SIT Report reaffirmed Judicial Probe
Special Investigation Team (SIT) under Gujarat High Court has re-affirmed the fact that Police under Narendra Modi Government had “stage managed” the killings of Ishrat Jahan, a 19 years girl and three others. Unanimous report established that police claim of “encounter” was “not a genuine one.” Way Back in September 2009, Metropolitan Magistrate S P Tamang, had also reached same conclusion in his magisterial enquiry report. He has described it as “staged”.
Taking cognizance of the report, a division bench of state High Court comprising of Justice Jayant Patel and Justice Abhilasha Kumari ordered for filing a fresh FIR under Section 302 (murder) in the concerned police station against police personals involved in the shootout. The case will be further investigated to find out the motive of the crime and role played by individual officers. Strong demands are being made to probe the role of political leadership also in multiple cases of fake encounters, as political dimensions are very clear. Mr. Modi used these extrajudicial killings to enhance his clout and instigate communal divide in the society.
A total of 21 policemen, including four IPS officers were involved in in staged shootout. Those accused include then JCP (crime branch) P P Pande, suspended DIG D G Vanzara, then ACP G L Singhal and ACP N K Amin – all IPS officers. Vanzara and Amin are also accused in the Soharabuddin Sheikh fake encounter case and the murder of Sheikh's wife Kausar Bi. They are at present behind bars. Earlier a judicial probe had established that 21 policemen from the Ahmedabad City Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) had staged it to get promotions and recognition from Modi.
The SIT submitted its final report on Friday, November 18. However court had kept the details of the findings confidential because it would prejudice and hamper further investigations.
The three members SIT, headed by IPS officer RR Verma of Bihar Cadre, said that Ishrat Jahan, a 19-year-old girl from Mumbai, Javed Sheikh alias Pranesh Pillai, Amjad Ali Rana and Zeeshan Johar were killed earlier than the claimed shootout of June 15, 2004.
DCB had claimed that they were linked to the Lashkar-e-Taiba terror outfit and were in the city to assassinate Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi.
The FIR filed by the DCB after its men shot dead Ishrat Jahan and others, projects its officers as heroes and claimed the officers were trailing the four, fired in “self-defence” and killed all four “terrorists” traveling in the blue Indica car.
In a meticulously drafted story, the DCB claimed, “Fifteen days ago, an intelligence input had been provided to Ahmedabad Commissioner of Police K R Kaushik by intelligence sources,” it says, then describes the “input”: “From Kashmir, two Pakistani fidayeen from LeT have separately left for Ahmedabad. Their names are (1) Zeeshan Johar alias Janbaaz alias Abdulgani, a resident of Narnanak Kalerbadi, district Gujranwala, Punjab, Pakistan; (2) Amjadali Akbarali Rana alias Salim alias Chandu alias Rajkumar, a resident of Haveli Diwan, Bhalwal district, Sargoda, Punjab, Pakistan. Apart from them, Javed — a Lashkar operative from Pune, Maharashtra — has been setting up the local network for these two Pakistani fidayeen. These Pakistani fidayeen and Javed aim to kill the Gujarat Chief Minister in a suicide attack. And for this, they have been doing recces in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar of the Chief Minister’s residence, office and the routes he travels.”
In the FIR against all four, Ishrat is described as a “woman terrorist whose name and address were not known” (an identity card later helped establish that she was Ishrat Jahan of Khalsa College, Mumbai).
SIT has unanimously concluded that the all events from the first “tip-off” to the killing are concocted. The complainant in the FIR (I-CR No 08/2004) was J G Parmar, then a DCB police inspector and now set to become an accused of murder.
Filed on June 15, 2004, Parmar’s FIR mentions the place of the incident as near the turning at Kotarpur Waterworks, Sardarnagar. The introductory paragraph says that after the 2002 Godhra train carnage and subsequent communal riots, Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar had been made targets of terror activities of Pakistani-based groups like the LeT and that they wanted to kill Narendra Modi.
Parmar adds that the DCB’s then JCP, P Pandey and ACP D G Vanzara summoned him and an Assistant Commissioner of Police, G L Singhal, shared the “explosive” and “startling” tip-off, and asked the two to be vigilant and investigate further.
On June 14, 2004, the FIR says, Pandey got a “specific tip-off” around 11 pm through a “personal source” that Javed and the two Pakistani fidayeen had left from Mumbai for Ahmedabad in a blue Indica (MH-02-JA-4786) with arms and ammunition, and that the car might enter Ahmedabad anytime in the early morning. Vanzara then ordered a nakabandi under his direct supervision to intercept the car.
FIR further claimed that in all six teams were formed and deployed at different entry-exit points of City, taking up their positions at 1.30 am. At 4 am, the team led by then ACP (DCB) Narendra Amin spotted the blue Indica at Narol Crossroads, adding that it took a turn towards Naroda. He (Parmar) was part of that team, he writes.
Amin, while following the car, informed Singhal (at Indira Circle) about this, the FIR says. It adds Amin then relayed the information to Singhal, saying the car had taken a turn towards the airport and that it might get away. All teams then went in the direction of the airport to intercept the Indica and took positions behind the bushes on the sides of the road, the FIR says, with Amin following till there.
