What's new

27th February,2002 . . . truth vs Hype

What if Sabarmati Express had arrived at Godhra at the scheduled time of 2:55 a.m. on 27th February 2002?
Mukul Sinha February 27, 2014 | 5 Responses

Godhra – Waiting For Justice
One event that changed the political discourse of this country was the burning of the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express on 27th February, 2002, that resulted in the tragic death of 58 passengers travelling in the coach including several karsevaks who were travelling in that very coach. On 25th February, 2002, karsevaks returning from Ayodhya had boarded the Sabarmati Express, albeit, without any reservation or tickets. The reserved coach was overcrowded due to the boarding of the karsevaks and S-6 coach on that day carried around 130 passengers instead of 72 as per rule.

The blame of burning the coach has been put on Muslims of Godhra in a way that they would appear as terrorists who had pre-planned the murder of the Karsevaks. This false allegation made by the Gujarat Government on 27th February, 2002, exactly 12 years from today, changed the debate on Secularism in India, with the rightist forces attacking “Secularism” as a policy of appeasement of the Muslims to the extent that the ‘secularists’ are turning a blind eye to their “terrorist activities”. The brutal massacre of the Muslims in Gujarat from 28th February onwards leap-frogged Modi as the Hindu icon who alone could fight the menace of Jehadi terrorism!

Lot has been said on this issue. However, on this day, we would pose just one question which has never been answered by the investigators of the train burning case.

The Question: Sabarmati Express was scheduled to arrive at Godhra station at 2.55 am in the morning of 27th February, 2002. But, it arrived at 7.43 am in the morning instead. The train was running around five hours late. The police story gave gory details about the so called conspiracy that was allegedly hatched by the local Muslims to burn the specific coach S-6 after the Sabarmati Express arrived at the Station at 7.43 am. However, when I had cross-examined the Chief Investigator of Godhra train burning case, DySP Noel Parmar, before the Nanavati Commission as to what was the original plan to burn the S-6 coach had the train arrived at the right time (2.55am), this is what he said: (translated from Gujarati)

9. It has been clearly stated in the supplementary charge-sheet No.3 that the conspirators had discussed about the conspiracy around 9pm in the Aman Guest house Eight conspirators were present during this discussion and one was not present. I cannot say why the conspirators had chosen 26th February as the day for discussing the conspiracy, however this much is clear that after coming to know that the karsevaks who had gone to Ayodhya for the purpose of Ram Yagna Ahuti, were returning by the Sabarmati Express on 27th February, 2002, train No. 9166, the conspirators had bought the petrol and had hatched the conspiracy as stated above.

10. How the conspirators came to know about the karsevaks returning in the morning of 27th was not disclosed in the investigation. It was disclosed in the investigation that the Sabarmati Express was running late right from the beginning . The conspirators had conspired to burn down the S-6 coach. The conspirators had gathered at 9pm in the night and when they discussed the conspiracy, it is possible that they did not know that the Sabarmati train was running late because at 1.30 am in the morning , Salim Panwala had gone to the station to inquire about the exact time of the arrival of the train. The schedule time for the arrival of Sabarmati Express at Godhra station is at 2.55 am in the night. No facts were disclosed in my investigation as to how the coach was to be burnt as per the conspiracy.

Since Noel Parmar has been believed by all in Gujarat Government, we have to also believe that the conspirators had no idea that the train was running late by 5 hours even as late as 1.30 am just about one and half hour before the scheduled arrival of the train. Is it believable that if the conspirators had really planned to burn the coach, they wouldn’t had have had a full fledged plan in place if the train was to arrive at the scheduled time? Why didn’t Noel Parmar’s investigation reveal an iota of evidence of the original conspiracy had the train arrived on scheduled time?

In fact, there was no conspiracy at all to burn the S-6 coach and Noel Parmar fabricated the entire evidence only for the scenario of Sabarmati Express arriving at 7:43 a.m. He couldn’t find an iota of evidence to show what was the original conspiracy to torch the train had it arrived at the scheduled time of 2:55 a.m. His predecessor investigator who had filed the main charge-sheet, Shri KC Bawa, had never found any evidence of a pre-planned conspiracy for either scenarios and he states so in his charge-sheet. In fact, KC Bawa was replaced by Noel Parmar as the principal investigator in the month of May 2002 since the Government desired the theory of terrorist conspiracy in the charge-sheet.

The truth is that if the train had arrived at the scheduled time (2:55 a.m.), very few passengers would have come out for tea that early in the morning, there would have been no vendors on the platform, there would be no conflict and most of all no crowd of onlookers from the Singal Falia area who Noel Parmar claims to be part of the conspiracy. Sabarmati Express would have quietly passed Godhra and arrived at Ahmedabad if it were travelling as per schedule. However, when Sabarmati Express arrived at 7:43 a.m., an unfortunate spontaneous communal conflict at Godhra station was converted into the most diabolic lie to attack the secular aspirations of people of India. After 12 years, we do see the success of the Modi-led BJP’s propaganda that started on 27th February, 2002.
--Read More At:What if Sabarmati Express had arrived at Godhra at the scheduled time of 2:55 a.m. on 27th February 2002? : Truth Of Gujarat
 
. . .
You are here: Home ∼ Burning of S6 Coach at Godhra using ‘Petrol’- A Fabricated story
Burning of S6 Coach at Godhra using ‘Petrol’- A Fabricated story
Pratik Sinha September 20, 2013 | 3 Responses
It took Government of Gujarat only 10 hours to declare that the burning of S6 Coach of Sabarmati Express at Godhra on 27th February, 2002 was the result of a pre-planned conspiracy to kill karsevaks but it took them another full year to name the fuel that was used to “burn down” the Coach.



The first charge-sheet in the Godhra Train Burning case was filed by DySP KC Bawa, the first Investigating Officer, on 22nd May 2002 alleging that the S6 coach was burnt from outside by the use of some inflammable fluid (He did not specify whether the inflammable fluid was petrol, kerosene or diesel). Bawa relied upon the statements of nine important eye witnesses who claimed to have been standing near the “A” Cabin near which the S6 coach had burnt:

Five-six persons with carboys in their hands were sprinkling the fluid on one coach and they set it on fire and we kept standing at the side of A cabin.

Shri Talati, forensic officer from FSL in his report dated 26th April 2002, had found thepresence of kerosene in these three carboys which were sent to him for examination!! Shri Ajaykumar Kanubhai Bariya, the star witness for the prosecution, who had allegedly ‘travelled’ with the accused in their rickshaw to carry the ‘inflammable’ fluid to burn the S6 coach had said:

I saw Rafique Bhatuk (one accused) came with the carbo and gave it to Irfan Bhopa (another accused) and he told me , ‘put this carboy in the rickshaw’. I kept that carboy in the rickshaw as I was very scared. The smell like kerosene was coming out from the carbo…

The first charge-sheet thus vaguely hints that the inflammable fluid was Kerosene and left it at that.

The second and third charge-sheet by Noel Parmar, the second Investigation officer dated 20th September 2002 and 19th December 2002 converted the kerosene into petrol

After the exit of K C Bawa and the appointment of Noel Parmer as the next investigating Officer, the mode and manner in which the Coach was burnt was totally changed. It was alleged for the first time after 7 months that the accused had entered S6 coach with six carboys of petrol by cutting through the vestibule between S6 and S7 coach and poured 140 litres of petrol in the coach from the rear-side gallery of the S6 coach and got out through the door. The afore-mentioned six carboys were never to be found.

Why did Noel Parmar have to change the theory of burning from outside to inside? Because it was opined by the FSL that it is not possible to throw enough liquid fuel into the compartment from outside to be able to set the whole coach on fire as most of the fuel will be spilled.

Also the evidence of the 9 eye-witnesses who were relied upon by KC Bawa which claimed that the coach was burnt from outside were conveniently thrown out of the window, thus admitting that the first round of eye witnesses were fabricated.

It was later alleged that Maulana Umarji was the main conspirator (the alleged main conspirator was acquitted by the sessions court!) who on 26th February had directed at around 9-10.30pm that S6 coach should be burnt. The entire “Petrol” theory was extracted from one Binyamin Behras’s “confession u/s 164 on 5th February 2003, that is after about one year of the incident! However later on, Shri Binyamin Behra also retracted his statement and declared that his earlier statement was taken under third degree method.

