[Reader-list] 'Report based on SIT findings'

[Kshmendra Kaul]

(For whatever it is worth and howsoever it may be interpreted or used/abused by those who have been conversing on this issue)
 
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Report-based-on-SIT-findings/articleshow/4407437.cms
 





'Report based on SIT findings'
16 Apr 2009, 0049 hrs IST








My report was based on the SIT report and not any document circulated by the Gujarat government, as suggested by CJP. Whether any section of the media has the report or not is irrelevant as TOI has access to the report. Let me quote from the report. 

Page 9 of the SIT report on the Gulbarga Society carnage on February 28, 2002, says: ‘‘Insistence of 19 witnesses to take on record their signed statements which according to them were prepared by Smt Teesta Setalvad and advocate Tirmiji’’ — the reference here is to witnesses giving signed computerised statements which were not accepted by the investigating officer (IO) as under Section 161 the officer is required to write the statement of witnesses after interrogating them personally. 

The SIT report says on page 10, ‘‘All of them had brought with them ready-made statements prepared on computer and requested IO to take them on record. IO explained to them that according to law they had to be questioned and examined and their statements reduced in writing by the IO.’’ It goes on to say, ‘‘On questioning them in respect of the typed statements, all 3 of them stated that the computerised prepared statements were given to them by Smt Teesta Setalvad and advocate Tirmiji and that they had merely signed and initialed on such prepared statements.’’ 

The report goes on to say that ‘‘there are discrepancies between the prepared statements and statements recorded by the IO. In respect of 6 witnesses, there are contradictory statements relating to the names of the accused they were linking with (the) crime.’’ 

Page 11 says, when ‘‘questioned about the discrepancies’’, the six witnesses ‘‘stated that they had prepared the statements and not Setalvad and advocate Tirmiji.’’ In other words, the latter witnesses changed their version about who had prepared their signed statements. 

The report also says (page 8) the allegation about the then Ahmedabad police commissioner C P Pandey visiting Gulbarga Society at 10.30am and assuring police protection to Muslims but not following it up was wrong as ‘‘he was proved to have gone to Sola Civil Hospital to take care of the dead bodies of Sabarmati Express arson victims.’’ 

The report also cites some instances of police dereliction of duty, such as by senior police inspector K G Erda of Maghani Nagar PS who was found to be ‘‘falsely creating the record’’ and ‘‘allowing the destruction of evidence in order to screen offenders.’’ It also found the pre-SIT IO guilty of ‘‘preparing slipshod inquest reports,’’ etc. In short, my report was based on the actual SIT report. The excerpts from it should prove this beyond doubt. 

— Dhananjay Mahapatra 

--- On Sat, 4/18/09, Jhuma Sen <sen.jhuma at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Jhuma Sen <sen.jhuma at gmail.com>
Subject: [Reader-list] Guj govt's, not an SIT report
To: "sarai list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date: Saturday, April 18, 2009, 10:32 PM

 I remember stumbling upon some interesting Teesta/NGO bashing in the Reader
List a few days ago based on a prima facie ridiculous TOI report. An
explanation at last.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Guj-govts-not-an-SIT-report/articleshow/4407434.cms

I find TOI's stand extremely amusing.  This may serve as a panacea to many
who prefer to live in a state of denial (wishful thinking).



Regards

Jhuma
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in
the subject header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>