Naroda Gam riots case: Plea to arraign 80 eyewitnesses as accused withdrawn

Advocate Chetan Shah on behalf of the accused, didn't assign any reason behind the withdrawal

After pursuing the courts for nearly eight years, a group of accused in the Naroda Gam massacre case of 2002 post-Godhra riots on Friday withdrew their application seeking arraignment of 80 eyewitnesses as accused, for allegedly participating in the violence. The accused also withdrew the pleas against ex-IPS officer Rahul Sharma and investigating officer P K Mal for alleging that they destroyed evidence related to the case.

The principal sessions judge S K Bakshi allowed the withdrawal plea moved by advocate Chetan Shah on behalf of the accused. Shah didn't assign any reason behind the withdrawal. When contacted, Shah told DH, "There is no reason." Naroda Gam is one of the nine major riots cases probed by the SIT. Among the 82 accused facing trial of allegedly killing 11 Muslims are former BJP minister Maya Kodnani and Bajrang Dal leader Babubhai Patel alias Babu Bajrangi.

In 2013, Shah had moved a plea on behalf of the accused against 80 witnesses alleging that they were also involved in the rioting as revealed in their testimonies in court and therefore, they should be tried as accused under section 319 of code of criminal procedure (CrPC).

Based on these witnesses' accounts, Shah stated in the plea that there was "cross stone-pelting, throwing of acid bulbs etc; The shops and houses of Hindus were also burnt. The damage has been sustained by the Hindus but then the investigation has not been carried on that line." He argued in the plea that 80 witnesses "were also members of the same illegal assembly, hence they should also be tried as co-accused in this trial as required under section 149 of IPC (illegal assembly). The plea also claimed that "there were robberies at the houses of Hindus who also suffered a lot". It claimed that police registered a total of 21 ICR in 2002 and implicated members of both communities in the chargesheet.

The Supreme Court appointed-Special Investigation Team (SIT), which probed the case, opposed the application, stating that there was no direct evidence against the witnesses and material produced in the application is "general in nature" and "hearsay" which couldn't be considered as evidence. It also stated that a total of 181 witnesses had already been examined and if powers under section 319 of CrPC were invoked, there would be a "de novo trial" or a new trial.

The then special judge Jyotsna Yagnik had rejected the application on July 1, 2013, while holding that granting this plea would delay the trial. The accused challenged the lower court's order in a high court which, in 2018, remanded the matter back to the trial court to hear the final arguments of the accused.

The accused had also filed similar pleas against ex-IPS officer Rahul Sharma for allegedly destroying CDs of call detail records containing VIP movements during the riots, collected while assisting the probe for a brief period in 2002. Similarly, the accused also wanted investigating officer P K Mal to be arraigned as an accused for allegedly destroying evidence. The pleas against both the officers have been withdrawn.