This is Shweta Sanjiv Bhatt

PICS BY DILIP THAKR

This is Shweta Sanjiv Bhatt,

Prosecuting a man to life imprisonment for a crime he did not even commit is a moral low, even for this malicious regime. For all those people who have been opining without even knowing any details or facts of the case, please take a minute and read the facts. This would perhaps open your eyes to the miscarriage of justice being faced by a brave and diligent man for doing his job with unwavering dedication.

“Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.” – Haile Selassie

Facts of the case-

1. The Jamnagar Sessions court passed a Judgement in an incident falsely labelled as “Custodial Death” dating back to 30th October 1990. Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt and Mr. Pravinsinh Jhala were charged for Murder.

2. The deceased, Mr. Prabhudas Vaishnani succumbed to an illness long after having been out of custody. Moreover, at no point in time did Mr. Prabhudas Vaishnani complaint of any ill-handling let alone torture.

3. The hospital records as well as post-mortem records of Mr. Prabhudas Vaishnani indicate no signs of any injury or trauma, both internally as well as externally.

4. A death that happened due to a personal medical illness or condition, has been labelled as a “Custodial Death” at the convenience of this government, to set an example of an exemplary officer who dared to question the malicious actions of this regime.

5. Sanjiv Bhatt was first posted as Jamnagar ASP in October 1990. On 30th October 1990, he was not in charge of Jamjodhpur town. However, following the stoppage of L.K Advani’s Rath Yatra and his subsequent arrest, there was a break-out of uncontrolled communal riots and a Bharat Bandh was declared by the VHP and the BJP.

6. Despite the declaration of a curfew on 30th October 1990, various mass uncontrolled incidents of communal rioting were reported in Jamjodhpur. 133 rioters from these incidents were arrested by the Local PSI and his team in connection of TADA. The deceased Mr. Prabhudas Vaishnani and his brother Mr. Ramesh Vaishani were one of the 133 arrested rioters arrested.

7. The 133 rioters including Mr. Prabhudas Vaishnani were arrested the Police Inspector of Jamjodhpur and his team between 9:30 am and 12:15 pm and were subsequently kept in his custody in connection with the TADA case. Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt and his team arrived at the Jamjodhpur police station at 1:30 pm, long after the arrest of the deceased by the hands of the local police.

8. The deceased, Mr. Prabhudas Vaishnani was not arrested by Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or his team

9. The deceased, Mr. Prabhudas Vaishnani was never in the Custody of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or his team.

10. The deceased Mr. Prabhudas Vaishnani was never interrogated by Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt

11. Furthermore, not once, while being presented to the Judicial Magistrate court did Mr. Mr. Prabhudas Vaishani and Mr. Ramesh Vaishani complaint of being ill-handled, aggrieved, beaten or tortured.

12. No injuries or evidence of mistreatment was observed by the honourable Judge, following which the arrested rioters including Mr. Prabhudas Vaishnani were sent to Jamnagar jail on the 31st October 1990.

13. The 133 rioters including Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani were sent to Judicial Custody on orders of the Magistrate and were to remain in jail till 8th November 1990. No complaint of ill-treatment, grievance, beating or torture were made by any of the 133 rioters including Mr. Prabhudas Vaishnani during this time.

14. No complaint of any ill-treatment, grievance or torture was made even after the rioters including Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani were released on bail on 8th November 1990.

15. On 12th November 1990, owing to ill health Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani was taken to the hospital in Jamnagar and then Rajkot. During his visit to the hospital as well, no complaint of any grievance was made against Shri Sanjiv Bhatt. On 18th November 1990, while undergoing treatment in Rajkot, Mr. Vaishnani passed away. The hospital records as well as the forensic postmortem records of Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishnani have noted that there were no internal or external indication of any injury/torture or any grievance.

16. Mr. Amrutlal Madjavji Vaishnani who also happens to be an active member of the VHP/BJP made an application for PostMortem of Mr. Prabhudas Vaishani. The said application was treated as a FIR by the Jamnagar Police and was sent to JamJodhpur for investigation.

17. The investigation was entrusted to CID crime Gujarat at Ahmedabad and the Superintendent of Police – CID was directed to investigate the case.

18. The team of officers of CID Crime carried a thorough investigation and concluded that there was no evidence that Mr. Prabhudas Vaishani and Mr. Ramesh Vaishani were ever in Custody of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or his team. Hence “Custody” was never established or proved. Thereby there is no question of “Custodial Death”  in case of Mr.Prabhudas Vaishani, who a) was never in the custody of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt and b) who died of personal reasons on 18th November 1990 in Rajkot.

19. Not a single rioter of the 133 arrested, including Mr. Prabhudas Vaishani have ever given a history to any doctor or medical professional of any ill-treatment of torture by Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or his team. Moreover, the medical examination done by the hospital staff as well as the doctors have noted no indication of any injury or any kind of ill-treatment.

20.  As part of the investigation conducted by CID Crime Ahmedabad, the Superintendent of CID Crime sought for and obtained an expert opinion of a celebrated Nephrologist Padmashree Dr. Shri H.L. Trivedi who is associated with the Kidney Disease and Research Institute Ahmedabad, by sending him all the medical reports, treatment papers, post-mortem reports and related tests etc. He, in his expert opinion stated that there was no indication of “Rhabdomyolosis” in the case of the deceased Mr. Prabhudas Vaishani, thereby further confirming that the cause of death was not due to any torture. Thereby this was not a cause of custodial death.

21.  No marks of any injury were found on the entire body during the medical examination as well as the post-mortem of the deceased. Furthermore, no indication of any internal injury was found during the post-mortem. Thereby once again confirming that the cause of death was not “custodial” ill-treatment or torture.

22. PSI Jamjodhpur as well as the local police, who had arrested and who had the custody of Mr. Prabhudas Vaishani have confirmed during the investigation conducted by S.P. CID Crime that – at no point in time was the custody of the deceased handed over to Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or that Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or his staff had ever interrogated, let alone beaten the deceased.

23. During the investigation, this was further confirmed as no police personnel, head constable, constable, police officer of Lock-up, personnels of home guard, jail staff, jail superintendent, jailor etc ever witnessed the handing over of the custody of the deceased to Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or his team or any incident of ill-treatment or beating of the deceased by Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or his team.

24. After exhaustively investigating about 2,500 pages of evidence from Logbook vehicles, wireless messages etc and after examining approximately more than 200 witness, CID Crime declared that there was no evidence found against Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt. The Police Department as well as the Home department were fully aware that Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt was being falsely victimized for having performed his duty with utmost sincerity and diligence.

25. Therefore, the State Government of Gujarat REFUSED to grant “sanction to prosecute” Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt IPS and other accused officers.  Hence, prosecution had filed closure report i.e A Summary Report in Court. Without Sanction to Prosecute, no court has the jurisdiction to try the accused i.e Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt and he is entitled for an expedited acquittal.

26. The prosecution had no evidence to support their fabricated claim of custodial torture being the cause of death or to establish their fabricated claim of the deceased being in custody of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt.

27. Moreover, in an absolute miscarriage of justice, no investigating officer of CID Crime who had recorded the statements of witnesses and who had conducted, and concluded a thorough investigation were examined by the prosecution.

28. The prosecution has left no stone unturned in hiding/suppressing key government witnesses, thereby misleading the court.

29. The prosecution had cited 300 witnesses, but only examined 32 witnesses, avoiding the key witnesses in this case in order to mislead the court and facilitate their malicious intentions.

30.  After obtaining orders by Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt from the High Court, 3 high ranking IPS officers namely, Mr. H.P. Singh, Mr. P. P.Pandey and Mr. Bisht were examined as Court Witnesses.

31. None of testimony or evidence furnished by these witnesses implicated Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt of any wrong doing. Hence there was no evidence to support the prosecutions fabricated allegation.

32. 30th October 1990, the day of the communal violence and the subsequent arrest of Prabhudas Madhavji Vaishani, was only the 20th day of Shri Sanjiv Bhatt’s posting in Jamnagar. Moreover, this was his first ever visit to the Jamjodhpur. Mr. Bhatt did not know any of the persons arrested, let alone have a grudge against anyone. Hence there is no intention to kill. Thereby conviction of Murder under section 302 of the IPC is not only illegal but also against the judgements of the Honourable Supreme Court of India.

