JANSANGHARSH MANCH

1

JANSANGHARSH MANCH 104, Maharanapratap Complex,
Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ph. 079-2657 7280
2
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
The first charge sheet described the burning of
the S6 in the following manner, Some of the
karsevaks had altercations with Muslim tea
vendors regarding tea at the Godhra Station.
While the train which arrived 7.43 am, started
from Godhra Railway Station at 07.47 hours
towards Vadodara, someone from the train pulled
the chain and stopped the train.
Cont.
5.1.1
3
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
Several people belonging to Muslim community who
were residing in and around Signal Falia situated
near Godhra railway station, formed an illegal
assembly and gathered at open space near Parcel
House at Godhra railway station and started
throwing stones on the passengers and the
Sabarmati Express train.
5.1.1
4
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
..Meanwhile, the train started once again and
when it reached A cabin of Godhra railway
station at 08.05 hours, the accused to accomplish
their common objective of criminal conspiracy
stopped the train by turning the disc between
coach No.S-5 and S-6.
Cont.
5.1.2
5
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
At that time the accused armed with deadly
weapons and highly inflammable fluids filled in
cans and shouting slogans Pakistan Zindabad,
Hindustan Murdabad, burnt down the coach No. S-6
which contained maximum number of Karsevaks with
the motive of killing them and others
5.1.2
6
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
In short, the first charge-sheet did not allege
so called conspiracy of 26th February by Umarji,
did not allege the procurement of petrol from
Kalabhais pump, did not allege the role of Salim
Panwala of instigating others to pull the chain
twice, did not allege the entry of any of the
conspirators inside the S6 coach, did not allege
the use of Petrol to burn the coach.
Cont.
5.1.3
7
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
It did not even specifically mention where the
S6 coach had stopped before being set on fire nor
did it give any specific timing of the setting
of fire to the S6.
5.1.3
8
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
What was the exact position of the S6 coach
while it burnt ? This question is of great
importance since the evidence of eye witnesses
have to evaluated on the basis of their relative
positions.
5.1.4
9
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
The first panchnama of objects lying outside the
coach and the position/ situation of the coach
was made on 27.2.2002 between 13.00 hrs and 15
hrs. (Sr. No. 3 of CS). The place of offence
(position of the S6 coach, which was ofcourse not
there at that time as it was already shifted to
the yard on line no. 10 at about 11.30 am) was
recorded to be near the electric post No. 468/33.
Cont.
5.1.5
10
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
as pointed out to the panchas by the complainant
Shri Rajendrarao R Jadav. It was also stated that
the distance from the A cabin to the Godhra
junction board ( on platform No.) was 2150 feet.
5.1.5
11
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
Thus as per the Driver Rajendrarao, S6 was near
468/33. Actually it was next to the electric post
No. 468/35 (as seen in the VHP photograph) which
is about 60 feet nearer to the A cabin than the
post 468/33. The post 468/35 is clearly visible
from the A cabin and the ASM had an unobstructed
view from his cabin window but to avoid stating
the truth, the railway employees did not disclose
the true position of S6.
5.1.6
12
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
Next question to determine are the timing
of the sighting of the smoke and the fire Shri
Rajendra Prasad Meena, the ASM in A Cabin has
stated at Exh.26 that at 8.25 he had seen smoke
coming out of a coach. First he had seen
smoke and thereafter he has seen the flames. He
had informed the ASM as well as the Control
immediately after seeing the smoke.
5.1.7
Cont.
13
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
Shri Yusufali Saiyad, the Dy. SS has stated in
his statement dated 27.4.2002, at Sr. No. 73 of
CS that actually the driver had informed about
the fire at 8.25 am and that Shri Khatija had
informed the fire-brigade.
5.1.7
14
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
Shri Meena has said that he had come down from
cabin at 8.35 am and then we went near the S-6
coach and at that time the flames were leaping
from the coach. He has also said that Shri
Khatija, the Incharge Station Superintendent had
also come near A cabin by 8.30 to 8.35 am.
5.1.8
15
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
Shri Mohabbatsinh Jhala, the PSI of the Godhra
Railway Police, has deposed at Exh.60 that he had
reached the S-6 coach around 8.15 am and before
that he had reached the platform around 8.10 am.
From railway platform, he had reached the train
within five minutes.
5.1.9
16
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
Shri Mohabbatsinh Jhala said that he had
resorted to lathi-charge before 8.30 am to
disperse the crowd near the A cabin and at that
the Godhra police had also lobbed tear gas shells
from near the A cabin. Thereafter, he had ordered
firing and because of all these actions, the mob
had dispersed within 10 minutes.
5.1.10
17
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
Shri Raju Bhargav, the DSP, who had deposed
at Exh.86, had said that he had gone from the
railway station towards the train in his
vehicle. While he was passing on the road
touching signal faliya, he had not noticed any
crowd on that road.. He had not seen any crowd
except the passengers. He had reached the burning
coach at about 8.30 am.
5.1.11
18
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
From the timings narrated by the railway
employees and police, it can be safely assumed
that the actual fire ( flames) were seen around
8.25am to 8.30am. Prior to this time, smoke has
been sighted by persons outside as well as
passengers and the smoke had most likely started
around 8.15 a.m.
5.1.12
19
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
The official version has absolutely no
explanation for the long duration of smoke
generation (approximately ten to fifteen minutes)
since their version of setting fire to the coach
by pouring in 100 liters or so petrol inside the
coach would have led to instant flame with an
explosive speed since the heat energy conversion
would be extremely fast due to the rapid burning
of petrol. The chances of any survival would have
been dim.
5.1.13
20
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
Shri Raju Bishankumar Bhargava, Police
Superintendent of Godhra, deposition before the
commission is very important to understand the
severity of the fire and the spped of its spread
He said that he had reached the burning coach at
about 8.30 a.m.
