On The Right Track To Godhra

ON THE RIGHT TRACK TO
GODHRA
A Report on the Burning of S6

by
JAN SANGHARSH MANCH

104, Maharanapratap Complex, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ph. 079-26577280
www.nsm.org.in
CONSPIRACY:
TIME SEQUENCE
CONSPIRACY- TIME SEQUENCE
• Shri K.C.Bawa, IO, had filed the first Charge-Sheet on 22.5.2002 but there
were no charges under POTA
• The FIR registered on 27.2.2002 was not even under section 120B of Cr PC.
120B was added on 7.3.2002.
• POTO was added on 3.3.2002 and withdrawn on 25.3.2002
• Jabir Binyamin Behra, a small time history sheeter was arrested on 22.1.2003
• On 5.2.2003, a confession is recordd u/s 164 of Cr.P.C.
• In this “confession” Behra said “..had gone to pan na galla at 11.30 pm where
Bilal haji and Farouque Bhana had come. The pan na galla was of Rajak
Kurkure.They told us that they had come after meeting Maulana Saheb.
Maulavi Saheb had said that train cominf from Ayodhya to Sabarmati is
coming. Burn down the S6 coach of that…”
• On this piece of evidence Mauluvi Hussein Ibrahim Umarji was arrested at

3.45 am in the early morning on 6.3.2003 and projected as the main
CONSPIRATOR. His charge-sheet was filed on 19.5.2003
• Umarji was not arrested under POTA and POTA was applied to the Godhra
case only on 18.3.2003!!
• Who was this “International Terrorist”?
• Under the Orders of the District Collecor Godhra, Umarji was the incharge of
the official relief camp at Iqbal Primary School since 5.3.2002
• He met Atal Behari at Godhra on 4.4.2002
• He met Deepak Swarup, IG Baroda range, DSP, Godhra and District Collector
Jayanti Ravi on 3.3.2002 and regularly thereafter.
• QUITE AN OFFICIAL TERRORIST!!!

CHALO
AYODHYA
PURNAHUTI MAHA YAGNA AT AYODHYA:
It all began with the mobilization by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) for a
programme at Ayodhya, which they have called “Purnahuti Maha Yagna”
Starting for Ayodhya
Three groups of about 2000 each of Ram Bhakt Karsevaks were to go to

Ayodhya. The first group was to leave Ahmedabad on 22nd February 2002 and reach
Ayodhya on 24th February 2002 (paragraphs 20 and 21 of the Affidavit).
TRAVEL OF KARSEVAKS FROM GUJARAT TO AYODHYA:

As per the affidavit of VHP (Para 22), the group of 2200 Ramsevaks which had gone
to Ayodhya from Ahmedabad on 22nd February 2002, had started their return
journey from Ayodhya to Ahmedabad on 26th February 2002.
Shri Mohabatsingh J. Jhala (witness no. 17) who was working as PSI at
Godhra Police station in (Ex. 60) stated that on 27th February he along with 9 other
policemen had accompanied the 1500 or so Karsevaks from Godhra to Dahod and
had reached Dahod around 2.00 a.m. in the morning.
HOMEWARD
JOURNEY
From Ayodhya to Godhra by Sabarmati express :
As per innumerable evidences, including the evidence of the passengers and the
driver of the train Shri Rajendrarao Reghunathrao Jhadav (Ex. 37), the Sabarmati
Express was running late by about 5 hours.
Shri Mohabatsingh J. Jhala has said that he was not aware of the fact that the said
train was carrying any Karsevaks. He has also said that his police station also did not
have any such information (para 3 of cross examination at page 3).
Shri Raju Bhargava, the then DSP, Godhra in his deposition before this Hon'ble
Commission (Ex. 86, page 5) has stated that they had not received any information
either from the LIB or the local police station that there was any possibility of a
particular group creating trouble and they had no information about the definite
dates of the movement of Karsevaks.
Shri K.A. Chakravarty, the then DGP, in his deposition before the Commission (Ex.
5627) has stated that the information regarding the return of the Karsevaks. Had we
received any information in this regard, we would have certainly made all
arrangements to ensure that no untoward incident takes place.
Shri R.B. Srikumar, Addl. DGP in his cross-examination on 31/8/2004 had stated that
there were no information from the Central Information Bureau regarding the
movement of Karsevaks from Ayodhya to Godhra/Gujarat.
Shri Ashok Narayan, the then Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Department also does not
disclose or reveal any information regarding the travel of Karsevaks from Ayodhya to
Gujarat (Ex. 3748).
In fact there is absolutely no evidence either documentary or oral on the record of

this Hon'ble Commission that any person in Gujarat (except may be the VHP itself)
knew about the specific date of the travel of the Karsevaks from Ayodhya to Gujarat
on 26th February 2002
and therefore, in the absence of this most vital piece of evidence regarding the
specific information of the travel of the Karsevaks, it is submitted that the
fundamental link in the conspiracy theory breaks down.
Reserved and Unreserved Passengers :

The train no. 9166 UP Sabarmati Express had 18 coaches including the S-6 coach no.
93498 which was flanked by S-5 and S-7 having nos. 89465 and 87206, respectively
The train that divided Gujarat
The entire train was extremely over crowded with the entire crowd of over 2000
karsevaks boarding this train and as evidence shows they neither had any tickets nor
any reservations. The reservation chart of the S-6 coach for 26/27 February 2006
shows that almost all the 72 berths were reserved save and except the berth nos. 40,
65 and 68.
The evidences of the regular passengers who have deposed before the Commission
clearly establishes the fact that almost all of them were not able to get the berths
which were reserved for them as they were all occupied by the Karsevaks
The Ticket Examiner (TTE) Mr. Deepak M. Chhablani who has given his deposition at
Ex. 56 has stated that from Ayodhya to Ratlam there was absolutely no checking
done since there was rally of VHP & Bajrangdal and the train was crowded.
The evidence on record over whemingly establishes that all coaches were over
crowded and S-6 coach had around 150 to 200 passengers including a large no. of
karsevaks
GODHRA PRIOR
TO 27/2/2002
GODHRA PRIOR TO 27/2/2002
Godhra does have a history of communal conflagration. In fact till 1992 there have
been around 6 or 7 occasions where rioting have taken place between the Hindus
and Muslims. But thereafter almost for a whole decade Godhra had been very
peaceful. The communal contradictions had apparently receded to the background
perhaps due to the business interests of the two communities.
Due to the declaration of the Shilanyas ceremony at Ayodhya on 15th March 2002, a
certain amount of communal compassion aroused, but so far as Gujarat was
concerned, there was no communal tension reported from any part of Gujarat
In his affidavit, Shri Ashok Narayan, the then Additional Chief Secretary, Home
Department, at para 5.8 had stated that the programme of shilanyas at Ayodhya on
15th March 2002, which was announced quite a few months back along the length
and width of the country. But as far as Gujarat was concerned, the only intelligence
input available to the Government was the movement of the Karsevaks to Ayodhya.
This also did not generate any compassion or communal frenzy within the state.
Hence there was absolutely total lack of tension which would vitiate
communal riots in the state. The communal detriment were not preceded
by any type of surcharged atmosphere. The likely occurrence of the
communal passion at that point of time was also very remote.
It is also now an established fact that prior to 27/2/2002, three large groups of
Karsevaks had departed from Ahmedabad to Ayodhya on 22nd, 24th and 26th
February, 2002. All these three groups had traveled by the night trains and have also
crossed the town of Godhra in the late nights.
There is absolutely no evidence on record to even remotely suggest that the safety
and security of the Karsevaks were threatened at Godhra.
If the Government of Gujarat's concocted story is to be believed that 140 litres of

petrol was acquired by the conspirators at about 10.30 p.m. on 26th February 2002
from the petrol pump of Kalabhai, one wonders why the conspirators did not burn
down the Sabarmati express carrying the Karsevaks going to Ayodhya in the dead of
the night on 27th rather wait for the Sabarmati express coming from Ayodhya
delayed by about 5 hrs and that too not having the knowledge that the Karsevaks
were coming by that train.
Shri Mohan Jagdish Yadav, the RPF Constable and eye-witness to the altercation in
the Godhra Railway Station, was himself on patrolling duty between A-cabin and the
CPWI office, which is in the Godhra Railway station, between 8.00 p.m. on
26/2/2002 and 8.00 a.m. on 27/2/2002. Shri Mohan Yadav thus was patrolling
exactly the area where the conspirators ought to have been planning their move and
precisely during the very time of the event in the morning of 27/2/2002. .”
Thus what Mr. Mohan Yadav has to say in his deposition before this Hon'ble
Commission “There is a culvert between “A” cabin and CPWI office. I did not see any
suspicious movement near and around culvert before the arrival of Sabarmati train
at Godhra station. I did not see any suspicious movement throughout the route
between “A” cabin and CPWI office before arrival of the train.”
'A' Cabin and the Station
From the evidence on record, it is therefore, absolutely obvious that the situation of
Godhra city was absolutely normal without any form of communal tension and even
as late as the time of arrival of Sabarmati Express, there is no evidence whatsoever
of any unusual happenings around the area where the S-6 had caught fire.
Arrival of
Sabarmati Express
at Godhra
Late Arrival at Godhra
On 27th Feb.2002, the Sabarmati Express from Ayodhya had arrived on platform
no.1 at Godhra Station at 7.43 hours in the morning almost five hours late.
As per the deposition of Shri Jaisinh Khushalbhai Khatija (Exh.31), the schedule time
of arrival of Sabarmati express at Godhra was 2.55 am in the morning. The Driver of
the train Shri Rajendra Rao has also given the same evidence that the train was
running late around five hours.
At paragraph-44 of their affidavit, the VHP has alleged that as per their information,
the conspiracy was to burn the entire train at Chanchelav station, which was before
Godhra but due to the grace of the God, as the train was running late, the place of
conspiracy was changed from Chanchelav to Godhra.
If the ill fated Sabarmati express had arrived at Godhra at scheduled time
of 2.55 am instead of being late, it would have crossed Godhra like the
other Sabarmati Express going towards Ayodhya with heavy load of
Karsevaks which had crossed Godhra at 0.36 hours on 27th without
anything happening.
If the ill fated train was not late, the altercation with hawkers would not
have taken place in the morning which led to the communal
conflagration.
The Incharge Station Superintendent shri Khatija has deposed (Exh.31) that the
Sabarmati Express had arrived at Godhra station at 7.43 hours. He has also deposed
that the train had left the station at 7.48 hours. Thus, the stoppage was for exactly
five minutes during which the seeds of the subsequent events were sown.
Altercations between Karsevaks and Vendors

