# ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

- **Citation:** [2022] 6 S.C.R. 1
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-06-24
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2022
- **Bench:** A. M. Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari, C. T. Ravikumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/zakia-ahsan-jafri-v-state-of-gujarat-anr-36287
- **Pages:** 381

## Headnote

Gujarat Riots - Godhra incident of 27.2.2002, in which large
number of Kar-sevaks, returning from Ayodhya, were burnt alive in
train bogies - As aftermath of that incident, there was unrest and
violence all across the State of Gujarat - A violent mob attacked
the inhabitants of one Gulberg Society, killing 69 persons including
the husband of appellant - Complaint dated 8.6.2006 of appellant
to Director General of Police, Gujarat and other high officials inter
alia containing allegations of "larger conspiracy at the highest level"
which resulted into causing mass violence across the State during
the relevant period - Such allegations founded on the alleged
utterances made by the then Chief Minister while addressing the
DGP, the then Chief Secretary and other senior officials of the State
- Towards this, reference made to meeting held on 27.2.2002 evening
in Gandhinagar, as testified in the affidavit of Mr. R.B. Sreekumar,
the then Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) -
Reliance placed on report of a private panel of former Judges of
Supreme Court titled "Concerned Citizens Tribunal" which referred
to testimony before them of late Mr. Haren Pandya, former Minister
- Additionally, reliance placed on testimony of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt,
the then Superintendent of Police (Security), who claimed to have
attended the meeting convened by the then Chief Minister on
27.2.2002 - Held: The testimony of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt, Mr. Haren
Pandya and also of Mr. R.B. Sreekumar was only to sensationalize
and politicize the matters in issue, although, replete with falsehood
- There was a coalesced effort of the disgruntled officials of the
State of Gujarat alongwith others to create sensation by making
revelations which were false to their own knowledge - The falsity
of their claims had been fully exposed by the SIT (appointed by
Supreme Court) after a thorough investigation - To make out a case
of larger criminal conspiracy, it is essential to establish a link
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
indicative of meeting of minds of the concerned persons for
commission of the crime(s), committed during the relevant period
across the State - No such link is forthcoming, much less had been
unraveled and established in any of the nine cases investigated by
the same SIT under the directions of Supreme Court - In light of the
timely corrective measures taken by the State Government in right
earnest and repeated public assurances given by the then Chief
Minister that guilty will be punished for their crime(s), and to
maintain peace, it would be beyond comprehension of any person
of ordinary prudence to bear suspicion about the meeting of minds
of named offenders and hatching of conspiracy by the State at the
highest level, as alleged, much less grave or strong suspicion as
being the quintessence for sending the accused for trial for an
offence of criminal conspiracy - Breakdown of law-and-order
situation if for short duration, cannot partake the colour of
breakdown of rule of law or constitutional crisis - No fault found
with the approach of the SIT in submitting final report for discarding
the allegations regarding larger criminal conspiracy (at the highest
level) for causing and precipitating mass violence across the State
during the relevant period - Decision of the Magistrate in accepting
the final report submitted by the SIT, is upheld as it is and the protest
petition filed by the appellant is rejected - Submission of appellant
regarding infraction of rule of law in the matter of investigation
and the approach of the Magistrate and the High Court in dealing
with the final report, cannot be countenanced - Penal Code, 1860
- s.302 r/w s.120B, s.193 r/w s.114 and ss.185, 153A, 186 and 187
- Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - s.6 - Gujarat Police Act, 1951
- Human Rights Act, 1991.
 Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 356 - Failure of
Constitutional machinery - Breakdown of law and order - When
made out - Held:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,959 of 829,099. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39959 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
1
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 912 of 2022)
JUNE 24, 2022
 [A. M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI AND
C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
Gujarat Riots - Godhra incident of 27.2.2002, in which large
number of Kar-sevaks, returning from Ayodhya, were burnt alive in
train bogies - As aftermath of that incident, there was unrest and
violence all across the State of Gujarat - A violent mob attacked
the inhabitants of one Gulberg Society, killing 69 persons including
the husband of appellant - Complaint dated 8.6.2006 of appellant
to Director General of Police, Gujarat and other high officials inter
alia containing allegations of "larger conspiracy at the highest level"
which resulted into causing mass violence across the State during
the relevant period - Such allegations founded on the alleged
utterances made by the then Chief Minister while addressing the
DGP, the then Chief Secretary and other senior officials of the State
- Towards this, reference made to meeting held on 27.2.2002 evening
in Gandhinagar, as testified in the affidavit of Mr. R.B. Sreekumar,
the then Additional Director General of Police (Intelligence) -
Reliance placed on report of a private panel of former Judges of
Supreme Court titled "Concerned Citizens Tribunal" which referred
to testimony before them of late Mr. Haren Pandya, former Minister
- Additionally, reliance placed on testimony of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt,
the then Superintendent of Police (Security), who claimed to have
attended the meeting convened by the then Chief Minister on
27.2.2002 - Held: The testimony of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt, Mr. Haren
Pandya and also of Mr. R.B. Sreekumar was only to sensationalize
and politicize the matters in issue, although, replete with falsehood
- There was a coalesced effort of the disgruntled officials of the
State of Gujarat alongwith others to create sensation by making
revelations which were false to their own knowledge - The falsity
of their claims had been fully exposed by the SIT (appointed by
Supreme Court) after a thorough investigation - To make out a case
of larger criminal conspiracy, it is essential to establish a link
[2022] 6 S.C.R. 1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
indicative of meeting of minds of the concerned persons for
commission of the crime(s), committed during the relevant period
across the State - No such link is forthcoming, much less had been
unraveled and established in any of the nine cases investigated by
the same SIT under the directions of Supreme Court - In light of the
timely corrective measures taken by the State Government in right
earnest and repeated public assurances given by the then Chief
Minister that guilty will be punished for their crime(s), and to
maintain peace, it would be beyond comprehension of any person
of ordinary prudence to bear suspicion about the meeting of minds
of named offenders and hatching of conspiracy by the State at the
highest level, as alleged, much less grave or strong suspicion as
being the quintessence for sending the accused for trial for an
offence of criminal conspiracy - Breakdown of law-and-order
situation if for short duration, cannot partake the colour of
breakdown of rule of law or constitutional crisis - No fault found
with the approach of the SIT in submitting final report for discarding
the allegations regarding larger criminal conspiracy (at the highest
level) for causing and precipitating mass violence across the State
during the relevant period - Decision of the Magistrate in accepting
the final report submitted by the SIT, is upheld as it is and the protest
petition filed by the appellant is rejected - Submission of appellant
regarding infraction of rule of law in the matter of investigation
and the approach of the Magistrate and the High Court in dealing
with the final report, cannot be countenanced - Penal Code, 1860
- s.302 r/w s.120B, s.193 r/w s.114 and ss.185, 153A, 186 and 187
- Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 - s.6 - Gujarat Police Act, 1951
- Human Rights Act, 1991.
 Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 356 - Failure of
Constitutional machinery - Breakdown of law and order - When
made out - Held: Mis-governance or failure to maintain law-andorder during a brief period may not be a case of failure of
constitutional machinery in the context of tenets embodied in Art.356
- There must be credible evidence regarding State sponsored
breakdown of law-and-order situation; not spontaneous or isolated
instances or events of failure of State administration to control the
situation.
Gujarat Riots - Allegations of criminal conspiracy on the
part of the State authorities - Forwarding of messages by the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
intelligence agencies including inaction or lack of effective measures
taken by the concerned officials - Effect of - Held: It does not per
se imply criminal conspiracy on the part of the State authorities -
Inaction of the duty holders to take those messages (of intelligence
agencies) to its logical end, cannot be regarded as act of criminal
conspiracy unless there is material to provide link regarding the
meeting of minds and deliberate act to effectuate a plan to spread
mass violence across the State.
Gujarat Riots - Allegations of criminal conspiracy on the
part of the State authorities - Inaction or failure of some officials
of one section of the State administration - Held: Cannot be the
basis to infer a pre-planned criminal conspiracy by the authorities
of the State Government or to term it as a State sponsored crime
(violence).
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1. The allegations made in the complaint of
appellant relating larger criminal conspiracy at the highest level
have been duly enquired into by the SIT appointed by the Supreme
Court. The SIT considered the relevant materials to conclude
that the claim of concerned persons is false and figment of
imagination. For that, the SIT had recorded statements of all those
officials who were present in the said meeting. They stated in
one voice that Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt was not present in the review
meeting convened under the Chairmanship of the then Chief
Minister. The SIT had also collected relevant documentary
evidence to establish the falsity of the claim of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt
of being present in that meeting. [Para 25][137-A-C]
1.2. It is, thus, not a case of one version against the other,
but of false claim set up by Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt of being personally
present in the stated meeting. Therefore, the SIT after thorough
investigation has recorded its opinion that neither Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt
nor Mr. Haren Pandya was present in the stated meeting.
