The Conspiracy Bubble Bursts
The Central Review Committee on POTA has
categorically rejected the 'terrorist' theory of
the Godhra carnage, much to the discomfort of
those who supported the draconian law. Amit
Sengupta reports
The Godhra accused cannot be tried under the
Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), according to
the Central Review Committee headed by Justice SC
Jain. This is bad news for Narendra Modi, the
bjp-led nda and supporters of the draconian law,
especially those who backed the large-scale and
arbitrary arrests of several individuals, mostly
Muslims, after the killings in coach S/6 of the
Sabarmati Express at Godhra on February 27, 2002.
Indeed, after the UC Bannerjee report, which
stated that the Godhra killings were not part of
a pre-planned conspiracy, the latest revelations
by a high profile official body with impeccable
credentials, proves that all the bluster
manufactured by the bjp-led Gujarat government,
has turned out to be a big bluff.
Surely, the Modi administration's repeated
contention that the Godhra killings was a
conspiracy and the Gujarat carnage that followed
the train burning was nothing but a "spontaneous
act", a mass outrage, following Newton's third
law of "equal and opposite reaction", has been
grounded into dust. Besides, all those arrested
under POTA - they are still rotting in prison -
can demand not only compensation but retributive
justice for the suffering and humiliation
suffered by them. This is precisely what civil
society groups and public interest lawyers are
now demanding.
In a scathing observation, the Committee on POTA
has categorically rejected, the 'conspiracy' or
'terrorist' theory. Hence the charges vis-�-vis
POTA get automatically nullified.
"Even if we accept the submission of the learned
public prosecutor that this incident is a part of
a pre-planned conspiracy, we do not find any
evidence on prima facie ground that this
conspiracy was one envisaged under the provisions
of POTA," said the Justice Jain Committee. Under
sub-section (3) of Section 3 of POTA, 2002,
argues the report, the conspiracy to commit a
terrorist act is punishable. As per Section 1(a)
of Section 3(a) a terrorist act is one which is
done with intent to threaten the unity,
integrity, security or sovereignty of India or to
strike terror in the people. "From the evidence
on record, we do not find even on prima facie
ground that this conspiracy was allegedly hatched
with intent to threaten the unity, integrity,
security or sovereignty of India or to strike
terror in the people or any section of the
people."
The Justice Jain Committee report is of the view
that from the beginning the prosecution was not
sure whether the provisions of POTA can be
applied in this case. This is the reason why in
the first chargesheet, which is the main
chargesheet, and which was filed after three
months of the incident, the provisions of POTA
were not invoked� Even thereafter, though the
investigation continued, the prosecution was not
sure whether the provision of POTA could be
invoked and that is why Shri Kantipuri Bawa, the
Investigating Officer, on behalf of the state
government, filed an affidavit dated 5.3.2003
before the Gujarat High Court "therein having
realised that there is no sufficient evidence and
material to attract provisions of POTA, the same
can be dropped�"
"From this conduct of the prosecution, we infer
that the prosecution itself was not sure whether
this could attract the provision of POTA and
hesitatingly they have implicated all the accused
persons to face the trial under the provisions of
the draconian law�"
The committee is certain that the February 27,
2002, tragedy was a "simple case of unlawful
assembly" committing various offences under the
ipc and other Acts but certainly not under POTA.
"This committee, therefore, is of the view that
the accused persons may be tried under the
provisions of ipc, Indian Railways Act,
Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act,
Bombay Police etc., and the violation of
notification No.u/mkp/pls/mjs/Vashi/433 dated
14.2.2002 issued by the Additional District
Magistrate, Panchmahal, Godhra, but not under the
provisions of Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002."
Significantly, the committee points that the
'conspiracy' alleged to have been hatched during
the night of February 26, 2002 at Aman Guest
House "does not seem to be probable on the case
of prosecution itself". The "cause of the
incident" is a quarrel of one of the karsevaks
with the tea vendor of Muslim community at the
platform itself when the train halted. The
committee has also pointed out that the accused
had collected spontaneously on hearing that
"persons from the Muslim community had been
beaten and a Muslim girl was being abducted�"
The assembly, which according to the prosecution
were members of the conspiracy, was initially in
front of S-2 and not in front of S-6 which was
conspired to be burnt. It has been mentioned in
the chargesheets that "in the first instance an
attempt was made to burn S-2 and not S-6. It also
supports the view that the mob was not part of
the alleged conspiracy to burn S-6." Had there
been any conspiracy in existence to burn the
coach, says the report, the coach would have been
surrounded by the 'conspirators' from all the
sides but the prosecution version does not affirm
it. Indeed, "the off-side of the coach was left
open and the passengers alighted from that side
of the compartment." So where was the
'conspiracy' to invite the draconian POTA?
June 18 , 2005
_______________________________________________
Assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/listinfo/assam
Mailing list FAQ:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/assam/assam-faq.html
To unsubscribe or change options:
http://pikespeak.uccs.edu/mailman/options/assam
