Earlier, the state government’s role during the riots had come in for strong criticism by the National Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court.
A trial court has for the first time made some strong observations on the role of the state government in the 2002 riots.
Earlier, the state government’s role during the riots had come in for strong criticism by the National Human Rights Commission and the Supreme Court.
The SIT court of judge BU Joshi which is looking into the Gulbarg society massacre case made the observation while hearing arguments in connection with matter concerning a plea made by the witnesses and survivors of Gulbarg society to name seven more people including MK Tandon (then joint commissioner of police) and ND Parmar (then second PI of Meghaninagar) as accused in the massacre.
Earlier, the witnesses and survivors of Gulbarg society had filed an application urging the court to make MK Tandon, ND Parmar, Rajesh Dayaram Jingar, Manish Patel, Babu Marwadi, Tinyo Harijan (deceased), Mahendra Pukhraj and Jagrup Singh Rajput as accused in the case.
In response to this application, the SIT had filed a detailed reply in the court listing the role played by the seven and why they could not be named as accused. Judge Joshi made the observation while hearing arguments in connection with Rajesh Dayaram Jingar.
SIT in its reply had stated that on the day of the incident Jingar was on duty as reserve force at police headquarters, Shahibaug from 7am to 10.30pm.
The application states that there is no prima facie evidence of his involvement in the incident. Reacting to the application, the judge asked if it was right and logical on the part of the state government to have reserve force at a time when the entire city was burning.
Judge Joshi also made an observation in connection with the
SIT’s reply application concerning the former deputy mayor Jagroopsinh Rajput.
Eyewitness Imitiaz Khan Pathan in his statement had said that he saw Rajput standing on the office terrace of one Meghsinh Chaudhary at around 11am. But the SIT’s reply application states that Rajput, who is also a lawyer, was attending a murder trial at the sessions court at the same time.
To this, judge Joshi commented, “To the best of my knowledge, at that time the court timing was from 11.30am and it is doubtful that Rajput could be attending a trial at 11am.”
){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}