Suleman Usman Bakery case trial resumes after four months

Trial in the Suleman Usman Bakery case resumed on Wednesday after a gap of four months.

Seven policemen are facing charges for shooting to death eight unarmed inmates of the bakery and the adjacent madarsa during a raid led by former city police commissioner R D Tyagi when the December 1992-January 1993 riots were on.

On December 7, 2022, the sessions court objected to additional public prosecutor Ratnavali Patil asking the doctor, who performed the autopsies, to read out and explain every detail of the reports. To do so, he had to keep referring to the post-mortem reports which formed part of the court record. The doctor had not been able to bring his own copies as the original reports had been destroyed in 2005 on the then police commissioner’s order.

Patil argued that the details mentioned in the autopsy reports about internal and external injuries to the victims were crucial evidence which should be part of the expert witness’s testimony. Since the incident had occurred a long time ago, the doctor should be permitted to refer to the reports to refresh his memory, she said.

Since the court was unwilling, the public prosecutor filed an application on December 8, urging the court to decide on the matter. The defence filed its reply on December 19. The court passed its order after two months, on February 23.

Six weeks later, the matter came up for hearing.

In his order, additional sessions judge A A Kulkarni, citing section 159 of the Evidence Act, denied permission to the witness to “read and depose about the post-mortem on the basis of the reports available in (the) court record. He cannot be allowed to state facts by referring to documents before the court.”

Section 159 allows a witness “to refresh his memory by referring to any writing made by himself at the time of the (incident), or to a copy of such a document, provided the court is satisfied that there is sufficient reason for the non-production of the original.” In this case, the order said, the copy was not available with the witness.

The witness, the order said, “may be allowed to testify about the documents available in the court record which he wants to refer (to) for refreshing his memory” and added that the prosecution could instead use section 160 of the Evidence Act.

Section 60 allows a witness to “testify to facts mentioned in a document although he has no specific recollection of the facts themselves, if he is sure that the facts were correctly recorded in the document.”

On Wednesday, additional public prosecutor Patil informed the judge that the prosecution wanted to appeal against the order and had sent a proposal to that effect to the law and judiciary department.

This break in a trial that started 18 years after the accused were charged gives an indication of how casually the state takes cases against policemen. The B N Srikrishna Commission Report into the 1992-93 riots had indicted Tyagi and his raiding party in 1998. The chargesheet against them was filed in 2001. How then could the order to destroy the original post-mortem reports be given in 2005?

Significantly, in his detailed analysis of the firing, the commission had cited the post-mortem reports. “(The reports) do not indicate that the persons were hit by bullets while facing and confronting the police. On the contrary, they are suggestive of the victims being shot in the back while trying to flee. This is the opinion of the forensic expert.”