Sardarpura Massacre 2002

1. 20
COMMUNALISM COMBAT
DECEMBER 2011
PW 57
Shaikh Mustufamiya Rasulmiya
SHAIKH Mustufamiya Rasulmiya, PW 57, has deposed on
oaththatatthetimeofincidenthewasstayinginShaikh
Mohalla in Sardarpura. On 01.03.2002 there was a Bharat
bandh thereforehe was at home.At about 9.30 a.m.he went
to the house of Rameshbhai Dahyabhai who told him to wa-
terhisfieldandthatnothingwillhappenintheirvillage.He
wasnotwillingtogotothefield,leavinghisfamilymembers
inShaikhMohalla.Ontheverysameday,atabout9.30p.m.,
Rameshbhai Dahyabhai was in the mob of Patels that came
shoutingslogans, with
petrol, kerosene and
other weaponsin their
hands, and had broken
andburntcabins.Asthe
police came,they dis-
persed. Againat about
11.30 p.m. they came
shouting slogans “to
cut, beat and burn the
bandiyas;nooneshould
beleftalive”.Theyhad
weapons and kerosene
intheirhands.
Hiswifeandsonwent
towards the house of
Mahemudmiya. The mob
had burnt the house of
Mahemudmiya by pour-
ingpetrolandkerosene
insidetheroomandthis
witness went behind
the houseof Bachumiya
Imammiya. Heheard the
voicesofpersonsasking
for help. He was injured bystones. In the morningthe po-
lice came and hence he went towards the house of
Mahemudmiya. Twenty-eight persons had died. His wife
Samimbanu and his son Javed both were dead and they were
takentoMehsanaCivilHospital.Otherinjuredpersonswere
also taken toMehsana Civil Hospital…
He is an injured witness and had taken treatment at
MehsanaCivilHospital.Asperhisdeposition,atthetimeof
incident he could see but now he is unable to see due to
pterygium… [T]hefactis thathiswifeandsonhavediedin
theincidentandhe himselfwas injured…Therefore thesay
of the witness that the mob went towards the house of
Mahemudmiya and they poured kerosene and petrol in the
house andatthattime hehadhidden himself bythe side of
Bachumiya’s housegets more weightage, ashis presence in
ShaikhMohallaatthetimeofincidentisnatural,asheisa
residentofShaikhMohallaandtheincidentoccurredduring
the night. His presence in Shaikh Mohalla at the time of
incidentcannotbedoubted…Thisfactissupportedbyother
evidence also…
Further, consideringthe evidence of thiswitness as a
whole, he was very much present in Shaikh Mohalla and he
hid himself only after the mob proceeded towards
Mahemudmiya’s
house. Thus he had
sufficientopportu-
nitytoseethemob.
Thereforethesayof
thiswitnessthathe
had seen the mob
with weapons, pet-
rol and kerosene,
shoutingslogans“to
cut, beat and burn
bandiyas; no one
shouldbeleftalive”,
is acceptable…
When we consider
theevidenceofthis
witness on this
point,afterthein-
cident, when his
wife and son have
diedinsuchatense
atmosphere, if he
hasnotnarratedthe
incidentbeforethe
doctor/police nor
lodgedacomplaint,itis natural.Noonecanexpectfroma
personpromptactioninthisregardundersuchcircumstances.
PW 59
Shaikh Mohmad Sattar Bachumiya
SHAIKH Mohmad Sattar Bachumiya, PW 59, has deposed
on oaththat at the timeof incident, he wassitting in
Shaikh Mohalla. Hisfamily members were also with him. On
28.02.2002 there was a Gujarat bandh therefore he was in
Survivoreyewitnesses
Therewere33eyewitnesses(occurrencewitnesses)whogaveevidenceinthecase.
Wereproduce belowexcerpts fromthe conclusionsof thejudgeonthe testimoniesof someof them
COVER STORY

2. COMMUNALISM COMBAT
DECEMBER 2011
21
his home. On 01.03.2002 there was a Bharat bandh. His fa-
ther asked himnot to go out. On that day, at about9 to 10
p.m., a mobof Patels came towards ShaikhMohalla from the
Mahadev temple side, shouting slogans “to cut, beat and
burn the Muslims” and had burnt three cabins at the en-
trance of ShaikhMohalla. The cabins were looted and dam-
aged bythe mob. As thepolice came, the mobdispersed. At
about 11.30-12 p.m. again the mob came shouting “to cut,
beat andburn the Muslims; noone should be left alive be-
causeMuslimshaveburntHindu personsintheGodhratrain”
and thereafter,they started pelting stones.Persons from
ShaikhMohallahadalsostartedpeltingstonesjusttosave
themselves.
The mob was setting on fire and damaging the houses of
Muslims and due to fear, his father asked him to take his
family members to the house of Mahemudmiya, as it was a
pukka,constructedhouse;thereforeallthefamilymembers
went to the house of Mahemudmiya. As the mob came too
near,hewentinsidethehouse ofAkbarmiyaRasulmiya.From
the window of the house, he saw
thattherewasonejeepjustinfront
of his house, which was burnt by
the mob. The mob burnt houses in
ShaikhMohalla;asthemobwentto-
wards the house of Mahemudmiya,
the witness wentto his house. The
voices of people were coming from
the house of Mahemudmiya to save
thembutdue tofear, hewasinside
and when thepolice came then only
they went to the house of
Mahemudmiya and a rescue opera-
tion was done by the police with
theirhelp.
In the incident, his house was
damaged and ornaments of his sis-
ter andmother and cash worthRs 70,000 were lootedby the
mob… As perthe deposition of this witness, the light was
on… There were a total of 20 accused whom he had seen in
the mob. He had seenthe accused in the lightof the burn-
ing jeep.Hissister-in-law and niece died dueto burns in
the house of Mahemudmiya. As per the deposition of the
deputyengineer[GujaratElectricity Board]andother evi-
dences,therewaslightinthestreet.Assumingtherewasno
light inShaikh Mohalla, then also,as per the sayof this
witness, he hadseen the accusedwith weaponsinthe light
oftheburningjeep.Todiscardthisfact,thereisnoreason
and this witness had seen 20 accused…
In this respect,when we consider theevidence given by
thiswitness,assoonasthemobhadstartedpeltingstones,
hisfatheraskedthemtoshifttheirfamilytoMahemudmiya’s
house and his elder brother had shifted their family to
Mahemudmiya’s house as the mob came near. Due to fear,
this witnesswent inside the houseof Akbarmiya Rasulmiya
and fromthe window, he hadseen that their jeep was burnt
and in the light of theflames he had seen the mob. There-
forefirstly,tillthemobcamenear,hehadanopportunityto
see the mob and on seeing the mob, he went inside the
house of Akbarmiya and from the window of that house, he
witnessedfurtherincidents. Thushe hadsufficientoppor-
tunity toseethree cabins ransackedand set on fire…It is
true that he has not specifically mentioned which of the
accusedransackedorsetonfirethreecabins.Butthisomis-
sion cannot discard the fact thatthe mob had set on fire
threecabinsattheentranceofShaikhMohalla.
In his statement dated 02.03.2002, it is stated by the
witness thatthe same mob camea second time. In his depo-
sition also he has stated that the same mob came a second
time… He had seen the jeep from the window, which was set
onfirebythemob.Asperthedepositionofthiswitness,he
hasseenthepersonsinthemob in thelightof the burning
jeep… Once this evidence has come out in cross-examina-
tion,omissionofthisfactinhisaffidavit,andthestate-
ment dated 19.05.2008 becomes insignificant… His house
was seton fire. He wastrying to
hidehimselfsafely.Thehousesof
ShaikhMohallaaresoclosetoeach
otherthattheyarelikerowhouses.
Thereforeinthecircumstances,the
discrepancies asnarrated by the
accusedinthisregardarenatural
and are bound to be. The witness
isalabouring-classperson,una-
wareofthelegalprovisions…Fur-
ther,lookingtothesituationof
houses in Shaikh Mohalla, these
discrepancies areboundto be.
Intheabsenceofthesediscrep-
ancies, the evidence of the wit-
ness can be doubted or can be
treatedastutored.Thusthesecon-
tradictions,omissions,discrepancies,arenaturalones.And
the fact remains as it is that the witness was very much
presentinShaikhMohallaeitherinhishouseorAkbarmiya’s
house or nearby to those houses and we cannot calculate
the evidence ina mathematical manner.
