Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Hashimpura (Meerut) massacre case after 27 Years

Prosecution bases final argument on official accounts, forensic reports

Kaunain Sherrif | New Delhi : A Delhi court on Tuesday began the final arguments in the 27-year old Hashimpura massacre case. The special prosecutor, based on circumstantial and direct evidence, argued for prosecution of 16 Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) for allegedly killing about 42 Muslim men.
Special Prosecutor Satish Tamta began his argument on circumstantial evidence of kidnapping of the Muslim men from Meerut’s Hashimpura Mohalla.
He based his argument on testimonies of 14 witnesses to the incidents at Hindol Canal and Upper Ganga Canal Murad Nagar, where wounded persons and bodies were recovered.
Tamta then read depositions of top Uttar Pradesh government officials to establish that the truck entered 41st Vahini, PAC, Ghaziabad.
He read out depositions of then District Magistrate of Ghaziabad Naseem Zaidi, Superintendent of Police V N Rai and four other officials.
“These are testimonies of very senior officials. Looking at the nature of duties assigned and the positions they held, it is not believable that they will make any false allegation,” he said.
The special prosecutor then corroborated the scientific evidence in the case. To establish the movement of the truck from Hashimpura mohalla to the PAC Ghaziabad, the prosecutor referred to the vehicle’s running register.
The prosecutor also argued that reports of Central Forensic Science Laboratory and a ballistic expert show that a depression was found in the truck due to a “projectile”, which indicates shooting inside the vehicle.

Hashimpura case: Final argument
s begin

New Delhi | August 14, 2014: A Delhi court Wednesday started final arguments in the 27-year-old massacre case, in which 42 Muslim youths from the Hashimpura locality of Meerut were allegedly taken to the outskirts of Ghaziabad by the personnel of the Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) and shot dead.
Special public prosecutor Satish Tamta initiated the final arguments and bought to the court’s notice the events that unfolded in the alleged kidnapping of Muslim youths form Meerut district in Uttar Pradesh. The prosecutor also bought to court’s notice the FIR filed at Link Road police station by the two survivors of the massacre.
In an hour long argument, the special public prosecutor read the statements of all the witnesses in the case.
The trail of Hashimpura massacre case was transferred by the Supreme Court in 2002 from Ghaziabad to the sessions court in Delhi. The next date of hearing is on August 16

Witnesses heard, final argument to begin

New Delhi: September 17, 2014: Twenty-seven years after Hashimpura massacre during communal riots in UP’s Meerut district, a Delhi court on Tuesday examined the last prosecution witness in the case and will now start hearing final arguments.
Prosecution witness Dr Subodh Tyagi was ‘recalled’ by the court Tuesday and ‘further’ examined in the case.
Dr Tyagi was working as a medical officer at SVBP Hospital in Meerut in May 1987 when the alleged incident took place.
According to the prosecutor, it is alleged that Leela Dhar, PAC constable, had admitted himself in the SVBP Hospital on 23 May, 1987 when he sustained an eye injury during the alleged incident when 19 accused PAC constables took about fifty muslim labourers in a van from Hashimpura Mohalla in Meerut to the Upper Ganga canal in Murad Nagar, Ghaziabad, and allegedly shot them.
The doctor was recalled to examine the original documents which contained entries made by the hospital officials of the constable’s admission.
“These documents were not recorded. The UP officials had not even forwarded photocopies. This is why the doctor has been called to examine the original documents,” said Senior Public Prosecutor Satish Tamta.
On Tuesday, the store keeper of the record room of SBVP Hospital, Meerut produced the original casualty admission register and the original accident register that contained the entries made by the hospital of ‘patient’ Leela Dhar.
“I have seen the above mentioned original accident register. The page 76, pertaining to the patient is in my handwriting and the copy of the same bears my signature,” Subodh Tyagi said.
Subodh Tyagi told the court that he gave the inquiry report as a general medical officer and not as an ‘eye’ specialist.
“Although the patient was referred to a eye surgeon. I am not aware if any report was received subsequently from the eye specialist,” he said.


No comments: