Gujarat govt harps on conspiracy theory before Godhra panel

Ahmedabad, Feb 2 (UNI) The Gujarat government today made a strong case for the 'conspiracy' theory, before Nanavati-Shah Commission, saying there was enough evidence to prove that the Godhra train carnage incident was part of a ''pre-planned conspiracy'' and not a fallout of an eve-teasing incident.

However, the Commission, probing the carnage incident and its aftermath, pointed to serveral chinks in the theory.

Arguing before the Nanavati-Shah Commission, which is now in the final stages of hearing, Government counsel H M Dhruv submitted that the train's S6 coach was set afire as part of a planned execution of a conspiracy.

''Even if the incidents of eve-teasing of a Muslim girl by karsevaks or fight between the kar sevaks and a tea vendor had not happened, the coach would have been anyway burnt,'' he told the Commission.

However, the Commission asked him to corroborate the conspiracy theory, by explaining what he meant by ''conspiracy'' and what was its object and how could have the conspirators planned to strike at the train, at Chichalav, between Dahod and Godhra, where the train did not have a stop. He was also asked to explain how they could have executed their plan when the train was five hours' late.

Though Mr Dhruv did not elaborate on these points, he sought to confirm the conspiracy theory by drawing the Commission's attention to the confessional statement of one Jabir Binyamin Bera who was arrested on January 2003 and had recorded his statement under Section 164 before a magistrate on April 29 that year.

Bera had said that he had overheard two persons--Bilal Haji and Farooq Bhana--talk about a Maulvi's (Maulana Umerji) instruction to target S6 coach of the train, but he retracted it on August 29 that year.

Citing a recent Supreme Court judgement in the Parliament attack case which says if a confessional statement is voluntary and true, it can be accepted, the counsel submitted that Bera's statement should also be considered as true, even though he retracted it four months later.

''Why did he take so long to retract his statement? This showed that his confession can still be held as true,'' he said.

On the question whether the fire was due to some inflammable liquid thrown from outside or was a result of a flash fire, he quoted several statements recorded by the police to corroborate his contention that liquid had been thrown in from outside.The statements of Dineshbhai Narsibhai, Nitin Patel, Gyan Prasad Chaurasia, Rambhai Patel and Govindsinh Ratansinh pointed to the fact that the inflammable liquid had been thrown in from the seat no 72 side of the coach, he added.

The inflammable liquid, which was used, could be ascertained from the results shown in FSL reports, he stressed. ''While 28 samples showed presence of hydrocarbons, two showed that of petrol, and another two that of hydrochloric acid and one had traces of blue hydrocarbons.

Rebutting Jan Sangharsh Manch's contention that the investigations were tardy and dishonest, Mr Dhruv said apart from the main chargesheet, 16 supplementary chargesheets have been filed.

A total of 128 panchnamas had been made, evidence by way of statements of various passengers, kar sevaks and Railway witnesses, etc have been recorded, he said. ''At least 16 to 17 FSL reports have been filed. Nineteen accused have been shown as absconding. All this shows investigations have been dishonest,'' he added.

UNI