People's Democracy

EDITORIAL

Godhra: Justice Nowhere In Vicinity

AS we go to the press, the Gujarat government, through its public prosecutor, has succeeded in adjourning the proceedings of the  POTA court till June 10 on the plea that it requires more time to study the report of the Central POTA Review Committee (CPRC). The CPRC has recommended the withdrawal of the POTA cases against most  of the accused in the Godhra train carnage.

The dilatory tactics of the Narendra Modi administration in Gujarat are understandable. The state-sponsored communal carnage in Gujarat was justified by the state government and the BJP as a reaction to the terrorist act of setting fire to the Sabarmati Express coach S-6, allegedly torching to death the karsevaks returning from Ayodhya. This was described as a “terrorist act” and subsequent ghastly carnage was justified as a “response.” 

Earlier came the report of the U C Banerjee committee, set up by the railway ministry, which  ruled out a pre-planned conspiracy that set the S-6 coach on fire from outside. And now comes the CPRC report which categorically states:

“Para 40: After appreciating the evidence made available to us and considering the respective arguments of the learned counsel of the accused persons and the learned Special Public Prosecutor, this committee is of the considered view that the incident had taken place on the date, time and place as alleged by the prosecution but certainly not as a part of conspiracy envisaged under the provisions of POTA.  This Committee, therefore, is of the view that the accused persons may be tried under the provisions of IPC, Indian Railways Act, Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, Bombay Police Act etc and the violation of notification No. U/MKP/PLS/MJS/Vashi/433 dated 14.2.2002 issued by Additional District Magistrate, Panchmahal, Godhra but not under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.”

In the light of this evidence, the CPI(M) has been insisting that the UPA government must ask the CBI to probe into the major incidents of communal holocaust that took place in Gujarat subsequent to the Godhra carnage. The CPI(M) has also urged the government to make  public the CPRC report, so that the truth may be  known to all.

People’s Democracy is in possession of the CPRC report. We are reproducing certain extracts which only confirm, once again, that the Godhra carnage was used as an excuse and justification for unleashing the most horrendous communal holocaust in Gujarat under the stewardship of Narendra Modi.

“Para 34: The Review Committee has carefully considered the arguments advanced on the behalf of the accused persons and the prosecution. From the averments made in the charge sheets, sanction orders and evidence on record, it is evident that there are some accused who are the members of the core group which allegedly hatched the conspiracy and others are members of the mob, who had collected spontaneously on hearing that persons from Muslim community had been beaten and a Muslim girl was being abducted. It is an admitted fact there was an altercation between the karsevaks ad the Muslim tea vendors/hawkers and an attempt was made to abduct a Muslim girl from the platform. The first supplementary and subsequent charge sheets mention that chain was pulled to stop the train on the platform. Mehbub Ahmed shouted from the end of the platform resulting in Muslim community persons from Signal Falia and surrounding areas assembling on the station and near the parcel office.

“Even the first (main) charge sheet mentions about the forming of an unlawful assembly of Muslim persons from Signal Falia and surrounding areas, in the open space near the parcel office. All the charge sheets mention about pelting of stones by the mob on the coaches on the coaches of the Sabarmati Express and its passengers. After the intervention of the police, the train resumed its journey. It is thus evident in the first instance the mob had collected near the parcel office in response to panic cry and retaliated by pelting stones. There is evidence on record which shows that the mob reassembled near ‘A’ cabin later. Shaukat in his confessional statement has stated that he ran with the crowd towards ‘A’ cabin when the train again stopped there. On the basis of the prosecution’s own version, it is quite clear that the crowd had assembled in the first instance in response to the panic cry and not as a part of alleged conspiracy.

“Para 35: The recovery of common weapons like rods, dharias etc from the members of the mob and also that no attempt was made by the members to use these weapons for attempting to kill passengers indicates that the mob was not part of the alleged conspiracy to set on fire coach S/6 and to kill passengers. It is not the case of prosecution that coach no. S/6 was reserved exclusively for kar sevaks. Moreover, it is also mentioned in the charge sheets that in the first instance an attempt was made to set ablaze coach S/2 and not coach S/6. It also supports the view that the mob was not part of the alleged conspiracy to burn coach S/6. The pelting of stones, carrying common weapons, inflammable material like kerosene, damaging railway property etc are certainly offences for which the guilty must be tried but in the absence of any evidence and inference that the mob was privy to the alleged conspiracy and it acted to further its objective, it cannot be said that the mob members are liable to be proceeded against under the provisions of POTA.

“Para 36: Regarding the conspiracy alleged to have been hatched during the night of 26th February, 2002 at Aman Guest House,, this theory of conspiracy does not seem to be probable on the case of prosecution itself. The cause of the incident is a quarrel of one of the karsevaks with the tea vendor/hawker of Muslim
community at the platform itself when the train halted. Had there been any conspiracy in existence, the passengers travelling in coach S/6 would not have been allowed to disembark the compartment for taking tea and breakfast. The crowd along with inflammable material which was to be used for burning coach S/6 would have been present at the platform itself in front of coach S/6 keeping in view the short duration of the halt of the train at Godhra railway station.

The assembly of the crowd, which according to the prosecution itself were members of the conspiracy, was initially in front of coach S/2 and not in front of coach S/6 which was conspired to be burnt. Had there been any prior conspiracy in existence to burn coach S/6, the said coach would have been surrounded by the conspirators from all the sides but the prosecution version itself shows otherwise.  The offside of the coach was left open and the passengers alighted from that side of the compartment. The prosecution has tried to implicate all the persons whether they were present at the time of the incident or not to face the consequences of the draconian law of POTA.

“Para 37: Even if we accept the submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor that this incident is a part of the pre-planned conspiracy, we do not find any evidence, even on prima facie ground, that this conspiracy was one envisaged under the provisions of POTA. Under sub-section (3) of section 3 of POTA, 2002, conspiracy to commit a terrorist act has been made punishable. As per section 1(a) of section 3, terrorist act is one which is done with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to strike terror in the people or any section of the people.

“Para 38: From the very beginning the prosecution was not sure whether the provisions of POTA are attracted in this case or not. This is the reason why in the first charge sheet which is the main charge sheet and which was filed after three months of the incident, the provisions of POTA were not invoked. It was for the first time that the provisions of POTA that is section 3(2) and 3(3) of POTA were added mentioning about the conspiracy allegedly hatched on the night of 26.2.2002. Even thereafter, though the investigation continued but the prosecution was not sure whether the provision of POTA could be invoked and that is why Shri Kantipuri Bawa, the Investigating Officer, on behalf of the State Government filed an affidavit dated 5.3.2003 before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in miscellaneous criminal application No. 606 of 2003 mentioning therein “having realised that there is no sufficient evidence and material to attract provisions of POTA, the same came to be dropped.” Again, for the reasons best known to the prosecution this affidavit was withdrawn and the provisions of POTA were again applied on the basis of certain alleged revelations in custodial interrogation dated 5.2.2003 purportedly recorded under section 164 of CrPC of accused Jabir Binyamin Bahera. Surprisingly, when Shri Bawa, the I.O., filed the affidavit on 5.3.2003 for dropping the charges under POTA, the statement of Jabir Binyamin Bahera was in the know of the prosecution because it is of an earlier date i.e. 5.2.2003. from this conduct of the prosecution, we infer that the prosecution itself was not sure whether this case could attract the provisions of POTA and hesitatingly they have implicated all the accused persons to face the trial under the provisions of this draconian law of POTA.

“Para 39 : In our opinion this is a simple case of unlawful assembly committing various offences under the Indian Penal Code and other Special Acts but certainly not under the provisions of POTA. On the well established principle of appreciating the special provisions of terrorist law, so called members of this mob are exempt from requisite mens rea. The words of Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur’s case [(1994) 4SCC 602] are relevant. “A terrorist activity does not merely arise by causing disturbance of law and order or of public order. The fallout of the intended activity must be such that it travels beyond the capacity of the ordinary law enforcement agencies to tackle under ordinary penal law.”

It is now more than apparent that even after three years, the guilty continue to roam around scot-free in Gujarat while victims continue to languish. The UPA government has come to office with the explicit mandate to uphold and strengthen the secular democratic foundations of modern India. A full year has passed. Yet, justice is nowhere in the vicinity in Gujarat. This situation must urgently be addressed by the UPA government. All necessary measures, including that of handing over the major incidents of communal violence to the CBI, must be undertaken immediately.