Godhra

[Guest]

From July 04 Laloo is off track, Godhra forensics report wasn’t buried
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Angry with Railway Minister Laloo Prasad Yadav’s decision to order a fresh probe into the Godhra carnage, the Opposition today stalled work in both Houses of Parliament, demanding that the Prime Minister clarify and stop the ‘‘conspiracy’’ to divide people on communal lines.

<b>Whatever Laloo Prasad Yadav might say now, the truth is that the May 17, 2002 report of Ahmedabad’s Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) is no secret. Five days after it was submitted to the special investigation team (SIT), the report was made public and also appended to the first chargesheet filed in the Godhra case</b>

The report was based on a reconstruction of the burning of the S-6 coach. It was carried out by forensic experts at the exact spot where S-6 was burnt. And it took the SIT by surprise.

Until then, the SIT had assumed that the coach had been set on fire from outside. But the report said it was impossible for anyone outside to throw in inflammable liquid and set the coach ablaze.

So the team started looking for what it calls a ‘‘core group’’ of attackers who may have entered the coach, poured fuel inside and set it ablaze.

‘‘In the initial stages, it was believed the coach was set on fire from outside. Because that’s what the accused told us. While we were investigating, the forensic report came in. Investigations were conducted accordingly,’’ said Director General of Police A K Bhargav, who was the SIT supervising officer when it was created.

‘‘We didn’t know that such a group existed, one which entered the carriage and set it on fire. Those we arrested gave us a different story.’’

During reconstruction, the forensic team stood outside and tried to throw water from different kinds of containers into the coach. But at seven feet, the doors and windows of the coach were too high for the water to reach.

Even when team members stood on a three-foot heap of broken stone ballast meant for tracks — the highest spot in the vicinity — only 10-15 per cent of the water entered the coach.

<b>After the reconstruction, the team concluded that some 60 litres of highly inflammable liquid had been poured inside the coach from a point near seat 72 and set on fire immediately. </b>

An SIT member recalled that the forensic report came in just when they had hit a roadblock.

‘‘If it were not for the report, we would have been hard pressed to prove the charges against the suspects,’’ he said. ‘‘Though we had arrested the ones who set the coach on fire, we were unable to say how exactly they did it.’’

This hitch faced by the team is reflected in the chargesheets. The first chargesheet says little about how the fire was started, only mentioning that ‘‘...they (the accused) attacked the passengers and the coaches of Sabarmati Express with stones and set on fire coach S-6 by putting inflammable liquid like petrol and as a result 59 passengers were burnt alive.’’

A month after the report, the SIT said it had identified the ‘‘core team’’ of 20 which entered the S-6 coach by cutting open a vestibule. This is mentioned in its successive chargesheet.

At least 12 members of this ‘‘core team’’ are yet to be arrested. Eighty one people arrested so far are in Sabarmati Central Jail.

For now, the case has been stayed by the Supreme Court on a plea to transfer it outside Gujarat.



<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->