33. Despite being available Government witnesses and particularly the police officers of Jamjodhpur police station i.e. Mr. K.N.Patel, Sr. PSI Mr. B. L. Thakur, CPI Mr. Khushal Naran Patel, Mr. Veraji Balubha Jamjodhpur police station head writer, PC Labhuba Muljibhai, Head Constable Osman Karabhai, PC Velubha Jilubha, PC Mansang Harjibhai, PC Lakdhirsing Halubha, PC Hematsang Devisinh, PC Narotam Khushalbhai, HC Nanji Jivabhai Ninama, PC Rasik Dharamshi, PC Bhikhubha Takhatsinh, PC Habib Mamadbhai, PC MAnubha Jorubha Rajput, PC Aftab Hussain Safiya, PC Alabhai Sajanbhai, Women Constable Paniben Narshibhai, PC Dhirubha Bhatti, etc. were not examine and dropped by the prosecution side.

34. No police witness and Investigating Officers who had recorded the statements of these so-called witnesses were examined by the Prosecution.

35. No police witness who has drawn the panchanama has been examined by the prosecution

36. The statements of those witnesses recorded during the investigation reveal that they never witnessed any torture or squats. The Investigation officers admit this fact. However, these witnesses were not examined.

37. Moreover, the prosecution examined only three police witnesses, all of whom were not the investigating officers in this case, nor had they recorded statements of any witnesses. One of the witnesses examined by the prosecution had played no role in the investigation, apart from having forwarded the FIR from Jamnagar City B Division to Jamjodhour.

38. No police officers / investigating officers till the filing of final summary report were examined by the prosecution, though it came on record that so many high ranking police officers of CID Crime had investigated this offence since 1990 to 1995. Intentionally non examination of any of the investigating police officer without any specific reason in this case is a very serious infirmity of the case and which is fatal to the prosecution case

39. In his deposition, Court Witness Mr. P.P. Pandey, Exhibit – 958 has deposed that:

* He has recorded statement of PSI Mr. B.L.THAKUR of Jam-jodhpur and also obtained his weekly diary vide faris No. 46/2. Mr. B.L.Thakur  was Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of CPI Mr. Khushal Naranbhai Patel of Bhanvad and also obtained his weekly diary vide farist No. 46/8 to 42/10. Mr. Khushal Naranbhai Patel was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of Driver  of Jeep No. GJ-10-G, 0030,  Mr Balubha Nanbha Gohil. Who was driver of ASP Sanjiv Bhatt  and also obtained Log book of said Jeep vide faris No. 518/4 and  518/5. ( Mr. Balubha Nanbha Gohil  was  Not examined by prosecution.  )

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Veraji  Balubha,  Who was Head writer of Jam-jodhpur police station. Mr. Veraji Balubha   was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of  Ms. Labhuba Muljibhai – woman Constabl.   Who was woman constable  of Jam-jodhpur police station. Ms. Labhuba Muljibhai   was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Bhikhubha  Balubha,  Who was Head Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. Mr. Bhikhubha Balubha   was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Osman Karabhai,  Who was Head Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station.  Mr. Osman  Karabhai   was  Not examined by prosecution.

* • He has recorded statement of  Mr. Velubha Jilubha,  Who was  Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. Mr. Velubha Jilubha   was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Mansing Harjibhai,  Who was  Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. Mr. Mansing Harjibhai    was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Lakhdhirsinh Halubha  Who was  Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. Mr. Lakhdhirsinh Halubha   was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Hematsang Devisinh,  Who was  Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. Mr. Hematsing Devisinh   was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Narottam Khushalbhai,  Who was Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. Mr. Narottam Khushalbhai   was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Nanji Jivaji Ninama  Who was  Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. Mr. Nanji  Jivaji Ninama  was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Rasik Dharamshi Singala  Who was  Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. Mr. Rasik Dharamshi Singala  was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Bhikhubha Takhatsinh Jadeja  Who was Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. Mr. Bhikhubha Takhatsinh Jadeja  was  Not examined by prosecution.

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Habib Mamad Malek,  Who was Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. ( Mr. Habib Mamad Malek  was  Not examined by prosecution.)