The master stroke of Noel Parmar was his manipulation of the statements of two employees of the Kalabhai’s Petrol pump Shri Ranjitsinh J Patel and Shri Prabhatsinh G Patel. In their first testimony before the police on 10.4.2002, they had stated that they had not sold any loose petrol to anybody on 27th February 2002. However they changed their statement and in their new statement made after one year, the two employees stated u/s. 164 of CrPC recorded on 11.3.2003 and 12.3.2003 that they had sold 140 litres of Petrol to Salim Panwala (another main accused) on 26th February, 2002!


However, Ranjit Singh Patel, the key police witness in the Sabarmati train case, spilled his beans in a sting operation carried out by Tehelka and revealed that he was paid Rs. 50000/- to name Salim Panwala and two other accused at the behest of the Investigating Officer Shri Noel Parmer (The transcript of this sting operation is available at the bottom of the post). This admission by Ranjit Patel demolishes his second statement before the Police that he had sold 140 litres of Petrol to Salim. So where did the petrol come from?

In the mean time, a huge amount of material (370 kilos) from inside the S6 coach was collected on 1st May 2002 and sent for Forensic examination. The FSL report No. 2002/c/594 dated 17th May 2002 failed to report any detection of petrol from the burnt residues of the things inside the coach.

The only FSL report that had detected presence of residual petrol in samples collected was the first FSL report (No. FSL/EE/2002/c/287) dated 20th March 2002 prepared by D.B.Talati, Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Ahmedabad. He had claimed the presence of residual petrol hydrocarbons in 25 samples, while the other 20 samples he had tested did not disclose the presence of any hydrocarbons. Shri Talati had informed the Commission that he had performed the Gas-liquid chromatography for the detection of residual petrol which he defined as the remains of petrol after it is burnt.

However, when cross-examined, Shri Talati admitted that he had not done any quantitative analysis of the ratios between the higher and lower volatile components of the hydrocarbons of the samples he had examined. Without a quantitative analysis, it’s not possible to ascertain that the petrol that has been detected is unburnt petrol or burnt petrol residue!

On behalf of Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM), a quantitative analysis was carried out by experts from the chromatographs supplied by Shri Talati. The results of analysis1proved that Shri Talati actually detected unburnt petrol in the samples instead of burnt residual petrol which is contrary to what he had claimed in his FSL report. It may now be pertinent to ask, did some one mix unburnt petrol in the samples obtained from S6 coach to fabricate the presence of petrol?

Further, in his report, FSL/EE/2002/c/442, dated 26th April 2002, Shri D.B.Talati stated that he could not give a clear opinion whether the petrol detected in some samples in and around S6 and the petrol detected in the samples from Kalabhai’s petrol pump were same or not!

It is clearly seen that first 9 witnesses were fabricated to make a case of burning from outside the coach using kerosene. Since that did not stand the scrutiny of FSL, the story was conveniently changed to show that coach was burnt from inside using 140 litres of petrol. However their star witness, Ranjit Singh Patel, who had stated that he had sold petrol to Salim Panawala, got caught in a Tehelka string operation and admitted that he had taken Rs 50000 to give a false statement. Another witness, Binyamin Behera also retracted his statement based on which the entire Petrol theory was founded. Mr Talati failed to do a quantitative analysis of the gas chromatograph to find out whether he found burnt residual petrol or raw liquid petrol – and JSM’s analysis proved that he’d found unburnt petrol instead of burnt residual petrol.

All these evidences and observations prove that the Gujarat Government’s claim that the S6 Coach was burnt by pouring petrol inside the coach is absolutely concocted and experts need to review the evidence in this regards.

Transcript of the Tehelka string operation of Ranjit Singh Patel

Q. Do you remember the names who has to be named?
A. One of them is Salem paanwaala…another is Salim Darza..one is..he is…I actually do not know his name..but he is called Bhatt by everybody..I know three person’s names but I could not know the names of the other two…I have recognized them from behind in the recognition parade.

Q. You used to see them in Godhra.
A. Yes I used to see them.

Q. Because when it will be your turn to recognize in the court, it would have been a long time since you’ve seen them.

A. No Noel Parmar Sahab had told me that before the court he would show them to me because I would have forgotten…first they will be shown to me then they will be shown in the court….Noel Saahab had told us that I had to say this..I told him that I don’t recognize him so how can I say that..then Sahab showed us the photograph and sent me to see him that this is the same man..I am interested in cause of Hindutva.

Q. You got 2 lakhs?
A. No I did not get

Q. They didn’t give?
A. I did not get two

Q. Did they give you close to one…
A. No I was given Fifty

Q. You got fifty?
A. I got Fifty..


--Read More At:Burning of S6 Coach at Godhra using ‘Petrol’- A Fabricated story : Truth Of Gujarat
 
.
Because of the Fact that you start all that Part about religious Fanaticism and its affects on the human society Look The answer of your all question is this that we humans are blindly bonded in the terms religious sects so much that We Have never seen beyond that. Thus this makes our connections Lost with humanism

By god....meri toh kuch palle hi nahi pada.
I have a feeling that you've misconstrued my first post on this thread. :coffee:
Ergo so much misunderstanding.
 
. .
Womens:hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall::hitwall:oye tumne he start kiya that Intellectual Debate
Achha it was supposed to be intellectual??? :D
Frankly you sounded so dilletante-ish that I lost track of what we were discussing.:)
Except your first post...rest all the posts whooshed over my head.
See in one line I can conclude that our country is messed up because of ppl who harbor the notion that religion is over nation.
Were your posts related to this???

Btw womens nahi....sirf women kafi hai.:-)
 
.
What if Sabarmati Express had arrived at Godhra at the scheduled time of 2:55 a.m. on 27th February 2002?
Mukul Sinha February 27, 2014 | 5 Responses

Godhra – Waiting For Justice
One event that changed the political discourse of this country was the burning of the S-6 coach of the Sabarmati Express on 27th February, 2002, that resulted in the tragic death of 58 passengers travelling in the coach including several karsevaks who were travelling in that very coach. On 25th February, 2002, karsevaks returning from Ayodhya had boarded the Sabarmati Express, albeit, without any reservation or tickets. The reserved coach was overcrowded due to the boarding of the karsevaks and S-6 coach on that day carried around 130 passengers instead of 72 as per rule.

The blame of burning the coach has been put on Muslims of Godhra in a way that they would appear as terrorists who had pre-planned the murder of the Karsevaks. This false allegation made by the Gujarat Government on 27th February, 2002, exactly 12 years from today, changed the debate on Secularism in India, with the rightist forces attacking “Secularism” as a policy of appeasement of the Muslims to the extent that the ‘secularists’ are turning a blind eye to their “terrorist activities”. The brutal massacre of the Muslims in Gujarat from 28th February onwards leap-frogged Modi as the Hindu icon who alone could fight the menace of Jehadi terrorism!

Lot has been said on this issue. However, on this day, we would pose just one question which has never been answered by the investigators of the train burning case.

The Question: Sabarmati Express was scheduled to arrive at Godhra station at 2.55 am in the morning of 27th February, 2002. But, it arrived at 7.43 am in the morning instead. The train was running around five hours late. The police story gave gory details about the so called conspiracy that was allegedly hatched by the local Muslims to burn the specific coach S-6 after the Sabarmati Express arrived at the Station at 7.43 am. However, when I had cross-examined the Chief Investigator of Godhra train burning case, DySP Noel Parmar, before the Nanavati Commission as to what was the original plan to burn the S-6 coach had the train arrived at the right time (2.55am), this is what he said: (translated from Gujarati)

9. It has been clearly stated in the supplementary charge-sheet No.3 that the conspirators had discussed about the conspiracy around 9pm in the Aman Guest house Eight conspirators were present during this discussion and one was not present. I cannot say why the conspirators had chosen 26th February as the day for discussing the conspiracy, however this much is clear that after coming to know that the karsevaks who had gone to Ayodhya for the purpose of Ram Yagna Ahuti, were returning by the Sabarmati Express on 27th February, 2002, train No. 9166, the conspirators had bought the petrol and had hatched the conspiracy as stated above.

10. How the conspirators came to know about the karsevaks returning in the morning of 27th was not disclosed in the investigation. It was disclosed in the investigation that the Sabarmati Express was running late right from the beginning . The conspirators had conspired to burn down the S-6 coach. The conspirators had gathered at 9pm in the night and when they discussed the conspiracy, it is possible that they did not know that the Sabarmati train was running late because at 1.30 am in the morning , Salim Panwala had gone to the station to inquire about the exact time of the arrival of the train. The schedule time for the arrival of Sabarmati Express at Godhra station is at 2.55 am in the night. No facts were disclosed in my investigation as to how the coach was to be burnt as per the conspiracy.

Since Noel Parmar has been believed by all in Gujarat Government, we have to also believe that the conspirators had no idea that the train was running late by 5 hours even as late as 1.30 am just about one and half hour before the scheduled arrival of the train. Is it believable that if the conspirators had really planned to burn the coach, they wouldn’t had have had a full fledged plan in place if the train was to arrive at the scheduled time? Why didn’t Noel Parmar’s investigation reveal an iota of evidence of the original conspiracy had the train arrived on scheduled time?

In fact, there was no conspiracy at all to burn the S-6 coach and Noel Parmar fabricated the entire evidence only for the scenario of Sabarmati Express arriving at 7:43 a.m. He couldn’t find an iota of evidence to show what was the original conspiracy to torch the train had it arrived at the scheduled time of 2:55 a.m. His predecessor investigator who had filed the main charge-sheet, Shri KC Bawa, had never found any evidence of a pre-planned conspiracy for either scenarios and he states so in his charge-sheet. In fact, KC Bawa was replaced by Noel Parmar as the principal investigator in the month of May 2002 since the Government desired the theory of terrorist conspiracy in the charge-sheet.

The truth is that if the train had arrived at the scheduled time (2:55 a.m.), very few passengers would have come out for tea that early in the morning, there would have been no vendors on the platform, there would be no conflict and most of all no crowd of onlookers from the Singal Falia area who Noel Parmar claims to be part of the conspiracy. Sabarmati Express would have quietly passed Godhra and arrived at Ahmedabad if it were travelling as per schedule. However, when Sabarmati Express arrived at 7:43 a.m., an unfortunate spontaneous communal conflict at Godhra station was converted into the most diabolic lie to attack the secular aspirations of people of India. After 12 years, we do see the success of the Modi-led BJP’s propaganda that started on 27th February, 2002.
--Read More At:What if Sabarmati Express had arrived at Godhra at the scheduled time of 2:55 a.m. on 27th February 2002? : Truth Of Gujarat
You are here: Home ∼ Burning of S6 Coach at Godhra using ‘Petrol’- A Fabricated story
Burning of S6 Coach at Godhra using ‘Petrol’- A Fabricated story
Pratik Sinha September 20, 2013 | 3 Responses
It took Government of Gujarat only 10 hours to declare that the burning of S6 Coach of Sabarmati Express at Godhra on 27th February, 2002 was the result of a pre-planned conspiracy to kill karsevaks but it took them another full year to name the fuel that was used to “burn down” the Coach.



The first charge-sheet in the Godhra Train Burning case was filed by DySP KC Bawa, the first Investigating Officer, on 22nd May 2002 alleging that the S6 coach was burnt from outside by the use of some inflammable fluid (He did not specify whether the inflammable fluid was petrol, kerosene or diesel). Bawa relied upon the statements of nine important eye witnesses who claimed to have been standing near the “A” Cabin near which the S6 coach had burnt:

Five-six persons with carboys in their hands were sprinkling the fluid on one coach and they set it on fire and we kept standing at the side of A cabin.

