Supreme Court Hears Appeals in Godhra Train Burning Case

The Supreme Court resumed final hearings today on the appeals filed by convicts and the State government in the 2002 Godhra train burning case. The case involves the tragic deaths of 59 Hindu pilgrims aboard the Sabarmati Express. The tragic incident, which occurred on February 27, 2002, set off a series of communal riots across Gujarat.

The Gujarat High Court had upheld the convictions of 31 individuals involved in the case in 2017. Of these, 11 were originally sentenced to death, but the high court commuted their sentences to life imprisonment while confirming the remaining life sentences. Now, the matter is before the Supreme Court, where the convicts are challenging their sentences, and the state seeks the reinstatement of the death penalty.

A bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Aravind Kumar is hearing the appeals.

As the hearing commenced, Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing convicts Abdul Raheman Dhantiya and another, cited the landmark Mohd Arif ruling. He pointed out that if the present two-judge bench restores the death penalty, the case must be referred to a three-judge bench for further deliberation. He argued that the nature of these appeals warranted such a step, which could prolong the judicial process.

In response, the court acknowledged Hegde's reference to the Mohd Arif judgment and the Supreme Court rules, however, it proceeded to hear the details of the incident and the charges against the convicts who had been handed down life terms or other sentences by the trial court.

One of the focal points of today’s hearing was the role of convict Abdul Rehman Dhantiya and his involvement in the events surrounding the train burning.

Senior Advocate Sanjay Hegde, representing Dhantiya, presented a revised compilation of the case, as directed in a previous hearing. The compilation was supposed to include an in-depth breakdown of the charges, findings from lower courts, and the defense's arguments, all supported by relevant materials.

To aid in the understanding of the case, Sr Adv. Hegde sought permission to present a map of the Godhra station and the Sabarmati Express, with a specific focus on the S-6 coach. This map was intended to clarify the sequence of events, from the initial chain-pulling incident to the fire that engulfed the coach. The court granted permission for the map to be presented, allowing a visual aid to support the legal arguments.

During the presentation, a contradiction was noted by the court when Hegde detailed the position of the coach and the first chain-pulling incident, prompting an immediate interruption from the bench. The court's scrutiny underlined the complexity of the case, as well as the significance of the evidence being presented in the appeals.

Court then directed Sr Adv. Hegde to focus on the role of his clients, particularly Abdul Rehman Dhantiya, as part of the broader conspiracy that led to the tragic incident on the Sabarmati Express. It also asked him to follow the timeline, flowchart of the incident presented by the prosecution for smoother disposal of the appeals.

Sr Adv Hegde then pointed out that according to the prosecution, the conspiracy behind the attack was planned at Aman Guest House, where one of the accused was alleged to have gathered others at Ali Masjid. The attack began after the first chain pulling at 7:45 AM, during which the S-6 coach was locked from the outside, trapping passengers inside. Hegde reiterated that the regular train time was 2:55 AM, with the crew on board, including driver Mr. Rajendra Rao Jadhav.

He also pointed out that the prosecution claimed that a brawl occurred at Vadodara, triggering the first chain pulling and stone pelting. By the time the train reached Godhra, the conspiracy was in full motion, with around 900 Muslims reportedly gathered and pelted stones at the train. The prosecution asserted that the window glasses were broken, and the vestibule of the S-6 coach was cut from the outside, allowing attackers to enter and pour petrol inside, setting the train on fire.

Hegde further emphasized that as per the proesecution case, forensic investigation revealed no signs of a kerosene leak or other internal causes of the fire, as petrol residue was found on items collected from the coach. The prosecution claimed that carboys containing petrol were brought inside by cutting through the vestibules between coaches S6 and S7. After setting the fire, the accused allegedly exited the train from the offside.

He also said that the prosecution stressed that the attack specifically targeted the Karsevaks, not all Hindus, highlighting the pre-planned nature of the conspiracy.

Eye-witnesses, including those injured, provided crucial evidence, and a total of 50 witnesses were examined to support the case, the court was told.

Court, however, interrupted and focused the argument on linking the evidence to the specific role of Abdul Rehman Dhantiya. The bench emphasized that the hearing should remain focused on Dhantiya's involvement, as outlined by the prosecution, particularly his alleged obstruction of railway staff from extinguishing the fire by pelting stones.

The bench questioned whether there was any witness statement indicating that Dhantiya attempted to stop the mob or prevent stone pelting. Hegde responded affirmatively, stating that while there was indeed a mob and stone pelting, there was no evidence to suggest that Dhantiya obstructed fire engines or engaged in any criminal activities.

Court then turned its attention to the prosecution’s evidence. It inquired whether any witnesses had testified that Dhantiya had caused damage to the firefighting vehicle involved in controlling the blaze. The prosecution responded by affirming that there were testimonies supporting the claim that Dhantiya played a role in the damage to the fire engine, despite the volatile and chaotic conditions at the time. The prosecution emphasized that while there was a delay in recording some witness statements—due to riots, curfews, and absconding accused—such delays did not discredit the case, as the prosecution had corroborated its claims with scientific evidence and documentary proof.

Hegde, however, remained firm in his defense, arguing that Dhantiya had caused no damage to the firefighting vehicle. He also questioned the reliability of the prosecution's key witness, Ajay K Bharia, who had identified Dhantiya in court as "Rehman Hazi." Hegde pointed out that Bharia had identified another accused individual, Nanu, who had been acquitted.

Court emphasized that the charges against Dhantiya did not include setting the coach on fire but focused on allegations of stone pelting, shouting slogans and instigating the mob. In response, Hegde highlighted that Dhantiya was found at his house, nearly a kilometer away from the location of the train burning. He also pointed out that there was no evidence linking Dhantiya to any instigation or violent attack during the riots.

As the hearing continued, court directed Hegde to present a chart summarizing the evidence against Dhantiya and his submissions. This will include details on the findings of the trial and high courts concerning Dhantiya's role in the case.

With significant legal implications at stake, the Supreme Court will reconvene tomorrow for further proceedings in the case.

Case Title: Abdul Raheman Dhantiya @ Kankatto vs. State of Gujarat