PW 73
Shaikh Faridabibi Aashikhusen
SHAIKH Faridabibi Aashikhusen, PW 73, has deposed on
oath that onthe third dayafter theGodhra train inci-
dent, atabout9.30p.m.,Patelsoftheirvillagecame from
the Mahadev temple side shouting slogans, to burn their
cabinsattheentranceofShaikhMohalla.Asthepolicecame,
the mob dispersed. Again, after some time,at about 11.30
to 12.00 p.m. the same mob came shouting “to cut, beat
andburnthebandiyas”.TheyhadburntthreehousesinShaikh
Mohallaandthereafter…theyproceededfurther.Atthattime
Considering the evidence of
Shaikh Mustufamiya Rasulmiya
as a whole, he was very much
present in Shaikh Mohalla and
had sufficient opportunity to
see the mob. Therefore the say
of this witness that he had
seen the mob with weapons,
petrol and kerosene, shouting
slogans “to cut, beat and burn
bandiyas; no one should be left
alive”, is acceptable
COVER STORY

3. 22
COMMUNALISM COMBAT
DECEMBER 2011
herfather-in-lawtoldthemthattheir houseisarow house
and hence they should go to Mahemudmiya’s house, as it is
a pukka, constructed house; therefore shealong with her
sisters-in-law FirozabanuBachumiya Shaikh, Farzanabibi
Bachumiya Shaikh and daughter Ashiyanabanu Shaikh and
son Aftab went towards the house of Mahemudmiya. Other
persons were there. She saw the pouring of kerosene and
they sought help but no one turned. They requested the
Patel people to leave them alone but they said that they
wantedtoburnthem. Afterthe police came,theywere taken
out of the room and were sent to Mehsana Civil Hospital…
On thecontrary,inher statementdated 02.03.2002,she
hasstatedthatherfather-in-law,husband,brother-in-law
and mother-in-lawalong with other familymembers were in
their ownhouse.Thusthereisamaterial contradiction on
this point as to whether she was inside the house of
Mahemudmiya or in her own house. As per the deposition of
thiswitness,atabout11.30p.m.the
same mob came again but she has not
stated thesefactsinherstatements
beforethepoliceortheSIT.Further,
thiswitnesshasnotstatedthatshe
along with her sisters-in-law
Firozabanu and Farzanabanu and her
daughter Ashiyanabanuandson Aftab
went to the house of Mahemudmiya.
Her mother-in-law was not with her
in Mahemudmiya’s house and on this
point, Aashikhusen, the husband of
this witness, has deposed that he
dropped his family members to the
house of Mahemudmiya. In her state-
ment dated 02.03.2002, she has
stated that her mother-in-law and
threesisters-in-lawtookshelterinthe
house of Mahemudmiya.
Thus onthispoint,shehaschangedherversion…[T]here
is a contradictoryversion of both thesewitnesses on this
point.Asperthe deposition of thiswitness,Ashiyanaand
Aftab were with her in the house of Mahemudmiya but she
does not say anything about her daughter Sainabanu while
Aashikhusensaysthathedroppedhiswife,childrenandother
family members at the house of Mahemudmiya. Neither
Aashikhusennorthiswitnessisclaimingspecificallyabout
theirdaughterSainabanu.
Asperthedepositionofthiswitness,she,hersonanddaugh-
terreceivedburninjuries…Asperthedepositionofthiswit-
ness,hersisters-in-lawFirozabanuandFarzanabanuwereinside
thehouseofMahemudmiyaalong withthiswitness.Theyhave
receivednoburnsorotherinjuries…Inherdeposition,she
has statedthat she… saw personspouringpetrol,kerosene,
and throwing burningrags but no one hadhelped her. They
hadrequestedthePatelstoletthemgobuttheywereburnt…
Onperusingthedepositionofthiswitnessaswellascon-
sideringtheargumentsadvancedonbehalfofbothsides,it
transpires thatthis witness isaninjured eyewitness… She
had 15 per cent burns. As per her say, shesustained burn
injuriesonthehandsandlegs;sheisanilliteratelady;her
daughter had died on the way to Civil Hospital, Mehsana,
herdaughterdiedduetoburninjuries.
Itisnotthecaseoftheprosecutionthatthiswitnesswas
insideher houseand there shesustainedburninjuries… It
seems tobe an improvement inher version and thispart of
herversionisrequiredtobe discardedbuttheimprovement
is not such which may disprove the other part of the evi-
dence, which is proved by the prosecution from cogent and
reliableevidence.Herversionregardingthefactthat she
hadseenthepersonsofhervillagepouringkerosene,petrol,
isanimprovementinherversiononthispoint.Thushersay
that she along with family members was in Mahemudmiya’s
house andhadsustained burn injuries ismuchsupported by
cogentandreliableevidence.
Ashiyanabanu,whowaswith her,
who alsosustained burn injuries,
died subsequently on the way to
CivilHospital,Mehsana.Allthisevi-
dencesupportsthesayofthiswit-
ness that she was inside
Mahemudmiya’s house.But the evi-
dence regarding seeing the mob of
Patelsoftheirvillagepouringkero-
sene,petrol,settingfire,istobe
considered as an improvement. No
reliancecanbeplacedonthisevi-
dence but onthe strength of this
partofherversion,theothertesti-
mony whichisotherwiseprovedand
establishedbytheprosecutioncan-
notbediscardedonthatcount.The
presenceofthiswitnessatthetime
of incident in Shaikh Mohalla is
naturalandconsideringthefactthatthiswitnessisanin-
jured eyewitness, any person who was injured in the inci-
dentwillnottrytoimplicatefalsepersonsinsuchagrave
incident,givingthego-bytotherealculprits.
