Gujarat Fake Encounters: No Selective Elimination of Muslim Extremists, Justice HS Bedi calls for probe into three killings

In the Gujarat Fake Encounters case, the Chairperson of the Monitoring Authority, Justice HS Bedi, has called for probe into three of the seventeen cases considered by him. The Chairperson also observed in his report that there has been no selective elimination of Muslim extremists..The report which runs into 224 pages has considered the facts and evidence presented to the Authority before reaching the conclusion..The Monitoring Authority was set up after a petition came to be filed in the Supreme Court by late journalist BG Verghese, noted Lyricist Javed Akhtar and social worker Shabnam Hashmi. Notice was issued to the State of Gujarat in the case and the State constituted a Special Task Force and a Monitoring Authority by way of a notification dated September 16, 2010..The Monitoring Authority comprised of several persons who had held or were holding very senior positions in the judiciary, police and scientific investigation. Its Chairperson, former Supreme Court judge, Justice HS Bedi was directed by the Supreme Court to submit a final report to the Court..Pursuant to the same, the Monitoring Authority made a comprehensive assessment of the evidence which was presented before it. The Chairperson then submitted a final report which has now been served on the parties to file their replies..The report states that free and friendly discussions took place in the presence of Justice Bedi with regard to the evidence that had been collected. Opportunity was given to the representatives of the deceased and they were permitted to engage counsel as well to appear before the Monitoring Authority..Considering various facts and circumstances including the fact that closure reports filed in certain cases have been accepted by courts, the Chairperson decided that action against police officers should be suggested only in such cases where:.(1) the police version seemed to be deeply suspicious and difficult to believe and.(2) the evidence was of a quality that in case a trial was held there was a reasonable chance of conviction and both these requirements had to be cumulatively satisfied..Further, the report also states that the standard of appreciation and quality of evidence that would require consideration in the present proceedings would not be as rigid as that in a court of law, as the purpose is not to determine the innocence or guilt of the police officers as that would be a matter for the courts after the recording of the evidence of witnesses and cross-examination etc..The standard at this stage would be as to whether the circumstances justify a trial or not. This is in consonance with Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the report states..Interestingly, the Committee also considered the representation received by former DGP of Gujarat Police, Shreekumar wherein he had alluded to selective targeting of Muslim Extremists. The report has however concluded that these allegations were irrelevant to the seventeen cases at hand while also stating that circumstances belie the allegations of Shreekumar..“The issues raised with regard to selective elimination of Muslims extremists are, however, not borne out from the record. Allegations of Muslim extremism were made only in one case, that of Sameerkhan. Moreover, the circumstances belie the allegations as the victims herein belonged to several parts of India, as far afield as Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Kerala and Maharashtra and as the names suggest, several communities as well; and the only common feature amongst most of them was the element of criminality of varying degrees and levels. The issues raised by Mr. Shreekumar are not, thus, relevant insofar as these l7 matters are concerned.”.The Report then considered individual cases in detail before proposing action in the following three cases..– Kassim Jaffer – ICR 146/2006 under Sections 279-304(A) I.P.C.and under Sections 177, 184, 134(B) of the Motor Vehicles Act..– Haji Ismail – ICR 244/2005 under Sections 307 I.P.C. & under Sections 25(1)B)/ 27(2) of the Arms Act.– Sameerkhan – ICR 25/2002 under Sections 307, 332, 224 186 I.P.C. & under Sections 25(l)B, A 27 of the Arms Act..Read the full report below.