Rubabuddin outside the court Friday. (Express photo by Prashant Nadkar)RUBABUDDIN SHAIKH, the younger brother of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, the only family member present in the special CBI court on Friday, said that with nobody held responsible for his brother’s death, he will have to conclude that Sohrabuddin had killed himself.
Rubabuddin, on whose petition the Supreme Court had in 2006 directed a probe into whether Sohrabuddin’s encounter was genuine, said that he had lost hope of the accused being held guilty when the Bombay High Court had discharged six policemen.
In September, the high court had dismissed Rubabuddin’s pleas against the trial court’s order discharging IPS officers, including D G Vanzara, Rajkumar Pandian and Dinesh M N.
“There was enough evidence against the accused, but it seems that the court has turned a blind eye towards it. This judgment is just not right. It is not in the interest of justice,” he told The Indian Express.
He added, “The court has not accepted any evidence. It looks like my brother Sohrabuddin killed himself. When the HC discharged six policemen in September, I lost hope. It was very clear that the accused before the trial court will also be acquitted.”
Rubabuddin said the CBI had neither filed an appeal against the discharge of most of the accused nor the agency supported his appeal before the HC against the discharge of the three officers.
Rubabuddin, who had deposed before the trial court on November 17 as a prosecution witness, had claimed that he had filed a petition in the SC after he was informed that his brother’s encounter was not genuine. “The journey was not easy, we had put in so much effort, right from seeking a CBI investigation before Supreme Court in 2006. It is a sad day, we have not got justice. But I will pursue the appeal till Supreme Court,” he said.
Besides Rubabuddin, his two other brothers, Nayamuddin Shaikh and Shahnawazuddin Shaikh, had also been included as prosecution witnesses.
Nayamuddin, however, had contradicted the prosecution’s claim during his deposition by claiming that the CBI had “planted” Sohrabuddin’s associate Tulsiram Prajapati in the “abduction story” though he was not present.
On Friday, Nayamuddin claimed that the court had “selectively” looked at evidence. “So many witnesses turned hostile during trial. We had sought for the court to take action against those. The relief for the accused is only temporary as we will be seeking a retrial.”
Shahnawazuddin, who had initially sought to be examined as a witness but later did not turn up despite summons, claimed that he had been served summons only on WhatsApp. “During the trial as well, it was clear that they were deposing under pressure. Tulsiram’s mother Narmadabai also did not depose. The result is not surprising given the nature of the evidence,” he said.
Rubabuddin said that some material witnesses, including Gujarat investigator Rajnish Rai, Gujarat builders Ramanbhai and Dashrathbhai Patel, who had given statements on the links between the police and Sohrabuddin, were not called as witnesses.
Tulsiram’s mother Narmada-bai said that her son’s death has already destroyed her life and the judgment will not change that. “Now that the judgment has come, I hope I don’t go through any more trouble,” she added.
