The determination of criminal liability
requires precise evaluation of testimonies and careful analysis of each piece
of evidence. To conclude
the guilt of an accused, there must be concrete evidence “beyond reasonable
doubt”. But one can
hardly accuse Judge Yagnik of sticking to this maxim.
In the first part of this
analysis of the 2002 case against Maya Kodnani (read here),
I had questioned the one-sided approach of Judge Jyotsna Yagnik in handling her
case, which ended in a conviction and a 28-year jail sentence. In this part, I
am providing a few salient instances of how Yagnik, during the course of trial,
drew adverse inferences against Kodnani that did not convince one of her
neutrality.
One such case is that of
Siddiqbhai Allabax Mansuri (prosecution witness-236), who testified before the
court that Kodnani came in a Maruti car. This witness says that Kodnani arrived
at the scene of crime at 8.30 am or 9 am. As per his testimony, the mob started
reciting slogans of 'Jai Shri
Ram' after
seeing Kodnani. He further says that he saw Kodnani speaking to the mob, and
instructed her PA to take out weapons from the jeep and distribute them among
the mob (Pages 644-45).
 |
| Jyotsna Yagnik visiting Naroda Patia before giving her judgement in 2002 riot case |
Yagnik herself acknowledges that
in the statement of the SIT (the Special Investigation Team appointed by the
Supreme Court of India to reinvestigate the 2002 crimes), there was no mention
of slogans of ‘Jai Shri Ram’ being
chanted. But the same has been stated by the witness in his deposition before
the court. In order to legitimise this testimony, which was critical for
implicating Kodnani, Yagnik justified this contradiction in the testimony of
the witness, claiming that the witness might not have mentioned this to the
SIT, but that the slogans were likely to have been shouted since that was “the
mental state or spirit of the day” (Para 7.13, Page 648).
