Ishrat's mother moves SC against suspension of magistrate's report
Ishrat Jahan's mother on Thursday moved the Supreme Court against Gujarat High Court's order suspending a magistrate's report which said her daughter was innocent and the killings "staged".
The mother of college student Ishrat Jahan, who had been killed by Gujarat police along with three others in Ahmedabad June 2004 for allegedly being a terrorist, on Thursday moved the Supreme Court against Gujarat High Court's order suspending a magistrate's report which said her daughter was innocent and the killings "staged".
Ishrat's mother Shamima Kausar asked the apex court to suspend the Gujarat High Court's September 9 order, which had suspended Ahmedabad Metropolitan Magistrate MP Tamang's report and sought permission to use the report as "per various provisions of law of the land".
This implied Shamima Kausar might seek prosecution of the police officials involved in the allegedly staged killing of her daughter, besides seeking compensation from the state government.
She also sought that the apex court summon all official records on her daughter's killing, apprehending that they might be tampered with in the state government's custody.
A Gujarat police team had shot dead four persons, including 19-year-old Ishrat, a resident of Maharashtra's Thane town, on June 15, 2004 on the outskirts of Ahmedabad, claiming that she had been a terror operative who had reached the city to eliminate Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.
The three other persons, who too had been shot dead by the police team were identified as Javed Ghulam Sheikh alias Pranesh Kumar Pillai, Amjad Ali alias Rajkumar Akbar Ali Rana and Jisan Johar Abdul Gani.
But Tamang, who conducted the mandatory magisterial probe under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, concluded that Ishrat Jahan and three others were murdered by police in cold blood in a staged gun battle.
However, the Gujarat government had on September 9, acting on a lawsuit by the Gujarat government, suspended Tamang's report, saying that it was beyond the jurisdiction of the judicial magistrate.