Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
TWO KEY witnesses in the Sohrabuddin Shaikh and Tulsiram Prajapati alleged fake encounter cases sought to be recalled on grounds, including that their statements recorded before the magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were not exhibited. Under the section, statements of witnesses are recorded before a magistrate as an independent authority without the presence of any investigators and have higher evidence value.
A perusal of the 210 witnesses, who have deposed in the trial, shows that at least seven statements given by witnesses before magistrates were not exhibited by the prosecution. This included Mohammed Azam Khan and Mahendra Zala, who have sought to be recalled as witnesses.
Other witnesses include Sudhir Joshi, a senior Rajasthan Police officer, who had deposed on August 2. Joshi was leading the team, which claimed to have arrested Tulsiram on November 29, 2005 from Bhilwara in Rajasthan.
Joshi had, however, also given a statement before a magistrate saying that Tulsiram was arrested on November 26 and not November 29, and that it was part of the conspiracy by the accused policemen, who had abducted him along with Sohrabuddin and his wife Kausarbi from a luxury bus.
The prosecution, however, did not confront Joshi on this contradiction. While Special Public Prosecutor B P Raju sought to confront Joshi with the statement, the court had said that it could only be allowed if there is a contradiction.
Other witnesses are Girishbhai Patel, owner of a farmhouse where Sohrabuddin and Kausarbi were allegedly detained; Dinesh Gujjar, a co-inmate of Tulsiram in Udaipur jail; Naginbhai Barot and Gulam Ahmed.
Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram
