Teesta Setalvad, who is assisting Jafri, submitted before the court that there are vital documents related to the investigation which have not been provided by the SIT.
Zakia Jafri, complainant in the 2002 communal pogrom, moved a plea before the magisterial court, on Thursday, seeking more documents from the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT). After hearing both the sides, metropolitan magistrate MS Bhatt scheduled the hearing of the application for May 19.
Teesta Setalvad, who is assisting Jafri in the case, submitted before the court that there are vital documents related to the investigation which have not been provided by the SIT. She further said that many documents submitted before the SC have not been annexed with the documents related to the final closure report that gave clean chit to Modi.
The documents include preliminary inquiry report of SIT official AK Malhotra submitted to the SC on May 12, 2010, further probe reports filed periodically by the agency in the apex court and comments of SIT chairman RK Raghavan dated May 14, 2010.
After initial objection, the SIT agreed for inspection of the document that it had submitted before the SC. “Most of the reports, which are being demanded by the complainant, were given in a sealed cover to the Supreme Court and if they wish, they can obtain them from the apex court,” SIT lawyer Jamuar informed the court.
He further said, “SC had directed to provide final report and documents related to the probe.”
However, when Teesta’s lawyer submitted that the documents are vital to put their case before the court, the SIT agreed for inspection of these documents including the statements of IPS officer Vipul Vijoy, affidavits of the then Godhra mamlatdar ML Nalway, note prepared by Ashok Narayan, then additional chief secretary of the home department for statement issued in the state assembly, among others.
Jafri had to file a compliance report in the court that she had received all the documents from the SIT related to her complaint. Following the court’s order, the SIT had given copies of its final report, including the report of amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran and other documents to her on May 7.
){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}
){kind=small}