rediff.com

NewsApp (Free)

Read news as it happens
Download NewsApp

Available on  

Rediff News  All News 
Rediff.com  » News » No evidence that Modi incited rioters, says SIT

No evidence that Modi incited rioters, says SIT

Last updated on: April 25, 2013 22:42 IST

No evidence that Modi incited rioters, says SIT

     Next

Next

The lawyer of the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team, which has given a clean chit to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi in 2002 post-Godhra riots case after investigating complaint filed by Zakia Jafri, on Thursday said that "Modi has never said that go and kill people".

Opposing the protest petition filed by Jafri against SIT's closure report, its lawyer R S Jamuar said, "(social activist) Teesta Setalvad and others have falsified the complaint targeting chief minister who had never said that go and kill people."

During the second day of arguments, SIT lawyer targeted Setalvad, who has taken up the cause of riot victims, and who is helping Zakia, whose husband, Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, was killed in the riots.

Please click NEXT to read further...


Photographs: Reuters

     Next

'Setalvad sole writer of fictitious complaint against Modi'

Prev     Next
Prev

Next

Dubbing Setalvad as the sole "writer" of "fictitious" complaint against Modi and others, advocate Jamuar said: "The so-called incident of CM giving instructions to high-level police officers not to take action against the rioters is a sole creation of Teesta Setalvad. There is no evidence."

Zakia's petition demands filing of chargesheet against Modi and 58 others who she had named in her complaint filed before the Supreme Court. She has also sought further investigations by an independent agency other than SIT.

"On Teesta's instruction a citizens' tribunal was formed under the leadership of Justice (retired) V R Krishna Iyyer...after collecting evidence (it) published a report in which it was claimed that Modi has, in a meeting at his residence on February 27, 2002, gave so-called instructions," said Jamuar.

"When SIT member A K Malhotra examined the members of tribunal, they said the then state minister Haren Pandya told them. But they never had any evidence, no recording of testimony, nothing and still they came up with such conclusion," Jamuar said.

Please click NEXT to read further...




Prev     Next

'How can they implicate Modi?'

Prev     Next
Prev

Next

"As per the tribunal's report... in that meeting apart from CM three ministers were also present, whereas Zakai's own witness, (suspended IPS officer) Sanjiv Bhatt, later claimed that except Modi no politician was present," the SIT lawyer argued.

"How can they implicate Narendra Modi? Did CM say go on a rampage, go on a carnage, kill people? Tribunal's report is one of the ugliest inquiry report I have ever seen."

Advocate Jamuar also contended that Zakia's complaint alleges larger conspiracy hatched by Modi, "but Modi came to Gujarat in 2001 and this all happened within almost three months after he became chief minister. How can he hatch a larger conspiracy within that short time?"

"Complaint takes objections to CM's statement terming Godhra incidence as a conspiracy hatched by ISI during his visit to Godhra on February 27, 2002. But what's wrong in it?" he asked.

"Whenever there is such an incident, politicians of our country tend to blame it as ISI conspiracy. There is nothing wrong in it. Every time, every politician does that," Jamuar argued.

The SIT lawyer also said that Zakia had herself admitted during her deposition before the court in the Gulburg Society massacre trial that she and other witnesses were telling whatever Teesta Setalvad and (former IPS officer) R B Sreekumar asked them to.


Photographs: Reuters
Tags: IPS , ISI , Godhra , Jamuar , Modi

Prev     Next

TOP photo features of the week

Prev     More

Click on MORE to see another set of PHOTO features...



Tags:

Prev     More
© Copyright 2013 PTI. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of PTI content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent.