Ishrat Jahan encounter killing

Ishrat Jahan Shamim Raza (1985 – 15 June 2004) was an Indian teenager who was killed in Ahmedabad in 2004 in a police encounter along with three others. The police claimed she was an islamist terrorist.The encounter was later alleged to have been staged.

The encounter was carried out by a team of Ahmedabad Crime Branch led by DIG D.G. Vanjara. The police alleged that all four were Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT) operatives involved in a plot to assassinate the then Chief Minister of Gujarat, Narendra Modi. This is a pattern that matches the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter.

Early life

Ishrat Jahan was a second year Bachelor of Science student at Mumbai's Guru Nanak Khalsa College. She was the second of 7 siblings. Her lower middle class family, hailing from Bihar, lived in the Rashid compound in the Muslim-dominated area of Mumbra in Thane district in Mumbai. Having lost her father two years before her own death, Ishrat taught tuition and did embroidery work to support her family.

Death

Ishrat had left her house on 12 June 2004, three days before she was killed. On 15 June 2004, the Gujarat police stated that Ishrat, along with three other people, had been gunned down near Ahmedabad by a police team belonging to the Detection of Crime Branch (DCB). According to the police, her companions were: Javed Ghulam Sheikh alias Pranesh Kumar Pillai (Pune), Jishan Johar alias Abdul Ghani of Gujranwala, Pakistan and Amjad Ali Akbarali Rana alias Salim of Haveli Diwan, Pakistan. They were allegedly killed after the police chased their blue Tata Indica car.

The police claimed that all four were connected with the Pakistan-based terror group Lashkar-e-Taiba and were in Gujarat to assassinate Narendra Modi, in order to avenge the communal riots of 2002 which had led to the deaths of numerous Muslims.

The police team was led by then Deputy Commissioner of Police Dhananjay G. Vanzara, who was later jailed for involvement in the Sohrabuddin Sheikh fake encounter killing.

Aftermath

In a news report published in Lahore-based Ghazwa Times (considered to be a mouthpiece of the LeT), Lashkar-e-Taiba claimed that Ishrat was its operative, and was with her "husband" at the time of her death. In a media report published by Ghazwa Times of Lahore, LeT said that Ishrat Jahan was indeed an activist of the organization. 'Ghazwa Times' had stated on its website that "veil of Ishrat Jahan, a woman LeT operative, was removed by Gujarat police and her body kept with other mujahideens". Later in May, 2007 Jama't-ud-Da'wah retracted this and offered an apology to Ishrat's family saying that the earlier report, based on news about Ishrat Jahan from Indian newspapers, was a "journalistic mistake".

However, Ishrat's family insisted that she was innocent and was not involved with LeT. Her funeral procession was attended by over 10,000 people in Mumbra, and the Samajwadi Party state President Abu Azmi said that he would demand a CBI probe into the killings.

The police officer D.G. Vanzara, who led the encounter was later jailed for his involvement in another controversial encounter; see 2007 Gujarat fake encounter controversy. This resulted in an investigation into the encounter involving Ishrat. In August 2009, an Ahmedabad Metropolitan court ruled that the killing of Ishrat Jehan was a fake encounter, and Ishrat's family stated that she was not connected with LeT at all.

Headley Media Reports

On 5 July 2010, the Pakistan-born American terrorist David Headley, the mastermind behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks, claimed that Ishrat was a Lashkar-e-Taiba operative. When questioned by the National Investigation Agency, Headley claimed that Ishrat was a fidayeen recruited by top Lashkar commander Muzammil who was in charge of LeT's operations in India till 2007.

However, on May 12 2011, the NIA clarified that media reports were false and no such revelations had taken place. On the direction of division bench of Justices Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari of Gujarat High Court, the NIA stated in a letter that "David Colman Headley making statement on Ishrat Jahan is purely in the nature of hearsay, it does not have any evidentiary value" .

Allegations of fake encounter

The Gujarat government has faced strong criticism by human rights groups for anti-Muslim human rights violations, following the communal riots of 2002. There have been several police encounter deaths in the Gujarat, three of which have been attributed to attempts to kill Narendra Modi in retaliation for the alleged involvement of the state machinery in the riots. Human rights activists have alleged that many of these alleged encounters actually happen in police custody. They claim that there is a pattern that many of these encounters follow: they always take place in the wee hours of the morning in a deserted area, with no witnesses; a vigorous exchange of fire results in the deaths of all the terrorists, while the police receive no injuries; and the diary of the accused is often recovered, and contains incriminating evidence.

