Citizens for Justice and Peace

besthighlight

08, May 2017


Highlights of the Supreme Court appointed committee’s report

(Released by
the apex court on August 29, 2005)

 

Clean chit to Teesta, Rais
Khan, CJP:
 

“No
inducement, threat, coercion or pressure whatsoever established (against
Teesta Setalvad, others from CJP).”

 

“As
per affidavits dated 3rd November, 2004 and 20th
March, 2005 of Ms. Zahira, she stated that she was forcefully taken from
Vadodara to Mumbai by Shri Rais Khan, agent of Ms. Teesta, and kept in
confinement… (But) in Trial Court, Mumbai, she admitted that she was
kept very well by Ms. Teesta and the fact of her taking forcefully does
not find place in the statement before the trial court, Mumbai”.

 

“By
puttingÂ… serious allegations against a very highly placed constitutional
authority like NHRC that the statement recorded by HonÂ’ble the Chairperson
himself along with two HonÂ’ble members of NHRC was substituted with an
already prepared statement in Ms. Teesta office can not be relied upon and
for such a decision I feel no necessity of any corroboration of any kind. 
However, as one affidavit dated 15th April, 2005 of Sh. Ajit
Bharioke, Registrar, NHRC finds place on record and only because of this
reason relevant extracts have been inserted in this report.  Sh. Ajit
Bharioke deposed that he was present there and that the statement was read
over in Hindi to Ms. Zahira by him and after that Ms. Zahira signed the
statement.  At the same time Sh. Ajit Bharioke has categorically
denied all the allegations including the allegation
of changing the statement, nothing more is required to be discussed on
this part.

 

The second challenge to
this statement is that it was tutored by Ms. Teesta and that whatever was
tutored Ms. Zahira stated in the same words. The tutoring pressurizing
cannot be held as established looking into all the circumstances.

 

Third
allegation of putting the words by Ms. Teesta in the mouth of Ms. Zahira
can also not been accepted as the statement was recorded before the
HonÂ’ble Members of NHRC and when the statement itself was translated and
dictated by the HonÂ’ble Chairperson himself.  In view of all this, such
allegations cannot be accepted”.

 

Needle of suspicion points
towards BJP MLA, Madhu Srivastava:


(CommitteeÂ’s conclusion on
the Tehelka.com video-expose)

 

(A)  “Whatever the
conversation among the persons is shown in the (Tehelka) VCD is
established and it is the true picture of the affairs recorded at the
relevant time. 

(B)  “On perusal of the
same it can be said that before Sh Nisarbapu and Sh Ashish Khaitan it was
said by Sh Madhoo Srivastava, Sh Chandrakant Bathu Srivastava and Sh
Shailesh Patel that Rs 18 lacs were given by Sh Madhoo Srivastava to Ms
Zahira for giving statement in trial Court, Vadodara in a particular
manner of their choice and that was against the prosecution and in favour
of the accused. The result is known that she refused to identify the
accused at the spot of occurrence due to smoke. 

(C) 
This was also the
part of the conversation that for the same purpose, she was

paid Rs 2-3
lacs in Sh Shailesh PatelÂ’s Chamber. 

(D) 
There was some
compromise between the parties. 

(E)  The net
result of all is that this conversation between the above named

persons can
be treated as established”.

It appearsÂ…
that before and after recording of the statement of Ms. Zahira in Trial
Court, Vadodara, at one time on 9th May, 2003 one telephone
call was made through the cell phone of Sh. Madhu Shrivastava which was
received by the cell phone of Sh. Nafitullah and after that at least 10
times calls were made from the telephone of Sh. Nafitullah to the
telephone of Sh. Madhu Shrivastava and this continued till 2nd
July, 2003. It is important on the ground that the statements of Ms.
Zahira in the Trial Court, Vadodara were recorded on 17th May,
2003.

“…It can be
believed that these telephonic contacts were made during the relevant and
material period when the statement of the material witnesses including
ZahiraÂ’s statement were being recorded by the Trial Court, Vadodara. As
per the information received from the various mobile companies as quotes
above, the following facts are treated to be proved. 