Cont.
5.1.14
21
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
He had seen people with black faces and with
some burn injuries on the head, coming out of the
coach.... seen ten to twelve passengers coming
out of that coach.... They were coming out of the
door on the Godhra side.... The injuries which he
noticed on the passengers were on the upper part
of their bodies.... he had not noticed any injury
below their waist portion.
5.1.14
22
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
Raju Bhargav said that he had not seen any
raising of flames in the area of that coach which
I could see from the door. I had seen only smoke
in that area.... I had not noticed any flames on
the floor of the area between the two doors. I
had also not smelt any inflammable fuel like
petrol kerosene, diesel etc.
5.1.15
23
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The case in the first charge-sheet dated
22.5.2002
Thus at about 8.30am people with superficial
burn injuries were still coming out of the coach
which did have fire and smoke inside. The injury
report of about 40 persons would show that not a
single person who escaped from S6 had any fire
burns below the waist.
5.1.16
24
Injured people
25
Injured people
26
Injured people
27
Injured people
28
Injured people
29
Injured people
30
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
Without any inflammable fluid being used
by the conspirators , the conspiracy theory
would not have any takers. Would a conspiracy and
least of all, a terrorist conspiracy under POTA
make any sense, if there was no allegation of the
conspirators acquiring some highly inflammable
fluid to set fire to the S6 coach ?? But the
question at that time was whether to allege the
use of petrol or settle for the poor mans fuel,
the Kerosene??
5.2.1
31
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
The first panchnama of objects lying
outside the coach and the position/ situation of
the coach was made on 27.2.2002 between 13.00 hrs
and 15 hrs. (Sr. No. 3 of CS). It was recorded
that there were certain cement sleepers lying
about fifty feet east of the electric post No.
468/36, which in turn, was in the north of the
electric post No. 468/35. On these cement
sleeper, there were one white and two black
carboys of ten liter capacity. No liquid was
found but smell of some fluid was coming out of
the carboys. These carboys were sealed and sent
for forensic examination. 15 parcels were
collected of different objects for examination.
5.2.2
32
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
The next panchnamas of the position
/situation of the coach S6 was recorded on
28.2.2002 between 17.45 hrs to 19.35 hrs. ( Sr.
No. 5 of CS1). The burnt residues from nine
cubicles of S6 plus from toilets were collected,
sealed in plastic bags and sent for forensic
examination.
5.2.3
33
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
The first FSL report of the analysis of
the materials sent from outside as well as inside
the coaches, covered by the above two panchnamas
were given by a single report No.
FSL/EE/2002/c/287 dated 20.3.2002 (at Sr. No. 285
of CS).
5.2.4
34
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
In this report the objects and materials
were reorganized to give new serial numbers and
48 samples were recorded. Out of these, 32
samples were from outside (covered by first
panchnamas dated 27.2.2002) whereas 16 were
covered by the second panchnamas dated 28.2.2002.
5.2.5
35
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
The reliability of the report of the latter
16 samples is very doubtful since hundreds of
onlookers and visitors including the Chief
Minister/other ministers had visited the site as
well as entered the S6 coach and therefore any
material taken from inside the coach or outside
on 28.2.2002 could be tampered and/or planted
material.
5.2.6
36
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
37
(No Transcript)
38
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
The report of FSL disclosed presence of residual
petrol hydrocarbons in 25 samples and detected
petrol in two of the three carboys found from the
cement sleepers near the post no. 468/36, one of
them being a white carboy with a white stopper
bearing the inscriptions, fortune in English
whereas the other was a black carboy. One
plastic bottle with the word brilliant
inscribed was detected to have HCl. The other 20
samples did not disclose the presence of any
hydrocarbons or acid.
5.2.7
39
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
Despite this FSL report dated 20.3.2002,
being with the Investigation Officer, the first
charge-sheet filed on 22.5.2002, did not make any
specific allegation of the S6 being burnt by the
use of petrol. Shri K.C.Bawa, the I.O. kept it
vague - At that time the accused armed with
deadly weapons and highly inflammable fluids
filled in cans and shouting slogans Pakistan
Zindabad, Hindustan Murdabad, burnt down the
coach No. S-6.
Cont.
5.2.8
40
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
The big question is why the I.O. refused to
specify the fluid that was allegedly used by the
conspirators ???
5.2.8
41
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
To get an answer to this question, it is
to noticed that initially the investigation began
in the right earnest. The two petrol pumps near
the Godhra station were sealed by the police on
27th Feb. 2002. The first pump was owned by M.H.
A Patel on Vejalpur road and the other was
owned by Asgarali qurban Hussein (kalabhai).
5.2.9
42
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
On 9.4.2002, 7 samples of petrol and diesel were
collected from both these pumps and panchnamas
were made. These samples ( 4 samples of diesel
marked as A, B, E F and 3 samples of petrol
being marked as C, D (from kalabhais pump) and H
(from M.H. A Patels pump. They were sent for
forensic examination to find out whether the
petrol or diesel from these pumps could have been
used to burn S6 coach.
5.2.10
43
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
In his report, FSL/EE/2002/c/442, dated
26.4.2002, Shri D.B.Talati, Assistant Director,
FSL, (at Sr. No. 286 of CS) while holding that
A,B,E F contained diesel and that C,D and H
contained petrol, stated that he could not give a
clear opinion whether the petrol detected in some
samples in and around S6 as per the FSL report
dated 20.3.2002 and the petrol detected in the
C,D H samples were from the same source!
5.2.11
44
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
The fatal blow to the Petrol theory came
from the two employees of Kalabhais petrol pump,
namely Shri Prabhatsinh G Patel and Ranjitsinh G
Patel who in their statement recorded u/s 162 on
10. 4.02, flatly denied having sold any loose
petrol to any body and in fact stated that they
did not sell loose petrol from their pump. Thus
the police had no source from where they could
allege that the accused had procured the petrol.
Strangely, the police did not question any
employee of M.H. A Patels petrol pump.
5.2.12
45
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
The Charge-sheet filed by K.C.Bawa on
22.5.2002, therefore created evidences to
establish that the S6 coach was burnt from
outside by the use of some inflammable liquid.
For this purpose, Bawa recorded the statements
of nine important eye witnesses between 27th
February, 2002 and 15.3.2002, namely, Shri
Janaklal K Dave, Rajeshbhai V Darji, Nitinkumar
Harprasad Pathak, Dilipbhai U Dasariya,
Muralidhar R Mulchandani ( reportedly, the
present Vice-President of Godhra Nagarpalika),
Dipakbhai M Soni, Harsukhlal T Advani,
Chandrashekahr N Sonaiya and Manoj H Advani. (at
Sr. Nos 76 to 84 of CS)
5.2.13
46
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
All these nine persons, who declared
themselves to be active members of V.H.P. made
identical statements to the effect that they had
gone to the Godhra station in the morning of
27.2.2002, to meet the Karsevaks who were coming
from Ayodhya and give them tea and breakfast.
5.2.14
47
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
They have then made the following
identical statements the train was standing
near A cabin at that time, men, women and
children numbering around 900-1000 persons from
signal falia, started running towards the
stationary train while howling and shouting
because of this me and other local activists ran
towards where the train was standing and reached
A cabin
Cont.
5.2.15
48
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
and saw that people from signal falia came
running there with weapons like dhariya, sword,
iron pipes and sticks. Others started heavily
stoning the train. These people were shouting
like , sale hinduonko kaat daalo, mandir banane
jaate hai kaat daalo etc.. Five-six persons with
carboys in their hands were sprinkling the fluid
on one coach and they set it on fire and we kept
standing at the side of A cabin.
5.2.15
49
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
In this mob, I saw from the village of
Godhra, Shri Role Amin Hussein Hathila . The
nine eye witnesses thereafter, in their
respective statements named around four muslims
each including Haji Bilal and Kalota. Thus 36
muslims were named by these eyewitness and were
arrested for burning down the coach from outside!
Not a single of these nine eye witnesses who
claimed to be standing by the side of A cabin,
said a word about Binyamin Behra and others
coming in the tempi with eight carboys of petrol,
climbing the S6 coach by cutting open the
vestibules etc
5.2.16
50
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
After creating the case of the burning of S6
coach from outside, K.C.Bawa started discovering
any number of carboys from around the A cabin
with traces of Kerosene to build up the case that
the fluid used to burn S6 was Kerosene. Three
carboys were discovered between 29th March, 2002
to 5.4.2002 and these were allegedly found from
three accused, namely, Haji Bilal, Abdul Majid
Dhantiya and Kasim Biryani (Discovery panchnamas
at Sr. Nos. 16 dt 29.3.02, 18 30.3.02 and 19 dt
5.4.02 of CS).
5.2.17
51
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
As Haji Bilal was considered to be the main
conspirator at that time alongwith Mohmad Hussein
Kalota (President of Godhra Nagarpalika), the
Kerosene theory was accepted. Shri Talati in the
report dated 26.4.02, had found the presence of
kerosene in these three carboys which were sent
to him for examination!! The Kerosene theory
prevailed for sometime till beginning of July,
2002 but the new I.O. Noel Parmar had more
refined ideas and fuel in mind.
5.2.18
52
The Governments version of the cause of
fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
Even their star eye witness Shri Ajaykumar
kanubhai Bariya, who for the first time narrated
the absurd story of accused entering S6 by
cutting through the vestibule between S6 and S7
coach in his statement u/s 164 on 9.7.2002, did
not allege that petrol was used to burn the S6
coach. This is what he said, after sometime I
saw Rafique Bhatuk come with the carbo and give
it to Irfan bhopa and he told me , put this
carbo in the rickshaw. I kept that carbo in the
rickshaw as I was very scared. The smell like
kerosene was coming out from the carbo
5.2.19
53
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The second and third charge-sheet by Noel
Parmar dated 20.9.2002 and 19.12.2002
converts Kerosene into petrol
The 2nd and the 3rd charge sheets read as
follows As a part of pre-planned conspiracy,
Shaukat Ahmed Charkha alias Laloo and eight
others had carried eight 20 litres carboys
filled with petrol in the loading Rickshaw
towards A Cabin along the dirt road towards Ali
Masjid
5.3.1
54
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The second and third charge-sheet by Noel
Parmar dated 20.9.2002 and 19.12.2002
converts Kerosene into petrol
.. In the meantime, Razak Kurkure and Salim
Panwala had reached the train and Kurkure poured
petrol through the broken window of the toilet of
S6 coach by standing on the foot board of the
door towards the engine side with Salim Panwala
lifting the carboy from below.
5.3.2
55
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The second and third charge-sheet by Noel
Parmar dated 20.9.2002 and 19.12.2002
converts Kerosene into petrol
In the meantime, Laloo and Latika had also
arrived and Latika had made 3-4 holes in the
stopper of 2 carboys and thereafter with the help
of his knife had cut the canvass of the vestibule
between S6 and S7..
5.3.3
56
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The second and third charge-sheet by Noel
Parmar dated 20.9.2002 and 19.12.2002
converts Kerosene into petrol
By making space through the cut, Latiko had
climbed the iron steps between the S6 and S7
coach and behind him Jabir Binyamin Behra had
also climbed upAs the corridor-door to enter the
S6 was closed, Latiko had used force to open the
door by kicking it and Laloo had given 2 carboys
to Latiko and Jabir Binyamin after making holes
near the stoppers
5.3.4
57
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The second and third charge-sheet by Noel
Parmar dated 20.9.2002 and 19.12.2002
converts Kerosene into petrol
Laloo had also climbed up by the same way and
Rafiq Hussein Bhatuk gave him a carboy. After
entering S6, Laloo had opened the Godhra side
rear door and through this door, Rafiq and 3
others had entered with 3 carboys filled with
petrol and poured the petrol in the coach from
the rear-side gallery of the S6 coach and got out
through the door
5.3.5
58
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
The 4th Charge-sheet added the terrorist
conspiracy angle. The police version has not
qualitatively changed thereafter till the present
16 supplementary charge-sheet. The Case of the
2nd and 3rd Charge-Sheet was refined by adding
a conspiracy story. The conspiracy was claimed
to have been hatched on 26th February, 2002 by
Razak Kurkure, Salim Panwala, Haji Bilal and few
others around 9pm in the evening in room No. 8 of
Aman Guest house owned by Razak Kurkure.
5.3.6
59
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
The conspiracy included the plan to burn down
Sabarmati Express on 27th February, 02 and for
that purpose 140 liters of Petrol was allegedly
bought from Kalabhais Petrol pump in the night
and kept in Kurkures house. It is alleged that
Maulana Umarji had directed on 26th February, at
around 9-10.30pm that S6 coach should be burnt.
5.3.7
60
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
The primary motivation for the introduction of
Petrol as the conspirators fuel and the
burning of S6 coach from inside was the
mischievous report of Dr. M.S.Dahiya dated
17.5.2002, opining that the S6 coach could not be
burned from outside but 60 liters of petrol would
be required to be poured inside the coach to the
burn the same, did not reach Shri K.C.Bawa in
time for him to realize that his theory of the
coach being burnt from outside with kerosene
would contradict Dahiyas report.
5.3.8
61
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
A huge amount of material ( 370 kilos) from
inside the S6 coach was once again collected on
1.5.2002 and sent for Forensic examination. The
FSL report No. 2002/c/594 dated 17.5.2002 however
failed to report any detection of petrol from the
burnt residues of the things inside the coach.
One Yellow carboy however showed some petrol
though subsequently this carboy does not figure
in the subsequent story.
5.3.9
62
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
The entire Petrol theory hinges on Binayim
Behrass confession u/s 164 dated 5.2.2003 to
the effect that at about 9pm on 26th February,
2002, Razak Kurkure had asked him to accompany
him to bring petrol from the petrol pump of
kalabhai. Binayamin had gone there with few
others in a popti colored tempi with seven
carboys of 20 liters each which were filled up
at the pump and brought back and kept in Razak
Kurkures romm which was behind the Aman Guest
house. ..this petrol was used on 27th February to
set fire to S6 coach!
5.3.10
63
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
This story of Binyamin Behra is corroborated
by the statements u/s 162 as well as u/s 164 of
two employees of Kalabhais pump who had
allegedly sold the petrol to Razak on 26th Feb.
They were ranjitsinh J Patel and Shri Prabhatsinh
G Patel. The 162 statement of both were recorded
on 23.2.2003 whereas the s.164 statements were
recorded on 11.3.2003 and 12.3.2003 respectively.
5.3.11
64
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
In their statements both of them alleged that on
26Feb. 2002, at about 10pm in the night Razak
Kurkure had come on his M-80 alongwith a popti
colored tempi. Salim Panwala had paid for 140
liters of petrol and Ranjitbhai had filled up the
seven carboys with 140 liters of Petrol.
Cont.
5.3.12
65
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
They said that they had earlier given
statements to the police on 10.4.2002 but as the
police did not ask them whether anybody had taken
loose petrol on 26th, they had not disclosed
the facts which they disclosed before the
Magistrate on 11.3.2003! As the police had asked
them only about 27th February, 2002, they had
said no!
5.3.12
66
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
Shockingly, the statements dated 10.4.2002 made
by Prabhatbhai and Ranjitbhai are produced with
the Supplmentary Charge-sheet dated 16.4.2002 at
pages 1831/2 and 1833/2 respectively. These two
statement u/s 162 which were given by the two
persons on the very next day when the police had
collected petrol samples from Kalabhais pump on
9.4.2002.
Cont.
5.3.13
67
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
Prior to this charge-sheet, the two statements
recorded on 10.4.2002 were never produced before
the court alongwith the charge-sheets and
suppressed for over a year.
5.3.13
68
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
Apart from Jabir Binyamin Behra and the two
employees from Kalabhais petrol pump another
person, namely Shri Salim Zarda had allegedly
accompanied Razak on 26th Feb. to Kalabhais
petrol pump and he said that the tempi was
carrying seven or eight black carboys of 20
liters each and these were filled with petrol
from Kalabhais etc..
5.3.14
69
The Governments version of the cause of
fire The fourth charge-sheet by Noel Parmar
Thus after a period of one year, petrol is
rediscovered and the Kerosene given up. But the
problem lies precisely in this switch over from
Kerosene to petrol on one hand and from the
burning of the coach from outside to the burning
of the coach by pouring petrol from inside! The
contradictions are so glaring that the
investigation looks like a farce. The truth
ofcourse is the biggest victim. But before
dealing with the contradiction, the evidence
relied upon by the Government side is required to
be examined.
5.3.15
70
Confessions Law of Confessions
The primary evidence are the confessions of Jabir
Binyamin Behra, Salim Zarda, saukat pataliya and
Mohmad Sakir Pataliya Can these confessions can
be used by the Commission? The law of
confession has been recently reviewed by the
Supreme Court in the Parliament case (State Vs N
Sandhu). The extracts of the judgment are
reproduced below
6.1.1 6.1.2
71

Law of Confessions State Vs Navjot Sandhu
(2005)-11-SCC-662
27. We start with the confessions.
Under the general law of the land as reflected in
the Evidence Act, no confession made to a police
officer can be proved against an accused.
