The special court that sentenced 31 people for burning 33 Muslims to death in Sardarpura,Gujarat,did not find enough evidence to support the prosecutions conspiracy theory. This was one of the reasons the defence argued successfully for life sentences for its clients,held guilty of murder and rioting. Principal judge S C Srivasatavas 1,024-page judgment explained why seven incidents from 2002 some of which the prosecution cited in 2008 were not sufficient evidence for conspiracy. Two of these incidents involved a meeting each by former BJP MLA and VHP leader Haresh Bhatt from Godhra,and former Unjha MLA Naran Lallu Patel. Bhatt met Patel youths at Sardarpura 20 to 25 days before the attack and allegedly made an inflammatory speech. Then three days before the incident,N L Patel met Sardarpuras Patels at a temple and allegedly told them to do whatever they wanted to; the government would be with them. The court observed that Bhatts alleged meeting could not be connected with the massacre,that this evidence from a witness came out only in May 2008,and that the probe had found nothing about this till then. As per some witnesses,the attackers lit a halogen lamp power supply to the village had been snapped over pending bills in front of the massacre site to facilitate the killing. The court ruled,.There is much difference between the evidence of witnesses. This evidence too came in May 2008 and the court observed,After filing of the first chargesheet,history of halogen light and other incident is coming. Also coming in 2008 was a witnesss statement to the SIT that some of the accused had stored and distributed kerosene before the massacre. The fifth incident involved a woman,Baisrabibi,who had gone to buy flour and alleged that a shopkeeper,an accused,had advised her to eat to her hearts content while she could. The court found contradictions in the name of the shopkeeper as given by the woman. Another witness,working at the village water works,said two of the accused had taken the keys from him on the pretext of giving them to the sarpanch. The prosecution projected this as part of a conspiracy to deny the victims access to water to extinguish the fire. The court again questioned why the evidence came only in May 2008. Finally,the Mehsana DSP had deposed that some live wires were hanging around the site and the prosecution argued that this was to ensure the victims got electrocuted. But the court relied on the deposition of SP Anupam Gehlot,who said the live wires could have been hanging out because the wiring had been damaged during the massacre. The DSP has falsified this account. Panchnama of scene of offence and witnesses also do not support this theory, the court said.
