Gulberg Massacre Conspiracy: The Telltale Mobile Call Records of February 27/28, 2002

Written by Teesta Setalvad | Published on: June 18, 2016



In his oral observations pronouncing judgement on June 2, special judge P.B. Desai said in open court that he has not accepted the rigorous arguments made by advocates for the witness survivors, with evidence, on a wider conspiracy behind the Gulberg carnage.

Curiously, SIT prosecutor RC Kodekar (appointed after the first public prosecutors RK Shah and Nayana Shah resigned after writing a controversial letter to the SIT in February 2010) did not in his arguments make out a case of conspiracy at all. Yet in his reactions to the media on June 2, Raghavan, charperson, Special Investigation team (SIT) said that “the judge did not buy the prosecution’s conspiracy theory, but it was not because the evidence pointing to a conspiracy was weak. Possibly, in the eyes of the judge, it was not convincing enough to sustain a conviction.”

Was this evidence actually weak? Or was it consciously not pressed by the SIT in its arguments before the trial concluded? The reasoning in the judgement due on June 6, 2016 will provide full answers.

[It needs to be recalled here, that the SIT, has in the Zakia Jafri case pending before the Gujarat High Court, inexplicably refused to investigate the demands of the criminal complaint: a wider conspiracy into the 300 incidents that took place in Gujarat in 2002].
While we await the judgement, we place before our readers strong evidence of criminal conspiracy that were placed and argued by advocates SM vora and Salim Shaikh for the witnesses.

In June 2010, Communalism Combat had reported on the detailed analysis that the Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) had undertaken and provided to the Supreme Court of India during its application for the re-constitution of the Special Investigation Team (SIT). This application supported by a detailed affidavit dated December 1, 2009 can be read here.

All this evidence was thereafter placed before the Trial Court from 2010 onwards. Advocate Mihir Desai argued for the arraignment of four officers, Commissioner PC Pande, Joint Commissioner, MK Tandon, then DCB PB Gondia and …Chudasama as accused in the case under section 319 of the Code of Criminal procedure (CRPC).

Essentially, this affidavit backed by documentary evidence procured through repeated applications in the Gulberg society massacre trial (by then before the special judge, BU Joshi) revealed that the SIT has deliberately or consciously failed to investigate key aspects of documentary evidence from the documentary records procured after trial began (the SIT had not placed these on record with the charge sheet).

What were these documents? They were charts showing arms and ammunition available with policemen stationed on duty (including the rounds of bullets they did not fire), they were records of the Fire Brigade register in Ahmedabad, they were the Police Control Room Records (PCT) and they were the analysis of the CD of phone call records first presented before the Nanavati-Shah Commission by then DCB Crime Branch (March-July 2002) in 2004.

What did our (CJP’s) locational analysis of the mobile phone records reveal?

Excerpts:

Six Persons from chief minister Modi’s office in Meghaninagar locality on February 27

► What were six persons from Modi’s office (CMO) doing in the Meghaninagar locality where the Gulberg society is located on February 27, 2002, the day of the Godhra mass arson and eve of the massacres?

► According to the call records, all the six persons from the CMO were in the area during 2.00-5.00 pm that day, while Modi was in Godhra.

► At the same time, then health minister Ashok Bhatt and Tanmay Mehta (PA to CM Modi) are shown as located at Narol- Naroda between 9.00 am and 5.00 pm.

► These very locations were the sites of the carnage the next day. How is the presence of key and influential persons here to be explained? What were they doing there, who all did they meet?

What is truly mysterious is why the high-profile SIT specially appointed by the apex court failed to carry out a professional investigation.