Confessions which is a terminology used in
criminal law is a species of admissions as
defined in Section 17 of the Evidence Act.
  ..Section 26 goes a step further
and prohibits proof of confession made by any
person while he is in the custody of a police
officer, unless it be made in the immediate
presence of a Magistrate. .
6.1.3
72

Law regarding confessions State Vs Navjot Sandhu
(2005)-11-SCC-662
..Section 24 lays down the obvious rule
that a confession made under inducement, threat
or promise becomes irrelevant in a criminal
proceeding. Such inducement, threat or promise
need not be proved to the hilt. If it appears to
the court that the making of the confession was
caused by any inducement, threat or promise
proceeding from a person in authority, the
confession is liable to be excluded from
evidence. The expression appears connotes that
the court need not go to the extent of holding
that the threat, etc. has in fact been proved.
6.1.4
73
Law regarding confessions State Vs Navjot Sandhu
(2005)-11-SCC-662
If the facts and circumstances merging
from the evidence adduced make it reasonably
probable that the confession could be the result
of threat, inducement or pressure, the court will
refrain from acting on such confession, even if
it be a confession made to a Magistrate or a
person other than a police officer..
6.1.5
74
Law regarding confessions Bharat V. State of U.P.
(1971)3SCC 950
32. Hidayatullah, C.J., speaking for a
three-Judge Bench observed thus Confessions
can be acted upon if the court is satisfied that
they are voluntary and that they are true. The
voluntary nature of the confession depends upon
whether there was any threat, inducement or
promise and its truth is judged in the context
of the entire prosecution case. The confession
must fit into the proved facts and not run
counter to them
6.1.6
75
Law regarding confessions Haroon Haji Abdulla V.
State of Maharashtra
33. The same learned Judge observed in that a
retracted confession must be looked upon with
greater concern unless the reasons given for
having made it in the first instance are on the
face of them false. There was a further
observation in the same paragraph that retracted
confession is a weak link against the maker and
more so against a co-accused
6.1.7
76
Law regarding confessions Pyare Lal Bhargava V.
State of Rajasthan (AIR-1963 ) (SCR pp.695-96)
Dealing with retracted confession, a
four-Judge Bench of this Court speaking through
Subba Rao, J. clarified the legal position A
retracted confession may form the legal basis of
a conviction if the court is satisfied that it
was true and was voluntarily made. But it has
been held that a court shall not base a
conviction on such a confession without
corroboration.
Cont.
6.1.8
77
Law regarding confessions Pyare Lal Bhargava V.
State of Rajasthan (AIR-1963 ) (SCR pp.695-96)
It is not a rule of law, but is only rule
of prudence that under no circumstances can such
a conviction be made without corroboration, for a
court may, in a particular case, be convinced of
the absolute truth of a confession and prepared
to act upon it without corroboration but it may
be laid down as a general rule of practice that
it is unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less
on a retracted confession, unless the court is
satisfied that the retracted confession is true
and voluntarily made and has been made
corroborated in material particulars.
6.1.8
78
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
We are, therefore, of the view that having
regard to all these weighty considerations, the
confession of a co-accused ought not to be
brought within the sweep of Section 32(1). As a
corollary, it follows that the confession of the
first and second accused in this case recorded by
the police officer under section 32(1), are of no
avail against the co-accused or against each
other.
Cont.
6.1.9
79
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
We also agree with the High Court that
such confessions cannot be taken into
consideration by the Court under section 30 of
the Evidence Act. The reason is that the
confession made to a police officer or the
confession made while a person is in police
custody, cannot be proved against such person,
not to speak of the co-accused, in view of the
mandate of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
6.1.9
80
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
State submits that there is no conflict between
Section of POTA and Section 30 of the evidence
Act and therefore the confession recorded under
Section 32(1) of POTA can be taken into
consideration against the co-accused, at least to
corroborate the other evidence on record or to
lend assurance thereto
Cont.
6.1.10
81
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
There is no difficulty in accepting the
contention that section 30 of the Evidence Act
can also play its part in a case of trial under
POTA, especially when the other offences under
IPC are also the subject matter of trial. But a
confession to the police officer by a person in
police custody is not within the realm of Section
30 of the evidence Act and therefore such a
confession cannot be used against the co-accused
even under section of the evidence Act.
6.1.10
82
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
We do not think that the theory of agency
can be extended thus far, that is to say, to find
all the conspirators guilty of the actual
offences committed in execution of the common
design even if such offences were ultimately
committed by some of them, without the
participation of other.
Cont.
6.1.11
83
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
We are of the view that those who committed the
offences pursuant to the conspiracy by indulging
in various overt acts will be individually liable
for those offences in addition to being liable
for criminal conspiracy, but, the non-participant
conspirators cannot be found guilty of the
offence or offences committed by the other
conspirators.
Cont.
6.1.11
84
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
There is hardly any scope for the application of
the principle of agency in order to find the
conspirators guilty of a substantive offence not
committed by them. Criminal offences and
punishments therefore are governed by the
statute. The offender will be liable only if he
comes within the plain terms of the penal
statute. Criminal liability for an offence cannot
be fastened by way of analogy or by extension of
a common law principle.
6.1.11
85
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
The very decision of Maj.E.G.Barsay referred by
Their Lordships makes it clear that for
individual offences, all the conspirators may not
be liable though they are all guilty for the
offence of conspiracy.
6.1.12
86
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
..Conspiracy to commit a crime itself is
punishable as a substantive offence and every
individual offence committed pursuant to the
conspiracy is separate and distinct offence for
which individual offenders are liable to
punishment, independent of the conspiracy..