Shri Talati, forensic officer from FSL in his report dated 26th April 2002, had found thepresence of kerosene in these three carboys which were sent to him for examination!! Shri Ajaykumar Kanubhai Bariya, the star witness for the prosecution, who had allegedly ‘travelled’ with the accused in their rickshaw to carry the ‘inflammable’ fluid to burn the S6 coach had said:

I saw Rafique Bhatuk (one accused) came with the carbo and gave it to Irfan Bhopa (another accused) and he told me , ‘put this carboy in the rickshaw’. I kept that carboy in the rickshaw as I was very scared. The smell like kerosene was coming out from the carbo…

The first charge-sheet thus vaguely hints that the inflammable fluid was Kerosene and left it at that.

The second and third charge-sheet by Noel Parmar, the second Investigation officer dated 20th September 2002 and 19th December 2002 converted the kerosene into petrol

After the exit of K C Bawa and the appointment of Noel Parmer as the next investigating Officer, the mode and manner in which the Coach was burnt was totally changed. It was alleged for the first time after 7 months that the accused had entered S6 coach with six carboys of petrol by cutting through the vestibule between S6 and S7 coach and poured 140 litres of petrol in the coach from the rear-side gallery of the S6 coach and got out through the door. The afore-mentioned six carboys were never to be found.

Why did Noel Parmar have to change the theory of burning from outside to inside? Because it was opined by the FSL that it is not possible to throw enough liquid fuel into the compartment from outside to be able to set the whole coach on fire as most of the fuel will be spilled.

Also the evidence of the 9 eye-witnesses who were relied upon by KC Bawa which claimed that the coach was burnt from outside were conveniently thrown out of the window, thus admitting that the first round of eye witnesses were fabricated.

It was later alleged that Maulana Umarji was the main conspirator (the alleged main conspirator was acquitted by the sessions court!) who on 26th February had directed at around 9-10.30pm that S6 coach should be burnt. The entire “Petrol” theory was extracted from one Binyamin Behras’s “confession u/s 164 on 5th February 2003, that is after about one year of the incident! However later on, Shri Binyamin Behra also retracted his statement and declared that his earlier statement was taken under third degree method.

The master stroke of Noel Parmar was his manipulation of the statements of two employees of the Kalabhai’s Petrol pump Shri Ranjitsinh J Patel and Shri Prabhatsinh G Patel. In their first testimony before the police on 10.4.2002, they had stated that they had not sold any loose petrol to anybody on 27th February 2002. However they changed their statement and in their new statement made after one year, the two employees stated u/s. 164 of CrPC recorded on 11.3.2003 and 12.3.2003 that they had sold 140 litres of Petrol to Salim Panwala (another main accused) on 26th February, 2002!


However, Ranjit Singh Patel, the key police witness in the Sabarmati train case, spilled his beans in a sting operation carried out by Tehelka and revealed that he was paid Rs. 50000/- to name Salim Panwala and two other accused at the behest of the Investigating Officer Shri Noel Parmer (The transcript of this sting operation is available at the bottom of the post). This admission by Ranjit Patel demolishes his second statement before the Police that he had sold 140 litres of Petrol to Salim. So where did the petrol come from?

In the mean time, a huge amount of material (370 kilos) from inside the S6 coach was collected on 1st May 2002 and sent for Forensic examination. The FSL report No. 2002/c/594 dated 17th May 2002 failed to report any detection of petrol from the burnt residues of the things inside the coach.

The only FSL report that had detected presence of residual petrol in samples collected was the first FSL report (No. FSL/EE/2002/c/287) dated 20th March 2002 prepared by D.B.Talati, Assistant Director of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) Ahmedabad. He had claimed the presence of residual petrol hydrocarbons in 25 samples, while the other 20 samples he had tested did not disclose the presence of any hydrocarbons. Shri Talati had informed the Commission that he had performed the Gas-liquid chromatography for the detection of residual petrol which he defined as the remains of petrol after it is burnt.

However, when cross-examined, Shri Talati admitted that he had not done any quantitative analysis of the ratios between the higher and lower volatile components of the hydrocarbons of the samples he had examined. Without a quantitative analysis, it’s not possible to ascertain that the petrol that has been detected is unburnt petrol or burnt petrol residue!

