[Tehelka, March 12, 2005]
1) Cop Nails Gujarat Lie
Gujarat Home Secretary and the government pleader wanted
Additional Director General of the state police RB Sreekumar
to conceal the truth from the Nanavati-Shah Commission
inquiring into the 2002 genocide. The top cop taped the
conversation. Hartos Singh Bal and Mahesh Lunga got the
tapes. Their report
---
It has long been clear that the Gujarat government would do
anything in its power to subvert the process of justice in
the state. But recent evidence suggests that the government
is capable of exceeding everyone’s worst expectations. The
home secretary of the Narendra Modi government has been
tutoring and coercing witnesses appearing before the
Nanavati-Shah Commission, and when witnesses refuse to toe
the government line, action is being taken against them to
ensure others do not learn from their example. This is
precisely what has led to the supersession of Additional
Director General of Police (ADGP) RB Sreekumar, whose
testimony before the commission had single-handedly exposed
the state government’s failures.
On August 25, 2004, days before Sreekumar deposed before the
commission on August 31, 2004, state Home Secretary GC Murmu
and government pleader before the Nanavati-Shah commission,
Arvind Pandya, summoned Sreekumar and led him through the
line of questioning he should expect and the answers he
should give. Sreekumar secretly recorded the meeting and he
has now made the recording available to Tehelka.
The conversation (see transcripts) reveals how the Modi
government spared no effort in tutoring every witness. In
Sreekumar’s case they went through every aspect of his
likely testimony while telling him what he should and should
not say. Pandya pointed out that if he did what he was told
then “on that day, the value of the 24th report will
immediately come down to zero’’. Pandya was referring to the
damning report filed by Sreekumar before the commission on
April 24, 2002 (see box: ‘Muslims perceive the system to be
hostile’) in his capacity as ADGP (Intelligence) which
details the subversion of police functioning by the
political leadership.
In the course of the conversation, Sreekumar was clearly
threatened by Pandya as the home secretary looked on, “…If
you create circumstances, I give application that I want to
cross-examine you, then giving contrary opinion to the
government by you and in those circumstances if I obtained
permission from the Court, you are hostile to me and false
nature, I will cross-examine and then notice will be issued
by government to you regarding integrity and everything…’’
Murmu specifically brought up the April 24 report and
said, “They will ask you, on points in 24/4 report that what
and how you came to know this. Another thing is that they
are not doing investigation. This is not your lookout. They
will try and put in your mouth that police officers did not
investigate properly…If you report that, the question of
which police station, which officer, entire state, etc will
come up. They will bring out this for making it a story.
That very carefully you have to answer.’’
He then clearly instructed Sreekumar that “your duty is not
to go too deep into the veracity, that is, whether there was
government failure, etc. You are for processing the
information, disseminating the same and thereby bringing to
the notice of relevant persons.’’ Astoundingly, Pandya then
went on to claim that “whatever brief we are giving you, we
are telling every witness”.
When Sreekumar refused to toe the line and stuck to his guns
before the commission, the Gujarat government issued a
letter to him on September 28, 2004, claiming that his
promotion to the post of adgp itself was wrong. The claim
was that Sreekumar had failed to report facts about a
chargesheet pending against him for “misconduct committed
during investigation of a case while you were on Central
deputation”. In his reply dated November 3, 2004, Sreekumar
pointed out that he had submitted his reply and no further
action was ever initiated. In fact, the Intelligence Bureau
where he was on deputation was aware of these facts when
they placed his services at the disposal of the Gujarat
government so there was no question of concealing facts.
Sreekumar even then knew what the Gujarat government was
planning. “I have reasonable ground to presume that the
above letter dated 28.9.2004 was issued with a view to keep
me out of the zone of consideration of promotion to the rank
of DGP…I feel at certain levels in the higher formations of
the state government, an element of prejudice is operating
against me.”
He then detailed the reasons why this should be so, “…my
unbiased and truthful reports on the communal situation had
evoked critical comments from higher officers, since May
2002 itself”. He added, “Further, my appraisal about the law
and order situation presented to the full member meeting of
the Central Election Commission, held on 9.8.2002, in
Ahmedabad, was also contrary to the perception of higher
officers in the state government…The postponement of the
Assembly election, largely on account of my estimation of
the situation, submitted to the Commission, had intensified
the detrimental predisposition of the higher authorities
against me.”