1.         that
there was some conversation between the person having

mobile number
9824326505 and 2653122052 and

9825060542,
on the dates and time mentioned in the tables. 

2.         

that cell
number 9824326505 was allotted to Sh. Nafitullah and

mobile number
2653122052 was allotted to Sh. Bharat

Thakkar and
mobile 9825060542 was allotted to Sh. Madhu

Shrivastava.
Sh. Madhu Shrivastava and Sh. Bharat Thakkar

both have
admitted their cell phone numbers in their

respective
statements recorded during the inquiry. 

The fact that
threats were given by Sh. Madhu Srivastava and Sh. Bharat Thakkar to Sh.
Nafitullah was denied by all the three, in their statements recorded here
during the inquiry proceedings. The facts as noted and established in the
above para shows that some contacts were made at the time and the dates as
mentioned in the above quoted two tables and when this established fact
was denied by all the three persons, in such circumstances it can only be
presumed that the fact of giving and receiving threats was alleged to be
expressed by Ms. Zahira and Sh. K. Kumaraswami was true and their
subsequent denial of these two statements is not correct”. 

“In all these
circumstances, it can firmly, be said that (there) appears a high
probability
of money changing hands and that (there) was
allurement by which Ms. Zahira was induced for giving a particular
statement in Trial Court, Vadodara which was supportive to the defence
/accused and against the case of the prosecution”.

“Threat is
one of the two factors appearing on record which can also be held
responsible for material change of stand of Ms. ZahiraÂ… In view of the
all, as discussed above, the fact which can be accepted, as highly
probable,
that money has exchanged hands and
that
was the main inducement
responsible which
made Ms. Zahira to
state
in a particular way in
Trial
Court, Vadodara although threat could have also
played a role in reaching at an agreement. However, the element
of threat cannot be altogether ruled
out. One cannot loose sight of the fact that first contact over
cell phone was made by Sh. Madhu Srivastava and Sh. Bharat Thakkar and not
by Sh. Nafitullah. The evidence of Sh. Abhishek Kapoor about presence of
Sh. Madhu Srivastava, MLA, in the Court at the time of testimony of Ms.
Zahira can also be treated as an indication of this factor”.


 

Role of Vadodara Police
Commissioner/Gujarat government suspect:

“S.N.
Sinha,
the (Police) Commissioner of Vadodara at the time of (Zahira ShaikhÂ’s)
Press conference dated 3rd November, 2004, was found attending
the hearing of this Inquiry on 29th April 2005Â… Evidence of Ms.
Teesta Setalvad was recorded on that date and there was no good reason for
his presence during the inquiry proceedings or for him to be officially
deputed by the Home department (of Gujarat government) for this hearing”.

 

“This fact cannot be lost
sight of that Sh. Sudhir Sinha, Commissioner of police, Surat, who was
earlier posted in Vadodara in the relevant month of the Vadodara Press
Conference i.e. on 3rd November, 2004, attended the inquiry
proceedings on 29th April, 2005.  This fact has also been
recorded in the appearance slip of that date.  When a query was raised as
to why and in what capacity he visited Delhi and appeared during Inquiry
proceedings, in response of the same he sent his affidavit dated 13th
June, 2005, in which he has mentioned that he attended the Inquiry for
watching the proceedings on the direction of (Home Secretary), Gujarat”.


 

“Besides
the expenditure admitted by the Jan Adhikar Samiti for the stay of the
family at the Airport Hotel, Vadodra, and the Press Conference at Hotel
Surya Palace, (on November 3, 2004) the expenses for the stay of Ms.
Zahira, her brother Sh. Nafitullah and advocate Sh. Atul Mistry at the
Silver Oaks Club, Gandhi Nagar, where they stayed for 5-6 days, are not
found to be undertaken by the Jan Adhikar Samiti. The reasons for this
movement have been differently explained as for approaching the High Court
and the Mahila Aayog, by Sh. Nafitullah and Ms. Zahira, which makes their
explanations unreliable.  Ms. Teesta has alleged that this movement was
made to meet senior government functionariesÂ… who met the expenditure is
not made clear. 

