The Supreme Court on Monday directed a trial court in Gujarat to take a final decision on the complaint of Zakia Jafri, wife of the former MP, Ehsan Jafri, who was killed in the Gulberg Society carnage during the 2002 riots, against Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
A Bench of Justices D.K. Jain, P. Sathasivam and Aftab Alam directed the Special Investigation Team, headed by the former CBI Director, R.K. Raghavan, to submit its final report under Section 173 (2) of the Cr.PC to the trial court, on the further investigation conducted by it on Ms. Jafri's complaint.
Ms. Jafri accused Mr. Modi and 61 others of orchestrating the post-Godhra communal riots in connivance with police officials and senior bureaucrats. The Supreme Court asked the SIT to probe the matter. The SIT submitted its report in May 2010, but the court asked amicus curiae Raju Ramachandran to independently review the report against the backdrop of concerns that some of its conclusions — namely that no case was made out against Mr. Modi — were not fully in consonance with the evidence the investigation had itself established.
Disposing of the matter, the Bench said that in light of the report of the amicus curiae, submitted earlier this year, “the question for determination was the future course of action in the matter.” The Bench said: “We are of the opinion that bearing in mind the scheme of Chapter XII of the Cr.PC, once the investigation has been conducted and completed by the SIT, in terms of the orders passed by this court from time to time, there is no course available in law, save and except to forward the final report under Section 173 (2) of the Code to the court empowered to take cognisance of the offence alleged.”
Accordingly, “we direct the Chairman, SIT to forward a final report, along with the entire material collected by the SIT, to the court which had taken cognisance of Crime Report No.67 of 2002, as required under Section 173(2) of the Code. Before submission of its report, it will be open to the SIT to obtain from the amicus curiae copies of his reports submitted to this court.”
Asked to comment on the order, Mr. Raghavan, who is now in London, told The Hindu: “I would merely say that the SIT will give [the] maximum support to the trial court as per the Supreme Court's directions. It is possible we may be required to file a final report to the trial court on the further investigation done by us under intimation to the Supreme Court and with the permission of the trial court as required by Section 173 (8) of the Cr.PC.”
The Bench made it clear that the trial court would deal with the matter in accordance with law relating to the trial of the accused, named in the report/charge sheet, including matters falling within the ambit and scope of Section 173(8) of the Cr.PC.
However, “if for any stated reason the SIT opines in its report, to be submitted in terms of this order, that there is no sufficient evidence or reasonable grounds for proceeding against any person named in the complaint, dated 8th June 2006, before taking a final decision on such ‘closure' report, the court shall issue notice to the complainant and make available to her copies of the statements of the witnesses, other related documents and the investigation report strictly in accordance with law.”
Keywords: Gujarat riots case, Ehsan Jafri murder, Zakia Jafri plea, Gulberg Society massacre, Narendra Modi, SIT probe
The reasons for saying : God is Great: There is not an iota of justice for Jakia Jafri and Teesta Setalvad in this judgement but the commentary full of directions and dictums regarding how to file a 'closure' report, what not to do in future by the SIT, Amicus Curiae and Magistrate. There is complete judicial impunity prescribed for them in the event of committing an error, if any and why there is no monitoring any further and the matter is disposed. The Complainants have given the specific names and charges against Narendra Modi and Other 61 accused but the Court referred the matter in an apologetic manner for the culprits narrating the incidents which took place during the period between 27th February, 2002 to 10th May, 2002 were aided, abetted and conspired by some responsible persons in power, in connivance with the State Administration, including the Police. The Appellant thus sought registration of another FIR against certain persons named in the complaint, dated 8th June, 2006 for offences punishable under section 302 read with section 120-B as also under section 193 read with sections 114, 186 & 153_A, 186,187 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.The Bench has addressed the Complainant or an Appellant by using the poetic term 'hapless victim' and the grave offences as 'abominable and woeful events' and for that formed the SIT 'to look into' complaint and suggested the ways and means to come to the final decision on such 'closure' report. The judgement further gives the directions and judicial dictum to the Magistrate, if he decides not to take cognisance of the offence and drop the proceedings or takes a view that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against some of the persons mentioned in the FIR, the Magistrate must give notice to the informant (of FIR ) and provide him an opportunity to be heard at the time of consideration of the report...If he ( Magistrate ) errs while passing a judicial order, the same may be a subject matter of appeal or judicial review. There may be a possibility of the prosecuting agencies not to approaching the higher forum against an order passed by the learned Magistrate, but the same by itself would not confer a jurisdiction on this Court to step in .' The solution to the next question is whether this Court should continue to monitor the case any further. The legal position discussed in various judgements delivered by the Apex Court had observed that : '... once a charge sheet is filed...' the process of monitoring comes to an end with further rider that 'We make this observation only to reiterate this clear position in law so that no doubts in any quarter may survive.' ( which charge sheet ? the one in the pending case or the one which may yet be filed in future ). But nevertheless the whole para No. 13 is devoted to : Deferentially concurring with the dictum of this court...We dispose this appeal accordingly.
the SC has taken step as per law and to me it is right decision. the point is that we all know the failure of Modi Govt there in Gujrat Riot but evidence is missing. I request Mr. Modi to come forward above all investigations and "Accept Democracy" and leave yourself behind the bar.
For most of the media, their wishfulthinking of exonerating Modi without any trial is showing in their headlines as well as TV anchors line of navigating the discussions. Very Few are eager for the victims getting Justice without further delay. It is ironic in this nation that when issues like 'Lathicharge on Baba Ramdev's supporters' deserves prompt Suo moto attention whereas a grave injustice is pushed into oblivion & victims' agony persists for ever.
It is indeed surprising that a man like Modi, who had developed Gujarat beyond comparison is being hunted for the aftermath of Godhra incident. It is certain that the case would have been the same had it been ruled by any other person. Consider the case of the fall of Babri masjid during the period of Narasimha Rao. Despite having intelligence reports, the PM and the Congress kept quite all along until the structure fell down. The logic behind this was even the Congress wanted the disputed structure to perish so that no more problems related to that remains ! Similarly, the reason behind the perennial "Modi-hunt" will come to light someday.
Yesterday television channels have been telling listners that the Supreme Court has directed that SIT's final report including its investigations report on the allegations made by Zakia Jafri in the Supreme Court and the report of the amicus curiae appointed by the court be presented to the court empowered to take cognisance of the offence alleged. But the report above says that what the SC said was only that "before submission of its report, it will be open to the SIT to obtain from the amicus curiae copies of his reports submitted to this court”. The court is only giving permission thereby to SIT to get copies of the said confidential report,if it wants to do so, before filing its final report to the empowered court. The SC doesn't seem to have directed that the empowered court should necessarily consider the report of the amicus curiae along with that prepared by SIT.
Interestingly, this shows the real fundamental weakness and inefficiency in the Indian system, which leads to corruption, mismanagement, and sometimes, to the killing of innocent people.Given all the machinery that the law has, can all these years of enquiry cannot determine some basic facts: * When the crowd gathered that the Gulberg center, it seems reasonable that the trapped people would have requested help from the police, and since a legislator was also there, it is possible that he called some higher ups, including the CM? Can telephone records not show this? * Secondly, when help was requested, what was the response from the police and/or the higher ups, including the CM, if indeed this was the case. * why are we having so much difficulty to determine, whether this was just a case of a crowd gone wild, or a deliberate refusal of help from the authorities? Until we achieve this kind of integrity, no number of Anna Hazare's can change this country!
The Supreme Court Bench's direction to the trial court to proceed the case of Godra has dampened the spirit of the family of Jafri,who had knocked the doors of the highest judiciary, eagerly awaiting justice. That much water has flown under the bridge since a decade and justice is not near vicinity, has shattered the hopes of the family of victims in thousands. The second innings of kicking off the judicial enquiry of high sensitive Godra carnage,undoubtedly has provided fodder for the offenders ,who may be emboldened to resort to strong arm methods. The accountability of the Chief Minister, under whose nose,the gory violence was staged,hangs on an unusual balance with the Supreme Court leaving the ball into the trial court.
Please Email the Editor