No Evidence That Modi Incited Rioters, Says Sit

[posani]

[size="5"]T[/size]he lawyer of the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team, which has given a clean chit to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in 2002 post-Godhra riots case after investigating complaint filed by Zakia Jafri, on Thursday said that "Modi has never said that go and kill people".
Opposing the protest petition filed by Jafri against SIT's closure report, its lawyer R S Jamuar said, "(social activist) Teesta Setalvad and others have falsified the complaint targeting chief minister who had never said that go and kill people."
During the second day of arguments, SIT lawyer targeted Setalvad, who has taken up the cause of riot victims, and who is helping Zakia, whose husband, Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, was killed in the riots.

[posani]

[b] 'Setalvad sole writer of fictitious complaint against Modi'[/b]
[img]http://imworld.rediff.com/worldrediff/pix/blank.gif[/img]
[size=5]D[/size]ubbing Setalvad as the sole "writer" of "fictitious" complaint against Modi and others, advocate Jamuar said: "The so-called incident of CM giving instructions to high-level police officers not to take action against the rioters is a sole creation of Teesta Setalvad. There is no evidence."
Zakia's petition demands filing of chargesheet against Modi and 58 others who she had named in her complaint filed before the Supreme Court. She has also sought further investigations by an independent agency other than SIT.
"On Teesta's instruction a citizens' tribunal was formed under the leadership of Justice (retired) V R Krishna Iyyer...after collecting evidence (it) published a report in which it was claimed that Modi has, in a meeting at his residence on February 27, 2002, gave so-called instructions," said Jamuar.
"When SIT member A K Malhotra examined the members of tribunal, they said the then state minister Haren Pandya told them. But they never had any evidence, no recording of testimony, nothing and still they came up with such conclusion," Jamuar said.

[posani]

[b] How can they implicate Modi?[/b]

[size="5"]"A[/size]s per the tribunal's report... in that meeting apart from CM three ministers were also present, whereas Zakai's own witness, (suspended IPS officer) Sanjiv Bhatt, later claimed that except Modi no politician was present," the SIT lawyer argued.
"How can they implicate Narendra Modi? Did CM say go on a rampage, go on a carnage, kill people? Tribunal's report is one of the ugliest inquiry report I have ever seen."
Advocate Jamuar also contended that Zakia's complaint alleges larger conspiracy hatched by Modi, "but Modi came to Gujarat in 2001 and this all happened within almost three months after he became chief minister. How can he hatch a larger conspiracy within that short time?"
"Complaint takes objections to CM's statement terming Godhra incidence as a conspiracy hatched by ISI during his visit to Godhra on February 27, 2002. But what's wrong in it?" he asked.
"Whenever there is such an incident, politicians of our country tend to blame it as ISI conspiracy. There is nothing wrong in it. Every time, every politician does that," Jamuar argued.
The SIT lawyer also said that Zakia had herself admitted during her deposition before the court in the Gulburg Society massacre trial that she and other witnesses were telling whatever Teesta Setalvad and (former IPS officer) R B Sreekumar asked them to.

[posani]

[size=5]T[/size]he Special Investigation Team on Wednesday strongly contested the protest petition filed by Zakia Jafri against its closure report giving clean chit to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and others in the 2002 post-Godhra riot case.

The day-to-day hearing on the petition filed by Zakia earlier this month, began in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate B J Ganatra on Wednesay.
In a three-point rebuttal, the SIT, represented by its counsel [size=5][b]R S Jamuar, sought to discard the very FIR filed by Zakia in 2006, claiming "the way it (FIR) has been drafted suggests that it's nothing but a piece of waste paper." [/b][/size][size=5][b] [/b][/size]
Zakia, wife of 2002 post-Godhra riots victim and former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri who was killed in the Gulbarg Society riots, along with 68 others, had filed the complaint with Supreme Court on June 8, 2006 against Modi and 58 others.
Zakia demanded rejection of the closure report filed by the Supreme Court-appointed SIT on February 8, 2012, giving clean chit to Modi and others, and requested filing of chargesheet against them.
"In comparison to the complaint as defined in Criminal Procedure Code, this (the FIR) is not at all a complaint, it's a piece of waste paper to be thrown away," said Jamuar.
"It's a fiction or novel written by 4-5 persons and complainant Zakia has no knowledge about anything written in it," he argued.
Zakia has also demanded further investigations into the case by an independent agency other than the SIT, headed by former CBI director R K Raghavan.
Raising the second point of objection, Jamuar cited the content of Zakia's complaint, claiming "the complainant has presented no case, no evidence..but extracted the material which was submitted before Justice (retired) G T Nanavati-Akshay Mehta Commission".
"The complainant has extracted most of the material submitted, examined and cross-examined by a commission of inquiry, Justice Nanavati Commission, which is still functioning and yet to submit its final report," Jamuar said.
Citing apex court’s judgements, he contended that, "no courts, either civil or criminal, is bound to the report of any panel set up under the Commission of Inquiry Act and here complainant has drafted her whole complaint based on the material from commission."
He argued that Zakia's petition should have restricted only to the SIT closure report. "But they have added new facts, points, evidence which were never been investigated", Jamuar said.
Raising the third point of objection, he said "Zakia's petition is seeking court to take cognisance of those offences for which not only the cognisance has (already) been taken but investigation has also been completed, evidence produced, trials completed and out of eight certain rioting incidences the court has even pronounced convictions in five cases".
Jamuar was referring to the cases of Naroda Patiya massacre case of Ahmedabad, Dipda Darwaja and Sardarpura cases of Mehsana and two cases of Ode village, where the trial court has pronounced its judgement of conviction.
"As per the supreme court judgements, cognisance should be of offence, not of the offenders and here the complainant is seeking to reopen those cases under the claims of larger conspiracy".
Further arguments in the case will continue on Thursday.

[posani]

Teesta Selvad, Arundati Roy & e DB lo Bobby...highlight TP candidates ya [img]http://i48.tinypic.com/25jyqes.gif[/img]

[posani]

[img]http://i48.tinypic.com/25jyqes.gif[/img]

[posani]

[img]http://en.newsbharati.com/Encyc/2012/9/15/24_05_40_03_Teesta_Setalvad_H@@IGHT_363_W@@IDTH_574.jpg[/img]

[posani]

[img]http://i48.tinypic.com/25jyqes.gif[/img]