Sacrilegious exoneration of authors of 2002Gujaratanti minority genocide by SIT –A
Hundred and two pitfalls by SIT in investigation of
complaint against the Chief Minister Narendra Modi by Jakia Nasim Ahesan Jafri.
The 2002 Gujarat communal violence, killing nearly
2000 people coupled with failure ofGujaratstate functionaries to purposefully
prosecute architects of riots have plunged the image and reputation of Gujarat
State Administration to abysmal depths of ignominy, besides affecting the
stature of Indian Nation as a well- administered country. The Special
Investigation Team (SIT) headed by Dr. R.K. Raghavan, former CBI Director has
failed to put on trial all five category of criminals (1- The planner – The
Chief Minister Narendra Modi and leaders of the Sangh Pariwar – (2) The
organizer (Sangh Pariwar activists) (3) The mobilizer at the grass root level-
procurers of weapons and marshals of violent mobs –(4) The Perpetrator of
violence or foot soldiers of mass crimes – armed belligerent crowds – and (5)
The Facilitator/Enabler-Police, those in Executive Magistracy and other government
servants-, whose active reprehensible collaboration had only ensured execution
of extensive mass violence against the targeted Muslim minority community.
The SIT had submitted closure report on 08 Feb,2012 to
the Court recommending exoneration of all 63 accused persons in the petition
filed by Jakia Nasim Ahesan Jafri.
A study of this report and recent protest petition by her will establish that
SIT had intentionally ignored practically all evidence establishing culpability
of accused, in planning and perpetration of violence and subversion of the
Criminal Justice System (CJS) to impede justice delivery to riot victims.
The defense architecture designed by SIT to house the
Chief Minister Narendra Modi ( hereinafter referred to as CM Modi) and 62 others
in a safe heaven of immunity from legal action for their genocidal crimes and
manipulation of CJS has the following facets:-
1) Deliberately not professionally
assessing all incriminating evidence in the statement of witnesses, avoiding
close perusal of records, not doing ground level enquires, not organizing
deeper examination of witnesses and accused, and use of tools of forensic
science and so on.
2) Compartmentalization of evidence to
avoid building a chain of circumstantial and collateral material about
planning, preparation and execution of violent crimes and biased approach to
complaints by riot victim survivors.
3) Acceptance of statements by accused as
gospel truth without ground level investigation and further examination of
relevant witnesses and documents.
4) Myopic assessment of each point of
evidence against accused and rejecting these on technical grounds.
5) Refusal to accept request of important
witnesses to put them under Narco and Brain finger print test.
6) Refusal to respond and reply to
witnesses submitting suggestions for further investigation, and thereafter
7) Refusal to prove material evidence
through forensic examination of audiotapes by witnesses and blindly accepting
the allegation of accused about the validity of material in tapes.
8) Refusal to acknowledge or respond to
letters and submissions by witnesses about facts relating to Jakia complaint.
9) Refusal to record statements of
witnesses u/s 164 CRPC before a court, despite requests made by witnesses in
are serious professional lapses.
study of closure report and
protest petition would indicate that SIT had tried to secure the interests of
the creamy layer of political and administrative bureaucracy inGujarat-from Dysp to the Chief Minister-but
had simultaneously arrested and prosecuted many criminals directly involved in
anti minority offences. Through this strategy SIT could project that it had
done better than Gujarat Police, who avoided to arrest and prosecute even the
perpetrators of ghastly massacre in places like Naroda Patia, Gulbarg Society,
Sardarpura etc. Non-involvement of the CM Modi and senior officers in crimes is
ensured by SIT by keeping the complicity level of govt. officials as low as a
position of police inspector (only two Police Inspectors were arrested by SIT
this context the following questions regarding pitfalls committed by SIT to
protect accused persons figuring in Jakia petition are raised.
Why SIT had failed to see acts of alleged omission and commission by the
accused that is, A) Non implementation of administrative directions and
Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in Gujarat Police Manuel and booklets viz
Communal Peace; DGP K.V. Joseph pamphlet on how to deal with communal riots;
Area wise Communal Riots Scheme; Recommendations of Justice Reddy and Justice
Dave Commission reports on communal riots; and so on, B) Delay in imposition of curfew in
Ahmedabad City up to 1 PM on 28 Feb, 2002- the VHP sponsored Bandh Day, C) Non-enforcement of curfew in Ahmedabad
City and Vadodara facilitating rioters to go on a killing spree ( 96 killed
during curfew hours in Ahmedabad City and nearly 20 in Vadodara City) D) Entrusting dead bodies of 54 Hindus
killed in Godhra train fire to VHP leaders, while govt. officials should have
taken the bodies to relatives as per govt. regulations E) Positioning two state Cabinet
Ministers (not in charge of Home Department) in the operational centers
(control rooms) of DGP Office and Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad city
office, in violation of the Rules of Business, F) Not issuing any direction to VHP
and Bandh supporters about Kerala HC orders banning Bandhs and not prosecuting
violators of the court orders, G) Non-maintenance of minutes or any
records on law and order review meetings convened by DGP to CM, H) Transfer of officer in charge of
districts (SP) in the thick of riots, for their ‘fault’ of controlling riots (
from the districts of Bhavnagar, Kutch, Banaskantha, Bharooch, Surendranagar
etc.) I) Rewarding
officers who acted as enablers of rioters and collaborators in subversion of
CJS against riots victim survivors- as part of a devilish design, and so on.
Each act of delinquency constitutes circumstantial evidence towards
actualization of anti minority violence, in pursuit of conspiracy hatched by
Why SIT had treated each of these instances of misdeeds by officials, in
violation of SOP, as compartmentalized and isolated events/developments like a
bunch of de-professionalized police officers?
decisions of the Apex court like
1) Transfer of trial of two cases toMaharashtraState.
2) Investigation of one mass rape
case (Bilkis Bano case) by CBI
3) Re-investigation of 2000 odd cases
closed by Gujarat Police
4) Entrusting investigation of nine major
carnage cases to the Special Investigation Team (SIT) chaired by Dr.
5) Investigation of two fake
encounter cases by CBI
6) Appointment of a Special Task Force
(STF), headed by Justice Bedi to probe into 17 alleged fake encounter cases in
Gujarat from October, 2002 to February 2007- and making observation
characterizing those in Gujarat Police as “ The modern day Neros” (2004) would
establish that CJS was subverted since the commencement of 2002 riots. Why SIT
could not find any evidence in corroboration of strictures by the Apex court?
observations were made by theSpecial
its judgment on Naroda Patia bloodbath (August 2012) killing 96 persons. Why
SIT, unlike the court, did not find any culpable guilt in the policing by
Ahmedabad City Police on the day of Naroda Patia massacre and in the quality of
investigation of cases?
did SIT reach the conclusion that specific curative measures to remedy the
anti-minority bias of Gujarat Police, suggested in four reports of State
Intelligence Branch (SIB) were implemented without ground level enquiries by
contacting riot victim survivors, complainants, scrutiny of case papers and
deeper study of court’s observations in riot related cases?
SIT did not find anything blameworthy in the inaction of DGP and State Home
Department in not acting on proposals by SIB and executive police officers in
the field, against publishing communally inciting materials and media reports?
SIT did not find anything wrong in the state govt. not acting on numerous
strictures against officials by courts, as per Gujarat Police Manuel and other
SIT did not find anything wrong in appointment of office bearers and supporters
of Sangh Pariwar as Public Prosecutors to conduct cases against Hindu accused
SIT did not find anything wrong in State govt. officials presenting false and
misleading data to the full bench meeting of Central Election Commission (CEC)
on 09/08/2002 ?
10) Why SIT had failed to notice the
deliberate non-implementation of Gujarat Police Manuel (GPM) stipulations
regarding supervision of grave crimes related to riots by Senior police
11) Did not SIT know that
appointment of SIT by the Apex court was on account of inadequate commitment ofGujaratadministration in riot cases and lack
a faith of riot victims in the state administration?
12) Why SIT did not find anything wrong in
the act of DGP giving illegal written orders to R.B. Sreekumar (hereafter
referred to as RBS), in charge SIB, for not providing information on communally
sensitive speech by CM Modi to National Commission for Minorities?
13) Why SIT did not accept admission by
Arvind Pandya, the govt. pleader in Operation kalank by Tehalka magazine, about
his intimidating and tutoring RBS to force him to depose, in favor of the
government, before Justice Nanavati Commission (hereafter referred to as JNC)?
14) Why SIT did not move the court
for taking Narco and Polygraph test of all participants who attended the
controversial meeting by the CM on 27 Feb, 2002 in his residence in which
allegedly the CM directed all to give a free hand to the Hindus to take revenge
on the Muslims?
15) Why SIT did not put witnesses
like RBS and Sanjeev Bhatt, for undergoing Narco and Brain finger print tests,
to establish veracity of their statements,despite their requests?
16) Why SIT did not probe deeply about the
reasons behind abnormally high rate death of Muslims in the state in communal
riots (77 %) and police firing (59%), though Hindus were aggressors? Similar is
the case of percentage of destruction of property- 88% of Muslims and 12% of
17) Why SIT did not test the period
of entries in the Register of RBS, kept with seal and certificate of IGP
O.P.Mathur, through tools of forensic science?
18) Why SIT did not take on record
numerous media reports, including video clips, about parading of dead bodies of
Godhra train fire victims inAhmedabadCityand belligerent Hindu crowds
accompanying dead bodies shouting anti-Islamic slogans?
19) Why SIT had treated the acts of
tutoring, pressurizing and intimidation of ADGP RBS by two state Home
Department officials- Under Secretary Dinesh Kapadia and Secretary G.C. Murmu
along with Government Pleader Arvind Pandya as innocuous legal acts though
these acts were punishable under sections 193 r/w 116 IPC, 186 and 506 IPC?
20) Did SIT get an impression that RBS
wanted a briefing from Dinesh Kapadia, a junior civilian officer, with no
experience in investigation and deposition before the judicial bodies, after
assessing the text of his interaction with RBS?
21) How could SIT treat attempts by
Home Department Officials (Home department being the supervisory authority of
police officers) to intimidate RBS as harmless ethical acts?
22) Why SIT did not see anything
improper, deviant and illegal in these officials tutoring a witness summoned by
JNC to collect evidence about the role of officials of Home Dept. also during
the riots and afterwards?
23) How could SIT treat advice and
suggestion by Dinesh Kapadia to RBS, viz “the truth need not be told to the
Commission”… “no purpose will be served by speaking truth to the Commission”…
“be little bit cautious, just to ensure that you are totally objective, to
prevent any harm, which is likely to be done by the government, because of the
deposition… “These Commissions are paper tigers” etc. as legal and proper and
not interfering in the normal functioning of a Senior Police officer? Did not
these advices by Kapadia aim at blocking flow of truthful information to JNC?
24) Why did Secretary G.C.Murmu held the
tutoring exercise of RBS in a private guest house instead of in rooms of Home
Dept. or Police Bhavan?
25) As regards intimidatory tutoring
imposed on RBS, did not SIT find the direction and objective of instruction by
these people to RBS was to go against the Govt. Notification on terms of
reference to JNC Dated-06/03/2002 and 27/02/2004 and so were illegal? Is it not
the duty of every Govt. servant to act as per the requirements of Govt.
Notifications? How could SIT treat any move against the notifications as legal
acts? Did not advice of Murmu and Pandya to RBS to support conspiracy theory
regarding Godhra train fire incident amount to abetment to perjury? Similar is
the illegality in the advice of Murmu to RBS, viz to avoid speaking in favor of
SIB reports, the advice of Pandya “You are my witness…. If I obtained
permission from the Court, you are hostile to false nature and me. I will
cross-examine and then notice will be issued by Govt. to you regarding
integrity and everything. In sum I cannot cross-examine my witnesses etc”. Did
not the hint of Murmu to call former ACS Ashok Narayan (hereafter referred as
ACS.AN) for tutoring prove that Govt. was tutoring all witnesses to JNC as part
of an illegal drill? Why SIT did not accept admission by Pandya in the sting
operation by Tehelka magazine, (deemed by court which issued Naroda Patia
judgment as admissible), as an extra judicial confession?
26) Why SIT did not enquire on
veracity of each entry in the Register recording verbal orders of higher
officers maintained by RBS?
27) Why SIT did not suggest action
against RBS if entries in the Register were proved be false?
28) Did SIT expect that officials
who were party to issuance of illegal instructions to RBS would corroborate him
regarding matter narrated in the Register?
29) Did SIT conclude that entries
about illegal instructions in the Register of RBS were fabricated by him?
30) Why SIT did not probe further
about the commencement of fake encounters by Gujarat Police (from Oct/2002)
after the transfer of RBS from the post of ADGP Int. on 18 Sept.2002., in the light of entries regarding the
Chief Secretary G.Subbarao suggesting to DGP ( on 01/05/2002 )and RBS ( on
28/06/2002) to organize elimination of Muslim extremists and those likely to
disturb “Ahmedabad Rath Yatra”?
31) What was the option left to RBS
to remember and record the proceedings of many meetings other than maintaining
a Register, as relevant authorities did not prepare minutes of the meetings?
32) Why no opinion was given by SIT about
the legal validity of the Register in the light of section 35 of Indian
33) Why no probe was made about
contemporary events from police and media records on the credibility of
evidence recorded in the Register?
34) Why SIT did not act upon
suggestion by RBS in his representation to SIT, praying for not invalidating
his evidence through his letter Dated-30/11/2010 (Para E, subPara1 to 10- pages 18 to 22)?
35) When two witnesses namely ADGP
(Law and Order) Maniram and Dysp. S.M.Pathak corroborated entries by RBS regarding
transactions involved by them and SIT had accepted their versions as
trustworthy, how could SIT declare that the act of maintaining a Register was
motivated and that entries were not acceptable because of non-corroboration by
the accused persons who were only exclusive participants in the meetings? Did
not SIT know that these persons had vested interests in not supporting RBS,
since such an action would be self-incriminating to them?
36) How could delay in presentation
of evidence by RBS about the Register and tutoring by Home Dept. officials
reduce the truthfulness of each transaction presented therein?
37) Why did SIT accept the
allegation of accused about tampering of audio records presented by RBS without
sending these records for forensic examination?
38) What was the independent
evidence collected by SIT to declare evidence by RBS as motivated, other than
the statements by the accused?
39) How could credibility of
evidence collected by RBS, per se, get reduced even if these were collected
with a motivation and that too when the material was scientifically produced?
40) Why SIT did not accept judgment
of Amicus curiae, Raju Ramachandran, who deemed that maintenance of Register by
RBS and recording of conversation of illegal tutoring were not motivated?
41) Why SIT did fail to notice that RBS
did not comply with illegal verbal and written orders by higher officers and
tutoring by Home Dept. officials on deposition before the JNC?
42) While invalidating evidential
merit of nine affidavits of RBS (663 pages), why SIT had ignored the fact that
the state govt. and JNC did not declare the material in the affidavits to be
false and fabricated?
43) By devaluing evidence by
RBS, by SIT, on flimsy technical grounds, did SIT want to sent the massage to
govt. officials that illegal orders of seniors should be complied with and
records about such orders should not be maintained?
44) Why SIT had ignored the fact
that RBS was transferred out from the post of ADGP (Int.) after a tenure of
five months and nine days, for his open violation of illegal written orders by
DGP Chakrabarti for not reporting the verbatim version of CM Modi’s
objectionable speech against Muslims, to the National Commission for Minorities?
45) Why SIT had ignored the fact
that super session of RBS in promotion to the rank of DGP was an outcome of his
refusal to comply with illegal orders of seniors and tutoring by Home Dept.
officials and Govt. Pleader Pandya?
46) Why SIT did not find anything
abnormal in the State Govt. giving out of turn promotion superseding RBS to
G.C. Raiger and J. Mahapatra (who were ADGP Int. before and after the tenure of
RBS in that post, though both were junior to RBS and they did not submit any damaging
evidence against the Govt.)?
47) Why SIT did not find
anything objectionable in State Govt. posting G. C. Raiger after his retirement
as member, spurious liquor probe commission under a High Court Judge, with the
status of a judge?
48) Why did SIT ignore the
fact that G.C. Raiger did not file any affidavit, even though he was ADGP
(Int.) in the period of major anti-minority riots from 27 Feb, 2002 to 08
49) J.Mahapatra, ADGP
who succeeded RBS as ADGP (Int) had not provided important records to RBS when
RBS was preparing his second affidavit to JNC in October,2004. In the light of
this fact did SIT find anything objectionable in the State Govt. posting him as
Chairman State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) after his retirement?
50) How did SIT doubt the
veracity of entries in RBS Register when ACS Ashok Narayanan (hereafter
referred as ACS AN) in his statement to SIT admitted that entries in the Register
regarding the meeting convened by the CEC on 09 August, 2002 “are broadly true”?