“The Indica slowed down at a turn near the Kotarpur Waterworks. It claimed, a commando, Mohanbhai sitting in Parmar’s vehicle, fired under the orders of Amin and burst the rear wheel, following which the car dragged towards the divider and stopped.”
The FIR then describes: “Immediately, a terrorist alighted from the left rear door of the car, along with an AK 56 and started indiscriminate firing at police vehicle. Other “terrorists” in the car also started firing after taking positions. However, before that Amin, commando PC Mohanbhai, driver Bhalabhai, PSI K S Desai and I got out of the vehicle and took position behind it, and we were not harmed,” Parmar says.
“Then, under the instructions of Amin, we started firing in “self-defence” with AK 47 rifle and fired 70 rounds....After some time, when the firing from the other side stopped and we went nearer the Indica, the terrorist sitting in the rear seat, the terrorist sitting in the driving seat, the female terrorist sitting next to the driver and the terrorist who had taken position near the road divider – in all four terrorists – were found dead on the spot.”
TAMANG’S REPORT
Metropolitan Magistrate S P Tamang, who had conducted a mandatory judicial inquiry into the “encounter”, had also concluded it was “staged”. The report was submitted in Sept, 2009.
Relying on medical jurisprudence, Tamang held that the four were detained by Ahmedabad Crime Branch on June 12, 2004 from different places. Tamang’s report highlights circumstantial evidence on how Javed and Ishrat could not have driven from Mumbai to Ahmedabad in the way they were found — they barely had any money on them and Ishrat’s handbag was found in the blue Indica’s boot — it does not conclude how exactly did they land in Ahmedabad.
Relying on the rigor-mortis evidence in the bodies of the four, Tamang had concluded that Javed was killed between 8.30 pm and 9 pm on June 14 only while three others were killed by an un-licensed 9 mm pistol and other weapons between 11 pm and 12 midnight and that the Indica was either towed or driven to the scene of crime.
He concluded that the DCB officials had planted the weapons and live cartridges in the car afterwards as those recoveries were not mentioned in the FIR lodged by J G Parmar. It was also noted that there was no mention of these recoveries even in the report by forensic scientists.
Tamang had named 21 police officers as being involved in staging the encounter to get promotions and recognition from Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
AFFIDEVIT
During the stewardship of Shivraj Patil, Union Home Ministry had cleared an affidavit to be submitted in Gujarat High Court, claiming that Isharat Jahan was a part of LeT sleeper cell. The affidavit was based on “IB inputs”. It was submitted in the court after four years just before crucial by-polls. It was letter withdrawn on the orders of Patil’s successor P. Chidambram and a revised version was submitted on September 30, 2010.
The affidavit was cleared by the then Special Secretary (internal security) Anil Choudhary on January 28, 2005, seven months after the encounter.
IB INPUTS WERE 'MANUFACTURED' IN GUJARAT
An investigative report in TOI on Jun 22, 2010, revealed the input from IB that was claimed to have triggered the Ishrat Jahan encounter was “concocted” and a probe revealed: "First the Gujarat police would get hold of accused, like in the Ishrat case, then they would get together with IB officers stationed in the State to trigger a suitable “intelligence input” to justify their operation.”
In 2009, Shamima Kausar, Ishrat's mother, filed a petition in Gujarat High Court seeking a CBI inquiry into the matter. Then, Gujarat police told the court that this was a genuine encounter on the basis of an intelligence input from the central IB. Subsequently the affidavit cleared 4 years ago was filed on behalf of Union Home Ministry supporting the encounter.
Later, a second affidavit was filed in which the central government said that the input had been sent by central IB but the killings by Gujarat police could not be justified on this basis.
After this Union home ministry got the IB to scrutinise all intelligence inputs sent to Gujarat police. During the probe, said sources, the intelligence officials learnt that some senior officials of Gujarat police and central IB were involved in triggering suspicious tip-off.
FURTHER PROBE
The division bench of HC on November 21st, observed that the motive behind the killings needed to be investigated; also, how and when the victims were killed. The SIT report said that the killings may have been carried out at a location other than where they were shown to have taken place, and that other people may have been involved. The role of each accused needed to be probed, the court said.
After hearing the submissions by the Central government and the state government, the court reserved its judgement till December 1 on finalising the investigating agency which will be assigned the task of further probe.
ISHRAT HAS NO LeT LINK
On Nov 23 the HC took a serious view of former Union home secretary G K Pillai’s remarks who was quoted as saying that the SIT had only found the encounter to be faked but in no way has cleared Ishrat and others of the terror taint. It was cleared that nothing is on record to prove link between Ishrat and Let, as claimed by Modi and his police.
The HC said, "It was not expected of a senior officer of his (Pillai's) level to speak in such a manner in the media, even though he has retired from service." "He (Pillai) cannot comment on the findings of the SIT when the court is seized of the matter," the court said, adding there is limit to freedom of speech. (26.11.2011)
(Writer is Gen. Sec; Forum for Civil Rights)