Fact: Dr J S Kanoria who carried out the post mortem of the woman, Kausarbanu on 2 March 2002 found that her womb was intact, and that she had died of burns suffered in the riots.
Weekly India Today dated 5 April 2010 reports:
“Significantly, in March 2003, the SC had stalled the trial of nine Gujarat riot cases, thanks to the relentless campaign by the human rights activists seeking justice for the Muslim victims. The riot victims said they won’t get justice as long as the Gujarat Government had a role in the police probe and the subsequent trial. The SIT is reinvestigating the cases under the virtual supervision of the apex court, with even the judges and public prosecutors being selected under the SC’s monitoring.
As the SIT goes about its task, more and more evidence is surfacing that the human rights lobby had, in many cases, spun macabre stories of rape and brutal killings by tutoring witnesses before the SC. In the process, it might have played a significant role in misleading the SC to suit its political objectives against Modi and his government.
Last week, one of the most horrible examples of cruelty resurfaced once again as the trial of the Naroda Patiya case, where 94 persons were killed, began in the SC-monitored special court in Ahmedabad. Soon after the riots, the human rights activists and the Muslim witnesses had alleged that a pregnant woman Kausarbanu’s womb was ripped open by rioters and the foetus was flung out at the point of a sword. The gruesome incident was seen as the worst-possible example of medieval vandalism in the modern age.
Last week, eight years after the alleged incident, Dr J.S. Kanoria, who conducted the post-mortem on Kausarbanu’s body on March 2, 2002, denied that any such incident had ever happened. Instead, he told the court: “After the post-mortem, I found that her foetus was intact and that she had died of burns suffered during the riot.” Later Kanoria, 40, told INDIA TODAY, “I have told the court what I had already written in my post-mortem report eight years ago. The press should have checked the report before believing that her womb was ripped open. As far as I remember, I did her post-mortem at noon on March 2, 2002.”
A careful study of the three police complaints, claiming that Kausarbanu’s womb was ripped open by the rioters, shows several loopholes. While one complaint accuses Guddu Chara, one of the main accused in the Naroda Patiya case, of ripping open Kausarbanu’s womb, extracting her foetus and flinging it with a sword; another complaint accuses Babu Bajrangi, yet another accused in the case, of doing the act. A third complaint, on the other hand, does not name the accused but describes the alleged act.
Modi will also have reasons to smile at the affidavits filed by the Muslim witnesses in the SC in 2003 at the behest of Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) and Teesta Setalvad on the basis of which the trial in nine cases were stalled for six long years. The most glaring hole is in the affidavit of Nanumiya Malek, a key witness in the Naroda Gam case. In his affidavit before the SC filed on November 15, 2003, Malek stated that a newly married woman called Madina, who lost four of her relatives, including her husband in the riots, had been raped by the rioters.
Malek’s affidavit states: “I was witness to the crimes of murder and rape that took place on Madina and her family. I also saw seven people being burnt alive, including four orphans. I request the SC to keep the details of this rape victim confidential since she is alive and use it only for the purpose of trial and conviction of the rapists.” But on May 5, 2009, in his statement before the SIT, Malek said: “I had wrongly claimed that Madina had been raped. I made the charge because of Teesta Setalvad’s pressure. I kept on telling her not to include that charge in my affidavit, yet it was included.”
In her statement before the SIT on May 20, 2008, Madina, who has remarried now, said: “The charge made by Malek claiming that I was raped by a riotous mob is false. I wasn’t raped. When the riotous mob put my house on fire, I tried to run but was attacked by a rioter who injured me with a knife. Later I managed to merge in a Muslim crowd.”
There are six other affidavits filed by different Muslim witnesses on November 15, 2003, that wantonly allege rape in the Naroda Gam and Naroda Patiya riot cases without giving any details. Interestingly, all the affidavits have a uniform language: “Over 110 persons were not simply killed, but raped and mutilated as well, including young children. We urge the SC to stay the trials and transfer them to a neighbouring state and also order fresh investigation.” The affidavits state that they had been filed at the behest of Setalvad and in the presence of her co-activist Rais Khan.
If this wasn’t enough, other glaring attempts by human rights activists to tutor witnesses have come to the fore. For example, soon after the Gulberg massacre in which Ehsan Jafri was killed, nearly a dozen Muslim witnesses told the police that Jafri had fired in self-defence, killed a rioter and injured 14 others. They also said that this led the mob to resort to violence and attack Muslims in Gulberg with vengeance. But almost half of them who deposed before the special court have retracted from this statement.
The statement of Imtiaz Pathan in the Gulberg trial also raises eyebrows. He told the special court that before being killed, Jafri told him that Narendra Modi abused him (Jafri) on phone when he sought protection during a mob attack. Incidentally, there is no record available of Jafri having made any call to Modi. Pathan didn’t name Modi in the first police statement he made soon after the riots.Interestingly, he has also identified as many as 27 individual attackers from a mob of thousands of rioters.
When the SIT started taking statements of witnesses in the Gulberg Society case, around 20 witnesses came with typed statements. But the SIT objected to it, citing Section 161 of the CRPC, saying that the police must record the statement of a witness. So when the SIT forced the witnesses to give their statement during the interrogation, there was a vast difference between the ‘readymade typed’ statements and the oral evidence that the police had received earlier.
As a senior lawyer defending the accused puts it: “The witnesses under the influence of the human rights activists didn’t allow videotaping of their statements while they were being recorded. There is an obvious attempt on the part of activists to dictate not just the SIT, but also the courts.” Last week, INDIA TODAY quizzed Setalvad about the charge of tutoring the witnesses and creating false evidence before the courts in the 2002 Gujarat riot cases.
Her response: “I am under no obligation to respond to your questions.
In his petition before the SC, Nanumiya Malek, a key witness in the Naroda Gam case, says that a married woman called Madina had been raped by rioters.
Malek later told the SIT that Madina’s rape was an accusation put forth at the behest of Teesta Setalvad. Madina also denied the charge.
For the past eight years, human rights activists and Naroda Patiya victims have alleged that the rioters ripped open the womb of the pregnant Kausarbanu.
Dr J.S. Kanoria, who conducted a post-mortem on Kausarbanu’s body, says she died of burns during the riot and that her womb was intact.
While reinvestigating the Gulberg case, the SIT comes across nearly 20 witnesses who came with their readymade, typed statements to which the SIT objects.
The Muslim witnesses refuse to videotape their statements. The statements that are recorded by the SIT do not match the readymade statements.
Imtiaz Pathan, a key witness in the Gulberg case, tells the special court that Ehsan Jafri was abused by Modi when Jafri called the latter seeking his help during the riots.
The SIT has not been able to find any evidence or a record of Ehsan Jafri making a phone call to Narendra Modi.
In their 2003 SC petition, Muslim witnesses accused the rioters of raping women. As a result, the trials of nine major cases were stalled for over six years.
In their statements made before the SC-appointed SIT, the witnesses haven’t accused the rioters of raping women.
This full report can be read by clicking here.
Just that this weekly India Today does not seem to remember that it itself also reported the blatant lie on ‘pregnant woman’s womb being ripped open’ in its issue dated 18 March 2002. Its not merely this report. Even a newspaper as biased as The Times of India– which falsely reported that Narendra Modi had said “Every action has equal and opposite reaction” and did not even publish the Chief Minister’s letter denying having said any such thing reported thus:
“Doc’s testimony nails lie in Naroda Patia fetus story
AHMEDABAD: One of the most gory stories of the Naroda Patia massacre, of how a pregnant woman’s womb was ripped open and the fetus dangled on the tip of a sword by the mob, before she was killed, has been busted by a testimony given by a government doctor.
After 95 persons were killed on February 28, 2002 at Naroda Patia, stories were doing rounds that the killers had cut open eight-month pregnant Kausar Bano Shaikh’s womb, pulled out the fetus and killed her.
Dr J S Kanoria, who conducted post-mortem on the woman’s body on March 2 (2002), told the special court on Wednesday, supported by documents, that he found the fetus intact. He said he was posted at Nadiad but called to the Civil Hospital following the emergency when he conducted the autopsy on an unidentified body, which was later identified as Kausar Bano.
Kanoria showed his post-mortem report to the court saying he found the fetus intact in the woman’s womb itself. The fetus weighed 2,500 g and was 45 cm long. He mentioned about burn injuries in his post-mortem note, but was quiet on whether there was any other injury on the body.