Cont.
6.1.13
87
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
It was not held in those cases that the same
principle of agency should be stretched further
to make all the conspirators liable for the
offensive acts done pursuant to the conspiracy,
irrespective of their role participation in the
ultimate offensive acts
Cont.
6.1.13
88
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
The offence cannot be spelt out by applying the
principle of agency if the statute does not say
so. For instance, in the case of Section 34 IPC,
the constructive liability for the crime is
specifically fastened on each of those who
participate in the crime in furtherance of the
common intention. But section120-B does not
convey that idea.
6.1.13
89
Law regarding confessions Use of confession under
POTA against a co-accused
From the above principles laid down by the Apex
Court it is clear that unless and until the
confessions are established to be given
voluntarily, the confessions do not have any
evidentiary value. Further, the confession u/s 32
of POTA cannot be used against any co-accused and
can be used for corroboration and not as
substantive evidence. Further, a retracted
confession cannot be used at all unless the
confessions are proved to be voluntarily given in
the first instance and it would be used only for
the purpose of corroboration.
6.1.14
90
Retractions
In the instant case, Shri Jabir Binyamin Behra
has retracted his confession before the POTA
court on 28.7.2003 and recorded by the POTA
Court. Order has been produced with list. He has
also complained that the confession has been
taken forcibily and that his relatives have been
threatened. Binyamin has also sent an affidavit
to this Commission dated 19.1.2005, produced with
the list complaining of torture and coercion to
extract his confession. The acknowledgment card
has also been produced. Thus the confession is
wholly involuntary and therefore cannot be relied
upon.
6.2.1
91
Retractions
Salim Zarda has be a written application before
the POTA court has complained about torture and
coercion for extracting the confession and has
retracted the same. The copy of the application
has been produced with the list.
6.2.2
92
Retractions
Shri Saukat farouque Pataliya has also retracted
his statement before the POTA court on 28.7.2003
complaining that the confession was recorded on a
blank sheet and that he was lured and induced to
give the statement and the police had threatened
to beat his wife. Saukat has also filed Affidavit
before this Commission sent by R.P.A.D on
28.1.2005.
6.2.3
93
Retractions
Mohmad Sakirs confession has not been produced
and as per information he has also retracted. So
far as the statements made by persons who are not
accused like, Ajay Bariya, Prabhatsinh Gulabsinh
Patel, Ranjitsinh Jodhabhai Patel are concerned,
such statements cannot be used unless they are
proved and the deponents are allowed to be
crossed in appropriate forum.
6.2.4 6.2.5
94
Retractions
So far as Anwar Kalandar is concerned, he had
come before this Commission to give his
deposition but was prevented from doing so by the
police. With the permission of the Commission
his affidavit has been taken on record at exhibit
37343 dated 7.4.2005.
Cont.
6.2.6
95
Retractions
The Government side did not want to cross
examine Shri Kalandar and therefore the content
of the Affidavit is presumed to be admitted by
the Government. In the said Affidavit, Shri
Kalandar has described in details as to the
inhuman torture and the threat of encounter that
he was subjected to for extracting the statements
from him. He has categorically denied the facts
recorded in his statements.
6.2.6
96
Retractions
Shockingly, Shri Sikandar, whose statement has
been produced as evidence at Sr No. 7 of the
compilation, is also shown as an absconding
accused right from the first charge sheet and his
name appears at Sr. No. 34 in the 9th
Supplementary CS!
6.2.7
97
Retractions
The moot question however is as to whether, the
Commission which is performing an administrative
task of fact finding will have the jurisdiction
to first decide as to whether, the confessions
and statements u/s 164 are voluntary or not for
the purpose of relying upon the same. As the
matter stands, the competent Court has yet to
decide on this issue and therefore the Commission
is excluded from deciding this issue and/or
relying upon such statements/ confessions as
evidence.
6.2.8
98
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
The Chief Minister on 27th February had made the
following press statement which was published
all over Gujarat The abominable event that has
occurred in Godhra does not befit any civilized
society, is not a communal event but is an one
sided collective terrorist attack by one
community .. He further said that this incident
is not a simple incident of violence or communal
event but is a preplanned incident.
7.1.1
99
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
The above statement of the Chief executive of the
state had set the directions of the
investigation. The investigators of the Godhra
case are not investigating but making every
effort to prove the Chief executive right!
7.1.2
100
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
The conspiracy theory has been developed without
the slightest application of mind. By using
torture, coercion and POTA, absurd confessions
are extracted that are impossible in real life.
As pointed out earlier, it is impossible to stop
the train from outside by rotating the alarm disc
because of the change of design but the
investigators forced such a confession to
support their absurd theory that Salim Panwala
instigated the other muslim hawkers to stop the
train at A cabin as a part of a pre-planned
conspiracy!
7.1.3
101
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
While extracting this absurd confession from
Anwar Kalandar, Iliyas Hussein Mulla, several
other blunders were made. Anwar is made to say
(at Sr. No. 338 of CS) that the first chain
pulling was done for the purpose of picking up
the left over Karsevaks and after the train
restarted at 7.48am, Salim came running from the
Parcel office side and urged Anwar to stop the
train as a Muslim girl was being abducted
7.1.4
102
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
Anwar also states that Iliyas Hussein Mulla and
Hussein Suleman also came running with Salim to
the pani-ni-parab where Anwar was standing and
due to the urging by Salim, the three of them
jumped onto Sabarmati Express in three different
compartments. Anwar does not say that Salim told
him to stop the train at A cabin!
