[LIVE UPDATES] Gujarat Riots Case In SC : 'SIT Did No Investigation' , Sibal Argues Zakia Jafri's Plea Against Clean Chit To Narendra Modi

Sibal : Parading of the bodies were also part of the conspiracy...and there was no curfew declared in Ahmedabad till 12.45 PM.

Sibal : Photographs were taken of these bodies which created an atmosphere of revolt, revulsion. No one’s phone was seized. That is the best evidence possible.

Sibal : The decision to hand over the bodies to a VHP strongman should have been investigated. Who took the decision? Bodies can only be handed over to the relative. This should have been investigated.

Sibal : There was hasty disposal of dead bodies of Godhra victims. Postmortem was done on railway platform itself. Unheard of but still..who called the doctor, These doctors should have been examined to know why haste in post mortem.

Sibal : They had ample intelligence inputs prior to Sabarmati express reaching Godhra. Had steps been taken as per police Manual,perhaps this national tragedy could have been averted.

Sibal - One other fact that I want my Lords to note...this is the Impugned order of the Magistrate. (Heard Mr. Jambuwallah, who was PP only in this case, in Gulberga SPP was completely different) This Indicates that they were treated as separate cases

Bench - What is the date of closure report? 08.02.2012

Sibal - This order was passed later in 2013.

Bench - It is treated as 161 pursuant to the order.

Sibal - On the second point, both my friend Rohatgi and I were wrong. Actually 161 statements were recorded.

Bench - Were the statements considered as 161 statement on the basis of the order?

Sibal - Initially it was, but later 161 statements were recorded.

Sibal - Order of 17.01.2013 says the statements shall be treated as 161 statements. Any 161 statement has to relate to an FIR. This was sui generis proceeding that was taken by the SC on the basis of the complaint. Not related to any other case, not to be used for any other case

Sibal - We went to the Magistrate asking for supply of these boxes. 80% of material was supplied. Preliminary enquiry was not supplied. We came to this Court. order passed on 17.01.2013 by this Court. The witness statement was not supplied to us, so we came to court.