PW 75
Shaikh Firozabanu Bachumiya
SHAIKH Firozabanu Bachumiya, PW 75, has deposed on
oaththatsheis aresident ofvillageSardarpura andat
the time of incident she was sitting with her father and
mother. On the next day after the Godhra train incident,
cabins were burnt in the villageand on the third day, at
about 9.30 p.m., cabins in the corner of Shaikh Mohalla
were burnt by the Patels of their village. As soon as the
policecame,themobdispersedandthereafter,atabout11.30
p.m., again the mob of Hindus came. There were 1,000 to
1,500persons;firsttheyburntthehouses,thenstartedcaus-
In the absence of some
discrepancies, the evidence
of a witness can be doubted
or can be treated as tutored.
These contradictions,
omissions, discrepancies, are
natural ones. And the fact
remains that Shaikh Mohmad
Sattar Bachumiya was very
much present in Shaikh
Mohalla… we cannot
calculate the evidence in a
mathematical manner
COVER STORY

4. COMMUNALISM COMBAT
DECEMBER 2011
23
ing damage to the properties and then pelted stones. Her
father had told them to go to the house of Mahemudmiya.
Thereforeall theladieswent tothat house.Shealong with
Farzana, Farida, Ashiyanaand Saina and Aftabwent to the
house of Mahemudmiya. They were inside the room and the
mob of Hindus broke the iron rod in the window and poured
kerosene and petrol from that window and burnt them…
Thereafter, at about2 a.m., thepolice cameandtook them
out. Twenty-eight persons were dead and others were in-
jured andarescue operation hadtaken placeandthey were
senttoMehsanaCivilHospital.
It is submittedby Shri Dhruv thatthis witness [stated
thatshe]wasinsidethehouse
of Mahemudmiya for about
oneandahalfhours.Shehas
not taken any treatment nor
has shesustained injuries.
Considering theposition of
Mahemudmiya’s houseand all
the circumstanceson record
and evidence brought on
record, thepresence ofthis
witness in the house of
Mahemudmiya is doubtful…
Further,thoughthis wit-
ness was 10 to 15 feet away
from the jeep which was set
on fire and which was wit-
nessed by her, not a single
personfromthemobhadtried
to assaulther.The house of
thiswitnesswasjustadjacent
to the jeep. On seeing the
jeepbeingsetonfire,instead
of going inside the house,
she went towards the house
of Mahemudmiya. She is
claiming that she had seen
certain persons when the
jeep was seton fire but she
isnotsayingwhosetonfire
the jeep. As per the say of
the complainant, when the
jeepwassetonfire,themob
was spread up to the house of Mahemudmiya and when
the mob was spread up to the house of Mahemudmiya, no
one would dare to go to the house of Mahemudmiya; thus
it is the say of Shri Dhruv that the witness has not seen
the incident and the say of this witness that she was
inside the house of Mahemudmiya is also doubtful…
Further,thiswitnessis claimingthat shehadseen that
cabinsand houseswere set on fire,houseswere ransacked,
stones were pelted and the jeep was set on fire but which
accusedplayedwhatroleinthoseincidentsisnotstatedby
her.Ifshehadwitnessedtheincidents,shewouldhavecer-
tainly stated about the overt acts committed by the ac-
cused…
Asforthesearguments,whenwe considerthe evidenceof
thiswitnessonrecord,ittranspiresthatatthetimeofinci-
dentshewasstayinginSardarpura.Atthesayofherfather,
she along with her sister-in-law Faridabanu and her two
daughters, namely Ashiyanabanu and Sainabanu, and son
Aftab went to the house of Mahemudmiya. When she was
going to Mahemudmiya’s house, at that time she saw the
mob. Considering the situation of Ibrahimmiya Rasulmiya
Shaikhand Mahemudmiya’shouse, it is quitepossible for a
person going from Ibrahimmiya Rasulmiya’s house to
Mahemudmiya’s house, to
see the persons in Shaikh
Mohalla.Ifthiswitnessis
saying thatwhile going to
Mahemudmiya’s house, she
saw the mob,that is quite
possible.Shehasspecifi-
cally statedthat whenshe
came out ofher house, she
saw the settingon fire of
thejeep.Forthispurpose,
when we peruse the situa-
tion of Ibrahimmiya
Rasulmiya’shouseasshown
inthemap,it isshownin-
sideShaikhMohalla…while
thejeepisshown standing
intheoppositerow,justin
front of Bachumiya
Imammiya’shouse.Ifaper-
son comes out from the
house of Ibrahimmiya
Rasulmiya,hecaneasilysee
the jeep. In the circum-
stances,ifthiswitnessis
saying that when she came
out of her house, she saw
the setting onfire of the
jeep,thatisquiteprobable
anditisalsosupportedby
other cogentand reliable
evidence that the jeep of
Bachumiya Imammiya was set on fire. Simply because this
witnesssustainednoinjury,wecannotdiscardtheevidence
ofthiswitnessonthatcount.
