)
A local court on Thursday accepted the report of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) which absolves Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, now the Bharatiya Janata Party’s prime ministerial nominee, on charges of conspiracy in the 2002 riots in this state.
Metropolitan Magistrate B J Ganatra rejected the plea of one of the noted riot victims, Zakia Jafri, who’d challenged the closure report filed by the SIT. The latter said evidence was lacking to prosecute Modi and 58 others named in her petition.
The riots, which began on February 28, 2002, a day after close to 60 people died in the torching of a train at Godhra in central Gujarat, claimed about 1,000 lives. The SIT mandate was approved by the Supreme Court.
SIT counsel R S Jamuar said, “The magistrate has given a 300-350 page order. I have not read the entire order. But he (magistrate) told Zakia’s counsel, Mihir Desai, their protest petition has been rejected.” This means the court accepted the SIT’s report, he said. “With this, there is a judicial stamp that our report has been fair,” Jamuar added.
Zakia, whose husband and former Lok Sabha member (Congress party), Ehsan Jafri, was among the 69 people killed in the Gulbarg Society massacre in this city on the first day of the rioting, had filed a petition objecting to the SIT’s closure report.
After completing its investigation on Zakia's complaint, SIT, on February 8, 2012, had filed the report. It said there were difficulties in obtaining evidence due to the many years which had elapsed but whatever material could be gathered was not sufficient to prosecute those against whom allegations of hatching a conspiracy for enabling the 2002 riots had been levelled.
Zakia, on April 15 this year, filed a petition demanding the rejection of the report and an order from the court to file a chargesheet against Modi and others. The hearing on her plea was completed on September 30 and the magistrate had scheduled the verdict on October 28. It was then postponed to December 2 and later for December 26 (Thursday).
Zakia said she would appeal. "I am not going to lose heart. I will definitely appeal in a higher court after going through the judgment," she said. Her counsel, Mihir Desai, said: "According to us, the evidence collected by the SIT was sufficient to implicate the persons against whom we have filed a complaint. There was other evidence which SIT should have collected but had not gone deep into...Our arguments were at both levels. Our arguments have been rejected at both the levels."
Adding: "Obviously, there is a hierarchy of courts. So, we will be going to the higher courts...Somebody asked me if Modi will breathe easy now, to which I say, yes, he can breathe easy for 20 to 25 days and then we are coming again with the appeal."
Jamuar had argued no direct or circumstantial evidence had been found during the investigation that could support Jafri's allegations. SiT contended no evidentiary value could be attached to the testimonies given by three Indian Police Service officers - R B Sreekumar, Sanjeev Bhatt and Rahul Sharma - whom Jafri cited as witnesses.
SIT also said the three officers held a grudge against the state government and accused them of conspiring to fabricate evidence to "malign" Modi.
Zakia's lawyers maintained there was enough evidence to prosecute Modi and the others for their alleged role. They argued that SIT, throughout its investigation, ignored material evidence in this regard.
