Almost two years after the Godhra incident and after filing seven chargesheets, the Special Investigating Team (SIT) made a discovery that it had named a wrong man as an accused. SIT moved the special POTA court for changing his name but the court rejected the application, saying it was devoid of merit.SIT wanted the name of accused Harun Abdul Hamid Dav, who has been absconding, be changed to Harun Abdul Majid Dav. Last week, special POTA judge Sonia Gokani ruled the prosecuting agency hadn’t given any independent evidence, apart from the two statements of an eyewitness claiming the person named in the chargesheet wasn’t the one he had seen on February 27, 2002.The court also observed that witness Rajesh Vitthalbhai Darji’s first statement was ‘‘vague enough’’ and his second statement, made after one and half years, speaks of Harun Abdul Hamid Dav’s absence even when the chargesheet continues to show him an absconding accused.The court advised SIT to file a report under Section 169 of CrPC (stating the person named as accused not found involved) if it was a genuine mistake on part of the investigating agency.The SIT application said Rajesh Darji had, in his first statement, mentioned he had seen Harun Abdul Hamid Dav carrying a kerosene can at the scene of offence.Later, after Dav submitted a certificate from Panvel Municipal Hospital, Mumbai, stating he had been admitted there from February 23-28, 2002, SIT sought Darji’s clarification. It was only on October 17, 2003, that Darji became available for identifying the person. He was shown Harun Abdul Hamid Dav’s photograph but he couldn’t identify him.SIT officials said the witness then named Harun Abdul ‘Majit’ Dav — an auto driver — as the person he had seen. The driver sent a letter to the court, alleging the SIT ‘‘was deliberately dropping the name of Hamid Dav, a known criminal.’’
