in Godhra, which is a hub of truck owners, hundreds of trucks could be available at short notice to supply consignments all over Gujarat. It is now well known that the genocidal carnage that Modi presided over spread to 19 of Gujarat‘s 25 districts within hours of the news of the Godhra train burning.

o) What is the identity of the vehicles used for the supply of these arms and to whom did they belong?

p) To whom, and at which location/s, were these arms and ammunitions supplied?

q) Who were the officials, police, octroi department and others, who allowed these consignments safe passage?

249. More questions:

a) Who were/are the workers at Bhatt‘s firecracker factory?

b) What were the products manufactured?

c) Was the factory operational on February 27 and 28?

d) Where, apart from Haresh Bhatt‘s factory, were the rocket launchers manufactured?

122

250. Observations: These findings would then have to be corroborated with forensic reports of the Godhra train burning and mass burnings of women, men and children in many of Gujarat‘s districts following the Godhra fire.Apart from the revelations about arms consignments being ordered by prominent members of the sangh parivar, other aspects relating to the use of explosive materials in the systematic attacks on minorities bear consideration. For weeks before the attack on Naroda Gaon and Patiya, for weeks before the attack on minorities there was a gas cylinder shortage. However, from the morning of February 28, 2002 onwards, gas cylinders were used by the dozen, by assailants in Naroda Gaon and Patiya, Gulberg Society and other areas of Ahmedabad. In the first attack at Naroda Patiya, at the Noorani Masjid, gas cylinders were placed inside the mosque and then ignited to explode. The SIT deliberately did not explore this. Stockpiling arms in Sabarkantha

251. Dhawal Jayantilal Patel, the then VHP zilla sanyojak (district convener), Sabarkantha, to Tehelka: Patel says that he is a registered holder and supplier of dynamite used in quarrying in the district. He also said that he along with some others had been trained to make bombs. They made desi bombs that were then distributed and used in various areas.

252. Questions raised:

a) What was the quantity of dynamite stock as noted in the stock register maintained on Dhawal Patel‘s premises on and before February 27, 2002?

b) How much stock did Patel receive?

c) From which government depot did he get the supply on requisition?

d) Did he acquire the stock from any other states?

e) What is the identity of the vehicles used for the supply of dynamite and to whom did they belong?

f) Where was the stock supplied to?

123

g) To whom was it delivered and in which village, town or city?

h) Who were the police and other officers responsible for allowing the consignment safe passage?

253. Anil Patel, the VHP‘s vibhag pramukh (departmental chief) in Sabarkantha, spoke to Tehelka about bombs destined for Ahmedabad being smuggled in from quarries owned by VHP workers in Sabarkantha. This suggests the existence of a well-organised and structured arms and ammunition network within Gujarat that has been in operation since well before the violence in 2002 and perhaps thereafter. Anil Patel also explains how sections of the Gujarat police, for example, ND Solanki, the then SP, Sabarkantha, were full-fledged supporters of the VHP. He adds that Solanki gave him full support and even enabled the quick release of a ‘co-minister’, Arvind Soni (a VHP leader). Patel also refers to a fax message sent by ‘this IB officer, Sreekumar ...to the Ahmedabad police commissioner, saying the Sabarkantha VHP had supplied weapons to Ahmedabad. The matter was inquired into, our block minister was arrested. The inspector who came for the inquiry was associated with the Sangh.’ Patel‘s revelations to Tehelka show the levels of complicity between the Gujarat police under the A-1 Mr Modi control as Home Minister of the state and outfits of the sangh parivar that are the fraternal organisations of the ruling BJP. This will be the most significant challenge for the SIT under Dr Raghavan. Will it be able to ensure that investigations are carried out by men of impeccable integrity?

Other startling revelations from the sting operation

254. Babu Bajrangi, Bajrang Dal leader, Naroda, Ahmedabad, to Tehelka: Baj rang i (prime accused in the Naroda Patiya massacre) says he was present in Godhra at the time of the train fire and vowed to kill four times as many people in Patiya as the kar sevaks who died in Godhra.

255. Questions raised:

124

a) Bajrangi has admitted to calling the then home minister, Gordhan Zadaphiya. This can easily be corroborated with call records of the outgoing calls on his mobile phone.

b) He claims that Chief Minister Modi told the (police) commissioner to provide safe passage to Bajrangi and even arranged for his four-and-a-half-month stay at the Gujarat Bhavan in Mount Abu (Rajasthan) not long after the massacre, when he had still not been granted bail and was on the run from the police.

c) What was the room number of the room at Gujarat Bhavan that Bajrangi occupied?

d) Where there any others with him in Mount Abu?

e) Are there any relevant entries in the Gujarat Bhavan guest register?

f) Who provided the expenses for his stay in Mount Abu?

256. Bajrangi‘s interview also indicts the Gujarat courts. These are extremely serious allegations that warrant investigation. He talks of how Judge Akshay Mehta had granted bail, to him and other accused, without even looking at the case files. He first says that when Dholakia and other judges simply refused to grant bail, Modi had the bench changed. This was done three times before the matter was heard by a more sympathetic judge – Akshay Mehta – which enabled him to get bail. Four and a half months after the Naroda massacre Bajrangi was a free man. He roams scot-free today.

257. Ramesh Dave, the then VHP zilla mantri (leader), Kalupur, Ahmedabad, to Tehelka: Dave says that he took DCP (SK) Gadhvi to the terrace of a locked house (in Kalupur) after Gadhvi told him that there were several Muslims who had taken shelter nearby and he wanted to ‘set them straight’. Once on the terrace, Gadhvi started firing and before they knew it, he had killed five persons (Muslims). Dave also claims that ‘all the policemen helped us, they all did. One shouldn‘t say it, but they even gave us cartridges.’

125

258. Questions raised:

a) Did Gadhvi shoot a service revolver — if so, the victims could not have been more than 20 feet away.

b) Did he shoot a .303 rifle — if so, the bullet would go through the victim, making a hole, and could be recovered later from the scene of the crime.

c) If the shots were fired from a revolver, the bullets should have struck the victims either in the head or the chest.

d) Five dead bodies must bear near identical injuries/bullet wounds.

e) Did the doctor performing the post-mortem examinations recover any bullets from the bodies of the victims?

259. This was a small but critical aspect of the detailed and independent investigation was expected of the SIT. The issues need to be probed in further investigation.

260. The SIT has deliberately not given due weightage to the Tehelka

tapes that amount to direct evidence against A-1 and several conspirators, already arraigned in the Complaint dated 8.6.2006 and many others despite the fact that the CBI has authenticated them thanks to an Order of the NHRC.

Validation Whistleblower Mr RB Sreekumar, then ADGP-Intelligence and Former DGP Gujarat

126

261. Mr RB Sreekumar has submitted in the first instance four affidavits before the Nanavati Commission which affidavits filed by former director general of police RB Sreekumar before the Nanavati Commission were crucial in the filing of the complaint dated 8.6.2006 and the SLP 1088/2008 before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court. Apart from the analysis narrated in the affidavits, the mountain of evidence including vital state intelligence bureau records provide a well documented account of the refusal of the state government to act on the warnings given by its own intelligence wing. These can be read at:

(i) RB Sreekumar 1st Affidavit dtd 06.07.2002 Annexure III File II D-21

(ii) RB Sreekumar 2nd Affidavit dtd 06.10.2004 Annexure III File III D-22

(iii) RB Sreekumar 3rd Affidavit dtd 09.04.2005 Annexure III File III D-23

(iv) RB Sreekumar 4th Affidavit dtd 27.10.2005 Annexure III File III D-24

(v) RB Sreekumar 5th Affidavit dtd 05.03.2010 Annexure III File XV D-155

(vi) RB Sreekumar 6th Affidavit dtd 03.09.2010 Annexure IV File XXII Sr No 403

vii) RB Sreekumar 7th-8th Affidavit dtd 15.09.2011 Annexure IV File XI Sr No 330

(viii) RB Sreekumar 9th Affidavit dtd 12.01.2012 Annexure III File XI Sr No 344

262. Why was and is Whistleblower Mr RB Sreekumar such a threat to A-1 Mr Narendra Modi the chief mastermind and conspirator and his co-conspirators?

1. He provided empirical evidence of the SIB as Annexures and Appendixes that showed the buildup of violence and communal mobilisation, prior to 27.2.2002, the provocative behaviour of the kar sevaks;

2. In his four critical situation reports after he took over as ADGP-Intelligence on 9.9.2002, dated 24.4.2002, 15.6.2002, 20.8.2002 and 28.8.2002 to

127

the government and home department presided over by A-1 Mr Modi he warned of the systematic subversion of the Criminal Justice System including lodging of doctored FIRs, appointment of public prosecutors with ideological leanings towards the RSS, VHP, BD and BJP and urgently advised correction;

3. He refused to abide by the blatantly illegal orders given to him by A-1 Mr Modi in person and through A- 27 then chief secretary Mr Subha Rao to fall in with the government plans to order extermination killings of criminals from the minority community to create a social and political atmosphere favourable to A-1 Mr Modi; he similarly refused to bow down to pressures and gave documents about an independent assessment of A-1 Mr Modi‘s hate speech at Becharaji at Mehsana on 9.9.2002; he maintained a record of these instructions in a Conscience Diary between April and September 2002.

4. He gave independent assessments and statistics to statutory bodies like the Chief Election Commission (CEC) and even the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) related to the violence, its extent and scope as also the ground-level situation that continued to pervade in Gujarat (the CEC referred to this in its report postponing elections in the state in August 2002);

5. He refused to buckle, risked being sidelined from promotion, thereafter winning a substantive moral and legal battle with two path-breaking judgments delivered by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) enabling him to be promoted to Director General of Police a day before his retirement.

6. He provided vital evidence of the systematic attempts by agents of A-1, co-conspirators and others to pressurise and cajole him not to tell the

128

truth before the Nanavati Commission. It can only be imagined what tactics were used by A-1 Mr Modi and his agents on other public servants, more amenable to pressure and intimidation.

263. Among the documentary evidence annexed to the first affidavit produced by Mr Sreekumar was a report titled ‘Current Communal Scenario in Ahmedabad City‘ prepared by Mr Sreekumar and sent to the then ACS (Home) Mr Ashok Narayan for appropriate action on April 24, 2002. The report made the following points:

a. Riot victims had lost faith in the Criminal Justice System. Police officers were dissuading victims from lodging complaints against BJP and VHP members

b. Officers were watering down the charges in complaints and clubbing FIRs

c. The VHP and Bajrang Dal were exhorting businesses not to give employment to Muslims

d. The VHP was distributing pamphlets with communally inflammatory material

e. Inspectors in charge of police stations were ignoring the orders of their superiors and complying instead with direct verbal instructions from BJP leaders.

264. Crucially, then additional DGP Mr RB Sreekumar has recorded in his Fourth Affidavit dated 27.10.2005 that on 28.2.2002, A-25 then DGP Mr K. Chakravarti told him that ‘activists of the VHP, Bajrang Dal, BJP and its sister bodies were leading the riots and police officers were not intervening effectively as they were keen to avoid crossing swords with the supporters of the ruling party.’

265. Then additional DGP SIB Mr Sreekumar in his confidential report dated 24th April, 2002 (which was submitted to the Nanavati-Shah Commission) has also recorded that: ‘(X) The inability of the Ahmedabad city Police to contain and control violence unleashed by the communally oriented mobs created an atmosphere of

129

permissiveness and this eroded the image of the police as an effective law enforcing machinery in the society, particularly among the lumpen and underworld segments. .. ..’ (XI) .. .. Many senior police officers spoke about officers at the decisive rung of the hierarchical ladder viz. Inspectors in charge of City Police Stations, ignoring specific instructions from the official hierarchy on account of their getting verbal instructions from the senior political leaders of the ruling party. .. .. .. ..

266. Then additional DGP Mr Sreekumar has also noted in his third affidavit dated 09.04.2005 that ‘It is widely known that the DMs and Collectors, who are bound by Police Acts and Regulations to maintain law and order through their personal intervention and effective supervision of the District Police, had not initiated any action to contain/control riots or to stabilise the situation, especially in those areas where mass murders, rapes and other heinous crimes had taken place. This malady was quite pronounced in the Districts of Mehsana, Sabarkantha, Banaskantha, Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad rural, Kheda, Anand, Vadodara Rural, Godhra, Dahod etc..’

267. The SIT completely ignores this voluminous evidence provided by this witness in both its reports dated 12.5.2010 and 8.2.2012, and worse, tries to even question his motive and credibility. Through this more than anything the SIT has displayed unprofessionalism and bias.

268. In its reports, the SIT finds the report dated 24.4.2002 to the home department is genuine, it also found reports prepared by a few other officers which corroborated Mr Sreekum ar‘s report. Questioned by the SIT on this, Mr Ashok Narayan confirmed receiving this report (dtd 24.4.2002) but claimed loss of memory on whether he had placed it before the chief minister.

269. Mr Sreekumar also sent another report dated 15.6.2002 advising against a proposed Rath Yatra by A-1 Mr Modi because communal tension was still simmering in many parts of Gujarat. The Modi administration overruled his recommendation. Mr Sreekumar prepared another report dated 20.8.2002, highlighting continuing communal tension and emphasising that the minorities continued to complain of unjust police action and shoddy investigations.

130

270. A-28 Mr Ashok Narayan accepted before the SIT that the government didn‘t act upon this report. Mr Sreekum ar prepared yet another report dated August 28, 2002 regarding internal security trends in the light of the ensuing Assembly polls. Mr Ashok Narayan told the SIT that he could not recall the action taken by him on the said report. The SIT leaves this crucial evidence without adequate probing.

271. Mr Sreekumar thereafter filed three more affidavits before the Nanavati-Shah Commission. This was after the expanded terms of reference of the Nanavati Commission in July 2004 when the role of A-1 Mr Modi and his cabinet was first allowed to come under scrutiny. The first contained information that detailed the failure of the state and central intelligence bureaus in preventing the Sabarmati train carnage. The second alleged that the Modi government deliberately didn‘t act on the reports of the state intelligence bureau. And in the third, he recorded how he was pressurised by Modi‘s officials to give favourable reports on the law and order situation to facilitate an early Assembly election.

272. Mr Sreekumar also detailed an account of a meeting chaired by the then chief election commissioner Mr JM Lyngdoh on August 9, 2002 in which the latter had castigated home department officials for presenting wrong facts. The CEC Order dated August 16, 2002 had noted that, ‘Significantly, additional director general of police RB Sreekumar stated before the commission that 151 towns and 993 villages covering 154 out of 182 Assembly constituencies in the state were affected by the riots. This falsifies the claims of other authorities.’

On Misleading the CEC

273. Mr Sreekumar‘s observation in his register that A-28 ACS Mr Ashok Narayan and others had been asking him to make a presentation before the Central Election Commission (CEC) on 09-08-2002 was proved by the CEC's Open Order dtd 16-08-2002 in which the CEC observed that Mr Sreekumar‘s assessment of the situation had falsifiedthegovernmentversion.Inseveraljudicial

pronouncements related to 2002, the role of the government under A-1 Mr Modi has been condemned.

131

274. Should not the SIT have corroborated and analysed the data contained in Mr Sre ekum ar‘s register about illegal orders by the government with the judicial indictments against the government in power? The SIT in a blatant display of maliciousness and unprofessionalism, without examining the independent data contained in the documents and affidavits provided by Mr Sreekumar that stand proven, tries to attribute all his actions to the pique of an officer denied promotion!

275. The supersession of Mr Sreekumar took place in February, 2005 and was a vindictive action by the government for his stand of not complying with illegal orders to fall in line with the criminal actions of A-1 Mr Modi on elimination, not tell the truth before the Nanavati Commission etc, submitting many reports to the higher officers and statutory bodies etc.

276. A-1 Mr Modi under whom the state home department was run like a personal fiefdom started three departmental inquiries against him since 16-08-2002 – the very day the CEC issued an order vindicating Mr Sreekumar‘s presentation about the Law & Order situation in Gujarat and postponing the holding of elections to the Gujarat state assembly.

277. In reply to these inquiries he had submitted a detailed response to the state government in November 2004 pointing out that the government was indulging in his victimisation only because A-1 Mr Modi was annoyed about his reports on the field situation in the state affecting A-1 Mr Modi‘s personal political designs and interests.

278. In these responses by Mr Sreekumar, in response to government memos initiating the inquiries, Mr Sreekumar had indicated that he would be constrained to present evidence about the government‘s totally unjustified prejudice against him before an appropriate judicial body. Mr Sreekumar had resorted to this action when he was superseded in February 2005 and challenging his supersession, a case was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, in April 2005.

132

279. Mr Sreekumar has included this entire narration on the above developments in his third affidavit dated 09.04.2005. Therefore, the revelation about data on illegal verbal orders by A-1 Mr Modi to him and acts of tutoring by Home Department Officers and the government pleader were reported by Mr Sreekumar to the state government months before his supersession (in February, 2005) while his reporting about the possession of inputs regarding A-1‘s prejudice against him was carried out in November, 2004, that is nearly three months before his supersession).

280. Ignoring this vital chronology of events, the SIT officials appear to have gone on a deliberate and all-out bid to trivialise the monumental evidence provided by Mr Sreekumar and further, in a motivated way attribute all his actions to pique. The fact that a supposedly high -profile SIT which should be concerned about the vast scales of violence and breakdown of Constitutional governance, ignores hard evidence of this, refuses to probe documents collected by it and instead simply discredits all evidence that may indict and charge A-1 Mr Modi and other accused, exposes the orientation, motivations and bias of the SIT. The SIT has let the Survivors of 2002 down in a fundamental manner.

281. The evidence contained in the four reports (24.4.2002, 15.6.2002, 20.8.2002 and 28.8.2002) annexed to the first four affidavits of Mr Sreekumar was crucial evidence that warranted being treated with the seriousness that the charges deserve. However, the SIT displays an extraordinary and inexplicable bias against this Whistleblower Witness, Mr RB Sreekumar, the former DGP Gujarat.

282. The obvious bias of the SIT against Mr RB Sreekumar is revealed from the fact that, in both its reports dated 12.5.2010 and 8.2.2012, the SIT has concentrated all its energies on discrediting the evidence of Mr Sreekumar by focusing solely on a register maintained by him, trying to debunk it by dubbing it a register of illegal verbal instructions. What is in fact a Conscience Memoir, a diary kept by a serving officer to document all illegal and unconstitutional instructions given to him between April-September 2002 by A-1 Mr Modi, is sought to be dismissed as a document kept with ulterior motives. By this, the SIT exposes its own motives in believing each one of the co-Accused who bad-mouth this crucial

133

evidence without having any regard for the truth that is empirically borne out by the situation on the ground and in various Courts. The register could have been tested for its age and longevity through the tools of forensic science.

Independent Assessment of Violence Provided by Mr Sreekumar

283. According to the data presented in his Second Affidavit dated 06.10.2004, in Ahmedabad City, during the riots (from 27-02-2002 to 07-08-2002) in police firing 114 persons were killed (36 Hindus – 30% and 78 Muslims — 70%), and through mob action 326 people were killed (75 Hindus — 23% and 251 Muslims — 77%). It is a matter of concern and corroboration by Survivors and civil rights activists, now corroborated by statistics offered by a senior officer of the Gujarat state intelligence bureau that, both in the reprisal killings and in police firing post 27.2.2002, more Muslims were killed.

284. Questions that arise and ought to have been interrogated by the SIT within the purview of the complaint dated 8.6.2006 were:

Was police deliberately soft towards the belligerent Hindu rioters?

Will it not be on account of covert pressure from supervisory officers? Media reports about riots had narrated instances of crowds attacking Muslims, shouting slogans like 'Yeh andar ki baat hai, Police hamare saath hai (It is a secret, police is on our side)'.

285. Relevant to note here also is Mr Sre ekum ar‘s letter no. 12C/COM/11 dated 25.10.2011 to the Nanavati Commission and the SIT, captioned: "Suggestion to get information on effective administrative and operational measures by officers in areas of lesser communal violence in 2002 Gujarat riots" (7th-8th Affidavit dtd 15.09.2011, Annexure IV File XI Serial No 330). It thus becomes necessary to go into the evidence provided by Mr Sreekumar in detail (See SIT closure report, page 8, under caption 'Broad Allegations' para 1, 2, and 3, 12.5.2010, 8.2.201)

134

286. The information about manipulation of the Criminal Justice System to deny and delay justice delivery to riot victims along with remedial measures were suggested by Mr Sreekumar in his reports to A-28 Addl. CS Mr Ashok Narayan and DGP Mr K. Chakravarti dtd (1) 24- 04-2002, (2) 15-06-2002, (3) 20-08-2002 and (4) 28-08-2002 (all these reports were appended in his Second Affidavit to the Nanavati Commission dtd 06-10-2004).

287. It is pertinent that had the government implemented these suggestions –and from the SIT reports and other documents it is clear that A-1 Mr Modi, A-28 Mr Ashok Narayan, A-34 Mr K. Nityanandam, A-25 then DGP Mr Chakravarti not to mention A-5 Mr Gordhan Zadaphiya stand indicted for this failure – the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and the Gujarat High Court would not have made so many adverse observations against the Gujarat Administration and the Gujarat Police since 12.4.2004 when the Best Bakery case judgment was delivered. The transfer of trial of 2 cases to Maharashtra; transfer of the Best Bakery case; handing over of investigation of the Bilkis Bano case to the CBI; order to reopen and reinvestigate 2,000-odd riot-related cases; constitution of the SIT for investigation of major cases of manslaughter; entrusting to the SIT the investigation of Mrs Jafri's complaint; orders to investigate certain fake encounter cases by the CBI, constitution of the Justice Bedi Committee to probe into all cases of extrajudicial killings in Gujarat from October 2002 to April 2007; Gujarat High Court‘s criticism against the Modi government for its failure to protect socioreligious and historic monuments of minorities etc – would prove that maladies in the Criminal Justice System pointed out by Mr Sreekumar in his immediate reports to the then DGP and A-25 Mr Chakravarti, and the government, in 4 reports dtd (1) 24.4.2002 (2) 15.6.2002 (3) 20.8.2002 and (4) 28.8.2002 were ignored and the remedial measures, as proposed by him, were not initiated. Officers who are legally bound to take cognisance of intelligence reports (the government and DGP have till date not questioned the validity and reliability of materials in these reports) intentionally did not take follow-up actions and this would amount to offences u/s 166, 186, 187 IPC. In other words, the relevant authorised officers had fully aided and abetted the conspiracy of A1 Mr Modi‘s government, not simply to allow mass reprisal violence but to subvert the system of justice delivery, in fact torpedo justice delivery for survivors of the violence.

135

288. It is important here to note that in his Ninth Affidavit 12.01.2012 Annexure III File XI Serial No 344 Mr RB Sreekumar had narrated the admission by A-28 Mr Ashok Narayan, the ACS (Home), about the government‘s inaction on his intelligence assessment reports. This admission by the ACS was made in August 2004, a few days before Mr Sreekumar‘s cross-examination by the Nanavati Commission on 31.8.2004. An audio tape of Mr Sreekumar‘s conversation with Mr Ashok Narayan was submitted to the SIT along with a copy of his 9th affidavit.

289. The SIT did not probe this admission by the ACS (Home). In all other instances where evidence against powerful accused was provided, the SIT sought to cover up/ seek explanations from the accused themselves in further statements while ignoring vital corroboratory documentary evidence.

290. Did the SIT avoid such an action, which was professionally required, because it would jeopardise the SIT's objective of giving a clean chit to the accused in Mrs Jafri‘s complaint?

291. Numerous suggestions were also made by Mr Sreekumar in reports dated (1) 15.6.2002, (2) 20.8.2002 and (3) 28.8.2002 relating to law and order situations prevailing as an aftermath of the protracted riots. But no follow-up action was taken.

292. In a brazen bid to cover up this major criminal negligence of the powerful accused and other authorities, the SIT has simply sought their clarification on his suggestions regarding cancellation of the Rath Yatra only and not probed the question of any anti-minority prejudice consciously at work.

293. The first and second Affidavits of Mr Sreekumar were filed in his official capacity and the remaining Seven Affidavits were filed in his private capacity. The supersession of Mr Sreekumar was due to his non-compliance of illegal verbal orders given to him and for not obliging the home department officers and the government pleader who pressurised and intimidated him to try and get him to speak in favour of the government during his cross-examination before the Commission on 31-08-2004.

136

Elimination as Strategy of the A-1 Mr Modi

294. There are two entries in Mr Sreekumar‘s Register about the Chief Secy. Mr G. Subha Rao suggesting organising for the elimination of Muslim extremists and those who disturb the Rath Yatra (entry in Mr Sreekumar‘s Register against dates : 01-05-2002 and 28-06- 2002). Mr Sreekumar had refused to carry out his suggestions. In this context, why did the SIT fail to note that fake encounters by a coterie of officers allegedly close to the Chief Minister were started after Mr Sreekumar left the charge of ADGP (Int.) on 18-09-2002 and continued till these officers were arrested for fake encounters in April, 2007? There were no fake encounters after the arrest of the police officers in April, 2007. Are criminals afraid of committing crimes after the arrest of police officers responsible for fake encounters? Perhaps these officers responsible for extrajudicial killings knew that the ADGP (Int.) could suo motu inquire into such incidents and suggest action against the concerned under Rule 61, Sub-Rule 4 (A & B) of the Gujarat Police Manual, Vol. III. (This Rule empowers the ADGP (Int.) to conduct inquiries into fake encounters without any orders from higher authorities.)

Failure to act on suggestions from state intelligence. Page 262 (SIT closure report, 8.2.2012)

295. The SIT had accepted Mr Narendra Modi‘s claim that he had not seen Mr Sreekum ar‘s analytical intelligence reports dtd 24.4.2002 on the law and order situation. Mr Ashok Narayan told Mr Sreekumar that he had presented all his reports to the CM (See Mr Sreekum ar‘s Ninth Affidavit) Audio cassette is also available.

296. A-28 Mr Ashok Narayan in his interaction with Mr Sreekumar (in August, 2004) admitted that no action was initiated on his suggestions in the 24 April, 2002 report. He also admitted that many nurtured ill-will against the Muslims including judges. In Mr Sreekum ar‘s 24th April, 2002 report, specific suggestions like (a) proper registration of FIRs by recording the verbatim versions of the complainants (b) replacement of officers at the cutting edge level (This was done only after the intervention of Mr KPS Gill) (c) Legal action against the publication and distribution of pamphlets fomenting animosity between different social groups etc, were submitted.

137

297. It was only because the suggestions in the report dtd 24.4.2002 were not implemented and there was no improvement in the situation that Mr Sreekumar had sent another report on 15.6.2002 and reiterated the need for implementation of his earlier suggestions. Strangely, the higher authorities including the DGP either did disagree with his suggestions or had not at least issued any query asking for clarifications on the points presented in the report.

Discrediting the Conscience Register of RB Sreekumar

298. Mr Sreekumar‘s Register was maintained by him for recording verbal instructions of higher officers that he found illegal and irregular. The SIT conclusion that such a register was ‘unauthorised‘ is unwarranted and biased as such a document is meant to be an informal but meticulous contemporaneous record keeper. The entry on 12-06-2002 said that phone call details of the late Mr Haren Pandya's phone were handed over to Dr A-31 Mr PK Mishra by Mr OP Mathur 'in our office'. The words 'in our office' relate to the position of Mr OP Mathur and do not indicate that A-31 Mr Mishra visited the ADGP (Int.)‘s office.

299. The SIT has conveniently avoided judging the positive admission by Mr SM Pathak, DySP State IB (SIT statements), about Mr Sreek um ar‘s tasking him to inquire about the late Mr Haren Pandya deposing before the Citizen‘s Tribunal headed by Justice Krishna Iyer. Mr Pathak's corroboration would establish that Mr Sreekum ar‘s entry about Dr Mishra's verbal instructions was correct. As a related transaction, instructions about collecting call details of the late Mr Haren Pandya‘s mobile phone had to be treated as admissible and reliable.

300. Detailed clarifications about the background of the maintenance of the Register and recording of illegal tutoring imposed on Mr Sreekumar by the Home Department Officers and government pleader were submitted to the SIT in (1) Suggestions letter dtd 3-8- 2009 and (2) vide his letter no. RBS/201 C/SIT/2010 dtd 30-11-2010 captioned 'An appeal to objectively appreciate and acknowledge the evidential merit of his Six Affidavits to the Judicial Commission probing into the 2002 Gujarat Communal Riots'.

138

301. The SIT had avoided probing into specific points suggested in these letters because such an action by the SIT would have damaged the SIT's strategy to enfeeble and ignore Mr Sre ekum ar‘s L evidence against planners and perpetrators of the 2002 anti-minority genocide.

302. During the investigation of criminal cases, even entries made by criminals and dubious characters in their private diaries are properly probed. (For example, entries in the diary of accused in the Jain Hawala case against senior politicians were accepted). Instead of collecting collateral and circumstantial evidence, as suggested in Mr Sreekumar‘s above-said letters, the SIT had invalidated evidence in the Register by simply accepting the statements of accused persons. Amazingly, when Mr SM Pathak and Mr Maniram, the then ADGP (L&O) fully endorsed Mr Sreekum ar‘s entries in the Register, the SIT had ignored these facts.

303. Does this mean that the SIT is bent upon bypassing any evidence which will debilitate the edifice of defence built up by it for saving the accused in Mrs Jafri's FIR?

Page ± 65-71: Allegation of No. III (Ref SIT report.8.2.2012):

304. Mr Sreekumar suggested a specific line of investigation about each of the entries in his Register through his letter no. RBS/75C/SIT/2010 dtd 30-11-2010, as mentioned in para 18 however, the SIT ignored these suggestions. The Register was opened as a defence for him in the event of a probe or judicial scrutiny about many illegal actions by the State Administration. He did not support any of these actions and comply with any illegal instructions. Secondly, no minutes of the meetings chaired by the higher officers were prepared. Though the Register was numbered and sealed by Mr Mathur on 18.04.2002, he made entries about meetings held on 16th/17th.04.2002 as information of these meetings was fresh in his memory. Instead of finding technical objections about the Register, the SIT should have tried to collect collateral and circumstantial evidence as suggested in Mr Sreekumar‘s letters dtd (1) 3-8-2009 and (2) 30-11-2010. After such an earnest investigation, if any entry was found to be false,

139

malicious or fabricated, the SIT could have suggested action against Mr Sreekumar. Instead, the SIT has gone out of its way to discredit the vital evidence provided by Mr Sreekumar as he is the vital bridge between the administration/bureaucracy and the political wing of the government headed by A-1 Mr Modi the chief minister and home minister.

305. Mr Mathur has been given many favours by the Modi government. Departmental proceedings against him were dropped and he was posted as the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City, on promotion to the rank of DGP, ignoring the claims of officers senior to him in the IPS Civil list. Further, after his retirement he was given an assignment with the status of a Vice-Chancellor, as Director, Raksha University.

306. Why did the SIT, who has diligently sought to bring such detailed incriminating details about Mr Sanjiv Bhatt's career on record, conveniently avoid such adverse information about Mr Mathur? Was it because Mr Mathur was being used by the SIT to discredit Mr Sreekumar?

307. The SIT did not bring on record the alleged undesirable actions of Mr Mathur, widely reported in the media, particularly in the Times of India, Ahmedabad edition, on the eve of his taking over as Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City. The reports related to his alleged patronising of a petty street criminal ± Abdul Latif ± and facilitating his rise to the position of a major Don of Ahmedabad City. This criminal was killed by Ahmedabad city Police in 1997 in an alleged fake encounter. In police circles it is widely accepted that Abdul Latif was about to reveal the names of his patrons in the Police Department and political parties and for preventing this eventuality police had eliminated him in an extrajudicial killing. (Please refer to the Times of India (Ahmedabad edition) report on the Gujarat High Court verdict in a sedition case filed by Mr Mathur dtd 22 June, 2012, Page 4.) If Mr Mathur was suspicious of Mr Sreekumar‘s order to open a Register, why did he not report the matter to the DGP and higher authorities at the relevant and immediate point of time?

Ignoring Intimidation & Threats to a Public Official

140

308. The SIT has deliberately avoided appreciating the facts mentioned in the forwarding letter of Mr Sreekumar‘s Third Affidavit, explaining the reason for his filing that Affidavit in his individual capacity. As a consequence of Mr Sreekumar‘s resisting illegal orders and directions by Home Department Officers – Mr Dinesh Kapadia, the Under Secy., and A-37 Mr GC Murmu, IAS, Home Secy., and the special public prosecutor (PP) Mr Arvind Pandya, he was superseded in promotion to the rank of DGP (The supersession was declared illegal by the CAT and the Gujarat High Court but the SIT remains quiet on this). To apprise the Commission of his victimisation, he had filed his Third Affidavit and requested the Commission to take action to check the government from resorting to further acts of his victimisation on account of his giving evidence to the Commission against the interests of the State Government Officers. Moreover, the Register was kept as a record of his defence and an aid to memory in the event of future action by judicial bodies.

309. However these aspects have been completely and deliberately ignored by the SIT. Why did the SIT choose to pass an adverse judgement about evidentiary value and admissibility of material in Mr Sreekumar‘s Register without conducting an independent probe and by merely accepting the version of the accused in Mrs Jafri's complaint?

Para 8: Sub para XXVII (SIT Report dated 8.2.2012): Data on officers who did not file Affidavits was provided in Mr Sreekumar‘s Fourth Affidavit dated 27 October, 2005.

Para 8: Sub para XXVIII (SIT Report dated 8.2.2012): Role of DGP Mr SS Khandwawala in neutralising the reinvestigation of cases ordered by the Apex Court was narrated in Mr Sreekumar‘s Sixth Affidavit dated 3 September, 2010.

Para 8: Sub para XXIX (SIT Report dated 8.2.2012): Relevant data may be seen in Mr Sreekumar‘s Sixth Affidavit.

Information on favours to 25 officers was given in the Sixth Affidavit.

141

310. Statement of Mr Sanjiv Bhatt: Mr Sanjiv Bhatt had confirmed Mr Sreekumar‘s statement in his Fourth Affidavit about A-29 Mr PC Pande objecting to the government decision for transportation of dead bodies of Godhra train fire victims to Ahmedabad City.

Page – 55: SIT conclusion about Mr Sreekum ar’s Register. (SIT Report dated 8.2.2012)

311. The SIT did not record the statement of any 'independent witness' – See page 71/72 of the SIT report – but had simply accepted the version of the accused. How can the version of the accused be treated as that of "independent witness" by the SIT? Had they supported Mr Sreekumar‘s entries in the Register, their evidence would have been self-incriminating to them. The entry in Mr Sreekum ar‘s Register against the date 04-05-2002 was corroborated by Mr Maniram, the then ADGP (L&O). Besides this, Mr SM Pathak also had provided supporting evidence on the entry on government orders to probe into the role of the late Haren Pandya. Do not these corroborative statements establish that the entries in the Register are truthful? Are not Mr SM Pathak and Mr Maniram 'independent witnesses' unlike the accused in Mrs Zakia Jafri‘s complaint? It appears that the SIT ignored any evidence in support of the entries in the Register, for establishing its baseless contention that the Register was a document kept for motivated reasons. Contemporary events, records like the CEC order dtd 16- 08-2002 etc also establish the genuineness of the Register.

312. Would anybody accept the statement about illegal orders given to Mr Sreekumar by higher officers and the CM without the proof of entries in such a Register? In such a situation what was the option left for an official keen to remain loyal to his oath to the Constitution of India? Instead of making the document of the Register an inadmissible evidence of no value, the SIT should have inquired into each of the episodes narrated therein and proved or disproved their truth. All transactions delineated in the Register pertained to the period from 09-04-2002 to 18-09-2002 and entries were made in the above period by Mr Sreekumar in his capacity as ADGP (Int.).

This can be established by testing the period of writing in the original Register. So presentation of this evidence after his supersession does not in any way reduce the

142

admissibility and evidential quality of the entries in the Register. Had he not been superseded, he would have submitted this Register with other documents appended in his Third Affidavit, to a reliable investigating agency. The Nanavati Commission has, to date, also not called him for cross-examination on the Second to Ninth Affidavits.

Page 83, Of SIT Report (8.2.2012)

313. The sweeping assessments by the SIT about Mr Sreekumar‘s statement as 'motivated' is expressive of its annoyance against anybody providing any incriminating evidence against the powerful accused persons. According to the SIT, any collection of evidence against the Government is a motivated action even if the Government was engaged in violation of the principles of the Rule of Law, the concept of secularism and the spirit and letter of the Constitution of India. Strangely, the SIT had accepted as gospel truth, statements of all persons figuring as accused in Mrs Jafri‘s complaint. Does the SIT suffer from an inbuilt allergy to anybody going against the interests of the accused, the Sangh Parivar and the Chief Minister? The SIT did not take into account the fact that the Nanavati Commission had itself issued a Notification calling for data from all citizens relating to terms of reference of the Commission issued by the Gujarat Government. The State Government had included the role of the CM during the riots as a point of probe only after July 2004. Moreover Section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act provides total protection to the witnesses giving evidence from any criminal or civil proceedings.

314. The SIT should have probed the fact that the state government had not challenged the validity of facts and data presented in Mr Sreekum ar‘s Nine Affidavits running into 600 pages. In its hurry to discredit Mr Sreekumar, himself an independent witness, the SIT has shown a callous disregard for the facts and evidence provided by him about mass killings directed with a criminal mind by A-1 Mr Modi as chief conspirator in the reprisal killings.

315. The SIT concluded that ‘the register maintained by RB Sreekum ar cannot be considered a reliable document as the same appears motivated and no credence can be placed upon the same. Moreover, there is no corroboration to the oral version of RB

143

Sreekumar by any of the independent witnesses.’ The SIT has the gall to use the term ‘independent witnesses’ when all the senior bureaucrats that the SIT based its conclusions on were, like A-28, then ACS Home, Ashok Narayan, A-25, then DGP K. Chakravarti and A-29, then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, PC Pande, all co-accused in the complaint dated 8.6.2006, seriously indicted and charged for being accomplices in the criminal conspiracy behind the mass crimes that took place in several locations of the state of Gujarat in 2002. By the SIT‘s own admission these bureaucrats were rewarded with post-retirement assignments by A-1 Mr Modi and thus did not seem to have spoken honestly. Yet the SIT proceeds to believe them nonetheless!

Intimidation and Tutoring of Witnesses as part of the Conspiracy by A-1 Mr Modi

316. The very acts of A-37 Mr GC Murmu and Mr Arvind Pandya are illegal and amounting to misconduct and crime, viz. interference in the normal discharge of duties of a Government servant, acts punishable under Sections 186 and 187 IPC. When the State Government had constituted a Judicial Commission to probe into the role of the Chief Minister and other seniors in the riots, how could officers from the supervisory department of Police (in which Mr Sreekumar was serving) — Mr Dinesh Kapadia and Mr Murmu) – venture to tutor him and intimidate him, directing him to speak in favour of the Government during his cross-examination by the Commission. (The Home Department is the supervisory department of Police). Even briefing a witness like Mr Sreekumar (as he was not a prosecution witness supporting the Government side) is certainly blatant interference in the normal course of duties, contrary to the objectives of the constitution of a Judicial Commission by the State Government. Mr Sreekumar did not comply with the illegal tutoring by Home Department officers and deposed before the Commission real facts on 31-08-2004, during cross-examination. In fact during this cross-examination he had further exposed the role of Government servants in the riots and he had also provided official documents as exhibits — like the copy of his proposal to take action against publication of communally inciting material, to the Commission on 31-08-2004 (no action was taken by the Government on this proposal and the SIT did not find anything improper in this intentional inaction by the Government

144

which was due to the fact that Mr Sreekumar‘s proposal for action was against Hindu extremist elements).

317. Along with his third affidavit, Mr Sreekumar also produced an audio recording to demonstrably prove that state home secretary Mr GC Murmu, home department official Mr Dinesh Kapadia and the state government‘s special PP Mr Arvind Pandya had tried tutoring and intimidating him into not telling the truth before the Nanavati-Shah Commission. These are serious offences under the law and constitute, apart from individual crimes under the Indian Penal Code, the serious obstruction of public justice.

318. The SIT, despite having found the audio recording to be genuine, has dismissed its own finding of authenticity and proceeded to allege that Sreekumar produced this register as an act of pique only after he was superseded for a promotion. This is not borne out by facts. Moreover the SIT has deliberately failed to draw connections in the mens rea of the Government of Gujarat in trying to subvert the course of criminal justice.

319. What the SIT appears to have deliberately failed to appreciate is the consistency in Mr Sreekumar‘s stand against A-1 Mr Modi‘s government‘s communal and political agenda since the filing of his first affidavit far back in July 2002 while he still held the post of ADGP (Intelligence). This was at great risk to his professional career. (Pages 24-28 of the SIT Report dated 12.5.2010).

320. Despite the wealth of evidence, SIT chairman Mr RK Raghavan has disregarded Mr Sreekum ar‘s evidence and commented: ‘It has been clearly established that the register was an unofficial document that Sreeku mar was not authorised to m aintain’, adding that it has no ‘evidentiary value whatsoever. The very motive behind him maintaining such a register is suspect’ (Page 7 of the chairman‘s comments). Significantly, both the SIT‘s investigating ‘ officer Mr AK Malhotra, and Mr Raghavan and thereafter, the further investigation by the SIT have all failed to investigate or comment on the evidence in annexures and appendixes provided through Mr Sreekum ar‘s affidavits before the Nanavati-Shah Commission (see section on Prelude to Godhra of the Protest Petition), his numerous reports prepared in his capacity as state intelligence chief and also his testimony before the SIT. This

145

despite the fact that the evidence he provided was substantiated. Besides, to date the Gujarat government and the home department under A-1 Mr Modi since 2002 has not challenged a single fact or document contained in Mr Sreekumar‘s several affidavits. M

321. The SIT had conveniently forgotten or ignored that the facts related to the persuasion, cajoling and tutoring (first by police officials Deepak Swaroop and J. Mahapatra, both ADGPs) followed by Under Secretary, Home, Mr Dinesh Kapadia, Home Secretary, A37 Mr GC Murmu and Government pleader Mr Arvind Pandya came in a sequence and therefore followed a logical pattern. So these acts can never be treated as acts done on their individual initiative, out of concern for Mr Sreekumar‘s welfare or career interests. These actions by government officials were taken on instructions from their higher officers, if not Mr Narendra Modi himself. In case Mr Sreekumar had not recorded the voice bites on the interaction, the SIT would not have accepted his complaint against them at all. Now the SIT is treating the act of recording as a ‘clandestine act’. The SIT is not questioning the relevant officials about the basis of objections about Mr Sreekumar‘s recording the conversations which was simply an act of preserving the data on tutoring sessions through electronic means/ device. The SIT did not accept as truth his statement about 2 Additional DGP-ranking officers persuading him to speak in favour of the government for want of any proof other than his statement whereas in the case of tutoring by Home Department Officials, about which Mr Sreekumar produced material evidence,

322. Amazingly, the SIT also does not accept the free admissions by Mr Arvind Pandya, in his ‘extrajudicial confessions to a journalist of Tehelka, Mr Ashish Khetan, in the Sting Operation Kalank, that Mr Pandya had intimidated Mr Sreekumar, as truthful and reliable. This evidence by Mr Khetan was accepted by the Court in the Naroda Patiya Massacre Case. In the SIT‘s scheme of action, relying upon any item of evidence that could damage the accused persons would upset its apple cart aimed at immunising the real culprits of the riots.

323. Both in the transactions of senior officials and the CM giving illegal verbal orders to Mr Sreekumar and tutoring by Mr Murmu and others, there were no independent witnesses present and in such a situation how could the victim complainant (Mr Sreekumar) present

146

evidence from independent witnesses. The SIT has stopped short of declaring Mr Sre ekumar‘s evidence (Mr Sre ekum ar‘s register and recording of conversations of A-37 Mr Murmu and Mr Kapadia) as baseless, false and fabricated.

Statement of A-28 Mr Ashok Narayan --- Page 88 (8.2.2012) SIT Report and Papers)

324. A-28 Mr Ashok Narayan has stated that Mr Sreekumar‘s entries in the register relating to the meeting convened by the Central Election Commission on August 9, 2002 "are broadly true". In the recorded tutoring of Mr Sreekumar by A-37 Mr Murmu (see Mr Sreekumar‘s Third Affidavit), he had revealed his plan to brief A-28 Mr Ashok Narayan. But the SIT did not check with A-28 Mr Ashok Narayan about the details of briefing/ tutoring by A-37 Mr Murmu.

Allegation VII Page 85 Statement of A-27 Mr G. Subha Rao, the then Chief Secretary

325. A-27 Mr Subha Rao has alleged that the Register contained ‘baseless false and malicious statements’ ‘absurd, unethical’ and the SIT had fully accepted these without any verifications either from Mr Sreekumar or though independent investigations though A27 Mr Subha Rao is an accused in Mrs Jafri‘s complaint.

326. The SIT did not test the age of paper and writing in Mr Sre ekum ar‘s Register through tools of forensic science.

327. The SIT did not find anything strange or probe the many encounters taking place after Mr Sreekumar left the charge of ADGP (Int.), i.e. from October, 2002, and ending only with the arrest of A-44 DIG Mr DG Vanzara and others for fake encounters in April, 2007. The SIT had ignored the fact that these fake encounters were started within a few days of Mr Sreekumar‘s transfer from the post of ADGP (Int.) on 18-09-2002 after he refused to comply with the criminal intent and plan of A-1 Mr Modi as conveyed to him by A-27 Mr Subha Rao. As per Rule 61, Sub-Rule 4, of the Gujarat Police Manual (GPM), Vol. III, the ADGP (Int.) has powers to inquire into all encounter killings.

147

328. These fake encounters ought to have been suo motu inquired into but ADGP (Intelligence) Mr J. Mahapatra reportedly did not conduct any inquiry as envisaged in the above-mentioned Rule of the Gujarat Police Manual, Vol. III; perhaps as a reward, Mr Mahapatra was given an out-of-turn accelerated promotion, superseding Mr Sreekumar and other officers, and a post-retirement placement as Member of the State Administrative Tribunal. Do not these facts constitute circumstantial evidence to prove many entries in the register?

329. Moreover, in his 9th affidavit dated 12.1.2012 Mr Sreekumar provided details about Mr Ashok Narayan‘s frank admissions about the State Administration including Doctors showing anti-Muslim bias. But the SIT did not seek any clarifications from A-28 Mr Ashok Narayan about his revelations to Mr Sreekumar. (Mr Sreekumar had submitted an audio recording of this interaction, so there could not be any doubt about its acceptability). It is pertinent to note that the various communications to the Nanavati-Shah Commission and the SIT (from Mr Sreekumar) denying certain false claims made by Mr Sanjiv Bhatt which were submitted on 27th December, 2011 were fully utilised by the SIT as evidence whereas material in Mr Sreekumar‘s 9th affidavit dated 12th January, 2012 was ignored.

330. Clearly, the SIT has only taken cognisance of those materials favourable to the accused persons and not anything damaging to them.

Statement by A-31 Mr PK Mishra --- Page 89, 8.2.2012 SIT Report

331. The SIT should have treated the claims of A-31 Mr Mishra on his memory loss as unreliable and false because Intelligence Officer Mr SM Pathak had revealed that he had probed into the role of the late Mr Haren Pandya on Mr Sreekumar‘s instructions. The SIT also did not ask A-31 Mr Mishra about details of meetings chaired by the CM Mr Modi in which Mr Sreekumar and A-31 Mishra had remained present. Does the SIT hold the view that many entries in Mr Sreekumar‘s Register about meetings presided over by the CM Mr Modi are a product of Mr Sreekumar‘s imagination?

Statement of Mr AK Bhargava, the then DGP --- Page 91, SIT Report dated 8.2.2012. Allegation No. XIX Page 156

148

332. The move of ADGP Mr Deepak Swaroop, ADGP Mr J. Mahapatra, Under Secretary (Home) Mr Dinesh Kapadia and Home Secretary Mr GC Murmu along with Mr Arvind Pandya, Government pleader, had a chronological sequence and pattern. All these officials who persuaded, cajoled, tutored and intimidated Mr Sreekumar had pressurised with the sole purpose of trying to prevent truthful and adverse facts and material against the state government and A-1 Mr Modi from coming out in Mr Sreekumar‘s deposition before the Nanavati Commission on 31.8.2004.

333. Yet the SIT has deliberately treated each of these briefings as unconnected, separate transactions.

334. Did the SIT accept Mr Sreekum ar‘s statement about DGP AK ‘ Bhargava, ADGP Deepak Swaroop and ADGP J. Mahapatra‘s attempts at advising him not to go against the accused in Mrs Jafri‘s complaint? Mr Sreekum ar had not audio recorded these interactions and the above officers could have refused to support his version.

335. Did not the actions of A-37 Mr GC Murmu and Mr Arvind Pandya amount to commission of offences u/s 186, 153-A, 506, 193 IPC r/w 116 IPC ? Did not the SIT accept that Mr Sreekum ar‘s compliance to the instructions of the Home Department officials and the Government pleader would result in the commission of the offence of perjury by Mr Sreekumar before the Commission?

336. Why did the SIT not test scientifically the genuineness of the audio records of tutoring imposed on Mr Sreekumar by Mr Dinesh Kapadia, A-37 Mr GC Murmu and Mr Arvind Pandya though in their statements they had accused him of tampering with the tapes? Mr KC Kapoor, the Principal Secretary, Home, had also alleged about tampering of the tapes.

337. The SIT has treated the entire attempts at intimidation in a brazen manner. How has the SIT deemed that the advice by Mr Dinesh Kapadia – viz.

(1) "truth need not be told to the Com m ission’ (Page 8 of A nnexureA to Mr Sre ekumar‘s Third Affidavit),

(2) "You are harming yourself" (by telling the truth), Page 9,

149

(3) "Little bit cautious, just to ensure that you are totally objective. Not to prevent any harm, which is likely to be done to you, by Government, because of your deposition", Page 16 – does not amount to persuading a government servant to commit perjury? Did the SIT hold the view that the move of Mr Dinesh Kapadia to cajole Mr Sreekumar was for his own benefit or for preventing flow of evidence against the accused persons? Did the SIT consider that it was unlikely that Mr Sreekumar would seek a briefing from Mr Kapadia, a junior civilian officer in the Home Department, with no experience or expertise in investigation and judicial matters, before his cross-examination by the Commission on 31.8.2004?

338. Did not the whole exercise by Mr Kapadia form part of the accused‘s efforts to constrict free flow of evidence to the Commission?

339. Did not the SIT view that the directions to Mr Sreekumar by A-37 Mr GC Murmu and Mr Arvind Pandya go against the letter and spirit of the State Government notification on the terms of reference of the Commission and general instructions to government officials to cooperate with the Commission? Is it not the duty of every government servant to act as per the requirements of government notifications?

340. Do not the illegal and unauthorised directives by A-37 Mr Murmu and Mr Pandya to Mr Sreekumar, to avoid giving long answers resulting in more questions, amount to obstructing Mr Sreekumar from performance of his duties – an offence u/s 186 IPC? (See Page 6 of Annexure-B of Mr Sreekum ar‘s Third Affidavit).

341. Is not A-37 A-37 Mr Murmu's direction to Mr Sreekumar to avoid speaking about the follow-up action by the Government on his 24th April, 2002 report an act of abetment to perjury? (Pages 11-12) Similar instructions were given by Mr Pandya to Mr Sreekumar. (Page 14) Are not the directions of Mr Pandya, to devalue the intelligence reports in Mr Sreekumar‘s depositions, illegal? (Page 16) Did not the SIT consider that Mr Pandya's intimidatory utterances to Mr Sreekumar, with the approval of A-37 Mr Murmu who presided over the meeting – viz. "You are my witness. Am I permitted cross-examination of my own witness? If you create circumstances, I give application that I want to cross-examine you,

150

then giving contrary opinion by you and in those circumstances if I obtained permission from the court, you are hostile to me and of false nature. I will cross-examine and then notice will be issued by government to you regarding your integrity and everything. In sum I cannot cross-examine my witness" (Page 17) – constitute an offence u/s 506 and 186 IPC? This threat and illegal direction is quite unambiguous and is indicative of the Government's (accused persons‘) intention to intimidate government officials from ‘giving contrary opinions’ to government interests before the fact-finding Commission (and not before a court trying a criminal case)?

342. Do not Mr Pandya's words that ‘whatever brief we are giving you, we are telling every witness (Page 18)’ falsify the claim of A-37 Mr Murmu in his statement – this statement is attached to Mr Sreekumar‘s chargesheet for departmental action – that Mr Sreekumar sought out a briefing from him? Does not Mr Pandya's confession that he would not speak 10% of information (Page 22) constitute an act of violation of government orders about assisting the Commission?

343. Do not the suggestions hinted by A-37 Mr Murmu to call A-37 the former ACS (Home) Mr Ashok Narayan, the then senior-most IAS officer, for tutoring (Page 23) falsify his claims about Mr Sreekumar requesting a briefing from him before Mr Sreekumar‘s deposition to the Commission? This proves that tutoring of government servants had been done as part of an illegal drill.

344. Why did the SIT not assess that the whole episode of tutoring and intimidation by A-37 Mr Murmu and Mr Pandya perpetrated on Mr Sreekumar as a whole and series of connected criminal acts that constitute offences u/s 193 r/w sections 116, 186, 153A and 506 IPC?

345. Why did the SIT not accept the extrajudicial confession by Mr Pandya in the Tehelka magazine Sting Operation reported in its issue dtd 3-11-2007 (Vol. IV, Issue 43) about his threatening Mr Sreekumar as evidence? (The CBI has authenticated the Tehelka Tapes).

346. Mr Sreekumar was not a prosecution witness nor was he giving evidence in a criminal case but as a senior government servant and

151

responsible police official was deposing before a Judicial Commission tasked to bring out the truth about its terms of reference. During such proceedings, a witness is free to give his version of incidents. A witness can be charged or prosecuted for giving false evidence only u/s section 6 of the Commission of Inquiry Act. Had Mr Sreekumar deposed giving false evidence or data, he could have been dealt with for the offence of perjury.

347. In this context, the whole transaction of tutoring organised by Mr Murmu and Mr Pandya, especially in the light of Mr Sreekumar‘s refusal to go according to the briefing given to Mr Sreekumar by DGP AK Bhargava, A-40 ADGP Deepak Swaroop, ADGP J. Mahapatra and Under Secretary Home Dinesh Kapadia, was a blatant illegal action culpable under various sections of law viz. the IPC and Commission of Inquiry Act.

348. How has the SIT blithely accepted the statement by the Principal Secretary (Home) Mr KC Kapoor (for his "services", the Modi government posted him as State Election Commissioner after his retirement – see the Sixth Affidavit of Mr Sreekumar) that the government did not give approval to Mr Sreekumar for filing his second affidavit, when in the forwarding letter of this affidavit he had mentioned the details of written orders by the then DGP Mr AK Bhargava to all officers to file second affidavits relating to the additional terms of reference of the Commission issued by the government notification dated 20 July, 2004. Mr Sreekumar had submitted copies of these orders by Mr Bhargava to the SIT along with his letter captioned "Rejoinder to malicious campaigns to marginalise his evidence’ and to the Nanavati Commission and the SIT on 30.3.2010.

349. The State government issued a 9-point chargesheet against Mr Sreekumar, imposing major punishment of dismissal, in which recording of the interaction with Mr Murmu and Mr Pandya was included as one of the charges.

350. But the Central Administrative Tribunal (CA T) had unconditionally quashed all 9 charges. Later the High Court of Gujarat had refused to issue any stay orders on the CAT's orders dated 28.9.2007. The Judicial Commission also did not find fault with Mr Sreekumar on the act of "clandestine recording".

152

351. The SIT conveniently accepted the statements of A-37 Mr Murmu, Mr Kapoor, Mr Kapadia, Mr Pandya, etc without any investigation or perusal of relevant records, examination of impartial witnesses, etc.

352. Mr Sreekumar has categorically denied that there was any meeting with Mr Kapadia on the day of his retirement on 27.2.2007, nor did he plead for any mercy! By spending several paragraphs of its report on such petty issues while ignoring the large-scale misgovernance and breakdown of constitutional order, the SIT has exposed its own petty mindset.

353. The SIT has not spared any attention to scrutiny of the wealth of corroboratory evidence contained in Seventeen files provided by the DGP that relate to field reports of the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) and the PCR wireless messages of police vans (provided by A-29 , the then Commissioner of Police A-29 Mr PC Pande) indicating that

a) Large crowds were allowed to gather from 4 a.m. onwards to receive at the Sola Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, the aggressively mobilised Motor Cavalcade of dead bodies being brought by A-21 Dr Jaideep Patel, VHP strongman, from Godhra to Ahmedabad;

b) That aggressivefuneralprocessions were

encouraged and allowed by A-1 Mr Modi and co-accused conspirators to ensure that anger was deliberately fuelled against the deaths at Godhra;

c) That violent attacks had begin to be unleashed from the afternoon of 27.2.2002 onwards;

d) That hate speech and writing were used as potent weapons by A-1 Mr Modi and his co-accused.

354. But as far as discrediting of whistleblower witness Mr RB Sreekumar goes, pages of the SIT reports are devoted to just that.

153

355. Mr Sreekumar has made it clear that since 16 August, 2002, when the government started an inquiry on a trivial matter of a control room officer of ADGP (Int.) sending a secret message to field officers by fax against him, until later he has been victimised due to his upright and constitutional stand.

356. Soon after, the government started inquiries on his sending an adverse report against A-44 DIG Mr DG Vanzara in September 2002 and himself not reporting about an inquiry during his deputation period with the Central government. Even after such persistent acts of victimisation by the government he continued to send proper reports as per his charter of duties in the Gujarat Police Manual, Vol. III, Rule 461. His transfer away on 18.9.2002 from the post of ADGP (Int.) to the post of ADGP (Police Reforms) without any specific charter of duties was for ‘the deviant act" of reporting about the CM Mr Modi's speech containing contemptuous and insulting words about the Muslim Community. In this report he had also commented that contents of such speeches by the CM would vitiate the prevailing atmosphere.

357. The SIT has just not bothered to evaluate Mr Sreekum ar‘s presentation to the Nanavati Commission during his cross-examination on 31.8.2004. Mr Sreekumar did not bow to attempts at intimidation. Yet the SIT sets no store by this act of principle. He also gave a lot of information which was quite incriminating to the accused persons, to the Commission during his cross-examination. The SIT avoided any reference to this aspect because such a reference would go against the strategy of the SIT to portray Mr Sreekumar as an opportunist who had come up with evidence against the accused persons only after his supersession in February, 2005.

358. The SIT has deliberately turned a Nelson‘s eye to the several reports about the illegal action of government functionaries and their complicity in the 2002 anti-minority mass violence, during Mr Sreekum ar‘s tenure as ADGP (Int.). His presentation about the law and order situation to the Chief Election Commissioner resulted in the postponement of Assembly Elections. His report about the communal content of CM Mr Modi‘s speech in Mehsana District was another instance. So the SIT should have noted that Mr Sreekum ar‘s register and evidence of tutoring by the Home

154

Department officials – both referred to in his petition before the CAT in April 2005 – was to expressly prove that this supersession was on account of bias and malicious prejudice nurtured by the Government against him for the above-mentioned acts – reporting the truth about the culpable role of A-1 Mr Narendra Modi and other accused persons in the subversion of the Criminal Justice System to obstruct proper and timely delivery of justice to riot victims, insulting Muslims in Modi's speech, etc.

359. The SIT has deliberately and with mal-intent devalued and ignored voluminous data in Mr Sreekumar‘s intelligence reports (submitted to the DGP and government) from 9.4.2002 to 18.9.2002 – years before his supersession – but the SIT has deliberately and malevolently overemphasised the material contained in his Third Affidavit and advanced technical arguments to denigrate their evidentiary value.

360. The SIT has failed to acknowledge that Mr Sreekumar had not complied with any of the illegal verbal instructions (as narrated in the Register) nor did he take a stand favourable to the accused persons during his cross-examination by the Nanavati Commission on 31.8.2004.

361. The SIT observed that "the recorded conversation is totally absurd, confusing and does not make any sense" (Page 171). How could the SIT reach such a conclusion obviously for favouring the accused persons, without independently testing the recorded material and bringing out its verbatim version through scientific means?

362. At Para 8, sub-para vii-A (SIT Report dated 8.2.2012) Mr Sreekumar has provided a List of Officers who were given rewards like post-retirement placements, out-of-turn promotions, etc, for their collaborative role during the riots and for subversion of the Criminal Justice System, that was submitted in his Sixth Affidavit to the Commission on 03.09.2010.

Evidentiary merit of Mr RB Sreekumar's Register

155

363. State IB Additional Director General of Police Mr RB Sreekumar's Register has all the ingredients prescribed u/s 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, of being (1) public record and (2) made in the performance of duty.

364. Yet the SIT has chosen to deliberately debunk it as it gives invaluable evidence about the Public Record and Performance of duty un-Constitutional and Criminal behaviour of A-1 Mr Modi illustrating his masterminding of the criminal conspiracy. SIT has in fact fallen in line with the design of powerful accused to save themselves from incriminating evidence.

1. The register was supplied by Mr OP Mathur IPS, the then IGP (Admin. Security) who was in charge of the office of the ADGP (Int.) and Mr Mathur was also the second in command in the office, headed by then ADGP, (Intelligence) Mr Sreekumar.

2. The Register has an endorsement written by him, in Mr Sreekumar‘s own handwriting, certifying the number of pages.

3. No private and personal register needs an endorsement/ certificate from a senior officer, in his official capacity.

4. No minutes were prepared and circulated about meetings and sessions of discussions convened by senior officers (DGP and above), which would disprove the validity and veracity of contents in the entries of the Register.

5. Since no minutes were prepared about any of the meetings mentioned in his Register by Mr Sreekumar, he had no other means to document the gist of discussions, than by keeping an official register.

6. All materials in the Register are fully relevant to the charter of duties of the Addl. DGP Sreekumar, and the Police Department as per the provisions of the Indian Police Act 1861, Bombay Police Act, Gujarat

156

Police Manual numbers DGP circulars and other periodical instructions from higher formations.

7. All references to the discussions on events, persons, developing situations, law and order strategy, tactics and ground-level situation, are made by ‘the public servant (Mr Sreekumar) in the discharge of his official duty" and so are "relevant facts" as per section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act.

8. On the whole, reports sent by the ADGP (Int.)‘s office under Mr Sreekumar on the law and order situation make full use of the quintessence of materials in the Register entries. This can be seen by examining Mr Sreekumar's affidavits, particularly copies of reports by the ADGP (Int.)‘s office appended to the affidavits of Mr Sreekumar.

9. An examination of press reports of the relevant period will establish the truth of the Register entries, as these media projections bring out the chain of circumstances and ambience behind many of the illegal and unethical instructions given to Mr Sreekumar.

365. Please see suggestions about corroborative evidence and further action to be taken to prove the veracity of entries, given below:-

Entry dated 16-04-2002

(A) The CM's observation about Congress leaders, viz. Mr S. Vaghela, about their role in the communal riots was in the press reports of those days.

(B) Police follow-up action on arrest of history-sheeters as per the CM‘s instructions can be seen from police records.

(C) Since the above 2 entries can be proved by supporting evidence, the entry regarding illegal

157

instructions to tap Mr Vaghela‘s phone can be largely inferred or presumed to be correct.

366. Entry dated 17-04-2002

Please note that as per police records, nobody was arrested for the exclusive offence of obstructing examinations in schools/ colleges. 18-04-2002. The Central IB Joint Director Mr Rajendra Kumar's illegal moves in support of Mr Modi's political policy and strategy may be seen in Sreekumar's 4th and 5th affidavits before the Nanavati Commission.

367. Entry dated 22-04-2002.

The then chief secretary A-27 Mr Subha Rao's posture against the arrest of Hindu leaders is endorsed by the fact that only after interventions by the Apex court were senior Hindu leaders like A-16 Dr Maya Kodnani (then an MLA) and A-21 Dr Jaideep Patel (VHP) arrested. Numerous Court decisions condemning inaction by the Gujarat Administration is additional evidence.

368. Entry dated 30-04-2002. Some as under entry dated 17-04-2002.

369. Entries dated 1-05-2002 and 28-06-2002

The then Chief Secretary‘s instructions regarding fake encounters and Mr Sreekumar's refusal to implement the same can be proved by the fact that extrajudicial killings (largely of Muslims) started after Mr Sreekumar‘s transfer from the post of ADGP (Int.) on 17/18 September, 2002. The ADGP (Int.) has inherent powers to probe into all custodial deaths and fake encounters suo motu.

370. Entry dated 7-05-2002

A-1 Mr Modi‘s observations about "natural uncontrollable reaction’ can be seen in his press statements also.

371. Entry dated 8-05-2002

There is sufficient evidence about forcible closure of relief camps – an act approved by Mr KPS Gill.

372. Entries dated 5-08-2002, 6-08-2002, 8-08-2002 and 9-08-2002

158

Statistics about incidents of communal violence were manipulated by the Gujarat Government to project a picture of normalcy in the state, to ensure holding of early Assembly elections. Mr Sreekumar's presentation and reports dated 20-08-2002 and 28-08- 2002 (appended in Mr Sreekumar's second Affidavit) had falsified Government reports. Please see Central Election Commission order dated 16-08-2002 for corroboration.

373. Entry dated 30-08-2002

Records in ADGP (Int.) will prove about inadequacy of reports from the Gandhinagar region since 30-08-2002.

374. Entries dated 10-09-2002 and 12-09-2002

These letters from the Minority Commission with endorsement from DGP and others are available.

375. Entry dated 15-09-2002

There were press reports about the then ACS (Home) A-28 Mr Ashok Narayan informing that the government did not have details of the CM's speech.

376. Entry dated 19-09-2002

A-27 The then Chief Secretary's observations about Mr Sreekumar's duty to speak in support of government policy, even in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, is proved by voluminous evidence about subversion of the Criminal Justice System (CJS) by the Modi Government during and after the protracted 2002 communal violence.

Validation whistleblower Rahul Sharma

377. Rahul Sharma, SP of Bhavnagar in 2002 when violence engulfed the state of Gujarat gave his statements to the SIT on. His affidavit before the Nanavati Commission was in 2002 and his deposition before the Nanavati Commission took place in 2004.

378. This officer‘s testimony before the Commission (see Section Violent reprisals Attempted at Bhavnagar) is reflective of the pressures on the police and administration because of the Conspiracy hatched and unleashed by A-1 Mr Modi on the morning of 27.2.2002 to allow premeditated violence to be unleashed on the

159

minorities. The fact remains however that this man does not succumb and acts independently of any political intimidation. A-5 MoS home at the time Gordhan Zadaphiya reportedly complains to him about more Hindus dying in police firing and in the violence. He is therefore summarily transferred and brought to Ahmedabad on 27.3.2002. He was made DCP of the Crime Branch at Ahmedabad and asked by his superiors Mr PP Pandey and the new Commissioner of Police A-61 K R Kaushik to supervise/assist the Naroda Patiya and Gulberg investigations.

379 .The SIT has in its entire assessment of Mrs Jafri‘s complaint dated 8.6.2006 and the Concerned Citizens Tribunal report completely and utterly failed to make any analysis or comparison between those districts that experienced unprecedented violence because of the willingness of the District Police and administration heads who fell in line with the conspiracy hatched and those who did not.

380. Mr Sharma states in his affidavit before the Nanavati Commission that when he spoke to his superior A-25 then DGP K Chakravarti urgently asking for more forces, expressing his difficulty Mr K Chakravarti tells him that the ‘bureaucracy has been neutralized.’ SIT simply seeks a denial from a further statement of A-25 K Chakravarti but does not see any need to go further.

381. A thorough and independent investigative agency would have analysed and evaluated whether there was any ground level evidence of the police or administration being terrorized or neutralised as a result of the conspiracy that was masterminded by A-1 Mr Modi on 27.2.2002.

382. Thereafter Mr Sharma is transferred to Ahmedabad where in the course of his time at the Crime Branch he on the instructions of his superior officer AK Surolia he had summoned the mobile phone records of 5 lakh phones of Ahmedabad. He had placed this CD on the records of the Nanavati Commission when he testified in 2004.

383. SIT‘s attitude towards this crucial CD is illustrative of its inherent reluctance to get to the bottom of this crucial evidence and authenticate it despite it being made available. (steps need to be taken to authenticate the CD in further investigation)- June 2002 letter to A- 61 Mr K R Kaushik CP on Faulty Investigation in Naroda

160

Patiya and Gulberg as DCP Crime is not there in SIT papers though this provides vital clues about the manner in which the Conspiracy to subvert the investigations continued to be committed by A-1 Mr Modi and senior members of his administration.

385. The Naroda Patiya judgement dated 29.8.2012 at Chapter III (Mobile Calls details atpages 792-799) makes serious comments on the absence of probity in the SIT investigation with relation to the authentication of the CD. Refer to pages 792-799, Chapter III: Mobile Call Details in the Naroda Patiya judgment dated 29.8.2012.

386. It is not insignificant that Mr. Sharma is the second critical whistleblower witness who has been seriously victimized by A-1 Mr Modi and the home department under him. After he gave his statement and met the Amicus Curiae in January 2011 a charge sheet was served to him much like the treatment meted out to Mr. Sreekumar. His petition challenging this mala fide charge sheeting was admitted on 3.4.2012.

Validation Whistleblower Sanjiv Bhatt 27.2.2002 Meeting Information Before and After the SIT Investigation Begins

Before SIT Investigation (i.e. Before June 2009) May 2002

387. Haren Pandya, former Minister in the Gujarat Government before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal (CCT) May 2002 first gave information of the unconstitutional and illegal instructions given by A-1 Modi at this meeting. He is mysteriously killed on 26.11.2003

21-22 November 2002

Report of the CCT, November 2002 publishing details of Haren Pandya‘s revelations while keeping the source anonymous

27.12.2005

Fourth Affidavit of RB Sreekumar, ADGP-Int (2002) before the Nanavati Shah Commission dated 27.10.2005 (Annexure III File III D-24 of the SIT Records) stating that A-25 K Chakravarti had given information of the same words uttered by A-1 Mr Modi at the meeting of 27.2.2002 on 28.2.2002

161

After SIT Investigation Commences on June 2009

27.6.2009

Statement of Teesta Setalvad, Secretary Citizens for Justice & Peace Mumbai given before SIT stating what had already been stated by former Minister Haren Pandya to the Tribunal

28.08.09

Statement of Justice P B Sawant before the SIT (Annexure I Vol I Serial No. 17)

28.08.09

Statement of Justice Hosbet Suresh before the SIT (Annexure I Vol I Serial No 16)

14.09.09

Statement of Smt. Swarnakanta Verma before the SIT (Annexure I Vol I Serial No 18)

388. In 2010 the SIT Report states at pages 16-17 that

Mrs Swarnakanta Verma: ‘She has stated before (SIT) that she does not recollect as to whether CM instructed the police officers that the police should not come in the way of the Hindu backlash... She has pleaded loss of memory due to passage of time.’ (There is no reference to whether Bhatt was present or not).

389. SIT did not record her statement a second time after documentary evidence was made available by the Gujarat state IB that reveals that Mr Sanjiv Bhatt was indeed deputing that day and could well have been at the meeting.

16.12.09 & 17.12.09 A-25 K. Chakravarti statement (Annexure I Vol I Serial No 65 in SIT Papers)

390. A-25 K. Chakravarti: (A statement similar to Narayan‘s)... ‘He has denied to have told RB Sreekumar (as claimed in an affidavit before

162

the Nanavati Commission by the then ADGP) that the CM had said in the meeting held on February 27 night that in communal riots police takes action against Hindus and Muslims on one to one basis and this will not do now and allow Hindus to vent their anger. He has also stated that as per his recollection, Bhatt did not attend this meeting’.

24.09.2009 Statement of A- 34 K Nityanandam before the SIT (Annexure I Vol I serial No 20)

391 .A-34 K. Nityanandam: ‘Has denied that the CM said that police should not stop (Hindu retaliation)...’ (There is no reference to whether Bhatt was present).

22.11.09 Statement of Anil Mukim before the SIT (Annexure I Vol I Serial No. 47)

392. Anil Mukim: ‘Denied to have attended this meeting but all other participants have confirmed his presence in the meeting...’

25.11.2009 & 26.11.2009 Statement of Sanjiv Bhatt before the SIT on two consecutive days (Annexure I VolI Serial No 51 & 52)

12.12.2009 Statement of A-28 Ashok Narayan (Annexure I Vol I Serial No 62)

13.12.2009 Statement of Ashok Narayan (Annexure I Vol I Serial No 63)

393. In 2010 the SIT Report states at pages 16-17 that A-28 Ashok Narayan: ‘He does not recollect as to whether K Nityanandam and Bhatt attended ... The chief minister said that the people were outraged by the heinous incident of Godhra and therefore effective steps should be taken to control the communal riots if any. He does not recollect any other words uttered by the CM’.

163

12.3.2010 A-31 Statement of Dr P K Mishra (Annexure I Vol II Serial No 96)

394. A-31 Mr P K Mishra: ‘Has denied that the CM said... (let) Hindus vent their anger... He does not recollect whether Bhatt attended the meeting...’ (SIT Report dtd 12.5.2010)

SIT has not asked him about the documentary evidence contained in the SIB files that had been given to SIT by January end 2010.

24.03.2010 Statement of A-29 P C Pande (Annexure I Vol II Serial No 106)

395. SIT has not asked him about the documentary evidence contained in the SIB files that had been given to SIT by January end 2010.

7.05.2010 A-29 Statement of P C Pande Annexure I Vol II Serial No 176

396. A-29 P C Pande: ‘Has denied that the CM said... (let) Hindus vent their anger...’ (There is no reference to whether Bhatt was present). (SIT Report dated 12.5.2010)

27-28.3.2010

397. A-1 Mr Modi questioned by the SIT. No questions put to him about the detailed documentary evidence available in the SIT records about Sanjiv Bhatt‘s role on 27.2.2002.

12.5.2010 SIT Investigation Report Dated 12.5.2010 SIT’s Conclusion in 2010:

398. ‘The statement made by RB Sreekumar is hearsay which has not been confirmed by K Chakravarti. The participation of Bhatt has not been confirmed by any of the participants at the said meeting. The SIT further goes on to dismiss the statements of retired Supreme Court and High Court judges of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal preferring to accept the versions of the co-accused who are also co-conspirators in the complaint. In view of the version of all the senior officials of the home and police department, the testimony of the late Mr Haren Pandya before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal becomes unreliable. No minutes of the meeting of February 27 were prepared’.

164

399. ‘In the light of the above, a law and order meeting was in fact held by Modi at his residence late in the evening of February 27. However, the allegation that the chief minister instructed the chief secretary, DGP and other senior officials to allow the Hindu community to give vent to their anger on the minority Muslims in the wake of Godhra incident is not established.’ (Page 19, SIT Preliminary Report).

400. The preliminary report‘s general observation: ‘Though Bhatt claims to have attended the meeting, yet none of the participants of the meeting have confirmed this fact’. The preliminary report then concludes: Since none of the officers present at this meeting have confirmed the alleged statement of Modi, Sreekumar‘s statement is hearsay, and since no minister was present at the meeting therefore late Haren Pandya‘s statement before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal is unreliable, the allegation ‘is not established’.

Comments of SIT chairman, R K Raghavan, 14.5.2010

401. ‘Bhatt is considered an unreliable witness, especially because no official who is known to have definitely attended the meeting has spoken of his presence there. Also he was considered too junior to have been invited to such a high-level meeting... The three officers (P C Pande, P K Mishra and Ashok Narayan) had been accommodated in post-retirement jobs, and are therefore not obliged to speak against the chief minister or the state government.’ (Page 4 of Chairman’s comments, 14.5.2012).

402. Their views are taken as gospel truth even though they are seen as motivated by rewards from a culpable establishment.

Further Investigation by the SIT

05.10.2010 Statement of A-29 P C Pande (Annexure II Vol I Serial No 46)

23.11.2010 Statement of A-29 P C Pande (Annexure II Vol I Serial No 77)

165

20.01.2011 Raju Ramachandran‘s Interim Note 20.01.2011 (Annexure IV File IV Serial No 91)

15.3.2011SC Orders Further Investigation March 15, 2011

21.3.2011 ± 22.3.2011 Sanjiv Bhatt statement (Annexure II VolII Serial No 78) Sanjiv Bhatt statement (Annexure II Vol II Serial No 79)

23.03.11 Statement of A-29 P C Pandey (Annexue II Vol I Serial No 80)

24.03.11 Statement of A-25 K. Chakravarti (Annexure II Vol II Serial No 81)

403. Not confronted with SIT Investigation papers that had been produced by the DGP on 27/29.1.2010 that within its 4,900 pages had faxes signed by Mr Sanjiv Bhatt on 27.2.2002 showing that Sanjiv Bhatt was operating as the senior most officer in the SIB on 27.2.2002.

25.03.2011 Statement of Sanjiv Bhatt statement (Annexure II Vol II Serial No 82)

28.03.2011 Statement of A-34 K Nityanandam (Annexure II Vol II Serial No 88)

404. Not confronted with SIT Investigation papers that he had produced on 27/29.1.2010 showing that Sanjiv Bhatt was operating as the senior most officer in the SIB on 27.2.2002.

29.03.11 Statement of A-31 P K Mishra (Annexure II Vol II Serial No 89)

31.03.11 Statement of Anil Mukim (Annexure II Vol II Serial No 91)

05.04.11 Statement of Prakash S Shah (Annexure II Vol II Serial No 96)

06.04.11 Statement of A-28 Ashok Narayan (Annexure II Vol II Serial No 97)

166

405. Not confronted with SIT Investigation papers that he had produced on 27/29.1.2010 showing that Sanjiv Bhatt was operating as the senior most officer in the SIB on 27.2.2002.

14.04.2011 Affidavit of Sanjiv Bhatt (Annexure IV File X Serial No. 302)

406. States in Affidavit, ‘that so far in communal riots police takes action on one to one basis and that this will not do now. Allow Hindus to give vent to their anger."

SC Directs Amicus Raju Ramachandran to evaluate evidence bypassing SIT Order dated 5.5.2011

25.07.2011 Raju Ramachandran‘s report in Sealed Cover to SC (Annexure IV File X Serial No. 306)

SIT Further Investigation After the SC Order dated 12.9.2011

25.01.2012 Statement of A-25 K Chakravarti (Annexure II Vol II Serial No 145)

407. A-25 K Chakravarti: ‘He has categorically stated that Bhatt did not attend the meeting at CM‘s residence and no such instructions as alleged were given... He has further stated that none of the ministers/politicians had attended the meeting...’

14.01.2012 A-29 Statement of P C Pande (Annexure II Vol I Serial No 130)

408. A-29 P C Pande: ‘Has out rightly denied the presence of any minister or Bhatt in the meeting... Pande has categorically stated that no instructions to allow any freedom to any law breaker were given by the chief minister...’

The SIT conclusions dated 8.12.2012 state at Pg. 26-28 that:-

409. Mrs Swarnakanta Verma: ‘She cannot recollect as to whether any minister was present there... On being shown a photo of Bhatt she has stated that she cannot recollect having met or seen him in this meeting... She as denied that there was any mention by the chief

167

minister (that) Muslims be taught a lesson or Hindus be allowed to vent their anger...’

20.01.12 A-31 P K Mishra statement (Annexure II Vol II Serial No 139)

17.01.12 Statement of A-28 Ashok Narayan (Annexure II Vol II Serial No 137)

The SIT conclusions dated 8.12.2012 state at Pg. 26-28 that:-

410. A-28 Ashok Narayan: ‘Bhatt did not attend the meeting’... He has further stated that no minister was present at the meeting... He has denied any utterances by the chief minister (that) Muslims be taught a lesson or Hindus be allowed to vent their anger...’

411. A-31 Mr P K Mishra: ‘Has categorically denied the presence of Bhatt at the meeting. He has also denied the presence of any minister at the meeting... Mishra has stated that it was not true that the chief minister talked in terms (like) let Muslims be taught a lesson and Hindus be allowed to vent their anger...’

412. A-34 K Nityanandam: ‘He has denied the presence of any minister or Bhatt at the meeting... He has also denied any such alleged observations made by the chief minister about Muslims being taught a lesson etc etc and Hindus be allowed to vent their anger’.

413. Anil Mukim: Has stated that he attended the meeting for some time and then left after taking permission of Mishra... Has out rightly denied any utterances/instructions about Muslims being taught a lesson and the Hindus allowed to vent their anger, in his presence...’

414. Prakash Shah: ‘Has confirmed to have attended the meeting. He has denied the presence of any minister or Bhatt in the said meeting...’

168

Note on Validation of Sanjiv Bhatt 27/29.1.2010

Sanjiv Bhatt’s Faxes sent on 27.2.2002 Available after a Scrutiny or SIT papers

415. A close scrutiny of SIT papers provided to the Complainant shows that at least at 35 different places in the SIT papers Fax messages and Other communications sent by Sanjiv Bhatt deputing on 27.2.2002 as the senior-most Officer in the SIB are to be found.

416. The following files were submitted by ‘DGP‘ on 27/29.1.2010: Annexure III (File No to be added): D-160, D161, D-162, D-163, D-164, D-165, D-166, D-167, D-168, D169, D-170, D-172, D-173, D-174, D-176 (This file contains a handwritten notification stating that these documents were handed over by DGP Chakravarti on 27/29.1.2010. SIT should be asked to produce all Notes/Its Own Register/Covering Letters etc. that came with all Documents. These are in the main Documents supplied by ‘DGP‘s letter‘ (It is not specified who wxactly gace which files when. The Court should summon the despatch and receipt register of SIT and covering letters etc) A handwritten notification shows on 27/29.1.2010.

417. Yet none of the protagonists who attended the meeting, who would have been in the know of Mr Bhatt‘s actions on that day or who would have had occasion being in relevant positions to have received these faxes of Sanjiv Bhatt have been confronted with these documents. It is critical for the SIT to be made to disclose who produced these records.

418. A-25 DGP Chakravarti should have certainly then been the first to have been confronted with these records. He was not.

419. SIT has spent a significant number of pages trying to discredit Mr Sanjiv Bhatt after he submitted the affidavit to the Supreme Court dated 14.4.2011. The efforts of the SIT seemed to be at any cost to discredit his character and service record to show that he could not have been present at the controversial meeting at the A-1 Mr Modi‘s residence

169

that day. If the SIT had been true to their investigation they could have from the record collected by them and closely analysed by the Petitioner with the assistance of Citizens for Justice and Peace found that at several places in the Gujarat state police records ±State Intelligence Bureau ± Mr Sanjiv Bhatt had sent out messages on 27.2.2002. His contention that since the ADGP-Int was on leave and his colleague Mr P B Upadhyaya was on leave he was deputing and in that capacity attended the 27.2.2002 meeting stands corroborated by SIB records.

420. SIT did not confront any of the Accused including A-1, A-25, A-28, A-29 or A-34 with the evidence from the Record. A-34 K Nityanandam was also not confronted with these SIB documents. Neither was A-28 Ashok Narayan. Most serious of all A-1 Mr Modi was simply not confronted by these documents by the SIT.

Documents with Mr Sanjiv Bhatt’s Signature:

421. Several Messages in Many of the SIT Investigation papers coming from different sources validate Sanjiv Bhatt. They show that on 27.2.2002 he was in fact as DCP-Int (Security) deputing for colleague P B Upadhyaya (DCP-Communal) who was on leave and his boss G C Raiger was also on leave.

1.Same message No 71/02 is also at Annx IV File XX 374 Pg. 8394 (71-02) signed by S anjiv B hatt.

2.Same message No 71/02 is also at Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 31 (71-02) signed by Sanjiv Bhat.

3.Same message No 71/02 is also at Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 13 (71-02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt

4.Again, in Annexure III, File XXXVI, D179 Pg. 7 (D-178-185) which contains several

170

documents provided to the SIT by the Gujarat Government, ADGP etc. there is a Message 72/02 dated 27.2.2002 signed by Sanjiv Bhatt

5.Same message No 72/02 is also at Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 33 (72-02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt

6.Same message 72/02 is also at Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 14 (72-02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt (This message is the same as provided by Sanjiv Bhatt to the SIT at D-72, Annexure III, File V --Copy of confidential Fax Message No.D-2-2)

7.Again, Annexure III, File XXXVI (D-178- 185) which contains several documents provided to the SIT by the Gujarat Government, ADGP etc. there is a Message 23/02 (or 73/02) dated 27.2.2002 signed by Sanjiv Bhatt

8.This message No 23/02 (or 73/02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt is also at Annexure III, File II, (R B Sreekumar affidavit) at D-21 Pg. 32

9.Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 24 (327-02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt in R B Sreekumar affidavit

10. The same above message signed by Sanjiv Bhatt can also be seen in Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 11 (327-02)

11.Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 38 (74-02) Signed by Sanjiv Bhatt in R B Sreekumar affidavit

12. Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 16 (74- 02) Signed by Sanjiv Bhatt

171

13.Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 102 (192-02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt in R B Sreekumar affidavit

14. Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 120 (192- 02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt

15.Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 75 (342-02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt in R B Sreekumar affidavit

16. Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 223 (342- 02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt

17.Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 106 (291-02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt in R B Sreekumar affidavit

18. Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 232 (291- 02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt

19.Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 111 (354-02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt in R B Sreekumar affidavit

20. Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 252 (354- 02) signed by Sanjiv Bhatt

21. The message, message No 23/02 (or 73/02) is also in Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg.15 (23-02) is also signed by Sanjiv Bhatt (was also in R B Sreekumar affidavit annexures)

22. This message No 23/02 (or 73/02) is also Annx IV File XX 374 Pg. 8397 (23-02) is also signed by Sanjiv Bhatt

172

23.Again at Annexure IV, File XX, (which is

a ‘ Copy of the documents submitted by Govt. of Gujarat to Justice Nanavati and Justice Mehta CommissionofInquiry,regarding

instructions/messages issued by DGP Office, Gujarat for controlling: riots and actions taken by concerned police units for the period from 27/02/2002 to 31/05/2002’ there is a message D-2/2/Com/takedari/71/2002 signed and sent by Sanjiv Bhatt as ADGP Gandhinagar.

24.Again at Annexure IV, File XX, (which is

a ‘ Copy of the documents submitted by Govt. of Gujarat to Justice Nanavati and Justice Mehta CommissionofInquiry,regarding

instructions/messages issued by DGP Office, Gujarat for controlling: riots and actions taken by concerned police units for the period from 27/02/2002 to 31/05/2002’ there is a message dated27.2.2002MsgNoC/D-

2/Com/Takedari/- 02 signed and sent by Sanjiv Bhatt as ADGP Gandhinagar.

25. Annexure IV, File IX Serial NOs 241 (70/02) produced by Sanjay Bhavsar, CMO is a fax message addressed to ACS Home, GOG is a message signed by Sanjiv Bhatt; important message that speaks of the provocative slogans of karsevaks

26. The same message 70/02 signed by Sanjiv Bhatt can be located at Sr No 11, Annexure III, File XLI; important message that speaks of the provocative slogans of karsevaks

27.Sanjiv Bhatt in SIT Record:- Annx III File

XXXIV D-176 Pg. 102 (217-02) dtd 22.3.2002

173

28.Sanjiv Bhatt in SIT Record:- Annx III File

XXXIV D-176 Pg. 110 (216-02), dtd 22.3.2002

Sanjiv Bhatt Faxes in SIT Record

1. Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 25 (178-02) is a Record Message supplied by Sanjiv Bhatt to SIT—Can also be found at Annexure III, File V (D-83 Copy of Most urgent Fax Message No C-D-2-Incident-178)

2.D-70 Copy of Confidential Crash Cipher Message No D-2-2 given by Sanjiv Bhatt to SIT can be found at two places in the SIT records) Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 30 (69-02); b) Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 12 (69-02)

3.D-74 copy of Confidential Fax Message No D-2-2- COM-Karsevak dtd. 28.02.02 sent by Shri Solanki) given by Sanjiv Bhatt to SIT can be found in two places a) Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 34 (78-02); b) Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 17 (78-02)

4. D-77 Copy of Confidential Fax Message No D-2-2 given by Sanjiv Bhatt to the SIT can be found at Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 36 (90-02)

5. D-76 copy of Confidential Fax Message No.D-2-2- COM dtd. 28.02.02 sent by Shri V.J. Solanki given by Sanjiv Bhatt to the SIT can be found at two places a) Annx III File II D-21 Pg. 39 (80-02); b) Annx III File XXXIV D-176 Pg. 19 (80-02)

6. D-75 Annexure III File V given by Sanjiv Bhatt to the SIT can be found at Annexure III, File II D-21 Pg. 35 in the SIT Record

174

Messages of Sanjiv Bhatt given to the SIT not located in the SIT Record, This should be a matter of further investigation ordered by this Court to be conducted by an Independent agency.

a) Annexure III, File V, D- 65

b) Annexure III, File V, D-66

c) Annexure III, File V, D-67

d) Annexure III, File V, D-68

e) Annexure III, File V, D-69

f) Annexure III, File V, D-71

g) Annexure III, File V, D-72

h) Annexure III, File V, D- 73

i) Annexure III, File V, D-78

j) Annexure III, File V, D-79

k) Annexure III, File V, D-80

l) Annexure III, File V, D-81,

m) Annexure III, File V, D-82

n) Annexure III, File V, D-84

Evidence from CD towards the veracity of Sanjiv Bhatt affidavit regarding VAH [P HHtLCg [ol[®’®’®’’’[at[~01i[5 HVLUHCFH:

Annexure 1 (Study of the Phone Call Records of Mr Sanjiv Bhatt)

422. At the concerned point of time, the following IPS officers, in order of seniority, were serving in the State CID, IB:

1) A-60 Mr G.C. Raiger, ADGP, IB

2) Mr O.P. Mathur, IG, IB

3) Mr Sanjiv R. Bhatt, SP, IB (Administration & Security)

4) Mr Prabhat Patel, SP, IB (Communal)

5) Mr Pravin Upadhyay, SP, IB (Political)

423. The last two mentioned names are not directly recruited IPS officers and junior to Sanjiv Bhatt and for mere reasons of seniority, in the event of the first two officers not attending any meeting requiring the presence of officers from the IB, as per protocol, Sanjiv Bhatt would attend meetings on behalf of IB.

424. It is virtually impossible that such an important meeting (the meeting at CM‘s residence on the evening of 27.02.2002)

175

would have taken place without any representation from IB. The question is who attended the meeting?

1. A-60 G.C. Raiger, on his own admission, was out of the state. Hence, he could not have attended the meeting.

2. O.P. Mathur, at that point of time was using the mobile phone number: 9825029246. Given that the meeting took place at around 10:15 pm and got over by 10:40 pm, O.P. Mathur could not have attended the meeting because his mobile phone is located in Ahmedabad till as late as 10:10 pm. If he attended the meeting, he could not have reached the CM‘s residence before 10:45 pm, when the meeting got over. Hence, he did not attend the meeting.

3. One of the other two SP‘s (other than Sanjiv Bhatt) was using the mobile phones – 9825049394. This number was definitely moving in Ahmedabad City from early evening till as late as 11:27 pm. So, he could not have attended the meeting.

4. The other SP was using the phone number 9825049392. This number was also in Ahmedabad City till about 8:40 pm. And whether this officer attended the meeting or not would appear to be inconclusive. However, analysis of his phone calls reveals that he was never contacted by any person or by the IB Control. This means that he may not be having any information on the proposed meeting. Further clarity can be had from this number:

a. Another interesting phone number that has come up is 9811066749. This number has called all numbers of officers of IB except 9825049392. This number has also called the DGP & IGP, Gujarat State A-25 A-25 Mr K Chakravarti. And the only police officers numbers that have been called are those of the

176

IB and the DGP&IGP. It is suspected that the number can only be of A-60 Mr G C Raiger. It is also most unlikely that A-60 Mr G C. Raiger, being the head of CID, IB would detach himself from the proceedings of that day. And, he would definitely have contacted some officers of the IB for that purpose.

b. And, this number (9811066749) has not called 9825049392. This means that the officer holding number 9825049392 was not considered important enough by A-60 Mr G C Raiger to be consulted on the Godhra train carnage and the possible communal tension it could have generated the next day. Therefore, the officer holding the mobile number 9825049392 is not likely to be trusted to attend such an important meeting. Therefore, he has, most probably, not attended the meeting.

