NIA’s failure provides hope for Sadhvi Pragya

The latest affidavit filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to oppose the bail plea of Sadhvi Pragya in the Malegaon 2008 case, has given a new twist to the case and revealed certain contradictions and crucial gaps in the prosecution case. As of now, the special MCOC court has reserved its judgment and no date has been set for the same.

Briefly, Sadhvi Pragya was implicated in the blasts case because a scooter once owned by her and still registered in her name despite being sold to late Sunil Joshi was used in the blast. Secondly, Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi (Sankaracharya) implicated her in a damning confession that gave dates and details of meetings in various cities, wherein the alleged conspiracy was hatched.

However, now, the NIA seems to have quietly mutated these conspiratorial meetings into a series of exchanges over mobile phones, between the alleged conspirators! While there are no recordings of the conversations, the NIA has furnished the court with the call detail reports (CDRs) of certain mobiles, to authenticate the claims of conspiracy. Even these details are incomplete and one-sided, and raise serious questions about the professional calibre of the Agency.

The NIA’s investigating officer, Arvind Digvijay Negi, Additional Superintendent of Police, submitted an affidavit dated July 19, 2013, to the special MCOC court at Nashik, regarding call detail reports (CDRs) of Pragya and other accused persons, obtained from mobile service providers. These documents were part of the charge sheet filed by the Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS), and the prosecution relied on them to show that during the period of the alleged conspiracy, Sadhvi Pragya was in contact with Accused No 10 (A-10, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sankaracharya) and he in turn, was in touch with A-9, Lt Col Prasad S Purohit.

The NIA reported the conclusions of its analysis of the CDRs of the mobiles used by Pragya (A-1, 9303343231 and 9406600004). It said that when Sadhvi Pragya was arrested on October 23, 2008, she was in possession of both the mobile numbers, and this is reflected in the arrest panchnama dated October 23, 2008. Her affidavit before the National Human Rights Commission states that these are her numbers.

Analysis of mobile 9303343231 shows she was in touch with Ramchandra Gopal Kalsangra, a wanted accused (W-2), from July 6 to October 9, 2008 on his number 9425911745. She also communicated with him from her second number 9406600004 on his 9425911745 and 9425911724 numbers respectively between April 5 to October 9, 2008, after the alleged meeting at Bhopal on April 12, 2008.

During the period April 5 to October 9, 2008, Sadhvi Pragya was in contact with accused Prasad Purohit on his mobile 9406524594; with wanted accused Sandeep Dange on his mobile 942532281 and with accused Ramesh Upadhyay on his mobile, i.e., 9326603000. She was also in touch with accused Sudhakar Chaturvedi and Sankaracharya Sudhakar Dwivedi on his mobile 9336548787 (here the time period is not given).

From April 1 to October 28, 2008, Sadhvi Pragya was in touch with Ramesh Upadhyay; between May 1 to October 25, 2008 she was in touch with Sudhakar Chaturvedi; and in touch with Sudhakar Dwivedi on his cell 9336548787 from April 5 to October 9, 2008. During the same period she contacted wanted accused Sandeep Dange on his mobile numbers, i.e., 9425322821 and 9425706625.

The call details of accused Pragya Singh’s mobile 9406600004 reflect that she was in Jabalpur on June 29 and 30, 2008, respectively. From July 2 till July 5, 2008 she was in Indore and kept in constant touch with A-10 (Sankaracharya) on his number, i.e., 9336548787; he was also stationed in Indore under the Originating switch ID LDBHPL-3 and under the Base Transceiver Station (BTS) addresses (1) BTS ID 3 Mayur Palace, Hotel Mayur Palace Chhaoni Area, Opp. Mathrawala, Indore and (2) BTS ID 240 Janki Nagar, C/o Mr. Ajay Garg, Kamlasan Apartment, 4-A Janki Nagar Indore.

These two BTS locations are within a radius of 2 km from the Residency Area where the Indore circuit house is situated. The CDR’s of Sadhvi Pragya’s mobile number, which is 9406600004 further reflects that on July 1, 2008 she was continuously in touch with wanted accused Ramchandra Kalsangra and was stationed in Indore after 1 p.m., where she remained till the second half of July 6, 2008.

