Final arguments commences in 2002 British nationals' killing

AHMEDABAD: A special SIT court in Himmatnagar on Monday started hearing final arguments in the killing of British nationals near Prantij during the 2002 riots.
Special prosecutor R C Kodekar began his arguments on the evidence gathered and placed before the court during the course of trial, which began more than five years ago.
Next hearing is kept on December 19.
The final stage of trial commenced on Monday after the special judge I C Shah rejected the Special Investigation Team’s (SIT) application to recall and examine the complainant Imran Dawood once again following certain ambiguity over pronunciation because of his English accent during his deposition. After the question of ambiguity was raised, the video tape was twice sent to the state’s FSL, but the laboratory could not decode it.
The court turned down the plea on December 4 and observed that the court should not be concerned whether the Forensic Science Laboratory fails to decipher what the witness had said during his testimony, which was recorded through video conferencing. The court held that since the court had recorded deposition and a transcript was prepared before all parties in courtroom, it remains a primary evidence. The court should rely on primary evidence irrespective of the fact that the FSL could not come to any conclusion what the witness had stated.
Four persons including three British citizens were killed during post-Godhra violence on National Highway No 8 near Prantij town. They were Imran’s uncles Saeed Dawood, Shakeel Dawood and Mohammed Aswat. A local driver Yusuf Sulaiman Piraghar was also allegedly burnt alive by a mob. Imran also sustained injuries but managed to escape and later filed a complaint about the incident.
During the trial, three eye witnesses to this incident — Kalusinh, Badarsinh an Dalpat turned hostile and refused to identify the six accused persons. After investigation was transferred to the Special Investigation Team by the Supreme Court, the probe agency demanded their remand, but the court denied the custodial interrogation on the ground that they cannot be remanded back to police custody twice in one offence.