Not only has the state ignored the need to appoint experienced public prosecutors in these four courts, but it has also failed to provide any special aid to the prosecution, in terms of adequate support from investigating officers. The result of the oversight is in the judgments delivered:
• Of the total 12 cases disposed of, the state failed to produce important — and rather basic — post-investigative documents like a police diary and statements of the victims in four cases.
• In seven cases, the complainants were untraceable.
• In as many as three cases, witnesses retracted their statements.
• In three instances the prosecution could not produce any witness before the court.
v Perhaps worst, of the 17 policemen examined altogether, 11 turned hostile.
Asked why the state Government, which set up these courts on March 12, had not appointed special public prosecutors, Principal Secretary (Law and Judiciary) N B Geelani said: “The department was not aware that no special public prosecutor was appointed for the special court till date. The state can now look into the matter and appoint one, only for the two sessions courts as and when the need arises.”
On the acquittal of the senior Shiv Sena leaders Gajanan Kirtikar, Ravindra Waikar and former Shiv Sena leader Nandkumar Kale (now with the MNS), Ahmed added: “If the police failed to produce diary notings from the day of the event, then on what basis did the Special Task Force go about reinvestigating the case? Also action should be taken against policemen when they fail to furnish important documents in court leading to the accused walking free.”
The state’s Director General of Police A N Roy said he would not like to comment on specific cases. “In general, the conviction rate in riot cases has been low over the years. It is very hard to prove these cases for the simple reason that witnesses do not want to come forward as they fear that they have to live alongside others who they do not want to name.” He said another factor is that many of the 1993 cases were registered years after the incidents took place. “And therefore, it is possible that there were difficulties in gathering evidence,” he said.
Senior counsel Colin Gonsalves, an advocate for one of the petitions filed in the Supreme Court demanding implementation of the Srikrishna Commission report, says: “This is an ugly face of our country, in every case of atrocities against the minority, the Government has been overly prejudiced. The state has made no attempt to gather any evidence and apply any judicial mind before bringing all these cases before the special court. In incidents where evidences were produced before the Commission, it’s the police’s discretion to gather them once again and produce it before the court.”