In April last year, the Gujarat government argued before the SC on this case after SIT submitted a report in a sealed cover. The government’s claim was that SIT had refuted charges that Kausar Bano’s fetus was pulled out of her womb and killed by sword before her eyes by violent mob. Senior counsel Mukul Rohatgi contended that such allegations levelled by an NGO were proved false by SIT report. (The Supreme Court-appointed SIT had already said in its report in April 2009 that there is no truth in the allegation that Kausar Bano’s womb was ripped open and foetus taken out. Note that this SIT was appointed by highly anti-Modi judges like Aftab Alam, Arijit Pasayat etc). Nearly a year later, the doctor, considered a neutral government witness, has deposed the same before the trial court.”
The link for the above report is:
Perhaps the only other newspaper to even report Dr Kanoria’s statement in court was The Hindu. The Hindu too has lied and called the riots a ‘pogrom’, ‘genocide’ and ‘massacre’ of Muslims ever after the riots and published white lies on this subject on its edit page. But even it reported:
“Foetus was intact in Naroda-Patiya victim: doctor
AHMEDABAD: The doctor who performed autopsy on the bodies of three victims of the Naroda-Patiya massacre during the 2002 communal riots in Gujarat has denied that the womb of a pregnant woman was slit open by the attackers.
During cross-examination before special court judge Jyotsnaben Yagnik on Wednesday, Dr. J.S. Kanoria said he found the foetus in place in the womb of Kausarbanu Sheikh. As part of the post-mortem procedure, it was he who took the foetus out of the womb, the doctor said.
It was widely alleged during the riots that the then State Bajrang Dal convener, Babu Bajrangi, had led a violent mob of activists, some of whom not only burnt alive local Muslims but also raped the pregnant woman, slit open her womb with a sharp-edged weapon and threw both the mother and the foetus into a fire.
Dr. Kanoria admitted that he had found Kausarbanu’s body 100 per cent burnt. To a question by the public prosecutor, he did not rule out the possibility of her having been thrown alive into a fire by the attackers, resulting in her death, but disagreed with the claim that her womb was slit open.
As a large number of bodies were arriving at the Ahmedabad civil hospital, Dr. Kanoria was specially summoned there from the Nadiad hospital and he conducted post-mortem on three bodies including that of a pregnant woman, who was later identified as Kausarbanu…”
The link for this report is:
In the 2007 Tehelka sting operation also, Babu Bajrangi did not claim to slit open any womb. He was simply saying that “The FIR on me says that I cut open the womb, but I did not do so”. Tehelka lied that “Bajrangi ‘boasted’ slitting open the womb” which was blatant violation of law.
Even if he had said so in the sting operation, Tehelka should have checked if they are boastful lies or the truth. Since he was told that this is a private conversation between a man writing a book from the VHP point of view, he may have indulged in blatant empty lies, and so Tehelka should have cross-checked. Actually he did not even indulge in boastful lies here- he totally denied the crime.
Even in the judgment of Jyotsna Yagnik convicting Kodnani and Bajrangi on 29 August 2012, Jyotsna Yagnik’s judgment denied such an act. The Times of India reported:
”A decade later,the special court accepted that Kausarbanu was killed in the most ghastly manner by Bajrangi and his associates,but the story of bringing her fetus out and swirling it on tip of the sword is improbable and an exaggerated narration.
Designated judge Jyotsana Yagnik discussed in detail the possibility of such incident after evaluating testimonies of eyewitnesses,extra-judicial confession by Bajrangi and medical evidence.The judge concluded that both a 14-year-old witness Javed Shaikh and accused Bajrangi were not gynaecologists and they did not know anything about the possible situation when a nine-month pregnant womans belly was slit with a sword or a knife.
The court accepted evidence,though considered medical evidence quite diluted,and held that Kausarbanu was killed at the khancho near water tank,as described by witnesses and accused himself.However,The fetus could not be brought out,Kausarbanu died there along with fetus in her body,Kausharbanu and unborn child were burnt there, the order reads.
The court came to a conclusion that Bajrangi killed the woman,but the description was exaggerated.It must be understood that this is an observation of child of about 14-year-old then and that his perception to such ghastly occurrence would be little different then the adult man with all understanding, the court opined.“