f
confirmation were needed that something is seriously wrong with the
functioning of the RK Raghavan-led SIT, appointed to monitor and aid the
justice process in Gujarat, Ilyas Hussain Mulla’s application – filed
before the apex court as part of CJP’s wider application against the SIT’s
unprofessionalism – certainly confirms it.
Mulla, a prosecution witness in the Godhra train burning
case, makes a strong case against illegal functioning and torture by SIT
officials. The witness has no criminal record. He was in Palej, 150 km
away from Godhra, on the day the train burning incident took place and
therefore has no connection at all with what transpired.
However, after July 2002, when he was first illegally
detained by the Gujarat police in Godhra and then tortured by (DIG) Rakesh
Asthana, (SP) JK Bhatt, (DySP) Noel Parmar, (Senior PI) Girwan Singh
Solanki, (PSI) Karim Polar and other police persons for 27 days at the
State Reserve Police camp in Godhra – torture which included severe
beatings and electric shocks being administered to his private parts – he
has been forced to fall in line with a concocted case being drummed up by
the state of Gujarat.
Shockingly, the SIT appointed by the Supreme Court has
persisted with the same brutal and illegal techniques employed by the
Gujarat police, casting a slur on the reputation of its chairperson, RK
Raghavan.
After he was severely tortured, in 2002 Mulla agreed to
“confess”, implicating himself and other persons even before the judicial
magistrate. While recording his statement under Section 164 of the CrPC,
the judicial magistrate, Godhra, did not bother to record, as mandated by
law, the witness’s version, about coercion or force being used. Mulla was
thereafter forced by the Godhra police to go and live in Anand until the
torture marks, visible on his body, had faded.
However, on January 21, 2006, after the constitution of
the Justice Banerjee Commission to investigate the Godhra incident, Mulla
filed an affidavit describing what he had undergone.
The SIT was expected to investigate the Godhra incident
fairly and professionally. What does it do instead? Guided by Modi’s
poster-boy policeman, Shivanand Jha, who is also the SIT member in charge
of the Godhra and Odh investigations, the SIT ignored two applications,
dated April 12, 2008 and April 27, 2008, which Mulla sent the SIT.
However, it was the SIT’s subsequent conduct that is particularly
scandalous.
On February 15, 2010, at around 9 p.m., Ilyas Hussain
Mulla was contacted by a police constable named Kaushik and Kalubhai Ahmad
Sheikh, a police informer. They also contacted Anwar Kalander, another
witness in this case. Mulla and Anwar were asked to go to Sheikh’s house.
When Anwar arrived there, he was served with a notice stating that he was
to appear before the additional sessions judge in Sabarmati jail for
witness examination the next day.
No summons notice was served on Mulla. He was given a
letter, dated February 15, 2010 and signed by the assistant police
subinspector, SIT, Godhra, which contained a communication, ostensibly by
Mulla’s wife, stating that the witness was unable to accept summons, since
he was not in town. In the letter, the name of Mulla’s wife was recorded
as Farida when in fact his wife’s name is Rehana. Refusing to sign this
communication, Mulla asked Sheikh for a copy of the summons. Then, when
threatened with dire consequences, Mulla slipped out of Sheikh’s home to
escape the two men.
When Mulla did not return as asked, with his wife’s
signature affixed to the letter, he received a call, the first of many, on
his mobile phone (number +91-9714629373) from an undisclosed number. The
call, as displayed on the handset of Mulla’s phone, was made from a
“Private Number”. Mulla received approximately 12-15 such calls between 9
p.m. and 1 a.m. on the night of February 15-16, 2010. He was threatened
again, over the phone, and told that the summons would be served on him 15
days later. He did not however return the letter.
Instead, at around 11 p.m. Mulla faxed a copy of the
above-mentioned letter along with a handwritten letter dated February 15,
2010, addressed to the additional sessions judge at Sabarmati Central
Jail. In his letter, Mulla described the entire incident and also stated
that he would be present for witness examination on February 16, 2010
(i.e. the following day). That day Mulla was in fact present at the
Sabarmati Central Jail where he was scheduled to appear before the judge.
He made an entry in the jail register at 10:10 a.m., recording his arrival
at the jail premises.
Anwar, the other witness in the case, also arrived at the
jail around the same time. About 15 minutes later both Mulla and Anwar
were taken out of the jail. Mulla then made another entry in the jail
register, this one recording his exit from the jail. Members of the SIT
then made both men sit within the precincts of the jail for almost an
hour. They then took Anwar into the jail for witness examination, after
which he was made to wait within the jail premises until 3 p.m.