425. Let us now analyse the mobile phone number being used by Mr Sanjiv R. Bhatt: 9825049398. The last call to this number is also at 8:40 pm. He has also been spoken to from the number 9811066749 — maybe, he received instructions also to attend the meeting. His is the only mobile phone of IB that has called back the number 9811066749. Sanjiv Bhatt is also the senior-most SP. And he claims to have attended the meeting. His claim is most likely to be true.

(See Graphs and Tables on Phone Call Records of Mr Sanjiv Bhatt at Annexure )

177

Prelude to Godhra

426. The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) had announced holding of ‘Ram Maha Yagna’ for 100 days at Ayodhya in order to pursue its declared objective of construction of Ram Temple. Accordingly, the VHP Gujarat Branch held meetings at various Dist. Headquarters and important towns (from 7.2.2002 to 17.2.2002) to solicit participation of volunteers to participate in ‘Ram Maha Yagna’ at Ayodhya. The VHP‘s International General Secretary Mr. Praveen Togadia has held a meeting on 4.2.2002 at Vanikar Bhavan, Paldi, Ahmedabad, in which it was decided that Maha Yagna would start at Ayodhya from 24.2.2002 and it would go on for 100 days and about 3,000 Kar Sevaks would be participating from the Gujarat Region. The State Intelligence Bureau vide its letter No. D-1/9-HA/252/2002 dated 12/2/2002 informed the Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Department. Govt of Gujarat, and DGP Gujarat, about the activities of VHP. (Affidavit of RB Sreekumar dated 6.7.2002 before the Nanavati Commission; Appendix: 2)

427. The State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) had collected intelligence in this matter, and informed all the Districts‘ SSPs and the Police Commissioners vide its Fax Message No. (even)9-HA/Ram Mahayagna/228/2002 dated

7/2/2002. (Affidavit of RB Sreekumar dated 6.7.2002 before the Nanavati Commission; Appendix: 1)

428. It is mentioned in this message that about 3,500 Kar Sevaks would be starting on 22.2.2002 by train from Gujarat. It was also reported that recruitment of Kar Sevaks for the ensuring Ram Maha Yagna will take place in these local Mahayagnas, therefore, all the Districts and the PCs were accordingly asked to be alert and take all precautionary steps to avoid any untoward incident. Again, the State Intelligence Bureau vide its message No. D-1/9-HA/295/2002 dated 20/2/2002, informed SP, Western Rly, under intimation to Home Secretary and DGP, GS, Gandhinagar that about 3,000 Kar Sevaks under leadership of Mr. Trivedi (VHP Leader) would be going to Ayodhya by Sabarmati Express on 22/2/02 at 20:00 hrs from Ahmedabad Rly Station. (Affidavit of Mr. RB

178

Sreekumar dated 6.7.2002 before the Nanavati Commission; Appendix: 3)

429. The SIB had, therefore sufficiently warned the SSPs and Police Commissioners from time to time, under intimation to the State Home Department and DGP‘s Office, that any deterioration in law and order situation at Ayodhya would have serious repercussions in Gujarat, particularly on the communal front. Another message was sent to SSP Faizabad and IGP (Communal Intelligence) Intelligence Dept, UP, Lucknow, vide No. D-1/9-HA/316/2002 dated 25/2/2002. About 1,900 VHP and Bajrang Dal activists under the leadership of Mr. Vijay Pranami (Secretary, VHP), Hareshbhai Bhatt (President, Bajrang Dal Gujarat), Khemrajbhai Desai (President, VHP South zone) from Vadodara and South Gujarat left Vadodara by Sabarmati Express train for Ayodhya on 24/2/2002 at 23:10 hrs. (Affidavit of Mr. RB Sreekumar dated 6.7.2002 before the Nanavati Commission; Appendix: 8)

430. Yet another message was sent to SSP Faizabad and IGP (Communal Intelligence) Intelligence Dept, UP, Lucknow vide No. D-1/9-HA/327/2002, dated 27/2/2002. About 1,500 VHP and Bajrang Dal and Durga Vahini activists (1200-Male, 300-Female) under the leadership of Mr. Narendrabhai Vyas (President, VHP Saurashtra Zone) from South Zone had left Ahmedabad for participating in ‘Ram Jap Mahayagna’ by Sabarmati Express for Ayodhya on 26/2/2002 at 20:40 hrs. (Affidavit of Mr. RB Sreekumar dated 6.7.2002 before the Nanavati Commission; Appendix: 9)

431. The Superintendent of Police, Western Rly Baroda had informed IGP (Communal Intelligence) UP, Lucknow, vide his Fax Message No. B-10/LIB/175/2002 dated 16/2/2002 that Mr. Prahlad J. Patel, President of Bajrang Dal, Mehsana, would be leading a group of 150-200 Bajrang Dal activists of Mehsana for the Ayodhya Maha Yagna by 9165 DN Sabarmati Express on 22/2/2002. It was also mentioned in the said Fax Message that the Bajrang Dal activists travelling to Ayodhya would be carrying Trishuls with them.

179

(Affidavit of Mr. RB Sreekumar dated 6.7.2002 before the Nanavati Commission; Appendix: 11)

432. Similarly, Superintendent of Police, Mehsana also sent a TP Message to IGP (Communal Intelligence), Intelligence Department, Lucknow, UP, vide TPM No. LIB/415/VHP/2/1/2 dated 19.2.2002, stating that a group of 150 Rambhakts armed with Trishuls would be leaving Ahmedabad by train for Ayodhya on 22.02.2002 under the leadership of Mr. Prahlad Jayantibhai Patel, President, Bajrang Dal, Mehsana, and would be arriving at Ayodhya on 24/2/2002.

433. The said Mr. Prahlad J. Patel, President, Bajrang Dal, Mehsana, was injured in the Godhra incident on 27/02/2002. (Affidavit of Mr. RB Sreekumar dated 6.7.2002 before the Nanavati Commission; Appendix: 12) There was no information from Central IB or any other input from any other agency about possible attacks on Ram Sevaks returning from Ayodhya. On date 24.02.2002 at about 9:00 p.m. Sabarmati Express train reached Rudauli police station near Faizabad and some people got into special bogey S-6 where Ram Sevaks going to Ayodhya were seated. They tried to enter; Ram Sevaks did not let them enter; violence erupted. Ram Sevaks used trishuls and small daggers to severely beat up four local persons who, it is reported, are severely injured. The FIR for this incident has been registered at Rudauli Po. St. as the case of Asad Ahmed, resident at Khairanpur,Dist.Faizabad,at15:20hrsu/s

147/323/324/504/506 along with 145 of Rly Act on the very same day. (Affidavit of Mr. RB Sreekumar dated 6.7.2002 before the Nanavati Commission; Appendix: 13)

434. Several of the Bajrang Dal and VHP workers went to Ayodhya with sharp weapons and came back here with sharp weapons and they did not come back peacefully; this suggests that they had gone to Ayodhya with determination and come back accordingly. The ghastly and tragic incident of arson on the railway bogey that took place at Godhra on 27.02.2002 resulting in the death of 59 Kar Sevaks happened in this context. There was no information from Central IB or any other input from any other agency about

180

possible attack on Ramsevaks returning from Ayodhya, by any groups, fundamentalist or otherwise.

435. On 27.2.2002, Mr. RB Sreekumar met A-25 DGP Mr. K. Chakravarti in his office and reported compliance of the instructions given to Mr. Sreekumar. A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti informed him that Mr. Rajendra Kumar, the then Joint Director, Central IB, Ahmedabad, had come up with the theory of an ISI conspiracy behind the Godhra incident and had cajoled him to pursue the investigation by treating the Godhra incident as a pre-planned conspiracy. But A-25 Mr. Chakravarti didn‘t agree with this theory.

436. On 28.2.2002, the chief minister A-1 Mr. Narendra Modi also observed that it was a pre-planned conspiracy. But it was much later that the theory of conspiracy was introduced into the charge sheet.

437. Further, A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya, the then Minister of State for Home, also made a statement about the said incident of Godhra carnage but never mentioned anything about a conspiracy. The Hindu communal organisations, particularly the VHP and Bajrang Dal, had left no stone unturned to whip up the sentiments of the Hindu community by projecting the Muslims as collectively and as a community responsible for the Godhra carnage. The VHP, Bajrang Dal and their fraternal bodies had given a call on 27.2.2002 for observing a statewide bandh on 28.2.2002 and this was supported by the BJP. This had created an atmosphere conducive for mobilisation of Hindu mobs, particularly in communally sensitive areas of the State.

438. The State Intelligence Bureau had sent as many as three separate messages on 27.2.2002. In addition to these messages, specific information was sent to the CP, Ahmedabad, on 27.2.2002 about a bandh called to protest against the burning of the train at Godhra and a meeting called by the VHP at 16:00 hrs on the same day in connection with the bandh call.

181

439. The first message was sent on 27.2.2002 vide message No. D-2/2-com/69/2002 dated 27/2/2002 to all the PCs and the Dist. SSPs... People travelling by public transport like buses, cars and trains may be targeted by motivated mobs to take revenge. Therefore, suitable measures are needed to be taken to prevent a communal conflagration in the State. (Affidavit of Mr. RB Sreekumar dated 6.7.2002 before the Nanavati Commission; Appendix: 15-A)

440. A second message No. D-2/2/com/Alert/71/02 dated 27/2/2002 was sent, alerting all the Jurisdictional Police that the dead bodies would be brought to Ahmedabad city by train and thereafter, these bodies would be taken to the respective towns for funeral and therefore all anticipatory security measures to prevent and forestall communal violence should be initiated. (Affidavit of Mr. RB Sreekumar dated 6.7.2002 before the Nanavati Commission; Appendix: 15-B)

441. The third Message No. D-2/2/com/Alert/73/02 dated 27/2/02 was sent to all Police Dist. That the situation arising out of the bandh call needed strict vigilance and prompt response from the Police units to avoid any untoward incident. (Affidavit of Mr. RB Sreekumar dated 6.7.2002 before the Nanavati Commission; Appendix: 15-C)

442. The State Intelligence Bureau had inputs about the likely repercussions of the Godhra incident on 27.2.2002. Accordingly, the SIB had sufficiently alerted all the Police Commissioners and Supdts. of Police of all Districts for taking precautionary steps to prevent likely communal clashes in their jurisdiction. Which means that police officers in all and sensitive jurisdictions were supposed to:

a. Strict and effective implementation of the law.

b. Arrest communal goondas and anti social elementswho thrive in such a climate

182

c. Take strict and prompt action to prevent any kind of fallouts; avoid delay, inaction, and negligence.

d. Police stations should continue mobile patrolling and arrange bandobast to their sensitive areas.

e. Arms, Ammunition and Tear Gas should come in handy.

f. Keep anti-riot drill kit.

g. Keep a tab on the leaders, workers and office bearers of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad to obtain the necessary information regarding the movement of persons, etc.

h. Incident at Godhra communal incident should have alerted all Police Commissioner, Police Officers and coercion against all attempts to instigate communal flames, especially control provocations and hate speech.

These messages are also there in the documents: Annexure IV File XX Message Date 27/02/2002

MessageMessage No.FromSent to WhomMessage InstructionRemarks

Date/ Page No./

Time

127/2/02LIB/GujaratD.PolDGujarat bandh called byWithout format ,

8288bandh/HomeNarmadaVHP so maintain law &Time not shown

17:50Guard/2002order situation & allocate 50

18:00home guards

227/2/02LIB/GujaratD.PolC.PolGujarat bandh called soWithout format,

8289bandh/HomeNarmadaDediya pada,maintain law & orderTime not shown

17:55Guard/2002AB-Shakhasituation

18:05Narmada

327/2/02LIB/GujaratD.PolPI, Rajpipla,Gujarat bandh called byWithout format,

8291bandh/HomeNarmadaC.PolVHP so maintain law &Time not shown

19:45Guard/2002Tilakwada,order situation

19:55Unit

Commander,

Home Guard

183

427/2/02LIB/ GujaratD.Pol NarmadaC.Pol Rajpipla, Dediya para All PI,Gujarat bandh called by VHP so maintain law &Format,

8292bandh/2002Unitorder situation. To inform by telephone if any incident occursTime not shown

20:20Commander,

20:25Home Guard

527/2/02D.Pol NarmadaPS, Rajpipla, Sagwada, Kediyapada, Tilakwad, KevadiyaAs per incident occurred at Godhra train, dead bodies of VHP workers reached through train at 3:00 from Godhra to Ahmedabad and then procession of funeral at the areas of workers. So, necessary action should be taken.Telephone

8296GarudiGujarat bandh called on dt. 28.2.02 by VHP soVardhi/

18:10maintain law & order situationWithout Format

627/2/02LIB/GujaratD.Pol NarmadaAll PI Dist. Narmada SD PO.Gujarat bandh called by VHP so maintain law & order situationWithout format, Time not shown, Wireless

8297bandh/ Takedari/2002Rajpipla, Kevadiya DySP,

01:20Narmada

01:50

727/2/02D-2/2 com/ takedari/ 71/2002SanjivAll CP, All ACP with Western Railway, AllAfter incident of 27/2/02 Godhra train burning. Procession of funeral at the areas of workers. So, necessary action should be taken -Fax message Confidential Message

8394BhattDGP Range, Police Gandhi- nagar,Gujarat bandh called on dt. 28.2.02 by VHP so maintain law & order situation

03:10 p.m.Addl. DGP Gandhi- nagarPS to MoS Home, Gandhi- nagar

827/2/02Log MessagePolice Gandhi- nagarAll D.Pol, All CPOn dt. 28.2.02 at 8:00 a.m. Reporting every 2 hrs to Home control room on tele no. 3252957, 3221476 and Fax No. 3221008 and if any incident occurs report first.Format,

8395Log Message

19:25

20:00

927/2/02C/D-2/ Takedari/ 173/ 02Add. DIG (Int.)All CP, AllThey were shouting slogans in the train during travel from Ayodhya to Ahmedabad.Fax message

8396Gandhi- nagarACP, All West Pol.,After incident of 27/2/02 Godhra train burning keep police bandobast.

10:40 a.m.Vadodara........

Police, Gandhi- nagar, SIB, All Pol (Int.)

Vision,

1027/2/02C/D-2/Com/SanjivAll CP, All ACPGujarat bandh called on dt.Fax message

184

8397Takedari/ . . . . /02Bhattwith Western Railway, All DGP Range, Police Gandhi-Nagar,28.2.02 by VHP so maintain law & order situationConfidential urgent

11:42 p.m.Add. DGP Gandhi- nagarPS to MOS Home, Gandhinagar

1127/2/02LIB/326/2002/D.PolPI, BardoliAll staff alert with lathis,Wireless

8413Surat RuralAll C.Polweapons, helmets with uniform for bandobastmessage, Without format

1227/2/02LIB/ Bandobast/D.PolPI, BardoliGujarat bandh called on dt.Wireless

8417.. .. ../2002Surat RuralAll C.Pol, PI LCB, C.Pol traffic, All28.2.02 by VHP so maintain law & order situation, guidelines.Message

D.Pol, All CPI

1327/2/02SCR/623/All CPRegarding incidents ofTime not shown

84412002/All D.Pol West Pol. Vadodara27/2/02 made detailed register about offence occurred with Hindu-

27/2/02

Circle, AllMuslim‘s murder and injuries reported in FIR.

Range PI

Assembly started then send information immediately.

Annexure IV File XXI : Message Date 27/02/2002

SrMessageMessage No.FromSent to WhomMessage InstructionRemarks

Date/ Page No./

Time

127/2/02LogPoliceAll CPPreventive action toFormat,

8737messageGandhi-All Dis Pol.be taken so noLog message

20:25nagarcommunal reflection takes place and also take preventive

action so no serious incident occurs.

Reporting every 2 hrs to Home control room on tele no.

3252957, 3221476 and Fax No. 3221008 and if any incident occurs report first.

227/2/02LIB/326/2002-Dy.P.O, AhwaGodhra communalTime not shown,

8750-8752-H.D. Ahwa -P.C.I. Ahwa - Dy.SP Ahwa -CPI, Ahwatrain buring incident in Dang district does not have any reaction following the instruction givenFormat

mainly for

185

- Madarsa in both the police station,

mosque, built on the armed police

- 28.2.02 5:00 o'clock in the morning of the continuous mobile patrols to keep

- VHP, Bajrang staff, kar sevaks from a reaction to be

sufficient to alert- All district police men stand to in public and be alert - Both pol.

Stat. and LCB have to keep watch on communal-minded peoples and take action if any doubt.

327/2/02LIB/Guj.Dis.Pol.-C. Pol Ahwa,- The law and orderTime not shown,

8753-8754Bandh/Dang, AhwaVadhaisituation remains tense, any unwanted incident should be watched for,Format

329/2002-S. P.O. Ahwa, Dangadditional policemen beware, it is not required to immediately report to be sent to office

-CPI, Ahwa

- Dy.SP Ahwa -CPI, Ahwa

-Between 8:00 p.m. on 28.2.02 kheriyat about every 2 hrs from reporting to the police control room should Ahwa

427/2/02-PI/DYSPThe law and orderWithout Format

8805LIB/City,situation remains

14:50Por- bandarDYSP Rural, DYSP HQ,sustained any unwanted incident

CPI Ranawav, All Po. Sta.and additional policemen beware.

527/2/02LIB/bandh/DYSPAll DYSP,Maintain law & order-

8806535/02Por-All PIsituation, guidelines.

ConfidentialBandarPorbandar, PSI traffic, ControlKeep patrolling and take action against antisocial elements.

In-charge

627/2/02NR/46PoliceAll CP,Maintain law & order-

8832Gandhi-All Dis Pol.situation.

19:25nagar

21:15

186

727/2/02SCR/89/02Police Gandhi- nagarAll CP,Maintain law & order situation.Without format

8885All Dis Pol. West Pol. Vadodara

11:36

11:50

827/2/02LIB/PoliceAll CP,Between 8.00 p.m.Log message,

8886controlGandhi-All Dis Pol.on 28.2.02 kheriyatWithout format

21:55roomnagarabout every 2 hrs from reporting to the police control room should be sent

927/2/02SCR/624/02PoliceAll CP,Preventive action toWithout format,

8889Gandhi-All Dis Pol.,be taken so noWireless

00:05nagarAll Range In-communal reflectionmessage

00:15chargetake place and also take preventive

action so no serious incident occurs.

1027/2/02SCR/589/02PoliceAll CP, DSP,To take preventiveWithout format,

9009Gandhi-All Dis Pol.,action in your areasWireless

11:30nagaragainst a reaction tomessage

12:55kar sevaks being injured at Godhra who are from

Ahmedabad city, Mehsana, Vadodara, Sojitra, Anand.

1127/2/02SCR/588/02PolicePolice Commi.Keep policeWithout format,

9057Gandhi-Ahmedabad,bandobast at yourWireless

Fax messagenagarVadodara,areas‘ railwaymessage

11:15SP Westernstations where the

Railway Vadodara, VadodaraSabarmati train

arrives en route from Godhra to

Rural, Anand, Kheda, AhmedabadAhmedabad and take preventive action.

Rural

443. However, no preventive arrests had been made and the relevant instructions contained in the Gujarat Police Manual, compilation of the circulars in a booklet known as ‘Communal Peace‘ and a compilation called ‘Instruction to deal with Communal Riots (Strategy and Approach)‘ issued by Mr. KV Joseph, the then DGP in 1997, had not been complied with and further, the Communal Riot Scheme was also not implemented in Ahmedabad. Even subsequently, no action was taken in this regard.

444. The dead bodies of Kar Sevaks who died in the Godhra incident, some of which were unidentified, and those whose

187

kin were not present, were used to create a communal atmosphere fuelled by anger at the sight of the dead bodies. A decision was taken to bring the dead bodies to Ahmedabad by train. Regarding this matter, a message was sent to Gandhinagar and IB.

Msg.Annex.Fax/Vardhi No. 525D.O. A/badInt. O.8 dead bodies of VHP workers

III12:30 hrsA/badbrought to Ahmedabad from

File No. XIX, D-16127/2/02Godhra, at Kalupur Rly. St. at 15:00 hrs and then these dead bodies brought to their areas and there might be processions in their areas. So communal incidents will occur in

Part-II Page No.

355

Ahmedabad city. So take preventive action.

Likely to be Gujarat Bandh

called by VHP on dt. 28/2/02. So take preventive actions.

Msg.Annex.Fax Mes. Out/184/02 dt.ACP, Int.Add. D.G.To DCP (C)

III27/2/02A/badG. Nagar1) 8 dead bodies of VHP

File No. XIX, D-16120:46workers brought to Ahmedabad from Godhra, at Kalupur Rly. St. at 15:00 hrs and then these dead bodies brought to their areas and there might be processions in their areas. So communal incidents will occur in

Part-II Page No.V-1 Political

356 to 360V-2 Discrimi-nation

Ahmedabad city. So take preventive action.

Likely to be Gujarat Bandh

called by VHP on dt. 28/2/02. So take preventive actions.

2) Dead bodies reached

Kalupur Station at 3:00 to 3:30 hrs and were then sent

to/brought to Dhanvantari

Hospital at Bapunagar and condolence by Bajrang Dal workers and there is possibility of a Gujarat Bandh by VHP.

3) According to Godhra incident information at Kalupur Rly. Stat., 27 injured kar sevaks had gone to Vadodara Rly. Hospital where a senior medical officer treated them as outdoor patients.

And 18 kar sevaks who were seriously injured were treated at

Godhra Civil Hospital. The train departed at 14:20 hrs from

Vadodara to Ahmedabad and is

188

likely to reach Ahmedabad at

16:30 hrs. There are many kin of

kar sevaks and with them Ashok

Sharma, President of Hindu

Samrajya Shiv Sena,

Krishnavadan Brahmbhatt

(Corporator of A/bad) and 200 to

250 workers of BJP & VHP.

Keep police bandobast. Details faxed as per vardhi No. 527 before some time.

4) VHP called Gujarat Bandh on dt. 28/2/02 according to Godhra

Incident.

5) On dt. 27/2/02 a mob attacked AMTS and ST buses at

Bapunagar at 15:00 hrs and broke windows of buses. Shops were shut down.

8) Sabarmati Exp. Train arrived at 16:13 hrs at Platform No. 1, with kar sevaks shouting

slogans (1) Jai Shri Ram (2)

Bharat Mata Ki Jai (3) Ram

Mandir Vahin Banayenge (4)

Khoon Ka Badla Khoon, and then facility of buses was given to kar sevaks to reach their areas. No dead bodies comes are in train. Dead bodies given to their heirs from Civil Hospital.

Kar sevaks have given interview to ETV and stated that, ‘Amari

Sathe Gaddari Karwama Avi

Che, Miyao Amari Upar Tuti

Padela Che, Ane Miyaone Kapi

Nakho’. They used abusive language in this interview.

9) Bandh called by VHP of

Viramgam.

445. According to these messages, as mentioned above, the dead bodies were brought by train from Godhra to Ahmedabad and taken to A-20 VHP international general secretary Dr. Praveen Togadia‘s brother Mr. Dinesh Togadia‘s Dhanvantari Hospital at Bapunagar. This area is also very sensitive. So a communal atmosphere was created by fuelling anger at the sight of the dead bodies.

189

446. A-5 MOS Home Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya reached Godhra and after the Assembly proceedings were completed, A-1 Mr. Narendra Modi too left for Vadodara by a government charter plane. At Vadodara a helicopter had been requisitioned from ONGC to go to Godhra. By that time, two burnt bogies had been detached from the train and parked in the Rly. yard and the dead bodies of the victims were lying covered in the Rly. yard.

447. The train left Godhra for Ahmedabad without coach 6. Coach 6 stayed at Godhra Rly. Station. Messages were conveyed to CP Ahmedabad, CP Vadodara and all concerned routes of Rly (Message No. SCR/588/02).

448. Mr. Anil Mukim, PS to CM, Mr. Jagdish Thakker, PRO, accompanied the A-1 to Godhra and reached there between 1400- 17:00 hrs. A-1 the chief minister was received by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi, Collector & Dist. Magistrate, and some other Government officials and politicians. A-1 Mr. Modi straightaway drove to the Godhra Rly. Station. He climbed up and inspected the burnt coach. He then spoke to the crowd of VHP supporters who had gathered outside.

449. He then went to the Collectorate and had a meeting with Government and Police officials. At this meeting, A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt and A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya and A-21 Mr. Jaideep Patel were also present. A-1 Mr. Narendra Modi, Chief Minister, left Godhra by road around 19:30 hrs along with his personal staff and came to Vadodara. He reached his Gandhinagar residence at about 22:30 hrs. Mobile phone records of the CMO and their locational analysis show that he may have gone to Meghaninagar (where the Gulberg society is located) before leaving for Godhra and after returning before reaching his residence.

Msg.Annex. IVSCR/Police Gandhi-All CP, DSP, All Dis Pol.To take preventive action in your areasWithout format, Wireless

589/02

File No. XXI, Page No.nagaragainst a reaction to kar sevaks being injured at Godhra who are frommessage

9009

27/2/02

11:30Ahmedabad city,

190

12:55Mehsana,

Vadodara, Sojitra, Anand.

Msg.Annex.SCR/Police Gandhi- nagarPolice Commi. Ahmedabad, Vadodara,Keep police bandobast at your areas‘ railway stations where theWithout format, Wireless message

IV588/02SP Western

File No. XXI, Page No.

9057Railway Vadodara, Vadodara Rural, Anand,Sabarmati train arrives en route from Godhra to Ahmedabad and take preventive action.

27/2/02Kheda, Ahmedabad

Fax message 11:15

Rural

450. Despite the messages from Gandhinagar Police to all District Police, the Dist. and Rly. Police did not take any action and did no bandobast at major locations and Rly.Stations. Incidents occurred where Muslims died or were injured following attacks by VHP and Bajrang Dal workers.

Msg.Annex.Fax. Mes. IB/ Com/Sankhya/ 281/02ACP, State IBIG, Guj. StateBJP Mayor Bhartiben Vyas, BJP Leader Jitendra Sukhdiya, VHP and Bajrang Dal workers came to Vadodara Rly Sta. at 13:30 at Platform No. 1 andVadodara Rly. Police I.C.R.No.

IIIDt. 27/2/02Vadodara RegionIB, Gandhi- nagarsupplied food packets and water to kar sevaks.32/02

File No. XIX,15:51 hrsThe train arrived in

D-161Vadodara at

Part-I13: 45 and they shouted slogans and damaged property. One person died at 14:10. VHP and Bajrang Dal workers came out in the market and tried to close shops. Due to this reason send a message to Dis Pol. Anand. In the above-said incident,

Page No. 9260-year-old Ibhrahimbhai died from a head injury received when he was assaulted by kar sevaks. Another person was injured by a sharp knife.

Msg.Annex. IIIFIROne person named Abdul Rashid Kalubhai Mashita was assaulted by some kar sevaks who came on the train at Vadodara Stat.Ahmedabad Rly. Stat. Western Rly. Stat.

File No. XIX,Dt. 27/2/02 15:00 hrsICR No. 1/02:

D-161

191

Part-Iplatform No. 2&3. Abdul Rashidbhai died and another 2 persons were injured. The kar sevaks were shouting slogans.this incident was caused by Kar

Page No.Sevaks who came from

67-68

Godhra by train.

Msg.Annex.Vardhi No. 535D.O. A/badPI andAbdulkadar Abdul RehmanHand-written

III20:30 hrsIPDhobi of Memdavad, who

File No.27/2/02A/badcame to Ahmedabad Rly.

XIX,Stat. Platform No. 1, was attacked by some unknown persons with weapons at

D-161

Part-II

Page No. 34717:00 hrs and he was admitted to VS Hospital at

17:25 hrs

451. Despite the messages from Gandhinagar Police to all CPs and District Police, they did not take any action and did no bandobast and incidents started in the city area of Ahmedabad.

Annex IV File XIV (5731 to 6140) About incidents on Dt. 27/2/02

Sr. No.Page NoMessage Date/ TimeMessageRemarks

1574628/2/02Between 14:30 to 15:00 on dt. 27/2/02 aBapunagar ICR

1:10 hrsmob of 200 persons was pelting stones and set fire to a bus & shop.No. 64/02

2574928/2/02Zone-I: Visit to point of arson i.e. on

1:21 hrsshop; place: Opp. Samrat Dairy, Nehru

Park, Vastrapur.

3575028/2/02Arrange for SRP bandobast at Sola

1:54 hrsHospital because dead bodies are to arrive from Godhra.

4575428/2/02A mob attacked a rickshaw and injured 4Meghaninagar ICR No.

1:55 hrspersons near Ratnasagar Cross Road,66/02

Meghaninagar, at 22:00 on dt. 27/2/02.

5575728/2/02A mob injured one Muslim with sharpAmraiwadi ICR

2:05 hrsweapons near the Express Highway atNo. 96/02 IPC 302

21:45 on 27/2/02 and Taushif Shaeb Ali

Saiyed has died.

6576028/2/02ASI Meghaninagar informed that Raj

2:49 hrsCycle Store has been set on fire near

Umiyanagar. Send Fire Brigade.

7576228/2/02A mob burnt 11 seats and damaged

2:00 hrsexteriors near Maruti Complex bus stand at 19:45 on dt. 27/2/02 and then ran away.

8576828/2/02A mob of about 100 persons did stone-Odhav ICR

192

2:38 hrspelting and burnt buses and rickshaws and damaged public property at 17:15 on dt. 27/2/02.No. 78/02

9577128/2/02Babubhai Trikambhai and 8 otherOdhav ICR

3:00 hrspersons formed an unlawful assembly and damaged rickshaws and trucks nearNo. 79/02

Lilanagar, N.H.-8, Odhav.

10577528/2/02A mattress shop was burnt atNaroda ICR

2:30 hrsPashwanath Township, Naroda.No. 96/02

11577728/2/02Stone-pelting on an ST Bus andEllisbrige ICR

3:20 hrsdamage to public property took place near Paldi Cross Road at 19:10 on dt.No. 112/02

27/2/02.

12578328/2/024 Unknown persons burnt a rickshawAmraiwadi ICR

3:06 hrsand injured one Muslim with sharp weapons near C.T.M., Ramol, at 21:45 on dt. 27/2/02.No. 97/02

135786 &28/2/0250 to 60 persons were pelting stonesEllisbrige ICR

57883:40 hrsand set fire to a car, two bikes and damaging houses. The incidentNo. 113/02

occurred at Rajnagar, Paldi at 19:35 on dt. 27/2/02.

14579228/2/02A mattress shop has been burnt at

3:45 hrsVasna; Send police.

15579828/2/02A factory was burnt at Ambikanagar atOdhav ICR

580300:30 hrs00:30 on dt. 27/2/02.No. 80/02

5804

16580128/2/02A mob attacked and injured one MuslimEllisbrige ICR

3:50 hrsnear Mahalaxmi Cross Road, Paldi, atNo. 114/02

20:30 on dt. 27/2/02.

17580528/2/02A mob attacked and injured one MuslimEllisbrige ICR

58064:20 hrsnear Law Garden at 20:15 on dt.No. 116/02

27/2/02.

185807 &28/2/024 unknown persons attacked and injuredNaroda ICR

58084:28 hrsone Muslim near Kathwada Road, Naroda, at 19.30 on dt. 27/2/02.No. 97/02

19584028/02/02Jafarbhai who was injured nearMeghaninagar ICR No.

8:45 hrsRameshwar Cross Road at 13:10 yesterday died at 18:45 yesterday i.e. on dt. 27/2/02.65/02

Annexure III File XXXIV

D-176 Part-I

SrPag eMessage No./FromSent to WhomMessage InstructionRemarks

No.Date

11D-1/6-HA/ RamP.B. UpadhyayaAll CP, All SP, Home Sec.VHP Guj. arrange the programme of

Mahayagya/2Dy. Com. (Com.)G.Nagar, Police, G.NagarPurnahuti Maha Yagna starting on 24.2.02 and send VHP workers to

28/2002For Add. DGP

Dt. 7/2/02

193

Int. Guj. StateAyodhya on dt. 22.2.02

G. Nagar- VHP Guj. arrange the

Maha Yagna and plan to manage the programme on dt.

7.2.02 to 17.2.02 so, for that reason, to ensure that no incident takes place in any

area, take precautions.

22D-1/9-HA/P.B.DGP, Uttar3,000 kar sevaks from

253/2002UpadhyayaPradesh,Gujarat to reach

Dt. 12/2/02Dy. Com. (Com.)Lucknow,Ayodhya by 23.2.02 to participate in the proposed 100-day Maha Yagna programme

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. NagarHome Sec, G.Nagar, Police, G.Nagarcommencing from dt.

24.2.02

33D-1/9-HA/P.B.DGP, Add. ChiefVHP Guj. arrange the

252/2002UpadhyayaSec.,programme of

Dt. 12/2/02Dy. Com. (Com.)Home Dept. Sachivalaya G.Nagar, Police, G.NagarPurnahuti Maha Yagna starting on 24.2.02 and send VHP workers to Ayodhya on dt.

For Add. DGP

Int. Guj. State

G. Nagar22.2.02.

- VHP to construct a temple at Ayodhya and thus disrupt the law and order situation at

Ayodhya and there is thus the possibility of innocent persons‘ lives being put in danger.

Reactions to Ayodhya are also reflected in

Gujarat state. VHP has been canvassing about the Mandir issue and for that reason

also religious feelings have been hurt.

44D-1/9-HA/P.B.All CP, All SP,VHP GS Praveen

259/2002UpadhyayaState Int. West.Togadia announced on

Dt. 13/2/02Dy. Com.Vadodara, Home29.1.02 that a Ram

(Com.)Sec., G.Nagar Police, G.Nagar All Range IGP, State Int. Dept.Mandir would be constructed at any cost on or after March 12

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. Nagar- information sent by

U.P., LucknowIB- any weapons including lathis carried by them (kar sevaks)

55D-1/9-HA/P.B.Add. DGP (Int.)Under the leadership

194

295/2002UpadhyayaG.S. G.Nagarof Gujarat leader Dilip

Dt. 20/2/02Dy. Com. (Com.)SP, West. Rly. VadodaraTrivedi, 3,000 VHP

For Add. DGPHome Sec.and BD workers will leave for Ayodhya from

Int. Guj. State G. NagarG.Nagar PoliceA/bad Kalupur Stat. by the Sabarmati Express at 20:00 on dt. 22.2.02.

G. Nagar

So take precautions.

66D-1/9-HA/P.B.Add. DGP (Int.)3,000 VHP and BD

300/2002 Dt.UpadhyayaG.S. G.Nagarworkers will reach

21/2/02Dy. Com. (Com.)All CP, All SP, West Rly. VadodaraAyodhya by the Sabarmati Express. So take precautions.

For Add. DGP

Int. Guj. StateHome Sec.

G. NagarG.Nagar

Police

G.Nagar

77D-1/9-HA/P.B.SSP, Faizabad,About 3,000 VHP &

296/2002UpadhyayaUP,BD activists from

Dt. 21/2/02Dy. Com. (Com.)IG (CI) Int. Dept. UP. Lucknow, Home Sec.Gujarat State, under the leadership of Dilip Trivedi (VHP, Gujarat

For Add. DGP

Int. Guj. StateG.NagarPradesh), are leaving

G. NagarPolice G.NagarGujarat by train for

Add. DGP (Int.)Ayodhya from

G.S. G.Nagar22.2.2002 to

27.2.2002.

88D-1/9-HA/P.B.SSP, Faizabad,Kumari Malaben Raval

312/2002 Dt.UpadhyayaUP, (F.No. 05278-(President Durga

23/2/02Dy. Com.24215/ 22209).Vahini, Gujarat) from

(Com.)IG (CI) Int. Dept.Gujarat State has left

For Add. DGPUP. Lucknow, (F.N. 0522-Ahmedabad (Gujarat) by the Sabarmati

Int. Guj. State

G. Nagar206235)Express, train No.

Home Sec.9165, for Ayodhya at

G.Nagar20.50 hrs on

Police, G.Nagar, Add. DGP (Int.)22.2.2002.

G.S. G.Nagar

99D-1/9-HA/P.B.SSP, Faizabad,Vijay Pranami

316/2002 Dt.UpadhyayaUP, (F.No. 05278-(Sec.,VHP),

25/2/02Dy. Com.24215/ 22209).Hareshbhai Bhatt

(Com.)IG (CI) Int. Dept. UP. Lucknow, (F.N. 0522-(Pres., BD, Guj.), Khemrajbhai Desai (Pres., VHP South

For Add. DGP

Int. Guj. State

G. Nagar206235) Home Sec. G.NagarZone) from Vadodara and South Gujarat

Police, G.Nagar, Add. DGP (Int.)have left Vadodara by the Sabarmati Express train for Ayodhya at

G.S. G.Nagar23.10 hrs on

24.2.2002.

1010D-1/9-HA/Sanjiv BhattSSP, Faizabad,About 1,500 VHP and

327/2002 Dt.Dy. Com.UP, (F.No. 05278-BD and Durga Vahini

195

27/2/02(Com.)24215/ 22209). IG (CI) Int. Dept. UP. Lucknow, (F.N. 0522-activists (1200 —M, 300-F) from South Zone, under the leadership of Mr. Narendrabhai Vyas (Pres., VHP

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. Nagar206235)Saurashtra Zone), have left Ahmedabad for Ayodhya, for participating in the Ram Jap Maha Yagna, by the Sabarmati Express at 20.40 hrs on 22.2.2002.

Home Sec. G.Nagar

Police, G.Nagar Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar

1111D-2/2-Com/Sanjiv BhattAll CP, All SP, including West Pol., Vadodara, All Range IGP, State, Add. Chief Sec. Home G.S. G.NagarStatewide precautions and people travelling in Public Transport like Trains, Buses, etc are likely to be targeted for vindictive action.

69/2002Dy. Com. (Com.)Police, G.Nagar Add. DGP GS Gandhinagar Add. DGP CID (Crime& Rly) GS G.NagarTake all precautionary measures to prevent communal

Dt. 27/2/02For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. NagarAdd DGP Int. G.S. G.Nagarconflagration in your jurisdiction.

1212D-2/2-Com/ Takedari 71/2002 Dt.Sanjiv BhattAll CP, All SP, including West Pol.,The dead bodies of VHP workers are to reach A/bad Rly. Stat. by train at about 15:00 hrs and thereafter the dead bodies will be sent to their different areas for the funerals. Some incidents will occur on account of these funerals so take precautions.

27/2/02Dy. Com. (Com.)All Range DIG, Home Sec. G.Nagar- there is possibility of a bandh being called by the VHP on dt. 28.2.02 so take sufficient police forces and take precautions.

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. NagarPS to CM

G.Nagar

PS to MoS

(Home) G.Nagar Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar

1313D-2/2-Com/ Takedari 72/2002 Dt.Sanjiv BhattCP, Ahmedabad City,VHP has called a bandh on dt. 28.2.02 and one meeting was arranged at the VHP office at 16:00 hrs.

27/2/02Dy. Com. (Com.)Home Sec. G.Nagar

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. NagarPolice, G.Nagar Add DIG (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar

196

1414D-2/2- Com/ Takedari 72/2002 Dt.Sanjiv BhattAll CP, All SP, including West Pol.,VHP has called a

27/2/02Dy. Com. (Com.)All Range DIG, Home Sec. G.Nagarbandh to protest the incident of dt. 27/2/02 at 7:15 hrs at Godhra. Take precautions.

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. NagarPS to CM

G.Nagar

PS to MoS

(Home) G.Nagar Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar

1516 *D-2/2- Com/KarV.J.CP, Ahmedabad City,54 dead bodies have been sent by truck and tempo with police

Sevak 78/2002 Dt.Solanki PI (C)Asst. Com. Of Int. Ahmedabad Div. Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagarescort from Godhra to A/bad at 23:15 hrs on dt. 27/2/02.

28/2/02For Add. DGP Int. G.S. G.Nagar- so as to avoid any incident, take precautions.

1617D-2/2- Com/KarV.J.SP, Sabarkantha Police, G.Nagar Sp. SP. G.Nagar Range.150 BD activists of Khed Brahma

Sevak 79/2002 Dt.Solanki PI (C)Add. DGP (Int.)Prakhand came back from Ayodhya to Khed Brahma at 20:30 hrs on 27/2/02 and now they all are staying at Ambaji Mata Dharmshala. All these activists are eyewitnesses to the Godhra incident

28/2/02For Add. DGP Int. G.S. G.NagarG.S., G. Nagar- if any activist tries to give a memorandum of an organised rally or meeting about the incidents, that will have reactions. So take precautions.

1718D-2/2- Com/ Takedari 80/2002 Dt.V.J.All CP, All SP, including West Pol.,About the incident of 27/2/02, VHP Sec. Kaushik Mehta stated that some Hindu girls had been kidnapped by a religious mob; as a result of this, the situation is becoming dangerous and it is possible that the opposition will demand the government‘s resignation.

28/2/02Solanki PI (C)Vadodara

For Add. DGP Int. G.S. G.NagarPolice, G.Nagar Sp. IGP. All Range Asst. Com. (Int.) Region

Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar

197

1819D-2/2- Com/ Banav/ Mahiti 82/2002 Dt. 28/2/02PBSP, PI, Godhra Centre,According to news released in

UpadhyayaASI, IB, Vadodara Regionnewspapers, Hindu girls were kidnapped from the coach by some mob. Send us the real facts so that we can publicise the same.

Dy. Com. (Com.)West Pol.,

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. NagarVadodara

Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar

1920D-2/2- Com/ Banav/ Takedari 84/2002 Dt.PBAll CP, All SP West Pol., Vadodara. PoliceTake precautions at the time of the funeral procession.

28/2/02UpadhyayaG.Nagar

Dy. Com. (Com.)Sp. DIG. All Range Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. Nagar

2024C/D-2/ Com/ Banav/ 178/2002 Dt.Sanjiv BhattHome Sec. G.Nagar PS to CMA Hindu mob surrounded Gulberg Society at

28/2/02Dy. Com. (Com.)Sachivalaya G.NagarChamanpura, Mehganinagar. About 18 persons were killed along with ex-MP

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. NagarPS to MoS (Home), Sachivalaya G.NagarEhsan Jafri and his family members. Then the mob continued

Police, G.Nagar CP, A/bad City Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagartheir acts.

2127D-2/2- Com/ Banav/PBAdd. Chief Sec., Home Dept. GS. Sachivalaya, G.Nagar32 to 35 houses were burnt by mobs at 16:45 on dt. 1.3.02 at Pandharwada,

96/2002 Dt.UpadhyayaPolice, G.Nagar PS to CM, G.Nagar PS to MoS (Home) GS G.NagarKhanpur Po. Stat., Godhra Dist.

28/2/02Dy. Com. (Com.)Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar8 Muslims were killed and 12 injured.

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. Nagar

2228D-2/2- Com/ Banav/PBAdd. Chief Sec, Home Dept. G.S. Sachivalaya, G.NagarDuring the bandh called on dt.1.3.02 at Gandhinagar Dist., Village Pore, a mob of Hindus set on fire Muslims‘ houses at 10:15 hrs.

98/2002 Dt.UpadhyayaPolice, G.Nagar PS to CM, G.Nagar PS to MoS (Home) GS G.NagarThe Police, Dist. Collector and DDO were informed and

28/2/02Dy. Com. (Com.)Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. Nagar

198

they reached Pore village and advised them to shift to a safe place. So they went in 3 Matadors and

reached Adalaj Po. Stat. and among them 6 persons died of suffocation. Adalaj Po. Stat. noted No. 6/2002 as per CrPC 174.

2349 &FIRVadodara Rly PS Anand Rly PS Ahmedabad Rly PSVadodara ICR No. 32/02 IPC 302, 307 on dt. 27/2/02

50Sabarmati Rly PSAnand ICR No. 01/02 IPC 302, 324 on dt. 27/2/02

Mehsana Rly PS Valsad Rly PSAhmedabad ICR No. 50/02 IPC 314, 324 on dt. 27/2/02

Sabarmati ICR No. 07/02 IPC 302, 295 on dt. 2/3/02

Mehsana ICR No.

07/02 IPC 506, on dt. 2/3/02

Valsad ICR No. 18/02 IPC 436, 143 on dt. 1/3/02

2556D-2/2- Com/ Banav/PBSP, Kheda,Memdavad Po. Stat. ICR No. 53/02 dt. 6/3/02Ghodasar incident;

Mahiti/ 129/2002 Dt. 7/3/02UpadhyayaAdd. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar13 Muslims‘ death

Dy. Com. (Com.)

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. Nagar

2657D-2/2- Com/ Banav/ Anjanwa/ 350/2002 Dt. 7/3/02AS KamiriAdd Chief Sec, Home Dept. G.S. Sachivalaya, G.NagarSantram Po. Stat. ICR No. 43/02 IPC 302, 306 Dist. GodhraAnjanwa Incident; 8 Muslims‘ Death

PI ‘C‘Police, G.Nagar PS to CM, G.Nagar PS to MoS (Home) GS G.Nagar

Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. NagarAdd. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar

2776D-2/2- Com/SR/ 161/2002 Dt. 7/3/02PBAdd. Chief Sec, Home Dept. G.S. Sachivalaya, G.NagarNews released in daily newspaper Sandesh:

UpadhyayaPolice, G.Nagar PS to CM, G.Nagar PS to MoS (Home) GS G.Nagar’Hinduo Savdhan, Haj Yatra Pachi Vadta Humlani Sajish’

Dy. Com. (Com.)(Hindus to be alert, possibility of attack after Haj)

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. Nagar

199

Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar

28116D-2/2- Com/ Takedari/231/ 2002 Dt.PBCP, A/bad City Home Sec. G.NagarKhanwadi, Jantanagar; At Ramol, Hindu mob to be attacked on Muslims with deadly weapons.

25/3/02UpadhyayaPolice, G.Nagar Add. DGP (Int.) G.S. G.Nagar

Dy. Com. (Com.)

For Add. DGP Int. Guj. State G. Nagar

310 letter of DIG SIB

Schedule-II Office System to Work (Use of Sachivalaya)

452. This critical document, which has been accessed from the SIT papers and has obviously been collected from the office of A-1, indicates that there was a sustained build-up of violence prior to the Godhra incident on 27.2.2002, of which he was aware and conscious and yet he did not take the steps required to observe peace nor did he appeal for peace.

NoName & Desig. Of Concerned PersonOutward Reg. No File No.Values of Fixed Ticket

61D-2/2 com/61/2002/ Dt. 23/2/2002Incident that occurred at Bharuch Dist, Tankaria post, during Eid FestivalHome Sec. Gandhinagar P to CM

P to MoS

Police Gandhinagar.

62D-2/2 com/ Incident/62/02/ Dt. 23/2/ 2002As Above’

63D-2/2 com/ Incident/62/02/ Dt. 23/2/ 2002As Above’

64D-2/ Incident/64/2002/ Dt. 24/2/2002S.R. of Gomtipur I 46/02 and I 48/02Addl. Sec. Home Dept.

PS to CM PS to CM Police Gandhinagar

65D-2/2 Com/ Incident/ 65/02/ Dt. 24/2/2002Information about incident that occurred at Village Khariya, Dist. Bharuch, S.R.CS Home PS to CM PS to MoS Police Gandhinagar

66D-2/2 Com /Incident- Rally/ 66/02/Incident that occurred at Old Harijanwas at Vagad city for bandobastRC Valsad

Dt. 25/2/2002PS to Gandhinagar IGP, Surat Range

67D-2/2-com/LSO-454/67/02 Dt. 26.2.2002LSQ-454 Atrocity on minorityCP & DSP

Home Sec. Police Gandhinagar

68D-2/ Com /Jhagadiya Bandh/ 68/02/About incident that occurred duringDSP Bharuch

Dt. 26/2/2002Tankariya bandh called on dt. 27.2.02Home Sec. Gandhinagar Police Gandhinagar

200

69D-2/2-com/69/2002 Dt. 29.2.2002Precaution taken about communal incident at GodhraRange IGP

Police Gandhinagar

70D-2/2 Com / Godhra Incident/ 70/02/Burning coaches of train incident at Godhra. S.RAddl. Sec. Home Dept.

Dt. 27/2/2002PS to CM PS to CM Police Gandhinagar

71D-2/2 Com /Takedari / 71/02/ Dt. 27/2/2002Precaution taken about bandh called and persons killed in the train atDCP and CSP of all Cities and Districts Home Sec Gandhinagar

GodhraPS to CM

PS to MoS

Police Gandhinagar.

72D-2/2 Com/Takedari/ 72/02/ Dt. 27/2/2002Gujarat Bandh meeting at VHP office about the incident that occurred at GodhraC&P, Ahmedabad City Home Sec. Gandhinagar Police Gandhinagar

73D-2/2 Com/Takedari/ 73/02/ Dt. 27/2/2002Alert MessageAll CP and DCP

Home Sec., Gandhinagar Police Gandhinagar

74D-2/2 Com/Gujarat Band/Takedari/ 74/02/ Dt. 27/2/2002Messaged about the bandh called on dt. 28.2.02Addl. Police Supdt. Valsad Police Gandhinagar

PS to Home

75D-2/Dalit Pravruti/75/02/ Dt. 27/2/2002Memorandum given to Collector and PoliceAddl. Sec Home Police Gandhinagar PS to CM

Supdt. of Valsad about I 45/02 u/s IPC 303-504- 302PS to Home Sec

76D-2/2 Com/ Incident/ 76/02/ Dt. 27/2/2002Incident that occurred at Vadodara Rly. Stat.Addl. Chief Sec Home Dept., Sachivalaya Gandhinagar,

Ref. S.R.Police Gandhinagar

PS to CM

PS to Home Sec

77D-2/2 Com/ Incident/ Information/77/02/ Dt. 27/2/2002Information about death and injuries at Godhra, Vadodara and Anand S.R.ACS Home, Police Gandhinagar PS to C.M

PS to MOS

(Home) Gandhinagar

78Kramank No.2/2-Com/ Karsevak/ 78/02Faxed to precaution about police escort with 54 dead bodies from Godhra to AhmedabadCP Ahmedabad City ACP Ahmedabad

Dt. 28/2/02

79Kramank No.2/2-Com/ Karsevak/7/02Situation is not in control at Khedbrahma town and faxedPolice Suprint. Zalol,

Dt. 28/2/02Joint CP Gandhinagar

Spl. Officer Shree Gandhinagar

80D-2/2-Com/Karsevak/ 80/02Precaution about bandh called on dt. 28/2/02All Police Com. & All Police Suprint. Police, Vadodara

Dt. 28.2.02

81No.-2/2-Com/For Bandh/81/02 Dt.28.2.2002Precaution taken every two hoursAll Police Comm. Police Gandhinagar

82D-2/2-Com/incident/ infomratopm/82/02 Dt.28.2.02Incident that occurred on dt. 27/2/02DSP Godhra PI Godhra

201

ACP, Vadodara Region

83No.-2/2-Com/For Bandh/ 83/02 Dt.28.2.2002Incident that occurred on dt. 28/2/02Addl. Sec. Home Police Gandhinagar PS to CMO

PS to CM

84D-2/2-Com/Incident/ Precaution/84/02Precaution about funeral yatraAll DSP & All SP

Dt. 28.2.02Police Gandhinagar All IGP

85D-2/2-Com/Incident/ Precaution/85/02Precaution about Condolence MeetingAll CP, DSP,

Dt. 28.2.02Police Officers, All Ranges

86D-2/2-com/86/2002 Dt. 29.2.2002Information about communal situationACS Home, Gandhinagar Police Gandhinagar

87D-2/2-com/87/2002 Dt. 29.2.2002Fact about Godhra incident and Gujarat Bandh on dt. 28/2/02Addl. Sec. Home, Police Gandhinagar PS to MoS

PS to CM

88D-2/Com/88/2002 Dt. 28.2.02No any incident occurred back from Haj.All PC & All DCP

DSP Vadodara Range

All Range IGP

All ACI & Int.

All Regional Gandhinagar, Police Gandhinagar

89D-2/2-Com/Incident/89/02 Dt. 28.2.02Incident occurred against reaction of GodhraACS Home

incidentHome Sec. Gandhinagar PS to C.M

PS to MoS

90D-2/2-Com/Incident/ Precaution/90/02Alert MessageDSP Sabarkantha

Dt. 28.2.02Situation is intense at Sabarkantha Dist.Home Sec. Gandhinagar

Police Gandhinagar. DSP Gandhinagar

91D-2/2-Com/Incident/91/02 Dt. 28.2.02Information about incident occurred on dt. 27/2/2002 and 28/2/2002Home Sec. Gandhinagar

92D-2/Com/Incident/ Information/92/02 Dt.1.3.02Information aboutAll PC All SP,

reaction to Godhra train incidentAll Asst. Commi. Intel Police Gandhinagar All IGP

93D-2/Com/Precaution/93/ 02 Dt. 1.3.02No incident of attack on police after Godhra carnageAll CP, DSP, Police Officer Gandhinagar

94D-2/2-Com/ Precaution/ 94/02/ Dt. 1.3.02Alert MessageCP Ahmedabad

Situation is intense at DanilimdaHome Sec, Gandhinagar Police Gandhinagar

453. The interviews in the Tehelka Sting Operation also create evidence about the deliberate build up prior to 27.2.2002 especially the stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by the VHP, Bajrang Dal and RSS in Ahmedabad (Naroda etc), Sabarkantha and Panchmahals. This was valuable evidence

202

that has been ignored by the SIT and needs to be looked at closely in the further investigation.

Narrative Re starts

454. The Petitioner/Complainant is giving herein below a detailed narrative of the systematic build-up, documentary evidence related to the build-up before, during and after 27.2.2002. Aggressive communal mobilisation was taking place all over Gujarat State since November-December 2001 and records show evidence of this since early February 2002. Even before the tragic train burning incident at Godhra, the SIB was sending messages about the aggressive mobilization going on.

455. Incidents which took place commencing from the incident at Godhra on 27.2.2002, and the incidents which took place between 27.2.2012 and 5.3.2002 in aggravated form and thereafter continued until May 18, 2002 based on the documents on record submitted by SIT pursuant to the Order of this Court dated 10.4.2012 and the Hon‘ble Supreme Court‘s Order 7.2.2013, as well as documents collected from Nanavati Commission, records of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal and phone call records analysis. Reveal that there was consistent mobilisation through speeches, illegal assembly, use of pamphlets to promote hate speech and writing all through December unti January. Annexed hereto

____is also a compilation of pamphlets circulated by the

Vishwa Hindu Parishad that were available with the State Intelligence Bureau and should have been scrutinised and analysed for their content and intent by the SIT.

203

456. The documents other than what have been collected by the SIT

have been marked as Annexures internally numbered

and put in a separate compilation at Annexure. The

narrative also consists of the individual incidents which had taken place at dozens of places. The narrative shows the continued act of Conspiracy as well as Abetment by the Accused. Besides the narrative, the Complainant has also discussed the Individual acts of the Accused which prima facie involve them in the act of Conspiracy and Abetment based on the material on record.

Provocative Behaviour of the Kar Sevaks

457. Critical documentary evidence from the SIB records submitted to the SIT and provided to the Complainant corroborate and detail the incendiary and provocative behaviour of the VHP workers who called themselves kar sevaks and were aboard the Sabarmati Express Train. This has been deliberately ignored by the SIT and its high powered team with a view to superficially conclude the investigation to the benefit of all the powerful accused. The Concerned Citizens Tribunal clearly observes that not all the victims of the training burning were Kar Sevaks (see CCT annexed in SIT papers) Yet to capitalise crudely it was made out by A-1 an dhis co-conspirators as if the whole affair was an attack on kar sevaks and kar sevaks alone.

458. Former DGP Gujarat RB Sreekumar, had as far back as 6.7.2002 in his First Affidavit filed before the Nanavati Commission and the Annexures therein, that contain valuable information from the SIB records, provided proof of this violent and provocative behaviour. Annexed at Appendix 13, of this First Affidavit (a document that can be seen at Annexure III, File II, D-21, Page 28 of the SIT records). This is a message from the records of the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) of the Gujarat Police that details the obnoxious and provocative behaviour of the kar sevaks travelling on this train in the same S-6 Coach, between Gujarat and Ayodhya. Specifically, it states that, "On date 24/02/2002 at about 9:00pm., the Sabarmati Express train reached the Rudauli Po. Sta. near Faizabad and some people got into special bogey S-6 where Ram Sevaks going to Ayodhya were seated. They tried to enter but Ram Sevaks did not let them enter and violence erupted. Ram Sevaks used trishuls and daggers to severely beat up four local persons who it is

204

reported are severely injured. (Where does the quote end?) The FIR for this incident has been registered at Rudauli Po. St. as the case of Asad Ahmed, resident at Khairanpur, Dist. Faizabad at 15:20 hrs u/s 147/323/324/504/506 along with 145 of Rly. Act on the very same day. This violent and aggressive behaviour of VHP workers calling themselves Ram sevaks was also reported in a Hindi daily published from Faizabad, the Jan Morcha, the next day, i.e., February 25, 2002 (See Annexure ) that detailed instances of provocative behaviour by kar sevaks, who allegedly beat and threatened Muslim passengers, insisting that they chant „Jai Shree Ram’. They even unveiled Muslim women. Several newspapers reported the behaviour of the kar sevaks as they returned to Gujarat. Reports carried by the Times of India and The Hindu dated 28.2.2002 also reported on the provocation caused by the aggressive and violent VHP workers on the train when it reached Godhra five hours late on 27.2.2002. (Annexure _______).

Provocative Behaviour of the Kar Sevaks

459. Critical documentary evidence from the SIB records submitted to the SIT and provided to the Complainant corroborate and detail the incendiary and provocative behaviour of the VHP workers who called themselves kar sevaks and were aboard the Sabarmati Express Train. This has been deliberately ignored by the SIT and its high powered team with a view to superficially conclude the investigation to the benefit of all the powerful accused.

460. Former DGP Gujarat, Mr R. B. Sreekumar, had as far back as 6.7.2002, in his First Affidavit filed before the Nanavati Commission and the Annexures therein (that contain valuable information from the SIB records), provided proof of this violent and provocative behaviour. Annexed at Appendix 13, of this First Affidavit (a document that can be seen at Annexure III, File II, D-21, Page 28 of the SIT records). This is a message from the records of the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) of the Gujarat Police that details the obnoxious and provocative behaviour of the kar sevaks travelling on this train in the same S-6 Coach, between Gujarat and Ayodhya. Specifically it states that, "On date 24/02/2002 at about 9:00pm., the Sabarmati Express train reached the Rudauli Po. Sta. near Faizabad and some people got into special bogey S-6 where Ram Sevaks going to Ayodhya were seated. They tried to enter but Ram

205

Sevaks did not let them enter and violence erupted. Ram Sevaks used trishuls and daggers to severely beat up four local persons who it is reported are severely injured.” The FIR for this incident has been registered at Rudauli Po.St. as the case of Asad Ahmed, resident at Khairanpur, Dist. Faizabad at 15:20 hrs u/s 147/323/324/504/506 along with 145 of Rly. Act on the very same day. This violent and aggressive behaviour of VHP workers calling themselves Ramsevaks was also reported in a Hindi daily published from Faizabad, the Jan Morcha, the next day ie February 25, 2002 (See Annexure ) that detailed instances of provocative behaviour by kar sevaks, who allegedly beat and threatened Muslim passengers, insisting that they chant „Jai Shree Ram’. They even unveiled Muslim women. Several newspapers reported the behaviour of the kar sevaks as they returned to Gujarat. Reports carried by the Times of India and The Hindu dated 28.2.2002 also reported on the provocation caused by the aggressive and violent VHP workers on the train when it reached Godhra five hours late on 27.2.2002. (Annexure )

461. Despite this contemporaneous documentary evidence from its own SIB records, and two more communications -- at Sr No. 6, File XLI Annexure III Vol I [D-196] a report on the Godhra incident and again Sr No. 10, [SrNos 10, File XLI D-196, Annex III] which is a fax message from the Home Department headed by Accused No. 1 Modi and administratively manned by Accused No. 34 K Nityanandam and Accused No. 28 Ashok Narayan -- the Gujarat government deliberately continued this misinformation obfuscating facts regarding the provocations caused by the kar sevaks.

462. In its communication to the Ministry for Home Affairs (MHA) about the Godhra incident (again in no official format suggesting that it could have been tampered with) ignores the provocation caused by the kar sevaks. This appears to have been deliberately avoided. Criminologically, the evidence on mens rea is of paramount evidence in fixing the criminal liability of the offenders. It is intriguing as to why such an important fact about the kar sevaks shouting slogans was suppressed, though this factor would have been quite useful for tracing the genesis of rioting and arson behind the incident. This appears to have been done with a view to introduce the „conspiracy’ theory that entered the investigation papers a fortnight later. It appears to have been a clear-cut design and part of the overall conspiracy on the part of the Home

206

department under Accused No. 1, suppressing the slogan shouting and provocation which was done specifically to advance the hastily introduced conspiracy theory behind the Godhra incident. This obfuscation was critical and done with a view to generating massive collective communal hatred against Muslims all over Gujarat.

463. SIT deliberately did not probe this further and besides, ignored repeated suggestions by witness and whistleblower former DGP Gujarat RB Sreekumar and co-complainant in SLP 1088/2008 of Ms Teesta Setalvad to examine statements of the UP intelligence and police officers who were instructed to accompany the kar sevaks on their return journey from Faizabad Ayodhya to Ahmedabad as also from the Central IB. (Fifth affidavit of RB Sreekumar dated 5.3.2010 to the Nanavati Commission and also given to the SIT at Annexure III, File XV, D-155 ).

464. In this connection it is worth also drawing attention of this Court to a Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, State of Gujarat, New Mental Corner, Ahmedabad – 16, (Officer HS Dahiya) that is titled “ Spot investigation report No..2 regarding CR No.. 9/2002. Godhra Railway Police Station (See Annexure ). A

team forensic experts had visited the place of offence on 3.5.2002 in which along with the under signed Shree A.N. Joshi. Scientific officer, Ahmedabad was included. In order to recreate the real picture of how the offence was committed on the day of incident, one coach of the train was kept on the same spot. With the help of different types of containers experimental demonstrations were also conducted. The conclusions of this report that the fire caught from inside warranted that the SIT question Mr Dahiya, Mr Joshi and others. An article dated March 28, 2002 in The Times of India quotes the IG of Indian Railways, Mr PP Agia. 3~~~~ case is still being investigated and if there was some deep conspiracy, then we are yet to find it." Agia had then been camping at Godhra for over a month. Needless to say, the SIT failed to record even Agia’s statement though he was IG Railways at the time though his statement though it was critical in getting to the bottom of the political construction of events around the Godhra incident.

465. All that followed from 28.2.2002 onwards stemmed from the decision taken by Accused No. 1 as chief conspirator to carry Godhra to the whole State instead of containing it over night. Mrs. Ravi states that accused No. 2, Shri Ashok Bhatt, Minister for

207

Health and Family Welfare, was the one who had instructed her about the arrangement for the medical services. She is not asked by SIT any questions about the irregularity and illegality behind the hasty post-mortems. Mr Bhupendrabhai Lakawala, Minister for Home Guards, had also had discussions with the District Magistrate. Thereafter, A-4 Prabhat Singh Chouhan, Tourism and Civil Aviation Minister, and A-5 Gordhan Zhadapiya, MOS, Home (co-accused in the complaint) had also discussions with Mrs. Ravi regarding the overall law and order situation).

466. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi states that the work of drawing of the inquest panchnama and post-mortem was thereafter performed by the medical team and the Executive Magistrate Godhra in the presence of the police sub-inspector. She is not queried by the SIT about the haste in post-mortems giving a go-by to the procedure. She has recorded her statements before the SIT on 15.9.2009 (Annexure I, Volume I of the SIT papers), 26.10.2009 and 03.11.2009 (Annexure I, Volume I of the SIT papers) and 13.12.2010 (Annexure I Volume II).

467. Despite this contemporaneous documentary evidence from its own SIB records, and two more communications -- at Sr No. 6, File XLI Annexure III Vol I [D-196], a report on the Godhra incident and again Sr No. 10, [SrNos 10, File XLI D-196, Annex III] which is a fax message from the Home Department headed by Accused No.. 1 Modi and administratively manned by Accused No.. 34 K Nityanandam and Accused No.. 28 Ashok Narayan -- the Gujarat government deliberately continued this misinformation obfuscating facts regarding the provocations caused by the kar sevaks.

468. In its communication to the Union Ministry for Home Affairs (MHA) about the Godhra incident (again in No. official format, suggesting that it could have been tampered with) ignores the provocation caused by the kar sevaks. This appears to have been deliberately avoided.Criminologically, the evidence on mens rea is of

paramount evidence in fixing the criminal liability of the offenders. It is intriguing as to why such an important fact about the kar sevaks shouting slogans was suppressed, though this factor would have been quite useful for tracing the genesis of rioting and arson behind the incident. This appears to have been done with a view to introduce the „conspiracy’ theory that entered the investigation papers a fortnight later. It appears to have been a clear-cut design

208

and part of the overall conspiracy on the part of the Home department under Accused No. 1, suppressing the slogan shouting and provocation which was done specifically to advance the hastily introduced conspiracy theory behind the Godhra incident. This obfuscation was critical and done with a view to generating massive collective communal hatred against Muslims all over Gujarat.

469. SIT deliberately did not probe this further and besides, it ignored repeated suggestions by witness and whistleblower former DGP Gujarat RB Sreekumar and co-complainant in SLP 1088/2008, Mrs. Teesta Setalvad, to examine statements of the UP intelligence and police officers who were instructed to accompany the kar sevaks on their return journey from Faizabad, Ayodhya to Ahmedabad as also from the Central IB. (Fifth affidavit of RB Sreekumar dated 5.3.2010 to the Nanavati Commission and also given to the SIT at Annexure III, File XV, D-155 ).

470. In this connection it is worth also drawing attention of this Court to a Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, State of Gujarat, New Mental Corner, Ahmedabad–16, (Officer H.S. Dahiya) that is titled “Spot investigation report No..2 regarding CR No.. 9/2002, Godhra Railway Police Station (See Annexure ---). A team of forensic experts had visited the place of offence on 3/5/2002 in which Shree A.N. Joshi, Scientific officer, Ahmedabad was also included. In order to recreate the real picture of how the offence was committed on the day of incident, one coach of the train was kept on the same spot. With the help of different types of containers experimental demonstrations were also conducted. The conclusions of this report that the fire caught from inside warranted that the SIT question Dahiya, Joshi and others. An article dated March 28, 2002 in The Times of India quotes the IG of Indian Railways, P.P. Agia, “...the case is still being investigated and if there was some deep conspiracy, then we are yet to find it”. Agia had then been camping at Godhra for over a month. Needless to say, the SIT failed to record even Mr Agia’s statement who was IG Railways at the time and his statement was critical in getting to the bottom of the political construction of events around the Godhra incident.

471. It appears clear from the plethora of phone calls exchanged between the co-conspirators (see table below) that the chief mastermind, Accused No.. 1 (Mr Modi) gave a go-ahead to chief

209

executor, Accused No. 21 (Mr Jaideep Patel) to unleash a communal backlash. Thus, from the afternoon of 27.2.2002 itself violent attacks on the minority are unleashed. Yet No. emergency instructions, alerts or steps are taken by the seniors in the administration to contain or prevent violence. Incidentally, records from the State IB contained in Annexure III File XIX (D-161) at Pages 67-68 of the SIT papers, independently show that “one person named Abdul Rashid Kalubhai Mashita Shaikh was assaulted by some Kar Sevaks who came from Baroda train at platform between 2 and 3. Abdul Rashid died and another two persons were injured. The Kar Sevaks were recorded to be shouting slogans. This message of the State IB was sent at 1500 hrs on 27.2.2002, i.e., even while senior cabinet ministers were at Godhra, the A-1 Mr Modi had not yet left by road for Vadodara (See Annexure IV, File IX, Serial No. 250, the daily Itinerary of Accused No.. 1 and the flight schedule in SIT Papers), the violent incidents in retaliation leading to the deaths had already begun. Moreover they were provoked by the unruly and aggressive kar sevaks who had been aggressively attacking members of the minority community even before the Sabarmati Express train had reached Godhra, five hours late on 27.2.2002. This violence continues and is allowed even as the train proceeded towards and reached Ahmedabad Railway station in the sensitive Kalupur area on the afternoon of 27.2.2002 while the chief conspirator is on his way to Godhra.

Hasty Post-mortem and Disposal of the Dead Bodies of Godhra Victims

472. Under Law and Procedure, strict steps that are outlined in the Gujarat Police Manual and Gujarat/Bombay Police Act need to be followed whenever there are deaths to persons after a natural or man-made disaster relating to the claims etc. of the dead bodies. The corpses of the persons who had died were under law the property of the police (since an FIR had been registered) and could be handed over only to relatives. Photographs and DNA samples needed to be taken and post-mortems of such victims also need to follow strict legal procedure. The post-mortem of the burnt bodies was performed rather hastily at Godhra Railway Yard itself on the telephonic instructions of the A-1 Mr Modi.

210

Decision for a Hurried Post Mortem

473. On 27.2.2002 around 12 noon, the dead bodies were removed from the S-6 coach and laid down in the yard itself and a huge crowd was allowed to gather all around. The inquest was carried out by P.I. Mirza and this was started at 13:15, completed and signed at 18:45. Under the criminal law, it is the inquesting authority who has to decide whether to send the dead bodies for post-mortem or not. But in the present case post-mortem of almost all bodies were over by 18.45 hours, the time when inquest report was signed. The question is: under whose orders was the post- mortem being conducted in the Railway Yard itself without any facility and equipments and also by doctors who were not trained to do postmortem? Phone records show that Accused No. 2, Ashok Bhatt, was giving these illegal instructions.

474. The mobile phone records show that Mr Bhatt, Accused No. 2 (now deceased) is in close consultation with the Chief Minister who took the decision to 'finish off' the post-mortem at Godhra itself, however illegal and unwarranted that may be. The mobile phone call records are clear indicators of who was organising doctors to start the postmortem.

Who Took the Post-Mortem Decision and Who Decided on Parading of Bodies?

Call TypeCell-No. (Name)Duration Secs.Date-TimeDialed/Received No. — Name

Out98250398773527-Feb-9825000836Omprakash

(AshokBhatt,2002Singh,CMO,(PA toCM,

Accused No. 2)13:53:44Accused No. 1)

Out98250398771527-feb-9825000836Omprakash

(AshokBhatt,2002Singh,CMO,(PA toCM,

Accused No. 2)14:50:44Accused No. 1)

In982503987717327-feb-9825000836Omprakash

(AshokBhatt,2002Singh,CMO,(PA toCM,

Accused No. 2)15:05:09Accused No. 1)

Out98250398774327-feb-9825000836Omprakash

(AshokBhatt,2002Singh,CMO,(PA toCM,

Accused No. 2)15:38:10Accused No. 1)

Who Called the Doctors to Godhra?

Call TypeCell-No. (Name)Duration SecsDate-TimeDialed / Received No. — Name

In98250398773827-feb-24095557

(AshokBhatt,2002Commissioner of Health

Accused No. 2)13:39:24

211

In982503987714627-feb-24095557 Commissioner of Health

(AshokBhatt,2002

Accused No. 2)17:19:09

Out982503987711827-feb-24095557

(AshokBhatt,2002Commissioner of Health

Accused No. 2)18:37:49

Out982503987712127-feb-24095557

(AshokBhatt,2002Commissioner of Health

Accused No. 2)18:40:10

Out982503987725127-feb-24095557

(AshokBhatt,2002Commissioner of Health

Accused No. 2)20:41:48

475. These doctors should have been examined by the SIT in connection with the Complaint dated 8.6.2006 given the haste in post-mortems and the overall irregularities and illegalities of decisions take at Godhra post the incident. (This is a matter for further investigation by an independent agency).

Why was the Post-Mortem done in this Hasty and Fraudulent Manner?

476. In fact, one Passenger, Haribhai M Joshi, Income Tax Officer, has deposed before Nanavati Commission stating that: "As far as I remember, no. post-mortem was done when the dead body of my wife was given to me". Yet, Dr. Yogesh Jain has signed the postmortem report of Shri Joshi’s wife though No. date was put on the report. It is reasonable to conclude that the post-mortem was carried out in great haste and completely ignoring law and procedure at Godhra itself for three objectives linked closely to the conspiracy that was hatched:

a. The real cause of death could get obliterated;

b. The dead bodies could be transported to reach Ahmedabad next morning to hold a funeral rally;

c. Passions aroused through parading of dead bodies amidst shouting of provocative slogans could be harnessed for unleashing violent reprisal killings.

477. The first objective was easily achieved. All the doctors simply attributed the cause of all 58 deaths as due to “extensive shock due to burn”. These doctors were hastily summoned (see table below)

212

by Accused No. 2 who was in close consultation with chief conspirator (Accused No. 1), giving the go-by to procedure and laws. No investigation was made as to whether the burns were antimortem or post-mortem. To achieve the second and third objective, the dead the bodies were handed over to A-21 Jaideep Patel, the Vice- President of VHP at 11 p.m., a non-government, non-official person at Godhra for transporting them by truck to reach the Civil Hospital at Sola, Ahmedabad, in the early morning at 2:44 a.m. on 28th February 2002. Bodies are the property of the police station where the case is registered and under the law can only be handed over to relatives. Both the District Collector of Godhra Mrs Jayanti Ravi in 2002 (before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal headed by Justice Krishna Iyer and Justice PB Sawant (Annexure III, File 1 in the SIT papers) and the A-28 Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Shri Ashok Narayan in 2004 have gone on record to state that it was the A-1 Mr Modi the chief minister who took the decision to send the dead bodies to Ahmedabad. (Mrs Ravi has later denied this to the SIT). Four bodies were handed over to relatives at Godhra itself.

478. A-5 Mr Gordhan Zadaphiya (MOS Home), A-2 Ashok Bhatt, Minister of Health (since deceased), Bhupendra Lakhawala, reached Godhra in the afternoon of 27.2.2002. After Assembly proceedings were over, A-1 chief minister left for Vadodara by government chartered plane from Ahmedabad accompanied by Anil Mukim and Jagdish Thakkar. C.M. was received by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi, Collector, Vadodara, other government officials and politicians. A-1 Modi went to Civil hospital, Godhra and held a meeting thereafter at Collectorate with the government and police officers. In this meeting, A-2 Ashok Bhatt and A-5 Gordhan Zadaphia were also present. A non-governmental person, A-21 Jaideep Patel, Gujarat general secretary of the VHP was also present at this meeting at Godhra. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi has stated to SIT that in the meeting held at Collectorate, one Mr Jaideep Patel, a VHP activist was also present. [Malhotra Report, under Allegation No. II] (See Ravi’s statement, dated 15.9.2009 in SIT papers at Annexure I, Volume 1 Serial No. 19). It was clearly at the instance and directives of Accused No. 1 (Modi) in close collaboration with the leaders of the VHP that the decision to transfer the dead bodies to Ahmedabad was taken. (see the deposition of Accused No. 28, Ashok Narayan, ACS (Home) before Nanavati Commission, 28.10.2004 available at Annexure III, File XV, D-151).-

213

Violation of Law and Procedure

479. In case relatives of the deceased were not available, responsible police/revenue officers could have taken charge of the dead bodies till their delivery to the next of kin or cremation. They should have been kept in a Morgue and Public Notices issued to enable relatives to claim them. The act of handing over dead bodies to leaders of an organisation (VHP) which had given a call for bandh on 28-02-2002 against the Godhra train fire incident, and notorious for its anti-Muslim belligerency, with or without the shield of verbal orders from higher formations, displays indictable irresponsibility and misconduct. Godhra District Magistrate, Mrs Jayanti Ravi, IAS (1991) and Accused No. 46, SP Godhra, Raju Bhargava, IPS (1995) remain liable for this.

480. The clear-cut instructions laid down in the Gujarat Police Manual

for the disposal of unidentified dead bodies also state that:

i.Photographs of unidentified dead bodies should not be taken if they are too mutilated or too decomposed to make identification possible;

ii. Revolting photographs of dead and decomposed bodies, which are obviously useless for identification purposes, should not be taken and sent for publication, except on the personal orders of the Superintendent or Sub-Divisional Officer, who should see that only those photographs are sent for publication which are likely to be of real advantage. (Section 223, 4(vi) Volume III Gujarat Police Manual --- See Attached Table that contains Extracts from the Gujarat Police Manual).

481. The consequences of the decision to allow widely publicised photographs of the mutilated corpses (published in colour on the front pages of newspapers like Sandesh and also many other publicationsincluding those published by the VHP itself, clearly must rest with the Accused No. 46, SP Bhargava and DM Jayanti Ravi for which they should have been questioned by the SIT. The SIT clearly furthering its design to cover up the intricate chain that linked the sinister conspiracy together, neither questioned them nor did it ask these relevant questions to Accused No. 25, K.

214

Chakravarti the top police official for the entire state. Neither were Accused 34, (K Nityanandam), Accused No. 28 (Ashok Narayan), and Accused No. 1 (Modi) queried on this.

482. According to these rules, moreover only when there is no suspicion as to the cause of death and then too, only if the body is claimed, should the police in who’s custody and care the bodies were as properties of the FIR lodged, could the bodies have been disposed off at all. This illegal and hasty conducting of post-mortems and handing over of bodies -- for the further illegal purpose of Parading them in Aggressive and Volatile Funeral Processions -- to a VHP strongman was an intrinsic part of the Conspiracy that ought to have been thoroughly probed by SIT.

483. It is undisputed by the investigating agency that Modi arrived at Godhra by helicopter between 1600 to 1700 hours. A fax message at Page No.87 Mes/B/D-4/2/15/Com/284/2002 dated 27.2.2002 at 1912 hrs sent by ACP, State IB, Vadodara written to IG, Gujarat State, Gandhinagar, states that the Chief Minister visited the place of incident at 1715 hrs. (The Air Traffic Controller, Gujarat of the Gujarat Government also suggests that Accused No.1, was at Godhra by 1610 hrs on 27 February 2002). His flight schedule corroborates that he departed from Ahmedabad between 1530- 1600 hours on 27.2.2002 and reached the Godhra helipad at 1645 hours. He was accompanied by two persons from the CMO, Anil Mukhim and Jagdish Thakkar (Serial No. 249 at Annexure IV, File IX, SIT papers)

484. An important statement related to the Godhra incident which is missing from SIT investigation is the statement of the IGP, Railways, P. P. Agia.... From 8.30 a.m. just after the fire in Sabarmati Express train until 7.30 p.m. that evening repeated statements made by the Godhra District Collector that the incident was in fact not pre-planned but was an accident. (Para 4.3, CCT report page 17, See Annexure III, File I).

485. The decision of the accused No.1 and his co-accused, cabinet colleague A-2 Ashok Bhatt, Minister, Health (since deceased), A-3 I.K. Jadeja, Minister, Urban development in the cabinet, A-4, Prabhat Singh Chouhan, Minister Panchmahal in charge and Minister of Transportation , as also A-8 C.D. Patel, Minister, Tourism and A-12 Minister Narayan Lalu Patel, apart from MLAs,

215

A-6 Ranjitsinh Naharsingh, A-7 Kaushik Patel, former minister for energy, A-9 Nitin Patel, finance minister of Gujarat, A-10 Amit Shah, A-11Anil Patel, A-13 Kalubhai Maliwad, A -14, Dilip Patel, A15, Madhu Srivastava A-16, Maya Kodnani, apart from high level IAS and IPS officers decided to take the bodies of the Godhra victims to Ahmedabad. Initially the Accused No. 1 wanted to take the burning coaches onwards but the district and railway administration advised against this. Ashok Narayanan, ACS Home (Accused No. 28 in the complaint dated 8.6.2006) has stated in his deposition before the Nanavati Commission on that the decision to bring the bodies of the Godhra victims to Ahmedabad was a high level decision of the Gujarat Government.

Decision to hand over dead bodies to a VHP strongman

486. The only effort that SIT makes is to exonerate her (Mrs Ravi) and Accused No. 1 of the blatantly irregular and illegal decision to hand over the bodies of the Godhra victims, essentially the property of the Godhra police in the criminal case registered at the Godhra police station to a strongman of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, an organisation known and recognised in law enforcement circles as a man with rabid anti-Constitutional and anti-minority views. She states that at this stage 58 corpses (26 women, 12 children and 20 men) were found.

487. It is apparent from this affidavit of Smt. Ravi that it was only after Shri Narendra Modi (accused No.1) had visited the site that the decision was taken to convey the corpses to Sola civil hospital outside Ahmedabad city.

488. Some of the family members of 5 persons who had died included those from Sanpadiya Tal, Khanpur, Dist. Panchmahal, Dadho and Vadodara were handed over to their respective heirs. Mrs. Ravi states on record that the corpses of the remaining persons were given to A-21 Mr Jaideep Patel of VHP to transport to Ahmedabad with police escort. Between her affidavit and deposition before the Nanavati Commission, and her statements before the SIT, it is evident that she now wants to pin the blame for a high level decision taken while Accused No. 1 was present, to hand over bodies to a private individual belonging to a rabidly communal organisation, A-21 Jaideep Patel, on a junior public servant, Mamlatdar M.L. Nalwaya. Nalwaya produces a letter along with his

216

affidavit made before the Nanavati Commission dated 5.9.2009. It is after this that the SIT records his statement on 28.10.2009 (See Annexure I Volume I, Serial No. 27 SIT Papers). The said affidavit can be read at D-43, Annexure III, File IV of the SIT papers. Smt. Ravi had in this fax sent by her to her superior in the Gujarat administration, Accused No. 28, Ashok Narayan, admitted that it was she who was responsible for the bodies being sent in a motor cavalcade to Ahmedabad. The SIT has not queried her on this letter. She states in this communication that “After Modi left the ‘® ‘‘MM’MMM’MM’’MM’’’M’’M’’M’MM M’MM’M’’’M’’MMM’’’M’ h’’rsC A teM®’’M’MM’’’’’M’’M®’’MM’M’M’M’M’MMMM ‘‘‘MC” These 54 bodies were sent with escort... She then gives details of the vehicles that transported the bodies. Clearly this controversial, irregular and illegal decision was acquiesced to by the DM under pressure from Accused No. 1 and co-conspirators. The table annexed at (See Annexure III, File IV, D-43, Page 13) details the vehicles that carried the bodies with police escort.

489. This document, provided by Nalvaya annexed to his affidavit can also be found in the records submitted by the SIT produced by OSD to chief minister, Sanjay Bhavsar and A-28 Ashok Narayan, formerly ACS (Home). (Annexure IV, File IX, No. 240), described as Copy of the Fax Message sent by the Collector, Panchmahals to ACS (Home), on 27.2.2002 at 2141 hours providing information about the Godhra incident. This document, retrieved from two sources, corroborate the previous statement on oath by Ravi on 7.6.2002 before the Nanavati Commission. Neither she nor Narayan were queried on this fax message.

490. Narayan’s statements were recorded by the SIT on 12.12.2009, 13.12.2009, then again on 6.4.2011 and 17.1.2012. The SIT had not included any details about this fax message in either of its reports or even commented that such crucial documents had been made available. Jayanti Ravi’s statement was also recorded on several dates -- on 15.9.2009 (Annexure I, Volume I) 26.10.2009 & 03.11.2009 (Annexure I Volume I), 13.12.2010 (Annexure I Volume II).

491. A perusal of Mrs. Ravi’s affidavit and annexure before the Nanavati

Commission soon after the incident, i.e., on5.7.6.2002clearly

shows that the minutest instructions related to law and order

217

situation in Godhra were being given by her and monitored by her carefully. It is hence extremely unlikely that a decision of handing over the dead bodies of the victims of the Godhra train burning to a private person, that too from an organisation like the VHP, could have been taken by any Mamlatdar level officer. The SIT that repeatedly put these questions to Nalvayya, deliberately omitted querying the DM/Collector Ravi on her fax to Gandhinagar where she claims responsibility for the decision. The SIT clearly wishes to find a fall guy for an irregular and unlawful action. In a bid to protect the powerful accused present at Godhra from being implicated for this grossly illegal and irregular act, the SIT in a shocking attempt has tried to blame it on the Mamlatdar.

492. In a communication made by DM Panchmahals to Accused No. 28 (Ashok Narayan) on 28.2.2002 (annexed to her affidavit before the Nanavati Shah Commission) an interesting fact vis-a-vis the identification of the victims of the Godhra train burning comes to light. Smt. Ravi states in her communication to the CS, Home, one day after the Godhra incident that only three of the persons who died of burning (out of 58 at that time) could be identified — one Neetabehen of Ahmedabad, Panchal aged 45 years, Neetalbhai Prajapati resident of Amraiwadi, Ahmedabad and Ramshir wife of Hariprasad Madanal Sharma, resident of Detershwar Pratapnagar, Vadodara. The other charged bodies, according to the Collector could not be identified. This is an important factor to note. Normally, under the Gujarat Police Manual, Gujarat Police Act and other statutory directives under which the administration has to function including the circulars on communal peace issued by the Government of Gujarat, there is strict procedure to be followed by the administration in connection with unidentified bodies and disaster whether man-made or natural. According to this, the procedures that are to be followed must involve the due process of attempting identification through proper inspection, proper giving of notice not this extremely motivated and hurried processions and cremations. This well-enumerated process also includes, if necessary, keeping the identified bodies in the morgues while such public notices are sent out and response solicited. This gives an opportunity to the family of the dead persons to respond, seek identification, for the authority to verify this claim with a trained team etc. and thereafter to hand over the bodies to the respective families. The undue haste with which all the unidentified bodies of the Godhra tragedy were captured by the Gujarat Government

218

under accused No.1 and his co accused cabinet colleagues, handed over to a VHP man (accused No. 21) and summarily cremated in a public display of aggression and hatred was unlawful, illegal and the first enduring display of the conspiracy that has been seriously alleged.

493. The SIT makes contradictory assessments on this grossly illegal act. In a bid to exonerate A-1 and several powerful co-accused the SIT refuses to pin blame in its Accused wise section of the reports (12.5.2010, 14.5.2010). In the sections on Allegations it criticises this criminal decision. The fact remains that a mini-cabinet meeting with powerful accused under A-1 were physically present takes the decision to hand over the bodies of the Godhra victims to a strongman of the VHP, an organisation with rabidly criminal and communal antecedents, the official letter is given to Jaideep Patel/Hasmukh Patel of the VHP, it is they and they alone who lead the motor cavalcade, causing violence in their wake (Nadiad, Ghodasar etc) and A-21 Jaideep Patel who hands over the dead bodies at the Civil Sola hospital. SIT sees this, mentions it but shockingly exonerates all accused of this act since it would and does indict A-1 completely and utterly.

Bandh Call Supported by Accused No. 1

494. Rarely does it happen that the government in power itself supports a bandh call given by any organisation. Here the bandh call was given by the VHP and the government, none less than the Chief Minister himself announces support to the bandh. Supporting the bandh, not declaring curfew as the situation demanded, not undertaking preventive arrest or hauling up communal goondas, allowing incendiary processions all over Ahmedabad, all of them together ensured that the orgy of violence, right from the attack on the high court judges to the innocent residents of Naroda Patia, Gulberg society, Kalupur etc. in Ahmedabad and all over Gujarat could proceed with impunity. The SIT has not cared to investigate all the circumstances where the ruling party of the state actively participated in the Bandh also allying with an organisation like the VHP. No question was put to the accused No.1, any of his co-accused cabinet colleagues, any of its co-accused MLAs, any of the other co-accused about whether such a practice declaring support for the bandh was at all normal or was supported under the circumstances.

219

Bandh Call given by VHP

495. The decision of the rabidly communal VHP to capitalise on the tragedy at Godhra and declare a Bandh on 28.2.2002 that was promptly and vocally supported by the government through Accused No. 1 (Modi), coupled with a carefully formulated conspiracy to neutralise the police and administration from fulfilling their Constitutional and legal obligations was clearly aimed at allowing deliberately fuelled and provoked anger generated by hurriedly conducted post-mortems, widespread publication of photographs of mutilated bodies burnt at Godhra and the planned parading of these bodies in several locations of the state in aggressive funeral processions. These became the launching pad for violent, widespread and brutal daylight attacks as a neutralised police and administration looked on. In districts like Bhavnagar, Bharuch and Surat, violent mobs were contained and curtailed by the brave and stoic refusal of SPs and DMs of these districts to comply with the sinister design of the political leadership in conspiracy with the VHP. In each of these districts where violence was contained, those responsible for swift and strict action, have over the past decade suffered at the hands of a vindictive chief minister and government.

496. Abundant and voluminous documentary evidence is present in the SIT investigation papers that document the alerts and warnings being sent out by district police units and the SIB warning of the consequences of this communal mobilization. None of this material has received even cursory attention by the SIT. Neither has any study or analysis of these documents been made to confront those accused of conspiracy, abetment and gross dereliction of duty leading to mass murder and destruction.

497. All this incriminating evidence, when finally made available to the Complainant through an Order of the Magistrate dated 11.4.2012 and the remaining after the Supreme Court’s Orders dated 7.2.2013 is in the SIT records only in Gujarati. Clearly the high-level SIT -- appointed by the Supreme Court under Dr Raghavan, AK Malhotra and YC Modi -- has not accessed or analysed these documents. It is no wonder that the Ahmedabad Crime Branch that has been galvanized by the SIT to perform its task, and is at the end of the day under the political control and clout of A-1, the Chief Minister/Home Minister has chosen to completely ignore and

220

bypass this evidence. It is also therefore now understandable why the SIT, appointed for probity and accountability in this sensitive and critical case, went to the extent it did, first to delay filing its closure report (after the Supreme Court Order of 12.9.2011) without giving any notice to the Complainant, to actually resist compliance of the SC Order and give access to these records and documents.

498. It is clear from a message conveyed by the SIB after the Assembly discussions on Godhra at 1300 hours and before 1600 hours on 27.2.2002 that the VHP had declared its Bandh and that a special meeting of the VHP had been called at 1600 hours on that day. It is but obvious that the police and intelligence officers – all under the political jurisdictional responsibility of A-1 and A-5 (Modi and Zadaphiya), and administratively under A-34 (K Nityanandam, then Home Secretary), A-28 (Ashok Narayan, then additional Chief Secretary, Home) and A-60 (G. C. Raigar, then ADGP, Home) were and should have been questioned and held responsible. They were fully aware of the Bandh call, aware of the political support to it from the government and that Accused No.1 was extending his, his government and party’s full support not just to the VHP’s call for the bandh but also behind any actions that followed. Given the track record of the VHP in general, but specially the VHP in Gujarat since November–December 2001 -- all of which was closely documented in SIB records and documents and in the knowledge of the government especially Gujarat Chief/Home Minister (Accused No. 1, Modi), the police administration and the Intelligence authority -- this open and official alliance with an organisation that is clearly communal and vents regular hatred against the minority apart from launching armed physical attacks with deadly weapons, displayed an open connivance and conspiracy by accused No.1. This connivance was brazenly displayed within hours of the tragedy at Godhra and can be seen reflected in the statements made on the floor of the State Assembly, in public and specifically through his actions.

499. The fact that the SIT did not in any way go into these aspects of the malevolent alliance behind the Bandh call, despite the fact that the 8.6.2006 complaint of Mrs Zakia Jafri clearly insinuated this allegation, is one more evidence of the clear-cut desire of SIT to gloss over the seriousness of the offences committed, ignoring the vital material evidence that is available through the documents they had collected during the investigation and moreover the communal

221

role of the defence that the various accused produced in the statements recorded before the SIT. This method and manner of investigation is utterly and completely unprofessional and makes a mockery of the technique of investigation. Moreover in the case of this complaint, where the accused are powerful persons still in power 11 years after the conspiracy was committed and continues to be committed, the SIT had clearly displayed compromise and bias.

