2002 Naroda Gam riots case: Court criticises SIT probe, says evidence of prosecution full of contradictions

A special court here which acquitted all the 67 accused in the Naroda Gam post-Godhra riots case has criticised the probe conducted into it by a Special Investigation Team (SIT) formed by the Supreme Court and said the evidence of the prosecution’s witnesses was full of contradictions and could not be relied upon.

Eleven persons were burnt alive in the Naroda Gam area of Ahmedabad district in Gujarat on February 28, 2002, when a bandh call was given by right wing organisations to protest against the burning of Sabarmati Express train in Godhra a day before.

The court of special judge S K Baxi on April 20 acquitted all the 67 accused, including former state BJP minister Maya Kodnani, ex-Vishwa Hindu Parishad leader Jaydeep Patel and former Bajrang Dal leader Babu Bajrangi.

A copy of the court order was made available on Tuesday.

The court observed that when the probe into the case was handed over to the SIT, the responsibility of its investigation officer became special and the “probe into the case is expected to be such”.

“The evidence on record in connection with the incident dated February 28, 2002 does not in any way suggest that any of the accused formed an illegal group with common intention and purpose for criminal conspiracy,” it said, while discarding the angle of criminal conspiracy put forth by the prosecution.

The claim of criminal conspiracy was made by witnesses six-and-a-half years after the incident, and the SIT did not bother to verify their statements which were in “contradiction” to statements given earlier to the Gujarat police officers before 2008, it said.

The SIT took over the investigation into the case from the police in 2008.

Further, while the fact that property and lives of the minority community in the area were destroyed in an attack by an unidentified mob, the prosecution failed to establish that it was done by the accused after they entered into a criminal conspiracy and formed unlawful assembly to do so as claimed by it, the court said.