Naroda Gam massacre judge recusal application: Court reserves order for Jan 11 on former BJP minister Maya Kodnani
- Rafale fighter jet deal: What does it mean for India?
- Murder convict, posing as visitor, escapes from Bangalore central prison
- Twice he promised, twice Haryana CM ML Khattar stood up Navy officer kin
- Express Impact: From today, stop construction that’s polluting air, says NGT
- Voting begins for Maharashtra Assembly byelections
The special trial court for the 2002 Naroda Gam massacre on Monday reserved its order for January 11 on an application by former BJP minister Maya Kodnani and two others where they have sought recusal of the trial judge, Jyotsana Yagnik, from the case on the ground of "judicial propriety" and in the "interest of justice".
Yagnik is the judge who convicted the three in another 2002 riots case, Naroda Patiya, and convicted them to life imprisonment.
The other two convicts have been identified as Babu Patel alias Bajrangi and Kishan Korani. After their convictions in Naroda Patiya massacre case, the three are facing criminal trial in Naroda Gam case also.
All the three convicts have challenged their convictions at the Gujarat High Court (HC). Meanwhile, the Naroda Gam case's trial was being conducted in the special court of sessions judge, S H Vora. However, sometime back, Vora was elevated as the HC judge following which, Yagnik has been assigned the job of conducting trial of the Naroda Gam case by Chief Justice of the HC.
Now, the three have sought Yagnik's recusal from the case while apprehending that since she convicted them in Naroda Patiya case she will be having predetermined mind on certain evidence which is identical in both the cases, Naroda Patiya and Naroda Gam.
Arguing on behalf of the three accused, senior counsel Nirupam Nanavati argued that though Patiya and Gam are technically different cases, both have certain common witnesses and evidence upon which judicial opinion was formed and they were held guilty.
"And on the basis of similar sets of witnesses and evidences if we would also be held guilty in this case it will be the travesty of justice," he added.
Nanavati also argued that they have reasonable apprehensions that if the same judge would preside over the case, it will deprive the accused of their fundamental right of having fair and impartial trial as elements of pre-conceived notion, pre-determination and pre-disposition would be there.