Similarly, even Mr. R.B. Sreekumar had no personal knowledge
as he did not attend the said meeting. Besides, Mr. R.B.
Sreekumar was a disgruntled officer. The SIT recorded the
statements of the concerned officials and after analyzing the same,
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
4
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
opined that all the officials who were present in the stated meeting
had said in one voice that Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt, the then DCI (Security)
was not present in that meeting. The SIT then analyzed the claim
of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt that he was present in the meeting by referring
to official records including the call records of his mobile phone
No. 9825049398 to conclude that he had set up a false plea of
being present in the stated meeting. The SIT has adverted to
the materials collected during investigation clearly reflecting on
the conduct of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt including his false claim of being
present in the stated meeting. The final report of the SIT has
analyzed these aspects in detail. [Paras 26, 27][137-C-D; 138-BE]
1.3. There is force in the argument of the respondent-State
that the testimony of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt, Mr. Haren Pandya and
also of Mr. R.B. Sreekumar was only to sensationalize and
politicize the matters in issue, although, replete with falsehood.
For, persons not privy to the stated meeting, where utterances
were allegedly made by the then Chief Minister, falsely claimed
themselves to be eye-witnesses and after thorough investigation
by the SIT, it has become clear that their claim of being present
in the meeting was itself false to their knowledge. On such false
claim, the structure of larger criminal conspiracy at the highest
level has been erected. The same stands collapsed like a house
of cards, aftermath thorough investigation by the SIT. [Para
34][157-F-G; 158-A-B]
1.4. It is only because of the ultra-sensational revelation
projected by Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt and Mr. Haren Pandya, who
unabashedly claimed to be privy to the utterances made by the
then Chief Minister in an official meeting, the constitutional
functionaries and this Court was required to move into action
taking serious note of the same. But, after thorough investigation
by the SIT, the falsity of such claim has been fully exposed on the
basis of credible indisputable materials collated by the SIT during
the investigation in that regard. Besides exposing the falsity of
the claims of these two persons, the SIT has been able to collate
materials indicative of the amount of hard work and planning of
the concerned State functionaries in their attempt to control the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
5
spontaneous evolving situation of mass violence across the State
of Gujarat, despite the handicap of administration including the
inadequate State police force required to be replenished with
central forces/Army, which were called without loss of time and
the repeated appeals made by the then Chief Minister publicly
to maintain peace. [Paras 35, 36][158-B-E]
2.1. It is seen that the allegation of larger criminal
conspiracy at the highest level spelt out in the complaint and
protest petition, was in reference to the sensational revelation
made by Mr. Sanjeev Bhatt and Mr. Haren Pandya, the falsity
whereof has been exposed by the SIT. As a result, now the
appellant is pursuing the same allegation by relying on so-called
undisputed extra-judicial confessions recorded in Tehelka tapes
on the specious plea that there can be no direct evidence
regarding larger conspiracy. [Para 38][159-A-B]
2.2. To make out a case of larger criminal conspiracy, it is
essential to establish a link indicative of meeting of minds of the
concerned persons for commission of the crime(s), committed
during the relevant period across the State including the heartrending episode unfolded at Godhra on 27.2.2002, in which large
number of Kar-sevaks were burnt alive in train bogies. No such
link is forthcoming, much less had been unraveled and established
in any of the nine (9) cases investigated by the same SIT under
the directions of this Court. Accepting the argument of the
appellant would require questioning the wisdom of this Court
and to hold that even the incident at Godhra unfolded on 27.2.2002
was also the outcome of alleged larger criminal conspiracy. Such
a view would be preposterous. [Para 39][159-D-F]
3.1. The Godhra incident has been fully enquired into by
the SIT to the satisfaction of this Court and even the trial had
ended in recording conviction against the concerned accused
(belonging to minority community). As to how the Godhra incident
unfolded, has been analyzed by the High Court in confirmation
appeals in Godhra train case about the acts of planning and
commission by a group of persons. [Para 40][159-G-H]
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
6
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
3.2. Forwarding of messages by the intelligence agencies
including inaction or lack of effective measures taken by the
concerned officials per se does not imply criminal conspiracy on
the part of the State authorities. Absent tangible material
suggestive of a chain or any perceivable link or connection with
the unfolding of mass violence across the State, it is unfathomable
as to how the SIT could have still recommended sending the
alleged offenders for trial, much less would obligate the concerned
Court to take cognizance on such unfounded allegations. There
is no material forthcoming to indicate that there was failure on
the part of intelligence to collect information and it was a deliberate
act on the part of the State Government authorities. Whereas,
the allegation is that intelligence inputs were collected and
disseminated to concerned authorities, but not acted upon by
the concerned officials in right earnest. [Para 40][159-H; 160-AC]
3.3. Inaction of the duty holders to take those messages to
its logical end, cannot be regarded as act of criminal conspiracy
unless there is material to provide link regarding the meeting of
minds and deliberate act to effectuate a plan to spread mass
violence across the State. The SIT had recorded statement of
Mr. Ashok Narayan, the then ACS (Home), Gujarat, dated
12.12.2009. This version belies the claim of the appellant including
the unfounded allegation of criminal conspiracy at the highest
level for causing mass violence across the State. The materials
gathered by the SIT on the other hand, would suggest that despite
the corrective measures taken by the concerned officials in right
earnest, the situation evolved in unpredictable and sporadic
manner and the expanse of the activities were such that the State
administration was completely overrun. [Para 41][160-D; 161-E]
3.4. The SIT had not found any conspiracy for linking the
separate incidents of mass violence across the State during the
investigation of nine (9) separate crimes including the Godhra
train incident, dealt with by the SIT under the strict vigil and
supervision of this Court and with the Amicus Curiae playing the
role of devil's advocate. Whereas, the messages generated by
SIB from time to time even before 27.2.2002, in fact would go to
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
7
show that the concerned officials were vigilant, but the situation
as evolved post Godhra incident, was unparalleled and had
overrun the State administration. [Para 42][161-F-G]
4. In any case, inaction or failure of some officials of one
section of the State administration cannot be the basis to infer a
pre-planned criminal conspiracy by the authorities of the State
Government or to term it as a State sponsored crime (violence)
against the minority community. The SIT had noted that inaction
and negligence of the erring officials has been taken note of at
the appropriate level including by initiating departmental action
against them. Such inaction or negligence cannot pass the muster
of hatching of a criminal conspiracy, for which the degree of
participation in the planning of commission of an offence of this
magnitude must come to the fore in some way. [Para 43][161-H;
162-A-B]
5. Conspiracy cannot be readily inferred merely on the basis
of the inaction or failure of the State administration. In the enquiry
undertaken by the SIT, it had been found that the developments
were in quick succession and had overrun the arrangements
already in place or for that matter, additional support by calling
Army on 28.2.2002 itself besides the curfew imposed in the most
disturbed areas of the State. In light of such timely corrective
measures taken by the State Government in right earnest and
repeated public assurances given by the then Chief Minister that
guilty will be punished for their crime(s), and to maintain peace,
it would be beyond comprehension of any person of ordinary
prudence to bear suspicion about the meeting of minds of named
offenders and hatching of conspiracy by the State at the highest
level, as alleged, much less grave or strong suspicion as being
the quintessence for sending the accused for trial for an offence
of criminal conspiracy. [Para 44][162-C-E]
6.1. The protagonists of quest for justice sitting in a
comfortable environment in their air-conditioned office may
succeed in connecting failures of the State administration at
different levels during such horrendous situation, little knowing
or even referring to the ground realities and the continual effort
put in by the duty holders in controlling the spontaneous evolving
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
8
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
situation unfolding aftermath mass violence across the State. The
linking of such failures is not enough to entertain a suspicion
about hatching of criminal conspiracy at the highest level, which
requires a concerted effort of all the persons concerned and more
importantly, clear evidence about meeting of the minds to
accomplish such design, much less of causing and precipitating
mass violence across the State. Be that as it may, overrunning of
State administration is not an unknown phenomenon. [Para
45][162-F-G; 163-C]
6.2. Breakdown of law-and-order situation if for short
duration, cannot partake the colour of breakdown of rule of law
or constitutional crisis. To put it differently, misgovernance or
failure to maintain law-and-order during a brief period may not
be a case of failure of constitutional machinery in the context of
tenets embodied in Article 356 of the Constitution. There must
be credible evidence regarding State sponsored breakdown of
law-and-order situation; not spontaneous or isolated instances
or events of failure of State administration to control the situation.
The breakdown of law-and-order situation in the State including
attributable to the alleged inaction of the (State) duty holders,
owing to spontaneous mass violence cannot be a safe measure to
infer as being a part of the criminal conspiracy at the highest
level of political dispensation unless there is clear evidence to
so conclude regarding meeting of the minds of all concerned and
their concerted efforts to commit or promote commission of such
crime. The allegation in the present case, if at all relevant, was
founded on falsehood of the claim of Mr. Sanjeev Bhatt and Mr.
Haren Pandya regarding the utterances of the then Chief Minister
in review meeting chaired by him - which stood completely
exposed after the investigation by the SIT. [Para 45][163-D-G]
6.3. For the same reason, it would not be open to the
concerned Court to take cognizance or to call upon the SIT to do
further investigation absent any tangible material. On the other
hand, the opinion recorded by the SIT has dealt with the materials
to conclude that it cannot be said that no action had been taken
on letters sent by Mr. R.B. Sreekumar. Similarly, while dealing
with the allegation [No. (xiv)] regarding undue delay in requisition
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
9
and deployment of Army, the SIT had opined that there was
genuine problem of deploying Army despite sending of requisition
on 28.2.2002 at 1300 hrs., which message was sent by fax to the
Union Defence Secretary, Ministry of Defence at 1430 hrs. and
the time taken in posting the Army after its arrival due to logistical
reasons. [Para 46][163-H; 164-A-B]
6.4. There is no tittle of material, much less tangible material
to support the plea of the appellant that the Godhra incident
unfolded on 27.2.2002 and the events which followed, was a preplanned event owing to the criminal conspiracy hatched at the
highest level in the State. It is well settled that conspiracy requires
an act (actus reus) and an accompanying mental state (mens rea).
The agreement constitutes the act and the intention to achieve
the unlawful objective of that agreement constitutes the required
mental state. The offence of conspiracy is independent of other
offences. It takes place when there is an agreement to do or
cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which may not be illegal
but by illegal means. The rationale of conspiracy is that the
required objective manifestations of dispositions of criminality is
provided by the act of agreement. To convict a person of
conspiracy, the prosecution must show that he agreed with others
that together they will accomplish the unlawful object of the
conspiracy. Inaction in the response or even in a given case of
non-responsive administration, can be no basis to infer hatching
of criminal conspiracy by the authorities of the State Government
in absence of any clear evidence about the meeting of minds; and
that, failure to respond to the messages sent by SIB was a
concerted and deliberate act of omission or commission on the
part of the State and other functionaries, as alleged. The SIT had
recorded the statements of all concerned including the officials
before forming the opinion, as noted in the final report, to discard
the allegation under consideration. The Magistrate, as well as,
the High Court committed no error whatsoever in accepting the
final report presented by the SIT. [Para 47][164-C-G; 165-A]
7. The argument pressed into service about the existence
of materials regarding build-up of communal mobilizations and
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
10
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
stockpiling of weapons, arms and ammunitions even before the
Godhra episode on 27.2.2002 being part of the larger criminal
conspiracy, is devoid of merits. This argument proceeded on an
erroneous assumption that the SIT had not investigated into this
crucial matter. [Para 48][165-B]
8.1. The SIT has not found any conspiracy, linking separate
and disparate acts of arson and looting or outrageous claims made
in sting operations or individual utterances/publications of
purported hate speech, to any singular larger conspiracy or
planned event. The materials gathered during the investigation,
in no way link any "meeting of the minds" in any of the nine (9)
cases investigated by the SIT or for that matter, other incidents
alleged in the complaint or the protest petition. The riots across
the State had taken place spontaneously, immediately after the
Godhra Train Carnage. In the investigation done by the SIT in all
the nine (9) sets of cases, no material was discovered pointing
towards any meeting of minds/conspiracy in the higher echelons
of the administration or the political establishment conspired with
other persons to cause such riots or for having turned nelson's
eye when the riots had triggered and continued. There is no chain
or any perceivable link or connection in these occurrences during
the relevant period, which ought to be the quintessence had it
been a case of larger conspiracy at the highest level. Indeed, the
factum of conspiracy can be inferred, but absent any perceivable
link, much less about the meeting of minds of all concerned, it is
not open to assume conspiracy in the air. [Para 53][173-D-G]
8.2. It is amply clear that the argument pressed into service
on the premise of no investigation done by SIT on crucial matters
is contrary to the materials on record and the opinion recorded
by the SIT is after due consideration of all aspects and backed by
tangible materials gathered during investigation by it. [Para
54][173-H; 174-A]
8.3. For the same reason, the argument regarding mass
mobilizations and hate speech on 27.2.2002 regarding proactive
and aggressive behaviour of persons returning from Ayodhaya/
Karsevaks after the Godhra attack, is tenuous. [Para 55][174-B]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