Sheelaben Virpal, (Exh.167), Punamkumari Tiwari, (Exh.169), Saitishkumar
Ravidutt Mishra (Exh.160), Sadhwiji Minakshi Deviji, a Karsevak, (Exh.5678) and
Smt.Savitaben Tribhovandas Sadhu, a Ramsevak and activist of VHP (Exh.150) said
that there had been a quarrel on the platform with some tea vendor.
Shri Raju Bhargav, the then DSP of Godhra at Exh.86 has deposed that from the
information which he had gathered from the passengers, he had come to know that
there was some scuffle when the train was at the platform.. He has said that he could
not get clear picture from the information as to what was the cause of the scuffle..
Shri Harimohan Meena, Assistant Station Master, has confirmed in his cross-
examination at Exh.80 that what he had stated before the police was true to the
effect that “the passengers had got down on the platform and that they were
shouting slogans of Jai Shri Ram.
They had taken tea from some tea-stall vendor and that the stall vendor had asked
money for the tea but as the passengers did not pay the money, a quarrel had taken
place between them and that scuffle had taken place with the tea vendors. The
passengers who had got down from the train were wearing a saffron band and I
heard from the talks that they were returning from Ayodhya..” “I had come to know
about the scuffle etc. from the passengers who were standing on the platform
There was also a reported incident involving attempted abduction of a Muslim girl
by the Karsevaks. Ms Sophia Banu M. Shaikh, a minor girl has deposed before the
Commission and has stated as under :
! The persons wearing Saffron bands came down on the Platform for tea and
snacks. They took their tea and snacks and at that time one bearded person
was there whom the persons wearing the saffron bands started beating for
some reason. Seeing this, we got scared and we went away a little far. In the
meantime one person wearing saffron band came and he covered my mouth
and started dragging me towards the station.
As I started shouting, he released me. As this incident happened, I went inside the
Platform near the ticket counter. Along with me, my mother and sister also went
inside. We people had become very scared because of which we postponed the
idea of going to Vadodara and decided to go back to my auntie.
There are many such similar evidences to establish that there was indeed a scuffle
between the Karsevaks and the tea vendor on the platform of Godhra station
including the Karsevaks stopping a Muslim tea vendor from serving tea inside the
coach S-6 and also pushing him out of the train.
Departure of Sabarmati Express and left-out Karsevaks

From the evidences on record, the train had started leaving from Godhra station at
7.43 am. However, the train had stopped immediately thereafter due to chain pulling
after moving by about three to four bogies from the platform. Shri Khatija in his
deposition has said that the Deputy Station Superintendent Shri Y.A. Saiyed had
informed him that the Sabarmati Express had stopped immediately after it started
due to chain pulling and that he had asked Shri Harimohan Meena to gather
information about the situation.
Shri Yusuf Ali Mohammad Ali Saiyed, Deputy Station Superintendent, has stated in
his deposition that the train had started at 7.48 am towards Baroda and hardly a
minute or so had passed since the train had started, he had heard the chain-pulling
whistle and therefore he had sent Assistant Station Master Shri Meena to enquire.
He has said that the chain pulling was done from three coaches which were ahead of
the Guard's coach and further that there had been stone throwing at the spot a few
coaches away from the engine near the parcel office..
Mr.Saiyed has further said in cross examination that after enquiry, Shri Harimohan
Meena had informed him that before he had reached near the train, the chain pulling
had already been put right and therefore, no information could be obtained as to who
pulled the chain. Later on, after speaking to the Guard, he came to know that the first
time the chain was pulled because certain passengers were left out on the platform.
The Guard Shri Pachuram Verma has deposed at Exh.34 that the chain was pulled
after the train had left Godhra station for a short distance and the Driver had
informed him in this regard. The Guard-Book reveals the note that Alarm Chain
Pulling (ACP) was done from four coaches viz. the coach numbers 5343, 83101,
91263 and 88238.
Shri Verma has further stated in his deposition that as the passengers had been left
out, therefore, the chain pulling had taken place and that the train had started after
the left out passengers had boarded the train.
Shri Harimohan Fulsing Meena, assistant Station Master of Godhra railway station,
has deposed at Exh.40 and has said that Shri Saiyed had asked him to enquire as to
why there was chain pulling and that by the time he went near the train, the chain
pulling had already been re-set. He has further said that the Guard has informed him
that the chain was pulled from three bogies at the end of the train but he did not go
further ahead to find out who had pulled the chain since at that time, there was
stone throwing on the train from parcel office side.
Sadhwiji Minakshi Deviji who has deposed at Exh.5678, has stated that at that time
certain passengers who had got down on the plat form, had been left out when the
train had started. These passengers who had been left outside, had shouted `Jai
Shri Ram' and therefore, somebody pulled the chain and the train had stopped and
the door of the coach was open to take the passengers who were left out of the
coach.
It is therefore quite clear that the first chain pulling was done from the
train itself for the reason that some of the Karsevaks who had got down
on the platform, were left out when the train started at 7.48 am.
In all probability, the left out Karsevaks were those who were involved in the quarrel
and scuffle with the tea vendor and because of their engagement in this activity,
they did not notice starting of the Sabarmati Express.
Attempt by SRP to control the Conflict

Shri Mohan Jagdish Yadav, the RPF constable another eye witness, has
deposed before the Commission as under :
I am performing my duty as RPF Police Constable at Godhra. My duty was to do

patrolling between À' cabin and CPWI from 8.00 p.m. on 26-2-2002 to 8.00 am of
27-2-2002.
On 27-2-2002 at about 7.45 am. when the Sabarmati Express arrived at platform, I
was present in front of CPWI office. When we were present there, we heard
somebody shouting from platform no.1. On hearing the noise we two went to
platform no.1. We saw stone throwing between the train passengers and the
outside people. Some passengers were shouting slogans of Jai Shree Ram. We told
those passengers to go and sit in the train and raising our sticks, we told the
outsiders to go away and chased them away. .. I believe that the quarrel that had
taken place with the hawker was the reason for the stone throwing.
When the train started, we were still on the platform and while we were on the
platform the train had moved about four coaches and had then stopped. We once
again saw people from both the sides throwing stones. Once again we pushed the
passengers to get into the train and chased the outsiders beyond the wall.
The passengers who were shouting and throwing stones, were

passengers of two coaches. The people who were throwing stones from
Signal Falia, were doing so from behind the wall and some of them were
trying to jump across the wall to enter the station. The passengers who
were throwing stones, some of them were also going towards the wall.
The passengers who were throwing stones were those who were
shouting `Jai Shree Ram'...The people who were throwing stones from
outside, were throwing pieces of bricks.
In his cross-examination Shri Harimohan Meena at Ex. 40 has said in para 7 that
“when I had reached near the compartment of the Guard, I heard certain
passengers shouting the slogan “Jai Sri Ram” from the compartments. I did not see
any persons standing behind the parcel office. I did not see anybody throwing stones
but stones were coming from above the parcel office. From the passengers who had
got down, two or four of them were throwing stones towards the back of the parcel
office. He has also said that due to the chain pulling the train had stopped and about
6-7 minutes may have passed for it to start again.
It is therefore clear that the stone throwing that took place after the first
chain pulling near the Rly Parcel Office was not a one sided affair but a
regular communal conflict between the Karsevaks and those who had
gathered behind the Parcel Office. This stone throwing lasted for about
seven minutes and the RPF Jawan did try to control and stop the fight…
Mechanism of Alarm Chain Pulling (ACP) and putting right the

ACP:
The coaches of the Sabarmati Express on 27th February 2002 were fitted with
vacuum brakes and as it is quite publicly known, these vacuum brakes can be
operated by Alarm Chain Pulling (ACP) from inside the coach. As noticed earlier, on
27/2/2002 the Sabarmati Express was stopped due to the ACP from a number of
coaches immediately after it started at 7.48 hrs in the morning. It is also the say of
the railway officials attending the Sabarmati Express that they had “put right” the ACP.
To understand the mechanism of the vacuum brake system and the mechanism of
“putting right” the ACP, the Jan Sangharsh Manch had approached the railway
authorities requesting them to furnish the design and details of the existing vacuum
brake system in the year 2002. The Jan Sangharsh Manch was furnished with a copy of
a circular dated 13/2/1995 prepared by the Director General of Carriage Department.
The aforesaid circular was in connection with the modification to the alarm chain
system of vacuum brake coaches to prevent its abuse by miscreants. Modifications
were made in the design of the vacuum brake design for the particular objective to
prevent unauthorized travelers/ miscreants operating the alarm chain system from
outside the coach to stop the train by either standing on the buffer or on the ladder
provided on the end wall of the coach etc.
The primary modification in the design of the alarm chain system was to
bifurcate the alarm signal rod connecting the alarm signal disc on one end
and the alarm valve (Clappet valve) on the other end. This bifurcation
mechanism would ensure that rotation of the alarm signal disc will not
operate the Clappet valve or destroy the vacuum and actuate the
application of the brakes. On the contrary the alarm signal disc, in its
opposite mode of rotation would be used for resetting the Clappet valve back
to the normal position as is the case with the previously existing design.
On enquiry with the railway authorities it is learnt that all the 18 coaches of the
Sabarmati Express that had arrived at Godhra on 27/2/2002 had the modified alarm
chain system and therefore, the vacuum brakes could not be activated by turning the
alarm disk from outside since the connecting rod is bifurcated as per the new design.
The ACP could be effected only from inside the coaches and corrected from outside.
The bifurcated rod of alarm disc of S6

