SIT has said that Modi took all possible steps to control the 2002 post-Godhra riots and questioned the motive behind filing a complaint against him by a riot victim four years after the communal violence.
The Supreme Court-appointed SIT has said that Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi took all possible steps to control the 2002 post-Godhra riots and questioned the motive behind filing a complaint against him by a riot victim four years after the communal violence.
In its report submitted to a local court on the complaint of Zakia Jaffery, the SIT has said no charges levelled by the widow of former Congress MP Eshan Jaffery (killed in riots) are maintainable and also questioned the intention behind filing such a complaint four years after the incident.
On the allegations that Modi, in a meeting of February 27, 2002, had told top police officers to allow Hindus to vent their anger in wake of Godhra train burning incident, the SIT has said there is no basis for levelling such charges.
But even if such allegations are believed for sake of argument it does not constitute any offence, the SC-appointed probe agency maintained.
The SIT finding is contradictory to the report of amicus curie Raju Ramchandran, who has opined that Modi can be prosecuted for "promoting enmity among different groups".
Ramchandran, a Supreme Court lawyer, has based his report on testimony of suspended IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt, who in an affidavit filed in the apex court, had alleged Modi gave instructions to top police officers to go slow on rioters.
The SIT report said "law and order review meetings were held by Modi and all the things was done to control the situation. It further said the Army was called on time" to contain the communal violence.
It said Modi was busy with steps to control the situation, establishment of relief camps for riot victims and also with efforts to restore peace and normalcy.
"The interpretations made on alleged illegal instructions given by the chief minister by police officers RB Sreekumar and Sanjiv Bhatt appear to be without any basis.
"Further, even if such allegations are believed for sake of argument, mere statement of alleged words in the four walls of a room does not constitute any offence," the report said about the alleged illegal order of the chief minister.
"In view of the detailed inquiry and satisfactory explanation of the person involved, no criminal case is made out against Narendra Modi."
The report goes on to question Zakia for delay in filing complaint against Modi and others, alleging their complicity in the riots which left over 1,000 people dead.
Zakia was examined by the police for the first time in connection with the Gulburg Society cases on March 6, 2002 but she did not come up with allegations against Modi and others.
She appeared before the Nanavati Commission, probing the riots, on August 29, 2003 but did not disclose the facts given in this said complaint, the SIT said.
In September 2003, she filed an affidavit in the apex court but did not level allegations against Modi and others.
"It was for the first time in June 6, 2006, after a lapse of four years, that she came up with the said complaint. The allegations in the complaint are vague, general and stereotyped," said the SIT, headed by former CBI director RK Raghavan.
Regarding Ramchandran's report, the SIT has said the amicus curie had "erred" by relying solely on the statements given by Bhatt and concluding that certain offences can be made out against Modi.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}