In Ishrat's case, the Gujarat police claimed to have received information on the assassination plot from the Mumbai police. The Mumbai police however denied there was any such information. According to PUCL, the Gujarat police did not follow normal procedures in their investigations. No FIR was lodged with the local area police station where the encounter occurred,no charge sheet, no inquest report, and no witness statement. No bullet marks or damage was observed on the road or surrounding area.

Several of the policemen held responsible for the death of Ishrat Raza faced trial in connection with the killing of Sohrabuddin Sheikh and his wife in a staged encounter in 2005.

S P Tamang report

A judicial probe into the incident found the four were killed in police custody. It implicated a number of top police officials for the deaths, which were allegedly staged in order to win promotions and rewards. Metropolitan Magistrate S P Tamang's probe report submitted in the metropolitan court Ahmedabad on 7 September 2009 said the four persons were killed in cold blood in police custody. The report was released to the media by Mukul Sinha, who is the advocate of Shamima, Ishrat's mother. Separately, her petition led the high court to constitute a police team, headed by Additional Director General of Police Pramod Kumar to look into the incident.

In the 243-page report, Tamang named the "encounter specialist" of the Gujarat police, the then head of the DCB, D.G. Vanzara, among others, as the accused in the "cold-blooded murder" of Ishrat and three others.

Tamang's report said the Crime Branch police kidnapped Ishrat and the others from Mumbai on 12 June 2004 and brought them to Ahmedabad. The four were killed on the night of June 14 in police custody, but the police claimed that an "encounter" took place the next morning on the outskirts of Ahmedabad. Rigor mortis had set in between 11 p.m. and midnight the previous night, indicating that the police had later shot bullets into Ishrat's body to substantiate the encounter theory.

Tamang said there was no evidence to link the victims with the LeT. There was also nothing to indicate that they had come to Gujarat to kill Modi. The report said explosives, rifles and other weapons allegedly found in the car, and the weapons found on their person were all planted by the police.

Claiming that the police officers were motivated by their personal interests in getting promotions and appreciation from the Chief Minister, Tamang included a list of top police officers, whom he held responsible. It includes Vanzara and his then deputy Narendra K. Amin, both of whom were already arrested in the Sohrabuddin encounter killing case. The list also included K.R. Kaushik, who was then the Ahmedabad Police Commissioner, P.P. Pandey, who was then the chief of the Crime Branch, and another alleged encounter specialist Tarun Barot.

The Gujarat High Court stayed the Tamang report on 9 Sept 2009 but said that Special Investigation Team appointed by the Court can use the report.

Reaction

The probe into Ishrat Raza's death was ordered after her family protested her innocence, and the Mumbai police said she had no criminal background, and their investigation did not find anything that could implicate her. A number of politicians and the Maharashtra State Minorities Commission demanded an inquiry.

The Gujarat government said it would challenge the report of the metropolitan magistrate. According to the government, the accused were not given an opportunity to present their side of the arguments.

Special Investigation Team

The Gujarat high court on Friday said that the Ishrat Jahan staged shootout case was of national importance and directed that police witnesses should be placed where they would not be working as subordinates to officials linked to the case. Appointing senior advocate Yogesh Lakhani as amicus curiae related stories.

SIT member says Ishrat Jahan encounter was fake on the plea of Karnail Singh, the chief of the Special Investigation Team (SIT) probing the killing of Mumbai college student Ishrat Jahan in an alleged staged shoot-out, the court also asked the probe team to behave professionally. The development came after a member of the SIT, Satish Verma brought to the fore the difference of opinions among the SIT members.

A bench comprising Justices Jayant Patel and Abhilasha Kumari directed the SIT members not to behave as amateurs and be disciplined. The bench in an oral order passed on Friday said that the decisions shall be taken in unanimity and acted upon accordingly.

The court however said that if there was a difference of opinion among the members then the opinion of majority would be acted upon. But it made it clear that the opinion of minority in taking the decision shall be considered and taken note of.

Karnail Singh had sought appointment of amicus curiae for the SIT to deal with the legal issues that may arise during the investigation. He Friday addressed the court on the issue of difference of opinions.

Singh told the court that the affidavit filed by Verma earlier was painful to him. He said there was no chain of command, no code of conduct or defined powers and responsibilities among the members of the SIT.

Verma, however, in his reply posed a question to the court that whether an investigation should be a controlled investigation or a dynamic and progressive one.

The court agreed to Verma's contention and said, "This investigation cannot be controlled from Delhi."

The court opined that the case was of national importance and for handling such case and to keep up the spirit of its order, the members must have the team spirit.

Doubting that the pressure was built on members, the court said, "It seems that external forces are working within the SIT."

For protection of witnesses working with the police force, the court has directed the government to place them where they would not be working as subordinates of those cops who are directly or indirectly involved in the alleged staged shootout case.

The court has directed the SIT to file progress report in two months and posted the matter on April 8.