“…That apart, Ms. Zahira,
her mother Sehrunissa and her brother Sh. Nasibullah are residing
presently at Bhai Lal Apartments in Makarpura, Vadodra.  Jan Adhikar
Samiti has not shown any expenditure on this rent while Ms. Zahira has
stated that the rent is being paid by this of organization.  As the family
has been living there for a number of months, it is a relevant point how
this expenditure is being met.  The details of ownership of this flat have
also not been supplied by Ms. Zahira despite asking. 
A conclusion of inducement in this matter is also likely.

 

It
is an admitted fact that right from 3rd November, 2004, when
for the first time to this last turn in the stand
of Ms. Zahira
appeared, till today Shri Atul Mistri, Advocate of Vadodara was seen
associated with Ms. Zahira. According to the statement of Ms. Zahira on 6th
August, 2005, she engaged Shri Atul Mistri as her Advocate and perhaps in
that capacity Shri Mistri is appearing for Ms. Zahira. Nothing wrong can
be presumed that if a party engages one Advocate for legal assistance on
his or her behalf. However, a few peculiar facts, which find place on
record, are appropriate to reproduce here.

 

First
important fact is that Sh. Atul Mistri was working as an associate /
junior advocate to the Senior Advocate Shri Rajendra Trivedi (Diwedi) of
Vadodara who was appearing on behalf of the accused persons in Best Bakery
case. This fact has been informed by Sh. Mohd. Vora in his statement dated
25th May, 2005 at page 5 (English Translation) [Page 106 of
Vol. II]
and by Sh. Nisar Bapu in his statement dated 30th
June, 2005 at page 34-35 (English Translation) [Pages 275-276 of Vol.
II]
.

 

The question
related to this fact was asked to Ms. Zahira, her reply to which was “she
does not know, she only knows that Shri Atul Mistri is her advocate.”

 

This
indicates that Ms. Zahira again has come into contact with defence side”.


 

Mrs. Kanwaljit Deol,
Joint Commissioner of Police (assisting the SC Committee) has submitted a
letter on 18th August, 2005 along with enclosures as well as
from the text of the letter itself that there were two telephone contacts
between Sh. Nasibullah Sheikh (the younger brother of Ms. Zahira) and Sh.
Bharat Thakkar (Brother of one of the accused in Best Bakery case Sh.
Sanjay Thakkar) one at 8.54 p.m. and another at 11.06 p.m. on 29th
October, 2004. The time of cell phone contact is very crucial as it
appears that it is either on the same day or one day before their
departure from Bombay to Vadodara. This is also an indication of the same
theory.


 


 

Zahira a
“self-condemned” liar:
 

“I feel
no hesitation to mention that Ms. Zahira is not such a lady who speaks the
truth she has developed an image of a self-condemned liar whose
statements alone cannot safely be accepted”.

 

“It can
undisputedly be said that the phrase, “To have fruits of heaven out
of hell”,
has now been established synonymous to Ms. Zahira who
once earned public sympathyÂ… (She) has made concerted efforts and has
engaged herself in having cash/ comforts from every possible corner”.

 

“With
regard to the fact whether she appeared before Nanavati Commission on 20th
March, 2002 to submit her affidavit or not, Â… earlier to 6th
August, 2005, her stand was that she appeared before Nanavati Commission
on 20th March, 2002. But all of a sudden on 6th
August, 2005 in her statement, she resiled from the earlier stand”.

 

Zahira
family “appears rich” after incident
 

“(T)he
receipts and the investments of (Ms. ZahiraÂ’s family), part goes very high
on a comparative study of the accounts. After the incident it appears that
the accounts of the family are rich”.

 

“The balance
sheet of investments and receipts (of Ms. ZahiraÂ’s family) doesnÂ’t include
the daily expenditure, for which it can be presumed that a considerable
amount must have been spent in comparison to the regular source of
income”.

 


 

Leave a Reply

Go to Top