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Manubha Jorubha Rajput  Who was  Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. ( Mr. Manubha Jorubha Rajput    was  Not examined by prosecution.  )

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Aftab Husain Safia,  Who was  Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. ( Mr. Aftab Hisain Safia   was  Not examined by prosecution.  )

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Alabhai Sajanbhai Solanki,  Who was Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. ( Mr. Alabhai Sajanbhai Solanki   was  Not examined by the prosecution.  )

* He has recorded statement of  Ms. Paniben Narshibhai  – woman Constable,  Who was woman  Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. ( Ms. Paniben Narshibhai    was  Not examined by prosecution.  )

* He has recorded statement of  Mr. Dhirubha Madhavji Bhatti,  Who was Constable of Jam-jodhpur police station. ( Mr. Dhirubha Madhavji  Bhatti was  Not examined by the prosecution.  )

* HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED IN CROSS EXAMINATION THAT, he has recorded statements of 14 police personals of Jam-jodhpur police station on dt. 05/01/1991, who were on duty on dt. 30/10/1990.

* HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED IN CROSS EXAMINATION THAT, he has recorded statements of 26 police personals on dt. 06/02/1991.

* HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED IN CROSS EXAMINATION THAT, he has recorded statements of 21police personals and personals of “Home-guard “ on dt. 08/02/1991

* HE HAS ALSO ADMITTED IN CROSS EXAMINATION THAT, he has recorded statements of 5 police personals and personals of “Home-guard “ on dt. 21/03/1991

40. Hence, it is important to note that during the deposition of prosecution witnesses, NO official witness i.e CIP Bhanvad, PSI Jamjodhour, head constables, constables, lady constables,  japta police, jail police and other authorities were examined to establish and prove that Mr Prabhudas Vaishani was ever taken out from the custody of the local police by Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or his staff. No officers, police staff or any authorities have given any deposition stating that Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or his staff removed any of the arrested rioters including Mr.Prabhudas Vaishani from the custody of the local police or of having ill-treated or beaten them.

41. Moreover, Doctors and medical professionals who had tended to the deceased and had performed post mortem as well as provided expert opinion were not examined by the Prosecution.

42. On having requested to summon Forensic Medicine Expert Dr. Reddy; the court in mockery, ordered at 12:30 pm for him to report in court by 3:00 pm on the very same day, despite knowing that he resides in Hyderabad and would require at least a day’s notice to make the commute. Thereby dismissing the request to examine a key defense witness.

43. Hence the prosecution has no evidence to support their fabricated claim. No charge is established or proven against Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or his staff. Moreover, the prosecution has been unable to furnish any evidence or prove that Mr Sanjiv Bhatt arrested Mr. Prabhudas Vaishani or that Mr Prabhudas Vaishani was in the custody of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt at any point in time.

44. Based on the investigation conducted by the CID crime, the Home department, Government of Gujarat concluded that Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt and his staff were being falsely victimized for having performed their duty with utmost sincerity and diligence. The Government of Gujarat refused to give Sanction to Prosecute in this case. All the accused persons are legally entitled for an acquittal.

45. As Sanction to Prosecute Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt and the other accused had been Rejected and refused in writing by the Government, hence in absence of sanction to prosecute, the honourable court has no power or jurisdiction to convict Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt or any of the other accused. Thereby, as per the law, Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt and his staff should be acquitted from this case.

46. Furthermore, as per Law, if sanction for prosecution has been rejected by the Government, it cannot be subject to review by any other court of law.

47. The State of Gujarat Home Department refused the Sanction to prosecute on 22nd March 1995 in writing, and the same was conveyed to Addl. IG, CID Crime, State of Gujarat, Ahmedabad. This court has no Jurisdiction to convict Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt and the other accused or to give finding that sanction is not required or necessary.

48. Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt  has been denied fair trial. Upto 2011, the informant sat dormant and the accused persons were defended by the State. However, following the truthful deposition of Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt before the Nanavati-Mehta Commission against the political executive of the State, Mr. Bhatt has been victimized. The revision petition, protecting Mr. Sanjiv Bhatt was withdrawn the very evening of his deposition in front of the commission.

49. Even during the trial, out of more than 300 witnesses and several documents running into more than 550 pages submitted along with the report, the prosecution examined only 32 witnesses. Several important witnesses are dropped.

50. The judgement passed by the sessions court Jamnagar on 20th June 2019 is a gross travesty of justice as it not only ignored all the investigations conducted by CID Crime, but in a blatant miscarriage of justice, Shri Sanjiv Bhatt was not permitted to call in any defence witnesses. Thus this prosecution has been initiated and continued in gross violation of Law.