11
9.1. Much argument was made about the postmortem of
dead bodies in the open in Railway yard and also, parading them
from Godhra to Ahmedabad. According to the appellant, the postmortem was done in the open yard as part of larger criminal
conspiracy to obliterate the real cause of death of 243 Kar-sevaks
at Godhra due to fire and then to transport the dead bodies to
Ahmedabad so as to parade them amidst shouting of provocative
slogans so as to arouse passions. This plea taken in the protest
petition is of pure conjectures and surmises. In that, the deaths
had been caused due to the violent act of group of persons (who
were later identified after investigation and faced trial ending in
conviction) for setting the train (Coach S6 of Sabarmati Express)
carrying Kar-sevaks on fire. The case concerning Godhra train
episode was also investigated by the SIT under the supervision
of this Court and that trial ended in conviction of 32 (thirty-two)
persons and the confirmation appeals for capital punishment have
also been disposed of by the High Court. In those proceedings,
the Courts have considered the issue concerning post-mortem
of dead bodies in the open in Railway yard. In other words, the
issue under consideration raised by the appellant has already
passed the muster of judicial scrutiny before the trial Court and
the High Court. Accepting the argument of the appellant on this
score would need reinvestigation of the concluded case which
must be eschewed and cannot be countenanced. [Para 56][174F-H; 175-A-B]
9.2. The allegation regarding parading of dead bodies, has
been dealt with by the SIT. The thrust of the opinion formed by
the SIT upon analyzing the relevant materials in connection with
this allegation is that the decision to carry the dead bodies from
Godhra to Ahmedabad for being handed over to their relatives,
was a unanimous decision taken at the Godhra Collectorate. This
decision was taken as most of the passengers were to travel to
Ahmedabad and their relatives had not reached or were unable
to reach Godhra to collect their bodies. It was also decided that
bodies will be carried to Sola Civil Hospital located on the
outskirts of Ahmedabad City and thus away from the crowded
area for security reasons. Most of the dead bodies (54 unclaimed
at Godhra) were of persons who were ordinarily residing in and
around Ahmedabad. Thus, the entire exercise was within the
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
12
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
control and supervision of the administration and there was no
parading of dead bodies, as alleged. There was no undue haste in
carrying the bodies including cremation thereof. The essential
protocol was substantially followed in that respect. This opinion
recorded by the SIT in its final report is consistent with the
circumstances and materials gathered during the investigation.
The allegation under consideration is unfounded and has been
rightly discarded by the SIT. [Para 57][182-F-H; 183-A-C]
10. The appellant had also placed emphasis on the
allegations in the complaint about the Cabinet Ministers
positioning themselves in the City Police Control Room and
issuing instructions, to buttress their argument about State
sponsored violence, as stated in the affidavit filed by Mr. R.B.
Sreekumar. This allegation has been thoroughly enquired into
by the SIT. The analysis done by the SIT after further investigation
in respect of allegation under consideration commended to the
Magistrate, as well as, the High Court. There is no reason to
deviate from the said opinion or the view taken in that regard.
[Paras 58, 59][183-C-D; 197-A-B]
11.1. There is no merit in the argument of the appellant
that the SIT had failed to collect the call records of the accused
persons, not analyzed the available call records from CD supplied
by Mr. Rahul Sharma and failed to seize the phones of persons
involved. In that, the events had unfolded in the year 2002 and
the SIT was constituted only in the year 2008 by this Court to
look into and enquire into the complaint of appellant, dated
8.6.2006. During the contemporary period (year 2002), two mobile
operators were providing services in the Gujarat State, namely,
M/s. AT&T and M/s. Cellforce, who had the protocol of
maintaining the electronic call records for one year only.
Resultantly, it was not possible for the SIT to retrieve the call
records from these service providers after its appointment in
the year 2008. It is, therefore, not a case of failure of the SIT to
collect the call detail records of various persons referred to in
the details discernible from the record submitted by Mr. Rahul
Sharma. [Para 61][203-B-E]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
13
12. The appellant had also alleged about police inaction
which facilitated riots as part of conspiracy giving specific
instances in that regard. The SIT has considered this allegation,
and upon analyzing the materials gathered during the
investigation, opined that the circumstances highlighted by the
appellant were not sufficient link to infer that the named persons
had hatched larger conspiracy to cause mass violence across the
State targeting the minority community. On closer scrutiny of the
analysis in this regard, the opinion of the SIT is a plausible opinion.