But what was even more galling to the Gujarat government was
the fact that despite the threat hanging over his head,
Sreekumar went ahead and filed a second affidavit before the
Nanavati-Shah Commission on October 6, 2004, that
substantially reiterated the facts he had stated two years
earlier. Among the ‘Actionable Points’ that he again listed
out were the “replacement of the present incumbents from
executive posts at the cutting edge level, from those cities
and districts where police either remained inactive during
the riots or played a collaborative role with the rioters”
and the need to counter the move by “radical Hindu groups
viz VHP, Bajrang Dal (BD) and Durga Vahini” who “are putting
pressure on the minority community to withdraw the FIR or
drop the names of supporters of these organisations from the
complaint as a compromise formula for ensuring the return of
the minorities to their original residential areas in the
pre-riot areas.”
This affidavit effectively settled Sreekumar’s fate. On
February 23, 2005, the Gujarat government issued an order
promoting three of four Additional dgs to the DG rank.
Among those promoted was PC Pande, Police Commissioner of
Ahmedabad, during the riots. But Pande in any case is
Sreekumar’s senior. The last name on the list made the
government’s intentions very clear. Sreekumar’s junior KR
Kaushik, the current Ahmedabad police commissioner, was also
promoted to DG rank while continuing in the same post, which
was upgraded to the DG rank while Sreekumar remained ADGP.
The implication of the move was not lost on the Gujarat
police force. There was no need to have promoted Kaushik
when he was to continue in the same post. Even more
surprisingly Pande, who is on deputation to the Centre, was
promoted even though it is not clear if and when he is going
to be relieved and placed at the disposal of the state
government. Moreover, Sreekumar’s service record is as good
if not better than any of the other officers promoted.
This was also not the first occasion that the Gujarat
government took vindictive action against officers who had
done their duty during the riots. (see box: Carrot & Stick)
This is being done despite the fact that the National Human
Rights Commission had specifically recommended to the
Gujarat government that “given the wide variation in the
performance of public servants in the discharge of their
statutory responsibilities, action should be initiated to
identify and proceed against those who have failed to act
appropriately to control the violence in its incipient
stages, or to prevent its escalation thereafter. By the same
token, officers who have performed their duties well should
be commended”.
With its usual duplicity, the Modi government replied, “As
far as this recommendation is concerned, the state
government will be guided by findings of the Commission of
Inquiry appointed by the state government. However, some of
the officers who have performed their duties commendably
have already been rewarded appropriately.”
Supersession is a strange reward, but in doing so the
government may have forced Sreekumar’s hands and more
damaging details of the government’s complicity are likely
to emerge in the future.
o o o o
2) Carrot & Stick
The Modi government has ensured that compliant officers were
promoted and those who did their duty sidelined
Rewarded
PC Pande: Was Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad, where 500
people were killed.
He was transferred and then went on deputation to cbi. After
the upa Government came to power, he was sidelined but now
the state government has promoted him as dg. Considered very
close to Modi.
G. Subba Rao: He was the state Chief Secretary. Toed the
Modi line during the carnage. After his retirement, he
became the chairman of the Electricity Appellate Authority.
Bhagyesh Jha: He has been Vadodara Collector for almost four
years and is set to become the longest serving collector of
the district. Generally, collectors and ddos are transferred
after three years. Then Election Commissioner JM Lyndgoh
called him “joker”.
Ashok Narayan: Was Additional Chief Secretary, Home. After
his retirement, he was posted as State Vigilance
Commissioner.
Rakesh Asthana: He was posted as ig, cid and heads the sit
constituted to probe the Godhra carnage. Recognising
the “service” rendered in establishing the conspiracy angle
behind the incident, he was transferred as ig, Vadodara
range. He continues to head the sit probe. After the
Banerjee Committee submitted its interim report debunking
the conspiracy theory; the Modi government asked Asthana to
brief the press about how a conspiracy was hatched by Muslim
fundamentalists to kill kar sewaks.
MK Tandon: He was Joint Commissioner of Police of Ahmedabad,
Sector II. The Gulbarga Society and Naroda Patiya were under
his jurisdiction. He was shifted as ig, Surat range, a very
lucrative posting.
AK Sharma: He was sp, Mehsana, where the Sardarpura incident
occurred. Now he is ig, Gandhinagar range. Thirty-one people
were burnt alive in Sardarpura village.
PK Mishra: He was Modi’s Principal Secretary. Presently, he
is with the Union Home Ministry as additional secretary. It
is believed that Modi got him the post.
K. Nityanandam: He was Secretary, Home. Recently,
transferred as Commissioner of Rajkot by upgrading the post.
