Gujarat HC Dismisses Zakia Petition Against Modi

   Today on 5 October 2017, the Gujarat HC rejected the petition of Zakia Jafri, widow of Ehsan Jafri challenging clean chit to Narendra Modi, and accepted the SIT’s findings giving a clean chit to Narendra Modi, now Prime Minister. Some of course, still cannot accept that, and continue to howl against the SIT, the courts and anyone not willing to hold Narendra Modi guilty!

   The SIT, appointed and monitored by the Supreme Court and consisting of judges who were known to have commented against Narendra Modi and Gujarat Government (eg. Justice Arijit Pasayat who made many unnecessary comments against Gujarat Government in the Best Bakery case in 2004, Justice Aftab Alam whose daughter Shahrukh Alam was a known anti-Modi activist and former Gujarat Lokayukta, Justice S M Soni wrote to the Chief Justice of India S H Kapadia not to place Gujarat’s cases before him i.e. Justice Alam due to his ‘communal mindset’, Justice Ranjana Desai who is the daughter-in-law of former Congress Minister of Gujarat, Amul Desai etc) said that not only was Narendra Modi innocent who took steps to prevent and control riots after Godhra, Teesta Setalvad was guilty of making false allegations, involved in creating false evidence, fully aware of false claims!

   The SIT also found glaring mistakes and blunders in Zakia Jafri’s complaint eg. SIT found that accused No. 24 Babubhai Rajput was named by Zakia in her complaint, and no such man ever existed at the time of 2002 riots! All these findings are all given in the book “Gujarat Riots: The True Story” and have been covered up by the mainstream media.

   Many vital and important finds of the SIT in its closure report need to be highlighted as they have been covered up. Zakia Jafri has alleged in her complaint that ‘2500 people were killed in 5 days’ as per the SIT report on page 9. The real death toll was of course around 1170, since the UPA Government gave figures of 790 Muslims and 254 Hindus killed in riots with 127 people missing (UPA Government said 223 people missing, at one time 228 were missing but later 101 were found alive, and the final missing number of people declared dead was 127. [790+254+127 =1171 which closely matches 1169]). Ex-gratia was paid by Gujarat Government to 1169, the kin of the same number of people were given a package by the UPA Government. Zakia Jafri thus exaggerated the death toll in the riots to 2,500 from the real one of 1169 and that too in 5 days, as if more were killed in the remaining days! The SIT report also says on page 5 that: “The allegations made in the complaint dated 8-6-2006 (8 June 2006 and not 6 August 2006 as it could mean in some places outside India) of Zakia Nasim were general in nature, mostly based on media reports as well as other documents like affidavits filed by Shri R B Sreekumar about which she had no personal knowledge…”

     The SIT says on pages 16-19 that: “Smt. Zakia Nasim was first examined by the local police on 6 March 2002 and her statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC but she never came up with all the details mentioned in her aforesaid complaint (dated 8 June 2006). In her statement before the local police she had stated that while they were being shifted from the Gulberg Society in jail vans, the mob assembled there would have lynched all of them to death but for the timely action by the police. Smt. Zakia Nasim then appeared before the Nanavati Commission of Inquiry on 29 August 2003 but did not disclose the facts given by her in her said complaint. In September 2003, Smt. Zakia Nasim filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court of India, but did not mention these facts. It was for the first time on 8 June 2006, i.e. after a lapse of more than four years of the incident, that she came up with the lengthy complaint in question. Smt. Zakia Nasim was examined by the SIT on 7 November 2008, but she failed to state any of these facts as mentioned in her complaint dated 8 June 2006. She does not have any personal knowledge about the facts mentioned in the affidavits filed by Shri R.B. Sreekumar during the years 2002, 2004 and 2005 on his own. In this complaint the following glaring discrepancies/ errors have been noticed:

A: The allegations are vague, general and stereotyped and nothing specific had been mentioned in respect of the following accused persons …Accused Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 25, 26, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 40, 27, 28, 31, 34, 37, 43, 45, 46, 48, 63, 30, 47, 49, 51, 53, 57, 58, 59, 50, 52. (The SIT report gives details of the vagueness and generalized nature of the complaints by quoting the paragraphs in detail of complaints against the accused.)