Setting right the ACP
and departure of the
train after first ACP
Setting right the ACP and departure of the train after first ACP
As per the diary of the guard Shri Satyanarayan P. Varma, the first chain pulling was
done on 27.2.2002, from four coaches viz. coach no. 5343, 83101, 88238 and
91263. So far as the Assistant Station Master (ASM) Shri Harimohan Meena's record
is concerned, it shows that the ACP was done from coach nos. 5343, 91263 and
90238.
Thus out of the four coaches identified by the guard, only two had been identified by the
ASM being coach nos. 5343, 91263. Therefore, apart from the above 2 coaches, ACP
was also done from three more coaches viz. coach nos. 90238, 88238 and 83101.
In that view of the matter, the first chain pulling was done not from just four coaches
as mentioned by the guard, but ACP was done from total of 5 coaches. Out of the
aforesaid 5 coaches 2 coaches were the reserved three Tier Sleeper coaches, the
numbers being 88238 (S-9) and 90238 (S-10).
The Guard Shri Verma has admitted this fact that he along with Shri Mukesh
Pachhori had corrected the chain pulling of the coach nos. 83101, 5343, 91263 and
88238. Thus from the clear statements made by both the Guard as well as the Asst.
Driver, on that day they had set right the ACP in four coaches. In this view of the
matter, the ACP which was noticed by Shri Harimohan Meena from coach
no. 90238 was not corrected.
The vacuum cannot be created and consequently the train cannot move unless and
until the Clappet valves are reset to close the air inlet and this resetting of the
Clappet valves is known as “putting right the ACP” in common parlance.
In practice, railway employees have to physically rotate the alarm disk to reset the
Clappet valve. In the instant case as the facts point out, the first chain pulling was
done from 5 coaches, whereas the ACP was put right in four coaches thereby leaving
one Clappet valve uncorrected..
This uncorrected valve was that of a reserved coach S-10 and in all probability this
coach was somewhere near the parcel office where the stone throwing was taking
place and therefore the railway officials could not correct the ACP of this particular
coach. Shri Harimohan Meena had in fact candidly admitted that as there
was stone throwing near the parcel office, he did not even go forward to
enquire as to who pulled the chain
The driver, Shri Rajendrarao, in his cross-examination at Ex. 37 has

stated that after the chain pulling, the train had remained stationary for
about 14 minutes
From how many coaches were the chain pulled? Were all “put right”?
In cross-examination, Shri R.P. Meena has specifically stated that the time when the
train had started he had seen the clock inside the cabin and had seen that the time was
0755 hrs. From the deposition of Shri Harimohan Meena and Shri R.M. Meena, it can be
established that the train after the first train pulling had stopped for about 7 minutes.
Setting right the ACP and departure of the train after first ACP
Instead of the stoppage of 7 minutes, the driver exaggerates the same to make it
appear that the stoppage was much larger, i.e. 14 minutes. This falsehood was
resorted to by the driver in order to cover up another falsehood that all the ACPs
were put right in all the five coaches
Shri Jaisinh K. Kathija, the In-charge Station Superintendent has deposed that after
the chain pulling was put right, the train had started at 0755 hrs from the station.
Admittedly the train was 18 coach long and therefore the length of the train would be
approximately 400 meters and therefore even if Mr. Pachhori, the Assistant Driver takes
a brisk walk at the rate of 5 km an hour from the engine to the Guard's cabin and back he
would still require a minimum of 9-10 minutes. Over and above this if he has to identify
the coaches from which the alarm chain was pulled, climb up to correct the same he
would require far more time than 10 minutes and at least 15 minutes.
In fact Shri Pachhori as well as the Guard and the driver are all telling lies regarding
the putting right of the ACPs. It was humanly impossible for Mr. Pachhori to correct
all the five ACPs till the last coach of the train and return back to the engine to restart
the train within 7 minutes.
Rajendraprasad Mina, ASM, was watching from the Window:

What did the
Assistant Station Master
see from “A” Cabin
What did the Assistant Station Master see from “A” Cabin
Shri Rajendraprasad Misrilal Mina, the Assistant Station Master, who was
an eye witness deposed as under:
On 27-2-2002 I was on duty as Assistant Station Master at À' cabin of Godhra

railway station from 12 at night to morning upto 8.00 am.
Sabarmati Express train arrived at Godhra railway station at 7.43 am. Since the line
was clear, departure signal was given at 7.45 am. The train started at 7.48 am. After
some time the train stopped by blowing the whistle.
I could see from the cabin that the train had stopped. At that time no crowd was seen
between À' cabin and the train.
When the train started again I looked at the clock in the cabin and the time was 7.55
am. When the train reached near the cabin I was standing near window of the cabin
for showing àlright' signal. When the train arrived at À' cabin, the engine was
blowing the whistle indicating chain pulling. The period between the restarting of
the train and its arrival at 'A' cabin would have been around 5 to 6 minutes. I did not
see any crowd at that time. It was about 8 O'clock when the train had stopped.
When the train was moving with slow speed I had seen a crowd running towards and
alongwith the train. When I got down from the cabin, at that time some people from
the crowd had come near the cabin. Few persons from the mob were throwing
stones on the train...The mob did not arrive together but ten to fifteen persons were
coming and gathering....There were women and children also in the mob.
I did not see personally as to who set the fire and how.
Shri Mohan Jagdish Yadav, the RPF constable another eye witness, has
deposed as under :
I am performing my duty as RPF Police Constable at Godhra. My duty was to do

patrolling between À' cabin and CPWI from 8.00 p.m. on 26-2-2002 to 8.00 am of
27-2-2002.
There is a culvert between À' cabin and CPWI office. I did not see any suspicious
movement near and around culvert before the arrival of Sabarmati train at Godhra
station. I did not see any mob near À' cabin before the arrival of the train. I did not
see any suspicious movement through out the route between À' cabin and CPWI
office before arrival of the train.
The Next Stoppage The Second Chain Pulling?
The driver Shri Rajendrarao Jadhav had at Ex. 37 has deposed that after getting the
all right signal from the Guard, he had restarted the train. When the train had almost
reached the A cabin he and the Asst. Station Master had shown each other the green
signal and had taken the “All right” signal, but at that time the vacuum had dropped
in the train and I came to know that there was a chain pulling.
After crossing the A cabin by about 4 or 5 coaches the engine came to a stop near the
post no. 468/19 and I had therefore once again blown the Whistle for chain pulling
and informed the guard through walkie-talkie.
In his statement before the police dated 26/4/2002 at page 2 of the charge-sheet
Shri Jadhav had said that the train had came to a grinding halt near the A cabin and it
stopped with a sudden jerk. The train stops with a jerk in case the disc is uncoupled
in two or three coaches . . . .
In his first cross-examination, Shri Jadhav has stated that when the chain pulling
took place the train was moving at a speed of 13 kms per hr. In his further cross-
examination on 6/1/2003 at Ex. 172, the driver Shri Jadhav agreed that the vacuum
for the 2nd time had dropped gradually from 53 cm to 30 cm of pressure, 53 cm
being the pressure when he took charge of the train.
he has also admitted that in his note-book he did make a note that there was ACP on
4 coaches in respect of the first chain pulling. He has admitted that the remark
“468/19” noted in his note-book indicated the second chain pulling and he admitted
that he had not written the word ACP for describing the second stoppage. Thus in his
own note book there is no mention of the second ACP.
He has also admitted that he had not asked anybody to set right the second chain
pulling which would indicate that even his own belief was that the stoppage was not
due to an ACP.
He has also admitted that as far as he remember, the Assistant of Godhra Railway
Station Mr. Rajendra Kushwa has changed two hosepipes being opened by the kick
of the foot. Even for this manner of stoppage, the driver has described as “chain
pulling”. He has also admitted that it took much time to restore the vacuum.
So far as the Guard Mr. Satyanarain Varma is concerned, in his deposition at Ex. 34,
he has stated that he did not know the reason of the second chain pulling. He has
also said as power supply had been stopped there was no vacuum at all and
therefore it was not possible to know from which coaches the chain was pulled. He
has further stated that he was sitting in his coach upto 8.25 a.m. without making any
attempt to get down.
It is to be noted that no other independent railway personnel had come forward to

give any evidence regarding the second chain pulling. As it is now clear that the
vacuum cannot be disturbed from outside by turning the disc, there are only three
possibilities of the drop in vacuum when the train reached near A cabin.
The three possibilities are :
There were actual chain pulling inside the coaches
The resetting of the five coaches from which chain was pulling took place in the first
round were not correctly reset. It is the fact that one of the coaches being coach no.
90238 was not corrected.
That 2 hosepipes which were required to be changed by Shri Kushwa were loosened
or damaged giving rise to vacuum leakage.
One Shri Fatesinh D. Solanki had deposed before this Commission at Ex. 5715 and
has stated that he was asked by Mr. Khallija, the In-charge Station Superintendent,
to take the Sabarmati Express from line no.1 to the line no.10 in the yard and it was
he who had given the green signal for the shunting after 9.00 a.m.
He has said that the mechanic had released the vacuum system and therefore only
he could shunt the train and despite the fact that vacuum was not restored because
of the order of the Station Superintendent he had done the shunting. He has also
admitted that he himself had removed the coupling between the S-6 and S-7 which
was done on line no. 10. He had also admitted that when he was removing the
coupling between the S-6 and S-7 coaches the joint of the vacuum hosepipe was
open.
He has also stated that by making the S-4 coach dummy, the rest of the coaches
were taken to the Godi (Yard?) and he has also stated that vacuum that existed in
the other coaches was due to the dummy system of S-4.
From the above facts it becomes clear that the 3rd possibility viz. leakage due to
hosepipe defect or opening up of its joint could be the possible reason for the
vacuum falling for the second time near the A cabin. As Mr. Solanki has observed,
hosepile of S-7 and S-6 were open and Shri Rajendrarao had observed that the
opening of the hosepipe could lead to fast drop in vacuum. In all probability the
hosepipe that was changed by Mr. Khushwa was the hosepipe of S-7.
The chain pulling can be ruled out for the second stoppage since if the chain was
actually pulled, the clappet valve could have remained open and unless ACP was put
right the vacuum would not have built up for the brakes to be loosened for moving
the train. Though Mr. Solanki states that the mechanic had released the vacuum
system (which is required for loosening the brake) it is not his case nor anybody's
case that the vacuum was not restored for restarting the train for shunting.
It is nobody's case that any clappet valve was reset for the second stoppage.
Therefore, the obvious case of the vacuum falling near A cabin is due to reasons
other than chain pulling. It goes without saying that if the clappet valves were reset
in any coaches, the record would have definitely been made by the railways including
the driver and the Guard.
Two victims: One from S6 the other from Naroda Patiya.

Ek thi mata, Ek thi amma;aab pahechano kaun hai Sita kaun hai Salma
JANSANGHARSH MANCH'S ENDEAVOUR IS TO END THIS MINDLES HATRED

