Through a PowerPoint presentation inside the courtroom, he made a detailed study of the case. A former scientist from the Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, and an avowed leftist, Sinha argued that the police's contention that around 140 litres of petrol were used to burn the compartment is wrong.

Nobody inside the train compartment could have survived and the compartment couldn't have withstood the burning of such a huge quantity of petrol, he argued. Everything would have simply blown up within a minute, Sinha pointed out.

He argued that the second pulling of the chain, as claimed by the police, could never have happened because Indian trains have had a new chain and vacuum mechanism since 1995.

Therefore, the police contention of the second chain-pulling could only have been a figment of imagination, Sinha claimed.

The judges gave Suneet Shah enough time last week to explain to them who pulled the chain, at what time and how many times, and how the fire started and spread inside the S-6 compartment. The judges wanted to hear from the prosecution how the terrorists boarded the train, where exactly the train stopped, at what time and at what point the fire broke out, and what the motive was.

Justice Nanavati specifically asked the government pleaders to explain why there were discrepancies in the evidence of eyewitnesses. In the presence of about a dozen journalists covering the proceedings, Shah mostly fumbled with his presentation.

At one point, Justice Nanavati told Shah, "You are forgetting the track. Don't argue his (Sinha's) case!"

When he was trying to explain the details of the chain pulling and the slowing down of the train just before fire started, Shah almost ended up supporting the contention of the defence lawyer.

Image: Advocate Mukul Sinha

Photograph: Sheela Bhatt

Also see:
Someshwar Pandya still wants to tell the truth

Back

|

Next