SIT forced to submit police records in Gulberg Case, phone records of 3 accused missing

07, Oct 2009


October  7, 2009

Press Release

SIT forced to submit police records in Gulberg Case,
phone records of 3 accused missing

The Special Investigation Team (SIT) appointed by the Supreme Court on
March 26, 20095, compelled by an order of the trial court on September
7, 2009 to re-investigate certain critical areas absent from records
despite their eighteen month long investigation today produced the
station diary of the Meghaninagar police station, the message book and
log book entry of the police station, the vardi records of
police personnel and also the Spectography (Voice Test) records of
those persons who featured on the sting operation, Operation Kalank
by Tehelka, The original CD of TehelkaÂ’s sting operation was also
submitted before the Court today.

Ironically the mobile phone records of all three accused, Madan Chawal,
Prahlad Raju and Mangilal Jain caught making filthy confesiions by
Ashish Khaitan of Tehelka were again reported by SIT to be
‘missing.’ The reason given was varying statements by mobile telephone
companies like  BSNL etc that ‘they did not preserve mobile phone
records beyond six months to one year.Â’ Barely a month ago SIT had
shockingly pronounced before the trial court (on September 7, 2009)
that former parliamentarian Ahsan JafriÂ’s telephone records were
missing or destroyed. The matter came up before  Judge BU Joshi on
Ahmedabad today. SIT has failed to investigate the detailed
circumstances behind the destruction of his phone records.

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) had through an order dated
March    2—8 had invoked its special powers and directed the Central
Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate

In a related and shocking development, Judge SM Vora hearing the Naroda
Gam case refused to allow victims, witnesses and Citizens for Justice
and Peace (CJP) to assist the prosecution. Vociferous arguments over
the past few weeks before the judge pointing out that “locus is a
foreign word in criminal jurisprudence” where there is a
“triangulation of interests between the state, accused and victims and
society who are affected by mass crimes, advocates Yusuf Shaikh and
Irshad Mansuri cited various judgements but to no avail.

In a significant development in the Gulberg Society trial, Judge
BU Joshi special judge had ordered further investigation under 173 (8)
of the CRPC into several points raised by victims advocate. Senior
advocate for the victim witnesses and Citizens for Justice and Peace
Shri SM Vora had filed a detailed application that pointed out the
Tardy and incomplete investigation undertaken on several points by SIT
under former Director CBI RK Raghavan on many grounds. Adv Salim
Sheikh appears with Mr. Vora for the witnesses and CJP. (Refer
attached application)

For instance, though the statement of Ashish Khaitan was recorded by
SIT on January 18, 2009 and again on March 12, 2009. No efforts were
made by SIT to interrogate the three Gulberg accused on whom Ashish
Khaitan had conducted a sting operation nor claim their mobile phone
records of the relevant time, Moreover despite. Citing him as a
Prosecution witness no efforts had been made by SIT to acquire the
equipment used by Khaitan for the investigation, speak to his senior
in Tehelka magazine. In short no efforts were made to authenticate
KhaitanÂ’s evidence.

In her May 9, 2008 and May 2008 statement to SIT Teesta Setalvad had
mentioned the suspiciously absent JafrisaabÂ’s phone records.
Thereafter several witnesses in their statements before SIT had
mentioned that Mr Jafri called several policemen and leaders. But SIT
did not care to get to the bottom of these phone calls to whom they
were made etc. Bodies of the seventy dead were in recognizable
condition when those who saved escaped and were charred to an
unrecognizable state after 6 pm on February 28, 2002. Survivors left
as mobs attacked them. Joint Commissioner MK Tandon has been
identified by witnesses as having been present when they escaped. The
horrific circumstances of destruction of bodies further after the mob
attack appears not to have been probed by SIT at all.

The application also
details how no proper investigation has been undertaken by SIT into
the slip shod manner of recording the panchnamas in this case wherein
the roles of several policemen needed to be investigated. As also the
phone call records of the personal mobiles and mobile vans of many
officers from Joint Commissioner downwards.

The Gulberg massacre in Ahmedabad in 2002 is the one wherein
sixty-nine innocent Muslims including former parliamentarian Ahsan
Jafri were massacred in cold daylight.

Teesta Setalvad,


Adv SM Vora

AHSAN JAFRIsaabÂ’s phone records destroyed or missing.. SIT pulled up
for sloppy investigation…BU Joshi orders reinvestigation on
application by witnesses and CJP.

First victory of witnesses and complainants and supported organisation
CJP against SIT Gulberg Society case

under 173 (8) of CRPC on a detailed application filed by us pointing
out sloppy and incomplete investigation by SIT in gulberg society

SIT failed to complete investigation after Ashish KhaitanÂ’s statement
was recorded, SIT failed to investigate STATION DIARY entries and FIRE
BRIGADE register…SIT has failed to produce AHSAN JAFRI SAHEBÂ’s PHONE
RECORDS…WHO DESTROYED his phone records
Who ordered their destruction
When were they destroyed
WHY DID SIT not complete these investigations despite TEESTA
SETALVADÂ’s statement recorded in connection with Gulberg Massacre on
May 9, 2009 and May 29, 2009???


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Go to Top
Nafrat Ka Naqsha 2023