Panth’s statements are self-contradictory argues IH Saiyad

Incarcerated IPS officer Sanjiv Bhatt's advocate, IH Saiyad, on Thursday said that the complainant, KD Panth, had made false allegations against his client. The lawyer questioned the Panth's credibility alleging that he had earlier made statements which contradicted his assertions in the FIR he had filed against his client.

 

Saiyad began his arguments after additional sessions judge VK Vyas overruled the objections of the state government and said that the court would hear Bhatt's bail petition. Hearing of the bail plea will continue on Friday. 

 

The lawyer said that for the offence under Section 195 of the CrPC, the law requires that the police conduct a preliminary inquiry before lodging a complaint. He alleged that the police had conducted no inquiry and registered an FIR merely on the basis of Panth's statement, just to harass Bhatt.

 

Saiyad attacked Panth's credibility by pointing to the contradiction between his statement as recorded in the FIR, and his statements made before the Supreme Court-appointed special investigation team (SIT) as also a letter he wrote to the probe team. 

 

Saiyad read out from Panth's FIR and said that Panth had a chance to escape with the affidavit he now alleges he had drafted under Bhatt's pressure.

 

"He has alleged in the complaint that after signing the affidavit, he had gone out for a smoke with the affidavits. All the copies of the affidavits were with him. He had gone to an advocate's place in his car. His own statement reflects that he was never under pressure or confinement by Bhatt," Saiyad argued

. 

The lawyer further pointed out that, in April 2011, Panth had given a statement before the SIT that he did not remember anything about the riots of 2002 because of lapse of time.

 

In his arguments, Bhatt's lawyer relied on the letter of Panth dated July 7, 2011, written to SIT members, the chairman of Nanavati-Mehta commission, and the amicus curiae. In the letter, Panth had claimed that on February 25, 2002, he had accompanied his brother in law to Mumbai from Nadiad as he had some work at the French consulate in Mumbai. For this purpose, he had hired a taxi bearing the registration no. GJ-18T-6328, Panth had written. 

 

He had also written that he returned from Mumbai on February 27, 2002, but had gone to Nadiad. He was not present in the state for three days and, on February 27, 2002, he was not in Gandhinagar, Saiyad said, quoting from Panth's letter to the SIT. 

 

Subsequently, Panth signed an affidavit which he now claims he signed under Bhatt's pressure and that he was not aware of its contents. After that, in June 2011, Panth filed the FIR against Bhatt, the lawyer said. 

 

"Suddenly, three months after telling the SIT that he remembered nothing about the riots, he could recall all the incidents, including the registration number of the car by which he travelled to Mumbai. This sounds illogical," Saiyad said. 

 

It is on record that Panth was rewarded for his good work on February 27, 2002 by Bhatt himself. "He was given Rs500 as reward, which means he was in the city," argued Saiyad.

 

"Panth has made inconsistent statements. Bhatt, in his plea to the Apex Court seeking transfer of the investigation of the case to a central agency, has contended that Panth had filed the complaint under pressure and the inconsistent statements proved this," Saiyad said.