'A' Cabin
'A' Cabin and the Station

The Burning Coach
Fire Brigade at S6 Coach

The Government's
version of the cause
of fire
The case in the first charge-sheet dated 22.5.2002
Several people belonging to Muslim community who were residing in and around
Signal Falia situated near Godhra railway station, formed an illegal assembly and
gathered at open space near Parcel House at Godhra railway station and started
throwing stones on the passengers and the Sabarmati Express train. ”
“..Meanwhile, the train started once again and when it reached 'A' cabin of Godhra railway
station at 08.05 hours, the accused to accomplish their common objective of criminal
conspiracy stopped the train by turning the disc between coach No.S-5 and S-6.
At that time the accused armed with deadly weapons and highly inflammable fluids
filled in cans and shouting slogans ' Pakistan Zindabad', ' Hindustan Murdabad',
burnt down the coach No. S-6 which contained maximum number of Karsevaks with
the motive of killing them and others…”
In short, the first charge-sheet did not allege so called conspiracy of 26th February
by Umarji, did not allege the procurement of petrol from Kalabhai's pump, did not
allege the role of Salim Panwala of instigating others to pull the chain twice, did not
allege the entry of any of the conspirators inside the S6 coach, did not allege the use
of Petrol to burn the coach.
It did not even specifically mention where the S6 coach had stopped before being set
on fire nor did it give any specific timing of the “setting of fire” to the S6.
What was the exact position of the S6 coach while it burnt ? This question is of great
importance since the evidence of eye witnesses have to evaluated on the basis of
their relative positions.
The first panchnama of objects lying outside the coach and the position/ situation of
the coach was made on 27.2.2002 between 13.00 hrs and 15 hrs. (Sr. No. 3 of CS).
The place of offence (position of the S6 coach, which was ofcourse not there at that
time as it was already shifted to the yard on line no. 10 at about 11.30 am) was
recorded to be near the electric post No. 468/33.
as pointed out to the panchas by the complainant Shri Rajendrarao R Jadav. It was
also stated that the distance from the A cabin to the Godhra junction board ( on
platform No.) was 2150 feet.
Thus as per the Driver Rajendrarao, S6 was near 468/33. Actually it was next to the
electric post No. 468/35 (as seen in the VHP photograph) which is about 60 feet nearer
to the “A” cabin than the post 468/33. The post 468/35 is clearly visible from the A cabin
and the ASM had an unobstructed view from his cabin window but to avoid stating the
truth, the railway employees did not disclose the true position of S6.
Next question to determine are the timing of the sighting of the smoke and the fire:
Shri Rajendra Prasad Meena, the ASM in À' Cabin has stated at Exh.26 that at 8.25
he had seen smoke coming out of a coach.
First he had seen smoke and thereafter he has seen the flames. He had informed the
ASM as well as the Control immediately after seeing the smoke.
Shri Yusufali Saiyad, the Dy. SS has stated in his statement dated 27.4.2002, at Sr.
No. 73 of CS that actually the driver had informed about the fire at 8.25 am and that
Shri Khatija had informed the fire-brigade.
Shri Meena has said that he had come down from cabin at 8.35 am and then we went
near the S-6 coach and at that time the flames were leaping from the coach.
He has also said that Shri Khatija, the Incharge Station Superintendent had also
come near À' cabin by 8.30 to 8.35 am.
Shri Mohabbatsinh Jhala, the PSI of the Godhra Railway Police, has deposed at
Exh.60 that he had reached the S-6 coach around 8.15 am and before that he had
reached the platform around 8.10 am. From railway platform, he had reached the
train within five minutes.
Shri Mohabbatsinh Jhala said that he had resorted to lathi-charge before 8.30 am to
disperse the crowd near the A cabin and at that the Godhra police had also lobbed
tear gas shells from near the A cabin. Thereafter, he had ordered firing and because
of all these actions, the mob had dispersed within 10 minutes.
Shri Raju Bhargav, the DSP, who had deposed at Exh.86, had said that he had gone
from the railway station towards the train in his vehicle.
While he was passing on the road touching signal faliya, he had not noticed any
crowd on that road.. He had not seen any crowd except the passengers. He had
reached the burning coach at about 8.30 am.
From the timings narrated by the railway employees and police, it can be safely
assumed that the actual fire ( flames) were seen around 8.25am to 8.30am. Prior to
this time, smoke has been sighted by persons outside as well as passengers and the
smoke had most likely started around 8.15 a.m.
The official version has absolutely no explanation for the long duration of smoke
generation (approximately ten to fifteen minutes) since their version of setting fire
to the coach by pouring in 100 liters or so petrol inside the coach would have led to
instant flame with an explosive speed since the heat energy conversion would be
extremely fast due to the rapid burning of petrol. The chances of any survival would
have been dim.
Shri Raju Bishankumar Bhargava, Police Superintendent of Godhra, deposition before

the commission is very important to understand the severity of the fire and the spped of
its spread: He said that he had reached the burning coach at about 8.30 a.m.
He had seen people with black faces and with some burn injuries on the head,
coming out of the coach.... seen ten to twelve passengers coming out of that
coach.... They were coming out of the door on the Godhra side.... The injuries which
he noticed on the passengers were on the upper part of their bodies.... he had not
noticed any injury below their waist portion.
Raju Bhargav said that he had not seen any raising of flames in the area of that coach
which I could see from the door. I had seen only smoke in that area.... I had not
noticed any flames on the floor of the area between the two doors. I had also not
smelt any inflammable fuel like petrol kerosene, diesel etc.
Thus at about 8.30am people with superficial burn injuries were still coming out of
the coach which did have fire and smoke inside. The injury report of about 40
persons would show that not a single person who escaped from S6 had any fire
burns below the waist.
Injured people
The Government's version of the cause of fire Kerosene or Petrol ??
Without any inflammable fluid being used by the “conspirators' , the conspiracy
theory would not have any takers. Would a conspiracy and least of all, a terrorist
conspiracy under POTA make any sense, if there was no allegation of the
conspirators acquiring some highly inflammable fluid to set fire to the S6 coach ??
But the question at that time was whether to allege the use of petrol or settle for the
poor man's fuel, the Kerosene??
The first panchnama of objects lying outside the coach and the position/ situation of
the coach was made on 27.2.2002 between 13.00 hrs and 15 hrs. (Sr. No. 3 of CS). It
was recorded that there were certain cement sleepers lying about fifty feet east of
the electric post No. 468/36, which in turn, was in the north of the electric post No.
468/35. On these cement sleeper, there were one white and two black carboys of ten
liter capacity. No liquid was found but smell of some fluid was coming out of the
carboys. These carboys were sealed and sent for forensic examination. 15 parcels
were collected of different objects for examination.
The next panchnamas of the position /situation of the coach S6 was recorded on
28.2.2002 between 17.45 hrs to 19.35 hrs. ( Sr. No. 5 of CS1). The burnt residues
from nine cubicles of S6 plus from toilets were collected, sealed in plastic bags and
sent for forensic examination.
The first FSL report of the analysis of the materials sent from outside as well as inside
the coaches, covered by the above two panchnamas were given by a single report
No. FSL/EE/2002/c/287 dated 20.3.2002 (at Sr. No. 285 of CS).
In this report the objects and materials were reorganized to give new serial numbers
and 48 samples were recorded. Out of these, 32 samples were from outside
(covered by first panchnamas dated 27.2.2002) whereas 16 were covered by the
second panchnamas dated 28.2.2002.
The reliability of the report of the latter 16 samples is very doubtful since hundreds of
onlookers and visitors including the Chief Minister/other ministers had visited the
site as well as entered the S6 coach and therefore any material taken from inside the
coach or outside on 28.2.2002 could be tampered and/or planted material.
The report of FSL disclosed presence of residual petrol hydrocarbons in 25 samples
and detected petrol in two of the three carboys found from the cement sleepers near
the post no. 468/36, one of them being a white carboy with a white stopper bearing
the inscriptions, “fortune” in English whereas the other was a black carboy. One
plastic bottle with the word “brilliant” inscribed was detected to have HCl. The other
20 samples did not disclose the presence of any hydrocarbons or acid.
Despite this FSL report dated 20.3.2002, being with the Investigation Officer, the
first charge-sheet filed on 22.5.2002, did not make any specific allegation of the S6
being burnt by the use of petrol. Shri K.C.Bawa, the I.O. kept it vague - “At that time
the accused armed with deadly weapons and highly inflammable fluids filled in cans
and shouting slogans ' Pakistan Zindabad', ' Hindustan Murdabad', burnt down the
coach No. S-6…”.
The big question is why the I.O. refused to specify the fluid that was allegedly used
by the “conspirators” ???
To get an answer to this question, it is to noticed that initially the investigation began
in the right earnest. The two petrol pumps near the Godhra station were sealed by
the police on 27th Feb. 2002. The first pump was owned by M.H. & A Patel on
Vejalpur road and the other was owned by Asgarali qurban Hussein (kalabhai).
On 9.4.2002, 7 samples of petrol and diesel were collected from both these pumps
and panchnamas were made. These samples ( 4 samples of diesel marked as A, B, E
& F and 3 samples of petrol being marked as C, D (from kalabhai's pump) and H
(from M.H. & A Patel's pump. They were sent for forensic examination to find out
whether the petrol or diesel from these pumps could have been used to burn S6
coach.
In his report, FSL/EE/2002/c/442, dated 26.4.2002, Shri D.B.Talati, Assistant

Director, FSL, (at Sr. No. 286 of CS) while holding that A,B,E & F contained diesel and
that C,D and H contained petrol, stated that he could not give a clear opinion
whether the petrol detected in some samples in and around S6 as per the FSL report
dated 20.3.2002 and the petrol detected in the C,D & H samples were from the same
source!
The fatal blow to the “Petrol theory” came from the two employees of Kalabhai's
petrol pump, namely Shri Prabhatsinh G Patel and Ranjitsinh G Patel who in their
statement recorded u/s 162 on 10. 4.02, flatly denied having sold any loose petrol
to any body and in fact stated that they did not sell loose petrol from their pump.
Thus the police had no source from where they could allege that the accused had
procured the petrol. Strangely, the police did not question any employee of M.H. & A
Patel's petrol pump.
The Charge-sheet filed by K.C.Bawa on 22.5.2002, therefore created evidences to

establish that the S6 coach was burnt from outside by the use of some inflammable
liquid. For this purpose, Bawa “recorded” the statements of nine important eye
witnesses between 27th February, 2002 and 15.3.2002, namely, Shri Janaklal K
Dave, Rajeshbhai V Darji, Nitinkumar Harprasad Pathak, Dilipbhai U Dasariya,
Muralidhar R Mulchandani ( reportedly, the present Vice-President of Godhra
Nagarpalika), Dipakbhai M Soni, Harsukhlal T Advani, Chandrashekahr N Sonaiya
and Manoj H Advani. (at Sr. Nos 76 to 84 of CS)
All these nine persons, who declared themselves to be active members of V.H.P.
made identical statements to the effect that they had gone to the Godhra station in
the morning of 27.2.2002, to meet the Karsevaks who were coming from Ayodhya
and give them tea and breakfast.
They have then made the following identical statements: “ … the train was standing
near “A” cabin; at that time, men, women and children numbering around 900-1000
persons from signal falia, started running towards the stationary train while howling
and shouting; because of this me and other local activists ran towards where the
train was standing and reached “A” cabin and saw that people from signal falia came
running there with weapons like dhariya, sword, iron pipes and sticks. Others
started heavily stoning the train. These people were shouting like , 'sale hinduonko
kaat daalo, mandir banane jaate hai kaat daalo etc.. Five-six persons with carboys in
their hands were sprinkling the fluid on one coach and they set it on fire and we kept
standing at the side of A cabin.
In this mob, I saw from the village of Godhra, Shri Role Amin Hussein Hathila ….” The
nine eye witnesses thereafter, in their respective statements named around four
muslims each including Haji Bilal and Kalota. Thus 36 muslims were named by these
eyewitness and were arrested for burning down the coach from outside! Not a single
of these nine eye witnesses who claimed to be standing by the side of A cabin, said a
word about Binyamin Behra and others coming in the tempi with eight carboys of
petrol, climbing the S6 coach by cutting open the vestibules etc…
After creating the case of the burning of S6 coach from outside, K.C.Bawa started
discovering any number of carboys from around the A cabin with traces of Kerosene
to build up the case that the fluid used to burn S6 was “Kerosene”. Three carboys
were discovered between 29th March, 2002 to 5.4.2002 and these were allegedly
found from three accused, namely, Haji Bilal, Abdul Majid Dhantiya and Kasim
Biryani (Discovery panchnamas at Sr. Nos. 16 dt 29.3.02, 18 30.3.02 and 19 dt
5.4.02 of CS).
As Haji Bilal was considered to be the main conspirator at that time alongwith
Mohmad Hussein Kalota (President of Godhra Nagarpalika), the Kerosene theory
was accepted. Shri Talati in the report dated 26.4.02, had found the presence of
kerosene in these three carboys which were sent to him for examination!! The
Kerosene theory prevailed for sometime till beginning of July, 2002 but the new I.O.
Noel Parmar had more refined ideas and fuel in mind.
Even their star “eye witness” Shri Ajaykumar kanubhai Bariya, who for the first time
narrated the absurd story of accused entering S6 by cutting through the vestibule
between S6 and S7 coach in his statement u/s 164 on 9.7.2002, did not allege that
petrol was used to burn the S6 coach. This is what he said, “…after sometime I saw
Rafique Bhatuk come with the carbo and give it to Irfan bhopa and he told me , 'put
this carbo in the rickshaw'. I kept that carbo in the rickshaw as I was very scared.
The smell like kerosene was coming out from the carbo…”
The Government's version of the cause of fire The second and

