Rediff.com« Back to articlePrint this article

Have 'strong' evidence against Modi in riot case: Teesta

February 18, 2013 22:23 IST

Social activist Teesta Setalvad on Monday claimed there is ‘strong’ evidence against Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi, whom the Special Investigation Team has given a clean chit in the post-Godhra riot case, in a complaint filed by Zakia Jafri, wife of slain ex-Congress Member of Parliament Ehsan Jafri.

"We have many strong cases and evidence against many of the accused including accused number one (Modi)," Setalvad whose non-governmental organisation called Centre for Justice and Peace provides legal assistance to 2002 post-Godhra riot victims told reporters in Ahmedabad.

She was responding to a question about the basis on which Zakia had filed a complaint alleging the complicity of Modi and others in the 2002 riots on which the SIT has filed a closure report, giving a clean chit to the accused.

"After the loss of almost a year, since the SIT has filed a closure report, we have provided all relevant materials. At this stage we can't divulge any further details about our protest petition," she said.

The press conference was called by the CJP to appraise the media on 'Landmarks In The 2002 Justice Process And The Roadmap Ahead'.

Setalvad also blamed SIT for the delay in trials of two major 2002 rioting cases at Gulberg society and Naroda Gaam, out of the nine cases which were investigated by the SIT under the Supreme Court's direction.

"The Gulberg case trial is almost at the completion stage but SIT has challenged a trial court order, directing it to furnish all investigation documents before the court, in the high court," she alleged, adding that because of this, the trial was held up.

She gave details of the present legal status of different rioting cases for which trials were being conducted before special courts under the direction of the apex court.

PTI
© Copyright 2024 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent.