Sign In / Register
Make This My Home Page | Feedback |RSS
You are here: IE »   Story

Before Sheikhs, CID questioned Vanjhara team’s killing of youth, no action taken

  • Print
  • Mail This Article
  • Comments
  • Add to favorites
  • Personal Loan

    As the Gujarat police today began excavating the grounds near the Illol house of arrested DIG D G Vanjhara to look for the remains of Kausar Bi, wife of fake encounter victim Sohrabuddin Sheikh, another skeleton has tumbled out of the Vanjhara closet — an internal report of the police, first submitted by the state CID (Crime) in 2003 but not acted upon though it was seconded by the IGP (Human Rights and Social Justice) two years later, questioned Vanjhara’s account of the killing in “self-defence” of a city youth Samirkhan Sarfarazkhan Pathan while in police custody in October, 2002.

    As a SP-rank officer, Vanjhara was heading Ahmedabad’s Detection of Crime Branch (DCB) when Pathan was killed on the night of October 22, 2002. The DCB claimed that Pathan was a Jaish-e-Mohammad operative who had been held from the central bus stand in Ahmedabad’s Geeta Mandir area on September 27, 2002 while “on a mission to eliminate Chief Minister Narendra Modi”. When Pathan was held, he was unarmed.

    Ads by Google

    According to the DCB, Pathan was taken to a garden where he had killed a constable in 1996. The DCB claimed that they wanted to “recreate” the scene of the constable’s murder. But Pathan, the DCB claimed, snatched one of the Inspector’s revolver and fired a round. He died when policemen escorting him opened fire in “self-defence”, the DCB maintained.

    As per police records, the DCB itself opened an inquiry into Pathan’s killing. Chittaranjan Singh, who was then holding charge as Ahmedabad police commissioner, wrote to then DGP K Chakravarthy, listing 10 points of reference for an inquiry into the incident which raised doubts about the circumstances in which Pathan died. But a subsequent inquiry by the Human Rights and Social Justice cell of the DGP’s office found that this letter had been replaced by another with fewer points of reference.

    ... contd.

    Next123
    Comments
    Post comment

    Be the first to comment.

    Post a Comment
    Name:
    Email:
    Title:
    Maximum characters allowed     
    Comment:
    TERMS OF USE:
    The views, opinions and comments posted are your, and are not endorsed by this website. You shall be solely responsible for the comment posted here. The website reserves the right to delete, reject, or otherwise remove any views, opinions and comments posted or part thereof. You shall ensure that the comment is not inflammatory, abusive, derogatory, defamatory &/or obscene, or contain pornographic matter and/or does not constitute hate mail, or violate privacy of any person (s) or breach confidentiality or otherwise is illegal, immoral or contrary to public policy. Nor should it contain anything infringing copyright &/or intellectual property rights of any person(s).
    I agree to the terms of use.