The trial court that conducted the Hashimpura massacre case has accepted the evidence of five eyewitnesses on every important aspect of the incident on which they testified.
The five had testified, among other aspects, on how about 42 people from the Hashimpura Mohalla were abducted by personnel of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC), a reserve police force of the Uttar Pradesh government, put into their truck, taken to the Gang Nahar (canal) and later the Hindon river before being shot and thrown into the river and the canal.
These witnesses are among those who survived the massacre. But they were not able to identify the accused during the trial.
“All the witnesses are found to be truthful, genuine and reliable witnesses. It has been established that about 42 persons abducted from Mohalla Hashimpura were put in a yellow PAC truck by PAC officials; the said truck, instead of going to the police station or police line, was taken first to Gang Nahar, Murad Nagar, where several abducted persons were shot at and thrown into the waters of the Gang Nahar; and thereafter the remaining persons were shot at Hindon river and thrown into its waters,” Additional Sessions Judge Sanjay Jindal said in his judgment.
The court also dismissed argument by defence counsel that there were discrepancies in the statements of these witnesses.
“The witnesses have clarified that they were threatened by the police not to name the PAC in their statements to the authorities. This explanation appears genuine. Even otherwise, one can understand the state of mind of persons who have undergone such brutal experiences. The culprits had thrown the witnesses into the water; they have survived the assault only by the grace of God …’’ Mr. Jindal said.
On the weapon of offence, .303 rifles, allegedly used in the massacre, the court said: “Although 17 rifles have been sent to the forensic science laboratory for examination there is no record or evidence to show from whom they were seized. It is not clear which rifle was recovered from which accused or from which office or store. Moreover, the rifles have been produced in an unsealed condition during the trial. So many rounds have allegedly been fired but not a single cartridge has been recovered.”
Two ballistic experts, Om Prakash Mani Tripathi and Roop Singh, who examined the rifles, did not give a conclusive finding. “The mutilated piece could not be linked positively with any of the seventeen .303 rifles,” the judge said. “Opinion that the lone fired bullet had characteristics similar to .303 is not enough to conclude that the weapon of offence is the recovered rifle/rifles.”
On the identity of the truck allegedly used in the incident, the judge said: “None of the witnesses, who claimed to be eyewitnesses, has given the registration number of the truck.” Mr. Jindal also pointed to the delay in examining it. “It was examined on January 3, 1988, much after the alleged incident on May 22, 1987, and the possibility of some other factors necessitating the fixing of patch on its body cannot be ruled out.” The hole in the truck had allegedly been caused during the firing at the victims inside.