500. There is also a set of documents which were, curiously, not procured by SIT directly in the course of their investigation that had been ordered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Annexure IV File XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII were five files with voluminous documents collected by SIT in the course of their further investigation from document submitted by the government of Gujarat to the Nanavati Mehta Commission of Enquiry recording “instruction/messages issued by the DGP office Gujarat for controlling riots and action taken by the concerned police unit between 27 February 2002 to 31 May 2002”.

501. It should be a matter of deliberation why the SIT did not directly seek access to these documents when they had been conducting a high level enquiry under the aegis of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. It is only when these records become public after they were summoned by the Nanavati Mehta commission that the SIT took them on board in their investigation.

502. There was clearly no real desire on the part of the SIT to get to the bottom of the matter or to investigate the truth or the allegation contained in the complaint of Mrs. Zakia Jafri dated 8.6.2006. A brief summary of these records revealed are important.

503. Several messages from various district police units record the inherent dangers with the VHP-called and ruling party-supported Bandh on 28.2.2002. A message which is in the official format contained in Annexure IV File XIX sent out at 1635 hrs on 27.2.2002, at page No. 822, from the Dahod District police to all CBPOs records that dead bodies of VHP workers were being taken by train at 3 O’clock (1635, 3 o clock?) today and there would be processions in those areas. This message already sent at 1435

222

hours clearly records the decision for VHP bandh proposed for the next day and for the parading of the dead bodies.

504. Most importantly, these messages say that apart from the aggressive funeral procession held in Ahmedabad which was supposed to be a matter of this investigation not just in Ahmedabad but also in Dahod, Modasa, Kadbrahma, wherever bodies of the dead Kar Sevaks were returned by train on 27.2.2002, in all these places aggressive funeral processions were taken as part of a calculated strategy to inflame passion and ignite aggressive attack on the minority communities.

505. On 27.2.2002, a message marked 8297 of 120 and 150 hrs from District police, Narmada (Annexure IV File XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII) to all the police stations in Narmada district records that Gujarat Bandh call had been given by the VHP, so law and order situation should be maintained. (This message is not in its official format). In the same file, another message dated 27.2.2002 page No. 8396 showing the time as 1040 hrs, issued form ADGP(Int), Gandhinagar to Commissioners of Police, to all ACPs etc. shows that kar sevaks were shouting slogans in the train during the travel from Ayodhya to Ahmedabad and after the incident at Gandhinagar train burning the police should keep bandobast. At 3.00 p.m. on 27.2.2002 at page 8394 there is a fax message from Sanjiv Bhat at the office of ADGP (Int), Gandhinagar, addressed to CPs, ACPs, Western Railway of DGP range officers as also to the PS to MOS, Home at Gandhinagar. This message states that after the train burning incident of 27.2.2002 at Godhra, funeral processions are likely and therefore necessary action should be taken. The message also states that in view of the Gujarat bandh call made on 28.2.2002 by the VHP, law and order should be maintained.

506. Another message from the District Police at Narmada to the PS, Rajpiple, Sagwada, Kediyapada, Tilakwad, Kevadia, Garudi is sent which can be read at Page 8296 of file Annexure IV File XX. This message is sent out on 1810 hrs. This is yet another message from an official record of the police that internally records that after the coach burning incident at Godhra, injured VHP workers (there is also mention of dead bodies) reached by train at 3 p.m. from Godhra to Ahmedabad and then on 27.2.2002 itself an aggressive procession of funeral takes place in the area where these workers live. The message tells the various police stations in Narmada

223

district to take strict action on the occasion of Gujarat Bandh call given by the VHP for 28.2.2007 and that law and order should be maintained (See detailed tables and summaries about these messages at Annexure ). One such message sent by the Gandhinagar police to all district police stations and the entire police force at 1925 to 2000 hrs on 27.2.2002 which can be read at page 8395 of Annexure IV File XXX, asks the district police and the commissioner to report every two hours from 8 a.m. onwards on 28.2.2002 to the Home control room on telephone No..3252957, 3221476 and fax No. 3221008 if any incident had occurred or happened. This message is particularly revelatory. It has been sent almost three hours before the controversial meeting held at the Chief Minister’s residence on 27th February 2002. It suggests that the DGP and his office were taking steps to ensure regular feedback from all the police stations as would happen when such an incident like Godhra incident would take place in Gujarat or anywhere else.

507. There is however nothing in the question put by SIT, answers given by the DGP or the Sr. Policemen about such regular reports that were sought every two hours. The SIT has not investigated whether such reports which had been sought by senior police administration were actually filed and what they contained. This is one more example of the casual investigation by SIT and concealment of such regular reports sought from all the district SPs and police commissionerates by Accused No-25, (DGP, A. Chakravarti).

508. A very crucial message can be read at page 8297 sent at 1142 p.m. on 27.2.2002. This was sent by Sanjiv Bhatt from the office of ADGP (Int), Gandhinagar to all CPS, all ACPs with Western Railway, all DGP range officers, as also to PS to MOS, Home, Gandhinagar. This message cautions all the police officers about the Gujarat bandh call given by VHP on 28.2.2002 and requests maintenance of law and order.

509. The following message describes the gravity of the situation already prevailing in the State of Gujarat on 27.2.2002:-

a. At page 8413 of Annexure IV, File XX dated 27.2.2002 (No. timing given). The Surat district police sent messages to PI Badoli and all police stations in the district asking its staff to remain alert with lathis,

224

weapons and helmet wear with uniforms with appropriate bandobast. This wireless message is in the official format.

b. At page 8417 of the same file on 27.2.2002 there is another message from the Surat District police on the same issue.

c. At page 8441 of the same file a message dated 27.2.2002 (time not given) is sent to all CPs, all District police officers etc. asking them to maintain a detailed register about offences that take place on 27.2.2002 and thereafter, details of the FIR etc. (The timing is not shown on this message and it is not in the format). [two of the messages contained in this file are in the name of Sanjiv Bhat sent form ADGP (Int.) office regarding the burning train incident to various police stations regarding Godhra incident. The SIT had been at pains to discredit this officer and it is imperative for the Ld. Court to note that these papers and documents would not have come on to the record of this investigation but for being summoned by the Nanavati Commissioner and thereafter submitted by the government of Gujarat. The SIT makes no reference to the conclusion that ought to be drawn after an analysis of these messages]

510. There are many more messages of this kind dated 27.2.2002 which are messages asking local police stations to be prepared and warned about possible repercussion and fall out of the Godhra incident. These messages (see Table created from with Annexure IV File XXI in Annexure ) that explain how from 11.15 a.m. on 27.2.2002, then again at 11.30 a.m. and as late as 2025 hrs on 27.2.2002, Accused No. 25 (DGP Gujarat, K. Chakravarti) was sending messages to different police stations cautioning them and asking them to take preventive action. (Note:-- one message in this file is controversial because it is on a plain blank paper and not in the official format which is at page 8889 sent on 27.2.2002 at 0015 hrs. The reason for this message likely to be fabricated is that it is left after the time the controversial meeting at Chief

225

Minister’s residence. There is a similar fabricated message not in the format also contained in Annexure IV File (ICR 624 of 02 which is a message supposedly sent at 00.05 hrs on 27.2.2002). Between 11.05 hrs and 11.40 hrs on 27.2.2002, the District police at Dahod and the DGP’s office at Gandhinagar are sending cautionary messages.

Parading of Bodies and Funeral Processions Part of the Conspiracy

511 .Already by the afternoon of 27.2.2002, while the Accused No. 1 Modi set off for Godhra, the decision to mobilize large funeral processions with volatile and aggressive mobs who were members of the VHP, RSS and BJP had been collectively taken by the Accused No. 1 (Modi), Accused No. 2 (Bhatt), Accused No. 5 (Gordhan Zadaphia, then MOS, Home) and Accused No. 4 (Prabhatsingh Chauhan, the then Minister of Civil Aviation & Pilgrimage) who are in close touch with Accused No. 21 (Jaideep Patel) and who are in close telephonic touch. In fact, Accused No. 1 and Accused No. 21 meet at Godhra according to the statements to the SIT of DM & Collector Jayanti Ravi and former MOS, Home, Gordhan Zadaphiya. The decision to systematically organize volatile and aggressive funeral processions while a bandh call is given to facilitate the mobs in their ugly and predetermined task has already been taken by the time Accused No. 1 leaves for Godhra.

512. A fax message from the official records sent by DySP Dahod to all police stations under him as early as 1635 on 27.2.2002, while Accused No. 1 is still due to reach Godhra is fully aware of the decision by the VHP to call a Bandh the next day, i.e., 28.2.2002 and of another decision collectively taken by Accused No. 1 and other co-Accused in and out of government to encourage and allow funeral processions: “smashan yatras”. This message sent on the official format of the district police states, “Today at 7.15 a.m. in a communal incident, the dead bodies of VHP workers who died at Godhra will be taken by train at 3 o’clock today and thereafter in their areas, m ‘m’’n~m®~nwill be taken out. Clearly it was being propagated that there would be funeral processions in many areas. So, keep necessary bandobast and inform every 2 hours to the control room because of

226

Gujarat bandh call by VHP on dated 28.2.02.” The SIT was in possession of these documents collected from the Nanavati Commission and yet has completely ignored the evidence. (See Annexure IV File XIX Page No. 8222 of the SIT records).

513. It is therefore clear that the records of the Gujarat Police that are part of the investigation papers itself reveal that the Gujarat police was warning its police stations of the possible outcome of violence along with the smashan yatras (funeral processions). Yet, the SIT has concealed this critical evidence from the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

514. Of the 35 bodies handed over to relatives, 25 were claimed by relatives from Ahmedabad, 2 from Mehsana (Kadi), 5 by residents of Anand, 2 by residents of Sabarkantha and 1 from Rajkot. It is apparent by this break up that 19 bodies still remained unidentified.

515. After the high level meeting at Godhra called by Accused No. 1, it was decided to give the bodies, which were in a ghastly condition to a person who represented an organization known for its rabid and unconstitutional views. Even after Accused No. 1 left Godhra and his co-conspirator Accused No. 5 Gordhan Zadaphiya stayed back in Godhra there was continued mobile phone contact.

516. The continued contact by mobile phones reveals the unfolding of the conspiracy. These mobile phone call records show that constant contacts were being made between the PA to CM, Chief Minister’s Office (CMO), a link to Accused No. 1 (Modi), Jaideep Patel (Accused No. 21), Gordhan Zadaphia (Accused No. 5), DCP Sawani and the VHP office at Ahmedabad. These clearly indicate that the details of this conspiracy were being hatched at Godhra.

TypeSecsDate-TimeDialed / Received No. NameCell-Name

Out5527th Feb. 2002 20:02:017966313659825049145 Zadaphia

VHP Office

Out15827th Feb. 2002 20:03:2598250238879825049145

227

Jaideep PatelZadaphia

In4827th Feb. 2002 20:39:369825023887 Jaideep Patel9825049145 Zadaphia

In8727th Feb. 2002 21:11:209825049198 DCP (ZONE 5)9825049145 Zadaphia

In20427th Feb. 2002 21:13:119825023887 Jaideep Patel9825049145 Zadaphia

In13827th Feb. 2002 21:16:549825049198 DCP (ZONE 5)9825049145 Zadaphia

In18627th Feb. 2002 21:20:199825023887 Jaideep Patel9825049145 Zadaphia

In9727th Feb. 2002 22:08:249825000836 OmprakashSingh,9825049145 Zadaphia

CMO, (PA to CM)

517. DGP Chakravarti (Accused No. 25) has also said that the decision to transport bodies to Ahmedabad was taken by the Government. (Therefore, it is clear that the decision to transfer the dead bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad was taken by the government led and inspired by A-1--Accused No. 1, Accused No. 2, Accused No 4, Accused Nos 5, Accused Nos 12 The government was aware that bringing of dead bodies to Ahmedabad will escalate the tensions and this was informed to the government by the police officers including Jayanti Ravi, Collector, Vadodara.

Contradictions in the SIT Two Reports:

518. The evidence gathered by the Concerned Citizens Tribunal headed by Justices VR Krishna Iyer and PB Sawant is corroborated by the deposition of Gujarat’s additional chief secretary (Home), Ashok Narayan, made before the Nanavati Shah Commission when he says that it was a decision taken and orders issued by senior functionaries including the chief minister at Godhra before the bodies of the tragic Godhra train arson were handed over to Jaideep

228

Patel, general secretary of the Gujarat Vishwa Hindu Parishad.

519. The SIT first stated that the decision to shift the bodies to Ahmedabad was taken after a closed door meeting between Jayanti Ravi, Jaideep Patel, cabinet minister Ashok Bhatt, civil aviation minister Prabhatsingh Chauhan, Gordhan Zadaphiya and Modi. But, bizarrely, when it comes to the question of who decided that the bodies should be handed to the VHP, the SIT blames only the Mamlatdar, Nalvaya. (Page 23-24 of the PE report, dated 12.5.2012) and even recommends departmental action against him. M. L. Nalvaya, executive magistrate of Godhra at the time, has testified before the SIT that the bodies of 54 victims were indeed handed over to VHP leaders Jaideep Patel and Hasmukh Patel on the instructions of Jayanti Ravi, who was the Godhra district magistrate at the time. But Ravi, an IAS officer, denies this and claims Nalvaya, who was her subordinate, took the decision on his own.

520. It is curious that the SIT however does not hold Jaideep Patel to account since the letter is in his name, nor questions the ministers who obviously concurred with the receipt for the handover being made in the name of an office bearer of the VHP. Neither does the SIT ask the obvious question about whether Nalvaya, a lower-level officer, could have taken such an irregular decision on his own? Why is the SIT willing to believe Jayanti Ravi’s version over Nalvaya’s version?

521. Even on this issue there are contradictions between the SIT’s report dated 12.5.2010 and its conclusions submitted before the Learned Magistrate dated 8.2.2012. Here is what the SIT says: “SIT enquiry revealed that there was in fact a discussion at Godhra on the final disposal of bodies of those killed in the Godhra carnage. This was during chief minister Narendra Modi's visit to the town on the afternoon of February 27, 2002. It was held at the collectorate. It is not clear who all were present or consulted. Apart from the district collector, the presence at least of Gordhan Zadaphia (MoS Home) and Jaideep Patel, VHP activist has been confirmed.... The district collector categorically denied to the

229

SIT that the decision was taken against her wishes... Most importantly, the 54 unidentified bodies were transported to Ahmedabad around midnight, when there were hardly any crowds en route. By next afternoon, 35 of these bodies were handed over to relatives at Sola Hospital, after identification... The charge that bodies were taken in a procession and paraded is therefore not established. (Pages 19-23 of the preliminary enquiry report, 12.5.2010; Page 2-3 &XDfLP DK’s=FRP P FK W,=~F~®®’’’~~

522. Two years later, the SIT states in its Final Report: “It may thus be seen that the journey from Godhra to Ahmedabad started around midnight and the dead bodies reached Sola Civil Hospital sometime between 0330 to 0400 hrs.... Further, though a letter had been addressed by ML Nalvaya in the name of Jaideep Patel of VHP and the dead bodies were acknowledged by Hasmukh T Patel of VHP, yet the dead bodies were escorted by the police up to Sola Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad situated on the outskirts of Ahmedabad City. At Sola Civil Hospital, Patel handed over the letter to the hospital authorities and the local police as well as the hospital authorities took charge of the dead bodies...” (Page No. 463 of the SIT Conclusions submitted on 8.2.2012) “...Nalvaya, Mamlatdar acted in an irresponsible manner by issuing a letter in the name of Patel in token of handing over the dead bodies which were case property and therefore, the government of Gujarat is being requested to initiate departmental proceedings against him”. (Page 463 of the SIT Conclusions submitted on 8.2.2012)

INCIDENTS THAT OCCURRED ALL OVER GUJARAT FROM 27.2.2002 AND EARLY ON 28.2.2002.

523. An analysis of the police files and documents contained in Annexure IV File XIV (See Tables attached at )

clearly show that violence had started occurring in different parts of the State soon after the conspiracy to bring the dead bodies of the tragic incident of Godhra to Ahmedabad was hatched at the highest level of the State cabinet, with the Chief Minister present and with a view to politically capitalise on the killings in Godhra. Through mobile phones and swift

230

communications bands of the front organisation VHP and its collaborator the BJP began spreading communal poison in several locations in Gujarat from the early afternoon of 27.2.2002 itself. No substantive measures were taken at the higher levels of the administration to arrest and contain the violence.

524. State Intelligence Bureau Reports given by ADGPIntelligence, RB Sreekumar to the Chief Election Commissioner, James Lyngdoh on 31.7.2002 (See Tables Annexed at) are a brutal reflection of the spread

of the violence. As many as 152 of the182 Assembly Constituencies in the state of Gujarat had been affected.

525. A closer scrutiny later has led to the conclusion and analysis that among26police districts and four (4)

Commissionerates, in eleven districts, namely, 1) Amreli, 2) Narmada, 3) Ahwa-Dang, 4) Jamnagar, 5) Navasari, 6) Porbandar, 7) Surat Rural, 8) Valsad, 9) Surendra Nagar, 10) Rajkot Rural and 11) Kutch-Bhuj, there was no death due to riots, whereas the casualties were negligible (lesser than toll in the previous communal violence in these places) in five districts and in the Comm issionerates of Surat and Rajkot cities. The five districts, are 1) Bharuch (two deaths due to violence), 2) Junagadh (two), 3) Patan (four), 4) Vadodara Rural (four) and 5) Bhavnagar (two) and in the Commissionerate of Rajkot city (4 deaths due to violence). In Surat city, violence statistics is quite unique. The city, the second populous city in Gujarat, did report only seven deaths due to violence though, in previous communal disturbances, particularly in the 1992 post-Babri Masjid demolition violence, hundreds of citizens were killed. The commendable performance of Surat City Police Commissioner (Shri V. K. Gupta, IPS 1977) and his team is in contrast to 326 killings in Ahmedabad city and 32 in Vadodara city in mass violence. Despite the best efforts of the conspirators led and instigated by Accused No. 1 to ensure that even these districts burned, it was the resistance and control by the police and district administration that restrained and contained the violence and consequent loss of lives and properties in these districts.

231

526. In nine other districts violence was deliberately allowed to fester. (See Tables and Map annexed at ). The districts of the major genocidal violent incidents, firing, attacks and arson, including the Naroda Patia and Gulberg society carnages, in complete absence of any prohibitive orders and curfew (curfew was inexplicably declared very late, only at 12.40 p.m. on 28.2.2002 after the mobs were in full control of the streets; Panchmahals, Mehsana district (Sardarpura & Deepda Darwaza incidents apart from widespread other attacks), Sabarkantha district, (Kidiad incident), Ode village in Anand district, Best Bakery (in Vadodara city) wherein more Muslims were killed in police firing, in Surat city where only seven people died in riots, while ten Hindus and one Muslim offenders were injured, in police action.

DEGREE OF VIOLENCE (27.2.2002 TO 7.8.2002) DESCENDING ORDER

527.(i)AhmedabadCity(326deathsinriot),

(ii)Panchmahals district (93),

(iii)Western Railway (64),

(iv)Mehsana (61),

(v)Vadodara city (36),

(vi)Ahmedabad Rural District (33),

(vii)Sabarkantha (32),

(viii)Kheda (31),

(ix)Dahod (24),

(x)Banaskantha (20) and

(xi)Anand (15).

These figures do not factor in the Missing Persons (See SIB table at ) that number over 450 for the entire state, nor the police station wise deaths by police firing (See Table at ) or deaths not registered by the police.

232

528. Rangewise position of eight ranges is as follows: (Figures for Ahmedabad range are missing in list below)

i)Vadodara range (125),

ii)Gandhinagar (97),

iii) Ahmedabad Rural (79),

iv) Western Railway (64),

v)Border (24),

vi) Junagadh (4),

vii) No. death in Surat and Rajkot ranges.

(These casualty figures do not include those died in police firing and missing persons). It is remarkable that Surat city had only seven deaths and Rajkot city four deaths. In Surat city, the death in communal violence after Babri Masjid demolition was nearly 300. Moreover, in six other districts violence was negligible and deaths were below four. Highest number of Islamic buildings, symbols of Muslim culture from the medieval times (dargah, masjid etc) were destroyed in Ahmedabad range (181 institutions).

529. The clearly partisan and targeted aspect of the violence unleashed can be deduced from the fact that (See Map at ) in the areas of the high concentration of anti-minority violence in police action, overwhelmingly higher number of Muslims were killed. For example it is apparent from SIB figures that:- 60% of deaths in police firing and seventy seven percent 77% of casualties of mob violence. (Source: Appendix (v) of RBS Second Affidavit to the Commission dated 06-10-2004 (No.. 9129/04) available at in SIT Investigation Papers)

Preparation for violence after Godhra.

State IB messages detailing the Preparations for Violence

530. Communal Mobilisation by VHP from 28.2.2002

As stated in paragraph above, ample indication and evidence is

available from the record including minutes of the State I.B.

contained in Annexure III File XXI(D-166), that show the desire,

233

motivation, intent, mens rea in criminal justice terms, of the co-accused and individuals and organisations to fully capitalise on the tragedy at Godhra and incite violence in several districts of Gujarat.

531. At page 365, message No. 73/02 dated 28.2.2002, the ACP(Int) Surat Region (Annexure III File XXI(D-166), intimates his boss at Gandhinagar that between 9 to 10 hours on the morning of 28.2.2002 a meeting was held at Vapi town at Sardar Chowk where Dinesh Kumar Behri of VHP and Acharya Brahmbatt of Bajrang Dal , Jawahar Desai of BJP and Vinod Chowdhary of RSS were all present. They called upon Hindus to unite and made inflammatory speeches regarding the incident at Godhra. At this meeting, Kapil Swami from the Swami Narayan Sect were there as chief guest. Once again, the entire might of the political organisation of the BJP and RSS, the socio-politico organisation of VHP and the socio-politico religions of Swami Narayan Sect were together in a joint conspiracy being mobilised to ensure violence post-Godhra and ignite and inflame sentiments to make that violence happen.

532. Another message in the same file page no.126, Annexure III File XIX, Message no.D/9/SA/VHP/73/02 that a meeting between 9.10 a.m. and 10 a.m. on 28.2.2002 was held at Vapi town by leaders of BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal and RSS . Among the people present in the Sardar Chowk meeting at Vapi were Dinesh Kumar Vahar, Haryan Bhanushali Leader of Bajrangdal , Jayashri Das of BJP, Vinod Choudhary of RSS and Kapil Swami of Swami Narayan Sect was also present. The SIB message states that among the aggressive speeches made related to Godhra incident at which 100 to 200 people were present including the local police were Hindus were asked to unite and act. It again becomes clear from this SIB message that systematic communal mobilisation was taking place from the length and breadth of different districts of Gujarat in a calculated manner as part of a wide conspiracy. The SIB had also provided details to the Chief Election Commissioner and the National Human Rights Commission about the number of offences committed by organisational members of the BJP, RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal. Attached hereto this protest petition is a copy of the State wide offences registered against members of these organisations. (Annexure)It is not surprising that

except for some of the more brutal carnage cases that were taken up by NHRC, Supreme Court and other legal rights organisations

234

the Gujarat police have hardly investigated or prosecuted any of the organisations mentioned in the list to the FIR.

533. Incidents of violence already taking place from 27.2.2002 itself have also been enumerated in the section on Violent Reprisals post 27.2.2002 (Ahmedabad and Statewide). Several files of the documentary evidence collected in investigation point towards this violence. At page 256, File Annexure III File XIX, which is a message set out from ACP (Int) to DIG(Int) at 1001 hrs on 28.2.2002, it is mentioned that at the outpost at Sathamba Tal. Bayad between 2200 hrs to 2400 hrs on the day before, i.e. 27.2.2002, 12 cabins (small shops) selling pan masala and vegetables were burnt near the bus stand at Sathamba village ( Bayad police station ICR No.. 17/02).

534. Again at page 259 of the same file (Annexure III File XIX) message dated 28.2.2002 from ACP(Int) to DIG(Int) states that curfew had been imposed in Sabarkantha district, tal. Khedbrahma at 1815 hrs, at Himmatnagar at 1100 hrs, Modasa at 1250 hrs and yet two Muslims minor youths were stabbed.

535. Another message at Page No. 273 of the same file (Annexure III file XIX) sent at 1745 hrs on 27.2.2002 from the B.M. Mohit Anand Centre to DGP(Int) stated that when the Sabarmati express (in which S-6 coach had caught fire in the morning and 58 persons had died) reached the Anand Railway Station at 1500 hrs, aggressive persons from the train had attacked 4 Muslim persons at the station, using sharp cutting weapons. Abdul Rashid aged 65 years, resident of Anand had died. Others who were injured had been sent to Anand government hospital. Once again this shows that even after the train had left Godhra following the tragedy that happened at the station, a tragedy that took place after aggressive slogan shouting by Kar sevaks following a stone pelting by a mob etc, neither the Gujarat police administration nor the Panchmahal and/or Vadodara district administrations, nor the railway police that is responsible for security on the trains and stations, took any steps to control the violent behaviour of those still in the train. Apart from Anand railway station, in far away Meghani Nagar (Ahmedabad city) on the night of 27.2.2002 at 2025 hrs, according to the message contained at page 341 (Annexure III File XIX), Hanif Hussain Abdul Jariwala was injured in an attack and another person Muktar Ahmed Khalak resident of Bapunagar was also

235

injured with a knife by a mob. Both victims died. (ICR No. 65 of 02 at Meghani Nagar on 27.2.2002).

536. It is reasonable to assume that aggressive, uncontrolled and irate members of the VHP, BJP, Bajrang Dal and RSS, including some who had travelled from Godhra by train which had arrived at the Kalupur railway station, had been allowed to carry out these attacks unchecked and unfettered by the local police administration. (Repeat message) page 350 to 360 of Annexure III File XIX relates to arrival of 1 to 8 dead bodies at Kalupur railway station at 1500 hrs. (SIB messages are sent before the train arrives) These bodies were sent to Dhanwantari hospital.

537. One of the patients who was injured on the Sabarmati train express on 27.2.2002 and was treated as an outpatient at the V.S. Hospital at 1930 hrs and the message at page 434 (Vardhi No..537, 2055 hrs) was released thereafter. The SIT could have examined this injured witness in the course of investigation as they could have also made efforts to record the statement of all the SIB officials who had sent messages on 27 to 28 February to the head office. No such statements have been recorded.

538. Specifically, SIT should have been at pains to find out whether in any way the provocation and aggressive behaviour of some of the travellers on the Sabarmati express continued while the train proceeded to Ahmadabad (we already know that at Anand station travellers from the train calling themselves Kar Sevaks had attacked 6 persons, one of whom had died).

539. The sloppiness and shoddiness of the SIT investigation in not probing these aspects clearly points to their compromise. It is no wonder that SIT was extremely reluctant in giving the complainant access to these documents that are part of the investigation and reveal the real situation as it existed on the ground in Gujarat. At page 345, the message titled Vardhi No. 24 contained in Annexure III File XIX dated 27.2.2002 is sent from D.O., Ahmedabad to the Intelligence Office at Virangam (Virangam is in Ahmedabad rural district). The message states that there are 50 to 75 persons belonging to VHP and Bajrang Dal gathered at

236

Virangam town chali and in the Golwada area and the situation is very tense.

540. Throughout the day on 27.2.2002 and late into the night of 27- 28.2.2002, the State Intelligence is continuously sending messages about the departure and arrival of Kar Sevaks in different districts. SIB is also warning the head office of the increased communal temperature and the dangers therein.

541. On the morning of 28.2.2002, as can be clearly seen from page 258 of Annexure III File XIX, message No. Com/538/28/2/02, there was also a funeral procession that was allowed to take place at Khedbrahma from where a number of Kar Sevaks who had gone to Ayodhya had returned. This procession was allowed and is likely to have been an aggressive and threatening procession. The message cited above states that while the funeral procession was taking place, 2 Muslims going to Khedbrahma was stabbed. The purpose of the funeral procession, whether at Gota or Hatkeshwar in Ahmedabad, or Modasa was clearly to trigger provocation and violence. The subsequent message at page No. 262 of the same file (Annexure III File XIX) mentions that 150 Bajrang Dal workers returned from Ayodhya to Khedbrahma and the situation was very tense. It would have been no problem for the SIT to have thoroughly investigated with the district police records and the administrative records as also examined the various district news papers pages that came out of Gujarat to ascertain under what sort of political climate these funeral processions took place and were allowed. Repeatedly the co-petitioner in the SLP No.1088 of 2008 Teesta Setalvad of CJP pointed out orally and in writing to the IO of SIT, A.K. Malhotra that these contemporaneous records need to be tallied and examined during investigation. The former DGP, Gujarat, R.B. Sreekumar also through written communication and further affidavit made out a strong case for investigation into these areas. However, SIT despite being responsible to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, chose consciously and deliberately not to investigate into these aspects of the crimes that were committed.

542. Another message at page 254 (Annexure III file XIX) – Com/574/2002 sent out at 1532 hours on 28.2.2002 states that one more victim of the tragic train burning at Godhra, Babubhai Harjibhai Patel, resident at Vaghrol, Tal. Vadali,Sabarkantha district) also was brought back and a funeral procession organised

237

in the town. Vadali and the areas around also witnessed calculated violence against the minorities and the Vadali relief camp was run for many days thereafter. Just as mentioned above, the SIT should have investigated whether this funeral procession was inciteful and incendiary.

543. (Points for further investigation should also be taken from the above - The district police record gives diary etc of all the areas where the victims of the train burning held and need to be examined to find out whether such charring of dead bodies took place in all the districts, the district pages of all newspapers need to be investigated to ascertain the crowds and the organisation to ascertain whether hate speeches and communal speeches were also made ; finally were any investigation undertaken into the cases of hate speech that took place)

544. An analysis of over 17 files submitted as part of the investigation papers – Annexure III File XVIII (D-106), then Annexure III File XIX (D-161), Annexure III File XX(D-162), Annexure III File XX1(D-163), Annexure III File XXII(D-164), Annexure III File XXIII(D-165), Annexure III File XXIV(D-166), Annexure III File XXV(D-167), Annexure III File XXVI(D-168), Annexure III File XXVII(D-169), Annexure III File XXVIII(D-170), Annexure III File XXIX(D-171), Annexure III File XXX(D-172), Annexure III File XX(D-162), Annexure III File XXXI(D-173), Annexure III File XXXII(D-174 – a total of 4964 pages, reveal ample evidence of the systematic attempt at creating communally inflamed atmosphere by parading the dead bodies of the persons who tragically died on 27.2.2002. Not just in Ahmedabad, as has been alleged in the complaint dated 8.6.2006, but in several other locations of Gujarat, wherever the dead bodies were systematically returned on 27.2.2002 become evident.

545. The conspiracy to politically manipulate and misuse the tragic train burning was more than imagined at the time of filing the complaint. The SIT had, in the first instant a whole year and thereafter another 18 to 20 months, to go through these papers and genuinely and truthfully investigate the conspiracy. Sadly, by completely ignoring the wealth of evidence that is available in its own investigation papers, the same investigation papers that were sought to be denied to the complainant due to SIT’s unprofessionalism, its bias is established.

238

546. From the documents on record, it comes out that bringing dead bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad was a joint decision of government and VHP. When the controversial meeting took place at C.M.’s residence on the night of February 27, 2002, it was quite clear that the dead bodies will be arriving at Ahmedabad which was bound to create unrest and tension. The dead bodies in fact arrived at 3.00 a.m. on 28.2.2002 and were put in public around 7.00 a.m. up to 11.00 a.m. The politicians, VHP office-bearers and BJP office-bearers etc., had visited the place where dead bodies were lying. The incident at Naroda Patiya and Gulberg society started at 8.30 and 9.30 a.m. respectively. Accused No. 1 was clearly involved in the decision to bring the dead bodies to Ahmedabad, being aware that this will generate communal tension. In the meeting, which was held at 11.00 p.m. at his residence, he made statements which show that he wanted that a lesson should be taught to the Muslims community. The police officers and administrative officials present in that meeting, in discharge of their official functions, should have immediately alerted all the districts by deploying police force. But the telephone calls which were made from the office of those who were present in the C.M.’s meeting show that it was only around 8.00 a.m. that the telephone calls are made. By that time, the carnage had already started. Therefore, subsequent aspect could be to see whether any effort was made by the police as well as administration to take steps to prevent the disturbances and whether the political machinery and the Ministers were influencing the Police and administration either not to act or act in a particular manner.

547. The decision by the government (accused No. 1) to take the dead bodies to Ahmedabad was taken when Modi was in Godhra. It is during his stay at Godhra that he also declared his support to the Bandh call by VHP. The collusion between the government and VHP becomes clear. In the incidents which have taken place as many as 106 members of the VHP and RSS are involved. This is according to SIB’s own statistics annexed hereto. members are involved. It also comes out that the VHP members from Godhra and other places came to Ahmedabad and incited the violence.

548. The fact that the administration and Police machinery did not act in all the places where incidents took place show that this happened because of the clear directions given by the accused No. 1 in the meeting which was held at his residence on 27.2.2002. The fact

239

that the accused No. 1 had influenced and terrorized the state machinery/Police authorities as well as judiciary is clear from the report given by N.H.R.C. It is for these reasons that in Best Bakery case there had been speedy acquittals, questionable behaviour by the prosecutors etc and even in the Bilkis Bano case where fair investigation was not taking place. The Supreme Court had to intervene and direct re-investigation and re-trial and even transfer the cases outside the State of Gujarat. The Supreme Court has also passed severe strictures against the government officers for not complying with their constitutional duties to maintain law and order and to protect the lives and property of the citizens.

549. Substantial records of the investigation show that the conspiracy hatched by Modi and other co-accused involved parading the bodies in a procession, displaying them for mobs to assemble and get agitated on 28.2.2002 at Sola Civil Hospital and thereafter spare no effort to ensure that the cremation (read smashan yatras) processions are turned into a public spectacle to generate anger and instigate mobs to brute violence. Thereafter, all regulations related to disposal of “unidentified bodies” were flouted.

550.It is pertinent to note that P.S. Shah is a controversial officer

whose presence on 27.2.2002 meeting at Chief Minister’s residence suddenly is brought on record by the Investigating agency after 9.2.2011, i.e., post the final order of the Hon’ble Supreme court. Further investigation thereafter undertaken by SIT according to the complainant had not been conducted by the SIT at all. The final closure report dated 8.2.2012 is signed by DCP of Crime Branch Himanshu Shukla and does not even bear the signature of any of the three members appointed by Supreme Court to investigate into the Zakia Jafri complaint – Chairman, SIT, R. K. Raghavan, I.O., SIT, A.K. Malhotra, Y.C. Modi the third member of SIT.

Bloody Motor Cavalcade

551. Soon after the infamous meeting at Modi’s residence between 2230-2300 hours on 27.2.2002 to give effect to the conspiracy hatched by the core accused at Godhra earlier that afternoon, the motor cavalcade escorted by Jaideepp Patel leaves Godhra for Ahmedabad. Of the 58 tragic deaths that took place in S-6 of the Sabarmati Express, four bodies that belonged to Dahod, Vadodara,

240

Panchmahal, Anand districts were handed over to relatives there. In all, 54 dead bodies were sent to Ahmedabad. Of these, 19 of the unidentified dead bodies were cremated by the hospital authorities on 28.2.02 at Gota Cremation ground, near the Sola Civil Hospital by the District Administration and police officers with the help of the sarpanch of Gota. The undue haste in carrying out these cremations while the city of Ahmedabad was on fire has not been explained by SIT. The failure to follow regular procedures related to unidentified bodies has also been left deliberately unexplored. Twelve of the brutally charred bodies were brought to Ramol, Ahmedabad since many of the persons belonged to Ramol (among them were ordinary worshippers who had joined the trip to Ayodhya wrongly dubbed kar sevaks) and another two of the dead belonged to Khokhra. These were cremated by about 2 p.m. at the Hatkeshwar cremation ground about 4 kms away from Ramol).

552. The investigation records tell a gory story. In anticipation of the procession of VHP activists, known for their rabid anti-minority speeches and mobilizations accompanying the bodies from Godhra, panic messages demanding bandobast and protection are sent from local police authorities anticipating trouble. But there is no response from either the DGP’s office (responsible for law and order in the state) or the Commissioner of Police’s office (responsible for the Ahmedabad Commissionerate. Note: Incidentally these documents were made available to the SIT only after 15.3.2011, when former Ahmedabad CP, PC Pande, suddenly produced 3,500 pages of scanned messages on CDS that in this instance are described as “Wireless Message Book of Police Control Room, Ahmedabad City Control Room for date 28/2/2002”. They had been concealed by him earlier. SIT has not thought to question or penalize him for this criminal omission in a matter related to a matter of such grave importance.

553. These critical wireless messages reveal that from 1:51 hours of 28.2.2002, and again at 1:59 hours there was panic expressed by local vans demanding protection from SRP platoon immediately. That no such enforcements were sent by the higher-ups is apparent since the conspiracy hatched three hours before of letting mobs control the streets had been cynically hatched. By 2:44 hours on 28.2.2002, the motor cavalcade had reached Sola Civil Hospital and there is another confirmatory message at 4:00 hours of this

241

fact. By 6:55 hours, i.e., within three hours an aggressive mob of swayamsevaks belonging to a sister organization of the ruling party, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) has already gathered at the Civil Sola Hospital (Page No. 5794, Annexure IV, File XIV of the documents). Another message 20 minutes later at 7:14 hours informs the Police Control Room that is under the charge of Accused No. 29 (Commissioner of Police) that a large mob has gathered (Page 5796 of Annexure IV, File XIV of the documents). Again another message three minutes later at 7:17 hours (Page 5797 of Annexure IV, File XIV of the documents) says that another mob of 500 was holding up the traffic. This message is received by Control and passed on to Sola 1. An hour later, at 8:10 hours, a message records that three SRP platoons were sent from Police Control to Sola Hospital for bandobast. (Page 5826 of Annexure IV, File XIV of the documents). Thereafter, through the day wireless messages record that there are aggressive and tense crowds at the Hospital, en route and both locations of the cremations.

554. Worst of all, in furtherance of the pre-hatched conspiracy to ensure that a large body of armed and aggressive VHP-RSS-BJP supporters take to the streets with blood in their minds to seek revenge for the tragic killings at Godhra, Acharya Giriraj Kishore of the VHP was given VIP entry into the city of Ahmedabad so that poisonous and inflammatory speeches could be delivered during the cremation. Here is what Giriraj Kishore said to Star News on 27.2.2002. (Some words were censored out because they were deemed highly objectionable): Acharya Giriraj Kishore (Vice President, VHP): (Panel Discussion) (Incidents like this (Godhra) show the psyche of a community): “What is the reason for the pilgrims, they were attacked when they came from Amarnath? What was the reason? That is the psyche, I say!”....“Communal violence can be checked only ... why this incident happened, who did it, what is the psyche behind it? This should be studied.”

555. The SIT Investigation reports both of Malhotra and Shukla brazenly skip a careful analysis of these records collected by them and provided to the complainant after rigorous arguments under Section 173(2). SIT also ignores the spate of virulent speeches being made before after and during the Godhra incident on 27.2.2002 To recap, the bodies could reach Ahmedabad by next morning for the proposed funeral procession instead of being dispatched to

242

respective districts in contravention of clear procedures laid down, in the “Gujarat Police Manual’, in an all out bid to inflame the anger of the funeralists, which could be converted into a violent communal reprisal Ten dead bodies were taken to Ramol, and a massive funeral rally of thousands of aggressive slogan shouting “mourners” took the bodies to Hatkeshwar crematorium from 10 a.m. in the morning until evening. Around 10.30 a.m. or so, some crowds also went berserk and attacked a Muslim Hotel at Thakkarbapa Nagar, close to Naroda and also a High Court Judge belonging to the minority community. Finally the cremation took place at 1830 hours. According to the Malhotra Report under Allegation No. II: “The CM’s decision to bring dead bodies of those killed in Godhra train fire in Ahmedabad and parade them in Ahmedabad city”, 19 of the 54 dead bodies brought from Godhra which could not be identified were allowed to be cremated in a massive funeral procession, violating laws and regulations (of preserving unidentified dead bodies until claimed by relatives) at the Gota Cremation Ground, accompanied by VHP leaders like Acharya Giriraj Kishore, at a three kilometre distance from the Sola Civil Hospital. The procession encouraged by the powerful conspirators was also in violation of curfew orders that were imposed in Ahmedabad only around 1240 hours on 28.2.2002.

556. The Sola Police station is at a one-two kilometre distance from the civil hospital. The cremation that began at 1030 hours concluded only at 1830 hours (Malhotra Report) though the distance was only three kilometres. (Incidentally, the same day while this huge procession was allowed, huge mobs accompanied by at least 15,000 RSS and VHP men, led the murderous attack on Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and Gaam).

557.Deliberately, the top brass in the state police and city police administration did not respond to repeated pleas for security and help from the wireless vans of the police and the State IB. Detailed empirical evidence, deliberately ignored by the SIT shows how aggressive mobilization of mobs had taken place to ensure an aggressive parading of dead bodies as per the plan hatched at Godhra by accused No. 1 and other co-accused and subsequent targeted unleashing of violence. Yet, I.O. Malhotra of the SIT ignores this wealth of evidence and states that though the processions were under heavy police escort they passed off peacefully! Malhotra’s report also admits that 12 of the dead bodies

243

brought by Accused No. 21 (Jaideep Patel) were allowed by high level police and administrative authorities (Accused No. 30, K. Srinivas, Collector, Ahmedabad; Accused No. 29, PC Pande; Accused No. 38, Shivanand Jha) to be taken to Ramol and thereafter cremated at Hatkeshwar cremation ground 18-20 kilometres away. (Accused No. 33 MK Tandon is also punishable for the offences connected with this illegal parading of dead bodies in breach of prohibitory orders and curfew.

558. The SIT has in a clear display of utter negligence and bias misled the Hon’ble Supreme Court that no aggressive mobilisations took place around these acts of parading the dead bodies in funeral processions in such a calculated manner. A similar denial of the ground realities can be found in DCP Crime Branch, Himanshu Shujla’s report (Allegation II, Parading of Dead Bodies) dated 8.2.2012. Both reports deliberately gloss over the systematic preparations and mobilizations of crowds by the conspirators.

Documentary Evidence from Investigation Papers Ignored by the SIT

559. It can be seen from the enumerated messages from police records related to the transportation of dead bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad (27.2.2002 and 28.2.2002) and crowd bandobast for cremation on 28.2.2002 at Ahmedabad, that there are repeated wireless messages from the ground-level policemen alerting senior policemen of the unruly and aggressive crowds gathered at the Sola civil hospital, Ahmedabad. These messages (see Annexure Table.... from the Investigation Papers at Annexure III, File XIX and Annexure IV File XIV) show that from as early as 4 a.m. on 28.2.2002, as many as 3,000 RSS workers had gathered and this aggressive and violent mobilisation at Ahmedabad continued right up to the cremation(s).

Annex IV File XIV (Page No.5713 to 6140) Dead Bodies Message on Dt. 28.2.02

Sr. No.Page NoDate & TimeMessageRemarks

1575228.2.02Zone-1 must be present at Sola Civil HospitalInformed Zone-1

1:51 hrs(Reply is not available in SIT

244

records)

2575228.2.02Send SRP Platoon to the Sola Hospital immediatelyInformed SRP Control Room

1:59 hrs(Reply is not available in

SIT)

3575828.2.02Dead bodies have reached at Vinzol Patiya(Reply is not available)

2:44 hrs

4576628.2.02Police have been informed the name & address of the victims of Godhra trainInformed Sola-1

2:54 hrscarnage & have been informed who received & took dead bodies.(Reply is not available)

5578628.2.02Dead-bodies have reached at Sola Civil5787

Hospital

3:34 hrsInformed Sola-1, Zone---, VIP Channel State 335

6579028/2/023,000 workers (Swayam Sevaks) are present at Civil Sola HospitalInformed Zone-1

4:00hrs

7579428.2.02Dead body of Manglaben Harjibhai PatelInformed State and Control room by Fax.

residing at Ta. Kadi Dist. Mehsana, sent

6:55 hrsfrom Sola Civil Hospital to Kadi by

Ambulance No. GJ-2Y- 9968Reply HCR and Control message passed to

Mehsana

5795

8579628.2.02Inform Control room how a large mob has gathered at Sola Civil Hospital

7:14 hrs

9579728.2.02About 500 persons at Sola hospital; traffic is blockedReply Message of 5796

7:17 hrs

10582628.2.02King Shree informed that 3 SRP5827

Commandant sent from police control to

8:10 hrsSola Hospital for extra bandobastInformed Sola-1, Zone-1, Bekar 8:25

11583628.2.02Sola-1 in-charge informed that unidentified dead bodies of karsevaks have left for5837

8:20 hrscremation from the Sola hospital to Gota cremation house at 15:00. Keep necessary bandobast.Fax sent to State IB, ADR copy SB

12584228.2.02PI-Sola informed that 26 dead bodies identified from 56 dead bodies, and theirInformed Sola-1 9:17 pg. 5843

9:01 hrsheirs have taken their dead bodies; & other dead bodies after the procedure of identification.

Inform about where dead bodies have been sent.

245

13584828.2.02 9:15 hrsAmraiwadi -1 informed that 10 dead bodies have come to Ramol, Jantanagar. So, informed that Zone-5, Iwary, situation is very tense in Ramol Jantanagar. Send ACP there.Illegible

14586528.2.02Acharya Giriraj Kishorji Vice president ofTime not shown

VHP has reached Ahmedabad airport. Send

bandobast.Pg no.5866

Informed Naranpura -2

Depart from Akhbarnagar

10:02

15588228.2.02DGP Zone-3 informed that escort for GirirajReply is not confirmed.

Kishor has not come. Send immediately.

10:10 hrs

16589428.2.02Shri V.V. Rabari DIG (Int.) informed that a vehicle has been set on fire/arson onPCB/P-1 Departure

11:55 hrshighway near Gujarat High Court. Take necessary bandobast for High Court judges.Reply is not confirmed.

17590728.2.02 11:58 hrsAmraiwadi-1 in-charge informed that 10 dead bodies have been taken for cremation ceremony from Ramol Jantanagar to Hatkeshwar Cremation Centre with crowd ofInformed Amraiwadi -2, Amraiwadi Mobile, Zone-5, Tiger, CP, State Control,

5 to 6 thousand.Reply is not available.

18592528.2.02Amraiwadi-1 informed that 8 dead bodiesInformed Amraiwadi -1, 12:55 pg no.5926

reached at Hatkeshwar cremation centre.

12:50 hrs

19594228.2.02Send fire brigade immediately to Sola HighReply is not available.

Court Road

11:47 hrs

20603528.2.022 dead bodies have been found opp. SolaReply is not available.

14:45 hrsHospital and Gota Cross Road. So, immediate action to move them should be taken otherwise it is difficult to reach Sola

Hospital for post- mortem.

Annexure IV, File XV

Sr.Page NoDate & TimeMessageRemarks

No.

1616228/2/02 11:55 hoursSaiyed Sahab protocol officer informed Sola -1 that there were Riots at Sola Civil Hospital at High Court where dead bodies brought.

2617228/2/02As per above mentioned subject-stated, URGENT and IMPORTANT that they were at civil hospital Sola, and officers, employees were surrounded had been surrounded by 500 strong mob and they could not come out. So, there was a request to provide them security to come out from the Civil Hospital at SolaAdd DM informed to PC Ahmedabad

Time not shownFax Message informed Zone-1, Sola-1, Bankar at 18:25 hours

246

Annex IV File XVI (Page No.6541 to 6940) Parading of Dead Bodies (Ahmedabad)

Sr. No.Page NoDate & TimeMessageRemarks

1663728/2/02Sola Civil Hospital at Sola Police Station mob gathered. Burn Hospital.-

17:33

2670428/2/02Dy. City Collector, Mamlatdar and his staff,-

15 Doctors and two Dead bodies and injured

17:40persons and more than 300 persons mob shrouded Hospital and stone pelting at the vehicles and damaged it so, it is necessary to exit them.

560. Yet, Mr. Malhotra and Mr. Shukla say that the processions were peaceful. Messages from the police records (Annexure I File XIV- Message No.. 5907 and 5925 dated 1250 hrs on 28.2.2002) show that when 10 dead bodies were taken for cremation ceremony from Ramol Jantanagar to the Hatkeshwar cremation ground there was an aggressive and violent crowd of 5-6,000 accompanying them. This message at 11.58 hours from the official records of the wireless vans of the Gujarat police completely disproves the conclusions in both the SIT closure reports. The first message number 5907 has no reply in the records provided and the message number 5925 has a reply from Amraiwadi which has been sent at 12:55 hours but is illegible.

561. Further evidence of the fact that a conspiracy between the ruling BJP and VHP was jointly hatched and executed to politically capitalise on the tragic death at Godhra can be assessed from the fact that none less than Acharya Giriraj Kishore, Vice Chairman of Vishwa Hindu Parishad was escorted by the Gujarat police from the airport to Sola Civil Hospital and thereafter he accompanies the 5- 6,000 mob in a procession to the cremation ground amidst inflammatory slogans and speeches. Shri Acharya Giriraj Kishore, international vice-chairperson, VHP, is not known for benign and peaceful speeches – examples of the venom and hatred spilled by Giriraj Kishore before 27th February 2002, on 28th February 2002 and since then will bear the test of objective scrutiny to the incendiary quality and motive behind his speeches. Kishore’s

247

incendiary remarks were telecast on 27.2.2002 itself. “That is the psyche, I say ... communal violence can be checked only (when we understand) why this incident happened, who did it, what is the psyche behind it? This should be studied.’ A cha rya G irira j Kish ore; (Ne ws h our, Star News, 27 February 2002). Other records also corroborate the fact that Giriraj Kishore came to Sola civil hospital, ostensibly to pay tribute to the dead Kar Sevaks between 10.45 and 11 a.m. Apart from the police records made available during this investigation this fact is on record in the Sessions Court case No. 203/2009 hearing the Naroda Gaam case, when the statement of the investigating officers dated 16.5.2002 (P.N. Barot) states that Acharya Giriraj Kishore was at Sola Civil Hospital between 10.45 to 11 a.m.(This trial is ongoing). In another statement recorded by SIT, IO, Malhotra (in the Naroda Patia case, Sessions Case No. 235/2009) dated 26.12.2008, the I.O. has stated that Acharya Giriraj Kishore came before 11 a.m. on 28.2.2002 to the Sola Civil Hospital, where he spoke to one or two media persons and was there for a total of 10 to 20 minutes. The Judgement convicting 31 powerful accused in this case was delivered on 29.8.2012. Ironically, it is clear from the above that SIT that conducted further investigation into both these cases, and was entrusted with this critical, onerous and sensitive responsibility, was in the full knowledge of the fact that senior members of VHP were called to the hospital with a sinister design to whip up mass frenzy and hysteria during the funeral procession of 28.2.2002. Please refer to the detailed tabular analysis of the following files attached in the following Annexures of the SIT Investigation Papers:-

(i) Annexure IV File XIV

(ii) Annexure IV File XV

(iii) Annexure IV File XVI

(iv) Annexure IV File XVII

(v) Annexure IV File XVIII

(vi) Annexure IV File XIX

(vii) Annexure IV File XX

(viii) Annexure IV File XXI

562. Further empirical evidence of the crowd gathering can be accurately deduced from the repeated requests for bandobast, especially from the police Wireless Vans at Ahmedabad on 28.2.2002. There is a clear message at 11.55 a.m. on 28.2.2002 (Page No. 6162 Anne xure IV File V) saying that “Sayyed Saheb,

248

the Protocol Officer had informed Sola-1 that riots have started at Sola civil hospital at the High Court where the dead bodies were brought” Again, there is another message with no indication of time (Page No..6172 of 28.2.2002) that states that the officers and employees of the hospital were surrounded by a 500 strong mob and they could not come out”. This message appeals for more security to be made available to ensure safety for the staff of the hospital. It is clear therefore that from 11.15 to 11.30 a.m. onwards, a huge crowd that had been mobilised and prepared and waiting since 4 a.m., further charged with anger and aggression after Acharya Giriraj Kishore visited the hospital between 10.45 a.m. to 11 a.m. as per the police records and made his incendiary speech that motivated the mobs of the RSS and VHP especially mobilised to launch violent attacks. Members of this motivated mob began their violent acts right there and, according to messages recorded by the Wireless Vans, were threatening the staff of the hospital seriously and endangering their safety. Constant appeals for more protection and bandobast from the wireless messages were obviously being ignored by the higher-ups in the police administration who are co-conspirators and accused in this complaint.

563. Two messages contained in Annexure IV File XIV are evidences of Acharya Giriraj Kishore, Vice-President of the VHP reaching Ahmadabad on the morning of 28.2.2002 for the express purpose of participating in parading of Godhra dead bodies before the cremation and making inflammatory speeches.

564. Message No..5865 dated 28.2.2002 from Annexure IV, XIX (time not given) states that Acharya Kishore has reached the Ahmedabad airport and bandobast from the police is requested. The message at page 5882 dated 28.2.2002, at 1010 hrs states that the DCP Zone III has been informed of the escort for Giriraj Kishore who had not come. The message asks for escort to be sent immediately. This message clearly shows that Giriraj Kishore landed in Ahmedabad for the criminal purpose of being part of the conspiracy.

565. A Message at page 6535 of Annexure IV File XV sent at 1630 hrs states that some of the dead bodies had now begun to be taken for cremation (this suggests a slow movement and massive mobilisation) and ironically message at page No. 6539 (i.e. after the

249

earlier message) but with an earlier timing of 1606 hrs states that the City Collector (Accused No. 30, K. Srinivas) should be asked not to allow the funeral ceremony procession to begin until there was sufficient bandobast from the Sola hospital where the procession was to start. The message ends by saying that though they were demanding police bandobast, they were not getting it. This again points to a calculated design behind allowing an uncontrolled, aggressive, politically motivated mob to be unleashed on the city of Ahmedabad by the highest in the government and the administration. It is clear that this massive and aggressive mobilisation was to generate aggressive crowds to enable an atmosphere conducive for the attacks on Gulberg and Naroda Patiya and other areas of Ahmedabad.

566. Wireless messages from the police records (Annexure IV, File XIV ± message No. 5894 dated 28.2.2002 at 11.55 hrs). This violent, aggressive and motivated mob even attacked a judge belonging to the minority community around 1155 hours. Sola Civil Hospital comes under the direct jurisfiction of A-38 Shivanand Jha, Records show that Mr V Rabari, DIG(Int) was informed that an arson (burning) incident had take place very close to the Sola civil hospital that is also close to the Gujarat High Court and a respected member of the Gujarat judiciary was the target of the mob attack. The message says that “necessary bandobast should be provided to the High court Judges.”

567. It is reasonable to assume that the same aggressive and incited crowds that were present at Sola civil hospital from 4 a.m. onwards, having been brought to Ahmedabad in the custody of Accused No. 21 Jaideep Patel of VHP, not any official person, were further incited through the incendiary rhetoric of the VHP leader, Acharya Kishore and inspired to attack. Accused No. 21 (Jaideep Patel) having been in constant touch with the chief conspirator and accused number 1 (Modi) ever since the morning of 27.2.2002, and was part of the execution of this conspiracy. This attack on a High Court judge from the minority community travelling in a vehicle in the vicinity of Sola Hospital was also part of the sinister conspiracy that unfolded.

568. Despite this wealth of contemporaneous and empirical evidence available, neither SIT’s Preliminary Report by Shri A.K. Malhotra, SIT, submitted to the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.5.2010, nor the report of the further investigation and subsequent closure filed by

250

Himanshu Shukla dated 8.2.2012 make any reference to the unruly and aggressive mobilisation taking place at Sola Civil Hospital as part of a concerted plan and in furtherance of a conspiracy to use the tragic Godhra train burning incident as a launching pad for a sustained and barbaric attack on the State minorities, a conspiracy that was hatched and supported by both the government and police and administrative head of the civil services but all of co-accused in the complaint of Smt. Zakia Jafri dated 8.2.2006. Despite the final Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Crl. Appeal No. 1765/2055 arising out of SLP (crl) No. 1088 of 2008, dated 12.9.2011, directing clearly that the SIT should, in the event of giving a clean chit to all powerful accused, give due notice to the complainant and also make available all documents that are part of the Investigation Papers, the SIT in violation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court order doggedly denied these documents to the complainant. It took the complainant a year to avail of these rights.

569. Instead of taking the empirical evidence contained in the investigation papers collected by the SIT itself (and now obtained by the complainant) seriously, both the SIT reports go out of their way to suggest that the subsequent two cremations held at Godhra and Hatkeshwar was peaceful and quiet. It is important to emphasise the extent to which the investigating agency, entrusted with the sensitive duty has gone to mislead both the Hon’ble Supreme Court and make a mockery of this enquiry into this statewide breakdown of law and order and public justice. It is no wonder that the same investigating agency did all it could before the Ld. Magistrate in Ahmadabad not to make these documents available to enable the complainant to put forward a strong and viable defence.

570. Nowhere does the SIT investigation connect the evidence of the conspiracy in the complete breakdown of law and order that not just took place but appears to have been encouraged and celebrated by the co-conspirators all over the State in Gujarat. During the pendency of Special Leave Petition No. 1088 of 2008 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, co-petitioner Teesta Setalvad, Secretary, CJP had during her repeated interaction with the SIT urged that contemporaneous records, including CD and media coverage of the funeral processions etc. should be objectively analysed by the

251

SIT to finally arrive at a conclusion whether or not there was a design behind parading of the dead bodies in Ahmedabad with a calculated bid to inflame passion and incite mobs to attack and brutalise the minority community.

571. An analysis of File XVIII, Annexure III at Page No. 188 (An SIB message from I.O. of the SIB), BF Kumpavat to PIs CJ Bharwad and PI Macwana sent at 12.30 p.m. dated 27.2.2002 shows that it clearly records that dead bodies of 8 VHP workers who had died at Godhra were expected to arrive at the Kalupur Railway station (Ahmedabad) by (it says 28.2.2002) at 1500 hours and “that these dead bodies of karsevaks after reaching Ahmedabad would be taken to different areas where funeral processions will follow and communal tension is likely and preventive steps need to be taken.” ‘ The message has been signed by BM Kodekar (see Table of Annexures). Never mind the obvious confusion of the dates in the message, it is clear that it was well known and expected by the SIB and police that aggressive funeral processions had been planned by the VHP and fully supported by the ruling BJP under the specific directions of accused No. 1. (Further Investigation: SIT should have recorded statements of all thse officers: Further Investig by Inde Agency Court should Order) Another message in the same file, i.e., Annexure III, File XVIII (D-160) at Page No. 19 Message No. 531 is from SIB Police to KR Singh at 1810 hours on 27.2.2002. It is also from the Ahmedabad region. This message indicates clearly that the VHP brigade with complete state patronage and impunity and part of the wider conspiracy hatched between accused number 1 and other co-accused had been given carte blanche to commit violence and murder. The message reads that, “on 27.2.2002 at 4.30 p.m. when the train arrived at the Ahmedabad Railway station, the kar sevaks were armed with „dandas’ and shouting murderous slogans „Murder for Murder’ and „Bharat Mata ki Jai’.”

572.It is important for the Court to understand that all this empirical

data exists in the records of the state government (Annexure III, File XVIII are copies of Fax Messages sent by the regional offices of the SIB to the ADGP -Intelligence for the month of February 2002). It is a matter of great concern that neither of the SIT reports has even cursorily mentioned them, neither has Accused No. 60 (GC Raigar), or Accused No. 25 K. Chakravarti, referred to the fact that the ADGP Office (under the DGP) was sending out such intimations, warning of the spread and intensity since the tragic

252

Godhra incident on 27.2.2002. Neither does the SIT confront either of these accused with these specific messages, nor do these accused volunteer critical information relating to the conspiracy hatched which was unfolding. Another message in the same file, Annexure III, File XVIII, at Page 188 is a message sent at 20:38 hours on the day of the Godhra train burning tragedy, i.e., 27.2.2002, that clearly warns of the following: “Dilip Trivedi the General Secretary of VHP and Joint Secretary Dr. Jaideep Patel and Kaushik Mehta in a Joint Statement issued by them have declared that innocent Ram Bhatt’s are attacked and hence. Gujarat Bandh has been declared. They have also stated that the attack on the Ramsevaks returning from Ayodhya was pre-planned by the Muslims and are mercilessly killed and hundreds are injured. Innocent ladies are molested and compartments are set on fire and Ramsevaks are burnt alive.” This message clearly records that Dilip Trivedi, Accused No. 21 (Jaideep Patel) and Accused No 18 Kaushik Mehta were making grossly provocative statements following the Godhra incident with a clear-cut intent to use the Godhra tragedy to launch further violence and that they enjoyed the full protection of the state (Accused No. 1, Modi).

573. The SIT has clearly not confronted Dilip Trivedi for these provocations even though he is also one of the advocates against whom allegations of partisan behaviour as a prosecutor have also been made in the complaint dated 8.6.2006. Trivedi was appointed special PP by the law department which was at the relevant time under accused No. 2 (Ashok Bhatt) and in the handling of the serious carnage cases at Mehsana he was accused to have collaborative behaviour with powerful accused. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) was the first to point to this clear attempt to subvert the criminal justice system even after the crimes had been committed. Subversion of the criminal justice system was also part of the ongoing conspiracy that was hatched to shield powerful accused and to teach a brutal lesson to the minority community. He was removed as PP after the Hon’ble Supreme Court took cognisance of the partisan investigations and prosecutions in the post-Godhra cases. (It also needs to be noted that as was proven later, no instance of molestation had taken place during the Godhra train incident. But this baseless allegation was widely used as a provocation to incite angry mobs to attack and kill. Even the „Sandesh’ newspaper collaborated in this exercise. At least three officers of the Gujarat Police had

253

recommended prosecution for such incendiary writing. However, due to continued collusion between Accused No. 27 (Subba Rao), Accused No. 34 (Nityanandam), Accused No. 28 (Ashok Narayan) and Accused No. 25 (K. Chakravarti) on the police and administrative side and Accused No. 1 (Modi) as cabinet minister for home (in charge of security, peace, law and order), Accused No. 5 (Gordhan Zadaphiya), Accused No. 2 (Ashok Bhatt) on the political side, the co-conspirators failed to hold any individuals, organisations or institutions responsible for unlawful provocations to violence. This inaction, bad in law and governance, was a clear and strategic part of the conspiracy to reward collaborators who helped fuel and spread intra-community hatred and attack innocent lives.

Communal Mobilisation and Widespread Incidents on 27.2.2002

574. Alerts and messages relayed by the SIB field officials to their headquarters on 27.2.2002 clearly establish the following points:

(i) The ruling BJP, VHP, RSS and the Bajrang Dal were functioning in constant and close collaboration on all actions and decisions following the tragic Godhra train burning incident on 27.2.2002. This is borne out not just by the critical and controversial presence of Jaideep Patel, General secretary of VHP Gujarat unit at Godhra where according to DM Jayanti Ravi in her statement to the SIT he met accused No. 1 (Modi) but is also evident through several meetings and assemblies held across the state on that day. Be it Vadodara, Kodinar, Porbandar, Modasa, Junagadh, Bhavnagar, Kadi, Ahmedabad, the ruling BJP and its organisational members were working in complete accordion with VHP, RSS and the Bajrang Dal to spread aggression and violence. This was clearly done with instructions from the top that had effectively neutralised the police and administration.

(ii) This is also evident from the call for the Gujarat Bandh on 28.2.2002 given by the VHP on 27.2.2002. Knowledge of the Bandh call is available with the State Intelligence and the police authorities by 12 noon or 1 p.m. on 27.2.2002 and every district in the state knew that violent mobs are already mobilising their support for the Bandh and these organisations and their leaders

254

were making their intentions clear by attacking and terrorising the minority community.

(iii) Curfew and when it is declared is also a matter of serious agitation in Smt. Zakia Jafri’s complaint dated 8.6.2006. Details of the curfew orders are not clear at all. Exact details are missing. It is very clear that the curfew was not either dealt to be declared at Ahmedabad, but a controversial decision was in place which was called earlier was not strictly implemented.

(iv) Right from 27.2.2002, the State Intelligence and other agencies including the media were recording and telecasting the incidents of aggressive hate speech by numerous leaders of the ruling BJP, RSS, VHP and Bajrang Dal. Yet, despite this being noted no action is taken either immediately or in the weeks and months to follow. It must be noted that accused No..1 in this complaint is not only the Chief Minister of the State but had unquestioned control of the Home portfolio since his accession to power in 2001. As cabinet minister for home affairs, he is responsible for not just the breakdown of law and order the failure to take preventive measures including curfew declaration, failure to call and deploy army in time but also for the failure to grant sanction for the prosecution for hate speech. Conspiracy under the Indian Penal Code is defined as a calculated meeting of minds and commitment of serious crime. This is one of them.

575. Another State Intelligence Bureau message at page 341 (Vardhi No. 534) 2025 hrs dated --- records that there was an attempt on the life of Hussain Abdul Jariwalla at Meghani Nagar (ICR No..65/02) and he succumbed to his injuries. Another person, Mushtaq Abdul Katki, a resident at Bapunagar was injured by a mob when he was with his wife and he died at the Saralaben hospital at 1945 hrs. Similarly on page 347 (Vardhi No. 8535) message at 2030 hrs records that Vishnubhai Shukla who was going to Narayan Nagar, Paldi was injured by stone pelting at 1920 hrs and admitted to hospital for treatment. Another person, Abdul Rahman Dhobi of Memdabad, who had come to Ahmadabad railway station at platform No.1 was also injured and admitted to hospital when persons attacked him with weapons at 1700 hrs. Similarly, a message sent at 2130 hrs on 17.2.2002 at page 348

255

(Vardhi No. 541) records that Hamid Khan Sayyed Khan of Juhapura was injured by unknown persons at V.F. Hospital. Ibrahimbhai Vijibhai Talat was also attacked by 50 unknown persons at Low Gad, Ahmedabad (L.S. Bridge ICR No. 116 of 2002) according to the State Intelligence Bureau message at page 351 (Vardhi No. 549 dated 27.2.2002) at 425 hrs.

576. Similarly an SIB message at page 355 of annexure III file XIX (Fax at Vardhi No. 525) sent at 1220 hrs; no date is mentioned) states that on 27.2.2002, 8 dead bodies of the VHP workers were brought to Ahmadabad at the Kalupur railway station at 1500 hrs. This suggests that quite apart from the motor cavalcade that left Godhra that night, 8 bodies had been brought on the train itself because this message that appears to have been sent on 27.2.2002 expresses its apprehension that now the bodies have been brought to Ahmedabad there might be a procession in their areas leading to communal tension and hence preventive action needs to be taken. This message also records the announcement of the Gujarat Bandh call by the VHP for 28.2.2002. Similarly, at pages 356 to 360 (Annexure III File XIC) a State Intelligence Bureau message (Fax No. Out/184/02) dated 27.2.2002 marked “political and discrimination” informs the ADGP at Gandhinagar that 8 dead bodies of VHP workers were brought already to Ahmedabad from Godhra and had reached the Kalupur railway station 1500 hrs. This message states that on 27th February itself there were likely to be processions in the various areas and violence could take place in the city of Ahmedabad. This message also records that preventive action needs to be taken due to VHP’s Gujarat Bandh call. Incidentally, nowhere has SIT analysed or recorded in either of their reports, either to the Hon’ble Supreme Court (12.5.2010, A.K. Malhotra; or 8.2.2012, Himanshu Shukla) that out of these 8 bodies that had reached Kalupur railway station at 1500 hrs two of them were sent or taken to Dhanwantri hospital at Bapunagar where a large condolence meeting of Bajrang Dal and VHP workers were organised. This message also talks of the possibility of the Gujarat Bandh on 28.2.2002.

577. This is a very detailed message and mentions that the train that had seen the unfortunate burning of S-6 coach at Godhra was proceeding onwards to Ahmedabad. According to this message of the SIB and the information received by the Kalupur railway station, 27 injured Kar Sevaks had gone to Vadodara railway hospital for

256

treatment where senior medical officers treated them as outdoor patients. It was also reported that 18 Kar Sevaks who were seriously injured were treated at the Godhra civil hospital. The message states that the train departed at 1420 hrs from Vadodara to Ahmedabad and was likely to reach Ahmadabad at 1630 hrs. The message states that aggressive and eager Kar Sevaks including Ashok Sharma, President of Hindu Swarajya, Shiv Sena, Krishna Vardan Bhanushali (corporator Ahmedabad) accompanied by 200 to 250 activists of BJP and VHP were assembled at Kalupur railway station. We must remember that this is on 27.2.2002 itself. The message calls for police bandobast and mentions that repeated request for bandobast has been made by this officer.

578. The same message also records that on 27 February 2002 itself a mob attacked both AMTS (Ahmedabad Transport) and ST buses at Bapu Nagar at 1500 hrs and broke glasses of the buses. Yet the message that shops have been forcibly shut down and as the Sabarmati express train arrived at 1613 hrs at platform No.1, BJP workers and Kar Sevaks were shouting slogans like „Khoon Ka Badla Khoon ‘, „Mandir Vahin Banayenge ‘, „Jai Shri Ram’ and „Bharat Mata Ki Jai’. The message records that no dead bodies came in the train, the dead bodies were given to the heirs at Godhra civil hospital. This message clearly records that Kar Sevaks had given interviews to E-TV stating that “Amari Sathe Gaddari ‘ ‘® ‘ ‘ ‘®~ ~~®~ ‘‘® ®’®~ ‘ ‘~~®~ ‘‘~®~’~~®~ ‘‘‘~®~~’®~ ‘‘® ®’’~® Kapi Nakho’’. They used abusive language in this interview. 9 bandhs were called by VHP in Virangam.

CONSPIRACIES HATCHED IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE STATE IN FURTHERANCE OF THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE CHIEF MINISTER AND HIS CABINET AT GODHRA WHERE VHP’S JAIDEEP PATEL WAS ALSO PRESENT.

579. The State IB In its fax message No. IB/220/ 262/2002 on page 90 of Annexure III File XIV (D-161) states that at 1712 hours on 27.2.2002 the Baroda city BJP had announced a meeting to support the call for Gujarat Bandh given by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad on 28.2.2002 and the Baroda city BJP was going to meet in this connection again at 2100 hrs on 27.2.2002. Another fax message by the State IB on page 921 of the same file (Mes. IB/Com/Sankhya/281 dated 27.2.2002 Annexure III File XIX (D161) at 1551 hours states that BJP Mayor Bharatiben, BJP leader Jitendra Sukhadia along with VHP and Bajrang Dal workers had

257

come to platform No.1 at 1313 hours on that day and supplied food packets and water to Kar Sevaks. The message also describes that they had shouted slogans and attacked persons from the minority community leading to one death. The same message states that at 1410 hrs VHP workers came out in the market and tried to forcibly close shops. The message records that because of this violence and attack, 60 year old Ibrahimbai was killed because of the assault by a Kar Sevak on his head and another person belonging to the minority community was injured by shrapnel.

580. A similar message at page No. 176 ± Mes. D-9/HA/VHP/23/2002 dated 27.2.2002 (Annexure III File XIX, D-161) delivered at 10.53 a.m. from Kodinar states that VHP, Bajrang Dal, Hindu Dharma Raksha Samiti, Shiv Sena leaders, VHP leader, Gamubhai Hitparia were planning to meet between 1700 hrs to 1800 hrs at the Receiving Complex, Una town to discuss about the Godhra incident.

581. Yet another message at page 180(Mes.CID/D-9/HA/VHP/Guj Bandh/66/02 (Annexure III File XIX, D-161)dated 27.2.2002 at 1859 hrs from Porbandar states that under the leadership of VHP President Shantilal Rudhani and BJP President Ramjibhai Padaria, a meeting was held at RSS office at 1745 hrs. This meeting was also attended by BJP’s Sanghatan Mantri, Mahendra Mukhi, BJP youth leader Ketan Parekh and Shiv Sena and VHP workers. Another message at page 184(MES IB/ VHP/HA/08/02 dated 27.2.2002 had actually marked at 715 This message talks of a meeting under the leadership of Kantibhai Tagrena, Sureshbhai Solanki and Veljibhai Masani at the old bus stand at Mangrol in connection with the bandh call given by the VHP. The message said that they tried to contact business persons at 1800 hrs. In Junagadh too, according to a fax message at page 218 (Mes. D1 /HA/Jaher/Sabha/J u nag had/311/02, Annexure III, File XIX dated 27.2.2002 at 1012 hrs, according the State IB, Sadhu Samaj President, Gopal Nandji is giving an aggressive speech at Junagadh Karva Chowk between 1930 to 2100 hrs. The message enumerated in Table on Hate Speech contains names of persons present there. The SIB message states that speeches full of hatred were given calling for “Hindus to unite and cut the legs and hands of enemies,” Muslims who live in India with loyalties to Pakistan will not be tolerated etc.

258

582. At 2022 hrs on 27.2.2002 right in the capital city of Gandhinagar, according to the message at Page 224 (Fax Mss D16/HA/VHP/21/02) dated 27.2.2002 (Annexure III, File XIX), the VHP President of Botad Kanti Daya Patel, Jevanbhai Vithalbhai Chawda had gone around in a hired auto-rickshaw announcing the Bandh on the next day in Kutch. According to the State IB, at page 226 (Fax. mes. D-9) HA/VHP/415/02 dated 27.2.2002 at 152 hrs (Annexure III, File XIX) SIT records show that the Kutch bandh call had been given by the VHP District Maha Mantri Shashikant Patel. Equally serious was the message sent by the Regional Office of the State Intelligence Bureau to the Gandhinagar head office at 2359 hrs on 27.2.2002. This message can be read on page 237-238(Fax Mes Com/HM/550/02, Annexure III, File XIX) ( Note: This message is very significant because it is received in Gandhinagar after top police officers and civil servants have been given instructions by the Chief Minister at the controversial meeting on 27.2.2002 not to act to stop violence and protect lives). This message already records 50 Kar Sevaks coming to Modasa centre, Taluka Dhansure, village Vadgaon from Ahmedabad in a special bus at 1817 hrs on 27.2.2002 and, after reaching there, making inflammatory and aggressive speeches that led to the other gathered mob burning vehicles belonging to Muslims. This means that soon after the co-conspirators accused No. 1 and other strongmen and members of the VHP had, since the incident at Godhra, begun mobilising violent mobs to attack persons from the minority in various districts. The message also records that at Kalol Centre, Tal. Kadi Basham, Village Kalupur, a shop belonging to Yasinbhai Multani was burnt on 27.2.2002.

583. On 28.2.2002 at Prantej village in Tejpur Kui, one Totu Ram was torched by a mob but fortunately there was no casualty (Pages 239, 240 and 241 of Annexure III File XIV). The same message describes how a shop owned by a Muslim was burnt by a mob on 27.2.2002 at Vijay Nagar (CR No.12 of 2002). The message also records that there was a funeral procession and that two of the persons who had died in Godhra train burning -- Manguben Harjivardan Patel and Lalitaben Karamjibhai Patel -- were from Jaidevpura village in Kadi town.

584. Other incidents are simultaneously taking place in different parts of Baroda city on 28.2.2002 as can be seen in the messages contained at page 73 of Annexure III File XIX. The areas in Baroda

259

that are affected are Fateganj Chali, J.P. Road and Makarpura. Curfew is finally imposed in these areas at 1730 hrs on 28.2.2002.

585. It appears that from a perusal of the same message mentioned above (Page 73, Annex.III, File XIX) that VHP persons had assembled at the Dahod railway station at 3 a.m. on the night of 28.2.2002. The message describes that at that early hour Yogeshbhai Vyas, VHP Pramukh of Dahod district had publicly announced condolence programme for the Kar sevaks to be held at 1750 hours at the Ganpati Mandir. Given the way that VHP was clearly mobilising all over the State and given the fact that by the time SIT was appointed to investigate in April, 2009 it was well known that Dahod was the third or fourth among the worst affected districts in Gujarat. It is strange SIT has not investigated how this condolence meeting at Ganpati Mandir was conducted. Were any inflammatory speeches made? Was there any unruly crowd that had assembled? Did the local newspapers and T.V. channels report on this condolence meeting? Did the SIT bother to collect any such records? These aspects should be the subject matter of further investigation.The same message records that two

women and one man were killed due to police firing between 1530 and 1630 hrs on 28.2.2002. This suggests that a mob might have gathered leading to the police to take action. Again this has not been investigated. This is something that should be gone into further investigation.

586. At page 210, Annex.III, File DIX, fax message Mes D2/Bandh/312/02 clearly records that at 1023 p.m. on 28.2.2002 the ACP (Int) of Junagadh reported that Sadhu Samaj President Gopal Nayanji and Mohanbhai Dave gave an interview to Aaj Tak TV about the killing of VHP worker Kantibhai. At the cost of repetition, it is stated that the content of the speech and the interview needed to have been investigated. It should be a matter of further investigation.

587. At page 233 of the same file, Annex.III, File XIX, fax message Mes.Bhuj/D-2/Com/Takedari/ Bandh/430/02 ACP(Int), Bhuj has recorded how the President of the Banaskantha unit of the BJP/VHP was forcibly shutting down shops and moreover in the process damaging a garage and a bakery. During this bout of violence between 1130 and 1300 hrs one Muslim was found dead from the Dhavera railway crossing.

260

588. Hate speech and inflammatory writing have been part of the ingredients of the conspiracy that was evolved pre- and post- Godhra in Gujarat in 2002. There has been sufficient evidence listed by the complainant Smt. Zakia Jafri in her complaint dated 8.6.2006 but much more evidence has now come to the fore through records grudgingly made available by SIT. However, just like different aspects and ingredients of the conspiracy have been deliberately left unaccepted by the SIT, the SIT has refused investigation into serious offenses of hate speech and communal writing. They have confined their assessment to one or two speeches of accused No.1 or any other accused rather than systematically looking at the speeches made by accused No.1 and the co-accused in the complaint, office bearers and members of the ruling BJP, VHP, RSS and Bajrang Dal. What makes this matter even more scandalous is the fact that the Gujarat police State Intelligence Bureau records themselves contain ample such examples of incendiary speeches that were used as a tool and part of the conspiracy to generate heated mobs to commit violence against innocent members of the minority community in different districts of the state.

589. At page 158 to 159, Annex. III File XIX a fax. Message Mes.D2/15/HM/285/2002 records that at 00.50 hrs on 28.2.2002, i.e., within 16 hours of the tragic Godhra incident a „Patrika’ was being circulated in Vadodara city by the VHP. The message also records that one Muslim was killed at Vadodara railway station by Kar sevaks on that day and a meeting was arranged by Vadodara city BJP President Shabada Sharma Bhrahmabhatt at the party city office on 28.2.2002 between 2100 and 2200 hrs.

590. Despite imposition of curfew in the city of Vadodara from the early hours of 28.2.2002, the ACP(Int) Baroda region informs the head office at Gandhinagar that leaders of BJP including Rajesh Parekh Bal and others came in a crowd in Lakhipura at 1023 hrs on 28.2.2002 (Page 116 Annex.,III File XIX Fax. Mess. Mes/D2/com/288/2002). Again at page No.114, the message indicates that Vadodara region curfew is made a mockery. A Muslim person is stabbed with a knife in the neck and chest and dies. (Kareribag

261

police station ICR No. 42/02). This information is contained at page 14 of Annex.III File XIX) Fax Mes. SIB/D-2/com/289/ 2002). Again, two hours later in Vadodara, VHP workers are allowed by the police to gather at Dabhoi and organise Ram Dhun shouting aggressive slogans by A-48 commissioner of police Vadodara, D.D. Tuteja despite curfew having been imposed. It is obvious that the curfew was reduced to a farce. (Page 99 Annex.III File XIX) Fax. Mes. I B/D-2/Com/291 /2002.

591. The message of the State IB at page 135-136, Annex, III File XIX, Fax. Message D-2/Com/Banav/295 clearly observes that the police in Vadodara did not impose curfew with any seriousness. The message also states that the police were negligent in its duty. Further the message describes that the Karjan main highway had been blocked by the Karjan VHP President Gajanand Ambalal Gandhi and other workers on 28.2.2002 from 1000 to 1030 hrs. This message was sent out by the Vadodara intelligence to Gandhinagar by 1247 hrs. But neither was the ADGP(int) D.C. Raigar questioned about this, nor was the DGP Chakravarti asked to explain. The statement recorded by the SIT of accused No 48. (Tuteja) also reflects no questioning on the lapses in the imposition of curfew by the Vadodara or any other police in the different districts of Gujarat that were badly affected.

592. One Muslim lady, Bismillaben Zuberkbhai and one unknown Muslim male were assaulted by a Hindu mob at 1000 hrs. Curfew was imposed in Patan city only at 1145 hrs (Page 168 Annexure III, File XIX, Fax. Messge Mes. Com/567/2002) dated 28.2.2002 sent at 1214 hrs.

593. Similarly the fax message D-G/HA/VHP/Bandh/291/02 at page 222, Annexure III File XIX sent from IB, CID, Bhavnagar describes how the VHP leader Shashi Prasad Dayashankar Jani, Advocate Bhupendra Ashtiq, advocate and Parilbahen ..., lead a mob that forcibly shuts down the market at 8.30 a.m. at Ghogha gate. Bhavnagar. The Kutch VHP president, Dr. K.G. Vaid along with members of the BJP and Bajrang Dal was similarly shutting down the market and even attacking the Shimla Doodh Dairy, fishing market and an advocate’s office. This is stated in the Intelligence message sent at 1.45 p.m. on 28.2.2002 that can be seen at page 230(Fax Mess) – 2/com/Takedan /426 /02.

262

594. At Chota Udaipur, Bapu Manojbhai Sharma gave a memorandum to the Collector (condolence ceremony of two minutes observed at 1930 hrs.). There was also a programme of Ram Dhun and a masjid was burnt at Makarpura at 1230 hrs. The IB message that can be read at page 81 of Annexure III File XIX, message 13/D2/Com/Banav/2002 was sent out on 28.2.2002 at 1418 hrs from ACP, State IB Vadodara region to Gandhinagar. At page 216 of Annexure III File XIX, Fax. Mess. D-2/HA/Bandh/315/02, dated 28.2.2002 states that at 31 cities rallies was organised under the leadership of Gopalnandji Lalit Sukhadia, President of the VHP and Chandreshbhai Sharma of Bajrang Dal at which Prabhari K.K. Parekhia, VHP President Junagadh and Harjivan Dholaiya and Pradipbhai Khemani of BJP and Jutibhai Bindi of the RSS were also present.

595. It was after the funeral procession of Kanjiben Dapakhia Deshpande at the Jyoti society at 1000 hrs on 28.2.2002 when the mob and attacked the Makarpura Masjid. The State IB message at page 178 of Annex.III File XIX, Fax. Mess. IB/D-5/Com/294 sent out at 1714 hrs on 28.2.2002 makes an observation that though the police was present at Makarpura they did not take any steps. The message also mentions that curfew was imposed at Limdi village at Dahod district at 1300 hrs. In the remark section of this message the IB officer states it needs to be check whether Priyaben Deshpande was a Kar Sevak or not. It is clear from this message, as from many other such messages, that every single person who lost his or her life on 27.2.2002 in the tragic incident of S-6 Sabarmati express coach at Godhra, and whose bodies were sent back to the different districts where they came from, the funeral processions of these persons were appropriated by the ruling BJP and VHP to convert them into parading ceremony where violence could be unleashed.

Lawlessness spreading on 27.2.2002

596. Apart from the various locations and districts mentioned above, further analysis of the State Intelligence Bureau contained in Annexure III File XXIII D-155) at page No. 78 and 171 clearly points to the fact that the Intelligence wing of the Gujarat police was not only aware but was promptly and systematically informing their seniors in Gandhinagar about the aggressive behaviour of the organisations like VHP, the BJP (ruling party) and the Bhartiya

263

Kisan Singh which is the wing of BJP and RSS. At 1.52 p.m. on 27.2.2002, a message sent from the Bhuj ACP (Int) to ADGP (Int) Gandhinagar states that both in Palanpur and Deesa workers of the VHP, BJP and BKS under the leadership of VHP Mahamantri Shashikant Patel were behaving aggressively and already forcing shops and businesses to close down.

597. There is a similar warning message about possible problem arising out of the Godhra burning incident sent by Surat Intelligence (K. Morabia) on 27.2.2002 (Page 173). This message is a warning about the possible violence that followed.

598. In the file of the Investigation papers contained in Annexure III File XIV (D-166), there are similar messages that go out from the ADGP (Int), Gujarat State office in Gandhinagar to all SPs of various districts including West Port, Vadodara (possibly a short form for the railway police located at Vadodara). Though the timing of this message is not clear from the record this message details arson incident at Godhra. It states that the train Sabarmati express which arrived at Godhra at 7.15 a.m. from Ayodhya had Kar Sevaks who were raising slogans. The message further adds that a mob of Muslims gathered and started pelting stones and set it on fire. Finally the message warns that “all districts and town which are communally sensitive should take all precautions and police bandobast should be maintained”. It may be pointed out here that investigation has shown that ADGP(Int) at that time G.C. Raigar was on leave and at that specific point DCP(Int) P.B. Upadhyaya (Int-Communal) and DCP-Int (S) Sanjiv Bhat was deputing.

28.2.2002

599. Phone call records for 28.2.2002 of Dinesh Togadia, brother of Accused No. 20 Praveen Togadia, international general secretary of the VHP show that of the 45 phone records, he is in close touch with DCP Zone I, RJ Savani: at 11:26:04 (15 seconds), also to Dr Maya Kodnani at 11:55:47 (128 seconds); and also with another accused Mukesh Patel at 14:38:17 (50 seconds), 14:45:39 (55 seconds), and 15:01:40 (44 seconds). Dinesh Togadia who ran the Dhanvantri Hospital was also in close touch with Accused No. 5, MOS for Home, Gordhan Zadaphiya, at 20:16:23 (109 seconds).

264

600. The Government was complicit. The Chief Minister and his cabinet colleagues not only aggravated the situation but also thereafter ensured that the police did not effectively intervene or prevent the rioters from their unlawful and heinous acts. The consequent inactivity of its officers -- District Magistrates, Collectors & Police Officials -- created a situation where the rioters were enabled and emboldened to attack, kill hapless Muslims, molest and rape women and to destroy their houses and property.

601. After the unfortunate attack on the Sabarmati express at Godhra, the Chief Minister instead of taking precautionary and preventive steps, insisted on the dead bodies being brought by road to Ahmedabad and being displayed there - including bodies of those who did not belong to Ahmedabad. He did so notwithstanding the objections of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. This was narrated to Mr. R. B. Sreekumar then ADGP–SBI (CID-IB) by Mr. Chakravarti (DG) on 28.2.2002 and has been stated by Mr. Sreekumar in his Affidavit filed before the Nanavati-Shah Commission. As was only to be expected, this necessarily inflamed passions and provided the impetus for the riots that followed.

602. From the 28th morning rampaging mobs of those associated with the Bajrang Dal, VHP, BJP attacked Muslim localities, houses and business establishments. Muslim men were brutalised and killed and women were raped before being killed. Gory murders, rapes and molestations took place at:

1. Gulberg Society, Chamanpura (where 70 persons including Ex-MP Jafri were killed and 10–12 women were raped in a mob attack which lasted for 7 hours - till 4.30 p.m. Jafri had made numerous calls for help to the Commissioner P C Pande, to the Home Minister and the Chief Minister. At about 2.30, Jafri was stripped, paraded naked and cut into pieces. Police stood by and did not even try to stop the rioters. The Chief Minister who was dismissive of Jafri’s calls for help later attributed the violence to firing by Jafri. Minimal police intervention took place only after 4.30 p.m.

265

2. Naroda Gaon, Naroda Patiya (where 96 men women and children were massacred (according to the charge sheet, deaths actually 127)and a

number of women were raped, killed and burnt. P.I. Mysorewala and the SRPF jawans present provided no assistance to the victims. Instead, they taunted them and forced them towards the rioting mob & death.

3. Panchmahal, Dailol, where a number of Muslims attempting to flee were killed and women raped.

4. Anand (where 27 persons were burnt alive on March 1 and 2, 2002).

5. Mehsana where Muslims were killed in Visnagarandelectrocutedin

Sardarpura.

6. Dahod where men were killed and women raped.

7. Sabarkantha (where 60-65 persons attempting to flee in two tempos were burnt alive).

8. Patan, where two boys were shot dead and the FIR named the BJP MLA of Radhanpur and the chief of the BJP’s Radhanpur unit and other VHP and BD members.

9. Vadodara (where 14 people were burnt alive at the Best Bakery).

266

10. Vadodara Rural, Bharuch, Kheda, Bhavnagar, Rajkot and many other places.

603. The Police were either absent and/or inactive, or actually supported the rioters by shooting any Muslim offering any resistance. Significantly on Feb 28th in Ahmedabad, of the 40 persons shot dead by the police, 36 were Muslims – although it was the Muslim community which was being targeted by huge well armed mobs. Repeated calls to the Commissioner of Police Ahmedabad and even the Chief Minster resulted in no assistance or response. The murders, mayhem, molestations and rape took place openly over several hours. Details of these heinous crimes have been recorded in the report of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal (CCT). The CCT report has been signed by all members, including Justices (retd.) VR Krishna Iyer, PB Sawant and Hosbet Suresh.

604. The next day, i.e., on 1.3.2002 is the day when violent attacks take place in the different districts of Gujarat. February 28, 2002 was devoted to mass massacre at Naroda Patia, Gulbarga society at Ahmedabad though scattered incidents of violence had already started. From Friday, March 1, 2002 onwards the same conspiracy was extended and unleashed in the districts of Mehsana (Sardarpura incident), Limkheda (Randhikpur), Sancheti (Bilkis Bano incident), Pandharwada village (Panchmahal district), Kidiad, Limbadia Chowki, Ghodasar (Khera district), Sesan (Banaskantha district), Eral (Dahod district), Anjanwa, Pipra Darwaza (Mehsana district), Best Bakery (Vadodara) and Dailol. These are only some of the sites of the major massacres that were organised in a calculated manner on 1.3.2002.

605. At page 59 of Annexure File XIX, Fax Message IB/Dahod/Com/304, dated 1.3.2002, 1734 hrs, message records that in the village Bankadi, dist. Dahod, Limkheda, a church was burned down and children were kidnapped. The same message records that in Vadodara city under Makarba police station area in Avdhoot Nagar, a mob surrounded Muslim homes and burnt 5 persons alive.

606. Under the leadership of the VHP President, Shantilal Ramdan and BJP’s Ramjibhai Padalia, a memorandum was given to the Collector and a condolence meeting organised on 28.2.2002. This can be read at page 183 of Annexure III File XIX, Fax message D7/HA/VH P/G uj. Band h/Ral ly/69/02). It is likely that this was to delay

267

parading funeral procession of the victims who hailed from Porbandar. The SIT should have questioned K.K. Sharon who was the Intelligence officer who has sent his message to ascertain whether a public display was made over these processions.

Police and Administrative Complicity

607. I say and submit that one of the serious allegations in the complaint that seeks to build a pattern of command responsibility relates to the ground level inaction by senior policemen allegedly instructed to inaction and complicity by the conspiracy at the top. Victims got no response despite scores of distress calls made to senior police officials. Survivors from Naroda Patiya made over a hundred distress calls to PC Pande, then commissioner of police but his mobile was always switched off. There was a similar callous response from most of the additional CPs and DCPs of Ahmedabad city. In many instances policemen even aided mobs in their lawlessness. There are contradictions between the SIT Preliminary Report and the ConclusionssubmittedbeforetheLd

Magistrate.

