New Delhi, Oct 27 (UNI) Zakia Ahsan Jafri, the wife of slain MP Ehsan Jafri, who had challenged the SIT's clean chit to then Gujarat chief minister Narendra Modi in the 2002 riots case, today told the Supreme Court that why many dead bodies in the Gujarat's 2002 riots cases were handed over to Jaydeep Patel, who was a VHP functionary.
"Why some dead bodies were handed to Jaydeep Patel is a serious issue. He was Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) functionary, why would anybody handover bodies to a private party? It was all that was said by the Special Investigation Team (SIT)," Kapil Sibal, senior lawyer, appearing for Zakia told the Supreme Court's three-judge bench, headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar.
Sibal said that it is a serious issue that a private person is handed over dead bodies, what he says is alright we will have an inquiry. "What happened to that inquiry? nothing!," Sibal argued.
Sibal further questioned that contrary to all rules of procedure, how was a dead body given to this individual through an official communication!
"By the times these bodies reached Ahmedabad the crowd had already gathered," Sibal said.
Sibal said that who made phone calls? How did anyone know that Patel was taking dead bodies? Who made these calls? I don’t know, but these have to be investigated.
Raising serious questions on the way the SIT handled and investigated the Gujarat riots cases, Sibal said that houses were burned, 106 properties in Dhansura were allegedly destroyed. The particular sting, the journalists, Ashish Khaitan done was a prosecution witness in one of the cases.
Sibal further said that this tape was authenticated by the CBI (Central Bureau of Investigation) as genuine, where do we go?
Sibal further submitted to the Apex Court that the tape wasn’t taken into consideration, the closure report was filed that was it.
Sibal questioned that if it's only about Gulberg society, then there's the end of the case. Larger conspiracy has to be investigated or not?
The Bench asked Sibal, but right now, you're taking us to documents related to individual accused. Let us focus on how the report has dealt with this.
All I want to show is all this material was with the SIT which was not looked at, Sibal told the Supreme Court.
He said that he did not want to enter into any political arena but "only want the rule of law to be upheld."
Sibal further questioned that is this fashion of Investigation being done? Should the Magistrate not have said further investigate?
The bench made it clear that Patel was later arrested, to which, Sibal replied that not in this case.
Senior lawyer and former Attorney General for India (AG) Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for for the SIT, said that we will show that we faithfully investigated everything.
"We have very well investigated the cases. There are all angles looked into and detailed investigation has been done in these Gujarat riot cases," Rohatgi said.
Sibal said, what does law require? Law requires not to accept statements of accused, you can’t close investigation by accepting statements of a potential accused.
The arguments, which was inconclusive today, will continue before the Supreme Court's same three-judge bench, post Diwali vacation, after November 7.
UNI SM SHK2138