Electriccurrent
Sofarasthecontradictionsregardingelectriccurrentare
concerned, itisargued by ShriDhruvthatasperthedepo-
sition of PW 46, Pathan Sabirmiya Akumiya, the DSP [SP,
Gehlot]receivedanelectricshockwhenhewenttowardsthe
window of Mahemudmiya’s house and that a wire was con-
nectedfromthepolenearthehouseofNatvarbhaiPrabhabhai
COVER STORY

5. 24
COMMUNALISM COMBAT
DECEMBER 2011
and a rod was thrown from the window. While PW 48,
Sabirhusen Kadarmiya Shaikh [stated that] there was one
iron rod, to which the current was joined, placed in the
room, and even the DSP received an electric shock… DSP
Gehlotisnotdeposingthathereceivedanelectricshock.As
pertheDSP, in the mohalla, the wires were scattered, by
the persons residing in the area who have obtained elec-
trical connections, and by burning of the house, it
might be scattered. While this witness is claiming that
she was inside the room, she did not receive any elec-
tric shock; at the same time she is claiming that two to
three persons received electric shocks. As per the
panchnama, there was an electric fan in the house, which
was charred. Electric wires in PVC pipes were also burnt
and hanging from the ceiling. No police officer is say-
ing that he had broken a wire with a rifle. In the
panchnama also, it is not stated that a wire was coming
from the house of Natubhai Pavar or from any other
house. No police officer [has said anything] about elec-
tric shocks. While this witness
has stated that as soon as the
police touched the door, there
was an electric current in it and
the police had broken the wire
with arifle and the wirewas com-
ing from the house of Natubhai
Pavar, this fact is not stated by
her in her statement dated
22.05.2008…
But there was an electrical
connection, either legal or il-
legal, and medical evidence
suggests that Abedabanu
Manubhai Shaikh sustained an
electric current injury. The
medical papers, the medical certificate… supports
this fact.
No doubt there are some discrepancies about the elec-
trical connection orlive wires in Shaikh Mohalla but the
fact that there was an electrical connection in the room
and the wire was live and due to that live wire, the in-
juredreceivedinjury,whether thesaidlivewirewastaken
from Natubhai Pavar’s house or from somewhere else, the
fact that the electrical connection was taken is estab-
lished by the prosecution. So far as breakingof the door
with arifle is concerned, asper the say ofthis witness,
the police had broken the wire with a rifle while the
other witnesses state that the door was broken from out-
side. There are different versions about breaking of the
door. Fromthe police officers’ depositions,the door was
opened by using force from the outside. The FSL report
also suggests that force was used for opening the door
of the house. Thus the theory of an electrical connec-
tionisnottotallyfalse.
During the inspection visit by the court it was found
that it isquite possible to haveanelectrical connection
from the house of Natubhai Pavar to Mahemudmiya’s
house, or from the pole just adjacent to the house of
Natubhai Prabhabhai, one can take an electrical connec-
tion… to the house of Mahemudmiya and it is quite
possible, as there is an open space surrounded by the
compound wall and gate. There is no building in be-
tween the pole and Mahemudmiya’s house. Thus the pos-
sibility of taking the wire from that pole to
Mahemudmiya’s house cannot be ruled out. Therefore
the say of this witness that when the police came and
opened the door, there was an electric shock in the
door and the wire was coming from the house of Natubhai
Prabhabhai gets support from the evidence and simply
because there is a contradiction in her statement dated
02.03.2002, we cannot infer that this is a false story
created by the witness. As the fact regarding the elec-
tric current is proved from other reliable cogent evi-
dence [that] much supported the version of this wit-
ness on this point, therefore
this versionis trustworthyand
reliable. Simplyanomission in
her statement does not amount
[to areasonto] discardher say
on the issue.Therefore the say
of Shri Dhruv, that the story
of a current is a material im-
provement by this witness
statedfor thefirsttimein the
year 2008, isnot sufficient to
create doubt about the ver-
sion of this witness on this
point…
[W]hen we peruse the evi-
dence of this witness that
when she came out of her house, at that time she saw
the jeep set on fire by the mob… Looking to the situ-
ation of the house of this witness, if a person comes
out of her house, he can easily see the jeep. Therefore
the say of this witness that she saw the jeep set on
fire is quite possible, and thereafter that she went to
Mahemudmiya’s house.
