Ahmedabad: A special trial court trying the 2002 Gulberg society riot case on Tuesday ordered the Special Investiation Team (SIT) to provide the '8000-page documents' from their closure report, filed on the complaint of slain former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri's widow Zakia, to the victims.
Special judge PB Desai directed the Supreme Court-appointed SIT to provide the documents to the victims' lawyer.
On the victims' plea to arraign four retired Gujarat- cadre IPS officers, the court said that after the completion of arguments of prosecution (SIT) and before the defence's submissions, the application will be heard.
The victims had sought arraignment of the then city Police Commissioner PC Pandey, Joint Commissioner of Police MK Tandon, Assistant Commissioner of Police P B Gondia and Assistant Commissioner of Police (city crime branch) SS Chudasama for alleged negligence of duty.
The victims in Gulberg society riot case, through their advocate S M Vora, had sought the documents from SIT's closure report which was filed by the probe agency in February 2012 on the complaint of Zakia Jafri and gave a 'clean chit' to the then Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
The special court had on December 2 directed SIT to submit segregated documents related to Gulberg society riot case from their closure report of 2012 with the court.
SIT had submitted all the case-related documents on December 6 and the list of the documents was submitted on December 9 to the court.
A day after the Godhra Sabarmati S-6 coach burning incident, 39 people, including former Congress MP Ehsan Jafri, were killed and 30 went missing in an attack by a mob at Gulberg Society in Meghaninagar area of the city on February 28, 2002.
Seven years after the massacre, the missing persons were declared dead. As per SIT, 69 people lost their lives in Gulberg Society riot case.
The special court is conducting the final hearing of the case on a day-to-day basis after the Supreme Court had on November 13 directed it to finish the trial in three months.
The apex court, though, said the judgement should not be pronounced without its permission.