Imagine a race between Lie, and Truth. Who do you think will win?
Hint: “A lie has speed, but truth has endurance.”
You’d be correct in believing that it depends upon the length of the race – if it’s a dash, then ‘Lie’ would win. But if it were a marathon, ‘Truth’ would.
But in reality, ‘Truth’ almost never catches up, even in a marathon. Because, while ‘Truth’ has to run the distance alone (it exists in a singular form), ‘Lie’ on the other hand, multiplies and turns the marathon into a relay race. It picks up partners, builds up extra mass and energy, and maintains a very high speed.
The contest between truth and lies is often played out in courtrooms. Sometimes a race goes on for decades. And history shows that the longer the race, the higher the chances of the truth losing.
People believe that in a court of law, judges take the side of the version that is closer to the ‘Truth’. But that is not so. A judge merely interprets the law. The law comes from two sources: the legislation, and from previous decisions of courts. Judges in lower courts usually follow a preceding decision and don’t set precedents themselves. So the outcome largely depends on how the cases are ‘packaged’ by the prosecution and the defence counsels. The political atmosphere plays a significant role, too.
‘Mob Didn’t Intend to Kill’
In courtrooms, fiction often makes a better job of the truth. The special court assigned to bring justice to the victims of Gulberg society in Ahmedabad concluded on last Friday, that the blood-thirsty mob, leading to the killing of 69 innocents on 28 February, 2002 was “not really interested in causing deaths ”...but turned murderous after ex-MP Ehsan Jafri opened fire at them.”
Special Judge PB Desai stated in his judgement that the “...mob was largely involved in stone-pelting and attempting to burn and damage the vehicles and properties of the minority community outside the Gulberg society”.
To expand on that: The judgement seems to aver that the mob suddenly turned ugly after the private firing by Ex-Congress MP Shri Ehsan Jafri, which acted as a catalyst, and which infuriated the mob to such an extent that the mob went out of control.
This basically means that if a gang of goons molest you, do not resist in self-defence. If you do so, you’ll be blamed for inciting them to rape you. After the rape, it’ll be established in the court of law that the goons did surround you, perhaps to molest you, but they were “not really interested in causing rape.”
For killing 69 human beings of the society including the former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri in one-sided, cold-blooded violence that lasted all day, 11 were given life terms, one was sentenced to 10 years in jail, and 12 got seven years. Of these, two walked free because they had already completed the duration of their sentences in jail.
Ironically, the Special Investigating Team (SIT) which was set up by the Supreme Court, had sought capital punishment for them but the victims had pleaded for maximum imprisonment – not a death sentence. Obviously, the value of a human life is understood better by those who have lost their near and dear ones.
Gaps in Gulberg Verdict
- A special court in Ahmedabad rejects pre-planned attack theory in
Gulberg case, concludes that the firing by ex-MP Ehsan Jafri incited the mob.
- The testimony of eyewitnesses who did not recall firing by Jafri’s
private weapon was termed ‘selective amnesia’ by the court.
- Testimony of the SIT’s Investigating Officer, JM Suthar who had
defended Jafri’s firing as ‘self-defence’, was set aside.
- The judgement doesn’t mention the call records, collected as
evidence in the form of CDs by former IPS officer Rahul Sharma.
- Those CDs
contain record of phone calls made by senior officers during riots.
- Testimony of key eyewitnesses such as Imtiyaz Khan Pathan and few
others was proclaimed as ‘tutored’ by the defence lawyer.
Relying on Selective Evidence
In its verdict, the court dismissed victim testimonies that “Jafri was immobile and could not move out of his bungalow, and was done to death when the mob dragged him out of his bungalow”. The court also junked the testimony of the Investigating Officer of the Supreme Court-appointed SIT, J M Suthar, who defended Jafri’s firing as “self-defence”.
Interestingly, the single most important piece of scientific evidence – the phone data CDs collected and submitted by former IPS officer Rahul Sharma – finds no mention in the order. The CDs contain a record of all the cellphone calls made and received in Ahmedabad during the first few days of the 2002 violence.
Sharma was cross-examined at length by the prosecution during the trial. The phone data pattern clearly establishes that there was a larger conspiracy in the violence and that the police establishment was systematically paralysed on 28 February when the maximum violence happened.
Advocate SM Vora, representing the survivors had placed 56 pleadings in support of how conspiracy is made out in the case. In court practices, conspiracy is established not by evidence but by inference from the facts of the case. However, in this case, even the Tehelka sting tapes – which established a larger conspiracy – was rejected by the court.
Turning a Blind Eye
Repeated demands by the witnesses during the trial to implicate the police officers for dereliction of duty on the basis of call records were turned down by the court. Even the prosecution agency, the SIT, strongly objected to any possible implication of senior police officers.
The victims had demanded arraignment of four top police officers for their failure to curb the massacre. In their application, the victims accused the then Police Commissioner PC Pandey, the then Additional Police Commissioner MK Tandon, the then DCP PB Gondia and the then Assistant Commissioner of Police SS Chudasama of dereliction of duty.
The court also did not discuss the testimony of prime witness Imtiyaz Khan Pathan, who lost 10 members of his family. The court described Pathan as an “all-pervading, all-knowing and all-observing witness.” Incidentally, Pathan has revealed that then chief minister Narendra Modi had abused Jafri on the phone when the latter had called seeking help.
You see, judges are humans, too. They are just as malleable and ductile as a piece of lead. This wasn’t just a simple race run in the courts: it was a marathon, cross country, decathlon, and steeplechase all rolled into one.
The ‘Lie’ had snowballed, and gathered extra help. It had several champion partners who carried the baton in the relay race. Poor ‘Truth’ ran the race all alone.
(The writer is Associate Professor, Department of Creative Communication, MICA. He can be reached at @mishra_pravin)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)