Discharging Bharatiya Janata Party president Amit Shah in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh and Tulsiram Prajapati fake encounter cases, a special CBI court said here on Tuesday that the CBI failed to convince it of the evidence submitted against Mr. Shah.
“There were reasons for the Gujarat and Rajasthan police to nab him [Sohrabuddin]. If the motive stated by the CBI is to be believed, it is only the Gujarat Police that Mr. Shah could control but no reasons to believe that he could control the Rajasthan police as well,” the court said.
The call data record (CDR) submitted by the CBI to support its case failed to satisfy the court. Opposing the agency’s argument that Mr. Shah made 38 calls to then IPS officer D.G. Vanzara and 343 calls to the then Superintendent of Police Rajkumar Pandian, the judge commented, “Terrorists activities have increased all over the world; in such a situation, if a Minister of State for Home enters into direct dialogues with ground-level officers, it is not unnatural.”
“Moreover, the explanation of the applicant [Mr. Shah] that it was his style of functioning can be considered while deciding to discharge him. Only on the basis of the CDR without the content of actual conversation, there is no sufficient ground to link accused applicant to actual conspiracy,” he said.
Minutes after the order was pronounced, Sohrabuddin’s brother, Rubabuddin, told the media that the CBI was pressured to make a “weak” case against Mr. Shah. The court, however, found that Rubabuddin did not implicate Shah in his statement. “The CBI relied on the statements of Rubabuddin, but he did not implicate Shah in any manner.”
The statement of G.C. Raigar, the then Additional Director-General of Police (Home Guards), who held the additional charge of Crime, which was heavily relied upon by the CBI, did not prove the complicity of the accused in the case, Judge Gosavi observed.
Mr. Raigar, in his statement, made a mention of a “meeting” called by Mr. Shah in the last week of December 2006. Mr. Raigar, P.C. Pande, the then Director-General of Police; and another police officer, Geetha Johri, attended the meeting. Mr. Raigar said he was “scolded” by Mr. Shah for not instructing a police officer (V.L. Solanki), who was making inquiries in the encounter case. The court, however, said Ms. Johri and Mr. Pandian denied any such meeting had taken place.
The CBI said Ms. Johri asked Mr. Solanki to make changes in a report prepared in the alleged fake encounter case. The court, however, pointed out that the report was not brought on record.
Also the CBI argued before the court that Ms. Johri had prepared a note where she struck out the words “systematic efforts on the part of the state government.”
“Johri’s omission doesn’t suggest that Shah tampered with the evidence. The entire note was produced before the court and it shows that Johri was not happy with the investigation done by the IO [investigation officer]. It cannot show that he [Shah] manipulated it,” the court further said. “The CBI chiefly relied on the statement of witnesses which are mostly hearsay or the statements of the other co-accused. But even the statements of the co-accused don’t link Shah to the case,” the judge said.