No doubt the complainant has deposed that the mob
was spread over the mohalla but the house of
Mahemudmiya was a pukka, constructed house and it
was safe therefore if the witness along with other per-
sons went to the house of Mahemudmiya by avoiding
the mob and no injuries were caused to her while go-
ing to Mahemudmiya’s house, we cannot infer that
this fact is false and a created one and she did not
have an opportunity to see the mob. Before going
inside Mahemudmiya’s house, she had sufficient op-
portunity to see the mob and therefore the say of
this witness that she saw the jeep set on fire is trust-
worthy and reliable.
If Shaikh Firozabanu Bachumiya
is saying that while going to
Mahemudmiya’s house, she saw
the mob, that is quite
possible… If this witness is
saying that when she came out
of her house, she saw the jeep
being set on fire, that is quite
probable and it is also
supported by other cogent and
reliable evidence
COVER STORY

6. COMMUNALISM COMBAT
DECEMBER 2011
25
PW 78
Shaikh Basirabibi Bachumiya
SHAIKH BasirabibiBachumiya, PW 78, has deposedon oath
that at about 9.30 p.m. a mob of Patels came from the
Mahadev temple side shouting slogans “to cut, beat and
burnthebandiyas;nooneshouldbeleftalive”.Threecabins
attheentranceofShaikhMohallawereburnt.Thereafter,the
police came and the mob dispersed. Aftersome time, again
the same mob came and started pelting stones, burning
housesand alsolooted houses.Firstthehouse of Manubhai
painter was burnt, then the houseof Akbarmiya Bachubhai
wasburntandthird, thehouseofIqbalmiya Rasulmiya,and
by burning the houses, they came [into the mohalla] and
peltedstones.Inordertosavetheirlives,theywenttothe
house of Mahemudmiya. The mob surrounded the house of
Mahemudmiya. A window was broken and from that window,
kerosene and petrolwere poured and then thehouse was set
on fire. Personswho were inside thehousewere requesting
the mobto leave them alone but the mob hadnot left them.
ItisarguedbyShriShahthathernearestrelativeshave
died in theincident, sheis a residentof Shaikh Mohalla,
Sardarpura, shewas verymuchpresentinthemohallaatthe
timeofincident.Sheisaninjuredwitness.Inher[medical]
history,shehasstatedthatshesustained20percentburns
during the attack. Her statements wererecorded late, on
27.04.2002,asshewas iniddat[mourning]duetothe death
ofherhusband.ThusitisthesayofShriShahthatsheisa
naturalwitness,thereisnoexaggerationinherdeposition,
everything stated byher is [genuine]…
It is submittedby Shri Dhruv that… in her deposition,
she has stated that she requestedthe mob to let them go.
In spite of that, the mob did what they wanted to do;
and thisfact is an improvementand the same isnot stated
in her statement. Looking to thedeposition of Akbarmiya
Rasulmiya Shaikh and considering the number of omis-
sions by thiswitness, itbecomes clear thatfrom the door
of the house adjoining Shaikh Mohalla, Mangalbhai,
Mathurbhai and Natubhai Kacharabhai and other Patels
have thrown bricks which hit Bachumiya Nathumiya on
the head. It suggests she was with her husband even at
the timeof incident.Asperthe say of thiswitness,while
going to the house of
Mahemudmiya, she was with her
own children and has seen the
mob.Thisfact isnotstatedin her
statement. Further, asper thesay
of this witness, a rear window of
Mahemudmiya’s house was broken
by the mob. Photographs and evi-
denceoftheFSLmakeitclearthat
no rear window of Mahemudmiya’s
house was broken.
Further,thiswitness is saying
that from the window, she saw the
mob pouring kerosene and petrol
but from which window the mob
poured the kerosene is not speci-
fied by this witness. Ayubmiya
Rasulmiyainhiscross-examination
has admitted that doors and win-
dows of the house of
Mahemudmiya were closed from in-
side; FirozabanuBachumiya Shaikh
had closed the window and doors
from inside. PW 56, Ayubmiya
Rasulmiya Shaikh, and Firozabanu
Bachumiya were inside the house
of Mahemudmiya. When they are
saying that thedoors and windows
were closedbythem, thenthereisnopossibilityofeither
pouring or throwing of petrol and kerosene inside the
house from a window.