7.1.5
103
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
Iiyas Hussein in his statement dated 2.8.2002 at
Sr. No. 338 however he was doing business in the
S9 coach of Sabarmati Express when it first
arrived in the station and he further stated that
at that time, Salim Panwala was standing near
the Bookstall on the platform No.1 before the
first chain pulling. He states that Salim told
him to get up in the S9 coach and pull the chain
near the parcel office! (not at A cabin!)
7.1.6
104
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
He further states that he did pull the chain at
parcel office and then ran outside the station
and went to Signal falia and stood near Aman
guest house. He did not know where Saukat and
Hussein had got down.
7.1.6
105
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
Iliyas further states that during the period when
the train had stopped near the parcel office (ie.
Between 7.48 am to 7.55am) Razak Kurkure came and
told him to once again pull the chain to stop the
train near A cabim. Iiyas then came through the
hole in the wall in front of Aman guest house
and jumped into the running train in S4 coach. He
had only seen Salim from far.. Thus Iliyas wholly
contradicts Anwar who had said that Salim had
told Anwar, Iliyas and Hussein together to stop
the train.
7.1.7
106
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
Interestingly, Jabir Biniyamin Behra states that
while the stone throwing was going on from behind
the parcel office, he alongwith others had ran
towards the Aman guest house where he had seen
Razak Kurkure and Salim Panwala coming out of the
room from the back the door of a guest house
room!
7.1.8
107
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
He further said that he and others were told to
bring the tempi carrying the carbos behind A
cabin and while going towards A cabin he also saw
Salim Panwala in M-80 alongwith Razak.. Thus
whereas, Anwar and Iliyas states having seen
Salim Panwala in the station even upto 7.55 ie
till the train started after the chain pulling,
Jabir puts Salim inside the Aman guest house
during the stone throwing period and thereafter.
The main executor of the conspiracy Salim Panwala
seem to be omnipresent.
7.1.8
108
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
Iiyas who brags to be an expert chain-puller,
states that on the second occasion, he had jumped
on the foot board of S4 coach in the platform
side but he had to go through a cut in the canvas
between the vestibule of S4 and S5 to reach the
northern side in order that he could reach and
rotate the alarm disc which was only on the
northern side! The expert does seem to know that
there are two alarm discs on both southern as
well as northern side at one end of every coach
manufactured in India. Please see the picture of
S6 coach. Lies have their own ways to surface!
7.1.9
109
(No Transcript)
110
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
The most glaring omission in the story of the
prosecution is that they have not stated what the
original plan was of the conspirators in case the
train was not late! The VHP has alleged that in
case the train came at right time in the
midnight, the plan was to burn the entire train
in Chanchelav, a village about 12 to 14 kms from
Godhra towards Dahod. Sabarmati has no halt
there, could VHP disclose how the conspirators
were planning to stop the train in the midnight
when no one being permitted to even board the
train right from Lucknow onwards!!
7.1.10
111
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
The fact is that if the Karsevaks had not pulled
the chain to pick up their left out colleagues
from the Godhra station, the Sabarmati would have
passed through Godhra and saved the nation of one
of its greatest tragedies.
7.1.11
112
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
While the entire theory of the prosecution
revolves around the allegation that several
Muslims including Jabir Binyamin Behra had cut
through the canvas of S7 to make entry, there is
absolutely no proof of such an absurd claim.
7.1.12
113
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
Nine active members of VHP led by Muralidhar
Mulchandani who were standing next to the A cabin
right from the beginning did not see or make any
allegation that any person had climbed S7 and cut
the canvas. The ASM Rajendra Meena who was in the
A cabin also does not make any such allegation
and in fact deposes that he did not see any one
climbing the train. If the canvas was the most
vital piece of evidence to prove this fact, why
did not the police collect the same?? Why was it
permitted to be sold for a few rupees as scrap??
7.1.12
114
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
How does the prosecution explain the statement
recorded by it from the parcel office clerk at
Sr. No.72 of CS on 1.3.2002 to the effect that
after the chain pulling in the station, the
passengers were pelting stones at the people
behind the parcel office
7.1.13
115
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
Where are the Nine 20 liters black carboys that
are supposed have been filled up with petrol and
brought by a tempi behind the A cabin and finally
from which petrol was allegedly poured inside the
coach?? The FSL has found three carboys with
kerosene and three small carboys with petrol. Why
didnt the police find a single one of the nine
20 litres carboys. The FSL report at Sr. No.
292,(FSL/594 dated 17.5.2002) in its copnclusion
No.2 clearly stated that the burnt residues of
the materials inside the coach did not have any
residue of plastic container
7.1.14
116
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
How will the prosecution explain the fact that
the two small plastic containers which were found
to have petrol in it were found not near the
coach but across the tracks near the post 468/36
which was nearest to the Mallas Auto garage that
was burnt down by the passengers and Karsevaks
around 11am on 27.2.2002. Two trucks were burnt
with that petrol. How did the passengers get the
petrol??
7.1.15
117
Burnt Trucks
118
Contradictions Whose Conspiracy?
Why did State control Gandhinagar P. I. Barot
inform Gandhinagar at 9.35 am on 27.2.2002 that
at Godhra the Kar Sevaks have set on fire
three coaches of Sabarmati Express train and
how many have received injuries are not known.
So be vigilant?
7.1.16
119
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit No.149 Maheshbhai Cheljibhai
Chaudhary Residing at Dhanodia
Vas, Punasan , Dist.Mehsana The
fire had not reached the spot where I was
sitting. but
there was lot of smoke. The smoke was coming from
the left side of the rear end.
8.1.1
120
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit No.149 Maheshbhai Cheljibhai
Chaudhary Residing at Dhanodia
Vas, Punasan , Dist.Mehsana When
one person jumped out through window, my
eyes were covered by
smoke and therefore I could not see how many
persons had jumped out through window but I
jumped out (through window) and fell on the
ground. I had fallen on the ground. When
I fell down, I was totally scared I did not
notice as to how many other Karsevaks had jumped
out.
5.1.1
121
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit No.149 Maheshbhai Cheljibhai
Chaudhary Residing at Dhanodia
Vas, Punasan , Dist.Mehsana I became
unconscious on the ground immediately after
jumping. After some time I regained my
consciousness. I was taken to Godhra civil
hospital. While I had jumped out and
fallen on the ground, I was not beaten by anybody
nor was I threaten of beating by anybody. Before
jumping out from the coach I had not seen any
fluid on the floor of the coach near the place
where I was sitting.
5.1.1
122
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit No.149 Maheshbhai Cheljibhai Chaudhary
Residing at Dhanodia Vas,
Punasan , Dist.Mehsana While I was
inside the coach, I had not seen any flame.After
jumping out through window and after regaining
some consciousness, I had seen flames on outer
side all around the coach. When I regained
consciousness, the police and fire brigade
personnel had come to the spot
5.1.1
123
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit-150 . Name Savitaben
Tribhovandas village Manipur, Dhokabari, Kadi,
District Mehsana


We had purchased Batakawada from the stall
which was exactly opposite to S-6 coach. When the
train started from Godhra station some Karsevaks
rushed in our coach and they told that a quarrel
had taken place with some tea vendor on the
platform.
5.1.1
124
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit-151 Name Babubhai Somdas
Patel, resident of village Gamanpura,
District Mehsana I had not seen any
person in Muslim dress or with beard inside the
coach. Nor had I seen any such Muslim rushing
inside the coach.When I came out of the coach the
door on southern side was closed.
5.1.1
125
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
ExhExhibit-150 . Name Savitaben
Tribhovandas village Manipur, Dhokabari, Kadi,
District Mehsana



I do not know
whether the quarrel had taken place with the same
vendor from whom we had purchased Batakawada.
I had not seen any person coming inside the
coach from outside and pouring any fluid.
5.1.1
126
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit-151 Name Babubhai Somdas
Patel, resident of village Gamanpura,
District Mehsana The smoke was coming
from the rear side of the coach i.e. from the
guards end. No smoke was coming from the engine
end. From the block where I was sitting, I had
not seen any smoke coming. I had not seen
any fire at that place. One window on the
southern side of the block where I was sitting,
was broken. The glass and the shutter both were
broken. The window had broken after starting of
the stone pelting
5.1.1
127
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit No.152 Name Dwarkabhai
Shankarbhai Patel, Gamanpura, District Mehsana
I came out through window of the third
cubicle. The smoke was coming from the rear end
of the coach. Till I came out of the coach, I had
not seen any flames. As long as I was
inside the coach, I had not noticed any fluid
having been poured inside the coach. I had not
seen any person sprinkling any fluid or putting
fire on the coach.
5.1.1
128
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit No.153 Name Jayantibhai
Umeddas Patel Resident of village
Gamanpura, Mehsana, I had not seen
anything coming through window. After closure of
the window, smoke had started. Due to smoke I had
moved towards engine side. The window of
the cubicle where I was sitting, was not broken
but it was broken in the nearby cubicle. Babubhai
and Dwarkabhai were sitting on the seats ahead of
me towards engine side. I can not say whether the
window of the cubicle where Babubhai was sitting,
was broken or not.
5.1.1
129
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit No.153 Name Jayantibhai
Umeddas Patel Resident of village
Gamanpura, Mehsana I had seen some people
on the back side moving towards engine. I did not
go out to enquire the reason for smoke.
The smell of the smoke was like that of
half-burnt scooter or rickshaw. The smell was
like that of burning rubber. It was also like
burning of luggage. My bag of cotton cloth was
also burnt in the incident
5.1.1
130
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit No.153 Name Jayantibhai
Umeddas Patel resident of village
Gamanpura, Mehsana I had not seen smoke
coming from the engine side. Till I came out of
the coach, I had not seen any material burning on
the floor. As long as I was inside the coach, I
had not seen any person pouring any fluid inside
the coach from carboy. I do not know as to
how the smoke had taken place. I did not enquire
for the reason of the smoke. The people on back
side of the coach were talking that the coach was
burning from inside and therefore all should run.
5.1.1
131
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit-159 Name Ramfersinh
Babusinh Rajput, residing at Desaiwada, Kadi,
District Mehsana. The window was broken
due to stone pelting. After 10 to 15 minutes of
my climbing on upper berth the window was
broken. Till then I had not seen any
burning torch coming inside and till then there
was no smoke. The smoke had come from the rear
end of the coach. The smoke had come from the
back side of the place where I was sitting
5.1.1
132
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit-159 Name Ramfersinh
Babusinh Rajput, residing at Desaiwada, Kadi,
District Mehsana. After getting up,
first of all I went towards left side but could
not find any place and therefore I came back. I
had seen many people of the coach running helter
skelter. The flames were moving towards
seats from the window and because of the flame,
my ear was burnt.
5.1.1
133

The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit-159 Name Ramfersinh
Babusinh Rajput, residing at Desaiwada, Kadi,
District Mehsana. At that time there
was no fire on the floor of the coach. At that
time there was no fire on the upper berths and
luggage stacked thereon. I had not seen
any person throwing inflammable fluid inside the
coach. While I was moving all around for getting
out, I had not seen any inflammable fluid having
been thrown on the floor.
5.1.1
134

The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit-159 Name Ramfersinh
Babusinh Rajput, residing at Desaiwada,
Kadi, District Mehsana. I can not say
whether the fire had taken place in the coach
due to throwing of burning ragsAfter 10 to 15
minutes of my coming out of the coach, the entire
coach was engulfed by fire
5.1.1
135

The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit-164 name