The NIA affidavit further states that as per the CDR of accused Sudhakar Dwivedi (Sankaracharya, 9336548787), he was in touch with accused Purohit on July 2 and 3, 2008 when the latter was stationed at Pachmarhi, MP. The Sankaracharya was said to be staying at the circuit house, Indore, at the time. The NIA claimed that all these call details corroborate the confessional statements given by Sudhakar Dwivedi (Sankaracharya) under Section 18 of MCOC Act.

In her reply dated July 30, 2013, Sadhvi Pragya, whose lawyer’s are making another attempt to secure bail, has countered that her alleged location on certain dates by reliance on mobile phone records indicate the date of calls and the mobile phone numbers to and from which calls were made. But the Base Transceiver Station [BTS] records of these calls do not support the prosecution case for several reasons.

To begin with, the records presented pertain to mobile 9336548787 of accused no 10 (A-10, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Sankaracharya), and while the records prove the location where he was present, they do not reflect where Sadhvi Pragya was located. The CDRs do not show that she was in Indore on the relevant dates she was reputedly in touch with A-10 in July 2008. The adverse inference that can be drawn from the prosecution failure to establish Sadhvi Pragya’s location – when records were available but were not furnished with the charge sheet as was done in the case of A-10 – suggests that the phone records, if produced, would indicate that the Sadhvi was not in Indore on the relevant dates.

It is also irrelevant that Sadhvi Pragya made calls to A-10 on July 2, 2008; his confession does not even remotely indicate that the said calls between him and Sadhvi incriminated the latter. The most crucial aspect of A-10’s confession was that three or four days after his arrival in Indore on June 30, 2008, i.e. on July 3 and 4, Sadhvi Pragya visited him at the circuit house along with the wanted accused Kalsangra and Dange and introduced them to him as her men.

But Sadhvi Pragya’s call tower records have not been produced to substantiate the claim that she was in Indore in July. Nor have the phone records of Kalsangra and Dange been produced to indicate that they were in Indore at that time.

The Register of the circuit house at Indore, produced by the prosecution itself, along with the statement of the manager (prosecution witness no 93) also falsify the prosecution case and the confession of A-10 to the effect that he stayed in the circuit house and the applicant met him there with two wanted accused in the case.

It is pertinent that as per government rules, a person staying in the circuit house has to sign the register himself. If Sudhakar Dwivedi used a false name, the register should reflect that false identity and the manager should be able to identify him. The circuit house manager would also know who made the booking for the Sankaracharya, as this can only be done by someone in government. This is therefore a gaping hole in the prosecution case.

The call records of A-10 indicate that he was in Indore from July 1 to 5, 2008, but falsify his story that he stayed in Circuit House Indore. The call records show that all calls were received by him at two locations between which he obviously travelled and resided or spent his time.

It is true that these locations fell within a radius of two km of the circuit house. But the prosecution has not shown that calls received or made from his mobile (if he was living at the circuit house) would be logged at the two addresses cited, namely 1] Mayur Palace, Hotel Mayur Palace, Chhaoni Area, Opp. Mathrawala, Indore and 2] Janki Nagar C/o Ajay Garg, Kamlasan Apartment, 4-A Janki Nagar, Indore. So was A-10 living at these addresses when he was in Indore, from July 1 to 5, 2008?

Finally, regarding the second occasion in July 2008 when Sadhvi Pragya is supposed to have communicated with A-10, there is no evidence at all to substantiate this communication. In fact, the evidence falsifies the narration of the second communication in July 2008. According to A-10, during the communal riots in the latter part of July 2008, Kalsangra and Dange came to meet him at the circuit house. Sadhvi Pragya could not come but spoke to him on telephone and allegedly requested A-10 to speak to Purohit to request him to give explosives to Kalsangra and Dange.

Sadhvi Pragya claims this is patently false. The call records of A-10 do not indicate that he was in Indore at any time after July 5. The Sadhvi’s call records indicating her location in July have not been produced, which suggests that she was not present in Indore in the month of July 2008. The call records of Kalsangra and Dange, indicating their location on both occasions as per the confession of A-10, have also not been produced, which again suggests that they was not present in Indore on any date in July 2008.

However, it is intriguing that the call record details produced by the prosecution do not disclose any calls made by A-10 from his mobile to Lt Col Purohit’s mobile (9406524594), which is mentioned in A-10’s confession, on any date in July 2008. All in all, the Malegaon 2008 blasts probe just got curiouser.

Niticentral.com, 3 August 2013

http://www.niticentral.com/2013/08/03/nias-failure-provides-hope-for-sadhvi-pragya-113407.html

Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.