third charge- sheet by Noel Parmar dated 20.9.2002 and
19.12.2002 converts Kerosene into petrol
The 2nd and the 3rd charge sheets read as follows “…As a part of pre-planned
conspiracy, Shaukat Ahmed Charkha alias Laloo and eight others had carried eight
20 litres carboys filled with petrol in the loading Rickshaw towards A Cabin along the
dirt road towards Ali Masjid…”
“.. In the meantime, Razak Kurkure and Salim Panwala had reached the train and
Kurkure poured petrol through the broken window of the toilet of S6 coach by
standing on the foot board of the door towards the engine side with Salim Panwala
lifting the carboy from below….”
“In the meantime, Laloo and Latika had also arrived and Latika had made 3-4 holes
in the stopper of 2 carboys and thereafter with the help of his knife had cut the
canvass of the vestibule between S6 and S7..”
“By making space through the cut, Latiko had climbed the iron steps between the
S6 and S7 coach and behind him Jabir Binyamin Behra had also climbed up…As the
corridor-door to enter the S6 was closed, Latiko had used force to open the door by
kicking it and Laloo had given 2 carboys to Latiko and Jabir Binyamin after making
holes near the stoppers…”
“Laloo had also climbed up by the same way and Rafiq Hussein Bhatuk gave him a
carboy. After entering S6, Laloo had opened the Godhra side rear door and through
this door, Rafiq and 3 others had entered with 3 carboys filled with petrol and poured
the petrol in the coach from the rear-side gallery of the S6 coach and got out through
the door…”
The 4th Charge-sheet added the terrorist conspiracy angle. The police version has
not qualitatively changed thereafter till the present 16 supplementary charge-sheet.
The Case of the 2nd and 3rd Charge-Sheet was “refined” by adding a “conspiracy”
story. The conspiracy was claimed to have been hatched on 26th February, 2002 by
Razak Kurkure, Salim Panwala, Haji Bilal and few others around 9pm in the evening
in room No. 8 of Aman Guest house owned by Razak Kurkure.
The conspiracy included the plan to burn down Sabarmati Express on 27th February,
02 and for that purpose 140 liters of Petrol was allegedly bought from Kalabhai's
Petrol pump in the night and kept in Kurkure's house. It is alleged that Maulana
Umarji had directed on 26th February, at around 9-10.30pm that S6 coach should
be burnt….
The primary motivation for the introduction of “Petrol” as the conspirators' fuel and
the burning of S6 coach from inside was the mischievous report of Dr. M.S.Dahiya
dated 17.5.2002, opining that the S6 coach could not be burned from outside but 60
liters of petrol would be required to be poured inside the coach to the burn the same,
did not reach Shri K.C.Bawa in time for him to realize that his theory of the coach
being burnt from outside with kerosene would contradict Dahiya”s report.
A huge amount of material ( 370 kilos) from inside the S6 coach was once again
collected on 1.5.2002 and sent for Forensic examination. The FSL report No.
2002/c/594 dated 17.5.2002 however failed to report any detection of petrol from
the burnt residues of the things inside the coach. One Yellow carboy however
showed some petrol though subsequently this carboy does not figure in the
subsequent story.
The entire “Petrol” theory hinges on Binayim Behras's “confession” u/s 164 dated
5.2.2003 to the effect that at about 9pm on 26th February, 2002, Razak Kurkure had
asked him to accompany him to bring petrol from the petrol pump of kalabhai.
Binayamin had gone there with few others in a popti colored tempi with seven
carboys of 20 liters each which were filled up at the pump and brought back and
kept in Razak Kurkures romm which was behind the Aman Guest house. ..this petrol
was used on 27th February to set fire to S6 coach!
This story of Binyamin Behra is “corroborated” by the statements u/s 162 as well as
u/s 164 of two employees of Kalabhai's pump who had allegedly sold the petrol to
Razak on 26th Feb. They were ranjitsinh J Patel and Shri Prabhatsinh G Patel. The
162 statement of both were recorded on 23.2.2003 whereas the s.164 statements
were recorded on 11.3.2003 and 12.3.2003 respectively.
In their statements both of them alleged that on 26Feb. 2002, at about 10pm in the
night Razak Kurkure had come on his M-80 alongwith a popti colored tempi. Salim
Panwala had paid for 140 liters of petrol and Ranjitbhai had filled up the seven
carboys with 140 liters of Petrol.
They said that they had earlier given statements to the police on 10.4.2002 but as
the police did not ask them whether anybody had taken loose petrol on 26th, they
had not disclosed the facts which they disclosed before the Magistrate on
11.3.2003! As the police had asked them only about 27th February, 2002, they
had said no!
Shockingly, the statements dated 10.4.2002 made by Prabhatbhai and Ranjitbhai

are produced with the Supplmentary Charge-sheet dated 16.4.2002 at pages
1831/2 and 1833/2 respectively. These two statement u/s 162 which were given by
the two persons on the very next day when the police had collected petrol samples
from Kalabhai's pump on 9.4.2002.
Prior to this charge-sheet, the two statements recorded on 10.4.2002 were never
produced before the court alongwith the charge-sheets and suppressed for over a year.
Apart from Jabir Binyamin Behra and the two employees from Kalabhai's petrol
pump another person, namely Shri Salim Zarda had allegedly accompanied Razak
on 26th Feb. to Kalabhai's petrol pump and he said that the tempi was carrying seven
or eight black carboys of 20 liters each and these were filled with petrol from
Kalabhai's etc..
Thus after a period of one year, petrol is rediscovered and the Kerosene given up.
But the problem lies precisely in this switch over from Kerosene to petrol on one
hand and from the burning of the coach from outside to the burning of the coach by
pouring petrol from inside! The contradictions are so glaring that the investigation
looks like a farce. The truth ofcourse is the biggest victim. But before dealing with
the contradiction, the evidence relied upon by the Government side is required to be
examined.
Confessions
Law of Confessions
Confessions: Law of Confessions
The primary evidence are the confessions of Jabir Binyamin Behra, Salim Zarda,
saukat pataliya and Mohmad Sakir Pataliya; Can these confessions can be used by
the Commission?
The law of confession has been recently reviewed by the Supreme Court in the
Parliament case (State Vs N Sandhu). The extracts of the judgment are reproduced
below:
Law of Confessions: State Vs Navjot Sandhu (2005)-11-SCC-662

“27. We start with the confessions. Under the general law of the land as reflected
in the Evidence Act, no confession made to a police officer can be proved against
an accused. “Confessions” which is a terminology used in criminal law is a
species of “admissions” as defined in Section 17 of the Evidence Act.
..Section 26 goes a step further and prohibits proof of confession made by any
person while he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the
immediate presence of a Magistrate. .
Law regarding confessions: State Vs Navjot Sandhu (2005)-11-

SCC-662
..Section 24 lays down the obvious rule that a confession made under inducement,
threat or promise becomes irrelevant in a criminal proceeding. Such inducement,
threat or promise need not be proved to the hilt. If it appears to the court that the
making of the confession was caused by any inducement, threat or promise
proceeding from a person in authority, the confession is liable to be excluded from
evidence. The expression “appears” connotes that the court need not go to the
extent of holding that the threat, etc. has in fact been proved.
If the facts and circumstances merging from the evidence adduced make it
reasonably probable that the confession could be the result of threat, inducement or
pressure, the court will refrain from acting on such confession, even if it be a
confession made to a Magistrate or a person other than a police officer..”
Law regarding confessions: Bharat V. State of U.P. (1971)3SCC 950

32. Hidayatullah, C.J., speaking for a three-Judge Bench observed thus:
“Confessions can be acted upon if the court is satisfied that they are voluntary and
that they are true. The voluntary nature of the confession depends upon whether
there was any threat, inducement or promise and its truth is judged in the context
of the entire prosecution case. The confession must fit into the proved facts and not
run counter to them…
Law regarding confessions: Haroon Haji Abdulla V. State of

Maharashtra
33. The same learned Judge observed in that a “retracted confession must be looked
upon with greater concern unless the reasons given for having made it in the first
instance are on the face of them false.” There was a further observation in the same
paragraph that retracted confession is a weak link against the maker and more so
against a co-accused…
Law regarding confessions: Pyare Lal Bhargava V. State of