On behalf of Jan Sangharsh Manch (JSM), a quantitative analysis was carried out by experts from the chromatographs supplied by Shri Talati. The results of analysis1proved that Shri Talati actually detected unburnt petrol in the samples instead of burnt residual petrol which is contrary to what he had claimed in his FSL report. It may now be pertinent to ask, did some one mix unburnt petrol in the samples obtained from S6 coach to fabricate the presence of petrol?

Further, in his report, FSL/EE/2002/c/442, dated 26th April 2002, Shri D.B.Talati stated that he could not give a clear opinion whether the petrol detected in some samples in and around S6 and the petrol detected in the samples from Kalabhai’s petrol pump were same or not!

It is clearly seen that first 9 witnesses were fabricated to make a case of burning from outside the coach using kerosene. Since that did not stand the scrutiny of FSL, the story was conveniently changed to show that coach was burnt from inside using 140 litres of petrol. However their star witness, Ranjit Singh Patel, who had stated that he had sold petrol to Salim Panawala, got caught in a Tehelka string operation and admitted that he had taken Rs 50000 to give a false statement. Another witness, Binyamin Behera also retracted his statement based on which the entire Petrol theory was founded. Mr Talati failed to do a quantitative analysis of the gas chromatograph to find out whether he found burnt residual petrol or raw liquid petrol – and JSM’s analysis proved that he’d found unburnt petrol instead of burnt residual petrol.

All these evidences and observations prove that the Gujarat Government’s claim that the S6 Coach was burnt by pouring petrol inside the coach is absolutely concocted and experts need to review the evidence in this regards.

Transcript of the Tehelka string operation of Ranjit Singh Patel

Q. Do you remember the names who has to be named?
A. One of them is Salem paanwaala…another is Salim Darza..one is..he is…I actually do not know his name..but he is called Bhatt by everybody..I know three person’s names but I could not know the names of the other two…I have recognized them from behind in the recognition parade.

Q. You used to see them in Godhra.
A. Yes I used to see them.

Q. Because when it will be your turn to recognize in the court, it would have been a long time since you’ve seen them.

A. No Noel Parmar Sahab had told me that before the court he would show them to me because I would have forgotten…first they will be shown to me then they will be shown in the court….Noel Saahab had told us that I had to say this..I told him that I don’t recognize him so how can I say that..then Sahab showed us the photograph and sent me to see him that this is the same man..I am interested in cause of Hindutva.

Q. You got 2 lakhs?
A. No I did not get

Q. They didn’t give?
A. I did not get two

Q. Did they give you close to one…
A. No I was given Fifty

Q. You got fifty?
A. I got Fifty..


--Read More At:Burning of S6 Coach at Godhra using ‘Petrol’- A Fabricated story : Truth Of Gujarat


Dear @fsayed

Mate, nobody died in Godhra, it's all lie, now please be happy and stop torturing the families of the deceased souls.

And we all are convinced and will vote for Congress only, Rahul will become our PM, now please be happy and stop torturing us with your endless Congress propaganda campaigns in every thread.

Tips: There are articles available that says Modi himself was present in the Godhra platform on that day along with his close associates, all dressed as Muslims, and Modi himself burnt the train. Why don't you post those articles? :-)
 
.
Btw womens nahi....sirf women kafi hai
Well Women Also need men In the End without men there is no Wo+men:D:D:azn::azn::azn:

Frankly you sounded so dilletante-ish that I lost track of what we were discussing.
Except your first post...rest all the posts whooshed over my head.
hehehe sorry For that :-) actually there too much Spiritual Stuff i read these days may be its effecting me :crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
 
. .
Well Women Also need men In the End without men there is no Wo+men:D:D:azn::azn::azn:
Actually all the problems of women start with "men" ONLY.


NKVD said:
hehehe sorry For that :-) actually there too much Spiritual Stuff i read these days may be its effecting me :crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy::crazy:
Is that an apology or a sarcastic comment???
 
. . . .
Actually all the problems of women start with "men" ONLY.



Is that an apology or a sarcastic comment???
Hmm whtz sarcastic in it :eek::eek:are year spiritual books padd padd hill gya hoon:D:D:D:D:Dthat is what i ment;)
 
.
Back
Top Bottom