B: Paras 29 to 57, 77, 79, 80, 81, 82 & 86 of the complaint have been copied out verbatim from the Affidavits No. I, II, III & IV filed by Shri R.B. Sreekumar, formerly Additional DG (Int.) before Nanavati-Shah Commission of Inquiry. The complainant Zakia Nasim has no personal knowledge of the allegations leveled by R.B. Sreekumar in his affidavits.

C: No specific allegations have been made against Accused Nos. 17,18, 19 & 60.

D: Accused No. 24 Babubhai Rajput is not traceable at the given address and it has come to light that no such person was ever in existence at the relevant point of time.

E: Accused No. 11 Anil Tribhovandas Patel was not in public life at the time of riots and had joined Bharatiya Janata Party only towards the end of 2002. He was elected as MLA only in December, 2002 and as such he has been wrongly implicated as an accused in the complaint without any specific role.

F: Accused No. 45 Shri Rahul Sharma and Accused No. 63 Shri Satish Verma have been listed as witnesses as well as accused persons. Smt. Zakia Nasim, Complainant and Ms. Teesta Setalvad, have stated that they are witnesses and have been inadvertently listed as accused persons…”

   All these facts make it absolutely clear that the complaint is not a genuine one. There are many more inaccuracies, some of which we have given in the book “Gujarat Riots: The True Story” in the chapter on the SIT report, but all the above facts show that Zakia Jafri does not have any idea of the complaint, and that it is made for her by others. The extent of this complaint’s childish nature can be seen from the fact that Accused No. 24 was never in existence, and that the complainant’s own witnesses were named as accused! 

   But the mainstream media largely did not find it worth mentioning, and tried its best to suppress such childish errors of the false complaint. Even today (5 October 2017), after the Gujarat HC dismissed her petition owing to the ridiculous and childish nature of her complaint, the media has not told such childish errors of her complaint.

  http://www.gujaratriots.com/index.php/2016/03/findings-of-sit

   Sanjiv Bhat made many false claims, and committed perjury by lying to the courts that he was present in the crucial 27 February late night meeting. The media totally covered up the findings of the SIT, even after the Supreme Court saw through his claims and rapped him in October 2015. Sanjiv Bhat not only claimed to have been present in the late night meeting at 10:30 PM in Gandhinagar on 27 February 2002 he also claimed to have been present in a meeting at the CM Bunglow on 28 February 2002 morning at 10:30 AM. The SIT report says on pages 44 and 427:

   “The call detail records of the government mobile phone number allotted to Sanjiv Bhat show that… on 28 February 2002, he remained at Ahmedabad till 10:57 hours and then returned to Ahmedabad at 20:56 hours.  The claim of Sanjiv Bhat that he had attended a meeting at CM’s residence (at Gandhinagar) on 28-02-2002 at 1030 hours is proved to be false and incorrect. CM’s residence is at Gandhinagar, more than 25 KMs from Ahmedabad, and normally takes 30 to 45 minutes to reach there. His further claim that he had seen the late Ashok Bhat and Shri I K Jadeja, the then Ministers in the DGPs office at 11:00 hours on 28-02-2002, is also belied from the call detail records in as much as the location of the mobile phone of Shri Sanjiv Bhat was at Prerna Tower, Vastrapur-I, Ahmedabad, which happened to be at a distance of 1.5 Kms appropriately from his residence and Shri Bhat could not have reached Police Bhavan, Gandhinagar before 11:30 hrs by any stretch of imagination (page 44)…

   …(page 427) That Shri Sanjiv Bhatt has been maintaining a close contact with Shri Rahul Sharma, DIG of Gujarat Police and had been getting his mobile phone calls analyzed with a view to ascertain his own movements of 27-02-2002. This shows that Bhatt does not recollect his movements on that day. He has also been trying to ascertain the movements of Late Haren Pandya, the then Minister of State for Revenue on 27-02-2002, with a view to introduce him as a participant of the meeting of 27-02-2002 held at CM’s residence, but could not do so, as Shri Rahul Sharma had informed him after the analysis that there was absolutely no question of Late Haren Pandya being at Gandhinagar on 27-02-2002 night.

   From the study of emails, it appears that certain vested interests including Shri Sanjiv Bhatt, different NGOs and some political leaders were trying to use Hon’ble Supreme Court/SIT as a forum for settling their scores. This would also go to show that Shri Sanjiv Bhatt had been colluding with the persons with vested interests to see that some kind of charge-sheet is filed against Shri Narendra Modi and others.”