Rajasthan (AIR-1963 ) (SCR pp.695-96)
Dealing with retracted confession, a four-Judge Bench of this Court speaking
through Subba Rao, J. clarified the legal position
“A retracted confession may form the legal basis of a conviction if the court is
satisfied that it was true and was voluntarily made. But it has been held that a court
shall not base a conviction on such a confession without corroboration.
It is not a rule of law, but is only rule of prudence that under no circumstances can
such a conviction be made without corroboration, for a court may, in a particular
case, be convinced of the absolute truth of a confession and prepared to act upon it
without corroboration; but it may be laid down as a general rule of practice that it is
unsafe to rely upon a confession, much less on a retracted confession, unless the
court is satisfied that the retracted confession is true and voluntarily made and has
been made corroborated in material particulars.
Law regarding confessions: Use of confession under POTA

against a co-accused
We are, therefore, of the view that having regard to all these weighty considerations,
the confession of a co-accused ought not to be brought within the sweep of Section
32(1). As a corollary, it follows that the confession of the first and second accused in
this case recorded by the police officer under section 32(1), are of no avail against
the co-accused or against each other.
We also agree with the High Court that such confessions cannot be taken into
consideration by the Court under section 30 of the Evidence Act. The reason is that
the confession made to a police officer or the confession made while a person is in
police custody, cannot be proved against such person, not to speak of the co-
accused, in view of the mandate of Section 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State submits that there is no conflict
between Section of POTA and Section 30 of the evidence Act and therefore the
confession recorded under Section 32(1) of POTA can be taken into consideration
against the co-accused, at least to corroborate the other evidence on record or to
lend assurance thereto
There is no difficulty in accepting the contention that section 30 of the Evidence Act
can also play its part in a case of trial under POTA, especially when the other offences
under IPC are also the subject matter of trial. But a confession to the police officer by
a person in police custody is not within the realm of Section 30 of the evidence Act
and therefore such a confession cannot be used against the co-accused even under
section of the evidence Act.
We do not think that the theory of agency can be extended thus far, that is to say, to
find all the conspirators guilty of the actual offences committed in execution of the
common design even if such offences were ultimately committed by some of them,
without the participation of other.
We are of the view that those who committed the offences pursuant to the
conspiracy by indulging in various overt acts will be individually liable for those
offences in addition to being liable for criminal conspiracy, but, the non-participant
conspirators cannot be found guilty of the offence or offences committed by the
other conspirators.
There is hardly any scope for the application of the principle of agency in order to
find the conspirators guilty of a substantive offence not committed by them. Criminal
offences and punishments therefore are governed by the statute. The offender will
be liable only if he comes within the plain terms of the penal statute. Criminal liability
for an offence cannot be fastened by way of analogy or by extension of a common
law principle.
…The very decision of Maj.E.G.Barsay referred by Their Lordships makes it clear that
“for individual offences, all the conspirators may not be liable though they are all
guilty for the offence of conspiracy.”
..”Conspiracy to commit a crime itself is punishable as a substantive offence and

every individual offence committed pursuant to the conspiracy is separate and
distinct offence for which individual offenders are liable to punishment, independent
of the conspiracy..”
It was not held in those cases that the same principle of agency should be stretched
further to make all the conspirators liable for the offensive acts done pursuant to the
conspiracy, irrespective of their role participation in the ultimate offensive acts…
The offence cannot be spelt out by applying the principle of agency if the statute
does not say so. For instance, in the case of Section 34 IPC, the constructive liability
for the crime is specifically fastened on each of those who participate in the crime in
furtherance of the common intention. But section120-B does not convey that idea.
From the above principles laid down by the Apex Court it is clear that unless and until
the confessions are established to be given voluntarily, the confessions do not have
any evidentiary value. Further, the confession u/s 32 of POTA cannot be used against
any co-accused and can be used for corroboration and not as substantive evidence.
Further, a retracted confession cannot be used at all unless the confessions are
proved to be voluntarily given in the first instance and it would be used only for the
purpose of corroboration.
Retractions
In the instant case, Shri Jabir Binyamin Behra has retracted his confession before the
POTA court on 28.7.2003 and recorded by the POTA Court. Order has been produced
with list. He has also complained that the confession has been taken forcibily and
that his relatives have been threatened. Binyamin has also sent an affidavit to this
Commission dated 19.1.2005, produced with the list complaining of torture and
coercion to extract his confession. The acknowledgment card has also been
produced. Thus the confession is wholly involuntary and therefore cannot be relied
upon.
Salim Zarda has be a written application before the POTA court has complained
about torture and coercion for extracting the confession and has retracted the same.
The copy of the application has been produced with the list.
Shri Saukat farouque Pataliya has also retracted his statement before the POTA
court on 28.7.2003 complaining that the confession was recorded on a blank sheet
and that he was lured and induced to give the statement and the police had
threatened to beat his wife. Saukat has also filed Affidavit before this Commission
sent by R.P.A.D on 28.1.2005.
Mohmad Sakir's confession has not been produced and as per information he has
also retracted.
So far as the statements made by persons who are not accused like, Ajay Bariya,
Prabhatsinh Gulabsinh Patel, Ranjitsinh Jodhabhai Patel are concerned, such
statements cannot be used unless they are proved and the deponents are allowed to
be crossed in appropriate forum.
So far as Anwar Kalandar is concerned, he had come before this Commission to give
his deposition but was prevented from doing so by the police. With the permission
of the Commission his affidavit has been taken on record at exhibit 37343 dated
7.4.2005.
The Government side did not want to cross examine Shri Kalandar and therefore the
content of the Affidavit is presumed to be admitted by the Government. In the said
Affidavit, Shri Kalandar has described in details as to the inhuman torture and the
threat of encounter that he was subjected to for extracting the statements from him.
He has categorically denied the facts recorded in his statements.
Shockingly, Shri Sikandar, whose statement has been produced as evidence at Sr

No. 7 of the compilation, is also shown as an absconding accused right from the first
charge sheet and his name appears at Sr. No. 34 in the 9th Supplementary CS!
The moot question however is as to whether, the Commission which is performing