Punished
Rahul Sharma: He was sp, Bhavnagar during the riots. He
saved 200 Muslim kids who were in a madarsa encircled by
Hindu mobs. He went there and ordered firing in which three
Hindus were killed. The same evening he was transferred as
dcp, Control Room, Ahmedabad. He found serious flaws in the
Naroda Patiya and Gulbarga Society investigations. He was
given an inconsequential posting in Surat. Now, he is on
deputation to cbi.
MD Antani: He was sp, Bharuch, a sensitive area but didn’t
allow any major incident. He arrested some vhp leaders of
Bharuch leading to his transfer to Narmada, a tribal
district. After a year, he was transferred to Godhra as sp.
He then went on for deputation and is currently the Regional
Passport Officer, Ahmedabad.
Vivek Srivastava: He was sp, Kutch and was shifted overnight
after he arrested a VHP leader. Now he is on deputation in
Delhi.
Himanshu Bhatt: He was sp, Palanpur. During the riots, he
saw a sub-inspector leading a Hindu mob. He initiated an
inquiry against the sub-inspector and got him suspended. But
the sub-inspector returned to the same post and Bhatt was
transferred as sp Intelligence. He is presently on a study
trip at Cambridge.
Satish Sharma: He was dig, Ahmedabad. After dealing with vhp
activists in a tough manner, he was stripped of the post.
Currently, he is posted with the anti-corruption bureau.
o o o o
3) ‘Muslims perceive the system to be hostile’
Excerpts from the August 24, 2002, affidavit submitted by RB
Sreekumar
Feedback obtained from the bulk of Muslim community
indicates that they perceive themselves as a section of the
population, left at the total mercy of the radical communal
elements led by Hindu organisations like Bajrang Dal and
Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) The abnormally high rate of
casualties among the Muslims including the quantum of loss
of property suffered by them, in the ongoing riots since 27-
02-2002 has, germinated an intense sense of revengefulness
against the majority community. It is pertinent to note that
as on April 23, 2002, 636 Muslims were killed in the riots
(of these, 91 were killed in police firing) as against 181
Hindus killed (76 in police firing). Nearly 329 Muslims
sustained injuries in arson as against 74 Hindus. The loss
of property (incurred by) Muslims is approx. Rs 600 crore as
against Rs 40 crore loss of property of Hindus.
The Muslim community, the major victim of the recent riots,
of late, started developing a severe grudge against the
criminal justice system which they perceive to be heavily
biased against the Muslims, judging from the line of action
taken by the investigating officers of their complaints and
other segments of the criminal justice system. They point
out the following reasons for such an extreme loss of faith
in the state administration, particularly the police
department.
It is alleged that the police officers are not fair in
recording the complaints (FIR) of minority community and
often pressurise and adopt strong persuasive tactics for
dissuading complainants from giving complaints, to minimise
the ingredients of offence and also to avoid naming of
specific accused persons. On the other hand, the complaints,
are registered on behalf of the victims by the police
officers themselves, so that the police can favour the
accused persons.
It is further alleged that many acts of crimes, which have
taken place as different transactions, are clubbed together
and registered as single FIR and this has adversely affected
the reliability and evidentiary value of the complaints,
providing loopholes to the accused persons during
prosecution.
A major complaint of the Muslims is that the Investigating
Officers are avoiding the arrest of Hindu leaders, even
though their names figure in the FIRs of major offences.
The accused persons belonging to Hindu community, arrested
for non-bailable cases are also immediately released, on
account of the partisan stance taken by the government
public prosecutor and also due to lack of keenness of the
police. It is significant to note that whenever prominent
Hindu leaders, accused of their involvement in the recent
riots, are released on bail, local leaders of ruling party
make arrangements for giving a hero’s felicitation to them.
It is learnt that certain VHP and Bajrang Dal leaders
started extorting protection money from merchants and
commercial concerns, belonging to both communities.
VHP/Bajrang Dal activists are intimidating merchants and
general public from employing members of minority community
in any vocation or employment.
Whenever members of the minority community go for any type
of jobs in Hindu dominated areas, they are not only
threatened by VHP/Bajrang Dal activists but also driven away
to minority inhabited localities. The consequent
frustration, economic loss, job alienation, and availability
of leisure time lead them to the camp of Muslim communities.
The commercial interests close to and sponsored by VHP and
BD leaders are trying to enter into the commercial and
economic vacuum created by the desertion of members of
minority community from riot-affected areas.
