From: [email protected]
To:
http://epaperbeta.timesofindia.com/Article.aspx?eid=31804&articlexml=BY-INVITATION-Closed-encounters-of-the-ominous-kind-04012015019083
Jan 04 2015 : The Times of India (Mumbai)BY INVITATION - Closed encounters of
the ominous kindSIDDHARTH VARADARAJANThe most astonishing aspect of the CBI
court's decision to release Amit Shah from all charges connected to the 2005-6
murders of Sohrabuddin, his wife Kauser Bi and Tulsiram Prajapati is not that
the judge chose to see the BJP the judge chose to see the BJP president's
prosecution as politically motivated.Rather, it is that the Central Bureau of
Investigation doesn't seem particularly worried about the judgment's
implications for its own reputation and for the very future of the fake
encounter case.While discharging Shah from the sensational crime, the court has
not only thrown out crucial evidence against the former Gujarat home minister
but also undermined the foundations of the case that remains against some two
dozen police officials before their trial has even begun.
Questioning the CBI's contention that there was a conspiracy to kill
Sohrabuddin -a gangster with connections to the Gujarat police and political
establishment who had become an embarrassment to his erstwhile patrons -the
judge said the police had every reason to “nab“ him since there were cases
against him. The implication of this reasoning is that the “encounter“ in which
he was killed was genuine! The fact is that Sohrabuddin was not arrested but
abducted from a bus and murdered. As was his wife, who was travelling with him.
This was first established not by the CBI but by the Gujarat CID, which made
the initial arrests of senior police officers like DG Vanzara, Rajkumar Pandian
and Dinesh MN. Also, it was Gujarat police officers like Rajnish Rai and V L
Solanki who helped piece together the crime's `political' aspects, including
the conspiracy to derail the investigation.
It was because of this conspiracy that the Supreme Court gave the case to the
CBI. “(C)onsidering the involvement of the State police authorities and
particularly the high officials of the State of Gujarat,“ the SC ruled in
January 2010, “we are compelled ...to direct the CBI authorities to investigate
into the matter.“
The SC had been told about a meeting Amit Shah held in December 2006 with the
then DGP of Gujarat, PC Pande, ADGP , CID GC Raigar and IGP , CID Geetha Johri
-then the lead investigator into the case -in which he had allegedly demanded
that incriminating investigative reports prepared by Johri's deputy , Solanki,
be altered. Solanki refused to cooperate.Instead, he sought to interview
Prajapati, who was a witness to Sohrabuddin and Kauser Bi's abduction.Prajapati
had shouted in open court in November 2006 that the police were going to kill
him because he knew too much. A few days before he was to speak to Solanki, he
too was “encountered“.
Despite that setback, the investigation progressed after Rajnish Rai was put in
charge in April 2007. Arrests were made but within a month, Rai was shifted.
Johri was brought back and matters went into limbo for three years until the SC
pulled her and the Gujarat police up for not properly investigating the linked
murders.
Based on Raigar's testimony and evidence like call records, the CBI eventually
charge-sheeted Shah; Johri and Pande were also indicted for helping to destroy
evidence. Astonishingly , the CBI court threw out Raigar's statement against
Shah simply because Pande and Johri denied the meeting took place. In other
words, the judge believed the claims of the two co-accused, one of whom had
publicly been censured by the SC.
In its 2010 order, the SC had pulled up Johri and her bosses for not properly
investigating the telephone trail: “So far as the call records are concerned
... they (have) not been analyzed properly , particularly the call data
relating to three senior police officers either in relation to Sohrabuddin's
case or in Prajapati's case. It also appears from the (CID) charge sheet ...
that the motive ... was not properly investigated into as to the reasons of
their killing. “ The apex court knew “the motive of conspiracy cannot be merely
fame and name“ for the policemen involved as the Gujarat CID claimed. It knew
there were other actors. But when the CBI presented records to show how
officers involved in the murders were in constant communication with Shah
before and during their crime, the CBI court said the home minister being “in
touch with ground level officers is not unusual ... since terrorist activities
have increased all over the world.“
Though the CBI court's logic runs completely counter to the Supreme Court's
arguments, the future of the case now lies with the CBI. Will it aggressively
push for an appeal for which it has very strong grounds, or will the `caged
parrot' flap its clipped wings and say only what its political masters want it
to? The future of the rule of law, and indeed of democracy in India, will turn
on this question.
My Times, My Voice: Like this article?
SMS MTMVCOL Yes or No to 58888. Charges applicable. Rs 3 per sms