608. I say and submit that the former Ahmedabad joint commissioner of police, MK Tandon, in whose area around 200 Muslims were killed, has been found guilty of deliberate dereliction of duty. (Following the 2002 riots. however, far from being censored or worse, he got one powerful promotion after another until he retired as additional DGP in June 2007). His junior, former DCP, PB Gondia has also been found guilty of allowing the massacres. But for from any penal action, he today holds the powerful post of IGP, state CID. I say and submit that the SIT says that if the two had carried out their duty, hundreds of Muslims could have been saved. (Pages 48-50 of the Preliminary Report, 12.5.2012).

609. I say and submit that until investigation by SIT was ordered on the complaint dated 8.6.2006 contained in the Special Leave Petition 1088/2008 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, neither of these officers was in any way held to account by the Gujarat government. Even today we as victim survivors are agitating the trial court hearing the Gulberg massacre case to get these officers arraigned as accused. The SIT found that senior police inspector, KG Erda, had kept his superiors informed in good time. Yet, strangely enough, in the

268

Gulberg case it is Erda, not his superiors, who have been charge-sheeted.

610. I say and submit that the SIT Comments and Observations in 2010 are as under: “The then DCP, Zone-IV (Gondia), under whose jurisdiction Meghaninagar and Naroda Patiya police stations were located, it is well established, did not visit Gulberg Society before 16:00 hrs. In my view, Gondia virtually ran away from Naroda Patiya at 14:20 hours when the situation was very serious and virtually uncontrollable and also did not reach Gulberg Society despite the distress calls made by police inspector Erda and instructions given by Tandon and Pande. Gondia had also received three calls on his mobile phone from Dr. Mayaben Kodnani on 28- 02-2002, 01-03-2002 & 02-03-2002 at 1039 hrs, 1339 hrs & 1249 hrs respectively. He had also received three calls on 28-02-2002 at 11:40 hrs, 11:52 hrs & 12:20 hrs, two calls on 01-03-2002 at 10:04 hrs & 11:35 hrs and two calls on 02-03-2002 at 11:56 hrs & 1848 hrs from accused Jaideep Patel, for which Gondia has not been able to give any explanation”. (Page 44-51 of the Preliminary Report)

SIT on Role of Tandon (Jt CP), 2010 SIT:

611. “The plea/defence put forward by Tandon is far from satisfactory. As per the call detail records of his mobile phone, his location remained in Bapunagar-Rakhial area between 12:25 hrs to 13:24 hrs. Further, he remained in Revdibazar, Relief road areas (Dariyapur P.S. and Kalupur P.S.) between 13:51 hrs to 15:42 hrs. His location was noticed at Meghaninagar only at 16:28 hrs.” The FIRs of serious cases of mass massacre under his jurisdiction were also scrutinised by the SIT. “The FIRs were registered only on 15- 03-2002, i.e., after a period of 15 days and as such the same had been manipulated by way of receiving complaints from three PSIs of Dariyapur P.S. with a view to match the timings of the incident of Gulberg Society on 28-02-2002 to enable Tandon to explain his absence from Gulberg Society...”

269

612. “The delay in the registration of these four cases needs explanation. After going through the FIRs it is found that there is no mention about the presence of Jt. CP, Sector-II at the spot... The explanation given by Tandon for his absence from the Gulberg Society despite the distress messages received from PI Erda is totally unconvincing and will not cut any ground”.

613. “Last but not the least, Tandon had received two calls on 01-03- 2002 at 11:37 hrs for 250 seconds and 12:56 for 161 seconds from accused Jaideep Patel and two calls on 01-03-2002 at 14:58 hrs for 32 seconds and at 19:04 hrs for 61 seconds from accused Smt. Mayaben Kodnani for which he has not been able to give any satisfactory reply”. (Pages 44-51 of the Preliminary Report, SIT, 2010).

614. “It is evident that Tandon and Gondia did not visit Gulberg Society under various pretexts. Moreover, both of them were in touch with the main accused persons, namely, Mayaben Kodnani and Jaideep Patel. This is suspicious”. (Page 44-51 of the Preliminary Report, 2010).

615. The SIT concluded in its preliminary report that their role needs to be further investigated in Gulberg Society and Naroda Patiya case u/s 173 (8) CrPC. (Page 51 of the Preliminary Report). However I say and submit that I am shocked that the SIT has shifted/changed its assessment dramatically two years later reflecting a clear-cut bias.

616. I say and submit that in between, further investigation was conducted by the SIT after the amicus curiae’s recommendation that Tandon and Gondia be prosecuted under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (culpable homicide not amounting to murder). However, after a superficial probe, ignoring the highly incriminating findings of the preliminary inquiry, SIT concludes that the recommended prosecution “may not be possible”. In February 2012, the SIT, is forced to concede that the actions of Tandon and Gondia were questionable. However, in its view a simple departmental inquiry was all that was called for. Going back on its own earlier findings, SIT now also exonerates Tandon and Gondia for being in close telephonic contact with two accused persons: Dr. Mayaben Kodnani and Shri Jaideep Patel. (Page 496 of the SIT’s conclusions dated 8.2.2012 submitted before the Learned Magistrate)

270

SIT- Role of Tandon

617.“In case of Tandon, certain actions on his part suggest his bonafide

intentions to control the riots. Initially, he visited Gulberg Society and lobbed tear gas shells and dispersed the mob. Subsequently he proceeded to Naroda Patiya and on his advice curfew was imposed in Naroda Patiya area by the commissioner of police. Further, from Naroda Patiya area, he went to Dariyapur which was communally very sensitive. (Page 496 of the SIT’s conclusions dated 8.2.2012 submitted before the Learned Magistrate). “Objective assessment of the situation reveals that Tandon did not appreciate the circumstances professionally and acted in a negligent manner by not taking any appropriate action about the grave situation at Gulberg Society/Naroda Patiya area. It would not be out of place to mention here that Tandon was very well aware about the situation at Gulberg Society in as much as he had sent a message to the police control room at 1405 hrs on 28.02.2002, that late Ahsan Jafri and others had been surrounded by a mob and were required to be shifted immediately. Despite the fact that he was well aware of the inflammatory situation at Gulberg Society, yet he chose not to go there”. (Page 497 of the SIT SIT’s conclusions dated 8.2.2012 submitted before the Learned Magistrate).

SIT- Role of Gondia

617. “Investigation has further revealed that Gondia had left Naroda Patiya at 1420 hrs despite the fact that a huge of mob of Hindu and Muslim rioters had gathered there while the curfew was in force. His leaving the location for Pithaliya Bambha was totally unjustified, especially when there was no information of any situation being graver there than at Naroda Patiya. In case Gondia realized that he was in a position to leave the location, then he should have gone to Gulberg Society and not to Pithaliya Bambha.” (Page 498-499 of the SIT’s conclusions dated 8.2.2012 submitted before the Learned Magistrate)...“The conduct of Tandon and Gondia was unprofessional and unbecoming of senior police officers”.

271

(However) the basic requirements for prosecution under the above section (304A) are that the acts (including omission) must be rash or negligent... Considering all the circumstances, evidence on record and the defence available with the suspect police officers (Tandon and Gondia) it may not be possible to prosecute them for the offence under section 304 (A) as proposed by amicus curiae... (Page 499-503 of the SIT’s conclusions dated 8.2.2012 submitted before the Learned Magistrate).

Important Documentary Evidence Deliberately Ignored by the SIT

Mesasges related to funeral processions

618. 12:30 pm on the 27th February an SIB officer through fax no 525 communicated to the headquarters that there were reports that some dead bodies would be brought to Kalupur Hospital station in Ahmedabad city. "So communal violence will occur in the city of Ahmedabad, So take preventive action."

619. Another SIB message numbered as Out/184/02 again warned about communal incidents if bodies were brought to Ahmedabad. "Communal violence will occur in the city. So take preventive action." the same message said that karsevaks had given explosive interviews to a TV station at Godhra and had threatened to unleash violence against the Muslims.

620. At 1:51 hours and again at 1:59 hours on the 28th February there were panic messages by wireless police vans positioned at Sola Hospital demanding immediate protection from Special Reserve Police platoons and the presence of DCP Zone 1.

621. Message at 2:44 hours on 28.2.2002, the motor cavalcade reached Sola Civil Hospital. Page No. 5790 of Annexure IV, File XIV reveals that at 04:00 am a mob comprising of 3000 swayamsevaks, that is the members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), had already gathered at the Civil Sola Hospital.

622. At 7:14 hours the PCR van again informs the Police Control Room that a large mob had assembled at the hospital. (Page 5796 of Annexure IV, File XIV of the documents).

272

623. Again another message three minutes later at 7:17 hours (Page 5797 of Annexure IV, File XIV of the documents) says that a mob of 500 people was holding up the traffic.

624. Ten bodies were taken to Ramol, an area near Naroda and a massive funeral rally of over 5 to 6000 mourners took the bodies to Hatkeshwar crematorium in the afternoon.

625. At 11:55 am a PCR message is sent out saying that the Hindu mob had become violent and had a vehicle on fire and was indulging in arson on the highway.

626. Message at 11.55 a.m. on 28.2.2002 (Page No. 6162 Annexure IV File XV) saying that “Sayyed Saheb, the Protocol Officer had informed Sola-1 that riots have started at Sola civil hospital at the High Court where the dead bodies were brought.”

627. Again, there is another message with no indication of time (Page No..6172 of 28.2.2002) that states that the officers and employees of the hospital had been surrounded by a 500 strong mob and they could not come out”. The message also made a demand for more security for the civil hospital at Sola. Annexure IV File XIV- Message No.. 5907 and 5925 dated 11:58 hrs on 28.2.2002) show that when 10 dead bodies were taken from Ramol Jantanagar to the Hatkeshwar cremation ground, a crowd of 5 to 6,000 persons accompanied this procession.

628. On the morning of 28.2.2002, a SIB message on page 258 of Annexure III File XIX, message No. Com/538/28/2/02 says that a funeral procession was allowed to take place at Khedbrahma, a town in Sabarkantha district. The message cited above states that soon after the funeral procession 2 Muslims on their way to Khedbrahma were stabbed and the situation had become very tense.

629. The subsequent message at page No. 262 of the same file (Annexure III File XIX) mentions that 150 Bajrang Dal workers were on their way from Ayodhya to Khedbrahma (20:30 hours).

630. Another message at page 254 (Annexure III file XIX) – Com/574/2002 sent out at 1532 hours on 28.2.2002 states that one more victim of the tragic train burning at Godhra, Babubhai Harjibhai Patel, resident at Kuvaghrol, Tal. Vadali in Sabarkantha

273

was brought back and a funeral procession was organised in the town.

Messages related to mass mobilisations and hate speeches

631. At page 365 of Annexure III File XXI( D-166) message No. 73/02 dated 28.2.2002 sent by the ACP(Intelligence) Surat Region to State Intelligence Bureau Headquarters at Gandhinagar says that between 9 to 10 hours on the morning of 28.2.2002 a meeting was held at Sardar Chowk in Vapi Town where Dinesh Kumar Behri of VHP and Acharya Brahmbatt of Bajrang Dal , Jawahar Desai of BJP and Vinod Chowdhary of RSS made inflammatory speeches regarding the incident at Godhra and called upon the Hindus to unite.

632. Another message at page 188 in Annexure III, File XVIII sent at 20:38 hours on the day of the Godhra train burning tragedy, i.e., 27.2.2002, mentions the following: “Dilip Trivedi the General Secretary of VHP and Joint Secretary Dr. Jaideep Patel and Kaushik Mehta in a Joint Statement issued by them have declared that innocent Ram Bhatt’s have been attacked and hence Gujarat Bandh has been declared. They have also stated that the attack on the Ramsevaks returning from Ayodhya was pre-planned by the Muslims. Innocent ladies were molested and compartments were set on fire and Ramsevaks were burnt alive.”

633. The joint statement issued by the three senior-most office bearers of Gujarat VHP’s unit was clearly designed to stoke communal passion. A reasonable response would have been an immediate government clampdown on such public utterances and if required putting all these trouble makers under preventive detention. But no such action was taken. The VHP called for a bandh on the 28th February and the BJP, the ruling party, openly supported the bandh call. The State instead of clamping down on the bandh call, gave the VHP leaders and its cadres a free reign and a license to kill.

634. At page 345, the message titled Vardhi No. 24 contained in Annexure III File XIX dated 27.2.2002 sent from D.O., Ahmedabad to the Intelligence Office at Virangam (Virangam is in Ahmedabad rural district) stated that 50 to 75 members of the VHP and Bajrang Dal had gathered at Virangam town chali and in the Golwada area and the situation was very tense.

274

635. Another message in the same file, i.e., Annexure III, File XVIII (D160) at Page No. 19 Message No. 531 ifrom SIB Police to KR Singh at 1810 hours on 27.2.2002 said that, “on 27.2. 2002 at 4.30 p.m . when the train arrived at the Ahmedabad Railway station, the kar sevaks were armed with „dandas’ and shouting murderous slogans „khoon ka badla khoon’ and „Bharat Mata ki Jai’. ”

636. Fax Mes. D-1/ HA/ Jaher Sabha/ Junagadh/ 311/02 dated.27.2.02 at10.12 pm sent by PI, CID, Int. Bhavnagar to IG, Guj. State IB, Gandhi Nagar said that Sadhu Samaj president Gopalnandji gave an agitated speech at Junagadh Kadva chowk, on dt.27.2.02 between19.30 to 21.00 hrs. The message then goes on to name specific local VHP leaders and says that they expressed their condolences to Kar Sevaks and then delivered hate speeches and called to unite all hindus and told the audience to cut the hands and legs of our enemies. They said in their speech that the incident occurred at Godhra in the morning at 7.30am but yet no any kind of reaction was seen from the Hindus which was very unfortunate. “Muslims who lives in India with sincerity and patriotism, we don’t have any agitation against them. But we have objections against those who lived in India and favoured Pakistan and carried out activites against the country. Anti- national activities are being done in Madrasas. We have objection against it. We do not have any kind of objection against spiritual religious education to the children. Pooja prathna at the temple and pray in the Masjid but Pakistan Zindabad is not right. Above mention ideas were expressed by them.”

637. Fax Mes. Com/HM/550/ 02 Dt.27.2.02 23:59 Out No.398 from ACP, Int. G’nagar Region to IG, Guj. State IB, Gandhi Nagar says that 50 Karsevaks travelling by a special bus from Ahmedabad reached Modasa center in village Vadagam at Taluka Dhansura at around 18:30 pm on 27.2.02. “They were received by a mob of 500 people and these kar sevaks addressed the mob and told the people how the compartment of Sabarmati Express was attacked. People present in the mob got excited and 21:30 hrs people from around the village gathered and the mob swelled to a huge size. To maintain the order the force was not sufficient and about 10 paan bidi shops were set on fire. Vehicles like jeep, maruti and

275

ambassador were set on fire. Vehicles and shops seem to belong to Muslims. One Yasinbhai Multani’s shop at Kalol center TaKadi, Bavlu PS village Kalyanpur was burnt down by the mob.

Stationing Ministers in the Control Room as Part of the Conspiracy Masterminded by A-1 Mr. Modi on 28.2.2002

638. This decision was obviously taken

To monitor riots/interfere in police functioning

To ensure police inaction

Muslim residential colonies, shops & establishments had been identified beforehand and these records were available with the marauding mobs.

639. A-25 Mr. K Chakravarti, then DGP – because of the instruction he received from A-1 Mr. Modi at the controversial meeting the night before on 28.2.2002 – does not perform his duties as statutorily required. There is no message from him after the said meeting to the police stations except one on blank paper not in the official format. This message too does not issue detailed and specific under the required Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) that includes step by step directions to all jurisdictional officers to deal with the law and order situation.. This shows that A-25 DGP Mr. K Chakravarti was working for A-1 .The fact that A-3, Mr. IK Jadeja was allowed to take control of the state control room at Gandhinagar on 28.2.2002 shows that A-25 Mr. K Chakravarti was effectively neutralized and A-1 had put his own man to direct what policeman should do/should not do. A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan ACS Home, manipulated the first information – and was abettor in the neutralization process in carrying out what A-1 Mr. Modi said. He gave no specific instructions to concerned police stations or officials about strict deterrent measures for maintenance of law and order. The fact that A-3 Mr. IK Jadeja was allowed to take control of the state control room at Gandhinagar on 28.2.2002 shows that A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti was effectively neutralized and A-1 had put his own man to direct what policeman should do/should not do. A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti stated before the Nanavati Commission that A28 Mr. Ashok Narayan informed him of the decision of the government that A-2 Mr. I K Jadeja Minister of Urban Development would sit in his office and says that this decision related to the law

276

and order situation. A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan says that no such instruction was given by A-1 the chief minister. A-2 Mr. IK Jadeja in his statement said that A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya had told him to remain present in the Police Bhavan (Gandhinagar, Police HQ) to receive information and if extra police force is required to pass on the same to the Home Department. Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya denied having given any such instruction. However, the fact remains that Mr. I K Jadeja was present in State control room at Gandhinagar. The statement of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt regarding presence of A-3 Mr. IK Jadeja in the police HQ state has been referred to by the SIT and accepted. However, SIT brushes aside the presence of A-3 Mr. Jadeja in the control room by stating that there is no evidence to prove that he interfered or gave any direction with regard to maintenance of “law and order” and therefore no offence is made out. The SIT does not say that even the very presence of the minister at the police control room was illegal and questionable and that it was part of a planned conspiracy because A-3 Mr. Jadeja was sent to police headquarters according to statement of A-3 Mr. Jadeja himself by MOS Home, A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya. A-1 was the Cabinet Minister for Home then and has been since 2002.

Panchmahals district, Godhra

640. It is critical to remember that Godhra district was the worst affected district in Gujarat after Ahmedabad. Relevant paragraphs of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal’s (CCT) Report at 6.3, 6.4 and 6.5, Volume II at Page 20 are relevant:

“6.3 A noticeable lapse in Godhra and the anticipation and handling of the violence was the blatant ignoring of the basic principles of law and order maintenance and governance in Godhra. There was utter and complete failure of law and order maintenance and governance, particularly given the chequered communal history of the town. An investigation into the background of Godhra shows that when disturbances erupted in 1965, the then collector promptly arrested both Muslims and Hindus whose names appeared in FIRs and within a couple of days the disturbance was curbed. Even after the October 1980 disturbances, the then collector Mrs. SK Verma had immediately put the miscreants behind bars. If a similar, no-nonsense and non-partisan approach had followed the Godhra incident of February 27, by promptly apprehending the suspected criminals, tension would have been contained. And the chances of

277

a vengeful and a highly organised spree of retaliatory killings that demonstrate every element of ethnic cleansing and genocide would have been pre-empted. That this did not happen suggests a lack of intent on the part of those in government to take prompt preventive measures in order to de-escalate the situation. In December 1992, a similar incident of provocation had occurred at Palej near Vadodara when the state police had cracked down on the Shiv Sainiks who had abused and provoked passengers and residents and thus squashed potential communal trouble within hours.

“6.4 In Godhra, there is always one SRP Company on duty. One Railway Protection Force contingent is posted on the railway station itself. In the RPF contingent, there are supposed to be 42 policemen in all. Generally, there are two constables per reserved compartment in a running train. The fact that karsevaks were expected by this route and the fact that Godhra has a fragile communal history were and are themselves enough for additional precautionary deployment. Besides, as a district headquarter, Godhra has a police HQ, armed police, control room, town police station with eight chowkies, all equipped with telephones plus a taluka police station. It is the HQ of SRP battalion too, and it has a municipal Fire Brigade. All these factors are enough to make any responsible citizen wonder why adequate preventive deployment was absent during the Godhra arson.

“6.5 The Tribunal met and recorded the evidence of both the collector and DySP of the Panchmahals district of which Godhra town is the district headquarters. It is clear from the evidence recorded by us that on February 27, after the Godhra tragedy, though the Rapid Action Force (RAF) was called in, no adequate powers were given to it. Though curfew was declared in Godhra, the RAF men were made to sit in the officers’ mess, helpless, unable to do anything. It appears that though the Fire Brigade station is only 5 minutes away from the railway station, it took a while for the fire brigade to reach the torched coach. That day, there were only 3 SRP men on duty; of the 111 GRP (Government Railway Police) officers stationed at Godhra, only 2 or 3 were on duty. Two GRP jawans reached the spot within minutes; it is a matter of serious conjecture why they did not fire shots to disperse the mob.

278

641. The SIT has simply not concerned itself with examining the gravity and spread of incidents post-Godhra in the Panchmahals or any other district. In none of the statements of Mrs. Jayanti Ravi recorded by the SIT on 15.9.2009, (Annexure I, Volume I of the SIT papers), 26.10.2009 and 03.11.2009, (Annexure I, Volume I of the SIT papers) and 13.12.2010 (Annexure I, Volume II).

642. Only through a careful co-relation and analysis of these, district wise, could an assessment have been made of the fallout of the conspiracy hatched and put into operation after the tragedy at Godhra happened. Statement I annexed to Godhra DM Mrs. Jayanti Ravi’s affidavit reveals there were as many as 101 deaths officially recorded in the district on 28.2.2002 itself. There were a huge number of migrants with as many as 7,569 persons from the minority community being shifted to the relief camp at Godhra. According to the annexure to her affidavit, Mrs. Jayanti Ravi has stated that curfew was declared in Godhra from at about 10:55 a.m. but no other part of the district. There have been no questions put to her for this lapse. It appears from the chart that curfew and prohibitive orders were not operative in many parts of the district.

643. Panchmahal was the worst affected district after Ahmedabad in the extent and brutality of the killings that took place right up to mid-late March 2002 after the train fire tragedy at the Godhra railway station on 27.2.2002. In her affidavit and deposition made before the Nanavati Commission, Collector & DM of the District, Mrs. Jayanti Ravi states that Sabarmati express train had arrived at the Godhra railway station 4 hours 58 minutes after its scheduled time of arrival. (The affidavit dated 7.6.2002 and deposition dated 6.1.2003 respectively are available at Annexure III, File X, D-106 in the SIT papers). To explain, the schedule time of arrival of Sabarmati express strain from Ayodhya Faizabad is 2:55 a.m. but on 27.2.2002 it arrived at 7:43 a.m. In the first information provided by her to A-1 (chief minister’s office), A-28 and A-34 (home department) and the Revenue department at Gandhinagar, the provocative sloganeering by kar sevaks leading to the stone throwing has been mentioned. After stopping at the station for about 4 minutes according to the affidavit of the Collector, the train started for Baroda at 7.48 minutes. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi mentions that there were 2 incidents of chain pulling that took place, the first time somebody pulled the chain when only three or four compartments had left the station. Within seconds the train restarted and when it

279

had reached 1 km away, again somebody pulled the chain when it had stopped near Signal Falia. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi says that as per the telephonic message received by her at 8:26 a.m. from the SP Godhra, stones were being thrown by local elements on the Karsevaks returning from Ayodhya and as the fire took place in the Sabarmati Express train approximately 200 to 300 passengers got crushed at the railway station and some of them were injured. A representation had been made to make arrangement to convey them safely to Ahmedabad and their respective stations by road. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi states that after being informed of the incident by the SP, Raju Bhargava (A-46), at 8:26 a.m., she had immediately contacted the Additional Chief Secretary Home, Gandhinagar, Principal Secretary Revenue, Gandhinagar and the Chief Minister’s office Gandhinagar. From this it appeared that the A-1 Chief Minister would have been in the knowledge of this incident by 8:45 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi states that to ensure that the injured persons got immediate treatment she had told the civil surgeon at the Godhra hospital to send a Mobile van with a team of doctors to the place of incident. Moreover, the Collector and the District Magistrate Mrs. Jayanti Ravi states that she had instructed the Nagarpalika Godhra, Kalol, Limdawada to send the fire brigade and had also consulted the Regional Transport Officers of Godhra ST to make arrangement for ST buses to convey the passengers who are pouring out of the compartments to their respective stations. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi states that she had instructed the Dy. Collector, Election Office, Godhra, Dy. Collector, ADM Godhra, sub-divisional officer, Godhra and Mamlatdar, Godhra for the relief work and maintenance of law and order. Further she said that given the fact that Sub Divisional Officer Godhra was on leave on the day of incident, and she had instructed that the supply officer Godhra should take over the work of the sub-divisional magistrate at Godhra.

644. Paragraphs 1.8, 1.9, 1.10, 2.1 and 2.2 of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal Report at Pages 13, 14 and 15 Volume II titled „Godhra’ are relevant. The Report is part of the Investigation papers at Annexure III, File I:

1.8 It may be stated at this stage that the full capacity of the train is 1,100. But in fact the train at that time had about 2,000 passengers, of which about 1,700 were karsevaks. As far as Coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express is concerned, the reservation

280

capacity is 72. However, it was jam-packed on that day. Only one coach was burned and even in that coach one is not sure how many passengers were karsevaks. The train had 11 coaches with vestibule connection and the karsevaks were spread all over the train. So why did anyone target Coach S-6? If 2,000 Muslims had gathered there, could they not have attacked the other coaches? Again, did anyone try to come out from the other coaches? If it is reasonably presumed that some of the passengers, including karsevaks, rushed out, did anyone attack them? On all these questions there is no satisfactory answer.

1.9 In all, 58 bodies were found in S-6 compartment out of which 26 were that of women, 12 of children and 20 of men. It appears that 43 persons sustained injuries of which only five were admitted to the hospital. The rest were treated for minor injuries like bruises, and were allowed to go. Out of the five admitted in the hospital, one died, and the rest were discharged after 3 or 4 days.

1.10 Since the bodies were charred beyond recognition, it was not possible to identify anyone on the basis of physical features. The collector of Godhra told the Tribunal that only five bodies could be identified on the basis of articles or things that were on their person. One was the local stationmaster’s wife who had boarded the train at Godhra to go to Baroda. She had a metal tiffin box in her hand and she was thus identified. Thus, no one could say with certainty that the dead bodies were all of karsevaks.

2. Mystery of the fire

2.1A very significant fact is that coach S-6 was the only one that

got burnt. The fire did not even spread to the other coaches. It is also not clear whether the train was stopped because of the fire in the coach or the coach was set on fire after the train stopped. If it was the latter, why was the train stopped at all? It is reasonable to presume that because of the fire in the coach, someone must have pulled the chain and the engine driver stopped the train.

2.2 As the train left Godhra station, the windows and doors of S-6 were all closed. Since there was stone throwing on the train, it is reasonable to presume that similar was the situation in all the other coaches. In other words, as the train stopped, nobody from outside was in a position to identify any particular person in any particular

281

coach, so as to target any particular person/s. If the target was karsevaks, they were overwhelmingly present in the entire train and the whole train could have been set on fire. The fact that the fire did not even spread to the remaining coaches is a clear indication that the fire originated in that compartment itself. That also explains why only persons in that coach died. In all probability, as the fire broke out, there was extreme panic, and the compartment being overpacked, many of the able-bodied persons managed to escape through the vestibules to the other coaches, leaving mostly women and children behind, who must have succumbed to the smoke and the suffocation and fell down in a pile, one over the other. The evidence also suggests that the passengers had stacked their belongings against the doors and it was just not possible for anyone to escape from or enter into the coach.

645. Within minutes of the incident, i.e., by 8:50 a.m. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi had reached the place of incident and had begun the relief work. She states that the fire fighter ambulance had come with a team of doctors and immediately 43 injured persons had been removed to the hospital for treatment. She had also made arrangement for food packets and drinking water for other passengers. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi states that while ST buses had already arrived for their transportation, following conversation made with the local authority as also after telephonic talk with the higher officers in Mumbai, Baroda and Delhi, it was decided to convey the passengers who had got left out of the train not by road but by train on account of safety. This means that there appears to have been a collective assessment that it was better not to transport them by road.

646.Mrs. Jayanti Ravi kept in touch with three point officers in Gandhinagar and had also demanded additional police force. She states that as per the information she was given later, the police had to fire 30 tear gas shells and 22 rounds of shots to control the mob and 2 persons had died from the crowd. Curfew had been declared in Godhra at 10:55 a.m. and the SP of Godhra (A-46), Mr. Raju Bhargava, was instructed to maintain law and order. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi states that the work of extinguishing the fire was still going on and it had become possible to douse the inside of the said compartment only at 12:00 noon. She states that she entered the entrance of the said coach and the fire was still being extinguished while there was smoke everywhere. Immediately, 30 dead bodies were found. At this stage coach No S-5 (which had sustained

282

partial damage and S-6 (which was completely burnt) were detached from the train and the remainder of the bogeys and train were joined and the train allowed to depart to Ahmedabad at 12.40 p.m. (These facts stated by Mrs. Ravi in her affidavit corroborate the messages of the State IB received and sent recording that the train that left Godhra arrived at Kalupur railway station around about 3:00 p.m. on 27.2.2002). What is not clear however is whether there were only injured persons or even some dead bodies on that train).

647. This fax message at Sr No 242 contains the following details. This fax message (Fax No 21008 No Mag/Ws/550/2002 dated 27.2.2002 annexed by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi to her affidavit and available in SIT papers) states that the fire brigade of Kalol Mahanagar Palika were used to douse the fire in coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express. The driver of the Kalol Mahanagar Palika had responded promptly. There are several blank portions of the message suggesting that crucial paragraphs cannot be read. The affidavit of Mrs. Jayanti Ravi also states that it was Kalol Mahanagar Palika’s fire brigade that was summoned and which extinguished the fire. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi states in her affidavit that as per the conversation she had with the local authority and with the officers of the railway police in Baroda, Mumbai, Delhi, passengers on the rest of the train were conveyed to Ahmedabad by them immediately. She also states that 30 tear gas shells and 22 rounds of firing had to be used to quell the mob in which 2 persons had died from the crowd. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi states that A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt Minister of Health and Family Welfare was the one who gave her instructions about his talk with the Prime Minister etc.

648. According to Mrs. Jayanti Ravi’s affidavit she had discussions with co-accused A-4 Mr. Prabhatsinh Chauhan, Minister for Civil Aviation and Tourism and co-accused A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya, MOS Home and had discussions about the law and order situation. She clearly states in her affidavit that before and after discussions with the Chief Minister’s office, A-1 who visited the site the decision to convey the corpses from Godhra to Ahmedabad were taken, that those identified corpses would be sent to the relevant districts, and even those who were unidentified would be sent along with the others to the Sola Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. She admits through her affidavit, a fact that is now relevant through the information provided to the complainant “wireless message from PCR van” as

283

well as “SIB filed reports” that a total of 5 corpses who belonged to Sanpadia, Tal. Khanpur, Dist. Panchmahal, Dahod and Vadodara were given to their heirs and sent by road to these districts. The documentary evidence clearly shows that in these different locations too aggressive funeral processions had been held by the collaborative VHP and BJP obviously to ensure that public anger was fanned about the tragedy at Godhra. She clearly states that at 22:30 hours on 27.2.2002, 54of the 58 corpses were sent by the VHP Gujarat Secretary, A-21 Mr. Jaideep Patel (A-21) along with police escort to Ahmedabad.

649. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi’s affidavit also contains details about the instructions given by her to all Mamlatdars, Sub-Divisional officers of Godhra district to remain present in the control room and to take precautionary measures for the maintenance of law and order. She states that since VHP had given call for the bandh on 28.2.2002 she had instructed A-46, Mr Raju Bhargava, the Superintendent Police also a co-accused to keep special vigilance in sensitive areas and round up anti-social elements. She also states that she had instructed them to take all possible steps for successful imposition of prohibitive orders and curfew.

Delay in Calling the Army

650. It is clear from her affidavit that the very first time that Mrs. Jayanti Ravi even asks for the army is on 1.3.2002 and the first time that the army reaches Godhra is early morning of 2.3.2002, that too in Godhra city. It must be noted here that the wide scale of barbaric violence that took place in the Panchmahal district, of which Godhra is the district Headquarters, and over which Mrs. Jayanti Ravi had constitutional responsibility to maintain law and order had erupted already on 27.2.2002, 28.2.2002 and worst of all, on 1.3.2002. The SIB messages that have been analysed which are part of the investigation show that the Intelligence Wing of the police was already warning of communal mobilisation build up from 27.2.2002 onwards. However, it is a matter to be noted that the Collector, D.M. and the A-46 S.P. did not think it necessary that the rural areas in the Panchmahal district that were being racked by violence should be protected. This can be deciphered from a further affirmation in the affidavit that after the army reached Godhra form Ahmadabad in the early morning of 2.3.2002 she arranged a meeting with them at 9:00 a.m. at which it was decided to conduct

284

flag march rescue operation and to open 8 of the main roads for movement and for constant patrolling. She further adds that the army had conducted the flag march as also “rescue operations at difference places”.

651. Her affidavit states that the army, RAF, SRP, local police and district administration together had rescued 7,569 persons of the minority community and shifted them to several places, and that these safe places - 10 relief camps gave shelter to 10,872 persons. Ten thousand persons displaced is a massive number and yet she has not been asked by the SIT about the effectiveness and the promptness of her overall response. Clearly it was wanting. She does not however enumerate in her affidavit when and where these widespread acts of violence in the Panchmahal district had taken place.

652. It is only when you peruse the communication sent to the ACS Home dated 28.2.2002 that one can make a list of the different incidents that started in the Panchmahal district from 27.2.2002 onwards.

STATEMENT –1

NoName of TalukaName of villageDateNumber of deaths

1KhanpurPandharwada28-2-021

2GhoghambaRajgadh1

3KalolKalol4

4KhanpurPandharwada21

5KhanpurKhanpur1

6KadanaDivda colony1

7KalolKalol4

8HalolHalol4

9GhoghambaRanjitnagar1

10GhoghambaKothaydi1

11Morva (Hadaf)Deloch1

12KhanpurLimadiya15

13SantrampurRayaniya4

285

14Kalolkalol14

15GhoghambaRanjitnagar1

16LunawadaLunawada1

17HalolAbhetwa1

18HalolRameshra2

19SantrampurBatakwada1

20GhoghambaVavnimuwadi1

21KalolAeral7

22SantrampurAnjanwa11

23KadanaRathda1

24GodhraGodhra1

25GodhraGodhra1

Total101

Sd/-

Dist Magistrate

Panchmahal Godhra

STATEMENT —2

The statement showing the detail with regard to shifting the persons to safe places by doing the work of saving by Dist. Administration, police and army. Dist. Panchmahal, at the end of 31-5-02.

NoName of villageNumberofpersons

shifted to safe place

123

1Godhra1,065

2Mora465

3Malwan70

4Aeral60

5Pandharwada22

286

6Kalol1,032

7Boru1130

8Derol station203

9Derol18

10Pratappura5

11Lunawada843

12Santrampur1199

13Limadiya50

14Ghoghamba314

15Antalwada130

16Biliya13

17Patapur12

18Anjanwa126

19Ramshera34

20Movasa85

21Shivrajpur14

22Shahera76

23Rajgadh16

24Jambughoda4

25Karanta29

26Vandeli19

27Malav186

28Aeral220

29Delol149

Total7569 (7592)

Sd/-

Dist. Magistrate Panchmahal Godhra.

287

STATEMENT –3

The details of curfew order issued under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code-1973 for the period from 27/2/2002 to 31/3/2002 in context with the Sabarmati Express train carnage took place on 27/2/2002 on Godhra railway station in the Godhra city area.

Sr. No.Order No./DateName of TalukaDetails of villages of TalukaTime of curfewTime of relaxation in curfewFor whom

1234567

1No.-U-MKM-PLS-WS, 2702 dated 27/2/2002GodhraEntire area of Godhra cityFor indefinite period from 10.00 am-For all

police chowky No.1 to 9

2No.-U-MKM-PLS-GO-MU-WS, 2702/676/1 dated 3/3/2002GodhraGodhra city-15-30 to 16- 00 hoursFor all

police chowky No.1,2,8,7

3No.-U-MKM-PLS-GO-MU-WS, 2702/676/2 dated 3/3/2002GodhraEntire areas falling under Godhra cityFor indefinite period from 16.00 hours-For all

police chowky No.1 to 9

4-GodhraNo order is passed from this office-15-00 to 17- 00 hoursFor all

5No.-U-MKM-PLS-GO-MU-WS, 2702/676/4 dated 8/3/2002GodhraEntire area of Godhra city-15-00 to 17- 00 hoursFor all

police chowky No.1 to 9

6No.-U-MKM-PLS-GO-MU-WS, 2702/676/5 dated 9/3/2002GodhraGodhra city area-8-00 to 12- 00 hoursFor all

7No.-U-MKM-PLS-GO-MU-WS, 2702/676/7 dated 9/3/2002 until further ordersGodhraEntire area of-For full timeFor all

only chowky No.

8 and 9 of

Godhra city area

8No.-U-MKM-PLS-GO-MU-WS, 2702/676/8 dated 10/3/2002GodhraEntire area of chowky No. 1 to 7 of Godhra city area-From 9-00 am to 15-00 pmFor all

9No.-U-MKM-PLS-GO-MU-WS, 2702/676/9 dated 11/3/2002 until further ordersGodhraEntire area of chowky No. 1 to 7 of Godhra city area-From 7-00 am to 19-00 pmFor all

10No.-U-MKM-PLS-GO-MU-WS, 2702/676/10 dated 17/3/2002 until further ordersGodhraEntire area of chowky No. 1 to 7 of Godhra city area-From 6-00 am to 21-00 pm

11No.-U-MKM-PLS-KA-WS, 2703 dated 28/2/2002KalolDelol, Kalol, Vejalpur and Derol areas of Kalol taluka ofFor indefinite period from 12-00 noon-For all

288

Panchmahal District

12No.-U-MKM-PLS-KA-MU-WS, 2703/1 dated 5/3/2002KalolKalol (Burough) area-From 16-00 pm to 18-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

Vejalpur-From 15-00 pm to 18-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

13No.-U-MKM-PLS-KA-MU-WS, 2703/2 dated 6/3/2002KalolKalol Nagar Panchayat (Burough) area-From 10-00 am to 14-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

Derol station-From 11-00 am to 14-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

Delol-From 11-00 am to 14-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

Vejalpur-From 11-00 am to 18-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

14No.-U-MKM-PLS-KA-MU-WS, 2703/3 dated 6/3/2002KalolKalol Nagar Panchayat (Burough) area-From 16-00 am to 18-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

15No.-U-MKM-PLS-HA-WS, 2704 dated 28/2/2002HalolKalol Nagar Palika area of Panchmahal DistrictFor indefinite period from 17-25 hours-Only for children and ladies

16No.-U-MKM-PLS-HA-WS, 2704/1 dated 4/3/2002Halol1. Area of Arad road to Swaminarayan chowky and-From 13-00 pm to 15-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

Kothi faliya towards east

2. All society area towards west of Vadodara--From 13-00 pm to 15-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

Godhra road and other area

1. All part of Kasba area. Internal area-From 15-00 pm to 16-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

1. Area from Swaminarayan temple to Jain temple (Main Bazar)-From 16-00 pm to 18-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

2. Part of area between Main bazar Bombay House to Godhra road-From 16-00 pm to 18-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

17No.-U-Halol1. Area-FromOnly for children and ladies

MKM-PLS-HA-MU-WS, 2704/2 dated 5/3/2002of Arad road to12-00 noon

Swaminarayanto 15-00 pm

289

chowky and Kothi faliya towards east

2. All society area towards west of Vadodara--From 12-00 noon to 15- 00 pmOnly for children and ladies

Godhra road and other area

3. All part of Kasba area. Internal area-From 12-00 noon to 15- 00 pmOnly for children and ladies

1. Area from Swaminarayan temple to Jain temple (Main Bazar)-From 15-00 pm to 18-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

2. Part of area between Main bazar Bombay House to Godhra road-From 15-00 pm to 18-00 pmOnly for children and ladies

18No.-U-MKM-PLS-HA-MU-WS, 2704/3 dated 6/3/2002HalolEntire area of Halol Nagar Palika-From 12-00 noon to 18- 00 pmOnly for children and ladies

19No.-U-MKM-PLS-MO(H)-WS, 2706 dated 2/3/2002Morwa (H)Areas of Mora, Rampur (Kasanpur), Natapur, Morwa (H) of Morwa (H) taluka ofFor-For all

Panchmahal Districtindefinite period from 15-40 pm

20No.-U-MKM-PLS-MO(H)-WS, 2706/1 dated 4/3/2002Morwa (H) datedCurfew relaxation in the entire area of Rampur (Kasanpur), Natapur, Morwa (H) village-Permanently from 22-00 pm onwardsFor all

4/3/2002

FromCurfew relaxation in the entire area of Mora village-Daily from 7-00 am to 18-00 pm onlyFor all

5/3/2002 until

further

orders

21No.-U-MKM-PLS-GHO-WS, 2705 dated 28/2/2002Ghogham baGhoghambaFor indefinite period from 23-15 pm-For all

Gram Panchayat area

22No.-U-MKM-PLS-GHO-MU- WS, 2705/1 dated 5/3/2002Ghogham baGhoghambaFrom 16-00 pm to 18-00 pmOnly for ladies and children

Gram Panchayat area

ATTESTED BYSd/-Illegible

Sd/-IllegibleSub-Divisional Magistrate,

Executive Magistrate, Godhra Prant, Godhra. Godhra, Dist. Pms.

290

Statement showing the details of curfew imposed in Lunawada Sub-Divisional area. (As on 31-3-2002)

Sr.No.Order No. and DateTalukaName of village falling under curfewTime of curfewTime of relaxation in CurfewCeasu re of curfew

1234567

1. No.PLS-MJS- WS, dt. 28-2- 2002Lunawada Nagarpalika areaLunawadaFor indefinite period from 2.00 am (night)--

2. No.PLS-MJS-~Towards north from-From 9-00 to 10-00-

WS, 632 dt. 6-3- 2002Polan School and towards south fromFrom 11-00 to 12-00

Polan School

3. No.PLS-MJS-~--From 8-00 to 12-00-

WS, 633 dt. 6-3-

2002

4. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 643 dt. 7-3-~--8-3-2002 From 7-00 to 13-00-

2002

5. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 651 dt. 8-3-~--9-3-2002 From 7-00 to 14-00-

2002

6. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 653 dt. 9-3-~--10-3-2002 From 6-00 to 16-00-

2002

7. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 656 dt. 10-~--11-3-2002 From 5-00 to 17-00-

3-2002

8. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 664 dt. 11-~--12-3-2002 From 5-00 to 19-00-

3-2002

9. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 667 dt. 12-~--13-3-2002 From 5-00 to 20-00-

3-2002

10. No.PLS-MJS- WS, dt. 13-3-~--14-3-2002 From 5-00 to 22-00-

2002

11. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 706 dt. 14-Lunawada Nagarpalika--15-3-2002 From 5-00 to 22-00-

3-2002

12. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 714 dt. 15-~--16-3-2002 From 5-00 to 22-00-

3-2002

13. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 733 dt. 16-~--17-3-2002 From 5-00 to 24-00-

3-2002

14. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 735 dt. 17-~--18-3-2002 From 5-00 to 24-00-

3-2002

15. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 736 dt. 18-~--19-3-2002 From 5-00 to 24-00-

3-2002

16. No.PLS-MJS-~--20-3-2002 to 26-3--

291

WS, 739 dt. 19- 3-20022002 From 5-00 to 24-00

17. No.PLS-MJS-~--27-3-2002 to 3-4--

WS, 747 dt. 26-2002 From 5-00 t 24-

3-200200

18. No.PLS-MJS- WS, 579 dt. 1-3-SantrampurSantrampurFor indefinite period from 1-3---

Nagarpalika

2002Burough area2002 18-30 pm

19. No.PLS-MJS-~~-5-3-2002 From 11-30-

WS, 627 dt. 5-3-to 12-30

2002

20. No.PLS-MJS-~~-6-3-2002 From 11-00-

WS, 629 dt. 5-3-to 13-00

2002

21. No.PLS-MJS-~~-7-3-2002 From 9-00-

WS, 634 dt. 6-3-to 12-00

2002

22. No.PLS-MJS-~~-8-3-2002 From 9-00-

WS, 642 dt. 7-3-to 17-00

2002

23. No.PLS-MJS-SantrampurSantrampur-9-3-2002 From 9-00-

WS, 644 dt. 7-3-Nagarpalikato 12-00

2002Burough area

23.No.PLS-MJS-~~-8-3-2002 From 13-30-

WS, 648 dt. 8-3-to 14-30

2002

24. No.PLS-MJS-~~-9-3-2002 From 9-00-

WS, 649 dt. 8-3-to 17-00

2002

25. No.PLS-MJS-~~-10-3-2002 From 9-00-

WS, 652 dt. 9-3-to 18-00

2002

26. No.PLS-MJS-~~-11-3-2002 From 8-00-

WS, 655 dt. 10-to 19-00

3-2002

27. No.PLS-MJS-~~-12-3-2002 From 8-00-

WS, 663 dt. 11-to 19-00

3-2002

28. No.PLS-MJS-~~-13-3-2002 From 7-00-

WS, 666 dt. 12-to 20-00

3-2002

29. No.PLS-MJS-~~-14-3-2002 From 7-00-

WS, dt. 13-3-to 20-00

2002

30. No.PLS-MJS-~~-15-3-2002 From 7-00-

WS, 705 dt. 14-to 20-00

3-2002

31. No.PLS-MJS-~~-16-3-2002 From 7-00-

WS, 711 dt. 15-to 20-00

3-2002

32. No.PLS-MJS-~~-17-3-2002 From 7-00-

WS, 732 dt. 16-to 20-00

3-2002

33. No.PLS-MJS-~~-18-3-2002 From 7-00-

WS, 734 dt. 17-to 20-00

292

3-2002

34. No.PLS-MJS-SantrampurSantrampur-19-3-2002 From 7-00-

WS, 737 dt. 18-Nagarpalikato 20-00

3-2002Burough area

35. No.PLS-MJS-~~-20-3-2002 From 7-00-

WS, 738 dt. 19-to 20-00

3-2002

36. No.PLS-MJS-~~-21-3-2002 to 24-3--

WS, 741 dt. 20-2002 From 7-00 to

3-200220-00

37. No.PLS-MJS-~~-24-3-2002From 7--

WS, 745 dt. 24-00 to 21-00

3-2002

38. No.PLS-MJS-~~-25-3-2002 to 26-3--

WS, 744 dt. 24-2002From 7-00 to

3-200221-00

27-3-2002From 7--

00 to 22-00

28-3-2002From 7--

00 to 23-00

39. No.PLS-MJS-~~-29-3-2002 to 31-3--

WS, 782 dt. 28-2002From 7-00 to

3-200222-00

Sd/-

Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lunawada

ATTESTED BY

Sd/-Illegible

Executive Magistrate

Godhra Dist. Pms.

653. As stated above, the Statement No.1 clearly admits that as many as 101 reprisals killing had already taken place in the district at 25 locations on 28.2.2002 itself. The question that begs examination then is why did the District Collector, Mrs. Jayanti Ravi ask for the army only on 1.3.2002. Another moot question is why the SIT has simply not bothered to analyse this co-relation between conspiracy hatched and violent fall-outs in districts.

654. A communication by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi to A-28 ACS Home, Mr. Ashok Narayan reveals that already on 27.2.2002 acts of aggression against members of the minority community in the district had begun.

293

655. At Dairol, Tal. Kalol on 27.2.2002, unknown persons had burnt down the saw mill, all planned using wood tracts and wires, a crowd of 60 to 70 persons had set fire to the shops and galas and Idgah belonging to the minority community. The PSI at Lunawada even had to fire one round to disperse the crowd using 8 shells. Several crowds had gathered all over Godhra city on 27.2.2002 itself. An interesting message sent by the DM Mrs. Jayanti Ravi to the A-46, SP, Mr. Raju Bhargava and copy to the ACS, Home Department is very revealing. It states that despite her instructions by telephone and fax and wireless regarding the serious situation of break-down of law and order at Godhra, Kalol, Halol had Lunawadi Tal. of the district “ the same is not being taken seriously at your level and by the officers under your control”. She thereafter tells the SP that he should strictly implement her instructions that suggest that he is not doing so. The SIT has however simply not bothered to question her or A-46 Raju Bhargava in this matter.

656. Another fax message from the DM Mrs. Jayanti Ravi to the ACS, Home dated 1.3.2002 lists the following incidents that took place under her command from 27.2.2002: She states that an unlawful assembly of 200 to 300 unknown persons gathered and attacked the MM Bohra Service Station, a factory in the name of Navjivan Paints, a garage, tea cabin and East India Motors and Shops on the Chitra Road. She clearly states that this offence occurred during the Gujarat bandh of 28.2.2002 establishing that curfew and prohibitive orders were being violated even here. She states that attacks were also made on the members of the minority community at Vaghipur of Shahera Tal. Rinchaya village of Ramjighat police station of Ghoghamba Tal. where one Mr. Haji Ganibhai Aslambhai aged 65 years had even died due to the attack.

657. Several incidents of arson as mentioned by her had taken place in her district, namely in the Santrampur police station area, in the Pandharwada village in the Naglod village, in the Halol GIDC area etc. She states in this communication that the situation in her district is very tense. Several messages of 1.3.2002 and 2.3.2002 issued by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi’s office indicate that various villages of her district were under siege of violence on 1.3.2002 and 2.3.2002. It is a moot question therefore why the army that came in by the late night on 1.3.2002 was not immediately despatched to these areas. The record of the DM’s office shows that the first

294

communication to the ACS Home about the attacks on Pandharwada village (this caused death officially of 21 persons in the most brutal fashion on 1.3.2002) was on 2.3.2002. News of this ghastly incident however was relayed much later. Similarly, a 2.3.2002 communication sent by DM, Mrs. Ravi to the Accused No. 28 (ACS Home) enumerates incidents up to 16.3.2002, containing details of an incident that has led to killing and attacks on sections of the population.

658. Despite the army arriving in Godhra city and a flag march being conducted from 2.3.2002 onwards, it is clear from other fax messages attached by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi to her affidavit before the Nanavati commission that even on 3.3.2002 the minority was under attack, e.g., a village Palla, Tal. Ghoghamba. Another fax message No 607 dated 3.3.2002 further enumerated six incidents where the minority was under attack in Panchmahal district. These tables can be referred to from the SIT papers.

659. An order of the Collector, Mrs. Jayanti Ravi contained in message No 585 states that the following officers were appointed by her to perform duty as Liaison Officers in the Talukas — (i) Mr. MD Parmar, Dy. Director, Animal Husbandry, Godhra was put in charge of the Ghoghamba Tal, Mr. MB Patel, Director District Leal Development Agency was put in charge of the Khanpur Tal(Bakor), Mr. MS Bidor, Collector, Stamp Duty, Godhra was put in charge of Halol Tal., Mr. PM Machhar, District Town Planning Officer, Godhra was put in charge of Tal. Kalol, Mr. ML Desai, Dy. Conservator of Forest, Godhra was put in charge of Morva (H) Tal., Mr. SK Nanda, Dy. Conservator of Forest (SV), Dohrar was put in charge of the Kadana Tal., Mr. HK Upadhyaya, Dy. Director Development Officer, Panchayat Godhra was put in charge of Santrampur Tal., Mr. RB Shah, Dy. District Development Officer (Rev), District. Panchayat Godhra was put in charge of Shahera Tal. and Mr. NM Tabiyar, Dist. Registrar (SM), Godhra was put in charge of the Jambughoda Tal. of the district. This order of the DM also spoke of the powers under Section 144 of the CrPC to issue prohibitive orders normally with the SEM to be also given to these officers. Surely a genuine investigation by the SIT under the order of the Honourable Supreme Court should have compelled it to record the statement of all these 9 liaison officers. The fact that SIT has not done their job is further example of completely lacklustre, superficial and biased investigation that was not intended to get to

295

the bottom of the truth but simply to hide the role of the powerful accused. A subsequent message contained in the annexures of Mrs. Jayanti Ravi’s affidavit No 586 dated 3.3.002 gives the powers to ensure prohibitive orders to these liaison officers. It would appear therefore that attempts were made by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi at the time to delegate the crucial talks of maintenance of law and order, including effective implementation of prohibitive orders to deputed officers and it would have been incumbent on the SIT to probe this. It also appears therefore that S.P. Panchmahal, A-46 Mr. Raju Bhargava, was clearly not performing his statutory duties. This was clearly part of the conspiracy to allow unchecked violence to be perpetrated shamelessly on the minority community.

660. A further communication by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi which is also communicated to the ACS Home in Gandhinagar A-28 states that 5 persons were appointed by her to specifically look after and supervise the maintenance of law and order in Lunawada Taluka – Mr. PP Patel, AME, R&B, Lunawada, Mr. P.M. Patel, AME R&B Lunawada, Mr. BR Patel, Small Irrigation Lunawada, Mr. MN Parmar, DO, Tal. Panchayat Lunawada and Mr. AB Panchal, Dy. EE, Bhadar Kanal SD Lunawada.

661. It is clear from this message that repeatedly the Collector is trying to enlist the support of her district administrative officers to ensure law and order is maintained which suggest a complete breakdown on the part of the district police.

VIOLENCE CONTINUES EVEN AFTER 28.2.2002

662. In a gory incident that took place in Kalol district was when 7 Muslim persons were burnt alive on 1.3.2002. The IB message can be read at page 82 of Annexure III File XIX Fax Message. IB/D2/com/306/2002.

663. A further communication by the DM to ACS Home Gandhinagar lists 13 serious incidents of communal violence that were registered by the Godhra police on 2.3.2002 (message No 609 dated 4.3.2002). Similarly, message No 620 dated 5.3.2002 lists another 13 incidents that have taken place in the Panchmahal district that resulted in death, serious injuries and destruction of properties and place of worship of minority community. The SIT should have meticulously co-related whether the home department under A-1 Mr

296

Modi was relaying messages faithfully to the public or not including the MHA New Delhi. MHA New Delhi and the Governor of Gujarat’s office repeatedly refer to discrepancy in figures supplied by the home department under A-1 (SIB figures give a different picture) and non response to distress calls and memorandums being made by citizens of the minority community from all over Gujarat. If the SIT had carried out an honest exercise district by district it could have arrived at a realistic assessment of whether and where honest, sincere and lawful efforts were made by the DMs, SPs and collectors and where they were deliberately not. The SIT has simply not done this clearly violating its required mandate. Apart from bias and unprofessionalism, SIT has shown a tardiness that does not befit the through and intrepid role that it was expected to play.

664. The continuing distress, agony and insecurity being experienced by the minority community in the Panchmahal district continues right up to and beyond 5.3.2002 when according to the message No 619 by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi to ACS Home, details of the situation and continuing the curfew orders is given. Another message No MAG/Vashi/636 dated 7.3.2002 sent by DM and Collector Mrs. Jayanti Ravi to ACS Home in Gandhinagar is a detailed tabulation running into several pages. This message lists the gravity of the incident and the number of rounds that needed to be fired by the SP even on 4.3.2002 at Santrampur. In the table that is contained as part of this communication, there is mention of the seriousness of the situation due to which there are deaths on the account of firing by the army. Two separate incidents recorded in CR No 22 of 2002 and 21 of 2002, both dated 4.3.2002 state that one death was caused because of firing by the army at Rajghar police station.

665.Anarchy and involvement of official persons in violence can be

gauged by the fact that an attack on Ghoghamba was conducted by not less than the Mamlatdar of the village and other locals. (CR 22/ 202). In other cases, an armed person along with a crowd of 50 had to be stopped in their track by the army. Such incidents on 4.3.2002 in which the army had to intervene including the one in Santrampur (see table annexed (C.R. No 38 of 202 dated 4.3.02, CR No 39/02 dated 4.3.202, 40/02 and 41/02 dated 4.3.2002, 37/02 of 4.3.2002, the one on Morva (H) (CR No 23 of 02 dated 4.3.202); CR No 24 of 02 dated 4.3.2002. These cases registered by the police record the aggressive attacks that continued in Morwa and Santrampur and other parts of the district right up to 5.3.2002. This means that

297

despite the presence of the army attacks by aggressive mobs were taking place. This is communicated by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi in her letter MAG/Vashi/6364 dated 7.3.2002. There are over 16 serious attacks on the members of the minority community by aggressive mobs in Santrampur, Sehra, Rajgharh, Halol, Godhra Tal. Shambughoda, Ditvar as late as 5.3.2002 and 6.3.2002. It is however strange that while all the details have been supplied by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi the exact distribution and deployment of army columns throughout the district does not appear to be there.

666. In any case that was the job SIT ought to have done applying a district by district assessment of when army was summoned, scale of the violence, when it arrived, when it became operational etc. This is why the SIT did not despite repeated reminders by the co-petitioners not record any statements from the Army or seek any records about army deployment at all.

667. A table listing offences that occurred in the Panchmahal on 7.3.2002 show that 7 serious incidents have taken place in Godhra Tal. Morwa, Halol and Khambughoda Tal. A further communication contained in fax message No MAG/Vashi/653 dated 11 .3.2002 lists a few incidents that were recorded even on 8.3.2002. Another document contained in the Annexure lists the offence as registered on 9.3.02. This is a comprehensive list of offences registered on 2.3.2002 and others on 9.3.02 and some even before. This message contains details of the visit of Jamiat-e-Ulema leaders to the Godhra relief camp and Godhra train burning site on 11.15 a.m. on 9.3.2002.

668. Interestingly, a subsequent communication from the DM’s office contained a list of incidents that occurred in various parts of the Panchmahal district on 27.2.02 that have been provided to her by the Godhra police letter No MAG/ Vashi/654. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi’s statement recorded by SIT on 15.9.2011 clearly states that A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt and Mr. Bhupendra Lakhawala, the Guardian Minister for the District, arrived before hand and that disconnecting of the two bogies effected and the train left Godhra around 14:00 p.m. for its destination. She states that she received the information that the A-1 the Chief Minister was arriving at Godhra by helicopter and it was somewhere between 1600-1700 hours, that he arrived in Godhra accompanied by his OSD Mr. Anil Mukim. As per protocol, she proceeded to the helipad along with A-2 then health minister

298

and from the helipad they went to the scene of the occurrence outside the railway station. By this time A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya, then Minister of State for Home and A-4 Mr. Prabhatsinh Chauhan had also arrived as also administrative and the police officers including the then IG of the Godhra Range, Mr. Deepak Swaroop. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi now states before SIT (a departure from her earlier statements to the Concerned Citizens Tribunal and that made by her on affidavit before the Nanavati Commission) that it was a unanimous decision to take the bodies of the kar sevaks to Ahmedabad by road. However, in May 2002 before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal and importantly in her affidavit to the Nanavati Commission dated 7.6.2002, i.e., within months of the incident she had stated that as per the discussions made with him it was decided to convey the corpses to Ahmedabad. In her statement before the SIT she very casually states that transportation of these dead bodies numbering more than 50 were arranged in trucks on the night of 27.2.2002 and that it was Dr Jaideep Patel, Gujarat General secretary of VHP who accompanied these bodies. (At this stage there is no attempt at all in her statement to place the blame for handing over the bodies to a non-governmental person, moreover to a person from a rabidly communal organisation like the VHP on the Mamlatdar, Mr. ML Nalvaya. After the first statement of Mrs. Jayanti Ravi had been recorded on 15.9.2009 the SIT investigation proceeded to record the statement of the Mamlatdar on 28.10.2009. Mysteriously, 12 days before this, a further statement of Mrs. Jayanti Ravi is recorded which according to the dates mentioned at the start of the statement suggests that it began to be recorded on 22.10.2009 and then continued after a gap of 7 days on 3.11.2009. In between the short statement that was recorded by her the SIT has recorded Mr. M. L. Nalvaya’s statement.

669. She now states in her statement dated 26.10.2009 and 3.11.2009 that four of the identified dead bodies of the deceased from the district of Dahod, Vadodara, Panchmahal and Anand were handed over to the heirs or guardians after identification. (Earlier she had stated that 5 bodies had been identified at Godhra). She confirms in her statement that Dr. Jaideep Patel had accompanied the bodies that had left Godhra by road at 2240 hours.

299

670. She states in her further statement that she has been shown a copy of the letter dated 27.2.2002 (a contemporaneous document fresh on the date of the incident) addressed by Mr. M.L. Nalvaya, Mamlatdar, Executive Magistrate to A-21 Mr. Jaideep Patel in which he mentions that 54 dead bodies were being sent in 5 trucks as detailed in the letter. Suddenly, Mrs. Jayanti Ravi who had consistently maintained from 2002 onwards, before the Concerned Citizens Tribunal, then in her affidavit submitted before the Nanavati Commission and also in her first statement before the SIT dated 15.9.09, now claims that it was a collective decision taken by the A-1 along with others and that a unanimous view was taken to transport the bodies to Ahmedabad and Dr. Jaideep Patel was to be handed over these bodies. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi suddenly tries to shift the responsibility for the handing over of bodies to VHP persons, Dr. Jaideep Patel and Mr. Hasmukh Patel on to a low level officer, i.e., the Mamlatdar. She now tries to suggest that the letter in question produced by Mr. M L Nalvaya was sent without her knowledge and tries to explain away the above position by saying that an impression is sought to be given that Dr. Jaideep Patel accompanied the bodies because many of those dead were VHP members. At this stage, the SIT apparently asks her about the statement given to the Concerned Citizens Tribunal, she conveniently states that the statement was recorded before Ms. Teesta Setalvad and Ms. Aruna Roy, ignoring the fact that Justice PB Sawant, retired Supreme Court Judge, and Justice Hosbet Suresh, retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, who headed the Tribunal were the ones who had closely questioned her about the incidents in 2002. Justice Sawant and Justice Suresh have also recorded their statement before SIT.

671. On 28.10.2009 the statement of Mr. ML Nalvaya is recorded. He states that he was posted as Mamlatdar and Executive Magistrate between 2002 and 2004. He states that after arrangements were made for the crime minister and other emergency arrangements following the incident of train burning at Godhra, 4 dead bodies were identified by their relatives and handed over to them as per the orders of both the DM Mrs. Jayanti Ravi and ADM, late Mr. BN Damor. He states that these 4 dead bodies were arranged to be transported through 2 ambulances, one Maruti van and a tempo to their respective places at Anand, Dahod, Vadodara and Lumawadi, Panchmahal. The remaining 54 bodies could not be identified and as such, according to Mr. ML Nalvaya, Mrs. Jayanti Ravi, DM

300

Godhra and late Mr. Damor ordered that these should be transported to Ahmadabad. He further states that as per the instructions given by both the DM and the ADM, these dead bodies were officially handed over to Dr. Jaideep Patel and Mr. Hasmukh Patel of VHP through a letter dated 27.2.2002. He confirmed the letter shown to him by the SIT that was addressed to Dr Jaideep Patel and the same bears his signature, which he confirms too. He states that this letter had been prepared by one of the staff members and it was accompanied by a list of dead bodies which were tagged. The receipt of the dead bodies was acknowledged by Mr. Hasmukh Patel of VHP who had signed the letter in his presence. He states that neither A-21 Mr. Jaideep Patel nor Mr. Hasmukh Patel was known to him and these dead bodies were handed over as per the instructions of the DM and the then ADM, Godhra. He states that he is not aware who the police officer accompanying/ escorting the dead bodies to Ahmadabad was. He also states that the facts have been stated by him in his affidavit submitted to the Nanavati Commission in response to a clarification sought by the Commission and a copy of this affidavit was produced by him on the date of the recording of the statement, i.e., on 28.10.2009. He also stated that a report in this regard was also seen by Mr. Damor, then ADM, to the Addl. Chief Secretary Home Department on 27.2.2002, a copy of which he also produced.

MISSING RECORD

672. Produced here is a copy of a letter dated 27.2.2002 addressed to A-21 Mr. Jaideep Patel bearing Mr. ML Nalvaya’s signature concerning the receipt of the dead bodies accompanied by Mr. Hasmukh Patel, neither of the reports were sent by the ADM, ACS Home on 27.2.2002... all copies produced by Mr. M L Nalvaya before the Nanavati Commission should also be given to the complainant (formally) as part of the investigation papers. The court should summon these documents. These have not been made available by the SIT.

673. There is a further statement recorded by Mr. M L Nalvaya after Mrs. Jayanti Ravi’s statement. Obviously this statement is now recorded by Mr. Himanshu Shukla, in the further investigation. In response to a specific question regarding the Inquest Panchnama of all the dead bodies and the post mortem missing of the dead bodies and those killed inside S-6 coach, Mr. ML Nalvaya clearly

301

states that these post mortem examinations were conducted by the doctors of the Godhra civil hospital in the railway yard of Godhra railway station itself. In reply to the specific question about handing over of the 54 unidentified dead bodies, he again clearly states that the D.M. Mrs. Jayanti Ravi gave him oral instructions to make the necessary arrangement for the transporting of the dead bodies to Ahmedabad and that on the basis of this oral instructions of both Mrs. Jayanti Ravi and Mr. BN Damor he had officially handed over the 54 unidentified bodies to Dr Jaideep Patel and Mr. Hasmukh Patel and moreover had taken their signatures on the receipt.

674. However, when interrogated by Mr. Himanshu Shukla, DCP Crime Branch (who now mysteriously takes over the SIT investigation), about whether local police escorted the trucks carrying the dead bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad Mr. ML Nalvaya had stated that as far as he recollects local police had been given the responsibility for escorting the truck carrying the dead bodies but he could not recollect the name of the officer. He states in his statement before Mr. Himanshu Shukla, DCP Crime Branch, Ahmedabad that he had officially handed over 54 dead bodies of the victims to Dr Jaideep Patel and Mr. Hasmukh Patel of the VHP and had taken their signature on the receipt. When asked under which legal provision he had handed over the dead bodies to private individuals when bodies were the case property and the offense registered for the Godhra railway police station, Mr. ML Nalvaya replies that he is not aware of any legal provision which authorises him to hand over the dead bodies which were the case property of the police to private individuals. He adds however that due to law and order situation at Godhra it was the then DM and ADM who had instructed him to hand over the dead bodies to Dr Jaideep Patel and Mr. Hasmukh Patel. He further states that he does not know them personally and adds that when he had asked about the identity of these two they had identified themselves as workers of VHP which was responsible for arrangement of the to and fro movement of Karsevaks from Ahmedabad to Ayodhya.

675. When asked whether he had any discussions with his senior officers and the reasons behind handing over of the dead bodies to the workers of VHP instead of relatives as per the proper procedure, Mr. Nalvaya states that there was no discussion regarding the handing over of the dead bodies to private individuals instead of their relatives. He also stated that he has no knowledge

302

of any discussions between the Chief Minister and Dr Jaideep Patel on 27.2.2002.

676. Mr. M L Nalvaya filed a detailed affidavit before the Nanavati Shah Commission following his interrogation by the SIT. This affidavit of Mr. ML Nalvaya can be read in the SIT papers. The letter dated 2.2.2002 addressed by Mr. M L Nalvaya, Mamlatdar, to A-21 Mr Jaideep Patel that was part of his affidavit to the Nanavati Commission can be found at D-43, Annexure III File IV. This letter at the outset states that the corpses from the S-6 Sabarmati Express train had been despatched to Ahmedabad in the following vehicles – GJ-16-7 9253-12, GJ-17-7 7557-15, GJ-17-T 7327-12, GJ-17-7 5055-12 and GJ-17 X 3225-3. The affidavit of Mr. Mahendrabhai Laljibhai Nalvaya submitted to Nanavati Commission is dated 5.9.2008. He states that around 8:00 a.m. on 27.2.2002, the Sabarmati Express was passing by Godhra station and due to the fire that was caused and after this incident he had filed an affidavit dated 3.6.2002. According to this affidavit, he says that it was Mrs. Jayanti Ravi, IAS officer and District Magistrate along with Mr. BN Damor, ADM, Panchmahal who had completed the formalities related to the identification of the said dead bodies after which he was orally told that the rest of the unidentified bodies should be sent under the police escort to the Sola Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad and that leader of the VHP Dr Jaideep Patel was to be handed over the bodies. A letter to this effect, No. Pulse/major/bodies/transportation/vashi/2002 dated 27.2.2002 was prepared and a receipt accepting the bodies was signed by Dr Jaideep Patel and Mr. Hasmukh Patel. In this connection Mr. ML Nalvaya also refers to the letter written by Mrs. Jayanti Ravi, No. AMAGE/Vashi/550 of 2002 written to the Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Mr. Ashok Narayan. “In this AHWAZ District magistrate has at 21:45 hours, after visiting the scene of the incident, sending the dead bodies at 22:20 hours.” This has been clearly stated in this letter that it was the DM who formally sent the dead bodies and it was at their oral instruction that they were handed over to the VHP person. Mr. ML Nalvaya, Mamlatdar at this stage hands over the communication between DM Mrs. Jayanti Ravi and ACS Home to the Nanavati Commission. This is on 5.9.2009. This communication to ACS Home by the District Magistrate Panchmahal, Mrs. Jayanti Ravi clearly states the following that she had sent off the dead bodies by 1020 (this is a fax message contained as annexures to her affidavit).

303

677. Interestingly, it is important to note that ACS Home A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan, was receiving these communications from various districts and whose statements have been recorded repeatedly by the SIT and which stated clearly in his statement before the SIT and again before the Nanavati Commission in his affidavit and deposition that it was a high level decision taken to transport the bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad (Deposition of Mr. Ashok Nayaran before the Nanavati Commission) There is another very interesting document available which is a document showing the details of various messages sent to the DSP Control Room (A-46 Mr. Raju Bhargava) from the control room of the District Magistrate.

678. This gives a detailed log of the kind of messages being sent from the DM’s office to her subordinates particularly in a district where there was widespread violence from 27.2.2002 right up to 18.3.2002. It was important for the SIT to evaluate details about the deployment of army to various places in the Panchmahal district. This district was among the worst affected and close to the geographical site of the tragic Godhra train burning incident. No such details of the army deployment had been sought or provided by the SIT.

Message about Violence in Bhavnagar

679. Another message on page 149 at Annexure III File XXIV D-166, message No 306/02 dated 1.3.2002 is significant. It is a message sent from the ACP (Int), Junagadh region to ADGP, Gandhinagar. The message mentions that on that day, i.e. 1.3.2002, workers of the Shiv Sena under the leadership of Mr. Ramabhai Ahir and ... Mr. Bhatt met at 16:00 hours at Goga gate Chowk. Thereafter at 16:30 hours a rally of Sants and Swayamsevaks (priests and RSS workers) was taken out and vehicles arrived with this rally at Tapsi Bhavaniwadi, accompanied by Sant Tripaldas, Shri Ramchandra Dagji, KP Swami of Swami Narayan sect Mr. Dharnesbhai was also there for about 14 minutes during which Tripaldas Maharaj, according to the State IB made a very inflammatory speech saying that the Hindu Shastras demanded that Hindus should use Shastra (weapons) and deal with foul with foul means. The message says that the Collector of Bhavnagar after this speech at 17:59 hours was given a memorandum. This memorandum (as part of the calculated conspiracy post-Godhra), according to the SIB message says that Madrasas were running in the city and preaching hatred

304

against the Hindus. The message says that the memorandum demanded that the Madrasas should be closed. The SIB message says that after giving the memorandum to DM/Collector of Bhavnagar, the mob went towards Navarangpur and thereafter near the Kabristhan, the cabin belonging to Muslims was set on fire and a shop of oil and vehicle was also set on fire. The message records that the situation in Bhuj after this communal mobilisation is very tense.

680. This officer saved the lives of 400 children living in the madrasas. Was this warning of communal and hatred speeches mentioned by Mr. Rahul Sharma so that he could take action. It is clear from this message that was recorded at Junagadh that some plans were afoot and they publicly stated about the possible attack on madrasa. How far is Junagadh from Bhavnagar? Why did Junagadh not erupt in violence? Again this message is evidence of the State Intelligence Bureau being fully aware of the intentions of communal organisations. The SIT ignores this documentary evidence at Page 40, Message No P/1/HA/297/02 Annexure III File XX dated 1.3.2002 it is clear that Mr. Mahant Ramchandra Das had through a press note given to Gujarat Samachar in Bhavnagar, stated that a huge rally of Sadhus and Sants would be taken out there. The press note, according to the State Intelligence Bureau message, mentioned above stated that they would move along the main road chanting „Jai Sri Ram!’. The SIB message mentions that no route was decided for this procession and no permission was given.

681. Was the DM Bhavnagar questioned about this intention of Sadhu Sant message declared on 1.3.2002 by SIT when they questioned them? Did the SIT question the DM Junagadh or SP Junagadh about the message mentioned in the earlier incident.

Mehsana

682. The fax message sent by the SI that can be read at page 17 of Annexure III File XX-(D-164), Fax Message IB/414/Info/402/02 dated 2.3.3002 sent from SP Mehsana to the ADGP (Int) at Gandhinagar is very important. This message gives details about the systematic attack on the Sheikh Mohalla at Sardarpura and moreover records how road blocks of stones and trees were put by the conspirators with certain amenable sections of the local police to prevent help from reaching the targeted victims. The message

305

states that violent mob had gathered at 19:45 hours and the mob which was 3 to 4000 strong had set fire to the cabin belonging to Muslims. The message sent by the SP also records that PSI Mr. Parmar fired one round and also requested State Mobile room for fire brigade and even had to send a Mobile van to get the fire brigade to reach the village. His efforts were obviously unsuccessful and at around 23:00 hours on 1.3.2002, 33 women, children and men had been burnt alive in a targeted attack at Sheikh Mohalla, Sardarpura. It is critical for the Learned Court to ascertain and analyse as to when A-1’s Public Relation machinery acknowledges this ghastly incident.

683. It is also important to analyse whether MHA that was being given twice a day report was informed about the incident which SIT has not done.None of the systematic attempts at provocation, hate speeches, communal mobilisation and build evidenced in SIB messages before 27.2.2002, on that day and thereafter from all over the State were at all conveyed by A-1 and the home department under him to the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Delhi. This was a deliberate act. The SIT has of course not looked into this aspect at all.

684. It appears from a perusal of the records that up to a certain date the messages going to the MHA were signed by ACS Home A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan. Thereafter, the messages to MHA began to be signed by Mr. PS Shah, Additional Secretary in the Home Department and not by A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan. Could this be because the messages of A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan were more candid and cautionary and were actually asking the A-25 DGP, Mr. K. Chakravarti to investigate all reports of continuing violence. Could it be that A-28 ACS Mr. Ashok Narayan was suddenly stopped from sending reports and Mr. PS Shah was given that duty in a calculated manner to sanitise and dilute the messages that went to Delhi.

685. The sheer scale of violence that was unleashed in the state of Gujarat was unprecedented in the history of reprisal communal violence in the country. Details of the state-wide violence have been given and elaborated upon using records provided by the investigating agency after great resistance and which have been deliberately ignored by them.

306

686. In all the cases there was deliberate inaction and neutralization of the police, no replies to distress calls for protection, neutralization of the fire brigade in all of these cases, use of inflammatory materials, trishuls and guns that should have been investigated systematically by the SIT. This was deliberately not done.

687. Breach of the prohibitory orders was allowed with impunity as part of the conspiracy, the Bandh calls, first for 28.2.2002 and then extended to 1.3.2002, provided a conducive environment for marauding mobs to have a free reign of the streets while the police watched. Worst of all, no arrests were made when the build-up was happening after the call to arms at Godhra on 27.2.2002. Not only were there no preventive arrests but even as large mobs were out, having taken full control of the streets, in cities and villages, secure in the impunity granted from the very top by A-1 Mr. Modi and Accused No. 5, Mr. Zadaphiya, the police in none of the cases made any arrests while the criminals were visible out in the open carrying out their murderous acts. Thereafter began yet another level of subversion, the delayed registration of offences, the dilution of the evidence, dropping the names of powerful accused etc.

688. Given the high trust placed in the SIT by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, they should have investigated every aspect and manifestation of the unfolding of the high level conspiracy. Their reluctance and failure to do so is a clear indication of their bias.

689. Even before the attacks on Sardarpura, Pandharwada, Best Bakery were allowed and took place, a SIB message dated 28.2.2002 at Message No.D-1/HA/VHP/83/02 at 10.53 hours, sends out a warning of the build-up at Mehsana. This message sent in the morning speaks of the efforts of the VHP in collusion with A-1, Mr. Modi to instigate persons. There are 400 plus supporters at this time and the SIB warns of the need for proper bandobast. A-36 AK Sharma has not been questioned on this at all.

690. Another message in the same file page no.126, Annexure III File XIX, Message no. D/9/SA/VHP/73/02 states that a meeting between 9.10 a.m. and 10 a.m. on 28.2.2002 was held at Vapi town by leaders of BJP, VHP, Bajrang Dal and RSS. Among the people present in the Sardar Chowk meeting at Vapi were Mr. Dinesh Kumar Vahar, Mr. Haryan Bhanushali, leader of Bajrang Dal, Mr. Jayashri Das of BJP, Mr. Vinod Choudhary of RSS. Kapil Swami of Swami Narayan Sect was also present. The SIB message states

307

that the aggressive speeches made related to Godhra incident at which 100 to 200 people were present, including the local police, were Hindus were asked to unite and act. It again becomes clear from this SIB messages that show that a systematic communal mobilisation was taking place across the length and breadth of different districts of Gujarat in a calculated manner as part of a wide conspiracy.

1 27.2.02, 1:52 p.m. Palanpur and Deesa, Kutch District:

Aggressive Mobilisation by Kar Sevaks.

2 27.2.02 at Por Village in Gandhinagar district; a mob of Hindus has set fire to the 15 homes belonging to Muslims as well as a Mosque. Fire was still raging on 28.2.2002.

2856/0/2002ACP (Int.) Gandhinagar Region

1.3.02

Time: Illegible

Annexure III File XXI D-163 Part-II

3 27.2.02, 15:51 hrs; at Vadodara BJP, VHP and BD workers distributed food and relief packets to kar sevaks on the station at around 1345 hours; attacked Muslims and one person, 60-year-old Mr. Ibrahimbhai is killed at 1410 hours and one other is injured.

4 27.2.2002; about 50 Karsevaks came to Modasa center, taluka Dhansura Village Vadagam, from Ahmedabad in a Special bus on 27.2.02 at 18:30 hours (these are from those who got off the Sabarmati train at Ahmedabad at 1413 hours). At the same place a speech was made by them and as a reaction or fallout of the speech the mob burnt vehicles of Muslims. Another attack at Kalol center Ta. Kadi, Bavlu PS, village Kalyanpur took place with the shop owned by Mr. Yasinbhai Multani being burnt by mob.

39237Fax Mes. Com/HM/550/ 02 Dt.27.2.02

23:59

Out No.398

238

308

Annexure III, File XIX, D-161

691. On 28.2.02, at 11:48 hours Vapi Surat region, Surat: Hate speech and Mobilisation was attemptedAt Vijaynagar PS Village Antarsuba, the shop of one Muslim was burnt by a mob on 27.2.02. A complaint was filed at Vijaynagar PS first CR No.12/12/2002. The post mortem was done on the dead body at the place of offence.On 28.2.2002, at Prantij PS, village Tajpur kui, one Tata Sumo was burnt by a mob. There was no casualty.Fax Mes. Com/Guj.band/583/ 02Dt.28.2.02 Annexure III, File IX, 40, D-161 Annexure III, File XIX, D-161.

692. On 28.2.02, 12:47 hours, the police was not strict in its application of curfew and were negligent in their duties. Karjan main highway has been blocked by the Karjan VHP President Mr. Gajanand Ambalal Gandhi and other workers on 28.2.02 at 10.00 to 10.30 hrs.28.2.02 Rally and Procession during Bandh to be organised by BJP, VHP at Porbandar.28.2.2002, Funeral Procession at Dahod, 16:00 hrs VHP President Mr. Hukamchand Bilaori organized the condolence programme at Dahod.

693. On 28.2.2002, a funeral of Punjiben Dipakbhai Deshpande at Jyoti Society was completed on 28.2.02 at 10:00 hrs. Thereafter - a mob attacked a mosque at Makarpura P.S. Police was present there but they did not take any steps. Curfew was imposed at Limdi village at 13:00 hrs at Dahod district.

694. On 28.2.2002 at 3 p.m., a Junagadh Rally organized under leadership of Mr. Gopalnandji and members are as under: Mr. Lalit Suhagiya, VHP President; Mr. Chandeshbhai Herma, Bajrang Dal, Mr. Prabhari K.K. Parekhiya, VHP President and others.

695. On 27.02, 10:23 p.m. inciteful hate speech by Sadhu Samaj president, Mr. Gopalnandji and Mr. Mukundbhai Dave. They also gave an interview to Alfa TV describing the injuries caused to VHP worker Mr. Kamalbhai.

696. (Another message): It was an inciteful speech by Sadhu Samaj president, Mr. Gopalnandji at Junagadh Kadva chowk, on dt.27.2.02 at19.30 to 21.00 hrs.As per this fax message Fax Mes. D-2/HA/Bandh/ Banav/318/02 dated 28.2.02 sent at 6.15 a.m. from the Junagadh region there were complaints of one Mr. Salim Habib being assaulted by a Bajrang Dal worker with a knife.

309

697. On 28.2.2002, 1.45 p.m. Kutch VHP president Dr. K.G. Vaidh, BJP/Bajrang Dal organised a rally and shut down the market and damaged the Shimla Doodh Dairy, Fish Market and an advocate’s office.

Annexure III, File XIX, D-161, pg 230

698. On 28.2.2002, Mr. Suresh Gupta, President of Banaskantha and other workers come out on the streets and shut the market at Disha city. They damaged shops, a garage and bakery between 11.30 to 13.00 hrs. They assaulted one Muslim, a dead body of another Muslim was found.

38233Fax Mes. Bhuj/D-2/com/ Takedari/ Bandh/ 430/02 Dt.28.2.02

Out no. 307

699. The SIB had also provided details to the Chief Election Commissioner and the National Human Rights Commission about the number of offences committed by organisational members of the BJP, RSS, VHP, Bajrang Dal. Attached here to this protest petition is a copy of the state wide offences registered against members of these organisations. It is not surprising that except for some of the more brutal carnage cases that were taken up by NHRC, Supreme Court and other legal rights organisations, the Gujarat police have hardly investigated or prosecuted any of the organisations mentioned in the list to the FIR.

Violence Continues even after 28.2.2002

Mehsana was the third worst affected district in Gujarat

700. Fax message at Annexure III File XXII D-164 Part-I, Fax msg.LIB/414/Info./402/02 dated 2.3.02 states that the SIB field officer is describing the Sardarpura incident wherein 33 persons were burnt alive.

701. The message says that “Because of Gujarat and Bharat Bandh, Bandobast was there. At about 19.45 hours it was learnt at Vijapur police Station that mobs gathered at Sardarpura village had started torching cabins belonging to Muslims. Hence PSI, Mr. Parmar and mobile staff were sent but the road had been blocked with stones

310

and chopped trees. Removing this block they rushed and saw that a mob of 3-4,000 was setting fire to cabins. PSI Mr. Parmar fired one round and requested the control room for fire brigade. When the fire brigade reached them, the PSI sent his mobile unit to the highway to escort the fire-fighters as the mob was obstructing the fire brigade. There was also trouble at Ladol village. At about 23.00 hrs., mob had set fire to the house of Muslims at Sardarpura.

702. A part of the conspiracy in which A-36 Mehsana SP, AK Sharma was clearly involved, included not arresting the leaders of the mobs who were attacking minorities after Godhra. The deposition of PSI Mr. Parmar and his account is also doubtful as the evidence in SC No.275/02 shows.

703. According to the messages in the tables below, there is initially an order to send the SRP company to Mehsana which is then cancelled. Why? Why did the SIT not question A-36 SP AK Sharma on this strange andmysterious lapse?

704. According to message dated 1.3.02 at 22:45 p.m. Head Constable Mr. Pathan, Vejalpur Po. Sta. had informed A-36 SP Mehsana to send police urgently. But the police and DySP Mr. Gehlot reached the place of massacre only at about 2:30 a.m. dated 2.3.02, ostensibly because the roads were blocked by the aggressive mob with the full sanction of conspirators and the accused who were preventing the Fire Brigade from reaching Muslim homes at Shaikh Mohalla that had been surrounded.

705. - Though messages regarding worsening communal situation were sent to the SP constantly by messenger, proper and effective police bandobast and sufficient protection to minorities was not arranged.

- Mr. Gehlot who reached the place and scene of offence helped the victims and removed the electrically connected iron rod used to torch the house.

- The ghastly Sardarpura incident that included the setting on fire of a Muslim house about 8:30pm on 1.3.02 killed 33 persons. The fire went on till next morning because the Fire Brigade simply did not do enough to control it.

- SIT has taken statement of Fire Brigade employees.

311

- Mehsana Collector’s office had informed the Fire Brigade that a mob had set homes at Sardarpura village on fire and they should reach immediately. But, inexplicably the fire brigade departed only at 23:45 hrs.

-SIT did not bother to collect any information about the matter: how manytimes the Fire Brigade received distress calls, what time they reached, howlong it took to douse the fire. Ironically none of the Fire Brigade employees were summoned to Court by the SIT.

PSI Mr. Mahendrasinh Lalsinh Rathod, Vijapur Police Station

706. He left the scene of the crime when minorities were under brutal attack. Though small shops (gallas) were set on fire while he was on the spot, no accused were arrested by him or any offence registered by him. No steps were taken by him to call the Fire Brigade. While the massacre at Sardarpura was going on in his presence, he did not arrest any accused, nor provided any protection to victims.

707. Appointments of public prosecutor belonging to the VJP/Bajrang Dal were deliberately done in this case. Survivors and civil rights groups had to move the Hon’ble Supreme Court for a transfer of investigation.

708. Mr. Dileep Trivedi was the main PP appointed in 2002 at Mehsana Dist. While he was a PP, he did not oppose the accused getting anticipatory bail. His name also figures in 7b1b4asting Operation

Kalank. (Mr. Dilip Trivedi, Transcript published in Tehelka on 3.11.2009, Page No.58).

709. Fifty five accused were released on bail while Mr. Dilip Trivedi, a VHP leader was special PP. in the Mehsana Dist. Government pleader before the Nanavati Commission, Mr. Arvind Pandya stated in the sting operation by Mr. Ashish Khaitan that Justice KG Shah (formerly the judge who was with justice Nanavati on the Commisison before his demise) is our man, or our side and Nanavati is working for money. Tehelka sting operation, June 2009 (Mr. Arvind Pandya Transcript, in Tehelka).

312

710. As per his statement recorded by SIT on dated 18.11.2009, special PP Mr. Dilip Trivedi stated he did not know anything about the February 2002 meeting held at Sardarpura village held by VHP leaders like Mr. Haresh Bhatt attending. Yet, the SIT has simply not probed the conspiracy angle seriously.

Table showing SIB Messages from the Records of the Trial Court in SCR 732/02 and 743/02

1.3.02SCR 732/027884Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaSendSRPCompanyto

Mehsana and report to me.

1.3.02SCR 743/027885Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaOrderofsendingSRP

CompanytoMehsanais

cancelled.

Annexure IV File No.19

11.3.02SCR 710/027880Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaBharat bandh today in relation to the call there will be communal provocations and you must keep constant surveillance.-

21.3.02SCR 732/027884Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaSend SRP Company to Mehsana and report to me.-

31.3.02SCR 743/027885Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaOrder of sending SRP Company to Mehsana is cancelled.-

41.3.02SCR 741/027886Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaUseoneplatoonof-

SRPforVisnagar

incident.

52.3.02SCR 830/027887Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaSent 70 recruits from SRP platoon to Vijapur police station.-

62.3.02SCR 850/027888Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaSardarpura still tense, people in fear. Do necessary urgently.-

72.3.02SCR 850/027892Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaSituation is tense and people are in fear so, arranged bandobast.-

83.3.02SCR 960/027894Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaTwoplatoons-

distributed to Mehsana and sent to Kadi police station.

102.3.02SCR 827/027913Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaSendinformationof-

incidentforwardedto

theChiefMinister

otherwisetheofficial

concernedwillbe

313

consideredl

responsible.

111.3.02SCR811/027954Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaAs possibility of attack-

on Muslims by Hindus

11:00pminSardarpuravillage,

takenecessary steps

to prevent violence.

121.3.02Log No. 100/027955HC Pathanbhai VejalpurS.P., MehsanaAttack on Sardarpura-

villagerequestedto

22:45Po.Sta.send police urgently.

132.3.02-7965Nareshkumar GangaramP.I., Vijapur, S.P., MehsanaMob out of control at-

LadolSardarpura

RavalKukalvada.They

Leaderofattackedandkilled

opposition partypersonsfromLadol

and Sardarpura village.

Arrangepolice

bandobast.

143.3.02-7966Police GandhinagarS.P., MehsanaHurdlesputonthe-

highway road to keep police away

1527.2.02329/027987-S.P., MehsanaTokeeppoliceNo time

bandobastatS.T.

Depot for protection to

employeesand

travellersbecauseof

bandh called by VHP.

711. The SIT should have probed the lapses in responses to the messages, lapses in Fire Brigade response, the build-up and VHPBD meetings prior to the Godhra incident and analysed the role of the PP, a VHP leader. The SIT has simply ignored all these aspects of conspiracy as it unfolded in Sardarpura.

712. Thus, the heinous offences committed against the Muslim community during the riots were not properly investigated and all attempts were made to block a fair trial. Deliberate loopholes were left in the investigation and statements of witnesses were recorded in such a manner that they created contradictory meaning. In short, the whole investigation lacked sympathetic attempt to reach to the truth and nab the culprits.

713. As per the evidence provided in this case, first a crowd consisting of Hindus, mostly rowdy Patels of the village on 28-02-2002 burnt some cabins near the primary school and Panchayat building. Then on 01-03-2002, at about 9.00 or 10.00 at night, an unlawful assembly of Patels of Sardarpura village had come shouting and making shrill cries near the Muslim locality with intention to take revenge for the Godhra killing. They burnt down the wooden cabins but the crowd dispersed temporarily when the police came. Again

314

the same crowd came back, shouting and shrieking — "kill Miya bhai, cut them, burn them alive”. They attacked Sheikh Mohalla, started plundering and setting fire to houses. This crowd consisted of around 1,000 to 1,500 persons. They had with them inflammable substances like petrol and kerosene. To save themselves from the attack of the crowd, unprotected Muslim women and children ran to the house of Mr. Mahmudbhai and took shelter there. However, the attackers broke open the windows and threw petrol, kerosene and set fire to the house. The crowd was unmoved against the cries of the helpless persons who were pleading to be saved.

714. At about 2.30 at night, police came and opened the door of Mr. Mahmoodbhai and found dead bodies of persons living in the locality. At one place, there were 28 innocent Muslim men, women and children. The entire unlawful crowd was guilty of looting, stone-pelting, arson, killing and inflicting grievous injuries. The accused that were identified by witnesses before the Hon. Court belonged to the same village. They (the witnesses) knew the culprits and their names were given to the police as well as to SIT by them. The defence lawyer had argued that since it was night time, it was not possible for the witnesses to identify the culprits. However, as part of the pre-planned strategy, the culprits had installed halogen lamp, the proof of which is with the Hon. Court.

715. (1) Witness No. 48 Sabir Hussein Kadarmiya,

(2) Witness No. 65 Akbarmiya Nathumiya,

(3) Witness No. 56 Ayubmiya Rasulbhai,

(4) Witness No. 54 Sharifmiya Bhikhumiya and

(5) Witness No. 60 Bachumiya Imammiya

had seen culprits Ambalal Kapur, Patel Amaratbhai Somabhai, Patel Kanubhai Joitaram and Patel Mathurbhai Trikamdas making arrangement for electric light. At the same time G.E.B. Official, Mr. Dineshbhai Bhagwanbhai Patel (witness no 86, exhibit 664) had admitted in his testimony that he had switched on the lines which were dead. That did not mean that all lights in that area were dead. Thus, at the time of rioting, electric lights were on and for that sufficient proof is provided. The culprits had themselves made arrangement for light, so that they could carry out their cowardly acts with ease. Besides, the crowd had set fire to Muslim houses and in the flames of that fire, it was easy to identify the culprits.

