Indian justice: Sohrabuddin encounter case verdict: It looks like my brother killed himself, says his brother
Rubabuddin Shaikh, the
younger brother of Sohrabuddin Shaikh, the only family member present in the
special CBI court on Friday, said that with nobody held responsible for his
brother’s death, he will have to conclude that Sohrabuddin had killed himself. Rubabuddin, on whose
petition the Supreme Court had in 2006 directed a probe into whether
Sohrabuddin’s encounter was genuine, said that he had lost hope of the accused
being held guilty when the Bombay High Court had discharged six policemen.
In September, the high
court had dismissed Rubabuddin’s pleas against the trial court’s order
discharging IPS officers, including D G Vanzara, Rajkumar Pandian and Dinesh M
N. “There was enough
evidence against the accused, but it seems that the court has turned a blind
eye towards it. This judgment is just not right. It is not in the interest of
justice,” he told The Indian Express.
He added, “The court
has not accepted any evidence. It looks like my brother Sohrabuddin killed
himself. When the HC discharged six policemen in September, I lost hope. It was
very clear that the accused before the trial court will also be acquitted.”
Rubabuddin said the
CBI had neither filed an appeal against the discharge of most of the accused
nor the agency supported his appeal before the HC against the discharge of the 3 officers. Rubabuddin, who had
deposed before the trial court on November 17 as a prosecution witness, had
claimed that he had filed a petition in the SC after he was informed that his
brother’s encounter was not genuine. “The journey was not easy, we had put in
so much effort, right from seeking a CBI investigation before Supreme Court in
2006. It is a sad day, we have not got justice. But I will pursue the appeal
till Supreme Court,” he said.
Besides Rubabuddin,
his two other brothers, Nayamuddin Shaikh and Shahnawazuddin Shaikh, had also
been included as prosecution witnesses. Nayamuddin, however,
had contradicted the prosecution’s claim during his deposition by claiming that
the CBI had “planted” Sohrabuddin’s associate Tulsiram Prajapati in the
“abduction story” though he was not present.
On Friday, Nayamuddin
claimed that the court had “selectively” looked at evidence. “So many witnesses
turned hostile during trial. We had sought for the court to take action against
those. The relief for the accused is only temporary as we will be seeking a
retrial.” Shahnawazuddin, who
had initially sought to be examined as a witness but later did not turn up
despite summons, claimed that he had been served summons only on WhatsApp.
“During the trial as well, it was clear that they were deposing under pressure.
Tulsiram’s mother Narmadabai also did not depose. The result is not surprising
given the nature of the evidence,” he said.
Rubabuddin said that
some material witnesses, including Gujarat investigator Rajnish Rai, Gujarat
builders Ramanbhai and Dashrathbhai Patel, who had given statements on the
links between the police and Sohrabuddin, were not called as witnesses. Tulsiram’s mother
Narmada-bai said that her son’s death has already destroyed her life and the
judgment will not change that. “Now that the judgment has come, I hope I don’t
go through any more trouble,” she added.
see also
