On February 27, 2002, the S6 coach of Sabarmati Express was set on fire at Godhra railway station in Gujarat, because the carcasses allegedly demanding Ram temple in Ayodhya were traveling in it.
The S6 coach of the Sabarmati Express was burnt down and 57 carmakers along with it.
On the second day of this incident i.e., on February 28, the riots began in Ahmedabad, in which there was massacre in three places. Among them Naroda Patiya / Naroda village and Gulbarga Society’s area were prominent.
After these riots, the police took hold of whatever they got on the way according to their old habit, they locked them in jail. Some of which were really guilty but some were innocent too.
IPS Rahul Sharma becomes headache of governance
Different people had their own interests to stop and incite those riots in Gujarat. Meanwhile, DSP Rahul Sharma of Bhavnagar ordered the killers after seeing the rioters.
This order of IPS officer Rahul Sharma did not like the then Home Minister Gordhan Zadfiya and he transferred him to Ahmedabad.
But Sharma who arrived in Ahmedabad once again became a headache for governance. Those who lost their loved ones in the riots and could not even register their complaint, Rahul Sharma searched for them and started registering their complaints.
For this reason, Ahmedabad Police Commissioner, Prashant Chandra Pandey, sent them out of the control room and sent them to the Crime Branch for help. There, Rahul Sharma did not have to do anything, but he also worked there for himself.
Phone call details
In 2002, there were two companies that provided mobile phone facility in Gujarat, Rahul Sharma told these two mobile companies that on 28th February, the call details of every mobile holder would be delivered to them on February 28 in Gujarat.
Information about the call details received from the mobile company could have been a big evidence against the accused in these riots.
The lawyers of the Gujarat government had also come to know about how important it would be to mobilize information about mobile calls and solve them through them.
Because of this, in the statement given by Rahul Sharma in front of Justice Nanavati who is hearing the Godhra trial, he also deposited the CD of these call records.
In its defense, the Gujarat government had said that such a CD could not be done.
Police Van carrying the accused
SIT submits evidence to call details
On one hand, while the Gujarat government was opposing the CD deposited by Rahul Sharma in the Nanavati Bench, the Special Investigation Team created to investigate the riots assumed this CD as proof of Rahul Sharma.
On the basis of these call details, the SIT started arresting those people who had not been caught or whose names had not yet been revealed.
On the basis of these phone calls, the SIT called upon the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi and the Minister of State for Home Affairs Gordhan Zadfiya to give their statement.
Apart from this, on the basis of these phone calls, it was found that during the riots, where were the IPS officers MK Tandon and PB Gondiya?
Rahul Sharma could not keep his side firmly?
Gujarat’s IPS Himanshu Shukla, who has been part of the SIT, spoke to the BBC and said that this CD of Rahul Sharma was considered as proof.
Based on these call details, it was also revealed that more than 50 people were present at the spot and who were in contact with that time.
The trial court also kept these facts of the CD valid. Based on these proofs, it was also believed that Mayaben Kodnani was present there.
Shamshad Pathan, advocate from the side of the victim, told the BBC that Rahul Sharma kept all the details of the phone calls in front of the court but he firmly failed to convince the court how important these call details are.
Talking to the BBC, former IPS officer Rahul Sharma, who gathered all these call details, said, “Keeping the call details in front of you does not stop the matter, after having the call details in front of the SIT, prove that the phone holder is accused The time was present at the spot only for that, the name of the owner of that phone, there was also the need to prove the presence of the tower. ”
“There is nothing in that direction. Because of which, phone calls can not be proved in court as evidence