By TCN Special Correspondent,
Ahmedabad: The Gujarat High Court has permitted the Supreme Court-appointed Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the 10 most heinous riot cases of 2002, to record voice samples of two prominent accused Babu Bajrangi and Jaideep Patel, involved in Naroda Gam massacre case.
While Bajrangi is linked with the Bajrang Dal, Patel is connected with the Vishwa Hindu Parishad.
Earlier, a special court hearing the Naroda Gam case had rejected the appeal of SIT to collect voice samples of the two accused. However, Justice M R Shah of the Gujarat High Court set aside the orders of the special court and allowed SIT to collect their voice samples.
The two accused, in a sting operation described as ‘Operation Kalank’ in 2007 conducted by Tehelka magazine, had confessed their involvement in the Naroda Gam massacre of Muslims in February-March 2002 riots. A total of 11 Muslims were reported to have been killed in Naroda village on the outskirts of Ahmedabad.
In Tehelka tapes, which were telecast by Hindi channel Aajtak, the duo have also told that the accused persons had been given three days of time to indulge in violence and killing.
Ajay Choksi, SIT’s special public prosecutor, had demanded that the voice samples be recorded at the All India Radio and these be sent to Forensic Science Laboratory at Jaipur for its comparison with the tapes of Tehelka.
Gujarat High Court’s order assumes significance because if the voice samples of the two match with the Tehelka tapes, they would be arrested again and on this basis several politicians could also be booked for their involvement in the carnage. Currently, the duo is out on bail.
In March this year, special judge S H Vora hearing the Naroda Gam riot case, had stated that there was no specific provision in the Indian Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code for recording voice samples of the accused for comparison with tape version. The court also said that comparing voice samples or handwriting was not a subject of the investigation agency but it was the work of courts.
The special court also observed that the law provided for matching only specimen signature and handwriting and not the voice samples because there was no reference to voice samples in the amended legislation.