Actionable Points
Replacement of the present incumbents from executive posts
at the cutting edge level, from those cities and districts,
where police either remained inactive during the riots or
played a collaborative role with the rioters. For deterrent
effect police functionaries who played a collaborative,
abetting and participatory role during the riots, should be
imposed statutory punishments.
Radical Hindu groups viz VHP, Bajrang Dal, and Durga Vahini
are putting pressure on the minority community to withdraw
the FIR or drop the names of supporters of these
organisations from the complaint as a compromise formula for
ensuring the return of the minorities to their original pre-
riot residential areas. This move should be countered.
o o o o
4) ‘Take your time... and don’t say it’
Exclusive excerpts from revealing conversations between
Gujarat Home Secretary GC Murmu, state counsel Arvind
Pandya, and RB Sreekumar, who taped the exchanges on the sly
GC Murmu: What all questions will come up?
Arvind Pandya: Now, they will ask questions relating to IB,
i.e., about the role of IB with Godhra incident, from that
point further questons will come up.
Murmu: Let us ask questions which will come up.
Pandya: They will ask about functioning of IB in the entire
case, so whatever duty given to IB will be asked, i.e., by
the Police Manual.
RB Sreekumar: I will explain this as per Police Manual Rule
461.
Murmu: They ask generally compound questions, specially
Mukul Sinha, he will ask a very compounding question, in one
question there will be three four questions, first, you
should not get hasty, not very very quick in answering
questions, first you should understand each and every
question quietly and then answer.
Pandya: See, I know Mukul Sinha for last two years, I
studied him, he asks first, complicated question. He puts 3-
4 questions in one question. See…
Murmu: First he put a compound question, question, long
question it will have 3-4 questions and conveniently he will
put questions to get something from you, as affirmative
response.
Pandya: Mr Sreekumar… what happens you know, in last
question three compounding questions, he put in the last
compounding question in the affirmative and if you say yes
that means your answer to all questions are positive.
Murmu: Once he asks question, you should say I would take
this question first and explain one by one. You can say that
I do not understand this question, let me understand it
first and then answer another question.
Sreekumar: I will answer question by question.
Pandya: Now, I explain, what is the requirements, that will
be the style of questioning, i.e., among the three
questions, one may be negative and two positive and vice
versa. Among this whatever you feel like correct or
incorrect, you may answer accordingly.
Murmu: You will get lot of time.
Pandya: I want to brief you another thing, you answer
peacefully, by listening to the question first, don’t be in
a hurry, first understand what you have to say, for eg, out
of 100 percent or 90 percent you have 10 percent confusion,
you ask him to repeat the question, say that I had not
followed the question. I am telling you that majority of the
witnesses suffered setbacks in this matter, in spite of
instructions. Witnesses know these aspects, because they are
wise, but due to tension, they answer hurriedly.
Murmu: This is one thing, second thing, you should try to
restrict answer to the point.
Pandya: See, if one thing is cleared by telling no so do
that, there is no need for telling anything further.
Murmu: Yes, there is no need because from that another
question will be formed.
Pandya: Yes, please avoid unnecessary explanation, because
from that they will get relevant material for further
questioning.
Murmu: Something not known will become known to them.
Murmu: What did IB know about Godhra carnage?
Pandya: From 20th to 22nd when kar sevaks were moving from
Ahmedabad, did IB have the information?
Pandya: On 22/5 conspiracy was known. Then, had IB got the
knowledge. IB should have that much knowledge, this they
will ask you.
Sreekumar: No, I may say that… I don’t know because I was
not in-charge at that time and was not dealing the case.
Pandya: They will ask what IB was doing?
Pandya: Presume that I am Mukul Sinha, I am asking you…being
IB department…whether Godhra incident is a previous
conspiracy, which affected activities of IB.
Sreekumar: This is broadly mentioned in the charter of
duties of IB that’s all.
Pandya: Whether you tried to collect information regarding
investigation on Godhra?
Sreekumar: No, I don’t know. Investigation is not mine.
Pandya: Whether you try to collect information…IB
intelligence function.
Sreekumar: As far as I remember…no reports.
Murmu: They may ask why you had no information about the
conspiracy.
Pandya: It is a serious incident, you did not have
information about movement of kar sevaks?
Sreekumar: Whatever information we got, they have been
shared with the concerned people.
Pandya: You did not do the investigation, this is the main
information…that is your duty…entire atmosphere of Gujarat
was affected.