51) Why SIT did not question
ACS AN regarding his revelation to RBS (See ninth affidavit of RBS) that the
State Administration and the CM did not give instruction to take action on SIB
reports about anti-Muslim attitude of police officers, though these reports
were shown to the CM?
52) Why SIT did not confront
the CM Modi with revelations by ACS AN about his inaction over SIB reports and
recorded CM Modi’s explanation? (Tape of interaction of ACS AN with RBS is
53) Why SIT did not verify
claims of the CP Ahmedabad P.C.Pandae about follow of action taken by him on
SIB reports to correct anti-Muslim bias of officers, through ground level
enquires and scrutiny of case papers?
54) Did SIT get any
independent evidence other than the false claims by accused about follow- up
action on SIB reports? (SIT closure report did not indicate any such item)
55) If the claims of the
accused were true why Naroda Patia judgment confirmed about anti-Muslim bias of
the administration, even at the time of SIT taking over investigation of Naroda
Patia case in June, 2008?
56) Why did SIT underrate SIB
reports for taking corrective measures, sent to Govt. from April to August 2002
(not earlier or later periods) by deeming these as “general” when SIB had no
power to study individual case papers in possession of executive police
57) Did SIT check up with the
authors of SIB reports and riot victims to decide on the veracity of claims by
accused about their implementation of suggestion by SIB?
58) Why SIT had failed to
notice that since SIB recommendations were not implemented by the Govt., the
riot victim survivors had gone to the higher judiciary who had passed adverse
comments on the impartiality, professionalism and commitment to the Rule of Law
of the Gujarat Police?
59) Did not SIT deem that the
criminal posture of the State Govt. to give free hand to unscrupulous officers
to subvert justice delivery to riot victims amounted to commission of offenses
u/s 166,186 and 187 IPC?
60) Why SIT did not send
audiotape containing interaction between RBS and ACS AN for forensic
examination and thereafter initiate further probe by recording statements of
61) Why SIT had ignored specific
suggestions by RBS and Teesta Setalvad to record statements of UP Police and
Central IB officers who had direct evidence about the actual process of fire in
S6 Bogie at Godhra on 27 Feb, 2002?
62) Why SIT had avoided
perusal of records of Army and Central Para-military Forces (CPMF) and did not record statements
of the officers of these forces deployed for maintenance of law and order inGujaratduring 2002 communal riots, despite
specific request to this effect by RBS?
63) Without these exercises of
getting evidence from outside agencies, which were deployed for duties with
Gujarat Police, how did SIT arrive at a judgment that Gujarat Administration
had performed duties creditably (as observed by SIT in closure report) during
64) Did not SIT know that
suggestion of SIB to get officers transferred from riot affected areas in its
report of 24 April, 2002 was implemented only in the second week of May, 2002,
and that too after the arrival of KPS Gill as adviser to CM Modi?
65) Why SIT did not record the
statement of KPS Gill on relevant matters?
66) Why and How SIT had
justified the inaction of the accused in not acting on proposal of SIB to
prosecute publishers of communally inciting materials on the flimsy ground that
SIB did not produce adequate evidence?
67) Did not SIT know that SIB
had no investigating powers to collect evidence and so it was the duty of DGP
and Govt. to take further action on SIB proposal against publishers of illegal
68) Why SIT did not recommend
further action on SIB proposal against publishers in its closure report?
69) Did SIT want to provide
these publishers immunity from prosecution?
70) Why SIT did not record the
statement of the Chief Election Commissioner, J.M.Lyngdoh and other
Commissioners to make an impartial judgment on the claims of accused like the
Chief Secretary Subbarao about their truthful presentation before CEC?
71) Why did SIT accept as
proper the accusation of ACS AN that RBS had contradicted the Chief Secretary
in the meeting convened by CEC on 09 August 2002? Should officers be like
parrots of his senior officers or stick to truth in their presentations to
constitutional bodies like CEC? Did notSIT realize that senior officers like
ACS AN wanted everybody to support the policy of Govt., irrespective of its
legal and ethical impropriety?
72) How could SIT exonerate
all officers who gave misleading reports to CEC, by ignoring CEC order Dated-16
August, 2002 and without getting the version of CEC officials in this matter?