   This makes things absolutely clear and also shows that many people were involved in this fraud, who knew that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at the 27 February 2002 meeting, but far from bringing out the truth to the investigators, were helping in this false claim.

   This shows that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at all in the meeting, and he did not even know basic facts about the meeting. It is known since August 2002 (when Haren Pandya’s errors in naming people in the meeting were admitted by him to Outlook and by the magazine itself, or at least after his murder in March 2003 after which Outlook reported that minister giving the information was indeed Haren Pandya) that Haren Pandya was by no means present in the meeting. But Sanjiv Bhatt did not even know this and hence first asked Rahul Sharma to find out if Haren Pandya could be introduced as a witness-a participant in that meeting.

   Most importantly, this shows that Sanjiv Bhatt was not present at all. If Sanjiv Bhat was present in the meeting, wouldn’t he know if Haren Pandya was present or not? Why would he need to ask Rahul Sharma to find the call details? This also shows that Rahul Sharma also knew the truth, that Sanjiv Bhat was not present, but did not tell the investigators. And his call records, showing him to be in Ahmedabad till 10:57 AM on 28 Feb exposed his lie of being present in a meeting with CM at Gandhinagar, more than 25 km away at 10:30 AM.

   One instance of SIT’s conclusions after thorough investigations on Teesta Setalvad and others https://www.scribd.com/document/93001838/Congress-Teesta-Setalvad-Sanjiv-Bhatt-Times-of-India-colluded-against-Narendra-Modi-SIT Media covered up such conclusions! The media suppressed all such SIT findings against Teesta, Zakia and others like Sanjiv Bhat. The SIT also said:

   “There is evidence available on record to show that immediately (after Godhra which occurred between 7:47 to 8:20 AM on 27 Feb) the State machinery was put on the high alert and this was communicated to all District authorities and Commissioners of Police. The first alert message of 27-02-2002 from the Home Department covered the need to take precautionary measures including adequate police bandobast and preventive measures including issuance of prohibitory orders depending upon the local situation. It was instructed that anti-social and hardcore communal elements should be dealt with firmly… (Page 445)”

   This book exposes all of it, in Chapter 7 Myth 19, and in Chapter 12 and also gives the role of the Narendra Modi Government in preventing and controlling violence in the 2002 riots,, in which hundreds of Hindus were also killed even after Godhra, and 40,000 Hindus made homeless into refugee camps by attacks by Muslims, just as 1 lakh Muslims were in relief camps.

   Zakia’s complaint listed D H Brahmbhatt, ex-Collector, Panchmahal district as an accused. The SIT report on page 351 quotes him as saying that he was posted as Collector on 11 December 2003, i.e. long after the riots.

   Rakesh Asthana, ex-IGP, Vadodara Range has also been named as an accused in the complaint.  The SIT report quotes him on page 328 as saying that the allegation that he was Chief of Vadodara Range in 2002 was false as he was posted as Spl. IGP, Vadodara Range only after the riots i.e. with effect from 28 April 2003. Another mistake. There are so many mistakes in Zakia Jafri’s complaint that we have not been able to mention all of them even in our book in the Chapter on the findings of the SIT. It is astonishing that the SIT has not said anything against the complaint makers for making such blatantly false allegations, naming innocent people in the complaint, despite exposing their lies and false allegations. Just because one lost close relatives in the riots, this doesn’t give anyone the license to make baseless, false allegations on anyone without any evidence, and make massive mistakes in a childish complaint.

   Real justice will be done not when Modi is given a clean chit (which he has) but when such liars against whom SIT found evidence will be prosecuted and put behind bars, and when the media will be forced to report the truth for twice the time that it lied, on the 2002 riots and on Modi! That will be when it will be #ModiBaitersDefeated !

   Read to know and let everyone else know.

https://www.amazon.in/Gujarat-Riots-True-Story-Truth/dp/1482841649?_encoding=UTF8&portal-device-attributes=desktop&qid=1442809685&ref_=tmm_pap_swatch_0&sr=8-1

   Author: @Gujaratriotscom Twitter handle https://twitter.com/Gujaratriotscom

Comments

comments