315

716. When the event took place, persons who were involved in the crime, against them enough and reliable body of proof is available. It is as follows:

Key witnesses deposed about the Criminal intent and conspiracy. Sabirhussein Kadarmiya Sheikh — PW No 48:- The witness had given the name of Mathurbhai Ramabhai as one who was in the crowd and who was indulging in criminal acts. The accused was also identified before the Hon. Court. On 1-3-2002, Bharat Bandh was announced. At about 10.00 at night, the Patels of our village attacked Sheikh mohalla with scythes, sticks, pipes, kerosene and petrol. They set fire to three cabins which were near the entrance of the mohalla. There was focus light installed and I could see in its light that there was Patel Ambalal Maganlal, Mathurbhai Ramabhai, Chaturbhai Kanabhai and others. They were instigating the crowd and setting fire to the houses. They were pelting stones from their houses because their houses were at a height. The Patels were pelting stones from the graveyard. The stones were coming from all sides... I was hit on my neck. All persons in the crowd had some weapons with them. They were entering the Sheikh mohalla with intention of setting fire to houses. They were proceeding towards the house of Mehmudmiya Hussein miya. They broke open one window and from there, they threw kerosene, petrol and burning rags inside the house. There was one iron pipe and an electric wire was attached to it. This was kept in the room. Persons from inside the house were shouting for help and to be saved. The cries were heard outside. Thus, the testimony of the witness is very important and cannot be ignored.

Bashirabibi Bachumiya Sheikh — witness no 78 :- The husband of this woman was killed in the incident and as per the custom of her community she had to remain inside her house, observing iddat. She gave her testimony before SIT on 22-5-2008. In that she had stated that she had given her statement to the police on 17-4- 2002. In that statement she had mentioned names of 10 accused one of who was Rajesh Punjabhai. In her testimony before the Hon. Court, she stated that on the day of the event, a crowd of Patels had come near Sheikh Mohalla. It was shouting slogans, like “kill miyabhai”, “no one should be spared”. Those in the crowd were setting houses on fire and looting the same. The witness had seen all this with her own eyes. She was afraid and so she had gone to Mehmudmiya’s house to save her life. Her husband Bachumiya Nathumiya, her brother’s wife, nephews, and three sons were with

316

her. Mehmudmiya’s house was surrounded from all sides by the mob. They were trying to break the window of the house and were throwing petrol and kerosene inside, along with burning rags. The witness had seen accused Rajesh Punjabhai. In this attack, her husband Bachumiya, her elder brother Abbasmiya, sister-in-law Ruksanabibi, sister-in-law Mumtazbibi, niece Sairabibi, were all burnt alive. The witness was also injured. Her legs and face had suffered burn injuries. Her small son Ilias had also received burn injuries, on his left ear and left leg. The witness had identified accused Rajesh Punjabhai before the Hon. Court. Thus, there is enough proof against the accused of his involvement in the event. The issue of wider conspiracy is crucial and has been ignored by the SIT.

717. A-36, Mr. Arun Kumar Sharma, then SP, Mehsana, has filed two affidavits before the Commission. In the first affidavit dated 28.6.2002, there is no mention of the incident of the carnage at Sardarpura, Mehsana on 1.3.2002/2.3.2002 in which about 33 Muslims were killed. As a part of a conspiracy, an attempt was made to deliberately keep the Commission in the dark with regard to this incident. Moreover, in his second affidavit dated 28.9.2004, Mr. Sharma has spoken extremely casually and superficially with regard to the communal riots of severe nature in village Kadi, Vijapur, of Gujarat on various dates after the Godhra carnage as also about violations regarding the sections of Explosive Act and Bomb blast and incident of sprinkling inflammatory liquid on Mr. Sultanbhai, S.T. bus conductor, on Chhatral Road, Kadi.

718. Inspite of the fact that these offences had occurred in the year 2002, Mr. Sharma has avoided, as part of a larger conspiracy, to give a transparent representation to the Commission with regard to such severe offences in his affidavit of 2004. Nothing was mentioned with regard to the number of actual accused arrested in the severe offences, what happened in the investigation with regard to their offences and with regard to the court proceedings against them. Thus, A-36 was part of a conspiracy. By not submitting the true facts of the communal riots occurred in 2002, he has tried to ensure such facts do not come out before the Commission.

317

719. That the reprisal killings post-Godhra in many parts of Gujarat state in 2002 were part of a larger conspiracy, is clear from the affidavit of IPS officer, Mr. Gehlot, submitted before the Hon’ble Court. He states that inspite of demanding the SRP for police bandobast from the State Police Control Room, sufficient help was not made available. This clearly indicts A-25 DGP (Mr. K. Chakravarti), A-28 (Mr. Ashok Narayan), A-5 (Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya) and A-1 (Mr. Modi). Mr. Gehlot states that he was not even sent help from the members of Home guards and Gram Rakshak Dal.

720.It is also revealed from his affidavit that at 9.30 at night on

28.2.2002, two platoons were sent to Mehsana for bandobast. This means that the carnage took place in Shaikh Mohalla in Sardarpura despite the presence of two platoons. The police as part of the larger conspiracy hatched by A-1 had been effectively neutralized.

721. The SIT should have probed why the SRP remained passive, whether they had been instructed from above as a part of conspiracy not to take action. Moreover, Mr. Gehlot states in his that when the Hindu mob started gathering in Sardarpura, he started getting urgent messages on his mobile phone from the people for help. And that even if he instructed to use effective force, his men were not listening. No effective steps were taken by the police to prevent the massacre of Muslims of Sardarpura village. This massacre, as also the 300 incidents all over the state were part of the conspiracy masterminded post-Godhra.

722. It is also revealed from the affidavit of Mr. Gehlot that the Patels of Kansa village who attacked the local minority community from all sides had earlier purchased large quantity of petrol from nearby petrol pumps and were hell-bent to burn them to death. This fact itself makes it clear that the communal violence was targeted and pre-meditated.

723. It is also revealed from the affidavit of Mr. Gehlot that even though instructions were issued for the mobile vans and officers to reach Sardarpura village and to resort to the effective firing if needed, no report of the situation of Sardarpura village was forthcoming for a long time. When he decided to travel Sardarpura village himself, a distance of 5 kms., from Ladol to Sardarpura village, obstacles were placed in his way and there were burning tyres all around. It was clearly part of a pre-meditated conspiracy to prevent police

318

help from reaching the targeted minority community. Refer to Mr. Gehlot’s affidavit before the Commission.

724. It is also revealed from the affidavit of Mr. Gehlot that 3 PIs, 12 Police Sub-Inspectors, 105 Police Constables and 16 Women Police Constables had been sent from Mehsana district to Gandhinagar for the Vidhan Sabha bandobast. This was a conscious and deliberate attempt to deplete police presence in Mehsana district where incidents of violence had started from 27.2.2002 onwards. (see Tables on violence). Kadi and Unjha had already been hit by violence. Obviously, the VHP marauders wanted the district cleared of police so that resistance could be minimized and the post-Godhra reprisal hatched by A-1, Mr. Modi along with his co-conspirators could be unleashed. A deliberate move to un-man the district was taken at Gandhinagar.

725. With regard to the carnage in Sardarpura village of Mehsana district from 1.3.2002 to 2.3.2002, in which 33 Muslims were burnt alive, the witnesses of this case gave evidence before the learned Judge, Special Designated Court, Mehsana, that the carnage was part of a conspiracy.

(1) Witness No:-46, Exhibit-475, Sabirmiya Akumiya Pathan

(2) Witness No:-48, Exhibit-491, Sabirhusain Kadarmiya

(3) Witness No:-49, Exhibit-500, Iqbalmiya Rasulmiya

(4) Witness No:-54, Exhibit-527, Sharifmiya Bhikhumiya

(5) Witness No:-63, Exhibit-580, Bhikhumiya Kalumiya

(6) Witness No:-71, Exhibit-672, Mangabhai Ramabhai Raval

(7) Witness No:-78, Exhibit-642, Basirabibi Bachumiya Shaikh

726. The Vijapur police had arrested 55 accused in the terrible carnage in Sardarpura village but all were granted bail. At that time, the Government Pleader in the Mehsana Sessions Court was Mr. Dilip Trivedi, a VHP leader of Mehsana district. Mr. Trivedi’s dubious role in procuring bail for those accused of a heinous crime, forms part of the sting operation conducted by Mr. Ashish Khaitan.

727. (Dilip Trivedi transcript June-15-2009 published in Tehelka 3.11.2009, page no. 58) Gujarat government pleader Arvind Pandya has stated in the sting operation of Mr. Ashish Khaitan that Mr. K.G. Shah is our person, Justice Nanavati works only for

319

money. Tehelka Sting Operation June-2009 (Arvind Pandya transcript Tehelka).

728. SIT simply ignored this significant and vast evidence related to a conspiracy and the mastermind behind it. In Mehsana, the third worst affected district, yet another ghastly incident took place here. The massacre perpetrated at Deepda Darwaza in which 14 persons were killed (which was further investigated by the SIT after the Hon’ble Supreme Court monitored the investigation and subsequent trial) was an integral part of the state-wide conspiracy that was unleashed. Many of the accused have been convicted after completion of trial in the case. But the aspect of the higher level conspiracy leading to the paralysis of the police and administration has deliberately been left un-investigated by the SIT.

Deepda Darwaza Conspiracy

729. Following the Godhra incident the massacres that followed include the Deepda Darwaza case. The incident that was also a part of conspiracy but unfortunately the court has failed to appreciate this aspect in its proper dimension.

WitnessesP.W.Exch.

1.Mohammed Iqbal Ahmedkhan Baloch81568

2.Sabbirmiya Hasumiya Belim89585

3.Mohammed Hanif Dalubhai Sindhi97613

4.Sabbirkhan Ibhrahimkhan98616

5.Mohammed Hanif Ahmedkhan Baloch99617

6.Ahmedmiya Hasumiya Belim104630

7.Sher Mohammed Dalubhai Sindhi113645

8.Shabanabibi Anwarhussain Pathan125678

9.Nazirmiya Kalumiya Saiyed129689

320

Xxx

IN THE COURT OF THE 11th METROPOLITAN

MAGISTRATE, AHMEDABAD

MRS. ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI

V/S

MR. NARENDRA MODI & OTHERS

PROTEST PETITION

ON THE COMPLAINT DATED 8.6.2006 &

AGAINST THE

FINAL REPORT

OF THE

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION TEAM DATED

8.2.2012

(PART II)

MAIN INDEX TO PROTEST PETITION

Sr.No.SubjectPage Nos

1 .Opening Page of the Protest Petition Filed on 15.4.2013 Main Petition:- PART I

2. Main Petition:- PART II

-Main Petition Continues

PLUS

-Compilation of Supreme Court Orders in

SLP1088/2008 & SLP 8989/2013

-Graphic Depicting Distances from Sola Civil

Hospital to the Sola Civil Police Station, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad’s Office, Airport, Two Crematoriums at Hatkeshwar near Ramol and Gota; Naroda & Gulberg

-Chart of PCR (Police Control Room Messages)

Showing Aggressive Mobilisation at the Sola Civil Hospital

-Chart of SIB Messages recording the arrival of the

Sabarmati Express from Godhra at the

Ahmedabad Railway station at Kalupur on 27.2.2002 & Murderous Sloganeering by the VHP and Others

-Map showing Gujarat-wide Mobilisation through

aggressive Funeral Processions on 27.2.2002,

28.2.2002 & 1.3.2992 onwards & attacks on Minorities

-Map showing Scale of Violence all over Gujarat in

2002

-Map showing Details of Deaths, Missing Person,

Destruction on Homes, Shrines in 2002

3. ANNEXURES -VOLUME I(Sr Nos 1- 51)1 — 304 pages

News reports related to Provocations, Sandesh Articles, SIB Statistics, Important Letters from SIB, Rahul Sharma, Statistics on Police Firing & Tables Extracted from the SIB Messages/PCR messages from the SIT Papers, VHP Pamphlets & Petitioners Letters to Investigating agency

4. ANNEXURES -VOLUME II (Sr Nos 1–53 including CDs)1 – 162 pages

Articles & Video Transcripts related to Hate Speeches made by A-1 Mr Modi and Other Accused & Conspirators

5. ANNEXURES- VOLUME III1 – 149 pages

Sr Nos 1 – Missing Call Records from SIT Investigation Papers ( Reference: Annexure IV, Files V and VII)

Sr Nos 2 – Call Records of Sanjiv Bhatt, OP Mathur & GC Raigar

i

Sr Nos 3 — Call Records of A-1 Mr Modi

Sr Nos 4 - How Top Cops Deserted Gulberg

Sr Nos 5 — Location of Powerful Persons & Accused at Meghnaninagar & Narol, Naroda on 27.2.2002/28.2.2002

Sr Nos 6 — Location Graphs of Accused & Others in Different Time Slabs on 27.2.2002

6.ANNEXURES — VOLUME IV

Tables of Accused & Powerful Persons (Who Spoke to Whom)

Individual Cal Records of Accused & Powerful Persons for 27.2.2002

ii

730. All the above-mentioned witnesses have deposed before the court wherein Accused No. 85 (Mr. Patel Prahladbhai Mohanbhai Gosa, MLA Visnagar) Accused No.84 (Mr. Patel Dahyabhai Tribhovandas, Municipal Councilor) were also sought to be arraigned. Evidence was led to show that they were inciting the mob saying: “Why are you setting fire only to one house set fire to the whole m ohalla. We have already managed the Police Station.”

731 . The SIT deliberately ignored looking at the collusion and conspiracy between high political functionaries masterminded by A1 " Mr. Modi as Home Minister, which unfolded in sickening violence at Mehsana where sections of the police, fire brigade and administration had been sucessfully neutralized.

732. The deposition of complainant PW.81, Exch.568, Mohammed Iqbal Ahmedkhan Baloch clearly states that at the time when he went to lodge his complaint, Accused No.84, and 85 were the present at the police station trying to influence functionaries. The evidence of Accused No.83 PI Mr. MK Patel was also recorded and he was subsequently convicted by the court. Evidence of the statewide criminal conspiracy is very evident in this case. The massacre site at Deepda Darwaza on 1.3.2002 is at a very close distance from the Police Station. Still, the police failed to provide protection to the victims and deliberately looked the other way because of instructions from the top, while the macabre dance of death was being perpetrated.

733. The evidence of PW-97, Exch.-613, Mr. Mohammed Hanif Dalubhai Sindhi is also relevant. He has stated that the accused MLA (Accused No.85) and the municipal corporator (Accused No.84) had pressurised the police in removing the offence of murder from the FIR registered subsequent to the violence. This is evidence of how the accused and police have conspired.

734. Witness PW-96, Exch.-610, Mr. Ibhrahimkhan Umarkhan Baloch has clearly stated before the court that to seek police protection he approached Visnagar police station but PI Mr. MK Patel (late accused No. 83) clearly declined to give him any protection. He was attacked while returning from the police station where he had gone asking for protection by a mob armed with dangerous weapons. He was severely injured. When he opened his eyes, he was in hospital.

321

735. SIT deliberately refused to investigate these ground level manifestations of the Conspiracy set in motion at Gandhinagar post-Godhra.

736. Anand district was also among the worst affected post-Godhra. On 1.3.2002, three separate incidents at Odh village claimed a total of 27 lives. The Conspiracy unfurled at the very top echelons of the administration included not only allowing a free hand to rabid rabble-rousers of the VHP on 27.2.2002, breaching of Curfew and using the Bandh to allow bloodthirsty mobs to spill over and attack a terrorised minority, but systematically attempt the subversion of the criminal justice system by delaying registration of the crimes, diluting their magnitude and dropping the names of powerful accused. The very same pattern was manifest in Odh. SIT simply failed to look at this as an instance of the high level conspiracy in operation.

737. Mr. KR Bhuva and Mr. RG Patel delayed lodging of the FIR. Even when the Pan Parlour belonging to a Muslim was burnt (CR 27/02), the police deliberately did not deploy the force at the place of incident, nor arrest the accused who were part of the large mob. The same pattern followed for the offences at another location that took place (CR 23/02). To cover up their negligence, the police have recorded that the parlour was not burnt but caught fire as a result of a short circuit.

738. On 1.3.02, a large mob was allowed the free reign of the streets in violation of prohibitory orders (there on paper). This mob was allowed to assemble at Peerawali Bhagol near Jhapliwala building and with complete abdication of their statutory duty, policemen on the spot and higher ups in Anand and Gandhinagar conspired to let the mob set on fire the house of Muslims, and even burn to death 23 persons, including women and children. Police did not deploy any force in the Muslim locality to enable the incident. After this incident, all Muslims of Ode fled the village and took shelter nearby. The police, guilty of late registration of the offence created the climate for further subversion and the destruction of critical evidence. The SIT simply did not probe this though it was part of the complaint dated 8.6.2006. Police reached the spot only on the second day, performed the panchnama on the third/fourth day after the incident; it did not arrest a single person on the day of the incident. This deliberate inaction when crimes were being

322

committed was a result of the instructions that had been given from Gandhinagar and were operational on the ground. The free hand given to the perpetrators was carefully designed and executed. The subversion of the criminal justice system in this case also took the following form:

-- Police deliberately did not collect any of the remains of the persons who had died so that proper forensic examinations, including DNA sampling, could take place; no photographers were called to take photographs of the crime.

739. The second incident occurred at Malavvali Bhagol on 1.3.02. Again, as part of the high level conspiracy the police did not deploy the force at the place of the crime, did not even contact or help injured persons. The FIR was lodges 5 days after the incident. Why?

740. The police had deliberately not called the Fire Brigade, did not arrest a single person or recover any muddamal. I.O. Mr. Buva and the special public prosecutor together ensured anticipatory bail for the accused. The Home Department under A-1 Mr. Modi and A-5 Mr. Zadaphiya did not initiate any action against the officers for this criminal negligence.

Violence Continues even after 28.2.2002

741. Just like in Ahmedabad, violence is allowed to continue as part of the conspiracy post-Godhra even in the Gandhinagar region close to the capital. At page 185 of Annexure III File XIX (D-163), the ACP (Int) from the Gandhinagar region informs DGP (Int) Gujarat State, Gandhinagar that is not far from the capital, that in Por village on from 27.2.2002 until 2.3.2002, attacks by Hindus on Muslim homes continued and that a mosque was still burning. The message is obviously sent by the ACP while the fire is still on. This attack on the Muslim area of Por village, according to the message, takes place after the Muslim population has fled to some other place. The remark section of this message clearly states that the homes were torched on 28.2.2002 but the fire was still on when the message was received/sent on 1.3.2002. The intensity of the fire can be gauged by these remarks. The remark further says that no efforts have been made by the local police or any of the local authorities which included the district magistrate of Gandhinagar, to douse the fire. The moot question for this Ld. Court to consider is whether the SIT has or whether it should have examined and

323

questioned the police authorities responsible for law and order in Por village? Both the district magistrate, Gandhinagar and the ADGP(Int), Gujarat to whom this message was sent are responsible to protect lives and property under Indian criminal law and the Constitution. According to the police procedure, messages thus sent by ACP to ADGP (Int), would have been forwarded to the DGP, Gujarat state. Was Mr. Chakravarti (Accused No. 25) questioned about this? Was he questioned about the continuing violence that reached unchecked all over Gujarat? Was he specifically questioned about the messages that came to him from SIB regional offices clearly recording that police is absent, the police is abdicating its duty? A careful reading of the DGP Mr. Chakravarti‘s (Accused No. 25) statement before the SIT shows that he was let off even before the questioning began. SIT apparently saw no need to put specific questions to him. Moreover a reading of the statement of the then ADGP(Int), A-60 Mr. GC Raigar recorded by SIT. This also clearly shows that from the beginning SIT was in no way motivated to carefully investigate the complaint. They obviously did not carefully go through even the official records prior to questioning any of the persons named by the complainant/petitioners in this case. The SIT has made a complete mockery of the investigation it was directed to do by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court on 27.4.2009.

742. In another incident of communal mobilisation recorded by the SIB at D/9/HA/VHP/82/2000, 1.3.02 (Annexure III, File VIII of the SIT papers, page 273), sent from the Valsad office shows how the VHP had been given free reign to mobilize and make provocative speeches. On 1.3.02 at 11:00, VHP and Bajrang Dal leader, Mr. Sanatbhai Desai and Mr. Brijeshbhai Pandey incite about 200 workers gathered at a rally. At Dharampur, Laxminarayan Mandir, VHP workers lead by worker Mr. Mahavirsinh Raval assembled for a ‘Bhajan kirtan‘ and to condole the death of Kar sevaks in the Godhra inferno from 1500 to 1700 hours. SIT sees no reason to investigate this aggressive communal mobilization despite the serious allegations in the complaint dated 8.6.2006.

743. Another message at 1.3.02 (Annexure III, File VIII of the SIT papers, page 329) from the Vadodara region (the day the Best Bakery incident takes place), reports on the breach of curfew. ‘Baroda Police commissioner order at 7:15 a.m. to the city police through wireless that the curfew order must be strictly implemented

324

and the police must not hesitate to open fire if necessary. Yet, mobs assembled anyway in large numbers, looted and set properties on fire, stabbed. Shoot at sight orders needed (which means they were not given) Today, at 10:30 to 11:00 a.m. a fire incident has occurred causing damages to Muslim properties.’

744. There is another serious message at page 346 of Annexure III, File VIII of the SIT papers from the Vadodara field office of the SIB stating that targeted violence is taking place in Vadodara, furniture shops are being looted and the Geban Shah Dargah has been set on fire. Rickshaws and ‘lorries‘ are being burnt but the Police is not implementing curfew, not even carrying out a lathi charge.

745. The SIT saw no reason to probe this with A-25 (then DGP, K. Chakravarti), A-28 (then Home Secretary, Ashok Narayan), A-48 (then Vadodara police commissioner, DD Tuteja) and others.

Did the violence stop on 2.3.2002?

746. A reading of the SIB records indicates otherwise. At page 412 of Annexure III File XIX, Information Memo No.39 dated 2.3.2002, 1440 hrs, the message records that a 10,000 to 15,000 strong mob had surrounded Dholka village and the Muslim community living there. The message expressed apprehension that there would be huge casualty in the massacre that follows. Serious bouts of violence continue in Panchmahals and Vadodara right through March 2002; on 15, 22 and 24.3.2002.

Annexure III File No.XXVIII D-170 Part-2

5334D-2/com/ 319/02 2.3.02Asst.Addl. Dir. Of police Guj. State, G‘nagarDist. Panchmahal Khanpur pol. Stat. at Pandharwada on dt. 1.3.02 during 13: 00 to 16:00 hrs about to 4,000 to 5,000 mob gathered with sharp weapons, damage the property, set a fire and 9 Muslims died as under 1.Aiyub Abil Saiyed (28) 2.Jabir Ganibhai Kharadi (32)

22:02hrsComm. of Int.3. Adambhai ghanchi (45)

Vadodara Region, Vadodara4. Noor Moh. Rasool Shaikh (30)

5. Multani (50)

6. Jabir Aiyub Diwean (25)

7. Saiyeed Yasin Seba (30)

8. Abbas Nathu (41)

9. One unknown person 52 Male and female,

children were injured, shifted

325

to Lunavada for medical

treatment, situation is tense.

45 houses of Muslims and

10 houses of Hindus were

set on fire.

NoPage No.MessageFromSent toDetailsRemarks

No.Whom

1259D/9/H.M./VHPPI State IB BharuchAddl. Dir. of Police,VHP secretary of Bharuch dist. Viralbhai Desai called all Talukas and villages to ring the bell ‘Ghantanaad’ and Mahaarti on date-

/141/02G’nagar15.3.02 at 3:15.

15.3.02Curfew imposed as precaution.

472D-2/IB/ Com/ Banav Info./ 602/02Asst. Comm. of Int.Addl. Dir. of police Int., Guj. State, G‘nagarPSI Shree Mirza noted a Vardhi to control at 21:45hrs as mentioned below: ‘This kind of vardhi sent in a seal cover said ACP control’ to take action and not and inform to PI Giglani (this is a formality and throw it into a dustbin but try not to discriminate) so, as per reply by Baroda control Vardhi (Orders) are now not given to

473Dt. 24.3.02Vadodara Region, VadodaraBaroda Control. Yet, it is to be noted that Baroda police raided at Rain Basera and recovered weapons. Because of communal riots in Baroda 6,000 to 7,000 Muslims

belonging to UP left their houses and they came back. And there is information they will be attacked and their properties damaged tonight. As above mentioned fact fax message to Baroda control wide fax no. 524/28 dt.16.3.02 to your office. Next day a family goes to Avdhutnagar nr., Indiranagar, to collect their household things with police protection. Yet they were attacked and two persons died.

326

Serious Incidents of Violence March, April up to July 2002

Serious incidents that take place in April 2002 which the SIT does not bother to investigate

13FaxAsst. Commis. Int.,Addl. IGIn Kevadiya area one Bajrang Dal worker,Hand written

IB/D-2/com/ Acc/720/VadodaraInt., G‘nagarPiyushbhai Premabhai Khatri and other workers arrested.

02Kevadiya market kept closed in protest till 6:10.

01.4.02

11:41

16FaxAsst.Addl. IGVHP workersHand written

17IB/D-2/com/ Inci./Info./Commis. Int.,Int., G‘nagarcome in a mob and damage mutton and

735/02Vadodarachicken shops.

02.4.02

16:58

241FaxAsst.Addl. IG1. Today dtdHand written.

IB/com/Commis.Int., G‘nagar15.3.02, 15:10 – aPolice give

Info./Int., Vadodaraprocession of some VHP and RSS workers chantingthe

505/permission to the rally.

02

15.3.02

15:55’Ramdhun‘ pass from the tower across the road from Raopura

Vadodara to

A‘badi pole circle.

4. VHP leader

Kevadiya

Prakhand

Anirudhsinh Gohil arranged

Ramjanambhumi

Shiladan program at Kevadiya

Narmadeshvar

Mahadev mandir dt 15.3.02 time

14:15 to 15:15.

5. VHP leader

Sambhu Prasad

Shukla and

Piyush Gandhi arranged program at Godhra

Chhoriwad

Ramji mandir dt 15.3.02 time

13:45 to 14:45.

21FaxAsst.Addl. IGRecd. informationHand written

26IB/D-2/com/ Info./Commis. Int.,Int., G‘nagarthat Hindu organisations are unhappy over

Takedari/713/Vadodara

02Godhra incident.

23.4.02For this reason on

21:53Sunday at Kareli baug Bajrang Dal held a private meeting. They

plan to attack the

327

Muslim community at

Tandalja area after completion of exams. There is also a rumour about early elections.

7FaxAsst.Addl. IGAt Kalol village aHand written

IB/D-2/com/Commis.Int., G‘nagarMuslim womanKalol PS

Incident/990/ 02Int., Vadodararaped and killed by stone pelting.I.C.R. No. 60/02 (I PC

30.4.02376)

23:17

747. These messages contain serious implications about the spot functioning of the police at Vadodara under A-48 Commissioner of Police, Vadodara Mr. DD Tuteja and A-49 Mr. Bhagyesh Jha, DM & Collector Vadodara. Has SIT bothered to examine these at all?

Violence in May 2002 un-probed by the SIT:

Annexure III File XXX D-172 Part-I

SrPageNo.MessageFromSent toMessageRemarks

No.WhomInstruction

179FaxAsst. Commis. Int.,Addl. IGDistrict Vadodara rural Ta. Jetpur. Muslims of-

IB/D-2/comVadodaraInt., G‘nagarKathval village affected in riots are residing at Relief camps at Chhota Udaipur. They are trying to

/1076/02rehabilitate themselves and return to their

9.5.02 20:24hrsnative village but the Hindus are refusing to let them live there. So they have given a memorandum to the Resi. Collector, Chhota Udaipur.

21831. Letter as per incident occurredPI, Int. A‘badAsst. Commi. Int., A‘badCommunal incident occurred at Shah Alam on dtd 7.5.02 at 21:00 to 23:30 hrs. In this incident, 25 Hindus injured 11 Muslims who were taken to hospital. PoliceIn this incident 6 Muslims and 1 Hindu died.

184dated 7.5.02fired 72 rounds of 303, 47 rounds 410 rifles, 7 rounds, revolver, 5 rounds 9 mm and SLR 28 of BSF and 59 SR and LR cell.Nephew of Mohsin Kadri died in this incident.

2. IB/671 /0226 Muslim‘s arrested in

12.5.02this incident.

328

Aggressive Mobilisation Including Trishul distribution in May 2002 uninvestigated by the SIT

Team-A

Annex.III File No. XXIX D-171 Part-I

NoPage No.MessageFromSent to WhomDetails

No.

123Fax.D.O. A‘badInt., A‘badAkhtar Hussain Rahman Shaikh was going with Nizambhai Saiyed on scooter. Nr. Idgah at Kankariya 8 to 10 persons attacked them using Trishul and sharp weapons and injured them, They were sent to hospital were Nizambhai died.

Vardhi no. 1825 12.5.02

18:05

2181FaxPI Int., RajkotAddl. IG SIB, G‘nagar;No details

IB/misse /Arms/436ACP Int.,

15.5.2002Rajkot

3183FaxAsst. Commi. Int.,Addl. IG SIB, G‘nagarAt Sardarpura village Dist. Mehsana where 29 Muslims were burnt alive their religious book and other things were set on fire in the mosque of the village.

Com/1650/02CID, IB

13.5.02

4184FaxAsst. Commi. Int.Addl. IG SIB, G‘nagarCommunal incidents continued in Ahmedabad city.

Com/1651/02CID IBIn Kadi town, Sutdi bomb thrown on Aamitbhai‘s STD PCO cabin.

13.5.02At Himmatnagar, Hazrat Gulab Shah‘s dargah was set on fire. An incident occurred at Sardarpura village; mosque set on fire and damaged.

Annex.III File No.XXX D-172 Part-II

3416Fax IB/D- 2/com/Incident /Info./1205Asst. Commi. Int.,Addl. IG Int. SIB, Guj.Yesterday dtd 30.5.02 at 23:00 hrs somePolice officers involved in this incident:

police men came in a

/02G‘nagarvehicle to MemonB.Kanani (PI),

31.5.02colony. They damagedD.B.Shah

23:39vehicles and mosque and threatened residents of the area to shoot at sight. They used abusive language against Muslim community.(PSI), J.T.Rana(PSI), Sharma (PC), Pappu(PC), Mishra(PC) and DCB Staff.

- Reaction about the above mentioned matter in the

community is very strong. They have given memorandum to the CP of Vadodara.

- Panchnama of the mosque attacked has not been done until today. Glasses of the windows/door were

329

broken at shelter.

- Angry Muslims say they want to give

chance to DD Tuteja (CP) to enact a second Jalianwala Baug, to become ‘General Dyer‘ or ‘General Tuteja‘.

4423LetterBabuKPS Gill, Security adviser to CM.Atrocity by police on innocent Muslims at Memon colony, Ajva road Baroda.-

Shaikh Advocate

5454FaxAsst. Int. Officer, State IB Chhota UdaipurAddl. IG Int. SIB, Guj.District Vadodara rural Ta. Jetpur, Villagers of Kathval, Muslim Community of this village are affected in riots in are residing at Relief camps at Chhota Udaipur. They areThis is a repeated of what has

IB/A.P./90/02trying to rehabiliteealready

10.5.02their Native village but the Hindu community is refusing them entry So they givenappeared

memorandum to the resi. Collector Chhota Udaipur.above.

6455FaxAsst. Commi.Addl. IG Int. SIB, Guj.Fax no. incident/firing/841/02 5.5.02;

D-1/HA/846/02 15.5.02Int., JunagadhGujarat VHP Sec. Lalitbhai Bhimjibhai Suvaniya Re.

Junagadh complaint about firing on him on 15.5.02. According to his complaint,

Junagadh city B.Div. Noted ICR No. 123/02 of IPC 307 etc.

Bajrang Dal worker Mansukh Kanjibhai Junagadh and Dinesh Hasmukhbhai of Rajkot were going to in Geep no.GJ3X 4027 on dtd 14/15 May-2002 with weapons like-225 swords, 200 guptis were arrested by

Rajkot city police at Rajkot-Junagadh high way. They brought these weapons from Chotila to Junagadh. In his explanation he replied that situation in tense in Junagadh after incident of Godhra. So they supply the

weapons to the societies. The VHP and BD hav elodged a false complaint about this. They are trying to build false sympathies among Hindus. The attacks on Muslim community cannot be denied. This also is a plan and trying to

breach the peace so it is necessary to keep

330

bandobast in Muslim areas as per IB.

7458FaxState IB Center Office Chhota UdaipurAsst. Int. Officer80 days has passed the Godhra incident but incidents continue in Chhota Udaipur-

IB/com/107/02State IB Chhota G‘nagarCenter. Many Muslim are staying in camp run down Saba Charitable trust; 205 Muslims

20.5.02came back to Tejgadh. - Banners put up to irritate the community; identity of miscreants not known.

- The aim is to disrupt the business and economical activity.

Annexure III File XXXI D-173 Part-I

SrPageNo.MessageFromSent toMessageRemarks

No.WhomInstruction

195FaxPI CIDAddl. PDDabhoi Po.Sta.Dabhoi

HM/25/com /460Int., Vadodarastate IB,dist. Baroda at Shanor village After Godhra carnage on 7.3.02, at 13:00 to 13:30 hrs 70 houses of minority community were set on fire and damaged.I.C.R.No.32 /02, IPC 143, 307 etc.

8.7.02G‘nagarDabhoi I.C.R. No. 96/02 IPC 302 etc.

- 12 accused arrested in this incident but released on bail.

- After this incident, on 4.7.02

Ismailbhai and

Noor Mohammed bhai returned to their home

damaged in the communal incident, for repairs. At night about at 22:30, villagers of Shanor and Fulwadi attacked them with weapons and both killed.

1-3-2002, Bhavnagar where Violence was Attempted but Contained

Analysis of Mr. Rahul Sharm a’s affidavit before the Nanavati Commission and his subsequent deposition.

748. The affidavit is dated 2.7.2002. This means that it was voluntarily made by Mr. Sharma the moment the Nanavati Commission came into effect and is accompanied by several pages of annexure. These annexures contained copies of the wireless messages,

331

statements related to police bandobast, bandobast arranged by SP, Mr. Rahul Sharma, statement of the striking force that was available with him, statement relating to tear gas fire made by officer under Rahul Sharma, and several other details relating to the force necessary which was used to disperse the mob at Madrasa Akwada. Annexure also contained details of curfew in this district. Meticulous information annexed by this officer also contain minutes of the crime analysis held by him and contain a very important report made by him to DGP, Gujarat on 24.3.2002. Mr. Rahul Sharma had also in this affidavit made public through the annexures the statement showing details of phone calls that came to him on his official mobile. Finally, and importantly, he included the newspaper cuttings printed in the newspaper Sandesh. Sandesh was one of the most important newspapers that maliciously furthered the conspiracy and regarding whose story the Gujarat police officers recommended strong punitive action. It is no wonder that A-1 Mr. Modi who in 2002 had occupied the post of State Cabinet Home Minister (he still does) did not grant any sanction for prosecution of this publication.

749. Mr. Rahul Sharma stated in his affidavit that he was performing his duty as SP Bhavnagar from 16.2.2002 to 26.3.2002. A total of 23 police stations were under his command. This officer was on casual leave at Vadodara on 27.2.2002 when he came to know about Godhra train burning incident when the Special I.G. Junagadh Range instructed him that pursuant to the incident that took place at Godhra and the call of the Gujarat Bandh the next day i.e. 28th February 2002 he should immediately resume duty. He therefore left from Vadodara and resumed as SP Bhavnagar at 17:13 p.m. on 27.2.2002 (Vadodara is about 1 1/2 hours away from Godhra city headquarters). Immediately this officer went to his office and, as should have been done in every district of Gujarat, he called a meeting of police officers between 10:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight; then again from 12:00 midnight to 2:00 a.m. on 28.2.2002. He gave clear and firm instructions on how the Gujarat Bandh calls should be tackled.

750. The SIT had full access to Mr. Rahul Sharma (they have recorded his statement) as well as affidavit and annexure. Bhavnagar was one district that despite heavy provocation by A-5 (MoS Home Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya) did not burst into violence simply because of the exemplary leadership

332

shown by Mr. Rahul Sharma. The SIT ought to have insisted that through their investigation the kind of material placed on record by Mr. Rahul Sharma should have been placed by all other SPs of the relevant districts for the relevant period in 2002. They have not done so and this is yet another example of their shoddy and callous investigation.

751. Mr. Rahul Sharma outlined in his affidavit that he had given all necessary guidance to his officers of how to put into effect proper bandobast and continued to do this through the night. Not content with issuing instructions he was pro-active in questioning and cross-questioning as to how many people were placed in bandobast where, in which division. (SIT papers) The affidavit has been given without some key annexures.

752. The wireless message which Mr. Rahul Sharma sent to get additional police force from outside was also annexed to his affidavit as it must be. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he remained in a position of high alert and he continued to personally supervise the bandobast. He came to know that there was a fire in the shop of a Muslim situated near Ghogha and immediately ordered that the FSL conduct an investigation. On going there, he found that the fire was at a shop named Goodluck Electronic and the shop belonged to Mr. Salim Mohd. Lakhani aged 40 years. Mr. Rahul Sharma personally explained to the police inspector of ‘C’ division how this investigation should be conducted. Mr. Rahul Sharma records in his affidavit that on 1.3.2002, VHP and ruling BJP had called a Bharat Bandh and he remained present at his office. He found that on the morning of 1st March 2002, the newspaper Sandesh had published an article, which could incite people to violence. This article is annexed at State. C of his affidavit and can be read in the SIT papers. Immediately, Mr. Rahul Sharma spoke to Mr. Rajesh Joshi, resident editor of Sandesh at Bhavnagar and instructed him not to publish such news in the newspaper. Response from Mr. Rajesh Joshi was adamant and not surprising. Mr. Rahul Sharma states in his affidavit that Mr. Rajesh Joshi said that ‘what is written is proper and I actually wanted to write more, but since you are saying so I will not write hereafter’. Mr. Rahul Sharma made a note of

333

this conversation and made a decision to inform his superior officer about this.

753. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he was aware that on 1.3.2002 a rally of Sadhu Samaj was planning to bring a memorandum to the Collector, Bhavnagar At this time, 17:10 pm he was informed by the police control room that such a rally had in fact been planned by the Sadhu Samaj to protest the Godhra massacre and after giving a representation to the Collector, had dispersed. However, barely half an hour after this, at 18:00 hours he was informed that in several areas of Bhavnagar city mobs had gathered. Mr. Rahul Sharma left his office with a striking force and first dispersed the mob that had gathered at Navrangpura and thereafter at Ghoghaghat. Violence continued and all shops belonging to minority were burning even in Ladhal Bazar, Kantiwad where the SP then rushed. At this point he states that the Collector also arrived. By 20:15 p.m. when Mr. Rahul Sharma and Collector Bhavnagar remained present mob attack on different areas continued. Mr. Rahul Sharma in his affidavit states that he made an attempt to contact the fire brigade, which was again apparently unsuccessful. He states that he requested the Collector to call for more fire fighters because of this. Information of spreading violence and people trapped inside the White Rose Hotel continued for the next few hours of 1.3.2002 and kept the SP Mr. Rahul Sharma busy.

754. When Mr. Rahul Sharma reached near the Limdiwali Sadak he found a mob of both communities Hindu and Muslims gathered and were pelting stones at each other. He immediately tried to dispel the mob. He states in his affidavit that after he met persons from the Muslim mob they quietly dispersed and went away. However, on the other side mob belonging to Hindu community had begun rioting and burning shops and homes forcing the SP Mr. Rahul Sharma to give warning on a mike placed high and warned them of use of strike force if the mob did not disperse. Finally, DySP Mr. Jani was instructed to fire tear gas shells from his striking force and Mr. Rahul Sharma provided details of this in his affidavit. At this point Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he even spoke with his superior officer Mr. K Chakravarti, DGP,

334

Gujarat (A-25 in the Zakia Jafri case); he was assured that he would be sent one more company of SRP to control the situation.

755. Mr. Rahul Sharma kept receiving distress calls from members of the Muslim community including one Professor Sheikh and others. He tried his best as can be read in his affidavit to rescue them. One particular situation indicative of the grave of the situation that the affidavit of Mr. Rahul Sharma points out is the attack on minority dailies in Bhavnagar. A resident of Sana apartment, one Molai Ullah Rajila Mohd. Nazir), came rushing to him with news that 11 persons were trapped inside his flat and a mob of Hindus were trying to burn them to death. Mr. Rahul Sharma took Molvi Ulla with him along with his striking force and rushed towards Panchmahal, Tehad Chowk where a mob of about 1,000 persons had surrounded the burning Sana apartment. SP Mr. Rahul Sharma rose to the demand of his profession and with full use of his striking force and his mike tried to disperse the mob and finally he had to use firing to do so. This statement of the firing is also annexed to his affidavit. Statement E actually contains details of several incidents that took place in Bhavnagar in which Mr. Rahul Sharma had to use force. The incident relates to Sana apartment describing that totally the police had to fire 9 rounds, 7 rounds from a 303, and 2 rounds from 410 rifle. Through this proper and lawful action the mob was dispersed after which Mr. Rahul Sharma records that Molvi Ulla shouted and called 11 people from the terrace to come down. This included 7 men, one woman and 3 children. The tragedy that might have taken place but for the sensitive and proper action of Mr. Rahul Sharma can but be imagined.

756. At the same time that Mr. Rahul Sharma was performing his action at Prabhat, Tahed Chowk, he was informed about a rioting mob gathered near the corner of Arawad. He was also told that the Collector and the District Home Guard instructor were also trapped in between the mob. Mr. Rahul Sharma immediately went there with his staff and gave instructions through a mike that the striking force accompanying him should immediately disperse the mob. Despite these instructions the mob did not disperse following

335

which Mr. Rahul Sharma himself had to take steps to disperse the mob (Page 19, statement E annexed with his affidavit at filed in SIT paper). This statement gives details on how the firing was affected by the police and the mob was dispersed.

757. Thereafter Mr. Rahul Sharma continued patrolling throughout the city also visiting the injured persons who had sustained injuries, at the government hospital. Somewhere around this time he came to know that in the Kumbharwada area one Mr. Shafikhan had died after assault through blows by sharp weapons.

758. The mob was obviously on a rampage all over Bhavnagar and the details given by Mr. Rahul Sharma, methodically in his affidavit revealed this as much as also throw light to the atmosphere, and principled officers could tackle them through the night. All through the night of 1.3.2002 this rioting continued and several strategies were affected. Around 5:30 a.m. Mr. Rahul Sharma in his affidavit states there was some ease up in the violence as he went to this office to recharge his mobile with battery that had discharged.

759. Again at 7:00 a.m. he had begun patrolling and giving instructions directly to the mobile vans from his mobile to all officers and they could control the riot fairly. It was during this period after 7:00 a.m. that one company of SRP arrived. It may be recalled that the DGP had the night before promised two companies of SRP. Mr. Rahul Sharma made the allotment of the persons of the SRP in the area to make the bandobast stronger.

760. Mr. Rahul Sharma stated in his affidavit that after 8:30 a.m. the rioters had begun their violence again and the rioting mob was setting shops, homes on fire at Kumdiwali. Immediately he went there and found that shops, homes and cabins had already been burnt and the mob was trying to set more houses and shops on fire. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he kept the PSI Mr. Chawda of the striking force with him at Santram Chowk and personally went towards the eastern side to disperse the rioting mob. He gave warning to

336

the mob to disperse through the mike of his own vehicle but he needed to use force before the rioters listened. This has also been detailed by him on page No 6 of the statement E annexed to his affidavit. (This can be read in the SIT papers). While Mr. Rahul Sharma was returning from the eastern side he saw that PSI Mr. Chawda of the striking force who had given warning to the mob ahead of Kundwad to disperse on the western side, even fired tear gas shells. But the mob had not dispersed and instead was aggressively targeting the striking force of PSI Mr. Chawda. Mr. Rahul Sharma after obtaining permission of the Magistrate, Mr. Govil, who was present there fired one round from 303 rifle and Home guard Mr. Vijay Mansukhlal fired one round form his 303 rifle. The description in detail given by Mr. Rahul Sharma shows how aggressive mobs led by leaders of VHP and BJP was determined to cause violence in the city of Bhavnagar even at the cost of attacking and injuring those sections of police that responded to their lawful duty.

761. Mr. Rahul Sharma describes further his continued patrolling at Vithaleshwar road, where too force had to be used before the mob dispersed (page No 20 of statement E of his affidavit). Again a mob had gathered at and again firing had to be resorted to.

762. A little while later as SP was patrolling in the city of Bhavnagar he was informed that a mob of people were making concerted attack on the Akwada Madrasa and there was urgent need of more police force. As no police officer was present Mr. Rahul Sharma immediately sent inspector Mr. Bhatti of the B Division police station there and started to go there himself. Soon he got a phone from a person named Mr. Asif who called on his mobile in distress appealing that if Mr. Rahul Sharma immediately did not personally intervene the mob was determined to burn the Akwada Madrasa. The police inspector Mr. Bhatti of the B Division had already reached Akwada Madrasa and Mr. Rahul Sharma heard this on wireless set but the rioting Akwada madrasa mob had gathered near the workshop of Gujarat Travel and had already set a bus and a truck of his travel company on fire. After dispersing the mob and leaving 2 police constable and 2 home guards behind for bandobast, Mr. Rahul Sharma

337

rushed towards Limda Motors where the rioting mob was setting a cab on fire. When he warned the mob to disperse, one person from the mob tried to ignore the SP‘s instruction and when he was challenged by the SP he even assaulted Mr. Rahul Sharma. This forced Mr. Rahul Sharma to fire from the government pistol that he had below that man‘s waist and he sustained injury on his leg, after which he ran away and the mob dispersed. Thereafter Mr. Rahul Sharma rushed to Akwada where according to his affidavit more than 10,000 people had gathered and were attacking the Madrasa hurling stones and burning torches. They were trying to set it on fire. Mr. Rahul Sharma said in his affidavit that many persons from the mob had scythes, swords, pipes, axes etc. By this time DySP Bhavnagar city Mr. M D Jani also reached there and though a warning was given to the mob through a microphone from the government vehicle to disperse, members of the mob continued to challenge the police; there was even stone pelting on the police. Finally, as can be read form page 13 of statement E annexed to Mr. Rahul Sharma‘s affidavit the police had to use force to disperse the mob.

763. Detailed Note on police firing states that a total of 21 rounds, 17 rounds from 303, 3 rounds from 410 and 1 round from a pistol had to be fired. The statement also states that barely 9 persons apart from SP were on the spot. Yet the determined force risking their life managed to disperse a 10,000-strong riotous armed mob with dangerous weapons. Clearly any weakling response by A-25.DGP Mr. K Chakravarti or A-29 Commissioner of Police, Mr. P C Pande does not when A-36 SP, Mehsana Mr. Sharma and his men managed to save the life of the children inside the Madrasa.

764. As the mob continued with the attack, Mr. Rahul Sharma and police inspector Mr. Bhatti of Bhavnagar tried to call the Sarpanch to Akwada village. Since the Sarpanch was not present, Mr. Bhatti called Mr. Anirudh Singh Govil, a leader of the village. Mr. Rahul Sharma explained to him to tell the rioting mob at the village to stop blocking this road and stop attacking the police. He also warned them that if the mob did not disperse the police would take strict action. Thereafter

338

Mr. Rahul Sharma kept the police inspector Mr. Bhatti present at Akwada Madrasa and returned to Bhavnagar city for meeting of the peace committee at the Collector‘s office. He continued patrolling till midnight in the city. After his discussion with Mr. Jani he decided to shift 400 children staying at the Akwad Madrasa along with the teachers and residents to a safe place in the middle of the night and he discussed the situation with his colleagues. Pursuant to the collective decision between 11:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m. on the night of 1.3.2002 and 2.3.2002, Mr. Rahul Sharma and his colleagues shifted all the residents residing at Akwada Madrasa to the Ibrahim masjid, Bhavnagar which is situated at Sheikh Vihar. While carrying out this action of shifting the 400 residents of Akwada Madrasa, SP Mr. Rahul Sharma and others was aware of the frightening situation that continued to prevail in Bhavnagar. The road towards the Madrasa had been closed down with burning tyres, big stones, wooden hurdles etc. due to which the police faced much hardship before they could reach the Madrasa. The murderous mob continued to function with impunity and even then the strong police was taking the residents of the Madrasa in batches. They had to face stone pelting on the government vehicles and buses. During the shifting of the residents of the madrasa, the police officer MD Mr. Jani, police inspector Mr. Bhatti and PSI Mr. Chawda were together. Throughout this dangerous period, SP Rahul Sharma remained present personally at the Akwada madrasa with his striking force guarding it as a safe place till the residents could reach Ibrahim Masjid. Mr. Rahul Sharma‘s conduct while the whole of the city of Bhavnagar was under riotous attack because of a political conspiracy to engine violence is highly commendable and should have received the government of Gujarat‘s particular attention and appreciation. Instead, Mr. Rahul Sharma is one of those persons who the Government of Gujarat under A-1 Mr. Modi and other co-accused are being victimised and charged even today as he remains in service. He is a targeted officer who was further singled out because he chose to speak the truth before the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court. Shamefully, the SIT has seen no merit in thoroughly examining Mr. Rahul Sharma‘s affidavit, annexure or his statement nor has it sought to compare those areas and

339

districts where violence was prevented actively by the lawful and constitutional behaviour of police officers with those officers and administrative heads who succumbed as part of a criminal conspiracy.

765. The Affidavit of Mr. Rahul Sharma continues in his narration to the ghastly incident that followed. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that even the next day i.e. on 2.3.2002 at 2:00 p.m. in the evening violence continued with rampaging mobs trying to attack different parts of the city. The situation continued to be dangerous for members of the minority community who owned buses and vehicles as they were running travel businesses. So SP Mr. Rahul Sharma instructed police inspector Mr. IK Jadeja that if such persons wanted to keep their vehicle in the premises of the SP‘s office, he would give them protection. All the luxury buses and trucks belonging to the minority community were thereafter kept in the safekeeping of SP‘s office as per the affidavit of Mr. Rahul Sharma.

766. The first time force of central paramilitary reached Bhavnagar was when one company BSF (Border Security Force) arrived at Bhavnagar city at 8:00 p.m. on the night of 3.3.2002. A flag march was performed by the company of BSF in all the sensitive areas. Thereafter at about 22:00 hours i.e. 10:00 p.m. on 3.3.2002 one column of the army came to Bhavnagar and again a flag march was performed. Late that night, one more column of the army according to the affidavit of Mr. Rahul Sharma came. Considering the safety of the Madrasa situated at Akwada the headquarters of both the columns of army were kept at Akwada Madrasa. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that on the early morning of 4.3.2002 one company of border wing also came to Bhavnagar city. Mr. Rahul Sharma has given details of the positioning of the army and the BSR column in Statement F annexed to his affidavit. This statement contains details of when the columns came and where they were situated in the various 23 police stations under SP Mr. Rahul Sharma‘s command. Incidentally a letter dated 11.3.2002 gives reference to a letter from SP‘s office dated 10.3.2002 and is written from the company commander of B Company No 3 Battalion of the Border Wing, Jamnagar. This letter mentions

340

that 30 more ---- (forces) have been given to Mr. Rahul Sharma as per his request. It appears clear from the detailed statement vis-a-vis the army deployment and BSF deployment that no real presence or deployment of the central paramilitary or the army was possible till late evening of 3.3.2002 and was actually operational from 4.3.2002 onwards. If this is the case for Bhavnagar which was a city that was clearly a target of the conspiracy to foment violence including attacks on the Madrasa what must have been the situation of other areas of Gujarat?

767. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that on 4.3.2002 the Central Home Minister Mr. LK Advani and Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi came together to Bhavnagar and he remained busy preparing the bandobast for them.

768. Twelve days after the shameful incident of the attack on the Madrasa and the sustained attack on the minority property and lives in Bhavnagar more incidents are recorded by Mr. Rahul Sharma on 23.3.2002. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that around 11:00 a.m. that morning he got a message on his wireless that a rioting mob had gathered near Chawdi gate near Imamwada Masjid and though BSF and police had warned the mob to disperse the mob had started pelting stones on the police and BSF itself. Therefore, the BSF had used all necessary force to disperse the mob. When SP Rahul Sharma immediately reached there after these developments, he was informed that the BSF and SRP personnel had arrested 21 persons from the mob and brought them to the A division police station and that police inspector Mr. TK Patel of A Division had lodged a complaint (ICR No 174 of 02) for offences punishable under sections 143, 146, 147, 148, 149, 189, 295, 336 of IPC and under section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Mr. Rahul Sharma made a report about this incident to DGP Gujarat and IGP Gujarat dated 24.3.2002. This report is important. The letter to the DGP has been Annexed by us at Annexure

. Significantly though the SIT filed his affidavit

with other annexures this communication to A-25 Chakravarti and another to A--61 CP Ahmedabad (from May 2002) Mr. KR Kaushik have in June 2002 not been filed by the SIT. Mr. Rahul Sharma continues the narration of the

341

entire incident that took place thereafter and also calculated statement of police phone calls made from control room and received by the control room. Mr. Rahul Sharma states in his affidavit that till 26th of March 2002, a total of 278 complaints were registered related to communal violence. The deposition of Mr. Rahul Sharma before the Nanavati Shah Commission is equally revelatory. Mr. Rahul Sharma was one of the officers who were punitively transferred by the Gujarat government on 26.3.2002 even while violence continued to take place in Bhavnagar city. (See table on the rewards and punishment). As is revealed by Mr. Rahul Sharma in his deposition before the Nanavati Commission, one of the reasons for his transfer was his refusal to release those persons and 21 leaders of different organisations like the BJP, RSS, VHP etc. who had been arrested by the Bhavnagar police for violent attacks on the minorities in Bhavnagar.

769. On March 26, 2002 he was transferred out of Bhavnagar and was brought in to DCP, crime Branch, Ahmedabad. Even there his contribution to a fair and impartial investigation particularly in the revealing of phone call records and the charge sheet related to Naroda Patia and Gulberg incident made the State Government transfer him, once again, to the post of SRPF commandant. He is presently posted as DIG, Rajkot but the State Government has charge sheeted him for speaking to the Special Investigating Team (SIT).

770. Mr. Rahul Sharma gave his deposition before the Nanavati Commission on 30.10.2004. During this deposition he was closely questioned about the situation in Bhavnagar and thereafter while he was DCP, Crime Branch, due to his victimisation by the Gujarat Government, he was asked why he had produced the mobile phone details received by him and made by him and his unit when he was SP, Bhavnagar. In his reply to the Commission he stated that since there were some complaints from some quarters that complaints and information were not being received by the police in order to dispel the allegation he had produced these documents. He further stated that while he was returning (after the Godhra incident had taken place) and on his way to Bhavnagar while he was making enquiry about the ground

342

Xxx

depend on who the rioters were. The deposition of Mr. Rahul Sharma before the Nanavati Commission on 30.10.2004 along with the annexures to his affidavit and affidavit itself should have provided enough material for the SIT to explore the possibility of conspiracy at the higher level and the political leaders‘ attitude towards police officers who were true to their constitutional obligation. However, the SIT has chosen not to explore this aspect of conspiracy at all. Mr. Rahul Sharma in his deposition describes a very serious incident that took place on 23.3.2002 in the Chawdi gate area. This was briefly referred to by him in his affidavit and he is questioned regarding this incident before the Commission. Mr. Rahul Sharma explains that after a mosque was attacked in Chawdi gate area, 21 persons were arrested by the police and the local leaders of powerful parties went to get them released on bail. Mr. Rahul Sharma came to know of this from the inspector in charge of the police station and stated on oath that apparently the DySP had promised these leaders that they would be released by evening. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that when he came to know about this he had made it very clear to his subordinates as also to the local leaders that accused would not be released on bail and even if there is an order of the court they would be arrested by him as a way of preventive measure. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that leaders did not like this consistent stand taken by him and therefore they arranged for ‘gherao’ of the A Division police station by women. They had also threatened Mr. Rahul Sharma that this would lead to a bad situation and communal riot would break out again. Mr. Rahul Sharma stated on oath that in spite of these indirect threats from the local leaders he had instructed all the officers in charge of the police station to take strict action even against women if it became necessary. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he had given these instructions in the presence of the trouble-makers and they had dispersed and possibly passed this information to the women of the police station. Mr. Rahul Sharma further adds that those who were dissatisfied with this order had contacted higher officers and that appears to be the reason why the DGP had asked for a report of the incident. Mr. Rahul Sharma discreetly says that he had some professional difference in opinion with higher officers as regards the

345

manner in which the release of the accused was to be handled. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he sent the reports to the DG as directed by him through a letter, which is annexed with the affidavit. Mr. Rahul Sharma says that he had not identified those local leaders. Mr. Rahul Sharma also states that this entire development led him to inform that there was an organised attempt on the part of the local BJP leaders to keep the issue alive. It is reasonable to assume that this was one of the triggers apart from his upright behaviour during the violence that went against the objective of the conspiracy that was hatched to foment violence and that led to his premature transfer offers. The transfer order was issued on 27.3.2002, he was relieved the day before. He was transferred to the DGP Control Room, Ahmedabad and joined office on 8th April 2002.

776. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that the DGP had asked for the report regarding the incident on 23.3.2002 and subsequent arrest. Mr. Rahul Sharma also stated that he had a professional difference of opinion with the District Magistrate, Junagadh Range IG and the DGP of the State on the issue of release of the arrested persons. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that those other officers believed that if a person is not released on bail that itself would lead to more trouble. Mr. Rahul Sharma felt otherwise, that the only way to control violence is by observing the law.

777. Mr. Rahul Sharma states in his deposition made on 30.10.2004 that while he was working as DCP in Control Room at Ahmadabad he was instructed to assist with the investigation, which was being conducted by the Crime Branch of the Ahmadabad Police Commissionerate. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he was deputed to assist the investigation by JtCP Mr. PP Pandey, on 7.5.2002. The investigation on Naroda Patia and Gulberg case were with Mr. SS Chudasama who was then ACP in the Crime Branch. Mr. Surolia was the supervising officer. Mr. Rahul Sharma was supposed to assist Mr. Surolia in supervising these cases. Mr. Rahul Sharma states during the course of investigation it became apparent that more and more political leaders were involved and therefore it was important to find out those who were actually involved and those who

346

were falsely being accused. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he and his colleagues felt that being cases of highly specialised and sensitive nature they should first collect evidence before taking action. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that therefore they collected data from the AT & T and cell-phone company which gave details of all the calls received or made by persons holding mobile phones within the city of Ahmedabad.

778. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that the information that they sought from AT & T was received within one week‘s time and the information from the cell phone company took three weeks to come. Mr. Rahul Sharma explains that this information was received by the Crime Branch Joint Commissioner of Police Mr. PP Pandey and was handed over to him, i.e., Rahul Sharma. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that since CDs contained all the information received during investigation he had requested Mr. PP Pandey to keep the original CDs along with case file. Mr. Rahul Sharma prepared one copy of the CD which until the deposition of the Nanavati Commission had remained with him and on being asked by the Council these two CDs were taken on record of the Commission. There is a remark made during his deposition that it is clear that these are not the original CDs but they are copies made after zipping of the data.

779. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he was only given oral orders to assist the investigation. Thereafter after Mr. Surolia was transferred out of Gujarat and he stopped assisting the investigation. He states that on 27th May 2002 he was again called by the Joint Commissioner of Police Mr. PP Pandey and was told to assist the investigation again. Once again this was an oral order. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that on the night between 27.2.2002 and 28.2.2002 some accused involved in the Naroda Patia and Gulberg incident came to be arrested. Since Mr. Rahul Sharma had not been informed about the raid and the arrest Mr. Sharma stated that he met Mr. PP Pandey on 28.5.2002 and told him that if he had to be part of the investigation team, he should be informed about the important developments. Mr. Rahul Sharma states on oath that he had also met A-61 Mr. KR Kaushik who had taken over as Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad by then

347

and told him that if he was not going be allowed to be involved at all stages of investigation then he would like to withdraw from it. After this incident, A-61 Mr. KR Kaushik passed an order that from the day (28.5.02) for Mr. Rahul Sharma to assist the investigation in cases that has been entrusted to the Crime Branch. Mr. Rahul Sharma also states that it appeared to him that Mr. PP Pandey Joint Commissioner, Crime Branch was not happy with the order passed by A-61 Mr. KR Kaushik and therefore A-61 Mr. Kaushik says the charge sheet came to be filed in respect of to the Gulberg Society on 3.6.2002. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he had conveyed his feeling to Mr. PP Pandey about the charge sheet after which he was contacted on the phone by Mr. Pandey on 4.6.2002 and called to see him immediately. Mr. Rahul Sharma thereafter he went to Mr. P C Pandey‘s office for the Naroda Patia case papers. All the investigation papers were shown to Mr. Rahul Sharma and he was asked to assess whether the investigation paper was proper. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that on a perusal of the charge sheet he found that wrong reasons for the attack on minorities at Naroda Patiya were given in the charge sheet. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he did not agree with his assessment and he expressed his opinion. Mr. Rahul Sharma also states that there was serious difference of opinion between him, Mr. PP Pandey and other investigating officers Mr. Vanjara and Mr. Chudasama. Discussions lasted over two hours after which Mr. Rahul Sharma had told them that since they were the investigating officers and Mr. Pandey was his superior they should decided what to do. Mr. Rahul Sharma put down his difference in writing in a letter handed over to Mr. A-61 Mr. KR Kaushik on 4.6.2002. Mr. Rahul Sharma produced a copy of that letter during his deposition before the Nanavati Commission.

780. Mr. Rahul Sharma continued the narrative to state that it appeared to him that the Commissioner of Police, A-61 Mr. KR Kaushik was not satisfied with the charge sheet filed and therefore he had again called Mr. Rahul Sharma to meet him after 10 to 15 days. It is important to note that A-61 A-61 Mr. KR Kaushik had told Mr. Rahul Sharma to scrutinise the case papers related to both these cases thoroughly and point out the discrepancies to him. A-61 Mr. KR Kaushik has

348

also instructed Mr. PP Pandey to send the case papers of these two case papers to his office. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that after the case papers were brought, xerox copies were prepared and handed over to Mr. Rahul Sharma. Mr. Sharma also states that FIR and the charge sheet in the Gulberg case were not consistent with each other and that by the time the Crime Branch had made out a charge sheet the version seems to have changed. The charge sheet now states that it was a fire by Mr. Jafri that led to the attack on the residents of Gulberg society. Mr. Rahul Sharma during his deposition states that he had made his critical observation vis-a-vis both the charge sheet which has been supplied to him. Within 7 days of this, i.e. on 5.7.2002, Mr. Rahul Sharma who was raising voices about the nature of investigation into serious incidents was again summarily transferred. He was posted at Commandant, SRP 11 at Vav, Near Surat.

781. On 24.3.2002, Mr. Rahul Sharma while he was still SP Bhavnagar, addressed a letter to A-25 Mr. K Chakravarti, DGP Gujarat State. This has been annexed by the Petitioner at Annexure .The letter is in connection with telephonic conversation the two of them had regarding an incident that took place in Bhavnagar the day before. Mr. Rahul Sharma said in his letter that following the arrest of 21 accused in connection with the offences the DySP and the PI of A Division police station assured the leaders and the women folk that they would be released after being presented before the Magistrate on the same day. Mr. Rahul Sharma stated in his letter that there was something peculiar about this whole incident. He says that the day before the incident, i.e. on 22.3.2002 a rumour had been spread that Hindu children had been kidnapped from the school. Consequently all the business establishments in Bhavnagar had closed down and while there were only minor incidents roads were wearing a deserted look. The next day, i.e. 23.3.2002 people had come to know that this was only a rumour and therefore the situation was reported normal. This surprising incident took place in the Badva area that has population of the Vagdi Koli community. Mr. Rahul Sharma states in his letter to the A-25 DGP that there was no reason why suddenly this incident could have suddenly erupted but

349

for the context of the issue of early release of accused who had been arrested by the police this incident deserves a closer look. Mr. Rahul Sharma goes on to tell his superior that he was convinced that the whole incident was pre-planned and pre-meditated. He states that anti-social elements operating at the behest of the political masters who had assured them of all legal aid even after committing crime were behind this incident. Mr. Rahul Sharma states that he felt that it was a ploy to keep the communal issue alive.

782. (Mr. Sharma records in his letter to the superiors that one of the BJP leaders had come over to him and said that early elections would now be announced). Mr. Rahul Sharma stated that his many letters to A-25 DGP Mr. K Chakravarti are required to be looked into behind the incident of 23.3.2002 and what followed. Mr. Rahul Sharma makes a strong case that the police should be sending clear messages to anyone that is involved in rioting, arson, stone pelting or hate speech would not be allowed to get away with it and if the police succumb to political pressure and release persons after they were arrested an impression would be carried that the police is functioning under their political bosses and such an impression about the police would be catastrophic for the district.

783. Mr. Rahul Sharma explains that in view of his assessment that non-partisan behaviour was the need of the hour he simply put his foot down and said that the accused would have to spend a day in the police lock up and would be presented before the Magistrate only the next day. While this decision has been taken and conveyed to the parties concerned, Mr. Rahul Sharma says that he was approached by lawyers as well as some prominent political figures urging him to secure bail early for the accused. Mr. Rahul Sharma states clearly that he did not oblige. He also stated that these leaders while urging him to give early bail to the accused also kept on threatening the administration with the bogey of more communal violence. Mr. Rahul Sharma says that it was almost as if they were saying that if these accused were not released the consequences would be afresh outbreak of communal riot. In the context of the fragile

350

situation their bluff had to be called and the SP did not succumb.

784. Mr. Rahul Sharma states in his letter that when the women folk came to know of his decision they organised themselves in smaller groups and started moving towards the A Division police station. Mr. Rahul Sharma had already made it clear to their leaders that should the police station be ‘gheraoed’ the police has been given instruction to use force as they would normally do to disperse the assembly. It was also communicated that there was no legal provision that restrained a male policemen to use force against an illegal assembly consisting of women. Mr. Rahul Sharma stated that the pressure obviously worked and the women folk after persuasion from the saner elements returned to their homes in the night. The letter concludes by saying that on the day of writing the letter to the DGP, 23.3.2002, life in Bhavnagar including in the Vadodara area has returned to normal.

785. These developments in Bhavnagar are illustrative of the conspiracy in operation. The detailed affidavit and annexure of Mr. Rahul Sharma gives us a glimpse of the kind of situation on the ground which was prevailing even three or four weeks after the Godhra incident in Gujarat. Efforts were obviously being made repeatedly to continue to foment violence and pressurise and pull the police administration to succumb. A-25 DGP Mr. K Chakravarti who is the first officer in the administrative line to become part of the conspiracy and thus let down his men on the ground. SP Bhavnagar Mr. Rahul Sharma‘s letter dated 24.3.2002 is a clear indication of how such a let-down officer feels.

786. The SIT records the statement of Mr. Rahul Sharma early on in the investigation on 2.7.2009. Though the affidavit of several officers given before the Nanavati Commission and their deposition are relied upon by SIT in the investigation, the detailed affidavit of Mr. Rahul Sharma described by and his deposition appear to have completely been ignored by the SIT.

787. The statement of Mr. Rahul Sharma recorded in 2009 runs into 8 pages. In the second paragraph itself he mentions the

351

report of Sandesh newspaper that was also mentioned in his affidavit dated 1.3.2002.

788. The SIT however does not throw any light into why the higher ups responsible for granting prosecution of the newspaper did not do so. The higher ups concerned would have been following the accused in the complaint.

789. The A-25 DGP Mr. K Chakravarti, Chief Secretary A-27 Mr. Subha Rao, A-34 Mr. K Nityanandam, Home Secretary, A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan, ACS, Home and most of all A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya, MoS Home and A-1 Mr. Narendra Modi, cabinet minister for Home affairs are all accused.

790. The statement before the SIT of Mr. Rahul Sharma also records that the MoS Home, Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya dated 16.3.2002 had telephonically tried to influence him about who should or should not be at the receiving end of police stringency during communal violence. Even on this the SIT does not draw any conclusion on these observations.

791. The Statement of SIT also records details about the circumstances under which the CD of telephone call records were collected by the crime branch when Mr. Rahul Sharma was assisting them and how a copy of the CD remained with him. Several paragraphs of the SIT statement are devoid of this aspect. Finally in the last few paragraphs Mr. Rahul Sharma repeats the statement about the changes in the charge sheet related to the Naroda Patia and Gulberg Society and also mentions the letter written by him to Mr. KR Kaushik in this connection. Though these facts substantially corroborate the prima facie information given by Mrs. Zakia Jafri in her complaint dated 8.6.2006, the SIT has chosen to completely ignore them.

Reprisals Killings Lash Ahmedabad Parading of Bodies that had arrived from Godhra

792. The deliberate parading of dead bodies of the Godhra victims brought to Ahmedabad by A-21 Mr. Jaydeep Patel and major conspirator A-1 Mr. Modi for aggressive funeral processions in Ahmedabad was a specific charge in the

352

complaint dated 8.6.2006. Evidence to establish this charge is available from the investigation papers which the SIT has cynically chosen to ignore. No wonder that the SIT was resisting the Complainant getting access to these investigation papers.

793. A message No.5746 of Annexure IV File IV, dated 28.2.2002, at 1.10 a.m. describes that previous day, i.e., 27.2.2002, a mob of 200 persons had been pelting stones and burning properties, shops around the bus stop. (Bapunagar ICR No.64/02). This message from the record appears to have been sent at 1.10 a.m. in the night. Another message, at pages 5798, 5803 and 5804 from Annexure III File XIV, dated 28.2.2002, 0030 hrs records that a factory was burnt at Ambika Nagar on 27.2.2002/28.2.2002 at 0030 hrs (Odhav ICR, 80 of 2002). At page no.5768 of Annexure III, File XIV dated 28.2.2002 a message sent at 2.30 a.m. records that a 100 strong mob was stone pelting and burning houses, rickshaws and damaging public property on 27.2.2002 at 1715 hrs (Odhav ICR No.78 of 2002. (See tables in the compilation of annexures at). There are

as many as 14 FIRs related to violent incidents had already been recorded by different police stations in Ahmedabad on 27.2.2002 itself. The question then is why promptly prohibitory orders were not issued, curfew and preventive action were not taken in Ahmedabad city itself as also in the far flung districts in the state where too communal mobilisation was systematically being organised within hours of the Godhra incident. What were the senior echelons of the police administration doing? It is not as if there was peace anywhere in the State after Godhra. The criminal complaint dated 8.6.2006 urges strong punitive measures and prosecution of officers for their failure to perform their basic constitutional duties.

794. The only two arrests made on February 27 were those of Mr. Mohammed Ismail Jalaluddin and Mr. Fateh Mohammed, who were picked up at Astodia that night, for shouting slogans. On February 28, of the 40 persons shot dead by the police in Ahmedabad city, 36 were Muslims (See Annexures). PC Mr. Pande‘s comments, "These people also, they somehow get carried away by the overall general

353

sentiment. That‘s the whole trouble. The police are equally influenced by the overall general sentiments." Here we have a top police official being indulgent towards his policemen who "somehow" get carried away by "general sentiments", (Times of India, March 1 2002). SIT has simply ignored all this critical evidence.

Funeral processions far from peaceful

795. At 12:30 p.m. on the 27th of February an SIB officer through fax No 525 communicated to the headquarters that there were reports that some dead bodies would be brought to Kalupur station in Ahmedabad city. "So communal violence will occur in the city of Ahmedabad; so take preventive action."

796. Another SIB message numbered as Out/184/02 again warned about communal incidents if bodies were brought to Ahmedabad. "Communal violence will occur in the city. So take preventive action’. (Identical message to the one above?) The same message said that karsevaks had given explosive interviews to a TV station at Godhra and had threatened to unleash violence against the Muslims.

797. At 1:51 hours and again at 1:59 hours on the 28th of February there were panic messages by wireless police vans positioned at Sola Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad urging immediate protection from Special Reserve Police platoons and the presence of the DCP Zone 1.

798. Message at 2:44 hours on 28.2.2002 says the motor cavalcade has reached Sola Civil Hospital. Page No. 5790 of Annexure IV, File XIV reveals that at 04:00 a.m. a mob comprising of 3,000 swayamsevaks, that is the members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), had already gathered at the Sola Civil Hospital. Page 5796 of Annexure IV, File XIV of the documents: At 7:14 hours the PCR van again informs the Police Control Room that a large mob had assembled at the Sola Civil Hospital. Page 5797 of Annexure IV, File XIV of the documents: Yet another

354

message three minutes later at 7:17 hours says that a mob of 500 people was holding up traffic.

799. 10 bodies were taken to Ramol, an area near Naroda and a massive funeral rally of over 5,000 to 6,000 mourners took the bodies to Hatkeshwar crematorium in the afternoon. At 11:55 a.m. a PCR message is sent out saying that the Hindu mob had become violent and had set a vehicle on fire and was indulging in arson on the highway.

800. Message at 11.55 a.m. on 28.2.2002 (Page No. 6162 Annexure IV File XV) says that ‘Sayyed Saheb, the Protocol Officer, had informed Sola-1 that riots have started at Sola Civil Hospital at (near) the High Court where the dead bodies were brought.’

801. Again, there is another message with no indication of time (Page No 6172 of 28.2.2002) that states that the officers and employees of the hospital had been surrounded by a mob of 500 and they could not come out. The message also demands more security for the Civil Hospital at Sola.

802. Annexure IV File XIV- Message No. 5907 and 5925 dated 11:58 hours on 28.2.2002 show that when 10 dead bodies were taken from Jantanagar Ramol to the Hatkeshwar cremation ground, a crowd of 5,000 to 6,000 persons accompanied this procession.

803. On the morning of 28.2.2002, a SIB message on page 258 of Annexure III File XIX, message No. Com/538/28/2/02 says that a funeral procession was allowed to take place at Khedbrahma, a town in Sabarkantha district. The message adds that soon after the funeral procession, 2 Muslims on their way to Khedbrahma were stabbed and the situation had become very tense.The subsequent message at page No. 262 of the same file (Annexure III File XIX) mentions that 150 Bajrang Dal workers were on their way from Ayodhya to Khedbrahma.

804. Another message at page 254 (Annexure III file XIX) – Com/574/2002 sent out at 15:32 hours on 28.2.2002 states that one more victim of the tragic train burning at Godhra,

355

Mr. Babubhai Harjibhai Patel, resident at Vaghrol, Tal. Vadali in Sabarkantha was brought back and a funeral procession was organised in the town.

805. Muslim residential colonies, shops & establishments had been identified beforehand and these records were available with the marauding mobs. A-25 Mr. K Chakravarti, then DGP, because of the instruction he received from A-1 Mr. Modi at the controversial meeting the night before, he does not perform his duties as statutorily required. There is no detailed and thorough message from him after the said meeting to the police stations alerting them to deal with the law and order situations firmly. One message, which is on a blank paper, needs to be studied forensically for its

authenticity.This shows that A- (what does he say abt

Bhatt—change statement on Bhatt) was working for accused Nos 1 A- then Commissioner of Police Mr. PC Pande was integral to the Conspiracy as he was the one who effectively neutralized the entire police machinery in Ahmedabad leading to over 300 deaths on 28.2.2002. The vast majority of those who died in both police firing and subsequent targeted mass violence were Muslims belying what the conspirators have been stating. A-29, PC Mr. Pande in fact was evidently part of the close coterie working closely under A-1 Mr. Modi. He has been a major beneficiary of post-retirement jobs and postings.

806. Most significantly he was in close touch with the CMO (the chief minister‘s office) at critical hours while the massacres at Naroda an Gulberg were taking place on 28.2.2002, but also while aggressive funeral processions commandeered by the VHP of the dead bodies of the Godhra victims have been brought to Sola Civil Hospital and allowed to be paraded in a macabre fashion. Mr. Pande told the SIT there was no parading of dead bodies. He was not only stating a blatant falsehood. His statement stands exposed by a careful scrutiny of the PCR records of Ahmedabad (wireless messages) that were provided by him to the SIT only after 15.3.2011. SIT too has chosen to ignore the documentary evidence contained therein. These records show that a systematic swelling of a belligerent crowd from 3 a.m. onwards on 28.2.2002 at the Sola Civil Hospital in

356

anticipation of the bodies being brought there by VHP strongman and co conspirator A-21, Mr. Jaydeep Patel. This crowd swells to 5,000-6,000 by mid-day when a high court judge belonging to the minority community is also attacked. (The Gujarat High Court is situated close to Sola Hospital). There is a specific message also stating that riots have broken out. Yet SIT concludes that the processions were peaceful.

The following table reveals how A-29, Mr. PC Pande‘s claim that the funeral processions were peaceful makes a mockery of the truth.

Annex IV File XIV (Page No.5713 to 6140) Dead Bodies Message on Dt. 28.2.02

Sr. No.Page NoDate & TimeMessageRemarks

1575228.2.02Zone-1 must be present at Sola CivilInformed Zone-1

1:51 hrsHospital(Reply is not available in SIT records).

2575228.2.02Send SRP Platoon to the Sola HospitalInformed SRP Control Room

1:59 hrsimmediately(Reply is not available in SIT records).

3575828.2.02Dead bodies have reached Vinzol Patiya.(Reply is not available)

2:44 hrs

4576628.2.02Police have been informed the name &Inform Sola-1

2:54 hrsaddress of the victims of Godhra train carnage & have been informed who received & took dead bodies.(Reply is not available).

5578628.2.02Dead-bodies have reached Sola Civil5787

3:34 rmed Sola-1, Zone-, VIP

Channel State 335

6579028/2/023000 workers (Swayamsevaks) are presentInformed Zone-1

4:00hrsat Civil Sola Hospital

7579428/2/02Dead body of Manglaben Harjibhai PatelInformed State and Control

6:55 hrsresiding at Ta. Kadi Dist. Mehsana, sent from Sola Civil Hospital to Kadi by Ambulance No. GJ-2Y- 9968room by Fax

Reply HCR and Control message passed to

Mehsana

5795

8579628/2/02Control room informed how a large mob has

7:14 hrsgathered at Sola Civil Hospital

9579728/2/02About 500 persons block traffic at SolaReply Message of 5796

7:17 hrshospital.

10582628/2/02King Shree informed that 3 SRP5827

8:10 hrsCommandant sent from police control to Sola Hospital for extra bandobastInformed Sola-1, Zone-1, Bekar 8:25

357

11583628/2/02 8:20 hrsSola-1 incharge informed that unidentified dead bodies of karsevaks have left for cremation from the Sola hospital to Gota Housing cremation house at 15:00. Keep necessary bandobast.5837

Fax sent to State IB, ADR copy SB

12584228/2/02 9:01 hrsPI-Sola informed that 26 dead bodies identified from 56 dead bodies, and their heirs have taken their dead bodies after the procedure of rmed Sola-1 9:17 pg. 5843

Informed about where dead bodies have been sent.

13584828/2/02 9:15 hrsAmraiwadi -1; informed that 10 dead bodies have come to Ramol, Jantanagar. Informed Zone-5, Iwary, that situation is very tense in Ramol Jantanagar. Send ACP there.Illegible

14586528/2/02Acharya Giriraj Kishorji Vice president of VHP has reached Ahmedabad airport. Send bandobast.Time not shown

Pg no.5866

Informed Naranpura -2 Depart from Akhbarnagar 10:02

15588228/2/02 10:10 hrsDGP Zone-3 informed that escort for Giriraj Kishore has not come. Send immediatelyReply is not confirmed

16589428/2/02 11:55 hrsMr. V.V. Rabari DIG (Int.) has informed that a vehicle has been set on fire/arson on highway near Gujarat High Court. Take necessary bandobast for High Court judges.PCB/P-1 Departure Reply is not confirmed

17590728/2/02 11:58 hrsAmraiwadi-1 incharge has informed that 10 dead bodies have been taken for cremation ceremony from Ramol Jantanagar to Hatkeshwar Cremation Centre with a crowd of 5 to 6 thousand accompanying rmed Amraiwadi -2, Amraiwadi Mobile, Zone-5, Tiger, CP, State Control, Reply is not available

18592528/2/02 12:50 hrsAmraiwadi-1 informed that 8 dead bodiesInformed Amraiwadi -1, 12:55 pg no.5926

reached at Hatkeshwar cremation centre.

19594228/2/02 11:47 hrsSend Fire Brigade immediately to Sola High Court Road... Processionists are setting fire and spreading violenceReply is not available

20603528/2/02 14:45 hrs2 dead bodies have been found opp. Sola Hospital and Gota Cross Road. So, immediate action to move them should be taken otherwise it is difficult to reach Sola Hospital for post- mortem.Reply is not available

616228/2/02 11:55 hoursSaiyed Sahib protocol officer informed Sola - 1 that riots had broken out at Sola Civil Hospital where dead bodies brought and near High Court.

617228/2/02 Time not shownAs per above mentioned subject-stated, URGENT and IMPORTANT that they were at civil hospital Sola, and officers, employees had been surrounded by 500 strong mobAdd DM informed to PC Ahmedabad

and they could not come out. So, there was a request to provide them security to come out from the Civil Hospital at Sola.Fax Message informed Zone-1, Sola-1, Bankar at 18:25 hours

653928/2/02 16:06 hoursStated that City collector who waited for police force went to funeral ceremony of the unidentified dead bodies from Sola hospital. He was demanding but didn‘t get sufficient police rmed to Sola-1, Zone-1, Lion

358

Sola Civil Hospital Gota (Jurisdiction)

807. Compare the hard data above contained in the PCR messages above with the conclusions drawn by Mr. Himanshu Shukla of the SIT in his final report dated 8.2.2002:

‘On 28-02-2002, twelve (12) charred dead bodies of Godhra carnage were brought to Ramol, Ahmedabad City from Sola Civil Hospital. All these deceased persons belonged to Ramol-Khokhra area. Mr. MK Tandon, Jt. CP, Sector-II instructed Mr. RJ Savani, DCP, Zone-V to make efforts to ensure that the dead bodies were moved in vehicles and not by foot, as the same would have escalated the tension. It may be mentioned here that ten (10) kar-sevaks belonged to Ramol and two (2) kar-sevaks were from Khokhra. Mr. RJ Savani succeeded in persuading the relatives and the well-wishers of the deceased to take each body in a vehicle and the funeral procession was guarded by the police up to Hatkeshwar cremation ground, about 4 kms away from Ramol-Khokhra. The funeral was over by about 1400 hrs and the crowd which had gathered on the highway dispersed thereafter.’

808. Mr. Malhotra’s Report presented to the Hon’ble Supreme Court also shockingly ignores this. SIT had received from A29 Mr. PC Pande the scanned copies of PCR messages after 15.3.2011. He did not see fit to scrutinise them at all preferring to rely on the following denial of A-29, Mr. PC Pande who was a key part of the Conspiracy and a co-accused in this case.

809. ‘Mr. PC Pande has stated that there had been no parading of dead bodies inasmuch as the trucks carrying the dead bodies under police escort reached Ahmedabad City between 0330 hrs to 0400 hrs on 28-02-2002, which means they had started from Godhra at least three hours earlier and as such there was no one to see them on the highway at dead of the night. Mr. Pande has also stated that in Ahmedabad City, the dead bodies were kept in Sola Civil Hospital situated on the outskirts of the City and that most of

359

the dead bodies were handed over to their relations after proper documentation by 28-02-2002 morning. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the allegation that the CM‘s decision to bring the dead bodies of those killed in Godhra carnage to Ahmedabad was with a view to parade them in the City is not established’. (Mr. Malhotra‘s report dated 12.5.2010)

Violence Begins from the afternoon of 27.2.2002

810. Despite a spate of incidents taking place in different parts of Ahmedabad on 27.2.2002 itself, with violent VHP mobs on the rampage after the Sabarmati Express arrives from Godhra around 1600 hours, no curfew is declared by A-29 Mr. Pande nor A-38 Mr. Shivanand Jha who are statutorily bound to do so. Curfew is only declared too late and only in part the next day (28.2.2002) in Ahmedabad -- by 12.40 p.m. (one set of records) or 13.15 p.m. (another set of records). Maintenance of law and order and protection of lives and properties through the prevention of violence was clearly not the priority for top police officers Mr. Pande found enough force to provide rabble rouser from the VHP Acharya Giriraj Kishore escort from the airport to the Civil Hospital where he could deliver inflammatory speeches and accompany the funeral procession. These jurisdictional officers are also clearly responsible for the deliberate neutralization of the Fire Brigade in Ahmedabad that is seen consciously and deliberately not responding to calls (See tables below and in Annexures).

811. SIB Messages are sent out on the afternoon of 27.2.2002 urging preventive action from the Ahmedabad police because the train full of injured VHP persons was expected to arrive at the Kalupur Railway Station, Ahmedabad (See Annexure at .........) K «

- Eight dead bodies of VHP workers to be brought to Ahmedabad from Godhra to the Kalupur railway station at 15:00hrs and then they will take these dead bodies to their areas and there might be a procession in their areas. So, communal incidents will occur in the city of Ahmedabad. So, take preventive action. The police,

360

paralysed by the conspiracy let loose from the top, did not act.

- Likely to be Gujarat Bandh called by VHP on 28.2.02, so take preventive actions. This SIB message went unheeded. (Reference: Annexure III, File XIX, page 355 in SIT papers, (Fax/ Vardhi No.525 12:30 Hours)

- Eight dead bodies of VHP workers are to be brought to Ahmedabad from Godhra, at Kalupur railway station at 1500hrs and when they are taken to their areas, there might be processions in their areas. So, communal incidents will occur in city, Ahmedabad. So, take preventive action. Likely to be Gujarat Bandh called by VHP on 28.2.02. So take preventive action.

- Dead-bodies after reaching at Kalupur railway station between 3.00 to 3.30hrs and then sent to Dhanvantri Hospital at Bapunagar; condolence meeting by Bajrang Dal workers and there is possibility to Gujarat Bandh by VHP.

- On 27.2.02, a mob has attacked an AMTS and ST buses at Bapunagar at 15.00hrs and broken glasses of buses. Shops are being shut down.

- Sabarmati express train arrived at 16.13hrs at platform number 1, kar sevaks are shouting slogans (1) “Jai Shree Ram ” (2) “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” (3) “Ram Mandir Vahin Banayenge” (4) “Khoon Ka Badla Khoon”. - Transport is being made for them to enable them to reach their areas. There are no dead bodies that have arrived in the train. Dead bodies were given to their heirs at Godhra Civil Hospital. Kar sevaks have given interviews to ETV stating, “Amari Sathe Gaddari Karwama Avi Che, Miyao A m ari Upar Tuti Padel Che, Ane Miyaone Kapi Nakho” . They have used abusive language in this interview. (Reference: Annexure III, File XIX, page 356-360 in SIT papers, Fax Mes. Out/184/02 dt.27/2/02, V-1 Political V-2 Discrimination To DCP (C)

- The SIB has recorded in detail the aggressive mobilization of the VHP that was masterminded by A-1 Mr. Modi, A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya A- 25 DGP Mr.

361

Chakravarti, A-29 PC Mr. Pande and A-28 Mr. Shivanand Jha among others. Murderous hate speeches are being delivered by kar sevaks and yet the SIT ignores this documentary evidence and does not at all question the top level accused about it.

812. The bloody intent of the VHP brigade that was given a free run of Ahmedabad and Gujarat's streets is evident from the slogans recorded above by a field officer of the Fire Brigade. “A m ari Sathe Gaddari Karwama Avi Che, Miyao Amari Upar Tuti Padel Che, Ane Miyaone Kapi Nakho. "

813. What did the SIT mean by ignoring this evidence, not interrogating the concerned officers, not countering the falsehoods of the Accused and thereafter filing a closure report?

Violence breaks Out in Ahmedabad on 27.2.2002 itself; Why no curfew?

Annex IV File XIV (5731 to 6140) about incident on Dt. 27/2/02

Sr.Page NoDate & TimeMessageRemarks

No.

1574628/2/02In between 14:30 to 15:00 on dt.27.2.02Bapunagar ICR No. 64/02

1:10 hrsmob of 200 persons pelting stones and arson bus & shop.No Reply

2574928/2/02Zone-1 visits arson of shop, Opp. Samrat

1:21 hrsDairy, Nehru park, Vastrapur

3575028/2/02Arrange SRP for bandobast at Sola hospital,

1:54 hrsbecause dead-bodies have arrived from

Godhra.

4575428/2/02Mob attacks rickshaw and injures 4 personsMeghaninagar ICR No.

1:55 hrsnear Ratnasagar cross road, Meghaninagar on dt.27.2.02 at 22:0066/02

N0 Reply

5575728/2/021 Muslim injured by sharp weapons nearAmraiwadi ICR No.96/02

2:05 hrsExpress Highway on 27.2.02 at 21.45.IPC 302

Victim Taushif Shaeb Ali Saiyed killed.Reply on page 5758- no reaction to the death and no arrest of accused

6576028/2/02ASI Meghaninagar informed that Raj CycleReply on page 5761-tyres

2:49 hrsStore set on fire nr. Umiyanagar. Send Fire brigade.outside fire not shop; no damages in shop.

7576228/2/02Mob commits nr. Maruti Complex bus standNo Reply

2:00 hrsand escapes on dt.27.2.02 at 19:45

8576828/2/02A mob of 100 persons pelted stone pelting,Odhav ICR No.78/02

2:38 hrsburnt buses and rickshaws and damaged public property on dt.27.2.02 at 17:15No Reply

362

9577128/2/02 3:00 hrsBabubhai Trikambhai and other 8 persons gathered in an unlawful assembly;Odhav ICR No.79/02 No Reply

damaged rickshaw and trucks Nr. Lilanagar, N.H.-8, Odhav

10577528/2/02Mattresses shop burnt at Pashwanath TownNaroda ICR No. 96/02

2:30 hrsShip, NarodaNo Reply

11577728/2/02Stone pelting on ST Bus Nr. Paldi CrossEllis Bridge ICR No. 112/02

3:20 hrsRoad, and damaged public property on dt.No Reply

27.2.02 at 19:10

12577928/2/02H.M. returned from Godhra to GandhinagarReply on page 5780

3:30 hrsvia Khatraj Cross Road, Hirapur Cross Road

& Jashodanagar

13578328/2/024 Unknown persons burnt rickshaw andAmraiwadi ICR No.97/02

3:06 hrsInjured one Muslim with sharp weapons Nr.Reply illegible 5784

C.T.M., Ramol on dt.27.2.02 at 21:45

14578628/2/0250 to 60 persons pelting stone and arsonEllis Bridge ICR No. 113/02

&3:40 hrscar, two bikes & houses damaged. IncidentReply illegible 5789

5788occurred at Rajnagar, Paldi on dt.27.2.02 at

19:35

15579228/2/02Mattresses shop burnt at Vasna, SendReply on page 5793 — Fire

3:45 hrspoliceBrigade has reaced & fire put out

16579828/2/02Factory burnt at Ambikanagar on dt.27.2.02Odhav ICR No.80/02

580300:30 hrsat 00:30Reply on page 5806 –

5804informed state CID & IB

17580128/2/02Mob attacked and Injured one Muslim Nr.Ellis Bridge ICR No. 114/02

3:50 hrsMahalaxmi Cross Road, Paldi on dt.27.2.02 at 20:30Reply on page 5802- FAX TO STATE Home, IB & CID

18580528/2/02Mob attacked and Injured one Muslim, Nr.Ellis Bridge ICR No. 116/02

58064:20hrsLaw Garden on dt.27.2.02 at 20:15

195807 &28/2/024 unknown person attacked and Injured oneNaroda ICR No. 97/02

58084:28 hrsMuslim, Nr. Kathwada Road, Naroda, on dt.27.2.02 at 19.30

20581328/02/02H.M. Reached home in Ahmedabad.

