No conspiracy,rioters intended to kill: Sardarpura verdict

In the judgement,the judge has said the Special Investigation Team (SIT) could not establish any criminal conspiracy.

“The main motive was to take revenge on Muslim community as ‘Kar Sevaks’ were burnt alive on Sabarmati train at Godhra and this motive is proved from evidence…also,it is not challenged,” Srivastava observed.

She has rejected the accused’s defence that they did not have the intention of killing the members of the minority community.

The court said burning the house,in which the victims had taken shelter,was the easiest way of causing damage to persons and creating more fear in the mind of minority community-members.

“It cannot be said that the object of the unlawful assembly was not to take the lives of any persons,”

Members of the mob were clearly aware that several persons were inside the house and yet the house was set on fire,the judgement says.

“The act of setting on fire the house in Shaikh Mohalla,specially Mahemudmiya’s house,is indicative of the intention or at least the knowledge necessary to constitute the offence of murder.”

The judgement rejected the defence that there was no sufficient light/visibility for the witnesses to have a good look at the accused.

“The incident had lasted for a long period,more than an hour. There was sufficient opportunity for the witnesses to see the offenders. More particularly,when the mob was from the same locality,” the court concluded.

As to the credibility of witnesses who identified the accused at the trial but not at the time of giving statements to the police in 2002,the court said the witnesses cannot be discredited for delay in identification.

“There is nothing contradictory,incredible,improbable or inconsistent in their evidence.”

“Considering the whole evidence of the witnesses,all have avoided attributing false overt acts to the accused identified,which would have been quite easy for them,” the

court notes.

The court also rejected the contention of defence lawyers that witnesses had been tutored by social activist Teesta Setalvad.

“The witnesses have specifically denied (that Setalvad tutored them),” the court said adding tutoring a witness is different from guiding him/her to how to behave.

“In the present case,the injured witnesses were in such a state of mind that without the active support of someone they might not have come before the court to give evidence”,the court said.

It said encouragement and advice provided by CJP to the victims cannot be considered as tutoring.

While holding that there was no conspiracy behind the killings,the judgement said there are discrepancies in the versions of the witnesses on this point.

One of the witnesses claimed that former Godhra MLA Haresh Bhatt and BJP MLA Narayan Lalu had held a meeting in the village 20-25 days before the incident and distributed weapons,while another claimed that this meeting took place on February 27,2002.

The court noted that even the investigating officer had rejected the contention that any such meeting had taken place.

The version of Basirabibi Shaikh,a witness,with regard to the alleged conspiracy did not corroborate complainant’s version,the judgement says.