AHMEDABAD: ‘Onerous videographic proof' of three individuals – one allegedly wielding an AK-47 – being concerned within the 2002 communal riots withered away throughout trial, with the videographer recanting his assertion and the tape disappearing. An Ahmedabad court docket has lastly acquitted the three accused.The trio was booked on a grievance filed by a videographer, Satish Dalwadi, who had allegedly recorded footage throughout an episode of communal violence exhibiting the accused carrying firearms. Nonetheless, the video tape was by no means produced in court docket, and the videographer didn't assist the prosecution's case. He was declared a hostile witness.The case pertained to 2 FIRs registered at Dariapur police station in reference to rioting on April 14, 2002. The FIRs have been filed after Satish submitted a VHS cassette purportedly exhibiting Alamgiri Shaikh, Hanif Shaikh, Imtiyaz Shaikh, Raufmiya Saiyed and others concerned within the violence. Satish, a member of space peace committee, had been requested by then Dariapur police inspector, R H Rathod, to report incidents of communal violence, if any.Following an investigation, police filed chargesheets stating that Imtiyaz was carrying an automated firearm resembling an AK-47 whereas an unidentified particular person was seen with a revolver, each focusing on members of the Hindu neighborhood. Primarily based on Dalwadi's recording, the accused have been charged underneath the Arms Act and IPC.Over the course of 23 years, one of many accused, Hanif Shaikh, and a few of the witnesses, together with an investigating officer, died.Many witnesses turned hostile. One advised the court docket that his signature had been taken whereas he was having tea at a restaurant. Complainant and videographer Satish stated he didn't know what precisely he had recorded. A police sub-inspector, H H Chauhan, additionally turned hostile.In its order, the court docket famous that in proceedings, the video cassette was not introduced. “Furthermore, no weapon has been recovered on this case, nor has any oral or documentary proof been introduced to indicate that the accused had weapons on the time of the alleged crime,” it stated.