During this time Mulla was repeatedly threatened by the
SIT police, senior police inspector Raoul and constable Natu, and
asked why he had sent the fax message to the judge the previous night.
(Footage recorded by the CCTV system at the Sabarmati Central Jail
confirms Mulla’s presence there.) He was now very frightened and, using a
mobile phone belonging to another visitor to the jail, called his wife and
narrated the entire incident to her. Mulla also asked her to send a fax to
the additional sessions judge, stating that if he (Mulla) did not return
home that night, he was afraid that he might be subjected to torture and
other atrocities by members of the SIT.
At around 3:15 p.m. Mulla, who had been detained by the
SIT police, was taken away in a white Tata Sumo bearing the number 4448;
he was handcuffed. On reaching Subhash Bridge, he was transferred to a
white car bearing the number 3357. In the car were three police officers,
including Raoul. Mulla was taken to a spot near a highway hotel and here
he was severely thrashed by Raoul and others who asked him why he had come
to the jail. He was also told: “You will be killed in an encounter… Tell
us the truth, who brought you here?” The SIT representative, Raoul, and
others present abused Mulla, using filthy language, and Raoul started
thrashing him with his belt. Raoul demanded to know how Mulla had dared to
fax the letter to the judge.
At some point while Mulla was being tortured, Raoul
received a call on his mobile phone to which he responded, saying, “Noel
Sahib, Mulla is with me.” Raoul seized all the documents, original and
photocopies, that Mulla had on him. At around 8:00 p.m. a silver Tata Sumo
(number GJ 20 7800) drove up and Mulla was put into it and taken along a
route that traversed Nadiad-Dakor-Narmada Canal-Timba-Kakanpur. In the
car, police inspector Solanki was constantly on the phone and addressed
the person at the other end as: “Mothaliya Sir, we are reaching.” (JR
Mothaliya, superintendent of police, Panchmahal, is the investigating
officer in this case.)
Around midnight Mulla was taken to a government Circuit
House near Shehra, about 20 km away from Godhra. There he was severely
beaten by Mothaliya, some commandos and other officers and again
questioned about why he had faxed the letter to the judge, why he had
named Kalubhai Ahmad Sheikh in the letter, why he had mentioned that the
call came from a private number and so on. Mothaliya, acting for the SIT,
also threatened Mulla repeatedly. He told Mulla that if he did not record
the same statement as he had in his earlier “confession” before the
judicial magistrate, he would be arrested as an accused in the same case.
Mothaliya warned Mulla that he would have to spend eight years in jail
just as the accused in the case were doing. He also warned Mulla that he
was powerful enough to frame Mulla in cases of looting and robbery in
Gujarat. Abusing Mulla, Mothaliya threatened him, saying: “This is your
last day” and then forced Mulla to sign on sheets of blank paper.
The SIT’s investigating officer, JR Mothaliya, then forced
the witness for the prosecution, Ilyas Hussain Mulla, to write two
applications, one to the SIT chief, Raghavan, and the other to the
additional sessions judge, retracting his earlier fax messages. At about
4:00 a.m. Mulla was taken in the same white Tata Sumo to police chowky
number 7 (Godhra B Division police station) and made to sign the FIR book
while he was still sitting in the vehicle. Mulla signed his name at two or
three places in the FIR book. When Mulla asked Pargi (police inspector,
Godhra B Division police station) what exactly the FIR that he was made to
sign contained, he was abused and threatened. Police subinspector AV
Parmar and the police informer, Kalubhai Ahmad Sheikh, were also present
at the time. As it turned out, the concocted FIR was against Anwar, the
other witness in the case.
From there Mulla was taken to the SP office where he was
forced to sign more papers, some blank and others with something written
on them. He was then kept in room number 15 at the Circuit House for the
whole day. Mulla was given no water or food until February 17.
Some time later, after he got wind of the fact that his
deposition had been scheduled for February 23, 2010, Mulla managed to
escape, borrowing money from passers-by, and faxed a detailed handwritten
note to the judge with a copy to the chief justice of the Gujarat high
court and Raghavan (of the SIT). He also requested the judge, by fax, to
help him, to save his life. He also stated that the letters he had signed
the previous day had been signed under threat and coercion.
In his complaint to the judge, Mulla also said that if
anything untoward happened to him, police officers Parmar and Mothaliya
should be held responsible.
This shameful narrative exposes the SIT as nothing else
does. It exposes the SIT as being hand in glove with the Gujarat police.
Mulla has pleaded that the entire investigation into this sordid affair be
handed over to the CBI. Both the Gujarat police and the SIT have violated
Mulla’s fundamental rights and are responsible for torture and threats.
Mulla’s petition will be heard along with CJP’s application before the
Supreme Court in early April 2010.