5:15 hrs

21581528/02/02H.M. leaves Residence to go out in

5:22 hrsGandhinagar.

22584028/02/0213:10 injured Jafarbhai died at 18:45 Nr.Meghaninagar ICR No.

8:45 hrsRameshwer cross road, on dt. 27.2.0265/02

No Reply

EXPLOSIVE CONTENT IN POLICE CONTROL ROOM RECORDS

814. Important data available from Annexure IV, File XIV, points to the further ingredient of a conspiracy in the inaction and complicity of the co-accused in the complaint. A detailed perusal of the records contained in this file that relates to the print out taken from the CD submitted by A-29 Mr. P.C. Pandey, former Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad. It

363

contains scanned copies of the message of the police control room, Ahmedabad city for 28.2.2002. The content is explosive. It needs to be repeated here that these files containing valuable documents which are contemporaneous records were earlier concealed by A-29 Mr. P.C. Pandey from the investigation conducted by SIT between 2009 and March 2011. It is only after the Hon‘ble Supreme Court directed SIT to conduct further investigation under Section 173(A) and further order that the Ld. Amicus Curie, Mr. Raju Ramachandran should independently evaluate evidence collected by SIT that A-29 Mr. PC Pandey, in a mysterious move, produced the scanned copies of the CDs containing 3,500 pages. Despite the fact that this was highly irregular, in fact downright illegal, the I.O. SIT, Mr. AK Malhotra chose not to question him about his concealment and subsequent disclosure of these documents. Moreover, Mr. Malhotra did not even register that a serious offence of concealment has been made out. It is this unaccountability by the SIT itself that is supposed to conduct investigation that has resulted in their present closure report. If they had inspected the records, done a careful analysis, evaluated the evidence available, they could never have come to the conclusion that prima facie the complaint is vindictive. (See Letter of co-petitioner in SLP 1088/2008, Ms. Teesta Setalvad, Secretary, Citizens for Justice and Peace at Annexure IV, File VII, Sr. No. 118).

Stationing Ministers in the Control Room as Part of the Conspiracy Masterminded by A-1 Mr. Modi on 28.2.2002 This decision was obviously taken to:

to monitor riots/interfere in police functioning; to ensure police inaction;

815. A-29 Mr. P.C. Pande, the then CP, Ahmedabad City has stated before the SIT that it was incorrect to say that Mr. Ashok Bhatt, the then Health Minster (A-2) was stationed at Shahibaug Control Room on 28-02-2002 to guide the police force in controlling the Law & Order situation. He has further stated that Mr. George Fernandes, the then Union Defence Minister arrived at Ahmedabad on 01-03-2002 and directly

364

drove to CP office from the airport to find out as to whether Army had been deployed in the State or not. Mr. Fernandes reached CP’s office around 1000 or 1030 hrs and asked Mr. Pande about the deployment of Army, to which latter said that they could check up from the Control Room. Both of them went to the Control Room downstairs. According to A29 Mr. Pande, A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt, who had been waiting for Mr. Fernandes in the Circuit House, also came to CP‘s office to meet Mr. Fernandes and entered the Control Room. A-29 Mr. Pande has also stated that Mr. Fernandes and A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt remained in the Control Room for about 10 minutes and then left CP's office. According to A-21 Mr. Pande, during this visit to the Control Room, some of the press and media persons were also present and as such it was somehow made to appear that A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt had come to monitor the Control Room. Finally, A-29 Mr. Pande has stated that A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt was never deputed to Shahibaug Police Control Room to guide or advise the police. A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt stated before the SIT that he might have visited Ahmedabad City Control Room for about 5-10 minutes on 28-02-2002. However, he has denied to have interfered with the police work, as being a senior minister he had to maintain his dignity and status. Again on 01-03-2002, he admitted to have visited the Shahibaug Control Room for about 10 minutes to meet Mr. George Fernandes, who had gone to CP‘s office.

816. The fact of the presence of senior ministers of the cabinet of A-1 Mr. Modi in the two control rooms has not been disproved. A different interpretation is sought to be given. This was a very controversial decision taken by the Govt. to place two of its Ministers in the State Police Control Room as well as Ahmedabad City Police Control Room. Though evidence is available to establish that both the Ministers visited the respective Control Rooms, and the SIT is forced to acknowledge this. it in its bid to protect the accused it deliberately does not measure the allegation with the fallout and consequences of the direct interference in the city of Ahmedabad and state that has been charged.

817. Surely the SIT should have evaluated this allegation in the light of the systematic attempts to ensure VHP marauders

365

the run of Ahmedabad ad Gujarat, the paralysis in the administration, the questionable and illegal decision of A-25, DGP Chakravarti, A-29, Mr. PC Pande and A-38, Mr. Shivanand Jha to allow the parading of the dead bodies and violent attacks, including the sinister design of holding back the Fire Brigade so it could not douse fires and save lives?

Criminal Negligence of the Ahmedabad Fire Brigade under PC Mr. Pande

818. At page 5939 in Annexure IV, File XIV dated 28.2.2002, a message timed at 1240 hrs records that a polytechnic college was set on fire but nobody was there in the Ahmedabad Fire Brigade to pick up the phone. The remark in this message states that Fire Brigade officer Mr. Jadeja was informed about this criminal lapse.

819. Should he not have been penalised? SIT has not bothered either to investigate or answer. The SIT has simply not looked into why for hours on 28.2.2002, the Fire Brigade’s phone calls were simply ringing and there was no reply and that Mr. Jadeja’s refusal to depose was part of a criminal conspiracy to protect the lapses after the train burning at Godhra.

820. Another message at page 5945 in annexure IV File XIX dated 28.2.2002 1220 hrs records a fire at Parikshit Nagar, Dani Limda. Again there was no response from the Fire Brigade despite the fact that repeated calls were made from the wireless phones of the local police. Neither the Gujarat police, nor its Crime branch that conducted the special investigation after June 2002, nor the SIT has interrogated Fire Brigade officials as to the reason behind not picking up the phone. A third message at page 5947 from Annexure IV File XIX, dated 28.2.2002, 1228 hours reports the fire at Sujata Flat, Shahibaug. (Office of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad is also located at Shahibaug, not far away from Sujata flat. The wireless police van repeatedly calls the Fire Brigade to come to the rescue of the residents but yet again no one picks up the telephone. The police even inform Gordhanbhai from Shahpur Fire Brigade at 1330 hrs about this serious lapse. But neither the Gujarat police, nor

366

the crime branch nor the SIT do any investigation into this shocking conduct of the Fire Brigade.

821. At Page No.6138, even before the above mentioned incident at 1122 hrs on 28.2.2002 (Annexure IV File XIV), Samir Patel had informed Mr. Gordhanbhai, an officer from Shahpur Fire Brigade about the setting on fire of two restaurants at Ronak complex, Panjrapole, Navrangpura.

822. In continuation of the same pattern, another message in wireless van recorded at page 5948 Annexure IV, File XIV, dated 28.2.2002 1145 hrs states that the fire at Abilasha hotel, Panjrapole was fierce. But repeated calls to the Fire Brigade got no response. Then again in the same message at page no.5948, at 1152 hrs the wireless police message states that the Gujarat Auto workshop, Usmanpura, is on fire and the same Mr. Gordhanbhai of Shahpur Fire Brigade had been informed at 1313 hours. The question remains why Mr. Gordhanbhai was not questioned at all by the SIT.

823. At page 5950, Annexure IV File XIV, dated 28.2.2002 time 1236 hrs information of fire at Lati Bazaar, Kagdapeet is sent out by the wireless police van; and again there nobody picks up the telephone at the Fire Brigade station. Again Mr. Gordhanbhai of Shahpur Fire Brigade is informed but nothing is done. The SIT investigation does not investigate why the Fire Brigade at Ahmedabad between 10 a.m. to 9 p.m. on 28.2.2002 was simply not responding to the telephone calls.

824. Finally we have at page 5951, Annexure IV File XIV, a message recorded at 1240 hrs on 28.2.2002, stating that ‘Gallant‘ has informed that the Fire Brigade has been sent. Did the investigating agencies, aware that the Fire Brigade was not responding for such a long time, investigate whether the Fire Brigade that had been sent actually reached the spot and douse the fire?

825. Page 5952 of Annexure IV File XIX at 1244 hrs indicates that the wireless police van has again informed Mr. Gordhanbhai at Shahpur Fire Brigade of the fire near Gawri cinema. We have no knowledge from the investigation whether Fire

367

Brigade was sent, whether it arrived and whether it put out the fire. There is another request sent to the Fire Brigade from Mrs. Mariam Beevi, sent at Meghaninagar at 1300 hrs on 28.2.2002 and the message at page 5972 of Annexure IV File XIV states that the Fire Brigade was informed about the fire at 1409 hrs. Similarly, at pages 5954-5955 of the same file dated 28.2.2002, 1300 hrs, the DCP informs the wireless van to get the Fire Brigade and wireless van records that Mr. Gordhanbhai from Shahpur has been informed of the same request at 1313 hours. Clearly, Mr. Gordhanbhai would be a critical witness to examine but he was not. Similarly, distress calls are made and recorded of fire all over Ahmedabad. A bakery is set on fire at 1308 hrs ( See page 5552 of Annexure IV File X), again Mr. Gordhanbhai from the Shapur Fire Brigade had been informed; wireless of Mani Nagar again request the Fire Brigade from Gandhinagar at 1313 hrs (Page 5856) dated 28.2.2002 1313 hrs); Page 5954- 5955 Police constable Mr. Chaudhary informs Mr. Gordhanbhai of the fire at Drive-In at 1330 hrs; and at page 5974 of the same file there is evidence that a fire has occurred at shops at Sanjay Patel Cross Road near Ketan Cross Road and the Fire Brigade is also informed of these fires. There is demand for the Fire Brigade from all over the city; arson had been carried out as is evident from the tables below at 47 locations across the city. Surely it was the duty of the SIT to thoroughly investigate how many Fire Brigade vehicles the Ahmedabad city had, how many were commissioned, how many were used? For there to be no proper response from the Fire Brigade suggests something sinister.

826. A close look at the table recording messages by the Fire Brigade taken out from Annexure III, File XIV, several such calls were made which nothing in the investigation to show whether they were responded to and the fires doused. Which authority does the fire come under — the Commissioner of Police or the District Magistrate/Collector? Surely the concerned authorities should have been questioned about the shocking conduct of the Fire Brigade and their apparently wilful failure to respond to distress calls. This is also an aspect which requires detailed further investigation.

368

827. Of the 26 plus 21 calls desperately asking for the Fire Brigade from different parts of Ahmedabad (there may be many more but given the concealment and conspiracy all records have not been seized), at least 10 of the records clearly state that repeated calls elicited no response.

Annexure IV File XIV

Callousness of the Fire Brigade Date 28/02/2002

Sr.PageDate &MessageRemarks

No.NoTime

1593928/2/02Arson at Polytechnic College; sendNo one replies nor picks up

12:40hrsFire Brigade.the phone at the Fire

Brigade.

Then the caller informed

Fire Brigade officer Jadeja about this matter.

5934 Reply

Informed Naranpura-1 13:27

2594528/2/02Parikshitnagar, Dani LimdaCaller calls again and again

12:20 hrs- there is a fire at the above mentioned place - send Fire Brigadebut no one answers the phone at the Fire Brigade

5934 Reply

Informed Gordhanbhai

Shahpur Fire Brigade, 13:30

3594728/2/02Opp. Sujata Flat, ShahibaugCaller calls again and again

12:28 hrs- fire at abovementioned place - sendno one take the call at Fire

Fire Brigade.Brigade. Informed

Gordhanbhai, Shahpur Fire

Brigade at 13:30 hrs.

Reply is not confirmed.

4595728/2/02Abhilasha hotel, Panjrapole crossCalled 3 times but no one

12:20 hrsroad.answered the telephone at the Fire Brigade. Informed

- fire at above mention place. Send

Fire Brigade.Gordhanbhai, Shahpur Fire

Brigade at 13:30 hrs.

5594828/2/02Abhilasha hotel, Panjrapole crossCalled again and again; no

11:45 hrsroad.one answers the phone at the Fire Brigade

- Fire at above mentioned place. Send

Fire Brigade.

6594828/2/02Guj. Auto centre, rmed Gordhanbhai,

11:52 hrs- fire at above mention place. SendShahpur Fire Brigade at

Fire Brigade.13:30 hrs.

Pg no. 5949

Informed Naranpura-1-2,

12:45- 12:50

7595028/2/02Kagdapith-2 informed that LatibazarCalled again and again no

12:36has been set on fire, Send Fire Brigade immediately.one answers the telephone at the Fire Brigade.

Informed Gordhanbhai,

369

Shahpur Fire Brigade at 13:30 hrs.

Reply is not available

8595028/2/02Kagdapith-2 informed that SalatwadaInformed Gordhanbhai,

12:39 hrsset on fire; send Fire Brigade immediately.Shahpur Fire Brigade at 13:30 hrs.

Reply is not available

9595128/2/02’Galant‘ sends message for FireInformed Gordhanbhai,

12:40 hrsBrigadeShahpur Fire Brigade at

13:30 hrs.

Reply is not available

10595228/2/02Informed that one jeep near GauriInformed Gordhanbhai,

12:44 hrscinema has been set on fire. Send brigade immediately.Shahpur Fire Brigade at 13:30 hrs.

Reply is available

Pg no.5953

11595228/2/02Civil mobile informed that a BakeryInformed Gordhanbhai,

13:08 hrshas been set on fire. Send FireShahpur Fire Brigade at

Brigade.13:30 hrs.

Reply is available

Pg no.5953

12595428/2/02DCPasks for Fire Brigade to be sent toInformed Gordhanbhai,

595513:00 hrsNarodaShahpur Fire Brigade at

13:30 hrs.

13595428/2/02P.U. Chaudhri informed Drive-in set onInformed Gordhanbhai,

595513:15hrsfire Shahpur Fire Brigade at

13:30 hrs.

14595628/2/02Sabarmati-1 informed that shop rmed Gordhanbhai,

hrsVallabhpark Sabarmati set on fire; send Fire Brigade.Shahpur Fire Brigade at 13:30 hrs.

Reply is not available

15595628/2/02Mani Nagar-1 informed thatInformed Gordhanbhai,

13:13hrssend Fire Brigade.Shahpur Fire Brigade at

13:30 hrs.

Reply is not available

16596828/2/02Send one RAF company to ShahpurInformed Fire Brigade at

14:08 hrs14:09 hrs.

Reply is not available

17596928/2/02PC Jitendrabhai informed that 2 shopsInformed Fire Brigade at

13:55 hrsburnt at NID Circle, send 14:09 hrs.

Reply Pg no.5970

Informed Ellis bridge-1-2 mobile, Zone-1, Bekar, 14:00

18596928/2/02Lunsawad, Mithabhai Deha, rmed Fire Brigade at

14:04hrsFire at above-mentioned place14:09 hrs.

Reply Illegible

19597128/2/02Sardarnagar-3 informed of a fire atInformed Fire Brigade at

13:50hrsHansol Chandrabhaga send Fire14:09 hrs.

Brigade; also informed that gas cylinder are also there and possibility that fire will intensifyReply is not available

20597128/2/02Dariyapur V-1 informed that a FireInformed Fire Brigade at

13:32 hrsBrigade must be sent to Salatwad14:09 hrs.

Reply is not available

370

21597228/2/02 13:00 hrsSend Fire Brigade to Mariyambibi cross road, MeghaninagarInformed Fire Brigade at 14:09 hrs.

Reply Illegible

22597228/2/02Fire in shop at Pitaliyabamba. SendInformed Fire Brigade at

13:35 hrsFire Brigade14:09 hrs.

Reply pg no.5973

Informed Shahpur 1-2, 13:40

23597428/2/02A fire has occurred at a shop at SardarInformed Fire Brigade at

13:30 hrsPatel cross road, nr. Ketan Cross road.14:09 hrs.

Send Fire Brigade immediately informed by Naranpura-IReply is not available

24597428/2/02Informed Fire Brigade that they shouldInformed Fire Brigade at

13:55 hrsreach Anupam Fruit Market14:09 hrs.

Reply is not confirmed

25597528/2/02Informed Fire Brigade that a fire hasInformed Fire Brigade at

14:05 hrsburst out at the crackers shop at Delhi14:09 hrs.

DarwazaReply is not confirmed

26613828/2/02Samir Patel informed that twoInformed Gordhanbhai,

11:22 hrsrestaurants near Raunak Complex have been set on fire;Shahpur Fire Brigade at 13:30 hrs.

Panjrapole, Navrangpura,Reply Pg no.6139

Informed Naranpura-1-2 mobile, Zone-1, Bekar, 12:35

Annex IV File XVII (6941to 7368) Fire Brigade Message on dt.28.2.02

Sr.Page NoDate & TimeMessageRemarks

No.

1696228.2.02Informed the Honda Show room has caughtInformed Fire Brigade

20:06hrsfire at above mentioned place.20:10hrs

Reply

Sent Fire Brigade

At Pg. no.6963

2696428.2.0260 shops of Hindus have been set on fire atInformed the Fire Brigade

20:12above mentioned place.12:12hrs

Reply

Informed Fire Brigade

Pg no.6965

3698628.2.02Dariyapur-1 stated that fire burst out atInformed the Fire Brigade

20:35Saraspur Mandir. Send Fire Brigade immediately.and got reply that they would reach there.

Reply

Nr. Hindu Mandir gave reply immediately

Pg no.6987

4708428/2/02Gomtipur informed that shops are being setInformed Shahpur Fire

21:24 hrson fire and are burning at above mention place. Send Gomtipur Mobile.brigade Reply

Informed to Kalupur mobile

Pg no.7085

371

5709028/2/02 21:10hrsBh. Gujarat Boiling Co. Shreeji Estate, Maniyar Tailor Gali, Asarwa, Rakhial Informed that Fire at above mentioned placeInformed Rakhial Fire Brigade at 21:15 hrs

Reply

Informed Saher Kotda-1 Pg no.7091

6710428/2/02Rakhial Opp. Pritam Hotel, Maha GujaratInformed to Rakhial I,II,

21:40hrsBakery, Rakhial Po. Stat.Zone-5,

Informed that place set on fire there;Informed to Fire Brigade Reply

violence and stone pelting at above mention placeSend to Fire Brigade from

Rakhiyal-1

Pg no.7105

7713028/2/02Opp. Pritam Hotel, Maha Gujarat Bakery,Informed Rakhial I,II, Zone-

21:50hrsRakhial police station set on fire there, violence and stone pelting at above mentioned place5,

Informed Fire Brigade No Reply

8713628/2/02Astodia Road, Nr. Municipal Kotha, ColourInformed Fire Brigade

21:55hrsMerchant CO. Bank (Astodia)Reply

Informed that bank burnt at the above mention place. Send Fire Brigade immediatelyInformed Khadia -1 Pg no.7137

Informed to Khadia-1

9713828/2/02Rakhial Cross RoadInformed to Shahpur Fire

21:26hrsInformed that fire and stone pelting at the above mentioned place. Informed toBrigade No Reply

RakhialI, II

10714828/2/02Girdharnagar, Makubhai chawl, behindInformed Shapur Fire

21:08hrsWater Tank, Shahibaugbrigade at 21:20 hrs

Fire at abovementioned placeReply

Informed Shahpur MobileInformed Shahpur mobile

Pg no 7149

11715228/2/02Jagannath Road, Nr. Lathi Bazar, KagdapithInformed Fire Brigade

20:05hrs— a Maruti Van being burned and there is stone pelting.Reply

Informed Haveli mobile

Informed Kagdapith I, IIPg no.7153

127213Asarwa Railway rmed Shahpur Fire

Houses are set on fire at above mentioned placeBrigade at 22:20hrs

Note:- date, time tele no. not mentioned

No Reply

13722228/2/02Naranpura Alka Stores Cross Road - Fire inInformed Fire Brigade

22:23hrsshop at above mentioned place — InformedReply

Naranpura I,IIInformed Naranpura-1

Pg no. 7223

14723328/2/02Behind Traffic Booth, Delhi Darwaza -Informed Fire Brigade

22:52hrsHouses are set on fire at above mentioned placeReply

Informed Shahpur mobile

Informed Dariya I,II, Shahpur I IIPg no.7234

15724728/2/02State Bank of Saurashtra, KankariyaInformed Fire Brigade by

22:55hrsBranch, Pushpakunj Society, Kagdapithtelephone

Bank burnt at above mentioned place.No Reply

Informed to Kagdapith I,II, Kite Zone VI

16725128/2/02Opp. PD Pandya College, VatwaInformed Fire Brigade

22:5 0hrsFire at the above mentioned place andReply

372

people injured Informed Vatwa I,IIInformed Vatva 1-2 Pg no.7252

17726028/2/02Send Sab Vahini at Idgah Chowky forInformed Shahpur Fire

22:30hrscarrying dead body from Pathan‘s chawl, Asarwa.Brigade 23:25 hrs called again and again - no one pick up

Send Fire Brigade

Reply

Informed Suroliya Saheb on mobile

Pg no.7261

18729728/2/02Send Fire Brigade immediately because fireNo one responding at Fire

11:10hrshas broken out at Railway colony behindBrigade Shahpur

Asarwa Bridge Corner.Reply

Informed Fire Brigade mobile

Ishvarbhai

Pg no.7298

19729728/2/02PSI AL Raol from Ellis Bridge police stationTried phoning again & again

23:10hrsstated that send Sab Vahini to bring a dead body from Paldi chowk to VS Hospitalbut no response from Fire Brigade Shahpur at 23:25hrs

Reply

Informed Fire Brigade mobile

Ishvarbhai

Pg no.7298

20730128/2/02Fire at Royal Building, near Zakariya Masjid,Informed Fire Brigade

23:28 hrsOpp. Matumal Tanumal‘s shop, Kalupur.Reply

Informed Kalupur I II, Dollar Zone-IIIInformed Kalupur-1-2 mobile

Pg no.7302

21731828/2/02Dharmbhumipark Society, PD PandyaInformed Fire Brigade no

23:00hrsCollege Road, Ghodasar – set on fire informed Vatwa I,IIone responding on telephone

Reply

Informed Ishvarbhai

Pg no.7319

FAILURE TO ORDER ADEQUATE BANDOBAST EVEN AFTER THE MASSACRES ON 28.2.2002

828. The State Intelligence Bureau‘s messages show that even after the ghastly killings on 28.2.2002 in Ahmedabad city (adjacent to the state capital, Gandhinagar), police bandobast was far from adequate. The Accused No.1 Mr, Modi and the co-accused in the police administration are clearly implicated for their failure to effectively police these areas even after over 300 people had been massacred. Specifically accused no.29, Mr. PC Pandey, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, Mr. Shivanand Jha, accused no 38, additional Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, Mr. MK Tandon, accused no.33, JtCP, Ahmedabad , Mr. MT Rana, accused no.57, ACP, Ahmedabad and P.B. Gondia, Mr.

373

DCP, Zone IV, (inadvertently not made an accused in the complaint) are directly and criminally culpable.

829. By 1030 hrs on 1.3.2002, the details relating to the tragic Gulberg Society massacre are also recorded through a message available at page 340 of Annexure III File XIX. In this message the SIB records that as many as 76 persons have been killed (the charge sheet only speaks of 69); that 18 out of the 21 dead bodies had died by burning; 31 died in police firing, 13 have been injured by police, 9 have been injured by private firing; 14 persons injured through stone pelting; 25 Muslims were missing (the bodies had been possibly charred beyond recognition). The use of 18 tear gas shells, 34 SR and 28 hand grenades are also mentioned in this message.

VIOLENCE CONTINUES EVEN AFTER 28.2.2002

830. The message at page 480, Annexure III File XIX, Fax Mes. Vardhi/No.624 dated 2.3.2002 states that at 1230 hrs a mob of 200 to 250 persons had broken into and burnt shops at Rammanohar chowk at Meghani Nagar. Not a single policeman was on the spot. The remark made by the SIB officials state that even after the Golibar incident in the same area the day before, neither the government nor the police administration had done anything to ensure that law and order was restored. The conspiracy to allow targeted and perpetrated violence to continue unhindered is borne out through evidence from the official records.

831. Again on page 431 of the same file, Annexure III File XIX, message No. Vardhi/100 /618 dated 1.3.2002, 1327 hrs again send form the D.O. (Int), Ahmedabad to the ACP, Mr. SB Trivedi‘s Intelligence office, Ahmedabad, it is clear that the situation was not only explosive in the Dani Limda area but there was serious apprehension that further violence could take place both in Meghaninagar (where Gulberg society massacre had been allowed in broad day light on 28.2.2002) and also at Naroda (where two massacres at Naroda Patia and Naroda Gaon had also been allowed in broad day light on 28.2.2002). The SIB message warned the

374

police to take necessary and immediate action. Obviously the warning fell on deaf ears.

832. Incident after incident continued to take place in the Meghani Nagar area of Ahmedabad on 1.3.2002. It must be sated here that deliberately not arresting culprits after allowing violence against innocent members of the minority community was very much a part of the plot. Despite the fact that on 28.2.2002 the ghastly and shameful incident at Naroda and Gulberg had taken place in broad day light (from 8.30 and 9.00 a.m. right until 9 p.m. in the evening), not a single person in the mob or any mob leader was arrested that day. Was this omission of the police or calculated connivance? This is what the Ld. Court has to decide.

833. At page 423 of Annexure III File XIX, message no. Vardhi No.621 dated 1.3.2002 at 1528 hrs gives further evidence of the lawlessness that was allowed uninhibited and uncontrolled. The message said that mob of 500-600 had broken shops and burnt shops at Laxminagar also in Meghaninagar police station area; again not a single police man was sighted. Was the Gujarat police on leave, holiday? The remark in the message states that even after the Gulberg incident the police had not maintained proper bandobast.

834. The same message at page 406 of Annexure III File XIX, message No.Vardhi/630 dated 1.3.2002 at 2138 hrs records that a total of 14 unidentified bodies from the Gulberg society massacre area had been brought to the Ahmedabad civil hospital for post-mortem on 1.3.2002 and the day before; on 28.2.2002, 21 unidentified dead bodies had been brought. This made a total of 35 identified dead bodies on whom post-mortem had been conducted from Gulberg massacre (the government of Gujarat in its refusal to admit to the massacre had until 2007 in the hearing of BN Pathak/Satya Prakash/CJP case in the Supreme Court (Writ Petition – Criminal, 37– 52/2002) This denial of the tragedy is also part of the conspiracy to mislead constitutional and statutory bodies which is a continuing part of the conspiracy alleged in Mrs. Zakia Jafri‘s complaint dated 8.6.2006.

375

Xxx

5709028/2/02 21:10hrsBh. Gujarat Boiling Co. Shreeji Estate, Maniyar Tailor Gali, Asarwa, Rakhial Informed that Fire at above mentioned placeInformed Rakhial Fire Brigade at 21:15 hrs

Reply

Informed Saher Kotda-1 Pg no.7091

6710428/2/02Rakhial Opp. Pritam Hotel, Maha GujaratInformed to Rakhial I,II,

21:40hrsBakery, Rakhial Po. Stat.Zone-5,

Informed that place set on fire there;Informed to Fire Brigade Reply

violence and stone pelting at above mention placeSend to Fire Brigade from

Rakhiyal-1

Pg no.7105

7713028/2/02Opp. Pritam Hotel, Maha Gujarat Bakery,Informed Rakhial I,II, Zone-

21:50hrsRakhial police station set on fire there, violence and stone pelting at above mentioned place5,

Informed Fire Brigade No Reply

8713628/2/02Astodia Road, Nr. Municipal Kotha, ColourInformed Fire Brigade

21:55hrsMerchant CO. Bank (Astodia)Reply

Informed that bank burnt at the above mention place. Send Fire Brigade immediatelyInformed Khadia -1 Pg no.7137

Informed to Khadia-1

9713828/2/02Rakhial Cross RoadInformed to Shahpur Fire

21:26hrsInformed that fire and stone pelting at the above mentioned place. Informed toBrigade No Reply

RakhialI, II

10714828/2/02Girdharnagar, Makubhai chawl, behindInformed Shapur Fire

21:08hrsWater Tank, Shahibaugbrigade at 21:20 hrs

Fire at abovementioned placeReply

Informed Shahpur MobileInformed Shahpur mobile

Pg no 7149

11715228/2/02Jagannath Road, Nr. Lathi Bazar, KagdapithInformed Fire Brigade

20:05hrs— a Maruti Van being burned and there is stone pelting.Reply

Informed Haveli mobile

Informed Kagdapith I, IIPg no.7153

127213Asarwa Railway rmed Shahpur Fire

Houses are set on fire at above mentioned placeBrigade at 22:20hrs

Note:- date, time tele no. not mentioned

No Reply

13722228/2/02Naranpura Alka Stores Cross Road - Fire inInformed Fire Brigade

22:23hrsshop at above mentioned place — InformedReply

Naranpura I,IIInformed Naranpura-1

Pg no. 7223

14723328/2/02Behind Traffic Booth, Delhi Darwaza -Informed Fire Brigade

22:52hrsHouses are set on fire at above mentioned placeReply

Informed Shahpur mobile

Informed Dariya I,II, Shahpur I IIPg no.7234

15724728/2/02State Bank of Saurashtra, KankariyaInformed Fire Brigade by

22:55hrsBranch, Pushpakunj Society, Kagdapithtelephone

Bank burnt at above mentioned place.No Reply

Informed to Kagdapith I,II, Kite Zone VI

16725128/2/02Opp. PD Pandya College, VatwaInformed Fire Brigade

22:5 0hrsFire at the above mentioned place andReply

372

people injured Informed Vatwa I,IIInformed Vatva 1-2 Pg no.7252

17726028/2/02Send Sab Vahini at Idgah Chowky forInformed Shahpur Fire

22:30hrscarrying dead body from Pathan‘s chawl, Asarwa.Brigade 23:25 hrs called again and again - no one pick up

Send Fire Brigade

Reply

Informed Suroliya Saheb on mobile

Pg no.7261

18729728/2/02Send Fire Brigade immediately because fireNo one responding at Fire

11:10hrshas broken out at Railway colony behindBrigade Shahpur

Asarwa Bridge Corner.Reply

Informed Fire Brigade mobile

Ishvarbhai

Pg no.7298

19729728/2/02PSI AL Raol from Ellis Bridge police stationTried phoning again & again

23:10hrsstated that send Sab Vahini to bring a dead body from Paldi chowk to VS Hospitalbut no response from Fire Brigade Shahpur at 23:25hrs

Reply

Informed Fire Brigade mobile

Ishvarbhai

Pg no.7298

20730128/2/02Fire at Royal Building, near Zakariya Masjid,Informed Fire Brigade

23:28 hrsOpp. Matumal Tanumal‘s shop, Kalupur.Reply

Informed Kalupur I II, Dollar Zone-IIIInformed Kalupur-1-2 mobile

Pg no.7302

21731828/2/02Dharmbhumipark Society, PD PandyaInformed Fire Brigade no

23:00hrsCollege Road, Ghodasar – set on fire informed Vatwa I,IIone responding on telephone

Reply

Informed Ishvarbhai

Pg no.7319

FAILURE TO ORDER ADEQUATE BANDOBAST EVEN AFTER THE MASSACRES ON 28.2.2002

828. The State Intelligence Bureau‘s messages show that even after the ghastly killings on 28.2.2002 in Ahmedabad city (adjacent to the state capital, Gandhinagar), police bandobast was far from adequate. The Accused No.1 Mr, Modi and the co-accused in the police administration are clearly implicated for their failure to effectively police these areas even after over 300 people had been massacred. Specifically accused no.29, Mr. PC Pandey, Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, Mr. Shivanand Jha, accused no 38, additional Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, Mr. MK Tandon, accused no.33, JtCP, Ahmedabad , Mr. MT Rana, accused no.57, ACP, Ahmedabad and P.B. Gondia, Mr.

373

DCP, Zone IV, (inadvertently not made an accused in the complaint) are directly and criminally culpable.

829. By 1030 hrs on 1.3.2002, the details relating to the tragic Gulberg Society massacre are also recorded through a message available at page 340 of Annexure III File XIX. In this message the SIB records that as many as 76 persons have been killed (the charge sheet only speaks of 69); that 18 out of the 21 dead bodies had died by burning; 31 died in police firing, 13 have been injured by police, 9 have been injured by private firing; 14 persons injured through stone pelting; 25 Muslims were missing (the bodies had been possibly charred beyond recognition). The use of 18 tear gas shells, 34 SR and 28 hand grenades are also mentioned in this message.

VIOLENCE CONTINUES EVEN AFTER 28.2.2002

830. The message at page 480, Annexure III File XIX, Fax Mes. Vardhi/No.624 dated 2.3.2002 states that at 1230 hrs a mob of 200 to 250 persons had broken into and burnt shops at Rammanohar chowk at Meghani Nagar. Not a single policeman was on the spot. The remark made by the SIB officials state that even after the Golibar incident in the same area the day before, neither the government nor the police administration had done anything to ensure that law and order was restored. The conspiracy to allow targeted and perpetrated violence to continue unhindered is borne out through evidence from the official records.

831. Again on page 431 of the same file, Annexure III File XIX, message No. Vardhi/100 /618 dated 1.3.2002, 1327 hrs again send form the D.O. (Int), Ahmedabad to the ACP, Mr. SB Trivedi‘s Intelligence office, Ahmedabad, it is clear that the situation was not only explosive in the Dani Limda area but there was serious apprehension that further violence could take place both in Meghaninagar (where Gulberg society massacre had been allowed in broad day light on 28.2.2002) and also at Naroda (where two massacres at Naroda Patia and Naroda Gaon had also been allowed in broad day light on 28.2.2002). The SIB message warned the

374

police to take necessary and immediate action. Obviously the warning fell on deaf ears.

832. Incident after incident continued to take place in the Meghani Nagar area of Ahmedabad on 1.3.2002. It must be sated here that deliberately not arresting culprits after allowing violence against innocent members of the minority community was very much a part of the plot. Despite the fact that on 28.2.2002 the ghastly and shameful incident at Naroda and Gulberg had taken place in broad day light (from 8.30 and 9.00 a.m. right until 9 p.m. in the evening), not a single person in the mob or any mob leader was arrested that day. Was this omission of the police or calculated connivance? This is what the Ld. Court has to decide.

833. At page 423 of Annexure III File XIX, message no. Vardhi No.621 dated 1.3.2002 at 1528 hrs gives further evidence of the lawlessness that was allowed uninhibited and uncontrolled. The message said that mob of 500-600 had broken shops and burnt shops at Laxminagar also in Meghaninagar police station area; again not a single police man was sighted. Was the Gujarat police on leave, holiday? The remark in the message states that even after the Gulberg incident the police had not maintained proper bandobast.

834. The same message at page 406 of Annexure III File XIX, message No.Vardhi/630 dated 1.3.2002 at 2138 hrs records that a total of 14 unidentified bodies from the Gulberg society massacre area had been brought to the Ahmedabad civil hospital for post-mortem on 1.3.2002 and the day before; on 28.2.2002, 21 unidentified dead bodies had been brought. This made a total of 35 identified dead bodies on whom post-mortem had been conducted from Gulberg massacre (the government of Gujarat in its refusal to admit to the massacre had until 2007 in the hearing of BN Pathak/Satya Prakash/CJP case in the Supreme Court (Writ Petition – Criminal, 37– 52/2002) This denial of the tragedy is also part of the conspiracy to mislead constitutional and statutory bodies which is a continuing part of the conspiracy alleged in Mrs. Zakia Jafri‘s complaint dated 8.6.2006.

375

835. The unidentified bodies from the Naroda police station area are brought to the Ahmedabad civil hospital for post-mortem only on 2.3.2002. A message of the State Intelligence Bureau at page 390, Fax/Vardhi/ No.662, dated 2.3.2002 at 2027 hrs records that 4 such bodies were brought.

836. Two critical messages from the SIB records, sent on 28.2.2002, one at 14.50 hours and the other at 17.00 hours inform the SIB headquarters, the DGP and the state home department of the attack on Gulberg Society. (They are found in Annexure III, File XVIII, D-160 (SIB) which is a compilation of „Copies of fax messages sent by the regional officers of State IB to Addl. DGP (Intelligence) Gujarat for the month of February 2002. (Volume-I)‘. The message, at page 94 of the file, sent by Mr. KK Sonara to Mr. CJ Bharwad states that, ‘an unruly mob had rushed into Gulberg society and seized the society’. This message first disclosed by former DCP-(S) Int. Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt has not been denied by the SIT. Another message at page 105, time 17.00 hours talks of the burning alive for former parliamentarian Mr Ahsan Jafri after he was attached by dead weapons. None in Gandhinagar can deny knowledge of the perpetrated attack on Gulberg society.

837. Yet the SIT has chosen to let the accused off lightly. On the day of the massacres as detailed herein, A-3 Mr. IK Jadeja (15:56:40 hours) and A-5 MOS Home Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya (17:02:38) are found through their mobile phone locations to be in the Meghaninagar area, Why? SIT has not bothered to investigate the reasons.

Delinquency of Public Servants

838. As regards the situation on 28/02/2002 about Gujarat Bandh it is stated that on the same day, since the morning only, incidents started taking place at various places and losses of lives also took place on large-scale in which major incidents took place at places like Naroda Patia, Gulberg Society, Naroda Gaam. It is pertinent to note here

376

that all the above areas belong to the same sector and same zone under jurisdiction of the following officers in the descending order of the high ranking officers:-

1. P.C. Pandey – Police Commissioner.

2. M. K. Tandon – Joint Police Commissioner.

3. P.B. Gondiya – Deputy Commissioner of Police.

4. M. T. Rana – Assistant Commissioner of Police.

5. K.G. Erda – Meghaninagar Police Inspector.

6. K. K. Mysorewala – Naroda Police Inspector.

839. Thus, viewed from offences-point of view, the vital major incidentshave taken place in the

jurisdictions of the above officers and it also remains a fact that at the time of each major incident, not a single senior officer was present at the place of incident. And whenever they were given messages for rushing to the critical trouble spots, they chose to be somewhere else. Thus their conduct clearly indicates that they behaved exactly as decided in the top-level meeting held at the residence of the Chief Minister on the previous night. These officers arrived on the scene of violence only after the carnage was over.

840. In view of the above facts, on the important incidents, no formality was completed by any police officer as it appears. Further, they have only tried to shift the basket of blunder on one another and they have only attempted to ward off their individual responsibilities and their evasive replies have been accepted by the SIT officers and they have not considered the evidences placed before them.

841. If the above facts are taken into consideration, various police officers have not discharged their following respective duties and by doing so, they have helped and abated directly and indirectly in the commission of the crimes / offences.

377

842. The Chain of Command Responsibility that emerges in the first instance is as follows (for Ahmedabad City):

Politicians (CM Mr. Modi, Ministers), IAS Officers and IPS Officers and Other Policemen)

Police:

Accused No 29, Commissioner of Police, Mr. PC Pande Accused No 38, Additional Commissioner of Police, Mr. Shivanand Jha

Accused No 33, Joint Commissioner of Police, Mr. MK Tandon

DCP Zone IV, Mr. PB Gondia

Accused No 57, ACP Zone IV Mr. MT Rana

Accused No 56, PI Mr. KK Mysorewala

(Statements against Mysorewala by witnesses recorded by SIT). Accused Nos 55, PI Mr. KG Erda (Gulberg; he has been made an accused)

All the three officers (Accused Nos 29 Mr. PC Pande, Accused Nos 38, Mr. Jha and Accused Nos 33 Mr. Tandon) had their offices in the same building ± the office of the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City.

Analysis of phone records of Mr. PC Pande

Analysis of Documentary Evidence

How Mobile Towers Work

a) A Mobile Tower Covers a Radius of 16 kilometres (10 miles in circumference)

b) In normal times, the nearest tower would pick up the signal from a mobile number located within its area

c) When there is heavy congestion, the tower, next in proximity could pick up the signal from the same mobile

d) That is to say that even within the distance of say the Meghaninagar area(where Gulberg Society) is located, the

towers that could pick up signals could be the one showing Shayona Plaza, Meghaninagar or the one showing Kedar Towers, Shahibaug, Kubernagar near Sardarnagar.

843. Accused Nos 29 Commissioner Mr. PC Pande:

He was in his office till about 1:00 am on the night of 27.2.2002 that is the early morning of 28.2.2002. In normal times, he used to leave office at around 7 p.m. every evening. It was an apprehension of trouble and a seasoned

378

assessment that after the Godhra incident, some trouble may break out that on 28.02.2002 that made him stay so late. This clearly suggests that he was aware of the gravity of the situation following the Godhra carnage on 27.02.2002.

844. He arrived at his office in the morning of 28.2.2002 at around 8:00 am. His normal schedule shows that he used to arrive at his office at about 10:30 a.m. His early arrival again shows that he was aware of the gravity of the situation.

845. Mr. Pande left his office at around 9:45 a.m. and went towards Gota. This is likely to be his visit to the Sola Civil Hospital, where the dead bodies of the Godhra victims had been kept. He returned and reached office at around 10:50 am. He was confined to his office for the whole of the day and did not move out till about 19:10 hrs, when he probably went to Gulberg Society, Meghaninagar.

846. The important point to be noted is that during the peak period of the communal violence, he did not move out of his office. (It also appears that he did not issue any instructions to any of his officers and let things take their own course. However, this aspect would be discussed later.)

847. An Analysis of the phone records of Mr. PC Pande presented by the co-petitioners to SIT shows that on 28.02.2002 he had received/dialed a total of 302 calls on his mobile phone. He had dialed 39 numbers from his mobile phone. Out of these 39 calls, he had called up the DGP, Mr. K. Chakravarti, 6 times, Mr. Shivanand Jha 8 times, and his DCPs 8 times. He had called DCP, Zone IV, Mr. PB Gondia only twice: at 15:16:12 hrs and 15:54:39 hrs. DCP Mr. Gondia was specifically responsible for the Gulberg society, Meghaninagar and Naroda areas.

848. &1XH D X(,X1 ~HWF&otHrXH®’[&DllsFLHFHXYHG)

Significantly, from the critical calls received on his mobile phone by Mr. Pande from political superiors who are from the close confidential coterie of the chief minister, there are as many as 15 calls received and made to the men who moved with the CM.

379

1. Firstly, there are 5 incoming calls received by Mr. PC Pande from the PA to the chief minister, Mr. Tanmay Mehta on February 28, 2002 (at 11:14 hours 13:21 hours, 15:38 hours, 15:57 hours, and 19:26 hours). This was the time of the peak violence when neither Mr. PC Pande, nor any political heavyweight in the state moved to the affected areas.

2. Mr. PC Pande received 2 calls from Mr. Sanjay Bhavsar, OSD to chief minister‘s phone number, once at 13:07 hours and then at 14:22 hours.

3. Mr. PC Pande receives and makes 7 calls from Mr. Anil Mukim, Additional Principal Secretary to the chief minister on that day. His call records show that at 13:09 hours, 13:12 hours, 15:43 hours, 15:50 and 21:14 hours there were four incoming calls recorded to the number of Mr. Mukim. At 20:09 hours and then at 21:03 hours he made calls to Mr. Mukim‘s number.

4. Mr. PC Pande receives one call from Mr. AP Patel, PA to the chief minister‘s mobile at 17:17 hours on February 28, 2002.

5. Mr. PC Pande is in touch with Mr. Ashok Narayan (then Additional Chief Secretary, Home) 8 times during the day. Each time it is he who calls the number (outgoing calls) at 13:52 hours,14:17 hours, 14:19 hours, 15:02 hours, 15:25 hours, 20:11 hours and 23:26 hours and 23:42 hours.

6. Mr. PC Pande is in touch with Mr. SK Nanda, Secretary Health and Family Welfare Board once during the day at 15:05 hours.

849. Mr. PC Pande (Accused No. 29) was Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City. The above narration clearly shows that Mr. Pande was directly in touch with CMO and another Minister, Mr. Gordhan Zadaphia, MOS, Home. He did not take any action, has shown absence of superior command. But SIT has suppressed his role in the conspiracy. Note: The three men close to the chief minister, Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Mr. Sanjay Bhavsar and Mr. OP Singh (PA to the CM) did not file any affidavits before the Nanavati-ShahMehta Commission till after the co-petioners in SLP 1088/2008 submitted analysis and data on phone call records of the CMO to SIT in 2010.

850. Mr. Mehta filed his two page affidavit dated January 22, 2010, Mr. Bhavsar on January 22, 2010 and Mr. OP Singh on February 1, 2010 For eight years after the carnage, they had found no reason to file an affidavit. In these two page

380

affidavits, they have explained away the calls made or received from Mr. Zadaphiya (MOS Home) and Mr. Jaideep Patel saying they were probably official and due to passage of time they do not recall what was spoken.

Other Politicians

851. Mr. PC Pande received six calls from Accused No. 5, MOS Mr. Home Gordhan Zadaphiya on February 28, 2002: 11:31 hours, 14:20 hours, 14:5 hours, 16:20 hours, 17:16 hours and 19:11 hours.

852. Mr. PC Pande spoke to Mr. Narottam Patel, minister at 13:56 hours from his office landline number. Mr. PC Pande spoke to Mr. Ashok Bhatt, state health minister twice, first at 15:09, second time 18:31 hours (both are incoming calls).

853. The phone call records of the chief of police, Mr. PC Pande need to be collated with wireless communications, control book records, message books and phone records. This has been studiously avoided by the SIT.

854. Mr. PC Pande‘s Phone records need especially to be collated closely with the records of both the Police Inspector in Charge of Meghaninagar police station (Gulberg massacre), Mr. KG Erda and that of Police Inspector of Naroda police station area (Naroda Patia and Naroda Gaam), Mr. KK Mysorewala.

855. Mr. PC P ande’s Role as Revealed After an Analysis of the CD (This has been analysed by the co-petitioners and submitted to the SIT and is part of the Investigation Papers). The phone call records of both Mr. PC Pande and Joint Commissioner of Police Mr. MK Tandon show that at the critical time when the latter visits Gulberg Society (between 11:43 a.m. and 12:42 p.m.), when the mob build up is at its height, the two speak to each other six times. For Mr. Pande or the latter to say that he was not aware of what happened is a bare untruth.

381

856. The SIT tried to rush through recording the evidence of Joint Commissioner Mr. MK Tandon – under whose jurisdiction both Gulberg and Naroda fall – despite the fact that an application under section 319 of the CrPC has been filed against him asking him to be arraigned as accused in the Gulberg Massacre Case.

857. Worse, the SIT has sought to record one more 161 statement of this retired officer recently. But none of the statements reflect interrogation on the gross lapses committed under his jurisdiction especially the fact that:

a) Adequate forces failed to reach Gulberg society despite repeated calls made to the Police Control Room (PCR) that are part of official records.

b) He as Commissioner would get intimations every 15 minutes of the PCR information.

c) The first time that the Fire Brigade was called to Gulberg Society was at 1855 in the evening when the massacre had been completed and all homes were burning. Despite this call, the official panchnama shows that the fire inside Mr. Ahsan Jafri‘s home was burning for three-four days after the crime.

858. Mr. Pande Speaks to Accused

Accused No. 29 Mr. PC Pande speaks to Accused No 21 Mr. Jaideep Patel, VHP Gujarat general secretary and accused in the Naroda Patiya and Gaam massacres once during the day at 19:31 ours (incoming call).

859. Analysis of calls made from his landline in office to mobiles of officers show that he connected to mobiles operating in Ahmedabad City only 13 times (out of 302 calls). Out of these 13, 12 were incoming calls on his landline phone. He made just one phone call from his landline number and that too was probably not to an officer. In addition, this single call was made at 20:10:56, when most of the action had already taken place. It can be concluded that he did not use the landline to pass orders or instructions to his field officers. Why did Mr. Pande not contact officers on Mobiles regularly on 28.2.2002?

382

860. As reported in the newspapers at the time, Mr. Pande had claimed that he had no information of the happenings in Naroda Patiya or Gulberg Society. This is virtually impossible in field situations. Further, his knowledge of the two incidents gets support from call details, as has been explained above. It must also be that since Mr. Pande was not informed of the incidents, he would not have sent any message to the officers in the field. Thus, it can be concluded that there was virtually no instruction from Mr. Pande to take action against the violent mobs at different places.

861. The statement of Mr. Pande before a prominent television channel only speaks his mind and his deep involvement in the conspiracy. He had said, during the riots, “Where the

‘ ‘‘lUFMciU®’FM’tU’®®FcU®®nM®’®mm’®®® issue, it’s very difficult to expect the po icUR U’®IU®®® isolated and unaffected.”

862. Was Mr. Pande speaking of his own state of mind when he said this? Did he also want this (the communal pogrom) to happen? The SIT has concluded that Mr. Pande was busy handling the dead bodies of the victims of Godhra Carnage. There are two aspects of this. Firstly, cell phone records show that he was sitting in his office all day long. He hardly seems to have done anything with respect to the dead bodies except paying a visit in the morning to the Sola Civil Hospital. Secondly, is it a priority for a police officer to ‘handle’ the dead bodies when the whole city is burning? Should he omit his basic duty to protect human life and property and, instead, go about ‘handling’ dead bodies? If he was so sensitive about the dead bodies, why did he allow the bodies to be brought all the way from Godhra by road through the streets of Ahmedabad? Did he also want the passions to flare up? The whole story of Mr. Pande attending to the dead bodies of the Godhra train carnage victims seems to be maliciously cooked up. At best this is a lame alibi.

383

863. The inaction on the part of Mr. Pande is very apparent. The question that arises is regarding the cause of this inaction. Did he omit to take necessary measures out of his own volition? Or was he coerced into doing this? The first option is less likely because Mr. Pande had nothing to gain from this. The second option is more likely. If this were so, who could have ‘pushed’ Mr. Pande into such gory acts of omission? It could only have been someone who was significantly more powerful than him. The needle of suspicion points towards the political leadership, which had everything to gain in view of the impending elections and the poor electoral fortunes of the BJP.

864. The failure to act by Mr. Pande surely amounts to criminal negligence. A quick perusal of the statements of PC Mr. Pande, Mr. MK Tandon and many other senior officers recorded by the SIT under section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are perfunctory and superficial. There appears no desire at all to get to the root of the failure to protect lives of the police and administration.

865. On the evening/night of 27.02.2002, a meeting was held under the chairmanship of the CM, Mr. Narendra Modi. Mr. Pande was one of the officers who attended the meeting. What instructions were given to him in the meeting? Were the officers instructed to take firm action? If that was so, then would any officer have dared to disobey the CM over a legal order? And above all disobey the present CM? It is most unlikely.

866. The government, till this day, has also not taken any disciplinary action against any officer for not following its legal orders. This suggests that it is not agitated by the intentional lack of compliance of its legal orders. Hence, that such a thing would have happened is most unlikely – almost impossible.

867. The other possibility is that the officers were instructed to ‘let things happen’? This instruction seems to be consistent with the conduct of the officers and very much in the interest of the political party in power. It is also consistent with the conduct of the government in the whole issue – officers who

384

supported the ‘mission‘ were suitably rewarded with important postings; officers, who stood up for their call of duty, were shifted to insignificant and difficult posts.

868. The mind of the political leadership can also be established by the manner in which the whole of the Godhra Carnage was handled personally by the CM – the bringing of the dead bodies by road through the busy areas of cities including Ahmedabad is just one example. Other acts intended to ‘provoke’ would certainly be within the knowledge of the SIT.

869. PC Pande has been one of the most crucial collaborators who have post facto benefitted for his criminal negligence.

a) Phone call record analysis of Mr. PC Pande for the whole of Ahmedabad city but especially for the Naroda Patiya and Gaam charge sheets suggest that key questions needed to have been put to him by the investigation agencies which have not.

b) Has his statement as CP Ahmedabad even been recorded by the SIT in the Naroda Patia case?

The phone call records of both Mr. PC Pande and Joint Commissioner of Police Mr. MK Tandon (below) show that at the critical time when the latter visits the worst affected areas (between 11:43 a.m. and 12:42 p.m.) when the mob build up is at its height, the two speak to each other six times. For Mr. Pande or the latter to say in affidavits before the Commission that he was not aware of what happened is a bare untruth.

870. Accused Nos 38, Mr. Shivanand Jha:

He, too, was in his office late in the night till about 1:15 am on 28.02.2002. Normally, he used to leave office at around 7:00 pm. Further, he arrived at his office at about 5:10 am on the morning of 28.02.2002. As in the case of Mr. PC Pande, his being in his office till late hours and arriving very early suggests that he, too, was aware of the gravity of the situation.

385

871. It is seen that both the sector heads – Mr. MK Tandon (see below) and Mr. Shivanand Jha did not move out of their offices till about 11:00 a.m. despite mounting tensions and reports of gathering mobs and skirmishes. Even Mr. PC Pande, who had gone to Sola Civil Hospital, does not appear to have been involved in the control of riots. He probably was more concerned with his visit to the dead bodies at Sola Civil Hospital. As has been discussed earlier, all the three officers did not take early action to nip the riots in the bud, as has been provided for in the Gujarat Police Manual.

872. If this is true, then the acts of omission on the part of Mr. PC Pande and Mr. Jha could be part of a larger conspiracy to allow the mobs to kill and plunder. Consequently, he would stand as an accused in all the major riot cases being investigated by the SIT, namely, the massacres at Gulberg Society, Naroda Patiya and Naroda Gaam.

873. Analysis of Calls and Location of Mr. Shivanand Jha: On February 27, 2002 Mr. Shivanand Jha receives 68 phone calls, mostly from numbers out of the official government directories. This suggests they are phone numbers either owned by politicians or officials (unofficially) or they were using phones actually in other‘s names. On the next day, that is, February 28, 2002 Jha records as many as 192 calls in his phone records of which four calls are ones he has made to then Gujarat Power Minister, Mr. Kaushik Jamnadas Patel (an MLA elected from his area) and another three are those that he makes to then MLA, Dr. Maya Kodnani, who was an MLA from an area outside his jurisdiction.

874. Mr. Jha‘s phone call records show that he speaks to Joint Commissioner Mr. MK Tandon once at 18:16 hours (Jha calls Tandon). Mr. Jha and Mr. PC Pande are in touch 9 times during the day which shows that they are clearly aware of the inaction of the police and action of the mob.

386

Mr J ha and the Chief Minister’s Coterie

875. Mr. Jha is also in touch with Mr. Harsh Brahmbutt a close aide of the chief minister from whose number the chief minister could have made calls at 19:35 hours.

Mr. Shivanand Jha

a. He was posted as the Additional Commissioner, Sector—I, Ahmedabad City during the riots of 2002. He had not moved out of his office till about 11.00 a.m. despite reported large-scale violence within his jurisdiction. Proof of this is found from the CDR analysis of the CD submitted by Mr. Rahul Sharma to the Nanavati—Shah Commission, which has also been submitted to the SIT. By not taking prompt action, he permitted the riots to grow in their intensity. Widespread rioting, looting and arson took place in his jurisdiction. The deaths were, however, less in number because of geographical and demographic factors. He took no preventive actions during the previous night. Therefore, he is as much a party to the riots and ironically, his name was proposed by the State Government for inclusion in the SIT.

b. He was considered very close to Mr. PC Pande and key to exploring the complicity of the chain of command responsibility in the violence. Mr. Pande stands seriously indicted for the failure to control the violence in Ahmedabad city, the delayed imposition of curfew, the participation in illegal acts at the best of the state government issues in unminuted meetings on the evening of February 27, 2002 and early morning of February 28, 2002. Under the circumstance, he could not be seriously expected to interrogate Mr. PC Pande and investigate his role, which are borne by the subsequent acts of omission of the SIT.

c. The phone call records of Mr. Jha for February 28, 2002, the day of the worst violence in Ahmedabad city reveal that among other persons he did make 3 calls to MLA, Dr. Maya Kodnani who was an accused in the Naroda Patiya (since convicted) and Gaam (trial ongoing) massacres though she was not an elected representative of the zone under his jurisdiction.

d. When he was posted to Rajkot in 2002, he managed to stay in Ahmedabad, where his family was, almost all through his tenure of more than a year with the blessings of Mr. PC Pande.

387

e. He continued as a favoured officer of Mr. Pande even till the latter‘s tenure as DGP. He has held the most influential postings (e.g. a secretary in the Home department, IG of Police, Surat Range). He continued as the head of the Surat Range even after his promotion to the rank of Additional DGP, which has never been heard of. He was posted as Commissioner of Police, Surat City. This demonstrates that he has been consistently close to and is a trusted person of the political executive.

f.As per his own admissions, in confidence, before some of his colleagues, he claims that he had been directed not to move out of his office and let the riots fester by Mr. PC Pande. It is only natural that the SIT chose to ignore the role Mr. PC Pande in the communal violence in Ahmedabad City given Mr. Jha‘s role in the SIT.

g. He had also brought the Police Control Room, Ahmedabad City, under his charge with the permission of Mr. PC Pande. Therefore, for this reason the SIT omitted to investigate as to why politicians were sitting in the Ahmedabad City Police Control Room and whether they had any role to play in the major massacres.

h. He was a Secretary in Home Department of the Government of Gujarat for nearly three years while the present complaint was pending before the Supreme Court when he consistently took the position and was a party to the affidavits on behalf of the State that the investigations of these cases should not be handed over to the CBI or transferred out of the State. Although it can be argued on his behalf that he was voicing the position of his Government, it cannot be denied that in him the Government had found a trustworthy and reliable instrument for its unethical and crafty manoeuvres.

i.He is the person who personally cleared all the affidavits that had been filed by police officers, who had been employed in Ahmedabad City at the relevant time, before the NanavatiShah Commission enquiring into the Gujarat riots. Many of these affidavits contain false declarations and had his conscious approval.

Mr. Shivanand Jha should have been questioned on this. Was this done?

388

876. Accused No. 33, Mr. MK Tandon:

He, too, was in his office late in the night till about 1:15 am on 28.02.2002. In normal times, he also used to leave office at around 7:00 pm. Further, he arrived at his office at about 8:30 a.m. on the morning of 28.02.2002. As in the case of Mr. PC Pande, his being in his office till late hours and arriving early suggests that he, too, was aware of the gravity of the situation.

Analysis of the cell phone data shows that Mr. MK Tandon was confined to his office till about 11:25 a.m. after which he probably visited the Gulberg Society.

Tandon at Gulberg Society

877. In a parallel trial of the Gulberg society massacre, through the evidence led there -- police witnesses Mr. Arvind C Vaghela and Mr. Dhanaysigh Becharsingh, Mr. Tandon did not order the Force available with him at the time he went to Gulberg Society to fire and disperse the mob. It is clear that Mr. Tandon had visited Gulberg society at around 11:25 am on the morning of 28.02.2002 but as police witness testimonies reveal before the trial court, despite coming with a striking force and faced with a restive and violent mob met him, junior officers pleaded with him to send men and arms, he left with this well equipped force to another location.

878. At 12:06:57 p.m. (afternoon), Mr. Tandon received a phone call from Mr. PC Pande. Mr. Tandon was around Meghaninagar at that time. They talked for about 75 seconds. What they talked about is not known? While just outside Gulberg society, Mr. Tandon receives this call from Commissioner of Police, Mr. PC Pande and it is assumed that the two would have spoken about the violence and restiveness of the mob at Gulberg eases a bit. This means that when Mr. Tandon got a call from Mr. Pande, police had either already resorted to firing or the mob surrounding the Gulberg Society had become so restive that police firing was imminent. In such a situation, Mr. Tandon would certainly have mentioned to Mr. Pande the grave environment prevailing at the Gulberg Society. This does not happen.

879. Inexplicably, after talking to Mr. Pande, Mr. Tandon heads for Naroda Patiya. If this movement was on the instructions

389

of Mr. Pande, it shows that Mr. Pande, who pleaded ignorance of the incidents at Gulberg Society and Naroda Patiya before the Commission of Inquiry, was actually fully aware of the entire happenings. And that he committed perjury when he wilfully misled the Commission.

880. At 11:34 a.m. he makes a call to his DCP, Mr. PB Gondia when he is located under the Shayona Plaza Tower Area which is within 1.5 kilometres of the Gulberg Society, Meghaninagar. Eye-witnesses and police witnesses have testified to Mr. Tandon’s visit. This has not been denied by Mr. Tandon on oath.

Did Mr. Gondia and Mr. Tandon also move on and visit Naroda Patia area?

881. Then again at 11:43 a.m. he makes a call to Mr. Pande on the latter‘s mobile no. He makes a call thereafter to the Police Control Room at 11: 47 a.m. He then receives a call at 11:48 from an undisclosed landline number and 10 minutes later he makes another call, and again at 11:58 a.m. He receives another call from an undisclosed number to the Control Room landline. At 12:06 p.m., he receives a call from Mr. PC Pande (mobile). Thereafter he makes a call to Mr. RJ Savani, DCP Zone V (a neighbouring zone) at 12:09 p.m. He is still in this area when he makes a call to Mr. Pande at 12: 37 p.m. In between at 12: 11 pm he makes a call to DCP Mr. Jabelia of Zone VI while his location shows at Kailash Complex, Naroda. When he receives a call from Mr. Savani at 12:13, he is at the same location but a minute later at 12:14 when he calls Mr. PC Pande his location shows up at Kubernagar. There are other calls including two calls made to Mr. PC Pande at 12:18 p.m. when he is at the Kubernagar location. Between 12:11 p.m. to 12:33 p.m. when he receives and makes a call his location is shown as Kailash Complex Naroda. But thereafter at 12:41 and 12:42 he is shown at Vishal Diamond Factory near New India Colony at Bapunagar. This could be at a location near a factory owned by MOS Home Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya. This needs to be investigated through an Inquiry held by the Court. Then he is out of the affected area and is shown to be in the vicinity of or at the Bora marriage Hall, Rakhial, Char Rasta (12:44) p.m.

390

882. The phone call records of both Accused No. 29 Mr. PC Pande and Accused Nos 33 Joint Commissioner of Police Mr. M.K. Tandon show that at the critical time when the latter visits Meghaninagar, Gulberg Society (between 11:43 a.m. and 12:42 p.m.) when the mob build up is at its height, the two speak to each other six times. For Tandon to explain away his departure without leaving behind the striking force that he had come with (evidence before the Trial Court) is inexplicable. At 12:06:57 p.m. (afternoon), Mr. Tandon received a phone call from Mr. PC Pande. Mr. Tandon was at Gulberg Society at that time. They talked for about 75 seconds. What they talked about is not known?

883. Mr. Pande can also not absolve himself of this criminal inaction on the part of his deputy.

What were they conversing about?

Are they not responsible for the death and destruction?

884. Mr. MK Tandon‘s phone call records show that he also received many calls from both political bigwigs and some accused. Was his decision to leave Gulberg society unprotected a professional decision or governed by political pressure?

885. At around 12:10 pm, there is wireless message from the vehicle of Meghaninagar Police Station to the Police Control Room informing that police had resorted to firing at Gulberg Society. Now, someone familiar with police operations would agree that it is not that police fires and rushes to inform the Police Control Room. Police would fire and then would inform the Control Room only when the situation eases a bit. This means that when Mr. Tandon got a call from Mr. Pande, police had either already resorted to firing or the mob surrounding the Gulberg Society had become so restive that police firing was imminent. In such a situation, Mr. Tandon would certainly have mentioned to Mr. Pande the grave environment prevailing at the Gulberg Society.

391

886. Mr. Tandon Converses with Co Accused Politicians around the same time. Mr. MK Tandon‘s phone calls records show that he received many calls from both political bigwigs and some accused:

887. At 00:00:32 on 28.2.2002 he received a call from Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya, MOS, Home (Accused No 5) and later in the day around 5 pm. a call from Mr. Kaushik Jamnadas Patel, state minister for power (Accused No 7). Mr. Nimesh Patel, accused of killing eight people was also in touch with him at 22:28:34 on 28.2.2009.

888. When does Mr. Tandon Reach Adjoining Naroda Patiya Mr. Tandon reaches Naroda Patiya at around 12:15 pm, imposes curfew at 12:29 pm in Naroda Patiya (wireless message records of the same are available), and then leaves Naroda Patiya at about 12:33 pm – within 4 minutes of imposing the curfew! At this point a huge mob had already gathered at Naroda Patiya and its intentions to kill and plunder were apparent. It was for this reason that Mr. Tandon had to order the imposition of the curfew. However, Mr. Tandon made no effort to implement the curfew. He left the place leaving the hapless residents of Naroda Patiya undefended.

889. After leaving Naroda Patiya, Mr. Tandon goes to Dariapur & Revdi Bazaar areas where nothing is happening and all is quiet. Thus, Mr. Tandon is neither at Gulberg Society nor at Naroda Patiya despite having full knowledge of the prevailing situation at the two places. He is not present at the place where the crime is taking place despite having sufficient police force at his disposal. He, thus, intentionally abdicates his responsibility and abets the commission of the crime by the riotous mob.

890. Was this omission on the part of Mr. Tandon a mere act of cowardice or was it an intentional omission to leave the mob to kill, rape and loot? Given that he had earlier been instructed by Mr. PC Pande to ‘let things happen’, it is most likely that he fell in line and allowed the pre-planned pogrom to be executed without any obstruction or resistance. It is only after talking to Pande, his superior in the chain of

392

command responsibility that Mr. Tandon heads for Naroda Patiya. If this movement was on the instructions of Mr. Pande as the records of the PCR and Phone analysis show, they also reveal that Mr. Pande, who pleaded ignorance of the incidents at Gulberg Society and Naroda Patiya before the Commission of Inquiry, was actually fully actually aware of the entire happenings. And that he committed perjury when he wilfully misled the Nanavati Shah Commission.

Evidence led against Mr. Tandon accused for part of his role in Sessions Case Nos 152/2002 (Gulberg Trial):-

891. The relevant statements from the Gulberg trial are:

Police Witnesses PW 7 Arvindsinh Vaghela‘s statements dated 7.3.2009 and his deposition dtd 10.9.2009, PW 13 Gunman Umavat‘s statement dated 7.3.2009 and Deposition dated 9.2.2010; PW 269 Natwarsinh Bhatte‘s statement dated 7.3.2009 and deposition dated 9.2.2010; Similarly the statements and Depositions of Fire Brigade officials outlining Mr. Tandon‘s role as in PW 271 Himmatsinh Bharatsinh Sisodia statement dtd 27.9.2008 and deposition dated 10.2.2010; PW 270 Anwarmiya Balumiya Shaikh‘s statement dtd 27.9.2008 and deposition dated 10.2.2010; PW 272 Rewabhai Krishnabhai Rathod‘s statement dated 29.9.2008 and deposition dated 10.2.2010; Tandon‘s personnel gunmen i.e. PW 316 Ramubhai Naghbai Vada‘s statement dated 20.12.2009 and deposition dated 6.9.2010, PW 317 Navalsinh Ramsinh Baria‘s statement dated 1.11.2009 and deposition dated 6.9.2010. The statements and depositions of eyewitnesses implicating Mr. Tandon in the Gulberg case include those of PW 106 Imtiyazkhan Pathan, PW 116 Saeedkhan Pathan statement dated 22.5.2008 and depositions around October-December 2009. Fakir Mohammed statement dated 23.5.2008 and deposition in the Trial Court.

393

892. DCP Mr. PB Gondia, Zone IV (Meghaninagar and Naroda Areas) DCP Zone IV Mr. PB Gondia was in touch with key accused, Dr. Maya Kodnani, Mr. Jaideep Patel and Mr. Nimesh Patel seven times through the day on 28.2.2002.

Details:

Analysis of DCP Zone IV, Mr. Praveen B Gondia‘s Phone Call Records:

On the morning of 28.2.2002 at 10:30:11, Gondia receives a call from Dr. Maya Kodnani‘s mobile (09825006729). Mr. Gondia receives two further calls from Maya Kodnani at 10:39 hours and 17.05 hours. Mr. Gondia receives three calls from Mr. Jaideep Patel of the VHP and accused in the Naroda Gaam and Patia Cases at 11:40 hours, 11:52 hours. 12: 20 hours. This is a crucial time when the violence is building up, mobs are attacking Naroda Patiya, Gaon and Gulberg Society.

893. Mr. Gondia speaks to Mr. Nimish Patel an accused, six times during the day at 13:53 hours, 14’13 hours, 15:01, 18:55, 21:43 hours, and 22:10 hours.

Other Politicians

Mr. Gondia receives two calls from state minister Mr. Kaushik Kumar Patel (Accused No. 7) at 17:24 hours and 17:29 hours. Mr. Gondia also receives three calls from Mr. K. Nityanand, Secretary Home department at 19:40 hours, 23:15 hours and 23:16 hours.

Location Analysis

Mr. Gondia‘s records show that from 12:35 hours to 22:01 hours on February 28, 2002 he was in the Narol and Meghaninagar areas and yet did nothing to dispel the mob, call the Fire Brigade or stem the violence.

At 18:55:59 and then again at 21:43:23 P B Gondia (9825049197) received a call from Mr. Nimesh Patel (9824255788). It appears as if this officer was regularly reporting to these two. Mr. PB Gondia (9825049197) made a call to 09824255788 (Mr. Nimesh Patel) and then at 11:40:02 he (09825049197) received a call from Mr. Jaideep Patel (9825023887).

394

894.PI Mr. KG Erda

(Now accused by SIT in its charge sheet dated May 16, 2009 after protests from victims)

Analysis of the Calls Made and Received by Mr. KG Erda, I.O. Meghaninagar (Lowest in the Chain of Command vis a vis Gulberg Society)

Mr. Erda‘s phone call records show that he had been in constant touch with the Control Room through 27.2.2002 and 28.2.2002. In fact even the day of the Godhra Train Burning tragedy, PI Mr. Erda had been in touch with the Control Room from 1.21 p.m. to 11.10 p.m., even being in touch with his immediate superior, Mr. Gondia.

On 28.2.2002, of the 28 logged calls made and received by him, 13 were made by him to the police; 10 calls logged on his mobile show that he called the Control Room 10 times speaking for a total of 688 seconds that is about 11 minutes; three Calls were made by him to the local, Meghaninagar Police Station during which he spoke a total of 65 seconds that is a little over a minute; 2 calls were made to DCP Mr. Gondia and 2 calls to Joint Commissioner of Police, Mr. M.K. Tandon.

The fact that this police officer, the man on the spot, the PI was in touch with the Control Room except between 15:33 p.m. and 17:52 p.m. (that is for a period of two hours and twenty minutes), when he preferred to call his immediate bosses DCP Mr. Gondia and Joint CP Mr. MK Tandon could also lead to some revelations. This is because this was a critical period of the killing and carnage at the Gulberg Society when frantic messages to the Control Room could have yielded more immediate help and results.

In Police and Law Enforcement language, a call to the Control Room means a call to the Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad in this case. Various officers in charge of the Control Room are expected, area wise to report to the CP every 15 minutes. A close scrutiny of the Phone Call login records of the various Police Stations connected with these trials, the Police Control Room, Shahibaug Ahmedabad, and State Control Room, Gandhinagar would reveal which officers had performed their duties and informed their superiors. If these records then show that after having received such critical information from a close coterie of senior officers who were in touch with the CMO, they did not act, then allegations of conspiracy get substantiated. It

395

was expected that SIT would ruthlessly investigate these records to arrive at a watertight conclusion, one way or another. SIT‘s failure to do so and to submit charge sheets in the critical Gulberg Massacre case without any of these investigations being attempted leave alone completed, suggests a desire to cover up what all along the Gujarat Police and State of Gujarat have been trying to do.

To top it all, the phone call records of PI Meghaninagar Mr. KG Erda also reveal that on 28.2.2002 he was in touch with influential and key accused at various times of the day. At 15:20:35: Erda (98250116221) receives a call from 792682186 (then MLA Dr. Maya Kodnani's Office No.), a call lasting 19 seconds. Dr. Kodnani was Minister Women and Child Development in 2009 when she was given notice of arrest by SIT. She then absconded for several days before surrendering to be arrested. Mrs. Kodnani thereafter resigned her position and was refused bail by the Gujarat high court (She has since been convicted and given life sentence in the Naroda Patia case). At 18:20:31 Mr. Erda (98250116221) again called 09825006729 (Dr. Maya Kodnani‘s mobile) and speaks for 93 seconds again from the Meghaninagar area.

Mysteriously, PI Mr. Erda, at 17:59:24 on 28.2.2002, (98250116221) also called 09824255788, a mobile number of accused Mr. Nimesh Patel, who is accused of killing 8 people in Naroda Gaam. The call lasted 24 seconds. In what could be the strangest co-incidence or have the ingredients of a sinister conspiracy, the accused Mr. Nimesh Patel spoke from his mobile number (098242255788) four times on 28.2.2002, at 12:40, (for 29 seconds), at 10:03 (for 32 seconds) at 20:58 (22 seconds) and at 12:21 (154 seconds) to Accused No. 16 (in Mrs. Jafri‘s complaint) former MLA and Minister Dr. Maya Kodnani on 28.2.2002 as well.

896. Accused No. 56, PI, Mr. KK Mysorewala, PI Naroda Police Station

The analysis of the mobile phone records of this policeman, in charge of a police station area where the worst carnage took place yields a curious result: His phone call records show a strange absence of calls.

He received only two calls on 28.2.2002 on his mobile. First at

10:55 hours fromMr. Jaideep Patel, VHP general

396

secretary Gujarat and accused in the Naroda Gaam and Patiya massacres. The second call he has received at 21:54 hours from an unidentified mobile number. An analysis of the call details of PI Mr. KK Mysorewala (09825190775) (now promoted) show that on 27.2.2002 there is only one call received by him on his official number. The number calling was 09825047044. On 28.2.2002, his phone records show that he (Mysorewala, a policeman) was in touch with VHP accused, Mr. Jaideep Patel, accused in the Naroda Gaam and Patia cases. He received a call from Mr. Jaideep Patel (09825023887) at 10:55:20 for 28 seconds. He was shown in Narol, Naroda at the time and this was when the massacre was at a feverish pitch.

897. The moot question is whether the failure of the Ahmedabad police was due to the fact that they were ill-equipped to handle an explosive situation or whether the attacks on Naroda Patia Society were motivated by a murderous and well-calculated desire to massacre, burn, rape, loot and kill.

898. Eyewitnesses and victim survivors have spoken of the anguished calls made by them for help. Was the failure to respond a genuine human lapse or a pre-planned conspiracy at the very highest levels to allow people to be raped, molested, burned and killed at Naroda Patia after the attack started around 9 a.m. and went on until late evening?

Other Evidence from Naroda Patia Trial

899. While SIT has arraigned second PI from the Naroda police station as accused, despite crucial criminal lapse being attributed by half a dozen witnesses to first PI Mr. KK Mysorewala (promoted after 2002 and is now SP) no moves have been made to charge him until recently when some witnesses who were attacked allegedly at the behest of Dr. Maya Kodnani complained of this lapse to SIT;

900. Fifteen witnesses in their statements both before SIT and made earlier, at the minimum have named accused number one Mr. Babu Bajrangi Patel (Accused no. 22 in Mrs. Jafri‘s complaint) as not just accused but leader of the mob,

397

mastermind etc. He is a key person behind the massacre that let to 95 (non-official figures state 110) persons being slaughtered. His Bail was not cancelled during Trial (His Phone call Record Analysis and Locational Analysis will follow). While the trial was on, he threatened advocates appearing for the witnesses. (Along with Dr. Kodnani, he too has been convicted in the Naroda Patia case and given life imprisonment).

901. Mr. Suresh Langda Richard Chara, another accused named by as many as 53 witnesses as also an accused figuring on a self-confession of heinous crimes in Tehelka’s „Operation Kalank’ for murder rape and ghastly crimes similarly was not sought to be re-arrested by SIT; (He, too, has been given life imprisonment in the Naroda Patia case).

902. Detailed Phone Call Records of First PI Mr. KK Mysorewala (9825190775)

28th February 2002-

1. At 21:54:02 9825013220 made a call to PI Mr. KK Mysorewala, (9825190775)- duration 1 second- location Kothari Tower, Sabermati-2. The owner of the phone is unidentifiable and the I.O.s need to be queried in this regard.

2. At 10:55:20 VHP General Secretary (Mr. Jaideep Patel 9825023887) made a call to PI Mr. K.K. Mysorewala (09825190775)- duration 28 seconds- location Kailash Complex, Shop no. 105, Naroda-Narol H/W, Abad.-1.

3. Evidence led against this accused for part of his role in Sessions Case No. 235/2009 PW 52, Amina Abassbhai Belim‘s statement dated 30.5.2008 and deposition dated 18.1.2010; PW 143 Dildar Umrav Saiyed‘s statement to police and the SIT dated 4.5.2002, 3.6.2008 and 14.9.2009 and deposition dated 24.6.2010; PW 157 Mohammed Shafi Allahbux Mansuri‘s statement dated 14.9.2008 and deposition dated 27.8.2010; PW 73 Babubhai Maiyuddin Saiyed‘s statement dated 12.5.2002 and deposition dated 15.2.2010; PW 136 Bashirkhan Nanhekhan Pathan‘s

398

statements to the police and the SIT dated 18.3.2002 and 17.5.2008 and deposition dated 19.5.2010; PW 138 Mohmedbhai Abdulhamid Shaikh‘s statements to the police and SIT dated 12.5.2002 and 13.5.2008 and deposition dated 27.5.2010; PW 149 Faridabanu Abdulkader Khalifa‘s statements to the police and SIT dated 12.5.2002 and 3.6.2008 and deposition dated 26.7.2010; PW 37 Salim Roshan Ali Saiyed‘s statement dated 25.6. 2002 and deposition dated 27.11.2009; PW 243 Shabbirali Nivasali Ansari‘s statement dated 4.6.2008 and deposition dated 28.6.2011.

Accused to Accused Contact

903. Mr. Atul Vaidya accused in the Gulberg Society Massacre was in touch with VHP leaders Mr. Kamlesh Agarwal, Mr. Ajaysingh Balisatarsinh Rajput, Mr. Dinesh Bhoidas Patel and Mr. Babu Bajrangi. Annexed hereto is the Graph and Analysis of Phone Call Analysis of accused Mr. Babu Bajrangi.

Phone Call Records Analysis:

904. The Phone Call records of 5 lakh phone calls on the CD collected by the Crime Branch, Ahmedabad (June 2002) The Police Control Room Records concerned with the Meghaninagar Area, the Naroda Area log the calls received by senior and responsible officers and the response to the calls.

The Fire Brigade Registers, the Case Diaries Etc

905. Have all the above been covered by the SIT? Already we have identified several areas in which serious questions arise and point towards the likely confirmation of a pre-planned conspiracy.

Top Level Conspiracy

906. Three eyewitnesses since November 2, 2009 in the Gulberg Society case have deposed that Mr. Ahsan Jafri made frantic phone calls to the powerful before he was abused and gave

399

himself up for the massacre. Our investigations into the Cell phone Records provided by former DCP Crime Branch, Mr. Rahul Sharma to the Nanavati Shah Commission (in 2002) show that these testimonies of key eyewitnesses are supported by hard documentary evidence. Specifically, our inquiries show that Mr. Jafri (from his landline number 0792125166 made several calls that day. Two were critical, one made at 11:31 am and another at 13:42, that is just before he was killed. Though a statement of Mr. JS Gedon, police sub inspector ATS dated 24.3.2009 supports these findings, SIT continues to deliberately deny knowledge of such calls.

Gulberg Conspiracy

907. Godhra incident occurred on 27.2.02 and violent reactions started the same day in Ahmedabad city and another districts.

- Some incidents made out in the Meghaninagar P.S. Jurisdiction for this incident police didn‘t take any precaution and not arrest the anti social elements.

- Conspiracy of Gulberg started on 27.2.02 as location of Mr. Anil Mukim (PS of CM) found in Meghaninagar. Mr. Mukim also talked with DGP Mr. K. Chakravarti at 3:33 pm from Meghaninagar and at 4:00pm he talked with Mr. Tanmay Mehta (PA to CM from Meghaninagar At 10:00pm his location according to call details shows that he was still in Meghaninagar. This presence of Mr. Anil Mukim in Meghaninagar on 27.2.02 was presumably part of the conspiracy for what was to follow the next day, 28.2.02, at Gulberg Society. This shows that it was a plan to destroy the entire society and kill Mr. Jafri.

908.Details of the Mysterious Presence of Powerful Persons close to

A-1 (Mr. Narendra Modi and A-2 (Mr. Ashok Bhatt) and even Police officials at Meghaninagar (scene of Gulberg massacre) and Narol (near Naroda, scene of Naroda Patiya massacre) are given again, below. A-2 Ashok Bhatt and PS to CM when they were supposed to be in Godhra were found (at least their

400

mobile phone locations at the above-mentioned places. What does this mean? Were they not at Godhra? Or were their official phones actually given for the use of others, obviously not in government?

LOCATIONS OF POWERFUL PERSONS AND ACCUSED AT NARODA

NAROL, NARODA 27.2.2002

909. At 05:10:53 Mr. Ashok Bhatt, cabinet minister for health accused of sitting in the city control room and preventing policemen from doing their duty was at Naroda-Narol. At 09:55:24 on 28.2.2002 around the time the massacre began, Mr. Ashok Bhatt was again at Narol, Naroda. He received three calls there. Another key person from the coterie of the chief minister was at this location, Mr. Tanmay Mehta, PA to the Chief Minister. He was there at Naroda at 16:02. Mr. O. P. Singh, PA to the chief minister, was also there at16:02:25 and they were in touch with each other. Mr. Ashok Narayan, Additional Home secretary, also accused in the Mrs. Zakia Jafri Complaint (accused no. 28) was also present here at 5:41:32 (Narol, Naroda) as was Mr. IK Jadeja, minister (accused no. 3) at 17:35:25.

Analysis of Location of Key Persons at Meghaninagar MEGHANINAGAR 27.2.2002

910. Close members of the chief minister‘s cabinet and coteries were at Meghaninagar on 27.2.2002. At 15:48:39 Mr. Ashok Bhatt (919825039877), minister for health was here and around the same time Mr. Anil Mukim, Additional Principal Secretary to the chief minister was also here.(15:33: 40). Mukim was also here at 16:02:02 and then again that night at 22:01:18. Others at Meghaninagar which is the jurisdiction area where the Gulberg society is located the day the chief minister was in Godhra, was Mr. OP Singh, PA to the chief minister at 15:48:16. Dr. PK Mishra, Personal Secretary to the chief minister is also present at Meghaninagar at 15:48:11 on 27.2.2002 and so also is Mr. Tanmay Mehta, PA to the chief minister (at 15:35:01). Interestingly among policemen who are in the same area on 27.2.2002 are Mr. PB Gondia, DCP Zone IV who is there are 00:36:26 that is late in the night of 27.2.2002/28.2.2002.

401

28.2.2002

911. On the day of the massacres at Gulberg society and Naroda Patia and Gaam, IK Jadeja, cabinet minister for urban development was at the Meghaninagar area at 15:56:40. MOS Home, Mr. Zadaphiya was there at 17:02:38.

Suggested Course of Action:

The above suspicious information would require a sustained interrogation of all those concerned.

- Officers like Commissioner of Ahmedabad City Mr. PC Pandey, Jt. CP Mr. MK Tandon, and DCP Mr. Gondia kept themselves idle. All the officers were receiving repeated messages of the ugly build-up at Gulberg Society from 10:00 am to 3:00 pm on 28.2.02. All the officers were in touch with each other and appeared to be awaiting the completion of the crimes at Gulberg. Only when they got confirmation of the massacre having run its full course did they reach at the spot. None of these officers performed their constitutional obligation of protecting lives and ensuring rule of law. Therefore it is reasonable to presume that were all part of a pre-planned conspiracy.

- Mr. Erda sent frequent messages to the police control room detailing the ugly developments at Gulberg society. Even then, none of the senior officers took effective measures.

- It is also evident from the sting operation of Mr. Ashish Khaitan that all the police officers, including Mr. Erda, had any intention of saving the hapless residents of Gulberg society. It is only their good fortune that 150 residents of Gulberg society managed to stay alive.

- Police action such as it was only on paper, presumably for the record in order to escape any accountability.

- Even after the completion of incident, lodging of complaint and recording the statement of witnesses, preparing panchnamas, all were done in favour of the perpetrators. The statements of victims-witnesses were deliberately distorted, prominent persons named by simply not included. All these acts of police and police officers show a continuation of the conspiracy of police.

- According to Log Book (P.874), curfew was imposed by Addl.PC G-Division at 13:15 pm. Butr according to log book page no.885, message given by B-Division at 3:13 pm says the

402

order of curfew should be strictly carryout. The point to note is that by 3:15 p.m. the carnage at Gulberg society was more or less over. Mobs had been on the rampage since the morning but no attempts were made to deal with or disperse the mob, make arrests, impose curfew until it was all too late.

Details of vehicle bandobast at Gulberq

No.NAMEVEHICLETIME

1K.G. Erda(First PI)MeghaninagarOne

1. Rameshbhai Nagjibhai(H.C.)Van

2. Babubhai Nathabhai(H.C.) (Operator)

3. Mavjibhai Jakshibhai

4. Sureshbhai Navjibhai

5. Adesingh Saradhbhai

6. Bhupendrasingh Karansingh

7. Shaileshkumar Kalusingh

2N.D. Parmar ( Second PI) 1. Ashok Jinjar (Driver)Meghaninagar Two Van (On Dt. 28/2/02 Bandobast at Dariapur police Station)

3N.J. Bhati(PSI)MeghaninagarThree

1. Prahladji MangaljiVan

2. Gyansingh Morpalsingh

3. Kiritbhai Punjabhai

4. Dhanesingh Becharsingh

5. Kawaji Rupaji

6. Arvindsingh Shankarsingh

4B.C. Dabhi(PSI)Requisite

1. Rajendrasingh KallusingVehicle No. GJ-2-K-6079

2. Nathusinh Narsinh

3. Indrasinh Himmatsinh

4. Lalitkumar Ramanbhai

5. Vijaysinh Vikramsinh (Private Driver)

5R.B. Chavda (PSI)Requisite

1. Anupsingh NansinghVehicle No.GJ-

2. Ramsingh Vajisingh1-BP-8855

3. Ashokkumar Natwarlal

4. Dilipsinh Joravarsinh

6P.S. Vaghela (PSI)Requisite

1. Bhikhusinh KhatusinhVehicle No. GJ-2-A- 5972

2. Baldevbhai Jivabhai

3. Bharatkumar Manilal

4. Harishkumar Labhshankar

5. Ganpatsinh Bhawansinh

7R.R. Pathak(PSI)Requisite

1. Rajeshkumar KuberdasVehicle No. GJ-2- K- 392

2. Chandubhai Vashrambhai

3. Dhananjay Bhashkarrao

4. Bhagvan Gangaji Kalal (Private Driver)

403

8R.G. Katara(PSI)(On Dated 28/02/2002 Bandobast at Dariapur police Station)

9Police Station Inve. ReservedRequisite

Vehicle No. GJ-16-C-4026

10Meghaninagar Mobile (Two Shift)GJ-1- G- 3084

1. Ranchhodbhai Ramjibhai

2. Rameshbhai Somabhai

3. Dolatsinh Padamsinh

4. Jagatsinh Moolsinh

5. Dharmabhai RamjiBhai

6. Pashabhai Galabhai

11Govindsinh Durgasinh SolankiGJ- 7-G-185At 14:00

(DySP.) (SRP-7) (Nadiad)

1. Anantsinh Kalyansinh Rathod

2. Karsanbhai Hirabhai (PC)

3. Chandrabhan Mangalram Yadav (Driver)

12Ajitkumar A. Gupta (DySP.) (SRP-12) (Gandhinagar)GypsyAt 14:00

1. Prataprai Chhaganlal JoshiVehicle No. GJ-1-G- 2776

(HC) (Driver)

2. Bachubhai Dungarbhai

Parmar

3. Ramkubhai Nagbhai Vala

With

A.B. Qureshi

(P.I. C.I.D. Crime)

131. Devidatt Nathuram Pant (ASI) (CISF)? ? ?At 14:00

2. Babulal Chokharam Bishnoi

3. Georgekujar Abbarekujar Christian

14P.B. Gondia1. AmbassadorAt 15:45

(D.C.P.) (Zone-4)2. Vehicle with Striking Force

1. Yatnabhai Ruparelia (Arm P.C.)3. Requisite

2. Kanjibhai Virjibhai(,,)Vehicle

3. Hemubhai Somabhai( ,, )

4. Kishrbhai Sanjabhai( ,, )

5. Babubhai Harjibhai( ,,)

6. Laxman Ramabhai( ,, )

7. Manubhai Karsanbhai( ,, )

8. Sirajuddin Gulabmiya(HC)

(Driver)

9. Shridharan Narayan Nayar (Operator)

10. Bhikhubhai Shurubhai (PC) (Wireless Operator)

14M.K. Tandon1. AmbassadorAt 10:30 &

(J.C. P.) (Sec-2)2. TATA 40716:00

1. Shaktisinh Managalsinh(SRP)

404

Parmar (PSI)3. Gypsy

2. Dilipsinh Babubhai Jadeja (PSI)4. Vraj Vehicle

3. Govaji Kanaji (ASI)

4. Gautam Amrutlal (ArmP.C.)

5. Kantibhai Jyotibhai(,, )

6. Navalsinh Ramsinh( ,, )

15M.T. Rana? ? ?At 18:00

(ACP „G’ Div.)

1. Kismatsinh Halusinh Solanki

(Arm P.C.)

2. Sureshbai Govabhai Chaudhry (Arm P.C.)

3. Poonam Shakrabhai (Operator)

4. Rajendrabhai Bhashkarbhai

(Driver)

16P.C. Pande (Police Com.)1. Ambassador GJ-1-G-3581

1. Salim KasambhaiChauhan

(Driver)

2. Vijaypal Ramanand

(ArmP.C.)

3. Jujarsinh Lalsinh Sisodia

(Driver)

4. Ratanbhai Gurjibhai Rathva

(Arm P.C.)

17A.C.P. Crime Branch? ? ?

Police did have sufficient force, arms and ammunition, vehicles. Why didn’t they use it at the time of Gulberg Society incident?

No.NAMEARMSFIRING TIMEROUND

FIRING

1K.G. Erda(First PI)Service12 to 132

(Meghaninagar OneRevolver and 3013 to 142

Van) (Accused)Rounds cartridge14 to 152

2Rameshbhai NagjibhaiGas gun (Cell -12 to 134

(H.C.)?)13 to 146

14 to 153

15 to 165

16 to 174

17 to 182

(12 S R, 10 L

R, and 2 hand

g.)

3Babubhai Nathabhai

4Mavjibhai JakshibhaiMuscat-410 and12 to 132

20 Round13 to 144

cartridge14 to 155

15 to 163

5Sureshbhai Navjibhai

405

(PC)

6Adesingh Saradhbhai

7Bhupendra

sin Karansinh (A. PC)

8Shaileshkumar Kalusingh

(A. PC)

9N.D. Parmar ( Second PI) (MeghaniService Revolver and...

nagar28/02/02

-Two van)Bandobast at Dariapur P. St.

10R.G. Katara(PSI)-Do-

11N.J. Bhati(PSI)Service Revolver and 30 Rounds cartridge12 to 132

(Meghani13 to 142

nagar14 to 152

-Three Van)

12Prahladji Mangalji

13Gyansingh MorpalsinghGas gun (Cell - ?)12 to 132

14 to 151

15 to 162

16 to 171

14Kiritbhai Punjabhai

15Dhanesingh Becharsingh (H.C.)Gas gun and 10 Hand Grenade12 to 132

14 to 151

15 to 162

16 to 171

16Kawaji Rupaji

17Arvindsingh Shankarsingh

18B.C. Dabhi(PSI)Service Revolver and Round - ?.

(Requisite Vehicle No. GJ-2-K-6079)

19Rajendrasinh Kallusinh

20Nathusinh Narsinh

21Indrasinh Himmatsinh (P.C.)Gas gun and ..... Hand Grenade (Cell- ?)12 to 132

13 to 141

14 to 153

15 to 162

16 to 171

17 to 181

22Lalitkumar Ramanbhai (A PC)

23R.B. Chavda (PSI) (Requisite Vehicle No. GJ-1-BP-8855)Service Revolver

and... Round - ?

24Anopsinh Nansinh

25Ramsingh Vajisingh

26Ashokkumar Natwarlal

27Dilipsinh Joravarsinh

28P.S. Vaghela (PSI)Service Revolver

406

(Requisite Vehicle No. GJ-2-A- 5972)and ... Round - ?

29Bhikhusinh Khatusinh

30Baldevbhai Jivabhai (A. PC)

31Bharatkumar Manilal

32Harishkumar Labhshankar (HC)

33Ganpatsinh Bhawansinh (A. HC)

34R.R. Pathak (PSI) (Requisite Vehicle No. GJ-2- K- 392)Service Revolver and Round - ?.

35Rajeshkumar Kuberdas (A.S.I)

36Chandubhai Vashrambhai (A. PC)

37Dhananjay Bhashkarrao (PC)

MeghaniMuscat-410 and 20 Round cartridge

nagar Mobile (Two Shift) GJ-1- G- 3084

38Ranchhod bhai Ramjibhai (A.S.I)

(M. nagar Mobile)

39Rameshbhai Somabhai (A. PC)(M. nagar

Mobile)

40Dolatsinh Padamsinh (A. PC)

(M. nagar Mobile)

41Jagatsinh Moolsinh (A.S.I)

(M. nagar Mobile)

43Dharmabhai RamjiBhai (Arm HC)

(M. nagar Mobile)

44Pashabhai Galabhai (A. PC)Gas gun and... (Cell - ?)12 to 133

(Meghani nagar13 to 142

Mobile)14 to 154 2 4 1

15 to 16(8 LR

16 to 178 SR)

17 to 18

45Puransingh Ramsingh (Arm ASI) (Driver)

(M. nagar Mobile)

46Govindsinh Durgasinh Solanki (D.C.P.) (SRP- 7) (Nadiad)Service Revolver and...

GJ- 7-G-185Round - ?.

47Anantsinh Kalyansinh303 Rifle &......

407

Rathod (A.S.I)Round - ?

48Karsan bhai Hirabhai Vantar303 Rifle &

(A.S.I)Round - ?

49Ajitkumar A. Gupta (D.C.P.) (SRP-12) (GandhiService Revolver and...

nagar)Round - ?.

Jepssy No. GJ-1-G- 2776

50Bachubhai Dunagarbhai Parmar (HC)Gas gun. (Cell - ?)

51Ram Kumar Ramkubhai Vala303 Rifle & 50 Round

52Prataprai Chhaganlal Joshi (HC) (Driver GJ1-G-2776)

53A.B. Qureshi (P.I.)(C.I.D)Service Revolver and...

Crime)Round - ?

54Devidatt Nathuram PantService Revolver and...17 to 183

(ASI)(CISF)Round - ?

55Babulal Chokharam BishnoiRifles ? Round - ?17 to 187

(PC) (CISF)

56GeorgekujarSLR Rifles, Round - ?17 to 187

Abarekujar Christian (CISF)

57P.B. GondiaService Revolver and...

(D.C.P.) Zone -4, Ambassador with Striking ForceRound - ?

58Yatnabhai Ruparelia (Arm. P.C.)303 Rifle & Round - ?About 16.006

16 to 173

59Kanjibhai Virjibhai (Arm. P.C.)303 Rifle & ... Round - ?About 16.002

16 to 174

60Hemubhai Somabhai (Arm. P.C.)303 Rifle & .... Round - ?About 16.004

16 to 173

61Kishorbhai Sanjabhai (Arm. P.C.)303 Rifle & About 16.004

Round - ?16 to 175

62Babubhai Harjibhai (Arm. P.C.)303 Rifle & 16 to 172

Round - ?

63Laxmanbai Ramabhai (Arm. P.C.)Gas gun (Cell - ?)15 to 1725

(10 SR AND

15 LR GAS)

64Sirajuddin Gulabmiya (HC)(Driver)

65Shridharan Narayan Nayar (Operator)

66Manubhai Karsanbhai (Arm. P.C.)9 MM CARBON MACHINE GUN &.... Round - ?15 to 1718

67M.K. TandonService Revolver

408

(J. C. P.) Sec-2, Ambassador with Strikingand... Round - ?.

Force

68Shankarsinh Mangalsinh Parmar (PSI)Service Revolver and...

(Jepssy)Round - ?

69Dilipsinh Babubhai Jadeja (PSI)Service Revolver and.....

(Light van)Round - ?

70Gautam Amrutlal (Arm. P.C.)Gas gun &. (Cell - ?)11.006

(LR CELL)

71Govaji Kanaji (ASI)Gas gun &. (Cell - ?)About 16.3015

17 to 1817

(16 SR AND

16 LR GAS)

72Kantibhai Joytibhai (Arm.PC)9 MM CORBON GUN & Round - ?

73Navalsinh Ramsinh Bariya (Arm.PC)9 MM CORBON GUN & 40 ROUNDS

740 17 1 5 Dlp ~S &3 pIService Revolver and...

Div.)Round - ?

( ? ? ? )

75Kismatsinh Halusinh Solanki9 MM CORBON GUN & 20 ROUNDS

76Sureshbhai Govabhai ChaudhriGas gun. (Cell - ?)

OTHERS

77Vinubhai Haribhai (A. P.C.) (Point NearMuscat-410 and 10 Round cartridge12 to 134

Chamanpura Chakla)(Firing at

Chamanpura)

78Udesinh

Prbhatsinh (ASI) (Point Near Chamanpura Chakla)

79Sajjansinh

Jorubha (H.C.) (Point Near Dhupsinh Chawl)

80Motibhai Dahyabhai (AMuscat-410 and 10 Round cartridge13 to 142

PC)14 to 152

(Point Near Dhupsinh Chawl)

81Indrasingh Mansingh (Point Near

409

Gulberg Soc.)

82Pradipsingh Shetansingh (P.C.)Muscat-410 and 10 Round cartridge13 to 142

(Point Near Gulberg Soc.)14 to 154

83Somabhai Bhemabhai (ASI) (Point Near Patrawali & Hasanjiva Chawl)

84Kismatsingh Kalusingh (PC) (Point Near Patrawali & Hasanjiva Chawl)Muscat-410 and 10 Round cartridge13 to 145

(Firing at

Hasan

jiva Chawl)

85Mansingh Andarsingh (ASI) (Point Near Ratan sagar cross road)

86Ashvin kumar Maneklal (HC) (Point Near Ratan sagar cross road)Muscat-410 and 10 Round cartridge

87Laljibhai Kalaji (ASI)303 Rifles & ..... Round - ?18 to 199

( Prisonal Van )

o Police force had sufficient arms and ammunition at

the Gulberg Society then why they didn‘t use it?

o Some policemen examined in Gulberg Trial (1) Arvindsinh Shankarsinh Vaghela (PW.7) (2) Dhanesinh Becharsinh (PW.13) (3) Natwarji Jawanji Bhati (PW.269). They all deposed in the court at the time of trial. They did not use their arms and ammunition at Gulberg Society because there were no such orders from their seniors.

o Dead bodies were recovered till as late as 8.3.02. Police made no serious effort to look for missing persons. No samples were collected from the society and the dead bodies for forensic analysis, No videography was done wither.

410

o (Information has also been received that heavy firing shown to have been done by the police during the riots was all bogus. In reality, police had “adjusted” the fired bullets by firing in dug-up pits on the bank of the Sabarmati river. In actuality very few bullets were actually fired on the mob.)

912. The data collected during trial suggests that orders from above precluded these officers from using the firearms even at their disposal. Why did SIT not interrogate whether this deliberate and criminal inaction by all these persons was as a result of Conspiratorial and Illegal Orders from the very top? What was the motive of the SIT in ignoring this? It is a matter that calls for serious examination and further investigation.

Naroda Gaon Conspiracy

913. Incidents of violence began at Naroda Gaon on 27.2.2002 itself. The first incident was in Pashwanath Township, where one Paras cotton works was burnt down by unknown persons and a Muslim was assaulted by unknown persons near Haridarshan Society. (Annex IV File XIV Page no. 5775). As a result of several such incidents the atmosphere in the area was very tense but no bandobast was arranged.

10577528/2/02Mattresses shop burnt at Pashwanath TownNaroda ICR No. 96/02

2:30 hrsShip, Naroda

195807 &28/2/024 unknown person attacked and Injured oneNaroda ICR No. 97/02

58084:28 hrsMuslim, Nr. Kathwada Road, Naroda, on dt.27.2.02 at 19.30

914. Then, on 27.2.02 the accused of Naroda Patia and Naroda Gaon, Babu Bajrangi and others got together and collected 23 revolvers for the massacre the next day. This and other gory details are highlighted in PW. 322 Mr. Ashish Khaitan‘s deposition in Naroda Patiya case (Sting Operation, Operation Kalank).

411

915. The attack on Muslims of Naroda Patiya and Naroda Gaon for which all preparations had been done the previous night began 8.30 a.m. on 28.2.2002. The police claims no force was deployed there as it was not a sensitive area. When PI Mr. KK Mysorewala was patrolling the area around 9:00 a.m. the attack on Noorani Masjid had started but he did nothing to stop the violence. The previous evening Mr. KK Mysorewala had met local Muslim leaders gave them his mobile number and told them: ‘Why you are worried?’

916. At about 9.30 to 10.00 a.m, the MLA of the area Dr. Maya Kodnani arrived in a white Maruti came, addressed the mob in an excited voice. She pointed towards the Muslim locality and told the mob: ‘Why you are worried? I told you, you can do it, do not worry? Police is with us’. Soon thereafter Dr. Jaideep Patel, VHP leader arrived and he too instigated the mob. Mr. Vallabh Bhai Patel and Mr. Fulabhai Vyas, both BJP corporators also arrived to lead the violent mob. It is important to note that the Naroda Po.Stat. is situated barely a stone‘s throw away from the Muslim locality.

917. On receiving a distress call around 10.25 a.m., Mr. KK Mysorewala came to Naroda but did nothing to control the mob and left the area. That was sufficient signal for the mob led by BJP, VHP, RSS leaders to launch their full-scale, daylong assault on the Muslims. Though the Naroda Fire station is also close by, the police did not summon the fire brigade, and they did not come.

918. By evening over 100 men, women and children had been mercilessly butchered, women gang-raped before being thrown to the flames. As in case of Gulberg Society, the police arrived on the scene once the carnage had run its full course. No forensic samples were collected from the crime spot, or the dead bodies, no videography was done.

919. Mr. Ashish Khaitan’s Statement on 19.1.09 before SIT : I met Haresh Bhatt for the first time on 29th May 2007, I learnt that he had fire arms (crackers) producing factory at Ahmedabad. He had made bombs there and distributed them at Ahmedabad.

412

920. Mr. Ashish Khaitan’s Statement on 12.3.09 before SIT Excerpts from what Mr. Babu Bajrangi said during the sting operation:

1) During his visit to Godhra following the train burning incident he had taken an oath that, ‘He would kill four times Muslims in Naroda on his return.

2) 23 fire arms were collected by him demanding them from the people.

3) That Modi government had given him free hand on the day of incident of ‘Patiya Kand.‘

4) Through the Patia incident he was in touch with Mr. Jaydeep Patel on phone giving him a blow by blow account.

5) That even police men who are present at Naroda had assisted him and his associates and did not prevent them.

6) That in a ditch at Patiya many Muslims were killed by Mr. Bajrangi and his associates.

7) PI Mr. Mysorewala PI of Naroda Po.Stat. escorted him out of the area after the killings.

8) After the incident, Ahmedabad JtPC, Mr. PP Pandey arrested him as per plan.

9) After the incident he informed Gordhan Zadaphiya on phone and gave detailed of the killings. Zadaphiya asked him to immediately run away.

10) After the incident for many days he hid himself at Mount Abu and in his hiding Narendra Modi helped him.

11) That during the Patia carnage, a diesel tanker full was dashed against the local Masjid to set it on fire.

413

12) Some petrol pump owners gave them petrol and diesel for free.

13) JtPC, Mr. PP Pandey during the interrogation fully co-operated with him and no recovery of any arm from him was shown.

14) That he had ripped open the stomach of a pregnant woman using a sword.

921. Excerpts from what Mr. Prakash Chara told Mr. Ashish Khaitan in the sting operation:

1) During the massacre, then BJP MLA, Dr. Maya Kodnani was herself involved, instigating the mob.

2) Mr. Bipin Panchal came in one Maruti van and distributed weapons to the rioters.

3) We massacred people right from the morning till the evening.

4) In the evening police told us that some Muslims were hiding in a gutter. We went and packed the gutter with stones.

5) Policemen helped us.

6) For the entire day Dr. Maya Kodnani was seen moving in an open jeep. She told us to do our job and she was fully with us.

7) He had raped a woman and then killed her.

8) A day after the killings, Mr. Narendra Modi himself came to Patiya and congratulated the rioters.

922. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed specifically to investigate without fear or favour was expected to thoroughly go into all this documentary evidence to arrive at its conclusion. However as this detailed Protest Petition lays out, there is a marked reluctance by SIT to get into any controversial aspects of investigations especially connected to either Tehelka’s „Operation Kalank’, Mr. Rahul Sharm a’s CDs of telephone records and the four critical affidavits filed by the former ADGP Gujarat Mr. RB Sreekumar before the Nanavati-Shah Commission. This failure has now reached unprecedented proportions. On 7.09.09, after advocates for witnesses had filed an application before the trial court for ordering re-investigation into phone call records, Fire

414

Brigade records, station diary and case diary entries, the SIT was forced to submit some documents in response a month later. A perusal of these documents reveals a blatant desire by SIT to fool the courts and not investigate the cell phone records of the accused caught on camera by Tehelka. The IO Mr. JM Suthar has deliberately not investigated the phone call records detailed by Mr. Khaitan and instead chosen to mislead the court(s). Mr. Ashish Khaitan, who was responsible for „Operation Kalank’ and has been examined in three of the ongoing trials has contributed to critical evidence in some of these cases especially in the Complaint dated 8.6.2006. Yet the SIT has completely ignored this evidence. During his examination in the Gulberg trial, dated 19.1.2009 and 12.3.2009, IO Mr. Sutar’s gave his response to the order dated 7.9.2009 by the Trial Court by filing first on 7.9.2009 and then on 2.11.2009 detailed documents showing numbers that he had investigated. He has in this further investigation ordered by the court investigated the then phone number of former Godhra MLA Mr. Haresh Bhatt (for whom we are told that „no call details are available’). However, this IO, Mr. JM Suthar for SIT appears to have deliberately avoided investigating those numbers available in Mr. A shish Khaitan’s statement recorded on 19.1.2009 at Gandhinagar. For instance, Mr. Suthar does not record those numbers relevant to the case, that of Mr. Prahlad Raju, (09377197926) as stated in Mr. A shish Khaitan’s statement nor Mr. Mangilal Jain (094263667633) and Mr. Madan Dhanraj (09377456091), the very accused caught on camera by Tehelka admitting to and gloating on the heinous crimes committed. On 14.11.2009, advocates for the victims and witnesses made a formal application before SIT to arraign former DCP Crime Branch, Mr. Rahul Sharma as witness in the Gulberg Case.

923. In his deposition before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, Mr. Sharma had deposed about the time he was DCP Crime Branch Ahmedabad in 2002. He had been brought in by then Commissioner of Police, Mr. Kaushik, to be part of the investigations into the Gulberg, Naroda Patia and Naroda Gaam cases which were then being investigated by the Crime Branch, Ahmedabad. While deposing, Mr. Sharma had produced a copy of AT & T and Cellforce Phone

415

Records (five lakh) procured by the Crime Branch and which he felt would be relevant to the investigations into the role of politicians and powerful accused. In their application dated 14.11.2009 made to SIT, witnesses have pointed out the testimony of this officer and the evidence he had elicited and presented (that is available with SIT) would be critical for the Gulberg trial, too. Specifically this evidence would be critical in corroborating phone calls made by accused, influential politicians, victims etc and to evaluate the effectiveness of the response. Mr. Sharma had, on 7.05.02 in a letter to then Commissioner Mr. Kaushik (a copy of which he produced before the Commission), detailed the questionable manner in which investigations into these three cases were being carried out.

924. ,In response to the court’s order for further investigations passed by the Trial Courts in this case, SIT has responded, rather blithely stating that the landline phone call records of the brutally slain former Parliamentarian Mr. Ahsan Jafri, „have been destroyed.’ In this connection, since 2.11.2009 at least three crucial eyewitnesses have deposed stating that Mr. Jafri made frantic calls, including one to the chief minister, he was roundly abused after which he decided to give himself up to the mob so that other innocent lives would be saved. SIT could have been systematic in its investigations and delved deep into how and why Mr. Jafri’s records were destroyed, by whom and under whose instructions or orders. On May 9 and 28, 2008 when CJP Secretary, Ms. Teesta Setalvad, was asked to tabulate detailed points for further investigation before SIT, she had specifically stated that investigation into Mr. Jafri’s calls, and Mr. Sharma’s testimony and the CD produced by him are mandatory. A copy of her statements made before SIT have been appended in Volume II of the aforesaid application. Yet this was not done and the requisite investigations are lacking. This reluctance by SIT to get to the bottom of critical communications between those in power, those in responsible positions of law enforcement and administration and key accused guiding, leading attacks while actually ensuring that killings, rape and arson take place appears to stem from a calculated design to shield, not punish the guilty.

416

Ahmedabad City: Sector, Zone, Division & Police Station 2002 Table

Sector-1Zone-IZone-IIZone-III

Shivanand JhaV.M. PargiD.J. PatelR.D. Mankdiya

Satish SharmaS.M. KataraK.C. PatelVikas Sahay

A. K. Pandya

Sector-2Zone-IVZone-VZone-VI

M.K. TandonP.B. GondiaR.J. SavaniJebaliya

“A”-Division“B”-Division

Zone-IC.P.A.C.P.

V.M. PargiP.N. BarotP.N. Barot

S.M. KataraJ.K. VaschhaNavrangpura

Vejalpur Po.St.Naranpura

Ellis Bridge Po.St.Ghatlodia

Satellite Po.St.Sola

“C”-Division“L”-Division

Zone-IIA.C.P.A.C.P.

D.J. PatelI.C. RajM.T. Mehta

K.C. PatelShahpur Po.St.Sabarmati Po.St.

A.K. PandyaKaranj Po.St.Madhupura Po.St.

“D”-Division“E”-Division

Zone-IIIA.C.P.A.C.P.

R.D. MankdiyaD.K. BavaS.K. Dave

Vikas SahayN.P. RaijadaKhadia Po.St.

Kalupur Po.St.Gaykavad Haveli Po.St.

Saher Kotda Po.St.

“F”-Division“G”-Division

Zone-IVA.C.P.A.C.P.

P.B. GondiaR.M. ParmarM.T. Rana

Dariyapur Po.St.Meghaninagar Po.St.

(PI R.H. Rathod)(PI K.G. Erda)

417

Shahibaug Po.St.Naroda Po.St.

(N.N. Pathan)(PI K.K. Mysorewala)

Sardarnagar Po.St.

'+'-Division','-Division

Zone-VA.C.P.A.C.P.

R.J. Savani

Gomtipur Po.St.Amraiwadi Po.St.

Bapunagar Po.St.Odhav Po.St.

Rakhiyal Po.St.

'-'-Division'. '-Division

Zone-VIA.C.P.A.C.P.

Jebaliya

Vatva Po.St.Dani Limda Po.St.

Vatva GIDC Po.St.Kagdapith Po.St.

Maninagar Po.St.

Police Officers on Duty in 2002 in Ahmedabad City

Sr. No.Officer NameDesignationDuration

1P.C. PandePolice Commissioner27.2.02 to 10.5.02

2K.R. KaushikPolice Commissioner10.5.02 to 31.5.02

3KeshavkumarJoint Police Commissioner27.2.02 to 10.5.02

(Sector-1)

4Satish SharmaJoint Police Commissioner10.5.02 to 31.5.02

(Sector-1)

5V.M. PargiDeputy Police Commissioner27.2.02 to 10.4.02

(Zone-1)

6S.M. KataraDeputy Police Commissioner10.4.02 to 31.5.02

(Zone-1)

7P.N. BarotAssistant Police Commissioner27.2.02 to 24.4.02

(A-Div.)

8J.K. VachhaniAssistant Police Commissioner24.4.02 to 31.5.02

418

(A-Div.)

9N.S. JoshiSenior Police Inspector Vejalpur Police27.2.02 to 31.3.02

Station (A-Div.)

10J.A. UpadhyaySenior Police Inspector Vejalpur Police31.3.02 to 31.5.02

Station (A-Div.)

11V.M. BarotSecond Police Inspector Vejalpur Police27.2.02 to 19.4.02

Station (A-Div.)

12K.J. SoniSecond Police Inspector Vejalpur Police31.3.02 to 31.5.02

Station (A-Div.)

13P.M. BhaliyaSenior Police Inspector Satellite Police27.2.02 to 20.4.02

Station (A-Div.)

14V.M. BarotSenior Police Inspector Satellite Police20.4.02 to 31.5.02

Station (A-Div.)

15P.D. PatilSenior Police Inspector Satellite Police27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Station (A-Div.)

16K.J. VachhaniSenior Police Inspector Ellis Bridge Police27.2.02 to 24.4.02

Station (A-Div.)

17N.H. JoshiSenior Police Inspector Ellis Bridge Police24.4.02 to 31.5.02

Station (A-Div.)

18J.J. PatelSecond Police Inspector Ellis Bridge27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Police Station (A-Div.)

19P. M. BarotAssistant Police Commissioner27.2.02 to 31.5.02

(B-Div.)

20A.C. JadejaSenior Police Inspector Navrangpura27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Police Station

(B-Div.)

21O.N. MajumdarSecond Police Inspector Navrangpura27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Police Station

(B-Div.)

22D. S. MehtaSenior Police Inspector Ghatlodiya Police27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(B-Div.)

23J.D. KataraSecond Police Inspector Ghatlodiya27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Police Station

(B-Div.)

24B.D. TandelSenior Police Inspector Naranpura Police27.2.02 to 23.4.02

Station

(B-Div.)

25N. D. JetavatSenior Police Inspector Naranpura Police23.4.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(B-Div.)

26B.M. AnsariSecond Police Inspector Naranpura Police27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(B-Div.)

27M.D. LathiyaPolice Inspector (B-Div.)27.2.02 to 31.5.02

419

28D.J. PatelDeputy Police Commissioner27.2.02 to 30.3.02

(Zone-2)

29K.C. PatelDeputy Police Commissioner30.3.02 to 10.5.02

(Zone-2)

30A.K. PandyaDeputy Police Commissioner11.5.02 to 31.5.02

(Zone-2)

31M.T. MehtaAssistant Police Commissioner27.2.02 to 31.5.02

(L-Div.)

32P.R. MehraSenior Police Inspector Sabarmati Police27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(L-Div.)

33G.J. BaradSenior Police Inspector Sabarmati Police8.4.02 to 25.4.02

Station

(L-Div.)

34H.C. PathakSenior Police Inspector Sabarmati Police25.4.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(L-Div.)

35G.J. BaradSecond Police Inspector Sabarmati Police27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(L-Div.)

36G.C. RavatSenior Police Inspector Madhupura Police27.2.02 to.5.02

Station

(L-Div.)

37V.D. VanarSenior Police Inspector Madhupura Police20.5.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(L-Div.)

38U.N. TrivediSecond Police Inspector Madhupura27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Police Station

(L-Div.)

39I.C. RajAssistant Police Commissioner27.2.02 to 31.5.02

(C-Div. )

40K.M. PatelSenior Police Inspector Shahpur Police27.2.02 to 15.5.02

Station

(C-Div. )

41R.M. DesaiSecond Police Inspector Shahpur Police27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(C-Div.)

42L.G. ZalaThird Police Inspector Shahpur Police23.4.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(C-Div. )

43K.C. PatelSenior Police Inspector Karanj Police27.2.02 to 21.4.02

Station

(C-Div. )

44N.H. JoshiSenior Police Inspector Karanj Police22.4.02 to 23.4.02

420

Station

(C-Div. )

45B.D. TandelSenior Police Inspector Karanj Police23.4.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(C-Div. )

46P.S. ParmarSecond Police Inspector Karanj Police27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(C-Div.)

47R.D. MakadiyaDeputy Police Commissioner27.2.02 to 10.5.02

(Zone-3)

48Vikash SahayDeputy Police Commissioner10.5.02 to 31.5.02

(Zone-3)

49D.K. BavaDeputy Police Commissioner27.2.02 to 25.4.02

(D-Div.)

50P.N. RayjadaDeputy Police Commissioner27.4.02 to 31.5.02

(D-Div.)

51G.B. DarjiSenior Police Inspector Kalupur Police27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(D-Div.)

52B.J. VasavaSecond Police Inspector Kalupur Police27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(D-Div.)

53S.D. SharmaSenior Police Inspector Saher Kotda27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Police Station

(D-Div.)

54N.K. DesaiSecond Police Inspector Saher Kotda27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Police Station

(D-Div.)

55S.K. DaveAssistant Police Commissioner27.2.02 to 31.5.02

(E-Div.)

56B.D. SiyoniSenior Police Inspector Khadiya Police27.2.02 to 15.5.02

Station

(E-Div.)

57B.K. AayarSenior Police Inspector Khadiya Police15.5.02 to 31.5.02

Station

(E-Div.)

58D.L. DodiyaSecond Police Inspector Khadiya Police27.2.02 to 15.5.02

Station

(E-Div.)

59A.M. JadejaSenior Police Inspector Gayakavad Haveli27.2.02 to 31.5.02

Police Station

(E-Div.)

421

60B.K. AayarSecond Police Inspector Gayakavad27.2.02 to 15.5.02

Haveli Police Station

(E-Div.)

Police Officers on Duty in 2002 in the districts

Sr. No.Officer NameDesignationName of City

1Manoj AgrawalDSPKheda

2D.D. VaghelaDSPAnand

3UpendrasinghDSPRajkot

4P.N. PatelCollectorRajkot

5M.D. AntaniDSPBharuch

6Vivek ShrivastavDSPBhuj

7Raju BhargavaDSPPanchmahal

8D.H. BrahmbhattCollectorPanchmahal

9Anupamsingh GehlotDSPMehsana

10Amrutlal PatelCollectorMehsana

11Deepak SwaroopCPVadodara

12K. Kumar SwamiJoint CPVadodara

13Rakesh AsthanaSP IGPVadodara

14Sudhir SinhaCPVadodara

Jurisdictional Responsibilities

Ahmedabad (Gulberg, Naroda Patiya, Naroda Gaam)

1.D.G. & I.G.:A -25 K. Chakravarti (GB,

NP, NG)

2. Comm. Of Police A‘bad:A- 29 P.C. Pandey

3. Joint Comm. Of Police:A-33 M.K.Tandon (GB,

NP, NG), Sector-2

4. Depy. Comm. Of Police:P.B. Gondia (GB, NP,

NG),Zone-4

5. Addl. Comm. Of Police:A-57 M.T.Rana (GB, NP,

NG),G-Division

6. Police Inspector:A -55 K.G. Erda (GB)

A-56 K.K. Mysorewala (NP & NG)

Sardarpura

1.D.G. & I.G.:A-25 K. Chakravarti

422

2. SP Mehsana:A-36 AK Sharma

3. DSP Mehsana:A nupamsinh Gehlot

4. Dy. SP (Visnagar Div.):B.V. Jadeja

5. Circle Inspector & IO:K.R. Vaghela

(Vijapur Police Station)

6. Circle Inspector & IO:R .D. Baranda

7. PSI:G.K. Parmar

8. PSI:M.L. Rathod

Deepda Darwaza

1.D.G. & I.G.:A-25 K. Cha kravarti

2. SP:A-36 AK Sharma

2. DSP Mehsana:Anupamsinh Gehlot

3. Dy. SP (Visnagar Div.):B.V. Jadeja

4.Circle Inspector:M.K. Patel

Ode

1.D.G. & I.G.:A-25 K. Chakravarti

2. ACP:Wabang Zamir

3. Dy. SP:Vaghela

4. Circle Inspector:K.R.Bhuwa

5.PSI:R.G.Patel

423

925. The Following aspects and documents need to be examined and Investigations completed. This is not exhaustive. There are also references throughout the Petition:

(1) The police wireless messages for the year 2002 that are with the GOG though in some official statements they have said they have been destroyed. Information that they are all available now, were withheld from the SIT earlier by A-29 Mr PC Pande (CP for Ahmedabad) and thereafter produced only post 15.3.2011 has not been taken seriously by the SIT at all. PCR and Wireless messages of other districts and commissionerates too have deliberately not been summoned by the SIT. The responses to the PCR messages and action taken also need to be collected and collated during further investigation

(2) Records / documentation / minutes of the crucial law & order meetings held by Government, their follow up and monitoring by concerned authorities.

(3) Records of police exchanges and Hot Lines specially set up by the state government in February-March 2002.

(4) Phone call records of fixed land lines of crucial persons (which apparently were not maintained by the telephone exchanges)

(5) Detailed analysis of even the mobile phone records of the crucial persons that gradually became available to the SIT during the course of inquiry.

(6) The directories of the Mobile phone Companies (AT & T and Celforce).

(7) The phone call records of A-1 Chief Minister Mr Narendra Modi including that of his mobile phone of which the number ‘he did not remember’ when the SIT spoke to him on 27-28.3.2010.

(8) The recordings of television channels of the critical events – especially Sola Civil Hospital in Ahmedabad on 28-2-2002 and from 27.2.2002, especially coverage of Godhra mass arson, transportation of dead bodies to Ahmedabad, funeral processions, interviews of political functionaries, heads and also

424

senior members of the administration and police. These are available and ought to have been formally seized by the SIT to independently corroborate events of nine plus years ago.

(9) Log books / Case diaries maintained by Police Officers Investigating Violence/ Riots / Case diaries of beat constables of not just a select police stations in Ahmedabad (as has been done) but of all districts and jurisdictions that were affected and not affected to enable a detailed and proper assessment and analysis of whether a vicious fallout of the Conspiracy hatched on 27.2.2002 took place or not.

(10) Government Files relating to appointments of public prosecutors as also Statements of DMs/ Committees that are responsible for these appointments since partisan PPs were appointed.

(11) Files relating to transfers of relevant police officers during the period not just extracts of files.

(12) Documents and records of intelligence inputs of the State and Central Intelligence of that period (27.2.2002-31.5.2002) and Study of Reports/Comments of MHA. The Intelligence wing of government provides an independent assessment of political decisions and conduct that are particularly crucial when mass violence of the kind experienced in Gujarat 2002 takes place and serious evidence and examples of high level complicity are alleged. Specifically C/Dir/Shamshan Yatra/176/2002 dtd 2002 marked to the chief minister’s office and senior police officers. Also SIB Reports of bodies dumped in the Well in Naroda Patiya and investigation of allegations (Chara in Tehelka, 2007) of CP Mr PC Pande’s scattering of the bodies dumped in this well, all over Ahmedabad.

(13) SIB Messages recovered by the SIT are only in part. The DGP has submitted 17 files in January 2010 to the SIT which are only a one way communication, the Reports of the Field/Regional Officers of the SIB. The SIB Control at the state control room would have an Inward register and an Outward register recording receipt and responses to these messages. Such a Register has neither not been recovered by the SIT or not supplied to the Court and Petitioner/Complainant. Such an

425

Inward and Outward register of all departments of the Police are critical to recover as it would allow an assessment as to the Higher Up (many of whom are accused) responses to the Godhra incident, the bandh call supported by the government, the decision to transport bodies to Ahmedabad and the subsequent parading of bodies; the state-wide communal mobilisations and us of aggravating speech and incendiary pamphlets; the conduct of the police and administration, the behaviour of the ruling party and fraternal organisations like the RSS, VHP an Bajrang Dal etc. This is a serious matter for further investigation.

(14) Security logs of the CM and other relevant senior officials of the relevant period showing their movements.

(15) The records of the Army and Central Paramilitary forces showing not just their deployment but their permissions from civil authorities to use force and firearms. The Statement in this regard of the head of the Armed Forces which were reportedly deployed in Ahmedabad and the rest of the State. Reports related to the Army Operations in Gujarat and statements of the Army officer in charge Major Zameeruddin Shah should have been recorded. The report of the Army in terms of the 2002 operation should have been sought.

(16) The Statement of Mr KPS Gill who was sent by the Central Government on 4.5 2002 or thereabouts needs to be recorded. He played a key role in ordering the reshuffle of key police officers deployed in the State, after which the riots appeared to have subsided. Violence was really contained only after the arrival of Mr KPS Gill.

(17) One of the stated reasons why some of these notes could not be accessed was the claim of the Gujarat Government that the records relating to meetings, police log books, wireless messages etc. were destroyed or were not kept. Official searches and seizures for this records / documents are vital as also prosecution of those senior or junior responsible for evidence destruction while the Supreme Court was monitoring this case.

426

(18) Examination of Documents on Communication between the Chief Minister’s office, Home department, DGP office, offices of the Commissioners of Police Ahmedabad, Vadodara and all others.

(19) Fax and Other Communications Received by the Chief Minister’s office, the Home Minister’s office and the Home Department from victims, citizens and other official and nonofficial sources.

(20) Examination and analysis of documents on Communication between DGP’s State Control Room Gandhinagar with Comm issionerates all over Gujarat, SPs of districts and ADGP Intelligence that have been reluctantly provided which the SIT has completely bypassed and ignored in its Investigations.

(21) Procurement of all data and representations/memorandum sent by riot affected persons to Central and State statutory authorities including the office of the Governor and President between 27.2.2002 onwards that will reveal the depth and gravity of the violence and the brazen subversion.

(22) Examination of all official records related to preventive detention in all cities and districts on the crucial dates of 27.2.2002 (Refer A- 38 Additional CP Mr Shivanand Jha cross examination before the Nanavati Shah Commission paragraph 3.08 and A-29 Mr PC Pande’s affidavit and deposition (paragraphs 5.11, 5.8, 6.5 and 6.43). Also SIB document C/Prevention/177/2002 dated 28.2.2002 that records HP/BJP men in mobs and attacking innocent members of the minority community.

(23) All Official Videography of the Statewide Violence beginning with Godhra and post Godhra reprisal incidents as is mandatory to be collected under law and the Communal Violence – Maintenance of Peace Circulars issued by the Government of Gujarat from time to time.

(24) Co-Relation of the Conduct of Partisan Public Prosecutors appointed because of their membership to supremacist organisations like the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) etc. and the non prosecution of

427

the critical cases including not opposing easy bail (including anticipatory bail) to the accused. Partisan PPs Best Bakery Case where the courts says, "The prosecutor who does not act fairly and acts more like the counsel for defence is a liability to the fair judicial system and courts should not also play into the hands of such prosecuting agency showing indifference or adopting an attitude of total aloofness." Similarly the Gujarat High Court has ordered the replacement of Public Prosecutors in the Sardarpura case.

(25) The rigorous authentication of the CD of Phone Records as supplied by Mr Rahul Sharma to the Nanavati Commission and thereafter of Godhra Phone Call Records supplied by Mr Sanjiv Bhatt to ensure proper authenticated or otherwise by the SIT as was done by the NHRC through its authentication of the Tehelka Tapes on 8.3.2008.

(26) Analysis and Examination between the execution of the Conspiracy in outbreaks of violence in several districts pursuant to a decision taken at the highest level on 27.2.2002 and 28.2.2002 and in Districts where violence was substantially controlled. An intrepid and high level investigation of this nature should have co-related the above facts with which officers in Jurisdictional Charge were Rewarded for allowing violence to spread as is being alleged and those who resisted execution of the criminal Conspiracy were in 2002 and since (between 2002- 2003) until now being consistently persecuted by a vindictive administration.

(27) Requisition or seize the records and are filed relating to the transfer of these and other officers since the Transfers, Rewards and Punishments are under the complete jurisdictional and political control of A-1 Mr Modi as Home Minister of the State. That he holds control over them to the extent of okaying their OCRs/ACRs that have a bearing on their service record, post retirement pensions etc.

All those public servants who were given reward postings and extensions after retirement, and have been accused of failing in their statutory and Constitutional duty, and are therefore logically, obliged to the State government and the present Chief

428

Minister should have been carefully probed including their financial assets/bank accounts as also those of their close relatives.

(28) Detailed Examination of Hate Speech of A-1 and other accused as well as influential members, ringleaders etc. of both the RSS, VHP and the ruling BJP in the state that worked in close collusion before, during and after the execution of the Conspiracy to ensure that the atmosphere in the state remains aggressively polarised to induce attacks on a hapless minority.

(29) Failure of the Gujarat Government to act against the print media making communally inciting reports, though such action was recommended by some field officers as well as the State Intelligence Bureau. (The Editor's Guild, which had been provided to the SIT, which mentioned that, the CM, had in fact issued selective congratulatory letters to those papers that had carried inflammatory coverage of the riots. Such letters were not sent to those Gujarat newspapers that had acted responsibly. (Indian Express of April 9 2002 and Editor’s Guild excerpts. Page 27—part of the SIT records). Need to study comparatively the coverage of Sandesh and Gujarat Samachar that functioned in one way, the Sandesh as a virtual as arm of the government (inflaming passions) and other publications like Sambhav (four editions), Prabhat (Ahmedabad and Mehsana) and Gujarat Today that were more balanced.

(30) The SIT also needed to record statements of RE Times of India Mr. Kingshuk Nag and RE Indian Express Mr. Virendra Kumar. The Prabhat newspaper’s Director Mr Ashish Kothari who had told the Editor’s Guild that swords and liquor had been distributed in areas on February 27.2.2002.

(31) Analysis and Assessment of the government decision supporting the Bandh and its political and legal implications.

(32) Analysis during Investigation of the utter disregard for Law and the Constitution shown by A-1 Mr. Modi and his government to date by not ordering any penal action against officers who subverted investigation and did not name accused in 2002 and until 2012 when SIT submitted its final report.

429

(33) Serious Note should have been taken by the SIT on the fact that the A-1 Mr. Modi under whose charge the Home Department expressly falls, cheerfully and brazenly destroyed crucial Records while Critical Cases related to 2002 were pending in the Honourable Supreme Court since May 2002. The explanation of the State officials that these were routinely destroyed after 5 years is too facile to accept in the light of the fact that several investigations / inquiries relating to these records were in progress, including the pendency of these very cases before this court. In these investigations coercive measures like searches and seizures may be required.

(34) Investigation of the mobilisation of arms and ammunition allegedly by individuals of the supremacist and right wing groups before the Godhra incident. These have been mentioned by persons belonging to these organisations to Tehelka in the sting operations. The SIT has not treated this investigation with any seriousness at all. The Tehelka tapes have been authenticated by the CBI following an order of the NHRC on 5.3.2008. The SIT does not appear to have given due weight to the extra judicial confessions of the Hindu extremist groups in these tapes. (Mr. Haresh Bhatt etc.) Even the Fax allegedly sent from the ADGP SIB's office to the Ahmedabad police commissioner saying that their intelligence shows that Sabarkantha unit of the VHP had supplied weapons to their Ahmedabad unit which led to an inquiry and arrest (Indian Express, April 2002, Editor’s Guild Report ... page 27). The SIB of the Gujarat police too had before 27.2.2002 warned consistently of the communal and aggressive build up by the VHP all over Gujarat.

(35) Non arraignment of those complicit whose roles and acts arise out of the further investigation and the narration of the Protest Petition.

(36) What should be done to analyse the CD:

1. Collect all communications madebetweenpolice

officials/Ahmedabad City Police Control Room/State Control Room/ Police Stations for the period 27.02.2002 to 04.03.2002.

2. Every police officer of or above the rank of a DCP has with him a wireless operator who writes down all messages pertaining to the officer he is attached with in a book. Collect all

430

such books of all officers of the rank of DCP and above. (The Gujarat Police have submitted partial records to the Trial Courts hearing. In defence of their stand in not producing the entire record they have produced official letters stating that these records were ‘DESTROYED IN 2007.’

The Integrity of the CD

The CD submitted by Mr Rahul Sharma contains call details of all mobile phones that were operating from Ahmedabad City areas for the period 25.02.2002 to 04.03.2002. Along with the regular details of numbers to which phones are dialled and from which they are received, the data also contains the approximate location of the mobile phone from which the call was made.

926. At that particular point of time, only two mobile phone operators were in existence – Cellforce (now Vodafone) and AT&T (now Idea). Information was called for from both the mobile phone service providers and received in separate CDs. The phone data from these separate CDs were then zipped and copied on to one single CD. Thus, to that extent, the CD produced by Mr Rahul Sharma, per se, is not an exact copy of the CDs provided by the cell phone providers.

The SIT deliberately chose not to perform these tasks in a calculated bid to leave the phone call records unauthenticated as evidence.

927. Service Providers and Senior Policemen need to be summoned to Verify and Authenticate the CD

A) It is also submitted that efforts should be made to locate the office copies of the CDs provided by the mobile phone providers. In any case, if data is provided by a mobile phone company, they should be keeping an office copy of the data provided by them. Else, how would they prove the data sent by them? The inside information is that the cell phone companies have the data but they are ‘scared’ of coming up with it under political/police pressure.

B) Efforts should also be made to recover the original CDs, which are lying with the Crime Branch of Ahmedabad City.

C) Senior functionaries of the mobile phone companies should be summoned and made to hand over their directories and identify over 2/3rds of the phone that are unrecognisable/ unidentifiable in the SIT records. This phenomenon clearly establishes that

431

several of the powerful politicians, policemen and possibly even the accused were using non-official phone connections not registered in their names. They have to date not been asked to give a full list of the numbers in their use. Even A-1 Mr Modi was not asked this question. This further points to a Conspiracy behind the post Godhra violence.

928. DuringFurtherInvestigation,thefollowingclear

investigations need to be made thoroughly:

Why were no minutes prepared of the meetings held by the Chief Minister and other senior officers to review the situation from February 27, 2002 onwards? Why were such minutes not circulated to concerned officials?

If such minutes were prepared, why were no copies of such minutes submitted to the Commission?

Why were the dead bodies of the Godhra arson victims paraded through the streets of Ahmedabad city, especially when many of the deceased belonged to places outside Ahmedabad city and a few had not even been identified at that juncture?

Did the CP, Ahmedabad, or the DGP, Gujarat, report in writing to the Chief Minister or their superiors in government and administration on the possible adverse repercussions on law and order by this parade of dead bodies?

If any such letters were sent to higher authorities, why were they not placed before the commission?

Why was no preventive action taken against communal elements on February 27/28, 2000 even though the call for a Bandh (on February 28) by the Sangh Parivar and the BJP was issued on February 27, 2002 itself?

Why was the Communal Riot Scheme not put into operation in relevant areas from the evening of February 27, 2002 onwards? Why was no prompt and effective action taken against the rioters by officers of the rank of DSP (deputy superintendent of police) and above (who had additional forces of armed policemen moving with them), particularly in Ahmedabad city that has about 40 such DSPs and Vadodara city, which has about 30?

Why was no action taken by the policemen in approximately 100 police mobile vans stationed in Ahmedabad city, as also in

432

Vadodara city, against crowds that first began to congregate in small numbers on the morning of February 28, 2002 onwards? Why was no action taken when enforcers of the Bandh created traffic disturbances and indulged in petty crimes on the morning of February 28, 2002 so as to test the mood and strategy of the police?

Why was there a delay in the imposition of a curfew, particularly in Ahmedabad city? (In Ahmedabad, curfew was imposed as late as 1:00 p.m. on February 28, 2002.)

Why were no arrangements made for videography of the violent mobs despite regulations to this effect?

How or why did the police fail to video-graph mobs even as the electronic media succeeded in doing so? Were there any orders to prevent this?

Why was no effective action taken against rioters by policemen at specific locations and in mobile patrolling groups, both in vehicles and on foot, from the evening of February 27, 2002 onwards?

Why was there such a delayed response to distress calls from prominent Muslim citizens such as former member of parliament, the late Mr Ahsan Jafri, despite their having made frantic calls to the chief secretary, the DGP, the CP, Ahmedabad city, etc. and possibly even the Chief Minister?

Why were there higher casualties of police firing and riots among Muslims?

Why were the instructions contained in the compilation of circulars entitled ‘Communal Peace’, issued to all district magistrates and police officers of the rank of SP and above, not implemented?

Why were the ‘Instructions to deal with Communal Riots (Strategy and Approach)’, prepared by Mr. ZS Saiyed, former officer on special duty, and forwarded to all executive police officers for strict implementation, not enforced?

Why was there no monitoring of the implementation of instructions issued by the chief secretary, the home department, the DGP and other higher officers from February 28, 2002 onwards?

Why was no action taken against the vernacular press

publishing communally inflammatory news reports and articles

despite clear reports from the SP, Bhavnagar (Mr Rahul

433

Sharma), the CP, Ahmedabad (Mr P C Pande) and the ADGP (Int.), Mr RB Sreekumar, that such action should be initiated? Why was no action taken or any enquiry instituted against police officers for their alleged failure to record FIRs and conduct proper investigations into complaints of riot victims, largely minorities, although this matter was emphasised by ADGP Mr R B Sreekumar in his reports to the government dated (1) April 24, 2002 (2) June 15, 2002 (3) August 20, 2002 and (4) August 28, 2002?

Why was no action taken or any enquiry instituted against officers of the executive magistracy, particularly district magistrates, who failed to initiate prompt action against rioters, especially between February 27 and March 4, 2002? Similarly, why was no action taken or any enquiry instituted against district magistrates and their staff who recommended the appointment of pro-BJP/VHP advocates as public prosecutors in a bid to subvert the trials that would follow?

Why was no action taken against supervisory officers (i.e. DSPs, Range IGs/DIGs, CPs and the DGP) who violated Rules 24, 134, 135 and 240 of the Gujarat Police Manual-Vol. III by not properly supervising the investigation of serious riot related crimes and who were thereby guilty of culpable omission and grave misconduct?

Why was no action taken against supervisory officers (i.e. the Range IG, Vadodara range, and the CP, Vadodara city) who were guilty of gross misconduct and negligent supervision in the Bilkees Bano and Best Bakery cases, trials of which had been transferred from Gujarat to Maharashtra by the Supreme Court? Why was no investigation conducted into the deposition by Mr. Rahul Sharma, the then SP, Bhavnagar, before the commission on October 30, 2004, about the location of BJP leaders and senior officers in Bhavnagar while a Madrassa was being attacked? (In November 2004, the English daily, The Indian Express, published a three-part investigative report that exposed revealing conversations between influential politicians and policemen).

Why was no clarification provided on the government's inadequate implementation of recommendations made by the National Human Rights Commission, the National Commission for Minorities and even the Supreme Court?

434

929. Further this Court also needs to ensure that the following Nine Persons from the Chief Minister’s Office (CMO) who’s numbers are available should be thoroughly checked and scrutinised and analysed and co-related with their locational details and who spoke to whom. Three persons Mr. Sanjay Bhavsar, Mr. Tanmay Mehta and Mr. OP Singh have at a belated stage (January 2010) filed brief affidavits before this Commission simply on questions about their phone calls made to one Dr. Jaideep Patel an accused in the Naroda Patiya and Gaam Investigations.

930. No relevant questions raised in our Detailed Phone Call Records Analysis have been put to them by the SIT. Hence we urge that the Commission asks them to file more detailed affidavits about those phone call details and also summons them again before the Commission.

Application & Noting on Discrepancies in SIT Record

Important Noting from File Annexure IV File No XVIII.

931. Certain messages in many of these files are not in the official format. There is a possibility that these have been inserted by some of the accused subsequently. We have prepared special table listing how many files are in the official format and how many are on random pieces of paper without official format (See Annexure). This ought to have been a matter of

investigation by SIT, which again SIT has mysteriously overlooked. In any event they could be aspects of further investigation that this learned Court should order.

NOTE on DOCUMENTS COLLECTED BY THE SIT:

932. Annexure IV File XIV, Annexure IV, File XV, Annexure IV File XVI and Annexure IV File XVII are all files containing print outs taken from a CD submitted by A-29, the former commissioner of police Ahmedabad, Mr PC Pande. Mr PC Pande is one of the favourite coterie of officers close to A-1 who had been repeatedly promoted despite being seriously indicted for his failure to contain, control, prevent or fairly investigate the incidents of violence under his jurisdiction. The Honourable Supreme Court on a petition challenging his induction into the Central Bureau of Investigation ordered that he should do

435

nothing to do with the Gujarat cases. His induction to the CBI in February 2004 was controversial because of a pending Writ Petition in the Honourable Supreme Court that had been praying for the transfer of all major carnage cases to the CBI. It may be recalled that this was a substantial recommendation of the National Human Rights Commission in its special report on Gujarat, May to July 2002. The National Human Rights Commission was then headed by former Chief Justice JS Verma. Coming back to the file mentioned above, Mr PC Pande whose repeated statements had been recorded by the SIT between May 2009 and May 2010 when the report was finally submitted to the Honourable Supreme Court which for reasons best known to him concealed these CDs (whose print outs are in the file mentioned above) at that stage. It was only after the Honourable Supreme Court thought it fit to order further investigation into the reports submitted by SIT moreover made an observation that ‘SIT evidence do not match the inferences’ and finally when they brought in the Amicus Curie Mr. Raju Ramachandran independently collected evidence assisted by SIT that Mr. PC Pande in a sudden turn around after 15.3.2011 produced this material. This fact was communicated to co-petitioner in SLP No 1088 Ms Teesta Setalvad by I.O., SIT Mr. A K Malhotra when he recorded her statement under Section 161 in Mumbai in April 2011. Ms. Teesta Setalvad wrote a letter to Mr. AK Malhotra dated April, 2011 seeking special investigation by SIT into how a senior police officer of the Gujarat administration, moreover an accused in the complaint of Mrs. Zakia Jafri in the first instance sought to conceal vital documents and thereafter under what circumstances he produced them. (Please see the letter at Serial No 118, Annexure IV, File VII, pages 2798-2812, letter dated 21.4.2011. Despite this the SIT in its analysis of the furtherance of investigation paper have not only ignored vital clues provided by the wireless messages that clearly show aggressive communal planning and mobilisation after the critical cabinet meeting of 27.2.2002 on Godhra but also record huge crowds being present at the funeral processions before the cremations. The SIT simply filed a closure report ignoring this voluminous evidence.

436

Curfew

933. Breach of Curfew Orders as Part of Conspiracy: This is also a point for Further Investigation - why no body was arrested anywhere at all for breach of curfew, how many times and where at which locations they took place.

Deployment of Army

934. Army — Police Station-wise intensity of violence needs to be compared to the location where the flag marches took place and where army was deployed. Reference Serial No 143, Annexure III, File XII, Page 254 9.3.2002 point for further investigation – then DGP and Officer in charge of two Commissionerates and Nine District should be asked to provide information which they have sent, according to this message, in response to the 9.3.2002 letter mentioned above in serial No 143.

Situation Reports

935. Reference Serial No 31, file XLI Annexure-III, Page 52 D196 2.3.2002 — Statement of Mr. Prabhari Sachiv (Visiting in charge Secretary of All District) should be recorded in further investigation to bring out the point wise complete action initiated by them in complaint of instructions in this letter.

936. Reference Serial No 32 file XLI Annexure-III, Pages 53-54, 2.3.2002 — point for further investigation — Statement of Mr. Arun Sutaria, Settlement Commissioner, Ahmedabad, Mr SC Sanehi, Commissioner Land Reform Banaskantha, Mr. IP Gautam, Director (Finance) SSNNL, Sabakantha, Mr. KC Kapur Managing Director SSNNL, Mehsana, Mr. NR Vasani, Secretary (Co-op) Kheda-Nadiad, Mr. Arjun Singh P S (Lab & Emp) Ahmedabad, Mr. PK Laheri, PS (Rural Development) Panchayat Dept. Anand, Dr KN Shelat Commissioner for handicapped, Bharuch, Mr. HK Dash, Sec. Food & Civil Supp. Panchmahal, Mr. PK Pujari, Secretary, NRI, GAD, Bhavnagar.

937. The further point in the investigation is to interrogate whether all the directions sent by Chief Secretary ACS Home, and DGP were monitor for their implementation. The Naroda Patiya of judgment dated 29.8.2002 as also the report of the state

437

intelligence in bureau dated 24.4.2002, 15.6.2002, 20.8.2002 and 28.8.2002 clearly established that no such monitoring took place. A-28 the then ACS (Home) Mr Ashok. Narayan Adm. This in his conversation with Mr. Sreekumar i.e. on the record of Nanavati Commissioner of Mr. RB Sreekumar. This is also been given to the SIT in evidence.

938. There are messages sent by the Home department of the GOG directly headed by A-1 Mr. Modi at serial No 29 & 30 (Pages 50 & 51) Annexure III. File XL I sent by the Governor of Gujarat to the A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan, the then ACS Home and A-27 Mr. Subha Rao, the then Chief Secretary. The first paragraph of the letter states that the Gujarat Home Department should pay attention on ensuring the dependability and credibility of reports sent to Governor of Gujarat. There is further evidence to suggest a doctoring of the ground level situation by the Gujarat Home Department headed by A-1 Mr. Modi. A message contained at serial No 34 at page 56 at Annexure III. File XL I, page says in its last paragraph that ‘there is a difference in the sets of figures of persons killed and attacked’ between what the State IB was sending New Delhi and what the State Control Room under the Accused mentioned above were doing. Further investigation demands that A-60 Mr. GC Raiger, Mr. PS Shah and the then Joint Secretary, MHA Mr. Haldar are questioned on this.

939. Serial No 37, Annexure III, File XLI at page 60. Mr. PS Shah Addl. Secretary Home Department deliberately avoided indication of community wise of people killed and injured in police firing and riots as the SIB had provided to the MHA. Why? Mr. PS Shah should also provide information in further investigation as to what decision the CM had taken at the review meeting and also provide minutes of the meeting. Further monitoring of the instructions meted out also needs to be investigated. A-1 and Mr. BK Haldar the then Joint Sec MHA should be questioned on these points.

940. Serial No 50 at page 83-84, Annexure III, File XLI date 4.3.2002 which contains memorandum of distressed citizens of Dahod. Point for further investigation about the followed action taken on direction of Home Department on the points of repudiation of made by Dahod.

438

941. Reference serial No 49 at page 82, Annexure III, File XLI – which is the violence message dated 4.3.2002 from ACS Home to All Field Officers.ACS Home should be asked for

explanations as to why no instructions to order the arrest and prosecution of those responsible for extent violence.Field

officers should be asked to explain follow up action.

942. Reference Serial No 52 at page 87-88, Annexure III, File XLI – this is a letter dated 4.3.2002 sent from Mr. PS Shah Home Department to Mr. BK Haldar MHA. He says that the days were peaceful and then proceeds to narrate several incidents.

Shrines Destroyed

943. Serial No 78 at page 129, Annexure III, File XLI dated 6.3.2002, A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan makes special reference to the Religious Places of Act 1991 and mentions that many shrines of minority community have been taken over. Why was this aspect not investigation by SIT? Why was no case registered under the places of worship act, 1991 by the state police? Have they been restored? This point needs further investigation. This allegation needs to be seen in light of the High Court of Gujarat’s judgement of 8.2.2012.

Translations Not Available/ Needed

SIT Statements Provided which are only in Gujarati

944. Several of the files given to the Complainant/Petitioner are entirely in Gujarati; the translations not provided to the complainant. Since the SIT has arrived at its conclusions to file a closure report on the basis of these Translations provided to senior members Mr. AK Malhotra, Mr. YC Modi and Mr. RK Raghavan, for the complainant and this Court to arrive at a correct appreciation of whether or not the translations reflect the contents of the original in Gujarati, the copies of the Translations used by the SIT need to be made available to the Complainant and of course, the Court.

945. (Only to give some examples the following files are entirely in Gujarati -- files Annexure III, File VII (D-159) Annexure III, File VIII (D-160), Annexure III File XIX (D 161), Annexure III, File

439

XIX (D-161), Annexure III, File XX (D-162), Annexure III, File

XXI (D163), Annexure III, File XXI (D-164), Annexure III, File

XXII (D 164), Annexure III, File XXIII (D-165), Annexure III, File XXIV (D-166), Annexure III, File XXV (D-167), Annexure III, File XXVI (D-168), Annexure III, File XXVII (D-169), Annexure III, File XXVIII (D-170), Annexure III, File XXIX (D-171), Annexure III, File XXX (D-172), Annexure III, XXXI (D 173), Annexure III, File XXXII (D-174) and Annexure III (D-165) XLI 174-175]. Besides all the PCR Messages and several statements provided are also in Gujarati.

Allegation by Allegation Rebuttal

Conspiracy In Action

Statewide Outbreaks of Violence Not Spontaneous but Fuelled

950. The SIT has simply not charted the outbreak of violence after 27.2.2002 and connected it logically and analytically to the blatantly criminal and conspiratorial acts of A-1 Mr. Modi of distorting the Godhra incident and misinforming the people and the state assembly about the provocative behaviour of kar sevaks, ordering and directing hasty post-mortems out in the open, Conspiracy and Collaboration with the VHP — an extremist organisation known for its Criminal and Communal tendencies, allowing the free distribution and publication of gory photographs of the burnt bodies, meeting VHP men in Godhra itself and giving them a signal that they would not be stopped and could have free rein of the streets, towns and villages, allowing hate speech to be the norm rather than an exception that needs to be criminally prosecuted, paralysing and intimidating the administration into not performing its statutory functions, delaying and then neutralising the functioning of the Army, ignoring statutory interventions and strictures such as those from the Supreme Court, NHRC and the CEC, appointing partisan lawyers in the critical job of prosecution of the guilty, forcibly closing down relief camps, indulging in hate speech himself and carrying out a bitter policy of reward for collaborators and punishments for any and all of those officers and others who functioned as per the law. Critical records were destroyed at the behest of A-1 Mr. Modi way back in 2005 and 2007 when the Supreme Court had been seized of the matter since 2002. The SIT has simply closed its eyes to this.

440

Investigation papers themselves reveal critical documents that establish the various ingredients of this sinister conspiracy.

951. The SIT has purposefully ignored linking the various ingredients of the chain of conspiratorial crimes in a logical and dispassionate manner, looking at the mens rea of A-1, phone contacts between accused conspirators, the empirical fallout of events that led to mass-scale violence right from late February 2002 up to May 2002, the subversion of criminal justice, investigations and prosecutions that continues right until today. All this was done with a desire to protect A-1 Mr. Modi and other collaborators and conspirators. Despite its best efforts to reduce this sensitive investigation to a sham, the tenacity of the Complainant and co -petitioners ensured that critical documents related to the investigation, etc were made available. From these, as the Protest Petition has meticulously shown, the state’s own Intelligence Reports and the PCR (police control room) records reveal a chilling tale; a corroboration of all the allegations, detail by detail.

952. Bodies of the hapless Godhra victims were not only handed over to A-21 Dr. Jaideep Patel – a VHP strongman who was subsequently named as a rabid instigator in the mobs that attacked the minorities at Naroda on 28.2.2002, but these were also paraded in macabre fashion, allowing a tragedy at Godhra to be carried, amplified, to the rest of Gujarat thus ensuring the statewide attacks, massacre and brutalisation of Muslims.

953. The conspiracy, meeting of minds and common intent is clear: that A- 1 Mr. Modi conspired before the incident, during the incident and thereafter, masterminding a coldly calculated conspiracy, the guilty mind of a criminal and abetment in all the series of crimes that were unleashed under his watch. Since 2002 he has retained rigid control of the state’s home department to continue the subversion of justice delivery related to the violence of 2002 and ensure that the guilty are not punished. Whatever justice has been possible has happened due to the direct interventions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the witness protection given by the Court, the monitoring of key trials, the tenacity of survivors and the rigorous presence of

441

survivor witness advocates and rights groups to assist the prosecutions and face the trials in a hostile environment.

954. On the basis of the above narration of incidents involving the Accused as Conspirators and Abettors, the Complainant now wishes to consolidate all the relevant material which exists against each one of the accused.

955. The SIT has gone out of its way to protect the accused. At page 64, Allegation II, related to the parading of dead bodies, the SIT deliberately and in a culpable manner ignored the documentary evidence that was at its disposal. This has been laid down in great detail and at great depth through the body of the Protest Petition.

Messages related to funeral processions deliberately ignored by SIT

956. As early as 12:30 p.m. on 27.2.2002, an SIB officer through fax No. 525 communicated to the headquarters that there were reports that some dead bodies of Godhra victims would be brought to Kalupur Railway Station in Ahmedabad city. "So communal incidents will occur in Ahmedabad city. So take preventive action."

957. Another SIB message numbered as Out/184/02 again warned about communal violence if the bodies were brought to Ahmedabad. "Communal incidents will occur in Ahmedabad city. So take preventive action." The same message said that kar sevaks had given explosive interviews to a TV station at Godhra and had threatened to unleash violence against the Muslims. At 1:51 hours and again at 1:59 hours on 28.2.2002 there were panicked messages by wireless police vans positioned at Sola Hospital, demanding immediate protection from Special Reserve Police platoons and the presence of the DCP Zone 1.

958. A Message at 2:44 hours on 28.2.2002 stated that the motor cavalcade had reached Sola Civil Hospital.

Page No. 5790 of Annexure IV, File XIV of the SIT documents reveals that at 4:00 a.m. a mob comprising of 3,000

442

swayamsevaks, that is the members of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), had already gathered at the Sola Civil Hospital.

Page 5796 of Annexure IV, File XIV of the documents. At 7:14 hours the PCR van again informs the Police Control Room that a large mob had assembled at the Sola Civil Hospital.

Page 5797 of Annexure IV, File XIV of the documents.

959. Again, another message, three minutes later – at 7:17 hours, says that a mob of 500 people was holding up traffic.

10 bodies were taken to Ramol, an area near Naroda, and a massive funeral rally of over 5 to 6,000 mourners took the bodies to Hatkeshwar crematorium in the afternoon.

At 11:55 a.m. a PCR message is sent out saying that the Hindu mob had become violent and had set a vehicle on fire and was indulging in arson on the highway.

960. A message is sent out at 11.55 a.m. on 28.2.2002 (Page No. 6162 Annexure IV File XV), saying that ‘Sayyed Saheb, the Protocol Officer, had informed Sola-1 that riots have started at Sola Civil Hospital at (near) the High Court where the dead bodies were brought.’

961. Again, there is another message with no indication of time (Page No 6172 of 28.2.2002), which states that the officers and employees of the hospital had been surrounded by a mob of 500 and they could not come out. The message also made a demand for more security for the Civil Hospital at Sola. Annexure IV File XIV- Message Nos. 5907 and 5925 dated 11:58 hours on 28.2.2002) show that when 10 dead bodies were taken from Jantanagar, Ramol, to the Hatkeshwar cremation ground, a crowd of 5 to 6,000 persons accompanied this procession.

962. On the morning of 28.2.2002, an SIB message on page 258 of Annexure III File XIX, Message No. Com/538/28/2/02 says that a funeral procession was allowed to take place at Khedbrahma, a town in Sabarkantha district. The message cited above states that soon after the funeral procession, 2 Muslims on their way to Khedbrahma were stabbed and the situation had become very tense.

443

963. A subsequent message at page No. 262 of the same file (Annexure III File XIX) mentions that 150 Bajrang Dal workers were on their way from Ayodhya to Khedbrahma.

Another message at page 254 (Annexure III File XIX) – Com/574/2002 sent out at 15:32 hours on 28.2.2002 states that one more victim of the tragic train burning at Godhra, Mr. Babubhai Harjibhai Patel, resident of Vaghrol, Tal. Vadali in Sabarkantha was brought back and a funeral procession was organised in the town.

964. The SIT also did not probe into media reports about parading of dead bodies about which there was sufficient coverage in the electronic and print media of those days. Militant Hindu crowds following the dead bodies on the roads of Ahmedabad were shouting anti-Islamic slogans containing a lot of communal hatred, culpable under section 153-A IPC.

965. The assessment of the Complainant, as detailed in her complaint dated 8.6.2002, repeated communications to the investigating agency by her and co-petitioners in SLP 1088/2008, Ms. Teesta Setalvad of Citizens for Justice and Peace, and now with additional force and rigour following access to critical documents in this Protest Petition, of criminal negligence by the State Government Officials, was further reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its following decisions, a) Transfer of investigation of Bilkis Bano mass rape case to the CBI, b) Transfer of trial of 2 cases (Bilkis Bano and Best Bakery) to Maharashtra, c) Ordering reopening and reinvestigation of 2,000-odd closed riot-related cases (closed by the State Police for favouring the accused belonging to the Sangh Parivar). (Even statutory notice was not issued to the complainants who filed the FIRs, before closing the cases. This was an unprecedented move by the Supreme Court, for the first time in the judicial history of India), d) Appointment of the SIT to reinvestigate major genocide cases and to probe Mrs Jafri’s complaint, and e) the Gujarat High Court in February 2012 had assailed the State Government for its failure to protect historical monuments and religious centres of the Muslim community during the riots. Significantly, Special Courts hearing cases investigated by the SIT headed by Dr. RK Raghavan had reportedly passed strictures against unprofessional investigation of riot cases by the Gujarat police. The Court had particularly

444

censored one Police Inspector Mr. Patel, who investigated the Deepda Darwaza case of Mehsana District. In all these judicial directions, the higher judiciary made critical observations against the State Government functionaries.

966. The reports by NHRC, National Minorities Commission, etc had also echoed the assessments made by the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) about the subversion of the CJS and failure of the Government to take remedial measures but these charges have been utterly ignored by the SIT.

967. The most ghastly massacre (96 people killed and 125 injured) during the 2002 anti-minority genocide was enacted in the Naroda Patiya locality of Ahmedabad city.

The judgement of the Sessions Court on this man-made tragedy pronounced by Judge Mrs. Jyotsna Yagnik, the Special Court Judge on August 29, 2012, contains many crucial findings aspects with regard to the criminal justice system. Criminology predicates the imperative convergence and collaboration of five categories of criminals for the devilish execution of mass crimes especially with relation to a criminal conspiracy of this scale and magnitude.

They are (1) Planners, (2) Organisers, (3) Ground-level mobilisers, (4) Perpetrators or foot soldiers (those who inflicted physical violence literally), and (5) Facilitators or enablers.

968. In the Naroda Patiya case, the Court had punished, besides the masterminds, A-1 and his cabinet colleagues A-2 (now deceased), A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12, A-13, A-14, A-15, A-21 (among others of the VHP and BJP) the actual executers of violence, an organiser (former State Minister), A-16, A-21, A-19 among others and ground-level mobiliser (Bajrang Dal/ Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader), A-22. The Court had also confirmed, (1) The premeditated conspiracy, (2) Sequential and steady preparatory efforts, (3) Actions towards mobilisation of violent mobs, (4) Conspicuous collaborative acts by the police and so on. The moot question before us in this case is, did then the conspiracy stop at the level of an MLA of the ruling party and her co-conspirators from the BJP, VHP and Bajrang Dal including A-21 Dr. Jaideep Patel who was in close touch with A-1 Mr Modi since the morning of 27.2.2002? Or does it, as this complaint has charged, extend far

445

further and go deeper?

Hate Speeches Uninvestigated

969. The state government under A-1 Mr. Modi as cabinet minister for home, A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya, A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt, A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti, A-29 Mr. PC Pande, Range Officers laid out in the Complaint/FIR dated 8.6.2006 as also SPs/DMs also laid out as accused, were delivered deliberately as part of the conspiracy to allow hate speech to foment hatred and violence, did not take action on many proposals sent by the State Intelligence Bureau (SIB) against media, publishers and distributors of materials containing ingredients of communal incitement and aggravation of hatred between communities.

970. The details and the copies of these proposals were included in the first and second affidavits of former DGP Gujarat Mr. RB Sreekumar and repeated in his deposition before the Nanavati Commission dated 31.08.2004 in cross-examination. Officers In-charge of the Home Department A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan, A34 Mr. K. Nityanandam, Mr. KC Kapoor, IAS (1973), and Mr. Balwant Singh, IAS (1975), and Secretary Legal Department, Mrs. Bela Trivedi and her successors are responsible for this dereliction of duty.

971. The SIT did not suggest any action against any government official for not acting on the former ADGP Mr. Sreekumar’s recommendations for legal action against the media. Why was this criminal negligence not treated as an offence u/s 166, 217, IPC? The Amicus Curiae, Mr. Raju Ramachandran has recommended the prosecution of A-1 Mr. Modi under Sections 166 and 153A and 153B of the IPC.

972. The SIT has observed that some of the material provided as evidence of hate speech was not sufficient to make out a criminal case. The SIT did not see anything wrong in the inaction of the DGP and Home Department in not ordering a deeper probe based on the suggestion through jurisdictional officers for getting relevant evidence and prosecuting the culprits. The large volume of hate speech material that the SIT should have summoned and scrutinised (part of the Concerned Citizens Tribunal, part of the CDs of television records available

446

with the Nanavati Commission and the hate pamphlets deliberately distributed by the VHP that were given to the SIT) was wilfully and purposefully ignored by the SIT. These should have been studied and analysed professionally and are the subject matter for further investigation.

973. Consequently, the publishers of communally inciting material continue to enjoy immunity from legal action.

Messages related to mass mobilisations and hate speeches At page 365 of Annexure III File XXI (D-166) message No. 73/02 dated 28.2.2002 sent by the ACP (Intelligence) Surat Region to State Intelligence Bureau Headquarters at Gandhinagar says that between 9:00 to 10:00 hours on the morning of 28.2.2002 a meeting was held at Sardar Chowk in Vapi Town where Mr Dinesh Kumar Behri of VHP and Mr. Acharya Brahmbhatt of Bajrang Dal, Mr. Jawahar Desai of BJP and Mr. Vinod Chowdhary of RSS made inflammatory speeches regarding the incident at Godhra and called upon the Hindus to unite.

974. Another message at page 188 in Annexure III, File XVIII sent at 20:38 hours on the day of the Godhra train burning tragedy, i.e., 27.2.2002, mentions the following: ‘Mr. Dilip Trivedi the General Secretary of VHP and Joint Secretary A-21 Dr. Jaideep Patel and A-19, Mr. Kaushik Mehta in a Joint Statement issued by them have declared that innocent Ram Bhakt’s have been attacked and hence Gujarat Bandh has been declared.’ They have also stated that the attack on the Ramsevaks returning from Ayodhya was pre-planned by the Muslims. ‘Innocent ladies were molested and compartments were set on fire and Ramsevaks were burnt alive.’

975. The joint statement issued by the three senior-most office bearers of Gujarat VHP’s unit was clearly designed to stoke communal passion. A reasonable response would have been an immediate government clampdown on such public utterances and if required putting all these trouble makers under preventive detention. But no such action was taken. The VHP called for a Bandh on 28.2.2002 and the BJP, the ruling party, openly supported the call for a Bandh. The State instead of clamping down on the call for a Bandh, gave the VHP leaders and its cadres a free reign and a license to kill.

447

976. The SIT has not dealt with the serious implications of the state and ruling party’s support for the band substantively, at all.

Evidence of Criminal Mobilisations by the VHP, RSS, BD, BJP etc

977. Despite the SIT papers containing documentary evidence of such more instances of hate speech, the SIT has concealed these in its final report and deliberately avoided any conclusions. At page 345, the message titled Vardhi No. 24 contained in Annexure III File XIX dated 27.2.2002 of the SIT papers, sent from D.O., Ahmedabad to the Intelligence Office at Virangam (Virangam is in the rural district of Ahmedabad) stated that 50 to 75 members of the VHP and Bajrang Dal had gathered at Virangam town Chali and in the Golwada area and the situation was very tense.

978. Another message in the same file, i.e., Annexure III, File XVIII (D-160) at Page No. 19 Message No. 531 is from SIB Police to Mr. KR Singh at 18:10 hours on 27.2.2002 said that, “on 27.2.2002 at 4.30 p.m. when the train arrived at the Ahmedabad Railway station, the karsevaks were armed with „dandas’ and shouting murderous slogans „khoon ka badla khoon’ and „Bharat Mata ki Jai’. ”

979. Fax Message D-1/ HA/ Jaher Sabha/ Junagadh/ 311/02 dated 27.2.02 at 10.12 p.m. sent by PI, CID, Int. Bhavnagar to IG, Gujarat. State IB, Gandhi Nagar said that the Sadhu Samaj president Mr. Gopalnandji gave an agitated speech at Junagadh Kadva Chowk, on 27.2.02 between 19:30 to 21:00 hours. The message then goes on to name specific local VHP leaders and says that they expressed their condolences to Karsevaks and then delivered hate speeches and called to unite all Hindus and told the audience to cut the hands and legs of our enemies. They said in their speech that the incident occurred at Godhra in the morning at 7:30 a.m. but yet no reaction was seen from the Hindus, which was very unfortunate. “Muslims who live in India with sincerity and patriotism, we don’t have any agitation against them. But we have objections against those who live in India and favoured Pakistan and carried out activities against the country. Anti- national activities are being done in the

448

Madrasas. We have objections against it. We do not have any kind of objection against spiritual religious education for the children. Pooja prarthna at the temple and praying at the Masjid is all right but Pakistan Zindabad is not right. Above mentioned ideas were expressed by them.”

980. Fax Message Com/HM/550/ 02 Dt. 27.2.02 23:59 Out No 398 from ACP, Int. Gandhinagar Region to IG, Gujarat. State IB, Gandhinagar says that 50 Karsevaks travelling by a special bus from Ahmedabad reached Modasa centre in village Vadagam at Taluka Dhansura at around 18:30 p.m. on 27.2.2002.

‘They were received by a mob of 500 people and these karsevaks addressed the mob and told the people how the compartment of Sabarmati Express was attacked. People present in the mob got excited and 21:30 hours people from around the village gathered and the mob swelled to a huge size. To maintain order the force was not sufficient and about 10 paan bidi shops were set on fire. Vehicles like the Jeep, Maruti and Ambassador were set on fire. These vehicles and shops seemed to belong to Muslims. One Mr. Yasinbhai Multani’s shop at Kalol centre Tal. Kadi and Bavlu PS village Kalyanpur was burnt down by the mob.

981. This action of the SIT was true to its strategy to keep the complicity level of government officials at as low a level as possible, in the commission of any offence related to the 2002 riots. Intelligence officials do not have power to investigate crimes yet they did the best they could, intimating the police and recommending prosecution.

982. The SIB has compiled a list of over 106 persons belonging to the RSS, VHP, BD and others who has been seriously implicated in the 2002 Violent incidents. This has been annexed herein at Annexure

Yet the SIT ignored all this material.

983. At pages 47 and 48 of Annexure III File XIX of the SIT papers, the State IB officers take note of inflammatory pamphlets distributed by the VHP in Vadodara city. This

.

449

logically should have led to action under the relevant section of the IPC. The fax message, Mes. IB/D-2/com/Info Patrika/ Vadodara/974 and Mes. /SB/Patrika/ 1247/ 02. At Page 53 of Annexure III File XIX there is a chilling account of how 8 persons (Muslims) are burnt alive by accused and they even destroyed evidence. This message was sent from the Vadodara region to Gandhinagar on 7.3.2002 at 13:08 hrs. Mess. IB/com/38/02. (Sant Rampura police station ICR No. 43 of 2002). The anger of the minority community against the publication of communal writing by mainline Gujarati newspapers in 2002 had led to several memorandums being submitted to the authorities. (See sections on hate speech in the Protest Petition). From 27.2.2002 onwards, Sandesh newspaper had played the role of assisting the enveloping conspiracy to spread communal violence hatched by A-1 Mr. Modi. The IB message (Mes. IB/Mahiti/383/02) dated 7.3.2002, 11:30 hrs, at page 58 of Annexure III File XIX, records that Muslims of Tandalja area in Vadodara had boycotted the Gujarat Samachar and Sandesh newspapers because they had printed inflammatory news that went against the public order. This message also records that the anger of the minority went so deep that despite the Chief Minister, A-1, visiting Vadodara, no one from Tandalja met him or even submitted a memorandum.

984. Yet the SIT made a mockery of investigating this charge by ignoring a large volume of evidence. See Allegations No. XVII, Page 147 of the SIT Report — former DGP Mr. Sreekumar had during his cross-examination dated 31.8.2004, on the contents of his first affidavit, submitted as exhibit, a copy of his proposal to the DGP and Home Department recommending action against the publication of anti-minority pamphlets. This proposal is besides those mentioned in the First Affidavit with copies as Appendix-26. This material was all available with the SIT but has been wilfully ignored by it.

Ambivalence of the SIT on the Meeting of 27.2.2002 at the residence of A-1 Mr. Modi

985. To date, as regards the meeting chaired by the CM on 27.02.2002 (first revealed in the report of the Citizens Tribunal and then in the fourth affidavit of Mr. Sreekumar and in four

450

other ways mentioned in the Protest Petition at the start), the fact of this meeting had been omitted from disclosure by senior officers of the government who filed affidavits before the Commission. How could the senior officers ignore the importance of a chief minister-chaired meeting on 27.02.2002, when there were numerous Intelligence reports from state and central Intelligence on the possibility of extreme and extensive violence against minorities on the day of the VHP-sponsored bandh on 28.02.2002? Why has the SIT religiously avoided probing this major culpable omission by officers?

Deliberate Subversion: Non-maintenance of Minutes of Meetings

986. The non maintenance of minutes of any of the Law and Order review meetings chaired by the Chief Minister, other Ministers, the Chief Secretary, the ACS Home, DGP etc. since 27.2.2002 right up to 31.2.2002 (the crucial period of riots), had largely confirmed the validity of representation by riot victims and observations by national bodies like NHRC, National Commission for Minorities (NCM), CEC etc. about the State sponsored, patronised, promoted, facilitated, aided, abetted and enabled character of 2002 anti-minority carnage. Those who presided over these meetings, reportedly, were keen to violate the inalterable principles of transparency and creation of documents for any future probe, review or study of performance of functionaries mandated to enforce Law for upkeep of normalcy during 2002 riots. Notwithstanding the inference of criminal designs behind non-maintenance of minutes of crucial meetings, this lapse per se is an unwarranted avoidable procedural omission, violating rule-3 of AIS (conduct) rules and provisions of Office Procedure quoted in AIS rules. Minutes are critical to ensure due diligence in administration and governance.

987. Clearly the real motive behind the non-maintenance of minutes appears to be subtle dismantlement of responsibility and accountability to the masterminds behind the Conspiracy, the higher echelons of the State Administration and those responsible relating to communal disturbances. The SIT failed to investigate the motives and connections and patterns behind these lapses.

451

Allegation No. XXVI Page 210.

988. The SIT has simply accepted the version and explanations of the accused for not maintaining minutes of meetings. SIT should have questioned them about modality of monitoring of implementation of decisions taken in a meeting. At least participants must have kept rough notes of the proceedings and thereafter issued instructions to concerned officers for initiating actions toward implementation of decisions taken in the meetings. If there are no records about follow-up actions also, SIT should have drawn adverse inferences against the accused persons. With the overwhelming evidence available on the subversion of CJS to deny justice delivery to riot victims, hostile attitude of the Police Officers and other functionaries to Muslims etc. It should have been presumed that in the review meetings convened by seniors under the tutelage of A-1 Mr. Modi no purposeful decision was taken for improving the ground situation. In this connection the Register of former DGP Gujarat and ADGP Intelligence at the time Mr. RB Sreekumar would have been critical. The police department needs to record all actions in the streamlined systems based on Standard Operational Procedure (SOP) enshrined in the Gujarat Police Manual, DGP circulars, government resolutions etc. Why has SIT deliberately avoided examination of such records? Was SIT apprehensive that such a probe would throw up evidence against the accused regarding their culpable acts during the riots and subsequent days?

Allegation No. XIII

989. Ambivalence of the SIT in State Support to the Bandh Call. The SIT has not found anything objectionable in the State Government’s failure to oppose the bandh call given by the VHP on 28.2.2002. The CM also did not oppose the bandh. This act is in gross violation of a ruling by the Kerala High Court. It is a culpable act especially when the bandh becomes an excuse for allowing consciously marauding mobs to have free play of the streets, illegal funeral processions and the parading of dead bodies. The SIT avoided making any observations against even home department and police officers also on this criminal negligence. A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan admits that ‘The bandh

452

call was also the reason for taking place of violence on large scale.’ (Deposition before the Nanavati Commission).

990. Stationing of Two Ministers/Party functionaries in the Ahmedabad and City Control Rooms o 28.2.2002

These illegal actions were part of the Conspiracy hatched by A-1 Mr. Modi and at his behest:

to monitor riots/ interfere in police functioning

to ensure police inaction

Muslim residential colonies, shops and establishments had been identified beforehand and these records were available with the marauding mobs.

991. A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti – because of the instruction he received from A-1 at the meeting, he does not perform his duties as statutorily required. There is no message from him after the said meeting to the police stations with detailed statutorily required instructions on curfew and its strict implementation, preventive arrests, action against hatemongers, arrest of culpable persons on the spot, etc, alarming them to specifically deal with the law and order situations. The statement of a police officer Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt as also his affidavit before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which has led to the Amicus Curiae clearly recommending the charge-sheeting of and prosecution of A-1 Mr. Modi, clearly shows that A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti was working for A-1. The fact that because of the clear instructions of A-1 Mr. Modi, A-3 Mr. IK Jadeja was allowed to take control of the state control room at Gandhinagar on 28.2.2002 shows that A-25 Mr. Chakravarti was effectively neutralised and A-1 had put his own man to direct what policemen should do/ should not do. A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan, ACS Home, manipulated the first information – as an abettor in the neutralisation process, in carrying out what A-1 said. No specific instructions were given by A-1, A-5, A-28 or A-25 to concerned police stations or officials about strict deterrent measures for maintenance of law and order.

992. The fact that A-3 Mr. IK Jadeja was allowed to take control of the state control room at Gandhinagar on 28.2.2002 shows that A-25 Mr. Chakravarti was effectively neutralised and A-1 had put his own man to direct what policemen should do/ should not

453

do. A-25 Mr. Chakravarti stated that A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan had informed him of the government’s decision that A-3 Mr. IK Jadeja, the then Minister for Urban Development, would sit in his office about the law and order situation. Mr. Ashok Narayan says that no such instruction was given by A-1, the chief minister. A-3 Mr. IK Jadeja in his statement said that A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya had told him to remain present in the Police Bhavan (Gandhinagar, Police HQ) to receive information and if extra police forces were required, to pass on the same request to the Home Department. Mr. Zadaphiya denied having given any such instruction. However, the fact remains that A-3 Mr. IK Jadeja was present in the State control room at Gandhinagar.

993. The statement of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt regarding the presence of Mr. IK Jadeja in the state police HQ has been referred to and accepted by the SIT. However, the SIT brushes aside the presence of Mr. IK Jadeja in the control room by stating that there is no evidence to prove that he interfered or gave any direction with regard to maintenance of law and order and therefore no offence is made out.

994. On 28.2.2002, as a carefully planned part of the conspiracy, mass killings were engineered in 30 different locations all over the state, two senior cabinet ministers sat in the police control room in Ahmedabad and the state police control room in Gandhinagar and directly influenced police action, or inaction. Gujarat’s former health minister, A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt – who, incidentally, before his death in 2010, faced a criminal charge for the murder of a police head constable, Desai, on April 22, 1985 at Khadia in Ahmedabad – was in the police control room (PCR) at the Ahmedabad police commissionerate in Shahibaug for more than three hours on 28.2.2002. (Concerned Citizens Tribunal)

995. The SIT does not say that even the very presence of the minister in the police control room was illegal and questionable and that it was part of a planned conspiracy because A-3 Mr. IK Jadeja was sent to the police headquarters, according to Mr. Jadeja’s own statement, by the MoS Home, A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya. A-1 Mr. Modi was the Cabinet Minister for Home and has been since 2002.

454

996. Similarly, A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt was also in the City Control Room at Shahibaug, Ahmedabad, and A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti had stated about his presence in the control room. A- 29 Mr. PC Pande denied that A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt was present but admits that he had come to the Control Room with the Union defence minister (Mr. George Fernandes).

997. The SIT on the basis of a man criminally culpable for concealing information from a Supreme Court-appointed team, has gone to the extent of saying that Mr. Ashok Bhatt did not visit the Shahibaug Police Control Room on 28.2.2002. The same logic that was applied to Mr. IK Jadeja was also applied to Mr. Ashok Bhatt.

998. A-29 Mr. PC Pande, the then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, too gave no specific directions for the prevention of violence, arrest of accused and in fact holed himself up inside the Commissioner’s office when macabre mayhem erupted throughout Ahmedabad. He gave no directions to police officers, did nothing when the murderous crowds tried to attack the staff at the Sola Civil Hospital, and did nothing when High Court judges of the minority community were targeted but made sure that he was in close touch with A-1 Mr. Modi at least fifteen times at critical hours of the day.

999. What were A-31 Dr. PK Mishra, PS to CM doing? What about A-34 Mr. K. Nityanandam, Home Secretary? Has SIT bothered to investigate? The consequence of two top-level politicians being stationed in the State and City (Ahmedabad) Police Control Rooms was that of direct interference in the independent functioning of the state police, criminal intent, and negligence for the lives of Citizens and at the core a violation of the Constitutionally guaranteed Fundamental Rights, the Right to Life (Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian Constitution.

1000. Curfew was not declared in Ahmedabad City until almost all the attacks were well underway, i.e. at about 12:40 p.m. and there is absolutely no suitable explanation in the statements collected nor any explanation given about this in the SIT’s opinion submitted before this Court on 8.2.2012. The widespread violence, especially in districts where Ministers from the State Cabinet were (in 2002) elected as MLAs, points

455

directly to a common mind behind the violence in the state administration (See Concerned Citizens Tribunal Report Crimes Against Humanity March 2002)

1001. Influential persons, including MLAs and policemen, have been arraigned as Accused (Judgements are still awaited) in the cases being monitored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court – Gulberg Trial (Mr. Atul Vaidya and Mr. KG Erda arraigned as accused subsequently); Naroda Patiya Trial (Dr. Maya Kodnani and Mr. Babu Bajrangi arraigned as accused); Naroda Gaam Trial (Dr. Jaideep Patel arraigned as accused); Deepda Darwaza Trial (Mr. Prahlad Ghosa arraigned as accused).

Eyewitnesses’ Statements on Records of the Trial Court

1002. Eyewitnesses and victim survivors have spoken of the anguished calls made by survivors from Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society (by Mr. Ahsan Jafri personally for help from the highest levels in government that neither he nor others received).

Were these a genuine human lapse or a pre-planned conspiracy at the very highest levels to allow people to be raped, molested, burnt and killed at Naroda Patiya and Gulberg Society on February 28, 2002 after the attacks started i.e. between 10 a.m. and 5.30-6 p.m.? This pre-planned conspiracy carried on virtually unchecked until May 18, 2002.

1003.A-3 State Cabinet Minister in-charge of Urban

Development Mr. IK Jadeja and Health Minister Mr. Ashok Bhatt had positioned themselves in the DGP’s office and in the Control Room, Ahmedabad city, from forenoon on the day of the VHP-sponsored bandh on 28.02.2002.

1004. Their unauthorised presence in offices of supervisory police officers was illegal, unethical, even under the verbal orders of the Chief Minister because these Ministers did not have the powers to interfere in the policing work being done by officers who were statutorily empowered to maintain law and order. Their acts do amount to offences punishable under section 186, IPC – obstructing Government servants in the discharge of their duties. The question of evidence about these Ministers’ active interventions or meddling with police operations carried out from the operational HQ of the DGP and

456

CP, Ahmedabad, is not required to establish their culpability in this matter.

1005. The very act of remaining present in police offices without authority, agenda or roles in police work would satisfy the ingredients of section 186, IPC to proceed against them. The DGP and CP, Ahmedabad, are responsible for this major dereliction of duty of permitting the unauthorised positioning of these Ministers in the operational centres of the Gujarat police on the crucial bandh day. Further, as per the Rules of Business, only the Governor of Gujarat has the authority to entrust the functions of the Home Department to these Ministers. Nevertheless, powers mandated by the CrPC to police officers can never be provided to them even by the Governor. It is relevant to note that on that fateful day of 28.02.2002, the largest number of Muslims were killed during the 2002 riots, allegedly by marauding crowds of the Sangh Parivar.

Allegation No XIV, Allegation No XI

Regarding deployment of Army, Central Paramilitary Forces (CPMF)

1006. The SIT has again, without examining relevant records of the Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Home Affairs, Army and CPMF tried to give a clean chit to the accused persons that to by simply accepting their version about the timing, procedure, requisition and deployment of the Army and CPMF. This does not seem convincing given the serious contradictions that exist on the record on this issue. SIT has simply accepted the statements of accused in this matter. SIT should have recorded the statements of officials from the Army and CPMF who were actively engaged is assisting the state police for maintenance of law and order. SIT should also have brought on record as part of evidence all documents maintained by the Army and CPMF.

1007. The ground level experience of the survivors of the carnage and their version about role of the Army and CPMF was also not given due credence. SIT has ignored the specific suggestions made by co-petitioners in SLP 1088, Ms. Teesta Setalvad to examine the documents of the Army, CPMF, and

457

record the statements of relevant officers including those in charge of the Army operations in the state. The suggestion that the SIT should obtain reports given by the Army and CPMF officers to their higher officers about their role during riots while they were assisting the Gujarat Police was deliberately and with malicious intent ignored by the SIT.

1008.A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan (ACS, Home) says in his

statement that he had a meeting with the DGP and other senior officers and gave instructions about the course of action to be followed including request for 10 companies of Central Paramilitary forces on 27.2.2002. It is not clear from the statement whether this course of action taken by him was approved in the meeting with A-1 Mr. Modi. The reason for saying this is that in fact the central Para-military forces came only on 1.3.2002. Before the Nanavati Commission, he made a statement that the decision to transfer the dead bodies from Godhra to Ahmedabad was made by the A-1 Mr. Modi. The Officer in charge of the Control room at the time (2002) Mr. VV Rabari deposed before the Commission on 4.8.2004 affidavit dated 27.6.2002 (page eleven is about deployment of the army). He states that he was never associated with the process of taking a decision on deployment. The statement regarding the force produced was produced with his affidavit and indicates the figures as to first company, platoon and section and deployment.... He states clearly that there are a total of 69 different SRP companies in the State of Gujarat. 52 companies were allotted in the districts on 26-02-02 and 17 companies had been allotted in Ahmedabad city. Thereafter, 7 additional companies had been allotted on 27-02-02 but no increase had been made in deployment of the said 17 companies in Ahmedabad even after the Naroda Patiya and Gulberg incidents (28.2.2002) right up to 28.2.2002. SIT has not probed this issue further. He says that he did not have anything to do with the Army Deployment. A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan in his deposition before the Nanavati Commission states that whatever forces, Army or Paramilitary were available were placed at the disposal of the DGP. Mr. Rahul Sharma states in his affidavit before the Nanavati Commission that he did not get any assistance from the Army despite A-25 DGP Mr. K. Chakravarti being petitioned by him until 2.3.2002. A-25 Mr. K Chakravarti had also told him at the time that the ‘bureaucracy had been neutralised.’ There

458

is similar ground level information from Panchmahal, Mehsana etc. that proper and prompt deployment was not effected. It was therefore imperative for the SIT to independently investigate and assess from the statements of the Army and Paramilitary officers and their records as to whether or not this was part of the criminal conspiracy and hence there was a deliberate delay in deployment of the army so bloodshed and mayhem could continue unchecked.

1009.A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan is diffident about any details

about the Army deployment (there are many references in letters from the Governor of Gujarat etc. contained in the SIT papers) that there were serious lacunae in Army deployment and that this was deliberate. The documents supplied by SIT are incomplete and not convincing. There are serious contradictions on army deployment. Even the DM of Panchmahal’s statement on Army deployment in a district that was worst affected after Ahmedabad establishes that they arrived too late.

1010.A detailed scrutiny of A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan’s

deposition before the Commission is interesting. ‘The decision of calling the military was taken at 2:30 hours on 28-2-02 but it was deployed on the next day. The reason behind it is such that at that time the Army was not present in Ahmedabad and the Government of India was informed about the same and the military personnel had started coming in Ahmedabad from the night on 28-2-02. The military required time for carrying out their functions. Therefore, their actual deployment was not made before 11.00 o’clock in the morning on the next day.’ This flies in the face of the claim of A-1 Mr. Modi that has been mala fide endorsed by the SIT.

1011.SIT should have questioned A-1 Mr. Modi and A-28

Mr. Ashok Narayan and A-25 DGP Mr. K. Chakravarti on why no preventive deployment was ordered either specifically in Panchmahal (where Godhra is located and or Ahmedabad). SIT has shown a callous disregard for the Build Up of Communal Atmosphere, details of which are available with it and were specifically averred to in the statements of Ms. Teesta Setalvad.

459

1012.Prior to 27-2-02, A-1 Mr. Modi was fully aware of the

communal mobilisations by the karsevaks and VHP and should have thought of adequate deployment of forces for preventive measures. A-1 Mr. Modi and his cabinet colleagues allowed these mobilisations to go unchecked and made no inquiries, no appeals for peace and calm, gave no orders for preventive arrests etc. in the wake of the detailed SIB messaged coming to them (mentioned above) of the aggressive communal mobilisations by the RSS, VHP and BJP.

1013.The charge that Army Deployment officially was

sanctioned only formally around March 4, 2002 in Ahmedabad and for the initial days the armed forces had the ignominy or indignity of being given “dumpers “ of the AMC to travel in and not act to save lives has not been conclusively disproved. Fires were burning at Gulberg society until 8.3.2002. Mobs were allowed to further dismember bodies. By not recording any independent investigation, the SIT has not given any conclusive evidence to indicate otherwise.

1014.File notings on the decision to call the army and the

timings and dates are not available; sheets of paper with incomplete timings are all that has been provided by the SIT in its papers. Casual and benign questioning of A-1 Mr. Modi on this and other issues further exposes the culpability of the SIT.

Violent Reprisals State-wide from 27.2.2002 Onwards right until May 2002

1015.The blatant unprofessionalism and unwarranted

prejudice practiced by series of Investigating Officers (IO) — all from Gujarat police - against victims of the perpetrated carnage who belonged to the minority Muslim community, obviously had the tacit support of senior supervisory officers in the ranks of Dy. SP to Commissioner of Police in Ahmedabad city. These linear supervisory officers had abdicated their statutory responsibility and authority vested on them under sections 36, 129, 131, 144 and 154 of the CRPC and duties assigned to them under the provisions of the Indian Police Act 1861, the Bombay Police Act, GPM Vol — III Rule No. 22 to 30, 33, 34, 36, 113, 114, 134, 135 and 240 and numerous DGP circulars. The Commissioners of Police in Ahmedabad city during the relevant

460

period from 27-02-2002 to June 2008 – Mr. PC Pande IPS – 1970, and Mr. KR Kaushik – IPS – 1972 and their junior officers in the line of command were responsible for unprofessional supervision of the IO’s of 2002 riot crimes like Naroda Patiya carnage and others. They had committed serious dereliction of duties and misconduct violating All India Service (AIS) conduct rules, rule-3 particularly, and are liable to be dealt with through departmental action. The state service officers are chargeable for misconduct and slack supervision of cases under Gujarat Civil Service Rules (GCSR).

1016.The culpable criminal negligence of even SIT as an

investigating agency can be understood when the charges mentioned above and observed through a case by case analysis of various criminal cases etc. some of which were and are being investigated by the SIT itself. In the course of the investigation into the present complaint however more and incontrovertible documentary evidence has substantiated the charges made in the complaint. Yet the SIT has chosen to ignore it.

Statements of Mr. PC Pande, Mr. Kuldeep Sharma, Mr. MK Tandon etc. Page 91 to 105 of the SIT Report.

1017.Yet despite this evidence of collusion mentioned

above, the SIT avoided interrogating or eliciting explanations from officers like A-29 Mr. PC Pande the then CP Ahmedabad city about their serious acts of omission and commission which provided a free hand to rioters; not registering FIR as complained by riot victims properly etc. Their failure to respond to intelligence reports from the State and Central Intelligence, non-implementation of instructions contained in Gujarat Police Manual, Booklet by DGP Mr. KV Joseph, circular bunch captured "communal peace", non-enforcement of Communal Riot Scheme etc. were also not explained by them. Whenever vague clarifications are given by them, SIT did not make any ground level probes through scrutiny of relevant police records, case papers etc.

1018.The SIT also did not make any effort to expose the

failure of officers like A-29 Mr. PC Pande to control riots and

acting as collaborators of A-1 Mr. Modi in the context of the

461

comparable and laudable performance by the SP Bhavnagar, Mr. Rahul Sharma who held his own despite violence being consistently attempted and pressures put, the Commissioner of Police of Surat City, Rajkot City and Superintendent of Police of 16 districts where the violence was negligible. There should have been a rational and analytical comparison of provocations (by conspirators and criminals) and responses (from the law enforcement agencies and administration) by the SIT that should have been attempted to adjudge on the extent of failure, where it occurred where it did not. This would have helped them make a comparative and realistic assessment as the factors for the failures and successes (to maintain law and order). Instead of doing this, the SIT has believed each and every one of those accused charged in the complaint and concluded with a superficial, unprofessional and biased report.

1019.Such a comparative analysis was specifically

suggested by whistleblower witness former DGP Mr. RB Sreekumar in his letter dated 25.10.2011. (Annexed in the SIT papers) Why did accused officers like A-29 Mr. PC Pande, A-48 Mr. DD Tuteja etc. fail where others had succeeded and effectively contained violence?

1020.No clarification was sought by SIT from the concerned

about their failure (DGP and Home Department officials) in acting upon the proposals from the SIB against those circulating communally inciting pamphlets, handbills and publications.

1021.All offences related to communal crimes are grave

crimes, whose investigation has to be supervised by officers of the rank of Dy. SP and above as per rule-134 and 135 of GPM Vol-III. Chapter IV and V of the GPM Vol-III captioned 1) Investigation of Crimes and 2) Detailed procedure regarding investigation, respectively had delineated nugget by nugget and point by point, sequential steps to be taken in the course of investigation of various types of crimes. Specific supervisory duties by Dy. SP to DGP are also listed. But in most of the riot related cases, the police officials unabashedly violated this standard operational procedure (SOP) that resulted in strictures by the NHRC and the Supreme Court, (petitions and orders for transfer of investigation etc.) and by survivors and civil rights groups. The very appointment of the SIT in March 2008 by the Honourable Supreme Court was an outcome of these petitions.

462

Conspiracy As Subversion of the System

1022.The damage done by the poor quality of investigation

to the dispensation of justice to riot victims was primarily due to the illegal and unprofessional stance of police and administration. Among other instances, this has been severely criticised by the court in the Naroda Patiya judgment dated 29.8.2012. This had confirmed the fact that the Home department and A- DGP Mr. K. Chakravarti did not take follow up action on several state intelligence bureau reports. The observations of the Sessions Court in the Naroda Patiya case judgment at pages 269, 270, 273, 274, 275, 289, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 314, 372, 489, 491, 495, 503, 504, 510, 511, 513, 515, 1497, 1501, 509, 1547 and 1564 should be referred to. At page 487, paragraph C – 6, the Court observed ‘while people were flocking the streets (as curfew was not deliberately enforced) leaving their households inside, inspector Shri K. K. Mysorewala has reported to the Control Room (Ahmedabad city) that ‘everything is ok’ (Khariat hain — There is peace and happiness in Patiya area) it was like ‘when Rome was burning, Nero was playing fiddle’. At page 1497, the Court has said, ‘the court has not held the previous investigation to be such on which implicit reliance can be placed, more particularly for not recording true statements of the victims. At times, attempts have been confirmed to be made to see to it that presence and participation of certain VIP accused does not come on record. Not only that, but attempts have been made to project entire communal riots to have been created because of the occurrence of rash and negligent driving of TATA 407, free fight took place at the site between Hindus and Muslims and murder of Mr. Ranjit Singh etc.’ At page 1564, the Court has concluded ‘it seems that all previous investigators from Gujarat police were lacking sensitivity, were not entirely fair to the process, were seemed to be overpowered by someone, were aimed to protect some person, were not quality conscious, but were harping upon the quantity, at times were doing haphazard investigations, over distribution of work to many assignee officers has de-shaped the investigation, they were ‘soft to loss of property but hard to vibrant human hearts’, they were lacking necessary care and seriousness which such sensitive cases deserve.’

463

1023.The SIT’s deliberate failure to closely examine the

response of the administration and law enforcement to the deliberately perpetuated violence conspired to at the very top masterminded by A-1 Mr. Modi is apparent.

1024.The SIT simply did not analyse how officers

(Commissioners of Police, Dist. Magistrate, Superintendent of Police) in two cities and seventeen districts had succeeded in effectively maintaining law and order even in traditional sensitive areas like Surat city and Veeraval (Junagadh district) and why in other eleven places, nine districts and two Comm issionerates rioters were given a free hand – has not yet been done by the Govt. for fixing up responsibility for culpable negligence of not implementing SOP by relevant officers. It is notable that in many areas of low level violence in 2002 there were higher casualties during the post Babri Masjid demolition riots and earlier – were reported. In this context departmental probe should be started against District Magistrates, SPs, CPs and police range officers of nine districts and two Comm issionerates.

1025.In fact most of the officers who contained violence

were harassed and four of them were transferred in the thick of riots despite, reportedly, DGP Mr. K. Chakravarti’s objection. They were not posted back despite specific directions by CEC in its order dated 16-08-2002.

1026.There are many specific instances of misconduct,

display of inadequate integrity and devotion to duty (as per rule-3 of AIS [conduct] rules and corresponding provisions in GCSR for state government officials), which had aggravated the agony and material loss of riot victims and unethically benefited those responsible for the 2002 communal blood bath. The competent authority had turned a Nelson’s Eye to those defaulters. These delinquencies include the following:

Illegal verbal instructions by A-1 as Home Minister and Chief Minister of Gujarat

1027.SIT could have systematically evaluated the Register

maintained by Mr. RB Sreekumar, instead (as dealt with in

detail above) it chose to deliberately trivialise it. Suggestions

464

had been made to the SIT by the complainant, co-petitioners and witnesses as to the steps that could be taken in this connection the letter dated 30.11.2010 by former DGP Mr. RB Sreekumar to the SIT is relevant. (Available in the SIT papers) Unfortunately the SIT has deliberately chosen to ignore these concrete suggestions that would have enabled an objective analysis. The SIT has shown an unhealthy faith in the version of those accused of serious mass crimes.

VHP’s Communal Record

1028.The SIB statistics provided to the SIT included data

on the number of RSS, VHP, BJP and Bajrang Dal cadres directly involved in crimes in 2002. The list is long, it has 106 items (See Annexure ). If the SIT had conducted an honest and independent investigation, it should have analysed what happened to those cases; did the police prosecute them or were they allowed to drop?

The SIT failed to interrogate this issue in a bid to protect accused.

Hate Speech and the SIT

1029.On 10.9.2002, the National Commission for Minorities

(NCM), sent a fax message to the Chief Secretary asking for a full text of inflammatory speeches against the Muslim community during the Gaurav Yatra (Pride Procession) led by A-1 Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi. A copy of this fax message was sent to Mr. RB Sreekumar, then ADGP (Int.), with a written order by the DGP for immediate compliance. In response, he had sent a general report on the Gaurav Yatra, including the gist of the speeches made by the CM in the yatra, to the DGP and Home Department on 12.9.2002. In this report, he had observed that the style of language used by the CM at Becharaji (Mehsana district) and Chanasma (Patan district) had wounded the feelings of the minority community and due to this reason there was a likelihood of intensification of communal tension. Soon he was called by A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti, the then DGP, and he was verbally instructed to avoid sending a report on the full text of the CM’s controversial speech at Becharaji and its audio cassette. He resisted these orders as it was against the charter of duties of the SIB. He also told the DGP that A-1 Mr. Narendra Modi was one of the persons whose

465

speeches were to be covered and recorded verbatim by the SIB as per existing orders and therefore once he received the material, he would sent the text and cassette to the DGP and Home Department. On the afternoon of 13.9.2002, A-25 Mr. Chakravarti, DGP, had sent another copy of the NCM fax message with a written instruction, in his own handwriting, as follows: ‘ACS Home told me on 11 th that we do not have to send any report in this regard. ADGP (Int.) be informed accordingly’. This order was totally in violation of Rule 461 of the Gujarat Police Manual (GPM), Vol. III, and other general instructions on SIB duties regarding communal situations and the supervisory responsibility of the ADGP (Intelligence). So ignoring this unethical and illegal written order of the DGP, he had sent the text of the above-mentioned speech by the CM at Becharaji in the Gujarati language along with an English translation as well as the audio cassette, on the evening of 16.9.2002. On the night of 17.9.2002 he was served with a transfer order, transferring him from the post of ADGP (Intelligence) to the post of ADGP (Police Reforms), an assignment without any charter of duties, where he continued up to the date of his superannuation on 28.2.2007. He was posted as in-charge of the SIB on or about 9.4.2002 and his transfer, effective from 17-18.9.2002, was in violation of the State Government resolution dated 29.06.2002, fixing a minimum tenure of 3 years for IPS officers posted in the SIB.

For issuing illegal orders to Mr. RB Sreekumar, ADGP (Int.), instructing him not to send the text of the CM’s controversial speech despite orders from a national body, NCM, A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti, DGP, and A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan, ACS Home, were responsible and for this delinquency, action should be taken against them under the All India Services (Conduct) rules.

Destruction of Records

1030.The story of the post-Gujarat carnage 2002

misgovernance and subversion of justice covers the meticulous and cynical destruction of vital records and evidence. This has been done wilfully by the Home Department under A-1 Mr. Modi, A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya, at the time MOS Home, A-34 Mr. K. Nityanandam, then Home Secretary, A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan, then ACS Home, and whoever else may have

466

been in charge when the acts actually happened. Masterminding the destruction is a serious charge that only A-1 Mr. Modi can answer to. Luckily for him, a complicit SIT has not bothered to investigate this aspect.

1031.Right through its investigation (read introductory

pages of the SIT reports dated 12.5.2010 and 8.2.2012) the SIT has listed the difficulties faced by it including specifically being denied access to records, or certain records having been destroyed. Should not the SIT have investigated this destruction, given the fact that destruction of evidence is a specific criminal offence especially when committed by public servants? The SIT has not done this.

1032. Despite repeated information coming before the SIT, the SIT wilfully ignored the realities and motivations behind this concealment and destruction of records. An example of this is provided below: Following the 15.3.2011 order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP 1088/2008, in the course of the SIT recording the statement of co-petitioner, Ms. Teesta Setalvad, she had requested that they specifically record the crucial fact of destruction of records and investigate the same. The SIT Investigating Officer (IO) Mr. AK Malhotra told Ms. Setalvad that this would not be necessary since, following the Hon’ble Supreme Court order, A-29 Mr. PC Pande, former CP, Ahmedabad, had suddenly produced CDs with 3,500 scanned pages of PCR (police control room) records that he had earlier claimed were destroyed. Shocked by this, Ms. Setalvad had through a letter indicated that such a concealment and then production were themselves offences under the law when committed by a public servant. The SIT however deliberately chose to ignore these criminal lapses. Incidentally, these were among the records that the SIT vociferous resisted from sharing with the Complainant. They contain hard documentary evidence of the Ahmedabad police wireless records themselves recording that 3,000 RSS workers, a crowd that swelled to 5-6,000 by afternoon, lay waiting from 4 a.m. onwards at the Sola Civil Hospital that this crowd had turned murderous, rioting and burning. These records also contain evidence of bloodthirsty speeches by VHP men on 27.2.2002 as they got off the train (coming from Godhra) at the Kalupur Railway Station. No wonder that A-29 Mr. PC Pande first wanted to conceal them and later produced them.

467

1033.Inexplicably, the SIT has not hauled him up for these

acts. They constitute offences under sections 175, 201, 203 and 204 of the Indian Penal Code. Refer specifically to Annexure III, File XV (D-156 ---of the SIT papers) which contains 45 pages on the issue of destruction of records. These documents establish the following: a) Page 21 of the file: as per statements recorded of those in charge of the control room, records were destroyed, which included crucial documents related to 2002, 2001-2004 and also 1991-2005. While the State Government is trying to make out that these are routine acts, it is imperative to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had been seized of cases related to active subversion on the basis of the reports of the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), Survivors and citizens’ rights groups since May 2002. Could then have the state Home Department directly under A-1 Mr. Modi destroyed them ‘in routine course’?

468

1034. If this destruction was routine, why was one such batch destroyed on 31.3.2008, just five days after the appointment of the SIT by the Hon‘ble Supreme Court on 26.03.2008? If this was destruction in the routine course, why did A-29 Mr. PC Pande seek to keep a copy even after his retirement from the force and suddenly produce them when things got awkward with the Hon‘ble Supreme Court expressing dissatisfaction with the investigation by the SIT on 15.3.2011 ? One set of letters/documents claims that the records were destroyed in 2007, another 2008. Why has the SIT deliberately not bothered to investigate? The fact of A-29 Mr. PC Pande suddenly producing them means that not all of the records were destroyed, some have been kept. Why? It is relevant here to refer to the specific statutory rules and obligations of public servants with relation to the preservation and destruction of records (Gujarat/Bombay Police Manual, Chapter 8, Rule 62). Under the circumstances, specifically it must be recalled that survivors and civil rights groups had petitioned the Hon‘ble Supreme Court on 2.5.2002 itself for a transfer of investigation away from the Gujarat police (Writ Petition-Criminal 37-52/2002, DN Pathak, Teesta Setalvad v/s State of Gujarat ) and hence the Government of Gujarat under A-1 Mr Modi was completely in the know and therefore the destruction of crucial records was not a routine but a malicious and wilful act.

Nepotism — Rewarding civil servants who played a dubious

role during the riots. Page 275 of the SIT report (8.2.2012).

1035. A close reading of the affidavits and statements of senior Government servants, including co-accused A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti, the then DGP, and A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan, the then ACS Home, clearly establishes that a spate of transfers that took place in March 2002 (especially of those officers who had resisted falling prey to the Conspiracy that was hatched by A-1 Mr. Modi) were done against the advice and suggestions of both A-25 Mr. Chakravarti and the Home Department. Which is to say that A-1 Mr. Modi overruled advice and was responsible for these. The officers involves din gross dereliction of duty and criminal offences under the law, incidentally, did not meet the same fate; they were treated with care and only transferred after Mr. KPS Gill, who had been sent by the Centre, recommended their transfer. Predictably, the statement of Mr. KPS Gill has not been recorded by the SIT. The

469

decision to transfer A-40 Mr. Deepak Swaroop, the then IGP, Vadodara Range, according to A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan (in his deposition), was taken by A-1 Mr. Modi. It is therefore more than reasonable to assume that all decisions on this issue were taken by A-1 Mr. Modi as head of the Home Department. A-28 Mr. Narayan also admits in this deposition that such large-scale transfers took place in March 2002: is it a coincidence that all these related to officers who may have had an independent functioning that mitigated against the Conspiracy? Mr. Rahul Sharma, the then SP, Bhavnagar, was thus transferred (27.3.2002) so was Mr. Vivek Srivastava, the then SP, Kutch. It is clear therefore that all these good officers who had maintained law and order and not allowed criminal organisations like the VHP to have a free run of the streets were all transferred as a mala fide action by A-1 Mr. Modi in 2002 itself. A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan is specific in his deposition yet the SIT has not drawn any adverse conclusions. He says that: ‘It is true that the Home Department had not made the proposal to transfer Shri Vivek Srivastava who was in Kutch and Rahul Sharma who was in Bhavnagar. It is true that after the issuance of transfer, the DGP had written a letter to the Government that some of the transfers be stopped. It is true that I had also made such suggestion. It is true that the Government had not accepted that suggestion. It is true that as per the information available with me, those two officers had performed well in their areas.’ Errant and criminally negligent officers like A-29 Mr PC Pande were transferred only after Mr. KPS Gill came to Ahmedabad. He was specially deputed by the Central Government. Despite repeated requests and suggestions made during the investigation, the SIT has deliberately not recorded the statement of Mr. KPS Gill either. Details of these transfers, as gleaned from the SIT papers (Annexure IV File VII (Sr No. 113) Page No. 2633-2735) and can be seen at Annexure .

Misleading Statutory Bodies — NHRC, CEC

1036. Misleading reports about normalcy in public order, the preparation of electoral rolls, the standard of rehabilitation of riot victims, were presented by the Home and Revenue departments before the full bench of the Central Election Commission (CEC) on 09.8.2002. The CEC pointed out this major default of officers in its order dated 16.8.2002 (see page Nos. 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 39, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 59 and 60 of the CEC Order).

470

1037. A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan and A-34 Mr. K. Nityanandam, IPS (1977), who made these evasive and misleading presentations on Law and Order, those in charge of the rehabilitation of riot victims particularly, SMF Bukhari, IAS (1982), and A-27 Mr. G. Subha Rao, former Chief Secretary, who made presentations on many aspects, are responsible for submitting scanty, defective, misleading and ambiguous inputs to the CEC. The observations against the State Government officials by the CEC, a Constitutional body, had exposed the intellectual dishonesty, slackness and insincerity to the Constitution of India of the above-mentioned officers. Suitable action is required to be taken against them.

Allegation No. XVIII Page 147 Misinforming/Misleading Statutory Bodies like the CEC, NHRC

1038. The SIT should have recorded the statements of the Chief Election Commissioner Mr. JM Lyngdoh and 2 other Commissioners to find out the sequence of discussions in this meeting held at Ahmedabad on 9.8.2002 by the Full Bench of the Central Election Commission. In this case also, the SIT had fully accepted the statements of the accused persons, viz. A-27 Mr. G. Subha Rao, A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan and A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti. Please note that the open order issued by the CEC on 16.8.2002 had fully supported the then ADGP (Int.) Mr. RB Sreekumar‘s assessment of the law and order situation in Gujarat and had rejected the version of the State Government. A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan in his statement to the SIT had objected to Mr. Sreekumar‘s act of contradicting the DGP and ACS (Home) in his presentation to the Chief Election Commission on 09.08.2002.

1039. Does this mean that he was against anybody speaking the truth? Should not the ADGP (Int.) give an accurate picture to a Constitutional authority, given the fact that the SIB messages and records show a build-up prior to 27.2.2002 – a build-up that the State Government ignored, hate speech as a tool of communal mobilisation, hate speech that is being deliberately not prosecuted, the illegal decision for open post-mortems, handing over bodies to a VHP rabble-rouser A- 21 Dr. Jaideep Patel, parading of these bodies in an illegal procession, etc?

471

1040. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) in its interim and final reports of 2002 as also their reports post 2002 have been critical of the Gujarat Government‘s handling of the situation and worse, responses to the Commission.The Petitioner craves leave to file a compilation of the Orders of the NHRC at the time of hearing of this Protest Petition.

1041. The SIT appears keen to ensure that senior officers become handmaidens of the criminal mechanisms of the Government rather than preserving the law and acting as bound to do by the Indian Constitution.

1042. The elections were held peacefully because the specific preconditions laid down by the Central Election Commission were complied with by the State Government. So the charge of the State Government giving misleading reports, as observed by the CEC, based on this presentation with specific ground-level details in the CEC-chaired meeting in Ahmedabad city on 9.8.2002, is fully established. How then could the subsequent holding of elections peacefully brush aside the charge of giving misleading reports to the CEC by the State Government earlier?

Manipulation of facts presented to the Central Election Commission (CEC) Page 270

1043. In this matter also, the SIT has blindly accepted the versions of accused persons. The SIT ignored the well-focused and graphic order by the Central Election Commission dated 16.8.2002 (SIT papers ) in which the Commission had accepted Mr. Sreekumar‘s assessment of the law and order situation and had directed the State Government to initiate measures as a precondition for holding the Assembly elections. The CEC had also refused to accept the time frame of the election schedule suggested by the State Government. Afterwards, on receipt of the compliance report by the Gujarat Government only, the CEC had announced the election schedule. It is also pertinent to note here that the Central Government led by the NDA had challenged the CEC order dated 16.8.2002 and had made a Presidential reference to the Hon‘ble Supreme Court which, however, gave a verdict in favour of the CEC. The Court had asserted that the CEC had full authority to fix the election schedule and the Court did not want to interfere in this matter.

472

1043. The SIT, true to its approach of not seeing anything adverse in the actions of the State Government, had ignored these facts which had fully vindicated Mr. Sreekumar‘s assessment of the situation and had concluded that the above allegation is not established. Interestingly, A- 28 Mr. Ashok Narayan stated that Mr. Sreekumar‘s entries in the Register, relating to the meeting convened by the Central Election Commission on 9.8.2002, "are broadly true".

Subversion of the Criminal Justice System Failure to Respond to Strictures by the Court

1044. The State Administration, particularly functionaries from the Chief Secretary downwards, are duty-bound to take a serious and responsible view on any observation by the Courts of all levels and thereafter initiate follow-up action in the form of departmental action against delinquent officers, besides taking corrective measures in tune with the Courts‘ views. Rule 271 and 272 of the GPM, Vol. III, have laid down action to be taken after scrutiny of judgements. Unfortunately, the Gujarat State authorities have not taken any action against any Government functionary so far, in pursuance to critical remarks in judgements of the higher courts.

1045. These judgements uncover a series of conscious, calculated and purposeful derelictions of duties and misconduct. The misdemeanours by officers were in flagrant violation of the supervisory and regulatory architecture designed in the GPM, Vol. III, Rules 24, 134, 135 and 240. Comments against the police in the Naroda Patiya judgement dated August 29, 2012 were also ignored by the Government. The officers in charge of the Home Department, Legal Department, General Administration Department (GAD), and the DGP, from the time of the 2004 judgement of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court indicting State Government officers in the Best Bakery case (Zahira Habibulla H. Sheikh & Anr v/s State of Gujarat & Ors), are liable for this major default intentionally committed for saving officers whose deviant ways and actions had evoked strictures from various Courts. A-1 Mr. Modi, A-2 Mr. Ashok Bhatt, A-5 Mr. Gordhan Zadaphiya are also directly responsible for this.

1046. The SIT has deliberately not scrutinised the repeated strictures passed by the Higher Courts and the implications of this systematic

473

subversion on Constitutional Governance.

Excerpts from the Judgement, 2004

1047. When the ghastly killings take place in the land of Mahatma Gandhi, it raised a very pertinent question as to whether some people have become so bankrupt in their ideology that they have deviated from everything which was so dear to him. When large number(s) of people including innocent and helpless children and women are killed in a diabolic manner, it brings disgrace to the entire society. Criminals have no religion. No religion teaches violence and cruelty-based religion is no religion at all, but a mere cloak to usurp power by fanning ill-feeling and playing on feelings aroused thereby. The golden thread passing through every religion is love and compassion. The fanatics who spread violence in the name of religion are worse than terrorists and more dangerous than an alien enemy." — From the Supreme Court Judgement in the Best Bakery case. Justices Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, 12.4.2004 ‘When a large number of witnesses have turned hostile it should have raised a reasonable suspicion that the witnesses were being threatened or coerced....

‘... Strangely, the relatives of the accused were examined as witnesses for the prosecution obviously with a view that their evidence could be used to help the accused persons.

‘... If the State‘s machinery fails to protect (a) citizen‘s life, liberties and property, and the investigation is conducted in a manner to help the accused persons, it is but appropriate that this Court should step in to prevent undue miscarriage of justice that is perpetrated upon the victims and their family members.

‘... Right from the inception of the judicial system it has been accepted that discovery, vindication and establishment of truth are the main purposes underlying (the) existence of Courts of Justice.

‘... If a criminal Court is to be an effective instrument in dispensing justice, the Presiding Judge must cease to be a spectator and a mere recording machine by becoming a participant in the trial.

‘... Failure to accord fair hearing either to the accused or the prosecution violates even minimum standards of due process of law. It is inherent in the concept of due process of law that condemnation should be rendered only after the trial in which

474

‘

the hearing is a real one, not sham or a mere farce and pretence.

‘... Time has come when serious and undiluted thoughts are to be bestowed for protecting witnesses so that ultimate truth is presented before the Court and justice triumphs and the trial is not reduced to mockery.

‘... Legislative measures to emphasise prohibition against tampering with witness, victim or informant have become the imminent and inevitable need of the day. Conducts which illegitimately affect the presentation of evidence in proceedings before the Courts have to be seriously and sternly dealt with.

‘...Witness Protection Programme(s) are imperative as well as imminent in the context of (the) alarming rate of somersaults by witnesses with ulterior motives and purely for personal gain or fear for security. It would be a welcome step if something (on) those lines (is) done in our country.

‘... The entire approach of the High Court suffers from serious infirmities, its conclusions lopsided, and lacks proper or judicious application of mind. Arbitrariness is found writ large on the approach as well as the conclusions arrived at in the judgement under challenge.

... When the ghastly killings take place in the land of Mahatma Gandhi, it raised a very pertinent question as to whether some people have become so bankrupt in their ideology that they have deviated from everything which was so dear to him.

‘... If one even cursorily glances through the records of the case, one gets a feeling that the justice delivery system was being taken for a ride and literally allowed to be abused, misused and mutilated by subterfuge. The investigation appears to be perfunctory and anything but impartial.

‘....The golden thread passing through every religion is love and compassion. The fanatics who spread violence in the name of religion are worse than terrorists and more dangerous than an alien enemy.

‘... It is no doubt true that the accused persons have been acquitted by the trial Court and the acquittal has been upheld, but if the acquittal is unmerited and based on tainted evidence, tailored investigation, unprincipled prosecutor and perfunctory trial and evidence of threatened/terrorised witnesses, it is no acquittal in the eye of law.

‘... The modern day ‘Neros’ were looking elsewhere when Best Bakery and innocent children and women were burning, and

475

‘

‘

were probably deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be saved or protected.

‘... The High Court appears to have miserably failed to maintain the required judicial balance and sobriety in making unwarranted references to personalities and their legitimate moves before the competent Courts – the highest Court of the nation, despite knowing fully well that it could not deal with such aspects or matters.

... We are satisfied that it is (a) fit and proper case, in the background of the nature of additional evidence sought to be adduced and the perfunctory manner of trial conducted on the basis of tainted investigation, a re-trial is a must and essentially called for in order to save and preserve the justice delivery system unsullied and unscathed by vested interests.’

‘... No person, however big he may assume or claim to be, should be allowed, irrespective of the position he may assume or claim to hold in public life, to either act in a manner or make speeches which would destroy secularism recognised by the Constitution of India.

‘... Communal harmony should not be made to suffer and be made dependent upon (the) will of an individual or a group of individuals, whatever be their religion, be it of minority or that of the majority.

‘... Religion cannot be mixed with secular activities of the State and fundamentalism of any kind cannot be permitted to masquerade as political philosophies to the detriment of a welfare State. Religion sans spiritual values may even be perilous and bring about chaos and anarchy all around.

The Charge Sheet in the Bilkis Bano Case

‘.....A-13 to A-18 (all policemen) started fabricating false

evidence and causing disappearance of evidence immediately

after Bilkis lodged an oral complaint giving the names of the

assailants and the details of the incident, with the intention of

causing disappearance of evidence to screen the offenders.

... The two doctors conducting post-mortem did not discharge their duties truthfully, sincerely and strictly in accordance with rules and procedure. By not collecting valuable pieces of evidence such as vaginal swabs, saliva, nail clippings and clothes of the deceased, A-19 and A-20 caused disappearance of evidence with the intention to screen the offenders.

476

1048. On 19.9.2003, during the hearing of the Best Bakery case, the Chief Justice of India examined A-25 Mr K. Chakravarti, DGP, in open court about the lapses by him (Annexed is the Order at ). This was a matter of serious note. The SIT has however simply ignored the serious strictures passed from time to time against A-1 Mr. Modi and his Government on the deliverance of justice related to 2002, as if they did not happen. This avoidance by the SIT was done with a view to protect powerful accused.

1049. A year later, in 2004, the Supreme Court again pulled up the Government of Gujarat under A-1 Mr. Modi for misleading the Court in respect of facts regarding easy and early bail sought and obtained by powerful accused. The petitioners in that case, Citizens for Justice and Peace, had pointed out that while in many cases bail had been refused by the Sessions Court to those accused of heinous crimes, in some, due to the active connivance of the State under A-1 Mr. Modi and the special public prosecutors (PPs) appointed by his Government, accused persons responsible for heinous crimes were even given anticipatory bail. Others were released within six-eight months by the High Court. When this was pointed out to the Hon‘ble Supreme Court, the Court had passed orders on this misleading conduct.

1050. Then again, as recently as 8.2.2012, on the very day that the SIT through Mr. Himanshu Shukla decided to file its final report, the Gujarat High Court had passed serious strictures on the partisan attitude of the Gujarat Government under A-1 Mr. Modi for not rebuilding over 250 religious places of worship that had been wilfully destroyed in 2002. The complainant craves leave to produce the judgement at the time of arguments.

1051. In September 2003, Justice VN Khare, the then Chief Justice of India, heading a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court, put the Narendra Modi Government in Gujarat in the dock and made scathing observations about the State Government and the way it was handling the riot cases. Justice Khare even advised it to follow the "raj dharma" or quit.

1051. Modi reacted sharply to this indictment and stated: "He can't distinguish between khare (just) and khote (unjust) but I would not like to make any statement against him." (Reference: “Justice Khare’s remarks irk Gujarat CM”, The Times of India; 4

477

May, 2004) In an interview on the eve of his retirement in 2004, Chief Justice Khare had said: “I found there was complete collusion between the accused and the prosecution in Gujarat, throwing rule of law to the winds. The Supreme Court had to step in to break the collusion to ensure protection to the victims and the witnesses.”

Partisan Role of Public Prosecutors Allegation No. XV

1052. In an early assessment of the ground-level situation, in the SIB report dated 24.4.2002 to the Government and DGP (this report was appended to Mr. RB Sreekumar‘s first and second affidavits), the undesirable, partisan role of public prosecutors (see para 7 of the report) had been pointed out. But no remedial measures were taken. The SIT should have examined the performance of PPs in respect of the important riot cases before the Supreme Court intervened, especially with relation to anticipatory bail, thorough prosecution and so on. Instead, while accepting that PPs were members of the organisations as charged, no adverse finding was made related to that fact.

1053. The Government of Gujarat under A-1 Mr. Modi has found another unique way of defending the indefensible actions of the accused collaborator organisations, VHP etc. Several of those defence counsel appearing for the accused in 2002-related cases are now being patronised by the State Government, through their appointment as special prosecutors in heavily paid, other criminal cases. This too is an aspect that needs further investigation.

Allegation in the complaint dated 8.6.2006

Rewards and Punishment

Policemen who behaved Legally and Constitutionally Punished

Policemen who Broke the Law and allowed Death and Destruction Rewarded

(i) The SIT report does record how compliant police officers were rewarded by Mr. Modi. It also records how upright police officers were punished instantly for doing their job, sending out a stark message.

(ii) Upright officers penalised

The upright officers who were penalised for performing their constitutional obligation include IPS officers Mr. Rahul Sharma,

478

Mr. Vivek Srivastava, Mr. Himanshu Bhatt and Mr. Satish Chandra Verma.

‘It is true that there were a few such transfers which were in fact questionable, especially because they came immediately after incidents in which the officers concerned had known to have antagonized ruling partymen Neither police officer would however admit he had been victimized’. (Pages 32-36 of the Preliminary Report, 12.5.2010 and page 8 of the chairman’s comments, 14.5.2010). (Is it any surprise given the fact that a highly vindictive government was in power?).

(iii) Guilty cops rewarded

1054. The SIT preliminary report admits to the allegation that police officers who allowed riots to fester were rewarded with lucrative postings. Mr. MK Tandon, who was the joint commissioner of police of Sector 2, Ahmedabad and in whose region more than 200 Muslims were butchered to death, was given the important posting of IG, Surat Range, soon after the riots. In July 2005, he was appointed to the post of ADGP (law & order) at the state police headquarters, a position with state-wide jurisdiction. Mr. Tandon retired from the same position. Mr. PB Gondia, deputy to Mr. Tandon, was DCP Zone IV at the time. He now enjoys the powerful post of inspector general of police of State CID. In addition to these police officers, there were other controversial bureaucrats who have remained in high government favour despite their black track-records. Among them are Mr. G Subha Rao (then chief secretary); Mr. Ashok Narayan (then ACS, Home); Dr. PK Mishra (then PS to Modi); Mr. PC Pande (then Ahmedabad CP); Mr. Deepak Swaroop (then IGP, Vadodara Range); Mr. K. Nityanandam (then secretary, Home); Mr. Rakesh Asthana (presently commissioner of police, Vadodara city) and Mr. DG Vanzara (now in jail for staging encounter killings).

(iv) The SIT notes that while conducting the trail of the Best Bakery case the additional sessions judge of Greater Bombay had made adverse comments and passed strictures against Mr. K. Kumaraswamy (then joint CP, Vadodara city) and Mr. Ramjibhai Pargi (then ACP, Vadodara city) for attempting to subvert justice.

479

1056. Allegation in the complaint dated 8.6.2006

Partisan prosecutors appointed

(i) One of the unique aspects of the Gujarat 2002 riots was the subversion of the post-violence justice process by the very government meant to protect life and punish the perpetrators. In a concerted bid to ensure that the guilty are not punished, the government of Gujarat‘s powerful functionaries appointed lawyers as public prosecutors who were from organizations who had called the Bandh and sponsored the post Godhra violence.

1057. SIT’s Contradictory Conclusions

(ii) ‘It appears that the political affiliation of the advocates did weigh with the government for the appointment of public prosecutors.’ (Page 77 of SIT Preliminary Report). The allegation is partly substantiated. (Page 238 of SIT Preliminary Report). Also, ‘It has been found that a few of the past appointees were in fact politically connected, either to the ruling party or organisations sympathetic to it.’ (Page 10 of Chairman’s comments). On page 157 of his preliminary report, Malhotra records that a pro-VHP advocate, Mr. Raghuvir Pandya, was appointed as government pleader in the Vadodara district and sessions court in 2002. Mr. Pandya conducted the trial of the infamous Best Bakery case which resulted in the acquittal of all the accused. Mr. Malhotra‘s remarks: ‘Supreme Court of India had passed serious strictures on the role played by Pandya in this trial which deserves to be brought to the notice of the Bar Association for suitable action as deemed fit.’ In his report Mr. Malhotra lists five more instances of VHP or RSS leaders being appointed as public prosecutors: ‘Political consideration and affiliation of the advocates weighed heavily with the government’ in these appointments. But he contradicts himself saying, ‘No specific allegation of professional misconduct on the part of any of the public prosecutors has come to light’. (Page 158 of the Preliminary Report, 12.5.2010).

(iii) This observation is despite the hasty anticipatory bail being granted to many of the accused in the Sardarpura and Odh cases with special public prosecutors not opposing it. This was a serious consideration that weighed with the Supreme Court when it ordered further investigation into the cases.

480

1058.SIT also found that Gujarat VHP general secretary

Mr. Dilip Trivedi was a public prosecutor in Mehsana district between April 2000 and December 2007, with more than a dozen public prosecutors working under him. Mehsana was among the worst riot affected areas. Two riot cases in Mehsana in particular — the Deepda Darwaza killings in Visnagar town and the Sardarpura massacre — were most horrific.

1059. During Tehelka magazine‘s sting investigation, ‘Operation Kalank‘, in a conversation with the undercover reporter, Mr. Trivedi had boasted about how he had camped in every district of Gujarat holding meetings with government prosecutors, VHP workers, police officers and defence advocates to ensure bail and acquittals for the Hindu accused. He had proudly told Tehelka that out of a total 74 riot-related cases in Mehsana, only two had resulted in conviction.

(iv) During the sting operation, special prosecutor Mr. Arvind Pandya, who had given a detailed account of the systematic subversion of justice by VHP and RSS-affiliated prosecutors across the state had also been exposed and was forced to quit as advocate for the government before the Nanavati Commission.

(v) The SIT has in fact found allegations against many of the other prosecutors to be true: Mr. Chetan Shah, a VHP member who, at one point, had faced trial under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) for the alleged killing of nine members of a Muslim family, was appointed as public prosecutor in June 2003 for a period of three years. (Page 156 of the Preliminary Report, dated 12.5.2010). Mr. HM Dhruv, who had defended Mr. Chetan Shah in the TADA case, was appointed as a special prosecutor in the Gulberg Society and Naroda Patiya cases.

1060. Mr. Piyush Gandhi, an ABVP and VHP leader, was appointed as public prosecutor in Panchmahal in March 1996 and he continued in the same post till 1 September 2009. Mr. Gandhi conducted the trial of several riot cases

481

including that of the Shabana-Suhang gang rape and murder case. (Pages 157-158 of the Preliminary Report, 12.5.2010).

1061. The SIT report was submitted before the Hon‘ble Supreme Court dated 12.5.2010 along with the depth and scale of violence that was consciously perpetrated on and from 27.2.2002. Between the various crimes and information of crime laid out in the first information by Mrs. Zakia Jafri dated 8.6.2006, there were allegations related to the deliberate conspiracy evolved before and after Godhra to prevent the police and administration from performing their duty. How could or how can any investigating agency assess whether –

(a) the decision to transport the bodies of the Godhra victims from Godhra to Ahmedabad was aimed at taking the violence beyond Godhra to different districts;

(b) meeting held at the Chief Minister‘s residence where unlawful instructions not to protect lives were issued;

(c) positioning of two ministers in the State police and city police control room and

(d) the subsequent subversion of public justice in terms of registration of doctored FIRs and poor investigation?

What would be the method of evaluating? Whether such crime as per the laid down practice in the first information provided by Mrs. Zakia Jafri were substantial or needed prosecution? The only way to assess the series of illegal acts named in the complaint dated 8.6.2006 were by the impact of such a conspiracy and illegal orders at the ground. The only manner in which an honest investigation could have arrived at an assessment of whether such a conspiracy took place or not could have been through evaluating the number of incidents; the spread of violence, the concerted attempts by the ruling party and organisations like the VHP and RSS to politically capitalise on the Godhra incident, with the help of hate speeches made; robustness and readiness of the police bandobast, the promptness of the fire brigade‘s response. All these would have been a measure whether such a conspiracy was in action.

1062. The SIT completely and utterly failed to do this either in its preliminary report to the Hon’ble Supreme Court or in its final

482

closure report dated 8.2.2012. The abject reluctance of the SIT to assess the impact of a political crime can be gauged from its failure to pursue or interpret the documentary evidence.

1063. Cases related to 2002

The State Government‘s non-seriousness in the pursuance of justice for the victims is evident from its contempt of the judicial process.No initiative appears to have been taken by the State Government to scrutinise the judgements in the riot cases from the level of Sessions Courts to the Apex Court. This is in violation of general instructions of the GAD and Rules 271 and 272 of the GPM, Vol. III. Secretaries in charge of the Legal, Home and GAD departments, and the DGP and his jurisdictional junior officers who were responsible for investigation of riot-related cases, about which strictures were passed, should be held responsible for this grave omission which could have a long-term impact on the interface between the Judiciary and the Executive wings of the Government. Moreover, a casual, cynical and unresponsive approach to the Courts‘ adverse observations about Government functions would affect the quality of professionalism in the police and the standard of justice delivery to the victims of crimes, besides the pitfall of police officers becoming apathetic to the Courts‘ remarks. The State Government functionaries should have become agile and proactive about observations by the Court since the days of the Apex Court judgement in the Best Bakery case (Zahira H. Sheikh v/s State of Gujarat) in April 2004. In this judgement, the Court had referred to the Gujarat State officials as ‘modern day ‘Neros‘‘. The star witness and her family who turned hostile did so after A-15 Mr. Madhu Srivastava was found to have lured/induced them (Supreme Court Registrar General BN Gupta‘s Inquiry report, August 2005 after which through an Order of the Hon‘ble Supreme Court dated 8.3.2006 an Income Tax Inquiry was ordered); A-10 Mr. Amit Shah a close conspirator of A-1 Mr. Modi was according to evidence led during the re-trial in Mumbai behind the bid to ensure they turn hostile and affect the prosecution‘s case, A-54 Mr. VM Parghi and A-40 Mr. Deepak Swaroop were severely criticised in the final judgement after re-trial dated February 2006, yet the SIT deliberately ignored these wilful subversions by the government of Gujarat under A-1 Mr. Modi. As serious, A-41 Mr. Sudhir Sinha gave, on behalf of the Gujarat state commando protection

483

to the star witness and her family after they turned hostile in November 2004 making a mockery of the delivery of public justice. The state government that is meant to be the custodian of the law and fundamental rights of every individual, rich or poor, woman or man, Dalit or Brahmin, Hindu or Muslim, has in the case of the 2002 related cases, been the instrument of illegalities and deliberate subversion of justice delivery.

1064. Yet the SIT finds nothing to investigate or interrogate at all.

The SIT should also have scrutinised the progress of other critical carnage cases where, with no backing from civil or legal rights groups, mass acquittals have taken place. Particularly, the Abasana case, and the Ghodasar Case (ICR No. 57/05 S.C. No. 222/02) where after the convictions by Judge CK Rane, recently the High Court has acquitted the accused, stating non-reliability of witnesses. In another serious case, the Eral case, bail has been granted in a case of serious crimes (S.C. No. 160/02 Chandrasinh Ramsinh & Others). Similarly, the SIT should have looked at the charges contained in the complaint and analysed them after co-relating them to what had happened in major cases. Kidiad (11/2002), Pandharwada (13/2002), Panchmahals, Sesan, Banaskantha (142/02), Anjanwa (142/2002, 55/03 and 256/03), Santrampur, Panchmahals, Ambika Society carnage case (189/03), Kalol. Only such a close scrutiny would have provided a proper assessment and analysis on this charge. The issue of Missing Bodies and the Government of Gujarat‘s attitude in helping victims of mass crimes to find them should also have been investigated.

Two Thousand Cases Allegation No. XXVIII Page 211

1065. Instead of fully accepting the self-justifying version of accused officers responsible for slack supervision, the SIT should have examined the case papers of 2,000-odd cases reinvestigated upon the Supreme Court order. The riot victims extensively complained that state police had intimidated complainants and witnesses, resulting in their turning hostile and thereupon the accused getting the benefit of exoneration from charges and prosecution. It is also learnt that as a precondition for rehabilitation and resettlement of riot victims to the status quo ante situation, they had to reverse and disown their complaints against the rioters. Mr. SS Khandwawala.

484

the then DGP, who had been favoured by the Government by posting him on promotion as DGP though he was convicted in a criminal case u/s 326 IPC, had done everything possible during his tenure as DGP, Gujarat, to help the accused persons figuring in the 2,000-odd reinvestigated cases.

1066. There was an inglorious instance of the police filing closure reports in 2,000-odd riot cases as undetected, by not issuing even statutory notice under the CrPC to complainants who registered the FIR. The Apex Court in August 2004 had ordered reinvestigation of all these cases. This is an instance of deliberate slack supervision of riot cases by officers from the rank of DySP to DGP. Unfortunately, the State Government through their chosen police officers had torpedoed the investigation of these 2,000-odd cases by pressurising the complainants and witnesses to go against their complaints and statements against the accused persons. This had been made a condition precedent on the riot victims for their rehabilitation and resettlement in pre-riot habitats and vocations. Consequently, 90% of such reinvestigated cases, reportedly, had ended in non-arrest of the accused or their acquittal.

1067. The Police officers in the upward supervisory ladder in the posts of SP, Range DIG/ IG and DGP also did nothing substantial to ensure proper investigation of riot cases, including the reinvestigated cases as per the Apex Court‘s orders, through the proper use of the system of perusal of case diaries and crime memos of such cases, periodical crime reviews and crime conferences, police station and SP offices inspection etc. All relevant jurisdictional officers from DySP to DGP should be made accountable for this delinquency of violating the laid down procedures and be dealt with suitably.

1068. The SIT did not care to study relevant case papers to decide as to whether the former DGP, A-26 Mr. AK Bhargava‘s claims about reinvestigation of 2,000-odd cases (as ordered by the Apex Court in 2004) were correct or not. The riot victims have consistently petitioned authorities saying that in practically all the cases, witnesses or complainants had turned hostile under intimidation, threat or inducement by police and the Sangh Parivar. Resultantly, all accused from Hindu antisocial groups could escape prosecution.

485

1069. If the SIT had conducted an honest investigation, the SIT would have noticed that practically all 2,000-odd cases reinvestigated upon the Apex Court‘s orders were subverted by making the complainants and witnesses hostile. Does not the SIT see that such developments have a pattern and that these are due to the failure of the Police hierarchy and Government in improving the quality of supervision over investigation of riot cases? Did SPs, Range officers, etc issue directions on case diaries of major cases to the Investigating Officers? Why has the SIT failed to detect slackness of Senior Officers in rectifying defects in the investigation of anti-minority crimes through the well-oiled procedural systems of Crime review meetings, periodical Crime conferences, scrutiny of case papers, etc?

1070. Significantly, throughout Gujarat, those who succeeded in maintaining law and order and had upheld the Rule of Law during the 2002 riots had acted according to the imperative efficacious strategy and the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) elaborated with sequential drills and exercises in the CrPC, the Bombay Police Act, the GPM, Vol. III, Chapter 2, secret circulars captioned ‘Communal Peace’, Government directives on implementation of the Justice Reddy (1969 riots) and Justice Dave (1985 riots) recommendations on duties of Police and Executive Magistracy during riots, pinpointed instructions in former DGP Mr. KV Joseph‘s order ‘Instructions to deal with Communal Riots (Strategy and Approach)’ dated 19.11.1997, periodically revised area-specific Communal Riot Schemes, etc.

1071. It is noticed that widespread mass violence against Muslims was noticed only in those areas where jurisdictional officers from the police and the executive magistracy had intentionally avoided adherence to the above-listed SOP, and acted in tune with the alleged covert scheme of political leadership in the State Government, for achieving Hindu communal mobilisation to get electoral dividends. This contention can be illustrated with facts and statistics of riot violence.

Allegation No. XVI Pages 145 to 147

1072. The SIT has simply accepted A-25 Mr. Chakravarti (the former DGP)‘s version about the State Government‘s follow-up action in implementation of remedial measures for improving the situation,

486

such as transfer of officers. The SIT has accepted the former DGP‘s statement without scrutinising relevant records. Why did the SIT not record the statement of Mr. KPS Gill on this point and on the material in the Register of Mr. RB Sreekumar relating to Mr. KPS Gill?

Not filing Affidavits before the Nanavati Commission Allegation No. XX Page 172

1073. A-26 Mr. AK Bhargava, the then DGP, claimed that he had not committed any dereliction of duty by not filing his Second Affidavit before the Commission as he had not submitted his First Affidavit. As ADGP (Crime), he was supervising investigations of riot cases and it was his responsibility to file an affidavit. But without checking up this aspect, the SIT had simply accepted Mr. Bhargava's statement. Further, the SIT had conveniently avoided questioning Mr. Bhargava about his orders dated 16.9.2004 and 21.9.2004 in which he ordered that all jurisdictional officers should file affidavits regarding the additional terms of reference of the Commission and also that incumbents of relevant posts should contact those who had filed First Affidavits and get their Second Affidavits filed before 30.9.2004. So he was also duty-bound to get his predecessor, A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti, to file a Second Affidavit, but Mr. AK Bhargava did nothing in this direction nor did he give any explanation to the SIT in this matter. So he violated his own instructions, and ignored administrative obligation, so as to favour the accused.

1074. A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti has said to the SIT that nobody asked him to file a Second Affidavit. Why did the SIT not question A-26, Mr. AK Bhargava in the context of A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti‘s statement? How can the SIT accept misleading and contradictory statements from both Mr. Bhargava and Mr. Chakravarti? The SIT did not act professionally in this matter. The SIT did not find anything illegal or improper in jurisdictional officers, in whose areas genocidal crimes had taken place, not filing a Second Affidavit on the additional terms of reference of the Commission i.e. on the role of the CM and others in the riots.

1075. Similarly, A-27 Mr. G. Subha Rao, the then Chief Secretary, the only link between the bureaucracy and the State Cabinet, did not file any affidavit. Strangely, the SIT did not get an explanation from Mr. Subha Rao in this connection.

487

1076. A-25 Mr. K. Chakravarti (then DGP, Gujarat), A-26 Mr. AK Bhargava (former DGP & IGP, Gujarat), A-29 Mr. PC Pande (then Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad), A-32 Mr. Kuldeep Sharma (then IGP, Ahmedabad Range), A-33 Mr. MK Tandon (then Joint Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad), A-35 Mr. Rakesh Asthana (then IGP, Vadodara Range), A-36, Mr. AK Sharma (then SP, Mehsana), and A-40, Mr. Deepak Swaroop (then IGP, Vadodara Range).

1077. These accused, being public servants, are duty-bound to reveal the truth to the Commission, a body appointed by the State Government. Practically no officer had filed Affidavits covering the Commission‘s additional terms of reference about the role of the Chief Minister, A-1 Mr. Modi, in the riots. As per instructions issued by the General Administration Department, the All India Services (AIS) (Conduct) Rules and the GCSR, Government servants are duty-bound to extend all assistance to Government-appointed Commissions of Inquiry. As per the first terms of reference to the Justice Nanavati Commission dated 6.03.2002 and the second dated 20.07.2004, the relevant Government servants should have submitted their Affidavits to the Commission. The Notifications by the Commission had also called for relevant materials in the form of Affidavits from all concerned. The then DGP Mr. K. Chakravarti, as per his orders dated 18.06.2002 and the then DGP Mr. AK Bhargava, as per his orders dated 16.09.2004 and 21.09.2004 directed all officers to file Affidavits to the Commission. Numerous officers, particularly those in charge of areas affected by ghastly violence, DMs and SPs and CPs (two Commissionerates and nine districts), reportedly did not file Affidavits covering the first and second terms of reference of the Commission as issued by the Government. Strangely, it is reported that no State Government officer had filed Affidavits regarding the second terms of reference dated 20.07.2004 which had tasked the Commission to probe into ‘the role and conduct of the Chief Minister, other Ministers, police officers, etc’. They had chosen the safe path of denying the Commission germane inputs and data on the riots. Moreover, section 6 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, provides blanket protection to all witnesses from any civil or criminal proceedings based on the statements made by them before the Commission.

488

1078. The most unpardonable delinquency, by failing to provide pertinent information to the Commission, was committed by the Chief Secretaries, Ms. Swarna Kanta Verma, IAS (1965) and A-27 Mr. G. Subha Rao, IAS (1965). It is a self-evident truth that the Chief Secretary, as head of bureaucracy, including the police, is the only bridge linking the state administration with the political leadership in the Government. How could the Commission finalise its report about the role of the CM and Ministers (as per the terms of reference), without information from the Chief Secretary, the only bureaucrat attending the State Cabinet meetings, and also from those in charge of the Legal department and departments of Home, Health, Transport, Revenue, Panchayat, etc. While the Home Department is directly responsible for policing, the Legal department is accountable for appointment of public prosecutors, giving legal opinions for proposals in initiating actions against media and publishers of objectionable materials, etc and the Health, Transport, Revenue, Panchayat, departments are tasked to do the needful for relief, reconciliation, rehabilitation and resettlement in a post-riot situation (the standard of relief and rehabilitation is part of the terms of reference dated 20.07.2004 issued to the Commission). Reportedly, relevant officers in charge of these departments did not file Affidavits before the Commission, particularly on the Terms of Reference dated 20.07.2004. All of these officers are delinquents in this matter.

1079. This was the reason why they were named as Accused in the complaint dated 8.6.2006; questioning them on grounds of transparency and violation of the provisions of the Commission of Inquiry Act is quite appropriate.

1080. The State Government officers whose action was criticised by the higher Judiciary, and national bodies like the NHRC, NCM, etc, is wrongly deemed by the SIT as proper and ideal. These accused had violated their oath to the Constitution of India. Does the SIT deem that they are models to be emulated by all Government servants?

Failure to Heed the reports of the Intelligence Bureau

1081. Numerous suggestions were made by the then ADGP (Intelligence) Mr. RB Sreekumar in his reports dated (1) 15.6.2002, (2) 20.8.2002

489

and (3) 28.8.2002 relating to law and order situations prevailing as an aftermath of the protracted riots. But no follow-up action was taken. For covering up this major criminal negligence of the authorities, the SIT had sought their clarification on the suggestions regarding cancellation of the Rath Yatra only and not on anti-minority prejudice at all.

1082. In para 112 of the SIT report, A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan had admitted that he was not aware of any follow-up action taken on Mr. Sreekumar‘s intelligence report dated 24.04.2002. But the SIT did not care to get relevant records from the Home Department or DGP to establish the truth in this matter. Strangely, the SIT did receive numerous petitions in the course of its investigation, of the Naroda Patiya and other cases, in which the riot victims complained about police not recording statements as were spoken by them. They also charged the police, saying that descriptions of accused given in their FIRs were not written properly. In short, their complaints have been ‘defectively noted and not noted as per their say’ (see para 3, sub para ii, page 269 and 270 of the Naroda Patiya judgement). This bias of the police was pointed out by Mr. Sreekumar in his 24.04.2002 report to the Government and DGP – see para iii, sub para 128. Though the Court accepted these complaints of the riot victims, why has the SIT ignored them?

1083. Strangely, in the concluding para by the SIT on Allegation No. VIII, the SIT arbitrarily reached the conclusion that ‘it cannot be said that no action had been taken on letter dated 24.4.2002, 15.6.2002, 20.8.2008 and 28.8.2002’. How could the SIT make such a baseless observation by simply depending on the statement of accused persons in the Complaint dated 8.6.2006?

1084. Why has the SIT religiously avoided scrutiny of relevant records of the Home Department, DGP‘s office and the office of the ADGP (Int.)? Even the Central IB sends periodical assessment reports about the state of law and order, the health of the criminal justice system, people‘s attitude and response to the Government, but the SIT avoided studying these. Moreover, the Home Department also sends reports to MHA in the relevant matters. Similarly the Governor also sends assessment reports. But being apprehensive about any incriminating material coming up in these important official documents -- IB reports, Home Departments' reports to the MHA and the Governor‘s report to the President of India against the

490

accused persons, the SIT had avoided their scrutiny. These reports would have definitely thrown light on the state of health of the CJS, and law and order situation and thereby the SIT could have really known the truth about the state or stage of implementation of Mr. Sreekumar‘s above-mentioned assessment reports. Strangely, the SIT did not scrutinise the minutes of law and order and crime review meetings convened by the Supts. of Police, Range DIGs, IGPs, DGPs, ADGP (Crime), etc – as these meetings are held as per the stipulations in the Gujarat Police Manual. Mr. Ashok Narayan‘s admission about the failure of the Government to take action on these crucial intelligence reports was ignored by the SIT. With regard to specific reasons narrated in the 24.4.2002 report on ‘extreme loss of faith in the State Administration’ of the Muslim Community (para III sub para 1 to 8, para IV to XI in the SIB report dated 24.4.2002), the SIT did not peruse the case diaries of important riot cases; interview riot victims in the worst riot-affected areas; interrogate the Investigating Officers (IOs) of these cases and their hierarchical seniors who were bound by Rules of the Gujarat Police Manual, Vol. III, to give day-to-day guidance to the IOs, as such an exercise would have confirmed that Mr. Sreekumar‘s assessment in his report was truthful and demolished the false claims of accused persons, particularly the DGP, Home Department officials, etc about taking action on my reports.

Why has the SIT failed to probe into reasons behind the

numerous strictures by the Higher Judiciary against the Gujarat

Police?

Allegation No. XXIX page 216

1085. In Mr. Sreekumar‘s Sixth Affidavit dated 3.09.2010, specific instances of nepotism practised in posting, transfers, etc were detailed. But the SIT ignored the data as any analysis of this would adversely affect the accused persons.

Intimidation of Officers to prevent them from telling the truth

1086. The Commission probing into the 2002 riots is a fact-finding body and not a trial Court hearing the prosecution side and defence in a criminal case. Since the Commission is tasked to comment on the conduct of the Chief Minister and bureaucrats during the riots as per the Terms of Reference dated 20.07.2004, no Government

491

official can come in the way of free flow of information to the Commission. So attempts by Government officials with or without the directions of the higher authorities to brief, tutor, cajole, direct, pressurise and intimidate a witness who was summoned by the Commission for cross-examination is a gross misconduct and an act of obstructing a public servant in discharge of his lawful functions and also his commitment to truth and integrity. This being the position in the perspective of substantial law and administrative procedural directives, the act of persuading and cajoling Mr. Sreekumar by Mr. Dinesh Kapadia, Under Secy., Home Department, (the supervisory department of all police officers), before his cross-examination by the Commission, was a clear case of misconduct. Mr. GC Murmu, Secy., Home Department, and Mr. Arvind Pandya, Government Pleader to the Commission, had jointly tutored, pressurised and intimidated him to speak in favour of the Government during his cross-examination before the Commission. The audio cassette of both interactions was submitted, along with verbatim versions to the Commission and the SIT, for necessary further investigations. In a confession to Mr. Sreekumar by A-28 Mr. Ashok Narayan, ACS Home, in August 2004, the anti-Muslim bias of the administration including judiciary is nicely portrayed. He i.e. Mr. Sreekumar had presented this audio recording to the Commission. The relevant conversation runs thus: ‘Ashok Narayan – ‘Now I am telling you the environment at that time. All the vakeels on VHP side. All judges, many of the judges, were also on VHP side, right. Doctors also did not treat patients because they were Muslims. In that situation, what can be done? Tell me. Bail applications neglected. What can we (Home Department) stay on? What can we say? The entire society is like that. PP again... discussion held with Law Minister.’ (Audio recording of the conversation is also available).

1087. In fact, the above picture presented by Mr. Ashok Narayan is almost like an extrajudicial admission which would totally falsify the claims of the Government and Home Department about their effective implementation of the SOP. Yet the SIT has chosen to vilify Mr. Sreekumar and disregard this evidence.

1088. The delinquent officers responsible for numerous defaults as narrated above cannot take the defence for their numerous omissions and commissions, that they had used discretion and followed the principal of subjective satisfaction in following the SOP

492

regarding their alleged deviant actions because all such actions had facilitated, promoted, aided and abetted anti-minority violence and enabled the rioters to carry out an anti-minority pogrom in Gujarat. The question as to why the officers who enforced the SOP and maintained public order effectively in two commissionerates and seventeen police districts did not use their discretion in favour of anti-minority brigands remains unanswered.

1089. Justification of defaults on the ground of verbal orders from higher authorities are also unconvincing because, as per conduct rules, the officers have to get written orders confirming verbal instructions before carrying out actions beyond their authority and jurisdiction as per AIS rules.

Allegation No. XXI

1090. SIT avoided any probe about non-compliance of Gujarat Police Manual Vol III instructions and other regulations, as mentioned in para 94 of Mr. RB Sreekumar’s Fourth Affidavit (At ). SIT took shelter behind the lame excuse that the allegations are vague and general. SIT ignored numerous strictures by the Courts including the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on faulty investigations by Gujarat Police. The very reason for appointment of SIT was to overcome this malady. Without checking up the relevant case papers, documents and getting response from the complainants of anti-minority crimes, how could SIT brush aside Mr. Sreekumar’s reports on lacunae in investigation?

1091. Over 90% of riot cases were in the category of grave crimes - called „visitable offences’ in Gujarat - whose investigation had to be personally supervised by officers of the rank of DySP and above. These supervisory visiting officers submitted Crime memos narrating the role played by them in the investigation. Why did the SIT fail to scrutinize the Crime Memos and record statements of a cross section of supervisory officers?

(a) The belligerence of Hindu mobs in Ahmedabad city against the Muslims and depth of cruelty on the victims was of very high voltage in comparison to other cities. Is it coincidental that several Commissioners of other cities and district Superintendents of Police, who did not attend the meeting convened by the CM on 27/2/2002, acted firmly and did not give total freedom to rioters as they were allowed in Ahmedabad city.

493

(b) Buckling under the pressure of the A-1 Mr. Modi, A-29 CP Ahmedabad city, Mr. PC Pandey did not implement the Communal Riots Scheme, did not take action as per rules of Gujarat Police Manual (booklet on communal riot action-strategy by former DGP Mr. KV Joseph and numerous government regulations. In contrast in Surat city, on account of effective action against attacking Hindu mobs (in police action 11 persons injured – 10 Hindus and 1 Muslims) and death in rioting was only 7, while in Ahmedabad city 114 people died in police firing (36 Hindus and 78 Muslims) and in rioting 326 died (75 Hindus and 251 Muslims). It is important to recall that during the post Babri Masjid demolition riots in 1992-93 nearly 300 people were killed in Surat city. In its eagerness to save the accused persons from any blame SIT had not bothered to analyse the statistics of riots in the whole Gujarat State dispassionately and draw the right conclusions.

(c) In Ahmedabad City, on the Bandh day of 28.2.2002, being enthused by the friendly and collaborative stance of police, the anti-Muslim mobs had shouted slogans like ‘Yeh Andhar Ki Bath Hai. Police Hamare Sath Hai”. (“It is internal matter, police is with us”).

(d) As testified in the letters by A-29 Mr. PC Pandey (2 letters to DGP by him appended in the Affidavit by ADGP, Mr. J. Mahapatra to the Commission) though the police knew about culpable actions by VHP and the State Minister Mr. Bharat Barot in instigating crowds to attack Muslims, no action was taken by Ahmedabad city police against the violent mobs and the instigators.

1092.Note:

1.Mr. Satish Verma has been erroneously listed in the Complaint as Accused No. 45 and 63. Mr. Rahul Sharma too has been erroneously somewhere mentioned at Accused. Both are Witnesses.

“Smt. Zakia Nasim Jafri, Complainant and Ms. Teesta Setalvad, Co-complainants have stated that they are witnesses and have been inadvertently listed as accused persons. “ (Malhotra Report dated 12.5.2012) 2. A-2 Mr Ashok Bhatt and A-23 Professor KK Shastri, both deceased so though the roles they played is elaborated they are not in the list below. The numbers of the rest remain as they are in the complaint.

494

Hence, in conclusion, barring Accused-45 (wrongly listed) and Accused 63 (also wrongly listed as stated above), the Petitioner wishes to provide a comprehensive List of the Accused from the Complaint/FIR dated 8.6.2006 who in her opinion after the evidence collected in investigation there is enough to proceed against. The following accused need to be arraigned and charged on the FIR dated 8.6.2006 and the Final Report dated 8.2.2012 rejected in toto:

1.Mr. Narendra D. Modi as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Section 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC;

3. Section 119, IPC;4. Section 166, IPC,

5. Section 167, IPC6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC8. 177 IPC9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC

15. Section 195A, IPC16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217

23. 295 I PC, 295 A. I PC 24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (I PC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

3.Mr. IK Jadeja as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Section 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC8. 177 IPC9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC11. Section 188, IPC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC

15. Section 195A, IPC16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217

23. 295 I PC, 295 A. I PC 24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

4.Mr. Prabhat Sinh Chauhan as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Section120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC8. 177 IPC9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC11. Section 188, IPC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC

15. Section 195A, IPC16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217

23. 295 I PC, 295 A. I PC 24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

5.Mr. Gordhan Zadaphia as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Section 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC8. 177 IPC`9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC11. Section 188, IPC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC

15. Section 195A, IPC16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217

23. 295 I PC, 295 A. I PC 24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

495

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

6.Mr. Ranjit Singh N. Chawda as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Section 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC8. 177 IPC9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC11. Section 188, IPC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC

15. Section 195A, IPC16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217

23. 295 I PC, 295 A. I PC 24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

7.Mr. Kaushik Kumar J. Patel as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Section 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 166 — IPC

4. Section 167, IPC5. Section 176, IPC 6. 177 IPC 7. Section 179, IPC

8. Section 182, IPC; 186 IPC; 187 IPC9. Section 188, IPC

10. Section 191, IPC11. Section 192, IPC12. Section 193, IPC

13. Section 195A, IPC14. Section 196, IPC15. 199 IPC

16. Section 200, IPC17. Section 201, IPC18. 203 I PC

19. Section 204, IPC20. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 21.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC22. 298 I PC 23. 153 A (IPC)24. 506 I PC

25. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

8.Mr. CD Patel as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Section 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC8. 177 IPC9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC11. Section 188, IPC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC

15. Section 195A, IPC16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217

23. 295 I PC, 295 A. I PC 24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

9.Mr. Niteenbhai R. Patel as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Section 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC

15. Section 195A, IPC16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

10.Mr. Amitbhai A. Shah as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC8. 177 IPC9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC11. Section 188, IPC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC

15. Section 195A, IPC16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

11.Mr. Anil T. Patel as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

496

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC8. 177 IPC9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC11. Section 188, IPC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC

15. Section 195A, IPC16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

12.Mr. Narayan L Patel as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC8. 177 IPC9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC11. Section 188, IPC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC

15. Section 195A, IPC16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217

23. 295 I PC, 295 A. I PC 24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

13.Mr. Kalubhai Hirabhai Maliwad as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC8. 177 IPC9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC11. Section 188, IPC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC

15. Section 195A, IPC16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

14.Mr. Dilipbhai Manubhai Patel as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

15.Mr. Madhubhai B. Srivastava as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

16. Dr. Maya Kodnani as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

497

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

17.Mr. Nitin Kantibhai Patel as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

18.Mr. Rajendra Singh Patel as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

19.Dr. K. J. Mehta as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 166 — IPC

4. Section 167, IPC 5. Section 176, IPC 6. 177 IPC 7. Section 179, IPC

8. Section 182, IPC; 186 IPC; 187 IPC 9. Section 188, IPC

10. Section 191, IPC11. Section 192, IPC12. Section 193, IPC

13. Section 195A, IPC14. Section 196, IPC15. 199 IPC

16. Section 200, IPC17. Section 201, IPC18. 203 I PC

19. Section 204, IPC20. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 21.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC22. 298 I PC 23. 153 A (IPC)24. 506 I PC

25. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

20. Dr. Praveen Togadia as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 166 — IPC

4. Section 167, IPC 5. Section 176, IPC 6. 177 IPC 7. Section 179, IPC

8. Section 182, IPC; 186 IPC; 187 IPC 9. Section 188, IPC

10. Section 191, IPC11. Section 192, IPC12. Section 193, IPC

13. Section 195A, IPC14. Section 196, IPC15. 199 IPC

16. Section 200, IPC17. Section 201, IPC18. 203 I PC

19. Section 204, IPC20. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 21.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC22. 298 I PC 23. 153 A (IPC)24. 506 I PC

25. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

21.Dr. Jaideep Patel as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 166 – IPC 4. Section 167, IPC 5. Section 176, IPC 6. 177 IPC 7. Section 179, IPC

8. Section 182, IPC; 186 IPC; 187 IPC 9. Section 188, IPC

10. Section 191, IPC11. Section 192, IPC12. Section 193, IPC

13. Section 195A, IPC14. Section 196, IPC15. 199 IPC

16. Section 200, IPC17. Section 201, IPC18. 203 I PC

498

19. Section 204, IPC20. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 21.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC22. 298 I PC 23. 153 A (IPC)24. 506 I PC

25. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

22.Mr. Babu Bajrangi Patel as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 166 – IPC

4. Section 167, IPC 5. Section 176, IPC 6. 177 IPC 7. Section 179, IPC 8. Section 182, IPC; 186 IPC; 187 IPC 9. Section 188, IPC

10. Section 191, IPC11. Section 192, IPC12. Section 193, IPC

13. Section 195A, IPC14. Section 196, IPC15. 199 IPC

16. Section 200, IPC17. Section 201, IPC18. 203 I PC

19. Section 204, IPC20. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 21.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC22. 298 I PC 23. 153 A (IPC)24. 506 I PC

25. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

24.Mr. Balubhai Rajput as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

25.Mr. K. Chakravarti as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

28. Sec. 129, Sec. 144 CRPC29. Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

30. GPM vol-III, Chapter II, Chapter III, Chapter IV

31. DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots - strategy of approach) – 199732. All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

33. Section 166 IPC 34. Communal Riot Scheme

35. Article 51A of the Constitution of India.

36. Recommendations of Justice Reddy (1969 riots) and Justice Dave (1984 – 85 riots).37. Rule 59 (9) GPM – Vol III38. Press Council Act – 1965

39. Prevention of Objectionable Matter Act – 1976

40. Circular Bunch – Communal Peace

41. All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

42. CRPC provisions particularly sections 36, 129, 131, 144 and 154.

43. Indian Police Act – 1861

44. Directions in chapters I to VI of GPM volume III. 45. Section 186 IPC

46. Rules of Business framed by the Governor

47. Notification of allotment of portfolios by the Governor

48. All India Service Rules 49. General instructions form GAD

50. All India Service Rules51. GCSR

52. Govt. notification regarding Constitution of the Commission and Terms of Reference.

53. The Commission‘s notification calling for data relevant to Terms of Reference

54. Govt. instructions to implement orders of the High Court and the Apex Court.

55. Section 188 IPC

56. General instructions of GAD about maintenance of records

499

57. Manual of Office Procedure 58. Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

59. General instructions of GAD about maintenance of records

60. Govt. orders regarding providing information to NCM and other national bodies.

26. Mr. AK Bhargava the then DGP as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

28.Sec. 129, Sec. 144 CRPC 29. Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

30. GPM vol-III, Chapter II, Chapter III, Chapter IV

31. DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots - strategy of approach) – 199732. All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

33. Section 166 IPC 34. Communal Riot Scheme

35. Article 51A of the Constitution of India.

36. Recommendations of Justice Reddy (1969 riots) and Justice Dave (1984 – 85 riots).37. Rule 59 (9) GPM – Vol III38. Press Council Act – 1965

39. Prevention of Objectionable Matter Act – 1976

40. Circular Bunch – Communal Peace

41. All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

42. CRPC provisions particularly sections 36, 129, 131, 144 and 154.

43. Indian Police Act – 1861

44. Directions in chapters I to VI of GPM volume III.

27. Mr. G. Subha Rao as then Chief Secretary as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

28. General instructions form GAD29. All India Service Rules

30. GCSR 31. Govt. notification regarding Constitution of the Commission and Terms of Reference.

32. The Commission‘s notification calling for data relevant to Terms of Reference

33. Govt. instructions about taking care and cautions in preparation/ presentation of data to the Constitutional bodies like CEC

34. Instructions of Revenue Dept. about relief and rehabilitation.

35. Directives of CEC about preparation of reports and revision of electoral roles

36. Article 51A of the Constitution of India

37. General instructions of GAD about maintenance of records

38. Manual of Office Procedure 39. Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

28. Mr. Ashok Narayanan as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

500

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

28.Sec. 129, Sec. 144 CRPC 29. Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

30. GPM vol-III, Chapter II, Chapter III, Chapter IV

31. DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots - strategy of approach) – 1997

32. All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

33. Section 166 IPC

34. Communal Riot Scheme

35. Article 51A of the Constitution of India.

36. Recommendations of Justice Reddy (1969 riots) and Justice Dave (1984 – 85 riots).

37. Rule 59 (9) GPM – Vol III38. Press Council Act – 1965

39. Prevention of Objectionable Matter Act – 1976

40. Circular Bunch – Communal Peace

41. All India Service (AIS) conduct rules 42. General instructions form GAD 43. All India Service Rules44. GCSR

45. Govt. notification regarding Constitution of the Commission and Terms of Reference.

46. The Commission‘s notification calling for data relevant to Terms of Reference

47. Govt. instructions to implement orders of the High Court and the Apex Court

48. Section 188 IPC

49. General instructions of GAD about maintenance of records

50. Manual of Office Procedure 51. Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

52. Article 51A of the Constitution of India

53. Govt. instructions about taking care and cautions in preparation/ presentation of data to the Constitutional bodies like CEC.

54. Instructions of Revenue Dept. about relief and rehabilitation.

55. Directives of CEC about preparation of reports and revision of electoral roles

56. Govt. orders regarding providing information to NCM and other national bodies.

29.Mr. P. C. Pande as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

28. Sec. 129, Sec. 144 CRPC29. Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

30. GPM vol-III, Chapter II, Chapter III, Chapter IV

31. DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots - strategy of approach) – 199732. All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

33. Section 166 IPC 34. Communal Riot Scheme

35. Article 51A of the Constitution of India.

36. Recommendations of Justice Reddy (1969 riots) and Justice Dave (1984 – 85 riots).37. Rule 59 (9) GPM – Vol III38. Press Council Act – 1965

39. Prevention of Objectionable Matter Act – 1976

40. Circular Bunch – Communal Peace

41. All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

42. CRPC provisions particularly sections 36, 129, 131, 144 and 154.

43. Indian Police Act – 1861

44. Directions in chapters I to VI of GPM volume III45. Section 186 IPC

46. Rules of Business framed by the Governor

47. Notification of allotment of portfolios by the Governor

48. All India Service Rules

501

30.Mr. K. Srinivas as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC 5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC 7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

31.Dr. P. K. Mishra as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (I PC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

28. General instructions of GAD about maintenance of records

29. All India Service Rules30. GCSR

31. Manual of Office Procedure 32. Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’ 33. Article 51A of the Constitution of India

32. Mr. Kuldeep Sharma as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

33. Mr. M. K. Tandon as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC 5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC 7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 IPC, 295 A. IPC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

34Mr. K. Nityanandam as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

502

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

28. Govt. instructions about taking care and cautions in preparation/ presentation of data to the Constitutional bodies like CEC

29. All India Service Rules 30. GCSR

31. Instructions of Revenue Dept. about relief and rehabilitation.

32. Directives of CEC about preparation of reports and revision of electoral roles

33. Article 51A of the Constitution of India

35. Mr. Rakesh Asthana as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

36. Mr. A. K. Sharma as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

37. Mr. G. C. Murmu as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

28. Instructions of GAD to assist Govt. appointed Commissions.

29. Govt. notification regarding Constitution of the Commission.

30. Notification of the Commission calling for relevant data.

31. All India Service Rules32. Article 51A of the Constitution of India

33. The Advocates Act

38. Mr. Shivanand Jha as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

39.Mr. D. H. Brahmbhatt as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

503

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

40. Mr. Deepak Swaroop as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

41.Mr. Sudhir Sinha as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

42. Mr. K. Kumarswamy as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

43.Mr. B.S. Jabaliya as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

44. Mr. D. G. Vanzara as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

504

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

45.

46. Mr. Raju Bhargava as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

28. Rule 223 of GPM Vol-329. DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to

deal with communal riots – strategy of approach) – 1997

30. All India Service (AIS) conduct rules

31. Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

47. Mr. Anju Sharma as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

48.Mr. D. D. Tuteja as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

7. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

49. Mr. Bhagyesh Jha as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

505

50.Mr. Niraj Solanki as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 - IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

51.Mr. Amrutlal as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 - IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

52. Mr. Upendra Singh as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 - IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

53.Mr. P. N. Patel as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 - IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

54.Mr. V. M. Pargi as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 - IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

55.Mr. K. G. Erda as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

506

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

56. Mr. K. K. Mysorewala as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 — IPC 5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC 7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

57.Mr. M. T. Rana as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

58. Mr. Tarun Barot as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

59. Mr. Narendra Amin as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 — IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

60.Mr. G. C. Raiger as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

507

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

28. Sec. 129, Sec. 144 CRPC29. Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

30. GPM vol-III, Chapter II, Chapter III, Chapter IV.

31. DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots – strategy of approach) – 199732. All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

33. Section 166 IPC 34. Communal Riot Scheme

35. Article 51A of the Constitution of India.

36. Recommendations of Justice Reddy (1969 riots) and Justice Dave (1984 – 85 riots).37. General instructions form GAD38. All India Service Rules

39. GCSR

40. Govt. notification regarding Constitution of the Commission and Terms of Reference.

41. The Commission‘s notification calling for data relevant to Terms of Reference

61.Mr. K. R. Kaushik as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec.120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC

4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

28. CRPC provisions particularly sections 36, 129, 131, 144 and 154.

29. Indian Police Act – 1861

30. Directions in chapters I to VI of GPM volume III.

31. Circular Bunch – Communal Peace 32. DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots - strategy of approach) – 1997 33. All India Service (AIS) conduct rules 34. Article 51A of the Constitution

62. Mr. Amitabh Pathak as in FIR dated 8.6.2006

1. Sec. 120 B, 114 r/w 302 IPC 2. Section 116, IPC 3. Section 119, IPC 4. Section 166 – IPC5. Section 167, IPC 6. Section 175, IPC

7. Section 176, IPC 8. 177 IPC 9. Section 179, IPC

10. Section 182, I PC; 186 I PC; 187 I PC 11. Section 188, I PC

12. Section 191, IPC13. Section 192, IPC14. Section 193, IPC 15.

Section 195A, IPC 16. Section 196, IPC17. 199 IPC

18. Section 200, IPC19. Section 201, IPC20. 203 I PC

21. Section 204, IPC22. 217/218 of the Indian Penal Code Section 217 23.

295 I PC, 295 A. I PC24. 298 I PC 25. 153 A (IPC)26. 506 IPC

27. Section 3 of the prevention of damage to public property Act 1984

1093. New Accused to be arraigned for several offences outlined within the entire Protest Petition based on available evidence and further investigation. Evidence of the involvement of others, too may come in through the further investigation, therefore it

508

may be stated that this list is not exhaustive. Specifically for those public servants who specifically failed their calling the issues would include:

A. Inaction on specific intelligence assessment reports for countering subversion of Criminal Justice system (CJS) dated to Home department and DGP, submitted by the State Intelligence Branch (SIB).

1) 24-04-2002

2) 15-06-2002

3) 20-08-2002

4) 28-08-2002 1. Principal Secretary Home — Mr. K. C. Kapoor, IAS (1973)

(i)Sec. 129, Sec. 144 CRPC, Section 166 IPC

(ii)Article 51A of the Constitution of India

(iii)Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

(iv)GPM Vol-III, Chapter II, Chapter III, Chapter IV.

(v)DGP Mr. KV Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots - strategy of approach) – 1997

(vi)All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

(vii) Communal Riot Scheme & Recommendations of Justice Reddy (1969 riots) and Justice Dave (1984 – 85 riots).

B. Failure to take action on publishers and distributors of communally inciting material and media reports.

1. Principal Secretary Home – Mr. K. C. Kapoor, IAS (1973).

2. Principal Sec. Home – Mr. Balwant Singh

3. The Sec. Legal Dept., Mrs. Bela Trivedi and her successors.

(i) Article 51A of the Constitution of India

(ii) Press Council Act – 1965

(iii) Article 51A of the Constitution of India

(iv) Prevention of Objectionable Matter Act – 1976

(v) Circular Bunch – Communal Peace

(vi) DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots - strategy of approach) – 1997

(vii) All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

C. Numerous strictures in Naroda Patia massacre judgment dated 31-08-2010 about unprofessional investigation and betraying bias against riot victims.

1. DGP Mr. S. S. Khandwawala IPS (1973)

They were DGPs till SIT took over investigation of Naroda Patia case in April 2008.

509

2. Officers who supervised Naroda Patia massacre investigation in the ranks of Inspector to DIG to IGP.

(i) CRPC provisions particularly sections 36, 129, 131, 144 and 154.

(ii) Indian Police Act – 1861

(iii) Directions in chapters I to VI of GPM volume III.

(iv) Circular Bunch – Communal Peace

(v) DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots - strategy of approach) – 1997

(vi) All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

(vii) Article 51A of the Constitution of India

(viii) GCSR

(ix) System of review of case papers, and periodical conferences and inspections

Rule 272 and 271 of GPM Vol-III.

D. Numerous general and specific critical observations against dereliction of duty by Govt. functionaries by the sessions Court to the Apex Court who had dealt with riot related cases (see para 9 of this representation).

1. Secretaries in-charge of General Administration Department (GAD) and Legal and Home Depts.

2. DGs P from 27-02-2002 onwards.

3. Jurisdictional Officers junior to DGP who supervised the investigation of riot cases about which adverse observations were made by the Courts.

(i) Instructions issued by GAD to Govt. officials to comply with Court‘s instruction.

(ii) Rule 271 and 272, GPM Vol-III

(iii) Numerous acts of omission and commission by police officers and Executive Magistrate in nine districts and Commissioners of Police of Ahmedabad city and Vadodara city – these eleven places out of 30 police units in the state had recorded high voltage violence – which resulted in promotion and facilitation of anti-Muslim violence and abetment to violence.

E. SPs and District Magistrates of nine districts i) Godhra district (93), ii) Western Railway (64), iii) Mehsana (61), iv) Ahmedabad Rural District (33), v) Sabarkantha (32), vi) Kheda (31), vii) Dahod (24), viii) Banaskantha (20) and ix) Anand (15) and CP Ahmedabad city (326) and CP Vadodara city (36).

(i)Range police officers of i) Vadodara range (125), ii) Gandhinagar (97), iii) Ahmedabad Rural (79), iv) Western Railway (64), and v) Border (24)

(ii)Sec. 129, Sec. 144 CRPC

(iii)Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

(iv)GPM vol-III, Chapter II, Chapter III, Chapter IV.

(v)DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots – strategy of approach) – 1997

(vi)All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

510

(vii)Section 166 IPC

(viii) Communal Riot Scheme.

(ix)Article 51A of the Constitution of India.

(x)Recommendations of Justice Reddy (1969 riots) and Justice Dave (1984 – 85

riots).

F. Entrusting dead bodies of 54 Hindus killed in Godhra train fire incident to VHP leaders, while Govt. officials could have taken the bodies to the relatives.

(i) District Magistrate Godhra, Smt. Jayanti Ravi IAS (1991)

(ii)Rule 223 of GPM Vol-3

(iii) DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots – strategy of approach) – 1997

(iv) All India Service (AIS) conduct rules.

(v) Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

G. Non-submission of affidavits regarding 1st and 2nd Terms of Reference to the Commission dated.

1. 06-03-2002

20-07-2002

1. The Chief Sec. Ms. Swarana Kant Verma.

2. ADGP Law and Order, Maniram

3. CPs of Ahmedabad city and Vadodara city and DMs and SPs of nine violence affected districts as indicated in para-28 above.

(i) General instructions form GAD

(ii) All India Service Rules

(iii) GCSR

(iv) Govt. notification regarding Constitution of the Commission and Terms of Reference.

(v) The Commission‘s notification calling for data relevant to Terms of Reference

H. No action to inform or implement, Hon‘ Kerala High Court Orders banning observance of bandh and disruption of normal public life.

1. Chief Secy. Ms. Swarna Kant Verma

2. Sec. Legal Dept. Smt. Bela Trivedi

(i) Govt. instructions to implement orders of the High Court and the Apex Court.

(ii) All India Service Rules

(iii) GCSR

(iv)Section 188 IPC

511

I Appointment of pro-Sangh Parivar advocates and even office bearers of VHP as Public Prosecutors to present cases against Hindu accused.

1. Sec Legal Dept. Smt. Bela Trivedi.

2. Collectors who recommended appointment of pro-Sangh Parivar advocates as Public Prosecutors

(i)Govt. instructions to implement orders of the High Court and the Apex Court.

(ii)All India Service Rules

(iii)GCSR

(iv)Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

(v)Article 51A of the Constitution of India

J Presentation of misleading reports before CEC on 09-08-2002 about Law and Order situation and rehabilitation

1. Sec. Revenue Dept.

2. Relief and rehabilitation in-charge of State Govt. Shri. S.M. F. Bukhari IAS (1982)

(i) Govt. instructions about taking care and cautions in preparation/ presentation of data to the Constitutional bodies like CEC.

(ii) All India Service Rules

(iii) GCSR

(iv) Instructions of Revenue Dept. about relief and rehabilitation.

(v) Directives of CEC about preparation of reports and revision of electoral roles

(vi) Article 51A of the Constitution of India

K Deliberately avoiding maintenance of minutes of Law and Order review meetings chaired by the CM, other Ministers, the Chief Secy., ACS Home, Secretaries of Legal, Revenue, Health and Transport Depts., DGP and other Senior Police officers.

1. Chief Secy. Smt. Swarna Kant Verma.

2. Secretaries of Departments of Revenue, Law, Health, Transport from 27-02-2002 to 31-05-2002.

3. Range officers, SPs, DMs of riot affected areas.

(i) General instructions of GAD about maintenance of records

(ii) All India Service Rules

(iii) GCSR

(iv) Manual of Office Procedure

(v) Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

(vi) Article 51A of the Constitution of India

512

L Serious lapses in investigation of riot related cases by the investigating officers (SHO) and their supervisors form Dy. SP to DGP.

SPs, CPs and Range Officers of the riot affected areas, ADGP Crime and DGP where Cases were not investigated.

(i) Directions in chapter 4 and chapter 5 of GPM vol-3

(ii) Circular captioned ‘Communal peace’

(iii) DGP K. V. Joseph‘s booklet (Instruction to deal with communal riots - strategy of approach) – 1997

(iv) All India Service Rules

(v) GCSR

(vi) Recommendations of Justice Reddy (1969 riots) and Justice Dave (1984 – 85 riots).

(vii) Article 51A of the Constitution of India

M. Illegal and unethical acts of tutoring, cajoling, pressurizing and intimidating a witness to the Commission, Mr. RB Sreekumar, when Commission summoned him for Cross Examination.

1. Dinesh Kapadia, Under Secy. Home Dept.

2. Arvind Pandya, Govt. Pleader in the Commission

(i)Instructions of GAD to assist Govt. appointed Commissions.

(ii)Govt. notification regarding Constitution of the Commission.

(iii)Notification of the Commission calling for relevant data.

(iv)All India Service Rules

(v)Article 51A of the Constitution of India

(vi)The Advocates Act

1094. Final Submissions:

The Petitioner further submits that some amount of material which ought to have been gathered and used by the Investigating Agency was not so gathered or used. The Petitioners are filing the said material along with this Protest Petition so as to ensure that this Hon'ble Court is appraised of the full facts while adjudicating in the matter.

It is possible that some material may still come to light during the pendency of this Petition and the Petitioner craves leave of this Hon'ble Court to bring the same on record as and when it becomes available. It is also possible that given the voluminous record supplied by the investigating agency, and partial records therein that some vital documents that are later found not to be there but should be there are produced by the Petitioner.

513

The Petitioner also submits that while the Complaint dated 8.6.2006 was against 62 persons (two of whom are dead by now) our analysis of the evidence shows that many more persons are involved in the offences narrated in the Complaint. Two wrongly mentioned as witnesses and accused should obviously remain only as witnesses. Some of them are listed in the present Petition and they ought to be arraigned as accused. Besides, during further investigation involvement of other accused may come to light and it is necessary to direct the Investigating Agency to arraign them also as accused if the need arises.

The Petitioner therefore Prays that

In the circumstances, the Petitioner submits:

(a) that the closure report dated 8.2.2012 be rejected and the present Protest Petition be allowed:

(b) that this Hon'ble Court take cognizance of offences under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code and Other relevant sections of the law against all the accused (or we can say that this Hon'ble Court take cognizance against 59 of the accused including A-1 in respect of the offences set out in the Paras Nos 1092 above

(c) that further investigation be directed in respect of the offences set out in the Complaint dated 8.6.2006 as also in respect of the issues, events and individuals more particularly set out in the Petition.

(d) such further investigation be handed over to an independent body (not being the present SIT).

(e) that the accused not named in the Complaint but against whom investigation reveals evidence be arraigned as accused in the present case.

Advocates for the Petitioner Mrs Zakia Jafri

Mumbai, Ahmedabad

Filed on 15.4.2013 before the 11th Metropolitan Magistrate’s Court, Ahmedabad

514

................
................