Further,asperthesayofthiswitness,shehadseenthe
persons inthe mob. She hasalso namedthepersonsandalso
deposed thatthe window of thehouse was broken. Itis the
sayofthewitnessthatkeroseneandpetrolwerepouredand
burningragswerethrown,stillsheisnotsayingwhoplayed
what kind of role, which is most material, and which sug-
geststhatshehasnotwitnessedtheincident.Further,she
is claiming thatshe went inside thehouse of Mahemudmiya
and the mob had surrounded the house of Mahemudmiya
COVER STORY

7. 26
COMMUNALISM COMBAT
DECEMBER 2011
from foursides. If she was inside the house thenhow can
she saythe mob had coveredthe house from allfour sides?
Since the doors and windows were closed from inside and
on theother two sides thereare walls, no one[could have
seen] what was happening outside the house. Therefore
her claimthat the housewascorneredfromallsidesis not
acceptable.
Further, it is submitted that she does not remember
what household goods were there in Mahemudmiya’s house.
She does not know about the electric wires inside the
house. As per her say, therewas a kerosene lamp and elec-
tricity was not there in the house. The doors and win-
dows of the house were open. What part of the window
was broken,she does not remember.Considering the cross-
examinationandchiefexaminationofthiswitness,itcomes
out that the witness was not inside the house when the
window was opened. There was no question of breaking
it. Even looking to the evidence brought on record, the
windowisnotdamaged. There was electricityin thehouse;
electric wireswere also there
in the house. This witness is
not stating the correct posi-
tion on this point, which sug-
gests that she was not inside
the house.
Consideringthesubmissions
of both sides and on perusing
the evidence of this witness,
ittranspiresthatsheisaresi-
dent ofvillage Sardarpura. At
the time ofoccurrence she was
present inShaikh Mohalla. She
is an injured eyewitness… She
sustained 20 per cent burns
and in her history before the
doctor, she has stated that she sustained burns during
the riots. She was conscious at the relevant time… Her
husband was also inside the house of Mahemudmiya, who
has died due to burn injuries. The post-mortem report of
her husband, Bachumiya Nathumiya Shaikh, is produced
on record… His post-mortem was performed by Dr
Vijaykumar Vitthalbhai Oza who has been examined… and
supports the say of this witness that her husband died
due to burn injuries. The medical certificate of this
witness was produced during the deposition of Dr
Dhirajkumar Jivanlal Soni, which also supports the say
of this witness that she sustained burn injuries. She
sustained injuries on both legs and on her face and she
was treated at Mehsana Civil Hospital. Simply because
this witness survives, we cannot conclude that because
she survives, it creates doubts about her claim to be
inside the house of Mahemudmiya. If her two sons had
not sustained injuries, that is also quite possible and
on that count also, we cannot say that she was not
inside the house…
[So far as] the submission that persons from other
houses of Shaikh Mohalla were also brought out from the
burnt houses is concerned, no doubt DSP Gehlot supports
this fact… [But] the arguments advanced by Shri Dhruv
that this witness might have seen the setting on fire of
the house of Nazirmahmad and not Mahemudmiya’s house,
which was set on fire from the backside of the house and
that too by a mob of persons from village Sundarpura, is
not acceptable. In her deposition, this witness has spe-
cifically stated that they went inside the house of
Mahemudmiya; prior to that, the mob came from the en-
trance of Shaikh Mohalla by burning the houses of Shaikh
Mohalla. When the mob was coming inside Shaikh Mohalla,
she herself has seen the mob and due to fear, she along
with family members went inside the house of
Mahemudmiya. Therefore the say of Shri Dhruv in this re-
gard, that she might have seen the setting on fire of the
house of Nazirmahmad, is not acceptable. From her depo-
sition and from other cogent and reliable evidence on
record,itisestablishedbythe
prosecution that this witness
was inside Mahemudmiya’s
house and she sustained burn
injuries and therefore the say
of Shri Dhruv, that she might
have received injuries in
Nazirmahmad’s house or at an-
other place but not in the
house of Mahemudmiya, is not
acceptable.
