Gujarat riots: HC rejects Teesta’s discharge plea

The court took into consideration various witness statements and accounts relied on by the prosecution. It said that Setalvad’s grounds seeking discharge are more befitting to be made at the final stage after the entire judicial process is completed, and not for a stage when charges are yet to be framed.

Setalvad told the court that there is no question of falsifying affidavits, as no false affidavit was made in the Gulberg massacre case and that affidavits in the Sardarpura case were translated from Gujarati, explained to witnesses and then their signatures were taken.

It was also pointed out that the witness the prosecution is relying on – Raiskhan Pathan, former employee of Setalvad’s NGO who was eventually fired – had claimed that three affidavits of witnesses in the Naroda Gam trial were forged seven years after the riots. Pathan is also facing a case in this regard, Setalvad said.

The court was informed that it cannot be said that forged affidavits were submitted as the act of forgery has not been proven.

The state on the other hand opposed Setalvad’s plea stating that “by winning the trust of victims (of riots) or by abusing their trust” by drafting affidavits in English, which the victims allegedly couldn’t understand, Setalvad tried to implicate “innocent persons” and “misused the legal process as part of her conspiracy”.

On June 19, Additional Principal Judge A R Patel had dismissed the discharge plea of former Gujarat DGP R B Sreekumar, who is a co-accused in the same case.

At the time, the court had ruled while relying on several judgments, including six of the Supreme Court, that in the current stage it is only to be examined whether there is sufficient evidence against the accused to indict him. Other provisions such as those under Evidence Act or Commissions of Inquiry Act or limitation shall not come into consideration, it had stated.