Looking Back at The Sohrabuddin Encounter Killing

The Bombay High Court dismissed two review petitions filed in connection to the Sohrabuddin Encounter case on Monday. One petition was filed by Rubabuddin Sheikh, the brother of the deceased Sohrabuddin Sheikh. The other petition was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI). The CBI had challenged the discharge of N. K. Amin, then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Ahmedabad, and Dalpat Singh Rathod, then constable in Rajasthan police. Rubabuddin Sheikh had challenged the discharge of the then Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) Chief of Gujarat, D. G. Vanzara; Indian Police Service (IPS) officer R. K. Pandian, and then Superintendent of Police of Udaipur, Rajasthan, Dinesh MN.

Also read: Sohrabuddin Case: Activists Demand Security for Justice Loya’s Family and Investigative Journalist 

The Bombay HC took a stand that since the witnesses had turned hostile and that there was no material evidence to corroborate any of their statements, the accused would be protected by section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This provision is intended to protect public servants from prosecution arising from them discharging their duties in their official capacity. What was surprising were the coincidences surrounding the Sohrabuddin encounter and the cremation of his wife Kausarbi. According to the account by the CBI, the motorcycle that Sohrabuddin was allegedly driving when he was killed in the encounter belonged to Shoksingh Yadav, a cousin of Constable Ajaysingh Yadav who was close to Vanzara. Whereas the village where Kausarbi was cremated, Ellol is Vanzara’s native place. Surprisingly, the question as to why Kausarbi's body was not handed over to the family was never answered in the dismissal order.

However, the star witness for the prosecution, Nathuba Jadeja submitted two sets of events at different times of the investigation depending on who was recording his statements. When the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) was heading the investigation, he recounted the official narrative. Whereas he recounted the fake encounters to the CBI. His final affidavit in 2015 affirmed that the Sohrabuddin encounter was genuine and did not make any statements regarding Kausarbi's cremation.

Interestingly, Vanzara appears to have had an illustrious career as an 'encounter specialist'. Following the allegations against him in the Sohrabuddin encounters, his role in other killings have also come into question. Some of the incidents where his name has come up include, the killing of Samir Khan on the outskirts of Ahmedabad in 2002. In 2003, Sadik Jamal was killed. One big case was the 2004 killing of Ishrat Jahan and three others on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. In 2007, Vanzara was arrested and held in custody for his role in the Sohrabuddin encounters.

On November 26, 2005, Sohrabuddin Sheikh – a known criminal – was gunned down by the Gujarat Police near Ahmedabad. According to the police, he was associated with the Lashkar-e-Taiba and was involved in a plot to assassinate the then Chief Minister, Narendra Modi. When the police attempted to stop his vehicle, he opened fire and sustained injuries in the crossfire which led to his death. Sohrabuddin Sheikh's aide, Tulsiram Prajapati, was later gunned down in another 'encounter' in the early hours of December 28, 2006. The official version of this encounter was that Prajapati had escaped from police custody and was killed in retaliatory fire when the police tried to apprehend him again.

However, in this backdrop, Sohrabuddin Sheikh's wife Kauserbi's whereabouts were unknown. Such a situation prompted Sohrabuddin's brother, Rubabuddin, to approach the Supreme Court seeking an investigation into his brother's death as well as a writ of habeas corpus to produce his sister-in-law at the court. At the time Rubabuddin approached the Supreme Court, Prajapati was in custody in Rajasthan. Before the Supreme Court could pass an order for Kauserbi's production, the government of Gujarat filed a report that Kauserbi was dead and her body had been cremated at Ellol village on November 29, 2005 – three days after her husband was killed in an 'encounter'. Geeta Johri who was heading the investigation into the Sohrabuddin encounter sought the permission of the court to interrogate Tulsiram Prajapati. However, on the way to Ahmedabad, Prajapati was killed. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to the CBI. The court also allowed the trial to take place outside Gujarat.

Also read: "The Loya Story Deals with the Rot at the Heart of the Current Regime" 

At this point it might be relevant to note that when Rubabuddin moved the Supreme Court, he had alleged that three persons were abducted from a bus travelling from Hyderabad to Sangli. Two of them were identified as Sohrabuddin and Kauserbi, whereas the third person could not be identified. The police had alleged that the third person was Kalimuddin, who Sohrabuddin and Kauserbi had visited in Hyderabad to celebrate Eid with. However, since Kalimuddin's whereabouts were also unknown following the abduction, the Supreme Court did not rule out that the third person could have been Prajapati.

The CBI charge-sheet implicated the then Home Minister of Gujarat, Amit Shah, as the brain behind the conspiracy. Shah was arrested in 2010, however, he was soon granted bail by the Gujarat High Court. Though the CBI tried to move the Supreme Court to cancel Shah's bail, the SC decided not to. In the course of these events, Narmada Bai, Prajapati's mother, approached the SC seeking a CBI inquiry into her son's death. The Court allowed the CBI to investigate this death as well, following which the CBI's charge-sheet once again implicated Amit Shah as the prime accused. However, this charge-sheet was quashed by the Supreme Court as it amounted to registering two cases in the same transaction.

Also read: Judge Hearing Sohrabuddin Fake Encounter Case may not have Died of Heart Attack 

From this point, an already murky case begins to get murkier. The Supreme Court had passed an order that one judge must conduct the entire trial, meaning that there would be no scope for transfers. However, Judge Utpat was transferred and Judge Loya took over the trial in June 2014. However, in December the same year, Judge Loya reportedly died of cardiac arrest. By the end of the month, Shah had been discharged on the ground that there was no evidence against him. Three years later, in August 2017, the ATS officers accused were also discharged. However, from November 2017, the Caravan magazine published a series of articles that raised questions on the circumstances of Judge Loya's death.

Also read: Judge Loya death Judgement Leaves Many Questions Unanswered 

The Caravan articles generated a storm which led to fiery hearings in the Supreme Court seeking an independent probe into Judge Loya's death. However, on April 19, 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, while passing adverse remarks towards the advocates appearing for the petitioners.

What is interesting is that the CBI did not file a review petition regarding Shah's discharge. However, Rubabuddin Sheikh did, but later withdrew it. Regarding the discharge of the Gujarat and Rajasthan police personnel, both the CBI and Rubabuddin Sheikh had filed their review petitions in 2016.

The problem one now faces is that a clean chit has been given to the public servants accused of custodial killings despite plenty of questions still  unanswered. The rot in this case cannot be located without even perceiving its existence, which has been the case till now.