Further,whenatmidnightthe
police came and this witness
was brought out, she came to
know about the death of her
husband,brother,sisters-in-law
and niece. If this witness along with her family members
was inside Mahemudmiya’s house and she only came to
know about the death of her relatives after coming out of
the house, that is possible. There were more than 50 to
55 persons inside the room and in the circumstances, she
may not have knowledge about her relatives though they
were inside the room. On that count, it cannot be said
that she and her family members were not inside
Mahemudmiya’s house…
Overall, thedepositions of all the witnesses suggest
that the door of Mahemudmiya’s house was opened from
the outside.Further, simply because thiswitness is say-
ing that she came out of Mahemudmiya’s house and the
evidence on record is that all the injured were brought
out from Mahemudmiya’s house, is not of much impor-
tance. She might have been brought out from the house
while she is stating that she came out. This discrepancy
is not such which can create doubt about her having been
inside the room. As per her say, her younger son Iliyas
sustained burn injurieson the left ear and leg but there
COVER STORY
Simply because the witness
survives, we cannot conclude that
it creates doubts about her claim to
be inside the house of
Mahemudmiya… From her
deposition and from other cogent
and reliable evidence on record, it
is established by the prosecution
that Shaikh Basirabibi Bachumiya
was inside Mahemudmiya’s house
and she sustained burn injuries

8. COMMUNALISM COMBAT
DECEMBER 2011
27
is no injury certificate. There is no evidence on record
showing thatherson Iliyaswas treatedand therefore much
reliance cannot be placed on that fact. But the fact that
this witness sustained burn injuries and she was treated
at Civil Hospital, Mehsana, cannot be discarded on that
strength.
So far as her silence for one and a half months is con-
cerned,thiswitnesswasobservingiddat;priortothatshe
was brought to the hospital
and thereafter, she was sent
to Ilol.Considering the fact
thatherrelatives, including
her husband, died in the in-
cident and she had no roof
for shelter, in the circum-
stances,ifshewassilentfor
one and a half months and
after the iddat period, her
statement was recorded and
shehasnarratedallthefacts,
we cannot infer from her si-
lence to discard her say… At
the time ofincident her hus-
band Bachumiya Nathumiya
was hit by a brick; she was
with him. Further, consider-
ingthesituationofherhouse
and Mahemudmiya’s house,
when she along with her hus-
band and children went to
Mahemudmiya’s house, she
had an opportunity to see the
mob. It is only when she went
inside Mahemudmiya’s house,
thereafter she could not see
what was happening outside
the house.Simply because she
has not stated in her state-
ment that while going to
Mahemudmiya’s house, she has
seen the mob, we cannot in-
fer that she did not have an
opportunity to see the mob.
A person while going from
Bachumiya Nathumiya’s house
to Mahemudmiya’s house can
see what is happening at the entrance of Shaikh Mohalla
up to the place of happening.
The FSL report suggests that no rear door or window
of Mahemudmiya’s house was broken. Photographs are
also silent about it and in the circumstances, if this
witness is saying that a rear window of Mahemudmiya’s
house was broken by the mob, it is not supported by a
corroborative piece of evidence. In the circumstances,
if this witness was inside the room then how could she
see the mobpouring kerosene and petrol? It is not speci-
fied by this witness and from this evidence we can infer
that it was not possible for the witness to see from in-
side the house the pouring of kerosene and petrol by
the mob. Therefore this part of her deposition can be
considered as exaggeration and improvement. Further,
Firozabanu Bachumiya Shaikh and Ayubmiya Rasulmiya
Shaikh were inside the house of Mahemudmiya; as per
theirsay,theyhaveclosed the
doors and windows and in the
circumstances, there were no
possibilitiesforthiswitnessto
see from inside who poured
kerosene andpetrol and there-
fore also her version on this
partisnotreliable.
Further,asperthesayofthis
witness, the house of
Mahemudmiya was surrounded
by the mob when she was in-
side the house and doors and
windows were closed and con-
sidering the situation of the
room, windows and doors, it is
highly impossiblefor a person
to see from that room what is
happening outside. Therefore
her claim thatshe had seen the
mob surround the house of
Mahemudmiya from four sides
is an exaggeration and we can-
not accept it as evidence
against the accused.
So far as her ignorance
about electricity in the
house is concerned, it has
come out on record that there
was electricity in the house,
electric wireswere hanging in
the room; while this witness
is showing ignorance about
this fact, the possibility of
this witness not knowing
about the electric wires in
the room cannot be ruled out,
as at the relevant time elec-
tric supply may not be on. On the strength of this
evidence, the accused have tried to argue that this
witness was not inside the house of Mahemudmiya,
which cannot be accepted, as it is otherwise proved
by the prosecution from cogent and reliable evidence
that this witness was inside the house of Mahemudmiya;
and the fact that before going to the house of
Mahemudmiya, this witness had seen the mob, cannot be
discarded.
COVER STORY