For, the instances adverted to are essentially matters concerning
the acts of commission and omission at the ground level and not
indicative of any link to sustain the allegations of larger criminal
conspiracy. Also, the erring officials identified for their acts of
commission and omission at the ground/local level have been
proceeded with departmentally. Every act of commission and
omission would not result in hatching criminal conspiracy unless
the acts have been done deliberately and there is meeting of
minds of all concerned. [Para 64][204-H; 205-A-C]
13. Absent clear and direct material indicative of
involvement of named person(s) in hatching criminal conspiracy
to cause mass violence across the State targeting minority
community during the relevant period, the attempt of the
appellant, if we may say so, is bordering on sewing of insignificant
unconnected circumstances and events regarding the failures and
in some cases, laxity in administration, which is being projected
as an act of concerted effort of all the State officials upto the
highest level without there being any tittle of material to show
that there was meeting of minds of all these persons at some
level. [Para 68][206-D-E]
14. Concededly, the act of transfer/posting of officials has
been after the unfolding of mass violence across the State. It was
obviously an administrative matter to address the expediencies
of that situation. One fails to understand as to how this
circumstance can be reckoned as hatching of criminal conspiracy
resulting into mass scale violence across the State aftermath
Godhra incident. Such conspiracy ought to have preceded the
triggering of mass violence. [Para 70][211-H; 212-A-B]
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
14
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
15. Another allegation was, namely, senior officers were
awarded with undue benefits for collaborating with the illegal plans
of CM/BJP during 2002 riots and afterwards. This has been found
to be a far-fetched and unfounded allegation by the SIT, after
analyzing the relevant materials on record including the
statements of the concerned officials, dealing with the case of
each officer as named in the complaint. Even this opinion of the
SIT needs no second look also for the reason that such an act
would not be a link to connect the act of hatching of criminal
conspiracy resulting in mass violence across the State. [Para
72][215-C-D]
16. Argument was also advanced in reference to allegation
that pro-VHP Advocates were appointed as public prosecutors
in riots cases. This has been thoroughly examined by the SIT.
One fails to understand as to how this act can be linked with the
allegation of hatching of criminal conspiracy for causing or
precipitating mass violence across the State. The appellant having
failed to provide sufficient material to raise serious suspicion in
respect of allegation of hatching of criminal conspiracy for the
intended mass violence, cannot be heard to make that deficiency
by raising allegation of the kind of appointments of public
prosecutors during the trial of the concerned cases. Be that as it
may, the allegation clearly overlooks the procedure regarding
appointment of a public prosecutor. [Para 73][215-D-E; 221-BD]
17. The appellant had urged that the SIT had not
investigated the willful failure of the fire brigade in Ahmedabad
to respond to the calls made by the minority community being
part of the criminal conspiracy. This argument is unfounded and
tenuous. The fire services in Ahmedabad City come within the
jurisdiction of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and not the
State police or the State civil administration. The Commissioner
of Police of Ahmedabad City, who has been blamed by the
appellant, had nothing to do with the functioning of the fire brigade.
No tangible material is forthcoming to indicate that the
Commissioner of Police of Ahmedabad City had issued
instructions to the officials of fire services in Ahmedabad City
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
15
under the control of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation.
Whereas, the materials collected by the SIT would reveal that in
the entire city of Ahmedabad, blockades were created at various
locations due to mass violence, making it difficult, if not
impossible, for movement of the vehicles such as fire brigade. In
any case, this argument is one of inaction or failure of fire services
in the Ahmedabad City. That cannot be the basis to infer criminal
conspiracy, much less hatched at the highest level to cause mass
violence across the State. [Para 78][222-G; 223-A-C]
18. The respondents had justly contended that the attempt
of the appellant was to keep in improvising their grievances and
make new allegations including to involve new offenders as being
party to the larger criminal conspiracy hatched at the highest
level. In the name of protest petition (running into 514 pages),
appellant was also indirectly questioning the decisions rendered
by the Courts in other cases including sub judice matters, for
reasons best known to her. She was obviously doing so under
dictation of someone. In fact, the sizeable contents of the protest
petition are founded on the affidavits filed by those persons, whose
version have been found to be replete with falsehood. [Para
79][223-D-F]
19.1. Be that as it may, after going through the analysis
done by the SIT of the concerned allegations, this Court has no
hesitation in accepting such opinion that no case had been made
out against the named 299 offenders, much less to indicate being
party to the hatching of larger criminal conspiracy to cause or
precipitate mass violence across the State against the minority
community during the relevant period. [Para 80][223-F-G]
19.2. It is, therefore, not open to hold that the investigation
by the SIT in the present case has been deficient or infirm. Every
allegation found in the complaint (running into 67 pages) had been
culled out by the SIT and articulated in the form of thirty-two (32)
broad allegations. The same had been duly investigated from all
angles before submitting the report to this Court. The analysis
and opinion of the SIT of the materials collected during
investigation allegation-wise, witness-wise as well as, offenderwise are broadly agreed upon even by the learned Amicus Curiae
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
16
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
- except the observations made regarding some matters, which
observations have also been thoroughly enquired into by the SIT
by way of further investigation and duly analyzed for recording its
opinion, in the final report presented to the concerned Court.
The Magistrate, as well as, the High Court have accepted the
final report presented by the SIT. For, there is no material worth
the name to even create a suspicion (leave alone strong suspicion
and a ground for presuming that the named offenders had
committed an offence of larger conspiracy), indicative of the
meeting of the minds of all concerned at some level; and in
particular, the bureaucrats, politicians, public prosecutors, VHP,
RSS, Bajrang Dal or the members of the State political
establishment - for hatching a larger criminal conspiracy at the
highest level to cause and precipitate mass violence against the
minority community across the State during the relevant period.
Such conclusion reached by the Magistrate and the High Court
is unexceptionable. [Para 81][223-G-H; 224-A-D]
19.3. The SIT came to be constituted by this Court of
experienced senior officials with proven ability of investigating
complex offences. Therefore, the assail of the appellant was not
only far-fetched and an attempt to undo and undermine the industry
of the SIT in having thoroughly investigated all the nine (9) sets
of cases assigned to it by this Court, but also in the nature of
questioning the wisdom of this Court, and, hence is rejected.
[Para 85][226-B-C]
19.4. Indefatigable work was done by the team of SIT
officials in the challenging circumstances they had to face and
yet, they have come out with flying colours unscathed. At the end
of the day, it appears that a coalesced effort of the disgruntled
officials of the State of Gujarat alongwith others was to create
sensation by making revelations which were false to their own
knowledge. The falsity of their claims had been fully exposed by
the SIT after a thorough investigation. Intriguingly, the present
proceedings have been pursued for last 16 years (from submission
of complaint dated 8.6.2006 running into 67 pages and then by
filing protest petition dated 15.4.2013 running into 514 pages)
including with the audacity to question the integrity of every
functionary involved in the process of exposing the devious
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
17
stratagem adopted (to borrow the submission of counsel for the
SIT), to keep the pot boiling, obviously, for ulterior design. As a
matter of fact, all those involved in such abuse of process, need
to be in the dock and proceeded with in accordance with law.
[Para 88][226-E-G]
20.1. To sum up, no fault can be found with the approach of
the SIT in submitting final report dated 8.2.2012, which is backed
by firm logic, expositing analytical mind and dealing with all
aspects objectively for discarding the allegations regarding larger
criminal conspiracy (at the highest level) for causing and
precipitating mass violence across the State against the minority
community during the relevant period. The SIT has gone by the
logic of falsity of the information or material and including the
same remaining uncorroborated. In that, the materials collected
during the investigation do not give rise to strong or grave
suspicion regarding hatching of larger criminal conspiracy at the
highest level for causing mass violence across the State against
the minority community and more so, indicating involvement of
the named offenders and their meeting of minds at some level in
that regard. The SIT had formed its opinion after considering all
the materials collated during the investigation. The question of
further investigation would have arisen only on the availability of
new material/information in connection with the allegation of larger
conspiracy at the highest level, which is not forthcoming in this
case. Hence, the final report, as submitted by the SIT, ought to
be accepted as it is, without doing anything more. [Para 89][226H; 227-A-D]
20.2. The Magistrate, upon presentation of final report
could have exercised different options. However, the Magistrate
in the present case, after applying his mind independently to the
final report dated 8.2.2012 and the materials appended thereto,
chose to accept the same as it is, without issuing any other
direction to the SIT. [Para 90][227-E]
20.3. The decision of the Magistrate in accepting the stated
final report dated 8.2.2012 submitted by the SIT, is upheld as it
is and the protest petition filed by the appellant is rejected. The
submission of the appellant regarding infraction of rule of law in
ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI v. STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
18
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 6 S.C.R.
the matter of investigation and the approach of the Magistrate
and the High Court in dealing with the final report, cannot be
countenanced. [Para 91][227-F]
Jakia Naseem Ahesan & Anr. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.
(2009) SCC Online SC 6; National Human Rights
Commission v. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2009) 6 SCC
342; Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police & Anr.,
(1985) 2 SCC 537 : [1985] 3 SCR 942; Vineet Narain
& Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.