Murmu: What he is asking, that the conspiracy came out…how
IB in the State deals with that question? Police came out
with a theory that there was conspiracy. How IB missed it
there?
Murmu: …IB failure will be a question…second question…
Murmu: You agreed that IB failure, you will be asked like
you are not having such information. Subsequently, in the
investigation came out conspiracy. Will you admit IB
failure? This is an IB failure.
Sreekumar: I don’t, I will explain…
Sreekumar: IB is to collect information, which has a bearing
on the objectives of the department. The intelligence
department is not conducting any investigation or post-
mortem of incident.
Pandya: This question will certainly come whether IB had any
information? What did IB do on 22/5, 27/2 to 22/5? First
question will come, before the incident from 27/2 to 25/5
was failure, for this purpose only you are called.
Murmu: At least you have to say, we are saying that UP
Government did not inform, they informed only after 28/2.
Subsequently…on record it is not there.
Sreekumar: It’s not my duty, I have to comment upon from 9th
onwards. Complication is already there. Central IB also did
not give the information.
Murmu: They will ask about pre-Godhra and after Godhra, you
have to clearly answer that. You are not concerned with pre-
Godhra and afterwards also based all records. This is not
from the record that now come to your question on 24th April
2002 report. Few questions, i.e. on 8 to 10 points in the
report. They are mostly like advisory kind of thing.
Pandya: All information you collected from the public.
Sreekumar: From public and multifarious sources.
Pandya: But this, you have no authorisation to get it
checked.
Murmu: That will ask you, on points in 24/4 report that what
and how you came to know this. Another thing is that they
are not doing investigation. That is not your look out. They
will try to put in your mouth that police officers did not
investigate properly. If you report that the question of
which police station, which officer, entire state, etc will
come up. They will bring out this for making it a story.
That very carefully you have to answer.
Murmu: That will be the basis of their report.
Pandya: Any of IB department is all always getting,
collecting information from their sources… analysis it and
report to the State, that is part of duty. I am telling you,
after sending an information what happened?
Pandya: Let us say, a message is sent to government, whether
the government would act on it?
Murmu: They will ask different questions as to whether any
action has been taken by the government or police. Have you
any idea?
Sreekumar: I have no idea.
Murmu: So, you can say that it is my job to report. That is
not question. What happened afterwards? You can say that
they are not supposed to inform you about action taken by
them. My duty is to alert, the government is to take
appropriate action on verification of facts and figures.
Sreekumar: Whenever source is available it is checked back
and their confirmation report is sent and home department is
informed.
Pandya: It will be asked what further action you have taken?
Sreekumar: I am not sure about the execution. Whenever
information is received we may check up with the Central IB
also.
Pandya: You have no measurement as to how much of the
information is correct or not?
Murmu: Now they will ask, all right, you have informed the
government, but afterwards have you seen any situation? Up
to 26th it’s all right but after 26th if there is no action,
the question will come up on the government i.e. for
explaining the position that after Sreekumar’s report also
nothing is done by the government.
Murmu: The question will come after 26th report if there is
no follow-up action, does it mean that policemen were not
working?
Sreekumar: Yes, this has to be seen.
Sreekumar: Since the matter pertains to my predecessor’s
period I cannot answer, as I don’t carry secret reports of
State IB after my transfer.
Murmu: Subsequently they ask you…whether…something is done.
You can cleverly reply something. If you had mentioned
something already it can be repeated.
Sreekumar: That’s right.
Murmu: …Basically they will ask very very pertinent
questions. They will ask you…IB has failed…IB has further
failed…IB has reported. This report has warned the
government, what happened to IB report. They will try to get
from your mouth that there was pressure.
Sreekumar: I can explain…
Pandya: You should tell the commission that no more better
steps can be taken by the government.
Sreekumar: I cannot comment upon government…
Pandya: Being annoyed, you are not understanding me
properly. They are discussing with you and prompt you and
make you confused.
Murmu: They will try to subvert… That the witness has become
a pro government witness.
Sreekumar: I am a general witness…
Pandya:…direct question…after your posting and up to
September 2002, have you written to the government that any
particular person, or particular institution did not perform
duties…
Pandya: What is the functioning of IB…Have you ever come
across anybody not performing duty.
Sreekumar: Whatever…information received was passed on….
Pandya: So what is your opinion? When an incident has
occurred which is not known even to IB?
Sreekumar: No…No. I don’t want to give an opinion….