73) Why SIT did not find any
obvious sequential pattern in the persuasion, cajoling, tutoring and
intimidation by number of officers (ADGP Deepak Swaroop, ADGP Mahapatra, Under
Secretary Dinesh Kapadia, Home secretary G.C. Murmu, Govt.Pleader Arvind
Pandia) of RBS to speak in favor of Government in his cross examination before
JNC on 31 August, 2004?
74) What was the
logic in SIT treating action of each of these officers as unconnected, compartmentalized
and isolated transactions and thereby justified these illegal acts?
75) Why SIT did not make
efforts to thoroughly analyze text of tutoring imposed on RBS and fail to take
cognizance of ingredients of crimes in the whole episode?
76) Why SIT did not record the
statement of ACS AN, in the light of the claim of Home Secretary G.C. Murmu to
RBS about his calling ACS AN for briefing?
77) How did SIT accept the
statement of Principle Secretary Home K.C. Kapoor that RBS had filed his second
affidavit on his own and not on written orders by DGP, when copies of such
orders from DGP A.K.Bhargava were submitted to SIT by RBS?
78) How SIT had declared that
recording of interaction with Murmu was “clandestine,” when the Central
Administrative Tribunal (CAT) Ahmedabad judged this act to be legal in its
judgment quashing charge sheet issued against RBS by State Govt.?
79) How could SIT ignore
voluminous incriminating evidence against accused presented by RBS in his first
and second affidavits (15 July 2002 and 06 October 2004 respectively), in his
submission to CEC on 09 August, 2002 and during his cross-examination by JNC on
31 August, 2004 and make a baseless assessment that RBS had deposed against
accused only after his super session in Feb, 2005?
80) Is it not the professional
duty of SIT to deeply probe into each nugget of evidence presented by RBS in
his nine affidavits and verify their truthfulness than rejecting them on
grounds of technicality?
81) Why SIT had failed to
notice that RBS did not make entries against the CM and Senior Officers about
their intimidating him falsely, though he could have done so, had he been
fabricating evidence against accused persons in his Register? Similarly RBS did
not reveal his transaction with DGP Chakravarti in the period before his tenure
as ADGP (Int.) (27 Feb,2002 to 08 April 2002) in his first to third affidavits
till State Govt. made K. Chakravarti a witness in nine point charge sheet
served on him. Why SIT had failed to notice this fact?
82) Why SIT had failed to
notice that RBS had disclosed incriminating data on the controversial Central
IB Joint Director Rajendrakumar (media reported that he was part of conspiracy
to kill many innocent Muslims in fake encounters along with Gujarat Police)
only after Rajendrakumar had volunteered to become a witness to prove charges
against RBS? He is figuring as a witness in the charge sheet served on RBS by
83) Why SIT had ignored the
fact that revealing incriminating but truthful data about K.Charkravarti and
Rajendrakumar was required for building a defense for RBS against charge sheet
issued to him and this requirement had prompted RBS to file his fourth
affidavit to JNC? In the light of these facts why SIT had failed to notice that
RBS did not collect evidence against accused with any unholy objective and
facts were revealed by him as per requirements of a developing situation?
84) How SIT had deemed that
RBS had kept evidence about misdeeds of the accused with bad intention when no
point of evidence presented by RBS was declared false by the State Govt., JNC,
SIT, Justice Banarjee Commission or any other judicial or investigating body so
85) Why SIT had failed to
notice that RBS had classified his first affidavit (15 July, 2002) as secret
and requested JNC to treat the whole affidavit as “confidential and privileged
86) How could SIT blame RBS
for “embarrassing the State Govt.” by presenting incriminating evidence when
JNC had declassified his first affidavit and released it to media, which had
projected the adverse information about the accused in the affidavit
87) Why SIT is getting
irritated and allergic whenever any witness presents evidence damaging to the
interests of accused?
88) Why SIT did not question
DGP A.K. Bhargava for violating his own orders for getting second affidavit of
his predecessor K.Charkravarti filed before JNC? (DGP Bhargava had ordered all
serving officers to get second affidavits filed from all those who filed first
89) Why SIT did not question
the Chief Secretary G. Subbarao for not filing any affidavit to JNC, though the
Chief Secretary was the only bridge between political and administrative
90) Why SIT did not examine
relevant police records maintained as per SOP to find out the truth on
allegation of bias against riot victims betrayed by police officers?
