Tulsiram Prajapati encounter case: The plot,as ‘cracked’ by CBI

Shah arranged for co-accused ADGP Geetha Johri to join the criminal conspiracy by asking her to destroy the enquiry papers submitted by Solanki and to “manage things” to ensure that interests of the other co-accused IPS officers like DG Vanzara and S Pandia Rajkumar etc. were protected.

Following instructions from Shah,Johri directed investigating officer Solanki to make changes in the enquiry papers and to prepare a report. However,Solanki declined to obey the illegal directions of accused and his then boss Geetha Johri.

Subsequently,on 03.03.2007,ADGP G C Raiger,the then head of CID who had requested the minister during that said meeting,“that he would like to be kept out of anything to do with destruction/doctoring of the interim enquiry report submitted by V L Solanki,Inspector of Police who was conducting Preliminary Enquiry No. 66/2006 into the encounter-killing of Sohrabuddin”,was summarily removed from his post and given to accused O P Mathur,who was also co-opted into the criminal conspiracy by the other co-accused in the Gujarat Police/Home Department.

P C PANDE

As Gujarat’s DGP,Prashant Chandra Pande unnaturally but intentionally did not take any action for a period of time on a Supreme Court letter of 21.01.2006 in response to a letter to Chief Justice of India by Rubabuddin Sheikh,brother of Sohrabuddin,alleging his brother was murdered in a fake encounter and his sister-in-law Kauserbi made to disappear at the hands of the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) in Gujarat and Rajasthan Special Task Force.

Pande simply directed the then IGP Geetha Johri to enquire,instead of investigate although the allegations disclosed serious cognizable offences that carried capital sentences. He was acting in furtherance of a criminal conspiracy with his patron,accused Amit Shah,to ensure those involved in the murder of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kauserbi are shielded.

Pande ensured that the interim report dated 01.09.2006 submitted by IO V L Solanki was delayed before it could be submitted to the apex court on 07.12.2006.

Although the preliminary enquiry directed by him found that Sohrabuddin was killed in cold blood,he did not direct registration of a criminal complaint and let it drag for nine months before entrusting it to CID (crime). He thus …intentionally provided time needed by the co-accused to cause the disappearance of human witness Tulsiram Prajapati to their crime of abduction of Sohrabuddin and his wife precedent to their murders by murdering him as well.

GEETHA JOHRI

As IGP CID (crime) and supervisory officer of the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case’s preliminary inquiry,she stonewalled her investigating officer V L Solanki’s request to question Tulsiram Prajapati and another gangster Sylvestor Daniel,who were in Udaipur jail.

Solanki had made this request before Johri on December 18,2006,10 days before Tulsiram was killed. However,Johri,intentionally delayed him by telling him that she had sent his letter for approval to CID chief ADGP G C Raiger. Two days later,she misled him and said Raiger had instructed that he should not proceed to Udaipur until further orders.

She later destroyed Solanki’s letter of 18.12.2006 from the official file and facilitated in taking the criminal conspiracy as aforesaid towards its culmination point of the murder of Tulsiram Prajapati.

She projected the third person abducted with Sohrabuddin and his wife Kauserbi as Kalimuddin of Hyderabad,although Solanki had told her it was Tulsiram. This she said in her ATR 7 dated 03/08/2007 before the SC. This was an intentional false claim made by Geetha Johri (A-18) as there were no eye-witnesses who had said anything to support her claim… statements of witnesses Rubabuddin etc. only show that Sohrabuddin and Kauserbi had stayed in the house of Kalimuddin for Eid and were seen off by him at the bus-stand as they were leaving for Sangli.

VIPUL AGGARWAL

Immediately after the murder of Tulsiram Prajapati on 28.12.2006,Vipul Aggarwal,the then Banaskantha SP who was very near to Ambaji area,took a probationer DySP Mayur Chavda to the scene of crime near Sarhad Chapri in his own vehicle. The way Aggarwal was explaining the incident,it was clear that he had already been to the scene of crime.

Accused sub-inspector of the special operations group,Ashish Pandya,was called back from leave by D G Vanzara to execute the encounter of Tulsiram Prajapati. Pandya,who actually fired the shots that killed Tulsiram,had submitted a casual leave application before going on leave but his boss Vipul Aggarwal deliberately allowed/ordered the destruction of the said leave records in spite of the fact that he was aware that criminal writ petition no.115 of 2007 (filed by Narmadabai,mother of Tulsiram Prajapati) was pending in the Supreme Court,where he too was one of the respondents. He did so to ensure that material evidence that could show Pandya (A-7) had actually suddenly returned from his leave to participate in the criminal conspiracy was destroyed to screen the offenders from the legal consequences of their crimes.

RAMAN KODARBHAI PATEL (R K Patel)

The DSP CID (crime),Ramanbhai Kodarbhai Patel,was posted in different capacities in the Sarkhej area of Ahmedabad Rural district for about 28-30 years. The area falls within the constituency of Amit Shah (A-1). Patel was nominated as the investigating officer in the Tulsiram Prajapati case as part of the conspiracy to screen the real offenders/accused. He had tried to establish that the third person travelling with Soharabuddin and Kauserbi when they were abducted was not Tulsiram Prajapati. He also tried to influence witnesses not to speak the truth before CBI.

He had intentionally made an incorrect entry to save by recording that inspector V L Solanki had stated and confirmed before him that no link between Sohrabuddin and Tulsi Prajapati encounters could be obtained,whereas no such statement had been given by Solanki.

O P MATHUR

Rajnish Rai,the then DIG at CID (Crime),brought to the notice of his boss O P Mathur in a note dated April 10,2007,that during the probe into the Sohrabuddin encounter case,his brother Rubabuddin had stated before the IO that he had met Tulsiram Prajapati sometime in September 2006 when he was brought before a court in Ujjain from Udaipur jail and that Tulsiram apprehended being killed in a police encounter.

Rai had also noted that V L Solanki had informed him that during enquiry,he wanted to visit Udaipur and had sought permission to examine Tulsiram Prajapati and Sylvester who were lodged in Udaipur Jail,but in the intervening period,Tulsiram was killed in a purported police encounter.

Mathur,instead of taking further action in the matter,directed Rajnish Rai not to record such type of information on the note sheet for taking further instructions.

Similarly,Rajnish Rai,in the same note,had recorded that IPS officers D G Vanzara and S Pandia Rajkumar (Rajkumar Pandian) were actively trying to influence the Apte family who were the prime witnesses of the abduction of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kauserbi (the family was travelling in the same Sangli-bound bus) to get them to retract from their original statements. Rai also noted that accused Rajkumar (A-3) was requesting his help in this matter.

Mathur (A-19) once again directed him (i.e. Rajnish Rai) not to record such facts in the note sheet file for instructions as this would create problems for the accused police officers at a later stage.

The cops who shot straight

V L SOLANKI

The meticulous investigation by this police inspector posted in the CID (crime) in 2006-07 had established that Sohrabuddin was killed in a fake encounter and the status of his missing wife,Kauserbi,was not known. This opened up the ugly tales of the killing of Kauserbi and Tulsiram Prajapati by the Gujarat Police .

The CBI notes,“The right direction,fast pace and progressive content of the ongoing enquiry of V L Solanki in the matter further aggravated the apprehension and anxious concern of the accused persons who were already apprehensive about the fact that Tulsiram Prajapati had got out of their control and was trying his best to disclose the material facts related to the abduction and murder of Sohrabuddin and his wife Kauserbi at every available opportunity,were privy to the progress of the enquiry from various sources,including from co-accused like Amit Shah.”

Solanki’s note of December 15,2006 recorded that ATS DSP M L Parmar would be aware of what had happened to Kauserbi. This was the information sought by Rubabuddin,the petitioner before the Supreme Court. These facts were reflected by V L Solanki in his 2nd and 3rd interim reports,which were submitted on December 7,2006 and December 15-16,2006 respectively.

However,co-accused P C Pande and Geetha Johri “abused their official positions to delay the matter by ensuring that the Interim Report dated 1-9-2006 filed by VL Solanki,Inspector of Police was forwarded to the Supreme Court only on 7-12-2006”.

The submission of the said report,which brought the facts to the knowledge of the Supreme Court,also came to the notice of the accused,including Amit Shah (A-1). The accused were acutely aware that Tulsiram Prajapati was an important material witness about the facts.

RAJNISH RAI

On April 24,2007,the Gujarat Police witnessed probably one of its most embarrassing moments.

Rajnish Rai,DIG of CID (crime) who was supervising the Sohrabuddin Sheikh encounter case investigations,arrested three senior police officers — D G Vanzara,S Pandia Rajkumar and Dinesh MN (Rajasthan cadre) — and then started making rapid progress against the remaining accused.

The CBI notes,“… just as witnesses had started coming forward to tell the truth,once again accused P C Pande acting in furtherance of the criminal conspiracy as aforesaid,finding that his proactive positive pursuance of the investigation had potential to endanger the common interests of the common object of the accused to also screen themselves from the inevitable legal consequences of their crimes,caused the removal/transfer of Rajnish Rai from the investigation.”

He also justified the transfer by framing wrong and incorrect entries for the purpose of saving/ screening the real offenders,the agency adds.

“The non-beneficial intervention/supervision of the case by Pande,the then Director General of Police,was also noticed by the Supreme Court,which also felt constrained to direct vide order dated 17.05.2007 that hereafter reports in respect of this case need not be put up to him.”

G C RAIGER

G C Raigar,the then ADGP,CID (Crime),did not follow the “illegal instructions of prime accused” and Gujarat’s then minister of state for home Amit Shah. He refused to become party to the criminal conspiracy and was suddenly and unceremoniously removed from his post and was forced to hand over the charge to O P Mathur.

The CBI notes how this happened. “… in the night during the Karam Yogi Shivir of IPS officers at Gujarat Police Academy,Karai and that he (Raiger) was subjected to the unprecedented odium of further extremities of humiliation by not even allowing to wait until the next morning to collect his personal belongings lying in his official chamber.”