an administrative task of fact finding will have the jurisdiction to first decide as to
whether, the confessions and statements u/s 164 are voluntary or not for the
purpose of relying upon the same. As the matter stands, the competent Court has
yet to decide on this issue and therefore the Commission is excluded from deciding
this issue and/or relying upon such statements/ confessions as evidence.
Contradictions:
Whose Conspiracy?
Contradictions: Whose Conspiracy?
The Chief Minister on 27th February had made the following press statement which
was published all over Gujarat:
“The abominable event that has occurred in Godhra does not befit any civilized
society, is not a communal event but is an one sided collective terrorist attack by one
community ….. He further said that this incident is not a simple incident of violence
or communal event but is a preplanned incident….”
The above statement of the Chief executive of the state had set the directions of the
investigation. The investigators of the Godhra case are not investigating but making
every effort to prove the Chief executive right!
The conspiracy theory has been developed without the slightest application of mind.
By using torture, coercion and POTA, absurd confessions are extracted that are
impossible in real life. As pointed out earlier, it is impossible to stop the train from
outside by rotating the alarm disc because of the change of design but the
investigators forced such a “confession” to support their absurd theory that Salim
Panwala instigated the other muslim hawkers to stop the train at A cabin as a part of
a “pre-planned conspiracy”!
While extracting this absurd confession from Anwar Kalandar, Iliyas Hussein Mulla,
several other blunders were made. Anwar is made to say (at Sr. No. 338 of CS) that
the first chain pulling was done for the purpose of picking up the left over Karsevaks
and after the train restarted at 7.48am, Salim came running from the Parcel office
side and urged Anwar to stop the train as a Muslim girl was being abducted…
Anwar also states that Iliyas Hussein Mulla and Hussein Suleman also came running
with Salim to the pani-ni-parab where Anwar was standing and due to the urging by
Salim, the three of them jumped onto Sabarmati Express in three different
compartments. Anwar does not say that Salim told him to stop the train at A cabin…!
Iiyas Hussein in his statement dated 2.8.2002 at Sr. No. 338 however he was doing
business in the S9 coach of Sabarmati Express when it first arrived in the station and
he further stated that at that time, Salim Panwala was standing near the Bookstall
on the platform No.1 before the first chain pulling. He states that Salim told him to
get up in the S9 coach and pull the chain near the parcel office! (not at A cabin!)
He further states that he did pull the chain at parcel office and then ran outside the
station and went to Signal falia and stood near Aman guest house. He did not know
where Saukat and Hussein had got down.
Iliyas further states that during the period when the train had stopped near the
parcel office (ie. Between 7.48 am to 7.55am) Razak Kurkure came and told him to
once again pull the chain to stop the train near A cabim. Iiyas then came through the
hole in the wall in front of Aman guest house and jumped into the running train in S4
coach. He had only seen Salim from far.. Thus Iliyas wholly contradicts Anwar who
had said that Salim had told Anwar, Iliyas and Hussein together to stop the train.
Interestingly, Jabir Biniyamin Behra states that while the stone throwing was going
on from behind the parcel office, he alongwith others had ran towards the Aman
guest house where he had seen Razak Kurkure and Salim Panwala coming out of the
room from the back the door of a guest house room!
He further said that he and others were told to bring the tempi carrying the carbos
behind A cabin and while going towards A cabin he also saw Salim Panwala in M-80
alongwith Razak.. Thus whereas, Anwar and Iliyas states having seen Salim Panwala
in the station even upto 7.55 ie till the train started after the chain pulling, Jabir puts
Salim inside the Aman guest house during the stone throwing period and thereafter.
The main executor of the conspiracy Salim Panwala seem to be omnipresent.
Iiyas who brags to be an expert chain-puller, states that on the second occasion, he
had jumped on the foot board of S4 coach in the platform side but he had to go
through a cut in the canvas between the vestibule of S4 and S5 to reach the northern
side in order that he could reach and rotate the alarm disc which was only on the
northern side! The expert does seem to know that there are two alarm discs on both
southern as well as northern side at one end of every coach manufactured in India.
Please see the picture of S6 coach. Lies have their own ways to surface!
The most glaring omission in the story of the prosecution is that they have not stated
what the original plan was of the conspirators in case the train was not late! The VHP
has alleged that in case the train came at right time in the midnight, the plan was to
burn the entire train in Chanchelav, a village about 12 to 14 kms from Godhra
towards Dahod. Sabarmati has no halt there, could VHP disclose how the
conspirators were planning to stop the train in the midnight when no one being
permitted to even board the train right from Lucknow onwards!!
The fact is that if the Karsevaks had not pulled the chain to pick up their left out
colleagues from the Godhra station, the Sabarmati would have passed through
Godhra and saved the nation of one of its greatest tragedies.
While the entire theory of the prosecution revolves around the allegation that
several Muslims including Jabir Binyamin Behra had cut through the canvas of S7 to
make entry, there is absolutely no proof of such an absurd claim.
Nine active members of VHP led by Muralidhar Mulchandani who were standing next
to the A cabin right from the beginning did not see or make any allegation that any
person had climbed S7 and cut the canvas. The ASM Rajendra Meena who was in the
A cabin also does not make any such allegation and in fact deposes that he did not
see any one climbing the train. If the canvas was the most vital piece of evidence to
prove this fact, why did not the police collect the same?? Why was it permitted to be
sold for a few rupees as scrap??
How does the prosecution explain the statement recorded by it from the parcel office
clerk at Sr. No.72 of CS on 1.3.2002 to the effect that after the chain pulling in the
station, the passengers were pelting stones at the people behind the parcel office…
Where are the Nine 20 liters black carboys that are supposed have been filled up
with petrol and brought by a tempi behind the A cabin and finally from which petrol
was allegedly poured inside the coach?? The FSL has found three carboys with
kerosene and three small carboys with petrol. Why didn't the police find a single one
of the nine 20 litres carboys. The FSL report at Sr. No. 292,(FSL/594 dated
17.5.2002) in its copnclusion No.2 clearly stated that the burnt residues of the
materials inside the coach did not have any residue of “plastic container”
How will the prosecution explain the fact that the two small plastic containers which
were found to have petrol in it were found not near the coach but across the tracks
near the post 468/36 which was nearest to the Mallas Auto garage that was burnt
down by the passengers and Karsevaks around 11am on 27.2.2002. Two trucks were
burnt with that petrol. How did the passengers get the petrol??
Why did State control Gandhinagar P. I. Barot inform Gandhinagar at 9.35 am on
27.2.2002 that at Godhra the Kar Sevaks have set on fire three coaches of
Sabarmati Express train and how many have received injuries are not known. So
be vigilant?
The Burning of
S-6 Coach-Evidences
The Burning of S-6 Coach-Evidences
Exhibit No.149: Maheshbhai Cheljibhai Chaudhary
Residing at : Dhanodia Vas, Punasan , Dist.Mehsana
The fire had not reached the spot where I was sitting. but there was lot of smoke. The smoke was coming from
the left side of the rear end.
When one person jumped out through window, my eyes were covered by smoke and therefore I could not
see how many persons had jumped out through window but I jumped out (through window) and fell on the
ground.
I had fallen on the ground. When I fell down, I was totally scared I did not notice as to how many other
Karsevaks had jumped out.
“I became unconscious on the ground immediately after jumping. After some time I regained my
consciousness. I was taken to Godhra civil hospital.
While I had jumped out and fallen on the ground, I was not beaten by anybody nor was I threaten of beating
by anybody. Before jumping out from the coach I had not seen any fluid on the floor of the coach near the
place where I was sitting.”
“While I was inside the coach, I had not seen any flame.After jumping out through window and after regaining
some consciousness, I had seen flames on outer side all around the coach. When I regained consciousness,
the police and fire brigade personnel had come to the spot…”
Exhibit-150 .
Name: Savitaben Tribhovandas village: Manipur, Dhokabari, Kadi, District : Mehsana
We had purchased Batakawada from the stall which was exactly opposite to S-6 coach. When the train started
from Godhra station some Karsevaks rushed in our coach and they told that a quarrel had taken place with
some tea vendor on the platform.
Exhibit-151
Name : Babubhai Somdas Patel,
resident of village Gamanpura, District : Mehsana
I had not seen any person in Muslim dress or with beard inside the coach. Nor had I seen any such Muslim
rushing inside the coach.When I came out of the coach the door on southern side was closed.
ExhExhibit-150 .
Name: Savitaben Tribhovandas village: Manipur, Dhokabari, Kadi, District : Mehsana
I do not know whether the quarrel had taken place with the same vendor from whom we had purchased
Batakawada.
I had not seen any person coming inside the coach from outside and pouring any fluid.
Exhibit-151
Name : Babubhai Somdas Patel,
resident of village Gamanpura, District : Mehsana
The smoke was coming from the rear side of the coach i.e. from the guard's end. No smoke was coming from
the engine end. From the block where I was sitting, I had not seen any smoke coming.
I had not seen any fire at that place. One window on the southern side of the block where I was sitting, was
broken. The glass and the shutter both were broken. The window had broken after starting of the stone
pelting…
Exhibit No.152
Name : Dwarkabhai Shankarbhai Patel, Gamanpura, District : Mehsana
I came out through window of the third cubicle. The smoke was coming from the rear end of the coach. Till I
came out of the coach, I had not seen any flames.
As long as I was inside the coach, I had not noticed any fluid having been poured inside the coach. I had not
seen any person sprinkling any fluid or putting fire on the coach.
Exhibit No.153
Name : Jayantibhai Umeddas Patel
Resident of village Gamanpura, Mehsana,
I had not seen anything coming through window. After closure of the window, smoke had started. Due to
smoke I had moved towards engine side.
The window of the cubicle where I was sitting, was not broken but it was broken in the nearby cubicle.
Babubhai and Dwarkabhai were sitting on the seats ahead of me towards engine side. I can not say whether
the window of the cubicle where Babubhai was sitting, was broken or not.
Exhibit No.153
Resident of village Gamanpura, Mehsana
I had seen some people on the back side moving towards engine. I did not go out to enquire the reason for
smoke.
The smell of the smoke was like that of half-burnt scooter or rickshaw. The smell was like that of burning
rubber. It was also like burning of luggage. My bag of cotton cloth was also burnt in the incident
Exhibit No.153
resident of village Gamanpura, Mehsana
I had not seen smoke coming from the engine side. Till I came out of the coach, I had not seen any material
burning on the floor. As long as I was inside the coach, I had not seen any person pouring any fluid inside the
coach from carboy.
I do not know as to how the smoke had taken place. I did not enquire for the reason of the smoke. The people
on back side of the coach were talking that the coach was burning from inside and therefore all should run.
Exhibit-159
Name : Ramfersinh Babusinh Rajput, residing at : Desaiwada, Kadi, District : Mehsana.
The window was broken due to stone pelting. After 10 to 15 minutes of my climbing on upper berth the
window was broken.
Till then I had not seen any burning torch coming inside and till then there was no smoke. The smoke had
come from the rear end of the coach. The smoke had come from the back side of the place where I was
sitting…
Exhibit-159
After getting up, first of all I went towards left side but could not find any place and therefore I came back. I
had seen many people of the coach running helter skelter.
The flames were moving towards seats from the window and because of the flame, my ear was burnt.
Exhibit-159
At that time there was no fire on the floor of the coach. At that time there was no fire on the upper berths and
luggage stacked thereon.
I had not seen any person throwing inflammable fluid inside the coach. While I was moving all around for
getting out, I had not seen any inflammable fluid having been thrown on the floor.
Exhibit-159
Name : Ramfersinh Babusinh Rajput,
residing at Desaiwada, Kadi, District : Mehsana.
I can not say whether the fire had taken place in the coach due to throwing of burning rags…After 10 to 15
minutes of my coming out of the coach, the entire coach was engulfed by fire…
Exhibit-164
name : Lalanprasad, Kishorilal Chorasia,
Residing at 8 Tilaknagar, Vastral Road, Ahmedabad
...The smoke was coming from the place near seat no.72. The smoke was coming from the spot after leaving
three rows from my seat i.e. after berth no.24. The smoke was coming from guard's end.
Seeing the smoke I got down from the upper berth with my nephew with intention to get down from the coach
if the situation worsened…
Exhibit-162
Name : Ashwinbhai Govindbhai Patel
Residing at Ranip, Ahmedabad..
I had seen some people in the mob pouring something from the carboy on the rags and making it wet.
Thereafter I had seen a person throwing burning rags inside coach.
After some flames were seen in S-6 coach. The people inside coach were scared and were getting down.
Exhibit-162
I also got down from the coach. I had seen passengers getting down from S-6 coach. I had seen one
passenger with burns coming out of the coach. Others passengers who got down from the coach were lifted
and kept aside.
The mob on the platform side of the coach was shouting `Maro Kapo'. When I got down I had seen some
police personnel…
Exhibit-162
…Nobody from the mob had come to the side where the passengers were standing and they had not stopped
any passenger from getting down from the train. When I got down from the coach, the coach S-6 was
burning…
Exhibit-164
name : Lalanprasad, Kishorilal Chorasia,
Residing at 8 Tilaknagar, Vastral Road, Ahmedabad
My clothes were burnt. The police have taken custody of my clothes. I had not seen any person inside the
coach putting any inflammable fluid. As long as I was conscious I had seen something being thrown inside the
coach near berth no.24.
I can not describe the burning material which thrown because I was not in sound state of mind. I could see the
things being thrown inside the coach because I was sitting on upper berth…
Shri Raju Bishankumar Bhargava, Police Superintendent of Godhra, deposed as under :
I had reached the burning coach at about 8. I had seen people with black faces and with some burn injuries on
the head, coming out of the coach.... I had seen ten to twelve passengers coming out of that coach....
They were coming out of the door on the Godhra side.... The injuries which I noticed on the passengers were
on the upper part of their bodies.... I had not noticed any injury below their waist portion.
Shri Raju Bishankumar Bhargava, Police
Superintendent of Godhra, deposed as under :
I had not seen any raising of flames in the area of that coach which I could see from the door. I had seen
only smoke in that area....
I had not noticed any flames on the floor of the area between the two doors. I had also not smelt any
inflammable fuel like petrol kerosene, diesel etc.
Shri Raju Bishankumar Bhargava Police
Some persons were able to get down of the coach but according to my understanding others were not
able to get out of that coach because they got suffocated....
As I did not hear any cry for help from the passengers trapped inside that coach I presumed that they had
become unconscious and therefore they were not raising any cries.
Shri Raju Bishankumar Bhargava, Police
I had not seen any person from the Muslim community preventing the passengers in S-6 and S-7 from coming
out of those coaches.
No passenger had complained that they were stopped from coming out of those coaches.
Hariprasad Joshi, in berth No. 43 told the whole
story:
Thereafter the smoke had reached the place where I was standing inside the coach and as I inhaled the
smoke that reached there, I got suffocated and had fallen down on the floor but as the smoke was less in the
lower side, my breathing was restored and I found relief…
story:
As there was a huge rush near berth no.72 of the coach, to save my life, I had traveled to the opposite side
towards seat No1 by crawling on the floor and had reached to right hand side door .
backside of my jacket near the shoulder and jacket cap had got burnt due to flames of fire. I had burns on
both the ears and on the face and I had jumped down of the coach from the door near Seat No.1.
story:
The moment I jumped out of the coach and fell on the ground my breathing was restored on getting the
fresh air and it had then struck me that my wife was inside the coach. Therefore I had walked up to the side
near the seat where my self and my wife were sitting near the window.
Extracts from the
decision of the Central
Review Committee
Extracts from the decision of the Central Review Committee
The recovery of common weapons like swords, Dharias etc. from the members of
the mob and also that no attempt was made by the members to use these weapons
for attempting to kill passengers indicates that the mob was not part of the alleged
conspiracy to set on fire coach S/6 and to kill passengers
Regarding the conspiracy alleged to have been hatched during the night of 26th
February, 2002 at Aman Guest House, this theory of conspiracy does not seem to be
probable on the case of prosecution itself. The cause of the incident is a quarrel of
one of the karsevaks with the tea vendor/hawker of Muslim community at the
platform itself when the train halted.
Had there been any conspiracy in existence, the passengers traveling on coach S/6
would not have been allowed to disembark the compartment for taking tea and
breakfast. The crowd along with inflammable material which was to be used for burning
coach S/6 would have been present at the platform itself in front of coach S/6 keeping in
view the short duration of the halt of the train at Godhra Railway Station
The assembly of the crowd, which according to the prosecution itself were members
of the conspiracy, was initially in front of coach S/2 and not in front of S/6 which was
conspired to be burnt.
Had there been any prior conspiracy in existence to burn coach S/6, the said coach
would have been surrounded by the conspirators from all the sides but the
prosecution version itself shows otherwise. The offside of the coach was left open
and the passengers alighted from that side of the compartment.
The prosecution has tried to implicate all the persons whether they were present at
the time of incident or not to face the consequences of the draconian law of POTA.
In our opinion this is a simple case of unlawful assembly committing various offences
under the Indian Penal Code and other Special Acts but certainly not under the
provisions of POTA. On the well established principle of appreciating the special
provisions of terrorist law, so called members of this mob are exempt from the
requisite mens rea.
The words of the Supreme Court in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur's Case (1994) 4 SCC 602
are relevant, “A terrorist activity does not merely arise by causing disturbance of law
and order or of public order. The fall out of the intended activity must be such that it
travels beyond the capacity of the ordinary law enforcement agencies to tackle it
under the ordinary penal law…
After appreciating the evidence made available to us and considering the respective
arguments of the learned counsel of the accused persons and the learned Special
Public Prosecutor, this Committee is of the considered view that this incident had
taken place on the date, time and place as alleged by the prosecution but certainly
not as a part of conspiracy envisaged under the provisions of POTA. 2002.
Flash Over
Flash Over
• by Rob Aldcorn, Feb. 22, 2006
• Rapid Fire Progress
• Flashover - Backdraft - Fire Gas Ignition
• “Marleau had become separated from his fellow firefighters when a room in
an apartment building suddenly exploded into flames in what is commonly
called a flashover or backdraft…Capt. Marcel Marleau, 47, died battling a fire
in a Montreal apartment building…when he was caught in a backdraft, or a
sudden explosion of flames.
• A 28-year veteran of the force, Marleau was remembered as a dedicated

firefighter and father by family, friends and thousands of colleagues.”
FLASHOVER
• A sudden and sustained transition of a growing compartment fire to a fully
developed fire that occurs when all of the combustible materials present
reach their auto ignition temperature. Flame-over or roll-over can be an
indication that flashover is imminent. It is important to note that
ventilation may initially cause the fire to burn more intensely and as
a result more heat energy may be released into the compartment
than can be lost through the ventilation opening.
WARNING SIGNS FOR FLASHOVER

Flashover can occur when a developing compartment fire produces flames in the
thermal layer near the ceiling. The flames in the thermal layer can roll or dance across
the ceiling as the unburned products of combustion ignite and burn off more
completely. Heat will increase and force firefighters to the floor. This lowering of the
thermal layer is often accompanied by the sudden lowering of an existing smoke layer.
BACKDRAFT
A ventilation induced ignition of the gases or combustible products accumulated in
an under ventilated compartment fire. With the introduction of ventilation the
accumulation of unburned particles suddenly ignite and can blast out of the opening
used for ventilation.
WARNING SIGNS FOR BACKDRAFT
Intact windows can show heavy smoke staining or glass crazing. There can be
smoke issuing from the eaves or pulsing smoke movements in and out of cracks and
openings. Upon opening a door or a window there may be a sudden inrush or draw
of air that may create a 'twister' effect in the smoke. Blue flames may be visible in
areas separate from the main fire and heavy smoke exiting a doorway or a window
may roll back into tiny mushroom shapes.
ASETA MODEL FOR
PREDICTING THE
SMOKE FILLING
PROCESS IN A ROOM
OF FIRE ORIGIN
ASETA MODEL FOR PREDICTING THE SMOKE FILLING PROCESS
IN A ROOM OF FIRE ORIGIN
The smoke filling process is an essential feature of any zone-type compartment fire
model. It basically involves three zones: the fire's combustion zone, the plume, and
the upper smoke layer. The last section presented a relatively detailed qualitative
description of many of the processes which make up the overall dynamic
compartment fire environment.
• The model presented was originally developed
• within the context of life safety in fires. 1'2S24In particular it was developed to
provide estimates of the Available Safe Egress Time (ASET) in compartments
of fire origin, where the available safe egress time is defined as the length of the
• time interval between fire detection successful slam and the onset of life
safety hazard. Accordingly, the model has been given the name ASET.
Source of ASET MODEL

Conclusions by
Jan Sangharsh Manch
Conclusions by Jansangharsh Manch
A. The official version of Government of Gujarat regarding the burning of the

coach as developed through 9 charge-sheets does not inspire any confidence
since the said version suffers from innumerable contradictions obvious on the
face of records.
B1. The theory that Razak Kurkuyre, Salim Panwala and few other Muslims of
Signal Falia had conspired on 26.2.02 at about 9pm in the Aman guest house to
burn down S6 coach at the behest of Maulana Umarji and for that purpose had
bought 140 liters of Petrol at 10pm and hid the same in Razak's house and after
coming to know that the train was running late, organized the burning of S6 on
27.2.2002 at 8am
B2. by first mobilsing a mob of 1000 to stone the train and thereafter sending
a few boys inside the coach by cutting thru the vestibule canvas with 140 liters
petrol and pouring the same inside and then setting fire to the coach etc suffers
from the following obvious defects:
i) Absolutely no indication as to what was the original plan in case the train
had arrived at the right time;
ii) Absolutely no evidence as to how the conspirators came to know that

Karsevaks were traveling by the Sabarmati express which would reach
Godhra on 27.2.02. The police and the intelligence department consistently
claims they had no such information!
iii) In the first three charge-sheets prepared by two separate I.O.s absolutely
no allegations regarding the buying of 140 liters of Petrol from Hakim's
pump.
iv) On the contrary, the two employees (Prabhat Patel and the other) had
given their statement before the police on 10.4.02 but did not mention
such a huge sale of Petrol on 26.2.02 and went to a Magistrate to make in
March, 2003 to make such allegations!
V) There is specific evidence on record to show that Karsevaks had pulled the
chain and stopped the train in the station and not the Muslims!
Vi) The FSL has not found any petrol hydrocarbon in 500kg or so burnt
materials from inside the coach and no “Black Carboy” was found any
where inside or outside in which 140 ,liters of Petrol was carried!
vii. FSL did not find any remains of any carboy inside the coach. Where did
the eight carboy in which the 140 liters of Petrol was allegedly carried
vanish?
viii) In case 140 liters of Petrol was actually poured inside a coach and set on
fire, it would create a massive explosion specially the coach being a
confined space.
ix) In case of such a burning would a single passenger come out alive? In the
present case over 70 passngers with superficial injuries above the knee
have survived. Can such a pattern of burning of injured passengers be
explained by fluid induced burning ?
The burning of the S6 Coach of Sabarmati Express on 27th February,

2002 was not by way of any preplanned conspiracy by the Muslims. It
was not due to petrol or inflammable fluid that S6 had burnt but
due to the flash fire that followed the initial ignition. The luggage
caught fire thereafter and burnt the coach at a slower rate.
Jan Sangharsh Manch

104, Maharanapratap Complex, Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. Ph. 079-26577280
www.nsm.org.in

On The Right Track To Godhra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

On The Right Track To Godhra

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

On The Right Track To Godhra

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ON THE RIGHT TRACK TO

A Report on the Burning of S6

JAN SANGHARSH MANCH

• POTO was added on 3.3.2002 and withdrawn on 25.3.2002

• On 5.2.2003, a confession is recordd u/s 164 of Cr.P.C.

• On this piece of evidence Mauluvi Hussein Ibrahim Umarji was arrested at

• Who was this “International Terrorist”?

• He met Atal Behari at Godhra on 4.4.2002

• QUITE AN OFFICIAL TERRORIST!!!

Starting for Ayodhya

Three groups of about 2000 each of Ram Bhakt Karsevaks were to go to

TRAVEL OF KARSEVAKS FROM GUJARAT TO AYODHYA:

In fact there is absolutely no evidence either documentary or oral on the record of

Reserved and Unreserved Passengers :

If the Government of Gujarat's concocted story is to be believed that 140 litres of

'A' Cabin and the Station

Altercations between Karsevaks and Vendors

Departure of Sabarmati Express and left-out Karsevaks

Attempt by SRP to control the Conflict

I am performing my duty as RPF Police Constable at Godhra. My duty was to do

The passengers who were shouting and throwing stones, were

Mechanism of Alarm Chain Pulling (ACP) and putting right the

The bifurcated rod of alarm disc of S6

The driver, Shri Rajendrarao, in his cross-examination at Ex. 37 has

Rajendraprasad Mina, ASM, was watching from the Window:

On 27-2-2002 I was on duty as Assistant Station Master at `A' cabin of Godhra

I am performing my duty as RPF Police Constable at Godhra. My duty was to do

It is to be noted that no other independent railway personnel had come forward to

The three possibilities are :

There were actual chain pulling inside the coaches

Two victims: One from S6 the other from Naroda Patiya.

JANSANGHARSH MANCH'S ENDEAVOUR IS TO END THIS MINDLES HATRED

'A' Cabin and the Station

Fire Brigade at S6 Coach

Shri Raju Bishankumar Bhargava, Police Superintendent of Godhra, deposition before

In his report, FSL/EE/2002/c/442, dated 26.4.2002, Shri D.B.Talati, Assistant

The Charge-sheet filed by K.C.Bawa on 22.5.2002, therefore created evidences to

The Government's version of the cause of fire The second and

Shockingly, the statements dated 10.4.2002 made by Prabhatbhai and Ranjitbhai

Law of Confessions: State Vs Navjot Sandhu (2005)-11-SCC-662

Law regarding confessions: State Vs Navjot Sandhu (2005)-11-

Law regarding confessions: Bharat V. State of U.P. (1971)3SCC 950

Law regarding confessions: Haroon Haji Abdulla V. State of

Law regarding confessions: Pyare Lal Bhargava V. State of

Law regarding confessions: Use of confession under POTA

..”Conspiracy to commit a crime itself is punishable as a substantive offence and

Shockingly, Shri Sikandar, whose statement has been produced as evidence at Sr

The moot question however is as to whether, the Commission which is performing

Residing at : Dhanodia Vas, Punasan , Dist.Mehsana

Exhibit No.149: Maheshbhai Cheljibhai Chaudhary

Residing at : Dhanodia Vas, Punasan , Dist.Mehsana

Exhibit No.149: Maheshbhai Cheljibhai Chaudhary

Residing at : Dhanodia Vas, Punasan , Dist.Mehsana

Exhibit No.149: Maheshbhai Cheljibhai Chaudhary

Residing at : Dhanodia Vas, Punasan , Dist.Mehsana

Name: Savitaben Tribhovandas village: Manipur, Dhokabari, Kadi, District : Mehsana

Name : Babubhai Somdas Patel,

resident of village Gamanpura, District : Mehsana

Name: Savitaben Tribhovandas village: Manipur, Dhokabari, Kadi, District : Mehsana