It was alleged that Gohil had failed in his duty as a public servant by letting the accused get away in order to save them from punishment. (Express file photo of Naroda Gam by Javed Raja) Among the 67 acquitted by a special court in the Naroda Gam case on April 20, was the only police officer charged for dereliction of duty and negligence in conducting the investigation.
Inspector at Naroda police station in 2002, Virbhadrsinh Samantsinh Gohil’s alleged dereliction of duty came to light when SIT took over the investigation. The SIT had then recommended departmental action against Gohil, along with senior inspector K K Mysorewala from the same police station. Departmental action was also recommended against Meghaninagar police inspector K G Erda, who was tried in the Gulberg massacre case and subsequently acquitted.
Gohil was probing the Naroda Gam massacre case from February 28, 2002 to March 7, 2002, as the preliminary investigation officer.
It was alleged that Gohil had failed in his duty as a public servant by letting the accused get away in order to save them from punishment. It was also alleged that he had written false records and allowed destruction of evidence by not following due process and allowing the bodies of those killed in the massacre be set on fire.
Mysorewala, deposing as a prosecution witness, had told the court that he was not aware of any instance where Gohil made false claims or intentionally destroyed evidence. He had claimed that as the preliminary investigator, Gohil had fulfilled his duties like lodging FIR, recording panchnamas and sending bodies to the hospital for postmortem.
Subsequent investigators – P N Barot, R C Pathak and Tarun Barot – in the case, too, had told the court that they did not find any lacuna in Gohil’s handling of the case.
The court had noted that the departmental inquiry against Gohil was initiated after he retired from service. While seven to eight witnesses had accused Gohil of aiding the rioters, the court took into account Mysorewala’s deposition and the fact that no other evidence was on record. It held that it cannot be said that Gohil had not done his duty or showed negligence in conducting the probe.