[ad_1]
Disputing a layoff application by Mumbai-based activist Teesta Setalvad, the state – in a response filed before the Session Court on Monday – has presented “more than prima facie evidence” against Setalvad for allegedly fabricating evidence linked to the 2002 Gujarat riots.
Setalvad filed a complaint with the Ahmedabad Sessions Court last month, asking for the proceedings in this case against her to be dropped. The Sessions Court earlier last month rejected the discharge application by DGP RB Sreekumar, Setalvad’s co-defendant in the case.
In its response, the state stated that “by winning the trust of the victims (in the riots) or by abusing their trust” by drafting affidavits in English that the victims allegedly could not understand, Sitalvad attempted to implicate “innocent persons” and “misused the legal process as part of her plots.”
In its response, the Public Prosecution Office relied on CPL section 164 testimonies of three of its witnesses, namely Reskhan Pathan, formerly field coordinator with the NGO Citizens for Justice and Peace in Sittlevad, who was later dismissed and is now a central endowment. Council member, Narendra Brahmbhatt, who testified that late Congress leader Ahmed Patil paid 30,000 rupees to Sitalvad for alleged conspiracy, and Qutbuddin Ansari – a riot victim who photographed him in a blood-stained shirt with tears streaming down his face and her hands folded. The most famous picture of the riots in Gujarat.
The prosecution also highlighted that Yasmin Banu Navitullah Sheikh – who was a key prosecution witness in the Best Bakery case – alleged that on instructions and pressure from Setalvad, she gave a false statement and falsely identified the accused before the Mumbai Sessions Court, which he had also admitted before the Centre. HC in Bombay later.
The state also highlighted the affidavit by Abdul Majeed Sheikh – a prosecution witness in the Naroda Patiya case – allegedly prepared by Setalvad, which detailed that he witnessed the rape of his daughter. “However, the witness stated in his testimony before the Sessions Court that he was not in Naroda gam on the day of the incident and did not write about the rape of his daughter in any affidavit,” the state said.
Similar discrepancies were noted in the sworn statements before the court during the trial of four other riot witnesses in 2002.
Notably, this evidence was adopted by the Prosecution before the Gujarat HC Court as well while opposing Setalvad’s application for bail.
In requesting her discharge, Setalvad also questioned the credibility of the evidence presented by Raisekhan Pathan.
Disputing this line of argument, the state claimed that this basis could only be brought up at the evidence assessment stage. In addition, Khan’s evidence – the confession statement – registered under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was brought before the examining magistrate. Setalvad faces charges under IPC Sections 468, 469, 471, 194, 211, 218 and 120b.
She was granted temporary protection from detention for a week on Saturday by the Supreme Court hours after the HC in Gujarat directed her to “surrender immediately” after her bail application was denied.
[ad_2]
