State showed bias and an absence of zeal in persecuting those accused of killing more than 900 people during the Mumbai riots of 1992, says the judge who headed the probe.
‘State Didn’t Prosecute Riot Accused With Same Zeal As Yakub Memon’: Justice Srikrishna To NDTV
At a time when the execution of Yakub Memon, convicted for his role in the 1993 blasts that followed the riots, has sparked a fierce debate around whether justice has been selective and continues to remain elusive for those who were murdered during the ’92 riots, Justice BN Srikrishna told NDTV’s Barkha Dutt that the state and “those who wielded power” had shown an evident bias in not probing the riot cases with the same energy as they had shown in convicting those responsible for the blasts in which 257 people were killed.
In a lengthy email interview, Justice Srikrishna (who says he never appears on television) said the state had been “remiss” and had opted not to investigate even cases where serious prima facie evidence existed.
The Srikrishna report had been particularly critical of the role of the Shiv Sena and Bal Thackeray during the riots describing him as a “virtual General’ during the violence. But the findings of his commission of inquiry were never acted on by any government – neither the Congress-NCP on whose watch both the riots and the blasts took place or the subsequent BJP-Shiv Sena coalition.
More than 22 years later only three people have been convicted for the riots in which more than 900 people were killed. By comparison, 100 people have been convicted for their role in the ’93 blasts.
Justice SriKrishna said he supported the execution of Memon who he said was given “the fullest opportunity of defence.” He only wishes, he told NDTV, that there would one day be justice for 1992 as well.
Here is the opinion of justice krishnan-There was no split verdict on his appeal. In any case, a three-judge bench went into the final petition and rejected it. I see nothing wrong in the death sentence being executed as that is the law of the land by which the convict was tried after giving him fullest opportunity of defence.As they say, a desperate person clutches at a straw.
So his lawyers tried till the last moment to avert the punishment imposed and that is understandable. The Supreme Court had decide it urgently so as to a take a decision quickly instead of granting stay in view of the last minute petition.
That was fully justified in view of the avoidable passion that was whipped up by giving the verdict a communal and a political twist.I think the state should have shown the same zeal in prosecutions of the riot accused. It has been remiss as there was hardly any serious investigation even in cases where was enough prima facie evidence.
It only shows that even a good system can be subverted if in wrong hands. That is neither a reflection on the justice system, nor can it be decried on the ground put forwar Justice has been done to the accused as he was found guilty beyond a shadow of doubt and was imposed with the appropriate punishment according to law. Apart from that, no human being can guarantee better justice. Opinions may differ but there has to be a finality and society must accept it.