SC allows probe against Teesta for fabricating evidence

SansadTV Bureau
File photo of Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand.

File photo of Teesta Setalvad and her husband Javed Anand.

The Supreme Court Tuesday paved the way for investigation into the fabrication of evidence in a 2002 post-Godhra riot case on the allegation by social activist Teesta Setalvad’s former close aide Rais Khan Pathan against her.

Setalvad and her NGO, Citizen for Justice and Peace (CJP), had challenged the decision of the Gujarat High Court upholding a magisterial court order for a probe against Pathan and others.

During the pendency of their appeal, the apex court on September 2, 2011, had stayed the high court’s order giving a green signal for probe against Pathan and others for allegedly fabricating evidence in the Naroda Gam riots case.

A bench of Justices Arun Mishra and M M Shantanagoudar Wednesday disposed of their appeal by granting liberty to them to raise their grievances before the appropriate courts below the top court.

With the disposal of Setalvad’s petition, the stay on the High Court’s order stands vacated.

During the hearing, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, appearing for CJP and Setalvad, questioned the procedure adopted by the trial court in directing the Gujarat Police to investigate the case.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing Pathan, told the bench that CJP and Setalvad had no locus to challenge the high court’s order before the apex court and they have not yet been summoned by the trial court.

During the trial in the case, the additional sessions judge had on December 3, 2010 rejected the application of Pathan seeking to be examined as a court or prosecution witness to “prove that some of the witnesses and victims had falsely implicated him in fabricating the evidence”.

He had claimed he would be an important link to throw light on how the victims and witnesses were tutored, cheated and made to sign false affidavits by Setalvad in the name of “interest of the community”.

However, the sessions court had directed and authorised the registrar, City Civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad to make a complaint in writing for the offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) against Pathan and others.

These relate to false evidence, giving or fabricating false evidence with the intent to procure conviction of capital offence or imprisonment for life or imprisonment for seven years or upwards and using as true such declaration knowing it to be false, among others.

Thereafter, the registrar had filed a criminal case/complaint against Pathan and others in metropolitan magistrate court in Ahmedabad which on January 10, 2011 directed the assistant commissioner of police there to inquire and investigate the matter and submit a report.

The order was challenged before the high court which on July 11, 2011 declined to interfere with the police probe, but clarified that “basically the aforesaid police investigation would be with respect to unnamed accused persons who are yet to be traced and whose names are yet to be disclosed during the course of investigation”.

Pathan had not challenged any of the findings and observations made against him that a prima facie case was made out for the various offences under the IPC.

The trial in the Naroda Gam case is at the final stage.