91) Why SIT did not examine
the progress in investigation of 2000 odd cases reinvestigated byGujaratpolice on the orders of theApex
92) Why SIT did not suggest
any action against those responsible for entrusting dead bodies of Godhra train
fire victims to VHP leaders?
93) Why SIT did not initiate
any action on suggestion letters by witnesses like
94) Why SIT did not seek explanation of
the accused for showering favors to officers who acted as facilitators of
communal riots and enablers of rioters? (This information is in sixth affidavit
95) Why SIT did not get
explanation from DGP K.Chakravarti and ACS AN regarding their failure to get
SOP implemented by field officers particularly in areas of high voltage
96) Why SIT did not question
ACS AN about his admission of bias against Muslims practiced by many
functionaries, to RBS? (This information is in ninth affidavit of RBS)
97) Why SIT did not question
ADGP K.Nitynandam for his illegal orders to a Dysp. for not giving report to
his superior officer-ADGP RBS?
98) Why SIT did not probe
further on the revelations in the eighth and ninth affidavits of RBS, though
SIT had fully utilized letters by RBS critical of Sanjeev Bhatt for
discrediting evidence of Sanjeev Bhatt?
99) Why SIT did not record statement of
RBS u/s 164 CRPC before a Magistrate even though he requested for such an
100) Why SIT did not question
the CM Modi about his claim of not seeing SIB reports which had been shown to
him by ACS AN for seeking orders about implementation of suggestions by SIB?
(ACS AN in his recorded conversation claimed that he had shown SIB reports to
101) Did not SIT notice a serious mismatch
between numerous adverse observations by theApex
the criminal and culpable professional negligence of Gujarat State
Administration and police in containing riots and investigation of riot cases,
in contrast to the arguments of SIT in the closure report exempting senior
officers from Dysp. to Chief Secretary and all functionaries of political
bureaucracy from any liability and accountability for 2002Gujaratgenocide?
102) Why SIT did not take guidance from the
strictures and observations against Gujarat State Administration by higher
judiciary and conduct deep penetrating investigation to link the thrust of
complaints by riot victims and road map of investigation drawn by the courts?
reported unscrupulous manipulative mismanagement and misjudgment of evidence
against main planners, organizers, ground level mobilizers, and
facilitators/enablers of mass violence (except brigands who physically
committed crimes in areas of intense violence- many of them were arrested and
prosecuted by SIT) for saving them from the long arm of Law, is a dismal and
lugubrious chapter in the history of investigation of communal riots in India.
Dr. R.K. Raghavan became controversial in 1991 for his reported failure to
enforce effective and fail-proof security as in charge police official in
Sriperumbatore (Tamilnadu), where Rajeev Gandhi was assassinated. That crime
allegedly was the consequence of his fatal unpardonable negligence whereas
reportedly dark diligence exhibited by him and his team to anoint the authors
of 2002 anti-minority pogrom with oil of purity and righteousness is
agonizingly and debilitatingly
exhaustive for the Criminal Justice System, social cohesion and stability of
our motherland. By sheltering and shielding law breakers responsible for 2002
Gujarat massacre related crimes, SIT had not only deviated from the
foundational ideals of the Constitution of India but had also brazenly
desecrated core values
enshrined in scriptures of great world religions.
jahati ‘ha ubhe sukrta duskrte
yogaya yujyasva yogah karmasu kausalam”
one fixed in equanimity of mind frees oneself in this life from vice and virtue
alike; devote yourself to yoga; work done to perfection is verily yoga.’
PSALM (The Psalm of David-15,1and 2)
who shall abide in thy tabernacle?
shall dwell in your holy hill?
that walketh uprightly, and walketh righteousness, and speaketh truth in his
Holy Quran-Surah-women (135)
ye who believe! Be ye staunch in justice, witnesses for Allah, even though it
be against yourselves or (your) parents or (your) kindred, whether (the case be
of) a rich man or a poor man, for Allah is nearer unto both (than ye are). So
follow not passion lest ye lapse (from truth) and if ye lapse or fall away,
then lo! Allah is ever informed of what ye do.”
of Saint Tiruvalluvar (first century A.D.)
righteous sceptre-Kural No-541
enquiry, and impartial justice mark the rule of a just monarch”
us wait optimistically for the final verdict of theApex
Jakia Jafri petition against the Chief Minister Narendra Modi and also the
judgment of history in the long run.