Haren Pandya : What Made SC Overturn The Gujarat HC Verdict Which Said That CBI Botched Up The Probe?

Anil Yadram Patel was the only eye witness produced by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the sensational trial of the murder of former Gujarat home minister Haren Pandya, who was shot dead on March 26, 2003 at Ahmedabad while he was out on a morning walk.It was his sole testimony which mostly formed the foundation of the Supreme Court judgment restoring the conviction and sentence of twelve accused persons in the case.The bench of Justices Arun Mishra and Vineet Saran also endorsed the version of the CBI that the murder was part of an "international conspiracy" executed to "spread terror amongst Hindus" to avenge the anti-Muslim Gujarat riots of 2002.These findings of the Court were largely based on confessions made by the accused in police custody, which would not have been admissible in evidence but for the provisions of since repealed Prevention of Terrorism Act 2002(POTA).The case was jointly investigated and tried along with a case of attempt to murder of Jagdish Tiwari, a leader of Vishwa Hindu Parishad in Ahmedabad, which occurred two weeks ago the murder of Pandya. The trial court had found the twelve accused guilty in both the cases. The Gujarat High Court however set aside their conviction in the Pandya murder-conspiracy case, though the conviction in the attempt to murder case was sustained.One of the major facts which weighed with the High Court in reversing the conviction was that no blood was found in the seat of the Maruti car, where Pandya was stated to have been seated at the time of attack. Anil Yadram, a handcart vendor, claimed that he saw Mohmed Ashgar Ali, the first accused in the case, firing five rounds at Pandya through the car window when he was at the driver's seat . He added that Ashgar Ali escaped in the bike of Mohammad Yunus Sareshwala, the sixth accused, after the attack.The High Court observed that five rounds of fire will cause profuse bleeding and therefore the seat ought to have been soaked in blood. Refuting this, the Supreme Court said on the basis of a doctor's statement that the amount of blood will depend on if the hemorrhage was internal or external. Out of 7 bullet injuries, 6 were internal wounds, and it was external only at the forearm where minimum or less blood is possible, the SC opined. "As already discussed, it would depend upon the injury whether it was internal bleeding and how a person is lying, it can also spill on the clothes and fact remains blood has also been recovered from the Maruti car. It is not necessary for how much quantity it should have been recovered", observed the Court. The apex court did not find any infirmity in the identification of Ashgar Ali by Yadram in a test identification parade held twenty days after the arrest. It held that there was no undue delay in holding the TI parade, given the "intricate nature of investigation".Low gap in the car windowThe HC deduced from Yadram's account that the glass window of the car was mostly rolled up, and hence it would not have been possible to fire at Pandya through the car window. Based on this, the HC had doubted Yadram's credibility.But the SC preferred to ignore the description given by Yadram regarding the position of glass window at the time of attack on the reasoning that it cannot be precisely recalled by a person."It is too much to expect a person to state how much rolling of the glass of windows had been done at the time of firing. Even if the witness had stated so, that would be merely his guesswork", it observed in the judgment delivered on July 5.Five bullets, seven woundsThere were seven gunshot wounds in Pandya's body, though only five bullets were recovered. This led the HC to doubt the prosecution version.The SC however found an explanation for the two additional wounds. Based on the medical records in the case, and also referring to forensic authorities, the SC explained that the two additional wounds were "communicating wounds". In the context of firearm injuries, they are not exit or entry wounds, but are wounds caused when the bullet traces the body on its path."The High Court as well confused as to the number of injuries on the basis of 7 wounds and 5 number of bullets fired. In case of such communicating injuries, it is not necessary that the bullet should enter any part of the body while reaching to the last injury, it may cause scratch or touched the small part of the body or soft tissue as has been done in the instant case. It has happened in the instant case", the SC said.The HC had further held that it was impossible that Pandya could have been shot through the scrotum — one of the seven gunshot injuries — while he sat in the car with only a three-inch opening in the window.Regarding this, the top court noted that the eye witness had said that when he was shot, he fell down and his leg came up. It was not possible to explain how the body would react in such a situation, added the bench headed by Justice Mishra.In choosing to believe the account of...

Haren Pandya : What Made SC Overturn The Gujarat HC Verdict Which Said That CBI Botched Up The Probe?

Manu Sebastian

Tags