Naroda Patiya : ‘Trial was conducted against me’

All 31 convicts have appealed against the sentence but her petition was taken up on priority given the Supreme Court order that the court expedite her petition.

[related-post]

Appearing for Kodnani senior counsel Nirupam Nanavati argued that the trial court had based its conclusion on the former minister on “presumption and assumption.”

He said that there are in all 11 witnesses whose statements, including eye witnesses implicate Kodnani out of a total of 327 who were examined in the trial court. Nanavati pointed out that there are two contradictory versions stated by the 11 witnesses.

One set of witnesses have said that Kodnani was at Noorani Masjid, Naroda Patiya locality at around 9 am who came there in a white Maruti car and stayed for roughly 30 minutes.

They have said that Kodnani interacted with crowd and instigated them. Some witnesses have said that she was seen near Natraj Hotel at around 11 am. The Special Investigation Team (SIT) charge sheet records her presence at 11 pm.

“In the morning of February 28, 2002 she was present at state legislative assembly representing Naroda. And 8:40 am, as per record, condolence resolution was passed and assembly was adjourned. At Sola Civil Hospital dead bodies from Godhra (of those who died in Sabarmati Express train carnage case) had been kept. She came to Sola since certain people who died were from Naroda. The prosecution case is that at 9 am she was at Noorani Masjid.”

Citing trial court’s judgment Nanavati said that “The judge says because I am an MLA and interacted with persons, addressed in high pitched voice and I hatched a conspiracy with 20,000 people.

But nobody knows what exactly I talked.” Nanavati told the court that the trial judge believed some part of statements of witnesses and some part of the same witnesses was rejected.

He argued that the trial court appreciated statements that Kodnani was present at the spot and instigated the mob but it refused to believe statements that said that she distributed weapons kept in the boot of her car.

The court also refused to believe witnesses who had testified that she even opened fire. Nanavati said that while describing Kodnani as “kingpin” the trial court has used words like “probability, assumption and presumption.”

Nanavati also criticized the Supreme Court-appointed SIT that investigated the case saying that “as a prosecutor the SIT suppressed material and omitted facts to get conviction instead of revealing the truth before the trial court.”

Nanavati cited a Supreme Court judgment saying that a public prosecutor’s job is not merely getting the accused convicted but to come to a truthful conclusion even if it favours the accused.

“The SIT during the trial dropped statements of several witnesses since they have stated that I (Kodnani) was never there on the spot. Their names were dropped from the list of witnesses to secure conviction. This is not the prosecution’s case. They can’t do it, as per the Supreme Court order,” Nanavati said.

”My presence at Noorani Masjid is not believable since the crowd of other community was already there and there was tension. It wasn’t safe for me. It was easy to identify me since I used to wear white clothes and drove in white Maruti car.

There is no circumstantial evidence proving the conspiracy. My coming to the spot is the only circumstantial evidence, no mobile details, no other evidence connects me to the so-called conspiracy. The conspiracy should have been prior to the actual offence that took place,” Nanavati said adding that the statement of Kodnani’s security guard was taken, that also didn’t say that there a prior meeting for conspiracy.

Before the hearing could start Mumbai-based lawyer Mihir Desai, representing victims, told the division bench headed by justice Ravi R Tripathi that there is an application for recusal, justice Tripathi said, “We do not entertain such applications.”

Desai’s statement was based on a note given to acting Chief Justice VM Sahai and Registrar General where it was said that the case should be transferred to other bench since justice Tripathi had recused himself in a connected matter in the past.