Pandya: They will ask in a city like Godhra, conspiracy is
hatched. Do you have a source there?
Sreekumar: Sure…I cannot comment upon. The source matter is
a top secret matter, even we can refuse to comment.
Pandya: Quite right. The subject of informants are secret.
Sreekumar: Primarily…I don’t know about that.
Pandya: Are you feeling it so now, that it is a conspiracy?
Sreekumar: No.
Murmu: They want you to do two things…in the whole…
intelligence failure.
Pandya: Intelligence failure … utilisation of intelligence
and utilisation of government machinery.
Murmu: All these will come afterwards.
Pandya: The theory will be that for favouring Hindus, the
whole machinery has been slanted.
Pandya: That will be the failure of government exclusively
and that of yours.
Murmu: It will be tried, i.e. by the Advocate cross
examining, whether your IB personnel made in any progress or
not i.e. in detecting conspiracy.
Pandya: The government has a slanted attitude.
Murmu: No. 2, your duty is that not to go deep in to the
veracity, i.e. whether there was government failure, etc.
You are for processing the information, disseminating the
same and thereby bring in to the notice of relevant persons.
Pandya: Sreekumar, does the government summon you after your
giving information?
Murmu: For discussion of any report.
Sreekumar: I don’t know.
Pandya: Direct question will be put.
Sreekumar: That is on my 24th report.
Murmu: On this report.
Pandya: Report is report, you sent so many messages, does
the government call you regarding that?
Sreekumar: Not on each and every message…then only on 24th
report I was called.
Murmu: You are called occasionally?
Pandya: Regarding numerous messages in the Annexure to the
Affidavit on how many items government called you?
Sreekumar: For the 24th report.
Murmu: You must have been called for discussion regarding
the 24th report, what was the discussion?
Pandya: You presented so many points, so there must have
been discussion with you?
Sreekumar: I was asked clarifications and I had given
explanation, i.e., on 24th report.
Murmu: What clarification?
Sreekumar: They are my assessments.
Pandya: The moot point is that, whether there was
information in this report (April 24).
Sreekumar: That means only general points.
Pandya: Before you kept these points, did you keep any
evidence or basis?
Sreekumar: Evidence cannot be collected.
Pandya: Never go to that question…
Murmu: This is an information.
Pandya: One thing may be understood, this is our
information, and we are not concerned with the truthfulness
or otherwise of the information. This aspect has to be
inquired into by the State. We collect information and we
have no authority to go into the value of the same, we just
inform the government.
Murmu: This may be rumour.
Pandya: We give information to the government, afterwards
the government will inquire, and what they inquired I have
no idea till today, because this is not the work of our
department… You say this on that day, the value of 24th
report will immediately come down to zero.
Sreekumar: Oh yes…yes…
Pandya: …all documents…are…all the information…
Sreekumar: Intelligence report does not have an evidentiary
value…
Murmu: They are trying to claim that they found top secret,
like defence secret so it is our suspicion.
Murmu: But they want others to feel that they got a big
treasure, but it has no value, because it was sent only for
informing the government.
Pandya: After this discussion I am going to tell Bhargava,
for clearing the position.
Sreekumar: So afterwards you will call Bhargava Saheb,
meaning the present dgp.
Pandya: Not your Bhargava, but bjp lawyer Bhargava.
Murmu: He will further cross-examine.
Pandya: Did you understand?
Pandya: I am the State witness, you are the State witness…I
am not permitted to cross-examine.
Sreekumar: I am not defence witness, not prosecution also…
Pandya: You are my witness. Am I permitted to cross-
examination my own witness? If you create circumstances, I
give application that I want to cross-examine you, then
giving contrary opinion to the government by you and in
those circumstances if I obtained permission from the court,
you are hostile to me and false nature, I will cross examine
and then notice will be issued by government to you
regarding integrity and everything. In sum I cannot cross
examine my witness.
Sreekumar: Yes, this…is a academic thing, here, there is no
case against anybody. It is a fact finding Commission…
Murmu: Specially advocate will put compound question and try
to put something in your mouth. You should not reply very
quickly and if you like to see some record do that aaram se…
Pandya: I am telling you, he will prompt a question, i.e.,
asking for a date, the answer will be here and there, this
question will be for confusing you, and in confusion you
will change the line, everywhere it happened like that.
Murmu: He will ask, this is true? you ask which one?…
Pandya: You as which report?
Sreekumar: I will be clear…
Pandya: Whatever brief we are giving you, we are telling
every witness.
|
